text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The geometry on a D-brane has recently attracted much attention, as it turned out to involve non-commutative structures that depend on the gauge invariant combination $`=B+(2\pi \alpha ^{})dA`$ of the bulk $`B`$-field and the boundary $`A`$-field. A lot of work was done in examining the effect of a constant $`B`$-field in a topological decoupling limit .

A generalization to non-constant fields was given through the deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds. In that case, a non-commutative product can be constructed to all orders of derivatives out of the Poisson structure $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and it represents the most general form being associative . In open string theory this product appears in the decoupling limit when the $`B`$-field (or equivalently $``$) is closed .

While the closure condition is necessary for associativity, it is not required by string theory and one may ask how far one can relax it in order to obtain a reasonable product. In  the non-commutative product was extracted from open string off-shell correlators with insertions on the boundary of the disk. It turned out that one has to abandon the decoupling limit in order to retain a consistent setup. The only physical condition on the non-commutative parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in first derivative order of the background fields is the on-shell condition for the open string gauge field $`A`$ on the D-brane, i.e. the generalized Maxwell equation; see also  for other attempts of treating a general background field $`B`$.

Imposing this equation has the following consequences for the product in first derivative order . Firstly, the non-commutative product of two functions equals the ordinary product under the integral.111 In  it was only shown that $`fg=gf`$, but it is easily checked that, in fact, $`fg=fg`$.  Secondly, the product is associative up to a surface term. As an immediate consequence, the product of an arbitrary number of functions is invariant under cyclic permutations under the integral up to a possible change in the bracket structure). The integration measure plays an important role in this respect and is given by a Born-Infeld measure, $`\sqrt{det(g)}`$. Associativity cannot be maintained and must be replaced by an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure . Both properties are necessary to construct a reasonable action and a variation principle in terms of the non-commutative product, the second one, to adjust the position of the variation of the field and the first one, to remove all derivatives from the variation.

So far only the non-commutative product arising in this generalized setting was considered. It can be extracted purely from off-shell correlation functions. However, since string vacua correspond to 2-d conformal field theories, the correlators must finally take shape of the usual simple on-shell form . There is some interesting information which one can gain from passing to on-shell correlators and it is the intention of this article to work out this information.

For this purpose we will use several results from  and, therefore, inherit the general setting of the model considered there. The open strings move in a background including a general metric $`g`$ and a nontrivial $`B`$-field in the bulk and a gauge field $`A`$ on the boundary of the world sheet. The world sheet is taken to be the upper half complex plane. All information is extracted from correlation functions using a derivative expansion of the background fields, where the expansion is restricted to first derivative order, but exact to all orders in the constant part of $``$.

What can we learn from the on-shell correlators?

(i) As the insertions at the boundary of the disk are taken to be ordinary functions of the target space coordinates $`X^\mu `$ we expect that the on-shell condition is tachyonic. Furthermore, the equation of motion is linear in the tachyonic field since the insertions represent asymptotic states. We will deduce this linear equation from the requirement that the on-shell correlators must have the CFT form and thus obtain the kinetic term for the effective action of the tachyon.

(ii) The explicit form of the on-shell three-point function then gives us the cubic interaction of the open string tachyon potential. Higher $`n`$-point correlators are difficult to manage. Nevertheless, in view of the cyclicity of the product under the integral, we are able to discuss some implications for the structure of higher order interactions.

(iii) Working in first derivative order of the background fields is already sufficient to extract information about the differential structure from the tachyon equation of motion. As an interesting and somewhat surprising result we anticipate that, using the generalized Maxwell equation, the covariant derivative on the D-brane turns out to be the same as that off the brane, i.e. it is the connection compatible with the bulk metric and with torsion $`H=dB`$.

The organisation of the paper is as follows. We start in section 2 with the introduction of some notation and review the properties of the non-commutative product. In section 3 we calculate the full two- and three-point off-shell correlators using results from . Thereafter, in section 4, we show that conformal invariance requires a tachyonic on-shell condition for the insertions of the correlators and the use of the Maxwell equation for the background fields. Eventually, we investigate the potential and the differential structure of the tachyonic action in section 5 and close with a general discussion of our results in section 6.

## 2 The non-commutative product

On the D-brane we have in addition to the so called bulk metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, which enters in the sigma model action, the boundary metric $`G^{\mu \nu }`$. Two metrics arise because of the fact that on the brane one has to consider the combination $`M_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+_{\mu \nu }`$ rather than the separate quantities $`g`$ and $``$. Consequently, one can split the inverse of $`M`$ into the symmetric and antisymmetric part, i.e. $`M^{\mu \nu }:=M^1{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=G^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$, and obtains the second metric $`G`$ and the antisymmetric part $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, which turns out to be the non-commutativity parameter.222We use the convention $`M^1{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }M_{\nu \rho }^{}=\delta ^\mu _\rho `$.

The product found in  is given to all orders in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and to first derivative order in the background fields. It reads

$`f(x)g(x)=fg`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \rho }_\rho \mathrm{\Theta }^{\nu \sigma }\left(_\mu _\nu f_\sigma g+_\sigma f_\mu _\nu g\right)+`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`𝒪((\mathrm{\Theta })^2,^2\mathrm{\Theta }),`$
where ’$``$’ denotes the Moyal contribution to the product. The on-shell condition for the gauge field $`A`$ on the D-brane is

$`G^{\rho \sigma }D_\rho _{\sigma \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \sigma }H_{\rho \sigma }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }_{\lambda \mu }^{}=0,`$ (2)
where $`D_\rho `$ is the Christoffel connection of $`g`$, or equivalently,

$`_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3)
Imposing this equation of motion one finds that the product of two functions equals the ordinary product under the integral,

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{det(g)}fg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{det(g)}fg},`$ (4)
and that it is associative up to a surface term,

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{det(g)}(fg)h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{det(g)}f(gh)}.`$ (5)
The trace property

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{det(g)}\left((\mathrm{}(f_1\mathrm{}))f_{n1}\right)f_n}={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{det(g)}\left(f_n(\mathrm{}(f_1\mathrm{}))\right)f_{n1}}.`$ (6)
follows immediately. Although the integration measure plays an important role in order to derive these properties we will subsequently use the abbreviation $`_x=\mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{det(g)}`$ for the integral. These results will extensively be used in sections (4) and (5).

## 3 Off-shell correlators

We are now going to use several results of the appendix of  to calculate the full off-shell two- and three-point correlators of ordinary functions of target space coordinates $`X^\mu `$. The insertions are ordered at the boundary of the upper half plane, so that $`\tau _1<\tau _2<\tau _3`$.

### The two-point correlator

was already given in  and we repeat the expression in a more compact form. To this end we use the relation

$`2G^{\nu \rho }G^{\sigma \lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\rho \lambda }{}_{}{}^{\mu }=G^{\mu \rho }_\rho G^{\nu \sigma }G^{\nu \rho }_\rho G^{\sigma \mu }G^{\sigma \rho }_\rho G^{\nu \mu },`$ (7)
to introduce the Christoffel connection compatible with $`G`$. With the abbreviation ($`\tau _{ij}=\tau _i\tau _j`$)

$`f\mathrm{\Delta }g:={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^n\mathrm{ln}^n\tau _{21}^2G^{\mu ^n\nu ^n}\overline{D}_{\mu ^n}f\overline{D}_{\nu ^n}g`$ (8)
where the upper subindices of the indices mean a product of derivatives, $`\overline{D}_{\mu ^n}:=\overline{D}_{(\mu _1}\mathrm{}\overline{D}_{\mu _n)}=_{\mu ^n}f\frac{n(n1)}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{(\mu _1\mu _2}{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\mu _3}^{}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n)}_\rho f+𝒪(^2)`$ and a product of metrics $`G^{\mu ^n\nu ^n}=G^{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{}G^{\mu _n\nu _n}`$. The symmetrization of the derivatives $`\overline{D}_\mu `$ in $`\overline{D}_{\mu ^n}`$ is automatic in first order, because the partial derivatives contracted with $`G`$ symmetrize the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-term on the other side, i.e. $`G^{\mu \nu }\overline{D}_\mu f\overline{D}_\nu g=G^{\mu \nu }_\mu f\overline{D}_\nu g+G^{\mu \nu }\overline{D}_\mu f_\nu g+𝒪(^2)`$. We can then write the full two-point correlator as

$`:f[X(\tau _1)]::g[X(\tau _2)]:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}f\mathrm{\Delta }g`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{21}^1{\displaystyle _x}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \rho }_\rho G^{\nu \sigma }`$ $`(`$ $`_\nu _\sigma f\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu g_\mu f\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu _\sigma g)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{21}^1{\displaystyle _x}G^{\nu \sigma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \mu }`$ $`(`$ $`_\nu _\rho f\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu g_\mu f\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu _\rho g)+𝒪(^2).`$ (9)
### The three-point correlator

is much more complicated. It is a rather tedious but straightforward work to collect all the relevant terms from the appendix in . In order to realize the structure more clearly we first consider the two cases, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}`$ (or, equivalently, $`G0`$). For $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$, the covariant derivative $`\overline{D}`$ again appears, now in the combination

