text:
# Accelerated Electrons in Cassiopeia A: An Explanation for the Hard X-Ray Tail

## 1 Introduction

A number of supernova remnants have recently been recognized as likely acceleration sites for cosmic ray electrons. SN 1006 (Koyama et al., 1995) and G347.3-0.5 (Slane et al., 1999; Koyama et al., 1997) both show spectra with continua so strong in the spectral region around 1 keV that no line emission is detectable with e.g. the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA). Laming (1998) has shown for SN 1006 that any explanation based on non-thermal bremsstrahlung fails. It must either produce line emission that should be observable, or in the most extreme case of a shock propagating through a pure carbon plasma (which will produce no lines in the bandpass of instruments such as ASCA), the amount of carbon required to produce the observed intensity is well in excess of that expected for a Type Ia supernova, and indeed exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit by large factors. Thus synchrotron radiation from cosmic ray electrons with energies of order 100 TeV is left as the only viable interpretation. This conclusion is essentially confirmed by the detection of TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from SN 1006 by Tanimori et al. (1998).

A second class of cosmic ray accelerator candidates do show the line emission expected, but also have a hard X-ray “tail” to their X-ray spectra. Members of this class include Cas A (Allen et al., 1997; Favata et al., 1997), IC 443 (Keohane et al., 1997), and possibly RCW 86 (Allen et al., 1998). While less compelling than the first class, no other mechanism has been postulated to date that could explain the approximate power law behaviour of the emission, seen in Cas A up to energies in excess of 100 keV (Allen et al., 1997; The et al., 1996). It is the purpose of this paper to investigate such a possibility, where collective motions of the plasma (specifically lower hybrid waves) excited by ions reflected from shock front decay accelerating electrons into a non-Maxwellian distribution function. We begin by reviewing the simplest models for collisionless shocks. Section 2 reviews the theory of electron energization by lower hybrid waves, which has received recent attention in connection with cometary X-ray emission (Bingham et al., 1997; Shapiro et al., 1999). Section 3 describes the application of these results to Cas A, while section 4 discusses the assumptions underlying this approach, and some of the consequences for our understanding of Cas A that such a model, if correct, would yield.

Assuming that the gas pressure $`>>`$ magnetic pressure in the downstream plasma, the temperature $`T_a`$ reached by particle species $`a`$ with mass $`m_a`$ is given by conservation of energy, momentum and particles across the shock discontinuity by

$$k_BT_a=\frac{3}{16}m_av_s^2$$
(1)
for shock velocity $`v_s`$. Thus in the limit of true collisionless plasma, the particles will have temperature proportional to their masses, i.e. protons will have a temperature $`m_i/m_e=1836`$ times that of the electrons. Obviously in realistic conditions Coulomb equilibration will take place, with rate

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }T}{dn_et}=0.13\frac{Z}{A}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T_e^{3/2}}$$
(2)
in c.g.s. units, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_iT_e`$, and the ions have charge $`Z`$ and atomic mass $`A`$. So long as $`T_i>>T_e`$ we can integrate to get

$$T_e=\left(\frac{5}{2}\times 0.13\frac{Z}{A}T_in_et\right)^{2/5}.$$
(3)
Averaging this temperature over the life of the shock modifies $`T_e`$ by an extra factor 5/7. Such a model, assuming values of $`Z`$ in the range 8-26 (corresponding to oxygen and its burning products) adequately explains the observed temperatures of shocked ejecta and circumstellar medium (CSM), 1.25 and 3.8 keV respectively for $`n_eT10^{11}`$ cm-3s in each case in Cas A (Favata et al., 1997), but cannot explain the hard x-ray continuum extending out to 100 keV.

## 2 The Electron Distribution Function from Lower Hybrid Wave Damping

From observations of radio synchrotron emission Cas A is believed to have relatively high magnetic fields, perhaps up to the equipartition value of order 1 mG (Gull, 1975; Keohane, Gotthelf, & Petre, 1998). A total energy in cosmic ray electrons and magnetic field of $`10^{49}`$ erg is required (c.f. Longair, 1994), which for maximum synchrotron luminosity must be equipartitioned between the two. If distributed uniformly throughout the Cas A shell, this evaluates to a magnetic field of 0.5 mG. Thus lower hybrid waves excited by cross field ion motions can accelerate electrons into a high energy tail onto the otherwise thermal Maxwellian distribution function. These are electrostatic ion waves that occur when the electrons are magnetized, which is likely to be the case at so-called quasi-perpendicular shocks. Due to the the shock compression of the magnetic field component perpendicular to the shock velocity vector, quasi-perpendicular shocks are likely to be more prevalent than quasi-parallel shocks in Cas A, and in supernova remnants in general, and will be assumed throughout this paper. Electron velocities at least up to the electron Alfvén velocity, $`B/\sqrt{4\pi n_em_e}`$ where $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength, and $`n_e`$ and $`m_e`$ are the electron density and mass respectively, are possible. This corresponds to energies of order 100 keV for Cas A, making it an attractive mechanism to explore.

Electrons accelerated by these waves emit bremsstrahlung radiation, and have been recently discussed as a mechanism for cometary x-ray emission. Neutral atoms or molecules outgassing from a comet nucleus can be photoionized by solar UV radiation. In the interaction of these stationary (in the comet rest frame) ions with the ambient solar wind, a modified two-stream instability develops that in the case of magnetic field perpendicular to the relative comet-solar wind velocity generates lower hybrid waves (Bingham et al., 1997; Shapiro et al., 1999).

We will apply a similar model to Cas A, following in part the analytic treatments of Vaisberg et al. (1983), Krasnosel’skikh et al. (1985), and Begelman & Chiueh (1988), where ions reflected from shock fronts in Cas A move back upstream through the preshock plasma generating a similar modified two-stream instability. Such reflected ions and associated wave generation are common features in in situ observations of solar system shocks (c.f. Lengyel-Frey et al., 1997), and of models of electron energization at collisionless shocks (c.f. Cargill & Papadopoulos, 1988; Tokar et al., 1986; McClements et al., 1997; Vaisberg et al., 1983; Krasnosel’skikh et al., 1985). Vaisberg et al. (1983) give an analytic form for the electron distribution function following lower hybrid wave energization, which agrees well with the particle-in-cell simulations performed by Shapiro et al. (1999). The mathematical development of the theory for these waves is summarized in Appendix A. It is shown that for both reactive and kinetic forms of the instability, wave growth is strongest for wavevectors with a small parallel component $`k_{||}/k\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$. Hence the wave can simultaneously be in resonance with ions moving across and electrons moving parallel to the magnetic field, since the phase velocities are much larger along the magnetic field than across it. This facilitates energy transfer between electrons and ions. The resulting electron distribution function parallel to the magnetic field is also derived in Appendix A.

However the wave group velocity away from the shock front is lower than the shock velocity itself for $`k_{||}/k<\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$. Only at $`k_{||}/k=\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$ or greater can the waves stay ahead of the shock. This is important because the growth rates, particularly for the kinetic form of the instability, are not large, and for smaller $`k_{||}`$ the waves are likely to be overrun by the shock before significant growth can occur. Hence in the following we assume that in the preshock region, a significant level of wave activity exists only for $`k_{||}/k=\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$. With this simplification the accelerated electron distribution function is then given by equation (A17) with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$

$$f_e\left(v_{||}\right)=\frac{n_i^{}}{\sqrt{2\pi }k_BT/m_i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega _{pe}^2}\left(v_mv_{||}+\frac{\left(v_m^3v_{||}^3\right)}{3v_{Ae}^2}\right)$$
(4)
where $`v_{Ae}=v_{Ai}\sqrt{m_in_i/m_en_e}`$ is the electron Alfvén velocity, ($`v_{Ai}=B/\sqrt{4\pi n_im_i}`$ being the usual Alfvén velocity), $`n_i^{}`$ is the density of shock reflected ions, and $`v_m`$ is a constant of integration, denoting the maximum electron velocity. In the quasi-linear theory used in Appendix A, the accelerated electron density, $`n_e^{}`$, or $`v_m`$ remains a single free parameter. They are related by

$$n_e^{}=\frac{n_i^{}}{\sqrt{2\pi }k_BT/m_i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega _{pe}^2}\left(v_m^2+\frac{v_m^4}{2v_{Ae}^2}\right).$$
(5)
where an extra factor of two has been included to include the electron velocity range $`v_m+v_m`$.

For a reflected ion population $`25`$% of the preshock ion density (c.f. Cargill & Papadopoulos, 1988; McClements et al., 1997, and references therein), we get

$$\frac{n_e^{}}{n_e}=0.06\left(\frac{v_m^2}{v_{Ae}^2}+\frac{v_m^4}{2v_{Ae}^4}\right)\frac{m_e}{m_i}\frac{v_{Ae}^2}{v_{ti}^2}.$$
(6)
Anticipating from the following section that $`n_e^{}/n_e4`$%, $`v_{Ae}26v_s`$ and $`v_{ti}=0.53v_s`$ (assuming complete equipartition of magnetic and ion thermal energy, but insignificant electron-ion equilibration) gives $`v_m=v_{Ae}\sqrt{\sqrt{1+A}1}`$ where $`A`$ is the atomic mass of the ions. Hence $`v_mv_{Ae}`$, slowly increasing with the ion mass.

