text:
# NGC 1866: a workbench for stellar evolution

## 1 Introduction

In the context of stellar theories, it has long been acknowledged that the penetration of convective elements beyond the classical limit set by the Schwarzschild criterion could produce non-negligible effects on the stellar structure.

The young star cluster NGC 1866 in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is considered as an ideal laboratory for testing stellar models, especially concerning the extension of convection in the interiors of real stars, and discriminating among classical and so-called overshooting models. This cluster, well populated both in main sequence and giants stars, represents a statistically complete sample of objects, contrary to the young clusters of the Milky Way (that are relatively poor, especially in giant stars). Furthermore, NGC 1866 is young enough ($``$100 Myr) to possess stars which develop a convective core in the phase of central H-burning ($`M_{\mathrm{TO}}=45`$ M), thus providing us the way to test the extension of overshooting. The theory of stellar structure predicts that convective cores in main sequence stars set in starting from initial masses greater than $`M1.1`$ M. For these reasons NGC 1866 has been the subject of several analyses, aiming at testing how far convective elements overshoot from the core into the surrounding stable layers.

Becker & Mathews (1983), comparing observational and synthetic colour-magnitude diagrams (CMD) of NGC 1866, obtained the best fit to the data simulating a cluster of about $`86`$ Myr: the general features of the CMD were well-fitted on the whole, but the authors argued that the classical stellar models they used predicted a number of red giants larger than observed, and a smaller number of main sequence stars in turn as compared to the observations. The same authors suggested that a more careful treatment of core convection (i.e. larger convective cores) could remove the discrepancy. A number of subsequent studies confirmed this idea and demonstrated that the inclusion of overshooting in the description of convective motions could reproduce the correct ratio $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}/N_{\mathrm{MS}}`$. Chiosi et al. (1989a), in particular, clearly showed that the overshooting scheme, by reducing the ratio $`t_{\mathrm{He}}/t_\mathrm{H}`$, offers a good and simple solution to the problem. This conclusion was also reinforced by Lattanzio et al. (1991), who analyzed the CMD of NGC 1866 by means of overshooting and classical models 111It is worth recalling here that models of intermediate mass stars calculated with the classical Schwarzschild criterion are known to develop during the core He-burning phase the so-called He-semi-convective instability, i.e. a region surrounding the fully convective core in which the condition of neutrality $`_R=_A`$ is maintained by suitably modifying the profile of chemical composition. This is the physical analog of what happens in massive stars during the core H-burning phase, which develop the so-called H-semi-convective instability. More details on the physical origins of both H- and He-semi-convection, can be found in Chiosi et al. (1992). Let it suffice here to mention that in intermediate-mass stars the effects of semiconvection are negligible, if compared to the effects of convective overshooting. Hereinafter this type of stellar models are referred to as the classical, semi-convective models..

Over the years, sophisticated formulations of convective overshooting have been elaborated that are based on turbulence theories (Cloutman & Whitaker, 1980; Xiong, 1980) and fluid hydro-dynamics (Canuto & Mazzitelli, 1991; Canuto et al., 1996; Unno & Kondo, 1989). However, the ballistic approach at the problem proposed by Bressan et al. (1981) turns out to be fully adequate and it has been proved to best reproduce the numerical results of laboratory fluid-dynamics simulations (Zahn, 1991). The Bressan et al. (1981) algorithm adopts a non-local treatment of convection in the context of the mixing-length theory (MLT) by Böhm-Vitense (1958): it looks for the layers where the velocity of convective elements (accelerated by the buoyancy force in the formally unstable regions) becomes zero in the surrounding stable regions, then adopts a suitable temperature stratification in the overshooting regions, and finally assumes straight mixing over-there. Since the Bressan et al. (1981) formalism makes use of the MLT, it expresses the mean free path of the convective elements as $`l=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}\times H_\mathrm{p}`$ where $`H_\mathrm{p}`$ is the local pressure scale height.

Although some criticism has been advanced by Renzini (1987) –who erroneously concludes that the “miscellaneous” of local and non local formalisms leads to overestimating the overshooting distance– we remind the reader that overshooting is simply a logical consequence of the inertia principle, so that neglecting its existence would not be physically sound. It is worth recalling that convective overshooting is quite common in nature (Deardorff et al., 1969), and it has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including numerical simulations (Freytag et al., 1996), that the penetration depth of convective elements into a formally stable region represents a non-negligible fraction of the size of the unstable zone.

In addition to this, there are a number of astrophysical situations in which the hypothesis of substantial convective overshooting has been found to offer better and more elegant solutions than other explanations (see Bertelli et al., 1986; Chiosi et al., 1992). Among others, it suffices to recall here the so-called mass discrepancy of Cepheid stars (Bertelli et al., 1993; Chiosi et al., 1992).

Despite this, it has been often argued that unresolved binaries could mimic the effects of convective overshooting and easily account for the low ratio of red giant to main sequence stars observed in the young LMC clusters. This hypothesis has been investigated by many authors, both in open clusters of the Milky Way (see Carraro et al., 1994) and young clusters of the LMC (Chiosi et al., 1989a, b; Vallenari et al., 1992) with somewhat contrasting results.

In their study, Testa et al. (1999) emphasize the role of unresolved binaries in solving the problem, reaching the conclusion that overshooting is not needed. They obtain agreement with the observational data only by introducing a fraction of about $`30\%`$ of binary stars in a population of $`100`$ Myr, and using the classical semi-convective models of Dominguez et al. (1999). In contrast, models computed with “enlarged” convective cores (i.e. cores in which convection extends beyond the Schwarzschild criterion to simulate overshooting), lead to worse fits of the observational data, especially when binary stars are included.

Unfortunately, Testa et al. (1999) adopt a wrong procedure to correct the observational star counts for photometric completeness (see the section below), thus obtaining differential ($`N_{\mathrm{MS}}`$, shortly indicated with DLF) and integrated luminosity functions ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}`$, shortly referred to as ILF) for the main sequence stars of NGC 1866 that are inconsistent. Furthermore, Testa et al. (1999) fail to make use of the ILF normalized to the number of evolved stars ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$, hereinafter indicated as N-ILF) introduced by Chiosi et al. (1989a), which has been proved to be the only way to effectively discriminate between the two different evolutionary schemes. It is worth reminding the reader that the N-ILF is by definition proportional to the lifetime ratio $`t_\mathrm{H}/t_{\mathrm{He}}`$.

In this paper, first we correct the analysis of the observational data and second we show that the conclusions reached by Testa et al. (1999) entirely depend on the kind of diagnostic they have adopted. Exploring the relative effects of core overshoot and unresolved binary star frequency on intermediate age cluster CMD’s will be a side product of our analysis.

Starting from the same observational data used by Testa et al. (1999)222All the photometric data used in this study were kindly provided by Testa et al. (1999) already reduced and calibrated., and correctly applying the completeness correction, in this paper we shall discriminate –by means of simulated CMDs and LFs of NGC 1866– between classical semi-convective and overshooting models. After a brief description of the observational data (Sect. 2), in Sect. 3 we compare the stellar models calculated according to the two schemes, with particular attention to the values of critical masses and lifetime ratios. These latter are indeed the crucial point to test the validity of stellar models. In Sect. 4 we describe the isochrones and the methods used to simulate CMDs and LFs. In Sect. 5 we compare the results of these simulations with their observational counterparts. In Section 6 we thoroughly discuss the reasons why our conclusions differ from those by Testa et al. (1999). Finally, in Sect. 7 we summarize the main results of this study.

## 2 Observational data

The observational data (Testa et al., 1999) have been obtained with the $`2.2`$ m ESO telescope at La Silla, Chile, on 1993 January 27. Two fields have been observed in $`B`$ and $`V`$ pass-bands: the first field is centered on the cluster, and the second one is located at $`6^{}`$ from it. The second field is utilized for statistical field subtraction: the corrected and calibrated CMD of Testa et al. (1999) is presented in Fig. 1, in which the main sequence stars are separated from giants by dashed lines.

### 2.1 Correction for completeness

In their analysis, Testa et al. (1999) divide the sample in six concentric rings centered on the cluster, and calculate the completeness factors, $`\lambda _\mathrm{c}^i`$, ring by ring. Since $`\lambda _\mathrm{c}^i`$ is equal to the number ratio of artificial stars added and recovered in a given magnitude bin, they should be used to correct the DLF – i.e. the number of stars per magnitude bin – separately for each ring $`i`$:

$$(N^i)_{\mathrm{corr}}=N^i/\lambda _\mathrm{c}^i$$
(1)
where $`N^i`$ and $`(N^i)_{\mathrm{corr}}`$ stand for the observed and corrected numbers, respectively.

However, a substantial error is made by Testa et al. (1999): they use the same $`\lambda _\mathrm{c}`$ factors to correct both the number of stars and the ILF at each magnitude bin. This clearly produces the correct DLF $`(N^i)_{\mathrm{corr}}`$, but over-estimates the ILF and N-ILF at fainter magnitude bins. This can be appreciated by looking at the first 6 columns of Table 1, where we present the original star counts and the luminosity functions used by Testa et al. (1999)333These data have been kindly provided by V. Testa.. In particular, it can be noticed that, starting from the uncorrected DLF and ILF of columns 2 and 3, the same “average” $`\lambda _\mathrm{c}`$ factors (column 4) have been used to derive the corrected DLF shown in column 5 (i.e. $`(N_{\mathrm{MS}})_{\mathrm{corr}}=N_{\mathrm{MS}}/\lambda _\mathrm{c}`$), and the corrected ILF shown in column 6 (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(N_{\mathrm{MS}})_{\mathrm{corr}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/\lambda _\mathrm{c}`$). The corrected DLF and ILF obtained in such a way are no longer consistent with each other.

