format: text

text:
# Timing the millisecond pulsars in 47 Tucanae

## 1 Introduction

Among the globular clusters in the Galactic system, 47 Tucanae (henceforth 47 Tuc) holds the record for the number of known pulsars: 20 to date \[Manchester et al. 1991, Robinson et al. 1995, Camilo et al. 2000\]. Camilo et al. estimated the total number of potentially detectable pulsars in this cluster to be at least 200. The known pulsar population of 47 Tuc is very different from the population in the Galactic disk: all of the pulsars have periods less than 8 ms, and 13 are members of binary systems. Radio images of the cluster \[Fruchter & Goss 2000, McConnell & Ables 2000\] show three scintillating point sources, the positions of which coincide with the brightest known pulsars in the cluster: 47 Tuc C, D and J. It is therefore improbable that any bright pulsars remain to be discovered, even with the severe selection effects against the detection of binaries with very short orbital periods and pulsars with very short rotational periods noted by Camilo et al. (2000).

In addition to this set of pulsars, there is a collection of other exotic objects near the core of 47 Tuc: at least 9 X-ray sources (Hasinger, Johnston & Verbunt 1994; Verbunt & Hasinger 1998) and more than 20 blue stragglers \[Guhathakurta et al. 1992\]. Evidence has also been found for large numbers of cataclysmic variables in the core (Edmonds et al. 2001, in preparation). The high stellar density necessary for the formation of these objects may increase the rate of exchange of stars in binaries \[Hut, Murphy & Verbunt 1991\], leading to the formation of low-mass X-ray binaries and millisecond pulsars, a process addressed by Rasio, Pfahl & Rappaport (2000) for the specific case of 47 Tuc.

Table 1 summarises the basic parameters of 47 Tuc which we use to interpret our results. This compilation has five important updates on the information tabulated by Camilo et al. (2000). First, the position of the centre of 47 Tuc is taken to be point “D” of plate 1 of De Marchi et al. (1996). We derive the absolute position of “D” by comparing its position with that of point “G” on the same plate, whose absolute position was obtained by Guhathakurta et al. (1992). Second, recent Hipparcos data \[Reid 1998\] yields a distance to 47 Tuc of 5.0 kpc, 10% larger than previously thought \[Webbink 1985\]. Third, according to Howell, Guhathakurta & Gilliland (2000), the core radius is double the value used previously \[De Marchi et al. 1996\]. In addition, the stellar line-of-sight velocity dispersion at the centre \[Meylan & Mayor 1986\] is smaller than the previously accepted value of 13.2 km s-1 \[Webbink 1985\]. The fifth update is the proper motion, obtained from Hipparcos data: $`\mu _\alpha =(7.0\pm 1.0)`$ mas yr-1 and $`\mu _\delta =(5.3\pm 1.0)`$ mas yr-1 \[Odenkirchen et al. 1997\].

The evolutionary state of the cluster is not known precisely. It is generally presumed (e.g., Djorgovski & King 1984) that the core is in a pre-collapse phase. However, other authors (e.g., de Marchi et al. 1996) suggest that the cluster underwent core collapse in the past, reaching a core radius similar to that of M15, and that it has now re-expanded with the energy provided by the creation and hardening of stellar binary systems, an important process in globular cluster evolution \[Spitzer 1987\]. This hypothesis was based on a determination for the angular core radius of $`12^{\prime \prime }`$, which indicated a dynamically evolved cluster; and it can explain the large number of exotic objects observed in the cluster. However, the more recent determination of core radius \[Howell, Guhathakurta & Gilliland 2000\] doubles this value, casting some doubt on that conclusion, since the re-expansion would have had to be far more vigorous. Therefore the evolutionary state of the cluster remains unclear. In § 6 we discuss the properties of the observed binary pulsars, and their relevance for the solution of this problem is addressed in § 7.

Prior to the present work, the scarcity of coherent timing solutions for the pulsars in 47 Tuc did not permit the studies that require a large sample of well-timed pulsars in a single cluster to be carried out. This has only been possible to date for the eight pulsars in M15 (Anderson 1992; Phinney 1992, 1993). These studies of M15 provide much of the theoretical background for the present work and allow a useful comparison between M15 and 47 Tuc.

The new observations presented here bring the number of pulsars with coherent timing solutions known in 47 Tuc to 15. In § 2 we describe the observations and data reduction and analysis used to obtain the new timing solutions. We present these solutions in § 3. The new solutions lead to a wealth of astrophysical results which we discuss in the rest of the paper. In § 4 we use high-precision astrometry to investigate the pulsar distribution in 47 Tuc and the proper motion of the cluster. In § 5 we derive some constraints for the surface mass density of the cluster, and limits on the characteristic ages and magnetic fields of the pulsars. In § 6 we discuss some characteristics of the binary systems, and present the rate of advance of periastron measured for 47 Tuc H. Finally, in § 7, we summarise our results and briefly discuss the prospects for future timing observations of the pulsars in 47 Tuc.

## 2 Observations and data processing

Most of the early observations of 47 Tuc were made at 660 MHz using the 64-m radio telescope at Parkes, Australia, between 1989 and 1991 (Manchester et al. 1990; Manchester et al. 1991; for a summary of all observations see Table 2). These observations led to the discovery of 10 millisecond pulsars. Further observations of 47 Tuc at 430 MHz between 1991 and 1993 \[Robinson et al. 1995\] resulted in the discovery of one more pulsar, B0021$``$72N111Because all pulsars are detected in the same telescope beam pattern, and precise positions were not available originally, the pulsars were named B0021$``$72A, B, etc. Objects A, B and K were later found to be spurious, so the list of pulsars in 47 Tuc starts with B0021$``$72C, now referred to as J0023$``$7204C, or 47 Tuc C., and phase-coherent timing solutions for 47 Tuc C and D, the two brightest isolated pulsars in the cluster. For the remaining nine pulsars then known, the paucity of detections prevented the determination of any further coherent timing solutions.

In August 1997, observations of 47 Tuc were resumed at Parkes after a four-year gap. The cluster was observed on 126 days during the following 24 months. The majority of these observations were made using the central beam of a multi-beam system \[Lyne et al. 2000\] at a central frequency of 1374 MHz ($`\lambda 20`$ cm) with a bandwidth of 288 MHz. Incoming signals from two orthogonal polarisations were down-converted and filtered in a $`2\times 96\times 3`$-MHz filter bank. After summing the polarisation pairs, the resulting voltages were one-bit sampled every $`125\mu `$s and, together with accurate time referencing, stored on magnetic tapes for later analysis.

Recording the raw data in this way has two benefits. First, it allows off-line searches for new pulsars to be carried out. This strategy has been remarkably successful, essentially doubling the number of pulsars known, many of which are undetectable most of the time because of interstellar scintillation \[Camilo et al. 2000\]. Second, for timing purposes, it allows us to refine the timing models iteratively, resulting in the ephemerides reported here.

In the timing analysis, the raw data are de-dispersed and folded according to an initial ephemeris for each pulsar. In the early stages, this ephemeris is determined from variations in the observed rotational period of the pulsar in the discovery and confirmation observations. It is important that the pulsars be detected frequently, otherwise it is impossible to count unambiguously the number of pulsar rotations between two different epochs. The 20-cm observations made after August 1997 made use of the excellent sensitivity of the Parkes multi-beam system and resulted in a large increase in the detection rate for all the previously known pulsars in 47 Tuc when compared to the earlier observations at 660 MHz. This was despite the lower flux densities at 1400 MHz.

The integrated pulse profiles obtained by folding the data at the predicted pulse period are then cross-correlated with a low-noise “standard” pulse profile (see Camilo et al. 2000 for the 20-cm profiles). This allows the determination of topocentric pulse times-of-arrival (TOAs), referred to the observatory time standard. This was related to UTC(NIST) by a radio link to the Tidbinbilla Deep Space Station and from there to NIST by a GPS common-view system. We then use the tempo software package222http://pulsar.princeton.edu/tempo to calculate the corresponding barycentric TOAs using the assumed pulsar position and the JPL DE200 solar system ephemeris (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov). The differences between the measured and predicted TOAs are used to improve the parameters of the ephemeris (for further details of this process see, e.g., Taylor 1992). In the early stages, the improved ephemeris is used to reprocess the raw data. This iterative process increases the number and quality of the TOAs, which in turn are used to improve the ephemeris.

After determining the timing solutions for the 1997–1999 period, we re-analysed the raw data from the earlier observations (see Table 2). This resulted in a substantial increase in the number and quality of TOAs, especially for pulsars in binary systems, because of the much improved orbital ephemerides.

## 3 Coherent timing solutions for 15 pulsars

The coherent timing solutions obtained from the analysis described in the previous section result in a wealth of high-precision astrometric, spin and (for the binary pulsars) orbital information. Table 3 summarises the current timing status for the pulsars known in 47 Tuc. The orbital parameters for 47 Tuc S and T were first determined using a new technique described by Freire, Kramer & Lyne (2001), while the orbital parameters of the remaining binaries had been determined earlier (Robinson et al. 1995; Camilo et al. 2000). The timing solutions were obtained as follows.

Because the dispersion in proper motions among pulsars is expected to be very small (see § 4.3) we assume that all pulsars have the average proper motion of the cluster, whose value we take to be that determined from Hipparcos data (Table 1). Using tempo, the available 1991–1999 TOAs were fitted to a model for each pulsar containing celestial coordinates, spin parameters, and binary elements where relevant. Dispersion measures (DM) were obtained separately by measuring frequency-dependent delays across the 288-MHz bandwidth available at 1400 MHz, and the resulting values coincide with those given by Camilo et al. (2000). We also fitted astronomically meaningless time offsets between groups of TOAs obtained at different frequencies and with different time resolution. We do this because it is difficult to make a proper absolute alignment of pulse profiles obtained at different frequencies owing to variations in pulse shapes.

In Table 4 we present the positions, rotational parameters, and DMs obtained in this way for 15 pulsars. The corresponding timing residuals for the seven isolated pulsars are displayed in Fig. 1 as a function of time.

The orbital elements for the eight binary pulsars with timing solutions are presented in Table 5, while the corresponding timing residuals are shown in Fig. 2 as a function of time, and in Fig. 3 as a function of orbital phase.

