text:
# STATUS OF TRIMAXIMAL NEUTRINO MIXING

## 1 Introduction

At the last IDM meeting (IDM98) I reviewed  neutrino oscillations, mentioning trimaximal mixing  of course, but giving substantive emphasis to the so-called bimaximal scheme  which was new at that time. This year, I sense that bimaximal mixing is in no particular need of any ‘hard-sell’ from me, and I plan therefore to concentrate on trimaximal mixing, which arguably merits a little more ‘air-time’ than it sometimes gets at this point.

After all, bimaximal mixing (in its original form) may be seen as just the minimal deformation  of trimaximal mixing obtained enforcing a zero in the top right-hand ($`e3`$) corner of the trimaximal mixing matrix to account for the latest reactor data. Evidently (Eq. 1) symmetry between all three generations

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{trimaximal}\mathrm{mixing}& \mathrm{bimaximal}\mathrm{mixing}\end{array}`$
$`\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}`$
$`\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/3& 1/3& 1/3\\ 1/3& 1/3& 1/3\\ 1/3& 1/3& 1/3\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/2& 1/2& .\\ 1/4& 1/4& 1/2\\ 1/4& 1/4& 1/2\end{array}\right)`$ (1)
is sacrificed in the bimaximal scheme, but clearly $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ as well as $`\mu \tau `$ symmetry do survive  (note Eq. 1 gives the $`|U_{l\nu }|^2`$). It should be mentioned that the famous Fritzsch-Xing hypothesis  did in fact predict $`U_{e3}=0`$, but has otherwise less symmetry than either the trimaximal or bimaximal schemes. Altarelli and Feruglio  usefully generalised the bimaximal scheme, retaining the last column of the original bimaximal form (Eq. 1 - RHS), but parametrising the first two columns in terms of a general mixing angle $`\theta `$, to be determined.

In praise of trimaximal mixing, the trimaximal mixing matrix (Eq. 1 - LHS) is clearly especially symmetric, extremal/optimal and arguably ‘natural’ from a number of points of view. The importance of $`Z_3`$ symmetry seems to be generally recognised . In analogy to the Uncertainty Principle the lepton flavour information is uniformly spread over the neutrino mass spectrum and vice versa (cf. also, the famous ‘hexacode’ over $`F_4`$). For trimaximal mixing the Jarlskog parameter $`J_{CP}`$  takes its extremal value $`J_{CP}=1/(6\sqrt{3})`$ such that (vacuum) CP and T violating asymmetries are maximised.

## 2 Data at the Atmospheric Scale

The atmospheric neutrino scale defined by fits to the SUPER-KAMIOKANDE data (Fig. 1) is currently $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ $``$ $`3`$ $`10^3`$ eV2 .

Upcoming $`\mu `$-events (Fig. 1a) are seen to be supressed by a factor $`P(\mu \mu )1/2`$. Solving the equation $`(1x)^2+x^2=1/2`$ yields $`x|U_{\mu 3}|^21/2`$ as in Eq. 1 (RHS). No deviation is seen for $`e`$-events (Fig 1b), but $`\varphi (\nu _\mu )/\varphi (\nu _e)2/1`$, coupled with matter effects (especially if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`3`$ $`10^3`$ eV2, see below) gives low sensitivity to $`\nu _e`$-mixing.

Reactor experiments on the other hand, specifically CHOOZ  and PALO-VERDE, do rule out large $`\nu _e`$ mixing over (almost) all of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$-range currently favoured in the atmospheric neutrino experiments. While the atmospheric experiments claim $`10^3`$ eV2 $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`10^2`$ eV2, at around the $`99\%`$ confidence level, the reactor experiments require $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`10^3`$ eV2 unless $`U_{e3}`$ is small: $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`0.03`$. The near non-overlap of these two different $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ ranges underlies the current popularity of the (generalised) bimaximal scheme(s) discussed above.

Of course trimaximal mixing predicts $`|U_{e3}|^2=1/3`$ which is large, so if trimaximal mixing is right $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is at least well determined, ie. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^3`$ eV2  with rather little margin for error. Clearly (Fig. 2) trimaximal mixing with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=1.010^3`$ eV2, would fit the combined CHOOZ and PALO-VERDE data very nicely, given only a modest re-scaling of the CHOOZ data by $`8\%`$ (the quoted error on the CHOOZ flux is $`\pm 3\%`$).

Long-baseline accelerator experiments like K2K  have well defined $`L/E`$, so there is no way that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is overestimated by uncertain angular smearing effects as perhaps in the atmospheric experiments. Worryingly for trimaximal mixing, K2K have 27 FC events in fiducial volume with 26.6 events expected for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2310^3`$ eV2, with very much closer to 40.3 events (the no-oscillation

expectation) expected for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^21.010^3`$ eV2. As the K2K experimenters have themselves pointed out however , there is something slightly ‘odd’ about the distribution of events versus chronological expectation (Table 1), with most of the deficit apparently coming from the 1999 running.

## 3 The Solar Data

The latest SUPER-K data on the solar supression  extend the electron recoil spectrum down to $`E>5`$ MeV and start to be convincingly ‘consistent with flat’ (ie. with energy independence). Assuming BP98 fluxes , the overall supression $`S0.47`$. Correcting for the neutral current contribution (Fig. 3) we find $`P(ee)0.38`$, not so very different from the HOMESTAKE result $`P(ee)0.33`$. The solid curve in Fig. 3 is the postdiction of the ‘optimised’

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{optimised}^{}& \mathrm{bimaximal}\mathrm{mixing}\end{array}`$
$`\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}`$
$`(|U_{l\nu }|^2)=\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2/3& 1/3& .\\ 1/6& 1/3& 1/2\\ 1/6& 1/3& 1/2\end{array}\right)`$ (2)
bimaximal hypothesis (Eq. 2) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=5.610^5`$ eV2. The ‘optimised’ bimaximal form is readily obtained from the ‘generalised’ bimaximal scheme  by setting $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =1/3`$, and we proposed it  only as the best ‘straw-man’ rival to trimaximal mixing, with the possibilty to exploit the LA-MSW solution (Fig. 3). Of course, energy in-dependent solar solutions, like the trimaximal mixing solution (Fig. 4), remain a priori much more plausible . It is interesting to see that the early SNO data  support energy independence.

Figure 3. The SUPER-K solar data  after the NC subtraction vs. recoil energy $`E_e`$, assuming the BP98 $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$-flux  (with rescaled hep). SAGE, GALLEX and HOMESTAKE points also shown but versus $`E_\nu `$. The solid curve is ‘optimised’ bimaximal mixing (Eq. 2) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=5.6\times 10^5`$ eV2, giving $`P(ee)=1/3`$ in the ‘bathtub’ (and $`5/9`$ otherwise).

Figure 4. As for Fig. 3, except for an arbitrary rescaling of BP98 8B-fluc by $`24\%`$. The line is the trimaximal mixing prediction $`P\left(ee\right)=5/9`$ independent of energy. Note that Eq. 2 (with or without a $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ column interchange if desired) likewise gives $`P\left(ee\right)=5/9`$ independent of energy outside the ‘bathtub’ region. Thus Eq. 2 can never be excluded based on the solar data alone, underlining again the importance of KAMLAND , K2K  etc.

In SUPER-K, a previous $`2\sigma `$ day/night asymmetry $`A=0.065\pm 0.031\pm 0.013`$ has fallen with increased statistics to $`1\sigma `$ significance: $`A=0.034\pm 0.022\pm 0.013`$ . A day/night effect would have been the ‘smoking-gun’ of the MSW or VO solutions. Instead, essentially all $`10^{10}`$ eV2 $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`10^3`$ eV2 are now allowed, with (near-)maximal mixing, except those explicitly excluded (eg. $`210^7`$ eV2 $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`210^5`$ eV2) by the absence of a day/night effect.

## Acknowledgment

It is a pleasure to thank Paul Harrison and Don Perkins for continued collaboration/interest and for helpful comments and suggestions on this manuscript.

## References


format: text

text:
# Comment on ”Magnetic Breakdown at High Fields: Semiclassical and Quantum Treatments”

\[

\]

In a recent Letter, Han et al. investigated the effects of finite temperature and spin on the de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillation in the two-dimensional model, where the closed orbit and open orbit exist. They obtained the effective mass from the fitting of the $`g_e`$-dependence of these FTAs with the damping factor,

$`R_s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p\pi g_em^{}/2m_e),`$ (1)
expected from the semiclassical description based on the Lifshitz-Kosevich formula. In this Comment we argue that since the damping factor Eq.(1) is obtained for the system with fixed chemical potential $`\mu `$, it is not appropriate for the system with the fixed electron number $`N`$, although the estimation of $`m^{}`$ is the same. We also call attention that the spin does not reduce all FTAs but enhances some amplitudes in the system with magnetic breakdown. This interesting effect of spin  is seen in Fig. 6 of Ref. but it was not mentioned.

