text:
# 𝐵→𝜌𝜋 decays, resonant and nonresonant contributions

## Abstract

We point out that a new contribution to B decays to three pions is relevant in explaining recent data from the CLEO and BABAR collaborations, in particular the results on quasi–two–body decays via a $`\rho `$ meson. We also discuss the relevance of these contribution to the measurement of CP violations.

preprint: CERN-TH/2000-242

Several exclusive charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays are known with good accuracy, and more will be measured in the near future, due to the large amount of data coming from $`e^+e^{}`$ machines such as the CLEO experiment  at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR), the BaBar experiment at SLAC  and the BELLE experiment at KEK , or hadron machines such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, with its program for $`B`$–physics. In the following we will consider quasi–two–body $`B`$ decays to three pions. Our motivation is twofold.

(1) $`\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm `$ and $`B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ were recently measured by the CLEO and BABAR collaborations. The ratio of these branchings are consistent among the two experiments and different from the theoretical expectations.

(2) quasi–two–body $`B`$ decays to three $`\pi `$ can be used for the determination of the angles of the unitarity triangle of CP violations .

Concerning the first point, the CLEO collaboration finds  $`(B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{})=(10.4_{3.4}^{+3.3}\pm 2.1)\times 10^6`$ and $`(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm )=(27.6_{7.4}^{+8.4}\pm 4.2)\times 10^6`$, combining these numbers we find a ratio

$$R=\frac{(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm )}{(B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{})}=2.65\pm 1.8,$$
(1)
where the error in the ratio includes all errors from the branchings; the error may be smaller than what indicated if part of the systematics simplifies in the ratio. The BABAR collaboration  gives the following preliminary results $`(B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{})=(24\pm 8\pm 3)\times 10^6`$ and $`(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm )=(49\pm 13_5^{+6})\times 10^6`$, with these numbers we find a ratio $`R=2.0\pm 1.3`$.

As discussed in , this ratio is rather small with respect to theoretical expectations; as a matter of fact, when computed in simple approximation schemes, as factorization with no penguins, one gets, from the BSW model , $`R6`$. A calculation including penguins in the factorization approximation was performed in  and gives $`R5.5`$. Calculations beyond factorization were performed in  with similar results  (see Table I).

Previous papers  investigated to role of the $`B^{}`$ and higher resonances in these decays, while here we will investigate a completely different mechanism that enhances selectively some of the $`B3\pi `$ decays, namely the possibility that a broad light scalar resonance is present in the 3–body Dalitz plot.

The light $`\sigma `$ resonance has accumulated considerable interest after it was reintroduced as a very broad resonance into the 1996 edition of the Reviews of Particle Physics . The E791 collaboration has an evidence of a very broad scalar resonance  having mass $`m_\sigma =478\pm 24`$ MeV and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =324\pm 41`$ MeV taking part into the decay process $`D^+3\pi `$ via the resonant channel $`D^+\sigma \pi ^+3\pi `$. The broad $`\sigma `$ was controversial due to the extreme difficulty in disentangling it from available data on $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$. In the following we will use the the experimental numbers for the mass and width of the $`\sigma `$ given by the E791 collaboration. In the process $`D^+3\pi `$ the $`\sigma `$ is a good description of three $`\pi `$ events not due to quasi–two–body decays of a narrow resonance as it accounts for $`46\%`$ of the three $`\pi `$’s branching . We will model $`B^+3\pi `$ in a similar way and see that indeed such a contribution is relevant and larger than or comparable to the non–resonant long–distance contribution of the $`B^{}`$. These two contributions, after the appropriate experimental cuts, constitute an irreducible background to the processes $`B\rho \pi `$, therefore adding events to some of them and modifying the ratio of branching ratios. This has also consequences on methods based on $`B\rho \pi `$ for the determination of the CP violating angles. It should be mentioned that the latest edition of the Reviews of Particle Physics  gives a broad range for the $`\sigma `$ mass and width. Their precise value is not crucial to our analysis as long as the the sigma is within the strip of the Dalitz plot where the $`\rho `$ mass contribution (within few hundred MeV due to the experimental cuts) is found.

The amplitude we are interested in are those corresponding to the diagrams in Figs. 1 and 2. We compute them at the tree level using the following effective Hamiltonian :

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}\{a_1(\overline{u}b)_{VA}(\overline{d}u)_{VA}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`a_2(\overline{d}b)_{VA}(\overline{u}u)_{VA}\},`$ (3)
giving, in the first case:

$``$ $`\sigma \pi ^{}|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^{}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V^{}_{ub}V_{ud}a_1F_0^{(B\sigma )}m_\pi ^2(m_B^2m_\sigma ^2)`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi g_{\sigma \pi ^+\pi ^{}}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_\sigma ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (u)m_\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_\sigma ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (t)m_\sigma }}\right)`$ (5)
where the calculation of the form factor $`F_0^{(B\sigma )}`$ proceeds as in , $`g_{\sigma \pi ^+\pi ^{}}=2.52`$ GeV comes from the experimental value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ and the co-moving width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (x)`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \frac{m_\sigma }{\sqrt{x}}\frac{\sqrt{x/4m_\pi ^2}}{\sqrt{m_\sigma ^2/4m_\pi ^2}},$$
(7)
where $`x`$ is $`u=(pp_1)^2`$ or $`t=(pp_2)^2`$ (as in the crossed channel, see Fig. 1, in which we have two identical $`\pi ^{}`$ particles in the final state). The comoving width can be obtained comparing the usual formula for the fixed width (see for example ) with a similar formula where the $`\sigma `$ mass is replaced by the square root of the relevant Mandelstam variable (as the $`\sigma `$ is an intermediate state in the decay process). The coefficient $`a_1`$ is given by $`a_1=C_1+\frac{1}{3}C_2`$ where the Wilson coefficients $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, fitted for $`B`$ decays, are $`C_1(m_b)=1.105`$ and $`C_2(m_b)=0.228`$.

On the other hand, the diagram in Fig. 2 is controlled by the $`a_2`$ coefficient appearing in (3) and the result is:

$`\sigma \pi ^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2F_0^{(B\sigma )}(m_\pi ^2)(m_B^2m_\sigma ^2)f_\pi `$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma \pi ^+\pi ^{}}}{um_\sigma ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (u)m_\sigma }},`$ (9)
with $`a_2=C_2+\frac{1}{3}C_1`$. We have checked that the formulas (LABEL:ff1) and (9), when applied to $`D\sigma \pi `$ with the obvious changes in the masses, form factor values and CKM coefficients, reproduce the experimental results of .

The definition of the form factors $`F_0^{(B\sigma )}`$ and $`F_1^{(B\sigma )}`$ is the following:

$`\sigma (q_\sigma )`$ $`|`$ $`A^\mu (q)|B(p)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2m_\sigma ^2}{q^2}}q^\mu \right]F_0^{(B\sigma )}(q^2)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\left[(p+q_\sigma )^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2m_\sigma ^2}{q^2}}q^\mu \right]F_1^{(B\sigma )}(q^2),`$ (11)
with $`F_1(0)=F_0(0)`$. Applying the factorization selects the form factor $`F_0^{(B\sigma )}`$ since:

$$\pi ^{}|A_{(\overline{d}u)}^\mu |\mathrm{VAC}=if_\pi q^\mu .$$
(12)
The polar and direct contributions to the semileptonic form factors discussed in  for the $`D\sigma `$ transition, give in this case:

$$F_0^{(B\sigma )}(m_\pi ^2)F_0(0)=0.45\pm 0.15,$$
(13)
where $`m_B=5.27`$ GeV, $`m_B(1^+)=5.7`$ GeV, $`B(1^+)`$ being the polar intermediate state connecting $`B`$ to $`A^\mu `$ . The errors include the uncertainty due to the variation of the parameters of the CQM model  in a fixed range of values and that arising from the extrapolation of the polar form factors to $`q^2=m_\pi ^20`$, following the same steps as in . In that paper the analogous form factor for $`D`$ decays was evaluated, $`F_0^{(D\sigma )}`$, and the result of the model closely reproduces the experimental value of . The calculation does not include $`1/m_b`$ corrections, where $`m_b`$ is the heavy quark mass, however such corrections were estimated to be smaller than the quoted experimental error for $`D`$ decays and are even smaller in the study of $`B`$ decays.

The possibility of a $`\sigma `$ contribution to CP violations was studied in $`K\pi \pi `$ decays . We consider in the following the impact of $`\sigma `$ contribution in quasi two–body pion decays of the $`B`$ meson. In particular the study of the $`B\rho \pi `$ channels is used for the determination of the unitarity angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ . These analyses make the assumption that, using cuts in the three invariant masses for the pion pairs, one can extract the $`\rho `$ contribution without significant background contaminations. The $`\rho `$ has spin $`1`$, the $`\pi `$ spin $`0`$ as well as the initial $`B`$, and therefore the $`\rho `$ has angular distribution $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ ($`\theta `$ is the angle of one of the $`\rho `$ decay products with the other $`\pi `$ in the $`\rho `$ rest frame). This means that the Dalitz plot is mainly populated at the border, especially the corners, by this decay. Analyses following these lines were performed by the BABAR working groups ; MonteCarlo simulations, including the background from the narrow $`f_0`$ resonance, show that, with cuts at $`m_{\pi \pi }=m_\rho \pm 200`$ MeV, no significant contributions from other sources are obtained. The role of excited resonances such as the $`\rho ^{}`$ and the non–resonant background was discussed . Finally the role of the off mass–shell $`B^{}`$ contribution was discussed in .

The formulas derived in the present paper allow to estimate the contribution of the $`\sigma `$ which was not taken into account in the previous analyses. As the resonance is broad, part of the events from $`B\sigma \pi 3\pi `$ survive the cuts on the invariant mass of two $`\pi `$ that reconstruct the mass of the $`\rho `$ (within $`\pm 200`$ MeV) in $`B\rho \pi 3\pi `$. We define the integrating region in the Dalitz plot around the $`\rho `$ resonance:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)|_{m_\rho \delta \sqrt{s}m_\rho +\delta }`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\overline{B}^0\rho ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)|_{m_\rho \delta \sqrt{t}m_\rho +\delta }.`$ (15)
The Mandelstam variables are $`s=(p_{\pi +}+p_{\pi 0})^2`$, $`t=(p_\pi +p_{\pi 0})^2`$ and we use $`\delta =200`$ MeV.