Noticing this, we decided to completely re-derive the luminosity functions for NGC 1866, starting from the statistically decontaminated photometric data of Testa et al. (1999) (see Fig. 1), and the completeness factors presented in their Fig. 6. In short, we have obtained the DLF for each annulus around NGC 1866, and corrected them using the corresponding completeness factors separately, according to Eq. (1). Then, the DLFs for annulus 2 to 5 were added

$$(N_{\mathrm{MS}})_{\mathrm{corr}}=\underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}(N_{\mathrm{MS}}^i)_{\mathrm{corr}}$$
(2)
producing the total DLF presented in column 8 of Table 1. (For the sake of comparison, column 7 of the same table presents the counts obtained by adding stars from annulus 2 to 5, without applying the completeness correction.) ¿From this corrected DLF we derive the total ILF of column 9 of the same table, by simply summing up the number of stars above each magnitude bin. As can be readily seen, our final numbers for the DLF are roughly consistent with those of Testa et al. (1999), but the two ILFs are sizeably different, especially for the faintest magnitude bins.

There is a final remark to be made for the sake of clarity. Comparing columns (2) and (7), which contain the rough counts in the various magnitude bins, a marginal disagreement is evident: our counts do not exactly coincide with those by Testa et al. (1999). The difference is due to the slightly different criteria adopted to define the numbers $`N_{MS}`$ of stars per magnitude interval. Testa et al. (1999) follow a complicated scheme in which (i) the mean location of the MS together with its color dispersion $`\sigma `$ are derived as a function of the magnitude, and (ii) in every magnitude bin only stars falling within 7$`\sigma `$ from the mean MS are taken into account. In contrast, we prefer to consider all stars falling within the considered magnitude interval. As a consequence of this, the $`N_{MS}`$ of Testa et al. (1999) are slightly smaller than ours because stars far away from the mean MS are neglected.

In Fig. 2 we compare our results for the corrected ILF (continuous line) with those obtained by Testa et al. (1999) (dashed line). It is important to stress here that one of reasons why our results differ from those by Testa et al. (1999), resides in the different (and erroneous) way of applying the completeness corrections used by them.

Finally, we summarize in Table 2 the total number of main sequence ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}})`$ and post main sequence ($`N_{\mathrm{PMS}})`$ stars before and after the completeness correction is applied. The number of post main sequence stars amounts to $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}=100`$.

## 3 Stellar tracks

We have calculated two sets of stellar tracks with the classical semi-convective scheme and initial chemical composition \[$`Y`$=0.240,$`Z`$=0.004\] and \[$`Y`$=0.250,$`Z`$=0.008\], and one set of models with convective overshooting and composition \[$`Y`$=0.240,$`Z`$=0.004\]. The initial masses of the models range from $`1.0`$ to $`8`$ M. The input physics is the same as in Girardi et al. (2000) and subsequently updated by Salasnich et al. (2000), to whom the reader should refer for all details. For purposes of comparison, whenever required we also utilize the stellar models by Salasnich et al. (2000) calculated with overshooting and chemical composition \[$`Y`$=0.250,$`Z`$=0.008\].

### 3.1 Prescriptions for semi-convection and overshooting

The algorithm dealing with semi-convection in classical models strictly follows the recipes given by Alongi et al. (1993) to whom the reader should refer for all details.

Convective overshooting is based on the formulation by Bressan et al. (1981) and the more recent revision by Bertelli et al. (1985) and Alongi et al. (1993). Suffice it to recall here that the overshooting parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is chosen to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$=0.5 for core convection and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{e}`$=0.7 for envelope convection (see Alongi et al., 1993).

For the sake of clarity and to avoid misunderstanding, we remind the reader that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$=0.5 in the formalism of Bressan et al. (1981) is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$=0.25 in the description of Maeder & Meynet (1991). More precisely, while Bressan et al. (1981) define the overshooting distance as the path traveled by a convective element across the Schwarzschild border (half distance beneath and half above the border), Maeder & Meynet (1991) define it only as the distance above the border. Furthermore, the choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$=0.5 we have adopted is the same as in previous studies aimed at generating stellar models best suited to interpret observational data of star clusters. To mention a few we recall Alongi et al. (1993), Bressan et al. (1993), Maeder & Meynet (1991), Meynet et al. (1994), Chiosi et al. (1992), Chiosi (1999) and references therein. Exploring the effects of core overshooting for other choices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$ is beyond the scope of this study.

### 3.2 Critical masses $`M_{\mathrm{HeF}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{up}}`$

As long ago pointed out by Chiosi et al. (1989a), see also Chiosi et al. (1992), in the presence of core overshooting the minimum initial masses, below which core He-flash and core C-ignition in highly degenerate material occur, $`M_{\mathrm{HeF}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{up}}`$ respectively, get smaller. Table 3 summarizes the results obtained for classical semi-convective and overshooting models with metallicity $`Z`$=0.004 and $`Z`$=0.008. The same result holds good for both values of $`Z`$.

### 3.3 Lifetimes and lifetime ratios

Because of the increased size of the convective cores, the central H-burning lifetime $`t_\mathrm{H}`$ in the overshooting models is $`30\%`$ longer than in classical ones, this effect depending on the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$ (Bressan et al., 1981). The “over-luminosity” caused by overshooting during the core H-burning phase (see Fig. 3) still remains during the He-burning phase (for stars with initial mass greater than $`M_{\mathrm{HeF}}`$): consequently, the lifetime of the He-burning phase ($`t_{\mathrm{He}}`$) gets shorter by about $`4045\%`$. This, combined with the longer $`t_\mathrm{H}`$, results in a strong decrease ($`5560\%`$) of the ratio $`t_{\mathrm{He}}/t_\mathrm{H}`$. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the lifetimes for some of the $`Z`$=0.008 models calculated with the classical and overshooting scheme, respectively.

## 4 Isochrones and synthetic CMDs

### 4.1 Isochrones

For the above four groups of evolutionary tracks, we have derived the isochrones, adopting the algorithm of “equivalent evolutionary points” developed by Bertelli et al. (1994). The age ranges from about $`0.05`$ to $`10`$ Gyr. Isochrones are calculated at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}t=0.01`$ intervals: this means that any two consecutive isochrones differ by $`2\%`$ in their ages. Along each isochrone we give: the initial and actual stellar masses, the logarithm of surface luminosity, the effective temperature and surface gravity, the absolute bolometric magnitude, and the absolute magnitudes in the $`UBVRIJHK`$ pass-bands. Finally we list the indefinite integral over the initial mass $`M`$ of the initial mass function (IMF). For any other detail see Girardi et al. (2000).

Theoretical luminosities and effective temperatures are translated into magnitudes and colours in the Johnson-Cousins system, using the conversions of Bertelli et al. (1994), which provides colours and bolometric corrections as a function of the effective temperature and gravity. The Bertelli et al. (1994) conversions are based on the library of synthetic spectra obtained from theoretical models of stellar atmospheres by Kurucz (1992).

We only note here, as illustrated in Fig. 4, that an isochrone of the overshooting scheme runs at higher luminosities as compared to a “classical” isochrone of the same age, that is, in the presence of overshooting isochrones of older ages are required to fit the observational data of a cluster.

### 4.2 Synthetic CMDs

The synthetic CMDs are constructed by means of a Monte Carlo algorithm, which randomly distributes stars along a given isochrone according to evolutionary lifetimes and IMF. The code takes into account the photometric errors affecting the observational data (derived from Testa et al. (1999) tables), by adding an artificial dispersion to the theoretical magnitudes and colours, and generates numerical simulations of CMDs allowing for effects due to: age spread of the cluster population, different slopes of the IMF, and presence of a certain fraction of unresolved binary stars with mass ratio ranging in a given interval.

Since any plausible IMF preferentially populates the main sequence region of an isochrone, in order to reproduce the right proportion of main sequence to post main sequence stars –according to the lifetimes in the various evolutionary phases– we populate our synthetic CMDs until an assigned number of post main sequence stars $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ is matched: in particular in each simulation presented here, we impose that the total number of red giant stars present in the data is matched. In such a way $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ is taken as the “normalization” parameter of the simulations (see Chiosi et al., 1989a; Vallenari et al., 1991; Lattanzio et al., 1991).

### 4.3 Luminosity functions

Special care is paid to the integrated number of stars from the tip of main sequence band down to the current magnitude interval, normalized to the number of red giant stars (i.e. the N-ILF). As pointed out by Chiosi et al. (1989a), the N-ILF can be directly compared with the ratio of lifetimes in the core H- and He-burning phases, $`t_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{He}}`$, respectively. At fixed $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$, the ratio in each simulation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ depends on the age –an older population clearly has a larger $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$– and the theoretical model in use. As already noted in previous sections, the size of the convective cores strongly affects the ratio $`t_{\mathrm{He}}/t_\mathrm{H}`$, and in turn, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$. Thus the N-ILF, when compared to the observational counterpart, reliably discriminates classical from overshooting models.

Concluding this section, it is worth remarking that reproducing synthetic CMDs with an assigned number of post main sequence stars is by far preferable to simulating CMDs with a fixed total number of stars brighter than a certain magnitude. As a matter of fact, the distribution of stars along the main sequence is driven almost exclusively by the IMF, evolutionary effects playing only a marginal role. Therefore, the LF (either DLF or ILF) of the main sequence stars, if not normalized to the number of giants, would only reflect the underlying IMF, and would not be affected by the effects of overshooting we want to test.

