text:
# Implications of the 𝛾-ray Polarization of GRB 021206

## 1 Introduction

It is widely accepted that $`\gamma `$-ray bursts are produced by the dissipation of energy in a highly relativistic wind, driven by gravitational collapse of a (few) solar mass object into a neutron star or a black hole (see e.g. Piran (2000); Mészáros (2002) for reviews). As the observed radiation is produced at a large distance from the collapsing object, key questions remain unanswered. The nature of the collapsing object ("inner engine") remains unknown, and the mechanisms responsible for conversion of gravitational energy into a relativistic wind, as well as for gamma-ray production, are not well understood.

The recent detection of very high linear polarization during the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission of GRB 021206 (Coburn & Boggs 2003; hereafter CB03) has important implications related to these open questions (Waxman 2003; Lyutikov et al. 2003, hereafter LPB03; Granot 2003, hereafter G03,). First, it strongly suggests that synchrotron emission is the basic mechanism operating in GRBs (see however, Eichler and Levinson, 2003, who suggest that a large polarization can arise from Compton scattering of the observed radiation by cold electrons within a very specific geometrical construction.). Second, based on the observed very high degree of polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(80\pm 20)\%`$, several recent papers claim that a coherent magnetic field is a must (CB03; LPB03), or at least is strongly favored over a random magnetic field (G03). The latter conclusion has also led to claims that the high polarization level measured implies that the magnetic field must be advected from the “inner engine" (LPB03), and that consequently the relativistic flow must be Poynting flux dominated. On the other hand, it was suggested Waxman (2003) that the high degree of polarization may also arise for a random magnetic field, in case that the GRB outflow is a narrow jet, of opening angle $`\theta _j1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the jet Lorentz factor, provided the jet axis is at an angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to the line of sight Gruzinov (2001).

The main goal of this paper is to critically discuss the implications to GRB models of the observed high degree of polarization. In § 2 we discuss the observations and the constraints they impose on the degree of $`\gamma `$-ray polarization. In § 3 we present calculations of polarization from jets with a uniform magnetic field (§ 3.1), and with a random magnetic field(§ 3.2). We present more comprehensive calculation than those of LPB03 and G03, taking into account time dependence, realistic (no-sharp-edge) jet structure, and using the specific electrons’ distribution which is relevant to the observation of RHESSI. We find that the observed polarization may be explained assuming either a uniform or a random magnetic field configuration. The constraints imposed on the model in each case are, however, different. We discuss the implications under the hypothesis of a uniform field, in particular the issue of whether a uniform field necessarily favors magnetically dominated out flow, in § 4. Implications under the hypothesis of a random field, in particular the issue of whether the required $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ offset between the jet axis and the line-of-sight is likely or not, are discussed in § 5. Our conclusions are summarized in § 6.

## 2 Discussion of the observations

The data analysis of CB03 is based on 12 data points which are collected over 5sec. Each of these points is a sum of several independent observations taken at different times. Thus the data is some kind of convolution of the polarization over the whole duration of the burst and should be considered as a time averaged data.

CB03 test two hypothesis with this data. First they test the null hypothesis of no polarization. This hypothesis is rejected at a confidence level of $`5.7\sigma `$. It is clear that the emission is strongly polarized. Second they estimate the modulation factor assuming a constant polarization direction and angle during the whole burst. The best fit to the data is achieved with $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(80\pm 20)\%`$. However, CB03 find that the probability that $`\chi ^2`$ is greater than the value obtained with this fit is 5%.

In checking the second hypothesis, CB03 assumed a time independent polarization as well as a time independent photon spectrum (given by the photon spectrum averaged over the GRB duration). The detected polarization signal arises from a correlation between the time dependence of scattered photon flux and the angular orientation of the satellite, which varies on a time scale similar to the burst duration (the satellite rotation period is comparable to burst duration). Since both the photon spectrum and the polarization are likely to vary over this time scale, it is not clear what the lower limit implied by the observation on the polarization level is. A robust estimate of this limit will require a comparison of the observed signal with that obtained under various assumptions regarding the time dependence of the spectrum and of the polarization.

Our interpretation of the available analysis of the observations is that the time integrated polarization of the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission is of the order of tens of percents, and that the polarization angle does not vary significantly during the whole burst.

## 3 Synchrotron Polarization from Relativistic Moving Jets

The level of polarization produced by an ordered magnetic field that is in the plane of the shock was calculated by LPB03 and Granot & Konigel (2003), while G03 calculates the polarization both from random and from ordered magnetic fields (see also Sari (1999) and Ghisellini & Lazzati, (1999)) . Below we repeat these calculations with some minor changes that are relevant for the interpretation of RHESSI’s observation. We also add a time dependent calculation that shows the variation of the polarization with time. The energy range in which the polarization is measured is 0.15-2Mev. We expect that this arises from a fast cooling synchrotron emission and it is above both the synchrotron and the cooling frequencies. The spectral index ($`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) in this power law segment is $`\alpha 1`$, while the dependence of the intensity on the magnetic field in the fluid comoving frame is $`I_\nu ^{}^{}B^\epsilon `$, with $`\epsilon =(p2)/20`$ and $`p22.5`$ the power index of the electron’s energy distribution. The local emitted polarization of a synchrotron emission at this power law segment is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}=(p+2)/(p+10/3)75\%`$ (G03). Averaging over the emitting area reduces the polarization and in the following discussion we will estimate the resulting polarization due to this averaging relative to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}`$. Namely, unless otherwise specified the results should be multiplied by this factor.

We consider two cases: ordered (homogeneous) magnetic field and a random magnetic field. In both cases the magnetic fields are in the plane of the shock.

### 3.1 Homogeneous Magnetic Field

Consider a top-hat jet with an opening angle $`\theta _j`$ propagating at Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ observed from $`\theta _{obs}\theta _j`$111Through the paper we work in spherical co-ordinates with the origin at the source of the explosion. $`\theta `$ is the angle with respect to the line between the observer and the origin, and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angel.  with a constant magnetic field in the plane perpendicular to the motion. The observed stokes parameters are weighted averages of the local stokes parameters at different regions of the shell. The instantaneous polarization is calculated using the instantaneous observed flux $`F_\nu (y,T)(1+y)^{(3+\alpha )}`$ as the weights, where $`y(\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta )^2`$ and $`T`$ is the observer time. The time integrated polarization is calculated using the fluences as weights: $`_0^{\mathrm{}}F_\nu (y,T)𝑑T(1+y)^{(2+\alpha )}`$.

For $`\epsilon =0`$ the time integrated stokes parameters (note that $`V=0`$ as the polarization is linear) and polarization are given by:

$$\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{c}Q\\ U\end{array}\right\}}{I}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}\frac{_0^{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}(1+y)^{(2+\alpha )}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _p)\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _p)\end{array}\right\}𝑑y𝑑\varphi }{_0^{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}(1+y)^{(2+\alpha )}𝑑y𝑑\varphi },$$
(1)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{\sqrt{U^2+Q^2}}{I},$$
(2)
where $`\theta _p=\varphi +\mathrm{arctan}(\frac{1y}{1+y}\mathrm{cot}\varphi )`$ Granot & Konigel (2003). This result is similar to the result of LPB03 apart for the fact that LPB03 calculate the polarization for a slow cooling emission with $`\nu _m<\nu <\nu _c`$, (with different values of $`\alpha `$ and $`ϵ`$) which is not the relevant case for the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission that was observed by RHESSI. For $`\alpha =1`$ Eqs. 1-2 yield a polarization level of $`\mathrm{\Pi }/\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}60\%`$. I.e. 60% of the maximal synchrotron polarization, or an overall polarization of $`45\%`$ (taking the exact values of $`\alpha `$ and $`ϵ`$ for $`p=2.5`$ results in an overall polarization of $`50\%`$).

The time dependent polarization depends on the the temporal properties of the emitting area. We consider the simplest case of a thin shell radiating at a constant luminosity between $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. The first photon arrives to the observer at $`T_1=R_1/(2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$. At this time the observer sees only photons from the center ($`y=0`$), thus the initial polarization is $`100\%.`$ Later the observer receives photons both from the center and from higher angles and the polarization drops to an asymptotic value which is reached when photons from the whole shell reach the observer simultaneously. Finally, during the decay of the observed pulse the observer receives only photons from $`y>0`$ and the polarization level drops. More precisely at time $`T`$ the observer receive photons from $`y_{min}<y<y_{max}`$ where:

$$\begin{array}{c}y_{min}(\stackrel{~}{T})=max(0,\stackrel{~}{T}/\stackrel{~}{T_2}1)\\ y_{max}(\stackrel{~}{T})=\stackrel{~}{T}1\end{array},$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{T}=T/T_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T_2}=R_2/R_1`$. Now the polarization at $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is given by:

$$\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{c}Q\\ U\end{array}\right\}}{I}(\stackrel{~}{T})=\frac{_0^{2\pi }_{y_{min}}^{y_{max}}(1+y)^{(3+\alpha )}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _p)\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _p)\end{array}\right\}𝑑y𝑑\varphi }{_0^{2\pi }_{y_{min}}^{y_{max}}(1+y)^{(3+\alpha )}𝑑y𝑑\varphi }\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}.$$
(4)
Figure 1 depicts the time dependent polarization from a shell emitting between $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. When $`(R_2R_1)/R_11`$ (the radial time ,$`(R_2R_1)/2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, is much shorter than the angular time ($`R_1/(2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$), left panel, the polarization level drops from $`100\%`$ to a few percent within one angular time. When the radial time is much larger than the angular time , right panel, the polarization level drops from $`100\%`$ to an asymptotic value until the peak of the pulse. As the pulse begins to decay the polarization drops to a few percent within one angular time of $`R_2`$.