For each pulsar we list the five Keplerian parameters: binary period $`P_b`$, projected semi-major axis light travel time $`x`$, time of passage through the ascending node $`T_{\mathrm{asc}}`$ and, where measurable, longitude of periastron $`\omega `$ and eccentricity $`e`$. For 47 Tuc H we indicate the time of passage through periastron, rather than through ascending node, and we also list the measured rate of advance of periastron $`\dot{\omega }`$. For low-eccentricity binaries (all but 47 Tuc H), in which some orbital parameters are highly covariant in standard binary fits, we used the binary model ELL1 as implemented in tempo to determine the solutions presented (see Lange et al. 2001).

Finally we attempted to measure proper motions for those pulsars where we had a combination of a long time baseline and generally high-quality data. We did this with a straightforward tempo fit, and list the results in Table 6 for five pulsars. We also determined proper motions by comparing the positions of the pulsars in 1992–1993 and 1998–1999: for each of the two independent position measurements, no proper motion was assumed, and all TOAs used at each epoch had the same frequency (430 MHz in early 1990s, 1400 MHz in late 1990s), thus avoiding any problems with the alignment of standard profiles at different frequencies. In these fits we used the accurate rotational and binary parameters obtained previously, so only the celestial coordinates were determined. A proper motion was then calculated from the differences in position between the two epochs. These measurements are consistent with those made in the global fits, but they are less precise.

All uncertainties presented in Tables 46 are our best estimates of realistic 1-$`\sigma `$ confidence levels, and in most cases are twice the formal fit uncertainties from tempo.

The main factors limiting the precision of the timing solutions presented in this paper are the relatively low signal-to-noise ratio of the pulsars and the low detection rate, particularly in the observations of the early 1990s. For some of the pulsars, the 20-cm flux densities are so low that they are detectable only in about 10% of all observations (see Camilo et al. 2000). Additionally, the data obtained between July 1989 and May 1991 were not used in any of the fits because the difference between the Parkes clock and UTC is not known to better than 50 $`\mu `$s. This introduces significant errors that would compromise several of the measurements.

## 4 Pulsar positions

The timing solutions presented in the previous section bring the number of pulsars in 47 Tuc with accurately known positions to 15, and with measured proper motions to five. For easy reference, we derive from the coordinates in Table 4 the east-west (x) and north-south (y) offsets of the pulsars relative to the cluster centre. These are presented in Table 7 and depicted in Fig. 4. In the remainder of this section, we discuss the implications of these positional measurements.

### 4.1 Radial distribution

The radial distribution for the pulsars in 47 Tuc was first addressed by Rasio (2000), based on an earlier version of some of the results we present here \[Freire et al. 2000\]. We now outline the main characteristics of this distribution and draw some conclusions from it.

The most striking characteristic of the pulsar distribution is that all the pulsars in 47 Tuc with measured positions lie within $`1\stackrel{}{.}2`$ (3 core radii) of the centre of the cluster, despite the fact that the tidal radius of 47 Tuc is about $`40^{}`$ (Table 1). This distribution, as we shall now see, is not an artifact introduced by the size and shape of the Parkes telescope radio beam pattern, which has a half-power radius of $`7^{}`$ at 1400 MHz.

The flux densities for most of the pulsars have been calculated by Camilo et al. (2000). Among the pulsars with a known solution, 47 Tuc N has the lowest flux density (0.03 $`\pm `$ 0.01 mJy). Supposing that this value is the lower limit for the flux density of a pulsar for which we can obtain a timing solution, weak pulsars like 47 Tuc U, with a flux density of 0.06 $`\pm `$ 0.01 mJy, are detectable in a circle with a radius of at least $`7^{}`$. There are 10 pulsars with at least this flux density, and the fact that none of these is seen outside a radius of $`1\stackrel{}{.}2`$ is therefore a true feature of the pulsar distribution, and not an artifact due to the shape of the beam. It should also be noted that the original surveys at 660 MHz \[Manchester et al. 1991\], with a larger telescope beam, covered an area approximately 100 times the size of the roughly arcmin-scale central region in which we now localize the 15 pulsars.

The present pulsar distribution is essentially an equilibrium distribution. The characteristic ages of these pulsars are of the order of $`10^9`$ yr, while the relaxation time (the time it takes for a pulsar to change kinetic energy significantly through interactions with other stars) in the core of 47 Tuc is of the order of $`10^8`$ yr \[Djorgovski 1993\]. Therefore, the pulsars are expected to be in thermal equilibrium with the remaining stars, and their distribution should be merely a function of their mass and of the potential of the cluster. Indeed, the de-projected pulsar distribution is consistent with $`n(r)r^2`$ until about 4 core radii, decreasing sharply outside this radius (see Fig. 5).

This concentration of pulsars near the centre of the cluster is a consequence of mass segregation: if all objects in a cluster have reached thermal equilibrium, i.e., all stellar populations have a similar average kinetic energy, then the most massive populations, among which are the pulsars, will have smaller velocities, and therefore will dwell deeper in the potential well of the cluster. To quantify this, we note that the kinetic energy of the lighter stars in the cluster core, with mass $`m_{ms}`$, is limited by the escape velocity $`v_e\sqrt{2W(0)}`$. Equating the resulting limit of kinetic energy to that of the pulsars results in a limit to the velocity of pulsars bound in the cluster core:

$$v_{p\mathrm{max}}^2=(m_{ms}/m_p)v_e^2,$$
(1)
where $`m_p`$ is the pulsar mass. As pulsars move away from the centre of the cluster under the influence of the cluster’s gravitational potential their velocities decrease, eventually reaching zero at a maximum possible distance $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ from the centre of the cluster.

The potential energy $`U(r)`$ at $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is calculated from conservation of energy:

$$U(r_{\mathrm{lim}})m_pW(r_{\mathrm{lim}})=m_pW(0)+m_pv_{p\mathrm{max}}^2/2,$$
(2)
where $`W(r)`$ is the cluster potential. Using equation 1 we obtain

$$W(r_{\mathrm{lim}})=W(0)\left(1\frac{m_{ms}}{m_p}\right).$$
(3)
This limit, with $`m_{ms}=0.8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`m_p=1.45\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (the average mass for isolated and binary pulsars), is represented by a dashed line in Fig. 6, where we use a King model for the gravitational potential of 47 Tuc (King 1966; Phinney, priv. comm.). From this we derive $`r_{\mathrm{lim}}5r_c`$, which is very close to the inferred 4 $`r_c`$. Therefore, the confinement of the pulsars in the inner region can be explained, to first order, as resulting from the shape of the potential and the upper limit for the kinetic energy of the pulsars. The fact that all pulsars are located close to the core is a constraint on any future more accurate model of the gravitational potential of the cluster.

Spitzer (1987) demonstrates that the distributions of two stellar species of mass $`m_i`$ and $`m_j`$ in thermal equilibrium with all stars in a cluster are related by

$$n_i(r)n_j(r)^{m_i/m_j}.$$
(4)
Therefore, two stellar populations with similar masses in thermal equilibrium should have similar radial distributions. Some of the most massive blue stragglers known in 47 Tuc have masses of 1.3–1.6 M \[Gilliland et al. 1998\]. Because this is the mass range expected for pulsars \[Thorsett & Chakrabarty 1999\], including binaries such as those in 47 Tuc \[Camilo et al. 2000\], both populations should have similar radial distributions, which is apparently the case \[Rasio 2000\]. However we caution that the population considered by Rasio (2000) is not altogether homogeneous, having a relatively wide range of masses. Ultimately it will be useful to compare the radial distribution of just the most massive blue stragglers with that of pulsars, and in particular to determine whether they display the abrupt radial cutoff observed for pulsars.

Lastly, Spitzer shows that outside 3 core radii, the mass distribution for the dominant stellar species should be of the type $`n(r)r^2`$. Knowing this and the fact that the radial distribution of the pulsars in M15 is $`n(r)r^{3.1}`$ \[Anderson 1992\], Phinney (1992) used equation 4 to infer that the dominant stellar species near the centre of M15 is 0.9 M white dwarfs. In principle we could use the same argument to show, based on the observed pulsar distribution in 47 Tuc, that the dominant stellar species in the central region of this cluster is made of 1.3–1.6 M objects. However, the fact that the pulsars lie within (and not outside) 3 core radii may complicate this interpretation (although the “pulsar core” should be more compact than that of the cluster).

### 4.2 A triple system with two pulsars?

There is a remarkable coincidence between the celestial coordinates of 47 Tuc G, an isolated pulsar, and 47 Tuc I, a binary pulsar (see Table 7). The projected angular distance between these two pulsars is only 120 mas.

To estimate the chance probability of finding two pulsars in such close proximity, suppose that pulsars are randomly distributed in a disk of radius $`18^{\prime \prime }`$ (the projected angular distance of these two pulsars from the centre of the cluster). For a given pulsar, the probability of finding a second one at a projected distance of $`0\stackrel{}{.}12`$ or less is proportional to the area of a disk of radius $`0\stackrel{}{.}12`$ divided by the area of a disk of radius $`18^{\prime \prime }`$ or $`5\times 10^5`$. The probability of being at a distance larger than $`0\stackrel{}{.}12`$ is 0.99995. For the five pulsars known within $`18^{\prime \prime }`$, we have 10 different possible pairs. The probability of not finding any pulsar within $`0\stackrel{}{.}12`$ of any other pulsar is $`0.99995^{10}=0.9995`$, i.e., the overall probability of finding one or more pulsars projected within $`0\stackrel{}{.}12`$ of any other is $`5\times 10^4`$, about one in 2000.

If the pulsars are near to each other but not interacting significantly, then the acceleration caused by the cluster should be similar for both of them. In § 5 we see that their values of $`\dot{P}/P`$ are similar, with a difference of $`3\times 10^{18}`$ s-1, in a possible range $``$ 20 times larger. Therefore, the combined probability of finding the pulsars with such close projected separation and with such similar accelerations is about one in 40,000.

Given this low formal probability of chance coincidence, it is worth considering that these two pulsars may be in a hierarchical triple system with a major axis of at least 600 a.u. A system with two components 600 a.u. apart is not likely to remain bound for long in the dense environment of a globular cluster. By considering the stellar flux with one-dimensional speeds of $`v_z(r)`$, an estimate for the mean time a binary system can survive in a dense environment (i.e., before it gets hit by another cluster member) is

$$\tau =(n[r]\sigma \sqrt{3}v_z[r])^1.$$
(5)
In this expression $`n(r)`$ is the density of stars, $`v_z(r)`$ is the one-dimensional stellar velocity dispersion near the binary and $`\sigma `$ is the cross-sectional area for the interaction of the binary with a star from the cluster. The King model for 47 Tuc predicts $`n(r)4\times 10^4`$ pc-3 for this location. With $`v_z(r)10`$ km s-1 we estimate $`\tau 10^4`$$`10^5`$ yr. This time is comparable to the orbital period of the putative binary system, and $`10^6`$$`10^5`$ the age of the cluster. Thus, despite the low formal probability of a chance coincidence, this simple calculation argues against the reality of such an association. Ultimately, the reality or otherwise of this system can be tested by future measurements of higher period-derivatives for the two pulsars.

