text:
# Enveloping algebra 𝑈(𝔤𝔩(3)) and orthogonal polynomials in several discrete indeterminates

## §1. Background

###### Lemma .

Let $`A`$ be an associative algebra generated by a set $`X`$. Denote by $`[X,A]`$ the set of linear combinations of the form $`[x_i,a_i]`$, where $`x_iX`$, $`a_iA`$. Then $`[A,A]=[X,A]`$.

###### Proof.

Let us apply the identity (\[Mo\], p.561)

$`(\mathrm{1.1.1})`$
$$[ab,c]=[a,bc]+[b,ca].$$

Namely, let $`a=x_1\mathrm{}x_n`$; let us induct on $`n`$ to prove that $`[a,A][X,A]`$. For $`n=1`$ the statement is obvious. If $`n>1`$, then $`a=xa_1`$, where $`xX`$ and due to (1.1.1) we have

$$[a,c]=[xa_1,c]=[x,a_1c]+[a_1,cx]$$

###### Lemma .

Let $`A`$ be an associative algebra and $`a\omega (a)`$ be its involutive antiautomorphism (transposition for $`A=\mathrm{Mat}(n)`$). Let $`L`$ be an invariant functional on $`A`$ (like trace, i.e., $`L([A,A])=0`$) such that $`L(\omega (a))=L(a)`$ for any $`aA`$. Define the bilinear form on $`A`$ by setting

$`(\mathrm{1.2.1})`$
$$u,v=L(u\omega (v))\text{ for any }u,vA.$$

Then

i) $`u,v=v,u`$;

ii) $`xu,v=u,\omega (x)v`$;

iii) $`ux,v=u,v\omega (x)`$;

iv) $`[x,u],v=u,[\omega (x),v]`$.

###### Proof.

(Clearly, iii) is similar to ii)).

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{ i)}\hfill & u,v=L(u\omega (v))=L(\omega (u\omega (v)))=L(v\omega (u))=v,u.\hfill \\ \text{ ii)}\hfill & xu,v=L(xu\omega (v))=L(u\omega (v)x)=L(u\omega (\omega (x)v))=u,\omega (x)v.\hfill \\ \text{ iv)}\hfill & [x,u],v=xu,vux,v\hfill \\ & u,\omega (x)vu,v\omega (x)=u,[\omega (x),v].\hfill \end{array}$$

### 1.3. Traces and forms on $`U(𝔤)`$

Let $`𝔤`$ be a finite dimensional Lie algebra, $`Z(𝔤)`$ the center of $`(U(𝔤)`$, $`W`$ the Weyl group of $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔥`$ a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$. The following statements are proved in \[Di\].

###### Proposition .

i) $`U(𝔤)=Z(𝔤)[U(𝔤),U(𝔤)]`$.

ii) Let $`\mathrm{}:Z(𝔤)[U(𝔤),U(𝔤)]Z(𝔤)`$ be the natural projection. Then

$$(uv)^{\mathrm{}}=(vu)^{\mathrm{}}\text{ and }(zv)^{\mathrm{}}=z(v)^{\mathrm{}}\text{ for any }u,vU(𝔤)\text{ and }zZ(𝔤).$$

iii) $`U(𝔤)=S(𝔥)^W[U(𝔤),U(𝔤)]`$.

iv) Let $`\lambda `$ be the highest weight of the irreducible finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-module $`L^\lambda `$ and $`\phi `$ the Harish-Chandra homomorphism. Then

$$\phi (u^{\mathrm{}})(\lambda )=\frac{\mathrm{tr}(u|_{L^\lambda })}{dimL^\lambda }.$$

### 1.3.2

On $`U(𝔤)`$, define a form with values in $`Z(𝔤)`$ by setting

$`()`$
$$u,v=(u\omega (v))^{\mathrm{}},$$

where $`\omega `$ is the Chevalley involution in $`U(𝔤)`$.

###### Lemma .

The form $`()`$ is nondegenerate on $`U(𝔤)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`u,v=0`$ for any $`vU(𝔤)`$. By Proposition 1.3.1

$$\mathrm{tr}(u\omega (v))=\phi ((u\omega (v))^{\mathrm{}})(\lambda )dimL(\lambda )=\phi (u,v)(\lambda )dimL(\lambda )=0;$$

hence, $`u=0`$ on $`L(\lambda )`$ for any irreducible finite dimensional $`L(\lambda )`$, and, therefore, $`u=0`$ in $`U(𝔤)`$. ∎

###### Lemma .

For any $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ define a $``$-valued form on $`U(𝔤)`$ by setting

$$u,v_\lambda =\phi (u,v)(\lambda ).$$

The kernel of this form is a maximal ideal in $`U(𝔤)`$.

###### Proof.

The form $`,_\lambda `$ arises from a linear functional $`L(u)=\phi (u^{\mathrm{}})(\lambda )`$; hence, by Lemma 1.2 its kernel is a twosided ideal $`I`$ in $`U(𝔤)`$. On $`A=U(𝔤)/I`$, the form induced is nondegenerate. If $`zZ(𝔤)`$, then

$$z,v_\lambda =L(z\omega (v))=L(z)L(\omega (v));$$

hence, $`zL(z)I`$. Therefore, the only $`𝔤`$-invariant elements in $`A`$ are those from $`Span(1)`$.

Let $`J`$ be a twosided nontrivial ($`A,0`$) ideal in $`A`$ and $`J=\underset{\mu }{}J^\mu `$ be the decomposition into irreducible finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-modules (with respect to the adjoint representation). Since $`JA`$, it follows that $`J^0=0`$. Hence, $`L(J)=0`$ and $`J,A`$. Thus, $`J=0`$. ∎

### 1.4. Gelfand–Tsetlin basis and transvector algebras

(For recapitulation on transvector algebras see \[Zh\].)

Let $`E_{ij}`$ be the matrix units. In $`𝔤𝔩(3)`$, we fix the subalgebra $`𝔤𝔩(2)`$ embedded into the left upper corner and let $`𝔥`$ denote the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤𝔩(3)=Span(E_{ii}:i=1,2,3)`$.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between finite dimensional irreducible representations of $`𝔤𝔩(3)`$ and the sets

$$(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)\text{ such that }\lambda _1\lambda _2,\lambda _2\lambda _3_+.$$

Such sets are called highest weights of the corresponding irreducible representation whose space is denoted $`L^\lambda `$. With each such $`\lambda `$ we associate a Gelfand–Tsetlin diagram $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$`(\mathrm{1.4.1})`$
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\lambda _{31}& & \lambda _{32}& & \lambda _{33}\\ & \lambda _{21}& & \lambda _{22}& & \\ & & \lambda _{11}& & \end{array},$$

where the upper line coincides with $`\lambda `$ and where “betweenness” conditions hold:

$`(\mathrm{1.4.2})`$
$$\lambda _{k,i}\lambda _{k1,i}_+;\lambda _{k1,i}\lambda _{k,i+1}_+\text{ for any }i=1,2;k=2,3.$$

Set

$`(\mathrm{1.4.3})`$
$$\begin{array}{c}z_{21}=E_{21},z_{12}=E_{12};z_{13}=E_{13},z_{32}=E_{32};\\ z_{31}=(E_{11}E_{22}+2)E_{31},z_{23}=(E_{11}E_{22}+2)E_{23}E_{21}E_{13}.\end{array}$$

Set $`(L^\lambda )^+=Span(u:uL^\lambda ,E_{12}u=0)`$.

###### Theorem .

(see \[Mo\]) Let $`v`$ be a nonzero highest weight vector in $`L^\lambda `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a Gelfand–Tsetlin diagram. Set

$$v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=z_{21}^{\lambda _{21}\lambda _{11}}z_{31}^{\lambda _{31}\lambda _{21}}z_{32}^{\lambda _{32}\lambda _{22}}v$$

and let $`l_{ki}=\lambda _{ki}i+1`$. Then

i) The vectors $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parametrized by Gelfand–Tsetlin diagrams form a basis in $`L^\lambda `$.

ii) The $`𝔤𝔩(3)`$-action on vectors $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by the following formulas

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{11}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda _{11}v_\mathrm{\Lambda };\hfill \\ E_{22}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _{21}+\lambda _{22}\lambda _{11})v_\mathrm{\Lambda };\hfill \\ E_{33}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{3i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\lambda _{2j})v_\mathrm{\Lambda };\hfill \\ E_{12}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(l_{11}l_{21})(l_{11}l_{22})v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\delta _{11}};\hfill \\ E_{21}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _{11}};\hfill \\ E_{23}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{(l_{21}l_{31})(l_{21}l_{32})(l_{21}l_{33})}{(l_{21}l_{22})}v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\delta _{11}}\frac{(l_{22}l_{31})(l_{22}l_{32})(l_{22}l_{33})}{(l_{22}l_{21})}v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\delta _{22}};\hfill \\ E_{32}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{(l_{21}l_{11})}{(l_{21}l_{22})}v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _{11}}+\frac{(l_{22}l_{11})}{(l_{22}l_{21})}v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _{22}},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pm \delta _{ki}`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by replacing $`\lambda _{ki}`$ with $`\lambda _{ki}\pm 1`$ and we assume that $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not satisfy conditions on GTs-diagrams.

iii) The vectors $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponding to the GTs-diagrams with $`\lambda _{21}=\lambda _{11}`$ form a basis of $`(L^\lambda )^+`$.

### 1.5.1. Twisted generalized Weyl algebras

Recall definition of twisted generalized Weyl algebras introduced in \[MT\]. Let $`R`$ be a commutative algebra over $``$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a finite nonoriented tree with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ being the set of its vertices and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ that of edges. Let also $`\{\sigma _i:i\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\}`$ be a set of pairwise commuting automorphisms of $`R`$ and $`\{t_i:i\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\}`$ the set of nonzero elements from $`R`$ satisfying the following conditions:

$`(\mathrm{1.5.1})`$
$$\begin{array}{c}t_it_j=\sigma _i^1(t_j)\sigma _j^1(t_i)\text{ if }(i,j)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\hfill \\ \sigma _i(t_j)=t_j\text{ if }(i,j)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma .

(\[MT\]) Let $`𝔄^{}`$ be the algebra generated by $`X_i,Y_i:i\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ subject to the relations (for any $`rR`$)

1) $`X_ir=\sigma _i(r)X_i`$,

2) $`Y_ir=\sigma _i^1(r)Y_i`$,

3) $`X_iY_j=Y_jX_i`$ if $`ij`$,

4) $`Y_iX_i=t_i`$,

5) $`X_iY_i=\sigma _i(t_i)`$.

Then $`𝔄^{}0`$, $`𝔄^{}`$ is $``$-graded, and among homogeneous (with respect to the grading) twosided ideals of $`𝔄^{}`$ whose intersection with $`R`$ is trivial is a maximal one, $`I`$.

The quotient $`𝔄=𝔄^{}/I`$ is called the twisted generalized Weyl algebra.