$`\overline{D}_{\mu ^n}\overline{D}_{\nu ^m}f`$ $`=`$ $`_{\mu ^n}_{\nu ^m}f`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{(\mu _1\mu _2}{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\mu _3}^{}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n)}_{\nu ^m}_\rho f+`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m(m1)}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{(\nu _1\nu _2}{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\nu _3}^{}\mathrm{}_{\nu _m)}_{\mu ^n}_\rho f+`$
$``$ $`mn\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{(\mu _1|(\nu _1}{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\nu _2}^{}\mathrm{}_{\nu _m)}_{|\mu _2}\mathrm{}_{\mu _n)}_\rho f+𝒪(^2).`$
The correlator is given as

$`:f[X(\tau _1)]::g[X(\tau _2)]::h[X(\tau _3)]:|_{\mathrm{\Theta }=0}={\displaystyle }_x\mathrm{\Delta }(f,g,h)+𝒪(^2)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{I,J,K}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\right)^{I+J+K}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^I\tau _{21}^1\mathrm{ln}^J\tau _{31}^1\mathrm{ln}^K\tau _{32}^1}{I!J!K!}}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle _x}G^{\mu ^I\nu ^I}G^{\mu ^J\nu ^J}G^{\mu ^K\nu ^K}\overline{D}_{\mu ^I\mu ^J}f\overline{D}_{\nu ^I\mu ^K}g\overline{D}_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}h+𝒪(^2).`$ (11)
The triangle functional $`\mathrm{\Delta }(f,g,h)`$ in the first line is a generalization of (8) and was introduced for later reference. In case of $`G0`$ the correlator can be expressed solely through the non-commutative product (1) (cf. also )

$`:f[X_1]::g[X_2]::h[X_3]:|_{G=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(fg)h+f(gh)`$
$`+`$ $`L(m)(f_1(f_2f_3)(f_1f_2)f_3))\}`$
$`+`$ $`𝒪(^2).`$
$`L(m)=\frac{6}{\pi ^2}(\mathrm{Li}_2(m)\mathrm{Li}_2(1m))`$ is an antisymmetric combination of dilogarithms $`\mathrm{Li}_2(m)`$ with the limits $`L(0)=1`$ and $`L(1)=1`$. The modulus $`m=\tau _{21}/\tau _{31}`$ can take the values $`0m1`$.

Since we take into account only terms to first derivative order these two results can easily be completed to the general case. In equations (3) and (3) we have included the $`GG`$\- and the $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$-terms, respectively. In the full correlator these two results combine in a natural way and add up with the remaining $`G\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }G`$ parts, so that we find

$`:f[X(\tau _1)]::g[X(\tau _2)]::h[X(\tau _3)]:=F[GG,\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }]+F[G\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }G]+𝒪(^2)`$ (13)
where

$`F[GG,\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }]={\displaystyle \underset{I,J,K}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^I\tau _{21}^1\mathrm{ln}^J\tau _{31}^1\mathrm{ln}^K\tau _{32}^1}{I!J!K!}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^{I+J+K}}}{\displaystyle _x}G^{\mu ^I\nu ^I}G^{\mu ^J\nu ^J}G^{\mu ^K\nu ^K}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\overline{D}_{\mu ^I\mu ^J}f(\overline{D}_{\nu ^I\mu ^K}g\overline{D}_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}h)+(\overline{D}_{\mu ^I\mu ^J}f\overline{D}_{\nu ^I\mu ^K}g)\overline{D}_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}h`$
$`+L(m)(\overline{D}_{\mu ^I\mu ^J}f(\overline{D}_{\nu ^I\mu ^K}g\overline{D}_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}h)(\overline{D}_{\mu ^I\mu ^J}f\overline{D}_{\nu ^I\mu ^K}g)\overline{D}_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}h))]`$
and, with $`_\mu f=f_\mu `$,

$`F[G\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }G]=`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{21}^1{\displaystyle _x}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \sigma }_\sigma G^{\mu \nu }[\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\mu ,g_\nu ,h_\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\rho ,g_{\mu \nu },h)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(f_{\mu \nu },g_\rho ,h)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{31}^1{\displaystyle _x}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \sigma }_\sigma G^{\mu \nu }[\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\rho ,g_\mu ,h_\nu )+\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\mu ,g_\nu ,h_\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\rho ,g,h_{\mu \nu })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(f_{\mu \nu },g,h_\rho )]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{32}^1{\displaystyle _x}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \sigma }_\sigma G^{\mu \nu }[+\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\rho ,g_\mu ,h_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(f,g_\rho ,h_{\mu \nu })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(f,g_{\mu \nu },h_\rho )]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{21}^1{\displaystyle _x}G^{\rho \sigma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }[+\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\mu ,g_{\nu \rho },h)\mathrm{\Delta }(f_{\nu \rho },g_\mu ,h)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{31}^1{\displaystyle _x}G^{\rho \sigma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }[+\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\mu ,g_\nu ,h_\rho )+\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\nu ,g_\rho ,h_\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\rho ,g_\mu ,h_\nu )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }(f_\mu ,g,h_{\nu \rho })\mathrm{\Delta }(f_{\nu \rho },g,h_\mu )]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\tau _{32}^1{\displaystyle _x}G^{\rho \sigma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }[+\mathrm{\Delta }(f,g_\mu ,h_{\nu \rho })\mathrm{\Delta }(f,g_{\nu \rho },h_\mu )].`$
The symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }(f,g,h)`$ is defined in equation (3).

## 4 On-shell correlators

In the previous section the insertions on the disk as well as the background fields are completely general, they do not satisfy any on-shell conditions, which are determined by the conformal invariance of the theory. The equations of motion for the background fields are given by the $`\beta `$-functions of the world sheet theory whereas the equations of motion for the insertions are determined by the conformal transformation properties of the correlation functions.

The correlators of the CFT on the disk must be invariant under the global conformal group $`SL(2,)`$. In particular, the 2-point correlator with insertions at the boundary is

$`<f_1[X(\tau _1)]f_2[X(\tau _2)]>={\displaystyle \frac{C_{12}}{(\tau _{21})^{2h}}},`$ (16)
where $`h`$ is the conformal weight of both $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$. The correlator for operators with different weights vanishes. The 3-point correlator is

$`<f_1[X(\tau _1)]f_2[X(\tau _2)]f_3[X(\tau _3)]>={\displaystyle \frac{C_{123}}{\tau _{21}^{h_1+h_2h_3}\tau _{31}^{h_3+h_1h_2}\tau _{32}^{h_2+h_3h_1}}}`$ (17)
The constants $`C_{12}`$ and $`C_{123}`$ are functionals of $`f_i(x)`$, independent of the positions $`\tau _i`$ and invariant under cyclic permutation of indices. For physical fields which should carry $`h=1`$ we have

$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{12}}{(\tau _1\tau _2)^2}},`$ (18)
$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]f_3[X_3]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{123}}{\tau _{21}\tau _{31}\tau _{32}}}.`$ (19)
On the other hand, the off-shell correlators in the open string background, (3) and (13), can be written in the following way,

$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^I\tau _{21}^2}{I!}}F_I[f_i](\tau _i)`$ (20)
$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]f_3[X_3]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,J,K=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^I\tau _{21}^1\mathrm{ln}^J\tau _{31}^1\mathrm{ln}^K\tau _{32}^1}{I!J!K!}}F_{IJK}[f_i](\tau _i)`$
where $`F_I[f_i](\tau _i)`$ and $`F_{IJK}[f_i](\tau _i)`$ are functionals of $`f_i`$ and functions of $`\tau _i`$. The $`\tau _i`$-dependence arises from the dilogarithm in (3) as well as from the sign function $`ϵ(\tau _{ij})`$ which accompanies every $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (cf. ). In fact, we do not see the sign function because of our choice of ordering, $`\tau _1<\tau _2<\tau _3`$.