### 4.3 Proper motions

The proper motions listed in Table 6 are displayed in Fig. 7, together with the value measured for the proper motion of the cluster by Odenkirchen et al. (1997). At the 2-$`\sigma `$ level all these proper motions are consistent with each other.

If a pulsar is moving with a transverse velocity $`v_p`$ (km s-1) relative to the centre of the cluster, the difference in proper motions is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0.21v_p/D`$ mas yr-1, where $`D`$ is the distance to the cluster in kpc. The escape velocity of 47 Tuc is about 58 km s-1 (Table 1). Therefore, in order to detect a pulsar in an escape trajectory at the 3-$`\sigma `$ level, we would have to measure relative proper motions of about 2.4 mas yr-1 with a precision better than 0.8 mas yr-1, and we are approaching this level for 47 Tuc J (Table 6). If the pulsars are in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding stars, their relative motions are of the order of the central velocity dispersion or less, i.e., $`12`$ km s-1. Thus, detecting their relative motions implies measuring relative proper motions of about 0.5 mas yr-1 with a precision of 0.15 mas yr-1. The typical precision for the positions of the weakest pulsars is around 5 mas. In order to obtain a precision of 0.15 mas yr-1 for these we would have to measure the positions of the pulsars again in $`50`$ years’ time. However, for the brightest pulsars, with positional accuracies of about 1 mas, it will suffice to make another measurement in about 10 years, using current data-acquisition systems.

The assumption of thermal equilibrium for the pulsars implies that, with current timing precision, a measurement of the proper motions of these pulsars is in effect a measurement of the proper motion of the cluster. We can therefore make a weighted average of the five proper motions and determine the motion of the cluster, knowing that the peculiar motions of the pulsars should be smaller than the errors in the individual measurements. The weights chosen are simply the inverse of the uncertainties in each coordinate. For the currently-observed proper motions, we find the weighted average value to be $`\mu _\alpha =(6.6\pm 1.9)`$ mas yr-1 and $`\mu _\delta =(3.4\pm 0.6)`$ mas yr-1. The uncertainties are taken to be the sum in quadrature of the weighted dispersion of the values of proper motion for the pulsars about the average, and 0.5 mas yr-1, which accounts for the expected actual dispersion of proper motions.

## 5 Pulsar accelerations in the cluster potential

Nine of the 15 pulsars in Table 4 have negative period derivatives ($`\dot{P}`$). This has been observed before for some pulsars located in globular clusters (e.g., Wolszczan et al. 1989). Rather than being due to intrinsic spin-up, negative period derivatives are thought to be caused by the acceleration of the pulsar towards the Earth in the cluster potential (see Fig. 8).

In § 5.1 we use the observed period derivatives of the pulsars to estimate lower limits for the surface mass density of the cluster. We then consider the aptness of a King model together with accepted parameters for 47 Tuc in describing the accelerations experienced by the pulsars as inferred from the period derivatives (§ 5.2). We derive limits for the ages and magnetic fields of the pulsars in § 5.3.

The observed period derivative, $`\dot{P}_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, is the sum of the pulsar’s intrinsic spin-down, $`\dot{P}_{\mathrm{int}}`$, and the effect of the acceleration along the line of sight, $`a_l`$. This sum may be negative if a negative $`a_l`$ contribution is not exceeded by a positive $`\dot{P}_{\mathrm{int}}`$; i.e., a negative $`\dot{P}_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ implies $`|a_l/c|>\dot{P}/P_{\mathrm{int}}`$. It also implies $`|a_l/c|>|\dot{P}/P_{\mathrm{obs}}|`$.

The acceleration along the line of sight has several components, denoted by $`a_S`$, $`a_G`$, and $`a_C`$ in

$$\left(\frac{\dot{P}}{P}\right)_{\mathrm{obs}}=\frac{a_S}{c}+\frac{a_G}{c}+\frac{a_C}{c}+\left(\frac{\dot{P}}{P}\right)_{\mathrm{int}},$$
(6)
where the terms represent:

1. The centrifugal acceleration \[Shklovskii 1970\], given by

$$\frac{a_S}{c}=\frac{\mu ^2D}{c}.$$
(7)
This term, using the values in Table 1, amounts to $`a_S/c=(+9\pm 3)\times 10^{19}`$ s-1.

2. The difference in Galactic acceleration along the line of sight between a given object and the barycentre of the solar system ($`a_G`$). This is a function of the object’s Galactic latitude $`b`$, longitude $`l`$, and distance from the solar system $`D`$. For 47 Tuc we have $`b=44.9^{}`$, $`l=305.9^{}`$ and $`D=5.0\pm 0.4`$ kpc. Using Paczynski’s (1990) model of the gravitational potential of the Galaxy, we obtain $`a_G/c=(4.5\pm 0.2)\times 10^{19}`$ s-1.

3. Accelerations due to the gravitational field of the globular cluster and its individual stars ($`a_C`$). This is the most interesting contribution from an astrophysical point of view.

Contributions 1 and 2 total $`(+5\pm 3)\times 10^{19}`$ s-1. Henceforth, $`(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ indicates the measured value of $`\dot{P}/P`$ minus these contributions, and $`a_l`$ refers solely to $`a_C`$. All conclusions in this section apply only to the pulsars with known timing solutions.

### 5.1 Projected surface mass density of 47 Tuc

In Fig. 8 are shown some useful geometrical parameters we use in the remainder of this section. The plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ passes through the centre of the cluster and is perpendicular to the line of sight, and the core radius is given by $`r_c=D\theta _c`$. A particular observed pulsar has unknown distance to the centre of the cluster, $`r`$, and to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, $`l`$ — we know only the projected distance of the pulsar to the centre of the cluster, $`R_{}=D\theta _{}`$. The acceleration along the line of sight, $`a_l`$, is the only component potentially detectable from the Earth.

We now derive constraints for the surface mass density of the cluster in its inner regions. According to Phinney (1993), the following expression is valid to within $`10`$% for all plausible cluster models, and for all $`\theta _{}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{l\mathrm{max}}(\theta _{})}{c}}1.1{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{\mathrm{cyl}}(<\theta _{})}{c\pi D^2\theta _{}^2}}=`$
$`5.1\times 10^{19}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(<\theta _{})}{10^3\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{pc}^2}}\right)\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (8)
where $`M_{\mathrm{cyl}}(<\theta _{})`$ is the mass of all the matter with a projected distance smaller than $`\theta _{}`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(<\theta _{})`$ is the corresponding projected surface mass density. The limit on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ does not depend on estimates of the distance to the cluster or core radius. The pulsars with negative observed period derivatives provide a lower bound on $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}(\theta _{})`$ and therefore, with equation 8, on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{cyl}}`$. These limits are presented in Table 8.

### 5.2 Accounting for the pulsar accelerations

We have used a King model of 47 Tuc to calculate the gravitational potential as a function of distance to the centre of the cluster, $`W(r/r_c)`$, divided by $`v_z(0)^2`$ (Fig. 6). The input for such a model is a single parameter, the logarithm of the core radius divided by the tidal radius \[King 1966\].

The radial derivative of $`W(r/r_c)/v_z(0)^2`$ yields a “normalized acceleration”, $`a_n(r/r_c)`$. In order to calculate accelerations $`A`$ in m s-2, we need two more cluster parameters: the central dispersion of line-of-sight velocities, $`v_z(0)`$, and the core radius, $`r_cD\theta _c`$. $`A`$ is obtained from

$$A(r/r_c)=\frac{a_n(r/r_c)v_z^2(0)}{D\theta _c}.$$
(9)
To calculate the contribution to $`(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ of the acceleration of a pulsar at a given radius we multiply $`A(r/r_c)`$ by $`l/r`$, so as to obtain the line-of-sight component of the acceleration. We do not, of course, know the actual distance $`r`$ of each pulsar from the cluster centre, only its projection $`R_{}`$. We will therefore compare the “observed acceleration” of each pulsar to the ensemble average along the relevant lines of sight calculated from the King model, taking the pulsar distribution in the cluster to have a density proportional to $`r^2`$ and a cut-off radius of 4 core radii (see § 4.1).

The average acceleration along each line of sight (integrated over only one hemisphere) is thus given by

$$A_a(R_{})=\frac{1}{N}_{l=0}^{l=\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{lim}}^2R_{}^2}}\frac{\lambda ^1}{r^2}A(r/r_c)\frac{l}{r}𝑑l,$$
(10)
where $`\lambda `$ is a normalizing constant such that $`\lambda ^1/r^2`$ is the local linear density of simulated pulsars, and $`N`$ is their total number in a column along the integration path.

How do these “average” theoretical accelerations along each line of sight compare with the observed accelerations? The observed acceleration, $`A_o`$, can be obtained for each pulsar by subtracting the intrinsic $`\dot{P}/P`$ from $`(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Unfortunately, the intrinsic period derivative is not known. We derive limits on this quantity in § 5.3, where we also find that the average characteristic age of the pulsars is greater than $`1`$ Gyr. Here we assume that each pulsar has a characteristic age of 3 Gyr and subtract the corresponding $`\dot{P}/P=+0.5\times 10^{17}`$ s-1 from each observed value (listed in Table 10) to obtain an estimate for $`A_o`$. These, along with values of $`A_a`$ calculated from equation 10, are presented in Table 9.

We are now in a position to compare the “observed” and average predicted accelerations. We do this for each pulsar in the last column in Table 9. This value is significantly biased for some individual pulsars by the subtraction of a fixed $`\dot{P}/P=0.5\times 10^{17}`$ s-1, our first-order attempt at accounting for the intrinsic period derivatives. However, the average of all values in the last column of the table should be approximately unity, if the modeling described above is to be consistent with the actual accelerations experienced by the pulsars — which indeed it is, despite considerable uncertainty: $`\overline{|A_o/A_a(R_{})|}=1.2\pm 0.7`$.

