text:
# Three-Nucleon Force Effects in Nucleon Induced Deuteron Breakup: Comparison to Data (II)

## I Introduction

In a previous paper , called I in the following, we performed a systematic search for 3NF effects in the full phase space of the Nd breakup process. To that aim we determined the predictions for the five-fold differential breakup cross section and several analyzing powers based on the current high-precision NN potentials AV18 , CD Bonn , Nijm I, II and Nijm 93  alone. These predictions form a band for each of the observables as a function of the five variables needed for a kinematically complete determination of the breakup process. These five variables define a point in the phase space. Then we added to each of the five NN potentials the Tucson-Melbourne three-nucleon force (TM 3NF)  which, with the help of a strong form factor parameter, has been adjusted to the 3H binding energy separately for each NN force . The predictions for the observables based on these force combinations form another band. We talk of 3NF effects if the two bands are significantly separated. In addition we regarded two special cases, the NN and 3NF combinations AV18 + Urbana IX  and CD Bonn + TM’, where TM’ is a modified TM 3NF, which corrects a violation of chiral symmetry in TM . All the studies have been carried through with fully converged solutions of the Faddeev equations for four nucleon laboratory energies: 13, 65, 135 and 200 MeV. In this manner we covered a wide range of energies and could identify the different phase space regions, where for each of the observables 3NF effects, based on the current models, can be expected. It is now the aim of this paper to compare our predictions with existing data. Unfortunately, in contrast to Nd elastic scattering, where precise data are numerous (see references in I), the existing data base for the breakup process is much less numerous, especially at higher energies. Unfortunately, as we shall see, the phase space regions, where the current models predict large 3NF effects, have not yet been explored experimentally.

Here we can not display all the existing data. For references to older data (before 1980) we refer to . We also have to omit a very interesting full phase space search . Unfortunately the access to the data is no longer possible and the documentation in  is insufficient to analyse the data newly. At that time they were analysed based on pioneering calculations by Kloet and Tjon . They used very simple spin dependent $`S`$-wave forces, which are highly insufficient by present day standards. Moreover those data had a high statistical error. Therefore we are looking forward to the data currently being taken at KVI Groningen , which will cover a large part of the phase space, too, and will be much more accurate.

In Section II we present a comparison of our theoretical predictions with a selection of more recent breakup data (after 1980). Most of them have been analyzed before by us  choosing either older NN potentials (Bonn B, AV14, Paris) or only one of the modern ones. Also the addition of 3NFs has not been performed before to such an extent as in this paper. The criteria for the selection of data are, that no averaging according to acceptances and angular openings have to be performed, well documented data are available and the experimental errors are small. ***Because of lack of other data we had to include some with large error bars. Further we favored cases where the same observables were measured by different groups and we tried to cover the total phase space as much as possible. For other data known to us (after 1980) and not shown we provide at least references. We close with a brief summary in Section III.

## II Comparison to the data

There are obviously continuously varying breakup configurations and the experimental groups had to make a choice. Up to now so called specific configurations like FSI, QFS, STAR, and COLL have mostly been measured. Their meaning will be explained below together with the discussion of the data. We have chosen data at 13 MeV representing the low energy region and at 65 MeV for the higher energy region. Recently new data appeared at 200 MeV , which we will also show.

As described in the introduction our theoretical predictions will be displayed in form of two bands corresponding to NN forces only and adding the TM 3NF. In addition there will be two curves for the combinations AV18 + Urbana IX and CD Bonn + TM’.

### A Energy 13 MeV

The majority of the breakup experiments were performed in the region of low energies ($``$25 MeV) for both the $`nd`$  and the $`pd`$  breakup. We compare some of the 13 MeV data with our theoretical predictions for the cross section and nucleon analyzing power $`A_y`$ in Figs. 1 and 12.

Let us first regard the cross sections which are given at the following special configurations: the quasi-free scattering (QFS) geometry, where one of the nucleons in the final state is at rest in the laboratory frame; the final state interaction (FSI) geometry, where the relative energy of two outgoing nucleons is equal to zero; the coplanar STAR geometry, where the three nucleons emerge from the reaction in the c.m. system with coplanar and equal momenta at 120 relative to each other and where the beam lies in that plane and also the symmetric space STAR (SSS) geometry, where the c.m. plane containing the nucleon momenta is perpendicular to the beam direction; the collinear (COLL) configuration, where one of the nucleons is at rest in the c.m. system and therefore the other two have momenta back to back. In addition two unspecific configurations have been chosen in Figs. 7 and 8.

As is seen in Figs. 1-8 the two bands are only slightly shifted to each other and therefore 3NF effects are very small at this energy. The pure 2N force predictions agree in many cases with the data.

Especially interesting is the SSS configuration for which $`pd`$  as well as $`nd`$ data taken by different groups  exist. For this configuration our theoretical $`nd`$ predictions shown in Fig. 4 underestimate the $`nd`$ data by about 20% and overestimate the $`pd`$ data by about 15%. The discrepancy for the $`pd`$ data could probably have its origin in the neglected $`pp`$ Coulomb force. The origin of the difference to the $`nd`$ data, called the *space star anomaly* , is still unknown. The disagreement here is quite surprising, since the calculations  show that the NN $`S`$-wave contributions are the dominant part in the space star geometry 60% of the space star cross section is due to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ NN force, 30% due to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ force and only about 10% comes from the $`P`$-wave forces . and their properties are rather well determined in the NN system.

The example with an FSI interaction peak shown in Fig. 2 is also very interesting. This type of peak can be used to extract $`np`$ or $`nn`$ scattering lengths ($`a_{np}`$ or $`a_{nn}`$) in the state $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$. In such a manner the well known $`a_{np}`$ could be extracted with the correct value using only NN forces . In case of $`a_{nn}`$ there exists a challenging controversy, where two independent $`nd`$ breakup measurements lead to quite different results . One  agrees with the usually quoted value found in the $`\pi ^{}d`$ absorption process, while the other one  is significantly smaller in magnitude.

We also display a coplanar STAR result, where a renewed measurement  agrees quite well with present day nuclear force predictions now, while an older one  is far off. A corresponding shift of data occurred also for the COLL configuration $`(\theta _1,\theta _2,\varphi _{12})(39^{},75.5^{},180^{})`$, where the new data  agree with theory in contrast to the old one .

But there are also discrepancies. One example of QFS condition is shown in Fig. 1. It is unknown, whether $`pp`$ Coulomb force corrections are responsible for those deviation. A more recent measurement  also shows the discrepancy for QFS conditions. Very remarkable is also that in one of the two unspecific configurations (17, 50.5, 120) we see a dramatic disagreement of theory and data. A remeasurement would be highly welcome.

For the nucleon analyzing power $`A_y`$, the agreement to NN force predictions alone is, in general, good (see Figs. 9-12), though, the data scatter and have large error bars. All 3NFs give small effects for this observable in the chosen configurations at this energy.

Further data in the low energy region can be found in . The agreement with theory is similar as for the selected examples shown, with some further exceptions in the data set from Erlangen  and .

Now, regarding the information gained in I, one has to ask whether the available data probed the phase space regions, where current 3NF models predict significant effects. The answer is unfortunately no. For the breakup cross section the sensitive regions to see 3NF effects at 13 MeV are around $`\theta _1`$ = $`\theta _2`$ = 50 and $`\varphi _{12}`$= 170. Data there would be very useful. For the analyzing power $`A_y`$ corresponding sensitive regions are around $`\theta _1`$ = 100, $`\theta _2`$ = 30 (and vice versa) and $`\varphi _{12}`$= 160. Unfortunately in this case the proton energies are rather small ($``$ 3 MeV).

### B Energy 65 MeV

At this energy the five-fold differential cross section and the proton analyzing power were measured for the $`\stackrel{}{d}(p,pp)n`$ reaction in 13 different kinematically complete configurations . In FIGS. 13-25 those data are compared to our theoretical predictions.

Let us first regard the cross sections. In cases where the two bands are narrow and either overlap or are close together the agreement with the data is rather good, with the exception of the two QFS configurations (see FIGS. 16,17), a backward plane star (BPS) configuration (see Fig. 15), and an unspecific one (20, 116.2, 0) (see Fig. 25). The BPS configuration denotes the situation where one of the three nucleons goes antiparallel to the beam direction. There is also forward plane star (FPS) configuration where one of the nucleons goes along the beam direction. Note in all cases one should keep in mind that the magnitude of the $`pp`$ Coulomb force effects under the different conditions are not known. For the QFS configurations one might indeed expect small 3NF effects, as we see, since by definition of that configuration one final nucleon is at rest and thus in a simple picture is like a spectator to a two-nucleon process. This is, however, not quite right, since that ”spectator nucleon” is heavily rescattered as a comparison of the full solution with a plane wave assumption for that nucleon reveals . Our results show that, 3NF effects remain thereby small. As we have seen at 13 MeV and what we found at other energies below about 25 MeV, theory overshoots the experimental QFS maxima by about 20%. This dicreases but remains still significant at 65 MeV with about 13%. Also the QFS peak at 65 MeV is narrower than the theory predicts. All that might suggest again Coulomb force effects to be mostly responsible for the discrepancies. There are indeed first steps (based on low rank NN forces) which point to quite large Coulomb force effects for the breakup cross section .

In the two cases in Fig. 13 and 19 where the two bands are distinct (say larger than 10% ) the situation is controversial. In one case (SSS) NN predictions alone touch at least the error bars but 3NFs move theory away from the data. In the other case, a COLL one, neither NN forces alone nor the addition of 3NFs leads to an agreement with the data.

Like at 13 MeV the SSS configuration poses a question. It has been measured at several energies. In all cases the $`pd`$ data lie below the theoretical predictions, but this discrepancy decreases with increasing energy (about 15% at 10.5 MeV  and 13 MeV and about 7% at 19 MeV  and 65 MeV). Because of that decrease and the relative small 3NF effects one faces possibly again $`pp`$ Coulomb force effects.

For $`A_y`$, like for $`\sigma `$, in the cases where the two bands are narrow and essentially overlapping there is agreement with the data with the exception of the configuration (59.5, 59.5, 180) (see Fig. 21), where theory is partially below and partially above the data. When the bands are wider and clearly distinct unfortunately the data scatter a lot (see the configurations (30, 59.5, 180)-Fig.16, (20, 116.2, 180)-Fig.18, (30, 98, 180)-Fig.19). There are two more cases with less narrow bands ((45, 75.6, 180)-Fig.20 and (20, 75.6, 180)-Fig.24), where the data appear to differ from theory.

