text:
# Orbits from Hipparcos

## 1. Introduction

Besides the five basic astrometric parameters (position, parallax and proper motion), the Hipparcos Intermediate Astrometric Data (IAD) can also yield the parameters of an astrometric orbit when the same IAD are fitted accordingly. Whereas the binarity is a necessary condition for applying the orbital model, it is far from being a sufficient one.

After a brief memento about the Hipparcos data and the way to model them, we present cases where the orbital model was essentially used to improve the parallax or the proper motion. In Sect. 4., we then focus on the derivation of the inclination. We will show that the binarity, whether the companion is stellar or substellar, is not a sufficient condition to apply the orbital model. We will also briefly mention (Sect. 5.) some recent studies where the Hipparcos data are used to identify new binaries.

## 2. Memento

For each observed star, Hipparcos (ESA 1997) measured tens of abscissae, i.e. 1-dimensional quantities, along a precessing great circle (Fig. 1).

Several corrections were applied to these abscissae (chromaticity effects, orientation errors, …). Different models were then used to fit these abscissae, ranging from a single star model with just five parameters to the orbital model with up to twelve parameters fitted (the DMSA/O part of the Hipparcos catalogue lists all these orbital solutions).

Together with the catalogue, it was decided that the residuals of these corrected abscissae would be released also. In order to make the interpretation of these residuals unique, the values released were all derived with the single star model, whether it was used for that entry in the catalogue or not. That makes it possible for anybody to fit any model thus looking for further reduction of the residuals. The fit is achieved through a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization. For instance, in the case of an orbital model, its expression looks like:

$$\chi ^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }v\underset{p}{}\frac{v}{p}\mathrm{\Delta }p\underset{o}{}\frac{v}{o}o)^\text{t}𝐕^1(\mathrm{\Delta }v\underset{p}{}\frac{v}{p}\mathrm{\Delta }p\underset{o}{}\frac{v}{o}o)$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ is the correction with respect to the original parameter $`p`$ and $`𝐕`$ is the covariance matrix of the data. $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_j,v_j/p_k,`$ and $`V`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},n;k=1,\mathrm{},5`$) and the Main Hipparcos solution are provided (see van Leeuwen & Evans (1998) for details). The partial derivative of $`v`$ with respect to the orbital parameter $`o`$ is given by

$$\frac{v}{o}=\frac{v}{p_1}\frac{\xi }{o}+\frac{v}{p_2}\frac{\eta }{o}$$

where $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ are the astrometric coordinates of the photocenter in the plane orthogonal to the line of sight. One simply needs to express $`o`$ in terms of the orbital parameters and then minimizes Eq. (1).

Depending on the number of parameters assumed from a ground based solution, finding the minimum of this expression can be very tough. Indeed, if $`(e,P,T)`$ are assumed, the model is linear in terms of the other nine parameters and the above chi square hence has a unique minimizer. Any optimization algorithm will find it. Together with the case where the semi-major axis of the orbit is the only parameter left free, these are the two situations where the model is linear. In any other situation, it is important to carefully handle the many local minima of the chi square in order to identify the deepest one (Horst et al. 1995).

For the sake of completeness, one should stress that besides the IAD, there are also the Transit Data (TD), a byproduct of the processing of the binaries by the Northern Data Analysis Consortium. However, TD are available for some Hipparcos entries only. Quist & Lindegren (1999) give a detailed description of the TD as well as on how to use them.

## 3. Improving the parallax/proper motion

Even in cases where the orbital parameters are not the primary target of the fit, there are some situations in which it is important to account for the duplicity through the use of the orbital model.

* When $`P1`$ year, there is a strong correlation between $`\varpi `$ (the parallax) and the size of the orbit (Pourbaix & Jorissen 2000). Indeed, the effect of the parallax on the position of the star has a period of one year. Therefore, any other phenomenon with the same period (e.g. the orbital motion) will be indistinguishable from the parallactic motion. Depending on the orientation of the orbit, the resulting parallax can be enlarged or shrunk with respect to the truth. Ignoring the orbital motion here thus affects the accuracy of the fitted parallax.
* A short orbital period shows up as an additional noise on the observations. When the orbital period is much shorter than one year, no confusion is possible between the two motions and the derived parallax is not affected. However, when the orbital motion is not accounted for, the observations exhibit some extra scatter which affects the precision of the whole single star solution.
* When the orbital period is much longer than the mission duration, the motion of the star on its orbit is just a small arc or even a segment of line. This can lead to a confusion between the orbital motion and the proper motion. There are 2 622 Hipparcos entries (DMSA/G) for which an acceleration term in the position or proper motion was fitted: up to four additional parameters were adjusted together with the basic five astrometric parameters. The accuracy of the proper motion is particularly valuable for those interested in galactic dynamics or cluster membership.
* An orbit was sometime imposed prior to the reduction, with no orbital fit. In four cases, namely $`\mu `$ Cas, $`ϵ`$ Aur, Procyon and Sirius, the orbital model was used in order to lower the risk of grid-step error but no orbital parameter was fitted. The resulting fundamental astrometric parameters are thus tied to the adopted orbit. When the latter is refined, the position, parallax and proper motion should be revised accordingly (e.g. Procyon, Girard et al. 2000).

These effects on the parallax and proper motion for long period binaries are illustrated by Pourbaix & Jorissen (2000) with lately discovered binaries among Ba, CH and Tc-poor S stars.

## 4. The inclination: the holy grail

The orbital model improves the accuracy and precision of the five basic astrometric parameters but the main reason for modeling the observations that way is nevertheless to derive the orbital inclination, unaccessible to the radial velocity techniques.

The equations are essentially the same as for visual binaries, one simply replaces the semi-major axis of the relative apparent orbit with that of the absolute photocentric one. However, there is a major difference between the two situations. In the case of a visual orbit, one sees the two components and one waits long enough for an orbital arc to show up. Here, there is a companion but one does not know whether the amplitude of the resulting astrometric wobble is large enough with respect to the satellite precision or not. As we will see, fitting the noise with an orbital model can have some awful consequences.

### 4.1. Stellar applications: episode 1

Besides the original Hipparcos catalogue, the very first applications of its observations to stellar orbits are those of Halbwachs et al. (2000) and Pourbaix & Jorissen (2000). Whereas van Leeuwen & Evans (1998) present the data and how to use them, they do not apply them to binaries.

Halbwachs et al. (2000) investigate eleven spectroscopic binaries with brown dwarf candidates, looking for the actual mass of the companions. By fitting a population of genuine single stars with an orbital model, they guess how overestimated the semi-major axis of the orbits of genuine binaries is. Correcting for that effect, they conclude that only three stars of their sample are viable brown dwarf candidates.

The methodology of Pourbaix & Jorissen (2000) is rather different. They study a sample of 81 chemically-peculiar red giants (see the paper by North & Debernardi in this volume) belonging to single-lined systems. They also assume that the unseen companions are white dwarfs and thus fix their mass to the average mass of field WD’s. The IAD (and sometime TD) are fitted and three (respectively four) orbits are derived for each system. They are based respectively on the FAST data, NDAC data and FAST+NDAC data (the fourth orbit being derived from the TD). The point of the authors is that if the observations exhibit the astrometric wobble caused by the secondary, the three (four) solutions should agree. This assessment criterion together with others based on some astrophysical considerations lead the authors to keep 23 systems only.

Gatewood et al. (2000) combined the IAD of the triple system $`\pi `$ Cep together with a spectroscopic orbit and some MAP (Gatewood 1987) observations. They thus obtained the individual mass of the three components of this system. In that particular case, the agreement between the MAP and Hipparcos results was used to assess their likelihood.

### 4.2. Extrasolar planet furry

If it works for binary systems, it should work for extrasolar companions too! Well, indeed, the equations are the same in both cases. That is however where the comparison stops making sense.

The first application of the Hipparcos data to extrasolar planets was by Perryman et al. (1996). Using the spectroscopic elements of three newly discovered planets, the authors derived an upper limit on the mass of the companion. Even though the authors could not confirm these objects are planets, they nevertheless concluded upon their substellar nature.

Whereas Perryman et al. (1996) used the absence of orbital signal in the data to set an upper bound on the companion mass, Mazeh et al. (1999) fitted the IAD of $`\nu `$ And in order to derive the mass of its outer planetary companion. Although their result is below 13 Jupiter masses, a $`1\sigma `$ error would already be above that threshold. Zucker and Mazeh (2000) applied the same technique and concluded upon the brown dwarf nature of the companion of HD 10697.

The technique being so promising for the extrasolar planet field, Han et al. (2001) applied it to 30 systems with a candidate planetary companion with a period larger than 10 days. Their result presented at a press conference had the effect of an Earthquake: most of the inclinations were quite low, resulting in stellar rather than planetary companions.

Whereas one cannot rule out one nearly face-on orbit, the random orientation of the orbital planes, i.e. a uniform distribution of $`\mathrm{sin}i`$, favors edge-on like orbits. Han et al. therefore suggested an observational bias towards small inclinations. That was simply too much!

### 4.3. Screening methods

Though Halbwachs et al. (2000) already considered the case of low S/N data, they mainly focused on the effect on the semimajor axis. Pourbaix (2001) showed that even in absence of signal, the method adopted by Han et al. (2001) yields low inclinations. In case of pure noise, it leads to face-on orbits with very small ‘error bars’. Thus, though it was not a proof that the result by Han et al. was wrong, it was nevertheless a proof that one would obtain the very same result even if Hipparcos had not noticed the astrometric wobbles caused by the companions.

