text:
# Coulomb interaction from the interplay between Confinement and Screening

## I Introduction

It is well known that one of the long standing problems in physics is understanding the confinement physics from first principles. Hence the challenge is to develop analytical approaches which provide valuable insight and theoretical guidance. According to this viewpoint, an effective theory in which confining potentials are obtained as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking of scale invariance has been developed. In particular, it was shown that a such theory relies on a scale invariant Lagrangian of the type

$$=\frac{1}{4}w^2\frac{1}{2}w\sqrt{F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }},$$
(1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$, and $`w`$ is not a fundamental field but rather is a function of $`4`$-index field strength, that is,

$$w=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\mu A_{\nu \alpha \beta }.$$
(2)
The $`A_{\nu \alpha \beta }`$ equation of motion leads to

$$\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\beta \left(w\sqrt{F_{\gamma \delta }^aF^{a\gamma \delta }}\right)=0,$$
(3)
which is then integrated to

$$w=\sqrt{F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }}+M.$$
(4)
It is easy to verify that the $`A_a^\mu `$ equation of motion leads us to

$$_\mu \left(F^{a\mu \nu }+M\frac{F^{a\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{F_{\alpha \beta }^bF^{b\alpha \beta }}}\right)=0.$$
(5)
It is worth stressing at this stage that the above equation can be obtained from the effective Lagrangian

$$_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{M}{2}\sqrt{F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }}.$$
(6)
Spherically symmetric solutions of Eqs.(5) display, even in the Abelian case, a Coulomb piece and a confining part. Also, the quantum theory calculation of the static energy between two charges displays the same behavior. It is well known that the square root part describes string like solutions.

Within this framework the aim of the present Letter is to extend further the previous analysis by considering the effect of a mass term. To this end we will compute the static potential of this theory. In fact, we will show that the static potential for the new theory gives rise to an effective Coulomb interaction. We recall in passing that the static potential between a heavy quark and antiquark is a tool of considerable theoretical interest which is expected to provide the foundation for understanding confinement. According to our approach, the interaction potential between two charges is obtained once a suitable identification of the physical degrees of freedom is made. This methodology has been used previously in many examples for studying features of screening and confinement in gauge theories .

## II The Interplay between Confinement and Mass terms

Some time ago, Giles, Jaffe and de Rujula  proposed that in the presence of spontaneous breaking of gauge symmetry confinement in $`QCD`$ may become an approximate effect and there could be in this case high mass states of unconfined quarks and gluons. Their analysis was done in the context of the $`MIT`$ bag model.

Subsequently this research was criticized by Georgi , who argued that the confinement properties of $`QCD`$ will present an obstacle for the s.s.b. of gauge symmetry.

Here we want to show that even if s.s.b. of gauge symmetry is not in question and that there is indeed a mass term induced in the action, then the dynamics of a theory which is governed by a confining term ( explained in the previous section ) and a mass term presents highly unexpected features.

Let us study an effective action of the form

$$_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{M}{2}\sqrt{F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2}A_\mu ^aA^{a\mu },$$
(7)
and let us study for simplicity the Abelian case. Then, equation for the spherically symmetric case is

$$\left(𝐄+\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\widehat{𝐫}\right)=\mu ^2\varphi .$$
(8)
Looking for static solutions where also we set $`𝐀=0`$, that is, $`𝐄=\varphi `$, we find that Eq.(8) becomes

$$\frac{1}{r}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\left(r\varphi \right)\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{r}+\mu ^2\varphi =0,$$
(9)
which for $`\mu ^2=0`$, has as solution

$$\varphi =\frac{C}{r}+\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}r,$$
(10)
displaying a confinement (M) part and a Coulomb part. Notice that for $`\mu ^20`$ the nature of the solutions is totally different, being of the form

$$\varphi =C\frac{e^{\mu r}}{r}+\left(\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}\mu ^2}\right)\frac{1}{r}.$$
(11)
From Eq.(11) we can appreciate the interesting phenomenon of the appearance of an effective Coulomb term, which depends on both the confining term ($`M`$ dependence) and on the screening or mass term ($`\mu ^2`$ dependence). The confining term in Eq.(10) has disappeared and is being replaced by a Coulomb term, even for $`\mu `$ arbitrarily small. As $`\mu ^20`$ instead of confinement one has an arbitrarily strong Coulomb term. These general arguments can be put in a more solid ground by the use of the full quantum mechanical gauge-invariant variables formalism.

## III Interaction energy

As already mentioned, our immediate objective is to compute explicitly the interaction energy between static pointlike sources for the mode under consideration. The starting point is the two-dimensional space-time Lagrangian obtained from (7) in the Abelian case and considering only $`r,t`$ dependence, a sort of minisuper-space approach.

$$=4\pi r^2\left\{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{M}{2\sqrt{2}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{\mu ^2}{2}A_\mu A^\mu \right\}A_0J^0,$$
(12)
where $`J^0`$ is the external current, and $`\mu `$ is the mass for the gauge fields. Here $`\mu ,\nu =0,1`$, where $`x^1r|𝐱|`$ and $`\epsilon ^{01}=1`$. We have used that in a two dimensional space $`(t,r)`$, $`\sqrt{F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }}=\frac{\epsilon _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{2}}`$. It is worthwhile sketching at this point the canonical quantization of this theory from the Hamiltonian analysis point of view. The canonical momenta read $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =4\pi x^2\left(F^{0\mu }+\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\epsilon ^{0\mu }\right)`$, which results in the usual primary constraint $`\mathrm{\Pi }^0=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^i=4\pi x^2\left(F^{0i}+\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\epsilon ^{0i}\right)`$. The canonical Hamiltonian following from the above Lagrangian is:

$$H_0=𝑑x\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_1^1A^0\frac{1}{8\pi x^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }^1\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\epsilon ^{01}\mathrm{\Pi }_1+\pi x^2M^22\pi x^2\mu ^2\left(A_0A^0+A_1A^1\right)+A_0J^0\right\}.$$
(13)
Requiring the primary constraint $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=0`$ to be preserved in time yields the following secondary constraint

