text:
# How to split the electron in one dimension

\[

## Abstract

Using the example of the Davydov soliton - a large acoustic polaron in one dimension - we demonstrate that the electron wave function can be fissioned in two or more long-lived, well-localized and spatially arbitrarily far separated fragments. The phenomenon of wave function splitting is a result of the electron-medium interaction, and takes place under a variety of conditions provided the initial wave function of the electron is localized and has at least one node.

\]

The concept of the wave function and the invention of quantum mechanics are among the most fascinating and powerful achievements of physics. The purpose of this Letter is to show yet another intriguing manifestation of quantum mechanics, namely that the wave function of an elementary particle can be fissioned into well-localized, spatially well-separated, and long-lived pieces.

The idea of fissioning has been put forward by Maris in his analysis of the physics of electron bubbles in superfluid helium . It has been known for years that an electron injected into liquid helium can lower its energy by self-localizing in a $`1s`$ state inside a spherical cavity from which helium atoms are expelled. Maris argues that if the electron is optically excited from the $`1s`$ state to the $`1p`$ state, the pressure exerted by the electron in the excited state will no longer support the spherical cavity – the bubble walls will be set into motion, and the inertia of the liquid around the bubble will suffice to break the bubble into two smaller bubbles each carrying half of the original wave function. Maris further argues that the daughter bubbles will act in such a way as if they were fractions of the original particle, and that the existence of “fractional” bubbles explains a substantial amount of otherwise unexplained experimental data.

Elser  disagrees, arguing that the failure of the adiabatic approximation used in  makes it impossible to fission the wave function.

Jackiw, Rebbi and Schrieffer  do not contest the existence of a bubble carrying “half of the electron’s wave function” but point out that an electron in a helium bubble is entangled rather than fractional: before a measurement one cannot state in which bubble the electron resides; after the measurement a full electron will be found in one bubble and nothing in the other.

The dispute initiated by the proposal  raises a fundamental question: Is it in principle possible to fission the wave function of an elementary particle in long-lived localized well-separated fragments?

We found an affirmative answer to this question in a related physical context. Part of the difficulty in making definite statements about electron bubbles in helium is that the treatments involve too many approximations ; some of which are hardly justifiable . At the same time it seems difficult to improve the approximations without making the problem unmanageable.

Electrons form bubbles in helium as a consequence of a kind of polaronic effect: they become self-localized as a result of the response of the medium. Instead we will look at a quantum particle in the presence of a deformable classical medium, a one-dimensional polaron problem. Among the attractive features of this system is that self-localization takes place regardless of the magnitude of the coupling between the electron and the medium . When the coupling is small, the scale of the self-localized state can be much bigger than the atomic spacing (“large” polaron limit), and thus a macroscopic approach that ignores the discreteness of the medium can be adopted. From a practical viewpoint, polaronic effects play an important role in the physics of quasi-one-dimensional conductors . Polarons (also called Davydov solitons) are known to exist in $`\alpha `$ \- helical protein molecules of living organisms, and play a crucial role in the transport of vibrational energy and charge . These systems represent experimental candidates where the effects described below can be tested.

The dynamics of the system is described by the set of Davydov equations :

$$i\mathrm{}_t\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_x^2\mathrm{\Psi }+\lambda _xu\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(1)
$$\rho _t^2u=B_x^2u+\lambda _x|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2,$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ is the electron wave function normalized to unity, $`u(x,t)`$ is the classical displacement field of the medium, $`B`$ is the bulk constant of the medium, $`\rho `$ is the linear mass density of the medium, and $`\lambda `$ is the constant of electron-medium interaction. The first of the equations (1) is the Schrödinger equation for the electron moving in a self-induced potential $`\lambda _xu`$ due to the strain in the medium, while the second equation (2) is the inhomogeneous wave equation with an extra term accounting for the force exerted by the electron on the particles of the medium. A classical description of the medium degrees of freedom is justified as the medium is composed of a large number of particles which are much heavier than the electron.

The ground state of the coupled electron-medium system is described by the soliton solution to (1) and (2) of the form : $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{exp}(iE_0t/\mathrm{})\mathrm{sech}(x/\xi )/(2\xi )^{1/2}`$ and $`_xu_0=(\lambda /B)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2`$, where $`E_0=\mathrm{}^2/(2m\xi ^2)`$, and $`\xi =2B\mathrm{}^2/(m\lambda ^2)`$. The physical meaning of this solution is that the electron deforms the medium, which acts as a potential well localizing the electron in its lowest energy state with wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and energy $`E_0<0`$. Including the deformation energy, the total energy change due to the formation of the soliton is $`E_0/3`$, which is still negative. Thus the soliton forms spontaneously. The location of the soliton center is arbitrary, and the localization length $`\xi `$ will be assumed to be much larger than the atomic scale. The Davydov soliton is remotely analogous to the $`1s`$ electron bubble in helium  – the potential well $`\lambda _xu_0=(\lambda ^2/B)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2=(\mathrm{}^2/m\xi ^2)\mathrm{sech}^2(x/\xi )`$ created and sensed by the electron is analogous to the cavity of expelled helium atoms confining the electron motion.

Using the dimensionless variables for length $`y=x/\xi `$, time $`\tau =|E_0|t/\mathrm{}`$, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\xi ^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and the potential felt by the electron $`w=\lambda _xu/|E_0|`$, the system of equations (1) and (2) simplifies to:

$$i_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }=_y^2\mathrm{\Phi }+w\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(3)
$$s_\tau ^2w=_y^2[w+4|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2].$$
(4)
It is interesting that the parameter $`s=\lambda ^4\rho /(16B^3\mathrm{}^2)`$ controlling the strength of electron-medium coupling does not depend on the electron mass. The dimensionless description (3) and (4) will be used hereafter.

We are now ready to describe how to split the wave function into fragments. In the limit that a fragment is infinitely far away from other features of the wave function it is necessarily of the $`\mathrm{sech}`$ form and the supporting medium well is of the $`\mathrm{sech}^2`$ form. For example, half of the Davydov soliton is described by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}(i\tau /4)\mathrm{sech}(y/2)/2\sqrt{2}`$ (normalized to one half) and $`w_{1/2}=\mathrm{sech}^2(y/2)/2`$. It is straightforward to calculate that the total energy gain from having in the system two infinitely far separated halves of the Davydov soliton is four times smaller than that from having one full soliton, showing that the Davydov soliton is a stable object which does not spontaneously break in half. However the soliton can be split if extra energy is invested into the system.

To prepare the initial state which will split into fragments one can try, following Maris , to optically excite the electron into the first excited state of the self-induced potential . However this idea will not work in one dimension: the self-induced potential $`w_0=4|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|^2=2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}^2y`$ has only one bound state, . Nonetheless, it is possible to excite the electron into an initial state that is well-localized, even though it is a superposition of the unbound states, such that the wave function separates into distinct and well-localized components. For example, for the potential $`w_0=2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}^2y`$ the zero-energy state is on the verge of becoming discrete . Then imposing arbitrarily weak even external confining potential will turn the marginal state into an odd localized excited state. Exciting the electron into this newly formed state and turning off the external potential, we arrive at the initial condition resembling the $`1p`$ electron inside the spherical helium bubble .