## 5 The simulations

In this section we present the CMDs and LFs resulting from our simulations, and compare them with the observational ones, both for classical semi-convective and overshooting models.

### 5.1 Adopted parameters

Before presenting the simulations, we briefly summarize the values adopted for parameters such as reddening, metallicity, and distance modulus.

#### 5.1.1 IMF

All the simulations are calculated adopting the Salpeter (1955) law $`dNM^\alpha dM`$ for the IMF and assuming, unless otherwise specified, the parameter $`\alpha =2.35`$.

#### 5.1.2 Metallicity

Rough estimates of the metallicity of NGC 1866 derived from the $`BVI_\mathrm{c}`$ colors of the Cepheids (Caldwell & Coulson, 1985; Feast, 1989) yield \[Fe/H\]$`=0.1\pm 0.3`$ (see also Bertelli et al., 1993), finally the recent analysis by Testa et al. (1999) yielded \[Fe/H\]$`0.35`$. This roughly corresponds to $`Z=0.009`$. Therefore, improving upon the metallicity used in the old studies by Chiosi et al. (1989a) and Brocato et al. (1989) who adopted isochrones with \[$`Y`$=0.280,$`Z`$=0.020\] in the present simulations we assume the composition \[$`Y`$=0.250,$`Z`$=0.008\].

#### 5.1.3 Distance modulus

The distance modulus to the LMC is a hotly debated issue: we summarize here some of the most recent determinations of this parameter. Cepheid stars with Hipparcos parallaxes indicate $`(mM)_018.6`$ (Feast, 2000). The analysis of the expanding ring around SN1987A yields $`(mM)_0=18.58\pm 0.05`$ (Panagia, 1998). The simultaneous study of the Cepheids stars and CMD of NGC 1866 by Bertelli et al. (1993) yields $`(mM)_0=18.51\pm 0.21`$ In a recent study on young LMC clusters Keller et al. (2000) utilize the value $`(mM)_0=18.45`$. We adopt here $`(mM)_0=18.5`$, as the “classical” value for the LMC distance modulus (Westerlund, 1997). Passing from $`(mM)_0=18.5`$ to $`(mM)_0=18.6`$ would not significantly change the results of the present analysis.

#### 5.1.4 Reddening

The study of the dust distribution across the LMC by means of photometric and spectroscopic data gives reddening maps from which one derives an estimate of the mean value $`E_{BV}=0.16`$ (Oestreicher & Schmidt-Kaler, 1996), with a maximum value of 0.29 (reached in the region of 30 Dor) and a minimum of 0.06 (Zaritsky et al., 1997). While Testa et al. (1999) assume $`E_{BV}`$ in the range between $`0.06`$ to $`0.10`$, we prefer to adopt the value $`0.10`$ which, taking the total visual extinction $`A_V`$ to be $`3.1\times E_{BV}`$ (Rieke & Lebofsky, 1985), corresponds to $`A_V=0.31`$.

### 5.2 Classical semi-convective models

In Fig. 5 is shown a synthetic CMD for the age of 76 Myr, and turn-off mass $`M_{\mathrm{TO}}=5M_{}`$. The termination magnitude of the main sequence band fits the observational data. However, the luminosity interval spanned by the blue loop does not agree with the observed CMD. Theoretical luminosities are indeed brighter than observed. Contrary-wise, if we impose that the mean luminosity of red giants is matched, the age increases to $`110`$ Myr but the observational termination magnitude of the main sequence is about $`1`$ mag brighter than the theoretical one. In Fig. 6 we present the comparison between the observational (dashed line) and the theoretical N-ILF (solid line) for the population of $`76`$ Myr in Fig. 5. The stellar models in use yield a ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ lower than the observational one. Since $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ is taken equal to the number of red giants detected in NGC 1866, this implies that the classical semi-convective models produce more giants than observed (a long known result).

### 5.3 Models with overshooting

As already anticipated commenting Fig. 4, the longer lifetime and brighter luminosities of stellar models with overshooting impose older isochrones to be adopted in the CMD simulations. Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate the synthetic CMD and the N-ILF, respectively, and compare them with their observational counterparts for a population $`160`$ Myr old and turn-off mass of $`M_{\mathrm{TO}}=4.1M_{}`$. Although a larger ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ is obtained as compared with the classical case, still the agreement between theory and observations is not fully satisfactory: indeed, while the region of the blue loop is well fitted, the main sequence termination magnitude is about $`1`$ mag fainter than observed.

Alternatively, if a younger age ($`100`$ Myr) is adopted to match the main sequence termination luminosity, theory and observations would disagree in the morphology of the blue loop. Furthermore, it would predict too a high number of main sequence stars ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}10000`$) compared to the observed number of red giants ($`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}=100`$), i.e. the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ would be too high.

### 5.4 Including binary stars

The effect of unresolved binary stars (UBS) on the CMD of stellar clusters has been investigated in a number of studies (see Chiosi et al., 1989a; Vallenari et al., 1991).

The main effect of UBS on the main sequence morphology would be the appearance of a second sequence, running parallel to the main sequence, but systematically cooler and with brighter luminosities ($`0.7`$ mag for binary stars of equal mass). It goes without saying that in order to detect this secondary sequence the number of UBS must be significant.

The percentage of UBS in open clusters of the Milky Way seems to amount to about 30 % – 50 % of the cluster population (Mermilliod & Mayor, 1989; Carraro et al., 1994). Likely the same percentage of UBS could exist also in young clusters of the LMC. Strong observational evidence of this comes from the recent study of Elson et al. (1998) on NGC 1818, a young cluster similar to NGC 1866. In the CMD obtained with $`HST`$ data, the existence of a “double” main sequence is soon evident. Elson et al. (1998) explain this feature by supposing the existence of a population of UBS amounting to 30–35 % of the total and with mass ratios in the range $`0.7`$ to $`1`$. Systems with mass ratios different from these cannot be excluded. In any case they would be hardly distinguishable from single objects.

Basing on the study by Elson et al. (1998), we include in our simulations the same fraction of binary stars, to understand how they alter the above conclusions both for classical and overshooting models. Unless otherwise specified, the mass ratio $`q`$ of the UBS included in the simulations falls in the interval $`0.7<q<1`$ in agreement with Elson et al. (1998)444Detailed simulations of the CMD of NGC 1818, using the prescription for the population of UBS by Elson et al. (1998) can be found in Barmina (2001). They are not shown here for the sake of brevity..

The presence of UBS, shifting the main sequence termination toward brighter luminosities, requires older ages. At the same time, the older the isochrone, the fainter is the blue loop. Therefore, under the action of the two effects, the luminosity gap between the main sequence termination and red giants is reduced and the overall morphology of the CMD is better reproduced.

#### 5.4.1 Binary stars in the classical picture

In Fig. 9 we present the synthetic CMD for the age of $`105`$ Myr (turn-off mass $`M_{\mathrm{TO}}=4.3`$ M), in which $`30\%`$ of UBS are included. Compared to the results obtained simulating only single stars, the agreement with the observed CMD has much improved, but the theoretical N-ILF (the thick line in Fig. 10), clearly suffers the same difficulty already encountered neglecting the effects of binary stars, i.e. too low a ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$. The same simulation has been repeated adopting the same percentage of binaries ($`30\%`$) but supposing that the mass ratio is distributed according to a Gaussian curve, as suggested by Testa et al. (1999). No significant difference is noticed both in the CMD morphology and N-ILF.

#### 5.4.2 Initial mass function

How do the above results depend on the particular slope ($`\alpha =2.35`$) adopted for the Salpeter IMF? To cast light on this topic we have repeated our simulations varying $`\alpha `$ and keeping constant all other parameters. The analysis shows that while the CMD morphology is scarcely affected, the N-ILF is sensitive to variations of $`\alpha `$. As illustrated in Fig. 11, the N-ILF gets steeper at increasing $`\alpha `$. We note that, in order to reach agreement between observational and theoretical N-ILFs using the classical semi-convective models, one should adopt $`\alpha `$=(3.5 – 4), This would favor the formation of low mass stars still located on the main sequence. The problem is whether or not such high values of $`\alpha `$ are acceptable. The present results re-confirm what already pointed out in the earlier studies by Becker & Mathews (1983) and Chiosi et al. (1989a).

#### 5.4.3 Binary stars in the overshooting picture

The synthetic CMD presented in Fig. 12 refers to stellar models with convective overshooting and simulates a population $`148`$ Myr old (turn-off mass $`M_{\mathrm{TO}}=4.2`$ M) containing $`30\%`$ of UBS. We note that the luminosity gap between the red giant region and the main sequence termination has now disappeared. The CMD of NGC 1866 is perfectly reproduced. The most important result is, however, the N-ILF shown in Fig. 13, which fully agrees with the observations. In other words, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ predicted by stellar models with convective overshoot together with the presence of a certain fraction of binary stars fully agrees with that obtained from star counts.

### 5.5 Effects of stochastic fluctuations in the IMF

The discussion of the ILF we have presented so far, refers to a particular simulation of the CMD, which does not explicitly take into account possible effects of stochastic nature caused by the finite number of stars in a cluster. It is worth recalling here that the concept itself of IMF allows for important fluctuations to occur around the ideal distribution of stars as a function of the mass. The problem may be particularly severe for $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ which in most cases is a small number. In other words the question to be addressed is whether stochastic effects may change $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}`$ or conversely, whether $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ which has been used as the key constraint to our simulated CMDs and ILFs is generated by a unique population of main sequence stars or if many others are equally eligible.

