text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Inflation is generally believed to provide the initial conditions for the evolution of large scale structure (LSS) and the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The garden of inflation offers a bounty of models, each of which predicts a certain power spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations, $`𝒫(k)`$, a function of the wavenumber $`k`$. This power spectrum can be Taylor-expanded about some wavenumber $`k_0`$ and truncated after a few terms

$`\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k)=\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k_0)+(n1)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}|_{k_0}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_0}}+\mathrm{}`$ (1)
in which the first term is a normalization constant, the second is a power-law approximation, with the case $`n=1`$ corresponding to a scale invariant Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum, and the third term is the running of the spectral index.

An important class of models is given by single field slow roll (SR) inflationary models, which can be treated perturbatively. The properties of SR models are well known (see e.g. ref.  for review and a list of references), and we will here classify the different models by the 3 parameters $`(n,r,_{\mathrm{ln}k})`$, where $`nd\mathrm{ln}𝒫/d\mathrm{ln}k|_{k=k_0}+1`$ is the scalar spectral index at the pivot scale $`k_0`$, the parameter $`r`$ is the tensor to scalar perturbation ratio at the quadrupole scale, and $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}dn/d\mathrm{ln}k|_{k=k_0}`$. The reason for using these 3 variables instead of the normal SR parameters $`(ϵ,\eta ,\xi ^2)`$ (defined in the appendix) is simply that the former 3 variables are more closely related to what is measured from observations.

In SR models the tensor spectral index and its derivative can be expressed

$`n_T={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\kappa }}\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{dn_T}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\kappa }}\left[\left(n1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\kappa }}\right].`$ (2)
The factor $`\kappa `$ in the above equations depends on the model, and in particular is different for different $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . In our analysis we use the parametrisation from ref. , which for the models considered here means $`5\kappa 7`$.

The different SR models are traditionally  categorised into 3 main groups according to the relationship between the first and second derivative of the inflaton potential, and they are distributed in $`(n,r)`$ and $`(n,_{\mathrm{ln}k})`$ space as in Fig. 1 (see details in the appendix or in ref. ), where the dashed lines on the borders between the different models are the two attractors found in ref. , $`r=0`$ and $`r=\kappa (n1)`$. For large values of $`n1`$ and $`r`$, SR models “naturally” predict sizeable deviations from a power law approximation (i.e. $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}0`$), so when comparing to observations it is important to include the third parameter $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$, in addition to the parameters $`n`$ and $`r`$ commonly considered.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain what constraints currently available observational data can place on the parameters $`(n,_{\mathrm{ln}k},r)`$ of SR inflation. Of course the universe could lie outside the hatched regions of Fig. 1, indicating that one should look beyond SR inflation; but it seems reasonable to explore the simplest models in the first instance. In ref. , CMB data were used to put bounds on inflationary parameters, and indications were found towards a negative bend of the primordial power spectrum ($`_{\mathrm{ln}k}0`$). However, the scales probed by CMB are limited, and the constraint on $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$ was weak.

In the present paper we extend the analysis of  by including information not only from the CMB, but also from the linear galaxy power spectrum measured from the IRAS Point Source Catalogue Redshift (PSCz) survey , and from the linear matter power spectrum inferred from the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest in quasar spectra . Even though it is not completely clear that the correlations in the 3d matter power spectrum are negligible, we treat them as such for simplicity. The size of and effect from such covariances might be essential, and should be considered more carefully in a future investigation. As we will show, these data, probing different ranges of scales, yield much tighter constraints on the inflationary parameters than CMB data alone.

## 2 The data

Recently observational data on both the CMB and LSS have improved dramatically. The balloon-borne experiments Boomerang  and MAXIMA  have determined the CMB angular power spectrum beyond the first acoustic peak, whose position near $`l200`$ indicates a flat universe, hence seemingly confirming the inflationary paradigm. The two experiments, together with COBE-DMR , provide a high signal-to-noise determination of the CMB power spectrum for $`2<l<800`$, thus testing the structure formation paradigm on scales roughly of the order $`k<0.1`$ $`h`$ Mpc-1.

LSS data, probing smaller scales, provide complementary information. In this paper we consider the real space galaxy power spectrum from IRAS Point Source Catalogue Redshift (PSCz) survey  which probes scales in the range $`k=0.01300`$ $`h`$ Mpc-1 . In order to avoid problems with the interpretation of non-linear effects, we use data only at scales $`k0.3`$ $`h`$ Mpc-1.

Further, we consider the information on the linear matter spectrum at redshift $`z3`$ which can be inferred from the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest in quasar spectra. The fact that the nonlinear scale is smaller at higher redshift makes it possible to probe the linear power spectrum to smaller scales ($`k0.25`$ $`h`$ Mpc-1) than are accessible to galaxy surveys at low redshift. In this paper we use a recent determination  of the linear matter power spectrum from the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest at redshift $`z=2.72`$, based on a large sample of Keck HIRES and Keck LRIS quasar spectra. To convert the measured power spectrum of Ly-$`\alpha `$ flux into the matter power spectrum,  apply a correction factor obtained from $`N`$-body computer simulations. To allow for possible systematic uncertainty  in this correction factor, we will repeat the analysis excluding the data at the smallest scales.

### 2.1 Data analysis

In order to investigate how the CMB, PSCz and Ly-$`\alpha `$ data constrain the SR parameter space $`(n,r,_{\mathrm{ln}k})`$, we performed a likelihood analysis of the data sets from COBE , Boomerang  and MAXIMA , together with the decorrelated linear power spectrum of PSCz galaxies for $`k0.3`$ $`h`$ Mpc-1 , and the Ly-$`\alpha `$ data from Table 4 of ref. . The likelihood function is

$$\mathrm{exp}(\chi ^2/2),$$
(3)
where

$$\chi ^2=\chi _{\mathrm{CMB}}^2+\chi _{\mathrm{PSCz}}^2+\chi _{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha }^2.$$
(4)
For the CMB data

$$\chi _{\mathrm{CMB}}^2=\underset{i}{}\frac{(C_{l,i}(\theta )C_{l,i})^2}{\sigma ^2(C_{l,i})},$$
(5)
while for PSCz and Ly-$`\alpha `$ data

$$\chi _{\mathrm{PSCz},\mathrm{Ly}\alpha }^2=\underset{i}{}\frac{(P_{k,i}(\theta )P_{k,i})^2}{\sigma ^2(P_{k,i})},$$
(6)
the sum being taken over published values of band-powers $`C_{l,i}`$ and $`P_{k,i}`$. The quantity $`\theta `$ is a vector of cosmological parameters, taken here to be

$$\theta =\{\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }_b,H_0,\tau ,Q,n,r,_{\mathrm{ln}k}\}.$$
(7)
The parameters are: the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$; the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$; the Hubble parameter $`H_0`$; the optical depth $`\tau `$ to reionization; the normalizations $`Q_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$, $`Q_{\mathrm{PSCz}}`$, and $`Q_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha }`$ of the CMB, LSS, and Ly-$`\alpha `$ power spectra; and the inflationary parameters $`n,r,_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$. We have assumed that the universe is flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, as predicted by standard inflationary models. For all the figures we marginalize over all other parameters. We consider only two values for the baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$ and $`0.030`$, however, as we will see, the results are very similar in those two cases, suggesting that the results will be similar if allowing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ as a free parameter.

The CMB, LSS, and Ly-$`\alpha `$ data are all subject to uncertainties in their overall normalizations. The CMB groups quote estimated calibration errors for their experiments, which we account for by allowing the data points to shift up or down, by 10% for Boomerang , and by 4% for MAXIMA . Because of uncertainty in the linear galaxy-to-mass bias for PSCz galaxies , we conservatively treat the normalization $`Q_{\mathrm{PSCz}}`$ as an unconstrained parameter. Ref.  quotes uncertainties in the overall normalization of the matter power spectrum inferred from the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest, but these uncertainties are based on simulations with $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}=0`$, so to avoid possible bias we again conservatively treat the normalization $`Q_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha }`$ as an unconstrained parameter.

For simplicity all data points have been treated as uncorrelated in the likelihood functions, eqs. (5,6). For the CMB data, correlations between estimates $`C_{l,i}`$ of angular power at different harmonics $`l`$ are induced by finite sky coverage, but in practice the CMB teams quote band-powers at sufficiently well-separated bands of $`l`$ that the correlations are probably small. For the PSCz data, the published band-powers are explicitly decorrelated. For the Ly-$`\alpha `$ data, the covariances between estimates of the flux power spectrum are small, according to Fig. 12 of , and this may translate into small statistical covariances in the inferred matter power spectrum. As mentioned earlier, it is not completely clear how good this translation from flux power to matter power is, and we leave this question for future investigation.

We have chosen the pivot scale in Eq. (1) as $`k_0=0.05\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. This choice is made for convenience, since $`k_0=0.05\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is the scale at which wave-numbers are normalised in the CMBFAST code. Our results are independent of the value of $`k_0`$.

