format: text

text:
# Equivalence of Geometric and CombinatorialDehn Functions

## 1. Dehn functions and their equivalence

Let $`X`$ be a simply connected 2-complex , and let $`w`$ be an edge circuit in $`X^{(1)}`$. If $`D`$ is a van Kampen diagram for $`w`$ (see ), then the area of $`D`$ is defined as the number of 2-cells on $`D`$, and the area of $`w`$, denoted $`a(w)`$, is defined as the minimum of the areas of all van Kampen diagrams for $`w`$. The Dehn function of $`X`$ is then defined to be

$$\delta _X(n)=\mathrm{max}a(w),$$

where the maximum is taken over all loops $`w`$ of length $`l(w)n`$.

Given two functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ from $``$ to $``$ (or, more generally, from $`^+`$ to $`^+`$), we say that $`fg`$ if there exist positive constants $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$, $`E`$ so that

$$f(n)Ag(Bn+C)+Dn+E.$$

Two such functions are called equivalent (denoted $`fg`$) if $`fg`$ and $`gf`$. The Dehn function is invariant under quasi-isometries: when one considers the 1-skeleton of a complex as a metric space with the path metric, where every edge has length one, two complexes with quasi-isometric 1-skeleta have equivalent Dehn functions (see ).

Let $`G`$ be a finitely presented group, and let $`𝒫`$ be a finite presentation for $`G`$. Let $`K=K(𝒫)`$ be the 2-complex associated to $`𝒫`$, i.e. the 2-complex with a single vertex, an oriented edge for every generator of $`𝒫`$, and a 2-cell for every relator, attached to the edges according to the spelling of the relator. Then the Dehn function of $`𝒫`$ is, by definition, the Dehn function $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{K}}`$ of the universal covering of $`K`$. Two finite presentations $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒬`$ for the same group $`G`$ yield 2-complexes $`\stackrel{~}{K}(𝒫)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K}(𝒬)`$ with quasi-isometric 1-skeleta, and hence equivalent Dehn functions. Thus the Dehn function of the group $`G`$ is defined to be the equivalence class of the Dehn function of any of its presentations. An extensive treatment of Dehn functions of finitely presented groups is given in .

A closely related definition can be formulated in the context of Riemannian manifolds, dating back to the isoperimetric problem for $`^n`$ in the calculus of variations. Given a Lipschitz loop $`\gamma `$ in a simply connected Riemannian manifold $`M`$, we define the area of $`\gamma `$ to be the infimum of the areas of all Lipschitz discs bounded by $`\gamma `$. We then define the geometric Dehn function of $`M`$ by

$$\delta _M(x)=\underset{l(\gamma )x}{\mathrm{max}}\text{area}(\gamma )$$

where $`l(\gamma )=length(\gamma )`$.

It is natural to consider the question of whether the Dehn functions of a simply connected Riemannian manifold $`M`$ and of a finitely presented group $`G`$ acting properly discontinuously and cocompactly on $`M`$ agree. The fact that they effectively agree has been implicitly assumed in the literature, though no proof has been given. A closely related statement is given in \[2, ~Theorem 10.3.3\], applying the Deformation Theorem of Geometric Measure Theory (\[3, ~4.2.9\] and ) to this setting, and which provides the basis of the Pushing Lemma below. This paper is devoted to providing a complete and detailed proof that the combinatorial and geometric Dehn functions are equivalent. It is known to the authors that M. Bridson has lectured on an alternate, unpublished proof for the same result. The authors would like to thank Professor S. M. Gersten for his encouragement and his useful remarks, Kevin Whyte for helpful conversations and the referee for his precise comments.

We prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`M`$ be a simply connected Riemannian manifold, and $`G`$ a finitely presented group acting properly discontinuously, cocompactly and by isometries on $`M`$. Let $`\tau `$ be a $`G`$-invariant triangulation of $`M`$. Then the following three Dehn functions are equivalent:

The fact that $`\delta _G`$ and $`\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}`$ are equivalent is clear: since $`G`$ acts cocompactly on $`\tau `$, there is a quasi-isometry between $`\tau ^{(1)}`$ and the 1-skeleton of $`\stackrel{~}{K}(𝒫)`$ for any presentation $`𝒫`$ of $`G`$, and the equivalence follows from the results in . We will concentrate on the proof of the equivalence between $`\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}`$ and $`\delta _M`$. The arguments will be mainly geometric, relating the lengths and areas of loops and discs in $`M`$ with those included in the triangulation $`\tau `$. The first step in this direction is the Pushing Lemma, which is a complete analog of the Deformation Theorem in Geometric Measure Theory and already stated and proved, in a slightly different way, in \[2, ~Theorem 10.3.3\], and whose proof we will follow closely.

## 2. Technical Lemmas

The Pushing Lemma, stated below, will allow us to relate arbitrary Lipschitz chains in $`M`$ to chains in the corresponding skeleta of $`\tau `$. The main technical problem to be overcome is that projection of a Lipschitz chain to $`\tau `$ from a badly chosen point can increase the volume of the chain arbitrarily. We overcome this by using techniques from measure theory that assure the existence of a center of projection far enough from the chain, thus providing control on the growth of the volume.

###### Lemma 2.1 (Pushing Lemma)

Let $`M`$, $`G`$ and $`\tau `$ be as above. Then there exists a constant $`C`$, depending only on $`M`$ and $`\tau `$, with the following property: Let $`T`$ be a Lipschitz $`k`$-chain in $`M`$, such that $`T`$ is included in $`\tau ^{(k1)}`$. Then there exists another Lipschitz $`k`$-chain $`R`$, with $`R=T`$, which is included in $`\tau ^{(k)}`$, and a Lipschitz $`(k+1)`$-chain $`S`$, with $`S=TR`$, satisfying

$$\text{vol}_k(R)C\text{vol}_k(T)\text{and}\text{vol}_{k+1}(S)C\text{vol}_k(T).$$

In particular, if $`T`$ is a loop, so is $`R`$, and $`S`$ is a homotopy from $`T`$ to $`R`$.

The Pushing Lemma differs from the statement in  because it applies to chains as well as cycles, since the boundary of the chain is not modified, as it is included in the $`(k1)`$-skeleton. A statement for cycles is not sufficient, since this lemma will be applied to chains as well as loops, and the fact that $`T=R`$ is crucial in the proof of the main theorem.

We first prove a lemma which will later allow us to choose our center of projection to lie away from the Lipschitz chain $`T`$.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`f:S^k\sigma _{k+1}`$ be Lipschitz with constant $`L`$, where $`\sigma _{k+1}`$ is the standard Euclidean $`(k+1)`$-simplex. Then $`f(S^k)`$ has Lebesgue $`(k+1)`$-measure zero.

###### Demonstration Proof

Since $`S^k`$ is compact, choose a finite open cover of $`S^k`$ by $`k`$-dimensional balls $`B_i`$ of radius $`\frac{1}{n}`$. We can cover $`S^k`$ with $`C_1n^k`$ such balls, for some constant $`C_1`$. The image of any ball $`B_i`$ under the Lipschitz map $`f`$ is contained in a $`(k+1)`$-dimensional ball $`B_i^{}\sigma _{k+1}`$ with $`(k+1)`$-volume $`\frac{C_2}{n^{k+1}}`$ for some constant $`C_2`$. Then the total volume of the collection $`\{B_i^{}\}`$ is at most $`\frac{C_1C_2}{n}`$. So $`f(S^k)`$ is contained in an open set of $`\sigma _{k+1}`$ whose total volume is $`\frac{C_1C_2}{n}`$ and thus $`f(S^k)`$ has Lebesgue measure $`0`$.

###### Demonstration Proof of Lemma 2.1

The proof will proceed by descending induction on the skeleta of $`\tau `$. Assume that a Lipschitz $`k`$-chain $`T`$ is included in $`\tau ^{(i)}`$ but not in $`\tau ^{(i1)}`$, for $`i>k`$. We want to proceed simplex by simplex, choosing an appropriate point not in $`T`$ in each simplex and projecting the chain $`T`$ radially from this point to the boundary of the simplex. We will prove the following claim.

Claim: There exists a constant $`C`$ with the property that for every simplex, there is a point $`p`$ not in $`T`$ so that radial projection of $`T`$ from $`p`$ to the boundary of the simplex does not increase the volume of the chain by more than a multiplicative factor $`C`$.

Observe that since $`T`$ is compact, it only intersects finitely many simplices of $`\tau `$, and in each simplex is only modified by a radial projection from a point not in $`T`$. These radial projections only increase the Lipschitz constant of $`T`$, but the chain $`R`$ obtained after the projections will still be Lipschitz.

To simplify the computations, we will work through the proof in the unit Euclidean simplex of edge length one. Since $`G`$ acts cocompactly on $`M`$, we can construct a sufficiently fine finite triangulation of the quotient and lift it to $`M`$. If the simplices are small enough we can map them to $`^n`$ via the exponential map. Since the exponential map is Lipschitz, the changes in the metric are bounded by only a multiplicative constant. We then have a finite number of simplices in $`^n`$, so the distortion is again bounded. Thus working with the unit simplex only affects the value of the constant $`C`$.

Let $`\sigma `$ be the unit Euclidean $`i`$-simplex, $`O`$ the barycenter of $`\sigma `$, and $`r`$ a positive number so that the ball of center $`O`$ and radius $`3r`$ is included in the interior of $`\sigma `$. Let $`B`$ be the ball of center $`O`$ and radius $`r`$, with $`u`$ an element of $`B`$, and $`B_u`$ the ball of center $`u`$ and radius $`2r`$. Clearly $`BB_u`$, for all $`u`$. Let $`\pi _u`$ be the radial projection with center $`u`$ of $`B_u\{u\}`$ onto $`B_u`$. Let $`Q=T\sigma `$. We want to see that there exists a constant $`v_0`$ independent of $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$, and a point $`uBQ`$, dependent on $`T`$, with

$$\text{vol}_k(\pi _uQ)v_0\text{vol}_k(Q).$$

From Lemma 2.2, we see that the set $`BQ`$ has the same measure as $`B`$, allowing us to choose $`uBQ`$.

