text:
# Chapter 1 TeV Gamma-Ray Observations and the Origin of Cosmic Rays III.

## Chapter 1 TeV Gamma-Ray Observations and the Origin of Cosmic Rays III.

### Abstract

The present final part of a triad of plenary talks on the results of high energy gamma-ray astronomy and the origin of Cosmic Rays is primarily devoted to the physics interpretation. I will start with the stereoscopic method of operating several imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes in coincidence as pioneered by HEGRA, and a summary description of the results obtained. Then I will turn to the search for gamma rays from Supernova Remnants over the last decade and argue that only the quantitative comparison of observations with a consistent theory of particle acceleration can lead to a generally acceptable picture of Cosmic Ray origin. The elements of this theory are outlined. It is subsequently used to model SN 1006 and Cassiopeia A, the two sources that until now could be investigated to the required detail. The analysis shows for the first time that emission spectra and morphological detail are in agreement with the concept that these two distinctly different objects are representative members of a suspected Supernova source population in the Galaxy. The continuing study of this population is an essential part of the program of the major new gamma-ray instruments.

### 1. The HEGRA Stereoscopic System

Representing also the HEGRA experiment in this overview I want to emphasize first the significance of the stereoscopic method in ground-based $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy. This observation technique positions several telescopes in the Cherenkov light pool on the ground so that the same gamma-ray shower in the atmosphere is observed from different positions, in a manner analogous to the practice of a land surveyor (Fig. 1). The reconstruction of the $`\gamma `$-ray direction is achieved on a purely geometrical basis by combining the different shower images into a single focal plane detector (”camera”). The shower impact point on the ground is reconstructed similarly from the images in the spatially seperated telescopes. An immediate result is increased angular resolution and a higher energy resolution. At the same time it is possible to strongly improve background rejection, in particular against local muons from unrecognized showers in the distant atmosphere. The energy threshold for such a system is therefore lower than for each of the individual telescopes seperately.

The stereoscopic array of the HEGRA experiment on La Palma which was finally dismantled in late 2002 has been combining five relatively small telescopes of 3.3 m effective diameter ($`8.5\mathrm{m}^2`$ mirror area) each. Using the technique described above it was able to detect and thereby to confirm all the Northern Hemisphere sources originally detected by the (single) 10 m ($`75\mathrm{m}^2`$ mirror area) Whipple telescope in Arizona. In addition, the HEGRA system detected a number of very weak sources like the first unidentified TeV source TeV J2032+4130 in the Galaxy, the first Northern Hemisphere Supernova Remnant Cassiopeia A (Cas A; Fig.2), and the first radio galaxy in the TeV range: M87 in the center of the Virgo cluster. Consistent with their fluxes of merely several percent of the Crab Nebula, the three new sources could not yet be confirmed by other instruments.

I shall not enter into a discussion about the overall observational results of TeV $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy which the previous speakers, T.C. Weekes and T. Kifune, have already presented so ably for the Extragalactic and the Galactic sources. My assignment here is rather to interprete these results with regard to the origin of Cosmic Rays (CRs). More specifically I shall ask the question, whether and to which extent the TeV-detection of Supernova Remnants (SNRs) in our Galaxy has solved this problem which has eluded physicists for more than ninety years, since the discovery of Victor Hess in 1912.

### 2. Test of the Supernova Remnant origin of Cosmic Rays

Following the hypothesis of Baade and Zwicky from 1934, that Supernova explosions might be the ultimate sources of the CRs , the idea has been entertained in various forms. Indeed as time progressed it became more and more clear that there are not many viable alternatives from an energetics point of view. And it has slowly become a common belief that the shocks in the circumstellar medium, produced by the violently expanding SNRs, should accelerate the CRs in the Galaxy up to about the knee in the all-particle energy spectrum at several $`10^{15}`$ eV.

From an experimental point of view it is obvious that any real test can only come through characteristic radiation signatures from the dominant nuclear particles in individual objects, at comparable energies. The most direct way to achieve this test is the detection of gamma-rays at TeV energies.

#### 2.1. Practical beginning of the source search

This effort began in earnest about ten years ago when time-dependent nonlinear acceleration models in SNRs, still in a hydrodynamic approximation also for the CR component, were used to calculate the expected $`\gamma `$-ray emission. The models had to assume the form of the energetic particle spectrum, consistent with the calculated time evolution of the total energy in CRs, and in detail they turned out to be sensitive to the assumed injection rates at suprathermal energies . While these dynamic models concentrated on the nuclear $`\gamma `$-rays from $`\pi ^0`$-decay following inelastic collisions with nuclei from the thermal gas, there was also a class of kinematic models by e.g. Naito & Takahara  and Gaisser et al.  who rather assumed distributions of accelerated nuclei and energetic electrons but then concentrated on the various radiation processes from these particle populations and their relative importance. Subsequently $`\gamma `$-ray emission models were developed from kinetic theory by Berezhko & Völk . They involved numerical solutions of the full time-dependent, nonlinear CR transport equation in spherical symmetry which had been first obtained by Berezhko et al. . Based on stationary plane wave solutions of the same transport equations with a Monte Carlo code , Baring et al.  also estimated the time-dependent $`\gamma `$-ray emission.

The conclusions from this theoretical work were cautiously optimistic: nuclear TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from bright nearby objects should be marginally detectable by existing ground-based instruments.

#### 2.2. Early observational attempts

The first specific $`\gamma `$-ray observations were made in the early nineties. However the initial results were rather inconclusive. Esposito et al.  had observed several shell-type SNRs, notably G78.2+2.1 ($`\gamma `$-Cygni) and IC443, with the EGRET instrument on CGRO at $`\gamma `$-ray energies below 1 GeV. Subsequent TeV observations by the Whipple  and HEGRA  groups yielded only upper limits. For $`\gamma `$-Cygni and IC 443 these upper limits were below the power-law extrapolations of the EGRET spectra and, like the Whipple upper limit for Tycho’s SNR, they tended also to lie below the theoretical estimates  for the $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-ray flux. In contrast a first TeV-detection was reported for the Southern Hemisphere remnant of SN 1006 by the CANGAROO collaboration . The flux value given significantly exceeded the expected $`\pi ^0`$-decay flux .

The failure to detect TeV emission from the EGRET sources could be understood if in reality a straight extrapolation of the power law spectrum from EGRET energies to the TeV range was not required. The expected emissions would then come from different objects. Alternatively the remnant could be ”old” in an evolutionary sense, having lost many of its very high energy particles already (see the section on Cas A). Such doubts were substantiated by Brazier et al.  who rather found a Pulsar in the EGRET 95 % error box for $`\gamma `$-Cygni, and Pulsars are generally assumed to exhibit a cutoff in the emission spectrum at some tens of GeV. In IC443 Keohane et al.  found only two regions with hard X-ray emission from high energy ($`10`$ TeV) electrons, certainly not over most of the radio shell. An association between the hard X-ray sources and the EGRET source can not be firmly established either (see , which also contains a summary of the recent X-ray results). More generally speaking, no unambiguous EGRET detection of a shell-type SNR exists. This is one of the questions which the GLAST mission will have to resolve.

#### 2.3. SNR detections in nonthermal hard X-rays and TeV $`\gamma `$-rays

In the mid-nineties SN 1006 was detected in hard X-rays  and much of this emission was attributed to synchrotron radiation of electrons with energies of tens of TeV , see Fig. 3a. Subsequently also several other shell-type remnants where shown to have power law tails in their emission, notably SNR RX J1713.7-3946 in the Southern Hemisphere  and Cas A .

The question was then, whether the energetic electrons would not also be visible in TeV $`\gamma `$-rays through their Inverse Compton (IC) scattering on ambient low energy photons, primarily from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) . In 1998 the CANGAROO collaboration published its detection of SN 1006  mentioned earlier, and interpreted it in terms of IC emission. A subsequent TeV detection of SNR RX J1713.7-3946 with the same telescope  was given an analogous interpretation. The only critical discussion at the time was published by Atoyan and Aharonian .

The prevalent opinion that there was no need for nuclear CRs to explain the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emission from SNRs gave room to doubts as to the existence of any significant quantities of CR nuclei in shell-type SNRs at all . However this pessimistic turn was provoked by phenomenological arguments not by theory, as all the arguments before. Again on a phenomenological basis, the CANGAROO collaboration on the other hand reversed its view regarding SNR RX J1713.7-3946 by presenting new arguments which now favored a hadronic $`\gamma `$-ray origin  (see also  above). This led to a controversial discussion, where several groups  gave empirical counterarguments which questioned the new interpretation. Unfortunately SNR RX J1713.7-3946 is a complex source which may either be the result of the thermonuclear explosion/deflagration of an accreting White Dwarf (SN Type Ia) that ejects a Chandrasekhar mass, or of the core collapse of a massive star. The distance uncertainty ranges from 1 to 6 kpc . The remnant is situated in a complex interstellar environment (e.g. ) and is far less well studied than SN 1006, for example. Therefore the debate remains quite inconclusive at present. SN 1006 is a much clearer case. It is a SN type Ia, with excellent radio and X-ray observations and extensive morphological studies. Fig. 3b shows the latest published $`\gamma `$-ray results , with an IC fit for the spectrum.

Our own conclusion was that phenomenological considerations are important but that they will not give a convincing answer to the question of the acceleration of CR nuclei in SNRs as reasonable as they may appear individually, one by one. There is a need for quantitative comparison of the observations with a consistent theory, as in other areas of physics. Contradictory interpretations of the observations can be excluded only if such a detailed picture is available.

### 3. Theory of diffusive shock acceleration as applied to SNRs

Let me summarize such a theory in three cartoons. Obviously they are only meant to illustrate the essential physics; the real description is given by the equations which I shall only write down to hint at the mathematical aspects. Much of the theory is reviewed in e.g. .

The left cartoon of Fig. 4 shows the spatial dependence in a plane shock, propagating parallel to the magnetic field. The nonlinear backreaction of the accelerated particles on the dynamics of the thermal gas through their pressure gradient creates a smooth precursor, followed by a sharp subshock, where the fluid quantities of the thermal gas jump discontinuously. The CR pressure

$$p_c=\frac{4\pi c}{3}_{p_{inj}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\frac{p^4f(x,p,t)}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2c^2}}$$
(1)
is given in terms of the isotropic part of the particle distribution function $`f(x,p,t)`$, averaged over the magnetic fluctuations; the quantities $`p`$ and $`m`$ denote the magnitude of particle momentum and its mass. In the downstream distribution (right panel) CRs are characterized by momenta above the region of injection where downstream particles can outrun the shock along the magnetic field. The nonthermal spectrum starts with a steep power law distribution, characterized by diffusive acceleration at the subshock only. High energy particles ”see” the entire compression as a discontinuity and have therefore a harder spectrum that begins in the region where protons become ultrarelativistic .

