text:
# The chemical potential in the transfer matrix and in the path integral formulation of QCD on a lattice

## 1 Introduction

Hasenfratz and Karsh  noticed that if in the euclidean path integral of relativistic field theories regularized on a lattice the chemical potential is coupled to the Fermi fields as in classical systems, specific counterterms are needed which would be extremely unconvenient in numerical simulations. Guided by the analogy between chemical potential and gauge fields, they exponentiated the chemical potential in the same way as the gauge fields are exponentiated in the link variables of Wilson regularization. They also showed that this definition does not require any counterterms (in the free theory), which makes it a good candidate for numerical simulations.

From the point of view of renormalization the way the chemical potential is introduced is obviously not unique , so that one is free to look for the form which is most convenient for a specific purpose. But Gavai  gave an argument whereby in any case the chemical potential cannot couple linearly to the fermion fields in the path integral.

There are a few points which in our view should be reexamined for a fully satisfactory settlement of the issue, the more so in view of the long standing difficulties met in numerical simulations .

For instance, the heuristic argument does not apply with a noncompact regularization , where the gauge fields still couple linearly to the Fermi fields. Should one in such a case choose a different coupling of the chemical potential? Moreover in statistical mechanics the chemical potential is the Lagrange multiplier of a conserved operator, a feature which is lost if it is exponentiated.

A last point to be clarified concerns the existence of the transfer matrix for the different fermion regularizations. This is of course a prerequisite for the lattice formulation to be correct, but its role becomes apparent in the present approach. We start from the observation that in classical statistical mechanics the partition function is the trace of the exponential of (minus) the hamiltonian. Now in the corresponding formulation of QCD the partition function is the trace of the transfer matrix, whose logarithm defines the hamiltonian. It is in this formulation that the chemical potential should behave as a Lagrange multiplier. We adopt this definition and show how the manipulations necessary to transform the trace into a path integral change the coupling of the chemical potential to the Fermi fields from linear to exponential. Following this prescription we find in fact exactly the result of Hasenfratz and Karsh both for Wilson and Kogut-Susskind fermions, with the qualification discussed below. In the latter case the value of the chemical potential in the spin-diagonal basis is half that in the flavour basis, namely their ratio is the inverse of that of the cutoffs.

In our derivation we assume a given form for the transfer matrix. Now for Wilson fermions the transfer matrix was constructed by Lüscher  in terms of quark-antiquark creation-annihilation operators, whereby the hamiltonian and the baryonic charge find the proper definition. The proof of reflection positivity was given in the gauge $`U_0=11`$. This gauge fixing is too strong, but Menotti and Pelissetto  have extended the proof to the gauge $`U_011`$, where $`U_0=11`$ with the exception of a single time slice.

For the case of Kogut-Susskind we have not found in the literature a transfer matrix with the same desirable features. In the only paper on the subject  we are aware of, the transfer matrix is constructed in the spin-diagonal basis, where it is found necessary to introduce auxiliary fields whose relation to quark-antiquarks is not transparent. Another feature, possibly related to the above, might be a difficulty in the way of the application we are interested in: the transfer matrix is linear in the creation-annihilation operators, rather than exponential, so that the hamiltonian contains the logarithm of these operators.

We have therefore tackled  the problem in the flavour basis, and we have found that the formalism developed by Lüscher  for Wilson fermions can easily be extended to the case of Kogut-Susskind, provided the elementary gauge variables are attached to the links of the blocks rather than of the lattice. This excludes the possibility of getting the action in the spin-diagonal basis from that in the flavour basis by a simple change of variables. If instead the elementary gauge variables are associated to the links of the lattice, we can transform to the spin-diagonal basis, but we meet with a formal difficulty and a practical complication. In fact the proof by Menotti and Pelissetto cannot be adapted straightforwardly, because their gauge fixing has in such a case a nontrivial Faddeev-Popov determinant (as explained in detail below) which must be taken into account to establish the reflection positivity of the transfer matrix. This is the formal difficulty. The practical complication is the following. We have constructed the transfer matrix in the flavour basis with the ”minimal” gauge coupling, the one where the link variables join the quark fields along the shortest path. Now it is well known that a gauge coupling simple in one basis becomes very complicated in the other , and in fact we find an awkward result in the spin-diagonal basis.

Both shortcomings can hopefully be overcomed, but the construction of the transfer matrix with Kogut-Susskind fermions in the spin-diagonal basis requires further study.

Two final observations. The first is that no claim of uniqueness is made about the coupling of the chemical potential in the path integral formulation for a given transfer matrix. The question of uniqueness will be discussed in separate paper.

The second is that the procedure just outlined appears also appropriate in the study of a system in the canonical ensemble, where since one has to integrate over the (imaginary) chemical potential , the exact way this is introduced can be of practical importance.

The paper is organized in the following way. We first show how the present prescription reproduces the Hasenfratz-Karsh result for Wilson fermions, by using Lüscher’s  construction of the transfer matrix. We then apply the same procedure to Kogut-Susskind fermions, adopting the notations of Montvay and Münster , and using the transfer matrix especially devised for the present application .

In this paper the pure gauge part of the transfer matrix and the partition function will be omitted because it does not play any explicit role (but with the Kogut-Susskind fermions in the spin-diagonal basis) and the lattice spacing is set equal to 1.

## 2 Transfer matrix and chemical potential

We start from the definiton of the grand canonical partition function at finite baryon density according to the ordered product

$$Z=Tr\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu }{T}\widehat{Q}_B\right)\underset{n_0}{}\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)\right\},$$
(1)
where the temperature $`T`$ is the inverse of the number $`N_0`$ of links in the temporal direction, $`\widehat{Q}_B`$ is the baryon charge operator and $`\widehat{𝒯}_q`$ is the quark transfer matrix. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is determined by the condition that the expectation value of the baryon number be

$$q_B=Z^1Tr\left\{\widehat{Q}_B\mathrm{exp}(\mu N_0\widehat{Q}_B)\underset{n_0}{}\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)\right\}.$$
(2)
The transfer matrix $`\widehat{𝒯}_q`$ can be written  in terms of an auxiliary operator $`\widehat{T}_q(n_0)`$

$$\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)=𝒥^1\widehat{T}_q^{}(n_0)\widehat{T}_q(n_0+s),$$
(3)
where $`𝒥`$ is a function of the gauge fields which will be defined later and $`s=\pm 1`$ for Wilson/Kogut-Susskind fermions respectively. This difference in sign does not reflect any intrinsic difference, but is only due to the different conventions adopted by Lüscher and Montvay-Münster, which we maintain for easy reference. As a consequence of these conventions the quarks propagate backwards in time with the Wilson definition and forwards with the Kogut-Susskind one.

$`\widehat{T}_q`$ is defined in terms of quark-antiquark creation-annihilation operators $`\widehat{x}^{},\widehat{y}^{},\widehat{x},\widehat{y}`$ acting in a Fock space. It depends on the time coordinate $`n_0`$ only throu the dependence on it of the gauge fields. In fact the creation and annihilation operators do not depend on $`n_0`$. They depend on the spatial coordinates $`𝐧`$ of the sites or, in the case of Kogut-Susskind in the flavour basis, of the blocks, and on Dirac, flavour and color indices, $`\alpha ,f,c`$ sometimes comprehensively represented by $`I`$.