### 3.2 Polarization from a Random Magnetic Field

Waxman (2003) has suggested that a high polarization level can be obtained when a narrow jet that is observed from the edge even if the magnetic field is random. We consider here a random magnetic field that remains planner in the plane of the shock. For a three dimensional random magnetic field the polarization essentially vanishes. For $`ϵ=(p2)/20`$ the degree of observed polarization of the emission emitted from a small region at angle $`y`$ is: $`\mathrm{\Pi }(y)/\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}=min(y,1/y)`$. The overall time integrated stokes parameters are:

$$\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{c}Q\\ U\end{array}\right\}}{I}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}\frac{_0^{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(1+y)^{(2+\alpha )}\mathrm{min}(y,1/y)\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )\end{array}\right\}𝑑y𝑑\varphi }{_0^{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(1+y)^{(2+\alpha )}𝑑y𝑑\varphi },$$
(5)
where $`P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}=P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(y,\varphi )`$ is the emitted power at the synchrotron frequency in the fluid rest frame. For a top-hat jet with sharp edges $`P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}`$ is constant for any $`y`$ and $`\varphi `$ within the jet and zero otherwise. For a structured jet $`P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}`$ depends on the angle from the jet axis.

The maximal polarization is observed when we see the edge of the jet. The probability to see the edge of a top-hat jet with sharp edges and an opening angle $`\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ is negligible. On the other hand a jet with $`\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ is not expected. Thus the only physical cases in which we can expect a large polarization are $`1\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma }<\text{a few }`$.

Figure 2 depicts the time integrated polarization and the efficiency from sharp edged jets with different opening angles as a function of the the angle between the jet axis and the line of sight, $`\theta _{obs}`$. The efficiency, $`e_{ff}`$ is defined to be the ratio between the observed fluence at $`\theta _{obs}`$ and the maximal possible observed fluence at $`\theta _{obs}=0`$. In all these cases the polarization is peaked above 40%, however the efficiency decrease sharply as the polarization increase. Thus the probability to see high polarization grows when $`\theta _j`$ decrease. The probability that $`\theta _{obs}`$ is such that the polarization is larger than $`30\%`$ ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}`$) while $`e_{ff}>0.1`$ is 0.68, 0.41, 0.2 & 0.08 for $`\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5,1,2,4`$ respectively. In reality this probability will be smaller, as the chance to observe a burst increases with its observed flux.

Figure 3a depict the polarization produced by a jet with exponential wings. The emitted power of the jet as a function of the angle with respect to the jet axis, $`\psi `$ is:

$$P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}=\{\begin{array}{c}P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(\psi =0)\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }<1\\ P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(\psi =0)\mathrm{exp}[(\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }1)/\mathrm{\Delta }]\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }>1\end{array},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the characteristic angle (in units of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) over which the emission decays. According to Fig.3a it is clear that in order to obtain high polarization the wings of the jet must be sharp ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0.25`$). An alternative possible wing is a power law wing:

$$P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}=\{\begin{array}{c}P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(\psi =0)\psi <\psi _c\\ P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(\psi =0)(\psi /\psi _c)^\delta \psi >\psi _c\end{array}$$
(7)
The case of $`\delta =2`$ is especially interesting as it is the jet structure of the universal standard jet Rossi et al. (2002)222Note that in the universal standard jet this is the profile of the energy and not of the emitted power. However if the radiated efficiency is constant both profiles are similar.. Due to similar considerations as above $`\psi _c\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. Figure 3b shows that $`\psi _c\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ can not produce a large polarization.

Similarly to the ordered magnetic field case, the time dependent polarization depends on the the temporal properties of the emitting area. Again we consider the simplest case of a thin shell which radiates at constant luminosity between $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. The calculation is also similar to the case of ordered magnetic field:

$$\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{c}Q\\ U\end{array}\right\}}{I}(\stackrel{~}{T})=\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}\frac{_0^{2\pi }_{y_{min}}^{y_{max}}P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(1+y)^{(3+\alpha )}\mathrm{min}(y,1/y)\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )\end{array}\right\}𝑑y𝑑\varphi }{_0^{2\pi }_{y_{min}}^{y_{max}}P_{\nu ^{},m}^{}(1+y)^{(3+\alpha )}𝑑y𝑑\varphi },$$
(8)
where $`y_{min,max}`$ are defined in Eq. 3. Figure 4 depicts the time dependent polarization for a top-hat jet with $`\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$, observed from $`\theta _{obs}\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.8`$. When the radial time is much shorter than the angular time, left panel, the polarization level follows the flux of the pulse and at its peak it can reach more then 80% ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}`$). When the radial time is much larger than the angular time , right panel, the polarization level rises at first and than it drops to an asymptotic level till the peak of the pulse. As the pulse starts to decay, the polarization resumes its decay as well.

So far we have assumed that the Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not vary during the burst. Large variation in the Lorentz factor will induce variation in the averaging regions and will reduce the observed polarization by a factor of a few (G03), making it too low. However, if the modulated wind is a constant energy flow (which is favored due to other reasons Nakar & Piran (2002)) then the spread of the Lorentz factor of the emitting regions is small, and no significant reduction in the level of polarization is expected. Furthermore, even if there are variations in the Lorentz factor we would expect that the variations in the flux weighted Loretnz factor will be rather small.

## 4 Implications for a uniform magnetic field

We discuss in this section the implications of the high level of polarization, under the hypothesis of a uniform magnetic field configuration. We first show (§ 4.1) that "uniformity" means "uniform field over a causally connected region" of the outflow, and then discuss the implications (§ 4.2,§ 4.3).

### 4.1 Coherence scale and causal connection

A distant observer receives radiation from a conical section of the outflow, of opening angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Lorentz factor of the out flowing plasma. The transverse size of the observed region is therefore $`R/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`R`$ is the radius at which radiation is produced. This length scale is comparable to the size of a causally connected region within the flow, as demonstrated by the following simple argument.

Consider a signal emitted at radius $`R_0`$ and propagating at a speed $`\beta _sc`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light, in the plasma rest frame. By the time the plasma expands to radius $`2R_0`$, the time that elapsed in the plasma frame is $`R_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }c`$, and hence the distance travelled by the signal is $`\beta _sR_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. the transversal size over which the signal has been "communicated" is $`\beta _sR_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since this transverse size is linear in $`R_0`$ for doubling of $`R`$, it follows that distance travelled by the signal grows logarithmically with $`R`$, and is of order $`\beta _s[R/\mathrm{\Gamma }]\mathrm{log}(R/R_0)`$. This result is independent of the nature of the flow, and holds regardless of whether the energy density in the outflow is carried mainly by magnetic field or particles. It is simply a results of causality. Note that LPB03 base their criticism of the hydrodynamic scenario on a different calculation of the size of the causally connected regions. They consider signals that propagate at a constant speed in the observer frame (and ignore the fact that a hydorodynamic wave is dragged along the flow) and obtain a different result. Our result implies that under the "uniform field" scenario, the field is required to be uniform over causally connected regions both in hydrodynamic flows and in Poynting flux dominated flows.

### 4.2 Transport from the source

There are two qualitatively different scenarios for the production of the strong magnetic field implied to exist in the synchrotron emitting region. The field may be produced near the compact object driving the wind (as originally suggested by Usov (94)), and then carried by the wind to large radii where radiation is emitted. Alternatively, it may be produced (or strongly amplified) in the radiation emitting region itself. The common mechanism assumed to be responsible for the latter scenario is magnetic field amplification by plasma instabilities in collisionless shocks. The magnetic field produced by the latter process is naturally created on small (skin-depth) scales (e.g. Gruzinov & Waxman (1999); Medvedev & Loeb (1999)), and there is no well understood process that increases the field coherence scale to a size comparable to the that of a causally connected region within the outflow. Nevertheless, afterglow observations strongly suggest that the field is created by the collisionless shocks, and that its coherence length does grow to the size of causally connected regions Gruzinov & Waxman (1999). However, if the field is produced by this process, we would expect its direction to vary with time on a time scale similar to that of the time scale for $`\gamma `$-ray flux variations. In this case the resulting time integrated polarization would be similar to the one produced by a random field for a variable burst as GRB 021206. In order to obtain the large time averaged polarization observed by CB03, under the hypothesis of uniform field, the field must be coherent over causally connected regions and time independent.

The most natural assumption that would lead to a coherent time independent field is that the field is produced by the compact object, and then carried by the wind to large distances. LPB have shown that in the case where the wind is cylindrically symmetric and dominated by Poynting flux, assuming that the inertia of the plasma is negligible ("force free" approximation), the field is dominated at large distances by a coherent toroidal component, $`B_\varphi `$. In this case, large polarization will arise if the expanding plasma is observed at an angle $`>1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to the symmetry axis. Note that this torodial geometry will keep the direction of the magnetic field constant in time, as required under the uniform field hypothesis, even if the wind is not steady.

