text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Gauge theories on a torus have been studied for a long time . The main reason why this subject is interesting is that the torus provides a natural infrared cutoff which does not break translational invariance and supersymmetry. The Euclidean 4–dimensional torus is used in lattice calculations. If we stay in the Hamiltonian framework, only space is compactified and the theory is defined on $`T^3\times R`$. For small spatial tori the effective coupling constant is also small and the vacuum structure of the theory can be studied in the Born–Oppenheimer framework. This approach is especially useful in the supersymmetric case, where the number of exact vacuum states does not depend on the size of the torus . It was also suggested that the modes which are most relevant in the strong coupling regime are topologically distinguished on $`T^3`$  .

One of the important technical aspects is that gauge theories on a torus admit nontrivial twisted boundary conditions . 111This is so if the theory does not involve the fields in the fundamental or other representation for which the group of the center acts faithfully. For example, the twisted boundary conditions are not admissible for standard QCD involving quarks. They have the form

$`A_i(x+1,y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`PA_i(x,y,z)P^1,`$
$`A_i(x,y+1,z)`$ $`=`$ $`QA_i(x,y,z)Q^1,`$ (1)
$`A_i(x,y,z+1)`$ $`=`$ $`SA_i(x,y,z)S^1,`$
where $`i=1,2,3`$ and the periods of the torus are normalized to 1. Now, $`P`$ , $`Q`$ , and $`S`$ are constant elements of the gauge group forming so called Heisenberg pairs:

$$QP=\omega _1PQ,QS=\omega _2SQ,SP=\omega _3PS,$$
(2)
with $`\omega _i`$ belonging to the center of the group. If at least one of $`\omega _i`$ is a nontrivial element of the center, the conditions (12) mean from the mathematical standpoint that our fiber bundle is topologically nontrivial (not reduced to the direct product $`G\times T^3`$).

To study the vacuum structure of quantum Yang–Mills theory, one has first to understand the structure of classical vacua. The latter are given by gauge field configurations with zero field strength, flat connections in mathematical language. Classification of all flat connections on a 3–torus is an interesting and nontrivial mathematical problem. For unitary groups it was largely solved in Refs.. It turns out that any topologically trivial flat connection $`A_i(x,y,z)`$ can be gauge–transformed to constant commuting $`A_i`$. A distinct vacuum is characterized by a set of holonomies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\mathrm{exp}\{iA_i\}`$, with each holonomy lying on the maximal torus of the group.

When twist is allowed, the moduli space of classical vacua contains generically several disconnected components. Consider the case $`S=1`$, which implies $`\omega _2=\omega _3=1`$, and assume that $`\omega _1`$ is the primitive N-th root of unity $`ϵ=\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi i/N\}`$ (or some other element generating the whole center subgroup $`Z_N`$). In this case, the moduli space of vacua factorized over all gauge transformations, including the gauge transformations of “instanton nature” which change the Chern–Simons (CS) number of a gauge field configuration by an integer, contains just $`N`$ isolated points. The CS numbers of these isolated vacua are fractional $`N_{CS}=p/N`$, $`p=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. We will call the connections with fractional CS number interesting. 222The word “nontrivial” is too broad and vague while “topologically nontrivial” would not be correct since the topologically nontrivial connections of instanton nature are not interesting in the present context, while certain topologically trivial (periodic) connections are.

If $`\omega _1=ϵ^k`$, where $`k`$ is a divisor of $`N`$, the moduli space contains $`N/k`$ disconnected components. In each such component the holonomies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ lie on a subtorus of dimension $`k1`$ of the maximal torus . The corresponding CS numbers are multiple integers of $`k/N`$.

It can be shown  that the boundary conditions (1) with nontrivial $`S`$ bring about nothing new and the problem is always reduced to one of the cases described above.

For other groups the situation is more complicated, and the problem was solved only recently. It turned out that, for higher orthogonal and exceptional groups, the moduli space of classical vacua involves disconnected components even in the case of trivial twists . (For symplectic groups with trivial twist, there is only one component. This case was analyzed back in Ref..) The complete classification of periodic flat connections for an arbitrary gauge group was constructed in . With the classical vacuum moduli space in hand, also quantum problem can be solved. In all cases, the number of quantum vacuum state in pure $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory coincides with the so called dual Coxeter number $`h^{}`$ (or just the adjoint Casimir eigenvalue $`c_V`$) of the group. 333For theories involving extra matter supermultiplets it may be completely different . The classification of flat connections with nontrivial twist for nonunitary groups was constructed in  (for symplectic and orthogonal groups it was pedagogically explained in the last section of recent ). Again, the number of quantum vacuum states always coincides with the dual Coxeter number independently of the boundary conditions chosen.

In all these more complicated cases, the basic building block used to construct nontrivial flat connections are flat connections for unitary groups with twisted boundary conditions. Let us recall how it is done for periodic connections. Any flat connection is characterized by a triple of commuting holonomies. In contrast to the simple case of unitary groups, such a commuting triple is not always “diagonalizable”, i.e. it cannot be always conjugated (gauge transformed) to the maximal torus (to be precise: conjugated to a triple belonging to the maximal torus ). A generic such nondiagonalizable commuting triple (an exceptional  triple as defined in Ref. ) is constructed as follows. One chooses the first holonomy of the triple $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ in such a way that its centralizer (a subgroup of the large group $`G`$ containing all elements of $`G`$ commuting with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$) is a group whose semi-simple component is a direct product of several $`SU(N_i)`$ groups factorized over a subgroup of its center $`_iZ_{N_i}`$. This factorization results in that the fundamental group of the centralizer involves a finite subgroup as a factor (the elements whose centralizer enjoys this property are called exceptional) and this allows one to pick up two commuting elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ in the centralizer which cannot be conjugated to its maximal torus. Then the triple $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ cannot be conjugated to the maximal torus in $`G`$.

Consider as a simplest example the group $`G_2`$. It involves a unique (up to conjugation) exceptional element whose centralizer is $`[SU(2)\times SU(2)]/Z_2`$, where the factorization is done over the diagonal subgroup of the center $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ of $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ ( i.e. the element $`(1,1)`$ of $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ is identified with 1 ). Then one can choose the elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2,3}`$ in the centralizer in such a way that their liftings in $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ are $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=(P,P),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3=(Q,Q)`$ (in obvious notations corresponding to the direct product structure) such that $`P,Q`$ form a Heisenberg pair, $`PQ=QP`$, in each $`SU(2)`$ component. Factorization over the diagonal $`Z_2`$ makes the pair $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ commuting. As a noncommuting Heisenberg pair cannot obviously be conjugated to a maximal torus in $`SU(2)`$, the pair $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ cannot be conjugated to the maximal torus in $`[SU(2)\times SU(2)]/Z_2`$ and the whole triple cannot be conjugated to the maximal torus in $`G_2`$. Note that any two of the holonomies can be conjugated to a maximal torus in $`G_2`$. But the corresponding tori for the subsets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{1,2},\mathrm{\Omega }_{1,3}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2,3}`$ are different.

A similar construction works also in all other cases. It is more or less clear that a periodic flat connection based on an exceptional commuting triple of holonomies can be constructed if a flat connection in $`SU(N)`$, with holonomies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2,3}=P,Q`$ such that $`P,Q`$ form a Heisenberg pair and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ belonging to the centralizer of $`P,Q`$ in $`SU(N)`$, is known. In particular, the CS number of the former coincides with that of the latter and is, generically, fractional. A fractional CS number of new nontrivial vacua is their important property, which allows one to ascribe to the corresponding quantum vacua correct fermionic charges and make contact with what is known about the vacuum structure of supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory in large volume

The existence of the twisted gauge field configurations with fractional CS number was known before. Their numerical study was performed in . The main goal of our paper is to present simple explicit analytic formulae for these configurations.

In sect. 2 we construct a flat connection corresponding to holonomies forming the Heisenberg pair in $`SU(N)`$. The result is expressed in terms of Jacobi $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ functions with rational characteristics. 444The analogies with the problem of motion of a charged particle in a constant homogeneous magnetic field on a 2D torus are very instructive here. We perform a direct computation of the CS number of the gauge field configuration thus obtained. We confirm that $`N_{CS}`$ is a multiple integer of $`k/N`$ for $`\omega _1=ϵ^k`$ with integer $`N/k`$ .

In sect. 3 we lift the gauge fields associated with the $`SU(N)`$ Heisenberg pairs to gauge fields with exceptional triples of commuting holonomies in the orthogonal and exceptional groups (a different construction for the flat periodic connections in $`Spin(7)`$ has been done in  ). The computation of the CS number is reduced to the previous case. The same can be done for twisted connections in nonunitary groups. We discuss the simplest such case, which is $`Sp(4)`$.

In the last section we present our conclusions and prospects for future research.

## 2 Twisted flat connections in $`SU(N)`$.

Let us first assume that $`\omega _1=ϵ`$. The zero curvature gauge fields can be represented in the form

$$A_i=U^1_iU.$$
(3)
Following , we search for a gauge group matrix $`U(x,y,z)`$ obeying the boundary conditions:

$`U(x+1)=PU(x)P^1`$
$`U(y+1)=QU(y)Q^1`$ (4)
$`U(z+1)=ϵU(z),`$
where the dependence on “irrelevant” variables ($`y,z`$ in the first line, etc. ) is not displayed. Apparently, the conditions (2) are compatible with the conditions for the gauge fields in Eq. (1).