Pourbaix & Arenou (2001) went further and concluded that the size of these wobbles was way below the Hipparcos detection limit. Their conclusion is based upon the fact that if the observations do exhibit the orbital signal, two mathematically equivalent methods will lead to the very same result (within the error bars). The two methods assume $`e`$, $`P`$ and $`T`$ from the spectroscopic orbit. In one case (Campbell’s method), $`K_1`$ and $`\omega `$ are also adopted thus leading to only two fitted parameters, namely $`i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the other method, the four Thiele-Innes constants are fitted thus allowing the Hipparcos based $`\omega `$ to be compared with the spectroscopic one. The distributions of the inclinations after the two methods are plotted in Fig. 2. Even if the Thiele-Innes based inclinations are more consistent with the expectation, they are as spurious as the Campbell’s ones: both are model artifacts.

In order to quantify the likelihood of the fit of an astrometric orbit, Pourbaix & Arenou introduced several statistical indicators whose combination allows to keep or discard such a solution. Let us list a few of them.

* The addition of 4 supplementary parameters (the four Thiele-Innes orbital constants) describing the orbital motion should result in a statistically significant decrease of the $`\chi ^2`$ for the fit of the $`N`$ IAD with an orbital model ($`\chi _T^2`$), as compared to a fit with a single-star solution ($`\chi _S^2`$). This criterion is expressed by an $`F`$-test:

$$Pr_2=Pr(\widehat{F}>F(4,N9)),\mathrm{where}\widehat{F}=\frac{N9}{4}\frac{\chi _S^2\chi _T^2}{\chi _T^2}.$$
(2)
$`Pr_2`$ is thus the first kind risk associated with the rejection of the null hypothesis:“there is no orbital wobble present in the data”.

The advantage of the F-test over a simple $`\chi ^2`$-test is that the former does not rely upon the weights of the observations or their quoted uncertainties. Indeed, two models computed with the same weights are derived and compared. Thus, if all the uncertainties are underestimated by a factor 10, the chi square will be overestimated by a factor 100 whereas the F-test will not be affected at all.
* Getting a substantial reduction of the $`\chi ^2`$ with the Thiele-Innes model does not necessarily imply that the four Thiele-Innes constants $`A,B,F,G`$ are significantly different from 0. The first kind risk associated with the rejection of the null hypothesis “the orbital semi-major axis is equal to zero” may be expressed as

$$Pr_3=Pr(\chi _{ABFG}^2>\chi ^2(4)),\mathrm{where}\chi _{ABFG}^2=𝐗^t𝐕^1𝐗,$$
(3)
and $`𝐗`$ is the vector of components $`A,B,F,G`$ and $`𝐕`$ is its covariance matrix. With the above notations, the requirements for a star to qualify as a binary may then be encapsulated at once in the expression

$$\alpha (Pr_2+Pr_3)/ϵ0.2.$$
(4)
* For the orbital solution to be a significant one, its parameters should not be strongly correlated with the other astrometric parameters (like, e.g., the proper motion). In other words, the covariance matrix of the astrometric solution should be dominated by its diagonal terms, as measured by the efficiency $`ϵ`$ of the matrix being close to 1 (Eichhorn 1989). The efficiency is simply expressed by

$$ϵ=\sqrt[m]{\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^m\lambda _k}{\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^m𝐕_{kk}}},$$
(5)
where $`\lambda _k`$ and $`𝐕_{kk}`$ are respectively the eigenvalues and the diagonal terms of the covariance matrix $`𝐕`$.

Zucker and Mazeh (2001) proposed a completely different approach for assessing these astrometric orbits. Their method is based on a permutation test. The timing of all IAD are permuted and the partial derivatives $`v/p`$ updated accordingly. This new set of observations is then fitted with an orbital model. The semimajor axis obtained with the original dataset is compared to the ones based on the new datasets. The assessment is based on the percentage of resulting semimajor axes below the original one. The higher the percentage, the more reliable the original fit. That method led Zucker and Mazeh to reject their own previous results on $`\nu `$ And and HD 10697.

### 4.4. \[Sub\]stellar applications: episode 2

The criteria adopted by Pourbaix & Arenou (2001) have been extended by Pourbaix & Boffin (2003). For instance, the latter systematically carry on a period analysis in order to see whether the Hipparcos data exhibit a peak at the spectroscopic period. The size of the orbit is also compared with the Hipparcos precision. For instance, systems with $`a_0\mathrm{sin}i<1.5`$ mas are immediately discarded. With this toolbox available, it is now possible to tackle even large samples of binaries in a very automated way with no assumption about any of the component of the system (as Pourbaix & Jorissen (2000) did). That is exactly what is needed for large missions like Gaia.

Pourbaix & Boffin (2003) applied these tools to a sample of systems with a giant component whereas Pourbaix et al. (2004) apply them to all the single-lined binaries listed in the 9th catalogue of spectroscopic binary orbits.111http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be As shown by Pourbaix & Boffin, the reliability of some spectroscopic orbits is likely to be the reason for rejecting the corresponding astrometric solutions (e.g. HIP 29982).

Some recent papers on extrasolar planets (Jones et al. 2002, Marcy et al. 2002, Vogt et al. 2002, Fischer et al. 2003) made use of these tools to check whether Hipparcos can give some clue on the inclination or not. Even though the conclusion was always negative, it is worth stating it immediately. Frink et al. (2002) used the IAD to set an upper bound on the mass of a substellar companion to a giant star.

## 5. Searching for binaries

As shown by Pourbaix (2002), 1-dimensional data have their own limitations which have almost nothing to do with their actual precision or even with the fraction of the orbit covered by the mission. The distinction should be made clear between detection and orbit determination. The former can be achieved with a simple $`\chi ^2`$-test. However, that the test states the object is not single does not mean one can derive its orbit from scratch.

Besides deriving orbits of known systems, the Hipparcos data can also be used to identify new binaries. That may be very useful if, for instance, one wants to estimate the binary proportion within certain star samples. Two approaches have been suggested: one relying upon the Hipparcos data only and another based on the comparison between the Hipparcos results and those from other catalogues.

The Tycho-2 catalogue (Høg et al. 2000) is an extension of the Tycho catalogue (ESA 1997) where the proper motion does no longer rely on the sole Tycho observations. That proper motion is thus much more accurate than the Tycho and Hipparcos ones. It is also free of orbital contribution even for long period binaries. Makarov (2004) lately derived the orbit of van Maanen 2 using the Hipparcos data and proper motion after Tycho-2. The two proper motions are discrepant thus indicating that the Hipparcos one is affected by the orbital motion whereas the Tycho-2 is not. Even if one cannot always be as lucky as Makarov and derive an orbit, one can nevertheless undertake such comparisons and expect to identify some new binaries.

Another approach for searching for binaries is to rely on the Hipparcos data only, using the screening tests described in Sect. 4.3 (especially Eq. 4). Hipparcos data are, however, seldom precise enough to derive the orbital elements from scratch. Therefore, when a spectroscopic orbit is available beforehand, it is advantageous to import $`e,P,T`$ from the spectroscopic orbit and to derive the remaining astrometric elements (Pourbaix & Boffin 2003). If a spectroscopic orbit is not available, trial $`(e,P,T)`$ triplets scanning a regular grid (with $`10P(\mathrm{d})5000`$ imposed by the Hipparcos scanning law and the mission duration) may be used. The quality factor $`\alpha `$ is then computed for each trial $`(e,P,T)`$ triplet, and if more than 10% of these triplets yield $`\alpha <0.2`$, the star is flagged as a binary. This approach is applied by Jorissen et al. (this volume) on a sample of barium stars. These authors show that, in most cases, this method makes it even possible to find a good estimate for the orbital period, provided, however, that the true period is not an integer fraction, or a multiple, of one year.

## 6. Conclusion and perspectives

Even though Hipparcos observed for three years only and its observations are 1-dimensional, they are precise enough to allow for some orbit fitting, either from scratch or with the help of some ground-based data (e.g. spectroscopic orbit, …). The Hipparcos catalogue is the best result that could be achieved within the time constraints from ESA. It is therefore not surprising that some results can be improved (e.g. parallax) or derived for the first time (e.g. orbital inclination). It is sometime just a question of time we are willing to spend on a specific object.

Owing to the similarity of its observations with those of Gaia, the Hipparcos data are an excellent testbed for the Gaia data reduction pipeline. Statistical tests (Pourbaix & Arenou 2001) can be assessed and made fully ready for Gaia. Though Gaia will supersede Hipparcos, the data of the latter have not yet revealed all their secrets. So, their usefulness is double: derive some scientific results further on and get prepared for the next mission.

#### Acknowledgments.

This research was supported in part by an ESA/PRODEX Research Grant.