## 3 Application to Cassiopeia A

We compute model bremsstrahlung spectra using the distribution function given by equation (4) above for the electron velocity parallel to the magnetic field, representing the electron velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field as Maxwellians. The temperature for these perpendicular components is taken to be the same as that fitted to the thermal bremsstrahlung emitted at energies less than 10 keV. A fit to the BeppoSAX Medium Energy Concentrator (MECS Boella et al., 1997) spectrum from 1997 November 26 determined this temperature at 3.3 keV. This fit is shown in Figure 1. Other workers find temperatures in the range 2.9-4.2 keV (Allen et al., 1997; Favata et al., 1997; Vink, Kaastra, & Bleeker, 1996) from ASCA and BeppoSAX data.

The non-relativistic bremsstrahlung cross section $`d\sigma `$ for photon emission with energy in the range $`EE+dE`$ is given by (Berestetskii, Lifshitz, & Pitaevskii, 1982)

$$d\sigma =\frac{d}{dz}\left|{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{iZ}{v_f},\frac{iZ}{v_i},1,z)\right|^2\frac{64\pi ^2}{3}Z^2\alpha r_0^2\frac{m_e^2c^2}{\left(p_ip_f\right)^2}\frac{p_f}{p_i}\frac{1}{\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi Z/v_f\right)\right)\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi Z/v_i\right)1\right)}\frac{dE}{E}$$
(7)
where $`p_i`$, $`p_f`$, $`v_i`$, $`v_f`$ are initial and final electron momenta and velocities, $`Z`$ is the nuclear charge, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, and $`r_0`$ is the classical electron radius. Using standard formulae for manipulating the hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ and its derivative in the limit of low $`Z/v_i`$ and $`Z/v_f`$ a simpler form suitable for evaluation of the double integral to compute the emission rates can be found;

$$d\sigma =\frac{64\pi ^2}{3}Z^2\alpha r_0^2\frac{c^2}{v_i^2}\frac{Z/v_f}{\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi Z/v_f\right)\right)}\frac{Z/v_i}{\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi Z/v_i\right)1\right)}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{p_i+p_f}{p_ip_f}\right)\frac{dE}{E}.$$
(8)
In checks against bremsstrahlung spectra computed with the full formula given by equation (7) (Sutherland, 1998), the simpler equation (8) was found agree at the few percent level for Maxwellian electron distributions, for temperatures appropriate to Cas A for target charges up to 8 (i.e. a fully ionized oxygen plasma). Cas A has very little hydrogen. Oxygen is probably the most abundant element (Vink, Kaastra, & Bleeker, 1996).

In Figures 2 and 3 we plot spectra from the BeppoSAX MECS and the higher photon energy Phoswich Detector System (PDS Frontera et al., 1997) instruments, together with model spectra. The softest model spectrum in Figure 2 is a pure thermal bremsstrahlung spectra at 3.3 keV in fully ionized oxygen. The emission measure for this spectrum is $`n_en_OV=3.05\times 10^{57}`$ cm-3 for an assumed distance to Cas A of 3.4 kpc (Reed et al., 1995). The successively harder spectra have been computed by taking 4% of these thermal electrons and putting them into a lower hybrid wave energized distribution function, for electron Alfvén velocities of 32, 40, and 48 atomic units (in atomic units, $`e=\mathrm{}=m_e=1`$, so the atomic unit of velocity is $`2.188\times 10^8`$ cm s-1), with $`v_m=1.77v_{Ae}`$. Figure 3 shows the same data with the pure thermal bremsstrahlung and non-thermal bremsstrahlung models for $`v_{Ae}`$ of 56, 68, and 80 atomic units for a pure He plasma, with $`v_m=1.11v_{Ae}`$. In both cases, the curves with $`v_m70`$ atomic units appear to give the best match to the data up to energies $`50`$ keV.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 The Morphology of Cas A

One immediate problem is that the mG magnetic fields are present only inside the Cas A remnant (presumably amplified by Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities at the contact discontinuity), whereas most shock models require such fields to be present ahead of the shock (to be discussed in more detail below). However Cas A is an extremely inhomogeneous supernova remnant. It has numerous knots of optical emission from low charge states, which must be considerably denser than the surrounding plasma so that the recombination and radiative cooling times are sufficiently short. The blast wave travelling through the circumstellar material will to split into transmitted and reflected shocks upon meeting these inhomogeneities (see Sgro, 1975; Borkowski, Blondin, & Sarazin, 1992, for fuller discussion). Indeed exactly this happens in the simulations of Borkowski et al. (1996), giving rise to the possibility that shock waves are propagating throughout the X-ray and radio emitting shell. Since the plasma has already been heated by the blast wave or reverse shock these shocks will most likely be of relatively low Mach number (but still supercritical; see subsection 4.5 below). Another possibility for inhomogeneous or clumpy SNR is that the Rayleigh-Taylor fingers from the unstable contact discontinuity can propagate outwards and penetrate through the forward shock (Jun, Jones, & Norman, 1996). The by-now famous Chandra x-ray images (Hwang, Holt, & Petre, 2000) suggest that both scenarios could indeed be true. The forward shock is visible as a faint ring around the outside of the bright x-ray shell, which has its origin in shocked ejecta. The boundary between faint and bright emission is the contact discontinuity, which has no obvious penetration through the blast wave, except in the “jet” region in the NE quadrant. However the apparent “inversion” of the presumed pre-supernova element stratification (Hughes et al., 2000; Hwang, Holt, & Petre, 2000), with Fe being found in outer regions of the eastern part of the remnant with respect to lighter elements like Si, suggests a role for the Raleigh-Taylor instability, and makes it more likely that these regions have come into contact with strong magnetic fields at the contact discontinuity. Lower hybrid electron acceleration is also more likely in the heaviest element plasmas, (i.e. the Fe ejecta), for reasons discussed in the next subsection.

### 4.2 The Thermal Electron Temperature

The lifetime of accelerated electrons against Coulomb collisions with the thermal background is $`t5\times 10^6\left(E/1\mathrm{keV}\right)^{3/2}`$ s which evaluates to 14 - 150 years for electron energies of 20 - 100 keV. Hence electron acceleration must be ongoing, or have ceased in the very recent past, though this last possibility seems unlikely since the hard x-ray emission from Cas A has been known since the earliest days of x-ray astronomy (Gorenstein, Kellogg, & Gursky, 1970).

In section A.4 of the Appendix it is shown that an appropriate criterion for the presence of lower hybrid waves is that the electron gyroradius should be less than the wavelength, which can be expressed as $`T_e/T_i<\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2/Z/\omega _{pe}^2`$. In a magnetic field of 1 mG and electron density of 10 cm-3 this evaluates to $`T_e<<3\times 10^6\left(v_s/4000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\right)^2`$. The shock velocity has been determined from proper motion studies. For the same assumed distance as before, radio data give an expansion velocity of $``$ 2000 km s-1 (Anderson & Rudnick, 1995), while X-ray studies give velocities of $``$ 3500 km s-1 for the bright ring at a radius of 110”, and $``$ 5200 km s-1 inferred for the blast wave at a radius of 160” (Vink et al., 1998), all of which require $`T_e`$ significantly lower than that observed. As discussed in section A.4, an alternative condition on the electron Landau damping rate requires $`k_BT<<m_e\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2/k_{||}^2`$, which is the same as above for $`k_{||}/k\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$, but less restrictive for smaller $`k_{||}`$. The first criterion is also not met in the plasma around the nucleus of Comet Halley where lower hybrid waves and accelerated electrons were directly detected in situ (Gringauz et al., 1986; Klimov et al., 1986). They observed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}100`$ rad s-1, and $`n_e300`$ cm-3 giving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2/\omega _{pe}^22\times 10^5`$, while $`T_e2\times 10^5`$ K and $`T_i10^7`$ K.

One plausible solution to this dilemma is that in the region of wave generation, the electron temperature is in fact lower than the estimates and observations above would indicate. This is possible if the electrons are not energized on passage through the shock due to being bound to ions, only becoming ionized some time later on either by collisions in Cas A or by photoionization in Comet Halley. This is demonstrated in calculations of the Cas A reverse shock propagating through clumps of Fe ejecta by Mochizuki et al. (1999), where temperatures satisfying the condition on the electron gyroradius are found. Thus for Cas A the hard x-ray emission is more likely to be associated with regions of shocked ejecta where many electrons are still being ionized from bound states. In order that this putative ionizing region in Cas A should produce enough bremsstrahlung emission to be visible against the thermal continuum, a higher background ion charge might be necessary. This is also more likely if the thermal bremsstrahlung continuum with $`T_e=4\times 10^7`$ K comes from the shocked circumstellar medium, composed of He, N, and possibly O, while the non-thermal component comes from the ejecta, composed of O and heavier elements. Thus the local fraction of accelerated electrons may be different from the 4% determined above by matching to the BeppoSAX MECS/PDS spectra. However the maximum accelerated electron velocity $`v_m\left(n_e^{}/n_e\right)^{1/4}`$ is relatively insensitive to this, making large changes in the bremsstrahlung spectrum from that calculated before unlikely. The temperature assumed above for the perpendicular components of the accelerated electron distribution will also change. Again this will not significantly alter the non-thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum.