However, coherent toroidal field may also be obtained in the case where the energy density is not dominated by Poynting flux. In the case where the wind energy density is dominated by the plasma particles, and where the conductivity is high so that the electric field in the plasma rest frame ($`\stackrel{}{E^{}}=\stackrel{}{E}+c^1\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$) is vanishingly small (the MHD approximation), Maxwell’s eqs. give, for a steady wind, $`\times (\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B})=0`$, which imply $`B_\varphi R^1`$ for uniform radial velocity. Thus, in this case too a coherent toroidal field dominates at large radii, with energy flux that is radius independent. In order to account for the observed $`\gamma `$-ray emission it is sufficient that the magnetic field carries $`<1\%`$ of the wind luminosity.

### 4.3 Particle acceleration

Regardless of whether or not the wind energy density is dominated by Poynting flux, the observed $`\gamma `$-rays are produced by the dissipation of wind energy, which converts either magnetic field energy or plasma kinetic energy to high energy particles (electrons), which then radiate away the dissipated energy. In the kinetic energy dissipation scenario, particles are assumed to be accelerated in collisionless shocks. In this case, non uniform field components must be produced in the shocks, since particles of a wide range of energies and Larmor radii must be efficiently scattered across the shock. It may therefore appear that particle acceleration and uniform magnetic field are mutually exclusive.

A similar problem arises also in the case of a Poynting flux dominated flow. LPB do not present a model for the dissipation of magnetic field energy and particle acceleration. However, it appears to be unlikely that such dissipation, which converts a significant fraction of field energy to particle energy, may arise without exciting waves of a wide range of wavelengths and wave vector orientations resulting in a large fraction of the energy density converted to a random field component. Smolsky & Usov (2000) propose a specific mechanism for magnetic field energy dissipation. However, since their calculations are one dimensional, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the resulting polarization.

A possible solution to this apparent contradiction between uniform field and particle acceleration is that a non negligible fraction of the magnetic field remains coherent (and responsible for the polarization) while a random component with non negligible fraction of the energy density is produced via dissipation and is responsible for particle acceleration. However, in this configuration the radiation from the random component of the magnetic field would reduce the polarization level. A second solution may be a separation of the acceleration region and the emission regions. However, no detailed physical solution of this type has been presented so far.

## 5 Implications for a random magnetic field

An off-axis observation can produce, in the case of a random magnetic field configuration, up to 60% ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}`$) time integrated polarization (although a value of 30%($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{synch}`$) is much more probable) and an instantaneous polarization which can peak around 80% (see § 3.2). These results are quite similar to the polarization level that is produced by a uniform time independent magnetic field. While the main difficulty in the uniform time independent field scenario is the production of the field (§ 4.2) and the particle acceleration (§ 4.3) within such a field, the physical conditions which may produce a random magnetic field are much more relaxed. However, the main drawback of the random magnetic field scenario is that not all the observers see the same level of polarization. In other words, a high degree of polarization during the prompt emission is possible only if $`\theta _{obs}\theta _j1/\mathrm{\Gamma }0.01`$rad. Such orientation may appear unlikely. However, we argue below that this is not necessarily the case in GRB 021206.

The opening angle of GRB 021206 can be estimated using the constant total energy of GRBs Frail et al. (2001); Panaitescu & Kumar (2001). The observed fluence of GRB 021206 was $`1.610^4ergs/cm^2`$ at the energy range of 25-100Kev Hurley et al. (2002). This puts GRB 021206 as one of the most powerfull bursts, and the most powerful one (a factor of 2-3 above GRB990123) after correcting for the fact that it was observed only in a narrow band (compared to the wide BATSE band of 20-2000keV). We correct for this factor using the data for GRB 020813 that was also observed by the IPN at the same waveband. This burst that was at z=1.25 had an average total (beaming corrected) energy of $`1.210^{51}\mathrm{ergs}`$ (which is the typical energy of GRBs), a fluence lower by a factor of four (compared to GRB 021206) and had an opening angle of $`3^o`$ (see Tables 1 and 2 of Bloom et al. (2003)). Assuming, conservatively, that the redshift of GRB 021206 is comparable we find $`\theta _j1.5^o1/40`$rad, putting GRB 021206 as the narrowest jet seen so far (a factor of 2 below the narrowest jets found by Bloom et al. (2003)). Note that the correction for varying the redshift in the range 1-2 is small.

This simple estimate of the opening angle yields $`\theta _j`$ which is a factor 2-3 from the typical (inverse) Lorentz factors seen in GRBs. We can refine the estimate. As we have shown above (§ 3.2) in order to obtain high polarization the jet must be seen from the edge. This implies that we detected only a fraction $`e_{ff}`$ of the full flux of the burst. With $`e_{ff}0.1`$ this will introduce an additional correction of $`1/3`$ to the opening angle, putting the overall angle around $`1/120`$rad. Thus, we find that the condition $`\theta _j1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is very reasonable for this particular burst. We also find that as GRB 021206 is clearly atypical, as seen from its remarkably high fluence, one does not have to worry too much about the issue of whether the observation of the jet from the edge is generic or not.

## 6 Conclusions

The recent detection of very high linear polarization during the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission of GRB 021206 (CB03) suggests strongly that the $`\gamma `$-rays are produced by synchrotron emission of relativistic particles in strong magnetic field. The intrinsic linear polarization of such emission can reach $`75\%`$ (depending weakly on the details of the electron’s energy distribution) and it is perpendicular to the magnetic field and to the photon’s momentum. In GRBs the emission arises from a relativistic jet and the observed polarization should be averaged over the emitting region taking into account relativistic effects that rotate the propagation vector and limit the observing angle to a region of a size $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. This averaging essentially reduces the polarization from its local maximal value. The relativistic rotation of the polarization vector leads to a decrease in the overall polarization even in cases that the whole emitting region is emitting locally fully polarized radiation.

We have calculated the polarization level of synchrotron radiation from relativistic jets with either constant (uniform in space and time independent) or random (but in the plane perpendicular to the motion) magnetic fields. For a homogeneous field one can obtain a maximal time integrated polarization of 60-65% of the maximal synchrotron polarization i.e. an overall polarization of 45-50%. It is interesting to note that even for a constant magnetic field the instantaneous polarization level (but not the direction) varies with time and the extend of the temporal variability depend on the ratio of the intrinsic pulse duration to the angular spreading time $`R/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ across the jet.

The natural way to produce a time independent homogeneous magnetic field across the jet is to transport the magnetic field from the source (see §4.2). The magnetic field required to produce the observed synchrotron emission is rather strong and it implies both a $`10^{12}`$G magnetic fields at the source and a transport of the field $`R^1`$. As only the torodial component of the field can be transported as $`R^1`$ we must be looking at the system at least $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ away from the symmetry axis. The magnitudes of the field involved are large but they do not necessarily imply that most of the wind energy has to be carried as a Poynting flux. Moreover, the constrain of a homogeneous magnetic field over the observable region ($`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) does not rule out a baryons dominated flow. Thus even if the observed polarization results from a homogeneous magnetic field, it is not enough to distinguish between a Poynting flux and non-Poynting flux dominated flows. There is a serious difficulty, within the homogeneous field model for accounting for particle acceleration both for Poynting flux and non-Poynting flux domination as the standard Fermi acceleration processes require a diffusion in a random magnetic field (see §4.3). Even within an alternative acceleration model based on field reconnection rather than on Fermi process this can be resolved only by separating the acceleration and emission regions, or by producing a co-existing random and ordered magnetic fields.

The maximal time integrated polarization from a random magnetic field depends critically on the viewing angle, $`\theta _{obs}`$. It increases with $`\theta _{obs}`$, reaches a maximum around $`\theta _{obs}=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }+\theta _j`$ and decreases to zero. However as the polarization increases when the observer moves outwards, the observer views a smaller fraction of the jet and $`e_{ff}`$ decreases. With reasonable parameters one can obtain a polarization of 40% of the maximal synchrotron polarization i.e. an overall polarization of 30% and $`e_{ff}0.1`$. Thus, somewhat surprisingly, a random magnetic field produces almost as strong polarization as the homogeneous one. This arises because in the homogeneous case the center contributes of the higher polarization while the peripheral regions at angle of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ reduce it, while in the random case the peripheral regions contribute to the high polarization while the center reduces it.

The main challenge for the random field scenario is the jet opening angle and orientation (see §5). However, for this particular burst we find that the required geometry is likely if we adopt the energy-angle relation (Frail et al. 2001). The probability to observe the edge of the jet depends on $`\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It will be significant only if $`\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ or at least it is not significantly larger than unity. This last point may indicate that the situation of observing large polarization from a jet with random magnetic fields is not generic. However, we have shown that GRB 021206 is not generic. Its fluence put it as one of the strongest GRBs observed ever and according to the constant energy reservoir Frail et al. (2001) interpretation this implies that $`\theta _j`$ was one of the narrowest. Conservative estimates that put it at $`z1.25`$ suggest $`\theta _j1/40`$rad and inclusion of the efficiency factor yield $`\theta _j1/120`$rad, values that almost comparable to various estimates of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We have also found that the jet needs to be reasonably sharp, but not unrealistically so.

Over all we find that both cases are incompatible with the canonical value of 80% estimated by CB03. However, the data has been fitted with only two models: (i) no polarization that was rejected and (ii) a constant polarization of 80%, which also does not provide a perfect fit to the data. On the other hand both the homogeneous field and the random field scenarios suggest that the polarization degree (and possibly the orientation) vary with time. We conclude that the current data indicates that the polarization level was high, suggesting synchrotron that has intrinsic high polarization as the origin of the prompt emission. However, in view of the comparable levels of polarizations predicted by both the random field and the homogeneous field scenarios the current data is insufficient to rule out or confirm either one.

