text:
# Tensor Analyzing Power and Current Conservation in the 𝑑⃗+𝑝→³He+𝛾 reaction

## I Introduction

Radiative capture of the tensor polarized deuterons by protons, and in particular the determination of the tensor analyzing power (TAP) $`A_{yy}`$ (or the $`T_{20},`$ and $`T_{22}`$ components), has been proposed  as a unique source of information on the tensor component in the $`NN`$ interaction, which is responsible for the $`D`$ waves in few-body systems. A number of full Faddeev calculations have been performed during the last several years in which the three-nucleon dynamics in the bound and the continuum states is taken into account exactly (see \[2-3\], and references there). Since most of these were restricted to intermediate angles (i.e. near $`90^o`$ in the c.m.s.) and the low energy region, mostly only $`E1`$ transitions were considered , assuming magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole transitions to be small (as is the case for the cross section). The role of high multipole transitions in $`A_{yy}`$ was examined only recently , although a first estimate of $`M1`$, $`E2`$ transitions and their importance was mentioned earlier in . In general, these multipoles appeared to be important even near $`90^o`$ for $`E_d>3040`$ MeV, and at forward or backward angles at all energies. These calculations confirmed the strong sensitivity of the TAP to the $`D`$ states, and also showed that there are important effects from initial state interactions (ISI) in the three-nucleon continuum.

The reaction mechanism of the radiative capture may be divided into two main classes: “external” and “internal” radiation, corresponding to the emission of the photons from external and internal lines (or vertices), respectively. As was mentioned, the ISI and, therefore, internal radiation in general (of which the ISI is an essential part), is very important in TAP calculations \[2-4\]. Therefore we expect that meson exchange currents (MEC), reflecting another part of the internal radiation, also play an important role (as they do in the cross section). Moreover, both types of radiation are not independent, they are connected by the requirement of gauge invariance . And only an exactly conserved nuclear current guarantees a consistent treatment of the one- and many-body mechanisms  with a correct balance of the internal and external radiation . In this connection we note that previous calculations of TAP did not satisfy current conservation, although some effects from MEC were partially included in \[2-5\] according to Siegert’s hypothesis. An additional iso-vector MEC, which is gauge invariant itself, was included in  explicitly for M1- transition.

In this paper we calculate TAP for the $`\stackrel{}{d}+p`$ 3He + $`\gamma `$ reaction with tensor polarized deuterons, using the covariant and gauge invariant approach  developed earlier for photo(electro)- disintegration of the few-body systems . Such an approach based on the effective field theory methods allows one to satisfy the fundamental requirements of covariance CPT- and gauge invariance on both “tree” and “loop” levels, and at the same time to include intra-nuclear dynamics, final (initial) state interaction and effects from MEC. It means, that one- and many-body reaction mechanisms, corresponding to one-particle reducible (pole type) and irreducible (contact type) diagrams, are taken into account consistently with nuclear dynamics and their balance in the total gauge invariant amplitude is guaranteed by the exact conservation of the total nuclear electromagnetic (EM) current. This approach was successfully applied to various observables in the EM interactions of the few-body systems \[7-11\]. The unpolarized cross sections in the $`d+p^3`$He$`+\gamma `$ reaction as well as the cross section and structure functions in the 3He$`(e,e^{}d)p`$ channel, which are the most sensitive to final state interaction (FSI) , were described well . Although, non-relativistic Faddeev calculations also describe the cross section well, some deviations in the description of the structure functions at high transferred momenta, were found . Therefore one expects that spin-observables are even more sensitive to the effects of Lorentz-covariance and current conservation, since they involve the interference of different current components (see, for instance, ). That is why it is of interest to study the results for TAP in the framework of the covariant and gauge invariant theory, including all multipole transitions.

In comparing with various approaches, it is convenient to distinguish:

1. Quantum-mechanical approaches, in particular full Faddeev calculations, take into account nuclear structure and ISI (or FSI) exactly, through the solution of the non-relativistic Faddeev equation for bound and continuum state wave functions, preserving orthogonality of the initial/final states. However, there are two main problems: i) gauge invariance is violated, since the mesonic exchange effects, which are implicitly included in the NN- interactions, are not included in the EM interactions, and therefore, there is no balance between one- and many-body EM current operators in the total amplitude (in the restricted low-energy region and for not too extreme angles, a special choice of the EM operators allows one to shift a gauge arbitrariness to high-multipoles, assuming they are not important; but this procedure does not reflect a real gauge freedom, since the gauge is fixed for the main multipoles by some “good choice” of the gauge function, and that is evidently not enough since physical results should not depend upon the choice of the EM operators at all); ii) the non-relativistic structure of EM operators, which are defined in the nucleon rest-frame, requires some corrections in the rest-frame of the nucleus (3He), in which frame the Faddeev equation is solved and the calculation of the observables is performed (an additional Lorentz boost of the operators leads to a well-known problem: in the $`instant`$ $`form`$ of dynamics the corresponding Poincare generators contain the interaction).

2. The field theoretical approach allows one to combine the requirements of covariance and gauge invariance with the accounting for the intra-nuclear dynamics, i.e. ISI/FSI and MEC effects, even for phenomenological NN interactions . However, the complicated structure of the relativistic equations for the n-point Green function (especially in the case of 3- and 4-body systems) and a large number of various “loop” (and vertex) corrections, connected with the inclusion of the regular part of the hadronic $`T`$ matrix (in the case of full ISI/FSI), makes it practically impossible for applications at present. That is why we use a compromise  which, on the one hand, preserves all above mentioned fundamental properties of the theory, and, on the other hand, allows one to use all achievements of the traditional nuclear physics, such as solutions of the Faddeev equation, and to define various 3- and 4-point nuclear vertex functions. Of course, in this way we loose some relativistic effects (like the small “negative-energy” form factors in nuclear vertices, which are unknown in any case, and very often do not contribute to the main transitions due to the gauge constraints \[14-15\]), but we preserve a covariance and current conservation, providing a correct balance of the different reaction mechanisms in the total gauge invariant amplitude and, as a result, a correct connection between the (unobservable) wave function and physical amplitudes.

Details of the field theoretical approach to EM interactions of compound systems, including different “minimal” methods leading to the same results for the contact currents on the tree and loop levels, may be found in . All details concerning the $`\gamma +^3`$He$`pd`$ reaction, in particular, are given in . In this work we only briefly indicate how to derive the gauge invariant EM amplitudes from the 3- and 4-points Green functions ($`tdp`$-, $`dpn`$\- and $`tppn`$\- vertices) using “minimal photon insertions” into the external/internal hadronics lines and strong form factors.

## II Covariant Structure of the Gauge Invariant Amplitudes

First we introduce the general form of the covariant 3He $`pd`$ vertex ($`t=p+d`$):

$$A_\nu (p,d,t)=A_\nu ^0+(/pm_p)A_\nu ^{,p}+A_\nu ^{,t}(/tm_t)+(/pm_p)A_\nu ^{,pt}(/tm_t).$$

Only the first term has a quantum mechanical analogue and can be expressed (in the laboratory system) through the overlap integral of the 3He and 2H wave functions. The next three terms represent so-called “negative-energy” components which do not have a non-relativistic analogue. The last term does not contribute at the tree level, which consists of the pole graphs with only one off-shell particle. We discard all possible, but unknown, negative-energy form components from the beginning. Moreover, the contributions from $`A_\alpha ^{,p}`$ and $`A_\alpha ^{,t}`$ terms in any case will be cancelled in the main Dirac (charge) part of the total conserved current in a model independent way (by the corresponding counter terms coming from the contact current) due to the gauge constraint for the 4-point Green function (see  for details).

The general Lorentz structure of the $`A_\alpha ^0(p,d,t)`$ operator, consistent with the CPT- invariance, is (see )

$$A_\nu ^0(p,d,t)=\{\gamma _\nu D+p_\nu B+d_\nu C\}\gamma _5$$
$`(1)`$
However, to eliminate unphysical contributions from the longitudinal components of the wave function of a (virtual) spin-1 particle in a covariant way, we have to satisfy the additional condition (in the same way as for the $`dpn`$ vertex ):

$$d_\nu \overline{u}(p)A_\nu ^0(p,d,t)u(t)=0.$$
$`(2)`$
Note, in the case of the gauge fields unphysical (longitudinal) components (additional polarization states of the vector field) do not contribute automatically due to coupling to the conserved currents (see an example in ).

Applying condition (2) to eq.(1), we present the $`tdp`$\- vertex in the following form, including two independent invariant form factors, $`D,B`$, which are related with the $`S`$ and $`D`$ components of the overlap integral of the 3He and 2H wave functions :

$$G(t,p,d)=\overline{u}(p)A_\nu ^0(t,p,d;k^2)u(t)\chi _\nu ^{}(d)$$

$$A_\nu ^0(p,d,t)=\{\gamma _\nu D(k^2)+p_\nu B(k^2)+d_\nu [bB(k^2)+aD(k^2)]\}\gamma _5.$$
$`(3)`$
Here $`u(p)`$ is the Dirac bi-spinor, $`\chi _\nu (d)`$ is the polarization vector (wave function) of a spin-1 particle (deuteron), while $`t,p,d`$ are the 4-momenta of the 3He, proton and deuteron, respectively ($`t=p+d`$), and $`k`$ is the relative $`pd`$ momentum. $`\gamma _\mu `$ is a Dirac $`4\times 4`$\- matrix, and $`\gamma _5=i\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$. All information on the nuclear dynamics is absorbed by the strong covariant form factors $`D(k^2)`$ and $`B(k^2)`$, which are functions of relative momentum $`k^2`$ (see below). The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ are given by $`a=(\sqrt{t^2}+\sqrt{p^2})/d^2`$ and $`2b=1(t^2p^2)/d^2`$.

Note, in ref.  a simplified (without physical background) $`tdp`$\- vertex, expressed in terms of $`two`$ form factors and the relative momentum $`k`$ only, which is inconsistent with the eqs.(1)-(2), was used. In accordance with CPT- and Lorentz invariance the correct $`tpd`$\- vertex contains $`three`$ strong form factors, as in eq.(1), and to reduce their amount an additional physical condition should be applied: it cannot be done in an arbitrary way.

