text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An exciting consequence of the discovery of D-branes  was their close relation to gauge theories. The worldvolume degrees of freedom of a single D$`p`$-brane are $`9p`$ scalar fields and a $`U(1)`$ gauge field in $`p+1`$ dimensions. The former describe the transversal fluctuations of the D-brane while the latter describes an open string longitudinal to the brane. For slowly varying fields, the effective action governing the low-energy dynamics of a D-brane is known through all orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$: it is the ten-dimensional supersymmetric Born-Infeld action, dimensionally reduced to $`p+1`$ dimensions . Its supersymmetric extension was obtained in . The knowledge of the full effective action was crucial for numerous applications.

Once several, say $`n`$, D-branes coincide, the gauge group is enhanced from $`U(1)`$ to $`U(n)`$, . The non-abelian extension of the Born-Infeld theory is not known yet. The most natural form for it is the symmetrized trace proposal in . However, as shown in  and , this does not correctly capture all of the D-brane dynamics. Using the mass spectrum as a guideline, partial higher order results were obtained in . In , $`\kappa `$-symmetry was shown to be a powerful but technically involved tool to fix the ordenings ambiguities.

In , it was pointed out that BPS configurations of D$`p`$-branes at angles, , , , might provide an important tool to probe the structure of the effective action. Upon T-dualizing we end up with D$`2p`$-branes in the presence of constant magnetic background fields. In the large volume limit ($`\alpha ^{}0)`$ the BPS conditions define a stable holomorphic vector bundle . Moving away from the large volume limit, these conditions receive $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections. As a BPS configuration necessarily solves the equations of motion, we obtain relations between different orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$ in the effective action.

In the present paper we start the exploration of the consequences of this idea. As we consider the present paper as a “feasibility study” we will make two simplifying assumptions: we work in the limit of slowly varying fieldstrengths and restrict our attention to the abelian case. The first assumption is translated by the fact that we will ignore terms containing derivatives of the fieldstrength. The second assumption is implemented by taking the magnetic background fields to live in the Cartan subalgebra of $`u(n)`$. As a starting point we take the theory in the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit. I.e. we take the Yang-Mills action reduced to the torus of $`U(n)`$ in the presence of magnetic background fields which define a stable holomorphic vector bundle. Subsequently we add arbitrary powers of the fieldstrength to it and demand that the BPS configurations solve the equations of motion. This problem turns out to have a unique solution. The resulting action is precisely the abelian Born-Infeld action and the stability condition, also known as the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau condition , acquires $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections which are unique as well.

This result provides a serious incentive to extend the analysis to the much harder non-abelian case . In addition, there is a suspicion that, because of the severely restricted form of the supersymmetry algebra in ten dimensions, the BI action is the only supersymmetric deformation of abelian Yang-Mills222This was suggested by Savdeep Sethi.. E.g. supersymmetry fixes in the abelian case uniquely the fourth order term in the BI action . As BPS configurations are intimately related to supersymmetry, we believe that our present paper lends strong support to this claim.

Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section we review BPS configurations of D$`p`$-branes at angles. The subsequent section relates this to supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. Using an example, we outline our strategy in the third section. Section 4 provides the proof of our assertion. We discuss our results and diverse applications in the final section. Conventions are given in the first appendix while the second gathers some useful results concerning the abelian Born-Infeld action.

## 2 BPS configurations from string theory

Simple BPS configurations of D-branes arise as follows , , . One starts with two coinciding D$`p`$-branes. Keeping one of them fixed, one performs a Lorentz transformation on the other one. For all boosts and generic rotations, all supersymmetry gets broken in this way. However there are particular rotations for which some of the supersymmetry is preserved.

Consider two D$`p`$-branes in the $`(1,3,\mathrm{},2p1)`$ directions. Keeping one of them fixed, rotate the other one subsequently over an angle $`\varphi _1`$ in the (1 2) plane, over an angle $`\varphi _2`$ in the (3 4) plane, …, over an angle $`\varphi _p`$ in the $`(2p\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}p)`$ plane. The following table summarizes for various values of $`p`$ the BPS conditions on the angles (taken to be non-zero unless stated otherwise) and the number of remaining supersymmetries.

| $`p`$ | BPS condition | susy’s |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2=2\pi n`$ | 8 |
| 3 | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3=2\pi n`$ | 4 |
| 4 | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3+\varphi _4=2\pi n`$ | 2 |
|  | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2=2\pi n`$, $`\varphi _3+\varphi _4=2\pi m`$ | 4 |
|  | $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\varphi _3=\varphi _4`$ | 6 |

In the table, we took $`n,m`$.

In order to make contact with the Born-Infeld theory, we T-dualize the system in the $`2,4,\mathrm{},2p`$ directions. In this way, we end up with two coinciding D$`2p`$-branes with magnetic fields turned on. Indeed, having two D$`2p`$-branes extended in the 1, 2, …, 2p directions with magnetic flux $`F_{2i\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}i}`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$,

$`F_{2i\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}i}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_i+f_i& 0\\ 0& g_if_i\end{array}\right),`$ (2.3)
we can choose a gauge such that the potentials have the form,

$`A_{2i1}=0,A_{2i}=F_{2i\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}i}x^{2i1}.`$ (2.4)
T-dualizing back, we end up with two D$`p`$-branes with transversal coordinates given by

$`X^{2i}=2\pi \alpha ^{}A_{2i}.`$ (2.5)
Using eq. (2.4) in eq. (2.5), we recognize the original configuration with the two D$`p`$-branes at angles with the angles given by

$`\varphi _i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}(2\pi \alpha ^{}(g_i+f_i))\mathrm{arctan}(2\pi \alpha ^{}(g_if_i))`$ (2.6)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha ^{}f_i}{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(g_i^2f_i^2)}}.`$
In the table below we translate the BPS conditions on the angles in BPS conditions on the fieldstrengths, choosing for simplicity the $`U(1)`$ part to be zero, $`g_i=0`$.

| $`p`$ | BPS condition | fieldstrengths |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2=2\pi n`$ | $`f_1+f_2=0`$ |
| 3 | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3=2\pi n`$ | $`f_1+f_2+f_3=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2f_1f_2f_3`$ |
| 4 | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3+\varphi _4=2\pi n`$ | $`f_1+f_2+f_3+f_4=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(f_1f_2f_3+`$ |
|  |  | $`f_1f_3f_4+f_1f_2f_4+f_2f_3f_4)`$ |
|  | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2=2\pi n`$, $`\varphi _3+\varphi _4=2\pi m`$ | $`f_1+f_2=f_3+f_4=0`$ |
|  | $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\varphi _3=\varphi _4`$ | $`f_1=f_2=f_3=f_4`$ |

One notices that for $`p>2`$, the BPS condition expressed in terms of fieldstrengths corresponding to the angular relation $`_i\varphi _i=2\pi n`$, gets $`\alpha ^{}^2`$ corrections. In the next, except when stated otherwise, we will always study BPS conditions of this type. In the remainder of this paper, we will put $`2\pi \alpha ^{}=1`$.

## 3 BPS configurations in supersymmetric Yang-Mills

The supersymmetric $`U(n)`$ Yang-Mills theory in $`d=10`$ is given by333We ignore an overall multiplicative constant.

$`𝒮={\displaystyle d^{10}x\text{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }D/\psi \right)},`$ (3.1)
where $`\psi `$ is a Majorana-Weyl spinor which transforms in the adjoint representation of $`U(n)`$. The action is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations rules

$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ}\gamma _\mu \psi ,`$ (3.2)
$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }ϵ+\eta ,`$ (3.3)
with $`A_\mu `$ the $`U(n)`$ gauge potential and $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ constant Majorana-Weyl spinors.

The leading term of the effective theory describing $`n`$ coinciding D$`2p`$-branes ($`p2`$) is nothing but eq. (3.1) dimensionally reduced to $`2p+1`$ dimensions. The gauge potentials in the transverse directions appear as $`92p`$ scalar fields in the adjoint representation of $`U(n)`$, which are reinterpreted as the transversal coordinates of the D-branes. As they will not play any significant role in this paper, we drop them from now on.

We now proceed with the analysis of eq. (3.3) in the presence of magnetic background fields and demand that some supersymmetry is preserved. I.e. we investigate whether for certain magnetic background fields there is an $`ϵ`$ such that $`\delta \psi =0`$. In fact we can use the $`\eta `$ transformation in eq. (3.3) to reduce any $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ from $`u(n)`$ to $`su(n)`$. We start by switching on $`F_{2i\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}i}su(n)`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, which satisfy the BPS condition suggested by D-branes at angles

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}F_{2i\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}i}=0.`$ (3.4)
For further convenience, we switch to complex coordinates (for details, we refer to appendix A), where we have that $`F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}=iF_{2\alpha \mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha }`$. Eq. (3.4) becomes in complex coordinates,444Unless stated otherwise, we sum over repeated indices.

$`F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}=0.`$ (3.5)
We get that

$`\delta \psi =F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}\gamma _{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}ϵ=0,`$ (3.6)
holds provided that

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{p}{}}}(1+\gamma _{1\overline{1}\alpha \overline{\alpha }})\xi ,`$ (3.7)
with $`\xi `$ an arbitrary Majorana-Weyl spinor. This reduces the number of supersymmetry charges from 16 to $`16/2^{p1}`$.

It is not hard to check that when all magnetic fields are switched on, $`\delta \psi =0`$ still holds provided the magnetic fields do not only satisfy eq. (3.5) but

$`F_{\alpha \beta }=F_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=0,\alpha ,\beta \{1,\mathrm{},p\},`$ (3.8)
as well. For $`p=2`$, eqs. (3.5) and (3.8) are nothing but the well known instanton equations. In general eq. (3.8) defines a holomorphic vector bundle while eq. (3.5), which can be rewritten in a more covariant form,

$`g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=0,`$ (3.9)
is the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau condition for stability of the vector bundle .

Remains to check whether these configurations solve the equations of motion, $`D^\mu F_{\mu \nu }=0`$. In complex coordinates, this becomes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\overline{\alpha }}F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}+D_\alpha F_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`D_{\overline{\beta }}F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+2D_\alpha F_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }},`$
where we used the Bianchi identities. This is indeed satisfied if eqs. (3.5) and (3.8) hold. Note that magnetic field configurations satisfying eqs. (3.5) and (3.8) always solve the equations of motion and always preserve supersymmetry, even when they are not constant. As a consequence, we will not demand them to be constant anymore.