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(x\right)_1\mathrm{\Pi }^1+4\pi x^2\mu ^2A^0J^0=0.$$
(14)
It is straightforward to see that both constraints are second class. Thus, in order to convert the second class system into first class we adopt the procedure described in Refs.. In such a case we enlarge the original phase space by introducing a canonical pair of fields $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta `$. Then a new set of first class constraints can be defined in this extended space:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_0+4\pi x^2\mu ^2\theta =0,$$
(15)
and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta =0.$$
(16)
It is easy to verify that the new constraints are first class. Therefore the new effective Lagrangian reads

$$=4\pi r^2\left\{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)F^{\mu \nu }\frac{M}{2\sqrt{2}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right\}A_0J^0.$$
(17)
We now restrict our attention to the Hamiltonian framework of this theory. The canonical momenta read $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =4\pi x^2\left[\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)F^{0\mu }+\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\epsilon ^{0\mu }\right]`$. This yields the usual primary constraint $`\mathrm{\Pi }^0=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^i=4\pi x^2\left[\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)F^{0i}+\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\epsilon ^{0i}\right]`$. Therefore the canonical Hamiltonian takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill H_C=𝑑x\left\{A_0\left(_1\mathrm{\Pi }^1J^0\right)\frac{1}{8\pi x^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^1\mathrm{\Pi }^1\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^1\epsilon ^{01}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\right\}+\\ \hfill +𝑑x\left\{\pi M^2\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^1x^2\right\}.\end{array}$$
(18)
Temporal conservation of the primary constraint $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ leads to the secondary constraint $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\left(x\right)_1\mathrm{\Pi }^1J^0=0`$. It is straightforward to check that there are no further constraints in the theory. The extended Hamiltonian that generates translations in time then reads $`H=H_C+𝑑x\left(c_0(x)\mathrm{\Pi }_0(x)+c_1(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(x)\right)`$, where $`c_0(x)`$ and $`c_1(x)`$ are the Lagrange multipliers. Moreover, it follows from this Hamiltonian that $`\dot{A}_0\left(x\right)=[A_0\left(x\right),H]=c_0\left(x\right)`$, which is an arbitrary function. Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=0`$, neither $`A^0`$ nor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^0`$ are of interest in describing the system and may be discarded from the theory. As a result, the Hamiltonian becomes

$$H=𝑑x\left\{\frac{1}{8\pi x^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^1\mathrm{\Pi }^1\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^1\epsilon ^{01}\mathrm{\Pi }_{01}+c^{}\left(_1\mathrm{\Pi }^1J^0\right)\right\},$$
(19)
where $`c^{}\left(x\right)=c_1\left(x\right)A_0\left(x\right)`$.

According to the usual procedure we introduce a supplementary condition on the vector potential such that the full set of constraints becomes second class. A convenient choice is found to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\left(x\right)\underset{C_{\xi x}}{}𝑑z^\nu A_\nu \left(z\right)\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\lambda x^1A_1\left(\lambda x\right)=0,$$
(20)
where $`\lambda `$ $`(0\lambda 1)`$ is the parameter describing the spacelike straight path $`x^1=\xi ^1+\lambda \left(x\xi \right)^1`$, and $`\xi `$ is a fixed point (reference point). There is no essential loss of generality if we restrict our considerations to $`\xi ^1=0`$. In this case, the only nontrivial Dirac bracket is

$$\{A_1\left(x\right),\mathrm{\Pi }^1\left(y\right)\}^{}=\delta ^{\left(1\right)}\left(xy\right)_1^x\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\lambda x^1\delta ^{\left(1\right)}\left(\lambda xy\right).$$
(21)
We are now equipped to compute the interaction energy between pointlike sources in the model under consideration, where a fermion is localized at the origin $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and an antifermion at $`𝐲`$. In order to accomplish this purpose, we will calculate the expectation value of the energy operator $`H`$ in the physical state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. From our above discussion, we see that $`H_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ reads

$$H_\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\left|𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{8\pi x^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^1\mathrm{\Pi }^1\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^1\epsilon ^{01}\mathrm{\Pi }_{01}\right)\right|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(22)
Since the fermions are taken to be infinitely massive (static), we can substitute $`\mathrm{}`$ by $`_1^2`$ in Eq.(22). Here $`_1^2`$ refers to the radial part of the spherical Laplacian. In such a case we write

$$H_\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\left|𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{8\pi x^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(1\frac{\mu ^2}{_1^2}\right)^1\mathrm{\Pi }^1\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1\frac{\mu ^2}{_1^2}\right)^1\epsilon ^{01}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\right)\right|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(23)
Next, as was first established by Dirac, the physical state can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(𝐲\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\mathrm{𝟎}\right)=\overline{\psi }\left(𝐲\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(ie\underset{\mathrm{𝟎}}{\overset{𝐲}{}}𝑑z^iA_i\left(z\right)\right)\psi \left(\mathrm{𝟎}\right)|0,$$
(24)
where $`|0`$ is the physical vacuum state and the line integral appearing in the above expression is along a spacelike path starting at $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and ending $`𝐲`$, on a fixed time slice. From this we see that the fermion fields are now dressed by a cloud of gauge fields.

Taking into account the above Hamiltonian structure, we observe that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(x\right)|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(y\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(y\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(x\right)|0e_0^y𝑑z_1\delta ^{\left(1\right)}\left(z_1x\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(25)
Inserting this back into (23), we get

$$H_\mathrm{\Phi }=H_0\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\frac{e^{\mu L}}{L}\frac{Me}{\sqrt{2}4\pi \mu ^2}\frac{1}{L},$$
(26)
where $`H_0=0\left|H\right|0`$ and with $`|y|L`$. Since the potential is given by the term of the energy which depends on the separation of the two fermions, from the expression (26) we obtain

$$V=\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\frac{e^{\mu L}}{L}\frac{Me}{\sqrt{2}4\pi \mu ^2}\frac{1}{L}.$$
(27)
In this way the static interaction between fermions arises only because of the requirement that the $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ states be gauge invariant.

## IV Final Remarks

From our final expression for the heavy interquark potential we see that:

a) For $`\mu ^2=0`$ the theory describes an exactly confining phase.

b) For $`\mu ^20`$ but $`\mu ^2`$ very small, we observe that the linear potential is now replaced by a Coulomb potential which is however a very strong one. In this limit, states will be indeed bound, that is, confined due to the very strong Coulomb potential unless they correspond to very high excitations. Indeed the ”ionization energy” of this system goes to infinity as $`\mu ^20`$. However the Coulomb potential is not exactly confining, therefore, even for small $`\mu ^2`$, the confining nature the potential is lost. In general, this picture agrees qualitatively with that of Giles, Jaffe and de Rujula of quasiconfinement for $`QCD`$ with a small gauge symmetry breaking term.