In the transfer matrix formalism most often one has to do with quantities at a given (euclidean) time $`n_0`$. For this reason we adopt a summation convention over spatial coordinates and intrinsic indices at fixed time. So for instance we will write

$$\overline{q}(m_0)Q(m_0,n_0)q(n_0)=\underset{𝐦,𝐧,I,J}{}\overline{q}_{𝐦,I}(m_0)Q_{𝐦,I;𝐧,J}(m_0,n_0)q_{𝐧,J}(n_0),$$
(4)
where $`Q`$ is the quark matrix and $`q`$ the quark field. Q is a function of time dependent link operators $`U_\mu (n_0)`$ which have the standard Wilson variables $`U_\mu (m_0,𝐦)`$ as spatial matrix elements

$$\left(U_\mu (m_0)\right)_{𝐦,𝐧}=\delta _{𝐦,𝐧}U_\mu (m_0,𝐦).$$
(5)
In this notation the quark action $`S_q`$, the baryonic charge $`\widehat{Q}_B`$ and the auxiliary operator $`\widehat{T}_q(n_0)`$ can be written

$$S_q=\underset{m_0,n_0}{}\overline{q}(m_0)Q(m_0,n_0)q(n_0)$$
(6)
$$\widehat{Q}_B=\widehat{x}^{}\widehat{x}\widehat{y}^{}\widehat{y}$$
(7)
$$\widehat{T}_q(n_0)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\widehat{x}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{x}\widehat{y}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{y}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\widehat{y}N(n_0)\widehat{x}\right].$$
(8)
Their form is the same for Wilson and Kogut-Susskind fermions but the matrices $`Q`$, $`M`$ and $`N`$ are different in the two cases and will be specified later. The expression of $`\widehat{T}_q(n_0)`$ is valid in the gauge $`U_0=11`$ which is not admissible. In the construction of the path integral formulation of QCD at finite baryon density we do not need to fix the gauge, but to lighten the formalism we will nevertheless put $`U_0=11`$ and we will reinstate $`U_0`$ in the final result. The reader can check that keeping $`U_0`$ in the intermediate steps one arrives at the same result, provided some care is exercised: for instance when $`U_011`$ the expression $`\widehat{x}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{x}+\widehat{y}^{}M(n_0)\widehat{y}`$ appearing in Eq. (8) changes and does not commute with $`Q_B`$ any longer. We anticipate that $`N`$ is hermitean and also $`M`$ is hermitean in the gauge $`U_0=11`$.

Now we transform the trace into a Berezin integral. To this end we introduce between the factors in Eq. (1) the identity

$$11=[dx^+dxdy^+dy]\mathrm{exp}(x^+xy^+y)|xy><xy|,$$
(9)
where the basis vectors

$$|xy>=|\mathrm{exp}(x\widehat{x}^{}y\widehat{y}^{})>$$
(10)
are coherent states and the $`x^+,x,y^+,y`$ are Grassmann variables. They are labeled by the time slice where the unit operator is introduced. For the other indices they are subject to the same convention as the creation and annihilation operators .

We then use the following equations . First

$$<x|\mathrm{exp}\left(\widehat{x}^{}M\widehat{x}\right)|x^{}>=\mathrm{exp}\left(x^+e^Mx^{}\right).$$
(11)
In particular

$$<x,y|\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu Q_B\right)|x^{},y^{}>=\mathrm{exp}\left(e^\mu x^+x^{}+e^\mu y^+y^{}\right),$$
(12)
which shows how the chemical potential gets exponentiated going from the trace of the transfer matrix to the euclidean path integral.

Second, for arbitrary matrices $`M`$ and $`N`$

$$<x|\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{x}^{}M\widehat{x})\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{x}^{}N\widehat{x})|x^{}>=\mathrm{exp}\left(x^+e^Me^Nx^{}\right).$$
(13)
Finally, if $`B=B(\widehat{x}^{})`$ and $`C=C(\widehat{x})`$ are operators which depend on $`\widehat{x}^{},\widehat{x}`$ only

$$<x|BMC|x^{}>=B(x^+)<x|M|x^{}>C(x^{}).$$
(14)
Using these equations we can evaluate the kernel of the transfer matrix

$`<x(n_0),y(n_0)|\widehat{𝒯}_q(n_0)|x(n_0+s),y(n_0+s)>=𝒥^1\mathrm{exp}\left(x^+(n_0)N(n_0)y^+(n_0)\right)`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(x^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(M(n_0)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(M(n_0+s)\right)\mathrm{exp}(\mu )x(n_0+s)\right)`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(y^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(M(n_0)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(M(n_0+s)\right)\mathrm{exp}(\mu )y(n_0+s)\right)`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(y(n_0+s)N(n_0+s)x(n_0+s)\right).`$ (15)
Collecting all the pieces we arrive at the euclidean path integral form of the partition function

$$Z=𝒥^1[dx^+dxdy^+dy]\mathrm{exp}S^{}$$
(16)
with the action

$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(N_0\mu )x^+(1)x(1+s)+\mathrm{exp}(N_0\mu )y^+(1)y(1+s)`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\{(1\delta _{n_0,1})x^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0))\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0+s))x(n_0+s)`$
$`+(1\delta _{n_0,1})y^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0))\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0+s))y(n_0+s)`$
$`+x^+(n_0)N(n_0)y^+(n_0)+y(n_0+s)N(n_0+s)x(n_0+s)`$
$`x^+(n_0)x(n_0)y^+(n_0)y(n_0)\}.`$
The chemical potential appears only on the first site. We can arrive at a uniform distribution by the change of variables

$`x(n_0)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(s\alpha (n_0))x(n_0),x^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}(s\alpha (n_0))x^+(n_0),`$
$`y(n_0)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(s\alpha (n_0))y(n_0),y^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}(s\alpha (n_0))y^+(n_0)`$ (18)
where

$$\alpha (n_0)=\alpha (1)+(n_01)\mu \frac{1}{2}(1+s)N_0\mu ,n_0>1,$$
(19)
with $`\alpha (1)`$ arbitrary and $`\alpha (n_0)=\alpha (n_0+N_0)`$ to respect the antiperiodicity in time of the quark field. We thus get

$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\mathrm{exp}(\mu )x^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0))\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0+s))x(n_0+s)`$ (20)
$`+\mathrm{exp}(\mu )y^+(n_0)\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0))\mathrm{exp}(M(n_0+s))y(n_0+s)`$
$`+x^+(n_0)N(n_0)y^+(n_0)+y(n_0+s)N(n_0+s)x(n_0+s)`$
$`x^+(n_0)x(n_0)y^+(n_0)y(n_0).`$
## 3 Wilson fermions

We set $`s=1`$ in Eq. (20) and assume

$`M(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\left(2K\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}B^{\frac{1}{2}}(n_0)\right),`$
$`N(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`2KB(n_0)^{\frac{1}{2}}c(n_0)B(n_0)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (21)
where K is the hopping parameter and

$`B(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`11K{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(U_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}+T_j^{()}U_j^+(n_0)\right)`$
$`c(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}i\sigma _j\left(U_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}T_j^{()}U_j^+(n_0)\right).`$ (22)
We have introduced the translation operators $`T_j^{(\pm )}`$ with matrix elements

$$\left(T_j^{(\pm )}\right)_{𝐧_1,𝐧_2}=\delta _{𝐧_2,𝐧_1\pm e_j},$$
(23)
where the unit vectors $`e_\mu `$ have matrix elements

$$\left(e_\mu \right)_\nu =\delta _{\mu ,\nu }.$$
(24)
Next we define the Dirac spinors $`q`$ by the transformation

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`B^{\frac{1}{2}}P_0^{(+)}q,y=B^{\frac{1}{2}}P_0^{()}q`$
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`q^{}\gamma _0`$ (25)
where

$$P_0^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \gamma _0\right).$$
(26)
The jacobian of this transformation is the function $`𝒥`$ introduced in Eq. (3). The charge conjugation transformation is

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞^1\overline{q}^{}`$
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞^Tq^{}`$ (27)
where, with Lüsher’s conventions

$$𝒞=\gamma _0\gamma _2.$$
(28)
It exchanges $`x`$ and $`y`$ according to

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2y^{}`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2x^{},`$ (29)
justifying our definition (7) of the baryon charge. Now we reinstate $`U_0`$. The partition function takes the form

$$Z=[d\overline{q}dq]\mathrm{exp}S_q,$$
(30)
with the action

$`S_q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\{\mathrm{exp}(\mu )2K\overline{q}(n_0)P_0^{(+)}U_0(n_0)q(n_0+1)`$ (31)
$`+\mathrm{exp}(\mu )2K\overline{q}(n_0+1)P_0^{()}U_0^{(+)}(n_0)q(n_0)`$
$`+\overline{q}(n_0)[2KC(n_0)B(n_0)]q(n_0)\}`$
where

$$C(n_0)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _j\left(U_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}T_j^{()}U_j^+(n_0)\right).$$
(32)
This is the Hasenfratz-Karsch action for Wilson fermions with Wilson parameter $`r=1`$. Notice the ”plus” sign in the exponential of the action, to comply with Lüscher’s convention.

