text:
# Untitled Document

Tension Perturbations of Black Brane Spacetimes

Jennie Traschen 1 traschen@physics.umass.edu and Daniel Fox2 dosmanos@math.duke.edu

1 Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-4525

2Hampshire College and Department of Mathematics, Duke University

Abstract

We consider black-brane spacetimes that have at least one spatial translation Killing field that is tangent to the brane. A new parameter, the tension of a spacetime, is defined. The tension parameter is associated with spatial translations in much the same way that the ADM mass is associated with the time translation Killing field. In this work, we explore the implications of the spatial translation symmetry for small perturbations around a background black brane. For static charged black branes we derive a law which relates the tension perturbation to the surface gravity times the change in the the horizon area, plus terms that involve variations in the charges and currents. We find that as a black brane evaporates the tension decreases. We also give a simple derivation of a first law for black brane spacetimes. These constructions hold when the background stress-energy is governed by a Hamiltonian, and the results include arbitrary perturbative stress-energy sources.

1. Introduction and Summary of Results

In this paper, we introduce a new gravitational charge, the spacetime tension. The idea of the tension of a spacetime is simple. A particle-type object, like a billiard ball, has a rest mass. When the mass becomes large and the self-gravity of the object is important, as for a star, there are gravitational contributions to the total mass of the system. The mass $`M`$ of an asymptotically flat spacetime is defined as a boundary integral of the long range gravitational field, and can be constructed as a conserved charge associated with the asymptotic time translation Killing vector. Now, consider an elastic band, rather than a ball. This has tension as well as mass. Suppose that the elastic band is either infinite or wrapped around an $`S^1`$ factor of the spacetime. If the band becomes self-gravitating, then there will be a gravitational contribution to the tension. In analogy with mass, the tension $`\mu `$ of a spacetime is the charge associated with an asymptotic spatial translation Killing vector which is tangent to the band.3 After the first version of this paper appeared, work of Townsend and Zamaklar  appeared which also defined the spacetime ‘fvztension, using the covariant techniques of  . It is straightforward to check that the two expressions for the definition of tension agree. Recently, one of us has used spinor techniques to prove a positivity result about gravitational tension  .

The tension of a spacetime arises as an extension of the usual ADM gravitational charges that are derived from the variation of the gravitational Hamiltonian. Let $`_t`$ be the Hamiltonian that generates flow along a timelike vector field . The lapse and shift appear as Lagrange multipliers in $`_t`$. Regge and Teitelboim , computed the variation of $`_t`$ for asymptotically flat spacetimes. Evaluated on solutions, it is given by the sum of boundary integrals at spacelike infinity, multiplied by the Lagrange multipliers. For asymptotically flat spacetimes, the asymptotic symmetry group is the Poincare group. They demonstrated that if the Lagrange multipliers are chosen to be asymptotic to the generators of the Poincare group, then the variation of $`_t`$ is the sum of the variation of the gravitational four-momentum and angular momentum, each multiplied by the corresponding generator. For example, the variation in the ADM mass $`\delta M`$ is the coefficient of an asymptotic time translation.

If we now consider a spacetime that is asymptotically flat cross an $`S^1`$, then the asymptotic symmetry group has an additional spatial translation Killing vector $`\frac{}{x}`$. Therefore in the Regge-Teitelboim construction the variation of $`_t`$ contains an additional linear momentum term $`\delta P^x`$. The key step in defining the spacetime tension is to note that because of the covariance of the theory, one can just as well write down a Hamiltonian funtion $`_x`$ which generates flow along a spacelike vector field, asymptotic to $`\frac{}{x}`$. The variation in the gravitational tension $`\delta \mu `$ is then defined by computing the variation in $`_x`$ when the Lagrange multiplier is asymptotic to $`\frac{}{x}`$. This construction will be given in Section 2 below.

We will also be interested in properties of perturbations to the gravitational mass and tension of $`p`$-brane spacetimes. When a spacetime has a symmetry, then often one can prove useful relations that hold for perturbations around the spacetime. The most famous example of this is the first law of black hole mechanics  , which holds if the background spacetime has a stationary Killing field $`\xi ^a`$. In addition to $`\xi ^a`$, a black p-brane spacetime may have one or more spatial translation Killing fields $`X^a`$ tangent to the brane. It is natural to ask whether there is another law of black brane mechanics that relates variations in the tension $`\delta \mu `$, to variations in the geometrical properties of the horizon.

In order to address this, we start in Section 2 by deriving a general integral identity, or constraint, which holds on solutions to the linearized Einstein equation coupled to matter fields. The derivation assumes that the background stress-energy comes from a matter Hamiltonian. Perturbative stress-energy sources are included, and these need not have a Hamiltonian description. For definiteness, when writing out explicit formulae, we assume that the background stress-energy comes from a $`(p+1)`$-form abelian gauge field, which generally arise in supergravity theories and couple to$`p`$-branes. This general construction is then used to prove three results concerning perturbations of black $`p`$-branes.

First, to illustrate the techniques, in Section 3 we give a simple proof of the first law as it applies to black branes. For example, let the background spacetime be a static black 2-brane which is electrically charged with respect to the 3-form gauge potential $`A_{abc}`$. Let the directions tangent to the 2-brane be compact. Then using the static Killing field $`\xi ^a`$, our general construction gives the first law

$$\delta M=\frac{\kappa }{8\pi }\delta A+\mathrm{\Omega }\delta 𝒥\frac{3}{2\pi }A_{tab}\delta Q^{tab}+_V(\xi ^a\delta T_{\widehat{t}a}^{(s)}+4!A_{tcd}\delta j^{tcd}).$$

Here $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity, $`A`$ is the horizon area, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity of the horizon, and $`𝒥`$ is the angular momentum of the spacetime. $`\delta Q^{eab}=4!_VN𝑑a_c\delta F^{cabe}`$ is the variation of the electric charge, where $`F=dA`$ . The volume integral gives the contribution of perturbative sources $`\delta T_b^{(s)a}`$ and charged currents $`\delta j^{abc}`$.

Evaluating (1) in the case that the background spacetime has no horizons and no gauge fields gives

$$\delta M=_V\xi ^a\delta T_{\widehat{t}a}^{(s)},$$

That is, $`\delta M`$ is equal to integral of the local energy density, which agrees with our Newtonian intuition about mass.

Second, in Section 4 we prove a statement analogous to equation (1) for variations in the tension $`\delta \mu `$ of black branes. $`\delta \mu `$ is first defined by a boundary integral which depends on $`X^a`$, the background metric, and the metric perturbation. The functional dependence of $`\delta \mu `$ on $`X^a`$ is similiar to the dependence of $`\delta M`$ on $`\xi ^a`$. The main result of this paper is to derive a relation for $`\delta \mu `$ which is analogous to equation (1) . Consider again the example of a static charged, black 2-brane, and that the brane wraps a 2-torus. Assume that the spacetime has a spatial translation Killing vector $`X^a=\frac{}{x}`$, which is tangent to an $`S^1`$ wrapped by the brane. Then using $`X^a`$ in our general construction gives the relation

$$\delta \mu =\frac{A}{8\pi L_H}\delta \kappa \frac{3}{2\pi }A_{xab}\delta Q^{xab}+_{V_x}[X^a\delta T_a^{(s)\widehat{x}}+\frac{3}{2\pi }A_{bcx}\delta J^{bcx}]$$

Here $`L_H`$ is the length of the $`S^!`$, to which $`X^a`$ is tangent, at the horizon. $`V_x`$ is a subsurface of an asymptotically flat slice which has $`x=constant`$. Using a Komar-Smarr relation, this can be rewritten as

$$\delta \mu =\frac{\kappa }{8\pi (n2)L_H}\delta A+gaugefieldandsourceterms.$$

As for $`\delta M`$, we can gain physical understanding of the quantity $`\delta \mu `$ by specializing (1) to the case of perturbations off a spacetime with no horizons and no gauge fields. Then

$$\delta \mu =_VX^a\delta T_a^{(s)\widehat{x}},$$

$`i.e.`$, $`\delta \mu `$ is minus the integral of the $`x`$-component of the pressure of the stress-energy. This is part of the justification of calling the boundary integral the tension. Note that the momentum associated with the Killing field $`X^a`$ is a different physical quantity; in this same example, $`\delta P^x=_\mathrm{\Sigma }X^a\delta T_{\widehat{t}a}^{(s)}`$

We use the term “tension” rather than “pressure” because test branes whose dynamics are governed by the area action have positive tension. Note that the tension is associated with a Killing field tangent to the brane, and is not a radial pressure as in a star. If the two-brane has a second translational Killing field $`Y^a`$, then there is an analogous statement for variations in the tension associated with the y-direction.

Third, we compute the variation in the tension $`\delta \mu `$ when a charged test brane moves in a background magnetic field. Then $`\delta \mu `$ has contributions from the perturbation to the enclosed current, and from the variation of the magnetic field on the boundary, as well as the perturbed stress-energy. The resulting statement looks like a gravitational-Ampere’s Law. This is worked out in Section (4.2) .

We close with some remarks about the relation of this work to some other work which has used Hamiltonian techniques. References  and  studied the linearization instability of Einstein-Maxwell and Einstein-Yang-Mills on spacetimes with $`compact`$ spatial sections. They prove that linearization instability occurs when the spacetime has a Killing field. If the space is non-compact, there is no linearization instability. Instead, their approach, which we employ here, yields an identity on solutions to the linearized equations. The identity takes the form of a guass’s law constraint, with a boundary term. When the Killing field of the spacetime is time translation, then the constraint is the first law (see Section 3).

Reference  studies Einstein-Yang-Mills theory on spacetimes with non-compact spatial sections. They use a Hamiltonian $`h`$ for Einstein-Yang Mills theory which includes an appropriate boundary term at infinity. Evaluated on solutions only the boundary term of $`h`$ is nonzero, and this is interpeted as the energy of the spacetime. The perturbations of $`h`$ are computed and this yields the First Law. By contrast, in this paper as in our previous work  , we start with the field equations. The relations (1) and (1) are identities, or constraints, on solutions to the linearized equations. The challenge is to understand the geometrical meaning of the boundary terms. We argue that a particular boundary integral can be identified as the tension of the spacetime.

The definitions and properties of the gravitational charges in asymptotically flat spacetimes have been extensively studied. A nice feature of our approach is that one is not limited to asymptotically flat boundary conditions. The constraint(s) must be true for perturbations about any background spacetime which has Killing vector(s), such as Reissner-Nordstrom-deSitter or Ernst spacetimes. For example, consider a black hole in deSitter. Let $`V`$ be a spacelike slice bounded by the black hole and deSitter horizons. In this region there is a static Killing field $`\xi ^a`$. Using $`xi^a`$ in our general construction gives the identity $`\kappa _{ds}\delta A_{ds}=\kappa _{bh}\delta A_{bh}`$, where $`\kappa _{bh},\kappa _{ds}`$ are the surface gravities of the black hole and deSitter horizons, and $`\delta A_{bh},\delta A_{ds}`$ the change in the areas of the horizons. The interesting thing is that the boundary term which gives $`\delta M`$ on an asymptotically flat boundary becomes $`\kappa _{ds}\delta A_{ds}`$ on the deSitter horizon.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we derive general constraint relation on perturbations for a foliation of the spacetime by either spacelike or timelike surfaces. This relation is applied to prove the first law in section 3, and then to derive the constraint on $`\delta \mu `$ in section 4. We show that the $`\delta \mu `$ constraint simplifies to equation (1)when the background and the perturbations are static. Some geometrical properties of the horizon, related to the existence of a spatial translation Killing field, are derived. Section 5 contains concluding remarks. Appendix A contains some details of the Hamiltonian decomposition of the three-form gauge field Lagrangian. In Appendix B we show that a $`p`$-form gauge potential is constant on a bifurcate Killing horizon.