To cast light on this issue, we have performed many simulations of our reference CMD keeping constant all parameters and letting the stochastic nature of the IMF develop thanks to the Monte Carlo technique we have adopted. To this aim, 100 simulations of the same CMD are calculated in order to get the mean N-ILF and its standard deviation $`\sigma `$.

For the sake of brevity, we illustrate here the results only for the cases of classical models (Fig. 14a) and overshooting models (Fig. 14b), in which $`30\%`$ of binary stars are included. No variations to the previous conclusions seem to appear. With classical semi-convective models the observed N-ILF (dashed line) runs above the $`\pm 2\sigma `$ interval (dotted lines) around the mean N-ILF (thick line). In contrast, with the overshooting models theoretical and observational N-ILFs agree at the $`\pm 2\sigma `$ level. Considering the errors affecting the observational N-ILF, the agreement is extremely good.

### 5.6 Age dispersion

There is a final effect to be considered, i.e. the possibility that stars in the cluster are born over a finite time interval, i.e. that a significant age spread exists.

Starting from our best-fit CMD, obtained from overshooting models with age of $`148`$ Myr and including $`30\%`$ of binary stars, adding an age spread of about $`20`$ Myr (about 10 %) would further improve the CMD, especially in the region of red giant stars. This final CMD is presented in Fig. 15b, and compared with that of NGC 1866 (Fig. 15a). This small spread in the age while giving the final make-up of the CMD does not affect the N-ILF, and the picture outlined in Fig. 14b still holds.

### 5.7 Major uncertainties

Looking at CMD of Figs. 15b and 15a, we see that while overall agreement is reached especially as far as the magnitudes and colors of the main sequence stars, and the mean luminosity of the stars in the blue loop are concerned, there is still a marginal disagreement in the colour range spanned by the red giant stars, i.e. the extension of the blue loop. This, however, is known to depend on several factors: (i) the overshooting parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$ assumed for the nuclear region (see Chiosi et al., 1989a) and the one adopted for the envelope, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{e}`$ (see Alongi et al., 1991); (ii) the rate of the nuclear reaction $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ –which determines the abundances of $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ at the end of central He-burning phase– the higher the rate, the bluer the loop (Bertelli et al., 1985). It is worth noting, however, that these uncertainties on the extension of the blue loop do not affect the star counts at the base of the ILF.

On the observational side, apart from photometric errors, completeness correction, and fraction of UBS that have already been taken into account, one has to check whether the results could depend in a crucial way on the particular calibration adopted to convert luminosities and effective temperatures into magnitudes and colours of the $`UBVRI`$ system. To clarify this point, we have also used the empirical conversions by Alonso et al. (1999), who present tabulations of colours and bolometric corrections as a function of the effective temperature and metallicity \[Fe/H\] of the stars. However, comparing isochrones calculated with this transformation and those obtained with the Bertelli et al. (1994) no appreciable difference is noticed.

Some uncertainty could be related to the particular choice for the percentage of UBS ($`30\%`$) and their mass ratios $`0.7<q<1`$ we have adopted. How could a change in these parameters affect our conclusions?  To cast light on the issue we have performed additional simulations with different percentages and mass ratios. Increasing the binary fraction up to about $`40\%`$, and extending the mass ratio interval down to $`0.50.6`$, the CMD and N-ILF are still in agreement with the cluster data. However, assuming an even larger percentage of binary stars ($`>4045\%`$), the CMD gets worse as the main sequence band spreads too much toward red colors.

## 6 Why do we disagree with Testa et al. (1999)?

The results of our analysis wholly disagree with those by Testa et al. (1999), despite the fact that we are using the same observational data for NGC 1866. Their main conclusion is indeed that classical stellar models without overshooting fit the CMD and ILF of NGC 1866 at the age of 100 Myr provided that a population of binary stars amounting to about $`30\%`$ of the total is included. In contrast our main conclusion is that even including the same percentage of binary stars only models with overshooting simultaneously reproduce the CMD, the ILF, and the correct ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$. The age now is about 150 Myr.

What is the cause of the opposite conclusions? There are several factors concurring to the final result:

(i) The different procedure applied to correct star counts for photometric completeness. The ILF of Testa et al. (1999) is over-estimated due to the the fact that instead of summing up the DLF corrected for completeness in every magnitude bin, they apply the correction procedure to every step of the ILF.

(ii) The different normalization procedures of the simulations. In the present study, the normalization parameter of the simulated CMD and ILF is the total (observed) number of red giants $`N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$. It is worth recalling that the N-ILF is given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$. The advantage of this type of normalization has already been explained by Chiosi et al. (1989a) and briefly summarized in previous sections. In contrast Testa et al. (1999) assume that each simulation is complete as soon as a given total number of stars with magnitude brighter than $`M_V=2.6`$ is reached. They justify this choice by saying that their main sequence is well defined and complete up to three magnitudes fainter than the turn-off, and assume the total number of stars observed in this magnitude interval as the normalization parameter of the simulations instead of the giant (post main sequence) stars.

(iii) This choice of the normalization factor is, however, not physically sound because a deeply observed, well populated main sequence does not tell much about the inner structure, evolutionary rates, lifetimes etc. of its stars. Indeed the distribution of the stars along the main sequence almost exclusively depends on the IMF. Therefore, the choice of a “normalization parameter” insensitive to the size of the convective core simply precludes all chances of discriminating between the two evolutionary schemes under examination. Simulations of CMDs and ILFs based on this criterion may fail to reproduce the correct ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$.

(iv) In relation to this, is also the fact that the total number of stars brighter than $`M_V=2.6`$ on which the simulations are normalized is determined by the procedure of correcting for photometric incompleteness. We have already argued that the Testa et al. (1999) method is inconsistent, and overestimates the total number of stars in the main sequence. Since their simulated CMDs and ILF do actually depend on this parameter, there is no way of becoming aware of the internal inconsistency.

Considering all the differences between the present and Testa et al. (1999) analyses, we should recognize that the contrasting results are mainly due to the different way of normalizing the ILF: we choose a normalization factor (number of giants) that is sensitive to overshooting, whereas Testa et al.’s (1999) choice (stars brighter than $`M_V=2.6`$) is essentially insensitive to this effect. In fact, no clear discrimination between classical and overshooting models is expected with the latter method.

(v) To better understand this point of controversy we have repeated our simulations strictly following the procedure described by Testa et al. (1999): each one contains the same total number of stars brighter than $`V=22`$ as the observational data, i.e. 4879. The results are displayed in Fig. 16, limited to the few cases we have already examined. The layout of Fig. 16 is organized in vertical and horizontal groups of panels. Panels in the same vertical row correspond to the case as indicated by the top heading of the row. Panels in horizontal rows show different types of LFs as indicated: the DLF in the bottom, the total ILF (main sequence and giant stars) in the middle panels, and the ILF for the sole main sequence stars in the top panels. The results can be commented as follows:

* The DLFs in the bottom horizontal row make evident the luminosity gap between the main sequence termination and the giant stars, located at $`M_V2`$. On the observational side, the gap is almost invisible, whereas on the theoretical side, the inclusion of binaries wipes out the gap in both classical and overshooting models. All models seem to reproduce the main sequence part of the DLF ($`M_V1`$) equally well.
* The total ILFs, i.e. inclusive of the post main sequence stars, are shown in the central horizontal row. For the models without binaries, the luminosity interval between the main sequence termination and the giant stars appears as a plateau in the ILF at $`M_V2`$. To the left of this plateau, the detailed shape of the ILF is determined mainly by the location of giant stars: a slight over luminosity of the giants (with respect to observations) causes an apparent excess of stars at $`M_V<2`$, which can be noticed in the cases of classical models with and without binaries, and overshooting models without binaries. In the case of overshooting models with binaries, giant stars are predicted at the right magnitude level, and no such discrepancy can be noticed in the ILF.

But it is important to notice that the “excess” suggested by the ILF does not necessarily correspond to a real excess of evolved stars. This is evident if we look at the total number of giants in each simulation (see the labels at the top of the figure): in the case of classical models there is a real excess of giants (158 and 189 depending on whether or not binaries are included), which has no observational counterpart. The situation is the opposite for models with convective overshoot and no binary stars. Now the simulated number of giants is 48 (about half of what observed). Finally, models with overshooting and binaries predict the correct number of post main sequence stars (120, to be compared with the 100 observed).
* The ILF of main sequence stars (top horizontal row) does not show substantial differences passing from one case to another. This simply reflects the constancy of the IMF. There are small differences at the turn-off level, however too small to be significant.

¿From the plots in Fig. 16, there is a hint that models with overshooting and binary stars are in slightly better position, because they fit well the observed LFs in all panels. However, the most indicative result is not derived from the shape of the different LFs, but comes from the expected number of giants in the simulations: models with overshooting and binary stars are the only ones to predict the observed number of giant stars.

In other words, with the kind of plot used by Testa et al. (1999), one cannot pin down the correct value of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$. Finally, we like to call attention to the fact that even with the Testa et al. (1999) method, no strong indication is found that classical stellar models are to be preferred.

## 7 Conclusions

The main goal of this study is to compare with observational data the predictions for CMD and ILF obtained from two different types of stellar models: the classical ones in which the extension of convective zones is defined by the Schwarzschild criterion (whenever required semi-convection is also taken into account), and the models with overshooting (calculated accordingly to the Bressan et al. (1981) formalism), which allow the penetration of convective elements into the surrounding formally stable layers. The ultimate goal is to cast light on which type of stellar models find better correspondence with the physical structure of real stars.

The main result that bears very much on the comparison with the observational data is the net decrease –about $`5560\%`$– of the lifetime ratio $`t_{\mathrm{He}}/t_\mathrm{H}`$ passing from classical to overshooting models.