More generally, if initially the wave function is odd and well-localized, and the strain field is even and well-localized, the zero of the wave function persists through the evolution. This node plays the role of an impenetrable wall that repels the wings of the wave function. Without the coupling with the medium there would be a long-range repulsion between the wings and the node and the wave function will just spread out away from the origin. The presence of the medium prevents spreading by localizing the wave function and making its interaction with the node short ranged. After the initial breakup the fragments of the wave function will start aggregating into the appropriate $`\mathrm{sech}`$ form, and will virtually stop feeling the presence of the node as soon as they are several localization lengths apart from the origin. At the same time the material degrees of freedom will keep adjusting into the appropriate $`\mathrm{sech}^2`$ form. This process of ”settling down” into the Davydov form will be accompanied by the fragments emitting sound waves which establishes a ”communication” between the pieces even when they are far apart. The exchange of sound waves leads to a very long-range repulsion between the fragments, since the amplitude of sound waves is a constant independent of the distance to the source of sound (in one dimension). Thus the combination of inertia acquired as a result of the initial breakup, and the long-range repulsion through exchange by sound will separate the fragments arbitrarily far from each other.

For the initial conditions described above the exchange of probabilities between the fragments is forbidden by symmetry. In reality there can be deviations from the ”ideal” conditions. Then the initial zero of the wave function will not be preserved by the evolution – fragments of unequal sizes can start exchanging by a flow of probability density. This might lead to the larger fragment absorbing the smaller one, thus restoring the full Davydov soliton in a microscopic time. To understand this case we resort to numerical experiments which are described below.

We tested these ideas by numerically solving the system of equations (3) and (4) under a variety of initial conditions. We use a Fourier transform algorithm to integrate forward the Schrödinger equation, thus maintaining unitary evolution perfectly. The wave equation for the stress field is integrated forward using the Verlet algorithm. Figures 1 and 2 show ”carpets” of the electron density $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$ and the well function $`w`$ as functions of position and time. The horizontal direction corresponds to space while the vertical to time; the time arrow runs from the bottom to the top, and the bottom of the Figures represents the initial conditions. The electron density is strictly non-negative and shown using varying shades of red – the higher the density, the deeper the color. The well function is mainly negative and shown using varying shades of blue – the intensity of the color is proportional to the well depth. The places where the well function becomes positive are color-coded in red with the same intensity-magnitude correspondence. The Figures are constructed for $`s=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,0)\mathrm{exp}[0.5(yy_c)^2/d^2]\mathrm{tanh}y`$ – for $`y_c=0`$ this is an odd function localized near the origin ($`d=30`$ was selected), while the parameter $`y_c`$ controls the asymmetry of the initial electron density. The Figures are produced for $`w(y,0)=4|\mathrm{\Phi }(y,0)|^2`$ which corresponds to the local equilibrium of the wave function and the medium - this has an advantage of minimizing transient effects which are unavoidable in the system very far from the ground state. We also tried other functional forms and values of parameters, and always found similar results as long as the initial functions were spatially well-localized, and the wave function had a node.

We show the results of a study using a ring geometry, consisting of $`2L=512`$ units (larger rings were also looked at and the same results were found). In order to have a fair representation of an infinite system we had to make sure that the excitations of the $`w`$ field do not travel around the ring, and thus do not interfere with the dynamics which would be present in truly infinite system. This was accomplished by adding a localized dissipation source at $`y=\pm L`$ – we have included a term of the form $`A\mathrm{exp}[(y\pm L)^2/l^2]_\tau w`$ on the left hand side of (4) with adjustable amplitude $`A`$ and width $`l`$ ($`A=5`$ and $`l=30`$ corresponds to the Figures). Similarly, to eliminate communication between parts of the wave function which are solely due to the ring geometry, we imposed a very large potential barrier at the distances $`l`$ away from the center of the dissipation source – this mimics the vanishing of the wave function at infinity. These measures also turned out to be an effective way to asymptotically slow down and confine the soliton fragments in the vicinity of the dissipation region.

In Figure 1 the initial conditions for the electron density and the well function were selected to be even ($`y_c=0`$). This symmetry is preserved by the equations of motion (3) and (4) which allows us to show the $`y<0`$ part of the electron density carpet (left) and the $`y>0`$ part of the well function (right) on the same plot. Ignoring the fine structure, the left and right sides of Figure 1 are almost perfect mirror images of each other. Most of the fine structure consists of ripples of the $`w`$ field which are sound waves propagating with constant velocity $`s^{1/2}`$. It is obvious that very quickly after the breakup two well-localized objects form which travel away from each other, with the electron density and the well function peaks coinciding. As time progresses, the magnitude of the fragment oscillations decreases as they approach the Davydov functional form. This is because the extra kinetic energy emitted by the fragments outward in the form of sound waves is carried away to infinity – in our finite system it is absorbed by the dissipative segment of the ring opposite to the origin. This segment can be recognized on the $`w`$ carpet as sound-absorbing ripple-free stripe.

It is clear from Figure 1 that the fragments are slightly accelerating away from each other even when they are very far apart. This is because they keep exchanging by sound waves, as can be seen from the $`w`$ part of the carpet, which produces an effective repulsion between the fragments. We tested this idea by putting at the origin a well-localized source of dissipation of the same kind as we have at the system edges. The role of this source is to prevent the fragments from “talking” to each other via sound waves while allowing them to communicate via the wave function. Then we re-ran the program with exactly the same parameters, and turned on the dissipation source half-way through the evolution. As a result we observed that after the dissipation source was turned on, the fragment trajectories became ballistic thus confirming that the acceleration was lattice-mediated. As time progresses the efficiency of this effective repulsion decreases as sound waves partially transmit through the fragments and leave the system.

For asymmetric initial conditions we observed that the zero of the wave function is not preserved during the evolution but the phase discontinuity at $`y=0`$ persists. The weak asymmetry cases are fairly similar to the symmetric ones and not shown. Figure 2 shows the $`w`$ carpet for a strongly asymmetric breakup of the soliton with the asymmetry parameter $`y_c=4`$ (there is initially substantially more probability on the right than on the left). The interesting feature of this evolution is that a smaller third fragment persists for quite a long time until it coalesces with one of the bigger fragments, and we end up with two unequal pieces moving away from each other. The density carpet (free of the sound wave ripples) looks almost identical to Figure 2 and is not shown.

We note that in Figures 1 and 2 the velocities of the fragments are substantially smaller than the sound velocity which justifies the use of linear elasticity theory in describing the medium degrees of freedom. We also observed breakups into three and four fragments - this happens for smoother initial conditions than those used to construct Figure 2.

Our results indicate that the wave function fragments have infinite life time. However a finite large life time cannot be ruled out if the medium degrees of freedom would be treated quantum-mechanically.

In interpreting our results it is important to remember that the fissioning of the wave function is a statement about the motion of the electron, and not about its parameters such as charge and mass, that characterize the electron as a particle . The process which leads to the splitting is an example of a measurement in which the quantum system (the electron) interacts with a classical apparatus (the medium) . This measurement process changes the state of the apparatus and affects the electron by splitting its wave function. The field $`w(x,t)`$ is the apparatus “readings” from which we can draw conclusions about the state of the electron, namely the electron probability density $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)|^2`$, which can be verified in a subsequent measurement. If this is a position measurement, a full electron will be found in one of the fragments, and the wave function will instantly vanish elsewhere. In response to that the classical field $`w`$ in the “empty” fragment(s) will start relaxing away which will be the experimental sign that before the position measurement the electron was in several arbitrarily far separated fragments at once.