Moreover the $`\sigma `$ contributes to the decay $`B^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^\pm `$ and only in a negligible way to the decay $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ if its contribution is restricted to the experimental cuts that reconstruct the process $`\overline{B}^0\rho ^\pm \pi ^{}`$. Note that in the latter case the $`\rho `$ meson is charged, while the $`\sigma `$ is neutral. This means that on average the two charged pions will have a high invariant mass from the $`\sigma `$ resonance in the process, while in order to reconstruct a charged $`\rho `$ meson, a neutral and a charged pion have to be used. We have checked numerically that this is indeed correct and the $`\sigma `$ contribution to $`\overline{B}^0\rho ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ (we reconstruct the $`\rho `$ mass within $`\pm 200`$ MeV) is three orders of magnitude smaller than the $`\rho `$ contribution (for which we find $`(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm )=19.9\times 10^6`$). The $`\sigma `$ contribution to the charged $`B`$ decay is on the contrary a fraction of the $`\rho `$ one and comparable or larger than the contribution from the $`B^{}`$ (see Table II). This provides a clear mechanism to enhance the denominator of the ratio $`R`$, giving a result closer to the experimental one:

$$R=\frac{(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm )}{(B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{})}=3.6,$$
(16)
including only the $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ contributions, or $`R4`$ including also the $`B^{}`$, which however is less precisely known. A possibility to disentangle these contributions from the $`\rho `$ is to vary the experimental cuts and see the effect on the effective branching ratios. We find that the process $`B^{}\sigma \pi ^{}`$ has a total branching ratio of $`4.3\times 10^6`$, therefore comparable to the one of the $`\rho `$. Allowing the cuts around the $`\rho `$ mass to be $`\pm 300`$ MeV, the $`\sigma `$ contribution grows to $`2.7\times 10^6`$, to be compared to what indicated in Table II for a cut of $`\pm 200`$ MeV.

###### Acknowledgements.

ADP acknowledges support from EU-TMR programme, contract CT98-0169. We wish to thank N. A. Törnqvist, R. Gatto and G. Nardulli for informative discussions.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

HYPERFLUID — A MODEL OF

CLASSICAL MATTER WITH HYPERMOMENTUM

by

Yuri N. Obukhov<sup>∗⋄</sup> and Romualdo Tresguerres

Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, D–50923 Köln

Germany

Abstract

A variational theory of a continuous medium is developed the elements of which carry momentum and hypermomentum (hyperfluid). It is shown that the structure of the sources in metric-affine gravity is predetermined by the conservation identities and, when using the Weyssenhoff ansatz, these explicitly yield the hyperfluid currents.

$`{}_{}{}^{})`$ Permanent address: Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University, 117234 Moscow, Russia.

$`{}_{}{}^{})`$ Alexander von Humboldt Fellow.

1. Introduction

Fluid models (see, e.g., \[1-3\]) play an important role in gravitational theory, providing a convenient description of classical matter in terms of hydrodynamical notions. Various applications can be mentioned, starting ¿from cosmology and astrophysics and including approximation schemes of the post-Newtonian formalism.

Spin fluids \[4-8\], or continuous media with internal angular momentum, form the basis for understanding the physics of polarizable matter. This type of a classical (i.e., non-quantum) source occurs most naturally within the framework of Poincaré gauge gravity .

A further generalization leads to metric-affine gravity based on the gauge theory for the general affine group $`GA(4,R)`$ \[11-17\]. This article presents an attempt to construct a variational theory of a hyperfluid — a continuous medium the elements of which are characterized by a nontrivial hypermomentum density.

2. Conservation identities and phenomenological approach to a hyperfluid

The gravitational variables of metric-affine gravity are the forms ($`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$) with an appropriate transformation behavior under the local $`GL(4,R)`$ group. The metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a 0-form, the coframe $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$ and the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$ are 1-forms. The list of the field strengths includes the nonmetricity 1-form $`Q_{\alpha \beta }:=Dg_{\alpha \beta }`$ besides the 2-forms of torsion $`T^\alpha `$ and curvature $`R_\alpha ^\beta `$ .

Let us start the discussion of the generalized fluid by displaying the gravitational field equations. For the most general gravitational Lagrangian 4-form $`V=V`$($`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$, $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`T^\alpha `$, $`R_\alpha ^\beta `$) they read:

$$2\frac{\delta V}{\delta g_{\alpha \beta }}=\sigma ^{\alpha \beta },$$
$`(2.0)`$
$$\frac{\delta V}{\delta \vartheta ^\alpha }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ,$$
$`(2.1)`$
$$\frac{\delta V}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha ,$$
$`(2.2)`$
The left-hand sides of the field equations (2.1)-(2.3) are not quite independent. They satisfy the identities which result from the Noether theorem for general coordinate (diffeomorphism) and local $`GL(4,R)`$ invariance of the gravitational action,

$$D\frac{\delta V}{\delta \vartheta ^\alpha }(e_\alpha T^\beta )\frac{\delta V}{\delta \vartheta ^\beta }+(e_\alpha R_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma })\frac{\delta V}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta ^\gamma }(e_\alpha Q_{\beta \gamma })\frac{\delta V}{\delta g_{\beta \gamma }},$$
$`(2.3)`$
$$D\frac{\delta V}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta }+\vartheta ^\alpha \frac{\delta V}{\delta \vartheta ^\beta }2g_{\beta \gamma }\frac{\delta V}{\delta g_{\alpha \gamma }}0,$$
$`(2.4)`$
where the vectors $`e_\alpha `$ constitute the (anholonomic) frame ($`e_\alpha \vartheta ^\beta =\delta ^\beta _\alpha `$).

The right-hand sides of the gravitational field equations are represented by the matter currents: the metric stress-energy $`\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$, the canonical energy-momentum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$, and the hypermomentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha _\beta `$, the latter is asymmetric in $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

In a self-consistent variational framework the matter currents should arise quite generally from a matter Lagrangian $`L`$ as variational derivatives

$$\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }:=2\frac{\delta L}{\delta g_{\alpha \beta }},\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha :=\frac{\delta L}{\delta \vartheta ^\alpha },\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}:=\frac{\delta L}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta }.$$
$`(2.5)`$
However, let us suppose that the precise form of the matter Lagrangian is unknown. To what extent can one determine the structure of the matter currents? Such an approach (which could be called phenomenological) proved to be useful in Einstein’s general relativity theory, as well as in Poincaré gauge gravity. We will demonstrate that, in fact, the conservation identities provide quite a powerful tool for establishing the theory of a fluid with hypermomentum.

In the absence of an explicit matter Lagrangian $`L`$, the standard Noether framework is not available for discussing the symmetry properties of matter. However, now the identities (2.4)-(2.5) play a central role, giving the conditions which provide the mathematical self-consistency of the gravitational theory. Indeed, let us substitute (2.1)-(2.3) into these geometrical identities. As a result we obtain two equations for the matter currents,

$$D\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =(e_\alpha T^\beta )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta +(e_\alpha R_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma })\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta {}_{\gamma }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}(e_\alpha Q_{\beta \gamma })\sigma ^{\beta \gamma },$$
$`(2.6)`$
and

$$D\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}+\vartheta ^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta g_{\beta \gamma }\sigma ^{\alpha \gamma }=0.$$
$`(2.7)`$
Unlike (2.4)-(2.5) these are not identically satisfied, but instead should be understood as constraints on the matter variables (unspecified as yet) out of which the matter currents are constructed.

As it is clear from (2.2), (2.3), the currents ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha `$) are associated to the translational and rotational-deformational (local $`GL(4,R)`$) gravitational degrees of freedom, respectively. Thus they represent the essential physical constituents of the theory, namely the $`GA(4,R)`$–matter currents. In contrast, the current $`\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is a secondary object, which is proved by the fact that equation (2.8) determines the current $`\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$, provided $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha `$ are given.

Let us present subsequently the phenomenological description of the hyperfluid. We will consider it as a continuous medium the elements of which are characterized by the density of the classical “charge” of the relevant gauge group — i.e., by the pair ($`P_\alpha `$, $`J_\beta ^\alpha `$) in our case. These quantities represent the 4-momentum and the hypermomentum of a fluid element, respectively. As usually in hydrodynamics, the 4-velocity vector field $`u^\alpha `$ is defined by the flow of the fluid. In the language of exterior calculus, it is more convenient to start with a flow 3-form $`u`$ . The components of the velocity are then defined by

$$u_\alpha :=e_\alpha u,$$
$`(2.8)`$
where $``$ is the Hodge dual operator. The 4-velocity is assumed to be a timelike vector with unit length, $`u^\alpha u_\alpha =1`$. This translates into the condition

$$uu=\eta ,$$
$`(2.9)`$
where the volume 4-form is defined by means of the Hodge dual, $`\eta :=1`$. The current of a $`GA(4,R)`$-charged fluid, produced by the flow $`u`$, is simply a 3-form $`u(P_\alpha `$, $`J_\beta ^\alpha )`$. We will assume that this phenomenological current describes the right-hand side of (2.2)-(2.3). Thus the hyperfluid matter current 3-forms are given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =uP_\alpha ,$$
$`(2.10)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =uJ_\beta ^\alpha .$$
$`(2.11)`$
The representation (2.11)-(2.12) (which can be called the generalized Weyssenhoff ansatz) proved to be viable both in Einstein theory, and in Poincaré gauge gravity. In the former case only the translations effectively form the gauge symmetry group of space-time. Hence the relevant fluid is characterized by the matter currents $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =uP_\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =0`$, which describe an ordinary structureless continuous medium. In Poincaré gravity, the matter currents are $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =uP_\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =uS_\beta ^\alpha `$, with $`S^{\alpha \beta }=S^{\beta \alpha }`$ (spin), and these describe the Weyssenhoff spin fluid . The antisymmetric part of the hypermomentum charge in (2.12) represents the spin density, $`J_{[\alpha \beta ]}:=S_{\alpha \beta }`$.