For every positive real number $`v`$ define

$$A_v=\{uBQ|\text{vol}_k(\pi _uQ)>v\text{vol}_k(Q)\}$$

and let $`\alpha (v)=m_i(A_v)`$, where $`m_i`$ is the $`i`$-dimensional Lebesgue measure. We want to prove that

$$\underset{v\mathrm{}}{lim}\alpha (v)=0.$$

Then we will choose $`v_0`$ with $`\alpha (v_0)<m_i(B)`$, so the measure of $`A_{v_0}`$ will be less than the measure of $`B`$. Thus there will exist a point $`u(BQ)A_{v_0}`$, which will be the center of projection. Since $`uA_{v_0}`$, this projection will increase the area at most by a multiplicative factor $`v_0`$.

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`\sigma `$$`O`$$`u`$$`B`$$`B_u`$$`Q`$$`\pi _uQ`$..Figure 1: Projecting $`Q`$ to the boundary of $`B_u`$.

We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{vol}_k(\pi _uQ)& \text{vol}_k(\pi _u(QB_u))+\text{vol}_k(Q)\hfill \\ & _{QB_u}\left(\frac{2r}{xu}\right)^k𝑑x+\text{vol}_k(Q),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the first term accounts for the volume obtained after projecting, and the second term takes care of the possibility of $`Q`$ and $`B_u`$ being disjoint. Assume now that $`\text{vol}_k(Q)`$ is nonzero (if $`\text{vol}_k(Q)=0`$ then $`\text{vol}_k(\pi _uQ)=0`$). Then we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha (v)v\text{vol}_k(Q)& =v\text{vol}_k(Q)_{A_v}𝑑u=_{A_v}v\text{vol}_k(Q)𝑑u\hfill \\ & _{A_v}\text{vol}_k(\pi _uQ)𝑑u_B\text{vol}_k(\pi _uQ)𝑑u\hfill \\ & _B\left(_{QB_u}\left(\frac{2r}{xu}\right)^k𝑑x+\text{vol}_k(Q)\right)𝑑u\hfill \\ & =(2r)^k_{QB_u}_Bux^k𝑑u𝑑x+\text{vol}_i(B)\text{vol}_k(Q).\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that the function $`\left(\frac{2r}{xu}\right)^k`$ is bounded above and below, since $`uQB_u`$, and is integrated over compact regions. This allows us to change the order of integration. Now make a change of variables, letting $`w=ux`$, and increase the domain of integration to $`B(0,3r)`$. We continue with the upper bound for $`\alpha (v)v\text{vol}_k(Q)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha (v)v\text{vol}_k(Q)& (2r)^k_{QB_u}_Bux^k𝑑u𝑑x+\text{vol}_i(B)\text{vol}_k(Q)\hfill \\ & (2r)^k_{QB_u}𝑑x_{B(O,3r)}w^k𝑑w+\text{vol}_i(B)\text{vol}_k(Q)\hfill \\ & K\text{vol}_k(Q),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$K=(2r)^k_{B(O,3r)}w^k𝑑w+\text{vol}_i(B).$$

Observe that $`K`$ is finite and independent of $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$. We conclude that $`\alpha (v)vK`$. Knowing $`K`$, we can find $`v_0`$ such that $`K/v_0<m_i(B)`$, where $`v_0`$ is a constant independent of $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$. We have now found $`A_{v_0}`$ with strictly less measure than $`B`$, and can pick a point in $`(BQ)A_{v_0}`$ from which to project so that the volume increases at most by a multiplicative factor $`v_0`$.

The result of the above argument is the construction of another chain $`\pi _uQ`$ which is far enough from $`O`$. We can now project radially from $`O`$ to $`\sigma `$, and the change of volume is bounded since $`\pi _uQ`$ is at least at a distance $`r`$ from $`O`$. The combination of this change of volume with $`v_0`$ gives the constant needed in this precise skeleton. Combining the constants from all of these steps, we obtain the desired constant $`C`$. Observe that these projections leave $`\tau ^{(i1)}`$ unchanged, so clearly $`T`$ is preserved.

The $`(k+1)`$-chain $`S`$ is obtained by joining every $`xQ`$ to $`\pi _ux`$ by a segment. The volume of the piece of $`S`$ contained in $`\sigma `$ is then bounded, as before, by

$$(2r)^{k+1}_{QB_u}\frac{dx}{xu^k},$$

where the extra factor $`2r`$ is obtained from the direction of the projection, since each segment has length bounded by $`2r`$. An argument similar to the previous one shows that projecting from most points in $`B`$ gives the right bound for the volume. $`\mathrm{}`$

The third lemma states that for a Lipschitz map, almost every point in the target space has a finite number of preimages. It is a direct consequence of the area formula for Lipschitz maps, and it will be used for both loops and discs in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`T`$ be a Lipschitz $`k`$-chain in $`M`$, where $`kdimM`$. Then the set of points in $`M`$ with infinite preimages under $`T`$ has Hausdorff $`k`$-measure zero.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\sigma _k`$ be the standard closed $`k`$-simplex, and let

$$E:\sigma _kM$$

be one of the simplices in $`T`$. Since $`E`$ is a Lipschitz map, by Rademacher’s Theorem (\[3, ~3.1.6\]) it is differentiable almost everywhere (with respect to the Lebesgue $`k`$-measure), so the Jacobian $`J_kE(x)`$ is well defined for almost all $`x\sigma _k`$. For $`yM`$, let $`N(E,y)`$ be the number of elements of $`E^1(y)`$, possibly infinite, and denote by $`m_k`$ and $`h_k`$ the Lebesgue and Hausdorff $`k`$-measures, respectively. Then the area formula for Lipschitz maps (\[3, ~3.2.3\]) states that

$$_{\sigma _k}|J_kE(x)|𝑑m_k(x)=_MN(E,y)𝑑h_k(y).$$

Since $`E`$ is Lipschitz, we know that $`|J_kE(x)|`$ is bounded, and since $`\sigma _k`$ has finite measure, the integral on the left hand side is finite. So the set where $`N(E,y)`$ is infinite cannot have positive Hausdorff $`k`$-measure, because then the right hand side of the equation would be infinite. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Proof of the Main Theorem

We begin by proving the one of the two inequalities necessary for the equivalence of $`\delta _M`$ and $`\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}`$, namely

$$\delta _M\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}.$$
$`3.1`$
Let $`\gamma `$ be a Lipschitz loop in $`M`$, with length at most $`n`$. Using the Pushing Lemma, we can construct a new loop $`\eta `$, of length at most $`Cn`$, which is included in the 1-skeleton, and the homotopy between $`\gamma `$ and $`\eta `$ has area at most $`Cn`$.

The loop $`\eta `$ is not necessarily combinatorial, but it is a rectifiable loop in a non-positively curved space, namely the metric graph $`\tau ^{(1)}`$. So there is a unique (up to reparametrization) closed geodesic $`\zeta `$ in the free homotopy class of $`\eta `$. The straight homotopy (in $`\tau ^{(1)}`$) from $`\eta `$ to $`\zeta `$ is a map from an annulus to $`\tau ^{(1)}`$. The length of $`\zeta `$ decreases monotonically and its area can be made arbitrarily small.

The combinatorial loop $`\zeta `$ can be filled combinatorially by at most $`\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}(Cn)`$ 2-simplices in $`\tau `$. Thus

$$\delta _M(n)A\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}(Cn)+2Cn,$$

where $`A`$ is the area of the largest 2-cell in $`\tau `$, and it follows that $`\delta _M\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}`$.

To prove the reverse inequality

$$\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}\delta _M,$$

to (3.1), we start with a combinatorial loop $`\gamma `$ in the 1-skeleton of $`\tau `$, with length at most $`n`$. Let

$$f:D^2M$$

be a Lipschitz disc in $`M`$ with boundary $`\gamma `$, and with area $`a`$. We want to construct a van Kampen diagram for $`\gamma `$ and bound its area in terms of $`a`$. The first step is to use the Pushing Lemma to find a new disc (also denoted $`f`$) which is included in $`\tau ^{(2)}`$, and whose area is at most $`Ca`$.

Let $`\sigma `$ be an open 2-simplex of $`\tau `$ contained in $`f(D^2)`$. By Lemma 2.3, we can choose a point $`p\sigma `$, such that $`f^1(p)`$ is finite. Let $`X`$ be a component of $`f^1(\sigma )`$. If $`Xf^1(p)=\mathrm{}`$, then $`f|_X`$ can be modified by composing with a radial projection from $`p`$. After this change, a component $`X`$ of $`f^1(\sigma )`$ satisfies $`Xf^1(p)\mathrm{}`$, and there are only finitely many of these components. Moreover, if $`f|_X`$ is not surjective, we can again modify $`f|_X`$ by a radial projection from a point not in $`f(X)`$, to push its image to $`\sigma `$. After these changes to $`f`$, there is a component $`X`$ of $`f^1(\sigma )`$ so that $`f|_X`$ is surjective, and $`Xf^1(p)\mathrm{}`$. If $`X`$ is one such component, the original $`f`$ has not been modified in $`X`$ by any radial projection, and the map

$$f|_X:X\sigma $$

is still Lipschitz, since it is the restriction of the original map $`f`$.

We will obtain a lower bound on the area of $`f|_X`$ using the degree of $`f|_X`$. Since $`f|_X`$ is differentiable almost everywhere, we can define the degree of $`f|_X`$ at a point $`yf(X)`$ by

$$\text{deg}f|_X(y)=\underset{xf^1(y)}{}\text{sign}J_2f(x).$$

Moreover, since $`X`$ is an open connected component of $`f^1(\sigma )`$, we have that $`f(X)\sigma `$ and $`f(X)\sigma `$, so $`f(X)`$ and $`f(X)`$ are disjoint. Then, by \[3, ~4.1.26\], the degree of $`f|_X`$ is almost constant in $`f(X)`$, and we can define the degree of $`f|_X`$ as the value $`d_X`$ it achieves at almost every $`yf(X)`$. The lower bound on the area of $`f|_X`$ is given by the area formula for Lipschitz maps: if $`u`$ is an integrable function with respect to $`m_2`$, we have (see \[3, ~3.2.3\]):

$$_Xu(x)|J_2f(x)|𝑑m_2=_\sigma \underset{xf^1(y)X}{}u(x)dh_2,$$

and taking $`u(x)=\text{sign}Jf(x)`$ we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{area}f|_X=_X|J_2f(x)|𝑑m_2\left|_XJ_2f(x)𝑑m_2\right|=\\ |_X\text{sign}J_2f(x)|J_2f(x)|dm_2|=\left|_\sigma \text{deg}f|_Xdh_2\right|=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}|d_X|.\end{array}$$

Our goal is to find a simplicial map

$$g:D^2\tau ^{(2)}$$

(with some simplicial structure in $`D^2`$) such that only $`|d_X|`$ simplices are mapped by the identity to $`\sigma `$ under $`g|_X`$, and the rest of $`X`$ is mapped to $`\sigma `$. Then we will have that the combinatorial area of $`g`$ is bounded as follows,

$$\underset{X}{}|d_X|\underset{X}{}\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}\text{area}\left(f|_X\right)\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}Ca$$

giving us the required bound. Note that the map $`g`$ is not combinatorial, but only simplicial, and at the end of the proof a short argument will be required to ensure the existence of a combinatorial map whose area admits the same upper bound.