Further breakup data at and around 65 MeV can be found in .

Again we ask, whether the sensitive regions for 3NF effects according to I have been included in the existing data base. Unfortunately this is again not the case. The sensitive regions for the cross section and $`A_y`$ are around $`\theta _1`$ 20 $`{}_{}{}^{},\theta _210^{}`$ (and vice versa) and $`0^{}\varphi _{12}60^{}`$. Though the configuration $`(30^{},98^{},180^{})`$, for instance, in case of $`A_y`$ shows an interesting sensitivity to 3NFs, the effects are only of $`30\%`$, whereas effects of up to $`100\%`$ and higher are predicted in the geometries just mentioned.

### C Energy 200 MeV

In Figs. 26-33 we show a comparison of our theoretical predictions with the $`pd`$ data of  for the cross section $`\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_1d\mathrm{\Omega }_2dE_1}`$ and the nucleon analyzing power $`A_y`$. For the cross section the two bands are very narrow and overlapping. Thus we predict practically no 3NF effects. It is no surprise, since most of the configurations are in the vicinity of QFS. The comparison with the data, however, shows striking disagreements in most cases. Though the shapes are generally quite well reproduced, the magnitudes are wrong. This is alarming, since the current nuclear forces fail strongly. Note, however, we have no estimate for relativistic effects, which at this high energy can contribute both kinematically and dynamically.

Also in case of $`A_y`$ the two bands are mostly rather narrow and overlapping. Since some of the data have large error bars, agreement or disagreement of theory and data is not clear.

We are not aware of other breakup data in that energy region. The sensitive regions for 3NF effects are around $`\theta _1`$ 15 $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _2`$ and $`0^{}\varphi _{12}20^{}`$ for the cross section and $`\theta _1`$ 100 , $`\theta _2`$ 30 (and vice versa) and $`\varphi _{12}180^{}`$ for $`A_y`$.

## III Summary

We compared modern NN force predictions alone and together with current 3NF models to a selected set of Nd breakup cross sections and analyzing power data at 13, 65 and 200 MeV. Though in most cases the agreement was good, we also found cases with striking discrepancies between theory and experiment. The discrepancies showed up in the SSS, QFS and some unspecified geometries at low energies. Severe discrepancies are also present in the cross sections at 200 MeV. In all those cases the 3NF effects predicted by the current models are very small. At 200 MeV we can not exclude that at least one reason for the discrepancy might lie in the totally neglected relativistic effects. At the lower energies $`pp`$ Coulomb effects, not included in our theoretical description, might also play a role. In case of the analyzing power $`A_y`$ we found some discrepancies at 65 MeV, which point to deficiencies in the current nuclear force models. Some configurations with interesting theoretical 3NF effects at this energy could not be checked conclusively against experiment, since there is a big scatter in the available data.

The experiments performed so far show that it is rather difficult to find by chance a configuration with large 3NF effects. Therefore the breakup experiments should be guided by theoretical predictions like the one in I. Also the present day Nd breakup data set is much poorer than the elastic scattering one, what calls for more data. Especially cross section and analyzing power measurements at higher energies in configurations where large 3NF effects have been predicted are highly desirable.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (Grant No. 2P03B02818 and 5P03B12320), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (J.G.), and the NSF (Grant No. PHY0070858). One of us (W.G.) would like to thank the Foundation for Polish Science for the financial support during his stay in Cracow. The numerical calculations have been performed on the Cray T90 and T3E of the NIC in Jülich, Germany.


format: text

text:
# Baryonic pollution in gamma-ray bursts: the case of a magnetically driven wind emitted from a disk orbiting a stellar mass black hole

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of the first optical counterparts to gamma-ray bursts (hereafter GRBs) in 1997 (van Paradijs et al. 1997) has shown that most (if not all) GRBs are located at cosmological distances. About 20 redshifts have now been measured from $`z=0.43`$ for GRB 990712 to $`z=4.5`$ for GRB 000131 (with however the peculiar case of GRB 980425 which appears to be associated to a nearby type Ic supernova at $`z=0.01`$; Galama et al. (1998)). The energy radiated by these cosmological GRBs in the BATSE range (20 – 1000 keV) goes from $`\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^{51}`$ ergs for GRB 970228 and GRB 980613 (at $`z=0.695`$ and 1.096) to $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^{54}`$ ergs for GRB 990123 (at $`z=1.6`$) assuming isotropic emission. After correction for beaming, the true energy output appears to be less scattered, clustered around $`E_\gamma \mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^{50}`$ ergs (Djorgovski et al. 2001). Among the sources which have been proposed to explain such a huge release of energy in a time of seconds, the most popular are mergers of compact objects (neutron star binaries or neutron star – black hole systems) (Narayan et al. 1992; Meszaros & Rees 1992b; Mochkovitch et al. 1993) or massive stars which collapse to a black hole (collapsars) (Woosley 1993; Paczynski 1998). In all these cases, the resulting configuration is a stellar mass black hole surrounded by a thick torus made of stellar debris or of infalling stellar material partially supported by centrifugal forces. The location of the detected optical counterparts well inside their host galaxies and often associated with regions of star formation appears to favor the collapsar scenario (Paczynski 1998; Owens et al. 1998; Klose et al. 2000). Double neutron star or neutron star – black hole mergers should generally be observed at the periphery of the host galaxy due to the long delay before coalescence and the large velocity imparted to these systems by two successive supernova explosions. They can however still be invoked in the case of shorts bursts, for which no optical counterpart has been detected.

If black hole \+ thick disk configurations are indeed at the origin of GRBs, the released energy will ultimately come from the accretion of disk material by the black hole or from the rotational energy of the hole itself extracted by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (Blandford & Znajek 1977). In a first step, the energy must be injected into a relativistic wind whose existence has been directly inferred from the observations of radio scintillation in GRB 970508 (Waxman et al. 1998) and which is also needed to avoid photon-photon annihilation and the resulting compactness problem (Baring & Harding 1997). The second step consists of the conversion of a fraction of the wind kinetic energy into gamma-rays via the formation of shocks, probably inside the wind itself (Rees & Meszaros 1994). These internal shocks can be expected if the source generate a highly non uniform distribution of Lorentz factor so that rapid layers of the wind will catch up with slower ones at large relative velocities. In the last step, the wind is decelerated when it interacts with the interstellar or circumstellar medium and the resulting (external) shock is responsible for the afterglow observed in the X-ray, optical and radio bands (Meszaros & Rees 1997).

The physics of the afterglow is probably the best understood since most afterglow properties can be interpreted in terms of solutions of the relativistic Sedov problem (Blandford & McKee 1976) with synchrotron emission behind the shock (Sari et al. 1998). Models taking into account the beam geometry of the flow (Rhoads 1997) or different kinds of burst environments (constant density medium or stellar wind; Chevalier & Li (2000)) can be constructed to explain observed breaks in the lightcurves or the evolution of some radio afterglows.

More problems remain concerning the generation of gamma-rays in the relativistic wind. Instead of internal shocks, gamma-rays can also be emitted during the early evolution of the external shock with however the difficulty to explain in this case the highly variable temporal profiles of observed bursts (Sari et al. (1998) see however Dermer & Mitman (1999)). Models of bursts produced by internal shocks are found to be in reasonable agreement with the observations (Kobayashi et al. 1997; Daigne & Mochkovitch 1998, 2000) even if the process which produces the gamma-rays – synchrotron radiation or/and comptonization – remains uncertain due to problems encountered in fitting the low energy part of the spectra (Preece et al. 1998).

The origin of the relativistic wind is the more complex of the three steps. Several proposals have been made to explain the generation of this wind but few detailed calculations have been performed. If the burst energy comes from matter accretion by the black hole, the annihilation of neutrino-antineutrino pairs emitted by the hot disk could be a way to inject energy along the system axis, in a region which can be expected to be depleted in baryons due to the effect of centrifugal forces (Meszaros & Rees 1992a; Mochkovitch et al. 1993). The low efficiency of this process requires high neutrino luminosities and therefore high accretion rates. In the merger case this can be achieved for short accretion timescales (Ruffert & Janka 1999) and may explain short bursts. Conversely in the collapsar scenario, the larger mass reservoir allows the system to maintain high accretion rates for a longer time and could then also produce long bursts (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999).

Another possibility is to suppose that disk energy is extracted by a magnetic field amplified by differential rotation up to very large values ($`B10^{15}`$ G). A magnetically driven wind could then be emitted from the disk with a fraction of the Poynting flux being eventually transferred to matter (Blandford & Payne 1982). Such a mechanism operates in many classes of astrophysical objects (from T Tauri stars to AGN) but it is far from clear that it can work in the context of GRBs where final Lorentz factors of several hundreds are required. In a different version of the same idea, an early conversion of magnetic into thermal energy could occur through the reconnection of field lines above the plane of the disk in a region of rather low density (Narayan et al. 1992).

An alternative to accretion is to directly extract the rotational energy of the black hole via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. The available power then depends on the rotation parameter $`a`$ of the hole and on the intensity of the magnetic field pervading the horizon. If $`B10^{15}`$ G and $`a1`$, the power available from the Blandford-Znajek mechanism can be larger than $`10^{52}`$ erg.s-1 with a very limited contamination by baryons at the source since the field lines which guide the outflow are anchored to the black hole.

In this paper we rather concentrate on the wind which is emitted from the inner disk. We want to identify the key parameters which control its baryonic load and check whether it can reach large Lorentz factors or remains non relativistic. Our approach will be oversimplified in comparison to the complexity of the real problem so that our conclusions have to be considered as indicative only. In Sect. 2 we briefly discuss the structure of the disk + black hole configurations which are produced by NS + NS or NS + BH mergers and in the collapsar scenario. We write in Sect. 3 the equations which govern the wind dynamics from the disk to the sonic point. They are solved in Sect. 4 to obtain the mass loss rate and the terminal Lorentz factor of the wind is estimated in Sect. 5. Our results are discussed in Sect. 6 which is also the conclusion.

## 2 The structure of the disk

Before writing the wind equations in the next section we first describe the black hole + disk configurations which are obtained in the case of the three most discussed GRB sources: NS + NS or BH + NS mergers and collapsars. We want to compare the black hole and disk masses, the hole rotation parameter $`a`$, estimate which fraction of the disk is optically thick to neutrinos and obtain the disk temperature.