The analysis begins with correcting in the proper way the star counts and the LFs to get the LF of main sequence stars normalized to the number of evolved stars (N-ILF). The N-ILF yields the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\mathrm{MS}}/N_{\mathrm{PMS}}`$ of main sequence to giant stars, and directly measures the ratio $`t_{\mathrm{He}}/t_\mathrm{H}`$ (see Chiosi et al., 1989a).

Many simulations of the CMD and LF of NGC 1866 have been performed, in which not only the effect of the different stellar models but also those given by the presence of binary stars is taken into account. The results can be summarized as follows:

* The observed ILF cannot be matched at all by the classical models, showing too large a ratio of evolved to main sequence stars. The reason for the discrepancy between our results and the conclusion reached by Testa et al. (1999) has already been discussed and will not be repeated here.
* The situation is the opposite for the case of models with overshooting. It is slightly worse neglecting unresolved binaries and fully satisfactory with binaries.
* The presence of unresolved binaries in the simulations both for classical and overshooting models, allows to simultaneously match the luminosity of the main sequence termination and giant stars.
* Binary stars act on the main sequence morphology in a way roughly mimicking the effect of an enlarged H-burning core, i.e. shifting the turn-off toward brighter luminosities and forcing us to use older isochrones to fit the cluster data. However, they do not alter the ratio $`t_{\mathrm{He}}/t_\mathrm{H}`$.
* If all this can be taken as observational evidence for more extended mixing in the cores of hydrogen burning stars, the stellar models with convective overshooting constitute the simplest solution. They are indeed able to simultaneously match the CMD and ILF of NGC 1866, thus re-confirming what already found in previous studies (Chiosi et al., 1989a, b; Lattanzio et al., 1991; Vallenari et al., 1991, 1992).
* By adopting the intrinsic distance modulus $`(mM)_0`$=$`18.5`$ and the initial chemical composition \[$`Y`$=0.250,$`Z`$=0.008\], our best-fit of the CMD and ILF of NGC 1866 is for an age in the range 140 to 160 Myr, turn-off mass $`M_{\mathrm{TO}}`$=$`4.2`$ M, 30 to 40 % of binary stars with mass ratio $`q`$ lying in the interval $`0.6<q<1`$.
* Finally, it is expected that adopting slightly different values for the distance modulus will not change the above conclusions. Looking at the turn-off luminosity and its relation with the age, we estimate that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(mM)_0`$=$`\pm 0.1`$ with respect to the adopted value $`(mM)_0`$=$`18.5`$ would change the age (and age range) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\pm 10`$ Myr. Small variations in the percentage of binaries and/or age dispersion would immediately follow.

New observational data will certainly improve the exact values of age, metallicity, binary star percentage so that the present values ought to be considered as provisional estimates. Although the new generation telescopes could make it possible to reach the innermost regions of the cluster, scarcely or not at all affected by field star contamination, thus providing us with better CMDs and ILFs, it is unlikely that the present conclusions will change significantly. Real stars should indeed possess bigger convective cores than predicted by the classical theory of stellar evolution.

The civil war strikes again …

Acknowledgments. We like to thank V. Testa and O. Straniero for the helpful clarifications about the observed luminosity functions of NGC 1866. This study has been financed by the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research (MIUR).


format: text

text:
# Energy dependence of a Low Frequency QPO in GRS 1915+105

## 1 Introduction

X-ray binaries exhibit strong X-ray emission, from the soft ($`0.1`$ $`keV`$) to the hard X-rays (up to a few hundred keV), sometimes up to the MeV domain. The emission processes are thought to occur in the close vicinity of a stellar-mass compact object (either a Neutron Star or a Black Hole), the soft part of the spectrum being usually taken as the thermal emission of an accretion disk, whereas the hard part is thought to be the manifestation of an inverse compton scattering of the soft photons, with relativistic electrons present in a hot coronal medium. The sources may be distinguished by several characteristics, such as the companion mass, whenever this latter is known, the shape of their spectra, or by the presence of strong collimated ejecta. In the latter case, the similarity with AGN led to the definition of microquasars (Mirabel et al. , 1992), some of them known to be sources with superluminal jets (Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1999).
GRS $`1915`$+$`105`$ has first been discovered as a Soft X-ray Transient by WATCH on board GRANAT (Castro-Tirado et al. , 1992), and then identified as the first Galactic source to have ejections with apparent superluminal motion (Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1994). The distance to the source has been estimated to 12.5 kpc, its inclination $`70^{}`$, and the velocity of the jet 0.92c (Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1994). Since then, the source has been observed with many X-ray satellites, and its spectrum is typical of that of Black Hole Candidates (BHC), such as GRO J$`1655`$$`40`$. Only recently, however, the spectral type of the companion has been identified as a K–M III star (Greiner et al. , 2001), classifying the source as a low mass X-ray binary. The mass of the primary has been estimated to $`14\pm 4`$ $`M_{}`$ (Greiner, Cuby & McCaughrean, 2001), confirming the black hole nature of the compact object.
With the launch of the Rossi X-ray Timing Experiment (RXTE), and the excellent timing capacities of both its pointed instruments, the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) and the High Energy X-ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE), many X-ray Binaries and GRS $`1915`$+$`105`$ in particular, have been discovered to exhibit Quasi Periodic Oscillations (QPOs), in several ranges of frequency (a few mHz up to hundred, and kilohertz in the case of neutron star primary). Though no physical explanation has yet been widely accepted, the QPOs are thought to occur in the close vicinity of the compact object.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out by Psaltis et al.  (1999), that the QPOs could represent the same type of variability in both neutron stars and black hole systems, constraining the theoretical models, and giving important clues to the physics of these phenomena. In particular the study of QPOs should give important informations on the accretion flow, and thus on the physics of the disk.
The detection of several types of QPOs can be attributed to different mechanisms, depending in particular on the source spectral state.
We will only focus here on the strong $`0.510`$ $`Hz`$ QPO, present during the low/hard spectral state of GRS $`1915`$+$`105`$, often called “ubiquitous”, since it is nearly always present in that state and often observed in other Black Hole Binaries (e.g. XTE J$`1550`$$`564`$, or GRO J$`1655`$$`40`$). In that case, several authors have pointed out correlations between the frequency of the oscillations and some of the spectral parameters, such as the flux (Swank et al. , 1997; Markwardt et al. , 1999), the temperature of the disk (Muno et al. , 1999), and the disk color radius (Rodriguez et al. , 2002).
All these correlations constrained the location of the QPO in or close to the disk, and the systematic study of the QPO parameters should lead to a better understanding of the accretion and ejection mechanisms, thought to occur in this region.
Recently a new mechanism has been proposed by Tagger & Pellat (1999), to extract energy and angular momentum from the inner regions of the disk (permitting, thus the accretion) and transport them toward the corotation radius of the spiral wave formed in the disk, where they can be emitted directly toward the corona (Tagger & Pellat, 1999; Varnière & Tagger, 2001).
It has been shown by Rodriguez et al.  (2001), and Varnière et al.  (2002) , that this model could explain the different frequency vs. radius correlations observed in GRO J$`1655`$$`40`$ compared to GRS $`1915`$+$`105`$ or (as had been found by Sobczak et al. , 1999) XTE J$`1550`$$`564`$.
This model could also explain the correlations found by Mirabel et al. (1998), Eikenberry et al. (1998), Ueda et al. (2002, our observations being part of this latter work) during the $`30`$ min cycle (Tagger, 1999 for a possible scenario), between X-ray light curves and the infrared and radio emissions, considered as the synchrotron signatures of an expanding ejected blob of material, relating then the energy needed to accelerate those blobs, to the one extracted from the accretion.

We present here observations of the source taken as a RXTE Target of Opportunity, in April 2000. In section 2 we present the data reduction and analysis methods used; in section 3, we examine the first of the three observations, which is the most variable one, and focus then on the dynamical properties of the source, observed in different energy ranges. In section 4 we study the data of the following observations, where the source is much more steady, and thus, more adapted to extract the QPO parameters with high accuracy; we will interpret our observations in the last part of this paper.

## 2 Data reduction and analysis

The source has been observed on April $`17^{th}`$, $`22^{nd}`$ and $`23^{rd}`$, 2000 as a target of opportunity. We have reduced and analyzed the processed data using the FTOOLS package (update 5.04). Observations IDs, exact time intervals, and dates are shown in table 1.
We first extracted, for the three observations, lightcurves covering the entire PCA energy range, from binned data with $`2^7`$ s = $`7.8125`$ ms resolution, and event data with $`2^{16}`$ s = $`15.25878`$ $`\mu `$s, which were rebinned during the extraction process to $`7.8125`$ ms.
In all cases, lightcurves were extracted from all the PCUs that were simultaneously turned “on” over a single interval (i.e.  5 on Apr. $`17^{th}`$, and $`22^{nd}`$ first interval, four during the two following intervals that day, and three on Apr. $`23^{rd}`$). We combined all PCUs and all layers to get the most possible incoming flux. The exact PCA configuration over each interval is given in table 1.
“Good Time Intervals” (GTIs) were defined when the elevation angle was above $`10^{}`$, the offset pointing less than $`0.02^{}`$, and we also excluded the data taken while crossing the SAA.
Background lightcurves were generated using the PCABACKEST tool, from standard2 data, and subtracted from the raw lightcurves. We then generated power spectra and dynamical power spectra (hereafter DPS) using POWSPEC 1.0, calculating each FFT over $`4`$ s time intervals (2048 bins in each intervals), and averaging then the result over 4 intervals. The resultant DPS has a resultant time bin $`16`$ s, comparable to the time resolution of the standard 2 lightcurves. To follow the evolution of the QPOs parameters with the energy, we extracted, in the same standard way, lightcurves in five PCA energy channels: absolute channel $`011`$ (in Matrix epoch4 corresponding to $`<24.99`$ keV), channel $`1229`$ ($`4.9912.68`$ keV), channel $`3046`$ ($`12.6820.06`$ keV), channel $`4789`$ ($`20.0639.29`$ keV), channel $`90174`$ ($`39.2980.04`$ keV). We then produced DPS and power spectra, as explained above, in each energy range.

