text:
# A new two-pole accretion polar: RX J1846.9+5538Partly based on observations collected at the German-Spanish Astronomical Centre, Calar Alto, operated by the MPI für Astronomie, Heidelberg, jointly with the Spanish National Commission for Astronomy.

## 1 Introduction

AM Her type variables are a subgroup of cataclysmic variables in which the magnetic field of the white dwarf controls the geometry of the material flow between the main-sequence donor and the white dwarf primary (see e.g. Warner 1995 for a detailed review). The inflow of matter along the magnetic field lines (of one or occasionally also two magnetic poles) is decelerated above the white dwarf surface producing a shock front. This region is thought to emit hard X-rays (usually modelled in terms of thermal bremsstrahlung of 10–20 keV) and polarized cyclotron radiation (hence these systems are also named polars) in the IR to UV range. In addition, a strong soft component has been frequently observed from polars that is thought to arise from the heated accretion pole (usually modelled in terms of a blackbody of 20–50 eV).

It is this soft X-ray component which has led to the discovery of a few dozen new polars by ROSAT observations over the last decade, most notably the ROSAT all-sky survey (Beuermann & Burwitz 1995). The source described here has been discovered as a result of a systematic survey for supersoft X-ray sources from the all-sky survey data (Greiner 1996 for details of this survey) which revealed a large number of CVs and single white dwarfs. Other confirmed polars identified from this sample include V844 Her = RX J1802.1+1804 (Greiner, Remillard and Motch 1995, 1998), RS Cae = RX J0453.4–4213 (Burwitz et al. 1996) and V1007 Her = RX J1724.0+4114 (Greiner, Schwarz and Wenzel 1998).

In this paper we present photometric, spectroscopic and X-ray observations (summarized in Table 1 and 2) that led to the discovery of a new polar, RX J1846.9+5538 (henceforth referred to as RX J1846).

## 2 ROSAT X-ray observations

### 2.1 All-Sky Survey and optical identification

RX J1846 was scanned during the ROSAT All-Sky-Survey (RASS) over a period of 8 days in October 1990 for a rather long (due to its high ecliptic latitude) total observing time of 1610 sec. Its mean count rate in the ROSAT position-sensitive proportional counter (PSPC) was 0.2 cts/s, and the hardness ratio $`HR1=0.85\pm 0.06`$, where $`HR1`$ is defined as (H–S)/(H+S), with H (S) being the counts above (below) 0.4 keV over the full PSPC range of 0.1–2.4 keV.

Within the X-ray positional error circle (see Fig. 1) there are two bright optical sources, USNO A2.0 1425.09302300 (named Star A in the finding chart) and 12″ SW of that, the cataclysmic binary identified spectroscopically (see Sect. 4). Its optical position is measured as: R.A. (2000.0) = 18h46m58$`.^\mathrm{s}`$9, Decl. (2000.0) = 553829′′ ($`\pm `$1′′). Inspection of the digitized Palomar Observatory Sky Survey 2 plates taken in October 1991 (see blow-up in the lower right corner of Fig. 1) revealed two additional fainter sources 5″ east and west of RX J1846. At that time the CV had dropped into a deep low state of $`20^\mathrm{m}`$.

### 2.2 X-ray light curves

For the timing analysis the RASS photons were extracted within a radius of 4 around the X-ray position of RX J1846 . The background was chosen at the same ecliptic longitude at $``$1 distance, corresponding to the photons detected typically 15 sec before or after the arrival of the source photons. Standard corrections were applied using the dedicated EXSAS software package (Zimmermann et al. 1994) including barycenter correction.

Further dedicated follow-up pointed ROSAT observations were performed on June 15–18, 1992 with the PSPC and on April 8–13, 1995 with the high-resolution imager (HRI). In addition, RX J1846 was also covered in a serendipitous pointing on September 25/26, 1993 at about 37 off-axis angle. Using the EXSAS package, source photons were extracted with a radius of 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5, 7$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5 and 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$8 for the on-axis PSPC pointing, the off-axis PSPC pointing and the HRI pointing, respectively. The background was chosen from concentric circles around the source region with radii of 3, 12$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5 and 2, respectively. Other nearby sources were cut out, and the background area normalized to the source extraction area before the background subtraction. Table 2 summarises these measurements.

The RASS light curve folded over the photometric ephemeris as derived in Sect. 3.1 is shown in Fig. 2 (upper panel). It displays a 100% modulation with a peak count rate of nearly 1 cts/s and a pronounced faint-phase where the X-ray flux is practically zero (formal count rate of $`0.006\pm 0.10`$ cts/s). This ‘on-off’ profile is typical for polars where the emission region disappears behind the limb of the white dwarf for part of the orbit. The short duration of the bright phase, which lasts only 0.3 of the orbit, requires the main accretion region to be in the lower hemisphere of the white dwarf. A similar morphology was also seen during the longest pointed observation in September 1993, but now with a bright phase extended to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 0.5`$. The phasing of that X-ray bright phase strongly suggests that it is due to the same primary accretion region seen also in the optical light curves during the intermediate state in 1997/98. The PSPC observation in September 1993 reveals a non-zero count rate ($`0.048\pm 0.002`$) also during the faint phase.

This simple ’bright-faint’ behaviour was fundamentally altered in the June 1992 PSPC pointing. Most strikingly, we observe the X-ray flux peaking at $`\varphi =0.23`$, the phase of the former faint interval. Although the rise to maximum is not covered and the decline probably overlaps with emission from the still active primary region, the shape of this hump is suggestive of emission from a second self-eclipsing accretion region. This is even more convincingly confirmed by the spectral softening during the flux peak (see Sect. 2.3). This secondary accretion spot is equally bright compared to the primary one, reaching a count rate of 0.8 cts/sec.

Further HRI observations were carried out in April 1995, which together with the photometry obtained three weeks later provide the closest X-ray/optical observations in time. The lack of complete orbital coverage and spectral resolution render these observations not completely conclusive. At that time the system was also X-ray bright at phase 0.3, which might be interpreted as two-pole accretion, probably seen also later in the optical. On the other hand, the flux peak at phase 0.25 as seen in June 1992 is missing, and the light curve can also be explained as a result of a prolonged primary bright phase.

All pointed observations show, contrary to the RASS observation, a marked decrease of the X-ray flux in the bright phase at around $`\varphi 0.7`$ . During the 1993 PSPC and the 1995 HRI observation the dip had a short ingress, and was followed, after a short interval ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi <0.01`$) of totality, by a rather protracted egress. The duration of the dip at these occasions, from start to complete recovery of the pre-dip level, lasted 0.19 phase units. The shape of the dip was considerably altered in 1992, when it was more flat-bottomed and the X-ray flux was zero for about $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 0.07`$. Dip egress was insufficiently covered in this pointing. The occurrence of such dips in polars is in general understood as a consequence of photoelectric absorption by matter of the accretion stream. The X-ray spectral hardening during dip phase and the subsequent softening during egress (see Sect. 2.3) are in line with the expected energy dependence of cold absorption. Possible alternative explanations, like an eclipse by the secondary or a highly structured accretion region, are not consistent with the phase variability and the sharp ingress/egress of the dip observed in RX J1846 . In context with the photoelectric absorption, the modification of the dip profile in the 1992 PSPC observation would imply a denser and more collimated stream, supposedly connected with the increased activity of the secondary pole at that time.

### 2.3 X-ray spectroscopy

The two pointed PSPC observations have resulted in the detection of more than 4400 photons, thus enabling spectral investigations along the orbital period. As a first step we used the hardness ratio $`HR1`$ (as defined in Sect. 2.1) which is shown as a function of the orbital period in Fig. 3. It is highly variable, changing from $`0.5`$ to $`1`$ depending on which accretion region was visible. For the primary accretion region that was covered during both pointings the $`HR1`$ was consistently at an intermediate value of $`0.57`$. Contrary to that, the secondary pole active only in June 1992 ($`\varphi =0.10.35`$) is supersoft with $`HR1=0.92`$. For the faint phase observed in the 1993 pointing the $`HR1`$ changes between $`0.5`$ to $`0.5`$ with an average value of $`0.11`$, notably harder than the two main emission regions.

The average X-ray spectrum of RX J1846 is well represented by a two component model consisting of a blackbody plus a thermal bremsstrahlung model having a low absorption ($`N_H<10^{21}`$ cm-2) and wide range of possible blackbody temperatures $`1540`$ eV (Fig. 6). Since the temperatures of both components are not well constrained by the ROSAT data and the photon statistics of the phase-resolved spectra are low, we concentrate in the following on the determination of the X-ray fluxes assuming fixed values for the temperatures, set to $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=25`$ eV and $`kT_{\mathrm{br}}=20`$ keV. Spectra from the different emission regions were extracted separately using the phase intervals $`00.4`$ (spot2 1992), $`00.492`$ (faint phase 1993) and $`0.4920.697`$, $`0.4920.697`$ for the primary accretion region. The resulting best-fit values of the absorption and the unabsorbed, bolometric blackbody and bremsstrahlungs fluxes are summarized in Table 3.

As already indicated by the count rates and hardness ratio, both accretion regions emit the same total X-ray flux of $`F_\mathrm{X}1\times `$10-11 erg/cm2/s, but have different flux ratios $`F_{\mathrm{thbr}}`$/$`F_{\mathrm{bbdy}}`$ of 0.6 and 0.02, for the primary and secondary region, respectively.

The luminosity observed during the faint phase in 1993 is a factor of 5 lower compared to primary accretion sites, and emission from that accretion area shows a marked soft X-ray deficiency. Such an effect has already been noted in the ROSAT spectra of polars observed in intermediate and low states (Ramsay et al. 1995), and is likely caused by the dominance of cyclotron cooling in low accretion rate plasmas.

The dip phase is accompanied by a marked increase of the hardness ratio in both PSPC pointings. In 1992, when the statistics were low, the mean $`HR1`$ was roughly zero. For the longer PSPC pointing where the dip was only total for a short interval, the $`HR1`$ also dropped to zero at the time of flux minimum, but then showed a correlated decrease as the X-ray count rate recovered to the pre-dip value. We model the change of the $`HR1`$ under the assumption that it is caused by the absorption of neutral, cold matter. For this purpose we adopted a blackbody/thermal bremsstrahlung model with fixed $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=25`$ eV and $`kT_{\mathrm{br}}=20`$ keV for the intrinsic X-ray source, and set their normalizations according to the count rate and hardness ratio observed right after the dip egress. We then determined what absorbing column is necessary to reduce the intrinsic X-ray flux to the observed values, and computed the corresponding change of $`HR1`$. As shown in Fig. 3 (right) the cold absorption model reproduces the $`HR1`$ variation except for the lowest count rate bins, where the observed $`HR1`$ = 0 is significantly softer than the predicted value of 1. This difference might indicate a more complex absorbing medium such as partial covering or a warm absorber, or is simply due to a change of the intrinsic X-ray spectrum. The column densities within the accretion stream as derived from our modelling range from $`1.1\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 at the start and end of the dip to $`5\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 in the most opaque parts.

