text:
# TeV Gamma-Ray Absorption and the Intergalactic Infrared Background

## 1. Introduction

Shortly after the discovery that blazars can be strong sources of high energy $`\gamma `$-rays, we suggested that very high energy $`\gamma `$-ray beams from blazars can be used to measure the intergalactic infrared radiation field, since pair-production interactions of $`\gamma `$-rays with intergalactic IR photons will attenuate the high-energy ends of blazar spectra (Stecker, De Jager & Salamon 1992). In recent years, this concept has been used successfully to place upper limits on the the intergalactic IR field (IIRF) (Stecker & De Jager 1993; Dwek & Slavin 1994; Stecker & De Jager 1997; Stanev & Franceschini 1997; Biller et al. 1998). Determining the IIRF, in turn, allows us to model the evolution of the galaxies which produce it. As energy thresholds are lowered in both existing and planned ground-based air Cherenkov light detectors, cutoffs in the $`\gamma `$-ray spectra of more distant blazars are expected, owing to extinction by the IIRF. These can be used to explore the redshift dependence of the IIRF.

On the other hand, by modelling the intergalactic infrared and optical radiation fields as a function of redshift, one can calculate the expected $`\gamma `$-ray opacity as a function of redshift and comparison of predicted absorption with the data can yield important new information about the evolution of the IIRF (Stecker & De Jager 1998; Salamon & Stecker 1998).

Exploring the IIRF with high energy $`\gamma `$-rays has both advantages and disadvantages over direct infrared observations. An important advantage is that since the absorption process only acts effectively in intergalactic space over large distances, the $`\gamma `$-ray approach does not suffer from problems of subtraction of foreground emission from both zodiacal light and interstellar dust in the Galaxy. As we have seen at this meeting, these can be formidable sources of uncertainty in determining the IIRF. Also, high energy $`\gamma `$-ray observations of blazar and $`\gamma `$-ray burst spectra at high redshifts can be used to probe the past evolution of the IIRF whereas direct infrared observations can only tell us about the present IIRF.

On the other hand, the disadvantage of the $`\gamma `$-ray approach is the uncertainty in the unabsorbed spectrum of the source. This uncertainty is somewhat ameliorated by the strong energy dependence of the absorption effect itself. Therefore, it is my contention that using both direct infrared and high energy $`\gamma `$-ray observations in a “synoptic” approach can yield the most information about the IIRF.

## 2. The Opacity of Intergalactic Space Owing to the IIRF

The formulae relevant to absorption calculations involving pair-production are given and discussed in Stecker, De Jager & Salamon (1992), where we derived the absorption formulae with cosmological and redshift effects included. For $`\gamma `$-rays in the TeV energy range, the pair-production cross section is maximized when the soft photon energy is in the infrared range:

$$\lambda (E_\gamma )\lambda _e\frac{E_\gamma }{4m_ec^2}=1.24E_{\gamma ,TeV}\mu m$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _e=h/(m_ec)`$ is the Compton wavelength of the electron. For 15 TeV $`\gamma `$-rays, absorption will occur primarily by interactions with mid-infrared photons having a wavelength $``$ 20$`\mu `$m. (Pair-production interactions actually take place with photons over a range of wavelengths around the optimal value as determined by the energy dependence of the cross section; see eq. (11)).) If the emission spectrum of an extragalactic source extends beyond 20 TeV, then the extragalactic infrared field should cut off the observed spectrum between $`20`$ GeV and $`20`$ TeV, depending on the redshift of the source (Stecker & de Jager 1998; Salamon & Stecker 1998).

## 3. Absorption of Gamma-Rays at Low Redshifts

Stecker & De Jager (1998) (hereafter SD98) have calculated the absorption coefficient of intergalactic space using a new, empirically based calculation of the spectral energy distribution (SED) of intergalactic low energy photons by Malkan & Stecker (1998) (hereafter MS98) obtained by integrating luminosity dependent infrared spectra of galaxies over their luminosity and redshift distributions. After giving their results on the $`\gamma `$-ray optical depth as a function of energy and redshift out to a redshift of 0.3, Stecker & De Jager (1998) (SD98) applied their calculations by comparing their results with the spectral data on Mrk 421 (McEnery et al. 1997) and spectral data on Mrk 501 (Aharonian, et al. 1997).

SD98 made the reasonable simplifying assumption that the IIRF is basically in place at a redshifts $`<`$ 0.3, having been produced primarily at higher redshifts (Madau 1995; Salamon & Stecker 1998). Therefore SD98 limited their calculations to $`z<0.3`$.

SD98 assumed for the IIRF, two of the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) given in MS98 (shown in Figure 1). The lower curve in Figure 1 (adapted from MS98) assumes luminosity evolution proportional to $`(1+z)^{3.1}`$ out to $`z=1`$, whereas the middle curve assumes such evolution out to $`z=2`$. Evolution in stellar emissivity is expected to level off at redshifts greater than $`1.5`$ (Steidel 1999; Hopkins, Connolley & Szalay 2000) Using these two SEDs for the IIRF, SD98 obtained parametric expressions for the optical depth $`\tau (E_\gamma ,z)`$ for $`z<0.3`$, taking a Hubble constant of $`H_o=65`$ km s-1Mpc-1 (Gratton 1997).

The double-peaked form of the SED of the IIRF requires a third order polynomial to approximate the opacity $`\tau `$ in a parametric form. SD98 give the following approximation:

$$log_{10}[\tau (E_{\mathrm{TeV}},z)]\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}a_i(z)(\mathrm{log}_{10}E_{\mathrm{TeV}})^i\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1.0}<E_{\mathrm{TeV}}<50,$$
(2)
where the z-dependent coefficients are given by

$$a_i(z)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{2}{}}a_{ij}(\mathrm{log}_{10}z)^j.$$
(3)
Table 1 gives the numerical values for $`a_{ij}`$, with $`i=0,1,2,3`$, and $`j=0,1,2`$. The numbers before the brackets are obtained using the lower IIRF SED shown in Figure 1; The numbers in the brackets are obtained using the middle IIRF SED. Equation (2) approximates $`\tau (E,z)`$ to within 10% for all values of z and E considered. Figure 2 shows the results obtained by SD98 for $`\tau (E_\gamma ,z)`$.

| Table 1: Polynomial coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`j`$ | $`a_{0j}`$ | $`a_{1j}`$ | $`a_{2j}`$ | $`a_{3j}`$ |
| 0 | 1.11(1.46) | -0.26( 0.10) | 1.17(0.42) | -0.24( 0.07) |
| 1 | 1.15(1.46) | -1.24(-1.03) | 2.28(1.66) | -0.88(-0.56) |
| 2 | 0.00(0.15) | -0.41(-0.35) | 0.78(0.58) | -0.31(-0.20) |

The advantage of using empirical data to construct the SED of the IIRF, as done in MS98, is particularly indicated in the mid-infrared range. In this region of the spectrum, galaxy observations indicate more flux from warm dust in galaxies than that taken account of in more theoretically oriented models (e,g, MacMinn & Primack (1996)). As a consequence, the mid-infrared “valley” between the cold dust peak in the far-infrared and cool star peak in the near IR is filled in more in the MS98 results and is not as pronounced as in previously derived models of the IR background SED. As can be seen in Figure 1, the background SED predicted in MS98 is in excellent agreement with the results obtained from ultradeep ISOCAM galaxy count observations at 15 $`\mu `$m (Altieri et al. 1999).

The SD98 calculations predict that intergalactic absorption should only slightly steepen the spectra of Mrk 421 and Mrk 501 below $``$ 7 TeV, which is consistent with the data in the published literature The SD98 calculations further predict that intergalactic absorption should turn over the spectra of these sources at energies greater than $``$ 15 TeV.

## 4. The Multi-TeV Spectrum of Mrk 501 and its Interpretation

The HEGRA group has observed the BL Lac object Mrk 501 in the flaring phase, obtaining an energy spectrum for this source up to an energy of 24 TeV (Aharonian et al. 1999). The Mrk 501 spectrum obtained by the HEGRA group are well fitted by a source spectrum power-law of spectral index $`2`$ steepened at in the multi-TeV energy range by intergalactic absorption, with the optical depth calculated by SD98 (Konopelko, et al. 1999). Figure 3 clearly shows this.

## 5. Reconciling the Infrared and Gamma-Ray Observations

Malkan & Stecker (2000) have used their empirically based model (MS98) to predict infrared luminosity functions and deep infrared galaxy counts at various wavelengths. They have also examined their predictions for the IIRF for comparison with the subsequent determinations from the COBE-DIRBE data analysis. Using the formalism of luminosity evolution proportional to $`(1+z)^Q`$ out to a redshift of $`z_{flat}`$ and constant (no evolution) for $`z_{flat}<z<z_{max}=4`$, they find that a comparison of their predictions with current ISO galaxy counts at 15 and 175$`\mu `$m favor their “Baseline Model” with $`Q=3.1`$ and $`z_{flat}=2`$ (the middle curve in Figure 1). The $`\gamma `$-ray limits (SD97) also favor $`Q3`$.

On the other hand, the COBE-DIRBE far infrared determinations seem to favor a stronger evolution with $`Q>4`$ up to $`z_{flat}=1`$. For example, the upper curve in Figure 1 (Malkan & Stecker 2000) assumes $`Q=4.1`$ and $`z_{flat}=1.3`$. This curve gives a flux in the mid-infrared which is a factor of $``$1.8 above the “Baseline Model” and would imply a corresponding increase in the opacity of the Universe to multi-TeV $`\gamma `$-rays. (Thus, one should multiply the appropriate bracketed numbers in Table 1 by a factor of 1.8) Therefore, $`\tau `$(15 TeV) would increase from $`2`$ to $`4`$ in the case of Mrk 501 and Mrk 421 ($`z0.03`$).

This prima facie conflict can be resolved in two ways: either (a) the COBE-DIRBE far-infrared estimates may suffer from undersubtraction of foreground emission and therefore are too high, or (b) the ISOPHOT galaxy counts may be missing a significant fraction of sources. In this later case, one may also have require that the $`\gamma `$-ray results are wrong in that the HEGRA energy determinations have been overestimated, mimicing the effect of absorption which would be produced by a lower IIRF. Another possibility is one involving new physics, viz. that Lorentz invariance may be broken, allowing the Universe to be transparent to multi-TeV photons (Coleman & Glashow 1999; Kifune 1999). This “new physics”scenario presents problems in that the Mrk 501 spectrum does exhibit exactly the characteristics expected for high-energy $`\gamma `$-ray absorption from pair-production (Konopelko et al. 1999). However, we will discuss this possibility more quantitatively in the next section (Glashow & Stecker 2000).

Possibility (a) finds support in the independent analysis of the COBE data by Lagache e͡t al. (1999) who obtain a flux at 140 $`\mu `$m which is only 60% of the flux obtained by Hauser et al. (1998) shown in Figure 1. Lagache et al. (2000) also obtained a smaller flux at 240 $`\mu `$m. In this regard, one should also note that the results reported by Hauser et al. (1998) were at the 4$`\sigma `$ level.

If the far-infrared galaxy counts are incomplete (possibility (b)), this would imply stronger evolution in the far-infrared emission of galaxies than in the mid-infrared. Although the MS98 model already includes some differential evolution of this type, based on the data of Spinoglio et al. (1995), it is conceivable that starburst galaxies at redshifts at $`1`$ might produce an even higher ratio of $`60\mu `$m to $`7\mu `$m rest-frame fluxes than their present-day counterparts. Radiation at these widely separated wavelengths is known to be emitted by quite different dust grains which could have different evolutionary development, particularly for ULIRGs (ultraluminous infrared galaxies) and AGN (active galactic nuclei). One should note that this possibility can make the $`\gamma `$-ray and infrared data compatible, since absorption of $``$ 15 TeV $`\gamma `$-rays is caused by interactions with mid-infrared ($``$ 20$`\mu `$m) photons and not 140$`\mu `$m far-infrared photons.