Strong shocks with Alfvénic Mach numbers $`M_a=U_1/V_11`$ typically inject so many suprathermal nuclear particles into the acceleration process that the acceleration is efficient, $`p_c\rho _1U_1^2`$, and that nonlinear backreaction leads to a strong precursor. In SNRs $`M_a`$ is of order $`10^3`$ at very early times, and for SN 1006 it is still as large as 150 at the present epoch. Thus the total compression ratio $`r_{tot}>4`$, whereas the subshock compression ratio $`r_{sub}<4`$. Only part of the overall energy dissipation goes into thermal energy at the subshock, the rest is given to the energetic particles and to the growing waves.

The most difficult aspect of particle acceleration is the magnetic field and its fluctuations, because this field is what the energetic particles interact with directly. And the field is not simply given externally, but is rather excited by the particles themselves as another part of the nonlinearity of the process.

The selfconsistent wave production by the accelerated particles themselves can only be estimated rather approximately. A simple-minded quasilinear calculation  for efficient acceleration leads to an extremely large wave field $`\delta B/B1`$, where $`\delta B`$ is the total rms wave amplitude and $`B`$ is the assumed mean magnetic field strength. This conclusion has been shown to hold also differentially for the wave energy per unit logarithmic bandwidth in wave number in relation to the resonant energetic particle pressure $`P_c(p)=4\pi c/3p^4f(x,p,t)/\sqrt{p^2+m^2c^2}`$ per logarithmic interval in $`p`$ .

However, such a result defeats the original assumption $`\delta B/B1`$ of perturbation theory, on which the derivation of the result is predicated (I will loosely continue to use the term $`\delta B`$ for both the differential and the integral wave amplitude). The question is then how to deal with this outrageous situation. In fact, theory has no precise solution at the moment. Apart from wave damping, the simplest and physically most plausible conclusion is that the strong wave production amplifies the mean field to an effective field $`B_{\mathrm{e}ff}B_0`$ , with $`\delta B/B_{\mathrm{e}ff}1`$. In this limit the scattering mean free path $`\lambda _{mfp}`$ reaches its minimum value $`r_{gyro}(p)`$, where $`r_{gyro}`$ is the particle gyro radius in the field $`B_{\mathrm{e}ff}`$. This is the so-called Bohm limit in the effective field and implies an isotropic diffusion particle coefficient $`\kappa (p,B_{\mathrm{e}ff})=vr_g(p)/3`$. Field amplification has recently been successfully calculated in a simplified nonlinear model of wave turbulence by Lucek & Bell  and Bell & Lucek . The result is the Bohm limit. As a scaling relation for strong shocks it is already suggested by perturbation theory.

Finally strong wave production has also profound consequences for the rate and the geometry of ion injection (third cartoon of Fig. 5a): where on the shock surface injection can occur in the first place – in an approximately spherical shock propagating in an inhomogeneous external magnetic field this is only possible in the ”polar” regions – it occurs only at those field lines that are instantaneously quasi-parallel to the subshock normal direction. On all other field lines injection is suppressed until the field changes back to quasi-parallel. This has the consequence that the ion injection rate (the fraction of the incoming flux of thermal particles that can be accelerated) is reduced by about two orders of magnitude compared to that in a laminar magnetic field. The precise numerical value of the reduction factor depends on the wave spectrum. For a uniform ambient field the systematic reduction of injection will lead to dipolar asymetries in the nonthermal morphology and requires a renormalization of the overall particle production rate, as calculated in spherical symmetry, by a factor $`f_{re}<1`$ .

The resulting theory, applied to the dynamics of a SNR and assuming spherical symmetry, looks as follows:

CR transport and acceleration at shocks is described by a Fokker-Planck equation for the isotropic part of the mean particle distribution $`f_i(p,r,t)`$ for ions (p) and electrons (e), respectively:

$$\frac{f_\mathrm{i}}{t}\kappa f_\mathrm{i}+\stackrel{}{U}f_\mathrm{i}\frac{\stackrel{}{U}}{3}p\frac{f_\mathrm{i}}{p}+\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{}{p}\left(\frac{p^3}{\tau _\mathrm{i}}f_\mathrm{i}\right)=Q_i,$$
(2)
where the coefficients in the transport eqs. are given by the mean mass velocity $`\stackrel{}{U}(r,t)`$ and its divergence, as determined from the hydrodynamic eqs., and by a common diffusion coefficient $`\kappa (p,B_{\mathrm{e}ff})`$ as a result of scattering by the fluctuating magnetic field. $`Q_i`$ denotes the injection rate, and $`\tau _\mathrm{i}`$ is the loss time, taken to be zero for ions and equal to the synchrotron loss time for electrons.

The hydrodynamics of the thermal plasma, even if we consider it as an ideal fluid, is in turn nonlinearly coupled with the energetic particles through the CR pressure gradient $`dp_c/dx`$, defined above, as well as wave dissipation, see e.g. :

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+(\rho \stackrel{}{U})=0,$$
(3)
$$\rho \frac{\stackrel{}{U}}{t}+\rho (\stackrel{}{U})\stackrel{}{U}=(p_c+p_g),$$
(4)
$$\frac{p_g}{t}+(\stackrel{}{U})p_g+\gamma _g(\stackrel{}{U})p_g=\alpha _a(1\gamma _g)c_ap_c,$$
(5)
where $`\rho `$, $`\gamma _g=5/3`$ and $`p_g`$ denote the mass density, gas specific heat ratio and gas pressure, respectively. Gas heating due to Alfvén wave dissipation in the upstream region is described by the parameter $`\alpha _a1.`$

Already in this lowest approximation the theory involves a time-dependent nonlinear system of coupled partial integro-differential equations.

In principle the theory is quite general and can be used to describe any ionized system in which matter dominates and thermal gas motions are nonrelativistic. The above application to point explosions like SNRs is the simplest one from an analytical point of view. Astrophysically speaking it is nevertheless fundamental. In this case the theory contains only two ”parameters” that are not very well calculable quantitatively: $`B_{\mathrm{e}ff}`$, and the ion injection rate $`Q_p`$. They are strongly related through the nonlinear development of wave production discussed above. It is therefore plausible to use an experimental/observational input for these parameters in order to be free from uncertain theoretical approximations.

How do we achieve this observational input for SNRs? The natural solution is given in terms of the electron component and the corresponding sychrotron observations . The electrons are parasitically accelerated together with the nuclear particles which generate the scattering wave field through their dominant mass and energy density, at least above the (unknown) electron injection energy. This means that above injection the overall electron momentum distribution must have equal form to that of the nuclear particles except for radiative losses. The synchrotron observations then yield three quantities: (i) the radio synchrotron spectrum will be steeper than in the test particle approximation; interpreting this in terms of nonlinear modification determines then the ion injection rate (ii) the requirement that these radio electrons have energies $`1`$ GeV gives the value of $`B_{\mathrm{e}ff}`$ (iii) the electron density amplitude from the magnitude of the synchrotron emission determines the electron:proton ratio. The actual average nuclear CR density in the SNR is reduced from the calculated spherically symmetric ion amplitude by the ratio $`f_{re}`$ of the area of efficient injection to the total SNR surface area (Renormalization).

### 4. SN 1006

In the radio and in nonthermal X-rays SN 1006 has a dipolar structure . This is consistent with ion injection theory, as described above and with a diameter of $`0.5^{}`$ it should be an extended TeV source as well, allowing a test of the $`\gamma `$-ray morphology. From astronomical measurements at radio and X-ray wavelengths the distance is about 1.8 kpc, and the expansion velocity amounts to 3000 km/sec. A rather uncertain astronomical parameter is the density $`n`$ of the ambient Interstellar Medium (ISM). In the following we use a value $`n=0.3\mathrm{c}m^3`$ which is suggested by X-ray measurements. However, the density could be as low as $`n=0.1\mathrm{c}m^3`$ since SN 1006 is located relatively far above the Galactic Plane. This also suggests a standard interstellar magnetic field of several $`\mu `$G, rather uniform on the scale of the SNR. However, as emphasized below, the effective field is expected to be substantially higher than this.

#### 4.1. Model calculations for SN 1006

I shall now paraphrase the detailed model calculations  that are based on the theory discussed before. The overall hydrodynamic quantities are given in Fig. 5b. From a simultaneous fit of the observed SNR radius and expansion speed at the known age of the system of almost 1000 years the total mechanical explosion energy must be chosen as $`E_{SN}=310^{51}`$; $`E_{SN}`$ is somewhat high compared to the canonical $`10^{51}`$ erg. The total shock compression ratio is substantially above the adiabatic value for a strong shock. The spherically symmetric calculation gives a total CR energy $`E_c0.6E_{SN}`$ at late times. However, the renormalization factor is 0.2 . This results in a fraction of about 10 % in nuclear CR energy at the late Sedov phase, when the source particles are expected to be released into the ISM.

The spatially integrated spectra of CR electrons and nuclei(Fig. 6a) harden towards the cutoff, except for electron cooling. The high effective internal field $`B_{\mathrm{e}ff}120\mu `$G is determined from the spectral slope of the radio synchrotron spectrum in Fig. 6b which also fixes the injection rate to about $`10^4`$ times the flux of incoming particles. The flattening of the high frequency synchrotron spectrum also allows a smooth connection below the thermal X-rays to the hard X-ray data points. All this implies a somewhat low predicted electron:proton ratio in the overall number of accelerated particles of about $`210^3`$ for this source, compared to the canonical interstellar value of $`10^2`$.

The predicted contributions to the differential $`\gamma `$-ray energy spectrum, integrated over the SNR volume, are shown in Fig. 7a and the radial $`\gamma `$-ray brightness at 3 TeV is exhibited in Fig. 7b. For the assumed ISM density $`n`$ the IC contribution from CR electrons is about one order of magnitude below the hadronic contribution due to $`\pi ^0`$-decay, which in turn is still below the EGRET upper limits. As consequence of synchrotron cooling, the IC emission spectrum has an almost identical form to the hadronic $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum from several GeV up to the cutoff. This makes attempts for a distiction of spectral slopes very difficult except at very low and very high energies.

It is in this context important to note that the $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-ray flux scales like $`n^2`$ to lowest order, although the strong nonlinearity of the system makes this scaling only a rough first approximation. Decreasing the external density by a factor of 2 will therefore diminish the hadronic $`\gamma `$-ray flux by a factor of about 4. At the same time the electron:proton ratio will increase, whereas the derived total energy $`E_{SN}`$ will decrease. An external density which is lower than $`n=0.3\mathrm{c}m^3`$ may explain the fact that the individual H.E.S.S. telescopes in Namibia have not been able to detect SN 1006 at the level suggested by the CANGAROO results.

Fig. 3b in fact indicates an IC spectrum similar to the one used to explain the more recent data points given by the CANGAROO II telescope . Such a spectrum is the result of a scenario that neglects acceleration of nuclear particles and assumes an average internal field of about $`10\mu `$G, appropriate for an MHD-compressed ISM magnetic field of several $`\mu `$G. The form of this spectrum is different from both the hadronic and the cooled IC spectra above a few GeV. Nevertheless, a well-defined observational $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum is required to distinguish this scenario from the solid line spectra calculated from the nonlinear theory if the fluxes are comparable.