## 4 Kogut-Susskind fermions in the flavour basis

The Kogut-Susskind fermions can be defined in the flavour as well as in the spin-diagonal basis. If we want to be able to transform from one basis to the other, the gauge fields must be defined on the links of the lattice. But if we want to stay in the flavour basis, as we will do in this Section, we can associate the gauge fields to the links of the blocks and forget the lattice.

We set $`s=1`$ in Eq. (20) and assume

$`M(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`N(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\gamma _5t_5t_j+\gamma _j(P_j^{()}U_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}`$ (33)
$`P_j^{(+)}T_j^{()}U_j^+(n_0))]+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{K}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}111+\gamma _5t_5t_0,`$
where $`m`$ is the quark mass parameter and K the hopping parameter.

In the tensor product the $`\gamma `$-matrices act on Dirac indices, while the $`t`$-matrices

$$t_\mu =\gamma _\mu ^T$$
(34)
act on flavor indices. The projection operators $`P_\mu ^{(\pm )}`$ are given by

$$P_\mu ^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1111\pm \gamma _\mu \gamma _5t_5t_\mu \right].$$
(35)
The Dirac spinors $`q`$ are obtained by the transformation

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`4\sqrt{K}P_0^{(+)}q,y^+=4\sqrt{K}P_0^{()}q`$
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`q^{}\gamma _0`$ (36)
whose jacobian is the function $`𝒥`$ introduced in Eq. (3). The charge conjugation transformation

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞^1\overline{q}^{}`$
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞^Tq^{}`$ (37)
where

$$𝒞=\gamma _0\gamma _2t_0t_2,$$
(38)
exchanges $`x`$ and $`y`$ according to

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2t_0t_2y^{}`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2t_0t_2x^{},`$ (39)
justifying our definition (7) of the baryon charge. Now we reinstate $`U_0`$. The partition function takes the form

$$Z=[d\overline{q}dq]\mathrm{exp}\left(16S_q\right),$$
(40)
with the action

$`S_q`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\{\mathrm{exp}(\mu )\overline{q}(n_0)\gamma _0P_0^{()}U_0(n_0)q(n_0+1)`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{exp}(\mu )\overline{q}(n_0+1)\gamma _0P_0^{(+)}U_0^+(n_0)q(n_0)+\overline{q}(n_0)N(n_0)q(n_0)\}.`$
The factor $`16`$ in front of the action accounts for the fact that the volume element with Kogut-Susskind fermions is 16 times larger than in the Wilson case. The chemical potential appears in the same way as with Wilson fermions apart from the sign. This is due to the fact that with the conventions adopted the quarks propagate backwards in time with the Wilson definition and forwards with the Kogut-Susskind one.

## 5 The spin-diagonal basis

We want to explore the possibility of using the results of the previous Section to construct QCD at finite density in the spin-diagonal basis. To do this the gauge fields must be defined on the links so that the block link operators $`W_\mu (n_0)`$ have matrix elements

$`\left(W_\mu (n_0)\right)_{𝐦,𝐧}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{𝐦,𝐧}W_\mu (n_0,𝐧)`$
$`W_\mu (n_0,𝐧)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu (2n_0,2𝐧)U_\mu (2n_0+e_\mu ,2𝐧+e_\mu ).`$ (42)
The relation of the coordinates of the blocks $`n_\mu `$ to the coordinates of the sites $`x_\mu `$ (not to be confused with the Grassmann variables of the previous Sections) is

$$x_\mu =2n_\mu +\eta _\mu ,\eta _\mu =0,1.$$
(43)
Then the action in the flavor basis becomes

$`S_q`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\{\mathrm{exp}(\mu )\overline{q}(n_0)\gamma _0P_0^{()}W_0(n_0)q(n_0+1)`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{exp}(\mu )\overline{q}(n_0+1)\gamma _0P_0^{(+)}W_0^+(n_0)q(n_0)+\overline{q}(n_0)N(n_0)q(n_0)\}`$
with

$`N(n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\gamma _5t_5t_j+\gamma _j(P_j^{()}W_j(n_0)T_j^{(+)}`$ (45)
$`P_j^{(+)}T_j^{()}W^+(n_0))]+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{K}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}111+\gamma _5t_5t_0.`$
But the gauge fixing $`W_011`$ has a nontrivial Fadeev-Popov determinant and we cannot say that the transfer matrix is positive definite before its effect is taken into proper account. We then proceed in the following way. We consider first the free case and then the interacting case to show the nature of the practical complication if it can be shown that transfer matrix remains positive definite in the gauge $`W_011`$.

In this Section we do not find convenient our summation convention and therefore we will abandon it.

### 5.1 The free case

The spin-diagonal and the flavour bases are related by

$$q_{𝐧;\alpha ,f}(n_0)^c=\frac{1}{8}\underset{\eta }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,f}^{(\eta )}\psi (2n+\eta )^c,\eta _\mu =0,1,$$
(46)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,f}^{(\eta )}=\left(\gamma _1^{\eta _1}\gamma _2^{\eta _2}\gamma _3^{\eta _3}\gamma _0^{\eta _0}\right)_{\alpha ,f}.$$
(47)
Performing this transformation in Eq. (44) with $`W_\mu =11`$ we find the action in the spin-diagonal basis

$$S_\psi =\underset{x}{}\left\{m\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x)+K\underset{\mu }{}\alpha _\mu (x)\left[\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x+e_\mu )\overline{\psi }(x+e_\mu )\psi (x)\right]+\delta S_\psi \right\},$$
(48)
where

$$\alpha _\mu (x)=(1)^{x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}x_{\mu 1}}$$
(49)
and $`\delta S_\psi `$ is the contribution of the chemical potential. It is obtained by the tranformation of the corresponding contribution in the flavor basis

$`\delta S_q`$ $`=`$ $`16K{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\{(1\mathrm{exp}(\mu ))\overline{q}(n_01)\gamma _0P_0^{()}q(n_0)`$ (50)
$`+(1\mathrm{exp}(\mu ))\overline{q}(n_0)\gamma _0P_0^{(+)}q(n_01)\}`$
and is

$`\delta S_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{x_0even,𝐱}{}}\{(1e^\mu )\alpha _0(x)\overline{\psi }(xe_0)\psi (x)`$ (51)
$`+(1e^\mu )\alpha _0(x)\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (xe_0)\}.`$
Note that the sum extends only over the sites with even temporal coordinate. Finally the total action in the spin-diagonal basis is

$`S_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x_0even,𝐱}{}}\alpha _0(x)\{\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x+e_0)\overline{\psi }(x+e_0)\psi (x)`$ (52)
$`+e^\mu \overline{\psi }(xe_0)\psi (x)e^\mu \overline{\psi }(x)\psi (xe_0)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\{K{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\alpha _j(x)[\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x+e_j)\overline{\psi }(x+e_j)\psi (x_0)]`$
$`+m\overline{\psi }(x_0)\psi (x_0)\}.`$
The chemical potential appears only on half the sites. We get a uniform coupling by the following change of variables in the sites with even temporal coordinate

$$\psi (n)\psi (n)\mathrm{exp}(\mu /2),\overline{\psi }(n)\overline{\psi }(n)\mathrm{exp}(\mu /2),n_0even.$$
(53)
The quark action assumes then the standard form

$`S_\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\{K\alpha _0(x)[\mathrm{exp}(\mu /2)\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x+e_0)\mathrm{exp}(\mu /2)\overline{\psi }(x+e_0)\psi (x)]`$
$`+K{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\alpha _j(x)[\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x+e_j)\overline{\psi }(x+e_j)\psi (x_0)]+m\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x)\}.`$ (54)
The chemical potential now appears in all the sites in the Hasenfratz-Karsh form, but its value is halved.