In the second step we need to distinguish $`reducible`$ ($`A_\nu ^0`$) and $`irreducible`$ ($`A_\nu ^{irr}`$) vertices (see , for instance):

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(d)S_0(p)A_\nu ^0(p,d,t)S_0(t)=D_{\nu \mu }(d)S(p)A_\nu ^{irr}(p,d,t)S(t),$$
$`(4)`$
where $`D_{\mu \nu }^0(d)`$ and $`S^0(p)`$ are free Feynman propapagators of the vector and spinor particles, while $`D_{\mu \nu }(d)`$ and $`S(p)`$ are dressed propagators including the mass-operator (or self-energy part). The 3-point reducible/irreducible vertices (on the left/right hand sides of (4)) satisfy different equations, containing different intermediate states: either free Feynman or fully renormalized propagators. Therefore, it is essential that the selected (from the beginning) type of the vertices (in the left- or right-handside of (4)) should be used to describe different reaction channels consistently .

In the next, third, step we derive the 4-point EM Green function from the strong 3-point Green function ($`tdp`$ vertex). This consists of the “minimal photon insertions” into all external hadronic lines and vertices in eq.(4). It is evident, that such a procedure may be performed using either the left- or right-hand side of eq.(4). In the first (left-hand side) case we obtain a conserved current in terms of reducible vertices and free Feynman propagators, while the second (right-hand side) one generates a conserved current in terms of irreducible vertices and full renormalized propagators. Clearly the physical amplitudes will be equal only if the corresponding currents are conserved .

To get the simplest structure of the total current we derive a conserved current starting from the left-hand side of the identity (4). This means that we obtain a conserved current in terms of $`reducible`$ vertices and $`free`$ $`Feynman`$ propagators, while all self-energy parts of the 2-point Green functions are already included into the definition of the vertices. Further we omit the $`simbols`$ $`0`$ at the free propagators and reducible vertices.

Following , we get a total conserved current on the tree level which consists of the $`external`$ and $`internal`$ radiation parts:

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{tot}(p,d,q)=J_{\mu \nu }^{extern}(p,d,q)+J_{\mu \nu }^{intern}(p,d,q).$$
$`(5)`$
The external radiation (fig.1(i)-(iii)) includes the proton, deuteron, and 3He poles (irregular part of the amplitude, generated by the photon insertions into all external lines):

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{extern}=F_\mu (p,p^{})S_0(p^{})A_\nu (p^{},d,t)+A_\lambda (p,d^{},t)D_{\lambda \beta }^{(0)}(d^{})F_{\mu \beta \nu }(d^{},d)+A_\nu (p,d,t^{})S_0(t^{})F_\mu (t^{},t)$$
$`(6)`$
The internal radiation mechanism (fig.1(iv)) corresponds to a contact current (the regular part, which does not possess pole-type singularities). It is generated by the photon insertion directly into the strong $`tdp`$ vertex and phenomenologically accounts for the photon radiation from the (virtual) “mesonic sector” (in the mesonic theory of the strong interaction):

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{intern}=_0^1\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }\frac{d}{dq_\mu }\{z_pA_\nu (p\lambda q,d,t^{}\lambda q)+z_dA_\nu (p,d\lambda q,t^{}\lambda q)\}$$
$`(7)`$
Here $`p^{}=pq`$, $`d^{}=dq`$, $`t^{}=t+q,`$ and $`z_{p(d)}`$ is the charge of the proton (deuteron). The relative variables $`k_{p(d)}`$ and $`k`$ (arguments of the strong form factors $`D`$, $`B`$) in the channels with proton (deuteron) and 3He poles are defined as follows (see  for details):

$$k=\eta _dp\eta _pd,k_p=k\eta _dq,k_d=k+\eta _pq$$

$$k_{p\lambda }=k\lambda \eta _dq;k_{d\lambda }=k+\lambda \eta _pq$$

$$\eta _p=(pt^{})/t^2\mu /m_d;\eta _d=(dt^{})/t^2\mu /m_p;\mu =m_pm_d/(m_p+m_d)$$

It is important that using these equations the integration in (7) may be performed $`independent`$ of the explicit form of the strong form factors $`D(k^2)`$ and $`B(k^2)`$. (see, for instance,  and ). Omitting all terms proportional to $`q_\mu `$ and $`d_\nu `$ (these will not contribute after the contraction with the polarization vector of the photon and/or deuteron: $`q_\mu ϵ_\mu (q)=0`$, $`d_\nu \chi _\nu (d)=0`$), we convert the “integral” form (7) of the internal radiation amplitude into the identical “differential” form ($`R_\nu (k)=\{\gamma _\nu D(k)+p_\nu B(k)\}\gamma _5`$):

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{intern}=\frac{k_\mu }{kq}[z_pR_\nu (k_p)+z_dR_\nu (k_d)(z_p+z_d)R_\nu (k)]g_{\mu \nu }[aD(k_p)+B(k_p)+bB(k_d)]\gamma _5$$
$`(8)`$
It was shown a long ago (see, for instance,  and/or ) that the transition from the “integral” form (7) of the contact current to the “differential” one (8) cannot depend upon the explicit form of the strong interaction due to Lorentz invariance. Expanding the functions $`R_\nu (k_{p,d})`$ near the $`k^2`$\- point at $`kq0`$, one can check an important property of the internal radiation amplitude: it has no pole-type singularities .

The 3-point EM vertices satisfying the Ward-Takahashi identities (WTI) are (see ):

$$F_\mu (p,p^{})=F_1(q^2)\gamma _\mu +\frac{F_1(0)F_1(q^2)}{q^2}/qq_\mu \frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2m}F_2(q^2),$$
$`(9)`$
for the interaction with a spinor field, and

$$F_{\mu \alpha \beta }(d,d^{})=(d+d^{})_\mu [g_1g_{\alpha \beta }\frac{g_3}{2m_d^2}(q_\alpha q_\beta \frac{q^2}{2}g_{\alpha \beta })]+(z_dg_1)\frac{d^2d^2}{q^2}q_\mu g_{\alpha \beta }$$

$$2g_2(g_{\mu \alpha }q_\beta g_{\mu \beta }q_\alpha )+g_3\frac{d^2d^2}{4m_d^2}(g_{\mu \alpha }q_\beta +g_{\mu \beta }q_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }q_\mu ),$$
$`(10)`$
for the interaction with a vector field. The EM form factors are normalized by the conditions:

$$F_1^{p(t)}(0)=z_{p(t)};F_2^{p(t)}(0)=\kappa _{p(t)}z_{p(t)};g_1(0)=z_d;g_2(0)=\kappa _d;g_3(0)=2g_2(0)g_1(0)+Q_d,$$

where $`z_{p(t)}`$ and $`\kappa _{p(t)}`$ are the charge and magnetic moment of the proton (3He), while $`\kappa _d`$ and $`Q_d`$ are the magnetic and quadrupole moments of the deuteron.

It is easy to check that the vertices (9), (10) satisfy the WTI also in the half-off-shell case (corresponding wave functions are implied here)

$$(ll^{})_\mu F_\mu ^{p(t)}(l,l^{})/z_{p(t)}=S^1(l)S^1(l^{});(ll^{})_\mu F_{\mu \alpha \beta }(l,l^{})/z_d=D_{\alpha \beta }^1(l)D_{\alpha \beta }^1(l^{})$$
$`(11)`$
Note, that the WTI for the on-shell and half-on-shell $`\gamma dd`$\- vertices are identical (the same as for the spinor-particles ) when the unphysical components of the (virtual) spin-1 particle (deuteron propagator) are eliminated (by the subsidiary condition (2)). Indeed, any terms at the right hand side of the “operator form” WTI (second eq.(11)) proportional to the (virtual) deuteron momenta do not contribute, being contracted with the (only) physical states of the (virtual) deuteron wave function (exactly in the same way as for the real deuteron). Analogously, for the (half-off-shell) $`\gamma dd`$\- vertex: any terms proportional to the (virtual) deuteron momenta do not contribute to the physical amplitude being coupled to the $`physical`$ states of the (virtual) deuteron wave function (deuteron propagator), exactly in the same way as for the real deuteron.

Using eqs.(11), one can see that the total current $`J_{\mu \nu }^{tot}(p,d,q)`$ from (5) is exactly conserved for any vertex function ($`z_t=z_p+z_d`$):

$$\overline{u}(p)q_\mu (J_{\mu \nu }^{extern}+J_{\mu \nu }^{intern})u(t)\chi _\nu ^{}(d)=(z_tz_pz_d)\overline{u}(p)A_\nu (t^{},p,d)u(t)\chi _\nu ^{}(d)=0.$$
$`(12)`$
The current (5)-(7) is the minimal necessary set of the reaction mechanisms which obeys current conservation. The three terms in (6) represent the pole-type diagrams, while (7) is the regular part of the amplitude (or contact current). Only the first diagram in fig.1(i) (with a proton pole) corresponds to the plane-wave impulse approximation (PWIA). The second diagram in fig.1(ii) (with a deuteron pole) corresponds to the crossing-channel (recoil mechanism), while the third diagram in fig.1(iii) with the 3He pole is part of the ISI/FSI  (it is the dominant one, at least near threshold), caused by the pole-part of the hadronic $`T`$\- matrix of the elastic $`pdpd`$ scattering in the initial (or final) state . As it may be seen from the explicit form of the contact current (8), its value is determined by the deviation of the nuclear wave functions (and overlap integrals) from their long-range asymptotics . A contact part of the amplitude (see fig.1(iv)) corresponds to a many-body current and effectively (implicitly) accounts for the effects associated with MEC (in the framework of the meson theory of NN- interaction) .

