text:
# 1 Motivations and context

## 1 Motivations and context

The see-saw mechanism  remains most attractive one for generation of neutrino masses. The neutrino masses induced by quantum gravity are widely discussed, too , but the absolute value of neutrino mass $`m_\nu v^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}2.5\times 10^6`$ eV, where $`v=174`$ GeV is electroweak vacuum expectation value and $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1.2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV is the Planck mass, is too small to fit the the observational data. This mass term is most naturally responsible for subdominant effects .

The general approach to gravity-induced neutrino mass consists in following.

The unknown quantum gravity Lagrangian is assumed to be expanded at low energies in series of non-renormalizable operators, each being inversely proportional to the powers of the Planck mass:

$$(\psi ,\varphi )=\frac{𝒪(1)}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\psi \psi \varphi \varphi +\frac{𝒪(1)}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\psi \psi \psi \psi +\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are fermion and boson fields, respectively.
The inverse proportionality to $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is a natural condition of vanishing of these operators when $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\mathrm{}`$, i.e. when gravity is switched off. Assuming the coefficients $`𝒪(1)`$ in expansion (1) we follow argumentation of Hawking . Quantum gravity Lagrangian $``$ and the operators of its expansion (1) should break the global symmetries . It could be understood, for example, as absorbing a global charge by virtual black hole with its consequent evaporation. In particular, naively one may expect that these operators could be flavor blind. On the other hand these operators should respect the gauge symmetries and gauge discrete symmetries. In particular, the Lagrangian (1) must have SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry for the Standard Model fields, before this symmetry is spontaneously broken.

In this paper we address the question whether the gravity in extra-dimension theory with the fundamental scale $`M_X<M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ can provide an alternative mechanism for generation of neutrino masses.

There are two specific features in gravitationally induced neutrino masses. The first one is gravity scale $`M_X`$, the second is flavor blindness. The scale is essentially unknown and a priori can be in the range $`1\mathrm{TeV}M_XM_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. The future development of extra-dimension theory and observations can determine $`M_X`$, and neutrino masses hopefully give now the first indication for this value. It is tempting to assume that flavor blindness is exact in gravity-induced operators, and the ratios of the coefficients in expansion (1) are exactly 1. However, as we argue below the case of approximate flavor blindness is more natural. The exact values of these coefficients can be known in the framework of explicit theory of quantum gravity. In this paper we shall analyze the both cases of exact and approximate flavor blindness. The above signatures of the discussed mechanism are not very promising, though they are not worse than for the see-saw mechanism.

What is preferable scale of gravity in extra-dimension theory? A fundamental result of this theory is that the scale can be less than the Planck mass. The real break-through in the status of this theory was made in works , where it was demonstrated that the scale can be as low as $`𝒪`$ (TeV), without contradiction with basic observational data. An attractive feature of this version is the solution of the hierarchy problem without imposing the supersymmetry. However, TeV gravity scale meets severe problems with much higher scale constraints, coming from different elementary particle processes, such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\pi e\nu `$, $`K_1`$ \- $`K_2`$ mass difference, proton decay and neutrino masses. The different symmetries should be imposed (see e.g. ) to forbid these processes. Thus it seems quite plausible that the scale is much larger, as follows from the above-mentioned processes, and can reach $`M_X10^{15}`$ GeV, where according Horava-Witten scenario  gravity starts to feel the extra dimensions. In our work we shall use such a large scale for the numerical analysis. More generally, neutrino mass can provide us with the first reasonable indication to the fundamental gravity scale $`M_X`$, if it 1 TeV$`M_X<M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. For the gravity-induced neutrino mass, the scale responsible for it is strictly fixed as the physical quantity, i.e. it is the fundamental gravity scale $`M_X`$.

This approach to the theory of neutrino masses can be compared with the more conventional one based on GUT ideas. It seems that GUT models are superior since they have their own motivations and happen to produce neutrino masses in the correct ball-park. But at closer examination, this argument is not completely satisfactory. For instance, it is possible to achieve supersymmetric SU(5) unification with $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, but firstly SU(5) by itself cannot be a theory of right-handed neutrino masses, since $`\nu _R`$’s are gauge singlets and secondly the scale $`M_{GUT}`$ is anyway one-two order of magnitude too large to provide the “observed” neutrino masses. On general grounds, SO(10) is more appealing, since it hosts $`\nu _R`$. However, there are (at least) two types of SO(10) models: those where the $`\nu _R`$ mass come from non-renormalizable coupling with $`\overline{16}_H\overline{16}_H/M_{Pl}`$ and those where the $`\nu _R`$ mass is provided by renormalizable coupling with $`\overline{126}_H`$ higgs. In the first case, the $`\nu _R`$ mass is once again induced by the fundamental gravity scale, as evident from the presence of $`1/M_{Pl}`$ term. In the second case, the scale of $`\nu _R`$ mass can be either the scale of left-right (intermediate) symmetry breaking, or a scale arising accidentally (see e.g. ). From this brief examination, two conclusions can be derived: (i) The detailed GUT model is needed to fix the physical meaning of the mass scale responsible for neutrino masses. (ii) In some popular SO(10) models, one must resort again to quantum gravity. At present there is no selfconsistent “standard” GUT model, where neutrino masses are numerically predicted on the basis of internal GUT scale with clear physical meaning and fixed value. The advantage of the GUT theories is the principal possibility to perform the analytic model calculations, while such possibility does not exist yet in quantum gravity.

Now, in order to provide the connection with neutrino masses, we offer a brief overview of the present experimental and theoretical situation. The magnitude of the neutrino masses and mixings are governed by the texture of the neutrino mass matrix in the flavor basis, denoted by $`M`$. This is related to the diagonal mass matrix via the relation, $`M=U^{}diag(M)U^{}`$, where $`U`$ is the usual neutrino mixing matrix specified by three angles, $`\theta _{12}=\omega `$, $`\theta _{23}=\psi ,\theta _{13}=\varphi `$ and one CP violating phase $`\delta `$. The two Majorana phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ can be incorporated in the diagonal masses.111We assume three light left handed Majorana neutrinos throughout the analysis. Neutrino oscillation data provide us with information on the mixing angles, but constrain only on the mass squared differences defined by, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{21}^2=M_2^2M_1^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{32}^2=M_3^2M_2^2`$  and not on the absolute neutrino masses, though there are upper bounds coming from laboratory experiments  and from cosmology . It should be borne in mind that the limits coming from cosmology are crucially dependent on various assumptions . In addition, there is no constraint at present on $`\delta `$ and on the Majorana phases. This has the consequence that $`M`$ is not uniquely determined and there are various textures consistent with present data. Attempts to reconstruct the mass matrix using available data from neutrino experiments are presented in . However, any phenomenological approach has to face the limitations outlined above. The theoretical counterpart of this situation is that it is possible to postulate several textures of mass matrices which are consistent with present data. There are a large number of studies where this approach has been developed, for example see .

A striking feature of most of the textures listed in the above references is that there are always some entries which are very small or zero in the mass matrix, while some elements are $`𝒪(1)`$. This could be due to some underlying symmetries or selection rules, see e.g., . In this assumption, the texture is far from what can be called as a “democratic” structure. However, imposing discrete symmetries on the mass matrix can lead to a democratic structure for the mass matrix . The idea of “anarchy” in the structure of the mass matrix has also been investigated . A nice summary of the above issues has been recently given in .

## 2 Neutrino mass textures induced by gravity

The relevant gravitational dimension-5 operator for the spinor $`SU(2)_L`$ isodoublets,222Here and everywhere below we use Greek letters $`\alpha ,\beta ,`$… for the flavor states and Latin letters $`i,j,k`$… for the mass states. $`\psi _\alpha =(\nu _\alpha ,\mathrm{}_\alpha )`$ and the scalar one, $`\phi =(\phi ^+,\phi ^0)`$, can be written with the operators introduced by Weinberg  as:

$$_{\mathrm{grav}}=\frac{\lambda _{\alpha \beta }}{2M_X}(\psi _{Aa\alpha }ϵ_{AC}\phi _C)C_{ab}^1(\psi _{Bb\beta }ϵ_{BD}\phi _D)+h.c.,$$
(2)
where $`M_X`$ is the gravity scale, which in the case of extra dimensional theories can be less than $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ and $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ are numbers $`𝒪(1)`$. In eq.(2), all indices are explicitly shown: the Lorentz indices $`a,b=1,2,3,4`$ are contracted with the charge conjugation matrix $`C`$, the $`SU(2)_L`$ isospin indices $`A,B,C,D=1,2`$ are contracted with $`ϵ=i\sigma _2`$ ($`\sigma _m`$ with $`m=1,2,3`$ are the Pauli matrices). After spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, the Lagrangian (2) generates terms of neutrino mass: $`_{\mathrm{mass}}=\lambda _{\alpha \beta }v^2/2M_X\nu _\alpha C^1\nu _\beta `$, where $`v`$=174 GeV denotes the vacuum expectation value.

The matrix $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ gives the neutrino mass matrix in the flavor representation. An attractive assumption of the exact flavor blindness of quantum gravity corresponds to the equal values of $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$, e.g. $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }=1`$. However, the flavor blindness cannot be the exact. It is broken, though weakly, by radiative corrections. It should be broken more strongly by topological fluctuations (wormhole effects).

Even in the case quantum gravity itself provides equal coupling constants in the Lagrangian (2) e.g. $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }=1`$, the topological fluctuations at the Planck scale lift this flavor symmetry, making the coupling constants different ,. This effect can be described as the renormalization due to the Planck-size baby universes which contain the appropriate particle states. In other words, “the ungauged coupling constants can be transferred to baby universes” . If in the parent universe all couplings are equal $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }=1`$, in the state with baby universes these coupling constants can be substantially different.