Remarkably, the conservation identities (2.7)-(2.8) contain much of the information necessary for establishing the hyperfluid theory. At first, let us use (2.8) and find the structure of the canonical energy-momentum and the metrical stress of the hyperfluid. For this purpose we notice that the antisymmetric part of (2.8),

$$g_{\gamma [\alpha }D(uJ^\gamma {}_{\beta ]}{}^{})+\vartheta _{[\alpha }uP_{\beta ]}=0,$$
$`(2.12)`$
is easily solved with respect to the 4-momentum,

$$P_\alpha =(u\pi _\alpha ),\pi _\alpha =\epsilon \vartheta _\alpha +2\vartheta ^\beta g_{\gamma [\alpha }\dot{J}^\gamma {}_{\beta ]}{}^{},$$
$`(2.13)`$
where hereafter for any covariant object $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \mathrm{}^\alpha \mathrm{}`$ the dot denotes $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\beta \mathrm{}^\alpha \mathrm{}:=D(u\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \mathrm{}^\alpha \mathrm{})`$, and the scalar $`\epsilon :=u^\alpha P_\alpha `$ has the meaning of the rest energy density.

The substitution of (2.14) back into (2.11) yields the explicit form of the canonical energy-momentum current of the hyperfluid:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =u[u(\epsilon \vartheta _\alpha +2\vartheta ^\beta g_{\gamma [\alpha }\dot{J}^\gamma {}_{\beta ]}{}^{})].$$
$`(2.14)`$
In turn, the symmetric part of (2.8) yields the metric stress current

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }=\eta [\epsilon u_\alpha u_\beta +u^\lambda u_{(\alpha }g_{\beta )\gamma }\dot{J}^\gamma {}_{\lambda }{}^{}+h_{\gamma (\alpha }\dot{J}^\gamma {}_{\beta )}{}^{}],$$
$`(2.15)`$
where $`h_\beta ^\alpha :=\delta _\beta ^\alpha u^\alpha u_\beta `$ is the standard projector on the subspace orthogonal to the 4-velocity $`u^\alpha `$.

It is worthwhile to note that, when the nonmetricity is zero (i.e., in a Riemann-Cartan space-time), only spin contributes to the canonical energy-momentum current (2.15). This becomes clear after rewriting $`\pi _\alpha `$ in (2.14) as $`\pi _\alpha =\epsilon \vartheta _\alpha +2\vartheta ^\beta \dot{S}_{\alpha \beta }+2Q_{\gamma [\alpha }J_{\beta ]}^\gamma (u\vartheta ^\beta )`$.

So far no non-gravitational interaction was assumed between the elements of the fluid. Thus the model above describes the case of incoherent (or “dust”) matter with hypermomentum. The interparticle interactions manifest themselves in the additional stress term in the canonical energy-momentum tensor. Within the framework of the phenomenological approach under consideration, this additional term should be postulated separately. The simplest possibility is to adopt the ideal fluid postulate, which states that the stress produced by the interparticle interactions is given by the isotropic pressure $`p`$. Hence, the final canonical energy-momentum current of the ideal hyperfluid reads

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =pu(e_\alpha u)+u[u(\epsilon \vartheta _\alpha +2\vartheta ^\beta g_{\gamma [\alpha }\dot{J}^\gamma {}_{\beta ]}{}^{})].$$
$`(2.16)`$
The metric stress current (2.16) is modified then, according to (2.8), by including the stress term $`ph_{\alpha \beta }\eta `$.

In the next section we present a self-consistent variational theory of the hyperfluid, constructed along the lines of the early spin fluid models.

3. Variational principle for the ideal hyperfluid

We will construct the model of a hyperfluid in generalizing the variational theory of the Weyssenhoff spin fluid . The motion of the medium will be described, as usual, by its 4-velocity $`u^\alpha `$ and three vectors $`b_A^\alpha ,A=1,2,3`$, attached to each element of the fluid. However, unlike the rigid triad of the spin fluid model (which can only rotate), we will assume, in accordance with the $`GA(4,R)`$ gauge approach, that the material frame $`b_A^\alpha `$ is elastic — in the sense that it can undergo arbitrary deformations during the motion of the fluid. This transition from a rigid to a deformable material frame is in fact well known in the elasticity theory as the transition from a Cosserat continuum  to the elastic medium with micro-structure of Mindlin . Like the fluid velocity, we will describe the material frame by the 3-form $`b_A`$, such that $`b_A^\alpha :=(b_A\vartheta ^\alpha )`$, cf. (2.9).

Wishing to preserve the Weyssenhoff model as a limiting case of the theory under consideration, we will assume that the 4-velocity is normalized and orthogonal to the material frame,

$$uu=\eta ,ub_A=0.$$
$`(3.0)`$
Technically, it will be convenient also to introduce explicitly the dual material triad — the material co-frame $`b_\alpha ^A,A=1,2,3`$ which satisfies $`b_\alpha ^Ab_B^\alpha =\delta _B^A.`$ In the exterior form language this will be described by the 1-form $`b^A`$ (so that $`b_\alpha ^A:=e_\alpha b^A`$) which is dual to the 3-form $`b_A`$,

$$b^Bb_A=\delta _A^B\eta .$$
$`(3.1)`$
We will treat the pair $`(b_A,b^B)`$ as independent dynamical variables and (3.2) as the constraint, which simplifies greatly the non-trivial problem of raising and lowering indices in the metric-affine approach.

The internal structure of the hyperfluid is characterised by the following scalar variables: the particle density $`\rho `$, the specific entropy $`s`$, the Lin variable $`X`$  (used to identify particles), and the specific hypermomentum density $`\mu _B^A`$ which is the direct generalisation of the spin density variable of the old Weyssenhoff model. As usually, we assume that the number of particles is not changed and that the entropy and the identity of particles is conserved during the motion of the fluid. These conditions are manifested in the form of constraints

$$d(\rho u)=0,$$
$`(3.2)`$
$$udX=0,$$
$`(3.3)`$
$$uds=0,$$
$`(3.4)`$
which will be introduced into the variational principle by means of the method of the Lagrange multipliers.

Now we are in a position to write the Lagrangian 4-form of the hyperfluid:

$$L=\epsilon (\rho ,s,\mu _B^A)\eta \frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^BuDb_A^\alpha $$

$$\rho ud\lambda _1+\lambda _2udX+\lambda _3uds+\lambda _0(uu\eta )+$$

$$+\lambda ^A(ub_A)+\lambda _B^A(b^Bb_A\eta \delta _A^B)+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_A(b^Au).$$
$`(3.5)`$
The first line is most essential physically, representing the internal energy density $`\epsilon `$ which is assumed to be the function of the particle density, entropy and the specific hypermomentum density, and the kinetic energy (the second term in (3.6)), which represents in fact the sum of well known rotational and elastic deformation energy terms. The remaining terms in (3.6) describe constraints (the last term is necessary to ensure the orthogonality of 4-velocity and the co-frame, since the latter is treated as independent variable). The Lagrange multipliers are 0-forms.

Let us derive the Euler-Lagrange equations. To summarise, the independent variables here are: the metric-affine gravitational field $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta ^\alpha `$, the material variables $`b_A,b^B,\rho ,\mu _B^A`$$`s,X`$, and the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda `$.

Varying the action with respect to the latter, one obtains the constraints (3.1), (3.2), supplemented by $`b^Au=0`$, and equations (3.3)-(3.5). Variations of $`s`$ and $`X`$ yield the equations for the pair of Lagrange multipliers,

$$\eta \left(\frac{\epsilon }{s}\right)+d(\lambda _3u)=0,d(\lambda _2u)=0,$$
$`(3.6)`$
while the variations of $`\rho `$ and $`\mu _B^A`$ yield respectively

$$\eta \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho }\right)\frac{1}{2}\mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^BuDb_A^\alpha ud\lambda _1=0,$$
$`(3.7)`$
$$\eta \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\mu _B^A}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\rho b_\alpha ^BuDb_A^\alpha .$$
$`(3.8)`$
These in fact provide the explicit form of thermodynamical variables: the pressure and the rotation+deformation tensor, conjugated to hypermomentum.

To finish with the material variables, let us write the equations which result from the variation of the action (3.6) with respect to $`u`$, $`b^B`$, $`b_A`$. These read respectively:

$$\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^BDb_A^\alpha \rho d\lambda _1+\lambda _2dX+\lambda _3ds2\lambda _0u\lambda ^Ab_A\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_Ab^A=0,$$
$`(3.9)`$
$$\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^A(uDb_A^\alpha )\eta _\alpha +\lambda _B^Ab_A+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_Bu=0,$$
$`(3.10)`$
$$\frac{1}{2}D(\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^Bu)\vartheta ^\alpha +\lambda ^Au+\lambda _B^Ab^B=0.$$
$`(3.11)`$
Hereafter, as usually the dual 3-form of the space-time coframe is denoted $`\eta ^\alpha :=\vartheta ^\alpha `$.

It is worth to note, that the variations of the matter triad components look rather non-trivial:

$$\eta \delta b_A^\alpha =\vartheta ^\alpha \delta b_A+\delta \vartheta ^\alpha b_Ab_A^\alpha (\frac{1}{2}g^{\rho \sigma }\delta g_{\rho \sigma }\eta +\delta \vartheta ^\beta \eta _\beta ),$$
$`(3.12)`$
$$\eta \delta b_\alpha ^B=\delta b^B\eta _\alpha \delta \vartheta ^\beta \eta _\alpha b_\beta ^B.$$
$`(3.13)`$
Multiplying (3.10) by $`u`$, and using (3.1)-(3.5), (3.7), we get the Lagrange multiplier

$$2\lambda _0=\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^B(uDb_A^\alpha )\rho (ud\lambda _1)=\rho \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho }\right).$$
$`(3.14)`$
Analogously, the remaining Lagrange multipliers are obtained from the exterior products of (3.11) with $`u`$, (3.11) with $`b^C`$, and (3.12) with $`u`$, respectively,

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_A=\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _A^Bu_\alpha (uDb_B^\alpha ),$$
$`(3.15)`$
$$\lambda _B^A=\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^C(ub_C^\alpha Db_\alpha ^A),$$
$`(3.16)`$
$$\lambda ^A=\frac{1}{2}D(\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^Bu)u^\alpha .$$
$`(3.17)`$
Finally, multiplying (3.12) by $`b_C`$, and using (3.17), we get the equations of motion of the specific hypermomentum density:

$$u(d\mu _B^A+\mu _C^Ab_B^\alpha Db_\alpha ^C\mu _B^Cb_C^\alpha Db_\alpha ^A)=0.$$
$`(3.18)`$
This generalises the well known equation of motion of spin in the Weysenhoff model.