We also conducted a similar numerical investigation of the two-dimensional version of the problem, and did not find the effect of fissioning which is so apparent in one dimension. In two dimensions the electron self-localization takes place if the coupling with the medium exceeds some critical value, and the polaron is always “small” – its size is of order the lattice spacing . However as long as the observed size of the density (or the well) peaks is much larger than the lattice spacing, the continuum theory is still valid, and the subsequent conclusions refer to this macroscopic regime. We found that deep in the self-localizing regime the two initial density peaks, symmetric with respect to a line where the wave function vanishes, do not separate – they just become sharper and remain independent. The same was also true for an asymmetry in the initial conditions. These observations can be understood by noticing that above one dimension the amplitude of the sound waves is a decreasing function of the distance from the source - the lattice-mediated interaction is a much weaker effect than in one dimension. We also observed that when the coupling with the medium is not too large, slightly asymmetric peaks have a very different fate – the higher one becomes self-localized, while the lower one diffuses away. This is reminiscent of the scenario put forward by Elser  in the context of electron bubbles in helium.

This work was supported by the Thomas F. Jeffress and Kate Miller Jeffress Memorial Trust.


format: text

text:
# Astroparticle Aspects of Supersymmetry

## 1 Why Supersymmetry?

As we have heard at this meeting, theorists have been attracted to supersymmetry for many different reasons: because it is there, because it is beautiful, to unify theories of matter and interactions, etc. However, these profound theoretical arguments have not been able to fix the energy scale where supersymmetry should appear, which could, a priori, be as large as the Planck scale $`10^{19}`$ GeV. On the other hand, an argument for fixing the masses of the supersymmetric partners of the Standard Model particles to be around 1 TeV is provided by the chance offered by supersymmetry of making a large hierarchy of mass scales more natural .

By now, there are several circumstantial experimental hints in favour of supersymmetry at the TeV scale. One is the agreement of the gauge coupling strengths measured at LEP and elsewhere with supersymmetric grand unification, if the spartners of the Standard Model particles weigh $``$ 1 TeV . Another indication is provided by precision electroweak data, that favour a light Higgs boson , as predicted in the MSSM  111Later in this talk, the possibility that direct Higgs searches may be providing more than just an indication is also discussed .. Yet another motivation for new physics at the TeV scale may have been provided recently by the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon , and supersymmetry is quite capable  of explaining the 2.6-$`\sigma `$ discrepancy between theory and the recent BNL E821 experiment .

In this talk, however, I should like to emphasize a third, astrophysical, motivation for TeV-scale supersymmetry, namely the cold dark matter for which the lightest supersymmetric particle is an ideal candidate. Recall that conventional (baryonic) matter constitutes $`<`$ 5 % of the critical density, according to analyses of Big-Bang nucleosynthesis  and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation . There are both astrophysical and particle-experimental reasons to believe that massive neutrinos could provide at most a similar percentage of the critical density . However, analyses of the CMB and large-scale structure data suggest that the total amount of matter in the Universe corresponds to about 30 % of the critical density, far more than could be provided by either baryons or neutrinos . Theories of structure formation suggest that most of the matter density should be in the form of cold dark matter , such as massive weakly-interacting particles. The remaining 65 % of the critical density, as required in inflationary cosmology, indicated by data on high-redshift supernovae  and supported by the CMB data , is presumably provided by some form of vacuum energy, either varying with time or a true cosmological constant.

Turning to particle candidates for the cold dark matter, massive weakly-interacting particles that were originally in thermal equilibrium could have interesting cosmological densities if they had either (a) masses in the eV region, such as neutrinos, (b) masses of a few GeV, now excluded by LEP for particles with neutrino-like couplings to the $`Z^0`$ , or (c) masses in the range from $`m_Z/2`$ up to about 1 TeV. It is the latter possibility that may be realized with the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP).

In this talk, I first review how the realization grew that the LSP could be an excellent candidate for cold dark matter. Then I review the constraints on supersymmetric dark matter coming from accelerator experiments, principally those from LEP. Then I mention the principal strategies for searching for supersymmetric dark matter , including indirect searches for supersymmetric relic annihilations in the galactic halo or core, or inside the Sun or Earth, and direct searches for the scattering of dark matter particles on nuclei in the laboratory. Since one of the tightest constraints on the mass of the LSP is provided by the Higgs search at LEP, which has recently been the subject of much interest, I include a discussion of the status of Higgs searches at LEP. Also, I cannot resist adding some comments on the possible supersymmetric interpretation  of the recent BNL E821 measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment .

## 2 The Lightest Supersymmetric Particle

In many supersymmetric models, this is expected to be stable , and hence likely to be present today in the Universe as a cosmological relic from the Big Bang. It is stable because of a multiplicatively-conserved quantum number called $`R`$ parity , which takes the value +1 for all conventional particles and -1 for all sparticles. Its conservation is linked to those of baryon and lepton numbers:

$$R=(1)^{3B+L+2S}$$
(1)
where $`S`$ is the spin. It is certainly possible to violate $`R`$ by violating $`L`$ either spontaneously or explicitly, but these options are limited by laboratory  and cosmological constraints , and we discard them for the rest of this talk.

The conservation of $`R`$ parity has the following three important consequences.
1) Sparticles are always produced in pairs, e.g., $`pp\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}+X`$ or $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }^+\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}`$.
2) Heavier sparticles decay into lighter ones, e.g., $`\stackrel{~}{q}q\stackrel{~}{q}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$.
3) The lightest supersymmetric particle is stable, because it has no legal decay mode.
It is the latter property that makes the LSP an ideal particle candidate for dark matter.

Although Fayet  had appreciated previously the significance of $`R`$ parity, and he and Farrar  had discussed the phenomenology in laboratory experiments of the LSP, the first discussion of supersymmetric cold dark matter was by Goldberg , as far as I am aware. He discussed the case where the LSP is a pure photino $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, and linked its possible mass to those of the squarks. The next two papers known to me were  and . We saw the Goldberg paper  while we were thinking how to search for supersymmetry at the CERN $`\overline{p}p`$ collider, and were impressed by his argument that cosmology imposed important constraints. However, we also realized that the pure photino limit he considered was insufficient, since this state must mix with the spartners of the neutral Higgs bosons and the $`Z^0`$, in any realistic model. We added some consideration of this mixing in our collider paper , and resolved to study in more detail the full case of mixing between the $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma },\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^0`$ in a generic neutralino $`\chi `$. The resulting paper  came out a few months later.

In addition to calculations of the neutralino relic density, we also presented in  some general arguments on the likely nature of the LSP, in particular why it should interact only weakly. If the supersymmetric relic had either electric charge or strong interactions, it would have condensed into ordinary matter, and shown up as an anomalous heavy isotope. These have not been seen, and experiments impose

$$\frac{n(relic)}{n(p)}<10^{15}\mathrm{to}10^{30}$$
(2)
for 1 GeV $`<m_{relic}<`$ 10 TeV, far below the expected supersymmetric relic abundance. We conclude that the supersymmetric relic is surely electrically neutral and weakly-interacting, e.g., it cannot be a gluino . The latter possibility is resuscitated occasionally, but we are convinced that it is excluded by this anomalous-isotope argument.

Looking through the sparticle data book, the possible cold dark matter scandidates are the sneutrinos $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ of spin 0, the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ of spin 1/2, and the gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ of spin 3/2. Sneutrinos are excluded by a combination of LEP and direct searches. The gravitino is the LSP in gauge-mediated models, in particular, but would only provide hot (or, at best, warm) dark matter, rather than cold, so we do not discuss it further here.

The lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ is therefore the favoured dark matter candidate in many supersymmetric models. At the tree level, it is characterized by 3 parameters: the unmixed gaugino mass, $`m_{1/2}`$, assumed to be universal, the Higgs mixing parameter, $`\mu `$, and the ratio of Higgs v.e.v.’s, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . The neutralino composition simplifies in the limit $`m_{1/2}0`$, where it becomes an almost pure photino $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ , and in the limit $`\mu 0`$, where it becomes an almost pure Higgsino $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ . However, both of these limits are excluded by LEP, which enforces $`m_\chi >`$ 100 GeV  and non-trivial mixing, as we discuss in more detail below.

One of the most exciting features of neutralino dark matter is that there are generic domains of parameter space where an ‘interesting’ cosmological relic density: $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$ is possible for some suitable choice of the other supersymmetric model parameters . This point will be discussed in more detail below, after further discussion of the experimental and cosmological constraints on supersymmetric dark matter.

## 3 Experimental and Cosmological Constraints

The most direct limits on supersymmetric dark matter come from direct searches for other supersymmetric particles. For example, LEP has established that charginos $`\chi ^\pm `$ weigh $`103.5`$ GeV , and has also established important limits by searching for the associated production of neutralinos: $`e^+e^{}\chi +\chi ^{}`$. LEP has also established a lower limit of 100 GeV on the selectron mass, as seen in Fig. 1 . However, one of the most stringent sparticle limits comes indirectly from the Higgs search , since  the Higgs mass is sensitive to sparticle masses via radiative corrections :

$$\delta m_h^2\frac{m_t^4}{m_W^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2}{m_t^2}\right)$$
(3)
Because of the sensitivity to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ in (2), experimental constraints on squarks, in particular the lighter stop: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}95`$ GeV, as seen in Fig. 2 , also impact the neutralino limits.

Relating the Higgs and the direct experimental limits on different types of sparticles requires making some hypotheses on the space of supersymmetric parameters. The minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) is generally assumed, and sample MSSM Higgs limits are shown in Fig. 3. These are calculated in a maximal mixing scenario, in which the $`ZZh`$ coupling may be suppressed at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, relaxing the lower limit on $`m_h`$ from its Standard Model value. In this talk I further assume the constrained MSSM (CMSSM), in which the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar and fermionic mass parameters $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ are universal at some input GUT scale, as are the soft trilinear supersymmetry-breaking parameters $`A_0`$. In this case, the $`ZZh`$ coupling is not suppressed at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the LEP lower limit on the lightest CMSSM Higgs boson is essentially identical to that in the Standard Model. Representative examples of the sensitivity of neutralino limits to Higgs and other limits are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 , for $`\mu >0`$ and $`\mu <0`$, respectively.

We have included in Figs. 4 and 5  the constraint imposed by the measurement of $`bs\gamma `$ , when compared with the latest NLO QCD calculations valid for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ , which is shown as a mdedium-shaded region. These plots also include the requirement that the lighter stau, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, not be the LSP , which is disallowed because the LSP cannot be charged. Fig. 4(a) also shows the impact of LEP chargino searches. If one is nervous about the fate of our vacuum, one may also require that the effective potential have no charge- and colour-breaking (CCB) minimum . However, this requirement may be regarded as optional: it is possible that our present electroweak vacuum may be unstable but long-lived. Hence the CCB constraint is not shown in Figs. 4 and 5.

The light-shaded cosmological region in Figs. 4 and 5 has a ‘tail’ extending up to $`m_{1/2}`$ 1400 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <20`$, as seen in panels (a) of these figures, which is due to efficient $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ coannihilations . These increase the upper limit on the LSP mass to

$$m_\chi 600\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}.$$
(4)
LHC appears able to find at least some supersymmetric particles over all the comsologically-allowed range for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <20`$ . However, for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the coannihilation region extends to larger $`m_{1/2}`$, as seen in panels (b) of Figs. 4 and 5 222In these panels, we have chosen the largest values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for which we consistent electroweak vacua with our default choices of auxiliary parameters $`m_t=175`$ GeV, $`m_b(m_b)_{SM}^{\overline{M}S}=4.25`$ GeV and $`A=0`$.. Hence, the ‘guarantee’ of supersymmetric discovery at the LHC does not extend to such larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Another feature visible for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is a double ‘funnel’ region of allowed LSP density extending out to large $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$, which occurs because of rapid $`\chi \chi A,H`$ annihilation. This also extends beyond the region of ‘guaranteed’ discovery at the LHC 333At least within the CMSSM, sparticle searches at Run II of the FNAL Tevatron collider will not be able to probe much of the parameter space not already excluded ..

The constraints from LEP and $`bs\gamma `$ impose a lower limit on $`m_\chi `$ within this cosmological regionw. Its strength depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and theoretical assumptions, but we find in general that

$$m_\chi >100\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{tan}\beta >3$$
(5)
with the precise numbers depending on the sign of $`\mu `$ and different assumptions, e.g., on the values of $`m_t,m_b`$ and $`A_0`$. If the pole mass $`m_t=175`$ GeV, the running mass $`m_b(m_b)_{SM}^{\overline{M}S}=4.25`$ GeV and $`A_0=0`$, we find $`m_\chi >140(180)`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >5(7)`$ for $`\mu >(<)0`$, as seen in Fig. 6 444Note, also, that the bound (5) could be relaxed if the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses are not universal..

Within the region accessible to the LHC, one may ask whether it will find supersymmetry before the searches for astrophysical dark matter 555As we see later, the E821 measurement  offers some hope of restoring the ‘guarantee’ that the LHC will find supersymmetry..

## 4 Searches for Dark Matter

One strategy is to look for the annihilations of relic particles in the galactic halo , which may yield observable fluxes of (stable) particles such as $`\overline{p},\gamma `$ and $`e^+`$. Measurements of the low-energy $`\overline{p}`$ flux already rule out some supersymmetric models . On the other hand, $`\gamma `$ searches do not yet rule out any models, unless the relic density in our galactic halo is strongly clumped . There have been some reports of an excess of cosmic-ray positrons, but some of these have now been contradicted, and they cannot be taken as evidence for supersymmetric dark matter.

Another search strategy is to look for annihilations of relic particles inside the Sun or Earth, following their capture after losing energy via elastic scattering . The observable products of these annihilations are high-energy neutrinos, which may either be seen directly in underground detectors, or indirectly via $`\nu `$ collisions in rock that produce detectable muons. Searches for neutrino-induced muons from the Sun and Earth already exclude a significant number of supersymmetric models, and there are prospects for improving the current search sensitivities with a 1 km2 (or 1 km3) detector .

The third favoured strategy is to search directly for elastic dark matter scattering on nuclei in the laboratory . Each scattering event would deposit typically an energy $`Em_\chi b^2/2`$ tens of keV. There are two important types of interaction: spin-dependent, which is sensitive to the different quark contributions to the nucleon spin, and spin-independent, which is sensitive to the quark contributions to the nucleon mass. The former is likely to be more important for light nuclei, the latter for heavy nuclei.