Therefore, if

$`F_I[f_i](\tau _i)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{I1}[f_i](\tau _i)`$ (21)
$`F_{IJK}[f_i](\tau _i)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{(I1)JK}[f_i](\tau _i)=F_{I(J1)K}[f_i](\tau _i)=F_{IJ(K1)}[f_i](\tau _i)`$ (22)
is fulfilled, one can reduce all functionals in the sum to $`F_0[f_i](\tau _i)`$ and $`F_{000}[f_i](\tau _i)`$, respectively. Furthermore, in order to reproduce the behaviour (18) and (19), $`F_0[f_i](\tau _i)`$ and $`F_{000}[f_i](\tau _i)`$ must be constants and then determine $`C_{12}=F_0[f_i]`$ and $`C_{123}=F_{000}[f_i]`$. However, this does not work off-shell and has to be accomplished by certain on-shell conditions imposed on the insertions (and of course on the background fields). We proceed in two steps and first show the following theorem:

### Relations

(21) and (22) require that the insertions satisfy the tachyonic equation of motion

$`\mathrm{}f_i(2\pi )f_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det(g)}}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{det(g)}G^{\mu \nu }_\nu f_i\right)(2\pi )f_i=0.`$ (23)
*Proof:* We start with the 2-point correlator. In order to get a scalar equation of the insertions one has to integrate by part. On the other hand, if we look at S-matrix calculations  the momentum conservation ($`\delta ^D(\mathrm{\Sigma }k)`$) comes from the integration over zero modes. Here we do not have a flat background and we cannot perform the integration in that way. Now the integration by part is the analog of the momentum conservation in position space. Furthermore, one can separate the functionals $`F_I`$ into two distinct parts, $`F_I=F_I[\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }]+F_I[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]`$. The former term comes from the first line of (3), but without the Christoffel symbols, the latter arises from the rest of (3).

We take $`F_I[\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }]`$ and integrate by part in the following way

$`F_I[\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }]`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^I{\displaystyle _x}G^{\mu ^I\nu ^I}_{\mu ^I}f_1_{\nu ^I}f_2`$ (24)
$`=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^I{\displaystyle _x}G^{\mu ^{I1}\nu ^{I1}}_{\mu ^{I1}}\mathrm{}f_1_{\nu ^{I1}}f_2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^I{\displaystyle _x}G^{\mu ^{I1}\nu ^{I1}}_{\mu ^{I1}}f_1_{\nu ^{I1}}\mathrm{}f_2`$
$`+`$ $`F_I^{}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG].`$
The last expression $`F_I^{}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]`$ combines with $`F_I[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]`$. Analogously, using integration by part in $`F_I^{\prime \prime }=F_I^{}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]+F_I[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]`$, the differential operator as it appears in (24) arises now in zero derivative order of the background fields, i.e. $`\mathrm{}f_i=G^{\mu _I\nu _I}_{\mu _I}_{\nu _I}f_i`$, because $`F_I^{\prime \prime }`$ contains only terms of first derivative order. Now $`F_{I1}[\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }]`$ is equal to the first two lines of (24) if equation (23) holds. Proceeding along the same lines one can show that $`F_{I1}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]=F_I^{\prime \prime }`$, again using (23). In fact, the 2-point function does not fix the tachyonic equation uniquely. One can add $`A^{\mu ^{2n+1}}_{\mu ^{2n+1}}f_i`$, where $`n`$ and $`A𝒪()`$. By means of partial integration such terms would mutually cancel in the second and third line of (24). However, we will see that this ambiguity is fixed by the 3-point correlator.

The calculation for the 3-point correlator is similar. First we make the split $`F_{IJK}=F_{IJK}[\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }]+F_{IJK}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]`$. Let us again look at the S-matrix calculation. There one uses the relation $`k_1k_2=\frac{1}{4}(k_1k_2k_3)(k_2k_1k_3)=\frac{1}{2}(k_3^2k_1^2k_2^2)`$. With the analogous transformation in terms of partial integrations we obtain from (13) and (3)

$`F_{IJK}[\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }]=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^{I+J+K}}}{\displaystyle _x}G^{\mu ^I\nu ^I}G^{\mu ^J\nu ^J}G^{\mu ^K\nu ^K}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[_{\mu ^I\mu ^J}f_1(_{\nu ^I\mu ^K}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}f_3)+(\text{other bracket})`$
$`+L(m)(_{\mu ^I\mu ^J}f_1(_{\nu ^I\mu ^K}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}f_3)(\text{other bracket}))]=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^{I+J+K}}}{\displaystyle _x}G^{\mu ^{I1}\nu ^{I1}}G^{\mu ^J\nu ^J}G^{\mu ^K\nu ^K}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[_{\mu ^{I1}\mu ^J}f_1(_{\nu ^{I1}\mu ^K}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}\mathrm{}f_3)`$
$`_{\mu ^{I1}\mu ^J}\mathrm{}f_1(_{\nu ^{I1}\mu ^K}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}f_3)`$
$`_{\mu ^{I1}\mu ^J}f_1(_{\nu ^{I1}\mu ^K}\mathrm{}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}f_3)`$
$`+(\text{other bracket})`$
$`+L(m)(_{\mu ^{I1}\mu ^J}f_1(_{\nu ^{I1}\mu ^K}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}\mathrm{}f_3)`$
$`_{\mu ^{I1}\mu ^J}\mathrm{}f_1(_{\nu ^{I1}\mu ^K}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}f_3)`$
$`_{\mu ^{I1}\mu ^J}f_1(_{\nu ^{I1}\mu ^K}\mathrm{}f_2_{\nu ^J\nu ^K}f_3)`$
$`(\text{other bracket}))]`$
$`+F_{IJK}^{}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG].`$
Since the dilogarithmic term is of first derivative order in background fields there are no contributions thereof in $`F_{IJK}^{}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]`$. The same procedure as above shows that in view of (23) the first part of (4) equals $`F_{(I1)JK}[\mathrm{\Theta }d\mathrm{\Theta }]`$ and $`F_{IJK}^{}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]+F_{IJK}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]=F_{(I1)JK}[GdG,Gd\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }dG]`$. But now terms like $`A^{\mu ^{2n+1}}_{\mu ^{2n+1}}f_i`$ would not cancel in (4), so that the tachyonic equation of motion (23) is unique. Relations $`F_{IJK}=F_{I(J1)K}`$ and $`F_{IJK}=F_{IJ(K1)}`$ can be shown analogously. $`\mathrm{}`$

With this result we can write the correlators as

$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0[f_i](\tau _i)}{\tau _{21}^2}}`$ (26)
$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]f_3[X_3]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{000}[f_i](\tau _i)}{\tau _{21}\tau _{31}\tau _{32}}}`$
with

$`F_0[f_i](\tau _i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}(f_1f_2),`$ (27)
$`F_{000}[f_i](\tau _i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{f_1(f_2f_3)+(f_1f_2)f_3+`$
$`+L(m)(f_1(f_2f_3)(f_1f_2)f_3))\}.`$
Indeed, (27) and (4) are not yet position independent and invariant under cyclic exchange of the functions $`f_i`$. Putting also the background fields on shell, i.e. using the Maxwell equation (3), we can take advantage of the relations (4) and (5). So, we reach the final result

$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{21}^2}}{\displaystyle _x}f_1f_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{21}^2}}{\displaystyle _x}f_1f_2,`$ (29)
$`<f_1[X_1]f_2[X_2]f_3[X_3]>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{21}\tau _{31}\tau _{32}}}{\displaystyle _x}f_1f_2f_3.`$
We close this section with a remark on the ghost fields, which we have totally excluded from our discussion so far. On the disc we have three conformal killing vectors (forming the Möbius group $`SL(2,)`$) and therefore three of the vertices in a correlator can be fixed in position and must be accompanied by a ghost field $`c(\tau _i)`$, the others being integrated over the world sheet. The 2-point correlator has too few insertions in order to give a non-vanishing result in the ghost sector, i.e. $`c(\tau _1)c(\tau _2)_{gh}=0`$. The 3-point ghost amplitude, $`c(\tau _1)c(\tau _2)c(\tau _3)_{gh}=c_{gh}\tau _{21}\tau _{31}\tau _{32}`$, exactly cancels the position dependence of the correlator (19). Moreover, the Möbius group preserves the cyclic order of the insertions and so we must sum over inequivalent orderings in the 3-point amplitude, so that we obtain333Until now we have chosen the normalization of the correlators such that it reduces to an integral over the ordinary product of functions for $`=0`$. We reintroduce a normalization constant $`c=c_Xc_{gh}`$ where $`c_X`$ and $`c_{gh}`$ are the normalizations for the matter and the ghost contribution, respectively. $`c`$ is fixed by unitarity .

$`cf_1[X_1]cf_2[X_2]cf_3[X_3]+(f_2f_3)=c{\displaystyle _x}f_1(f_2f_3+f_3f_2).`$ (30)
## 5 Tachyonic action

The results (23) and (30) enable us to reconstruct the kinetic term and the cubic potential of the open string tachyon. The value for the coupling constant is recovered from consistency with S-matrix calculations, as discussed e.g. in , by taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$.

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_o^2}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left\{G^{\mu \nu }_\mu T_\nu T\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}TT\sqrt{\frac{8}{9\alpha ^{}}}T(TT)\right\}}.`$ (31)
It would be more natural if we write the action totally in terms of the non-commutative product (1), i.e.