## 6. Breaking Lorentz Invariance

With the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking in particle physics came the suggestion that Lorentz invariance (LI) might be weakly broken at high energies (Sato & Tati 1972). Although no real quantum theory of gravity exists, it was suggested that LI might be broken as a consequence of such a theory (Amelino-Camilia et al. 1998). A simpler formulation for breaking LI by a small first order perturbation in the electromagnetic Lagrangian which leads to a renormalizable treatment has been given by Coleman & Glashow (1999). The breaking of LI at high energies is one way of avoiding the predicted, but unseen, “GZK” cutoff in the ultrahigh energy cosmic-ray spectrum owing to photomeson interactions with 2.7K cosmic background photons (Greisen 1966; Zatsepin & Kuz’min 1966), which produces an effective absorption mean-free-path for ultrahigh energy cosmic rays in intergalactic space of $`<100`$ Mpc (Stecker 1968).

It has recently been suggested that LI breaking could also make the universe transparent to high energy $`\gamma `$-rays (Kifune 1999). Such LI breaking implies a perferred frame of reference in the Universe which would naturally be associated with a rest frame for the 2.7K cosmic background radiation. We follow here the formalism proposed by Coleman & Glashow (1999) for LI breaking. Within this scenario, the maximum attainable velocity of an electron, $`c_ec_\gamma `$, the velocity of the photon. Let us consider the case where $`c_e>c_\gamma `$ and we define

$$c_ec_\gamma (1+\delta ),\delta 1$$
(4)
In this case, electrons above an energy $`E_{max}=\gamma _{max}m_e`$ will be superluminal. They will radiate Cherenkov light if their velocity is large enough, i.e., if $`\beta >(c_\gamma /c_e)`$ which implies that $`\gamma _e^2>[1(c_\gamma /c_e)^2]^1`$. This determines the maximum electron energy above which electrons would rapidly lose energy by Cherenkov radiation:

$$E_{max}=m_e(2\delta )^{1/2}$$
(5)
(In this section, we adopt the standard paticle physics convention $`c=1`$.) Since electrons are seen in the cosmic radiation up to an energy $``$ 1 TeV, this implies that $`E_{max}>1`$ TeV which gives an upper limit on $`\delta `$ of $`1.3\times 10^{13}`$.

If LI is broken so that $`\delta >0`$, the threshold energy for the pair production process is altered because the square of the four-momentum becomes

$$2ϵE_\gamma (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )2E_\gamma ^2\delta =4\gamma ^2m_e^2>4m_e^2$$
(6)
where $`ϵ`$ is the energy of the low energy (infrared) photon and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the two photons. The second term on the left-hand-side comes from the fact that $`c_\gamma =E_\gamma /p_\gamma `$.

For head-on collisions ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$) the minimum low energy photon energy for pair production becomes

$$ϵ_{min}=m_e^2/E_\gamma +(E_\gamma \delta )/2$$
(7)
It follows that the condition for a significant increase in the energy threshold for pair production is

$$(E_\gamma \delta )/2m_e^2/E_\gamma $$
(8)
or, equivalently, $`\delta `$ must be greater than $`2m_e^2/E_\gamma ^2`$.

Thus, for a significant decrease in the optical depth to Mrk 501 for $`E_\gamma =15`$ TeV, we must have $`\delta 2.4\times 10^{15}`$.

The effect of breaking LI is to exclude photons of energy below $`ϵ_{min}`$ from pair producing, thus reducing the number of target photons. In this way, one can exclude the high flux of far-infrared photons implied by the COBE-DIRBE analysis from participating in the absorption process while still allowing mid-infrared photons to produce an absorption feature.

One can rule out this hypothesis is if one observes electrons with energies $``$ 1 TeV. This would reduce the upper limit on $`\delta `$ to the point where there will be no significant reduction in absorption by pair-production interactions with infrared photons.

On the other hand, if one observes $`\gamma `$-rays above 100 TeV from an extragalactic source, this would be strong evidence for LI breaking. This is because the very large density ($``$ 400 cm-3) of 3K cosmic microwave photons would otherwise absorb $`>100`$ TeV $`\gamma `$-rays within a distance of $``$ 10 kpc (see eq. (1)).

Finally, we note that even if absorption is reduced in Mrk 501, one can still have absorption in sources at higher redshifts owing to interactions with higher energy photons (see next section).

## 7. Absorption of Gamma-Rays at High Redshifts

We now discuss the absorption of 10 to 500 GeV $`\gamma `$-rays at high redshifts. In order to calculate such high-redshift absorption properly, it is necessary to determine the spectral distribution of the intergalactic low energy photon background radiation as a function of redshift as realistically as possible out to frequncies beyond the Lyman limit. This calculation, in turn, requires observationally based information on the evolution of the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of IR through UV starlight from galaxies, particularly at high redshifts.

Conversely, observations of high-energy cutoffs in the $`\gamma `$-ray spectra of blazars as a function of redshift, which may enable one to separate out intergalactic absorption from redshift-independent cutoff effects, could add to our knowledge of galaxy formation and early galaxy evolution. In this regard, it should be noted that the study of blazar spectra in the 10 to 300 GeV range is one of the primary goals of a next generation space-based $`\gamma `$-ray telescope GLAST (Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope) (Bloom 1996) as well as VERITAS and other future ground based $`\gamma `$-ray telescopes.

Salamon and Stecker (1998) (hereafter SS98) have calculated the $`\gamma `$-ray opacity as a function of both energy and redshift for redshifts as high as 3 by taking account of the evolution of both the SED and emissivity of galaxies with redshift. In order to accomplish this, they adopted the recent analysis of Fall et al. (1996) and also included the effects of metallicity evolution on galactic SEDs. Their results indicate that the extragalactic $`\gamma `$-ray background spectrum from blazars should steepen significantly above 20 GeV, owing to extragalactic absorption. Future observations of such a steepening would thus provide a test of the blazar origin hypothesis for the $`\gamma `$-ray background radiation.

### 7.1. Redshift Dependence of the Intergalactic Low Energy SED

Pei and Fall (1995) have devised a method for calculating stellar emissivity which bypasses the uncertainties associated with estimates of poorly defined luminosity distributions of evolving galaxies. The core idea of their approach is to relate the star formation rate directly to the evolution of the neutral gas density in damped Lyman $`\alpha `$ systems, and then to use stellar population synthesis models to estimate the mean co-moving stellar emissivity $`_\nu (z)`$ of the universe as a function of frequency $`\nu `$ and redshift $`z`$. The SS98 calculation of stellar emissivity closely follows this elegant analysis, with minor modifications.

Damped Lyman $`\alpha `$ systems are high-redshift clouds of gas whose neutral hydrogen surface density is large enough ($`>2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2) to generate saturated Lyman $`\alpha `$ absorption lines in the spectra of background quasars that happen to lie along and behind common lines of sight to these clouds. These gas systems are believed to be either precursors to galaxies or young galaxies themselves, since their neutral hydrogen (HI) surface densities are comparable to those of spiral galaxies today, and their co-moving number densities are consistent with those of present-day galaxies (Worthy 1986; Pei & Fall 1995). It is in these systems that initial star formation presumably took place, so there is a relationship between the mass content of stars and of gas in these clouds; if there is no infall or outflow of gas in these systems, the systems are “closed”, so that the formation of stars must be accompanied by a reduction in the neutral gas content. Such a variation in the HI surface densities of Lyman $`\alpha `$ systems with redshift is seen, and is used by Pei and Fall (1995) to estimate the mean cosmological rate of star formation back to redshifts as large as $`z=5`$.

Following Fall, Charlot & Pei (1996), SS98 used the Bruzual-Charlot model (Charlot & Bruzual 1991; Bruzual & Charlot 1993) corresponding to a Salpeter stellar initial mass function, $`\varphi (M)dMM^{2.35}dM`$, where $`0.1M_{}<M<125M_{}`$. The mean co-moving emissivity $`_\nu (t)`$ was then obtained by convolving over time $`t`$ the specific luminosity with the mean co-moving mass rate of star formation. SS98 also obtained metallicity correction factors for stellar radiation at various wavelengths. Increased metallicity gives a redder population spectrum (Worthy 1994; Bertelli, et al. 1994).

SS98 calculated stellar emissivity as a function of redshift at 0.28 $`\mu `$m, 0.44 $`\mu `$m, and 1.00 $`\mu `$m, both with and without a metallicity correction. Their results agree well with the emissivity obtained by the Canada-French Redshift Survey (Lilly, et al 1996) over the redshift range of the observations ($`z1`$).

The stellar emissivity in the universe is found to peak at $`1z2`$, dropping off steeply at lower reshifts and more slowly at higher redshifts. Indeed, Madau, Pozzetti & Dickinson (1998) have used observational data from the Hubble Deep Field to show that metal production has a similar redshift distribution, such production being a direct measure of the star formation rate.

The co-moving radiation energy density $`u_\nu (z)`$ is the time integral of the co-moving emissivity $`_\nu (z)`$,

$$u_\nu (z)=_z^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑z^{}_\nu ^{}(z^{})\frac{dt}{dz}(z^{})e^{\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}(\nu ,z,z^{})},$$
(9)
where $`\nu ^{}=\nu (1+z^{})/(1+z)`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the redshift corresponding to initial galaxy formation. The extinction term $`e^{\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}}`$ accounts for the absorption of ionizing photons by the clumpy intergalactic medium (IGM) that lies between the source and observer. Although the IGM is effectively transparent to non-ionizing photons, the absorption of photons by HI, HeI and HeII can be considerable (Madau 1995).

### 7.2. The Gamma-Ray Opacity at High Redshifts

SS98 evaluated the co-moving energy density $`u_\nu (z)`$ using equation (9) above. They then calculated the optical depth for $`\gamma `$-rays owing to electron-positron pair production interactions with photons of the stellar radiation background. This can be determined from the expression (Stecker, De Jager & Salamon 1992)

$$\tau (E_0,z_e)=c_0^{z_e}𝑑z\frac{dt}{dz}_0^2𝑑x\frac{x}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu (1+z)^3\left[\frac{u_\nu (z)}{h\nu }\right]\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)$$
(10)
where $`s=2E_0h\nu x(1+z)`$, $`E_0`$ is the observed $`\gamma `$-ray energy at redshift zero, $`\nu `$ is the frequency at redshift $`z`$, $`z_e`$ is the redshift of the $`\gamma `$-ray source, $`x=(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, $`\theta `$ being the angle between the $`\gamma `$-ray and the soft background photon, $`h`$ is Planck’s constant ($`ϵ=h\nu `$), and the pair production cross section $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ is zero for center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}<2m_ec^2`$, $`m_e`$ being the electron mass. Above this threshold,

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)=\frac{3}{16}\sigma _\mathrm{T}(1\beta ^2)\left[2\beta (\beta ^22)+(3\beta ^4)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }\right)\right],$$
(11)
where $`\beta =(14m_e^2c^4/s)^{1/2}`$.

Figure 4, based on the results of SS98, shows the predicted critical energy for a 1/e absorption by pair production versus redshift obtained for the cases of correction for metallitcity evolution and no correction. Absorption of $`\gamma `$-rays of energies below $``$15 GeV is negligible.