It is natural to expect that the wormhole effects give to the Lagrangian (2) the contribution of the same order as other mechanisms of quantum gravity, e.g. exchange by virtual black hole. It makes an assumption of an approximate flavor blindness $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }𝒪(1)`$, used in the earlier works  \- , plausible. In the applications below we shall study the both cases, exact and approximate flavor blindness, demonstrating that exact flavor blindness as the mechanism for neutrino-mass generation is disfavoured.

### 2.1 Exact flavor blindness

Let us consider first the case of the exact flavor blindness and show that it cannot describe all observational data.

The mass matrix in the flavor basis is given by:

$$M=\mu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
were we have defined $`\mu =v^2/M_X`$. Since the eigenvalues of the matrix are $`3,0,0`$ in units of $`\mu `$, it is obvious that there is only one scale for oscillations. Let us first demand that this is the solar neutrino scale. Equating the scale obtained from eq.(3) to the present best fit value of $`7\times 10^5`$ eV2 obtained from analyses of neutrino data  gives us:

$$M_X10^{16}\text{GeV}.$$
(4)
The texture specified in eq.(3) gives the following form for the neutrino mixing matrix:

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ 0& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
With this texture we have only one non-zero mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2=M_3^2M_1^2=M_3^2M_2^2`$, which can be identified with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$. It is straightforward to calculate the survival probability $`P_{ee}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ as $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=8/9`$, or $`\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}35^{}`$ in good agreement with data . The value $`U_{e3}=1/\sqrt{3}`$ is compatible with CHOOZ constraints  since in this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{sol}^2L/E1`$.

Alternatively, requiring the oscillation scale to be the atmospheric neutrino scale of $`23\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, we get:

$$M_X10^{15}\text{GeV}.$$
(6)
But here the CHOOZ constraint  becomes operative and since the texture in eq.(3) predicts $`U_{e3}=1/\sqrt{3}`$, it is observationally excluded. So there is no space to explain the atmospheric neutrino problem.

Hence we see that an exact flavor blind texture, generated at a typical GUT scale can explain at best the solar neutrino problem in terms of oscillations. An additional mechanism is needed to provide the atmospheric neutrino mass squared difference (even though it is not clear whether such a mechanism can be implemented without destabilizing the value of the solar mixing angle that we found).

### 2.2 Approximate flavor blindness

In the rest of this work we shall consider the case of an approximate flavor blindness $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$. We will follow a straightforward procedure to compare this assumption with the data. First we construct the diagonal mass matrix allowed by the data, using the known values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$’s and the bounds on the absolute mass scale. Then we transform the mass matrix to the flavor basis, using the neutrino mixing matrix that satisfies the observational constraints. Finally, we select the cases when all elements of the obtained mass matrix are $`𝒪(1)`$.

#### General form of the mass matrix

Let us consider first the general form of neutrino mixing matrix. In the approximation $`\theta _{13}=0`$ it has a form

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_\omega & s_\omega & 0\\ \frac{s_\omega }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_\omega }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{s_\omega }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_\omega }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`s_\omega =\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ and $`c_\omega =\mathrm{cos}\omega `$ with $`\omega `$ being the solar neutrino mixing angle. The atmospheric neutrino mixing angle $`\psi =\theta _{23}`$ is taken to be $`45^{}`$. The mass matrix in the diagonal form is taken to be:

$$diag(M)=\text{diag}(z_1,z_2,z_3),$$
(8)
where $`z_1=M_1e^{2i\rho }`$ and $`z_2=M_2e^{2i\sigma }`$ are complex numbers, $`z_3=M_3`$ is real and $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ denote the Majorana phases. We now transform $`diag(M)`$ to the flavor basis using the matrix given in eq.(7) and obtain:

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}z_1c_\omega ^2+z_2s_\omega ^2& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(z_2z_1)& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(z_2z_1)\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(z_2z_1)& \begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}(z_1s_\omega ^2+z_2c_\omega ^2+z_3)\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}(z_3z_1s_\omega ^2z_2c_\omega ^2)\hfill \end{array}\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(z_2z_1)& \begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}(z_3z_1s_\omega ^2z_2c_\omega ^2)\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}(z_1s_\omega ^2+z_2c_\omega ^2+z_3)\hfill \end{array}\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
We consider the texture specified in eq.(9) for the three possible types of the neutrino mass spectrum: hierarchical, inverted hierarchical and degenerate.

#### Hierarchical mass spectrum

Let us begin with the case of the hierarchical mass spectrum. If $`M_1M_2M_3`$, then it is obvious from eq.(9) that the elements of the 2-3 block of the matrix $`M`$ are large in comparison to the other elements. The $`𝒪(1)`$ coefficients depart from equality by about one order of magnitude. Hence, this texture is rather different from a $`𝒪(1)`$ texture and it is not compatible with the properties of the operators induced by gravity.

#### Inverted hierarchical spectrum

Without loss of generality we can choose $`M_3M_1M_2`$ where $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$ are split by the solar scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{21}^2`$. In this case we get,

$$\begin{array}{c}M=\mu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{2i\rho }c_\omega ^2+e^{2i\sigma }s_\omega ^2& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(e^{2i\sigma }e^{2i\rho })& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(e^{2i\sigma }e^{2i\rho })\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(e^{2i\sigma }e^{2i\rho })& \frac{1}{2}(e^{2i\rho }s_\omega ^2+e^{2i\sigma }c_\omega ^2)& \frac{1}{2}(e^{2i\rho }s_\omega ^2+e^{2i\sigma }c_\omega ^2)\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}s_{2\omega }(e^{2i\sigma }e^{2i\rho })& \frac{1}{2}(e^{2i\rho }s_\omega ^2+e^{2i\sigma }c_\omega ^2)& \frac{1}{2}(e^{2i\rho }s_\omega ^2+e^{2i\sigma }c_\omega ^2)\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`\mu =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{31}^2}`$. For arbitrary values of the phases, $`M`$ does not have an $`𝒪(1)`$ texture; e.g., this does not happen if $`\rho =\sigma `$ since in this case some elements of the mass matrix vanish. However, for certain values of the phases, e.g., $`\rho =0^{}`$ and $`\sigma =90^{}`$, eq.(10) becomes:

$$M=\mu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}2\omega & \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\omega }{2}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\omega }{2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\omega }{2}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\omega }{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
The texture defined by eq.(11) does have an $`𝒪(1)`$ structure for the large value of $`\omega =34^{}`$ suggested by the data. We also have to satisfy the relation $`\mu ^2=23\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$ which results in:

$$M_X10^{15}\text{GeV}.$$
(12)
For the inverted hierarchy the mass probed in neutrinoless double beta decay is related to the atmospheric neutrino mass splitting, that is, $`M_{ee}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{32}^2}4555`$ meV. The case of eq.(11) is the one when the two Majorana phases give origin to destructive interference and $`M_{ee}1020`$ meV, but larger values can be found by varying these phases (compare with the general discussion in ). Thus, a large value of $`M_{ee}=1550`$ meV characterizes the scenario where the spectrum of mass has an inverted hierarchy and a non-GUT matrix is responsible for the observed neutrino phenomena.

#### Degenerate mass spectrum

For the degenerate spectrum specified by $`M_1M_2M_3\mu `$ (with the common value of the masses $`\mu `$ being much more than the splittings between the levels) an analysis similar to the previous one applies. Again, an $`𝒪(1)`$ texture appears for certain choices of the Majorana phases. In this case, for a common neutrino mass of about an electronvolt we get:

$$M_X10^{13}\text{GeV},$$
(13)
For the same choices of Majorana phases of eq.(11) the mass probed in neutrinoless double beta decay is: $`M_{ee}\mu \mathrm{cos}2\omega `$, where $`\mu `$ is bounded above by the kinematic limit coming from tritium experiments. As in the previous case, this is the minimum value of $`M_{ee}`$: other choices of Majorana phases will always lead to a higher value. Of course, from the viewpoint of double beta decay experiments this is the most appealing feature of this scenario.

### 2.3 Minimal deviations from flavor blindness

As we discussed above, the approximate flavor blindness is a natural option, and in order to describe the neutrino-mass data one should introduce deviations from exact flavor blindness. This brings us to the question what is the minimal deviation which is needed to fit the data. In practice, we will consider the absolute values $`|M_{\alpha \beta }|`$ and discuss, in the three cases considered above, for which choice of the Majorana phases the differences between the matrix elements are minimal.

Assuming normal hierarchy of the spectrum we get

$$|M_{ex}||M_{xx}|/6\text{ where }x=\mu \text{ or }\tau ,$$
(14)
where the numerical coefficient $`1/6`$ is the ratio of masses $`(\mathrm{\Delta }M_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2)^{1/2}`$, or the upper bound on the mixing angle $`\theta _{13}`$. The minimal deviations are anyway large and this is the reason why normal hierarchy is disfavored when we assume that all the elements of the mass matrix have the comparable values.

Assuming inverted hierarchy we get

$$\{\begin{array}{c}|M_{ee}|^2|2M_{xx}|^21\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}^2\xi \hfill \\ |M_{ex}|^21/2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}^2\xi \hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`x=\mu `$ or $`\tau `$ as in eq. (14), $`\xi =\rho \sigma `$, and where the proportionality constant is $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2}50`$ meV; smaller terms order $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2`$ are omitted. Requiring that $`|M_{ex}|`$ is between $`|M_{ee}|`$ and $`|M_{xx}|`$ we thus get the condition

$$|M_{ee}|=(0.580.82)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2}=2941\text{ meV},$$
(16)
which implies that it will be observable by next generation experiments. However, the minimal deviation from exact blindness is a factor of 2 (namely, the ratio between $`|M_{ee}|`$ and $`|M_{xx}|`$) and this makes the scenario of inverted hierarchy less appealing.