For simplicity we first consider the two-dimensional free-electron system. In the case of fixed $`\mu `$, the magnetization oscillates as a ‘saw-tooth’ given by,

$$\frac{M}{\beta N_0}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi p\left(\frac{\mu }{\beta H}\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)}{\pi p},$$
(2)
where $`\beta =e\mathrm{}/m^{}c`$ is a double Bohr magneton with effective mass and $`N_0`$ is the total number of electrons at $`H=0`$. When the spin-splitting is taken into account, the dHvA oscillation is just the sum of the contributions from spin-up and spin-down electrons with the phase shift of $`\pm g_em^{}/4m_e`$, as shown in Fig. 1(a), resulting in the damping factor Eq.(1). In the fixed $`N`$ case, on the other hand, the magnetization for $`g_e=0`$ is given by ,

$$\frac{M}{\beta N}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi p\frac{N}{2\rho \beta H}\right)}{\pi p},$$
(3)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of states for each spin at $`H=0`$. When the spin-splitting is considered, the chemical potential jumps between a spin-up Landau level and a spin-down Landau level when $`N/2\rho \beta H`$ is integer or integer plus $`1/2`$. As a result, $`2(g_em^{}/2m_e[g_em^{}/2m_e])`$, where $`[g_em/2m_0]`$ is the integer part of $`g_em/2m_e`$, is added to $`M/\beta N`$ when $`n<N/2\rho \beta H<n+1/2`$ or $`n+1/2<N/2\rho \beta H<n+1`$, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1(b). This modification of the magnetization is written by the damping factor as,

$`R_p^N=\{\begin{array}{cc}|12(g_em/2m_0[g_em/2m_0])|& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{odd}p\\ 1& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{even}p\end{array}.`$ (6)
Only for the fundamental frequency ($`p=1`$), the periods of the damping factor with respect to $`g_e`$ for fixed $`\mu `$ (Eq. (1)) and fixed $`N`$ (Eq.(6)) are the same. The $`g_e`$-dependence of the peak amplitude in Fig. 6 of Ref. was fitted with the cosine curves (Eq.(1)), but it (especially for $`f_\alpha `$) can be fitted better with Eq.(6).

The enhancement of the peak amplitude due to spin is seen for the $`f_{\beta +\alpha }`$ and $`f_{2\alpha }`$ in Fig.6 of Ref.. The enhancement of $`f_{\beta +\alpha }`$ has been reported previously , where slightly simpler but essentially the same model is studied. We interpreted the enhancement of the amplitude as the result of incomplete cancellation between the effects of the chemical potential oscillation and magnetic breakdown. We also observe the enhancement of the $`\beta +2\alpha `$ oscillation. The $`g_e`$-dependence of the $`2\alpha `$ oscillation in Ref. is different from our result. This difference may be due to the choice of parameters in the calculations.

In summary, the damping factor (Eq.(1)) which is commonly applied to analyze the effects of spin, should be used carefully. In the system with magnetic breakdown, some Fourier amplitudes are enhanced by spin.


text:
# On the partial wave amplitude of Coulomb scattering in three dimensionspublished in Am. J. Phys. 68 (2000) 1056-1057.

## Abstract

The partial wave series for the Coulomb scattering amplitude in three dimensions is evaluated in a very simple way to give the closed result.

PACS number(s): 03.65.Nk

The scattering of particles by a Coulomb field is an important subject in quantum mechanics as well as in classical mechanics, because the Coulomb field describes real physical interations between charged particles, say, electrons and nucleuses. In the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the problem is described by a Schrödinger equation. In ordinary three-dimensional space, this equation can be solved in rotational parabolic coordinates, and the scattering amplitude is obtained in a closed form. As a special case of a centrally symmetric field, the Schrödinger equation can also be solved in the spherical coordinates, and the scattering amplitude is obtained as a partial wave series. This has been well known for a long time, and the solutions can be found in the popular textbooks of quantum mechanics . However, it appears that the partial wave amplitude is not evaluated in the textbooks. Were it not for the solution in the parabolic coordinates, how can one directly sum up the partial wave series to obtain the closed form? A solution can be found in an early paper of Mott . However, the calculation is not well known since it is not given even in the famous monograph on collision theory by that author and Massey . Other books on scattering theory do not deal with the matter either . The purpose of this note is to evaluate the partial wave series in a simpler way. The method is easy for the students and thus may be of some interest for the pedagogical purpose.

Let us write the Hamiltonian in the form

$$H=\frac{𝐩^2}{2\mu }\frac{\kappa }{r},$$
(1)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass of the system, and $`\kappa >0`$ ($`\kappa <0`$) corresponds to an attractive (repulsive) force. The partial wave scattering amplitude obtained by solving the problem in spherical coordinates reads

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{2ik}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)(S_l1)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(2)
where $`k=\sqrt{2\mu E}/\mathrm{}`$ ($`E>0`$ is the energy of the incident particle), and

$$S_l=\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _l)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1i\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1+i\beta )},$$
(3)
where $`\delta _l`$ is the phase shift of the $`l`$th partial wave, and $`\beta =\mu \kappa /\mathrm{}^2k=\kappa /\mathrm{}v`$ where $`v`$ is the incident velocity. Since

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )=4\delta (\mathrm{cos}\theta 1),$$
(4)
we have for $`\theta 0`$

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{2ik}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)S_lP_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(5)
We define

$$g(x)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)S_lP_l(x),$$
(6)
and are going to evaluate it. Using the relation

$$(2l+1)P_l(x)=P_{l+1}^{}(x)P_{l1}^{}(x),$$
(7)
where $`P_1(x)0`$, and define an auxiliary function

$$G(x)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}S_l[P_{l+1}(x)P_{l1}(x)],$$
(8)
we have

$$g(x)=G^{}(x).$$
(9)
Next using the ralation

$$(2l+1)xP_l(x)=(l+1)P_{l+1}(x)+lP_{l1}(x),$$
(10)
and the definition (8), we have

$$xg(x)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}S_l[(l+1i\beta )P_{l+1}(x)+(l+i\beta )P_{l1}(x)]+i\beta G(x).$$
(11)
Then making use of the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(z+1)=z\mathrm{\Gamma }(z),$$
(12)
and Eq. (3), we have

$$(l+1i\beta )S_l=(l+1+i\beta )S_{l+1},(l+i\beta )S_l=(li\beta )S_{l1}.$$
(13)
Substituting these relations into Eq. (11), after some simple algebras we have

$$xg(x)=g(x)+i\beta G(x)i\beta S_0.$$
(14)
Taking Eq. (9) into account, we obtain

$$(1x)G^{}(x)+i\beta G(x)=i\beta S_0.$$
(15)
This is an ordinary differential equation for the auxiliary function $`G(x)`$. It can be easily solved to give

$$G(x)=A\mathrm{exp}[i\beta \mathrm{ln}(1x)]+S_0,$$
(16)
where $`A`$ is a constant of integration. To determine $`A`$ we consider the series (8) at $`x=1`$. Note that $`P_l(1)=(1)^l`$ and $`P_1(x)0`$, only the term with $`l=0`$ contributes and so $`G(1)=S_0`$. Substituting this into the above result one can find $`A`$ and arrives at

$$G(x)=2S_0\mathrm{exp}[i\beta \mathrm{ln}((1x)/2)]+S_0.$$
(17)
It should be remarked that in getting Eq. (9) we have differentiated $`G(x)`$ term by term. This is not allowed at $`x=1`$ since $`g(x)`$ is obviously singular at the point. Thus Eq. (15) does not hold at $`x=1`$, and it is not surprising to find that the result (17) does not agree with the definition (8) at that point. By using Eq. (9) we can easily find $`g(x)`$. Setting $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and multiplying it by the coefficient $`1/2ik`$ we arrive at

$$f(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i\beta )}{i\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\beta )}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[i\beta \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)]}{2k\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)}.$$
(18)
This is the closed result obtained in the parabolic coordinates . Two remarks about the result. First, we have dropped a $`\delta (\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)`$ term for $`\theta 0`$ in the above calculation. Here the final result is more singular than $`\delta (\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)`$ when $`\theta 0`$, thus that term can indeed be dropped everywhere. Second, it has been argued that $`f(\theta )`$ in the form of Eq. (2) or (5) is divergent even when $`\theta 0`$ . The final result (18) is well defined everywhere except at $`\theta =0`$, however. Therefore the above calculation may also be regarded as a regularization procedure. (The main point lies in the term by term differentiation pointed out above, which is mathematically not allowed even when $`x1`$.) The validity of this procedure is obvious because the final result (18) coincides with the one obtained from exact solutions in the parabolic coordinates. It should be pointed out that the calculation of Mott , though rather different from ours, involves some similar story.

Mathematically one can consider the Coulomb scattering problem in a general space dimension $`d2`$. In $`d=2`$ the problem has been solved in both parabolic coordinates \[8-9\] and polar coordinates . The scattering amplitude is obtained in a closed form in the former case and as a partial wave series in the latter case. The method for summing up the partial wave series in $`d=2`$ is rather different from that in $`d=3`$ . In more general dimensions $`d>3`$ the problem has been solved in parabolic coordinates and a closed form for the scattering amplitude was obtained . If one solves the problem in $`d`$-dimensional spherical coordinates, one would obtain for the scattering amplitude a partial wave series similar to Eq. (2) , where the Legendre polynomials are replaced by the Gegenbauer ones. We expect that the method given by Mott or the one given here may be efficient for summing up that series as well.

The author is grateful to Professor W. Dittrich and Professor B. R. Holstein for communications and encouragement. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.


text:
# Heavy-light meson spectrum with and without NRQCD

## 1 MOTIVATION

If the charm quark is sufficiently heavy, then lattice NRQCD is an efficient computational method for obtaining the spectrum of mesons with a single charm quark. Recent studies of the S and P-wave meson spectrum have determined the contributions from first, second and third order in the inverse charm mass expansion. Second and third order contributions were found to be statistically insignificant for the P-wave mesons, but the S-wave spin splittings ($`D^{}D`$ and $`D_s^{}D_s`$) acquire substantial corrections at both second and third order. It is difficult to make a firm statement about convergence of the expansion from these findings alone.

In the present work, the existing results are compared to a new study, where the NRQCD charm quark is replaced by a relativistic charm quark using a D234 fermion action. The new simulations use the same set of gauge field configurations and the same light antiquark propagators as were used in Ref. , so the only differences are the heavy quark action (NRQCD versus D234) and the operators used to create or destroy the various meson states.

The S-wave masses have been discussed many times in the literature (see Refs.  and references therein), but the P-waves have only recently been extracted from lattice data: the limit of an infinitely heavy quark was studied by Michael and Peisa, a subset of the P-wave charmed masses were found by Boyle using the clover action (he also extrapolated to the bottom region), and two groups have used NRQCD to study the charmed and bottom meson spectra.