### 1.5.2. Example

Let $`\gamma `$ be the Dynkin graph for the root system $`A_{n1}`$. Let $`V`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional vector space with basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$, and let $`\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n`$ be the dual basis of $`V^{}`$. Let $`T=\{\epsilon _i\epsilon _j\}`$ be the root system of $`A_{n1}`$ in $`V^{}`$ and $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1}`$ the system of simple roots. Set $`R=S(V)`$ and for $`hV`$ define:

$$\sigma _i(h)=h\alpha _i(h)\text{ for }i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1$$

and having extending $`\sigma _i`$ to an automorphism of $`R`$. Clearly, the $`\sigma _i`$ pairwise commute for $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In $`V`$, select vectors $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n1}`$ such that $`\alpha _i(h_j)=\delta _{ij}`$ and for an arbitrary collection $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n1}`$ of polynomials in one indeterminate set

$$\begin{array}{c}t_1(v)=f_1(h_1)f_2(h_2h_1),t_2(v)=f_2(h_2h_1+1)f_3(h_3h_2),\mathrm{},\hfill \\ t_{n1}(v)=f_{n1}(h_{n1}h_{n2}+1)f_n(h_{n1}).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is not difficult to verify that conditions (1.5.1) are satisfied.

## §2. Formulations of main results

### 2.1. Modules $`S^\alpha (V)`$

Let $`𝔤=𝔤𝔩(3)`$ be the Lie algebra of $`3\times 3`$ matrices over $``$. For any $`\alpha `$ denote by $`S^\alpha (V)`$ the irreducible $`𝔤`$-module with highest weight $`(\alpha ,0,0)`$.

If $`\alpha _+`$, then $`S^\alpha (V)`$ is the usual $`\alpha `$-th symmetric power of the identity $`𝔤`$-module $`V`$. Namely:

$$S^\alpha (V)=Span(x_1^{k_1}x_2^{k_2}x_3^{k_3}:k_1+k_2+k_3=\alpha ;k_1,k_2,k_3_+).$$

For $`\alpha _+`$ we have (like in semi-infinite cohomology of Lie superalgebras)

$$S^\alpha (V)=Span(x_1^{k_1}x_2^{k_2}x_3^{k_3}:k_1+k_2+k_3=\alpha ;k_2,k_3_+).$$

###### Remark .

The expression $`x^k`$ for $`k`$ is understood as a formal one, satisfying $`\frac{x^k}{x}=kx^{k1}`$.

On $`S^\alpha (V)`$ the $`𝔤=𝔤𝔩(3)`$-action is given by $`E_{ij}x_i\frac{}{x_j}`$.

###### Theorem .

i) $`S^\alpha (V)`$ is an irreducible $`𝔤`$-module for any $`\alpha `$.

ii) The kernel $`J^\alpha `$ of the corresponding to $`S^\alpha (V)`$ representation of $`U(𝔤)`$ is a maximal ideal if $`\alpha _{<0}`$.

Set $`𝔄^\alpha =U(𝔤)/J^\alpha `$ and let $`\theta `$ be the highest weight of the adjoint representation of $`𝔤`$. Now consider $`𝔄^\alpha `$ as $`𝔤`$-module with respect to the adjoint representaiton.

iii) $`𝔄^\alpha =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}L^{k\theta }`$ if $`\alpha _0`$.

iv) $`𝔄^\alpha =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}L^{k\theta }`$ if $`\alpha _0`$.

v) The algebra $`𝔄^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha _0`$ is isomorphic to the following twisted generalized Weyl algebra

$$\begin{array}{c}R=[E_{11},E_{22},E_{33}]/(E_{11}+E_{22}+E_{33}\alpha ),\hfill \\ \sigma _1(E_{11})=E_{11}1,\sigma _1(E_{22})=E_{22}+1,\sigma _1(E_{33})=E_{33},\hfill \\ \sigma _2(E_{11})=E_{11},\sigma _2(E_{22})=E_{22}1,\sigma _2(E_{33})=E_{33}+1,\hfill \end{array}$$

vi) The form $`u,v_\alpha =\phi (u\omega (v)^{\mathrm{}})(\alpha ,0,0)`$ is nondegenerate on $`𝔄^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha _{<0}`$.

### 2.3

Let $`𝔥=Span(E_{11},E_{22},E_{33})`$ be Cartan subalgebra in $`𝔤`$ and $`\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ the dual basis of $`𝔥^{}`$. Let $`Q=\{k_i\epsilon _i:k_i=0\}`$ be the root lattice of $`𝔤`$. For any $`\mu Q`$ define

$`(\mathrm{2.3.1})`$
$$(𝔄^\alpha )_\mu =\{u𝔄^\alpha :[h,u]=\gamma (h)u\text{ for any }h𝔥\}.$$

Clearly, $`𝔄^\alpha `$ is $`Q`$-graded:

$$𝔄^\alpha =\underset{\mu Q}{}(𝔄^\alpha )_\mu .$$

Theorem 2.4 below shows that $`(𝔄^\alpha )_\mu =Ru_\mu `$, where $`u_\mu 𝔄^\alpha `$ is defined uniquely up to a constant factor and $`R=[E_{11},E_{22},E_{33}]/(E_{11}+E_{22}+E_{33}\alpha )`$.

Denote by $`(𝔄^\alpha )^+`$ the subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ consisting of vectors highest with respect to the fixed $`𝔤𝔩(2)`$:

$`(\mathrm{2.3.2})`$
$$(𝔄^\alpha )^+=\{u𝔄^\alpha :[E_{12},u]=0\}.$$

The algebra $`(𝔄^\alpha )^+`$ also admits $`Q`$-grading:

$`(\mathrm{2.3.3})`$
$$(𝔄^\alpha )^+=\underset{\nu Q}{}(𝔄^\alpha )_\nu ^+.$$

Denote: $`Q^+=\{\nu Q:(𝔄^\alpha )_\nu ^+0`$.

Theorem 2.4 below shows that $`(𝔄^\alpha )_\nu ^+=[E_{33}]u_\nu ^+`$, where $`\nu Q^+`$. For $`f,g[E_{33}]`$ and $`\nu Q^+`$ set

$`(\mathrm{2.3.4})`$
$$f,g_\nu ^+=fu_\nu ,gu_\nu _\alpha .$$

For $`f,gR`$ and $`\mu Q`$ set

$`(\mathrm{2.3.5})`$
$$f,g_\mu =fu_\mu ,gu_\mu _\alpha .$$

For $`k0`$ and $`\nu Q^+`$ set

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(\mathrm{2.3.6})}{(\mathrm{2.3.7})}}\right)`$
$$f_{k,\nu }(E_{33})u_\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{ad}z_{31})^k(u_{\nu +k(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)})\hfill & \text{ for }\nu (E_{33})0\hfill \\ (\mathrm{ad}z_{23})^k(u_{\nu +k(\epsilon _3\epsilon _2)})\hfill & \text{ for }\nu (E_{33})0\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`k,l0`$ and $`\nu Q`$ set

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(\mathrm{2.3.8})}{(\mathrm{2.3.9})}}\right)`$
$$f_{l,k}^\nu (E_{11},E_{22},E_{33})u_\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{ad}z_{21})^l(\mathrm{ad}z_{31})^k(u_{\nu +k(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)+l(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2)})\hfill & \text{ for }\nu (E_{33})0\hfill \\ (\mathrm{ad}z_{21})^l(\mathrm{ad}z_{23})^k(u_{\nu +k(\epsilon _3\epsilon _2)+l(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2})\hfill & \text{ for }\nu (E_{33})0\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Theorem .

0) $`(𝔄^\alpha )_\nu ^+=[E_{33}]u_\nu ^+`$, where $`u_\nu `$ is determined uniquely up to a constant factor.

1) $`(𝔄^\alpha )_\nu ^+,𝔄^\alpha )_\nu ^+_\alpha =0`$ for $`\nu \mu `$.

2) The polynomials $`f_{k,\nu }(E_{33})`$ are orthogonal relative $`,_\nu ^+`$.

3) The polynomials $`f_{k,\nu }(E_{33})`$ satisfy the difference equation

$$(E_{33}\nu (E_{33})+1)(E_{33}+\nu (E_{11})\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }fE_{33}(E_{33}+\nu (E_{22})\alpha 2)f=k(k+2\nu (E_{11}+2)f\text{ if }\nu (E_{33})<0$$

$$(E_{33}+1)(E_{33}+\nu (E_{11})\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }f(E_{33}\nu (E_{33}))(E_{33}+\nu (E_{22})\alpha 2)f=k(k2\nu (E_{11}+2)f\text{ if }\nu (E_{33})0$$

4) Explilcitely, $`f_{k,\nu }(E_{33})`$ is of the form

$$f_{k,\nu }(E_{33})=\text{const}\times {}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}k,k+2k_1+2,E_{33}\\ 1k_3k_1\alpha \end{array}|1\right),$$

where

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3\\ \beta _1,\beta _2\end{array}|z\right)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\alpha _1)_i(\alpha _2)_i(\alpha _3)_i}{(\beta _1)_i(\beta _2)_i}\frac{z^i}{i!}$$

is a generalized hypergeometric function, $`(\alpha )_0=1`$ and $`(\alpha )_i=\alpha (\alpha +1)\mathrm{}(\alpha +i1)`$ for $`i>0`$.

###### Theorem .

0) $`(𝔄^\alpha )_\nu =[E_{11},E_{22},E_{33}]u_\nu `$, where $`u_\nu `$ is determined uniquely up to a constant factor.

1) $`(𝔄^\alpha )_\nu ,𝔄^\alpha )_\nu _\alpha =0`$ for $`\nu \mu `$.

2) The polynomials $`f_{l,k}^\nu (E_{11},E_{22},E_{33})`$ form an orthogonal basis of $`R`$ relative $`,_\nu `$.

3) The polynomials $`w(f_{l,k})(E_{11},E_{22},E_{33})`$ for $`wW`$ form an orthogonal basis of $`R`$ relative $`,_{w(\nu )}`$ provided polynomials $`f_{l,k}(E_{11},E_{22},E_{33})`$ form an orthogonal basis of $`R`$ relative $`,_\nu `$.

