text:
# Deflection of jets induced by jet-cloud & jet-galaxy interactions

## 1 Introduction

According to the standard model for Fanaroff-Riley type II radio sources, a pair of relativistic jets of electrons is ejected in opposite directions from a very compact region in the nucleus of an elliptical galaxy \[Blandford 1990\]. The jets expand adiabatically through the interstellar medium of the host galaxy and the surrounding intergalactic medium. Collimation of the jets is provided by the presence of a cavity or “cocoon” surrounding the jet, which maintains the pressure of the intergalactic medium in balance with that of the relativistic gas within the jet. In this model, the jets maintain a straight trajectory. However, observations have shown that jets often bent.

Dramatic changes in morphology are found in radio trails sources (for example NGC 1265), in which the jets have a semicircular shape, with the host galaxy at the pole. The curvature of the jet is attributed to the motion of the host galaxy through the intracluster medium which results in a significant ram pressure acting on the jet \[Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984\].

Some deflections may result from a combination of kinetic and geometrical effects. For example, the precession of jets about a defined axis can cause the jet to be curved, although any fluid element in the jet always follows a straight trajectory. Another example is the proper motion of a galaxy through the intergalactic medium produced by the gravitational influence of a companion galaxy \[Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984\]. Again, each fluid element in the jet follows a straight trajectory. However, since the galaxy producing the jet moves in an orbit about its companion, the jet appears to be curved.

Another way of inducing deflections in radio jets is if the beam passes through a region of interstellar or intergalactic gas in which there is a significant pressure gradient. This might occur if the jets pass through the interstellar medium of a large galaxy or diffuse intergalactic cloud. There are a few cases in which this may have occurred. In the case of 3C34 Best, Longair & Röttgering \[Best, Longair & Röttgering 1997\] found evidence that the jet had interacted strongly with the interstellar medium of a galaxy which happened to lie in the path of the jet. More evidence for misalignments between one of the hotspots of a radio galaxy and the host galaxy was found in 3C324 and 3C368 \[Best et al. 1998\]. In these objects, no galaxy has been found in the path of the jets, but there is strong evidence for the presence of high density regions from the optical and infrared observations. For sources in which the jet has given rise to optically aligned emission regions, the optical emission is most probably produced by shock emission \[Best, Röttgering and Longair 2000\]. The present study was motivated by these observations, the objective being to find a simple prescription for how significant the deflections of the radio jets could be if they passed through the interstellar medium of an intervening galaxy or gas cloud. In addition, we have analysed the stability of these deflections against to the formation of internal shocks. This stability analysis will be published elsewhere, but we discuss the results at the end of this article.

The work presented here is an extension of the model first proposed by Cantó & Raga \[Cantó & Raga 1996\] and Raga & Cantó \[Raga & Cantó 1996\] in order to describe how deflections of radio jets are produced in jet/cloud interactions. The steady interaction of a jet with an isothermal sphere is analysed in two ways. Firstly we describe the steady interaction of a classical jet (i.e. a jet for which its internal velocities and thermal effects are not relativistic) with an isothermal cloud in which the self gravity of the cloud is taken into account. This is similar to the analysis of Raga & Cantó \[Raga & Cantó 1996\], but generalised in order to take into account the effects of gravity. We also analyse the steady interaction of a relativistic jet with an isothermal sphere in which the gravity of the cloud is not taken into account. In this case, it possible to integrate the relevant equations exactly. Secondly, we consider a more relevant case for galaxies, in which it is assumed that all the gas in the galaxy is in hydrostatic equilibrium within a dark matter halo. Again, the cases of classical and relativistic jets are discussed.

## 2 Jet/Cloud interactions

The interaction of an astrophysical jet with a cloud, in which the characteristic size of the cloud is much greater than the jet radius, has been studied in its initial stages by Raga & Cantó \[Raga & Cantó 1995\]. They showed that initially the jet slowly begins to bore a passage into the cloud. Eventually a stationary situation is achieved in which the jet penetrates the cloud and escapes from it in a direction which is different from the original jet trajectory.

Once the steady state is reached, the trajectory is determined by maintaining pressure equilibrium with the surrounding environment. In other words, as the material in the jet moves, it adjusts its pressure in such a way that it is in equilibrium with the internal pressure of the cloud. Since the expansion of the jet is adiabatic, and a steady state has been reached, Bernoulli’s equation can be used to describe the trajectory of the jet as it passes through the cloud. In what follows the interaction of a jet with a cloud of characteristic radius much greater than the diameter of an adiabatic jet is analysed, once the steady state configuration has been reached.

## 3 Classical Analysis

In the classical case, the motion of a fluid element in the jet is determined by Euler’s equation:

$$\frac{𝒗}{t}+𝒗\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}𝒗=\frac{1}{\rho }\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}p\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}\varphi ,$$
(1)
where $`𝒗`$ is the velocity of the flow, and $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ are pressure and density. The gravitational force produced by the cloud is described in the term which contains the gravitational potential $`\varphi `$. The left hand side of eq.(1) is the force per unit mass experienced by a fluid element as it moves. Since all quantities depend only on the distance from the cloud’s centre $`𝒓`$, vector multiplication of the radius vector $`𝒓`$ with eq.(1) implies $`𝒓\times \mathrm{d}𝒗/\mathrm{d}t=0`$. In other words, the specific angular momentum $`𝒍=𝒓\times 𝒗`$ is conserved as the fluid moves. Since the radius vector is perpendicular to the angular momentum vector, the motion is two dimensional, and so, polar coordinates ($`r`$,$`\phi `$) are used in the following analysis.

Consider a situation in which the jet enters the cloud parallel to the $`x`$ axis at a distance $`r_0`$, so that its velocity vector is initially given by:

$$𝒗_0=v_0𝒆_x=v_0\left(\mathrm{cos}\phi _0𝒆_r\mathrm{sin}\phi _0𝒆_\phi \right),$$
(2)
where $`𝒆_x`$, $`𝒆_r`$ and $`𝒆_\phi `$ are unit vectors in the directions $`x`$, $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ respectively. Because angular momentum is conserved and the motion is two dimensional, the velocity is most simply written using eq.(2) as:

$$𝒗=v_r𝒆_r+\frac{r_0}{r}v_0\mathrm{sin}\phi _0𝒆_\phi ,$$
(3)
in which $`v_r=\mathrm{d}r/\mathrm{d}t`$ represents the velocity in the radial direction.

Since the steady flow of inside the jet expands adiabatically, we can calculate its path of by means of Bernoulli’s equation:

$$\frac{1}{2}dv^2+dw+d\varphi =0,$$
(4)
in which the line integrals are taken from the initial position of a given fluid element to its final one. The enthalpy per unit mass $`w`$ of the flow in the jet is given by $`w=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1p/\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma 1)/\gamma `$ for a gas with polytropic index $`\gamma `$.

Substituting eq.(3) and eq.(2) into the first integral of eq.(4) gives:

$$dv^2=\left\{\frac{r_0}{r}\frac{v_0\mathrm{sin}\phi _0}{r}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\mathrm{d}\phi }\right\}^2+v_0^2\left\{\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _01\right\},$$
(5)
where we have used the fact that along the jet trajectory $`\mathrm{d}r/v_r=r\mathrm{d}\phi /v_\phi `$. Since the gas in the jet obeys a polytropic equation of state, we obtain for the second integral in eq.(4):

$$dw=\frac{c_0^2}{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}\left\{\left(\frac{p}{p_0}\right)^\mathrm{\Gamma }1\right\},$$
(6)
in which $`c_0^2`$ is the initial sound speed of the jet material. The integral for the gravitational potential produced by the self-gravitating cloud is obtained from:

$$d\varphi =G\frac{M(r)}{r^2}dr=4\pi G\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r^2}_0^r\xi ^2\rho _c(\xi )d\xi ,$$
(7)
where $`M(r)`$ and $`\rho _c(r)`$ represent the mass and density of the cloud at a distance $`r`$. Substitution of eqs.(5)-(7) into eq.(4) gives the equation for the path of the jet as it expands:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\mathrm{d}\eta }{\mathrm{d}\phi }& =\pm \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\phi _0}\{1\eta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0\frac{2}{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }M_0^2}\times \hfill \\ & \times [\left(\frac{p}{p_0}\right)^\mathrm{\Gamma }1]\frac{8\pi G}{M_0^2c_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r^2}_0^r\xi ^2\rho (\xi )\mathrm{d}\xi \}^{1/2}_,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
in which $`\eta =r_0/r`$ and $`M_0`$ is the initial Mach number of the flow in the jet. The positive and negative choices for the value of the derivative $`\mathrm{d}\eta /\mathrm{d}\phi `$ in eq.(8) have to be chosen with care. For example, if we consider the case in which no gravity and no pressure gradients are taken into account (i.e. the last two terms on the right hand side of eq.(8) are zero, which corresponds to a straight trajectory) the derivative $`\mathrm{d}\eta /\mathrm{d}\phi <0`$ for $`\eta _{}<1/\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$ and vice versa. The equality $`\eta _{}=1/\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$ corresponds to the point at which a given fluid element in the jet reaches the $`y`$ axis during its motion in this particular case.