Let us find the matter currents. In the previous section we discussed these phenomenologically, but now the rigorous derivation from the variational principle is straightforward. One obtains:

$$\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }:=2\frac{\delta L}{\delta g_{\alpha \beta }}=\eta [\epsilon g^{\alpha \beta }+2\lambda _0(u^\alpha u^\beta g^{\alpha \beta })+2\lambda ^Ab_A^{(\alpha }u^{\beta )}g^{\alpha \beta }\lambda _A^A\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }D(\rho \mu _B^Ab_\gamma ^Bu)b_A^\gamma ],$$
$`(3.19)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha :=\frac{\delta L}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta }=\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_\beta ^Bb_A^\alpha u,$$
$`(3.20)`$
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha :=\frac{\delta L}{\delta \vartheta ^\alpha }=\epsilon \eta _\alpha 2\lambda _0(\eta _\alpha u_\alpha u)+$$

$$+u_\alpha \lambda ^Ab_A+g_{\alpha \beta }b_A^\beta \lambda ^Au\lambda _A^A\eta _\alpha \frac{1}{2}\eta _\alpha b_A^\beta D(\rho \mu _B^Ab_\beta ^Bu)+\frac{1}{2}\eta _\beta D(\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^Bb_A^\beta u).$$
$`(3.21)`$
These expressions are simplified greatly if we denote

$$J_\beta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_A^\alpha b_\beta ^B,$$
$`(3.22)`$
and introduce the pressure in a standard way,

$$p:=\rho \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho }\right)\epsilon .$$
$`(3.23)`$
We then find

$$\lambda _0=\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon +p),$$
$`(3.24)`$
and, finally, the matter currents of the hyperfluid read

$$\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }=\eta (\epsilon u^\alpha u^\beta ph^{\alpha \beta })+2u^\gamma u^{(\alpha }D\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma ^{\beta )},$$
$`(3.25)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =uJ_\beta ^\alpha ,$$
$`(3.26)`$
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =\epsilon uu_\alpha p(\eta _\alpha uu_\alpha )+2uu^\beta g_{\gamma [\alpha }\dot{J}^\gamma {}_{\beta ]}{}^{}.$$
$`(3.27)`$
In the derivation of these the equations of the hypermomentum (3.19) were used.

Hypermomentum dynamics can be more conveniently described with respect to an anholonomic space-time frame, using the definition (3.23) and the fact that the material frame spans the space, orthogonal to the 4-velocity, which is expressed by the identity

$$b_\alpha ^Ab_A^\beta =h_\alpha ^\beta =\delta _\alpha ^\beta u^\beta u_\alpha ,$$
$`(3.28)`$
straightforwardly derivable from (3.1), (3.2). Multiplying (3.19) by $`\frac{1}{2}\rho b_A^\alpha b_\beta ^B`$, one finds

$$D\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =u^\alpha u_\lambda D\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\lambda +u_\beta u^\lambda D\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^\alpha .$$
$`(3.29)`$
Comparison of (3.26)-(3.28) with the expressions of matter currents (2.11), (2.12), (2.17), (2.16), shows complete agreement of the rigorous variational theory with the phenomenological approach. There is, though, one refinement — the hypermomentum density (3.23) is subject to the constraint

$$J_\beta ^\alpha u^\beta =J_\beta ^\alpha u_\alpha =0,$$
$`(3.30)`$
which is the analogue of the well known Frenkel condition. Physically this is motivated by the properties of spin as a part of the total hypermomentum.

A new point is that the variational theory yields the equations of motion of hypermomentum (3.30), which the phenomenological approach could not provide in view of the absence of a definition of the phenomenological matter currents in terms of the true dynamical variables of the hyperfluid.

4. Conclusion

The hyperfluid represents a classical model of matter with hypermomentum which is the source of the metric-affine gravity. It is interesting to obtain the exact non-vacuum solutions for the gravitational field equations in astrophysical and cosmological (very early stages) setting, this work is now in progress. Further development of the hyperfluid model should give an answer to an important question: is it possible to recover this medium in a semiclassical treatment of the quantum matter with hypermomentum — such as, for example, the manifields \[26-28\]?

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Friedrich W. Hehl and Eckehard W. Mielke for stimulating discussions and useful comments. The research of YNO was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

References

 C. Møller, The theory of relativity (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1952).

 J.L. Synge, Relativity – the general theory (North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1960).

 J. Ehlers, in: Recent developments in general relativity, Festschrift for L.Infeld (Pergamon Press/PWN: Oxford/Warsaw, 1962) 201.

 J. Weyssenhoff, and A. Raabe, Acta Phys. Polon. 9 (1947) 7.

 F. Halbwachs, Théorie relativiste des fluides à spin (Gauthier-Villars: Paris, 1960).

 I. Bailey, and W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys. 42 (1975) 65.

 I. Bailey, Ann. Phys. (USA) 119 (1979) 76.

 W. Kopczyński, Phys. Rev. D34 (1986) 352.

 F.W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G.D. Kerlick, and J.M. Nester, Revs. Mod. Phys. 48 (1976) 393.

 A. Trautman, Symposia Mathematica 12 (1973) 139.

 F.W. Hehl, G.D. Kerlick, and P. von der Heyde, Z. Naturforsch. 31a (1976) 111; 524; 823; and Phys. Lett. B63 (1976) 446.

 L.L. Smalley, Phys. Lett. A61 (1977) 436.

 F.W. Hehl, and G.D. Kerlick, Gen. Rel. Grav. 9 (1978) 691.

 F.W. Hehl, E.A. Lord, and L.L. Smalley, Gen. Rel. Grav. 13 (1981) 1037.

 F.W. Hehl, E.A. Lord, and Y. Ne’eman, Phys. Lett. B71 (1977) 432; and Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 428.

 V.N. Ponomariev, and Yu.N. Obukhov, Gen. Rel. Grav. 14 (1982) 309.

 E.A. Lord, Phys. Lett. A65 (1978) 1.

 F.W. Hehl, J.D. McCrea, and E.W. Mielke, Found. Phys. 19 (1989) 1075.

 F.W. Hehl, J.D. McCrea, and E.W. Mielke, in: Exact Sciences and their Philosophical Foundations. Vorträge des Internationalen Hermann-Weyl-Kongresses, Kiel 1985 /Eds. W. Deppert, K. Hübner, A. Oberschelp, and V. Weidemann (P.Lang Verlag: Frankfurt, 1988) 241; R.D. Hecht, and F.W. Hehl, Proc. 9th Italian Conf. Gen. Rel. and Grav. Phys., Capri (Napoli). /Eds. R. Cianchi et al (World Scientific: Singapore, 1991) p. 246.

 A.Trautman, in: General Relativity and Gravitation. One Hundred Years After the Birth of Albert Einstein /Ed. A. Held (Plenum Press: New York, 1980), vol. 1, p. 287.

 Yu.N. Obukhov, and V.A. Korotky, Class. Quantum Grav. 4 (1987) 1633.

 E. Cosserat, and F. Cosserat, Théorie des corps déformables (A.Hermann et Fils: Paris, 1909).

 R.D. Mindlin, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 16 (1964) 51.

 J.R. Ray, and L.L. Smalley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1059.

 R. De Ritis, M. Lavorgna, G. Platania, and C. Stornaiolo, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 713.

 Y. Ne’eman, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 74 (1977) 4157.

 Y. Ne’eman, and Dj. Šijački, Ann. Phys. (NY) 120 (1979) 292.

 Y. Ne’eman, and Dj. Šijački, Phys. Lett. B157 (1985) 275; and Phys. Lett. B200 (1988) 489.


text:
# The TeV Energy Spectrum of Mkn 501 Measured with the Stereoscopic Telescope System of HEGRA during 1998 and 1999

## 1 Introduction

During the years of its discovery as a TeV source the BL Lac object Mkn 501 showed modest integral fluxes, during 1995 about 1/12 of the Crab flux above 300 GeV Quinn et al. (1996) and during 1996 about 1/3 of the Crab flux above 1.5 TeV Bradbury et al. (1997). In the year 1997 the source went into a state of surprisingly high activity in the X-ray Pian et al. (1998) and TeV energy bands (Samuelson et al., 1998; Aharonian et al. 1999a, ; Djannati-Atai et al., 1999). During more than 6 months the source showed a succession of very strong flares with an average differential flux at 1 TeV approximately 3 times higher than the flux of the Crab Nebula.

The extraordinary high TeV emission level as well as the significant improvement of detectors and analysis methods made it possible to study the temporal and spectral TeV characteristics of a BL Lac object with unprecedented detail. The measurements with the Stereoscopic Cherenkov Telescope System of HEGRA revealed that while the TeV flux varied by factors of up to 30, the TeV spectrum remained surprisingly stable. With a typical statistical accuracy (1 $`\sigma `$) of the diurnal spectral indices between 0.1 and 0.3 no spectral variability could be ascertained with a statistical significance exceeding $`3\sigma `$ Aharonian et al. 1999a . Furthermore, dividing the data into groups according to the flux level at 2 TeV did not reveal any evidence for a flux hardness correlation (statistical accuracy of the 1 TeV to 10 TeV spectral indices $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.05).

The excellent gamma-ray statistics combined with the 20% energy resolution of the HEGRA instrument resulted in the first detection of gamma-rays from an extragalactic source well beyond 10 TeV, and the first high accuracy measurement of an exponential cutoff in the energy region above 5 TeV, well into the exponential regime Aharonian et al. 1999b . From 500 GeV to $``$20 TeV the differential photon spectrum could be approximated by a power-law with an exponential cutoff:

$$\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E=N_0(E/1\mathrm{TeV})^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(E/E_0),$$
(1)
with $`N_0=(108\pm 2_{\mathrm{stat}}\pm 2.1_{\mathrm{sys}})\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{TeV}^1`$, $`\alpha =1.92\pm 0.03_{\mathrm{stat}}\pm 0.20_{\mathrm{sys}}`$, and $`E_0=6.2\pm 0.4_{\mathrm{stat}}(1.5+2.9)_{\mathrm{sys}}\mathrm{TeV}`$.