The first step in finding the map $`g`$ is to smooth the map $`f|_X`$, in order to apply differentiable techniques to it. Let $`O`$ be the barycenter of $`\sigma `$, and choose $`0<ϵ<r`$ such that:

$$\mathrm{}B(O,rϵ)B(O,r)B(O,2r)B(O,2r+ϵ)\sigma ,$$

and let $`U_1=f^1(B(O,r))`$ and $`U_2=f^1(B(O,2r))`$. We have that $`\overline{U_1}U_2\overline{U_2}X`$. Choose $`\delta >0`$ so that $`B(x,\delta )X`$ for all $`xU_2`$, and so that if $`|xy|<\delta `$ then $`|f(x)f(y)|<ϵ`$, for all $`x,yX`$. Let $`\phi `$ be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ bump function in $`^2`$ with support in $`B(0,\delta )`$, and with integral 1. Then, for $`xU_2`$, we can construct the convolution

$$f\phi (x)=_{B(x,\delta )}f(xz)\phi (z)𝑑z,$$

which is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`U_2`$, and satisfies $`|f(x)f\phi (x)|<ϵ`$ for all $`xU_2`$. Also, if $`f|_X`$ was Lipschitz with constant $`L`$, then $`f\phi `$ is also Lipschitz with the same constant: if $`x,yU_2`$,

$$|f\phi (x)f\phi (y)||f(xz)f(yz)|_{B(0,\delta )}\phi (z)𝑑zL|xy|.$$

Now choose a Lipschitz function $`\alpha `$ on $`X`$ with values in $`[0,1]`$ which is equal to 1 in $`U_1`$ and equal to 0 outside $`U_2`$, and define

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\alpha (f\phi )+(1\alpha )f|_X.$$

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is defined only on $`X`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ satisfies the following properties:

The first three properties are clear from the construction of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, and property (4) holds because $`f|_X`$ and $`f\phi `$ and $`\alpha `$ are all Lipschitz. To see that the degree is unchanged, since the degree is almost constant, and $`f|_X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ agree outside $`U_2`$, we only need to find a point in $`\sigma B(O,2r+ϵ)`$ for which the degree is $`d_X`$ for both $`f|_X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$.

We can now use Sard’s Theorem () to claim the existence of a regular value for $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ in $`B(O,rϵ)`$ whose preimages are all in $`U_1`$. Let $`q`$ be this regular value and let $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$ be its preimages. Let $`V`$ be an open disc with center $`q`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{f}^1(V)=V_1\mathrm{}V_m`$, where the $`V_i`$ are discs around $`p_i`$, pairwise disjoint, and such that $`\stackrel{~}{f}|_{V_i}`$ is a diffeomorphism. In general, we will have that $`m>|d_X|`$, and must cancel discs with opposite orientations. Assume $`V_{m1}`$ and $`V_m`$ are mapped to $`V`$ with opposite orientations. Choose $`aV_{m1}`$ and $`a^{}V_m`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{f}(a)=\stackrel{~}{f}(a^{})`$, and join $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ with a simple path $`\lambda `$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\lambda )`$ is nullhomotopic in $`\sigma V`$. This can be done because the map

$$\stackrel{~}{f}:X\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}V_i\sigma V$$

induces a surjective homomorphism of fundamental groups. After contracting $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\lambda )`$, we can assume $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\lambda )`$ is the constant path $`\stackrel{~}{f}(a)`$. Remove the discs $`V_{m1}`$ and $`V_m`$ and perform surgery along $`\lambda `$. The new boundary thus created is mapped to $`V`$ under $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ by a map from $`S^1`$ to itself of degree zero. Extend this map to a map from $`D^2`$ to $`S^1`$ and attach it to $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ along this boundary. For the new map (which we will continue calling $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$), the preimage of $`q`$ consists only of the points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{m2}`$. Repeating this process we will obtain a map where now only the discs $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_{|d_X|}`$ are mapped to $`V`$, all with the same orientation.

Choose (temporarily) a sufficiently fine subdivision of $`\tau `$ so that there is a 2-simplex $`W`$ in $`V`$, and let $`\rho _i=\stackrel{~}{f}^1(W)`$. Modify the map in $`X`$ by composing with the expansion of $`W`$ into all of $`\sigma `$.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`X`$$`\rho _1`$$`\rho _2`$$`\rho _3`$$`W`$$`\sigma `$$`\sigma `$Figure 2: Making the map $`f`$ simplicial

After this process is done for all $`\sigma `$, we obtain a map from $`D^2`$ to $`\tau ^{(2)}`$, where all the $`\rho _i`$ are sent homeomorphically to 2-simplices of $`\tau `$, and the rest of $`D^2`$ is sent to the 1-skeleton of $`\tau `$. To finish the construction of $`g`$, find a simplicial structure on $`D^2`$ compatible with the simplicial structure on the original loop $`\gamma `$ and which includes all the $`\rho _i`$ obtained for all $`\sigma `$ as 2-simplices. Now approximate the map $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ simplicially within $`\tau ^{(1)}`$ relative to all the $`\rho _i`$ and to $`\gamma `$. The result is simplicial, and the number of simplices sent by $`g`$ homeomorphically to 2-simplices in $`\tau `$ is

$$\underset{X}{}|d_X|\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}Ca.$$

This map is not a van Kampen diagram yet, since it is only simplicial. To finalize the proof of the inequality

$$\delta _{\tau ^{(2)}}\delta _M,$$

we will find a van Kampen diagram which satisfies the same upper bound as the map $`g`$. Consider simplicial maps from a contractible planar 2-complex $`Y`$ into $`\tau ^{(2)}`$, with boundary $`\gamma `$, whose area satisfies the same bound as $`g`$. (The map $`g`$ shows the existence of such maps.) Among all these maps, choose one with the minimum number of 2-cells in $`Y`$. This map is necessarily combinatorial, since if some 2-cell of $`Y`$ is collapsed to the 1-skeleton of $`\tau ^{(2)}`$, we could collapse it in $`Y`$ and find a map with fewer 2-cells. This map is the required van Kampen diagram for the loop $`\gamma `$, and the second inequality is proved.


text:
# METALLICITIES FOR DOUBLE MODE RR LYRAE IN THE LARGE MAGELLANIC CLOUD 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatories, Chile

## 1 Introduction

The well-known dichotomy between short and long distance scales derived from old, population II stars has plagued astronomers for a long time and not even the impressive improvements in measuring distances due to the Hipparcos mission (see e.g., Gratton et al. 1997) seemed to provide an universally accepted solution. This is pointed out by the disagreement existing between results based on field or cluster stars. Methods founded on field stars, like statistical parallaxes or the Baade-Wesselink method applied to field RR Lyrae’s, or direct analysis of field horizontal branch stars (see Gratton 1998) seem to favour the short scale. Instead, cluster star-based distances, derived from main-sequence fitting to local subdwarfs (e.g. Gratton et al. 1997), or from pulsational properties of RR Lyrae’s in globular clusters (Sandage 1993), or from the calibration of the HB luminosity level using the Cepheid distance modulus of the LMC (Walker 1992), seem to support the long scale.

Following a calibration of the absolute magnitude of horizontal branch field metal-poor stars with good parallaxes from Hipparcos, Gratton (1998) suggested that a difference (at a $``$ 0.1–0.2 mag level) might actually exist between the luminosity of HB stars in globular clusters (GC’s) and in the field. This result appeared to be confirmed by the difference in the average magnitude for field and cluster RR Lyrae’s in the LMC measured by Alcock et al. (1996) and Walker (1992) respectively (but see Clementini et al. 2001, hereafter C2001). Another indication in favour of this possible difference comes from the latest evolutionary models by Sweigart (1997), which include some extra-mixing of He and other heavy elements (C, N, O): as a matter of fact there is observational evidence for extra-mixing in cluster red giants but not among field stars (Gratton et al. 2000). On the other side, studies by Catelan (1998) and by Carretta, Gratton & Clementini (2000a) put this suggestion to a test using the pulsational properties of a selected sample of field and cluster RR Lyrae’s. Carretta et al. (2000a) show in a quantitative way that in our Galaxy, field and cluster RR Lyrae’s cannot be distinguished in a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}P_{(\mathrm{field}\mathrm{cluster})}`$ – \[Fe/H\] plane: this goes towards excluding the possibility of a luminosity difference. In fact, the pulsational Period-Mass-Luminosity-$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ relation (van Albada & Baker 1971) tells us that, at fixed $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, a difference in the period distribution (or its absence) indicates that there is (or there is not) a difference in the M/L ratio for the variables. The determination of star masses with the high precision required to settle the question is still one of the most difficult tasks in astrophysics. In this context double mode RR Lyrae’s are extremely powerful tools, because their masses can be estimated from the ratio of the two pulsational periods using pulsational models, hence independently from stellar evolution models. Unluckily, the $`M`$\[Fe/H\] relation can presently be studied in our Galaxy only using double mode pulsators in clusters, since only a handful of RRd’s have been so far identified in the field of our Galaxy.