We thank J. Granot, D. Guetta and A. Lazar and for helpful discussions and comments.


format: text

text:
# Serendipitous Discovery and Parallax of a Nearby L-Dwarf 1footnote 11footnote 1Based in part on observations obtained at the Michigan-Dartmouth-MIT Observatory.

## 1 Introduction

The infrared sky surveys 2MASS, SDSS, and DENIS (Skrutskie et al., 1997; York et al., 2000; Epchtein et al., 1994) yielded a bountiful harvest of very cool low-luminosity dwarf stars, which prompted the extension of the conventional spectral classification sequence to $`L`$ and $`T`$ (Kirkpatrick et al., 1999).

An effort is underway to determine parallaxes for as many $`L`$\- and $`T`$-dwarfs as possible. This is difficult, since these objects can be faint in the optical band where most parallax programs operate. A modest number of precise parallaxes have been secured in the optical (Dahn et al., 2002) and with infrared array detectors (Tinney, Burgasser, & Kirkpatrick, 2003; Vrba et al., 2002), but more parallaxes are needed. We describe here the chance discovery of a nearby L dwarf, as a field star in a parallax sequence aimed at a different object. Because of its unusual mode of discovery, the object was ‘born’ with a parallax.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 MDM Astrometry and Photometry

One of us (JRT) is measuring parallaxes for a sample of cataclysmic binaries using the 2.4m Hiltner telescope at MDM Observatory on Kitt Peak, Arizona. Technical details of this program will be given elsewhere; a brief summary follows. A SITe CCD is used with a Kron-Cousins $`I`$-band filter to image an 8-arcminute square field at a scale of 275 mas per pixel. At each epoch a dozen or so short exposures (25 s for the field considered here) are taken to avoid saturating program or comparison stars and to average out the random centering errors. Image centers are measured using the IRAF implementation of DAOPHOT (Stetson, 1987). A large number of stars are measured, not only to constrain the plate solution adequately but also to empirically estimate the scatter in the resulting parallaxes. The scale and orientation of each field is derived from fits to the USNO A2.0 catalog (Monet et al., 1996). An iterative procedure maps the star centers from each picture onto a standard set of tangent-plane coordinates, and offsets as a function of time are derived, which are then fit for parallax and proper motion. When conditions are appropriate, standardized photometry in $`V`$ and $`I`$ is obtained using Landolt (1992) standards for calibration.

In order to verify the procedures used in the MDM parallax program and to estimate the external accuracy, the fields of five ‘parallax standards’ were included. These were selected from among the LHS stars measured by Monet et al. (1992). The agreement is satisfactory, showing that the procedures are essentially correct. During the reductions it was noticed that a star near the edge of the field of LHS 1889 showed a large proper motion and parallax and a very red $`VI`$ color. This proved to be 2MASS J07003664+3157266 (hereafter 2MASS 0700+3157); Table 1 lists its parameters. Fig. 1 gives a finding chart, and Fig. 2 shows its path across the sky and its parallactic ellipse. The colors and absolute magnitude in Table 1 yielded a preliminary classification of L3.

Because 2MASS 0700+3157 is much redder than the reference-frame stars, we must be careful with differential color refraction (DCR); Monet et al. (1992) discuss the problem. The $`I`$-band filter used here is narrower and redder than that used by Monet et al. (1992), which ameliorates the problem by a factor of about four. Even so, we did apply a correction, and confined most of the exposures to within $`\pm 1`$ hour of meridian passage. One set of exposures – unfortunately the only set with a large negative $`X`$ parallax factor – was taken at hour angles $`+1^\mathrm{h}H+2^\mathrm{h}`$. Excluding these exposures changed $`\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}`$ from 81 to 79 mas. For the exposure farthest from the meridian, the full amplitude of the DCR correction relative to the comparison stars (typically $`VI=+1`$) was 13 mas; allowing a generous 30 percent uncertainty in the DCR coefficient would shift the centroid in that image by 4 mas. This is as bad as it gets, so DCR evidently does not affect the parallax too seriously.

### 2.2 Keck Spectroscopy

The L dwarf candidate was confirmed spectroscopically on 2003 Jan 02 UT using the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph (LRIS; Oke et al. 1995) at the 10m W. M. Keck-I Observatory on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Two consecutive 300 s exposures were obtained. A 400 lines/mm grating blazed at 8500 Å was used with a 1$`\mathrm{}`$ slit and 2048$`\times `$2048 CCD to produce 7-Å-resolution spectra covering the range 6300 – 10100 Å. An OG570 filter eliminated second-order light. The data were reduced and calibrated using standard IRAF routines. Quartz-lamp flat-field exposures of the dome were used to normalize the response of the detector, and stellar spectra were extracted using apextract. The wavelength calibration is from a NeAr arc lamp exposures taken immediately after the 2MASS 0700+3157 observations, and the flux calibration is from an observation of Hiltner 600 (Hamuy et al., 1994) taken immediately before the observations of the target. Fig. 3 shows the reduced spectrum. The data are not corrected for telluric absorption, so atmospheric O2 bands at 6867-7000, 7594-7685 Å and H2O bands at 7186-7273, 8161-8282, $``$8950-9300, $``$9300-9650 Å are evident.

The spectral type was assigned following the guidelines established in Kirkpatrick et al. (1999). The resulting values of the classification ratios defined in that paper are CrH-a = 1.58(2), Rb-b/TiO-b = 1.21(3-4), and Cs-a/VO-b = 1.18(3-4), and the fit to the K I doublet indicates a subtype of (3). This gives a final spectral type of L3.5. Using the human eye alone to judge the type results in the same spectral type of L3.5 because the spectrum of 2MASS 0700+3157 is morphologically intermediate between the spectral standards 2MASSW J1146345+223053 (L3) and 2MASSW J1155009+230706 (L4) taken with the same instrumental setup. The spectral type is almost exactly as predicted on the basis of the colors and absolute magnitude. The spectrum shows neither Li I $`\lambda `$6708 absorption, nor H$`\alpha `$ emission, to equivalent width limits of 0.3 and 0.2 Å respectively.

## 3 Discussion

Our spectrum does not provide an accurate radial velocity, but the transverse velocity is well-determined from the proper motion and parallax (see Table 1). The kinematics appear typical of a disk population object.

There does not appear to be any physical association between the L dwarf and the original target, LHS 1889. The two stars’ proper motions are similar but significantly different, and the parallax of the L dwarf puts it significantly closer than LHS 1889, for which Monet et al. (1992) obtain $`\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}=52.8\pm 0.9`$ mas, and we find $`\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}=48.2\pm 1.4`$ mas.

As noted earlier, the number of L-dwarfs with known parallax is still modest. The unusual channel through which this object was discovered immediately yielded a parallax and placed it well within the 25 pc limit of the Gliese & Jahreiss (1991) catalog of nearby stars.

This is among the closer and apparently brighter L dwarfs, yet it escaped detection until now, probably because of the relatively crowded field ($`b=15.8`$ degrees). L dwarfs have mostly been selected as 2MASS or DENIS detections without optical counterparts, a criterion which is difficult to apply to fast-moving objects in crowded fields. SDSS, another prolific source of L-dwarf discoveries, is not covering low latitudes. Interestingly, Salim et al. (2003) recently discovered an apparently even closer L dwarf at low latitude in their proper motion survey. It is very likely that other undiscovered L dwarfs lurk nearby at low latitude.

Acknowledgments. JRT thanks the NSF for support through AST 9987334, and especially thanks Cindy Taylor and Bill Fenton for taking some of the parallax pictures. The MDM staff cheerfully performed many extra instrument changes over the years to facilitate this project.

This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.

Data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory from telescope time allocated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through the agency’s scientific partnership with the California Institute of Technology and the University of California. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have had the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. J.D.K. acknowledges support of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, which is operated under contract by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. J.D.K. would also like to express thanks for the assistance at Keck provided by Patrick Lowrance, Joel Aycock, Paola Amico, and Barbara Schaefer.


text:
# Nernst effect in the vortex-liquid regime of a type-II superconductor

## I Introduction

The Nernst effect in the cuprate superconductors has recently become a focus of attention both experimentally Palstra et al. (1990); Ri et al. (1994); Xu et al. (2000); Wang et al. (2001, 2002) and theoretically Ullah and Dorsey (1991); Ussishkin et al. (2002); Ussishkin (2002); Tan and Levin (2003). The Nernst effect is the electric field induced when the sample has a temperature gradient, $`\mathbf{}T`$, perpendicular to the magnetic field, $`𝐇`$; this electric field is perpendicular to both $`\mathbf{}T`$ and $`𝐇`$. For some cuprate superconductors the Nernst effect due to superconducting fluctuations is detectable at temperatures far above the transition temperature, $`T_c`$ Xu et al. (2000); Wang et al. (2001). Ussishkin et al. Ussishkin et al. (2002) calculated the low-field Nernst effect for $`T>T_c`$ due to superconducting fluctuations, obtaining results in reasonable agreement (in absolute units) with experimental data. They used the linearized time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation, which is identical to the Aslamazov-Larkin Aslamazov and Larkin (1968) approximation for the microscopics. Linearized (Gaussian) TDGL is applicable far enough above the mean-field transition temperature $`T_c^{MF}`$, where the order parameter fluctuations are small enough to neglect the nonlinear terms in the full Ginzburg-Landau free energy. To estimate the Nernst effect closer to $`T_c`$ they also treated the nonlinearities in TDGL in the Hartree approximation Ussishkin et al. (2002).