The weak redshift dependence of the opacity at the higher redshifts, as shown in Figure 4, indicates that the opacity is not very sensitive to the initial epoch of galaxy formation, contrary to the speculation of MacMinn and Primack (1996). In fact, the uncertainty in the metallicity correction (see Figure 4) would obscure any dependence on $`z_{max}`$ even further.

### 7.3. The Effect of Absorption on the Spectra of Blazars and the Gamma-Ray Background

With the $`\gamma `$-ray opacity $`\tau (E_0,z)`$ calculated out to $`z=3`$, the cutoffs in blazar $`\gamma `$-ray spectra caused by extragalactic pair production interactions with stellar photons can be predicted. The left graph in Figure 5, from SS98, shows the effect of the intergalactic radiation background on a few of the blazars observed by EGRET, viz., 1633+382, 3C279, 3C273, and Mrk 421, assuming that the mean spectral indices obtained for these sources by EGRET extrapolate out to higher energies attenuated only by intergalactic absorption. (Observed cutoffs in blazar spectra may be intrinsic cutoffs in $`\gamma `$-ray production in the source, or may be caused by intrinsic $`\gamma `$-ray absorption within the source itself.)

The right hand graph in Figure 5 shows the background spectrum predicted from unresolved blazars (Stecker & Salamon 1996; Salamon & Stecker 1998) compared with the EGRET data (Sreekumar, et al. 1998). Note that the predicted spectrum steepens above 20 GeV, owing to extragalactic absorption by pair-production interactions with intergalactic optical and infrared photons, particularly at high redshifts.

## 8. Conclusions

Studies of the absorption of high energy $`\gamma `$-rays in the spectra of extragalactic objects can be used to probe both the present intergalactic infrared background and the infrared and optical radiation that existed in intergalactic space at higher redshifts. The results of such observations are free of the effects of solar system and galactic foreground contamination. Such studies are most effective when combined with direct infrared observations in a synoptic approach.

High energy $`\gamma `$-ray observations have already provided the best constraints on the mid-infrared background and they support a galaxy evolution scenario where emissivity evolution in the mid-infrared evolved as $`(1+z)^Q`$ with $`Q3`$. This is consistent with observations of galaxy counts using ISOCAM. On the other hand, the analysis of COBE-DIRBE observations favors a stronger evolution in far-infrared emissivity with $`Q>4`$.

There are various possible interpretations of these results; among them is the possibility that special relativity is modified at high energies. Future $`\gamma `$-ray and infrared observations will be needed to resolve this situation.

#### Acknowledgments.

I would like to acknowledge my collaborators in much of this work. They are (in alphabetical order) Okkie De Jager, Sheldon Glashow, Matthew Malkan and Michael Salamon.

## References

Aharonian, F. et al. 1997, A&A 327, L5

Aharonian, F. et al. 1999, A&A 342, 69

Altieri, B. et al. 1999, A&A 343, L65

Amelino-Camilia, G., et al. 1998, Nature 393, 763

Bertelli, G. et al. 1994, A&AS 106, 275.

Bertin, E., Dennefeld, M. & Moshir M. 1997, A&A 323, 685

Biller, S.D. et al. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2992

Blain, A.W. & Natarajan, P. 2000, MNRAS, 312, L39

Bloom, E.D. 1996, Space Sci.Rev. 75, 109

Bruzual, A.G. & Charlot, S. 1993, ApJ 457, 538

Charlot, S. & Bruzual A.G. 1991, ApJ 405, 625

Coleman, S. & Glashow, S.L. 1999, Phys.Rev.D59, 116008

Dwek, E. & Arendt, R. 1998, ApJ 508, L9

Dwek, E. & Slavin, J. 1994, ApJ 436, 696.

Elbaz, D. et al. 2000, A & A Letters, in press, e-print astro-ph/9910496

Fall, S.M., Charlot, S. & Pei, Y.C., 1996 ApJ , 464, L43

Fixsen, D.J. et al. 1998, ApJ 508, 123

Franceschini, A., et al. 1998, MNRAS 296, 709

Glashow, S.L. & Stecker, F.W. 2000, in preparation

Gorjian, V., Wright, E.L. & Chary, R.R. 2000, ApJ, 536, 550

Gratton, R.G. et al. 1997, PASP 402, 651

Greisen, K. 1966, Phys.Rev.Lett 16, 148

Hauser, M., et al. 1998, ApJ 508, 25

Hopkins, A.M., Connelly, A.J. & Szalay, A.S. 2000, AJ, in press, e-print astro-ph/0009073

Kifune, T. 1999, ApJ 518, L21

Konopelko, A.K. Kirk, J.G., Stecker, F.W. & Mastichiadas, A. 1999, ApJ 518, L13

Lagache, G., Haffner, L.M., Reynolds, R.J. & Tufte, S.L. 2000, A & A 354, 247

Lawrence, A. et al. 1986, MNRAS 219, 687

Lilly, S.J. et al. 1996, ApJ 460, L1

MacMinn, D. & Primack, J.R. 1996, Space Sci.Rev. 75, 413

Madau, P. 1995, ApJ 441, 18

Madau, P. Pozzetti, L. & Dickinson, M. 1998, ApJ 498, 106

Malkan, M.A. & Stecker, F.W. 1998, ApJ 496, 13 (MS98)

Malkan, M.A. & Stecker, F.W. 2000, e-print astro-ph/0009500, submitted to ApJ

McEnery, J.E. et al. 1997, Proc. 25th Intl. Cosmic Ray Conf., Durban, S.A. 3, 257

Pei, Y.C. & Fall, S.M. 1995, ApJ 454, 69

Pozzetti, L. et al. 2000, in The Extragalactic Background and its Cosmological Implications, IAU Symp. Vol. 204, ed. M. Harwit and M.G. Hauser, in press

Puget, J.L. et al. 1999, A & A 354, 29

Salamon, M.H. & Stecker, F.W. 1998, ApJ 493, 547 (SS98)

Sato, H. & Tati, T. 1972, Prog. Theor. Phys. 47, 1788

Sreekumar, P. et al. 1998, ApJ 494, 523

Spinoglio, L. et al. 1995, ApJ 453, 616

Stanev, T. & Franceschini, A. 1998, ApJ 494, 159

Stecker, F.W. 1968, Phys.Rev.Lett 21, 1016

Stecker, F.W. & De Jager, O.C. 1993, ApJ 415, L71

Stecker, F.W. & De Jager, O.C. 1997, in Towards a Major Atmospheric Cerenkov Detector V, Proc. Kruger National Park Workshop on TeV Gamma Ray Astrophysics, ed. O.C. De Jager (Potchefstroom: Wesprint) pg. 39

Stecker, F.W. & De Jager, O.C. 1998, A&A 334,L85 (SD98)

Stecker, F.W., O.C. De Jager, O.C. & Salamon, M.H. 1992, ApJ 390, L49

Stecker, F.W., O.C. De Jager, O.C. & Salamon, M.H. 1996, ApJ 473, L75

Stecker, F.W. & Salamon, M.H. 1996, ApJ 464, 600

Steidel, C.C. et al. 1999, ApJ 519, 1

Totani, T. et al. in The Extragalactic Background and its Cosmological Implications, IAU Symp. Vol. 204, ed. M. Harwit and M.G. Hauser, in press

Worthey, G. 1994, ApJS 95, 107.

Xu, C. et al. 1998, ApJ 508, 576

Zatsepin, G.T. & Kuz’min, V.A. 1966, JETP Lett 4, 78


format: text

text:
# 1 𝑛_S(𝑘_COBE) as a function of 𝑓ᵩ. The best-fit value of Λ for the COBE-scale normalization is used.

Inflation  plays a very important role in modern cosmology. It provides a natural solution to the horizon and flatness problems. In addition, quantum fluctuation during the inflation becomes the origin of the density perturbation of the universe. Such a fluctuation also generates temperature perturbation in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) which is being measured very accurately by the satellite and balloon experiments.

In the case of the “slow-roll inflation” , where the inflation is due to the energy density of a slowly-rolling scalar field, the scalar field, which is called “inflaton,” has to have a very flat potential. It is, however, difficult to guarantee the flatness of the potential because radiative corrections to the scalar mass are in general quadratically divergent. Thus the most natural value of the scalar mass is as large as the cutoff scale which is naturally the Planck scale. With such a large mass parameter, it is impossible to build a realistic model of inflation.

One way to obtain a very flat potential is to consider the “natural inflation”  where a (pseudo-) Nambu-Goldstone (NG) field is used as the inflaton.#1#1#1Another way to guarantee the flatness is to introduce supersymmetry. In the supersymmetric models, quadratic divergences are cancelled out among bosonic and fermionic loops. In this paper, we do not consider such a possibility. If a global Abelian symmetry, which we call $`U(1)_X`$, is spontaneously broken, massless scalar field shows up due to the Nambu-Goldstone’s theorem. If the $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry is softly broken, such a scalar field acquires a non-vanishing potential, and the height of the potential is controlled by soft-breaking parameters. In this case, hierarchy between the scalar mass and the Planck (or the cutoff) scale is naturally stabilized.

In the natural inflation, the inflaton $`\varphi `$ has a particular form of the potential: $`V=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4[1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /\sqrt{2}f_\varphi )]`$. Therefore, observable quantities are quite predictive and it is interesting to study its consequences. Indeed, the density fluctuation from the natural inflation was already extensively discussed in connections with the large scale structure and the COBE observations . Recently, however, BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA  reported more accurate observations of the CMBR anisotropy up to the multipole $`lO(100)`$. With those new observations, we can have a better constraint on the natural inflation scenario. (For discussions on other inflation models, see Refs. .)

In this letter, we consider constraints on the natural inflation model from the CMBR. For an accurate estimation of the power spectrum, we numerically follow the evolution of the inflaton field. The power spectrum deviates from the scale-invariant Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum when $`f_\varphi `$ is relatively small, and the CMBR anisotropy from the natural inflation can be significantly different from that from the scale-invariant power spectrum. Furthermore, taking the constraint on the height of the second acoustic peak seriously, we may obtain an upper bound on the scale $`f_\varphi `$.

We consider a model where NG boson is used as the inflaton. As an example, let us start with a model with the following scalar potential

$`V(X)=\lambda \left(|X|^2v^2\right)^2+AM_{}^{4N}\left(X^N+X_{}^{N}{}_{}{}^{}\right),`$ (1)
where $`X`$ is a complex scalar field, and $`N`$ is a positive integer. We assume that smallness of model parameters should be protected by some symmetry; thus, we take $`\lambda O(1)`$ and $`v`$ of the order of the reduced Planck scale $`M_{}2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$. On the contrary, when $`A=0`$, there is an Abelian symmetry to rotate the phase of $`X`$, which we call $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry. Smallness of the $`A`$ parameter is protected by $`U(1)_X`$. In the following, we consider the case with $`A1`$.

The $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry is broken by the vacuum expectation value of $`X`$. In this case, it is convenient to parameterize the $`X`$ field as

$`X=\left(v+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{2}v}}\right)e^{i\varphi /\sqrt{2}v},`$ (2)
where $`\sigma `$ and $`\varphi `$ are real scalar fields. The real component $`\sigma `$ acquires a mass as large as $`v`$ and is irrelevant for our discussion. On the contrary, the imaginary component $`\varphi `$ is the (pseudo-) NG mode and is massless if $`A=0`$. When $`A0`$, $`\varphi `$ acquires a potential as#2#2#2There may be other terms with higher periodicity in general. If the potential of $`\varphi `$ is due to $`U(1)_X`$ breaking spurion, however, the potential of $`\varphi `$ is expected to be of the form of Eq. (3). For example, if $`A`$ originates to a spurion with charge $`N`$, sub-leading term is $`A^2\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi /f_\varphi +\alpha )`$, where $`\alpha `$ is an unknown phase. For realistic natural inflation, $`A1`$ and the sub-leading contribution is negligible.