In the limit of high initial supersonic motion ($`M_01`$) the third and fourth terms on the right hand side of eq.(8) are important only when $`\eta =1/\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$ and we can simplify eq.(8) by making an expansion about this point. In general terms, if:

$$\left(\frac{p}{p_0}\right)^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\alpha +\beta \eta \mathrm{sin}\phi _0+\zeta \eta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0,$$
(9)
and
$$\varphi \varphi _0=4\pi G\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }\eta \mathrm{sin}\phi _0+\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\eta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0\right)$$
(10)
are expansions of the pressure and gravitational potential respectively around $`\eta =1/\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$, then eq.(8) takes the form:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta }{\mathrm{d}\phi }=\pm \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\phi _0}\left\{a+b\eta +e\eta ^2\right\}_,^{1/2}$$
(11)
in which:
$$a1\frac{2\left(\alpha 1\right)}{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }M_0^2}\frac{8\pi G}{M_0^2c_0^2}\stackrel{~}{\alpha },$$

$$b\left(\frac{2\beta }{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }M_0^2}+\frac{8\pi G}{M_0^2c_0^2}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi _0,$$

$$e\left(1+\frac{2\zeta }{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }M_0^2}+\frac{8\pi G}{M_0^2c_0^2}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0,$$

to second order in $`\eta \mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$. For the cases considered in this analysis, the general solution of eq.(11) is:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \eta =\frac{1}{2e}& \{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sin}[\sqrt{e}(\frac{\phi _0\phi }{\mathrm{sin}\phi _0}+\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{\sqrt{e}}\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{2e+b}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}})]b\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }b^24ae`$. The angle between the velocity vector of the jet streamline and the $`x`$ coordinate axis on its way out of the cloud (deflection angle) can be calculated from the relation $`\mathrm{tan}\psi =(v_y/v_x)_{\mathrm{exit}}`$, in other words,

$$\psi =\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mathrm{e}\left(\mathrm{d}\eta /\mathrm{d}\phi \right)_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{e}\left(\mathrm{d}\eta /\mathrm{d}\phi \right)_\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mathrm{e}}\right)+\pi ,$$
(13)
where the exit azimuthal angle $`\phi _\mathrm{e}`$ is given by:

$$\phi _e=\phi _0+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi _0}{\sqrt{e}}\left\{2\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{2e+b}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\pi \right\},$$
(14)
provided the deflections are not large. The derivative $`(\mathrm{d}\eta /\mathrm{d}\phi )_\mathrm{e}`$ is evaluated at $`\eta =1`$, with a negative choice of sign in eq.(8).

### 3.1 Isothermal Cloud

Let us consider the case of an isothermal cloud, for which the density in the cloud $`\rho _{\mathrm{cloud}}=\xi /r^2`$. In other words, because the jet and cloud are maintained in pressure balance, the pressure on the jet is given by:

$$\frac{p}{p_0}=\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^2.$$
(15)
For this isothermal case, it is easy to verify that:

$`\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(32\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{\mathrm{sin}^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\phi _0}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ $`=\xi \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{sin}\phi _0)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\xi ,`$
$`\beta `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{\mathrm{sin}^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\phi _0}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ $`=2\xi ,`$ (16)
$`\zeta `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\mathrm{\Gamma }1\right)}{\mathrm{sin}^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\phi _0}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}.`$
This solution corresponds to that found by Raga & Cantó \[Raga & Cantó 1996\] for the case in which no gravity is present, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0`$. From the solutions obtained above in eq.(11) and eq.(16) it follows that the dimensionless quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }G\xi /M_0^2c_0^2`$ is a number that parametrises the required solution.

The deflection of jets in isothermal clouds may be important for interstellar molecular clouds and the jets associated with Herbig-Haro objects. For this case we can obtain a value for the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If we adopt a particle number density of $`n_\mathrm{H}10^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and a temperature $`T10\mathrm{K}`$ for a cloud with radius $`r_01\mathrm{pc}`$ \[Spitzer 1998, Hartmann 1998\], then

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{10^2}{M_0^2}\left(\frac{r_0}{1\mathrm{pc}}\right)^2\left(\frac{n_0}{10^2\mathrm{cm}^3}\right)\left(\frac{T}{10\mathrm{K}}\right)^1.$$
(18)
The same calculation can be made for the cases of radio jets interacting with the gas inside a cluster of galaxies. For this case, typical values are $`n_\mathrm{H}10^2\mathrm{cm}^3,T10^7\mathrm{K}\text{ and }r_0100\mathrm{kpc}`$ \[Longair 1992, Longair 1998\]. With these values, the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^2/M_0^2`$, exactly as eq.(18). The parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an important number which can be obtained by dimensional analysis. For, the problem in question is characterised by the gravitational constant $`G`$, a “characteristic length” $`r_0`$ and the values of the velocity of the jet and the density $`v_0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ respectively. Three independent dimensions (length, time and mass) describe the whole hydrodynamical problem. Since four independent physical quantities ($`G,\rho _0,v_0,\text{and}r_0`$) are fundamental for the problem we are interested, the Buckingham $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$–Theorem of dimensional analysis requires the existence of only one dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=G\xi /M_0^2c_0^2`$, exactly as in the analytic solution. The fact that jets are formed in various environments such as giant molecular clouds and the gaseous haloes of clusters of galaxies with the same values of the dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ provides a clue as to why the jets look the same in such widely different environments.

From its definition, the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be rewritten as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(3/4\pi )(G𝖬/r)(1/v_0^2)`$, where $`𝖬`$ is the mass within a sphere of radius $`r_0`$. This quantity is roughly the ratio of the gravitational potential energy from the cloud acting on a fluid element of the jet, to its kinetic energy at the initial position $`r_0`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is thus an indicator of how large the deflections due to gravity are going to affect the trajectory of the jet. The bigger the number $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the more important the deflection caused by gravity will be. In other words, when the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ the jet becomes ballistic and bends towards the centre of the cloud. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ the deflections are dominated by the pressure gradients in the cloud and the jets bend away from the centre of the cloud.

Fig.(1) shows plots for three different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with initial Mach numbers of $`M_0=5`$ and $`M_0=10`$. A comparison with a numerical integration of eq.(11) using a fourth–order Runge–Kuta method is also presented in the figures by dashed lines. This comparison shows that as long as the deflections are sufficiently small, or as long as the Mach number of the flow in the jet is sufficiently large, the analytic approximations discussed above are a good approximation to the exact solution.

### 3.2 Gas on Dark Matter Halo

Let us consider next the case of a galaxy dominated by a dark matter halo for which the mass density is given by the relation \[Binney & Tremaine 1987\]:

$$\rho _d=\frac{\rho _d_{}}{1+\left(\frac{r}{a}\right)^2},$$
(19)
in which $`a`$ is the core radius and quantities with a star refer to the value at the centre of the galaxy.

The potential resulting from such a density profile can be calculated by means of eq.(7),

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _d\varphi _d_{}=4\pi G\rho _d_{}a^2\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times \left\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{a}\right)^2\right]+\frac{a}{r}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{r}{a}\right)1\right\},\end{array}$$
(20)
in which the value of the gravitational potential $`\varphi _d_{}`$ has been evaluated at the centre of the galaxy $`r_{}=0`$. If the gas in the galaxy is in hydrostatic equilibrium with the dark matter halo, then $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}p=\rho \mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}\varphi _d`$. In this case, the enthalpy of the isothermal gas is given by:

$$ww_{}=\varphi _d+\varphi _d_{}=c_{}^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p}{p_{}}\right),$$
(21)
and so the pressure is:
$$p=p_{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\varphi _d+\varphi _d_{}\right)/c_0^2\right\}.$$
(22)
It is possible to simplify the above expressions using the fact that for astronomical cases $`r_0a`$. In other words:

$$\frac{p}{p_0}=\eta ^k,$$
(23)
where $`k=4\pi G\rho _d_{}a^2/c_{}^2`$. In this approximation, the required analytic solutions can be found:

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }k+1\right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }k+2\right)\mathrm{sin}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }k}\phi _0,$$

$$\beta =\mathrm{\Gamma }k\left(2+\mathrm{\Gamma }k\right)\mathrm{sin}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }k}\phi _0,$$
(24)
$$\zeta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }k\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }k+1\right)\mathrm{sin}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }k}\phi _0,$$

where for simplicity it was assumed that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0`$, in other words we neglect the gravitational field induced by the mass of the cloud. Typical values \[Binney & Tremaine 1987\] for galaxies are $`\rho _{}0.1\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{pc}^3`$, $`a1\mathrm{kpc}`$. Taking central values for the gas in the galaxy as $`n_{}1\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`T_{}10^5\mathrm{K}`$ then $`k10`$. Fig.(2) presents plots for different values of $`M_0`$ and $`k`$.

The dimensionless number $`k`$ which parametrises the required solution can be obtained by dimensional analysis (apart from an unimportant factor of $`4\pi `$) in the same way as the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was obtained in Section 3.1. In this case the important parameters in the problem are the gravitational constant $`G`$, the characteristic length $`a`$ and the sound speed $`c_{}`$. The number $`k`$ can be rewritten as $`k=\left(4/(4\pi )\right)(G𝖬/a)(1/c_{}^2)`$, where $`𝖬`$ is the mass of a sphere with radius $`a`$. This quantity is proportional to the gravitational energy of the cloud evaluated at the core radius divided by the sonic kinetic energy that a fluid element in the jet has. In other words, in the same way as in Section 3.1, the dimensionless number $`k`$ is an indicator as to how big deflections produced by gravity are.