Another reason for spatially separating the thermal and non-thermal bremsstrahlung emitting regions is that over the 300 years or so of the remnant’s existence, collisions between the accelerated and thermal electrons would be likely to have raised the thermal electron temperature to a value well in excess of that observed if they were cospatial.

### 4.3 The Electron Alfvén Speed

Another crucial parameter in determining the visibility of non-thermal bremsstrahlung is the electron Alfvén velocity. From observations of radio synchrotron emission, Cas A is believed to have a large magnetic field $`1`$ mG, generated by turbulence associated with Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities at the contact discontinuity between the shocked ejecta and circumstellar material (c.f Gull, 1975; Keohane, Gotthelf, & Petre, 1998). Assuming such instabilities generate magnetic fields up to equipartition, we may write

$$\frac{B^2}{8\pi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(n_ik_BT_i+n_ek_BT_e\right)$$
(9)
where $`T_i`$ and $`T_e`$ are given by the shock jump conditions (equation 1). The resulting electron Alfvén velocity thus becomes

$$v_{Ae}=\sqrt{\frac{B^2}{4\pi n_em_e}}=v_s\sqrt{\frac{3m_p}{8m_e}}=26v_s$$
(10)
for fully ionized plasmas where nuclear mass $`Am_p`$ is such that $`A=2Z`$. The X-ray blast wave velocity (discussed above) gives $`v_{Ae}60`$ atomic units according to equation (10), with correspondingly lower values from the other observations. This is more than adequate to give a sufficiently high $`v_{Ae}`$ for the non-thermal bremsstrahlung to originate in oxygen or heavier element plasma. Hard x-rays from a helium plasma require higher $`v_{Ae}`$, still consistent with the observed x-ray blast wave, but not with the lower inferred shock velocities.

### 4.4 High Energy Behaviour of the Continuum and 44Ti

The highest energy data points (above 100 keV) may still possibly require the existence of cosmic rays. As can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, $`v_{Ae}`$ or $`v_m`$ cannot be arbitrarily increased to reproduce this emission without overestimating the non-thermal continuum at lower energies. However in principle relativistic electron energies are possible from lower hybrid wave acceleration (McClements et al., 1997; Vaisberg et al., 1983). The maximum cutoff in our approach stems from taking only waves with $`k_{||}/k=\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$, which satisfies the requirement that the perpendicular group velocity of the waves be greater than the shock velocity, to allow sufficient time for wave growth. With stronger reactive instabilities, waves with $`k_{||}0`$ may exist at sufficient intensity to make electron acceleration by lower-hybrid waves a plausible mechanism for solving the so-called electron injection problem (McClements et al., 1997). This arises because first order Fermi acceleration at quasi-perpendicular shock fronts is only effective for electrons of mildly relativistic or higher energies (Levinson, 1996), and so some other “injection” mechanism is required.

The question of the spectral behaviour at high energies is further confused slightly by the discrepancy in fluxes observed above 100 keV by BeppoSAX and OSSE. Compared with the data from OSSE presented in Figure 2 of Allen et al. (1997), the BeppoSAX PDS fluxes are up to an order of magnitude higher above 100 keV. Cas A is unlikely to be a variable source at these (or any other) energies, and so this problem presumably lies with the calibration of one or other of the instruments.

Another issue complicating the comparison of continuum spectra, but of supreme interest in its own right, is the possibility of detecting $`\gamma `$-ray line emission from the nucleus 44Sc at energies of 67.9 and 78.4 keV. 44Sc is a decay product of 44Ti, which is one of the most important radioactive elements produced in the $`\alpha `$-rich freeze out of core collapse supernovae, its abundance also being sensitive to the position of the mass cut (c.f Vink et al., 2000, for further discussion). The break in the lower-hybrid wave accelerated electron spectrum occurs at energies very close to where the 44Sc lines should be present, and the substitution of the power law in the fit to the BeppoSAX PDS data by Vink et al. (2000) with the non-thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum modeled in this paper might lead to interesting results for the flux in these lines.

### 4.5 Properties of Collisionless Shocks

So far we have invoked the excitation of lower hybrid waves ahead of a shock front, and modeled the electron distribution function on the assumption that a quasi-steady state can be reached in the shock rest frame. We will discuss these assumptions in more detail here.

In a number of models, various types of plasma waves are excited by ions that are reflected from the shock front and travel back upstream. This generally arises in perpendicular shocks due to the cross shock ambipolar electric field in the magnetic field overshoot region. The simulation of Cargill & Papadopoulos (1988) has reflected ions exciting electron plasma waves and then ion acoustic waves to provide eventual electron heating to around 20% of the postshock ion temperature. McClements et al. (1997) looked at the excitation of lower hybrid waves by ion gyrating in the magnetic field upstream of a fast shock, with a view to modeling the injection mechanism for the Fermi acceleration of electrons to cosmic ray energies at perpendicular shocks. A certain amount of support for these models comes from observations of shock waves in the solar wind where electron plasma and ion acoustic waves are seen ahead of shock fronts (Lengyel-Frey et al., 1997), and lower hybrid waves (Klimov et al., 1986) and their associated electron distribution function (Gringauz et al., 1986) have also been observed at comet Halley, with Shapiro et al. (1999) recently demonstrating by particle-in-cell simulations that the observed wave activity is indeed consistent with the observed electron distribution function.

An important point concerns the nature of the two-stream instability. All of the models discussed above assume the ions reflected from the shock to be essentially monoenergetic, thus giving rise to fast growing reactive instabilities. At perpendicular shocks this is necessary since the reflected ions only move back upstream for about an ion gyroradius before begin swept back behind the shock front, thus allowing only a finite amount of time for the instability to develop. This monoenergetic property of the reflected ions surprisingly appears to persist in shock simulations to high Mach numbers, where the shocks themselves should be highly turbulent (Cargill & Papadopoulos, 1988; Tokar et al., 1986). Both sets of authors comment that the ion reflection in their simulations becomes “bursty”, giving a time average of $`25`$%; not too different from the fraction of preshock ions observed to be reflected at lower Mach number (less turbulent) shocks in the solar wind or laboratory experiments. Woods (1987) emphasises that such ion reflection is characteristic of a very thin shock transition. For thicker shocks, the ions will gyrate in the magnetic field before reflection to varying degrees, giving rise to a reflected ion distribution still monoenergetic, but having a finite angular spread. Woods (1987) terms this a transition from “specular” to “diffuse” reflection. Gedalin (1996) has considered this distinction in more quantitative detail. Diffusely reflected ions will produce slower growing instabilities ahead of the shock, and hence produce less electron heating, and have been suggested as a possible reason by Laming (1998) for the low amount of collisionless electron heating observed at fast ($`2600`$ km s-1) shocks in the NW region of SN 1006 by Laming et al. (1996).

We have argued above that based on our knowledge of the properties of Cas A, the shocks producing the reflected ions and lower hybrid waves are likely to be of relatively low Mach number, since they are reflected from density inhomogeneities and are propagating through plasma that has already been heated by the forward or reverse shocks. Hence a “bursty” ion reflection is unlikely, and the assumption of steady state conditions embodied in equation (A15) remains valid. The sound speed in plasma shocked by the blast wave with speed $`v_s`$ and with no electron-ion equilibration is $`\sqrt{5k_BT_i/3m_i}=\sqrt{5/16}v_s`$. This plasma continues expanding at speed $`0.75v_s`$, and a shock reflected from a density inhomogeneity will hit it with relative velocity $`\sqrt{15A_r/16/\left(4A_r\right)}v_s`$ (i.e. a Mach number of $`\sqrt{3A_r/\left(4A_r\right)}`$), where $`A_r`$ is related to the density contrast, $`A`$, by $`A=3A_r\left(4A_r1\right)/\left(\sqrt{3A_r\left(4A_r\right)}\sqrt{5}\left(A_r1\right)\right)`$ (Sgro, 1975). For $`A\mathrm{}`$, $`A_r=2.5`$ and the maximum Mach number of the reflected shock is $`\sqrt{5}`$. In order that these secondary shocks propagating back through the shell are supercritical (i.e. that they reflect ions to form a precursor that excites the lower-hybrid waves), they must have Mach number greater than the so-called first critical Mach number. Edmiston & Kennel (1984) in a survey of first critical Mach numbers for various MHD shocks find a value of 1.7 for perpendicular shocks in plasmas with $`\gamma `$ (ratio of specific heats) of 5/3 and $`\beta `$ (gas pressure/magnetic pressure) of $`1`$. This requires $`A_r2`$ and a density contrast of $`30`$, with lower values required for higher $`\beta `$. For reference the electron density in the shocked x-ray emitting plasma is in the range 10-15 cm-3 (Vink, Kaastra, & Bleeker, 1996; Favata et al., 1997), while that in the shocked optically emitting knots determined from S II line ratios is $`10^310^4`$ cm-3 (Chevalier & Kirshner, 1978; Reed et al., 1995). The initial mass density contrast will be increased from the simple ratio of these electron densities since the x-ray emitting plasma is more highly ionized than the optical knots, by a factor of $`10`$. However the density of the optical knots may also have been enhanced over that due to shock compression by radiative cooling. Chevalier & Kirshner (1978) report densities of $`<100`$ cm-3 from diffuse (presumably unshocked) S II, which given the difference in ionization state between this and the x-ray emitting plasma still gives sufficient density contrast to reflect supercritical shocks back into the shell.