$`V(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2}f_\varphi }}\right)\right]=2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2\sqrt{2}f_\varphi }}\right),`$ (3)
where we added a constant to the potential for the vanishing cosmological constant, and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4={\displaystyle \frac{2Av^N}{M_{}^{N4}}},f_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{v}{N}}.`$ (4)
As one can see, the height of the potential is controlled by the soft breaking parameter $`A`$ and the potential can be very flat with a small value of $`A`$. Since the flatness of the potential is protected by the (approximate) symmetry, quantum correction does not destabilize the flatness. The potential given in Eq. (3) is our starting point.

$`V(\varphi )`$ has a minimum at $`\varphi =0`$ (mod $`2\sqrt{2}\pi f_\varphi `$). Expanding the potential around the minimum, we obtain $`V=\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2+O(\varphi ^4)`$, where the mass of $`\varphi `$ is given by

$`m_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\sqrt{2}f_\varphi }}.`$ (5)
At this level, $`\varphi `$ is stable. If $`\varphi `$ couples to other fields, however, it may decay. For example, $`X`$ may couple to a fermion $`\psi _Q`$ with standard-model gauge quantum numbers with the interaction $`_{\mathrm{int}}=y_QX\overline{\psi }_Q\psi _Q+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (Here, $`y_Q`$ is a coupling constant.) Once $`X`$ acquires the vacuum expectation value, $`\psi _Q`$ becomes massive and the process $`\varphi \overline{\psi }_Q\psi _Q`$ is kinematically blocked. At the one-loop level, however, $`\varphi `$ decays into the standard-model gauge boson pairs. The decay rate for this process is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{dim}(G_i)}{32\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_{\overline{\psi }\psi }^{(i)}\alpha _i}{4\pi N}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^3}{f_\varphi ^2}},`$ (6)
where $`\alpha _i`$ is the coupling constant for the gauge group $`G_i=SU(3)_\mathrm{C},SU(2)_\mathrm{L}`$, and $`U(1)_\mathrm{Y}`$ while $`b_{\overline{\psi }\psi }^{(i)}`$ the $`\beta `$-function coefficient of $`\overline{\psi }_Q+\psi _Q`$. Here, the sum is over the standard model gauge groups. In our calculation, we approximate the formula as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =10^5m_\varphi ^3/f_\varphi ^2`$.

We use the potential (3) and identify the $`\varphi `$ field as the inflaton. We started with a specific example of the potential (1). However, notice that the following discussion is independent of the structure of the underlying model; once the potential (3) is given, the following results all hold.

If the $`\varphi `$ field is displaced from the minimum in the early universe, it rolls towards the minimum of the potential. When $`t_{}^<\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^1`$, the scalar field $`\varphi `$ obeys the following equation of motion:

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}=0,`$ (7)
where the “dot” is the derivative with respect to time $`t`$ while $`V^{}dV/d\varphi `$. Here, $`H`$ is the expansion rate $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ with $`a`$ being the scale factor.

When the displacement of $`\varphi `$ from the minimum is larger than $`M_{}`$, slow-roll conditions, $`ϵ1`$ and $`\eta 1`$, are satisfied, where

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}V^{}}{V}}\right)^2,\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^2V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}.`$ (8)
Then, the energy density of the universe is dominated by the potential energy of the inflaton field, and the universe is in the de Sitter phase. In this case, $`\ddot{a}>0`$ and the comoving scale grows faster than the horizon.

When $`\varphi `$ becomes less than the Planck scale, the slow-roll conditions do not hold. Then, $`\ddot{a}`$ becomes negative and the inflation ends. This happens when

$`\dot{\varphi }^2=V.`$ (9)
After this epoch, the scalar field starts to oscillate and the amplitude of the oscillation decreases. Eventually, the amplitude becomes so small that the scalar potential is well-approximated as $`V\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2`$. Then the energy density of $`\varphi `$ is proportional to $`a^3`$ (as far as the decay process is neglected). In this period, we can solve the Boltzmann equation for the energy density of $`\varphi `$ instead of following the motion of $`\varphi `$, since the change of the energy density $`\rho _\varphi `$ during the time scale $`m_\varphi ^1`$ becomes very small:

$`\dot{\rho }_\varphi +3H\rho _\varphi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi \rho _\varphi .`$ (10)
In addition, the radiation energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}`$ obeys

$`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{rad}}+4H\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi \rho _\varphi .`$ (11)
When $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^1`$, the inflaton decays. Then the energy density of $`\varphi `$ is converted to that of the radiation and the universe is reheated. The reheating temperature is approximately given by $`T_\mathrm{R}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi M_{}}`$.

We follow the evolution of the inflaton field numerically. Before showing the numerical results, however, it is instructive to discuss the qualitative behavior of the result with some approximation. To make the situation clear, we consider the case where the initial value of the inflaton to be $`0<\varphi <\sqrt{2}\pi f_\varphi `$, although the results do not depend on this assumption. Solving Eq. (9) with the slow-roll approximation, we obtain the amplitude at the end of the inflation as

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}2\sqrt{2}f_\varphi \mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{\sqrt{6}f_\varphi }}\right).`$ (12)
When $`\varphi >\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}`$, $`\ddot{a}>0`$ and the universe inflates. The $`e`$-folding number during the inflation is estimated as

$`N_e(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{2f_\varphi ^2}{M_{}^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}/2\sqrt{2}f_\varphi )}{\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2\sqrt{2}f_\varphi )}}\right].`$ (13)
The scale of the COBE observation ($`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}7.5a_0H_0`$  with $`H_0100h\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{sec}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and $`a_0`$ being the present expansion rate and the scale factor, respectively) exits the horizon when $`N_e5060`$. From Eqs. (12) and (13), it is clear that, when $`f_\varphi M_{}`$, our horizon scale is affected only by the inflaton dynamics with $`\varphi f_\varphi `$. In this case, in particular, the inflaton amplitude for the COBE scale $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ becomes much smaller than $`f_\varphi `$. Then, we can approximate the inflaton potential as $`V\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2`$, and all the predictions are the same as those from the chaotic inflation model with a parabolic potential with mass parameter $`m_\varphi `$. If $`f_\varphi O(M_{})`$, on the contrary, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}O(f_\varphi )`$ and $`V(\varphi )`$ cannot be approximated as above. In this case, we may observe some peculiar signal due to the natural inflation potential (3).

Quantum fluctuation of $`\varphi `$ during the inflation becomes the origin of the density fluctuation. At the time of the horizon exit, the power spectrum of the curvature perturbation is given by

$`𝒫^{1/2}(k)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{2\pi |\dot{\varphi }|}}\right]_{k=aH}.`$ (14)
$`𝒫(k)`$ is often approximated using the power index $`n_\mathrm{S}`$; denoting the curvature perturbation around $`k\overline{k}`$ as $`𝒫(k)𝒫(\overline{k})\times (k/\overline{k})^{n_\mathrm{S}(\overline{k})}`$, the index is given by

$`n_\mathrm{S}(k)=16ϵ(k)+2\eta (k)1{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^2}{2f_\varphi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2\sqrt{2}f_\varphi )}{1\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2\sqrt{2}f_\varphi )}}\right]_{k=aH}.`$ (15)
Thus, the spectrum deviates from the scale-invariant one if $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}O(f_\varphi )`$, which is realized when $`f_\varphi O(M_{})`$. Importantly, the spectrum index becomes smaller than 1, and the fluctuation for smaller scale is more suppressed compared to the case of the scale-invariant power spectrum.

Now, we show the results of our numerical calculation. In our calculation, we first follow the evolution of the inflaton. From the period of the inflation to the time when $`V(\varphi )`$ is well approximated by the parabolic potential, Eq. (7) is solved. After that period, we follow Eqs. (10) and (11) until the inflaton decays. Once the radiation-dominated universe is realized, we use the simple scaling law (i.e., $`a^3s=\mathrm{const}.`$, with $`s`$ being the entropy density) to obtain the normalization of the comoving momentum $`k`$ .

Following the evolution of the inflaton field during the inflation, we also calculate the curvature perturbation $`𝒫`$ as a function of the comoving momentum $`k`$ as well as the spectrum index $`n_\mathrm{S}`$. We compared $`𝒫(k)`$ from our numerical calculation with that with the power-law approximation $`𝒫^{(\mathrm{approx})}(k)=(k/k_{\mathrm{COBE}})^{n_\mathrm{S}(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})}𝒫(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})`$, and found that the power-law approximation is in a good agreement with the numerical result.

The temperature fluctuation observed by COBE sets a constraint on the primordial curvature perturbation $`𝒫(k)`$. In order to discuss the perturbation for the COBE scale, it is convenient to use the parameter $`\delta _H`$, density perturbation at the time of the reentry to the horizon. For the matter dominated era (with sizable contribution from the cosmological constant), $`\delta _H`$ is given by

$`\delta _H(k)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{g(\mathrm{\Omega }_0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}}𝒫^{1/2}(k),`$ (16)
where the above expression is for the flat universe, and

$`g(\mathrm{\Omega }_0)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{70}}+{\displaystyle \frac{209\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{140}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}{140}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{4/7}\right)^1.`$ (17)
$`\delta _H`$ becomes the source of the temperature perturbation and is constrained so that the COBE observations  are reproduced

$`|\delta _H(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})|`$ $`=`$ $`(1.94\pm 0.15)\times 10^5`$ (18)
$`\times \mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.7850.05\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\mathrm{exp}\left[0.95(n_\mathrm{S}1)0.169(n_\mathrm{S}1)^2\right].`$
This constrains the $`f_\varphi `$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane. For large $`f_\varphi `$, as we mentioned, all the physical quantities are determined by the inflaton mass $`m_\varphi `$. In this case, the COBE scale exits the horizon when $`\varphi 15M_{}`$, and $`𝒫^{1/2}(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})7m_\varphi /M_{}`$. Using Eqs. (5), (16), and (18), the best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for large enough $`f_\varphi `$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }8\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}\times (f_\varphi /M_{})^{1/2}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$. When $`f_\varphi `$ becomes small, higher order terms in the potential become more important and the best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes smaller than the above simple expression.

COBE also sets a bound on the spectrum index. The index for the COBE scale is constrained as

$`n_\mathrm{S}(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})=1\pm 0.2.`$ (19)
In Fig. 1, we plot $`n_\mathrm{S}(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})`$ as a function of $`f_\varphi `$. Here, for each $`f_\varphi `$, we used the best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.#3#3#3As indicated in Eq. (15), $`n_\mathrm{S}(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})`$ is insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for fixed value of $`f_\varphi `$. We numerically checked the validity of this statement. Using the constraint (19), we can see that the natural inflation with $`f_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{<}3.8\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is inconsistent with the COBE observation.