Although the contact current does not contain pole-type singularities, it must be included on the “tree”-level, since it is the contact diagram that provides conservation of the nuclear current for the class of pole graphs. Note, that the requirement of a “minimal trajectory” (the path of integration in (7)) fixes the contact amplitude in a unique way . Let us specify what we mean, since sometimes in the literature the “arbitrariness” of the procedure/prescription to reconstruct gauge invariance has been discussed. As it is well known, the requirement of gauge invariance itself does not allow one to reconstruct a “transverse” (gauge invariant by itself) part of the contact current. But it does not mean that an arbitrary gauge invariant construction can be added to the current (7): any contributions to the physical amplitude must be based on the concrete physical mechanisms only. In a phenomenological approach (when we do not specify the mechanisms of the strong NN- interaction) an additional (fundamental) condition should be used together with the gauge constraint to fix the contact current in a unique way. In a“minimal” field-theoretical scheme  an additional requirement of the“minimal trajectory” is implied so that the “transverse” part may only be equal to zero. Indeed, any non-zero “transverse” contribution may be directly converted into a deviation from the “minimal trajectory” and violation of the “minimal scheme”. In this way a purely “transverse” part of the amplitude (which is equal to zero on the tree-level) should be considered as a correction and must be calculated through the next-order class diagrams (one-loop corrections) using the same “minimal scheme” on the level of two-body irreducible graphs (see ref. ). Such a “step-by-step” approach allows for a consistent gauge invariant description of the effects associated with FSI and MEC, selecting diagrams in accordance with one-, two-, …, n- particle reducible/irreducible contributions and applying the “minimal scheme” on each level separately. This is a convenient approach in case when we do not know the lagrangian, but we do know all hadronic Green functions (n-point vertices). For example: 1) if we know only 3-point nuclear vertex ($`tpd`$\- vertex in our case) we can generate only tree-level gauge invariant amplitude; 2) if we know 3- and 4-point nuclear vertices (i.e. $`tpd`$-, $`tpnn`$\- and $`pdpd`$\- vertices) we can generate not only a gauge invariant tree-level amplitude, but also a new gauge invariant set of one-loop contributions (i.e. that purely “transverse part” of the contact current which was equal to zero on the tree-level); 3) if we know the 3-, 4- and 5-point vertices (i.e. $`tpd`$-, $`tpnn`$-, $`pdpd`$\- and $`pdpnn`$\- vertices) we can generate an additional gauge invariant set of two-loops contributions (that is a correction to the pure “transverse part” of the contact current associated with two-body irreducible contributions). This procedure in principle may be continued selecting three-, four-loop corrections and so on (see ). For our particular reaction a pure transverse part of the contact amplitude is a correction, accounting for the regular part of the $`pd`$\- scattering $`T`$\- matrix, and must be generated through the same “minimal photon insertions” into all internal lines and vertices of the loop-diagrams in the equations for the nuclear vertices. However, in the present paper we will neglect such a contribution.

In addition to the tree level diagrams we also include the nearest non-pole contributions (see fig.1(v),(vi)): one-loop corrections to the current (5) whose singularities are the closest to the “physical region” after the pole-type diagrams. Diagrams in fig.1(v),(vi) correspond to the photon production due to the transformation of the deuteron into a spin-singlet $`pn`$\- pair: $`d\gamma +\{pn\}_S`$ . These cannot be included at the tree level, since there is no bound state in a spin-singlet $`pn`$\- system. Such a spin-isospin-flip transition represents an $`isovector`$ current, contrary to the $`isoscalar`$ one in eq.(5) (see also ). Although it also belongs to the $`internal`$ $`radiation`$ class, it evidently cannot be taken into account by the diagram in fig.1(iv). The isovector current in fig.1(v),(vi) may be presented in the form  ($`p_2=p_1+q`$, $`t=p_1+n+p`$, $`n+p_2=d`$):

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{\{pn\}_S}=i\frac{d^4n}{(2\pi )^4}\{Tr[S(p_2)F_\mu (p_2,p_1)S(p_1)A_s(p,p_1,n)S^T(n)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\nu ^{dpn}(n,p_2)]+(pn)\}$$
$`(13)`$
The 4-point nuclear vertex $`A_s(p,p_1,n)`$ of the virtual $`{}_{}{}^{3}Hep+\{pn\}_s`$ break-up with a spin-singlet $`pn`$\- pair contains a strong form factor $`G_s`$ which is a combination of the $`S`$\- and $`S^{}`$\- components of the 3He wave function :

$$\overline{u}(p)\overline{u}(p_1)\overline{u}(n)A_s(p,p_1,n)u(t)=G_s[\overline{u}(p)u(t)][\overline{u}(p_1)\gamma _5C\overline{u}^T(n)],$$
$`(14)`$
where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix.

Using (14) and the explicit form of the $`dpn`$ vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{dpn}`$ , we get from (13):

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{\{pn\}_S}(p,d,q)=i\frac{d^4n}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{G_s}{n^2m^2+iϵ}\frac{I_{\mu \nu }}{p_2^2m^2+iϵ}$$
$`(15)`$
$$(4im)^1I_{\mu \nu }=(\mu _p\mu _n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1ϵ(dq\mu \nu )+(\kappa _p\kappa _n)[(\frac{dn}{m^2}1)ϵ(dq\mu \nu )2ϵ(nq\mu \nu )]\mathrm{\Gamma }_1$$

$$+[(\mu _p\mu _n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+(\kappa _p\kappa _n)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_4)]\frac{n_\nu }{m^2}ϵ(dq\mu n),$$
$`(16)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2\mathrm{},4}`$ are strong form factors in the $`dpn`$ vertex (without the “negative-energy” form factors, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=0`$). Their expressions in terms of the deuteron wave functions may be found, for instance, in ); we also introduced $`ϵ(abcd)=ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }a_\mu b_\nu c_\alpha d_\beta `$.

Taking into account that $`q_\mu I_{\mu \nu }=0`$ independent of the strong dynamics (due to the fact that all fully antisymmetric tensors $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ in (16) contain already the vector $`q`$), we see that the current (14) is always conserved:

$$q_\mu J_{\mu \nu }^{\{pn\}_S}(p,d,q)=0.$$

We note that the isovector internal radiation amplitude (13), $`J_{\mu \nu }^{\{pn\}_S}`$, is sometimes approximated in the literature by the introduction of the external radiation diagram with a “scalar deuteron” ($`d^{}`$) pole (see ref. , as an example). However, such a simplification is inconsistent, since it requires additional (free) parameters and/or special assumptions for the $`tpd^{}`$ vertex (replacing the unbound $`d^{}`$ wave function by a bound one, for instance). As was found recently (see \[7-9\]), the isovector transition (with spin-isospin-flip) is very important for the cross sections  and spin observables . That is why a consistent treatment of the spin-singlet pairs is essential.

As a last step, to get a numerical result, we need to define all strong form factors appeared in eqs. (3), (15)-(16). Since solutions of the corresponding relativistic equations are not available at the moment, we express all form factors through the corresponding wave functions (and/or overlap integrals) in the laboratory system (i.e. in the system where the solution of the Faddeev equation is obtained), in the same way as it was done for the form factors in the $`dpn`$ vertex :

$$(\frac{p^2}{2\mu }+ϵ_2)^1D(p)I_0(p)+I_2(p)/\sqrt{2},(\frac{p^2}{2\mu }+ϵ_2)^1m_pB(p)I_0(p)+\sqrt{2}\frac{4m^2}{p^2}I_2(p),$$
$`(17)`$
$$(\frac{\stackrel{}{l}^2}{2\mu }+\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{m}+ϵ_3)^1G_s(l,k)\mathrm{\Psi }^S(l,k)+\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }(l,k),$$
$`(18)`$
where $`I_{0(2)}(p)`$ is the $`S(D)`$\- part of the overlap integrals between 3He and 2H wave functions, while $`\mathrm{\Psi }^S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }`$ are the fully symmetric and mixed symmetry components, respectively; $`ϵ_{2(3)}`$ is a binding energy in the two-(three-)body break up channel.

In the case of the isovector transitions (transformation of a spin-singlet $`pn`$\- pair into a deuteron) the last two diagrams in fig.1(vii),(viii) do not contribute if we neglect “negative-energy” form factors ($`P`$\- waves) in the $`dpn`$ vertex. We will also neglect “non-pole” type contributions from the orthogonal states of unbound $`pn`$ pairs in a spin-triplet states which appeared to be too small in a wide kinematical region , since the main contribution from the spin-triplet $`pn`$ pair is already taken into account by the deuteron-pole diagram (see fig.1(ii)).

## III Numerical Results and Conclusions

For numerical calculations we use the solutions of the Faddeev equations with Reid Soft Core (RSC) , and Argonne-V18 + Urbana-IX  (V18) interactions. By comparing these we obtain an estimate of the sensitivity of the TAP to various models of the nucleon-nucleon potential. Moreover, since the TAP is mostly determined by the small admixture of $`D`$ states components (which is at the level of $`8\%`$) in the vertex functions (see \[1-4\]), the comparison of the results for different models of NN interaction with the experiments could provide a separation of the effects coming from the nuclear dynamics and the structure of the EM current.

Fig.2 shows a comparison of the existing calculations for $`T_{20}`$ with the experimental results at $`E_d=19.6`$ MeV. As one sees the present results (including all multipole transitions) for the RSC and V18 interactions are very close; they describe the experimental points well, reproducing the asymmetric behaviour around $`90^o`$ and even the (same) trend at forward/backward angles.

The results of ref.  (symmetric around $`90^o`$), based on the full Faddeev calculations for the bound and continuum state wave functions with the Paris potential, contain $`E1`$ transitions only. These describe the experimental points for $`T_{20}`$ at intermediate angles only, indicating the need to include, at least, $`M1`$ and $`E2`$ multipoles even at such a low energy. Comparing the present results and those from ref. , one can see that at $`forward`$/$`backward`$ angles in both cases $`T_{20}`$ has the same sign: $`positive`$ in our case, and $`negative`$ in the case of ref.. Of course, this is not surprising, since magnetic multipoles (which are not included in ref. ) are important at extreme (small/large) angles.