As an additional consistency check on the King model of the cluster potential we performed a Monte Carlo simulation of the pulsar population of 47 Tuc. The aim of this simulation is to see, given reasonable input assumptions, whether we can reproduce the distribution of $`(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

In the simulation, we generate a spherically symmetric population of $`10^6`$ pulsars with a radial distribution of the type $`n(r)r^2`$ and a cutoff of 4 core radii. Each of the pulsars was randomly assigned an age from a flat distribution ranging between 500 Myr and 10 Gyr — the mean $`\dot{P}/P=0.5\times 10^{17}`$ s-1 corresponding to what was assumed before. These assigned ages correspond to the intrinsic $`\dot{P}/P`$ of each of the model pulsars. Finally, given the position of each of the model pulsars relative to the cluster centre, we calculate the contribution to $`\dot{P}/P`$ from the acceleration in the cluster determined from the King model with $`D=5.0`$ kpc, $`v_z(0)=11.6`$ km s-1 and $`\theta _c=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}23}\stackrel{}{.}1`$. By adding this contribution to the intrinsic $`\dot{P}/P`$ we have, for each pulsar, a model observed $`\dot{P}/P`$ which can then be directly compared to the sample of 15 pulsars for which we have timing solutions.

The results of this simulation are shown in Fig. 9, where we present a cumulative plot of $`(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{obs}}/|a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})/c|`$ for the real and simulated samples. Given the relatively small size of the observed distribution, and the straightforward simulation that we have performed, the agreement between the model and observed samples is good.

Our overall conclusion is therefore that a King model for 47 Tuc, with $`D=5.0\pm 0.4`$ kpc, $`v_z(0)=11.6\pm 1.4`$ km s-1, $`\theta _c=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}23}\stackrel{}{.}1`$ and a small contribution from the intrinsic $`\dot{P}/P`$ of the pulsars, provides a good description for the observed values of $`\dot{P}/P`$.

### 5.3 Limits on pulsar ages and magnetic fields

We now obtain one-sided limits for the characteristic age and the inferred surface dipole magnetic field strength of the pulsars, by calculating the maximum intrinsic period derivative for each pulsar, $`\dot{P}_{\mathrm{int}\mathrm{max}}`$. First, suppose we have a reliable estimate for the maximum possible acceleration for each pulsar’s line of sight, $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})`$. Next, assume that each pulsar actually experiences such a maximum (negative) acceleration. Under such conditions, an observed $`|\dot{P}/P|`$ that is different from $`|a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})/c|`$ is caused by a finite (positive) intrinsic $`\dot{P}/P`$. Hence, $`(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{int}}<|a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})/c|+(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

After determining $`\dot{P}_{\mathrm{int}\mathrm{max}}`$ we derive a minimum characteristic age of the pulsar, $`\tau _\mathrm{c}>P/(2\dot{P}_{\mathrm{int}\mathrm{max}})`$, and an upper limit for the magnetic field, $`B<3.2\times 10^{19}(P\dot{P}_{\mathrm{int}\mathrm{max}})^{1/2}`$ Gauss.

Only a reliable upper limit for the acceleration along each line of sight remains to be calculated. Phinney (1993) calculated the maximum acceleration expected near the centre of a globular cluster,

$$a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})=\frac{3}{2}\frac{v_z^2(R_{})}{\sqrt{r_c^2+R_{}^2}}.$$
(11)
This expression is valid to within $`10`$% for $`R_{}2r_c`$, provided that the function $`v_z(R_{})`$ is accurately known.

The values of $`\dot{P}/P`$ observed for the pulsars (reflecting in part the gravitational potential of the cluster) do not appear to decrease greatly with $`R_{}`$ (Fig. 10), so we first assume conservatively that $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})`$ does not decrease with $`R_{}`$. Therefore, the absolute upper limit for $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})`$ is $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}(0)`$. Within the constraints imposed by the parameters and uncertainties in Table 1, the maximum possible value for $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}`$ at the centre of the cluster is obtained with $`D=4.6`$ kpc, $`v_z(0)=13.0`$ km s-1 and $`\theta _c=21\stackrel{}{.}4`$: according to equation 11, $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}/c=5.74\times 10^{17}`$ s-1.

The limits for the pulsar parameters obtained with this constant maximum acceleration are presented in Table 10. All characteristic ages are larger than 170 Myr and all pulsars have magnetic fields lower than $`2.4\times 10^9`$ Gauss. These values are consistent with those measured for Galactic millisecond pulsars (e.g., Camilo, Thorsett & Kulkarni 1994).

Note that these limits are extremely conservative, and are independent of any detailed modeling of the cluster. It is nevertheless clear that even with such a crudely over-estimated $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})`$ we can derive useful limits for the parameters of the pulsars.

By modeling the cluster and obtaining better constraints for $`a_{l\mathrm{max}}(R_{})`$, more stringent limits can be derived. For this reason, we now compare the observed pulsar $`\dot{P}/P`$ with the maximum accelerations along each line of sight calculated from the King model (Fig. 10). The limits for the pulsar parameters derived from this model are also presented in Table 10. As expected, these are more constraining than those derived before. In particular, the characteristic ages for 47 Tuc C and M exceed 3 Gyr, and a simple average of the lower limits on age for all pulsars yields $`\overline{\tau _c}>0.9`$ Gyr, while the magnetic field strengths of 47 Tuc J and M are less than $`3\times 10^8`$ Gauss, very close to the lowest values observed among Galactic disk pulsars. These values depend, of course, on the particular cluster model used in calculating the accelerations.

Limits for the characteristic ages and magnetic fields of the pulsars in M15 have been derived by Anderson (1992), using a mass model for the cluster based on the surface luminosity density and assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio. The majority of pulsars in that cluster have characteristic ages $`10^{10}`$ yr \[Anderson 1992\], but there are signs of a relatively recent burst in pulsar formation. At least two pulsars have maximum characteristic ages $`10^8`$ yr and magnetic fields of about (10–20)$`\times 10^9`$ Gauss. This is attributed to the ongoing core collapse in M15, leading to much increased recycling of pulsars. In 47 Tuc, on the other hand, there are no visible signs of such a recent burst in pulsar formation: all the known pulsars for which a timing solution has been obtained have characteristic ages (probably much) greater than 170 Myr, weak magnetic fields, and very short rotational periods.

## 6 Binary pulsar systems in 47 Tuc

The binary systems containing pulsars in 47 Tuc are divided into two main groups, segregated by companion mass \[Camilo et al. 2000\]. The first is composed of binaries with very short orbital periods (1.5–5.5 hr) and companion masses $`0.03\mathrm{M}_{}`$. We have timing solutions for three of these (47 Tuc I, J and O). The second group has orbital periods in the range 0.4–2.3 d and companion masses $`0.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$; we refer to this group as “normal” binaries. Of these, 47 Tuc E, H, Q, T and U have a timing solution at the moment.

Coherent timing solutions give extremely detailed orbital information, and often allow the measurement of very small eccentricities. Most millisecond pulsar–white dwarf systems in the Galactic disk have very low, but measurably significant eccentricities (e.g., Camilo 1999). These are thought to result from tidal interactions between the neutron star and convective cells in the envelope of its companion during the giant phase of its evolution, and a relationship between orbital period and eccentricity can be derived for such systems \[Phinney 1992\]. The millisecond pulsar–white dwarf systems in globular clusters often have larger eccentricities than those in the disk of the Galaxy \[Phinney 1992\]. These are thought to result from interactions with other stars in the cluster: the denser the environment, the more likely one is to find a relatively large degree of eccentricity in the system.

The five eccentricities measured for binary pulsars in 47 Tuc (for the normal binaries 47 Tuc E, H, Q, T and U; see Table 5) are all much larger than one would expect for similar systems in the Galactic disk, and are therefore, presumably, a fossil remnant of gravitational interactions between the binary systems and other cluster stars. Rasio & Heggie (1995) calculate the expected value of this eccentricity for a system with a particular binary period that has interacted with other stars in a region of known density for a certain length of time. Unfortunately we do not know the relevant densities or interaction time scales for the pulsars observed in 47 Tuc with any degree of certainty, possibly not even to an order of magnitude. Nevertheless, taking plausible estimates for density and time scales, we derived some “predicted” eccentricities. Those for 47 Tuc E, Q, and T are within an order of magnitude of the observed values, which is as close to agreement as we can expect to attain given the uncertainties in input parameters. The computed eccentricity for 47 Tuc U is two orders of magnitude below the observed value, while that for 47 Tuc H is under-predicted by a factor of 1000.

One possible explanation for the unexpectedly large eccentricity of 47 Tuc U, and possibly that of 47 Tuc H, is that they have in the past spent a considerable amount of time in a region with a much higher stellar density than they are found in at present. For instance, if 47 Tuc L (an isolated pulsar) had spent $`10^{10}`$ yr in its present location while part of a 2.35-day binary, its computed eccentricity would be 0.15. Therefore, some of the pulsars we observe relatively far from the centre of the cluster may have non-circular orbits in the cluster potential which take them through higher-density regions periodically, or may have been ejected from higher-density regions to their present locations, leading to some of the large eccentricities measured.

Alternatively, the high eccentricity of the 47 Tuc H binary system, by far the largest in the cluster, could indicate that it obtained its present companion as an already-formed white dwarf through an exchange interaction. However, such exchanges tend to produce even higher eccentricities \[Phinney 1992\].

The large eccentricity of 47 Tuc H has permitted a measurement of its rate of advance of periastron: $`\dot{\omega }=(0.059\pm 0.024)^{}\text{yr}^1`$ (Table 5). Assuming that this advance is entirely due to general relativity, and not to any tidal effects (which is likely, since both stars are presumably degenerate and have negligible dimensions compared to the orbital separation), the total mass of the binary system is $`1.4_{0.8}^{+0.9}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (all uncertainties here are given at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level). A mass-mass diagram is shown in Fig. 11, from which limits on the individual masses can be derived: $`m_p<2.0\text{M}_{}`$ and $`m_c>0.1\text{M}_{}`$. It is also improbable that $`m_p<0.4\text{M}_{}`$ or $`m_c>0.7\text{M}_{}`$, because this would require $`\mathrm{cos}i>0.95`$.

## 7 Conclusions and prospects

In this paper we have presented phase-coherent timing solutions for 15 millisecond pulsars in 47 Tuc. Our main conclusions can be summarised as follows.