## V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One of us (E.I.G.) wants to thank the Physics Department of the Universidad Técnica F. Santa María for hospitality. P.G. would like to thank I. Schmidt for his support.


format: text

text:
# Testing Pulsar Thermal Evolution Theories with Observation

## 1. Introduction

The launch of the Einstein Observatory gave the first hope for detecting thermal radiation directly from the surface of neutron stars (NSs). However, the temperatures obtained by the Einstein were only the upper limits (e.g., Nomoto & Tsuruta 1986). ROSAT offered the first confirmed detections (not just upper limits) for such surface thermal radiation from at least three cooling neutron stars, PSR 0656+14, PSR 0630+18 (Geminga) and PSR 1055-52 (e.g., Becker 1995). Recently the prospect for measuring the surface temperature of isolated NSs, as well as obtaining better upper limits, has increased significantly, thanks to the superior X-ray data from Chandra and XMM/Newton, as well as the data in lower energy bands from optical-UV telescopes such as Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Consequently, the number of possible surface temperature detections has already increased to at least nine (see, e.g., Tsuruta et al. 2002, hereafter T02). Very recently Chandra offered an important upper limit to PSR J0205+6449 in 3C58 (Slane, Helfand, & Murray 2002). More detections, as well as better upper limits, are expected from space missions planned for the immediate future. These developments have proved to offer serious ‘turning points’ for the detectability of thermal radiation directly from the surface of isolated NSs. In addition, more careful and detailed theoretical investigation of various input microphysics has already started (see, e.g., Lattimer’s contribution to this volume; Takatsuka et al. 2001; Takatsuka et al. 2003, hereafter Ta03a; Tamagaki 2003, hereafter Ta03b). In this report we try to demonstrate that distinguishing among various competing NS cooling theories has started to become possible, by careful comparison of improved theories with new observations (see., e.g., T02; Tsuruta et al. 2003, hereafter Ts03; Teter et al. 2003, hereafter Te03).

## 2. Neutron Star Cooling Theories

The first detailed cooling calculations (Tsuruta and Cameron 1966) showed that isolated NSs can be warm enough to be observable as X-ray sources for about a million years. After a supernova explosion a newly formed NS first cools via various neutrino emission mechanisms before the surface photon radiation takes over. Among the important factors which seriously affect the nature of NS cooling are: neutrino emission processes, superfluidity of constituent particles, composition, mass, and the equation of state (EOS). In this paper, for convenience, the conventional, slower neutrino cooling mechanisms, such as the modified Urca, plasmon neutrino and bremsstrahlung processes, will be called ‘standard cooling’. On the other hand, the more ‘exotic’ extremely fast cooling processes, such as the direct Urca processes involving nucleons, hyperons, pions, kaons, and quarks, will be called ‘nonstandard’ processes (see, e.g., Tsuruta 1998, hereafter T98; Tsuruta & Teter 2001, hereafter TT01).

The composition of NS interior is predominantly neutrons with only a small fraction of protons and electrons (and possibly muons also) when the interior density is not high (the central density $`\rho ^c<`$ 1015 gm/cm3). For higher densities more ‘exotic’ particles, such as hyperons, pions, kaons and quarks, may dominate the central core. Therefore, when the star is less massive and hence less dense, it will be a neutron star with the interior consisting predominantly of neutrons (no ‘exotic’ particles) and it will cool with the slower, ‘standard’ neutrino processes. On the other hand when $`\rho ^c`$ exceeds the transition density to the exotic matter $`\rho _{tr}`$, the transition from nucleons to ‘exotic’ particles takes place. Therefore, more massive stars, whose $`\rho ^c`$ exceeds $`\rho _{tr}`$, possesses a central core consisting of the exotic particles. In that case, the nonstandard fast cooling takes over111Note, however, that if proton fraction in the neutron matter is exceptionally high, i.e., $`>15\%`$, nonstandard fast cooling can take place in a NS without exotic particles, through the nucleon direct Urca process. This can happen for a certain type of EOS models which alow such high proton concentration above a certain critical density (Lattimer et al. 1991). In order to include this option, in the following discussion we will call a fast nonstandard process, an ‘exotic process’, rather than ‘a process involving exotic particles’.. The observational data suggest that there are at least two classes of NSs, hotter ones and cooler ones. The most natural explanation is that hotter stars cool by the standard, slower cooling processes, while the cooler ones cool by one of the fast nonstandard processes. This interpretation follows naturally as the effect of slightly different mass - with hotter stars somewhat less massive than cooler ones (see Section 3 for the details).

As the central collapsed star cools after a supernova explosion and the interior temperature falls below the superfluid critical temperature, Tcr, some constituent particles become superfluid. That causes exponential suppression of both specific heat (and hence the internal energy) and all neutrino processes involving these particles. The net effect is that the star cools more slowly (and hence the surface temperature and luminosity will be higher) during the neutrino cooling era due to the suppression of neutrino emissivity. Therefore, we point out that nonstandard fast cooling will be no longer so fast if the superfluid energy gap, which is proportional to Tcr, is significant. In addition to various neutrino cooling mechanisms conventionally adopted in earlier calculations, recently the ‘Cooper pair neutrino emission’ (Flowers, Ruderman, & Sutherland 1976) was ‘rediscovered’ to be also important under certain circumstances. This process takes place when the participating particles become superfluid, and the net effect is to enhance, for some superfluid models, the neutrino emission right after the superfluidity sets in.

## 3. Most Recent NS Thermal Evolution Models and Comparison with New Observations

### 3.1. Latest Thermal Evolution Models

We calculated NS thermal evolution222We adopt the expression ‘thermal evolution’ when we include not only cooling but also heating. adopting the most up-to-date microphysical input and a fully general relativistic, ‘exact’ evolutionary code (i.e., without making isothermal approximations). This code was originally constructed by Nomoto & Tsuruta (1987) which has been continuously up-dated. Our input neutrino emissivity consists of all possible mechanisms, including Cooper pair emission, both in the stellar core and crust. The vortex creep heating is also included, unless otherwise stated. See Ts03, Te03 for the details. The results are summarized in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1a compares thermal evolution of a neutron star and stars with a pion core. The EOS adopted is ‘TNI3U Model’ recently constructed by Ta03a, which is somewhat stiffer than medium333Often an EOS is referred to being ‘stiff’ when the consequent stellar model is more extended and hence less dense, while it is referred to being ‘soft’ if it is more compact and denser.. This EOS refers to pion condensates when density exceeds $`\rho _{tr}^\pi `$, the density where transition from neutron matter to pion matter takes place, which is set to be 4$`\rho _0`$ (where $`\rho _0`$ = 2.8 x 1014 gm/cm3 is the nuclear density). Then, for this particular EOS the central density $`\rho ^c`$ = $`\rho _{tr}^\pi `$ for a 1.5M star444Note that very recent observations suggest that mass of an isolated neutron star may be somewhat higher than 1.4M (see Section 3.2).. The solid curve refers to thermal evolution (including heating) of a 1.4M star. Since for this star $`\rho ^c<\rho _{tr}^\pi `$, it consists predominantly of neutrons with only several % protons, and it cools by slower ‘standard’ processes. As the core superfluid model for neutrons we adopt the OPEG-B Model recently constructed by Ta03b for neutron matter. For proton superfluidity we adopt the model by Chao, Clark and Yang (1972). The Cooper pair neutrino emissivity derived by Yakovlev, Levenfish, & Shibanov (1999) is adopted for both neutrons and protons in the central core and neutrons in the inner crustal layers. For the vortex creep heating we adopt the model with heating parameter K = 1037 ergs m-3/2 s2 and magnetic field B = 1012 Gauss (Umeda, Tsuruta and Nomoto 1994, hereafter UTN94). The long dashed and dashed curves present thermal evolution of 1.6M and 1.7M stars, respectively. These stars cool predominantly by the nonstandard pion direct Urca process, because for these more massive stars $`\rho ^c>\rho _{tr}^\pi `$ and hence the central core consists of pion condensates. As the superfluid model for the pion-condensed phase we adopt a medium superfluid gap model for pion condensates, called the E1-0.6 Model (see Umeda et al. 1994, hereafter U94; Takatsuka & Tamagaki 1982). See Te03 for the details.

