format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

IFT-02/33

Explicit seesaw model and deformed fermion universality***Work supported in part by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN), grant 5 P03B 119 20 (2001–2002).

Wojciech Królikowski

Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University

Hoża 69, PL–00–681 Warszawa, Poland

Abstract

In the simple model of neutrino texture presented in this paper, the Majorana lefthanded mass matrix is zero, the Majorana righthanded mass matrix — diagonal and degenerate, and the Dirac mass matrix has a hierarchical structure, deformed unitarily by nearly bimaximal mixing. In the case, when the Majorana righthanded term dominates over the Dirac term, the familiar seesaw mechanism leads effectively to the nearly bimaximal oscillations of active neutrinos, consistent with solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments. If the Dirac term, before its unitary deformation, is similar in shape to the known charged-lepton mass matrix, then parameters for solar $`\nu _e`$’s and atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s become related to each other, predicting from the SuperKamiokande value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ a tiny $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ typical for MSW LOW solar solution rather than for MSW Large Mixing Angle solution. The predicted mass spectrum is then hierarchical. In Appendix a suggestive form of nearly bimaximal effective mass matrix is derived.

PACS numbers: 12.15.Ff , 14.60.Pq , 12.15.Hh .

August 2002

1. Introduction. The popular, nearly bimaximal form of mixing matrix for three active neutrinos $`\nu _{eL}`$, $`\nu _{\mu L}`$, $`\nu _{\tau L}`$ ,

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}c_{23}& c_{12}c_{23}& s_{23}\\ s_{12}s_{23}& c_{12}s_{23}& c_{23}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
arises from its generic shape à la Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa  by putting $`s_{13}=0`$ and $`c_{12},s_{12},c_{23},s_{23}`$ not so far from $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ ($`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$). As is well known, this form is globally consistent with neutrino oscillation experiments  for solar $`\nu _e`$’s and atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s as well as with the negative Chooz experiment for reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s. It cannot explain, however, the possible LSND effect for accelerator $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$’s that, if confirmed by the MiniBooNE experiment, may require the existence of one, at least, extra (sterile) light neutrino $`\nu _{sL}`$ (different, in general, from the conventional sterile neutrinos $`(\nu _{eR})^c,(\nu _{\mu R})^c,(\nu _{\tau R})^c`$).

The neutrino mixing matrix $`U=\left(U_{\alpha i}\right)`$ defines the unitary transformation

$$\nu _{\alpha L}=\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}\nu _{iL}$$
(2)
between the active-neutrino flavor and mass fields, $`\nu _{\alpha L}(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$ and $`\nu _{iL}(i=1,2,3)`$, respectively. In the flavor representation, where the charged-lepton mass matrix is diagonal, it is at the same time the diagonalizing matrix for the neutrino mass matrix $`M=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$,

$$U^{}MU=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(3)
where $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ denote neutrino masses (real numbers). Two possible Majorana phases in $`M`$ are assumed to be zero. Then,

$$M=U\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U^{},$$
(4)
leading in the case of form (1) of $`U`$ to the following mass matrix elements:

$`M_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`m_1c_{12}^2+m_2s_{12}^2,`$
$`M_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2)c_{23}^2+m_3s_{23}^2,`$
$`M_{\tau \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2)s_{23}^2+m_3c_{23}^2,`$
$`M_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1m_2)c_{12}s_{12}c_{23}=M_{\mu e},`$
$`M_{e\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1m_2)c_{12}s_{12}s_{23}=M_{\tau e},`$
$`M_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2m_3)c_{23}s_{23}=M_{\tau \mu }.`$ (5)
Here, $`M^{}=M`$ and $`M^T=M`$.

For the nearly bimaximal form (1) of $`U`$ the following popular neutrino oscillation probabilities hold (in the vacuum):

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{\mathrm{sol}}`$ $`=`$ $`1(2c_{12}s_{12})^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{21})_{\mathrm{sol}},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $`=`$ $`1(2c_{23}s_{23})^2[s_{12}^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{31})_{\mathrm{atm}}+c_{12}^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{32})_{\mathrm{atm}}]`$
$``$ $`1(2c_{23}s_{23})^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{32})_{\mathrm{atm}},`$
$`P(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{LSND}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2c_{12}s_{12})^2c_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{21})_{\mathrm{LSND}}0,`$
$`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{Chooz}}`$ $`=`$ $`1(2c_{12}s_{12})^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{21})_{\mathrm{Chooz}}1,`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and

$$x_{ji}=1.27\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2L}{E},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2=m_j^2m_i^2(i,j=1,2,3)$$
(7)
($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2`$, $`L`$ and $`E`$ are measured in eV2, km and GeV, respectively). Here, $`U^{}=U`$ and $`U^T=U^{}=U^1`$, thus the possible CP violation in neutrino oscillations is ignored. The fourth of these formulae is consistent with the negative Chooz experiment and the third excludes the LSND effect.

Experimental estimations for solar $`\nu _e`$’s and atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s, based on the MSW versions of the first and second formulae (6), are $`\theta _{12}(33^{}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}40}^{})`$, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|(5.5\times 10^5`$ or $`7.3\times 10^8)\mathrm{eV}^2`$  and $`\theta _{23}45^{}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|2.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ , respectively. For solar $`\nu _e`$’s they correspond to the MSW Large Mixing Angle solution or MSW LOW solution, respectively, of which the first is favored. The mixing angles $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$ give $`c_{12}(1.2/\sqrt{2}`$ or $`1.1/\sqrt{2})`$, $`s_{12}(0.77/\sqrt{2}`$ or $`0.91/\sqrt{2})`$ and $`c_{23}1/\sqrt{2}s_{23}`$. The mass-squared differences are hierarchical, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$, while the mass spectrum may be either hierarchical, $`m_1^2<m_2^2m_3^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2m_3^2`$, or nearly degenerate, $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2m_2^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2m_3^2`$ (here, the ordering $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2`$ is used). If $`m_10`$, then the option of hierarchical spectrum is true \[in spite of nearly bimaximal neutrino mixing expressed by Eq. (1)\]. The possibility of $`m_10`$ is suggested in Section 4.

The rate of neutrinoless double $`\beta `$ decay (allowed only in the case of Majorana-type $`\nu _{eL}`$) is proportional to $`m_{ee}^2`$, where $`m_{ee}|_iU_{ei}^2m_i|=c_{12}^2|m_1|+s_{12}^2|m_2|(0.70|m_1|+0.30|m_2|`$ or $`0.59|m_1|+0.41|m_2|)`$ and so $`|m_1|m_{ee}|m_2|`$ (in our argument $`U_{e3}=0`$ exactly). The suggested experimental upper limit for $`m_{ee}`$ is $`m_{ee}\stackrel{<}{}(0.351)`$ eV . If the actual $`m_{ee}`$ lay near its upper limit, then the option of nearly degenerate spectrum (with hierarchical mass-squared differences) would be suggested.

2. Four-parameter nearly bimaximal texture. In consistency with the SuperKamiokande data  we can put $`c_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}=s_{23}`$. Then, in the neutrino mixing and mass matrices, (1) and (4), there are only four independent parameters $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ and $`s_{12}`$ leading through Eqs. (5) to four independent matrix elements

$`M_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`m_1c_{12}^2+m_2s_{12}^2,`$
$`M_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\tau \tau }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2+m_3),`$
$`M_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{e\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(m_1m_2)c_{12}s_{12},`$
$`M_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2m_3).`$ (8)
Hence, $`M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau }=m_1+m_2`$, $`M_{ee}M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau }=(m_1m_2)(c_{12}^2s_{12}^2)`$ and $`(M_{ee}M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau })^2+8M_{e\mu }^2=(m_1m_2)^2`$.

In this case, the neutrino mass spectrum and mixing can be expressed by four independent parameters . Taking as the independent parameters the matrix elements (8) we obtain exactly :

$`m_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1+m_2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|m_1m_2|}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau }}{2}}\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{ee}M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau }}{2}}\right)^2+2M_{e\mu }^2},`$
$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau },`$ (9)
if $`m_2m_10`$ (both for positive or negative $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$). Signs $``$ are replaced here by $`\pm `$, if $`m_1m_20`$. For the mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$ we get

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=(2c_{12}s_{12})^2=\frac{8M_{e\mu }^2}{(M_{ee}M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau })^2+8M_{e\mu }^2},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}>0`$ if $`c_{12}s_{12}>0`$. The formulae (9) and (10) provide us with an inversion of Eqs. (8). At the end of Section 5 we come back to these formulae.

3. Explicit seesaw. Assume now that $`M`$ is the effective neutrino Majorana mass matrix for active neutrinos, arising by means of the familiar seesaw mechanism  from the generic $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mass term

$$_{\mathrm{mass}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}(\overline{(\nu _{\alpha L})^c},\overline{\nu _{\alpha R}})\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\alpha \beta }^{(L)}& M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D)}\\ M_{\beta \alpha }^{(D)}& M_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\beta L}\\ (\nu _{\beta R})^c\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(11)
including both the active neutrinos $`\nu _{\alpha L}`$ and $`(\nu _{\alpha L})^c`$ as well as the (conventional) sterile neutrinos $`\nu _{\alpha R}`$ and $`(\nu _{\alpha R})^c(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$. In the seesaw case, the Majorana righthanded mass matrix $`M^{(R)}=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}\right)`$ is presumed to dominate over the Dirac mass matrix $`M^{(D)}=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D)}\right)`$ that in turn dominates over the Majorana lefthanded mass matrix $`M^{(L)}=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }^{(L)}\right)`$ which is expected naturally to be zero (as violating the electroweak gauge symmetry in a nonrenormalizable way in the doublet Higgs case). Then, in the seesaw approximation

$$M=M^{(D)}M^{(R)1}M^{(D)T}.$$
(12)
Hence, through Eq. (4) we infer that

$$M^{(D)}M^{(R)1}M^{(D)T}=U\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U^{}$$
(13)
with $`U`$ as given in Eq. (1).