4) The polynomials $`f_{l,k}^\nu (E_{11},E_{22},E_{33})`$ for $`\nu Q^+`$ and $`\nu (E_{33})0`$ satisfy the system of two difference equations

$$\begin{array}{c}[f(H_1+2,H_2)f(H_1,H_2)]\frac{1}{4}(H_1H_2+\alpha +1)(H_1+H_2\alpha )\hfill \\ [f(H_1,H_2)f(H_12,H_2)]\frac{1}{4}(H_1H_2+\alpha \nu (E_{11}))(H_1+H_2\alpha 1+\nu (E_{22}))=\hfill \\ [l^2+l(\nu (E_{11})+\nu (E_{22})+1))+\nu (E_{22})\nu (E_{11})]f,\hfill \\ \\ [2\alpha \nu (H_2)(\alpha +2+\nu (H_2))+H_2(2\alpha +1+2\nu (H_2))2H_2^2]f(H_1,H_2)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}(H_2+1\nu (H_2))(H_1H_2+\alpha 2\nu (E_{11}))f(H_11,H_2+1)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}H_2(H_1H_2+\alpha +2)f(H_1+1,H_2+1)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}(H_2+1\nu (H_2))(\alpha H_1H_2)f(H_1+1,H_2+1)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}H_2(\alpha H_1H_2+22\nu (E_{22}))f(H_11,H_21)=\hfill \\ [2k^2+4kl+4k(1+\nu (E_{11}))+2l(1+\nu (E_{11})\nu (E_{22}))+\hfill \\ \nu (E_{11})^2\nu (E_{22})^2+4\nu (E_{11})]f(H_1,H_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

## §3. Proof of Theorem 2.2

i) The module $`S^\alpha (V)`$ is irreducible if and only if it has no vacum vectors (i.e, vectors annihilated by $`E_{12}`$ and $`E_{23}`$. This is subject to a direct verification.

ii) Follows from Excercise 858 of Ch. 8 of \[Di\].

iii) Let $`A_3`$ be the Weyl algebra (i.e., it is generated by the $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ satisfying

$`(3.1)`$
$$p_ip_jp_jp_i=q_iq_jq_jq_i=0;p_iq_jq_jp_i=\delta _{ij}.$$

Setting $`E_{ij}p_iq_j`$ we see that the homomorphism $`\phi :U(𝔤)\mathrm{End}(S^\alpha (V))`$ factors through $`A_3`$ and $`A_3`$ acts on $`S^\alpha (V)`$ so that $`p_ix_i`$ and $`q_i\frac{}{x_i}`$. Let us describe the image of $`\phi `$. To this end, on $`A_3`$, introcude a grading by setting

$`(3.2)`$
$$\mathrm{deg}p_i=1\mathrm{deg}q_i=1\text{ for }i=1,2,3\text{ }.$$

Now it is clear that $`Im\phi `$ is the algebra $`B_3`$ of elements of degree 0.

To describe highest weight elements in $`B_3`$, it suffices to describe same in $`S^k(V)S^k(V^{})`$. Let us identify $`S^k(V)S^k(V^{})`$ with $`\mathrm{End}(S^k(V))`$, let $`u\mathrm{End}(S^k(V))`$ commutes with the action of $`E_{12}`$ and $`E_{23}`$ on $`S^k(V)`$. But then $`u`$ is uniquely determined by its value on the lowest weight vector $`x_3^kS^k(V)`$; moreover, $`E_{12}x_3^k=0`$. Hence,

$$u(x_3^k)=a_0x_3^k+\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}a_ix_1^ix_3^{ki},$$

so

$$u(x_3^k)=\frac{1}{k}a_0(\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}x_i\frac{}{x_i})x_3^k+\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(ki)!}{k!}a_i(x_1\frac{}{x_3})^ix_3^k.$$

This shows that the algebra of highest weight vectors in $`B_3`$ is generated by $`p_1q_3`$ and $`z=p_1q_1+p_2q_2+p_3q_3`$. If $`\alpha _0`$, then $`𝔄_\alpha `$ is the quotient of $`B_3`$ modulo $`(z\alpha )`$. This proves iii).

iv) In this case $`𝔄_\alpha =\mathrm{End}(S^k(V))`$ and the proof follows from the arguments at the end of the above paragraph.

v) For the canonical homomorphism $`\phi :U(𝔤)𝔄_\alpha `$ and any $`HR`$ set

$$\begin{array}{c}X_1=\phi (E_{12}),X_2=\phi (E_{23}),Y_1=\phi (E_{21}),Y_2=\phi (E_{32});\hfill \\ R=[E_{11},E_{22},E_{33}]/(z\alpha );\hfill \\ \sigma _1(H)=H(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2)(H),\sigma _2(H)=H(\epsilon _2\epsilon _3)(H);\hfill \\ t_1=E_{22}(E_{11}+1),t_2=E_{33}(E_{22}+1).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, as is easy to verify, all the relations of sec. 1.5.1 are satisfied. If $`I`$ is a twosided ideal of $`𝔄_\alpha `$, then thanks to iii) and iv) it contains $`L^{k\omega }`$ for some $`k0`$ and, therefore, elements of weight 0 with respect to the adjoint action of Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$. Hence, $`IR0`$. Hence, there exists a surjection $`\psi :𝔄^{}𝔄_\alpha `$.

vi) By 1.3.3 the kernel of $`,_\alpha `$ in $`U(𝔤)`$ is a maximal ideal. But $`𝔄_\alpha =U(𝔤)/J^\alpha `$, where $`J^\alpha `$ is maximal due to i). So $`J^\alpha `$ coincides with the kernel of $`,_\alpha `$ in $`U(𝔤)`$ and the form is nondegenerate on $`𝔄_\alpha `$.

## §4. Proof of Theorem 2.4

0) Direct computations show that the set of elements from $`A_3`$ commuting with $`E_{12}`$ is a subalgebra generated by $`p_1`$, $`q_2`$, $`p_3`$, $`q_3`$ and $`z=p_1q_1+p_2q_2+p_3q_3`$. So this algebra is the linear span of the elements of the form

$$u=p_1^{k_1}q_2^{k_2}p_3^{k_3}q_3^{k_4}z^{k_5}.$$

If $`uB_3`$, then $`k_1+k_3=k_2+k_4`$, so

$`(4.1)`$
$$u=\{\begin{array}{cc}p_1^{k_1}q_2^{k_2}p_3^{k_3k_4}p_3^{k_4}q_3^{k_4}z^{k_5}\hfill & \text{if }k_3k_4\hfill \\ p_1^{k_1}q_2^{k_2}p_3^{k_3}q_3^{k_3}q_3^{k_4k_3}z^{k_5}\hfill & \text{if }k_3k_4.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, setting for $`\nu =k_i\epsilon _i`$ such that $`k_i=0`$, $`k_10`$ and $`k_20`$

$`(4.2)`$
$$u_\nu ^+=\{\begin{array}{cc}p_1^{k_1}q_2^{k_2}p_3^{k_3}\hfill & \text{if }k_30\hfill \\ p_1^{k_1}q_2^{k_2}q_3^{k_3}\hfill & \text{if }k_30\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain the statement desired.

1) Let $`u(𝔄_\alpha ^+)_\mu `$, $`v(𝔄_\alpha ^+)_\nu `$, and $`h𝔥`$. Then by heading iv) of Lemma 1.2 we obtain:

$$[h,u],v=\mu (h)u,v=u,[h,v]=\nu (h)u,v.$$

So $`u,v=0`$ if $`\mu \nu `$.

2) Let $`\nu (E_{33})0`$. We have:

$$\begin{array}{c}f_{k,\nu }u_\nu ^+=(\mathrm{ad}z_{31})^k(u_{\nu +k(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}^+)=\mathrm{ad}z_{31}(\mathrm{ad}z_{31})^{k1}(u_{\nu +(k1)(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)+(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}^+)=\hfill \\ (\mathrm{ad}z_{31})f_{k1,\nu +(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}u_{\nu +(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}^+.\hfill \end{array}$$

Direct verification shows that

$`(4.3)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{ad}z_{31})(fu_\nu ^+)=\{(E_{33}\nu (E_{33}))[(E_{33}\alpha )\nu (E_{11})+(\nu (E_{11})1)\nu (E_{11})]f(h)\hfill \\ E_{33}[(E_{33}\alpha )\nu (E_{11})(\nu (E_{22})+2)\nu (E_{11})]f(h1)\}u_{\nu (\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

It easily follows from Lemma 1.2 that for any $`zU(𝔤)`$ we have

$$(\mathrm{ad}z)(u),v=u,(\mathrm{ad}\omega (z))(v),$$

but

$$\omega (z_{31})=\omega ((E_{11}E_{22}+2)E_{31}+E_{21}E_{32})=E_{13}(E_{11}E_{22}+2)+E_{23}E_{12}.$$

Since $`fu_\nu `$ is a highest weight vector with respect to the fixed $`𝔤𝔩(2)`$, it follows that

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{ad}\omega (z_{31}))(fu_\nu )=(\mathrm{ad}(E_{13}(E_{11}E_{22}+2))(fu_\nu )=\hfill \\ (\nu (E_{11})\nu (E_{22})+2)\mathrm{\Delta }fu_{\nu +(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, let us induct on $`k`$. For $`k=0`$ the statement is obvious. For $`k>0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}g<k`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}f_{k,\nu },g_\nu =f_{k,\nu }u_\nu ^+,gu_\nu ^+=\hfill \\ f_{k1,\nu +(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}u_{\nu +(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}^+,(\mathrm{ad}(\omega (z_{31})))(gu_\nu ^+)=\hfill \\ f_{k1,\nu +(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)},(\nu (E_{11})\nu (E_{22})+2)\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\nu +(\epsilon _1\epsilon _3)}=0\hfill \end{array}$$

by inductive hypothesis.

The case $`\nu (E_{33})0`$ is similar. ∎

3) Observe that $`z=E_{13}E_{31}+E_{23}E_{32}`$ belongs to the centralizer of $`𝔤𝔩(2)`$ in $`U(𝔤)`$. Let $`\nu (E_{33})0`$. Then $`u_\nu ^+=p_1^{k_1}q_2^{k_2}q_3^{k_3}`$ as in (4.1.2). Having applied $`\mathrm{ad}z`$ to $`fu_\nu ^+`$ we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{ad}z)(fu_\nu ^+)=E_{13}E_{31}fu_\nu ^++fu_\nu ^+E_{13}E_{31}E_{13}fu_\nu ^+E_{31}E_{31}fu_\nu ^+E_{13}+\hfill \\ E_{23}E_{32}fu_\nu ^++fu_\nu ^+E_{32}E_{23}E_{23}fu_\nu ^+E_{32}E_{32}fu_\nu ^+E_{23}=\hfill \\ E_{11}(E_{33}+1)fu_\nu ^++fu_\nu ^+E_{33}(E_{11}+1)f(E_{33}+1)u_\nu ^+E_{11}(E_{33}+1)f(E_{33}1)E_{33}(E_{11}+1)u_\nu ^++\hfill \\ E_{22}(E_{33}+1)fu_\nu ^++fu_\nu ^+E_{33}(E_{22}+1)f(E_{33}+1)E_{22}u_\nu ^+(E_{33}+1)f(E_{33}1)E_{33}u_\nu ^+(E_{22}+1)=\hfill \\ (E_{11}+E_{22})(E_{33}+1)fu_\nu ^++(E_{33}\nu (E_{33}))(E_{11}+1\nu (E_{11})+E_{22}+1\nu (E_{22}))fu_\nu ^+\hfill \\ f(E_{33}+1)(E_{33}+1\nu (E_{33}))(E_{11}+E_{22}\nu (E_{11}))u_\nu ^+f(E_{33}1)E_{33}(E_{11}+E_{22}\nu (E_{22})+2)u_\nu ^+=\hfill \\ [f(E_{33}+1)(E_{33}+1\nu (E_{33}))(E_{33}\alpha +\nu (E_{11}))+f(E_{33}1)E_{33}(E_{33}+\nu (E_{22})\alpha 2)\hfill \\ (E_{33}\alpha )(E_{33}+1)f(E_{33}\nu (E_{33}))(E_{33}+\nu (E_{11})+\nu (E_{22})\alpha 2)f]u_\nu ^+.\hfill \end{array}$$

This gives us the right hand side of the first equation of heading 3).