In Fig. 1b hyperon cooling is compared with standard thermal evolution curves. The critical transition density from neutron matter to hyperon matter, $`\rho _{tr}^Y`$, is set at 4$`\rho _0`$. For $`\rho >\rho _{tr}^Y`$ we adopt the TNI3U EOS for hyperon matter recently calculated by Ta03a. Other input microphysical parameters are the same as in Fig. 1a. The solid curve refers to thermal evolution (heating included) of a 1.4M NS with the standard scenario. The dashed curve presents cooling of a 1.6M hyperon star. For the TNI3U EOS adopted, we find that $`\rho ^c`$ = $`\rho _{tr}^Y`$ for a 1.5 star. Therefore, our 1.6M star contains a hyperon core and hence the predominant cooling mechanism is the nonstandard hyperon direct Urca process. As the superfluid model for hyperons we adopt Ehime Model for hyperon matter (Ta03a). See Ts03 for further details.

Fig. 1b also shows two more curves, dot-dashed and long dashed, for the standard cooling of 1.4M NSs to explore the effect of heating and core neutron superfluidity. In the dot-dashed curve all input parameters are the same as the solid curve except that heating is switched off. Therefore, by comparing the dot-dashed curve with the solid curve, we can see the effect of heating, which we note to be significant. Except that core neutron superfluidity is not included, the input parameters to the long dashed curve is the same as the dot-dashed curve.

### 3.2. Comparison with Observation

In Fig. 1 thermal evolution curves are compared with the latest observational data. The numbers refer to either confirmed or possible detections while letters refer to some interesting upper limits. We may note that the data suggest the existence of at least two classes of sources, hotter stars (e.g., (1) RX J0822-4300, (2) 1E1207.4-5209 and (7) PSR 1055-52), and cooler stars (e.g., (c) PSR J0205+6449, (3) the Vela pulsar and (5) Geminga). The hotter sources are consistent with the solid curves, the standard cooling of a 1.4M NS when heating is included. The source (7) is slightly above the solid curves, but that is easily explained when the age uncertainty, of at least a factor of $``$ 2 or larger, is taken into account. The source (1) is somewhat higher than the solid curves, but that is easily explained by, e.g., the presence of magnetic envelopes with light elements (e.g., Potenkin et al. 2003). Comparison of cooler star data with pion and hyperon curves confirms earlier conclusion (e.g. T98, TT01, T02) that nonstandard cooling of a more massive star is required for these cooler data. In that case, we find that significant superfluid suppression is required if the cooler data are detections. The age uncertainty should not affect this conclusion, especially for younger cooler sources such as (c) and (3), because the slope of the curves in these younger years is small. The data point for (4), PSR 0656+14, lies between the 1.4 M and 1.6 M curves, which implies its mass is between these masses in our current model. The conclusion is that all of the observed data are most naturally and consistently explained as the effects of stellar mass, superfluidity of the constituent particles, and heating.

At least for binary pulsars, observations offer stringent constraints on the mass of a NS, to be very close to 1.4M (e.g., Brown, Weingartner, & Wijers 1996). If this evidence extends to isolated NSs also, then the EOS should be such that the mass of the star whose central density is very close to the transition density (where the nonstandard process sets in) should be very close to 1.4M. With the EOS of medium stiffness our earlier work (T98, TT01, T02) finds that this transition takes place for sellar mass near 1.4M. In the current models presented here, we take account of the most recent report that some new observations suggest the mass of isolated NSs to be somewhat higher (see Nice’s contribution to this volume). Then, the EOS has to be stiffer than medium. This is because a stiffer EOS corresponds to larger mass for a given central density. That is why our current model adopts an EOS stiffer than medium. In conclusion it may be emphasized that in this way comparison of thermal evolution curves with observed temperature data has a potential for determining the EOS and hence radius, if the mass is fixed. For instance, comparison of this kind may already eliminate very soft and very stiff EOS.

The qualitative behavior of all nonstandard scenarios is similar if their transition density is the same (see, e.g., UTN94, T98). However, here we try to demonstrate that it is still possible to offer comprehensive assessment of at least which options are more likely while which are less likely. First of all, we note that all of the nonstandard mechanisms are too fast to be consistent with any observed detection data, even with heating (see, e.g., UTN94, T98). That means significant suppression of neutrino emissivity due to superfluidity is required, if the cooler data are detections. However, Takatsuka & Tamagaki (1997) already showed, through careful microphysical calculations, that for neutron matter with such high proton concentration as to permit the nucleon direct Urca, the superfluid critical temperature Tcr should be extremely low, $``$ several x 107 K, not only for neutrons but also for protons. Here we emphasize that this conclusion does not depend on the nuclear models adopted for the calculations. On the other hand, the observed NSs, which are to be compared with cooling curves, are all hotter (the core temperature being typically $``$ 108 K to several times 108 K). That means the core particles are not yet in the superfluid state in these observable NSs. Conclusion is that a star cooling with nucleon direct Urca would be too cold to be consistent with the detection data. The same argument applies to the kaon cooling also (Takatsuka & Tamagaki 1995). Further details are found in TT01, T02, Ts03, Te03. As to the hyperon option Fig. 1b shows that it will be a viable option if Ehime Model adopted is valid. However, recently the Gifu-Kyoto nuclear experimental group (Takahashi et al. 2001) reports that the superfluid gap for hyperons would be much smaller. If so, hyperon cooling also would be in trouble with the same reason as for nucleon direct URCA if the cooler data are detections, due to lack of superfluid suppression. The problem for quarks is that theoretically there are still too many unknown factors to offer the level of exploration possible for the other options (see Ts03). On the other hand, detailed theoretical investigations have already shown that Tcr for pion condensates is realistically high and hence pions will safely be in a superfluid state. The conclusion is that pion cooling is consistent with both theory and observation. See T98, TT01, T02, Ts03, and Te03 for further details.