## References

Eichhorn, H., 1989, Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechosl. 40, 394

ESA, 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP-1200

Fischer, D. A. et al., 2003, ApJ 586, 1394

Frink, S. et al., 2002, ApJ 576. 478

Gatewood, G. D., 1987, AJ 94, 213

Gatewood, G. D. et al., 2001, ApJ 549, 1145

Girard, T. M. et al., 2000, AJ 119, 2428

Halbwachs, J.-L. et al., 2000, A&A 355, 581

Han, I. et al., 2001, ApJ 548, L57

Høg, E. et al., 2000, A&A 355, L27

Horst, R. H. et al., 1995, in ‘Introduction to Global Optimization’, Kluwer Academic Publishers

Jones, H. R. A. et al., 2002, MNRAS 333, 871

Jorissen, A. et al., 2004, this volume

Makarov, V. V., 2004, ApJ (in press)

Marcy, G. W. et al., 2002, ApJ 581, 1375

Mazeh, T. et al., 1999, ApJ 522, L149

Perryman, M. .A. C. et al., 1996, A&A 310, L21

Pourbaix, D., 2001, A&A 369, L22

Pourbaix, D., 2002, A&A 385, 686

Pourbaix, D. and Arenou, F., 2001, A&A 372, 935

Pourbaix, D. and Boffin, H. M. J., 2003, A&A 398, 1163

Pourbaix, D. and Jorissen, A., 2000, A&AS 145, 161

Pourbaix, D. et al., 2004, this volume

Quist, C. F. and Lindegren, L., 1999, A&AS 138, 327

van Leeuwen, F. and Evans, D. W., 1998, A&AS 130, 157

Vogt, S. S. et al., 2002, ApJ 568, 352

Zucker, S. and Mazeh, T., 2000, ApJ 531, L67

Zucker, S. and Mazeh, T., 2001, ApJ 562, 549

Institut d’Astronomie et d’Astrophysique, Université Libre de Bruxelles CP 226, Boulevard du Triomphe, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

The algorithm to detect binaries using astrometric data only, as described in Sects. 4.3 and 5 of Pourbaix (this volume) has been applied to the existing Hipparcos Intermediate Astrometric Data (hereafter IAD; van Leeuwen & Evans 1998) of barium stars. Barium stars constitute an ideal sample to test this algorithm, because they are all members of binary systems (Jorissen et al. 1998), with periods ranging from about 100 d to more than 6000 d. The catalogue of Lü et al. (1983) contains 163 bona fide barium stars with an HIP entry (excluding the supergiants HD 65699 and HD 206778 = $`ϵ`$ Peg).

When $`\varpi >5`$ mas and $`P<4000`$ d (upper left corner of Fig. 1, left panel), the (astrometric) binary detection rate is close to 100%, but it falls to 22% (=36/163) when considering the whole sample, because many barium stars have small parallaxes or very long periods. Astrometric orbits with $`P>4000`$ d (11 y) can generally not be extracted from the Hipparcos IAD, which span only 3 y (see left panel of Fig. 1). Similarly, when $`\varpi <5`$ mas, as have most barium stars (right panel of Fig. 1), the Hipparcos IAD are not precise enough to extract the orbital motion.

An interesting astrophysical outcome of the present work is the list of barium stars shown to be astrometric binaries by the analysis of the Hipparcos IAD. They are listed in Table 1, with an estimate of their orbital period, as obtained from Fig. 2.

Acknowledgments. A. J. and D. P. are Research Associates, F.N.R.S (Belgium). Financial support to this work was provided through ESA/PRODEX Grants 90078 and 15152.

## References

Jorissen, A., Van Eck, S., Mayor, M. & Udry, S. 1998, A&A, 332, 877

Lü, P. K., Dawson, D. W., Upgren, A. R., & Weis, E. W. 1983, ApJS, 52, 169

van Leeuwen, F., & Evans, D. W. 1998, A&AS, 130, 157

Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Université Libre de Bruxelles CP 226, Bld du Triomphe, B-1050 Bruxelles

## 1. Astrometric/Spectroscopic combination

It is well known that the Hipparcos (ESA 1997) satellite was originally designed to measure positions, proper motions and parallaxes of stars. However, the combination of the Hipparcos Intermediate Astrometric Data (IAD) with ground-based spectroscopic data have lately led to nice results about specific binaries and extrasolar planets. For instance, the IAD of known spectroscopic binaries can be fitted with an (astrometric) orbital model thus hopefully yielding the inclination of the system. The key point is to understand the limitation of the method.

The spectroscopic orbits were all extracted from the 9th catalogue of spectroscopic binary orbits (hereafter $`S_{B^9}`$, http//sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be). Even though $`S_{B^9}`$ does contain 1 578 systems, we only kept the 863 which do not belong to the DMSA/C (ESA 1997). When several subsystems for a given HIP number were in $`S_{B^9}`$, only the one with the largest orbital period was kept.

130 systems simultaneously fulfill the six criteria after Pourbaix & Boffin (2003) are used. We adopt the same definition as given by Pourbaix in this volume and impose: $`pr_2,pr_35\%`$ (see Pourbaix & Arenou (2001) for details), the efficiency $`ϵ0.4`$ (Eichhorn 1989), the consistency between the Thiele-Innes solution and the Campbell/spectroscopic one ($`pr_45\%`$), the likelihood of the face-one orbit ($`pr_55\%`$) and the consistency of the spectroscopic and astrometric orbits ($`|D|<2`$).

## 2. Periodogram analysis

All these tests are based on the fit. Hence, a positive value does not mean that what Hipparcos saw is the companion we are looking for. A periodogram is used to assess the match between these systems: do the IADs contain a peak at the period corresponding to the spectroscopic one (dashed line on figure 1)? It is worth keeping in mind that these periodograms rely on the eccentricity and periastron time of the adopted spectroscopic orbit.

Sixty eight systems exhibit a peak in the periodogram corresponding exactly to the spectroscopic period (left column of the left panel of figure 1). For 36 systems, the periods are closed or may correspond to one peak but not the one in evidence in the periodogram (central column of the left panel of figure 1). Finally, 19 systems end up with a spectroscopic period completely out of a peak (right column of figure 1). Seven systems have orbital periods exceeding the limit of the periodogram.

## 3. $`S_{B^9}`$ and BDB informations

In order to understand the reason of the discrepancy noticed for some systems, we used informations from $`S_{B^9}`$ and from the Besançon Double and Multiple Star Data Base (BDB). Several explanations are necessary:

* Right spectroscopic period, but

+ Sampling problem: when generating the periodogram, the closest period to the true one is still too far away
    + scanning law constraint: the Hipparcos scanning law prevents some periods from being clearly identified.
* Wrong spectroscopic period

+ The spectroscopic period of a few stars are flagged as uncertain or preliminary by the authors.
    + Some are based on very old observations, beginning of last century and have not been checked for the past fifty years.
    + In $`S_{B^9}`$ some binaries we are interested in are given with a poor grade of reliability.
* Unaccounted triple systems: even though the system does not belong to the DMSA/C and does not appear as a triple in $`S_{B^9}`$, a long period shows up in the periodogram whereas $`S_{B^9}`$ gives a short one.
* Too low S/N: although the fit is improved with the orbital model, the astrometric signature of the secondary is below the noise level (cf. next section and Pourbaix (2001))

Jorissen et al. (this volume) present a complementary application to Ba stars.

## 4. Why do so many systems get discarded?

In the previous section 733 systems got discarded out of 863. Although that is already a lot, lots of the kept ones are still troublesome. How does the strength of these filters compare with each other (why does one discard HIP 112158) and what might me the missing filter (how to get rid of HIP 4584)?

Figure 1 (right panel) indicates that 75% of the systems are discarded because there is no improvement of the fit whether one adopts the orbital model or not. The distribution of the orbital periods largely explains such a high percentage. For instance, 363 systems have periods below 25 days thus making any astrometric wobble caused by the secondary unlikely to be detected by Hipparcos. Systems with large orbital periods are also likely to suffer the same problem, the correlation among parameters (efficiency quite low) discarding some more. Imposing $`S/N>1.5`$ mas would discard 35 additional systems (e.g. HIP 4584).

Discarding systems like HIP 112158 was not a mistake per say but rather a way for the statistical tests to tell us something about that system. Even though it is listed as an SB1 in $`S_{B^9}`$, the discrepancy between the genuine Thiele-Innes and Campbell solutions reveals that Hipparcos did see the secondary.

## 5. Conclusions

The exploration of the richness of the Hipparcos observations is far from over. Besides the new scientific results one can still derive from them, the readiness and free availability of these observations make them an excellent testbed for the preparations of some future astrometric missions.

#### Acknowledgments.

AJ and DP are Research Associates, FNRS (Belgium). This research was supported in part by an ESA/PRODEX Research Grants 90078 and 15152.

## References

ESA, 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP-1200

Jorissen, A. Jancart, S. and Pourbaix, D., 2004 (this volume)

Pourbaix, D., 2001, A&A 369, L22

Pourbaix, D., 2004 (this volume)

Pourbaix, D. and Arenou, F., 2001, A&A 372, 935

Pourbaix, D. and Boffin, H. M. J., 2003, A&A 398, 1163


format: text

text:
# Weakly Interacting Bose Gas in the Vicinity of the Critical Point

## I Introduction

Typically, only special properties of critical systems (such as critical exponents and amplitude ratios) are universal (see, e.g. Ref. book, ). Weakly interacting $`U(1)`$ models, including dilute Bose gases (BG), are an exception from this rule in the sense that all their thermodynamic properties are universal close to the critical point. This unique feature allows complete characterization of the fluctuation region and its vicinity for all such models without adjustable parameters. In the recent paper our2D  devoted to two dimensional systems we obtained the universal thermodynamic relations for the density, $`n`$, superfluid density, $`n_s`$, and quasicondensate density, $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$, by performing high-precision Monte Carlo simulations of the classical $`|\psi |^4`$ model on a lattice. Here we present the results of a similar study of the three-dimensional (3D) case.