However, a further comparison with the results reported in ref. , which are also based on full Faddeev wave functions with the Bonn potential (for the initial/final states), but include all multipole transitions, contrary to the ref. , shows a $`positive`$/$`negative`$ “asymmetry” of the $`T_{20}`$ at $`forward`$/$`backward`$ angles. However, our present gauge invariant calculations (solid- and dashed-curves in fig.2), which also include all multipoles, do not show the change of the $`T_{20}`$\- sign with increasing the angle from 0o to 180o. We note that an “asymmetric” behaviour of $`T_{20}`$ observed in ref. for forward/backward directions cannot be the result of the inclusion of the full ISI. Our present PWIAS (not gauge invariant) calculation, i.e. accounting for the proton + deuteron poles (fig.1i+1ii) in the Coulomb gauge and the iso-vector current (13) (fig.1v+1vi), quantitatively reproduces the same “asymmetric” behaviour of $`T_{20}`$ with the negative (positive) signs at forward (backward) angles (we do not show this not gauge invariant calculation, since it has no physical meaning). However, inclusion of all other diagrams, which restore current conservation, makes $`T_{20}`$ again “symmetric”, as it is in fig.2, for any $`NN`$\- interactions. Taking into account that this effect does not depend on the type of $`NN`$ interaction (compare our present results for RSC and/or V18 with the ones in ref.), we suggest that the different behaviour of $`T_{20}`$ at extreme angles is connected with the effects of current conservation which provides a consistent treatment (or a correct balance) of the $`external`$ and $`internal`$ radiations. In other words: the observed effect appears to be connected with the structure of the total current, but not with the nuclear structure, since it exists for various realistic NN models.

From the comparison of the theoretical curves in fig.2 with the experimental results in the intermediate angle region, where TAP was proposed to be used as a test of the tensor forces , we can conclude that, in general, all realistic potentials (V18, Bonn, Paris and RSC) contain a reasonable $`D`$ components at small momenta (which are tested by the deuterons with $`E_d=19.6`$ MeV). Although, the V18 and Bonn potentials give better agreement with experiment near $`\theta =90^o`$ (where high multipoles, and an exact balance of the internal/external radiations are not very important at this particular energy), the accuracy of the measurements is clearly not enough to make a choice.

In fig.3-5 the present calculations are compared with the experimental results at $`E_d`$ = 29.0; 45.0; 95.0 MeV, as well as with previous full Faddeev quantum mechanical calculations , where the $`Siegert`$ $`hypothesis`$ was used. All figures clearly indicate an increase of the difference between the covariant and non-relativistic calculations at forward/backward angles with the increasing of the deuteron energy. Moreover, at high energies (see fig.5) the disagreement appears at all angles. Unfortunately, the existing experimental results cover only intermediate angle region. Therefore, we would like to stress the need for new measurements of TAP in wide angle region for any possible energies. This could allow one to check the sensitivity of TAP to relativistic effects and current conservation.

A comparison of the present and previous  calculations in the intermediate angle region shows that both results are very close at $`70^o<\theta <130^o`$, contrary to the forward/backward angle region (see fig.3,4). This clearly confirms a well known fact  that at low energies ($`E_d<5060`$ MeV) and for the angles near $`90^o`$ it is not so important (for any observable, including TAP) whether external and internal radiations (pole and contact currents) are included consistently. The matter is: in the above mentioned conditions the Siegert hypothesis “works” well enough (the $`E1`$\- transition dominates) and a “current conservation” may be arranged artificially using the continuity equation to express the longitudinal current components in terms of the charge- density operators. This corresponds to a “good choice” of the EM- operators when the gauge is fixed for the main multipole transitions, while transfering the gauge-arbitrariness to the high multipoles . Since the later are not important at small energies, this makes a non-gauge invariant theory practically independent of the gauge arbitrariness in these very restricted kinematics conditions (certainly, such a procedure does not reflect full $`gauge`$ $`freedom`$ for all multipoles). Indeed, as one can see from fig.5, this is not the case already at $`E_d=95`$ $`MeV`$, where the Siegert hypothesis does not work. The same situation appears at forward/backward angles, but in this case at all energies.

Therefore we may conclude: the comparison of both calculations (the present one and those from ) with the experimental results at $`E_d=29.0`$ and $`45.0`$ MeV for the middle-angle region near $`\theta =90^o`$ in fig.3,4 shows that in the Bonn and Argonne-V18 potentials the tensor forces are presented reasonably well, in general. However, it seems that at $`29.0`$ MeV the $`D`$ components are only a bit overestimated (see fig.3) by both potentials, although, evident lack of experimental points even in the middle-angle region does not allow to make more complete conclusions. As for the $`E_d=95`$ MeV, even in the intermediate angle region, TAP strongly depends upon both reaction mechanisms and nuclear structure (see fig.5), and it is not possible to make any concrete conclusions about $`D`$\- states when the $`external`$ and $`internal`$ radiations are not included consistently with nuclear dynamics, in a gauge invariant way. Further measurements of TAP at high energies could provide an excellent test of the total conserved nuclear current, and could be used to get a consistent information about tensor-forces.

In fig.6 we present a set of predictions for TAP at various energies: from $`E_d=150`$ MeV up to 350 MeV. Such measurements could be performed, for instance, at KVI, IUCF, TRIUMF, and could be used as a filter of different theoretical approaches and models for NN interactions. To show that the present approach predicts, at least, the absolute values of the cross sections in the above mentioned energy interval, we compared in fig.7,8 our results (solid curves) for $`{}_{}{}^{3}He+\gamma p+d`$ reaction with the most complete at the moment (for such energies) non-relativistic calculations . In the diagramatic approach of J.M. Laget  the two- and tree-body MEC (dashed and dashed-dotted curves, respectively) are included in addition to the FSI and PWIA diagrams. From a comparison in fig.7,8 with the experiments at $`E_\gamma =240`$ MeV, and 340 MeV (see references in ) we conclude that the present calculations (solid curves) describe the existing experimental results on the cross sections in general. Although, estimation of the loop-corrections, associated with the regular part of the $`pdpd`$ $`T`$\- matrix, would be interesting from the theoretical point, the experimental uncertainties are still too large and new measurements are needed.

To summarize, in the $`\stackrel{}{d}p`$ radiative capture the TAP is very sensitive to the effects of current conservation and consistent treatment of the external and internal radiation mechanisms at extreme $`forward`$/$`backward`$ angles even at small initial energies. Although, at intermediate angles and at $`E_d<5060`$ MeV, TAP indeed may discriminate between various NN interactions in accordance with their tensor forces, the exact conservation of the EM current becomes important in TAP calculations at all angles starting from $`E_d>7080`$ MeV.

After completion of this work two calculations of the radiative $`pd`$\- capture appeared .

In  authors used basically the same approach, as was developed in ref., but with some approximations (see  for details). For instance, a simplified tdp-vertex (as in ), depending on the relative $`pd`$\- momentum only, was used (see eq.(11) of ref ), and the spin-singlet $`pn`$\- pairs were approximated by the quasi-bound “scalar deuterons”. Furthermore, the use of a “self-energy” correction to the 3He- propagator in ref. is not consistent with the use of a reducible $`tdp`$\- vertex which already includes all self-energy parts (see eq.(4)). At last, accounting for the ISI by the modification of the $`tdp`$\- vertices in the pole-graphs in accordance with eq.(40) from  violates T- reversal invariance, since leads to an imaginary part in the vertices defined by the bound states wave functions only. Generating an imaginary part in the $`tpd`$\- vertex and violating $`T`$\- invariance, the authors of  tried to account for the $`many`$-$`body`$ ISI effects through the $`one`$-$`body`$ (pole-type) currents, that is not possible in principle.

In  J.Golak et al. have shown that an (explicit) inclusion of MEC considerably changed their previous calculations on $`T_{20}`$, especially at 19.8 MeV. Their new result is shown in fig.2 by the double-dashed curve. As it may be seen, inclusion of MEC changes the character of their former result (dashed-dotted curve) at small angles and comes on closer to our calculations (solid and dashed curves in fig.2). In general, the trend of their new calculation at $`\theta <50^0`$ coincides now with our results (compare double-dashed curve with the solid- and dashed- lines), in a full agreement with the discussion in Sec.III (see above). As for the higher energies, the new calculations  differ only slightly from the previous ones , reproducing the same shape of the curves, and we do not show them. In addition, authors of  have found that after inclusion of MEC their calculations become less sensitive to the model of NN- interaction. That is exactly what we described in Sec.III: when one- and many-body currents are (correctly) balanced in the total amplitude, various realistic potentials lead to close results.

## IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported in part by the Stichting Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) with financial support of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek(NWO). We are grateful to W. Gloeckle, J. Golak, H. Vitala, A. Fonseca, I. Sick, V. Pandharipande and N. Kalantar for the stimulating discussions and for providing numerical theoretical and/or experimental results. In particular we would like to thank R. Wiringa, who provided us with his calculations of the 3He wave functions and various overlap integrals for the Argonne-V18 potential.