The seesaw formula (13) gets an explicit realization in the simple model of neutrino texture, where we postulate that

$$M^{(L)}=0,M^{(D)}=U\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)U^{},M^{(R)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)$$
(14)
and then infer that

$$m_i=\pm \frac{\lambda _i^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(i=1,2,3),$$
(15)
respectively, $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being massdimensional parameters, such that $`0\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, in this model, $`M^{(D)}`$ is a unitary transform (through the nearly bimaximal mixing matrix $`U`$) of the diagonal, potentially hierarchical matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$, while $`M^{(R)}`$ is a diagonal, degenerate matrix. In a slightly more general model, $`M^{(R)}`$ may be also a unitary transform (through the same $`U`$) of the diagonal, nearly degenerate matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_3)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ (what is natural for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$); then $`m_i=\pm \lambda _i^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, where $`0\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(i=1,2,3)`$. From the first Eq. (14) and Eq. (1) the Dirac mass matrix $`M^{(D)}=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D)}\right)`$ gets analogical entries as those given in Eqs. (5) for $`M=(M_{\alpha \beta })`$, but with $`m_i`$ replaced now by $`\lambda _i=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }|m_i|}(i=1,2,3)`$, where also Eqs. (15) are used.

We should like to stress that, in the present paper \[in particular, in its part pertaining to the simple neutrino model defined through Eq. (14)\], the nearly bimaximal mixing matrix $`U`$ given in Eq. (1) is adopted phenomenologically on the ground of neutrino oscillation data, and so, is by no means derived theoretically. One may speculate that, perhaps, such a derivation would require some new, additional concepts about the nature of connections between neutrinos and charged leptons. The idea of deformed fermion universality presented in the next Section (and, in our opinion, very natural) does not help to explain the experimental appearance of nearly bimaximal neutrino mixing, though this idea coexists nicely with such a mixing (in spite of the hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum implied by it), since the form (5) of $`M`$ is consistent with $`U`$ given in Eq. (1) for any mass spectrum. However, if the form of $`M`$ could be accepted as natural because of some theoretical reasons, then the nearly bimaximal mixing matrix $`U`$ implied by such an $`M`$ might also be considered as justified theoretically. In Appendix, we rewrite $`M`$, given as in Eq. (8) with $`c_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}=s_{23}`$, in a suggestive form that may help to accept it as the neutrino effective mass matrix.

4. Deformed fermion universality.We find very natural the idea that in the first Eq. (14) the original Dirac mass matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$, before it gets its actual form $`M^{(D)}`$ deformed unitarily by the nearly bimaximal mixing matrix $`U`$, is similar in shape to the charged-lepton and quark mass matrices which are also of the Dirac type. To proceed a bit further with this idea we will try to conjecture that $`\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ has a shape analoguous to the following charged-lepton mass matrix :

$$M^{(e)}=\frac{1}{29}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mu ^{(e)}\epsilon ^{(e)}& 0& 0\\ 0& 4\mu ^{(e)}(80+\epsilon ^{(e)})/9& 0\\ 0& 0& 24\mu ^{(e)}(624+\epsilon ^{(e)})/25\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
which predicts accurately the mass $`m_\tau =M_{\tau \tau }^{(e)}`$ from the experimental values of masses $`m_e=M_{ee}^{(e)}`$ and $`m_\mu =M_{\mu \mu }^{(e)}`$ treated as an input. In fact, we get $`m_\tau =1776.80`$ MeV  versus $`m_\tau ^{\mathrm{exp}}=1777.03_{0.26}^{+0.30}`$ MeV  and, in addition, determine $`\mu ^{(e)}=85.9924`$ MeV and $`\epsilon ^{(e)}=0.172329`$. For a theoretical background of this particular form of $`M^{(e)}`$ the interested reader may consult Ref. . Let us emphasize that the figures in the mass matrix (16) are not fitted ad usum Delphini.

Thus, making use of the neutrino analogue $`M^{(\nu )}`$ of $`M^{(e)}`$ given in Eq. (16), we put $`\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)=M^{(\nu )}`$.Then ,

$`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }|m_1|}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{(\nu )}}{29}}\epsilon ^{(\nu )}=0.0345\epsilon ^{(\nu )}\mu ^{(\nu )},`$
$`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }|m_2|}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _2={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{(\nu )}}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{4(80+\epsilon ^{(\nu )})}{9}}=\left(1.23+0.0153\epsilon ^{(\nu )}\right)\mu ^{(\nu )},`$
$`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }|m_3|}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _3={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{(\nu )}}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{24(624+\epsilon ^{(\nu )})}{25}}=\left(20.7+0.0331\epsilon ^{(\nu )}\right)\mu ^{(\nu )},`$ (17)
where also Eqs. (15) are invoked. Hence, taking $`\epsilon ^{(\nu )}=0`$ (already $`\epsilon ^{(e)}`$ is small), we calculate

$$m_1^2=0,m_2^2=2.26\frac{\mu ^{(\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},m_3^2=1.82\times 10^5\frac{\mu ^{(\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}$$
(18)
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=m_2^2=2.26{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{(\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=m_3^2m_2^2=1.82\times 10^5{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{(\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.24\times 10^5.`$ (19)
The neutrino mass spectrum described by Eqs. (18) is hierarchical, $`m_1^2<m_2^2m_3^2`$, in spite of the appearance of nearly bimaximal neutrino mixing. Using in the second Eq. (19) the SuperKamiokande estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^22.7\times 10^3\mathrm{MeV}^2`$ , we get

$$\mu ^{(\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}1.2\times 10^4\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eV}.$$
(20)
If taking reasonably $`\mu ^{(\nu )}\stackrel{<}{}\mu ^{(e)}=85.9924`$ MeV, we obtain from Eq. (20) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.1}\times 10^{10}`$ GeV. If $`\epsilon ^{(\nu )}\epsilon ^{(e)}=0.172329`$ (i.e, not necessarily $`\epsilon ^{(\nu )}=0`$), then $`m_1^2/m_3^26.81\times 10^{15}`$ from Eq. (17) and so, with $`m_3^22.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ we estimate $`m_1^2\stackrel{<}{}1.8\times 10^{17}\mathrm{eV}^2`$, thus $`m_1^2=0`$ practically.

5. Conclusions. From the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ in Eq. (19) and the estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^22.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ we obtain the prediction

$$m_2^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^23.3\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2$$
(21)
which lies not so far from the experimental estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^27.3\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$ based on the MSW LOW solar solution , whereas the favored experimental estimation based on the MSW Large Mixing Angle solar solution is much larger: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^25.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$. So, if really true, the latter excludes drastically our conjecture (17). Otherwise, this conjecture might be a significant step forwards in our understanding of neutrino texture, in particular, of the question of fermion universality extended to neutrinos.

If the prediction $`m_1^2=0`$, $`m_2^23.3\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`m_3^22.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ were true, then our previous estimate $`m_{ee}0.59|m_1|+0.41|m_2|`$ of the effective mass of $`\nu _e`$ in the neutrinoless double $`\beta `$ decay would give $`m_{ee}7.5\times 10^5`$ eV, dramatically below the presently suggested experimental upper limit $`m_{ee}\stackrel{<}{}`$ (0.35 – 1) eV  (recall, however, that in our argument $`U_{e3}=0`$ exactly). In this case, the option of hierarchical mass spectrum, $`m_1^2<m_2^2m_3^2`$, would be true. This would be true also for $`m_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^25.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$.

When $`m_1=0`$ (as in the case of our conjecture (17) with $`\epsilon ^{(\nu )}=0`$), the four parameters in the mass formula (9) can be related to three independent parameters $`M_{ee}`$, $`M_{\mu \mu }`$ and $`M_{\mu \tau }`$, since in this case the first Eq. (9) gives

$$M_{e\mu }^2=\frac{1}{2}M_{ee}(M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau }).$$
(22)
Then, from the second and third Eq. (9) we obtain

$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau }\pm 1.8\times 10^4\mathrm{eV},`$
$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau }\pm 5.2\times 10^2\mathrm{eV},`$ (23)
where we use also the estimates $`m_2^23.3\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`m_3^22.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. Here, as already in Eqs (9) and (15), we allow for positive or negative neutrino masses. Similarly, when $`m_1=0`$, the formula (10) gives

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=\frac{4M_{ee}(M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau })}{(M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau })^2}(0.84\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}0.97})$$
(24)
due to Eq. (22), where also the estimate $`\theta _{12}(33^{}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}40}^{})`$ is used. Hence, $`s_{12}^2=M_{ee}/(M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau })`$ and $`c_{12}^2=(M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau })/(M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau })`$.

We can see from Eqs (15) and (23) that for $`m_1=0`$

$`\lambda _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\lambda _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }(M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau })1.8\times 10^4\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eV},`$
$`\lambda _3^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau })5.2\times 10^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eV},`$ (25)
where $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are mass parameters introduced in Eqs. (14). In our simple neutrino model defined through Eqs. (14), where $`M^{(R)}`$ is diagonal and degenerate, the formulae (25) express for $`m_1=0`$ the seesaw relationship $`M^{(D)}M^{(D)T}=M^{(R)}M`$, equivalent to Eq. (12) (as $`M^{(R)1}`$ and $`M^{(D)}`$ commute).