## 3 First Observation : on April $`17^{th}`$

We extracted from both instruments standard lightcurves with 16 s time resolution, using the standard PCA and HEXTE reduction steps, for this observation; they are plotted on figure 1.

The source is in a $`\alpha `$ state  as defined by Belloni et al. (2000). PCA dynamical power spectra, covering the entire PCA energy range ($`2100`$ $`keV`$), are shown on figure 2 together with the PCA lightcurves.
The source presents large flux variations on short time scales ($`100`$ s), together with a single QPO whose frequency has a similar behavior (figure 2). Then around time $`600`$ s (first interval), and $`6000`$ s (second), a large $`1000`$s dip occurs (figure 1). During that time, the QPO frequency varies from $`9`$ Hz to $`2.25`$ Hz, and a strong second QPO appears with a frequency $``$ twice that of the fundamental, following the same frequency variations (figure 2). Then around relative time 2032 s (first interval), and 7716 s (second interval) , a sudden and large soft X-ray spike, reaching $`4.8\times `$ (respectively $`6.4\times `$) the dip minimum flux, for the first (respectively second) interval, occurs and the source returns to a state similar to the one before the dip. Here the harmonic disappears, while the fundamental returns to a larger frequency and behaves as before the dip.

In addition we show in fig. 3, DPS in the five energy ranges defined in section 2, together with the corresponding lightcurves. One can immediately see that above 20 keV the harmonic is absent or very faint, and that above 40 keV (probably due to the high noise) the QPO disappears.

We also see on figure 3 the evolution of the flux variations with the energy; the large dip seems to be smoothed with the energy.
We extracted from the soft lightcurves the relative time and the value of the flux of the peak occuring just before the dip (relative time $`554`$ s, for the first interval, and $`6064`$, for the second one); we then re-did the same procedure for the minimum of the dip (relative time $`954`$ s for the first interval, and $`6368`$ s for the second one), and we thus could estimate the relative amplitude of the variation of the flux, at the time where, also, the fundamental QPO sees its frequency varying from 9 to 2.25 Hz. We did this in each energy range, at the same times (allowing a maximum of two bins ($`\pm 32`$ s) of difference between each range). Results are shown in table 2.

Note that the soft spike corresponds in the higher energy range (above 20 keV) to a sudden decrease of the flux, indicating the cooling, or the disappearance of a part of the corona (multi-wavelength results can be found in Ueda et al. , 2002 ).

## 4 Second and Third Observation : April $`22^{nd}`$ and $`23^{rd}`$

As the lightcurves and dynamical power spectra did not present variations as strong as on the previous date, we did not focus here on the dynamical evolution of the QPO, but we just tried to correlate the QPO parameters with the energy range. Figure 4 shows the lightcurves with the dynamical power spectra from all the GTIs of both observations. The source is in a $`\chi `$ state of Belloni et al. , 2000, characterized by a steady flux.

Power spectra covering the entire PCA range,shown on figure 5, are fitted with a model consisting of two broad lorentzians (continuum) , plus sharper ones, modeling the QPO features. When the presence of the QPOs was not obvious, we estimated the parameters by freezing the lorentzian centroid frequency to the value found in the other energy ranges, and allowing both the width and the power to vary. In the case of the $`4080`$ keV range, since the statistics from single interval was poor, we choosed to merged the observations were the QPO frequency was found to be close, i.e. intervals $`\mathrm{\#}1`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}2`$ from April 22, and intervals $`\mathrm{\#}1`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}2`$ from April 23; interval $`\mathrm{\#}3`$ from April 22 was fitted alone. Results from the fits for all the energy ranges defined in section 2 are shown in table 3.

No variations similar to those of April 17 are present here; the flux remains fairly constant around a mean value 1050 cts/s/PCU-on, for the April 22 two first intervals, rising slowly to $`1100`$ cts/s/PCU-on, for the April 22 third interval, and reaching $`1200`$ cts/s/PCU-on, on April 23. As expected, in the same time intervals the fundamental QPO sees its frequency slowly increase with time from $`2.14`$ Hz (on Apr. 22) to $`2.9`$ Hz (on Apr. 23) (figure 4, and table 3). The harmonic is still present during the five intervals, with a frequency varying from $`4.3`$ Hz (on Apr. 22), to $`5.8`$ Hz on April 23 first interval.
We plotted in figure 7 the evolution of the QPO power vs. energy range for the five GTIs. The upper points represent the behavior of the fundamental QPO, and the lower that of the harmonic; we can see that the power of the fundamental increases up to $`40`$ keV, and them seems to decrease, whereas that of the harmonic seems to peak between the $`513`$ and $`1320`$ keV ranges.

Figure 6 represents the evolution of the QPOs width vs. their frequencies. Both distributions of points can be well fitted by lines of slopes $`0.390`$ for the fundamental, and $`0.389`$ for the harmonic. The zero abscissa values are found to be $`0.526052`$ for the fundamental, and $`0.932459`$ for the harmonic (although their physical meaning is not clear) . It is clearly visible on the plot that both QPOs are tightly correlated, the width of the harmonic being $``$ twice that of the fundamental (resulting thus in a Q value ($`=\frac{frequency}{FWHM}`$) similar for both).

## 5 Results and Interpretation

The April 17 observation confirms and expands the conclusion of Markwardt et al.  (1999) and Muno et al.  (1999), that the QPO frequency is better correlated with the soft flux, but seems stronger in the higher energy bands (which is confirmed by the following dates).
In addition a precise study of the lightcurve of the same date shows that the $`30`$ min dips are smoothed with the energy, and that the sudden increase of the soft flux (the spike) is anti correlated with the hard flux; indeed the spike, in both interval, corresponds to a major decrease of the flux in the $`2040`$ keV, and $`4080`$ keV bands, usually considered to be emitted by the corona. The soft spike marks here the transition from the low hard state (C state of Belloni et al. , 2000), to a soft high state (A-B states). Within the interpretation in terms of disk states, this transition and the rapid variations following (interpreted as rapid transitions through A B C states (Belloni et al. , 2000)) can be seen as a succession of rapid replenishments and disappearances of the innermost parts of the disk (Belloni et al. , 1997). The behaviour of the corona may appear difficult to understand, since the abrupt cutoff of the hard X-rays could either be the manifestation of a sudden cooling of the relativistic electrons by the re-emergence of a high soft flux, or the disappearance of the corona (by advection or ejection).
Thanks to a large number of multi-wavelength observations, the radio and infra red behaviors of GRS $`1915`$+$`105`$ have now been widely studied for years. In particular, former studies such as the one presented in Mirabel et al. , 1998, or Eikenberry et al. , 1998 had linked the soft X-ray spike (transition from low hard to soft high state) with radio and infra red flares. Dhawan et al. (2000) have shown that indeed superluminal ejections took place during abrupt change in the X-ray state of the source. More recently, Klein-Wolt et al. (2001) have found a strong correlation between radio events (radio oscillations, compact jets, large radio flares), and state C properties (duration, transition to other states). It is, however, to be noted that Klein-Wolt et al. , did not find any simultaneous radio - alpha state observations. Furthermore, “The Largest Multi-wavelength Campaign” on GRS $`1915`$+$`105`$ presented in Ueda et al. (2002), shows that the state transitions on Apr. $`17^{th}`$ are followed by radio flares consistent with an ejection of material starting at the state transition. This leads us to suggest that the abrupt cutoff of the hard X-rays is more probably related to the disappearance of a part of the corona, blown away under the form of a synchrotron emitting blob of material detected in the infra red, and radio domains (fig. 1 and 2 in Ueda et al. , 2002).
On the other hand, the behavior of the QPO and its harmonic at high energies poses severe constraints on theoretical models. The decrease of the QPO power above $`40`$ keV may indicate that not all the corona is affected. The decrease of the harmonic above $`20`$ keV also raises very challenging questions.
These could find an explanation in the context of the Accretion-Ejection Instability (Tagger and Pellat, 1999), which has been shown to form a rotating spiral structure in the disk, similar to galactic ones but driven by magnetic stresses rather than by self-gravity. The spiral arms should be expected to heat as well as compress the gas in the disk, and thus to appear as a rotating spiral or hot spot. The harmonic would then be a signature of the non-linear behavior of the spiral, just as the gas form shocks (and thus strong harmonics of the underlying 2-armed spiral) along galactic spiral arms. The high-energy cutoff of the fundamental could, then, favor an interpretation where most or all of the quasi-periodic modulation at high energies comes, not from the comptonized corona as usually assumed, but from a hot point in the optically thick disk. This would be consistent with the previous result (Rodriguez et al. , 2001; Rodriguez et al. , 2002) that the anomalously small color radius of the disk, often observed in some Black-Hole Binaries, could actually be interpreted by the black-body emission of a small area hot point in the disk. We could in principle have an estimate of its physical size, by adding a blackbody model in the spectral fits (such as the BBODYRAD model of XSPEC), one of the parameters being the normalized area of the emitting region, (since the black body luminosity is proportionnal to the area). But the limited sensitivity and spectral resolution of the present data do not allow any realistic fit. We expect that future instruments will provide better constraints on this problem .
It would be very tempting to consider the width of the QPO as a measure of the size (due for example to the differential rotation acting between the inner and outer edges of the spot). But the fact that we are dealing with a QPO probably rules out this explanation, since it has to result from a quasi-stationary feature in the disk. This is precisely the case for the AEI, where a standing spiral wave results in a quasi-stationary feature rotating at a single frequency. In this context the width of the QPO would correspond to the coherence time of this pattern, fixed either by non-linear effects or by variations in the background disk equilibrium, e.g. the inner disk radius or other disk parameters (temperature, magnetization, etc.)..
The spot physical properties (e.g. its temperature) may also depend on a number of external parameters, hard to deduce from the observations, such as the $`\beta `$ ratio (the ratio between thermal and magnetic pressure), which drives the instability (see for example Varnière et al. , 2002, for a discussion on the effects of this parameter), or even the efficiency of the instability. Indeed, in a non linear regime for example, the amount of energy deposited in the disk (under the form of shocks) would be much greater, and would locally warm it up much more than in the linear case.
Further observational and theoretical work should, however, allow to test this hypothesis: by producing, from numerical simulations of the instability (such as Caunt and Tagger, 2001), synthetic light curves of the QPO, and by fitting the observed energy dependence of the modulated light curve by a high-temperature, hotter black body over a small area of the disk rather than the usual power-law of the coronal emission.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank S. Corbel, M. Muno, P. Varnière, T.Foglizzo, and the anonymous referee for usefull discussions and comments which allowed to improve the quality of the paper.
IFM acknowledges partial support from Fundacíon Antorchas.
We also thank the Athena help at GSFC for appreciable help on the RXTE data reduction processes.
This research has made use of data obtain through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.


