text:
# Fluctuation Study of the Specific Heat of Mg11B2

(Revised June 13th, 2002)

## Abstract

The specific heat of polycrystalline Mg11B2 has been measured with high resolution ac calorimetry from 5 to 45 K at constant magnetic fields. The excess specific heat above Tc is discussed in terms of Gaussian fluctuations and suggests that Mg11B2 is a bulk superconductor with Ginzburg-Landau coherence length $`\xi _0=26`$ Å. The transition-width broadening in field is treated in terms of lowest-Landau-level (LLL) fluctuations. That analysis requires that $`\xi _0=20`$ Å. The underestimate of the coherence length in field, along with deviations from 3D LLL predictions, suggest that there is an influence from the anisotropy of Bc2 between the c-axis and the a-b plane.

Experimental observations of thermodynamic fluctuations in the specific heat have been limited in low-Tc superconductors because the long coherence lengths make the excess specific heat very small compared to the mean-field term Skocpol and Tinkham (1975). By contrast, the high transition temperatures and small coherence lengths of cuprate superconductors lead to significant fluctuation effects Inderhees et al. (1988). In the recently discovered superconductor Mg11B2 Nakamatsu et al. (2001), the coherence length and superconducting transition temperature lie between these extremes, suggesting that fluctuation effects will be observable and lead to further information on the superconducting coherence length. Indeed, the excess magnetoconductance of Mg11B2 was reported recently and discussed in terms of fluctuation effects Kang et al. (2002). Here we report the specific heat of Mg11B2 from 5 K to 45 K at several magnetic fields. Using high resolution ac calorimetry, we could study the superconducting transition region in detail. At zero-field, the excess specific heat is treated in terms of 3D Gaussian fluctuations and in field, the broadening and shift of the transition is analyzed in terms of lowest-Landau-level (LLL) fluctuations.

Polycrystalline Mg11B2 was prepared at $`T=950`$ C and $`p=3`$ GPa from a stoichiometric mixture of Mg and 11B isotope using a high-pressure synthesis method. Since the sample was synthesized at high pressure, there has been no additional annealing. Details of the synthesis can be found elsewhere Jung et al. (2001),Jung et al. (2002).

Measurements of the heat capacity were based on an ac-calorimetric technique Kraftmakher (2001). A long cylindrical sample was cut into a disk by a diamond saw and then was sanded to a thin rectangular shape whose dimensions are approximately $`1.1\times 1.5\times 0.1`$ mm3; its mass is $`375`$ $`\mu `$g. The front face of the prepared sample was coated with colloidal graphite suspension (DAG) thinned with isopropyl alcohol to prevent a possible change of the optical absorption properties of the sample with temperature. The sample was weakly coupled to the heat bath through helium gas and suspending thermocouple wires. As a heating source, we used square-wave modulated laser pulse. The oscillating heat input incurred a steady temperature offset (or dc offset) from the heat bath with an oscillating temperature superposed. The ac part was kept less than 1/10 of the dc offset and was then converted to heat capacity by the relationship : $`C1/T_{ac}`$. The heat capacity obtained was converted to a specific heat by using a literature value above the superconducting temperature Bouquet et al. (2001a). The frequency of the periodic heating was chosen so that the $`ac`$ temperature was inversely proportional to the frequency and, therefore, to the heat capacity; $`23`$ Hz was used in this experiment. The $`ac`$ and $`dc`$ temperatures were measured by type E thermocouple, which were varnished on the back face of the sample using a minute amount of GE7031 diluted with a solvent of methanol and toluene. The GE varnish typically amounts to less than 1 % of the sample mass. Since the field induced error of type E thermocouple is less than 1 % at 40 K in 8 tesla, we will neglect the field dependence of the addenda contribution (DAG, GE-varnish, and type E thermocouple) and treat the field dependence as due only to the sample.

The inset in Fig.1 shows the temperature dependence of the specific heat at zero and 7 tesla from 5 to 45 K. The main graph is a plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ vs temperature at zero field. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is the measured difference between the mixed- and normal-state specific heats. A 7-Tesla data set was used as a reference state above 20 K because it shows no observable transition in that range. The subtraction was executed without any smoothing of the 7-T data. The dash-dotted line is a BCS fit with the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{exp}}`$/$`\gamma _nT_c`$ being variable Muhlschlegel (1959). The normal electronic coefficient $`\gamma _n`$ was set to be 2.6 mJ/mol K from the literature Bouquet et al. (2001a) and Tc of 38.4 K was determined from scaling discussed below. The best fit showed that the ratio is 0.7, which is much smaller than the weak coupling BCS value of 1.43. Since the ratio is generally larger for strong coupling superconductors, the small value does not tell us anything about its coupling strength. Recently, there has been a plethora of experimental and theoretical evidence which supports two-gap features in MgB2, which can explain the non-BCS jump magnitude with some success. Bouquet et al. (2001b); Wang et al. (2001); Yang et al. (2001); Liu et al. (2001); Choi et al. (2002) However, we cannot rule out such other scenarios as an anisotropic gap structure. Posazhennikova et al. (2002),Seneor et al. (2002) For a system in which fluctuation effects are pronounced, the experimentally determined transition temperature is lower than the mean-field critical temperature ($`T_c^{mf}`$) because fluctuations drive the system into the normal state even below $`T_c^{mf}`$. It is unlikely, however, that this can explain the large deviation from the BCS value.

Above the transition temperature, there is an excess specific heat tail apparent in Fig. 1. Thouless Thouless (1960) and subsequently Aslamazov and Larkin Aslamazov and Larkin (1968) showed that Gaussian fluctuations arise above Tc and predicted that $`C_{fl}=C^+t^{(2d/2)}`$ with $`C^+=(k_B/8\pi )\xi _{GL}(0)^3`$, where $`t=T/T_c1,`$ $`d`$ is the dimensionality, and $`\xi _{GL}(0),`$ the T=0 K Ginzburg-Landau coherence length. Figure 2 shows the temperature dependence of the excess specific heat on a log-log scale. The data follow a power law with an exponent of -0.5 and C$`{}_{}{}^{+}=0.66`$ mJ/mol K. The exponent indicates that Mg11B2 is a 3D superconductor and the substitution of C+ into the above formula gives $`\xi _{GL}(0)=26\pm 1`$ Å.

When a magnetic field is applied, the specific heat broadens. Figure 3 shows the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/T`$ at several magnetic fields. The ratio of the transition temperature shift to the transition width broadening in field is unique in that it is not as large as in low-Tc superconductors nor as small as in high-Tc materials. Its intermediate behavior is related to the fact that the coherence length and the superconducting transition temperature of Mg11B2 are intermediate between low-Tc and high-Tc superconductors. Lee and Shenoy Lee and Shenoy (1972) studied fluctuation phenomena in the presence of a magnetic field, arguing that bulk superconductors exhibit a field-induced effective change to one-dimensional behavior in the vicinity of the transition temperature $`T_c(B)`$. In a uniform magnetic field, the fluctuating Cooper pairs move in quantized Landau orbits and, close to upper critical field (Bc2), the lowest Landau level dominates the contribution to the excess specific heat. So, a bulk superconductor behaves like an array of one-dimensional rods parallel to the field. Thouless Thouless (1975) extended the idea above and below $`T_c`$ and suggested a scaling parameter for the fluctuation specific heat that is valid throughout the transition region :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{exp}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }C_{mft}}=g\left(\frac{t}{\tau }\right),$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the reduced temperature and $`\tau `$ is a field dependent dimensionless parameter that describes the superconducting transition width. The functional form $`g(y)`$ is model dependent. When a Hartree-like approximation Bray (1974) is used to examine the fluctuation effects of the quartic term in the free energy functional, it results in a simple form :

$$g(y)=\left(1+x(y)\right)^1,$$
(2)
$$y=x^{2/3}(12/x),$$
(3)
where $`y=t/\tau (B)`$.

In Fig. 4, the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{exp}}/\mathrm{\Delta }C_{mft}`$ in the transition region was plotted as $`t/\tau (B)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{exp}}(B)=C(B)C(7T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{mft}`$ was determined as in the classic work by Farrant and Gough Farrant and Gough (1975) by fitting the low temperature side of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{exp}}(B)`$ as in Figs 1 and 3 and extrapolating linearly above T$`{}_{c}{}^{}(B)`$. A sketch is shown in the inset of Fig. 4. The scaling parameters $`\tau (B)`$ and Tc were chosen to make the data collapse onto the Hartree-like approximation (solid-squares). The values of $`\tau (B)`$ and Tc are listed in Fig. 4. The temperature dependence of the upper critical field Tc(B) is plotted in Fig. 5, and shows positive curvature close to $`T_c(B=0)`$. A simple empirical formula Sanchez et al. (1995), $`B_{c2}(T)=B_{c2}(0)[1(T/T_c)^2][1a(T/T_c)^2]`$, was used to describe the curvature, in which $`a`$ is a fitting parameter that is 0 and 0.3 for two-fluid model and for WHH model Werthamer et al. (1966) respectively. The best fit, solid line in Fig. 5, was produced with $`B_{c2}(0)=15.4`$ $`tesla`$ and $`a=0.8`$. Positive curvature near $`T_c(B=0)`$ was also observed in non-magnetic rare-earth nickel borocarbides $`RNi_2B_2C(R=Lu,Y)`$ and could be explained by the dispersion of the Fermi velocity using an effective two-band model Shulga et al. (1998).

The broadening parameter $`\tau `$(B) consists of a field dependent part ($`\tau _B)`$ and a field independent part ($`\tau _{in})`$. We postulate that they are independent of each other and add in quadrature, such that the total broadening is $`\tau ^2=\tau _{in}^2+\tau _B^2`$. The field independent part was obtained in zero field and accounts for sample inhomogeneity and zero-field fluctuation effects while the field dependent part is due solely to field-induced fluctuations. The field dependence of the broadening parameter is given by Thouless (1975) :

$$\tau _B=\left(\frac{B}{B_W}\right)^{1/\alpha },$$
(4)
$$B_W=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C}{k_B/8\pi \xi _0^3}\right)B_S,$$
(5)
where $`\alpha =2(d2)/2`$ ($`\alpha =3/2`$ for a bulk superconductor) and $`B_S=T_c(dB_{c2}/dT)_{T_c}`$ in the mean-field scheme. The exponent $`d2`$ indicates a dimensional crossover from d-dimension to d–2 behavior. The shift field $`B_S`$ is a characteristic field that sets the scale of the shift of the transition temperature while $`B_W`$ sets the scale of the width broadening of the transition region. In a standard superconductor, the ratio $`B_W/B_S`$ is very large ($`10^4`$), and the transition is shifted much more rapidly in field than it is broadened. In high temperature superconductors, such as YBCO, the broadening is as large as the shift ($`B_SB_W)`$, which is an indication that a mean-field approach based on a perturbation expansion might not be proper and that fluctuations should be treated in the context of critical phenomena. In Mg11B2, the ratio is in the order of 102, which is in between those two extremes. This feature seems consistent with other properties that show aspects of both conventional and high Tc superconductors. In order to study the anomalous broadening in field, we plot $`\tau _B`$ vs $`(B/\mathrm{\Delta }C)`$ on a log-log scale in Fig. 6. The slope represents the exponent (1/$`\alpha `$) while the coefficient of the slope $`\beta `$ is related to the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length through $`\beta =(k_B/8\pi \xi _0^3B_S)^{1/\alpha }`$. The lowest-Landau-level approximation is shown as a solid line having a slope of 2/3 and coefficient 2.7 $`(`$A/m K$`)^{2/3}`$. From the coefficient of the fit, the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length is estimated to be 20 Å. In the above analysis, the shift field $`B_S`$ of 16 tesla was obtained by fitting the linear region of $`B_{c2}`$ (see Fig. 5).