## 3 Optical photometry

RX J1846 was monitored during 17 nights between 1994 and 1998 utilizing telescopes at Sonneberg Observatory, the Astrophysical Institute Potsdam at Babelsberg (both Germany) and the Observatorio Astronomico Nacional, (Mexico) at San Pedro Martir.

These telescopes have apertures of 0.6 m, 0.7 m and 1.5 m, respectively, and were equipped with CCD detectors. Exposures varied from 30 sec to 600 sec and were mainly taken without filters. Differential magnitudes have been computed with respect to star A (Fig. 1), which has a $`R`$ magnitude of 15$`\stackrel{m}{.}`$6 as measured in the USNO catalog. The images itself were processed using the profile-fitting scheme of the DoPhot reduction package (Mateo & Schechter 1989). The combined log of all observations is given in Table 1.

### 3.1 Orbital variations

Although RX J1846 displayed a large variety of light curve morphologies during the four years of monitoring, it showed one persistent photometric feature: a steep decline of at least half a magnitude. This has been used for a period search based on the analysis-of-variance method (Schwarzenberg-Cerny 1989) and a least squares calculation applied to the barycentric timings of the end of the steep decline (see Table 4). The resulting periodograms (Fig. 5) show only one significant periodicity at 128.7 min. The times of the steep end of the bright hump follow a linear ephemeris given by

$`T_{\mathrm{end}}(\mathrm{BJD})=\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}449\hspace{0.17em}625.5502}(26)`$
$`+E\times 0.089386876(10)`$ (1)
with the numbers in brackets giving the uncertainty in the last digits. The deviation of the observed times with respect to Eq. 1 can be as large as 10 min, and is likely caused by an azimuthal drift of the primary accretion spot of the order of $`30^{}`$. In Fig. 4 we present the set of all available light curves with more than one orbit coverage, folded over the ephemeris derived above. Apparently, the system dropped from a high state in 1994/1995 into an intermediate state in 1997/1998. This drop of the overall brightness of $``$1 mag was accompanied by a drastic change in the light curve morphology.

During the intermediate state (Fig. 4, right) the light curves are dominated by one active pole, self-eclipsed by the body of the white dwarf, evident by a $``$1 magnitude brightening every 128 min. The duration of the bright phase was 0.4 and 0.45 on January 25 and March 24 1998, placing the primary pole to the farther hemisphere of the white dwarf. At these occasions the rise to maximum occurred just within a few minutes, and the flux remained more or less constant throughout the bright phase, showing no signs of cyclotron beaming. We also note a systematic brightening during faint phase by $``$0.5 mag, a feature which can be associated with the presence of a fainter secondary accretion region. The shape of the bright phase as well as the behaviour during the faint phase are very similar to the well-studied self-eclipsing polar ST LMi (Cropper 1986), which has an inclination of $`i=56\mathrm{°}`$ and a colatitude $`\beta =134\mathrm{°}`$. On August 5 1998 we observed a major restructuring of the main accretion region. The bright phase was prolonged to 0.65 of the orbit and was highly asymmetric with a very slow rise to maximum for almost the entire time followed by a steep decline. This asymmetry can be understood in terms of an accretion arc. The orientation of this arc has to be such, that it is orthogonal to the limb of the white dwarf during rise, and parallel when it disappears behind it.

At the time of the optical high state the orbital variation is much less pronounced, but still marked by a 0.5 mag drop at phase $`\varphi =0`$ due to the disappearance of the primary accretion region. Other notable features are the double humped light curve on September 29, 1994, and the sharp dips observed in May 1995 at phase $`\varphi =0.7`$. The latter are coinciding in phase with the X-ray dip seen in most of the ROSAT observations, probably caused by photoelectrical absorption by material in the accretion stream. Although less evident than the X-ray light curves, we interpret the enhanced optical flux between $`\varphi =\mathrm{0..0.4}`$ as the manifestation of simultaneous accretion onto a second pole.

### 3.2 Long-term behaviour

In order to inspect the frequency of the brightness and accretion mode changes we compiled all available measurements of RX J1846 (Table 5). For the single, not phase-resolved measurements we assigned the possible accretion mode depending on the brightness at phase $`\varphi =0.3`$, if available. We find in our data at least six alterations between single and two-pole accretion between 1990 and 1999. The amount of data is yet insufficient to detect any possible periodicity of these changes. It is noteworthy that the system was never observed in the single accretion state with the secondary pole being active.

The time scale of the change is constrained by the observations in September/October 1994, when RX J1846 dropped into an intermediate state within at most two weeks. An indication that such changes might be much faster comes from the light curve obtained on Sep 24, 1998. At that occasion the system’s brightness at phase 0.3 faded from a level typical for the high state by 0.8 mag within two consecutive orbital cycles.

## 4 Optical spectroscopy

First spectroscopic identification observations were performed on October 1, 1992 with the 3.5 m telescope at Calar Alto, Spain. We used the Cassegrain spectrograph equipped with a RCA CCD as detector covering the optical wavelength range from 3800–7100 Å. The observation was obtained under stable photometric conditions and accompanied by measurements of the standard star Feige 110, which was used to calibrate the flux with an estimated accuracy of $`20`$% (using standard midas procedures). By convolving the original spectrum with functions representing the $`BVR`$ bandpasses, we arrive at $`B=18\stackrel{m}{.}6`$, $`V=18\stackrel{m}{.}7`$ and $`R=18\stackrel{m}{.}4`$ mag for RX J1846. The identification exposure on October 1, 1992 lasted one hour corresponding to approximately half of the binary orbit, and was centered on HJD 244 8897.4271 which corresponds to $`\varphi =0.25`$ of the ephemeris given by Eq. 1. Thus, the spectrum covers the complete faint phase observed in the one-pole accretion mode, and the magnitudes derived above are consistent with that found in the intermediate accretion state. The original spectrum is shown in Fig. 6. It is dominated by intense emission lines of the Balmer series, He II $`\lambda 4686`$ Å, and He I superimposed on a flat continuum. The inverted Balmer decrement and the strength of the He II $`\lambda 4686`$ Å line point to a magnetic CV classification.

### 4.1 Cyclotron spectroscopy

Further phase-resolved low-resolution spectroscopy was obtained on June 19, 1999 with the 6 m SAO telescope at Zelenchukskaja, Russia. The SP-124 spectrograph with a 300 l/mm grating was used to obtain spectra in the $`34007900`$ Å range with 9 Å (FWHM) resolution. An exposure time of 900 sec was necessary to reach a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio. We obtained 14 spectra thus covering the orbital period twice. The $`R`$-band light curves derived from the spectra showed a brightening from 17m to 16m for half of the orbit, very similar to that observed in the one-pole accretion mode in 1997/98.

In order to extract the cyclotron component from the primary accretion region we took the difference spectrum of the bright ($`\varphi >0.45`$) and faint ($`\varphi <0.45`$) phase as shown in the lower panel of Fig. 7. It is characterized by a very red (zero flux below 4000 Å) and smooth continuum peaking at $`\lambda =6700`$ Å, and bears strong resemblance with that of other low field polars like BL Hyi (15 MG; Schwope et al. 1995a), EP Dra (16 MG; Schwope & Mengel 1997) or CP Tuc (Thomas & Reinsch 1996).

In this low magnetic field strength regime only the high harmonic tail ($`m>10`$) is accessible in the optical, where the individual harmonics are broadened and blended into a quasi-continuum. The peak of the cyclotron flux corresponds to the turnover between the optically thick part of the spectrum represented by the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of a black body, and the optically thin part, which is steeply declining towards smaller wavelengths due to the $`F\lambda ^2`$ dependence of the cyclotron absorption coefficients. The harmonic number at which the cyclotron spectrum becomes optically thin depends on the plasma temperature and the optical depth parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and can be used for an estimate of the magnetic field strength $`B`$ in the accretion region.

Setting the yet unknown plasma temperature to a value of 10 keV typically found in polars we computed the expected wavelength of turnover for different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`B`$ using cyclotron absorption coefficients according to Chanmugam & Dulk (1981). For the typical range of depth parameters $`log(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{6..8}`$ observed in high accretion state polars the peak of the cyclotron flux at $`\lambda =6700`$ Å would correspond to a magnetic field strength in the primary accretion region of RX J1846 of $`B=\mathrm{20..15}`$ MG. The integrated flux of the cyclotron component in the range $`\lambda `$3400-7900 Å is $`0.6\times 10^{12}`$erg cm-2 s-1 . Accounting for a similar contribution from the infra-red not covered by our spectra the total, bolometric flux is of the same order as the X-ray bremsstrahlung component.

### 4.2 A rough distance estimate

The faint phase, intermediate state spectrum taken in October 1992 is devoid of any spectral features of the secondary star (e.g. the TiO bands at $`\lambda 6159`$ and 6651 Å). We estimate that the contribution of the companion is less then 10% in the $`R`$-band i.e. $`R_{\mathrm{sec}}19\stackrel{m}{.}9`$. This can, in principle, be used to derive a lower limit on the distance of the system. Assuming that the secondary in RX J1846 is a dM 4.5 star, as expected for a Roche lobe filling main-sequence star at this orbital period, it should have an absolute magnitude of $`M_R=11.89`$ (Kirckpatrick & McCarthy 1994). This leads to a distance modulus of 8.0 or a lower limit of the distance of 400 pc. We caution however, that the spectral features involved can be highly suppressed on the front side of the secondary by the strong EUV/X-ray radiation. As the viewing geometry of RX J1846 is as yet unknown, we can not exclude that a non-negligible fraction of the disturbed atmosphere visible at the time of our spectroscopy caused the absence of the TiO bands. This in turn would decrease the distance estimated above.

## 5 Discussion

RX J1846 shows all major hallmarks of a cataclysmic variable of the AM Herculis subclass: an emission line spectrum with abundant high ionisation species like He II $`\lambda 4686`$, and the Bowen blend, optical and X-ray light curves strongly modulated on the spin period due to the self eclipse of the primary accretion region, and a very red cyclotron spectrum from that primary accretion region, indicating a polar field strength in the range of 15-20 MG. At most occasions the X-ray light curves reveal sharp X-ray dips, likely caused by absorption within a focused accretion funnel. With an orbital period of $`P=128.7`$ min RX J1846 is another magnetic CV which populates the lower edge of the 2–3 hr CV period gap.