### 5.2 The interacting case

When the gauge fields are present we must change the transformation (46) to make it gauge covariant. This can be done by introducing a string of link variables $`V_\eta (n)`$ connecting the site $`2n`$ to the site $`2n+\eta `$

$$q_{n;\alpha ,f}^c=\frac{1}{8}\underset{\eta }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,f}^{(\eta )}\left(V_\eta (n)\psi (2n+\eta )\right)^c,\eta _\mu =0,1.$$
(55)
A discussion of different ways to construct $`V_\eta (n)`$ can be found in . For instance we can assume

$`V_\eta (n)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[U_1(2n)\right]^{\eta _1}\left[U_2(2n+\delta _{1,\eta _1}e_1)\right]^{\eta _2}\left[U_3(2n+\delta _{1,\eta _1}e_1+\delta _{1,\eta _2}e_2)\right]^{\eta _3}`$ (56)
$`\left[U_0(2n+\delta _{1,\eta _1}e_1+\delta _{1,\eta _2}e_2+\delta _{1,\eta _3}e_3)\right]^{\eta _0}.`$
The contribution of the chemical potential to the action in the presence of the gauge fields can be read off from Eq. (44)

$`\delta S_q`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{n_0}{}}\{(1\mathrm{exp}(\mu ))\overline{q}(n_01)\gamma _0W_0(n_01)P_0^{()}q(n_0)`$ (57)
$`+(1\mathrm{exp}(\mu ))\overline{q}(n_0)\gamma _0P_0^{(+)}W_0^+(n_01)q(n_01)\}.`$
After the transformation (55) this becomes

$`\delta S_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{n,\eta }{}}\alpha _0(\eta )\{(1\mathrm{exp}(\mu ))\delta _{\eta _0,0}`$ (58)
$`\overline{\psi }(2n+\eta )V_\eta ^+(n)W_0^+(ne_0)V_{\eta +e_0}(ne_0)\psi (2n+\eta e_0)`$
$`(1\mathrm{exp}(\mu ))\delta _{\eta _0,1}`$
$`\overline{\psi }(2n+\eta )V_\eta ^+(n)W_0(n)V_{\eta e_0}(n+e_0)\psi (2n+\eta +e_0)\}.`$
Therefore the total action in the spin-diagonal basis is

$`S_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\eta }{}}\{K{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\alpha _\mu (\eta )\overline{\psi }(2n+\eta )V_\eta ^+(n)[A_\mu (n,\eta )\psi (2n+\eta +e_\mu )`$ (59)
$`B_\mu (n,\eta )\psi (2n+\eta e_\mu )]+m\overline{\psi }(2n+\eta )\psi (2n+\eta )\}`$
where

$`A_0(n,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\eta _0,1}\mathrm{exp}(\mu )W_0(n)V_{\eta e_0}(n+e_0)+\delta _{\eta _0,0}V_{\eta +e_0}(n),`$
$`B_0(n,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\eta _0,0}\mathrm{exp}(\mu )W_0^+(ne_0)V_{\eta +e_0}(ne_0)+\delta _{\eta _0,1}V_{\eta e_0}(n),`$
$`A_j(n,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\eta _j,1}W_j(n)V_{\eta e_j}(n+e_j)+\delta _{\eta _j,0}V_{\eta +e_j}(n),`$
$`B_j(n,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\eta _j,0}W_j^+(ne_j)V_{\eta +e_j}(ne_j)+\delta _{\eta _j,1}V_{\eta e_j}(n).`$ (60)
Again the chemical potential appears only on half the sites and we get a uniform coupling by the change of variables (53) which changes $`A_0,B_0A_0^{},B_0^{}`$ according to

$`A_0(n,\eta )^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mu /2}\left[\delta _{\eta _0,1}W_0(n)V_{\eta e_0}(n+e_0)+\delta _{\eta _0,0}V_{\eta +e_0}(n)\right]`$
$`B_0(n,\eta )^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mu /2}\left[\delta _{\eta _0,0}W_0^+(ne_0)V_{\eta +e_0}(ne_0)+\delta _{\eta _0,1}V_{\eta e_0}(n)\right].`$ (61)
The chemical potential now appears in all the sites in the Hasenfratz-Karsh form, but its value is halved.

## 6 Summary

We have seen that we can couple the chemical potential linearly to the Fermi fields, conserving its meaning of a Lagrange multiplier in the transfer matrix formalism, which is equivalent to the hamiltonian formalism in statistical mechanics. Starting from this definition we have derived the Hasenfratz-Karsh action showing that the exponentiation of the chemical potential is a property of the Grassmannian kernel of fermionic operators, and is not related to the exponential dependence of the gauge fields.

In the case of Kogut-Susskind, the value of the chemical potential depends on the basis, and this can be important when the chemical potential has a physical interpretation, which in the present scheme is only possible in the flavour basis.

The formulation of QCD at finite baryon density in the spin-diagonal basis cannot be considered settled. Within our approach one should prove the reflection positivity of the transfer matrix in the gauge $`W_011`$. Then it might also be possible to justify the minimal coupling in the spin-diagonal basis, by appropriately changing the gauge coupling in the flavour basis. Alternatively one should use a transfer matrix constructed directly in the spin-diagonal basis.

We postpone to separate paper the discussion of the uniqueness of the path integral for a given transfer matrix.

### Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank dr.G.DiCarlo for many conversations about QCD at finite baryonic density.


format: text

text:
# PSR B 1706-44 and the SNR G 343.1-2.3 as the remnants of a cavity supernova explosion

## 1 Introduction

The pulsar PSR B 1706$-$44 (Johnston et al. joh92 (1992)) is superposed on an incomplete arc of radio emission (McAdam et al. mca93 (1993)). McAdam et al. interpreted this arc as a shell-type supernova remnant (SNR), named G 343.1$-$2.3, and suggested that the SNR is physically associated with PSR B 1706$``$44. This suggestion was questioned by Frail et al. (1994a ) and Nicastro et al. (nic96 (1996); see, however, Dodson et al. dod01 (2001)). Usually, a particular claimed pulsar/SNR association is considered reliable if the following five criteria are fulfilled (e.g. Kaspi kas96 (1996)):

1. agreement of independent distance estimates for pulsar and SNR;
2. agreement of independent age estimates for pulsar and SNR;
3. consistence of the implied pulsar transverse velocity (i.e. the velocity inferred by the displacement of the pulsar from the geometrical centre of the associated SNR) with the measured (proper motion and/or scintillation) velocity;
4. existence of any sign of interaction between the pulsar and the SNR;
5. “correct” (inferred or measured) orientation of the vector of pulsar transverse velocity (it is assumed that this vector should be pointed away from the geometrical centre of the associated SNR).

Although the distance and age estimates for PSR B 1706$``$44 and G 343.1$``$2.3 are in reasonable agreement, the implied transverse velocity is at least an order of magnitude larger than the scintillation velocity calculated by Nicastro et al. (nic96 (1996)). This inconsistency along with the absence of any apparent interaction between the pulsar and the SNR constitute the two main arguments against the physical association between these two objects (Frail et al. 1994a , Nicastro et al. nic96 (1996)). The fifth criterion is not applied to the system, since the direction of the pulsar proper motion is still unknown (cf. Giacani et al. gia01 (2001) with Frail et al. 1994a ; see also Sect. 3.5). Additional (indirect) arguments against the association are based on Gaensler & Johnston’s (gae95 (1995)) statistical study, which suggests that young pulsars cannot overrun their parent SNR shells (Nicastro et al. nic96 (1996); see however Arzoumanian et al. arz02 (2002)) and on the large extent of the “halo” around the pulsar (Frail et al. 1994a ).

In this paper we show how the existing observational data on PSR B 1706$``$44 and G 343.1$``$2.3 can be interpreted in favour of their physical association (Sect. 2) and discuss the criteria for evaluating the reliability of pulsar/SNR associations as applied to this system (Sect. 3). The main suggestion of the paper is that the association between PSR B 1706$``$44 and the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 could be real if both objects are the remnants of a SN which exploded within a mushroom-like cavity created by the SN progenitor wind breaking out of the parent molecular cloud (Sect. 2.2). This suggestion implies that in addition to the known bright “half” of the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 there should exist a more extended and weaker component, so that the actual shape of G 343.1$``$2.3 is similar to that of the well-known SNR VRO 42.05.01. It is remarkable that the 2.4 GHz Parkes Survey of Duncan et al. (dun95 (1995)) shows the existence of such an extended component.