Before making any further conclusions, we discuss some of the assumptions that we made in the analysis. In the zero-field analysis, sample inhomogeneity has been neglected. Boron 11 isotope Mg11B2 has a Tc of 39 K while the excess specific heat extends well above 40 K. We might expect inhomogeneity effects to complicate the fluctuation analysis below the transition temperature but above Tc, where our analysis is concerned, the effect will be negligible. However, when nonzero field is applied, sample inhomogeneity must be considered because the analysis is of the field dependent behavior of the transition region. Sample inhomogeneity could produce an additional broadening through the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa `$ , and hence Hc2. Information on Hc2 slopes at different parts of the sample with different Tc’s would be needed to account for the additional broadening correctly. To be more precise, the Hc2 slope in the Tc = 39 K part of the sample and that in the, e.g., Tc = 38 K part would be needed. In our in-field analysis, we assumed that the slopes of Hc2 at different parts of the sample are same or if they are different, the difference is small, which leads to field independent inhomogeneity effect. It is necessary to study high quality single crystals with different Tc’s to better understand sample inhomogeneity effects on transition-width broadening.

In summary, the zero-field specific heat was discussed in the context of BCS theory plus 3D Gaussian fluctuations. The analysis indicates that Mg11B2 is a bulk superconductor and its coherence length is about 26 Å. In-field specific heat was treated in terms of lowest-Landau-level fluctuations. That analysis requires that $`\xi _0=20`$ Å. The in-field analysis could be complicated due to the effect of anisotropy in a polycrystalline sample. The anisotropy of $`B_{c2}`$ between ab-plane and c-axis directions can lead to a field dependent broadening due to the Tc distribution arising from the randomly oriented grains of the present sample. This in turn leads to an underestimation of the G-L coherence length. In order to understand the influence of anisotropy, we can assume that the transition broadening arises solely from $`B_{c2}`$ anisotropy and calculate the required anisotropy in our experimental temperature range. The reported anisotropy value of $``$3 from single crystal measurements Xu et al. (2001),Lee et al. (2001),Kim et al. (2002) is much smaller than the ratio 6 required to explain the broadening. From this consideration, we conclude that the anisotropy alone cannot explain the whole broadening and therefore that fluctuation effects should be considered in explaining the anomalous broadening.

This work at Urbana was supported by NSF DMR 99-72087. And the work at Pohang was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea through the Creative Research Initiative Program.


format: text

text:
# PLURICANONICAL SYSTEMS OF PROJECTIVE 3-FOLD OF GENERAL TYPE

## 1 Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety and let $`K_X`$ be the canonical bundle of $`X`$. $`X`$ is said to be a general type., if there exists a positive integer $`m`$ such that the pluricanonical system $`mK_X`$ gives a birational (rational) embedding of $`X`$. The following problem is fundamental to study projective vareity of general type.
Problem Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety of general type. Find a positive integer $`m_0`$ such that for every $`mm_0`$, $`mK_X`$ gives a birational rational map from $`X`$ into a projective space.
If $`dimX=1`$, it is well known that $`3K_X`$ gives a projective embedding. In the case of smooth projective surfaces of general type, E. Bombieri showed that $`5K_X`$ gives a birational rational map from $`X`$ into a projective space (). In the case of $`dimX3`$, recently the author gave a proof that there exists a positive integer $`\nu _n`$ depending only on $`n`$ such that for every smooth projective $`n`$-fold $`X`$ of general type, $`mK_X`$ gives a birational embedding of $`X`$ into a projective space for every $`m\nu _n`$ (\[28, Theorem 1.1\]).

But even in the case of 3-fold, it has not yet been known the explicit upper bound for $`\nu _3`$. In this article I would like to give an explicit upper bound for $`\nu _3`$.

###### Theorem 1.1

For every posive integer $`m18(2^93^7)!`$ and smooth projective $`3`$-fold $`X`$ of general type defined over complex numbers, $`mK_X`$ gives a birational rational map from $`X`$ into a projective space.

The bound here is astronomous and far from being optimal. Yes, this bound is definitely nonsense. But this is the first explicit bound for $`\nu _3`$. I am just interested in giving an explicit bound.

It is not difficult to improve the bound for $`\nu _3`$ given in Theorem 1.1. In fact there are a lot of obvious losses in the estimates given in this paper. But I decided not to include such an improvement, because I think it is completely nonsense.

One reason is that as is shown in , the actual bound for $`\nu _3`$ may be unexpectedly large. Actually in \[24, p.359, see $`X_{46}`$\] M. Reid constructed a minimal 3-fold $`X`$ of general type with $`K_X^3=1/420`$ (this $`X`$ is a complete intersection in a weighted projective space). This already implies that $`\nu _39`$.

Another reason is that it is very plausible that we may encounter a very strange 3-fold of general type near future. In my opinion, even if there is some hope to find the best bound for $`\nu _3`$, this kind of result may be uninteresting, unless it gives a perspective to the best bounds for $`\nu _n`$ for all $`n`$, because I think that to consider 3-folds only is meaningless.

We note that there are several previous works  by X. Benveniste, K. Matuki, T. Luo and M. Chen. Except T. Luo, they put conditions on minimal models. But since the construction of minimal models for 3-folds is very far from being explicit, I think that if we put condition on minimal models, the meaning of the results will be very much destroyed.

In contrast to the theory of curves and surfaces, the higher dimensional algebraic geometry is rather philosophical than practical or concrete. And we should give up very refined and concrete results and change our focus to more abstract theorems, otherwise we will be involved in tremendously complicated situation and will be very hard to continue.

This paper consists of two parts.

The first part is a review of the arguments in . The argument here works in all dimensions, if we assume the minimal model programs.

The second part is special for 3-folds of general type. Here we use a detailed description of 3-dimensional terminal singularities ().

So far it seems to be hopeless to get a perspective about explicit bounds for $`\nu _n`$ for $`n4`$.

In this paper all the varieties are defined over C.

## 2 How to bound the degree

In this section, we shall prove the following weaker theorem which is the special case of Theorem 1.1 in .

###### Theorem 2.1

(\[28, Theorem 1.1\]) There exists a positive integer $`\nu _3`$ such that for every projective 3-fold of general type $`X`$ and for every $`m\nu _3`$, $`mK_X`$ gives a birational embedding of $`X`$ into a projective space.

Since we need not only the result itself but also the proof, here we include the full proof of Theorem 2.1. The proof presented here is a part of the proof in , but it is much easier, since there exists a minimal model for a projective 3-fold of general type.

Let $`X`$ be a minimal projective $`3`$-fold of general type, i.e., $`X`$ has only Q-factorial terminal singularities and the canonical divisor $`K_X`$ is nef. We set

$$X^{}=\{xXx\text{Bs}mK_X\text{and }\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}\text{ is a biholomorphism}$$

$$\text{on a neighbourhood of }x\}.$$

Then $`X^{}`$ is a nonempty Zariski open subset of $`X`$.

### 2.1 Construction of a stratification

We set

$$\mu _0:=K_X^3.$$

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`x,x^{}`$ be distinct points on $`X^{}`$. We set

$$_{x,x^{}}=_x_x^{},$$

where $`_x,_x^{}`$ denote the maximal ideal sheaf of the points $`x,x^{}`$ respectively. Let $`\epsilon `$ be a sufficiently small positive number. Then

$$H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X)_{x,x^{}}^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m}{\sqrt[3]{2}}})0$$

for every sufficiently large $`m`$.

Proof of Lemma 2.1. Let us consider the exact sequence:

$$0H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X)_{x,x^{}}^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m}{\sqrt[n]{2}}})H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X))$$

$$H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X)/_{x,x^{}}^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m}{\sqrt[3]{2}}}).$$

We note that

$$3!\overline{lim}_m\mathrm{}m^3dimH^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X))=\mu _0$$

holds, since $`K_X`$ is nef and big. Since

$$3!\overline{lim}_m\mathrm{}m^3dimH^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X)/_{x,x^{}}^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m}{\sqrt[3]{2}}})=\mu _0(1\epsilon )^3<\mu _0$$

hold, we see that Lemma 2.1 holds. Q.E.D.

Let us take a sufficiently large positive integer $`m_0`$ and let $`\sigma `$ be a general (nonzero) element $`\sigma _0`$ of $`H^0(X,𝒪_X(m_0K_X)_{x,x^{}}^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m_0}{\sqrt[3]{2}}})`$. We define an effective Q-divisor $`D_0`$ by

$$D_0=\frac{1}{m_0}(\sigma _0).$$

We define a positive number $`\alpha _0`$ by

$$\alpha _0:=inf\{\alpha >0(X,\alpha D_0)\text{ is not KLT at both }x\text{ and }x^{}\},$$

where KLT is short for of Kawamata logterminal (cf. \[14, p.56, Definition 2.34\]). Since $`(_{i=1}^3z_i^2)^3`$ is not locally integrable around $`O\text{C}^3`$, by the construction of $`D_0`$, we see that

$$\alpha _0\frac{3\sqrt[3]{2}}{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )}$$

holds. Then one of the following two cases occurs.
Case 1.1: For every small positive number $`\delta `$, $`(X,(\alpha _0\delta )D_0)`$ is KLT at both $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$.
Case 1.2: For every small positive number $`\delta `$, $`(X,(\alpha _0\delta )D_0)`$ is KLT at one of $`x`$ or $`x^{}`$ say $`x`$.

We first consider Case 1.1. Let $`X_1`$ be the minimal center of log canonical singularities at $`x`$ (cf. ). We consider the following two cases.
Case 2.1: $`X_1`$ passes through both $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$,
Case 2.2: Otherwise

For the first we consider Case 2.1. In this case $`X_1`$ is not isolated at $`x`$. Let $`n_1`$ denote the dimension of $`X_1`$. Let us define the volume $`\mu _1`$ of $`X_1`$ with respect to $`K_X`$ by

$$\mu _1:=K_X^{n_1}X_1.$$

Since $`xX^{}`$, we see that $`\mu _1>0`$ holds. The proof of the following lemma is identical that of Lemma 2.1.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`\epsilon `$ be a sufficiently small positive number and let $`x_1,x_2`$ be distinct regular points on $`X_1`$. Then for a sufficiently large $`m>1`$,

$$H^0(X_1,𝒪_{X_1}(mK_X)_{x_1,x_2}^{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}(1\epsilon )\frac{m}{\sqrt[n_1]{2}}})0$$

holds.