2. Integral Constraints on Perturbations

Since the idea of the derivation is simple, while the calculations are detailed, we first outline the idea. The Hamiltonian techniques in  and the covariant techniques in  are made use of. Consider the Einstein Lagrangian $`R`$ coupled to matter fields which are described by a Lagrangian, for example $`L_M=F^2`$. Let the spacetime be foliated by spacelike slices, with timelike normal vector field $`n=Ndt`$. One can then construct the Hamiltonian which generates flow along the time direction $`\xi ^a=\frac{}{t}`$. The Hamiltonian $`_{tot}`$ for the coupled Einstein-Maxwell system is pure constraint, namely the sum of the Einstein constraints and Gauss’s law, multiplied by lagrange multipliers. On solutions $`_{tot}=0`$. Perturbative solutions linearized about a background satisfy $`\delta _{tot}=0`$, where the variation is with respect to all the dynamical fields $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}p\mathrm{"}`$ and $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}q\mathrm{"}`$. The latter equation can be rewritten in terms of the adjoint operator $`\delta _{tot}^{}`$ and a total derivative. That is, one can integrate the equation over a volume $`V`$ contained in a spatial slice, and integrate by parts. This yields a volume integral of the adjoint, plus an integral over the boundary $`V`$. But the adjoint operator generates the Hamiltonian flow, and so Hamilton’s equations imply that on solutions the volume integral is simply the lie derivative along the direction $`\xi ^a`$, of the $`p^{}s`$ and $`q^{}s`$. If $`\xi ^a`$ is a Killing vector for the background then the lie derivatives vanish and the result is greatly simplified. The resulting statement is an identity, or constraint, which must hold on solutions to the linearized equations. If the background spacetime is a black brane, this construction gives the first law . To include perturbative sources $`\delta 𝒮`$, one simply starts with the linearized equation $`\delta _{tot}=\delta 𝒮`$.

Next consider foliating the spacetime with slices that have a spacelike normal vector field. This defines a Hamiltonian flow along a spacelike field $`X^a`$. The construction of $`_{tot},\delta _{tot}`$ and $`\delta _{tot}^{}`$ is much the same as for the decompositon based on a timelike normal. One just has to be careful about various minus signs. Again the conclusion is that if $`X^a`$ is a Killing field, then perturbations about the background spacetime obey an integral constraint. The integration volume is now a Lorentzian slice, so its boundary includes initial and final spacelike surfaces, plus the boundaries at infinity and along a horizon if present. In general there are fluxes through the initial and final slices. However, if the spacetime and the perturbations are static, the general statement can be reduced to the constraint (1) on an asymptotically flat spatial slice .

The difference between the constraints derived by slicing the spacetime with a timelike normal field, or with a spacelike normal, is similiar to the difference between Gauss’ Law and Ampere’s Law in Maxwell theory. Start with Maxwell’s equations in covariant form, $`_aF^{ab}=J^b`$. Then the difference between the derivation of the two laws is just the choice of splitting spacetime into space plus time, or into space plus a smaller spacetime, that is, taking the free index “$`b`$’ to be a time direction or a space direction respectively. Gauss’s Law is a true constraint, whereas Ampere’s law holds only if the electric field is time independent. Even so, Ampere’s law is still a useful relation. In Gauss’s law, the source is the time component of the charged current; in Ampere’s law, the spatial components contribute. Similiarly, in the gravitational construction the conserved charges $`Q^{tab}`$ contribute to the mass, while the $`Q^{xab}`$ contribute to the tension. In general this will include purely spatial components of the charged current. Having outlined the idea, we now proceed with the details of the calculation.

1. The d + 1 Split

Let M denote a $`d+1`$-dimensional manifold with metric $`g_{ab}`$ of signature $`(++\mathrm{}+)`$. Let $`_a`$ be the derivative operator compatable with $`g_{ab}`$, $`_ag_{bc}=0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$ be a family of $`d`$ dimensional submanifolds with constant coordinate $`w`$, possibly defined just in some subset of M. Let $`n=nnNdw`$ be the unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$, where $`nnn^an_a=\pm 1`$ if $`n_a`$ is spacelike or timelike respectively. We want to rewrite the Einstein equation in terms of $`d`$ dimensional quantities. Here we keep track of various minus signs that distinguish between a spacelike and a timelike foliation. The details are omitted; the steps for the usual $`3+1`$ decomposition can be found in standard texts  .

The metric $`g_{ab}`$ induces a metric $`s_{ab}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$

$$g_{ab}=s_{ab}+(nn)n_an_b,n_as^{ab}=0$$

and let $`D_as_{cd}=0`$. The lapse $`N`$ and shift $`N^a`$ are defined by the decomposition

$$\frac{}{w}=W^a=Nn^a+N^a,n_aN^a=0$$

We will take the Einstein Lagrangian to be $`L_G=+R`$. The momentum conjugate to $`s_{ab}`$ is

$$\pi ^{ab}=(nn)\sqrt{|s|}(Ks^{ab}K^{ab})$$

where $`K_{ab}=s_a^c_cn_b`$ is the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$. The projection of a tensor onto the submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$ will be denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{A}^bs_c^bA^c`$. When no ambiguity arises we will drop the ”tilde”, for example, from their definitions, the shift, extrinsic curvature, and momenta fields are tangent to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

By considering a spacetime decomposition as introduced above one finds that the components $`G_{ab}n^b`$ of the Einstein tensor only involve first derivatives in the $`w`$ coordinate. When $`W^a`$ is timelike then the components $`G_{ab}n^b=8\pi T_{ab}n^b`$ are known as the Einstein constraint equations. Here we will refer to these equations as constraints whether $`W^a`$ is timelike or spacelike. Explicitly,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (nn)H_G& =16\pi T_{ab}n^an^b\hfill \\ \hfill (nn)H_{G}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}& =16\pi s^{bc}T_{cd}n^d\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (nn)H_G& =2G_{ab}n^an^b=(nn)R^{(d)}+\frac{1}{|s|}(\frac{\pi ^2}{d1}\pi ^{ab}\pi _{ab})\hfill \\ \hfill (nn)H_{G}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}& =H_{G}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}=2s^{bc}G_{cd}n^d=2(nn)D_a(|s|^{\frac{1}{2}}\pi ^{ab})\hfill \end{array}$$

The Hamiltonian for Einstein gravity is pure constraint. Variation of the Hamiltonian density

$$_G=\sqrt{|s|}(NH_G+N_bH_G^b)$$

yeilds the vacuum Einstein equations. In the Hamiltonian variation, $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }q\mathrm{"}`$ is $`s_{ab}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }p\mathrm{"}`$ is $`\pi ^{ab}`$. $`N,N^b`$ are Lagrange multipliers.

In this paper, we consider General Relativity coupled to matter fields whose stress energy is derived from a Lagrangian $`L_M`$. We will assume that the matter $`L_M`$ can be transformed to Hamiltonian form. The particular examples we work out have total Lagrangian $`L=RF^2`$ with $`F=dA`$. The matter Hamiltonian $`H_M`$ may contain additional constraint equations $`𝒞=0`$, for example, Gauss’ Law. The total Hamiltonian for the coupled system is

$$(N,N^a,\alpha )_{tot}(g,\pi ,A,p)=\sqrt{|s|}[N(H_G+H_M)+N_b(H_G^b+H_M)]+\alpha 𝒞$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a Lagrange multiplier for the matter constraints. Equations (1) and $`𝒞=0`$ imply that on solutions to the field equations,

$$(N,N^a,\alpha )_{tot}(g,\pi ,A,p)=0$$

2. Derivation of Constraints

The derivation of constraints on perturbations   which we use is based upon the fact that the gravitational Hamiltonian density is a sum of constraints, (1) . This previous work includes an analysis of the Einstein equation with a fluid stress energy, applied to cosmological spacetimes. The fluid sources are described by a stress-energy tensor, and not derived from a Lagrangian; typically the fluid is described by a density, pressure, and velocity, rather than some more fundamental set of fields. In this paper we apply the same constraint vector construction for Einstein gravity coupled to matter fields which are described by a Lagrangian. The derivation is similiar to calculations of linearization instability    . The linearization instability work was done for compact manifolds without boundary. Here we work on non-compact manifolds, and the boundary terms are of particular interest, since they are the mass, horizon area, and tension variations.

Gauss’ Law $`_aF^{abct}=J^{bct}`$ is a nice, linear constraint, which can be rewritten in integral form. The following construction extracts a similiar Gauss’ Law type statement from the linearized Einstein constraints , in the case that the background spacetime has a Killing field. Let $`(\overline{s}_{ab},\overline{\pi }^{ab},\overline{A}_{abc},\overline{p}^{abc})`$ be a solution to the field equations, where $`p^{abc}=8\sqrt{|s|}NF^{abcw}`$ is the momentum conjugate to $`A_{abc}`$ (see Appendix ). Consider j perturbations about this solution,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q^{}s:s_{ab}& =\overline{s}_{ab}+ϵh_{ab},A_{abc}=\overline{A}_{abc}+ϵ\delta A_{abc}\hfill \\ \hfill p^{}s:\pi ^{ab}& =\overline{\pi }^{ab}+ϵ\delta \pi ^{ab},p^{abc}=\overline{p}^{abc}+ϵ\delta p^{abc}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`ϵ1`$ .The result is derived by finding a judicious linear combination of the linearized constraints. The idea is very simple, and to display this fact, we streamline the notation: Define the variation $`\delta `$ by $`\delta f=\frac{\delta f}{\delta s_{ab}}h_{ab}+\frac{\delta f}{\delta \pi ^{ab}}\delta \pi ^{ab}+\frac{\delta f}{\delta A_{bcd}}\delta A_{bcd}+\frac{\delta f}{\delta p^{bcd}}\delta p^{bcd}`$.

Let $`F,\beta ^a`$ be an arbitrary function and vector on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$, and consider the linear combination of constraints $`(F,\beta ^a,A_{wbc})_{tot}(g,\pi ,A,p)=0`$. The perturbative fields, which we have divided above into $`\delta q^{}s`$ and $`\delta p^{}s`$, are solutions to the linearized constraints

$$(F,\beta ^a,A_{wbc})\delta _{tot}(\delta q,\delta p)=0.$$

Rewrite (1) in terms of the adjoint operator and a total derivative,

$$(\delta q,\delta p)\delta _{tot}^{}(F,\beta ^a,A_{wbc})+D_aB^a=0$$

where $`B^a`$ is a function of the $`\delta q,\delta p`$ , the Lagrange multipliers, and of course the background spacetime.

Therefore if $`F,\beta ^a`$ are solutions to the differential equation $`\delta _{tot}^{}(F,\beta ^a,A_{wbc})=0`$, then any perturbation about the background spacetime must satisfy the Gauss’s Law type constraint

$$D_aB^a=0.$$

When do solutions for $`F,\beta ^a`$ exist? Hamilton s equations are $`(\dot{s},\dot{\pi },\dot{A},\dot{p})=_{tot}^{}(F,\beta ^a,A_{wbc})`$, where $`\dot{f}`$ is the lie derivative of $`f`$ along $`V^a`$,

$$V^a=Fn^a+\beta ^a$$

So the requirement that (1) hold for all perturbations about the background is that the lie derivative along $`V^a`$ of all the $`q^{}s`$ and $`p^{}s`$ is zero, that is, $`V^a`$ must be a Killing vector.

The boundary term vector is the sum of a gravitational piece and a contribution from the matter fields, $`B^a=B_G^a+B_M^a`$, where

$$B_G^a=F(D^ahD_bh^{ab})hD^aF+h^{ab}D_bF+\frac{\beta ^b}{\sqrt{|s|}}(\pi ^{cd}h_{cd}s_b^a2\pi ^{ac}h_{bc}2\delta \pi _b^a)$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill B_M^a& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{|s|}}A_w\delta p^a+4F\stackrel{~}{F}^{ab}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_b+\frac{2}{\sqrt{|s|}}\beta ^{[a}p^{b]}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_b,1form\hfill \\ \hfill B_M^a& =\frac{3}{\sqrt{|s|}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{bcw}\delta p^{abc}+8F\stackrel{~}{F}^{abcd}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{bcd}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{|s|}}\beta ^{[a}p^{bcd]}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{abc},3form\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`h=h_{ab}s^{ab}`$ and all indices are raised and lowered using $`s_{ab}`$. See Appendix A for some details of the Hamiltonian decomposition of $`F^2`$.