### 2.2 Results

The analysis of the constraints from CMB data was presented in detail in ref.  (see also ). Here we extend the analysis in  by including the reionization optical depth, $`\tau `$, as a free parameter. This is potentially important since there is a well-known degeneracy between $`\tau `$ and the scalar spectral index $`n`$. However, the analysis turns out to prefer models with $`\tau 0`$, so including $`\tau `$ leaves the main conclusions of  essentially unchanged, as can be seen in the upper panels of Figs. 2 and 3. We recall here the main conclusions from : (1) if we allow the primordial power spectrum to bend, $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}0`$, then CMB data do not constrain the tensor to scalar perturbation ratio $`r`$; (2) if we assume a BBN prior, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$ , then CMB data favour a negative bend, $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}<0`$, corresponding to a bump-like feature centered at scales $`k0.004\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

Let us now discuss the information on the inflationary parameters which emerges from PSCz and Ly-$`\alpha `$ data. The first observation is that PSCz data do not provide relevant constraints in the $`(n,_{\mathrm{ln}k})`$ plane. This is easily understood, because the PSCz data at large scales (say $`k<0.03h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) have large errors and therefore play little role in the $`\chi ^2`$ evaluation. This implies that PSCz data effectively span only one decade in $`k`$. Considering that the overall normalization of the data is taken as a free parameter, it is evident that one cannot obtain strong constraints from such a small range of scales.

The situation is quite different with Ly-$`\alpha `$ data, which have small error bars and span almost two decades in $`k`$. This is shown in Fig. 2, where we present the allowed regions corresponding to 1 and 2 $`\sigma `$ (we define the $`1\sigma `$ region as $`\chi ^2\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+2.3`$ and the 2$`\sigma `$ region as $`\chi ^2\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+6.17`$) for both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$ as suggested by BBN (left column), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.03`$ as suggested by CMB (right column). The top graphs are from CMB data alone, the middle graphs are obtained using Ly-$`\alpha `$ data alone, and the bottom graphs are from the combined analysis.

It is straightforward to understand how Ly-$`\alpha `$ data select the allowed regions shown in the middle panels of Fig. 2. At the small scales probed by Ly-$`\alpha `$ data, the theoretical linear matter power spectrum $`P(k)`$ is roughly proportional to

$$P(k)\mathrm{ln}^2(\alpha k/\mathrm{\Gamma }h)k^{n^{}4}$$
(8)
where $`\alpha =2.205`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ and $`k`$ is expressed in $`\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ . The parameter $`n^{}=d\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k_\alpha )/d\mathrm{ln}k+1`$ is the effective spectral index of primordial density perturbation at the scale $`k_\alpha 3.7(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2/0.4)^{1/2}`$ Mpc-1 representative of Ly-$`\alpha `$ data 555The observational units for wavenumbers are $`(\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)^1`$. The conversion to Mpc-1 is model-dependent since it requires the evaluation of the Hubble constant $`H(z)`$ at redshift $`z=2.72`$.. On the other hand the Ly-$`\alpha `$ data, as discussed in , are well fitted by a power law, $`P(k)k^\nu `$, with spectral index $`\nu =2.47\pm 0.06`$. This means that

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}P(k_\alpha )}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=(n^{}4)+\frac{2}{\mathrm{ln}(\alpha k_\alpha /\mathrm{\Gamma }h)}=2.47\pm 0.06.$$
(9)
If we consider that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2<\mathrm{\Gamma }h<1`$, the previous expression can be directy translated into a bound for the effective spectral index of primordial density perturbations. We obtain $`n^{}0.751.1`$, which roughly corresponds to what is shown in the middle panels of Fig. 2 for $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}=0`$. It is also easy to understand the observed correlation between $`n`$ and $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$. The effective spectral index $`n^{}`$ can be expressed, as a function of $`n`$ and $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$, by $`n^{}=n+\mathrm{ln}(k_\alpha /k_0)_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$. It is thus evident that the allowed region in the plane $`(n,_{\mathrm{ln}k})`$ lies roughly along lines of constant $`n^{}`$.

It is important to note that the regions constrained by Ly-$`\alpha `$ data are “orthogonal” to the regions constrained by CMB data. This means that the combined analysis (CMB+Ly-$`\alpha `$) gives much stronger bounds than any of the two alone. Moreover, since CMB data provide a bound on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$, the degeneracy between $`n^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }h`$ in Eq. (9) is removed, and therefore the Ly-$`\alpha `$ observation of $`P(k)k^{2.47\pm 0.06}`$ can be directly translated into a constraint on $`n^{}`$. This is clearly shown in the lower panels of Fig. 2, from which one obtains the following conclusions: (1) the combined analysis strongly indicates that the bend of the primordial power spectrum is close to zero, being $`0.05<_{\mathrm{ln}k}<0.02`$ at the 2$`\sigma `$ level; (2) the spectral index $`n`$ is constrained to be fairly close to $`n=0.9`$. One notes that the limits obtained do not crucially depend on the assumed values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, indicating that the inclusion of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ data avoids the problem with CMB data alone, that different $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ extend the allowed range of the spectral index beyond $`n1`$ . However, one should note that, due essentially to CMB data, the goodness of the fit is quite sensitive to the assumed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, the $`\chi ^2`$ being substantially smaller for high $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$.

In Fig. 3 we present the constraints obtained for the remaining SR parameter $`r`$. Specifically, we show the 1 and 2 $`\sigma `$ allowed regions in the $`(n,r)`$ plane, for both low and high $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$. The top panels are from CMB data alone, while the bottom ones are from the combined analysis. It is clear that in the combined analysis $`r`$ is constrained to be smaller than about 0.3 at 2 $`\sigma `$. This is substantially different from the analysis of CMB data alone, where no constraints on $`r`$ could be obtained, since a strong bend, e.g. $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}=0.2`$, could allow the tensor component to be big . It is worth noting, that Ly-$`\alpha `$ data don’t probe $`r`$ directly; they fix $`n`$ to be less than 1, and $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$ close to zero. In this way strong constraint on $`r`$ can be obtained from CMB data. This result is extremely important when we compare to theoretical models, since different classes of models predict different relationships between the scalar spectral index $`n`$ and the tensor to scalar ratio $`r`$ (see Fig. 1). The combined analysis, indicating $`n0.9`$ and $`r<0.3`$, favours small field models and seems to exclude hybrid models. This is clear from the lower panels of Fig. 3, where the big n, big r (often referred to as hybrid models, to the right of the full line), are excluded at 2$`\sigma `$666We have used $`\kappa =5`$ (see Eq. 2), and for larger $`\kappa `$ the hybrid models move to bigger $`r`$. It is worth pointing out, that the classification of hybrid models  as in Fig. 1, and as the models to the right of the full line in Fig. 3 is oversimplified. In this paper we follow ref. , and by ”hybrid models” we refer to potentials for which $`ϵ<\eta `$ (see appendix for details). When considering more general potentials, or F-term hybrid inflation , more complicated behaviour results, and a simplified classification is impossible.

An important caveat to this analysis concerns possible systematic uncertainties in the inference of a linear matter power spectrum from the Ly-$`\alpha `$ data. What  measure directly from observations is the power spectrum of transmitted Ly-$`\alpha `$ flux. The conversion to a linear matter power spectrum involves a fairly large, scale-dependent correction which  extract from collisionless computer simulations, with the Ly-$`\alpha `$ optical depth taken proportional to a certain power of the dark matter density . It has been suggested  that the relation between baryonic and dark matter densities could introduce significant uncertainty in the flux-to-mass correction at small scales. Specifically, pressure effects cause the baryonic density $`\delta _b`$ to be smoothed compared to the dark matter density $`\delta _d`$, an effect that can be parametrized as $`\delta _b(𝐤)=\mathrm{exp}[(k/k_f)^2]\delta _d(𝐤)`$, with comoving filter scale $`k_f35h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ . The procedure considered by  is to treat the filter scale $`k_f`$ as a free parameter constrained only by the shape of the power spectrum of Ly-$`\alpha `$ flux. However,  argue that treating $`k_f`$ as a free parameter is overly pessimistic, and that if $`k_f`$ takes values suggested by hydrodynamic simulations, then the effect on the power spectrum is minor.

To allow for the possibility that the systematic errors are underestimated at small scales, we repeated the analysis neglecting the last 3 data-points from the Ly-$`\alpha `$ data , both for $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}=0`$ and for $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$ free. The upper panels in Fig. 4 show the case where $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}=0`$. Here, the results are essentially unchanged by the removal of the data points. However, the lower panels show the full case. Here, the tight constraint on $`r`$ disappears completely, and the constraint on $`n`$ is significantly weakened. The reason is that the small scale data points are the most important for constraining $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$. When these points are removed, $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$ is not nearly as tightly constrained as before, and as seen for the case where only CMBR data is used, a large $`r`$ can be compensated by a negative bend of the spectrum.

Thus, the very tight constraint derived above depends on the correctness of the small scale Ly-$`\alpha `$ data. Therefore, it is highly desirable that a better understanding of the possible systematic errors in determining matter power spectra from Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest observations is developed.