## 4 Deformations

A natural question which arises is whether we can deform the Yang-Mills action in such a way that the BPS configurations given in the previous section remain solutions to the equations of motion. Though the discussion in the previous section holds for both the abelian as well as the non-abelian case, we focus in the remainder of this paper on the abelian case. In this way we avoid the additional complication of having to take the different ordenings into account. From now on the magnetic fields take values in the Cartan subalgebra of $`u(n)`$ and we postpone the study of the non-abelian extension to a future paper . In addition, we will work under the assumption that the fieldstrengths vary slowly. In other words, we add terms polynomial in the fieldstrength to the action and ignore terms containing derivatives of the fieldstrength (acceleration terms). We will further comment on these assumptions in the concluding section. Under these assumptions, we arrive at equations of motion of the form

$`D^\mu F_{\mu \nu }+xD^\mu (F_{\mu \rho }F^{\rho \sigma }F_{\sigma \nu })+yD^\mu (F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\sigma \rho })+𝒪(F^5)=0,`$ (4.1)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are real constants. As we saw before, the analysis of the leading order term led to the conditions (in complex coordinates)

$`F_{\alpha \beta }=F_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=0,`$ (4.2)
$`g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}=0,`$ (4.3)
where in the last line we used the fact that we are working in flat space. Passing to complex coordinates while implementing the holomorphicity conditions eq. (4.2), eq. (4.1) becomes,

$`D_{\overline{\alpha }}F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}+xD_{\overline{\alpha }}(F_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }}F_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\beta }})+2yD_{\overline{\alpha }}(F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}F_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\gamma }})+𝒪(F^5)=0.`$ (4.4)
Upon using the Bianchi identities and eq. (4.2), this results in

$`D_{\overline{\beta }}(F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{3}}F_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }}F_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\alpha }})+(2y+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}})F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}D_{\overline{\alpha }}(F_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\gamma }})+xF_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\beta }}D_{\overline{\gamma }}F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+`$
$`2yF_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\gamma }}D_{\overline{\beta }}F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+𝒪(F^5)=0,`$ (4.5)
which vanishes if

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{x}{4}},`$ (4.6)
holds and provided that we deform the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau condition, eq. (4.3), to

$`F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{3}}F_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }}F_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\alpha }}+𝒪(F^5)=0.`$ (4.7)
Rescaling $`F`$ and multiplying the equation of motion with a constant, we can put $`x=1`$. Upon restoring the $`SO(2p)`$ invariance, we find that the equations of motion integrate to the action

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{2p+1}x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu _1\mu _2}F^{\mu _2\mu _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F_{\mu _1\mu _2}F^{\mu _2\mu _3}F_{\mu _3\mu _4}F^{\mu _4\mu _1}`$ (4.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}(F_{\mu _1\mu _2}F^{\mu _2\mu _1})^2+𝒪(F^6)),`$
which, modulo an undetermined overall multiplicative constant, we recognize as the Born-Infeld action through order $`F^4`$ (see appendix B).

In a similar way, one can push this calculation an order higher by adding the most general integrable terms through fifth order in $`F`$ to the equations of motion. Again we require that the (deformed) BPS solutions solve the equations of motion. The scale of the fieldstrengths was already fixed at previous order. In this calculation one needs e.g. that the two last terms in eq. (4.5) get completed to a derivative of eq. (4.7). At the end one finds that the equations of motion get uniquely fixed and they indeed integrate to the Born-Infeld action through sixth order in $`F`$. Furthermore the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau condition acquiers an order $`F^5`$ correction,

$`F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}F_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }}F_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}F_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }}F_{\gamma \overline{\delta }}F_{\delta \overline{ϵ}}F_{ϵ\overline{\zeta }}F_{\zeta \overline{\alpha }}+𝒪(F^7)=0.`$ (4.9)
These results raise the suspicion that the Born-Infeld action is the only deformation of Yang-Mills which allows for BPS solutions of the form eqs. (4.2-4.3). Furthermore one expects that the holomorphicity conditions, eq. (4.2) remain unchanged, while the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau condition, eq. (4.3) receives $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections. In the next section, we will show that this is indeed the case.

## 5 All order results

In this section we will construct the unique deformation of abelian Yang-Mills which allows for BPS solutions which are in leading order given by eqs. (4.2-4.3). Consider a general term in the deformed Yang-Mills lagrangian,

$`\lambda _{(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)}(\mathrm{tr}F^2)^{p_1}(\mathrm{tr}F^4)^{p_2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{tr}F^{2n})^{p_n},p_i,i\{1,\mathrm{},n\},`$ (5.1)
where $`\lambda _{(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)}`$. Dropping the overall $`\lambda _{(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)}`$, this term contributes to the equations of motion by,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}4jp_jD^\mu \left(\left(F^{2j1}\right)_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{tr}F^2)^{p_1}(\mathrm{tr}F^4)^{p_2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{tr}F^{2j})^{p_j1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{tr}F^{2n})^{p_n}\right).`$ (5.2)
Passing to complex coordinates, eq. (A.1), we get

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}4jp_j\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n1}D_{\overline{\alpha }}\left(\left(F^{2j1}\right)_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(F^2)^{p_1}\mathrm{}(F^{2j})^{p_j1}\mathrm{}(F^{2n})^{p_n}\right),`$ (5.3)
where

$`(F^m)_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ $``$ $`F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }_2}F_{\alpha _2\overline{\alpha }_3}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _m\overline{\beta }}`$
$`(F^m)`$ $``$ $`F_{\alpha _1\overline{\alpha }_2}F_{\alpha _2\overline{\alpha }_3}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _m\overline{\alpha }_1}.`$ (5.4)
Using the Bianchi identies and eq. (4.2), we find for the action of the derivative operator $`D_{\overline{\alpha }}`$ on $`(F^{2j1})_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$:

$`D_{\overline{\alpha }}(F^{2j1})_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}={\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{2j2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}\left(D_{\overline{\alpha }}F^h\right)(F^{2j1h})_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j1}}D_{\overline{\beta }}(F^{2j1}).`$ (5.5)
Implementing this result in eq. (5.3) yields,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}4jp_j\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n1}\left(\right({\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{2j2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}\left(D_{\overline{\alpha }}F^h\right)(F^{2j1h})_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j1}}D_{\overline{\beta }}(F^{2j1}))`$
$`(F^2)^{p_1}\mathrm{}(F^{2j})^{p_j1}\mathrm{}(F^{2n})^{p_n}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{g=1,gj}{\overset{n}{}}}p_g\left(D_{\overline{\alpha }}F^{2g}\right)\left(F^{2j1}\right)_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(F^2)^{p_1}\mathrm{}(F^{2j})^{p_j1}\mathrm{}(F^{2g})^{p_g1}\mathrm{}(F^{2n})^{p_n}+`$
$`(p_j1)\left(D_{\overline{\alpha }}F^{2j}\right)\left(F^{2j1}\right)_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(F^2)^{p_1}\mathrm{}(F^{2g})^{p_j2}\mathrm{}(F^{2n})^{p_n}).`$ (5.6)
We now study the different types of terms in the equations of motion. We will determine the numerical prefactors such that the (deformed) BPS configurations solve them.

* Terms of the form $`D_{\overline{\beta }}F^{2r1}`$: there is one of these terms in each order and they add up to,

$`D_{\overline{\beta }}\left(41\lambda _{(1)}F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{42}{3}}\lambda _{(0,1)}(F^3)_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{43}{5}}\lambda _{(0,0,1)}(F^5)_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (5.7)
In leading order it vanishes because of eq. (4.3). It is clear that the all order expression should vanish by itself thereby giving the deformed Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau condition,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1}}\lambda _{(1)}F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda _{(0,1)}(F^3)_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\lambda _{(0,0,1)}(F^5)_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+\mathrm{}=0.`$ (5.8)
* Terms of the form $`\left(D_{\overline{\alpha }}F^{2r}\right)(F^{2l1})_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(\mathrm{tail})`$, where

$`(\mathrm{tail})=(F^2)^{p_1}(F^4)^{p_2}\mathrm{}(F^{2n})^{p_n}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(F^{2i})^{p_i}:`$ (5.9)
as these terms involve traces over even powers of the fieldstrength they can never be cancelled by a condition as eq. (5.8), so they should cancel order by order among themselves. If we look at the first versus the two last terms of eq. (5), we see immediately that a term of this form originates from two different terms in the action, namely $`(\mathrm{tr}F^{2l+2r})(\mathrm{tail})`$ and $`(\mathrm{tr}F^{2l})(\mathrm{tr}F^{2r})(\mathrm{tail})`$. Suppose first that $`lr`$. Requiring such a term to vanish results, using the first two terms in eq. (5), in the following condition,

$`(l+r)(p_{l+r}+1)\lambda _{(\mathrm{},p_l,\mathrm{},p_r,\mathrm{},p_{l+r}+1,\mathrm{})}+`$
$`4lr(p_l+1)(p_r+1)\lambda _{(\mathrm{},p_l+1,\mathrm{},p_r+1,\mathrm{},p_{l+r},\mathrm{})}=0.`$ (5.10)
The Born-Infeld coefficients eq. (B.4) satisfy this condition. Analogously, using the first and third term in eq. (5), we get when $`l=r`$,

$`(p_{2l}+1)\lambda _{(\mathrm{},p_l,\mathrm{},p_{2l}+1,\mathrm{})}+2l(p_l+2)(p_l+1)\lambda _{(\mathrm{},p_l+2,\mathrm{},p_{2l},\mathrm{})}=0,`$ (5.11)
again satisfied by the Born-Infeld coefficients eq. (B.4). Note that the two conditions eq. (5) and eq. (5.11) are enough to determine all coefficients at a certain order if one is known. We give an example of the chain of relations at order $`F^8`$,

So, up until now, we find Born-Infeld modulo a proportionality factor at each order,

$`\lambda _{(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)}={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k+1}}{4^k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1!\mathrm{}p_n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1^{p_1}\mathrm{}n^{p_n}}}X_{{\scriptscriptstyle jp_j}},`$ (5.12)
where $`X_{_{j=1}^njp_j}`$ are unknown constants.
* Terms of the form $`\left(D_{\overline{\beta }}F^{2r1}\right)(\mathrm{tail})`$: they relate different orders in $`F`$. The only way to cancel these terms is by virtue of eq. (5.8). Using eqs. (5) and (5.12) we find that such a term appears in the equation of motion as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{_lp_l}}{2^{_lp_l}_l(p_l!)_ll^{p_l}}}{\displaystyle \frac{X_{_llp_l+r}}{2r1}}\left(D_{\overline{\beta }}F^{2r1}\right)(\mathrm{tail}),`$ (5.13)
where all summations and products run from $`l=1`$ through $`l=n`$. For a given tail, the sum over $`r`$ of such terms has to vanish through the use of eq. (5.8). This determines all unknowns $`X_r`$ in terms of two,

$`X_r=X_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_2}{X_1}}\right)^{r2},r3.`$ (5.14)
We still have the freedom to rescale the fieldstrength in the equations of motion by an arbitrary factor and we also note that the equations of motion are only determined modulo an arbitrary multiplicative factor. In other words, we can only determine the action modulo an overall multiplicative factor. This freedom can be used to put $`X_1=X_2=1`$. Combining this with eq. (5.14), we get

$`X_r=1,r1.`$ (5.15)
At this point the equations of motion are completely fixed and they are exactly equal to the equations of motion of the abelian Born-Infeld theory, implying that our action is, modulo an overall multiplicative constant, the Born-Infeld action. This fixes the BPS condition, eq. (5.8), as well,

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(F^3)_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}(F^5)_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}+\mathrm{}`$ (5.16)
$`=`$ $`\text{tr}\mathrm{arctanh},`$
where $``$ is a $`p\times p`$ matrix with elements $`F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ and the trace is taken over the Lorentz indices.
* Terms of the form $`\left(D_{\overline{\alpha }}F^{2r1}\right)(F^{2s})_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(\mathrm{tail})`$: these are the only terms left and they will cancel because of eq. (5.16). Using eqs. (5), (5.12) and (5.15), we get the prefactor of such term,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{_lp_l}}{2^{_lp_l}_l(p_l!)_ll^{p_l}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r1}}\left(D_{\overline{\alpha }}F^{2r1}\right)(F^{2s})_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(\mathrm{tail}),`$ (5.17)
and it is clear that when summing over $`r`$ they vanish because of eq. (5.16).