We start our construction of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge field obeying Eqs.(3), (2) with the ansatz

$$U=e^{2\pi izT(x,y)},$$
(5)
where $`T(x,y)`$ is a Hermitian $`su(N)`$ matrix conjugated to the matrix 555In fact, it is one of the fundamental coweights.

$$T_0=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,1N)$$
(6)
Apparently, $`U|_{z=0}=1`$ and $`U|_{z=1}=ϵ`$, so the third condition of Eq. (2) is satisfied. The other two conditions translate as the following conditions on $`T(x,y)`$:

$`T(x+1)=PT(x)P^1`$
$`T(y+1)=QT(y)Q^1.`$ (7)
It is rather easy to satisfy these conditions for $`SU(2)`$. If $`P=i\sigma _3`$ and $`Q=i\sigma _1`$ (any Heisenberg pair in $`SU(2)`$ can be conjugated to this form) , one can choose

$`T(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1\mathrm{cos}(\pi x)+\sigma _3\mathrm{cos}(\pi y)+\sigma _2\mathrm{cos}[\pi (x+y)]}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi x)+\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi y)+\mathrm{cos}^2[\pi (x+y)]}}},`$ (8)
where the square root factor is inserted for proper normalization. A similar in spirit formula was written in Ref.a for the case $`P=i\sigma _1`$, $`Q=i\sigma _2`$, $`S=i\sigma _3`$. It is difficult, however, to generalize the solution (8) to the case of higher $`N`$.

To solve (2) for arbitrary $`N`$, we first notice that the matrices conjugated to $`T_0`$ form $`CP^{N1}=\frac{SU(N)}{SU(N1)\times U(1)}`$ orbit of $`SU(N)`$. They are conveniently parameterized as follows

$$T_{ij}(x,y)=\frac{1}{N}\delta _{ij}\psi _i(x,y)\psi _j^{}(x,y),$$
(9)
where $`\psi _i`$ is a $`N`$-component complex column normalized to unity:

$$\psi ^{}\psi =1.$$
(10)
Now, $`\psi `$ is an element of the fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$, and the parameterization (9) of the orbit $`\frac{SU(N)}{SU(N1)\times U(1)}`$ may be called fundamentalization. A traceless Hermitian matrix $`T(x,y)`$ from Eq. (9) has $`2N2`$ real parameters \[$`N`$ complex parameters in the column $`\psi _i`$ minus 1 real parameter for the normalization Eq. (10) and minus 1 real parameter for the irrelevant common phase of $`\psi _i`$ in Eq. (9)\], which is equal to the dimension of $`\frac{SU(N)}{SU(N1)\times U(1)}`$ space.

The boundary condition (2) is reduced to

$`\psi (x+1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha (x,y)}P\psi (x)`$
$`\psi (y+1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\beta (x,y)}Q\psi (y),`$ (11)
where real functions $`\alpha (x,y)`$ and $`\beta (x,y)`$ should be chosen to compensate the nontrivial commutant (2) of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ and to make $`\psi (x+1,y+1)`$ uniquely defined. The latter self–consistency condition implies

$$e^{i\alpha (x,y)}e^{i\beta (x+1,y)}e^{i\alpha (x,y+1)}e^{i\beta (x,y)}=\omega _1=ϵ,$$
(12)
and we make a choice

$$\alpha (x,y)=\frac{2\pi y}{N},\beta (x,y)=0.$$
(13)
The phases $`\alpha (x,y),\beta (x,y)`$ can be interpreted as vector potentials $`A_{x,y}`$ of an auxiliary constant Abelian magnetic field with flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1/N`$ on the 2–torus (and their exponentials are the corresponding abelian holonomies).

Being expressed in words, Eq. (2) means that we need to construct a global section of a $`\frac{SU(N)\times U(1)}{Z_N}=U(N)`$ bundle over $`T^2`$ with $`C^N`$ as a typical fiber. $`e^{i\alpha (x,y)}P`$ and $`e^{i\beta (x,y)}Q`$ are the transition matrices. The first Chern class of the bundle is

$`c_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}\{F\}}=N\mathrm{\Phi }=1.`$ (14)
This is a problem which the Jacobi $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ functions with rational characteristics (see Ref.  for definitions and notations) are tailor–made for.

It was shown in Ref.  that any Heisenberg pair in $`U(N)`$ satisfying $`QP=ϵPQ`$ can be conjugated to

$`P=e^{i\delta _P}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ϵ\hfill & 0\hfill & 0& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & ϵ^2\hfill & 0& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (19)
$`Q=e^{i\delta _Q}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0& \mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (25)
By choosing some special $`\delta _{P,Q}`$, one can also write a “canonical” Heisenberg pair for $`SU(N)`$, but we do not need this because an overall phase of $`P,Q`$ is not relevant in Eq. (2).

Notice that $`Q`$ acts on the column $`\psi `$ by cyclically shifting its elements one step up so that the second condition in Eq. (2) simply fixes all the components $`\psi _j`$ in terms of $`\psi _1`$,

$$\psi _{1+j}(x,y)=\psi _1(x,y+j)$$
(26)
and requires thereby periodicity of $`\psi _1`$ when $`y`$ is shifted by $`N`$,

$$\psi _1(x,y+N)=\psi _1(x,y).$$
(27)
All other components $`\psi _j`$ also enjoy this property. In view of Eqs.(26 , 19, 13), the first condition in Eq. (2) is reduced to

$$\psi _1(x+1,y)=e^{\frac{2\pi iy}{N}}\psi _1(x,y).$$
(28)
The conditions (27, 28) are obviously satisfied upon the choice

$$\psi _1(x,y)=𝒩(x,y)\underset{nZ}{}e^{\pi (n+\frac{y}{N})^2+2\pi ix(n+\frac{y}{N})},$$
(29)
where $`𝒩(x,y)`$ is a periodical function of $`x`$ and $`y`$ with period 1. Other $`\psi _j`$ are defined via Eq. (26). The factor $`𝒩(x,y)`$ should be chosen such that the normalization condition (10) is satisfied . For $`𝒩`$ to be well defined we need to check that $`\psi _j`$ do not have a common zero. To this end it is convenient to express $`\psi _j`$ in terms of Jacobi $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ functions. Using the definition of the theta functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{l/N,m/N}(z,\tau )`$ with rational characteristics $`l/N,m/N`$ (see ),

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{l/N,m/N}(z,\tau )=\underset{nZ}{}e^{i\pi \tau (n+\frac{l}{N})^2+2\pi i(n+\frac{l}{N})(z+\frac{m}{N})},$$
(30)
one straightforwardly verifies that

$$\psi _j(x,y)=𝒩(x,y)e^{\pi (\frac{y}{N})^2+2\pi ix\frac{y}{N}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(j1)/N,0}(x+i\frac{y}{N},i).$$
(31)
Now, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{l/N,m/N}(z,\tau )`$ have zeros at $`z=(l/N+p+1/2)\tau +(m/N+q+1/2),p,qZ`$, so $`\psi _j(x,y)`$ have no common zero. The factor $`𝒩`$ can thus be determined as

$$𝒩(x,y)=\frac{e^{\pi (\frac{y}{N})^2}}{\sqrt{_{l=0}^{N1}|\mathrm{\Theta }_{l/N,0}(x+i\frac{y}{N},i)|^2}}.$$
(32)
A digression is in order here. The conditions (27, 28) are the same as the conditions imposed on a charged particle moving on the “large” 2–torus (with $`0x1,0yN`$ ) in an external homogeneous magnetic field $`B=2\pi /N`$ . It is known that such a problem is self–consistent only if the total flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=B𝒜/(2\pi )`$ is integer. In our case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{large}\mathrm{torus}}=1`$. Charged particle on a torus in an arbitrary magnetic field with a given flux was considered in . The solution of the problem for homogeneous field allows one to calculate the functional integral in Schwinger model in topologically nontrivial sectors .

If going back to the original “small” torus $`0x,y1`$, we see a system of $`N`$ charged particles moving in a magnetic field of flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{small}\mathrm{torus}}=1/N`$. Fractional fluxes are now admissible because the corresponding wave functions satisfy the flavor–twisted boundary conditions (26). Such conditions were studied before in Ref. . In multiflavor Schwinger model they allow for the presence of Euclidean gauge field configurations with fractional instanton number.

Note that, though the boundary conditions in our problem and in the problem of motion in an external magnetic field are identical, the functions (29, 31) do not solve the corresponding Schrödinger equation. The normalization condition (10) which we have to satisfy at every point on the torus is alien to the Sturm–Liouville settings.

Substituting Eq. (31) into Eqs.(9), (5), and (3), we obtain the twisted connection we were seeking for. All other solutions to the boundary conditions (2) are related to this particular solution under gauge transformations, including transformations of the instanton type.