Finally, let us mention that if, instead of the model of neutrino texture defined in Eqs. (14), we had

$$M^{(L)}=\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1),M^{(D)}=U\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)U^{},M^{(R)}=0,$$
(26)
then under the assumption of $`0\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we would obtain for active neutrinos the effective mass matrix of the form

$$M=M^{(L)}+M^{(D)}M^{(L)1}M^{(D)T}=U\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)U^{}$$
(27)
with the nearly degenerate mass spectrum $`m_i=\pm (\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda _i^2/\mathrm{\Lambda })(i=1,2,3)`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _i`$, but much less dramatically than in the seesaw mechanism working in Eqs. (14). In this case, when making the conjecture of deformed fermion universality as it is expressed in Eqs. (17), we would predict $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ of the order $`10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, not very far from the favored experimental estimate $`5.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ based on the MSW Large Mixing Angle solar solution (now, $`m^{(\nu )2}3.2\times 10^6\mathrm{eV}^2`$). The nonzero $`M^{(L)}`$ given in Eqs. (26) would not be justified, however, in the doublet Higgs case, since it would violate the electroweak gauge symmetry in a nonrenormalizable way (though, possibly, spontaneously). In the case of the model (26), oscillations between and into the (conventional) sterile neutrinos $`(\nu _{eR})^c,(\nu _{\mu R})^c,(\nu _{\tau R})^c`$ would be negligible as $`(\lambda _i/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$. For these sterile neutrinos the effective mass matrix would be $`M^{(D)}M^{(L)1}M^{(D)T}`$, implying the mass spectrum $`\lambda _i^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Appendix

A suggestive form of effective neutrino mass matrix

The neutrino spectrum (9), valid when $`c_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}=s_{23}`$, can be rewritten in the case of $`0m_1<m_2`$ in the form

$$m_{1,2}=\stackrel{0}{m}\delta ,m_3=\stackrel{0}{m}+\mathrm{\Delta },$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.1)`$
where

$`0<\stackrel{0}{m}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }M_{\mu \tau }}{2}},`$
$`0<\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{ee}M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau }}{2}}\right)^2+2M_{e\mu }^2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau }\stackrel{0}{m}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{ee}+M_{\mu \mu }+3M_{\mu \tau }}{2}}.`$
(A.2)

Then, Eqs. (8) give

$`M_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{0}{m}\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12},`$
$`M_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\tau \tau }=\stackrel{0}{m}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12},`$
$`M_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{e\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\delta \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12},`$
$`M_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}.`$
(A.3)

Thus, with the use of Eqs. (A.3), the effective mass matrix $`M=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$ may be preseneted as follows:

$$M=\stackrel{0}{m}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right)+\delta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.4)`$
where three component matrices commute with each other (the products in two orderings of the second and third matrix vanish). Using the nearly bimaximal mixing matrix $`U`$ defined in Eq. (1), now in the form

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}s_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}c_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}s_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}c_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.5)`$
with $`c_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}=s_{23}`$, we obtain

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& m_2& 0\\ 0& 0& m_3\end{array}\right)=U^{}MU=\stackrel{0}{m}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\delta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.6)`$
consistently with Eq. (A.1). Naturally, the mass matrix $`M`$ determines its diagonalizing matrix $`U`$ and the mass spectrum $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ (here, the mixing matrix is at the same time the diagonalizing matrix).

The form (A.4) of the effective neutrino mass matrix clearly suggests the full democracy of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos, and of their interactions with $`\nu _e`$ neutrino. These interactions are described by the third component matrix that becomes

$$\delta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.7)`$
for $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}`$. Correspondingly, Eq. (A.5) and the formula $`\nu _i=_\alpha U_{\alpha i}^{}\nu _\alpha `$, inverse to Eq. (2), express the full democracy of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, and of their mixings with $`\nu _e`$, leading to

$`\nu _1`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}\nu _es_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}},`$
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`s_{12}\nu _e+c_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}},`$
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}`$
(A.8)

or

$`\nu _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\nu _e{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}\right),`$
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\nu _e+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}\right),`$
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}`$
(A.9)

for $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}`$. In this limit there are two maximal mixings: $`\nu _\mu `$ with $`\nu _\tau `$ into the superpositions $`(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\nu _e`$ with $`(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )/\sqrt{2}`$ into $`[\nu _e(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )/\sqrt{2}]/\sqrt{2}`$. The above interpretation of $`M`$ given in Eq. (A.4) is independent of the values of $`\stackrel{0}{m},\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Making use of the mass-squared differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=m_2^2m_1^2=4\stackrel{0}{m}\delta ,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=m_3^2m_2^2=2\stackrel{0}{m}(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta )+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\delta ^2$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.10)`$
following from Eq. (A.1), we can write for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$

$$\delta =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}{4\stackrel{0}{m}},\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{0}{m}+\sqrt{(\stackrel{0}{m}+\delta )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}.$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.11)`$
Let us consider two extremal options: (i) $`\delta \stackrel{0}{m}<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\stackrel{0}{m}\delta \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}/2`$ due to the first Eq. (A.11) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{0}{m}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}`$ from the second and first Eqs. (A.11), and (ii) $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{0}{m}`$, where $`\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/4\stackrel{0}{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta +\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2/2\stackrel{0}{m}`$ from Eqs (A.11). Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ from the experiment.

In the option (i), taking the experimental estimates $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2(5.5\times 10^5`$ or $`7.3\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^22.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, we obtain

$$\stackrel{0}{m}\delta \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}(3.7\times 10^3\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.4}\times 10^4)\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}\stackrel{0}{m}(4.8\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.2})\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.12)`$
and hence, the mass spectrum

$$m_10,m_22\stackrel{0}{m}(7.4\times 10^3\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.7}\times 10^4)\mathrm{eV},m_3=\stackrel{0}{m}+\mathrm{\Delta }5.2\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.13)`$
that is hierarchical, $`0m_1^2<m_2^2m_3^2`$ \[here, $`m_2^2/m_3^2(2.0\times 10^2`$ or $`2.7\times 10^5`$)\].

In the option (ii), with the same estimates for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ we get

$$\delta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}{4\stackrel{0}{m}}(1.4\times 10^5\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.8}\times 10^8)\frac{\mathrm{eV}^2}{\stackrel{0}{m}},\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}{2\stackrel{0}{m}}1.4\times 10^3\frac{\mathrm{eV}^2}{\stackrel{0}{m}}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.14)`$
and then, the mass spectrum

$$m_1\stackrel{0}{m},m_2\stackrel{0}{m},m_3=\stackrel{0}{m}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{0}{m}+1.4\times 10^3\frac{\mathrm{eV}^2}{\stackrel{0}{m}}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.15)`$
which is nearly degenerate, $`\stackrel{0}{m}m_1m_2m_3`$, if $`\stackrel{0}{m}1.4\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2/\stackrel{0}{m}`$ (in this case, also $`\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{0}{m}}m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2`$, of course). For instance, if $`\stackrel{0}{m}1`$ eV, then $`\delta (1.4\times 10^5`$ or $`1.8\times 10^8`$) eV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }1.4\times 10^3`$ eV, so that $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{0}{m}`$.

The conjecture of deformed fermion universality, discussed in Section 4 and concluded in Section 5, may work in the case of option (i) (though it is not obligatory), but it cannot be applied in the case of option (ii).

When applying to the option (i) the conjecture of deformed fermion universality (with $`\epsilon ^{(\nu )}=0`$) and making use of the estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^22.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^23.3\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$, Eq. (21), we obtain

$$\stackrel{0}{m}=\delta =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}0.91\times 10^4\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}\stackrel{0}{m}5.2\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.16)`$
in place of Eq. (A.12). This new value for $`\stackrel{0}{m}=\delta `$ is a prediction lying not so far from the former value $`1.4\times 10^4`$ eV of $`\stackrel{0}{m}=\delta `$ following from the estimation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^27.3\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$ based on the MSW LOW solar solution. Then,

$$m_1=0,m_2=2\stackrel{0}{m}1.8\times 10^4\mathrm{eV},m_3=\stackrel{0}{m}+\mathrm{\Delta }5.2\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.17)`$
in place of Eq. (A.13).

References

 Cf. e.g. Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D 61, 057301 (2000); and references therein.

 Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, 870 (1962).

 For a recent review cf. M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and Y. Nir, hep--ph/0202056; and references therein.

 V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant and B.P. Wood, hep--ph/0204253; J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez–Garcia and C. Peña–Garay, hep--ph/0204314v2; G.L. Fogli et al., hep-ph/0208026; and references therein.

 S. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3999 (2000).

 Cf. e.g. M. Frigerio and A.Yu. Smirnov, hep--ph/0202247; and references therein.

 W. Królikowski, hep-ph/0007255.

 E. Ma, hep--ph/0207352; hep--ph/0208077.

 M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman, North Holland, 1979; T. Yanagida, Proc. of the Workshop on Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe, KEK, Japan, 1979; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980).

 Cf. W. Królikowski, hep-ph/0207086v2.

 W. Królikowski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 27, 2121 (1996); and references therein.

 The Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1 (2000).

 W. Królikowski, Appendix in Acta Phys. Pol. B 32, 2961 (2001); Appendix B in Acta Phys. Pol. B 33, 1747 (2002); hep--ph/0203107; and references therein.

 Cf. W. Królikowski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 33, 641 (2002).


text:
# Disorder-Induced Vibrational Localization

## Abstract

The vibrational equivalent of the Anderson tight-binding Hamiltonian has been studied, with particular focus on the properties of the eigenstates at the transition from extended to localized states. The critical energy has been found approximately for several degrees of force-constant disorder using system-size scaling of the multifractal spectra of the eigenmodes, and the spectrum at which there is no system-size dependence has been obtained. This is shown to be in good agreement with the critical spectrum for the electronic problem, which has been derived both numerically and by analytic means. Universality of the critical states is therefore suggested also to hold for the vibrational problem.

The Anderson electron localization problem Anderson\_58  is one that has attracted much attention over the last 40 years. The fact that the problem can be stated so simply, and yet have startlingly complex consequences, has made it a challenging topic to work on Kramer\_93 . Indeed, only recently has it been possible to verify numerically many of the theoretical results on powerful supercomputers Schreiber\_96:Book . However, the closely related vibrational problem has not been explored to the same degree, despite being similar enough to use the same techniques yet different enough to produce new and interesting results.

The phenomenon of localization is a second-order phase transition between eigenstates that are spatially localized and those that are delocalized, or extended Janssen\_98:review . In the thermodynamic limit, extended eigenmodes would cover the whole of space whereas localized eigenstates are those which only involve a local subset of the system within a typical localization length. In the crystalline case for both the electronic and vibrational problems, the eigenstates are simple Bloch states due to translational invarience, and are therefore extended. For the electronic problem, disorder is generally introduced either in the on-site energy terms (diagonal disorder) or the interaction terms (off-diagonal disorder) Kramer\_93 . In a 3d lattice with weak diagonal disorder, there are two critical energies, at the top and bottom of the band, at which the Localization-Delocalization (LD) transition occurs. As the degree of disorder is increased, these two critical energies approach, and finally meet. At this point, all the eigenmodes are localized and the system becomes an electrical insulator. This transition is termed the Metal-Insulator Transition (MIT) MacKinnon\_81 . Off-diagonal disorder produces fundamentally different behaviour: at no level of disorder are all the eigenmodes localized, and hence there is no MIT Cain\_99 .