Let $`x_1,x_2`$ be two distinct regular points on $`X_1`$. Let $`m_1`$ be a sufficiently large positive integer and Let

$$\sigma _1^{}H^0(X_1,𝒪_{X_1}(mK_X)_{x_1,x_2}^{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}(1\epsilon )\frac{m}{\sqrt[n_1]{2}}})$$

be a nonzero element.

By Kodaira’s lemma there is an effective Q-divisor $`E`$ such that $`K_XE`$ is ample. Let $`\mathrm{}_1`$ be a sufficiently large positive integer which will be specified later such that

$$L_1:=\mathrm{}_1(K_XE)$$

is Cartier.

###### Lemma 2.3

If we take $`\mathrm{}_1`$ sufficiently large, then

$$\varphi _m:H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X+L_1))H^0(X_1,𝒪_{X_1}(mK_X+L_1))$$

is surjective for every $`m0`$.

Proof. $`K_X`$ is nef Q-Cartier divisor by the assumption. Let $`r`$ be the index of $`X`$, i.e. $`r`$ is the minimal positive integer such that $`rK_X`$ is Cartier. Then since $`K_X`$ is semiample (), by the Kodaira-Nakano vanishing theorem, for every locally free sheaf $``$, there exists a positive integer $`k_0`$ depending on $``$ such that for every $`\mathrm{}k_0`$

$$H^q(X,𝒪_X((1+mr)K_X+L_1))=0$$

holds for every $`q1`$ and $`m0`$. Let us consider the exact sequences

$$0𝒦_j_j𝒪_X(jK_X)_{X_1}0$$

for some locally free sheaf $`_j`$ for every $`0jr1`$, where $`_{X_1}`$ denotes the ideal sheaf associated with $`X_1`$. Then noting the above fact, we can prove that if we take $`\mathrm{}_1`$ sufficiently large,

$$H^q(X,𝒪_X(mK_X+L_1)_{X_1})$$

holds for every $`q1`$ and $`m0`$ by exactly the same manner as the standard proof of Serre’s vanishing theorem (cf. \[8, p.228, Theorem 5.2\]). This implies the desired surjection. Q.E.D.

Let $`\tau `$ be a general section in $`H^0(X,𝒪_X(L_1))`$. Then by Lemma 2.3 we see that

$$\sigma _1^{}\tau H^0(X_1,𝒪_{X_1}(m_1K_X+L_1)_{x_1,x_2}^{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}(1\epsilon )\frac{m_1}{\sqrt[n_1]{2}}})$$

extends to a section

$$\sigma _1H^0(X,𝒪_X((m_1+\mathrm{}_1)K_X)).$$

We may assume that there exists a neighbourhood $`U_{x,x^{}}`$ of $`\{x,x^{}\}`$ such that the divisor $`(\sigma _1)`$ is smooth on $`U_{x,x^{}}X_1`$ by Bertini’s theorem, if we take $`\mathrm{}_1`$ sufficiently large, since as Lemma 2.3

$$H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X+L_1)(h^m))H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X+L_1)_{X_1}_y)$$

is surjective for every $`yX`$ and $`m0`$. We set

$$D_1=\frac{1}{m_1+\mathrm{}_1}(\sigma _1).$$

Suppose that $`x,x^{}`$ are nonsingular points on $`X_1`$. Then we set $`x_1=x,x_2=x^{}`$. Let $`\epsilon _0`$ be a sufficiently small positive rational number and define $`\alpha _1`$ by

$$\alpha _1:=inf\{\alpha >0\text{ }(\alpha _0\epsilon _0)D_0+\alpha D_1\text{ is not KLT at both }x\text{ and }x^{}\}.$$

Then we may define the proper subvariety $`X_2`$ of $`X_1`$ as a minimal center of logcanonical singularities as before.

By Lemma 2.2 we may assume that we have taken $`m_1`$ so that

$$\frac{\mathrm{}_1}{m_1}\epsilon _0\frac{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}}{n_1\sqrt[n_1]{2}}$$

holds.

###### Lemma 2.4

$$\alpha _1\frac{n_1\sqrt[n_1]{2}}{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}}+O(\epsilon _0)$$

holds.

To prove Lemma 2.4, we need the following elementary lemma.

###### Lemma 2.5

(\[29, p.12, Lemma 6\]) Let $`a,b`$ be positive numbers. Then

$$_0^1\frac{r_2^{2n_11}}{(r_1^2+r_2^{2a})^b}𝑑r_2=r_1^{\frac{2n_1}{a}2b}_0^{r_1^{2a}}\frac{r_3^{2n_11}}{(1+r_3^{2a})^b}𝑑r_3$$

holds, where

$$r_3=r_2/r_1^{1/a}.$$

Proof of Lemma 2.4. Let $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ be a local coordinate on a neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ in $`X`$ such that

$$UX_1=\{qUz_{n_1+1}(q)=\mathrm{}=z_n(q)=0\}.$$

We set $`r_1=(_{i=n_1+1}^nz_1^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`r_2=(_{i=1}^{n_1}z_i^2)^{1/2}`$. Then there exists a positive constant $`C`$ such that

$$\sigma _1^2C(r_1^2+r_2^{2\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}(1\epsilon )\frac{m_1}{\sqrt[n_1]{2}}})$$

holds on a neighbourhood of $`x`$, where $``$ denotes the norm with respect to $`h_X^{m_1+\mathrm{}_1}`$. We note that there exists a positive integer $`M`$ such that

$$\sigma ^2=O(r_1^M)$$

holds on a neighbourhood of the generic point of $`UX_1`$, where $``$ denotes the norm with respect to $`h_X^{m_0}`$. Then by Lemma 2.5., we have the inequality

$$\alpha _1(\frac{m_1+\mathrm{}_1}{m_1})\frac{n_1\sqrt[n_1]{2}}{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}}+O(\epsilon _0)$$

holds. By using the fact that

$$\frac{\mathrm{}_1}{m_1}\epsilon _0\frac{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}}{n_1\sqrt[n_1]{2}}$$

we obtain that

$$\alpha _1\frac{n_1\sqrt[n_1]{2}}{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}}+O(\epsilon _0)$$

holds. Q.E.D.
If $`x`$ or $`x^{}`$ is a singular point on $`X_1`$, we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.6

Let $`\phi `$ be a plurisubharmonic function on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`\phi _t(t\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be the restriction of $`\phi `$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n\times \{t\}`$. Assume that $`e^{\phi _t}`$ does not belong to $`L_{loc}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^n,O)`$ for every $`t\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$.

Then $`e^{\phi _0}`$ is not locally integrable at $`O\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$.

Lemma 2.6 is an immediate consequence of \[22, p.20, Theorem\]. Using Lemma 2.6 and Lemma 2.5, we see that Lemma 2.4 holds by letting $`x_1x`$ and $`x_2x^{}`$.

Next we consider Case 1.2 and Case 2.2. In this case for every sufficiently small positive number $`\delta `$, $`(X,(\alpha _0\epsilon _0)D_0+(\alpha _1\delta )D_1)`$ is KLT at $`x`$ and not KLT at $`x^{}`$.

In these cases, instead of Lemma 2.2, we use the following simpler lemma.

###### Lemma 2.7

Let $`\epsilon `$ be a sufficiently small positive number and let $`x_1`$ be a smooth point on $`X_1`$. Then for a sufficiently large $`m>1`$,

$$H^0(X_1,𝒪_{X_1}(mK_X)_{x_1}^{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}(1\epsilon )m})0$$

holds.

Then taking a general nonzero element $`\sigma _1^{}`$ in

$$H^0(X_1,𝒪_{X_1}(m_1K_X)(h^{m_1})_{x_1}^{\sqrt[n_1]{\mu _1}(1\epsilon )m_1}),$$

for a sufficiently large $`m_1`$. As in Case 1.1 and Case 2.1 we obtain a proper subvariety $`X_2`$ in $`X_1`$ also in this case.

Inductively for distinct points $`x,x^{}X^{}`$, we construct a strictly decreasing sequence of subvarieties

$$X=X_0X_1\mathrm{}X_rX_{r+1}=x\text{or}x^{}$$

and invariants (depending on small positive rational numbers $`\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{r1}`$, large positive integers $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_r`$, etc.) :

$$\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r,$$

$$\mu _0,\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r$$

and

$$n>n_1>\mathrm{}>n_r.$$

By Nadel’s vanishing theorem (\[20, p.561\]) we have the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.8

Let $`x,x^{}`$ be two distinct points on $`X^{}`$. Then for every $`m_{i=0}^r\alpha _i+1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}`$ separates $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$.

Proof. For $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},r`$ let $`h_i`$ be the singular hermitian metric on $`K_X`$ defined by

$$h_i:=\frac{1}{\sigma _i^{\frac{2}{m_i+\mathrm{}_i}}},$$

where we have set $`\mathrm{}_0:=0`$. More precisely for any $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-hermitian metric $`h_X`$ on $`K_X`$ we have defined $`h_i`$ as

$$h_i:=\frac{h_X}{h_X^{m_i+\mathrm{}_i}(\sigma _i,\sigma _i)^{\frac{1}{m_i+\mathrm{}_i}}}.$$

Using Kodaira’s lemma (\[13, Appendix\]), let $`E`$ be an effective Q-divisor $`E`$ such that $`K_XE`$ is ample. Let $`m`$ be a positive integer such that $`m_{i=0}^r\alpha _i+1`$ holds. Let $`h_L`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-hermitian metric on the ample Q-line bundle

$$L:=(m1(\underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}(\alpha _i\epsilon _i))\alpha _r\delta _L)K_X\delta _LE$$

with strictly positive curvature, where $`\delta _L`$ be a sufficiently small positive number and we have considered $`h_L`$ as a singular hermitian metric on
$`(m1(_{i=0}^{r1}(\alpha _i\epsilon _i))\alpha _r)K_X`$. Let us define the singular hermitian metric $`h_{x,x^{}}`$ of $`(m1)K_X`$ defined by

$$h_{x,x^{}}=(\underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}h_i^{\alpha _i\epsilon _i})h_r^{\alpha _r}h_L.$$

Then we see that $`(h_{x,x^{}})`$ defines a subscheme of $`X`$ with isolated support around $`x`$ or $`x^{}`$ by the definition of the invariants $`\{\alpha _i\}`$’s. By the construction the curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_{x,x^{}}}`$ is strictly positive on $`X`$. Then by Nadel’s vanishing theorem (\[20, p.561\]) we see that

$$H^1(X,𝒪_X(mK_X)(h_{x,x^{}}))=0$$

holds. Hence

$$H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X))H^0(X,𝒪_X𝒪_X/(h_{x,x^{}}))$$

is surjective. Since by the construction of $`h_{x,x^{}}`$ (if we take $`\delta _L`$ sufficiently small) $`\text{Supp}(𝒪_X/(h_{x,x^{}}))`$ contains both $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ and is isolated at least one of $`x`$ or $`x^{}`$. Hence by the above surjection, there exists a section $`H^0(X,𝒪_X(mK_X))`$ such that

$$\sigma (x)0,\sigma (x^{})=0$$

or

$$\sigma (x)=0,\sigma (x^{})0$$

holds. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}`$ separates $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. Q.E.D.