Note that the stability of the 1997 TeV spectrum has been a matter of debate. The CAT group reported evidence for a flux-hardness correlation in their 1997 Mkn 501 data set: the spectrum of the 3 days with maximum $`>250`$ GeV flux in their data set seemed to be harder than the spectrum during the rest of the 1997 observations on a statistically significant level although they did not report an estimate of the systematic uncertainty on this result Djannati-Atai et al. (1999). The apparent contradiction between the HEGRA and CAT results could be explained by the following 2 facts: (i) Since the CAT flux-hardness correlation stems from the energy range below 1 TeV while the HEGRA constraints on the correlation are strongest at energies above 1 TeV, the results could indicate a stronger flux-hardness correlation below 1 TeV than above 1 TeV Djannati-Atai et al. (1999); (ii) since the evidence for the flux-hardness correlation is based on the detection of a harder spectrum for a small number of observation nights (3 nights) it could well be that the flux-hardness relation found for these days does not represent the behavior of the source during the full 1997 flaring phase. While there are no HEGRA observations for the strongest flare in the CAT data sample (April 16th, 1997), the HEGRA data of the day with the second highest TeV emission in the CAT data sample (April 13th, 1997) also indicated a harder than average spectrum: the 1 TeV to 5 TeV photon index of 1.87$`\pm 0.14_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ deviated by 2.7 $`\sigma `$ from the 1997 mean photon index of 2.25 Aharonian et al. 1999a . Therefore a harder than average spectrum for at least 2 of the 3 CAT nights is consistent with the HEGRA observations even if the spectrum hardened as much above 1 TeV as it did below 1 TeV. Note that the HEGRA observations of several later 1997 flares with comparable and higher flux levels than that of April 13th did not show such a trend of spectral hardening

In this paper we present HEGRA observations of Mkn 501 during the years 1998 and 1999 and show how the energy spectrum evolved in the years following the 1997 flaring phase. After describing the telescope system as well as the dataset in Sect. 2 we report on the 1998 and 1999 Mkn 501 light curve and energy spectrum in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4 we discuss possible implications of the results.

## 2 The HEGRA Cherenkov Telescope System and the Data Sample

The HEGRA collaboration operates six imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes located on the Roque de los Muchachos on the Canary island of La Palma, at 2200 m above sea level. In this paper we present the 1998–1999 Mkn 501 data taken with the HEGRA Cherenkov Telescopes System Konopelko et al. 1999a . The system consists of five telescopes (CT2 - CT6) which are operated as a single detector for the stereoscopic detection of air showers induced by primary gamma-rays in the atmosphere. The telescope system has been taking data since 1996, initially with three and later four telescopes, and since fall 1998 as a complete five-telescope system. With an energy threshold of 500 GeV, the telescope system achieves an angular resolution of 0.1 and an energy resolution of 20% for individual photons, as well as an approximate energy flux sensitivity $`\nu `$Fν at 1 TeV of 10-11 $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (S/N = 5 $`\sigma `$) for 1 hour of observation time. Note that most of the data presented in this paper were taken with the four telescope system. The telescope “CT2” was undergoing significant hardware modifications. The results presented in the following are based on 126 hours of data acquired between 1998, February 28 and 1999, July 7 with Mkn 501 altitudes above 60. The search of intraday flux variability makes use of additional 27 h of data with Mkn 501 altitudes between 45 and 60. The standard data quality criteria, analysis tools, and “loose” selection cuts for spectral studies described in detail in (Aharonian et al. 1999a-b) were applied.

## 3 Experimental results

Fig. 1 shows the diurnal averages of the Mkn 501 integral fluxes above 1 TeV as measured during 1998 and 1999. Compared to 1997 when diurnal averages of up to $`178\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (corresponding to 10 Crab units, 1 Crab unit equals $`17.5\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$) and a mean $`>1`$ TeV integral flux of $`64\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (3.7 Crab units) were observed, a striking decrease in flaring activity can clearly be recognized. Only 1 flare with a peak flux substantially surpassing the flux level of the Crab Nebula was detected on June 26/27, 1998 (MJD 50991) and June 27/28 (MJD 50992). The mean $`>1`$ TeV integral flux of the 1998–1999 data sample without the 1998 June flare was $`(4.8\pm 0.3_{\mathrm{stat}})\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, a factor of 13 lower than that of 1997.

The June 1998 flare and the correlated X-ray activity have been discussed in detail by Sambruna et al. (2000). For the day of maximum emission, June 26/27, we found evidence on the 99.4% confidence level that the flux increased and decreased by a factor of 2 within a time interval of 1 hour. The spectrum of the 2 days with maximum emission seemed to be softer than that of the 1997 observations, but the difference was not statistically significant. A fit of a power law with an exponential cutoff yielded the parameters (see Eq. (1)): $`N_0=(79\pm 10_{\mathrm{stat}})\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{TeV}^1`$, $`\alpha =1.92\pm 0.30_{\mathrm{stat}}`$, and $`E_0=4.1(0.9+1.45)_{\mathrm{stat}}\mathrm{TeV}`$. For the remaining days of the 1998–1999 observations we did not find additional evidence for intraday variability. For the typical diurnal observation times of about 1.5 h the 2$`\sigma `$ (S/N) flux sensitivity threshold was approximately 1/6th of the Crab flux. For 36% (63%) of the days with observations, we found an excess with more than 2$`\sigma `$ (1$`\sigma `$) statistical significance. For 12% of the nights, the Mkn 501 flux was clearly below the sensitivity threshold for diurnal observations and an event deficit rather than an event excess was found in the signal region.

We determined a “low-flux” TeV energy spectrum of Mkn 501 by analyzing 122 h of 1998–1999 data, excluding the 4 h of data taken during the 1998-flare. Here we combine data of the 2 years to increase the statistical accuracy of the resulting spectrum. Analyzing the 2 years independently yields a very similar fitted mean flux at 1 TeV for both data sets and, within the large statistical errors, no significant difference in spectral shape. The 1998–1999 low-flux spectrum combined with the results of the fits discussed in the following are shown in Fig. 2.

A fit of a power law model with an exponential cut-off yields the parameter values (see Eq. (1)): $`N_0=(10.1\pm 1.9_{\mathrm{stat}})\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{TeV}^1`$, $`\alpha =2.31\pm 0.22_{\mathrm{stat}}`$, and $`E_0=5.1(2.3+7.8)_{\mathrm{stat}}\mathrm{TeV}`$ with a reduced $`\chi ^2`$-value of 0.71 for 13 degrees of freedom (the negative flux estimates corresponding to the flux upper limits in Fig. 2 are included in the fit). Within statistical errors, also a pure power law model

$$\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E=N_0(E/1\mathrm{TeV})^\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(2)
yields an acceptable fit with: $`N_0=(8.4\pm 0.5_{\mathrm{stat}})\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{TeV}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.76\pm 0.08`$, and a slightly larger reduced $`\chi ^2`$-value of 0.92 for 14 degrees of freedom. The systematic error on the absolute flux is 25%, due to uncertainty in the absolute energy scale. Systematic uncertainty on the shape of the spectrum is only relevant for energies below 1 TeV and corresponds to an uncertainty of a power law spectral index of 0.05 (see the hatched area in Fig. 2). The results of the fits to the Mkn 501 spectra are summarized in Table 1.

The fit results indicate that the 1998–1999 low-flux spectrum is softer than the 1997 time averaged spectrum. The parameterization of Eq. (1) is not suited to assess the statistical significance of the spectral steepening since the fit-parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`E_0`$ are strongly correlated and hence, the statistical errors on both parameters are large. A fit to the ratio of the two spectra shows that indeed the spectrum softened significantly: $`(\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E)\text{(1998–1999 low-flux)}/(\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E)(1997)E^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =0.44\pm 0.10_{\mathrm{stat}}`$. The systematic error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{\mathrm{syst}}`$ on the change in spectral index from year to year is smaller than the error on the shape of individual spectra since several contributions to the systematic error affect all measured spectra in the same way; we estimate that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{\mathrm{syst}}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.05, i.e. it is smaller than the statistical error on $`\gamma `$ of 0.1. This latter conclusion is substantiated by observations of the persistent TeV emitter Crab Nebula (Aharonian et al., 2000). The spectral index determined for the two Crab observation periods 1997–1998 and 1998–1999 differs by only 0.02$`\pm `$0.07stat. Given the statistical errors on the low-flux spectrum, it is not possible to decide which one of the two parameters, $`E_0`$ or $`\alpha `$, actually changed. Fixing $`E_0`$ to the 1997-value of 6.2 TeV gives a 1998–1999 photon index of $`\alpha =2.36\pm 0.10_{\mathrm{stat}}`$, i.e. a value 0.44 softer than that of the 1997 energy spectrum. Fixing $`\alpha `$ to the 1997-value of 1.92 gives a 1998–1999 high energy cutoff of $`E_0=(2.610.38+0.44)_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ TeV, i.e. a value reduced by 3.6 TeV compared to the 1997 data.

The upper panel of Fig. 3 compares the spectral energy distributions as measured during 1997, during the 1998-flare, and during the 1998–1999 low-flux phases. The results of the $`\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}EE^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(E/E_0)`$ fits to the data are shown by the solid lines and the fitted spectral shapes for the 1997 and 1998-flare data are compared to that of the 1998–1999 low-flux data by the dashed and dotted line, respectively. The lower two panels of Fig. 3 show the ratio of the 1998–1999 low-flux spectrum, and the 1997 and 1998-flare spectrum, respectively. While the 1998–1999 low-flux spectrum is significantly softer than the 1997 spectrum, its shape does not differ significantly from the 1998-flare spectrum: the fit of a power law to the flux ratio gives: $`(\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E)\text{(1998–1999 low-flux)}/`$ $`(\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}E)\text{(1998 June flare)}`$ $`E^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =0.21\pm 0.12_{\mathrm{stat}}`$.

## 4 Discussion

In this paper we present the TeV characteristics of Mkn 501 in the years of 1998–1999 following the major 1997 outburst phase. We assess for the first time the TeV energy spectrum of the source for a mean flux at 1 TeV well below the flux of the Crab Nebula. This spectrum complements the high-flux spectra measured so far in the sense that the Mkn 501 spectrum has now been determined for flux levels between 1/3 Crab units (this paper) and $``$10 Crab units (Aharonian et al. 1999a, ). Although the 1997 spectra were determined for a range of absolute fluxes differing by more than a factor of 5 (yet at 1 TeV by a factor of at least 2 higher compared with the flux of the 1998–1999 low-flux data sample), we did not detect any evidence for spectral variability. In contrast we find evidence that the 1998–1999 low-flux spectrum is substantially softer (0.44 in spectral index) than the 1997 spectra.