## 4 Relativistic Analysis

Let us consider the case in which relativistic effects are included in the interaction of a relativistic jet and a stratified high density region. In order to simplify the problem, the self gravity of the cloud acting on the jet is ignored. For this case, the relativistic 4-Euler’s equation is:

$$wu^k\frac{u_i}{x^k}=\frac{p}{x^i}u_iu^k\frac{p}{x^k}$$
(25)
in which $`w`$, and $`p`$ are the enthalpy per unit volume and the pressure of a given fluid element in its proper frame of reference respectively \[Landau & Lifshitz 1987\]. The 4-velocity $`u^k=dx^k/ds`$ (latin indices run as 0, 1, 2, 3) is given by ($`\gamma ,\gamma 𝒗/c`$), $`c`$ is the speed of light and $`\gamma `$ is the Lorenz factor. The 4-radius vector $`x^k=(ct,𝒓)`$ and the metric tensor $`\eta _{kl}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. The space component of eq.(25) can be written as:

$$\frac{w\gamma ^2}{c^2}\left(\frac{𝒗}{t}+𝒗\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}𝒗\right)=\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}p\frac{𝒗}{c^2}\frac{p}{t},$$
(26)
which is the generalisation of Euler’s equation. As before, the term in brackets on the left-hand side represents the classical force per unit mass acting on an element of fluid as it moves. By considering steady flow and noting that all quantities depend only on the radial coordinate $`r`$, vector multiplication of the radius vector $`𝒓`$ with eq.(26) shows that the quantity $`𝒍=𝒓\times 𝒗`$ is conserved as the fluid moves. This quantity corresponds to the classical equivalent of the specific angular momentum, but it is not the relativistic angular momentum which is given by $`𝒓\times \gamma 𝒗`$. The constancy of $`𝒍`$ shows that the motion is two dimensional and so eqs.(2)-(3) are valid in the relativistic case as well.

The trajectory of the jet is described by Bernoulli’s equation, which is given by the time component of eq.(25) for steady adiabatic flow by \[Landau & Lifshitz 1987\]:

$$\mathrm{d}\left(\frac{\gamma w}{n}\right)=0.$$
(27)
The line integral is taken from the initial position of a given fluid element to its final one. The particle number per unit proper volume is $`n`$ and we assume that the electrons in the jet are ultrarelativistic, so that the equation of state is given by $`p=e/3`$ with $`e`$ being the internal energy density of the fluid. The requirement that the pressure of the jet equals that of the cloud, together with the fact that $`pn^{4/3}`$ gives:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta }{\mathrm{d}\phi }=\pm \frac{c}{v_0\mathrm{sin}\phi _0}\left\{1\frac{v_0^2}{c^2}\eta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0\gamma _0^2\left(\frac{p}{p_0}\right)^{1/2}\right\}_,^{1/2}$$
(28)
in which $`\eta r_0/r`$. The sign of $`\mathrm{d}\eta /\mathrm{d}\phi `$ in eq.(28) varies as the jet crosses the cloud. For example, for the ultrarelativistic case, in which a straight trajectory is expected, it is positive for $`\eta _{}>1/\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$, and negative when the inequality is inverted. A general analytic solution of eq.(28) can be found by noting that for high relativistic velocities the third term on the right hand side of eq.(28) is important only for $`\eta =1/\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$. In other words, the pressure stratification of the cloud can be written as eq.(9) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/2`$. We can therefore expand eq.(28) around $`\eta =1/\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$ to obtain a relation which is the same as eq.(11) but with:

$$a=1\frac{\alpha }{\gamma _0^2},b=\frac{\beta }{\gamma _0^2}\mathrm{sin}\phi _0,e=\left(\frac{\zeta }{\gamma ^2}+1\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0.$$
(29)
### 4.1 Isothermal Cloud

As in section 3.1, consider the case in which the jet propagates through an isothermal cloud In this case it is possible to find an exact solution to the problem, since eq.(15) and eq.(28) imply:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta }{\mathrm{d}\phi }=\pm \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\phi _0}\left\{\frac{c^2}{v_0^2}\left(1\eta \gamma _0^2\right)\eta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0\right\}_.^{1/2}$$
(30)
In other words, the solution is the same as the one already found in eq.(11) and eq.(12) but with:

$$a=\left(\frac{c}{v_0}\right)^2,b=\left(\frac{c}{v_0}\right)^2\gamma ^2,e=\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0.$$
(31)
Fig.(3) shows plots of the trajectory of the jet for different values of the initial velocity of the jet.

### 4.2 Gas on a Dark Matter Halo

As in section 3.2 for $`r_0a`$, the variation of the pressure in the galaxy is given by eq.(23) and the trajectory of the path of the jet is given by eq.(11) and eq.(12) together with eq.(24) and the substitution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/2`$. Fig.(4) shows plots of this for $`k=3`$ and different values of the initial velocity of the jet $`v_0`$.

## 5 Discussion

When a deflection is observed, it is possible to work backwards and find useful properties concerning the initial interaction of a jet with a stratified density region. For example, by taking the“standard” values used in sections 3.1 and 3.2 for the pressure and density in the stratified gas it is possible to calculate the initial azimuthal angle $`\phi _0`$ for a given initial velocity of the jet. Indeed, from eq.(13) and eq.(14), together with the negative derivative $`\left(\mathrm{d}\eta /\mathrm{d}\phi \right)_e`$ at the moment the jet leaves the cloud we can find the value of the deflection angle $`\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ as a function of the velocity of the jet $`v_0`$ and the initial azimuthal angle $`\phi _0`$. The curves for which $`\mathrm{cos}\psi =\mathrm{const}`$ give the required relation between the initial velocity and azimuthal angle. Fig.(5) shows two examples of this type of analysis.

Different combinations of the various parameters involved (or the known observables) in the problem can be formed so that, for a given deflection, the other quantities can be calculated. For instance one can ask for the values of the central density of the gas in the cloud, the density in the jet, etc.

The assumption of pressure equilibrium between the jet and the external environment has certain limitations on the geometry of the jet \[Raga & Cantó 1996\]. In the non–relativistic limit pressure equilibrium is achieved, when the time for a pressure scale height ($`p(r)/|\mathrm{d}p(r)/\mathrm{d}r|`$) to change significantly within the jet material is greater than the sound crossing time of the jet radius:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{j}}{c_\mathrm{j}}\frac{1}{v_\mathrm{j}}\frac{p(r)}{|\mathrm{d}p(r)/\mathrm{d}r|},$$
(32)
where $`c_\mathrm{j}`$ is the speed of sound in the jet, $`v_\mathrm{j}`$ its velocity and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{j}`$ its radius \[Raga & Cantó 1996\]. For the case of an isothermal sphere the right hand side of eq.(32) is $`r/2v_\mathrm{j}`$ and for the case of gas in pressure equilibrium with a dark matter halo is $`r/|k|v_\mathrm{j}`$. In the case of relativistic flow, eq.(32) is still valid but with the substitution $`v_\mathrm{j}\gamma _{v_\mathrm{j}}v_\mathrm{j}`$ and $`c_\mathrm{j}\gamma _{c_\mathrm{j}}c_\mathrm{j}`$, where $`\gamma _{v_\mathrm{j}}\text{ and }\gamma _{c_\mathrm{j}}`$ are the Lorentz factors of the flow velocity and the velocity of sound respectively.

When a jet bends it is in direct contact with its surroundings and entrainment from the external gas might cause disruption to its structure \[Icke 1991\]. However, if this situation is bypassed for example, by an efficient cooling, then there remains a high Mach number collimated flow inside a curved jet. When supersonic flow bends, the characteristics emanating from it intersect at a certain point in space \[Landau & Lifshitz 1987\]. Since the hydrodynamical values of the flow in a characteristic line have constant values, the intersection causes the different values of these quantities to be multivalued. This situation can not occur in nature and a shock wave is formed.

The formation of internal shocks inside the jet gives rise to subsonic flow inside the jet and collimation may no longer be achieved. If the characteristic lines produced by the flow inside the jet intersect outside the jet, then a shock wave is not formed and the jet remains collimated as it bends. However, two important points have to be considered in the discussion. The first is that the Mach number decreases in a bend as the flow moves. The second is that the rate of change of the Mach angle with respect to the angle the jet makes with its original straight trajectory (the bending angle) increases without bound as the velocity of the flow tends to that of the local velocity of sound. This was first proved by Icke \[Icke 1991\] for the case in which no relativistic effects were taken into account. We have made a relativistic generalisation to these two points which will be discussed in a future paper. The increase in the Mach angle means that there has to be a stage at which this angle grows faster than the bending angle. This causes the characteristics in the jet to intersect and to form a shock. The only way to avoid this situation is if the rate of change of the Mach angle with respect to the bending angle is less than one. The formation of this shock is most probably not too destructive for the jet. This is because the Mach number of the flow is close one, which implies that the shock is weak.

The fact that two shocks might form inside a jet, one of them at the end of the bending when the Mach number is near one, enables us to find an upper limit to the bending angle \[Icke 1991\]. For example, a classical jet with $`\gamma =5/3`$ cannot be deflected more than $`60.8^{}`$. Under the same classical conditions, but by assuming a polytropic index $`\gamma =4/3`$, classical jets with a relativistic equation of state cannot be deflected more than $`148.12^{}`$ \[Icke 1991\].