One experiment reports annual modulation of the rate of energy deposition in their detector which may be interpreted as a possible signal for dark matter scattering . We recently re-evaluated the rate of elastic scattering in a constrained supersymmetric model, in which all the soft scalar supersymmetry-breaking masses are assumed equal at the input unification scale . As seen in Fig. 7, we found an elastic scattering cross-section below the region of experimental interest, at least for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$. Subsequently, a second experiment published an upper limit that excluded most of the interesting region . We have looked again at the elastic scattering rate, this time relaxing the assumption of universal scalar masses . Although the rates could be somewhat higher than in the universal case, they still fell short of the region of experimental interest, at least for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$  666We have recently extended our analysis to larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the CMSSM , incorporating the latest LEP experimental constraints, and find cross sections in a similar range as before..

## 5 What if …?

On September 5th, the ALEPH experiment at LEP reported an apparent excess of Higgs boson candidates in the reaction $`e^+e^{}(H\overline{b}b)+(Z\overline{q}q)`$. Two of the ALEPH events were rated as very good candidates that were quite unlikely to be due to $`e^+e^{}Z+Z`$, the most dangerous background reaction. However, this background cannot be completely removed. During the period up to Nov. 2nd, while LEP continued running, the LEP Higgs ‘signal’ grew approximately as would be expected if there was a Higgs boson weighing about 115 GeV, with indications in other channels and in other experiments . However, a preliminary estimate of the overall significance of the reported signal only amounted to at most 2.9 standard deviations , not enough for LEP to claim discovery. Nevertheless, one may speculate on the interpretation of any signal of a Higgs boson weighing around 115 GeV .

The first implication is that the Standard Model must break down at some scale $`<10^6`$ GeV, with the appearance of some new bosonic particles. This is because the Standard Model Higgs potential becomes unstable at a scale $`10^6`$ GeV, because the radiative corrections due to such a light Higgs boson are overwhelmed by those due to the relatively heavy top quark. What sort of new physics may appear? Technicolour  and other models with strongly-interacting Higgs bosons are excluded yet again , because they generically predict a heavier Higgs boson: 300 GeV $`<m_H<`$ 1 TeV. On the other hand, such a light Higgs boson is completely consistent with supersymmetry, which predicts that the lightest Higgs boson weighs $`<`$ 130 GeV .

Moreover, it can be argued that the new bosonic physics must quack very much like supersymmetry . It has to be quite finely tuned, if the effective potential is not to blow up or become unbounded below. Such fine tuning is natural in supersymmetry, but would be lost, e.g., if there were no supersymmetric Higgsino partners of the Higgs boson. The discovery of a Higgs boson weighing 115 GeV would therefore strengthen significantly the circumstantial phenomenological case for supersymmetry.

In fact, as seen in Fig. 8, a measurement of a Higgs mass around 115 GeV could be used to estimate the value of $`m_{1/2}`$ required in the radiative correction (3). This is compatible with the range given earlier (5): if the present ‘signal’ does not eventually evaporate, the LSP mass may be quite close to the lower limit shown in Fig. 6 as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The principal uncertainty in the estimate of $`m_\chi `$ is that due to uncertainties in calculating $`m_h`$, in particular that due to the range $`m_t=175\pm 5`$ GeV, since $`\delta m_h/\delta m_t=𝒪(1)`$.

As seen in Fig. 9, this value of $`m_h`$ is compatible with $`m_{1/2}<`$ 1400 GeV, as favoured by supersymmetric dark matter. It is possible to strengthen the upper limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ if $`m_h=115`$ GeV, $`m_t=175`$ or 180 GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is sufficiently large, but not if $`m_t`$ = 170 GeV. Of course, these upper limits would evaporate with the Higgs signal.

Finally, I cannot resist adding as an anachronistic addendum a short discussion of the possible evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model provided by the recent BNL E821 measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Prima facie, the discrepancy in this measurement is evidence for new physics at the TeV scale, and supersymmetry could well explain the E821 result, if $`\mu >0`$. Fig. 10 compares the regions of the CMSSM parameter space allowed by cosmology, the LEP sparticle exclusions, the Higgs ‘signal’ and $`bs\gamma `$ decay with that suggested by the E821 measurement. There is good consistency for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$ and moderate values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$, well within the reach of the LHC. The BNL E821 measurement does not change the lower limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ and hence $`m_\chi `$ reported earlier, but it would, if confirmed, strengthen the upper limit (4) to about 400 GeV.

## 6 How many Swallows?

We have seen in this talk many indirect indications that the summer of supersymmetry may be on its way: the hierarchy problem, the unification of gauge couplings, a (possible) light Higgs boson, cosmological dark matter, and most recently the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. These all encourage us theorists who have been hibernating through 30 years of supersymmetric winter. However, confirmation of our speculations can only come from the direct detection of supersymmetric particles, either in an accelerator experiment or as part of the astrophysical dark matter. If the non-accelerator experiments do not find it first, I am optimistic that the LHC will find supersymmetry, assuming that our phenomenological motivations for expecting it at the TeV scale have any validity. If all goes well, the LHC should be able to confirm or refute our speculations by the end of the decade. Compared with the 30 years we have already waited, perhaps that should not seem so long to wait.

Acknowledgements
It is a pleasure to thank my many collaborators on the subjects discussed here, most particularly Keith Olive.


text:
# Energetics of Gamma Ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

The recent breakthrough in our understanding of gamma-ray bursts resulted from associating of these events with host galaxies. This association demonstrates that most, and probably all, bursts are at cosmological distances. Whether measured from absorption lines in the continuum of optical transients or emission lines in the host galaxies’ spectra, the redshifts show that the bursts are even further than predicted by the simplest “minimal” cosmological model (Band & Hartmann, 1998). With assumptions about the radiation pattern, the energy radiated by the burst is calculated from the redshifts and the burst fluence. The position of the burst within the host argues for a strong connection between star formation and the burst (Bloom et al., 2001). Many of the galaxies show evidence of vigorous star formation.

We now have a sufficient sample of detected host galaxies to consider various distributions of burst properties which require the distance to the burst. Here we calculate the distributions of the total energy and peak luminosity radiated by the burst and the X-ray energy in the afterglow. The energy scale is a strong constraint on burst scenarios; some proposed sources are insufficient to provide the necessary observed energy. However, the width and shape of the energy distributions are also consequences of the emission process. For example, in the current physical scenario (Narayan et al., 1992; Paczynski & Xu, 1994; Rees & Meszaros, 1994; Sari & Piran, 1997) the gamma-rays are radiated by “internal” shocks resulting from the collision of regions with different Lorentz factors within a relativistic outflow. Thus the total gamma-ray emission may depend on the vagaries of the central source accelerating the outflow. However, the afterglow is attributed to the “external” shock where the outflow collides with the external medium. Thus the afterglow may be a bolometric measurement of the energy content of the relativistic flow. This is the basis of the “patch shell” model’s prediction that the gamma-ray energy distribution should be broader than that of the afterglows (Kumar & Piran, 1999).

To expand the burst sample, we include not only bursts with spectroscopic redshifts, but also bursts for which there are only host galaxy magnitudes. A galaxy magnitude can be mapped into a probability distribution for the burst’s redshift. This mapping requires a model of the host galaxy distribution; competing models are tested by comparing the measured spectroscopic redshifts with the magnitude-derived redshift distribution for those bursts with both a spectroscopic redshift and a host galaxy magnitude. This host galaxy model is intrinsically interesting since it indicates whether the burst rate is proportional to the host galaxy mass or luminosity.