This completes the proof that the abelian Born-Infeld action is the unique deformation of the abelian Yang-Mills action which allows for BPS solutions.

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

Fieldstrength configurations which define a stable, eq. (4.3), holomorphic, eq. (4.2), vector bundle solve the Yang-Mills equations of motion. Such configurations are relevant in the study of BPS solutions for D-branes in the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit. In this paper we deformed the abelian theory by adding arbitrary powers of the fieldstrength to the Yang-Mills lagrangian. Demanding that a deformation of eqs. (4.2-4.3) still solves the equations of motion, we showed that the deformation is uniquely determined: it is precisely the abelian Born-Infeld theory. The holomorphicity condition eq. (4.2) remains unchanged while the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau stability condition gets deformed to

$`\text{tr}\mathrm{arctanh}=0,`$ (6.1)
with $``$ a $`p\times p`$ matrix with elements $`F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$.

The analysis in section 5 holds not only in flat space but in Kähler geometries as well. Defining $``$ to be the $`p\times p`$ matrix with elements $`F_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }g^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}F_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }}`$ with $`g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ the Kähler metric, one finds again eq. (6.1). In this context, it might be worthwhile to mention that it would be interesting to include the transverse scalars in the analysis. This would make it possible to get an all $`\alpha ^{}`$ result for the stability condition for branes wrapped around a holomorphic submanifold of a Kähler manifold .

Eqs. (4.2) and (6.1) play an important role in the study of BPS configurations for D-branes at finite $`\alpha ^{}`$. As supersymmetry and magnetic field configurations discussed above are closely related, our result provides evidence strengthening the belief that the only supersymmetric deformation of ten-dimensional supersymmetric $`U(1)`$ Yang-Mills theory is the supersymmetric Born-Infeld action.

Eq. (6.1) holds in any dimension $`d=2p`$. It is a $`U(p)`$ invariant and therefore it can be rewritten in terms of Casimir invariants. As $`U(p)`$ has Casimir invariants of order 1, 2, …, $`p`$, one can rewrite eq. (6.1) in a less elegant though more familiar form when specifying to particular dimensions. We tabulate the resulting equivalent expressions for the cases relevant to D-brane physics.

| $`p`$ | stability condition |
| --- | --- |
| 2 | $`F_{1\overline{1}}+F_{2\overline{2}}=0`$ |
| 3 | $`F_{1\overline{1}}+F_{2\overline{2}}+F_{3\overline{3}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{1\overline{2}}F_{2\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{1\overline{3}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{1}}+F_{1\overline{2}}F_{2\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{1}}`$ |
|  | $`+F_{1\overline{3}}F_{2\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{2}}F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{2}}=0`$ |
| 4 | $`F_{1\overline{1}}+F_{2\overline{2}}+F_{3\overline{3}}+F_{4\overline{4}}F_{1\overline{3}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{1}}+F_{1\overline{2}}F_{2\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{1}}+F_{1\overline{4}}F_{4\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{1}}F_{1\overline{3}}F_{4\overline{4}}F_{3\overline{1}}`$ |
|  | $`+F_{1\overline{3}}F_{2\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{2}}F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{2}}F_{1\overline{2}}F_{2\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{3}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{1\overline{4}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{4\overline{1}}+F_{1\overline{2}}F_{2\overline{4}}F_{4\overline{1}}`$ |
|  | $`F_{1\overline{4}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{4\overline{1}}+F_{1\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{4}}F_{4\overline{1}}+F_{1\overline{4}}F_{2\overline{1}}F_{4\overline{2}}F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{4}}F_{4\overline{2}}F_{2\overline{4}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{4\overline{2}}+F_{2\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{4}}F_{4\overline{2}}`$ |
|  | $`+F_{2\overline{4}}F_{3\overline{2}}F_{4\overline{3}}F_{1\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{4}}F_{4\overline{3}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{4}}F_{4\overline{3}}F_{1\overline{2}}F_{2\overline{1}}F_{4\overline{4}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{4\overline{4}}F_{2\overline{3}}F_{3\overline{2}}F_{4\overline{4}}`$ |
|  | $`+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{4\overline{4}}+F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{4\overline{4}}=0`$ |

We expect that these BPS solutions minimize the energy. Let us briefly investigate this for the case where eq. (4.2) holds555Throughout this discussion, we assume that the rhs of the inequalities are differences of invariants. This is certainly so for $`p=4`$, see e.g. . For $`p6`$ this is very probably true as well. We postpone a more detailed examination of the energy of BPS configurations to a future publication.. For simplicity, we will only switch on the magnetic fields $`F_{1\overline{1}}`$, $`F_{2\overline{2}}`$, …, $`F_{p\overline{p}}`$. The energy is given by

$`E={\displaystyle d^4x\left|det\left(\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\right|}={\displaystyle d^4x\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{p}{}}\left|\left(1F_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}\right)\right|}.`$ (6.2)
For $`p=2`$ we get,

$`E={\displaystyle d^4x\left|\left(1F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}\right)\right|}{\displaystyle d^4x\left|\left|1+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}\right|\left|F_{1\overline{1}}+F_{2\overline{2}}\right|\right|}.`$ (6.3)
Contrary to the Yang-Mills case, we find two situations in which the relation gets saturated. The first is when $`F_{1\overline{1}}+F_{2\overline{2}}=0`$, which we recognize as the familiar BPS condition we have been discussing so far. The second configuration is characterized by $`1+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}=0`$. This corresponds to a D2/D4 system. Though this system is not supersymmetric, it becomes so when we switch on magnetic fields $`F_{1\overline{1}}`$ and $`F_{2\overline{2}}`$ on the D4-brane which precisely satisfy $`1+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}=0`$. For $`p=3`$, we get

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^6x\left|\left(1F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{3}}+F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}\right)\right|}`$ (6.4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle }d^6x\left|\right|1+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{3\overline{3}}+F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}|`$
$`|F_{1\overline{1}}+F_{2\overline{2}}+F_{3\overline{3}}+F_{1\overline{1}}F_{2\overline{2}}F_{3\overline{3}}||.`$
Again the result is saturated in two cases. When the last factor vanishes in eq. (6.4) we have the standard BPS condition. When the first factor vanishes, we find a configuration corresponding to either a D0/D6 or a D4/D6 system. By switching on magnetic fields $`F_{1\overline{1}}`$, $`F_{2\overline{2}}`$ and $`F_{3\overline{3}}`$ on the D6-brane which satisfy this relation we obtain a BPS configuration. A similar analysis holds for $`p=4`$. Either one recovers the standard BPS configuration of D8-branes or a D2/D8 system (or equivalently a D6/D8 system) with magnetic fields on the D8-brane such that the result is BPS. Aspects of some of these non-standard BPS configurations were studied in  . Even as these “exotic” BPS configurations have no $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit, they are in fact T-dual to the BPS configurations studied in section 2 as is demonstrated in figure 1.

Our analysis was performed under the assumption that the fieldstrengths vary slowly, i.e. we ignored terms having derivatives of the fieldstrength. Such terms are expected to be present . It would be very interesting to investigate whether our method can handle such terms as well. However, an additional complication will arise in such an analysis. As explained in  and , because of field redefinitions, derivative terms are ambiguous. Nonetheless, it is worthwile to investigate this point as this will further clarify the relation between the commutative and non-commutative pictures , .

Another point which deserves further attention is the study of the BPS conditions as a function of the string coupling constant $`g_S`$. In this way the method developed in this paper might provide an alternative approach to the study of the effective action as a function of the string coupling constant. In , it was shown that through second order in $`g_S`$ and in flat space the Born-Infeld action, modulo a renormalization of the tension, still describes the effective dynamics. It would be intriguing if such a claim could be pushed at higher orders (note that in non-trivial geometries this is very probably not true).

Finally, the results in this paper provide sufficient motivation for a detailed investigation of the non-abelian case. As eqs. (4.2) and (4.3) hold both in the abelian and the non-abelian case, we can still use it as a starting point and investigate allowed deformations. Not only do we expect a concrete ordening prescription for the action, but eq. (6.1) should get supplied with an ordening prescription as well. Note that derivative terms might become relevant in this case. We will report on this in .

Acknowledgments: We thank Eric Bergshoeff, Frederik Denef, Mees de Roo, Marc Henneaux, Walter Troost and Michel Van den Bergh for useful discussions. In particular, we are grateful to Jan Troost for numerous suggestions and illuminating conversations. This work is supported in part by the FWO-Vlaanderen and in part by the European Commission RTN programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which the authors are associated to the university of Leuven.

## Appendix A Notations and conventions

Our metric follows the “mostly plus” conventions. Indices denoted by $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, … run from 0 to $`2p`$, denoted by $`i`$, $`j`$, … run from 1 to $`2p`$ and denoted by $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, … run from 1 to $`p`$. We use real $`32\times 32`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices satisfying $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\gamma _\mu ^T=\gamma _0\gamma _\mu \gamma _0`$. By $`\gamma _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ we denote the (weighted) completely antisymmetrized product $`\gamma _{[\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _n]}`$ with $`[[\mathrm{}]]=[\mathrm{}]`$.