Our approach to the problem of vibrational localization has been numerical, applying high-perfomance computers to the task of obtaining the eigenmodes. The Anderson electron Hamiltonian can be expressed in a site basis, giving a sparse matrix representation of the problem, for which the eigenvectors can then be found by using standard Lanczos methods. Modern computers can solve such eigenproblems for many millions of atomic sites. A bigger problem is how to recognise quantitatively the difference between localized and extended states.

There are several methods for distinguishing extended from localized states, e.g. by looking at the properties of the Hamiltonian, such as the transfer matrix method MacKinnon\_81 ; Pichard\_81 , observing differences in the level-spacing statistics Carpena\_99 , the Thouless criterion Thouless\_72 , or by looking at the eigenstates themselves. The latter is not trivial though, since as the critical energy is approached from the localized regime, the localization length diverges. Thus, for a finite system size, the eigenmodes quickly become extended over a larger range than the system size and it becomes difficult to assess whether a state is truly localized or extended. These states are known as prelocalized states Mirlin\_00:review , and to characterize these as localized or extended, we can use multifractal analysis (MFA) Janssen\_94 .

It has been suggested that the eigenmode at exactly the LD critical energy will show multifractal characteristics Schreiber\_91 . The standard way of characterising the multifractality is the singularity spectrum, which has been shown for electrons Grussbach\_95  to be universal for an isotropic system (see Ref.Milde\_97  for treatment of an anisotropic system) and independent of the probability distribution of the disorder. The analytic predictions for the singularity spectrum Wegner\_89 , based on the $`d=2+ϵ`$ expansion of the non-linear $`\sigma `$ model, are in good agreement with numerics Grussbach\_95 .

The aim of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, we use MFA in order to identify the threshold energy of the LD transition for different degrees of force-constant disorder and thus obtain the “phase diagram” in the frequency-disorder plane for vibrational excitations in disordered models. Secondly, we demonstrate the universal features of the multifractal critical states at the LD transitition for the vibrational problem.

We can use the idea of critical multifractality to determine whether the states are extended or localized by looking at how the singularity spectrum, characterising the eigenmode, changes with simulation-system size. For a true multifractal state, assuming that finite-size effects are small, the singularity spectrum will not depend on the simulation box size, whereas the spectra for states on either side of the LD transition will vary. Hence, by calculating the singularity spectrum for different system sizes, we can locate the critical energy Grussbach\_95 .

The harmonic vibrational problem that is addressed in this Letter can be formulated in a very similar way to the Anderson electron problem Elliott\_74 . For vibrations, the equivalent to the electronic Hamiltonian is the symmetric dynamical operator:

$$\widehat{D}=\underset{(i\alpha )(j\beta )}{}D_{(i\alpha )(j\beta )}(|i,\alpha |j,\alpha )(i,\beta |j,\beta |),$$
(1)
with $`|i,\alpha `$ being the site basis describing the displacement of atom $`i`$ ($`i=1\mathrm{}N`$) along the Cartesian direction $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1\mathrm{}d`$, with $`d`$ the dimensionality). The matrix elements $`D_{(i\alpha )(j\beta )}=(\kappa _{ij}/2)\left(\widehat{r}_{ij}\right)_\alpha \left(\widehat{r}_{ij}\right)_\beta `$ are defined in terms of force constants $`\kappa _{ij}`$, and unit vectors, $`\widehat{r}_{ij}`$, connecting the atoms $`i`$ and $`j`$ (for simplicity, all masses are taken to be equal, $`m_i=1`$). The dynamical matrix consists of $`d\times d`$ blocks with strong lattice symmetry-dictated correlations inside the blocks. Additionally, all the elements of the on-diagonal blocks are the sums (with opposite sign) of the similar elements of off-diagonal blocks, reflecting the sum-rule correlations in the dynamical matrix. Therefore, in the case of nearest-neighbor interactions considered below, the number of correlations between the elements in the dynamical matrix is comparable with the number of independent random variables.

There are three main differences between the Anderson electron and the vibrational problems. Firstly, when there are no negative values of $`\kappa _{ij}`$, the system is mechanically stable, so there are no negative eigenvalues, unlike the electron case. Secondly, the basic Anderson formulation gives a symmetric band structure. The vibrational case is asymmetric for the third reason: there are $`d`$ zero-frequency modes that cannot be localized since they correspond to bulk translational displacements of the system (Goldstone modes). Since the lower bound of the spectrum is therefore constrained to be extended in character, we expect in a single-band model that there will be only one LD transition near the high-frequency band edge.

There are two major classes of model which can be used in studying localization: structures based on an underlying crystalline lattice with introduced disorder, and structures which have been created in an effort to recreate the distribution of atomic positions and bond angles found in real amorphous materials. For our study, we have chosen to analyse lattice models from the first class, with an underlying f.c.c. geometry and with the $`\kappa _{ij}`$ in Eq. (1) taken from a probability distribution $`\rho (\kappa )`$. This is one of the simplest models and can be easily compared with the established results for the electron-localization problem for similar models. The distribution $`\rho (\kappa )`$ has been chosen to be a uniform (box) distribution, centered at $`\kappa _0=1`$ with a full width $`\mathrm{\Delta }<2\kappa _0`$ in order to give both a simple random distribution and one where there are no negative force constants. Our models are face-centered cubic and range in size from $`L=16`$ with 4096 atoms up to $`L=48`$ with $`N=110592`$ atoms.

A multifractal is a generalization of a standard geometric fractal for the case when a single fractal dimension cannot characterize the system Peitgen\_92:book . For each point in our measure, we can define a value $`\alpha (r)`$ that describes the scaling of the measure with $`L`$ around that point. If we now take the set of all points with a specific $`\alpha `$, that itself is a fractal, with dimensionality $`f(\alpha )`$. The curve $`f(\alpha )`$ is known as the multifractal spectrum, or singularity spectrum, and can be used to characterize eigenmodes as localized or extended, as shown below. To calculate the scaling exponents, we define the measure $`P_i(L_b)=_{j\text{Box}_i(L_b)}\left|𝐮_𝐣\right|^2`$ as the sum of the squared displacements $`\left|𝐮_𝐣\right|^2`$ of all the atoms $`j`$ within the $`i`$th box of size $`L_bL`$ for a particular eigenmode, and examine how this measure scales with $`L_b`$, or equivalently, with $`\lambda =L_b/L`$. We split our system up into $`N(\lambda )`$ boxes which completely and exactly cover the system, so that $`N(\lambda )=\lambda ^d`$. The standard normalization of the eigenmodes leads to a scaling law for the measure of the form $`P(L_b)_L\lambda ^d`$, averaging over all boxes.

The assumption underlying multifractal analysis is that, for a finite interval of $`\lambda `$, the $`q`$th moments of the $`P(L_b)`$ also scale with power laws: $`P^q(L_b)_L\lambda ^{d+\tau (q)}`$ where $`\tau (q)`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$. The range of $`\lambda `$ in our case has a lower bound at the interatomic spacing, since we are dealing with a discrete rather than a continuous system. The upper bound $`L/2`$ is dictated by finite-size effects. In the thermodynamic limit, as $`L\mathrm{}`$ ($`\lambda 0`$), the states which satisfy the multifractal condition are only found exactly at the critical energy, and thus the exponents are defined uniquely as

$$\tau (q)=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(P^q(L_b)_L)}{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }d.$$
(2)
In practice, $`\tau (q)`$ is found by performing a linear regression of the calculated exponents with $`\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$. From this we can obtain the singularity spectrum, $`f(\alpha )`$, where $`\alpha `$ is defined as $`\alpha (q)=\text{d}\tau (q)/\text{d}q`$ and $`f(\alpha )`$ is obtained from the Legendre transformation of $`\tau (q)`$, $`f(\alpha (q))=\alpha (q)q\tau (q)`$. Calculation of the singularity spectrum using the Legendre transformation suffers from numerical errors, so it is more convenient to calculate $`f(\alpha )`$ as a function of $`P(L_b)`$ explicitly Peitgen\_92:book :

$$\alpha (q)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }\underset{\text{boxes}}{}\frac{P_i^q(L_b)}{Z(q,L_b)}\mathrm{ln}P_i(L_b),$$
(3)
$$f(q)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }\underset{\text{boxes}}{}\frac{P_i^q(L_b)}{Z(q,L_b)}\mathrm{ln}P_i^q(L_b),$$
(4)
where $`Z(q,L_b)=_{\text{boxes}}P_i^q(L_b)`$.

Since we cannot take the limit $`\lambda 0`$ in Eqs.(3)-(4), the values of $`f(q)`$ and $`\alpha (q)`$ are calculated by performing a linear regression of the respective sums with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$. The linearity of these graphs is a good check of the multifractal nature of the measure.

Care has to be taken over the box sizes used in the analysis. For example, taking the box to include just one atomic site proved to skew the regression, as did taking the box size be that of the entire system. The reason for the former is that the multifractality must break down at some point, certainly for box sizes on the order of the atomic spacing. Finite-size effects account for the discrepancy for the largest box size.

The singularity spectra of the eigenmodes around the critical energy fluctuate strongly, and so it becomes necessary to take an average. Ideally, we would like to average over different realizations of disorder, but in practice this is only realistic for the smaller size models. For larger models, we take the computationally cheaper option of averaging consecutive eigenmodes, which can be obtained simply in the Lanczos algorithm. In order to reduce errors, we have used the gliding-box method, averaging over all possible origins when dividing the system into boxes Peitgen\_92:book .

Once we have the spectra, we can find the frequency at which there is no change with system size to locate the mobility edge. Empirically, it was noted Milde\_97  that, for the Anderson case, a plot of $`\alpha (q)`$ against $`(\mathrm{log}L)^1`$ gave a good linear fit with a different sign of gradient $`g(\omega ^2)=\text{d}\alpha (q;\omega ^2)/\text{d}(logL)^1`$ on either side of the critical frequency. The same holds true for vibrational models, as clearly demonstrated in Fig. 1. We have therefore performed a linear regression on these curves, and the gradients of these lines have been plotted at different energies to find the point where the singularity spectrum is size independent, at which $`g(\omega ^2)`$ crosses the abscissa. We can get additional information by looking at different values of $`q`$. In practice, since $`\alpha (q)`$ is strongly correlated for similar $`q`$, we have looked at the representative values $`q=0`$ and $`1`$, for which the $`g(\omega ^2)`$ have opposite signs (see Fig. 2).