Away from the critical point, the mean-field (MF) treatment of the weakly interacting BG bogoliubov ; LP ; Popov  is a reliable theoretical scheme controlled by the small dimensionless parameter

$$n^{1/3}a1,$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the scattering length. In the pseudo-potential approach, one models the same scattering length $`a`$ by introducing a weak short-range potential, $`U_{\mathrm{psd}}`$, of radius $`rn^{1/3}`$ and amplitude $`U=U_{\mathrm{psd}}(𝐫)𝑑𝐫`$. The relation between $`U`$ and $`a`$ is provided by the perturbation theory (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$U=\frac{4\pi a}{m}\left(1+4\pi a\frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{p^2}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(2)
The divergence of the second term in the ultra-violet limit is cut at $`p1/r`$; it cancels out when final answers are expressed in terms of the scattering length bogoliubov ; LP ; Popov . Close to the Bose condensation point, when $`n^{2/3}mT`$, one can write Eq. (1) as

$$mU1/\sqrt{mT}.$$
(3)
In the fluctuation region,

$$|t|=|(T_cT)/T_c|m^{3/2}T^{1/2}U,$$
(4)
($`T_c`$ is the critical temperature), perturbative in $`U`$ approaches do not work Popov ; Baym99 ; Baym00 ; AM2000 ; us ; AM . The physics now is determined by non-perturbative coupling between the long-wavelength components of the order parameter field, resulting in a crossover from MF to the generic U(1)-universality class critical behavior on approaching the critical point.

An important observation about the fluctuation region of a weakly interacting BG is that in the small interaction limit all $`|\psi |^4`$ models—quantum or classical, continuous or discrete—allow a universal description Popov ; Baym99 ; our2D . The crucial circumstance is that long-wavelength components of the order parameter field, $`\psi (𝐫)`$, with momenta much smaller then the thermal momentum $`k_T=\sqrt{mT}`$ are classical in nature (large occupation numbers), and only components with $`kk_c=m^2TUk_T`$ are strongly coupled. In this limit the effective Hamiltonian is given by the classical $`|\psi |^4`$ model

$$H[\psi ]=\left\{\frac{1}{2m}|\psi |^2+\frac{U}{2}|\psi |^4\stackrel{~}{\mu }|\psi |^2\right\}𝑑𝐫,$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is the renormalized chemical potential for long-wave modes. The microscopic physics of different models is important only at momenta $`kk_c`$, where the system behavior is perturbative and thus may be easily accounted for analytically.

Our approach to the problem starts from observation that $`n_s`$, $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$, and $`nn_c`$, are universal functions of the shifted chemical potential, $`\mu \mu _c`$, where $`\mu _c(T),n_c(T)`$ are the (model specific) critical point parameters. To find these functions one has to solve accurately any of the weakly interacting $`|\psi |^4`$ models, and we resort to Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the classical $`|\psi |^4`$ model on a lattice using very efficient Worm-algorithm not suffering from the critical slowing down Worm . In 2D, the same idea was successfully implemented in Ref. our2D, . Before that, quantum to classical mapping was used in Refs. us, ; AM, ; PRS,  to determine the critical point parameters (both in 2D and 3D).

This approximation-free numerical solution yields an accurate description of the system thermodynamics. In the critical region, characterized by known exponents of the U(1) universality class, our goal is to find amplitudes of the power-law dependencies for all quantities in question. By comparing to the results of the MF theory, we establish quantitative limits on the size of the fluctuation region. Away from the fluctuation region our accurate data unambiguously distinguish between MF theories based on the notion of condensate and quasicondensate—the amplitude of the order parameter field at intermediate distances—in favor of the latter.

In the past, most non-perturbative calculations using renormalization group (RG) and $`1/N`$-expansions (for the most recent work see, e.g., Refs. stoof, ; Baym00, ; AM2000, ; kleinert, ; Kastening, ; ledowski, ) concentrated on the critical temperature shift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$, and the scattering in the results was quite substantial. In the absence of small parameters controlling the accuracy of the answer, the knowledge of final results is crucial in discriminating between competing approaches and in developing better schemes. However $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_c`$, is only one of many universal properties of weakly interacting systems. The critical chemical potential shift as well as superfluid and condensate density behavior in the critical regime are also universal. A reliable theoretical approach should be able to reproduce all of them, and our results provide corresponding benchmarks.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we use the analysis of dimensions to cast thermodynamic relations for the weakly interacting gas in the universal form. Special attention is paid to the ultra-violet and infra-red procedures of the chemical potential renormalization. In Sec. III we render MF theory based on the quasicondensate density. In Sec. IV we introduce the classical $`|\psi |^4`$ model on a lattice and the simulation algorithm. Our results are presented and compared to the critical and MF behavior in Secs. V. In Sec. VI we discuss our results in the context of experiments with ultracold gases and make comparisons with some analytical approaches to the fluctuation region.

## II Universal relations for weakly interacting $`|\psi |^4`$ models

In the $`U0`$ limit one can present simple arguments for the typical energy and density scales responsible for the non-perturbative behavior at the critical point Baym99 ; us ; AM . To find the momentum separating weakly and strongly coupled modes, $`k_c`$, one considers the three terms in the Hamiltonian (5) and determines when all of them are of the same order of magnitude for modes $`kk_c`$, assuming that modes with $`k>k_c`$ are already taken into account in renormalized values of the Hamiltonian parameters. This leads to the estimates

$$k_c^2/m|\stackrel{~}{\mu }|\stackrel{~}{n}U,$$
(6)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{n}\underset{k<k_c}{}|\psi _k|^2=\underset{k<k_c}{}n_k,$$
(7)
is the long wavelength contribution to the total density, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is the effective chemical potential for low-energy modes. In 3D one has $`\stackrel{~}{n}k_c^3n_{k_c}`$, and since $`k_c`$ is separating strongly coupled long-wave harmonics from slightly perturbed short-wave ones, the order-of-magnitude estimate for $`n_{k_c}`$ may be obtained from the ideal system formula:

$$n_{k_c}\frac{T}{k_c^2/2m\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\frac{T}{|\stackrel{~}{\mu }|}.$$
(8)
Substituting this back to Eqs. (6)-(7) yields

$$k_c=m^2TU,\stackrel{~}{n}m^3T^2U,|\stackrel{~}{\mu }|m^3T^2U^2.$$
(9)
The critical values of the density, or chemical potential, are, of course, model specific. \[We find it convenient to work in the grand canonical ensemble and keep temperature fixed; in Sec. V we explain how all the results are easily converted into more familiar temperature plots.\] In fact, in 3D the major contribution to $`n_c`$, and $`\mu _c`$, is coming from high momenta $`kk_c`$. However, this model specific contribution to density does not depend on interactions in linear order in U, and thus can be easily calculated analytically. Thus if we count density and chemical potential from their critical values, we expect the dependence of $`nn_c`$ on $`\mu \mu _c`$ to be universal because of its long-wavelength nature. In view of Eq. (9) we write the equation of state in the dimensionless form as

$$nn_c=(m^3T^2U)\lambda (X),$$
(10)
where $`X`$ is the universal control parameter

$$X=\frac{\mu \mu _c}{m^3T^2U^2},$$
(11)
with the typical variation across the fluctuation region of order unity. \[For the gas in a slowly varying external potential, $`V(𝐫)`$, the function $`\lambda (X)`$ describes the spatial density profile, provided $`\mu `$ in Eq. (11) is replaced with $`\mu V(𝐫)`$.\] Similarly,

$$n_{\mathrm{cnd}}=(m^3T^2U)f_0(X),$$
(12)
$$n_s=(m^3T^2U)f_s(X),$$
(13)
Establishing universal—for all weakly-interacting $`|\psi |^4`$ models—functions $`\lambda `$, $`f_0`$, and $`f_s`$, and explaining how they work for the quantum Bose gas is the main goal of this paper.

First, we note that $`n_c`$ and $`\mu _c`$ for the Bose gas have been already determined in previous MC studies us ; AM ; AM2002 . The interaction induced shift of the critical density is universal

$$n_c=n_c^{(0)}Cm^3T^2U,C=0.0142(4),$$
(14)
where $`n_c^{(0)}`$ is the critical density of the non-interacting system; $`n_c^{(0)}=(mT/3.313)^{3/2}`$ for the Bose gas. \[We quote the mean of the results presented in Refs. us  and AM  which overlap within the error bars.\]

Before quoting the result for $`\mu _c`$, we would like to discuss its subtle structure AM ; Baym2001 ; AM2002 . Linear in $`U`$ terms are accounted for by the MF expression $`2nU`$. There are two distinctive contributions to $`\mu _c`$ which are quadratic in $`U`$. One is universal and comes from strongly coupled critical fluctuations. The other one is perturbative and comes from the second-order diagram (see Fig. 1) for the self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}(\omega =0,p=0)`$:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2U^2T^2{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤_1d𝐤_2}{(2\pi )^6}\underset{s_1s_2}{}\frac{1}{[i\omega _{s_1}ϵ_{k_1}][i\omega _{s_2}ϵ_{k_2}][i(\omega _{s_1}+\omega _{s_2})ϵ_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}]}}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2U^2}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤_1d𝐤_2}{ϵ_{k_1}+ϵ_{k_2}ϵ_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}}\left[N_{k_1}N_{k_2}N_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}\left(N_{k_1}+N_{k_2}+1\right)\right]}\text{(quantum)},`$
where $`ϵ_𝐤`$ is the dispersion law, $`\omega _s=2\pi Ts`$ is the Matsubara frequency, and $`N_k=[e^{ϵ_k/T}1]^1`$ is the Bose distribution function. The corresponding classical expression is obtained by considering only the zero-frequency term ($`s_1=s_2=0`$):