### 2.1 Mergers :

The coalescence of neutron stars has been studied by several groups mostly in the Newtonian and post-Newtonian approximation (Davies et al. 1994; Ruffert et al. 1996; Calder et al. 1999; Rosswog et al. 2000; Faber et al. 2000) The resulting merged object obtained from two neutron stars of $`1.4\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is made of a dense central core of $`2.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in quasi-uniform rotation surrounded by a differentially rotating disk of $`0.3\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. In relativistic calculations, a black hole is directly formed during the merging event if the total mass of the system is 30 to 70% larger than the maximum rest mass of an isolated neutron star (Oohara & Nakamura 1997). Due to the large angular momentum of the merger the rotation parameter $`a=Jc/GM_{\mathrm{BH}}^2`$ of the newly formed black hole can easily exceed 0.5.

In the case of BH + NS mergers, the masses of the disk and black hole are in average larger than in NS + NS mergers. The hole rotation parameter depends on the fraction of neutron star material accreted by the black hole during the merging event. Janka et al. (1999) obtain disk masses between 0.3 and $`0.7\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and rotation parameter between 0.1 and 0.5 for different assumptions regarding the relative masses and spins of the neutron star and the black hole.

To estimate the transparency of the disks to neutrinos we have computed the structure of the merged object with the self-consistent field method originally developed by Ostriker & Mark (1968) using the approach of Hachisu (1986) to solve the Poisson equation. The equation of state in the disk corresponds to an ideal gas of ultra-relativistic electrons and the distribution of specific angular momentum is $`j(r)r^{0.2}`$ in reasonable agreement with the results of numerical simulations (Ruffert & Janka 1999). We construct accreting disks i.e. disks with a cusp in the equatorial plane where the total gravitational + centrifugal force is zero. If $`a=0`$, we model the black hole with the Paczynski-Wiita potential while for a Kerr black hole we use the Novikov potential (Artemova et al. 1996)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{BH}}(r)=\frac{GM_{\mathrm{BH}}}{(\beta 1)r_h}\left[\left(\frac{r}{rr_h}\right)^{\beta 1}1\right],$$
(1)
with

$$r_h=\left(1+\sqrt{1a^2}\right)r_g\mathrm{and}\beta =\frac{r_{ms}}{r_h}1,$$
(2)
where $`r_g=GM_{\mathrm{BH}}/c^2`$ is the gravitational radius, $`r_h`$ is the horizon radius and $`r_{ms}`$ the radius of the last stable orbit. We have considered three cases: $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=2.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.3\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`a=0`$ (case 1) and $`a=0.8`$ (case 2); $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`a=0.4`$ (case 3). Cases 1 and 2 are representative of NS+NS mergers while case 3 corresponds to a BH+NS merger. The obtained disk structures are represented in Fig. 1. Compared to case 1, the increase of $`a`$ in case 2 leads to a denser ($`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{4.2\hspace{0.33em}10}^{12}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{3.3\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ g.cm-3) and more compact disk (the radius at maximum density $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and the external radius $`r_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ are 58 and 279 km in case 1, 25 and 117 km in case 2). In case 3, the maximum density is $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{4.3\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ g.cm-3 at $`r_{\mathrm{max}}=80.4`$ km and the external radius is $`r_{\mathrm{ext}}=261`$ km. We have computed the optical thickness of these disks to electron neutrinos in the vertical direction

$$\tau _{\nu _e}=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\kappa _{\nu _e}\rho 𝑑z$$
(3)
where

$$\kappa _{\nu _e}=\mathrm{3.8\hspace{0.33em}10}^{19}\left(\frac{T_\nu }{1\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^2\mathrm{cm}^2.\mathrm{g}^1$$
(4)
is the neutrino opacity (Duncan et al. 1986). The radial extension of the optically thick region has been represented in Fig. 1 for two temperatures, $`T_\nu =2`$ and 3 MeV. The optical thickness becomes larger than unity at 3 – 5 $`r_h`$ and the disk remains opaque out to $`r_{\mathrm{out}}10r_h`$.

When the disk is optically thick we use the following expression for the neutrinosphere temperature

$$T_\nu (r)=T_{}\left(\frac{r_{}}{r}\right)^{3/4}\left(\frac{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}}}{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r_{}}}}\right)^{1/4}$$
(5)
where $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the disk internal radius and $`T_{}`$ is the temperature at a reference radius $`r_{}`$ (we take below $`r_{}=4r_h`$). This kind of behavior is expected in the case of a geometrically thin disk but is certainly a very rough approximation in the case of a thick disk.

### 2.2 Collapsars :

In collapsars the accretion flow toward the black hole has been studied in detail by Popham et al. (1999). The inner disk is fed by material from the collapsing stellar enveloppe. It is less dense than in the merger case (typical densities are $`10^8\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$) and is optically thin (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999). We follow Popham et al. (1999) to obtain an analytical expression for the temperature from the balance between the dissipated energy and neutrino losses

$$\dot{q}_{eN}=QT^6=\frac{9}{4}\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}^2$$
(6)
where $`\dot{q}_{eN}`$ is the cooling rate per unit mass due to the emission of neutrinos by nucleons ($`Q=\mathrm{1.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}`$ with $`T`$ in MeV); $`\dot{q}_{eN}`$ is the dominant cooling contribution as long as the disk temperature does not exceed about 10 MeV. We adopt an $`\alpha `$-prescription for the disk viscosity

$$\nu =\alpha Hv_\mathrm{s}$$
(7)
where $`H=\frac{v_\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}}`$ is the disk half thickness and $`v_\mathrm{s}`$ is the sound velocity. If the perfect gas contribution dominates in the disk then, $`v_\mathrm{s}^2\frac{T}{\mu }`$ ($`\mu `$ being the average molecular weight) and the disk temperature is given by

$$T_d(r)2\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^{0.2}\left(\frac{\alpha }{0.01}\right)^{0.2}\left(\frac{r}{r_{}}\right)^{0.3}\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(8)
## 3 Dynamics of the wind from the disk to the sonic point

### 3.1 Wind equations

To study the dynamics of the wind we make a number of simplifying assumptions. We first suppose that the inner disk is geometrically thin which is certainly wrong in the merger case and probably a poor approximation in the collapsar scenario. Wind material is guided along magnetic field lines for which we adopt the simplest possible geometry: close to the disk the field is poloidal, made of straight lines making an angle $`\theta (r)`$ with the plane of the disk ($`r`$ being the distance from the foot of the line to the disk axis; see Fig. 2). Since we limit our study to the part of the flow below the sonic point (which is sufficient to obtain the mass loss rate) we use non relativistic equations ($`v/c1`$) but we adopt a Paczynski-Wiita potential for the black hole. We also assume that the wind has reached a stationary regime. Clearly, a realistic description would imply a thick disc, a complicated field geometry and a time-dependent wind dynamics but we believe that the toy model presented in this paper remains able to identify the main physical processes which affects the baryonic pollution of the wind.

We write the three flow equations in a frame corotating with the foot of the line:

* Conservation of mass :

$$\rho vs(y)=\dot{m},$$
(9)
* Euler equation :

$$v\frac{dv}{dy}=\gamma (y)r\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{dP}{dy},$$
(10)
* Energy equation :

$$v\frac{de}{dy}=\dot{q}(y)r+v\frac{P}{\rho ^2}\frac{d\rho }{dy},$$
(11)

where $`y=\mathrm{}/r`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ being the distance along the field line ($`\mathrm{}=0`$ in the plane of the disk); $`e`$ is the specific internal energy, $`\gamma (y)`$ and $`\dot{q}(y)`$ are respectively the total acceleration (gravitational + centrifugal) and the power deposited per unit mass in wind material due to neutrino heating (and cooling), viscous or ohmic dissipation and magnetic reconnection. Because the field and stream lines are coincident the function $`s(y)`$ can be simply related to the field geometry. We get

$$s(y)=1+ay+by^2$$
(12)
with

$$a=\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{d\theta }{d\mathrm{log}r}$$
(13)
and

$$b=\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{d\theta }{d\mathrm{log}r}.$$
(14)
Finally, $`\dot{m}`$ is the mass loss rate per unit surface of the disk. The acceleration $`\gamma (y)`$ is derived from the potential

$$\gamma (y)r=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dy},\mathrm{\Phi }(y)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{BH}}(y)+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{C}(y),$$
(15)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{BH}}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{\mathrm{BH}}}{r\sqrt{y^2+2y\mathrm{cos}\theta +1}r_h}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x\sqrt{y^2+2y\mathrm{cos}\theta +1}1}}\right]`$
is the black hole potential ($`x=r/r_h`$) and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{C}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(r)r^2(1+y\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x}{(x1)^2}}(1+y\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\right]`$
is the centrifugal potential. There is a critical angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ below which the acceleration is always positive so that matter (even at zero temperature) can escape freely from the disk without being confined in a potential well. In newtonian gravity $`\theta _{\mathrm{cr}}=60^{}`$ (Blandford & Payne 1982) but $`\theta _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ slowly decreases when the Paczynski-Wiita potential is used, from about 63 at $`x=3`$ to 60 at large radial distances.

### 3.2 Equation of state

Our equation of state includes nucleons, relativistic electrons and positrons, and photons. Following Bethe et al. (1980) and Bethe (1993) the contribution of relativistic particles is given by

$`P_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(kT)^4}{12(\mathrm{}c)^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{11\pi ^2}{15}}+2\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^4}{\pi ^2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(1.26+0.35\eta ^2+0.017\eta ^4)10^{26}T_{\mathrm{MeV}}^4\mathrm{dyne}.\mathrm{cm}^2`$
where $`\eta =\mu _e/kT`$, $`\mu _e`$ being the electron chemical potential. Nucleons behave as an ideal gas of pressure

$$P_N=\frac{\rho }{m_N}kT$$
(19)
where $`m_N`$ is the nucleon mass and the density is obtained from

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{kT}{\mathrm{}c}}\right)^3Y_e^1\left(\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^3}{\pi ^2}}\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{7.2\hspace{0.33em}10}^7T_{\mathrm{MeV}}^3Y_e^1\left(\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^3}{\pi ^2}}\right)\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{cm}^3.`$
The number of electrons per nucleon $`Y_e`$ should be computed from the rates of neutrino capture and emission by nucleons. In practice, we do not perform this calculation and simply adopt a constant $`Y_e=0.5`$. Finally, the specific internal energy is

$$e=\frac{(3P_r+3/2P_N)}{\rho }$$
(21)
so that the three thermodynamic quantities $`P`$, $`\rho `$ and $`e`$ that appear in the flow equations can be expressed in terms of $`T`$ and $`\eta `$.