Whether the ion reflection is diffuse or specular is a harder question to answer. We have assumed a kinetic form for the instability, since this is likely to be more realistic, and also gives a simpler derivation of an analytic form for the electron distribution function. In order to get sufficient time for wave growth to occur ahead of the shock, we are limited to waves with parallel components of wavevector $`k_{||}/k=\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$ or greater, in order to have group velocities away from the shock comparable to the shock velocity itself. Specularly reflected ions give rise to much faster growing instabilities, where waves with smaller $`k_{||}`$ may grow to significant intensities before being overrun by the shock to allow harder electron spectra to be produced, and might conceivably produce a better match to the BeppoSAX MECS/PDS data. This issue of specular versus diffuse ion reflection and the reality of the electron distribution function discussed here is likely to remain an open question at least until high resolution X-ray spectra become available. We note that the electron distribution function produced by the wave activity should have discernable effects on the line spectrum. Ionization and excitation rates will be altered by the extra population of high energy electrons, and modeling of the X-ray spectrum might be the best way to confirm or refute the existence of such an electron distribution function (see Gabriel et al., 1991, for an example). Such an effort is beyond the scope of this paper, and requires high spectral resolution observations where individual lines can observed.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented a model based on plasma wave excitation by collisionless shocks to generate a non-thermal electron distribution, the bremsstrahlung from which can explain the hard X-ray “tail” in the spectrum of Cas A, for very reasonable model parameters. This is important because the alternative interpretation, that of X-ray synchrotron emission from cosmic ray electrons with energies of order $`10^{14}`$ eV, appears to have been accepted largely on the basis that it is the only interpretation available, though some further observational support for this view is accumulating (Vink et al., 1999; Hwang, Holt, & Petre, 2000). Our model is based on observation of the relevant waves and energized electrons at Halley’s comet, and analytical and numerical treatments of the process confirming the consistency of the observed electron distribution with the observed wave activity. We have assumed that the wave excitation is associated with shocks which propagate throughout the shell of Cas A, with the waves mainly being generated in ionizing regions of the ejecta, although other mechanisms could be viable. For instance, Begelman & Chiueh (1988) discuss similar waves excited by relative electron-ion drifts in Advection Dominated Accretion Flows. It is also worthwhile to point out that electron acceleration by electrostatic waves is essentially instantaneous on the timescales relevant to supernova remnant evolution, whereas for example stochastic mechanisms (i.e. second order Fermi acceleration) are not (c.f. Blasi, 2000).

Similar explanations may also be valid for the supernova remnants RCW 86 and IC 443, for which hard X-ray tails have also been observed. Chevalier (1999) has also expressed scepticism that such emission in IC 443 is due to shock accelerated cosmic ray synchrotron emission. Our discussion has concentrated on Cas A simply because of its well known age, distance, shock velocities, and conspicuous high energy continuum. If proved correct, then this explanation could provide the clearest evidence to date for equipartition of magnetic and thermal energy densities, and the precise shape of the non-thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum should be rich in diagnostic potential for inferring magnetic fields, shock structure and the likely nature of preshock ion driven instabilities.

Finally we note that our non-thermal bremsstrahlung model is qualitatively different to those of previous authors (Asvarov et al., 1990; Sturner, Dermer, & Mattox, 1996). Both references consider non-thermal bremsstrahlung in X-rays from the same electron population that produces synchrotron radiation emission, and find that for the hard X-ray tail to be explained in this way, it is likely that too much radio emission would result. Baring, Jones, & Ellison (2000) give a fuller discussion of such scenarios. Our model here postulates a separate electron population which is non-relativistic; basically just a small distortion of the thermal distribution, which need not necessarily be associated with the cosmic ray electron distribution, and so no great change in radio emission should result.

This work has been supported by basic research funds of the Office of Naval Research, and has also made use of data obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. I am grateful to John Raymond for bringing the comet work to my attention, and to Jacco Vink and Matthew Baring for helpful discussions.

## Appendix A Appendix: Lower Hybrid Waves

### A.1 Dispersion Relation and Reactive Growth Rate

For cold magnetized electrons the dielectric tensor is

$$K_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}& i\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{\omega }\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}& 0\\ i\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{\omega }\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}& 1\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(A1)
where $`\omega _{pe}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ are the electron plasma and gyrofrequencies respectively. For longitudinal waves we put $`𝐄||𝐤`$ in the wave equation, take the scalar product with $`𝐤`$ with the magnetic field along the $`z`$-axis and set the result equal to zero to derive the dispersion relation;

$$k_iK_{ij}k_j=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,& 0,& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)K_{ij}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0\\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)=0$$
(A2)
which gives

$$K^L=1\left(\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =0.$$
(A3)
To this we can add a term for thermal non-magnetized ions $`\left(1\varphi \left(\omega /\sqrt{2}kv_i\right)\right)\omega _{pi}^2/k^2v_i^2`$ where $`\varphi \left(x\right)`$ is the usual plasma dispersion function and $`v_i=\sqrt{k_BT_i/m_i}`$, the ion thermal velocity. In the limit $`\omega >>kv_i`$, $`\varphi \left(x\right)1+1/2x^2+\mathrm{}`$ and the well known form for the dielectric tensor for lower hybrid waves results

$$K^L=1+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega ^2}\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =0$$
(A4)
where $`\omega _{pi}`$ is the ion plasma frequency. This yields the dispersion relation $`\omega \omega _{pe}^2`$ as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 1`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2`$ as $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}`$ is known as the Lower Hybrid frequency and is equal to $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_e\mathrm{\Omega }_i}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ being the ion gyrofrequency. We now consider a further ion population moving with velocity $`U`$ with respect to the stationary plasma. The dispersion relation becomes

$$K^L=1+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega ^2}\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\left(\omega kU\right)^2}=0.$$
(A5)
For $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 1`$ equation (A5) takes the same form of that for the Buneman instability where Langmuir waves are generated by the ion beam (c.f. Sturrock, 1994, pp 113). For $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 0`$ a quartic equation similar to that for the Buneman instability results, but with the replacements $`\omega _{pe}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}`$ and $`\omega _{pi}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\omega _{pi}^{}/\omega _{pi}`$, giving a growth rate

$$\gamma =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2^{4/3}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\left(\frac{n_i^{}}{n_i}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(A6)
Moving away from $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$, we put $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}`$ in the parallel electron term and the ion term to get

$$\left(\omega kU\right)^2=\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{1+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2}}.$$
(A7)
With $`kU\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}`$ and $`\omega _{pe}>>\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$, the growth rate $`\gamma `$ is

$$\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\pm i\gamma \pm i\left(\frac{n_i^{}}{n_i}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }.$$
(A8)
Hence for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$, the growth rate is of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}`$, falling off as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ for larger $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

As discussed by Begelman & Chiueh (1988) an electromagnetic correction is required in the parallel electron term of $`K^L`$. Since waves propagate within $`\pm \omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$ of the perpendicular direction to the magnetic field, the wave phase speed parallel to the magnetic field can be very large, approaching or exceeding the speed of light. This correction can be written $`\omega _{pe}^2\omega _{pe}^2/\left(1+\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c^2\right)`$ (Begelman & Chiueh, 1988; Melrose, 1986, p 28). We also retain further terms in the expansion; $`1/\left(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2\right)1/\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2\left(1+\omega ^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2+\mathrm{}\right)`$, with the last term in parentheses $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2\omega _{pe}^2v_{Ai}^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2c^2\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c^2v_{}^2/v_e^2`$. Here $`v_{}^2=v_{Ai}^2+v_e^2`$ is the electron velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field, with $`v_{Ai}`$ the Alfvén velocity, $`v_e`$ the electron thermal velocity, and $`c`$ the speed of light. Taking $`k\mathrm{\Omega }_e/v_{}`$, with $`k_{||}`$ and $`k_{}`$ being wavevectors parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field, applying these two corrections yields (see e.g. Vaisberg et al., 1983; McClements et al., 1997)

$$K^L=1+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}\frac{k_{}^2}{k^2}\left(1+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{k_{}^2c^2}\frac{1}{1+v_e^2/v_{Ai}^2}\right)\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega ^2}\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2}\frac{k_{||}^2}{k^2}\left(1+\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c^2\right)^1.$$
(A9)
McClements et al. (1997) discuss reactive growth rates derived using similar dispersion relations for various reflected ion distributions.