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_o^2}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}}`$ $`\{`$ $`G^{\mu \nu }_\mu T_\nu T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}TT\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9\alpha ^{}}}}TTT\}.`$ (32)
The kinetic term of this action generates the equation of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}(G^{\mu \nu }_\nu T+_\nu TG^{\mu \nu })\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}T=0,`$ (33)
which reduces to equation (23) because $`\frac{1}{2}(G^{\mu \nu }_\nu T+_\nu TG^{\mu \nu })=G^{\mu \nu }_\nu T+𝒪(^2G)`$. This means that the question whether one has to put the non-commutative product into the kinetic term or not cannot be decided at first derivative order.

If we impose the background field on-shell condition (3), the kinetic term of (23) reveals a remarkable feature of the geometry on the D-brane. Equation (3) implies also $`_\mu (\sqrt{g}G^{\mu \nu })=\sqrt{g}M^{\rho \sigma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }{}_{}{}^{\nu }\frac{1}{2}H_{\rho \sigma }{}_{}{}^{\nu })`$, and we are able to rewrite (23) as

$`M^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu T(2\pi )T=0,`$ (34)
where we have introduced the connection $``$ that is compatible with the bulk metric and has torsion $`H`$

$`_\mu \xi _\nu =_\mu \xi _\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }\xi _{\rho }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }\xi _{\rho }^{}.`$ (35)
This is exactly the connection that appears in closed string theory and it is independent of the gauge field $`A`$.

Finally, we make a remark on higher order interactions in the tachyonic potential. Since each term in the potential is a power of the field $`T`$, it is a very symmetric expression and one may ask if more brackets than the outermost can be omitted and, if so, how many. For “$`T^n`$” with $`n=4,5`$ it is easy to show that all brackets can be left out, i.e. $`_xT^4=_xTTTT`$ and $`_xT^5=_xTTTTT`$. What happens if we vary these expressions? To this end one has to select an arbitrary choice for the brackets in $`T^4`$ and $`T^5`$. Independently of that choice the variation gives the sum over all bracket arrangements for three and four functions,

$`\delta {\displaystyle _x}T^4={\displaystyle _x}\delta T(T(TT))+((TT)T))`$ (36)
$`\delta {\displaystyle _x}T^5={\displaystyle _x}\delta T(T(T(TT))+T((TT)T)+(TT)(TT)+`$
$`+(T(TT))T+((TT)T)T).`$ (37)
For higher powers the behaviour is different. For instance, in case of $`n=6`$ the following four expressions have different variations:

$`{\displaystyle _x}(T(TT))((TT)T),`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle _x}(T(TT))(T(TT)),`$
$`{\displaystyle _x}((TT)T)((TT)T),`$
$`{\displaystyle _x}((TT)(TT))(TT).`$
Any other bracket arrangements can be converted to one of these possibilities by means of equations (4) and (5). The variations of (38) give a sum of 6, 3, 3, and 2 different terms, respectively.444The total number of terms is always 14, which is the number of bracket arrangements for five functions.  Therefore, for higher powers than five we have distinct expressions, where either one could arise in the tachyon potential, possibly with different weights.

## 6 Discussion

In view of the quantity $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ and its inverse, the two metrics, $`g`$ and $`G`$, seem to be on equal footing on the D-brane. For instance, the integration measure can be written as $`\sqrt[4]{g}\sqrt[4]{G}`$. However, in the effective field theory on the brane they play different roles. $`G`$ appears in the kinetic term of the action and, therefore, one expects that it is the preferred metric on the brane. However, as we have seen in section (5), the natural connection on the D-brane is compatible with $`g`$ and has torsion $`H=dB`$. This has an interesting consequence. The connection and the parallel transport is independent of the open string gauge field $`A`$ and depends only on bulk quantities. So we have gained some insight into the differential structure on a D-brane and it would be even more interesting to see how this extends to second derivative order. The correlation functions of open string photon vertices instead of tachyon vertices would be another source of information. They should give rise to a gauge theory in a general non-commutative background.

We have seen that the form of the terms in the tachyonic potential is determined for powers lower than six. For higher powers of the tachyon field one has to calculate the corresponding correlators in order to decide with which relative weight the distinct subsets (e.g. (38)) appear. Of course, a sum over all bracket arrangements would be a natural choice. But in fact, to find out whether this guess is correct, one needs a better understanding of the underlying $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure (cf. ).

Since our results are consequences of restricting off-shell correlators to the known structure of conformal field theory it would be interesting to compare our results with other off-shell approaches, e.g. background independent open string field theory .555BSFT requires a fixed conformal background in the bulk, but allows for arbitrary boundary interactions. Our approach does not make reference to such a background and is closer to the spirit of the sigma model approach to string theory .  Clearly we expect that the tachyonic on-shell condition obtained in this paper is equivalent to the consistency condition for a string propagating in nontrivial background fields, i.e. the Weyl invariance condition of the underlying 2-d non-linear sigma model. Furthermore, the relation to previous work on the appearance of a non-commutative tachyon action, mostly considered in the limit of a strong magnetic field , needs clarification. The exact non-commutative tachyon potential should be given by the well known expression obtained from BSFT but with ordinary products replaced with the generalized non-commutative product found in .

*Acknowledgments.* This work was supported in part by the Austrian Research Funds FWF under grants Nr. P14639-TPH and P15553, and by the city of Vienna under grant Nr. H-85/2001.


format: text

text:
# “Unusual” metals in two dimensions: one-particle model of the metal-insulator transition at 𝑇=0

## References


text:
# Neutrino-Induced Fission and 𝑟-Process Nucleosynthesis

## 1 Introduction

The nuclei above 56Fe are produced dominantly by the slow ($`s`$) and rapid ($`r`$) neutron-capture ($`n`$-capture) processes. The main $`s`$-process occurs in low-mass asymptotic giant branch stars and mainly produces the nuclei above 88Sr while the weak $`s`$-process occurs in massive stars and mainly produces the nuclei up to 88Sr (e.g., Käppeler, Beer, & Wisshak 1989). It is considered here that Type II supernovae (SNe II) resulting from evolution of massive stars are the major sources for the $`r`$-process (e.g., Qian 2000). As massive stars have much shorter lifetimes than low-mass stars, SNe II made the dominant contributions to the abundances of $`n`$-capture elements in metal-poor (MP) stars that were formed in the early Galaxy. Detailed abundance patterns covering many $`n`$-capture elements have been obtained for a number of ultra-metal-poor (UMP) stars with \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ (e.g., Sneden et al. 2000; Westin et al. 2000; Hill et al. 2001). This Letter discusses the implications of these abundance patterns for $`r`$-process nucleosynthesis in SNe II.

Starting with a large abundance ratio of neutrons relative to the seed nuclei (i.e., a large neutron-to-seed ratio), the $`r`$-process produces a distribution of neutron-rich progenitor nuclei far from stability through the interplay of rapid neutron capture, photo-disintegration, and $`\beta `$-decay. Depending on the neutron-to-seed ratio, the $`r`$-process may produce progenitor nuclei that subsequently undergo fission on a short timescale. This limits the range of nuclei involved in the $`r`$-process and may result in a cyclic flow between the terminating nuclei and their fission products (i.e., fission cycling). The role of fission in $`r`$-process nucleosynthesis was discussed by the very first papers that proposed the $`r`$-process (Burbidge et al. 1957; Cameron 1957). Fission cycling was discussed in detail by Seeger Fowler, & Clayton (1965) and was included in many $`r`$-process studies (e.g., Rauscher et al. 1994; Freiburghaus, Rosswog, & Thielemann 1999; Cameron 2001). Fission was also invoked to explain certain features of the observed $`r`$-process abundance patterns ($`r`$-patterns). For example, Cameron (1957) attributed the small peak in the rare earth region (with mass numbers $`A160`$) of the solar $`r`$-pattern to fission of the progenitor nuclei with $`A287`$.

An $`r`$-process scenario with fission but no fission cycling is considered here to account for the observed abundance patterns in UMP stars (§2). It is proposed that fission may be induced by neutrino reactions with the progenitor nuclei after the $`r`$-process freezes out (i.e., exhausts all the initial neutrons) in SNe II. The conditions under which this scenario could be realized and some possible features of the resulting $`r`$-pattern are discussed (§3). Further studies to develop this scenario are emphasized (§4).