The field RR Lyrae’s in the Large Magellanic Cloud bar play a key role in this respect, since i) projection effects are negligible, and they can be considered at the same distance from us and, ii) plenty of double pulsating variables have been identified in the field of the LMC by the MACHO experiment (Alcock et al. 1997, hereinafter A97). Field RR Lyrae’s in the LMC with good \[Fe/H\] determinations may allow the derivation of both an accurate $`\mathrm{L}=f`$(\[Fe/H\]) (using single mode pulsators) and a $`\mathrm{M}=f`$(\[Fe/H\]) relation, if any, (using double mode pulsators) within a homogeneous sample of field variables. The accuracy required to settle the question of the magnitude difference can be estimated from the pulsation equation of van Albada & Baker (1971), computed at fixed temperature and period: in order to appreciate a supposed difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\mathrm{L}`$ 0.05 (or 0.12 mag) we must detect a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\mathrm{M}0.06`$ (i.e. $`0.12\mathrm{M}_{}`$) difference in mass between field and cluster variables. Cox (1991) using a fixed metallicity and the new OPAL (Rogers & Iglesias 1992) opacity tables found masses of 0.65 M for RR Lyrae pulsators in Oosterhoff type I clusters (Oo I; Oosterhoff 1939), and of 0.75 to even 0.85 M in Oosterhoff type II clusters (Oo II). Since the approximate difference in metallicity between the two Oo type clusters he studied is 0.5-0.7 dex, we estimate that an accuracy $`0.2`$ dex in \[Fe/H\] is then required.

We started an observational program on the field RR Lyrae’s of the LMC i) to derive their average apparent luminosity, and ii) to determine their metallicities (in particular for the RRd pulsators). The first part of the program, mostly dealing with new photometric data acquired by our team near the bar of the LMC, is described in C2001 and Di Fabrizio et al. (2001). The main results are the very accurate determination of the mean apparent magnitude of the field RR Lyrae’s of the LMC and the derivation of an independent reddening estimate.

From the light curves so derived we determined epochs to properly time the spectroscopic observations. In this paper we present metallicities with an accuracy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ \[Fe/H\] $`0.2`$ dex for six RRd’s in the LMC. We used the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ index (Preston 1959), defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$= 10\[SpT(H)–SpT(K)\], where SpT(H) and SpT(K) are the spectral types measured at minimum light, in units of tenths of a spectral type class, based on the hydrogen lines and on the CaII K line, respectively. In Section 2 we present the observational data and in Section 3 we describe the derivation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values for the 6 stars. Section 4 is devoted to the determination of metallicities; in Section 5 we derive masses of our targets from the Petersen diagram, and discuss the mass-metallicity distribution. Summary and conclusions are presented in Section 6.

## 2 Observations and Reductions

The MACHO program discovered about 7,900 RR Lyrae’s in the twenty-two 40 arcmin2 fields centered on the LMC bar (Alcock et al. 1996), and published coordinates and periods (but no epochs) for 73 RRd’s in the LMC bar (A97; differential light curves can be found in the MACHO website, e.g. wwwmacho.mcmaster.ca). Since the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ method requires the acquisition of spectra when variables are at minimum light, new photometric observations were obtained in order to derive complete ephemerides for some of A97 double mode pulsators. All observations were carried out in La Silla, Chile, in January 1999. Four nights at the Danish 1.54m telescope, one of which of photometric quality, were dedicated to Johnson V and B photometry (see C2001 for a complete description) and immediately reduced to produce light curves and derive ephemerides (epochs, in particular) for our targets. We tried to maximize the number of RRd’s observable in a single DFOSC (Danish Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera) pointing (field of view 13.5 arcmin2), and for the present program we selected 2 positions (in MACHO fields #6 and #13) comprising a total of 9 RRd’s; we refer to them as “field A” ($`\alpha _{2000}=05^h22^m44^s`$ $`\delta _{2000}=70^o34^{}15\mathrm{"}`$) and “field B” ($`\alpha _{2000}=05^h17^m28^s`$ $`\delta _{2000}=71^o00^{}14\mathrm{"}`$); henceforth RRd’s in the two fields will be indicated by CA or CB followed by an ordering number derived from tab. 1 of A97. Periods in A97 were used together with the epochs obtained from the new photometric data to properly schedule at minimum light the subsequent spectroscopic observations, done on 2 nights only 10 days afterwards. We did not use our own derived periods, since C2001 sampling of the light curve of the double mode pulsators (about 60 data-points in 4 consecutive nights) does not allow the derivation of periods for the RRd’s as accurate as in A97. We show in Figure 1 the light curve for one of the RRd’s based on C2001 data, and phased using A97 first overtone period P1. Finding charts for the 6 stars here discussed are presented in Figure 2, taken from C2001 photometry; maps are 200 arcsec2, and the position of each RRd is indicated by a cross (not in scale), right at the center of the fields.

The spectroscopic observations were carried out at the 3.6m ESO telescope, during the nights 1999 January 17-18. EFOSC2 (ESO Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera) was used, mounting the CCD #40, a Loral $`2k\times 2k`$ chip, binned $`2\times 2`$, in combination with grism #7 (600 lines/mm, 3270-5240 Å) and a 1.5 arcsec wide slit, resulting in a $``$ 9 Å resolution (or R$``$450). Whenever possible, the slit was rotated in order to exclude nearby contaminating stars. Sky conditions were good enough for spectroscopic observations, but not of photometric quality, and the seeing varied from about 1” to 1.9”, with an average value around 1.5”.

We observed close to minimum light 7 of the 9 RRd’s within these fields, exploiting the previously described ephemerides, obtaining usable spectra for 6 of them (for one of the stars the spectrum is heavily contaminated by a very close bright object falling into the slit, and we excluded it). Identifications and information on these 6 targets are provided in Table 1. Equatorial coordinates come from the transformation of pixel positions to right ascension and declination, based on about one hundred stars individuated both in each of the two fields and on the Digitized Sky Survey222 The Digitized Sky Survey was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U. S. Government grant NAG W-2166.; they differ only a few arcsec from the ones published in A97. The $`<\mathrm{V}>`$ values are intensity averages and should be taken as preliminary, since a new calibration of the photometric data is under way (see C2001); epochs of maximum light are given in column 8. The fundamental and first overtone periods P0 and P1 are taken from A97. In column 9 and 10 we give the Heliocentric Julian Day of the spectroscopic observations of our targets and the corresponding phases computed using A97 first overtone pulsation periods and the epochs in column 8. Given the faintness of our targets (V$``$19.5 at minimum light), exposure times were in the range from 30 to 50 minutes, in order to reach the maximum possible S/N and avoid phase blurring on the pulsation cycle. Typical S/N ratios range from 10 to 30.

Thirteen non variable stars in the open cluster Collinder 140 (Cr 140, Clariá & Rosenzweig 1978, hereinafter CR), observed with the same instrumental configuration, were chosen as spectral type standard stars, to apply the ”classical” approach to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ method via spectral types. The observed stars are indicated in Table 2, together with their Jonhson B, V and Strömgren $`by`$ photometry, and spectral types derived both from CR, and from the Strömgren $`by`$ photometry (see next Section). The last column of the table gives the spectral type adopted in the present analysis: CR values or the average of CR types with those derived from the $`by`$, when both estimates are available.

For calibration purposes (i.e. to check that our $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$S’s are on the standard system) we took spectra at minimum light of 6 field $`ab`$ type RR Lyrae’s of known $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$, namely IU Car, X Crt, WY Ant, AF Vel, U Lep and TV Leo; phases were derived from published ephemerides, and checked a posteriori by the spectral types (see note to Sect. 3.1). We also acquired 10 spectra along the pulsation cycle (from phase 0.0 to 0.65) of one $`c`$ type RR Lyr (T Sex, also of known $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$), in order to derive phase corrections for the spectra not exactly taken at minimum light.

Spectroscopic data were reduced using IRAF333 IRAF is distributed by the NOAO, which are operated by AURA, under contract with NSF and the standard procedure for long slit spectra. Images were trimmed, bias subtracted, and flat-fielded; spectra were traced, extracted and wavelength calibrated. No flux-calibration was needed for our goals. We retained for further analysis only the wavelength range 3750–5210 Å, where all lines of interest are located. The most delicate parts of the whole procedure were spectrum extraction and background subtraction, since the observed fields are very crowded and the seeing conditions were not optimal. The risk of contamination from nearby objects is high; this happened, for instance, in the case of one of our targets. The background subtracted spectra of the 6 program stars are shown in Figure 3.

Spectral types were derived for our targets by comparing measured pseudo-equivalent widths (EW’s) of H$`\beta `$, H$`\gamma `$, and of the Ca II K line with those measured in the stars of Cr 140. The pseudo-EW’s were computed by dividing the instrumental fluxes within a small spectral region ($`f`$) centered on the selected feature, with the average of those in two comparison spectral regions ($`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$) located on both sides of each feature and defining the local continuum (see Table 3). All spectra were shifted to zero velocity before measuring the EW’s. The (restframe) wavelength bins used are given in Table 3.

The spectral types for stars in Cr 140 given by CR are quite rough estimates. To reduce this source of error they were averaged, whenever possible, with the spectral types deduced from $`uvby\beta `$ colors (Hauck & Mermilliod 1998), using the calibrations by Crawford (1975, 1978, 1979). We then constructed curves calibrating EW’s against spectral types using 13 of the 14 stars observed in Cr 140 (see Table 2 for identification); star #17 was excluded because it is not on the main sequence. Finally, we derived the best spectral type for each program spectrum by entering the measured EW’s for the program star and reading out the corresponding spectral type. The final adopted H spectral type is the average of the values obtained from H$`\gamma `$ and H$`\beta `$. Following Preston (1959), the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ were simply the difference between the H and Ca II K spectral types, in tenths of spectral types. Results for the program stars are shown in Table 5, where we give for each of our targets the H and Ca spectral types, and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values derived applying both no phase corrections (as suggested by Kemper 1982), or using phase corrections deduced from T Sex (see Section 3.2). The corresponding metallicities are also presented in Table 5, and will be discussed in Sect. 4.