Assuming degenerate neutrinos, we obtain the most interesting scenario. In fact, when we fix the Majorana phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$, prescribing $`|M_{ee}|=|M_{e\mu }|`$ and $`|M_{\mu \tau }|=|M_{\mu \mu }|`$, we immediately realize that it is possible to arrange

$$|M_{\alpha \beta }|=m/\sqrt{3},\text{ where }\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau $$
(17)
setting again $`\theta _{13}=0`$ and $`\theta _{23}=45^{}`$, and omitting the small $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{ij}^2/m^2`$ terms.

This implies that the limit obtained in cosmology, $`m<0.23`$ eV at 95 % CL can be translated in a limit on the mass seen in double beta decay:

$$|M_{ee}|<0.13\text{eV}$$
(18)
This is smaller than the value suggested by the new analysis of the Heidelberg-Moscow data  $`0.44_{0.20}^{+0.14}`$ eV (at 3 $`\sigma `$ level), even if one takes $`1\sigma `$ lower experimental value and assumes that the nuclear matrix elements have been underestimated (see figure 1). Such a small value $`m_{\nu _e}m0.23`$ eV, being interesting for the forthcoming KATRIN experiment, does not not guarantee a 3 $`\sigma `$ discovery with the present facility. From eq. (17) one obtains the value of the mass $`M_{ee}=0.19`$ eV

$$m_{\mathrm{cosm}}=3m=1.0\text{ eV},$$
(19)
where we used $`M_{ee}=0.19`$ eV, which is 1 $`\sigma `$ lower than the value that explains the Heidelberg-Moscow results, reduced by 50 %. This implies that, in deriving cosmological bound the errors were underestimated or the assumptions do not hold. A value $`m_{\nu _e}m0.33`$ eV should permit a 3 $`\sigma `$ discovery in KATRIN.

Note that when we assume that the violation of flavor blindness is minimal, the theoretical framework becomes more restrictive and the predictions for the neutrinoless double beta decay process become more precise. This can be understood well from figure 1, since for instance one can reconcile the cosmological bound and Heidelberg-Moscow findings in the 3 neutrino context if $`M_{ee}m0.2`$ eV. Of course, under this assumption one has the non-minimal deviations from the flavor blindness.

The case of eq. (17) has been considered for the first time by Frigerio and Smirnov in a phenomenological analysis of all possible neutrino mass matrices: see ref. (), second paper. Our approach permits a step forward, since this is not one case among many other, but the only possible case once that we require that the deviations from flavor blindness are minimal.

## 3 Renormalization group effects

As we have seen in the previous section, the scales where we want gravity to generate the mass matrix are typical GUT scales or a little lower. Hence one has to consider the effect of renormalization group (RG) evolution from this scale to the electroweak scale on the mass matrix. In both the standard model and its minimal supersymmetric extension, the RG effects are negligible as far as the structure of the mass matrix is concerned. However oscillation observables can be significantly altered, especially for the degenerate mass spectrum. For the parameter space of interest at present to oscillation phenomenology, modulo fine tuning, the effects of RG are not very large333The conditions when the RG effects can be treated as a perturbation are discussed in ref..  except for very large values of the common neutrino mass (that as recalled above are not favored by the data) and of the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (but only for supersymmetric models).

## 4 Summary and discussion

We have considered dimension-5 gravity induced operators, suppressed by a low scale of gravity $`M_X<M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, as the source of the neutrino mass matrix. After spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking with $`\phi ^0=v`$, the operator in eq.(2) produces the neutrino mass matrix in flavor basis $`M_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda _{\alpha \beta }v^2/M_X`$. We assume an approximate flavor blindness when all $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }𝒪(1)`$. The exact values of $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ is a prerogative of the detailed theory of quantum gravity and the wormhole theory.

We have demonstrated that for the degenerate and the inverse hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum there are sets of $`𝒪(1)`$ coefficients when the neutrino masses and mixings satisfy all the observational data. The mass scale for this case is $`M_X10^{13}10^{15}`$ GeV, i.e., close to a typical GUT scale. The discussed mechanism is not valid for the hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum.

In the extreme case of unbroken flavor blindness, $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }=1`$, the gravity-induced neutrino mass matrix can explain at best the solar-neutrino data and an additional mechanism is needed to provide the atmospheric neutrino mass squared difference.

The gravity-induced textures have interesting predictions for the mass $`M_{ee}`$ probed in neutrinoless double beta decay. For the inverted hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum the predicted mass parameter $`M_{ee}`$ is large, 15 - 50 meV. For degenerate spectra, $`M_{ee}`$ can saturate the bound from cosmology of 0.23 eV or possibly approach the bound of $`1`$ eV coming from the studies of tritium endpoint spectra. In both cases it can explain the result obtained from the recent analysis of the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment, although the range of compatibility between this result and cosmology is restricted.

The conclusions of previous paragraph are more generic than that related to gravity-induced neutrino mass model. The specific feature of this model is approximate flavor blindness which favors degenerate mass spectrum of neutrinos. Another consequence of this model is the further narrowing of the compatibility of cosmological bounds and the Heidelberg-Moscow results. As discussed in Sect. 2.3, this is due to the fact that the Majorana phases are fixed by the condition of flavor-blindness: see eq. (17) and fig. 1. Approximate flavor blindness is a natural prediction of the gravity-induced neutrino mass model, but not the exclusive signature of this model. This model can be probed only by combination of the numerical value of fundamental gravity scale, found from other data, and approximate flavor blindness. At present stage of development, we can only argue that this model is a viable possibility.

## Acknowledgement

We are grateful to V. Rubakov and A. Vilenkin for very helpful discussion of quantum gravity and wormhole effects.


format: text

text:
# Supersymmetry in quantum mechanics: An extended view

## Abstract

The concept of supersymmetry in a quantum mechanical system is extended, permitting the recognition of many more supersymmetric systems, including very familiar ones such as the free particle. Its spectrum is shown to be supersymmetric, with space-time symmetries used for the explicit construction. No fermionic or Grassmann variables need to be invoked. Our construction extends supersymmetry to continuous spectra. Most notably, while the free particle in one dimension has generally been regarded as having a doubly degenerate continuum throughout, the construction clarifies that there is a single zero energy state at the base of the spectrum.

Supersymmetry (SUSY) in field theories of elementary particles results in a fermion partner to every boson, and vice versa. Both partners have the same mass (synonymously, energy). The resulting pattern has one non-degenerate, zero-energy, bosonic state (the vacuum), while every other state of the spectrum is degenerate in pairs (a boson and a fermion). This is termed a SUSY spectrum ref1 . There is as yet no experimental evidence of such SUSY particles although certain instances of the spectra of neighboring nuclei have been claimed as examples of approximate SUSY in nature ref2 . Witten ref3  extended the SUSY concept to “zero-dimensional field theories”, that is, to ordinary quantum mechanics. The many examples studied ref4  have provided concrete physical systems and much interesting insight into SUSY. In this Letter, the concept is extended still further. Examples, including some very simple and familiar systems and systems with purely continuous spectra, show the existence of many more SUSY systems. Remarkably, it seems to have gone unrecognized that the free particle itself has SUSY. The supersymmetry construction provides further insight into the nature of this simplest of all physical systems. Instead of invoking fermionic spin variables from the start, our construction uses space-time symmetries such as parity and time reversal.

Fig. 1 gives a schematic of a SUSY spectrum. Among the distinguishing characteristics are ref4  : 1) a zero energy non-degenerate ground state, 2) pairs of degenerate excited states, 3) the existence of operators $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ that carry degenerate pairs into one another as shown while both operators yield zero upon acting on the ground state, 4) the operators satisfy

$$[H,Q]=[H,Q^{}]=0,H=\{Q,Q^{}\}/2,$$
(1)
5) the operators have fermionic or “Grassmann” character in that

$$\{Q,Q\}=\{Q^{},Q^{}\}=0,$$
(2)
and 6) as seen in the above equations, the operators involved form a closed algebra with mixed commutators and anti-commutators. SUSY quantum mechanics also identifies pairs of potentials, $`V_\pm `$, which separately support the two ladders of states in Fig. 1. These potentials can be expressed in terms of the ground state wave function and its first derivative ref4 .

Turning now to our extension, consider a free particle of mass $`m`$ in one dimension, easily the simplest non-relativistic quantum mechanical system and one encountered in our very first acquaintance with the subject. With the wave number $`k`$ defined in the usual way as $`E=(\mathrm{}k)^2/2m`$, the spectrum of the Hamiltonian, $`H=\frac{1}{2}p^2=\frac{1}{2}d^2/dx^2`$, is shown in Fig. 2. (We will set $`\mathrm{}=m=1`$.) The purely continuous spectrum has two alternative descriptions. In terms of standing waves, even and odd parity eigenstates are as shown. The corresponding wave functions are $`\mathrm{cos}kx`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}kx`$, respectively. Apart from an irrelevant numerical factor, these functions are “normalized per unit momentum”, that is, to a Dirac delta function in wave number (see Sec. 21 of ref5 ). There is a general view that the free particle has a doubly-degenerate continuous spectrum but, remarkably, it seems to have escaped notice that this is only true for all $`k>0`$, the $`k=0`$ occurring only in the even parity sector. The odd parity state vanishes in this limit. In Fig. 2, the bottom of the odd parity continuum is shown dashed to denote the absence of the $`k=0`$ value. Thus, a free particle has a SUSY spectrum.

The zero-energy differential equation has two independent solutions, a constant and $`x`$. But our claim is that only the former corresponds to a physical state, the other solution not being finite at infinity ref6 . All the other trigonometric functions for non-zero $`k`$ and the even parity function for $`k=0`$ are finite everywhere even if normalizable only to a delta function. A supporting argument for a unique state at the base of the continuum is provided by looking at the alternative description of the free particle in terms of traveling waves, or momentum eigenstates. Wave functions $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm ikx)`$ denote waves traveling from left to right and vice versa. Again, while such pairs exist for non-zero $`k`$, the $`k=0`$ limit that describes no propagation at all is but a single state. So, in either of the two standard descriptions, the free particle spectrum should be viewed as one of SUSY. Indeed, the next paragraph views the free particle as a limiting case of “quantization in a box”, together with its SUSY construction, providing strong supporting evidence.