An underlying assumption in our study is that the burst energy and luminosity distributions have not changed over the universe’s lifetime. Similarly, we assume that a burst’s energy or luminosity is uncorrelated with the host galaxy magnitude.

In §2 we present the expected fluence distribution given the assumed lognormal burst energy distribution. §3 describes the sources of the observed $`\gamma `$-ray and X-ray energy fluxes and fluences. §4 discusses the determination of a burst redshift from a single optical magnitude of the host galaxy. However, galaxy surveys count individual galaxies while the burst rate may be proportional to the mass or luminosity of a galaxy; therefore in §5 we consider the underlying host galaxy luminosity function. The burst $`\gamma `$-ray and X-ray energy distributions are calculated in §6. Our conclusions are summarized in §7.

## 2 The Expected Fluence Distribution

Here we present the methodology for modeling the distribution of the total burst energy $`E_\gamma `$ given a set of observed burst fluences. The determination of the distribution of the peak gamma-ray luminosity and of the X-ray afterglow energy are analogous.

We begin by assuming that $`E_\gamma `$ has a log-normal distribution,

$$p(E_\gamma |E_{\gamma iso},\sigma _\gamma )d(\mathrm{log}E_\gamma )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\gamma }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{log}(E_{\gamma iso})\mathrm{log}(E_\gamma ))^2}{2\sigma _\gamma ^2}\right]d(\mathrm{log}E_\gamma ).$$
(1)
Thus the bolometric fluence $`F=E_\gamma (1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2`$ (where $`D_L(z)`$ is the luminosity distance) has the log-normal distribution

$$p(F|E_{\gamma iso},\sigma _\gamma )d(\mathrm{log}F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\gamma }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{log}(E_{\gamma iso}(1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2)\mathrm{log}(F))^2}{2\sigma _\gamma ^2}\right]d(\mathrm{log}F).$$
(2)
Note that $`\sigma _\gamma `$ is a width in logarithmic space, and the linear change of variables does not affect this width. This probability for the fluence assumes that the redshift is known. If not, then we have to convolve eq. 2 with the probability distribution for the host galaxy redshift, $`p_B(z|D_o)`$, where $`D_o`$ is the optical data we have about the redshift (e.g., the measured spectroscopic redshift from spectral lines or the host galaxy magnitude). The resulting probability is

$`p(F|E_{\gamma iso},\sigma _\gamma )d(\mathrm{log}F)=`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑zp_B(z|D_o)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\gamma }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{log}(E_{\gamma iso}(1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2)\mathrm{log}(F))^2}{2\sigma _\gamma ^2}\right]d(\mathrm{log}F)}.`$
These are the distributions for $`E_\gamma `$ and $`F`$, regardless of whether these quantities are actually observable. The distributions for the observable bursts must therefore be truncated at the threshold value of the fluence, $`F_T`$, and the overall distribution must be renormalized. Thus

$`p_{\text{obs}}(F|E_{\gamma iso},\sigma _\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{p(F|E_{\gamma iso},\sigma _\gamma )\theta (FF_T)}{_{F_T}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Fp(F|E_{\gamma iso},\sigma _\gamma )\theta (FF_T)}}`$ (4)
where $`\theta (x)`$ is the Heaviside function (1 above $`x=0`$, and 0 below). Since BATSE triggers on the peak count rate $`C_{\text{max}}`$ and not the fluence, the threshold fluence $`F_T`$ is the observed fluence divided by $`C_{\text{max}}/C_{\text{min}}`$, where $`C_{\text{min}}`$ is the threshold count rate (i.e., the minimum peak count rate at which BATSE would have triggered). Thus $`F_T`$ and $`p_{\text{obs}}(F|E_{\gamma iso},\sigma _\gamma )`$ vary from burst to burst. For calculations of the X-ray afterglow energy the X-ray detectability threshold must be used instead of $`F_T`$. The likelihood is the product of these probabilities evaluated with each burst’s observed properties (fluence, redshift, etc.) for all bursts in the sample. By maximizing this likelihood we find the preferred values and confidence ranges for $`E_{\gamma iso}`$ and $`\sigma _\gamma `$ (or the equivalent for the X-ray afterglow). Note that the selection effect introduced by observing bursts at different redshifts—only intrinsically bright high redshift bursts are observable—while the detector threshold varies is mitigated by truncating the probability distribution for the observable fluence at the threshold value.

## 3 $`\gamma `$-Ray and X-Ray Data

We consider the sample of GRBs with observed optical afterglows and with detected host galaxies, whether or not a redshift has been measured, for bursts between 1997 January and 2000 June (CGRO’s untimely demise). To obtain a uniform estimate of the $`\gamma `$-ray energy fluence we consider only those bursts detected by BATSE. The bursts with BATSE data and a spectroscopic redshift are GB970508, GB970828, GB971214, GB980425, GB980703, GB990123, GB990506, GB990510, and GB991216; however, GB980425 is exceptional because of its possible association with a supernova in a relatively nearby galaxy and we do not include it in our sample. The bursts with BATSE data and only an R magnitude for its host galaxy are GB971227, GB980326, GB980329, and GB980519. In addition, both R magnitudes and spectroscopic redshifts but no BATSE data are available for GB970228, GB980613, and GB990712. For GB990510 there is currently a spectroscopic redshift but no host galaxy R magnitude. Thus, there are eight bursts for which we can calculate the total emitted energy, and another four for which we can calculate a range of possible energies. There are ten bursts for which we have both spectroscopic redshifts and a host galaxy R magnitude; from these ten we determine a model of the host galaxy population, as described below.

To calculate the total gamma-ray energy emitted by a burst we need the observed gamma-ray fluence. We determine the fluence of a given burst by fitting the spectrum accumulated over the time segment during which there was detectable emission. For strong bursts we use spectra from BATSE’s Spectroscopy Detectors (SDs), while for weak bursts we fit spectra from BATSE’s Large Area Detectors (LADs). Since BATSE consisted of 8 modules, each with an SD and an LAD, more than one detector observed each burst. For strong bursts we choose the SD with the smallest burst angle (the angle between its normal and the burst) and with a gain sufficiently high to cover the 30–1000 keV energy band (the SDs were operated at different gains). A typical SD spectrum provides $`200`$ usable energy channels. For weak bursts we use the LAD with the highest count rate which almost always had the smallest burst angle.

These spectra were fitted with the “Band function” Band et al. (1993), which consists of a low energy power law cut off by an exponential, $`N_E=N_0(E/100\text{ keV})^\alpha \mathrm{exp}[E/E_0]`$ ph s-1 keV-1 cm-2, which merges smoothly with a high energy power law, $`N_EE^\beta `$. The parameters of the resulting fits are given in the 2nd–5th columns of Table 1. The energy fluence $`F_\gamma `$ (6th column of the table) is obtained by integrating this fit over the energy band 20–2000 keV and over the time for which there was detectable emission (the 10th column). This is the energy band of the fluences provided by the BATSE catalogue. In most cases the fluence in this energy band is very nearly the bolometric fluence, and thus no k-corrections are necessary to calculate the energies for bursts at different redshifts (the k-correction compensates for the redshift shift in the energy band between the emitter and the detector). In this table we provide for completeness spectral fits and fluences for all the bursts observed by BATSE which were localized after 1997 January. Figure 1 compares the 20–2000 keV fluences provided by the BATSE catalogues and calculated here; as can be seen, the BATSE catalogue values are somewhat larger than the fluences resulting from spectral fits. Note that there are host galaxy observations for only 12 of the bursts in this table; these 12 burst comprise our “BATSE redshift sample.”