When a full relativistic analysis is introduced in this description, this upper limit can not be greater than its classical counterpart. The relativistic Mach angle \[Königl 1980\] decreases as the velocity of the flow approaches that of light. This means that characteristic lines emanating from a relativistic flow are closer to the streamlines as compared with their classical counterparts. The fact that characteristic lines are closer to the streamlines means that when a bending occurs, the chance for an intersection between different characteristics increases. As a result, a relativistic jet with a polytropic index $`\gamma =4/3`$ can not bend more than $`47.94^{}`$. The precise conditions under which an internal shock is produced for a given jet depend on the shape of the curve that the jet makes as it bends and the radius of the jet. The general conclusion is that, provided the jets are sufficiently narrow, the deflections shown in figs.(1)-(4) are valid for small deflections, say $`20\text{}30^{}`$.

As an example, we can take the case of the western jet in the radio galaxy 3C34 \[Best, Longair & Röttgering 1997\]. If this jet was bent because of the interaction with a typical galaxy for which its gas is in pressure equilibrium with a dark matter halo, then we can use the standard values presented in section 4.2. First of all, the western jet in 3C34 has a bending angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }10^{}`$, so that the deflection angle $`\psi 170^{}`$. If we assume that the flow inside the jet moves with a velocity $`v=0.99c`$, it follows from the right diagram in fig.(5) that $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _00.3`$, or $`\phi _017^{}`$. On the other hand, the value $`\mathrm{\Theta }10^{}`$ is well below the upper limit of $`47.94^{}`$ discussed above, so that at least no terminal shock will be produced by the deflection of the jet. From preliminary results that will be published elsewhere, it follows that if the trajectory of the jet in 3C34 is circular, then in order not to produce an internal shock at the onset of the curvature, the ratio $`D/R`$ ($`D`$ is the width of the jet and $`R`$ its radius of curvature) has to be less $`0.08`$. In other words, the destruction of jets only occurs if the jets are thick, rather than narrow. This result is in accord with the narrowing of jets observed in a wide range of different sources.

The most important consequence of the calculations presented in this article is the sensitivity of the deflection angles to variations in velocity (see for example fig.(5)). This sensitivity is due to the fact that the force applied to a given fluid element in the jet (due to pressure and gravitational potential gradients) is the same independent of the velocity of the flow in the jet. However, as the velocity of the flow in the jet increases, there is not enough time for this force to change the curvature of the jet soon enough, giving rise to very straight jets.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P. Scheuer for useful comments during the preparation of this article. S. Mendoza thanks support granted by Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA) at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).


format: text

text:
# Heavy-to-light form factors: Symmetries at large recoil and calculation of 𝛼_𝑠 correctionsContribution to IV. International Conference on Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons, Valencia 2000; [hep-ph/0008272].

## 1 Introduction

We study matrix elements of bilinear quark currents, that are parametrised by form factors, encoding the (long-distance) strong interaction effects in exclusive, semi-leptonic or radiative $`B`$ decays, such as $`B\pi l\nu `$, $`BK^{}\gamma `$ etc. They also appear as non-perturbative parameters in the factorisation theorem for non-leptonic $`B`$ decays in the heavy quark mass limit . The knowledge of these form factors therefore helps to determine the CKM coupling $`|V_{ub}|`$, and to predict CP violating asymmetries and other quantities in rare $`B`$ decays.

Charles et al. have shown that certain symmetries apply, when the momentum of the final light meson is large . These symmetries reduce the number of independent form factors, but they are broken by radiative corrections. In this contribution, which is based on work done together with Martin Beneke , we give a brief derivation of the symmetry relations and then discuss the computation of symmetry-breaking corrections at first order in the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$.

## 2 Large-recoil symmetries

Let us concentrate on the form factors for $`\overline{B}`$ decays into a pseudoscalar meson. They are defined by the following Lorentz decompositions of the matrix elements:

$`P(p^{})|\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu b|\overline{B}(p)=`$
$`f_+(q^2)\left[p^\mu +p^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{M^2m_P^2}{q^2}}q^\mu \right]+`$
$`f_0(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{M^2m_P^2}{q^2}}q^\mu ,`$ (1)
$`P(p^{})|\overline{q}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu b|\overline{B}(p)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{if_T(q^2)}{M+m_P}}\left[q^2(p^\mu +p^\mu )(M^2m_P^2)q^\mu \right],`$ (2)
where $`M`$ is the $`B`$ meson mass, $`m_P`$ the mass of the pseudoscalar meson and $`q=pp^{}`$.

It is useful to recapitulate the implications of heavy quark symmetry, when the final meson $`P`$ is also heavy, for example a $`D`$ meson.

### 2.1 Heavy-heavy decays

As long as the velocity transfer to the $`D`$ meson remains of order 1, we may assume that the heavy quarks interact with the spectator quark (and other soft degrees of freedom) exclusively via soft gluon exchanges characterised by momentum transfers much smaller than the heavy quark masses. Any hard interaction would imply large momentum of the spectator quark in the $`B`$ meson or $`D`$ meson or both, and such a configuration is assumed to be highly improbable. The simplifications that occur when heavy quarks interact only with soft gluons are formalised as heavy quark effective theory (HQET) (see e.g. Ref.  and references therein) which implies the well-known spin and heavy flavour symmetries in the infinite quark mass limit . A consequence of these symmetries is that all form factors are related to a single function of velocity transfer, $`\xi (vv^{})`$, whose absolute normalisation is known at zero recoil ($`\xi (1)=1`$). The heavy quark symmetries are violated by radiative corrections (as well as higher dimension operators in the effective Lagrangian), such as the one shown in Fig. 1b. The symmetry breaking effects are caused only by the short-distance part of Fig. 1b. They are accounted for by multiplicatively renormalising the heavy quark current in HQET.

In the HQET formalism the hard contributions from Fig. 1c,d are assumed to be suppressed exponentially by the $`B`$ and $`D`$ meson wave functions. As we shall see, a non-vanishing contribution from “hard spectator interactions” is one of the main differences between heavy-light and heavy-heavy form factors at large recoil.

### 2.2 Heavy-light decays

The recoil energy of the light meson, $`E=(M^2q^2)/(2M)`$, is of order $`M/2`$ if the momentum transfer is small, $`q^2M^2`$ (here and in the following we have approximated $`p^2=m_P^20`$). Let us consider the large recoil limit and assume that the $`b`$ quark and the energetic light quark, created in the heavy-to-light transition, interact with the spectator quark (and other soft degrees of freedom) exclusively via soft gluon exchanges. We may then continue to exploit the heavy quark symmetries for the $`b`$ quark. A similar simplification occurs for the light quark. To leading order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/E`$, the interaction of light energetic quarks with soft gluons can be described by an effective Lagrangian ,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\overline{q}_n\frac{n/_+}{2}(in_{}D)q_n+𝒪(1/E),$$
(3)
where $`n_\pm ^\mu `$ are two light-like vectors ($`n_+n_{}=2`$), and $`q_n(x)=e^{iE(n_{}x)}\frac{n/_{}n/_+}{4}q(x)`$. In the limit $`E\mathrm{}`$ the Lagrangian (3) leads to new symmetries that, combined with the heavy-quark symmetries, imply non-trivial relations between the soft contributions to the form factors . Using techniques familiar from HQET, we find

$`P(p^{})|\overline{q}_n\mathrm{\Gamma }b_v|\overline{B}(p)=\mathrm{tr}\left[A_P(E)\overline{}_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{B}\right]`$ (4)
where

$`\overline{}_\mathrm{P}`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _5){\displaystyle \frac{n/_+n/_{}}{4}},`$
$`_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}(\gamma _5),`$ (5)
with $`p^\mu Mv^\mu `$, $`p^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }En_{}^\mu `$. The most general form of the function $`A_P(E)`$ is

$`A_P(E)`$ $`=`$ $`2E\xi _P(E),`$ (6)
with a conveniently chosen overall normalisation. It follows that the three pseudoscalar meson form factors are all related to a single function $`\xi _P(E)`$. (Analogously, the seven form factors for decays into light vector mesons can be expressed in terms of only two unknown functions, $`\xi _{}(E)`$ and $`\xi _{}(E)`$, see also Ref. .) Performing the trace in Eq. (4), and comparing with the form factor definition (1,2), we obtain, for instance,

$`f_+(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2E}}f_0(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{M}{M+m_P}}f_T(q^2)=\xi _P(E)`$ (7)
(8)
There is an important distinction between the effective Lagrangian for heavy quarks and for energetic light quarks. A configuration where one light quark carries most of the energy is atypical. Therefore the symmetries of the interaction are not realised in the hadronic spectrum. Furthermore, the probability that such an asymmetric parton configuration hadronises into a light meson depends on the energy of the meson. Hence, the soft contributions to the form factors are energy-dependent functions, whose absolute normalisation is not known. This is to be contrasted to the case of heavy-heavy form factors, for which the spin symmetry relates pseudoscalar and vector mesons, and the Isgur-Wise form factor $`\xi (vv^{})`$ is independent of the heavy quark mass. The scaling law for the soft contribution can be derived in different ways, but all of them make use of the endpoint behaviour of the pion’s light-cone distribution amplitude . If one assumes that the distribution amplitude vanishes linearly with the longitudinal momentum fraction of the spectator quark, as is suggested by its asymptotic form, one finds

$$\xi _P(E)\frac{M^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{3/2}}{E^2}.$$
(9)
As in the case of a heavy-to-heavy transition, there will be a vertex correction to Eq. (8) (of the type shown at one loop in Fig. 1b). The hard part of these diagrams does not respect the symmetry relations, but it can be accounted for in perturbation theory by multiplicatively renormalising the heavy-to-light current just as in the case of a heavy-to-heavy transition.