The picture becomes richer when we consider the morphology as well, for instance the radial dependence in the neighborhood of the dipole axis (Fig. 7b, for a $`\gamma `$-ray energy of 3 TeV). Here the IC emission is concentrated into an extremely small scale $`l_e10^2R_s`$ near the shock at $`r=R_s`$ as a consequence of synchrotron cooling of the generating $`100`$ TeV electrons. Also the hadronic component is fairly strongly confined to a narrow shell, since the thermal gas is concentrated there. The emission morphology for a low-field scenario (not shown here) would be considerably more extended, only exhibiting the large-scale adiabatic expansion losses in the interior. In summary, the $`\gamma `$-ray emission is expected to show a dipolar spatial morphology , similar to that of the synchrotron emission.

An important observational result has been recently been found in Chandra observations at X-ray energies in the 1 to 10 keV region  (Fig. 8a).

They demonstrate very narrow spatial X-ray emission structures, on a scale of $`10^2R_s`$, confirming the magnetic field amplification made possible by a nonthermal particle population dominated by nuclear particles . In contrast, the low-field scenario clearly fails when compared to the observations (Fig. 8b).

As a corollary, the electron population cannot create the strong field fluctuations and the required high effective field by itself . This means that the dominant accelerating nuclear component is not only possible experimentally as well as theoretically: it is also necessary.

### 5. Cassiopeia A

This SN type Ib, whose progenitor was probably a massive Wolf-Rayet star, is on the other end of the scale of Supernovae when compared with SN 1006. Such massive progenitor stars modify the circumstellar medium through substantial mass-loss during several successive stellar wind phases: the fast rarefied Blue Supergiant wind during the main sequence phase turns into a massive but slow Red Supergiant (RSG) wind at a late stage, to be subsequently compressed from inside by yet another fast wind, now from the emerging Wolf-Rayet star, until this star finally collapses as Supernova. The turbulent compressed shell of the RSG material has a high gas density of about $`10\mathrm{cm}^3`$ owing to radiative cooling and is identified with the so-called bright ring in Cas A , see Fig. 2. According to this picture, the SNR’s leading shock has already reached the unperturbed RSG wind region.

The HEGRA telescope system observed Cas A for 232 hours, the longest pointing used in $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy until now, and finally detected the source at 3.3 percent of the Crab level . The acceleration model summarized here  basically follows the picture described above and assumes a Parker spiral type mean circumstellar magnetic field topology. The initial configuration before explosion is schematically shown in Fig. 9a, while Fig. 9b pictures the situation of today.

Given the synchrotron spectrum, the evolution of this complex system containing the turbulent wind shell allows a consistent description of the SNR dynamics with a total mechanical energy $`E_{SN}=410^{50}`$ erg, a present shock speed $`V_s=2000`$ km/sec, and a very large downstream effective field $`B_{\mathrm{e}ff}=1`$ mG in the shell. Even though the available synchtrotron observations are seperated by 30 years, about 10 % of the remnant’s age, a good fit to the hardening radio spectrum is possible, followed by a synchrotron cooling range in the infrared to X-ray range, ending in a cutoff at nonthermal hard X-rays (Fig. 10a). Also the observed temporal decrease of the synchrotron emission is consistent with the picture of shock propagation into an expanding wind region of decreasing gas density.

The predicted differential $`\gamma `$-ray energy spectrum is shown in Fig. 10b. As a consequence of the high values of gas density and effective magnetic field strength, it is completely dominated by hadronic $`\gamma `$-rays from $`\pi ^0`$-decay which are still two orders of magnitude below the EGRET upper limit. The hadronic flux has been renormalized by a factor $`f_{re}=1/6`$ . This prediction reasonably agrees with the observed $`\gamma `$-ray flux value around 1 TeV. The predicted IC and nonthermal Bremsstrahlung fluxes are very low. We therefore conclude that Cas A is a hadronic $`\gamma `$-ray source. The predicted proton spectrum reaches the knee region. Even if escape of CR nuclei from the weakening shock is likely to set in already at this low age, Cas A could be considered as a member of the hypothetical CR source population of Galactic SNRs.

### 6. A few personal theses

I want to summarize this talk in a few personal theses. I call them personal because they may not reflect the position of the two other speakers. On the other hand, the conclusions are based on the joint efforts of E.G. Berezhko, L.T. Ksenofontov, G. Pühlhofer and myself, and to this extent they are not only my own conclusions:

* The astrophysical processes of CR origin up to the knee are basically understood. The sources are the Galactic SNRs. This concerns 99.9 percent of the total energy density in CRs.
* Gamma-ray observations for SNRs are critical since only $`\gamma `$-rays have individual energies comparable to those of the generating charged particles. Currently experimental results are still scarce.
* The nonthermal synchrotron properties are an indispensible multi-wavelength aspect of SNRs. This concerns both the morphology and the spectrum.
* On account of the hard SNR spectra, the most appropriate instruments at $`\gamma `$-ray energies are large ground-based detectors like CANGAROO III, H.E.S.S., MAGIC and VERITAS. They will play a decisive role for the determination of the morphologies as well as the spectra of individual objects. They are needed to increase the detection statistics of SNRs.
* The most important global astronomical test is the detection and spectral decomposition of the ”diffuse” TeV $`\gamma `$-ray background in the Galactic Plane to which the entire Galactic SNR population contributes.

### 7. Acknowledgements

I am grateful to F.A. Aharonian, E.G. Berezhko, G. Heinzelmann, L.T. Ksenofontov, G. Pühlhofer, and O. Reimer for discussions on various aspects of this manuscript.

### 8. References

1. Baade W., Zwicky F. 1934, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 20, 259

2. Dorfi, E. 1991, A&A, 251, 597

3. Drury L. O’C., Aharonian F.A., Völk H.J. 1994, A&A, 287, 959

4. Naito T., Takahara F. 1994, J. Phys. G, 20, 477

5. Gaisser T.K., Protheroe R.J., Stanev T. 1998, ApJ, 492, 219

6. Berezhko E.G., Völk, H. J. 1997, Astropart. Phys., 7, 183

7. Berezhko, E.G., Völk H.J. 2000, A&A, 357, 283

8. Berezhko E.G., Yelshin V.K., Ksenofontov L.T. 1994, Astropart. Phys., 2, 215

9. Berezhko E.G., Ksenofontov L.T., Yelshin V.K. 1995, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.Suppl.), 39A, 171

10. Jones F.C., Ellison D.C. 1991, Space Sci. Rev. 58, 259

11. Baring M.G., Ellison D.C., Reynolds S.P. et al. 1999, ApJ, 513, 311

12. Esposito J.A., Hunter S.D., Kanbach G. et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 820

13. Buckley J.H., Akerlof C.W., Carter-Lewis D.A. et al. 1998, A&A, 329, 639

14. Heß M. (HEGRA Collaboration) 1997, Proc. 25th ICRC (Durban), 3, 229

15. Tanimori T., Hayami Y., Kamei S. et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, L25

16. Völk H.J. 1997, in: de Jager O.C. (ed.) Towards a Major Atmospheric Cherenkov Detector – V, Kruger Park, p. 87 ff.

17. Brazier K.T.S., Kanbach G., Carraminana A. et al. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1033

18. Keohane J.W., Petre R., Gotthelf E.V. et al. 1997, ApJ, 484, 350

19. Sturner S.J., Keohane J.W., Reimer O. 2003, in: ”High Energy Studies of Supernova Remnants and Neutron Stars”, 34th COSPAR Symp., Houston 2002, Eds. W.Hermsen and W. Becker, Advances in Space Resarch, in press

20. Koyama, K., Petre, R., Gotthelf, E.V. et al. 1995, Nature, 378, 255

21. Allen G.E., Gotthelf E.V. & Petre R. 1999, Proc. 26the ICRC (Salt Lake City), 3, 480

22. Reynolds S.P. 1996, ApJ, 459 , L13

23. Hamilton A.J.S., Sarazin C.L. & Szymkowiak A.E. 1986, ApJ, 300, 698

24. Koyama K., Kinugasa K., Matsuzaki K. et al. 1007, PASJ, 49, L7

25. Slane P., Gaensler B.M., Dame T.M. et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 357

26. Allen G.E., Keohane J.W., Gotthelf E.V. 1997, ApJ, 487, L97

27. Pohl M. 1996, A&A, 307, L57

28. Mastichiadis A., de Jager O.C. 1996, A&A, 311, L5

29. Muraishi H., Tanimori T., Yanagita S. et al. 2000, A&A, 354, L57

30. Aharonian F.A., Atoyan A.M. 1999, A&A, 351,330

31. Weekes T.C. 2001, in: High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy (ed. F.A. Aharonian, H.J. Völk), AIP Conf. Proc. 558, Melville, New York, p. 15 ff.

32. Enomoto R., Tanimori T., Naito T. et al. 2002, Nature, 416, 823

33. Reimer O., Pohl M. 2002, A&A, 390, L43

34. Butt Y.M., Torres D.F., Romero G.E. et al. 2002, Nature, 418, 499

35. Uchiyama Y., Aharonian F.A., Takahashi T. 2003, A&A, 400, 567

36. Tanimori T., Naito T., Yoshida T. et al. 2001, Proc. 27th ICRC (Hamburg), 6, 2465

37. Drury L.O’C. 1983, Rep. Prog. Phys., 46, 973

38. Völk, H. J. 1984, in: High Energy Astrophysics, ed. J. Tran Thanh Van, Editions Frontieres, Gif sur Yvette

39. Blandford R.D., Eichler D. 1987, Phys.Rept., 154, 1

40. Berezhko E.G., Krymsky G.F. 1988, Soviet Phys.-Uspekhi., 12, 155

41. Malkov M.A., Drury L.O’C. 2001, Rep. Prog. Phys., 64, 429

42. McKenzie, J.F., Völk, H.J. 1982, A&A, 116, 191

43. Lucek S. G., Bell A. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 65

44. Bell A. R., Lucek S. G. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 433

45. Völk H.J., Berezhko E.G., Ksenofontov L.T. 2003, A&A, 409, 563

46. Berezhko E.G., Ksenofontov L.T., Völk H.J. 2002, A&A, 395, 943

47. Long K.S., Reynolds S.P., Raymond J.C. et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1162

48. Konopelko A., Lucarelli F., Lampeitl H., Hofmann W. 2002, J. Phys.G, 28, 2755

49. Bamba A., Yamazaki R., Ueno M., Koyama K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 827

50. Berezhko E.G., Ksenofontov L.T., Völk H.J. 2003, to appear in A&A Lett. (astro-ph/0310862)

51. Borkowsky K.J., Szymkowiak A.E., Blondin J.M. et al. 1996, ApJ, 466, 866

52. Aharonian F.A., Akhperjanian A., Barrio J. et al. 2001, A&A, 370, 112

53. Berezhko E.G., Pühlhofer G., Völk H.J. 2003, A&A, 400, 971


format: text

text:
# Lattice-gas modeling of CO adlayers on Pd(100)

## I Introduction

CO adsorption on metal surfaces has been studied extensively as a benchmark system for chemisorption. In particular, great deal of information has been accumulated during the last thirty years about CO adsorption on Pd(100) surfaces using several different experimental techniques, and under a range of pressures and temperatures.Tracy and Palmberg (1969); Bradshaw and Hoffmann (1978); Behm et al. (1980); Szanyi et al. (1993) There are also detailed theoretical studies of CO adsorption on Pd(100) using first-principles approaches.Eichler and Hafner (1998); Wu and Metiu (2000) However, surprisingly, no extensive statistical mechanics studies have been performed to precisely determine adlayer ordering and phase transitions for this system. This is a significant omission since such analysis provides strong constraints on the type and magnitude of adspecies interactions. It also provides a reliable determination of thermodynamic quantities, which is not possible with simplified analyses. Such information is invaluable in interpreting other experiments, e.g., related to CO adsorption energies.