### 5.1 Accretion mode changes

The rather large body of observations available for RX J1846 reveals frequent switches between one-pole accretion and additional activity from a second, equally bright, pole. Although accretion onto a second pole has been seen in a few polars, e.g. in DP Leo (Cropper et al. 1990), VV Pup (Wickramasinghe et al. 1989) or UZ For (Schwope et al. 1990), in most cases the activity from the secondary pole is at least one order of magnitude lower compared to the primary one. Remarkable exceptions include the ’anomalous’ or ’reversed’ state of AM Her (Heise et al. 1985), which appeared to be a singular event, and the low accretion rate polar HS1023+39 which permanently accretes onto two poles having similar luminosities (Reimers et al. 1999, Schwarz et al. 2001). So far the only polar, beside RX J1846, which regularly changes between the single and two-pole accretion mode is the period-gap system QS Tel (Schwope et al. 1995a, Rosen et al. 1996, 2001).

There are two alternative mechanisms that can trigger the accretion mode changes observed in RX J1846. Firstly, it can be due to a slight asynchronism of the spin of the white dwarf compared to the orbital motion, which in the case of an oblique dipole results in a constantly changing orientation of the magnetic field with respect to the infalling gas stream. Matter can then be channeled along different field lines, possibly feeding opposite magnetic poles. While this so-called ’pole switching’ is believed to operate in the four known asynchronous AM Herculis systems (Campbell & Schwope 1999), detailed studies indicate that the mass exchange might be more complicated. For example in CD Ind, the only asynchronous polar with known accretion geometry, one primary pole dominates in the light curves for a large fraction of the beat cycle (Ramsay et al. 2000). Thus, the fact that RX J1846 does not switch between two magnetic poles but has one primary pole might still be consistent with a possible asynchronism. A more crucial test of this scenario is the requirement that the accretion mode changes should occur strictly periodically over the beat cycle, a possibility which can not yet be rejected for RX J1846 on the basis of the available data.

The second mechanism would be variations of the total mass accretion rate from the secondary star, which are commonly seen as low states in disk-less magnetic CVs. These variations are fast, and reoccur aperiodically on timescales of months to years. The working hypothesis that explains most of the observed properties invokes the blocking of the $`L_1`$ point by starspots on the surface of the secondary star as proposed by Livio & Pringle (1994). As the total mass accretion rate increases, the ram pressure ($`\rho v`$) increases in the stream, leading to a deeper penetration of the ballistic mass stream into the white dwarf’s magnetosphere. Possibly the stream will then connect to field lines which can also feed the less favoured pole. By now, all observed two-pole accretion states in RX J1846 have been related to epochs of enhanced total brightness in the optical and X-ray, thus indicating an increase of the mass accretion rate. This correlation is so far the strongest argument in favour of the above picture. If the pressure balance relation holds, the effective magnetospheric radius at which matter is controlled by the magnetic field would scale with the mass accretion rate with $`r_{\mathrm{mag}}\dot{M}^{2/7}`$. The brightening of the total X-ray flux by a factor of $`2`$ in the two-pole state implies that the accretion rate must have roughly doubled at that epoch. The corresponding reduction of the magnetospheric radius would then be only of the order of 20%, probably not enough to reach the less favoured magnetic pole in the case of the standard field orientation seen in AM Herculis binaries with an azimuthal angle of $`\psi =45\mathrm{°}`$ (see Cropper 1988). Indeed, long-term X-ray monitoring of the eclipsing polar HU Aqr (Schwope et al. 2001) through different accretion states revealed only a moderate shift of the stagnation region of only 30° as the accretion rate varied by a factor of 40. Thus, in addition to the accretion rate changes, a special field geometry is possibly required to facilitate the frequent accretion mode changes in RX J1846.

Both accretion regions emit approximately the same accretion luminosities of $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ = 7$`\times `$1031 (D / 400 pc)2 erg/s, thus receiving quite similar mass accretion rates. However, the contributions from the hot thermal plasma, emitted as hard X-rays, and reprocessed radiation from the white dwarf emitted as a blackbody in the soft X-ray band is remarkably different in both spots. While the energy balance of the primary region is in agreement with that of the standard shock model (Lamb & Masters 1979), a substantial soft X-ray excess is found for the secondary spot. This violation has been theoretically explained in terms of ’blobby’ accretion of high $`\dot{m}`$ $`(>30`$ g cm-2 s$`{}_{}{}^{1})`$ material buried below the surface of the white dwarf (Kuijpers & Pringle 1982). Observationally, a strong correlation between the magnetic field strength and the softening of the X-ray spectra has been found (Beuermann & Schwope 1994) from a comparative study of ROSAT data. Probably two different processes are involved, one increasing the soft X-ray output and the other lowering the hard X-ray component, both changing the energy balance as observed: Firstly, the specific mass accretion rate in the accretion region will be higher for material which travels further along converging field lines, and was consequently coupled at larger magnetospheric radii. Since this quantity is directly related to the surface field strength, for high $`B`$ systems the fraction of high $`\dot{m}`$ material will be larger on average, shifting the energy balance towards the reprocessed blackbody component (Beuermann 1998). Secondly, for the low $`\dot{m}`$ part of the material, bremsstrahlung radiation will be suppressed due to the dominance of cyclotron cooling in the case of an increased magnetic field in the post shock plasma (Woelk & Beuermann 1996).

Adopting this picture for RX J1846, the X-ray softness of the secondary spot would be the consequence of a higher field strength of $`30`$ MG at this pole. Correspondingly, the energy balance of the primary region would imply a lower field strength of $`14`$ MG, in agreement with the value derived from the cyclotron spectroscopy. As in the six polars with field measurements available for both magnetic poles, the more active pole in RX J1846 would be the one with the lower field strength.

### 5.2 Accretion geometry

A special geometry of the mass transfer might foster the drastic variations of the accretion modes observed in RX J1846. For example, an orientation where the dipolar axis is perpendicular to the infalling stream would equally favour both poles. However, this is difficult to verify given the as yet unknown position of the secondary star with respect to the accretion regions, and the wide range of possible inclinations ($`i70^{}`$). There is a strong indication that the primary accretion region is located at the lower hemisphere of the white dwarf $`(\beta _1>90^{})`$, from the duration of the faint phase ($`\gamma >0.5`$) measured at some occasions in the optical and X-ray. Estimates for the secondary accretion region are much less constrained due to the insufficient phase coverage the of June 1992 observation and the overlapping visibility of both regions around $`\varphi 0.5`$. Using the short duration of the supersoft emission ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 0.3`$) as a measure would place this spot on the lower hemisphere of the white dwarf, too.

Both accretion spots are separated in azimuth by $`160^{}`$, since the two bright phases are centered at $`\varphi _1=0.75`$ and $`\varphi _2=0.2`$. Due to the finite coupling radius the accretion regions are likely to be offset from the magnetic pole by $`\alpha 10^{}`$. Therefore, the measured angular separation is consistent with both spots accreting via one closed field line of a dipole field. A geometry that can accomplish the all above constraints would imply a magnetic field axis inclined into the orbital plane.

Another puzzling question concerns the accretion stream dip and its relation to the two accretion regions. As the azimuth of the stream dip and the primary spot are approximately the same, one would naively expect that the absorbing matter is transferred to the primary accretion region. This contradicts the condition for a stream occultation $`i\beta +\alpha `$ given the primary spots colatitude $`\beta _190^{}`$. The above conflict could be circumvented if one allows for a possible vertical extent of the ballistic part of the stream and the stagnation region, an explanation proposed to explain a partial stream dip observed in the extreme UV light curves of the high inclination polar UZ For (Warren et al. 1995). It is not clear how far this is viable for the case of RX J1846, where the absorbing material is denser and must extend much further above the orbital plane in order to produce a dip at the given lower inclination.

The competing scenario, absorption by material channeled to a second pole in the upper hemisphere, would lead to the occultation of X-rays from the primary region for a wide range of possible stream geometries. Such a view is also supported by the putative correlation of the density of the stream with the respective activity from the secondary accretion region: no stream dip is observed when the faint phase emission is zero (ROSAT survey), a mildly dense dip ($`N_\mathrm{H}10^{21}`$ cm-2) for low faint phase emission (Sep. 93), and a much denser dip in the case of obvious two-pole accretion (Jul. 92). Further detailed studies have to show whether the footpoint of such a stream trajectory can be reconciled with the geometrical constraints for the secondary pole, namely the azimuthal separation to the primary spot (which would place it on the opposite side of the white dwarf) and a high colatitude far from the white dwarf rotational axis.

###### Acknowledgements.

RS would like to thank A.D. Schwope for helpful comments on the manuscript. RS and JG are supported by the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) GmbH under contract No. FKZ 50 QQ 9602 3 and 50 OR 9106 8. GHT acknowledges support by grants from DGAPA IN109195 and CONACYT No 25454-E. The ROSAT project was supported by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (BMBF/DLR) and the Max-Planck-Society. Part of Fig. 1 is based on photographic data of the National Geographic Society – Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (NGS-POSS) obtained using the Oschin Telescope on Palomar Mountain. The NGS-POSS was funded by a grant from the National Geographic Society to the California Institute of Technology. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with their permission. The Digitized Sky Survey was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under US Government grant NAG W-2166.


format: text

text:
# Hochschild and cyclic homology of a family of Auslander algebras

### 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:

16E20, 16E40, 19D55.

### Keywords:

Hochschild homology, Cyclic homology, Auslander algebras, Chern characters.

## 1 Introduction

The object of this paper is to compute the Hochschild homology, the cyclic homology and the Chern characters of the Auslander algebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ of the Taft algebras $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ and of their Auslander algebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n},`$ in order to study a possible influence of the Hopf algebra structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ on them.

Note that Auslander algebras are useful when considering Artin algebras of finite representation type, since there is a bijection between the Morita equivalence classes of such algebras and the Morita equivalence classes of Auslander algebras (*cf.* \[ARS\]).

The Hopf algebra structure on an algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ conveys an additional structure on the Grothendieck groups $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{K}}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of isomorphism classes of projective (*resp.* all) indecomposable modules, since the tensor product over the base ring $`k`$ of two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$modules is again a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$module,*via* the comultiplication of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Furthermore, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the indecomposable modules over any algebra and the indecomposable projective modules over its Auslander algebra; in the case of a Hopf algebra, therefore, the Grothendieck group of projective modules of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is endowed with a multiplicative structure. However, this correspondence does not preserve the underlying vector spaces, and this multiplicative structure does not appear to be natural.