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}=\frac{2U^2T^2}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{d𝐤_1d𝐤_2}{ϵ_{k_1}ϵ_{k_2}ϵ_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}}\text{(classical)},$$
(16)
The self-energy integrals are divergent. In the infrared limit the divergence is logarithmic

$$\stackrel{kk_T}{}\frac{m^3T^2U^2}{\pi ^2}𝑑k/k.$$
(17)
For the Bose gas ($`ϵ_k=k^2/2m`$) it is also divergent in the ultra-violet limit as a power law

$$\stackrel{kk_T}{}\frac{2U^2}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{d𝐤_1d𝐤_2N_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}}{ϵ_{k_1}+ϵ_{k_2}ϵ_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}}\frac{2U^2m}{(2\pi )^6}𝑑𝐤N_k\frac{d𝐩}{p^2}=2nU\left(4\pi a\frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{p^2}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UV}^{(2)}.$$
(18)
We cast the last expression in the form which immediately relates it to the definition of the pseudo-potential, Eq. (2), i.e. in the sum $`2nU+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}`$ the ultra-violet divergences cancel each other for terms $`U^2`$. Identically, the same result is obtained if in all final answers we simply substitute $`U4\pi a/m`$ and use

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UV}^{(2)}\text{(quantum)},$$
(19)
as the second-order self-energy for the quantum Bose gas. In what follows we employ this well established trick bogoliubov ; LP ; Popov . Obviously, in classical models quantum corrections to $`U`$ are absent. Correspondingly, there are no divergencies in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}`$ apart from the logarithmic one, and the original expression for the self-energy should be used: $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}`$.

The logarithmic divergence (17) can be simply truncated at some infra-red energy scale, or regularized AM ; AM2002 . Whatever the procedure, as long as it is the same for all weakly-interacting models, the difference between the true value of $`\mu _c`$ and $`2n_cU+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}`$ is coming from long-wave modes and thus is universal, while the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}`$ term is model specific. In this paper we introduce an explicit infra-red cutoff by adding a constant $`\kappa =k_c^2/2m=m^3T^2U^2/2`$ to the dispersion law, i.e. $`ϵ_kϵ_k+\kappa `$ everywhere in Eqs. (15) and (16). Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}=\frac{m^3T^2U^2}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(5.9030\sqrt{m^3TU^2}\right)=\frac{m^3T^2U^2}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(5.9030\frac{k_T}{k_c}\right),$$
(20)
The numerical value of $`\mu _c`$ has been determined in Refs. AM, ; AM2002, . For the quantum gas it reads

$$\mu _c=2n_c^{(0)}U+\frac{m^3T^2U^2}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(0.4213(6)\frac{k_T}{k_c}\right)2n_cU+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}(m^3T^2U^2)\theta _0,$$
(21)
where

$$\theta _0=(1/\pi ^2)\mathrm{ln}(5.9030/0.4213)2C=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.239}(1).$$
(22)
In the MF theory, the definition of the effective chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ involves subtraction of the self-energy contributions

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu 2nU\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}.$$
(23)
This quantity is model-independent, and we find it convenient to introduce the corresponding universal function $`\theta (X)`$

$$2nU+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}\mu =m^3T^2U^2\theta (X).$$
(24)
It is, of course, directly related to the equation of state function $`\lambda (X)`$

$$\theta (X)=2\lambda (X)X+\theta _0.$$
(25)
If we were to change the infra-red cutoff in the definition of self-energy, $`\kappa \kappa ^{}`$ we would have to modify the value of $`\theta _0`$ accordingly $`\theta _0\theta _0+(1/2\pi ^2)\mathrm{ln}(\kappa /\kappa ^{})`$.

## III  Mean-field Theory

Away from the fluctuation region our simulation is supposed to reproduce the known perturbative results for a weakly interacting Bose gas. That is we need $`\theta `$, $`\lambda `$, $`f_0`$, and $`f_s`$ as functions of $`X`$, the dimensionless variable $`1/X`$ playing the role of the small parameter that guarantees the applicability of perturbative treatment. The leading terms in the perturbative expansion away from the fluctuation region are $`|X|`$, the next-order terms are $`\sqrt{|X|}`$. We confine ourselves to considering only these terms, ignoring the higher order corrections (in fact, we are not aware of existing results for them). Hence, our numerics is expected to agree with the known analytic results only at large enough $`|X|`$, and only up to some constants.

This degree of accuracy can be achieved within the MF treatment (plus an extra care of the higher-energy logarithmic correction to the chemical potential) both on the normal and superfluid sides. In the superfluid region, however, it is essential, that MF be based on the quasicondensate, rather than genuine condensate. In the condensate-based treatments the same accuracy is achieved only if beyond-the-MF corrections are taken into account. The logarithmic correction to the chemical potential, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}`$, has been already discussed in Sec. II. For practical purposes, this correction is not large—unless the gas parameter $`n^{1/3}a`$ is exponentially small, and taking it into account really makes sense only if all the $`X`$-independent terms are accounted for as well. Theoretically, however, this correction involves the ultraviolet physics and thus is model-specific. Hence, if we ignore it, then we cannot render our answers model-independent. On the good side, we do not need to calculate $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}`$ more accurately than it was done in Sec. II, since that would lead to the higher-order corrections which we ignore here. Thus, we simply add the term (20) to MF expression for the chemical potential of the Bose gas.

### III.1 Asymptotic behavior in the normal phase ($`X\mathrm{}`$)

In the normal region $`X<0`$ we have $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$ identically zero. Hence, the only quantity we have to look at is the equation of state $`\lambda (X)`$ or $`\theta (X)`$. Using MF equation for the effective chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu 2nU\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}=\theta m^3T^2U^2`$, we calculate the difference between the density of the interacting gas $`n(T,\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ and the critical density of the ideal gas $`n_c^{(0)}`$ keeping only the leading linear in $`U`$ terms:

$$n_c^{(0)}n\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{T}{ϵ}\frac{T}{ϵ+\theta m^3T^2U^2}\right]=\frac{\sqrt{\theta }m^3T^2U}{\sqrt{2}\pi }.$$
(26)
We now notice that $`n_c^{(0)}n=[C\lambda (X)]m^3T^2U`$, see Eqs. (10) and (14), and use Eq. (25) to complete the derivation

$$\theta +\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\sqrt{\theta }=2C+\theta (0)X\mathrm{at}X\mathrm{}.$$
(27)
### III.2 Mean-field description of the superfluid region ($`X\mathrm{}`$). Quasicondensate

The standard MF approach to the weakly interacting Bose gas deals with the condensate density, $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$, defined through the one-particle density matrix,

$$\rho (r)=\psi ^{}(𝐫)\psi (\mathrm{𝟎})$$
(28)
\[$`\psi `$ is either the field operator (in the quantum system) or a complex valued field (in the classical system); in the latter case $`\psi ^{}\psi ^{}`$\], as

$$n_{\mathrm{cnd}}=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (r).$$
(29)
Well inside the region of applicability of the MF description, but not too far from the fluctuation region, the MF theory based on $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$ is less accurate than the theory dealing with the notion of quasi-condensate. Of course one can go beyond the MF description in the condensate based theory and evaluate the corresponding corrections. It is important, however, that the quasicondensate MF description automatically captures the first order corrections to the condensate MF. \[In 2D the quasicondensate MF has demonstrated perfect agreement with MC simulations away from the fluctuation regionour2D .\] We thus find it instructive to resort here to the quasicondensate MF description.

The notion of quasicondensate was introduced by PopovPopov  (“bare condensate” in the original version). Basically, it is used to describe the order parameter with fluctuating phase (see also KSS ) and implies the possibility of parameterizing the field $`\psi (𝐫)`$ for the weakly interacting system as

$`\psi (𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _0(𝐫)+\psi _1(𝐫),`$ (30)
$`\psi _0(𝐫)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{n_{\mathrm{qc}}}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)},`$ (31)
where $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ is the quasicondensate density, and $`\psi _1`$ is the Gaussian field independent of $`\psi _0`$. The Gaussian field $`\psi _1`$ is primarily responsible for the decay of $`\rho (r)`$ at distances comparable to the thermal wavelength. The relation between $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ immediately follows from (30)-(31):

$$n_{\mathrm{cnd}}=n_{\mathrm{qc}}\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)i\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{𝟎})}.$$
(32)
When fluctuations of the phase field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$, become noticeable—this is precisely the case in the vicinity of the critical point— the difference between $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ should be taken into consideration as well.

There are strong arguments that it is $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$, and not $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$, that is relevant to all the characteristics of the system, with $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$ being just one of them. Indeed, the physics at large distances, or small, but finite momenta, including the spectrum of elementary excitations, is determined by what is happening on smaller lengthscales, in other words, “high-energy” physics ultimately determines what happens at lower energies. The condensate is the macroscopic characteristic of the system; it should be derived from other finite-$`k`$ properties, and $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ governs them.