### 2.2 Construction of the stratification as a family

In this subsection we shall construct the above stratification as a family.

We note that for a fixed pair $`(x,x^{})X^{}\times X^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$, $`_{i=0}^r\alpha _i`$ depends on the choice of $`\{X_i\}`$’s, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ denotes the diagonal of $`X\times X`$. Moving $`(x,x^{})`$ in $`X^{}\times X^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$, we shall consider the above operation simultaneously. Let us explain the procedure. We set

$$B:=X^{}\times X^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_X.$$

Let

$$p:X\times BX$$

be the first projection and let

$$q:X\times BB$$

be the second projection. Let $`Z`$ be the subvariety of $`X\times B`$ defined by

$$Z:=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3):X\times Bx_1=x_2\text{or}x_1=x_3\}.$$

In this case we consider

$$q_{}𝒪_{X\times B}(m_0p^{}K_X)_Z^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m_0}{\sqrt[3]{2}}}$$

instead of

$$H^0(X,𝒪_X(m_0K_X)_{x,x^{}}^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m_0}{\sqrt[3]{2}}}),$$

where $`_Z`$ denotes the ideal sheaf of $`Z`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ be a nonzero global meromorphic section of

$$q_{}𝒪_{X\times B}(m_0p^{}K_X)_Z^{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}(1\epsilon )\frac{m_0}{\sqrt[3]{2}}}$$

on $`B`$ for a sufficiently large positive integer $`m_0`$. We set

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_0:=\frac{1}{m_0}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0).$$

We define the singular hermitian metric $`\stackrel{~}{h}_0`$ on $`p^{}K_X`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_0:=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0^{2/m_0}}.$$

We shall replace $`\alpha _0`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0:=inf\{\alpha >0\text{the generic point of}Z\text{Spec}(𝒪_{X\times B}/(h_0^\alpha ))\}.$$

Then for every $`0<\delta <<1`$, there exists a Zariski open subset $`U`$ of $`B`$ such that for every $`bU`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_0_{X\times \{b\}}`$ is well defined and

$$b\text{Spec}(𝒪_{X\times \{b\}}/(\stackrel{~}{h}_0^{\alpha _0\delta }_{X\times \{b\}})),$$

where we have identified $`b`$ with distinct two points in $`X`$. And also by Lemma 2.6, we see that

$$b\text{Spec}(𝒪_{X\times \{b\}}/(\stackrel{~}{h}_0^{\alpha _0}_{X\times \{b\}})),$$

holds for every $`bB`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ be the minimal center of logcanonical singularities of $`(X\times B,\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{D}_0)`$ at the generic point of $`Z`$. (although $`\stackrel{~}{D}_0`$ may not be effective this is meaningful by the construction of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$). We note that $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1q^1(b)`$ may not be irreducible even for a general $`bB`$. But if we take a suitable finite cover

$$\varphi _0:B_0B,$$

on the base change $`X\times _BB_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ defines a family of irreducible subvarieties

$$f_1:\widehat{X}_1U_0$$

of $`X`$ parametrized by a nonempty Zariski open subset $`U_0`$ of $`\varphi _0^1(U)`$. Let $`n_1`$ be the relative dimension of $`f_1`$. We set

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1:=K_X^{n_1}f_1^1(b_0)$$

where $`b_0`$ is a general point on $`U_0`$. Continueing this process we may construct a finite morphism

$$\varphi _r:B_rB$$

and a nonempty Zariski open subset $`U_r`$ of $`B_r`$ which parametrizes a family of stratification

$$XX_1X_2\mathrm{}X_rX_{r+1}=x\text{or}x^{}$$

constructed as before. And we also obtain invariants $`\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_r\}`$, $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\mu }_r\}`$, $`\{n=\stackrel{~}{n}_0\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{n}_r\}`$. Hereafter we denote these invariants without $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ for simplicity. By the same proof as Lemma 2.4, we have the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.9

$$\alpha _i\frac{n_i\sqrt[n_i]{2}}{\sqrt[n_i]{\mu _i}}+O(\epsilon _{i1})$$

hold for $`1ir`$.

By Lemma 2.9 we obtain the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.1

For every

$$m\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\alpha _i+1$$

$`mK_X`$ gives a birational rational map from $`X`$ into a projective space.

### 2.3 Use of subadjunction theorem

The following subadjunction theorem is crucial in our proof.

###### Theorem 2.2

() Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety. Let $`D^{}`$ and $`D`$ be effective Q-divisor on $`X`$ such that $`D^{}<D`$, $`(X,D^{})`$ is logterminal and $`(X,D)`$ is logcanonical. Let $`W`$ be a minimal center of logcanonical singularities for $`(X,D)`$. Let $`H`$ be an ample Cartier divisor on $`X`$ and $`ϵ`$ a positive rational number. Then there exists an effective Q-divisor $`D_W`$ on $`D`$ such that

$$(K_X+D+ϵH)_W_\text{Q}K_W+D_W$$

and $`(W,D_W)`$ is logterminal. In particular $`W`$ has only rational singularities.

###### Remark 2.1

As is stated in \[12, Remark 2.2\], the assumption that $`W`$ is a minimal center can be replaced that $`W`$ is a local minimal center, since the argument in  which uses the variation of Hodge structure does not change. But in this case we need to replace $`K_W`$ by the pushforward of the canonical divisor of the normalization of $`W`$, since \[11, p.494, Theorem 1.6\] works only locally in this case.

Roughly speaking, Theorem 2.2 implies that $`K_X+D`$ (almost) dominates $`K_W`$.

Let $`W_j`$ be a nonsingular model of $`X_j`$. By Theorem 2.2, we see that

$$\mu (W_j,K_{W_j})(1+\underset{i=0}{\overset{j1}{}}\alpha _i)^{n_j}\mu _j$$

holds, where

$$\mu (W_j,K_{W_j}):=n_j!\overline{lim}_m\mathrm{}m^{n_j}dimH^0(W_j,𝒪_{W_j}(mK_{W_j})).$$

We note that if we take $`x,x^{}`$ general, $`W_j`$ ought to be of general type. Otherwise $`X`$ is dominated by a family of varieties of nongeneral type. This contradicts the assumption that $`X`$ is of general type.

For every smooth projective variety $`W`$ of general type of dimension $`k2`$,

$$\mu (W,K_W)C(k)$$

holds, where $`C(1)=2`$ and $`C(2)=1`$. Then by the above inequality

$$C(n_j)(1+\underset{i=0}{\overset{j1}{}}\alpha _i)^{n_j}\mu _j$$

holds. Since

$$\alpha _i\frac{\sqrt[n_i]{2}n_i}{\sqrt[n_i]{\mu _i}}+O(\epsilon _{i1})$$

holds by Lemma 2.9, we see that

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt[n_j]{\mu _j}}(1+\underset{i=0}{\overset{j1}{}}\frac{\sqrt[n_i]{2}n_i}{\sqrt[n_i]{\mu _i}})C(n_j)^{\frac{1}{n_j}}$$

holds for every $`j1`$. Using the above inequality inductively, we have the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.10

Suppose that $`\mu _01`$ holds. Then there exists a positive constant $`C`$ independent of $`X`$ such that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{\sqrt[n_i]{2}n_i}{\sqrt[n_i]{\mu _i}}\frac{C}{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}}$$

holds. In fact $`C`$ can be taken to be

$$C=3\sqrt[3]{2}+(3\sqrt[3]{2}+1)\sqrt{2}+\frac{1}{2}(3\sqrt[3]{2}+(3\sqrt[3]{2}+1)\sqrt{2}+1).$$

### 2.4 Estimate of the degree

###### Lemma 2.11

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}`$ is birational rational map onto its image, then

$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}(X)\mu _0m^3$$

holds.

Proof. Let $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the resolution of the base locus of $`mK_X`$ and let

$$p^{}mK_X=P_m+F_m$$

be the decomposition into the free part $`P_m`$ and the fixed component $`F_m`$. We have

$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}(X)=P_m^3$$

holds. Then by the ring structure of $`R(X,K_X)`$, we have an injection

$$H^0(\stackrel{~}{X},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(\nu P_m))H^0(X,𝒪_X(m\nu K_X))$$

for every $`\nu 1`$. We note that since $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(\nu P_m)`$ is globally generated on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, for every $`\nu 1`$ we have the injection

$$𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(\nu P_m)p^{}(𝒪_X(m\nu K_X).$$

Hence there exists a natural morphism

$$H^0(\stackrel{~}{X},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(\nu P_m))H^0(X,𝒪_X(m\nu K_X))$$

for every $`\nu 1`$. This morphism is clearly injective. This implies that

$$\mu _0m^3\mu (\stackrel{~}{X}_i,P_m)$$

holds. Since $`P_m`$ is nef and big on $`X`$ we see that

$$\mu (\stackrel{~}{X},P_m)=P_m^3$$

holds. Hence

$$\mu _0m^3P_m^3$$

holds. This implies that

$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}(X)\mu _0m^3$$

holds. Q.E.D.
By Lemma 2.9.2.10,2.11 we see that if $`\mu _01`$ holds, for

$$m:=1+\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{\sqrt[n_i]{2}n_i}{\sqrt[n_i]{\mu _i}}$$

$`mK_X`$ gives a birational embedding of $`X`$ and

$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_{mK_X}(X)C^3$$

holds. Since $`C`$ is a positive constant independent of $`X`$, we have that there exists a positive constant $`C(3)`$ independent of $`X`$ such that

$$\mu _0=K_X^3C(3)$$

holds.

More precisely we arugue as follows. Let $``$ be an irreducible component of the Hilbert scheme of a projective space. Let $`_0`$ be the Zariski open subset of $``$ which parametrizes irreducible subvarieties. Then there exists a finite stratification of $`_0`$ by Zariski locally closed subsets such that on each strata there exists a simultaeneous resolution of the universal family on the strata. We note that the volume of the canonical bundle of the resolution is constant on each strata by . Hence there exists a positive constant $`C(n)`$ such that

$$\mu (X,K_X)C(3)$$

holds for every projective 3-fold $`X`$ of general type.