Prominent in the phase diagrams of the cuprate superconductors in a magnetic field is the vortex liquid regime, where short-range superconducting correlations are strong (because $`T<T_c`$), but thermal phase and vortex fluctuations disrupt the superconducting coherence on longer scales. The experimentally observed Nernst effect remains large in this regime Ri et al. (1994); Xu et al. (2000); Wang et al. (2001, 2002), which is not accessible to analytic calculations due to its strong correlations and fluctuations. However, the TDGL equation with its full nonlinearity and driven by thermal fluctuations can be numerically simulated in this vortex liquid regime, and its Nernst effect measured and compared to experiments, as we demonstrate below.

When the TDGL approximation is used to model properties of cuprate superconductors, for which there is not a well-established more microscopic theory, or more generally when it is used well away from the zero-field critical temperature, as we do here, it constitutes a standard, widely-used, but essentially phenomenological approximation. It has the virtue that most of the parameters that enter can be determined from experiments, as we discuss below. For BCS superconductors, the TDGL approximation can be systematically derived from the microscopics in some limited regimes Tinkham (1996); Larkin and Varlamov (2003), but here we are instead using it more broadly, in regimes where its justification is “only” phenomenological.

The Nernst effect in the vortex liquid can be described in terms of the vortices as the phase-slip voltage due to vortices being transported down the temperature gradient as heat carriers. However, when one calculates the Nernst effect at higher temperatures in linearized TDGL Ussishkin et al. (2002), what is happening is that superconducting order parameter fluctuations are transported along the temperature gradient and their phase patterns are twisted by this motion across the magnetic field, inducing a Nernst voltage; vortices play no role in the calculation. In a TDGL treatment of the vortex liquid regime, there is no clean distinction between order parameter fluctuations and vortex motion, so both of these two different-sounding descriptions are in some sense correct.

In this paper, we present the method for and results of simulations of thermoelectric transport in type-II superconductors in the vortex liquid regime. We simulate the TDGL equation with thermal noise. We work in the strongly type-II limit, $`\kappa 1`$, where the magnetic field in the sample is assumed to be uniform and not fluctuating. Mostly we work in two dimensions, but we also examine the crossover from two-dimensional to three-dimensional behavior. In our study of interlayer couplings we see some indication that a substantial part of the entropy carried by the vortices in the vortex liquid may be the configurational entropy of their positions.

Our simulations involve a dimensionless tunable parameter ($`\eta `$) which sets the strength of the thermal fluctuations in the sample and hence can range from nearly mean-field behavior with very weak fluctuations to very strong fluctuations with strongly suppressed superconductivity. We show that for an intermediate value of this parameter our results are in reasonably good qualitative and quantitative agreement with available experimental Nernst-effect data on overdoped La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) Wang et al. (2002). In this comparison all the other parameters in the simulations are set by experimentally measured quantities. We also discuss in brief the results of our simulations to model experiments on Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x (BSCCO) Ri et al. (1994).

## II Some thermo-electro-magnetic transport theory

We briefly review some of the general theory of thermal and electrical transport coefficients in linear response in the presence of a magnetic field. Consider a sample at temperature $`T`$ subjected to small gradients in the potential $`\varphi `$ and temperature $`T`$. One can then very generally write down the transport current densities in the system to linear order in $`\varphi `$ and $`T`$ as

$$𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e=\widehat{\sigma }\varphi \widehat{\alpha }T,$$
(1)
$$𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}\varphi \widehat{\kappa }T,$$
(2)
where $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e`$ is the charge transport current density and $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q`$ is the heat transport current density. $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }`$, $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ and $`\widehat{\kappa }`$ are the electrical conductivity, thermoelectric, electrothermal and thermal conductivity tensors. The Onsager relations for the transport coefficients tell us that $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}=T\widehat{\alpha }`$. The Nernst coefficent ($`\nu `$) can be defined in a configuration with a magnetic field $`𝐁\widehat{𝐳}`$ and $`𝐓\widehat{𝐱}`$ along with the condition $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e=0`$ as

$$\nu =\frac{E_y}{BT}=\frac{1}{B}\frac{\alpha _{xy}\sigma _{xx}\alpha _{xx}\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xx}^2+\sigma _{xy}^2}.$$
(3)
If the system shows no Hall effect (like the one we have simulated), then $`\sigma _{xy}=0`$ and

$$\nu =\frac{\alpha _{xy}}{B\sigma _{xx}}.$$
(4)
One way to obtain transport coefficients from a simulation is via the Kubo relations, thus measuring current-current correlations in the equilibrium dynamics. Alternatively, one can apply an electric field and/or a temperature gradient and measure the resulting currents. We have used both methods, finding that our implementation of the latter method gives higher signal-to-noise ratio per unit computer time in the regime we have been studying. The currents flowing in the sample have magnetization parts in addition to the transport parts considered above. One could write down linear response relations for the total current densities analogous to the ones for the transport current densities but the coefficients appearing in those would not obey the Onsager relations. The total currents in the system can in general be computed in a straightforward manner but one has to extract the transport parts from these to calculate the transport coefficients. This involves identifying and subtracting out the magnetization currents. The procedure we use to that end in this work is outlined below and is based on the arguments of Cooper et al. Cooper et al. (1997).

Let $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^e(𝐫)`$ and $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^Q(𝐫)`$ be the total charge and heat current densities (transport + magnetization) at any point $`𝐫`$ in the sample. If $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ is the electric potential at $`𝐫`$, there exists a total energy current $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^E(𝐫)`$ such that

$$𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^Q(𝐫)=𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^E(𝐫)\varphi (𝐫)𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^e(𝐫).$$
(5)
A similar relation holds between the transport parts of these current densities,

$$𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q(𝐫)=𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^E(𝐫)\varphi (𝐫)𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e(𝐫).$$
(6)
The average electric current density $`\overline{𝐉}_{\mathrm{tr}}^e`$ and heat current density $`\overline{𝐉}_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q`$ are given by averaging $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e(𝐫)`$ and $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q(𝐫)`$ over the whole sample. For a two dimensional sample

$$\overline{𝐉}_{\mathrm{tr}}^e=\frac{1}{S}_S𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e(𝐫)𝑑S$$
(7)
and

$$\overline{𝐉}_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q=\frac{1}{S}_S𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q(𝐫)𝑑S,$$
(8)
where $`S`$ is the area of the sample. Similar relations also hold for three dimensional samples. From Eqns. (6) and (8), we obtain

$$\overline{𝐉}_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q=\frac{1}{S}\left(_S𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^E(𝐫)𝑑S_S\varphi (𝐫)𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e(𝐫)𝑑S\right).$$
(9)
We know that

$`𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^e(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e(𝐫)+𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^e(𝐫)`$ (10)
$`𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^E(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^E(𝐫)+𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^E(𝐫),`$
where $`𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^e(𝐫)`$ and $`𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^E(𝐫)`$ are the charge and energy magnetization current densities. It can be shown on general grounds Cooper et al. (1997) that there exist charge and energy magnetization densities $`𝐌^e(𝐫)`$ and $`𝐌^E(𝐫)`$ such that

$`𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^e(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\times 𝐌^e(𝐫)`$ (11)
$`𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^E(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\times 𝐌^E(𝐫).`$
The charge magnetization of the system is nothing but the conventional magnetic moment density $`𝐌(𝐫)`$. If the material surrounding the sample is assumed to be non-magnetic, both $`𝐌^e(𝐫)`$ and $`𝐌^E(𝐫)`$ vanish outside the sample. The magnetization currents are mostly at the boundaries because that is where the change in magnetization is the largest. Thus we see that

$`{\displaystyle _S}𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e(𝐫)𝑑S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _S}𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^e(𝐫)𝑑S`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle _S}𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^E(𝐫)𝑑S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _S}𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^E(𝐫)𝑑S.`$
From Eqns (9) and (12), we obtain

$$\overline{𝐉}_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q=\frac{1}{S}\left(_S𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^E(𝐫)𝑑S_S\varphi (𝐫)𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^e(𝐫)𝑑S\right).$$
(13)
It should be noted that there is no “heat magnetization density” $`𝐌^Q(𝐫)`$ analogous to $`𝐌^e(𝐫)`$ and $`𝐌^E(𝐫)`$ for which the heat magnetization current $`𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^Q(𝐫)=\times 𝐌^Q(𝐫)`$. A consequence of this is that unlike $`𝐉^e`$ and $`𝐉^E`$,

$$_S𝐉_{\mathrm{tr}}^Q(𝐫)𝑑S_S𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^Q(𝐫)𝑑S.$$

In fact, it can be shown that

$$𝐉_{\mathrm{mag}}^Q(𝐫)=\varphi \times 𝐌(𝐫).$$
(14)
## III Simulations

We measure the transport coefficient $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{xy}`$ by turning on an electric field $`\varphi \widehat{𝐲}`$ and a magnetic field $`𝐁\widehat{𝐳}`$ and measuring $`\overline{J}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{Q(x)}`$, the $`x`$ component of the average heat transport current density at constant temperature. This is done in a system with mixed boundary conditions: it has free surfaces at the boundaries normal to $`\widehat{y}`$, while it has periodic boundary conditions along the $`x`$-direction (and along $`\widehat{z}`$ when we study 3D). If, as in our model, the system does not have a Hall response, under these conditions the $`x`$ component of the electric transport current vanishes at all points, $`J_{\mathrm{tr}}^{e(x)}(𝐫)=0`$. Thus from Eqns. (2) and (13), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{xy}=\frac{\overline{J}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{Q(x)}}{_y\varphi }=\frac{1}{S}\frac{\left(_SJ_{\mathrm{tot}}^{E(x)}(𝐫)𝑑S\right)}{_y\varphi }.$$
(15)
Similarly, $`\alpha _{xy}`$ can be measured by introducing a temperature gradient $`T\widehat{𝐲}`$ and magnetic field $`𝐁\widehat{𝐳}`$ with no external electric potential and measuring $`\overline{J}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{e(x)}`$. From Eqns. (1) and (12),

$$\alpha _{xy}=\frac{\overline{J}_{\mathrm{tr}}^{e(x)}}{_yT}=\frac{1}{S}\frac{\left(_SJ_{\mathrm{tot}}^{e(x)}(𝐫)𝑑S\right)}{T}.$$
(16)
The two coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{xy}`$ are $`\alpha _{xy}`$ can thus be obtained by measuring only the total currents in the system. They are related to each other by the Onsager relation and to the Nernst coefficient by Eqn. (4).