A particle of mass $`m`$ in a one-dimensional box $`(\frac{1}{2}L,\frac{1}{2}L)`$ has eigenvalues $`E_n=n^2(\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2/2mL^2),n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and its ground state wave function is $`\mathrm{cos}(\pi x/L)`$. The higher excited states are in sequence, $`\mathrm{sin}(2\pi x/L),\mathrm{cos}(3\pi x/L),\mathrm{}`$, and alternate in parity. Its SUSY partner, as is well-known ref7 , has potential $`V_{}=2(\mathrm{}^2/2m)(\pi /L)^2\mathrm{sec}^2(\pi x/L)`$ with the same eigenvalues except that $`n=1`$ is missing. The lowest state’s wave function is $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi x/L)`$, has even parity, while the next excited state of odd parity and energy $`E_3`$ has wave function $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi x/L)\mathrm{sin}(\pi x/L)`$. Note how this entirely discrete SUSY spectrum for any finite $`L`$ evolves as $`L\mathrm{}`$. Both potentials go to zero, giving the free particle Hamiltonian, and the eigenvalues condense into continuous spectra of even and odd parity pairs but there is always one extra state in $`V_+`$. In this limit, with the spectra of the two potentials superposed and an orthonormal set formed, the free particle spectrum emerges with cosine and sine pairs in $`n\pi x/Lkx`$ for all $`n2`$. But the ground $`n=1k=0`$ state stands by itself.

The free particle’s SUSY nature may have escaped notice in part, perhaps, because SUSY in quantum mechanics has generally been discussed for bound states. Also, a normalized wave function of the ground state is often used for constructing the partner potentials $`V_\pm `$. But with continuum normalization to a Dirac delta function, the spectrum of a free particle is undeniably supersymmetric as we now proceed to show by completing the construction of the operators in Eq. (1).

With the operators of momentum $`p`$ and parity $`P`$, we define

$$Q=pP/\sqrt{2m},Q^{}=Pp/\sqrt{2m}=Q,$$
(3)
which clearly satisfy Eq. (1). They also satisfy criterion 3 in the list above, carrying sines and cosines into one another to within multiplicative constants and giving zero when operating on the constant ground state wave function. Only criterion 5 is not satisfied (more on this below), no fermionic element having been introduced. The squares of the operators do not vanish but yield the Hamiltonian to within a sign. (This sign and the anti-Hermitian nature of $`Q`$ can be removed by multiplying with an $`i`$ in Eq. (3) above. This is a matter of taste.) The operators again close under mixed commutators and anti-commutators, thus satisfying criterion 6.

It is interesting that the two alternative descriptions of the free particle are generally associated with the existence of two alternative operators, $`p`$ and $`P`$, both of which commute with $`H`$ while not commuting with one another. Clearly, their product also commutes with the Hamiltonian and this is precisely what Eq. (3) builds on in constructing SUSY. This same procedure will be used below for the rotational counterpart and may afford further generalization.

While the above construction in which criterion 5 is relaxed has some merit, pointing to an extended view of SUSY constructions, even that criterion can be retained by defining an alternative supercharge to the above Q. This is constructed by superposing the momentum operator p with the operator pP:

$$q=(p+pP)/\sqrt{4m},q^{}=(ppP)/\sqrt{4m},$$
(4)
such that now $`q^2=0`$ while Eq. (1) is still satisfied. Unlike $`Q`$, this supercharge $`q`$ also has the fermionic element of criterion 5 and satisfies Eq. (2) . Its actions on the wave functions are given by

$`q\mathrm{cos}kx`$ $`=`$ $`i(\mathrm{}k/\sqrt{m})\mathrm{sin}kx,q\mathrm{sin}kx=0`$
$`q^{}\mathrm{sin}kx`$ $`=`$ $`i(\mathrm{}k/\sqrt{m})\mathrm{cos}kx,q^{}\mathrm{cos}kx=0.`$ (5)
Note that both $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ give zero when acting on the ground state. Although the two constructions through $`Q`$ or $`q`$ are equivalent, we find some merit in the former as simpler and more straightforward, with just one operator $`pP`$ rather than two, $`p`$ and $`pP`$. But, such an equivalence in general of $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ SUSY has been noted ref8 .

The idea of using as a “grading” operator an operator such as parity whose square is unity, in contrast to a Grassmann variable or fermionic object whose square vanishes, has occurred before ref9 . In particular, Plyushchay and co-workers have used reflection operators in a series of papers ref10  for bosonized SUSY and parabosonic systems. However, in many cases, the reflection operators have occurred in conjunction with Pauli spinors and even the “minimal” example in the second of these papers uses a superpotential which is an odd function under parity. Our construction in this Letter, using only parity, and with the superpotential and $`V_\pm `$ all equal to zero as pertaining to a free particle, is perhaps the simplest illustration of grading. Our treatment of a continuous spectrum also departs from all other discussions so far of SUSY in quantum mechanics which have only considered bound states, perhaps reflecting the bias of its origins in SUSY field theories.

Consider next a zero-range, delta function well in one dimension, with $`H=p^2/2\lambda \delta (x)`$. As is well-known, such an attractive delta-well has one and only one bound state with energy $`E=\lambda ^2/2`$ and normalized wave function $`\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{exp}(\lambda |x|)`$, and these are often used as a model for loosely bound systems such as the deuteron in nuclear physics or a negative ion in atomic physics. The entire spectrum is as shown in Fig. 3, the odd-parity continuum remaining unchanged (from the free particle’s) as $`\mathrm{sin}kx`$ since these states never “see” the zero-range potential whereas the even parity states are now given by ref11

$$\frac{k\mathrm{cos}kx\lambda \mathrm{sin}k|x|}{\sqrt{k^2+\lambda ^2}}.$$
(6)
The change from $`\mathrm{cos}kx`$ is necessary to satisfy the Schrödinger equation with the delta-well and to be orthogonal to the ground state wave function. In the limit $`\lambda 0`$, Eq. (6) reduces, of course, to the free particle $`\mathrm{cos}kx`$. But now, as emphasized by the dashed lines at the bottom of both continua in Fig. 3, the limit $`k0`$ makes Eq. (6) vanish. The $`k=0`$ state is now absent also in the even parity sector. Once again, there is a SUSY spectrum, with one even parity ground state that is bound and all excited states being continuum states in pairs. The zero of the energy scale can be reset at the bound state energy. Comparison with the previous example shows also how one state from the even parity continuum is “peeled” off to become the bound state upon “turning on” $`\lambda `$. This provides yet another perspective on the free particle and delta-well spectrums, both of which exhibit SUSY.

A related problem that has been discussed earlier ref13  (see also Fig. 8 of Ref. ) is the one-dimensional “cut-off” Coulomb potential that applies to a hydrogen atom in an ultrastrong magnetic field of the sort found on pulsars ref14 . There is a SUSY spectrum with one deeply bound ground state, all others being even and odd parity pairs at the usual Bohr energies.

The rotational counterpart of the free particle in translation is, of course, the free rotor in a plane with Hamiltonian $`L_z^2/2I`$, where $`I`$ is the moment of inertia about the $`z`$-axis of rotation. Its spectrum is also one of SUSY as shown in Fig. 4, pairs of non-zero $`m`$ states being degenerate, with only the lowest $`m=0`$ state non-degenerate. The wave functions, to within a numerical factor, are $`\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi )`$. Again, although a familiar example, the simple SUSY construction below has not received attention. (The SUSY of the rotor has been noted in different contexts ref10 , including in re-casting the one-dimensional hydrogen atom as a rotor ref14 .) We can construct the operators

$$Q=L_z𝒯/\sqrt{2I},Q^{}=𝒯L_z/\sqrt{2I}=Q,$$
(7)
where $`𝒯`$ is the time-reversal operator. Again, Eq. (1) is satisfied as well as all but the criterion 5 of SUSY. There is a pleasing symmetry between the two problems of the free particle and free rotor. Besides the obvious roles of linear momentum and angular momentum in the two, note the roles of parity and time reversal in $`Q`$. Also note again the product form of two operators that both commute with the Hamiltonian in constructing $`Q`$. The alternative of an operator $`q`$, chosen as a linear combination of $`L_z`$ and $`L_z𝒯`$ such that criterion 5 is also satisfied, is immediate.

This extended view of supersymmetry, and the employment of space-time symmetries in its construction, may find more applications and provide more insight into quantum mechanical problems.

I thank Richard Haymaker, Francois Gieres, Mikhail Plyushchay and C. V. Sukumar for discussions. This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation.


text:
# The Future of Far-IR / Submillimeter Astrophysics with Single Dish Telescopes

## 1 Introduction

Although far-IR – mm-wave astronomy has now been developing for several decades, access to this portion of the spectrum remains difficult and limited. Relative to their optical-wavelength counterparts, the submillimeter observatories are both small in units of wavelength and hot in units of photon energy, which imposes limits on their angular resolution and sensitivity. Nevertheless, even the modest far-IR and submillimeter observations obtained in the last two decades have revolutionized our understanding the physics and chemistry of the ISM, the formation of stars, and the cosmic history of these processes. The demonstration by COBE that about half of the radiant energy released in the universe since decoupling comes to us in the submm/far–IR has further underscored the scientific necessity of observations in this wavelength regime pug96 ; fds00 ; fix98 . The next decade promises even greater discoveries, as new observatories and detectors are still pushing toward fundamental limits. The paper briefly outlines some of the exciting capabilities and scientific roles of new single-dish far–IR – mm-wave telescopes and their instruments.