## 2 The SNR G 343.1$``$2.3

Before discussing the criteria for evaluating the reliability of the association between PSR B 1706$``$44 and the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 we review the observational data on this system and propose a scenario for its formation.

### 2.1 Observational data

SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 was discovered by McAdam et al. (mca93 (1993)). Their 843 MHz image of G 343.1$``$2.3 shows a well-defined arc (a half-ellipse) of radio emission with the brightest (northern) part closest to the Galactic plane. The maximum extent of the arc is about $`40^{}`$. A VLA image of the SNR obtained by Frail et al. (1994a ) shows the existence of weak, diffuse emission both inside and outside the bright arc. This emission fills a region similar to and about two times more extended than the bright arc (Dodson et al. dod01 (2001); see also Duncan et al. dun95 (1995) and Fig. 2). The ROSAT observations of the field around PSR B 1706$``$44 do not reveal any sign of correlation between the soft (0.1–2.4 keV) diffuse X-ray emission and the radio emission of the SNR (Becker et al. bec95 (1995)). There are no reported optical observations of the SNR. PSR B 1706$``$44 is superposed on the outside edge of the bright radio arc and there are no morphological signatures of interaction between them. The pulsar appears to be surrounded by a radio nebula of about $`3^{}`$ in size (Giacani et al. gia01 (2001); cf. Frail et al. 1994a ). Giacani et al. suggest that this nebula is powered by the pulsar, on the basis of the nebula’s flat radio spectral index ($`0.3`$) and the high mean fractional polarization ($`20\%`$) of its radio emission.

### 2.2 A scenario for the origin of system PSR B 1706$``$44/G 343.1$``$2.3

We suggest that the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 is the result of an off-centred cavity SN explosion. Fig. 1 schematically depicts a scenario for its origin.

A massive star (the progenitor of the SN) ends its evolution within a mushroom-like cavity formed by the SN progenitor wind breaking out of the parent molecular cloud and expanding into an inter-cloud medium of much less density. The proper motion of the progenitor star results in a considerable offset of the SN explosion site from the geometrical centre of the semi-spherical cavity created inside the cloud; we suggest that the SN exploded outside the cloud. The subsequent interaction of the SN blast wave with the reprocessed ambient medium determines the structure of the resulting SNR (e.g. Ciotti & D’Ercole cio89 (1989), Chevalier & Liang che89 (1989), Franco et al. fra91 (1991)), which acquires a form reminiscent of the well-known SNR VRO 42.05.01 (G 166.0+4.3)111It is believed that the unusual appearance of VRO 42.05.01 is due to the breaking out of the SN blast wave into a hot, low-density tunnel, whose origin is the result of an amalgamation of cavities created by one or more SN explosions or stellar winds (e.g. Pineault et al. pin87 (1987)). We suggest that an alternative explanation of the origin of SNRs of this type (another example is the SNR G 350.0$-$3.0) is a SN explosion inside a (mushroom-like) wind-driven cavity created near the edge of a molecular cloud. Numerical simulations of this situation would be highly desirable..

We speculate that the wind-blown cavity formed inside the cloud was surrounded by a shell of mass less than some critical value (for spherically-symmetric shells this value is about 50 times the mass of the SN ejecta; e.g. Franco et al. fra91 (1991)), so that the SN blast wave was able to overrun the shell to propagate further into the unperturbed gas of the cloud, leaving behind the reaccelerated and gradually broadening turbulent shell (Franco et al. fra91 (1991)). We suggest that the bright arc discovered by McAdam et al. corresponds to the shocked former wind-driven shell and that the diffuse radio emission seen by Frail et al. and Dodson et al. comes from the “half” of the SN blast wave propagating into the cloud (see Fig. 1). These two components correspond to the bright arclike structure in the low resolution image of G 343.1$``$2.3 (Fig. 2). Under this scenario a more extended component of the SNR should exist to the southeast of the known bright structure. This would correspond to the “half” of the SN blast wave expanding in the inter-cloud medium.

We have found such a feature in the 2.4 GHz Parkes Survey of the Galactic Plane (Duncan et al. dun95 (1995); Fig. 2) – an extended arc of diffuse emission stretched from ($`l=345`$, $`b=2.5`$) to ($`l=342`$, $`b=4.5`$).

Its location in the “proper” place and its symmetry with respect to the bright arc of G 343.1$``$2.3 suggest that it could be physically related to this SNR. We note that the ragged appearance of the extended component could result from the development of a Rayleigh-Taylor instability caused by the impact of the SN blast wave with the wall of the low-density cavity created in the inter-cloud medium by the SN progenitor wind breaking out of the cloud (cf. Gvaramadze 1999a ). Note however that Duncan et al. consider this feature to be a part of a larger complex of filaments. The association between the extended arc and the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 may be further investigated by detailed HI mapping in the vicinity of the arc or by combining new continuum interferometric observations with the existing single dish maps of the region.

## 3 Reliability of the association between the pulsar PSR B 1706$``$44 and the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3

We now discuss the criteria for evaluating the reliability of pulsar/SNR associations (Sect. 1) as applied to the system PSR B 1706$``$44/G 343.1$``$2.3. It is obvious that the first two criteria should be fulfilled for any proposed pulsar/SNR association. Application of the third and fifth ones for evaluating proposed associations is not so straightforward, since they are based on the assumption that the SN explosion site coincides with the geometrical centre of the SNR. This assumption could be erroneous in the case of a density-stratified interstellar medium (e.g. Lozinskaya loz92 (1992), Frail et al. 1994b ) or in the case of a cavity SN explosion (Gvaramadze gva02 (2002)). A mechanical application of these two criteria could result in the rejection of genuine associations (Gvaramadze gva02 (2002)). The fourth criterion should be considered for those claimed associations where the pulsar is located not far (at least in projection) from the SNR’s shell. To some extent this situation takes place in the case considered in this paper – the pulsar is superposed on the bright radio arc.

### 3.1 The distance estimates

The most reliable distance estimate for PSR B 1706$``$44 was derived by Koribalski et al. (kor95 (1995)) using a kinematic method. This estimate ranges from $`2.4\pm 0.6`$ to $`3.2\pm 0.4`$ kpc, in quite reasonable agreement with the dispersion measure distance of $`1.8\pm 0.5`$ kpc derived from the Taylor & Cordes’ (tay93 (1993)) model for the Galactic electron density distribution, given the uncertainties inherent in both methods. The kinematic distance measured by Koribalski et al. also agrees with the distance estimates for G 343.1$``$2.3 obtained by McAdam et al. (mca93 (1993)) and Frail et al. (1994a ). But the latter estimates are very uncertain, since they are based on the highly controversial empirical relationship between the observed surface brightness of SNRs and their linear diameters (see e.g. Green gre91 (1991); but see also Huang et al. hua94 (1994)). These estimates would be even less certain if our scenario for the origin of the SNR is correct. In what follows we assume a distance to the pulsar (and the SNR) of $`(1.8+2.4)/2=2.1`$ kpc.

### 3.2 The age estimates

The characteristic age of PSR B 1706$``$44 is $`\tau =P/(n1)\dot{P}`$, where $`P`$ is the spin period of the pulsar, $`\dot{P}`$ is the period derivative, and $`n`$ is the braking index. For $`P=0.102`$ s, $`\dot{P}=9.310^{14}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Johnston et al. joh92 (1992)), and assuming that $`n=3`$, one has $`\tau \mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}500}`$ yr. This age can be compared with the age estimate for G 343.1$``$2.3 of 5 000–6 000 yr, derived (McAdam et al. 1993, Nicastro et al. 1996) on the basis of the Sedov-Taylor solution (i.e. from the diameter-age relationship, e.g. Clark & Caswell cla76 (1976)). But the diameter-age relationship cannot be applied to SNRs originating from cavity SN explosions. In what follows we assume that the true age of the pulsar is equal to $`\tau `$ and that the SNR is as old as the pulsar. We realize, however, that the system could be younger (if the pulsar was born with a spin period close to the current one; in this case $`\tau `$ overestimates the true age of the pulsar) or older (see Sect. 3.3.1), but the actual age of the system is not fundamental to the results presented in this paper.