### A.2 Kinetic Growth Rate and Accelerated Electron Distribution

In the presence of suprathermal electrons and ions, two extra terms are added to the expression for $`K^L`$,

$$+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{n_e^{}k^2}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v_e}}{\omega }\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{\omega \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v_e}}\frac{f_e^{}}{\stackrel{}{v_e}}d^3\stackrel{}{v_e}+\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{n_i^{}k^2}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v_i}}{\omega }\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{\omega \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v_i}}\frac{f_i^{}}{\stackrel{}{v_i}}d^3\stackrel{}{v_i},$$
(A10)
where the primes denote quantities with respect to the suprathermal particle distributions, $`n_e^{}`$ and $`n_i^{}`$ being the suprathermal electron and ion densities, respectively. The overall growth rate for lower-hybrid waves is found by setting $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}+i\gamma `$ and taking the imaginary parts, using the Landau prescription for the terms in equation (A10). This produces a growth rate $`\gamma `$;

$`2\gamma =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^3\omega _{pi}^2}{k^2n_i^{}}}\left[\omega _{pi}^2+\omega _{pe}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_{||}^2}{k_{}^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{k_{}^2c^2}}\right)^1\right]^1`$ (A11)
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{k}\frac{f_i^{}}{\stackrel{}{v_i}}\delta ^3\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v_i}\right)d^3\stackrel{}{v_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega _{pi}^2}}\left(1+\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{1}\right){\displaystyle \frac{f_e^{}}{v_{||}}}|_{v_{||}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}/k_{||}}\right\}.`$
The first term gives wave growth/damping by the suprathermal ions and the second denotes that by suprathermal electrons moving along magnetic field lines. The growth rate due to a Maxwellian ion distribution with temperature $`T`$ moving with bulk velocity $`\stackrel{}{U}`$ may be evaluated (dropping the term in $`\omega ^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2`$ in the perpendicular electron term);

$`\gamma _i=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^3{\displaystyle \frac{n_i^{}}{n_i}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega _{pi}^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{v_i}\stackrel{}{U}\right)\frac{m_i}{k_BT}\frac{f_i^{}}{n_i^{}}\delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v_i}\right)d^3\stackrel{}{v_i}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{n_i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}}{k\sqrt{k_BT/m_i}}}\right)^3\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega _{pi}^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)^1\left(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{U}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{U}\right)^2}{\left(2k_BT/m_i\right)k^2}}\right).`$ (A12)
The growth rate is maximized for $`\left(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{U}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}\right)=k\sqrt{k_BT/m_i}`$, hence

$$\gamma _{i,max}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{n_i^{}}{n_i}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}}{\left(1+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega _{pi}^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}}{k\sqrt{k_BT/m_i}}\right)^2,$$
(A13)
which gives strongest wave growth at the smallest possible wavevector, $`k_{min}=\omega _{pi}/\sqrt{k_BT/m_i}`$. Hence

$$\gamma _{i,max}=0.38\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}{\omega _{pe}^2}\frac{n_i^{}}{n_i}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}}{\left(1+\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega _{pi}^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)},$$
(A14)
and can be seen to be largest for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta <\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$, in qualitative agreement with the reactive growth rate. However the kinetic growth rate is smaller by a factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2/\omega _{pe}^2`$. If the reflected ions have a larger temperature $`T^{}`$ than the ambient ion temperature $`T`$, the growth rate is smaller still by a factor $`T/T^{}`$. Returning to equation(A11) the accelerated electron distribution function is given (with the assumption of steady state conditions, i.e. $`\gamma =0`$) by

$$\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega _{pi}^2}\left(1+\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c^2\right)^1\frac{f_e^{}}{v_{||}}|_{v_{||}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}/k_{||}}=\frac{n_i^{}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{m_i}{k_BT}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(A15)
With some manipulation $`\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2/k^2v_{Ai}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /k_{||}^2v_{Ai}^2=v_{||}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /v_{Ai}^2`$, allowing us to integrate to get $`f_e`$;

$$f_e^{}\left(v_{||}\right)=\frac{n_i^{}}{\sqrt{2\pi }k_BT/m_i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega _{pe}^2}\left(v_mv_{||}+\frac{\left(v_m^3v_{||}^3\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{3v_{Ai}^2}\right)$$
(A16)
where $`v_{Ae}=v_{Ai}\sqrt{m_in_i/m_en_e}`$ is the electron Alfvén velocity, $`v_m`$ is a constant of integration, the maximum velocity where $`f\left(v_m\right)=0`$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the magnetic field direction and the wavevector where the growth rate is a maximum. We may integrate over $`f_e^{}`$ in the range $`v_m+v_m`$ to obtain an expression for the number density of energized electrons, $`n_e^{}`$. The result is

$$n_e^{}=\frac{n_i^{}}{\sqrt{2\pi }k_BT/m_i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega _{pe}^2}\left(v_m^2+\frac{v_m^4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{2v_{Ai}^2}\right).$$
(A17)
Vaisberg et al. (1983) appear to make the approximation $`\left(1+\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c^2\right)^11\omega _{pe}^2/k^2c^2`$ to derive a slightly different form for the accelerated electron distribution, where $`v_{Ae}`$ becomes a firm upper limit to $`v_{||}`$.

### A.3 Group Velocity

From equation (A4) with $`\omega _{pe}>>\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$

$$\omega =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{\omega _{pe}k_{}}\sqrt{\omega _{pi}^2\left(k_{}^2+k_{||}^2\right)+\omega _{pe}^2k_{||}^2}.$$
(A18)
Hence the wave group velocity away from the shock front is

$$v_g=\left|\frac{\omega }{k_{}}\right|=\frac{\omega }{k_{}}\left[\frac{\omega _{pe}^2k_{||}^2+\omega _{pi}^2k_{||}^2}{\omega _{pi}^2\left(k_{}^2+k_{||}^2\right)+\omega _{pe}^2k_{||}^2}\right].$$
(A19)
If $`\omega /k_{}U2v_s`$ then $`v_gv_s`$ for $`k_{||}/k_{}\mathrm{cos}\theta \omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$. Waves excited with lower $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ have lower group velocities. Since the reflected ions only move a distance downstream on the order of a gyroradius, growth rates need to be several times $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ if significant wave growth for these waves is to occur before they are overrun by the shock. Waves at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$ and above can stay ahead of the shock and can hence grow to large intensities, even if the growth rate is small. Hence in equation (A17) we simply put $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$ and proceed with the calculations of the bremsstrahlung continuum. Similar conclusions result from the use of the dispersion relation with electromagnetic and thermal corrections (McClements et al., 1997), and will be discussed in more detail in future work.

### A.4 Applicability Criteria and Connection to Electron Acoustic Waves

Equation (A16) for the accelerated electron distribution assumes waves are generated at a pitch angle to the magnetic field direction given by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$ only, yielding a maximum electron velocity of $`v_{Ae}`$. In realistic conditions both the reactive and kinetic instabilities will excite waves with pitch angles down to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$. Consequently waves with phase speeds along the magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}/k_{||}`$, up to $`c`$ will exist, allowing some electrons to be accelerated up to relativistic energies. However a break in the electron spectrum should still exist at the electron Alfvén speed, $`v_{Ae}`$.

In the lower hybrid wave the damping of the ion oscillation by electron screening is inhibited since the electrons are magnetized. This suggests a criterion for the existence of lower hybrid waves of electron gyroradius $`<<`$ wavelength, or $`v_e/\mathrm{\Omega }_e<<v_i/\omega _{pi}`$. This can be reexpressed as $`T_e<<\frac{m_e}{m_i}T_i\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2/\omega _{pi}^2`$. Assuming $`T_i=\frac{3}{32}m_iv_s^2/k_B`$ for a 4000 km s-1 shock in Cas A (assuming equipartition between ions and magnetic field) gives $`T_e<<3\times 10^6`$ K. On these grounds we might expect lower hybrid wave acceleration to have ceases in Cas A, since the electrons have been heated by collisional processes to $`T_e4\times 10^7`$K. On the other hand this criterion appears not to be met for the plasma conditions near the nucleus of comet Halley, where lower hybrid waves and their associated electron distribution function were in fact observed in situ in 1986 (Gringauz et al., 1986; Klimov et al., 1986), suggesting possibly that it is somewhat naive. From the condition that the electron Landau damping rate be $`<<\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}`$ we derive $`k_BT_e<<m_e\mathrm{\Omega }_{LH}^2/k_{||}^2`$, which is equivalent to the first inequality if $`k_{||}/k=\mathrm{cos}\theta =\omega _{pi}/\omega _{pe}`$, but extends to higher electron temperatures for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 0`$, which would be more consistent with observations. Shapiro et al. (1999), motivated in part by the discovery of cometary x-ray emission, (c.f. Bingham et al., 1997) have recently demonstrated by particle-in-cell simulations that the observed wave activity at comet Halley is indeed consistent with the observed electron distribution function.

If in equation (A4) we put $`\varphi \left(x\right)2x^24x^4/3+\mathrm{}`$ appropriate for hot ions, then with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e>>\omega _{pe}`$

$$K^L=1+\frac{1}{k^2\lambda _{di}^2}\frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega ^2}\frac{k_{||}^2}{k^2}=0$$
(A20)
which is equivalent to equation (3.11) of Begelman & Chiueh (1988), their dispersion relation for electron acoustic waves, in the limit of zero ion drift velocity. These authors derived their dispersion relations from fluid equations, assuming the electrons to be strongly magnetized, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e>\omega _{pe}`$. This requirement is not necessary here. As discussed by Begelman & Chiueh (1988) these electron acoustic waves have very similar properties to lower hybrid waves. The growth rate for these waves due to a drifting Maxwellian ion distribution may be evaluated in the same way (putting $`\omega _{pi}0`$ and $`\omega _{pi}^{}\omega _{pi}`$ in the forgoing) with the result

$$\gamma _{i,max}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\omega \omega _{pi}^2}{\omega _{pe}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\left(\frac{\omega }{k\sqrt{k_BT/m_i}}\right)^2.$$
(A21)


format: text

text:
# Measurement of 𝝍(𝟐𝑺) decays to baryon pairs

## I Introduction

In the quarkonium model, the $`\psi (2S)`$ is the first radial excitation of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S`$ $`c\overline{c}`$ bound state. As such, its properties are expected to be relatively straight-forward to understand, at least in terms of those of the $`J/\psi `$ ground state. Somewhat surprisingly, these expectations do not always hold. In particular, there is a rather dramatic anomaly associated with the $`\psi (2S)`$.