## 2 Detector technologies

Over the past decade, one of the most important developments for far–IR through mm–wave astrophysics has been the push toward large–format direct–detector arrays. There are two key reasons why large arrays are important: (1) they provide a wider instantaneous field–of–view, thereby increasing the mapping speed; (2) they also allow better rejection of the “sky noise” due to atmospheric emissivity fluctuations, which is correlated across the array, and thereby provide better per–pixel sensitivities. Put together, these two factors provide a dramatic improvement in imaging capability.

For observations at $`\lambda >200\mu \mathrm{m}`$, bolometers are presently the most useful devices. Over the last 20 years, the mapping speed of bolometer arrays – equal to the ratio of the number of pixels to the square of a single pixel’s sensitivity – has been improving at about a factor of two per year (faster than Moore’s law !). Gains have been achieved in both single pixel sensitivity and array size. The individual detector elements are now achieving background-limited performance for ground–based astronomy or CMB studies, and the number of pixels in a typical array is $`400`$, which is about the practical limit of what can be achieved for individually–wired detectors in a sub-Kelvin focal plane.

Multiplexing technologies for the next generation of bolometer arrays are now under development by several groups for both CMB studies and submillimeter astronomy. The most ambitious example at present is the SCUBA-2 effort, slated to deploy 5000 close-packed superconducting transition-edge detectors in each of two (450 $`\mu `$m and 850 $`\mu `$m) arrays, to be read out with a SQUID-based multiplexer hol03 ; dun03 . However, while these technologies are very promising, they are in the early phases, and there remains the substantial task of fielding robust, sensitive astronomical instruments at the telescope.

The transition from the mm/submm to the far-IR ($`\lambda <200\mu \mathrm{m}`$) is a shift from ground-based observations to airborne and orbital platforms. The detectors of choice thus far have been the Ge:Ga photoconductors, which have flight heritage, require only modest cryogenic infrastructure (T$``$1.5 K), and can be naturally employed in large-format arrays using cryogenic CMOS multiplexers. These detectors arrays are the heart of the MIPS instrument on SIRTF (32$`\times `$32 at 70$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, 2$`\times `$20 at 160$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) and the PACS instrument on Herschel (16$`\times `$25 at 90$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ & 160$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$), and will offer the most sensitive observations in the far-IR to date. Nevertheless, substantial room for improvement exists even at these shorter wavelengths: array construction is still very labor–intensive, which limits the array size, especially for stressed detectors at $`\lambda >100\mu `$m; the quantum efficiencies are still relatively low; and the temporal response of these detectors requires sophisticated calibration protocols.

Coherent detection technology has also achieved impressive gains, driven by the needs of projects such as HIFI/Herschel and ALMA. Sensitive superconducting tunnel junction (SIS) mixers now operate up to 1.25 THz (240 $`\mu `$m), while superconducting hot–electron bolometer (HEB) mixers push to higher frequencies still, beyond 2.5 THz (120 $`\mu `$m). The improvements in local oscillator technology have been even more dramatic, especially the solid–state amplifier/multiplier chains developed for HIFI/Herschel, which are now capable of continuous tuning over $`>100`$GHz bandwidths and provide ample power for pumping SIS mixers at 1.25 THz and HEB mixers at 1.6 THz. These developments will revolutionize high–resolution terahertz spectroscopy, especially using airborne (SOFIA) and space (Herschel) platforms.

## 3 New single-dish facilities

A major initiative for the submillimeter / millimeter astrophysics community in the next decade is the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA). ALMA will be an inteferometric array of 64 12-meter antennas operating in the 230, 345, 460, 650, and 850 GHz atmospheric windows, and will be a very powerful instrument in these frequency bands with its unique combination of high sensitivity and very high spatial and spectral resolution. While future observatories must carefully consider their role in this context, the development of large–format cameras – one of the major technological trends over the past decade – offers powerful new capabilities for single–dish observatories. While not widely appreciated, it is in fact possible for future single-dish facilities equipped with wide–field direct–detector cameras to be competitive with ALMA in terms of absolute point–source continuum sensitivity, and orders of magnitude faster than ALMA for wide–field imaging, thereby securing a scientifically important role which is complementary to ALMA.

Consider the achievable (background-limited) sensitivity of a observatory:

$$\mathrm{NEFD}_{\mathrm{BG}}=\frac{\mathrm{h}\nu [\overline{\mathrm{n}}(\overline{\mathrm{n}}+1)]^{1/2}}{\eta _{\mathrm{inst}}\eta _{\mathrm{tel}}\eta _{\mathrm{atm}}\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{tel}}(\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{pol}}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu )^{1/2}},$$
(1)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{n}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{load}}\eta _{\mathrm{inst}}(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{h}\nu /\mathrm{kT}}1)^1`$ is the photon mode occupation number (equivalent to the number of photons per second per Hz of detection bandwidth in a single spatial mode arriving at a detector). Although ALMA will offer a tremendous collecting area, single–dish telescopes can offer improvements in all the other factors appearing in Eq. (1). A reduction of the atmospheric opacity improves the sensitivity twice – in increasing the transmission ($`\eta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$) and in reducing the background load ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{load}}`$). The telescope efficiency $`\eta _{\mathrm{tel}}`$ is determined by the antenna surface accuracy according to the Ruze formula: $`\eta _{\mathrm{tel}}\eta _0\mathrm{exp}[(4\pi ϵ_{\mathrm{rms}}/\lambda )^2]`$. The ALMA antennas will have $`ϵ_{\mathrm{rms}}25\mu \mathrm{m}`$, leaving room for improvement at the high frequencies.

### 3.1 Direct-detection continuum observations

In addition to the sensitivity improvements that are possible by improving the telescope accuracy and atmospheric conditions, direct-detectors can provide additional sensitivity gains since one can couple both polarizations and the full bandwidth provided by the atmospheric windows. The advantage can be substantial – the 650 and 850 GHz windows are each 100 GHz wide, while ALMA will provide only 4–8 GHz instantaneous band. When combined with the efficiency factors, the per pixel sensitivity for a large single-dish telescope can be comparable to that of ALMA. The thin horizontal lines at the start of the vertical arrows in Figure 1 plot the raw sensitivities of planned and potential observatories, listed with their parameters in Table 1. In the short submillimeter windows, the 10–15 meter class telescopes at excellent sites (APEX, ASTE, SPT) offer continuum sensitivities within a factor of 2–5 of ALMA. The fiducial A25 telescope, a 25–meter with $`ϵ_{\mathrm{rms}}=12\mu \mathrm{m}`$ at a very dry site would be 2–5 times more sensitive than ALMA in these windows.

#### Large format direct-detector arrays allow rapid surveys

While the point source sensitivity of a large single-dish telescope can approach that of ALMA at the highest frequencies, the real advantage for single-dish telescopes is the tremendous mapping speed afforded by large-format focal plane arrays. As pointed out above, the mapping speed scales as the instantaneous solid angle and the inverse square of the sensitivity. To get a useful measure of survey speed, we convert the mapping speed to a galaxy detection rate, using power-law extrapolations to the observed source counts in a manner similar to bla02 . As the estimates presented in Table 2 show, a single-dish telescope with a large detector array is much more efficient than ALMA for discovering the sources that make up the IR background. For example, at 450 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, the most likely galaxy to be detected has a flux of a few $`\times `$10 mJy. ALMA will be capable of detecting about one of these per hour, while SCUBA-2 will detect some 20 per hour, and a SCUBA-2 type array on the A-25 telescope could detect $`10^3`$ galaxies per hour. Of course, this rapid mapping speed provided large-format detector arrays applies to a wide range of science topics beyond the survey experiment outlined here.

#### Source confusion is a limitation for the 3-meter class telescopes

A key limitation of continuum surveys using single-dish telescopes is source confusion. When the number of sources in a beam approaches a substantial fraction of unity, extraction of fainter flux densities becomes difficult. Figure 1 includes estimates of this limit for the single-dish telescopes with the thick horizontal lines. We highlight some key points: 1) SIRTF and Herschel will be quickly confusion-limited at their longest wavelengths, and the resulting effective sensitivities are insufficient to probe even bright ($`\mathrm{L}=10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$) sources beyond $`\mathrm{z}1`$. 2) Ground-based telescopes can in principle survey bright sources to $`\mathrm{z}5`$ in the 350 and 450 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ windows, but with the existing and planned 10–15-meter telescopes this will require many tens of hours of observations (of a single field) in good weather, with careful attention paid to systematics. The fiducial A-25 telescope would be a factor of 5 more sensitive than the other telescopes at these wavelengths, and yet effectively not confusion-limited because of the smaller beam. 3) At 850 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 1.3 mm, the observed flux density is essentially independent of redshift, and beam confusion limits a 15-meter telescope to only the bright sources, as has been found with SCUBA. In principle, the 50-meter LMT could detect sources more than 10$`\times `$ less luminous than its 15-meter counterpart at 850 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, but for $`\lambda >1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}`$, the confusion again prohibits the detection of fainter sources.

### 3.2 Far-IR - mm spectroscopy with single-dish telescopes

ALMA will be an exquisite platform for spectroscopy and once commissioned will be the instrument of choice for spectroscopy at known frequencies and positions in its operational bands. Nevertheless, there will remain important scientific niches for spectroscopy that cannot be addressed with ALMA.

#### Full far-IR coverage provided by Herschel and SOIFA

Perhaps the most important is the full far-IR spectral coverage provided by Herschel and SOFIA, which will facilitate ISM studies not possible at other wavelengths. With few exceptions, the neutral atomic and ionized gas phases are probed with spectral lines at $`\lambda <200\mu \mathrm{m}`$, and the optical and near–IR transitions which might be important are typically obscured by dust. Key tracers of the molecular phase are also unique to the far-IR: examples include rotational transitions of the light molecular hydrides (e.g. OH, CH, HD), mid– and high–J CO lines which cool excited ($`\mathrm{T}>100\mathrm{K}`$) molecular gas, and H2O— a key constituent of the molecular ISM not observable from the ground. It is impossible to constrain the dense ISM conditions with ground-based observations alone, and much of our current understanding of these regions is based on far-IR spectroscopy from ariborne and space platforms: COBE, the KAO, ISO and SWAS. As the sensitivity of these observations improves by two or more orders of magnitude in the next decade with SIRTF, SOFIA and Herschel, we can anticipate significant advances in our understanding of the dense ISM phases advances.