A long-standing motivation for such detailed studies of simple chemisorption systems is to provide insight into catalytic surface reactions. It is also well-recognized that ordering and islanding of reactants will limit the utility or validity of mean-field type rate equation treatments of the reaction kinetics.Wintterlin et al. (1997) Hence, accurate and robust atomistic modeling of adlayer structure for individual reactants is a crucial first step in building realistic atomistic model of related surface reactions, e.g., for CO oxidation on Pd(100).Liu and Evans (2003)

In this paper, we develop and analyze a lattice-gas (LG) model for CO adlayers on Pd(100). Our focus is on equilibrium aspects of this system, since molecularly adsorbed CO can diffuse quite rapidly on this surface under normal situations facilitating adlayer equilibration. However, some nonequilibrium issues are also addressed. The main techniques used to analyze behavior of the lattice-gas model are the transfer matrix method and Monte Carlo simulation. We aim to reproduce as many experimental observations as possible using a relatively simple model. We present results regarding surface ordering below 0.5 monolayers (ML) in Sec. III, the structure of dense CO adlayers in Sec. IV, the heat of adsorption in Sec. V, and the adsorption isobars in Sec. VI.

## II Lattice-gas model for CO/Pd(100) and its analysis

Various experimentsTracy and Palmberg (1969); Ortega et al. (1982); Szanyi et al. (1993) show that adsorbed CO resides only at bridge sites on Pd(100). Thus, our modeling of equilibrated adlayer configurations allows population of bridges sites only. We note, however, that it was suggestedEichler and Hafner (1998) that during adsorption, CO is first steered towards the less favorable top sites. Thus, in more general modeling of nonequilibrium configurations under reaction conditions, it is appropriate to allow population of other sites.Liu and Evans (2003) Below, $`a=2.75`$ Ådenotes the unit cell size of Pd(100) surface.

Our LG modeling also assumes only pairwise-interactions between CO adsorbates. Figure 1 illustrates the specific interactions used: we incorporate nearest-neighbor (NN) interactions $`\omega _1`$ for CO pairs separated by distance $`a/\sqrt{2}`$, second NN (2NN) interactions $`\omega _2`$ for separation $`a`$, third NN (3NN) interactions $`\omega _3`$ for separation $`\sqrt{2}a`$, and sometimes fourth NN (4NN) interactions $`\omega _4`$ for separation $`\sqrt{5/2}a`$. Also illustrated in the figure is the experimentally observed $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ ordered structure.

In applying our model to analyze the heat of adsorption and the adsorption isobars for CO/Pd(100), we need also information of the initial heat of adsorption at low coverage, which corresponds to the absorption energy of an isolated CO molecule at a bridge site. This quantity was measured at 1.55 eV in an early experiment by Tracy and Palmberg,Tracy and Palmberg (1969) and at 1.67 eV in more recent experiments.Behm et al. (1980); Szanyi et al. (1993) Using density functional theory (DFT) incorporating the generalized gradient approximation (GGA), Eichler and HafnerEichler and Hafner (1998) studied the potential energy surface for CO adsorption on Pd(100). They reported the adsorption energy for CO on a bridge site to 1.92 eV. This value is larger than the experimental estimate, but the trend that bridge sites are favored over top and hollow sites is consistent with experimental findings.

To analyze the above two-dimensional LG model, in this paper we use two standard yet powerful statistical mechanical techniques: the transfer matrix (TM) and the Monte Carlo (MC) methods. These two methods are often complementary. Using TM, one can always obtain the equilibrium free energy and other thermodynamic properties of the system. However, it is difficult to include long-range interactions using TM. For example, performing analysis on a system or strip of size $`M\times \mathrm{}`$, in order to include 3NN interaction $`\omega _3`$, it is necessary to consider all configurations of two columns spanning the strip. Thus, one must consider a total of $`2^{2M}`$ configurations, if one does not reduce this number by exclusion and symmetry properties. On the other hand, it is relatively straight-forward to include long-range interactions using the MC method. However, standard MC can become inefficient, especially when there are strong repulsive adspecies interactions, or for low temperatures.

## III $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ ordering below 0.5 ML

From the observation of $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ ordered structure, it has been deduced that lateral interactions between CO(ads) consist of strong NN and 2NN repulsions, and a weak 3NN repulsion. It has also been pointed out by Behm et al.Behm et al. (1980) that the 3NN repulsion $`\omega _3`$ should not be too strong, otherwise it would instead produce a $`(\sqrt{5/2}\times \sqrt{5/2})R18.4^{}`$ structure, which is not observed experimentally.

In order to quantify the effect of the 3NN interaction on the ordering of CO adsorbates, we conduct a study of the phase transitions of the lattice-gas model with very strong NN and 2NN repulsions (i.e., exclusion), and a finite 3NN repulsion ($`\omega _3>0`$). Different aspects of this model has been studied previously, but the complete picture is not available.

In the case of no 3NN interactions ($`\omega _3=0`$), it was found that there exists a very “weak” transition from a disordered phase to a semi-ordered phase upon increasing the CO coverage above about $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}=0.477`$.Ree and Chestnut (1967) At the maximum $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}=0.5`$, the semi-ordered phase consists of alternating half-filled diagonal rows of bridge sites which can slide with respect to each other without energy penalty. In the limit of very strong 3NN repulsion ($`\omega _3=\mathrm{}`$), it was foundBellemans and Nigam (1966) that there is a first-order liquid-solid-like transition with increasing CO coverage. The ordered phase has a $`(\sqrt{5/2}\times \sqrt{5/2})R18.4^{}`$ structure.

(Traditionally, results of the above studies are described with respect to the square lattice of bridge sites. This lattice is rotated by 45 from the square lattice of Pd(100) substrate atoms, and has twice the number of sites as Pd atoms. Thus, the coverage on this lattice satisfies $`\rho =0.5\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}`$. For $`\omega _3=0`$, the semi-ordered phase is commonly denoted as (2$`\times `$1) phase, although it has long-range order in one dimension only. It has a maximal coverage of $`\rho =0.25`$. For $`\omega _3=\mathrm{}`$, the ordered phase is described as $`(\sqrt{5}\times \sqrt{5})R26.6^{}`$ with respect to the square lattice of bridge sites.)

Our TM and MC study shows that as $`\omega _3`$ increases from zero, the “weak” transition to the semi-ordered phase becomes stronger, and for larger 3NN repulsion, the transition converts to a first-order transition to the $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ ordered structure. This implies the existence of a tricritical point. From MC simulations, we estimate that this tricritical point is located at $`(\beta \mu ^t,\beta \omega _3^t)=(5.2,0.3)`$, where $`\beta =1/(k_BT)`$ and $`\mu `$ denotes the chemical potential for the adsorbed CO (which is described in more detail in the following sections). The corresponding coverage is $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}=0.46`$ (or $`\rho =0.23`$).

As $`\beta \omega _3`$ further increases above approximately 1.9, there is another first-order transition, but this time, the transition is from the disordered phase to a $`(\sqrt{5/2}\times \sqrt{5/2})R18.4^{}`$ phase. Figure 2 shows our preliminary results directed towards mapping out the $`\mu `$-$`\beta `$ phase diagram of the model with NN and 2NN exclusion, and 3NN repulsion. It shows two first-order liquid-solid-like transitions (dashed lines) from disordered phase to either a $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ ordered phase, or a $`(\sqrt{5/2}\times \sqrt{5/2})R18.4^{}`$ ordered phase. Also there is a solid-solid-like transition from the $`(\sqrt{5/2}\times \sqrt{5/2})R18.4^{}`$ phase to the $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ phase. There is a tricritical point connecting the continuous and first-order transitions to the $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ phase. However, how the termination of the $`(\sqrt{5/2}\times \sqrt{5/2})R18.4^{}`$ transition line is not clearly determined from the existing analysis. It is likely that the transition line bends towards and merges with the $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ transition line sharply at around $`\beta \omega _3=1.9`$.

Under the framework of the lattice gas model with only repulsive interactions between neighboring pairs up to 3NN, one can conclude that $`\omega _3<0.5`$ eV so that at room temperature, no $`(\sqrt{5/2}\times \sqrt{5/2})R18.4^{}`$ phase shall be observed. A caveat is that introducing further neighboring interactions can change the phase diagram significantly and the above constraint on the magnitude of $`\omega _3`$ is no longer valid if longer-ranged interactions should be considered.

Based on the above analysis (and also our investigations in subsequent sections), we assign a value of $`\omega _3=0.03`$ eV for the strength of the 3NN repulsive interactions. In the following analyses which include consideration of behavior for CO coverage above 0.5 ML, it is necessary to relax the constraint of 2NN exclusions. The value of $`\omega _2`$ of around 0.17 eV is determined from our analysis of the heat of adsorption in Sec. V, and adsorption isobars in Sec. VI. However, before presenting these analyses, in Sec. IV, we provide a more complete picture of adlayer ordering by describing behavior at coverage above 0.5 ML (using the parameter choice $`\omega _1=\mathrm{}`$, $`\omega _2=0.17`$ eV, and $`\omega _3=0.03`$ eV.)

## IV Structure of dense CO adlayers

Because of the difficulties of experimental techniques (e.g., work function and infrared analysis) in dealing with high CO coverage ($`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}>0.5`$), structures of dense CO adlayers on Pd(100) are a matter of some debate.Uvdal et al. (1988); Berndt and Bradshaw (1992); Schuster et al. (1996) As $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}`$ increases above 0.5 ML, it is concluded from diffraction studies that the adlayers structure undergoes a commensurate-incommensurate transition (CIT). The study by Schuster et al.Schuster et al. (1996) suggests it is in the Pokrovsky-Talapov universality class, consistent with expectation from symmetry arguments.