In this paper, we study the example of the Taft algebras; they are Hopf algebras which are neither commutative, nor cocommutative. They are interesting for various reasons; for instance, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ is an example of a non-semisimple Hopf algebra whose dimension is the square of a prime (*cf.* \[M\]). They are of finite representation type; furthermore, when $`n`$ is odd, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is isomorphic to the half-quantum group $`u_q^+(𝔰𝔩_\mathfrak{2})`$ ($`q`$ primitive $`n^{th}`$root of unity), and is the only half-quantum group $`u_q^+(𝔤)`$ at a root of unity which is not of wild representation type (*cf.* \[C1\]). Then, for each $`n,`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is not braided, but its Grothendieck group is a commutative ring nonetheless (*cf.* \[C2, G\]).

These examples show that the non-commutative, non-cocommutative Hopf algebra structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ does not yield a natural multiplicative structure on its cyclic homology. There is a product, however, obtained by transporting that of $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ via the Chern characters, which are onto.

The paper is organised as follows: first, we recall the quiver of the Auslander algebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ and give a minimal projective resolution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-bimodule. Then, we compute the Hochschild and cyclic homologies of these algebras, and finally we compute the Chern characters of the algebras $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}.`$

Throughout this text, $`k`$ is an algebraically closed field.

## 2 The quivers of the Auslander algebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$

In this paragraph, we shall describe the objects of our study: the Auslander algebras of the Taft algebras.

The Taft algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is described by quiver and relations as follows: the quiver is an oriented cycle with $`n`$ vertices and $`n`$ arrows, and the relations are all the paths of length greater than or equal to $`n`$.

Its Auslander algebra has been described in \[GR\] (*see* \[ARS\] p232 for a general definition). Its quiver is

where both vertical outer edges are identified (the quiver is on a cylinder). Let $`Q_n`$ denote this quiver, let $`\{e_{i,u}/(i,u)/n\times /n\}`$ be the set of vertices of $`Q_n,`$ and let $`\{a_{i,u};b_{i,u}/(i,u)/n\times /n\}`$ be the set of edges of $`Q_n,`$ as in the figure above.

The mesh relations on this quiver are: $`a_{i,i2}b_{i,i1}=0`$ for all $`i/n`$ (the composition of two edges of any ‘triangle’ under the top diagonal is zero), and $`a_{i,u1}b_{i,u}+b_{i1,u}a_{i,u}=0`$ for all $`i`$ and $`u`$ in $`/n`$ (the squares are anticommutative).

The algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ is the quotient of the path algebra $`kQ_n`$ by the ideal generated by these relations. We shall assume $`n2`$.

## 3 Hochschild and cyclic homologies of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$

We are going to use the following theorem due to Happel to compute a minimal projective resolution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-bimodule (the situation in \[H\] is more general):

###### Theorem 3.1

(\[H\] 1.5) If

$$\mathrm{}R_pR_{p1}\mathrm{}R_1R_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}0$$

is a minimal projective resolution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-bimodule, then

$$R_p=\underset{\begin{array}{c}(i,u)\\ (j,v)\end{array}}{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}e_{j,v}e_{i,u}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})^{\mathrm{dim}_kExt_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^p(S_{i,u};S_{j,v})}.$$

In our case, we have:

###### Corollary 3.2

The complex

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{}00_{\{\begin{array}{cc}(i,u)\hfill & \\ iu\hfill & \end{array}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}e_{i1,u1}e_{i,u}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}& & _{(i,u)}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}e_{i1,u}e_{i,u}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}e_{i,u1}e_{i,u}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})]\hfill \\ & & _{(i,u)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}e_{i,u}e_{i,u}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}0\hfill \end{array}$$

is a minimal projective resolution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-bimodule.

Proof:

We need to compute the $`\mathrm{Ext}`$ groups between the simple $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-modules. First, let us compute the projective resolutions of the simple modules:

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`P_{i,u}`$ denote the indecomposable projective $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$module at the vertex $`e_{i,u},`$ and let $`S_{i,u}=\mathrm{top}(P_{i,u})`$ be the corresponding simple module. The minimal projective resolutions of the simple modules are:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & 0& P_{i1,i}& & P_{i,i}& & S_{i,i}& \hfill 0\\ 0& P_{i1,i2}& & P_{i,i2}& & P_{i,i1}& & S_{i,i1}& \hfill 0\\ 0& P_{i1,ij1}& & P_{i1,ij}P_{i,ij1}& & P_{i,ij}& & S_{i,ij}& \hfill 0\end{array}$$

for $`2jn1.`$

Proof of Lemma:

We consider only the $`S_{n1,u},`$ because the other cases may be obtained by translating the quiver along the cylinder on which it lies. It is then straightforward to compute their minimal projective resolutions. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now compute the $`\mathrm{Ext}`$ groups:

###### Lemma 3.4

Let $`S`$ be a simple $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-module. Then:

$`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^0(S_{i,u};S)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}k\hfill & \text{ if }S=S_{i,u}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }SS_{i,u}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^1(S_{i,i};S)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}k\hfill & \text{ if }S=S_{i1,i}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }SS_{i1,i}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^1(S_{i,i1};S)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}k\hfill & \text{ if }S=S_{i,i2}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }SS_{i,i2}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^1(S_{i,ij};S)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}k\hfill & \text{ if }S=S_{i,ij1}\text{ or }S=S_{i1,ij}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }SS_{i1,ij1}\text{ and }SS_{i1,ij}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}\text{ if 1 }jn1`$
$`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^2(S_{i,i};S)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^2(S_{i,ij};S)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}k\hfill & \text{ if }S=S_{i1,ij1}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }SS_{i1,ij1}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}\text{ if 1 }jn1`$
$`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}^p(S_{i,u};S)`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ if }p3.`$
Applying Happel’s Theorem (3.1) we get the minimal projective resolution for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Now applying the functor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}}\mathrm{?}`$ to this resolution, we obtain a complex:

$$\mathrm{}0\mathrm{}0kQ_00.$$

Therefore:

###### Proposition 3.5

The Hochschild homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ is:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{HH}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})=kQ_0k^{n^2}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{HH}_p(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})=0\hfill & p>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and hence the cyclic homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ is:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})=kQ_0k^{n^2}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{HC}_{2p+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})=0\hfill & \end{array}p0.$$

###### Remark 3.6

There doesn’t seem to be any connection between these results and those for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. Indeed, the Hochschild and cyclic homologies for the Taft algebras are given as follows (*see* \[S\] for the Hochschild homology and \[T, T1\] for the cyclic homology):

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{HH}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)=k^n\hfill & \\ \mathrm{HH}_p(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)=k^{n1}\hfill & p>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)=k^n,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{HC}_{2p+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)=k^{n1}\hfill & p0.\hfill \end{array}$$

## 4 Chern characters of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$

Let $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ (*resp.* $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})`$) be the Grothendieck group of projective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$-modules (*resp.* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-modules). We are interested in the Chern characters $`ch_{0,p}:\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ (*resp.* $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})`$). We shall write $`[P_j]`$ (*resp.* $`[P_{i,u}]`$) for the isomorphism class of the projective module at the vertex $`e_j`$ (*resp.* $`e_{i,u}`$).

Set $`\sigma ^p=(y_p,z_p,\mathrm{},y_1,z_1,y_0)^{2p+1}`$ with $`y_p=(1)^p(2p)!/p!`$ and $`z_p=(1)^{p1}(2p)!/2(p!).`$ There is a system of generators of $`\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ (*resp.* $`\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})`$) given by the following set:

$$\{\sigma _i^p:=\sigma ^p(e_i,\mathrm{},e_i)(\mathrm{Tot}CC(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n))_{2p}/i=0,\mathrm{},n1\}$$

(*resp.* by $`\{\sigma _{i,u}^p:=\sigma ^p(e_{i,u},\mathrm{},e_{i,u})(\mathrm{Tot}CC(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}))_{2p}/i,u\{0,1,\mathrm{},n1\}\}).`$

Consider the elements

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill ϵ_j:\mathrm{\Lambda }_n& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_n\hfill & \text{and}& \hfill ϵ_{i,u}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}& & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda & & \lambda e_j\hfill & & \hfill \lambda & & \lambda e_{i,u}\hfill \end{array}$$

in $`_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ and $`_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n});`$ their ranges are the corresponding projective modules. Then by definition of the Chern characters (*see* \[L\] 8.3.4), we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}ch_{0,p}([P_j])=ch_{0,p}([ϵ_j]):=\mathrm{tr}(c(ϵ_j))=\sigma _j^p\text{in }\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)\hfill \\ ch_{0,p}([P_{i,u}])=ch_{0,p}([ϵ_{i,u}])=\sigma _{i,u}^p\text{in }\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}).\hfill \end{array}$$

using the isomorphisms $`_m(\mathrm{\Lambda })_m(k)\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Here,

$$c(ϵ_j)=(y_pϵ_j^{2p+1},z_pϵ_j^{2p},\mathrm{},z_1ϵ_j^2,y_0ϵ_j)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})^{2p+1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}).$$

###### Remark 4.1

There is a decomposition formula for the tensor product of indecomposable modules on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ (*see* \[C2, G\]). From this formula, we get inductively:

$$ch_{0,p}([L_1]\mathrm{}[L_r])=\frac{1}{n^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\mathrm{dim}L_i\right)(\sigma _0^p,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}^p),\text{for }r2,$$

where the $`L_i`$ are arbitrary projective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$-modules. Unfortunately, this product in the cyclic homology doesn’t seem natural.

###### Remark 4.2

Let $`\overline{\mathrm{K}}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ be the Grothendieck group of all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$-modules (not just the projective ones). Then $`\overline{\mathrm{K}}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}).`$ Hence, if $`N_{i,u}`$ is the indecomposable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$-module which starts at the vertex $`i`$ and ends at the vertex $`u,`$ it corresponds to the projective $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$-module $`P_{i,u},`$ and we get a map:

$`\overline{\mathrm{K}}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{HC}_{2p}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})`$
$`N_{i,u}`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{i,u}^p.`$
###### Remark 4.3

Although $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}`$ is not a Hopf algebra, its Grothendieck group $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n})`$ does have a ring structure, which does not appear to be natural: for every $`[P]`$ in $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}),`$ there exists a $`[B]`$ in $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ such that $`[P]=[\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}(M,B)],`$ where $`M`$ is the sum of all isomorphism classes of indecomposable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$-modules. If $`[Q]=[\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}(M,C)]`$ is another element in $`\mathrm{K}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}),`$ we can set

$$[P].[Q]=[\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}(M,B_kC)]$$

(the vector space $`B_kC`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$-module since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is a Hopf algebra). In fact, using the decomposition in \[C2, G\], the product can be written:

$$[P_{i,u}][P_{j,v}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{l=0}^{vj}[P_{i+j+l,u+vl}]\hfill & \text{ if }u+v(i+j)n1\hfill \\ _{l=0}^e[P_{i+j+l,u+v+l1}]+_{m=e+1}^{vj}[P_{i+j+m,u+vm}]\hfill & \text{ if }e:=u+v(i+j)(n1)0\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`u`$ and $`v`$ represent elements in $`/n`$ such that $`ui`$ and $`vj`$ are in $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n1\}.`$

Rachel Taillefer
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science,
University of Leicester,
Leicester LE1 7RH,
United Kingdom.
E-mail: R.Taillefer@mcs.le.ac.uk.


text:
# Primordial black holes in braneworld cosmologies: Accretion after formation

## I Introduction

Primordial black holes (PBHs) are relics which may form in the early Universe Hawk71  and survive to have effects in later epochs, thus shedding light on the physical processes operating during the Universe’s early stages. In a recent paper (Guedens, Clancy and Liddle GCL ), we considered the physics of black holes in a popular variant to the standard cosmology, the Randall–Sundrum Type II braneworld cosmology RSII . We showed that the presence of the fifth (AdS) dimension could significantly modify the properties of black holes, and indeed that black holes evaporating at key epochs of the Universe might behave as higher-dimensional objects.