#### Broad-bandwidth surveys with direct-detection spectrometers

Another niche in the context of ALMA’s limited bandwidth is the capability to couple a large instantaneous band from point sources for spectral surveys. This is both a means of rapidly measuring several lines simultaneously, and potentially as a redshift measurement technique for optically-faint sources. The spectral survey rate increases as the instantaneous bandwidth of instrument, and even from the ground the instantaneous bandwidth can be an order of magnitude larger than the 4–8 GHz coupled by ALMA. It can be shown that the most sensitive approach to broad-band spectroscopy of point sources is a low-order grating spectrometer bra03 , and for the first time such devices are under development for the submillimeter and millimeter. We highlight ZEUS, an echelle spectrometer for the 350 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 450 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ windows at the JCMT nik03  and Z-Spec, a new waveguide grating spectrometer which covers the full 200–300 GHz window instantaneously bra03 . In their windows, these ground-based spectrometers are more sensitive than those of Herschel and SOFIA because of the aperture size, and should detect diagnostic lines in bright sources ($`\mathrm{L}\mathrm{few}\times 10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$) up to z$``$3. Furthermore, such instruments combined with the A25 telescope could improve the sensitivity by an order of magnitude – probing the more more typical ($`\mathrm{L}\mathrm{few}\times 10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$) galaxies.

#### Potential of a cold space telescope

With Herschel, SOFIA, and the currently–envisioned ground-based spectrometers, we will have the capability to study the ISM conditions in local galaxies, and the very brightest galaxies out to redshifts of $`3`$, but not to the earliest epochs of galaxy formation. These platforms are limited by the background noise from the warm telescope itself (and atmosphere). However, dramatic improvements in sensitivity are still possible with a space telescope cooled to $`\mathrm{T}<10\mathrm{K}`$. As an example, Fig. 2 includes the background-limited sensitivity for SAFIR, a 4 K, 10 meter observatory recommended in the McKee/Taylor Decadal Survey report. SAFIR will be an excellent far-IR spectroscopy platform – capable of detecting spectral lines in a Milky Way–type galaxy to redshifts of 5 or more. Note that a spectrometer can readily detect lines from several sources in the same beam, and thereby offers the potential to overcome the spatial confusion limit.

## Index


text:
# Linking radio to infrared: a radio source count model

## 1 Introduction

Source counts in the radio region of the spectrum divide into two general populations: a faint population of star-forming galaxies and a bright population of AGN-powered sources. This division was first revealed by the upturn in slope of the 1.4 GHz source counts, and has since been confirmed by spectroscopic and multicolour studies (e.g. Windhorst et al. 1985; Benn et al. 1993; Richards et al. 1998). The emission from bright radio sources ($`S_{1.4GHz}>1`$ mJy) is believed to be dominated by synchrotron radiation from jets powered by the accretion of matter onto an AGN, whereas the emission from faint sources ($`S_{1.4GHz}<1`$ mJy) is dominated by processes associated with young, massive stars (Thuan & Condon 1987; Benn et al. 1993), hence is connected to the star formation rate (though some of these sources may also contain weak AGNs).

It is possible to investigate the nature of radio sources using source count modelling. This technique attempts to predict the observed number-flux relation using a local luminosity function and certain assumptions about the galaxy types, their relative contributions to the counts and their evolution. These models, in the radio, are typically based on the 1.4 GHz luminosity function (e.g. Condon 1984; Hopkins et al. 1998). These are able to give good fits to the radio data, but do not fully take account of what is known about galaxy populations and their evolution from multiwavelength data. In this work, we model the source counts using an infrared (IR) luminosity function as the base, exploring the relationship between radio and IR emission.

In Rowan-Robinson (2001, hereafter Paper 1), a source count model using a parametrized approach to galaxy evolution was presented. This method models the luminosity evolution, dominated by the star formation history (SFH), as a combined power law and exponential, the relative strengths of which are allowed to vary freely. This method is capable of reproducing most physically realistic forms of the SFH and allows a large set of possible histories to be investigated. The best-fitting parameter range is then determined by comparison with source count data. This parametrized approach gives good fits to the data in the submillimetre, far- and mid-infrared regions of the spectrum ($`10\mu `$m $`<\lambda <1250\mu `$m), but underpredicts the optical and near-infrared counts. It was shown in King & Rowan-Robinson (2003, hereafter Paper 2) that this issue could be resolved by introducing weak density evolution and a variation of optical depth with redshift. This model gives good fits for source count data across the spectrum, from UV to millimetre.

Extending this source count model to the radio region of the spectrum allows us to investigate the relationships between emission in the radio and other wavebands for different types of galaxies and the nature of radio sources. This paper presents this extension, which is done by extrapolating the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) to the radio using known infrared-radio correlations and introducing a minimal number of new assumptions.

The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, a brief explanation of the source count model presented in Papers 1 and 2 is given. In Section 3, the connection between infrared and radio for non-AGN galaxies is explored. Section 4 looks at radio emission from quasars. The radio source counts are presented in Section 5. The implications of this model are discussed in Section 6. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section 7.

## 2 Parametrized source count model

Four basic ingredients are required to construct a source count model: a luminosity function, a cosmology, a spectral energy distribution (SED) and a form of evolution of the luminosity function and SED with redshift. The model used in this work is based on that presented in Paper 1 and expanded in Paper 2. The key features of this model are presented below; a more detailed description of the model can be found in Papers 1 and 2. A Lambda cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$) is used throughout, with $`H_0=100`$ kms-1Mpc-1.

### 2.1 Luminosity Function

The luminosity function used is determined from the IRAS PSCz sample (Saunders et al. 2000). This data is then fitted with the empirical form of Saunders et al. (1990):

$$\eta (L)=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\mathrm{lg}L}=C_{}\left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)^{1\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}\mathrm{lg}^2\left(1+\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)\right],$$

where $`C_{},\alpha `$ and $`\sigma `$ are constants. For $`\alpha `$ and $`C_{}`$, fixed values of $`\alpha =1.09`$ and $`C_{}=0.027(H_0/100)^3`$Mpc-3 give the best fit to the luminosity function data. As the evolutionary parameters are changed, the other luminosity function parameters have to be adjusted to maintain consistency with the PSCz data. For the best-fitting Lambda model of Paper 2, they are $`\sigma =0.604`$ and $`\mathrm{lg}L_{}=8.688L_{\mathrm{}}`$. These parameters give the best fits to the Saunders et al. (2000) data. Physical descriptions of the parameters are given in Saunders et al. (1990).

### 2.2 Parametrized form of Evolution

In the model presented in Paper 1, it is assumed that changes in star formation rate (SFR) dominate the luminosity evolution, and this is parametrized to allow a wide range of model star formation histories to be explored. The form of the star formation rate, $`\dot{\varphi _{}}(t)`$ (in units of M yr-1 Mpc-3), adopted is:

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t)}{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t_0)}=\left[\mathrm{exp}Q\left(1\frac{t}{t_0}\right)\right]\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^P,$$
(1)
where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are positive variable parameters.

Paper 1 assumes, for computational purposes, that $`\dot{\varphi _{}}(t)=0`$ for $`z>10`$. This is somewhat lower than recent WMAP polarization results, which give a reionization age closer to $`z20`$ (Kogut et al. 2003), but this is found to have a negligible effect on the predicted counts.

In a hierarchical galaxy-formation scenario, it is expected that a lower total density of galaxies will be seen at low redshifts as a result of merger events. Paper 2 explores this density evolution in the form:

$$\rho (z)=\rho (0)(1+z)^n,$$
(2)
along with a variation of optical depth with redshift.

The best-fitting model of Paper 2 has, for a Lambda Universe, $`P=3.4,Q=9.0,n=1.1`$.

### 2.3 Spectral Energy Distributions

Paper 1 explored a variety of assumptions about the SEDs. The method that was most consistent with available data was to derive the counts separately for each of four components – M82-like starburst, ‘cirrus’ (normal, non-active galaxy), Arp 220-like starburst and AGN – then sum them.

For the starburst and cirrus components, the SEDs in the IR are based on the radiative transfer model of Efstathiou, Rowan-Robinson & Siebenmorgen (2000). For the AGN component, the dust torus model of Rowan-Robinson (1995) is used. The SEDs, including the extension to the radio, are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

The proportions of the four components at 60-$`\mu `$m as a function of luminosity were chosen to give correct relations in colour-colour diagrams, as detailed in Paper 1. The relative proportion of the 60-$`\mu `$m emission due to AGNs is derived from the 12-$`\mu `$m luminosity function of Rush, Malkan & Spinoglio (1993). We use the same functions as are listed in table 1 of Paper 1.

## 3 Galaxy SEDs

Observations of star-forming galaxies (starbursts and ULIRGs) show a very strong and well-established correlation between their FIR and radio fluxes, covering over four decades of IR flux intensities (e.g. de Jong et al. 1985; Helou, Soifer & Rowan-Robinson 1985). This correlation has been also been observed in a wide variety of normal (non-AGN) galaxies, such as ellipticals and irregulars (e.g. Wunderlich, Wielebinski & Klein 1987)

The radio and FIR fluxes are correlated in these normal galaxies because they arise from (different) physical processes that correlate directly with star formation (Helou & Bicay 1993). There are two main sources of radio emission from normal galaxies (see review by Condon 1992):

1. non-thermal synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons (cosmic rays) accelerated by supernovae remnants,
2. thermal free-free emission from Hii regions ionized by massive stars.