Another worry is that the error ellipses for CMB and Ly-$`\alpha `$ are only marginally overlapping. This might indicate that the two data sets are mutually inconsistent, and that other physical effects should be taken into account. For the Ly-$`\alpha `$ data one might think of massive neutrinos or warm dark matter, where both would suppress power on small scales, potentially allowing bigger $`n`$ or bigger positive $`_{\mathrm{ln}k}`$.

## 3 Conclusions

We have considered data from both CMB and LSS to place constraints on the parameters of single field slow roll inflationary models. We have found that, by combining CMB data with the power spectrum inferred from Lyman$`\alpha `$ forest, one obtains strong constraints on the inflationary parameters. We obtain $`0.8<n<1.0`$, $`r<0.3`$ and $`0.05<_{\mathrm{ln}k}<0.02`$ at $`2\sigma `$ level. In the language of SR this means $`ϵ<0.03`$ and $`\eta <0.06`$, with the best fit model being small fields. This still leaves a large part of the SR parameter space open, but seems to exclude big n, big r models, often referred to as hybrid models. These constraints are much stronger than those from CMB data alone, and arise because the error-ellipse from Ly-$`\alpha `$ data is almost perpendicular to the error-ellipse from CMB data. Let us repeat, that we in this analysis for simplicity have assumed the absence of appreciable covariances between the reconstructed Ly-$`\alpha `$ mass powers.

## Acknowledgements

We are pleased to thank A. Dolgov, A. Linde, A. Melchiorri and J. Silk for comments and discussions. SHH is supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Community under the contract HPMFCT-2000-00607. We acknowledge the use of CMBFAST .

## Appendix A Notation

We use the notation: $`\eta \alpha ϵ`$, where

$$ϵ=\frac{M^2}{2}\left(\frac{V^{}}{V}\right)^2,\eta =M^2\frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}\frac{M^2}{2}\left(\frac{V^{}}{V}\right)^2\text{and}\xi ^2=M^4\frac{V^{}V^{\prime \prime \prime }}{V^2}$$

see  for details. The notation with $`\eta =M^2V^{\prime \prime }/V`$, used e.g. in , simply corresponds to the substitution $`\alpha \alpha +1`$. The 3 classes of SR models are small fields $`(\alpha <1)`$, large fields $`(1<\alpha <1)`$, and hybrid models $`(1<\alpha )`$. One finds

$$r=2\kappa ϵ,_{\mathrm{ln}k}=2\xi ^2+8ϵ^2(2\alpha 1)\text{and}n1=2ϵ(\alpha 2).$$
(10)


format: text

text:
# Chandra X-ray Observations of the Quadruply Lensed Quasar RX J0911.4+0551

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational lenses that produce multiple images of quasars can be used to measure cosmological parameters (Refsdal 1964; Kochanek 1996), to study the properties of the lensing galaxies (Keeton, Kochanek, & Falco 1998) and to resolve structures associated with the lensed quasar (Bunker, Moustakas, & Davis 2000). For the past twenty years such work has been carried out at optical and radio wavelengths. With the advent of the subarcsecond angular resolution of the Chandra X-ray Observatory (Weisskopf, O’Dell, & van SpeyBroeck 1996), one can hope to carry out similar studies at X-ray wavelengths. As the X-ray emission from quasars has different spatial and temporal structure, X-ray studies offer a variety of new opportunities. In the present paper we report on Chandra observations of the quadruply imaged quasar RX J0911.4+0551, which have implications both for the structure of the lensing potential and for the structure of the X-ray emitting region.

To our knowledge, the observations of RX J0911.4+0551 presented here are the first X-ray observations of the system since its detection by the ROSAT All Sky Survey in 1990 October. The source was optically identified as a gravitationally lensed $`z=2.8`$ quasar by Bade et al. (1997), and later confirmed as a quadruple system by Burud et al. (1998). Lensing models require a large external shear ($`\gamma 0.15`$) to account for the system’s complex image geometry. Burud et al. (1998) first suggested the source of this shear to be a group of galaxies in the southwest vicinity of RX J0911.4+0551, which has been spectroscopically confirmed by Kneib et al. (2000) to be a high-redshift cluster of at least 24 galaxies at $`\overline{z}=0.769`$. The original ROSAT observation of RX J0911.4+0551 lacked the sensitivity and angular resolution required for a detailed X-ray analysis of the lensed quasar and cluster. Deconvolution of the Chandra observations presented here identifies all four components of the lensed quasar, and an adaptively smoothed image reveals the extent of the X-ray emission from the nearby cluster as well. The format of the paper is as follows: we describe the Chandra observations and reductions of RX J0911.4+0551 in §2, discuss X-ray astrometry and relative photometry of the lens components in §2.1, and report spectral properties of the lensed quasar in §2.2. The X-ray detection and analysis of the cluster is presented in §3. We summarize our findings and briefly comment on possible sources of X-ray variability for the system in §4.

## 2 Observations and Analysis

RX J0911.4+0551 was observed for $``$ 29 ks with the Chandra X-ray Observatory on 1999 November 2. The data were obtained using the back-illuminated S3 chip of the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS; Garmire et al. 1992; Bautz et al. 1998) at a focal plane temperature of $`110\mathrm{°}`$C. The telescope pointing placed RX J0911.4+0551 at the default aim point for the ACIS-S array during the exposure. Three periods of background flaring were detected, during which time the count rate reached 2 to 4 times the nominal background rate. Since the contamination of point sources from background flaring is small, these times were not filtered from our observation except for the cluster analysis discussed in §3. Removal of the three X-ray flares reduces the effective exposure time of the data to $``$ 26 ks.

The data were reduced using the CIAO software tools, following the science threads outlined on the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center (CXC) user support homepage. The data used throughout this paper has been reprocessed by the CXC using software version R4CU5UPD9, which results in an improved aspect solution over earlier versions of the processing software. Also, in the standard CXC pipeline, the photon event positions are randomized by $`\pm `$ $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}246`$ (1 ACIS pixel = 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$492), which is mainly to reduce aliasing effects for observations of duration less than $``$ 2 ks. Given the small angular extent of the lens ($`3\mathrm{}`$), we reproduced the event positions using the CXC tool acis\_process\_events without incorporating the randomization.

Throughout this work, we have adopted a flat cosmological model parameterized by $`q_o=0.5`$ and $`H_o=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. At the redshift of the lensing galaxy ($`z`$ = 0.769; Kneib et al. 2000), this gives a physical scale of 8.2 kpc arcsec-1. Unless otherwise noted, error bars denote 90% confidence limits.

### 2.1 Relative Astrometry and Photometry

In Figure 1a we show the X-ray image of RX J0911.4+0551, resampled at a resolution of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ pixel-1 and smoothed with a Gaussian of $`\sigma `$=$`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$. A total of $`404`$ X-ray photons in the 0.3 to 7.0 keV bandpass are estimated from the four lensed images of the quasar, which compensates for contributions from the X-ray background and from the nearby cluster. Adopting the nomenclature of Burud et al. (1998), component B is clearly resolved whereas components A1, A2 and A3 are not clearly separated. To enhance the image quality we applied the Richardson-Lucy maximum likelihood deconvolution technique (Richardson 1972; Lucy 1974) to the X-ray image of RX J0911.4+0551. The point spread function (PSF) incorporated in the deconvolution was generated with the raytrace simulator MARX v3.0 (Wise et al. 1997). The input spectrum for the simulation was based on the model of the observed spectrum of RX J0911.4+0551 (see §2.2). In particular, we chose an absorbed power law model with Galactic absorption of NH = 0.036 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2, intrinsic absorption at $`z=2.8`$ of NH = 4.1 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2 and a photon spectral index of 1.63. The PSF and image were then sampled at a resolution of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$. In Figure 1b we show the deconvolved image of RX J0911.4+0551 smoothed with a Gaussian of $`\sigma `$ = $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$. All four components are now resolved with relative positions in good agreement (to better than $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}15`$) with those found from optical observations. Component B appears somewhat extended along the EW direction in both the raw and deconvoled images, which we attribute to the small number of counts ($``$ 70 in total for 0.3 to 7.0 keV) detected for this component. In Table 1 we present the optical and X-ray offsets of the lensed images.

The ACIS PSF (when properly normalized) gives the probability distribution of detecting a single X-ray photon at some position with respect to the center of a point source. One can therefore use several PSFs, of different relative intensities, to quantify the likelihood of obtaining the observed distribution of photon counts for a given set of image flux ratios and positions (e.g., see Cash 1979). Specifically, we have solved for the relative flux ratios of the system components using the Cash (1979) C statistic to quantify the relative goodness of fit between the observed and predicted number of photons per bin. The system was modeled using four of the MARX PSFs described above; relative positions of the four sources were held fixed according to the optical astrometry listed in Table 1, but the overall position of the system was allowed to vary during the fit. The best fit parameters were then determined by simultaneously varying the intensity of each component and the overall position of the system using Powell’s direction-set method (Press et al. 1995) until a minimum C statistic was reached. This analysis was performed on the raw data at a resampling size of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}06`$, or an eighth of an ACIS pixel.