It is simple to include perturbative sources $`\delta T_{ab}^{(s)}`$, i.e, stress energy which does not come from a Lagrangian. Equation (1) is replaced by

$$(F,\beta ^a,A_{wbc})\delta _{tot}(\delta q,\delta p)=\delta 𝒮$$

where $`\delta 𝒮16\pi (nn)\delta T_b^aV^bn_a4!A_{bcw}\delta J^{bcw}`$, where the charged current is defined by

$$_aF^{abcd}=J^{bcd}$$

It follows that when $`V^a=Fn^a+\beta ^a`$ is a Killing vector, then $`D_aB^a=\delta 𝒮`$. In integral form, this is

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{|s|}\delta 𝒮=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑a_cB^c$$

(1) is the constraint on perturbations about a spacetime with a Killing field, when the background matter fields come from a Lagrangian. Why is this last condition needed? Consider the Einstein equation with a fluid stress-energy, as for cosmological spacetimes. In a $`d+1`$ split, the form of the Einstein constraints (1) still holds, but Hamilton s equation for $`\dot{p}`$ becomes $`\frac{\delta _{tot}^{}}{\delta \pi ^{ab}}=\dot{\pi }^{ab}+8\pi NT_{fl}^{ab}`$. One finds that the vector $`V^a`$ must satisfy a set of equations different from Killings equation, for a constraint of the form (1) to hold on perturbations  . $`V^a`$ was referred to as an integral constraint vector in that work, and the Freidman-Robertson-Walker spacetimes turn out to have constraint vectors. Tod  has shown that there exists a maximal set of solutions for $`V^a`$ when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be locally embedded in a space of constant curvature, and that in $`3+1`$ dimensions this is related to the existence of three-surface twistors.

3. First Law

In this section we use (1) to give a simple proof of the First Law for black branes.

Let $`M`$ be a black brane spacetime with a bifurcate Killing horizon, and let $`V`$ be an asymptotically flat spacelike slice with timelike normal $`n^a`$. Assume that the directions tangent to the brane are compact. For the non-compact case one must specify additional boundary conditions at infinity along the brane. A simple example is the two-parameter family of $`M2`$-brane spacetimes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =f^{2/3}(Hdt^2+dx^2+dy^2)+f^{1/3}(\frac{dr^2}{H}+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j)\hfill \\ \hfill A_{txy}& =\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}}{r^6+q}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}}{q}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`f(r)=1+q/r^6`$, $`H(r)=1q_o/r^6`$. The parameters are related by $`q=q_osinh^2\delta ,\stackrel{~}{q}=q_osinh\delta cosh\delta `$. $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},7`$ are the transverse coordinates. The extremal, supersymmetric case occurs when $`q_o=0`$.

First consider a slice $`V_0`$ which intersects the horizon $``$ on the bifurcation surface. For example, the bifurcation surface of the $`M2`$-brane (1) has topology $`S^7`$ cross $`T^2`$. Assume that the spacetime has a stationary Killing field $`\xi ^a=Fn^a+\beta ^a`$ and substitute $`\xi ^a=V^a`$ in the constraint relation (1) . Using the asymptotically flat boundary conditions, the boundary terms at infinity simplify, and have standard interpetations as the change in the mass and the momentum, see e.g.,  . The gravitational boundary term (1) becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 16\pi \delta M& =_V_{\mathrm{}}𝑑a_c[F(D^chD_bh^{cb})hD^cF+h_b^cD^bF]\hfill \\ \hfill 16\pi \mathrm{\Omega }\delta 𝒥_𝒢& =\mathrm{\Omega }_V_{\mathrm{}}𝑑a_c\frac{2\varphi ^b\delta \pi _b^c}{\sqrt{|s|}}\hfill \end{array}$$

The terms $`hD^cF+h_b^cD^bF`$ do not contribute to the boundary around an asymptotically flat black hole, but they may contribute in a black brane spacetime which includes compact dimensions. For example, if the spacetime has topology of a compact manifold $`K`$ cross $`R^n`$, then $`F`$ may depend on the coordinates $`z^i`$ on $`K`$. From the lower $`N`$-dimensional point of view, the $`d+1`$ dimensional $`\delta M`$ would break up into an $`N`$-dimensional $`\delta M^{(N)}`$ plus contributions from the variations in moduli fields.

Suppose that the background spacetime has no magnetic charge, $`_V_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{abcd}=0`$. Then the integrand $`da_dF\stackrel{~}{F}^{dabc}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{abc}`$ vanishes at infinity. So the contibution to the boundary term at infinity from the gauge field is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <A_{tab}\delta Q^{tab}>& =3_V_{\mathrm{}}𝑑a_cA_{tab}\frac{\delta p^{cab}}{\sqrt{|s|}}\hfill \\ \hfill 16\pi \delta 𝒥_M& =_V_{\mathrm{}}𝑑a_c\frac{2}{\sqrt{|s|}}\varphi ^{[c}p^{abe]}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{abe}\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`Q^{tab}`$ are the electric charges, $`\delta Q^{tab}=3_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })_{\mathrm{}}}𝑑a_c\frac{\delta p^{cab}}{\sqrt{|s|}}(=4!_\mathrm{\Sigma }\delta J^{tab})`$. The last equality just reminds the reader of the relation between the electic field and charged sources, if the electric field was generated by smooth sources.

$`𝒥_M`$ is the gauge contribution to the angular momentum. If the gauge potential is constant on the boundary at infinity, then $`<A_{tab}\delta Q^{tab}>=A_{tab}\delta Q^{tab}`$; otherwise the charge term in the First Law is an average over the internal space.

On the bifurcation surface of the horizon $`\xi ^a`$ vanishes, and the gavitational boundary term is

$$_{V_0}𝑑a_c(hD^cF+h^{cb}D_bF)=2\kappa \delta A$$

where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity and $`A`$ is the area of $`V_0`$

When $``$ is a Killing horizon then it can be shown that for the one-form gauge potential, $`A_a\xi ^a=constant`$ on all of $``$, see e.g.,  . We have not been able to generalize this result to higher-form potentials. However, when the horizon has a bifurcation surface then since $`\xi ^a=0`$, also $`A_{abc}\xi ^a=0`$ there, as was used in  for black strings. Then all gauge terms vanish on the horizon, and (1) gives the First Law,

$$\delta M=\frac{\kappa \delta A}{8\pi }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\delta 𝒥_G+\delta 𝒥_M)\frac{3}{2\pi }<A_{bct}\delta Q^{bct}>+_{V_o}\frac{(\delta 𝒮)}{16\pi }$$

Here $`\frac{\delta 𝒮}{16\pi }=\xi ^an^b\delta T_{ab}+\frac{3}{2\pi }A_{bct}\delta J^{bct}`$ . (1) assumes that there is no magnetic charge and that the spatial slice $`V_o`$ intersects $``$ at the bifurcation surface. The perturbations are arbitrary, i.e., not necessarily stationary.

In the magnetic case, there is a boundary contribution from $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{abcd}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{bcd}`$ . This is because the gauge potential is defined in patches, so when using Stokes theorem to change the volume term to a boundary term, there are contributions from the boundaries of different patches. In the spherically symmetric case, $`ds^2=m_{ab}dx^adx^b+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$, and $`F=Q_B\omega _4`$, where $`\omega _4`$ is the volume form on the unit four-sphere, this boundary term gives a contribution proportional to $`\delta Q_B`$: the integral factors into $`Q_BV_I𝑑rr^4\sqrt{m}𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta 𝑑\gamma (\delta A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^N\delta A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^S)`$, where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are coordinates on the $`S^3`$ boundary of the $`N`$ and $`S`$ patches, and $`V_I`$ is the volume of the remaining internal space. The integral over the $`S^3`$ is $`\delta Q_B`$, but it would seem that one needs to know the actual metric funtions to evaluate the remaining integral $`dr`$, even in this simple case. It would be interesting to know if the magnetic contribution could be evaluated in general.

1. Extension to General Slices

The First Law (1) was proved for arbitrary perturbations, but restricted to the case when the spatial slice intersects $``$ on the bifurcation surface. It is clearly more difficult to evaluate the boundary term on a general cross section of the horizon, since $`\xi ^a`$ does not vanish, and the momentum of the spatial slice $`\pi ^{ab}`$ is also nonzero. However, we can use the divergence free property of the ICV boundary term as follows. Let the family of spacelike slices $`\{V_w\}`$ be asymptoticallly flat, and let $`V_0`$ be a slice which intersects $``$ at the bifurcation surface. When there are no fluid sources, (1) becomes $`_{V_w}𝑑a_cB^c=0`$. The boundary term vector $`B^a`$ depends on the geometry of the spatial slice $`V_w`$ in the background, which we will indicate by ”$`ϵ`$” (see (1) ). First consider the vacuum case. We have shown that for any $`w`$ the contibution to (1) from the boundary at infinity is $`16\pi \delta M+\mathrm{\Omega }\delta J`$. On $`V_0`$, the boundary term at $``$ gives $`2\kappa \delta A_0`$. Since all the $`V_w`$ share the same boundary at infinity, (1) implies that the horizon boundary terms have the same value for all $`w`$,

$$I(V_w;ϵ)__wB^c𝑑a_c=16\pi \delta M=2\kappa \delta A_0$$

Sorkin and  have shown that even with time dependent perturbations, the variation in the expansion $`\theta `$ on the horizon is zero through linear order. This implies that $`\delta A_0=\delta A_w`$, ie, that $`\delta A`$ is the same on each slice. Therefore (1) implies that $`I(V_T;\lambda )=\kappa \delta A_T`$, since $`\kappa `$ is constant over the horizon.

For Einstein-Maxwell, there is an additional contribution to the common boundary term at infinity of $`4A_t\delta Q`$. What about the gauge term contribution at the horizon? For a one-form potential,  , have proven that $`A_a\xi ^a`$ vanishes on a killing horizon. In appendix B we show that $`A_{abc}\xi ^a=0`$ on a bifurcate killing horizon; it would be interesting to know if this was true with just the assumption of a Killing horizon. Therefore, the total boundary term on the horizon $`V_0`$ is still $`2\kappa \delta A`$. As in the vacuum case, the inner boundary contribution is fixed at $`2\kappa \delta A`$.

4. Constraint on Tension Variations

Let the background spacetime have a spatial translation Killing field $`X^a`$. We want to work out the implications of the general constraint relation (1) when the Killing field in the construction is taken to be $`X^a=\frac{}{x}`$ and the $`d`$-dimensional slices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are surfaces of constant $`x`$. The unit normal $`\widehat{x}_a=L_ax`$ is spacelike, and $`s_{ab}`$ is Lorentzian. (For this decomposition we will write the normal as $`\widehat{x}_a`$ to distinguish from the timelike normal $`n_a`$ used in the last section.) So

$$g_{ab}=s_{ab}+\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_b,\widehat{x}\widehat{x}=+1$$

As in Section 3, we will assume that the directions tangent to the brane are compact. Therefore, we take the spacetime to have topology of $`R^N\times K`$, where $`K`$ is a compact manifold. For example, for an $`M2`$-brane, $`K`$ could be an $`S^1`$ and $`N=10`$, or $`K`$ could be a 2-torus cross a four (real) dimensional Kahler manifold, with $`N=5`$. We also assume that the spacetime is transverse asymptotically flat, $`i.e.`$, is asymptotically flat in the noncompact dimensions. The boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at infinity is the product of a time interval and the $`(d2)`$-dimensional boundary of a $`(d1)`$-dimensional spatial volume $`V_x`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }t\times V_x^{\mathrm{}}`$. The notation $`V_x`$ indicates that $`x=constant`$ in this volume, since it is a subset of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The rate of fall off of metric perturbations is $`h_{ab}O(r^{N+3})`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

We define the variation in the tension of the spacetime $`\delta \mu `$ to be to be minus the gravitational boundary term (1) evaluated at infinity, divided by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. With $`X^a=F\widehat{x}^a+\beta ^a`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 16\pi \delta \mu \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}_\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}𝑑t& da_a[F(D^ahD_bh^{ab})hD^aF+h^{ab}D_bF\hfill \\ & +\frac{\beta ^b}{\sqrt{|s|}}(\pi ^{cd}h_{cd}s_b^a2\pi ^{ac}h_{bc}2\delta \pi _b^a)]\hfill \end{array}$$

The transverse asymptotically flat boundary conditions imply that the integrand at infinity is independent of time, so the integral over $`t`$ factors out, and $`𝑑t/\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$.