## 2 Abundance Patterns in UMP Stars

Extensive observations showed that the abundances of the heavy $`n`$-capture elements from Ba up to Pt in UMP stars exhibit remarkable regularity and follow the solar $`r`$-pattern rather closely (e.g., Sneden et al. 2000; Westin et al. 2000). However, as shown in Figure 1a, the observed abundances of the light $`n`$-capture elements Rh, Pd, Ag, and Cd in the UMP star CS 22892-052 (Sneden et al. 2000) are too low relative to the solar $`r`$-pattern (Arlandini et al. 1999) that is translated to fit the region above Ba ($`A>130`$). A possible explanation for this is that different production mechanisms may be responsible for the $`n`$-capture elements below and above Ba in UMP stars. For example, fission cycling tends to produce a rather robust $`r`$-pattern at $`A130`$ (e.g., Freiburghaus et al. 1999). So the regular abundance pattern for Ba and above in UMP stars could be attributed to an $`r`$-process with a neutron-to-seed ratio that is sufficiently high for fission cycling to occur. Then the light $`n`$-capture elements in UMP stars could be attributed to some other $`r`$-process with a neutron-to-seed ratio that is appropriate for producing these elements only or to the weak $`s`$-process that might operate at some unusually high efficiency in the earliest generations of massive stars.

However, the attribution of the abundances of Ba and above in UMP stars to an $`r`$-process with fission cycling may be in conflict with the data on another UMP star CS 31082-001. As can be seen from Figure 1b, the observed abundances in CS 31082-001 (Cayrel et al. 2001; Hill et al. 2001) and CS 22892-052 (Sneden et al. 2001) follow approximately the same pattern except that the differences in the abundances of Os and the radioactive elements Th and U between the two stars appear to be significantly larger than those for the other elements (the differences in the abundances of Ir and Pb may also be significant but the uncertainties are large). As can be best seen by considering the abundance ratio Th/Eu, the data on CS 31082-001 and CS 22892-052 do not support a robust $`r`$-pattern at $`A130`$ that is expected from fission cycling. In view of the extremely low \[Fe/H\] values of $`3`$ for the two stars, it is reasonable to assume that both stars were formed during the first few Gyr after the onset of Galactic $`r`$-process nucleosynthesis. So both stars should have ages of $`10`$ Gyr. Under the assumption of a fixed $`r`$-process yield ratio of Th relative to Eu, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in the ages of the two stars is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{\tau _{232}}{\mathrm{log}e}|\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Th}}{\mathrm{Eu}}\right)_{\mathrm{CS}31082}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Th}}{\mathrm{Eu}}\right)_{\mathrm{CS}22892}|,$$

where $`\tau _{232}=20.3`$ Gyr is the lifetime of 232Th. The data $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{Eu})=0.70\pm 0.09`$, $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{Th})=0.96\pm 0.03`$ for CS 31082-001 (Cayrel et al. 2001; Hill et al. 2001) and $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{Eu})=0.93\pm 0.09`$, $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{Th})=1.60\pm 0.07`$ for CS 22892-052 (Sneden et al. 2001), where $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{E})=\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{H})+12`$, give $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=19.2\pm 7.0`$ Gyr. This is totally unreasonable. Thus, the assumption of a fixed $`r`$-process yield ratio of Th relative to Eu must be invalid and the $`r`$-pattern at $`A130`$ is not robust.

While it may be possible to accommodate the data on both CS 22892-052 and CS 31082-001 by having variable amounts of fission cycling in the $`r`$-process, an alternative scenario with fission but no fission cycling is considered here to explain the observed abundance patterns of $`n`$-capture elements in these two and possibly other UMP stars. It is proposed that an $`r`$-process produces a freeze-out distribution of progenitor nuclei covering $`190A<320`$ with a peak at $`A195`$ (corresponding to the magic neutron number $`N=126`$). The required neutron-to-seed ratio is high, but it is assumed that no fission cycling occurs during the $`r`$-process. This may be consistent with some recent studies of fission barriers for extremely neutron-rich nuclei (Mamdouh et al. 2001). As the progenitor nuclei $`\beta `$-decay towards stability after freeze-out, all of those with $`260A<320`$ eventually undergo spontaneous fission (e.g., Cameron 2001). Due to the strong influence of the closed proton and neutron shells at 132Sn, the fission of $`260A<320`$ is expected to produce one fragment at $`A132`$ and the other at $`130A<190`$ although the detailed fission yields may be more complicated (e.g., Hulet et al. 1989). Some of the progenitor nuclei with $`230A<260`$ would also undergo spontaneous fission during decay towards stability, thereby producing one fragment again at $`A132`$ and the other at $`100A<130`$. The possibility of fission for $`230A<260`$ may be greatly enhanced by reactions with the neutrinos emitted in SNe II as these nuclei could be highly excited by such reactions. Neutrino reactions may even induce fission of the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<230`$. Experiments using energetic particles to induce fission of the stable or long-lived nuclei in this mass range showed that the fission mode is dominantly symmetric with no preference for a fission fragment at $`A132`$ and the mass ratio of the two fission fragments is $`1`$–1.2 (e.g., Britt et al. 1963; see Möller et al. 2001 for recent theoretical interpretation). So the neutrino-induced fission of $`190A<230`$ is expected to produce fragments at $`86A<125`$.

Thus, in the $`r`$-process scenario proposed here, the fission of the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<320`$ during decay towards stability after freeze-out would produce nuclei with $`86A<190`$ (see Table 1). In view of the mass range of the progenitor nuclei and their fission products, it is tempting to consider the proposed $`r`$-process scenario as the dominant source for all the $`n`$-capture elements observed in UMP stars. The ratio of the fission yields at $`86A<190`$ relative to the surviving abundances at $`190A<260`$ depends on the number of neutrino reactions experienced by each progenitor nucleus after freeze-out. Variation of this number among individual SNe II may explain why the observed abundances of Os and above ($`A190`$) relative to those of the $`n`$-capture elements below Os are significantly different in CS 22892-052 and CS 31082-001. The conditions under which the proposed scenario could be realized are discussed below.

## 3 Neutrino-Induced Fission and $`r`$-Process Nucleosynthesis

In the $`r`$-process scenario proposed here, all the initial neutrons are exhausted when the heaviest progenitor nuclei with $`A320`$ are produced. Except for the progenitor nuclei perhaps with $`300A<320`$ that are mostly produced when the $`r`$-process is running out of neutrons, the freeze-out abundances of the other progenitor nuclei are expected to be inversely proportional to their $`\beta `$-decay rates. The $`\beta `$-decay rates for the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<200`$ ($`N=126`$) are $`10`$ times smaller than those for $`200A<300`$ (Möller et al. 1997). With this crude guidance to the freeze-out abundances (see Table 1), the ratio of the fission yields at $`86A<190`$ relative to the surviving abundances at $`190A<260`$ is $`(2f+0.5):(1f)`$ if a fraction $`f`$ of the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<260`$ and all of those with $`260A<320`$ undergo fission during decay towards stability after freeze-out. By assigning the $`n`$-capture elements below Os to the fission products and considering Pb as the dominant decay product of the surviving nuclei with $`210A<260`$, it can be estimated from Figure 1 that $`f40\%`$ is required to account for the gross features of the observed abundance pattern in CS 22892-052 and $`f20\%`$ for CS 31082-001.

Without excitation by energetic particles, the probability of fission increases with $`Z^2/A`$, where $`Z`$ is the atomic number of the nucleus. All of the progenitor nuclei with $`260A<320`$ are expected to undergo spontaneous fission eventually as $`Z`$ increases during their decay towards stability (e.g., Cameron 2001). In contrast, as the stable or long-lived nuclei with $`190A<230`$ do not undergo any significant spontaneous fission, neither would their neutron-rich progenitors in the absence of high excitation. The probability of spontaneous fission during decay towards stability may not be significant even for the progenitor nuclei with $`230A<260`$ (e.g., Meyer et al. 1989). However, the progenitor nuclei and their daughters can be highly excited by reactions with the neutrinos emitted in SNe II. The typical excitation energy is $`30`$ MeV for $`\nu _e`$ capture and $`15`$ MeV for reactions with $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$, and $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ (e.g., Qian et al. 1997). Thus, neutrino reactions may be crucial in inducing the fission of $`20`$–40% of the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<260`$ during decay towards stability after freeze-out. Note that neutrino-induced fission should be unimportant during the $`r`$-process as the rates for $`\nu _e`$ capture must be severely limited in order to produce the abundance peak at $`A195`$ (Fuller & Meyer 1995). An essential question is then whether there would be a sufficient number of neutrino reactions with the progenitor nuclei after the $`r`$-process freezes out in SNe II.

The gravitational binding energy of the neutron star formed in SNe II is radiated in neutrinos over a period of $`20`$ s (e.g., Woosley et al. 1994). This is the upper limit on the duration of the $`r`$-process so that the progenitor nuclei can have a significant number of neutrino reactions after freeze-out. The duration of the $`r`$-process is dominantly controlled by the $`\beta `$-decay lifetimes of the progenitor nuclei. For an $`r`$-process path in a low-density environment where electrons are nondegenerate, the typical $`\beta `$-decay lifetimes are $`0.1`$ s for $`10`$ progenitor nuclei with closed neutron shells and $`0.01`$ s for those without (Möller et al. 1997). It would then take $`<4`$ s to reach the progenitor nuclei with $`A320`$. So all the progenitor nuclei could have a significant number of neutrino reactions after freeze-out if the $`r`$-process scenario proposed here is restricted to occur in a low-density environment such as the neutrino-driven wind from the neutron star (e.g., Woosley et al. 1994) instead of a high-density environment such as an accretion disk (Cameron 2001).