Initially, the analysis was undertaken throughout the acoustic band. We did not expect to find localization at the lower (zero-frequency) band edge Taraskin\_01:PRL , and indeed it was found that there was only one LD phase transition, located in the far high-energy band tail. The band edge calculated within the coherent potential approximation (CPA) was found to be quite close to the true localization threshold, as can be seen in Fig.3, and therefore it can be used as a rough estimate for the frequency of the actual LD transition .

Having found the mobility edge for several values of force-constant disorder $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we can plot these to produce a ’phase diagram’ of the eigenmodes. This is shown alongside the VDOS and the CPA band edge in Fig.3. As the localization edge is in the band tail and we are limited to finite-size systems, few states are localized. With increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the mobility edge decreases in frequency with respect to the CPA band edge. However, since the band is broadening, the result is that the critical frequency actually increases with disorder, and thus there is no vibrational analogue to the electronic MIT. Similar behaviour of the mobility edge with disorder can be seen in the phase diagram of the Anderson model with off-diagonal disorder Cain\_99 .

For each degree of disorder, we obtain a new critical spectrum which is constant for each size. These critical spectra have been plotted in Fig.4, showing that for positive values of q, i.e. the left hand side of the graph, all the spectra fit onto a master curve. The parabolic approximation (PA) to Wegner’s analytic result Wegner\_89  is one which goes through the critical points $`f(\alpha =4)=3`$ and $`f(\alpha =2)=2`$, where the latter corresponds to the information dimension of the eigenmode. This PA has also been plotted on the graph for comparison. Note that the Wegner result is for the electronic Anderson model, yet it still fits well with the vibrational data, indicating a universality across the two different systems. The large error bars at high $`\alpha `$ are in the region where $`q`$ is negative, where $`f`$ and $`\alpha `$ are strongly dependent on the smallest values of the measure and where the errors in the eigenmodes themselves are largest.

To conclude, we have investigated the localization phenomenon for vibrational excitations in disordered structures, using an f.c.c. lattice model with force-constant disorder for analysis. Using MFA, we have confirmed the existence of only one LD transition in the acoustic band, and found the energy at which it occurs for different degrees of disorder. The eigenmodes at the threshold have been shown to be multifractal states exhibiting a quantitatively similar distribution function to that of the critical states in the electron Anderson model.

We are grateful to R.Römer for supplying us with MFA code romercode , and to M.Schreiber for instructive communications.


text:
# The Large-scale Bipolar Wind in the Galactic Center

## 1 Introduction

Nuclear starburst-driven winds are now observed in dozens of external galaxies across the electromagnetic spectrum (Strickland 2001; Martin 1999; Heckman 2002; Veilleux 2002). For nearby galaxies, detailed studies reveal that the superwind energetics are in the range 1053 to 1056 erg. Galaxy-scale winds are suspected to be important in both galaxy evolution and for the state of the intergalactic medium. In the Galaxy, early enrichment of the halo and the outer disk through powerful nuclear winds may account for the observed abundances of the thick disk and globular clusters (Freeman & Bland-Hawthorn 2002). Moreover, nuclear winds can regulate the growth of the central bulge (Carlberg 1999) and moderate the evolution of dwarf satellites (Irwin et al. 1987).

At a distance of only 8.0$`\pm `$0.5 kpc (Reid 1993), the Galactic Center shows a remarkable range of energetic activity at infrared, radio, x-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray wavelengths (Morris & Serabyn 1996 – hereafter MS; Yusef-Zadeh et al. 2000; Cheng et al. 1997). While this activity has proved difficult to disentangle, there is now solid evidence on scales of arcminutes to tens of degrees for powerful mass ejections from the Galactic Center.

Potential sources of energy are young star clusters or the $`23\times 10^6`$ M central black hole (Oort 1977; Frogel 1988; Genzel et al. 1996; Ghez et al. 1998). Individual star clusters have ages ranging from 5 Myr (Krabbe et al. 1995) to 20 Myr (Eckart et al. 1999; Figer et al. 2000; Gezari et al. 2002). While the star formation history is undoubtedly complicated, there is now abundant evidence that the Galactic Center has experienced starburst episodes at different times in the past (e.g. Tamblyn & Rieke 1993; Sjouwerman et al. 1998; Simpson et al. 1999). Detailed modelling of the PAH and fine structure features (Lutz 1998) suggests a starburst event some 7 Myr ago, supported by a census of individual stars (Genzel et al. 1994; Krabbe et al. 1995; Najarro et al. 1997).

An acute shortcoming of galaxy wind studies to date has been deriving reliable energetics from multi-wavelength observations. We will argue that the proximity of the Galactic Center makes this one of the most important arenas for studying the wind process. But current estimates of the central energetics span a huge range. Sofue & Handa (1984) presented evidence of a radio lobe on scales of $`200`$ pc (now referred to as the Galactic Center Lobe) with implied thermal energetics of roughly $`3\times 10^{51}`$ erg. Chevalier (1992) argued for a higher energy content ($`2\times 10^{52}`$ erg) arising from stellar winds driven by hot young stars over a 30 Myr duration. Several authors have deduced that an explosive nuclear event ($`48\times 10^{53}`$ erg) must have taken place from the high temperatures implied by the ASCA detection of 6.7 keV K$`\alpha `$ line emission from He-like Fe XXV (Koyama et al. 1996; Yamauchi et al. 1990). On larger scales, Sofue (1977; 1984; 1994; 2000) has long argued that the North Polar Spur is the byproduct of a central explosion which took place 15 Myr ago. In his model, the scale of the blast is 10$``$20 kpc, with explosive energies in the range 1055 to 3$`\times 10^{56}`$ erg.

The source of fuel for the observed activity appears to be the central molecular zone (CMZ), a molecular ‘ring’ with radius 180 pc and total mass M$`{}_{\mathrm{cmz}}{}^{}8\times 10^6`$ M. Recent estimates of mass inflow to the Galactic Center are of order 1 M per year (MS). This is sufficient to trigger starbursts and nuclear activity associated with powerful Seyfert galaxies ($``$1043 erg s-1). The kinematics suggest the gas is kept on $`x_2`$ orbits by a strong central bar, which guarantees cloud-cloud collisions on timescales of $`2\pi /\omega _c10^8`$ yrs. Of particular interest here, a central explosion of order $`10^{5556}`$ erg would provide a central gas mass Mcmz with sufficient radial impulse to produce the observed ring (Sanders 1989; Saito 1990). Sophisticated hydrodynamical simulations (e.g. Suchkov et al. 1996; Strickland & Stevens 2000) show that such rings are indeed formed by central explosions and that disk material is entrained by the expanding wind.

So what are the true energetics of the Galactic Center wind, and is it a periodic or continuous flow? Is the wind driven by the central black hole or by bursts of star formation, or both? Here, we present the first clear evidence that the nuclear wind which gave rise to the Galactic Center Lobe (GCL) is entraining large amounts of molecular gas and dust in the flow. The newly derived energetics, which are much larger than earlier estimates, are of the same order needed to explain the North Polar Spur (NPS) in terms of a central explosion, which strongly suggests that the Galactic Center undergoes periodic bursts of nuclear activity, as we show.

In § 2, the new MSX observations are presented and compared to existing far-infrared and radio data. In § 3, we find that the elevated dust temperature in the GCL requires a local heat source. In § 4, we derive the basic properties of the nuclear wind. In § 5, we revisit Sofue’s earlier wind model for the NPS in light of new observations. In § 6, we argue that the Galactic Center arena is of extreme importance in our quest to understand large-scale winds.

## 2 Observations

In Fig. 1, we present a 3 $`\times `$ 3 region of the Galactic Center reconstructed from scans with the MSX satellite in ‘Band A’ at 8.28$`\mu `$m. The Galactic Center is at the center of the field. The same data are presented in Fig. 3 after unsharp masking to accentuate the dust above the Galactic Plane (see below). The MSX image is made up of 6′′ pixels generated by convolving position-tagged, artefact-corrected Level 2A data. The adopted kernel was gaussian with a 3′′ standard deviation using a Cartesian projection and Galactic coordinates for the world coordinate system. This results in a resolution of about 20′′. Full details of the Galactic Plane survey, data processing and the creation of the images are given by Price et al. (2001). The image is calibrated absolutely in radiance units of W m-2 sr-1, and a mosaic of 3$`\times `$3 individual MSX images was created to span a 3 $`\times `$ 3 area.

In Fig. 1, the central disk is characterized by point sources (stars), small extended regions (compact and ultracompact H$`\mathrm{II}`$ regions), but the overwhelming impression is of a lattice of overlapping filaments and bubbles along the Galactic Plane. Many of these features have counterparts in radio continuum (Cohen & Green 2001; Mezger & Pauls 1979). Compared to the IRAS 12$`\mu `$m data, the MSX 8.3$`\mu `$m map is four times more sensitive, with 35 times higher areal resolution. Note from the star counts that there is moderate extinction in the plane even at 8$`\mu `$m.

Our particular interest lies in the spectacular mid-infrared ‘spurs’ which rise 1 above and below the plane at $`\mathrm{}0.7`$. There are similar features, rather less well defined, at $`\mathrm{}+0.2`$. The prominent western spur first came to light in the original 20 cm scans of Kerr & Sinclair (1966). In Figs. 2 and 3, we have superimposed the 3 cm map of Sofue (1985) which has a beam size of 4.3 (HPBW). There is a remarkably tight correlation of off-planar structure in both the radio and mid-infrared maps, in particular the eastern and western spurs at 3 cm coincide precisely with the same features at 8$`\mu `$m. The spurs, which are also evident at 6 cm and 11 cm, appear to be largely thermal in origin, although there is some evidence for synchrotron emission from the eastern spur (Inoue et al. 1984).

## 3 The Galactic Center Lobe

### 3.1 Dust temperature and emissivity

The western spur is prominent in the IRAS data base (MS) in the 12, 25, 60, 100$`\mu `$m bands. In a 2 beam, Gautier et al. (1984) obtained a dust temperature of $`T_d=27\pm 1`$ K at $`\mathrm{}=359.6`$, $`b=0.84`$. This temperature is broadly consistent with the dust temperature maps of Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis (1998). We now determine whether the dust temperature, or the observed constant emissivity of the spurs vertical to the plane, are consistent with heating by the stellar radiation field.