Instead of using real spatial coordinates $`x^i`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},2p\}`$, we will often use complex coordinates $`z^\alpha `$, $`\alpha \{1,\mathrm{}p\}`$,

$`z^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(x^{2\alpha 1}+ix^{2\alpha }\right),\overline{z}^{\overline{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(x^{2\alpha 1}ix^{2\alpha }\right).`$ (A.1)
As we work in flat space, the metric is $`g_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=0`$, $`g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=\delta _{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$.

Consider the rotation group $`SO(p)`$. The subgroup preserving the complex structure is $`U(p)`$. If we denote the $`so(2p)`$ generators by $`M_{ij}=M_{ji}`$, the $`u(p)`$ generators are given by the subset $`M_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$. The $`u(1)`$ generator commuting with all the $`u(p)`$ generators is given by $`_\alpha M_{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}`$. The remainder of the $`so(2p)`$ generators, $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`M_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}`$ resp., transforms in the $`p(p1)/2`$ and the $`\overline{p(p1)/2}`$ of $`su(p)`$ resp.

## Appendix B The abelian Born-Infeld action

In this appendix we derive a few properties of the abelian Born-Infeld action needed in section five.

The Born-Infeld lagrangian can be rewritten as666The trace denotes a trace over the Lorentz indices.

$`_{BI}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{det(\delta ^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}F^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{})}`$ (B.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k+1}}{4^kk!}}(\mathrm{tr}F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}F^4+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\mathrm{tr}F^{2p}+\mathrm{})^k.`$
A general term in the abelian Born-Infeld Lagrangian

$`\lambda _{(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)}^{BI}(\mathrm{tr}F^2)^{p_1}(\mathrm{tr}F^4)^{p_2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{tr}F^{2n})^{p_n},`$ (B.2)
originates from the $`k`$th term in the Taylor expansion, with $`k`$ given by

$`k=p_1+p_2+\mathrm{}+p_n.`$ (B.3)
Hence, the numerical prefactor becomes

$`\lambda _{(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)}^{BI}={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k+1}}{4^k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1!\mathrm{}p_n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1^{p_1}\mathrm{}n^{p_n}}}.`$ (B.4)


format: text

text:
# GRB and Environment Interaction

## I Fe X-Ray Lines from GRB Progenitors

Important clues for identifying the nature of the progenitors of the long ($`t\stackrel{>}{}2`$ s) GRBs may be available from the recent report at a 4.7$`\sigma `$ level of X-ray Fe line features in the afterglow after 1.5 days of the gamma-ray burst GRB 991216 piro00 , as well as similar detections at the $`3\sigma `$ level in 5 other bursts with Beppo-SAX and ASCA. X-ray atomic edges and resonance absorption lines are theoretically expected to be detectable from the gas in the immediate environment of the GRB, and in particular from the remnants of a massive progenitor stellar system mr98b ; weth00 ; botfry00 .

A straightforward interpretation piro00  of the GRB 991216 observation would imply a mass $`\stackrel{>}{}0.11M_{}`$ of Fe at a distance of about 1-2 light-days, possibly due to a remnant of an explosive event or supernova which occurred days or weeks prior to the gamma-ray burst itself (a ’supranova’, piro00 ; vi00 ). The long time delay is necessary both to get the relatively massive, slow moving ejecta out to few light-day distances (to explain the line appearance at a few days with light travel arguments), and in order to get the initial Ni and Co to decay to Fe ($``$ 55 days). This requires a two-step process, in which an initial supernova leads to a temporarily stabilized neutron star remnant, which after weeks collapses to a black hole leading to a canonical burst (vs98 ; vi00 ). It is unclear whether fall-back from the supernova leading to the second collapse to a BH could occur with such a ($``$ weeks) long delay (e.g. macfadyen00 ). Another possibility is that a massive progenitor has previously emitted a copious wind ($`\dot{M}\stackrel{>}{}10^4M_{}`$/yr), which would need to be unusally Fe-rich and highly inhomogeneous (weth00 ; c.f. piro00 ).

An alternative, and perhaps less restrictive scenario for such Fe lines rm00  involves an extended, possibly magnetically dominated wind from a GRB impacting the expanding envelope of a massive progenitor star. This could be due either to a spinning-down millisecond super-pulsar or to a highly-magnetised torus around a black hole (e.g. whee00 ), which could produce a luminosity that was still, one day after the original explosion, as high as $`L_m10^{47}t_{day}^{1.3}`$ ergs. An outflow with such a dependence can also be powered by accretion of fall-back material onto a central black hole macfadyen00 . This jet luminosity may not dominate the continuum afterglow; but its impact on the outer portions of the expanding stellar envelope at distances $`\stackrel{<}{}10^{13}`$ cm, even with just solar abundances, can be efficiently reprocessed into an Fe line luminosity comparable to the observed value, together with a contribution to the X-ray continuum. Under this interpretation, the dominant continuum flux in the afterglow, even in the X-ray band, is still attributable to a standard decelerating blast wave.

The relativistic magnetised wind from the compact remnant would develop a stand-off shock before encountering the envelope material, and shocked relativistic plasma would be deflected along the funnel walls. Non-thermal electrons will be accelerated behind the standoff shock in the jet material; the transverse magnetic field strength (which decreases as $`1/r`$ in an outflowing wind) would be of order $`10^4`$ G at $`10^{13}`$ cm – strong enough to ensure that the shock-accelerated electrons cool promptly, yielding a power- law continuum extending into the X-ray band. Some of these X-rays would escape along the funnel, but at least half (the exact proportion depending on the geometry and flow pattern) would irradiate the material in the stellar envelope. Pressure balance in the shoked envelope wall implies densities of $`n_e=\alpha L_m/6\pi r^2ckT10^{17}\alpha L_{47}r_{13}^2T_8^1\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where $`\alpha 1`$ is a geometric factor, and the recombination time for hydrogenic Fe in the funnel walls photoionized by the non-thermal continuum is $`t_{rec}=6\times 10^6T_8^{1/2}n_{17}^16\times 10^6\alpha L_{m47}^1r_{13}^2T_8^{3/2}\text{s}`$. Standard calculations of photoionization of optically-thin slabs (e.g. you99 ) show that the equivalent width of the Fe K-alpha line, for solar abundances, is about 0.5 kev, or twice as strong if the Fe has ten times solar abundances. These results are applicable provided that the ionizing photons encounter a Fe ion before being scattered by free electrons i.e. provided that $`\tau _T=\sigma _Td_in_e\stackrel{<}{}1`$. Under these conditions the Fe K-$`\alpha `$ photon flux is about 0.1 of the X-ray continuum rm00 , $`\dot{N}_{LFe}10^{54}L_{47}\beta \mathrm{ph}/\mathrm{s},`$ where $`\beta <1`$ is the ratio of ionizing to MHD luminosity. This line luminosity compares well with Fe line luminosity $`6\times 10^{52}`$ ph/s observed $`t1.5`$ day after the GRB 991216 burst by piro00 .

The total amount of Fe needed to explain the observed K-$`\alpha `$ line flux, arising in a thin layer of the funnel walls of a collapsar model, amounts to a very modest mass of $`M_{Fe}10^8M_{}`$, which could be Fe synthesized in the core. The Fe-enriched core material can easily reach a distance comparable to $`r10^{13}`$ cm in 1 day for an expansion velocity below the limit $`v10^9`$ cm s-1 inferred by piro00  from the line widths. Even without this, a solar abundance ($`10^5M_{}`$ of Fe) in the envelope is sufficient to explain the observations. The initial, energetic portion of the relativistic jet, with a typical burst duration of $`110`$ s, will rapidly expand beyond the stellar envelope, leading in the usual way to shocks and a decelerating blast wave. A continually decreasing fraction of energy, such as put out by a decaying magnetar, may continue being emitted for periods of a day or longer, and its reprocessing by the stellar envelope can be responsible for the observed Fe line emission in GRB 991216. Since the energy in this tail can decay faster than $`t^1`$, the usual standard shock gamma-ray and afterglow scenario need not be affected, being determined by the first 1-10 s worth of the energy input.

## II Dusty GRB Delayed XR/IR Afterglows

For GRB in large star forming regions, a significant fraction of the prompt X-ray emission will be scattered by dust grains. Since dust grains scatter X-rays by a small angle, time delays of the scattered x-rays will be small (minutes to days, depending on the X-ray energy and the grain size). If the dust column density is substantial, the softer part of the X-ray afterglow on the above timescales will be dominated by the dust scattering, the direct X-ray emission from the blast wave being weaker. This intermediate time, soft(er) X-ray light curve will be steeper than the unscattered X-ray afterglow.

As a specific example mg00 , consider a typical GRB whose unscattered X-ray light curve is parametrized as $`F_0\left(t\right)=\left[1+\left(t/100\mathrm{s}\right)\right]/\left[1+\left(t/100\mathrm{s}\right)^{2.3}\right]`$, with an arbitrary normalization depending on the X-ray energy band. This is represented by the thin line in Fig.1. We assume that the GRB occurs in a large star forming region, of typical radius $`R`$ about 100pc, where the dust grain populations and optical depths are close to what is observed in our Galactic center region. Thus for numerical estimates we assume that (1) visual extinction is $`10`$, (2) X-rays are scattered preferentially by those dust grains whose size is in the range $`a0.06\mu \mathrm{m}`$, (3) the optical depth to dust scattering at the X-ray energy $`ϵ`$ is $`\tau \left(ϵ\right)=3\left(\frac{ϵ}{1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)^2.`$ At X-ray optical depths less than few, dust grains of size $`a`$ will scatter X-rays of energy $`ϵ`$ by an angle $`\theta 0.2\lambda /a`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the X-ray wavelength, $`\theta \left(ϵ\right)4\times 10^3\left(\frac{a}{0.06\mu \mathrm{m}}\right)^1\left(\frac{ϵ}{1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)^1`$. The time lag is $`tR\theta ^2/2c`$, or $`t\left(ϵ\right)9\times 10^4\mathrm{s}\left(\frac{a}{0.06\mu \mathrm{m}}\right)^2\left(\frac{ϵ}{1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)^2\left(\frac{R}{100\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}\right).`$

At 2 keV, the optical depth is $`\tau 1`$. The time lag is $`t2\times 10^4`$s. The scattered flux is $`F_s\tau f/t0.03`$. The unscattered flux at $`2\times 10^4`$s is $`F_010^3`$. In the time interval from hours to weeks, the dust scattering dominates the afterglow, and, as shown in Fig.1, the afterglow is approximately a power law $`Ft^{1.75}`$ mg00 . This is because dust grains of radius $`a<0.06\mu \mathrm{m}`$ will scatter the prompt emission with longer time lags, $`ta^2`$, and with smaller optical depths $`\tau `$. To calculate $`\tau `$, we take a standard dust grain size distribution where the number of grains of size of order $`a`$ is $`a^{2.5}`$ For a scattering cross section $`a^4`$ the optical depth is $`\tau a^{1.5}t^{0.75}`$, so the flux $`Ft^{1.75}`$.