Lattice-gas models are not ideal for study of CIT’s, since they put too many constraints on the structure of domain walls. Nonetheless, we perform a Monte Carlo study to investigate CO adlayer structure above 1/2 ML. We simulate the system at a fixed pressure while lowering the temperature. We use Glauber dynamics (corresponding to adsorption/desorption in the LG model) with the Metropolis algorithm. Occasionally, we also mix in Kawasaki dynamics (corresponding to diffusion in the LG model) with the Glauber dynamics. Here, our focus is in the equilibrium structure of CO adlayer, thus we do not need to mimic the physical kinetics accurately. The primary challenge is that due to CO adspecies repulsions, adlayers can become nearly “frozen” using normal dynamics at high CO coverage and low substrate temperature. In fact, the LG model with NN and 2NN exclusion has been used to study the glass transition.Rao and Bhattacharjee (1992)

Although our simulations are not faithful to the physical adlayer dynamics, they provide at least some qualitative insights into adlayer structure. For a fixed system size with periodic boundary conditions, if we lower the temperature very slowly, eventually a single domain occupies the whole system. Upon further lowering the temperature, defects are formed. However, we are unable to observe any well-defined domain wall structure as suggested by Berndt and Bradshaw.Berndt and Bradshaw (1992) On the other hand, if we lower the temperature more quickly, then different domains still occupy the system near the transition point. Further decreasing the temperature is accompanied by the enlargement of those original domains, and emergence of defects inside different domains. We show in Fig. 3 a snapshot of such a configuration generated by Monte Carlo simulations.

## V heat of adsorption

Assuming equilibrium between CO in the gas phase and the chemisorbed phase, the Clausius-Clapeyron equation relates the gas phase pressure, $`P`$, to an isosteric heat of adsorption, $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$, via

$$[d\mathrm{ln}P/d(1/T)]_\theta =E_{\mathrm{st}}/k_B.$$
(1)
Various experimental techniquesTracy and Palmberg (1969); Behm et al. (1980); Szanyi and Goodman (1994); Yeo et al. (1997) give similar results for the value of $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ as $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}0`$, while conflicting results have been obtained for the coverage dependence of $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$. Most studiesTracy and Palmberg (1969); Szanyi and Goodman (1994); Yeo et al. (1997) show a decrease in $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ with increasing $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}`$, while the study by Behm et al.Behm et al. (1980) shows a roughly constant $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ for $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}<0.5`$. Presence of carbon is suggestedBehm et al. (1980) as the reason for this discrepancy, a claim disputed by others.Yeo et al. (1997)

The presence of lateral interactions between CO adspecies is often invokedTracy and Palmberg (1969); Yeo et al. (1997) to explain the coverage dependence of $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$. Yet to our knowledge, no systematic study of the isosteric heat of adsorption in an interacting lattice-gas model for this system has been performed previously. There are some general studies of effects of lateral interactions on the heat of adsorption using mean-field approximations (see, e.g., Ref. Al-Muhtaseb and Ritter, 1999 and references therein) which are not reliable for models with relatively short-range interactions.

In lattice-gas modeling, it is appropriate to use the grand canonical ensemble. We assume simply that the gas phase pressure $`P`$ is related to the chemical potential through $`\mu =k_BT\mathrm{ln}(P/P_0)`$. More accurate forms of the relationship between the pressure and the chemical potential will introduce corrections to the heat of adsorption on the order of $`k_BT`$, which is negligible for present purposes. Unlike the isobar experiments (treated later in Sec. VI), for our analysis here, we do not need information regarding prefactors for desorption, or the sticking coefficient for adsorption.

Using the transfer matrix method, we examine the coverage dependence of $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ for the lattice-gas model with various choices of interactions. Any coverage dependence would reflect the influence of adspecies interactions which can cause $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ to deviate from its limiting value of $`ϵ_b`$ for low coverage. Some of the results are shown in Fig. 4.

For the lattice gas model with only 2NN repulsive interaction only, the heat of adsorption is effectively a step function, with the form

$$E_{\mathrm{st}}\{\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_b\hfill & \text{if }\theta <0.5\hfill \\ ϵ_b4\omega _2\hfill & \text{if }0.5<\theta <1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
The result can be explained as follows: for $`\theta <0.5`$, adsorbed CO molecules can rearrange themselves to avoid any 2NN pairs. Around $`\theta =0.5`$, they form a near-perfect $`c(2\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2})R45^{}`$ adlayer. To adsorb more CO molecules beyond this near-perfect overlayer, it is necessary to create four 2nd NN pairs. See Fig. 5 for an illustration.

With longer-ranged repulsive interactions, $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ decreases as $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}`$ increases even for $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}<0.5`$. However, the coverage dependence is quite nonlinear. For example, with 3NN interactions only (the dotted line), $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ only decreases slightly for $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}<0.25`$. This is again due to the fact that below this coverage, CO(ads) can easily arrange themselves in a way to avoid any 3NN pairs.

With the present set of parameters for lateral interactions, the lattice-gas model produces a coverage dependence of the heat of adsorption somewhat between the experimental results of Behm et al. and other groups. Most of the decrease in the heat of adsorption occurs when $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}>0.5`$, while only a slight decrease occurs when $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}<0.5`$.

The near parabolic decrease in $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$ starting from $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}=0`$, as well as the transient increase after the ordering transition, shown by Fig. 4 are quite reminiscent to the experimental results of Guo and YatesGuo and Yates (1989) for CO adsorption on Pd(111). However, they reported a plateau at an ordering transition, while we see first a sharp drop and then a plateau at the ordering transition point.

## VI Adsorption Isobars

For a CO adlayer in equilibrium with gas phase CO, it is clear that as the surface temperature increases (at fixed pressure), the CO coverage will decrease. For higher (fixed) pressures, this decrease will be delayed until a higher temperature range. To quantify this behavior using our LG model, one needs a more quantitative determination of the relationship between pressure and chemical potential than that presented in the previous section. To this end additional assumptions are needed. We assume that the impingement rate is given by $`P/\sqrt{2\pi mk_BT}`$ and the attempt frequency for desorption is $`\nu _0`$, then we assume that

$$\mu =E_{\mathrm{st}}+k_BT\mathrm{ln}\frac{P}{\nu _0\sqrt{2\pi mk_BT}}.$$
(3)
The initial sticking coefficient when $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}=0`$ is taken to be unity. Thus by assuming equilibrium of CO between gas phase and the chemisorption phase, one can calculate the adsorption isobar of the lattice gas model using either the transfer matrix or the Monte Carlo method.

The results are shown in Fig. 6. For low pressures, as $`T`$ decreases, $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}`$ first increases, then reach a plateau at $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}=0.5`$. For $`p_{\mathrm{CO}}=10^7`$ Torr, the plateau occurs near $`T=420`$ K. This result is in very good agreement with experiments.Behm et al. (1980); Szanyi and Goodman (1994) Upon a further decrease in temperature, $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}`$ again increases above 0.5 ML. Experimentally, this corresponds to the adlayer moving into the regime of the commensurate-incommensurate transition discussed in Sec. IV. Here, we simply note that the temperature where this occurs depends sensitively on the value of the 2NN interactions $`\omega _2`$. By choosing $`\omega _2=0.17`$ eV, the transition occurs between 340 K to 400 K for $`p_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ between $`10^9`$ to $`10^7`$ Torr, in agreement with experiments.Szanyi and Goodman (1994); Schuster et al. (1996) It is also significant that at high pressures, the LG model predicts disappearance of the plateau near $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}=0.5`$, which is also observed experimentally.Szanyi and Goodman (1994)

Note that we “naively” choose $`\nu _0=10^{13}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the desorption prefactor, while Behm et al. obtain a value on the order of $`10^{16}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from their adsorption isobars. Consequently there is some discrepancy between the lattice-gas model prediction and experiments at low coverage. Specifically for $`\theta _{\mathrm{CO}}<0.5`$ ML, significant desorption occurs at a higher temperature than experiments. Adopting adsorption energy $`ϵ_b`$ from DFT calculations and assuming the same prefactor makes the discrepancy even larger. Also the discrepancy will not likely be resolved by modification of interactions, since at low coverage lateral interactions are quite insignificant.

## VII Summary

We have performed a combined transfer matrix and Monte Carlo study of a lattice-gas model for CO adlayers on Pd(100). Model predictions are compared against a variety of experimental observations. Of particular significance is our determination of repulsive adspecies interactions: $`\omega _1=\mathrm{}`$, $`\omega _2=0.17`$ eV, and $`\omega _3=0.03`$ eV. Our estimate of the 2NN interaction of 0.17 eV agrees well with Wu and Metiu.Wu and Metiu (2000) Our assignment of a weak 3NN interaction is consistent with early qualitative arguments by Behm et al.Behm et al. (1980) Our use of a binding energy of $`ϵ_b=1.6`$ eV in analysis of the heat of adsorption and the adsorption isobars is consistent with experimental estimates, but this value is somewhat smaller than that from DFT which is close to 2 eV.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thank Profs. T. L. Einstein and P. A. Thiel for helpful discussions, and Prof. J. W. Evans for extensive discussion and suggestions. This work is supported by the Division of Chemical Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). It was performed at Ames Laboratory which is operated for the USDOE by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-82.


text:
# Deformation of integral coisotropic submanifolds in symplectic manifolds

00footnotetext: Partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-0104150. (Revised October 2004)

## Abstract

In this paper we prove the unobstructedness of the deformation of integral coisotropic submanifolds in symplectic manifolds, which can be viewed as a natural generalization of Weinstein’s results () for Lagrangian submanifolds.

Let $`(X,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold. A submanifold $`Y(X,\omega )`$ is coisotropic if $`\mathrm{rank}(\omega |_Y)=2dim(Y)dimX`$. Real hypersurfaces and Lagrangian submanifolds in $`(X,\omega )`$ are examples of coisotropic submanifolds. The closedness of $`\omega `$ implies that $`\mathrm{ker}(\omega |_Y)`$ defines an integrable distribution on the coisotropic submanifold $`Y`$. The corresponding foliation $``$ is called null foliation. We call $`Y`$ an integral coisotropic submanifold if the leaves of the null foliation $``$ are all closed and form a fibration $`\pi :YS`$. Denote $`F_s=\pi ^1(s)`$ for $`sS`$. Examples of integral coisotropic submanifolds are given later in this paper.

For a Lagrangian submanifold $`L(X,\omega )`$, according to the work of Weinstein (), there exists an open neighborhood $`U(X,\omega )`$ of $`L`$ and a symplectic open embedding $`(U,\omega )(T^{}L,\omega _{T^{}L})`$, such that $`LU`$ is mapped to the zero section of $`T^{}L`$, where $`\omega _{T^{}L}`$ is the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}L`$. The moduli space of Lagrangian submanifolds in $`(X,\omega )`$ near $`L`$ modulo Hamiltonian deformation can be canonically identified with $`H^1(L,)`$.