The Synchrotron Self-Compton (SSC) mechanism is widely believed to be responsible for the non-thermal X-ray and TeV gamma-ray emission in BL Lac objects Ulrich et al. (1997). A high energy population of electrons embedded in a relativistic jet approaching the observer with a speed close to the speed of light emits X-rays as Synchrotron radiation and TeV gamma-rays as Inverse Compton radiation resulting from interactions of electrons with lower energy synchrotron photons. The recent observations of X-ray and TeV gamma-ray flares correlated to within less than half a day for Mkn 501 Krawczynski et al. (2000) as well as for the other well studied TeV emitting BL Lac object, Mkn 421 Maraschi et al. (1999); Takahashi et al. (1999), are naturally explained in the SSC scenario and strongly support this model. More detailed theoretical work is needed to decide whether the multiwavelength data could reasonably be described with alternative models assuming that the non-thermal emission of Mkn 501 is produced by hadronic interactions of a highly relativistic outflow which sweeps up ambient matter Pohl & Schlickeiser (2000), by interactions of high energy protons with gas clouds moving across the jet Dar & Laor (1997), or by interactions of extremely high energy protons with ambient photons Mannheim (1998), with the magnetic field Aharonian (2000), or with both Mücke & Protheroe (2000). Note that in the proton synchrotron model the stable spectral shape is explained by the self-regulated synchrotron cutoff, while steepening in the low-flux state could be explained by the drop of the acceleration rate of protons Aharonian (2000). While the interpretation of TeV gamma-ray spectra is hampered by the unknown modification of the spectrum due to intergalactic extinction as discussed, e.g. by Aharonian et al. (1999b), the temporal evolution of the gamma-ray flux and the spectral shape is free of this uncertainty and should be explained by models of the origin of the TeV radiation.

Assuming for the time being that the mechanism responsible for the X-ray and TeV gamma-ray emission has been identified, a next step concerns the understanding of how the emission region(s) is (are) embedded in the jet, how an emission region evolves with time, and where the energy which is ultimately converted into the observed non-thermal X-ray and gamma-ray radiation comes from. Within SSC models the stability of the TeV energy spectrum during the 1997 flares can be explained by a spectrum of accelerated electrons (and possibly positrons) which is stable throughout the whole flaring phase Aharonian et al. 1999a ; Konopelko et al. 1999b ; Krawczynski et al. (2000). The steepening of the TeV energy spectrum reported in this paper can be accounted for, by e.g., (i) a steepening of the spectrum of accelerated particles streaming into the emission region; (ii) the shift of the break in the electron spectrum (caused by the synchrotron and Inverse Compton cooling of the electrons, or by a lower energy cutoff of the spectrum of accelerated particles) towards lower energies; or, by (iii) a shift of the maximum energy of accelerated particles towards lower energies. Detailed modeling of the now available very detailed multiwavelength data on Mkn 501 as given e.g. by Pian et al. (1998), Djannati-Atai et al. (1999), Krawczynski et al. (2000), and Sambruna et al. (2000) should make it possible to identify the origin of the spectral curvature observed at X-ray and TeV energies during 1997 and to determine which properties of the emission region(s) changed from 1997 to 1998–1999.

Acknowledgments
The support of the German Ministry for Research and Technology BMBF and of the Spanish Research Council CYCIT is gratefully acknowledged. GPR acknowledges receipt of a Humboldt fellowship. We thank the Instituto de Astrophysica de Canarias for the use of the site and for supplying excellent working conditions at La Palma. We gratefully acknowledge the technical support staff of the Heidelberg, Kiel, Munich, and Yerevan Institutes.


text:
# Nagel Scaling and Relaxation in the Kinetic Ising Model on a n- Isotopic Chain

## Abstract

The kinetic Ising model on a n-isotopic chain is considered in the framework of Glauber dynamics. The chain is composed of N segments with n sites, each one occupied by a different isotope. Due to the isotopic mass difference, the n spins in each segment have different relaxation times in the absence of the interactions, and consequently the dynamics of the system is governed by multiple relaxation mechanisms. The solution is obtained in closed form for arbitrary n, by reducing the problem to a set of $`n`$ coupled equations, and it is shown rigorously that the critical exponent z is equal to 2. Explicit results are obtained numerically for any temperature and it is also shown that the dynamic susceptibility satisfies the new scaling (Nagel scaling) proposed for glass-forming liquids. This is in agreement with our recent results (L. L. Gonçalves, M. López de Haro, J. Tagüeña-Martínez and R. B. Stinchcombe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1507 (2000)), which relate this new scaling function to multiple relaxation processes.

The search for universal behavior in various physical model systems has been one of the clues to uncover fundamental regularities of nature. About ten years ago, a scaling hypothesis (the Nagel scaling) was proposed to describe experimental work on dielectric relaxation in glass-forming liquids. This hypothesis was meant to replace the more usual normalized Debye scaling, where the frequency is scaled with the inverse of the (single) relaxation time and the real and imaginary parts of the dynamic susceptibility are then divided by their values at zero and one, respectively. However, and in spite of its phenomenological success and apparent ubiquity, its physical origin is as yet not quite well understood.

Very recently, we put forward what we believe to be the first bona fide microscopic model in which the Nagel scaling is shown to arise. In this previous work, we computed the magnetization, the dynamic critical exponent $`z`$ and the frequency and wavevector dependent susceptibility of the kinetic Ising model on an alternating isotopic chain with Glauber dynamics. Our results indicated that as soon as the two relaxation times of this model became substantially different, the agreement with the Nagel scaling improved significantly. The question remained of whether the inclusion of more relaxation mechanisms would lead to the same sort of results. It is this issue that we mainly want to examine in this paper. Hence we present an extension of the alternating isotopic chain in which rather than only two relaxation times, it is $`n`$ relaxation times which are involved.

The model consists of a linear chain with $`N`$ segments, each one containing $`n`$ sites occupied by isotopes characterized by $`n`$ different spin relaxation times. The Hamiltonian for the $`l^{th}`$ segment is the usual Ising Hamiltonian given by

$$H_l=J\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\sigma _{l,j}\sigma _{l,j+1},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{l,j}`$ is a stochastic (time-dependent) spin variable assuming the values $`\pm 1`$ and $`J`$ the coupling constant. Note that if $`n=2`$, this model reduces to the alternating isotopic chain treated in Ref. . The configuration of the segment is specified by the set of values $`\{\sigma _{l,1},\sigma _{l,2},\mathrm{}\sigma _{l,n}\}\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\}`$ at time $`t`$. This configuration evolves in time due to interactions with a heat bath. We assume for the segments the usual Glauber dynamics so that the transition probabilities are given by

$$w_{li}(\sigma _{l,i})=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _i\left(1\frac{\gamma }{2}(\sigma _{l,i1}\sigma _{l,i}+\sigma _{l,i}\sigma _{l,i+1})\right),$$
(2)
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{tanh}\left(2J/k_BT\right)`$, $`k_B`$ being the Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ the absolute temperature, and $`\alpha _i`$ is the inverse of the relaxation time $`\tau _i`$ of spin $`i`$ in the absence of spin interactions.

The time dependent probability $`P(\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\},t)`$ for a given spin configuration satisfies the master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP(\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\},t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}w_{li}\left(\sigma _{l,i}\right)P(\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\},t)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}w_{li}\left(\sigma _{l,i}\right)P(T_{li}\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\},t),`$
where $`T_{li}\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\}\{\sigma _{l,1},\sigma _{l,2},\mathrm{}\sigma _{l,i1},\sigma _{l,i},\sigma _{l,i+1},\mathrm{}\sigma _{l,n}\}`$. The dynamical properties we are interested in, namely the magnetization, the dynamic critical exponent and the susceptibility, require the knowledge of some moments of the probability $`P(\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\},t)`$. Hence, we introduce the following expectation values defined as:

$$q_{li}\left(t\right)=\sigma _{li}\left(t\right)=\underset{\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\}}{}\sigma _{l,i}P(\left\{\sigma ^{l,n}\right\},t),$$
(5)
where the sum runs over all possible configurations. Using the master equation (3) and this definition of $`q_{li}\left(t\right)`$, one can easily derive the result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_{l,1}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1\left(q_{l,1}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(q_{l1,n}+q_{l,2})\right),`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_{l,j}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _j\left(q_{l,j}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(q_{l,j1}+q_{l,j+1})\right),(2jn1)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_{l,n}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _n\left(q_{l,n}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(q_{l,n1}+q_{l+1,1})\right).`$ (8)
Introducing now the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{Q,l}`$ $`(l=1,2,\mathrm{}n)`$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{Q,l}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}(iQld)q_{l,j}$$
(9)
where $`Q=\frac{2\pi m}{Nd}`$ $`(m=0,1,2\mathrm{}N)`$, $`d=na`$, $`a`$ being a lattice parameter and the vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{q}_{Q,1}\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_{Q,n}\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
one can derive the following result

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }_Q}{dt}=𝐌_Q\mathrm{\Psi }_Q$$
(11)
where the matrix $`𝐌_Q`$ has a rather suggestive structure given by

$$𝐌_Q=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha _1& \frac{\alpha _1\gamma }{2}& 0& .& .& 0& \frac{\alpha _1\gamma }{2}e^{iQd}\\ \frac{\alpha _2\gamma }{2}& \alpha _2& \frac{\alpha _2\gamma }{2}& 0& .& .& 0\\ 0& \frac{\alpha _3\gamma }{2}& \alpha _3& \frac{\alpha _3\gamma }{2}& 0& .& 0\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .\\ .& .& .& 0& \frac{\alpha _{n1}\gamma }{2}& \alpha _{n1}& \frac{\alpha _{n1}\gamma }{2}\\ \frac{\alpha _n\gamma }{2}e^{iQd}& 0& .& .& .& \frac{\alpha _n\gamma }{2}& \alpha _n\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
The solution to Eq. (8), which yields the magnetization, is straightforward, namely

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q\left(t\right)=e^{𝐌_Qt}\mathrm{\Psi }_Q\left(0\right).$$
(13)
The relaxation process of the wave-vector dependent magnetization is determined by the eigenvalues of $`𝐌_Q`$ denoted as $`\lambda _{lQ}`$ $`(l=1,2,\mathrm{}n)`$ and which for $`n5`$ have to be computed numerically. The same applies to the dynamic critical exponent $`z`$, which is obtained by imposing the scaling relation $`\tau _Q\xi ^zf(\xi Q)`$ for the critical mode, $`\lambda _{1Q},`$ with the ($`Q`$-dependent ) relaxation time $`\tau _Q=\frac{1}{\lambda _{1Q}},`$ in the region $`T0`$ and $`Q0`$ where $`\lambda _{1Q}0`$, and the correlation length $`\xi `$ is $`\xi \mathrm{exp}(2J/k_BT)`$. This yields

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda _{1Q}}\right)=C+\frac{2Jz}{k_BT},$$
(14)
where $`C`$ is an irrelevant constant. By plotting $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda _{10}}\right)`$ vs. $`\frac{2J}{k_BT}`$ and considering the limit $`T0`$, we have checked analytically for $`n=2`$ and numerically for $`n=3,4`$ and $`5`$ and various values of the $`\alpha ^{}s`$ that $`z=2`$, so that this model belongs to the same universality class of the uniform Ising chain.

