text:
# Spectroscopic Deprojection-Analysis of Chandra Data of the Galaxy Cluster 3C 129

## 1 Introduction

While observations with the ROSAT and ASCA X-ray telescopes revealed non-homogeneous temperature of the ICM for a number of clusters (see e.g. Honda et al. 1996), the large scale radial temperature structure remained uncertain due to ROSAT’s limited spectral resolution and coverage, and ASCA’s non-negligible energy dependent point spread function. Based on ASCA observations of 30 galaxy clusters, Markevitch et al. (1998) found evidence for a general temperature decline with distance from cluster center. However, independent ASCA studies of the same and other galaxy clusters did not confirm this result (e.g., White 2000, Kikuchi et al. 1999). The new X-ray observatories Chandra and XMM-Newton with broad energy coverage of 0.3-10 keV (Chandra) and 0.1-15 keV (XMM-Newton) and angular resolutions of 0.5 arcsec (Chandra) and 15 arcsec (XMM-Newton) make it now possible to assess spatially resolved ICM X-ray energy spectra with sufficiently broad energy coverage and excellent angular resolutions. First observations of temperature or metallicity variations have already been reported for a number of clusters, e.g. Coma (Arnaud et al. 2000), A 2142 (Markevitch et al. 2000), Hydra A (McNamara et al. 2000), A 1795 (Tamura et al. 2001), Sérsic 159-03 (Kaastra et al. 2001), and Abell 1835 (Schmidt et al. 2001). On theoretical grounds one expects that the formation of clusters gives rise to substantial temperature, entropy, and metallicity gradients. The interplay of gravitational collapse and heating by accretion shocks produces characteristic radial temperature and entropy profiles (e.g. Evrard 1990). Depending on when the ICM is enriched with metals, also radial metallicity gradients could be observed Metzler & Evrard  (1994). Furthermore, merger of major cluster components produce pronounced ICM non-uniformities, and hydro/N-body simulations predict that the gradients could be observed several $`10^9`$ years after the onset of the merger event Roettiger et al.  (1996). The decay of these non-uniformities might be reduced by magnetic fields which organize the ICM into a filamentary structure and thereby substantially reduce the ICM’s heat conductivity and particle diffusion (Eilek 1999, but see also Narayan & Medvedev 2001).

In this letter we describe Chandra observations of the nearby rich cluster of galaxies 3C 129. Due to its low galactic latitude ($`l`$=160.5, $`b`$=0.3) the cluster has not been studied intensively at optical wavelengths. Based on ROSAT, Einstein, and EXOSAT data, Leahy & Yin (2000) estimated a total 0.2-10 keV luminosity of 2.7$`\times 10^{44}`$ ergs s-1, a total ICM gas mass of 3.6$`\times 10^{13}`$ M, and a total cluster mass of $``$5$`\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{14}`$ M. The cluster harbors two radio galaxies: the prototypical head-tail galaxy 3C 129, and the weaker FR I source 3C 129.1. The main emphasis of the Chandra observation had been a study of the pressure balance between the ICM and the radio plasma and this study will be presented elsewhere.

In this letter we present a “spectroscopic deprojection-analysis” of the Chandra data. The deprojection-approach has been the standard-technique to convert observed X-ray surface brightness profiles into temperature and particle density profiles (see Fabian 1994, and references therein). Lacking spatially resolved X-ray energy spectra, these studies used several assumptions, namely that the ICM had a certain geometry, that the ICM was in hydrostatic equilibrium, and that the dark matter gravitational potential could be described by a certain shape and depth, together with an ICM temperature and metal abundance estimate derived from a non-imaging X-ray observation. The spatially resolved energy spectra from the Chandra and XMM-Newton observatories now make it possible to directly derive the radial temperature, particle density and metallicity profiles based only on assumptions about the ICM geometry. A similar analysis has independently been developed by Allen et al. (2001).

The rest of this letter is organized as follows. After describing the data set in Sect. 2 and the spectroscopic deprojection-method in Sect. 3, we will present the results of the observations in Sect. 4, and discuss their implications in Sect. 5. In the following we use $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0.5`$; the cluster is thus a distance of 100 Mpc and 1 arcmin corresponds to 28.7 kpc.

## 2 Data Set and Data Preparation

We use two 3C 129 pointings, one 30 ksec pointing with the ACIS S CCDs taken on December 9th, 2000, and one 10 ksec pointing with the ACIS I CCDs taken on January 9th, 2001. We detect X-ray emission near the radio cores of the radio galaxies 3C 129 and 3C 129.1 and exclude the corresponding sky regions, as well as an additional point source in the south-east of the cluster center from the following analysis. The radio galaxy 3C 129 has a 15 arcmin long tail which covers a substantial fraction of the field of view of the first observation at radial distances from 10 arcmin to 25 arcmin from the cluster center. We exclude the corresponding sky region from the analysis.