The relativistic electrons produced by supernovae remnants have lifetimes on the order of $`10^8`$ years, while the free-free emission lasts $`10^7`$ yrs. As star formation occurs on a timescale of around $`10^7`$ years, the radio emission, like the FIR emission, is strongly linked to the star formation rate. For normal galaxies, the thermal free-free emission is typically one or two orders of magnitude less than that of the non-thermal synchrotron emission.

This correlation makes it possible to determine the counts of the non-AGN galaxies in the source count model by extending their SEDs to the radio.

### 3.1 Cirrus SED

The radio SED for the cirrus component can be determined from the FIR using the known radio-FIR correlation. Helou et al. (1985) express this correlation as:

$$q=\mathrm{lg}\left[\frac{S_{FIR}/(3.75\times 10^{12}\text{Hz})}{S_\nu (1.4\text{GHz})}\right],$$
(3)
where $`3.75\times 10^{12}`$Hz is the frequency at 80 $`\mu `$m and $`S_{FIR}`$ is an estimate of the flux between 42.5 and 122.5 $`\mu `$m:

$$S_{FIR}=1.26\times 10^{14}\times [2.58f_\nu (60\mu m)+f_\nu (100\mu m)],$$

where $`f_\nu `$ are the flux densities in Jy, and $`S_{FIR}`$ is in Wm-2.

For the cirrus component, $`q`$ = 2.48 is used, from the value derived for spiral galaxies in Roy et al. (1998). Putting the 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m values in from the cirrus SED into eqn. 3 gives a flux value at 1.4 GHz.

For normal galaxies, the radio continuum is expected to be dominated by synchrotron emission following the relation:

$$S_\nu \nu ^\alpha ,$$

where $`\alpha `$ is the spectral slope, having different values for different galaxy types. The spectral slopes of cirrus galaxies are found to be tightly correlated around a mean value of 0.8 (Gioia, Gregorini & Klein 1982; Niklas, Klein & Wielebinski 1997), with a standard deviation of 0.02. Using this, and the flux at 1.4 GHz derived from the FIR-radio correlation, the SED can be extended to the radio, using a spline fit to connect in the millimetre region. The resulting SED is shown in Fig. 1.

### 3.2 M82 starburst SED

The starburst component can be extended to the radio using the same procedure as for the cirrus component (§3.1). The value of $`q`$ in eqn. 3 is very similar to that for the cirrus component: Yun, Reddy & Condon (2001) find $`q=2.21`$ for starburst galaxies. The mean spectral slope is the same as for cirrus galaxies, $`\alpha =0.8`$ (Gioia et al. 1982; Niklas et al. 1997). These were used to extend the SED as shown in Fig. 1.

### 3.3 Arp 220 starburst SED

The same procedure used for the cirrus and starburst galaxies can be used again for the Arp 220 type starbursts (ULIRGs). For these, Farrah et al. (2003) find the mean value of $`q`$ to be 2.36. However, the spectral slopes are more varied than for cirrus and starburst galaxies, ranging from 0.0 to 0.8 (Condon et al. 1991; Sopp & Alexander 1991b), possibly because some ULIRGs contain AGNs as well as starbursts (e.g. Sanders et al. 1988; Genzel et al. 1998; Farrah et al. 2001). A mean value of 0.4 is adopted. The resulting SED is shown in Fig. 1.

## 4 Quasars

It has long been known that only a small percentage of AGNs emit a significant fraction of their bolometric power in the radio region. The cause of this is still a matter of debate. Some studies have shown the distribution of radio luminosities to be bimodal (e.g. Miller, Peacock & Mead 1990; Stocke et al. 1992; Hooper et al. 1995), prompting many to classify quasars as either ‘radio loud’ or ‘radio quiet’.

A number of suggestions have been put forward to explain the apparent division of quasars into radio loud quasars (RLQs) and radio quiet quasars (RQQs), such as differences in geometry (jets pointing towards the observer), absorption (a local, clumpy plasma), fundamentally different types of objects, different black hole properties, such as mass or spin (Lacy et al. 2001; Wilson & Colbert 1995, respectively) and the presence or absence of lobes (see review by Antonucci 1993). The last two theories are generally considered to be the most likely to explain the full range of observations. One would expect that, if black hole properties were the cause, a continuum of radio loudness would be seen (e.g. Condon et al. 1981; Lacy et al. 2001), whereas the lobes hypothesis would produce two distinct populations.

To include AGNs into the source count model in the radio region, it has been assumed that the presence or absence of lobes is responsible for the difference in radio emission, hence there are two populations (radio loud and radio quiet) with different SEDs.

### 4.1 Radio quiet quasar SED

The correlation between FIR and radio holds for all normal (non-AGN) galaxies, as both forms of emission are indirectly due to star formation (as discussed in §3). It is not immediately obvious, however, that there should be any link between FIR and radio for galaxies with AGN. However, Sopp & Alexander (1991a) found that RQQs follow the same correlation as normal galaxies, although they show more scatter (Roy et al. 1998).

The most probable cause of this correlation is that the radio emission from RQQs is dominated by star formation activity in the host galaxy, not the AGN (Roy et al. 1998). It is most likely that the host is undergoing a starburst, causing both the FIR and radio emission.

It has been shown that radio emission from quasars is split between the host galaxy (‘disc’) and a core, with the emission from RQQs being disc-dominated, and emission from RLQs being core-dominated (e.g. Sanders & Mirabel 1985). This supports the hypothesis that radio emission from RQQs originates in the host galaxy, whereas RLQ emission is AGN-dominated.

In the model presented in Paper 1, the AGN component does not include the emission from the host galaxy, which is accounted for in the starburst component. Hence, the direct radio emission from RQQs is considered to be negligible.

### 4.2 Radio loud quasar SED

Unlike the RQQ case, radio emission from RLQs is core dominated, so there is no clear reason to expect a correlation between the FIR and the radio as the AGN SED peaks in the mid-IR. Empirical studies have, however, shown that a loose correlation exists (e.g. Sopp & Alexander 1991a). This might be expected if both the AGN and starburst share a common trigger event or fuelling mechanism (discussed in §6).

If both the AGN and the star formation in the host galaxy are caused by merger or interaction events, then it is reasonable that the FIR and radio emissions should show some correlation in RLQs. This correlation, however, is much less tight and less well studied than for normal galaxies and RQQs, so four trial SEDs were created, based on two quasar catalogues: Elvis et al. (1994) and Poletta et al. (2000). From these catalogues, mean differences in flux between 60 $`\mu `$m and 1.4 GHz were derived. These were then used to determine 1.4 GHz flux values for each model from the 60 $`\mu `$m flux of the existing AGN SED.

Quasars show a range of spectral slopes, $`\alpha `$, from 0 to 1, roughly dividing into two broad populations: flat spectrum ($`\alpha 0`$) and steep spectrum ($`\alpha 1`$). The mean slop is $`0.7`$, as steep spectrum quasars are more numerous. To simplify the model, it is assumed that all RLQs have this mean spectral slope. The same method as in §3.1 is used to generate the SED, with $`q=2.48`$ and $`\alpha =0.7`$ (see Fig. 2). The large range in variation of resulting radio flux reflects the uncertainty in the definition of RLQs and the scatter in the correlation between their FIR and radio emission.

Models were also tried where the spectral slope was varied between 0.5 and 1.0, but the effects on the resulting source counts in the data range examined were negligible. This indicates that the model would not be improved by splitting the RLQs further into flat and steep spectrum sources, or using a spread of values of spectral slope. This effect would be more noticeable at very long wavelengths and will be examined in future models.

### 4.3 Radio loud quasar fraction

As RLQs are the dominant contributors to the bright counts, the treatment of the fraction of AGNs that are radio loud is very important to the model.

Early studies of the fraction of RLQs typically showed that around 10 to 20 per cent of quasars are radio loud (e.g. Kellermann et al. 1989). Models with a fixed fraction of AGNs being radio loud, however, do not come close to fitting the source counts at 1.4 GHz (see Fig. 6).

A number of studies have shown that the fraction of AGNs that are radio loud ($`f_{RLQ}`$) is not, in fact, fixed, but rather varies with redshift (more RLQs generally being seen at low redshift) and optical luminosity (e.g. Miller et al. 1990; Padovani 1993; Goldschmidt et al. 1999; Impey & Petry 2001) - the two often being hard to separate. The cause of this variation of $`f_{RLQ}`$ is still poorly understood. Speculations on the cause include different rates of evolution and changes in opacity (Miller et al. 1990; La Franca et al. 1994).

An investigation into the effects allowing $`f_{RLQ}`$ to vary with redshift showed that it could fit the radio counts reasonably well. However, there is a significant problem with this approach: it doesn’t account for the known shape of the radio luminosity function (RLF). The RLF has a flatter shape than the IR luminosity function and simply translating the 60 $`\mu `$m luminosity function to radio using the SEDs thus far developed does not give the correct shape (see Fig. 3). Varying $`f_{RLQ}`$ with redshift will not affect the shape of the local RLF, so this mechanism does not fit all available data.

Allowing $`f_{RLQ}`$ to vary with luminosity could potentially solve the problem with the shape of the RLF by reducing the number of RLQs seen at fainter luminosities. It has been found that quasars with higher optical luminosities are more likely to be radio loud (Miller et al. 1990; Hooper et al. 1995; Goldschmidt et al. 1999; Impey & Petry 2001).

Data on the variation of $`f_{RLQ}`$ with optical luminosity (hereafter referred to as $`f_{RLQ}(L_B)`$) is, like the variation with redshift, quite scarce and based on small samples. Hence, a number of models were constructed with $`f_{RLQ}(L_B)`$ within the ranges presented by the available data and compared to the source count and luminosity function data to get a best-fitting model.