1. Perturbations off Minkowski Spacetime

We start by considering the integral constraint (1) when the background is flat $`(d+1p)`$-dimensional spacetime, cross a $`p`$-dimensonal torus. This will give a physical interpetation of the gravitational boundary term in the weakly gravitating limit. Let $`\delta T_a^{(s)b}`$ be perturbative sources which are localized in the transverse directions. The spacetime volume in (1) is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }t\times R^{dp}\times I^{p1}=\mathrm{\Delta }t\times V_x`$. The integration over the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ cancels. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 16\pi \delta \mu & _{V_x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑a_c(D^chD_bh^{cb})=16\pi _{V_x}𝑑V(\delta p_x)\hfill \\ & where\delta p_x=\delta T_a^{(s)b}\widehat{x}^a\widehat{x}_b\hfill \end{array}$$

The volume integral is minus the $`x`$-component of the pressure of the source, $`i.e.`$, it is the $`x`$-component of the tension. Therefore it is reasonable to interpet the boundary term at infinity as the spacetime tension. More precisely, $`\delta \mu `$ is the integral of the tension. This is (minus) the force per unit $`(d1)`$-dimensional area, times the area, $`i.e.`$, $`\delta \mu `$ is the $`x`$-momentum flux. The term tension rather than pressure is being used here since test $`p`$-branes governed by the area action have positive tension. We emphasize that the tension is in a direction tangent to the source, and is not a radial pressure as in a star.

2. Background Magnetic fields

One contribution to $`\delta M`$ is the variation of the electric charge. This occurs because $`\delta M`$ is associated with the time translation symmetry of the background, and the Lagrange multiplier of $`\delta Q`$ is the time component of the gauge potential. When the ICV construction is done using a spatial translation symmetry of the background, then there is a contribution from the spatial component of the field strength instead. Consider the case when a test brane moves in a static background magnetic field, which was studied for a test two-brane in flat spacetime in  . Assume that there is no background electric charge. With out gravity, this is the situation for Ampere’s Law. For example, suppose that there is a background gauge potential $`A_{xyz}(x^i)`$, and a test two-brane that lies in the $`xy`$ plane and moves in the $`z`$-direction. The brane generates a current $`\delta J^{xyz}`$, which in turn induces a change in the magnetic field $`\delta F^{cxyz}`$ satisfying $`_D𝑑a_c\delta F^{cxyz}=_D𝑑v\delta J^{xyz}`$. Including the gravitational field, then a perturbative current $`\delta J^{abc}`$ generates a perturbation to the gauge field, and this causes a variation in the gravitational fields. Equation (1) becomes

$$16\pi \delta \mu =4!_{V_x}𝑑a_bNA_{cdx}\delta F^{bcdx}+_{V_x}[16\pi X^a\delta T_a^{(s)b}\widehat{x}_b+4!A_{bcx}\delta J^{bcx}]$$

In the example above, there is a gauge field boundary term from a nonzero $`A_{xyz}\delta F^{xyzi}`$, rather than from a baackground electric charge.

3. Perturbations off Black Branes

Now we are ready to study perturbations of the spacetime tension in a black brane spacetime. Assume that the spacetime has a static Killing field $`\xi ^a`$, as well as the spatial translation killing vector $`X^a`$, so that the horizon is a Killing horizon. For simplicity we will specialize to the case where the slicing can be chosen such that $`X^a=L\widehat{x}^a`$ , $`g_{xx}=X^aX_a=L^2`$. Let $`L_H`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ equal length of the $`S^1`$, to which $`X^a`$ is tangent, at the horizon and at infinity respectively. Let $`A`$ equal to the area of the cross section where the spatial slice $`V`$ intersects the horizon, and let $`A_x`$ be the area of the intersection of the subsurface $`V_x`$ with $``$, then

$$A=L_HA_x.$$

We will also assume that $`X^a`$ is tangent to the horizon, $`X^a\xi _a=0`$ on $``$.

First consider the contribution to (1) from the boundary on the horizon. In a neighborhood of the horizon it is useful to write the metric in terms of null coordinates. Let $`k^a=\frac{}{\lambda }`$ and $`q^a=\frac{}{U}`$ be null and geodesic, where $`k^a`$ a geodesic generator of the horizon and $`\lambda `$ is an affine parameter. On $``$, $`\xi ^a=\kappa \lambda k^a`$ . Using these basis vectors the metric is

$$s_{ab}=\gamma _{ab}\xi _aq_b\xi _bq_a$$

where $`\gamma _a^b\xi ^a=0`$, $`\gamma _a^bq^a=0`$ and $`k_ak^a=q_aq^a=0`$. We normalize $`q^a`$ by $`\xi ^aq_a=1`$ on $``$. Our assumptions on $`X^a`$ are

$$X^a=L\widehat{x}^a,X^a=\gamma _b^aX^bon.$$

The gravitational boundary term (1) depends on derivatives of $`L`$. On the horizon, expand the gradient of the norm $`XX`$ in the above basis. Since $`\xi ^a,X^a`$ are Killing vectors and $`\xi ^a`$ is null, the expansion is of the form

$$^a(X_bX^b)=2L^aL=2\nu \xi ^a+\gamma _b^aC^b$$

To evaluate the boundary term on the horizon, we will see that one only needs the form of the expansion (1) and not the values of $`\nu `$ and $`C^a`$. The area element on $``$ is $`da_b=k_b\sqrt{\gamma }d\lambda dy`$, where $`dy`$ indicates integration over all the spatial coordinates except $`x`$. Substituting (1) into (1) ,the integrand is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill k_aB^a& =\frac{1}{\kappa \lambda }\xi _aB^a\hfill \\ & =\frac{L}{\kappa \lambda }[(\xi _aD_bh^{ab}\xi _aD^ah)+\frac{1}{L}(\mu \xi _a\xi _bh^{ab}+\xi _ah^{ab}C_b)]\hfill \end{array}$$

To evaluate this, we make the gauge choices $`\delta \xi ^a=0`$ and $`\delta q^a=0`$ . These are consistent conditions when the spacetime is static 4 When the background spacetime is stationary, the Killing field which generates the horizon is a linear combination of the time translation and rotational Killing vectors $`\xi ^a=t^a+\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi ^a`$. Then a superior choice of gauge conditions for evaluating the boundary term are $`\delta t^a=0,\delta \varphi ^a=0`$ .. Since the hypersurface is fixed, we also have that $`\delta n_a=0`$. The inner product conditions which define (1) hold in the background and the perturbed spacetime. Using these conditions, one finds that on $``$, $`\xi ^ah_{ab}=0`$. So the integrand on the horizon reduces to

$$k_aB^a=\frac{L}{\kappa \lambda }[(D_a(\xi _bh^{ab})\xi _aD^ah)]$$

where we have used the fact that $`\xi `$ is a killing vector.

The spacetime volume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$ in (1) is a slice of constant $`x`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$ is the sum of initial and final timelike slices, a null boundary over part of the horizon, and a timelike boundary at infinity. At infinity the spacetime approaches the direct product of asymptotically flat Minkowski spacetime cross a (static) compact space K. The integration at infinity reduces to an integral over the spatial boundary times a time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, where $`t`$ is the asymptotic killing time parameter. In general, the initial and final slices will contribute to relation (1) , which therefore is a time-dependent flux balance statement. There does not appear to be much one can say about this general case. However, if the background spacetime $`and`$ the perturbations are static, then we can extract an interesting statement, which we now turn to.

4. Static Perturbations: Reduction to a Spacelike Slice

In this section, we assume that the perturbations are static, as well as the background. This allows reduction of the integral constraint on $`\delta \mu `$ to a statement on a spacelike slice $`V_x`$. The perturbations need not be translationally invariant. We choose $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as follows. Pick an asymptotically flat spacelike slice, which can intersect the horizon at an arbitrary cross section. Choose $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })_i`$, the initial spacelike boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, to be a volume contained in this slice, with inner boundary $`R_{in}`$ and outer boundary $`R_{out}`$. We will eventually let $`R_{in}`$ go to the horizon and $`R_{out}`$ to spatial infinity. The static Killing field $`\xi ^a=\frac{}{t}`$ is timelike in this volume. Define the spacetime volume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by lie dragging $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })_i`$ an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ along the flow of $`\xi ^a`$ to $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })_f`$. Then for static perturbations, the integral of the boundary term over the final time slice is equal in magnitude to the integral over the initial time slice, and so these terms cancel in the integration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The outer boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ includes an integration over an interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Take the inner boundary to the horizon, which includes integrating over an interval of affine parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$. On $``$, $`\xi ^a=\frac{}{s}=\kappa \lambda \frac{}{\lambda }`$. Flowing along $`\xi ^a`$ in a neighborhood of the horizon, one has $`d\lambda =\frac{\lambda }{s}ds=\kappa \lambda ds`$. Therefore, upon lie dragging the initial spatial surface by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }s`$,

$$_i^f\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }=\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }t$$

Now we can evaluate the boundary term (1) on the horizon. For static perturbations, $`\xi ^aD_ah=0`$. Using (1) Killings equation, and the gauge condition $`h_{ab}\xi ^a=0`$ on $``$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D_a(h^{ab}\xi _b)& =D_c[h_a^b\xi _b(\gamma ^{ca}\xi ^cq^a\xi ^aq^c)]\hfill \\ & =\xi ^cD_c(h_{ab}\xi ^aq^b)q^cD_c(h_{ab}\xi ^a\xi ^b)\hfill \end{array}$$

The first term vanishes for static perturbations, and the second term is proportional to the change in the surface gravity: From the definition of $`\kappa `$, and the gauge condition $`\delta q^a=0`$ , $`2\delta \kappa =q^c_c(h_{ab}\xi ^a\xi ^b)`$. (1) then implies that

$$2\delta \kappa =D_a(h^{ab}\xi _b)$$

Combining (1) ,(1) ,and (1) we can evaluate the boundary term on the horizon, in the case that the perturbations are static. We find

$$\sqrt{\gamma }𝑑\lambda 𝑑yk_aB^a=2\delta \kappa \frac{A}{L_H}\mathrm{\Delta }t$$

where we have used equation (1). Note that the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ will cancel an identical contribution from the boundary term at infinity, so one is left with a statement on a spacelike slice. This is what one expects for the static case; the spacetime integral reduces to a statement which is independent of which time.

The gauge field boundary integrand is $`A_{bcx}\delta p^{bcd}da_d`$. If the brane carries electric charge and is static, then only the tangent components of the gauge potential are nonzero. Pecisely, suppose that $`A_{bcx}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_if_i\xi _{[b}u_{c]}`$. Then since $`da_d\xi _d`$ the gauge boundary term vanishes on $``$.

Then using (1) , equation (1) becomes

$$\delta \mu =\frac{A\delta \kappa }{8\pi L_H}\frac{3}{2\pi }<A_{bcx}\delta Q^{bcx}>_x_{V_x}\frac{1}{16\pi }\delta 𝒮(\stackrel{}{X})$$

where

$$\frac{1}{16\pi }\delta 𝒮(\stackrel{}{X})=N\delta T_b^aX^b\widehat{x}_a\frac{3}{2\pi }A_{bcx}\delta J^{bcx},$$

$`L_H`$ is defined in equation (1) and where $`\delta \mu `$ is given by

$$16\pi \delta \mu =_{V_x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑a_cB_G^c=_{V_x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑a_c[L(D^chD_bh^{cb})hD^cL+h^{cb}D_bL].$$

The brackets $`<>_x`$ indicate integration over internal dimensions, with $`x`$ is held constant, $`<A_{xab}\delta Q^{xab}>_x=3_{V_x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑a_cA_{xab}\frac{\delta p^{cab}}{\sqrt{|s|}}`$. If the gauge field goes to a constant at infinity, then $`<A_{bcx}\delta Q^{bcx}>_x=A_{bcx}^{\mathrm{}}\delta Q^{bcx}`$.