Since $`\mathrm{ad}z`$ commutes with the $`𝔤𝔩(2)`$-action and preserves the degree of polynomial $`f`$, it follows that $`(\mathrm{ad}z)(fu_\nu )=c(fu_\nu )`$. Counting the constant factor, we arrive to the first equation of heading 3).

The proof of the second equation is similar.

## §5. Proof of Theorem 2.5

0) Recall that $`B_3`$ is the subalgebra of $`A_3`$ of the elements of degree 0 relative grading (3.2).

For $`k`$ set $`r_i^k=\{\begin{array}{cc}=p_i^k\hfill & \text{if }k0\hfill \\ ,q_i^k\hfill & \text{if }k0\hfill \end{array}`$. For $`\gamma =k_i\epsilon _i`$, where $`k_i=0`$, set

$$u_\gamma =r_1^{k_1}r_2^{k_2}r_3^{k_3}.$$

Clearly, $`B_3`$ is the linear span of the elements of the form

$$p_1^{m_1}q_1^{l_1}p_2^{m_2}q_2^{l_2}p_3^{m_3}q_3^{l_3},\text{ where }m_1+m_2+m_3=l_1+l_2+l_3.$$

It is also clear teat each such element can be represented in the form

$$f(E_{11},E_{22},E_{33})r_1^{k_1}r_2^{k_2}r_3^{k_3}.$$

This completes the proof of heading 0).

1) Proof is similar to that from sec. 4.2.

2) Let $`\nu (E_{33})0`$. By setting $`H_1=E_{11}E_{22}`$, $`H_2=E_{22}E_{33}`$ we identify $`R=[E_{11},E_{22},E_{33}]/(E_{11}+E_{22},+E_{33}\alpha )`$ with $`[H_1,H_2]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a Gelfand–Tsetlin diagram of the following form:

$`(5.0)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\nu (E_{11})+k+l& & 0& & (\nu (E_{11})+k+l)\\ & \nu (E_{11})+l& & (\nu (E_{22})+l)& & \\ & & \nu (E_{11})& & \end{array},$$

From the explicit formula for $`f_{k,l}^\nu `$ we derive that

$`(5.1)`$
$$f_{k,l}^\nu u_\nu =v_\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Now, consider the following operators from the maximal commutative subalgebra of $`U(𝔤)`$:

$`(5.2)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}E_{11},E_{22},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2=E_{11}^2+E_{22}^2+E_{11}E_{22}+2E_{21}E_{12},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_3=E_{11}^2+E_{22}^2+E_{33}^2+E_{11}E_{22}+E_{11}E_{33}+E_{22}E_{33}+\hfill \\ 2E_{21}E_{12}+2E_{31}E_{13}+2E_{32}E_{23}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we have:

$`(5.3)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}E_{11}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\nu (E_{11})v_\mathrm{\Lambda };E_{22}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\nu (E_{22})v_\mathrm{\Lambda };\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=[2l^2+2l(\nu (E_{11})+\nu (E_{22})+1)+\hfill \\ \nu (E_{11})^2+\nu (E_{22})^2]v_\mathrm{\Lambda };\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_3v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=2(\nu (E_{11})+k+l)(\nu (E_{11})+k+l+2]v_\mathrm{\Lambda }.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to check that the operators (5.2) satisfy

$$\omega (E_{11})=E_{11};\omega (E_{22})=E_{22};\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=\mathrm{\Omega }_2;\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }_3)=\mathrm{\Omega }_3$$

and, therefore, they are selfadjoint relative the form $`,`$. Formula (5.3) makes it manifest that operators (5.2) separate the vecotrs $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, hence, these vectors are pairwise orthogonal. Moreover, it is easy to see that $`f_{k,l}^\nu `$ is of the form

$$f_{k,l}^\nu =H_1^lH_2^k+\mathrm{},$$

where the dots designate the summands of degrees $`k+l`$ of the form $`H_1^aH_2^b`$, where $`(a,b)<(l,k)`$ with respect to the lexicographic ordering. Thus, the $`f_{l,k}^\nu `$ constitute a basis of $`[H_1,H_2]`$.

3) The statement follows from the fact that the Weyl group acts on $`𝔄_\alpha `$ and preserves the form $`,`$.

4) Since the polynomials $`f_{l,k}^\nu u_\nu `$ are elements of a Gelfand–Tsetlin basis, they are eigenvectors for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ with respect to the adjoint action of $`𝔤=𝔤𝔩(3)`$ on $`𝔄_\alpha `$. As we have shown in sec 5.2, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_2f_{l,k}^\nu u_\nu =[2l^2+2l(\nu (E_{11})+\nu (E_{22})+1)+\hfill \\ \nu (E_{11})^2+\nu (E_{22})^2]f_{l,k}^\nu u_\nu ;\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_3f_{l,k}^\nu u_\nu =2(\nu (E_{11})+k+l)(\nu (E_{11})+k+l+2]f_{l,k}^\nu u_\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$

To derive the corresponding equations, we have to explicitely compute the actions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ on $`fu_\nu `$. Let $`(\nu (E_{33})0`$; then

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_2fu_\nu =[\nu (E_{11})^2+\nu (E_{22})^2+\nu (E_{11})\nu (E_{22})]fu_\nu +\hfill \\ 2[f(H_1,H_2)f(H_1+2,H_2)]\frac{1}{4}(H_1H_2+\alpha +1)(\alpha H_1H_2)u_\nu +\hfill \\ 2[f(H_1,H_2)f(H_12,H_2)]\frac{1}{4}(H_1H_2+\alpha \nu (E_{11}))(\alpha H_1H_2+1\nu (E_{22}))u_\nu ;\hfill \\ \\ (\mathrm{\Omega }_3\mathrm{\Omega }_2)fu_\nu =(E_{33}^2E_{11}E_{22}+2E_{33}+2E_{31}E_{13}+2E_{32}E_{23})fu_\nu =\hfill \\ (E_{33}^2E_{11}E_{22}+2E_{33}+E_{13}E_{31}+E_{23}E_{32})fu_\nu =\hfill \\ (\nu (E_{33})^2\nu (E_{11})\nu (E_{22})+2\nu (E_{33})fu_\nu +\hfill \\ (E_{11}+E_{22})(E_{33}+1)f(H_1,H_2)u_\nu +\hfill \\ (E_{33}\nu (E_{33})(E_{11}+E_{22}+2\nu (E_{11})\nu (E_{22}))f(H_1,H_2)u_\nu \hfill \\ f(E_{11}1,E_{33}+1)(E_{11}\nu (E_{11}))(E_{33}+1\nu (E_{33}))u_\nu \hfill \\ f(E_{11}+1,E_{33}1)E_{33}(E_{11}+1)u_\nu \hfill \\ f(E_{22}1,E_{33}+1)E_{22}(E_{33}+1\nu (E_{33}))u_\nu \hfill \\ f(E_{22}+1,E_{33}1)E_{33}(E_{22}+1\nu (E_{22}))u_\nu =\hfill \\ [(\alpha H_2)(H_2+1)f(H_1,H_2)+(H_2\nu (H_2))(\alpha H_2+2+\nu (H_2))f(H_1,H_2)\hfill \\ f(H_11,H_2+1)(H_2+1\nu (H_2))\frac{1}{2}(H_1H_2+\alpha 2\nu (E_{11}))\hfill \\ f(H_1+1,H_2+1)H_2\frac{1}{2}(H_1H_2+\alpha +2)\hfill \\ f(H_1+1,H_2+1)\frac{1}{2}(\alpha H_1H_2)(H_2+1\alpha \nu (H_2))\hfill \\ f(H_11,H_21)H_2\frac{1}{2}(\alpha H_1H_2+22\nu (E_{22}))]u_\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$

This implies the second equation.


format: text

text:
# Population synthesis of neutron stars, strange (quark) stars and black holes

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Binary population synthesis is a useful tool for studying the statistical properties of stars, including the compact objects (e.g., Pols & Marinus 1994; Bethe & Brown 1998; Portegies-Zwart & Yungelson 1998; Bloom, Sigurdsson, & Pols 1999; Belczynski & Bulik 1999). Compact objects are stellar remnants of size much smaller than that of white dwarfs, so according to current views they could be either black holes or neutron stars or, possibly, quark stars.

We wish to address the following questions: What is the distribution of masses of the compact objects formed along different evolutionary paths? Given the distribution of compact object masses, what are the relative numbers of different types of objects (neutron stars, quark stars, black holes) both single and in binaries? What fraction of binaries give rise to single compact objects, and what fraction survives as binaries and of what type?

In Section 2 we shortly describe the population synthesis code used here, in Section 3 we summarize what is known about the masses of neutron stars, quark stars and of black holes. In Section 4 we discuss the constraints on the masses of compact objects, in Section 5 we present the results, and finally in Section 6 we give the conclusions.

## 2 POPULATION SYNTHESIS CODE

We use StarTrack, a stellar binary population synthesis code consisting of two parts. The single star evolution is based on the formulae from Hurley et al. (2000), modified as follows. We have changed the prescription for mass of the compact object formed in a supernova explosion. We use the original Hurley et al. (2000) formulae to obtain final CO core mass. We use models of Woosley (1986) to calculate the final FeNi core mass (for a given CO core mass), which will collapse and form a compact object during supernova explosion. Finally, we include calculations of Fryer and Kalogera (2001) to take into account black hole formation both through direct collapse and partial fall back.

The binary evolution is described in Belczynski, Kalogera & Bulik (2002) and Belczynski 2001. We evolve only binaries where at least one star will undergo a supernova explosion and form a compact object. The evolution starts at zero-age main sequence. During the course of evolution we include the following effects as appropriate: wind mass loss (standard, Wolf-Rayet, luminous blue variables), tidal circularization of binary orbit, conservative/nonconservative mass transfer, common envelope evolution, rejuvenation, hyper-accretion onto compact objects, detailed supernova explosion treatment.

Many binaries are disrupted in supernova explosions, as a result of mass loss and the natal kick. For supernova kicks we use the distribution presented by Cordes & Chernoff (1998). We use smaller kicks when the compact object is a black hole formed via partial fall-back, and no kicks for the black holes formed through direct collapse, for details see Belczynski et al. (2002). We continue to evolve each star, until the formation of a stellar remnant. At the endpoint of binary evolution either two single remnants are left or a binary - in either case at least one of the remnants is a compact object, while the other is either a compact object or a white dwarf.

## 3 QUARK STARS vs. NEUTRON STARS

Bodmer (1971) suggested that stars composed of up, down and strange quarks (in roughly equal numbers) may exist if quark plasma is the ground state of matter. Relativistic models of “strange” stars composed of such self-bound quark matter were first computed by Brecher & Caporaso (1976), Witten (1984), Alcock, Farhi & Olinto (1986), and Haensel, Zdunik & Schaeffer (1986). Alcock et al. (1986) give a detailed discussion of the possible avenues of formation of quark stars. If they are formed through a phase transition after a certain critical density is exceeded in the core of a neutron star, or if they are formed in a supernova of a star which has captured a “seed” of strange matter, quark stars could be more massive than neutron stars. In other scenarios, no neutron stars at all would exist, or the abundance of quark stars need not be a function of their mass. The astrophysics of quark stars has recently been reviewed by Cheng, Dai and Lu (1998) and Madsen (1999).