Figure captions
Fig.1
Gauge invariant set of covariant diagrams for the two-body 3He-photodisintegration (or radiative $`dp`$\- capture).
Fig.2
$`T_{20}`$ at $`E_d=19.6`$ $`MeV`$. The solid (dashed) curve presents our covariant and gauge invariant calculations (all multipoles) with RSC (Argonne-V18) $`NN`$\- interaction. The dotted and dashed-dotted curves show the quantum-mechanical calculations from ref.  ($`E1`$ multipole only) with Paris potential and ref.  (all multipoles) with Bonn potential, respectively. The double-dashed line presents new calculations from ref.  (the same as in ref. , but with additional $`MEC`$\- contributions). The data are from ref. .
Fig.3
Tensor analyzing power $`A_{yy}`$ at 29 $`MeV`$. The solid curve corresponds to our present calculations with the Argonne-V18 interaction. The dashed curve reproduces the full result obtained in ref.  with the Bonn potential. The experimental point is from ref. .
Fig.4
Tensor analyzing power $`A_{yy}`$ at 45 $`MeV`$. The solid curve corresponds to our present calculations with the Argonne-V18 interaction. The dashed curve reproduces the full result obtained in ref.  with the Bonn potential. The data are from ref. .
Fig.5
Tensor analysing power $`A_{yy}`$ at 95 $`MeV`$. The solid curve corresponds to our present calculations with the Argonne-V18 interaction. The dashed curve reproduces the full result obtained in ref.  with the Bonn-B potential. The data are from ref. .
Fig.6
Our predictions for the tensor analysing power $`A_{yy}`$ at various energies. The solid curve corresponds to $`E_d=150`$ $`MeV`$, while dashed, short-dashed, dotted and dashed-dotted represent our results for $`E_d=200,250,300and350`$ $`MeV`$.
Fig.7
The cross section for the 3He $`+\gamma p+d`$ reaction at $`E_\gamma =240`$ $`MeV`$. The solid curve corresponds to our present covariant and current conserved calculations with Argonne-V18 interaction. The dashed (dashed-dotted) curve shows J.-M. Laget calculations from ref.  in the diagramatic approach with 2-body (3-body) MEC and FSI. See for the data in ref. .
Fig.8
The same as in fig.7, but for $`E_\gamma =340`$ $`MeV`$.


format: text

text:
# SOFT X-RAY PROPERTIES OF ULIRGs BASED ON A LARGE AND COMPLETE SAMPLE

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Ultraluminous IRAS galaxies (ULIRGs) are an important sample for galaxy merging and formation processes. There have been many studies of these galaxies in many wavebands (see Sanders & Mirabel 1996 for a review), including the soft X-ray band. In the past ten years observations by ROSAT, ASCA and BeppoSAX, such as for NGC 3690 (Zezas et al. 1998), NGC 6240, Mrk 231, Mrk 273, Arp 220 (Iwasawa & Comastri 1998; Iwasawa 1999; Vignati et al 1999), IRAS 19254-7245 (Pappa et al. 2000), IRAS 09140-4109 (Fabian et al. 1994), IRAS 20460+1925 (Ogasaka et al. 1997), and IRAS 23060+0505 (Brandt et al. 1997) have been carried out. These studies are, however, usually restricted to a single galaxy or a small sample of ultraluminous or hyperluminous IRAS galaxies (Wilman et al. 1998). Rigopoulou et al. (1996) performed a statistical study of the soft X-ray properties for six ULIRGs selected from the IRAS Bright Source Catalogue. More recently, Risaliti et al. (2000) carried out a statistical study in the hard X-ray band for a fairly large sample of luminous IRAS galaxies (including about 20 Ultraluminous IRAS galaxies) based on ASCA and BeppoSAX observations.

While it has become clear that Ultraluminous IRAS galaxies (ULIRGs) are strongly interacting or merging (e.g. Clements et al. 1996), or multi-merger systems (Borne et al. 2000), there is still a debate about the dominant power source for the tremendous far infrared luminosities of ULIRGs. For some ULIRGs, the dominant energy source appears to be AGN based on the near-infrared spectral properties (Lutz et al. 1999) or hard X-ray properties (e.g. IRAS 05189-2524 and NGC 6240), however they resemble starburst galaxies in the optical or soft X-ray. On the other hand, some ULIRGs are classified as Seyfert 1s /QSOs based on their optical spectra, but they are X-ray quiet and both their soft and hard X-ray properties do not resemble typical optically-selected Seyfert 1s/or QSOs (e.g. Mrk 231 and IRAS 07598+6508, see Lawrence et al. 1997; Lipari, 1994; Lipari et al. 1994).

The debate about the dominant power source in the object itself hints that star formation and the AGN phenomenon probably occur at the same time. This implies that galaxy formation and the formation and fueling of black holes (BHs) are closely coupled. This is also supported by the prevalence of BHs in nearby galaxies (Magorrian et al. 1998). The implementation of this coupling in semi-analytical studies can explain many properties of quasars (e.g. Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000). It is therefore interesting to explore the relative contribution of starbursts and AGNs in another part of the energy-spectrum, the soft-X rays.

In the past, many authors have considered the multiple-merger process (e.g. Mamon 1987; Barnes 1985; Barnes 1988, 1999; Schweizer 1989; Weil & Hernquist 1996). Recent high resolution images of ULIRGs from HST lend support to this scenario since many ULIRGs have multi-nuclei and may have resided in compact groups (Borne et al. 2000). The so-called over-luminous elliptical galaxies have X-ray properties similar to groups of galaxies (Ponman et al. 1994; Mulchaey & Zabludoff 1999; Vikhlinin et al. 1999), and may also have formed in multi-merging processes. The soft X-ray emission in normal elliptical galaxies is assumed to be from hot gas left over from heating processes during their formation or from hot gas expelled from evolving stars (e.g. Mathews & Brighenti 1998). Since most ULIRGs are merging systems and some of these are at the final stage of forming ellipticals (Zheng et al. 1999), it is therefore interesting to compare their soft X-ray properties with those of normal elliptical galaxies and groups of galaxies.

For all the above considerations, ULIRGs are an important (local) sample to study the connections between galaxy merging, the formation of elliptical galaxies, and the active galactic nuclei (AGNs). In this paper, we will discuss the properties in soft X-ray band for the largest ULIRG sample based on the PSCz catalogue; we use the X-ray data from ROSAT All Sky Survey and pointing observations, and ASCA observations. The outline of the paper is as follows, in Sect. 2, we discuss how our ULIRG sample is obtained, and the procedure used to identify the X-ray luminous ULIRGs in the ROSAT data. In Sect. 3, we discuss the statistical properties of our sample, and finally in Sect. 4, we summarize and discuss our results. Throughout this paper, we assume an Einstein-de Sitter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$) cosmology and adopt $`H_0=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

## 2 SAMPLE SELECTION

### 2.1 THE ULIRG SAMPLE

The sample of ULIRGs was compiled from the PSCz redshift survey (Saunders et al. 2000). The PSCz catalogue is a complete galaxy redshift survey selected mainly from the IRAS Point Source Catalogue. It includes 15411 IRAS galaxies across 84% of the sky. The PSCz redshift survey is complete down to a flux limit $`\mathrm{f}_{60\mu \mathrm{m}}`$ of 0.6 Jy and $`\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{j}<19.5^\mathrm{m}`$. This catalogue is complete and uniform to a few percent at high latitudes and 10% at low latitudes. The PSCz catalogue includes the galaxies from the QDOT survey (Lawrence et al. 1999) and the 1.2Jy sample (Fisher et al. 1995). In the adopted cosmology, we find that 903 objects have far-infrared luminosities $`\mathrm{L}(40120\mu \mathrm{m})>10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$, and hence qualify as ULIRGs according to the criterion of Sanders & Mirabel (1996). This is currently the largest complete sample of ULIRGs. We will correlate this sample with X-ray data as described below.

### 2.2 THE X-RAY SAMPLEi

There are three catalogues of ROSAT archival data. The first is the ROSAT All Sky Survey Bright Source Catalogue (RASS-BSC, Voges et al. 1999). The RASS-BSC contains 18811 sources and the sky coverage is 92%. Sources in RASS-BSC were detected to a limiting count rate of 0.05 $`\mathrm{count}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 0.1-2.4 keV energy band with at least 15 source counts and a detection likelihood of at least 15 (for a definition of likelihood, see Cruddace et al. 1988). The public PSPC and HRI catalogues contain 74301 and 59911 targets, respectively. All three catalogues give source coordinates, count rate, exposure time, hardness ratio and other useful parameters.

### 2.3 IDENTIFYING X-RAY EMITTING ULIRGs

We have correlated the ULIRGs sample obtained from the PSCz catalogue with the RASS-BSC catalogue and the ROSAT pointing observations from both PSPC and HRI. We describe the details below.

First, we correlate the positions of the ULIRGs with those of the RASS-BSC sources and archived ROSAT pointing PSPC and HRI observations resulting in a list of candidate identifications. The largest difference allowed between the soft X-ray and the infrared positions is 36 arcseconds. For two objects (IRAS 10026+4347 and IRAS 18216+6418), the offset is about 36 arcseconds in one observational run, but less than 20 arcseconds in another run. Moreover, for 90% of the targets, the differences between the infrared position and the position given in the ROSAT archive catalogues are about or much less than 20 arcseconds, which is roughly the pointing uncertainty of the ROSAT PSPC detector. Notice that if both ULIRGs and RASS-BSC sources are randomly distributed over all the sky, the expected number of pairs of sources that are within 36 arcseconds of each other is only 0.1, so clearly most of our sources are not due to chance alignment; nevertheless, we take additional steps to ensure secure identifications.

We examine visually by overlaying the X-ray emission contours on optical images from the Palomar Digitized Sky Survey for RASS-BSC identified objects. For a secure identification, the X-ray emission must be spatially coincident with an optical counterpart of the IRAS galaxy. The procedure is the same as of Boller et al. (1998) except that we use the RASS-BSC catalogue instead of the RASS II catalogue and apply a higher detection threshold (15 source counts compared to 6 source counts used by Boller et al.) For pointing source identification, we examine the X-ray image visually and make sure that the PSCz position is coincident with the X-ray image. In addition, we only retain a source if the X-ray source count is larger than 15. There are 19 and 26 identified ULIRGS from the RASS-BSC and the pointing observations, respectively. Taking into account the overlapping sources, there are 35 ULIRGs securely detected by the ROSAT observations.

The basic parameters for the RASS-BSC and the secure pointing identifications are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Many of the X-ray properties of these sources are already available from the ROSAT archives.

To obtain further properties (such as their spectral, spatial behavior and model dependent soft X-ray luminosities), we have analyzed the X-ray data mainly based on the PSPC and HRI observations using the EXSAS software at MPE. For point sources with detected photons larger than 100, we have performed spectral fitting and also tested variability (see Sect. 3.5). The best spectral fitting results are listed in Table 4. For extended sources with enough detected photons, such as NGC 3690, NGC 6240, Mrk 273 and Arp 220, we perform a spectral analysis based on the PSPC data and a spatial analysis based on the HRI data. Our results for these 4 sources generally agree with previously published results (e.g. Iwasawa 1999; Fricke & Papaderos 1998; Schulz et al. 1998), and so will not be shown here.