text:
# Four–dimensional Gravity from Singular Spaces

## 1 Introduction

The notion that our Universe may be a hypersurface within a higher-dimensional space-time is not a new one , but recently interest in this class of theory of the Universe has been rekindled by the development of simple models, notably by Randall and Sundrum  and . These models admit a rich set of developments and extensions. In brane world theories the standard model fields are usually confined on our (visible) brane, while allowing gravity to propagate throughout the entire space-time. Recovering a four-dimensional theory of gravity that is compatible with present-day observations is one of the main constraints to be imposed on brane-world models. Such an analysis has been carried out in the RS framework with an explicit radion stabilization mechanism in .

One possible extension to the RS set-up is the inclusion of matter fields in the (extra-dimensional) bulk. In particular it is of interest to study the dynamics of bulk scalar fields as these fields appear naturally in models motivated from M–theory , see . Recently the issue of retrieving gravity at low energy for models with a single bulk scalar field has been analyzed in . It has been found that four dimensional gravity is generically recovered provided that the models do not have a super-gravitational origin111More specifically, the authors of  assume that the relation $`U=U_B^2U_B^2`$ between the brane and the bulk potentials is violated. This relation holds explicitly for the models that we consider..

In this paper, we discuss the effect of including a scalar field in the bulk, for certain super-gravitational brane-world models , on the effective four-dimensional theory of gravity. To examine this, we build on the results of a companion paper  in which we studied the dynamics of linear perturbations of the radion (i.e. fluctuations of the brane distance) and the bulk scalar field. We compute the metric perturbation due to matter on the brane, and compare the low-energy limit to the Brans–Dicke theories; see .

We begin by summarizing the relevant results from our companion paper in section 2 and add matter sources on the branes; we then, in section 3, compute the Brans–Dicke parameter that would be observed on the positive-tension brane in the low-energy limit, and show that general relativity is an attractor in rather general cases. We draw our conclusions in section 4.

## 2 Brane World Setup: Background and Perturbations

### 2.1 The Background Configurations

We are interested in brane world models with a bulk scalar field. In addition, we have two branes in our setup: one (the visible brane) is located at $`z=0`$, whereas the other (hidden) brane is located at $`z=r_c`$. We consider a bulk action

$$S_{\text{bulk}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}d^5x\sqrt{g_5}\left(R\frac{3}{4}((\varphi )^2+U)\right)$$
(1)
with boundary terms

$$S_{\text{brane}}=\frac{3}{2\kappa _5^2}d^5x\sqrt{g_5}(\delta (z)\delta (zr_c))U_B$$
(2)
where $`U_B`$ is the superpotential related to the bulk potential $`U`$ by

$$U=\left(\frac{U_B}{\varphi }\right)^2U_B^2.$$
(3)
Background solutions to the equations of motion are described by the BPS equations

$$\frac{a^{}}{a}=\frac{U_B}{4},\varphi ^{}=\frac{U_B}{\varphi }$$
(4)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}=d/dz`$, for a metric of the form

$$ds^2=dz^2+a^2(z)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(5)
We will particularly focus on the case where

$$U_B=4ke^{\alpha \varphi }$$
(6)
with $`\alpha =1/\sqrt{3},1/\sqrt{12}`$; these values correspond to supergravity in singular spaces . In those cases the solution reads

$$a(z)=\left(\frac{14k\alpha ^2(zz_0)}{1+4k\alpha ^2z_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{4\alpha ^2}}$$
(7)
where the positive tension brane sits at $`z=0`$. In the $`\alpha 0`$ limit we retrieve the AdS profile

$$a(z)=e^{kz}$$
(8)
Notice that in that case the scalar field decouples altogether, as $`U_B`$ and hence $`U`$ are constant.

### 2.2 Fluctuations

Our aim is to analyse the influence of the matter localized on the brane. We thus include matter on the boundary branes which will be treated as perturbations. We will further assume that the matter does not couple to the bulk scalar field, so that, in particular, the junction conditions for the bulk field are not modified. As a consequence we are able to build on the analysis performed in .

We consider a perturbed bulk metric

$$ds^2=dz^2+a^2(z)dx^\mu dx_\mu +h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(9)
in Gaussian normal coordinates. The dynamics of the scalar field fluctuation is determined by the Klein-Gordon equation

$$\mathrm{}\delta \varphi +\frac{1}{2}h^{}\varphi ^{}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2U_B}{\varphi ^2}\delta \varphi $$
(10)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}=d/dz`$ and $`h`$ is the trace of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. The zero-mode solution to this equation can be obtained as

$$\delta \varphi =\frac{U_B}{\varphi }\widehat{\varphi }(x^\mu )$$
(11)
and $`h=0`$, which satisfies the boundary conditions at both branes for any massless $`\widehat{\varphi }(x^\mu )`$.

Similarly one can write the Einstein equations in the bulk

$$\mathrm{}h_{ab}+\frac{U_B^2}{8}h_{ab}D_{\{a}D_ch_{b\}}^c=\frac{3}{4}_{\{a}\delta \varphi _{b\}}\varphi _0$$
(12)
where we have extended $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ to five dimensions with $`h_{55}=h_{\mu 5}=0`$. The $`(55)`$ component of the gravitational equation leads to $`_z\delta \varphi =0`$. This implies that $`\delta \varphi `$ is a function of $`x^\mu `$ only and therefore

$$\delta \varphi =0$$
(13)
So the scalar field perturbation vanishes altogether. Now the $`(\mu 5)`$ equation leads to

$$D_\mu h^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(14)
In summary, we find that the scalar field does not play a rôle in the low energy dynamics and that the metric perturbation is transverse and traceless.

#### 2.2.1 Adding matter sources on the branes

The effect of adding matter on the branes is to induce a bending of the brane. This leads to a shift in the position of both branes which sit at

$$z_+=\xi ^+,z_{}=r_c+\xi ^{}$$
(15)
One can perform local changes of coordinates around both branes which preserve the Gaussian normal coordinates and shift them to the origin and $`r_c`$. After such changes of coordinates the metric is

$$h_{\mu \nu }^+=h_{\mu \nu }\frac{U_B}{2}a^2(z)\xi ^+\eta _{\mu \nu }2a^2(z)_0^z\frac{dy}{a^2(y)}_\mu _\nu \xi ^+$$
(16)
in the vicinity of the origin and

$$h_{\mu \nu }^{}=h_{\mu \nu }\frac{U_B}{2}a^2(z)\xi ^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }2a^2(z)_{r_c}^z\frac{dy}{a^2(y)}_\mu _\nu \xi ^{}$$
(17)
in the vicinity of the second brane.

We can now study these perturbations. To do so we come back to the gravitational equation; it is convenient to work in the conformal gauge, defining

$$du=\frac{dz}{a}$$
(18)
and

$$h_{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{a}\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }.$$
(19)
We denote by $`u_+`$ and $`u_{}`$ the location of both branes in the conformal coordinate system. The gravitational equations then read

$$\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }}{du^2}+\frac{1}{a^{3/2}}\frac{d^2a^{3/2}}{du^2}\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{}^{(4)}\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }$$
(20)
or

$$\left[Q^{}Q\mathrm{}^{(4)}\right]\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(21)
with

$$Q=\frac{d}{du}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}a^{3/2}}{du},Q^{}=\frac{d}{du}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}a^{3/2}}{du},\mathrm{}^{(4)}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu .$$
(22)
The boundary conditions are now

$$_zh_{\mu \nu }|_{u_\pm }+\frac{U_B}{2}h_{\mu \nu }|_{u_\pm }=\kappa _5^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^\pm $$
(23)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\frac{2}{\kappa _5^2}_\mu _\nu \xi ^\pm +(T_{\mu \nu }^\pm \frac{1}{3}T^\pm g_{\mu \nu }^\pm )$$
(24)
and $`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ is the matter energy-momentum tensor on both branes while $`g_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ is the induced metric.