The TDGL equation that we have simulated is

$`\tau \left(_t+i{\displaystyle \frac{e^{}}{\mathrm{}}}\varphi \right)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}}\left(\mathbf{}i{\displaystyle \frac{e^{}}{\mathrm{}}}𝐀\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`a_0(TT_c^{MF})\mathrm{\Psi }b|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\mathrm{\Psi }+\zeta (𝐫,t).`$
We take $`\tau `$ to be real so there is neither Hall effect nor Seebeck effect Ullah and Dorsey (1991). This approximation of leaving out the Hall effect should be reasonable as long as the Hall angle is small, as it generally is in the vortex liquid regime of the cuprate superconductors. We work in the type-II limit where the magnetic field is assumed to be uniform and not fluctuating. The noise correlator is

$$<\zeta ^{}(𝐫^{},t^{})\zeta (𝐫,t)>=2\tau k_BT\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\delta (tt^{}).$$
(18)
The current operators we need are Ullah and Dorsey (1991)

$`𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^e`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{e^{}\mathrm{}}{2m^{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{ie^{}}{\mathrm{}}}𝐀\right)\mathrm{\Psi }+c.c.`$ (19)
$`𝐉_{\mathrm{tot}}^E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{t}}\left(\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{ie^{}}{\mathrm{}}}𝐀\right)\mathrm{\Psi }+c.c.`$
The TDGL equation is the simplest dynamical stochastic equation one can obtain from the Ginzburg-Landau free energy functional. As a consequence of its simple relaxational dynamics, it does not explicitly conserve either total charge or total energy. It is implicitly in contact with and exchanging energy and charge with local reservoirs. In reality these reservoirs are presumably the phonons, quasiparticles and other excitations not included in the TDGL equation. Nevertheless, the charge and energy currents carried by the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and its fluctuations are as given above and can be measured and their transport properties determined within this model. Charge and energy conservation can explicitly be taken into account in microscopic derivations of the TDGL theory, where only the contribution due to superconducting fluctuations is retained. It can however be shown that other effects (normal state contributions etc.) do not contribute as significantly to the Nernst effect as superconducting fluctuations Ussishkin (2002).

An important feature of TDGL for the present work is that the parameter $`\tau `$, which sets the time scale, does not enter in the values of the transverse thermoelectric coefficients that we are studying, $`\alpha _{xy}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{xy}`$. This allows quantitative comparison to experiments to be done without estimating $`\tau `$, which is fortunate, because the value of $`\tau `$ is quite uncertain.

This TDGL equation with noise has a dimensionless parameter that gives the strength of the thermal fluctuations. To remove all the dimensional quantities, we use $`\xi _0`$, the zero temperature coherence length, as our unit of length; $`T_c^{MF}`$, $`k_BT_c^{MF}`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{e^{}}`$ and $`\tau /(a_0T_c^{MF})`$ as our units of temperature, energy, magnetic flux and time, respectively; and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, the zero-temperature order parameter magnitude, as our unit for the order parameter. The resulting TDGL equation is then

$$\left(_t+i\varphi \right)\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\mathbf{}i𝐀\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }(T1)\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\mathrm{\Psi }+\zeta (𝐫,t),$$
(20)
with noise correlator

$$<\zeta ^{}(𝐫^{},t^{})\zeta (𝐫,t)>=2\eta T\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\delta (tt^{}),$$
(21)
and

$$\eta =\frac{bk_BT_c^{MF}}{\xi _0^d(a_0T_c^{MF})^2}$$
(22)
is the fluctuation parameter, where $`d`$ is the number of spatial dimensions. When $`\eta 1`$, the actual critical temperature $`T_c`$ is near the mean-field critical temperature $`T_c^{MF}`$, while if $`\eta 1`$ then $`T_cT_c^{MF}`$. The model has four parameters that remain after scaling to the units specified above: the temperature, the magnetic field, the cutoff, and the strength $`\eta `$ of the noise.

We initially simulate a two-dimensional system, thus ignoring interlayer coupling. We discretize space and time. The spatial grid spacing is taken to be $`\xi _0`$. This rather coarse spatial grid is used to minimize the computer time needed to simulate samples large compared to this microscopic length. There are noticeable quantitative effects of using such a coarse grid. For example, in our units $`H_{c2}(T=0)1.18`$ with this grid, while it is 1.0 for the continuum model. However, recognizing that the model we are simulating is rather simple, so should not be expected to give highly precise quantitative results, our goal in the present study is to be quantitatively only as accurate as might be expected of such a simple model. Although we do not know how accurate that really is, the general precision to which we have chosen to work is roughly 10% to 20%. The quantitative shifts due to our using a coarse grid in the simulations are at most of this magnitude. We have also verified that using a finer grid spacing would not alter our results in any significant way. Reduction of the grid spacing adds more degrees of freedom, resulting in increased fluctuations, and suppression of $`T_c`$ and $`H_{c2}`$. However, if one also lowers the value of the fluctuation parameter $`\eta `$ a little, this increase in the fluctuations can be removed, and the resulting behavior of the system is only weakly dependent on the grid spacing.

In the simulations, the time step is chosen to be between 0.02 and 0.1 in our units, with shorter steps at higher temperatures; we check that our results are not affected by doubling the time step. A first-order Euler method is used, with 10000 to 20000 time steps used for equilibration, and 30000 to 50000 steps for averaging. The two-dimensional data we show are for a 50$`\times `$50 square grid. We use the gauge-invariance of the TDGL equation to work as much as possible in terms of gauge-invariant quantities like $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ and the gauge-invariant phase differences

$$\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)=\theta (𝐫^{},t)\theta (𝐫,t)_𝐫^𝐫^{}𝐀\mathrm{𝐝𝐥},$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{i\theta }`$. The current densities are also written in terms of these quantities.

At $`H=0`$, for the two-dimensional system there is a Kosterlitz-Thouless Kosterlitz and Thouless (1973) transition at $`T_c`$, which we locate by measuring the helicity modulus.

To obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{xy}`$, we measure the transverse energy current due an electric field. We then use the Onsager relation to obtain $`\alpha _{xy}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{xy}/T`$. We find that the signal to noise ratio for this measurement is significantly smaller than in a direct measurement of $`\alpha _{xy}`$. We have numerically verified the validity of this Onsager relation by measuring $`\alpha _{xy}`$ both ways. This also serves as a check that we are indeed measuring the proper transport coefficients. We also confirm that our results agree with the analytic results Ussishkin et al. (2002) in the higher-temperature regime where linearized TDGL applies.

The temperature enters the TDGL equation both in the term linear in the order parameter and in the intensity of the noise. It can be shown that introducing a gradient in the linear term only adds to the magnetization currents, and thus for measuring the transport currents it is sufficient to include the temperature gradient only in the noise term. We have also verified this numerically.

## IV Results

Some results for $`\alpha _{xy}`$ from the two-dimensional simulations are shown in Fig. 1. We have chosen to compare these results to the experimental results of Wang et al. Wang et al. (2002) obtained from Nernst and resistivity measurements on an overdoped LSCO sample with $`x0.2`$ and $`T_c28`$K. For this comparison, we present the simulation results in SI units using the parameters from the experiment, $`H_{c2}(T=0)45`$T (thus $`\xi 27\AA `$) and layer spacing $`s=6.6\AA `$. The fluctuation parameter has been adjusted to $`\eta =0.42`$ to give reasonable quantitative agreement between simulation and experiment. We set the temperature scale using $`T_c^{MF}=40`$K, which gives $`T_c28`$K in the simulation. Note that $`\alpha _{xy}`$ is not directly measured in the experiments. For a system with negligible Hall effect, $`\alpha _{xy}`$ can be obtained from the measured Nernst effect and the longitudinal resistivity. Thus for this comparison we require both these measurements to be made on the same sample over a substantial portion of the vortex liquid regime. This requirement seriously limits the number of experimental results we can compare to.

Looking at Fig. 1, we see that there is reasonably good general qualitative and quantitative correspondence between the simulation and experiment, considering how simple the model is and that we have adjusted only the strength of the thermal fluctuations $`\eta `$ to get this agreement. The other parameters are all dictated by experiment. Our results are thus consistent with the proposition that the superconducting fluctuations modelled by the TDGL equation produce most, if not all, of the contributions to the large Nernst effect seen in the vortex liquid regime for this cuprate sample. Of course, the agreement between experiment and this simple model is not perfect. One difference is seen at high field in the higher-$`T`$ panel of Fig. 1, where the simulations give a nearly-constant $`\alpha _{xy}`$, while the experiment shows more variation.