## 4. NS Cooling Models by Other Groups

Various other groups have calculated neutron star thermal evolution. A comprehensive review is found in, e.g., T98. Due to lack of space here we comment on only the latest work by Yakovlev’s group, e.g., Yakovlev et al. 2003. Although very often these authors adopted simplified ‘toy models’ with the isothermal and other various approximations, their results and ours generally agree, at least qualitatively, when similar input is applied555Yakovlev and Haensel (2002) state that the observation data of T02 are wrong. However, this is due to their mistake in the business of correctly converting surface temperature to luminosity. Also they misunderstood some of the models presented in T02. See Ts03 for the details.. There are, however, some serious differences in our interpretation of the results. For instance, (i) since in the presence of core superfluid neutrons standard cooling is not hot enough for the data of PSR 1055, these authors conclude that neutron superfluidity must be so weak as to be negligible. However, this conclusion contradicts with the results of serious microphysical calculations of neutron superfluidity (see Ta02b, T02, Ts03 for the details), which find that neutron superfluidity should not be so weak for normal neutron matter with small proton concentration where the standard cooling operates. On the other hand, we have shown (see Fig. 1) that this discrepancy disappears when heating is included properly in calculations of thermal evolution of isolated (not binary) neutron stars - and hence no contradiction with theories. (ii) For detailed comparison of nonstandard cooling with the cooler star data, these authors chose the nucleon direct Urca process, which they called Durca. To be consistent with the apparent need for no (or only very weak) neutron superfluidity for slower standard cooling to explain the hot data, these authors conclude that observational data require strong proton superfluidity to supply sufficient superfluid suppression, in order to explain the cooler detection data by Durca. However, it was already emphasized in Section 3.2 that theoretically, proton superfluidity must be so weak that its suppression effect should be negligible for models which will allow Durca. These authors adopted proton superfluid model for normal neutron matter with small proton fraction, which fails to apply when the proton concentration is high enough so that Durca can operate.

## 5. Concluding Remarks

We have shown that the most up-to-date observed temperature data are consistent with the current thermal evolution theories of isolated NSs if less massive stars cool by standard cooling while more massive stars cool with nonstandard cooling, and if heating is also in operation. Among various nonstandard cooling scenarios, both Durca and kaon cooling should be excluded if the cooler data are detections. The major reason is that for Durca to be operative, high proton concentration is required, which weakens superfluidity of both protons and neutrons. Similar argument applies to kaon cooling. Hyperon cooling may be in trouble if the cooler data are detections and if the hyperon superfluid gap should be so small as reported by recent nuclear experiments. On the other hand, pion cooling is still consistent with both observation and theory. The important conclusion is that if the cooler data are detections, presence of ‘exotic’ particles, most likely pion condensates, will be required within a very dense star.

The capability of constraining the composition of NS interior matter purely through observation alone will be limited, and hence it will be very important to exhaust all theoretical resources. Theoretical uncertainties are also very large, especially in the supranuclear density regime. However, here we emphasize that we should still be able to set acceptable ranges of theoretical feasibility, at least to separate models more-likely from those less-likely. More and better data expected soon from Chandra, XMM/Newton, HST, and future third generation missions, when combined with improved theories, should give still better insight to some fundamental problems in dense matter physics.

#### Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge with special thanks contributions by our collaborators, W. Chandler, M.A. Teter, T. Takatsuka, R. Tamagaki, K. Fukumura, G. Pavlov, K. Nomoto, T. Tatsumi, and H. Umeda, to the results presented in this paper. Our work for this paper has been supported in part by NASA grants NAG5-3159, NAG5-12079, AR3-4004A, and G02-3097X.

## References

Becker, W. 1995, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Munich, Munich

Brown, G.E., Weingartner, J.C., & Wijers, R.A. 1996, ApJ, 463, 297

Chao, N.C., Clark, J.W., & Yang, C.H. 1972, Nucl. Phys. A, 179, 320

Flowers, E.G., Ruderman, M., & Sutherland, P.G. 1976, ApJ, 205, 541

Lattimer, J.M., Pethick, C.J., Prakash, M., & Haensel, P. 1991, Phys.Rev.Lett, 66, 2701

Nomoto, K., & Tsuruta, S. 1986, ApJ, 305, L19

Nomoto, K., & Tsuruta, S. 1987, ApJ, 312, 711

Potenkin, A.Y., Yakovlev, D.G., Chabrier, G., & Gnedin, O.Y. 2003, Astroph/0305256

Slane, P.O., Helfand. D.J., & Murray, S.S. 2002, ApJ, 571, L45

Takahashi, H., et al. 2001, Phys.Rev.Lett, 87, 21

Takatsuka, T., & Tamagaki, R. 1982, Prog. Theor. Phys., 67, 1649

Takatsuka, T., & Tamagaki, R. 1995, Prog. Theor. Phys., 94, 457

Takatsuka, T., & Tamagaki, R. 1997, Prog. Theor. Phys., 97, 345

Takatsuka, T., Nishizaki, S., Yamamoto, Y., & Tamagaki, R. 2001, Nucl. Phys. A, 691, 254c

Takatsuka, T., Nishizaki, S., Yamamoto, Y., & Tamagaki, R. 2003, in preparation (Ta03a)

Tamagaki, R. 2003, in preparation (Ta03b)

Teter, M.A., Candler, W., Tsuruta, S., Takatsuka, T., Tamagaki, R., Fukumura, G. Pavlov, K., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H., & Tatsumi,T. 2003, in preparation (Te03)

Tsuruta, S. 1998, Physics Reports, 292, 1 (T98).

Tsuruta, S., & Cameron, A.G.W. 1966, Canad. J. Phys., 44, 1863

Tsuruta, S., & Teter, M.A. 2001 in Proceedings of the 20th Texas Symposium, ed. H. Martel & J.C. Wheeler (AIP), 507 (TT01)

Tsuruta, S., Teter, M.A., Takatsuka, T., Tatsumi, T., Tamagaki, R. 2002, ApJ, 571, L143 (T02)

Tsuruta, S., Chandler, W., Teter, M.A.,Takatsuka, T., Tamagaki, R., Fukumura, G. Pavlov, K., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H., & Tatsumi,T. 2003, in preparation (Ts03)

Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Tsuruta, S., Muto, T., & Tatsumi, T. 1994, ApJ, 431, 309 (U94)

Umeda, H., Tsuruta, S., & Nomoto, K. 1994, ApJ, 433,256 (UTN94)

Yakovlev, D.G., Gnedin, O.Y., Kaminker, A.D., Levenfish, K.P., & Potenkin, A.Y. 2003, Astro-ph/0306143

Yakovlev, D.G., Levenfish, K.P., & Shibanov, Yu.A. 1999 Physics-Uspekhi, 42, 737

Yakovlev, D.G. & Haensel, P. 2002, Astro-ph/0209026


text:
# Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts

## 1 Introduction

Redshift surveys are an extremely useful tool to study the large scale distribution of galaxies. Of the many possible statistical estimators the power spectrum of the density fluctuations has emerged as one of the easiest to connect to theories of structure formation in the Universe, especially in the limit of Gaussian fluctuations where the power spectrum is the complete statistical description. There are several ways to measure the power spectrum (for a comparison of techniques see Tegmark et al., 1998). Over the last few years, the Karhunen-Loève method (Vogeley & Szalay, 1996, , hereafter VS96) has been recognized as the optimal way to build an orthogonal basis set for likelihood analysis, even if the underlying survey has a very irregular footprint on the sky. A variant of the same technique is used for the analysis of CMB fluctuations (Bond, Jaffe, & Knox, 2000).