### 3.3 The sonic point

To solve the flow Eqs (911) we first derive Eq. (9) and express the thermodynamic variables $`\rho `$, $`P`$ and $`e`$ as functions of $`T`$ and $`\eta `$ to obtain a linear system for $`logv`$, $`logT`$ and $`log\eta `$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}v}{dy}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}T}{dy}}+A(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}\eta }{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}s(y)}{dy}},`$
$`v^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}v}{dy}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}T}{dy}}+B(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}\eta }{dy}}=\gamma (y)r,`$
$`v[e3{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}]{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}T}{dy}}+v[C(\eta )eA(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}]{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}\eta }{dy}}=\dot{q}(y)r,`$
where we have used the equation of state to get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\rho }{\mathrm{log}T}}|_\eta =3`$ , $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\rho }{\mathrm{log}\eta }}|_T=A(\eta ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}P}{\mathrm{log}T}}|_\eta =4`$ , $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}P}{\mathrm{log}\eta }}|_T=B(\eta ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}e}{\mathrm{log}T}}|_\eta =1`$ , $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}e}{\mathrm{log}\eta }}|_T=C(\eta ).`$ (23)
The three derivatives of $`v`$, $`T`$ and $`\eta `$ can then be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}v}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_1(y,v,T,\eta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}T}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_2(y,v,T,\eta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}\eta }{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_3(y,v,T,\eta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (24)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(v,T,\eta )`$ is the determinant of the system. It is equal to zero at the sonic point which gives

$$v^2=v_\mathrm{s}^2=\left[\frac{(B4C)(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }1)(3B4A)}{(A3C)}\right]\frac{P}{\rho }$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }1=P/\rho e`$. If the equation of state is dominated by the contribution of relativistic (resp. non relativistic) particles $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }1=1/3`$ (resp. 2/3) and $`v_\mathrm{s}^2=\frac{4}{3}(\mathrm{resp}.\frac{5}{3})\frac{P}{\rho }`$.

Since the three functions $`v`$, $`T`$ and $`\eta `$ must remain regular everywhere in the wind the numerators in Eq. (24) must be zero at the sonic point

$`F_1(y_\mathrm{s},v_\mathrm{s},T_\mathrm{s},\eta _\mathrm{s})=F_2(y_\mathrm{s},v_\mathrm{s},T_\mathrm{s},\eta _\mathrm{s})=F_3(y_\mathrm{s},v_\mathrm{s},T_\mathrm{s},\eta _\mathrm{s})=0`$
which yields a unique relation among the parameters at the sonic point

$`v_\mathrm{s}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}s(y)}{dy}}|_{y_\mathrm{s}}+\gamma (y_\mathrm{s})r{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{q}(y_\mathrm{s})r}{v_\mathrm{s}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho e}}{\displaystyle \frac{4A3B}{A3C}}\right)_{T_\mathrm{s},\eta _\mathrm{s}}=0`$
(27)
the parenthesis being equal to 1/3 (resp. 2/3) for relativistic (resp. non relativistic) particles. Since (i) the last term in Eq. (27) is smaller than the two others in most cases of interest and (ii) the derivative of $`s(y)`$ is positive (if the inclination angle $`\theta (r)`$ of the field lines decreases with increasing distance to the axis) it can be seen that the sonic point is located in the region where $`\gamma (y)`$ is negative, i.e. below $`y_1`$ where $`\gamma (y_1)=0`$. It appears in practice that $`y_\mathrm{s}`$ is very close to $`y_1`$ (except naturally for $`\theta =90^{}`$ for which $`y_1\mathrm{}`$). The difference is typically less than 1% even for $`\theta =89^{}`$.

### 3.4 Heating and cooling sources

Several sources can contribute to the injection of energy in wind material: viscous or ohmic dissipation, magnetic reconnection or neutrino processes (capture on free nucleons, scattering on electrons and positrons or neutrino-antineutrino annihilation). Cooling occurs through neutrino emission by nucleons and annihilation of electron-positron pairs. A detailed description of all these processes is beyond the scope of this paper and we have rather considered two limiting cases in a very simplified way.
When the disk is optically thin to neutrinos we adopt a uniform heating (per unit mass) $`\dot{q}_h`$ along the field line and limit the cooling to neutrino emission by nucleons i.e.

$$\dot{q}=\dot{q}_hQT^6$$
(28)
Although this is not strictly satisfied in realistic models (Popham et al. 1999; MacFadyen & Woosley 1999), we require that $`\dot{q}=0`$ in the plane of the disk which fixes $`\dot{q}_h`$

$$\dot{q}_h=QT_0^6$$
(29)
where $`T_0`$ is the disk temperature at the foot of the line given by Eq. (8).
In the case of an optically thick disk we make the extreme assumption that all the heating which is not due to neutrino processes takes place below the neutrinosphere. The power $`\dot{q}`$ injected into the wind is then restricted to the neutrino contributions

$$\dot{q}=\dot{q}_\nu =\dot{q}_{\nu N}+\dot{q}_{\nu e}+\dot{q}_{\nu \overline{\nu }}\dot{q}_{eN}\dot{q}_{e^+e^{}}$$
(30)
where the different terms in Eq. (30) respectively correspond to neutrino capture on free nucleons, scattering on electrons and positrons, neutrino-antineutrino-annihilation (heating) neutrino emission by nucleons and annihilation of electron-positron pairs (cooling). With our assumption that $`Y_e=Y_p=Y_n=0.5`$ the electron neutrino and antineutrino temperatures are identical and the heating by capture on free nucleons takes the simple form (Qian & Woosley 1996)

$`\dot{q}_{\nu N}`$ $`=`$ $`Q{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{disk}}}\left[I_{\nu _e}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\nu _e}^3}{ϵ_{\nu _e}}}+I_{\overline{\nu }_e}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e}^3}{ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e}}}\right]𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{1.4\hspace{0.33em}10}^{18}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{disk}}}T_\nu ^6{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}\mathrm{erg}.\mathrm{g}^1.\mathrm{s}^1`$
where the temperature is in MeV, $`I_{\nu _e}=I_{\overline{\nu }_e}=\frac{7}{16}\frac{\sigma T_\nu ^4}{\pi }`$ is the neutrino (antineutrino) intensity and $`ϵ_{\nu _e}^n=ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e}^n`$ are the $`n`$th energy moments of the neutrino Fermi distribution. The integral is performed over the disk surface and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle of a surface element as seen from a point of coordinate $`y`$ on the field line. All relativistic effects on the neutrinos (bending of trajectories, gravitational and Doppler shifts) have been neglected even if they can lead to appreciable corrections in the results (Jaroszynski 1993). The cooling by the reverse reactions (neutrino emission by nucleons) is given by

$$\dot{q}_{eN}=\mathrm{1.4\hspace{0.33em}10}^{18}T^6\mathrm{erg}.\mathrm{g}^1.\mathrm{s}^1$$
(32)
where $`T`$ is the local temperature in the wind. Pauli blocking effects for electrons have been neglected since $`\eta 0.1`$ everywhere in our wind solutions except in the vicinity of the disk. To compute the heating rate due to neutrino scattering on relativistic electrons and positrons we use the expression given by Herant et al. (1994) adapted to the disk geometry

$$\dot{q}_{\nu e}=\mathrm{3.6\hspace{0.33em}10}^{24}\frac{T^4}{\rho }\underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}(T_\nu T)T_\nu ^4𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{erg}.\mathrm{g}^1.\mathrm{s}^1$$
(33)
The heating rate by neutrino-antineutrino annihilation is obtained from a double integral over the disk surface

$`\dot{q}_{\nu \overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\{Q_1{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }I_{\nu _e}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}I_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\nu _e}^2}{ϵ_{\nu _e}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e}^2^{}}{ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{}}}](1\mathrm{cos}\alpha )^2`$
$`+Q_2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }I_{\nu _e}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}I_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\nu _e}+ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{}}{ϵ_{\nu _e}ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{}}}(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha )\}`$
(34)
where $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ are two constants given in Ruffert et al. (1997). The prime quantities correspond to a surface element $`dS^{}`$ whose neutrinos interact with those emitted by a surface element $`dS`$, $`\alpha `$ being the interaction angle. When the neutrino intensities and average energies are expressed as a function of the neutrinosphere temperature $`T_\nu `$ Eq. (34) becomes

$`\dot{q}_{\nu \overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\{\mathrm{1.6\; 10}^{22}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }T_\nu ^4{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}T_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}(T_\nu +T_\nu ^{})(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha )^2`$ (35)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6.7\; 10}^{20}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }T_\nu ^4{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{disk}}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}T_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}{\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu +T_\nu ^{}}{T_\nu T_\nu ^{}}}(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha )\}`$
$`\mathrm{erg}.\mathrm{g}^1.\mathrm{s}^1`$
Finally, the cooling rate from the annihilation of electron-positron pairs is given by (Herant et al. 1994)

$$q_{e^+e^{}}=\mathrm{1.5\hspace{0.33em}10}^{25}\frac{T^9}{\rho }\mathrm{erg}.\mathrm{g}^1.\mathrm{s}^1$$
(36)
## 4 The mass loss rate

### 4.1 Numerical solution for an optically thin disk

We first solve the flow equations for an optically thin disk and in the case of uniform heating, i.e. with $`\dot{q}`$ given by Eq. (28). We obtain the mass loss rate $`\dot{m}`$ in a classical way by integrating inward from the sonic point down to the disk surface. We fix trial values of $`T_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ at the sonic point from which we get $`v=v_\mathrm{s}`$ from Eq. (25) and the position $`y_\mathrm{s}`$ from Eq. (27). To start the integration we need the derivatives of $`v`$, $`T`$ and $`\eta `$ at $`y=y_\mathrm{s}`$. These derivatives cannot be directly calculated from Eq. (24) because $`F_1=F_2=F_3=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ at the sonic point. We instead use l’Hôpital’s rule which allows us to write three algebraic, second-order equations for the three derivatives and we solve these equations with a Newton-Raphson technique. Once $`v`$, $`T`$, $`\eta `$ and their derivatives have been determined at the sonic point the inward integration can be started. In agreement with the results of Duncan et al. (1986) for neutrino-driven winds in proto-neutron stars we observe that at some position $`y=y_{}`$ the velocity begins to fall off rapidly while the temperature reaches a maximum $`T_{\mathrm{max}}T_d(r)`$ ($`T_d(r)`$ being the disk temperature at radius $`r`$). We then adjust the values of $`T_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ with the requirement that $`y_{}`$ should be as close as possible to 0 and $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ to $`T_d(r)`$.