All pulsars with known timing solutions are located less than $`1\stackrel{}{.}2`$ from the cluster centre, and inside this region, their spatial density is of the type $`n(r)r^2`$. This distribution is different from that found in M15 ($`n[r]r^{3.1}`$, with no well-defined outer limit), and possibly similar to the distribution of blue stragglers in 47 Tuc with similar masses. Their confinement near the centre of the cluster is real, and not a selection effect. It is a very important constraint on any model of the potential of 47 Tuc.

Two of the pulsars (47 Tuc G and I) have a projected separation of only 600 a.u., and similar $`\dot{P}/P`$. Although it is unlikely, they may belong to the first system known with two detectable pulsars, but further timing measurements are required to investigate this.

We have measured the proper motions of five of the pulsars in 47 Tuc. Only the general motion of the cluster is detectable, and the value calculated from averaging the proper motions of the pulsars is consistent with the proper motion of the cluster measured with Hipparcos.

Lower limits for the surface mass density at several radial cuts near the centre of the cluster were derived. We have also used the values of $`(\dot{P}/P)_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ to obtain limits on, or estimates of, the accelerations at several projected distances from the centre of the cluster. These are consistent with a King model of the cluster using accepted values for its distance to 47 Tuc, angular core radius and central velocity dispersion.

We inferred upper limits for the magnetic fields of 15 pulsars: all are below $`2.4\times 10^9`$ Gauss. Also, no pulsar has a characteristic age smaller than 170 Myr. Additionally we determined that the characteristic ages of the pulsars are, on average, greater than 1 Gyr.

The fact that none of the known binary pulsars has an orbital period larger than 2.35 days is an important result. Simulations of their formation \[Rasio, Pfahl & Rappaport 2000\] suggest that we should find binary pulsars with orbital periods as large as about one month. However, despite the fact that there are no selection effects against the detection of such systems, we find none. This suggests that any binary pulsars with longer periods were either hardened by interactions with other stars, disrupted by the high stellar density near the centre of the cluster, or were simply outnumbered by tight binaries formed at a later stage. The timescale of such processes is proportional to the relaxation time, i.e, it is proportional to the time between close encounters between any two stars.

Binary formation and hardening is a source of kinetic energy for the remaining stars in the cluster and tends to delay (or in some cases reverse) core collapse \[Spitzer 1987\]; the lack of long-period binaries therefore suggests that the core of 47 Tuc has had a density similar to or larger than the present one for a time that is much longer than the relaxation time, i.e., a few billion years \[Hut 1992\]. If the cluster had reached the present central density in the last few hundred million years, and if it had never experienced a high-density phase before, then it should still contain binary pulsars with long orbital periods. As we have also seen, the ages of the pulsars are of the order of a few Gyr, and their large numbers in this cluster suggest that vigorous millisecond pulsar formation occurred a long time ago, which is consistent with the idea that the core of 47 Tuc was once, or has been for a long time, in a high-density state.

Another piece of evidence of possible relevance to this question comes from the higher than expected eccentricities of binaries like 47 Tuc U and H, the latter of which enabled us to measure its rate of advance of periastron, yielding a total mass $`m_p+m_c=1.4_{0.8}^{+0.9}`$ M. These eccentricities suggest that the product of stellar density and velocity dispersion near these binaries was higher than is observed today for a long time, possibly several Gyr (§ 6). Whether this was so because the pulsars spent a considerable amount of time nearer the present-density core, or because the core was once denser, it would imply a dense core for a very long period of time.

If the core of 47 Tuc was in fact relatively dense for a few Gyr, it is likely that this contributed to the large numbers of millisecond pulsars in the cluster (via the mechanisms of binary formation and hardening in dense cores). In that case the number of millisecond pulsars in a cluster depends heavily on its previous dynamical history. This could explain why clusters with similar properties (core density, total mass, stellar mass distribution, metallicity) have large differences in their pulsar populations, in both number and kind \[Kulkarni & Anderson 1996\]. More complete searches for pulsars in globular clusters, a better understanding of selection effects and a good determination of the evolutionary states of globular clusters will be needed to address this question.

A continuing timing programme will lead to additional and improved measurements of the proper motions of the pulsars. A measurement of the proper motions of the pulsars relative to the cluster would add constraints to the cluster mass model. Continued timing will also allow a better determination of the orbital parameters of 47 Tuc H, and will test whether 47 Tuc G and I are physically associated. Additional solutions for known pulsars may also be determined, and new pulsars will almost certainly be discovered. Continued monitoring of this cluster is therefore likely to remain a worthy enterprise.

## Acknowledgements

We thank the skilled and dedicated telescope staff at Parkes for their support during this project, Vicky Kaspi, Froney Crawford, Ingrid Stairs and Jon Bell for assistance with observations, and Chris Salter, Norbert Wex and David Nice for useful suggestions. We are also grateful to Justin Howell and colleagues for sharing their results with us prior to publication, and to Fred Rasio for very useful comments concerning the interpretation of the results. To Sterl Phinney we owe the calculation of the King model of 47 Tuc used in this paper. The Parkes Telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. PCF gratefully acknowledges support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through a Praxis XXI fellowship under contract no. BD/11446/97. FC is supported by NASA grant NAG 5-9095.


text:
# A suggestion for an integrability notion for two dimensional spin systems

## 1 Introduction

We should stress immediately at the beginning that what we discuss on the following pages is a proposal for an integrability notion for two dimensional rectangles of spins which we believe contains necessary features such a notion should have and has, in addition, the merit of a certain naturality. We do not claim at the present stage that this is the final word in the important question of integrabilty notions for higher dimensional spin systems than spin chains. It is an open question if there exists any sensible intergrability notion in the classical sense of conserved quantities for such systems. What we show is that there exists a concept - which one might maybe call “weak integrability” - which is linked to a symmetry structure which relates it to four dimensional topological field theory and $`q`$-deformed quantum field theory, much the same way the quantum group symmetries of integrable spin chain models relate these to three dimensional topological field theory and two dimensional conformal field theory.

## 2 Spin rectangles

Trialgebras are algebraic structures with two associative products and a coassociative coproduct, all linked in a compatible way. Trialgebras relate to bialgebras as do Hopf algebras to groups. The explicit examples of trialgebras constructed in \[GS\] and \[GS2\] can be seen as a kind of second quantization of quantum groups. Concretely:

###### Definition 1

A trialgebra $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta },)`$ with $``$ and $``$ associative products on $`A`$ (where $``$ may be partially defined, only) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a coassociative coproduct on $`A`$ is given if both $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are bialgebras and the following compatibility condition between the products is satisfied for arbitrary elements $`a,b,c,dA`$:

$$(ab)(cd)=(ac)(bd)$$

whenever both sides are defined.

An example where $``$ is partially defined is given by starting from a bialgebra and passing to its tensor algebra. i.e. taking the tensor product as the second product. In physics parlance the partial definition of $``$ means that we can only multiply “$`n`$ particle” with “$`m`$ particle” states for $`n=m`$ but not for $`nm`$. We will only encounter trialgebras which are partially defined in precisely this way, in the sequel. In \[GS\] we gave a formulation of the above compatibility condition for $``$ and $``$ in terms of $`R`$-matrices $`R_p`$ and $`R_q`$ if both bialgebras, $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$, are quantum groups with $`R`$-matrices $`R_p`$ and $`R_q`$, respectively. In analogy to quantum groups we will call trialgebras of this kind second quantized quantum groups.

It is generally be viewed an essential feature of integrability for a one dimensional spin chain if the algebraic structure (Hamiltonian and symmetries) can systematically be derived for a chain with $`n+1`$ spins from one with $`n`$ spins which is exactly satisfied in the presence of a quantum groups symmetry (as e.g. in the XXZ model). In this case it is the coproduct which allows to the data for the longer chain.

Integrability for a two dimensional spin system should then naturally mean that we can systematically derive the data of larger and larger rectangles of spins from smaller ones. But this means, especially, that the dimensional reduction on the two possible directions has to lead to integrable spin chain models. So, we have two quantum groups for the two integrable spin chains. In addition, we have to have the above compatibility of the two products because when enlarging both edges of a spin rectangle the result should not depend upon the choice which edge we start to enlarge first, i.e. the two products have to interchange. Since if we enlarge only one edge, we enlarge already the whole rectangle, the coproduct necessarily has to be one and the same for both quantum groups. In conclusion, we should get a second quantized quantum group whenever we have an integrable spin rectangle.

###### Remark 1

Observe that also the structure of a partially defined $``$ product, of the kind discussed above, has a natural interpretation in this context: It simply means that we have a rectangle of spins and not some other two dimensional array of spins.

If one accepts a second quantized quantum group as a suggestion for an integrability criterion for spin rectangles, the next question is how one could construct a Hamiltonian for a spin rectangle which embodies such a symmetry. As a simple example, we take the trialgebraic deformation $`\text{Ǔ}_{p,q}^F(sl_2)`$ of the quantum group $`\text{Ǔ}_q(sl_2)`$ constructed in \[GS\] (for the definitions and details, see there). The requirement that dimensional reduction on the two possible directions has to lead to integrable spin models, leads to a decisive restriction for the Hamiltonian, too. The Hamiltonian of the XXZ-model is given by

$$H_{XXZ}=\underset{i}{}\left(\sigma _i^+\sigma _{i+1}^{}+\sigma _i^{}\sigma _{i+1}^+\right)+\lambda _q\underset{i}{}\left(\sigma _i^z\sigma _{i+1}^z2\right)+\underset{i}{}\left(\sigma _i^z\sigma _{i+1}^z\right)$$

where $`\lambda _q`$ is a constant involving the deformation parameter $`q`$, the index is running over the $`n`$ elements of the chain and e.g. $`\sigma _i^+`$ stands for

$$\sigma _i^+=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma ^+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}$$

with $`\sigma ^+`$ occuring in the $`i`$-th place. If we introduce a second label $`j`$ for the second direction in the spin rectangle, the complete Hamiltonian $`H`$ should have the form

$$H=\underset{i,j}{}\left(\sigma _{i,j}^+\sigma _{i+1,j}^{}+\sigma _{i,j}^{}\sigma _{i+1,j}^+\right)+\lambda _q\underset{i,j}{}\left(\sigma _{i,j}^z\sigma _{i+1,j}^z2\right)+\underset{i,j}{}\left(\sigma _{i,j}^z\sigma _{i+1,j}^z\right)+\underset{i}{}H_{p,i}$$

with the obvious meaning of e.g. $`\sigma _{i,j}^+`$ and $`H_p`$ the Hamiltonian for the spin chain in the second direction, involving the deformation parameter $`p`$. Dimensional reduction on the $`j`$-direction, i.e. taking an inner trace over $`i`$ (where by an inner trace we mean that in the $`i`$ direction tensor products are converted into matrix products), leads - modulo a constant factor given by the number of spins in the $`i`$-direction and a constant shift - to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left(\sigma _j^+\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _j^{}\sigma _j^+\right)+\lambda _q{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\sigma _j^z\sigma _j^z+H_p`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left(\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\right)_j+\lambda _q{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left(\sigma ^z\right)_j^2+H_p`$
$`=`$ $`m\left(1+\lambda _q\right)\mathrm{𝟏}+H_p`$
which as a Hamiltonian is equivalent to $`H_p`$. So, we get the correct dimensional reduction, here. Dimensional reduction on the $`i`$-direction - taking an inner trace over $`j`$ \- also reproduces $`H_{XXZ}`$ correctly, provided the inner trace over $`j`$ of $`H_p`$ is a multiple of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. In order to realize the trialgebraic symmetry, $`H_p`$ in addition has to commute with a representation of the associative algebra structure with respect to the $``$ product of $`\text{Ǔ}_{p,q}^F(sl_2)`$. In conclusion, any matrix $`H_p`$ realizing this commutator constraint together with the above inner trace condition, would lead to realization of the trialgebraic symmetry on a spin rectangle system and would therefore lead to a system which naturally suggests itself as an integrable two dimensional spin model.