The analysis is performed with the `CIAO 2.1` software. We divide the 8.4’$`\times `$8.4’ solid angle regions of the sky covered by each ACIS chip in 4$`\times `$4 “analysis regions” of each 126”$`\times `$126” (256$`\times `$256 pixels) solid angle coverage. This choice is a compromise between keeping the analysis feasible and using detector response functions which are as local as possible. We construct background data sets with the tool `make_acisbg` using the blank field background data sets of M. Markevitch. Only events in the energy range from 1.2 keV to 7.5 keV are used. We use a rather high lower threshold to minimize the influence of uncertainties in the detector response and in the contribution of the diffuse galactic X-ray emission. Above 7.5 keV the signal to noise ratio is poor. Application of the same requirements on the background rate as used for the production of the background data sets, reduces the exposure time of the first and second pointing to 19.5 ksec and 9.3 ksec, respectively. We use the tools `calcarf` and `calcrmf` of A. Vikhlinin to compute for each analysis region an Auxiliary Response File (ARF) and a Response Matrix File (RMF) averaged over the corresponding detector area. The analysis uses the ACIS S chips S2-S4, and the ACIS I chips I0-I4. Figure 1 shows the binned ACIS I picture together with the ACIS S and ACIS I fields of view, the analysis regions, and the location of the two radio sources.

## 3 Spectroscopic Deprojection Analysis

The iso-brightness contours of 3C 129 show a slightly elliptical shape with the major axis along the east-west direction. Using the Chandra data together with the Einstein IPC contour map of Leahy & Yin  (2000), we define 4 ellipses with different centers and elasticities to parameterize the ICM surface brightness distribution at different distances from the cluster center (see Fig. 1). Assuming rotational symmetry around the major axis of each ellipse and using an interpolation scheme we define 11 approximately ellipsoidal ICM shells. For each shell $`s`$ ($`s=`$1, 2, …, 11) we compute the volumes $`V(s,r)`$ along the line of sight of the 128 $`\times `$ 128 pixel analysis regions $`r`$ ($`r=`$1, 2, …, 95) by simple numerical integration. For each shell we define one Raymond-Smith plasma model described by one set of parameters temperature, $`T(s)`$, particle density, $`N(s)`$, and metal abundances, $`A(s)`$. The algorithm works from shell to shell inwards, fitting the plasma parameters of the shell under consideration and using for the outer shells the best fit parameters determined before. The expression minimized by the fit algorithm for shell $`s`$ (counting from the cluster center outwards) reads:

$$\chi ^2(T(s),N(s),A(s);s))=\text{ }$$

$$\underset{r^{}s}{}\underset{I^{}}{}(C(r^{},I^{})\frac{c(r^{})}{4\pi D_L^2}\underset{s^{}=s}{\overset{11}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}V(s^{},r^{})\times \text{}$$

$$\kappa (N_\mathrm{H}(r^{});E^{})j_{\mathrm{RS}}(T(s^{}),N(s^{}),A(s^{});E^{})\times $$

$$D_\mathrm{r}^{}(I^{},E^{})dE^{}\text{})^2$$
(1)
The first sum of the right term runs over the regions $`r^{}`$ which have their centers within the shell $`s`$ under consideration; the second sum runs over the energy bins $`I^{}`$ of each energy spectrum; in the third sum $`s^{}`$ runs over the shell under consideration $`s`$ and all outer shells. $`C(r^{},I^{})`$ is the number of counts found in energy bin $`I^{}`$ of region $`r^{}`$. The constants $`c(r^{})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ allow for a slight deviation of the emissivity from the value expected from the assumed ellipsoidal geometry. We adjust these constants after fitting the flux normalization of a shell. The value $`D_\mathrm{L}`$ denotes the luminosity distance and $`\kappa `$ and $`j_{\mathrm{RM}}`$ describe the photo-electric absorption and the emissivity of the Raymond-Smith plasma as function of photon energy $`E^{}`$, respectively. Finally, $`D_\mathrm{r}^{}(I^{},E^{})`$ is the detector response matrix which gives the detection area times the probability with which an X-ray photon of energy $`E^{}`$ will be reconstructed within the energy bin $`I^{}`$ (averaged over the detector coordinates of region $`r^{}`$). Due to the location of the cluster near the galactic plane we anticipated substantial variation of the neutral hydrogen column density across the field of view. We therefore performed radio observations with the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory to obtain $`N_\mathrm{H}`$-values with arcminute resolution (principal investigator: T. Willis). Although the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$-values change by 25% over the 1.25$`\times `$2.5 field of view, the Chandra observations lie in a region of rather constant values of between 0.84$`\times `$$`10^{22}`$ cm-2 and 0.9$`\times `$$`10^{22}`$ cm-2. We use in the following the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$-values from the radio observations. Independent determination of the mean $`N_\mathrm{H}`$-value from Chandra data gives consistent results. Note that our inferred hydrogen column densities deviate from those inferred by Leahy et al. (2000) ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = (0.57$`\pm `$0.03)$`\times `$$`10^{22}`$ cm-2) from fitting the combined ROSAT and EXOSAT data with a one-temperature Raymond-Smith model. For each shell $`s`$ we quote as radial distance $`R_s`$ the mean distances of all analysis regions contributing to the plasma fit of this shell. We define the distance of a point from the cluster center as the half-diameter of the major axis of the associated ellipse.