Equation (1) is the main result of this paper. It relates variations in the spacetime tension to variations in the horizon geometry, the gauge fields, and sources. The derivation of (1) assumes that the spacetime and the perturbations are static, the brane is electric, the Killing field $`X^a`$ is orthoganal to the surfaces of constant $`x`$, and that $`X^a`$ is tangent to the horizon.

The $`A\delta \kappa `$ term can be replaced with a $`\kappa \delta A`$ term by using a Smarr-Komar type relation, as follows. For a solution to the Einstein equation in $`n`$ dimensions with static Killing vector $`\xi ^a`$, $`\frac{1}{2}_VdS_{ab}^b\xi ^a=8\pi _VdV(T_b^ag_b^a\frac{T}{n2})\xi ^bn_a,8\pi \frac{n3}{n2}\rho `$ in the non-relativistic limit. This implies the normalization for the Komar mass, $`8\pi \frac{n3}{n2}M\frac{1}{2}_V𝑑S_{ab}^b\xi ^a`$. Applying this Stokes relation when there is a boundary at a horizon, and with gauge fields gives

$$8\pi \frac{n3}{n2}M=\kappa A6<A_{bct}Q^{bct}>+8\pi _VL\sqrt{q}(T_b^ag_b^a\frac{T}{n2})\xi ^bn_a$$

In equation (1) , and in the next few formulae, we will need to distinguish between the volume elements on $`V`$ and $`V_x`$. These will be written as $`L\sqrt{q}`$ and $`\sqrt{q}`$ respectively.

For simplicity of presentation we will now specialize to the case where there are no gauge fields, $`A_{abc}=0`$. It is straightforward to keep track of all the gauge field contributions, but the resulting expression is rather lengthy. Instead we will focus on the gravitational and stress-energy contributions. Varying (1) and using the First Law gives

$$A\delta \kappa =\frac{\kappa \delta A}{n2}\frac{8\pi }{(n2)}_V(\delta T_b^a\xi ^bn_a\xi ^cn_c\delta T)L\sqrt{q}$$

Therefore

$$\delta \mu =\frac{\kappa \delta A}{L_H8\pi (n2)}_{V_x}\sqrt{q}\left(N\delta T_b^aX^b\widehat{x}_a+\frac{L}{L_H(n2)}𝑑x(\delta T_b^a\xi ^bn_a\xi ^cn_c\delta T)\right)$$

Comparing the First Law (1) and (1) shows that in general $`\delta M`$ and $`\delta \mu `$ are independent physical quantities.

Actually, we should compare the mass per unit length to $`\delta \mu `$ so that the quantities have the same units, since in defining $`\delta \mu `$ we divided by the length of the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Since we are fixing boundary conditions at infinity, it makes sense to regard the length $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ as fixed, and let $`\overline{M}=\frac{M}{L_{\mathrm{}}}`$. When $`T_{ab}=0`$,

$$\delta \overline{M}=\frac{\kappa \delta A}{8\pi L_{\mathrm{}}},\delta \mu =\frac{\kappa \delta A}{(n2)8\pi L_H}$$

So under classical processes the tension increases; under Hawking evaporation, the black brane unstresses.

5. Horizon Geometry

The surface gravity and area are purely geometrical properties of a Killing horizon. The definition of surface gravity, and the fact that it is constant, depend on the fact the horizon is generated by a Killing field. Similiarly, one can ask if the existence of the spacelike Killing field $`X^a`$ implies any geometrical properties of the horizon? Let us recall how the notion of the surface gravity arises. On the horizon, $`\xi \xi =0`$. The gradient of the norm defines the surface gravity, $`^a(\xi \xi )=2\kappa \xi ^a`$. The gradient does not have terms of the form $`\gamma _b^aW^b`$ since the vorticity of $`\xi ^a`$, $`_{[b}\xi _{c]}`$, vanishes when projected onto the horizon. These properties imply that that $`\kappa `$ is a constant on $``$  when $`R_{ab}\xi ^aW^b=0`$ for all $`W^a`$ which are tangent to $``$. (So $`\kappa `$ is constant in vacuum and Einstein-Maxwell black holes, for example .) $`\kappa `$ then appears in the horizon boundary term, because the boundary integrand involves the derivative of the norm of the constraint vector.

We continue to assume equation (1) , that $`X^a`$ is hypersurface orthogonal and tangent to the horizon. Define the vorticity of $`X^a`$ by $`w_{ab}=_{[a}X_{b]}=_aX_b`$. The vorticity projected onto the horizon is $`\widehat{w}_{ab}=\gamma _a^c\gamma _b^dw_{cd}`$. (1) defines the rate of change of the norm of $`X^a`$, which is analogous to the definition of surface gravity. The last term in (1) vanishes if $`\widehat{w}_{ab}=0`$. While the vorticity of the null generator $`\xi ^a`$ necessarily vanishes on $``$, this is certainly not the case for a generic Killing field. For example, a rotational Killing vector for a spherically symmetric black hole has nonzero projected vorticity. However, it is true in cases of interest for a spatial translation –e.g. in (1) , the static black M2-brane solutions.

If $`\widehat{w}_{ab}=0`$, then (1) becomes

$$^a(XX)|_{}=2L^aL=2\nu \xi ^a.$$

We will show that with this assumption, then (i) the norm $`XX`$ is constant on $``$, (ii) there is a simple formulae for the coefficient $`\nu `$ in terms of scalar quantitites, and that (iii) $`2\nu \kappa =R_{ab}X^aX^b`$ on $``$.

Let $`𝒟_a`$ satisfy $`𝒟_a\gamma _{bc}=0`$. Then $`𝒟_c\gamma _b^aX^b=\gamma _c^m\gamma _n^a_mX^n+(Xq)\gamma _c^m\gamma _n^a_m\xi ^n=\widehat{w}_c^a`$, since the projected vorticity of $`\xi ^a`$ vanishes on $``$. Therefore $`𝒟_b(XX)=2X^a\widehat{w}_{ab}=0`$, $`i.e.`$, the norm is constant on $``$. In general the norm is a non-zero constant; for extremal branes wrapped around the $`x`$-direction, $`XX=\xi \xi `$ which is zero on $``$.

The coefficient $`\nu `$ in (1) which describes the rate of change of the norm is given by $`\nu =X^aq^b_bX_a`$. This is ananlagous to $`\kappa =\xi ^aq^b_b\xi _a(=\xi ^a\xi ^b_aq_b)`$. The surface gravity can also be computed by the formulae $`\kappa ^2=lim\frac{1}{2}_a\xi _b^a\xi ^b=lim(\xi \xi )^1(\xi ^a_a\xi _b)(\xi ^c_c\xi ^b)`$, where the limit is taken as the ratio approaches the horizon. The latter expressions do not contain the basis vector $`q^a`$.

Using a derivation similiar to the arguements in   , we next show that (1) and $`\widehat{w}_{ab}=0`$ imply

$$\nu ^2=lim\frac{1}{2}\frac{XX}{\xi \xi }_aX_b^aX^b=lim\frac{(X^a_aX_b)(X^c_cX^b)}{\xi \xi }.$$

Since $`X^a`$ is a Killing field,

$$3X_{[a}w_{bc]}X^{[a}w^{bc]}=XXw_{bc}w^{bc}+\frac{1}{2}_c(XX)^c(XX).$$

Equation (1) states that $`X^a`$ is hypersurface orthogonal, in which case Froebenius’ Theorm states that $`X_{[a}w_{bc]}=0`$. (1) becomes

$$(XX)w_{ab}w^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}_c(XX)^c(XX).$$

Evaluating this on the horizon with (1) implies that $`w_{ab}w^{ab}=0`$ .5 Note that $`w_{ab}w^{ab}=\widehat{w}_{ab}\widehat{w}^{ab}4\gamma ^{be}(\omega _{bc}q^c)(\omega _{ef}\xi ^f)2(\omega _{bc}q^b\xi ^c)^2`$ On $``$, $`\gamma ^{be}(\omega _{ef}\xi ^f)=0.`$ Therefore if $`\stackrel{~}{w}_{ab}=0`$ on $``$, then $`\omega _{bc}q^b\xi ^c=0`$ and the only possible nonzero components of the vorticity are $`\gamma ^{ab}q^c\omega _{bc}`$.  Now, the Froebenius condition implies that the left hand side of (1) is zero, and so is its gradient. The second term on the right hand side approaches $`2\nu ^2\xi \xi `$ on the horizon, but its gradient is nonzero. Therefore dividing (1) by $`\xi \xi `$ and taking the limit as the horizon is approached gives $`0=limXXw_{ab}w^{ab}(\xi \xi )^12\nu ^2`$, which is the desired result. The second form in (1) follows from using (1) .

Lastly we show that when $`\widehat{w}_{ab}=0`$ , $`2\nu \kappa =R_{ab}X^aX^b`$ on $``$. As just noted, on $``$ $`w_{ab}w^{ab}=0`$. Since $`X^a`$ is a Killing field, $`R_{ab}X^aX^b=X^a_c^cX_a=\frac{1}{2}_c^c(XX)w_{ab}w^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}_c^c(XX)=\xi ^aq^b_a_b(XX)=q^b_b(XX)(\xi ^a\xi ^c_aq_b)=\nu \kappa `$, where we have used the fact that $`XX`$ is constant on $``$. So $`\nu =0`$ in a vacuum spacetime, as long as the surface gravity is non-zero.

5. Concluding Remarks

Expressions such as (1) for $`\delta M`$ let us make contact with our Newtonian intuition, since (1) states that one contribution to $`\delta M`$ is an integral over $`\delta T_{tt}`$, though $`\delta M`$ is defined even when $`T_{ab}=0`$. The idea of the construction in this paper, is to relate the integral of other components of the stress energy to boundary integrals, possibly with a horizon present. Foliating the spacetime by $`x=constant`$ surfaces in the Hamiltonian construction, and using the Killing vector $`X^a=\frac{}{x}`$ relates the integral of $`\delta T_{xx}`$ to a boundary term. Using this boundary term, $`\delta \mu `$ is still defined even when $`T_{ab}=0`$.

There is a tension $`\mu _{(i)}`$ and a constraint on $`\delta \mu _{(i)}`$ for each symmetry $`\frac{}{w^i}`$. The expressions have different forms for directions in which a charged brane is wrapped, and directions which are not wrapped. If $`\frac{}{x}`$ is tangent to the gauge potential, then $`\delta Q_{abx}`$ enters the constraint $`\delta \mu _{(x)}`$, whereas if $`\frac{}{w}`$ is a symmetry direction but is not tangent to the gauge potential, there is no contribution from the gauge field to $`\delta \mu _{(w)}`$. We see from comparing the first law (1) to (1) or (1) that in general $`\delta M`$ and $`\delta \mu `$ are independent physical quantities. For example, perturbative sources contribute differently to the mass and the tension. s In order to derive constraints which have the same form as the first law, we assumed that the spacetime has a spacelike $`and`$ a timelike Killing vector. Analysis of $`\delta \mu `$ could alternatively be done for a cosmological spacetime which has spatial isometries, but is not static. This might provide just such a contrast as is generally useful for our own instruction, and our neighbors’ entertainment.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank David Kastor, Rafael Sorkin, Ken Hoffman, Herb Bernstein, and Rafael Bousso for many useful conversations. JT thanks the Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Aspen Center for Physics for their hospitality. This work was supported in part by NSF grants PHY98-01875 and Phys-9722614.