The total flux at a frequency $`\nu `$ reaching a dust cloud located at a distance $`r`$ is obtained from integrating the specific intensity $`I_\nu `$ over an optically thin disk with uniform emissivity,

$$F_\nu =I_\nu (𝐧)(𝐧.𝐍)d\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(1)
where $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐍`$ are the directions of the line of sight and the outward normal to the surface of the disk, respectively. For the general case, if we consider the flux seen at an arbitrary point along the polar axis of the disk,

$$F=\frac{L_{\mathrm{bol}}}{\pi R^2}(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(R/r)^2}})$$
(2)
where the bolometric luminosity of the Galaxy $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is integrated over frequency out to a radius $`R`$. In the far field ($`rR`$), this equation reduces to the familiar form $`F=L_{\mathrm{bol}}/2\pi r^2`$. In the near field ($`r<R/2`$), the flux along the polar axis is constant. In principle, this could explain why the mid-infrared emissivity along the spurs is roughly constant.

The equilibrium temperature a dust grain will assume at a distance $`r`$ from the source is given by

$`T_d`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _a}{\epsilon _r}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{bol}}}{2\pi \sigma r^2}}\right)^{0.25}\mathrm{far}\mathrm{field}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _a}{\epsilon _r}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{bol}}}{\pi \sigma R^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(R/r)^2}}})\right)^{0.25}\mathrm{near}\mathrm{field}`$ (4)
where ($`\epsilon _a,\epsilon _r`$) are the absorption and re-radiation efficiencies, and $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

If we assume that $`\epsilon _a\epsilon _r`$, then for R $`=`$ 12 kpc and $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}=3_1^{+2}\times 10^{10}`$ L, we derive $`T_d=5`$ K at a vertical distance of 100 pc. For an exponential disk with scale length Re $`=`$ 3.5 kpc, the dust temperature rises to $`T_d=9`$ K. The infrared spurs appear to require a much larger heating rate than what the disk can provide. Possible mechanisms are shock heating from the wind, or turbulent heating from the entrainment process. These processes are discussed below.

### 3.2 Shell properties

In Figs. 13, we show for the first time that dust is clearly associated with the entire GCL structure. This is a particularly important result since it shows that the Galactic Center wind is entraining dust in the flow. There is widespread evidence of entrainment in external galaxy winds. This includes reversals of the magnetic field in wind-blown shells, where the gas also shows evidence for rotation and expansion (Cecil et al. 2001; 2002). Furthermore, hot wind gas detected in \[O$`\mathrm{VI}`$\] is found to be moving more rapidly than the cool gas (Heckman et al. 2001).

The measured column density of dust in the shell111The IRAS observations are largely sensitive to cool dust; future mid-infrared studies may reveal hotter dust in the shell but we expect that this contributes only a negligible fraction of the total dust content. implies a hydrogen column density of N$`{}_{\mathrm{sh}}{}^{}2\times 10^{22}`$ H2 cm-2 which compares with N$`{}_{\mathrm{sh}}{}^{}3\times 10^{22}`$ H2 cm-2 determined from CO observations by Sofue (1995) when averaged over both spurs. These high column densities could lead to even lower dust grain temperatures in the shell than derived in § 3.1 due to preferential absorption of high energy radiation. This is not guaranteed since the gas and dust could have a complex (fractal) distribution. We expect that the shell comprises a complex matrix of molecular, neutral and ionized gas. There are numerous nebular sources within the ISM for which the dust temperature measured independently from, say, the warm ionized medium and warm neutral medium are essentially identical (Lagache et al. 2000; Heiles et al. 2000), suggesting some form of local thermal equilibrium between the different phases.

We now estimate the mass of entrained material in the wind. We model the GCL as a ‘telescope dome’-shaped shell with thickness $`\delta `$. If the cylindrical part has a height $`h`$ and radius $`r`$, the total volume of the bipolar shell is $`V_s=4\pi r\delta (r+h)`$. The volume enclosed by the dome in both hemispheres is $`V_d=2\pi r^2(0.67r+h)`$. In order to reproduce the 8.3$`\mu `$m observations, our preferred model is ($`\delta `$,r,h) = (5,60,110) pc which gives $`V_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $``$ $`2\times 10^{61}`$ cm3 and $`V_d`$ $``$ $`9\times 10^{61}`$ cm3. The expected limb-brightening contrast is $`𝒞2(\delta /)^{0.5}(r/)^{0.5}`$ where $``$ is the beam size of the IRAS measurement. Thus, we find $`𝒞7`$ which explains why the central bipolar cavity looks remarkably free of filamentation compared to outside this region.

In our model, for the derived value of Nsh (§3.1), the volume-averaged shell density is $`n_{\mathrm{sh}}150`$ H2 cm-3. Therefore, the total mass of the shells in both hemispheres is roughly M$`{}_{\mathrm{sh}}{}^{}5\times 10^6`$ M. For a shell expansion velocity of $`v_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ km s-1 (Sofue 1985), then the inferred minimum energetics in the bipolar wind is $`E_{kin}1\times 10^{54}`$ $`(v_{\mathrm{sh}}/100)^2`$ erg. New observations by Sofue (1996) appear to indicate that the shell density could be a factor of a few lower ($`n_{\mathrm{sh}}100`$ cm-3), so a more conservative estimate of the required energetics is $`3\times 10^{53}`$ $`(v_{\mathrm{sh}}/100)^2`$ erg.

The vertical velocity component of the shell structure is presently uncertain: we consider $`v_{\mathrm{sh}}=150`$ km s-1 to be a plausible estimate. Large radial and vertical motions are apparent in about a third of the CMZ gas (Bally et al. 1988). The high-velocity component has a velocity range of 130–200 km s-1 but this is driven in part by the bar. We conclude that the minimum energy requirement for the dense shell is about 1054 erg for a covering fraction of unity (i.e. assuming a closed shell surface).

## 4 Starburst-driven winds.

### 4.1 Introduction

Starburst and/or AGN-driven winds are observed in several dozen external galaxies. Detailed numerical simulations shed light on the basic mechanism (Strickland & Stevens 2000; Tomisaka & Ikeuchi 1988; Suchkov et al. 1994). In nuclear starbursts, vast amounts of energy are injected by supernovae and stellar winds into a small central volume ($`<`$ 100 pc). The ‘injection zone’ reaches temperatures of about 108 K before the enormous pressure begins to drive a flow outwards. The nuclear wind is initially subsonic but becomes supersonic at the edge of the injection zone (Chevalier & Clegg 1985). An adiabatic wind accelerates as it expands into the clumpy ISM (Williams & Dyson 2002) producing a conventional forward shock, contact discontinuity and reverse shock. The hot nuclear wind is surrounded by a weaker wind which percolates laterally through the clumpy medium. The hot wind drags material in a shear flow along the contact discontinuity; the weaker wind entrains advected cool material along with the flow. The effectiveness of winds in entraining material is unclear, but models suggest moderate (Strickland & Stevens 2000) to large (Suchkov et al. 1996) amounts of mass loading can take place.

It was initially thought that the bipolar x-ray emission seen in starburst galaxies could be explained by cooling in an adiabatic wind (Fabbiano 1988; Bregman et al. 1995). McCarthy et al. (1987) attempted to confirm Chevalier & Clegg’s wind model of M82 by assuming the optical filaments were in thermal equilibrium with the adiabatic wind. However, the ram pressure of the wind pressure greatly exceeds the thermal pressure once the wind breaks free of the injection zone. Strickland et al. (1997) find that the observed x-ray emissivity in M82 declines too slowly to be explained by an adiabatic wind. Both the optical and x-ray emission are more likely to arise from ram pressure confinement which produces a much flatter fall off with radius, and can even lead to increasing emissivity with radius (Veilleux et al. 1994).

Due to the proximity of the Galactic Center, we make the simplifying assumption that all phases of the ISM are uniformly filled at the resolution of the data (cf. Williams & Dyson 2002). The explicit dependence of derived quantities on filling factors can be found in Cecil et al. (2001; 2002).

### 4.2 Wind properties

We now derive the properties of a galactic wind required to drive the shell material. ASCA has provided hard evidence for hot plasma towards the Galactic Center (§1), and this is seen on similar scales to the GCL. The detection of very intense 6.7 keV K$`\alpha `$ line from He-like Fe (Koyama et al. 1989; Yamauchi et al. 1990) leads to temperature estimates of 107 to 108K. The temperature range implies initial wind speeds ($`\sqrt{2\gamma kT_o/m_H}`$) in the range $`v_o17003000`$ km s-1 as expected from the numerical models. The Fe K$`\alpha `$ from the Galactic Center correlates well with the dense gas, which is expected since the hot x-rays are easily reflected by the cold neutral medium. Once the x-ray spectra are corrected for the scattered component, the implied temperatures appear to be at the lower end of this range.

The diameter of the injection zone is expected to be of order 100 pc in size. The dusty shell requires an energy input of at least 1054 erg. The clumpy appearance of the thermal radio emission and dust emission suggest that the covering fraction may be $`\kappa \stackrel{<}{}0.1`$, such that the required energetics are $`E_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{>}{}10^{55}`$ erg. This is in line with Sofue’s (2000) minimum requirement to explain the North Polar Spur. The density of the hot medium over the dome volume is $`E_{\mathrm{min}}/(3kT_oV_d)`$ which is of order $`n_o1`$ cm-3 giving a mass of roughly 105 M in the wind, where we have adopted the high temperature limit in line with simulations. For the inferred optical depth to the Galactic Center (Av $``$ 30; Becklin et al. 1978), x-ray absorption will only be significant for lower temperature gas. The expected x-ray emission measure is $`2_o^rn_e^2𝑑\mathrm{}100`$ cm-6 pc.