Technically the deprojection-analysis is performed with the `CIAO`-tool `sherpa` running on a single script which contains all the information about the geometry of the shells and analysis regions. All errors are quoted on 90% confidence level. We estimate the increase of the statistical error on the parameters of the inner shells due to the statistical uncertainty of the fit-parameters of the outer shells with a simple Monte Carlo simulation and accordingly scale the errors on the fit-parameters. The uncertainty of the background normalization is estimated to be 10% Vikhlinin et al. (2001). Determining the associated error in the parameters by repeating the full deprojection analysis with a background scaled up and down by 10%, we add these errors in quadrature to the statistical ones. The results of the outermost ICM shell depend on the assumed shell thickness. Since this is an inherent limitation of the deprojection method we do not show the fit results of the 11th ICM shell in the following. The fits give satisfactory $`\chi ^2`$-values for 95 out of the 104 analysis regions. For 9 regions large $`\chi ^2`$-values indicate a deviation of the plasma properties from the ellipsoidal shell or contamination by a field source, and we exclude these regions from the overall fit.

## 4 Results

The Chandra image shows statistically significant evidence for X-ray emission out to 19 arcmin from the cluster core. We do not find evidence for abrupt changes in the ICM surface brightness, so we have no direct evidence for shocks or contact discontinuities.

Figure 2 shows the results of the deprojection analysis. Averaged over all shells, the mean cluster temperature is 5.1$`\pm `$0.3 keV. We have weak evidence for a hotter cluster core with $`k_\mathrm{B}T=`$ 7.9$`{}_{2.4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+4.4}`$ keV at $`R_1=`$ 1.4 arcmin and a temperature decrease at the outermost 10th shell with $`k_\mathrm{B}T=`$ 3.5$`{}_{0.9}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.2}`$ keV $`R_{10}=`$ 18.1 arcmin ($`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is the Boltzmann constant). Various estimates show that the low temperature of the outermost shell might be an artifact due to the soft diffuse galactic X-ray emission which begins to substantially contaminate the cluster emission at these distances from the cluster center. The dotted line of Fig. 2(a) shows the projected temperatures determined by fits of one component Raymond-Smith models. Naturally, the deprojected temperature varies more than the projected temperature which averages over several ICM shells.

The particle density (Fig. 2(b)) decreases monotonically from 3.1$`\times 10^3`$ cm-2 at the cluster center to 3.9$`\times 10^4`$ cm-3 at the cluster periphery. The errors on the metal abundances of individual ICM shells are rather large (typically about 0.4 solar abundances) and we do not show them here. The mean value averaged over all shells is 0.2$`\pm 0.1`$ solar abundance. The thermal gas pressure, defined as $`p`$= $`Nk_\mathrm{B}T`$ is shown in Fig. 2(c). The entropy per particle relative to the mean value of all shells $`s_0`$ is shown in Fig. 2(d) and has been computed from $`s=`$ $`\frac{3}{2}`$ $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(T\rho ^{2/3})`$ \- $`s_0`$ with $`\rho `$ $`0.6`$ $`m_\mathrm{P}`$ $`N`$ and $`m_\mathrm{P}`$ the proton mass. The entropy profile will be discussed in more detail in the next section. Finally, the radiative cooling times are shown in Fig. 2(e). The cooling times have been computed according to $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}=`$ $`\frac{3}{2}`$ $`N`$ $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ $`T`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(N,T))^1`$ with the cooling function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which denotes the plasma emissivity including thermal bremsstrahlung and line emission processes Sutherland & Dopita  (1993). All radiative cooling times exceed the Hubble time, the shortest cooling time being 30$`{}_{9}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+20}`$ Gyr.

## 5 Discussion

Based on a deprojection analysis of ROSAT surface brightness data Leahy & Yin (2000) inferred a cluster temperature decreasing from $``$6 keV at the cluster periphery (at $``$20 arcmin from the cluster core) to about $``$3 keV at the cluster center. The Chandra imaging spectroscopy data however, does not confirm this temperature decrease. On the contrary, both, the projected and deprojected temperature profiles indicate a hot cluster core. The discrepancy might be explained by one or more of the numerous assumptions entering the deprojection of surface brightness images mentioned in the introduction, as e.g. a true dark matter core radius substantially deviating from the assumed one.