The important new element of the discussion is provided by hard spectator interaction in Figs. 1c and 1d. This allows the light meson to be formed in a preferred configuration, in which the momentum is distributed nearly equally between the two quarks. Since both quarks have momentum of order $`M`$, and the gluon in Figs. 1c and 1d has virtuality of order $`(M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$, this contribution can be computed within the hard-scattering approach to exclusive processes . The resulting scaling behaviour for the pseudoscalar meson form factors is (see, for instance, Refs. )

$$f_{i\mathrm{hard}}(q^20)\alpha _s(\sqrt{M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}})\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}{M}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(10)
We can summarise this discussion by the following factorisation formula for a heavy-light form factor at large recoil, and at leading order in $`1/M`$:

$`f_i(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_i\xi _P(E)+\mathrm{\Phi }_BT_i\mathrm{\Phi }_P,`$ (11)
where $`i=\{+,0,T\}`$. Analogous formulas hold for the form factors that parametrise the decays into light vector mesons . Here $`\xi _P(E)`$ is the soft part of the form factor, to which the symmetries discussed above apply; $`T_i`$ is a hard-scattering kernel (with the endpoint divergence regulated in a certain manner), convoluted with the light-cone distribution amplitudes of the $`B`$ meson and the light pseudoscalar meson; $`C_i`$ contains the hard vertex renormalisation. Eq. (10) implies that the hard spectator interaction (Figs. 1c and 1d) is suppressed by one power of $`\alpha _s`$ relative to the soft contribution (Fig. 1a). Hence the form factor relations like Eq. (8) are indeed correct at leading order in $`1/M`$ and $`\alpha _s`$.

We are going to calculate the order $`\alpha _s`$ corrections to Eq. (8) in the full theory and identify the soft contributions to be absorbed into $`\xi _P`$. We will not explicitly match the effective theory onto QCD, but, instead, define a factorisation scheme by imposing the convenient condition

$`f_+\xi _P.`$ (12)
In this way, also some hard contributions are absorbed into $`\xi _P`$. In particular, we circumvent some subtleties, arising in the effective theory defined by Eq. (3), that have been addressed in .

## 3 Results

Calculating the vertex corrections from Fig. 1b, using $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalisation, and comparing with Eqs. (11,12), we obtain ($`C_+0`$)

$$C_0=\frac{2E}{M}\left(1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }(22L)\right),$$
(13)
$$C_T=\frac{M+m_P}{M}\left(1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}+2L)\right)$$
(14)
where we have introduced the abbreviation $`L=\frac{2E}{M2E}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2E}{M}`$. Note that the tensor form factors depend on the renormalisation scale $`\mu `$.

The hard-scattering corrections are calculated from Figs. 1c,d by convoluting the hard-scattering amplitude with the light-cone wave functions of heavy and light mesons. With Eqs. (11,12) this yields ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_BT_+\mathrm{\Phi }_P0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_BT_0\mathrm{\Phi }_P=\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }\frac{q^2}{2EM}\mathrm{\Delta }F_P,$$
(15)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_BT_T\mathrm{\Phi }_P=\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }\frac{M+m_P}{2E}\mathrm{\Delta }F_P,$$
(16)
where we have defined the abbreviation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_P\frac{8\pi ^2f_Bf_P}{N_CM}l_+^1_B\overline{u}^1_P.$$
(17)
Here $`l_+`$ is the light-cone plus component of the spectator quark in the $`B`$ meson, and $`l_+^1_B`$ the corresponding moment with its light-cone distribution amplitude. The same moment appears in the leading-order contribution to $`B\mathrm{}\nu \gamma `$ decays , and determines the leading non-factorisable corrections to $`B\pi \pi `$ decays . The moment $`\overline{u}^1_P`$, with $`\overline{u}`$ being the longitudinal momentum fraction of the spectator quark in the light meson, is accessible, for instance, from the analysis of $`P\gamma `$ transition form factors, see, for instance, the review in Ref. .

Analogous results are found for the form factors that parametrise decays into light vector mesons . We quote only one example that is important for the analysis of the forward-backward asymmetry zero in the rare decay $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. The form factor ratios that enter the relation between the Wilson coefficients $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$  receive the following $`\alpha _s`$ correction

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M+m_V}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_1}{V}}={\displaystyle \frac{M}{M+m_V}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{A_1}}=`$
$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}}L]+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F_{}}{\xi _{}}}`$ (18)
where a similar quantity as in Eq. (17),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_{}\frac{8\pi ^2f_Bf_{}}{N_CM}l_+^1_B\overline{u}^1_{},$$
(19)
enters, with $`\overline{u}^1_{}`$ being a moment of the distribution amplitude of a transversely polarised vector meson. Inserting standard values for the parameters in Eqs. (18,19), the $`\alpha _s`$ corrections in Eq. (18) amount to about 5%.

In summary, we have shown that, in the kinematic region where the momentum transfer to the light meson is large, heavy-to-light form factors can be described by a factorisation formula (11) which is based on the symmetries that arise in the large-recoil/heavy-quark limit. This implies that $`\alpha _s`$ corrections to symmetry relations are calculable in a systematic way: i) Vertex corrections to the heavy-to-light current can be treated in an analogous way as in heavy quark effective theory. ii) Hard rescattering with the spectator quark is described by the hard-scattering approach which involves light-cone distribution amplitudes of the participating mesons. Typically, to first order in the strong coupling constant, these corrections amount to a few percent. Further details can be found in Ref. .


text:
# Cosmic concordance and the fine structure constant

## I Introduction

Cosmologists have for many years struggled to find a model of the universe consistent with all the available evidence. Recently, many observations have pointed to the universe being spatially flat with cold dark matter (CDM) making up approximately a third of the critical density, and the remainder dominated by a component with a negative equation of state such as a cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This confluence of evidence, which includes measurements of the expansion and acceleration of the universe, bounds on the age of the universe, and constraints from large scale structure and galaxy clusters, has been called ‘cosmic concordance’ .

The restriction to spatially flat models was originally motivated by theoretical arguments, in particular to be consistent with inflationary models of the early universe. However, measurements of the anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have given strong observational support to this assumption. The position of the first Doppler peak in the CMB power spectrum is sensitive to the spatial geometry and the epoch of last scattering of the CMB photons relative to the present age of the universe. Recent measurements by the balloon borne detectors BOOMERanG (B98) and MAXIMA (M99) indicate an increase in power at angular scales of approximately two degrees, very close to the expected position of the first Doppler peak in spatially flat models.

While providing tentative confirmation of a flat universe, the new data has also raised many questions as to the precise viability of the concordance. In particular, the position of the first peak as detected by BOOMERanG ($`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{peak}}=197\pm 6`$) appears to be at slightly larger scales than expected in generic flat models — a conclusion which is only slightly weakened by the inclusion the less sensitive MAXIMA data . In addition, both data sets indicate secondary Doppler peaks that are much less pronounced than expected in models compatible with primordial Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) . There are, of course, numerous possible explanations for these discrepancies. For example, the shift of the peak to larger scales could indicate a universe which is slightly closed , while the suppression of the second peak could be evidence that the baryon density is higher than has been indicated by BBN. However, these solutions require either giving up the elegance of spatially flat models or run into direct conflict with other cosmological measurements, particularly those related to BBN.

Another possible solution which addresses both unexpected features of the data is to delay the epoch of last scattering. This would increase the size of the sound horizon at last scattering and shift the first peak to larger scales while keeping a spatially flat universe. It would also simultaneously increase the density of baryons relative to that of the photons during the epoch of last scattering, suppressing the amplitude of the second peak. Within the standard framework, it is rather difficult to change the time of decoupling since it would require a mechanism, astrophysical  or otherwise , which could delay the formation of neutral hydrogen. Peebles et al.  suggested that non-linear structures at extremely high redshift could act as a source for Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons which photo-ionize the hydrogen. However, this is very unlikely in standard adiabatic models for structure formation, though it is a possibility if the initial fluctuations were non-Gaussian.

In this paper, we focus on another possible mechanism for delaying photon decoupling: that the electrons and protons might have been more weakly bound at high redshifts than they are today. In particular, we consider whether the observations contain evidence for a running of the fine structure constant, $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi \mathrm{}c)`$, between the time of recombination, where the CMB last scattered, and the present epoch. Changes in $`\alpha `$ modify the parameters governing recombination , which, depending on the sign, can lead to early ($`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})=\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})/\alpha >0`$) or delayed ($`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})<0`$) recombination. Here, we have defined $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\alpha (t)\alpha (t_0)`$, where $`t`$ is cosmic time and we denote $`t_0`$, $`t_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{nuc}}`$ throughout as the times of the present day, recombination and nucleosynthesis respectively.

Such variation of physical constants has been the subject of much attention, both observational and theoretical, in recent years. The theoretical motivation comes from String or M-theory in models where there are compact extra dimensions. These extra dimensions may have either stabilized before recombination ($`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})=0`$) or they may still be rolling down their potential, causing all the coupling constants to vary ($`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})0`$). The standard way in which to do this is using a scalar field known as the dilaton, but no stabilizing potential has ever been derived from anything which could be described as a candidate fundamental theory; all proposed stabilizing mechanisms appear to be ad hoc. Slow variation in $`\alpha `$ could, therefore, be considered at some level as a prediction of fundamental theory. It has also been pointed out  that models in which $`\alpha `$ varies can be thought of as models with a varying speed of light .