## 2 LATTICE CHOICES AND METHOD

The gauge fields of Ref. , also used for the present study, are on $`10^3\times 30`$ anisotropic lattices with $`(a_s/a_t)_{\mathrm{bare}}=2`$. The gauge action is classically improved by including rectangular plaquettes, and tadpole improved using the mean link in Landau gauge. The coupling is fixed at $`\beta =2.1`$, and the renormalized anisotropy is found to be $`a_s/a_t=1.96(2)`$.

The light antiquark fields are also taken from Ref. . They are derived from a D234 action which removes leading and next-to-leading classical errors and is tadpole improved. Two hopping parameters ($`\kappa =0.23`$ and 0.24) are used, corresponding to “$`m_\pi /m_\rho `$” = 0.815(3) and 0.517(8). The physical $`\rho `$ meson mass leads to $`a_t=0.1075(23)`$ fm, and the physical kaon mass implies $`\kappa _{\mathrm{strange}}=0.2356(3)`$. Dirichlet time boundaries are used for the light antiquark.

In Ref.  the heavy quark was described by NRQCD, and new results are presented here where a heavy D234 quark is used with $`\kappa =0.182`$, which is in the vicinity of charm. By interpolating the NRQCD results to this same heavy quark mass, a direct comparison of NRQCD and D234 results can be made.

With and without NRQCD, heavy-light meson masses come from 2000 quenched configurations, and statistical uncertainties are obtained from 5000 bootstrap ensembles. The heavy-light meson creation operators are

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}Q^{}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{}{x})[1+c_s\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{x})]^{n_s}q(\stackrel{}{x})$$
(1)
for NRQCD, and

$$\overline{\psi }(x)\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\left[1+c_sF(x)\right]^{n_s}\psi (x)$$
(2)
for D234, where

$$F(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[U_i(x)\delta _{x,y\widehat{i}}+U_i^{}(x\widehat{i})\delta _{x,y+\widehat{i}}\right]$$
(3)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ is the lattice Laplacian.

The quantum numbers are dictated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as presented in Table 1. At the source, the parameters $`(c_s,n_s)`$ are set to (0.15,10) for NRQCD and (1,15) for D234. The sink operator is local in all simulations.

## 3 S-WAVE HEAVY-LIGHT MASSES

The S-wave hyperfine splitting for D234 is shown in Fig. 1 in lattice units, for the two available light antiquark hopping parameters. Also shown are the NRQCD results from Ref.  after interpolation of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ kinetic mass to match the D234 value of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ meson mass. This interpolation was done independently at each order in the NRQCD expansion, so the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ mass maintains a common value in each case. From Fig. 1, lowest order NRQCD

is seen to give smaller hyperfine splittings than D234. The addition of $`O(1/M^2)`$ terms tends to increase the NRQCD results, but $`O(1/M^3)`$ contributions are larger in magnitude than the preceding order so the status of the NRQCD expansion for this observable is unclear.

The NRQCD results are shown in physical units in Fig. 2. Whereas Fig. 1 compared the different NRQCD orders by choosing a common physical $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ mass, Fig. 2 shows the NRQCD expansion when the bare charm quark mass is held fixed. Neither plot gives a compelling defense for a convergent $`1/M_{\mathrm{charm}}`$ expansion, but convergence is not disproven by such plots either. The $`D_sD`$ splitting receives insignificant corrections from second and third orders, but corrections to the spin splittings are significant. Experimentally the $`D_sD^+`$ splitting is 104 MeV, and therefore agrees with the NRQCD determination, but the spin splittings are $`D^+D^+=141`$ MeV and $`D_s^{}D_s=144`$ MeV. With or without NRQCD, the quenched prediction is smaller than experiment.

Ref.  also provides results for the bottom mesons, and finds that the S-wave bottom masses are completely dominated by leading order in NRQCD so convergence is not disputed. As for charm, the spin splittings are smaller than experiment.

## 4 P-WAVE HEAVY-LIGHT MASSES

In Ref. , nonleading corrections to P-wave heavy-light masses were found to be insignificant for both bottom and charm mesons. This leads one to expect agreement between D234 and NRQCD determinations of these P-wave masses. Fig. 3 shows all four of the P-wave masses in lattice units for both of the available light antiquark hopping parameters. D234 results are new, and the NRQCD results are interpolations of the data from Ref.  so that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ kinetic mass matches the D234 $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ mass. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

According to Fig. 3, the P-wave masses do not depend upon whether the charm quark is described by NRQCD or D234. One rather dramatic exception seems occur for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ with the heavier antiquark, but this systematic error is understood: the D234 calculation has no true plateau in this case. The plateau-finding algorithm of Ref.  has been carried over to the present work, and it chooses the best plateau by maximizing the quality factor,

$$Q\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/21,\chi ^2/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/21,0)},$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(a,x)=_x^{\mathrm{}}dtt^{a1}\mathrm{exp}(t)$$
(5)
and $`N`$ is the number of timesteps in the proposed plateau region. The D234 $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ meson becomes quite noisy at early Euclidean times such that no clear plateau is evident, so the method of maximum $`Q`$ chooses a “plateau” which begins too near the source. This leads to the erroneously large mass shown in Fig. 3. Except for this one correlator, Fig. 3 presents a clear agreement between results with and without NRQCD.

The $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ masses for charm and bottom are displayed in Figs. 4 and 5 from the NRQCD results of Ref. , along with NRQCD results from Ref. , the clover results of Ref. , and a variety of model calculations. A disagreement between the two lattice NRQCD calculations for $`B_2^{}B_0^{}`$ is evident; Ref.  notes that no choice of plateau region allows those data to attain the large splitting of Ref. . The lattice results of Ref.  cannot resolve the discrepancy. The nonlattice models are more easily distinguished from one another for charm than for bottom, and the lattice result clearly favours a small $`D_2^{}D_0^{}`$ splitting (substantially less than 100 MeV).

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Lensing in the Hercules SuperclusterBased on observations obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is jointly operated by the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

## 1. Introduction

Strong gravitational lensing of background sources by clusters of galaxies provides some of the most unambiguous evidence for the presence of large amounts of dark matter in clusters. Lensing studies suggest that the mass in clusters is greater and more centrally concentrated than implied, for instance, by the X-ray properties (e.g., Mellier, Fort, & Kneib 1993; LeFèvre et al. 1994; Waxman & Miralda-Escude 1995; Smail et al. 1995). Moreover, the mass appears to clump around the luminous galaxies, so that consideration of substructure and the effect of the massive central galaxy are often important for understanding the observations (e.g., Miralda-Escudé 1995; see also Tyson, Kochanski, & Dell Antonio 1998). This is particularly true in more moderate mass clusters with velocity dispersions $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}\mathrm{}<1000`$ km s-1, for which the proportionally larger gravitational effects of a massive cD must be included to properly account for the lensing (Williams, Navarro, & Bartelmann 1999).

Although there have been great advances in our knowledge of the form of the density distributions of massive dissipationless particles in simulations of various resolution (e.g., Dubinski & Carlberg 1991; Navarro, Frenk, & White 1996, 1997; Moore et al. 1998, 1999b), our knowledge of the central mass distributions of actual galaxy clusters remains fragmentary. Low redshift clusters, because of their larger angular sizes, can in principle provide a better opportunity for studying these mass distributions. Their lensing properties are acutely sensitive to the shape of the inner cluster potential, although because such clusters tend to be of modest mass (very high-mass clusters being few and far between), the individual galaxies will produce relatively larger perturbations on this potential, complicating the interpretation.

Until recently, moderate- to high-redshift clusters have been the exclusive purview of strong lensing studies, but lensing by low-redshift clusters has been gaining increased attention. For instance, Allen, Fabian, & Kneib (1996) discovered a redshift $`z=0.43`$ lensed arc in the massive cooling flow cluster PKS 0745–191 at $`z=0.103`$. Campusano, Kneib, & Hardy (1998) explored lensing models for a $`z=0.073`$ spiral galaxy located near the central elliptical in the richness class 0 cluster A3408 at $`z=0.042`$; they obtained an upper limit to the magnification factor of $``$1.7 from their “maximum mass” model. This object turned out to be the only viable lensing candidate found in an imaging survey of 33 southern galaxy clusters with $`z0.076`$ by Cypriano et al. (2000), who also presented an estimate of the expected number of arcs and arclets in low-redshift clusters. Blakeslee & Metzger (1999) discovered a lensed arc at $`z=0.573`$ in the nearby cD cluster A2124 at $`z=0.066`$ and found magnification factors near 10 from their best-fitting models of this system.

Despite the recent progress, the lensing properties of low-redshift clusters remain unclear. For instance, A2124 had by far the lowest redshift in the sample studied by Williams et al. (1999) of 24 lensing clusters with measured velocity dispersions, the next nearest being at $`z=0.171`$. In this paper, we present imaging and spectroscopic observations and give a lensing analysis of the redshift $`z=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.043}`$ cluster Abell 2152 in the Hercules supercluster.

## 2. Cluster Properties

The Hercules supercluster is a close grouping of three Abell clusters: the richness class 2 cluster A2151 (the classical “Hercules cluster”) and the two richness 1 clusters A2147 and A2152, all at $`z0.04`$. The supercluster was first identified by Shapley (1934). Although A2151 dominates from the standpoint of the number of galaxies, A2152 is projected closest to the center of the grouping, which is so tight that a circle of just $`2^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}<`$4 $`h^1`$Mpc) in diameter easily encompasses all three clusters. Two other Abell clusters, A2148 and A2107, lie at about the same redshift and are only $`15`$ $`h^1`$Mpc away. At lower density enhancements, the Hercules supercluster forms part of an extended, filamentary supercluster that includes A2162 and A2197/A2199 about 3000 km s-1 in the foreground and A2052/A2063 about 3000 km s-1 in the background (Abell 1961; Postman, Huchra, & Geller 1992). This extended ten-cluster supercluster includes more members than any other supercluster in the Postman et al. (1992) catalogue.