A GRB in such a highly obscured star-forming region should lead to specific signatures in the X-ray afterglow, i.e. a bump in the X-ray light curve at energies $`ϵ23`$ keV, hours to days after the burst mg00 . This X-ray signature is expected for bursts which do not produce a detectable optical transient (OT). Such OT-less, X-ray peculiar GRBs will also lead to thermal reemission and scattering of the O/UV flux causing a delayed IR emission, as is the case also for partially absorbed bursts wd00 ; eb00 . For an isotropic total burst energy $`E10^{53}`$ erg at a redshift $`z1`$ the normalization of the X-ray flux for the burst of Figure 1 would be $`F_x10^9`$ erg cm-2 s-1 keV-1 for $`t\stackrel{<}{}100`$ s, in the usual range of X-ray afterglow fluxes detected by Beppo-SAX. The dust reradiation occurs beyond the sublimation radius $`R_s10L_{49}^{1/2}`$ pc at wavelengths $`\lambda \stackrel{>}{}2\left(1+z\right)\mu `$m, where $`10^{49}L_{49}`$ erg/s is the early UV component of burst afterglow wd00 . The time delay associated with the reradiated flux is $`t_{IR}\left(R_s/2c\right)\theta _j^2`$ where $`\theta _j=10^1\theta _1`$. At $`z1`$ the corresponding infrared flux at 2.2 $`\mu `$m would be $`F_{2.2\mu \text{m}}L_{49}\theta _j^2/\left[4\pi D_L^2\left(R_s/2c\right)\theta _j^2\nu \right]0.3L_{49}^{1/2}`$ $`\mu `$Jy, independent of $`\theta _j`$, or $`m_K23.3`$ compared to Vega mg00 , approximately constant for a time $`t_{IR}5\times 10^6\theta _1^2L_{49}^{1/2}`$ s. Such $`\gamma `$-ray detected GRBs with anomalous X-ray afterglow behavior and no OT may be used as tracers of massive stellar collapses. It may thus be possible to detect star-forming regions out to redshifts larger than achievable with O/IR techniques, since typical GRB $`\gamma `$-ray, X-ray and IR fluxes can in principle be measured out to $`z1015`$.

## III Pair Production in GRB Environments

Gamma-ray burst sources with a high luminosity can produce $`\text{e}^\pm `$ pair cascades in their environment as a result of back-scattering of a seed fraction of their original hard spectrum. New pairs can be made as some of the initial energetic photons are backscattered and interact with other incoming photons. Previous work on this investigated the acceleration of new pairs for a particular fireball model mt00 ; tm00 , the effect of pair formation for a low compactness parameter external shock model of GRB db00 , and Compton echos produced by pairs mbr00 . Here we discuss a simplified analytical treatment mrr01  of pair effects from $`\gamma `$-rays arising in internal shocks in a wind; the remaining wind energy drives a blast wave which decelerates as it sweeps up the external medium, and gives rise to the afterglow emission. The $`\gamma `$-rays would propagate ahead of the blast wave, leading to pair production (and an associated deposition of momentum) into the external medium. The pair cascades saturate after the external (pair-enriched) medium reaches a critical bulk Lorentz factor, which is generally below that of the original relativistic wind. For external baryonic densities similar to those in molecular clouds the pairs can achieve scattering optical depths $`\tau _\pm \stackrel{<}{}1`$. Even for less extreme external densities the effect of the additional pairs can be substantial, increasing the radiative efficiency of the blast wave and leading to distortions of the original spectrum. This provides a potential tool for diagnosing the compactness parameter of the bursts and thus the radial distance at which shocks can occur. It also provides a tool for diagnosing the baryonic density of the external environment, and testing the association with star-forming regions.

For the maximum Lorentz factor to which an $`\text{e}^\pm `$ can be accelerated by scattering, and the maximum Lorentz factor at which back-scattered photons can still make new pairs, one finds two regimes defined by the effective duration of the light pulse seen by the screen of accelerated pairs. At low radii (wind regime) the effective duration is the burst duration $`t_w`$; for large radii (impulsive regime), the effective duration is $`\mathrm{\Delta }tr/c\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^2`$. For an incident photon number index $`\beta =2`$, in the former $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm r^{1/3}`$ and in the latter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm r^2`$. The critical radius and Lorentz factor for the transition between the wind and the impulsive regimes are mrr01  $`r_c=5\times 10^{14}L_{w50}^{2/5}t_{w1}^{3/5},\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=3\times 10^1L_{w50}^{1/5}t_{w1}^{1/5}.`$ The maximum radius at which pair cascades cut off is $`r_{\mathrm{}}\left(4r_{}ct_w/3\right)^{1/2}4\times 10^{15}L_{w50}^{1/2}t_{w1}^{1/2}\text{cm}.`$ Before the pairs start accelerating, assuming they are held back by the environmental protons through magnetic fields, an initial cascade amplification fator $`k_p\left(m_p/m_e\right)`$ is achieved. After the mean mass per scatterer drops to a value comparable to the electron mass, before reaching $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ a further amplification $`k_a2^s50`$ (where $`slog\mathrm{\Gamma }_c/\mathrm{log}2`$) is possible, so the total pair amplification factor is mrr01  $`k_c=k_pk_a\left(r_c\right)\left(m_p/m_e\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_c5\times 10^4L_{w50}^{1/5}t_{w1}^{1/5}`$. The maximum pair optical depth at $`r_c`$, which is prevented from exceeding $`\tau _\pm 1`$ by self-shielding, is achieved for external densities $`n_p\stackrel{>}{}n_{p,c}`$, where $`n_{p,c}10^5L_{w50}^{3/5}t_{w1}^{2/5}\mathrm{cm}^3.`$

The external density and the initial Lorentz factor $`\eta `$ determine when the outer shock and the reverse shock become important and whether this happens within the radius already polluted with pairs. If $`\eta \stackrel{<}{}r_l/ct_w`$ the external shock responsible for the afterglow occurs beyond the region “polluted” by new pairs, and otherwise the afterglow shock may experience, after starting out in the canonical manner, a “resurgence” or second kick as its radiative efficiency is boosted by running into an $`\text{e}^\pm `$-enriched gas mrr01 .

Additional effects are expected when $`\tau _\pm 1`$, for external baryon density $`n_p\stackrel{>}{}n_{c,p}10^5L_{w50}^{2/5}t_{w1}^{3/5}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ at radii $`r<r_{\mathrm{}}`$. Such high densities could be expected if the burst is associated with a massive star in which prior mass loss led to a dense circumstellar envelope. The pair optical depth saturates to $`\tau _\pm 1`$ and in addition to an increased efficiency and softer spectrum of the afterglow reverse shock, the original gamma-ray spectrum of the GRB will be modified as well. One of the consequences of such a critical external density leading to $`\tau _\pm 1`$ would be the presence of an X-ray quasi-thermal pulse, whose total energy may be a few percent of the total burst energy mrr01 .

This research was supported by NASA NAG5-9192, the Guggenheim Foundation and the Sackler Foundation. I am grateful to M.J. Rees, A. Gruzinov and E. Ramirez-Ruiz for valuable discussions on these topics.


text:
# 1 Plots of the ratio of the multipole strength parameter ℓ(ℓ+1)𝐶_ℓ to its value at small ℓ, versus ℓ𝑑_𝐻/𝑑_𝐴, where 𝑑_𝐻 is the horizon size at the time of last scattering and 𝑑_𝐴 is the angular diameter distance of the surface of last scattering. The curves are for Ω_𝐵ℎ² ranging (from top to bottom) over the values 0.03, 0.02, 0.01, and 0, corresponding to 𝜉 taking the values 0.81, 0.54, 0.27, and 0. The solid curves are calculated using the WKB approximation; dashed lines indicate an extrapolation to the known value at small ℓ𝑑_𝐻/𝑑_𝐴. These results are independent of the parameters 𝐻₀, Ω_Λ, and Ω_𝑀.

UTTG-04-01

Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background II: $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at Large and Small $`\mathrm{}`$

Steven Weinberg***Electronic address: weinberg@physics.utexas.edu

Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas
Austin, TX, 78712

Abstract

General asymptotic formulas are given for the coefficient $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the term of multipole number $`\mathrm{}`$ in the temperature correlation function of the cosmic microwave background, in terms of scalar and dipole form factors introduced in a companion paper. The formulas apply in two overlapping limits: for $`\mathrm{}1`$ and for $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$ (where $`d_A`$ is the angular diameter distance of the surface of last scattering, and $`d`$ is a length, of the order of the acoustic horizon at the time of last scattering, that characterizes acoustic oscillations before this time.) The frequently used approximation that $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ receives its main contribution from wave numbers of order $`\mathrm{}/d_A`$ is found to be less accurate for the contribution of the Doppler effect than for the Sachs–Wolfe effect and intrinsic temperature fluctuations. For $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$ and $`\mathrm{}2`$, the growth of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\mathrm{}`$ is shown to be affected by acoustic oscillation wave numbers of all scales. The asymptotic formulas are applied to a model of acoustic oscillations before the time of last scattering, with results in reasonable agreement with more elaborate computer calculations.

I. INTRODUCTION

A companion paper has shown how to express the temperature fluctuation in the cosmic microwave background in any direction as an integral involving scalar and dipole form factors $`F(k)`$ and $`G(k)`$, which characterize acoustic oscillations before the time of last scattering. In the present paper we derive asymptotic formulas for the strength $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ of fluctuations at multipole number $`\mathrm{}`$ for form factors of arbitary functional form. After outlining our assumptions and reviewing some generalities in Section II, our general result in the limit of $`\mathrm{}1`$ \[Eq. (26)\] is derived in Section III. In this limit $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ depends on $`\mathrm{}`$ and the angular diameter distance $`d_A`$ at the time of last scattering only through the ratio $`\mathrm{}/d_A`$. (This is why the heights of the Doppler peaks do not depend on parameters like the cosmological constant that affect $`d_A`$ but not the form factors.) Our result in the limit $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$ \[Eq. (43)\] is derived in Section IV. (Here $`d`$ is some length characterizing acoustic oscillations, such as the acoustic horizon distance $`d_H`$ at the time of last scattering). These ranges of $`\mathrm{}`$ overlap because $`d_Ad`$.