We first constructed a reference model where we follow the wind along a field line attached at $`r=r_{}=4r_h`$. The disk temperature at $`r=r_{}`$ is $`T_d=2`$ MeV. The line makes an angle $`\theta =85^{}`$ with the disk and the derivative $`\frac{d\theta }{dr}=0`$. The mass of the black hole is $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=2.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The results for this reference model are shown in Fig. 3. The sonic point is located at $`y_\mathrm{s}=2.174`$ slightly below $`y_1=2.182`$ where $`\gamma =0`$. The temperature and density at the sonic point are $`T_\mathrm{s}=0.203`$ MeV and $`\rho _\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{1.2\hspace{0.33em}10}^5`$ g.cm-3 which correspond to a sound velocity $`v_\mathrm{s}/c=\mathrm{5.44\hspace{0.17em}10}^2`$ or $`v_\mathrm{s}=16300`$ km.s-1 and a mass loss rate $`\dot{m}=\mathrm{2.3\hspace{0.33em}10}^{14}`$ g.cm-2.s-1. The degeneracy parameter $`\eta `$ remains practically constant ($`\eta 0.1`$) from $`y=0.5`$ to the sonic point, a property which will be used to construct the analytical solutions in Sect. 4.3 below. Neutrino cooling is efficient close to the disk, up to $`y0.5`$. We have tested the effect of a different field line geometry with $`\theta ^{}=\frac{d\theta }{dr}0`$. We considered two cases, $`\theta ^{}=2^{}/r_h`$ and $`5^{}/r_h`$, for which we respectively obtain $`\dot{m}=2.5`$ and $`\mathrm{2.8\hspace{0.33em}10}^{14}`$ g.cm-2.s-1.

We then varied the mass of the black hole $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, the disk temperature $`T_d`$, the inclination angle $`\theta `$ and the position $`r`$ of the foot of the line to see how these parameters affect the mass loss rate. The results are shown in Fig. 4 where we have plotted $`\dot{m}`$ when $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, $`T_d`$, $`\theta `$ and $`x=r/r_h`$ are varied separately while the other three quantities are maintained at fixed values (choosen to be those of the reference model: $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=2.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`T_d=2`$ MeV, $`\theta =85^{}`$ and $`x=4`$). The mass loss rate appears to be nearly proportional to the mass of the black hole (Fig. 4a). The dependence of $`\dot{m}`$ on the temperature $`T_d`$ at the foot of the field line is much more spectacular since we get $`\dot{m}T_d^{10}`$ (Fig. 4b) in agreement with the results for neutrino-driven winds in neutron stars (Duncan et al. 1986). The mass loss rate also sharply increases when the angle between the field line and the disk is reduced (Fig. 4c). Below $`\theta 77^{}`$ it becomes more and more difficult to construct wind solutions with the required accuracy. This can be related to the value of the Bernouilli function

$$=\frac{1}{2}v^2+h+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_1$$
(37)
($`h`$ being the specific enthalpy and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ the potential at $`y=y_1`$) which is positive in the plane of the disk for $`\theta 77^{}`$. The initial thermal energy is then sufficient to allow the gas to escape even in the absence of additional heating. Finally, the mass loss rate approximately increases as $`r^{4.4}`$ (Fig. 4d) when the potential well becomes shallower at larger radial distances.
As long as the Bernouilli function is not too close to zero the mass, temperature and geometrical dependence can be separated in $`\dot{m}`$ to yield the general expression

$`\dot{m}(x)\mathrm{2.3\hspace{0.33em}10}^{14}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_d(x)}{2\mathrm{MeV}}}\right]^{10}f[x,\theta (x)]\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{cm}^2.\mathrm{s}^1`$
where $`f`$ is a geometrical function which satisfies $`f(4,85^{})=1`$. The mass loss rate has been represented in Fig. 5 as a function of $`x`$ for $`\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}=1`$, $`T_d(x)`$ given by Eq. (8) and different field geometries: constant inclination angles $`\theta =80`$, 85 and $`89^{}`$ or $`\theta `$ linearly decreasing from $`90^{}`$ at $`x=3`$, i.e. $`\theta =90^{}\lambda (x3)`$ (with $`\lambda =0.5,1.0,1.5`$ or $`2^{}`$). At constant $`\theta `$ the mass loss rate varies rather slowly with $`x`$ while for $`\lambda =1.5`$ or $`2^{}`$ it rapidly increases at large radial distances where $`\theta 80^{}`$.

### 4.2 Numerical solution for an optically thick disk

If the disk is optically thick the heating and cooling sources due to neutrinos are specified by Eq. (3136). Again, wind solutions are found by inward integration from the sonic point down to the disk. A reference model is constructed with the same black hole mass and field geometry ($`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=2.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and field line attached at $`r=r_{}=4r_h`$ and making an angle $`\theta =85^{}`$ with the disk). The disk is supposed to be optically thick to neutrinos from $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=3r_h`$ to $`r_{\mathrm{out}}=10r_h`$. The temperature of the neutrinosphere in this reference model is $`T_\nu =2`$ MeV and does not vary with radius which allows a simple calculation of the geometric integrals appearing in the neutrino heating terms. The results for this reference model are shown in Fig. 6. The sonic point is located at $`y_\mathrm{s}=2.175`$. The temperature and density at the sonic point are $`T_\mathrm{s}=0.132`$ MeV and $`\rho _\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{3.23\hspace{0.33em}10}^4`$ g.cm-3 which correspond to a sound velocity $`v_\mathrm{s}/c=\mathrm{4.45\hspace{0.17em}10}^2`$ or $`v_\mathrm{s}=13350`$ km.s-1 and a mass loss rate $`\dot{m}=\mathrm{5.1\hspace{0.33em}10}^{13}`$ g.cm-2.s-1. The neutrino heating and cooling terms are detailed in Fig. 7. The major contribution to the heating comes from neutrino captures on nucleons while neutrino emission by nucleons and annihilation of electron-positron pairs have comparable effects on the cooling. We have then abandoned the assumption of constant neutrino temperature which was essentially made for a rapid calculation of the integrals in the neutrino heating terms. When $`T_\nu `$ depends on the radial distance in the disk, the calculation of $`\dot{q}_{\nu \overline{\nu }}`$ becomes very time consuming. Since $`\dot{q}_{\nu \overline{\nu }}`$ is not the dominant neutrino heating term as long as $`T_\nu 10`$ MeV we have neglected its contribution for the remainder of this paper. For example, in our reference model the mass loss rate is decreased from 5.1 to $`\mathrm{4.9\hspace{0.33em}10}^{13}`$ g.cm-2.s-1 if $`\dot{q}_{\nu \overline{\nu }}`$ is not included (i.e. a reduction of 4.5%). Without $`\dot{q}_{\nu \overline{\nu }}`$, a non constant neutrino temperature can be easily implemented. We adopted for $`T_\nu (r)`$ relation (5) with $`T_{}=2`$ MeV and the resulting mass loss rate is then $`\dot{m}=\mathrm{3.8\hspace{0.33em}10}^{13}`$ g.cm-2.s-1.
When $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, $`T_\nu `$, $`\theta `$ or the position $`r`$ of the foot of the line are varied, the mass loss rate behaves as in the optically thin case

$`\dot{m}(x)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{3.8\hspace{0.33em}10}^{13}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu (x)}{2\mathrm{MeV}}}\right]^{10}f[x,\theta (x)]\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{cm}^2.\mathrm{s}^1`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{3.8\hspace{0.33em}10}^{13}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_{}}{2\mathrm{MeV}}}\right]^{10}\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{r}}\right)^{15/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}}}{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r_{}}}}}\right)^{5/2}f[x,\theta (x)]\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{cm}^2.\mathrm{s}^1`$
The mass loss rate has been represented in Fig. 8 for $`T_{}=2`$ MeV, $`r_{}=4r_h`$, $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=3r_h`$, $`r_{\mathrm{out}}=10r_h`$ and the same field geometries already considered in Sect. 4.1.

### 4.3 Analytical solution

To obtain an analytical expression for the mass loss rate we have simplified the original wind problem by making several additional assumptions. We have first considered that wind material is not too far from hydrostatic equilibrium even at the sonic point (in practice, the ratio $`v\frac{dv}{dr}/\gamma `$ becomes larger than unity at $`\frac{y_sy}{y_s}5`$%). We have also supposed that the pressure is dominated by the contribution of relativistic particles, which is equivalent to $`\eta 1`$ since

$$\frac{P_N}{P_r}0.5\frac{\eta }{Y_e}$$
(40)
In practice $`\eta 0.1`$ in our numerical solutions, except near the disk surface but we have nevertheless adopted $`PP_rT^4`$ everywhere (we take $`P_r=\stackrel{~}{a}T^4`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ being given by Eq. (LABEL:eq:Pr) with $`\eta =0.1`$). Finally, we have located the sonic point at $`y_\mathrm{s}=y_1`$ where $`\gamma (y)=0`$. We then write the temperature

$$T=T_\mathrm{s}\left(\frac{\rho }{\rho _\mathrm{s}}\right)^{1/3}(1+\tau )$$
(41)
where the $`\tau `$ function is zero at the sonic point. From the sonic point down to the disk, as $`\eta \rho /T^3`$ first remains nearly constant (see Fig. 3 and 6) $`\tau `$ stays close to zero. It then becomes negative when $`\eta `$ increases in the vicinity of the disk. With these assuptions the wind equations can be rewritten

$$\rho vs=\dot{m}$$
(42)
$$4\frac{P}{\rho }\frac{d\mathrm{log}T}{dy}=\gamma r=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dy}$$
(43)
$$4\frac{P}{\rho }\frac{d\mathrm{log}(1+\tau )}{dy}=\frac{\dot{q}r}{3v}=\frac{\rho s\dot{q}r}{3\dot{m}}$$
(44)
The solution of Eq. (43) gives

$$T_0T=\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{a}\mathrm{\Theta }}_0^y\frac{1}{(1+\tau )^3}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dy}𝑑y$$
(45)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=T_\mathrm{s}^3/\rho _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`T_0`$ is the temperature in the plane of the disk. Taking $`\tau =0`$ everywhere leads to the approximate solution