###### Remark 2

In the case of integrability for spin chains - where the usual quantum group symmetries arise - there is an important connection to three dimensional topological quantum field theories which are determined by just the same quantum groups. This close connection to a topological theory can be seen as a clear sign of integrability. It is therefore interesting that our proposal for an integrability notion for spin rectangles, based on trialgebraic symmetries, leads to a close connection to the algebraic structure of four dimensional quantum field theories. Trialgebras lead to bialgebra categories as their categories of representations and with certain types of trialgebras (the one used below being an example) lead to so called Hopf algebra categories. But Hopf algebra categories have been shown to be suitable to generate four dimensional topological quantum field theories (for the details of the notions and claims of this remark, see \[CrFr\], \[CKS\], \[GS\]).

As a concrete example for $`H_p`$, start from the algebra with respect to the $`p`$-deformed $``$ product given in \[GS\] by the table

$$\begin{array}{cccc}ab\hfill & =\hfill & p^1\hfill & ba\hfill \\ ac\hfill & =\hfill & p\hfill & ca\hfill \\ ad\hfill & =\hfill & & da\hfill \\ bc\hfill & =\hfill & p^2\hfill & cb\hfill \\ bd\hfill & =\hfill & p\hfill & db\hfill \\ cd\hfill & =\hfill & p^1\hfill & dc\hfill \end{array}$$

(for the generators of $`U_q(sl_2)`$, we get a completely similar table, so, without loss of generality we can - as concerns the $`p`$-deformed product - work with the $`a,b,c,d`$, only). Observe that one can get a representation of the $`a,b,c,d`$ in the following way: Let $`\left\{|n,n\right\}`$ dentote a basis and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the shift operator, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }|n=|n+1$$

Let

$$a=d$$

with

$$a|n=p^{n1}|n$$

and

$`b`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1a`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
This defines a representation for the above table. For $`p`$ a root of unity this generates a finite dimensional representation. The $`R`$ matrix corresponding to the above table is

$$R_p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & p\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & p^1\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

In analogy to the usual quantum group case, we take

$$H_p=\underset{j}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & p\hfill \end{array}\right)_j\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & p^1\hfill \end{array}\right)_{j+1}$$

then. Here, we assume $`p`$ to be a root of unity and the length of the chain to be adjusted in such a way that we have the above finite dimensional representation on the complete state space. Assuming periodic boundary conditions for the $`j`$ direction, $`H_p`$ commutes with the $`a,b,c,d`$. Besides this, the inner contraction of $`H_p`$ over $`j`$ is a multiple of

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & p\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & p^1\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

and all the requirements on $`H_p`$ are satisfied, therefore. Hence, we have found a model of a spin plane which realizes one of the trialgebraic symmetries constructed in \[GS\].

## 3 $`q`$-oscillators

We are now going to show that one can also realize the trialgebra $`\text{Ǔ}_{p,q}^F(sl_2)`$ of \[GS\] on a deformation of the $`q`$-oscillator algebra. We take the following version of the $`q`$-oscillator algebra: The algebra $`𝒜_q`$ is the complex associative unital algebra with generators $`a,a^+,q^N,q^N`$ and relations

$`q^Nq^N`$ $`=`$ $`q^Nq^N=1`$
$`q^Na`$ $`=`$ $`q^1aq^N`$
$`q^Na^+`$ $`=`$ $`qa^+q^N`$
and

$`[a,a^+]_q`$ $``$ $`aa^+qa^+a=q^N`$
$`[a,a^+]_{q^1}`$ $``$ $`aa^+q^1a^+a=q^N`$
(see e.g. \[KS\]). Let $`T`$ be an element of the continuous family of algebra morphisms which exist from the quantum algebra $`\text{Ǔ}_q(sl_2)`$ into the $`q`$-oscillator algebra $`𝒜_q`$ (see \[KS\]). More concretely, this family is given by (for $`\alpha `$)

$`T_\alpha \left(E\right)`$ $`=`$ $`a`$
$`T_\alpha \left(F\right)`$ $`=`$ $`a^+\left[N2\alpha \right]_q`$
$`T_\alpha \left(K\right)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{N\alpha }`$
where $`\left[x\right]_q`$ denotes the usual $`q`$-number expression for $`x`$.

###### Lemma 1

The deformation $`\text{Ǔ}_{p,q}^F(sl_2)`$ of $`\text{Ǔ}_q(sl_2)`$ defines a unique Fock space deformation $`𝒜_{p,q}^F`$ of $`𝒜_q`$ such that $`T`$ extends also to a morphism of the $``$ product and the two products of $`𝒜_{p,q}^F`$ (the one from $`𝒜_q`$ and the deformation of the symmetric tensor product) are compatible.

Proof. By the defining relations of $`\text{Ǔ}_{p,q}^F(sl_2)`$, we get only a noncommutative behaviour for the exchange of $`a`$ and $`a^+`$ and for the exchange of one of these elements with the unit (which is not a unit for the $``$ product but only for the $``$ product, as we remarked in \[GS\], \[GS2\]). Precisely, we get

$`a1`$ $`=`$ $`p1a`$
$`1a^+`$ $`=`$ $`pa^+1`$
$`aa^+`$ $`=`$ $`p^2a^+a`$
The compatibility of the two products follows by calculation from this.

Observe that - analogous to the fact that $`𝒜_q`$ is not a quantum group - $`𝒜_{p,q}^F`$ is not a trialgebra but an algebraic structure with two compatible products, only. One can imagine $`𝒜_{p,q}^F`$ as a collection (infinite, if $`p`$ is not a root of unity) of $`q`$-oscillators where the $`p`$-deformation of the tensor product has introduced a certain kind of interaction between them. In this sense it is a kind of very simple toy model version of a noncommutative quantum field theory and shows that trialgebraic symmetries do, indeed, appear in this context. For the simple trialgebraic deformations with a scalar deformation function constructed in \[GS\] and \[GS2\], we can certainly not expect more than a relation to such toy models. More physically realistic theories will need more complicated trialgebras to describe their symmetries.

Let us spent a few more remarks on the “interaction” introduced by the statistics of this deformed tensor product (i.e. the $``$ product): We have

$$a1a^+=p^4a^+1a$$

and more generally

$$a1\mathrm{}1a^+=p^{2\left(l1\right)}a^+1\mathrm{}1a$$

where the number of units in the middle position is $`l`$. So, for $`0<p<1`$ we have an “interaction” which is decreasing with increasing separation of the $`q`$-oscillators (if we interpret the different positions in formal words with respect to the $``$ product as a kind of distance).

If we introduce for an $`n`$ factor expression the notation

$$a_{i,n}=1\mathrm{}1a1\mathrm{}1$$

if $`a`$ appears in the $`i`$-the position, we get - by compatibility of the two products - the following behaviour under the $``$ product:

$$a_{i,n}a_{j,n}^+=a_{j,n}^+a_{i,n}$$

and, in consequence, the rule

$$a_{i,n}a_{j,n}^+qa_{j,n}^+a_{i,n}=q^N\delta _{ij}$$

for the $``$ product commutator of different $`q`$-oscillators.

Acknowledgements:

H.G. was supported under project P11783-PHY of the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung in Österreich. K.G.S. thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for support by a research grant and the Erwin Schrödinger Institute for Mathematical Physics, Vienna, for hospitality.


text:
# Radion Phenomenology in the Randall Sundrum Scenario

## I Introduction

Despite the tremendous success, the standard model (SM) has several theoretical drawbacks, one of which is related with stabilizing the electroweak scale relative to the Planck scale under quantum corrections, which is known as the gauge hierarchy problem. Traditionally, there have been basically two avenues to solve this problem : (i) electroweak gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken by some new strong interactions (technicolor or its relatives) or (ii) there is a supersymmetry (SUSY) which is spontaneously broken in a hidden sector, and superpartners of SM particles have masses around the electroweak scale $`O(1001000)`$ GeV. However, new mechanisms based on the developments in superstring and M theories including D-branes have been suggested by Randall and Sundrum . If our world is confined to a three-dimensional brane and the warp factor in the Randall and Sundrum (RS) theory is much smaller than 1, then loop corrections cannot destroy the mass hierarchy derived from the relation $`v=e^{kr_c\pi }v_0`$, where $`v_0`$ is the VEV of Higgs field ($``$ $`O(M_P)`$) in the 5-dimensional RS theory, $`e^{kr_c\pi }`$ is the warp factor, and $`v`$ is the VEV of Higgs field ($``$ 246 GeV) in the 4-dimensional effective theory of the RS theory by a kind of dimensional reduction. Especially the extra-dimensional subspace need not be a circle $`S^1`$ like the Kaluza-Klein theory , and in that case, it is crucial to have a mechanism to stabilize the modulus. One such a mechanism was recently proposed by Goldberger and Wise , and also by Cs$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{a}}`$ki et al. . In such a case, the modulus (or the radion $`\varphi `$ from now on) is likely to be lighter than the lowest Kaluza-Klein excitations of bulk fields. Also its couplings to the SM fields are completely determined by general covariance in the four-dimensional spacetime, as shown in Eq. (1) below. If this scenario is realized in nature, this radion could be the first signature of this scenario, and it would be important to determine its phenomenology at the current/future colliders, which is the purpose of this talk . Some related issues were addressed in Refs. .