Appendix A. The Hamiltonian Formulation of $`L_M=F_{abcd}F^{abcd}`$ in Curved Spacetime

Let the total Lagrangian be $`L=L_G+L_M=RF^2`$, where $`F_{abcd}=4_{[a}A_{bcd]}`$. The metric is split as in (1) . The field coordinate is $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{abc}=s_a^ms_b^ns_c^lA_{mnl}`$ and the momentum conjugate to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{abc}`$ is $`p^{abc}=\frac{\delta \sqrt{g}L_M}{\delta _w\stackrel{~}{A}_{abc}}=8N\sqrt{|s|}\stackrel{~}{F}^{wabc}=8(nn)\sqrt{|s|}\stackrel{~}{F}^{dabc}n_d`$. Carrying out the standard Legendre transform, the Hamiltonian density is

$$\sqrt{|s|}H_M=N[\frac{(nn)}{16\sqrt{|s|}}p_{abc}p^{abc}+\sqrt{|s|}\stackrel{~}{F}^2]+\frac{1}{2}N^d\stackrel{~}{F}_{dabc}p^{abc}3\stackrel{~}{A}_{bcw}_ap^{abc}$$

Hamilton’s equations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{\stackrel{~}{A}}_{abc}& =\frac{\delta \sqrt{|s|}H_M}{\delta p^{abc}}=\frac{(nn)N}{8\sqrt{|s|}}p_{abc}+\frac{1}{2}N^d\stackrel{~}{F}_{dabc}+3_{[a}A_{bc]w}\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{p}^{abc}& =\frac{\delta \sqrt{|s|}H_M}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{abc}}=8\sqrt{|s|}D_d(N\stackrel{~}{F}^{dabc})+D_d(N^{[d}p^{abc]})\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =\frac{\delta \sqrt{|s|}H_M}{\delta A_{bcv}}=3_ap^{abc}\hfill \end{array}$$

In the ICV construction one uses

$$\frac{\delta \sqrt{|s|}H_M}{\delta s_{ab}}=\frac{(nn)N}{16\sqrt{|s|}}[\frac{1}{2}p^{cde}p_{cde}s^{ab}3p^{acd}p_{}^{b}{}_{cd}{}^{}]+N\sqrt{|s|}(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{F}^2s^{ab}+4\stackrel{~}{F}^{acde}\stackrel{~}{F}_{}^{b}{}_{cde}{}^{})$$

With these ingredients, one finds the boundary term (1) when performing the variations to arrive at (1) .

We also record the corresponding expressions for the one-form gauge potential, which serves to completely define the boundary term (1) . Let $`L_M=F^2`$, where $`F_{ab}=2_{[a}A_{b]}`$. Then $`p^a=4(nn)\sqrt{|s|}n^cF_{cb}s^{ab}=4N\sqrt{|s|}F^{wa}`$ is the electromagnetic momentum conjugate to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_a`$ . The Hamiltonian density is

$$\sqrt{|s|}H_M=N[\frac{(nn)}{8|s|}p_ap^a+F_{ab}F^{ab}]N_bp^aF_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}+A_w_ap^a$$

And Hamilton’s equations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{A}_a& =\frac{\delta H_M}{\delta p^a}=\frac{(nn)N}{4\sqrt{|s|}}p_a\stackrel{~}{F}_{ab}N^b+_aA_w\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{p}^a& =\frac{\delta \sqrt{|s|}H_M}{\delta A_a}=\sqrt{|s|}D_b4N\stackrel{~}{F}^{ba}2D_bp^{[b}N^{a]}\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =\frac{\delta H_M}{\delta A_w}=_ip^i\hfill \end{array}$$

Using these expressions, one finds the one-form boundary term in (1) when working out (1) . In this case, the charge term in the First Law (1) , is replaced by $`\frac{1}{4\pi }A_t\delta Q`$, where $`\delta Q=_VN𝑑a_cF^{ct}=_VJ^t,_aF^{ab}=J^b`$. The gauge field contribution to the angular momentum is $`\delta 𝒥_M=\frac{1}{16\pi }__V\frac{da_a}{\sqrt{|s|}}(2p^{[a}\varphi ^{b]}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_b)`$

Appendix B. Constancy of $`p`$-form gauge potential on $``$

Let $``$ be a bifurcate killing horizon, with null generator $`\xi `$. One can choose a gauge such that $`_\xi A=0`$, where $`A`$ is the $`p`$-form gauge potential. Let $`s`$ be a coordinate along an integral curve of $`\xi `$, $`\xi =\frac{}{s}`$. If $`A`$ is a one-form, then $`_\xi (A\xi )=0`$, which implies that $`A\xi `$ is independent of $`s`$ along the curve. Then on $``$, $`A\xi =0`$, since it is zero on the bifurcation surface.

Next let $`A`$ be a two-form, and define the one-form $`u_a=A_{ab}\xi ^b`$. Then $`_\xi u=0`$, and $`_\xi uu=0`$. So the norm $`uu`$ is a constant independent of $`s`$ on each integral curve of $`\xi `$. Since $`uu=0`$ on the bifurcation surface, it follows that everywhere on $``$,$`uu=0`$. But now the inner product is positive definite, since the metric can be written as $`g_{ab}=\overline{\gamma }_{ab}\xi _aq_b\xi _bq_a`$ (similiar to (1) ). So $`uu=(\overline{\gamma }_{ab}\xi _aq_b\xi _bq_a)A_c^a\xi ^cA_d^b\xi ^d=\overline{\gamma }_{ab}u^au^b.`$ Therefore $`u_a=0`$ on $``$. The case for a three-form gauge potential proceeds in the same way.

References

relax P. Townsend and M. Zamaklar, The First Law of Black Brane Mechanics, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18, 5269 (2001), hep-th/0107228 relax L. Abbott and S. Deser Stability Of Gravity With A Cosmological Constant, Nuclear Physics B 195, 76 (1982). relax J. Traschen, “A Positivity Theorem for Gravitational Tension in Brane Spacetimes”, hep-th/0308173. relax T.Regge and C.Teitelboim, “Role Of Surface Integrals In The Hamiltonian Formulation Of General Relativity,” Annals Phys. 88, 286 (1974). relax C.Teitelboim, ”Surface Integrals as Symmetry Generators in Supergravity Theory”, Physics Letters 69B, 240 (1977). relax J. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. Hawking, The Four Laws of Black Hole Mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys. 31 (1973) 161. relax J. Arms, J. Math. Phys 18, 830 (1977); J. Math. Phys. 20, 443 (1979) relax J. Arms, J. Marsden and V. Moncrief, The Structure of the Space of Solutions of Einstein’s Equations II, Annals of Physics 144 (1982) 81. relax D. Sudarsky and R. Wald,Extrema of mass, stationarity, and staticity, and solutions to the Einstein-Yang-Mills equations Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 1453. relax J. Traschen, Constraints on Stress-Energy Perturbations in General Relativity, Physical Review D31 (1984) 283. relax D. Kastor and J. Traschen, Linear Instability of Non-vacuum Spacetimes, Physical Review D47 (1993) 480. relax R. Sorkin and M. Varadarajan, Energy extremality in the presence of a black hole, Class. Quant. Grav. 13 (1996) 1949. gr-qc/9410031 relax B. Carter, in Gravitation and Astrophysics - Cargese 1986, editors B. Carter and J. Hartle. relax JT would like to thank Robert Wald for pointing this out to me while I was giving a seminar at University of Chicago, 10/92. relax Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman and Co. (1973). relax R. Wald, General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, 1984. relax V. Moncrief, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 983. relax P. Tod, The Integral Constraint Vectors of Traschen and Three-Surface Twistors, Gen. Rel. Grav. 20 (1988) 1297. relax M. Cvetic and A. Tseytlin, Nonextreme Black Holes from Nonextreme Intersecting M-branes, Nucl. Phys. B478 (1996) 181, hep-th/9606033. relax C. Teitleboim, Surface Integrals as Symmetry Generators in Supergravity theories, Physics Letters 69B, 240 (1977) relax G. T. Horowitz and D. L. Welch, “Duality invariance of the Hawking temperature and entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 49, 590 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9308077\]. relax W. Taylor, D2-Branes in B Fields, JHEP 0007 (2000) 039, hep-th/0004141.


format: text

text:
# Populations of X-ray binaries and the dynamical history of their host galaxies

## 1 Introduction

X-ray binaries are powered by a compact star, which may be a neutron star or a black hole, accreting material from its companion. Systems having a massive OB companion star are called high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs), and systems with a low-mass companion star are known as low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs). In HMXBs the compact star accretes via capturing the stellar wind from its companion; mass transfer in LMXBs occurs when the companion star overflows its Roche lobe.

X-ray binaries in the active states are luminous and easily detected within the Galaxy. Many X-ray binaries were also found in nearby galaxies by the Einstein and ROSAT X-ray satellites (Fig. 1, see also e.g. Fabbiano 1995; Roberts & Warwick 2000), and recently, more are discovered by the Chandra X-ray observatory (see Weisskopf et al. 2000 for the description of the observatory). It is now evident that galaxies similar to our own (e.g. M31, Supper et al. 1997) normally host hundreds of active X-ray binaries. The current sample of X-ray binaries in external galaxies is sufficiently large that not only is reliable population analysis for an individual galaxy possible but we can also study their formation and evolution in different galactic environments.

In this paper we present a simple birth-death model and calculate the populations of X-ray binaries in external galaxies. We also use the model to identify the relevant processes that give rise to the features in the luminosity distributions of X-ray binaries (such as the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves) in different types of galaxies and in different galactic components. Here, only the basic formulation is presented and a few simple cases are shown as an illustration. Results of a more comprehensive study will be reported in Wu et al. (2001).

## 2 X-ray binaries in a galaxy

### 2.1 Accretion luminosity

The luminosity of an accreting compact star is given by

$$L_\mathrm{x}\frac{GM\dot{M}}{R}=2.8\times 10^{37}\left(\frac{M}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)\left(\frac{\dot{M}}{10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1}\right)\left(\frac{R}{3\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}}\right)^1\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(1)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`M`$ and $`R`$ are the mass and radius of the compact star, and $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass accretion rate. Typically, neutron-star binaries have luminosities $`L_\mathrm{x}10^{37}`$ erg s-1, but the luminosities of binaries with accreting white dwarfs would not greatly exceed $`10^{33}`$ erg s-1.

The expression for $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ above is not strictly applicable to black-hole binaries, as black holes do not have a solid stellar surface that defines $`R`$. However, as accreting material attain speeds close to the light speed, $`c`$, when crossing the black-hole event horizon, we may parametrise the accreting luminosity as

$$L_\mathrm{x}\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}\dot{M}c^2=5.7\times 10^{37}\left(\frac{\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}}{0.1}\right)\left(\frac{\dot{M}}{10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1}\right)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(2)
where $`\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}`$ is the efficiency. If most of the X-rays are emitted from the inner accretion disk near the last stable orbit, then $`\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}0.1`$ for a Schwarzschild black hole and $`\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}0.4`$ for a maximally rotating Kerr black hole.

The characteristic luminosity of neutron-star binaries can also be expressed as $`L_\mathrm{x}\eta _{\mathrm{ns}}\dot{M}c^2`$, because of the tight mass distribution of neutron stars. If we assume a canonical mass of 1.5 M for the neutron stars, then the value of the efficiency parameter $`\eta _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ is about 0.3. Hence, we can adopt $`L_\mathrm{x}\eta \dot{M}c^2`$ (with $`\eta 0.1`$) for both neutron-star and black-hole binaries, provided that the mass-transfer rates $`\dot{M}`$ are not significantly above the Eddington limit.

### 2.2 Eddington limit

The infall of the material onto a compact star is opposed by the accretion-generated radiative pressure, and the accretion process is self-regulating. The limiting luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{ed}}`$, known as the Eddington luminosity, for spherical accretion is given by

$$L_{\mathrm{ed}}4\pi \left(\frac{GMm_\mathrm{p}c}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}\right)=1.3\times 10^{38}\left(\frac{M}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(3)
where $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the proton mass, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson cross section. The Eddington luminosity depends linearly on the mass of the accreting star and is independent of other parameters.

As the average luminosity of an accretor would not be greater than the Eddington luminosity, the lower limit to the mass of the accretor can be constrained by the observed luminosity. Thus, we can use this as a working criterion to identify black-hole candidates. For instance, when we observe a source with X-ray luminosities greatly exceeding $`2\times 10^{38}`$ erg s-1, the Eddington luminosity of a 1.5-M compact star, we may classify it as a (candidate) black-hole system (if it is powered by accretion).

### 2.3 Evolution and expected lifespan

The duration of the active phase of an X-ray binary is limited by the lifespan of the companion star, and it is almost independent of the nature of the compact star. Massive OB stars have lifespans of $`10^610^7`$ yr, implying that HMXBs powered by capturing the stellar wind from massive OB stars will not have a lifespan significantly longer than a few million years. The presently active HMXBs must therefore have been formed in very recent epochs.