In Table 2 we present our optimal X-ray flux ratios for the 0.3 to 7.0 keV bandpass, along with contemporaneous (to within one day) $`I`$-band data obtained from an ongoing monitoring campaign of RX J0911.4+0551 using the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT; Hjorth et al. 2001). Since the separation between components A1 and A2 is $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}48`$, or slightly less than one ACIS pixel, it is prudent to discuss the combined flux of components A1 and A2 when comparing to the optical data. Our maximum likelihood analysis yields an (A1 + A2)/B X-ray flux ratio of 4.68 and an (A1 + A2 + A3)/B flux ratio of 4.87, which are $``$ 20% and $``$ 30% smaller than the respective optical ratios of 5.67 and 6.95. A significant difference is observed for A3/B, where we find an X-ray flux ratio of 0.19 as compared to the optical ratio of 1.28. If we normalize the optical and X-ray fluxes at their respective (A1 + A2) values, then component B is brighter by a factor of 1.2 in X-rays and component A3 is fainter by a factor of 5.7 in X-rays. We briefly discuss possible implications of the faintness of A3 in §4.

### 2.2 Spectral Properties

A source spectrum of RX J0911.4+0551 was extracted by combining events from all four quasar images and a background spectrum from events located within an annulus centered on RX J0911.4+0551 with inner and outer radii of 15$`\mathrm{}`$ and 30$`\mathrm{}`$, respectively. Redistribution matrices and ancillary response files were generated using the CXC tools mkrmf and mkarf. A fit of an absorbed power-law model with intrinsic and Galactic absorption in the energy range 0.5-6.0 keV yields a photon spectral index of 1.45$`{}_{0.20}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.24}`$ and a 0.2-2.4 keV flux (approximating the ROSAT bandpass) of fX = 3.3$`{}_{0.1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.1}`$ $`\times `$ 10-14 erg s-1 cm-2. A fit of a simple absorbed power-law model with Galactic absorption of NH = 0.036 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2, considering only energies above 1.5 keV, yields a photon spectral index of 2.22$`{}_{0.48}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.43}`$, which is typical for high redshift radio-quiet quasars (Reimers et al. 1995). As we show in Figure 2, extrapolating this model to energies below 1.5 keV clearly indicates that considerable intrinsic absorption is present. This low-energy absorption is consistent with the mini-BAL nature of RX J0911.4+0551 (Bade et al. 1997), and has been observed in at least one other BAL quasar (e.g., PHL 5200, Mathur et al. 1995). For RX J0911.4+0551, the 0.2-2.4 keV flux of the unabsorbed model is fX = 1.0$`{}_{0.4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.5}`$ $`\times `$ 10-13 erg s-1 cm-2, and represents what we would expect to observe were the absorber not present.

RX J0911.4+0551 was observed with the ROSAT PSPC on 1990 October with a count-rate of 0.020 $`\pm `$ 0.0088 cnts s-1 (1 $`\sigma `$). Assuming the simple absorbed power-law model from above, the corresponding X-ray flux for the ROSAT observation is fX = (2.2 $`\pm `$ 1.1) $`\times `$ 10-13 erg s-1 cm-2 (1 $`\sigma `$). This includes emission from both the gravitational lens and extended emission from the nearby cluster (see §3). Within a circular aperture centered on RX J0911.4+0551 of diameter 1$`\mathrm{}`$ (twice the half-power diameter of the ROSAT PSPC), the Chandra estimate of the flux due to solely cluster emission is (6.6 $`\pm `$ 1.0) $`\times 10^{15}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 (1 $`\sigma `$). Therefore, the cluster contribution to the original ROSAT flux was small, on the order of a few percent. When we compare the estimated ROSAT flux from RX J0911.4+0551 to the Chandra observation, we find it has dropped by a factor of $`6.5\pm 3.3`$ (1 $`\sigma `$) over the 10-year period. Our spectral fits to the Chandra spectrum of RX J0911.4+0551 indicate that a factor of 3.0 $`\pm `$ 1.5 (1 $`\sigma `$) variation in the 0.2-2.4 keV flux is possible if one assumes that the presently observed intrinsic X-ray absorber were not present during the ROSAT PSPC observation.

## 3 Cluster Analysis

The Chandra observation of RX J0911.4+0551 provides the first detailed X-ray study of the nearby cluster reported by Kneib et al. (2000). The extent of the X-ray emission from the cluster is apparent after adaptively smoothing the image with the CXC tool csmooth (Ebeling, White and Rangarajan, 2000). Contours for the smoothed image are displayed in Figure 3, and are shown overlaid on an IJK composite exposure of the RX J0911.4+0551 field from Burud et al. (1998). When creating the smoothed image, we have used a conservative lower bound on the signal to noise ratio (SN) of the smoothing kernel of SN$``$3, and have also excluded emission from within a small ($`4\mathrm{}`$ radius) region around RX J0911.4+0551 itself. The smoothed emission profile consists of a bright, extended component peaked $`42\mathrm{}`$ southwest of component B, but is clearly elongated in the direction toward RX J0911.4+0551. An iterative centroiding algorithm (Buote & Canizares 1992) applied to the binned event positions yields a centroid for the extended emission of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =12\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =39\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$, where offsets are with respect to the centroid of component B. The contour morphology suggests that the cluster mass distribution is complex and non-spherical, and possibly not dynamically relaxed. If the X-ray emission follows the mass distribution (which, simulations suggest, it need not always do during merging; see, e.g. Roettiger, Stone & Mushotzky 1998) then our image implies that the cluster is responsible for some fraction of the mass convergence at the location of the lens.

Within an ellipse of 70$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\times `$ 90$`\mathrm{}`$ (dashed outline in Figure 3) encompassing the bulk of the cluster emission, we find a total of 157 net cluster counts above an estimated background of 222 counts. The corresponding 0.3 to 7.0 keV flux (assuming the spectral form described below) is fX = (2.5 $`\pm `$ 0.2) $`\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (1 $`\sigma `$).

To estimate an X-ray temperature for the cluster, we extracted a 0.3 to 7.0 keV source spectrum centered on the SW peak within a 20$`\mathrm{}`$ aperture, and subtracted a background spectrum from an annulus with inner and outer radii of 90$`\mathrm{}`$ and 140$`\mathrm{}`$, respectively. Fitting the emission spectrum to an optically thin Raymond and Smith (1977) plasma model with a Galactic absorption of $`N_H=0.036\times 10^{22}\text{cm}^2`$, a metal abundance of 0.3 Z, and a cluster redshift of $`z=0.769`$ (Kneib et al. 2000) yields a temperature of $`kT=2.3_{0.8}^{+1.8}`$ at the 90% confidence level. This is consistent with the estimate of $`kT=4.5\pm 1.2`$ keV obtained by Kneib et al. (2000) from their measurement of the cluster velocity dispersion and the $`\sigma T_x`$ relationship (Girardi et al. 1996).

We do not detect enough photons to constrain the radial surface brightness profile of the cluster. We obtain a crude estimate of the integrated cluster emission by assuming the profile is well-described by an isothermal $`\beta `$model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976) with parameters typical for nearby, non-cooling flow clusters ($`\beta =0.6`$, $`r_c=0.22`$ Mpc; Mohr et al. 1999). Normalizing the model using the observed flux within the elliptical aperture, we predict a 2.0 to 10 keV luminosity within a 1 Mpc (122$`\mathrm{}`$) radius of $`L_X=7.6_{0.2}^{+0.6}\times 10^{43}`$ ergs s-1.

From our temperature we may obtain a crude cluster mass estimate. We first estimate the virial radius for the cluster. Girardi et al. (1998) find, for nearby clusters, that the virial radius is $`R_V4\sigma _{1000}h_{50}^1`$ Mpc, where $`\sigma _{1000}`$ is the radial velocity dispersion divided by 1000 km s-1. Assuming the virial radius scales with redshift as $`R_V(1+z)^{3/2}`$, and given the observed velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{1000}=0.84`$ (Kneib et al. 2000), we estimate $`R_V1.4h_{50}^1`$ Mpc. Assuming an isothermal plasma with the density distribution described above and $`kT`$ = 2.3 keV, the mass within the virial radius is $`M(R_V)=2.3_{0.7}^{+1.8}\times 10^{14}\text{ M}_{}`$. Alternatively, the mass-temperature relation of Hojrth, Oukbir, & van Kampen (1998) gives $`M(R_V)=3.2_{1.0}^{+2.5}\times 10^{14}\text{ M}_{}`$. Here the 90% confidence limits are dominated by errors in the temperature, and do not include systematic errors arising from our ignorance of the slope of the surface brightness distribution, or from calibration uncertainties in the mass-temperature relationship. Our X-ray mass estimate is somewhat smaller than, although consistent with, the virial estimate of $`4.8_{2.0}^{+2.3}\times 10^{14}`$ M (1 $`\sigma `$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.0`$) obtained by Kneib et al. (2000). Given the asymmetry of the X-ray emission, it is reasonable to speculate that the X-ray gas is not in hydrostatic equilibrium. In this case, one might well expect the emission weighted X-ray temperature to lead to an underestimate of the gravitating mass (e.g. Roettiger, Stone and Mushotzky 1998). In any event, given the large uncertainties, the agreement among the mass estimates must be regarded as good.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Our analysis has detected two indications of X-ray variability for RX J0911.4+0551. First, component A3 is dimmer in X-rays by a factor of $``$6 when compared to contemporaneous optical data. The reason for A3’s X-ray faintness is not known. One possible explanation is differential $`N_H`$ column densities along the lines of sight to the quasar images. Although an attempt was made to search for differential X-ray extinction between the four lens components (the details of which will be presented in a forthcoming paper; Chartas et al. 2001), a preliminary analysis is inconclusive; the intrinsic $`N_H`$ column density of image A3 is poorly constrained by the Chandra data. A demagnifying microlensing event of component A3 is also a possible, although somewhat unlikely, explanation. A six-fold drop in flux would require fluctuations of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m2`$ magnitudes; microlensing dips of this size are rare in theory (Witt, Mao, & Schechter 1995).