The major puzzle in hadronic $`\psi `$ decays is the large discrepancy between the decay widths for $`J/\psi (1S)\rho \pi `$ and $`K^{}K`$ and the corresponding widths for $`\psi (2S)`$ decays. These modes are expected to proceed via $`\psi ggg`$, with widths that are proportional to the square of the $`c\overline{c}`$ wave function at the origin, which is well determined from dilepton decays. The predicted ratio of branching fractions from factorization is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\psi (2S)X_{had})}{(J/\psi X_{had})}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\psi (2S))}{\alpha _s(J/\psi )}}\right]^3{\displaystyle \frac{(\psi (2S)e^+e^{})}{(J/\psi e^+e^{})}}`$
$`=`$ $`0.116\pm 0.022,`$
where $`X_{had}`$ designates any exclusive hadronic decay channel. The $`\alpha _s^3`$ terms come in from the three gluon widths.  Experimentally, the $`\psi (2S)\rho \pi `$ and $`K^{}K`$ are reduced by over a factor of twenty from these expectations . This anomaly calls into question the underlying assumption behind the theoretical predictions: that the $`\psi (2S)`$ is a pure $`c\overline{c}`$ state.

### A $`\psi (2S)B_i\overline{B_i}`$

In the context of flavor $`SU(3)`$, a pure $`c\overline{c}`$ state is a flavor singlet and, in the limit of $`SU(3)`$ flavor symmetry, the phase-space-corrected reduced branching fractions to any baryon octet pair, $`\left|M_i\right|^2,`$ where

$$\left|M_i\right|^2=\frac{(\psi (2S)B_i\overline{B_i})}{\pi p^{}/\sqrt{s}}$$

($`p^{}`$ is the momentum of the baryon in the $`\psi (2S)`$ rest frame), should be the same for every octet baryon, $`B_i`$. Deviations from this rule could indicate a non-$`c\overline{c}`$ component of the charmonium wave function. The reduced branching fractions for $`J/\psi B_i\overline{B_i}`$ decays are shown in Fig. 1. The $`SU(3)`$ relation works reasonably well, although there may be some increase for the $`p\overline{p}`$ mode.

This relation has not been tested for the $`\psi (2S)`$, where the only relevant mode that has been measured is $`p\overline{p}`$, and that with rather poor precision ,.

There are very few direct calculations of the decay of charmonium to baryonic final states. One of the most comprehensive is the perturbative analysis by Bolz and Kroll . A comparison to this analysis will be discussed later.

## II This Experiment

We report results of measurements of the branching fractions for $`\psi (2S)B_i\overline{B_i},`$ where $`B_i\{p,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{},`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++},\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(1385),\mathrm{\Xi }^0(1530),\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\}`$ using a sample of $`3.95\times 10^6`$ $`\psi (2S)`$ events produced via $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations at the BEPC collider and observed by the BEijing Spectrometer (BES). The data represents a total integrated luminosity of $`6.7`$ pb<sup>-1</sup>.

The Beijing Electron Spectrometer, BES, is a conventional cylindrical magnetic spectrometer, coaxial with the BEPC colliding $`e^+e^{}`$ beams . A four-layer central drift chamber (CDC) surrounding the beampipe provides trigger information. Outside the CDC, a forty-layer main drift chamber (MDC) provides tracking and energy-loss ($`dE/dx`$) information on charged tracks over $`85\%`$ of the total solid angle. The momentum resolution is $`\sigma _p/p=0.017\sqrt{1+p^2}`$ ($`p`$ in GeV$`/c`$), and the $`dE/dx`$ resolution for hadron tracks is $`11\%`$. An array of 48 scintillation counters surrounding the MDC provides time-of-flight (TOF) information of charged tracks with a resolution of $`450`$ ps for hadrons. Outside the TOF system, a 12 radiation length, lead-gas barrel shower counter (BSC), operating in self-quenching streamer mode, measures the energies of electrons and photons over $`80\%`$ of the total solid angle. The energy resolution is $`\sigma _E/E=0.22/\sqrt{E}`$ ($`E`$ in GeV), and the spatial resolutions are $`\sigma _\varphi =4.5`$ mrad and $`\sigma _z=4`$ cm. Surrounding the BSC is a solenoidal magnet that provides a 0.4 Tesla magnetic field in the central tracking region of the detector. Three double layers of planar counters instrument the magnet flux return (MUID) and are used to identify muons of momentum greater than 0.5 GeV$`/c`$. Endcap time-of-flight and shower counters extend coverage to the forward and backward regions.

## III Baryon Octet

### A $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}`$

The experimental signature for the decay $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}`$ is two back-to-back, oppositely charged tracks each with a momentum of 1.586 GeV$`/c`$. The proton typically deposits one-half or less of its 0.91 GeV kinetic energy in the BSC; the antiproton undergoes an annihilation process in the BSC approximately half the time, producing a large shower.

Major potential backgrounds are: $`\psi (2S)K^+K^{}`$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, and $`e^+e^{}`$. Each of these modes has a momentum at least 190 MeV$`/c`$ greater than that of the $`p\overline{p}`$ channel.

We select events with two and only two well reconstructed, oppositely charged tracks with good time of flight information, and which are not identified as muons by the muon system. Also $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|`$ must be less than 0.6 for both tracks to ensure that they occur within the fiducial volume covered by the muon system. Candidate $`p\overline{p}`$ pairs are required to be within 1.8 degrees of collinear.

The shower counter energy deposition as a function of momentum for positively charged tracks is shown in Figure 2. The faint cluster near $`p=1.6\text{GeV}/c`$, $`E_{SC}=0.3\text{GeV}`$ is the proton signal. The other features on the graph are due to Bhabhas (large concentration at $`p1.8\text{GeV}/c`$, $`E_{SC}1.5\text{GeV}`$), muons (vertical stripe at $`p1.8\text{GeV}/c`$, $`E_{SC}<1\text{GeV}`$) and radiative Bhabhas (trailing cluster at $`p<1.6\text{GeV}/c`$, $`E_{SC}p`$). To remove these backgrounds, a cut is made at $`E_{SC}<0.7\text{GeV}/c`$. In addition, the shower counter has a number of support ribs which are dead regions, thus degrading the energy measurement. Tracks which enter these regions are removed from consideration.

An additional handle on the identification of protons is gained from the $`dE/dx`$ system. Figure 3 shows the $`dE/dx`$ particle ID results for candidate events that pass the above cuts. Units are $`\chi =\left|dE/dx_{\mathrm{meas}}dE/dx_{\mathrm{exp}}\right|/\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the resolution of the particle ID system. The vertical axis is for the $`\overline{p}`$ hypothesis, and the horizontal refers to the $`p`$ hypothesis. The cluster near (0,0) contains true $`p\overline{p}`$ events, and the cluster near (5,5) is a mixture of event types such as radiative Bhabhas and $`\psi ^{}ee`$. A cut is made on the combined $`\chi `$, $`(\chi _p^2+\chi _{\overline{p}}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}<3`$.

The weighted average momentum spectrum of the remaining candidate events is shown in Figure 4. By weighted average we mean that the track parameters of the positive and negative tracks (curvature and dip-angle) are averaged together and then combined to form a momentum. This spectrum in Figure 4 is fit to a gaussian plus a quadratic background function, with the centroid of the gaussian fixed to the theoretic momentum of the protons, 1.586 GeV$`/c`$. The width and height are allowed to vary. From the fit, $`N_{p\overline{p}}=201\pm 14\pm 20`$. Here and below, the first error is statistical and the second is systematic, in this case the error on the fit.

### B $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$

The decays $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ produce two back-to-back $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s, each with momentum $`1.467`$ GeV$`/c`$. We only consider events where both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s decay to the charged $`p\pi `$ final state. The final states of interest are thus, $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}p\overline{p}`$, where the $`p\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ originate from well separated decay vertices. The decay kinematics are such that the proton (antiproton) is always the highest momentum positive (negative) track in the event.

We select events with four and only four well reconstructed tracks with a zero net charge, and in the fiducial region covered by the drift chamber, $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|0.80`$. Events which pass these cuts are processed through a detached vertex finding algorithm, and subjected to a 5-C kinematic fit to $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, with $`M_{p\pi ^{}}=M_{\overline{p}\pi ^+}`$. The 84 events which pass this fit with a confidence level of more than 1%, and have $`M_{p\pi }1.15`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ are shown in Figure 5. Extrapolating the two events in the region above 1.13 GeV$`/c^2`$ and below 1.15 GeV$`/c^2`$ to the area under the mass peak, we find that there are four background events in the plot. We conservatively assign this number a 100% error and determine $`N_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ to be $`80\pm 9\pm 4`$.