Another concern is the probability of fission following a neutrino reaction. A neutron-rich nucleus far from stability can de-excite by emitting neutrons instead of undergoing fission. Increase in $`Z`$ would help neutrino-induced fission compete with neutron emission. Based on the $`\beta `$-decay lifetimes estimated by Möller et al. (1997), $`Z`$ could increase by $`8`$ units within $`10`$ s for the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<260`$. Thus, the crucial role of neutrino-induced fission in the $`r`$-process scenario proposed here relies on the assumption that the probability of fission following a neutrino reaction is or becomes significant during the first $`8`$ steps in the $`\beta `$-decay chains of the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<260`$. This assumption should be checked by detailed calculations in the future. If a typical probability of fission is $`P_f50\%`$ (i.e., comparable to that of neutron emission), a fraction $`fP_f[1\mathrm{exp}(n)]20`$–40% of the progenitor nuclei would undergo fission after a total number $`n0.5`$–1.6 of neutrino reactions per nucleus. The values of $`P_f`$ to give $`f20`$–40% may be reduced somewhat by increasing $`n`$ to $`3`$. A similar level of neutrino reactions would completely account for the production of $`A=183`$–187 by neutrino-induced neutron emission from the progenitor nuclei in the peak at $`A195`$ after freeze-out (Qian et al. 1997; Haxton et al. 1997).

Given that the proposed $`r`$-process scenario with fission could be realized, it is interesting to note some features of the corresponding yield pattern that are not so evident from the data for CS 22892-052 and CS 31082-001. As proposed, the freeze-out distribution of progenitor nuclei covers $`190A<320`$ with a peak at $`A195`$. The fission of $`20`$–40% of the progenitor nuclei with $`190A<260`$ and all of those with $`260A<320`$ would produce enhanced fission yields at $`A90`$ and $`A132`$. The enhancement at $`A90`$ is expected from fission of the progenitor nuclei in the peak at $`A195`$, while that at $`A132`$ from the common fission fragment at this position for all the progenitor nuclei with $`230A<320`$. Thus, the typical yield pattern from the proposed $`r`$-process scenario has a peak at $`A195`$ and enhanced yields at $`A90`$ and $`A132`$. This yield pattern could be modified by capturing the neutrons released from fission. For example, the positions of the peak and the enhanced fission yields could be shifted to somewhat higher $`A`$. Such shifts in the yield pattern due to residual neutron capture were found in $`r`$-process scenarios with fission cycling (Rauscher et al. 1994; Freiburghaus et al. 1999). In any case, the $`r`$-process scenario proposed here could not account for the peak at $`A=130`$ in the solar $`r`$-pattern and therefore could provide one of the diverse sources for the $`r`$-process that are required by the model of Wasserburg, Busso, & Gallino (1996) to explain the meteoritic data on 129I and 182Hf. The yield pattern resulting from this scenario might also be similar to the $`r`$-pattern that was derived by Qian & Wasserburg (2001) for the high-frequency kind of SNe II based on the model of Wasserburg et al. (1996) and observations of MP stars.

There may be a hint for the shift of the enhanced fission yields at $`A132`$ to higher $`A`$ from studies of the Ba isotopic composition in the UMP star HD 140283. The three $`r`$-process isotopes of Ba are 135Ba, 137Ba, and 138Ba. The odd-$`A`$ isotopes of an element have finite nuclear magnetic moments that lead to hyperfine structure of the atomic spectra. Magain (1995) performed a detailed analysis of the Ba spectra for HD 140283 and concluded that the fraction of the odd-$`A`$ Ba isotopes is $`0.08\pm 0.06`$, corresponding to abundance ratios 138Ba/135Ba and 138Ba/137Ba of $`>6`$. By capturing the neutrons released from fission, the enhanced fission yields at $`A132`$ could be shifted to produce this steep rise of the yield at $`A=138`$. It is also possible that the Ba in HD 140283 may not be of pure $`r`$-process origin. In any case, the Ba isotopic composition in UMP stars has important implications for $`n`$-capture processes in the early Galaxy and deserves further observational studies.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Clearly, much further work is required to develop the $`r`$-process scenario with fission as proposed here. On the observational side, extensive studies of the abundance patterns of $`n`$-capture elements should be carried out for many more UMP stars to identify regularities and variations. The paucity of data on the light $`n`$-capture elements below Ba should be remedied. As Pb is the dominant decay product of the progenitor nuclei with $`210A<260`$, accurate determination of its abundance should be made. Detailed analyses of Ba isotopes are also valuable as discussed in §3. On the theoretical side, the foremost issue to investigate is the probability of neutrino-induced fission for extremely neutron-rich nuclei and the corresponding fission yields. Numerical calculations with an extensive network including neutrino reactions are needed to make a detailed comparison between the theoretical yields and the observed abundance patterns. The effects of the energy release from fission on the thermodynamic and hydrodynamic evolution of the $`r`$-process environment are also interesting to study. Last but certainly not the least, attempts should be made to understand how the conditions for the proposed $`r`$-process scenario are realized in a low-density environment such as the neutrino-driven wind in SNe II.

A crucial quantity characterizing the $`r`$-process conditions is the neutron-to-seed ratio $`R`$. By mass conservation, the average mass number $`A`$ for the freeze-out distribution of progenitor nuclei is $`A=A_{\mathrm{sd}}+R`$, where $`A_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ is the mass number of the seed nuclei. With $`A_{\mathrm{sd}}90`$ obtained in the neutrino-driven wind (e.g., Woolsey et al. 1994), $`R130`$ is required to produce $`A220`$ in the proposed $`r`$-process scenario (see Table 1). In general, $`R`$ is determined by the electron fraction $`Y_e`$, the entropy $`S`$, and the dynamic timescale $`\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ of the wind. While it remains unclear how the suitable combinations of $`Y_e`$, $`S`$, and $`\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ can be obtained in the wind to give $`R130`$, several possibilities have been suggested. One is to consider the general relativistic effects of a more massive or compact neutron star. As first shown by Qian & Woosley (1996) and later confirmed by other studies (Cardall & Fuller 1997; Otsuki et al. 2000; Thompson, Burrows, & Meyer 2001), such effects increase $`S`$ and decrease $`\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$, both favoring higher $`R`$. Another possibility is to consider the effects of neutrino flavor mixing. The $`Y_e`$ in the wind is mostly determined by the competition between $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$ and $`\nu _e+np+e^{}`$, and therefore is extremely sensitive to the differences between the luminosities and energy spectra of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _e`$ (Qian et al. 1993). As $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ have much higher average energy than $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _e`$, mixing between $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu (\tau )}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ could significantly reduce $`Y_e`$ (e.g., Qian & Fuller 1995), again favoring higher $`R`$. It is plausible that by including both the effects of general relativity and neutrino flavor mixing, $`R130`$ could be obtained in the wind. These issues should be examined by future studies.

Discussions with Roberto Gallino, Peter Möller, and Jerry Wasserburg are gratefully acknowledged. I thank the referee, Al Cameron, for many valuable criticisms. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under grants DE-FG02-87ER40328 and DE-FG02-00ER41149.


text:
# The Prompt Inventory from Very Massive Stars and Elemental Abundances in Ly𝛼 Systems

## 1 Introduction

We present predictions for the abundances of a large number of elements in the intergalactic medium (IGM), especially the Ly$`\alpha `$ systems, based on considerations of a prompt ($`P`$) inventory that is dominated by the contributions from very massive ($`100M_{}`$) stars (VMSs). A comparison will be made between the predictions and the available observational data. The model of the $`P`$ inventory (Wasserburg & Qian 2000a; Qian & Wasserburg 2001a; Qian & Wasserburg 2002) claims that, prior to the achievement of the condition corresponding to a metallicity of \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ in the IGM, the predominant mechanism of astration is by formation of VMSs. This condition is identified based on the sharp rise in the abundances of the heavy $`r`$-process elements such as Ba and Eu in Galactic halo stars with \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ (e.g., McWilliam et al. 1995; Burris et al. 2000). This sharp rise is considered to represent the occurrence of Type II supernovae (SNe II) that result from evolution of normal stars with masses of $`(10`$$`60)M_{}`$ in the absence of VMSs. Further support for a threshold at \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ for normal astration comes from the observation that all damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems with redshift $`z1.5`$–4.5 have a minimum \[Fe/H\] of $`2.7`$ (e.g., Prochaska & Wolfe 2000; Prochaska, Gawiser, & Wolfe 2001). The metallicity of \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ is considered to represent the critical condition for sufficient cooling and fragmentation of gas clouds to permit major formation of normal stars with masses of $`(1`$$`60)M_{}`$ (Wasserburg & Qian 2000a). This is supported by ab initio calculations of Bromm et al. (2001), which showed that a critical metallicity of $`5\times 10^4`$ the solar value (corresponding to \[Fe/H\] $`3`$) is required for significant formation of low-mass protostellar aggregates.

