text:
# 1 Observing supernovae

## 1 Observing supernovae

Supernovae are extremely rare. A galaxy like our Milky Way may produce a Type Ia Supernova only every 400 years. Hence, one has to observe a large number of galaxies for quite some time to detect a supernova. The sample of nearby supernovae (out to a redshift of about z=0.1) is still rather limited. In fact, well-sampled light curves (e.g. Figure 1) are an exception and it has taken over a decade of dedicated effort to collect a significant sample of objects. In the process a lot has been learnt about Type Ia Supernovae and their physics (for a review see Leibundgut 2000).

Not all Type Ia Supernovae are identical. However, there is a way to normalise their peak luminosity according to their light curves. More luminous supernovae display a slower temporal evolution. In this way, it is possible to normalise all objects to the same peak luminosity and make them exquisite standard candles.

One way to empirically test the quality of a standard candle is to look at the distance vs. redshift diagram (Figure 2). For a redshift below z=0.1 the scatter around the line of linear expansion is extremely small and proves that, at least in the nearby universe, the supernovae can be used as distance indicators. Direct determination of the absolute luminosity of Type Ia Supernovae has recently been obtained for the 10 nearest supernovae which exploded within the last 60 years. The peak luminosity of these objects is indeed very uniform.

Distant supernovae, like the example in Figure 1, are more difficult to observe. Since supernovae are such rare events a large volume has to be surveyed to discover a sufficient number for co-ordinated follow-up observations. It was soon recognised that such a project would exceed the possibilities of a single observatory or group of astronomers. In fact, this experiment makes use of all the largest telescopes available. A typical campaign involves the European Southern Observatory VLT (Figure 3), the Keck telescopes, the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope, the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory and the Hubble Space Telescope. The supernovae are observed for about two months with all available telescopes. The resulting light curves, like the one shown in Figure 1, are analysed to derive the peak brightness and plot them in diagrams like Figure 2.

With the model lines calibrated by the nearby supernovae the distant explosions tell us how much the universe has expanded between then and now. From Figure 2 it is obvious that the distances are larger than what would be expected in a freely coasting, i.e. empty, universe. Even worse would be a fit for a flat and matter-filled Einstein-de Sitter model. The distant supernovae are simply too faint, i.e. too distant to be compatible with the old paradigm of a universe filled with matter and radiation only. There has to be a component to the energy density that has accelerated the expansion over the last $`6\times 10^9`$ years (Riess et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999, Hogan et al. 1999).

An obvious candidate is the cosmological constant. With the supernova result it appears that it should be re-introduced to explain the data. Another possibility is that the cosmological constant is indeed zero, but that there is a particle field that through its decay acts like a cosmological constant. It has now come to be known as ’quintessence’ (Ostriker and Steinhardt 2001). Independent of which explanation is correct we can designate the energy density of this “dark energy” as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Figure 4 shows the probability distribution between the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the supernova distances define them. It is obvious that models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0 are excluded at the $`>95\%`$ level for all models with a positive matter content. This comes from the fact that an accelerating, negative pressure component is required, which can not be achieved with matter or radiation.

A nice feature of world models with these parameters would be that the dynamical age of the universe is no longer in conflict with the ages of the oldest stars in our Milky Way. We have marked the isochrones of the dynamical age for the combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The result from the distant supernovae that the expansion of the universe is not decelerating but in fact accelerates is certainly surprising. We should answer the obvious question how secure is this result is. There are a few other possible explanations for the faintness of the distant supernovae. They are an intrinsic evolution of the peak brightness of the supernovae, unrecognised dust, or gravitational lensing. Evolution has been the downfall of all previously proposed distance indicators. Take for example regular galaxies. Looking back for several 109 years means that a galaxy is composed of stars, which are on average younger than the ones currently in our Milky Way. Since a galaxy with young stars has a larger fraction of short-lived, massive stars, which are brighter and bluer, it will change its luminosity over time. Could Type Ia Supernovae also suffer from evolutionary effects? At first glance, such an evolution is less likely. According to the current models they are explosions of stars, which always end up in the same configuration, a white dwarf at the Chandrasekhar limit. However, even though the bomb always has the same mass, its composition may vary slightly. The explosive carbon burning in a white dwarf depends on the mixture of carbon and oxygen. One could imagine that the distant supernovae have had a different chemical composition at the explosion than their nearby counterparts. Also, stellar evolution predicts that younger white dwarfs are the descendants from predominantly more massive stars. Thus, the parent population of the distant supernovae could be different from the one observed nearby. Unlike for the nearby supernovae we can not use the linear expansion law to check for consistency. What has been tried in the last few years is to make sure that the distant objects have the same appearance as the nearby ones. This program is still under way, but first results are already becoming available. The observed spectra of the two populations are so far indistinguishable (Figure 5). There is further a very characteristic light curve shape with a second maximum of Type Ia Supernovae in the near-infrared, which by now has also been observed for the distant supernovae. On the other hand, there appears to be a trend to bluer colours for distant supernovae, which, if confirmed, may hint at evolution.

Interstellar dust also dims astronomical objects. Galactic dust distributed in the plane of the Milky Way is the reason we can not observe the Galactic Centre in optical light. But galactic dust not only dims the objects, it also preferably scatters blue light and makes objects appear redder. If the intrinsic colour of an object is know, the observed light can be corrected according to the galactic absorption law. The colour evolution of Type Ia Supernovae is in fact very uniform and by always obtaining colour information for the distant supernovae we can check for dust and correct the brightness, if necessary. But there is nothing that says that the galactic dust is representative throughout the universe. For example, larger dust particles scatter differently so that the supernovae still would be dimmed but not as reddened. Observing programs to check this possibility have been carried out last year and are currently being analysed.

Along the light path of any distant object lie other massive objects. Gravitational lensing of distant objects has been observed in several forms. Background objects are distorted by the potential wells through which light has to travel. Large arcs of distorted background galaxies are now regularly observed in massive clusters of galaxies. Another effect of lensing is amplification or de-amplification of the light. It turns out that distant objects are on average de-amplified, i.e. statistically appear fainter. This would be an obvious explanation of the dimness of the distant supernovae. However, the effect is not large enough, even if all mass would be concentrated in compact objects, and can not explain the distant supernovae. This result is based on model calculations, as this is the only effect that can not be observed with the supernova light itself.

There is one signature, which would almost unambiguously prove that the universe has been accelerating over about half its age. This is the deceleration during the early phases of the expansion. The cosmological constant does not change over time, but since the density decreases the gravitational action should have been much larger during the first few 109 years. In Figure 2 this would show up as a non-monotonic evolution. The critical redshift range is around z=1.2, a range that has so far not been explored by the observations. This is stretching the current capabilities of any existing telescope. The supernovae become exceedingly faint and due to the redshift have to be observed at near-infrared wavelengths where the night sky is much brighter than in the optical. Nevertheless, the next observing campaigns will target exactly this redshift range to test whether the acceleration of the universal expansion is indeed the correct interpretation for the dimness of the distant supernovae.

There is a big problem with the cosmological constant. In modern particle theories it is associated with the energy of the vacuum, but these theories also predict a value for the vacuum energy which deviates by more than 50 orders of magnitudes from the cosmological observations. Although this has been a problem all along, the supernova measurements have acerbated this problem, by requiring a non-zero but small ($`<1`$) cosmological constant. For these reasons many theorists currently favour quintessence models. But this requires introducing a new particle and corresponding potentials, which have to be fine-tuned to have an action like the observed one.

But there is more on the horizon. To distinguish between a cosmological constant and quintessence the time variability of the acceleration should be checked. Tracing the supernova distances in detail can do this. A large sample of supernovae out to a redshift of about z=1.5 is needed. Proposals to obtain such samples have already been made.

Type Ia Supernovae together with the recent results on the cosmic microwave background and the masses of clusters of galaxies are consistent with a flat universe, in which about 30$`\%`$ is gravitating matter and 70$`\%`$ is contributed by ”dark energy” (cosmological constant or quintessence). Only about 5$`\%`$ of the total energy stem from baryonic matter. Another 5$`\%`$ may be contributed by massive neutrinos.

The opinions of cosmologists currently range from visions of ”precision cosmology” to worries about the fact that we have to add new constituents to the universe for which we have currently no explanation at all. This is not necessarily a contradiction. Observers have been furnished with tools over the last decade, which allow them to probe many of the cosmological questions in much more detail and with much higher precision. On the other hand, these new results have shown that our picture of the universe was incomplete and will need further scrutiny.


format: text

text:
# Inclusive Distributions for Hadronic Collisions in the Valon-Recombination Model

## I Introduction

Particle production at low $`p_T`$ in hadronic collisions has always been a challenge for theoretical models to describe, since, on the one hand, it is a process that is non-perturbative, while, on the other hand, meaningful modeling can only be done in the framework of quarks and gluons. The subject has a long history, some early reviews of which can be found in Refs. vw ; fk . Since soft processes, as they are called, cannot be treated by perturbative QCD, they have not been given the degree of rigorous scrutiny that have been accorded hard processes. Among the models that are constructed for soft processes, there are basically only two types: string models that make use of fragmentation dpm ; lu  and parton models that are based on recombination dh ; val . This paper treats the modernization of the latter. What is new is that the parton distributions of the proton have recently been calculated by CTEQ in pQCD over wide ranges of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$, fitting a large collection of experimental data cteq . From such parton distributions the structure of the proton in terms of the valons hz  can be more precisely determined hy . With the new parameterization of the valon model now available, it is possible to revisit the problem of hadron production in soft processes and calculate the inclusive distributions of the produced particles without adjustable parameters. Good agreement with the low-$`p_T`$ experimental data can give definitive support to the recombination model.