$$T_0T\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{a}\mathrm{\Theta }}[\mathrm{\Phi }(y)\mathrm{\Phi }_0]$$
(46)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }(y=0)`$. If we moreover suppose that $`T_\mathrm{s}T_0`$ we get

$$t(y)=\frac{T}{T_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Phi }(y)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Phi }_0}$$
(47)
and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\stackrel{~}{a}T_0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{4\stackrel{~}{a}T_0}$$
(48)
with $`\varphi _\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{\Phi }(y_\mathrm{s})=\mathrm{\Phi }(y_1)`$. In Fig. 3 the approximate value of the temperature given by Eq. (47) is compared to the exact solution obtained in Sect. 4.1. It can be seen that the agreement is quite satisfactory for $`y<1`$. We then transform Eq. (44) using relation (41), the definition (47) of $`t(y)`$ and writing $`\dot{q}(y)`$ as

$$\dot{q}(y)=QT_0^6\left[g(y)t^6(y)\right]$$
(49)
where $`g(y)=1`$ for an optically thin disk with uniform heating. In an optically thick disk we only consider the heating due to neutrino captures on nucleons and $`g(y)`$ is the geometrical integral appearing in Eq. (31). We obtain

$$\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2\frac{d(1+\tau )^6}{dy}=\frac{s(y)Qr}{3\dot{m}}T_0^8\left\{t^2(y)\left[g(y)t^6(y)\right]\right\}$$
(50)
Integrating this equation from the disk to the sonic point yields

$$\dot{m}=\frac{Qr}{2\stackrel{~}{a}\mathrm{\Theta }^2[1(1+\tau _0)^6]}T_0^8=\frac{8\stackrel{~}{a}Qr}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }^2h_0^2}T_0^{10}$$
(51)
where the integral

$$=_0^{y_1}s(y)t^2(y)[g(y)t^6(y)]𝑑y$$
(52)
can be directly computed from Eq. (47), (12) and (15). To obtain Eq. (51) we have used the value (48) of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and

$$(1+\tau _0)^3=\frac{T_0}{\rho _0\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{4\stackrel{~}{a}T_0^4}{\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{h_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(53)
all quantities with a zero subscript being taken in the plane of the disk. The analytical formula (51) reproduces the $`T_0^{10}`$ dependence of $`\dot{m}`$ and diverges when $`h_0=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, i.e. when the Bernouilli function is equal to zero at the disk surface. The mass loss rate is also proportional to the mass of the black hole at constant $`x=r/r_h`$. We have tested the accuracy of the analytical expression by computing $`\dot{m}`$ for the reference model with uniform heating (optically thin disk). We get $`\dot{m}=\mathrm{3.9\hspace{0.17em}10}^{14}`$ g.cm-2.s-1 in reasonable agreement with the numerical result obtained in Sect. 4.1.

## 5 Estimates of the wind Lorentz factor

In the simple model considered in this paper we do not follow the acceleration of the wind beyond the sonic point up to relativistic velocities. Therefore, the terminal Lorentz factor cannot be obtained in a self-consistent way. We simply expect that an average value of the terminal Lorentz factor will be given by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{L_\mathrm{w}}{\dot{M}c^2}$$
(54)
where $`L_\mathrm{w}`$ is the power injected into the wind and $`\dot{M}`$ is the total mass loss from the disk

$$\dot{M}=_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\dot{m}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi r𝑑r$$
(55)
The mass loss per unit surface of the disk has been obtained in the previous section

$$\dot{m}(x)=\dot{m}_0\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}\left[\frac{T_d(x)}{2\mathrm{MeV}}\right]^{10}f[x,\theta (x)]$$
(56)
so that

$$\dot{M}=\mathrm{3.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^{12}\dot{m}_0\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^3_{x_{\mathrm{in}}}^{x_{\mathrm{out}}}\left[\frac{T_d(x)}{2\mathrm{MeV}}\right]^{10}f[x,\theta (x)]x𝑑x$$
(57)
We have computed $`\dot{M}`$ for $`x_{\mathrm{in}}=3`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{out}}=10`$, both for optically thin and optically thick disks. In optically thin disks the temperature is given by Eq. (8) and $`\dot{m}_0=\mathrm{2.33\hspace{0.17em}10}^{14}`$ g.cm-2.s-1. We have then

$$\dot{M}=\mathrm{5.1\hspace{0.17em}10}^{28}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}\left(\frac{\alpha }{0.01}\right)^2F_{\mathrm{geo}}\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}^1$$
(58)
with

$$F_{\mathrm{geo}}=_{x_{\mathrm{in}}}^{x_{\mathrm{out}}}\frac{f[x,\theta (x)]}{x^2}𝑑x$$
(59)
For an optically thick disk the temperature of the neutrinosphere is given by Eq. (5) and $`\dot{m}_0=\mathrm{3.8\hspace{0.17em}10}^{13}`$ g.cm-2.s-1 so that

$$\dot{M}=\mathrm{7.9\hspace{0.33em}10}^{28}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^3\left(\frac{T_{}}{2\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^{10}F_{\mathrm{geo}}\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}^1$$
(60)
with

$$F_{\mathrm{geo}}=_{x_{\mathrm{in}}}^{x_{\mathrm{out}}}\left(\frac{4}{x}\right)^{6.5}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{3}{x}}\right)^{5/2}f[x,\theta (x)]𝑑x$$
(61)
We now introduce the ratio $`\beta `$ of the wind power to the disk neutrino luminosity

$$L_\mathrm{w}=\beta L_\nu =\beta _{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\frac{7}{8}\sigma T_\nu ^4(r)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi r𝑑r$$
(62)
which yields the following estimate of $`T_{}`$

$$T_{}2\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^{1/2}\left(\frac{L_{52}}{\beta _5}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{MeV}$$
(63)
where $`L_{52}=L_\mathrm{w}/10^{52}`$ erg.s-1 and $`\beta _5=\beta /5`$. A large $`\beta `$ corresponds to a disk able to transfer most of its energy in the Poynting flux with limited dissipation and heating. From Eq. (58) and (63) we finally get

$$\dot{M}=\mathrm{7.9\hspace{0.33em}10}^{28}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^2\left(\frac{L_{52}}{\beta _5}\right)^{5/2}F_{\mathrm{geo}}\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}^1$$
(64)
We are now in a position to estimate the average Lorentz factor of the wind using Eq. (54). The results in the optically thin and optically thick cases are given respectively by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}& =& \frac{220}{F_{\mathrm{geo}}}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^1L_{52}\left(\frac{\alpha }{0.01}\right)^2\hfill & \mathrm{opt}.\mathrm{thin}\mathrm{case}\hfill \\ & & & \\ & =& \frac{140}{F_{\mathrm{geo}}}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^2L_{52}^{3/2}\beta _5^{5/2}\hfill & \mathrm{opt}.\mathrm{thick}\mathrm{case}\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
and the values of the geometric integrals are listed in Table 1.

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

From Eq. (65) and the values of the geometric integrals in Table 1 it appears that the wind emitted from the inner disk can reach large Lorentz factors ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }>100`$) only under quite restrictive conditions on the disk temperature and field geometry. The disk temperature depends on the viscosity parameter $`\alpha `$ (in the optically thin case) and on the value of $`\beta `$ (in the optically thick case). These two quantities which are quite uncertain unfortunately enter the expression of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with respective powers 2 and 2.5. The extreme sensitivity of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ to the disk temperature also amplifies all errors and uncertainties in the evaluation of $`T_d`$. For example, the simple analytical expression of $`T_d`$ (Eq. 8) used in the optically thin case does not depend on the accretion rate to the black hole while detailed calculations show that $`T_d`$ slightly increases with $`\dot{M}`$ (Popham et al. 1999). A consequence of Eq. (8) is that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}L`$ but just the opposite behavior (decreasing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with increasing $`L`$) would be expected if $`T_d\dot{M}^x`$ with $`x>0.1`$. It is moreover even not clear that the $`\alpha `$-prescription remains appropriate in the context of strongly magnetized disks.

The Lorentz factor is also extremely sensitive to the field geometry: to escape from the disk, the material has to be heated so that its energy becomes large enough to cross the potential well. The height of this barrier decreases rapidly when the field lines are more inclined, leading to an increasing mass flux. As shown by our analytical solution of the wind equations, there is even a critical inclination where the mass flux diverges. This happens when the potential barrier is so shallow that the initial enthalpy of the material in the disk allows it to freely escape along the field lines, even without additional heating. For this reason quasi vertical field lines are required to prevent baryonic pollution from growing dramatically and slight changes of the inclination angle lead to large variations of the Lorentz factor. Between $`\theta =90`$ and 80, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ approximately behaves as $`\theta ^{30}`$ ! A reduction by 1 of the inclination angle therefore decreases $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ by a factor of about 1.5.

Our incomplete description of the black hole and its environment prevents us from making any accurate prediction of the wind Lorentz factor. The numerical values of the mass loss rate given above have been obtained with a large set of simplifying assumptions. We present them to illustrate general tendencies which we believe are robust and can be used to evaluate the ability of realistic models to produce relativistic outflows. When the disk is thick or slim the temperature distribution and the heating or cooling processes will be different from the assumptions we have made. Similarly, the disk + black hole magnetosphere can be expected to have a very complex geometry and to be rapidly variable. The results of our toy model – extreme sensitivity of the mass loss rate to the disk temperature ($`\dot{m}T_d^{10}`$) and field geometry – indicate that high terminal Lorentz factors can be reached only under severe constraints: disk temperature $`T_d`$ not largely exceeding 2 MeV and presence of at least a few field lines pointing directly away from the disk in the vertical direction.

If such conditions can be satisfied so that the wind can indeed become relativistic, it is then easy to understand that its baryonic load and hence its Lorentz factor can strongly vary on short time scales as a result of fluctuations of the disk temperature or field geometry. Conversely, if the outflow remains non relativistic ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}1`$) because the disk is too hot or the field lines deviate too much from the vertical, the burst must be produced by the Blandford-Znajek effect alone with no contribution from accretion energy. The dense wind emitted from the disk can then have both a beneficial and negative effect on the central relativistic jet. It can probably help to confine the jet but can also represent a risk of baryonic pollution via Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities or magnetic reconnection at the jet-wind interface.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the anonymous referee for careful reading of the manuscript and thoughtful comments.


text:
# Optical Evidence of Multiphase Coexistence in Single Crystalline (La,Pr,Ca)MnO_"3"

## I INTRODUCTION

Recently, electronic phase separation in manganites has been the subject of various theoretical and experimental studies. Computational studies predicted that a strong tendency toward electronic phase separation in manganites could lead to an inhomogeneous ground state with hole-rich and hole-poor regions. Indeed, many experimental tools probed evidences of mixed phases with various length and time scales in the wide phase space of manganites that was obtained by tuning of chemical pressure  and/or carrier (or impurity) doping.