As described above, for each burst we need the threshold fluence, the minimum fluence at which BATSE would have triggered. This is derived by equating the ratios of the observed and threshold fluences and peak count rates: $`F_T=F/[C_{\text{max}}/C_{\text{min}}]`$. The online BATSE catalog provides $`C_{\text{max}}/C_{\text{min}}`$ for some bursts, but values are missing for many bursts because of data gaps. For bursts without a catalog value we have estimated $`C_{\text{max}}/C_{\text{min}}`$ from the light curves.

In addition to the energy emitted by the burst (mostly in gamma-rays), significant emission occurs during the first few hours of the afterglow (mostly in X-rays). We estimate this energy (excluding the prompt X-ray emission during the burst) using the observed late (few hours) X-ray flux in the 2–10 keV band and assuming this emission decays as a power law with the index $`\delta _x`$ shown in Table 1 over the period 100 to $`10^5`$ seconds after the burst.

## 4 Host Galaxy Redshift Distribution

The methodology presented in §2 requires $`p_B(z|D_o)`$, the probability that the burst redshift has a given value. Thus far redshift information has been derived from the associated host galaxies. Clearly, if we know the spectroscopic redshift $`z_0`$ then $`p_B(z|D_o)=\delta (zz_0)`$. However, spectroscopic redshifts are not available for some of the host galaxies. For these host galaxies we derive a redshift probability distribution with a finite width from their observed single-band magnitudes.

The use of photometry to derive galaxy redshifts has flourished during the past 5 years (e.g. Connolly et al. (1995); Sawicki et al. (1997); Driver et al. (1998); Fernandez-Soto et al. (1999); Arnouts et al. (1999)). Redshifts are now commonly determined to an accuracy of 10% (e.g., Csabai et al. (1999)) using multi-band photometry (usually 4 to 6 bands). Multi-band photometry is therefore an economical method of determining redshifts. Unfortunately, most GRB hosts have been observed in only a single band (typically $`R`$).

It may seem futile to try to determine the redshift of a galaxy from a single band. Galaxies span a large range in stellar masses (i.e., luminosities) and therefore galaxies of a given magnitude are found at virtually any redshift (c.f., Driver (1999)). On the other hand, since the volume element $`dV/dz`$ peaks at around $`z=12`$ (for reasonable cosmologies) and galaxies formed stars at a higher rate at $`z>1`$ (and consequently were brighter than at present), we expect a high probability that the average galaxy inhabited the $`1<z<2`$ region for not too faint magnitudes. Here we use the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) to derive a galaxy redshift distribution at different observed magnitudes. With this distribution we then determine a probability distribution of the host galaxies’ redshift based on their observed optical magnitudes. Our methodology permits us to consider different redshift distributions corresponding to different models of the host galaxy population (e.g., the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy luminosity); we test the hypotheses about the host galaxies by determining whether the model redshift distributions are consistent with the host galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts. We use only observations from the HDF, the deepest available survey, in order not to complicate our analysis with theoretical prejudices in merging results from different surveys. Note that we only require the distribution of redshifts at a given magnitude, and thus as long as a redshift is determined for every galaxy at a given magnitude in the survey field, the HDF will suffice.

Spectroscopic redshifts have thus far not been determined for all the HDF galaxies. However, the available multi-band photometric redshifts (accurate to 10%) will suffice. We have used the HDF catalog from Driver (1999), to which the reader is referred for a full description of the sample and the expected accuracy of the photometric redshifts. In Fig. 2 we show the galaxy redshift distribution as a function of apparent $`R`$ magnitude, where we have transformed the HST F606W magnitudes into cousins $`R`$ magnitudes. As expected, $`R<26`$ galaxies are systematically more common at $`z<2`$ than at higher redshifts.

When normalized, the distributions in Fig. 2 provide the galaxy redshift probability distributions in a given $`R`$ magnitude band. Thus the HDF provides $`p_{\text{HDF}}(z|f_R)`$$`f_R`$ is the energy flux corresponding to an R magnitude—from which we derive $`p_B`$ for those bursts without a spectroscopic redshift. Galaxy surveys weight each detected galaxy equally. However, the burst rate may not be the same for each galaxy, and thus we have to weight the galaxies in the HDF based on a model of burst occurrence. To determine how to weight $`p_{\text{HDF}}`$ we have to analyze the origin of this probability: it is the normalized product of the comoving volume per redshift, $`dV/dz`$, times the galaxy density at $`L_R`$ per comoving volume, $`n(L_R,z)`$. $`L_R`$ is the luminosity over the band in the burst’s frame that redshifted into the $`R`$ band in the observer’s frame; this band varies with redshift. Note that we do not need k-corrections for $`L_R`$ since the density is for those galaxies which provide us with the observed $`f_R`$ in the $`R`$-band in our frame. Thus

$$p_{\text{HDF}}(z|f_R)dz=\frac{n(L_R=4\pi D_L^2f_R,z)\frac{dV}{dz}dz}{n(L_R=4\pi D_L^2f_R,z)\frac{dV}{dz}𝑑z}.$$
(5)
We consider four models. First, we use $`p_{\text{HDF}}`$ as $`p_B`$; every galaxy has an equal probability of hosting a burst. This is inconsistent with most burst scenarios, but serves as a useful null hypothesis.

Second, we assume that the burst rate is proportional to the mass of the galaxy. This corresponds to a scenario where the burst occurs long after the progenitor was formed, and thus the progenitor population is (approximately) proportional to the galaxy’s mass. In this case $`p_B`$ is $`p_{\text{HDF}}`$ weighted by the luminosity the galaxy would have today in the R-band. Thus both a k- and an e-correction are required, where the e-correction compensates for the evolution in the galaxy’s spectrum. Note that these k- and e-corrections are not applied to $`p_{\text{HDF}}`$ but only to the weighting. Thus $`p_BL_RK(z)E(z)p_{\text{HDF}}(z|f_R)`$ where $`K(z)`$ is the k-correction which references $`L_R`$ (the luminosity in the band at the host galaxy’s redshift which is redshifted into today’s R-band) to today’s R-band and $`E(z)`$ is the e-correction which maps the R-band luminosity of a galaxy at the host’s redshift to the R-band luminosity it would have at present.

Third, we assume that the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy’s intrinsic luminosity at the time of the burst. This corresponds to scenarios where the burst occurs very soon after the progenitor forms. Thus, if the luminosity per mass was greater in the past as a result of increased star formation, then the burst rate should also increase. This is admittedly an oversimplification of a galaxy’s evolutionary history. For this model $`p_BL_RK(z)p_{\text{HDF}}(z|f_R)`$ where, once again, $`K(z)`$ is the k-correction which references $`L_R`$ (the luminosity in the band which is redshifted into today’s R-band) to today’s R-band.

Fourth, we model the star formation rate for a given model by weighting the second model, where the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy mass, by the cosmic redshift-dependent star formation rate. This rate rises rapidly with redshift to $`z1`$, and then levels off, e.g. citeH+98.

Note that the $`p_B`$ for each of these different models needs to be renormalized given the model-dependent weightings.