All three members of the Hercules supercluster proper are classified as Bautz-Morgan type III, Rood-Sastry class F clusters (Abell et al. 1989; Struble & Rood 1987), indicating morphological irregularity and perhaps dynamical youth. All three have relatively high spiral fractions, with that of A2151 being near 50% (Tarenghi et al. 1980). A2151 is also famous for its high degree of internal subclustering (e.g., Bird et al. 1995). A2152, the focus of this paper, has two bright early-type galaxies at its center (see Figure 1) that together are designated UGC 10187. The brighter component (NED 02) was chosen by Postman & Lauer (1995) as the A2152 brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) and has a redshift $`z=0.0441`$. The other component (NED 01) is 47″ to the northwest and about 0.5 mag fainter; Postman & Lauer classify it as the second ranked galaxy (SRG). The SRG has a relative velocity of $`+`$330 km s-1 with respect to the BCG (see §3.3).

Because A2152 and A2147 are separated by just 1.8 $`h^1`$Mpc, measurements of their velocity dispersions are problematic. Zabludoff et al. (1993) reported $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=1081`$ km s-1 for A2147 and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=1346`$ km s-1 for A2152, the latter being the highest dispersion in their sample of 25 “dense peaks.” Recently, Barmby & Huchra (1998) have carried out a detailed analysis of the Hercules supercluster kinematics using 414 galaxy velocities. These authors employed a four-component model, including the three Abell clusters and a “dispersed supercluster” component. They derived much lower velocity dispersions of $`821_{55}^{+68}`$ km s-1 and $`715_{61}^{+81}`$ km s-1 for A2147 and A2152, respectively, from 93 and 56 galaxy velocities.

Because 122 galaxies in the Barmby & Huchra sample are assigned to the dispersed component with a high velocity dispersion of 1407 km s-1, rather than to one of the individual clusters, this approach may tend to bias the cluster dispersions low. However, it is clearly more consistent in finding a mean redshift of $`z=0.0432`$ for A2152, much closer to that of the BCG, whereas previous studies found means 10–15% lower, near the mean values for A2147 and A2151. Moreover, the lower velocity dispersions are more in line with the X-ray properties of these clusters, e.g., the X-ray gas temperature in A2152 has been estimated from Einstein data to be $`kT_X=2.1`$ keV (White, Jones, & Forman 1997). We note, however, that the latest tabulation by Struble & Rood (1999) lists $`z=0.0398`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=1338`$ km s-1 for A2152 from 62 velocities.

The centroid of the X-ray emission associated with A2152 is not coincident the BCG but is about 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$1 east. Its position is within 40″ of a pair of bright early-type galaxies which the Barmby & Huchra redshift catalogue reveals to be at $`z=0.134`$. Each of these background galaxies is intrinsically $``$70% more luminous than the A2152 BCG (using a relative K-correction of 0.11 mag for ellipticals). We return to this point in §5.

## 3. Observations

A2152 was observed as part of the deep $`R`$-band Keck imaging study by Blakeslee (1999) of the BCG halo regions in six nearby rich clusters. Clusters were selected to have velocity dispersions similar to that of the Coma cluster and to lie in the redshift range $`cz=`$10,000–20,000 km s-1. These six were then observed because they were reachable during a single night in the northern spring. Based on this dataset, Blakeslee & Metzger (1999) reported follow-up spectroscopy of a magnitude $`m_R=20.86`$ lensed arc located 27″ from the center of the cD galaxy in Abell 2124. We have visually searched the dataset for other bright lensing candidates, based on proximity to the BCG, tangential orientation, and arc-like appearance. The only obvious bright candidate was an arc-like object in A2152. We obtained follow-up Keck spectroscopy for this object and the A2152 BCG/SRG pair.

### 3.1. Imaging Data

The imaging observations have already been described in detail by Blakeslee (1999). Here we summarize them and report new photometric results for the A2152 arclet. A2152 was imaged with the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph (LRIS, Oke et al. 1995) on the Keck II telescope under photometric conditions. The image scale was 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$211 pix-1, and the total integration was 2000 s in the $`R`$ band. Reductions were carried out using the Vista package. The seeing in the final stacked image was an exceptional 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$53. The photometry was calibrated to the Cousins $`R`$ band using Landolt (1992) standard stars; the photometric zero point is accurate to better than 0.02 mag.

Figure 1 displays the A2152 Keck LRIS image, a smaller portion of which was shown by Blakeslee (1999). The possible lensed galaxy (galaxy “A”) is located 25$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 from the center of the BCG at a position angle PA$`=`$11$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4. The major axis of the BCG is at $`11^{}\pm 2^{}`$ at radii $`\mathrm{}<15\mathrm{}`$, where the ellipticity (difference of the axis ratio from unity) of the light distribution is $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.10}`$. Beyond this radius the BCG isophotes have significant overlap with those of the SRG and they are sufficiently round that the angle is difficult to determine. The isophotes of the SRG show significant twisting; the PA of its major axis swings from $`170^{}`$ at $`r\mathrm{}<5\mathrm{}`$ to $`136^{}`$ by $`r25\mathrm{}`$, while the ellipticity stays fairly constant around $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.32}\pm 0.03`$.

All galaxies with known redshifts (either from Barmby & Huchra or the present study) are labeled in Figure 1. It is somewhat curious that of 7 galaxies (including galaxy A) in the central $``$6′ field of a rich cluster, only 3 turn out to be cluster members. As mentioned above, the galaxy pair G1/G2 are in the background with redshifts of $`z=0.1335`$ and $`z=0.1353`$, respectively. During our spectroscopic observation of the BCG/SRG (described in §3.3), the LRIS slit picked up the magnitude $`m_R=19.2`$ galaxy labeled G3, which turns out to have $`z=0.1326`$. Galaxy “M” is an A2152 member with a velocity within $`100`$ km s-1 of the BCG (Barmby & Huchra). The center of the X-ray emission in this field (Jones & Forman 1999) is 20″ from G2 and 50″ from G1 and is also labeled in Figure 1.

Figure 3.1 shows an enlarged view of galaxy A along with an isophotal contour map. The impression is that of a disk galaxy whose disk has been warped into an arc-like shape (arguably through lensing, as we discuss in §4). The object is visible in our image for a length of about 15″. The measured full-width at half maximum along the minor axis is 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$67, which would be about $`\text{FWHM}0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$ in the absence of atmospheric blurring. This translates to a metric size $`\mathrm{}<0.7`$ $`h^1`$kpc at the redshift of this object (see below); apparently it has a very compact nucleus. The total magnitude of A, corrected for 0.105 mag of $`R`$-band Galactic extinction (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998)), is $`m_R(\mathrm{arc})=18.55\pm 0.03`$. Our main measurement results are collected in Table 1.

### 3.2. Spectroscopy of Galaxy A

The simplest and most important test of gravitational lensing is whether or not the supposed lensed object is actually in the background. Thus, we obtained one 900 s spectrum of galaxy A with LRIS on the Keck II telescope on the night of 25 March 1999 (UT). We used a 300 line grating and a 1″ wide slit oriented at $`\text{PA}=113^{}`$, approximately along the major axis of galaxy A. The seeing was poor, about 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8, so the slit missed a good fraction of the light. The dispersion was 2.44 Å pix-1, and the effective resolution was about 10 Å (FWHM). Halogen flats and arc-lamp exposures were taken for calibration. The LRIS configuration and IRAF reductions were identical to those of Blakeslee & Metzger (1999), except that no flux standard spectrum was obtained.

Figure 3 shows the reduced 1-d spectrum of galaxy A with the strongest emissions lines labeled at top and some absorption lines labeled at the bottom. The emission appeared to be confined to the central $``$4″ of the galaxy, so this is all that was extracted. The spectrum is of very high signal-to-noise (it was not a priori obvious, in the absence of spiral structure or any spectral information, that there whould be such strong features), and we determine the redshift to be $`z=0.1423\pm 0.0001`$. The object is therefore about 3.3 times more distant than the intervening A2152 cluster, and the lensing hypothesis remains viable. If unlensed, the absolute magnitude of A, with a K-correction of $`0.05`$ mag, would be $`M_R=20.57`$ (for $`h=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$; $`M_R=21.22`$ for $`h=0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$), or a luminosity of about 0.48$`L_R^{}`$ (e.g., Lin et al. 1996).

The H$`\alpha `$ emission line has an equivalent width of $`\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{H}_\alpha }=117\pm 6`$Å, corrected for \[N II\] emission. The H$`\beta `$ equivalent width is $`\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{H}_\beta }=28.2\pm 2.0`$Å. The \[O II\] $`\lambda 3727`$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ lines have equivalent widths of $`83.3\pm 2.3`$Åand $`54.1\pm 2.0`$Å, respectively. Thus, the emission is quite strong, but not too anomalous in comparison to many late-type spirals or irregulars (e.g., Kennicutt 1992).