Let us now compute the CS number of this field. We have

$$N_{CS}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_{T^3}\mathrm{Tr}\left(AdA+\frac{2}{3}A^3\right)$$
(33)
which is normalized so that, on two flat gauge fields related by an instanton, the CS number differs by 1. Since the connection is flat, we actually need to compute the integral

$$N_{CS}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}𝑑𝐱\mathrm{Tr}\left\{(_xU^1_yU_yU^1_xU)U^1_zU\right\}.$$
(34)
When the spatial manifold is $`S^3`$, Eq. (34) defines $`\pi _3[SU(N)]`$ and is integer. The same holds for the normal untwisted torus. But in the twisted case the situation is different.

To find (34), we substitute there $`U(x,y,z)`$ in the form (5), (9). Then $`U^1_zU=2\pi iT(x,y)`$. To find the factors $`_{x,y}U^1`$, $`_{x,y}U`$ , it is convenient to represent $`U`$ and $`U^1`$ as follows

$`U=e^{\frac{2\pi iz}{N}}[1+(e^{2\pi iz}1)\mathrm{\Pi }]`$
$`U^1=e^{\frac{2\pi iz}{N}}[1+(e^{2\pi iz}1)\mathrm{\Pi }],`$ (35)
with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\psi _i\psi _j^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^2=\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Then Eq. (34) is reduced to

$`N_{CS}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi z)\mathrm{Tr}\left\{[(_x\mathrm{\Pi })(_y\mathrm{\Pi })(_y\mathrm{\Pi })(_x\mathrm{\Pi })]\mathrm{\Pi }\right\}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y[_x(\psi ^{}_y\psi )_y(\psi ^{}_x\psi )]}`$ (36)
The last integral involves full derivatives and can be readily done using the boundary conditions (2). The result depends only on the ”Abelian vector potentials” $`\alpha (x,y),\beta (x,y)`$ and coincides with the flux of the corresponding auxiliary magnetic field, so

$$N_{CS}=1/N$$
(37)
in this case. It is clear that $`U^p`$ gives rise to a configuration with $`N_{CS}=p/N`$.

We have considered the case when $`P`$ and $`Q`$ commute to the primitive root of unity $`ϵ`$. The construction generalizes straightforwardly to the case of $`QP=e^{2\pi ik/N}PQ`$ when $`k`$ and $`N`$ are coprime. Along the same lines as above, one easily obtains $`U(𝐱)`$ satisfying Eq. (2). The corresponding CS number is equal to $`k/N`$. Powers of U complemented by instanton shifts will generate all values of $`N_{CS}`$ that are multiple integers of $`1/N`$ .

Now suppose that $`N`$ is not prime and $`k`$ is its divisor: $`N=kM`$. Take $`\omega _1=ϵ^k=e^{2\pi ik/N}=e^{2\pi i/M}`$. This element generates a subgroup $`Z_M`$ of the center group $`Z_N`$. In this case, there are moduli of the Heisenberg pairs . The centralizer of a pair is now a continuous subgroup of $`SU(N)`$. There are some special pairs with centralizer $`SU(k)`$, 666Their explicit form is
$$P=e^{2\pi il/k}\mathrm{diag}(p,\mathrm{},p),Q=e^{2\pi is/k}\mathrm{diag}(q,\mathrm{},q),$$
$`p,qSU(M),qp=e^{2\pi i/M}pq,l,s=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Note that the pairs characterized by different $`l,s`$ are inequivalent to each other by conjugation.  while the centralizer of a generic pair is $`[U(1)]^{k1}`$ , the maximal torus $`T`$ in $`SU(k)`$ . Let us consider the Heisenberg pair $`P`$ and $`Q^k`$, with $`P`$ and $`Q`$ defined in Eq. (19). This pair is of generic type, so the moduli space of the corresponding flat connections is $`[U(1)]^{k1}`$. In terms of the matrix $`U`$ in Eq. (3) these moduli show up in the boundary conditions which now read as follows:

$`U(x+1)=e^{iT_1}PU(x)P^1`$
$`U(y+1)=e^{iT_2}Q^kU(y)Q^k`$ (38)
$`U(z+1)=ϵe^{iT_3}U(z),`$
where $`\mathrm{exp}\{iT_j\}`$ lie on the torus $`T`$. The moduli $`T_j`$ are easily taken into account by substituting

$$U(x)=e^{i\mathrm{𝐱𝐓}}\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐱),$$
(39)
so that $`\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐱)`$ satisfy the boundary conditions (2) without the factors $`\mathrm{exp}\{iT_j\}`$.

To find $`\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐱)`$ , we can use the same ansatz as before \[see Eqs. (5), (9), (10)\] and everything goes through in a parallel way with the the only change that, to compensate for the commutant of $`P`$ and $`Q^k`$, we should take $`\alpha (x,y)=2\pi iky/N`$ so that the flux of the auxiliary magnetic field is now $`k/N`$. Eq. (26) now reads

$$\psi _{l+kj}(x,y)=\psi _l(x,y+j),l=1,\mathrm{},k;j=1,\mathrm{},M1.$$
(40)
It expresses all components of $`\psi `$ in terms of the first $`k`$ components. We can safely assume that only one of $`\psi _l`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},k`$ , say, the one with $`l=1`$, is different from zero. The functions $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ obtained with more general assumptions obey the same boundary conditions and thus are all gauge equivalent. The conditions (40) imply that $`\psi _1(x,y)`$ and all its “descendants” are periodic in $`y`$ with period $`M`$. On the other hand,

$$\psi _1(x+1,y)=e^{2\pi iy/M}\psi _1(x,y).$$
(41)
The conditions (40), (41) have exactly the same form as Eqs. (26), (28), only $`N`$ is substituted by $`M`$. A set of functions $`\psi `$ satisfying these conditions can be chosen as

$$\psi _{1+kj}(x,y)=𝒩(x,y)e^{\pi (\frac{y}{M})^2+2\pi ix\frac{y}{M}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j/M,0}(x+i\frac{y}{M},i)$$
(42)
with $`j=0,\mathrm{},M1`$. The CS number is computed as easy as before and is equal to 1/M. The connections with $`U^{(p)}(x,y)=[\stackrel{~}{U}(x,y)]^p`$ (they satisfy the boundary conditions (2) with $`T_i=0`$ and $`ϵϵ^p`$) have the Chern–Simons number $`p/M`$.

## 3 Flat connections for exceptional triples.

As was explained in the Introduction, exceptional triples in higher orthogonal and exceptional groups are intimately connected with Heisenberg pairs for unitary groups. We will explain now how the corresponding periodic connections are build up in terms of the twisted connections for $`SU(N)`$.

Let $`G`$ be a simple connected simply connected Lie group. Pick up a generic exceptional $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ whose centralizer is a product $`H=SU(N_1)\times SU(N_2)\times \mathrm{}`$ factorized over a subgroup of its center. The liftings of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2,3}`$ in $`H`$ are Heisenberg pairs in each component $`SU(N_i)`$. Let us find out how $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is embedded into $`H`$. A priori, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ could be an element of the center $`Z_{N_1}\times Z_{N_2}\times \mathrm{}`$ of $`H`$. In fact, the known explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ allows one to conclude that it is unity (the trivial element of the center) in all $`SU(N_j)`$ components but the component $`SU_\theta (N_\theta )`$ which contains the coroot $`\theta ^{}`$ corresponding to the highest root $`\theta `$ as a generator in its maximal torus.

Indeed, as follows from Theorem 1 of Ref., any exceptional element can be conjugated to

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}s_j\omega _j\right\},`$ (43)
where the sum runs over all nodes of the Dynkin diagram of the corresponding group, $`r`$ is the rank of the group, $`\omega _j`$ are the fundamental coweights, i.e. the elements of the Cartan subalgebra commuting with all simple root vectors but one, $`[\omega _j,T_{\alpha _k}]=\delta _{jk}T_{\alpha _k}`$, and the real numbers $`s_i`$ (so called Kac coordinates) have the following properties:

* $`s_j0`$.
* $`_{j=1}^ra_js_j=1`$, where $`a_j`$ are Dynkin labels, or the integer coefficients of expansion of the highest root $`\theta `$ over simple roots, $`\theta =_ja_j\alpha _j`$, of the corresponding node.
* The greatest common divisor $`m`$ of all dual Dynkin labels $`a_j^{}=a_j\alpha _j,\alpha _j/2`$ dwelling on the nodes with $`s_j0`$ is nontrivial $`m>1`$. The dual Dynkin labels are the coefficients of expansion of the coroot $`\theta ^{}`$ corresponding to the highest root $`\theta `$ over the simple coroots $`\alpha ^{}`$. For simply laced groups $`a_j^{}=a_j`$. The integer $`m`$ is an important characteristic of the corresponding exceptional triple and can be called its order.

To find the (semi–simple part of) the centralizer, one has to (i) Consider the extended Dynkin diagram of the group including the simple roots $`\alpha _j`$ and the root $`\alpha _0=\theta `$ and to cross out all the nodes for which $`s_j0`$. Generically, we are left with a product $`H`$ of unitary groups. (ii) Factorize it over $`Z_m`$ embedded in a certain way in the center of $`H`$.