The best-fitting model using this approach was obtained using $`f_{RLQ}(L_B)`$ as shown in Fig. 4 and with a slight increase in the AGN luminosity function at luminosities $`\mathrm{lg}(L/L_{\mathrm{}})1011`$. This alteration in the luminosity function was sufficiently small to have no noticeable effect on the blue quasar counts or the 12 $`\mu `$m luminosity function. The resulting local luminosity function is shown in Fig. 5.

## 5 Radio counts

The best-fitting model uses the variation of $`f_{RLQ}(L_B)`$ shown in Fig. 4 with SED 4 and matches the data well at 1.4 GHz, as shown in Fig. 6. This figure also shows the counts for a model with a fixed $`f_{RLQ}`$ of 15 per cent, with SED 3, for comparison. All the counts shown are differential, and normalised to a Euclidean Universe.

Good fits are also obtained to the counts at 4.86 and 8.44 GHz (Figs. 7 and 8, respectively). Fig. 9 shows the relative contributions from the different galaxy types. Note that, in this model, it is predicted that the contribution of AGNs to sub-$`\mu `$Jy sources is negligible, which is not necessarily correct. It is possible that some faint source contain both starbursts and weak AGNs, which are not accounted for in this model. This could also explain why the predicted faint counts are at the low end of the available data, though this may alternatively be an indication that the selected values of $`q`$ for the cirrus and/or starburst components are slightly too high.

The fits obtained to the radio count and luminosity function data are generally good, though Fig. 5 shows that the cirrus component is overpredicted at faint luminosities. It is possible that this may indicate a breakdown of the radio-IR correlation at low luminosities (Bell 2003).

## 6 Discussion

### 6.1 Relative numbers of RLQs and RQQs

To explain the shape of the RLF, we found it necessary to classify AGNs as either radio loud or radio quiet, with a fraction that varies with optical luminosity, as is found observationally. This bimodality is essential for the model, so the possible reasons for it are worthy of discussion.

The best-fitting model (see Fig. 4) has a high fraction of RLQs at high optical luminosities ($`f_{RLQ}=0.8`$ at $`\mathrm{lg}L_B=14`$), dropping to a low fraction at lower optical luminosities ($`f_{RLQ}=0.1`$ at $`\mathrm{lg}L_B=11`$). Suggestions for the cause of this form have included RLQs having a slightly different evolution to RQQs and a difference in host galaxies. Other possibilities, which have been little discussed in the literature, are a variation in opacity and inverse Compton scattering of the microwave background.

1. It is possible that AGNs might have a longer lifespan than starbursts, resulting in them persisting longer after the interaction or merger event. This difference might result in a different evolution, which Padovani (1993) showed could be responsible for the change in $`f_{RLQ}`$ with optical luminosity. The typical lifespans of both AGNs and starbursts, however, remain uncertain by several orders of magnitude.

A simple zeroth order estimate of timescale of AGNs, is the e-folding time, which is based on the black hole luminosity as a fraction of the Eddington luminosity. Very little, however, is known about this fraction, necessitating an empirical approach to the lifespan.

An upper limit on the lifespan of AGNs ($`t_{AGN}`$) can be obtained from the observed evolution of the quasar luminosity function (e.g. Osmer 1998), giving $`t_{AGN}<10^9`$ yr, as the whole population rises and falls over this interval. Individual AGNs might exist on much shorter timescales than the population, however, and lower limits of $`t_{AGN}>10^5`$ yr can be derived from indirect arguments, such as the requirement that quasars maintain their ionizing luminosity long enough to explain the proximity effect in the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest (e.g. Bajtlik, Duncan & Ostriker 1988; Bechtold 1994).

Estimates of the AGN lifetime, within these limits, are typically based on matching the present-day quasar luminosity functions to models of galaxy formation (Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998; Salucci et al. 1999), or using measurements of high-redshift quasar clustering (Martini & Weinberg 2001), yielding $`t_{AGN}10^610^8`$ yr.

The lifetime of starbursts, by comparison, is around $`10^62\times 10^7`$ years (e.g. Leitherer & Heckman 1995; Thornley et al. 2000): a similar, though slightly lower, range to that found for AGNs. Given the uncertainty in these figures, it is not possible to definitely determine if there is any difference between the lifespans, though it cannot be ruled out.
2. An obvious difference between RLQs and RQQs is the nature of their host galaxies, which could give their optical luminosity functions different shapes, resulting in the observed $`f_{RLQ}(L_B)`$. Low redshift studies of AGN have long found that radio loud AGNs are more likely to be found in elliptical hosts, whereas radio quiet AGNs are found most often in spiral hosts. At higher redshifts, however, this distinction may break down (McLeod & Rieke 1995; Taylor et al. 1996). Taylor et al. (1996) found that the fraction of RQQs in elliptical hosts increases with optical luminosity. This could produce a variation of $`f_{RLQ}`$ by affecting the optical luminosity function.
3. The variation in radio loud fraction could possibly be related to the Magorrian relation between black hole mass and bulge mass for galaxies (Magorrian et al. 1998). A relation between optical luminosity and bulge mass is to be expected, and there could also be a relation between radio loud fraction and black hole mass (depending on the cause of radio loudness), so the Magorrian relation could result in a variation of radio loud fraction with optical luminosity.
4. The existence of so-called ‘red’ quasars could complicate the interpretation of the RQQ/RLQ split. Webster et al. (1995) reported the discovery of a population of quasars that do not appear in optically-selected samples, which they interpret as evidence of heavy obscuration in the optical region. If the Kellermann et al. (1989) definition of radio loudness, based on the ratio of radio to optical luminosity, is used, then some quasars would be mis-classified as radio loud, due to the optical extinction. This population of heavily-obscured quasars could also affect the perceived fraction of AGNs that are radio loud by suppressing the number of radio quiet quasars observed at optical wavelengths. It is not known how significant an effect this is, as the size of the population of red quasars is not certain.
5. The radio emission from quasars is predominantly synchrotron radiation from relativistic electrons. The relativistic electrons will also interact with photons from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) via an inverse Compton (IC) scattering process (e.g. Felten & Morrison 1966; Rowan-Robinson 1970). The upscattering of these photons to optical or even X-ray energies will ‘use up’ the energy in the electrons, diminishing the radio emission. This suppression of the radio emission could lead to sources being observed as radio quiet, though they would otherwise be seen as radio loud. The upscattering effect has been detected in radio sources and clusters (e.g. Fusco-Femiano et al. 1999). This effect would drop off as $`(1+z)^4`$, so could result in a variation in $`f_{RLQ}`$ with redshift, though the number of quasars that have sufficiently weak magnetic fields for the effect to be significant is not known. This effect is unlikely to be significant as radio sources above $`\mu `$Jy fluxes are predominantly at $`z<1`$.

### 6.2 Influence of mergers and interactions

As described in §4, the extension to radio relies on there being a correlation between the radio and FIR emission from RLQs. The goodness of fit indicates these assumptions are reasonable. If starbursts and AGNs were to share common trigger events and fuelling mechanisms, respectively, then this could explain the radio-FIR correlation. This theory is supported by a number of other analyses:

1. If the star formation and black hole accretion processes are really concomitant, we would expect the luminosity functions of starbursting galaxies and AGNs to have similar shapes. Comparative studies of the bolometric luminosities of luminous FIR galaxies, bright optical quasars (Schmidt & Green 1983) and lower luminosity Markarian Seyferts (Soifer et al. 1987) have shown that a broad similarity exists.
2. For elliptical galaxies, the mass of the central black hole is proportional to the mass of the bulge (Magorrian et al. 1998). This relation also holds for quasars (Laor 1998; van der Marel 1999). Hierarchical models of galaxy evolution have shown that this relation occurs naturally if a common trigger for AGNs and starbursts is assumed (Cattaneo, Haehnelt & Rees 1999; Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000).
3. Quasars typically occur in areas of high galaxy density (e.g. Yee & Green 1987), which could indicate that interactions and mergers are triggering gas inflows, which allow the formation of starbursts and provide fuel for the central black hole.

### 6.3 Breakdown of the IR-radio correlation?

Recent work by Bell (2003) has cast doubt on whether the FIR-radio correlation holds for faint ($`0.01L_{}`$) galaxies. It has been found that low-luminosity galaxies are optically thin, so the FIR should trace only a small fraction of the star formation. If radio were a perfect star formation indicator, a curvature should be detectable in the FIR-radio correlation. No such curvature is seen, which is interpreted as showing that radio is not a perfect star formation indicator, and hence the observed FIR-radio correlation is a coincidence for faint galaxies.

## 7 Conclusions

* The radio source count and luminosity function data can be fit well using a model based on a FIR luminosity function with 4 basic galaxy types, with the radio SEDs determined by the FIR-radio correlation and the AGN population being subdivided into radio loud and radio quiet populations.
* It has been shown that including a variation of the fraction of AGNs that are radio loud is necessary. A variation with redshift can provide a good fit to the source counts, but not to the local luminosity function, whereas a variation with optical luminosity will fit both. In the model where fraction varies with optical luminosity, no variation with redshift is required. It is not yet known why $`f_{RLQ}`$ might vary with optical luminosity.
* This model supports the theory that AGNs and starbursts have a common trigger event, such as a merger or interaction, though they may have different lifetimes.
* The predicted faint counts are at the low end of the available data, which may indicate a missing population of weak AGNs, or an under-prediction of the radio loudness of the cirrus and/or starburst components.
* Future work is particularly needed on the variation of fraction of radio loud quasars with optical luminosity, which has been shown to be a significant effect. Other areas of investigation are: a comparison with the assumption of a continuum of radio loudness; the timescales of AGN and starbursts; the redshift distribution of radio sources; the opacity of quasars; the existence and nature of weak AGNs; and whether the FIR-radio correlation breaks down at high redshifts. Deeper radio observations are also required to investigate the rôle of the star-forming galaxies.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful for comments by José Afonso, Duncan Farrah, Matthew Fox, Chris Pearson and the referee, Rogier Windhorst.