Now, we are at a point to discuss the CMBR anisotropy for the $`l`$-th multipole $`C_l`$, which is defined as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{\gamma })\mathrm{\Delta }T(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{\gamma }^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(2l+1)C_lP_l(\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{\gamma }^{}),`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{\gamma })`$ is the temperature fluctuation of the CMBR pointing to the direction $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, and the average is over the position $`\stackrel{}{x}`$. Theoretically, $`C_l`$ is calculated once the transfer function $`T_l(k)`$ is known:

$`C_l{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{l(l+1)}}\stackrel{~}{C}_l={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2l+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}T_l^2(k)𝒫(k)}.`$ (21)
We used the CMBfast package  to calculate the transfer function and obtained $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ using the curvature perturbation $`𝒫`$ from the numerical calculation. The cosmological parameters used in our calculations are listed in Table 1. In particular, suggested from the recent studies of the cosmological constant , we consider a model of flat universe with non-vanishing cosmological constant.

In Fig. 2, we plot $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ for several values of $`f_\varphi `$ with the best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the COBE-scale normalization. With such a choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ for smaller $`l`$ is almost independent of $`f_\varphi `$. For larger $`l`$, however, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ is more suppressed for smaller $`f_\varphi `$. This is because the curvature perturbation for smaller $`f_\varphi `$ has a smaller index parameter $`n_\mathrm{S}`$. Notice that, with the best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the COBE-scale normalization, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ becomes almost independent of $`f_\varphi `$ for $`f_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Using the observations of the CMBR anisotropy by COBE, BOOMERANG and MAXIMA, we can constrain the fundamental parameters $`f_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For this purpose, we calculate $`\chi ^2`$ as#4#4#4In our calculation of $`\chi ^2`$, we do not take account of the correlations among data points. Using the correlation matrices given by BOOMERANG and MAXIMA, we derived a constraint on the $`f_\varphi `$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane, and checked that the changes of the upper and lower bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for fixed $`f_\varphi `$ are less than a few %. We also neglect the calibration uncertainties of the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA data sets (20 % for BOOMERANG and 8 % for MAXIMA, 1-$`\sigma `$ in $`C_l`$ ). We found that the inclusion of the calibration uncertainties may change the upper and lower bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by a few %.

$`\chi ^2(f_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{obs}}\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{th}}(f_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })]^2}{\sigma _{l,\mathrm{obs}}^2+\sigma _{l,\mathrm{th}}^2(f_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })}}.`$ (22)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the observational data from COBE, BOOMERANG and MAXIMA for the $`l`$-th multipole and $`\sigma _{l,\mathrm{obs}}`$ is its error. The sum is over $`l`$ available from the three experiments. The data used in our analysis are listed in Table 2. In addition, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{th}}(f_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the theoretical prediction to the $`l`$-th multipole as a function of the fundamental parameters $`f_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Furthermore, we take account of the uncertainties in the cosmological parameters $`h`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. We varied these cosmological parameters within the 1-$`\sigma `$ error and calculated the variations in $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{\mathrm{th}}(f_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. We identified them as systematic errors and added them in quadrature to evaluate $`\sigma _{l,\mathrm{th}}^2`$.

In Fig. 3, we show the constraint on the $`f_\varphi `$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane. We shaded the region with $`\chi ^243`$ (which corresponds to 95 % C.L. allowed region for the $`\chi ^2`$-statistics with 29 degrees of freedom). For a fixed $`f_\varphi `$, we obtain upper and lower bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. With $`f_\varphi `$ being fixed, the primordial curvature perturbation is an increasing function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is required to have a relevant value to explain the observed size of the multipoles. Notice that, for large enough $`f_\varphi `$, the upper and lower bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are proportional to $`f_\varphi ^{1/2}`$. This is because the observable quantities depend only on $`m_\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\sqrt{2}f_\varphi `$ in this region.

Now, let us comment on the case with $`f_\varphi M_{}`$. In this case, the index $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ becomes close to 1 and the theoretical predictions on $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ for $`l_{}^>400`$ become larger than the observed ones. However, the asymptotic value of $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ for $`f_\varphi M_{}`$ is 0.96, not exactly equal to 1. Thus, the constraints from the multipoles around the second peak is not as severe as those for models with the scale-invariant Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum. In addition, since we used all the data points to evaluate $`\chi ^2`$ and required $`\chi ^243`$, the discrepancies for $`l_{}^>400`$ are not statistically significant enough to exclude the parameter region with $`f_\varphi M_{}`$. Thus, in Fig. 3, no upper bound on $`f_\varphi `$ is obtained. However, it is interesting to consider the constraint from the second peak. As an example, following Ref. , we identified the highest data points for $`l<400`$ and $`400l600`$ as the heights of the first and second peaks, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{1\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}}`$, respectively. Then, we combined the two data samples from BOOMERANG and MAXIMA to obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}}/\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{1\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}}=0.38\pm 0.06.`$ (23)
Requiring $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}}/\stackrel{~}{C}_l^{1\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}}0.50`$, we obtain $`f_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{<}7\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the future, more accurate measurements of the CMBR anisotropy will be able to check the validity of this upper bound.

Another independent constraint is available from the cluster abundance. In Fig. 3, we plotted the contours of the constant $`\sigma _8`$, where $`\sigma _8`$ is the amplitude of mass density fluctuations on the scale of $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The observed value of $`\sigma _8`$ is given by $`\sigma _8=(0.56\pm 0.06)\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.47}`$ .#5#5#5Constraint on $`\sigma _8`$ is insensitive to the index parameter $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ , and we neglect its dependence on $`n_\mathrm{S}`$. As one can see, in case without reionization, $`\sigma _8`$ is consistent with the above-mentioned value in the parameter region preferred by the CMBR anisotropy.

So far, we have not discussed the effect of the reionization after the recombination. Its effect is well parameterized by the following two parameters: the optical depth $`\tau `$ and the red shift $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ at the time of the reionization . Due to the reionization, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$’s with $`lz_{\mathrm{ion}}^{1/2}`$ are suppressed by the factor $`e^{2\tau }`$ while those with small $`l`$ are unchanged. We calculated $`\chi ^2`$ with the reionization with $`\tau =0.2`$ and $`0.4`$. For a fixed value of $`\tau `$, we took several values of $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ of $`O(10)`$, and checked that $`\chi ^2`$ is almost independent of $`z_{\mathrm{ion}}`$. The results are shown in Fig. 3. Since the reionization effect reduces $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$, larger value of the primordial perturbation is needed to obtain the CMBR anisotropy consistent with the observations. Thus, the preferred value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes larger as $`\tau `$ increases, as shown in Fig. 3. In addition, when $`\tau =0`$ and $`n_\mathrm{S}=1`$, theoretical prediction for $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ with $`l_{}^>400`$ becomes larger than observations if we adopt the primordial curvature perturbation suggested by COBE. In this case, CMBR anisotropy prefers a index $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ smaller than 1. However, if the reionozatoin effect is sufficient, it suppresses $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ with large $`l`$ and $`n_\mathrm{S}<1`$ makes the fit worse. Thus, for large $`\tau `$, parameter region with small $`f_\varphi `$, where $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ becomes significantly smaller than 1, is excluded. In addition, consistency with the constraint from the cluster abundance becomes worse for larger $`\tau `$, as shown in Fig. 3.

Finally, we briefly discuss possible improvement of the constraints with future observations. With MAP  and PLANCK  experiments, much better observations of the CMBR anisotropy will be obtained. It has been pointed out that MAP and PLANCK will determine the index $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ with $`O(1\%)`$ accuracy . In the natural inflation model, $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ is sensitive to $`f_\varphi `$. For example, $`5.2\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}f_\varphi 5.7\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ gives $`0.89n_\mathrm{S}0.91`$. In addition, $`C_l`$ itself will be determined much more accurately, and hence the theoretical prediction on the CMBR anisotropy will be more directly compared with the observation. Thus MAP and PLANCK will provide much better constraint on the natural inflation model than the present one.

Acknowledgment: One of the authors (TM) would like to thank T. Asaka and Y. Nomura for useful conversations. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan (No. 12047201).


text:
# Complex resonance absorption structure in the X-ray spectrum of IRAS~13349+2438Based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA).

## 1 Introduction

IRAS~13349+2438 is an archetypal highly-polarized radio-quiet quasar at a redshift of $`z=0.10764`$ (Kim et al. kim95 (1995)). Since its identification as an infrared-luminous quasar (Beichman et al. beichman86 (1986)), this source has been extensively studied in the optical, infrared, and X-ray bands. In a detailed investigation of the optical and infrared spectra and polarization measurements, Wills et al. (wills92 (1992)) demonstrated that the nuclear spectrum exhibits two distinct components; a highly-reddened component and a highly-polarized component that suffers much lower extinction. Based on these observational facts, Wills (wills92 (1992)) constructed a simple and elegant picture of the nuclear region of IRAS~13349+2438 in which the direct AGN radiation is attenutated by a thick dusty torus, while the observed highly-polarized light is produced by scattering in an extended bipolar region, either by warm electrons or by small dust grains.

IRAS~13349+2438 was detected in the ROSAT All-Sky-Survey (Walter & Fink walter93 (1993); Brinkmann & Siebert brinkmann94 (1994)), and has been the target of extensive pointed PSPC observations with ROSAT (Brandt, Fabian, & Pounds brandt96 (1996)), and with ASCA (Brinkmann et al. brinkmann96 (1996); Brandt et al. brandt97 (1997)). The soft X-ray spectrum obtained with the PSPC shows a lack of absorption by cold material indicated by the observed optical reddening, and suggests the presence of a warm, dusty medium along the line of sight (Brandt, Fabian, & Pounds brandt96 (1996)).

In a more recent investigation of the complex X-ray properties of IRAS~13349+2438, Siebert, Komossa, & Brinkmann (siebert99 (1999)) self-consistently accounted for the effects of dust embedded in the warm absorbing medium, and concluded that single zone models, both with and without internal dust, do not provide adequate fits to the combined, ROSAT, ASCA, and optical data sets. In particular, they find that a dust-free warm absorber model formally gives the best fit to the X-ray data, and conclude that the X-ray absorption and optical reddening must arise in spatially distinct regions. However, owing to the moderate spectral-resolving-power capabilities of the available detectors on ROSAT and ASCA, and the likely cross-calibration uncertainties, the precise nature of the soft X-ray spectrum has remained controversial.

In this Letter, we present results from the first high-resolution X-ray observation of IRAS~13349+2438 with the XMM-Newton Observatory. The spectrum obtained with the Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) shows a wealth of discrete spectral features, including the first astrophysical detection of inner-shell $`2p3d`$ absorption by M-shell iron ions in the form of an unresolved transition array (UTA). From a detailed analysis of the rich absorption spectrum, we measure the column density and velocity field of the line-of-sight material. We show that the spectrum contains absorption features from regions with two distinct levels of ionization. The column density of the lower ionization component is consistent with the observed optical reddening, and we tentatively associate this component with the dusty torus.

## 2 Observation and Data Reduction

IRAS~13349+2438 was observed with the XMM-Newton observatory (Jansen et al. jansen01 (2001)) on 19 – 20 June, 2000 during the Performance Verification phase for a total exposure time of 42 ks. The data obtained with the Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS; den Herder et al. denherder01 (2001)) were filtered through standard event-selection criteria using the XMM-Newton Science Analysis Software (SAS). The source spectrum was extracted using a spatial filter in dispersion/cross-dispersion coordinates to isolate IRAS~13349+2438 from other possible contaminating sources and to reduce contribution from background events. Subsequently, the first order events were selected by applying a dispersion/pulse-height filter. The background spectrum was generated using all of the events that lie outside the spatial mask. Wavelengths were then assigned to the dispersion coordinates. The current wavelength scale is accurate to within $`8`$ mÅ across the entire RGS band of $`\lambda =535`$ Å ($`E=0.352.5`$ keV).