The results of that paper assumed that after formation the dominant process affecting the mass of the black holes was Hawking evaporation. In the standard cosmology it is believed that the neglect of accretion of material from the cosmological background is a very good approximation, except perhaps immediately after formation, though the calculations are rather uncertain. However, we remarked that it was not necessarily true that accretion would also be negligible during the high-energy regime. The purpose of this paper is to investigate accretion during the high-energy regime.111As we were completing this paper, a paper appeared by Majumdar Maj , using the formalism of our earlier paper GCL  to investigate this same question. Our results are in broad agreement, though we will highlight the key differences. We will find that accretion can indeed be the dominant effect in the high-energy regime, though accurate calculation of its effects is presently impossible.

Our calculations follow the notation of Ref. GCL , and we will consider both the standard cosmology and the Randall–Sundrum Type II cosmology, which features a high-energy regime where the Friedmann equation is modified. The AdS radius of the extra dimension will be denoted $`l`$, and $`M_4`$ and $`l_4`$ indicate the usual four-dimensional Planck mass and length (we set $`c=1`$). The four-dimensional cosmological constant set to zero. We use $`M`$ for the black hole mass and $`r_0`$ for the Schwarzschild radius. If $`r_0<l`$ then the black hole will be effectively five-dimensional and the appropriate five-dimensional Schwarzschild solution is used.

## II Accretion formalism

Calculations of PBH accretion in the standard cosmology have a long history but are plagued with significant uncertainties. First of all, while it is known that black holes forming during radiation domination cannot be much smaller than the horizon size (otherwise pressure forces would prevent collapse), it is unclear how much smaller they might be. Secondly, it is unclear precisely how efficient a black hole might be at absorbing incoming radiation from a cosmological background, or how important the effect of backreaction might be. Results prove extremely sensitive to assumptions made concerning these quantities. While early work by Zel’dovich and Novikov ZelNov  speculated that PBHs might even be able to grow as fast as the horizon, subsequent work, especially by Carr and Hawking CarrHawk ; Carr75 , made a convincing case that such growth could not occur, and moreover that once the PBH became significantly smaller than the horizon accretion would become very inefficient. This view is now widely held, though there are papers where accretion is found to be important, including interesting work by Hacyan Hacyan  in which incoming radiation was described by a Vaidya metric matched to a flat radiation-dominated Universe, and in which the mass was found to grow proportional to the horizon size ($`M(t)0.060.08t`$) at late times even for very small initial mass under the idealization of perfect radial inflow.

There are different approaches to estimating the accretion rate. Clearly it will be proportional to the surface area of the black hole, and to the energy density of the radiation background; the key question is the constant of proportionality, to which our results will prove extremely sensitive. The relevant length scales in the problem are the cosmological horizon size, the black hole radius, and potentially also the mean free path of the particles comprising the radiation background (which should be much less than the horizon size if the background is to be thermalized).

The two approaches available to estimate that constant are to use an absorption cross-section for radiation incident from a distance, or to consider the thermal properties of radiation near the event horizon. The former has the drawback that it assumes a long mean free path for the radiation (which cannot be true if the PBH radius is a significant fraction of the cosmological horizon), while in the latter the effect of the black hole geometry cannot readily be included. We will consider both and compare.

To use the cross-section of the black hole, one needs to take into account that the impact parameter for absorption of incoming radiation by the black hole is greater than the event horizon size, as the black hole bends the particle trajectory towards it. The black hole therefore has an effective radius $`r_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for capturing particles. In the standard cosmology $`r_{\mathrm{eff}}=3\sqrt{3}r_0/2`$, where $`r_0=2M/M_4^2`$ is the Schwarzschild radius MTW . In the case of an effectively five-dimensional black hole, the equivalent expression is $`r_{\mathrm{eff}}=2r_0`$ Emp  where

$$r_0=\sqrt{\frac{8}{3\pi }}\left(\frac{l}{l_4}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{M}{M_4}\right)^{1/2}l_4.$$
(1)
The accretion rate is estimated by assuming first of all that the radiation is non-interacting, so that the radiation reaching the black hole at time $`t`$ has come from a known distance $`x`$. The fraction of the radiation starting at that point (assumed to have an isotropic momentum distribution) which is absorbed by the black hole is just the solid angle subtended by the black hole at that distance, and then adding up over all particles in a shell of width $`dt`$ at that distance yields

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\pi r_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\rho (t),$$
(2)
where the distance $`x`$ drops out of the calculation. This expression will continue to hold even in the presence of interactions, at least as long as the particle mean free path is much larger than the black hole radius, because in thermal equilibrium particles are as likely to scatter onto trajectories towards the black hole as off those trajectories. However it is unclear precisely what effect scattering near the black hole might give, particularly in regions where the black hole has significantly modified the geometry, and so we can expect this result to be modified by a factor of order unity. It is also unclear whether the depletion of the radiation in the vicinity of the black hole by the absorption might lead to a significant reduction in accretion efficiency. Finally, we note that this calculation is certainly naïve in ignoring spin and frequency dependent effects in the absorption cross-section Page ; extra .

A little more insight can be obtained by considering the thermal balance between the black hole and the background if they were at the same temperature. The black hole radiation leads to a mass loss given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law applied to the radius $`r_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ Emp , except that it is also known that in the four-dimensional case the Stefan–Boltzmann law overestimates the emission by a factor 2.6 Page , due to so-called grey-body factors allowing for the finite size of the black hole as seen by long-wavelength radiation (the majority of the power is emitted at wavelengths comparable to the event horizon radius) and the inclusion of spin-dependent effects. Such grey-body factors would also apply to absorption of long-wavelength radiation, and arguing that there should be balance when the cosmological and black hole temperature match suggests that in that situation Eq. (2) overestimates the absorption by a factor of around 2.6. However the regime of interest for accretion is when the background temperature is much larger than the black hole temperature, and then the grey-body factors should be much less important, supporting the normalization of Eq. (2). Were the cosmological temperature smaller the grey-body factors would be of increasing significance, but in that limit evaporation dominates in any case.

Care is however needed in applying thermal balance arguments in the braneworld case, because while accretion is taking place on the brane, the black hole can evaporate into both brane and bulk; in effect the black hole provides a route for leakage of energy from the brane via evaporation of gravitons. Even if the black hole is in thermal balance on the brane, it will not be in equilibrium with the bulk, and so would still lose mass. However the thermal balance argument can be used between the accretion and the evaporation onto the brane alone.

An alternative view is to consider the radiation background at a given time to extend smoothly all the way to the event horizon with an isotropic momentum distribution, and compute the flux entering the black hole. Consider a small shell of radius $`dt`$ at the event horizon, which will contain an energy density $`4\pi r_0^2\rho (t)dt`$. However not all this radiation will be inwardly directed; the flux entering the black hole is one quarter of that energy density yielding

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\pi r_0^2\rho (t).$$
(3)
This is a factor of a few smaller than the estimate above. However this estimate is arguably more dubious. The approximation of an isotropic radiation distribution near the event horizon is unlikely to be good, as flux coming from the direction of the black hole will be absent, though one could argue that that this missing flux is correctly allowing for depletion of the radiation already absorbed by the black hole. More seriously, this estimate does not allow for the effect of the black hole geometry on the radiation, whereas the effective radius for absorption did in the previous calculation.

Summarizing the above, we can take the accretion rate to be

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=F\pi r_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\rho (t),$$
(4)
where $`F`$ is a numerical constant measuring the accretion efficiency. It is conceivable that it might be as large as unity (particularly if the radiation mean free path is believed to be much larger than the event horizon radius), whereas other arguments suggest it may be somewhat smaller. However neither calculation is likely to be accurate if the black hole is a significant fraction of the horizon size, because then accretion is constrained by the amount of material actually accessible to the black hole. Unfortunately, it turns out that the results in the high-energy regime are exponentially sensitive to the value of $`F`$, and therefore we keep it in the calculations that follow. By contrast, the recent paper by Majumdar Maj  assumed $`F=1`$ throughout.

## III Primordial black hole accretion

### III.1 Accretion in the standard cosmology

As a warm up, we can apply the above formalism in the standard cosmology, where however it will turn out that the approximations made are unlikely to be valid.

Suppose a PBH is formed at a time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ in the early phases of a radiation-dominated Universe, with mass

$$M_\mathrm{i}=fM_H(t_\mathrm{i})=fM_4^2t_\mathrm{i}.$$
(5)
Here $`M_H(t_\mathrm{i})`$ is the horizon mass and $`f<1`$ denotes what fraction of the horizon mass the black hole comprises. Using Eq. (4) with the four-dimensional Schwarzschild solution and the radiation energy density

$$\rho =\frac{3M_4^2}{32\pi t^2},$$
(6)
gives

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{81}{32}FM_4^2\frac{M^2}{t^2}.$$
(7)
Integrating from a time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ when the black hole mass is $`M_\mathrm{i}`$ leads to

$$M(t)=M_\mathrm{i}\left[\frac{t/t_\mathrm{i}}{At/t_\mathrm{i}+(1A)}\right];A1\frac{81}{32}Ff.$$
(8)
The behaviour of $`M(t)`$ crucially depends on the sign and magnitude of the factor $`A`$. If it is positive, the black hole mass asymptotes to

$$M_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{M_\mathrm{i}}{A}.$$
(9)
If $`F`$ and/or $`f`$ are small (small efficiency or initial PBH size), the factor will be close to 1, and the asymptotic mass will not be much bigger than the initial mass. But if $`A`$ is small ($`Ff0.4`$), the black hole mass will grow nearly as fast as the horizon mass, until $`t/t_\mathrm{i}1/A`$ or until the radiation-dominated regime comes to an end. The factor $`A`$ can even be negative for $`Ff>0.4`$, in which case Eq. (8) gives a diverging mass in a finite time, violating causality and thus certainly indicating that the approximations used have broken down.