Let us now introduce the spatial Fourier transform $`\widehat{c}_Q(t^{},t^{}+t)`$ of the time-dependent correlation defined by

$$\widehat{c}_Q(t^{},t^{}+t)=\frac{1}{nN}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{l^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{iQdl}e^{iQdl}\sigma _{l,i}\left(t^{}\right)\sigma _{l^{},j}\left(t^{}+t\right).$$
(15)
Then, the $`t^{}\mathrm{}`$ limit of the temporal Fourier transform of $`\widehat{c}_Q(t^{},t^{}+t),`$ denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{C}_Q(\omega ),`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_Q(\omega )=\underset{t^{}\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,i}\left(t^{}\right)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,j}\left(t^{}+t\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)𝑑t,$$
(16)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,m}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}(iQld)\sigma _{l,m}`$. After some lengthy and tedious but not very difficult algebra, using eq. (5) and the above definitions one may derive the result

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_Q(\omega )=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{g_{_{lQ}}}{i\omega \lambda _{lQ}}$$
(17)
where

$$g_{lQ}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{a_{ml}\overline{a_{lj}}}{n}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,i}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,j}_{eq}.$$
(18)
Here, the static correlation functions $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,i}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,l}_{eq}`$ are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,i}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,l}_{eq}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}\frac{1u^{2n}}{12u^n\mathrm{cos}(nQ)+u^{2n}}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}(i=l)\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}\\ u^{\left|li\right|}\frac{e^{iQn}u^n}{1e^{iQn}u^n}+u^{\left|li\right|}\frac{e^{iQn}u^n}{1e^{iQn}u^n}\\ +u^{\left|li\right|}\end{array}& (il)\end{array}$$
(19)
while $`u=\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{J}{k_BT})`$, $`a_{ml}`$ denotes the $`(m,l)`$ element of the matrix $`𝐀`$ formed with the eigenvectors of $`𝐌_Q`$ and $`\overline{a_{lj}}`$ the $`(l,j)`$ element of the matrix $`𝐀^1`$. Finally, by using the fluctuation dissipation theorem, the response function $`S_Q\left(\omega \right)`$ turns out to be given by

$`S_Q\left(\omega \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_BT}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,i}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{Q,l}_{eq}i\omega \stackrel{~}{C}_Q(\omega )\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_BT}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{lQ}g_{lQ}}{i\omega \lambda _{lQ}}}.`$ (21)
It should be noted that the frequency dependent susceptibility is $`\chi \left(\omega \right)k_BTS_0(\omega )(1u)/(1+u)`$. Thus,

$$\chi \left(\omega \right)=\frac{u1}{u+1}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\lambda _{l0}g_{l0}}{i\omega \lambda _{l0}}$$
(22)
If we set all the $`\alpha ^{}s`$ equal in Eq. (17), i.e. we take the uniform chain, then of course the resulting susceptibility has the simple Debye form. In any case, its general structure is a linear combination of $`n`$ Debye-like terms. In order to investigate whether the Nagel scaling holds for this susceptibility, it is convenient to recall that in the so-called Nagel plot the abscissa is $`(1+W)\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\omega /\omega _p\right)/W^2`$ and the ordinate is $`\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )\omega _p/\omega \mathrm{\Delta }\chi \right)/W`$. Here, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ is the imaginary part of the susceptibility, $`W`$ is the full width at half maximum of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\omega _p`$ is the frequency corresponding to the peak in $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =\chi (0)\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the static susceptibility. For the sake of illustration in Figs. 1 and 2 we present Nagel plots for the cases $`n=2`$ (with $`\alpha _1=1`$ and $`\alpha _2=2`$), and $`n=3`$ (with $`\alpha _1=1`$ and $`\alpha _2=2`$ and $`\alpha _3=3)`$, respectively, and different values of the reduced (dimensionless) temperature $`T^{}k_BT/2J`$. By comparing the two figures, we can see that even for this case, where the relaxation times are very close, there is a marked improvement of the scaling in the low temperature limit with the increase of the relaxation mechanisms. On the other hand, the Debye scaling, shown as inset in the figures, presents an opposite behaviour. This result gives further support to the hypothesis that the Nagel scaling is related to multiple relaxation mechanisms, as discussed in our previous work .

One of us (L. L. Gonçalves) wants to thank the Centro de Investigación en Energia (UNAM) for the hospitality during his visit, and the Brazilian agencies CNPq and FINEP for partial financial support. The work has also received partial support by DGAPA-UNAM under projects IN104598 and IN117798.

Figure captions

Figure 1. Nagel plot for $`n=2`$ (with $`\alpha _1=1`$ and $`\alpha _2=2`$) and for $`T^{}=5,7,10,50,100`$ and $`150`$. There is reasonable agreement with the scaling form for this choice except for low $`T^{}`$. The insert contains the plot of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega _p)`$ vs. $`\omega /\omega _p`$ in order to test the Debye-like behavior.

Figure 2. The same as Fig. 1 but with the choice $`n=3`$ ($`\alpha _1=1`$ , $`\alpha _2=2`$ and $`\alpha _3=3`$) and $`T^{}=5,7,10,50,100`$ and $`150`$. The improvement in the agreement with the Nagel scaling is rather noticeable, while the opposite trend is observed with respect to the Debye scaling.


text:
# THE EXTREMAL LIMIT OF D-DIMENSIONAL BLACK HOLES

## Abstract

The extreme limit of a class of D-dimensional black holes is revisited. In the static case, It is shown that a well defined extremal limiting procedure exists and it leads to new solutions of the type $`AdS^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{D2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{D2}`$ being a (D-2)-dimensional constant curvature symmetric space.

In this contribution, we would like to revisit the extremal limit of a large class of black hole solutions. The interest in the study of extreme and nearly-extreme black holes has recently been increased, mainly due to the link with one of the puzzle which is still unsolved in the black hole physics: the issue related to the statistical interpretation of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

To begin with, first we review some particular solution of Eistein Eqs. In classical paper, Bertotti and Robinson  obtained solutions of the Einstein Eqs. which geometrically are the direct product of two 2-dimensional manifolds. If the cosmological constant is vanishing, these manifolds have necessarly constant curvature and opposite sign. Locally they are homeophorfic to $`AdS_2\times S_2`$. The original Bertotti-Robinson solution is also globally coincident with $`AdS_2\times S_2`$. Since these geometries are strictly related to the near-horizon geometry of a generic extremal black hole, one may wonder if in the extremal limit, the geometry is still non trivial in the sence that a non vanishing Hawking temperature is present. This indeed is the case of De Sitter-Schwarzschild black, for which an appropiate limiting procedure  leads to the Nariai solution (see ).

Let us consider the Einstein Eq. with zero cosmological constant

$$G_\mu ^\nu =8\pi GT_\mu ^\nu .$$
(1)
In presence of a covariant constant electric field, one may write $`\text{diag}T=(E^2,E^2,E^2,E^2)`$ and we may try to solve the Einstein Eq. with the Bertotti-Robinson static ansaztz

$$ds^2=V(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{V(r)}dr^2+r_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(2)
where $`r_0^2`$ is a constant and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is metric tensor of $`S_2`$. A standard elementary calculation gives

$$G_0^0=\frac{1}{r_0^2},G_1^1=\frac{1}{r_0^2},$$
(3)
$$G_2^2=G_3^3=\frac{1}{2}V^{\prime \prime }(r).$$
(4)
Since $`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$, one gets $`G_\mu ^\mu =0`$. As a result

$$\frac{2}{r_0^2}+V^{\prime \prime }(r)=0.$$
(5)
The general solution of this elementary differential eq. may be presented in the form

$$V(r)=\frac{r^2+c_1r+c_2}{r_0^2},$$
(6)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are two constant. The Einstein Eqs. (3) and (4) are satisfied when

$$r_0^2=\frac{1}{GE^2}.$$
(7)
In summary, we have found the 2-parameter family of solutions

$$ds^2=(\frac{r^2+c_1r+c_2}{r_0^2})dt^2+\frac{1}{\frac{r^2+c_1r+c_2}{r_0^2}}dr^2+r_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(8)
The original Bertotti-Robinson solution corresponds to $`c_1=0`$ and $`c_2=r_0^2`$ namely

$$ds^2=(\frac{r^2}{r_0^2}+1)dt^2+\frac{1}{(\frac{r^2}{r_0^2}+1)}dr^2+r_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(9)
which is regular and globally homeomorphic to $`AdS_2\times S_2`$.

This is a consequence of the following statement, which involves the corresponding Euclidean sections.