Now, $`\omega _j`$ entering the sum in Eq. (43) commute with all root vectors corresponding to the nodes not entering the sum. The relation $`[\omega _j,T_{\alpha _0}]=a_jT_{\alpha _0}`$ holds. Taking into account this and the condition $`_ja_js_j=1`$, we see that $`g=_js_j\omega _j`$ commutes with all components $`SU(N_i)`$ not involving the root $`\alpha _0`$ and that $`[g,T_{\alpha _0}]=T_{\alpha _0}`$. Therefore, $`g`$ represents (up to irrelevant sign) the fundamental coweight $`\omega _0`$ associated with the root $`\alpha _0`$ in $`SU_\theta (N_\theta )`$. This coweight is conjugate to the matrix $`T_0`$ in Eq. (6) and one easily sees that the element (43) is trivial from the viewpoint of all subgroups $`SU(N_j)H`$ but the group $`SU_\theta (N_\theta )`$, where it represents a generating element of the center. 777To be quite precise, one should not say “ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is trivial, etc ”, but rather that it can be chosen as such. Indeed, the true centralizer is not $`H`$, but $`H`$ factorized over a nontrivial subgroup of its center, and different liftings of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ in $`H`$ are possible. The final result does not depend, of course, on the choice of the lifting. See the discussion of the $`Spin(7)`$ example below. By inspection of different cases , one can observe that $`N_\theta `$ always coincides with the order $`m`$ of the triple.

Let now $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j`$ stand for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ projected onto $`SU_\theta (m)`$. Take the matrix $`U(x,y,z)`$ obeying the boundary conditions

$`U(x+1)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2U(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$
$`U(y+1)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3U(y)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ (44)
$`U(z+1)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1U(z).`$
Take the explicit expression for this matrix from the previous section and lift it up to the group $`G`$. The last subtlety is that the gauge field corresponding to such lifting $`U_G`$ is not periodic. Instead,

$`A_i(x+1)=\mathrm{\Omega }_2A_i(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1,`$
$`A_i(y+1)=\mathrm{\Omega }_3A_i(y)\mathrm{\Omega }_3^1,`$ (45)
$`A_i(z+1)=A_i(z).`$
However, this is curable, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ can be simultaneously conjugated to the maximal torus in $`G`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2=e^{ia},\mathrm{\Omega }_3=e^{ib},[a,b]=0.$$
(46)
Thus, taking instead of $`U_G`$ the element $`\stackrel{~}{U}_G`$

$$\stackrel{~}{U}_G(x,y,z)=U_G(x,y,z)e^{i(ax+by)},$$
(47)
one finally obtains the periodical zero curvature gauge field corresponding to the exceptional triple of holonomies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$.

Let us now comment on the CS number of the flat connection obtained in this way. First of all, one can verify by direct computation that CS does not change under the transformation (47), so that one can work with $`U_G`$, not with $`\stackrel{~}{U}_G`$. The total CS is equal to the sum of the CS numbers in each component $`SU(N_i)H`$ weighted with certain integer factors $`n_i`$ reflecting a particular way of how $`SU(N_j)`$ is embedded in the large group $`G`$. For simply laced groups $`n_j=1`$ in all cases. For the groups $`Spin(2r+1)`$ we have generically $`H=SU_{\alpha _1}(2)\times SU_{\alpha _2}(2)\times SU_\theta (2)`$, where one of the roots $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ is short. If $`\alpha _1`$ is short, $`n_1=2`$ (the corresponding coroot is long and the contribution to the integral in Eq. (33) is proportional to $`\alpha _1^{},\alpha _1^{}=2\alpha _2^{},\alpha _2^{}`$) and $`n_2=n_\theta =1`$ . For $`G_2`$, $`H=SU_\alpha (2)\times SU_\theta (2)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the short root with $`n_\alpha =3`$, while $`n_\theta =1`$. Thus, $`n_\theta =1`$ in all cases (actually, it is a theorem that the highest root $`\theta `$ is always long and the corresponding coroot $`\theta ^{}`$ is always short).

Now, for the components not involving $`\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is represented by the unity and it is known  that the gauge field configurations constructed via matrices $`U`$ satisfying the boundary conditions (3) with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=1`$ have instanton nature and an integer Chern–Simons number, which is as good as zero for our purposes. In fact, one can just take $`U=1`$ in all these subgroups and forget about them.

Speaking of the component $`SU_\theta (m)`$, we have seen that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is represented there by a generating element of the center $`Z_m`$. The calculation of the CS number boils down to the one from the previous section. $`N_{CS}`$ depends on the commutant of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3`$ and is an integer multiple of $`1/m`$.

To make things absolutely clear, let us illustrate this general construction in the case of $`Spin(7)`$ group, the smallest orthogonal group where one meets an exceptional triple.

Consider the extended Dynkin diagram of $`Spin(7)`$ (Fig. 1). The simple coroots are $`\alpha ^{}=e_1e_2,\beta ^{}=e_2e_3,\gamma ^{}=2e_3`$, where $`e_{1,2,3}`$ are the generators of rotation in 3 independent planes. The highest coroot is $`\theta ^{}=\alpha ^{}+2\beta ^{}+\gamma ^{}=e_1+e_2`$ (remember that $`a_\gamma ^{}=a_\gamma /2=1`$) and it coincides in this case with the fundamental coweight $`\omega _\beta `$. The first element of the triple is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=e^{i\pi \omega _\beta }=e^{i\pi \theta ^{}}.$$
(48)
The centralizer of such $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ in $`Spin(7)`$ is $`[SU_\alpha (2)\times SU_\gamma (2)\times SU_\theta (2)]/Z_2`$, where $`Z_2`$ is the diagonal subgroup in the center group $`Z_2^\alpha \times Z_2^\gamma \times Z_2^\theta `$. Then the Heisenberg pair in $`SU_\alpha (2)\times SU_\gamma (2)\times SU_\theta (2)`$ can be taken as follows

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=(i\sigma _3,i\sigma _3,i\sigma _3),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=(i\sigma _1,i\sigma _1,i\sigma _1),`$ (49)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are the standard Pauli matrices. The expression (48) is rewritten as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=(1,1,1)(1,1,1)`$ in the direct product notations. Choosing the first possibility, lifting the twisted connection in $`SU_\theta (2)`$ up to $`Spin(7)`$, and performing the gauge transformation (47), we obtain an interesting periodic $`Spin(7)`$ connection with $`N_{CS}=1/2`$. ( If choosing the second possibility, we obtain the same result up to an irrelevant integer. Indeed, $`n_\gamma =2`$ and the twisted connection in the group $`SU_\gamma (2)`$ provides an integer contribution to the integral (33). The twisted connection of the subgroup $`SU_\alpha (2)`$ provides the contribution $`1/2`$ to $`N_{CS}`$. )

Consider now the connections whose holonomies form Heisenberg triples (“almost commuting” triples by the terminology of Ref. ), i.e. triples $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ of group elements such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j=c_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_j\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, with $`c_{ij}`$ being nontrivial elements of the center of the group , for nonunitary groups $`G`$. They also can be expressed in terms of twisted unitary group connections constructed in the previous section. We will describe the simplest such example with the group $`Sp(4)`$ and perform the calculation of Witten index for the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory based on this group.

$`Sp(4)`$ is a subgroup of $`SU(4)`$ containing all unitary $`4\times 4`$ matrices $`U`$ satisfying the condition $`U^TIU=I`$, where $`I`$ is an antisymmetric symplectic matrix, which can be chosen in the form $`I=\mathrm{diag}(i\sigma _2,i\sigma _2)\mathbf{1}i\sigma _2`$. The group $`Sp(4)`$ has center $`Z_2`$ with nontrivial element diag$`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Heisenberg triples are constructed by studying first the Heisenberg pairs in $`Sp(4)`$ . Any pair $`P,Q`$ with $`QP=PQ`$ can be conjugated to

$`P=e^{i\alpha \sigma _2}i\sigma _3,Q=e^{i\beta \sigma _2}i\sigma _\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (50)
where the angular variables $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are moduli. The centralizer of a generic pair $`P,Q`$ in Eq. (50 ) is $`U(1)`$, the corresponding matrices being given by

$`S=e^{i\gamma \sigma _2}\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ (51)
The Heisenberg triples $`P,Q,S`$ give rise to the “principal” component ( i.e. the component involving the perturbative vacuum $`A_i=0`$) of the moduli space of classical vacua. They all have zero (or integer) Chern–Simons number. As the rank of the centralizer of the pair $`P,Q`$ is 1, we obtain $`r+1=2`$ quantum vacuum states.