However, in order to obtain a final mass that is much bigger than the initial mass, it is required that the initial PBH radius must be close to 74 percent ($`=0.4^{1/3}`$) of the horizon radius (for efficiency $`F=1`$), or more (for $`F<1`$). For such large PBHs use of the quasi-static approximation (where the black hole is represented as a series of Schwarzschild solutions as the mass increases), becomes questionable. But in the case of PBHs the initial size of the black hole $`\mathrm{𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡}`$ be of the order of the horizon, to overcome the fluid pressure. Carr and Hawking CarrHawk  proved there was no black hole solution embedded in a Friedmann background in which the black hole could grow at the same rate as the cosmic horizon. They then concluded that the black hole could only grow less fast than the horizon. After a short period of time its size $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑}`$ have become much smaller than the horizon, at which point the quasi-static approximation could be used to confirm no further accretion. This result has become widely accepted, though see Refs. Hacyan ; accrete .

### III.2 Accretion in the high-energy regime of the braneworld scenario

We now turn to the high-energy regime of the braneworld scenario. If black holes are to behave as five-dimensional ones, we showed GCL  that they must form during the high-energy regime, and that it was possible for such PBHs to survive even to the present. In order to interpret possible observational signatures, we therefore need to understand accretion in the high-energy regime. In this section we consider only accretion, and in the following section we will consider the combined effects of accretion and evaporation.

If a black hole forms at a time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ in the high-energy regime of the Randall–Sundrum Type II scenario, its size will necessarily be smaller than the AdS radius $`l`$, and hence described as a five-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole. We take its initial mass to be a fraction $`f`$ of the horizon mass (now computed using formulae relevant to the high-energy regime GCL )

$$M_\mathrm{i}=fM_H(t_\mathrm{i})=16fM_4\left(\frac{l}{l_4}\right)^1\left(\frac{t_\mathrm{i}}{t_4}\right)^2.$$
(10)
The growth rate is again given by Eq. (4), where we must now employ the energy density in the high-energy phase

$$\rho =\frac{3}{32\pi }\frac{M_4^2}{t_\mathrm{c}t},$$
(11)
with the transition time between high-energy and standard regimes given by $`t_\mathrm{c}=l/2`$, and use the five-dimensional expressions for the event horizon radius and capture cross-section. This gives

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{2F}{\pi }\frac{M}{t}.$$
(12)
Integrating from the time of formation onwards results in

$$M(t)=M_\mathrm{i}\left(\frac{t}{t_\mathrm{i}}\right)^{2F/\pi }.$$
(13)
In this case we see that the black hole mass always grows less fast than the horizon mass $`M_H(t)t^2`$ (provided $`F`$ is not significantly greater than unity), in contrast to the situation in the standard cosmology. Accordingly, the approximations made in the calculation become more reliable as time goes by. Our result agrees with that of Majumdar Maj , who however assumed $`F=1`$ throughout.

This calculation shows that, regardless of the initial mass, black holes can experience significant growth, with the power-law depending sensitively on the accretion efficiency $`F`$. The uncertainty in its precise value lends considerable uncertainty to the accretion growth of the PBHs during the high-energy phase.

Once the high-energy phase ends, the cosmological background evolution becomes the standard one, but the PBH remains in the five-dimensional regime. To determine whether accretion still continues, we now need to apply Eq. (4) with the five-dimensional PBH properties but the standard cosmological evolution, taking as initial condition the mass of the PBH at the transition time $`t_\mathrm{c}`$ and bearing in mind that the black hole will be much smaller than the horizon size at this point. Using these equations gives

$$M(t)=M(t_\mathrm{c})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2F}{\pi }\left(1\frac{t_\mathrm{c}}{t}\right)\right].$$
(14)
indicating a further growth by only a factor of order unity (comparable to the expected uncertainties in the calculation).

We therefore conclude that accretion swiftly becomes unimportant as the standard cosmology sets in for five-dimensional black holes as well as four-dimensional ones. Accordingly, it is the slower decrease of the background density during the high-energy regime which makes accretion important, rather than the change in black hole properties.

## IV Combining accretion and evaporation

We now take both accretion and evaporation into account in the high-energy regime222Some work loosely related to this, but concerning astrophysical accretion by collisionally-produced mini black holes in a TeV gravity model, can be found in Ref. TeV .

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\left(\frac{dM}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{acc}}+\left(\frac{dM}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{evap}},$$
(15)
where

$$\left(\frac{dM}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{acc}}=\frac{q}{2}\frac{M}{t},$$
(16)
and

$$\left(\frac{dM}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{evap}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}M_5^3}{2M}.$$
(17)
(see Ref. GCL ), where for convenience we have defined

$$q\frac{4F}{\pi }.$$
(18)
Assuming the four-dimensional cosmological constant vanishes, the relation between the five-dimensional fundamental mass scale and the Planck mass is given by

$$M_5=M_4\left(\frac{l}{l_4}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(19)
In the above expression we have defined

$$\stackrel{~}{g}\frac{0.0062}{G_{\mathrm{brane}}}g_{\mathrm{brane}}+\frac{0.0031}{G_{\mathrm{bulk}}}g_{\mathrm{bulk}}.$$
(20)
where $`g_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ is the usual number of degrees of freedom into which the black hole can evaporate, while $`g_{\mathrm{bulk}}=𝒪(1)`$ is the number of bulk degrees of freedom (in the simplest case just the five polarization states of the graviton). For the most part, the black hole’s energy is lost through Hawking radiation on the brane. As an example we mention the case where the black hole emits only massless particles, for which $`g_{\mathrm{brane}}=7.25`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.023`$. Unlike in Ref. GCL , we have written the grey-body factors $`G_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ explicitly; in the standard cosmology the grey-body factor is equal to 2.6, but precise values are not known for the braneworld. For thermal balance between the accretion and the evaporation onto the brane, the accretion efficiency $`F`$ should equal $`1/G_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ when the temperatures are equal; however as discussed in Section II the absorption grey-body factors should approach one if the background temperature is much greater than the black hole temperature.

In the standard cosmology Eq. (15) does not have an analytical solution, but it does in the present case:

$`M(t)/M_\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$
$`\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_\mathrm{i}}}\right)^q{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{4\sqrt{f}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_5^{3/2}}{M_\mathrm{i}^{3/2}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_\mathrm{i}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_\mathrm{i}}}\right)^q\right]\right\}^{1/2}.`$
An expression of this form was found by Majumdar Maj , though again for the specific case of efficiency $`F=1`$ (i.e. $`q=4/\pi `$). However, a very slight change in the efficiency can change the qualitative behaviour. If $`q>1`$ (efficiency $`F>0.78`$) the PBH will steadily grow until the cosmological transition time $`t_\mathrm{c}`$ is reached (provided $`M_\mathrm{i}>M_5`$). If $`q<1`$ (efficiency $`F<0.78`$), the mass loss term will grow faster than the mass gain term. However, assuming that the initial black hole mass is large compared to the fundamental mass scale, $`M_\mathrm{i}M_5`$, the loss term will initially be much smaller than the gain term. In other words, if a black hole forms with a mass of order the horizon mass at a time $`t_\mathrm{i}t_5`$, then the initial black hole temperature will be much lower than the temperature of the radiation background and evaporation can initially be neglected.

For many choices of parameters, evaporation is then negligible throughout the high-energy regime. But for sufficiently low accretion efficiency, the mass growth can come to a halt whilst the black hole is still in the high-energy regime.333In the limit $`q1`$ the mass growth decreases logarithmically, and if $`M_\mathrm{i}M_5`$, evaporation can be neglected until the standard regime is reached. This ‘halt’ time is obtained from $`dM/dt=0`$ and reads

$$\left(\frac{t_\mathrm{h}}{t_\mathrm{i}}\right)^{1q}=q\left[1+(1q)\frac{4\sqrt{f}}{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{i}}{M_5}\right)^{3/2}\right].$$
(22)
If $`M_\mathrm{i}M_5`$ we can neglect the first term, to obtain

$$\left(\frac{t_\mathrm{h}}{t_\mathrm{i}}\right)^{1q}q(1q)\frac{4\sqrt{f}}{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{i}}{M_5}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(23)
In order for the derivation to be valid the halt time must satisfy $`t_\mathrm{h}<t_\mathrm{c}`$, or equivalently

$$\left(\frac{t_\mathrm{i}}{t_4}\right)^{4q}<\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{f^2}\frac{2^{q9}}{q(1q)}\left(\frac{l}{l_4}\right)^{2q}.$$
(24)
The above condition will be satisfied if $`l`$ is large enough (a long high-energy regime) and/or if $`M_\mathrm{i}`$ is small enough (a high initial PBH temperature), depending on the value of $`q`$. Put another way, for a given $`l`$ and $`M_\mathrm{i}`$ there is a minimum accretion efficiency which ensures that neglecting the mass loss through evaporation is justified all the way up to $`t=t_\mathrm{c}`$.

As an example we bear in mind that the AdS radius $`l`$ is constrained by experiment as

$$l<10^{31}l_4.$$
(25)
If there was a period of high-energy inflation, the requirement that gravitational waves do not lead to excessive anisotropies in the CMB leads to a lower limit on the horizon mass (and hence on the PBH mass) at the end of inflation, namely GCL

$$M_\mathrm{i}>2\times 10^6M_5.$$
(26)
For the extreme values of $`M_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`l`$ (and hence for all other values), we find that an efficiency better than $`30\%`$ ($`q>0.39`$) is sufficient to ensure mass growth all the way up to the cosmic transition time.

We now ask what is the total lifetime $`t_{\mathrm{evap}}`$ of a black hole that reaches a halt time in the high-energy regime. Provided we can trust Eq. (IV) until total evaporation $`M(t_{\mathrm{evap}})=0`$, we find

$$t_{\mathrm{evap}}=q^{1/(q1)}t_\mathrm{h}.$$
(27)
Unless $`q`$ is very close to zero, we see that the total lifetime will be of the same order as the halt time (taking into account the possibility that the final stage of the black hole’s lifetime is in the standard regime only $`\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠}`$ the estimate for $`t_{\mathrm{evap}}`$, as it turns off the accretion term). Such black holes evaporate long before any observational constraints can be brought to bear, and we therefore conclude that PBHs in the regime where accretion in the high-energy regime can halt are not of interest.