The European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC; Turner et al. turner01 (2001); Stüder et al. struder01 (2001)) MOS1 data were also processed with the SAS. The MOS2 detector was operated in FAST UNCOMP mode, for which reduction by the SAS is not possible as yet. Source events were extracted using a circular region of radius 45″. A nearby source-free region with a radius of 3′ was used to assess the background.

Three modes of the Optical Monitor (OM; Mason et al. mason01 (2000)) were used during the observation. The V grism (or optical grism; exposure time 3000 s), UV grism (exposure time 1000 s), and the UVW2 filter ($`15003000`$ Å; effective exposure time 6340 s). There is no significant variability in the UVW2 observations. Absolute flux calibrations for the grism data were not available at the time of writing. The optical spectrum shows clear evidence of H$`\beta `$ emission but the signal-to-noise is insufficient to determine the presence of any other emission lines (within an observer frame wavelength range of $`30006000`$ Å). The UV spectrum (coverage $`20003500`$ Å) is too weak for spectral extraction.

## 3 Results of Spectral Fitting

### 3.1 Underlying Continuum Radiation

To first obtain a rough characterization of the shape of the continuum, we use the PN spectrum, which has the highest statistical quality and covers a broad range in energy. During the observation, the source exhibited a gradual and steady increase in brightness by $`30`$%, but with no noticable change in the spectral shape. We, therefore, use the cumulative spectrum for all of our subsequent analyses. The $`0.210`$ keV spectral region can be well-fitted with a phenomenological model that consists of a powerlaw and two black body components absorbed through a Galactic column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{gal}}=1.1\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Murphy et al. murphy96 (1996)). The PN data require two black body components with temperatures of $`kT70`$ eV and $`12`$ eV. The best-fit powerlaw photon index of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2.2`$ is consistent with the value implied by the ASCA data (Brinkmann et al. brinkmann96 (1996); Brandt et al. brandt97 (1997)).

The MOS1 data from $`0.3`$ to $`10`$ keV, excluding the $`0.61.2`$ keV region where the RGS shows complex absorption features, were best-fit using a single blackbody plus power-law (a $`\chi _r^2`$ of 1.59 for 199 degrees of freedom), which is generally consistent with the PN data. The blackbody temperature is $`kT110`$ eV. The best-fit photon index is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.1`$ with a column density of $`1.4\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which is only slightly higher than the Galactic value.

### 3.2 The Absorption Spectrum of IRAS~13349+2438

The RGS spectrum shown in Figure 1 exhibits numerous absorption lines from a wide range in levels of ionization. The most prominent features in the spectrum are K-shell absorption lines of H- and He-like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon, and L-shell lines of Fe xvii – xx. The spectrum also shows a broad absorption feature between $`\lambda 1617`$ Å ($`E730770`$ eV). The observed location of the red “edge” of this feature is at $`\lambda =17.10\pm 0.05`$ Å in the rest-frame of the quasar, and is close but undoubtedly inconsistent with that of the O vii photoelectric edge ($`\lambda =16.78`$ Å). The shape of the absorption trough towards the shorter wavelengths is also incompatible with that of a photoelectric edge. We identify this feature as a UTA of inner-shell $`2p3d`$ resonance absorption lines in relatively cool, M-shell iron. The shape of this feature is strikingly similar to laboratory absorption measurements of a heated iron foil (Chenais-Popovics et al. chenais00 (2000)), and also agrees well with our own calculations as described below.

We adopt a continuum model similar to that inferred from the PN data; i.e., the sum of a powerlaw and a blackbody component, the latter merely in order to parametrize empirically the soft X-ray spectral shape. We also fix the powerlaw photon index to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.2`$ and the column density of cold material to the Galactic value. With the continuum model defined, we then apply absorption components of H- and He-like C, N, O, and Ne, and Fe xvii – xxiv. Each ion is treated as a separate component in the spectral fit and contains all relevant resonance transtions from the ground-state and photoelectric edges in the RGS band. The line profiles are calculated accounting for thermal and turbulent velocity broadening. Transition wavelengths and oscillator strengths were calculated with the atomic physics package HULLAC (Bar-Shalom et al. barshalom98 (1998)), except for the wavelengths of the strong Fe L resonance lines where we use laboratory measurement values described in Brown et al. (brown00 (2000)). We use photoionization cross sections from Verner et al. (verner96 (1996)). For the iron UTA absorption, photoexcitation cross sections from L-shell to M-shell in Fe v – xvi are computed. All of the transitions $`2l^8`$ $`3l^x`$ \- $`2l^7`$ $`3l^{x+1}`$ ($`x`$ = 1 through 12) are taken into account, of which the $`2p3d`$ excitations are the most important. For the atomic structure, the most significant configuration mixings, which conserve the total angular momentum within the $`n=3`$ shell (namely $`3p^2+3s3d`$), are included. This approximation is expected to be adequate for analysing the presently observed unresolved absorption feature. A more detailed discussion of the UTA is presented in Behar, Sako, & Kahn (behar01 (2000)).

Each component is then convolved through the instrument line spread function and fit for the ion column density simultaneously with the black body continuum parameters and the normalization of the powerlaw component. The best-fit black body temperature is $`kT100`$ eV with a flux in the $`535`$ Å range of $`4.0\times 10^3\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The flux in the powerlaw component is $`2.4\times 10^3\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the same wavelength range.

The observed widths of the absorption lines, as shown below, are much larger than both the instrument line spread function and the thermal broadening of a gas with $`kT10\mathrm{eV}`$, which is the expected temperature for a photoionized plasma at this level of ionization. With the current statistical quality of the RGS data, however, we are not able to constrain the turbulent velocities $`v_{\mathrm{turb}}`$ of the individual ion components. We, therefore, assume a uniform mean turbulent velocity field, keeping in mind that each ion can, in principle, exist in regions of different turbulent velocities. The derived ion column densities, therefore, may be uncertain to some degree, as quantified in the following section.

We obtain a statistically acceptable fit to the RGS data with $`\chi _r^2=1.07`$ for 532 degrees of freedom. The continuum parameters inferred from the RGS data are also consistent with those derived from PN and MOS. The intrinsic isotropic luminosities in the 0.3 – 2 keV and 2 – 10 keV regions are $`L_X2\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`5\times 10^{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (assuming $`H_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and $`q_0=0.5`$), respectively, which are lower than both the ROSAT PSPC and ASCA values by a factor of $`5`$. The measured ion column densities are listed in Table 1. To illustrate the statistical significance of the various components, we also list the changes in $`\chi ^2`$ when each of the components is removed from the model. The best-fit $`FWHM`$ turbulent velocity is $`v_{\mathrm{turb}}=1430_{280}^{+360}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which is much larger than the thermal velocity of a photoionized medium. We also find weak evidence of an average bulk outflow velocity shift with $`v_{\mathrm{shift}}=+200_{180}^{+170}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, where positive velocity denotes a blueshift.

## 4 Implications of the Results of Spectral Fitting

For the measured ion column densities listed in Table 1, many of the strong absorption lines of neon and iron L ions are in the logarithmic region of the curves of growth, which indicates that the derived column densities are highly coupled with the assumed turbulent velocity. Those of K-shell carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, and iron M-shell ions, however, are in the linear regime, and the derived column densities are not very sensitive to the turbulent velocity. An important point to note is that the observed velocity widths may as well be due to a superposition of multiple, discrete absorption components each of which are optically thin, and are unresolved with the RGS. Such features have been observed in UV absorption line spectra of many Seyfert 1 galaxies (Crenshaw et al. crenshaw99 (1999), and references therein), some of which show as many as 7 distinct, kinematic components (e.g., Mrk 509; Kriss et al. kriss00 (2000)). If this is the case, the measured column densities from the neon and iron L lines, which are produced in the logarithmic region of the curve of growth, may be underestimated relative to the true value. The column densities of the He-like species, as well as those of the UTA, are not affected by this, since the total observed values are still in the optically thin regime.

As shown in Table 1, the detections of absorption lines from Fe vii – xii and Fe xvii – xx are highly significant. The column densities of the intermediate charge states of Fe xiii – xvi, however, are consistent with zero, with an upper limit of $`N_i\mathrm{few}\times 10^{15}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for each of these charge states. This indicates that the line-of-sight material consists of either a multi-phase gas in a single medium, or two (or more) spatially distinct regions. Motivated by this observational fact, we refit the spectrum using the same model, except, we assume that the line-of-sight material consists of two discrete velocity components; (1) the low-ionization-parameter component including C vi, C v, N vi, O vii, and the M-shell Fe, and (2) the high-ionization-parameter component including N vii, O viii, Ne ix, Ne x, and L-shell Fe. Contrary to our previous fit where the bulk velocities of all the ions were fixed relative to one another, we find that the low-ionization-parameter component is significantly blue-shifted with $`v_{\mathrm{shift},\mathrm{low}}=+420_{180}^{+190}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, while the bulk velocity shift in the high-ionization component is consistent with zero ($`v_{\mathrm{shift},\mathrm{high}}=20_{330}^{+200}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). This implies that the low-ionization gas is being accelerated substantially compared to the high-ionization component, as would be expected in a radiatively-driven outflow (Arav & Li arav94 (1994)). The derived turbulent velocities of both components remain consistent with that of our previous fit ($`v_{\mathrm{turb}}1500\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ $`FWHM`$).

From the observed distribution of charge states of M-shell iron, the average ionization parameter, $`\xi =L/nr^2`$ ($`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1`$), of the absorbing gas is estimated to be $`\mathrm{log}\xi 0`$ based on a calculation with the photoionization code XSTAR (Kallman & Krolik kallman95 (1995)) using the inferred continuum shape for the ionizing spectrum. The width of the distribution in ionization parameter is no larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\xi 1`$. The measured iron ion column densities suggest that the corresponding equivalent hydrogen column density is $`N_\mathrm{H}(13)\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ assuming a solar iron abundance. This low-$`\xi `$ gas accounts for most of the carbon and He-like nitrogen and oxygen absorption lines as well, however, with some indication of lower carbon and nitrogen abundances by a factor of $`2`$ and oxygen by a factor of $`3`$ relative to the solar iron abundance. The lack of absorption from Fe xiii – xvi, however, indicates that substantial amounts of material with ionization parameters in the range $`1\mathrm{log}\xi 2`$ are not present along the line-of-sight. Whether this is related to the global structure of the circumnuclear medium or a mere coincidence from a superposition of physically distinct regions is not known.

The absorption lines from H-like nitrogen and oxygen, H- and He-like neon, and L-shell iron are produced in a medium with $`2.0\mathrm{log}\xi 2.5`$ and an equivalent hydrogen column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}(14)\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, again, assuming a solar iron abundance. The inferred abundances of nitrogen, oxygen, and neon relative to that of iron are consistent with solar values, but are not well-constrained.

For a normal dust-to-gas ratio, the observed reddening of $`E(BV)=0.3`$ in IRAS~13349+2438 (Wills et al. wills92 (1992)) corresponds to a hydrogen column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}=1.7\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Burstein & Heiles burstein78 (1978)). This value is significantly lower than the total amount of X-ray absorbing material (low-$`\xi `$ \+ high-$`\xi `$) observed in the present X-ray spectrum. Coincidentally, however, the derived column density of the low-$`\xi `$ component is very close to that of the optical reddening, although, we cannot conclusively associate the low-$`\xi `$ X-ray absorber with the dusty torus. The column density of the high-$`\xi `$ component, on the other hand, is a factor of $`10`$ higher.