There are, however, some special points in the moduli space of the pairs where the centralizer is larger. There are three points: $`\alpha =0,\beta =\pi /2`$, $`\alpha =\pi /2,\beta =0`$, and $`\alpha =\pi /2,\beta =\pi /2`$ where the centralizer is $`SU(2)`$ , but, as $`SU(2)`$ is connected and contains unity, we are still in the principal vacuum sector. If $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ , the centralizer is $`O(2)`$ and involves besides (51) the disconnected component $`e^{i\gamma \sigma _2}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}`$, which is equivalent by conjugation to the element $`\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}=`$ diag$`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ ($`P,Q`$ are invariant under such conjugation) . Now, the unique up to conjugation exceptional Heisenberg triple of holonomies

$`P=\mathbf{1}i\sigma _3,Q=\mathbf{1}i\sigma _1,S=\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (52)
defines the unique up to conjugation interesting twisted connection in $`Sp(4)`$ , which is further promoted to the supersymmetric quantum vacuum state. All together, we have $`2+1=3`$ vacuum states which coincides with the counting $`r_{Sp(4)}+1`$ based on the analysis of periodic connections. The interesting connection based on the triple (52) is obtained from a matrix $`U`$ satisfying

$`U(x+1)=PU(x)P^1`$
$`U(y+1)=QU(y)Q^1`$ (53)
$`U(z+1)=SU(z),`$
These boundary conditions can be easily satisfied with the ansatz $`U(𝐱)=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏},u(𝐱))`$, where $`u`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ matrix satisfying the twisted boundary conditions (2) and which was found before. The corresponding gauge field configuration has Chern–Simons number $`1/2`$.

## 4 Discussion

We have described explicitly classical vacua in Yang-Mills on $`T^3`$, that is we have constructed analytic expressions for twisted flat connections in unitary groups and have shown that, by a proper embedding, they define also interesting periodic and also twisted flat connections in more complicated groups. The explicit form of the gauge fields allowed us to verify the corresponding fractional CS charges  by direct computation.

With our explicit construction in hand, the next challenge is to find Euclidean 4–dimensional gauge field solutions to the classical equations of motion which interpolate between different vacua in complicated groups.

It is not difficult to present a heuristic reasoning in favor of existence of such solutions on $`T^3\times R`$ . Consider a flat connection $`A_i^{\mathrm{flat}}(𝐱)`$ belonging to a topologically nontrivial component not involving the configuration $`A_i=0`$. Multiply it by a function $`f(\tau )`$ of Euclidean time such that $`f(\mathrm{})=1`$ and $`f(\mathrm{})=0`$. The interpolating configuration $`f(\tau )A_i(𝐱)`$ has a nonzero field strength and a nonzero Euclidean action. The latter is not necessarily minimal, but it is clear that exploring the directions in the functional space which make the action lower, we will finally find a configuration with minimal action, i.e. the classical solution.

Of course, this does not tell us what is this solution and, in particular, what is its action. Also, this reasoning does not exclude that the configuration minimizing the action becomes singular (cf. the problem of finding instanton solutions of unit charge on $`T^4`$, where such a ”singularization” occurs, indeed ).

These issues can be clarified, bearing in mind the fact that flat connections for complicated groups are constructed out of twisted flat connections for $`SU(N)`$. It was proven earlier  that Euclidean solutions with fractional instanton number $`\nu =1/N,\mathrm{}`$ which interpolate between the perturbative vacuum $`A_i=0`$ and a nontrivial twisted vacuum exist. They are not singular and satisfy also self–duality equations $`F_{\mu \nu }=\pm \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$, which means that their action is equal to $`8\pi ^2/N`$. Such solutions were studied numerically in Refs. .

Performing a proper embedding and perhaps a gauge transformation like in Eq. (47), we are led to the existence of self–dual solutions on $`T^3\times R`$ that interpolate between flat connections belonging to different topological classes as discussed above for an arbitrary group. The instanton numbers of these solutions are multiple integers of $`1/m`$, or rather of the differences $`1/m1/m^{}`$, where $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ are different admissible orders of exceptional triples. For example, for $`E_8`$ the instanton number $`\nu `$ can be as small as $`\nu =1/51/6=1/30`$. The action of these solutions is $`8\pi ^2\nu `$ in all cases.

Hopefully, our explicit constructions will help in finding an educated guess about analytic form of those solutions. Another interesting problem is to study possible dualities relating the classical vacua with different gauge groups and different boundary conditions. Given the explicit formulae containing $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ functions with rational characteristics, one could expect to see many such dualities associated with the duality relations between $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ functions.

We are grateful to P. van Baal, A. Keurentjes, and A.Rosly for useful discussions. K.S. thanks SUBATECH, Nantes and Math. Department of Nantes University, where this work was done, for support and hospitality. The work of K.S. was also supported by CRDF RP1-2108, INTAS 97-0103, and RFBR grant for Scientific Schools 00-15-96562.


format: text

text:
# Probing the gravitational potential of a nearby lensing cluster Abell~2104

## 1 Introduction

Clusters of galaxies are the largest bound systems in the Universe, and as such they are the largest objects where detailed studies of their gravitational potential are possible. Given their large sizes, 3 to 6 Mpc in extent, they are also thought to be representative of the Universe in terms of the baryonic fraction which is directly related to the density of the universe and the predictions of the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory. Studies so far have found that the baryonic fractions in clusters favour a low matter density universe given the predictions of baryon densities given by the nucleosynthesis theory (e.g. White et al. 1993). Recently, detailed and independent estimates of cluster total mass distributions have become available; the mass–tracers used and the observational techniques employed can be summarised as follows:

* Cluster Galaxies : these have a long tradition of providing mass estimates via application of the Virial Theorem to the observed dispersion in their radial velocities. The method rests upon the assumption that the galaxies are in dynamical equilibrium.
* Hot Intracluster Gas : as well as being an important mass component of clusters, its X-ray emission provides an ideal tracer – through the hydrostatic equation – of the total underlying mass. The assumption that the gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium with the cluster’s gravitational potential is thought to be reasonably secure for the central few Mpc (Evrard et al. 1996 and Schindler 1996) and the gas density and temperature profiles required to solve the hydrostatic equation are readily available from the X-ray data.
* Gravitational Lensing : here the lensing action of the cluster on background sources, as revealed in deep high resolution imagery (Tyson et al. 1990; Fort & Mellier 1994 and references there in), is used to provide a direct measure of the shape and depth of the cluster potential and hence the projected mass distribution (Kaiser & Squires 1993, Broadhurst et al. 1995 etc.). Unlike the first 2 methods, this approach is not reliant upon assumptions of hydrostatic or dynamical equilibrium.

For detailed studies in the X-ray and optical, we need a nearby cluster, though gravitational lensing effects are diminished for low redshift clusters. An ideal cluster for this kind of detailed and independent estimates of mass distributions, would be one of the lowest redshift clusters with obvious lensing effects such as a giant arc. In this paper, we will analyse the X-ray and optical data for one of the nearby lensing clusters.

Abell~2104 is a rich cluster (richness class 2) at a redshift of 0.155 (Allen et al. 1992). It was found to have a high X-ray luminosity from the ROSAT all-sky survey data (Pierre et al. 1994). Subsequent optical followup observations with the CFHT revealed an arc embedded in the halo of the central cD galaxy $`7\stackrel{}{.}2`$ away from the centre (Pierre et al. 1994). The arc spans $`10\mathrm{}`$ in length and it is amongst the reddest known arcs. Fig. 2 shows a close up picture of the arc. Given the small arc radius, it is important to have a high resolution X-ray observation with an instrument such as the ROSAT/HRI to probe the gravitational potential within the arc radius.

The optical data including photometry and spectroscopy will be analysed in Sec. 2. The spatial and spectroscopic analysis of the X-ray data from ROSAT and ASCA will be given in Sec. 3. The independent mass estimates using different methods as well as a comparisons will be given Sec. 4.

Throughout the paper we adopt a cosmological model with $`H_0=50`$ km s-1Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=0`$. Celestial coordinates are in J2000.

## 2 Optical data

### 2.1 Observations

The data were collected in 4 nights at the 3.6 m CFHT Telescope in May 1993. Two 10 minutes exposures in B band and two 15 minutes exposures in R band were obtained. Exposures of 30 to 55 minutes per spectroscopic mask was obtained for 3 separate masks, each containing about 30 slits (Fig. 3). The focal reducer MOS/SIS together with CCD Lick2 ($`2048\times 2048`$ pixels of 15 $`\mu `$m) were used during the run. This CCD is a thick device having a quantum efficiency of $`10\%`$ in the blue. The observing configuration provides a pixel size of $`0.314\mathrm{}`$ over a field of view of about $`10\mathrm{}\times 10\mathrm{}`$. The overall image quality was good (stellar FWHM $`0.9\mathrm{}`$) although some optical distortions were conspicuous near the edges of the images due to the optics of the focal reducer.

### 2.2 Photometric analysis

The B and R frames were prepared using standard pre-reduction techniques. Since there were only 2 frames per filter, cosmic rays were removed by taking the lower pixel value in cases where a pixel in one frame is significantly higher than the corresponding pixel in the other frame. The photometric analysis was performed by means of the SExtractor package (Bertin & Arnouts, 1995) in the same way as Pierre et al. (1997), but adapted to our data. The images were first slightly smoothed to give the same PSF in B and R frames, then the background was estimated using a 64 $`\times `$ 64 pixel mesh. Source detections were claimed if at least 9 adjacent pixels were above a threshold corresponding to 1.5 times the local noise level. The CCD Sequence in M 92 (Christian et al., (1985)) observed during the same run was used for photometric calibration. Stars VCS1, A, B (probably variable) had to be removed because of obvious inconsistencies. Estimates of the photometric errors were taken directly from the SExtractor analysis, and are less than $`0.1`$ for R$`<22.5`$ and less than $`0.2`$ for B$`<23.5`$.