The shape of the power spectrum is well described by a small set of parameters (Eisenstein & Hu, 1998). For redshift surveys, it is of particular importance to consider the large-scale anisotropies caused by infall (Kaiser, 1987). Using a forward technique that compares models directly to the data, like the KL-transform, enables us to easily consider these anisotropies in full detail. Here we present results of a parametric analysis of the shape of the fluctuation spectrum for the SDSS galaxy catalog.

## 2 Data

### 2.1 Sloan Digital Sky Survey

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al., 2000; Stoughton et al., 2002) plans to map nearly one quarter of the sky using a dedicated 2.5 meter telescope at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico. A drift-scanning CCD camera (Gunn et al., 1998) is used to image the sky with custom set of 5 filters ($`ugriz`$) (Fukugita et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2002) to a limiting Petrosian (1976) magnitude of $`m_r22.5`$. Observations are calibrated using a 0.5 meter photometric telescope (Hogg, Finkbeiner, Schlegel, & Gunn, 2001). After a stripe of sky has been imaged, reduced, and astrometrically calibrated (Pier et al., 2003) , additional automated software selects potential targets for spectroscopy. These targets are assigned to $`3\mathrm{°}`$ diameter (possibly overlapping) circles on the sky called tiles (Blanton et al., 2003a). Aluminum plates drilled from the tile patterns hold optical fibers that feed into the SDSS spectrographs (Uomoto et al., 1999). The SDSS Main Galaxy Sample (MGS; Strauss et al., 2002) will consist of spectra of nearly one million low redshift ($`z0.1`$) galaxies creating a three dimensional map of local large scale structure.

### 2.2 Large Scale Structure Sample

Considerable effort has been invested in preparing SDSS MGS redshift data for large scale structure studies. The first task is to correct for fiber collisions. The minimum separation between optical fibers is $`55\mathrm{}`$ which causes a correlated loss of redshifts in areas covered by a single plate. Galaxy targets that were not observed due to collisions are assigned the redshift of their nearest neighbor. Next the sky is divided into unique regions of overlapping spectroscopic plates called sectors. The angular completeness is calculated for each sector as if the collided galaxies had been successfully measured. Galaxy magnitudes are extinction-corrected with the Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998) dust maps, then k-corrections are applied and rest frame colors and luminosities are calculated (Blanton et al., 2003b). Subsamples are created by making appropriate cuts in luminosity, color, and/or flux. A luminosity function is then calculated for each subsample (Blanton et al., 2003c) and used to create a radial selection function assuming $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ cosmology.

This analysis considers two samples of SDSS data, which we will label sample 10 and sample 12. Both samples were prepared in similar manners, although using different versions of software. Sample 12 represents a later state of the survey and the sample 10 area is contained in sample 12. Sample 10 represents 1983.39 completeness-weighted square degrees of spectroscopically observed SDSS data and 165,812 MGS redshifts. Sample 12 has 205,484 redshifts over 2406.74 square degrees. Both samples are larger than the 1360 square degrees of spectroscopy in data release 1 (DR1; Abazajian et al., 2003) of the SDSS. The geometry of the samples and DR1 are qualitatively similar, consisting of two thick slices in the northern cap of the survey and three thin stripes in the south. The samples used have a luminosity cut of $`19M_r22`$, where $`h=1.0`$ and $`M_{}=20.44`$ (Blanton et al., 2003c). Rest frame quantities (ie absolute magnitudes) are given for the SDSS filters at z=0.1, the median depth of the MGS. In a study of the two point correlation function of SDSS galaxy redshifts, Zehavi et al. (2002) found that the bias relative to $`M_{}`$ galaxies varies from 0.8 for galaxies with $`M=M_{}+1.5`$ to 1.2 for galaxies with $`M=M_{}1.5`$. Norberg et al. (2001) found similar results for the 2dF, with the trend becoming more pronounced at luminosities significantly greater than $`L_{}`$. The dependence of clustering strength on luminosity could induce an extra tilt in the power spectrum because more luminous galaxies contribute more at large scales and less luminous galaxies contribute more at small scales due to the number of available baselines. We minimize this effect by staying within $`M=M_{}\pm 1.5`$. A uniform flux limit of $`m_r17.5`$ was applied, leaving 110,345 redshifts for sample 10 and 134,141 for sample 12. Although there are luminosity limits for this sample, it is essentially a flux limited sample with a (slowly) varying selection function. We used galaxies in the redshift range $`0.05z0.17`$.

## 3 Algorithm

### 3.1 The Karhunen-Loève Eigenbasis

Following the strategy described in VS96, the first step in a Karhunen-Loève (KL) eigenmode analysis of a redshift survey is to divide the survey volume into cells and use the vector of galaxy counts within the cells as our data. This allows a large compression in the size of the dataset without a loss of information on large scales. Our data vector of fluctuations $`𝐝`$ is defined as

$$d_i=c_i/n_i1$$
(1)
where $`c_i`$ is the observed number of galaxies in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ cell and $`n_i=c_i`$ is its expected value, calculated from the angular completeness and radial selection function. The data is “whitened” by the factor $`1/n_i`$ to control shot noise properties in the transform (VS96). We call this the “overdensity” convention.

The KL modes are the solutions to the eigenvalue problem $`𝐑𝚿_n=\lambda _n𝚿_n`$ with the correlation matrix of the data given by

$$R_{ij}=d_id_j=\xi _{ij}+\delta _{ij}/n_i+\eta _{ij}/(n_in_j)$$
(2)
where $`\xi _{ij}`$ is the cell-averaged correlation matrix, $`\delta _{ij}/n_i`$ is the shot noise term, and $`\eta _{ij}/(n_in_j)`$ can be used to account for correlated noise (not used in this analysis). The most obvious source of correlated noise in the MGS would be differences in photometric zero points between different SDSS imaging runs, which would result in “zebra stripe” patterns of density fluctuations. The MGS selection has a magnitude limit, but no color selection terms, so the variation in target density depends only linearly on the photometric calibration. The $`r`$ band zero point variation is 0.02 mag rms (Abazajian et al., 2003), indicating that the density variation should be $`2\%`$. The transformed data vector $`𝐁`$ is the expansion of $`𝐝`$ over the KL modes $`𝚿_n`$:

$$𝐝=\underset{n}{}B_n𝚿_n.$$
(3)
The KL basis is defined by two properties: orthonormality of the basis vectors, $`𝚿_m𝚿_n=\delta _{mn}`$, and statistically orthogonality of the transformed data, $`B_mB_n=B_n^2\delta _{mn}`$.