It has been argued that young, glitching, pulsars cannot be strange stars (Alpar 1987). Madsen (1988) and Caldwell & Friedman (1991) argue that strange stars in Hulse-Taylor type binaries would eventually contaminate the entire Galaxy with strange matter as a result of their binary coalescence, and thus preclude the formation of young neutron stars. But Kluźniak (1994) pointed out that many millisecond pulsars could in principle be strange stars, and Cheng & Dai (1996) suggest that strange stars could be formed through accretion induced phase transition in low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs). The compatibility of strange star models with the observed kHz QPOs frequencies in LMXBs was discussed by Bulik, Gondek-Rosińska & Kluźniak (1999), Zdunik et al. (2000) and others. Simulations of the hydrodynamics of coalescence indicate that quark matter is not always expelled in the binary merger of a strange star with another compact object (Lee, Kluźniak, & Nix 2001), so co-existence of neutron stars and strange stars may be possible, after all.

The existence of self-bound quark matter remains a hypothesis, and we cannot give definitive conclusions as to the abundance of quark stars. However, if one assumes that, say, quark stars constitute a fraction $`f`$ of compact objects in some mass range $`(M_1,M_2)`$ (and possibly a different fraction in some other mass range), then the number of quark stars can be read off from our plots of differential distributions. We will find, that if $`f`$ is a sizable fraction of unity, and if $`(M_1,M_2)`$ is not too narrow, then the number of quark stars may be comparable to the number of black holes.

## 4 MASSES OF COMPACT OBJECTS

During the evolution we make nearly no distinction between the various types of compact objects, they only differ in mass (and in the natal kick distribution). In presenting the results, we assume that a compact object exceeding a certain mass is always a black hole. The actual value of the maximum mass of a neutron star is not known—the value of mass above which a stable neutron star can no longer exist depends on the unknown equation of state of matter at supernuclear densities. Models (Arnett & Bowers 1976, Kalogera and Baym 1996) give maximum masses from $`1.4M_{}`$ to above $`2.9M_{}`$. For the maximum masses of moderately rotating quark stars in the MIT bag model as a function of the unknown bag constant see Zdunik et al. (2000), and for the masses of quark stars when the Dey et al. (1998) equation of state is used, see Gondek-Rosińska et al. (2000). The maximum mass depends also on the rotation of the neutron star (Friedman, Parker & Ipser 1986; Cook, Shapiro & Teukolsky 1992). The corresponding increase of maximum mass in rapidly rotating quark stars is even larger (Stergioulas, Kluźniak & Bulik 1999). However, in this discussion we neglect these effects of stellar rotation, i.e., we assume none of the neutron stars (or quark stars) formed has a period less than $`10`$ms.

Of course, there is no theoretical maximum to the mass of a black hole. The maximum masses we find in our calculations simply reflect the formation route of the black hole. We find that the most massive black holes survive in binaries (Fig. LABEL:fig1, compare panels labeled “group 0” or “group 1” with the ones labeled “group 2” or “group 3”).

Observations of binary stars yield direct information on masses of some compact objects. Neutron stars in the Hulse-Taylor type binaries have accurately measured masses of $`1.44`$ and $`1.39`$ M. Millisecond pulsars have been analyzed by Thorsett & Chakrabarty (1999) who found that they are consistent with all being in the narrow mass range of $`1.34\pm 0.04M_{}`$ Among the neutron stars which exhibit X-ray bursts the mass of Cyg X-2 has been quoted as $`1.78\pm 0.23M_{}`$ (Orosz & Kuulkers 1999). However, for most low mass x-ray binaries (LMXBs) the masses remain unknown.

There is a class of LMXBs where bright X-ray emission is transient and the masses of the compact object cluster in the range $`5.5`$ to $`7.5M_{}`$. These are thought to be black holes. At present our code does not yield an excess of black holes in this mass range with a white dwarf companion in the binary, instead a peak at about $`10M_{}`$ results (see Fig. LABEL:fig1). However, we note that according to our results, single black holes are particularly abundant at $`M5M_{}`$, and there is a deficit of single compact objects in the mass range of about $`2.5M_{}`$ to $`5M_{}`$. If the black hole LMXBs were formed through binary capture in globular clusters, our results would be consistent with the measured masses of the transient sources.

## 5 RESULTS

Compact objects may be formed both through single and binary stellar evolution. Single compact objects may be descendants of massive single stars but also of components of a binary system disrupted in a supernova explosion. We will denote the single compact objects formed from primordial single stars as group 0, and formed as a result of the binary evolution as group 1. Under favorable conditions some binaries survive supernova explosions, and they finally form tight systems with compact object/objects. Most of these binaries will consist of a white dwarf and a compact object and the rest will form binaries with two compact objects (we will denote the compact object in binaries with white dwarfs as group 2, and the double compact objects as group 3).

Figure LABEL:fig1 shows the number of compact objects per mass interval formed along each route. We start forming compact objects at mass $`1.2M_{}`$ and their number falls off with the mass of the final compact object, as expected for our assumed initial mass function $`M^{2.7}`$. The peak in the distribution in Figure LABEL:fig1 around $`10M_{}`$ reflects the relation we obtain between ZAMS mass of a progenitor and the final mass of a compact object. This relation for a wide range of progenitor ZAMS masses results in a final compact object mass of $`10M_{}`$ (Belczynski et al. 2002). This is an effect of stellar wind which increases with the mass of the star, and thus decreases the final mass of a compact object for large initial stellar masses. As a result the mass of the FeNi core is a weak function of the initial mass of the star for a wide range of the ZAMS masses.

In Figure 2 we present, for each formation route separately, the cumulative fraction of compact objects as a function of their final mass. The normalization is such, that a fraction of unity corresponds to the total number of stars used in the simulation (we used a total of $`7\times 10^6`$ binaries and $`7\times 10^6`$ single stars), and assumed a binary fraction of 50%, i.e., we assumed that (initially) out of every three stars one is single and the other two are in a binary system. The single star and the primary mass in binaries was in the range $`5`$ to $`100M_{}`$, and the mass of the secondary was found assuming a flat mass ratio $`q`$ distribution and a $`2.7`$ slope of the initial mass function. Each distribution rises quickly in the small mass range, which is also seen in Figure LABEL:fig1. Thus within each group even a small mass window $`M_2M_1`$ may yield a significant number of quark stars, if they constitute a sizable fraction of the objects in that mass window. For example, if quark stars are formed in the narrow mass range $`(M_1,M_2)`$, with $`M_1=1.7M_{}`$ and $`M_2=1.8M_{}`$, and no neutron stars of that mass exist, the fraction of quark stars in each group will be from a few to ten percent. This fraction is comparable to that of black holes in any given group, which is about $`1520`$% in groups 0, 1, and 2, and $`50`$% in group 3. We also note that most of strange stars in the Galaxy should exist as single objects, and only a small fraction of them $`10^510^4`$ is going to be in double compact object binaries.

We have listed in Table 1 the numbers of binaries with compact object components obtained in our simulation. The binaries are classified according to their component masses, and for illustrative purpose we have labeled the objects in the mass range $`1.7M_{}<M<2.5M_{}`$ as strange stars. The table allows to read the relative numbers of objects of different type.

## 6 DISCUSSION

We have shown the effects of the binary evolution on the distribution of masses of compact objects. As expected the bulk of the population of compact objects have masses below $`2M_{}`$. While for single stellar evolution there exists a unique relation between the stellar mass and the compact object mass, there is no such relation when the binary evolution is taken into account. Binary evolution works both ways, the mass of a compact object formed from a particular star in a binary can be smaller or larger than that formed from an identical star undergoing single stellar evolution.

In the low mass range, the cumulative fraction of compact objects rises steeply with increasing mass–see Figure 2. Thus, even in a small mass interval ($`M_1,M_2`$), the fraction of stars in the compact object population can be large. On the other hand the fraction of black holes hardly depends on their minimum mass (the cumulative curves flatten above $`3M_{}`$). We conclude that the population of quark stars can easily be as large as the population of black holes, even if there is only a small mass window for their formation.

The low mass peak in differential distribution of Figure LABEL:fig1, is less pronounced for double compact object binaries, group 3. Thus a chance of finding quark stars in Hulse Taylor type objects is slim primarily because of the small number of such objects known so far. The prospects look better for compact objects in binaries with dwarfs. Although Thorsett & Chakrabaty (1999) show that the masses of these objects are consistent with being constrained to a narrow range, the mass function for individual objects allows different (higher or lower) masses. However the observed number of these sources is not large and the search here may suffer from small number statistics. Our results show that most quark stars should exist as single objects, yet it is the most difficult to measure the masses and radii for them. Therefore the search for quark stars may have to concentrate on single compact objects, such as pulsars.

It is interesting to note that the most massive black holes survive in binaries. This is related both to the difficulty of disrupting a binary with a very massive black hole and to the need for fallback in forming such massive black holes with $`M>10M_{}`$.

KB acknowledges support from the Lindheimer fund at Northwestern University and from the Polish Science Foundation (FNP) through a 2001 Polish Young Scientist Award. Research supported in part through KBN grants 2P03D00418, 5P03D01120.


text:
# Detection of superhumps in XTE J1118+480 approaching quiescence

## 1 Introduction

XTE J1118+480 is an important SXT for a number of reasons. It is at high galactic latitude ($`b=62.3^{}`$) which makes it the first halo black-hole binary, since it must be at $``$ 1 kpc above the galactic plane \[Wagner at al. 2001, Mirabel et al. 2001\]. The low interstellar absorption allows for detailed multi-wavelength studies during outburst. The energy distribution from IR to UV is consistent with a combination of an optically thick disc plus synchrotron emission, whereas the EUV to X-ray spectrum is reminiscent of the low (hard) state of SXTs \[Hynes et al. 2000\]. Since $`L_\mathrm{x}/L_{\mathrm{opt}}5`$ compared to typically 500 for galactic low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs), it has been suggested that it may be an Accretion Disc Corona (ADC) source seen at high inclination \[Garcia et al. 2000\]. However, the detection of X-ray, UV and optical QPOs at 0.08 Hz suggest that the inner disc is directly visible. The UV variability lags the X-rays by 1-2 s, consistent with reprocessing in the accretion disc \[Haswell et al. 2000\]. The optical rise to outburst preceded the X-ray rise by $``$ 10 d which allowed the size of the advective corona to be constrained to $`1.2\times 10^4`$ Schwarzschild radii \[Wren et al. 2001\]. The radial velocity curve of the companion star and the large mass function (6.1 $`\pm `$0.3 M) demonstrates that XTE J1118+480 contains a black hole \[McClintock et al. 2001, Wagner at al. 2001\]. Finally, the rotational velocity of the companion star implies a mass ratio of q=0.037$`\pm `$0.007 \[Orosz 2001\].