This fact has been rigorously shown by one of us Svist . Though the analysis of Ref. Svist,  has been done for 2D systems (where the notion of quasicondensate is of crucial importance and cannot be avoided), it is applicable to the 3D case as well. The actual treatment closely follows Popov’s theory Popov , with the only (but important) exception that $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ is understood and treated as a physical quantity. \[Popov treated bare condensate as an auxiliary mathematical quantity explicitly dependent on the momentum $`k^{}`$ separating ‘slow’ harmonics from the ‘fast’ ones. Correspondingly, he attempted to exclude this quantity from final answers to render them $`k^{}`$-independent.—At low enough temperatures this can be easily done by replacing $`n_{qc}\mu /U`$. However, in the high temperature region the quantity $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}(T)`$ is a meaningful physical parameter KSS .\]

One may consider Eq. (31) as the definition $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$—it is the modulus of the order parameter field at large distances. This quantity appears in all MF equations just like $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$ does at low temperature. Then, $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ and $`T`$ can be chosen as convenient independent thermodynamic parameters specifying the state of the system, the rest of the characteristics being expressed as functions of $`(n_{\mathrm{qc}},T)`$. The basic results are as follows KSS ; Svist :

$$n=n_{\mathrm{qc}}+n^{},$$
(33)
with the non-quasicondensate part of the particle density, $`n^{}`$, given by the integral

$$n^{}=\frac{\mathrm{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\left[\frac{ϵ(k)+n_{\mathrm{qc}}UE(k)}{2E(k)}+\frac{ϵ(k)N_E}{E(k)}\right],$$
(34)
where $`ϵ(k)=k^2/2m`$ is the free-particle dispersion law, and

$$E(k)=\sqrt{ϵ(k)[ϵ(k)+2n_{\mathrm{qc}}U]}$$
(35)
is the Bogoliubov quasiparticle spectrum.

For the one-particle density matrix one obtains Svist  (see also Ref. Krasavin,  for a numeric check in 2D)

$$\rho (r)=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(r),$$
(36)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\left[1\mathrm{cos}(𝐤𝐫)\right]\frac{UN_E}{E},$$
(37)
$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(r)=n_{\mathrm{qc}}+\frac{\mathrm{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{cos}(𝐤𝐫)\left[\frac{ϵ+n_{\mathrm{qc}}UE}{2E}+\frac{ϵN_E}{E}\right].$$
(38)
\[In Eq. (38), as well as in Eq. (34), the first term in square brackets is $`U^{3/2}`$ after integration, and may be omitted in the region $`TnU`$ addressed in the present paper.\]

That $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ is the relevant quantity behind the long-wave physics is clear from the structure of Eqs. (36)-(38). The second term in Eq. (38) decays first as a power law $`(k_Tr)^1`$, and then exponentially fast, so that on large length-scales the amplitude of the order parameter is given by $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$. Phase fluctuations are described by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$. They are negligible at short distances of order $`1/k_T`$, but at distances $`1/\sqrt{mn_{\mathrm{qc}}U}`$ their contribution to the density matrix results in the difference between $`n_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$, see Eq. (32):

$$n_{\mathrm{cnd}}=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{})}n_{\mathrm{qc}}.$$
(39)
The trick to solve MF equations in the vicinity of the critical point ($`1Xk_T/k_c`$) is to calculate differences between the corresponding densities (this makes all integrals to converge at energies $`T`$) keeping only the universal leading low-momenta terms. To get $`n^{}`$ we add and subtract the ideal gas critical density

$$n_c^{(0)}n^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{T}{ϵ}\frac{ϵT}{E^2}\right]=\frac{m^3T^2U\sqrt{f_{\mathrm{qc}}}}{\pi },$$
(40)
where

$$f_{\mathrm{qc}}=\frac{n_{\mathrm{qc}}}{m^3T^2U}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(\mathrm{at}X1)$$
(41)
is the dimensionless parameter of asymptotic expansion for all thermodynamic quantities away from the fluctuation region.

Combining (40) with (33) yields

$$n=n_c^{(0)}+m^3T^2U[f_{\mathrm{qc}}\sqrt{f_{\mathrm{qc}}}/\pi ],$$
(42)
and with (14) we get

$$\lambda =f_{\mathrm{qc}}\sqrt{f_{\mathrm{qc}}}/\pi +C\mathrm{at}X\mathrm{}.$$
(43)
The relation for the condensate density immediately follows from the asymptotic value of the phase correlator

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{})\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{UT}{E^2(k)}=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{f_{\mathrm{qc}}}}.$$
(44)
Hence

$$f_0=f_{\mathrm{qc}}e^{1/(2\pi \sqrt{f_{\mathrm{qc}}})}\mathrm{at}X\mathrm{}.$$
(45)
To find $`f_s`$, we consider the standard expression for the normal component density LP

$$n_n=\frac{1}{3m}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{\mathrm{dN}_\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{dE}}\right]k^2.$$
(46)
Integrating by parts, we rewrite Eq. (46) as

$$n_n=\frac{2(2m)^{3/2}}{3(2\pi )^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}dϵN_E\frac{}{ϵ}ϵ^{3/2}\frac{\sqrt{ϵ(ϵ+2n_{\mathrm{qc}}U)}}{ϵ+n_{\mathrm{qc}}U}.$$
(47)
We now subtract from $`n_n`$ the non-condensate density to evaluate the integral explicitly, and use identity $`n_nn^{}n_{\mathrm{qc}}n_s`$ to get

$$f_s=f_{\mathrm{qc}}\sqrt{f_{\mathrm{qc}}}/3\pi \mathrm{at}X\mathrm{}.$$
(48)
Finally, the quasicondensate density can be related to the chemical potential as KSS

$$\mu =(n_{\mathrm{qc}}+2n^{})U+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}=2nUn_{\mathrm{qc}}U+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)},$$
(49)
where we have added the term $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(2)}`$, in accordance with the previous discussion. In contrast to the analogous relation in terms of the condensate and non-condensate densitiesHP , this relation does not imply corrections of the order $`\sqrt{X}`$.

Comparing Eq. (49) with the definition of $`\theta `$-function, Eq. (24), we see that

$$\theta =f_{\mathrm{qc}}\mathrm{at}X\mathrm{},$$
(50)
and with the $`\theta `$$`\lambda `$ relation (25) and Eq. (43) for $`\lambda `$ we get a self-consistent equation for $`f_{\mathrm{qc}}`$

$$f_{\mathrm{qc}}2\sqrt{f_{\mathrm{qc}}}/\pi =X\theta (0)2C\mathrm{at}X\mathrm{}.$$
(51)
Equation (51) along with Eqs. (50), (43), (45), and (48) define $`\theta `$, $`\lambda `$, $`f_0`$, and $`f_s`$ as functions of $`X`$.

We are in a position now to demonstrate that quasicondensate MF reproduces results of the condensate-based diagrammatic technique which accounts for leading, $`\sqrt{X}`$, corrections to the condensate MF answers Popov . Indeed, in the limit $`X\mathrm{}`$, Eqs. (51) and (45) define the effective chemical potential dependence on the condensate density as

$$Xf_0(1+\sqrt{f_0}/2\pi )2\sqrt{f_0}/\pi =f_03\sqrt{f_0}/2\pi .$$
(52)
Similarly,

$$f_sf_0(1+\sqrt{f_0}/2\pi )\sqrt{f_0}/3\pi =f_0+\sqrt{f_0}/6\pi ,$$
(53)
in complete agreement with Ref. Popov, .

## IV Lattice $`|\psi |^4`$ model and simulation algorithm

As explained in Secs. I and II, one can introduce universal functions for any model described in the long-wave limit by the Hamiltonian (5) with small $`U`$. Classical lattice models are easier to deal with numerically, and there are very efficient classical algorithms which allow simulations of very large system sizes. In the present study, we performed simulations of systems with up to $`128^3`$ lattice points. In addition, results obtained for a classical model directly test the idea of universality, since they have to agree with all MF predictions formally derived for the quantum Bose gas.

Our simulations were done for the simple cubic lattice Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{𝐤BZ}{}[E(𝐤)\mu ]|\psi _k|^2+\frac{U}{2}\underset{i}{}|\psi _i|^4,$$
(54)
where $`\psi _k`$ is the Fourier transform of the complex lattice field $`\psi _i`$, and

$$ϵ_𝐤=\frac{1}{ma^2}\underset{\alpha =x,y,z}{}[2\mathrm{cos}(k_\alpha a)],$$
(55)
is the tight-binding dispersion law with momentum $`𝐤`$ confined within the first Brillouin zone (BZ). The self-energy expression (16) was evaluated with this dispersion law and $`\kappa =k_c/2m`$ numerically for each system size, and used then in the definition of the function $`\theta (X)`$, Eq. (24).

We employed the Worm algorithm for classical statistical systems Worm  which has Monte Carlo estimators for all quantities of interest here and does not suffer from critical slowing down. In cluster methods Wolff  (which have comparable efficiency) the calculation of the superfluid density is more elaborate.

From simulations of a series of system sizes and coupling constants, $`U=2,1,0.5,0.25`$, we eliminated finite-size and finite-$`U`$ corrections to the final results for $`\theta (X)`$, $`\lambda (X)`$, $`f_0(X)`$, and $`f_s(X)`$.

## V Simulation results

In Figs. 2 and 3 we present the final outcome of simulations throughout the fluctuation region. We also present all the data in Table I. The relative accuracy is high far from the fluctuation region (better then $`1\%`$), and gets worse in the vicinity of the critical point where finite-size corrections are the largest. We show errorbars in all plots.