To summarize, for a PBH with a lifetime $`t_{\mathrm{evap}}t_\mathrm{c}`$ we need consider only two situations in analyzing their evolution forwards in time. For black holes forming after the end of the high-energy regime, accretion is never important. For those forming within the high-energy regime, it is always a good approximation to neglect evaporation up until the cosmic transition time, after which accretion can be ignored and evaporation dominates.

## V Conclusions

We have explored the possibility that PBHs might accrete from the cosmological background in the case of braneworld cosmology, and found, in agreement with a recent paper by Majumdar Maj , that significant growth is possible. However, we have highlighted the extreme sensitivity of the resulting growth to the assumed accretion efficiency, which cannot be accurately computed. Accretion therefore adds considerable uncertainty to the evolution of individual PBHs after formation in the braneworld scenario.

Since accretion ends once the standard cosmology is restored (whether the PBHs are effectively four-dimensional or five-dimensional), we stress that accretion does not have any implications for interpreting observations in terms of the PBH density at evaporation. It does however impact on how those constraints are interpretted in terms of formation rates in the early Universe. We will be providing a detailed analysis of observational constraints on braneworld PBHs in a forthcoming paper (Clancy, Guedens and Liddle).

###### Acknowledgements.

D.C. was supported by PPARC and A.R.L. in part by the Leverhulme Trust. R.G. would like to thank John Barrow and Malcolm Fairbairn for discussions.


text:
# Charm System Tests of CPT and Lorentz Invariance with FOCUS

## 1 Introduction

The combined symmetry of charge conjugation (C), parity (P), and time reversal (T) is believed to be respected by all local, point-like, Lorentz covariant field theories, such as the Standard Model. However, extensions to the Standard Model based on string theories do not necessarily require CPT invariance, and observable effects at low-energies may be within reach of experiments studying flavor oscillations . A parametrization  in which CPT and T violating parameters appear has been developed which allows experimental investigation in many physical systems including atomic systems, Penning traps, and neutral meson systems . Using this parameterization we present the first experimental results for CPT violation in the charm meson system.

Searches for CPT violation have been made in the neutral kaon system. Using an earlier CPT formalism , KTeV reported a bound on the CPT figure of merit $`r_K|m_{K^0}m_{\overline{K}^0}|/m_{K^0}<(4.5\pm 3)\times 10^{19}`$ . A more recent analysis, using framework  and more data extracted limits on the coefficients for Lorentz violation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_X,\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y<9.2\times 10^{22}`$ GeV . CPT tests in $`B^0`$ meson decay have been made by OPAL at LEP , and by Belle at KEK which has recently reported $`r_B|m_{B^0}m_{\overline{B}^0}|/m_{B^0}<1.6\times 10^{14}`$ .

To date, no experimental search for CPT violation has been made in the charm quark sector. This is due in part to the expected suppression of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ oscillations in the Standard Model, and the lack of a strong mixing signal in the experimental data. Recent mixing searches include a study of lifetime differences between charge-parity (CP) eigenstates , a study of the time evolution of $`D^0`$ decays by CLEO  and a study of the doubly Cabibbo suppressed ratio ($`R_{\mathrm{DCS}}`$) for the decay $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ . Even without knowledge of the mixing parameters, one can investigate CPT violation through a study of the time dependence of $`D^0`$ decays. The time evolution of neutral-meson state is governed by a $`2\times 2`$ effective Hamiltonian $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the Schrödinger equation. Indirect CPT violation occurs if and only if the difference of diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is nonzero. The complex parameter $`\xi `$ controls the CPT violation and is defined as $`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is the difference in the eigenvalues. $`\xi `$ is phenomenologically introduced and therefore independent of the model. Time dependent decay probabilities into right-sign ($`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$) and wrong-sign decay modes (wrong sign is used here in the context of decays via mixing, $`D^0\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$) for neutral mesons which express the CPT violation have been developed in a general parametrization . For the decay of a $`D^0`$ to a right-sign final state $`f`$, the time dependent decay probability is:

$`P_f(t)`$ $``$ $`|f|T|D^0(t)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|F|^2\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}t)`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`[(1+|\xi |^2)\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma t/2+(1|\xi |^2)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$
$`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma t/22\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\xi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt].`$
The time dependent probability for the decay of a $`\overline{D}^0`$ to a final state $`\overline{f}`$, $`\overline{P}_{\overline{f}}(t)`$, may be obtained by making the substitutions $`\xi \xi `$ and $`F\overline{F}`$ in the above equation. $`F^{}=\overline{F}`$ is strictly true if CP (CPT) is not directly violated, which experimental evidence suggests is very nearly true in charm decays. $`F=f|T|D^0`$ represents the basic transition amplitude for the decay $`D^0f`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ are the differences in physical decay widths and masses for the propagating eigenstates and can be related to the usual mixing parameters  $`x=\mathrm{\Delta }M/\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\mathrm{\Delta }m/\gamma `$, $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma /\gamma `$, and $`\gamma `$ is the sum of the physical decay widths. Expressions for wrong-sign decay probabilities involve both CPT and T violation parameters which only scale the probabilities, leaving the shape unchanged. Using only right-sign decay modes, and assuming neglible direct CPT violation, the following asymmetry can be formed,

$$A_{\mathrm{CPT}}(t)=\frac{\overline{P}_{\overline{f}}(t)P_f(t)}{\overline{P}_{\overline{f}}(t)+P_f(t)},$$
(2)
which is sensitive to the CPT violating parameter $`\xi `$:

$$A_{\mathrm{CPT}}(t)=\frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma t/2+2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\xi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt}{(1+|\xi |^2)\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma t/2+(1|\xi |^2)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt}.$$
(3)
Experiments show that $`x,y`$ mixing values are small ($`<5\%`$). Equation 3, for small $`x,y`$ and $`t`$, reduces to:

$$A_{\mathrm{CPT}}(t)=(\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x)\mathrm{\Gamma }t.$$
(4)
## 2 Experimental and analysis details

In this paper we search for a CPT violating signal using data collected by the FOCUS Collaboration during an approximately twelve month time period in 1996 and 1997 at Fermilab. FOCUS is an upgraded version of the E687 spectrometer. Charm particles are produced by the interaction of high energy photons (average energy $``$ 180 GeV for triggered charm states) with a segmented BeO target. In the target region, charged particles are tracked by up to sixteen layers of microstrip detectors. These detectors provide excellent vertex resolution. Charged particles are further tracked by a system of five multi-wire proportional chambers and are momentum analyzed by two oppositely polarized large aperture dipole magnets. Particle identification is accomplished by three multi-cell threshold $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detectors , two electromagnetic calorimeters, an hadronic calorimeter and muon counters.

We analyze the two right-sign hadronic decays $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. We use the soft pion from the decay $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ to tag the flavor of the $`D`$ at production, and the kaon charge in the decay $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ to tag the $`D`$ flavor at decay. $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ events are selected by requiring a minimum detachment $`\mathrm{}`$ of the secondary (decay) vertex from the primary (production) vertex of 5 $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the calculated uncertainty of the detachment measurement. The primary vertex is found using a candidate driven vertex finder which nucleates tracks about a “seed” track constructed using the secondary vertex and the $`D`$ momentum vector. Both primary and secondary vertices are required to have fit confidence levels greater than 1%. The $`D^{}`$-tag is implemented by requiring the $`D^{}D^0`$ mass difference be within 3 MeV/c2 of the nominal value . A $`\chi ^2`$-like variable called $`W_i`$ –2 log(likelihood), where $`i`$ ranges over electron, pion, kaon and proton hypotheses is used for particle identification . For the $`K`$ and the $`\pi `$ candidates we require $`W_i`$ to be no more than four units greater than the smallest of the other three hypotheses ($`W_iW_{min}<4`$) which eliminates candidates that are likely to be mis-identified. In addition, $`D^0`$ daughters must satisfy the slightly stronger $`K\pi `$ separation criteria $`W_\pi W_K>0.5`$ for the $`K`$ and $`W_KW_\pi >2`$ for the $`\pi `$. Events in which the final state $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ is identified as $`\pi ^{}K^+`$ and vice versa are removed by imposing a hard $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov cut on the sum of the two separations $`((W_\pi W_K)_K+(W_KW_\pi )_\pi >8)`$. $`K\pi `$ pairs with highly asymmetrical momenta are more likely to be background than signal. A cut is made on the momentum asymmetry, $`P_A=|(P_KP_\pi )/(P_K+P_\pi )|`$, to reject these candidates. The best background rejection is achieved by applying the cut in the following way, $`P(D^0)>160+280\times P_A`$, where $`P(D^0),P_K`$ and $`P_\pi `$ are the momenta of the $`D`$ and the daughter kaon and pion respectively. To avoid large acceptance corrections due to the presence of a trigger counter downstream of the silicon detector, we impose a fiducial cut on the location of the primary vertex. Figure 1 shows the invariant mass distribution for $`D^{}`$-tagged, right-sign decays $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. A fit to the mass distribution is carried out where a Gaussian function for the signal and a second-order polynomial for the background is used. The fit yields $`\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}227}\pm 144`$ $`D^0`$ and $`\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}463}\pm 151`$ $`\overline{D}^0`$ signal events.

The proper time decay distribution is distorted by imposing a detachment cut between the primary and secondary vertices. The reduced proper time, defined as $`t^{}=(\mathrm{}N\sigma _{\mathrm{}})/(\beta \gamma c)`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the distance between the primary and secondary vertex, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the resolution on $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`N`$ is the minimum detachment cut applied, removes this distortion. We chose N=5 such that signal to background ratio was maximal. A simulation study was done measuring the differences in measured values of $`A_{CPT}`$ and $`\xi `$ using $`t^{}`$ in place of t in Equation 5 and Equation 4. The differences were found to be negligible compared to other systematic uncertainties. We plot the difference in right-sign events between $`\overline{D}^0`$ and $`D^0`$ in bins of reduced proper time $`t^{}`$. The background subtracted yields of right-sign $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ were extracted by properly weighting the signal region ($`2\sigma ,+2\sigma `$), the low mass sideband ($`7\sigma ,3\sigma `$) and high mass sideband ($`+3\sigma ,+7\sigma `$), where $`\sigma `$ is the width of the Gaussian. For each data point, these yields were used in forming the ratio:

$$A_{\mathrm{CPT}}(t^{})=\frac{\overline{Y}(t^{})Y(t^{})\frac{\overline{f}(t^{})}{f(t^{})}}{\overline{Y}(t^{})+Y(t^{})\frac{\overline{f}(t^{})}{f(t^{})}},$$
(5)
where $`\overline{Y}(t^{})`$ and $`Y(t^{})`$ are the yields for $`\overline{D}^0`$ and $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{f}(t^{})`$, $`f(t^{})`$ are their respective correction functions. The functions $`\overline{f}(t^{})`$ and $`f(t^{})`$ account for geometrical acceptance, detector and reconstruction efficiencies, and absorption of parent and daughter particles in the nuclear matter of the target. The correction functions are determined using a detailed Monte Carlo (MC) simulation using PYTHIA . The fragmentation is done using the Bowler modified Lund string model. PYTHIA was tuned using many production parameters to match various data production variables such as charm momentum and primary multiplicity. The shapes of the $`f(t^{})`$ and $`\overline{f}(t^{})`$ functions are obtained by dividing the reconstructed MC $`t^{}`$ distribution by a pure exponential with the MC generated lifetime. The ratio of the correction functions, shown in Figure 2(a), enters explicitly in Equation 5 and its effects on the asymmetry are less than 1.3% compared to when no corrections are applied. The FOCUS data contains more $`\overline{D}^0`$ than $`D^0`$ decays due to production asymmetry . The effect on the $`A_{\mathrm{CPT}}`$ distribution is to add a constant offset, which is accounted for in the fit.