Our resolution is too coarse to separate the stellar and interstellar components of the Ca II lines, and we did not apply any correction for the contribution due to interstellar absorption, since its effect on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ value, hence on \[Fe/H\], is negligible. Gratton, Tornambè & Ortolani (1986), applying the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ method to the globular cluster $`\omega `$ Cen, employed a correction of 0.2 spectral subclasses (in the sense of an earlier spectral type) to their $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values, based on a reddening E(B–V)=0.11 mag. In our case the reddening is comparable (C2001), and the resulting correction would imply a difference in the derived \[Fe/H\] of about 0.04 dex; this is negligible with respect to the total error associated to the method.

To estimate scale and random errors in our derived $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$’s, we have compared the values we derived for the 6 comparison $`ab`$type RR Lyrae’s with those given in the literature (see Table 4 for individual values; the comparison is done between our values and the average of literature $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$’s for each star). If we apply the phase corrections444 All phases in col. 2 of Table 4 were inferred from the Sp(H)’s of our spectra, and agree with those computed from literature ephemerides in all cases, but AF Vel and U Lep. These two stars have varying periods. Two ephemerides are available for AF Vel and the corresponding phases (0.58: Eggen 1994, and 0.63: Lub 1979) are slightly later than we derive; we suggest that both the ephemerides may be no longer adequate. Four ephemerides are available for U Lep (0.60: Firmanyuk, Derevyagin & Lysova 1985; 0.67: Lub 1979; 0.69: Eggen 1994; and 0.80: Fernley, Skillen & Burki 1983), and the phase we derive agrees with Eggen’s prediction.  suggested by Butler (1975), our $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ are on average smaller than the literature values by $`0.2\pm 0.4`$ tenths of spectral types, with an $`r.m.s.`$ of 1.2 tenths of spectral type for individual stars. Since the accuracy of the literature values is of the order of 0.5 tenths of spectral types, we conclude that our $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ are on the standard scale, and have random errors of $`<1`$ tenth of spectral type.

### 2.1 Phase Corrections

Before interpreting the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ in terms of metallicity, we have to apply a correction for the observed phase, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ is known to vary during the pulsation cycle. The exact form of the phase-correction to be applied for $`d`$type RR Lyrae’s is not known. In their study of Galactic double pulsators in the field, Clement, Kinman & Suntzeff (1991) argued that the best correction is the same used for $`c`$type RR Lyrae’s, since in general the amplitude of the first harmonic is larger than the amplitude of the fundamental mode for double pulsators (this is also true for our program variables). Furthermore, the colors at minimum light of the $`d`$type RR Lyrae’s are much closer to those of the $`c`$type at minimum than to the $`ab`$type ones. Unfortunately, the phase corrections to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ for the $`c`$type variables are not very well defined. Kemper (1982) studied the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ along the light curve of three $`c`$type RR Lyrae’s (RU Psc, T Sex, and DH Peg). He concluded that phase corrections are small (of the same order of the measuring error, i.e. $`\pm `$ 1 unit in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$) and should not be applied when the H spectral type is later than A7-A8, while he recommended to reject $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ estimates from spectra where the derived H spectral type is earlier. An alternative procedure is to apply phase corrections to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ according to the phase variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ derived from a well studied c type template star. We have used to this purpose our observations of T Sex, and derive (see Figure 4):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{cor}}=\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{obs}}+0.587[10.5SpT(H)],$$

where we give the correction simply as a linear function of the hydrogen spectral type and, according to Kemper (1982), we neglect the small difference existing between the ascending and descending part of the light curve. This seems a reasonable assumption for the c-type pulsators (but see Figure 1 of Smith 1986) given the fairly symmetrical shape of their light curves, which all show slow climbs to maximum light, and because spectra of RRc’s do not seem to show the hydrogen line emissions and doubling which are the signature of shock waves propagating through the atmosphere, found in the spectra of the RRab’s during the rise to maximum light (Preston & Paczyinski 1964, Chadid & Gillet 1998, Gillet & Crowe 1998).

Using the above relationship, we obtain for T Sex $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$=6.81$`\pm 0.09`$ with an $`r.m.s.`$ scatter of 0.26 tenths of spectral types. This value is to be compared with that determined using the procedure suggested by Kemper, that is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$=6.28$`\pm 0.17`$ with an $`r.m.s.`$ scatter of 0.50 tenths of spectral types. Also, for comparison the value given by Kemper for this star is $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=6.1`$ (6.3 if the star were analyzed as an $`ab`$type variable). However, T Sex has the largest variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ with phase among the three stars considered by Kemper, so this procedure may lead to somewhat too large phase corrections (implying too large $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$’s and too low metallicities). In Table 5 we give the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values of our targets obtained using both the Kemper procedure (i.e. with no phase corrections and only using spectra later than A7-A8) and the phase corrections derived from T Sex light curve. On average, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values corrected according to the T Sex curve are larger by $`1.2\pm 0.2`$ spectral subtypes. Our adopted values are simply the average of those determined using the two different procedures. We estimate that uncertainties related to the phase correction are half the average difference between these two estimates, i.e. about 0.6 spectral subtypes.

## 3 Metallicities of the program stars

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values of our targets (both with and without phase corrections) were translated to metallicities using two different relations. The first one is given by Clementini et al. (1995, hereinafter C95), and is based on their study at high resolution and high S/N spectra of 10 field RRab’s, on data adapted from Butler (1975) and Butler & Deming (1979), and on globular clusters having literature metallicities derived from high resolution spectra:

$$[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0.194\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}0.08.$$
(1)
The relation has been derived for $`ab`$type RR Lyrae’s, however Kemper (1982) found that on average $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values derived for $`ab`$ and $`c`$type variables in GC’s agree with each other, so that also $`d`$type RR Lyrae’s should obey approximately the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$$``$\[Fe/H\] relation. Metallicities derived from this relation are quite similar to the Zinn & West (1984, hereafter ZW84) metallicity scale for GC’s.

The second one is given by Gratton (1999, hereafter G99), and recalibrates the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ index using the new metallicity scale for GC’s found by Carretta & Gratton (1997, hereafter CG97), which differs from ZW84’s especially at intermediate metallicities, usually giving somewhat higher metallicities. The metallicity dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ is in this case

$$[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0.176\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}0.03,$$
(2)
which is only marginally consistent with the relation in C95. In the following we will be using metallicities derived from both relations:

(a) C95: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values, both using no phase correction, as suggested by Kemper, and correcting using T Sex, are given in columns 4 and 5 of Table 5, and the adopted $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ (the average of the two) is given in column 6. Columns 7 and 8 of Table 5 give the metallicities of the program stars computed using the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ estimates according to both Kemper procedure and T Sex phase corrections, respectively, adopting C95 relation. In the case of variable CA 48, we cannot give any metal abundance using Kemper procedure for the spectrum taken near maximum light, since the H-spectral type at which this star was observed is too early; the lower S/N spectrum, instead, can be used to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values with both methods. Both spectra give similar results, and in the following we will be using the metallicity derived from the higher S/N spectrum. Column 9 contains the adopted metallicities on C95 scale: they are simply the average of the determinations obtained with the two different procedures. We estimate that internal uncertainties in these metallicities are of about $`\pm 0.2`$ dex (from typical errors of $`\pm 1`$ in our $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values). Systematic errors are mainly due to uncertainties in the phase corrections ($`\pm 0.1`$ dex) and in the metal abundance calibrations. The latter are however small (likely $`\pm 0.1`$ dex) in the abundance range of interest for the program stars.

The average metal abundance of the program stars is \[Fe/H\]=$`1.46\pm 0.09`$ (5 stars, $`r.m.s.`$ = 0.21 dex) when the Kemper procedure is used. A somewhat lower average value of \[Fe/H\]=$`1.60\pm 0.13`$ (6 stars, $`r.m.s.`$ = 0.33 dex) is obtained when the phase corrections appropriate for T Sex are applied to the sample. Note that in the latter case we include in the average one more star (variable CA 48), which happens to be the most metal-rich of the sample. Finally, if we use the adopted \[Fe/H\]’s shown in col. 9, we obtain an average \[Fe/H\]=$`1.49\pm 0.11`$ (6 stars, $`r.m.s.`$ = 0.28 dex). If we include the systematic errors present in our determinations, we conclude that, on C95 scale, our sample of 6 $`d`$type RR Lyrae’s in the bar of the LMC has an average \[Fe/H\]=$`1.5\pm 0.2`$ .

This compares rather well with the results obtained by Alcock et al. (1996). They used a similar method (line strengths of Ca II K and of H$`\delta `$ measured on medium-low resolution spectra of quite low S/N) and applied it to 15 field LMC RR Lyrae’s. Alcock et al. do not expand much on the subject: they do not give RR Lyr types, or individual values for metallicities. They only say that the most frequent \[Fe/H\] value is about –1.6, with values in the range from –2.4 to –0.8 (see their fig. 8), and that the estimated accuracy is $`\pm `$0.25 dex.

(b) G99: Columns 10 and 11 of Table 5 contains the analogues of cols. 7 and 8, but using G99 relation, and col. 12 shows the adopted \[Fe/H\]’s, a simple mean of the two above. In this case the average values are \[Fe/H\]=$`1.29\pm 0.07`$ (5 stars, $`r.m.s.`$ = 0.16 dex) adopting Kemper procedure, \[Fe/H\]=$`1.41\pm 0.12`$ (6 stars, $`r.m.s.`$ = 0.30 dex) adopting phase corrections derived from T Sex, and \[Fe/H\]=$`1.32\pm 0.10`$ (6 stars, $`r.m.s.`$ = 0.25 dex) adopting the recommended values in col. 12. Again including systematic errors, we then conclude that, on G99 scale, our sample has a somewhat larger average metallicity, of \[Fe/H\]=$`1.3\pm 0.2`$ .

The value compares slightly worse to Alcock et al. (1996), but this is not surprising, since CG97 scale tends to produce higher metallicities at this intermediate metal abundance. Anyway, 15 and 6 objects are too small samples to attach significance to a $``$ 0.3 dex difference, well within the quoted uncertainties.

Notice that we have two RRd’s with \[Fe/H\] $`>1.5`$ (C95) or $`>1.3`$ (G99), hence with metal abundances larger than the Oo I clusters M 3 and IC 4499: these are the most metal-rich RRd’s identified so far.