One effect that is not included in our two-dimensional simulations is interlayer coupling. For the cuprates, this can become important in the vortex liquid at low fields in the vicinity of $`T_c`$, where there is a crossover to three-dimensional behavior as the correlation length normal to the layers becomes larger than one layer spacing. Note that the difference between simulation and experiment is large at low fields and $`T=24`$K. We considered the possibility that this difference might be due to the crossover to three-dimensional behavior, which is not present in our two-dimensional simulation. To investigate this crossover, we have also simulated the Lawrence-Doniach ld  version of the TDGL equation. In our units this is

$`(_t+i\varphi )\mathrm{\Psi }_j=(\mathbf{}_{}i𝐀_{})^2\mathrm{\Psi }_j(T1)\mathrm{\Psi }_j+J(e^{isA_z}\mathrm{\Psi }_{j+1}+e^{isA_z}\mathrm{\Psi }_{j1}2\mathrm{\Psi }_j)+|\mathrm{\Psi }_j|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_j+\zeta ,`$ (24)
where $`J`$ is the interlayer Josephson coupling per unit area, and $`j`$ is the layer index. The transition temperature is located by finding the intersections of the fourth-order cumulant (Binder ratio) curves $`|\psi |^4/|\psi |^2^2`$ for different system sizes as functions of temperature at zero magnetic field.

Fig. 2 shows results for $`\alpha _{xy}`$ as a function of field for various values of interlayer coupling $`J`$ at temperature $`T=24`$K, from samples of size 15$`\times `$15$`\times `$10 layers. For each $`J`$ we set the the temperature scale ($`T_c^{MF}`$) so that $`T_c28`$K as in the experiment. The values of the other parameters in the simulations are as used in Fig. 1. As expected, the the largest value of $`J`$ shows the largest deviation from the two-dimensional behavior. Somewhat better correspondence between the behavior of $`\alpha _{xy}`$ obtained in simulation and experiment is obtained by adding this interlayer coupling.

An interesting point to note in Fig. 2 is that at low fields a rather small interlayer coupling $`J`$ produces a strong decrease in $`\alpha _{xy}`$. Describing this in terms of vortices, as seems appropriate in this low-field regime below $`T_c`$, the force per unit length on a vortex line due to the temperature gradient is proportional to $`\alpha _{xy}`$. Naively, this force is also set by the entropy per unit length transported by a moving vortex. This transport entropy may come from internal degrees of freedom within one vortex, or it may come from the configurational entropy of the many possible spatial arrangements of the vortices. The latter does not involve internal excitations within the vortices. In the quasi-two-dimensional layered superconductors that we are modelling, a vortex line running normal to the layers consists of “pancake vortices” in each layer. A weak interlayer coupling has little effect on the internal properties of a single pancake vortex, but it does produce an attraction between vortices in adjacent layers that reduces their relative motion, and thus can substantially reduce the configurational entropy of the vortices. The fact that at low fields a weak interlayer coupling greatly reduces the transport entropy of the vortices, as indicated by the reduction of $`\alpha _{xy}`$ seen in Fig.2, thus suggests that in this regime the configurational entropy of the vortices is a large part of their transport entropy, at least within this layered TDGL model.

We have also performed simulations to model the BSCCO sample studied by Ri et al. Ri et al. (1994). The experimental data and the results of the simulation are shown in Fig. 3. The quantity plotted is the measured “transport energy” of the vortices, defined as $`U_\varphi =T\varphi _0\alpha _{xy}`$. We used a two-dimensional simulation with $`T_c90`$ K, $`H_{c2}=160`$ T, $`s=15.35\AA `$ and $`\eta =0.475`$. Again, there is reasonable quantitative agreement, in absolute units, between the experimental data and the simulations. The clearest deviation here occurs for $`T<60`$K and $`H>6`$T,

where the sign of the temperature derivative of $`U_\varphi `$ appears to differ between simulation and experiment.

In conclusion, we have measured the transverse thermoelectric transport coefficient $`\alpha _{xy}`$ in simulations of the vortex-liquid regime of superconductors modeled by the TDGL equation with thermal fluctuations. We find that our simulations of a two-dimensional superconductor reproduce reasonably well much of the qualitative and quantitative features of available experimental data from some cuprate high-temperature superconductors. We have also studied the crossover from two-dimensional to three-dimensional behavior in a layered superconductor. This crossover study indicates that the configurational entropy of the vortices may constitute a large part of their transport entropy at low magnetic field just below $`T_c`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Yayu Wang and N. P. Ong for providing us with the LSCO data. We also thank them, Shivaji Sondhi and especially Iddo Ussishkin for many useful discussions. This work is supported by the NSF through MRSEC grant DMR-0213706.


text:
# Proto-clusters and the clustering of distant galaxies and radio sources

## 1 Introduction

In the local Universe, the distribution of galaxies is observed to be complex; massive clusters and super-clusters exist as well as large empty regions, the so called voids. The clusters seem to be connected by a web of filaments and walls of galaxies. For a nice visual illustration of the beauty of the local galaxy distribution, see for example the maps based on the two-degree Field (2dF) Galaxy Redshift survey by Peacock et al. (2001). The spatial fluctuations in the galaxy distribution can be connected with measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies. Lahav et al. (2002) showed that within a model based on a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM Universe, both measurement sets can be fit simultaneously. Ingredients of such a model include the growth of clustering of dark matter halos, evolution of the bias parameter (i.e. how do galaxies trace mass at different epochs) and the history of merging of galaxies. The present challenge for observers is to measure the clustering properties not only for large samples of local galaxies, but also for rarer objects such as active galaxies. Furthermore, measurements of the clustering of galaxies, clusters and AGN as a function of redshift, luminosity and mass will in detail constrain models of the evolution of structure in the Universe.

In this contribution, we first discuss a number of radio and near-infrared surveys and the analysis of the clustering of the various classes of objects in these surveys. It appeared that radio galaxies at $`z\mathrm{}>1`$ are among the most clustered objects known in the $`z\mathrm{}>1`$ Universe. They are clustered at a level similar to extremely red galaxies. Since in the local Universe clusters of galaxies are the most clustered objects (Bahcall and Soneira 1983), the highly clustered distant radio galaxies seemed good targets to hunt for forming clusters – proto-clusters. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of powerful radio galaxies as probes of such distant clusters. For more extensive discussions, we refer to other contributors to these proceedings, including those of Best, Buttery, Brand, Croft, Kurk, Wold, and Venemans.

## 2 Clustering

A measure of the clustering of an ensemble of objects is the correlation function $`\xi (r)`$, where $`r`$ is the distance. The correlation function measures the excess chance over a random distribution of detecting an object a distance $`r+\delta r`$ from a given object. The total chance $`\delta P`$ of detecting an object within a volume $`\delta V`$ is therefore given as:

$$\delta P=n[1+\xi (r)]\delta V,$$

where $`n`$ is the volume density of the objects. In most cases, the spatial correlation function can be parametrised as a power law:

$$\xi (r)=(r/r_0)^\gamma ,$$

where $`r_0`$ is the scale length at which the expected overdensity of objects is twice that over Poissonian.

Often, for a survey only the positions of objects on the sky are known and not the true spatial distances. The angular spatial correlation $`w(\theta )`$ is then used to measure the angular clustering:

$$\delta P=n[1+w(\theta )]\delta \mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an infinitesimal area on the sky at a distance $`\theta `$ from the given object. The corresponding power law is then defined as:

$$w(\theta )=A\theta ^{1\gamma }.$$

If for a sample the redshift distribution and amplitude and slope of the angular two-point correlation function are known, the spatial correlation function can be derived, using the Limber equation. For a detailed account of the usage of the two-point correlation function we refer to the book by Peebles (1980).

### 2.1 Samples

During the last few years we have analyzed the clustering properties in 5 different surveys, the NVSS, FIRST and BOOTES radio surveys and a wide and a very deep near IR survey. We will discuss these in turn.

#### 2.1.1 First and NVSS

The NVSS (Condon et al. 1998) and the FIRST (Becker et al. 1995) radio surveys have both been carried out by the VLA at 1.4 GHz. They cover large areas of down to a 5 sigma level of 2.5 and 1 mJy respectively. Overzier et al. (2003) analysed in detail the clustering properties of these samples. A similar analysis has been performed by Blake and Wall (2002). The main result is that the two-point correlation function can be described as consisting of two power laws (see Fig. 1).

The power law that dominates on the smaller scales is due to extragalactic radio sources that are often comprised of two distinct lobes. The median separations of these lobes are 10 - 20 arcsec at flux levels of a few Jy at 151 MHz, with a long tail to many arcminutes (Eales et al. 1985). To model this power-law, the local angular size distribution as found by Neeser et al. (1995) was taken and evolved to higher redshift according the median of the distribution getting smaller at higher redshifts as $`(1+z)^{1.7}`$. Using the radio luminosity function by Dunlop and Peacock (1990), we can then model the contribution to the physical doubles to the angular two point correlation function. This simple model provides a good fit to the power law on small scales. The power law at larger scales is due to the cosmological clustering of radio sources. Interestingly, the number of radio sources in these surveys is so large that we can investigate whether the amplitude of the cosmological angular correlation function varies with flux density. Indeed it does, and in the range 3 to 50 mJy has a fairly constant amplitude of $`10^3`$, rising to values of 5 to 10 times higher between 50 and 300 mJy. To convert these amplitudes into correlation lengths we use redshift distributions as calculated from the radio luminosity models of Dunlop and Peacock. At the higher flux density levels these are accurate enough for our purpose. At the lower flux levels, these models and the resulting redshift distribution are less accurate, mainly due to a lack of samples at these flux levels with complete redshift information. One of the aims of the CENSORS project (Best et al., in prep) is to provide such a sample. Using these redshift distributions, we find that the correlation length varies from 5 Mpc for the samples with flux densities less than 50 mJy to around 15 Mpc at 200 mJy. We note that if the redshift distribution for the fainter sample turns out to be broader than inferred from the Dunlop and Peacock model the resulting correlation length will be larger.