The kinematical region in which we focus our attention is the projectile fragmentation region, roughly $`x>0.2`$. In the central region the structure of the projectile hadron is less important. But in the fragmentation region it is known as early as the mid-70’s that the inclusive distribution of the produced pions is closely related to the structure function of the proton, as observed by Ochs wo . The recombination model dh  is a realization of that observation, and the valon model is a self-consistent formulation of the unification of hadron structure and recombination probability val . In short, our view is that, while the fragmentation of strings may be suitable for the central region, the recombination of partons is more relevant for the fragmentation region.

It has been regarded as a striking confirmation of the dual parton model (DPM) dpm  to reproduce the charge distribution of the produced particles in $`\pi ^+p`$ collisions; the forward-backward asymmetry fig  is presented as evidence for the two-chain diquark fragmentation of the proton. While the qualitative agreement with data gives support to the two-chain mechanism of DPM as opposed to the single-chain mechanism of the LUND model, the data (not cited in dpm ) were old and inaccurate and the theoretical calculations were crude. The data that we shall compare with are detailed and more precise b . Moreover, we shall consider a large number of fragmentation processes: $`p\pi ^\pm `$, $`\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ , $`K^+\pi ^\pm `$, and $`\pi ^+K^\pm `$, and the results of our calculations can all be compared with existing data. To our knowledge such data have never been used before to confront model calculations. That the valon-recombination model is able to reproduce those data, as we shall show in this paper, should therefore be regarded as meeting a higher demand than fitting the charge asymmetry of $`\pi ^+p`$ collisions discussed in dpm .

Another reason for revisiting the soft processes in hadronic collisions is that the recent development in heavy-ion collisions at high energies presents some urgency to understand better the basic processes of particle production at a more fundamental level. To understand the formation of dense matter, it is necessary to understand first baryon stopping and pionization in $`pA`$ collisions. We have recently done a comprehensive treatment of the problem of momentum degradation in $`pA`$ collisions in the framework of the valon model hy2 . The emphasis is on the nuclear effects on the projectile. The parameters used for the valon and parton distribution functions have not been put to test on the hadronic collisions. Since those distributions have been updated even more recently hy , it is necessary to focus on the elementary processes, not only of $`pp`$, but also of meson-proton collisions, in order to check the valon-recombination model (VRM) to a degree never attempted before. It is toward that end that we apply the VRM to the soft processes in this paper.

## II Valon and Parton Distribution Functions

The valon model describes the hadron structure relevant for multiparticle production. The momentum distributions of the valons can be determined from the parton distributions at low $`Q^2`$, as posted by CTEQ4LQ cteq4 . That was done very recently hy , resulting in excellent fits of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark distributions. The parameters describing the valon distributions turn out to be quite different from the old values based on imprecise muon and neutrino data of the 70’s hz , although the formalism of the model remains the same. Furthermore, the assumption of the symmetric sea used previously has been lifted so that the parton distributions in the valons are now also very different. Here we give a summary of the valon and parton distributions functions, the details of which can be found in hy .

In a proton the 3-valon distribution is

$`G_{UUD}(y_1,y_2,y_3)=g_p(y_1y_2)^\alpha y_3^\beta \delta (y_1+y_2+y_31),`$ (1)
where $`y_i`$ is the momentum fraction of the ith valon ($`y`$ being never used for rapidity in this paper), and

$`g_p=\left[B(\alpha +1,\beta +1)B(\alpha +1,\alpha +\beta +2)\right]^1,`$ (2)
$`B(m,n)`$ being the beta function. The single valon distributions are obtained by integration

$`G_U(y)={\displaystyle 𝑑y_2𝑑y_3G_{UUD}(y,y_2,y_3)}=g_pB(\alpha +1,\beta +1)y^\alpha (1y)^{\alpha +\beta +1},`$ (3)
$`G_D(y)={\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2G_{UUD}(y_1,y_2,y)}=g_pB(\alpha +1,\alpha +1)y^\beta (1y)^{2\alpha +1}.`$ (4)
The new values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are found to be hy

$`\alpha =1.76\text{and}\beta =1.05,`$ (5)
which are significantly different from those used in Refs. val ; hy2  due to various theoretical assumptions and limited experimental data.

Since each valon contains one and only one valence quark of its own flavor, the valence quark distributions are convolutions of the relevant valon distributions with the valence (non-singlet) quark distributions in the valons. In terms of moments we have simple products

$`\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n)=2\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n),`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n)=\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n),`$ (7)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U,D}(n)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑yy^{n1}G_{U,D}(y),`$ (8)
and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{q}_v(n)`$ in terms of $`q_v(x)`$ where $`q`$ stands for either $`u`$ or $`d`$. The value of $`Q^2`$ is set at $`1(GeV/c)^2`$ for application of the model to low-$`p_T`$ processes and will not be exhibited explicitly. From Eqs. (3) and (4) we have

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)=B(\alpha +n,\alpha +\beta +2)/B(\alpha +1,\alpha +\beta +2)`$ (9)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)=B(\beta +n,2\alpha +2)/B(\beta +1,2\alpha +2).`$ (10)
The $`n`$ dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n)`$ is determined in hy  and fitted by the following parameterization

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}}c_ju^j\right),u=\mathrm{ln}(n1),`$ (11)
where $`c_j=0.753`$, $`0.401`$, $`0.0962`$, and $`0.0555`$, for $`j=0`$, $`1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$, respectively.

For the sea quark distributions in the valons we have found that the SU(2) symmetry has to be broken to fit the CTEQ4 data, and that the favored quark distributions ($`u`$ in $`U`$ and $`d`$ in $`D`$) are suppressed relative to the unfavored quark distributions ($`u`$ in $`D`$ and $`d`$ in $`U`$), consistent with Pauli blocking. They are denoted, respectively, by $`L_f(z)`$ and $`L_u(z)`$, which are different from the $`s`$-quark distribution $`L_s(z)`$ and the gluon distribution $`L_g(z)`$. The distributions of these partons in the proton are given, in terms of the moments, simply by sums of products

$`\stackrel{~}{\overline{u}}=2\stackrel{~}{G}_U\stackrel{~}{L}_f+\stackrel{~}{G}_D\stackrel{~}{L}_u,`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}=\stackrel{~}{G}_D\stackrel{~}{L}_f+2\stackrel{~}{G}_U\stackrel{~}{L}_u,`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{~}{s}=\left(2\stackrel{~}{G}_U+\stackrel{~}{G}_D\right)\stackrel{~}{L}_s,`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}=\left(2\stackrel{~}{G}_U+\stackrel{~}{G}_D\right)\stackrel{~}{L}_g`$ (15)
where the dependences on $`n`$ have been omitted. The functions $`\stackrel{~}{L}_i(n)`$ are parameterized as follows hy

$`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{L}_i(n)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}}b_j^{(i)}u^j,u=\mathrm{ln}(n1)`$ (16)
where $`b_j^{(i)}`$ are given in Table I.

For meson-initiated reactions we need the valon distributions in mesons, which can be determined from the quark distributions in mesons on the basis of the universality of the quark distributions in valons. From experimental data on Drell-Yan and prompt photon production in $`\pi ^\pm N`$ collisions, the parton distributions in the pion have been determined in Ref. sut , using the parameterization

$`xq_v(x)=A_vx^\alpha ^{}(1x)^\beta ^{}`$ (17)
for the valence quarks with $`\alpha ^{}=0.64\pm 0.03`$ and $`\beta ^{}=1.11\pm 0.04`$. In the valon model for the pion that distribution is related to the valon distribution by

$`xq_v(x)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _0^{1y_1}}𝑑y_2G^\pi (y_1,y_2)K_{NS}\left(x/y_1\right),`$ (18)
where $`K_{NS}(z)`$ is identified with the same in the proton problem. Since the two valons in pion are symmetrical, we use the valon distribution

$`G^\pi (y_1,y_2)=g_\pi \left(y_1y_2\right)^\gamma \delta \left(y_1+y_21\right)`$ (19)
where $`g_\pi =1/B(\gamma +1,\gamma +1)`$. We convert Eq. (18) to the moment form

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_v(n)=\stackrel{~}{G}^\pi (n)\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n),$$
(20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}^\pi (n)`$ involves only one parameter $`\gamma `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n)`$ is the same as in Eq. (11) on the basis of the universality of the valon structure, independent of the host hadron. The corresponding moment of Eq. (17) can trivially be calculated. Both are shown in Fig. 1, where a good agreement between the two is achieved by the choice

$$\gamma =0.$$
(21)
This value is also consistent with the one used in Ref. val . Thus $`g_\pi =1`$, and the single valon distribution in a pion is simply

$`G^\pi (y)=1.`$ (22)
The flat distribution of the valons in pion is a result of the fact that the constituent quarks are much more massive than the pion so they are tightly bound, resulting in large uncertainty in the valon momentum fraction.

The situation with the $`K`$ meson is somewhat different, since the kaon mass is higher, and the constituent quarks have unequal masses. The valon distribution has a form similar to that of the pion in Eq. (19)

$`G^K(y_1,y_2)=g_Ky_1^ay_2^b\delta \left(y_1+y_21\right)`$ (23)
where $`g_K=1/B(a+1,b+1)`$. The average momentum fractions of the two valons are

$`\overline{y}_{1,2}={\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2y_{1,2}G^K(y_1,y_2)}`$ (24)
so their ratio is

$`\overline{y}_1/\overline{y}_2=(a+1)/(b+1).`$ (25)
Since the average velocities of the two valons are the same as that of the host kaon, their momenta should be proportional to their masses, i. e., $`\overline{y}_1/\overline{y}_2m_U/m_S`$. Taking the constituent quark masses of $`u`$\- and $`s`$-types to be in the ratio 2:3, we get from Eq. (25)

$`b=(3a+1)/2.`$ (26)
Thus we are left with one unknown parameter in Eq. (23). Since the parton distributions in kaon are not known, we cannot determine that parameter as in the pion case. It will, however, be determined by the soft production data of kaon-initiated collisions later in Sec. 5.