A hot cluster core might be the result of shock heating. This possibility can be studied with the entropy per particle which is able to distinguish between ICM heating by adiabatic compression or by shocks. By definition, adiabatic compression does not increase the ICM entropy, while shock heating, converting the energy of bulk plasma motion into heat, does increase it. A possible interpretation of the entropy profile is based on the dashed line in Fig. 2(d) which shows a fit to the entropy of the second to tenth shell and suggests that the entropy increases with distance from the cluster center. Indeed, in the framework of hierarchical clustering scenarios one expects that cluster formation through mass accretion produces a radially increasing ICM entropy as consequence of the growing strength of the cluster accretion shock as the total virialized cluster mass accumulates (see e.g. Tozzi et al. 2001, and references therein). The large entropy of the cluster core might be the result of shock heating by a jet or wind from the central radio galaxy 3C 129.1. The required power is modest: $`10^{43}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(k_\mathrm{B}T)}{5\mathrm{keV}}`$ $`\frac{t_{3\mathrm{C}129.1}}{100\mathrm{Myr}}`$ ergs s-1 where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_\mathrm{B}T)`$ is the temperature increase at the cluster center and $`t_{3\mathrm{C}129.1}`$ denotes the lifetime of the source. However, at the cluster center we do not find structure in the ICM surface brightness in direct support of this hypothesis.

The analysis presented here is plagued by large statistical and systematic errors. The first stem from the modest integration time and the low surface brightness of 3C 129. The latter mainly results from the asymmetric shape of the ICM and possible contribution of the diffuse galactic X-ray emission at larger cluster core distances. For brighter, more symmetric clusters the spectroscopic deprojection technique opens the possibility to determine the shape of the dark matter potential. The only uncertainties of such an analysis derive from the uncertain ICM geometry and from undetected ICM pressure components as kinetic pressure, magnetic field pressure and Cosmic Ray pressure.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank H. Völk and D. Harris for fruitful discussions on X-ray emission from galaxy cluster and AGN jets. W.M. Lane kindly provided the 330 MHz VLA map shown in Fig. 1, and T. Willis the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$-data used for the deprojection analysis. Very helpful comments by an anonymous referee are gratefully acknowledged. This research has been supported by the NASA (NAS8-39073 and GO 0-1169X).


format: text

text:
# Doubly Special Relativity theories as different bases of 𝜅–Poincaré algebra

## 1 Introduction

About a year ago, in two seminal papers ,  (see also ) G. Amelino–Camelia proposed a theory with two observer-independent kinematical scales: of velocity $`c`$ and of mass $`\kappa `$111In his papers Amelino–Camelia uses the scale of length $`\lambda `$ instead of the scale of mass $`\kappa `$, however since the construction presented there describes the energy–momentum sector of the theory, it seems more natural to use the scale of mass. It should be also noted that it was the scale of mass (more precisely of momentum, $`\kappa c`$), and not of length, that has been shown explicitly to be observer-independent.. There are two major motivations for such extension of special relativity. The first stems from the quest for quantum gravity in which the Planck length is supposed to play a fundamental role. For example, in loop quantum gravity the area and volume operators have discrete spectra, with minimal value proportional to the square and cube of Planck length, respectively . The basic observation is that if one regards the Planck length as a fundamental, intrinsic characteristic of the space–time structure, this length should be the same for all observers and thus one immediately finds himself in conflict with FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction. The only solution of this problem is to modify the principles of special relativity so as to incorporate the existence of this second observer-independent scale. It was indicated ,  that a possible candidate for such a theory might be a theory based on deformed Poincaré symmetry, for example the $`\kappa `$–Poincaré theory . This claim was then proved to be correct: it has been explicitly shown in the papers ,  that the $`\kappa `$–Poincaré theory in the so-called bicrossproduct basis indeed predicts the existence of an observer-independent maximal mass. The second motivation comes from some puzzling observations of ultra-high energy cosmic rays, whose existence seems to contradict the standard understanding of astrophysical process like $`e^+`$$`e^{}`$ production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions and the photopion production in the scattering of high energy protons with soft photons. It turns out that both these effects can be explained if one assumes that the threshold condition becomes deformed, possibly as a result of existence of a new fundamental length (or mass) scale (see  and references therein). It is exciting to note that it is likely that this purely quantum gravitational effect will be a subject of numerous experimental tests in the near future.

Most of the works on the relativity theory with two observed independent kinematical scales, dubbed “Doubly Special Relativity” (DSR), has been done in the framework of (or strongly motivated by) algebraic construction based on the quantum (Hopf) $`\kappa `$–Poincaré algebra, being a deformation of the standard Poincaré algebra of special relativity. Recently however Magueijo and Smolin  have proposed a seemingly completely different DSR. The relation between these two theories was thoroughly analyzed in . The existence of two DSR’s raises an obvious question how many theories of this kind may exist. In this paper we show that from the quantum algebraic point of view both above mentioned DSR theories are in fact completely equivalent, and might be considered as representations of the same $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra in different bases. Moreover, one can easily construct different yet representations of this algebra, each of whose would correspond to a different DSR theory. Therefore, in what follows we would use the notion of different basis instead of different DSR.