Then by Lemma 2.9 and 2.10, we see that there exists a positive integer $`\nu _3`$ such that for every projective $`3`$-fold $`X`$ of general type, $`mK_X`$ gives a birational embedding into a projective space for every $`m\nu _3`$, This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1.

## 3 Bounding the index of $`X`$

Let $`X`$ be a canonical 3-fold of general type such that $`\mu (X,K_X)=K_X^3`$ is minimal among all canonical 3-fold of general type.

### 3.1 3-dimensional terminal singularities

Let $`r,a_1,a_2,a_3`$ be coprime positive integers. Let $`\xi `$ be a primitive $`r`$-th root of unity acting on $`\text{C}^3`$ via

$$\xi (x,y,z)=(\xi ^{a_1}x,\xi ^{a_1}y,\xi ^{a_3}z).$$

A singularity $`QX`$ is of type $`\frac{1}{r}(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$, if $`(X,Q)`$ is isomorphic to $`(\text{C}^3,O)/\xi `$. It is known that $`\frac{1}{r}(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ is terminal, if and only if $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)=(1,1,b)`$.

In general a 3-dimensional terminal singularity is not necessarily a quotient singularity. But we can describe a 3-dimensional terminal singularity as follows.

Let $`G_r`$ be the cyclic group of order $`r`$. Let $`\xi `$ be a generator of $`G_r`$. Let

$$\stackrel{~}{X}=\{(x,y,z,t)\text{C}^4xyg(z^r,t)\},$$

where $`g`$ is a polynomial. Let us define the action of $`G_r`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ by

$$\xi (x,y,z,t):=(\xi x,\xi ^1y,\xi ^bz,t),$$

where $`b`$ is a positive integer coprime to $`r`$. We set $`X:=\stackrel{~}{X}/G_r`$. We may consider $`X`$ as a family over C by the projection $`(x,y,z,t)t`$. By , all the 3-dimensional terminal singularities of index $`r5`$ are obtained as a member of such a family $`X𝐂`$. We note that since $`X`$ is a Cartier divisor in $`\frac{(1,1,b)}{r}\times \text{C}`$, all the 3-dimensional terminal singularities of index $`r5`$ can be deformed to a sum of quotient singularities of type $`\frac{(1,1,b)}{r}`$. The 3-dimensional terminal singularities of index $`4`$ are described similary.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`(M,Q)`$ be a germ of a 3-dimensional terminal singularity of index $`r5`$. Let $`\pi :(N,P)(M,Q)`$ be the canonical cover, i.e. $`\pi `$ is a cycric $`r`$-covering associated with the isomorphim $`𝒪_M(rK_M)𝒪_M`$. Suppose that $`(M,Q)`$ can be deformed to a sum of $`\frac{(1,1,b)}{r}`$ as above. Then for a positive integer $`m`$,

$$dimH^0(N,(𝒪_N(mK_N)/\pi ^{}𝒪_M(mK_M))^{\mathrm{}})\frac{1}{6}\overline{(rm)}\overline{(rbm)}\overline{bm}\mathrm{}^3+O(\mathrm{}^2)$$

holds, where for an integer $`a`$, $`\overline{a}`$ denotes the smallest nonnegative residue modulo $`r`$.

Proof. If $`(M,Q)`$ is $`\frac{(1,1,b)}{r}`$, the lefthandside is equal to the righthandside by an easy direct calculation (just by counting invariant monomials under the action of $`G_r`$). Otherwise since $`(M,Q)`$ is a hypersurface in $`\frac{(1,1,b)}{r}\times \text{C}`$ as above, the assertion is again clear. Q.E.D.

### 3.2 Boundedness of the degree

We set $`\mu _0:=K_X^3`$. Suppose that that $`\mu _01`$ holds. Let us set

$$m_0:=18\frac{1}{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}}(3\sqrt[3]{2}+1)+(3\sqrt[3]{2}+1)\sqrt{2}+\frac{1}{2}(1+3\sqrt[3]{2}+(3\sqrt[3]{2}+1)\sqrt{2}+1))\frac{1}{\sqrt[3]{\mu _0}}.$$

Then by Lemma 2.11,

$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_{m_0K_X}\mu _0m_0^318^3$$

hold.

By Lemma 3.1 and the proof of Lemma 2.11, we have that

$$\mathrm{deg}_{m_0K_X}(X)\mu _0m_0^3\underset{Q}{}\frac{\overline{(rm_0)}\overline{bm_0}\overline{(rbm_0)}}{6r}$$

holds, where $`Q`$ runs the basket of singularities on $`X`$.

We set $`r_0=\mathrm{max}_Qr`$. Suppose that $`r2m_0`$ holds. Then we have that

$$\frac{\overline{(r_0m_0)}\overline{bm_0}\overline{(r_0bm_0)}}{6r_0}\frac{1}{12}\overline{bm_0}\overline{(r_0bm_0)}\frac{r_01}{12}$$

hold.

Suppose that $`r_02m_0`$ holds. In this case, there exists a positive integer $`m_0m_0^{}2m_0`$ such that

$$\frac{\overline{(r_0m_0^{})}\overline{bm_0^{}}\overline{(r_0bm_0^{})}}{6r_0}\frac{\overline{(r_0m_0^{})}}{6r_0}\frac{r_0^2}{4}\frac{r_0}{24}$$

hold. Hence combining these, we have that

$$r_02^6318^3=2^93^7$$

hold.

### 3.3 A bound for $`\nu _3`$

In the above situation, the global index of $`X`$, i.e., the least positive integer $`R`$ such that $`RK_X`$ is Cartier is less than

$$r_0!(2^93^7)!.$$

This implies that

$$\mu _0\frac{1}{((2^93^7)!)^3}$$

Hence by the formulas at the beggining of Section 3.2, we see that

$$m_018(2^93^7)!$$

holds. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Author’s address
Hajime Tsuji
Department of Mathematics
Tokyo Institute of Technology
2-12-1 Ohokayama, Megro 152-8551
Japan
e-mail address: tsuji@math.titech.ac.jp


text:
# The nature of ultra-luminous X-ray sources in NGC 4565

## 1 Introduction

Recent observations present new evidence for the existence of off-nuclear X-ray luminous point sources in nearby spiral galaxies, starburst galaxies and elliptical galaxies. X-ray luminosities of these sources are of $`10^{39}10^{40}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 0.5-10 keV band, which are significantly larger than the Eddington luminosity of a $`1M_{}`$ object and are intermediate between classic X-ray binaries (with $`L_x10^{36}10^{38}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and active galactic nuclei (with $`L_x\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{41}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$). These X-ray luminous, non-AGN, non-supernova remnant compact objects have been called ultra-luminous compact X-ray sources (ULXs) (Fabbiano 1989; Matsumoto et al. 2001; Makishima et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2002; Sarazin, Irwin & Bregman 2001; and references therein). The nature of ULXs is far from clear. Current models include intermediate-mass ($`50M_{}`$) black holes (Madau & Rees 2001) and significantly beamed binary systems (e.g., Körding et al. 2002; King et al. 2001 and references therein; for more, see the discussion).

To understand the nature and origin of ULXs, it is important to explore their multi-waveband properties and their environments. Given the superior spatial resolution of Chandra, it is possible to identify the optical counterparts of ULXs in nearby galaxies. Such studies are underway. The ULX in the nearby starburst galaxy M82 (M82 J095550.2+694047) was proposed to be an intermediate mass black hole (BH) (100-1000 $`M_{}`$) in an intense starburst region, from Chandra and millimeter observations (Matsumoto et al. 2001; Matsushita et al. 2001). Recently, Roberts et al. (2001, 2002) found that two ULXs in NGC 5204 are located in cavities of emission-line gas nebulae while six ULXs in the interacting pair galaxies NGC4485/4490 are located in star forming regions. Wang (2002) also found that the ULX X-9 in M81 is related to a shell-like optical nebula in the tidal arm of M81. In another study, Liu, Bregman & Seitzer (2001) found several optical counterparts of ULXs in M81, M51 and NGC2403; these optical counterparts are all quite blue with properties consistent with O stars. Most recently, Pakull & Mirioni (2002) reported their optical survey results for ULXs in 11 nearby galaxies. At the position of several ULXs, they found emission line nebulae of a few hundred parsecs in diameter, which often show both low and high ionization emission lines. On the other hand, ULXs have also been found in globular clusters of giant elliptical galaxy NGC 1399 (Angelini, Loewenstein & Mushotzky 2001). It is not yet clear whether ULXs located in globular clusters have different properties from those in star formation regions.

NGC 4565 is a nearby edge-on spiral galaxy of type Sb. It is at a distance of 10 Mpc based on surface brightness fluctuations and planetary nebulae (Jacoby, Ciardullo, & Harris 1996 and references therein). Its surface brightness profile has been extensively studied (Wu et al. 2002 and references therein). Using ROSAT and ASCA data, Mizuno et al. (1999) found two bright point-like X-ray sources in the field of NGC 4565. The fainter one is positionally coincident with the nucleus of NGC 4565 and would normally be considered as a low-luminosity active galactic nucleus (AGN). However, Mizuno et al. argued that it is a ULX instead because the neutral hydrogen column density determined from X-ray spectral fitting is too low for a central AGN. On the other hand, the brighter source is off-center and about 2 kpc above the galaxy disk if it is associated with NGC 4565. Spectral fittings of ASCA data show that a multi-color disk (MCD, see e.g., Mitsuda et al. 1984) model provides the best fit for both sources and their 0.5-10 keV luminosities are higher than $`10^{39}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Therefore, Mizuno et al. (1999) concluded that both sources are ULXs. However, due to its low spatial resolution, ASCA cannot separate these two X-ray bright sources well, so their conclusion needs to be carefully verified.

In this paper, we present the optical identifications for these two X-ray point sources in NGC 4565 using the archive data from a Chandra snapshot survey and from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations. The outline of the paper is as following. In §2, we briefly describe the observational data we used and the data reduction. In §3, we discuss the optical identification of the two X-ray bright sources in NGC 4565, and their properties. In §4, we summarize our results and further discuss the nature of these two point sources.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

The X-ray data for NGC 4565 are retrieved from the Chandra archive111 The Chandra Data Archive (CDA) is part of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory Science Center (CXC) which is operated for NASA by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. The data are from a Chandra snapshot survey for a volume-limited sample of 25 low-luminosity active galactic nuclei candidates222PI: Garmire, CHANDRA OBSID 404. The survey was taken using the ACIS-S instrument on board the Chandra X-ray observatory. The observations of NGC 4565 were performed on June 30, 2000 with a total exposure time of about 2 ks. The data reduction was carried out using the Chandra software package, CIAO2.1, with the latest calibration database, CALDB2.8. Both X-ray bright sources in NGC 4565 are clearly detected by Chandra ACIS-S3. The photon counts are 121 and 269 for the central (RXJ1236.3+2559) and the off-center (RXJ1236.2+2558) sources in a circular region of radius 2.5′′ and 3′′, respectively. Even under the sub-arcsecond resolution of Chandra ACIS-S, these two X-ray sources in NGC 4565 remain unresolved.