$`(Y,\omega _Y)`$ is called a pre-symplectic manifold if $`\omega _Y`$ is a closed 2-form on $`Y`$ with constant rank. Gotay’s coisotropic neighborhood theorem  implies that there exists a symplectic neighborhood $`(U,\omega )`$ containing $`Y`$ such that $`\omega |_Y=\omega _Y`$. Moreover, for another such symplectic neighborhood $`(U^{},\omega ^{})`$ containing $`Y`$, by shrinking $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ suitably, there exists a symplectomorphism $`(U,\omega )(U^{},\omega ^{})`$ that fixes $`Y`$. A coisotropic submanifold $`Y(X,\omega )`$ naturally gives rise to a pre-symplectic structure $`(Y,\omega |_Y)`$. The symplectic neighborhood of the coisotropic submanifold $`Y`$ is completely determined by the pre-symplectic structure $`(Y,\omega |_Y)`$.

The rather classical concept of coisotropic submanifold attracted quite some recent interests due to the work of Kapustin and Orlov  relating coisotropic submanifolds in Calabi-Yau manifolds to mirror symmetry. Unlike the deformation of Lagrangian submanifold modulo Hamiltonian equivalence, which is unobstructed, canonically affine and of finite dimension, the deformation of general coisotropic submanifold modulo Hamiltonian equivalence turns out to be much more non-trivial and complicated. According to the work of Oh and Park , the formal deformation of general coisotropic submanifold modulo Hamiltonian equivalence can be reduced to a strongly homotopy Lie algebroid, and is usually obstructed and of infinite dimension.

In this work, we will discuss the deformation theory of integral coisotropic submanifolds. We will show that the deformation of integral coisotropic submanifold modulo Hamiltonian equivalence is unobstructed, canonically affine and of finite dimension. In some sense, integral coisotropic submanifolds are more natural analogues of Lagrangian submanifolds in terms of deformation theory. We should point out that being integral coisotropic is not invariant under small deformations of coisotropic submanifolds.

In the appendix, we will give an alternative simple proof of the unobstructedness of the deformation of integral coisotropic submanifolds in symplectic manifolds using the smooth family version of coisotropic neighborhood theorems from . From this point of view, the unobstructedness of the deformation of integral coisotropic submanifolds can also be viewed as a consequence of the general philosophy (discussed in ) that the deformation of coisotropic submanifolds is determined by the deformation of the corresponding pre-symplectic manifolds, and the unobstructedness of the deformation of symplectic manifolds.

The following lemma should be well known in symplectic geometry.

###### Lemma 1

For an integral coisotropic submanifold $`Y(X,\omega )`$, there exists a symplectic form $`\omega _S`$ on $`S`$ such that $`\omega |_Y=\pi ^{}\omega _S`$.

Proof: Let $`W`$ be a vector field on $`Y`$ along $``$. Then $`ı(W)\omega |_Y=0`$ and $`_W\omega |_Y=dı(W)\omega |_Y+ı(W)d\omega |_Y=0`$. These give us the desired result.

Let $`_Y`$ denote the space of 1-forms $`\beta `$ on the integral coisotropic submanifold $`Y`$ such that $`d\beta =\pi ^{}\gamma `$ for certain closed 2-form $`\gamma `$ on $`S`$. Consider a smooth family $`\{Y_t\}`$ of integral coisotropic submanifolds in $`(X,\omega )`$ with $`Y_0=Y`$. We choose the deformation vector fields $`\{V_t\}`$ for the family so that the null foliation $`_t`$ is preserved under the flow $`\{\varphi _t\}`$ of $`\{V_t\}`$. (In general, such choice is possible if and only if the null foliation structure is unchanged in the family. This is obvious in our integral case, where the null foliation is a fibration.) Let $`\beta _t=ı(V_t)\omega `$, and let $`𝐇`$ denote the local system on $`S`$ with the fibre $`𝐇_s=H^1(F_s,)`$ for $`sS`$. We have

###### Lemma 2

$`\beta =\beta _0`$ is in $`_Y`$. Consequently, $`[\beta ]=\{\beta |_{F_s}\}_{sS}`$ represents a locally constant section of $`𝐇`$ over $`S`$. Conversely, any element of $`H^0(S,𝐇)`$ can be represented in such way by some $`\beta _Y`$ so that $`[\beta ][\gamma ]`$ defines the natural map $`H^0(S,𝐇)H^2(S,)`$. $`[\beta ]=0`$ in $`H^0(S,𝐇)`$ if and only if $`\beta `$ determines an infinitesimal Hamiltonian deformation.

Proof: Let $`W`$ be a vector field on $`Y`$ along $``$. Since the null foliation is preserved by the flow, we have $`ı(W)\varphi _t^{}\omega |_Y=0`$, $`ı(W)d\beta =ı(W)_V\omega |_Y=0`$. Consequently, $`d\beta `$ descends to a closed 2-form $`\gamma `$ on $`S`$.

Locally on $`S`$, we may write $`\gamma =d\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. Then $`\beta \pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is closed and $`\beta |_{F_s}=(\beta \pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta })|_{F_s}`$ represents a locally constant class in $`H^1(F_s,)`$ for $`sS`$.

For the converse, pick a covering $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ for $`S`$ by open sets whose intersections are contractible, with a compatible partition of unity $`\{\rho _\alpha \}`$. For $`bH^0(S,𝐇)`$, it is easy to find closed 1-form $`\beta _\alpha ^{}`$ on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ such that $`\beta _\alpha ^{}|_{F_s}`$ represents $`b_sH^1(F_s,)`$ for $`sU_\alpha `$. $`\beta ^{}=_\alpha \beta _\alpha ^{}\pi ^{}\rho _\alpha `$ defines a global 1-form on $`Y`$ such that $`\beta ^{}|_{F_s}`$ represents $`b_sH^1(F_s,)`$ for $`sS`$. Consequently, there exists smooth function $`f_\alpha `$ on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ such that $`(\beta ^{}\beta _\alpha ^{})|_{F_s}=df_\alpha |_{F_s}`$ for $`sU_\alpha `$. Let $`\beta _\alpha =\beta _\alpha ^{}+df_\alpha `$, then $`\beta _\alpha `$ is a closed 1-form on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ such that $`\beta _\alpha |_{F_s}=\beta ^{}|_{F_s}`$ represents $`b_sH^1(F_s,)`$ for $`sU_\alpha `$. Hence, $`\beta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=\beta _\alpha \beta _\alpha ^{}`$ defined over $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha U_\alpha ^{})`$ is closed and vanishes when restricted to $`F_s`$ for $`sU_\alpha U_\alpha ^{}`$. Consequently, there exists a closed 1-form $`\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ on $`U_\alpha U_\alpha ^{}`$ such that $`\beta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=\pi ^{}\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$. Since the sheaf of 1-forms on $`S`$ is soft, there exists 1-form $`\widehat{\beta }_\alpha `$ on each $`U_\alpha `$ such that $`\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=\widehat{\beta }_\alpha \widehat{\beta }_\alpha ^{}`$. By our construction, it is easy to see that $`\beta _\alpha \pi ^{}\widehat{\beta }_\alpha `$ on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ (resp. $`d\widehat{\beta }_\alpha `$ on $`U_\alpha `$) patch up to a global 1-form $`\beta `$ on $`Y`$ (resp. global closed 2-form $`\gamma `$ on $`S`$) so that $`d\beta =\pi ^{}\gamma `$.

$`[\beta ]=0`$ in $`H^0(S,𝐇)`$ if and only if $`\beta |_{F_s}`$ is exact for all $`sS`$. Hence, there exists a smooth function $`f`$ on $`Y`$ such that $`\beta |_{F_s}=df|_{F_s}`$ for all $`sS`$. Let $`W`$ be a vector field on $`Y`$ along $``$. Then $`ı(W)(\beta df)=0`$ and $`_W(\beta df)=dı(W)(\beta df)+ı(W)d(\beta df)=ı(W)\pi ^{}\gamma =0`$. Consequently, there exists a 1-form $`\stackrel{˘}{\beta }`$ on $`S`$ such that $`\beta df=\pi ^{}\stackrel{˘}{\beta }`$, $`\beta =df+\pi ^{}\stackrel{˘}{\beta }`$. Since the vector field determined by $`\pi ^{}\stackrel{˘}{\beta }`$ is tangent to $`Y`$, $`\beta `$ determines an infinitesimal Hamiltonian deformation.

Lemma 2 implies that the infinitesimal deformations of an integral coisotropic submanifold $`Y`$ modulo infinitesimal Hamiltonian equivalence lie in $`H^0(S,𝐇)`$. In the following proposition, we will verify that each $`[\beta ]H^0(S,𝐇)`$ can indeed be realized as the infinitesimal deformation of a family $`\{Y_t\}`$ of integral coisotropic submanifolds with $`Y_0=Y`$. Namely, the deformation of integral coisotropic submanifolds is unobstructed.

###### Proposition 1

For any $`[\beta ]H^0(S,𝐇)`$, there exists a family $`\{Y_t\}`$ of integral coisotropic submanifolds for small $`t`$ with $`Y_0=Y`$, whose infinitesimal deformation at all $`t`$ is represented by $`[\beta ]`$.

Proof: For any $`U_\alpha `$ in the open covering $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`S`$, assume the deformation family $`\{Y_t\}`$ of integral coisotropic submanifolds with $`Y_0=\pi ^1(U)Y`$ is constructed for some open subset $`UU_\alpha `$ such that the infinitesimal deformation at any $`t`$ is represented by $`[\beta ]|_UH^0(U,𝐇)`$. In the following, we will extend the deformation family to $`\{Y_t\}`$ with $`Y_0=\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$.

According to lemma 2, we may assume $`d\beta =\pi ^{}\gamma `$ for some closed 2-form $`\gamma `$ on $`S`$. Since $`U_\alpha `$ is contractible, there exists 1-form $`\beta _\alpha ^{}`$ on $`U_\alpha `$ so that $`\gamma |_{U_\alpha }=d\beta _\alpha ^{}`$. Then the closed 1-form $`\beta _\alpha =\beta |_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}\pi ^{}\beta _\alpha ^{}`$ on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ satisfies $`\beta _\alpha |_{F_s}=\beta |_{F_s}`$ for $`sU_\alpha `$.

Choose the deformation vector fields $`\{V_t\}`$ for the family $`\{Y_t\}`$ so that the null foliation $`_t`$ is preserved under the flow $`\{\varphi _t\}`$ of $`\{V_t\}`$. The flow gives the smooth family of identifications $`\varphi _t:Y_0=\pi ^1(U)Y_t`$ for $`t`$ small that also identify the fibres of null foliation. Let $`\beta _t=\varphi _t^{}ı(V_t)\omega `$. By our assumption, $`[\beta _t]=[\beta ]|_U=[\beta _\alpha ]|_UH^0(U,𝐇)`$. It is straightforward to see that this condition implies that there exists a smooth family of functions $`\{f_t\}`$ on $`Y_t\pi ^1(U)`$ and 1-forms $`\beta _t^{}`$ on $`U`$ such that $`\beta _t=\beta _\alpha |_{\pi ^1(U)}+df_t+\pi ^{}\beta _t^{}`$ and $`f_0=0`$. Replacing $`\beta _t`$ by $`\beta _\alpha |_{\pi ^1(U)}+df_t`$, we can make $`\beta _t`$ closed and $`\beta _0=\beta _\alpha |_{\pi ^1(U)}`$. $`\{V_t\}`$ still generates the same $`\{Y_t\}`$ because the vector field corresponding to $`\pi ^{}\beta _t^{}`$ is tangent to $`Y_t`$.