## 4 Masses

### 4.1 The Petersen diagram

Masses for the double mode pulsators can be evaluated from the ratio between first overtone (P1) and fundamental (P0) pulsation periods. Petersen (1973) introduced the use of what is now universally known as ”the Petersen diagram”, where the ratio P1/P0 is plotted versus the value of P0 for each RRd. Pulsation models define loci of constant mass in this diagram, hence RRd masses can be determined by the position of the star in the Petersen diagram, interpolating/extrapolating between these models.

Figure 5 shows the position in the Petersen diagram of the six LMC RRd’s studied in this paper (we have omitted from the figure the remaining 67 LMC RRd’s in A97 sample for clarity, but our small sample is well representative of the general P1/P0 versus P0 distribution of the LMC RRd’s, see Figure 6), together with the other RRd’s found in our Galaxy (clusters and field) and in the Draco and Sculptor dwarf spheroidal galaxies. Data plotted in Figure 5 have been taken from Garcia-Melendo & Clement (1997) for NSV09295; from Clementini et al. (2000) for CU Com; from Clement et al. (1991, 1993) for AQ Leo, VIII-10, and VIII-58; from Clement et al. (1993) for NGC 2419 (1 object), and NGC 6426 (1 object); from Corwin, Carney & Allen (1999) for M 3 (5 objects); from Walker & Nemec (1996) for IC 4499 (17 RRd’s); from Walker (1994) for M 68 (12 RRd’s); from Nemec (1985b) for M 15 (14 RRd’s); from Nemec (1985a) for Draco (10 RRd’s); from Kaluzny et al. (1995) for Sculptor (1 object); from A97 for the LMC (73 RRd’s).

This figure is the analog of fig. 2 in A97; they also plotted the latest pulsational models available in literature, by Bono et al. (1996, henceforth BCCM96) computed for metallicity Z=0.0001, and for the three masses 0.65, 0.75 and 0.80 M. BCCM96 computed non-linear, non-local, time dependent pulsational models based on up-to-date opacities (Rogers & Iglesias 1992). These models, whose properties and physical and numerical assumptions are described in Bono & Stellingwerf (1994), in BCCM96 and in Bono et al. (1997a,b) are claimed by authors to reconcile values for masses and luminosities based on pulsation and on stellar evolution theories.

However, as already noted by A97, several objects (about 40 of the 73 double mode LMC RR Lyrae’s, among which our CA 02, and one of the RRd in M 3) fall in the region of the Petersen diagram below the 0.65 M BCCM96 model, and extrapolation of the BCCM96 models would produce rather small masses of about 0.55 M for these objects. This would not be simple to explain for the stars in this region with measured metallicity: M3 is the prototype Oosterhoff I cluster, and CA 02 and the Galactic field star VIII-58 have similar abundances, intermediate between Oo I and Oo II clusters (\[Fe/H\] $``$ –1.7 on C95 scale, or –1.5 on G99 scale). A97 discuss somewhat the problem, also suggesting, but in the end discarding, the possibility of these stars having a larger metal content, hence a mass larger than obtained by the BCCM96 models.

### 4.2 The pulsation models: derivation of the masses

Since we now have information on the metallicity of 6 LMC RRd’s, we have decided to test the dependence of masses derived from the Petersen diagram also on metallicity. In order to do this, we derive masses for all objects in Figure 5 for which the metallicity has been estimated, using the most appropriate models. Metallicities for all objects were adopted as follows: in the case of the LMC RRd’s we used the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values (this paper), as for three MW field RRd’s (AQ Leo, VIII-10, VIII-58: Clement et al. 1991), and converted them to \[Fe/H\] using both C95 and G99 relations; in the case of CU Com we used the \[Fe/H\] value in Clementini et al. (2000), obtained from high resolution spectroscopy (note that at these low metal abundances ZW84 and CG97 scales coincide); for the dSph’s Draco and Sculptor we took the literature values (Mateo 1998) on ZW84 scale, and also converted them to CG97 scale according to the transformation relations provided by GC97 (see eq. 7 in that paper); for Galactic GC’s, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ values were not available for all of them, we used the \[Fe/H\] values available in the literature (ZW84 for all of them, CG97 direct measurements for M 3, M 15, M 68, and transformation to CG97 scale for NGC 2419, NGC 6426, and IC 4499). Metallicities chosen in the above way should be on a homogenous base for field and cluster variables, since the metallicity derived from the C95 relation (equation 1) is close to the ZW84 scale, while that derived from the G99 relation (equation 2) is close to the CG97 one.

Since both mass and metallicity affect the predicted Petersen diagram, information about the metallicity is required for a proper evaluation of the “pulsational” mass. At the same time, for each derived stellar mass the luminosity level can be inferred on the basis of the fundamental period range. We note that the only pulsation models that populate the Petersen diagram are those located in the double mode (OR) region of the predicted instability strip, that is betwee the theoretical fundamental blue edge and the theoretical first overtone red edge, for each assumed luminosity level. For each mass, models with different luminosity levels were computed in order to cover the full range of evolutionary predictions (which are dependent on the adopted input physics) for the luminosity of horizontal branch stars and also to take into account evolutionary effects (RR Lyrae evolving from their zero age horizontal branch location). As already noticed by BCCM96 nonlinear computations offer the opportunity to disentangle the mass and luminosity effects on the location in the Petersen diagram. As shown in Figure 5, once the mass and metallicity are fixed, the period values identify the luminosity level. However we consider the luminosity derivation beyond the aims of the present paper.

Models with Z=0.0001, 0.0004, 0.0006, 0.0008 have been computed for different masses and luminosities, using the same treatment as in BCCM96. In particular, we have used the following models: i) Z = 0.0001 at 0.85, 0.83, 0.80, 0.75, 0.65, 0.63 M and with 3 luminosity levels, log L = 1.61, 1.72, 1.81; ii) Z = 0.0004 at 0.75, 0.70, 0.65, 0.64, 0.63, 0.62, 0.60 M and 3 luminosity levels, log L = 1.61, 1.65, 1.72; iii) Z = 0.0006 at 0.80. 0.75, 0.65 M and two luminosities, log L = 1.61, 1.72; iv) Z = 0.0008 at 0.85, 0.65 M and 3 luminosities, log L = 1.61, 1.72, 1.81. A few additional models at Z = 0.0002, 0.001, and 0.002 have also been computed, but not extensively used to determine masses. The main parameters of the adopted models (Z, mass, luminosity, P0, P1) are given in Table 6, available only in electronic form.

A subset (indicated by a star symbol in Table 6) of the Z=0.0001, 0.0004, 0.0006 and 0.0008 models is shown in Figure 5 where, for each metallicity, the upper curve refers to the higher mass, and the luminosity levels increase from right to left; now the models completely cover the range observed for the RRd’s. An enlargement of the region of interest for our 6 LMC RRd’s is shown in Figure 6, where all the LMC RRd’s from A97 are also plotted.

We derived masses for our targets as well as for all RRd’s for which a metal abundance estimate is available (either direct or of the hosting system) interpolating between the set of pulsational models at the four indicated metallicities. For each object we obtained a table with four mass values, one for each Z, and a fit with a parabola produced a quadratic relation mass $`vs`$ Z. We then entered the empirical \[Fe/H\] value for the star (we do it for both metallicity scales used in this paper) and derived the mass with the associated error (based on the error on the fit and an assumed 0.2 dex error on \[Fe/H\]). In some cases this procedure was slightly modified because the parabolic interpolation was not completely stable: for NGC 2419 and NGC 6426 we also used the Z=0.0002 models; for CU Com, the most metal-poor object of the sample, we found more adequate to use only the models at Z=0.0001, and similarly for CA 48 and CB 61 we used only the models at Z=0.0008, and for CB 49 only the models either at Z=0.0006 (on C95 scale) or at Z=0.0008 (on G99 scale). Results for masses and associated errors for the 6 LMC RRd’s, for the MW field RRd’s, and for the two dSph’s are given in Table 7, while Table 8 presents results for galactic clusters RRd’s.

Note that mass values for M 3 are the most uncertain because of the lower precision of the periods P0 and P1 given for its RRd’s. However, this could not be an explanation for the rather unusual masses found for the two Oo I clusters, since IC 4499 has exactly the same behaviour, but periods as precise as those of the other GC’s.

### 4.3 The mass-metallicity distribution

Figure 7 shows graphically these results; in panel (a) \[Fe/H\]’s are on C95 scale, and in panel (b) on G99 metallicity scale. The almost flat distribution of masses with varying metallicities, particularly in Figure 7(a), shows no indication of a mass - metallicity relation. In fact, mass and metallicity have an opposite effect on the position of a RRd in the Petersen diagram, leading to a sort of degeneracy. A mass - metallicity relation is only obtained using a fixed metallicity to compute the pulsational models, then using the derived masses in connection with the empirical abundances.

This is what was often done in the past (e.g., BCCM96, and fig. 1 in Cox 1991), but it implies neglecting the effect of the metal abundance on the position in the Petersen diagram, hence an error on the derived mass for all objects whose metallicities differ from the metal abundance adopted in the pulsational model computations. Petersen (1991), on the basis of linear calculations, found that the difference in metal abundance between Oo I and Oo II clusters produces a very small mass variation, whereas Cox (1991) predicts that the mass of all globular cluster RRd variables should be close to 0.8 M when metallicity is taken into account and the OPAL opacity tables for the proper composition are used. Our nonlinear computations show that the metallicity effect on the Petersen diagram is strong, since it acts in different ways on the fundamental and first overtone periods, and heavily influences their ratio. This result is in agreement with the predictions by Kovacs, Buchler & Marom (1991) and Cox (1995), who also found a noticeable dependence of the Petersen diagram on metallicity when the new OPAL opacities are used in pulsation computations. In particular Cox (1995) performs computations with Z=0.0003 and find a mass increase of OoI RRd with respect to those derived from models at Z=0.0001. However he reproduces the IC 4999 RRd’s location with Z=0.0003, M=0.70 $`\pm `$ 0.05 M models, whereas the metallicity used in our paper for IC 4999 RRd’s is equal or larger than 0.0006, depending on the metallicity scale. This most likely justifies the larger masses we find for OoI RRd’s with respect to Cox (1995) results. In fact, as shown in Figure 6, our Z=0.0002-0.0004, M = 0.75 M models fit the IC 4999 RRd’s location too.