The plan of this paper is the following. In the next section we present three bases of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra: the bicrossproduct one, lying behind the first DSR construction, the Magueijo–Smolin one, and the classical one, whose algebraic sectors is identical with the standard Poincaré algebra, and we derive the transformations relating them. In section 3 we make use of the co-algebraic sector of these bases to derive the space-time non-commutative structure and to extend it to the whole of the phase space. Section 4 is devoted to physical interpretation of a picture resulting from mathematical constructions presented in sections 2 and 3.

## 2 Lorentz algebra and energy–momentum sector

One of the main assumption in construction of DSR is that Lorentz subalgebra of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra is not to be deformed. This assumption is motivated by the fact that one wants to work with Lorentz structure that integrates to a group, and not to a quasigroup. It restricts the possible choices of bases severely (note that this postulate is not satisfied by the so-called standard basis of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra .) We therefore assume that the three rotation generators $`M_i`$ and three boost generators $`N_i`$ satisfy

$$[M_i,M_j]=iϵ_{ijk}M_k,[M_i,N_j]=iϵ_{ijk}N_k,[N_i,N_j]=iϵ_{ijk}M_k.$$
(1)
One also assumes that the action of rotations is not deformed and that generators of momenta commute. Taking these postulates as a starting point, we can define the (deformed) action of the Lorentz algebra on energy–momentum sector. Our starting point would be the bicrossproduct basis in which the resulting algebra is a quantum algebra, i.e., in addition to the algebra of commutators (which is usually non-linear) it possess additional structures: co-product $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and antipode $`S`$. However one should remember that quantum algebra structure is built on an enveloping algebra, which means that one is entitled to make any transformations among generators (and not only the linear one as in the case of Lie algebras.) This leaves, of course, a lot of freedom in the choice of energy and momentum generators.

### 2.1 The bicrossproduct basis

Since, as said above the action of rotations is standard it is sufficient to write down only the commutators of deformed boost generators with momenta. One gets

$$[N_i,p_j]=i\delta _{ij}(\frac{\kappa }{2}(1e^{2p_0/\kappa })+\frac{1}{2\kappa }\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2})i\frac{1}{\kappa }p_ip_j,$$
(2)
and

$$[N_i,p_0]=ip_i.$$
(3)
One can easily check that the first Casimir operator of the algebra (1) – (3) reads222It turns out that this form of the Casimir, which was used in all the papers devoted to $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra and its application is not physical, see section 4 for detailed discussion.

$$m^2=\left(2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{p_0}{2\kappa }\right)\right)^2\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{p_0/\kappa }.$$
(4)
It follows that for positive $`\kappa `$ the three-momentum is bounded from above $`\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2}\kappa ^2`$ and the maximal value of momentum corresponds to infinite energy , .

The quantum algebra (Hopf) structure in this basis is provided by the following co-products

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(M_i)=M_i1\mathrm{l}+1\mathrm{l}M_i,`$ (5)
(6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(N_i)=N_i1\mathrm{l}+e^{p_0/\kappa }N_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}ϵ_{ijk}p_jM_k,`$ (7)
(8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_i)=p_i1\mathrm{l}+e^{p_0/\kappa }p_i,`$ (9)
(10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)=p_01\mathrm{l}+1\mathrm{l}p_0,`$ (11)
and the antipodes

$`S(M_i)=M_i,`$ (12)
(13)
$`S(N_i)=e^{p_0/\kappa }N_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}ϵ_{ijk}e^{p_0/\kappa }p_jM_k,`$ (14)
(15)
$`S(p_0)=P_0,`$ (16)
(17)
$`S(P_i)=e^{p_0/\kappa }P_i.`$ (18)
Taking these formulas as a starting point, we can now turn to analysis of another bases.

### 2.2 Magueijo–Smolin basis

In the recent paper  Magueijo and Smolin proposed another DSR theory, whose boost generators were constructed as a linear combination of the standard Lorentz generators and the generator of dilatation (but in such a way that the algebra (2) holds.) In this basis the commutators of four-momenta $`P_\mu `$ and boosts have the following form

$$[N_i,P_j]=i\left(\delta _{ij}P_0\frac{1}{\kappa }P_iP_j\right),$$
(19)
and

$$[N_i,P_0]=i\left(1\frac{P_0}{\kappa }\right)P_i.$$
(20)
It is easy to check that the Casimir for this algebra has the form

$$M^2=\frac{P_0^2\stackrel{}{P}^2}{\left(1\frac{P_0}{\kappa }\right)^2}.$$
(21)
The question arises as to if this basis is equivalent to the bicrossproduct basis above. The answer is affirmative, indeed one easily checks that the relation between variables $`P_\mu `$ and $`p_\mu `$ is given by

$$p_i=P_i$$
(22)
$$p_0=\frac{\kappa }{2}\mathrm{log}\left(1\frac{2P_0}{\kappa }+\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{\kappa ^2}\right),P_0=\frac{\kappa }{2}\left(1e^{2p_0/\kappa }+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{\kappa ^2}\right).$$
(23)
Let us note by passing that the formula above shows that the maximal momentum in the bicrossproduct basis ($`\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2}=\kappa ^2`$, $`p_0=\mathrm{}`$) corresponds to the maximal energy in the Magueijo–Smolin basis, $`P_0=\kappa `$.