Knowing the valon distributions in mesons results in our knowledge of the recombination functions for the formation of the same mesons. Since we define the recombination function in the invariant phase space, we have from (19) and (23)

$`R_\pi (x_1,x_2,x)={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x^2}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{x}}1\right)`$ (27)
$`R_K(x_1,x_2,x)=g_K\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x}}\right)^{a+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{x}}\right)^{b+1}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{x}}1\right)`$ (28)
with $`a`$ and $`b`$ being constrained by (26). In this paper we do not consider nucleon production, so $`R_p`$ is not needed (see hy2 ).

## III Proton Fragmentation

In a $`pp`$ collision the soft production process in the fragmentation region is treated in the VRM as one in which the proton bag is broken by the collision and the valons become clusters of partons. The central idea of the model is that the probability for detecting a meson at large $`x`$ is higher for a $`q`$ and a $`\overline{q}`$ at lower $`x_i`$ to recombine than for a $`q`$ or a diquark at high $`x^{}`$ to fragment. The distributions of $`q(x_1)`$ and $`\overline{q}(x_2)`$ depend on the hadron structure. Under the assumption that the collision process does not significantly perturb the parton distributions outside the central interaction region (i.e., $`x_i0.1`$), the valon model can provide a sensible link between hadron structure and parton distributions. Since glueballs have never been seen, the gluons hadronize by first converting to $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, thereby enhancing the sea. Downstream the quarks and antiquarks dress themselves and become the valons to be recombined in forming the produced particles. Since the dressing process does not change the total momentum of a quark, the meson momentum $`x`$ is simply the sum of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ of the $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$, and the probability of hadronization is determined by an integration of the enhanced $`q(x_1)`$ and $`\overline{q}(x_2)`$ weighted by the recombination function. This is an $`s`$-channel description of the fragmentation process, the initial formulation of which is given in Ref. val . What we have now are the new distributions hy  and the more extensive low-$`p_T`$ data b  not available to be considered in val .

Quantitatively, the invariant distribution for pion production in the proton fragmentation region is

$`x{\displaystyle \frac{dN_\pi }{dx}}=H_\pi (x)={\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}\frac{dx_2}{x_2}F_\pi (x_1,x_2)R_\pi (x_1,x_2,x)}`$ (29)
where $`F_\pi (x_1,x_2)`$ is the invariant distribution for $`q`$ at $`x_1`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ at $`x_2`$, and is a convolution of the valon distribution in a proton with the quark distributions in valons, whose sea quarks are enhanced. In Fig. 2 we show the subprocesses giving $`u`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ quarks by schematic diagrams, which represent

$`F_{\pi ^+}(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle }dy_1dy_2[G_{UU}(y_1,y_2)K(x_1/y_1)L_u^{}(x_2/y_2)`$
$`+2G_{UD}(y_1,y_2)K\left(x_1/y_1\right)L_u^{}\left(x_2/y_2\right)`$
$`+2G_{UD}(y_1,y_2)L_u^{}(x_1/y_1)L_u^{}(x_2/y_2)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle }dy[2G_U(y)\left\{K\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{y}}\right)L_u^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{yx_1}}\right)\right\}_{12}`$
$`+G_D(y)\left\{L_u^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{y}}\right)L_u^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{yx_1}}\right)\right\}_{12}],`$ (30)
where

$`K(z)=K_{NS}(z)+L_f^{}(z).`$ (31)
$`L_f^{}(z)`$ and $`L_u^{}(z)`$ are favored and unfavored sea quark distributions in a valon, enhanced by gluon conversion, and will be discussed below. In Eq. (30) the symbol $`\{\mathrm{}\}_{12}`$ implies symmetrization in $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Equation (30) can appear simpler in moment form, for which we define

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi ^+}(n_1,n_2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1}}𝑑x_2x_1^{n_12}x_2^{n_22}F_{\pi ^+}(x_1,x_2),`$ (32)
so that (30) becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi ^+}(n_1,n_2)=\left[\stackrel{~}{G}_{UU}(n_1,n_2)+2\stackrel{~}{G}_{UD}(n_1,n_2)\right]\stackrel{~}{K}\left(n_1\right)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_2\right)`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{G}_{UD}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_1\right)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_2\right)`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{G}_U\left(n_1+n_21\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_2\right)\right\}_{12}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_D\left(n_1+n_21\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_2\right)\right\}_{12}`$ (33)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^{n_12}(1z)^{n_21}K(z)`$ (34)
and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)`$. For $`\pi ^{}`$ we have

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pi ^{}(n_1,n_2)=\left[\stackrel{~}{G}_{UU}(n_1,n_2)+2\stackrel{~}{G}_{UD}(n_1,n_2)\right]\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_1\right)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_2\right)`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{G}_{UD}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_1\right)\stackrel{~}{K}\left(n_2\right)`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{G}_U\left(n_1+n_21\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_2\right)\right\}_{12}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_D\left(n_1+n_21\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}\left(n_2\right)\right\}_{12}.`$ (35)
To use these in Eq. (29) we note that the moments of $`H_\pi ^{}(x)=x^3H_\pi (x)`$ is, using Eq. (27),

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_\pi ^{}(n)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{n2}H_\pi ^{}(x)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1}}𝑑x_2F_\pi (x_1,x_2)\left(x_1+x_2\right)^n`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{[n_i]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{n_1!n_2!}}\stackrel{~}{F}_\pi (n_1+2,n_2+2),`$ (36)
where the sum over $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ is restricted by the constraint $`n_1+n_2=n`$. The double moments of the 2-valon distributions are

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UU}(n_1,n_2)={\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2y_1^{n_11}y_2^{n_21}G_{UUD}(y_1,y_2,y_3)}`$
$`=g_p{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _0^{1y_1}}𝑑y_2y_1^{n_1+\alpha 1}y_2^{n_2+\alpha 1}\left(1y_1y_2\right)^\beta `$
$`=g_pB(n_1+\alpha ,n_2+\alpha +\beta +1)B(n_2+\alpha ,\beta +1),`$ (37)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UD}(n_1,n_2)={\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_3y_1^{n_11}y_3^{n_21}G_{UUD}(y_1,y_2,y_3)}`$
$`=g_pB(n_1+\alpha ,n_2+\alpha +\beta +1)B(n_2+\beta ,\alpha +1),`$ (38)
where $`g_p`$ is given by Eq. (2).

For the enhanced sea quark distributions, $`L_f^{}(z)`$ and $`L_u^{}(z)`$, we recall that the quiescent sea as probed by electroweak interaction is described by $`L_f(z)`$ and $`L_u(z)`$, given in Ref. hy . For either a $`U`$ or $`D`$ valon, the momentum fractions of all its partons add up to one, so we have a constraint on the $`n=2`$ moments

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(2)+2\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_f(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)\right]+2\stackrel{~}{L}_s(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_g(2)=1.`$ (39)
The various terms above correspond to (for $`U`$ valon, say) $`u`$ valence, $`u\overline{u}`$ sea, $`d\overline{d}`$ sea, $`s\overline{s}`$ sea and gluons. For hadronization we consider the enhanced sea where the gluons are completely converted into the $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ sectors, a scenario which we refer to as the saturated sea. Note that we do not let the gluons be converted to the $`s\overline{s}`$ sector due to the higher $`s`$-quark mass. Such a restriction should be relaxed in the case of nuclear collisions because of substantial Pauli blocking in the non-strange sectors. Thus we write

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(2)+2\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(2)\right]+2\stackrel{~}{L}_s(2)=1.`$ (40)
From these two equations follows

$`\stackrel{~}{L}_g(2)=2\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(2)\stackrel{~}{L}_f(2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)\right].`$ (41)
Assuming that the enhancement factor $`f_q`$ is the same for favored and unfavored quarks, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{f,u}^{}(2)=f_q\stackrel{~}{L}_{f,u}(2)`$, we get

$`f_q=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{L}_g(2)}{2\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_f(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)\right]}}.`$ (42)
From Table I, the values of $`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{L}_i(2)`$ are found to be $`4.12`$, $`3.07`$ and $`0.98`$, for $`i=f`$, $`u`$, and $`g`$, respectively. One thus obtains

$`f_q=3.99.`$ (43)
We assume that this enhancement factor applies uniformly at all $`z`$ so that we have

$`L_{f,u}^{}(z)=f_qL_{f,u}(z),\text{or}\stackrel{~}{L}_{f,u}^{}(n)=f_q\stackrel{~}{L}_{f,u}(n).`$ (44)
This assumption is made mainly for the sake of simplicity and to avoid introducing undetermined parameters. It cannot be expected to be valid at very low $`z`$ where the density is high, but that is outside the region of applicability of VRM anyway.

The two last quantities in Eqs. (33) and (35) that remain to be specified are $`\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)`$. They both are defined by integrals of the typed given in (34) in terms of $`K_{NS}(z)`$, $`L_f^{}(z)`$ and $`L_u^{}(z)`$, the latter two being proportional to $`L_f(z)`$ and $`L_u(z)`$. Since the single moments $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{L}_f(n)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u(n)`$ are given in Eqs. (11) and (16), we consider a direct approach to calculating $`\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)`$. Denoting $`K_{NS}(z)`$, $`L_f(z)`$ and $`L_u(z)`$ collectively by $`J(z)`$, we determine the double moments

$`\stackrel{~}{J}(n_1,n_2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^{n_12}(1z)^{n_21}J(z)`$ (45)
by expanding $`(1z)^{n_21}`$ in powers of $`z`$ up to $`O\left(z^{n_2}\right)`$, since $`J(z)`$ is small as $`z1`$, and the binomial coefficient $`c_m`$ decreases rapidly with $`m`$. Thus to a very good approximation we can write

$`\stackrel{~}{J}(n_1,n_2)={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n_2}{}}}(1)^m\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_21}{m}}\right)\stackrel{~}{J}(n_1+m),`$ (46)
from which we can calculate $`\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)`$.