First, we check for consistency between our approach and the previously obtained result for $`\theta _0`$, see Eq. (22). Within the errorbars, the agreement is perfect, see Fig. 4.

Knowing $`C`$ and $`\theta _0`$ is all we need to address the asymptotic MF behavior at large $`|X|`$, see Eqs. (51), (42), (45), and (48). The agreement with the MF theory based on the notion of quasicondensate is remarkable. Despite the fact that in MF we keep consistently only large terms $`X`$ and $`\sqrt{X}`$, for numeric reasons the constant term also happens to be accurate. The self-consistent theory of Ref. BH,  is claimed to go beyond conventional MF, but it is not known at present whether it reproduces correctly the $`\sqrt{X}`$ terms.

The agreement between the data and MF predictions makes it easy to estimate the size of the fluctuation region (in terms of $`X`$) to be about $`0.4`$ on the superfluid side of the transition, and roughly two times smaller, $`0.2`$, on the normal side.

Other quantities of interest are the universal amplitudes for the superfluid and condensate densities in the critical regime, when $`f_s=A_sX^\nu `$, and $`f_0=A_0X^{\nu (1+\eta )}`$. Here $`\nu =0.6715`$ and $`\eta =0.038`$ are the correlation length and the correlation function critical exponents of the XY-universality class in $`d=3`$, see, e.g., Ref. Campostrini, . By fitting the data for $`f_s`$ and $`f_0`$ at small $`X`$ to the power laws with known exponents we obtain

$$A_s=0.86(5),$$
(56)
$$A_0=0.89(5).$$
(57)
$`\nu `$-effect. It appears in Fig. (2) as if the total density has a cusp at the critical point. However, $`n`$ is not singular at $`X=0`$, and what looks as a cusp in Fig. (2) is in fact a relatively sharp crossover slightly shifted to the normal side of the transition point, see Fig. (4).

The crossover itself is predicted by MF equations since $`\theta (X)`$ changes its slope from roughly $`X`$ to $`X`$, see Eqs. (27) and (51). We are not aware of any special reason why it has to be so sharp and so close to the transition point—the slope changes at $`X0.01`$ and the crossover region is only about $`\mathrm{\Delta }X0.01`$ in width. We call this surprising non-perturbative result the “$`\nu `$-effect” as suggested by the shape of the $`\theta `$-function.

## VI Discussion

To discuss results in the canonical ensemble setup we need to change from the chemical potential as a control variable to reduced temperature. First, we note that our results immediately generalize to the case when the properly rescaled reduced density

$$Y=\frac{1}{m^3T^2U}\frac{nn_c(T)}{n_c(T)},$$
(58)
is used as a tuning variable. Indeed,

$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (X)`$
$`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}`$ $`=`$ $`m^3T^2Uf_0(X)`$ (59)
is nothing but the parametric dependence of the condensate density on density at a fixed temperature \[and similarly for $`f_s(Y)`$ and $`\theta (Y)`$\].

Next, we observe that Eq. (14) can be also considered as an equation for $`T_c(n)`$

$$\left(\frac{mT_c}{3.313}\right)^{3/2}Cm^3T_c^2U=n.$$
(60)
Using it in the definition of the $`\lambda `$-function we obtain

$$\left(\frac{mT_c}{3.313}\right)^{3/2}Cm^3T_c^2U\left(\frac{mT}{3.313}\right)^{3/2}+Cm^3T^2U=m^3T^2U\lambda (X).$$

Finally, keeping only the leading linear in $`U`$ and $`t`$ terms we arrive at

$$Z=\lambda (X).$$
(61)
where $`Z`$ is the rescaled reduced temperature parameter

$$Z=\frac{3n}{2m^3T^2U}t.$$
(62)
This establishes the functional relation between $`t`$ and $`X`$, and the parametric dependence of other properties on $`t`$.

In Figs. 5 and 6 we plot $`\theta `$, $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$ dependencies on the reduced temperature variable $`Z`$. From Fig. 5 we deduce the size of the fluctuation region consistent with the previous estimate in terms of $`X`$ and relation $`Z=\lambda (X)`$, i.e. it is about $`0.5`$ on the superfluid side and $`0.1`$ on the normal side. Amazingly, in temperature plots for $`n_{\mathrm{cnd}}(T)`$ and $`n_s(T)`$ one may not even distinguish between the MF theory and numerical data on large scale; only in the inset which covers just the fluctuation region we can see that the MF curve goes wrong very close to $`T_c`$.

We also verify the prediction of the self-consistent theory BH  for the critical amplitude of the condensate density. As mentioned previously, the self-consistent theory makes predictions for the critical region as well; the relation between the condensate density and reduced temperature is derived as \[see Eq. (18) in Ref. BH, \] $`f_00.251Z^\nu ^{}`$ with $`\nu ^{}=1/(1+\sqrt{5/6\pi })0.66`$. The condensate density exponent is accurate, though the derivation was done assuming that the self-energy behaves as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k0)k^{3/2}`$ instead of the true critical behavior $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k0)k^{2\eta }`$ with $`\eta =0.0380(4)`$ (see Ref. Campostrini,  and the discussion below). Since $`d\lambda /dX|_{X=0}=\lambda ^{}1.8(1)`$ the amplitude in the critical law $`f_0=A_0^{(T)}Z^{\nu (1+\eta )}`$ is directly related to the value of $`A_0`$ in Eq. (57)

$$A_0^{(T)}=A_0(\lambda ^{})^{\nu (1+\eta )}0.62(4),$$
(63)
in disagreement with the theory by a factor of two.

To characterize the fluctuation region in terms of the gas parameter $`n^{1/3}a`$ we identically rewrite

$$Z=\frac{t}{91.95n^{1/3}a}$$
(64)
The coefficient in the denominator is too large to be ignored even in qualitative estimates. It was mentioned in Ref. us,  that Bose gases should demonstrate universal properties only at $`na^310^5`$. This statement is unambiguously confirmed by the present study, since for larger values of $`na^3`$ the fluctuation region in temperature is already of order $`T_c`$ itself. The other identical way of writing $`Z`$ is

$$Z=\frac{0.249k_T}{k_c}t.$$
(65)
Obviously, the idea of universality is meaningful only if it is possible to separate ideal-gas short-wavelength physics from strongly coupled long-wavelength fluctuations, i.e. when $`k_ck_T`$, and thus, according to Eq. (65), the fluctuation region in reduced temperature is small.

In a typical experiment with ultracold gases the parameter $`na^3`$ is as small as $`10^6`$, and the system may be considered as weakly interacting. The interaction induced critical temperature shift in the homogeneous system is very small (the corresponding critical density shift is given by Eq. (14) and is only about 1% for $`k_c/k_T1`$) and is difficult to study experimentally. This does not imply, however, that all non-perturbative effects in the vicinity of the critical point are of academic interest as well.

The quantity directly relevant to the experimental setup is $`\lambda (X)`$ since it describes, according to Eq. (10), the density profile in the trapping potential if it is smooth enough to guarantee the hydrostatic regime. In this regime the density variation over the mode-coupling radius $`r_c1/k_c`$ reduces to $`nn(T,\mu (𝐑))`$, where $`n(T,\mu )`$ is the homogeneous equation of state, $`\mu (𝐑)=\mathrm{const}V_{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐑)`$, and $`V_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is the trapping potential. It follows from Figs. 2 and 4 that the “cusp” on the density profile does not coincide with the point where the condensate first appears, but is slightly shifted to the perimeter of the trap. Moreover, by fitting experimental data away from the “cusp” using MF equations, one may directly measure the interaction induced universal chemical potential shift \[through $`\theta _0+2C`$\].

The variation of the $`\lambda (X)`$-function across the fluctuation region is about $`0.3`$, which transforms into density variation of order

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n/n_c40n^{1/3}a,$$
(66)
or a $`40\%`$ strong effect for $`na^3=10^6`$! In Fig. 7 we show the density profile in a smooth parabolic trap

$$V_{\mathrm{ext}}=m\omega ^2R^2/2T(R/R_T)^2,$$
(67)
when the condensate density in the middle of the trap is comparable to the critical density. Amazingly, in this situation the fluctuation region extends all the way from the critical point to the trap center, and the MF theory completely fails to describe the superfluid side. Thus, the non-perturbative physics of the fluctuation region and the prediction that it is completely characterized by the classical field theory can be studied even by experimenting with very dilute gases, $`na^3<10^6`$. As Fig. 7 clearly demonstrates, all effects in the middle of the trap are strong.

It is also worth mentioning that in the fluctuation region the density profile can not be decomposed into the sum of the smoothly varying, monotonic non-condensate density background and the condensate density bump. The normalized condensate density in Fig. 7 increases faster then $`n/n_c`$, and the naive “decomposition” technique would underestimate the actual condensate density by almost a factor of two.

For the quasi-homogenenous description to work, it is necessary to keep the external potential gradients small. If the chemical potential in the middle of the trap corresponds to $`(\mu \mu _c)=m^3T^2U^2X(0)`$, then the critical point is located at a distance $`R_c=(mTU/\omega )\sqrt{2X(0)}`$. The hydrostatic approach can be used when $`k_cR_c1`$, or

$$\frac{\omega }{T}m^3TU^2\sqrt{2X(0)}740(na^3)^{2/3}\sqrt{X(0)}.$$
(68)
For the parameters in Fig. 7 we need then $`\omega 0.04T`$— a condition easily satisfied experimentally gasreview . The crucial point is then in achieving the necessary spatial resolution in shallow traps.