Second, the total observed flux for the system has dropped by a factor $`6.5`$ when compared to ROSAT PSPC observations obtained in 1990 October. Such a drop in flux may be a result of quasar engine variability. Almaini et al. (2000) have observed engine variability of a factor of three in flux over a period of several days, so a factor of $`6.5`$ between the ROSAT and Chandra observations is not unlikely.

In conclusion, the unique imaging capabilities of Chandra has resolved all four images of the quadruply lensed system RX J0911.4+0551 (detecting $``$404 photons in the 0.3 to 7.0 keV energy range), with relative image positions in good agreement with optical measurements. In addition to the two indications of X-ray variability described above, we have also detected strong soft ($`<1.5`$ keV) X-ray absorption in the spectra of the combined quasar images, which is consistent with the mini-BAL nature of the quasar. The Chandra observation of RX J0911.4+0551 has also identified extended X-ray emission from the nearby cluster, detecting $``$157 photons (0.3 to 7.0 keV) in a region of $``$ 1.4 arcmin2. The morphology of the cluster emission suggests a complex and non-spherical cluster mass distribution. Our estimates of the cluster X-ray temperature ($`kT=2.3_{0.8}^{+1.8}`$ keV) and virial mass ($`2.3_{0.7}^{+1.8}\times 10^{14}\text{ M}_{}`$) are consistent with previous estimates derived from the observed velocity dispersion of the cluster galaxies (Kneib et al. 2000).

N.D.M. and P.L.S. gratefully acknowledge support from the U.S. National Science Foundation through grant AST96-16866 and from NASA under contract NAS-8-37716. M.W.B. and M.M. acknowledge support from NASA under contracts NAS-8-37716, NAS-8-38252 and 1797-MIT-NA-A-38252. J. H. acknowledges support by the Danish Natural Science Research Council (SNF).


text:
# A Note on Functional Integral over the Local Gauge Group

## Abstract

We evaluated some particular type of functional integral over the local gauge group $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑^n,U(1))`$ by going to a discretized lattice. The results explicitly violates the property of the Haar measure. We also analysed the Faddeev-Popov method through a toy example. The results also violates the property of the Haar measure.

Functional integral is a powerful tool in quantum theory, especially QFT. In this paper we address the problem of functional integral over the local gauge group. We choose to study this topic because functional integral over the gauge group plays a decisive role in the Faddeev-Popov method of quantizing a gauge field theory. On the one hand in the Faddeev-Popov method the existence of a Haar measure on the local gauge group is implicitely assumed. On the other hand the local gauge group is infinite dimensional and not locally compact, and hence does not necessarily posess a Haar measure. As in the case of ordinary functional integral, we could take functional integral over the local gauge group as some limit of finite dimensional integrals evaluated on a discretized lattice. In a discretized lattice a Haar measure obviously exists. Then we also have to study whether such a limit exists or not.

In this paper we evaluated a particular type of functional integration on the local gauge group $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑^n,U(1))`$ by going to a discretized lattice. The results are not in favor of a Haar measure, as will be shown in the following.

Let $`\omega `$ stand for elements of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑^n,U(1))`$. $`f(z)`$ is an entire function which is bounded on the imaginary axis $`\{z𝐂|Re(z)=0\}`$. We consider the following continuous functional of $`\omega `$:

$$F[\omega ]=f(\omega ^1(x)_\mu \omega (x))$$
(1)
Here $`x`$ is a fixed point in $`𝐑^n`$. If we write $`\omega (x)=e^{i\theta (x)}`$ we can see that $`\omega ^1(x)_\mu \omega (x)=i_\mu \theta (x)`$ lies on the imaginary axis and so that $`F[\omega ]`$ is bounded.. If a Haar measure exists the volume of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑^4,U(1))`$ could be taken to be $`1`$ and $`F[\omega ]`$ is integrable with respect to it. Now let us evaluate $`_GD\omega F[\omega ]`$ by going to a discretized lattice. Obviously we should make the replacement: $`_\mu \omega (x)\frac{\omega (x+ϵ)\omega (x)}{ϵ^\mu }or\frac{\omega (x+ϵ)\omega (xϵ)}{2ϵ^\mu }`$. If we make the first replacement we can write

$`{\displaystyle _G}D\omega F[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _G}D\omega f(\omega ^1(x)_\mu \omega (x))`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ^\mu 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}d\omega _if(\frac{\omega ^1(x)\omega (x+ϵ)1}{ϵ^\mu })}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ^\mu 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}d\omega _i\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}f^{(n)}(0)(\frac{\omega ^1(x)\omega (x+ϵ)1}{ϵ^\mu })^n}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ^\mu 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}f^{(n)}(0){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}d\omega _i(\frac{\omega ^1(x)\omega (x+ϵ)1}{ϵ^\mu })^n}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ^\mu 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}f^{(n)}(0)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^\mu }})^n`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ^\mu 0}{lim}f({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^\mu }})`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`f(\mathrm{})`$ (8)
In the fourth line we have interchanged the order of integration and summation. This is legitimate because $`|\frac{\omega ^1(x)\omega (x+ϵ)1}{ϵ^\mu }|\frac{2}{ϵ^\mu }`$ and the Taylor series of $`f(z)`$ is uniformly convergent in any closed disc $`|z|R`$. In obtaining the result of the fifth line we have used the formulas $`_{U(1)}𝑑\omega \omega ^n=\delta _{n0}`$,which can be easily verified. If we note that

$`F[\omega _0\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`f((\omega _0(x)\omega (x))^1_\mu (\omega _0(x)\omega (x)))`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`f(\omega _0^1(x)_\mu \omega _0(x)+\omega ^1(x)_\mu \omega (x))`$ (10)
we can immediately obtain

$`{\displaystyle _G}D\omega F[\omega _0\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`f(\omega _0^1(x)_\mu \omega _0(x)+\mathrm{})`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`f(\mathrm{}+i_\mu \theta _0(x))`$ (12)
We can see that the property of the Haar measure could be violated.

If we use the second replacement for $`_\mu \omega (x)`$ in evaluating $`_GD\omega F[\omega ]`$ and $`_GD\omega F[\omega _0\omega ]`$ we will see that there is also an obvious violation of the property of the Haar measure. To see this the only thing we should change is to replace $`_id\omega _i(\frac{\omega ^1(x)\omega (x+ϵ)1}{ϵ^\mu })^n`$ by $`_id\omega _i(\frac{\omega ^1(x)\omega (x+ϵ)\omega ^1(x)\omega (xϵ)}{2ϵ^\mu })^n`$ in Eq(2). The latter integral is $`\delta _{n0}`$. So the integral $`_GD\omega F[\omega ]`$ is evaluated to be $`f(0)`$. Similarly the integral $`_GD\omega F[\omega _0\omega ]`$ equals $`f(i_\mu \theta _0(x))`$.

Now we suppose $`f(z)=e^{a^2z^2},a𝐑\{0\}`$. This function satisfies the conditions we imposed earlier. Then in the first discretization scheme $`_GD\omega F[\omega ]`$ is $`\mathrm{}`$ while $`_GD\omega f[\omega _0\omega ]`$ has an oscillating phase and an indefinitely increasing modulus. The integration value for $`F[\omega _0\omega ]`$ is unreasonable because we have a real-valued integrand. In the second discretization scheme both integration value are real and finite but not equal, thus violating the property of the Haar measure.

Then what is the origin of the incorrectness of the first discretization scheme? Let us expand $`\omega ^1(x)\frac{\omega (x+ϵ)\omega (x)}{ϵ}`$ and $`\omega ^1(x)\frac{\omega (x+ϵ)\omega (xϵ)}{2ϵ}`$ in $`ϵ`$(here we have suppressed the superscript $`\mu `$ for clarity).