Having specified all the terms in Eqs. (33) and (35), we can now calculate $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi ^+}(n_1,n_2)`$, which in turn are used in (36) to determine $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\pi ^\pm }(n)`$. The inversion to $`H_{\pi ^\pm }^{}(x)`$ \[and then trivially to $`H_{\pi ^\pm }(x)`$\] involves a method that has been discussed in Ref. hy2  and is summarized in the Appendix. We show our results in Fig. 3. The solid lines are from our calculations with normalizations adjusted to fit the data b , since the data are for the dimensionful $`Ed^3\sigma /dp^3`$ at fixed $`p_T`$ while our model is for the dimensionless $`xdN/dx`$, integrated over all $`p_T`$. The shapes of the calculated inclusive distributions involve no adjustable parameters. Evidently, they agree very well with the $`x`$ dependences of the data. We regard this result as evidence in support of the VRM.

## IV Pion Fragmentation: $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$

In this section we consider the non-diffractive inclusive distribution of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in the fragmentation region of the pion beam. By charge conjugate invariance it should be the same as for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, if there is no contamination by target fragmentation. Since there are no valence quarks of the projectile that end up in the produced pion, one naively would expect $`dN/dx`$ to be strongly suppressed at high $`x`$. Yet experimental data b  indicate that its $`x`$ dependence is rather similar to that of $`p\pi ^+`$, in which a $`u`$ quark is shared between $`p`$ and $`\pi ^+`$. Thus simple fragmentation of a valence quark or diquark in a string model cannot account for this similarity. In the VRM because the valon distribution in the pion is different from the ones in the proton, with the former giving larger average momentum fraction of the valons than the latter, large-$`x`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ in $`\pi ^+`$ can arise from the higher-momentum valons. In this section we show this behavior quantitatively.

For $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ the invariant distribution $`H_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(x)`$ has the same formal expression as Eq. (29) except that $`F_\pi `$ for $`p`$ fragmentation is to be replaced by $`F_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$. In Fig. 4 we show the schematic diagrams for $`U\overline{D}`$ valons going to $`d\overline{u}`$ quarks. The moments for $`F_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ can then be written down by inspection

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(n_1,n_2)=\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{D}}^\pi (n_1,n_2)\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(n_2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_2)\right]`$
$`+\left[\stackrel{~}{G}_U^\pi \left(n_1\right)+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\overline{D}}^\pi \left(n_2\right)\right]\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u(n_2)\right\}_{12}.`$ (47)
We note that $`\overline{u}`$ is favored in $`U`$, and $`d`$ is favored in $`\overline{D}`$. Because we assume that the structure of valons is universal in all host hadrons, the enhanced sea of a valon in the pion is the same as that of a valon in the proton; thus $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{f,u}^{}`$ is the same as in the previous section.

Since $`G_{U\overline{D}}^\pi (y_1,y_2)=\delta \left(y_1+y_21\right)`$ due to $`\gamma =0`$ in Eq. (19), we have

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{D}}^\pi (n_1,n_2)=B(n_1,n_2),`$ (48)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U,\overline{D}}^\pi \left(n_i\right)=1/n_i.`$ (49)
The calculation of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(n_1,n_2)`$ is therefore straightforward. Using it in Eq. (36) yields $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(n)`$, and by inversion we get $`H_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(x)`$.

The result is shown in Fig. 5 by the solid line. The dotted line is the fit of the data given by the experimental paper b , where the $`x0.6`$ points are excluded in order to avoid contamination from resonance decay products. Our result agrees very well with the experimental parameterization of the data by $`(1x)^m`$ where $`m=3.37\pm 0.09`$ for $`p_T=0.3`$ GeV/c at beam momentum 100 GeV/c.

The lack of $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ in Eq. (47) compared to (33) and (35), corresponding to no valence quarks, is compensated by the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{D}}^\pi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U,\overline{D}}^\pi `$ in (48) and (49) are not as damped at high $`n_i`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UU}^p`$, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UD}^p`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U,D}^p`$ are in (37), (38), (9) and (10), respectively, for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ being as big as in (5). That is, in $`\pi ^+`$ we have harder valons and softer $`d`$ and $`\overline{u}`$, while in $`p`$ we have softer valons and harder $`u`$ and $`\overline{d}`$.

The normalization of the calculated distribution in Fig. 5 is again adjusted to fit, since the data are for inclusive cross section at fixed $`p_T`$. Nevertheless, the agreement of the $`x`$ dependence with data is the second piece of support one can infer for VRM.

## V Kaon Fragmentation: $`K^+\pi ^\pm `$

In Sec. 2 we have discussed the form of the valon distributions in a kaon with one undetermined parameter to be fixed. Now we consider kaon initiated reactions and determine that parameter by fitting the inclusive distribution of $`K^+\pi ^\pm `$.

From Eq. (23) we have

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{S}}^K(n_1,n_2)=B(n_1+a,n_2+b)/B(a+1,b+1),`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_U^K\left(n_1\right)=B(n_1+a,b+1)/B(a+1,b+1),`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\overline{S}}^K\left(n_2\right)=B(a+1,n_2+b)/B(a+1,b+1),`$ (52)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constrained by (26). In Fig. 6 we show the schematic diagrams for (a) $`K^+\pi ^+`$ and (b) $`K^+\pi ^{}`$. It then follows that

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{K^+\pi ^+}(n_1,n_2)=\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{S}}^K(n_1,n_2)\left[\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)\right]`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_U^K\left(n_1\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_2)\right\}_{12}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\overline{S}}^K\left(n_2\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)\right\}_{12}`$ (53)
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)`$ is the moment of the enhanced, unfavored quark distribution in the $`\overline{S}`$ valon, and will be discussed below. Similarly, we have for $`K^+\pi ^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{K^+\pi ^{}}(n_1,n_2)=\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{S}}^K(n_1,n_2)\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)\right]`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_U^K\left(n_1\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(n_2)\right\}_{12}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\overline{S}}^K\left(n_2\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)\right\}_{12}.`$ (54)
For gluon conversion in the $`\overline{S}`$ valon we again consider the saturation of the $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ sectors of the sea, but none in the $`s\overline{s}`$ sector because of the higher $`s`$-quark mass. Since the non-strange sectors are both unfavored, the momentum carried by the sea is not the same as that in a non-strange valon. Thus we write before gluon conversion

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(2)+4\stackrel{~}{L}_u^S(2)+2\stackrel{~}{L}_s^S(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_g^S(2)=1,`$ (55)
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}_i^S(i=u,s,g)`$ refer to the $`\overline{S}`$ valon. Equation (55) differs from (39) for a $`\overline{D}`$ valon only in that the favored sector $`d\overline{d}`$ is replaced by the unfavored sector $`d\overline{d}`$. It means that there is a redistribution of the momenta in the gluons and sea quarks, which, we assume, takes the simple form

$`\stackrel{~}{L}_i^S(2)=c\stackrel{~}{L}_i(2),`$ (56)
where $`c`$ is a constant. After gluon conversion Eq. (55) becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(2)+4\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(2)+2\stackrel{~}{L}_s^S(2)=1.`$ (57)
If we define $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(2)=f_s\stackrel{~}{L}_s^S(2)`$, we obtain

$`f_s=1+\stackrel{~}{L}_g^S(2)/4\stackrel{~}{L}_u^S(2)=1+\stackrel{~}{L}_g(2)/4\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)`$ (58)
Using as before $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)=e^{3.07}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_g(2)=e^{0.98}`$, we get

$`f_s=3.02.`$ (59)
To determine $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(2)`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)`$ we need, in addition to $`f_s`$, the value of $`c`$ in Eq. (56). It follows from Eqs. (39), (55) and (56) that

$`c=1{\displaystyle \frac{2\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)\stackrel{~}{L}_f(2)\right]}{4\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)+2\stackrel{~}{L}_s(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_g(2)}}.`$ (60)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{L}_s(2)=e^{4.21}`$ from Table I, we get

$`c=0.9`$ (61)
and finally $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(2)=f_sc\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)=2.72\stackrel{~}{L}_u(2)`$. Again, extending this proportionality to all $`n_2`$, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{\prime \prime }(n_2)=2.72\stackrel{~}{L}_u(n_2).`$ (62)
We now have all the quantities in Eqs. (52) and (54) to calculate $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{K^+\pi ^\pm }(n_1,n_2)`$.

There is one adjustable parameter in our calculation. It is $`a`$ in Eq. (23), $`b`$ being constrained by (26). After $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{K^+\pi ^\pm }(n_1,n_2)`$ are determined, we use a formula similar to Eq. (36), i.e.,

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{K^+\pi ^\pm }^{}(n)={\displaystyle \underset{[n_i]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{n_1!n_2!}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{K^+\pi ^\pm }(n_1+2,n_2+2),`$ (63)
to calculate $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{K^+\pi ^\pm }^{}(n)`$. Then by inversion to $`H_{K^+\pi ^\pm }^{}(x)`$ as before, we can finally obtain $`H_{K^+\pi ^\pm }(x)=x^3\stackrel{~}{H}_{K^+\pi ^\pm }^{}(x)`$. We adjust $`a`$ to fit the data, which are shown in Fig. 7 for $`p_T=0.3`$ GeV/c. Again, because the data are for fixed $`p_T`$, we cannot predict the normalization, which is adjusted to fit. The best values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ are

$`a=1.0,b=2.0.`$ (64)
The solid lines in Fig. 7 show the calculated results; the dotted lines are the experimental fits using the form $`(1x)^m`$. Although the fits are not perfect, they are acceptable in view of the large error bars in the data. What is noteworthy is that we used only one normalization factor for both $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ production, and the calculated curves agree with the two sets of data in their relative normalizations. Thus the VRM has captured the essence of $`\pi ^\pm `$ production in $`K^+`$ initiated reactions.