### 3.3 The pulsar velocity

#### 3.3.1 The implied velocity

The implied pulsar transverse velocity, i.e. the velocity inferred from the angular displacement of PSR B 1706$``$44 from the geometrical centre of the bright arc, about $`20^{}`$ north of the pulsar, is

$$V_{\mathrm{imp}}700\theta _{20}D_{2.1}\tau _{17.5}^1\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,$$

where $`\theta _{20}`$ is the angular displacement in units of $`20\mathrm{}`$, $`D_{2.1}`$ is the distance to the pulsar in units of 2.1 kpc, and $`\tau _{17.5}`$ is the characteristic age of the pulsar in units of 17.5 kyr. In principle this high transverse velocity is not impossible. It could be even higher if the true age of the pulsar is less than $`\tau `$ (see Sect. 3.2). However it can be reduced if one assumes that the true age of the pulsar is much larger than the characteristic one \[e.g. due to the low value of the pulsar braking index (e.g. Camilo cam96 (1996)) or due to a secular (e.g. Blandford & Romani bla88 (1988)) or short-term (e.g. Gvaramadze 1999b , 2001a ) increase of the braking torque\]. The implied velocity can also be reduced if the true SN explosion site is offset from the geometrical centre of the SNR. Such offsets naturally arise if the SN exploded in a density-stratified medium (e.g. Lozinskaya loz92 (1992), Frail et al. 1994b ) or inside a cavity created by the wind of the moving SN progenitor star (Gvaramadze gva02 (2002)). We favour the last possibility (Sect. 2.2) and suggest that the pulsar transverse velocity could be less than the implied one (see Sect. 3.3.2).

The implied transverse velocity should be compared with the measured one. Nicastro et al. (nic96 (1996)) derived the pulsar velocity from the scintillation measurements and found that it is anomalously low, about twenty times less than $`V_{\mathrm{imp}}`$. They used this inconsistency to suggest that the pulsar did not originate from the apparent centre of SNR, and that the pulsar and SNR are not associated. We agree with their first suggestion (see Sect. 2.2) and therefore believe that the implied velocity can be reduced. On the other hand we have found (Sect. 3.3.2) that if the turbulent material of the reaccelerated former wind-driven shell (the bright arc of SNR G 343.1$``$2.3) is responsible for nearly all the scattering of PSR B 1706$``$44, then the pulsar transverse velocity can be as large as the transverse velocity of the portion of the arc projected on the pulsar. If so, one can show that the pulsar (transverse) velocity should indeed be less than $`V_{\mathrm{imp}}`$, though it can be much larger than that calculated by Nicastro et al. (nic96 (1996)).

#### 3.3.2 The scintillation velocity

It is known that pulsar velocities derived from scintillation measurements show good correlation with proper-motion–derived ones (e.g. Gupta gup95 (1995)). However, scintillation velocities are derived under several assumptions, some of which are not necessarily suitable for individual pulsars. It is usually assumed that the scattering material is homogeneously distributed along the line of sight and that its transverse velocity is negligible. These assumptions could be erroneous if a considerable fraction of the scintillations is due to a localized region of enhanced scattering existing along the line of sight in addition to the distributed scattering medium and if the transverse velocity of this region is nonzero (e.g. Cordes & Rickett cor98 (1998)). In this case the scintillation velocity of the pulsar is not equal to the proper motion velocity. In the following we assume that the turbulent material associated with the bright arc of the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 is the main scatterer of PSR B 1706$``$44.

The scintillation velocity for an asymmetrically placed thin scattering screen is (e.g. Gupta gup95 (1995)):

$$V_{\mathrm{iss}}=3.85\times 10^4\frac{(\nu _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{MHz}}D_{\mathrm{kpc}}x)^{1/2}}{f_{\mathrm{GHz}}t_\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(1)
where $`\nu _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{MHz}}`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}`$ are the scintillation bandwidth and the time-scale measured respectively in MHz and seconds, $`D_{\mathrm{kpc}}`$ is the distance from observer to pulsar in kpc, $`x=D_\mathrm{o}/D_\mathrm{p}`$, $`D_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{p}`$ are the distances from observer to screen and from screen to pulsar, and $`f_{\mathrm{GHz}}`$ is the frequency of observation in units of GHz. Note that the numerical coefficient in Eq. (1) is about three times larger than that used by Nicastro et al. (nic96 (1996); see, however, Johnston et al. joh98 (1998)). With $`\nu _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{MHz}}=15`$, $`t_\mathrm{d}=2287`$, $`f_{\mathrm{GHz}}=1.52`$, and assuming that $`x=1`$ (Nicastro et al. nic96 (1996)), one has for PSR B 1706$``$44 that $`V_{\mathrm{iss}}=62D_{2.1}^{1/2}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Although this value is few times larger than that calculated by Nicastro et al. (nic96 (1996)), it is still at the lower limit of the pulsar velocity distribution (e.g. Blaauw & Ramachandran bla98 (1998), Lorimer et al. lor97 (1997)). However, the pulsar velocity estimate can be further increased if one takes into account the transverse velocity of the scattering screen.

In the observer’s reference frame the scintillation velocity is connected with the pulsar (transverse or proper motion) velocity $`V_\mathrm{p}`$ by the following relationship (Gvaramadze 2001b ; cf. Gupta et al. gup94 (1994), Cordes & Rickett cor98 (1998)):

$`V_{\mathrm{iss}}`$ $`=`$ $`[x^2V_\mathrm{p}^22x(1+x)V_\mathrm{p}V_{\mathrm{scr},}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`(1+x)^2V_{\mathrm{scr},}^2+(1+x)^2V_{\mathrm{scr},}^2]^{1/2},`$
where $`V_{\mathrm{scr},}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{scr},}`$ are the components of the transverse velocity of the screen, correspondingly, parallel and perpendicular to the vector of the pulsar proper motion velocity. In (2) we neglected for simplicity contributions from the differential Galactic rotation and the Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun. If $`V_{\mathrm{scr}}=0`$ \[as assumed by Nicastro et al. (1996)\], one has $`V_\mathrm{p}=V_{\mathrm{iss}}/x62x^{1/2}D_{2.1}^{1/2}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^10`$ (note that $`x100`$). But, if $`V_{\mathrm{scr}}0`$, one can solve Eq. (2) for $`V_\mathrm{p}`$:

$$V_\mathrm{p}V_{\mathrm{scr},}\pm (V_{\mathrm{iss}}^2/x^2V_{\mathrm{scr},}^2)^{1/2}.$$

This solution is physically meaningful only for $`V_{\mathrm{scr},}V_{\mathrm{iss}}/x(0)`$, i.e. if the pulsar moves in the same direction and with nearly the same (transverse) velocity as does the part of the SNR responsible for the scattering of the pulsar: $`V_\mathrm{p}V_{\mathrm{scr},}`$.

Although the existing observational data do not allow us to estimate the expansion velocity of the bright arc, we can constrain it by setting an upper limit on the expansion velocity of the “half” of the SN blast wave propagating inside the cloud. This constraint can be derived from the non-detection of the soft (0.1–2.4 keV) X-ray emission from the SNR. For the column density towards the SNR of $`2510^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Becker et al. bec95 (1995)), the interstellar medium transmits essentially no X-ray emission with energies below 0.3 keV (e.g. Gorenstein & Tucker gor76 (1976)), therefore the expansion velocity of the blast wave is less than $`500\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. On the other hand, it is obvious that the former wind-driven shell lagging behind the blast wave (whose angular extent is about two times larger) expands at least two times more slowly. These arguments show that if the bright arc is the main scatterer of the pulsar’s radio emission, then the pulsar transverse velocity should indeed be less than $`V_{\mathrm{imp}}`$, though it could be as large as $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

### 3.4 Interaction between the pulsar and the SNR

We mentioned above that despite the apparent proximity of PSR B 1706$``$44 to the bright arc of the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 there are no morphological signatures of interaction between these two objects. This has given some authors a basis to question their association (Frail et al. 1994a ; see also Nicastro et al. nic96 (1996)). But this inconsistency can be easily removed if the SN exploded within a mushroom-like wind-driven cavity (Sect. 2.2).