La$`_{\text{5/8}y}`$PryCa$`_{\text{3/8}}`$MnO$`_\text{3}`$ revealed a unique type of phase separation into submicrometer-sized mixtures of ferromagnetic (FM) metallic and charge-ordered (CO) insulating domains. With variation of y, the chemical pressure was varied to tune the volume fraction and the domain size of each component. It was found that the metal-insulator transition in the compound occurs through a percolation process and that magnetoresistance can be dramatically enhanced due to the two-phase coexistence.

In spite of such interesting phenomena, the physical origin of the phase separation in La$`_{\text{5/8}y}`$PryCa$`_{\text{3/8}}`$MnO$`_\text{3}`$ is not yet fully understood. A hole segregation-type phase separation  was ruled out because the penalty in electrostatic energy was too large for the large-scale charge separation of submicrometer-sized domains. Instead, Littlewood suggested that structural inhomogeneities should exist due to a large strain mismatch of the FM metallic and the CO insulating domains. Related to this suggestion, a neutron scattering study by Radaelli et al. showed that a phase separation with the mesoscopic length scale (500-2000 Å) occurring in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 could be driven by intragranular strain. On the other hand, through an X-ray scattering study, Kiryukhin et al. indicated that an additional insulating phase might be present in a La$`_{\text{5/8}y}`$PryCa$`_{\text{3/8}}`$MnO$`_\text{3}`$ crystal as a function of temperature (T).

Up to this point, there have been a limited number of optical studies on phase separation behavior in manganites. Liu, Cooper, and Cheong observed two absorption bands in optical conductivity spectra $`\sigma (\omega )`$ of Bi1-xCaxMnO3 at T$`_\text{N}`$$`<`$T$`<`$T$`_{\text{CO}}`$ that could be attributed to $``$100 Å scale mixtures of FM metallic and CO insulating domains. Jung et al. also observed two infrared (IR) absorption bands in $`\sigma (\omega )`$ of La$`_{\text{1/8}}`$Sr$`_{\text{7/8}}`$MnO$`_\text{3}`$ that suggested a phase separation between two FM phases which were orbital-ordered insulating and orbital-disordered metallic phases. These studies addressed the coexistence of two kinds of phases based on two absorption bands in $`\sigma (\omega )`$. However, there has been no report showing an evidence of multiphase coexistence through optical conductivity studies of manganites.

In this report, we present temperature (T)\- and magnetic field (H)-dependent $`\sigma (\omega )`$ of a La$`_{\text{5/8}y}`$PryCa$`_{\text{3/8}}`$MnO$`_\text{3}`$ ($`y`$0.35) (LPCMO) single crystal. At T$`_\text{C}`$$`<`$T$`<`$T$`_{\text{CO}}`$, the CO phase shows a large optical gap energy of $``$0.4 eV, which remains finite above T$`_{\text{CO}}`$. At T$`<`$T$`_\text{C}`$, at least two additional absorption bands newly emerge below 0.4 eV. The new absorption bands can be attributed to a FM metallic and a charge-disordered phase, appearing in the backbone of the charge-ordered phase below T$`_\text{C}`$. The T-dependent changes in the phonon spectra suggest that these multiphases have different degrees of lattice strain in each

phase. The $`H`$-dependent $`\sigma (\omega )`$ indicate that, with increasing H at 4.2 K, these coexisting multiphases become unified and eventually turn into a homogeneous FM metallic phase at 12 T.

## II EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS

### A Transport and magnetic properties

A single crystal of LPCMO was grown by the floating-zone method using a mirror furnace. The sample was characterized by resistivity $`\rho `$ and magnetization measurements using the four-probe method and a SQUID magnetometer, respectively. Figure 1(a) shows the T-dependent $`\rho `$ data for the LPCMO. With decreasing T, this sample undergoes a charge-ordering transition at T$`{}_{\text{CO}}{}^{}`$220 K and then a relatively sharp insulator-metal transition around T$`{}_{\text{C}}{}^{}`$120 K. Near T$`_\text{C}`$, we can observe the steplike changes of $`\rho `$ in the metal-insulator transition region. \[Even for samples obtained from the same batch, the temperature where the steplike structures appear varies.\] Similar steplike behaviors were observed not in LPCMO polycrystals but in single crystals, which was attributed to the larger size of the FM domains in the single crystals. Below T$`_\text{C}`$, the $`\rho `$ data show some fluctuations, which seem to be related to the reported random telegraph noise of LPCMO. Therefore, our $`\rho `$ response at low T suggests the coexistence of FM metallic and CO insulating domains with a temporal fluctuation. Figure 1(b) shows the normalized magnetization

value, M(T)/M(0), of the LPCMO crystal. M(T)/M(0) increases gradually around T$`_\text{C}`$, which is distinguished with the behavior of the FM transition in a homogeneous system. And, the value of M(T)/M(0) saturates at low temperature where the FM state becomes dominant.

### B T-dependence of optical spectra

We measured reflectivity spectra $`R(\omega )`$ with various T. Detailed techniques for the $`R(\omega )`$ measurements were described in our previous report. Figure 2 shows T-dependent $`R(\omega )`$ of the LPCMO single crystal. There are sharp structures due to transverse optic phonon modes in the far-infrared region. As T approaches 150 K from 300 K, $`R(\omega )`$ below 0.5 eV decrease, which is consistent with the dc resistivity behavior shown in the Fig. 1(a). As T decreases further below T$`_\text{C}`$, $`R(\omega )`$ show drastic increases, approaching the metallic response at 10 K.

Using the Kramers-Kronig (KK) relation, we obtained $`\sigma (\omega )`$ from the measured $`R(\omega )`$. Figure 3(a) shows T-dependent $`\sigma (\omega )`$ above T$`_\text{C}`$. As T is lowered from 300 K, $`\sigma (\omega )`$ below 0.5 eV are systematically suppressed and an optical gap clearly developed. With decreasing T and crossing T$`_{\text{CO}}`$, the peak position of the absorption band near 1.3 eV moves to higher energy around 1.4 eV. This behavior illustrates that the charge ordering evolves as a consequence of the freezing out of charge and lattice, and eventually makes a clean charge gap larger in accord with the more insulating nature of the CO state. Therefore, it is likely that the CO phase is dominant at T$`_\text{C}`$$`<`$T$`<`$T$`_{\text{CO}}`$ and that the broad band around 1.4 eV can be attributed to the characteristic optical response of the CO domains.

Figure 3(b) shows that, below T$`_\text{C}`$, new absorption bands appear in the low energy region. The features below $``$0.5 eV grow in strength as T decreases. Note that there is no Drude-like peak even at the metallic state. As indicated by the asterisks, $`\sigma (\omega )`$ at 10 K show at least two mid-IR absorption bands centered around 0.22 and 0.49 eV. As T decreases, the former remains located nearly at the same frequency, while the latter shifts to a higher frequency from 0.35 eV at 120 K to 0.49 eV at 10 K. This suggests that the origin of the lower frequency peak might be different from that of the higher frequency one. Even at T$`<`$$`<`$T$`_\text{C}`$, the strength of a broad absorption band around 1.4 eV does not decrease. This is in contrast with the $`\sigma (\omega )`$ behaviors of homogeneous FM metallic samples that show a significant spectral weight transfer from above 1.0 to below 1.0 eV. \[A similar spectral weight change was observed by applying $`H`$, which will be shown in Sec. II. C.\] This suggests that the volume fraction of the CO phase does not change significantly below T$`_\text{C}`$.

The evidence of the CO phase below T$`_\text{C}`$ can also be seen in the T-dependent phonon spectra, shown in Fig. 4. Depending on the types of collective motions in perovskite materials, the phonons around 182, 346, and 572 cm-1 are known as external, bending, and stretching modes, respectively. Each phonon mode reflects the motion of related ions: The external mode represents the vibrating motion of the La(Pr or Ca) ions against the MnO6 octahedra. The bending mode is strongly affected by a change in the Mn-O-Mn bond angle. The stretching

mode is sensitive to the Mn-O bond length. As shown in Fig. 4, the bending mode starts to be split near T$`_{\text{CO}}`$. Similar bending mode splitting was often observed when large anisotropic lattice distortions developed with the stabilization of charge ordering. As T decreases below T$`_\text{C}`$, the additional bands around 270, 290 and 516 cm-1 seem to continuously grow in intensity with the bending mode splitting. The persistence of the bending mode splitting below T$`_\text{C}`$ indicates that the CO phase still remains in the low T.

### C H-dependence of optical spectra

In order to further understandings, we performed melting experiments for the low-temperature CO phase by applying a magnetic field. As shown in Fig. 5, the H-dependent $`R(\omega )`$ were measured at a fixed T of 4.2 K using the facilities at National High Magentic Field Laboratory at Tallahassee. Details of the H-dependent reflectivity measurements were described elsewhere. With increasing H, the reflectivity increases and the phonon modes become screened. The inset of Fig. 5 shows the hysteresis of the $`\rho `$ values measured at 4.2 K. With increasing H, the $`\rho `$ value decreases abruptly at low H below 4 T and nearly saturates above 4 T. With decreasing H from 12 T to 0 T, $`\rho `$ remains at a small value, not recovering to the original value at 0 T. This hysteresis can be explained by the fact that the CO phase melts into a FM phase in the field increasing run, but the sample remains in the FM phase in the field decreasing run. Similar metastable FM phases were reported in Pr0.69Ca0.31MnO3 and (La0.7,Nd0.3)1.4Sr1.6Mn2O7.