Further analysis on the metallicity dependence of pulsational models is required, since there is still the possibility that models could somehow overestimate the effect as a result of the adopted opacity tables (the most recent Livermore ones, Iglesias & Rogers 1996; see also the discussion by Cox 1991) or that, as suggested by Kovacs et al. (1992) the Petersen diagram depends not only on the heavy element abundance, but also on the chemical mixture, but this issue is quite beyond the scope of the present paper.

In Figure 7(a), the globular clusters of both Oosterhoff groups have similar masses, with very similar internal scatter, while in Figure 7(b) the two Oo I clusters M3 and IC 4499 show a (unrealistically?) higher mass than the Oo II GC’s, as a result of the different (higher) metallicity scale adopted. Indeed, some weak hints of a mass metallicity relation with larger masses at higher metal abundances could be seen also among the Oo I field and cluster Rd’s in Figure 7(a). Whether this finding might imply an actual difference between GC’s, or is simply to impute to a too high sensitivity of the model-derived masses on metallicity, not well tuned yet, is an open question. The offset between the two metallicity scales is about 0.2 dex at the typical metallicity of the Oo I clusters; comparison between Figure 7(a) and Figure 7(b) tells quite clearly that a systematic error of 0.2 dex in the metallicity of the Oo I clusters, through the effect on the RRd’s masses derived from pulsational models, goes in the direction of producing a mass-metallicity relation (of any kind) that might actually not be there. The arrows in Figure 7 show graphically the variation of derived masses for a 0.2 dex increase in the assumed \[Fe/H\], comparable to the error associated to abundances obtained with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ method.

The derived masses are not in contrast to values expected from stellar evolutionary models for an age of 10-14 Gyr, and no extensive mass loss on the red giant branch. This is shown in Figure 7, where the lines represent the mass at the RGB tip for ages of 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 Gyr; they are taken from the evolutionary models by Bertelli et al. (1994) for Z=0.004, 0.001, 0.0004, and by Girardi et al. (1996) for Z=0.0001, however any other choice of isochrone sets would produce similar results. Within the errorbars (see Tables 7, and 8) all objects in Figure 7(a) are well consistent with the plotted isochrone sets. Only the two most metal rich RRd’s of the LMC lie above the 10 Gyr isochrone; however, the large errorbar associated to their mass estimates on one hand, and/or the possibility for these field objects to be slightly younger that 10 Gyr might account for their position in the figure. Figure 7(b) is more difficult to explain, since RR’d in both M3 and IC4499 lie well above the 10 Gyr isochrone, even taking into account errorbars, and ages younger than 10 Gyr might be at the lower limit of the acceptable values for these GCs.

This could be due to uncertainty in the pulsational masses: models could have a too high sensitivity to abundances at these relatively large metallicities, either through the total heavy element abundance or the adopted chemical mixture. Another possibility is a too large abundance assumed for these clusters (e.g., an overestimate of about 0.15 dex in CG97 computations for intermediate-metallicity clusters). This last possibility can be checked for M 3, which has also been studied with high resolution spectroscopy and fine abundance analysis by Kraft et al. (1992); they find \[Fe/H\]=$`1.47\pm 0.01`$, to be compared to \[Fe/H\]=$`1.34\pm 0.02`$ in CG97. But also adopting the Kraft et al. value, the pulsational masses are larger than for the Oo II clusters. Furthermore, work on high resolution spectra of Turn Off stars in NGC 6752, obtained with UVES on the VLT (Gratton et al. 2001), obtains the same iron abundance already derived for giants in CG97 for this intermediate metallicity cluster (\[Fe/H\]=$`1.42`$). Small overestimates may be present, but do not seem to explain completely the effect noted in Figure 7(b). Finally, we wish to note that, based on a recent study of M 92 by King, Stephens & Boesgaard (1998), and on spectra of Turn Off stars in NGC 6397 (Gratton et al. 2001), it may be necessary to reassess also the low metallicity end of the GC scale, in the sense of lower abundances: this would go in the direction of increasing the metallicity difference between Oo I and Oo II clusters. Discussing the validity of metallcity scales is outside the scope of the present paper, and we prefer to derive masses using different ones, leaving to the reader the final choice about which one to believe better.

In any case, the major result here is that masses of Oo I and Oo II clusters do not significantly differ, or, if they do, they differ in the sense of Oo I GC’s having higher masses, contrary to what usually accepted. This stems from the use of appropriate metallicities in the pulsational models. This result is summarized in Table 9 where we also compare the average mass values derived for the field and cluster variables of differing Oosterhoff types, adopting the two metallicity scales, separately. The cut between Oosterhoff types was set at \[Fe/H\]=$``$1.7 and $``$1.5 in ZW84 and CG97 respectively, with the Oo II variables being at \[Fe/H\]$``$1.7 ($``$1.5).

The field RRd’s have a larger scatter, both in metallicity and in mass; however most stars lie in the same region of the diagram occupied by the globular cluster stars. The bulk of the field Galactic RRd’s as well as RRd’s in Draco and Sculptor concentrate in the low metallicity region occupied by the Oo II clusters, while almost all of the LMC RRd’s in our sample are in the region of the Oo I clusters, or extend further towards metallicity values which have no counterparts in our Galaxy or in the two dSph’s where RRd’s had been found in the past. This confirms C2001 finding that pulsational properties of the RR Lyrae variables in their observed regions of the LMC bar seem to follow the period-amplitude relation of Oo I clusters like M 3.

Finally note that, no matter which metallicity scale is adopted, cluster and field stars of similar metallicity and/or Oosterhoff type do not show any systematic difference in the derived mass.

## 5 Summary and conclusions

In order to investigate the possibility of a systematic difference in the mass and mass-metallicity distribution for RR Lyrae in globular clusters and in the general field, we have used the Preston $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}`$ method to derive metallicities for 6 RRd’s (double pulsating variables) in the bar of the LMC. We have then combined these values with literature data for four field Galactic RRd’s, making up a total of 10 field RRd’s whose metallicity has been directly measured, and with data for RRd’s in the Draco and Sculptor galaxies, for which the same metallicity as the host galaxy has been assumed. For these stars, pulsational masses were derived using an extension of the BCCM96 models to enlarged mass and metallicity ranges, purposefully computed for this paper. The same procedure has been applied to globular clusters RRd’s, both of Oo I and Oo II types, similarly finding their masses.

We have then compared the position of field and cluster RRd’s in the mass-metallicity diagram: we find that, on average, the two samples follow the same mass-metallicity distribution.

Since field and cluster RR Lyrae’s also obey the same mass-luminosity-metallicity relation (Catelan 1998, Carretta et al. 2000a), we conclude that they should also obey the same luminosity-metallicity relation, and that there is no difference in luminosity between field and cluster RR Lyrae’s. This result implies that results found for field RR Lyrae can be safely used also to derive properties of cluster RR Lyrae’s, like e.g. the absolute luminosity and the absolute luminosity-metallicity relation.

We thank G. Bono for having provided data in tabular form and M. Tosi for very useful discussions on the mass-metallicity relation between Oosterhoff groups. We also wish to thank the anonymous referee for the suggested improvements which clarify our meaning. This research has made use of the Simbad database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. This work was partially supported by MURST - Cofin98 under the project ”Stellar Evolution.”


text:
# Shell Stabilization of Super- and Hyperheavy Nuclei Without Magic Gaps

\[

## Abstract

Quantum stabilization of superheavy elements is quantified in terms of the shell-correction energy. We compute the shell correction using self-consistent nuclear models: the non-relativistic Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approach and the relativistic mean-field model, for a number of parametrizations. All the forces applied predict a broad valley of shell stabilization around $`Z=120`$ and $`N=172`$-184. We also predict two broad regions of shell stabilization in hyperheavy elements with $`N258`$ and $`N308`$. Due to the large single-particle level density, shell corrections in the superheavy elements differ markedly from those in lighter nuclei. With increasing proton and neutron numbers, the regions of nuclei stabilized by shell effects become poorly localized in particle number, and the familiar pattern of shells separated by magic gaps is basically gone.

\]

The synthesis of superheavy elements (SHE) has been in the focus of heavy-ion physics for more than three decades. The last few years have seen significant progress in our quest for reaching the region of long-lived SHE. Light isotopes of the elements $`Z=110`$-112 have been safely established at GSI Darmstadt and JINR Dubna . These isotopes are expected to be strongly deformed thanks to the (predicted) deformed shells $`Z=108`$ and $`N=162`$ (see Refs.  and references quoted therein). These new nuclides could be unambiguously identified by their characteristic $`\alpha `$-decay chains leading to already known isotopes. Even heavier and more neutron-rich nuclides have been announced just recently by GSI ($`{}_{160}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{270}`$110) ; Dubna ($`{}_{}{}^{283}{}_{171}{}^{}`$112, $`{}_{}{}^{287289}{}_{173175}{}^{}`$114, and $`{}_{}{}^{292}{}_{176}{}^{}`$116) ; and Berkeley ($`{}_{}{}^{293}{}_{175}{}^{}`$118) . The $`\alpha `$-decay chains of those nuclei cannot be linked to any known nuclides as they end with fissioning nuclei. However, these results yet need to be confirmed .

The mere existence of SHE relies on quantum mechanics. According to the classical liquid-drop picture, all superheavy nuclei should be unstable against spontaneous fission — due to the huge Coulomb repulsion. However, additional stabilization of binding energy is possible thanks to shell effects which generate local minima in the nuclear potential energy surface in the regions where the level density around the Fermi level is lowered. The detailed energy balance between the local minima is dictated by the distribution of spherical single-particle orbitals. In some cases the minima are sufficiently deep to stabilize the nucleus against spontaneous fission; the delay in the spontaneous fission half-lives due to the shell effects can be as much as 15 orders of magnitude for $`Z106`$ .

The half-lives of the known isotopes of elements with $`Z>105`$ are predominantly limited by $`\alpha `$ decay and decrease from 0.9 s for $`{}_{157}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{263}`$106 to 0.2 ms for $`{}_{165}{}^{277}112`$. These isotopes decay mostly by groups of successive $`\alpha `$ particles. Although shell corrections strongly influence $`Q_\alpha `$ values, there is no simple correlation between the magnitude of shell effects and $`\alpha `$-decay half-lives . For instance, if the shell corrections are nearly constant in a broad region of particle numbers, this will have very little influence on $`Q_\alpha `$ values; hence on $`T_\alpha `$.