### C $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$

The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ hyperons from $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ decay promptly via $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We consider only those decays where the daughter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s decay via the charged $`p\pi `$ mode. The experimental signature is thus, $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$, where the $`p\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ originate from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons with well separated decay vertices. In addition, there are two photons in the energy range $`27E_\gamma 202`$ MeV. As in the case for $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ the proton (antiproton) is always the highest momentum positive (negative) track in the final state.

We extract $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ event candidates ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$) using the same selection criteria as used for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ mode with the additional requirement that there be two or more isolated clusters in the BSC with energy greater than 60 MeV, and within region $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|0.75`$. By “isolated” we mean more than $`12.8^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{isol}}<.975`$) away from each of the charged tracks.

Both $`p\pi `$ pairs in the surviving events are processed through a displaced vertex-finding algorithm and the event is then subjected to a five-constraint kinematic to the hypothesis $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$, with the beam constraint $`M_{p\pi ^{}\gamma }=M_{\overline{p}\pi ^+\gamma }`$. Here the highest momentum positive (negative) track is classified as the proton (antiproton). For events with more than two $`\gamma `$ candidates, the fit is applied for each possible combination.

Events which pass the kinematic fit with a confidence level greater than 1%, and $`M_{p\pi \gamma }<1.3\text{GeV}/c^2`$ are shown in Figure 6. We fit this spectrum to a single gaussian plus a linear background with the peak fixed to the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, 1.192 GeV$`/c^2`$. From the fit, $`N_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0}=8\pm 3\pm 2`$.

### D $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$

The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hyperon from $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ decays via $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We consider only those decays where the daughter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s decay via the charged $`p\pi `$ mode. The experimental signature is thus $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ where one each of the $`p\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ combinations originate from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons with well separated decay vertices. As in the case for $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$, the proton (antiproton) is always the highest momentum positive (negative) track in the final state.

We select events with six and only six well reconstructed tracks with zero net charge, and in the fiducial region covered by the drift chamber, $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|0.80`$. Each of the four possible $`p\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ combinations are sent through a displaced vertex-finding algorithm and subsequently subjected to a five-constraint kinematic fit to the hypothesis $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, with the beam constraint $`M_{p\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}=M_{\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^+}`$.

Events which pass the fit with a confidence level greater than 1% are examined further. We additionally require that the $`p\pi `$ combinations have a mass within 10 MeV$`/c^2`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and that the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ candidate is more than 20 MeV$`/c^2`$ away from the $`J/\psi `$ in order to reduce background from the cascade decay $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi \pi `$, $`J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

The $`M_{p\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}`$ spectrum of events which remain after the above cuts is plotted in Figure 7. There are $`12\pm 3.4`$ events in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ peak. Averaging the five events outside the peak region over the entire plot and multiplying by the width of the signal gives 0.15 background events. A conservative error of 100 percent is applied, giving $`12\pm 3.4\pm 0.2`$ $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ events detected.

## IV Baryon Decuplet

### A $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$

The decay $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ produces back-to-back $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$. As the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ is a broad (111 MeV$`/c^2`$) resonance, the primary hyperons do not have well-defined momenta, in contrast to the octet cases above. We select events where both $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ decay to $`p\pi `$ \[$`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}p\pi )>99\%`$\]. The final state is $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

We select events with four and only four well reconstructed tracks with a zero net charge, and in the fiducial region covered by the drift chamber, $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|0.80`$. The surviving events are processed through a four-constraint kinematic fit to the hypothesis $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Events which pass with a confidence level greater than 1% are examined further.

Figure 8 shows the invariant mass distribution of the $`p\overline{p}`$ pair in events which pass the fit. There is a clear peak in the $`J/\psi `$ mass region coming from the cascade decay $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`J/\psi p\overline{p}`$; we remove this by making a 60 MeV$`/c^2`$ cut around the $`J/\psi `$. Figure 9 shows the invariant mass distribution for $`p\pi ^{}`$ containing a peak at the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass. We remove the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ background by requiring the $`p\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ masses to be greater than 1.15 GeV$`/c^2`$.

Events which pass all above cuts are fit to a spin-1 Breit-Wigner plus a 4-body phase-space background histogram. The width and centroid of the signal spectrum are fixed to the PDG values. Figure 10 shows the output of the fit; there are 849 total events in the plot. The fit parameter varied is the relative proportions of the phase space background and the Breit-Wigner signal to the total number of events in the plot. $`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}`$ is $`157\pm 13\pm 34`$.

### B $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(1385)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}_{}{}^{}(1385)`$

The hyperons from $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ decay via $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(1385)\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+`$ 88% of the time. We consider only those decays where the daughter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s decay via the charged $`p\pi `$ mode. The experimental signature is $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}2(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ where one each of the $`p\pi ^{}`$ ($`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$) candidates is consistent with being from the decay of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$).

We select events with six and only six well reconstructed tracks with a zero net charge, and in the fiducial region covered by the drift chamber, $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|0.80`$. We kinematically fit the 36 possible charge combinations of $`(+)+(+)`$, running the $`(+)/(+)`$ candidates through a displaced vertex finding algorithm, to $`p\pi ^{}\pi ^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. No constraints are placed on the $`(+)/(+)`$ candidates.

Figure 11 shows that the fit mass of the daughter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s from the decay of the primary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ is well defined and centered at the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass. We make a loose cut of 15 MeV$`/c^2`$ on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ resonances, indicated by the arrows on the plot.

As shown in Figure 12, the mass recoiling against the orphan $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair is dominated by a peak at the $`J/\psi `$ mass, indicating contamination of $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}J/\psi `$, $`J/\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. We therefore remove events with a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ recoil mass within 30 MeV$`/c^2`$ of the $`J/\psi `$.

To determine $`N_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}}`$, we constrain the $`\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ combination ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ candidate) to be within 107.4 MeV$`/c^2`$ ($`3\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$) of the nominal PDG value in order to enhance the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ signal. Events which pass the above cuts are fit to a Breit-Wigner with a constant background, with the mass and width fixed to the PDG values ($`M=1382.8\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=35.8\text{MeV}/c^2`$). This fit is shown in Figure 13; from the fit, $`N_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}}=13.8\pm 3.7\pm 2.7`$.

### C $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Xi }^0(1530)\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}{}_{}{}^{0}(1530)`$

In the decay $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{}`$, the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$s are produced back to back in the $`\psi (2S)`$ rest frame. The dominant decay mode of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ baryons is $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+`$, with a branching fraction of 0.66. The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays as in Section III D to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decays to $`p\pi ^{}`$.

We select events with eight and only eight well reconstructed tracks with zero net charge, and in the fiducial region covered by the drift chamber, $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|0.80`$. Remaining events are subjected to a 4-constraint kinematic fit to the hypothesis $`\psi (2S)p\pi ^{}\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The $`p\pi `$ candidates for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s are sent through a displaced vertex finder. Events which pass the fit with a fit probability greater than 0.01 are examined further.

As the dominant decay mode in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays includes a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the decay chain, a loose cut is placed on the $`p\pi ^{}`$ mass ($`|M_{p\pi ^{}}M_\mathrm{\Lambda }|<20\text{MeV}/c^2`$) to enhance the signal fraction (Figure 14). Due to $`\pi `$ combinatorics, each event that passes the kinematic fit is counted four times in this plot.

Similarly, as there is a $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ in the decay chain, a cut is made on the $`p\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass; $`M_{p\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}`$ is required to be within 20 MeV$`/c^2`$ of the nominal mass of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, as shown in Figure 15. Due to $`\pi `$ combinatorics, each event is counted twice in this plot.

All events which remain after the above cuts are graphed in Figure 16 with $`M_{\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ on the vertical axis and $`M_{p\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+}`$ on the horizontal. The signal region is shown as a circle at (1.531,1.531). No events fall within the signal region defined as a 50 MeV$`/c^2`$ radius from the central value. We set an upper limit of 2.3 events at 90% CL for $`N_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{}}`$.

### D $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$

The dominant $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ decay chain is $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ with a total branching fraction of 43% . We look for $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ events with the topology $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^+K^{}`$, i.e. six charged tracks where the $`p\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ are consistent with being from the decay of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

We select events with six charged tracks in the polar angle region $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|0.8`$ and with zero net charge. The remaining events are subjected to a 7-constraint kinematic fit to the hypothesis $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}K^+K^{}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}=M_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}K^+}`$. The fit is applied for each of the 36 particle assignment possibilities. Only the assignment with the best probability in the kinematic fit is considered.

Figure 17 shows the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$ mass distribution for the selected events, where the solid line histogram is data and the crosses are from Monte Carlo, normalized to three events. There are no candidates within three sigma of the nominal $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ peak, thus an upper limit of 2.3 is assigned at the 90 percent confidence level.

## V Continuum background

A few percent of the hadronic events in our data sample originate from non-resonant $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ annihilation events. We use a 5.1 pb<sup>-1</sup> data sample taken off resonance to determine the level of continuum $`e^+e^{}B_i\overline{B_i}`$ contamination to our event samples. We find no events that survive the analysis procedures and event selection criteria identical to those described above for either of the modes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$. We conclude that continuum events comprise a negligibly small contamination to our data samples.