Although we do not have a good absolute flux calibration of the spectrum, we can roughly estimate the star formation rate (SFR) from the H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width and the $`R`$-band luminosity. We use the spectrophotometric synthesis results of Fukugita, Shimasaku, & Ichikawa (1995) to calibrate the absolute flux in Cousins $`R`$, which has an effective wavelength of 6588 Å. About 75% of the $`R`$-band light comes from the region of emission within the galaxy, and from the measured H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width we obtain a flux $`f_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }7.38\times 10^{15}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 and a luminosity of $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }1.84\times 10^{41}`$ $`h^2`$ ergs s-1 ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$). To estimate the internal extinction, we perform a makeshift relative flux calibration using the Feige 110 spectrum from Blakeslee & Metzger (1999) and find an H$`\alpha `$-to-H$`\beta `$ flux ratio of 4.25; assuming an unextincted value of 3.0 and the extinction curve of Cardelli, Clayton & Mathis (1989) gives a correction at $`H\alpha `$ of a factor of 2.15. This is close to the “canonical” correction of $``$1 mag for spirals (e.g., Kennicutt 1992) but will yield a SFR 16% lower. Finally, using the updated calibration from Kennicutt (1998), we find $`\text{SFR}(3\pm 1)h^2\text{M}\text{}`$yr-1, or $`(6\pm 2)\text{M}\text{}`$yr-1 for a typical $`H_0`$. Though not qualifying as a “starburst galaxy,” the SFR is quite substantial for a 0.5$`L^{}`$ galaxy. The quoted errorbar is approximate and reflects mainly the $``$30% scatter quoted by Kennicutt. The calibration based on \[O II\] equivalent width yields nearly the same SFR for this galaxy.

### 3.3. Kinematics of the Central Galaxy

With the intent of improving the constraints on the A2152 potential for the lensing models, we obtained three 1100 s spectra of the BCG/SRG pair with LRIS on 16 June 1999. We again used a 1″ wide slit but the 900/5500 grating, yielding a dispersion of 0.84 Å pix-1. The slit was oriented at $`\text{PA}=122^{}`$ in order to pass through the centers of the two galaxies. Again, halogen flats and arc lamps were taken for calibration, and we also obtained spectra of the K4 III velocity standard HD 213947. The spectra were processed, wavelength calibrated, and rectified using standard IRAF routines.

Figure 3.3 displays the central 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$1 extracted from the reduced 2-d spectra. Although the spectra are clearly very similar, the BCG exhibits a small amount of H$`\beta `$ emission that is absent from the SRG. Such optical line emission is quite common among central cluster galaxies, and may be associated with cluster “cooling flows” (e.g., Crawford et al. 1999). This emission may therefore be evidence that the BCG is indeed at the center of the A2152 cluster potential and that the offset of the Jones & Forman (1999) X-ray position is due to contamination from a background X-ray source.

The kinematical analysis of the data was performed within the MIDAS package. First, the spectra were rebinned along the slit (spatial direction) in order to achieve a minimum signal-to-noise (S/N) of 30 per Å at all radii. The S/N of the central pixels is higher. Then the continuum was removed by a fifth order polynomial fit. Finally we determined the velocity dispersion and rotational velocity as a function of radius with the Fourier Correlation Quotient (FCQ) method (Bender 1990) allowing only for a Gaussian stellar velocity distribution. When we allowed for non-Gaussian distributions and fitted for the higher-order moments, the results for the rotational velocity and dispersion were unchanged within the errors but showed slightly more scatter at the largest radii. The detailed FCQ setup, such as continuum fit order, wavelength extraction and error estimation was optimized with Monte Carlo simulations.

Figure 3.3 shows the measured velocity and velocity dispersion profiles for the BCG and SRG. Note that the $`122^{}`$ position angle is $`70^{}`$ away from the major axis of the BCG, and so the profile is more appropriate to the minor axis. For the SRG, the PA is closer to the major axis. Both galaxies show significant rotation, and both rotate in the sense opposite to that of the combined BCG/SRG system. Although the velocity dispersions decline outward from the centers of the galaxies, the dispersion profile for the SRG appears to flatten at a value of $`\sigma 230`$ km s-1 outside the central 3″. Likewise, the BCG’s velocity dispersion profile does not show a significant decrease for $`r\mathrm{}>7\mathrm{}`$. As seen in the top panel of Figure 3.3, the center of rotation in the BCG is offset by about 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 (1 LRIS pixel) from the luminosity center; this is likely due to a slight offset of the galaxy center within the slit. The mean velocities, rotational velocities, and central dispersions are tabulated along with our other results in Table 1.

We have estimated the total (1-sigma) errors on the mean velocities to be $`\pm 25`$ km s-1, but this is dominated by zero-point calibration errors (flexure, illumination of slit, etc.). However, the relative velocity of the BCG/SRG pair is better determined at $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=331\pm 7`$km s-1. This accords well with previous measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=327\pm 100`$ km s-1 from Tarenghi et al. (1979) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=341\pm 50`$ km s-1 from Wegner et al. (1999); less well with $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=502\pm 21`$ km s-1 from Davoust & Considère (1995). (The velocities used by Barmby & Huchra for these two galaxies come from Tarenghi et al.).

Central velocity dispersions have been measured previously for the BCG by Oegerle & Hoessel (1991), who found $`\sigma _0=295\pm 25`$ km s-1, and by Wegner et al. (1999), who reported $`\sigma _0=280\pm 26`$ km s-1; both results are in agreement with our much more precise value of $`\sigma _0=295\pm 7`$ km s-1. For the SRG, we find a central dispersion of $`\sigma _0=271\pm 8`$ km s-1, while Wegner et al. found $`\sigma _0=313\pm 34`$ km s-1. Their significantly higher dispersion is likely due to the strong rotation in this galaxy, which these authors did not account for when extracting the spectrum of the central several arcseconds of the galaxy. Finally, our BCG mean velocity is $`2.5\sigma `$ discrepant with the Wegner et al. value, which is higher by 95 km s-1, but it agrees within the errors with the values from Tarenghi et al. (1979), Oegerle & Hoessel (1991), and Davoust & Considère (1995). No previous measurements of the rotation or dispersion profile in either galaxy could be found.

Finally, as noted in §3.1, the LRIS slit picked up the magnitude $`m_R=19.24`$ galaxy labeled G3 in Figure 1. We find it to be in the background with a velocity $`cz=39,738`$ km s-1. This is just $`290`$ km s-1 less than the velocity of G1 and $`830`$ km s-1 less than that of G2.

## 4. Is it Lensed?

To model A2152 as a lens, we use a potential of the form (Blandford & Kochanek 1987)

$$\psi (r^{})=4\pi \left(\frac{\sigma _{1D}}{c}\right)^2\frac{D_{LS}}{D_S}\left[\left(1+\frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r_c^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}1\right],$$

where $`\sigma _{1D}`$ is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion in the limit $`r^{}r_c`$ for the spherical case, $`D_S`$ and $`D_{LS}`$ are angular size distances to the source and from the lens to the source, respectively, and $`r_c`$ defines a softening radius. An ellipticity parameter $`ϵ_p`$ can be introduced through $`r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=(1ϵ_p)x^2+(1+ϵ_p)y^2`$, where $`(x,y)`$ are coordinates aligned with the major and minor axes of the potential. This represents a softened isothermal sphere for $`ϵ_p=0`$ and provides a fairly good representation of the dark halo potentials in the cores of clusters (e.g., Mellier et al. 1993; Tyson et al. 1998). We use the more limited relation with a fixed power law because there are too few lensing constraints in this system to differentiate various potential profiles, and we have used only circularly symmetric potentials as there is little constraint on the ellipticity.

We explored four different simple models for the lensing potential. We included three terms in each of these models, corresponding to the smooth halo mass in the cluster and the masses associated with the BCG and SRG. For the latter two components, we use analytic potentials to approximate the velocity dispersions measured in §3.3 with a small core. In our model 1, the center of the cluster potential was fixed at the cD center with an asymptotic dispersion of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=715`$ km s-1 as measured by Barmby & Huchra (1998) and a softened core radius of 10″. Model 2 also fixes the cluster potential at the BCG, but uses the higher dispersion estimate of 1340 km s-1 (Struble & Rood 1999). Models 3 and 4 are the same as models 1 and 2, but fix the cluster potential center at the X-ray center (while of course keeping the BCG and SRG model components fixed). Within each model, we also explored a range of core softening radii.

Our primary constraints for the lens models are the radius, size, and orientation of galaxy A. The modest distortion and lack of a counterarc suggests a source position that lies outside the tangential and radial caustics (e.g., Grossman & Narayan 1988) and whose image lies outside the critical curve. These constraints quickly rule out model 2 in most forms: with a small core radius, the critical curve for $`z=0.142`$ lies at around 35 arcsec, well outside the galaxy radius. This would imply multiple images and large distortions for galaxy A. Even with a large core radius, the effective radial magnification becomes large and can be ruled out by the lens appearance. Model 3 does not produce significant magnification or distortion for the galaxy; thus under such a model, the arc-like shape would need to be intrinsic. Model 4 produces shear and magnification at the position of galaxy A, but the shear direction is not directed tangential to the BCG, as observed in galaxy A.

Model 1, however, produces modest magnification and distortion of a $`z=0.142`$ source with a shear aligned tangentially to the BCG/cluster. A family of models with a range of core radii and asymptotic dispersions for the primary lens (cluster dark matter) can reproduce the characteristics of the arc. These models are degenerate in $`\sigma _{1D}`$ and $`r_c`$ for determining the mass enclosed within the arc radius. Model 1 fits within this family of models. Figure 4 shows the predicted magnifications from model 1 with a 10″ core as a function of observed source position. The position of galaxy A implies a magnification of $`1.9`$, dropping to $`1.8`$ for a model with a 40″ soft core. Given this model, we can ask what the intrinsic source shape of galaxy A would be; Figure 4 shows contours of the observed galaxy surface brightness along with the same contours mapped back to the source plane via the lens equation. The implied shape is that of a fairly symmetric galaxy with a disk and dominant bulge, with no indication of a warp.