Of course, limits exist on changes in $`\alpha `$ due to various terrestrial, astrophysical and cosmological arguments. Terrestrial limits come primarily from elements which have long-lived $`\beta `$ decay, atomic clocks and the OKLO natural nuclear reactor , for which the limit is $`0.9\times 10^7<\delta \alpha <1.2\times 10^7`$ over a time period of around 1.8 billion years111The astrophysical and cosmological limits that we shall discuss correspond to a limit on $`\delta \alpha `$ over a particular redshift range. If considered in this way the OKLO constraint can be thought of as being at $`z0.1`$, although this is model and theory dependent since the limits are sensitive to possible simultaneous variations in other coupling constants. Cosmological limits come from the Helium abundance in BBN and quoted limits can be expressed roughly as $`|\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})|<10^210^4`$  at $`z10^910^{10}`$, although this is again highly model dependent; we shall return this issue in a detailed discussion below. Astrophysical limits arise from systems which absorb quasar emissions over a wide redshift range of $`z0.13`$ . After many years of deriving upper bounds on $`\delta \alpha `$, a statistical detection of $`\delta \alpha =(1.1\pm 0.4)\times 10^5`$ has been claimed recently  due to measurements of relativistic fine structure in absorption systems in the range $`0.6<z<1.6`$, with more data soon to be published.

In what follows we will work within the framework of spatially flat $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1)`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models with matter density (in units of the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$) given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and cosmological constant density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. Similarly, the baryon density is denoted $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ and the rest of the matter is assumed to be dominated by CDM, with no hot dark matter (HDM) component, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0`$. The Hubble constant will be parameterized by $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. We shall assume that the initial scalar fluctuations that are measured were created during an epoch of cosmic inflation, and that they are almost scale invariant with spectral index, $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ and amplitude $`A_\mathrm{S}`$. At this stage we will ignore the possibility of a tensor component to the fluctuations and also the possibility of early reionization, and for preciseness we shall assume that the temperature of the CMB is $`T_{\mathrm{cmb}}=2.726K`$, the fraction of primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is $`Y_{{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}}=0.24`$ and the number relativistic degrees of freedom is $`N_\nu =3.04`$. For rest of the paper we denote $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})=\delta \alpha `$, unless otherwise specified.

## II Varying $`\alpha `$ and the CMB

To make a quantitative analysis of the effects of changing $`\alpha `$ on the CMB anisotropies, we to modify the linear Einstein-Boltzmann solver CMBFAST . Here we follow the treatments outlined in Hannestad  and Kaplinhat et al  and confirm their results. Changing $`\alpha `$ modifies the strength of the electromagnetic interaction and therefore the only effect on the creation of CMB anisotropies is via the modifications to the differential optical depth of photons due to Thomson scattering,

$$\dot{\tau }=x_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{e}c\sigma _\mathrm{T},$$
(1)
where ionization fraction, $`x_\mathrm{e}`$, is the fraction of the number density of free electrons to their overall number density $`n_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson scattering cross-section. The ionization fraction, $`x_\mathrm{e}`$, is dependent on the temperature of the electrons, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$, and therefore on the expansion rate of the universe $`a(t)`$. Modifying $`\alpha `$ has a direct effect on the optical depth via the Thomson scattering cross section, $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}=8\pi \alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2/(3m_\mathrm{e}^2c^2`$). It also indirectly effects $`\dot{\tau }`$ by modifying the temperature dependence of $`x_\mathrm{e}`$. These two effects change $`T_{}`$, the temperature at which last scattering takes place, and $`x_\mathrm{e}(t_0)`$, the residual ionization that remains after recombination, both of which influence the CMB anisotropies.

The change of the ionization fraction with $`\alpha `$ results from modifying the interaction between electrons and protons. The net recombination rate of protons and electrons into hydrogen is given by

$$t_{\mathrm{rec}}^1=\alpha _\mathrm{e}x_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{e}C\beta _\mathrm{e}\left(1x_\mathrm{e}\right)e^{3B_1/4T_\mathrm{e}}C.$$
(2)
where $`B_1`$ is the binding energy of the hydrogen ground state given by $`B_1=\alpha ^2m_\mathrm{e}c^2/2(13.6\mathrm{eV}`$ for $`\alpha =\alpha (t_0)`$), and $`\alpha _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\beta _\mathrm{e}`$, $`C`$ are constants quantifying recombination, ionization and the two photon decay in to the ground state. This is the net rate for recombination to and ionization from all states of the hydrogen atom. Recombination to the ground state can be neglected since such a process immediately creates a Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photon which reionizes another hydrogen atom, although one has to take into account Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons which are redshifted out of the resonance line and also that the ground state can be reached by two photon decay . The recombination rate to all other excited levels is

$$\alpha _\mathrm{e}=2A\left(\frac{2T_\mathrm{e}}{\pi m_\mathrm{e}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{B_1}{T_\mathrm{e}}\varphi ^{}\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{e}}{B_1}\right)\overline{g},$$
(3)
where $`A=2^53^{3/2}\alpha ^3\pi A_0^2=2.105\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, with the Bohr radius $`A_0=\mathrm{}/\alpha m_\mathrm{e}c=0.529\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`m_\mathrm{e}=0.511\mathrm{MeV}`$ the electron mass. The Gaunt factor $`\overline{g}0.943`$ is due to quantum corrections of the radiative process and is only weakly dependent on $`\alpha `$. As in refs.  we have ignored the effects of in change in $`\alpha `$ on this correction. The function $`\varphi ^{}(t_\mathrm{e})=0.5(1.735\mathrm{ln}t_\mathrm{e}+t_\mathrm{e}/6)\mathrm{exp}(1/t_\mathrm{e})E_1(1/t_\mathrm{e})/t_\mathrm{e}`$ comes from summing up the interaction cross sections from all excited levels . $`E_1`$ is the exponential integral function and $`t_\mathrm{e}=T_\mathrm{e}/B_1`$. The ionization rate is related to the recombination rate by detailed balance

$$\beta _\mathrm{e}=\alpha _\mathrm{e}\left(\frac{m_\mathrm{e}T_\mathrm{e}}{2\pi }\right)^{3/2}e^{B_2/T_\mathrm{e}},$$
(4)
with $`B_2=B_1/4`$ the energy of the lowest lying excited, $`n=2`$, state. The correction due to the redshift of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons and the two photon decay is given by $`C=(1+K𝒟n_{1s})/(1+K𝒟n_{1s}+K\beta _\mathrm{e}n_{1s})`$, with $`K=\lambda _\alpha ^3a/(8\pi \dot{a})`$, $`\lambda _\alpha =16\pi \mathrm{}/(3m_\mathrm{e}\alpha ^2c)`$ the wavelength of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons, $`𝒟=8.23\mathrm{s}^1`$ the net rate of the two photon decay with $`𝒟\alpha ^8`$  and $`n_{1s}=(1x_\mathrm{e})n_\mathrm{e}`$ the number density of atoms in the $`1s`$ state.

We have incorporated these dependencies on $`\alpha `$ into CMBFAST and the results are illustrated for a simple $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`h=0.65`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.019`$ and $`n_\mathrm{S}=1`$ in Fig. 1. On examination of the curve for $`x_\mathrm{e}(z)`$, we see that if the $`\alpha `$ is increasing with time ($`\delta \alpha <0`$) then the epoch of recombination is delayed, whereas if it is decreasing ($`\delta \alpha >0)`$ then recombination happens much earlier. The visibility function $`\dot{\tau }\mathrm{exp}[\tau ]`$ quantifies the probability that a given photon observed today was last scattered at the specified redshift. Hence, one could loosely define the epoch of last scattering to be the maximum of the visibility function. By this definition, the $`\pm 5\%`$ shifts in $`\alpha `$ illustrated in Fig. 1 correspond to shifts in the epoch of last scattering by about $`100`$ in $`z`$, from the value of $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}1100`$ for $`\delta \alpha =0`$. We also studied the effects of changing $`\alpha `$ in the process of Helium recombination and found that they are negligible as long as $`\alpha `$ varies in the range we discuss in this paper.

The shift in the epoch of recombination has a number of implications for the spectrum of CMB anisotropies . First, the angular positions of the primary and subsequent peaks in the spectrum are determined by the physical scale of the sound horizon for photons at the time of last scattering. In particular, the position of the first peak is given by $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{peak}}\pi \eta _0/(c_\mathrm{s}\eta _{})`$, where $`\eta _0`$ is the conformal time of the present day, $`\eta _{}`$ is that of last scattering and $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ is the sound speed of the photon-baryon fluid around $`\eta _{}`$. In a model where $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})<0`$, $`\eta _{}`$ is increased while $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ is reduced by a smaller amount due to the larger fraction of baryons at last scattering, and $`\eta _0`$ does not change. Hence, the first peak in the CMB anisotropies is moved to larger scales, or smaller $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{peak}}`$. Similarly, if $`\delta \alpha >0`$, $`\eta _{}`$ and $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ are affected in the opposite way and the peak moves to smaller scales (larger $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{peak}}`$.) A reduction of $`l_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ from 240 to 200. as suggested by the B98 data, could be achieved by a $`16\%`$ increase in $`c_\mathrm{s}\eta _{}`$. Such effects would be degenerate in parameter space with modifications to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, which we have ignored.