Using formulas above one can without difficulty promote this algebra to the quantum algebra. This amounts only in using the homomorphisms (22), (23) to define the new co-products and antipodes. They read

$$\mathrm{}(P_i)=P_i1+\left(1\frac{2P_0}{\kappa }+\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)^{1/2}P_i$$
(24)
$$\mathrm{}(P_0)=P_01+1P_0\frac{2}{\kappa }P_0P_0+\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\stackrel{}{P}^2P_0+$$

$$+\frac{1}{\kappa }\left(1\frac{2P_0}{\kappa }+\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)^{1/2}P_iP_i$$
(25)
$$S(P_0)=\left(1\frac{2P_0}{\kappa }+\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)^1\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{2\kappa }\frac{\kappa }{2}\right)+\frac{\kappa }{2}$$
(26)
$$S(P_i)=P_i\left(1\frac{2P_0}{\kappa }+\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)^{1/2}$$
(27)
### 2.3 The classical basis

There is yet another basis which we will present here for comparison (this basis was first described in , , , .) In this basis, which we call the classical one, the boosts–momenta commutators together with the Lorentz sector form the classical Poincaré algebra, to wit

$$[N_i,𝒫_j]=i\delta _{ij}𝒫_0,[N_i,𝒫_0]=i𝒫_i.$$
(28)
The Casimir for this basis equals, of course the one of special relativity, to wit

$$^2=𝒫_0^2\stackrel{}{𝒫}^2$$
(29)
The classical generators $`𝒫_\mu `$ are related to the bicrossproduct basis generators by the formulas

$$𝒫_0=\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\frac{p_0}{\kappa }+e^{p_0/\kappa }\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2\kappa },$$
(30)
$$𝒫_i=e^{p_0/\kappa }p_i$$
(31)
and one can easily compute the expression for co-product

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒫_0)=\frac{\kappa }{2}\left(KKK^1K^1\right)+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2\kappa }(K^1\stackrel{}{𝒫}{}_{}{}^{2}K+2K^1𝒫_i𝒫_i+K^1K^1\stackrel{}{𝒫}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(32)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒫_i)=𝒫_iK+1\mathrm{l}𝒫_i$$
(33)
where

$$K=e^{p_0/\kappa }=\frac{1}{\kappa }[𝒫_0+(𝒫_0^2\stackrel{}{𝒫}{}_{}{}^{2}+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}],$$

and the antipode

$$S(𝒫_0)=𝒫_0+\frac{1}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{𝒫}{}_{}{}^{2}K_{}^{1}$$
(34)
$$S(𝒫_i)=𝒫_iK^1$$
(35)
## 3 The space-time non-commutativity

In the preceding section we investigated the energy–momentum algebras. Now it is time to explain the relevance of the co-product (quantum) structure of these algebras. Briefly, this structure makes it possible to extend an energy-momentum algebra to the whole of a phase space, i.e., the space describing both energy-momentum and space-time sectors in self consistent way. One should stress that this is the only way to interconnect the space-time and energy-momentum sectors in a systematic way. It turns out that the co-algebra of the energy-momentum sector is in one to one correspondence with algebraic sector of space-time algebra and vice versa. Observe that in order to construct such a correspondence we need one more dimensionful parameter, which we identify with the Planck constant (in the following we will use the convention in which $`\mathrm{}=1`$.) We will comment on this point in the next section.

There is a general procedure how to construct the space-time commutator algebra from energy-momentum co-algebra, which consists of the following steps , :

1. One defines the bracket $`<,>`$ between momentum variables $`p,q`$ and position variables $`x,y`$ in a natural way as follows

$$<p_\mu ,x_\nu >=i\eta _{\mu \nu },\eta _{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1).$$
(36)
2. This bracket is to be consistent with the co-product structure in the following sense

$$
=<p_{(1)},x><p_{(2)},y>,<pq,x>=
<q_{(2)},x_{(2)}>,$$
(37)
where we use the natural notation for co-product

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{(1)}t_{(2)}.$$

It should be also noted that by definition

$$<1\mathrm{l},1\mathrm{l}>=1.$$

One sees immediately that the fact that momenta commute translates to the fact that positions co-commute

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mu =1\mathrm{l}x_\mu +x_\mu 1\mathrm{l}.$$
(38)
Then the first equation in (37) along with (36) can be used to deduce the form of the space-time commutators.
3. It remains only to derive the cross relations between momenta and positions. These can be found from the definition of the so-called Heisenberg double (see ) and read

$$[p,x]=x_{(1)}<p_{(1)},x_{(2)}>p_{(2)}xp$$
(39)