An interesting point to note is that the $`1\mathrm{log}\xi 2`$ region is not thermally unstable, based on XSTAR calculations described above. On the other hand, the high-$`\xi `$ region ($`2.0\mathrm{log}\xi 2.5`$) that we observe in the spectrum is thermally unstable. However, complications such as non-solar metal abundances and/or inaccurate ionization and recombination rates may alter the shape of the thermal stability curve significantly, and, hence, the temperature ranges of the unstable regions (Hess, Kahn, & Paerels hess97 (1997); Savin et al. savin99 (1999)).

For the observed X-ray luminosity of $`L_X2.5\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, the high-$`\xi `$ component with $`\mathrm{log}\xi 2.0`$ provides the constraint, $`n_er^22.5\times 10^{42}\mathrm{cm}^1`$. The measured column density through this medium is $`N_Hn_e\mathrm{\Delta }r10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is the radial thickness. Assuming that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r/r<1`$, these constraints combined provide an upper limit in the location of the high-$`\xi `$ gas of $`r_{\mathrm{high}\xi }<2.5\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}80\mathrm{pc}`$, which is representative of a typical narrow-line region. The correponding gas density in this region is $`n_e40\mathrm{cm}^3`$ with an estimated thickness of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r80\mathrm{pc}\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{high}\xi }`$. A similar calculation for the low-$`\xi `$ component does not provide a useful constraint with $`r_{\mathrm{low}\xi }<10^{23}\mathrm{cm}3\mathrm{kpc}`$, and, therefore, the location of the low-$`\xi `$ component is not well-determined compared to that of the high-$`\xi `$ component. If the low-$`\xi `$ component lies beyond the high-$`\xi `$ component relative to the central continuum source, the difference in the measured bulk velocity shifts of the two components might indicate that the high-$`\xi `$ gas is the base of an accelerating outflow. If, on the other hand, the low-$`\xi `$ absorber is indeed spatially coincident with the torus, in which case $`r_{\mathrm{low}\xi }`$ is likely to be approximately the location of the broad-line region ($`r_{\mathrm{low}\xi }r_{\mathrm{BLR}}1\mathrm{pc}`$), the medium is decelerating as a function of radius. Such a behavior has been observed in the UV spectrum of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 4151 (Crenshaw et al. crenshaw00 (2000)).

As briefly mentioned earlier, the source during the present XMM-Newton observation was in an unusually low state. However, since the estimated location and density of the absorbing medium are such that the gas does not respond immediately to the observed continuum radiation (i.e., low density gas at large distances), the effect on the physical state of the absorbing medium by a variable illuminating source is not clear. It will be useful to re-observe IRAS~13349+2438 during a substantially brighter state to see whether the spectrum exhibits any dramatic changes in the absorption structures, and specifically if the oxygen absorption edges detected in the ROSAT and ASCA data (Brandt, Fabian, & Pounds brandt96 (1996); Brandt et al. brandt97 (1997)) are really present during a different state. A detailed comparison of the UV and X-ray absorption spectra will also be interesting, particularly for identifying discrete kinematic components, as well as for constraining the global characteristics and dynamics of the absorbing medium.

## 5 Comparisons with Other AGNs

The absorption spectrum of IRAS~13349+2438 is qualitatively similar to those obtained with the Chandra transmission grating observations of the Seyfert 1 galaxies NGC 5548 and NGC 3783, which show narrow absorption lines blue-shifted by several hundred km s<sup>-1</sup>. (Kaastra et al. kaastra00 (2000); Kaspi et al. kaspi00 (2000)). The derived ion column densities in these sources, as well as in IRAS~13349+2438, are in the range $`N_i10^{16}10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and are not high enough to produce observable absorption edges.

Conceptually, the low-ionization component observed in IRAS~13349+2438 is similar to the “lukewarm absorber” that explains both the observed optical and X-ray attenuation in NGC 3227 (Kraemer et al. kraemer00 (2000)). The spectroscopic signatures, however, are very different. In particular, for the column densities derived from the IRAS~13349+2438 data, the absorption features are dominated by discrete resonance line transitions, mainly in He-like ions and M-shell iron, and not by photoelectric edges as in the model of Kraemer et al. (kraemer00 (2000)).

As demonstrated in our detailed spectral analysis of IRAS~13349+2438, the UTA feature is potentially a powerful diagnostic tool for probing cool absorbing material using high-resolution X-ray observations. If the low-ionization component is indeed associated with the dusty torus as the derived column density suggests, this feature should be detectable in other AGNs where the line-of-sight is partially obscured by the torus.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the referees Niel Brandt and Sarah Gallagher for constructive comments that helped improve the quality of the manuscript. The Columbia University team is supported by NASA. The Laboratory for Space Research Utrecht is supported financially by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Work at LLNL was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For more than a decade the success of quantum hadrodynamics  has been rather impressive in describing the bulk properties of nuclear matter as well as the properties of finite nuclei. The model is rather simple with only a few parameters, and yet it has been successfully applied to a great number of problems for nuclear matter and nuclear structure. In this model the relevant degrees of freedom are nucleons and mesons, but the nucleons having a composite structure are treated as Dirac particles. Several years ago a model to remedy this problem was proposed by Guichon . He proposed a quark-meson coupling (QMC) model, in which quarks and mesons are explicitly dealt with. The model describes nuclear matter as non-overlapping, static, spherical MIT bags  interacting through the self-consistent exchange of scalar ($`\sigma `$) and vector ($`\omega `$) mesons in the mean-field approximation. Using this model, he investigated the direct quark degrees of freedom in nuclear matter. The model was refined later to include the nucleon Fermi motion and the center-of-mass corrections to the bag energy  and was applied to a variety of problems \[6-10\].

In the MIT bag model  the bag constant $`B`$ and a phenomenological parameter $`Z`$ are fixed such that the nucleon mass of 939 MeV is reproduced for some bag radius $`R`$. The bag constant $`B`$ produces the pressure to make a bubble in the QCD vacuum. $`Z`$ is to account for various corrections including the zero-point motion. In the QMC model for nuclear matter the quark-$`\sigma `$ coupling constant ($`g_\sigma ^q`$) and the quark-$`\omega `$ coupling constant ($`g_\omega ^q`$) are additionally introduced. Usually, $`B`$ and $`Z`$ are fixed first so that the mass of the free MIT bag becomes equivalent to the nucleon mass of 939 MeV for a certain bag radius. We denote by $`B^{free}`$ and $`Z^{free}`$, respectively, the bag constant $`B`$ and the parameter $`Z`$ for the free MIT bag. $`B^{free}`$ and $`Z^{free}`$ thus obtained are used in the QMC model calculations, and then $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ are determined to reproduce the binding energy per nucleon (B.E. = $``$16 MeV) at the saturation density ($`\rho _N^0=`$ 0.17 fm<sup>-3</sup>).

However, due to the interaction between the quarks and the $`\sigma `$\- and the $`\omega `$-mesons the mass of a single dressed MIT bag in free space, when calculated with $`B^{free}`$ and $`Z^{free}`$ described above, may be different from the nucleon mass of 939 MeV. Such a possible deviation of the mass of a dressed bag from the value of 939 MeV has been neglected in previous QMC model calculations for nuclear matter. If the deviation in mass is significant, it is necessary to modify the parameters $`B^{free}`$ and $`Z^{free}`$ before implementing them in the nuclear matter calculations. In this paper we investigate this change in the nucleon mass. In Section 2 the QMC model for a nucleon is described. Some numerical results are presented in Section 3. Section 4 contains a summary.

## 2 Quark-meson coupling model for a nucleon

The Lagrangian density for the MIT bag in which quark fields $`\psi `$ are coupled to the $`\sigma `$\- and $`\omega `$\- fields may be written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi (_\mu \overline{\psi })\gamma ^\mu \psi \right)\overline{\psi }\left(g_\omega ^q\gamma _\mu \omega ^\mu +(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma )\right)\psi B(\sigma )\right]\theta _v`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }\psi \mathrm{\Delta }_s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(_\mu \sigma )(^\mu \sigma )m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2\right],`$
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu `$, $`\theta _v`$ is the step function for confining the quarks inside the bag, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is the $`\delta `$-function at the bag surface. Here, we assume the density-dependent bag constant introduced in Ref.  and express the bag constant $`B(\sigma )`$ as

$$\frac{B}{B_0}=\left[1g_\sigma ^B\frac{4}{\delta }\frac{\sigma }{M_N^0}\right]^\delta $$
(2)
with $`M_N^0=939`$ MeV. We will neglect the isospin breaking and take $`m_q=(m_u+m_d)/2`$ hereafter. For actual numerical calculations $`m_q`$ will be taken to be zero. The mass of $`\sigma `$ ($`\omega `$) is taken as 550 (783) MeV. From this Lagrangian density the equations of motion for quark fields $`\psi `$, sigma fields $`\sigma `$, and omega fields $`\omega _\mu `$ follow. For $`\psi `$ we have

$$\left[\gamma ^\mu (i_\mu g_\omega ^q\omega _\mu )(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma )\right]\psi \theta _v=\frac{1}{2}(1i\gamma ^\mu n_\mu )\psi \mathrm{\Delta }_s,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s=n(\theta _v)`$ is used. The left hand side of Eq. (3) gives us the equation for the quarks inside the bag, and the right hand side gives us the linear boundary condition at the bag surface. The equations for $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega _\mu `$ are, respectively,

$$_\mu ^\mu \sigma +m_\sigma ^2\sigma =\left[g_\sigma ^q\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{B(\sigma )}{\sigma }\right]\theta _v$$
(4)
and

$$^\nu F_{\nu \mu }+m_\omega ^2\omega _\mu =g_\omega ^q\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi \theta _v.$$
(5)
If we consider only the ground state quarks in the static spherical MIT bag and keep only the time-component of $`\omega _\mu `$, Eq. (3) for $`r<R`$ becomes coupled linear differential equations for $`g(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df(r)}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{r}}+E^{}(r)g(r)\right]`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg(r)}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`E^+(r)f(r),`$ (7)
where $`g(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$ are the radial parts of the upper and the lower components of $`\psi `$, $`i.e.,`$

$$\psi (t,𝐫)=e^{iϵ_qt/R}\left(\begin{array}{c}g(r)\\ i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{𝐫}f(r)\end{array}\right)\frac{\chi _q}{\sqrt{4\pi }},$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the Pauli spin matrix and $`\chi _q`$ is the quark spinor. Also,

$`E^+(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_q}{R}}g_\omega ^q\omega _0(𝐫)+(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma (𝐫))`$
$`E^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_q}{R}}g_\omega ^q\omega _0(𝐫)(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma (𝐫))`$ (9)
with $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ and $`\omega _0(𝐫)`$ being the $`\sigma `$\- and the time component of the $`\omega `$-fields. For the ground state Eqs. (9) are the equations in the radial coordinate $`r`$ only. The linear boundary condition from the right hand side of Eq. (3), when rewritten by using Eq. (8), becomes

$$f\left(\frac{xr}{R}\right)=g\left(\frac{xr}{R}\right)$$
(10)
at the bag surface, $`r=R`$, and determines the eigenvalue $`x`$ of the quarks. $`ϵ_q`$ is then given by $`\sqrt{x^2+(Rm_q)^2}=x`$ for $`m_q=0`$. $`g(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$ are normalized such that the quark density $`\rho _q(=\overline{\psi }\gamma _0\psi )`$ integrated over the bag is the unity. In the static spherical approximation Eqs. (4) and (5) are reduced to

$$(^2m_\sigma ^2)\sigma (𝐫)=\left[\frac{B(\sigma )}{\sigma }g_\sigma ^q(3\rho _s)\right]\theta (Rr)$$
(11)
and

$$(^2m_\omega ^2)\omega _0(𝐫)=g_\omega ^q(3\rho _q)\theta (Rr),$$
(12)
respectively, where $`\rho _s(=\overline{\psi }\psi )`$ is the scalar density and 3 is explicitly multiplied by the densities ($`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _q`$) here to account for the sum over 3 quarks. Equations (11) and (12), which are nothing but the Klein-Gordon equations with source terms, may be readily solved using the Green’s function defined by the equation

$$(^2m_i^2)G_i(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})(i=\sigma ,\omega ).$$
(13)
For the s-wave state $`G_i(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ may be written as

$$G_i(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{m_irr^{}}sinh(m_ir_<)e^{m_ir_>}.$$
(14)
Equations (6), (7), (11), and (12) form a set of coupled equations for $`\psi `$, $`\sigma `$, and $`\omega _0`$, which need to be solved self-consistently.