While we cannot make quantitative estimates of cluster mass parameters with a single lensed galaxy, we find that a simple model constructed from a low-dispersion cluster centered at the BCG can produce the shear needed to explain the curved shape of the background galaxy from a more symmetric source. Indeed, galaxy A must be distorted in some fashion by the foreground cluster, and we can rule out two of our other three plausible models based on the implied lensing geometry. We cannot, however, rule out a low-dispersion cluster mass centered on the X-ray center from lensing alone, although this would mean galaxy A must be intrinsically warped. Another galaxy with an unusual shape, elongated radially from the BCG center, is visible about 11″ to the east of the BCG (see the upper panel of Fig. 3.1) and lies near some critical radii of model 1. If in the background, this galaxy may provide much better constraints on the shape of the inner potential, however the redshift is unknown and we do not attempt to model it here.

## 5. Summary and Discussion

Deep $`R`$-band Keck imaging taken under excellent seeing conditions has revealed a curved object 25$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 (15 $`h^1`$kpc) from the center of the A2152 BCG, along the major axis. The reddening-corrected $`R`$ magnitude of this “arc” is $`m_R=18.55\pm 0.03`$, and follow-up spectroscopy shows that it lies at a redshift $`z=0.1423\pm 0.0001`$. Its position, orientation, and redshift all suggest a lensing explanation for the curiously bowed structure. The object has numerous strong emission lines, and the equivalent width of H$`\alpha `$ is $`117\pm 6`$ Å, from which we infer a star formation rate of $`(3\pm 1)h^2\text{M}\text{}`$yr-1.

We have presented spatially resolved spectroscopy of the A2152 BCG and SRG, which are separated by 47″ and are together catalogued as UGC 10187. The relative velocity of the BCG and SRG is $`331\pm 7`$ km s-1, and both galaxies show significant rotation. The rotational velocities along the observed position angle are $`50`$ km s-1 and $`120`$ km s-1 for the BCG and SRG, respectively. Our velocity dispersion profile for the BCG extends to a radius of $`16\mathrm{}`$ (9.5 $`h^1`$Mpc), about 60% of the way to the radial position of the lensed galaxy.

We have modeled the lensing potential of A2152 using constraints from the measured cluster velocity dispersion of 715 km s-1 and our own stellar velocity dispersion measurements for the BCG and SRG. The models cannot produce a significant lensing effect on galaxy A if the A2152 potential center is taken to coincide with the peak of the overall X-ray emission. However, if the potential center is taken to be the A2152 BCG, then the models can reproduce the observed position and apparent bowed shape of the galaxy, and the implied magnification is a factor of about 1.9. Conversely, we can say that if the object is significantly lensed, then the 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$1 offset of the X-ray centroid from the BCG is due to contamination from another source of X-ray emission. We note that both the cluster velocity dispersion and the core softening radius in our lensing model is degenerate with the source position. However, the higher values that have been reported for the dispersion (see §2), if centered on the BCG, produce lens models with critical curves that lie outside of the lensed galaxy, thus multiple images would be expected of any background galaxy at the position and redshift of A. We can therefore rule out this case from a lensing argument; even a large core radius model would produce significantly more distortion in a $`z=0.142`$ galaxy.

The available redshift data provide evidence for a background association of early-type galaxies at $`z0.134`$, projected near the center of A2152. Two of the galaxies, which we call G1/G2, have redshifts from the Barmby & Huchra (1998) catalogue. They are separated by 30″ and are each about 70% more luminous than the A2152 BCG. The third galaxy, called G3, is 35″ southeast of the A2152 BCG and was picked up by the LRIS slit during our observations. It is 116″ from G1 and 132″ from G2, or metric distances of 188-215 $`h^1`$kpc. The velocity range for these three galaxies is $`830`$ km s-1. While three galaxies do not a cluster make, the luminosities, velocities, and early-type morphologies of the galaxies are highly suggestive. Moreover, there is a strong concentration of small galaxies of unknown redshift centered near the bright G1/G2 pair. It is highly likely that some of the X-ray emission, which is centered just 20″ from G2, could be due to a grouping of galaxies associated with G1/G2. Therefore, the center of the true A2152 X-ray emission, and the center of the A2152 cluster potential, might well coincide with the A2152 BCG, as required by our lensing models. We note that the centers of the outermost X-ray contours in the Jones & Forman map of this field drift away from G1/G2 and closer to the A2152 BCG; the optical H$`\beta `$ emission we find in the BCG spectrum may be additional circumstantial evidence for central location in the cluster potential. However, a high-resolution X-ray map is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

If there is a background cluster, galaxy A may well be a member, in which case it would be falling away from us through the cluster with a velocity of $`2500`$ km s-1. Simulations show that the tidal effects of clusters on infalling galaxies can warp spiral disks into arc-like shapes (Moore et al. 1999a) and even form giant arcs of tidal debris (Calcáneo-Roldán et al. 2000). Thus, tidal interaction with a local cluster potential, rather than lensing by the foreground A2152 potential, could be responsible for the distorted appearance of the galaxy, as well as for the observed strong star formation. Its location and orientation with respect to the A2152 BCG would then be merely fortuitous. However, the galaxy in question would have to be caught during its initial pass through the cluster, since gas in cluster galaxies tends to be lost on relatively short time-scales, truncating the star formation (e.g., Balogh et al. 1998; Kodama & Bower 2000). The probability that galaxy A is a member of a cluster at $`z=0.13`$ depends of course on the velocity dispersion of the cluster. A deep redshift survey of this field is needed to discern whether or not there is a very substantial background cluster (as suggested by the luminosities of G1/G2 and the position of the X-ray center in this field), and how likely galaxy A’s membership is. Such a redshift survey would need to go at least $`2`$ mag fainter than the Barmby & Huchra (1998) limit in order to pick up the multitude of small galaxies that lie between the A2152 BCG/SRG pair and the G1/G2 background pair.

Although superficially A2152 might have seemed an unremarkable low-redshift cluster (leaving aside the unlikely velocity dispersions in excess 1300 km s-1 found in the literature), our photometric and spectroscopic observations of its central field have raised a host of intriguing new questions about this cluster and the arc-shaped galaxy projected near its BCG. How much mass is there along this line of sight and how is it distributed? Is the A2152 BCG actually at the center of the cluster potential and the observed offset with respect to the X-ray center due to the superposed emission of a background cluster at $`z=0.13`$? If so, is the distorted galaxy a member which is being distorted by the hypothetical background cluster, or is it a field galaxy being lensed by A2152? Along with high-resolution X-ray observations and a deep redshift survey, a weak lensing analysis of this field would help in unraveling the projected mass distribution and provide insight into these questions.

We believe that the weight of the evidence favors the view that the A2152 BCG is at the center of its cluster’s potential and is significantly lensing galaxy A. Further lensed objects, if present near critical curves, could provide useful future constraints on the central structure of rich clusters. For now, however, a complete understanding of this system and definitive answers to the questions raised by this study must await an infusion of new data.

We thank Michael Balogh, Alastair Edge, Ben Moore, Ian Smail, and Graham Smith for helpful conversations. This work made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It also made use of Starlink computer facilities. We are grateful to the team of scientists and engineers responsible for producing the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph. J.P.B. and P.C. thank the Sherman Fairchild Foundation for support while at Caltech. M.R.M’s research was supported by Caltech. J.P.B. and H.K. were supported at the University of Durham by a PPARC rolling grant in Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology. Note added in proof — New multi-color data confirm the presence of a rich background cluster around the $`z=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.13}`$ G1/G2 galaxy pair; analysis of these data will be presented in a forthcoming paper.


text:
# The method of vacuum vectors in the theory of Yang – Baxter equation

## §1. Vacuum vectors and vacuum curves

Let $`S^Q`$ and $`S^A`$ be two finite-dimensional complex linear spaces ($`S^Q`$ is called “quantum space”, and $`S^A`$ is “auxiliary”, see ); and let $`L`$ be a linear operator acting in $`S^QS^A`$. We will denote vectors from $`S^Q`$ by letters $`U,V,\mathrm{}`$, and vectors from $`S^A`$ by letters $`X,Y,\mathrm{}`$. Let the relation

$$L(UX)=VY$$
$`(1)`$
hold.

Definition 1. The vacuum variety $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ of an operator $`L`$ is the set of pairs $`(U,V)`$, $`U0`$, $`V0`$, for which the relation (1) is satisfied with some $`X`$ and $`Y`$, $`X0`$, taken to within the equivalence $`(U,V)(t_1U,t_2V)`$, where $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are some nonzero numbers. Any (including zero) vector $`X`$ corresponding according to (1) to a given point $`z\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ is called vacuum vector, while any vector $`Y`$co-vacuum vector. The vacuum variety is an algebraic variety, and a point $`z`$ must be assumed to enter it with the multiplicity equal to the dimension of the space of vacuum vectors in it.

Definition 2. An operator $`L`$ acting in $`S^QS^A`$ is called equivalent to an operator $`M`$ acting in $`S^QS^B`$ if an isomorphism $`R:S^AS^B`$ exists such that $`RL=MR`$. Similarly, two families of operators $`L(\lambda )`$ and $`M(\lambda )`$ ($`\lambda `$ is any parameter) are called equivalent if an isomorphism $`R`$ exists such that $`RL(\lambda )=M(\lambda )R`$ for every $`\lambda `$. In these cases we will say that $`R`$ performs such equivalence.

Remark. Here we identify the operator $`R`$ with the operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}R`$ acting from $`S^QS^A`$ to $`S^QS^B`$. We also treat similarly other operators when needed.

The following lemma, although being evident, plays the fundamental role in the sequel.

Lemma 1. The vacuum varieties of equivalent operators coincide.

In the rest of this paper we consider only the case $`dimS^Q=2`$. We can then put in formula (1) $`U=\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$, $`V=\left(\begin{array}{c}v\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$, where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are complex numbers or $`\mathrm{}`$. Denote $`dimS^A`$ as $`N`$.