The equations of motion can be conveniently written as

$$Q^{}Qh_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}^{(4)}\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=\underset{\sigma =\pm }{}\left(\frac{3}{4}U_Bh_{\mu \nu }^\sigma +2\kappa _5^2\sqrt{a}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma \right)\delta (uu_\sigma )$$
(25)
The brane equation of motion determining the brane bending is obtained by taking the trace of the previous equation. Using the tracelessness of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ we conclude that

$$\mathrm{}^{(4)}\xi ^\pm =\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}a_\pm ^2T^\pm $$
(26)
where $`a_\pm =a(u_\pm )`$.

Let us decompose into Kaluza-Klein modes

$$\mathrm{}^{(4)}h_{\mu \nu }=k^2h_{\mu \nu }$$
(27)
It is convenient to define the eigenstates of the positive operator $`Q^{}Q`$

$$Q^{}Q\psi _\lambda =\lambda ^2\psi _\lambda $$
(28)
Consider now the Green’s function $`G_{k^2}`$ of the operator

$$H_{k^2}=Q^{}Q+k^2\frac{3}{4}U_B(\delta (uu_+)+\delta (uu_{}))$$
(29)
defined by

$$G_{k^2}(u,u^{})=\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{\psi _\lambda (u)\psi _\lambda (u^{})}{\lambda ^2+k^2+iϵ}$$
(30)
where each mode is normalized. The only mode with $`\lambda =0`$ is proportional to $`a^{\frac{3}{2}}`$, as it is the only zero mode to satisfy the boundary conditions imposed by the delta functions. Moreover the spectrum is discrete due to the two boundary conditions.

We can now write the metric perturbation due to matter on both branes

$$h_{\mu \nu }(u,x)=2\kappa _5^2\underset{\sigma =\pm }{}d^4x^{}G(x,u;x^{},u_\sigma )a_\sigma ^{1/2}a^{1/2}(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma (x^{})$$
(31)
where

$$G(x,u;x^{},u^{})=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik.(xx^{})}G_{k^2}(u,u^{})$$
(32)
This provides the solution to the Einstein equations in the bulk due to the brane bending.

## 3 Gravity on the visible brane: the zero mode truncation

We concentrate first on the case where no matter is present on the second brane and study gravity on the first brane. In the low energy limit we neglect the contribution due to the Kaluza-Klein modes and retain the zero mode only. In this case the metric perturbation on the brane is

$$h_{\mu \nu }=\frac{\kappa _5^2}{_0^{r_c}𝑑za^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{(4)}}(T_{\mu \nu }^+\frac{1}{3}T^+\eta _{\mu \nu })\frac{U_B}{2}|_0\xi ^+\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(33)
where we have normalized $`a_+=1`$ and used a four dimensional gauge transformation to get rid of the second derivative terms. This leads to

$$\mathrm{}^{(4)}h_{\mu \nu }=\frac{\kappa _5^2}{_0^{r_c}𝑑za^2}(T_{\mu \nu }^+\frac{1}{3}T^+\eta _{\mu \nu })+\frac{U_B}{12}|_0\kappa _5^2T^+\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(34)
Corresponding to the Brans–Dicke expression

$$\mathrm{}^{(4)}h_{\mu \nu }=\frac{16\pi G_N}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(T_{\mu \nu }^+\frac{1}{2}T^+\eta _{\mu \nu })\frac{8\pi G_N}{\mathrm{\Phi }(3+2\omega (\mathrm{\Phi }))}T^+\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Brans–Dicke field and $`\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ the Brans–Dicke parameter. We identify

$$\kappa _5^2=16\pi G_N_0^r_{\mathrm{}}\frac{a^2}{a_+^2}𝑑z,$$
(36)
where $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the maximal range of the extra dimension, i.e. infinity for the Randall-Sundrum scenario and the singularity when a bulk scalar field is present. Next we identify

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{_0^{r_c}a^2𝑑z}{_0^r_{\mathrm{}}a^2𝑑z},$$
(37)
which varies between zero and one. Finally we obtain the Brans–Dicke parameter

$$\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{U_B}{2}|_0_0^r_{\mathrm{}}\frac{a^2}{a_+^2}𝑑z}\right)$$
(38)
We can now consider the specific exponential models, with $`U_B=4ke^{\alpha \varphi }`$. This leads to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=1\left(1\frac{r_c}{r_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{1+\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}},$$
(39)
where $`r_{\mathrm{}}=z_0+1/4k\alpha ^2`$. Similarly for the Brans–Dicke parameter

$$\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1+4k\alpha ^2z_0}{1+2\alpha ^2}}\right).$$
(40)
In the $`\alpha 0`$ limit we retrieve that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=1e^{2kr_c}$$
(41)
and

$$\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+e^{2kr_c}\right),$$
(42)
in agreement with .

Let us finally comment on the well known attractor–mechanism for scalar tensor theories in the context of the theory discussed so far. Damour and Nordtvedt  found that in the case for Brans–Dicke theory the dynamics of the scalar field evolves during the matter dominated epoch such that the Brans–Dicke parameter grows rapidly and thus that Einstein gravity is a cosmological attractor. It is easy to verify that this is the case in the theory above:

First, it is convenient to go to the Einstein frame where $`g_{\mu \nu }=g_{E,\mu \nu }/\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We then define a canonically normalized field $`\sigma `$ by $`a/\sigma =\beta (\sigma )`$ where $`a(\sigma )=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Phi })/2`$ and $`\beta ^2(\sigma )=1/(3+2\omega (\mathrm{\Phi }))`$, and find that

$$\beta ^2(\sigma )=1\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0},$$
(43)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=(1+2\alpha ^2)/(1+4\alpha ^2kz_0)`$. This leads to

$$\sigma \sigma _0=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }\right).$$
(44)
Notice that $`\beta 0`$ and $`\sigma \sigma _0`$ as $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The field $`\sigma `$ is attracted towards value its value at $`\beta =0`$, i.e. $`\sigma `$ is attracted towards $`\sigma _0`$. The minimum $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ can only been reached when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_01`$, i.e. for $`z_01/2k`$. In that case the field $`\sigma `$ is attracted towards the point where $`\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })=+\mathrm{}`$, allowing us to recover Einstein gravity.

In the opposite situation ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_0>1`$) the Brans–Dicke parameter can only reach a maximal value

$$\omega _{\text{max}}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{1+4\alpha ^2kz_0}{2\alpha ^2\left(12kz_0\right)}$$
(45)
which, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0>1`$ implies that $`2kz_0<1`$, is in general not large enough to escape the experimental bounds on the Brans–Dicke parameter (and tends to $`\frac{3}{4\alpha ^2}`$ in the limit as $`2kz_00`$).

In conclusion, we have found that the Brans–Dicke parameter converges towards infinity as soon as the distances between the branes and the naked singularity are large enough. This should be the case for a realistic cosmology, because we expect both branes to expand. Thus, they will move away from the singularity so that the attractor mechanism can operate.

Let us finally discuss the case where matter is also on the second brane and study its effect on the gravitational field as seen on the first brane. It is to be expected that the leading effect will be due to the propagation of gravitons in the bulk, hence suppressed by the warping of the bulk. Following the same method as in the previous calculation we find that

$$\frac{1}{a_+^2}\mathrm{}^{(4)}h_{\mu \nu }=\frac{16\pi G_N}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}(T_{\rho \lambda }\eta ^{\rho \lambda })\eta _{\mu \nu })+\frac{U_B}{12}|_0(T_{\rho \lambda }^+\eta ^{\rho \lambda })\kappa _5^2\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(46)
where the total energy momentum tensor is

$$T_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }^++\frac{a_{}^2}{a_+^2}T_{\mu \nu }^{}.$$
(47)
This can be recast into the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_+^2}}\mathrm{}^{(4)}h_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_N}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}(T_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_{\rho \lambda }\eta ^{\rho \lambda })\eta _{\mu \nu }){\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_N}{\mathrm{\Phi }(3+2\omega (\mathrm{\Phi }))}}(T_{\rho \lambda }\eta ^{\rho \lambda })\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ (48)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}^2}{a_+^2}}\kappa _5^2(\eta ^{\rho \lambda }T_{\rho \lambda }^{})\eta _{\mu \nu },`$
where $`G_N`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ were defined above. Notice that there is a direct coupling to matter on the second brane which does not follow from Brans–Dicke theory. In particular this implies that gravity does not couple universally to matter, i.e this leads to a violation of the equivalence principle whose strength is proportional to the warping factor $`a_{}^2/a_+^2`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented an analysis of the effective four-dimensional gravity at the positive-tension brane for a brane-world model with bulk scalar field. When the BPS conditions (4) are imposed on the system, generating a static supergravity background, we find that the effective low-energy theory is a Brans–Dicke theory. We have briefly discussed the attractor mechanism which attracts the theory towards general relativity during a matter dominated epoch. We have found that the conditions for this to happen can easily be fulfilled, as long as the singularity is far away from both branes.

When matter is present on both branes, we have found that both matter types couple differently to gravity. Thus, we expect a violation of the equivalence principle for matter which lives on the shadow brane. This violation, however, is suppressed by a factor, which can be very small, when the branes are far apart. We expect very interesting consequences for cosmology from these considerations, which will be investigated in future work.

##### Acknowledgements

This work was supported by PPARC (A.C.D., C.S.R. and C.v.d.B.), Jesus College, Cambridge (C.S.R.), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (C.v.d.B.), a CNRS–Royal Society exchange grant for collaborative research and the European network (RTN), HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and PRN-CT-2000-00148.