Optical superhumps were observed during the outburst, changing shape and period \[Uemura et al. 2000a\]. Superhumps are optical modulations first discovered in Dwarf Novae superoutbursts with a period a few percent longer than the orbital period and a non-sinusoidal shape. Since then, this phenomenon has been seen in decaying novae, AM CVn systems and novalike variables. Both the amplitude and shape of the superhump modulation change while the outburst declines. The most promising models in explaining the superhump behaviour assume that the accretion disc expands, due to the action of viscosity, to the 3:1 resonance radius and the eccentric disc is then forced to precess by perturbations from the secondary (e.g. Whitehurst & King, 1991). Superhump lightcurves can be explained by changes in the disc luminosity associated with the periodic deformation of the disc shape (e.g. Simpson & Wood, 1998). Since the resonance is only possible for small mass ratios, superhumps should also appear in SXTs, as has been confirmed by O’Donoghue & Charles (1996). Furthermore the strongest resonance (2:1) requires very extreme mass ratios (q$``$0.025) which might be reached in some SXTs such as J1118+480 as we will discuss here.

In this paper we present the detection of superhumps in XTE J1118+480 when the system was approaching the quiescent state. This discovery provides the first solid evidence of a precessing disc in a SXT near quiescence. Superhumps in dwarf novae were traditionally thought never to be present in quiescence but recent observations \[Patterson et al. 1995\] have shown that superhumps can indeed persist into quiescence after a superoutburst has ended. The case of XTE J1118+480 may be analogous behaviour in the SXTs. A preliminary analysis of these data was reported in Casares et al. (2001).

## 2 Observations and data reduction

### 2.1 Photometry

J1118+480 was observed for a total of 53 nights in the period December 2000–June 2001, during the time when the system was approaching quiescence, mainly in the $`R`$–band with six different telescopes:

$``$ the 0.82 m (IAC80) and the 1 m Optical Ground Station (OGS) telescopes, equipped with identical Thomson CCD cameras and using exposure times ranging from 300 to 1200 s , at Observatorio del Teide (Tenerife). The IAC80 and OGS were operated simultaneously for two whole nights in order to obtain $`R`$$`I`$ colour information.

$``$ the 2.5 m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) and the 1 m Jacobus Kapteyn Telescope (JKT) at Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma). The data at the NOT, which have the best time resolution, were taken with ALFOSC with exposure times of 30 and 60 s. At the JKT we used exposure times ranging from 90 to 600 s with the SITe2 detector.

$``$ the 1.3 m McGraw-Hill Telescope (MGHT) at the MDM111The MDM observatory is a joint facility of Dartmouth College, The University of Michigan, Columbia University and the Ohio State University. Observatory (Arizona) and the 1.55 m Kuiper Telescope of the University of Arizona on Mount Lemmon. Photometry in the $`I`$ band was obtained with the Kuiper using the 2k$`\times `$2k CCD camera (2kBigCCD) and in $`R`$ band with the McGraw-Hill Telescope and 2k$`\times `$2k Echelle CCD camera. The exposure time for both sets was 300 s and the seeing was typically 0.8–1.5 arcsec.

In all cases we used 2$`\times `$2 pixel binning to improve the readout time. In Table 1 we present a log of the observations.

In total, the target was observed for over 70 orbital cycles. The individual images were de-biased and flat-fielded in the standard way, with the data reduction being performed within iraf222iraf is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.. The instrumental magnitudes were obtained using PSF photometry with the iraf routine daophot \[Stetson 1987\] or optimal photometry \[Naylor 1998\] using the Starlink photom package. Differential light curves were constructed relative to a nearby comparison star. Light curves of this comparison star with respect to others were also obtained in order to check for variability from which we estimate that our differential photometry is accurate to $``$1 per cent in all observations.

### 2.2 Spectroscopy

We observed J1118+480 using the blue channel CCD spectrograph on the 6.5 m Multiple Mirror Telescope333MMT is operated as a joint facility of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Arizona by the Multiple Mirror Telescope Observatory. (MMT) at Arizona, on the nights of 2000 Nov 20, 30 and 2001 Jan 4. The seeing was typically 1 arcsec and a 1 arcsec wide slit was employed. Each 1440 s exposure was bracketed by a HeNeAr lamp spectrum which led to a wavelength calibration accurate to 5–7 km s-1 rms. Spectra were also obtained on 2001 Jan 12, with the ISIS red channel of the 4.2 m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) at Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma). The slit width was 1.5 arcsec and wavelength calibration was checked with respect to night–sky emission lines to be within 10 km s-1. Further details of these observations can be found in Wagner et al. 2001; A further 29 spectra were taken on 15 and 16 Apr 2001 with the Steward Observatory 2.3 m Bok Telescope on Kitt Peak equipped with the B&C Spectrograph. A 400 line mm-1 grating and 1.5 arcsec wide entrance slit were employed which yielded spectra covering the spectral region 4100-7400 Å at a spectral resolution of 5.5 Å. The exposure time was 1400 s in typically 1.4 arcsec seeing and photometric conditions. The spectroscopic dataset was completed with 49 spectra obtained on 27 and 28 Apr 2001 on the 4.2 m WHT using the ISIS red arm. A narrow slit (0.8 arcsec) aligned with the parallactic angle and with no comparison star in the slit, was used in combination with a 1200 line mm-1 grating. The wavelength calibration derived from arc lamps was checked against night sky lines and was accurate to 1 km s-1 (see table 2).

Standard iraf procedures were used to de–bias the images and to remove the small scale CCD sensitivity variations. One dimensional spectra were extracted using the optimal extraction method \[Horne 1986\]. Where possible we performed flux calibration relative to other stars on the slit. Absolute photometric calibration was not attempted due to slit losses.

## 3 Period analysis

In Figure 1 we present the overall $`R`$–band lightcurve (nightly means) which shows that the system has been steadily fading from its April 2000 outburst with a decay rate of 0.003 mag day-1. After 25 Apr 2001 the rate of decay slowed and on 12 Jun 2001 the system was found at $`R`$=18.650$`\pm `$0.007. The same magnitude was found, within the errors, on 26 Jun, so we suggest that this is the true quiescent magnitude. It is also consistent, within the errors, with the $`R`$ magnitude from the usno A2.0 catalogue, where it is quoted as $`R`$=18.8 with about $``$0.25 mag accuracy. Superimposed on the smooth decay, we also see substantial night to night variability.

Close inspection of the individual light curves shows the dominant ellipsoidal modulation of the companion star and a distortion wave which progressively moves across the orbital light curve. The distortion wave produces dramatic changes in the symmetry and minima in the light curves (see Fig. 4). As the distortion wave is most probably non-sinusoidal in nature we employed the PDM algorithm to separate and analyze the different periodicities present in the data.

We detrended the long-term variations by subtracting the nightly means from the individual lightcurves. This removed the low frequency peaks from our PDM spectrum in the top panel of Fig. 2 (computed in the frequency range 3 to 30 cycles d-1 with a resolution of $`4\times 10^3`$ cycles d-1 and with 25 phase bins). The deepest minima are found at 5.885 cycles d-1 and $`11.769`$ cycles d-1 which correspond to the orbital period (i.e. $`P=`$0.169936 d) and the first harmonic respectively. A two-component Fourier series (with $`P_2=2\times P_1`$; a first-order approximation to the ellipsoidal modulation of the secondary star) was fitted to the detrended lightcurve. The fit yielded $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=P_1=0.169937(1)`$ d and $`T_0=2452022.5122(4)`$, where $`T_0`$ corresponds to inferior conjunction of the companion star.

The bottom panel in Fig. 2 shows the PDM spectrum after subtracting these two Fourier components ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}/2`$). A strong signal is found at $`f=5.865`$ cycles d-1 and its harmonics. The fundamental frequency corresponds to 0.17049(1) d, 0.3% longer than the orbital period. Note that this period is comparable to periodicities reported during outburst \[Uemura et al. 2000b\] and hence we interpret it as the superhump period caused by a precessing eccentric disc. We note this is the first secure evidence of superhumps near quiescence in an SXT.

The light curve of the superhump was obtained through the following procedure: first we detrended the overall ellipsoidal lightcurve by subtracting the nightly mean magnitudes and then phase–folded it into 50 phase bins. This was fitted with a simple ellipsoidal model, fixing $`i=75^{}`$ and $`q=0.04`$ (see top panel in Fig. 3). The ellipsoidal fit was subtracted from the overall (detrended) lightcurve and the residuals were then folded into 50 bins using the superhump period of 0.17049d (bottom panel of Fig. 3). The lightcurve is clearly non-sinusoidal, and shows a peculiar modulation which explains why the PDM spectrum contained substantial power at the first and third harmonics. The shape is clearly different from the superhumps detected in other SXTs during outburst (e.g. O’Donoghue & Charles 1996). However, we note that our data were taken when J1118+480 was near true quiescence when such features are not usually visible. A clear evolution of the superhump from single humped modulation to a more complex shape had already been observed when the system started its decline444see the lightcurves in http://www.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/Xray/xtej1118-camp.html. Peculiar superhump modulations, showing several peaks and dips are often detected in cataclysmic variables (CVs) and their origin remains unsolved (e.g. V603 Aql, Patterson et al. 1993; V503 Cygni, Harvey et al. 1995; H 0551-819, Patterson 1995).

Fig. 4 contains nightly lightcurves with superimposed model fits of a simple ellipsoidal lightcurve (dashed line) and a combination of ellipsoidal modulation plus superhump wave (continuous line) . The superhump wave was simulated by a four term Fourier series fixing the superhump period at Psh=0.17049 d. The second model is clearly a much more accurate representation of the observed lightcurves, with $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.71 vs $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=3.08. If the superhump modulation is due to tidal interactions in an elliptical precessing disc, and if the disc’s radius shrank as the system faded (as is shown in Fig. 1), we expect the shape and amplitude of the superhump modulation to change and even vanish if the disc radius decreases below the stability radius.

## 4 The ellipsoidal modulation

The ellipsoidal light curve of the secondary star was phase folded and binned into 30 bins using our updated ephemeris (see section 3). It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the light curve of the superhump modulation is far from simple. It is clear that this will distort the ellipsoidal light curve, rendering it difficult to interpret since the superhump modulation could introduce false features in the light curve. This makes it very difficult to interpret any parameters derived from fitting the contaminated light curve. However, we can use the observed amplitude of the modulation and an estimate for the veiling in order to to place limits on the binary inclination.

The veiling for the photometric observations taken in April 2001 can be estimated by extrapolating the spectroscopic veiling observed in Jan 2001 (Wagner et al. 2001). J1118+480 decreased by 0.30 mags from Jan 2001 to April 2001. If we assume that this decrease in flux is solely due to the accretion disc light fading, then given the observed veiling in Jan 2001 of 67%, we estimate the veiling in April 2001 to be 53%. This value agrees very well with the veiling estimated from the high resolution WHT spectra taken in April 2001; 47$`\pm `$7%, obtained using the standard optimal subtraction technique (Marsh, Robinson & Wood 1994) for K5–M4 type template stars.