Low-mass stars have longer lifespans and evolutionary timescales than high-mass stars, and so LMXBs can remain X-ray active over a period longer than $`10^7`$ yr. Mass transfer in LMXBs is usually driven by Roche-lobe overflow, which is caused either by the expansion of their companion stars when they evolve towards a red-giant phase, or by orbital shrinkage, when the binaries lose orbital angular momentum.

For the first type of LMXBs, their mass-transfer rate is roughly given by $`\dot{M}M_2/\tau _{\mathrm{ev}}`$, where $`M_2`$ is the mass of the companion star, and $`\tau _{\mathrm{ev}}`$ is the evolutionary timescale. The nuclear-evolution timescale of a star depends on its mass and evolutionary stage. The lifespan of F main-sequence stars is about $`5\times 10^9`$ yr; stars later than G type take more than $`10^{10}`$ yr to evolve away from the main-sequence stage. Clearly, nuclear evolution of main-sequence stars of masses $`1\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is unable to sustain a persistent accretion luminosity $`>10^{37}`$ erg s-1. Such accretion luminosities are possible for LMXBs with evolved companion stars. The duration of the red-giant phase is $`<10^7`$ yr for low mass stars (de Loore & Doom 1992), and hence, X-ray binaries with a red-giant companion are short-lived. However, galactic stars evolve into the red-giant stage at all epochs. X-ray binaries with red-giant companions are therefore formed continually throughout the life time of a galaxy.

For the second type of LMXBs, orbital angular momentum can be extracted from the systems by emitting gravitational radiation (Paczynski 1967) or by rotational braking of the companion star via a magnetic stellar wind (Verbunt & Zwaan 1981). The timescale of orbital evolution driven by gravitational radiation is

$`t_{\mathrm{gr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{32(2\pi )^{8/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^5}{G^{5/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1+M_2)^{1/3}}{M_1M_2}}P^{8/3}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`3.8\times 10^{11}(1+q)^{1/3}q^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right)^{5/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{1\mathrm{day}}}\right)^{8/3}\mathrm{yr}`$
(Landau & Lifshitz 1971, see also Wu 1997), where $`P`$ is the orbital period, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the masses of the compact star and the companion star respectively, and $`q(M_2/M_1)`$ is the mass ratio. As the timescale of orbital shrinkage is long ($`10^9`$ yr), the corresponding mass-transfer rate is not large enough to account for the observed luminosity of the X-ray binaries. The orbital evolutionary timescale for magnetic braking is

$`t_{\mathrm{mb}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\times 10^{28}}{(2\pi )^{10/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2G^{2/3}}{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4\gamma }}{R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1P^{10/3}}{(M_1+M_2)^{1/3}M_2^{4\gamma }}}\mathrm{sec}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`4.4\times 10^9f^2(1+q)^{1/3}q^{4\gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}{0.1}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right)^{(212\gamma )/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{1\mathrm{day}}}\right)^{10/3}\mathrm{yr}`$ (6)
(Verbunt & Zwaan 1981; Wu 1997). The parameters $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and $`f`$ depend on the stellar model (see Skumanich 1972), and the parameter $`\gamma `$ is determined by the mass-radius relation ($`R_2M_2^\gamma `$, where $`R_2`$ is the radius of the companion). For low-mass stars, $`\stackrel{~}{k}^20.1`$, $`f1`$ and $`\gamma 1`$. The mass-transfer rate is higher than that in the case of gravitational radiation, and the active phase of these X-ray binaries usually lasts $`>10^8`$ yr.

## 3 Populations of X-ray binaries

In a simplistic point of view the populations of X-ray binaries in a galaxy observed at an epoch $`t`$ are determined by the birth rates and the lifespans of the binaries. Assuming other factors are unimportant (for example, the two-body and three-body capture process in globular clusters, see Johnston & Verbunt 1996), we can construct a birth-death model and calculate the populations and luminosity distributions of X-ray binaries in a galaxy or in a particular galactic component.

The basic formulation is as follows. Let the number of the X-ray sources at the luminosity range $`(L,L+dL)`$ in a galaxy at time $`t`$ be $`n(L,t)dL`$ and the characteristic lifespan of these sources be $`\tau `$. The evolution of an X-ray binary population is governed by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}n(L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`kn(L,t)+f(L,t),`$ (7)
where $`kn(L,T)`$ is the death rate, the $`f(L,t)`$ is the birth rate, and $`k^1`$ ($`\tau `$) is the characteristic lifespan of the sources. The number of sources with a luminosity brighter than $`L`$ is simply

$`N(>L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Ln(L,t).`$ (8)
When the functional forms of $`k`$ and $`f(L,t)`$ are specified, Equations (7) and (8) can be solved easily.

### 3.1 Impulsive birth

X-ray binaries are born (i.e. become X-ray active) when mass transfer from the companion to the compact star starts; and they die when the X-ray active phase ends. Suppose that there are two channels to create X-ray binaries in a galaxy: (i) systems that are formed continuously and the mass transfer of these systems is sustained by nuclear evolution of the companion star or by the orbital evolution of the binary, and (ii) systems that are born in a recent star-formation episode. The birth rate function $`f(L,t)`$ thus consists of a steady (continual birth) component and an impulsive (starburst) component:

$`f(L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`f_o(L)\left[1+a\delta (tt_a)\right],`$ (9)
where $`f_o(L)`$ is the birth rate of the steady component, $`a`$ is the ratio of the strength of the impulsive component to the strength of the steady component, $`\delta (tt_a)`$ is the Dirac $`\delta `$-function, and $`t_a`$ is the time at which the starburst occurred.

The effective duration of the active phase of an X-ray binary is determined by the mass of the companion star and the mass-transfer rate, and it is approximately given by $`M_2/\dot{M}`$. As $`L_\mathrm{x}\dot{M}`$, the characteristic lifespan of an X-ray binary $`k^1`$ can be parametrised as $`k=\beta L`$, where $`\beta ^1=\stackrel{~}{\eta }M_2c^2`$ and $`M_2`$ is the mean mass of the companion star, and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is a parameter which has the same order of magnitude as the parameters $`\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ in §2. The fact that the characteristic lifespan of binaries with luminosities in the range ($`L,L+dL`$) is not explicitly time-dependent allows us to integrate Equation (7) directly, yielding

$`n(L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`n_o(L)e^{\beta Lt}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_o(L)}{\beta L}}\left(1e^{\beta Lt}\right)+af_o(L)\theta (tt_a)e^{\beta L(tt_a)},`$ (10)
where $`\theta (tt_a)`$ is the Heaviside unit step function, and $`n_o(L)n(L,0)`$ is the initial population.

If the initial population and the birth rate are power-laws of $`L`$, i.e. $`n_o=n_o(L/L_{})^{\alpha _1}`$ and $`f_o=f_o(L/L_{})^{\alpha _2}`$ (with power-law indices $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ respectively), then

$`N(>L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`n_oL_{}(\beta L_{}t)^{\alpha _11}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _1,\beta Lt)`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_o}{\beta }}(\beta L_{}t)^{\alpha _2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2}}(\beta Lt)^{\alpha _2}\left(1e^{\beta Lt}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _2,\beta Lt)\right]`$
$`+af_oL_{}[\beta L_{}(tt_a)]^{\alpha _21}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _2,\beta L(tt_a))\theta (tt_a),`$
where $`L_{}`$ is a lower cut-off luminosity, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ,x)`$ is the incomplete gamma function. In the limits of $`f_o0`$ (i.e. all the sources are primordial) the X-ray binary population has a distribution similar to the Schechter (1976) analytic luminosity function for galaxies in clusters. The same distribution is also obtained when $`(f_o/\beta L_{})n_o`$ and $`a\beta L_{}1`$ (i.e. most of the binaries were born in a recent starburst). The difference between the Schechter (1976) luminosity function and the distribution that we obtain here is that in the latter case the luminosity break is time dependent — it is caused by the aging of the source population when it is not replenished.

### 3.2 Cyclic generation

In reality, star formation may not be a single event. For example, when two galaxies are orbiting around each other, periodic starbursts are induced by orbital interaction. In this case, the birth term $`f(L,t)`$ has a periodic (starburst) component superimposed on a steady background:

$`f(L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`f_o(L)\left[1+b\mathrm{cos}\omega t\right],`$ (12)
where $`2\pi /\omega `$ is the characteristic timescale of the cycle. It follows that the population of X-ray binaries at time $`t`$ is

$`n(L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`n_o(L)e^{\beta Lt}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_o(L)}{\beta L}}\left(1e^{\beta Lt}\right)`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{bf_o(L)}{\beta L}}\left[\left(1e^{\beta Lt}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta L)^2}{(\beta L)^2+\omega ^2}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\omega t{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\beta L}}\mathrm{sin}\omega t\right)\right],`$
and the number of systems brighter than $`L`$ is

$`N(>L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`n_oL_{}(\beta L_{}t)^{\alpha _11}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _1,\beta Lt)`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_o}{\beta }}(\beta L_{}t)^{\alpha _2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2}}(\beta Lt)^{\alpha _2}\left(1e^{\beta Lt}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _2,\beta Lt)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{bf_o}{\beta }}(\beta L_{}t)^{\alpha _2}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2}}(\beta Lt)^{\alpha _2}(1e^{\beta Lt})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _2,\beta Lt)]`$
$`+[I(\alpha _21;\omega t,\beta Lt)(1\mathrm{cos}\omega t)I(\alpha _2;\omega t,\beta Lt)(\omega t)\mathrm{sin}\omega t]\}.`$
The integral $`I(\alpha ;\omega t,\beta Lt)`$ above is defined as

$`I(\alpha ;\omega t,\beta Lt)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\beta Lt}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^\alpha }{x^2+(\omega t)^2}},`$ (15)
and it has exact analytic form for integer $`\alpha `$. The periodic component may introduce ripple-like features in the luminosity function, hence makes the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves deviate from a simple or a broken power law.

### 3.3 Other issues

#### 3.3.1 Neutron-star binaries

The model above has not accounted for the fact that the persistent luminosity of neutron-star binaries cannot exceed the Eddington limit of a 1.5-M accretor. The luminosities of black-hole binaries are less restrictive, as there is no practical mass limit for black holes. A more proper treatment requires the populations of neutron-star and black-hole binaries be calculated separately. Although Equation (7) is applicable for both classes of objects, the corresponding expressions for $`N(>L)`$ are not identical. For a population of X-ray binaries with a cutoff luminosity at $`L_{\mathrm{ed}}`$, $`N(>L)`$ is given by

$`N(>L,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L^{L_{\mathrm{ed}}}}𝑑Ln(L,t).`$ (16)
The tight mass distribution of neutron stars together with the presence of a luminosity limit will produce a spike at $`L_{\mathrm{ed}}`$ in the (differential) luminosity function $`n(L)`$, and hence a cut-off in the observed log N($`>`$S) – log S curve.

The strength of the spike in $`n(L)`$ is time-dependent. If all the neutron-star binaries in the galaxy were born at the same episode, because the systems with high mass-transfer rates cease to be active first and then those with lower mass-transfer rates, the spike will gradually decrease, on a timescale

$`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ed}}}}`$ (17)
$``$ $`1.3\times 10^8{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{M_{\mathrm{ns}}}}\mathrm{yr},`$ (18)
where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ed}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ is the Eddington mass-accretion rate and the mass of neutron stars respectively. For galaxies with star-formation activity occurred more than $`10^8`$ yr ago, the spike has already degraded so substantially that it may not be detected easily (Wu et al. 2001). The spike is, however, prominent for galaxies with violent starburst activity in the near past ($`<10^7`$ yr), or if the neutron-star binaries are formed continuously.

#### 3.3.2 Transient sources

The total duration of the X-ray active phases of transients is only some fraction of their lifespans. The parameter $`k`$ is therefore not exactly equal to $`\dot{M}/M_2`$, but is proportional to it. As a first approximation, we may use an effective factor $`\xi `$ to specify the fractional time at which the source is X-ray active, i.e. $`k=\beta L/\xi `$. If $`\xi `$ does not depend on $`L`$ explicitly, the solution to Equation (7) preserves its form. Otherwise, the solution and hence the luminosity functions are modified.