Theorem 1 . The vacuum curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ of a generic operator $`L`$ is a smooth irreducible algebraic curve given by equation of the kind

$$P_L(u,v)=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ij}u^iv^j=0.$$
$`(2)`$
The vacuum (co-vacuum) vectors form a one-dimensional holomorphic bundle of degree $`N^2N`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$.

Degenerate cases are also important, for example the case when $`P_L(u,v)=[p(u,v)]^l`$. In such case the vacuum (co-vacuum) vectors form an $`l`$-dimensional holomorphic bundle over the curve given by the polynomial $`p(u,v)`$ .

Introduce now two auxiliary spaces $`S_1^A`$ and $`S_2^A`$, and let $`S^A=S_1^AS_2^A`$. Consider operators $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ acting respectively in $`S^QS_1^A`$ and $`S^QS_2^A`$, and the operator $`L_1L_2`$ acting in $`S^QS^A`$.

Definition 3. Composition of vacuum curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ given by equations $`P_1(u,v)=0`$ and $`P_2(u,v)=0`$ of the form (2) is the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by equation $`P(u,v)=0`$ where $`P(u,v)`$ is the resultant  of $`P_1(w,v)`$ and $`P_2(u,w)`$ considered as polynomials in $`w`$.

Thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the set of points $`u,v`$, taken with proper multiplicities, for which a $`w`$ exists such that $`(u,w)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`(w,v)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$.

Theorem 2 . The vacuum curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the operator $`L_1L_2`$ is the composition of vacuum curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ of operators $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$.

We are interested in the equivalence of operators of the form $`L_1L_2`$ and $`L_2L_1`$, that is in solutions of Yang–Baxter equation $`RL_1L_2=L_2L_1R`$. This motivates, in light of Lemma 1 and Theorem 2, the following

Definition 4. Vacuum curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are called commuting if the composition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ coincides with the composition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$.

## §2. Formulation of the main theorem

Recall that $`dimS^Q=2`$, and let $`dimS_1^Q=dimS_2^Q=3`$. Considers two one-parametric families of operators:

$$L_i(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_i(\lambda )& B_i(\lambda )\\ C_i(\lambda )& D_i(\lambda )\end{array}\right)$$
$`(3)`$
($`i=1,2`$), where $`A_i(\lambda ),\mathrm{},D_i(\lambda )`$ act in spaces $`S_i^A`$, realize two representations of the commutation relations of 6-vertex model \[1,4–7\] with parameter $`\eta =\pi /3`$, and are expressed, in the propers bases, by formulas

$$A_i(\lambda )=a_i\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\rho _i)& & \\ & \mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\rho _i\frac{2\pi }{3})& \\ & & \mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\rho _i\frac{4\pi }{3})\end{array}\right),$$
$`(4)`$
$$D_i(\lambda )=d_i\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\sigma _i\frac{4\pi }{3})& & \\ & \mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\sigma _i\frac{2\pi }{3})& \\ & & \mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\sigma _i)\end{array}\right),$$
$`(5),`$
$$B_i(\lambda )=C_i^\mathrm{T}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & b_{13}^{(i)}\\ b_{21}^{(i)}& 0& \\ & b_{32}^{(i)}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(6)`$
$$(b_{k+1,k}^{(i)})^2(b_{k,k1}^{(i)})^2=a_id_i\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{3}\mathrm{sin}(\rho _i\sigma _i\frac{2+4k}{3}\pi ).$$
$`(7)`$
Here $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are constant numbers; $`k=1,\mathrm{},3`$, the addition in subscripts is understood modulo 3.

The method for calculation of vacuum curves is given in the work . As a result of direct calculations we get for the vacuum curve of operator $`L_i(\lambda )`$ the equation

$$1+\alpha _i(\lambda )u^3\delta _i(\lambda )v^3u^3v^3=0,$$
$`(8)`$
where

$$\alpha _i(\lambda )=\frac{a_i^3\mathrm{sin}3(\lambda +\rho _i)}{4b_{21}^{(i)}b_{32}^{(i)}b_{13}^{(i)}};\delta _i(\lambda )=\frac{d_i^3\mathrm{sin}3(\lambda +\sigma _i)}{4b_{21}^{(i)}b_{32}^{(i)}b_{13}^{(i)}}.$$
$`(9)`$
Lemma 2. Two vacuum curves given by equations

$$1+\alpha u^3\delta v^3u^3v^3=0$$
$`(10)`$
and

$$1+\alpha ^{}u^3\delta ^{}v^3u^3v^3=0$$

commute if and only if $`\alpha \delta =\alpha ^{}\delta ^{}`$.

Proof  is obtained by straightforward calculation.

Theorem 3. In order that two operator families $`L(\lambda )=L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )`$ and $`M(\lambda )=L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )`$, where $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ are given by formulas (3–7), be equivalent it is necessary and sufficient that the vacuum curves of operators $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ commute for every $`\lambda `$.

## §3. Proof of Theorem 3

The necessity of the condition of Theorem 3 is obvious from Lemma 1. The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of sufficiency.

We will need the following notations. We will always understand the operator product of the type $`=L_1\mathrm{}L_k`$ in the sense that those operators have a common quantum space $`S^Q`$ and different auxiliary spaces $`S_1^A,\mathrm{},S_k^A`$, so that $``$ acts in $`S^QS_1^A\mathrm{}S_k^A`$. Similarly to (3), we will write $``$ as $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 𝒞& 𝒟\end{array}\right)`$. Next, if $`L_i(\lambda )`$ is an operator of the form (3–7) then we denote as $`L_i^{}(\lambda )`$ the operator of the same form given by the formula

$$L_i^{}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & 1\\ \text{0}& 1& \\ 1& & \text{0}\end{array}\right)L_i\lambda \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & 1\\ \text{0}& 1& \\ 1& & \text{0}\end{array}\right).$$

If $`L_i(\lambda )`$ and $`L_i^{}(\lambda )`$ enter in the same product of operators we will assume that they act in different copies of their auxiliary space.

Lemma 3. If the vacuum curve of operator $`L_i(\lambda )`$ has the equation (8) then the vacuum curve of operator $`L_i^{}(\lambda )`$ has the equation

$$1\delta _i(\lambda )u^3+\alpha _i(\lambda )v^3u^3v^3=0.$$

The composition of vacuum curves of operators $`L_i(\lambda )`$ and $`L_i^{}(\lambda )`$ has the equation

$$(v^3u^3)^3=0.$$
$`(11)`$
Proof  is performed by direct calculations.

Let us introduce the operation $`\widehat{}`$ of “transposing in quantum indices”: if $`L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)`$ then $`\widehat{L}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& C\\ B& D\end{array}\right)`$.

Lemma 4. If an operator $`L_i(\lambda )`$ is given by formulas (3–7) then

$`detL_i(\lambda )=[a_id_i\mathrm{sin}^2\lambda (b_{13}^{(i)})^2]^3,`$
$`det\widehat{L}_i(\lambda )=detL_i(\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}).`$
Proof  of the lemma is obtained by direct calculation.

Thus, all zeros of functions $`detL_i(\lambda )`$ and $`det\widehat{L}_i(\lambda )`$ are of order 3.

Theorem 4. Let operators $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ be given by formulas (3–7). Then for the operator

$$(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜(\lambda )& (\lambda )\\ 𝒞(\lambda )& 𝒟(\lambda )\end{array}\right)=L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )$$

there exists, in the general position in the parameters of operators $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$, the unique vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from the auxiliary space such that $`(\lambda )=0`$ for all $`\lambda `$. Vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an eigenvector for operators $`𝒜(\lambda )`$ and $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ with eigenvalues $`a(\lambda )`$ and $`d(\lambda )`$, and the function $`d(\lambda )`$ (resp. $`a(\lambda )`$) has zeros of the first order in those and only those points where $`detL_1detL_2=0`$ (resp. $`det\widehat{L}_1det\widehat{L}_2=0`$). The vacuum curve of operator $`(\lambda )`$ has the equation $`(v^3u^3)^{27}=0`$.

Proof.  According to Lemma 3, the vacuum curve of operator $`L_2(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )`$ has the form (11). It is easy to see that a curve of the form (11) commutes with any curve of the form (8). Thus, the vacuum curve of $`(\lambda )`$ coincides with the vacuum curve of $`L_1(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )`$, i.e. with the composition of two curves of the form (11). This composition yields the curve $`(v^3u^3)^{27}=0`$.

It follows directly from the fact that the point $`(u,v)=(0,0)`$ belongs to the vacuum curve of $`(\lambda )`$ for any $`\lambda `$ that, for any $`\lambda `$, there exists such a vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda )`$ that $`(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda )=0`$. It is known, however, that all operators $`(\lambda )`$ commute . So, the space $`S^A`$ where the operators $`(\lambda )`$ act decomposes into a direct sum of subspaces $`S_f^A`$ corresponding to different “weights” $`f(\lambda )`$ in the sense that the operators $`(\lambda )f(\lambda )\mathrm{𝟏}`$ are nilpotent on $`S_f^A`$. It is clear from the above that the function $`f(\lambda )0`$ is necessarily present among the “weights”. In the corresponding subspace $`S_0^A`$ all the $`(\lambda )`$ are nilpotent and thus a vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }S_0^A`$ exists such that $`(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }0`$.

Let us prove that the space of such vectors $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is, in the general position, not more than one-dimensional. If $`b_{13}^{(1)}=b_{13}^{(2)}=0`$ (formula (6)) and the other parameters are in the general position then necessarily

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{const}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right).$$

The space of vectors $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cannot have a smaller dimension in a particular case than in the general case.

The fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an eigenvector for $`𝒜(\lambda )`$ and $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ follows now from the commutation relations of the 6-vertex model.