## 3 Fitting for the Assymmetry

The $`A_{\mathrm{CPT}}`$ data in Figure 2(b) are fit to a line using the form of Equation 4 plus a constant offset. The value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ used in the fit is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.6\times 10^{12}`$ GeV. The result of the fit is $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x=0.0083\pm 0.0065`$.

## 4 Lorentz Violation

Any CPT and Lorentz violation within the Standard Model is described by the Standard Model Extension (SME) proposed by Kostelecký at al. . In quantum field theory, the CPT violating parameter $`\xi `$ must generically depend on lab momentum, spatial orientation, and sidereal time . The SME can be used to show that Lorentz violation in the $`D`$ system is controlled by the four vector $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$. The precession of the experiment with the earth relative to the spatial vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }a}`$ modulates the signal for CPT violation, thus making it possible to separate the components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$. The coefficients for Lorentz violation depend on the flavor of the valence quark states and are model independent. In the case of FOCUS, where $`D^0`$ mesons in the lab frame are highly collimated in the forward direction and under the assumption that $`D^0`$ mesons are uncorrelated, the $`\xi `$ parameter assumes the following form :

$`\xi (\widehat{t},p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (p)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }}[\mathrm{\Delta }a_0+\beta \mathrm{\Delta }a_Z\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ (6)
$`+\beta \mathrm{sin}\chi (\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{t}+\mathrm{\Delta }a_X\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{t})].`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\widehat{t}`$ are the sidereal frequency and time respectively, $`X,Y,Z`$ are non-rotating coordinates with $`Z`$ aligned along the Earth’s rotation axis, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\mathrm{\Gamma }(xiy)`$, and $`\gamma (p)=\sqrt{1+P_{D^0}^2/m_{D^0}^2}`$. Binning in sidereal time $`\widehat{t}`$ is very useful because it provides sensitivity to components $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y`$. Since Equation 15 of Reference  translates into $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x=0`$, setting limits on the coefficients of Lorentz violation requires expanding the asymmetry in Equation 3 to higher (non-vanishing) terms. In addition, the interference term of right-sign decays with the doubly Cabibbo suppressed (DCS) decays must also be included since it gives a comparable contribution. One can follow the procedure given by equations  to  of Reference  where the basic transition amplitudes $`<f|T|\overline{P^0}>`$ and $`<\overline{f}|T|P^0>`$ are not zero but are DCS amplitudes. After Taylor expansion the asymmetry can be written as:

$`A_{\mathrm{CPT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\xi (x^2+y^2)(t/\tau )^2}{2x}}`$ (7)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{3}}(t/\tau )+\sqrt{R_{\mathrm{DCS}}}\left(x\mathrm{cos}\delta +y\mathrm{sin}\delta \right)\right],`$
where $`R_{\mathrm{DCS}}`$ is the branching ratio of DCS relative to right-sign decays and $`\delta `$ is the strong phase between the DCS and right-sign amplitudes.

## 5 Fitting for LV Parameters

We searched for a sidereal time dependence 222Sidereal time is a time measure of the rotation of the Earth with respect to the stars, rather than the Sun. Sidereal day is shorter than the normal solar day by about 4 minutes. by dividing our data sample into four-hour bins in Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time (GMST) , where for each bin we repeated our fit in $`t^{}`$ using the asymmetry given by Equation 7 and extracted $`\mathrm{Re}\xi `$. The value of $`\sqrt{R_{\mathrm{DCS}}}`$ used in the fit is taken from Reference  and it is $`0.06`$. The resulting distribution, shown in Figure 2(c), was fit using Equation 6 and the results for the expressions involving coefficients of Lorentz violation in the SME were $`C_{0Z}N(x,y,\delta )(\mathrm{\Delta }a_0+0.6\mathrm{\Delta }a_Z)=(1.0\pm 1.1)\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, $`C_XN(x,y,\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }a_X=(1.6\pm 2.0)\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, and $`C_YN(x,y,\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y=(1.6\pm 2.0)\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, where $`N(x,y,\delta )=[xy/3+0.06(x\mathrm{cos}\delta +y\mathrm{sin}\delta )]`$ is the factor which carries the $`x,y`$ and $`\delta `$ dependence. The angle between the FOCUS spectrometer axis and the Earth’s rotation axis is approximately $`\chi =53^{}(\mathrm{cos}\chi =0.6)`$. We average over all $`D^0`$ momentum so $`\gamma (p)\gamma (p)=39`$ and $`\beta =1`$. We also touched base with the previous measurements for the kaon $`r_K`$ and B meson $`r_B`$ by constructing a similar quantity $`r_D`$ , $`r_D=|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }|/m_{D^0}=\beta ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu /m_{D^0}=|\overline{\xi }||\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda |=\gamma (p)|\mathrm{\Delta }a_0+0.6\mathrm{\Delta }a_Z|/m_{D^0}`$. The result for $`N(x,y,\delta )r_D`$ is: $`N(x,y,\delta )r_D=(2.3\pm 2.3)\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. Although it may seem natural to report $`r_D`$, the parameter $`r_D`$ (and $`r_K`$, $`r_B`$) has a serious defect: in quantum field theory, its value changes with the experiment. This is because it is a combination of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ with coefficients controlled by the $`D^0`$ meson energy and direction of motion. The sensitivity would have been best if $`\chi =90^{}`$.

## 6 Systematic Errors

Previous analyses have shown that MC absorption corrections are very small . The interactions of pions and kaons with matter have been measured but no equivalent data exists for charm particles. To check any systematic effects associated with the fact that the charm particle cross section is unmeasured, we examined several variations of $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ cross sections. The standard deviation of these variations returns systematic uncertainties of $`\pm 0.0017`$, $`\pm 0.3\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, $`\pm 0.0\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, and $`\pm 0.1\times 10^{16}`$ GeV to our measurements of $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x`$, $`C_{0Z}`$, $`C_X`$, and $`C_Y`$ respectively.

In a manner similar to the S-factor method used by the Particle Data group PDG  we made eight statistically independent samples of our data in order to look for systematic effects. We split the data in four momentum ranges and two years. The split in year was done to look for effects associated with target geometry and reconstruction due to the addition of four silicon planes near the targets in January, 1997 . We found no contribution to our measurements of $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x`$ and $`C_{0Z}`$. The contributions for $`C_X`$ and $`C_Y`$ were $`\pm 1.3\times 10^{16}`$ GeV and $`\pm 1.6\times 10^{16}`$ GeV respectively.

We also varied the bin widths and the position of the sidebands to assess the validity of the background subtraction method and the stability of the fits. The standard deviation of these variations returns systematic uncertainties of $`\pm 0.0012`$, $`\pm 0.3\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, $`\pm 0.9\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, and $`\pm 0.5\times 10^{16}`$ GeV to our measurements of $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x`$, $`C_{0Z}`$, $`C_X`$, and $`C_Y`$ respectively.

Finally, to uncover any unexpected systematic uncertainty, we varied our $`\mathrm{}/\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`W_\pi W_K`$ requirements and the standard deviation of these variations returns systematic uncertainties of $`\pm 0.0036`$, $`\pm 1.5\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, $`\pm 1.0\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, and $`\pm 1.1\times 10^{16}`$ GeV to our measurements of $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x`$, $`C_{0Z}`$, $`C_X`$, and $`C_Y`$ respectively.

Contributions to the systematic uncertainty are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Taking contributions to be uncorrelated we obtain a total systematic uncertainty of $`\pm 0.0041`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x`$, $`\pm 1.6\times 10^{16}`$ GeV for $`C_{0Z}`$, $`\pm 1.9\times 10^{16}`$ GeV for $`C_X`$, and $`\pm 2.0\times 10^{16}`$ GeV for $`C_Y`$.

## 7 Summary

We have performed the first search for CPT and Lorentz violation in neutral charm meson oscillations. We have measured $`\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x=0.0083\pm 0.0065\pm 0.0041`$ which lead to a 95% confidence level limit of $`0.0068<\mathrm{Re}\xi y\mathrm{Im}\xi x<0.0234`$. As a specific example, assuming $`x=0`$ or $`\mathrm{Im}\xi =0`$ and $`y=1\%`$, one finds $`\mathrm{Re}\xi =0.83\pm 0.65\pm 0.41`$ with a 95% confidence level limit of $`0.68<\mathrm{Re}\xi <2.34`$. Within the Standard Model Extension, we set three independent first limits on the expressions involving coefficients of Lorentz violation of $`(2.8<N(x,y,\delta )(\mathrm{\Delta }a_0+0.6\mathrm{\Delta }a_Z)<4.8)\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, $`(7.0<N(x,y,\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }a_X<3.8)\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, and $`(7.0<N(x,y,\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y<3.8)\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. As a specific example, assuming $`x=1\%`$, $`y=1\%`$ and $`\delta =15^{}`$ one finds the 95% limits on the coefficients of Lorentz violation of $`(3.7<\mathrm{\Delta }a_0+0.6\mathrm{\Delta }a_Z<6.5)\times 10^{13}`$ GeV, $`(9.4<\mathrm{\Delta }a_X<5.0)\times 10^{13}`$ GeV, and $`(9.3<\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y<5.1)\times 10^{13}`$ GeV. The measured values are consistent with no CPT or Lorentz invariance violation.

## 8 Acknowlegments

We wish to acknowledge the assistance of the staffs of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the INFN of Italy, and the physics departments of the collaborating institutions. This research was supported in part by the U. S. National Science Foundation, the U. S. Department of Energy, the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and Ministero della Istruzione Università e Ricerca, the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CONACyT-México, and the Korea Research Foundation of the Korean Ministry of Education.