HST WFPC2 images in two bands (F450W and F814W) were retrieved using NED 333 The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The total integration times of the F450W and F814W images are 600s and 480s, respectively. More detailed information can be found in Kissler-Patig et al. (1999). To augment the HST observations, we also performed narrow band H$`\alpha `$ imaging for NGC 4565 using the 2.16m telescope and the 60/90cm Schmidt telescopes at the Xinglong Station of NAOC on May 18, 2001 and April 13, 2001, respectively. The Central source (RXJ1236.3+2559) was clearly detected in H$`\alpha `$. All the optical data reductions are performed using the IRAF package through standard procedures.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Optical Identifications of Two Bright X-ray Point Sources

Fig. 1 shows the HST WFPC2 F814W image of the bulge of NGC 4565. An image of the whole galaxy is shown in the bottom-right inset . The bottom-left and top-right insets show the optical counterparts of the two Chandra X-ray bright point sources. The pluses in the insets show the Chandra X-ray source positions. It is clear from Fig. 1 that the optical nucleus and the off-center faint source are located within a 0.5″ error circle of the two Chandra bright point sources. To confirm the existence of the faint optical counterpart of RXJ1236.2+2558, we carefully checked the six pre-combined HST images (three F450W and three F814W images) individually. The faint optical counterpart appears in all of the six images. Radio continuum observations at 6cm and 20cm by the Very Large Array (VLA) for NGC 4565 detected the nuclear source (Ho & Ulvestad 2001). The positional accuracy of the radio observations is about 0.1′′. The cross in the bottom-left inset of Fig. 1 shows the radio position of the nuclear source. Table 1 lists the positions of RXJ1236.3+2559 and RXJ1236.2+2558 determined by HST, Chandra and VLA.

Notice that, in Table 1 the optical positions for both RXJ1236.3+2559 and RXJ1236.2+2558 are about 0.3′′ north from the corresponding Chandra positions. Such a shift can arise due to the uncertainty in the absolute astrometry in both HST and Chandra coordinate systems. After correcting this shift, the HST and Chandra positions agree very well with a relative positional error of about 0.1′′.

### 3.2 RXJ1236.3+2559: a low-luminosity active galactic nucleus in NGC 4565

The high resolution observations for NGC 4565 by Chandra, HST and VLA determine accurately the positions of the nuclear source to about 0.1′′ (corresponding to a physical scale of about 5pc). These observations allow us to investigate the properties of RXJ1236.3+2559 and establish its physical nature.

The background-subtracted X-ray spectrum of RXJ1236.3+2559 was extracted with an aperture of a radius of 2.5′′ where we have determined the background using a local source-free annulus between radius 5′′ and 15′′. At the present flux level, the pile-up fraction of the count rate for both X-ray sources is expected to be much less than 10%, so we ignored the pile-up effect in our spectrum extraction. Not surprisingly, the small number of detected photons from the Chandra snapshot survey observation prevents us from discriminating different models for the X-ray spectra of RXJ1236.3+2559. Indeed, both an absorbed power-law model and an absorbed multi-color disk blackbody (MCD) model provide an acceptable fit for the spectrum. The fitting parameters (including the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom) for both models are listed in Table 2; the top panel of Figure 2 shows the best absorbed power-law fit.

For the absorbed power-law model, the photon index is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.6`$ with a neutral hydrogen column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}=1.1\times `$1021 cm-2, which is consistent with the result of Mizuno et al. (1999) who obtained $`N_\mathrm{H}`$2.0$`\times `$1021 from ASCA observations. As pointed out by Vogler, Pietsch, & Kahabka (1996), this value is below the HI column density of about 5$`\times `$1021 cm-2 derived from an HI map of NGC 4565 at a resolution of 40″ (Rupen 1991). As NGC 4565 is an edge-on spiral galaxy, Mizuno et al. argued that the column density along the galaxy disk to the nucleus of NGC 4565 should be at least 1$`\times `$1022 cm-2. Based on this, they rejected the possibility of RXJ1236.3+2559 being a low-luminosity AGN. Instead, they suggested that it is a ULX located at the near-side of this disk galaxy.

However, this conclusion is uncertain because the interstellar medium is known to be clumpy, so the HI column density toward a particular line of sight can be lower or higher than the average value. So we carefully investigated the extinction in the nuclear region of NGC 4565 using the color determined from the HST F814W and F450W images. We find that the nucleus is located in a low reddening area just outside the dust lane. Therefore, it seems plausible that the HI column density in the nucleus is lower than the value estimated from the low resolution HI map. This leads us to postulate that the X-ray emission of RXJ1236.3+2559 is from a low-luminosity AGN.

To further prove the low-luminosity AGN hypothesis for RXJ1236.3+2559, we collected all the available multi-waveband information for this source from the literature. The optical photometry is obtained from Kissler-Patig et al. (1999). The measured I and B band nuclear magnitudes with an aperture size of 0.5′′ are 17.2 and 19.5, respectively. The near-infrared J, H and K bands photometry are from Rice et al. (1996). A 5′′ aperture size were used for photometry in these three bands and the measurements were transformed into flux densities. The 1.4GHz–15GHz radio data are from VLA observations by Nagar, Wilson & Falcke (2001) and Ho & Ulvestad (2001) within an aperture size of about 0.5′′. The ultraviolet data are from the HST Faint Object Camera (Maoz et al 1996), which gives the integrated 2300$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ flux with an aperture of $`22^{\prime \prime }\times 22^{\prime \prime }`$; this can only be considered as an upper limit of the nucleus flux due to the contribution from other stars in the bulge.

All these data are presented in Table 3 and the spectral energy distribution for the nucleus of NGC 4565 is shown in Fig. 3. As a comparison, we also plotted the spectral energy distribution for the low-luminosity active galactic nucleus in M81 (dotted line) and NGC 4579 (solid line) from Ho (1999). As one can see, the spectral energy distribution of NGC 4565 from radio, optical to X-ray is quite similar to those of M81 and NGC 4579, though differences in the near infrared bands exist. As mentioned above, due to the larger aperture adopted for the photometry of J, H and K bands, their values can only be regarded as upper limits. As suggested by Ho (1999), the contamination from starlight in the near-infrared greatly exceeds those in other bands. The resemblance of the spectral energy distribution for the nucleus of NGC 4565 with those of low-luminosity AGNs is another piece of evidence that it is a low-luminosity active galactic nucleus.

Furthermore, we studied the relation of H$`\alpha `$ and X-ray emissions. The H$`\alpha `$ flux for RXJ1236.3+2559 is 2.4$`\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 within an aperture of radius 5′′ which corresponds to an H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of 2.8$`\times `$1038 erg s-1. As the X-ray luminosity of nuclear source of NGC 4565 is 4.3 $`\times `$1039 erg s-1, the ratio of the X-ray luminosity to the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity for NGC 4565 is 15.3, which is just the median ratio (15) for low-luminosity AGNs (Ho et al. 2001). Therefore, we conclude that RXJ1236.3+2559 is a low-luminosity AGN.

### 3.3 RXJ1236.2+2558: a ULX in a Stellar Cluster

#### 3.3.1 The Optical and X-ray Properties of RXJ1236.2+2558

As shown in Fig. 1, the bright X-ray point source RXJ1236.2+2558 lies at the outskirts of the bulge of NGC 4565. Photometry measurement reveals that the optical counterpart of RXJ1236.2+2558 is quite faint with $`B=25.1\pm 0.4`$ and $`I=24.0\pm 0.3`$ within an aperture of 0.5′′.

The X-ray spectrum was extracted with an aperture size of 3′′ and with the local source-free background in an annulus subtracted. Both an absorbed power-law model and an absorbed MCD model can fit the spectrum. The bottom panel of Fig. 2 shows the best MCD model spectrum of RXJ1236.2+2558. All the fitting parameters are listed in Table 2. Based on the MCD model and assuming RXJ1236.2+2558 is in NGC 4565, the absorption-corrected soft X-ray (0.1-2.4 keV) luminosity of RXJ1236.2+2558 is $`3.5\times 10^{39}`$ erg s-1. It coincides with $`3.2\times 10^{39}`$ erg s-1 from the ROSAT PSPC observation (Vogler, Pietsch, & Kahabka 1996). The absorption-corrected X-ray luminosity in the 0.5-10 keV band is $`6.5\times 10^{39}`$ erg s-1, which is about one third of the value $`2.3\times 10^{40}`$ erg s-1 obtained using the ASCA data (Mizuno et al. 1999). In comparison, the luminosity for the central source in the ASCA data is about twice of that in the Chandra data. So there is some evidence that both the nucleus and the off-center source are variable, although the variability needs to be established more carefully as the spatial resolution of ASCA is insufficient to resolve these two sources.

Taking into account the extinction correction of AB as 0.6 (see section 3.3.2), the B magnitude of RXJ1236.2+2558 is 24.5, which implies an X-ray to optical flux ratio (fX/fB) of about 540. This value is similar to that of the brightest ULX in M82 (Stocke, Wurtz & Kühr 1991).

#### 3.3.2 Is RXJ1236.2+2558 a Foreground or Background Object?

If we assume the optical counterpart of RXJ1236.2+2558 is a foreground star in Milky Way, it would be an F type star according to its color. Then, its optical luminosity implies a distance of 100 kpc, which is at the edge of the halo of our Galaxy. More importantly, the high X-ray to optical flux ratio of RXJ1236.2+2558 is outside the observed range ($`10^410^1`$) for normal B to M type stars where the X-ray emission arises from a hot corona (Maccacaro al. 1988). The value is also outside the range (0.1-10) for cataclysmic variables (Bradt & McClintock 1983). Only Low Mass X-ray Binary systems (LMXBs) could reach such a high ratio. From Bradt & McClintock (1983), most LMXBs with high X-ray to optical flux ratios are distributed close to the Galactic disk. The high Galactic latitude location (86.44) of the source disfavors this association. Furthermore, as Mizuno et al. (1999) pointed out, the ASCA spectrum of RXJ1236.2+2558 is softer than those of LMXBs and hence the possibility that RXJ1236.2+2558 is a LMXB can be ruled out. Therefore, the optical counterpart of RXJ1236.2+2558 is unlikely to be an object in the Milky Way.