Clearly, the condition $`𝒟(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ together with $`(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ means the degeneracy of the operator $`(\lambda )`$; this can be achieved only in the points where $`detL_1detL_2=0`$. Again from the case $`b_{13}^{(1)}=b_{13}^{(2)}=0`$ we see that the function $`d(\lambda )`$ has zeros of the first order in all such points. This statement is extended to the general case by continuity, taking into account that the whole number of zeros of the function $`d(\lambda )`$ cannot change \[4–7\].

Similar arguments applied to the operator $`\widehat{}(\lambda )=\widehat{L}_1^{}(\lambda )\widehat{L}_2^{}(\lambda )\widehat{L}_2(\lambda )\widehat{L}_1(\lambda )`$ gives the theorem’s statement as for function $`a(\lambda )`$. The theorem is proved.

Theorem 5. Let, in addition to the conditions of Theorem 4, the vacuum curves of operators $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ commute for all $`\lambda `$. Then the operator $`\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(\lambda )& \stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )\\ \stackrel{~}{𝒞}(\lambda )& \stackrel{~}{𝒟}(\lambda )\end{array}\right)=L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )`$, too, possesses in the general position the unique vector $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{~}{d}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, and the zeros of $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}(\lambda )`$ coincide, respectively, with the zeros of $`a(\lambda )`$ and $`d(\lambda )`$. The vacuum curves of $`\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )`$ and $`(\lambda )`$ coincide.

Proof.  The vacuum curves of operators $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ commute, consequently the vacuum curve of $`\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )`$ coincides with the vacuum curve of $`(\lambda )`$. The further reasonings are completely analogous to the proof of Theorem 4. The theorem is proved.

It is clear from formulas (3–7) that $`a(\lambda )`$, $`d(\lambda )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}(\lambda )`$ must be trigonometric polynomials. As the zeros of the functions coincide as stated in Theorem 5, $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )=a_0a(\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}(\lambda )=d_0d(\lambda )`$, where $`a_0`$ and $`d_0`$ are constants. It follows from this and from the theory of commutation relations of the 6-vertex model that the one-parametric family of operators $`\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )`$ is equivalent to the family

$$(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_0𝒜(\lambda )& \sqrt[]{a_0d_0}(\lambda )\\ \sqrt[]{a_0d_0}𝒞(\lambda )& d_0𝒟(\lambda )\end{array}\right).$$

At the same time, the vacuum curve equation for the operator $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 𝒞& 𝒟\end{array}\right)`$ has the form

$$det\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& v\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 𝒞& 𝒟\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ 1\end{array}\right)\right]=0$$
$`(12)`$
(here the operator in square brackets acts in the auxiliary space). Thus, if the vacuum curve of operator $`(\lambda )`$ is given by the equation $`𝒫(u,v)=0`$ then the vacuum curve of operator $`(\lambda )`$ must, as is easily seen, have the form $`𝒫(\sqrt[]{\frac{a_0}{d_0}}u,\sqrt[]{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d_0}{a_0}}}v)=0`$. According to Theorems 4 and 5, both those curves have equations $`(v^3u^3)^{27}=0`$. Hence, $`a_0=d_0`$, and the operator family $`\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )`$ is equivalent to the family $`a_0(\lambda )`$. We see from the case $`L_2(\lambda )=L_1(\lambda )`$ that $`a_01`$ (because $`a_0`$ as a function of the parameters entering in families $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ cannot have jumps). Thus, we proved the following

Theorem 6. If the vacuum curves of operators $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ given by formulas (3–7) commute for all $`\lambda `$ then the family of operators $`L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )`$ is equivalent to the family $`L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )`$.

Remark. Similarly to Theorem 6, we can also show the family $`L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )`$ to be equivalent to the family $`L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )`$.

Consider now the following two operator families:

$$(\lambda )(\lambda )=L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda ),$$
$`(13)`$
$$(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )=L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_1^{}(\lambda )$$
$`(14)`$
(recall that different copies of operators act in different auxiliary spaces). The families (13) and (14) have “generating vectors” $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ respectively, so it follows from the theory of 6-vertex model’s commutation relations that if these two families are equivalent then the operator $`R`$ performing this equivalence is determined uniquely up to a numeric factor (in the general position). At the same time, we get form Theorem 6 and the following Remark two operators $`R`$ acting in different auxiliary spaces (and multiplied by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in the rest, see Remark after Definition 2). Thus, in reality, $`R`$ acts nontrivially only in the tensor product of the auxiliary spaces of operators $`L_1(\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$ that are situated on the right in formulas (13) and (14); with this, Theorem 3 is proved.

## §4. Discussion of results

Formulas (8) and (9) show that the operator $`R`$ performing the equivalence

$$RL_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )=L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )R$$
$`(15)`$
of operator families given by (3–7) exists if and only if the following equality holds for all $`\lambda `$:

$$\frac{a_1^3\mathrm{sin}3(\lambda +\rho _1)d_1^3\mathrm{sin}3(\lambda +\sigma _1)}{b_{21}^{(1)}b_{32}^{(1)}b_{13}^{(1)}}=\frac{a_2^3\mathrm{sin}3(\lambda +\rho _2)d_2^3\mathrm{sin}3(\lambda +\sigma _2)}{b_{21}^{(2)}b_{32}^{(2)}b_{13}^{(2)}}.$$
$`(15)`$
At the same time, if the equivalence (15) holds then vacuum curves of the operator families $`L_1(\mu +\lambda )`$ and $`L_2(\lambda )`$, $`\mu =\mathrm{const}`$, will no longer commute (except for some special cases). Hence, due to Lemma 1, for such families the equivalence similar to (15) does not take place. This means that one cannot introduce a parameter $`\mu `$ similar to the parameter $`\lambda `$ in $`L_i(\lambda )`$ in the set of all operators $`R`$ performing equivalences of the type considered in this paper. The author hopes to investigate the issues of parameterization and the further properties of operators $`R`$ in the future. Here let us mention the two following facts.

Theorem 7. Let there be three operator families $`L_i(\lambda )`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, given by formulas (3–7) and having mutually commuting vacuum curves for all $`\lambda `$. Let operators $`R_{ij}`$, $`i,j=1,2,3`$, $`i<j`$, perform equivalences $`R_{ij}L_i(\lambda )L_j(\lambda )=L_j(\lambda )L_i(\lambda )R_{ij}`$. Then the following equality (“triangle equation”) holds:

$$R_{12}R_{13}R_{23}=R_{23}R_{13}R_{12}.$$
$`(17)`$
Proof.  The left- and right-hand sides of equation (17) both perform the equivalence between operator families $`L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_3(\lambda )`$ and $`L_3(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )`$. We can introduce three more operators and auxiliary spaces and say that both sides of (17) perform the equivalence between families $`L_1^{}(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_3^{}(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_3(\lambda )`$ and $`L_1^{}(\lambda )L_2^{}(\lambda )L_3^{}(\lambda )L_3(\lambda )L_2(\lambda )L_1(\lambda )`$. One can show in a way similar to the proofs of Theorems 4 and 5 that the two latter families possess “generating vectors” and thus, according to the theory of 6-vertex model’s commutation relations, the operator performing their equivalence is determined, in the general case, uniquely (to within a constant factor). The theorem is proved.

One more fact of interest is also that vacuum curves of the form (10) reveal obvious analogy to the vacuum curves of the well-known Felderhof model studied for the first time in paper .

## References

* Takhtajan L.A., Faddeev L.D. Quantum inverse problem method and the $`XYZ`$ Heisenberg model. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, V. 34, issue 5(209) (1979), 13–63 (in Russian).
* Krichever I.M. Baxter equations and algebraic geometry. Funkc. anal. i pril. V. 15, issue 2 (1981), 22-35 (in Russian).
* Waerden B.L., van der. Algebra. Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1979 (in Russian).
* Korepin V.E. Analysis of the bilinear relation of the 6-vertex model. Dokl. AN SSSR, V. 265, no. 6 (1982), 1361–1364 (in Russian).
* Tarasov V.O. On the structure of quantum $`L`$-operators for the $`R`$-matrix of the $`XXZ`$ model. Teor. Mat. Fiz., V. 61, no. 2 (1984), 163–173 (in Russian).
* Tarasov V.O. Local Hamiltonians for integrable quantum models on a lattice. II. Teor. Mat. Fiz., V. 61, no. 3 (1984), 387–392 (in Russian).
* Izergin A.G., Korepin V.E. Lattice version of quantum field theory models in two dimensions. Nucl. Phys., V. B205\[FS5\], no. 3 (1982), 401–413.

## Remarks of year 2000

I hope that this paper is still of mathematical interest. On the historical side, in order to prove who was really first in discovering some facts related to the 6-vertex and chiral Potts models, I would like to add here some more references, namely to papers that I received back from journals in 1986–87. In particular, the same as in this paper was already done not only for 3, but for any number of “colors”. These are:

* I.G. Korepanov, Vacuum curves of $``$-operators associated with the 6-vertex model, and construction of $`R`$-operators. Deposited at VINITI (“All-Union Institute for Scientific and Technical Information”) on April 2, 1986, Manuscript no. 2271-V86 (in Russian).
* I.G. Korepanov, Hidden symmetries of the 6-vertex model. Deposited at VINITI on February 27, 1987, Manuscript no. 1472-V87 (in Russian).
* I.G. Korepanov, On the spectrum of the transfer matrix of 6-vertex model. Deposited at VINITI on May 7, 1987, Manuscript no. 3268-V87 (in Russian).

Now this all (except some unimportant things) is published in the following papers:

* I.G. Korepanov, Vacuum curves of the $``$-operators related to the six-vertex model, St. Petersburg. Math. J., V. 6, no. 2 (1995), 349–364.
* I.G. Korepanov, Hidden symmetries of the 6-vertex model of statystical physics, Zap. Nauch. Semin. POMI, V. 215 (1994), 163–177 (in Russian; English translation see in hep-th/9410066).