The catalogue is estimated to be complete to R = 22.5 and B = 23.5. On inspection of the detected objects above the completeness limit, we found those objects with a SExtractor classification $`<0.15`$ may be assumed to be galaxies, i.e., 275 objects. Changing the threshold does not affect the outcome significantly because most of the galaxies are well separated from stars (3/4 of the objects fall below 0.05 or above 0.95).

Fig. 4 shows the colour magnitude diagram for all the galaxies detected in the R-frame, and the corresponding magnitudes in the R and B bands were measured within the same apertures. The band of E/S0 sequence galaxies is discernable in Fig. 4; the spectroscopically confirmed cluster members are shown to fall mostly on the E/S0 sequence confirming that a large fraction of the galaxies on the E/S0 sequence belongs to the cluster. The mean error in B-R colour is $`<0.08`$.

### 2.3 Spectroscopy

Grism O300 was used for the spectroscopy. It has a zero deviation at 5900 Å, covers approximately 4700–7900 Å, and gives a dispersion of 3.59 Å$`/`$pixel ($`0.314\mathrm{}`$). The slit has a width of 2″, i.e. 6.4 pixels, yielding a resolution of $``$23 Å FWHM. Since there was only 1 frame per mask, cosmic rays were picked out individually by eye and replaced by the median of the surrounding pixels. The internal Helium and Argon lamps was used for wavelength calibration. The subsequent reduction was performed as described in Pierre et al. (1997). Redshifts were measured by a cross-correlation method implemented in the MIDAS environment following Tonry and Davis (1979). The cross-correlation results for each spectrum were checked independently by eye.

The results from the cross-correlation analysis for all spectra are presented in Table Probing the gravitational potential of a nearby lensing cluster Abell~2104. Heliocentric correction has not been applied, but is negligible at this resolution. The absolute error in the velocity calibration is $`200`$ km s-1.

As a first guess, galaxies are considered to be cluster members if they lie within 3000 km s-1 of the central cD galaxy, which selects 47 (the main sample) out of the 60 galaxies. This procedure eliminates most of the foreground and background galaxies without affecting the dispersion measurements significantly. If we relax the velocity constraint and apply the usual $`3\sigma `$clipping technique then we have 51 cluster members (the extended sample). The cluster redshift distribution for both samples is displayed in Fig. 5. The histogram includes all galaxies in the redshift range $`z0.1350.175`$ in Table Probing the gravitational potential of a nearby lensing cluster Abell~2104 and a Gaussian corresponding to the velocity distribution of the main sample. The bi-weighted mean and scale for the main sample are $`z=0.1532_{0.0006}^{+0.0004}`$ and $`\sigma =1148_{65}^{+190}`$ km s-1 correspondingly; and $`z=0.1538_{0.0006}^{+0.0009}`$ and $`\sigma =1401_{130}^{+160}`$ km s-1 for the extended sample. It is difficult to find an objective criterion for deciding which galaxies are cluster members. Even with the sophisticated weighting scheme employed by Carlberg et al. (1997), the determination of the weight for each galaxy is still subjective. In Table Probing the gravitational potential of a nearby lensing cluster Abell~2104, we have marked only the galaxies from the main sample as cluster members.

For the main sample we have enough redshifts to test whether or not the galaxy velocities are drawn from a Gaussian distribution applying various statistical tests for normality (e.g. D’Agostino & Stephens 1986; ROSTAT – Beers et al., 1990; Bird & Beers, 1993). As a result Anderson-Darling test (A2) accepts the hypothesis for normal distribution at 90% significance, the combined skewness and kurtosis test (B1 & B2 omnibus test) at 97% level and the alternative shape estimators, asymmetry index and tail index based on order statistics, were found to be $`0.21`$ and $`0.98`$ respectively which also show that the velocity distribution is drawn from a Gaussian.

We can obtain a conservative estimate of the errors on the velocity dispersion by comparing the dispersion from the extended and main samples. When we take into account of the uncertainties in cluster membership, a more conservative estimate of the errors should give the velocity dispersion as $`1200\pm 200`$ km s-1.

We also investigated the presence of substructures in ($`\alpha `$, $`\delta `$, $`z`$) space but no obvious signal was detected (see Fig. 6). More redshifts are required for a proper statistical analysis.

## 3 X-ray Data

We have observed the cluster with the ROSAT HRI and the ASCA GIS and SIS detectors. The HRI has a high spatial resolution of $`5\mathrm{}`$, which provides a high resolution X-ray surface brightness profile, but it has no energy resolution. ASCA on the other hand has a low spatial resolution ($`3\mathrm{}`$) but relatively high energy resolution and high sensitivity in the energy range 1–10 keV, which provides a reliable gas temperature measurement for clusters of galaxies.

### 3.1 Spectral analysis

The cluster was observed with ASCA using both detectors of the Gas Scintillation Imaging Spectrometers (GIS) and Solid-state Imaging Spectrometers (SIS) in February 1996. The SIS detectors were operated in 1-CCD mode. The data was screened and cleaned according to the standard procedures recommended (The ABC guide to ASCA data reduction). The spectra were extracted from the central $`6.5\mathrm{}`$ radius from the GIS2 and GIS3 detectors, excluding one discrete source. Similarly, spectra were extracted from the central $`3\mathrm{}`$ radius from the SIS0 and SIS1 detectors. A standard blank-sky exposure screened and cleaned in the same way as the cluster field was used for background subtraction by extracting a background spectra from the same region on the detector as the cluster spectra. The spectra were grouped into energy bins such that the minimum number of counts before background subtraction was above 40, which ensures that $`\chi ^2`$ statistics would still be valid. The 4 spectra from each detector were simultaneously fitted with a Raymond-Smith thermal spectra (Raymond & Smith 1977) with photoelectric absorption (Morrison & McCammon 1983) from the XSPEC package (Fig. 7). We adopted the abundance table with the relative abundance of the various elements from Feldman (1992). The free parameters were the gas temperature ($`T_g`$), Galactic neutral hydrogen absorption column density (N(H)), metal abundance (abund) and the emission integral. All 4 spectra were to have the same value for the free parameters except for the emission integral, since the GIS and SIS PSF were different and the extraction regions were smaller for the SIS spectra compared to that of the GIS. The two GIS spectra were assumed to have the same emission integral but different from the SIS emission integrals. Results of the best simultaneous fit to the 4 spectra along with fits to the individual spectra are tabulated in Table 1. Only data in the energy range where the effective area of the detectors are $`>10`$ cm2 were used for the spectral fitting, i.e. 0.6–7.5 keV for SIS data and 0.85–10.0 keV for GIS data.

The neutral hydrogen column density derived from the ASCA data were 2 times larger than the N(H) ($`=9.25\times 10^{20}`$ cm2) measured from radio data by Starck (1992). If we try to fix N(H) to the value determined by Starck (1992), then there is obvious discrepancy between the model spectrum and the SIS data below 1 keV. Unfortunately, there is no PSPC data available for this cluster to place definitive constraints on the N(H) value. It is possible that there is a local over-density of absorbing neutral gas along the line-of-sight to the cluster, though it is more likely to be a calibration error for the SIS detector. Calibration of the low-energy part of the SIS detector is known to produce erroneous results such that it favours a high N(H) inconsistent with PSPC results (Schindler et al. 1998 & Liang et al. 2000). In view of the possible calibration error for the SIS, the data were also fitted with the above models with a fixed N(H) given by Starck (1992) by excluding the SIS data below 1 keV. The temperature thus deduced was significantly higher than before. In the following studies, we will adopt these parameters deduced from a simultaneous fit of data from the GIS detectors in the energy range 0.85 to 10 keV and the SIS detectors between 1 and 7.5 keV.

### 3.2 ROSAT HRI data

The cluster was observed by the ROSAT HRI in February (7.6ksec) and August (36ksec) 1996. The X-ray centroid was found to be 15:40:08.1 $``$03:18:17, which is $`1\mathrm{}`$ from the position of the cD galaxy 15:40:07.96 $``$03:18:16.7. The positional error for the X-ray centroid is $`5\mathrm{}`$, hence the small apparent displacement between the cD position and the X-ray centroid is insignificant. The X-ray surface brightness was obtained by extracting the photons in a radius of $`7\mathrm{}`$ and the background was extracted from an annulus of $`8\mathrm{}10\mathrm{}`$ radius from the X-ray peak. Discrete X-ray sources were excluded from the extraction. There were 8 discrete X-ray sources in the HRI image. Fig. 1 shows the X-ray contours overlaid on the optical image of the cluster field. The X-ray image show significant substructure in the centre with an overall elliptical appearance. The discrete X-ray sources at 15:40:07.2 $``$03:19:53 is embedded in the cluster emission. The relative astrometry between X-ray and optical was checked using 4 of the discrete X-ray sources that had clear optical identification. The X-ray positions had a maximum displacement of $`2\mathrm{}`$ relative to the optical coordinates. The X-ray contours were adjusted to the optical coordinate system using the 4 discrete X-ray sources, which gave a relative astrometric accuracy of $`0.5\mathrm{}`$ between optical and X-ray coordinates.