If we start from the 2-dimensional hyperbolic space, with metric in the Poincare’ form ($`R`$ being the radius)

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{y^2}(dx^2+dy^2),$$
(10)
then the mapping ($`a`$, $`b`$ suitable constant parameters)

$$y+ix=\frac{\sqrt{r+b}\sqrt{r+b4aR^2}e^{i2a\tau }}{\sqrt{r+b}+\sqrt{r+b4aR^2}e^{i2a\tau }},$$
(11)
reduces the Poincare’ metric to

$$ds^2=\frac{(r+b)(r+b4aR^2)}{R^2}d\tau ^2+\frac{R^2}{(r+b)(r+b4aR^2)}dr^2.$$
(12)
For example, choosing $`R=r_0`$, $`b=ir_0`$, $`4aR^2=2ir_0`$, one gets the BR solution, with unrestricted Euclidean time $`\tau `$.

The situation changes for the particular solution which corresponds to the choice $`c_1=r^{}<0`$ and $`c_2=0`$ in Eq. (8), i.e.

$$ds^2=(\frac{r^2r^{}r}{r_0^2})dt^2+\frac{1}{\frac{r^2r^{}r}{r_0^2}}dr^2+r_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(13)
This is a black hole solution with Hawking temperature

$$\beta _H=\frac{4\pi r_0^2}{r^{}}$$
(14)
This solution is only locally homeomorphic to $`AdS_2\times S_2`$. In fact, if we choose $`b=0`$, $`R=r_0`$ and $`4ar_0^2=r^{}`$, the Euclidean section of the metric (13) reduces to the Poincare’ one, but now the mapping (11) reads

$$y+ix=\frac{\sqrt{r}\sqrt{rr^{}}e^{i2a\tau }}{\sqrt{r}+\sqrt{rr^{}}e^{i2a\tau }}.$$
(15)
Here one can see that $`\tau `$ is defined modulo the period $`\beta =\frac{\pi }{a}=\frac{4\pi r_0^2}{r^{}}`$, which coincides with the Hawking temperature computed requiring the absence of the conical singularity. This may be interpreted saying that solution (13) describes a manifold which is only a portion of $`H^2`$.

A similar case is described by the choice $`c_1=0`$ and $`c_2=b^2<0`$, namely

$$ds^2=(\frac{r^2b^2}{r_0^2})dt^2+\frac{1}{\frac{r^2b^2}{r_0^2}}dr^2+r_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(16)
Here, the Hawking temperature computed with the standard technique is

$$\beta _H=\frac{2\pi r_0^2}{b}.$$
(17)
However, if we choose $`R=r_0`$ and $`2ar_0^2=b`$, the Euclidean section of the metric (16) reduces to the Poincare’ one, and the mapping (11) reads

$$y+ix=\frac{\sqrt{r+b}\sqrt{rb}e^{i2a\tau }}{\sqrt{r+b}+\sqrt{rb}e^{i2a\tau }}.$$
(18)
with $`2a=\frac{b}{r_0^2}`$. Again, $`\tau `$ is defined modulo a period which coincides with (17).

It should be noted that these black hole solutions are similar to the Rindler space-times and the Hawking temperature is the Unrhu one associated with the quantum fluctuations.

Now, let us consider a black hole solution corresponding to a D-dimensional charged or neutral black hole depending on parameters as the mass $`m`$, charges $`Q_i`$ and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the Schwarzschild static coordinates (with $`G=l_P^2=1`$ and $`D=d+2`$), it reads

$$ds^2=V(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{V(r)}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_d^2.$$
(19)
Here, $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_d^2`$ is the line element related to a constant curvature ”horizon” d-dimensional manifold. The inner and outer horizons are positive simple roots of the shift function, i.e.

$$V(r_H)=0,V^{}(r_H)0.$$
(20)
The associated Hawking temperature is

$$\beta _H=\frac{4\pi }{V^{}(r_H)}.$$
(21)
In general, when the extremal solution exists, namely

$$V(r_{ex})=0,V^{}(r_{ex})=0,V^{\prime \prime }(r_{ex})0,$$
(22)
there exists a relationship between the parameters,

$$F(m,g_i)=0.$$
(23)
When this condition is satisfied, it may happen that the original coordinates become inappropiate (for example when $`V(r)`$ has a local maximum in $`r=r_{ex}`$, i.e. $`V^{\prime \prime }(r_{ex})<0`$.

The extreme limit has been investigated in several places . In order to investigate the extremal limit, we introduce the non-extremal parameter $`ϵ`$ and perform the following coordinate change

$$r=r_{ex}+ϵr_1,t=\frac{t_1}{ϵ}.$$
(24)
and parametrize the non-extremal limit by means of

$$F(m,g_i)=kϵ^2,$$
(25)
where the sign of constant $`k`$ defines the physical range of the black hole parameters, namely the ones for which the horizon radius is non negative. In the near-extremal limit, we may make an expansion for $`ϵ`$ small. As a consequence

$$V(r)=V(r_{ex})+V^{}(r_{ex})r_1ϵ+\frac{1}{2}V^{\prime \prime }(r_{ex})r_1^2ϵ^2+O(ϵ^3).$$
(26)
It is clear that

$$V(r_{ex})=k_1ϵ^2,V^{}(r_{ex})=k_2ϵ^2,$$
(27)
where $`k_i`$ are known constants.

Thus, the metric in the extremal limit becomes

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt_1^2(k_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{\prime \prime }(r_{ex})r_1^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{dr_1^2}{(k_1+\frac{1}{2}V^{\prime \prime }(r_{ex})r_1^2)}}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`r_{ex}^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_d^2.`$
As first example, let us consider the 4-dimensional charged RN black hole, where the horizon manifold is $`S^2`$ and the shift function is given by

$$V(r)=1\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}.$$
(29)
Here, the near-extremal condition reads

$$F(m,Q)=\frac{Q^2}{m^2}1=kϵ^2.$$
(30)
When $`ϵ=0`$, one has $`r_+=r_{}=r_{ex}=m`$ and $`Q^2=m^2`$ and the physical range corresponds to $`k<0`$, for example we may take $`k=a^2`$. In this case, the shift function has a local minimun at $`r_{ex}`$ and

$$\frac{1}{2}V^{\prime \prime }(r_{ex})=\frac{1}{m^2},$$
(31)
but $`V(r_{ex})=a^2ϵ^2<0`$. as a result, the metric in the extremal limit is

$$ds^2=dt_1^2(a^2+\frac{r_1^2}{m^2})+\frac{dr_1^2}{(a^2+\frac{r_1^2)}{m^2}}+m^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(32)
and this limiting metric describes the space-time locally $`AdS_2\times S_2`$, we have previously discussed. This solution satisfies, in the extreme limit, a BPS-like condition, namely

$$Q=m.$$
(33)
We note that also the Bertotti-Robinson solution may be obtained in the limiting procedure, but assuming $`k>0`$. Thus one has the local minimun for the shifth function, and this correponds to an extremal limit within the unphysical range of black hole parameters.

As a second example, let us consider the Schwarzschild-DeSitter space-time. Here the horizon manifold is still $`S^2`$ and since

$$V(r)=1\frac{2m}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{3},$$
(34)
the solution is not saymptotically flat. As well known, there exist an event horizon and a cosmological horizon and $`r_H<r<r_C`$. The near extremal condition is

$$F(m,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{3}m\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=kϵ^2,k>0.$$
(35)
In this case, the shift function has a local maximum at the extremal radius $`r_H=r_C=r_{ex}=(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/2}`$ and the original coordinates are totally inappropiate. Furthermore, $`V(r_{ex})=2kϵ^2>0`$ and we have

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt_1^2(2k\mathrm{\Lambda }r_1^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{dr_1^2}{2k\mathrm{\Lambda }r_1^2}}`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.`$
This solution is locally $`dS_2\times S_2`$ and is equivalent to the Nariai solution , a cosmological solution with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$.

As further example, let us consider the 4-dimensional topological black hole solution  for which the horizon manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ is a compact negative constant curvature Riemann surface and

$$V(r)=1\frac{C}{r}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}.$$
(37)
Here, $`l`$ is related to the negative cosmological constant, namely $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{3}{l^2}`$ and the constant $`C`$ is given by

$$C=ml^{},l^{}=\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}}l$$
(38)
$`m`$ being the mass of the black hole . The horizon radius is a positive solution of

$$lr^2(ml^{})l^2+r^3=0.$$
(39)
The extremal solution exists for $`m=0`$, since we have

$$lr^2+l^{}l^2+r^3=(r\frac{l}{\sqrt{3}})^2(r+\frac{2l}{\sqrt{3}})$$
(40)
and is given by

$$r_{ex}=\frac{l}{\sqrt{3}}.$$
(41)
As a consequence, in order to investigate the extremal limit, we may put

$$m=C+l^{}=kr_{ex}ϵ^2,k>0.$$
(42)
Thus,

$$V(r_{ex})=kϵ^2,k_1=k<0.$$
(43)
and

$$V^{\prime \prime }(r_{ex})=\frac{3}{r_{ex}^2}>0.$$
(44)
The limiting metric turns out to be

$$ds^2=dt_1^2[k+\frac{3r_1^2}{2r_{ex}^2}]+\frac{dr_1^2}{[k+\frac{3r_1^2}{2r_{ex}^2}]}+r_{ex}^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2,$$
(45)
namely we have $`AdS_2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ being a Riemann surface.

Finally, we also reports the result obtained starting from the Kerr-Newmann black hole solution in the standard Boyer-Linquist coordinates. Defining the nearly-extreme condition by means

$$m^2a^2Q^2=km^2ϵ^2,k>0,$$
(46)
$`m`$, $`a`$ and $`Q`$ being respectively the mass, the angular parameter and the charge of the black hole and making use of

$$r=r_{ex}+ϵr_1,\varphi =\varphi _1+\frac{at_1}{ϵ(m^2+a^2)},,t=\frac{t_1}{ϵ},$$
(47)
the limiting metric turns out to be

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(m^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )[{\displaystyle \frac{r_1^2km^2}{(m^2+a^2)^2}}dt_1^2`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dr_1^2}{r_1^2km^2}}+d\theta ^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{(m^2+a^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{(m^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )}}(d\varphi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{2ma}{(m^2+a^2)^3}}r_1dt_1)^2.`$
A similar solution (corresponding to $`c=0`$) has been recently obtained in , where one can find a detailed discussion of the related geometry.

In conclusion, we have shown that a large class of black hole solutions admits a well defined extremal limit procedure. In the static case, this procedure gives rise to new solutions of the kind $`AdS_2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{D2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{D2}`$ being a (D-2)-dimensional constant curvature symmetric space.