## 3 STATISTICAL RESULTS

The main X-ray properties of the secure identifications with the RASS-BSC are presented in Table 3 together with their far-infrared properties. Table 4 lists the basic X-ray and other waveband properties for the ROSAT pointing identifications. For objects with more than 100 source photons (cf. column 4 in Table 4) the X-ray spectral properties have been derived from a power-law fit with free spectral index and absorbing column density. The absorption is required to be at least as large as the Galactic value taken from Stark et al. (1992) (these cases have error bars in the NHfit value at column 6 of Table 4); for IR 10026+4347, we use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 3.2 and $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{Hfit}}=(2.3\pm 1.3)\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ from the RASS data fitting result (Xia et al. 1999). For objects with less than 100 source photons we use a simple power-law model, with the photon index fixed to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.3`$ (which is typical for extragalactic objects discovered by ROSAT, see Voges et al. 1999), and an absorption column density $`N_{\mathrm{Hgal}}`$ of hydrogen fixed to the Galactic value along the line of sight.

The power-law fit is excellent for most Seyfert 1s/QSOs, all of which have a point-like soft X-ray morphology. There are also five bright radio loud QSOs or BL Lac objects in the sample: 3C 48, 3C 273, 3C 345, OJ 287 and 3C 446. To see clearly the effects of these blazars, we show statistical results with and without these sources. We also used different models to fit the spectra for objects with extended emission, such as NGC 6240, Mrk 273, NGC 3690 and Arp 220 (Iwasawa 1999). The hot plasma model usually fits better although the power-law fit is also acceptable based on the ROSAT data alone. As the energy resolution of ROSAT is lower than that of ASCA, we shall discuss some correlations based on ASCA results from the literatures in section 3.4.

### 3.1 THE SOFT X-RAY LUMINOUSITY

In Figure 1, we plot the $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ as a function of the infrared luminosity. It is clear from this figure (and Tables 3 and 4) that the ratio of the soft X-ray luminosity to the far infrared luminosity of ULIRGs spans about five orders of magnitude and reach the value about unity. If we exclude the five blazars, this range of ratios is about a factor of 3 smaller. Since the ROSAT All Sky Survey has relatively short exposure time, the sources detected in this survey are mainly soft X-ray luminous objects (the soft X-ray luminosities $`10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) except NGC 3690 and NGC 6240, at very low redshift. Further investigation reveals that most RASS sources are Seyfert 1s/QSOs (see column 11 of Table 3). Moreover, some of them are Seyfert 1s/QSOs with extremely strong FeII emission and their soft X-ray spectrum can be fitted well with very steep power-laws. A good example, IRAS 10026+4347, has been presented in Xia et al. (1999).

In comparison, for sources detected in pointing observations, the soft X-ray luminosities extend to fainter levels and cover a somewhat broader range. The most luminous objects in the soft X-ray band are Seyfert 1s/QSOs and their soft X-ray emission is mainly from a central AGN. However, some infrared Seyfert 1s/QSOs, such as Mrk 231, IRAS 07598+651 and IRAS 00275-2859, are relatively weak in soft X-rays compared to their far infrared luminosities.

From Figure 1, Table 3 and Table 4, it appears reasonable that those with $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}>0.01`$ are dominated by AGNs while those with ratios smaller than 0.001 are dominated by starbursts, or Compton thick sources; those galaxies in between may have contributions from both. This dichotomy shows up also in the soft X-ray morphologies and the spectra. This result is in good agreement with the hard X-ray statistical results for a luminous IRAS galaxy sample by Risaliti et al. (2000), which includes about 10 objects in our sample.

Since the most X-ray luminous ULIRGs are Seyfert 1s/QSOs and given that fewer than 10% ULIRGs are Seyfert 1s/QSOs (Lawrence et al. 1999), it is easy to understand why the ROSAT detection rate of ULIRGs is very low. Even the most hyperluminous IRAS galaxies are not detected, which yields a mean upper limit of $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}2.3\times 10^4`$ (Wilman et al. 1998). We return to the properties of this luminous IRAS Seyfert 1s/QSOs sample in section 3.5.

### 3.2 THE CORRELATION WITH $`L_\mathrm{K}`$

We have compiled the K-band luminosities from Surace et al. (2000), and Surace & Sanders (1999) for identified ULIRGs. Their data are listed in Table 4. Most of these galaxies have $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}<10^3`$, so their energy budget is probably dominated by starbursts. Figure 2 shows the correlation of soft X-ray luminosities with the luminosities in the K bands for thirteen sources, excluding all blazers. including one blazer 3C 273. The X-ray luminosity is clearly correlated with the K-band luminosity. Excluding 3C 273, The correlation coefficient is 0.61 with 99.7% significance. Moreover, the scatter for the K-band luminosity for a given $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ is only about one order of magnitude. This is in sharp contrast with the large scatter seen in $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ (see Fig. 1). This relatively tight correlation can be understood as follows:

As discussed by Iwasawa & Comastri (1998), the optical depths at 2.2$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and the soft X-ray band are similar if the standard gas to dust ratio is assumed and the powerful K band continuum is the sign of the presence of a large number of red giants and supergiants. Therefore, the correlation between $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{K}`$ shows that at least a part of the soft X-ray emission in these ULIRGs (mostly with small $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ ratio) is from starbursts.

### 3.3 THE HARDNESS RATIO

The hardness ratio is defined as

$$HR=\frac{f_{0.52.0}f_{0.10.4}}{f_{0.52.0}+f_{0.10.4}},$$
(1)
where $`f_{0.52.0}`$ and $`f_{0.10.4}`$ are the fluxes in the 0.5-2.0 keV and 0.1-0.4 keV ranges, respectively ($`1HR1`$). For most of our targets, we obtain the hardness ratio from the RASS-BSC and pointing archive catalogues directly; for the remaining small fraction, we obtain this by spectral fitting. For the overlapping sources between the RASS-BSC sample and pointing observations, we take the hardness ratio as the one from the pointing observations. From the left panel in Fig. 3, it can be seen that there is a weak correlation between the hardness ratio and the soft X-ray luminosity for all our targets. However, for the 16 ULIRGs with $`L_\mathrm{X}>10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which are mainly Seyfert 1s or QSOs, the correlation is tighter. We find that the correlation coefficient is 0.47 with 93.6% significance. If we exclude the five blazars, the correlation coefficient is 0.43 with 80.4% significance. This correlation indicates that the Seyfert 1s/QSOs with relatively low soft X-ray luminosities also tend to have very soft X-ray spectra. Given that QSO’s soft X-ray luminosity is higher than Seyfert 1’s, this result is consistent a scenario where the soft X-ray excess for low-luminosity AGNs is due to the so-called ‘Big Blue Bump’; this feature is less prominent for the more luminous QSOs in the soft X-ray and hence their spectra are harder (see Reeves & Turner 2000). We caution, however, that the correlation is not highly significant for the current sample, especially if we exclude the blazars.

### 3.4 THE HOT GAS OF ULIRGs

As mentioned above and discussed in detail by Iwasawa (1999), for ULIRGs with relatively low soft X-ray luminosities, the power-law fitting to the soft X-ray spectra is not as good as the hot plasma model fitting. Also, the soft X-ray emissions are extended for these objects from the ROSAT HRI observations. Examples include NGC 3690, NGC 6240, Arp 220 and Mrk 273 (Zezas et al. 1998; Iwasawa 1999). Because the energy resolution of ROSAT is lower than that of ASCA, we collect the ASCA data in the soft X-ray band for these objects. For objects with enough detected photons to perform the analysis, the two-temperature model provides the best fit to the observational data. Iwasawa (1999) pointed out that the low temperature component is more extended spatially than the high temperature component. He argued that the high temperature component is from a central massive starburst region. Table 5 lists the soft X-ray luminosities and the hot plasma model fitting temperatures available. For those fitted with a two-temperature model, we only take the value for the low temperature component since we are interested in the extended emission in the outer region.

For comparison, we also collect the soft X-ray luminosity and temperature data for Hickson compact groups from Ponman et al. (1996) and for elliptical galaxies from Buote & Fabian (1997). The Hickson compact groups data are based on ROSAT PSPC observations and data for elliptical galaxies are based on ASCA observations (the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ is in 0.5-2 keV band). There are also 5 soft X-ray over-luminous elliptical galaxies (OLEGs) data from Vikhlinin et al. (1999) and Mulchaey & Zabludoff (1999) in Table 5. The temperature of OLEGs by Vikhlinin et al. has been determined from the $`L_\mathrm{X}T`$ relation of clusters and groups of galaxies (Hwang et al. 1999). Figure 4 shows the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ vs. temperature relation for ULIRGs, groups of galaxies, elliptical galaxies and 5 OLEGs. The most important feature is that the ULIRGs occupy the same region in the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`T`$ plane as groups of galaxies and elliptical galaxies. The OLEGs clearly have higher soft X-ray luminosity and temperature than compact groups and elliptical galaxies.

The data therefore indicate that the low temperature component hot gas in ULIRGs may have the same origin as the hot gas in groups of galaxies and elliptical galaxies. Hence it hints at an evolutionary connection between ULIRGs, groups of galaxies and elliptical galaxies.

### 3.5 SOFT X-RAY PROPERTIES OF IRAS SEYFERT 1s/QSOs

It is clear from Tables 2 and 3 that about two thirds (22 out of 35) of ROSAT detected ULIRGs are Seyfert 1s/QSOs or BL Lac objects). Given that a large fraction of Seyfert 1s/QSOs selected from ULIRGs are strong or extremely strong optical FeII emitters (Lawrence et al. 1999; Zheng et al. 2000, in preparation), this Seyfert 1s/QSOs sub-sample is suitable for investigating the correlations between optical emission line properties and soft X-ray properties.

From Tables 3 and 4 we see that most Seyfert 1s/QSOs have a soft X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the ratio of soft X-ray to far infrared luminosity is larger than 0.01 with a few exceptions: Mrk 231, IRAS 07598-6508, IRAS 00275-2859, IRAS 21219-1757 and IRAS 10479-2818. All these 5 objects are QSOs from NED.111 The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Furthermore, four of these 5 objects (except IRAS 10479-2818) have extremely strong/or very strong FeII emissions. Mrk 231 and IRAS 07598-6508 are well known broad absorption line quasars. IRAS 10479-2818 is not an FeII emitter and has very broad permitted emission lines (Clowes, Leggett & Savage 1991). However the ratio of H$`\alpha `$ to H$`\beta `$ is much larger than 3.1, the value for normal Seyfert 1s/QSOs, which means that there is heavy absorption in this object. Therefore, the low soft X-ray luminosity for these 5 IR QSOs is probably due to heavy absorption (see Brandt et al. 2000).