A radial average of the X-ray surface brightness for the cluster is shown in Fig. 8. A best fit $`\beta `$ profile (Cavaliere and Fusco-Femiano 1976)

$$S_x(r)=S_0[1+(\frac{r}{r_0})^2]^{3\beta +1/2}$$
(1)
convolved with the instrument PSF is shown as a solid curve superimposed on the data.

The best fit gave $`\beta =0.50_{0.03}^{+0.02}`$ and $`\theta =51_6^{+5}\mathrm{}`$. The uncertainties quoted are $`1\sigma `$. The total X-ray luminosity within the central $`7\mathrm{}`$ radius is $`L_x8.95\times 10^{44}`$ ergs s-1 in the ROSAT band of 0.1–2.4 keV, assuming $`N(H)=9.25\times 10^{20}`$ cm2, $`kT_g=10.4`$ keV (or $`1.2\times 10^8`$ K), and an abundance of 0.22. The X-ray luminosity thus deduced is consistent with that estimated from the ROSAT all-sky survey (Pierre et al. 1997). The corresponding bolometric X-ray luminosity is $`L_x3\times 10^{45}`$ ergs s-1. The central electron density was thus derived to be $`n_{e,0}5.92\times 10^3`$ cm-3. The central cooling time for this cluster is $`t_{cool}10^{10}`$ yr, greater than a Hubble time.

## 4 Analysis

While the X-ray image show significant substructure in the cluster indicating deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium, the cluster total mass deduced from assumptions of dynamical equilibrium are still reliable, as is shown by numerical simulations (Evrard et al 1996 & Schindler 1996). Under the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium and spherical symmetry, the cluster total mass is directly related to the intracluster gas properties as:

$$M_{tot}(r)=\frac{rkT_g(r)}{\mu m_pG}(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}n_e(r)}{d\mathrm{ln}r}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}T_g(r)}{d\mathrm{ln}r})$$
(2)
In general, a good fit can be found for the X-ray surface brightness distribution using the parametrisation given in Eqn. 1, which in turn gives the gas density as follows if the gas is isothermal:

$$\frac{n_e(r)}{n_{e,0}}=[1+(r/r_0)^2]^{3\beta /2}$$
(3)
Hence, the gravitational potential is given by

$$\varphi (r)\varphi _0=\frac{3\sigma _0^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}[1+(\frac{r}{r_0})^2]$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _0^2\beta kT_g/\mu m_p`$ and the total mass is given by

$$M_{tot}(r)=(\frac{3\sigma _0^2r_0}{G})\frac{(r/r_0)^3}{1+(r/r_0)^2}$$
(5)
The lensing effects of the background galaxies by the cluster gravitational field is directly related to the 2-D projection of the total mass density. In this case, the projected total mass density is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{tot}^{2D}(r)=\frac{3\sigma _0^2}{4Gr_0}\frac{2+(r/r_0)^2}{[1+(r/r_0)^2]^{3/2}}.$$
(6)
If we consider galaxies as test particles in the cluster potential well, then Jean’s equation for a collisionless, steady state, non-rotating spherically symmetric system gives

$$M_{tot}(r)=\frac{r\sigma _r^2(r)}{G}(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}n_{gal}(r)}{d\mathrm{ln}r}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma _r^2(r)}{d\mathrm{ln}r}+2\beta _t)$$
(7)
where $`n_{gal}`$ is the spatial galaxy number density, $`\beta _t`$ is the anisotropy index and $`\sigma _r`$ is the radial velocity dispersion. The spatial galaxy number density is related to the observed 2-D projection of the galaxy number density through the Abel inversion given by

$$n_{gal}(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gal}^{2D}(R)}{dR}\frac{dR}{\sqrt{R^2r^2}},$$
(8)
$`\sigma _r`$ and $`\beta _t`$ are related to the observed line-of-sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma _l`$ through

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gal}^{2D}(R)\sigma _l^2(R)=2_R^{\mathrm{}}n_{gal}(r)\sigma _r^2(r)[1\frac{R^2}{r^2}\beta _t]\frac{rdr}{\sqrt{r^2R^2}}$$
(9)
In the simple case, where the galaxy orbits are isotropic, Eqn. 7 is equivalent to Eqn. 2 with $`\sigma _r^2`$ replaced by $`kT_g/\mu m_p`$.

If we make a further simplification by assuming that not only the gas but also the galaxies are isothermal, i.e. $`\sigma _r(r)`$ is a constant, then we have

$$\frac{n_e(r)}{n_{e,0}}=(\frac{n_{gal}(r)}{n_{gal,0}})^{\beta _s}$$
(10)
where $`\beta _s=\mu m_p\sigma _r^2/kT_g`$. Given the above parametrisation for the X-ray surface brightness and the resultant expression for $`n_e`$ given by Eqn. 3, we deduce the spatial galaxy density distribution as

$$\frac{n_{gal}(r)}{n_{gal,0}}=[1+(r/r_0)^2]^\alpha $$
(11)
where $`\alpha =3\beta /2\beta _s`$. The observed line-of-sight velocity dispersion is trivially given by $`\sigma _{obs}=\sigma _r`$ and $`\alpha =3\sigma _0^2/2\sigma _{obs}^2`$.

Alternatively, if we simplify the case by assuming that the galaxy density distribution follows that of the total mass, i.e. mass-follows-light, then from Jean’s equation (Eqn. 7) we see that the galaxies can not be isothermal if the gas is isothermal and the X-ray surface brightness is parametrised as in Eqn 1. The radial velocity dispersion is given by

$$\sigma _r^2(r)=\frac{1+(r/r_0)^2/2}{1+(r/r_0)^2/3}\sigma _0^2$$
(12)
where again $`\sigma _0^2\beta kT_g/\mu m_p`$. The line-of-sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma _l`$ can be deduced from Eqn. 9. However, the measured velocity dispersion is an average of $`\sigma _l`$ within a certain radius:

$$\sigma _{obs}^2(<R)=\frac{3}{4}[\frac{1+2(R/r_0)^2\sqrt{1+(R/r_0)^2}}{(R/r_0)^2}]\sigma _0^2.$$
(13)
In the case of Abell~2104, we have the observables $`S_x(R)`$, $`T_g`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gal}^{2D}(R)`$, $`\sigma _{obs}`$. Since the ASCA PSF was too poor to deduce a meaningful temperature profile, we will assume that the gas is isothermal for the time being. In the following section we will study the cluster total mass deduced from the various methods and examine their consistency using the simple parametrised $`\beta `$-model given above.

### 4.1 Mass estimate from optical data

The projected galaxy density distribution is consistent with a wide range of models. The following family of parametrised functions

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gal}(r)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gal,0}[1+(r/r_0)^2]^k$$
(14)
were fitted to the projected galaxy density distribution after background subtraction using the density of galaxies in the annulus $`220\mathrm{}`$ to $`240\mathrm{}`$ as background. If we fix the core radius to the X-ray determined value of $`51\mathrm{}`$, then we found the best fit to be $`k=1`$ ($`\chi ^2=9.3`$ with 10 degrees of freedom), though $`k=1/2`$ to $`3/2`$ were also statistically consistent with the observed data. Note that $`k=1/2,1,3/2`$ corresponds to spatial galaxy distributions of the form given in Eqn. 11 with $`\alpha =1,3/2,2`$ respectively. The projected total mass density distribution given by Eqn. 6 was also statistically consistent with the projected galaxy density distribution ($`\chi ^2=9.66`$ with 10 degrees of freedom), which means mass-follows-light is not excluded. The 2D projection of the functional form $`(r/r0)^1[1+(r/r0)]^2`$ (Navarro et al. 1996) was also found to be statistically consistent with the observed galaxy distribution. The projected galaxy distribution is shown in Fig. 9 along with the various model fits. The observed galaxy density distribution is still declining towards the edge of the image indicating a wider field is needed to reach the true “edge” of the cluster. The X-ray data show that the cluster extends at least out to a radius of $`7\mathrm{}`$ which is beyond the optical field of view for the current observation. A wider field of view would help to reject some of the above models.

If we estimate the total mass distribution from the galaxy density distribution and velocity dispersion assuming that the galaxies are isothermal, then $`\sigma _0^2=(2\alpha /3)\sigma _{obs}^2`$ where the observed data give $`\alpha 1`$ to $`2`$ and $`\sigma _{obs}=1200\pm 200`$ km s-1, implying that $`\sigma _0823`$ to $`1625`$ km s-1. Thus from Eqn. 5 the total mass is between $`3.5\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`13.4\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ within a radius of $`220\mathrm{}`$ (or 0.76 Mpc), and between $`6.8\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`2.6\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ extrapolating to $`7\mathrm{}`$ (or 1.46 Mpc). Note that optical data alone does not constrain the mass very well, even under assumptions such as isothermality of the galaxy distribution and isotropy of the orbits.

On the other hand, if the galaxy distribution is not isothermal but follows that of the mass then the measured velocity dispersion implies that $`\sigma _01010\pm 165`$ km s-1 from Eqn. 13 and the total mass is $`(10.2\pm 3.7)\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ within a radius of $`7\mathrm{}`$ (or 1.46 Mpc).