In this talk, we first recapitulate the interaction Lagrangian for a single radion and the SM fields in the Randall Sundrum scenario, and discuss the decay rates and the branching ratios of the radion into SM particles. Then the perturbative unitarity bounds and stability condition for the radion Higgs potential on the radion mass $`m_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ are considered. Current bounds on the SM Higgs search can be easily translated into the corresponding bounds on the radion. Then the radion production cross sections at next linear colliders (NLC’s) and hadron colliders such as the Tevatron and LHC are considered. Then our results will be summarized at the end.

## II Radion in the Randall Sundrum Scenario I

In the RS theory I , the hierarchy problem between the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{18}`$ GeV and the electroweak scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{EW}}10^2`$ GeV can be solved geometrically via $`v=e^{kr_c\pi }v_0`$ with $`kr_c12`$, where the warp factor $`e^{kr_c\pi }`$ is in the classical RS metric,

$$ds_{\mathrm{RS}}^2=e^{2kr_c|y|}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu r_c^2dy^2.$$
(1)
The radius $`r_c`$ is the VEV of the $`yy`$-component of metric $`G_{ab}(x,y)`$. When the bulk field $`G_{yy}(x,y)`$ is decomposed into Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes, the lowest lying mode is the massless radion ($`\varphi `$) in the original RS model I, since there is no tree-level stabilization mechanism for the radion. The loop corrections can solve the hierarchy problem, but give too light radion to be consistent with experiments . Therefore, a tree-level stabilization mechanism is needed, and the Goldberger-Wise mechanism  is a promising one, because they stabilized the modulus without any severe fine-tuning of the parameters in the full theory.

In the Goldberger-Wise stabilization mechanism, there is a bulk scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ which has large quartic self-interactions only on the hidden and visible branes, and an extra-dimension dependent VEV $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(y)`$. After replacing the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ in the original Lagrangian with its VEV $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(y)`$ and integrating the Lagrangian over $`y`$, we have the modulus stabilizing potential. Since there is a potential stabilizing the radion, the radion has a mass of order $`O(10)`$ GeV at the tree level . From a recent analysis , it was known that the one-loop allowed radion mass can be $`O(10)`$ times larger than the tree-level one, but the radion is still lighter than the Kaluza-Klein modes.

## III Scale Anomaly and the Interaction Lagrangian for a Radion

### A Scale Anomaly

If a Lagrangian possesses no dimensionful parameter, there is a scale symmetry at classical level, for which one can construct a conserved Noether current $`D_\mu `$. One can show that the improved energy momentum tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the following relation :

$$_\mu D^\mu =\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^\mu .$$
(2)
For example, if one considers QCD as an example, the improved energy momentum tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`F^{a\lambda \mu }F_\lambda ^{a\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }F^{a\rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }^a`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{q}(\gamma ^\mu D^\nu +\gamma ^\nu D^\mu )qg^{\mu \nu }\overline{q}\left(i\gamma ^\alpha D_\alpha m_q\right)q.`$ (4)
It is clear that this theory has traceless energy momentum tensor at classical level if we consider the massless quark limit (without dimensionful parameters).

However, this is no longer true in quantum field theory (QFT) in which the radiative corrections are usually divergent so that renormalization procedure is called for. In the renormalization, one needs to regularize the theory with a suitable cutoff parameter to make loop integrals finite. Therefore a hidden cutoff scale is necessarily involved with QFT. If we use the dimensional regularization instead of cutoff regularization, the dimensionless parameter in four-dimensional theory is no longer dimensionless in $`D`$-dimensional theory. And the classical scale symmetry in $`4D`$ is no longer a good symmetry in arbitrary $`D`$ dimensions.

To look into the energy momentum tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ more closely at quantum level, let us consider the scale dependence of quantum effective action. Since the renormalized coupling $`g_s(\mu )`$ has a scale dependence,

$$\mu \frac{g_s}{\mu }=\beta (g_s),$$
(5)
one finds that

$$\mu \frac{}{\mu }=\beta (g_s)\frac{}{g_s}=\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^\mu .$$
(6)
Therefore we end up with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{SM})^{\mathrm{anom}}=\underset{G=\mathrm{SU}(3)_C,\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\beta _G(g_G)}{2g_G}\mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \nu }^GF^{G\mu \nu }).$$
(7)
Since the classical scale symmetry is broken by quantum effects, it is called scale anomaly (like the chiral anomaly) . If there were mass parameters in the classical Lagrangian, the scale symmetry would have been broken already at classical level so that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^\mu `$ is not zero and this should be considered altogether with the scale anomaly term.

### B Interaction Lagrangian for a Radion

The interaction of the radion with the SM fields at an electroweak scale is dictated by the 4-dimensional general covariance, and is described by the following effective Lagrangian via canonical normalizations of the fields  :

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{\varphi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{SM})+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =\varphi O(v)`$. The radion becomes massive after the modulus stabilization, and its mass $`m_\varphi `$ is a free parameter of electroweak scale . Therefore, two parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ and $`m_\varphi `$ are required in order to discuss productions and decays of the radion at various settings. The couplings of the radion with the SM fields look like those of the SM Higgs, except for $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$. However, there is one important thing to be noticed : the quantum corrections to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor lead to trace anomaly, leading to the additional effective radion couplings to gluons or photons in addition to the usual loop contributions. This trace anomaly contributions will lead to distinct signatures of the radion compared to the SM Higgs boson.

The trace of energy-momentum tensor of the SM fields at tree level is easily derived :

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{SM})^{\mathrm{tree}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}m_f\overline{f}f2m_W^2W_\mu ^+W^\mu m_Z^2Z_\mu Z^\mu `$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\left(2m_h^2h^2_\mu h^\mu h\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (10)
where we showed terms with only two SM fields, since we will discuss two body decay rates of the radion into the SM particles, except the gauge bosons of which virtual states are also considered. The couplings between the radion $`\varphi `$ and a fermion pair or a weak gauge boson pair are simply related with the SM Higgs couplings with these particles through simple rescaling : $`g_{\varphi f\overline{f}}=g_{hf\overline{f}}^{\mathrm{SM}}v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, and so on. On the other hand, the $`\varphi hh`$ coupling is more complicated than the SM $`hhh`$ coupling. There is a momentum dependent part from the derivatives acting on the Higgs field, and this term can grow up as the radion mass gets larger or the CM energy gets larger in hadroproductions of the radion. It may lead to the violation of perturbative unitarity, which will be addressed after we discuss the decay rates of the radion. Finally, there is no $`h\varphi \varphi `$ coupling, since the radion couples to the trace of the energy momentum tensor and there should be no $`h\varphi `$ mixing after field redefinitions in terms of physical fields.

In addition to the tree-level $`T_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{SM})^{\mathrm{tree}}`$, there is also the trace anomaly term for gauge fields , Eq. (7). This trace anomaly couples with the parameter of conformal transformations in our 3-brane. And the radion $`\varphi `$ plays the same role as the parameter of conformal transformation, since it belongs to the warp factor in the 5 dimensional RS metric . Therefore, the parameter associated with the conformal transformation is identified with the radion field $`\varphi `$. As a result, the radion $`\varphi `$ has a coupling to the trace anomaly term. For QCD sector as an example, one has

$$\frac{\beta _{QCD}}{2g_s}=\left(11\frac{2}{3}n_f\right)\frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi }\frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi }b_{QCD},$$
(11)
where $`n_f=6`$ is the number of active quark flavors. There are also counterparts in the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ sector. This trace anomaly has an important phenomenological consequence. For a relatively light radion, the dominant decay mode will not be $`\varphi b\overline{b}`$ as in the SM Higgs, but $`\varphi gg`$.

## IV Radion Phenomenology

### A Decay Properties of a Radion

Using the interaction Lagrangian Eq. (7), it is straightforward to calculate the decay rates and branching ratios of the radion $`\varphi `$ into $`f\overline{f},W^+W^{},Z^0Z^0,gg`$ and $`hh`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi f\overline{f})`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2m_\varphi }{8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}}\left(1x_f\right)^{3/2},`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi W^+W^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^3}{16\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}}\sqrt{1x_W}(1x_W+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}x_W^2),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi ZZ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^3}{32\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}}\sqrt{1x_Z}(1x_Z+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}x_Z^2),`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi hh)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^3}{32\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}}\sqrt{1x_h}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_h}{2}})^2,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi gg)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2m_\varphi ^3}{32\pi ^3\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}}\left|b_{QCD}+{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}I_q(x_q)\right|^2,`$ (16)
where $`x_{f,W,Z,h}=4m_{f,W,Z,h}^2/m_\varphi ^2`$, and $`I(z)=z[1+(1z)f(z)]`$ with

$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\mathrm{ln}[1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{z}}y(1y)]`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{arcsin}^2(1/\sqrt{z}),& z1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1z}}{1\sqrt{1z}}\right)i\pi \right]^2,& z1.\hfill \end{array}`$ (20)
Note that as $`m_t\mathrm{}`$, the loop function approaches $`I(x_t)2/3`$ so that the top-quark effect decouples and one is left with $`b_{QCD}`$ with $`n_f=5`$. For $`\varphi WW,ZZ`$, we have ignored $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ anomaly, since these couplings are allowed at the tree-level already, unlike the $`\varphi gg`$ or $`\varphi \gamma \gamma `$ couplings. This should be a good approximation for a relatively light radion.

Using the above results, we show the decay rate of the radion and the relevant branching ratio for each channel available for a given $`m_\varphi `$ in Figs. 2 and 2.