Even without a detailed calculation of the form factors, these results have a moral for the physical interpretation of measurements of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$. It is common to interpret these measurements by supposing that $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ arises mostly from fluctuations of wave number $`k\mathrm{}/d_A`$. Eq. (27) shows that this is a fair approximation for the contribution of the scalar form factor $`F(k)`$, which represents the Sachs–Wolfe effect and intrinsic temperature fluctuations; $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ receives no contribution from $`F(k)`$ with $`k<\mathrm{}/d_A`$, and the contribution from $`k\mathrm{}/d_A`$ is suppressed by a factor $`\beta ^2(\beta ^21)^{1/2}`$, where $`\beta kd_A/\mathrm{}`$. In particular, a peak in the magnitude of the scalar form factor $`F(k)`$ at some wave number $`k_1`$ (like the peak found in the simple model studied in reference  at $`k=\pi /d_H`$) will show up in $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at a value of $`\mathrm{}`$ less than but close to $`k_1d_A`$. For instance, we will see in Section V that the peak in $`|F(k)|`$ at $`k=\pi /d_H`$ produces a peak in $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at $`\mathrm{}2.6d_A/d_H`$ rather than at $`\pi d_A/d_H`$. But Eq. (27) also shows that this interpretation of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is much less useful for the contribution of the vector form factor $`G(k)`$, which arises from the Doppler effect; $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ also receives no contribution from $`G(k)`$ with $`k<\mathrm{}/d_A`$, but instead of the contribution from $`k\mathrm{}/d_A`$ being enhanced by a factor $`(\beta ^21)^{1/2}`$, it is suppressed by a factor $`(\beta ^21)^{1/2}`$. Indeed, we will see in Section V that for sufficiently small baryon number the peak in $`G(k)`$ at $`k=\pi /2d_H`$ found in the simple model of reference  does show up as a peak in $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$, but at $`\mathrm{}.45d_A/d_H`$, much less than $`(\pi /2)d_A/d_H`$. Furthermore, the behavior of $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}d/d_A`$ near zero depends on the values of $`F(k)`$ and $`G(k)`$ for all $`k`$. This points up the value of observations that can measure the correlation function of temperature fluctuations directly, as a supplement to measurements of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The results obtained in Sections III and IV are used in Section V to calculate $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the approximate form factors calculated in reference 1. In agreement with what is found in more accurate computer calculations, the position $`\mathrm{}_1`$ of the first Doppler peak is not a sensitive function of the baryon density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. On the other hand, we find that the ratio of the value of $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at the first Doppler peak to its value at $`\mathrm{}d_A/d_H`$ is a sensitive indicator of the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$.

II. GENERALITIES

The companion paper shows that, in very general models (but assuming only compressional normal modes, with no gravitational radiation), the fractional variation from the mean of the cosmic microwave background temperature observed in a direction $`\widehat{n}`$ takes the general form

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n})}{T}=d^3kϵ_𝐤e^{id_A\widehat{n}𝐤}\left[F(k)+i\widehat{n}\widehat{k}G(k)\right],$$
(1)
aside from effects arising from late times, which chiefly affect the coefficients $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for relatively small $`\mathrm{}`$. Here $`d_A`$ is the angular diameter distance of the surface of last scattering

$$d_A=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_C^{1/2}H_0(1+z_L)}\mathrm{sinh}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_C^{1/2}_{\frac{1}{1+z_L}}^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }x^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_Cx^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_Mx}}\right],$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ are the present ratios of the energy densities of the vacuum and matter to the critical density $`3H_0^2/8\pi G`$. (If the vacuum energy were to change with time, as in theories of quintessence, then the formula for $`d_A`$ would need modification, but there would be essentially no change in the other ingredients in Eq. (1), as long as the quintessence energy density makes a negligible contribution to the total energy density at and before the time of last scattering.) Also, $`𝐤^2ϵ_𝐤`$ is proportional (with a $`𝐤`$-independent proportionality coefficient) to the Fourier transform of the fractional perturbation in the energy density early in the radiation-dominated era. The average\**\**\**The average here is over an ensemble of possible fluctuations. Using Eq. (3) to analyze the particular element of this sample observed in our universe relies on ergodic arguments, which are not exact except in the limit $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. However, corrections are manageable even for small $`\mathrm{}`$. of the product of two $`ϵ`$s is assumed to satisfy the conditions of statistical homogeneity and isotropy:

$$ϵ_𝐤ϵ_𝐤^{}=\delta ^3(𝐤+𝐤^{})𝒫(k)$$
(3)
with $`k|𝐤|`$. The power spectral function $`𝒫(k)`$ is real and positive. Where a specific expression for $`𝒫(k)`$ is needed, we will use the ‘scale-invariant’ (or $`n=1`$) Harrison–Zel’dovich form suggested by theories of new inflation:

$$𝒫(k)=Bk^3,$$
(4)
with $`B`$ a constant that must be taken from observations of the cosmic microwave background or condensed object mass distributions, or from detailed theories of inflation.

The form factors $`F(k)`$ and $`G(k)`$ characterize acoustic oscillations, with $`F(k)`$ arising from the Sachs–Wolfe effect and intrinsic temperature fluctuations, and $`G(k)`$ arising from the Doppler effect. For instance, they are calculated in reference 1 in the approximation that perturbations in the gravitational field at and before the time of last scattering arise entirely from perturbations in the density of cold dark matter. For very small wave numbers the form factors are

$`F(k)`$ $``$ $`13k^2t_L^2/23[\xi ^1+\xi ^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\xi )]k^4t_L^4/4+\mathrm{},`$ (5)
$`G(k)`$ $``$ $`3kt_L3k^3t_L^3/2(1+\xi )+\mathrm{},`$ (6)
while for wave numbers large enough to allow the use of the WKB approximation, i. e.,

$$kt_L>\xi $$
(7)
the form factors are

$$F(k)=(12\xi /k^2t_L^2)^1\left[3\xi +2\xi /k^2t_L^2+(1+\xi )^{1/4}e^{k^2d_D}\mathrm{cos}(kd_H)\right],$$
(8)
and

$$G(k)=\sqrt{3}(12\xi /k^2t_L^2)^1(1+\xi )^{3/4}e^{k^2d_D}\mathrm{sin}(kd_H).$$
(9)
Here $`t_L`$ is the time of last scattering; $`\xi `$ is $`3/4`$ the ratio of the baryon to photon energy densities at this time:

$$\xi =\left(\frac{3\rho _B}{4\rho _\gamma }\right)_{t=t_L}=27\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2;$$
(10)
$`d_H`$ is the acoustic horizon size at this time, and $`d_D`$ is a damping length, given by Eq. (48). These formulas for the form factors are mentioned at this point only for illustration; we will be working here with general form factors $`F(k)`$ and $`G(k)`$, and will not make use of the specific formulas (5)–(10) until Section V. But we will assume throughout that any lengths $`d`$ that (like $`d_H`$ and $`d_D`$ in Eqs. (8) and (9)) characterize the $`k`$-dependence of the form factors are much smaller than the angular diameter distance $`d_A`$ of last scattering. This is a good approximation: for instance, if the ratios of matter and vacuum energy densities to the critical density have the present values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, then $`d_A/d_H`$ runs from 91.7 to 79.7 for values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ running from zero to 0.03, and $`d_D`$ is smaller than $`d_H`$, independent of the value of $`H_0`$.

It is usual to employ the well-known expansion of a plane wave in Legendre polynomials, and write Eq. (1) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n})}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(2\mathrm{}+1)i^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle }d^3kϵ_𝐤P_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{n}\widehat{k})[j_{\mathrm{}}\left(kd_A\right)F(k)`$ (11)
$`+j_{\mathrm{}}^{}\left(kd_A\right)G(k)].`$
Using Eq. (3) and the orthogonality property of Legendre polynomials

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{k}}P_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{n}\widehat{k}\right)P_{\mathrm{}^{}}\left(\widehat{n}^{}\widehat{k}\right)=\left(\frac{4\pi }{2\mathrm{}+1}\right)\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}P_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{n}\widehat{n}^{}\right),$$
(12)
one finds that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n})}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n^{}})}{T}=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{4\pi }\right)C_{\mathrm{}}P_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{n}\widehat{n}^{}\right),$$
(13)
with the conventional coefficient $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ taking the value

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=16\pi ^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒫(k)k^2𝑑k\left[j_{\mathrm{}}\left(kd_A\right)F(k)+j_{\mathrm{}}^{}\left(kd_A\right)G(k)\right]^2.$$
(14)
This familiar formula is adequate for numerical calculation of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$, but it hides the essential qualitative aspects of the dependence of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`\mathrm{}`$: that $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}1`$ depends on the ratio $`\mathrm{}/d_A`$, and that $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ approaches a constant for sufficiently small values of this ratio, whether $`\mathrm{}`$ itself is large or small. To obtain these results, we must now distinguish between the two cases $`\mathrm{}1`$ and $`\mathrm{}d_A/d`$ (but $`\mathrm{}2`$), where $`d`$ is a typical length characteristic of the form-factors $`F(k)`$ and $`G(k)`$. These two cases overlap because, as remarked above, $`d_A`$ is much larger than $`d`$.

III. LARGE $`\mathrm{}`$

The usual way of obtaining the contribution of the scalar form factor to $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for large $`\mathrm{}`$ is to note that the integral (14) receives its largest contribution when the argument of the spherical Bessel function is of order $`\mathrm{}`$, in which case we can use the approximation that, for $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$,

$$j_{\mathrm{}}(z)\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & z<\nu \hfill \\ z^{1/2}(z^2\nu ^2)^{1/4}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{z^2\nu ^2}\nu \mathrm{arccos}(\nu /z)\frac{\pi }{4}\right)\hfill & z>\nu ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`z/\nu `$ is held fixed at a value $`1`$, with $`\nu \mathrm{}+1/2`$. The procedure is straightorward for the $`F^2`$ terms in Eq. (14), but for the $`FG`$ and $`G^2`$ terms involving the Doppler effect we run into a difficulty: differentiating the factor $`(z^2\nu ^2)^{1/4}`$ in Eq. (15) yields larger negative powers of $`z^2\nu ^2`$ that introduce divergences from the part of the integral in Eq. (14) near the lower bound $`k=\nu /d_A`$. These infrared divergences are spurious, because the asymptotic formula (15) breaks down if we let $`z`$ and $`\nu `$ go to infinity in such a way that $`z/\nu 1`$. This problem can be dealt with by switching to a different asymptotic limit for $`k`$ near $`\nu /d_A`$. Here we will use a different method which avoids the delicate problem of the asymptotic behavior of $`j_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}(z)`$ for $`z`$ near $`\nu `$.