### 4.2 Mass estimate from X-ray data

The values of $`\beta 0.5_{0.03}^{+0.02}`$, $`r_051_6^{+5}\mathrm{}`$ and $`T_g10.4\pm 0.6`$ keV have been determined from spatial analysis of the HRI data and the spectro-analysis of the ASCA data respectively. Thus from the X-ray data, $`\sigma _0^2\beta kT_g/\mu m_p`$ implies a $`\sigma _0895\pm 45`$ km s-1 and a X-ray deduced total mass of $`(8.0\pm 0.8)\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ out to a radius of $`7\mathrm{}`$ (or 1.46 Mpc).

Note that if the galaxies are isothermal, then the X-ray deduced mass is consistent with the optically deduced mass (or generalised “Virial” mass) if $`\alpha 1`$. The X-ray and optical data are also marginally consistent if mass-follows-light.

The total gas mass within $`7\mathrm{}`$ was found to be $`7.8\times 10^{13}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ which gives a gas fraction of $`10`$% compared to the X-ray deduced mass, but 5–10% compared to the dynamically deduced mass. The gas fraction within a radius of $`r_{500}=1.14`$ Mpc (where the over-density is 500 times the critical density of the Universe) is $`8`$%, which is lower than the average gas fraction of $`(20\pm 1.9)`$% for nearby hot ($`kT_g>4`$ keV) non-cooling flow clusters (Arnaud & Evrard 1999). The gas fraction within a radius of 1.46 Mpc gives a lower limit to the baryonic fraction. Since the baryonic matter density predicted from the Big Bang nucleosynthesis gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.040.06`$ (Walker et al. 1991) from the measured light element abundance, the lower limit of the baryonic fraction of this cluster is thus consistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M1`$.

## 5 Discussions

For the above simple models, we have shown that the X-ray deduced mass is consistent with that from the optical data over the scale of 1–3 Mpc under the assumptions of dynamic equilibrium. In a recent paper by Lewis et al. (1999), they also found the X-ray and dynamically deduced mass were consistent for a sample of CNOC clusters at $`z0.3`$.

On the other hand, in a study of a sample of clusters with giant arcs, Allen (1998) found that the X-ray deduced mass was consistent with the position of the giant arcs for cooling flow clusters but $`23`$ times smaller than the lensing mass for non-cooling flow clusters. This was then explained as a direct consequence of the theory that cooling flow clusters were dynamically more relaxed than non-cooling flow clusters since cluster mergers would certainly disrupt a cooling flow. The cooling time for Abell~2104 is $`t_{cooling}10^{10}`$ yr at the centre, thus there is no evidence for a cooling flow in this cluster. Pierre et al. (1994) found a red tangential arc $`7\stackrel{}{.}2`$ from the centre of the cD galaxy (see Fig. 2). They found that the projected mass within the arc to be $`6\times 10^{12}M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Here we examine if the arc feature is consistent with the simple cluster potential deduced from the X-ray data. Since the projected density must reach the critical value at $`7\stackrel{}{.}2`$, it requires $`\sigma _013801175`$ km s-1 for an arc redshift in the range $`z_{arc}0.53`$ assuming the potential is spherically symmetric. However, the X-ray data gave $`\sigma _0895\pm 45`$ km s-1 apparently inconsistent with the lensing deduced value, indicating that in this very simplistic model the X-ray mass within the arc radius appears to be $`1.52`$ times smaller than needed to produce the giant arc. Our result appears to be consistent with the results of Allen (1998). However, since the model we have adopted so far is very simple and the arc radius is relatively small ($`7\stackrel{}{.}2`$), it is premature at this stage to suggest that the lensing results are inconsistent with the X-ray data under the assumptions of hydrostatic equilibrium and isothermal gas. As it was pointed out in Pierre et al. (1994), the small arc radius is an indication that the local cD potential is probably as important as the global cluster potential in forming the arc feature. Indeed for most clusters with giant arcs, the arc radii are barely larger than the PSPC resolution and probably a few times larger than the HRI resolution, hence an inconsistency between X-ray deduced mass from simple models and that of the strong lensing deduced mass are not sufficient to prove that the cluster is not in dynamic equilibrium. An alternative explanation for the results of Allen (1998) could be that the cooling flow clusters are well modelled by a cluster potential similar to the type given by Eqn. 4, but non-cooling flow clusters have a different shape of gravitational potential, e.g. a mass profile that has a broad component in the outer parts of the cluster (e.g. Gioia et al. 1998). It would be difficult for the HRI to reject a model of this kind since it has a high background level and it would be easy to “hide” faint diffuse emission at large radii. In our study of Abell 2104, the current optical image does not extend to the extent of the X-ray emission, thus we need wide-field imaging to find out the true extent of the cluster.

The X-ray emission in the centre of the cluster shows strong ellipticity, the effect such asphericity has on the mass estimates needs to be addressed since the mass estimates given above were calculated under the assumption of spherical symmetry. Neumann & Böhringer (1997), estimated the effects of asphericity on mass estimates of CL0016+16, and found that the total mass was only changed by $`2\%`$ when the ellipticity was taken into account. The ellipticity demonstrated in the X-ray image of Abell~2104 is no stronger than that of CL0016+16.

So far we have only considered the isothermal gas models, but the total mass given by Eqn. 2 is more sensitive to $`T_g`$ than $`n_e`$. It is necessary to explore models with a temperature gradient. Markevitch et al. (1998) found an almost universal decrease in temperature in the outer regions over a radius of 0.3 to 1.8 Mpc in a sample of 30 nearby clusters ($`0.04<z<0.09`$). They found that for a typical 7 keV cluster, the observed temperature profile can be approximated by a polytropic equation of state with $`\gamma 1.21.3`$. If we assume that Abell~2104 has a similar large scale temperature profile, then we can quantify the mass ratio between the polytropic and isothermal models as

$$\frac{M_{tot}^{poly}(r)}{M_{tot}^{iso}(r)}=\gamma (\frac{n_e(r)}{n_{e,0}})^{\gamma 1}.$$
(15)
Since the X-ray emissivity has only a weak dependence on $`T_g`$ over the 1–10 keV range (only a 10% change), the X-ray surface brightness varies insignificantly with $`T_g`$. We can then safely take the gas distribution as determined from the isothermal case (i.e. Eqn. 3). Thus at $`7\mathrm{}`$ radius (1.46 Mpc), a model with such a temperature gradient would give a mass that is $`0.6`$ times smaller than the isothermal case. This would cause the X-ray deduced mass to be strongly inconsistent with the dynamically deduced mass unless $`\sigma _r^2`$ increases with radius in a similar manner as $`T_g`$. Note that a temperature profile that decreases with the radius would also increase the total mass in the inner cluster regions compared to the isothermal model, and thus alleviate the discrepancy between the X-ray mass within the arc radius and the position of the giant arc. Fig. 10 shows the range of mass profiles deduced from the various methods and models discussed in the paper.

## 6 Conclusions and Future prospects

The rich cluster Abell~2104 at a redshift of $`z=0.1533`$ was found to have a high X-ray luminosity ($`9.0\times 10^{44}`$ ergs s-1 in \[0.1-2.4\] keV) and temperature ($`10.4\pm 0.6`$ keV) from ROSAT HRI and ASCA data. The central cooling time, $`t_{cool}10^{10}`$ yr for this cluster indicates the absence of a cooling flow. The galaxy velocity distribution showed that the cD galaxy was at rest at the bottom of the cluster potential. The X-ray image shows significant substructure in the centre of the cluster and an overall elliptical appearance. It appears that the cluster has not yet reached dynamical equilibrium.

As shown in Evrard et al (1996) and Schindler et al. (1996), the total mass deduced from assumptions of dynamical equilibrium are not significantly different from the true values. The total mass deduced from the X-ray data assuming hydrostatic equilibrium is consistent with the dynamic mass deduced from Jean’s equation. However, the current data on the projected galaxy density distribution and our knowledge of the galaxy orbits are limited for studies of cluster dynamics, which allows a wide range of possible parametric functions for the spatial galaxy density distribution without even attempting the non-parametric methods of Merritt and Tremblay (1994) or considering any anisotropic orbits. This can be improved by a deep wide-field observation, to extend the galaxy number density distribution to a large radius (up to 3 Mpc) and to allow a direct measure of the cluster mass from a weak shear analysis. This would allow us to definitively address the issue of whether or not the cluster is in dynamical equilibrium and constrain the range of possible total mass distributions allowed by the wide-range of data from lensing effects to X-rays. In order not to bias the results and incorporate a wide-range of the possible total mass density distributions, a non-parametric method should also be employed. With the launch of XMM and Chandra, we will soon able to obtain a temperature profile and probe the X-ray emission at the edge of the cluster which is crucial to the improvement of the X-ray mass estimates.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Emmanuel Bertin for his source extractor program, Mark Birkinshaw for providing the convolution programs, Monique Arnaud and J-L. Sauvageot for useful discussions on ASCA data reduction, and Frazer Owen for providing the radio image. T.C. Beers for providing the ROSTAT package. We acknowledge the use of the Karma package (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/karma) for the overlays.