### 3.5 Orientation of the pulsar proper motion vector

The proper motion vectors of neutron stars born in off-centred cavity SN explosions can be oriented arbitrarily with respect to the geometric centres of the associated SNRs (Gvaramadze gva02 (2002)); they can even be directed towards the geometric centres of the SNRs!222Perhaps exactly this situation takes place in the case of the pulsar PSR B 0656$+$14, which is moving approximately towards the centre of the SNR Monogem Ring (Thompson & Córdova tho94 (1994)). In Sect. 3.3 we showed that if the scintillations of PSR B 1706$``$44 are due mostly to the scattering in the turbulent material associated with the bright arc of SNR G 343.1$``$2.3, then the pulsar proper motion should be parallel to the expansion velocity of this material, i.e. the pulsar should move from the northeast to the southwest; this should be tested observationally.

### 3.6 On statistical studies of pulsar/SNR associations

Now we discuss the statistical argument against the association between PSR B 1706$``$44 and the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 mentioned by Nicastro et al. (nic96 (1996)). This argument is based on the result of a statistical study of pulsar/SNR associations by Gaensler & Johnston (gae95 (1995)), which suggests that young ($`<\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ yr) pulsars cannot overrun their parent SNR shells (we recall that the spin-down age of PSR B 1706$``$44 is $`\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}500}`$ yr). Although it is now clear that PSR B 1706$``$44 is located (at least in projection) well within the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 (Dodson et al. dod01 (2001)), it should be mentioned that Gaensler & Johnston (gae95 (1995)) did not consider two very important effects: modification of the ambient medium by the ionizing emission and stellar wind of massive stars (the progenitors of most SNe), and the proper motion of SN progenitor stars. Taking into account these two effects allows it to be shown that even a young pulsar moving with a moderate velocity ($`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) is able to escape the SNR’s shell, provided that it was born not far from the edge of the wind-driven bubble (Gvaramadze gva02 (2002)). Alternatively, the apparent location of a pulsar on the edge of a SNR’s shell can be due simply to the effect of projection in non-spherically-symmetric SNRs (see Fig. 1).

### 3.7 On the wind nebula around PSR B 1706$``$44

The large angular extent of the pulsar wind nebula was used by Frail et al. (1994a ) to consider an association between the pulsar and the SNR unlikely. Assuming that the pulsar moves (with a velocity of $`670\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) through the interstellar medium (of number density $`1\mathrm{cm}^3`$) and that the pulsar wind nebula is confined by the ram pressure of the ambient medium, they found that the characteristic radius of the nebula, $`r_{\mathrm{PWN}}`$, should be about two orders of magnitude less than observed. Based on this argument Frail et al. suggested that G 343.1$``$2.3 could be a background object, while PSR B 1706$``$44 could be a low-velocity pulsar. We agree with their last suggestion, but propose that the pulsar wind nebula is instead confined by the interaction with the hot, tenuous material which fills the interior of the SNR:

$$\frac{|\dot{E}|}{4\pi cr_{\mathrm{PWN}}^2}n(2kT+\mu m_\mathrm{H}v_\mathrm{p}^2),$$
(3)
where $`|\dot{E}|=3.4\times 10^{36}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is the pulsar spin-down luminosity, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`n`$ and $`T`$ are, respectively, the number density and the temperature inside the SNR, $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`\mu =1.3`$ is the mean molecular weight, $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom, and $`v_\mathrm{p}`$ is the full (i.e. three-dimensional) pulsar velocity. For $`r_{\mathrm{PWN}}0.9D_{2.1}^1`$ pc and $`v_\mathrm{p}200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and assuming that $`T10^7`$ K, one has from Eq. (3) a quite reasonable estimate for the number density, $`n=3.2\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Note that this estimate could be somewhat altered should the pulsar velocity have a significant radial component (a case not constrained by the considerations of this paper). For example, if $`v_\mathrm{p}=500\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, then one has $`n=1.4\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (i.e. also a reasonable value).

## 4 Conclusion

We have analyzed the available observational data on the pulsar PSR B 1706$``$44 and the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 and suggested that these objects could be the remnants of a SN which exploded within a mushroom-like cavity created by the SN progenitor wind breaking out of the parent molecular cloud. This accounts for the disparity between the measured and implied velocities of the pulsar. Our suggestion implies that in addition to the known bright “half” of the SNR G 343.1$``$2.3 there should exist a more extended and weaker component, so that the actual shape of G 343.1$``$2.3 is similar to that of the well-known SNR VRO 42.05.01. We have found such a component in archival radio data. Further observations, such as those discussed in Sect. 2.2, would be useful to confirm or reject the association between this component and the SNR G 343.1-2.3.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to R. Dodson for providing his manuscript in advance of publication, and to the referee (J. Cordes) for several useful suggestions. V.V. Gvaramadze is supported in part by the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD).


text:
# An H𝛼 nebula possibly associated with the central X–ray source in the G 266.1-1.2 supernova remnant

## 1 Introduction

The X–ray source AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 is a strong neutron star candidate, very likely associated with the shell-like supernova remnant G 266.1$``$1.2 (Aschenbach 1998). AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 was first seen with the ROSAT satellite (Aschenbach 1998, Aschenbach et al. 1999) and subsequently studied with ASCA (Slane et al. 2001) and BeppoSAX (Mereghetti 2001). Its location, very close to the geometrical center of G 266.1$``$1.2 , suggested an association with this young remnant, but the situation was complicated by the presence of two early type stars (HD 76060 and Wray 16-30) that might have been responsible for the observed X–rays from AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 , as well as by the presence of other X–ray sources in the vicinity (Mereghetti 2001).

The picture was finally clarified thanks to the accurate localization obtained with the Chandra satellite (Pavlov et al. 2001). The absence of any optical counterparts at the Chandra position, down to magnitudes B$``$22.5 and R$``$21, implies a very high X–ray to optical flux ratio, consistent with an isolated neutron star. The soft spectrum of AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 , well described by a blackbody with $`kT`$$`{}_{\mathrm{BB}}{}^{}`$0.4 keV, is similar to that of other compact X–ray sources found in supernova remnants, such as, e.g., CasA (Mereghetti, Tiengo & Israel 2002) and G 296.5+10.0 (Pavlov et al. 2002). For an assumed distance of 1 kpc the X–ray luminosity of AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 is $``$1032$``$1033 erg s-1. No pulsations have been detected so far.

Here we present optical images of the central region of G 266.1$``$1.2 showing the presence of a small H$`\alpha `$ nebula at the position of AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 .

## 2 Observations

We obtained images of the central part of G 266.1$``$1.2 from the public archive of the European Southern Observatory (ESO). The data were acquired with the Wide Field Imager (WFI) at the 2.2-m MPG telescope at La Silla. They consist of 5 min long exposures in the R, B and H$`\alpha `$ filters taken on 2001 January 5.

To derive a photometric calibration we used the R and B band magnitudes of several field stars as reported in the USNO A-2 and GSC II catalogs (excluding objects with discrepant values). We found that the star closest to the error circle of AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 (star Z of Pavlov et al. 2001) has magnitudes B$``$19 and R$``$17, in agreement with the estimate of these authors. The limiting magnitudes of the ESO WFI images are B$``$23 and R$``$22. No objects are visible in the Chandra error region in these two bands.

The image in the H$`\alpha `$ filter shows, besides a remarkable nebula probably associated to the B\[e\] star Wray 16–30 (Th$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$, de Winter & P$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$rez 1994), the possible presence of a slightly extended faint source at a position compatible with that of AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 .