Since $`a`$ and $`b`$ are now known, we can exhibit the valon distributions in a kaon. In Fig. 8 we show $`G_U^K(y)`$ and $`G_{\overline{S}}^K(y)`$. Note how the strange valon has larger momentum fraction than the nonstrange valon, on the average. It is because of the harder $`\overline{S}`$ valon, though softer non-strange quarks in it, that gives rise to the distributions $`H_{K^+\pi ^\pm }(x)`$ that are harder (decreasing more slowly with $`x`$) than either $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ or even $`p\pi ^+`$, which has a shared valence quark. This is a remarkable affirmation of the importance of the structure of the hadron in the determination of the inclusive distributions of its fragments.

## VI Pion Fragmentation: $`\pi ^+K^\pm `$

Since the valon distributions in the kaon have been determined in the previous section, we now know the recombination function for the formation of kaon. Thus the calculation of pion fragmentation into $`K^\pm `$ should be straightforward.

In Fig. 9 we show the diagrams for $`\pi ^+K^\pm `$. They are essentially the same as the ones in Fig. 6 for $`K^+\pi ^\pm `$, except for the replacement of $`\overline{S}`$ valon in the initial $`K^+`$ by $`\overline{D}`$ valon in the initial $`\pi ^+`$, and the replacement of the appropriate non-strange $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ quarks in $`\pi ^\pm `$ by the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks in $`K^\pm `$. The corresponding equations are therefore similar to Eqs. (52) and (54)

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi ^+K^+}(n_1,n_2)=\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{D}}^\pi (n_1,n_2)\left[\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_2)\right]`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_U^\pi \left(n_1\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{K}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_2)\right\}_{12}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\overline{D}}^\pi \left(n_2\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_2)\right\}_{12}`$ (65)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi ^+K^{}}(n_1,n_2)=\stackrel{~}{G}_{U\overline{D}}^\pi (n_1,n_2)\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(n_1)\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1)\right]`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_U^\pi \left(n_1\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_f^{}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_2)\right\}_{12}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\overline{D}}^\pi \left(n_2\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{L}_u^{}(n_1,n_2)\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_2)\right\}_{12}.`$ (66)
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n_i)`$ is not enhanced because, as before, gluon conversion saturates the non-strange sectors of the sea. The other moments are as given in Sec. 4.

Since the recombination function $`R_K`$ is now different from $`R_\pi `$, the inclusive distribution for $`K^\pm `$ production is

$`x{\displaystyle \frac{dN_K}{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_K(x)={\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}\frac{dx_2}{x_2}F_{\pi K}(x_1,x_2)R_K(x_1,x_2,x)}`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`g_Kx^4{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2x_1x_2^2F_{\pi K}(x_1,x_2)\delta \left(x_1+x_2x\right)}`$
where Eqs. (28) and (64) have been used. If we define

$`H_K^{}(x)=x^6H_K(x),`$ (68)
then the binomial expansion of $`\left(x_1+x_2\right)^n`$ leads us to the moments

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_K^{}(n)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{n2}H_K^{}(x)=g_K{\displaystyle \underset{[n_i]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{n_1!n_2!}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\pi K}(n_1+3,n_2+4),`$ (69)
similar, but not identical, to Eq. (36). In view of Eqs. (65) and (66), $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{K^\pm }^{}(n)`$ can now be calculated without any free parameters.

Using the same procedure as before to obtain $`H_{K^\pm }(x)`$, we can determine the inclusive distributions for $`\pi ^+K^\pm `$. In Fig. 10 we show our results compared to the data b  at 100 GeV/c and $`p_T=0.3`$ GeV/c. Again, the normalization is adjusted to fit, but only one normalization factor for both curves. The agreement between theory and experiment is very good, considering that no free parameter is used except for the overall normalization. The excess for $`x>0.6`$ can be attributed to the decay of $`K^{}`$ whose $`K`$ product would have higher $`x`$. The relative normalization of $`K^+`$ to $`K^{}`$ is well reproduced by VRM.

## VII Conclusion

We have considered the production of mesons in the fragmentation regions of incident proton and mesons in low-$`p_T`$ collisions. The data on $`p\pi ^\pm `$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^\pm `$, and $`\pi ^+K^\pm `$ have all been satisfactorily reproduced by the calculated results in the VRM. There is essentially only one free parameter that is connected with the valon distribution in the kaon. All other parameters specifying the structure of the proton and pion have been determined independently by fitting the data on hard processes. It is self-evident that by successfully reproducing the inclusive distributions of all the above reactions we have met the test of charge asymmetry in $`\pi ^+p`$ collisions.

Apart from the details of the VRM and of the data in the fragmentation region, the fundamental themes that this work has affirmed are that the hadron structures are important and that hadronization proceeds through recombination. The valon model effectively describes the hadron structure and the valon distributions provide the probability functions for recombination. It is conceivable that two valons may be regarded as a diquark whose fragmentation yields the produced mesons. Since the two valons are spatially distributed objects with non-vanishing relative momentum, to describe their fragmentation by a fragmentation function adapted from jet physics seems hard to justify. The VRM, on the other hand, is related more closely to the parton model and provides a natural s-channel description of the fragmentation process (from the point of view of the hadron) in terms of recombination (from the point of view of the quarks and antiquarks).

We have not considered the production of baryons in this paper. However, the non-diffractive production of nucleons in $`pA`$ collisions has already been treated in the VRM hy2 . The production of strange particles is worthy of further attention. Our consideration of $`\pi ^+K^\pm `$ is only a beginning, which shows that in hadronic collisions gluons do not convert to $`s\overline{s}`$ as effectively as to $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$. That situation must change in going from hadronic to nuclear collisions due to Pauli blocking in the non-strange sector. It seems that the VRM provides a natural framework in which to investigate the transition from strangeness suppression to strangeness enhancement.

## Acknowledgment

One of us (RCH) is grateful to Prof. A. Capella for stimulating discussions that have led to a challenge for us to show how well the recombination model works. This work was supported, in part, by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40972.

## Appendix A Appendix

We summarize here the method of inversion from the moments to the $`x`$-distribution function, originally proposed in Ref. hy2 . Instead of making the inverse Mellin transform, which involves a complex contour, we exploit the orthogonality of the Legendre polynomials. First, we shift the variable to the interval $`0x1`$, and define

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)=P_{\mathrm{}}(2x1)`$ (70)
so that

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xg_{\mathrm{}}(x)g_m(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}}\delta _\mathrm{}m.`$ (71)
If we expand the distribution $`H^{}(x)`$ in terms of $`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$

$`H^{}(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(2\mathrm{}+1)h_{\mathrm{}}g_{\mathrm{}}(x),`$ (72)
then the inverse is

$`h_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xH^{}(x)g_{\mathrm{}}(x).`$ (73)
These $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be expressed in terms of the moments $`H^{}(n)`$ if we express $`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ as a power series in $`x`$

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_{\mathrm{}}^ix^i,`$ (74)
where $`a_{\mathrm{}}^i`$ are known from the properties of $`P_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$. Thus from Eq. (73) we have

$`h_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_{\mathrm{}}^i\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(i+2),`$ (75)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(n)`$ is defined in Eq. (36). It is now clear that our theoretical results in $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(n)`$ can be transformed to $`H^{}(x)`$ through Eqs. (72) and (75) once we have the coefficients $`a_{\mathrm{}}^i`$. Furthermore, if $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(n)`$ becomes unimportant for $`n>N`$, then the sum in Eq. (72) can terminate at $`N`$.

To determine $`a_{\mathrm{}}^i`$, we make use of the recursion formula

$`(\mathrm{}+1)P_{\mathrm{}+1}(z)=(2\mathrm{}+1)zP_{\mathrm{}}(z)\mathrm{}P_\mathrm{}1(z)`$ (76)
to infer through Eqs. (70) and (74)

$`a_{\mathrm{}}^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}[(2\mathrm{}1)a_\mathrm{}1^0+(\mathrm{}1)a_\mathrm{}2^0],`$ (77)
$`a_{\mathrm{}}^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}[(2\mathrm{}1)(a_\mathrm{}1^i2a_\mathrm{}1^{i1})+(\mathrm{}1)a_\mathrm{}2^i],`$ (78)
where $`\mathrm{}2`$, and $`1i\mathrm{}`$. For $`\mathrm{}<2`$, we have

$`a_0^0=1,a_1^0=1,a_1^1=2.`$ (79)
With these we can generate all $`a_{\mathrm{}}^i`$, so $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be directly computed. The use of (72) then yields $`H^{}(x)`$.

We have found that this method can give very accurate result in inverting $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(n)`$ to $`H^{}(x)`$ for $`N`$ roughly between 8 to 10, depending on how rapidly $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(n)`$ decreases with $`n`$.


text:
# A Highly Ordered Faraday-Rotation Structure in the Interstellar Medium

## 1 Introduction

Observation of the radio sky between 300 MHz and 3 GHz has revealed an extensive polarized emission that has no counterpart in total intensity (Junkes et al., 1987; Wieringa et al., 1993; Duncan et al., 1997, 1999; Gray et al., 1998, 1999; Uyanıker et al., 1998, 1999; Haverkorn et al., 2000; Gaensler et al., 2001), supplementing, and often dominating, polarized features associated with identifiable sources such as Galactic supernova remnants (SNRs) and compact non-thermal sources. These unidentifiable polarized features are detected as changes in the polarization angle of the received signal; they are generally attributed to rapid changes in Faraday rotation through a foreground Magneto-Ionic Medium (MIM) acting on polarized emission from a smooth Galactic synchrotron background.