As an example let us perform these steps in the bicrossproduct basis , . It follows from (37) that

$$<p_i,x_0x_j>=\frac{1}{\kappa }\delta _{ij},<p_i,x_jx_0>=0,$$

from which one gets

$$[x_0,x_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa }x_i.$$
(40)
Let us now make use of (39) to get the standard relations

$$[p_0,x_0]=i,[p_i,x_j]=i\delta _{ij}.$$
(41)
However it turns out that this algebra contains one more non-vanishing commutator, namely

$$[p_i,x_0]=\frac{i}{\kappa }p_i.$$
(42)
Of course, the algebra (4042) satisfies the Jacobi identity.

### 3.1 Magueijo–Smolin basis

To find the non-commutative structure of space time in Magueijo–Smolin basis we start again with eq. (36)

$$<P_\mu ,X_\nu >=i\eta _{\mu \nu }.$$

Let us now turn to the next step, eq. (37). It is easy to see that the only terms in (24), 25), which are relevant for our computations are the bilinear ones, so we can write

$$\mathrm{}(P_i)=1\mathrm{l}P_i+P_i1\mathrm{l}\frac{1}{\kappa }P_0P_i+\mathrm{}$$

$$\mathrm{}(P_0)=1\mathrm{l}P_0+P_01\mathrm{l}\frac{2}{\kappa }P_0P_0+\frac{1}{\kappa }P_iP_i+\mathrm{}$$

It follows immediately that the only non-vanishing commutators in the position sector are

$$[X_0,X_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa }X_i.$$
(43)
Now we can use eq. (39) to derive the form of the remaining commutators. Since this computation is a bit tricky, let us present the necessary steps.

$$[P_0,X_i]=\underset{j}{}\frac{1}{\kappa }\sqrt{1\frac{2P_0}{\kappa }+\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{\kappa ^2}}P_j,X_iP_j+X_i<1\mathrm{l},1\mathrm{l}>P_0X_iP_0=$$

$$=\frac{1}{\kappa }\underset{j}{}<P_j,X_i>P_j$$

(we made use of the fact that the only terms linear in momenta have non-vanishing bracket with positions) from which it follows immediately that

$$[P_0,X_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa }P_i$$
(44)
and by employing the same procedure we obtain the remaining commutators

$$[P_0,X_0]=i\left(1\frac{2P_0}{\kappa }\right)$$
(45)
$$[P_i,X_j]=i\delta _{ij}$$
(46)
$$[P_i,X_0]=\frac{i}{\kappa }P_i.$$
(47)
Of course, as it is easy to check, the algebra above satisfies the Jacobi identity.

### 3.2 The classical basis

We again start with the duality relation

$$<𝒫_\mu ,𝒳_\nu >=i\eta _{\mu \nu },$$

and to get the commutators in the position sector as above we take the part of the co-product up to the bilinear terms

$$\mathrm{}(𝒫_i)=1\mathrm{l}𝒫_i+𝒫_i1\mathrm{l}+\frac{2}{\kappa }𝒫_0𝒫_i+\frac{1}{\kappa }𝒫_i𝒫_0+\mathrm{}$$

$$\mathrm{}(𝒫_0)=1\mathrm{l}𝒫_0+𝒫_01\mathrm{l}+\frac{1}{\kappa }𝒫_i𝒫_i+\mathrm{}$$

which leads again to

$$[𝒳_0,𝒳_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa }𝒳_i.$$
(48)
Then by employing the same method as in the preceding subsection we find the space-time commutators

$$[𝒫_0,𝒳_0]=\frac{i}{2}\left(K+K^1\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\stackrel{}{𝒫}{}_{}{}^{2}K_{}^{1}\right)$$
(49)
$$[𝒫_0,𝒳_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa }𝒫_i$$
(50)
$$[𝒫_i,𝒳_j]=iK\delta _{ij}$$
(51)
$$[𝒫_i,𝒳_0]=0.$$
(52)
Let us summarize the results of obtained so far. We found the transformations in the energy–momentum sector relating the bicrossproduct, Magueijo–Smolin, and classical bases of $`\kappa `$-Poincar e algebra. Next we extended this construction to the space-time sector. This examples strongly suggest that the following two claims hold under mild and physically acceptable assumption concerning the change of bases (one must assume that in any basis an algebra becomes the standard Poincar e algebra in the leading order in $`\kappa `$ expansion)

(a) Any algebra consisting of the undeformed Lorentz sector with the standard action of rotations and generic action of boosts on commuting four-momenta can be equipped with the $`\kappa `$-Poincar e quantum algebraic structure and

(b) This structure can be extended to the whole of the phase space, and the non-commutative structure of the space-time sector is always (i.e., in any basis) given by

$$[x_0,x_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa }x_i.$$
(53)
The precise formulation of these statements and their proof will be presented in forthcoming paper.