In order to arrive at a very rough dynamical timescale, let us treat the GCL as a pressurized bubble with radial dimension $`r`$, initially located at a radius $`r_{}`$ within the stellar bulge, which is lifted by buoyancy. (This requires that the wind is only now breaking out of the injection zone for the first time.) Assume that the medium outside of the shell has to fall around the lobe at a speed $`v_{\mathrm{FF}}\sqrt{GM_{}(r_{})r/r_{}^2}`$ and that the lobe must move $`2r`$. The buoyancy timescale is therefore $`\tau _b2r_{}\sqrt{r/GM_{}(r_{})}`$ yr. Our picture is of a light bubble that is temporarily overpressured relative to its surroundings and thus rises and expands as the ambient density falls. The enclosed mass in the Galactic Center is $`M_{}3\times 10^6`$ $`r_{}`$ M, where $`r_{}`$ is specified in parsecs (MS), which leads to $`\tau _b12`$ Myr. McCray (1987) gives an approximate form for the cooling function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_e)`$, from which we derive the cooling time in the hot wind, $`\tau _o2kT_o/(\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_o)n_o)10^8`$ yr. This greatly exceeds the buoyancy timescale: the nuclear wind cannot cool radiatively and must therefore expand adiabatically.

For the derived wind model, the required pressure $`P_o/k6\times 10^7`$ K cm-3 is an order of magnitude higher than what is possible with stellar winds from the central regions (Chevalier 1992). Remarkably, the derived properties ($`n_o,T_o`$) are characteristic of individual supernova remnants (Holt & McCray 1982). Since the volume of the GCL ($`3\times 10^6`$ pc3) is at least three orders of magnitude larger than a typical supernova remnant, this testifies to a very large energy injection into a smaller central volume at some time in the past.

### 4.3 Wind-driven shocks

We observe soft x-ray emission along the polar axis of the Galaxy out to at least 2 kpc. The ROSAT 1.5 keV image presented by Wang (2002) clearly shows the hourglass geometry characteristic of a bipolar flow (see Fig. 5(d)). This emission is very unlikely to arise from thermal cooling in the wind. A more likely explanation is that the fast wind (Koo & McKee 1992) is driving shocks into the halo gas via ram pressure. The energy of the ROSAT band would implicate temperatures of $`2\times 10^7`$ K, or shock velocities $`v_s1200`$ km s-1. But the initial shock velocity at the base of the flow may be somewhat lower at $`v_s600`$ km s-1. When a shock is driven into dense gas, the reflected shock re-heats the post-shocked gas to even higher temperatures. This phenomenon has now been resolved in the Cygnus Loop by the Chandra x-ray satellite (Levenson et al. 2002; Hester et al. 1994).

If we assume that all of the thermal energy in the injection zone is converted to kinetic energy, the initial wind speed is in excess of $`v_w2000`$ km s-1. The manner in which the wind parameters vary with radius depends in part on the wind geometry (Strickland et al. 1997). For an adiabatic wind, the mass density and temperature decline as $`\rho (r_o/r)^2`$ and $`T(r_o/r)^{2(\gamma 1)}`$ where $`\gamma =5/3`$. Thus, at the 2 kpc radius of the ROSAT emission, the wind temperature has dropped to 106 K and the density to $`n_w10^3`$ cm-3 where we have adopted $`r_o=100`$ pc.

Therefore, at 2 kpc, if the visible shocked material is ram-pressure confined, the pre-shock density is roughly $`n_1n_w(v_w/v_s)^210^2`$ cm-3. The post-shock material will be heated to a temperature of $`T_2=1.4\times 10^5(v_s/100)^25\times 10^6`$K for singly shocked material (Hollenbach & McKee 1979), or even higher temperatures for material heated by a reflected shock (Hester et al. 1994). The post-shock temperature $`T_2`$ is within the range favoured by numerical models (e.g. Suchkov et al. 1994), providing the gas has roughly solar abundances. We have assumed a fixed wind speed although in practice the wind could accelerate along the flow, depending on the wind geometry. In either case, the post-shock densities will be of order $`n_20.1`$ cm-3, much less than that inferred from the dusty shell. This is in line with the density of material responsible for the x-ray emission in the hydrodynamical models (Suchkov et al. 1994; Strickland et al. 1997).

The post-shock zone ($`n_2,T_2`$) has two important consequences. First, it is the expected source of the soft x-ray emission observed along the minor axis (§5). The limb-brightened emission measures will be 10-2 or higher, in agreement with Sofue’s hypershell model. This assumes that the attenuation by the Galactic ISM is low above $`b=10`$, which appears to be so (Sofue 2000).

Secondly, for a sufficiently soft radiation field ($`\stackrel{<}{}0.7`$ keV), we show below that the expected UV/x-ray emission is partly soaked up by the dense shell downstream of the shock. This creates an ionized interface between the hot wind and the cool gas in the shell. A partially ionized region must exist in order to produce the thermal radio emission although the required electron densities are about $`510`$ cm-3 (Sofue & Handa 1984; Sofue 1985). Once the radio background is subtracted, the lobe has a flat (‘thermal’) spectral index, $`f_\nu \nu ^{0.1}`$, where $`f_\nu `$ is the radio source flux. This behaviour is not normally associated with a shell-type supernova remnant, and may reflect self-ionization by the shock-induced UV field (Sutherland & Dopita 1993), providing Fermi acceleration is unimportant and the wind is non-relativistic. The derived mass of the thermal plasma is M$`{}_{\mathrm{th}}{}^{}4\times 10^5`$ M. A rough estimate of the ionization fraction is therefore M$`{}_{\mathrm{th}}{}^{}/`$Msh $``$ 10%.

The UV/x-ray emissivity of the post-shock region may account for much of the local ionization and heating, particularly if the shock velocity does not exceed 600 km s-1 or thereabouts. The expected emissivity per unit solid angle is $`\rho _2v_2^3/4\pi 10^3`$ erg cm-2 s-1 sr-1 where $`\rho _2=m_Hn_2`$ and $`m_H`$ is the mass of the H atom. If the shell is completely filled, most of the photons will interact with the bipolar shell; half of the photons will contribute to line radiation, and the remainder will produce energetic secondary electrons. If $``$30 eV is given up in each ionization by secondary electrons, we derive an H$`\alpha `$ emission measure of $``$100 cm-6 pc, and a local electron density of about $`n_e10`$ cm-3. This suggests the bipolar shell is partially ionized with $`n_e/n_{\mathrm{sh}}10\%`$ in agreement with the rough value derived above. This agreement may be fortuitous: the covering fraction seen by the local radiation field may be 10% or less which will lower the derived H$`\alpha `$ emission measure and ionization fraction.

The derived x-ray flux is too low to irradiate the dust grains to the observed temperature (§3.1; Voit 1991). An alternative heat source are the Ly$`\alpha `$ photons produced in the post-shock region which are continuously absorbed and re-emitted by neutral atoms until they are ultimately absorbed by dust. If the Ly$`\alpha `$ heating is balanced by the far-infrared emission, an equilibrium grain temperature can be derived. Following Spitzer (1978), the derived grain temperatures fall in the range 20–50 K depending on the details of the grain composition (Draine & Lee 1984). The contribution to the grain heating by electron collisions within the shell gas is expected to be small. Collisional heating requires low gas densities ($`1`$ cm-3) and much higher kinetic temperatures ($`10^5`$K), but such harsh environs can easily destroy grains (Dwek & Arendt 1992). We refrain from presenting a more detailed analysis since the post-shock environs are expected to be very complicated for dust grains (McKee et al. 1987).

## 5 The North Polar Spur revisited

### 5.1 Introduction

The North Polar Spur extends 80 in galactic latitude perpendicular to the plane, and is the largest projected structure seen at x-ray and radio wavelengths (Berkhuijsen 1972; Haslam et al. 1974; Snowden et al. 1997; Sofue 2000). In a long running series of papers, Sofue (1977; 1984; 1994; 2000) has suggested that the NPS can be explained in terms of an extremely powerful central explosion in the last 15 Myr with a blast radius reaching to 10 kpc or more.

More local origins have been proposed (q.v. Egger & Aschenbach 1995). However, we agree with Sofue that a Galactic Center origin is more likely for a number of reasons: (i) the radio continuum in the NPS is thermal rather than the synchrotron emission observed locally in supernova remnants; (ii) the loop appears well aligned with the Galactic Center; (iii) there is now well established evidence on scales of arcminutes to tens of degrees for powerful mass ejections from the Galactic Center; (iv) the required energetics may be rather lower ($`10^{55}`$ erg) than the model favoured by Sofue – such energies are relatively common in well studied, nearby galaxies (Veilleux 2002).

In light of the new results presented here, we now revisit Sofue’s (2000) hypershell model for the North Polar Spur. We return to the discussion of the wind parameters derived in §4.3. At 10 kpc, the wind density has declined to about 10-4 cm-3 and the wind temperature to about 105 K. The expected emission measures in the post-shocked gas are now a hundred times lower than what we inferred at a radius of 2 kpc which falls below the sensitivity limit of x-ray satellites and so would not be seen. How are we to understand this? A possible explanation is that the post-shock densities are in fact higher than we derive, due to material dragged along or accelerated by the wind, and being shocked by the wind. This is a highly complex process that has not been adequately modelled to date.

### 5.2 A new perspective

Another interpretation, which we now discuss in detail, considers how the hypershell model222We use Sofue’s term ‘hypershell’ to refer to our configuration of a central cone evolving to a cylinder at large vertical distances above the plane. would appear in the near field. This step improves on Sofue’s model in two ways. The NPS is seen to extend to galactic latitudes of 80, and therefore any large-scale model must consider the angular projection. First, our model provides a simple explanation of why the NPS appears closed at the top, an effect that is not apparent in Sofue’s model. Second, the near field projection provides a very long pathlength through the hypershell on the near side, such that even a very low emission measure can be boosted by factors of a hundred or more. As a result, the required nuclear energetics of the wind can be much lower (see below).

We point out that Sofue (2000) did carry out a near-field projection of a conical wind flow but the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-shaped geometry arises from a truncation along the vertical axis at a constant wind density. Sofue’s particular cone model does not lead to limb brightening at the apex of the NPS, and in fact leads to caustics at $`b=90`$ which are inconsistent with the x-ray/radio observations.