In the numerical analysis, we use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =v=246`$ GeV and $`m_h=150`$ GeV, and also included the QCD corrections. The decay rates for different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ can be obtained through the following scaling : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi )=(v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =v)`$. The decay rate scales as $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi )^2`$, but the branching ratios are independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$. In Fig. 2, we also show the decay rate of the SM Higgs boson with the same mass as $`\varphi `$. We note that the light radion with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =v`$ could be a much broader resonance compared to the SM Higgs even if $`m_\varphi 2m_W`$. This is because the dominant decay mode is $`\varphi gg`$ (see Fig. 2), unlike the SM Higgs for which the $`b\overline{b}`$ final state is a dominant decay mode. This phenomenon is purely a quantum field theoretical effect : enhanced $`\varphi gg`$ coupling due to the trace anomaly. For a heavier radion, it turns out that $`\varphi VV`$ with $`V=W`$ or $`Z`$ dominates other decay modes once it is kinematically allowed. Also the branching ratio for $`\varphi hh`$ can be also appreciable if it is kinematically allowed. This is one of the places where the difference between the SM and the radion comes in. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi v`$, the radion would be a narrow resonance and should be easily observed as a peak in the two jets or $`WW(ZZ)`$ final states. Especially $`\varphi ZZ(l\overline{l})(l^{^{}}\overline{l^{^{}}})`$ will be a gold-plated mode for detecting the radion as in the case of the SM Higgs. Even in this channel, one can easily distinguish the radion from the SM Higgs by difference in their decay width.

### B Perturbative Unitarity

The perturbative unitarity can be violated (as in the SM) in the $`V_LV_LV_LV_L`$ or $`hhV_LV_L`$, etc. Here we consider $`hhhh`$, since the $`\varphi hh`$ coupling scales like $`s/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ for large $`s(p_{h_1}+p_{h_2})^2`$. The tree-level amplitude for this process is

$`(hhhh)`$ $`=`$ $`6\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{sm_\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{tm_\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{um_\varphi ^2}}\right)`$ (22)
$`36\lambda ^2v^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_h^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_h^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_h^2}}\right)`$
where $`\lambda `$ is the Higgs quartic coupling, and $`s+t+u=4m_h^2`$. Projecting out the $`J=0`$ partial wave component ($`a_0`$) and imposing the partial wave unitarity condition $`|a_0|^2\mathrm{Im}(a_0)`$ (i.e. $`|\mathrm{Re}(a_0)|1/2`$), we get the following relation among $`m_h,v,m_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, for $`sm_h^2,m_\varphi ^2`$ :

$$\left|\frac{2m_h^2+m_\varphi ^2}{8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}+\frac{3\lambda }{8\pi }\right|\frac{1}{2}.$$
(23)
This bound is shown in the lower three curves of Fig. 3. We note that the perturbative unitarity is broken for relatively small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi 130(300)`$ GeV for $`m_\varphi `$ 200 GeV (1 TeV). Therefore, the tree level results should be taken with care for this range of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ for a given radion mass.

### C Stability of the radion and Higgs potential under radiative corrections

Adding the loop corrections from the scalar, fermion vector and KK-mode sectors, the final effective potential up to the one-loop level  is

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(h,\varphi )`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{tree}}(h,\varphi )+V_{1\mathrm{loop}}^{\mathrm{KK}}(\varphi )+V_{1\mathrm{loop}}^{\mathrm{scalar}}(h,\varphi )+V_{1\mathrm{loop}}^{\mathrm{fermion}}(h)+V_{1\mathrm{loop}}^{\mathrm{vector}}(h)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`V_\varphi (\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left(h^2v_0^2e^{2\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)^2+\delta V_{\mathrm{TeV}}e^{4\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(4\pi )^2}}\left\{\lambda ^2\left(3h^2v_0^2e^{2\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)^2\left(\mathrm{log}\left[\lambda \left(3h^2v_0^2e^{2\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)/\mu ^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\right\}`$ (28)
$`+3\lambda ^2(h^2v_0^2e^{2\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi })^2(\mathrm{log}[\lambda (h^2v_0^2e^{2\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi })/\mu ^2]{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left\{3T^2\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}W^2\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}Z^2\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\right)\right\}.`$ (29)
The procedure to determine $`m_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ is to find a parameter point of ($`v_0,v_v,v_h,m,\delta V_{\mathrm{TeV}}`$) which gives a stable vacuum satisfying the two constraints, warp factor $`e^{kr_c\pi }=O(M_W/M_P)`$ and Higgs VEV $`v246`$ GeV and next determine the values of $`m_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ from the relations to the previous parameters.

For the one-loop effective potential, the allowed region for the 5-dimensional Planck mass $`M_{(5)}=0.8M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ and the Higgs mass $`m_h=125`$ GeV is $`0.8\mathrm{GeV}m_\varphi 260\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`1400\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi 1500\mathrm{GeV}`$ from Fig. 4 (the central value of $`kb_0/2`$ is still about 36). Almost all the data are focused at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =1490`$ GeV like the tree level case. Therefore, we can conclude that the naturally allowed regions are similar for the tree and one-loop cases, and there is a small shift of the central value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ (or equivalently $`kb_0/2`$) due to the one-loop corrections. When $`\delta V_{\mathrm{TeV}}^{\mathrm{KK}}`$ and other parameters are changed continuously, the allowed region in Fig. 4 can be broader in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$. From numerical analysis, we have found that only the negative values of $`\delta V_{\mathrm{TeV}}^{\mathrm{KK}}`$ can be allowed. Negative values of the tension shift $`\delta V_{\mathrm{TeV}}^{\mathrm{KK}}`$ produce many parameter points which were not allowed at the tree level, and considerable parts of these new points make the radion mass sufficiently larger than the tree-level upper bound of the mass. It is phenomenologically noteworthy that the one-loop upper bound of the radion mass $`m_\varphi `$ is rather larger than the tree-level one by about five times. But the radion is still the first signal of the RS theory lighter than the lowest-lying KK mode with a mass of order $`O(1)ke^{kb_0/2}0.8\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ , because the radion mass is smaller than about $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi /6`$. Due to $`m_\varphi 260`$ GeV, the branching ratios of the radion into gluon or $`W`$ boson pairs are dominant according to the discussions in the previous subsection.

### D Radion Productions at hadron and linear colliders

The production cross sections of the radion at hadron colliders are given by the gluon fusion into the radion through quark-loop diagrams, as in the case of Higgs boson production, and also through the trace anomaly term, Eq. (4), which is not present in the case of the SM Higgs boson :

$$\sigma (pp(\mathrm{or}p\overline{p})\varphi X)=K\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LO}}(gg\varphi )_\tau ^1\frac{\tau }{x}g(x,Q^2)g(\tau /x,Q^2)𝑑x,$$
(30)
where $`\tau m_\varphi ^2/s`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the CM energy of the hadron colliders ($`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV and 14 TeV for the Tevatron and LHC, respectively). The $`K`$ factor includes the QCD corrections, and we set $`K=1.5`$. The parton-level cross section for $`gg\varphi `$ is given by

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LO}}(gg\varphi )=\frac{\alpha _s^2(Q)}{256\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}\left|b_{QCD}+\underset{q}{}I_q(x_q)\right|^2,$$
(31)
where $`I(z)`$ is given in the Eq. (17). For the gluon distribution function, we use the CTEQ5L parton distribution functions .

In Fig. 5, we show the radion production cross sections at the Tevatron and LHC as functions of $`m_\varphi `$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =v`$. We set the renormalization scale $`Q=m_\varphi `$ as shown in the figure. When we vary the scale $`Q`$ between $`m_\varphi /2`$ and $`2m_\varphi `$, the production cross section changes about $`+30\%`$ to $`20\%`$. The production cross section will scale as $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi )^2`$ as before. Compared to the SM Higgs boson productions, one can clearly observe that the trace anomaly can enhance the hadroproductions of a radion enormously. As in the SM Higgs boson, there is a great possibility to observe the radion up to mass $`1`$ TeV if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi v`$. For a smaller $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, the cross section becomes larger but the radion becomes very broader and it becomes more difficult to find such a scalar. For a larger $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, the situation becomes reversed : the smaller production cross section, but a narrower width resonance, which is easier to detect. In any case, however, one has to keep in mind that the perturbative unitarity may be violated in the low $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ region.

At the $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, the main production mechanism for the radion $`\varphi `$ is the same as the SM Higgs boson : the radion–strahlung from $`Z^0`$ and the $`WW`$ fusion, the latter of which becomes dominant for a larger CM energy . Again we neglect the anomaly contributions here. Since both of these processes are given by the rescaling of the SM Higgs production rates, we can use the current search limits on Higgs boson to get the bounds on the radion. With the data from L3 collaboration , we show the constraints of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ and $`m_\varphi `$ in the left three curves of Fig. 3. Since L3 data is for $`\sqrt{s}=189`$ GeV and the mass of $`Z`$ boson is about 91 GeV, the allowed energy for a scalar particle is about 98 GeV. If the mass of the scalar particle is larger than 98 GeV, then the cross section vanishes. Therefore, if $`m_\varphi `$ is larger than 98 GeV, there is no constraint on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$. And the forbidden region in $`m_\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ plane is not changed by $`m_h98`$ GeV, because there is no Higgs contribution to the constraint for $`m_h98`$ GeV.

The radion production cross sections at NLC’s and the corresponding constant production cross section curves in the ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, $`m_\varphi `$) plane are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 7, respectively. We have chosen three different CM energies for NLC’s : $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, 700 GeV and 1 TeV. We observe that the relatively light radion ($`m_\varphi 500`$ GeV) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi v`$ (up to $`1`$ TeV) could be probed at NLC’s if one can achieve high enough luminosity, since the production cross section in this region is less than a picobarn.

There are also studies of the radion effects on low energy phenomenology such as muon $`(g2)`$  and the weak mixing angle . The effects are generally small in the region where perturbative unitarity is not violated.

## V Conclusions

In summary, we demonstrated that the radion that stabilizes the fifth dimensional modulus in the RS I scenario has characteristic signatures at colliders due to the scale anomaly. Were it not for the scale anomaly in QFT, the radion would have behaved exactly the same as the SM Higgs except that the dimensionful parameter $`v`$ relevant for the SM Higgs is replaced by the radion decay constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$. The radion would have decayed preferentially into $`b\overline{b}`$ final state for $`m_\varphi <2m_W`$, and into $`WW/ZZ`$ for a heavier radion ($`m_\varphi >2m_{V=W,Z}`$), like the SM Higgs boson. Because of the scale anomaly, however, the situation drastically changes and $`\varphi gg`$ is greatly enhanced over $`\varphi b\overline{b}`$, and could be a dominant decay channel for a light radion. Also this enhanced $`\varphi gg`$ ($`\varphi \gamma \gamma `$) coupling makes the gluon (photon) fusion into a radion the dominant radion production mechanism at hadron (photon) colliders.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by BK21 program (HSL), DFG-KOSEF exchange program (PK) and by KOSEF SRC program through CHEP at Kyungpook National University (PK).