We return to Eq. (1), and use Eq. (3) to put the correlation function of observed temperature fluctuations in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n})}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n^{}})}{T}}={\displaystyle }d^3k𝒫(k)\mathrm{exp}(id_A𝐤(\widehat{n}\widehat{n}^{}))[F^2(k)`$
$`+i\widehat{k}(\widehat{n}\widehat{n}^{})F(k)G(k)+(\widehat{k}\widehat{n})(\widehat{k}\widehat{n}^{})G^2(k)].`$ (16)
The integral over the direction of $`𝐤`$ is easy, and gives the correlation function

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n})}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n^{}})}{T}}=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k^2dk𝒫(k)[F^2(k)+F(k)G(k){\displaystyle \frac{}{(d_Ak)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2(k)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^4}{4}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\theta ^2}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(d_Ak)^2}})]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(d_Ak\theta )}{d_Ak\theta }},`$ (17)
where $`\theta |\widehat{n}\widehat{n}^{}|`$. (This formula may prove useful in analyzing observations that give the correlation function directly, rather than in terms of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$.) The amplitude $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined as the integral

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=2\pi _1^{+1}P_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n})}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\widehat{n^{}})}{T}𝑑\mu ,$$
(18)
where $`\mu \widehat{n}\widehat{n}^{}=1\theta ^2/2`$. For large $`\mathrm{}`$ the Legendre polynomial $`P_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )`$ oscillates rapidly for $`\theta 1/\mathrm{}`$, so the integral is dominated by values of $`\theta `$ of order $`1/\mathrm{}`$, in which case we can use the well-known limiting expression $`P_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )J_0(\mathrm{}\theta )`$, and write

$`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k^2dk𝒫(k){\displaystyle _0^2}J_0(\mathrm{}\theta )\theta d\theta [F^2(k)+F(k)G(k){\displaystyle \frac{}{(d_Ak)}}`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2(k)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^4}{4}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\theta ^2}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(d_Ak)^2}})]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(d_Ak\theta )}{d_Ak\theta }}.`$
The integral over $`k`$ is dominated by values for which $`kd_A\theta `$ is of order unity, so the derivative $`/(d_Ak)`$ is effectively of order $`\theta 1/\mathrm{}`$. Thus to leading order in $`1/\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (19) may be simplified to

$`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k^2𝑑k𝒫(k){\displaystyle _0^2}J_0(\mathrm{}\theta )\theta 𝑑\theta `$ (20)
$`\times \left[F^2(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2(k)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(d_Ak)^2}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(d_Ak\theta )}{d_Ak\theta }}.`$
Introducing a new variable $`s\mathrm{}\theta `$ and changing the upper limit on the $`s`$-integral from $`2\mathrm{}`$ to infinity, we may write this as

$`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k^2𝑑k𝒫(k){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}J_0(s)s𝑑s`$ (21)
$`\times \left[F^2(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2(k)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(d_Aks/\mathrm{})^2}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(d_Aks/\mathrm{})}{(d_Aks/\mathrm{})}}.`$
The integral over $`s`$ is easy for the $`F^2`$ term; we need only use the formula:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0(s)\mathrm{sin}(\beta s)𝑑s=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \beta <1\hfill \\ (\beta ^21)^{1/2}\hfill & \beta >1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where here $`\beta =d_Ak/\mathrm{}`$. The integral of the $`G^2`$ term takes a little more work. We use the formula $`(1+d^2/dx^2)\mathrm{sin}x/x=(2/x)d/dx(\mathrm{sin}x/x)`$ and do the remaining integral by parts, so that

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}J_0(s)s\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(\beta s)^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\beta s)}{\beta s}}𝑑s={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}J_0(s){\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\beta s)}{s}}𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left(J_2(s)+J_0(s)\right)\mathrm{sin}(\beta s)𝑑s.`$ (23)
Here we also need the formula

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}J_2(s)\mathrm{sin}(\beta s)𝑑s=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\beta \hfill & \beta <1\hfill \\ (\beta ^21)^{1/2}(\beta +\sqrt{\beta ^21})^1\hfill & \beta >1\hfill \end{array},$$
(24)
so that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}J_0(s)s\left[1+\frac{^2}{(\beta s)^2}\right]\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\beta s)}{\beta s}𝑑s=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \beta <1\hfill \\ 2\beta ^3\sqrt{\beta ^21}\hfill & \beta >1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Using Eqs. (22) and (25) in Eq. (21) then gives our final general formula for $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at large $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$C_{\mathrm{}}\frac{8\pi ^2\mathrm{}}{d_A^3}_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\beta 𝒫(\mathrm{}\beta /d_A)\left[\frac{\beta F^2(\mathrm{}\beta /d_A)}{\sqrt{\beta ^21}}+\frac{\sqrt{\beta ^21}G^2(\mathrm{}\beta /d_A)}{\beta }\right].$$
(26)
Note that $`\mathrm{}^2C_{\mathrm{}}`$ depends on $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`d_A`$ only through its dependence on the ratio $`\mathrm{}/d_A`$.

For instance, if take the power spectral function to have the scale-invariant form $`𝒫(k)=Bk^3`$, then for $`\mathrm{}1`$

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}8\pi ^2B_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\beta \left[\frac{F^2(\mathrm{}\beta /d_A)}{\beta ^2\sqrt{\beta ^21}}+\frac{\sqrt{\beta ^21}G^2(\mathrm{}\beta /d_A)}{\beta ^4}\right].$$
(27)
(We have taken advantage of the fact that here we are considering $`\mathrm{}1`$ to change a factor $`\mathrm{}^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$, in order to facilitate comparison with the results of the next section.) The rapid fall-off of the coefficient of $`F^2`$ for $`\beta >1`$ suggests that the contribution of the scalar form factor $`F`$ to $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is dominated by wave numbers close to $`d_A/\mathrm{}`$, as is usually assumed. On the other hand, the contribution of the dipole form factor $`G(k)`$ for wave numbers immediately above $`d_A/\mathrm{}`$ is actually suppressed by the factor $`\sqrt{\beta ^21}`$ in the second term of Eq. (27).

IV. SMALL $`\mathrm{}d/d_A`$

Here we will adopt the ‘$`n=1`$’ scale-invariant spectrum $`𝒫(k)Bk^3`$ from the beginning, so that the general formula Eq. (14) becomes

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=16\pi ^2B_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[j_{\mathrm{}}(s)F\left(\frac{s}{d_A}\right)+j_{\mathrm{}}^{}(s)G\left(\frac{s}{d_A}\right)\right]^2\frac{ds}{s}.$$
(28)
To generate a series for $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{}/d_A`$ we expand the form factors in power series:

$$F(k)=F_0+F_2k^2+\mathrm{},G(k)=G_1k+G_3k^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(29)
(The power series for $`F`$ and $`G`$ must be respectively even and odd in $`k`$, in order that the integrand in the temperature fluctuation (1) should be analytic in the three-vector $`𝐤`$ at $`𝐤=0`$.) The leading term in $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is well known; using a standard formula:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}^2(s)s^{m1}𝑑s=\frac{2^{m3}\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(2m)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{m}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{3m}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{}+2\frac{m}{2}\right)},$$
(30)
we find the term in Eq. (28) of zeroth order in $`1/d_A`$:

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}=\frac{8\pi ^2BF_0^2}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}.$$
(31)
There is no difficulty in also calculating the term in Eq. (28) of first order in $`1/d_A`$:

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}=\left(\frac{32\pi ^2BF_0G_1}{d_A}\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}(s)j_{\mathrm{}}^{}(s)𝑑s=\left(\frac{16\pi ^2BF_0G_1}{d_A}\right)\left[j_{\mathrm{}}^2(s)\right]_0^{\mathrm{}}=0.$$
(32)
But we run into trouble in calculating the term of second order in $`1/d_A`$. The second derivative of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ with respect to $`1/d_A`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2C_{\mathrm{}}}{d(1/d_A)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi ^2B{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\{j_{\mathrm{}}^2(s)F_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(s/d_A)+j_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{2}(s)G_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(s/d_A)`$ (33)
$`+2j_{\mathrm{}}(s)j_{\mathrm{}}^{}(s)\left[F(s/d_A)G(s/d_A)\right]^{\prime \prime }\}sds.`$
The $`j_{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ term doesn’t contribute to the part of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ of second order in $`1/d_A`$, because $`F(k)G(k)`$ contains only odd powers of $`k`$. To calculate the contribution of the $`j_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{2}`$ term, we need to supplement Eq. (30) with the additional formula: This formula was obtained by using the Bessel differential equation to show that $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(z)=(1\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)/z^2)j_{\mathrm{}}^2(z)+(zj_{\mathrm{}}^2(z))^{\prime \prime }/2z`$, and then using Eq. (30) with two integrations by parts.

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}j_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(s)s^{m1}𝑑s={\displaystyle \frac{2^{m3}\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(2m)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{m}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{3m}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{}+2\frac{m}{2}\right)}}`$
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(m3)(m2)\left((m2)(m3)2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\right)}{2(3m)^2\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{m}{2}1\right)\left(\mathrm{}\frac{m}{2}+2\right)}}\right].`$ (34)
The second derivative (33) is divergent at $`1/d_A=0`$, as shown by the factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2m)`$ in Eqs. (30) and (34), which become infinite for $`m=2`$. Of course, there is no infinity in $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$; it is simply not analytic in $`1/d_A`$ at $`1/d_A=0`$.

We can deal with this problem by a method similar to the dimensional regularization technique used in quantum field theory. We treat $`m`$ as a complex variable that approaches $`m=2`$. In this limit, Eqs. (30) and (34) give

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(s)s^{m1}𝑑s\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{m2}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{r}C+\mathrm{ln}2D\right],$$
(35)
$$_0^{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(s)s^{m1}𝑑s\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{m2}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{r}C+\mathrm{ln}2D+1\right],$$
(36)
where $`C`$ is the Euler constant $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1)=0.57722`$, and $`D\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1/2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)=1.96351`$. The important point here is that the parts of the integrals (35) and (36) that are divergent at $`m=2`$ are independent of $`\mathrm{}`$, and so also is the part of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ that is non-analytic in $`1/d_A`$ at $`1/d_A=0`$. Using Eqs. (29), (35) and (36) in Eq. (33) thus gives the part of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ that is of second order in $`1/d_A`$ as

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}=8\pi ^2Bd_A^2\left(2F_0F_2+G_1^2\right)\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{r}+\mathrm{}\mathrm{independent}\mathrm{terms}.$$
(37)
We can check the consistency of these results and calculate the $`\mathrm{}`$-independent terms here by using our previous result (27) in the case where $`\mathrm{}`$ is large and $`\mathrm{}d/d_A`$ is small, where $`d`$ is whatever length characterizes the $`k`$-dependence of the form factors. The term in Eq. (27) of zeroth order in $`\mathrm{}d/d_A`$ is