The subject of the present paper is the shell stabilization quantified in terms of the shell correction $`E_{\mathrm{shell}}`$. It is obtained from decomposing the self-consistent binding energy $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ as

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}\stackrel{~}{E}+E_{\mathrm{shell}},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is the average energy that changes smoothly with particle number. (In microscopic-macroscopic approaches, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is approximated by the liquid drop or droplet model energy.) The shell stabilization of SHE as predicted by macroscopic-microscopic models has already been extensively discussed in the literature . It is the aim of the present study to analyze shell corrections in the superheavy region in the framework of self-consistent mean-field models. To this end, we apply the two most widely used approaches, namely the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock (SHF) theory and the relativistic mean-field (RMF) theory. (For a brief overview, see Ref. .) In the previous paper by Kruppa et al. , the shell energy extracted from self-consistent single-particle spectra along a few selected isotopic and isotonic chains was discussed. Here we present a large-scale survey of spherical shell energies throughout the whole landscape of conceivable SHE.

There is a world of different parametrizations for SHF as well as RMF. They agree more or less in their performance for stable nuclei but can yield differing predictions in extrapolations. For example, magic shell closures in SHE are at variance . Interestingly, it has been concluded in Ref.  that both the SHF and RMF calculations were internally consistent. That is, all the Skyrme models with conventional spin-orbit force predicted the strongest spherical shell effect at $`N=184`$ and $`Z=124`$, 126, while all the RMF forces clearly preferred $`N=172`$ and $`Z=120`$, and SHF parameterizations with relativistically extended spin-orbit interaction were in between.

In view of these differences, we consider several parametrizations per model. We use a selection of forces which have been found earlier to represent the whole range of possible predictions for spherical shell closures. For the RMF, we consider the parametrizations NL3  and NL-Z2 . Both represent recent fits which perform very well with respect to global ground-state properties but differ in detail. NL3 reproduces well isotopic trends, while NL-Z2 also fits the electromagnetic nuclear form factor. For the SHF, we consider SkP  as a representative for a force with effective nucleon mass $`m^{}/m=1`$, leading to a comparatively large density of single-particle levels. All other SHF forces employed here have smaller effective masses around $`m^{}/m0.7`$. SLy6  was adjusted with particular emphasis on isotopic trends and neutron matter. SkI3 and SkI4  employ an extended form of the spin-orbit force which was found to be necessary for a description of isotope shifts in heavy Pb isotopes. For SkI3, the extension was restricted to map the spin-orbit structure of the RMF as closely as possible.

The shell energies are computed using the same prescription as outlined in Ref. . This procedure, based on the Green’s function approach to the level density, is better suited for the calculation of weakly bound systems than the traditional approach. This is important in the context of nuclei considered here since some of the predicted regions of shell stability lie very close to the proton drip line. In our calculations, we include a large space of single-particle states up to 50 MeV above the Fermi energy. Since most of these states are continuum (positive-energy) states, the contribution from a particle gas (treated in the same numerical box) has to be removed . Pairing correlations are ignored.

The calculations are restricted to spherical symmetry. Consequently, the calculated shell corrections represents in most cases an upper bound. In many cases, deformation does provide an additional binding, i.e., pulls to even stronger shell stabilization. Unfortunately, large-scale symmetry-unconstrained calculations of shell effects in the SHE are currently beyond our reach. This is because triaxial  and reflection-asymmetric  shapes must be considered together with more exotic topologies (e.g., bubble , toroidal, and rod structures) which might become favored for the heaviest systems investigated here.

For nuclei up to $`Z=82`$, $`E_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ is always sharply peaked at shell closures . Figure 1 shows an example from the Sn region. The magic numbers $`Z=50`$, $`N=50`$, and $`N=82`$ clearly stick out for all forces. One basically sees sharp stripes along magic proton and neutron numbers. All forces show the same magic numbers, but there are some differences in detail. The overall strength of the shell effect seems to scale with effective mass, with SkP giving the smallest shell energies, while they are most pronounced for NL3.

The systematics of shell corrections change dramatically when going to SHE; see Fig. 2. Instead of narrow stripes of large $`E_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ localized around magic numbers, all forces employed predict a wide area of shell stabilization which spreads over all shell closures predicted by the various forces. Unlike in normal nuclei, large shell corrections in SHE can appear slightly away from shell closures. This was, in fact, already recognized in macroscopic-microscopic models . As a consequence, the significant differences seen in the prediction of magic shells through various binding-energy indicators (such as $`\delta _{2q}`$ ) are much mellowed by the generally softer pattern of the shell energy. We will discuss that aspect in more detail below. One of the common features seen in Fig. 2 is that the region of nuclei with largest shell corrections forms a triangle with the base at $`N=184`$ and the outer corner at $`{}_{172}{}^{292}120`$. This happens because the existence of the $`N=172`$ neutron subshell is strongly coupled to the proton subshell closure at $`Z=120`$ .

At second glance, however, one also sees differences among various parameterizations. More stable nuclei are found above $`Z=120`$ for SkP which predicts the proton gap at $`Z=126`$, while the center of gravity is clearly shifted below $`Z=120`$ for SkI4 with its strong $`Z=114`$ shell effect. The other forces reside in between. A somewhat different bias is also seen for the extension in neutron direction. SkP predict strong shell effects for a number of nuclei with $`N>184`$, while other forces fill basically the landscape between the two magic numbers $`N=172`$ and $`N=184`$. There are also some differences concerning the overall area of the stabilized region. For instance, NL3 makes it much smaller than all other forces. Of course, for a quantitative discussion, one needs to account for deformation effects which will serve to extend the island of shell stabilization. For example, the well-known region of deformed shell-stabilized SHE located around $`{}_{162}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{270}`$Hs108  is missing in Fig. 2, as well as the deformed shell closure at $`N=174`$ .

Figure 3 takes a daring glance to even heavier nuclei with $`Z>126`$ (hyperheavy elements). There are several broad valleys of spherical shell stability showing up that extend around the actual shell closures. This is a common feature of very heavy nuclear systems. Differences between the forces, however, grow dramatically in the hyperheavy region. The upper limit for the plots is chosen to stay below the region where the novel topologies, i.e., semi-bubbles and bubbles, are believed to coexist . As the RMF predicts the lower border of this transitional region at smaller values of $`Z`$ than SHF, we set different upper limits of the displayed area in both approaches. By inspecting Fig. 3 carefully, one can see rather large differences in $`E_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ predicted in different calculations. That is no surprise because fine details of shell structure play an increasing role with increasing nuclear size. Nevertheless, there still remains an overall agreement concerning the position of the regions of stability, around $`N=258`$ and around $`N=308`$. The RMF parametrizations are more pessimistically predicting only faint effects, while SHF produces a strong stabilization at $`N=308`$.

It is an open question whether for these hyperheavy elements the actual shell corrections are sufficient to prevent (or significantly slow down) spontaneous fission. One would expect that, with increasing $`Z`$, the Coulomb force would act increasingly against stability. In particular, the role of triaxial or reflection asymmetric degrees of freedom must be considered when assessing the stability of hyperheavy nuclei to fission.

Figure 4 shows the single-particle spectra for three typical nuclei from the three regions of large shell correction discussed in this paper. For 132Sn, proton and neutron magic gaps appear in all models. The patterns of single-particle levels are significantly different for the two regions of SHE. Firstly, with increased mass, the overall level density grows as $`A^{1/3}`$. Secondly, no pronounced and uniquely preferred energy gaps appear in the spectrum. This shows that shell closures which are to be associated with the gaps in the spectrum are not robust in that region. Tiny changes in, e.g., spin-orbit properties can shift the gaps substantially; see  for a thorough discussion. Protons are more sensitive in that respect than neutrons.

Interestingly, similar problems are encountered in atomic calculations of the electron shell structure of SHE . Due to the large density of valence electron shells, it is extremely difficult to make robust predictions of chemical properties of SHE.

A close inspection of Fig. 4 allows for a rather good understanding of the shell-correction pattern discussed above. For instance, in $`{}_{184}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{310}`$126 there appear low-$`j`$ single-particle orbitals at the Fermi surface ($`3p_{1/2}`$ and $`3p_{3/2}`$ in the protons between $`Z=120`$ and 126 and $`4s_{1/2}`$, $`3d_{3/2}`$, and $`3d_{5/2}`$ in the neutrons between $`N=172`$ and 184). The low (2$`j`$+1) degeneracy of these shells gives rise to reduced single-particle level densities; hence to a large negative shell-correction energy for a whole range of neighboring nuclei.

For hyperheavy nuclei, the level density is even higher, and no strong shell closures are predicted in most models. It is only in SLy6 and SkI3 that a relative large $`N=308`$ gap is predicted, bounded by high-$`j`$ shells. This is consistent with Fig. 3 which shows a rather strong neutron shell effect at $`N=308`$ for these two forces.

In summary, we have investigated the spherical shell-stability of superheavy elements using state-of-the-art self-consistent models. The investigation of the systematics of shell energy reveals a new feature when going to very heavy systems. Beyond $`Z=82`$ and $`N=126`$, the familiar localization of the shell effect at magic numbers is basically gone. Instead, the theory predicts fairly wide areas of large shell stabilization. Consequently, there is a good chance to reach shell-stabilized SHE experimentally using a range of beam-target combinations.

The disappearance of a familiar pattern of magic numbers and the appearance of broad valleys of shell stability is due to (i) the rather large single-particle level density, and (ii) the appearance of many low-$`j`$ shells around the Fermi level. This explains the robustness of the shell correction in a rather large range of SHE and at the same time the volatility of magic shell closures.

The results presented here have to be taken with a grain of salt. Large shell correction is a neccesary, but not sufficient, condition for the appearance of long-lived SHE. The calculations presented in this paper serve as a starting point for subsequent studies of deformed shell effects and fission barriers in superheavy and hyperheavy nuclei.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Project No. 06 ER 808; by Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI); and by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract Nos. DE-FG02-96ER40963 (University of Tennessee), DE-FG05-87ER40361 (Joint Institute for Heavy Ion Research), and DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC (Oak Ridge National Laboratory).