Let $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$ be a small neighborhood of $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ in $`X`$. Since $`\{Y_t\}`$ is very close to $`Y_0=\pi ^1(U)`$ for $`t`$ small, we may construct projections $`\widehat{\pi }_t:\widehat{U}_\alpha \pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ so that $`\widehat{\pi }_t|_{Y_t}=\varphi _t^1:Y_tY_0=\pi ^1(U)`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }_0|_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}=\mathrm{id}_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}`$. (Some of the open sets may need to be shrunk slightly, which does not affect our proof.)

Extending $`\{f_t\}`$ from $`\pi ^1(U)`$ to a smooth family of functions on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ still satisfies $`f_0=0`$. Then $`\widehat{\beta }_t=\widehat{\pi }_t^{}(\beta _\alpha +df_t)`$ is a smooth family of closed 1-forms on $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$ satisfying $`\widehat{\beta }_t|_{Y_t}=ı(V_t)\omega `$ and $`\widehat{\beta }_0|_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}=\beta _\alpha `$ for small $`t`$. Then $`\widehat{V}_t`$ satisfying $`ı(\widehat{V}_t)\omega =\widehat{\beta }_t`$ gives rise to a flow of symplectomorphisms on $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$. This flow generates the deformation family $`\{Y_t\}`$ with $`Y_0=\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ that extends the previous deformation family $`\{Y_t\}`$ with $`Y_0=\pi ^1(U)`$. From the expression of $`\widehat{\beta }_t`$, the infinitesimal deformation at any $`t`$ is clearly represented by $`[\beta ]|_{U_\alpha }H^0(U_\alpha ,𝐇)`$.

With the above argument, we may start the induction with $`U=\mathrm{}`$. After the deformation family $`\{Y_t\}`$ is constructed over $`\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{U}_A)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{U}_A={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}A}{}}U_\alpha ^{}`$, take $`U=\stackrel{~}{U}_AU_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha A`$. By induction, we can construct the family $`\{Y_t\}`$ globally.

Let $`_Y`$ denote the local moduli space of integral coisotropic submanifolds (that are small deformations of $`Y`$) modulo Hamiltonian equivalence. To prove the smoothness of $`_Y`$ near $`Y`$, we need the following Proposition 2.

Consider two 1-parameter families $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ of integral coisotropic submanifolds with $`Y_{r,0}=Y`$ for $`r=0,1`$. Assume the deformation vector fields $`\{V_{r,t}\}`$ determine the flows $`\varphi _{r,t}:YY_{r,t}`$ that preserve the null foliations. Then the corresponding 1-forms $`\beta _{r,t}=\varphi _{r,t}^{}ı(V_{r,t})\omega `$ on $`Y`$ is in $`_Y`$. Assume that there is a smooth family of 1-forms $`\{\beta _{r,t}\}_Y`$ for $`r[0,1]`$ and $`t`$ small that extends $`\{\beta _{r,t}\}`$ for $`r=0,1`$. We have

###### Proposition 2

There exists a smooth family of integral coisotropic submanifolds $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ for $`r[0,1]`$ and $`t`$ small satisfying $`Y_{r,0}=Y`$ that extend $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ for $`r=0,1`$, such that the infinitesimal deformation along $`t`$ direction at $`Y_{r,t}`$ is represented by $`[\beta _{r,t}]H^0(S,𝐇)`$.

Proof: The proof of this proposition uses essentially the same idea as that of Proposition 1. For any $`U_\alpha `$ in the open covering $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`S`$, assume the deformation family $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ of integral coisotropic submanifolds with $`Y_{r,0}=\pi ^1(U)Y`$ (resp. $`Y_{r,0}=Y`$) for $`r(0,1)`$ (resp. $`r=0,1`$) extending $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ for $`r=0,1`$ is constructed for some open subset $`UU_\alpha `$ such that the infinitesimal deformation at $`Y_{r,t}`$ for $`r(0,1)`$ is represented by $`[\beta _{r,t}]|_UH^0(U,𝐇)`$. More precisely, there exist deformation vector fields $`\{V_{U,r,t}\}`$ and the flow $`\{\varphi _{U,r,t}\}`$ with $`\beta _{U,r,t}=\varphi _{U,r,t}^{}ı(V_{U,r,t})\omega _{\pi ^1(U)}`$ such that $`\beta _{U,r,t}=\beta _{r,t}|_{\pi ^1(U)}`$ for $`r=0,1`$ and $`[\beta _{U,r,t}]=[\beta _{r,t}]|_UH^0(U,𝐇)`$ for $`r(0,1)`$. It is straightforward to see that these conditions imply that there exists a smooth family of functions $`\{f_{U,r,t}\}`$ on $`Y_t\pi ^1(U)`$ and 1-forms $`\beta _{U,r,t}^{}`$ on $`U`$ such that $`\beta _{U,r,t}=\beta _{r,t}|_{\pi ^1(U)}+df_{U,r,t}+\pi ^{}\beta _{U,r,t}^{}`$ and $`f_{U,r,0}=f_{U,0,t}=f_{U,1,t}=0`$. In the following, we will extend the deformation family to $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ with $`Y_{r,0}=\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ for $`r(0,1)`$.

$`\beta _{r,t}_Y`$ implies that $`d\beta _{r,t}=\pi ^{}\gamma _{r,t}`$ for some closed 2-form $`\gamma _{r,t}`$ on $`S`$. Since $`U_\alpha `$ is contractible, there exists 1-form $`\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}^{}`$ on $`U_\alpha `$ so that $`\gamma _{r,t}|_{U_\alpha }=d\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}^{}`$. Then the closed 1-form $`\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}=\beta _{r,t}|_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}\pi ^{}\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}^{}`$ on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ satisfies $`\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}|_{F_s}=\beta _{r,t}|_{F_s}`$ for $`sU_\alpha `$. Replacing $`\beta _{U,r,t}`$ by $`\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}|_{\pi ^1(U)}+df_{U,r,t}=\beta _{U,r,t}\pi ^{}(\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}^{}|_U+\beta _{U,r,t}^{})`$, we can make $`\beta _{U,r,t}`$ closed and $`\beta _{U,r,0}=\beta _{\alpha ,r,0}|_{\pi ^1(U)}`$. $`\{V_{U,r,t}\}`$ still generates the same $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ because the vector field corresponding to $`\pi ^{}(\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}^{}|_U+\beta _{U,r,t}^{})`$ is tangent to $`Y_{r,t}`$.

Let $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$ be a small neighborhood of $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ in $`X`$. Since $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ is very close to $`Y_{r,0}=\pi ^1(U)`$ for $`t`$ small, we may construct projections $`\widehat{\pi }_{r,t}:\widehat{U}_\alpha \pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ so that $`\widehat{\pi }_{r,t}|_{Y_{r,t}}=\varphi _{U,r,t}^1:Y_{r,t}Y_{r,0}=\pi ^1(U)`$ (resp. $`\widehat{\pi }_{r,t}|_{Y_{r,t}\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}=\varphi _{r,t}^1|_{Y_{r,t}\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}:Y_{r,t}\pi ^1(U_\alpha )Y_{r,0}\pi ^1(U_\alpha )=\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$) for $`r(0,1)`$ (resp. $`r=0,1`$) and $`\widehat{\pi }_{r,0}|_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}=\mathrm{id}_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}`$ for $`r[0,1]`$. (Some of the open sets may need to be shrunk slightly, which does not affect our proof.)

Extending $`\{f_{U,r,t}\}`$ from $`\pi ^1(U)`$ to a smooth family of functions $`\{f_{\alpha ,r,t}\}`$ on $`\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ still satisfy $`f_{\alpha ,r,0}=f_{\alpha ,0,t}=f_{\alpha ,1,t}=0`$. Then $`\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha ,r,t}=\widehat{\pi }_{r,t}^{}(\beta _{\alpha ,r,t}+df_{\alpha ,r,t})`$ is a smooth family of closed 1-form on $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$ satisfying $`\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha ,r,0}|_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}=\beta _{\alpha ,r,0}`$ and $`\varphi _{U,r,t}^{}(\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha ,r,t}|_{Y_{r,t}})=\beta _{U,r,t}`$ (resp. $`\varphi _{r,t}^{}(\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha ,r,t}|_{Y_{r,t}\pi ^1(U_\alpha )})=\beta _{r,t}|_{\pi ^1(U_\alpha )}`$) for $`r(0,1)`$ (resp. $`r=0,1`$) and small $`t`$. Then $`\widehat{V}_{\alpha ,r,t}`$ satisfying $`ı(\widehat{V}_{\alpha ,r,t})\omega =\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha ,r,t}`$ give rise to flows of symplectomorphisms on $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$. These flows generate the deformation family $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ with $`Y_{r,0}=\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$ that extends the previous deformation family $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ with $`Y_{r,0}=\pi ^1(U)`$. From the expression of $`\widehat{\beta }_{\alpha ,r,t}`$, clearly, the infinitesimal deformation along $`t`$ direction at $`Y_{r,t}`$ is represented by $`[\beta _{r,t}]|_{U_\alpha }H^0(U_\alpha ,𝐇)`$.

With the above argument, we may start the induction with $`U=\mathrm{}`$. After the deformation family $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ is constructed over $`\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{U}_A)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{U}_A={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}A}{}}U_\alpha ^{}`$, take $`U=\stackrel{~}{U}_AU_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha A`$. By induction, we can construct the family $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ globally.

A submanifold $`F(X,\omega )`$ is isotropic if $`\omega |_F=0`$. Let $`_F`$ denote the local moduli space of isotropic submanifolds near $`F`$ modulo Hamiltonian equivalence. The following proposition should be well known.

###### Proposition 3

For an isotropic submanifold $`F(X,\omega )`$, there exists a canonical local open embedding $`i_F:_FH^1(F,)`$.

Proof: Let $`\{F_t\}`$ be a deformation family of isotropy submanifolds with $`F_0=F`$ and $`\{V_t\}`$ be a smooth family of vector fields that generate the family, where $`V_t`$ is only defined on $`F_t`$. Then $`\omega |_{F_t}=0`$, $`dı(V_t)\omega |_{F_t}=_{V_t}\omega |_{F_t}=0`$.