Our final result concerns the universal part of the self-energy at the critical point Baym00 ; BH ; ledowski . The most recent calculation based on renormalization group equations for the vertex functions ledowski  predicted ($`x=k/k_c`$):

$$\sigma (x)=\frac{2m}{k_c^2}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }(k_cx)\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)\right]\stackrel{k0}{}Sx^{2\eta },$$
(69)
with $`S=1.54`$, $`\eta 0.104`$, and an extended crossover between the free particle and critical regimes (we preserve the present paper definition of $`k_c=m^2TU`$).

This quantity is directly related to the occupation numbers in the $`k0`$ limit by $`(k^2/2mT)n_k=1/[1+\sigma (x)/x^2]`$. In Worm algorithms, the one-particle density matrix is calculated automatically as the central part of the numerical scheme Worm , and thus $`n_k=_𝐫\rho (𝐫)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}}`$ is readily available. In Fig. 8 we plot the universal part of the occupation number distribution as $`\mathrm{ln}[2mT/(k_c^2n_k)]`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}(x)`$ (in the inset we plot $`\mathrm{ln}[T/(ϵ_𝐤n_k)]`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}(x)`$, i.e. subtracting the leading bare spectrum dependence) for the system size $`128^3`$ and see the crossover between the free particle, $`1/n_kx^2`$, and the U(1) critical, $`n_kx^{2\eta }`$, behavior at $`x1`$. The smallest values of $`x`$ are effected by finite size effects and are not shown in the inset (in finite systems $`n_{k=0}=n_{\mathrm{cnd}}1/L^{1+\eta }`$ is finite at the critical point).

The correlation function exponent is known very accurately Campostrini  $`\eta 0.0380(4)`$, and we consider it as known (our data are consistent with this value). Clearly, very little changes occur in the structure of the $`k^2/2m+\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)`$ expression across the fluctuation region. It seems the best way to characterize the crossover is to write the whole expression as $`x^2+\sigma (x)x^{2f(x)}`$ with $`f(x)`$ interpolating between $`0`$ and $`\eta =0.038`$. Also, the crossover is localized in the vicinity of $`x1`$. The numerical value of $`S`$ in the asymptotic limit is found to be very close to unity

$$S=1.038(6)$$
(70)
## VII Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NASA under grant NAG32870. B.S. acknowledges a support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).


text:
# An X-Ray Pulsar, Metal-rich Ejecta, and Shocked Ambient Medium in the Supernova Remnant G292.0+1.8

## 1. Introduction

G292.0+1.8 is a young, oxygen-rich supernova remnant (SNR) in the southern sky. The recent discovery of a pulsar wind nebula (PWN) (Hughes et al. 2001) and 135-ms period radio pulsar (Camilo et al. 2002) have greatly increased interest in this object, which, because of its youth, ejecta-dominated nature, and relative closeness, is sometimes considered the southern analog of Cassiopeia A. Here we report on the nature of the pulsar and discuss the evolutionary state of the SNR and PWN, especially as regards their interaction.

## 2. X-Ray Pulsar

The compact X-ray source CXOU J112439.1$``$591620 in G292.0+1.8 was observed with the Chandra high resolution camera (HRC) in timing mode for 50 ks on 2001 July 14. No pulse was detected in a coherent FFT of the entire light curve for the events (1324 in total) extracted from within a $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ radius of the point source. A search at pulse frequencies near the radio parameters yielded a significant detection of an X-ray pulsar (Figure 1), confirming that the radio pulsar, X-ray pulsar, and compact central X-ray source are one and the same. Agreement between the ages of the pulsar and SNR, make a virtually ironclad case for an association between PSR J1124$``$5916 and SNR G292.0+1.8.

The X-ray pulse is single peaked and broad (Figure 2). Of the total number of events in the light curve, only about 130 are pulsed. The X-ray image in the vicinity of the pulsar is complex: in addition to an unresolved source there is a small, extended, elliptically-shaped nebula. In fact the nebula dominates the flux from this region; only approximately 160 events (time-averaged) come from the unresolved pulsar. Comparing the pulsed to the time-averaged flux indicates that the X-ray pulsar is highly pulsed, $`>`$65%. A more complete report on the properties of the X-ray pulsar and its compact nebula can be found in Hughes et al. (2003).

## 3. Optical Limits on PSR J1124$``$5916

In a search for an optical counterpart, the pulsar was observed at the CTIO Blanco 4-m telescope with the MOSAIC II camera on 2002 April 17. Exposures were taken in one narrow-band H$`\alpha `$ and four broadband filters for approximately 1 hour each. Standard reductions were carried out and the images were registered to the celestial sphere. No optical counterpart was detected (Figure 3) down to limits in B, V, R, and I of 26.8, 26.4, 26.2, and 25.5, respectively. The intrinsic optical luminosity for PSR 1124$``$5916, accounting for distance and extinction, is much below the luminosities of the three young pulsars Crab, PSR B0540$``$69 and PSR B1509$``$58, although the limit is still above the optical luminosity of PSR B0833$``$45 in Vela. In terms of the efficiency for converting spin down energy into optical luminosity, these new limits for PSR 1124$``$5916 imply a rather low value: $`ϵ=L_V/\dot{E}<1.7\times 10^7`$. Again this falls far below the values found for the three young isolated pulsars in SNRs, but is an order of magnitude or so higher than the value of $`ϵ`$ for the Vela pulsar (Caraveo, Mereghetti, & Bignami 1994).

## 4. Dynamical State of the PWN and SNR

One of the most important issues regarding the evolutionary state of G292.0+1.8 concerns the relationship between the PWN, the free-streaming ejecta, and the reverse shock. By examining the pressures in the various regions of the remnant we have obtained some insight into this question.

The pressure in the pulsar wind nebula has been estimated in two rather different ways (Hughes et al. 2003): using the location of the pulsar termination shock and from the minimum energy condition applied to the radio synchrotron emission. Values obtained were $`1.3\times 10^{10}`$ dyne cm-2 (minimum energy) and $`2.6\times 10^9`$ dyne cm-2 (termination shock). Although it is possible that the pressure is as high as the latter value, in practice this would require the nebula to be almost entirely particle dominated with an energy content 40 times that of the minimum energy condition. Any value of pressure much higher than this would be very difficult to accommodate given what we currently know about the age and energetics of G292.0+1.8. It therefore seems reasonable to us to conclude that the true pressure in the PWN lies at or below $``$$`10^9`$ dyne cm-2.

Recently, a study of the thermal properties of G292.0+1.8 has been carried out by Park et al. (2003). Regions of normal composition, corresponding to shocked interstellar or circumstellar medium (ISM/CSM), were identified based on near-solar fitted abundance ratios. Using the densities and temperatures derived from the spectral fits for these regions, an emission geometry, and the assumption of equal electron and ion temperatures, an estimate for the thermal pressure of $`8.8\times 10^8`$ dyne cm-2 was obtained. There are numerous knots of X-ray emitting ejecta throughout the remnant. Figure 4 shows the Chandra ACIS-S spectrum of one such knot located slightly south of the pulsar. The knot shows strong emission lines of Ne ($``$1 keV), Mg ($``$1.3 keV), and Si ($``$1.8 keV). The spectrum can be fully described with emission contributions from only these three species and oxygen; the data do not require the presence of any other elemental species. We identify this as a knot of pure ejecta from the hydrostatic burning layers of the $``$$`25M_{}`$ progenitor star (Park et al. 2003). In a similar manner to before we estimate the thermal pressure in this knot to be $`5.9\times 10^9`$ dyne cm-2. Although there are considerable uncertainties in these pressure estimates, the most critical assumptions we have made, e.g., that the plasma is unclumped and that electrons and ions share the same temperature, would tend to result in higher pressure estimates if relaxed.

The pressure in the shocked ejecta and ISM/CSM is at least a factor of two and more likely one to two orders of magnitude higher than the pressure in the PWN. This is strong evidence that the reverse shock has not yet begun to encounter the PWN. Furthermore, our ISM/CSM, ejecta, and PWN pressures are in remarkably good numerical agreement with dynamical models for a PWN interacting with freely expanding ejecta (see figure 4 of van der Swaluw et al. 2001). Finding evidence for the interaction between the PWN and the free streaming ejecta would be an important confirmation of this picture.

There should also be a reservoir of cold unshocked ejecta between the PWN and the reverse shock. One way to detect and investigate the composition of this material would be through absorption line studies of, for example, cold Fe or Si against the hard continuum emission of the PWN. This may be possible to do using Astro-E2 and should become routine with future higher sensitivity missions like the Constellation-X Facility.

### Acknowledgments.

The authors thank F. Camilo, B. Gaensler, M. Juda, P. Ghavamian, D. Burrows, J. Nousek, G. Garmire, and F. Winkler for help with various aspects of this research or for contributions to the presentation. Financial support was partially provided by Chandra grant GO1-2052X.

## References

Camilo, F, et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, L71

Caraveo, PA, Mereghetti, S, & Bignami, GF 1994, ApJ, 423, L125

Hughes, JP, et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, L153

Hughes, JP, et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, L139

Park, S, et al. 2003, ApJL, submitted

van der Swaluw, E, Achterberg, A., Gallant, YA, & Tóth, G 2001, A&A, 380, 309