### 3.2 The Correlation Function in Redshift Space

In order to directly compare cosmological models to our redshift data using a two point statistic we must calculate the redshift space correlation function $`\xi ^{(s)}(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)`$, where $`𝐫_i`$ and $`𝐫_j`$ describe positions in the observable angles and redshift. The infall onto large scale structures affects the velocities of galaxies leading to an anisotropy in redshift space for a power spectrum that is isotropic in real space (Kaiser, 1987). Szalay, Matsubara, & Landy (1998) derived an expansion of the correlation function that accounts for this anisotropy in linear theory for arbitrary angles. The expansion is

$`\xi ^{(s)}(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)=c_{00}\xi _0^{(0)}+c_{02}\xi _2^{(0)}+c_{04}\xi _4^{(0)}+\mathrm{},`$ (4)
$`\xi _L^{(n)}(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}{\displaystyle 𝑑kk^2k^nj_L(kr)P(k)}`$ (5)
where the $`c_{nL}`$ coefficients are polynomials of $`\beta `$ and functions of the relative geometry of the two points. The quantity $`\beta `$ relates infall velocity to matter density and is well approximated by the fitting formula $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}/b`$ where $`b`$ is the bias parameter. Further terms in Eq. (4) are negligible as long as $`2+\mathrm{ln}\varphi (r)/\mathrm{ln}r`$ (where $`r`$ is the distance to the cell and $`\varphi (r)`$ is the radial selection function) does not significantly differ (ie orders of magnitude) from unity. For the redshift range considered in this analysis $`|2+\mathrm{ln}\varphi (r)/\mathrm{ln}r|4`$. When using counts-in-cells, we must calculate the cell-averaged correlation matrix

$$\xi _{ij}=d^3𝐫_1d^3𝐫_2\xi ^{(s)}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)W_i(𝐱_i𝐫_1)W_j(𝐱_j𝐫_2)$$
(6)
where $`W_i(𝐲)`$ is the cell window function and $`𝐱_i`$ is the position of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ cell. To be precise, $`W_i(𝐲)`$ should describe the shape of the cell in redshift space. Numerical calculation of this multi-dimensional integral can be computationally expensive. However, for the case of spherically symmetric cells we can change the order of integration and perform the redshift space integrals in Eq. (6) analytically before the $`k`$-space integral in Eq. (5). If both cells have the same window function, we can use Eq. (4) as our cell-averaged correlation function (with $`𝐫_i`$ and $`𝐫_j`$ indicating the cell positions) if we replace $`P(k)`$ with $`P(k)\stackrel{~}{W}^2(k)`$ in Eq. (5) where $`\stackrel{~}{W}(k)`$ is the Fourier transform of the cell window function. This results in a one dimensional numerical integral. The full technical details of our method will be presented in Matsubara et al. (2004, in preparation).

We used hard spheres as our cell shape and placed them in a hexagonal closest packed (the most efficient 3D packing, with a 74% space-filling factor) arrangement. The current slice-like survey geometry and packing arrangement causes some spheres to partially protrude outside the survey. The effective fraction of the sphere that is sampled is also affected by the angular completeness of our survey (which averages $`97\%`$). We calculate our expected counts as if the sphere was entirely filled and multiply the observed galaxy counts by $`1/f_i`$ where $`f_i`$ is the fraction of the $`i`$th sphere’s volume that was effectively sampled. This sparser sampling also increases the shot noise by a factor of $`1/f_i`$. Cells with $`f_i<0.65`$ were rejected as too incomplete. We found that a $`6h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ sphere radius allowed us to fill the survey volume with a computationally feasible number of cells without the spheres protruding too much out of the survey, while smoothing on sufficiently small length scales so that we do not lose information in the linear regime ($`2\pi /k40h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). We used 14,194 cells for sample 10 and 16,924 for sample 12.

The calculation of the sampling fraction for each cell is difficult due to the complicated shapes of the sectors (§2.2). We created a high resolution angular completeness map in a SQL Server database using $`10^7`$ random angular points over the entire sky. Each point was assigned a completeness weighting by finding which sector contained the point or setting the completeness to zero for points outside the survey area. We used a Hierarchical Triangular Mesh (HTM; Kunszt, Szalay, & Thakar, 2001) spatial indexing scheme to find all points in the completeness map that pierce a cell and calculate the volume weighted completeness for that cell.

### 3.3 Eigenmode Selection

The KL transform is linear, so there is no loss of information if we use all of the eigenmodes. However, if we perform a truncated expansion we can use the KL transform for compression and filtering. The difference between the original data vector and a truncated reconstruction, $`\widehat{𝐝}=_{i=1}^{M<N}B_i𝚿_i`$, where we use only $`M`$ out of a possible $`N`$ modes can be related to the eigenvalues of the excluded modes by $`(𝐝\widehat{𝐝})^2=_{i=M+1}^N\lambda _i.`$ The error is minimized (in a squared sense) when we retain modes with larger eigenvalues and drop modes with smaller eigenvalues, which is sometimes called optimal subspace filtering (Therrien, 1992).

The eigenvalue of a KL mode is also related to the range in $`k`$-space sampled by that mode. Our models assume that linear theory is a good approximation, which is only valid on larger scales. Consequently we only wish to use KL modes that fall inside a “Fermi sphere” whose radius is set by our cutoff wavenumber $`k_f`$. If we sort modes by decreasing eigenvalue, they will densely pack $`k`$-space starting from the origin. The modes resist overlapping in $`k`$-space due to orthogonality. The shape of a KL mode in $`k`$-space resembles the Fourier transform of the survey window function. This means that the number of KL modes within the “Fermi sphere” depends mostly on the survey window function and does not drastically change if we change the size of our cells, as long as we have significantly more cells than modes (which means that our cells must be smaller than the cutoff wavelength). In a fully three dimensional survey the modes would fill $`k`$-space roughly spherically and $`Mk_f^3`$. However, the current SDSS geometry resembles several two dimensional slices, resulting in KL modes that resemble cigars in $`k`$-space. These modes pack layer-by-layer into spherical shells whose diameters are integer multiples of the long axis of the mode. See Fig. 5 in Szalay et al. (2003) for a visualization. This results in a scaling more like $`Mk_f^2`$.

In choosing the number of KL modes to use in our analysis we try to keep as many modes as possible for better constraints on our parameter values while requiring that our modes are consistent with linear theory. We have developed a convenient method for determing the range in $`k`$-space probed by each KL mode. We separate the integral in Eq. (5) into bandpowers in $`k`$. This allows us to determine how strongly each mode couples to each bandpower, which shows a coarse picture of the spherically averaged position of the mode in $`k`$-space. Fig. 1 shows a grayscale image of how the modes couple to the bandpowers. Once we choose a value for the cutoff wavenumber $`k_f`$, we truncate our expansion at the mode where wavenumbers larger than $`k_f`$ start to dominate.