Whenever we need to compute a k and/or e–correction in any of the above scenarios, we have used the set of synthetic stellar populations developed in Jimenez et al. (1998). The star formation rate is modelled as a declining exponential, with e-folding ($`\tau `$) time depending on the morphological type. In particular, we used the following values: $`\tau =1`$, 3, 5 and $`inf`$ for E/S0, Sab, Scd and Irr types respectively. We kept the metallicity fixed at the solar value during the whole evolution of the galaxy and chose $`z=4`$ as the redshift of formation – starting point of the star formation – for all galaxies. This modeling of galaxies is, indeed, overly simplistic, but it is sufficient for our purposes since we do not require to be precise by more than 0.5 magnitudes when computing the k+e corrections.

## 5 Testing the Host Galaxy Models

We can test the different models for the host galaxy population using the bursts with both spectroscopic redshifts and host galaxy R magnitudes. We compare the likelihoods using the various models. However, the probability used in these likelihoods is the probability that we would determine the redshift that was indeed observed, not the probability that a host galaxy with a given R magnitude would have a particular redshift. For the telescope which determined the redshift there are redshift windows in which it would not have been able to make this determination. For example, for the Keck observations the redshift is difficult to determine between $`z=`$1.3, when O\[II\] is redshifted out of the spectrum, and $`z=`$2.5, when Ly$`\alpha `$ is blue shifted in. Thus in the likelihood we should use $`ph(z)p_B`$, where $`h(z)`$ is the probability of determining a particular value of the redshift; however, including the redshift windows applicable to each observation is beyond the scope of this paper. Note that by modifying the distribution of host galaxy redshifts, whether observable or not, for a given R magnitude into the distribution of host galaxies which are actually observable, we avoid the selection effect resulting from the easier detectability of bright host galaxies.

The resulting likelihood is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{i}{}\frac{h(z_i)p_B(z_i|f_{R,i})}{𝑑zh(z_i)p_B(z_i|f_{R,i})}.$$
(6)
We find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^3`$ for the model where the burst rate is constant per galaxy, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\times 10^4`$ when the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy mass, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^2`$ when the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy luminosity, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^4`$ for the model where the burst rate is proportional to the product of the galaxy mass and the cosmic star formation rate. Thus the third model is preferred; we will use the corresponding $`p_B`$ in adding the four bursts with only host galaxy R magnitudes to the sample with spectroscopic redshifts.

## 6 The Burst Energy Distributions

We first estimate the characteristic isotropic gamma-ray energy ($`E_{\gamma iso}`$) and its spread ($`\sigma _\gamma `$) in the 20–2000 keV band. The result is presented in Figure 3. The upper panel shows the likelihood contour corresponding to 70% confidence using only the 8 GRBs with spectroscopic redshifts, while the bottom panel shows the same contour level but with the additional 4 GRBs with statistical redshifts. Therefore, the preferred value for $`E_{\gamma iso}`$ is $`1.3_{1.0}^{+1.2}\times 10^{53}`$ erg with $`\sigma _\gamma =1.7_{0.3}^{+0.7}`$. Note that there is no need to k-correct the $`\gamma `$-ray data in this case because the 20–2000 keV band already contains most of the energy of the GRB.

Similarly we derive the peak luminosity $`L_{\gamma iso}`$ in the 50–300 keV band. In this case we apply a k-correction to the data using the spectral fits described in Table 1. Figure 4 shows the 70% confidence contour plot using all the GRBs in our sample. We find $`L_{\gamma iso}=4.6_{2.5}^{+5.4}\times 10^{51}`$ erg s-1 with $`\sigma _L=1.4_{0.4}^{+0.7}`$.

Finally, we find the average energy of the X-ray afterglow. To homogenize the observations, we integrate the X-ray emission between 100 and 105 seconds after the burst using the best fitting power law to the observed light curve (slopes for the different light curves are given in Table 1). Figure 5 shows the $`1\sigma `$ contour plot when the 7 GRBs with X-ray light curves are considered. Here we find that $`E_{Xiso}=4.0_{1.8}^{+1.6}\times 10^{51}`$ erg and $`\sigma _X=1.3_{0.3}^{+0.4}`$.

## 7 Discussion and Conclusions

We have determined the distributions of the total burst energy, the peak burst luminosity and the total X-ray afterglow energy for a sample of bursts with either spectroscopic redshifts or host galaxy R magnitudes. These distributions reflect the physics of the burst process.

We have found that the best model for the burst rate is proportional to the host galaxy luminosity and not to the host size. This result provides further support to the proposition that the bursts are associated with star formation. Star forming galaxies are brighter than other galaxies with the same size.

It seems that $`E_{\gamma iso}`$ is slightly broader than $`E_{Xiso}`$, but within the 70% confidence both distributions are compatible with having the same width. However, inspection of the data points shows that X-ray energy of one burst—GRB970508—significantly broadens the X-ray distribution; otherwise the X-ray distribution would be much narrower than the gamma-ray distribution. Thus we must conclude that the data are insufficient to determine conclusively the width of the luminosity functions, although there is a trend for the X-ray distribution to be narrower than the $`\gamma `$ distribution.

The ratio between the widths of the gamma-ray and the X-ray luminosity functions is particularly important as far as the physics of the physical processes within the “inner engine.” A ratio of order unity suggests that the “inner engine” emits a rather uniform flow with no significant angular variation on an angular scale of few degrees (corresponding to the width seen several hours after the burst while the X-rays are emitted). On the other hand, a large $`\sigma _\gamma /\sigma _X`$ would support the “patchy shell” model(Kumar & Piran, 1999) which predicts that the gamma-ray energy emitted during the GRB has a significantly wider distribution than the X-ray energy emitted during the afterglow, $`\sigma _\gamma >\sigma _X`$. In this model, there are mass fluctuations on the shells whose collisions produce the internal shocks which subsequently radiate the observed gamma-rays. Thus the gamma-ray intensity should vary greatly with the observer’s angle. On the other hand, the afterglow results from the decelerating external shock, and the observer sees a much larger solid angle of the relativistic outflow in the afterglow than in the burst itself. Thus there are smaller fluctuations in the afterglow intensity with observer angle. Finally $`\sigma _\gamma /\sigma _X<1`$ would be indicative of extremely large variations (from one burst to the other) in the circumstellar matter surrounding the GRBs. The data are sufficient to rule out this third possibility, but cannot distinguish with confidence between the first and second, although the trend is toward favoring the “patchy shell” model.

It is interesting to compare our results with the energy distribution determined for the whole GRB sample. Schmidt (1999) finds for a broken power law distribution that the energy of the break is $`1.2\times 10^{53}`$ ergs, which is very close to our average energy. However, the average energy in Schmidt’s distribution is a factor of $`5`$ smaller than this break energy. This can be explained by the fact that afterglow can be observed only for the more luminous bursts for which we can determine an exact position.

Finally we note that we have presented here a new methodology for obtaining the luminosity function of a sample for which the magnitude is known but there are no redshift measurements. This method can be best applied to other populations that like GRBs have an intrinsically wide luminosity function. While a galaxy’s optical magnitude does not provide a reliable distance measure for a single object, is should be sufficiently reliable when analyzing a large sample. This method should be tested on other samples in the future.

This methodology can be used wherever burst distances and energies are required. For example, a burst sample with known distances is required to calibrate proposed correlations between the burst energy and the frequency–dependent lags in pulses (Fenimore & Ramirez–Ruiz, 2000) or light-curve variability (Norris et al., 2000).

This research was supported in part by a US-Israel BSF. The work of David Band was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-36.