By solving these equations we can obtain the eigenvalue of the quarks and the energy of the nucleon bag. One way to calculate the energy ($`E_N`$) of the nucleon is computing the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ and using the relation

$$E_N=d^3rT_{00}.$$
(15)
$`T_{00}`$ may be written as

$$T_{00}=\left(\frac{_q}{R}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0\psi +B(\sigma )\right)\theta (Rr)\frac{1}{2}\left((\omega _0)^2+(m_\omega \omega _0)^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left((\sigma )^2+(m_\sigma \sigma )^2\right),$$
(16)
where $`_q`$ is given by

$$\frac{_q}{R}=3\frac{ϵ_q}{R}\frac{Z}{R}=3\frac{x}{R}\frac{Z}{R}$$
(17)
with the sum over 3 quarks taken into account. Correcting for spurious center-of-mass motion in the bag, the mass of the bag at rest is taken to be

$$M_N=\sqrt{E_N^2p_{c.m.}^2},$$
(18)
where $`p_{c.m.}^2=_{k=1}^3p_k^2=3(x/R)^2`$. By calculating $`M_N`$ for each bag radius and minimizing $`M_N`$ with respect to the bag radius $`R`$, we can get the nucleon mass and the bag radius.

## 3 Results

We first present some results of our calculations of the nucleon mass when we take the model parameters from Ref. . There are several sets of parameters used in Ref. . Here we only consider the cases when $`R=0.6`$ fm and $`\delta =8`$. In Fig. 1 $`M_N`$ is plotted as a function of the bag radius $`R`$. The solid curve represents the free MIT bag mass $`M_N^{free}`$ without a coupling of the quarks with the mesons; $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=g_\sigma ^B=0`$. $`B_0^{1/4}`$ and $`Z`$ are taken to be 188.1 MeV and 2.030 , respectively, which produce the minimum of $`M_N^{free}`$ at 939 MeV and $`R=0.6`$ fm. Now we include the couplings between the quarks and the mesons. We take the parameter sets used to plot Fig. 1 of Ref. . When $`g_\sigma ^q=0`$ and $`\delta =8`$, we have $`g_\sigma ^B=8.45`$ and $`g_\omega ^q=3.00`$ from Table 1 of Ref. . $`M_N`$ obtained with these parameters are plotted by the dashed curve in Fig. 1. $`M_N`$ is reduced to 848 MeV with $`R=0.694`$ fm. When $`g_\sigma ^q=1.0`$ and $`\delta =8`$, and thus $`g_\sigma ^B=7.26`$ and $`g_\omega ^q=3.08`$ from Table 1 of Ref. , we get $`M_N`$ as plotted by the dotted curve in Fig. 1 with $`M_N=834`$ MeV at $`R=0.674`$ fm. Let us consider the case when $`g_\sigma ^q=2.0`$ and $`\delta =8`$. Then from Table 1 of Ref.  we have $`g_\sigma ^B=5.65`$ and $`g_\omega ^q=2.85`$. $`M_N`$ obtained with these parameters are plotted by the dash-dotted curve in Fig. 1 with $`M_N=830`$ MeV and $`R=0.659`$ fm. Fig. 1 of Ref.  shows that for these three different sets of parameters the nuclear matter binding energies calculated by the QMC model are the same particularly near the saturation density. However, the present calculations show that the nucleon masses calculated with these parameter sets are considerably different from each other, all being far from $`M_N^{free}=939`$ MeV. The couplings induce large attraction and reduce the nucleon mass by about 100 MeV. Fig. 1 also shows that the attraction is not uniform with respect to the bag radius. There is more attraction at larger bag radii, and as a result the bag radius increases significantly.

Fig. 1 : Nucleon mass $`M_N`$ plotted as a function of the bag radius $`R`$ for different coupling constants, $`g_\sigma ^q`$, $`g_\omega ^q`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B`$. $`B_0^{1/4}=188.1`$ MeV and $`Z`$ = 2.030 are used for all calculations. For the dashed curve, $`g_\sigma ^q=0`$, $`g_\omega ^q=3.00`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B=8.45`$. For the dotted curve, $`g_\sigma ^q=1`$, $`g_\omega ^q=3.08`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B=7.26`$. For the dash-dotted curve, $`g_\sigma ^q=2`$, $`g_\omega ^q=2.85`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B=5.65`$.

To see how these results come about we consider some simple cases. Let’s go back to the free MIT bag case; $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=g_\sigma ^B=0`$. We still use $`B_0^{1/4}=188.1`$ MeV and $`Z=2.030`$. The free MIT bag mass is plotted again in Fig. 2 by the solid curve. Let us introduce the coupling between the quarks and the $`\omega `$-meson by use of $`g_\sigma ^q=0`$ and $`g_\omega ^q=2`$ and use a constant bag constant, i.e., $`g_\sigma ^B=0`$. Then the dashed curve in Fig. 2 is obtained, giving us $`M_N=957`$ MeV at $`R=0.595`$ fm due to the repulsive interaction. When $`g_\sigma ^q=2`$ and $`g_\omega ^q=0`$, i.e., when there is only quark-$`\sigma `$ coupling, attraction is induced and we get $`M_N=926`$ MeV at $`R=0.601`$ fm, as shown by the dotted curve. When we take $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$, cancellation between the repulsion and the attraction takes place, and a small repulsion is left as plotted by the dash-dotted curve, resulting in $`M_N=948`$ MeV at $`R=0.598`$ fm.

Now we consider the density-dependency in the bag constant using Eq. (2). We start with the case that $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B=0`$, corresponding to the dash-dotted curve in Fig. 2. This curve is plotted again in Fig. 3 by the dash-dotted curve. ($`M_N^{free}`$ is also plotted in Fig. 3 by the solid curve.) To see the effects of the density-dependency of the bag constant, we take $`g_\sigma ^B=1`$, keeping $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$. The calculated $`M_N`$ is represented by the dashed curve. Reducing the bag constant by introducing the density-dependency

Fig. 2 : Nucleon mass $`M_N`$ plotted as a function of the bag radius $`R`$ for different coupling constants, $`g_\sigma ^q`$, $`g_\omega ^q`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B`$. $`B_0^{1/4}=188.1`$ MeV and $`Z`$ = 2.030 are used for all calculations. For the dashed curve, $`g_\sigma =0`$ and $`g_\omega =2`$ are used. For the dotted curve, $`g_\sigma ^q=2`$ and $`g_\omega ^q=0`$. For the dash-dotted curve, $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$. For all the calculations shown here $`g_\sigma ^B=0`$ are used.

Fig. 3 : Nucleon mass $`M_N`$ plotted as a function of the bag radius with the coupling constant given in the figure. $`B_0^{1/4}`$ and $`Z`$ are the same as in Fig. 2.

with $`g_\sigma ^B=1`$ causes attraction. For $`g_\sigma ^B=3`$, more attraction is induced, as shown by the dotted curve in Fig. 3. This can be seen from Eqs. (11) and (16). The source function for the $`\sigma `$ field in Eq. (11) increases (negatively) due to $`B(\sigma )/\sigma `$, so the $`\sigma `$ field increases, which results in enhanced attraction in the eigenvalue. In Fig. 4 we show the $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ field for $`R=0.6`$ fm as a function of the radial coordinate $`r`$. The dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted curves in Fig. 4 are obtained with the corresponding parameters used for the dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted curves in Fig. 3, respectively. The figure shows that as $`g_\sigma ^B`$ becomes larger the $`\sigma `$ field increases due to the increase of the source function. Hence, the smaller nucleon mass for the larger $`g_\sigma ^B`$. Of course, a smaller $`B(\sigma )`$ in Eq. (16) causes a smaller mass, too.

Fig. 4 : $`\sigma `$ fields for $`R=0.6`$ fm. The coupling constants used here for the dotted, dashed, dash-dotted curves are the same as those for the dotted, dashed, dash-dotted curves, respectively, in Fig. 3.

As we mentioned earlier, when $`g_\sigma ^B`$ is large enough, not only the nucleon mass becomes smaller, but also the bag radius becomes larger. When the bag constant is kept constant as in Fig. 2, the bag radii are essentially fixed as $`R=0.6`$ fm. Even if we change $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ to some extent, the nucleon mass curves move more or less uniformly in energy. However, when we introduce the density-dependency in the bag constant, the bag radius increases as shown in Figs. 1 and 3. The density-dependent bag constant brings the $`M_N`$ curve downward in energy, but not uniformly. There is more attraction at larger bag radii. The reason for this can be seen from Fig. 5, where the source function in Eq. (11) for $`R=0.6`$ fm is plotted by the solid curve. $`B/\sigma `$ and $`g_\sigma ^q3\rho _s`$ are also shown by the dotted and the dashed curves, respectively. Due to $`B/\sigma `$ the source function does not vanish even at large radii. Therefore, if the bag radius $`R`$ is larger, $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ in Eq. (11) becomes greater for large radii. This is shown in Fig. 6, where $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ is plotted for $`R=0.6`$ and $`0.8`$ fm. $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ for $`R=0.8`$ fm is greater than $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ for $`R=0.6`$ fm at large radial region, which is the significant radial region. As a result, there is more attraction at large bag radii.

Fig. 5 : The source function is plotted by the solid curve. $`B/\sigma `$ and $`g_\sigma ^q3\rho _s`$ are plotted by the dotted and the dashed curves, respectively. The coupling constants used are $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B=3`$.

Fig. 6 : $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ is plotted with respect to the radial coordinate $`r`$ by the solid and the dashed curves, respectively, for $`R=0.6`$ and 0.8 fm. The coupling constants used are $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$ and $`g_\sigma ^B=3`$.

We made similar studies for other bag radii ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 fm and obtained similar results. Our results show that the change in the bag mass due to the coupling of the quarks with the mesons is not negligible. Such self-energy effects on the mass due to the meson coupling need to be taken into account in choosing the parameters for the calculation of nuclear matter properties. The density-dependent bag constant can not only change the nucleon mass but also shift the bag radius.

## 4 Summary

We have applied the QMC model to a single nucleon. Recently the model has been often used to investigate explicit quark degrees of freedom in describing the nuclear matter. However, in the previous calculations the change in the mass of the bag due to the self-energy was ignored. Our calculations suggest that this change in the nucleon mass is not negligible, and thus the model parameters need to be modified to take this effect into consideration when they are used in nuclear matter calculations.

## 5 Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. SWH acknowledges kind hospitality at TRIUMF and was partially supported by Sungkyun Faculty Research Fund and KOSEF Korea-Japan International Collaboration Program (986-0200-003-2).