It was found that the observed elemental abundances in stars with $`3[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<1`$ could be quantitatively explained by the contributions from: (1) the $`P`$ inventory at \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ for all the elements up to Zr; (2) a high-frequency type of SNe II \[SNe II($`H`$)\] that are responsible for the heavy $`r`$-process elements and some light $`r`$-process elements below Ba but produce very little of the elements from N to Zn including Fe; and (3) a low-frequency type of SNe II \[SNe II($`L`$)\] that are responsible for the bulk of the light $`r`$-process elements and the part of the elements from N to Zn attributable to SNe II (Qian & Wasserburg 2001b, 2002). It was further found by reducing the observational data on metal-poor Galactic halo stars that the yield patterns of SNe II($`L`$) and VMS are almost the same for all the elements below Sr except for some small but significant shifts at Na, Al, V, Cr, Mn, and Co. Thus, the abundance ratios of the so-called $`\alpha `$ elements relative to Fe such as Mg/Fe, Si/Fe, Ca/Fe, and Ti/Fe remain essentially constant at $`4[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<1`$ although the dominant source of the $`\alpha `$ elements and Fe changes from VMSs in the regime of \[Fe/H\] $`<3`$ to SNe II($`L`$) in the regime of $`3<[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<1`$. These ratios are all greater than the corresponding solar values by a factor of $`3`$ because $`2/3`$ of the solar Fe inventory is from Type Ia Supernovae, which later added the Fe group elements but little of the $`\alpha `$ elements at \[Fe/H\] $`1`$. This simple explanation should serve to clarify the so-called “overproduction” of what are referred to as the $`\alpha `$ elements at low metallicities.

It was considered that the $`P`$ inventory at \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ is dominated by the contributions from VMSs with small contributions from SNe II. The rare occurrence of Galactic halo stars with $`4[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<3`$, which must have masses of $`1M_{}`$ in order to survive to the present epoch, is considered to represent concomitant formation of some “normal” stars in the regime where VMSs dominated astration (Qian & Wasserburg 2002). It was also suggested that VMSs were the source for reionization of the IGM (e.g., Qian & Wasserburg 2001b). A recent study by Oh et al. (2001) showed that in producing a “metal” inventory corresponding to \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ (or \[Si/H\] $`2.5`$), VMSs also provide $`1`$–10 ionizing photons for H and He. This was estimated from the VMS model yields calculated by Heger & Woosley (2002) and the VMS emission spectra calculated by Bromm, Kudritzki, & Loeb (2001). It appears that by processing $`10^5`$$`10^4`$ of the baryonic matter, VMSs are capable of providing the $`P`$ inventory and also of reionizing the IGM prior to the formation of most galaxies.

Further justification for the role of VMSs is found from the very low Ba abundances at \[Fe/H\] $`<3`$. This requires that any Ba produced by SNe II at \[Fe/H\] $`<3`$ had to be mixed in a dilution mass of $`(10^6`$$`10^7)M_{}`$, to be compared with the dilution mass of $`3\times 10^4M_{}`$ for SNe II at \[Fe/H\] $`>3`$. It is considered that the severely disruptive VMS activities at \[Fe/H\] $`<3`$ would not often permit the preservation of baryonic aggregates with masses of $`(10^6`$$`10^7)M_{}`$ and that the $`P`$ inventory at \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ should represent the chemical composition of the general IGM (Qian & Wasserburg 2002). Elemental abundances in the IGM are best measured from absorption lines produced by regions of enhanced density such as Ly$`\alpha `$ systems that are illuminated by Quasi-Stellar Objects (QSOs). For a given QSO, absorption lines occur for narrow ranges in redshift (below $`z`$ of the QSO) and the absorbing systems represent concentrations of dispersed baryonic matter between the QSO and the observer. Extensive studies have determined the abundances of C IV, O VI, and Si IV in Ly$`\alpha `$ systems with a wide range in redshift from $`z0.09`$ up to $`z5.3`$. In the following, we will present the abundances of a large number of elements in the IGM based on the model of the $`P`$ inventory (§2) and compare these results with the available data on Ly$`\alpha `$ systems (§3). The cosmological implications of our model will be discussed (§4).

## 2 Elemental Abundances in Ly$`\alpha `$ Systems as Determined from the $`P`$ Inventory

The abundances for the $`P`$ inventory are given in Table 1 in the standard spectroscopic notation as

$$\mathrm{log}ϵ_P(\mathrm{E})=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{H}}\right)_P+12,$$
(1)
where (E/H)P is the number ratio of an element E relative to hydrogen for the $`P`$ inventory. The $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_P(\mathrm{E})`$ values in Table 1 are directly obtained from observational data on Galactic halo stars with \[Fe/H\] $`3`$ and correspond to those given in Qian & Wasserburg (2002). The only element for which there may be a serious uncertainty is O. The $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_P(\mathrm{O})`$ value assumed here is based on observations of HD 115444 and HD 122563 (Westin et al. 2000). Other extensive studies (e.g., Israelian, García López, & Rebolo 1998; Boesgaard et al. 1999) indicate that $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_P(\mathrm{O})`$ may be up to $`0.3`$ dex higher than the value given in Table 1. The precise value of $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_P(\mathrm{O})`$ is an important issue that remains to be resolved.

We consider that essentially all of the baryonic matter was ionized and dispersed in the IGM when VMS activities ceased and that the chemical composition of this baryonic matter was represented by the $`P`$ inventory. The mechanism for maintaining the ionized state of the IGM will not be discussed here. We assume that subsequent to the acquisition of the $`P`$ inventory, the bulk of the baryonic matter remains dispersed in the form of Ly$`\alpha `$ systems. We further assume that these systems have experienced no further evolution in elemental abundances and that they represent regions of enhanced density comoving with the expansion of the universe. Under these assumptions, the number ratio of an element E relative to H in the Ly$`\alpha `$ systems is the same as that for the $`P`$ inventory and can be written as

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{H}}\right)_P=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})/m_\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{H})/m_\mathrm{H}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})/A_\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{H})},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{H})`$ are the fractions of the critical mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{cri}}=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)`$ contributed by E and H, respectively, at the present epoch, $`m_\mathrm{E}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ are the atomic masses of E and H, respectively, and $`A_\mathrm{E}=m_\mathrm{E}/m_\mathrm{H}`$ is the atomic mass number of E relative to hydrogen. The symbols $`H_0`$ and $`G`$ in the expression of $`\rho _{\mathrm{cri}}`$ are the Hubble and gravitational constants, respectively. The baryonic contribution to $`\rho _{\mathrm{cri}}`$ is found to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.02h^2`$ based on measurements of deuterium abundances in QSO absorption systems (e.g., Burles, Nollett, & Turner 2001) and the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (e.g., de Bernardis et al. 2002), where $`h`$ is $`H_0`$ in units of 100 km s-1 Mpc-1. This gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{H})X_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.0152h^2`$, where $`X_\mathrm{H}0.76`$ is the mass fraction of H. Combining equations (1) and (2), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{H})A_\mathrm{E}\times 10^{\mathrm{log}ϵ_P(\mathrm{E})12}1.52h^2A_\mathrm{E}\times 10^{\mathrm{log}ϵ_P(\mathrm{E})14}.$$
(3)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$ does not explicitly depend on cosmological models except for the numerical values of $`H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$. The values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$ calculated from the $`P`$ inventory are given in Table 1 for $`h=0.65`$. At present, data are available only for several elements such as C, O, and Si in Ly$`\alpha `$ systems.