$`\omega ^1(x){\displaystyle \frac{\omega (x+ϵ)\omega (x)}{ϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^1(x)\omega ^{}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^1(x)\omega ^{\prime \prime }(x)ϵ+O(ϵ^2)`$ (13)
$`\omega ^1(x){\displaystyle \frac{\omega (x+ϵ)\omega (xϵ)}{2ϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^1(x)\omega ^{}(x)+O(ϵ^2)`$ (14)
Both finite differences tends to the purely imaginary number $`\omega ^1(x)\omega ^{}(x)`$ in the limit $`ϵ0`$, i.e.,they have the same continuum limit. But in the first discretization scheme the speed of the finite difference tending to its continuum limit is first order and the coefficient $`\frac{1}{2}\omega ^1(x)\omega ^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ does not lie on the imaginary axis, thus leading to the unreasonble results for $`_GD\omega f[\omega _0\omega ]`$. In the second discretization scheme the speed of the finite difference tending to the continuum limit is second order hence has not lead to unreasonable results for $`_GD\omega F[\omega ]`$ and $`_GD\omega F[\omega _0\omega ]`$. So the first discretization scheme is unsuitable and should be abandoned. In the following we will take the second discretization scheme.

Up to now we have studied the functional integral of some particular type of functionals of $`\omega `$. In the Faddeev-Popov method we meet with a $`\delta `$-functional. With the above obtained results in hand we can also study whether similar problems arise in the F-P method.

In the F-P method the following equility is used to define the gauge-invariant Faddeev-Popov determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G[A]`$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_G[A]_GD\omega \delta (G(A^\omega ))=1$$
(15)
Here $`G(A;x)`$ is a gauge fixing function. In the Lorentz gauge which we shall take in the following, we have $`G(A;x)=_\mu A^\mu (x)`$. $`A^\omega `$ is the gauge transformation of $`A`$. Written out expicitly, $`A_\mu ^\omega (x)=A_\mu (x)_\mu \theta (x)`$. The $`\delta `$-functional appearing in Eq(6) is understood formally as $`_x\delta (_\mu A^\mu (x)\mathrm{}\theta (x))`$. Rigorously a $`\delta `$-function should be define as some (continuous) linear form on some function space. We will adopt this definition in the following discussion. For technical simplicity we will assume $`n=1`$, i.e., the gauge group is $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑,U(1))`$. We also assume $`lim_x\mathrm{}\omega (x)=1`$. This will not cause any essential difference. The gauge field $`A_\mu (x)`$ now has only one component $`A(x)`$(of course this does not correspond to any physical reality; but here we use it just as a toy example). We will assume $`A(x)`$ tends to $`0`$ at spatial infinity. Now the $`\delta `$-functional is defined to be a linear form on the space of fast decreasing test functionals of $`A`$. Written out explicitly: $`\delta ,T=T[0]`$. The gauge fixing condition $`G(A^\omega )=0`$ reads:

$$A^{}(x)\theta ^{\prime \prime }(x)=0$$
(16)
If we assume $`A(x)`$ tends to $`0`$ at spatial infinity the above equation has only one solution $`A(x)=\theta ^{}(x)`$.(we have assumed that $`lim_x\mathrm{}\omega (x)=1`$ and this implies $`lim_x\mathrm{}\theta ^{}(x)=0`$.)

Obviously the $`\delta `$-functional in Eq(6) should be the following linear form: $`\delta _\omega ,T=T[\theta ^{}]`$. If we take $`T[A]`$ to be the functional $`e^{a^2A^2(x)}`$ which is fast decreasing for large $`A`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle _G}D\omega \delta _\omega ,T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _G}D\omega \delta _\omega ,T`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _G}D\omega T[\theta ^{}]`$ (18)
If we take $`f(z)=e^{a^2z^2}`$ as above we see immediately that $`T[\theta ^{}]`$ is just $`F[\omega ]`$ defined earlier. In virtue of the above obtained results we conclude that $`_GD\omega \delta _\omega _GD\omega \delta _{\omega _0\omega }`$.

From the above calculation we can obviously see that there must be some problems. As we have mentioned earlier, the local gauge group does not necessarily posess a Haar measure. If a Haar measure really does not exist, then the above situation is no surprise. But the Faddeev-Popov method will be in danger. Physicists usually assume a Haar measure exists on the local gauge group. Then we should say that the usual discretization method is in danger. This is not the case in the usual path integral fourmalism of quantum mechanics, where a discretization procedure does produce the correct quantum mechanical transition amplitude .

Our conclusion is that on the local gauge group either a Haar measure does not exist, or the usual discretization method of defining functional integral should be modified(we are inclined to think that the former possibility is more probable to occur). This of course is due to the complexity of measures in infinite dimensional spaces.

We thank Feng-Wen An for useful discussions. This work is supported by NSF, SED and SSTC of China.


text:
# Construction and Preliminary Application of the Variability → Luminosity Estimator

## Introduction

Since gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) were first discovered , thousands of bursts have been detected by a wide variety of instruments, most notably, the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO), which detected 2704 bursts by the end of CGRO’s more than 9 year mission in 2000 June (see, e.g., ). However, the distance scale of the bursts remained uncertain until 1997, when BeppoSAX began localizing long-duration bursts to a few arcminutes on the sky, and distributing the locations to observers within hours of the bursts. This led to the discovery of X-ray , optical , and radio  afterglows, as well as host galaxies . Subsequent observations led to the spectroscopic determination of burst redshifts, using absorption lines in the spectra of the afterglows (see, e.g., ), and emission lines in the spectra of the host galaxies (see, e.g., ). To date, redshifts have been measured for 13 bursts.

Recently,  (see also ),  (see also ), and  (see also ) have proposed trends between burst luminosity and quantities that can be measured directly from burst light curves, for the long-duration bursts. Using 1310 BATSE bursts for which peak fluxes and high resolution light curves were available,  have suggested that simple bursts (bursts dominated by a single, smooth pulse) are less luminous than complex bursts (bursts consisting of overlapping pulses); however, see . Using a sample of 7 BATSE bursts for which spectroscopic redshifts, peak fluxes, and high resolution light curves were available,  have suggested that more luminous bursts have shorter spectral lags (the interval of time between the peak of the light curve in different energy bands). Using the same 7 bursts,  have suggested that more luminous bursts have more variable light curves. These trends between luminosity and quantities that can be measured directly from light curves raise the exciting possibility that luminosities, and hence luminosity distances, might be inferred for the long-duration bursts from their light curves alone.

In this paper (see also ), we present a possible luminosity estimator for the long-duration bursts, the construction of which was motivated by the work of  and . We term the luminosity estimator “Cepheid-like” in that it can be used to infer luminosities and luminosity distances for the long-duration bursts from the variabilities of their light curves alone. We also present a preliminary application of this luminosity estimator to 907 long-duration bursts from the BATSE catalog.

We discuss the construction of our measure $`V`$ of the variability of a burst light curve §2. In §3, we discuss our expansion of the original  sample of 7 bursts to include a total of 20 bursts, including 13 BATSE bursts, 5 Wind/KONUS bursts, 1 Ulysses/GRB burst, and 1 NEAR/XGRS burst. Also in §3, we discuss the construction of our luminosity estimator. We present our preliminary application of this luminosity estimator in §4.

## The Variability Measure

Qualitatively, $`V`$ is computed by taking the difference of the light curve and a smoothed version of the light curve, squaring this difference, summing the squared difference over time intervals, and appropriately normalizing the result. We rigorously construct $`V`$ in . We require it to have the following properties: (1) we define it in terms of physical, source-frame quantities, as opposed to measured, observer-frame quantities; (2) when converted to observer-frame quantities, all strong dependences on redshift and other difficult or impossible to measure quantities cancel out; (3) it is not biased by instrumental binning of the light curve, despite cosmological time dilation and the narrowing of the light curve’s temporal substructure at higher energies ; (4) it is not biased by Poisson noise, and consequently can be applied to faint bursts; and (5) it is robust; i.e., similar light curves always yield similar variabilities. Also in , we derive an expression for the statistical uncertainty in a light curve’s measured variability, and we describe how we combine variability measurements of light curves acquired in different energy bands into a single measurement of a burst’s variability. We plot the $`>25`$ keV light curves of the most and least variable cosmological BATSE bursts in our sample in Figure 1.

## The Luminosity Estimator

We list our sample of 20 bursts in Table 1 of ; it consists of every burst for which redshift information is currently available. Spectroscopic redshifts, peak fluxes, and high resolution light curves are available for 11 of these bursts; partial information is available for the remaining 9 bursts. We rigorously construct the luminosity estimator in , applying the Bayesian inference formalism developed by . We plot the data and best-fit model of the distribution of these data in the $`\mathrm{log}L`$-$`\mathrm{log}V`$ plane in Figure 2.