On the other hand, if RXJ1236.2+2558 is a background extra-galactic source, then the object can only be a BL Lac object from its very high X-ray to optical flux ratio. However, the ratio for BL Lac objects is still about one order of magnitude lower than that of the off-center source (Maccacaro et al. 1988). We emphasize that the observed $`f_\mathrm{X}/f_\mathrm{B}`$ cannot be made compatible with those of BL Lacs through extinction, as it requires $`A_B3`$ mag. Such a high extinction is inconsistent with $`A_B0.6`$ mag estimated using $`N_\mathrm{H}/E(BV)=5.8\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Bohlin, Savage & Drake 1978) and $`A_B=4E(BV)`$ for $`N_\mathrm{H}0.8\times `$1021 cm-2 (appropriate for the MCD model, Table 2). In addition, no radio emission has been detected at the position of RXJ1236.2+2558 by VLA (Ho & Ulvested 2001). Therefore, RXJ1236.2+2558 is unlikely to be a background BL Lac object. Combining all the evidence, we conclude that RXJ1236.2+2558 is probably not a background extra-galactic object.

#### 3.3.3 A ULX in NGC 4565

Given that RXJ1236.2+2558 is neither a foreground star nor a background AGN, we are left with only one possibility, i.e., this source is an X-ray luminous point source in NGC 4565. The X-ray luminosity in the 0.5-10 keV band is 6.5$`\times `$1039 $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, placing it in the category of ULXs in a nearby normal spiral galaxy.

At a distance of 10 Mpc, the faint optical counterpart of RXJ1236.2+2558 has $`M_B=4.9`$ and a color index of $`BI1.1\pm 0.5`$; both numbers have not been corrected for reddening. Candidates for point-like objects with $`B5.0`$ are only O stars (with type later than O7) or globular clusters. However, the optical counterpart of RXJ1236.2+2558 is very unlikely to be an O star as such stars have much bluer colors ($`BI0.8`$ instead of $`BI1.1`$, as observed); the conclusion is unchanged even if we allow reddening ($`A_B0.6`$). Moreover, we do not expect an O star in the outer region of the bulge. Similarly, the object is unlikely to be a very compact star formation region, as these are usually found close to galactic disks. Another possibility is that the optical counterpart is associated with a dwarf galaxy. Its color is consistent with that of some dwarf galaxies in the local group, however its luminosity and size are both too small compared with those of dwarf galaxies (e.g., Table 4 in Mateo 1998). One speculative scenario may be that the optical counterpart is the core of a tidally-stripped dwarf galaxy with the AGN activity triggered by the tidal interaction.

Overall, we favor the interpretation that the optical counterpart of ULX RXJ1236.2+2558 is probably a globular cluster. It is interesting to compare the color and absolute magnitude of this counterpart with those of globular clusters. Most globular clusters have colors redder than $`BI=1.4`$ (see Fig. 3 in Kissler-Patig et al. 1999). The color of the object is $`BI=1.1`$, which is quite blue. However, with the large error-bar ($`0.5`$ mag) due to its faintness, its color is still consistent with being at the blue tail of the color distribution for globular clusters. The B-band absolute magnitude of globular clusters is known to follow roughly a (universal) Gaussian distribution with a mean of $`M_B=7.1`$ and a standard deviation of 1.1 mag. The extinction-corrected absolute magnitude with $`M_B=5.5\pm 0.4`$ of the optical counterpart for RXJ1236.2+2558 is consistent with being at the faint end of the luminosity function (see Fig. 5 in Della Valle et al. 1998 and references therein). We conclude that the off-center X-ray source is hosted by a globular cluster. We discuss the implication of this association in more detail in the next section.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

In this paper, we have shown that, from multi-waveband observations in the optical, radio and X-ray, the central X-ray source in NGC 4565 is entirely consistent with it being a low-luminosity AGN. We also argued that the off-center X-ray point source is a ULX and its optical counterpart is a globular cluster as inferred from its color and absolute magnitude.

Typical globular clusters in our galaxy have X-ray luminosities ranging up to 5 $`\times `$1037erg s-1 (Ghosh et al. 2001). There are no globular clusters with X-ray luminosities above $`10^{38}`$ erg s-1 in M 31 (Supper et al. 1997). NGC 4565 is an Sb galaxy similar to our galaxy, but it seems to host a globular cluster that is about two orders of magnitude more luminous in the X-ray than those found in the Galaxy and M31. It is not clear what determines the upper cutoff in the X-ray luminosity function of globular clusters in disk galaxies. In this regard, the upper cutoff in NGC 4565 is similar to those seen in two elliptical galaxies NGC 4697 and NGC 1399 (Sarazin, Irwin & Bregman 2001; Angelini, Loewenstein & Mushotzky 2001). For example, Angelini et al. found two of the three brightest point sources in NGC 1399 (with $`L_x5\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) are hosted by globular clusters. At present, it is not known whether the extreme X-ray luminosity is a sum of many LMXBs or it is produced by an intermediate mass black hole. Angelini et al. argued that the spectra of the two most luminous X-ray globular clusters are consistent with those seen in either high-state or low-state black holes in our Galaxy.

The formation and evolution of ULXs is still an unsolved problem. Models proposed so far can be classified into two categories, i.e. unbeamed models and beamed models. The beamed models suggest that ULXs represent a short-lived phase in their evolution and are associated with young stellar populations, as observed for many ULXs (see the introduction). However, for RXJ1236.2+2558, this model does not work, as it is apparently in a globular cluster. The unbeamed models, on the other hand, require an intermediate-mass BH ($`100M_{}`$) in a binary with an evolved donor star (King et al. 2001). However, the formation of such systems is uncertain. An intermediate- and high-mass BHs could be formed either through the merger of lower mass BHs in dense clusters or from early generation of zero-metallicity stars (so-called population III stars, Madau and Rees 2001). It is also possible that $`50M_{}`$ population III BHs could form during the formation of globular clusters; they will then sink to the center of the cluster quickly and grow to $`10^3M_{}`$ by accretion in the cluster’s lifetime (Miller & Hamilton 2001). However, moderate-mass BHs may be difficult to retain in off-nuclear star clusters such as RXJ1236.2+2558 due to the shallow potential well of globular clusters (Miller & Hamilton 2001 and references therein).

No matter what is the origin of ULXs, it is important to further study them in multi-wavebands. Extreme objects like RXJ1236.2+2558 offer ideal targets for such studies. As the exposure times for Chandra (2 ks) and HST ($`500`$s) are both quite short for RXJ1236.2+2558, it is important to obtain deeper images in both wavebands. Optical observations with HST (particularly with the Advanced Camera for Surveys) will be useful to establish the color and the spatial extent of the optical counterpart. On the other hand, deeper integrations of Chandra will be useful to firmly establish the spectral behavior of the off-center ULX, and its variability. The X-ray observations may also be used to probe the X-ray corona seen in some edge-on galaxies (e.g., NGC4631, Wang et al. 2001). These observations are important for further understanding the nature of ULXs, and the puzzle why some disk galaxies have ULXs while others (like the Milky Way and M31) have none.

We thank Drs. Luis Ho, Simon White, Richard James and Renxin Xu for valuable discussion. Many thanks are also due to Drs. Xu Zhou, Jianyan Wei, Jifeng Liu, Jun Ma and Zhaoji Jiang. This work is supported by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (CNNSF) and NKBRSF G19990754. S. M. acknowledges the financial support for his travel by the CNNSF.


text:
# Quantum randomness emerging under gravitational nonlinearity

## Abstract

A scenario is outlined for quantum measurement, assuming that self-sustaining classicality is the consequence of an attractive gravitational self-interaction acting on massive bodies, and randomness arises already in the classical domain. A simple solvable model is used to demonstrate that small quantum systems influence big ones in a mean-field way, offering a natural route to Born’s probability rule.

The origin of randomness in quantum mechanics is still unclear, after eighty years since its first recognition by Bornbn . The so-called collapse of the wave functionhei , hardly more than a name for the moment when randomness emerges, could not be given a physical identity so far. Von Neumann attached a schematic picture to the name. Assume a measuring apparatus that is capable to distinguish two orthogonal states of a microobject by evolving under interaction with the object into macroscopically distinguishable states. However, if the microobject starts from a superposition of the basis states, a two-act scenarion  follows: the composite system evolves first unitarily into an entangled superposition of object and apparatus, then non-unitary evolution - identified with wave-function collapse - erases randomly one of the terms of the superposition, resulting in a macroscopically definite outcome. For the simplest case of a two-state microobject with basis states $`|+`$ and $`|`$, interacting with a one-dimensional apparatus of center-of-mass (c.o.m.) wave function $`\psi (x,t)`$, to be analyzed below, the unitary stage of evolution reads

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(c_+|++c_{}|\right)\psi (x,0)`$
$`c_+|+\psi _+(x,t)+c_{}|\psi _{}(x,t),`$ (1)
$`p=|c_+|^2`$ and $`1p=|c_{}|^2`$ being the respective probabilities that in the subsequent non-unitary stage the system would collapse into the first or the second term of the superposition.

It is implicit that the switch from unitary to collapse dynamics takes place somewhere on the borderline between quantum and classical world. Whether the two stages are separated indeed in time, and if so, whether the second can be resolved into more detailed dynamics, remain unanswered. The situation is summarized in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which such questions are declared illegal, the quantum and classical domains are distinct, the former being a mirror world providing dynamics-like rules to predict statistics of random events in the latterwhz . It is one of the surprising facts about Nature that this interpretation works “for all practical purposes”, as observed by John Bell in a tone of dissatisfactionfapp .

The theory of environment-induced decoherencedec ; giu , although offering an important clue about the quantum-classical border by explaining the gradual disappearance of interference between more and more different states as we traverse the mesoscopic domain, gives no new insight about the nature of collapse. Well tested on its own territory, it seems to offer but a vague clue about collapse: as we learn - in fair agreement between theory and experiment - to keep decoherence at a lower and lower leveldecfree , we seem to observe that in such cases the collapse of the wave function remains also absent: decoherence seems to be a necessary condition for collapse, although the nature of that control - if confirmed - remains to be explained.

A seriously elaborated alternative approach, stochastic reduction modelsgrwd  are a fancy phenomenology postulating two new things at a time: a deeper dynamical level with random noise generation, and nonlinear quantum dynamics - no independent evidence seems to be around in favor of the resulting scheme. Below we argue that the theory probably tries to catch too much at one step: randomness need not be put in by hand.

The last remark is based on the observation that for a macroscopic apparatus described by classically chaotic dynamics and coupled to microscopic subsystems in a mean-field fashion instead of quantum mechanics, Born’s rulebn  about quantum probabilities would arise in a natural way: chaotic dynamics transform weak forces into probabilities via amplification of small deflections. For short times even linear quantum mechanics acts on wave packets in a mean-field way as exemplified by the theory of so-called weak measurementswkm . Unfortunately, for the long-time phenomenology this fact is of no use: mean-field behavior is intrinsically nonlinear.

Starting with the above motivation, we assume that it suffices to explain the primordial emergence and subsequent persistence of classicality - the resistance of macroscopic bodies to form superpositions; then randomness is generated in the classical domain through some kind of chaotic dynamics. The prospects for such an explanation have been strongly improved through the recently discovered fact that randomness generated in quasi-classical motion appears in purely linear quantum dynamics as wellpid .