Consider the hypershell geometry in Fig. 4(a). Narrow cone angle or cylindrical outflows are evident in several starburst galaxies (Bland & Tully 1988; Götz et al. 1990; McKeith et al. 1995; Shopbell & Bland-Hawthorn 1998) and arise in hydrodynamical models (Tomisaka & Ikeuchi 1988; Strickland & Stevens 2000).333A spectacular example of the hypershell morphology is provided by the Hubble Heritage image of the bipolar planetary nebula M2-9 at heritage.stsci.edu/2001/05/mz3/m2-9.jpg The hydrodynamical models reproduce this combination of an open central cone developing into a more restricted opening angle further out.

The projected morphology in the model over the inner 30 is precisely what is observed in the 1.5 keV ROSAT survey data (see Fig. 5(d) taken from Wang 2002). The x-ray emission extends 16 in elevation above and below the Galactic Center. The model presents the hypershells in both hemispheres. Sofue (2000) finds only weak evidence for the southern hypershell on the largest scales, but we note here that the 1.5 keV ROSAT survey clearly reveals the southern biconal outflow.

Now consider how the hypershell geometry would appear in the near field. Recall that the NPS extends to 80 in galactic latitude. Our viewpoint in the Galactic Plane is indicated by the symbol $``$ in Fig. 4(a). The near-field projection is shown in Fig. 4(b). The open hypershell now appears to close since our line of sight at high latitude intersects a large column through the biconal shell. The observed ‘mirage’ is quite robust to a range of parameters, although it does require that the central cone turns inwards inside of the Solar Circle, and that the geometry becomes cylindrical or even tapers (i.e. the wine glass effect).

There are two important reasons why the hypershell geometry must be confined to the Solar Cylinder (i.e. the cylinder which extends perpendicular to the Galactic Plane and intersects it at the Solar Circle). First, if the conic geometry continues to extend beyond the Solar Circle rather than turn inwards, the projected emission produces caustics near $`b=90`$. Secondly, if the NPS is at the distance of the Galactic Center, the projected angular width of the hypershell on the sky is fully consistent with the turn up of the cone in the orthogonal plane defined by $`b=0`$ (compare Figs. 4(a) and (b)). This of course assumes that the hypershell has cylindrical symmetry about its long axis. Given that the 1.5 keV data reveal a biconal geometry extending above and below the plane by 2 kpc or more, it is difficult to imagine another configuration that makes more sense given that it must include the angular projection. Our model is only illustrative. We do not optimize the parameters since physical insight requires a detailed hydrodynamical simulation matched to the observed Galaxy parameters.

Figs. 4(c) and 4(d) show the contributions of the x-ray emission from the near and far side of the Galactic Center. A key prediction of our model is that much of the emission at low latitude ($`b<50`$) within the NPS must arise from the far side of the hypershell. The compression induced by the projection will partly compensate for the inverse square dilution and absorption by the ISM. The illustrative model shown here does not include attenuation by the ISM (see Sofue 2000). The limb effect arises from the nearside, and the filling in arises largely from the farside of the hypershell. If we add attenuation by intervening gas, it is possible to suppress the degree to which projected shell appears filled in.

We now return to the original question in § 5.1. The near-field effect assists the interpretation of the x-rays in two ways. The source of the emission is now $`510`$ kpc rather than $`1020`$ kpc in Sofue’s model; this increases the wind pressure by a factor of $`(15/7.5)^{2\gamma }`$. The increased post-shock density and the longer column through the hypershell raises the emission measure by a factor of 100 to roughly 10-2 cm-6 pc or higher. This is Sofue’s requirement in order to match the NPS at 0.75 keV. In our model, a central explosion of $`10^{55}`$ erg, which was needed to explain the GCL, is probably sufficient to account for the NPS, rather than the upper limit of $`3\times 10^{56}`$ erg preferred by Sofue (2000).

We note with interest that the projected emission measure of the bipolar shell at large radius would not be directly detectable in x-rays in external galaxies. It is plausible that most disk galaxies with active star formation have low surface-brightness bipolar winds. A physical manifestation of this may be the extraordinary ionization conditions that have been observed in the gaseous haloes of edge-on spiral galaxies (e.g. Collins & Rand 2001).

Our proposed model invites a range of tests. In our model, the NPS is very sharp edged which is expected regardless of how the hypershell emission decays with vertical height above the plane. The angular limb brightening caused by the near-field effect is more rapid than limb brightening in a distance source. Thus, there should be little hot gas outside of the loop which defines the NPS. Moreover, there should be a lot of x-ray emission at galactic latitudes below $`b=50`$ from the far side of the hypershell. Furthermore, in line with the hydrodynamical simulations, the gas on the inner edge of the NPS will be characteristically hotter and more redshifted (i.e. moving at higher velocities) than the gas towards the outer edge of the NPS.

Sembach et al. (1997) have shown the enormous potential of absorption-line UV spectroscopy towards halo stars and active galaxies used as background light sources. The initial work with FUSE and the Hubble Space Telescope reveals complex ionization and kinematics towards 3C 273 whose sightline falls close to the NPS. Halo clump giants and blue horizontal branch stars are crucial for testing the wind model. Their projected density at $`V=17`$ is about 1 per square degree and they can be seen to 20 kpc. An exciting prospect is the NASA small explorer mission SPIDR444See http://www.bu.edu/spidr/noflash/overview.html due to launch in 2005. This will map the distribution of CIV and OVI ionization over a quarter of the sky (including NPS) at arcmin resolution. Future observations with SPIDR may reveal complex ionization and kinematics along and across the NPS due to the turbulent boundary layer expected at the wind-halo gas interface. The halo probes will need to have distances of 10 kpc or more in order to see this effect.

In summary, we propose that the North Polar Spur arises from limb brightening as we look along the outer walls of the bipolar shell from a near-field perspective.555This is easily verified with a fluted wine glass initially observed at arm’s length which is viewed progressively closer until the vessel is just above eye level. Furthermore, the faint hypershell would be very difficult to detect in external galaxies: energetic bipolar winds may be far more common in normal galaxies than is currently observed.

## 6 Review

Recurrent nuclear activity. We have presented evidence for mass ejections from the Galactic Center on scales of a few degrees to tens of degrees. This is evident from extended bipolar emission at mid-infrared, radio and x-ray wavelengths; the three very different scales are shown together in Fig. 6. The inner shell visible in the 8.3$`\mu `$m data, and physically associated with the Galactic Center Lobe, has a dynamical timescale of about a million years. This compares with roughly 15 Myr for the hypershell model of the North Polar Spur. On all scales, the observed structures show a remarkable similarity to the observed behavior in NGC 3079 (Cecil et al. 2001; 2002) where an inner radio-emitting shell is observed at the centre of a much large conic shell. We note that NGC 3079 and the Galaxy share important similarities in their wind parameters and their galaxy properties.

Moreover, note that the bipolar geometry and the central star forming region in Fig. 3 appear tipped over by about 20 towards the west with respect to the Galactic Plane, a phenomenon that is seen in M82 (Shopbell & Bland-Hawthorn 1998). This may arise from a tilt of the orbital plane of the central gas and/or stellar bar with respect to the Galactic Plane, for which there is some evidence (MS).

The different dynamical timescales of the GCL and NPS indicate that these arise from different events. However, we find in § 5.2 that both phenomena require a central event with roughly equivalent energetics of about 1055 erg, and this activity must be periodic on timescales of 10$``$15 Myr. The stellar census provides clear evidence of several starbursts which must have occurred in this time frame, and these are the likely source of the energy input. It is not guaranteed that each starburst must produce an energetic wind. If the supernovae largely occur within dense gas, their thermalization effiencies can be $`\epsilon 0.1`$ such that the explosive energy is radiated away (Thornton et al. 1998). The timescale of the GCL could be consistent with evidence pointing to a major starburst in the last 7 Myr. For an energy injection zone of 100 pc or so, the wind may not develop for a few million years after the event. This has been investigated by sophisticated numerical simulations (Suchkov et al. 1994; Strickland & Stevens 2000; Strickland et al. 2002).

The resolution problem. We stress that studies of the large-scale wind in the Galaxy are of fundamental importance in understanding this complex process. To understand why, we return to the powerful nuclear wind (or superbubble) in NGC 3079. High resolution x-ray and optical images (Strickland 2001; Cecil et al. 2002) show that most of the mass of the wind resides within the extended filaments, and that the wind material is clumpy down to the smallest scales observed. The smallest cloud scales in simulations must be very well sampled to treat entrainment and acceleration properly (Klein, McKee & Colella 1994), but the necessary resolution is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than what can be presently achieved (Strickland 2001). In NGC 3079, we may be seriously underestimating the mass loss and associated energetics in the nuclear wind.

The Galactic Center does not suffer resolution problems to anything like the same degree, and is therefore an extremely important source of information on the ubiquitous phenomenon of nuclear winds. Although the extinction to the Galactic Center from x-ray to mid-infrared wavelengths is high, moderate levels of extinction are also inferred towards the nuclear winds in external galaxies because these need to be highly inclined in order to see the extended wind emission.

The proximity of the Galactic Center suggests a number of important experiments. The observed 26Al line emission in $`\gamma `$-rays (Mahoney et al. 1984; Genzel & Townes 1987) indicates that supernova activity appears to be ongoing. Sub-millimeter observations will determine whether these supernovae reside within dense or tenuous gas. We have identified starburst activity as the likely source of the wind, but it is well known that AGNs produce powerful winds (e.g. Schiano 1986). A key experiment is to trace the 26Al $`\gamma `$-ray line emission or the pressure profile in thermal radio emission to establish if the injection zone is resolved or continues to rise towards the central black hole. Radio continuum measurements are also needed in order to measure the transverse magnetic field associated with the wind. Magnetohydrodynamical processes can radically alter the development of the wind. The post-shock regions are likely to be complicated. The FUSE, Chandra and XMM satellites are essential for measuring gas temperatures where the wind interacts with the halo or entrained ISM, either through direct emission or from absorption lines towards background sources. In the coming years, we anticipate a far deeper understanding of galactic winds arising from detailed multiwavelength studies of the Galactic Center.

We are indebted to David Strickland and Eli Dwek for invaluable comments, and to Gerald Cecil and Andrew McGrath for help with overlaying the radio map in Fig. 2. This research made use of data products from the Midcourse Space Experiment. Processing of the data was funded by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization with additional support from NASA Office of Space Science. This research has also made use of the NASA/ IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.