### 2.2 Bootes survey

The Westerbork Bootes Deep survey covers approximately 7 square degrees and is centered at $`14^\mathrm{h}32^\mathrm{m}05.75^\mathrm{s}`$, $`34^{}16^{}47.5^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000). It consists of 42 discrete pointings, with enough overlap to ensure a uniform sensitivity across the entire field, with a limiting sensitivity of $`28\mu `$Jy (1$`\sigma _{\text{rms}}`$). The catalog contains 3172 distinct sources, of which 316 are resolved by the $`13\times 27`$ arcsec beam. At these faint flux densities a significant fraction of the sources originates in starbursting galaxies rather than AGN. One of the aims of this survey is therefore to study the clustering properties of starbursts. NOAO is carrying out a deep combined optical and infrared study of this field which will provide photometric redshifts for virtually all the radio sources. Since these data are not yet available, Wilman et al. (2003) started the analysis of the clustering of the radio sources with the study of the angular correlation function. Applying the models of Overzier et al. (2003) to estimate what fraction of measured amplitude of the correlation function was found to be due to faint double FRII radio sources, led to the conclusion that all the signal could be explained by these sources. Upper limits on the cosmological clustering amplitude are, however, consistent with the clustering of the radio-loud AGN being diluted by the more weakly clustered IRAS-type starburst galaxies.

### 2.3 Daddi-field

With the initial aims of obtaining a well defined sample of extremely red objects, Daddi et al. (2000) surveyed a 700 arcmin2 region down to a limiting magnitude of approximately $`K=19`$. and found about 400 objects with very red colours of $`RK>5`$. The subsequent analysis of the clustering of these red objects found a large amplitude of the correlation function of $`>10^2`$. Furthermore, it appeared that the amplitudes were a strong function of $`RK`$ colour in the range $`1<RK<7`$, with the reddest objects being most strongly clustered. These measurements were subsequently confirmed by other groups using independent surveys (Roche et al. 2002, Firth et al. 2002). This high signal is most easily explained if the vast majority of these EROs are ellipticals in the redshift range $`1<z<1.5`$. Such a narrow redshift range stems from a combination of two effects. First, at these magnitude levels objects only are so red if the Balmer break is redshifted beyond $`z1`$. Second, the bright magnitude level of K=19, ensures that objects with $`z>1.5`$ are exceedingly rare in such samples. Using such a narrow redshift distribution, the resulting correlation length is 8-10 Mpc. While $`r_0`$ is large compared to local field galaxies, it is consistent with predictions of semi-analytic galaxy formation models, where the decrease in clustering with redshift of dark matter halos is compensated by an increase in their bias (e.g. Kauffmann et al. 1999). This is further evidence that the majority of these EROs are ellipticals rather than SCUBA type starburst galaxies. Such starburst galaxies exhibit a large range in redshift, much larger than expected for ellipticals in this sample. The resulting correlation length inferred from the measured amplitude would then be unrealistically large. This adds further weight that the majority of EROs in this sample are $`z1.5`$ ellipticals.

### 2.4 FIRES survey

The Faint InfraRed Extragalactic Survey (FIRES) is a very deep infrared survey centered on the Hubble Deep Field South using the ISAAC instrument mounted on the VLT (Franx et al. 2000). With integration times of more than 33 hours for each of the infrared bands $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`K`$, limiting magnitudes of, 26.0, 24.9, and 24.5 respectivily are reached (Labbé et al. 2003). A major advantage of observing this field is that multicolour HST photometry is available resulting in accurate photometric redshifts. A detailed analysis of the clustering of galaxies in this survey was presented by Daddi et al. (2003). One of the interesting results was the finding of a relatively large clustering amplitude for a $`K`$-selected sample down to $`K=24`$, at a level comparable with measurements at $`K19`$. To explain this high level of clustering, the existence of a highly clustered population of galaxies is required with a comoving correlation length of $`r10`$ Mpc. To investigate the clustering of distant galaxies further, we defined a sample of 105 objects with photometric redshift estimates $`2<z<4`$. The 48 galaxies with $`JK>1.7`$ have a correlation length of $`8.2\pm 1.1`$ Mpc, a factor of about 2 larger than the bluer galaxies in this sample. These red galaxies are a factor 3-4 more clustered than Lyman break galaxies down to a level of $`V_{606}=27`$. A detailed analysis of the properties of this highly clustered population, including characteristic mass and number density, suggests that they are the objects that should be identified with the progenitors of local massive early type galaxies.

## 3 Clustering as a function of redshifts for galaxies and AGN

The comparison of the clustering properties of galaxies and AGN as a function of redshift is a powerful tool to constrain models of their evolution. In addition to the measurements for clustering in the samples just discussed, measurements for clustering of various types of objects have been gathered from the literature (for details see Overzier et al. 2003). For local clusters, early and late type objects we took the measurements as presented in Postman et al. (1992), Carlberg et al. (1997, 2000) and Norberg et al. (2002). For the optical quasars, we used the measurements for the 2dF quasars from Croom et al. (2001). For the very distant Universe, the clustering analysis for Lyman break galaxies are taken from Adelberger (2000) and Ouchi et al. (2001)

In Figure 2 we show how the correlation length changes as a function of redshift for the various galaxy and AGN samples. In addition, a number of models for the evolution of clustering are plotted.

The first important conclusion that can be drawn is that at redshifts $`z\mathrm{}>1`$ powerful radio sources are among the most clustered population. Interestingly, the distant EROs have similar correlation lengths. This suggest that EROs and powerful radio galaxies might be similar objects at a different evolutionary stage. This is supported by their K-band magnitudes being more or less similar (e.g. Dunlop 2001). Furthermore, the number density of both classes is of the same order, provided that a limited life time of the radio sources of the order of $`10^7`$ years is taken into account (Mohan et al. 2002; Willott et al. 2001).

The inferred correlation lengths for the powerful radio sources is a factor of 2-3 larger than that of the optical quasars. If this is correct, then these optical quasars and radio sources can not be “unified” through an evolutionary scheme. The much more likely explanation is that QSOs in general reside in a field population. Consistent with many other lines of evidence (e.g. Best et al. 1998), the powerful radio sources are hosted by very massive systems.

In the local universe, clusters have the largest correlation length. Detailed models of the evolution of clustering (Refregier et al. 2002), indicate that $`r_0`$ of clusters should remain rather constant with redshift. $`z>1`$ clusters and proto-clusters therefore should be clustered at a level equal to or higher than powerful radio galaxies. An obvious test whether there is a direct link between powerful radio sources and clusters is to establish that powerful radio sources are indeed often residing in clusters.

## 4 Powerful radio galaxies as probes of distant clusters

There a number of additional arguments that distant powerful radio sources reside in (proto-)clusters (e.g. Best et al. 1998). An important one is that these radio galaxies seem to reside in the most massive, luminous and gas rich systems for a given redshift and are therefore likely to be located in rich environments. For example, the Hubble K-band diagram shows that at $`z>1`$ radio galaxies are 1-2 magnitudes brighter than the brightest objects found in “field surveys” (e.g. de Breuck et al. 2002). From dust, CO, HI absorption and emission line studies, it is clear that radio galaxies contain a large reservoir of gaseous material that is forming stars at high rates. (e.g. Papadopoulos et al. 2000; Archibald et al. 2000). The high star formation rates and deep spectroscopy with 10-m class telescopes reveal UV spectra that are remarkably similar to nearby star forming galaxies (Dey et al. 1997).

Direct evidence that radio sources reside in dense environments comes from the high rotation measures ($`>1000`$ rad / m2) observed for a significant fraction of the $`z>2`$ radio sources (e.g. Carilli et al. 1997). These are similar to the rotation measures determined for radio sources that reside in the rich local clusters.

The conclusive proof that at least a fraction of the radio sources are in proto-cluster type environments comes from the discovery of significant galaxy over-densities around a number of high redshift radio galaxies. Currently the most efficient technique is to hunt for Ly$`\alpha `$ emitting galaxies using a combination of narrow-band imaging and multi object spectroscopy. The state of the art in this field is presented in this workshop by Venemans. In each of the 5 well-studied objects with $`2<z<4.1`$ more than 20 Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters have been found. Other techniques of pinpointing galaxies are being developed. They rely on deep mm/sub millimeter observations (e.g. Ivison et al. 2000), sensitive X-ray imaging (e.g. Pentericci et al. 2002), multi-colour imaging with one filter blue-ward of the Lyman break, or infrared H$`\alpha `$ imaging. For one proto-cluster (1138$``$262) at $`z=2.2`$ a number of these techniques have been used, suggesting that the distribution of H$`\alpha `$ emitters, Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters and extremely red objects are all different (Kurk et al., these proceedings). This indicates that those proto-clusters are comprised of a number of populations that differ in age and/or metallicity.