Other effects of this shift are changes in the modulation of the peak heights by baryon drag , to the photon diffusion damping length , and to the time between matter domination and last scattering, which lead to subtle degeneracies between $`\delta \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2`$. The modulation of the peaks heights is determined by the relative density of baryons to photons at $`\eta _{}`$, $`R_{}=3\rho _\mathrm{b}/(4\rho _\gamma )a_{}T_{}^1`$, where $`T_{}`$, the temperature at which recombination takes place, is roughly proportional to the binding energy of the electrons $`T_{}B_1(1+\delta \alpha )^2`$. Hence, one might think that the effects of increasing the baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$, can be accomplished by decreasing $`\alpha ^2`$ by the same amount. However, reducing $`\alpha `$ and delaying recombination also results in an increased diffusion photon length, which also could be caused by a increase in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$. The degeneracy between $`\delta \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ is, therefore, a complicated one and is likely depend on the scales probed experimentally. Finally, delaying the time of recombination will alter the ratio of matter to radiation when the photons are last scattered, and so will have effects similar to changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2`$.

## III Integrated Probability Distributions

We are now in a position to calculate likelihood functions given the CMB data for $`\delta \alpha 0`$. In models where $`\alpha `$ is constant, the B98 data, taken on their own, prefer spatially closed models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}1.3`$ . In addition, many other parameters take similarly questionable values (e.g., $`t_07.6\mathrm{Gyr}`$) when the CMB data is not supplemented with other priors. For example, measurements of the cosmological distance ladder indicate that the Hubble constant is roughly between $`h=0.450.85`$ (which we will take to be the $`95\%`$ confidence range,) while the observed light element abundances and BBN indicate the baryon density is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.019\pm 0.0024`$ ($`95\%`$ conf. level) . If we restrict to models that are spatially flat, the CMB data prefer values of these parameters in excess of that found by the direct measurements.

To illustrate this point we have computed flat band power estimates for the CMB anisotropies in the range probed by the B98 and M99 experiments for flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models for a grid of cosmological parameters ($`h=0.451.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=0.05`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.0070.040`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.003;`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.20.8`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.1;`$ $`n_\mathrm{S}=0.81.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_\mathrm{S}=0.05`$.), computed the likelihood of the models given the data and then marginalized over the parameters $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, assuming that (1) $`A_\mathrm{S}`$ be that measured by COBE with Gaussian errors of approximately 15% , (2) the B98 calibration errors are Gaussian, with an amplitude of $`20\%`$, and (3) the M99 calibration errors have an equivalent amplitude of $`8\%`$ with Gaussian correlations with respect to the other measurements when included. The relative likelihood contours are presented in Fig. 2 for B98 alone and for it combined with M99, included also is a box giving an idea of where the direct limits lie. It is clear that the CMB measurements disagree with the direct measures of these cosmological parameters at the $`2\sigma `$ level if one only takes into account B98, and this conclusion is only slightly weakened by the inclusion of M99. Thus, the CMB measurements appear to be in conflict with the baryon density inferred from nucleosynthesis and either the measurements of $`h`$ or the theoretical prejudice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$. (This is supported by the analyses of refs. .)

These conflicts can be resolved if one considers changing the value of $`\alpha `$ at last scattering. If we repeat the above analysis, there is a marked improvement in the consistency of the CMB measurements with the direct measurements of $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ when $`\delta \alpha <0`$. We illustrate this point in Fig. 3 where $`\alpha `$ is reduced by 6.5% from its present day value, that is $`\delta \alpha =0.065`$. This shift brings the CMB into better agreement with the direct measurements. It should be noted, however, that the direct measurements themselves may also be modified by a change in the fine structure constant, which we have not attempted to model here. This issue we will discuss further in section IV.

To further quantify this, one can derive likelihoods for the value of $`\delta \alpha `$ by marginalizing over all the other cosmological parameters, including the Hubble constant and baryon density. We have done this for a wide range of $`\delta \alpha `$ using a slightly wider spacing than above — $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.006`$. In addition to the CMB data, we consider a number of possible prior assumptions for the parameters, particularly focusing on those involving $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$. Results based on the CMB data alone, without any prior, are labelled P0. We have included two simple priors incorporating fairly weak constraints on the age of the universe (P1: $`t_0>11.5`$ Gyr) or on the Hubble constant (P2: $`h=0.65\pm 0.1`$.) These tend to have similar effects, as both effectively cut off the large $`h`$ region of parameter space. We have also considered adding weak and strong priors on the baryon density to the previously assumed Hubble constant prior, (P3: P2 + $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.019\pm 0.006`$) and (P4: P2 + $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.019\pm 0.0012`$.) Finally, we combine the age, Hubble constant, and strong baryon density priors with a constraint based on the cluster baryon fraction (P5: P1 + P4 + $`f_\mathrm{b}=0.067\pm 0.008`$.), where $`f_\mathrm{b}`$ is the fraction of baryons to total mass deduced from X-ray observations of rich clusters. In each case the quoted error bars above are taken to be the $`68\%`$ (1-$`\sigma `$) confidence level.

The result of these marginalized distributions for $`\delta \alpha `$ for P0, P1 and P4 are shown in Fig. 4, and the basic properties of these distributions are displayed in Table I for all the priors. As can be seen, in the absence of any priors the data prefer a value for $`\alpha `$ at last scattering a few percent lower than its present value, but the constraint is fairly weak. Considering only the B99 data and adding fairly weak constraints on the age or $`h`$ gives a significantly stronger signal, suggesting a detection of variation in $`\alpha `$ at the 1-$`\sigma `$ level. Finally, if one includes the stronger constraints that the baryon density is low, then the evidence for variation in $`\alpha `$ is significant at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level. Including the M99 data weakens these detections somewhat, but not dramatically.

One can understand the effects of the priors in light of our earlier discussion of how the CMB anisotropies depend on $`\delta \alpha `$. By allowing $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ to vary freely one can fit both the primary peak position and secondary peak heights either with $`\delta \alpha =0`$ or $`\delta \alpha 0`$, and as we have already seen in Fig. 2, fixing $`\delta \alpha =0`$ requires large values of $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$. The constraint on $`h`$ comes primarily from the position of the primary peak. When one allows the time of recombination to change due to a variation in $`\delta \alpha `$, the high value of $`h`$ can be offset by an increase in $`c_\mathrm{s}\eta _{}`$, making models with a lower values of $`h`$ and $`\delta \alpha <0`$ equally likely. If one further assumes a prior such as P1 or P2 which penalizes high $`h`$, the models with $`\delta \alpha <0`$ become favored over those with $`\delta \alpha =0`$. A similar line of argument can be applied to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$. When $`\delta \alpha =0`$ a high value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2(0.031)`$ is favored, but when one allows $`\delta \alpha `$ to vary, the approximate degeneracy between $`\delta \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ makes models with a lower value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ and $`\delta \alpha <0`$ equally likely. Clearly, the inclusion of a constraint which penalizes high $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ will favor models with $`\delta \alpha <0`$. The remarkable aspect of this is that the inclusion of a single parameter, $`\delta \alpha `$, has the effect of improving the fit to the observations through two physically very distinct mechanisms.

The conclusions are substantiated by examining the best fit models listed in Tables II and III, and plotted compared to the B98 data in Fig.5 and to the combined dataset in Fig. 6. Except for P0 in the case of B98 alone, and P0 and P1 in the case of B98 and M99, the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of the best fits are decreased by allowing $`\alpha `$ to vary, but the fits are only significantly improved when one assumes a strong prior for the baryon density (P3-P5). When considering just the B98 data, the $`\chi ^2`$ appears to be somewhat smaller than the number of degrees of freedom, so that the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ are significantly less than one, which in turn suggests that the error bars of the B98 data may be overestimated. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ no longer appear low when the M99 data are included in the analysis.

## IV Discussion

In the previous section we presented evidence for a variation in $`\alpha `$ using recent CMB observations. If confirmed by subsequent observations this would be a truly remarkable result. In this section we will discuss the various aspects of our analysis, focusing on the potential uncertainties.

First, we should make some comments on the details of our statistical procedure and the models which we have probed. We make the approximation that the CMB data points are statistically independent and Gaussianly distributed, with window functions given by flat band powers in $`\mathrm{}`$. This is also an assumption in the analysis of ref. , but not in those of the BOOMERanG and MAXIMA collaborations  where the exact experimental window functions were used. Since the analysis presented here for $`\delta \alpha =0`$ agrees qualitatively with those other analyses, we believe these approximations should be sufficient for our purposes. The B98 data has more points (12 versus 10) and smaller errors than the M99 data, and generally provides stronger constraints. While both data sets suggest the secondary peak is suppressed relative to the first Doppler peak, the M99 data shows no evidence for a left-ward shift of the peak. Thus, including it tends to weaken the evidence for a time varying $`\alpha .`$

We include in our calculations the uncertainties in the absolute calibrations of the data sets, which is necessary in order for them to be consistent with each other. The B98 data was normalized by the CMB dipole, which is subject to large systematic errors, and their quoted calibration error is 20% in the power. The M99 experiment was also able calibrate off of Jupiter, and has only an 8% error. Best fit models allowing both of these to vary seem to prefer an increase of roughly 15% in the relative B98/M99 power calibration (see, for example, Table III).