## 3 Comparison with Observational Data

Absorption lines produced by ions such as C IV, O VI, and Si IV in regions of enhanced density such as the Ly$`\alpha `$ systems have been measured in the spectra of QSOs that illuminate such regions. The column density of the ions of an element E, Eion, in a redshift interval $`z_{}<z<z_+`$ is

$$N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})=c_z_{}^{z_+}\frac{n(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}},z)}{(1+z)H(z)}𝑑z,$$
(4)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`n(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}},z)`$ is the number density of Eion at redshift $`z`$, and $`H(z)`$ is the Hubble parameter at $`z`$. Under the assumptions that the bulk of the baryonic matter resides in Ly$`\alpha `$ systems and that these systems experience no evolution other than comoving with the expansion of the universe, we obtain

$$N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})=\frac{cn_0(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})}{H_0}_z_{}^{z_+}\frac{(1+z)^2}{H(z)/H_0}𝑑z,$$
(5)
where $`n_0(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})=n(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}},z)/(1+z)^3`$ is the number density of Eion at the present epoch. By defining (Bahcall & Peebles 1969)

$$X(z)_0^z\frac{(1+z^{})^2}{H(z^{})/H_0}𝑑z^{}$$
(6)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }XX(z_+)X(z_{})`$, equation (5) can be rewritten as

$$N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})=\frac{cn_0(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})}{H_0}\mathrm{\Delta }X.$$
(7)
If absorption lines due to Eion have been measured for a statistical sample of Ly$`\alpha `$ systems at different redshift along the lines of sight for a number of QSOs, the terms $`N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ in equation (7) are replaced by the sums $`N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ over the sampled region. It follows that the fraction of $`\rho _{\mathrm{cri}}`$ contributed by Eion at the present epoch, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})=n_0(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})m_\mathrm{E}/\rho _{\mathrm{cri}}`$, is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})=\frac{H_0}{c\rho _{\mathrm{cri}}}\frac{N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})}{\mathrm{\Delta }X}m_\mathrm{E}=9.55\times 10^{24}h^1A_\mathrm{E}\frac{N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})}{\mathrm{\Delta }X},$$
(8)
where the last equality is obtained for $`N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ in units of cm-2. If the model of the $`P`$ inventory is correct, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ obtained from equation (8) is related to that of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$ from equation (3) through the ionization fraction $`f(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})/\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$.

The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ through $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ requires a specific cosmological model. This is distinct from the more direct calculation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$. The choice of a particular model makes little difference for $`z1`$, as all models give $`\mathrm{\Delta }Xz_+z_{}`$ in this limit. For simplicity in considering the data on Ly$`\alpha `$ systems with a wide range in $`z`$, we adopt a flat cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the fractions of $`\rho _{\mathrm{cri}}`$ contributed by matter (baryonic and nonbaryonic) and the cosmological constant, respectively, at the present epoch. With this model, $`[H(z)/H_0]^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the expression of $`X(z)`$ from equation (6) is

$$X(z)=\frac{2}{3\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\left[\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+1\mathrm{\Omega }_m}1\right],$$
(9)
which gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }Xz_+z_{}`$ for $`z1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }X\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{1/2}\left[(1+z_+)^{3/2}(1+z_{})^{3/2}\right]`$ for $`1+z[(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)/\mathrm{\Omega }_m]^{1/3}`$.

A comparison of the observed values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ with the values corresponding to the $`P`$ inventory requires that the same cosmological model and parameters be used. The data on Ly$`\alpha `$ systems with a wide range in $`z`$ as reported in the literature were based on somewhat different cosmological models and parameters. We have recalculated $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ from the published data so that the recalculated results correspond to the flat cosmological model adopted here with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, and $`h=0.65`$. The data on C IV and Si IV are taken from Songaila (2001) and those on O VI from Burles & Tytler (1996), Tripp, Savage, & Jenkins (2000), Savage et al. (2002), and Simcoe, Sargent, & Rauch (2002; no recalculation necessary). The recalculated $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ values are given in Table 2. Ideally, the fraction $`f(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ of the element E that is ionized to the particular state observed can be calculated for the Ly$`\alpha `$ systems from which $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ is obtained. A comparison can then be made of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})/f(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$ calculated from the $`P`$ inventory. As values of $`f(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ are not always well known, we have tabulated the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})/\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$ for C IV, O VI, and Si IV in Table 2. This ratio should correspond to $`f(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ if the model of the $`P`$ inventory is valid. The values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})/\mathrm{\Omega }_P(\mathrm{E})`$ in Table 2 are in reasonable agreement with $`f(\text{C IV})0.5`$, $`f(\text{O VI})0.2`$, and $`f(\text{Si IV})0.1`$ as estimated from various ionization models for Ly$`\alpha `$ systems.

For all the data sets used in the above comparison, there may be significant uncertainties in estimates of both $`N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ due to sampling problems. The mechanisms of ionization are also not well understood. Considering the very different and complex data sets used and the extreme simplicity of our model for the $`P`$ inventory, we conclude that there is remarkable agreement between the observations and the predictions for the abundances in the IGM. We note that the apparently high values of (O/H)/(O/H) and (C/H)/(C/H) reported by Burles & Tytler (1996) are off due to the omission of a factor $`1/A_\mathrm{E}`$ in their equation for $`\zeta (z)`$ (Tytler 2002, personal communication). We also note that the values of \[O/H\] used by Tripp et al. (2000) and Savage et al. (2002) in estimating the lower bounds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ may not be appropriate in view of the results presented here. We consider that a more detailed comparison of the model for the $`P`$ inventory and the observations must await the availability of more complete data sets with appropriate estimates of errors including those in the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$. It would be most useful to theoretical studies of Ly$`\alpha `$ systems if observational reports included explicit statements on the value of $`N(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ and on the detailed redshift intervals for calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ with corrections for the obscured part of the redshift path. We note that compared with the flat cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ as adopted here, a flat model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ (i.e., with the deceleration parameter $`q_0=0.5`$) gives smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ values, and hence larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ion}})`$ values, by a factor of 1.83 at high $`z`$. It is possible that the model for the $`P`$ inventory may be of use in evaluating various cosmological models if the ionization mechanism for Ly$`\alpha `$ systems is better understood.

## 4 Discussion

The results in Table 2 strongly support our assumptions that subsequent to the acquisition of the $`P`$ inventory, the bulk of baryonic matter remains dispersed in the form of Ly$`\alpha `$ systems and that these systems have experienced little or no chemical evolution but are simply comoving with the expansion of the universe. It is striking to note that these assumptions hold from $`z2.5`$ down to $`0.09`$ based on the O VI data and from $`z4.6`$ down to $`2`$ based on the C IV and Si IV data. We conclude that the bulk of ionized baryonic matter in the IGM has not been greatly diminished from the epoch of reionization until the present epoch.

We have argued that VMSs are responsible for the $`P`$ inventory and reionization of the IGM. An important issue is the timescale over which this is achieved. From the range in $`z`$ where the model appears to describe the abundances observed in Ly$`\alpha `$ systems, we infer that the IGM had already acquired the $`P`$ inventory before $`z4.6`$. This is consistent with the following considerations of the cosmological epoch during which VMSs could disperse processed baryonic matter to the general IGM. The explosion energies of VMSs are $`10^{52}`$$`10^{53}`$ erg as estimated from the available models of Heger & Woosley (2002). Based on the cold dark matter model of structure formation, dark matter halos corresponding to $`1\sigma `$ fluctuations and collapsing at $`z4`$ or those corresponding to $`2\sigma `$ fluctuations and collapsing at $`z10`$ provide binding energies of $`10^{52}`$$`10^{53}`$ erg for the baryonic matter in their potential wells (see Figure 9 in Barkana & Loeb 2001). Thus, VMS explosions could readily unbind baryonic matter that was not in stars from most dark matter halos formed at $`z>4`$. We conclude that VMSs dominate both the elemental production and the dispersal of processed baryonic matter at $`z>4`$. Compared with the nearly constant values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\text{C IV})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\text{Si IV})`$ at $`z2`$–4.6, the apparent decrease in these two quantities from $`z4.6`$ to $`5.3`$ (see Table 2 here or Table 1 in Songaila 2001) may be a hint for cessation of VMS activities at $`z4.6`$ although this decrease may also be due to the incompleteness of the sample of Ly$`\alpha `$ systems in the highest redshift interval. Songaila and Cowie (2002) have reported a damped Ly$`\alpha `$ system with \[Fe/H\] $`2.7`$ and $`z=5.3`$. This indicates that VMS activities may have ceased as early as $`z5.3`$. In any case, the bulk of baryonic matter should have been enriched with the $`P`$ inventory, ionized, and dispersed in the IGM when the epoch of VMS activities ended. The subsequent reaggregation of baryonic matter into galaxies appears to be very inefficient as demonstrated by the prevalence of the $`P`$ inventory in Ly$`\alpha `$ systems with $`z0.09`$–4.6. When galaxies do form, it appears that the times of formation vary greatly, as argued by Wasserburg & Qian (2000b) based on the large scatter in \[Fe/H\] for damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems at a given redshift in the range of $`z1.5`$–4.5. The precise epoch of VMS activities and its influence on structure formation at later times are important issues that remain to be addressed.

We would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of Fritz Zwicky. We thank Antoinette Songaila, Todd Tripp, and David Tytler for generously answering many questions and for guiding us through their data. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under grants DE-FG02-87ER40328 and DE-FG02-00ER41149, and by NASA under grant NAG5-10293, Caltech Division Contribution 8780(1091).