For Seyfert 1s/QSOs with high soft X-ray luminosity and high $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ ratio, the soft X-ray spectra can be fitted very well by power-laws with spectral index around 2.3 for most of them and these fit the description of classical Seyfert 1s/QSOs. However, for IRAS 10026+4347, IRAS 04505-2958, IRAS $`115980122`$ and PG 0157+001, the power-law slopes are steeper with a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }3`$, or the spectra are very soft (For a power-law spectrum there is a one-to-one correspondence between the hardness ratio and spectral index.) The soft X-ray spectra for the first 3 objects are very soft as shown in column 13 of Table 4. These three Seyfert 1s/QSOs are also extremely strong/strong optical FeII emitters. Therefore their soft X-ray loudness, steep spectral index and strong optical FeII emission resemble the narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1, Boller et al. 1996), although their permitted emission line widths for IRAS 10026+4347 and PG 0157+001 are not as narrow as a typical NLS1 – their H$`\beta `$ widths are larger than 2000 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Zheng et al. 2001, in prepration). Also comparing the counts rate and soft X-ray luminosities in Tables 3 and 4, one clearly sees variability for some of the Seyfert 1s/QSOs. However, the variabilities are up to about a factor of two, except for IRAS 10026-4347, so these ULIRGs may have variabilities between the typical NLS1s and normal Seyfert 1s/QSOs.

To summarize, the sub-sample of 22 Seyfert 1s/QSOs exhibit very different properties in their soft X-ray luminosity, spectral slope or hardness ratio and there does not seem to be a simple correlation with optical spectral properties. Some of the diversity may be caused by large and varying dust obscuration, but some may be intrinsic.

## 4 SUMMMARY AND DISCUSSION

We have correlated a sample of 903 ULIRGs selected from the PSCz IRAS galaxy redshift survey catalogue with the ROSAT All-Sky Survey Bright Source Catalogue and ROSAT PSPC and HRI pointing archival data. The identification of ULIRGs as X-ray emitters is based on X-ray contour plots overlaid on optical images taken from the Digitized Sky Survey or the visual coincidence of the soft X-ray image and the PSCz position. In total, 35 ULIRGs have been securely detected by ROSAT observations, including five blazars.

We have determined the main soft X-ray properties for the identified objects and studied their properties in other wavebands. Our statistical results depend somewhat on whether we include the five blazars or not, but not to a very significant degree. The most striking result is the ratio between the soft X-ray and the far-infrared flux which covers five orders of magnitude, much more than the K-band luminosity vs. $`L_\mathrm{X}`$. The highest $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ ratios reach close to one, and these soft X-ray luminous ULIRGs are most likely powered by accretions onto central massive black holes, while lower ratio systems may be powered by starbursts or Compton thick sources. It is clear that the X-ray energy source in these ULIRGs may be quite different.

Two thirds of our identified ULIRGs are Seyfert 1s/QSOs, while the remaining are not. For several extended objects that do not classify as Seyfert 1s/QSOs, we have used published ASCA data to study the origin of the hot gas. We find that the hot gas seems to follow the same $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ vs. $`T`$ trend as in groups of galaxies and in luminous elliptical galaxies. This suggest that some ULIRGs are evolutionally linked with groups of galaxies and elliptical galaxies. The Seyfert 1s/QSOs in the ULIRGs have different properties, some have relatively weak soft X-ray emission, while some have higher luminosities ($`L_\mathrm{X}>10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$); the latter can be further divided into the ones with steep slopes and those with slopes that are typical for classical Seyfert 1s/QSOs. Optical spectra have recently been obtained for this unique sample of Seyfert 1s/QSOs. The results of the analysis will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming paper.

The authors thank Profs. J. Trümper and L.Z. Fang for stimulating this identification project. We are grateful to Dr. S. Mao for valuable comments that have improved the paper. We also thank Drs. H. Wu and X.Z. Zheng for reducing the optical spectra of some identified ULIRGs, and Profs. X.P. Wu and T.Q. Wang for helpful discussions. XYX and DZG thank the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics for hospitalities. This research is supported by the Chinese National Science Foundation, the NSFC-DFG exchange program and NKBRSF G19990754.

## FIGURE CAPTIONS


text:
# Bose Condensation and Temperature

## Abstract

A quantitative analysis of the process of condensation of bosons both in harmonic traps and in gases is made resorting to two ingredients only: Bose classical distribution and spectral discretness. It is shown that in order to take properly into account statistical correlations, temperature must be defined from first principles, based on Shannon entropy, and turns out to be equal to $`\beta ^1`$ only for $`T>T_c`$ where the usual results are recovered. Below $`T_c`$ a new critical temperature $`T_d`$ is found, where the specific heat exhibits a sharp spike, similar to the $`\lambda `$-peak of superfluidity.

today

In the analysis of low temperature behaviour for Bose systems, temperature is typically thought of as given by $`T=1/k_B\beta `$, $`\beta `$ being the Lagrange multiplier one has to introduce in the customary ensemble approach to account for energy conservation. Such definition however implies in fact the assumption of statistical independence of modes, which not only is not necessary but may even be in contradiction with the basic features of the conceptual scheme leading to the construction of quantum statistics. Indeed, the latter rests on the notion of density matrix, which is correctly introduced only after the Fock space has been properly generated over the tensorized product of the appropriate number of single-particle states. This, in turn, implies the existence of mode correlations which are there even in the absence of interactions. Only when temperature is high enough as to break such correlations, the Fock density matrix can be lifted to a product of single particle density matrices, in which case, however, the only statistics achievable is Maxwell-Boltzmann’s, where correlations are absent.

Ever since 1907 Einstein himself , discussing the behavior at low temperature of the quantized harmonic oscillator in the frame of Boltzmann statistics, pointed out how classical results on equipartition of energy are, in agreement with the Nernst theorem, no longer valid for $`T<h\nu /k_B`$, by obtaining a good fit of the heat capacity data for diamond. One of his basic assumptions was the extensivity hypothesis. The latter is usually transferred, adopting a tensor product structure for the Hilbert space of states of a multi-particle system, to the whole Quantum Statistical Mechanics (QSM) in spite of the fact that it can be justified for the Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution only, related in this case to the statistical independence of different modes. It worked well for Einstein when he dealt with the carbon atoms in diamond (which of course do not condense) in that, being fixed at their positions in the crystal, these are distinguishable, while one of the characteristic features of quantum mechanics is indistinguishability of the particles.

Several authors have discussed Bose Einstein condensation (BEC) in magnetic traps, all on the basis of that same definition of temperature ,,, finding – together with $`T_cN^{1/3}`$ – a heat capacity monotonically decreasing to zero for $`T`$ below $`T_c`$, in agreement with what happens for true gases under the same hypotheses.

On the other hand Bose, when he ′′invented$`^{\prime \prime }`$ bosons, broke scale invariance in the same way as Democritus did in the 5th century BC: because of correlations, a condensate is not the disjoint union of smaller condensates, in the same way as an atom (ancient or modern) is not equal to two half-atoms. The properties of a condensate do depend on the number $`N`$ of atoms it contains, as one cannot consider the thermodynamic limit  , ,  that would require, together with $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`h\nu N^{1/3}`$ (i.e. the continuum), in conflict with the properties of magnetic traps where the spectrum (discrete) has a spacing which is fixed and comparable with $`k_BT_c`$. In other words the distinction of physical quantities in intensive and extensive is not consistent with Bose-Einstein condensation, as proved, among others, by the mentioned relation $`T_cN^{1/3}`$.

All these well known features are little relevant for $`T>T_c`$, because the particles there are distributed over all levels, and the continuum approximation appears to be sufficient both for describing the regime for $`T>T_c`$ and for determining $`T_c`$ itself (minor corrections may arise, that will be considered elsewhere ). However, as soon as the condensate fraction $`c\overline{n}_0/N`$ becomes relevant ($`T<T_c`$), statistics becomes significantly different from Boltzmann’s and the very definition of temperature must be reconsidered together with, but independently from, the question of equipartition. Temperature can be defined, in a quite general and basic way, in terms of two fundamental physical quantities; internal energy $`E`$ and entropy $`S`$. Thus instead of connecting $`T`$, because of extensivity, to the Lagrange multiplier $`\beta `$, one can derive it from the separate measurements of $`E`$ and $`S`$.

We shall then consider ab initio, in the grand-canonical ensemble, a system of $`N`$ bosons of total energy $`E`$ and we shall explicitly evaluate the Lagrange multipliers as functions of $`N`$ and $`E`$. Successively, Shannon’s form of entropy will be our starting point to derive all equilibrium thermodynamic properties. In other words, our hypotheses will be the three consistent assumptions:
a) The Bose-Einstein statistics:

$`\overline{n}_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\alpha +\beta ϵ_i}1}},`$ (1)
b) a discrete energy spectrum (as suggested by the typical experimental set-up with magnetic traps, where $`k_BT_c10h\nu `$), and
c) Shannon entropy, evaluated in terms of $`N`$ and $`E`$.
Temperature $`T=T(N,E)`$ will then be obtained as a derived quantity by $`T=E/S`$.

Fig. 1. Specific heat $`C/k_B`$ vs. $`T/T_c`$ for $`N=10^6`$ bosons in an isotropic harmonic trap, as predicted by the entropy approach.