## Preliminary Application

We apply the best-fit luminosity estimator (Figure 2) to 1667 BATSE bursts, which are all of the BATSE bursts for which the necessary information was available as of the summer of 2000. To remove the short-duration bursts, we conservatively cut the bursts with durations of $`T_{90}<10`$ sec from the sample, reducing the number to 907. We plot the distribution of variability redshifts in Figure 3. A rigorous analysis of how statistical and systematic errors affect this distribution will be presented elsewhere, but the largest effect is the statistical uncertainty in the fitted slope of the luminosity estimator. We plot how reasonable variations of this slope affect the distribution also in Figure 3. Although the original distribution has too many low-$`z`$ and high-$`z`$ bursts for comfort, reasonable variations appear to yield at least qualitatively acceptable distributions (see Figure 5 of ).

We plot the joint redshift and luminosity distribution of the qualitatively acceptable redshift distribution of Figure 3 (dashed histogram) in Figure 4. If systematic effects can be ruled out near BATSE’s detection threshold, this distribution suggests that the luminosity distribution of the bursts is evolving, in which case no more than about 15% of bursts have redshifts greater than $`z=5`$, in contrast to the results of  and .


text:
# Iwasawa Effects in Multi-layer Optics

## I Introduction

In a series of recent papers , Han , Kim and Noz have formulated polarization optics in terms of the two-by-two and four-by-four representations of the six-parameter Lorentz group. They noted that the Lorentz group properties can be found in optical materials. Indeed, there are many two-by-two matrices in layer optics . In this paper, we reorganize them within the framework of the Lorentz group. We then derive a mathematical relation which can be tested experimentally. If a light wave hits a flat surface, a part of this beam becomes reflected and the remaining part becomes transmitted.

If there are multi-layers, this process repeats itself at each boundary. There has been a systematic approach to this problem based on the two-by-two S-matrix formalism . This S-matrix consists of boundary and phase-shift matrices. The phase-shift matrices are complex and the S-matrix is in general complex.

However, in this paper, we show first these complex matrices can be systematically transformed into a set of real traceless matrices with three independent parameters. Then we can use the well-established mathematical procedure for them. This procedure is called the $`Sp(2)`$ group whose algebraic property is the same as that of the $`SU(1,1)`$ group which occupies a prominent place in optics from squeezed states of light . However, the most pleasant aspect of the $`Sp(2)`$ group is that its algebras consist only of two-by-two matrices with real elements. When applied to a two-dimensional plane, they produce rotations and squeeze transformations .

It is known that these simple matrices produce some non-trivial mathematical results, namely Wigner rotations and Iwasawa decompositions . The Wigner rotation means a rotation resulting from a multiplication of three squeeze matrices, and the Iwasawa decomposition means that a product of squeeze and rotation matrices, under certain conditions, leads to a matrix with one vanishing off-diagonal elements. This leads to a substantial simplification in mathematics and eventually leads to a more transparent comparison of theory with experiments. This decomposition has been discussed in the literature in connection with polarization optics . In this paper, we study applications of this mathematical device in layer optics.

There are papers in the literature on applications of the Lorentz group in layer optics , but these papers are concerned with polarization optics. In this paper, we are dealing with reflections and transmissions of optical rays. We show that layers with alternate indexes of refraction can exhibit an Iwasawa effect and provide a calculation of the transmission and reflection coefficients. It is remarkable that the Lorentz group can play as the fundamental scientific language even in the physics of reflections and transmissions.

In Sec. II, we formulate the problem in terms of the S-matrix method widely used in optics . In Sec. III, this S-matrix formalism is translated into the mathematical framework of the $`Sp(2)`$ group consisting of two-by-two traceless matrices with real elements. We demonstrate that there is a subset of these matrices with one vanishing non-diagonal element. It is shown possible to produce this set of matrices from multiplications of the matrices in the original set. This is called the Iwasawa decomposition. In Sec. IV, we transform the mathematical formalism of the Iwasawa decomposition into the real world, and calculate the reflection and transmission coefficients which can be measured in optics laboratories.

## II Formulation of the Problem

Let us start with the S-matrix formalism of the layer optics. If a beam is incident on a plane boundary of a medium with a different index of refraction, the problem can be formulated in terms of two-by-two matrices . If we write the column vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}E_1^{(+)}\\ E_1^{()}\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}E_2^{(+)}\\ E_2^{()}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
for the incident, with superscript (+), and reflected, with superscript (-), for the beams in the first and second media respectively, then they are connected by the two-by-two S-matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}E_1^{(+)}\\ E_1^{()}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}& S_{12}\\ S_{21}& S_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}E_2^{(+)}\\ E_2^{()}\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
Of course the elements of the above S-matrix depend on reflection and transmission coefficients .

Let us consider a light wave incident on a flat surface, then it is decomposed into transmitted and reflected rays. If $`E_1^{(+)}`$ is the incident ray, the transmitted ray is $`E_2^{(+)}`$, with

$$E_2^{(+)}=t_{12}E_1^{(+)},E_1^{()}=r_{12}E_1^{(+)}.$$
(3)
Thus, the S-matrix takes the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}E_1^{(+)}\\ E_1^{()}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/t_{12}& r_{12}/t_{12}\\ r_{12}/t_{12}& 1/t_{12}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}E_2^{(+)}\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
If the ray comes from the second medium in the opposite direction, the same matrix can be used for

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ E_1^{()}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/t_{12}& r_{12}/t_{12}\\ r_{12}/t_{12}& 1/t_{12}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}E_2^{(+)}\\ E_2^{()}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
Since the magnitude of the reflection coefficient is smaller than one, and since $`t_{12}^2+r_{12}^2=1`$, we can write the above matrix as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right),$$
(6)
with

$$r_{12}=\mathrm{tanh}\eta ,t_{12}=1/\mathrm{cosh}\eta .$$
(7)
Since this describes both the reflection and transmission at the boundary, shall call this matrix “boundary matrix” . It is a uni-modular matrix (determinant = 1). The mathematics of this form is well known. It can perform Lorentz boosts when applied to the longitudinal and time-like coordinates. Recently, it has been observed that it performs squeeze transformations when applied to the two-dimensional space of $`x`$ and $`y`$ .

Next, if the ray travels within a given medium from one inner-surface to the other surface

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}E_a^{(+)}\\ E_a^{()}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\delta }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\delta }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}E_b^{(+)}\\ E_b^{()}\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where the subscripts $`a`$ and $`b`$ are for the initial and final surfaces respectively. The above expression tells there is a phase difference of $`2\delta `$ between the rays. This phase difference depends on the index of refraction, wavelength and the angle of incidence .

In this paper, we consider a multi-layer system consisting of two media with different indexes of refraction as is illustrated in Fig. 1. Then, the system consists of many boundaries and phase-shift matrices. After multiplication of all those matrices, the result will be one two-by-two matrix which we introduced as the S-matrix in Eq.(2). We are interested in this paper when this matrix takes special forms which can be readily tested experimentally.

If the ray hits the first medium from the air, as is illustrated in Fig 1, we write the matrix as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda & \mathrm{sinh}\lambda \\ \mathrm{sinh}\lambda & \mathrm{cosh}\lambda \end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Within the first medium, the phase shift matrix becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
When the beam hits the surface of the second medium, the corresponding matrix is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right).$$
(11)
Within the second medium, we write the phase-shift matrix as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\xi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\xi }\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
Then, when the beam hits the first medium from the second

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right).$$
(13)
But if the thickness of the first medium is zero, and the beam exists to the air, then the system goes through the boundary matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda & \mathrm{sinh}\lambda \\ \mathrm{sinh}\lambda & \mathrm{cosh}\lambda \end{array}\right).$$
(14)
The net result is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda & \mathrm{sinh}\lambda \\ \mathrm{sinh}\lambda & \mathrm{cosh}\lambda \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda & \mathrm{sinh}\lambda \\ \mathrm{sinh}\lambda & \mathrm{cosh}\lambda \end{array}\right),$$
(15)
with

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right)`$ (16)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\xi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\xi }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right).`$ (17)
If the ray goes through $`N`$ cycles of this pair of layers, the S-matrix becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda & \mathrm{sinh}\lambda \\ \mathrm{sinh}\lambda & \mathrm{cosh}\lambda \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)^N\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda & \mathrm{sinh}\lambda \\ \mathrm{sinh}\lambda & \mathrm{cosh}\lambda \end{array}\right).$$
(18)
Thus, the problem reduces to looking into unusual properties of the core matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)^N.$$
(19)
We realize that the numerical computation of this expression is rather trivial these days, but we are still interested in the mathematical form which takes exceptionally simple form. It is still an interesting problem to produce mathematics which enables us to perform calculations without using computers. In Sec. III, we shall consider mathematical simplification coming from one vanishing off-diagonal element.

## III Mathematical Instrument

The core matrix of Eq.(19) contains the chain of the matrices

$$W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\xi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\xi }\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
The Lorentz group allows us to simplify this expression under certain conditions.

For this purpose, we transform the above expression into a more convenient form, by taking the conjugate of each of the matrices with

$$C_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ i& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
Then $`C_1WC_1^1`$ leads to

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\xi & \mathrm{sin}\xi \\ \mathrm{sin}\xi & \mathrm{cos}\xi \end{array}\right).$$
(22)
In this way, we have converted $`W`$ of Eq.(20) into a real matrix, but it is not simple enough.