Faraday rotation produces a change in polarization angle of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =0.81\lambda ^2n_eB_{}𝑑L=\lambda ^2RM\mathrm{radians}$$
(1)
where $`n_e`$ (cm-3) is the electron density, $`B_{}`$ ($`\mu `$G) is the component of the magnetic field parallel to the line of sight, $`L`$ (pc) is the path length, and $`\lambda `$ (m) is the wavelength. RM is the Rotation Measure. Changes in Faraday rotation imply that the intervening “Faraday screen” has structure in the intensity or direction of the magnetic field or in the density of electrons or some combination. Polarization observations therefore allow us to probe physical conditions in the MIM.

In most of the regions imaged to date, the structure is chaotic, often with features on arcminute scales. In this paper we investigate a region of extent $`2^{}`$ where polarization angle varies smoothly over a range $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =100^{}`$, and structure in Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$ is smooth with no counterpart in total intensity. It resembles the elliptical Faraday-rotation structure G137.6+1.1 described by Gray et al. (1998), a region $`1^{}\times 2^{}`$ where polarization angle changes smoothly by $`200^{}`$. G137.6+1.1 was interpreted as a region of smooth enhancement of electron density, with a smooth magnetic field structure. The existence of two such objects suggests that they may be common in the Interstellar Medium (ISM).

This paper uses some results from a broader discussion of CGPS polarization observations of the area $`82^{}<l<95^{}`$, $`3.6^{}<b<5.6^{}`$ (Uyanıker et al. in preparation), which we refer to as Paper 2.

## 2 Observations and Data Processing

The observations are part of the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (Taylor et al., 2002, CGPS) made with the Synthesis Telescope at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (Landecker et al., 2000). Standard data reduction algorithms are described in Willis (1999) and Taylor et al. (2002). The survey covers $`75^{}<l<145^{}`$, $`3.6^{}<b<5.6^{}`$. Within this region, images are obtained on a hexagonal grid with field centers spaced by $`117\mathrm{}`$. Angular resolution is $`49\mathrm{}\times 49\mathrm{}\mathrm{cosec}(\delta )`$.

The telescope receives both hands of circular polarization in four bands near 1420 MHz, each 7.5 MHz wide, set above and below the H I frequency by offsets of $`\pm 6.25`$ MHz and $`\pm 13.75`$ MHz. For the observations presented here the center frequency was 1420.64 MHz. Visibilities are processed into images of Stokes parameters $`I`$, $`Q`$ and $`U`$ in each of the four bands using standard aperture-synthesis techniques. $`Q`$ and $`U`$ images are corrected for instrumental polarization across the field of view, and are assembled into mosaics. Images presented here are averages from all four bands.

The telescope samples baselines from 12.9 to 617 m with an increment of 4.286 m, and all structure from the resolution limit of $`1\mathrm{}`$ up to $`45\mathrm{}`$ is represented in the images from the Synthesis Telescope. Information from single-antenna data has been incorporated into the $`I`$ data (as is standard practice for the CGPS), but no attempt has been made to recover information corresponding to larger polarization structure, and single-antenna data have not been added to the $`Q`$ and $`U`$ images discussed in this paper.

Polarized intensity, $`PI`$, nominally $`(Q^2+U^2)^{1/2}`$, is calculated as
$`PI=(Q^2+U^2(1.2\sigma )^2)^{1/2}`$, where $`\sigma =30`$ mK TB is the rms noise in the mosaiced $`Q`$ and $`U`$ images, in order to provide a first-order correction for noise bias. The polarization angle in each of the four bands is calculated as $`\theta _\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arctan}(U/Q)`$. RM can be calculated from the four values of $`\theta _\lambda `$ when the signal-to-noise ratio is adequate.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 shows $`I`$ and $`PI`$ images, and Figure 2 shows $`Q`$ and $`U`$ images from the CGPS database in a region $`88^{}<l<95^{}`$, $`3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}6<b<1^{}`$.

Objects visible in the $`I`$ image include the SNRs CTB 104A (at $`l=93\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}7,b=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$) and 3C434.1 (at $`l=94\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0,b=1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$, partly seen at the upper edge of the image). Strong polarized emission from CTB 104A is evident in the $`PI`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ images, but no polarized emission corresponding to 3C434.1 has been detected. The polarized emission from CTB 104A is discussed by Uyanıker et al. (2002). An H II region, S 124, is seen at $`l=94\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5,b=1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$, consisting of a bright, compact object embedded in extended emission. Diffuse, low-brightness emission fills the $`I`$ image north of $`b0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$.

Within the area shown in Figure 2, at $`l=91\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}75`$, $`b=2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}45`$, is an elliptical region of extent nearly $`2^{}`$ where the structure in $`Q`$ and $`U`$ changes very smoothly, indicating that polarization angle changes slowly and systematically. No counterpart in total intensity is detectable in Figure 1. This unusual feature is the subject of this paper. To give the object a name that reflects its appearance, we refer to it as the Polarized Lens (PL), but this is not intended to suggest any particular interpretation. The contrast between the PL and the SNR CTB104A is very striking. The SNR shows very strong $`PI`$ and chaotic, small-scale structure in $`Q`$ and $`U`$ while the PL shows strong, smoothly structured $`Q`$ and $`U`$ emission but very low $`PI`$. To the west and north-west of the PL there are regions of small-scale chaotic structure, again with no counterpart in total intensity, whose appearance is characteristic of the polarized emission in many directions in the Galactic plane (see references cited in the Introduction).

The area shown in Figures 1 and 2 is at the southern edge of the CGPS region, and the data become noisy at the extreme edge. However, we are confident that the PL does not extend south beyond the limit of these images. An overlapping region was observed by Higgs et al. (2001); those observations are consistent with our data where they overlap, and extend well to the south of the field presented here, showing very low levels of $`Q`$ and $`U`$.

Figures 3 displays total intensity, $`I`$, scaled to show lower intensities than are seen in Figure 1. Extended emission is seen in the field; most of it is probably thermal in origin. Some of this emission is related to known objects, also indicated in Figure 3; these are discussed in detail below. However, there is no extended emission which resembles the PL in form, and we consider that the PL is a region where the polarized “object” has no counterpart in $`I`$; it is one of the Faraday objects described in the Introduction.

Figure 3 also shows polarized intensity, $`PI`$, and polarization angle in a region centered on the PL. Polarization vectors are superimposed on the $`PI`$ image. Because the polarized structure is very smooth, the $`PI`$ and angle images have been derived from data convolved to $`5\mathrm{}`$ resolution. For reference, two ellipses are superimposed on the images of Figure 3, both centered at $`l=91\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}75`$, $`b=2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}45`$. The larger ellipse, $`90\mathrm{}\times 108\mathrm{}`$, marks the approximate limit of the smooth structure. The smaller ellipse, $`72\mathrm{}\times 42\mathrm{}`$, approximately follows the inner contours in the polarization angle image of Figure 3.

The emission here is quite strongly polarized, but very smooth. The overall extent of the polarization feature, defined as the region in which polarization angle varies smoothly, is about $`100\mathrm{}`$. Within this region the polarized intensity, $`PI`$, rises to $``$0.08 K, while in the immediate surroundings $`PI`$ is mostly below the sensitivity limit of the telescope.

Figure 4 shows the variation of polarization angle along the major axis of the larger ellipse. The change of angle through the PL is $`100^{}`$, corresponding to a RM change of 40 rad m-2. The signal-to-noise ratio is inadequate to permit the derivation of an image of RM.

## 4 Possible Relationship to Other Objects in the Field

In seeking to interpret the PL we have investigated possible associations with a variety of objects in this direction. There are many objects along this line of sight, which passes along the local spiral arm close to the Galactic plane; some are identified in Figure 3.

### 4.1 Possible supernova remnant

Kassim (1988a) reported a source at $`(l,b)=(92.0^{},2.6^{})`$ with an extent of $`44\mathrm{}\times 35\mathrm{}`$, detected in the Clark Lake survey at 30.9 MHz (resolution $`15\mathrm{}`$); the reported flux density at 30.9 MHz was 23 Jy. Kassim originally identified this with 4C 47.56 at $`(l,b)=(92\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}23,2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}97)`$. However, in a subsequent paper he suggested the Clark-Lake source might be an SNR (Kassim, 1988b).

We note that other low-frequency surveys do not indicate the presence of an extended low-frequency source corresponding to the PL. No source is detected in the 22.25 MHz DRAO survey (Roger et al., 1999), with resolution $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1\times 1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}7`$ at this sky position. The 34.5 MHz Gauribidanur survey of Dwarakanath & Udaya Shankar (1990, resolution $`26\mathrm{}\times 40\mathrm{}`$) shows a depression at this location. Gorham (1990) does not confirm G92.0$``$2.6 as an SNR from examination of radio continuum surveys at 1420 and 2695 MHz. However, Gorham notes a possibly related infrared feature in the IRAS 60$`\mu `$m data. Our examination of the CGPS infrared database (Cao et al., 1997) has revealed a depression in the infrared emission coinciding roughly with the PL.

Nevertheless, the appearance of the PL in polarized intensity does bear some resemblance to an SNR (see Figure 3). There is a bright outer ridge of emission, and a central feature, defining a morphology reminiscent of a composite SNR. The outer ridge shows strong bilateral symmetry about the major axis of the smaller ellipse. The integrated polarized intensity at 1420 MHz is $``$0.9 Jy, which, assuming $`<`$50% fractional polarization, implies a total flux density of $`>`$2 Jy. With a spectral index of $`\alpha =0.5`$ ($`S\nu ^\alpha `$), the flux density would be $`>`$14 Jy at 30.9 MHz, plausibly consistent with the flux density of 23 Jy reported by Kassim.

However, the smooth polarization structure does not resemble that of a typical SNR. Those SNRs whose polarized emission is seen in this vicinity show generally chaotic structure on arcminute scales (as demonstrated by CTB 104A – see Figure 2). Young SNRs have radial magnetic field, producing polarization vectors which follow the circumference. Old SNRs have circumferential field, and radial E vectors. To produce the observed pattern of polarization vectors would require a very special distribution of Faraday rotation, and we consider this an unlikely circumstance.