The resulting thermodynamics of bosons at temperatures above and below $`T_c`$ is thus simply derived numerically, both for an harmonic potential and a cubic box, from the two inputs $`N`$ and $`E`$. The temperature scale $`T_c`$ is found to confirm the results of reference , the specific heat $`C/k_B`$ has the appropriate value for $`T>T_c`$; 3 for the three dimensional harmonic oscillator and 3/2 for the gas in a box (as it should, since the system does not condense and behaves essentially as a classical gas); however new features appear for $`0<T<T_c`$. For both the physical situations considered, heat capacity exhibits an unexpected behaviour; at $`T_c`$, it falls briskly down to almost zero (entropy and energy decrease with quite different slopes because only a few atoms migrate progressively from the warmer tail of the spectrum into the ground level) and raises up abruptly at a new critical temperature $`T_d`$ (where $`\overline{n}_0/N1/2`$), at which it exhibits a sharp spike, analogous to that of superfluids . As no interaction has been introduced, other than the confining potential, this enhance the idea that superfluid transition may indeed be ascribable, as originally suggested by Onsager and Penrose , essentially to Bose-Einstein condensation. For $`T<T_d`$, specific heat goes to zero when $`T`$ goes to zero, in agreement with Nernst’s theorem. It is suggestive that, for $`T0`$, $`CT^3`$ for harmonic traps whereas $`CT^{3/2}`$ for bosons in a box. In Fig.1 $`C/k_B`$ is given vs. the ′′probabilistic$`^{\prime \prime }`$ temperature. To check the procedure, $`C`$ has also been numerically evaluated as $`E/\beta ^1`$, checking that this coincides with the standard textbook form (see, e.g., ). It is thus clear that the effect lies in the different definitions of temperature and not in computations.

We shall now summarize a few technicalities of the procedure, emphasizing that the scheme proposed to deal with correlations could in principle be utilized also for interactions.

1) A set of values for $`N`$ in the range $`10^6÷10^9`$ as well as a set of values for the mean energy per particle $`E/N`$ in the range from the ground state up to $`10^4`$ units $`h\nu `$ for the magnetically trapped system and $`h^2/L^2`$ for the cubic box (of side $`L`$) have been considered. The difference between the two cases lies in the energy spectrum and its level multiplicity. The full range of condensation $`0<c\overline{n}_0/N<1`$ has thus been covered.

2) For each pair of values $`N`$ and $`E`$ the system of two equations in the two unknowns $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$`{\displaystyle }\overline{n}_i(\alpha ,\beta )=N,{\displaystyle }ϵ_i\overline{n}_i(\alpha ,\beta )=E,`$ (2)
(in the sums the correct state multiplicities have of course been taken into account) was solved. The two functions $`\alpha =\alpha (N,E)`$ and $`\beta =\beta (N,E)`$ were thus found.

3) Successively, the $`\overline{n}_i=\overline{n}_i(N,E)`$ were obtained from eq. (1). In particular the condensate fraction $`c\overline{n}_0/N`$ was determined as a function of $`N`$ and $`E`$.

4) The probability of finding a particle in state $`i`$, picking it up at random in the ensemble is $`p_i(N,E)=\overline{n}_i/N`$. This allows us, adopting Shannon’s definition, to find the entropy $`S`$ as a function of $`N`$ and $`E`$;

$`S=k_B{\displaystyle p_i\mathrm{ln}p_i}.`$ (3)
In this way the correlations induced by quantum statistics  enter into play only in the definition of the $`p_i`$’s which are such that $`p_i^{(1,2)}p_i^{(1)}p_i^{(2)}`$ if the system is split into the union of two parts. It is interesting to note that, had we considered Boltzmann distribution and not eq.(1), Gibbs’ distribution would have been obtained and the results of  reproduced. Once the $`p_i`$’s are known, any further analysis of equilibrium thermodynamical properties is mere statistics.

5) Temperature $`T`$ is obtained, as a function of $`N`$ and $`E`$, by numerical derivation:

$`TT(N,E)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S}{E}}\right]_N^1.`$ (4)
6) The relation $`T=T(N,E)`$ is monotonic in $`E`$ for fixed $`N`$, and it can be inverted to obtain $`E=E(N,T)`$, whence the specific heat is obtained by (numerical) differentiation (see Fig. 1):

$`C\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(E/N)}{T}}\right]_N.`$ (5)
7) ′′Probabilistic$`^{\prime \prime }`$ temperature $`T`$, despite its conceptual relevance, is perhaps not the physical parameter that best describes the process of condensation: it is difficult to measure in the experimental set-up of traps and, as one does not have equipartition, its intuitive meaning of ′′average energy per particle$`^{\prime \prime }`$ is lost. On the other hand, experimentalists define temperature deriving it from the high energy tail of the velocity distribution for which they assume  equipartition. In other words, the ′′experimental$`^{\prime \prime }`$ temperature is

$`\mathrm{\Theta }:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3k_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N\overline{n}_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}\overline{n}_jϵ_j.`$ (6)
We therefore describe the onset of condensation by exhibiting the behavior of $`c`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (Fig. 2), that we compare with $`c`$ vs. $`T`$ (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2. Condensate fraction $`c\overline{n}_0/N`$ vs. ′′experimental$`^{\prime \prime }`$ temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }/T_c`$. The curve is perfectly fitted by $`c=1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }/T_c\right)^3`$.

For the sake of completeness, we report also the ′′experimental$`^{\prime \prime }`$ specific heat $`𝒞\left(E/N\right)/\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (Fig. 4). It should be noticed that since above critical temperature equipartition holds also in our case, the two critical temperatures coincide ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_cT_c.9h\nu /k_BN^{\frac{1}{3}}`$) and equal that given in . In Fig. 5 the specific heat of the ′′warm tail$`^{\prime \prime }`$, $`𝒞_w(3k_B\mathrm{\Theta })/T`$ is shown vs. $`T/T_c`$).

8) As we have the complete description of the system in function of $`N`$ and $`E`$, all physical observables can be obtained. For instance the chemical potential, $`\mu \mu (N,E)=\left(E/N\right)_S`$, which gives $`\alpha \beta \mu `$.

In order to make the figures more easily comparable with known results in the literature, only those referring to a single value of $`N`$ ($`N=10^6`$) and to the harmonic confining trap are reported. It should be pointed out that, taking into account that $`T_cN^{1/3}`$, no substantial differences appear either for different values of $`N`$ nor for the gas in a box.

Fig. 3. $`c`$ vs. $`T/T_c`$ ($`T`$ probabilistic temperature). Apparently similar to Fig. 2, just merging to zero in a smoother way, this is indeed deeply different, in that the critical temperature is $`T_d`$ instead of $`T_c`$

Fig. 4. ′′Experimental$`^{\prime \prime }`$ specific heat $`𝒞/k_B(E/N)/(k_B\mathrm{\Theta })`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Theta }/T_c`$. Well reproduces the result in .

Our interest is focussed on different aspects. On the one side the proposed combinatorial approach emphasizes the relevance, for a proper interpretation of phenomenological data, of a definition of temperature adequate to the experimental set up. On the other, it hints to the existence at very low temperature of effects that would be worth investigating in the laboratory. Such effects are probably at present beyond reach, but experiments are in constant evolution, and the effort might open interesting new perspectives. Finally, it may provide a novel insight on the $`\lambda `$-transition in superfluids.

QSM has always been at the border between statistical mechanics (SM) and probability theory. For the latter  SM is related to information theory, where also the lexicon is different from that usual one in physics. For instance, ′′Boltzmann statistics$`^{\prime \prime }`$ is simply the common limit for $`\overline{n}_i1`$ of the only two existing statistics, Bose and Fermi in , while is just one possible ′′physical distribution$`^{\prime \prime }`$ with unlimited occupation numbers, like that of Bose in , .

Fig. 5. Specific heat of the warm tail $`𝒞_w/k_B`$ vs. $`T/T_c`$. $`𝒞_w/k_B`$ is constant ($`=3`$) for $`T>T_c`$ as expected classically, and it is two orders of magnitude smaller for $`T_d<T<T_c`$, and $`4`$ times larger for $`0<T<T_d`$.

In distribution theory all information is contained in weights such as those in eq. (1), while the fundamental hypothesis of statistical mechanics is statistical independence of the subsystems. In QSM it is the symmetrization imposed by particle indistinguishability that one has to perform, e.g. moving to Fock space, that breaks such independence. Results of physical interest are nevertheless typically in agreement, which is due in most cases to the fact that statistical correlations are irrelevant and therefore all physical distributions are equivalent. Well established exceptions are fermions at low temperature and, referring to bosons, the black body, where photons are well described by eq.(1). In black body theory, however, the situation is very peculiar because photons essentially cannot interact with each other.

On the other hand, in view of the continuous improvements of experimental techniques, extending QSM to describe experiments where $`\overline{n}_i1`$, the spectrum is discrete, the number of particles and modes is large but not so large as to allow a continuum description, is certainly a challenge that will have to be faced soon. Indeed all of this is already happening just for one physical set-up: Bose condensation in magnetic traps.

In the condensate most particles are in the fundamental level and, in typical experimental situations, $`k_BT_c`$ is only of the order of ten times the spectrum spacing ($`T_c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^2nK`$, $`h\nu /k_B10nK`$). The usual approximation in terms of continuum density with $`\overline{n}_0`$ obtained by difference, appears to be improvable. Moreover, the statistical independence of levels – acceptable in the black body – is questionable when the container is a magnetic field and has no kind of thermal exchange with the atoms. Thermodynamic equilibrium of each mode is reached because not of the interaction of the mode itself with the bath, but of the jumping of atoms from one level to another, as clearly shown by the fast restoring of equilibrium after each cooling. In the case of gas, temperature is controlled by the walls and the physics of thermalization is different but, if the statistics is that of Bose, statistical independence must be excluded.

Keeping the spectral structure into account provides the correct conceptual scheme as opposed to a theory where continuum and equipartition are assumed a priori. On the other hand, many body effects so far not considered should be analysed; however we expect that including in the picture interactions in the ground state, as described in the Gross-Pitaevsky approach , , may modify at most the energy spectrum, and the ensuing differences in numerical values should not be able to substantially mask the effects discussed.

It should be pointed out that the description presented, based on the assumption of spectral discreteness, leads not only to qualitative behaviours, but it determines as well physical observables: specific heat, filling order parameter, chemical potential, etc., all of which can be experimentally measured, related to the characteristics of the experiment ($`N`$, $`E`$, $`\nu `$). To this effect, it should be observed that in real experiments the harmonic potential is usually anisotropic: extension of our results to this situation is straightforward and leads to quite similar predictions.