The large amplitude of the observed modulation strongly suggests that the inclination angle is high, but the lack of eclipse features at phase 0.0 requires i$``$82 degrees (also note that no X-ray eclipses were seen during outburst). The difference between the two minima at phase 0.0 and phase 0.5 in the observed light curve is 0.076 mags. However, we have already noted that the observed light is heavily veiled (47$`\pm `$7%) and so the true amplitude is in the range 0.127–0.165 mags. We have computed the secondary star’s ellipsoidal modulation assuming a K7$`\mathrm{v}`$ secondary star ($`\overline{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=4250 K and $`\mathrm{log}\overline{g}`$=5.0; Wagner et al. 2001) and $`q`$=0.037 \[Orosz 2001\] using an irradiated X–ray binary model (for details see Shahbaz, 2002). By comparing the corrected amplitude with the calculated, we estimate an inclination angle in the range 71–84 degrees. Combined with the lack of eclipses this suggests that $`i`$ lies in the range 71–82 degrees.

For more accurate results we would need to model the light curves free from the superhump modulation. However, deconvolving the two modulations is very difficult because in order to do so we have to be confident we have determined the ‘clean’ ellipsoidal light curve. This is only possible once we are sure that the system is completely in quiescence at which time we expect the amplitude of the superhump to be reduced.

## 5 $`H_\alpha `$ VARIABILITY

Our spectra are dominated by strong double-peaked Hα emission which exhibits significant time variability both in velocity and width. Some nights, for instance, the H$`\alpha `$ centroid and FWHM are modulated with the orbital period whereas other nights are consistent with a double sine-wave modulation. In addition, the FWHM and line centroid is seen to vary by a few hundred km s-1 from night to night. Although near quiescence, the accretion disc still contributes significantly to the observed optical emission and we see a 0.5 mag fading in the course of our campaign. This is well depicted by the equivalent width evolution of the H$`\alpha `$ emission line, which shows a continuous rise of $``$0.14 Å day-1 due to the continuum decay (Fig. 5). We also note that the H$`\alpha `$ line moves dramatically from night to night as is shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. Here a three–component Gaussian fit to the nightly averaged profiles was performed, consisting of a broad base and two narrow peaks. The line is clearly asymmetric with the blue peak persistently stronger than the red one. We have computed the position of narrow peaks and the line centroids given by our fits to the averaged profiles, to measure the real line velocity change and not the flux weighted centroids. The line centroids move from night to night with variations of $``$500 km/s amplitude. If the nightly drifts of the emission lines are due to an eccentric disc projecting different amounts of its area at different precessing phases, we would expect the variation is modulated with a half of the precession period ($``$26 days). The line centroids are consistent with this period with minimum $`\chi ^2`$ (showing in Fig. 5, top panel), although we note that our spectroscopic sample is not sufficient to rule out a 52 d period (also shown in Fig. 5).

## 6 DISCUSSION

This paper presents evidence for an eccentric precessing disc in J1118+480 during Dec 2000 – June 2001. Although persistent superhumps have been detected in several extreme mass ratio CVs (i.e. Skillman & Patterson 1993) and there is some evidence for a superhump in the SXT A0620-00 during quiescence \[Haswell 1996\], this is, to our knowledge, the most extensive study of a precessing disc in SXTs near quiescence. Our lightcurve shows the fingerprint of a distorting superhump modulation with $`P_{\mathrm{sh}}=0.17049(1)`$ d superimposed on the classical ellipsoidal modulation of the secondary star. A superhump modulation with $`P_{\mathrm{sh}}=0.17078(4)`$ d was already detected in April 2000, when the system was at the peak of its outburst \[Uemura et al. 2000b\]. This implies a superhump period change of $`\dot{P}10^6`$ which is slower but comparable to typical values in SU UMa stars (Warner 1985). Since the superhump is the beat frequency between the orbital and disc precession frequency, the disk precession period is, therefore given by $`P_{\mathrm{prec}}=\left(P_{\mathrm{orb}}^1P_{\mathrm{sh}}^1\right)^152`$ d.

The superhump period contains information on the mass ratio $`q`$. We can use the relation of Mineshige, Hirose & Osaki 1992 (hereafter M92) to estimate the mass ratio:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P=\frac{P_{\mathrm{sh}}P_{\mathrm{orb}}}{P_{\mathrm{orb}}}\frac{q}{4\sqrt{1+q}}\eta ^{3/2},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ is the period excess and $`\eta `$ is the disc radius in terms of of the critical disc radius for the 3:1 resonance. If we take P$`{}_{\mathrm{sh}}{}^{}=0.17078(4)`$ d \[Uemura et al. 2000b\] as the true superhump period at outburst peak and the empirical value $`\eta 0.8`$ (see M92), we find $`q`$ 0.028. A similar result is obtained using Patterson’s (2001) relation, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P^1=[\frac{P_{\mathrm{sh}}P_{\mathrm{orb}}}{P_{\mathrm{orb}}}]^1=[\frac{0.37q}{(1+q)^{1/2}}]^1\eta ^{2.3}1,$$
(2)
For $`q`$ in the range 0.04–0.30 he finds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P=0.216(\pm 0.018)q$$
(3)
for systems with accurate determinations for $`q`$ (i.e. $`\eta =0.8`$). Extrapolating the above expression to J1118+480 we find q=0.023$`\pm `$0.002. This implies the most extreme mass ratio in this class, although we note that for $`q0.025`$ the 2:1 resonance rather than the classical 3:1 resonance would be the dominant tidal instability (Whitehurst & King 1991).

The mass ratio has been determined spectroscopically by Orosz (2001) using the rotational broadening of the secondary stars photospheric absorption lines; $`q=0.037\pm 0.007`$. This is comparable to, but less extreme than, the mass ratio determined using the superhump period excess, but we note that the former is dominated by our assumption for $`\eta `$, thus refined calibrations at the highest and lowest $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$P, in eq. 2 are needed. In this sense J1118+480 is a key system in the study of superhumps, since it allows us to extrapolate the 3:1 resonance instability close to the limit where the 2:1 resonance should start to dominate. In Fig. 8 we show the $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$-q values for SXTs (O’Donoghue & Charles 1996 and this paper) and CVs (Patterson 2001; Molnar & Kobulnicky 1992 and references therein), including only those systems with reliable $`q`$ determinations. J1118+480 seems to agree well with both theoretical $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$-q curves for $`\eta =0.8`$.

The nightly mean Hα profiles are shown to move by up to $`\pm `$250 kms-1, an effect which has not been seen before in any SXT or CV. This behavior is probably driven by the changing asymmetric disc brightness distribution also seen in our trailed spectra. If the effect we are seeing is the spectroscopic signature of an eccentric disc in J1118+480 precessing on a period of 52 d, we would expect a modulation consistent with this period as we can see in Fig. 5. In addition, the FWHM of the Hα line changes by a few hundred km s-1 both with the orbital and precession phase. Since the FWHM gives a measurement of the velocity dispersion in the disc, the observed variability is probably related to changes in the disc’s shape, since the eccentric disc presents differing aspects of its projected area to the observer on both the superhump and precession periods.

## 7 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the IAC support astronomers who undertake the Service Programme at Izaña for obtaining some of the lightcurves that were used in this analysis. We also thank R. Corradi for taking the WHT spectra on Jan 9 and Brian McLean for agreeing to swap JKT nights so that simultaneous WHT–JKT coverage was possible and for helping to obtain some of the JKT observations. The WHT and JKT are operated on the island of La Palma by the ING. NOT is operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. The IAC80 and OGS telescopes are operated on the island of Tenerife by the IAC in the Spanish Observatorio de Izaña. TS acknowledges support by a Marie Curie fellowship HP-MF-CT-199900297. RIH and PAC acknowledge support for grant F/00-180/A from the Leverhulme Trust. SGS also acknowledges support from NSF and NASA aparts to ASU.


text:
# The Magnetic Phase Diagram and the Pressure and Field Dependence of the Fermi Surface in UGe2

## Abstract

The ac susceptibility and de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) effect in UGe2 are measured at pressures P up to 17.7 kbar for the magnetic field B parallel to the a axis, which is the easy axis of magnetization. Two anomalies are observed at Bx(P) and Bm(P) (Bx $`>`$ Bm at any P), and the P-B phase diagram is presented. The Fermi surface and quasiparticle mass are found to vary smoothly with pressure up to 17.7 kbar unless the phase boundary Bx(P) is crossed. The observed dHvA frequencies may be grouped into three according to their pressure dependences, which are largely positive, nearly constant or negative. It is suggested that the quasiparticle mass moderately increases as the boundary Bx(P) is approached. DHvA effect measurements are also performed across the boundary at 16.8 kbar.

The recent discovery of superconductivity in the itinerant-electron ferromagnet UGe2 by Saxena et al. has aroused much excitement.Saxena et al. (2000) This could be the superconductivity of the type that has long been sought for, i.e., the superconductivity mediated by ferromagnetic spin fluctuations.Coleman (2000) However, the superconductivity in UGe2 does not rigorously conform to previous theoretical expectations in that it occurs only in the ferromagnetic phase. It is theoretically anticipated that, as a ferromagnetic transition is continuously suppressed down to absolute zero, spin fluctuations are enhanced and may lead to magnetically mediated superconductivity on both ferromagnetic and paramagnetic sides of the quantum critical point.Fay and Appel (1980); Roussev and Millis (2001) On the one hand, the peculiarity of the superconductivity in UGe2 may be attributed to some particular features of the compound, as further discussed below. On the other hand, the fact that the superconductivity in the itinerant-electron ferromagnet ZrZn2 also disappears when the ferromagnetism vanishes (Ref. Pfleiderer et al., 2001) may suggest that ferromagnetic order is a prerequisite for the superconductivity in these compounds. Answering this essential question will require detailed understanding of the electronic structure, to which the present work is intended to contribute.

The Curie temperature TC in UGe2, being 52 K at ambient pressure,Menovsky et al. (1983) decreases with pressure and vanishes at the critical pressure Pc $``$ 16 kbar.Saxena et al. (2000); Nishimura et al. (1994); Oomi et al. (1998); Tateiwa et al. (2001a); Huxley et al. (2001) It has been suggested that the ferromagnetic transition at pressures near Pc is first order.Huxley et al. (2000); Terashima et al. (2001) An additional anomaly is found at Tx ($`<`$ TC) in the ferromagnetic phase;Oomi et al. (1998); Tateiwa et al. (2001a); Huxley et al. (2001); Tateiwa et al. (2001b) the temperature derivative of resistivity shows a broad peak at Tx, and magnetization increases below Tx. The characteristic temperature Tx also decreases with pressure and appears to reach absolute zero at Px $``$ 12-13 kbar. The origin of the Tx anomaly is not yet clear. It has been proposed that the anomaly is due to the formation of coupled charge- and spin-density-waves.Saxena et al. (2000); Huxley et al. (2001); Watanabe and Miyake  The superconductivity appears below 1 K in a pressure range $``$10-16 kbar.Saxena et al. (2000); Tateiwa et al. (2001a); Huxley et al. (2001); Terashima et al. (2001); Bauer et al. (2001) The transition temperature is highest at pressures near Px. This leads to the conjecture that the superconductivity is mediated by fluctuations associated with the second-order quantum critical point at Px rather than Pc.Saxena et al. (2000); Huxley et al. (2001); Watanabe and Miyake  It is therefore of importance to clarify the origin of the Tx anomaly and its influence on quasiparticle properties.