## 4 Physical interpretation

Till now we have been dealing with mathematics, it is time therefore to turn to physics. In view of remarks at the end of preceding section the situation is as follows. Instead of having a number of distinct DSR theories we have to do with a whole class of such theories, which are related to each other by redefinition of momenta

$$p_0f(p_0,\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2}),p_ig(p_0,\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2})p_i$$
(54)
restricted only by the requirement that the action of rotations is preserved, each of whose can be interpreted as being a particular basis of $`\kappa `$-Poincar e quantum algebra. If we are to base a physical theory on such a mathematical structure, we have clearly two choices either to find some physical and/or mathematical motivation to single out one particular basis, or to define the physical theory in such a way that its physical predictions are independent of the choice of a basis. This last possibility reminds very much the postulate of general coordinate invariance of general relativity and seems worth pursuing. From this perspective the fact that one of the most fundamental prediction of the theory, namely the non-commutativity in the space-time sector (53) is invariant under the change of basis is very encouraging. However one should note that in such a case, the “momentum” variables do not have a direct physical meaning. This does not seem very surprising after all. Indeed, in special relativity as well as in non-relativistic mechanics anergy and momentum are defined so as to be conserved in physical process and this conservation is regarded as one of the most important physical properties of nature. On the other hand energy/momentum conservation is directly related to the homogeneity of space-time. Here we have to do with non-commutative space-time and the presence of length scale strongly suggest that space-time is homogeneous only at scales much larger than this scale. It is not clear how to define the energy/momentum conservation (and thus to answer the question what is the physical energy and momentum) for a non-commutative space-time, but it is certain that any such definition must include information concerning the space-time non-commutativity.

Let us turn to another point. It is clear that one of the most important physical characteristic of a particle is its rest mass. This mass should be, as in the special relativity and non-relativistic mechanics equal to the Casimir operator of the theory at hands. It is reasonable therefore to adopt the following definition of physical rest mass

$$\frac{1}{m_0}=\underset{p0}{lim}\frac{1}{p}\frac{dE}{dp},Ep_0$$
(55)
It is easy to check that this definition works in special relativity, where $`m^2=E^2p^2`$ and in non-relativistic mechanics, where $`m=p^2/2E`$. Let us now check whether the Casimirs in bases discussed above are physical masses. This is clearly the case in the classical basis. In the Magueijo–Smolin basis one gets

$$M_0^2=\frac{E^2}{\left(1\frac{E}{\kappa }\right)^2}=M^2$$

and thus the Magueijo–Smolin Casimir (21) indeed equals the physical rest mass.

The situation in the bicrossproduct basis is different, however. One easily finds that in this basis

$$m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}\left(1e^{2p_0/\kappa }\right)^2=\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}\left(1\left(\frac{m}{2\kappa }+\sqrt{\frac{m^2}{4\kappa ^2}+1}\right)^4\right)^2,$$
(56)
where $`m^2`$ is given be eq. (4). This result is of importance because it suggests that the form of dispersion relation used in the literature so far might be incorrect. This suggests in particular that one should rethink the status of $`\kappa `$-Poincar e as a possible explanation of the threshold anomalies in cosmic rays astrophysics (cf. .) We will return to this question in separate paper.

It is also interesting to note the following relation between physical masses in bicrossproduct ($`m_0`$), Magueijo–Smolin ($`M_0`$), and classical ($`_0`$)bases

$$\frac{1}{M_0}=\frac{1}{m_0}\frac{1}{\kappa },\frac{1}{_0^2}=\frac{1}{M_0^2}\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}.$$
(57)
This suggests that an appropriately defined physical mass might be invariant under change of basis and therefore a candidate for the second ,,observable” of DSR if this theory could be consistently constructed in the basis-independent way.

Another point to be stressed is the following. In the DSR theory proposed in ,  one have to do with two scales of velocity and of mass. It should be noted that here we have three scales (in our notation two of them $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ were put equal $`1`$): of speed $`c`$, which relates time and space components of physical quantities, of mass $`\kappa `$, which governs the deformation of the energy–momentum sector, and, finally, the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$, which makes it possible to relate the energy–momentum and space–time sectors. This means that in fact we have to do with Triply not Doubly Special Relativity. Observe that these three scales must be present in the theory to make the construction presented above possible. Of course, the question arises as to what is the physical status of these scale: are they observer-independent quantities or just coupling constants. To answer this question one must find out what is an operational definition of each of them.

## 5 Conclusions

Let us summarize the basic results of this paper. We showed that DSR theories analyzed so far can be understood as different bases of the $`\kappa `$-Poincar e theory. This observation made it possible to construct the space-time sector of these theories. This construction, in turn, led us to the claim that the DSR theory is perhaps based on principle similar to diffeomorphism invariance of general relativity, namely that the physical predictions of DSR should be independent of the choice of basis.

## Acknowledgement

We would like to thank J. Lukierski for useful comments.