4C 47.56 (at $`(l,b)=(92.0^{},2.6^{})`$) lies very close to the eastern boundary of the larger ellipse (see Figure 3). Its location relative to the structure seen in polarized intensity suggests it could be related to the PL. However, its spectral index, derived from published flux densities between 151 and 4850 MHz, together with values derived from our own 1420 MHz data, is $`\alpha =1.03\pm 0.04`$, typical of an extragalactic source. The predicted flux density at 30.9 MHz is 24.8 Jy, entirely consistent with the value obtained by Kassim (1988a). There is thus no excess flux density at 30.9 MHz which might require the hypothesized SNR.

### 4.2 H I feature G92$``$4+50

Higgs et al. (2001) report an unusual H I structure at $`(l,b)(92^{},4^{})`$, with a velocity of $`v_{LSR}=50`$ km s-1 which partially overlaps the PL in position. However, we can find no morphological resemblance between this H I structure, or any other H I structure in the field, and the PL.

### 4.3 H II Region LBN 416

Lynds (1965) lists a filamentary emission nebula, LBN 416 (indicated in Figure 3) crossing the position of the PL. The position and size, determined by Lynds from the Palomar Sky Survey, are $`(l,b)=(91\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}66,2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}54)`$ and $`80\mathrm{}\times 10\mathrm{}`$. The object is seen clearly in total intensity in our observations. CGPS data at 408 MHz confirm that the emission from LBN 416 has a thermal spectrum, and we therefore consider it to be an H II region.

The peak brightness temperature of LBN 416 is 0.2K, and the integrated flux density at 1420 MHz is roughly 0.7 Jy, with a measured extent of $`90\mathrm{}\times 15\mathrm{}`$. We have modeled the H II region as a cylinder of ionized gas (using a program written by L.A. Higgs). We obtain reasonable fits to the observed parameters with electron densities of 8 and 2 cm-3 for assumed distances of 0.25 and 2.5 kpc respectively, with corresponding variation for intermediate distances. We assume that the filament is cylindrical, so that the line-of-sight depth through it is equal to its transverse extent. Further assuming a magnetic field of 2 $`\mu `$G, the Faraday rotation through the filament would be $`36^{}`$ at a distance of 0.25 kpc, and $`120^{}`$ at a distance of 2.5 kpc. If LBN 416 were in front of the PL, such rotations would easily be detected in our data. The fact that they are not, implies that LBN 416 is behind the PL. In fact, the absence of any polarization effect attributable to LBN 416 probably implies that it is more distant than 2 kpc (see Section 5.3 where we discuss the distance of detectable polarization features). We conclude that LBN 416 and the PL are unrelated.

### 4.4 Stars in the field

An open star cluster, M39 (NGC7092), partly overlaps the PL; its distance is 265 pc (McNamara & Sanders, 1977) and the PL could conceivably be produced by effects of one or more of its stars. The nominal cluster center is $`(l,b)=(92\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2,2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5)`$. Of 7931 cataloged stars in the field, roughly 60 have a probability of membership $`>`$90% (Platais, 1994), and these are indicated in Figure 3. The brightest 25 of these stars range in spectral type from B8 to A0, and their combined ionizing flux might form a Strömgren sphere of diameter a few pc, dependent on local conditions of ambient density. This is too small to account for the PL.

There are two B stars within the boundary of the PL. The B3 star, No. 3721 in Platais (1994), lies at $`(l,b)=(92\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}12,2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}51`$). The Tycho catalog (Høg et al., 2000) gives its parallactic distance as 300 pc. Although it is at a comparable distance to M39, Platais (1994) did not include this star in the membership list. Its color index is $`(BV)=0.^\mathrm{m}24`$. However, such a star can ionize a region of order 1 pc in diameter in a region of $`n_e=1\mathrm{cm}^3`$, subtending an angle of only $`10\mathrm{}`$ at the distance of the star, much smaller than the PL.

The second is a B0 star (Platais, 1994, LS $`+47^{}`$ 47, No. 4071) close to the center of the PL, at $`(l,b)=(92\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}02,2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}71`$); this star is probably not a member of M39. The star has a color index $`(BV)=0.^\mathrm{m}13`$. The absolute magnitude of a main sequence B0 star, on the other hand, is $`M_V=3.^\mathrm{m}4`$. These parameters yield a distance about 12 kpc for the star if it is on the main sequence. To bring this star within 1 kpc, where it might conceivably be related to the PL, it must have evolved to the point where it has spawned a planetary nebula. No such nebula has been detected.

The offset between the PL and M39 makes an association between the two objects unlikely, and the cluster has insufficient ionizing flux to generate the PL. Of the two B stars in the field one has inadequate ionizing flux to explain the PL and the other is too distant. We cannot explain the PL on the basis of known stars in the field.

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 Is the PL an isolated structure?

The images of polarized emission shown in Figures 2 and 3 suggest that the PL is an isolated structure. However, the DRAO Synthesis Telescope has limited sensitivity to structures larger than $`45\mathrm{}`$ for all Stokes parameters. It is important to consider whether our data are missing any component that is vital to the correct interpretation of the PL.

There is no doubt that we have detected significant structure in $`Q`$ and $`U`$ from the PL. We have also observed an absence of $`Q`$ and $`U`$ in the areas surrounding the PL, and this too is a significant result. Nevertheless, the question remains: is there a large polarized object in this direction, of which the Synthesis Telescope has seen only a small part? The best answer to that question would be provided by complementary single-antenna observations which could be appropriately combined with the Synthesis Telescope data, but such data are not available. The best we can do in answering that question is to turn to the existing single-antenna data.

We have examined the data of Brouw & Spoelstra (1976) for this region, observed with a $`36\mathrm{}`$ beam at 1420 MHz. In the area $`90^{}<l<94^{}`$, $`4^{}<b<0^{}`$ there are 6 observations. Polarized intensity varies from 0.05 to 0.13 K, except for one corner of the region where the value is 0.39 K (the mean error of these observations is quoted as 0.06 K). The polarization angle throughout the region is $`145^{}\pm 25^{}`$. Considering the errors and the severe undersampling, these data support a picture of a region of roughly constant polarized intensity and angle. The peak polarized intensity of the PL measured in our data, $`0.08`$ K, is comparable to the polarized intensity of the “background” measured by Brouw and Spoelstra. Examination of other data from the same paper at four lower frequencies (down to 408 MHz) also shows a low-level, fairly smooth structure. The smooth component is likely to be a foreground, since distant, and consequently small, structure will average to a very low value in the broad beam of the telescope used by Brouw and Spoelstra.

We therefore proceed on the assumption that our observations have “seen” all of the PL. In this connection, we note that G137.6+1.1 was apparently detected in its entirety by the DRAO Synthesis Telescope in the observations described by Gray et al. (1998). Observations with the Effelsberg 100-m Telescope at 1420 MHz (W. Reich, private communication) confirm this, and show G137.6+1.1 superimposed on a uniform but intense polarized background.

### 5.2 Is the PL an ionized or a magnetic feature?

The morphology of the PL gives the impression of a confined region, and in the following discussion we assume that the PL has a depth along the line of sight equal to its observed extent on the sky, approximately $`29D`$ pc, where $`D`$ is the distance in kpc. We consider it unlikely that the PL is produced by a long cylindrical structure at a fortuitous alignment. We assume that the regular and random components of the local magnetic field have values $`2\mu `$G and $`4\mu `$G respectively (Beck, 2001), and that the regular component is directed towards $`l83^{}`$ (Heiles, 1996).

Through analysis of RMs of extragalactic point sources from the CGPS database, Brown & Taylor (2001) have delineated a region of size $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ centered on $`l=92^{}`$, $`b=0^{}`$ where the magnetic field reverses its direction, refining an earlier detection by Clegg et al. (1992). The cause of the field reversal has not been identified. The PL lies at the southern edge of this magnetic anomaly and the question arises whether the two are related. The SNR CTB 104A also lies on the edge of this region, and Uyanıker et al. (2002) have shown that the magnetic field direction in the vicinity of the SNR is opposite to that of the prevailing magnetic field, and is aligned with the field in the anomaly. The SNR and the anomaly are therefore at the same distance. Uyanıker et al. (2002) also show that the distance to CTB 104A is approximately 1.5 kpc. We show below that the PL is much closer, at about 600 pc. The PL is therefore unrelated to the magnetic anomaly.

Nevertheless, the possibility that the PL is a magnetic phenomenon must be considered. A change in Faraday rotation such as that generated by the PL must be associated with an excess or deficit of electrons, or with a change in the magnetic field intensity or direction, or with some combination of the two. If the excess RM in the PL is produced by a magnetic field fluctuation alone, the required change is $`15\mu `$G for $`n_e=0.2\mathrm{cm}^3`$, considerably larger than the expected random field fluctuations, and we consider it unlikely that the PL is solely a magnetic field phenomenon. This leaves a deficit or excess of electrons. The required change in $`n_e`$ is of the order of 1 cm-3, and a deficit of this magnitude can only be accommodated if the surrounding electron density is quite high. Further, a region where there is a deficit of electrons relative to the surroundings must be filled with neutral gas to maintain pressure balance, and neither atomic or molecular material is in evidence (although the sensitivity of available observations does not allow us to categorically exclude such an occurrence). We proceed, therefore, on the assumption that the PL is the result of a local enhancement of electron density. This enhancement is possibly accompanied by a magnetic field structural change, probably also an enhancement, but the magnetic field must be very smooth. In considering G137.6+1.1, Gray et al. (1998) have presented very similar arguments.