We can use the statistical properties of the transformed data to check that we are avoiding non-linearities. A rescaled version of the KL coefficients $`b_n=B_n/\sqrt{𝚿_n}`$ should be normally distributed. Non-linear effects would cause skewness (third moment) and/or kurtosis (fourth moment) in the distribution of $`b_n`$. We do not see evidence of non-linear effects when we use $`k_f0.16h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ (corresponding to length scales $`2\pi /k_f40h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). This value for the cutoff wavenumber leaves us with 1500 modes for sample 10 and 1850 modes for sample 12.

### 3.4 Model Testing

We estimate cosmological parameters by performing maximum likelihood analysis in KL space. The likelihood of the observed data given a model $`m`$ is

$$(𝐁|m)=(2\pi )^{M/2}|𝐂_m|^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}𝐁^T𝐂_m^1𝐁\right]$$
(7)
where $`𝐂_m`$ is the covariance matrix and can be calculated as the projected model correlation matrix,

$$\left(𝐂_m\right)_{ij}=B_iB_j_m=𝚿_i^T𝐑_m𝚿_j.$$
(8)
Our method is based upon a linear comparison of models to data, thus the $`𝐑_m`$ (and $`𝐂_m`$) model matrices only contain second moments of the density field. This linear estimator is computationally more expensive than quadratic or higher order estimators, but the results are less sensitive to non-linearities. For a comparison of different estimation methods, see Tegmark et al. (1998).

In practice we must decide on an explicit parametrization. We construct a power spectrum assuming a primordial spectrum of fluctuations with a spectral index $`n_s=1`$. We use a fitting formula from Eisenstein & Hu (1998) to characterize the transfer function, including the baryon oscillations. We fit for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ and $`f_b=\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ while taking a prior of $`H_0=72\pm 8\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from the Hubble key project (Freedman et al., 2001) and fixing $`T_{\mathrm{CMB}}=2.728K`$ (Fixsen et al., 1996). We fit the linearly extrapolated $`\sigma _{8g}^L`$ for normalization, where $`\sigma _{8g}^L=b\sigma _{8m}`$ and $`b`$ is the bias. Linear theory redshift-space distortions are characterized by $`\beta `$ (see §3.2).

In order to search an appreciable portion of parameter space we have developped efficient methods to calculate the model covariance matrices $`𝐂_m`$. The straightforward approach would be to calculate the model correlation matrix for a set of parameters and then project into the KL basis and calculate a likelihood, but this is computationally expensive. The covariance matrix can easily be written as a linear combination of matrices and powers of $`\sigma _{8g}^L`$ and $`\beta `$ (see §3.2), so we can project pieces of the correlation matrix and add them in the appropriate proportions for those parameters. However, the shape of the power spectrum depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`f_b`$, and $`H_0`$ in a non-trivial way. We project each bandpower of the correlation matrix (see §3.3) separately and add the pieces of the covariance matrix together with appropriate weighting to represent different power spectrum shapes. This alleviates the need for further projections. We must be careful when choosing our bandpowers so that we retain sufficient resolution to accurately mimic power spectrum shapes (especially baryon oscillations), but we must also be careful that our $`k`$ ranges are large enough that the integrals converge correctly.

Note that a non-optimal choice of fiducial parameters does not bias our results, but it can result in non-minimal error bars. This procedure can be iterated if necessary.

## 4 Results and Discussion

Our best-fit maximum-likelihood parameter values for samples 10 and 12 are presented in Table 1. Results are given for the priors described in §3.4 and also when using the additional prior $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.047\pm 0.006`$ from WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003). We show the results of sample 10 and 12 to give some indication of sample variance, although sample 10 is a subset of sample 12.

The middle column of Fig. 2 shows the marginalized one-dimensional and two-dimensional confidence regions for the power spectrum shape parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ and $`f_b`$ for sample 10 without the additional prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$. There is a strong correlation between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ and $`f_b`$. The gross shape of the power spectrum (ie ignoring the baryon oscillations and concentrating on the position of the peak and slope of the tail) is nearly constant along the ridge of this correlation due to a degeneracy between shifting the position of the peak with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ and adding power to the peak with $`f_b`$. However, the strength of the baryon oscillations varies significantly over this range. Table 1 shows that our estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ agree well with the WMAP value of $`0.194\pm 0.04`$ (Spergel et al., 2003) and the 2dF value of $`0.20\pm 0.03`$ (Percival et al., 2001) when we use the additional prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, and the associated confidence regions are shown in the left column of Fig. 2. The results with the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ prior indicate that the gross shape of the power spectrum we measure is consistent with WMAP and 2dF, as can be seen in Fig. 3 which shows the (isotropic) real-space power spectra inferred from the cosmological parameter estimates from the three surveys. However, the results without the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ prior show that we have difficulty breaking the degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ and $`f_b`$ because the baryon oscillations are not resolved due to the current state of the SDSS window function.

The right column of Fig. 2 shows the marginalized one-dimensional and two-dimensional confidence regions for $`\sigma _{8g}^L`$ (normalization) and $`\beta `$ (distortions) for sample 10. Again there is a strong correlation between these parameters, which is expected from their dependence on $`b`$. Our constraint on $`\sigma _{8g}^L`$ is strong, but we can only measure $`\beta `$ to $`20\%`$ which limits our ability to perform an independent estimate of $`b`$. We can compare our results to WMAP by examining the combination of parameters $`\sigma _{8g}^L\beta =\sigma _{8m}^L\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}`$, for which we obtain the value $`0.44\pm 0.12`$, in excellent agreement with the WMAP result of $`0.44\pm 0.10`$ (Spergel et al., 2003). By combining our measurements with WMAP results we find $`b=1.07\pm 0.13`$ for our galaxy sample, but this compares information dominated by galaxies with redshifts $`0.1z0.15`$ to present-day matter. If we use a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ model to extrapolate to the present, we would find $`b1.16`$. Our galaxies cover a range of luminosities but our signal is dominated by the more luminous galaxies (brighter than $`L_{}`$) because there are more long baselines available for the more distant galaxies. This must be kept in mind when comparing our measurement of $`\sigma _{8g}^L`$ with other estimates using SDSS data which focus on $`L_{}`$ galaxies (Szalay et al., 2003; Tegmark et al., 2003)

This analysis used less than one third of the data that will comprise the completed SDSS survey. Our ability to measure cosmological parameters will increase as the survey area increases, but we should also gain leverage in resolving features in the power spectrum as our survey window function becomes cleaner. The thickest slice of data from the samples used was roughly $`10\mathrm{°}`$, implying a thickness of $`50h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ at $`z0.1`$. As the slices become thicker, the KL modes will become much more compact in that direction in $`k`$-space. Thus we will benefit from the change in the survey aspect ratio in addition to the increase in survey area.

We would like to thank HP/Compaq for donating several Intel Itanium large memory workstations used for this project. This material is based upon work supported under a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and by NSF AST-9802980 at Johns Hopkins University. Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.