Let us take another conjugate with

$$C_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(23)
Then the conjugate $`C_2C_1WC_1^1C_2^1`$ becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\eta & 0\\ 0& e^\eta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\xi & \mathrm{sin}\xi \\ \mathrm{sin}\xi & \mathrm{cos}\xi \end{array}\right).$$
(24)
The combined effect of $`C_2C_1`$ is

$$C=C_2C_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\pi /4}& e^{i\pi /4}\\ e^{i\pi /4}& e^{i\pi /4}\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
with

$$C^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\pi /4}& e^{i\pi /4}\\ e^{i\pi /4}& e^{i\pi /4}\end{array}\right).$$
(26)
After multiplication, the matrix of Eq.(24) will take the form

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right),$$
(27)
where $`A,B,C,`$ and $`D`$ are real numbers. If $`B`$ and $`C`$ vanish, this matrix will become diagonal, and the problem will become too simple. If, on the other hand, only one of these two elements become zero, we will achieve a substantial mathematical simplification and will be encouraged to look for physical circumstances which will lead to this simplification.

Let us summarize. we started in this section with the matrix representation $`W`$ given in Eq.(20). This form can be transformed into the $`V`$ matrix of Eq.(24) through the conjugate transformation

$$V=CWC^1,$$
(28)
where $`C`$ is given in Eq.(25). Conversely, we can recover the $`W`$ representation by

$$W=C^1VC.$$
(29)
For calculational purposes, the $`V`$ representation is much easier because we are dealing with real numbers. On the other hand, the $`W`$ representation is of the form for the S-matrix we intend to compute. It is gratifying to see that they are equivalent.

Let us go back to Eq.(24) and consider the case where the angles $`\varphi `$ and $`\xi `$ satisfy the following constraints.

$$\varphi +\xi =2\theta ,\varphi \xi =\pi /2,$$
(30)
thus

$$\varphi =\theta +\pi /4,\xi =\theta \pi /4.$$
(31)
Then in terms of $`\theta `$, we can reduce the matrix of Eq.(24) to the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{cosh}\eta )\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& \mathrm{sinh}\eta (\mathrm{cosh}\eta )\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta +(\mathrm{cosh}\eta )\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& (\mathrm{cosh}\eta )\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
Thus the matrix takes a surprisingly simple form if the parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\eta `$ satisfy the constraint

$$\mathrm{sinh}\eta =(\mathrm{cosh}\eta )\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ).$$
(33)
Then the matrix becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2\mathrm{sinh}\eta & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(34)
This aspect of the Lorentz group is known as the Iwasawa decomposition , and has been discussed in the optics literature .

The matrices of the form is not so strange in optics. In para-axial lens optics, the translation and lens matrices are written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& u\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),and\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(35)
respectively. These matrices have the following interesting mathematical property .

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& u_1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& u_2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& u_1+u_2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(36)
and

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u_1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u_1& 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u_1+u_2& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(37)
We note that the multiplication is commutative, and the parameter becomes additive. These matrices convert multiplication into addition, as logarithmic functions do.

## IV Possible Experiments

The question then is whether it is possible to construct optical layers which will perform this or similar calculation. In order to make contacts with the real world, let us extend the algebra to the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2\mathrm{sinh}\eta & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\eta & 0\\ 0& e^\eta \end{array}\right),$$
(38)
which becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\eta & 0\\ 2e^\eta \mathrm{sinh}\eta & e^\eta \end{array}\right).$$
(39)
The square of this matrix is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\eta & 0\\ 2e^\eta \mathrm{sinh}\eta & e^\eta \end{array}\right)^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\eta }& 0\\ 2(e^{2\eta }+1)\mathrm{sinh}\eta & e^{2\eta }\end{array}\right).$$
(40)
If we repeat this process,

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\eta & 0\\ 2e^\eta \mathrm{sinh}\eta & e^\eta \end{array}\right)^N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{N\eta }& 0\\ 2b(\mathrm{sinh}\eta )& e^{N\eta }\end{array}\right),$$
(41)
with

$$b=e^{N\eta }\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{2(k1)\eta },$$
(42)
which can be simplified to

$$b=\frac{e^\eta \mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}\eta }.$$
(43)
Then we can write Eq.(41) as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\eta & 0\\ 2e^\eta \mathrm{sinh}\eta & e^\eta \end{array}\right)^N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{N\eta }& 0\\ 2e^\eta \mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )& e^{N\eta }\end{array}\right).$$
(44)
If we take into account the boundary between the air and the first medium,

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\lambda & 0\\ 0& e^\lambda \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{N\eta }& 0\\ 2e^\eta \mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )& e^{N\eta }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\lambda & 0\\ 0& e^\lambda \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{N\eta }& 0\\ 2e^{(2\lambda +\eta )}\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )& e^{N\eta }\end{array}\right).$$
(45)
Thus, the original matrix of Eq.(2) becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(N\eta )+ie^{(\eta +2\lambda )}\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )& (1+ie^{(\eta +2\lambda )})\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )\\ (1ie^{(\eta +2\lambda )})\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )& \mathrm{cosh}(N\eta )ie^{(\eta 2\lambda )}\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )\end{array}\right).$$
(46)
From the S-matrix formalism, the reflection and transmission coefficients are

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{E_a^{()}}{E_a^{(+)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{S_{21}}{S_{11}}},`$ (47)
$`T={\displaystyle \frac{E_s^{(+)}}{E_a^{(+)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{21}}}.`$ (48)
Thus, they become

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{(1ie^{(\eta +2\lambda )})\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )}{\mathrm{cosh}(N\eta )+ie^{(\eta +2\lambda )}\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )}},`$ (49)
$`T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1ie^{(\eta +2\lambda )})\mathrm{sinh}(N\eta )}}.`$ (50)
The above expression depends only the number of layer cycles $`N`$ and the parameter $`\eta `$, which was defined in terms of the reflection and transmission coefficients in Eq.(7). It is important also that the above simple form is possible only if the phase-shift parameters $`\varphi `$ and $`\xi `$ should satisfy the relations given in Eq.(31) and Eq.(33). In summary, they should satisfy

$$\mathrm{cos}(2\xi )=\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ),and\mathrm{tanh}\eta =\mathrm{cos}(2\xi ).$$
(51)
In setting up the experiment, we note that all three parameters $`\eta ,\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ depend on the incident angle and the frequency of the light wave. The parameter $`\eta `$ is derivable from the reflection and transmission coefficients which depend on both the angle and frequency. The angular parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\varphi `$ depend on the optical path and the index of refraction which depend on the incident angle and the frequency respectively.

Now all three quantities in Eq.(51) are functions of the incident angle and the frequency. If we consider a three-dimensional space with the incident angle and frequency as the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes respectively. All three quantities, $`\mathrm{cos}(2\xi )`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$, and $`\mathrm{tanh}\eta `$, will be represented by two-dimensional surfaces. If we choose $`\mathrm{cos}(2\xi )`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$, the intersection will be a line. This line will pass through the third surface for $`\mathrm{tanh}\eta `$. The point at which the line passes through the surface corresponds to the values of the incident angle and frequency which will satisfy the two conditions given in Eq.(51).

## Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we borrowed the concept of Iwasawa decomposition from well-known theorems in group theory. On the other hand, group theory appears in this paper in the form of two-by-two matrices with three independent parameters. The Iwasawa decomposition makes the algebra of two-by-two matrices even simpler. It is interesting to note that there still is a room for mathematical simplifications in the algebra of two-by-two matrices and that this procedure can be tested in optics laboratories.


text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

F. Mezei and M. Russsina are acknowledged for providing Ge0.033 As0.033 Se0.934 glass, their data for analyzed in the paper. A. Sokolov is acknowledged for the data for OTP and m-TCP used in the analysis. SS aknowledges SRF support from UGC.

## Figure Captions

### Figure 1

The neutron scattering data ( in arb. units) of Ref.  normalized with respect to the Bose factor $`\omega [n(\omega )+1]`$ ( open circles) at (a) $`T=252^o`$ K and (b) $`T=440^o`$ K, Vs. the frequency in Mev. The solid line presents the result obtained from the present model for the normalized correlation function $`\psi `$.

### Figure 2

The Raman Spectra data ( in arb. units) for TCP normalized with respect to the Bose factor $`\omega [n(\omega )+1]`$ ( open circles) at $`T=205^o`$ K, vs. the frequency in GHz. The solid line presents the result obtained from the present model for the normalized correlation function $`\psi `$.

### Figure 3

$`\mathrm{log}(\delta )`$ as a function of temperature $`(T_g/T)`$ for OTP ($``$) and for m-TCP($``$). Inset: For Ge-As-Se alloy ($`\mathrm{}`$). The solid lines represent the straight line fit to the data points.

### Figure 4

Slope for the $`\delta `$-1/T curve, $`A`$ ( in unit of $`{}_{}{}^{o}K`$ ) Vs the fragility parameter  m.