Let $`U`$ be a small tubular neighborhood of $`F`$. Then it is straightforward to see that for $`t`$ small, each $`V_t`$ can be extended to a vector field $`V_t^{}`$ on $`U`$ so that $`ı(V_t^{})\omega `$ is closed and $`\{V_t^{}\}`$ forms a smooth family. Consequently, the family of isotropic submanifolds $`\{F_t\}`$ is generated by the symplectic flow on $`U`$ generated by $`\{V_t^{}\}`$. Since $`H^1(U,)H^1(F,)`$, a closed 1-form on $`U`$ that restrict to zero on $`F`$ is an exact 1-form. Hence a symplectic flow on $`U`$ fixing $`F`$ will be a Hamiltonian flow. Consequently, $`_F`$ can be identified with the local moduli space of symplectic automorphisms of $`U`$ near the identity map modulo Hamiltonian automorphisms of $`U`$, which can be identified with the local moduli space of Lagrangian submanifolds of $`(U,\omega |_U)\times (U,\omega |_U)`$ near diagonal modulo Hamiltonian equivalence, which can be canonically identified with $`H^1(U,)H^1(F,)`$ locally according to .

###### Theorem 1

There exists a canonical local open embedding $`i_Y:_YH^0(S,𝐇)`$, under which the smooth orbit of symplectomorphisms can be locally identified with the kernel of $`H^0(S,𝐇)H^2(S,)`$.

Proof: Notice that any two isotropic fibres in an integral coisotropic submanifold $`Y`$ are Hamiltonian equivalent in $`X`$. Take $`F`$ to be an isotropic fibre of $`Y`$. There is the natural map $`\mu :_Y_F`$. For any $`[Y^{}]_Y`$, $`\mu ([Y^{}])=[F^{}]`$, where $`F^{}`$ is an isotropic fibre in $`Y^{}`$. Proposition 1 implies that locally $`i_F\mu `$ maps $`_Y`$ surjectively onto $`H^0(S,𝐇)H^2(S,)`$. To prove the first part of the theorem, we only need to show that $`i_F\mu `$ is injective. More precisely, for two 1-parameter families $`\{Y_{r,t}\}_{r=0,1}`$ of integral coisotropic submanifolds with $`Y_{0,0}=Y_{1,0}=Y`$, if $`i_F\mu (Y_{0,t_0})=i_F\mu (Y_{1,t_0})`$, then $`Y_{0,t_0}`$ is Hamiltonian equivalent to $`Y_{1,t_0}`$. Assume the deformation 1-forms for the 2 families are $`\{\beta _{r,t}\}_{r=0,1}`$.

Consider the natural projection $`\pi _Y:_YH^0(S,𝐇)`$. $`c_r(t)=i_F\mu (Y_{r,t})`$ for $`r=0,1`$ form 2 paths in $`H^0(S,𝐇)`$ with $`\frac{dc_r(t)}{dt}=[\beta _{r,t}]H^0(S,𝐇)`$. For $`r=0,1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_r(t)`$ satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{c}_r(0)=0`$, $`\frac{d\stackrel{~}{c}_r(t)}{dt}=\beta _{r,t}`$ is a path in $`_Y`$ that lifts $`c_r(t)`$, namely $`\pi _Y(\stackrel{~}{c}_r(t))=c_r(t)`$. It is straightforward to construct a smooth family of paths $`\{c_r(t)\}_{r[0,1]}`$ in $`H^0(S,𝐇)`$ that extend $`\{c_r(t)\}_{r=0,1}`$ such that $`c_r(0)=0`$ and $`c_r(t_0)=c_0(t_0)`$ for $`r[0,1]`$. Since $`\pi _Y`$ is linear map, one can lift $`\{c_r(t)\}_{r[0,1]}`$ to a smooth family of paths $`\{\stackrel{~}{c}_r(t)\}_{r[0,1]}`$ in $`_Y`$ extending $`\{\stackrel{~}{c}_r(t)\}_{r=0,1}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{c}_r(0)=0`$ and $`\pi _Y(\stackrel{~}{c}_r(t))=c_r(t)`$ for $`r[0,1]`$. Let $`\beta _{r,t}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{c}_r(t)}{dt}`$, then the family of 1-forms $`\{\beta _{r,t}\}_Y`$ for $`r[0,1]`$ and $`t`$ small extends $`\{\beta _{r,t}\}`$ for $`r=0,1`$.

According to proposition 2, there exists a smooth family of integral coisotropic submanifolds $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ for $`r[0,1]`$ and $`t`$ small satisfying $`Y_{r,0}=Y`$ that extend $`\{Y_{r,t}\}`$ for $`r=0,1`$, such that the infinitesimal deformation along $`t`$ direction at $`Y_{r,t}`$ is represented by $`[\beta _{r,t}]H^0(S,𝐇)`$. Consequently, $`i_F\mu (Y_{r,t})=c_r(t)`$ for all $`r`$ and $`t`$. In particular, $`i_F\mu (Y_{r,t_0})=c_0(t_0)`$ for $`r[0,1]`$, the infinitesimal deformation along $`r`$ direction represents $`0H^0(S,𝐇)`$ and is Hamiltonian by lemma 2. Therefore $`Y_{0,t_0}`$ is Hamiltonian equivalent to $`Y_{1,t_0}`$. This proves the first part of the theorem. The second part of the theorem is quite obvious in light of lemma 2.

Example: One of the simplest non-trivial integral coisotropic submanifold is the unit sphere $`S^3`$ in $`^4`$ with the standard symplectic form. The Hopf fibration gives the null foliation, with the great circles being the isotropic fibres. The symplectic quotient $`SS^2=S^3/S^1`$. $`𝐇`$ is trivial over $`S^2`$ with fibres identified with $`H^1(S^1,)`$. $`H^0(S,𝐇)`$, $`H^0(S,𝐇)H^2(S,)`$ is an isomorphism. The moduli space $`_{S^3}_{>0}`$ parameterizes round spheres of radius $`r`$ for $`r>0`$. The map $`_{S^3}H^0(S,𝐇)`$ that maps the unit sphere to 0 is $`r\frac{1}{2}(r^21)`$. More generally, one can consider a symplectic manifold with a symplectic real torus action. The fibres of the moment map are natural examples of integral coisotropic submanifolds.

Appendix: Alternative proof of proposition 1

We will start with two propositions concerning the deformation of general coisotropic submanifolds (resp. pre-symplectic manifolds) that are not necessarily integral.

###### Proposition 4

Suppose that there exists a smooth (or $`C^1`$) family of coisotropic submanifolds $`\{Y_t\}`$ in $`(X,\omega )`$. $`\{Y_t\}`$ is generated by local symplectomorphisms if and only if $`(Y_t,\omega |_{Y_t})`$ are equivalent as presymplectic manifolds.

Proof: Assume that $`(Y_t,\omega |_{Y_t})`$ are equivalent as pre-symplectic manifolds. Then there exists a family of diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _t:Y_0Y_t`$ such that $`\varphi _t^{}\omega |_{Y_t}=\omega |_{Y_0}`$. Let $`\{V_t\}`$ be a smooth family of vector fields that generate the flow $`\varphi _t`$, where $`V_t`$ is only defined on $`Y_t`$. Then $`dı(V_t)\omega |_{Y_t}=_{V_t}\omega |_{Y_t}=0`$.

Let $`U`$ be a small tubular neighborhood of $`Y_0`$. Then it is straightforward to see that for $`t`$ small, each $`V_t`$ can be extended to a vector field $`V_t^{}`$ on $`U`$ so that $`ı(V_t^{})\omega `$ is closed and $`\{V_t^{}\}`$ forms a smooth family. Consequently, the family of coisotropic submanifolds $`\{Y_t\}`$ is generated by the local symplectic flow on $`U`$ generated by $`\{V_t^{}\}`$. The other direction of the proposition is obvious.

###### Proposition 5

Let $`Y(X,\omega )`$ be a coisotropic submanifold, and $`\{(Y_t,\omega _t)\}`$ (for $`t`$ in a small neighborhood of $`0^l`$) be a family of pre-symplectic manifolds such that $`Y_0=Y`$, $`\omega _0=\omega |_Y`$ and $`[\omega _t]H^2(Y_t)H^2(Y)`$ is constant class. Then there exists a family of coisotropic embeddings $`Y_t(X,\omega )`$ for small $`t`$, such that $`\omega _t=\omega |_{Y_t}`$.

Proof: Let $`U`$ be a small tubular neighborhood of $`Y`$ in $`X`$. According to , there exist a smooth family of coisotropic embeddings $`\varphi _t:Y_t(U,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_t)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_t|_{Y_t}=\omega _t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_0=\omega |_U`$. By assumption, $`[\stackrel{~}{\omega }_t]H^2(U)H^2(Y)`$ represent constant class. There exists a smooth family of symplectic morphisms $`\psi _t:(U,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_t)(X,\omega )`$ with $`\psi _0=\mathrm{id}_U`$. $`\psi _t\varphi _t`$ will give us the desired family of coisotropic embeddings for small $`t`$.

Alternative proof of Proposition 1: Let $`\rho _1:H^0(S,𝐇)H^2(S,)`$ be the natural map. The integral deformation of integral pre-symplectic manifold $`(Y,\omega |_Y)`$ is equivalent to the deformation of symplectic manifold $`(S,\omega _S)`$, which is well known to be unobstructed and locally parameterized by $`H^2(S,)`$. Hence there exists a family of pre-symplectic manifolds $`\{(Y_t,\omega _t)\}`$ such that $`Y_0=Y`$, $`\omega _0=\omega |_Y`$ and the infinitesimal deformation is represented by $`\rho _1([\beta ])`$. Since the image of $`\rho _1`$ is in the kernel of $`\rho _2:H^2(S,)H^2(Y,)`$, proposition 5 implies that there exists a family of coisotropic embeddings $`Y_t(X,\omega )`$ for small $`t`$, such that $`\omega _t=\omega |_{Y_t}`$. Let the infinitesimal deformation of the integral coisotropic sybmanifolds be represented by $`[\beta _t^{}]`$ at $`Y_t`$. Then $`\rho _1([\beta ])=\rho _1([\beta _t^{}])`$ for all $`t`$. By lemma 2, we may assume $`\beta \beta _t^{}`$ to be closed for all $`t`$. Consequently, by adjusting the family of integral coisotropic submanifolds $`\{Y_t\}`$ with local symplectic morphisms defined on a neighborhood of $`Y_t`$, one can ensure that the infinitesimal deformation at $`Y_t`$ be represented by $`[\beta ]`$ for all $`t`$.

Remark: This simple proof is based on suggestions from Prof. Yong-Geun Oh. The major difference of this proof from the original proof is that the original proof does not use the coisotropic neighborhood theorems from , while this proof need the smooth family version of coisotropic neighborhood theorems from . Of course, it is also interesting to see if Proposition 2 can be proved by propositions 4 and 5. Although Proposition 5 was not explicitly formulated and proved in , the essential idea behind Proposition 5 in some other form is already mentioned in section 8 of , which modulo some standard arguments in symplectic geometry should imply Proposition 5.

Acknowledgement: This work was inspired by a talk given by Prof. Yong-Geun Oh on . I would like to thank Prof. Oh for helpful discussions. I would also like to thank the referees for valuable suggestions.