### 5.3 General remarks on the distance to polarization features

In this direction our line of sight is about $`10^{}`$ from the axis of the local spiral arm, which we judge to coincide with the brightest emission from the Cygnus-X region at $`l=80^{}`$. The line of sight is thus nearly parallel to the local field direction, and Faraday rotation is strong. It is shown in Paper 2 that the Faraday screen that generates the bulk of the polarized signal in this region is within the local arm. Polarized emission originating at larger distances, either in distinct synchrotron sources such as SNRs or in more distant Faraday screens, is rendered undetectable by beam depolarization in the local Faraday screen. Depth depolarization is also a strong effect. (Beam depolarization is also referred to as differential Faraday rotation and depth depolarization as internal Faraday dispersion; these effects are discussed by Sokoloff et al. (1998)). Paper 2 presents evidence that this distance, which is referred to there as the polarization horizon, is about 2 kpc. Some of the evidence is seen in Figure 1. Polarized emission is detected from the SNR CTB 104A (G93.7$``$0.2), which is within the Local arm (Uyanıker et al., 2002), but no polarized emission is detected from the SNR 3C434.1 (G94.0+1.0), which is a Perseus Arm object (Foster, 2000). For more detailed arguments about the distance to the polarization horizon, the reader is referred to Paper 2.

Our first conclusion is that the PL must be closer than about 2 kpc. However, in a direction where total beam depolarization occurs over a distance of 2 kpc, a feature with the highly regular polarization structure of the PL must be much closer.

### 5.4 Considerations based on synchrotron emissivity

The peak polarized intensity on the PL is about 0.08 K. Assuming that the emission is 70% polarized at source, the emitted intensity is at least 0.11 K. This emission must be generated along a path within the polarization horizon or it could not be detected. This value is a lower limit: when the detectable polarized emission is produced by Faraday rotation, the level of polarized intensity detected is strongly dependent on the rotation in the foreground screen.

The synchrotron emissivity at 408 MHz has been determined by Beuermann et al. (1985), based on an analysis of a whole-sky survey at that frequency. These authors obtain a value equivalent to 11 K per kpc of path at 408 MHz. When translated to 1420 MHz using a temperature spectral index $`\beta =2.8`$, the value is 0.26 K/kpc. Roger et al. (1999) measured the local synchrotron emissivity at 22 MHz by observing the brightness temperature against foreground H II regions, which absorb more distant emission. They observed two H II regions close to the PL, S 117 (G85.5$``$1.0) at a distance of 800 pc, and S 131 (G99.3+3.7) at a distance of 860 pc. The two values obtained were 21,800 K/kpc and 43,500 K/kpc. The average value from eight H II regions, 30,000 K/kpc, well represents local conditions. Translating this value to 1420 MHz, again using $`\beta =2.8`$, gives 0.33 K/kpc.

Taking the mean of these two determinations of the local emissivity, we can calculate that a path length of about 400 pc is required to generate 0.11 K of synchrotron emission. There must therefore be at least 400 pc of path length within the polarization horizon, behind the PL. The maximum distance to the PL is therefore $``$1.6 kpc. Again, this is not a severe constraint, and the smooth structure implies a closer distance.

### 5.5 Distance constraints based on the properties of ionized regions

Constraints on the distance to the PL can be obtained from consideration of the properties of emission from ionized gas, and exploring the properties of a Faraday rotating region which can produce the observed rotation angle, $`\theta `$, at 1420 MHz while remaining undetectable in total intensity. We assume that the PL is a region of enhanced electron density, but note that the following arguments apply equally to a deficit of electrons.

The optical depth of a region of free-free emission is

$$\tau =8.235\times 10^2\left(\frac{T_e}{\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1.35}\left(\frac{\nu }{\mathrm{GHz}}\right)^{2.1}\left(\frac{E}{\mathrm{pc}\mathrm{cm}^6}\right)$$
(2)
where $`T_e`$ is the electron temperature and $`E=n_e^2L`$ is the emission measure (Rohlfs & Wilson, 1996). The brightness temperature is related to $`\tau `$ by

$$T_b=T_e\left(1\mathrm{e}^\tau \right)$$
(3)
We assume that the PL has electron temperature $`T_e`$ = 7000 K, a value typical of Galactic H II regions, and we will consider initially a magnetic field of $`B_{}=2\mu `$G. The angular extent of the source is $`\theta =100\mathrm{}`$ and we assume a spherical ionized region whose diameter is determined from its angular size. We then calculate $`n_e`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, and derive the anticipated brightness temperature and emission measure. The results of this calculation are plotted in the top two panels of Figure 5. Since we do not detect the PL optically, or as a feature in the $`I`$ image, we can constrain its distance. The theoretical continuum sensitivity of the DRAO Synthesis Telescope is 0.071 sin$`\delta `$ K rms, where $`\delta `$ is the declination (Landecker et al., 2000). For the present observations the value achieved in areas free of complex structure is $``$0.05 K, consistent with expectation. In the top panel of Figure 5 we show the 2$`\sigma `$ and 4$`\sigma `$ values.

The observed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =100^{}`$ and the non-detection of the PL in $`I`$ constrain the distance to be larger than about 400 pc. On the other hand, we have already established that it must be closer than $`1.6`$ kpc. Furthermore, if it is close to that limit, we would expect superimposed foreground Faraday rotation to detract from its smooth appearance. We therefore choose a somewhat arbitrary upper limit of half that distance, 800 pc. Based on these arguments the distance is $`600\pm 200`$ pc, and the linear size of the PL is $`18\pm 6`$ pc. The magnetic field must be very smooth over this region.

If the magnetic field is also enhanced within the PL, then its distance could be substantially smaller. For example, doubling the field from $`B_{}=2\mu `$G to $`4\mu `$G would lower the distance limit by a factor of about four; the effect of changing the assumed field is shown in the lower panel of Figure 5. A lower distance would ease the problem of maintaining field uniformity across the PL.

A doubling of the field inside the PL does not seem unreasonable, given the enhancement of electron density, which exceeds the surroundings by at least a factor of 10. Under these circumstances the distance would be $`150\pm 50`$ pc. While this nearer distance would seem a reasonable choice, we caution that the PL cannot be at a very nearby distance. If we assume that the source of the ionization is a star of some kind, then it would probably have been detected by existing observations. We therefore consider that the PL is at least at the distance of the open cluster M39, which is 265 pc (see §4.4).

Striking a balance between these arguments, we place the PL at a distance of $`350\pm 50`$ pc, in a magnetic field of $`B_{}3\mu `$G. The excess electron density within the PL relative to its surroundings is $`1.5<n_e<2`$ cm-3, the emission measure is $`25<E<34`$ cm-6pc, the radio brightness temperature is $`T_b0.05`$ K. At 350 pc the mass of ionized gas in the PL is 23 M.

### 5.6 Are there many such objects?

Table 1 compares the PL, which we now designate as G91.8$``$2.5, with G137.6+1.1. The objects are similar in electron density and structure. We note that the Faraday rotation per unit depth through the two objects is very similar. The distances are not particularly well determined in either case, but G91.8$``$2.5 is apparently closer and smaller.

The similarity of G91.8$``$2.5 and G137.6+1.1 suggests that they are two representatives of a class of object that might be quite common in the ISM. We incline to this view, and will use the term PL generically to refer to them. We suggest that more PLs will be detected as more of the Galactic plane is mapped with high-resolution polarimetry. The mass of ionized gas required to generate a PL is from a few tens to a few hundred M. The ionizing radiation required to sustain such a region can be provided by an early B star. However, in the two PLs discovered to date, no such star has been detected. Furthermore, the turbulence in an H II region around such a star would probably dictate against smooth structure, and it is likely that PLs are relatively old structures. The source of ionization for these regions remains to be clarified, possibly through the discovery of further examples. Their distribution in Galactic latitude and longitude may give clues to their origin.

### 5.7 How do we detect objects of this type?

G137.6+1.1 is detectable because it is superimposed on the H II region W5. The dense, turbulent ionized gas in W5 completely eliminates any polarized emission from behind the H II region through its strong beam depolarization. How can we see G91.8$``$2.5 without a strong H II region behind it? In this case, a strong polarization-horizon effect in the local arm serves the equivalent function. At 1420 MHz, these backgrounds may be optically thin, but they are “Faraday thick”.

The regular polarization structure of PLs like G91.8$``$2.5 and G137.6+1.1 can be easily obscured by the chaotic small-scale structure that is seen in many directions. This will happen particularly strongly if the small-scale structure is in front of the PL, but small-scale structure behind it will also have an effect. The detection of PLs therefore requires more than a Faraday-thick background, it also requires a path where the structure of the MIM is relatively unperturbed. G137.6+1.1 appears to lie in the region between the local and Perseus spiral arms. Magnetic fields in the inter-arm regions can be expected to be less tangled by the disruptive effects of star-formation. G91.8$``$2.5 is more difficult to understand. Given the very complex structure expected within the local arm, it is surprising that magnetic field structure along the line of sight is sufficiently unperturbed to allow the structure to be seen. The closer the object is to us, the easier it is to explain, and this reasoning possibly favors the closer distance to G91.8$``$2.5.

In conclusion, PLs may be quite common in the MIM, but rather special conditions are required for their detection. The detection of the PL phenomenon requires that background synchrotron emission be thoroughly depolarized. Large H II regions will do this effectively, and the polarization-horizon phenomenon can also be effective, especially in directions near $`l=90^{}`$ where the line of sight is parallel to the regular field component. The PL arises from the Faraday rotation in a smooth foreground feature of synchrotron emission generated relatively nearby. In addition, MIM structure along the line of sight must be relatively uniform. Detection of nearby PLs is also easier. Only further observations will show how often these conditions are met.

We thank Andrew Gray and Russ Taylor for their comments on a draft of this paper. The Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory is operated as a national Facility by the National Research Council of Canada. The Canadian Galactic Plane Survey is a Canadian project with international partners and is supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This research has made use of the Simbad database.