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}8\pi ^2BF_0^2_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta }{\beta ^2\sqrt{\beta ^21}}=8\pi ^2BF_0^2,$$
(38)
in agreement with Eq. (31). Also, Eq. (27) has no terms of first order in $`1/d_A`$, in agreement with Eq. (32). To calculate the terms in Eq. (27) of second order in $`1/d_A`$, we express $`F^2(k)`$ and $`G^2(k)`$ in terms of cosine transforms

$$F^2(k)=F_0^2+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑af(a)\left(1\mathrm{cos}(ka)\right),G^2(k)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ag(a)\left(1\mathrm{cos}(ka)\right).$$
(39)
Then for $`\mathrm{}1`$ and $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$, Eq. (27) gives

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}\frac{8\pi ^2B}{d_A^2}\left[\left(2F_0F_2+G_1^2\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\overline{d}}{2d_A}\right)+C\frac{3}{2}\right)+G_1^2\right],$$
(40)
where $`\overline{d}`$ is a typical value of the variable $`a`$ in the cosine transforms (39):

$$\mathrm{ln}\overline{d}\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[f(a)+g(a)\right]a^2\mathrm{ln}ada}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[f(a)+g(a)\right]a^2𝑑a}$$
(41)
Eq. (40) agrees with the limit of Eq. (37) for large $`\mathrm{}`$, because in this limit $`_1^{\mathrm{}}1/r\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}+C`$, and now fixes the $`\mathrm{}`$-independent terms in Eq. (37) so that, for any $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$,

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}=\frac{8\pi ^2B}{d_A^2}\left[\left(2F_0F_2+G_1^2\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{d}}{2d_A}\right)+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{r}\frac{3}{2}\right)+G_1^2\right].$$
(42)
Putting together Eqs. (31), (32), and (42) gives our final formula for $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the case $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$ and $`\mathrm{}2`$:

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}=8\pi ^2BF_0^2\left\{1\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{d_A^2}\left[d^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{d}}{2d_A}\right)+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{r}\right)d^2\right]+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(43)
where now we introduce a pair of characteristic lengths:

$$d^2\frac{2F_0F_2+G_1^2}{F_0^2},d^2\frac{3F_0F_2+\frac{1}{2}G_1^2}{F_0^2}.$$
(44)
The logarithm in Eq. (43) is large and negative, so $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ will increase or decrease with $`\mathrm{}`$ for sufficiently small $`\mathrm{}`$ according as $`d^2>0`$ or $`d^2<0`$. (Taken literally, Eq. (43) would suggest that this behavior is reversed when the sum over $`r`$ becomes large enough to cancel the logarithm, but this is at $`\mathrm{}2e^Cd_A/\overline{d}`$, which is large enough to invalidate the approximations that led to Eq. (43).) Note that, while $`d`$ and $`d^{}`$ depend only on the behavior of the form factors near zero wave number, the length $`\overline{d}`$ given by Eq. (41) depends on the behavior of the form factors at all wave numbers. Consequently, although the value of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at low $`\mathrm{}`$ depends only on the form factors at $`k=0`$, somewhat surprisingly the growth of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for small $`\mathrm{}`$ depends on the form factors at all wave numbers.

V. APPLICATION

To illustrate the use of the asymptotic formulas obtained here, we will now apply them to the simplified model described in reference 1: the universe before last scattering consisting of pressureless cold dark matter and a photon-nucleon-electron plasma; no gravitational radiation; and negligible contributions of the plasma and neutrinos to the gravitational field. In this case, the comparison of Eqs. (5) and (6) for the long wavelength limit of the form factors with Eq. (29) gives

$$F_0=1,F_2=3t_L^2/2,G_1=3t_L,$$
(45)
so the lengths (44) are here

$$d^2=6t_L^2,d^2=0.$$
(46)
Hence Eq. (43) then gives the behaviour of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$ and $`\mathrm{}2`$ as

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}=8\pi ^2B\left\{1\frac{6\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)t_L^2}{d_A^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{d}}{2d_A}\right)+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{r}\right]+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(47)
Aside from its weak dependence on $`\overline{d}`$, the behaviour of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}d/d_A1`$ is independent of the baryon density, in agreement with more accurate computer calculations. We can’t calculate the length $`\overline{d}`$ without a model that would give the form factors at all wave numbers, but $`\overline{d}`$ is expected to be roughly of order $`d_H`$, and since $`d_A/d_H`$ is large the logarithm is not sensitive to the precise value of $`\overline{d}`$. If for instance we take $`\overline{d}=\sqrt{3}t_L=d_A/58.5`$ (the acoustic horizon at last scattering for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=0.6`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0`$) then the quantity $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}/8\pi ^2B`$ rises from unity when extrapolated to $`\mathrm{}=0`$ to 1.044 at $`\mathrm{}=5`$, and to 1.118 at $`\mathrm{}=10`$, which is probably the highest value of $`\mathrm{}`$ for which the approximations leading to Eq. (47) are reliable.

For $`\mathrm{}`$ of the order of $`d_A/d_H`$ the coefficients $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be calculated under the simplifying assumptions of this section by using the form factors given by Eqs. (8) and (9) in Eq. (27). The damping length is given in reference 1 as

$$d_D^2𝒟_L^2+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒟_L^20.029t_L^2\left(\frac{8}{15(1+\xi )}+\frac{\xi ^2}{2(1+\xi )^2}\right)+0.0025d_H^2.$$
(48)
Our results for $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at and below the first Doppler peak are not sensitive to $`d_D`$. We will simplify our calculations here by dropping the terms in Eqs. (8) and (9) that are proportional to the ratio $`\xi /k^2t_L^2`$, on the grounds that these terms are not very different from corrections to the WKB approximation that are not included either. (At the first Doppler peak $`\xi /k^2t_L^2`$ increases with $`\xi `$ and hence with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.03`$ it has the value $`0.20`$. But to be honest, the real reason for dropping these terms is that they spoil the agreement of our results for the height of the first Doppler peak with more accurate numerical calculations.) The results obtained now depend critically on the baryon density parameter $`\xi 27\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, and are shown in Figure 1 for values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ ranging from zero to 0.03.

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0`$ (in which case the WKB approximation is not needed, so that Eq. (27) should give $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ down to values of $`\mathrm{}`$ of order two) the behavior of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is nothing like what is observed: $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}/8\pi ^2B`$ rises from unity to 1.1 at a ‘zeroth Doppler peak’ at $`\mathrm{}d_H/d_A0.45`$ (due to the maximum in the Doppler form factor $`G(k)`$ at $`kd_H=\pi /2`$), then dips to 0.7 at $`\mathrm{}d_H/d_A1.6`$, and then rises again to a first Doppler peak at $`\mathrm{}d_H/d_A2.83`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.01`$ the behavior of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ within the range of validity of the WKB approximation is much more like what is observed: $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ rises monotonically to a first Doppler peak at $`\mathrm{}d_H/d_A`$ very roughly of order $`\pi `$ (though actually around 2.6). There is another clear peak at $`\mathrm{}8.7d_H/d_A`$, presumably arising from the peak in $`F(k)`$ at $`k=3\pi /d_H`$. The weaker peaks in $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ arising from peaks in $`F(k)`$ near even values of $`kd_H/\pi `$ are absent here, presumably because of our neglect of the contribution of radiation and neutrinos to the gravitational field. Another difference between the curves of Figure 1 and more accurate computer calculations is that, again because we neglect the contribution of radiation and neutrinos to the gravitational field, our results do not show the fall-off of $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at large $`\mathrm{}`$ associated with the fall-off of the familiar transfer function $`T(k)`$ at large $`k`$.

The values of the position $`\mathrm{}_1d_H/d_A`$ of the first peak and the ratio of its height $`\mathrm{}_1(\mathrm{}_1+1)C_\mathrm{}_1`$ to the value $`8\pi ^2B6C_2`$ for small $`\mathrm{}`$ are given for various baryon densities in Table 1. These results are independent of other parameters. In the last two columns of Table 1 we also give values of $`d_A/d_H`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, and the corresponding results for the multipole number $`\mathrm{}_1`$ of the first Doppler peak. In calculating the horizon at last scattering $`d_H`$ we have now (somewhat inconsistently) taken into account the effect of photons and three flavors of neutrinos and antineutrinos on the expansion rate, which gives

$`d_H`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a(t_L)}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle _0^{t_L}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{a(t)\sqrt{1+R(t)}}}`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{H_0(1+z_L)^{3/2}\sqrt{3\xi \mathrm{\Omega }_M}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\xi }+\sqrt{\xi (1+\lambda )}}{1+\sqrt{\xi \lambda }}}\right),`$
where $`\lambda =0.047/\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2`$ is the ratio of photon and neutrino energy density to dark matter energy density at the time of last scattering, and $`d_A`$ is given by Eq. (2). In calculating the values of $`d_A/d_H`$ in the table we have taken $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2=0.15`$.

We see from Table 1 that the position of the first Doppler peak does not depend strongly on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, while its height is a sensitive function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ between 0.02 and 0.03 the height and position are in fair agreement with what is observed, though of course the serious comparison of theory with observation relies on more accurate computer calculations. The qualitative results obtained here suggest that if one were to rely on a single feature of the plot of $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ versus $`\mathrm{}`$ to measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, then the ratio of the the height of the first Doppler peak to the value for lower $`\mathrm{}`$ values studied by the COBE satellite would be more useful than the ratio of the heights of the first and second Doppler peaks, which relies on less precise data, depends on complicated damping effects, and is more sensitive to other parameters, such as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2`$ and the rate of change, if any, of the vacuum energy. Of course, for high precision one must use the whole plot of $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$ versus $`\mathrm{}`$ to measure all these parameters together.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for helpful correspondence with E. Bertschinger, J. R. Bond, L. P. Grishchuk, and M. White. This research was supported in part by the Robert A. Welch Foundation and NSF Grants PHY-0071512 and PHY-9511632.

REFERENCES

1. S. Weinberg, ”Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background I: Form Factors and their Calculation in Synchronous Gauge,” UTTG 03-01, astro-ph/0103279.
2. L. P. Grishchuk and J. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1924 (1997).
3. J. R. Bond, “Theory and Observations of the Cosmic Background Radiation,” in Cosmology and Large Scale Structure, eds. R. Schaeffer, J. Silk, M. Spiro and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier, 1996), Section 5.1.3. Our result (26) can also be derived with somewhat more trouble by using Bond’s results on the asymptotic behavior of averaged products of spherical Bessel functions.
4. This method had been used previously to obtain Eq. (21) with only a scalar form-factor $`F(k)`$, as for instance by J. R. Bond and G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 226, 655 (1987), Eq. (4.19), but not as far as I know with the inclusion of the dipole form-factor $`G(k)`$.
5. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products (Academic Press, New York, 1980), #6.671.2.
6. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, ibid., #6.574.2.
7. G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B44, 189 (1972).
8. E. F. Bunn and M. White, Ap. J. 480, 6 (1997).