The magnetic response of UGe2 is extremely anisotropic; at 4.2 K, the b-axis magnetization is less than 15$`\%`$ of the a-axis one even in a field of 35 T.Menovsky et al. (1983) In our previous de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) effect measurements,Terashima et al. (2001) the magnetic field was applied parallel to the b axis, a hard axis of magnetization, and hence the Fermi surface and related properties determined in those measurements are virtually those at zero magnetic field. In this work, we apply the field along the easy a axis. The field along the a axis induces two phase transitions at high pressures, which are intimately related to the Tx anomaly and the ferromagnetic transition. We determine the pressure vs field phase diagram by measuring ac susceptibility and study the Fermi surface and quasiparticle mass as functions of pressure and of field via the dHvA effect.

The single crystal used in the present measurements was grown by the Czochralski method and subsequently annealed at 1100C for 110 hours under ultra-high vacuum. The residual resistivity ratio along the a axis is about 200. Hydrostatic pressures P up to 17.7 kbar were produced by a BeCu/NiCrAl clamped piston-cylinder cell with Daphne 7373 oil (Idemitsu Co. Ltd., Tokyo) as a pressure-transmitting medium, and ac susceptibility, the oscillatory part of which comes from the dHvA effect, was measured with a pick-up coil (see Ref. Terashima et al., 2001 for details). Since the sample is ferromagnetic, the magnetic field B inside the sample differs from the applied field Bappl; B = Bappl \+ $`\mu `$0(1-N)M, where N and M are the demagnetization factor and magnetization, respectively. We estimated N to be 0.1 from the sample shape and M from data in Ref. Tateiwa et al., 2001b.

The inset of Fig. 1 shows ac susceptibility for selected pressures. The ac susceptibility at 12.3 kbar exhibits a superconducting diamagnetic signal at low fields, while those at 14.0 and 15.2 kbar show one and two anomalies, respectively. The anomaly fields Bm and Bx are shown as functions of pressure in the main panel.

The absence of diamagnetic signals at pressures other than 12.3 kbar could indicate that the pressure range for the superconductivity in this particular sample is extremely narrow. However, we suspect that diamagnetic signals at other pressures are simply suppressed below the detection limit by the ac excitation field of 0.62 mT applied along the a axis. Actually, Saxena et al. used one order-of-magnitude smaller excitation fields to observe appreciable diamagnetic signals at $``$15 kbar.Saxena et al. (2000)

The anomaly at Bm corresponds to what Huxley et al attributed to a metamagnetic transition.Huxley et al. (2000) In the framework of itinerant-electron metamagnetism,Moriya (1986); Yamada (1993) the transition is expected to be a first-order one from the paramagnetic state to a polarized state where up- and down-spin electron energy bands are split as they are in the ferromagnetic state.

Since the susceptibility peak at Bm is fairly large, the possibility that it is due to a first-order transition is not excluded. The absence of hysteresis may be an indication that it is too small to be observed. Although the peak width, $``$0.1 T at the half maximum, may appear broad, it may be explained by tiny pressure variation ($``$0.3$`\%`$) over the sample. The suppression of the peak height at lower temperatures might indicate that domain-wall motion is involved in the transition process, as is the case with a first-order transition.

The pressure Pc0 where Bm reaches zero is in between 14.0 and 15.2 kbar (Fig. 1), which is consistent with Pc0 of $``$14.4 kbar reported by Kobayashi et al.Kobayashi et al.  On the other hand, the critical pressure Pc where the ferromagnetism vanishes has been reported to be $``$16 kbar,Saxena et al. (2000); Huxley et al. (2001) and in fact we have located it between 15.4 and 17.6 kbar in previous measurements on a different sample.Terashima et al. (2001) The discrepancy between Pc0 and Pc might be due to sample dependence and/or error in pressure determination, which is estimated to be $``$$`\pm `$0.3 kbar in our case. However, we note that it may indicate the existence of a narrow pressure region, Pc0 $`<`$ P $`<`$ Pc, where ferromagnetic order exists at zero field, and a metamagnetic transition is observed in fields. Similar observations that Pc0 $`<`$ Pc were also reported for some itinerant-electron metamagnets, e.g., Y(Co1-xAlx)2 (Ref. Goto et al., 1994) and UCoAl1-xGax.Andreev et al. (1998) It is, however, questionable whether the ferromagnetism and metamagnetism can microscopically coexist. In this relation, it is interesting to note a recent report by Motoyama et al.,Motoyama et al. (2001) in which the authors have argued that, when the pressure is increased in the pressure range of the superconductivity, the ferromagnetism in UGe2 may become spatially inhomogeneous.

The susceptibility peak at Bx is so small that it is not a first-order phase transition (note that the vertical scale for the right panel of the inset to Fig. 1 is expanded by the factor of 40). The peak height decreases with temperature, the origin of which temperature dependence is not clear. The anomaly field Bx increases with pressure and appears to be zero at Px ($``$ 12-13 kbar) (Fig. 1). Huxley et al. previously found the same pressure dependence of Bx and argued that the magnetic field along the a axis shifted the line Tx(P) in a P-T plane to higher pressures.Huxley et al. (2001) Tateiwa et al. gave a clear support to this suggestion by measuring magnetization vs temperature curves in fields at a constant pressure slightly higher than Px; the curve measured at the lowest field does not show any sign of the Tx anomaly down to the lowest temperature investigated, while curves measured at higher fields exhibit rapid increase in magnetization, an indication of the Tx anomaly, at temperatures that increase with field.Tateiwa et al. (2001b) The interpretation of Bx may be rephrased in a way that is more relevant to Fig. 1; i.e., the Tx anomaly occurs at finite temperatures on the left side of the line Bx(P), while it does not down to zero temperature on the right side.

Before presenting dHvA data, we here mention two main results of the previous b-axis dHvA measurements.Terashima et al. (2001) Firstly, we have found that the Fermi surface discontinuously changes as Pc is crossed. Secondly, the quasiparticle mass is enhanced near Px; the mass associated with a large orbit, $`\beta `$, being 12 me at ambient pressure, gradually increases to 16 me at 11.9 kbar, then suddenly jumps to 39 me at 12.9 kbar, me being the free electron mass.

Figure 2 shows the Fourier spectra of dHvA oscillations for the field along the a axis as a function of pressure. Note that, for pressures where the Bx anomaly is observed, only oscillation data above Bx were Fourier-transformed. Figure 3 summarizes dHvA frequencies and effective masses as functions of pressure. The frequencies and masses at ambient pressure agree well with a previous report.Satoh et al. (1992)

Figures 2 and 3 clearly indicate that the Fermi surface and quasiparticle mass smoothly vary without any discontinuity from 0 to 17.7 kbar. This is in sharp contrast to the b-axis results. The difference is easily explicable in terms of the phase diagram in Fig. 1. As mentioned in the introduction, the b-axis measurements are virtual zero-field measurements, and hence Px and Pc were indeed crossed in the course of the measurements. On the other hand, the results shown in Figs. 2 and 3 were obtained along a path that does not intersect the boundary Bx(P).

The dHvA frequencies may be categorized into three according to their pressure dependence \[Fig. 3(a)\]. (1) $`ϵ`$, $`\zeta `$, $`\iota `$, and $`\kappa `$ rapidly increase with the pressure coefficient dlnF/dp of 25-40 x 10-3 kbar-1, (2) $`\theta `$ decreases with pressure, and (3) $`\eta `$ stays nearly constant. These differences in behavior would be valuable in assigning the frequencies to orbits if band-structure calculations under high pressures became available.

Although the pressure dependence of the effective masses is not very appreciable, a gradual increase, $``$40$`\%`$ from 0 to 17.7 kbar, may be seen for $`\kappa `$ \[Fig. 3(b)\]. We also found a faint tendency that the masses associated with $`\eta `$ at 16.8 kbar and $`\kappa `$ at 17.7 kbar increase as the field is decreased down to within $``$2 T of Bx, though the magnitudes of those variations are nearly comparable to the error in the mass determination ($``$$`\pm `$20$`\%`$) and are left to be determined in more precise measurements. These observations indicate that the quasiparticle mass moderately increases as the boundary Bx(P) is approached from the left side in Fig. 1. This is consistent with the modest increase in the mass (before the jump) observed in the b-axis measurements.

It is then interesting to see how the mass changes across the boundary Bx(P). Figure 4(a) shows the ac susceptibility at 16.8 kbar. As the inset shows, dHvA oscillations are visible both below and above Bx. Figure 4(b) shows the Fourier transforms of the oscillation data below and above Bx, and masses for orbits. Several frequencies are resolved for B $`>`$ Bx (the dotted curve), but the associated masses are 6.7 me at most. On the other hand, only one frequency is visible for B $`<`$ Bx (the solid curve), and the associated mass is 11 me. That is, despite the fact that frequencies with heavy mass is easier to observe at higher fields, the mass of any frequency that is seen above Bx is lighter than the mass of the single frequency that is detected below Bx. This can easily be understood if we assume, based on the mass jump near Px found in the b-axis measurements, that the quasiparticle mass is considerably enhanced as the boundary Bx(P) is crossed to the right (in this case, to the low-field side). Results of resistivity measurements by Kobayashi et al. are in favor of this assumption; the quadratic temperature coefficient of resistivity determined as a function of magnetic field at 16.7 kbar ($`>`$ Px) is larger below Bx than above.Kobayashi et al.

In summary, we have determined the P-B phase diagram of UGe2, which comprises the two phase boundaries Bx(P) and Bm(P). While the anomaly at Bx is not of first order, that at Bm may be of first order. We have pointed out the possibility that the pressure P$`{}_{c}{}^{}0`$ where Bm reaches zero is slightly lower than Pc. Together with the recent suggestion that the ferromagnetism may be inhomogeneous in the pressure range of the superconductivity,Motoyama et al. (2001) this seems to deserve further investigations. We have shown that the Fermi surface and quasiparticle mass continuously vary with pressure up to 17.7 kbar on the low-pressure/high-field side of the boundary Bx(P). This is in sharp contrast with the previous b-axis results. The dHvA frequencies may be grouped into three according to the rate of the pressure variation, which would be helpful in assigning each frequency to an orbit on the Fermi surface. The mass associated with the frequency $`\kappa `$ shows moderate increase of $``$40$`\%`$ from 0 to 17.7 kbar. We have also examined the variation of the mass across the boundary Bx at 16.8 kbar. The result seems consistent with the mass enhancement increasing below Bx. Our results as a whole suggest that changes in quasiparticle properties across the critical pressures Px and Pc may conveniently be revealed by studying those properties as functions of field (in the direction of the a axis) at high pressures.

###### Acknowledgements.

Work at Tohoku University was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of MEXT Japan.