It is worth noting that in addition to different fractional time $`\xi `$ for their X-ray active phases, the transients and persistent sources have different discovery probabilities. This could complicate the calculations of the source populations and luminosity functions. Here, we have omitted the transient effects for simplicity, but one must bear in mind that the effects might be important.

## 4 X-ray sources in external galaxies

Since 1999, Chandra has obtained high-resolution images of a number of nearby galaxies. These include the ellipticals M84 (NGC 4374) (Finoguenov & Jones 2001) NGC 4967 (Sarazin, Irwin & Bregman 2000), and Cen A (Kraft et al. 2000), the lenticulars NGC 1553 (Blanton, Sarazin & Irwin 2001) and NGC 1291 (Irwin, Bregman & Sarazin 2001), the spirals M31 (NGC 224) (Garcia et al. 2000), M81 (NGC 3031) (Tennant et al. 2001), M101 (NGC 5457) (Pence et al. 2001) and the Circinus galaxy (Sambruna et al. 2001), and the irregular starburst galaxy M82 (NGC 3034) (Matsumoto et al. 2001), and the mergers NGC 4038/4039 (Fabbiano, Zezas & Murray 2001). The Chandra observations show more than a hundred bright X-ray sources (with $`L_\mathrm{x}>10^{36}`$ erg s-1) in the field each of these galaxies. While some of the bright sources are foreground stars and background AGN, the majority are probably X-ray binaries within the galaxies. The observations also indicate that the brightest sources in the early-type galaxies are generally brighter than their counterparts in the spiral galaxies, if the galactic nuclei are excluded.

### 4.1 log N($`>`$S) – log S curve

The log N($`>`$S) – log S curves of the Einstein and ROSAT sources in spiral galaxies are in general adequately fitted by a power law (see Fabbiano 1995). However, for the galaxies with a sufficiently large number of sources discovered ($`>`$ a few tens), the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves are found to deviate significantly from a single power law, e.g. M31 (see Supper et al. 1997) and M101 (Fig. 3, left panel; see also Wang, Immler & Pietsch 1999). A broken power law is often required in order to fit the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves. The break $`L_\mathrm{c}`$ is located at $`\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^{37}`$ erg s-1 (see e.g. M31, Supper et al. 1997; Shirey et al. 2001).

The Chandra observations confirm the presence of the broken power-law in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves of X-ray sources in spiral galaxies (e.g. M81, Tennant et al. 2001). They also verify that the broken power law is present in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves for early-type galaxies, e.g. NGC 4697 (Sarazin, Irwin & Bregman 2000), NGC 1553 (Fig. 3, right panel) and M84 (A. Finoguenov, private communication). The fact that a luminosity break is found in both the cases of early- and late-type galaxies suggests that the break may be universal. A possible explanation is that the luminosity break is caused by a population of neutron-star binaries which have super-Eddington mass-transfer rates. These neutron-binaries would have X-ray luminosities roughly about $`2\times 10^{38}`$ erg s-1, the Eddington luminosity of the 1.5-M accretors. If the location of the luminosity break is the same for all galaxies, it can be used as a distance indicator (Sarazin, Irwin & Bregman 2000).

However, when the X-ray sources in the disk and in the bulge of M81 are considered separately, very different log N($`>`$S) – log S curves are obtained (Fig. 4, Tennant et al. 2001). The luminosity break is obvious in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve of the bulge sources, but the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve of the disk sources is a single power law. Interestingly, the power-law slope of the disk sources is similar to that of the bulge sources below the luminosity break.

### 4.2 Dynamical evolution of the host galaxy

The absence of the break in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve of the disk sources in M81 is inconsistent with the proposition that the luminosity break is universal for all galaxies. The locations of the breaks at different luminosities for early- and late-type galaxies (cf. M81 and NGC 4697, see Tennant et al. 2001 and Sarazin, Irwin & Bregman 2000 respectively) suggest that the natures of the breaks are different for galaxies with different Hubble types. We propose that for some galaxies the luminosity break is determined by the formation and evolutionary history of the populations of X-ray binaries in the galaxy. The different morphologies for the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves for the disk and bulge sources in the spiral galaxies reflect the different star-formation histories for the galactic components and the different evolutionary paths of their X-ray binary populations.

We interpret the absence of the luminosity break in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve for disk sources in the spiral galaxy M81 as being a consequence of a continuous, smooth star-formation process. In normal spiral galaxies, star formation is triggered by compression of gas when the density wave sweeps across the galactic disk. The star-formation process is continuous and is relatively smooth (in comparison with the environment in starburst galaxies and mergers). As the X-ray binaries are formed continually in the spiral arms, the bright sources are dominated by young HMXBs with substantial proportion of black-hole binaries. The disk sources may also consist of two types of older LMXBs: one with their companion stars evolving into the red-giant phase, another one with their orbital separation sufficiently shrunk that the systems become semi-detached. Many of these LMXBs may contain accreting neutron stars. However, if the young HMXBs dominate the total population, there will not be a prominent luminosity break in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve.

Formation of X-ray binaries in a galactic component is continuous if the galaxy is undisturbed. In this case, the population is dominated by LMXBs which are formed via processes the same as those of the LMXBs in the galactic disk. If the bulge is disturbed, e.g. by tidal interaction with another galaxy, a starburst is triggered by a sudden infall of gas, and a new population of stars as well as X-ray binaries are formed. As shown in §3.1, such an impulsive formation can produce a prominent luminosity break in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve, and the location of the break. When the population of the X-ray binaries ages, the break migrates to low luminosities, thus marking the look-back time of the catastrophic star-forming episode.

Interestingly, the luminosity break in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve for the sources in the ellipticals (e.g. NGC 4697) seems to occur at a higher luminosity than that for the bulge sources in the spirals (e.g. M31 and M81) (A. F. Tennant and D. A. Swartz, private communication). If luminosity breaks are created solely by the aging of X-ray binary populations, the break seen in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves of the Chandra sources in the early-type galaxies indicate that these galaxies had experienced some, possibly violent, star-formation activity in the very near past.

However, this interpretation must be taken with caution. As pointed out in §3.3.1, the tight mass distribution of neutron stars together with the presence of an Eddington limit for each accretor could produce a spike in $`n(L)`$ and hence a luminosity cut off in $`N(>L)`$. A substantial proportion of neutron-star binaries in the X-ray binary population can also cause a luminosity break in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curve. The break caused by a population of neutron-star binaries with massive companions is expected to be located at $`L_\mathrm{x}2\times 10^{38}`$ erg s-1, the Eddington luminosity of a 1.5-M accretor. Its strength will decrease on a timescale $`<10^8`$ yr, if there is no replenishment of the systems. As the luminosity breaks seen in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves of the sources in the bulge of the spirals scatter over a range of luminosities, they are unlikely to be all due to a population of accreting neutron stars. It is, however, possible that the breaks in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves of the early-type galaxies are caused by a population of neutron-star binaries with high mass-transfer rates.

### 4.3 Super-Eddington sources

Although super-Eddington sources seem to be more abundant in the early-type galaxies, given the different stellar contents in the galaxies, the excess of bright sources in the early-type galaxies is yet to be confirmed. The finding that the brightest sources in the spirals tend to be located in the disk (e.g. in M81, Tennant et al. 2001) implies that the disk sources are probably young systems. This also implies that the brightest sources in the spiral galaxies and the brightest sources in the early-type galaxies may not form in the same way. The population of bright sources in the arms of the spiral galaxies are dominated by HMXBs, in which the mass donors are young massive OB stars with strong winds; while the population of bright sources in the ellipticals and lenticulars are LMXBs, with a red-giant companion overflowing its Roche lobe.

Despite the conventional scenario that X-ray sources in galaxies are mostly X-ray binaries, the super-Eddington sources may be an inhomogeneous class of exotic objects: hypernovae, supernovae, supersoft sources, intermediate-mass black holes, large clusters of massive OB stars, …. etc. These sources have not been included in our calculations presented above, and hence the results that we obtain may not truly reflect the real populations of X-ray sources in the galaxies. However, in order to take into account these objects, one must have some working models for their formation and evolution, which are unfortunately not available at present. On the bright side, if we accept the simple model in §3 by faith, we can explain the basic features in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves, and also use the observed populations of X-ray sources to probe the dynamical history of their host galaxy in the near past.

## 5 Summary

We have constructed a simple birth-death model and calculated the luminosity function of X-ray binaries in external galaxies. The model reproduces the features, such as the luminosity break, in the log N($`>`$S) – log S curves of spiral galaxies. By assuming a continual formation process, the model also explains the absence of a luminosity break for the disk sources in M81. The location of the luminosity break depends on the look-back time of the previous starburst/star-formation activity, and so it can be used to probe the dynamic history of the host environment of the X-ray sources.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Prof. Don Melrose for generously providing me with the research support in the last eight years. This work summarises a talk presented at the Melrose Festschrift in honour of his 60th birthday. The ideas presented in this work were developed during the discussions with Drs Richard Hunstead, Allyn Tennant, Douglas Swartz, Helen Johnston, Kajal Ghosh and Roberto Soria, and credits to the author, if any, should also belong to all of them. I thank Dr Alex Finoguenov for correspondence and for showing me the luminosity function of the Chandra sources in M84 before publication, Dr Roberto Soria for the XMM-Newton sources in M31, and Dr Kajal Ghosh for the ROSAT image of M81 and M82 (Fig. 1). I would also thank Drs Martin Weisskopf and Allyn Tennant for funding my visits to NASA-MSFC, where this work was started. This work is partially supported by an ARC Australian Research Fellowship and by a University of Sydney Sesqui R&D Grant.

## Reference

Blanton, E. L., Sarazin, C. L., Irwin, J. A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 106

de Loore, C. W. H., Doom, C. 1992, Structure and Evolution of Single and Binary Stars (Dorchect: Kluwers Academic Press)

Fabbiano, G. 1995, in X-ray Binaries, eds. W. H. G. Lewin, J. van Paradijs and E. P. J. van den Heuvel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 390

Fabbiano, G., Zezas, A., Murray, S. S. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1035

Finoguenov, A., Jones, C. 2001, ApJ, 547, L107

Garcia, M. R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, L23

Garcia, M. R., et al. 2001, in Galaxies at the Highest Angular Resolution, ASP Conf. Ser., in press (astro-ph/ 0012387)

Irwin, J. A., Bregman, J. N., Sarazin, C. L. 2001, preprint

Johnston, H. M., Verbunt, F. 1996, A&A, 312, 80

Kraft, R. P., et al. 2000, ApJ, 531, L9

Landau, L. D., Lifshitz, E. M. 1971, The Classical Theory of Field (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

Matsumoto, H., et al. 2001, ApJ, 547, L25

Paczynski, B. 1971, Acta Astron., 17, 287

Pence, W. D., Snowden, S. L., Mukai, K., Kuntz, K. D. 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0107133)

Roberts, T. R., Warwick, R. S. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 98

Sambruna, R. M., et al, 2001, ApJ, 546, L9

Sarazin, C. L., Irwin, J. A., Bregman, J. N. 2000, ApJ, 544, L101

Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297

Shirey, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L195

Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565

Supper, R., et al. 1997, A&A, 317, 328

Tennant, A. F., Wu, K., Ghosh, K. K., Kolodziejczak, J. J., Swartz, D. A. 2001, ApJ, 549, L43

Verbunt, F., Zwaan, C., 1981, A&A, 100, L7

Wang, Q. D., Immler, S., Pietsch, W. 1999, ApJ, 523, 121

Weisskopf, M. C., Tananbaum, H. D., Van Speybroeck, L. P., O’Dell, S. L. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4012, 2

Wu, K. 1997, in ‘Accretion Phenomena and Related Outflows’, eds. D. T. Wickramasinghe, G. V. Bicknell and L. Ferrario, ASP Conf. Ser., 121 , 283

Wu, K., Tennant, A. F., Swartz, D. A., Ghosh, K. K., Hunstead, R. W. 2001, ApJ, submitted