Figure 6 shows the H-dependent $`\sigma (\omega )`$, which were obtained from the KK analysis of $`R(\omega )`$ in Fig. 5. With increasing H, the spectral weight above 1.0 eV becomes strongly suppressed and transferred to a low frequency region. Although the sample shows a metallic resistivity at 3 T, the corresponding optical spectrum still has an asymmetric mid-IR band. At H=12 T, a Drude-like peak can be clearly observed and the absorption peak around 1.4 eV disappears. Strong asymmetric absorption band below 1.4 eV were observed in the $`\sigma (\omega )`$ of some homogeneous FM metallic manganites and attributed to the large polaron absorption. Note that the two absorption bands shown in Fig. 3(b), are not observed in the data of Fig. 6 under high H. Therefore, it is evident that the optical spectra in Fig. 3(b) cannot be interpreted in terms of responses of a homogeneous FM metal.

## III DISCUSSION

### A Failure of two phase description

One important question which we should address at this point is how we can interpret the low-frequency absorption features below T$`_\text{C}`$. In Fig. 7(a), we plot together the T-dependent $`\sigma (\omega )`$ at zero field and the H-dependent $`\sigma (\omega )`$ at fixed 4.2 K. Note that the $`\sigma (\omega )`$ with H=0 T and T=150 K represents the CO response and the $`\sigma (\omega )`$ with H=12 T and T=4.2 K represents the FM response. With decreasing T from 150 K to 4.2 K, the spectral weight below 1 eV increases. And, with increasing H at 4.2 K, a large spectral weight transfer occurs from above $``$1 eV to below $``$1 eV. Then, the simplest way to describe $`\sigma (\omega )`$ below T$`_\text{C}`$ is to use two phase description \[namely, by assuming that the each state is composed of the insulating CO and the metallic FM phases\].

Optical properties of an inhomogeneous medium can be modeled by several effective medium theories, which predict the effective optical conductivity $`\sigma _{eff}(\omega )`$ in terms of $`\sigma (\omega )`$ and volume fraction of its constituent components. To check the validity of the two phase description, we applied the two most commonly used effective medium theories, i.e., the Maxwell-Garnet theory (MGT) and the Bruggeman-type effective medium approximation (EMA). Details of these theories and their application to optical properties of composites can be found elsewhere. Figures 7(b) and 7(c) show $`\sigma _{eff}(\omega )`$ calculated using the MGT and the EMA for various values of $`f`$, which represents the volume fraction of the metallic domains, respectively. We used $`\sigma (\omega )`$ at 150 K and at 12 T (and 4.2 K) as responses of the homogeneous insulating and metallic phases, respectively. It looks like that the MGT is more appropriate for describing the general features of the experimental data, shown in Fig. 7 (a). However, none of the theories could reproduce the two peak structure below 0.5 eV, which was marked with the asterisks. This shows that a simple picture based on the two phase description cannot explain the two absorption features observed below T$`_\text{C}`$.

### B Optical Evidences of multiphase coexistence

To obtain further insight, we subtracted the optical response of the CO phases from the measured $`\sigma `$($`\omega `$) at each temperature, $`\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$T). It was assumed that $`\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$150 K) could represent the $`\sigma `$($`\omega `$) of CO domains. Figure 8 shows the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$T)$`\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$T)-$`\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$150 K) at various temperatures. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$10 K) curve is composed of an asymmetric absorption band peaked around 0.2 eV and a broad band with peaks around 0.4 and 0.8 eV. While the absorption band around 0.2 eV appears below T$`_\text{C}`$, the broad band with peaks around 0.4 and 0.8 eV already exists above T$`_{\text{CO}}`$.

To quantitatively estimate these T-dependent spectral weight absorption bands, we fitted the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$T) below T$`_\text{C}`$ as a sum of an asymmetric band (Band I) around 0.2 eV and two Lorentzians (Band II) around 0.4 and 0.8 eV. The inset of Fig. 8 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$10 K) curve and its fitting results. It is found that Band I is very similar to $`\sigma (\omega )`$ at H=3 T in Fig. 6. Band II is very similar to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$($`\omega ,`$280 K) in Fig. 8. These observations strongly suggest that Band I at low T should be associated with the FM metallic phase and that Band II should be attributed to another phase. The physical properties of this additional phase can be very similar to those of the high T charge-disordered (CDO) insulating phase.

Based on these analyses, we estimated the strength of Band I, SI, and Band II, SII, below T$`_\text{C}`$. It is interesting to compare the T-dependence of SI and SII with the normalized magnetization value, M(T)/M(0). Figure 9(a) shows T-dependences of SI (solid squares), SII (solid triangles), and M(T)/M(0). The observation that SI is proportional to M(T)/M(0) indicates that Band I is a result of the FM spin ordering. And the smooth behavior of M(T)/M(0) is not consistent with the FM transition in a homogeneous system. Therefore, SI can be attributed to the spectral weight of FM metallic domains in an inhomogeneous system. On the other hand, SII increases with M(T)/M(0) near T$`_\text{C}`$ and it

continuously increases even when M(T)/M(0) is saturated. This again confirms the above conclusion that Band II is due to the absorption of a CDO insulating phase appearing additionally with the development of the FM phase below T$`_\text{C}`$. All of these experimental findings suggest that there exist at least three phases, namely the FM metallic, the CO insulating, and the CDO insulating phases in LPCMO.

### C A possible origin of the charge disordered phase

The existence of the CDO phase in LPCMO might be closely related to the strain developments suggested by Littlewood. In perovskite manganites with strong Jahn-Teller (JT) electron-phonon interaction, anisotropic lattice strain can be developed by the JT distortion. In the CO state, it is well known that the anisotropic strain is quite large due to a cooperative JT distortion and a d$`_{z^2}`$ orbtial ordering. On the other hand, in a nearly homogeneous FM metallic state, the JT distortion becomes small. As T decreases below T$`_\text{C}`$, the FM phase starts to grow. If a single FM crystallite nucleates into the CO phase, it will be under a large stress from the surrounding CO crystals that discourages further growth. Then, domains in different parts of the LPCMO crystal will form with the strain field in random orientations, so the inhomogeneous strain cannot be easily released, leading to phase separation with a sub-$`\mu `$m length scale. This can explain the dominance of the CO phases far below T$`_\text{C}`$ and the hysteretic behavior of $`\rho `$, shown in the inset of Fig. 5. Moreover, due to a large strain mismatch between the FM and the CO phases, the interfacial region will have inhomogeneous strain and form the CDO phase.

The temperature dependence of the phonon spectra, shown in Fig. 4, also supports the suggested scenario based on the strain developments. It is well known that the phonon modes are quite sensitive to local lattice distortions. Figure 4 shows that, with decreasing T, the phonon mode splitting around 346 cm-1 starts to occur near T$`_{\text{CO}}`$ and remains even at T$`<`$T$`_\text{C}`$, in agreement with the dominance of the CO phase at the low temperature. Moreover, a few additional phonon structures, which are marked with arrows, clearly appear below T$`_{\text{CO}}`$, consistent with the existence of a new phase (i.e., the CDO phase).

The asymmetric line shape of Band I is indicative of the fact that the lattice distortion of the FM domains is not large. On the other hand, the $`\sigma (\omega )`$ of the CO domains with large strains showed a band centered $``$1.4 eV with a large 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$0.4 eV. Most of the spectral weights of Band II appear in the energy region of 0.3 -1.0 eV. This indicates that the lattice strain of the CDO region can be larger than that of the FM metallic domains, but smaller than that of the CO domains. According to our results in Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 8(a), the lower center frequency of Band II and SII increased as T decreased below T$`_\text{C}`$. This seems to indicate that the volume fraction, as well as the strain of the CDO domains, possibly located at the interface of FM and CO domains increases with deceasing T. Therefore, our $`\sigma (\omega )`$ data suggest that the lattice strains and their interplay with T among the three phases play a crucial role in determining the electronic and the magnetic properties of the LPCMO.

### D Charge ordering gap of the CE-type CO phase

It is worthwhile to acquire quantitative information on the optical gap energy 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at T$`{}_{\text{C}}{}^{}`$T. We drew a linear tangential line at the inflection point of $`\sigma (\omega )`$ and assigned its crossing energy with the abscissa as the gap value, shown as a dotted line in Fig. 3(a). Figure 9(b) shows the 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vs. T plot. The 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ just above T$`_\text{C}`$ is found to be as large as 0.38 eV. The value remains nearly the same for T$`{}_{\text{C}}{}^{}`$T$``$180 K and decreases slightly near T$`_{\text{CO}}`$. It should be noted that the 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ 0.38 eV at T$``$150 K is comparable to the observed value of La1/2Ca1/2MnO3 (i.e., 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ $``$ 0.45 eV at the ground state). Since the charge-ordering in LPCMO is known to be of the La1/2Ca1/2MnO3-type, i.e., the so-called CE-type, the large value of 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of LPCMO can be ascribed to the characteristics of the CE-type CO phase.

It is also interesting to note that 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$0.22 eV at T$`_{\text{CO}}`$ and 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$0.1 eV at 300 K. In other words, 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not become zero at T far above T$`_{\text{CO}}`$. This is in contrast with the behavior of many CO materials that show a nearly zero value of 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at T$`_{\text{CO}}`$. These anomalous 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ behaviors indicate that there exist enhanced spatial and/or temporal fluctuations in the CO correlation far above T$`_{\text{CO}}`$ in LPCMO. The enhanced CO fluctuations can be a generic feature of LPCMO that has mixed-phases near the phase boundary where a phase separation occurs as T$``$0.

## IV SUMMARY

In conclusion, T\- and H-dependent optical conductivity spectra of a La$`_{\text{5/8}y}`$PryCa$`_{\text{3/8}}`$MnO$`_\text{3}`$ single crystal revealed that at T$`<`$T$`_\text{C}`$, at least two absorption bands newly emerge below 0.4 eV. The new absorption bands can be attributed to a FM metallic and a charge-disordered phase that coexist with the charge-ordered phase. We also found that the LPCMO has a rather large charge gap and shows a fluctuation in charge-ordered correlation above T$`_\text{C}`$. In addition, the T-dependent changes of the phonon modes as well as polaron bands suggest that the coexisting multiphase might have different lattice strains. Our $`\sigma (\omega )`$ study supports that the structural as well as the electronic phase separation occurs in the LPCMO below T$`_\text{C}`$.

## V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to H. K. Lee, Dr. J. H. Jung, Y. S. Lee, D. S. Suh and Dr. Y. Chung for useful discussions and helpful experiments. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology through the Creative Research Initiative Program and by the Ministry of Education through the BK 21 Program. BGK, TYK and SWC are partially supported by NSF-DMR-9802513 and NSF-DMR-00-80008. Part of this work was performed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which is supported by the NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-0084173 and by the State of Florida.