The theory of the inflational universeinf  offers ample support to the assumption that classical states of the world emerge around big-bang-like situations as inhomogeneous fluctuations. Taken that as granted, one has to explain how those classical states resist to the kind of quantum spreading described by the linear Schrödinger equation.

Self-sustaining classicality in the above sense needs nonlinearity in the form of an attractive self-interaction acting on the wave function. It can be regarded as a kind of auto-focusing of matter waves, eventually caused by a potential whose source is the matter density. The usual two-point interaction construct of ordinary quantum mechanics is not satisfactory, since it preserves the linearity of the equations of motion, with the spreading of wave packets, formation of Schrödinger cats and all that. On the other hand, mean-field approximation to a two-point attractive interaction is just the thing we need to keep wave packets together. There is a trouble though: for the usual kind of interactions, mean field is an approximation, not the true nature of things.

In all respects, gravity is the natural candidateqgr . It is none of the familiar class of contact interactions, since it is encoded into the geometry of space-time. There is no evidence against defining mass density, the source of gravity, as the quantum mechanical mean value of the operator of mass density, without additional quantum fluctuations. In that case there is no quantum fluctuation of the metric either, and gravity acts as a mean field on all massive objects, including its sourcesnocorr . Such a scheme in the limiting case of Newtonian gravity was described in Diósi (1984)di , who – following the protocol of Bialynicki-Birula and Mycielskibbm  – demonstrated the existence of soliton-like wave packets stabilized by gravitation, pointing out that gravitation is not able to pull distinct wave packets together.

However, that is not necessary for self-sustaining classicality. We suggest a scenario in which although Eq. (1) remains valid, the two apparatus wave functions $`\psi _+`$ and $`\psi _{}`$ remain close to each other, glued together by gravitation, although the measurement interaction tends to pull them apart. As a consequence, the double wave packet, slightly split to balance between opposing forces, moves together under the action of the averaged measurement force, weighted by $`|c_+|^2`$ and $`|c_{}|^2`$ in a mean-field way; then entering a frozen random environment, undergoes a random choice with the respective probabilities $`p`$ and $`1p`$, in agreement with Born’s rule.

As demonstrated below in detail, for the above scenario gravitation has to be strong enough to protect a double wave packet from splitting under the action of a measuring interaction which is strong enough to accelerate it as a whole.

To simplify the analysis, we start from the two-state microobject interacting with a one-dimensional massive apparatus, introduced in Eq. (1). The model Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H}=|++|\widehat{h}_++||\widehat{h}_{},$$
(2)
where

$$\widehat{h}_\pm =\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}_x^2+V_{grav}(x,t)F_{meas}xF_{div}x$$
(3)
contains a constant force $`\pm F_{meas}`$ representing the interaction of the microobject in state $`|\pm `$ with the apparatus, as well as a force $`F_{div}`$ modelling a landscape of random barriers, frozen during the act of measurement, diverting the apparatus towards one of the possible outcomes of the measurement.

We set out to solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the pure quantum state on the r.h.s. of Eq. (1). Because of $`+|=0`$, the c.o.m density of the apparatus is a weighted sum of two non-interfering terms:

$$\varrho (x,t)=p|\psi _+(x,t)|^2+(1p)|\psi _{}(x,t)|^2.$$
(4)
To calculate the gravitational potential $`V_{grav}(x,t)`$, we assume that the apparatus is a homogeneous massive sphere of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$, and - what should be checked afterwards - both the widths $`x_0`$ of the c.o.m wave packets and their distance $`d`$ are kept small:

$$x_0,d<<R;$$
(5)
thendi

$`V_{grav}(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{M\omega _{grav}^2}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y(xy)^2\varrho (y,t)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{M\omega _{grav}^2}{2}}x^2M\omega _{grav}^2\overline{x}x+{\displaystyle \frac{M\omega _{grav}^2}{2}}\overline{x^2}.`$ (6)
Here we have introduced the characteristic frequency of an extended object oscillating in its own parabolic gravitational potential,

$$\omega _{grav}^2=G\frac{M}{R^3},$$
(7)
where $`G`$ is Newton’s gravitational constant. For a typical condensed-matter density $`10^4Kgm^3`$, one obtains $`\omega _{grav}10^3Hz`$. We notice that Eq. (6) furnishes a dimensionally correct potential energy that can be plugged into a one-dimensional Schrödinger equation to obtain valid estimates.

The basic estimate is this: to sustain classicality of the apparatus, the double wave packet should remain together during measurement, therefore its mean splitting should obey $`dF_{meas}/M\omega _{grav}^2<R`$. On the other hand, in order to obtain measurement, its displacement as a whole during the measurement interaction of duration $`\tau _{meas}`$ should be large enough: $`(F_{meas}/M)\tau _{meas}^2l_0,`$ where $`l_0`$ is a displacement on the scale of the diverting potential landscape. The combination of the two requirements gives

$$(\omega _{grav}\tau _{meas})^2>\frac{l_0}{R}.$$
(8)
In view of the estimate of $`\omega _{grav}`$ given above, this inequality means that for a measurement of duration $`1s`$, random decision is controlled on the displacement scale of $`10^6`$ times the size of the apparatus. If that scale is fixed about $`1nm`$, our estimates require $`R10^3m`$ for an object big enough to survive conflicting accelerations without splitting into two parts entangled with different states of a microobject. That is our tentative criterion for classicality of the apparatus. Although a massive sphere dragged around by interaction with a microobject is certainly not the realistic model for a particle detectorel , the above figures give sufficient comfort to proceed with the analysis.

Equations (2, 3, 4, 6) define a Hamiltonian depending on the modulus of the wavefunction. However, as seen from Eq. (6), that dependence is only through two time-dependent parameters $`\overline{x^\alpha (t)}=x^\alpha \varrho (x,t)𝑑x(\alpha =1,2)`$, therefore the corresponding Schrödinger equation, although nonlinear, can be solved by elementary tools.

The tool we use is the equation of motion of a coherent state under the action of a time-dependent forcegard , having in mind the time-dependence of the gravitational force proportional to $`\overline{x}`$ in Eq. (6). The other forces are taken constant in timesht , so we look for a uniformly accelerating motion with $`\overline{x}=A+Bt+Ct^2`$. Assuming that $`\psi _\pm =|\alpha _\pm `$ are coherent states of width $`x_0=(\mathrm{}/M\omega _{grav})^{1/2}`$ and respective positions $`\overline{x}_\pm =\sqrt{2}x_0\mathrm{}\alpha _\pm `$, from which averaging gives

$$\overline{x}=p\overline{x}_++(1p)\overline{x}_{}$$
(9)
for the moving c.o.m. coordinate. Applying properly scaled formulas from Reference gard, , a closed integral equation is obtained for $`\overline{x}(t)`$. It turns out that as expected, the equation has a smooth, uniformly accelerating solution, the coefficients $`A,B,C`$ of which can be evaluated, and one obtains

$$\overline{x}(t)=\overline{x}(0)+\overline{v}(0)t+\frac{}{2M}t^2,$$
(10)
where

$$=2(p\frac{1}{2})F_{meas}+F_{div}$$
(11)
is the sum of the “meanfieldized” measurement force caused by interaction with the microobject, and the frozen random force diverting the motion of the apparatus towards one of the possible outcomes, according to $`0`$ . If $`F_{div}`$ is uniformly distributed between $`F_{meas}`$ and $`F_{meas}`$, the respective probabilities of moving to the right or to the left are $`p`$ and $`1p`$, in accordance with Born’s rule.

Eq. (10) is a solution appropriate to a special class of initial conditions. For a general initial condition, oscillations around the smooth path appear. We conjecture that the role of decoherence in quantum measurement is to continuously damp such oscillations. Preliminary numerical results seem to support that expectation; details are currently being studied.

What has been described above is a gravity-based dynamical model for a single detector of a binary observable of a microobject. It shows a route to the dynamical origin of quantum randomness, with no creation of macroscopically split superpositions, and accordingly, with no necessity of collapse. Once classical states of matter are present, gravitation forces macroscopic bodies to remain confined, and allows them to explore the possibilities classicality offers to generate randomness. In that respect this model performs like stochastic reduction modelsgrwd  do, without putting in randomness by hand.

The present scheme definitely gets out of the Copenhagen philosophy: Eq. (4) materializes the Schrödinger wave function as the source of gravity, which precludes the possibility of relegating the wave function into the realm of ideas.

In one important respect, however, the present approach is less efficient than usual quantum mechanics. This is the rationalization of detector anti-correlations: the feature that for a single particle interacting with two detectors firing on mutually exclusive values of an observable, only one of the detectors can give a signal. That feature, in the root of Heisenberg’s original collapse ideahei , and also very seriously discussed by Einsteinei , is generally believed to hold, although direct experimental tests are not abundant.

In its Neumannian way, ordinary quantum mechanics offers an explanationhardy . In a trivial extension to a two-detector situation in which $`\psi _\pm ^{(1)}`$ means that detector 1 gives a signal or not, and $`\psi _\pm ^{(2)}`$ is the same for detector 2, Eq. (1) is modified like this:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(c_+|++c_{}|\right)\psi ^{(1)}(x,0)\psi ^{(2)}(x,0)`$
$`c_+|+\psi _+^{(1)}(x,t)\psi _{}^{(2)}(x,t)`$
$`+c_{}|\psi _{}^{(1)}(x,t)\psi _+^{(2)}(x,t).`$ (12)
This equation contains only terms of the expected anti-correlation property, therefore after collapsing into one of the terms of the entangled superposition, a classically observable anti-correlation would appear between the two detectors.

That nice feature is lost in the present scheme, since $`\psi _+^i(x,t)`$ and $`\psi _{}^i(x,t)`$ (for $`i=1,2`$) are macroscopically indistinguishable. At the face of our model, the respective probabilities of the two-detector outcomes $`++`$, $`+`$, $`+`$, $``$ would be $`p(1p)`$, $`p^2`$, $`(1p)^2`$, $`(1p)p`$. As we all believe to know, the correct answer is $`0`$, $`p`$, $`1p`$, $`0`$.

That very strongly resembles of interference: destructive on some of the classically apparent possibilities, constructive on others. The trouble is that I was unable to identify the corresponding scenario of interference. One of the less obvious possibilities would be a Berry phaseberry  inducing a vector potential in the two-detector configuration space, that would destabilize the $`++`$ to $``$ diagonal. As a matter of fact, the last term of Eq. (6) gives rise to a fancy phase factor; however, the configuration-space curl of the resulting vector potential is vanishing: no destabilizing force arises. Therefore it is left to the Reader as an exercise to pin down what is interfering with what.

###### Acknowledgements.

Among the many colleagues with whom I had the pleasure to discuss the issues exposed in this paper, I would like to mention those who left the most significant traces on my thinking: Lajos Diósi and Anton Zeilinger. This work has been partially supported by the Hungarian Research Foundation (grant OTKA T 029544).