The reality of such a source is confirmed by the deeper images obtained with the UK Schmidt Telescope (UKST) at the Anglo-Australian Observatory as part of the H$`\alpha `$ survey of the Southern Galactic Plane and Magellanic Clouds (SHS, Parker & Phillipps 1998). This survey consists of long exposures (3 hr) in the H$`\alpha `$ filter and contemporaneous 15 min Short-Red (SR) broad-band exposures. These plates, digitised with the SuperCOSMOS facility (Hambly et al. 2001), provide an unprecedented combination of coverage (6.5$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$6.5), resolution ($``$1′′) and sensitivity (5$`\times 10^{17}`$ erg cm-2 arcsec-2 s-1). A region 111The data were kindly provided to us before public release by Mike Read, Institute for Astronomy, Edinburgh, UK of $``$0.8$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 1.2^{}`$ around the position of AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 is shown in Fig. 1. These data clearly show a roughly circular nebula with diameter $`\theta `$$``$6′′ at the position of the X–ray source. Such a nebula is only visible in the H$`\alpha `$ filter, while it is not detected in the R band plates. All the diffuse H$`\alpha `$ emission is well highlighted in Fig. 2, which shows the ratio of the H$`\alpha `$ and R images. The nebula, labeled with A, is coincident with the X–ray source and appears well separated from all the other diffuse features permeating this region.

We have derived the R$``$H$`\alpha `$ color of a number of stars and of diffuse features also visible in the R image. There is some evidence that nebula A has a higher value of R$``$H$`\alpha `$ ($`\text{ }>`$4) than other diffuse features of comparable H$`\alpha `$ brightness.

Unfortunately, at this stage, the SHS on-line survey does not provide a photometric calibration. To estimate the flux of nebula A, we performed a rough calibration of the H$`\alpha `$ image as follows. We first computed the H$`\alpha `$ fluxes corresponding to the R magnitudes of a sample of GSC II stars present in our image, assuming blackbody spectra with the appropriate stellar temperatures. We then derived the relation between the instrumental magnitudes and the H$`\alpha `$ fluxes. This relation was found to have a small dispersion and allowed us to transform the instrumental H$`\alpha `$ magnitude $``$11.8$`\pm `$0.2 of nebula A to a flux of $``$(1$`\pm `$0.2) $`\times 10^2`$ photons cm-2 s-1 in the H$`\alpha `$ line.

## 3 Discussion

“Balmer line-dominated” nebulae have been detected close to four radio pulsars and to the radio-quiet neutron star RX J1856.5$``$3754 (see, e.g., Chatterjee & Cordes 2002, and references therein). Such nebulae, typically characterized by an arc-shaped or by a “cometary” morphology, can be explained as bow-shocks in the ambient gas produced by the hypersonic motion of a neutron star with a strong relativistic wind. In this model, the expected H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is proportional to the neutron star velocity $`v`$, the rotational energy loss $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$, and the fraction $`X`$ of neutral hydrogen in the interstellar medium:

$$L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }v\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}X(1)$$

We have plotted in Fig. 3 the luminosity of the known H$`\alpha `$ nebulae associated to neutron stars versus the quantity $`v\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$. The sizes of the rectangles reflect the possible range of velocities allowed by the measurements and/or limits on proper motion, distance, and angle $`i`$ between the pulsar velocity and the line of sight available in the literature (see Table 1 for details). After accounting for different plausible values of $`X`$ in the range 0.01–1, these data are well explained by relation (1), with the normalization factor derived by Cordes, Romani & Lundgren (1993) (dashed lines). The only exception is RX J1856.5$``$3754 for which the period is unknown and therefore the $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ estimate is uncertain.

We have also indicated in Fig. 3 the luminosity of nebula A, for assumed distances in the 0.5–2 kpc range (solid lines). It can be seen that an explanation in terms of the bow-shock scenario is, at least energetically, possible. In this hypothesis, we can derive limits on $`v`$ and $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ as a function of the assumed values of distance and $`X`$. Considering the small displacement from the SNR center ($`\text{ }<`$10) and the lack of evidence for a high value of $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ (e.g. a bright X–ray or radio synchrotron nebula), we are led to the conclusion that a relatively small distance is favored, unless the neutron star velocity is close to the line of sight direction (see Pellizzoni et al. 2002 for more details).

In an alternative interpretation, the nebular H$`\alpha `$ emission might be produced by photo-ionisation and heating of the ambient gas by the extreme-ultraviolet radiation of the neutron star. Such photo-ionisation nebulae were predicted to exist around rapidly moving, hot neutron stars by Blaes et al. (1995). Van Kerkwiijk & Kulkarni (2001) proposed that this model could be responsible for the nebula associated to the nearby neutron star RXJ1856.5-3754. Following these authors, considering a pure hydrogen gas nebula and a ionised fraction $`X`$$``$50% for the emitting region, we find that the blackbody emission with $`kT`$$``$0.4 keV from AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 leads to a gas temperature $`10^5`$ K due to heating by photo-ionisation. This implies plasma emission dominated by collisional excitation, with an expected H$`\alpha `$ photon rate, integrated over the whole emitting region, given by:

$$F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }\frac{VX(1X)n_\mathrm{H}^2q}{4\pi D^2}(2)$$

where $`V`$$``$($`\theta `$$`D`$)3 is the emitting volume and $`q`$ is the rate of collisional excitations (Osterbrock 1989; Anderson et al. 2000; van Kerkwijk & Kulkarni 2001). For $`X`$=0.5 and $`q`$=3.7$`\times 10^{10}`$ cm3 s-1, appropriate for $`T`$=105 K, we find that the density required to match the observed photon rate of $``$10-2 ph cm-2 s-1 is $`n`$$`{}_{\mathrm{H}}{}^{}`$5 $`D`$$`{}_{}{}^{0.5}{}_{\mathrm{kpc}}{}^{}`$ cm-3. Therefore, reasonable density values ($`<`$5 cm-3) can only be obtained for $`D`$$`>`$1 kpc.

## 4 Conclusions

We have discovered a faint ($``$10-2 ph cm-2 s-1) H$`\alpha `$ nebula positionally coincident with the point-like X–ray source AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 , which is thought to be the compact remnant associated to SNR G 266.1$``$1.2. Although this region contains several diffuse H$`\alpha `$ features, the positional coincidence and the possible evidence for a peculiar color, compatible with a pure Balmer emission line spectrum, suggest a relation between the H$`\alpha `$ nebula A and the putative neutron star. In fact, although the lack of a period and spin-down measurement for AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 make the energetics somewhat uncertain, we have shown that the luminosity of the nebula is compatible with the predictions of the two models which have been invoked to explain a few H$`\alpha `$ nebulae associated to different kinds of neutron stars.

Different distances are favored by the two scenarios. The model based on photo-ionization suggests a distance greater than $``$1 kpc, consistent with that inferred from X–ray absorption in the G 266.1$``$1.2 SNR (Mereghetti & Pellizzoni 2001). In the case of a bow-shock nebula, the most likely distance is smaller than $``$0.5 kpc, due to the presumably small value of $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ and the lack of evidence for a high transverse velocity for the neutron star. Of course we cannot exclude a greater distance in the bow-shock scenario if the neutron star has a high velocity close to the direction of the line of sight. Although this might be consistent with the circular symmetry of the nebula, we note that the chance probability for, e.g., $`i<10^{}`$ is only $``$7%.

More detailed investigations are required to confirm the proposed association between nebula A and AX J0851.9$``$4617.4 and eventually to discriminate between the two possible mechanisms. In particular, deeper imaging with high resolution can provide information on the shape of the nebula, while high-resolution spectroscopy is needed to measure the width of the H$`\alpha `$ line. In the bow-shock model one should see a major fraction of the emission with velocity widths comparable to the shock velocity, larger than that of the narrow lines expected in the photo-ionisation model with thermal velocities $`\text{ }<40`$ km s-1 (Raymond 1991).

###### Acknowledgements.

We used public data obtained from the ESO/ST-ECF Science Archive Facility. SuperCOSMOS facility and AAO/UKST survey staff (in particular, Mike Read and Nigel Hambly) kindly provided us prompt technical assitance to analyse data.