We should also note that the range of models we use in our analysis does not include many cosmological scenarios that are often considered. We have excluded the possibility of tensor fluctuations with a spectral index $`n_\mathrm{T}`$ and amplitude $`A_\mathrm{T}`$, a hot dark matter component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$, and also that of early reionization often quantified by $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$, the optical depth to reionization. These were included in ref. and were found to have little or no bearing on the preferred values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ and $`h`$ since these parameters are effectively orthogonal given the present data. In fact, in ref.  it was suggested that there is a degeneracy between $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$ for the angular scales probed in B98; our unusually low values of $`n_\mathrm{S}`$, therefore, take into account the possibility of reionization at moderate redshift with $`n_\mathrm{S}=1`$ being compatible with the data.

We have investigated this by constructing the Fisher matrix which quantifies the effects of changing parameters has on the measured band powers $`_i`$,

$$_{ab}=\frac{_i}{p_a}C_{ij}^1\frac{_j}{p_b},$$
(5)
where $`p_a`$ are the parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2,h,\delta \alpha ,n_\mathrm{S},\tau _\mathrm{R},A_S`$) and $`C_{ij}`$ is the data covariance matrix, assumed diagonal except for the calibration uncertainties. We find the strongest degeneracy of $`\delta \alpha `$ to be with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2`$, but there are also significant overlaps with $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$; all of which are consistent with the simple theoretical arguments in Section II. Our inferred errors on $`\delta \alpha `$ from Figure 4 are quite consistent with those expected by computing inverse Fisher matrix for the best fit model with P0. The matrix is also largely block diagonal as one might have expected, with $`n_\mathrm{S},\tau _\mathrm{R},A_S`$ being largely orthogonal to the other variables, but with significant overlap amongst themselves, confirming that $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$ are degenerate given the present data.

Knowledge of the Fisher matrix allows us to investigate the impact future CMB measurements might have on further constraining parameters. If the error bars of the B98 and M99 experiments are reduced by a factor of two, the errors on $`\alpha `$ (and indeed on most parameters) are reduced by a comparable factor. Hence, improved sensitivity with the same angular coverage is an important goal. We have also considered the impact of a hypothetical measurement of the third peak, centered at $`\mathrm{}=800`$, as well as a detection of the first polarization peak centered at $`\mathrm{}=350`$, assuming 10% errors on a flat band power measurement in each case. Both, particularly the polarization measurement, help to reduce uncertainties in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$, but disappointingly neither do very well in reducing the uncertainties in $`\delta \alpha `$. It should be noted that a weakness of this band power based approach is that the conclusions will depend somewhat on how the data are binned, particularly if the models vary greatly across the bins.

Having argued that our statistical procedure and the models which we have probed provide a robust detection of a variation in $`\alpha `$ given prior assumptions from direct measurements of $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ in a flat universe, we now turn to the more difficult issue of the effect of such a variation on these direct measurements. This pertains primarily to those associated with BBN since the measurements of $`h`$, $`t_0`$ and $`f_b`$ are made at very low redshifts and therefore will be relatively insensitive to these changes.

Since electromagnetic effects are ubiquitous in BBN, it is clear that there must exist a constraint on $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})`$ from the consistency of BBN with light element abundances. There are two approaches to this problem documented in the literature. The first  is to use only the observations of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, which are thought to be the most reliable. One can make a very simple estimate of the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance, in terms of $`m_n/m_p`$, the neutron to proton mass ratio. However, expressing this in terms of $`\alpha `$ cannot be done in a model independent way because it involves a subtle interplay between electromagnetic, weak and strong interaction effects which have not been understood completely within QCD. Therefore, tight limits on $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})`$ computed in this way should be treated with some caution.

A more reliable alternative  is to make a detailed analysis of how changes in $`\alpha `$ can effect all the light abundances and derive a constraint from demanding consistency with their observed values. Although this involves a number of complicated nuclear reaction rates, it turns out that a model independent constraint might be possible at the level of around a few percent. In fact, it was suggested in ref.  that $`|\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})|0.02`$ could help BBN fit the observed light element abundances better. However, even this value should be treated with some caution since there are further uncertainties which might could modify it by as much as a factor of two .

Furthermore, the implied value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ is likely to change as a function of $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})`$. For example, one might expect that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2\left[\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})\right]=\left[1+A\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})\right]\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2\left[0\right]$$
(6)
for small values of $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})`$ where the coefficient is expected to be of order $`A𝒪(1)`$. The amplitude and sign of the proportionality constant $`A`$ will clearly have some influence on our conclusions. In particular, if decreasing $`\alpha `$ increases the inferred baryon density $`(A<0)`$, then it may be possible to fit the data with a smaller change in $`\alpha `$. However, if the opposite is true $`(A>0)`$, then it may prove a better fit if the fine structure constant is larger at last scattering, contrary to our present results.

To make contact with the earlier discussion, one needs to relate $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})`$ and $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})`$ which requires a model for how the variation in $`\alpha `$ is realized. If $`\alpha `$ is increasing with time as we have suggested here, then it might be sensible to assume that it has done so monotonically222In fact models have been suggested in which $`\alpha `$ oscillates , although this would appear at this stage to be somewhat ad hoc. and, therefore, $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})<\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})`$. Given the uncertainties, the constraint from BBN on $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})`$ would appear to be consistent with this relation given the fairly small values of $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})`$ required for a good fit to the CMB data. However, this certainly motivates a critical appraisal of the exact constraint on $`\delta \alpha `$ from BBN. Including the effect of changing $`\alpha `$ on the BBN measurements would require knowledge of the parameter $`A`$ and we have not attempted to incorporate this into our analysis. This issue should be revisited in future work when the $`\alpha `$ dependence of the BBN constraints are better understood.

Finally, we should mention that realistic models in which $`\alpha `$ varies may contain one or more light scalar fields which mediate the precise variation. Clearly, if such a field exists it should be included in the calculation of the CMB anisotropies in the Boltzmann hierarchy of CMBFAST, either explicitly or as a extra relativistic degree of freedom. This would allow a subsequent analysis to include effects of the time variation of $`\alpha `$, rather than just a change between the time of recombination and the present day. Such a field could have significant energy density during the epochs important for structure formation (after the time of radiation-matter equality) and it may even be possible for such a field to act as a quintessence field , removing the need for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## V Conclusions

The most recent CMB data provide strong evidence yet that the universe is, at least approximately, spatially flat. The B98 data, however, is not entirely consistent with spatial flatness and direct measurements of other cosmological parameters. The situation is only slightly improved when the M99 data is included. However, if the fine structure constant was a few percent smaller when the photons were last scattered, then a model can be found which is consistent with all observations. It is clear that a change in the $`\alpha `$ is not the only possible explanation for such observations, and the evidence we present here could equally well be thought of as favoring other delayed recombination models, for example, that presented in ref. .

The evidence for a time variation in the fine structure constant is significant when a tight prior is assumed for the baryon density. However, the baryon density inferred from measurements of primordial abundances depends on nuclear physics processes at times long before last scattering at the epoch of BBN. We have argued that the values of $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})0.05`$ that we have deduced are consistent with BBN given the uncertainties assuming that the variation in $`\alpha `$ is monotonic, but that inclusion of the effect of varying $`\alpha `$ on the inferred value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ for a given Deuterium abundance has been ignored, mainly due to lack of quantitative information.

Stronger conclusions must, of course, wait for better data, such as might come from the satellite experiments MAP and PLANCK. In particular, these will be able to confirm whether the inconsistencies of flat models with direct measurements and the CMB data (such as a slight shift of features to larger scales) are real. In addition, these experiments should be able to break the degeneracy between a changing $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$, so that a change in $`\alpha `$ can be tested independently of what occurred at nucleosynthesis. It is clear from Fig. 5 that the best fit models can differ greatly for $`\mathrm{}>600`$ in temperature anisotropies and the polarization; any experiment which probes the CMB in these areas will be useful in breaking these degeneracies, although the results of our Fisher matrix analysis suggest they will require considerable sensitivity.

Having presented our case for a few percent variation in $`\alpha `$ at around $`z1000`$, it is interesting to compare to the other claimed detection of a change in $`\alpha `$ around $`z1`$, and speculate as to an explanation. Naively, $`\delta \alpha (z1000)0.01`$ and $`\delta \alpha (z1)10^5`$ might suggest that $`\delta \alpha z`$, but this would be incompatible with BBN if extrapolated back to $`z10^910^{10}`$. In order to have a chance of being consistent with BBN, such a scenario would require that the variation in $`\alpha `$ terminated at some point shortly before recombination, that is, $`\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{nuc}})\delta \alpha (t_{\mathrm{rec}})`$. At first sight coupling $`\alpha `$ non-minimally to gravity via the Ricci scalar or the trace of the energy-momentum tensor as suggested in ref. , both of which are zero in the radiation-era and non-zero in the matter-era, might seem an attractive solution since the variation in $`\alpha `$ would begin at the onset of matter domination. Clearly, such ideas could have a profound impact on understanding of Grand Unification and this particular interpretation of the most recent observations presented here opens up a wide range of interesting possibilities for future research in this area.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank J. Barrow, G. Efstathiou, N. Turok and particularly R. Lopez for useful conversations. RB and RC were supported by PPARC Advanced Fellowships, while JW is supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), DOE grant DE-FG03-91ER40674 and UC Davis. The computations were performed on COSMOS, at the UK National Cosmology Computing Centre in Cambridge.