## VI Determination of the total number of $`\psi (2S)`$ events

We determine the number of $`\psi (2S)`$ events in our data samples from the observed number of cascade decays of the type $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}J/\psi `$, $`J/\psi X`$. The pions are reconstructed, and the recoil mass of the two pions is fit to determine the total number of $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}J/\psi `$ events. From this fit, the total number of these events corrected for detection efficiency is $`1.227\pm 0.003\pm 0.017\times 10^6`$. The analysis for this is documented in reference .

The total number of $`\psi (2S)`$ events is determined by dividing the number of events in the previous paragraph by the PDG branching fraction for the mode $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}J/\psi `$ . This number is determined to be $`3.95\pm 0.36\times 10^6`$ where the error is dominated by the error on the $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}J/\psi `$ branching fraction .

## VII Acceptance and Efficiency

### A $`p\overline{p}`$

We determine the efficiency for $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p}`$ events from a sample of Monte Carlo simulated events. Events were generated with a distribution of

$$\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta $$

with $`\alpha =0.61\pm 0.23`$. This proportionality constant was measured in the $`J/\psi p\overline{p}`$ system by the Mark II collaboration and by the DM2 collaboration. Out of 20000 events generated, 14857 events survive these cuts, yielding a general efficiency of 0.743. The collinearity cut is also purely geometric, and has an efficiency of 0.999.

As the BES Monte Carlo is of limited usefulness for simulating detailed hadronic interactions, cuts which are affected by such must be corrected for by the examination of real data. Fortunately, there is a subset of events which allow the effects of these cuts to be determined. A clean sample of $`p\overline{p}`$ pairs was aquired from the analysis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ in Section IV A. The $`J/\psi `$ contamination shown in Figure 8 is the origin of this sample. These events are used to determine the $`E_{SC}`$, and $`dE/dx`$ cut efficiencies.

This study is summarized in Table I. The systematic error was determined from both Monte Carlo statistics and variation of cuts. The product of all efficiencies is: $`0.234\pm 0.022`$.

### B $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$

We determine the efficiency for the hyperon-pair channels completely from Monte Carlo simulated events. Here we generated 20000 events in each mode with a $`1+\alpha _d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution, $`\alpha _d=0.67\pm 0.21`$, $`0.22`$, $`0.5\pm 0.5`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ respectively. The value of $`\alpha _d`$ was not varied for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ mode as the statistical error was large. The values for $`\alpha _d`$ are those determined by the Mark II collaboration and by the DM2 collaboration.

The resulting efficiencies are summarized in Table II. The systematic error reported is a combination of Monte Carlo statistics and variation of $`\alpha _d`$. Also, an additional 10 percent error is added because of uncertainties in the kinematic fitter used in these analyses.

In these three modes, we require two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s that decay to charged $`p\pi `$ final states, which have a branching fraction $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{})=0.639\pm 0.005`$; the other decay modes that are required are very nearly unity, namely $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )=1.0`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{})=0.999`$ . The branching fraction acceptance for each channel is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ branching fraction squared: $`0.41\pm 0.01.`$

### C Acceptance and Efficiency of the Decuplet Pairs

We determine the efficiency for the decuplet hyperon-pair channels completely from Monte Carlo simulated events. Here we generated 20000 events in each mode with a $`1+\alpha _d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution, $`\alpha _d`$ varying between 0 and 1 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$, and constant at 0.6 for the other modes. The resulting efficiencies are summarized in Table II, where the systematic error reported is a combination of Monte Carlo statistics and variation of $`\alpha _d`$. Also, an additional 10 percent error is added because of uncertainties in the kinematic fitter used in these analyses.

The branching fraction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ is greater than 0.99 , thus the branching fraction acceptance used is $`1.00\pm 0.01`$. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ decay contains two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s going to $`p\pi `$ ($`0.639^2`$) and two $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$s decaying to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ ($`0.88^2`$), for a total acceptance of $`0.316\pm 0.011`$. The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$ decay has 3 components to the acceptance: $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0^{}\pi ^+`$ ($`0.650^2`$), $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}`$ ($`0.999^2`$) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ ($`0.639^2`$), with a total acceptance of $`0.172\pm 0.001`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ has only two components in the acceptance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$ ($`0.678^2`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ ($`0.639^2`$), with a total acceptance of $`0.187\pm 0.001`$.

## VIII Results

The branching ratios $`(\psi (2S)B_i\overline{B_i})/(\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ are calculated by dividing the number of events in each mode, corrected for efficiency and branching fraction acceptance, by the corrected number of events in the reference mode, as noted in Section VI. The final branching fractions are determined by multiplying the above branching ratios by the PDG value for $`(\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, $`0.310\pm 0.028`$. These are shown along with the branching ratios in Table III.

We compare our results for the branching fractions to previous limits and results in Figure 18. Our measured value for the $`(\psi (2S)p\overline{p})`$ is about one standard deviation higher than the previous DASP measurements, which was based on 4 events  and a Mark I measurement with similar statistics . The results for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{}`$ are within the PDG upper limit values. There are no previous experimental results for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ or any of the decuplet modes.

In Fig. 19, we plot the reduced branching fractions derived from our measurements. The results show a trend to smaller values for the higher massses, similar to that seen for the $`J/\psi `$ and are only marginally consistent with expectations from flavor-$`SU(3)`$ symmetry. Higher precision measurements both for the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ would clarify this issue.

A comparison to the perturbative QCD predictions of Bolz and Kroll  is shown in Figure 20. The results match quite well with these calculations.

Our measured $`\psi (2S)`$ branching fractions agree with expectations derived from the application of the 12% rule to the PDG values for the corresponding $`J/\psi `$ decays for the modes $`p\overline{p}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$, as shown in Table IV and in Figure 21. There are no results for $`J/\psi \mathrm{\Xi }^0(1530)\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}{}_{}{}^{0}(1530)`$ and $`J/\psi \mathrm{\Omega }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ is not kinematically allowed.

## IX Conclusions

We report measurements of the branching fractions for $`\psi (2S)p\overline{p},\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }{}_{}{}^{+}(1385)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}_{}{}^{}(1385)`$, along with upper limits for the decays $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{\Xi }^0(1530)\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}{}_{}{}^{0}(1530)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$. The measured branching fractions agree with expectations based on an application of the 12% rule to the corresponding $`J/\psi `$ decays. The reduced branching fractions decrease with increasing baryon masses, showing some deviation from expectations based on flavor-$`SU(3)`$ symmetry.

## X Acknowledgements

The BES collaboration acknowledges financial support from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ministry of Science & Technology of Korea. It thanks the staff of BEPC for their hard efforts. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts Nos. 19991480 and 19825116 and the Chinese Academy of Sciences under contract No. KJ 95T-03(IHEP); by the Department of Energy under Contract Nos. DE-FG03-92ER40701 (Caltech), DE-FG03-93ER40788 (Colorado State University), DE-AC03-76SF00515 (SLAC), DE-FG03-91ER40679 (UC Irvine), DE-FG03-94ER40833 (U Hawaii), DE-FG03-95ER40925 (UT Dallas); and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea under Contract KISTEP I-03-037(Korea).


text:
# Black Holes Must Die

## 1 Naive Estimate

It is well known that a black hole of mass $`M`$ in otherwise empty spacetime radiates as a blackbody at the Hawking temperature

$$T_H=1/(8\pi GM)=6.15\times 10^8(M_{}/M)\mathrm{K}.$$
(1)
It is also well known that inertial observers in a de Sitter universe with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ feel themselves to be immersed in a bath of thermal particles at the Gibbons-Hawking temperature

$$T_{\mathrm{GH}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right)^{1/2}2.3\times 10^{30}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_V}{0.7}\right)\left(\frac{h}{0.7}\right)^2\mathrm{K}.$$
(2)
In the above equation we have used $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=\rho _V/\rho _{crit}`$, to relate the vacuuum energy density, $`\rho _V=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(8\pi G)`$, to the critical energy density, $`\rho _{crit}=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)`$, with $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$. Current measurements imply a Hubble constant $`h=H_0/100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}0.7`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V0.7`$, giving $`\rho _V3.6`$ keV/cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}=2.78\times 10^{11}`$ eV4, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4.7\times 10^{66}`$ eV2.

Consider now a black hole in a de Sitter universe, with the black hole horizon at approximately $`r_S2GM`$ and cosmological de Sitter horizon at approximately $`r_{\mathrm{dS}}\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. If the two horizons are sufficiently far apart, that is if $`r_Sr_{\mathrm{dS}}`$, then to first approximation one might expect that the Gibbons-Hawking radiation and the black hole’s Hawking radiation would remain essentially unchanged. The black hole should accrete some of the Gibbons-Hawking radiation, however, and so the net rate of mass loss should be diminished. Note that for any currently known black hole, accretion of the cosmic microwave background radiation and other interstellar and intergalactic matter is a much larger effect than either of the two terms above, but we are considering the distant future where the de Sitter expansion has rendered such accretion negligible.

An order of magnitude estimate of the black hole’s absorption cross section should be something like $`4\pi r_S^2`$, the black hole’s surface area. Naively, then, the change in the mass of the black hole is $`\dot{M}4\pi \sigma r_H^2(T_{\mathrm{GH}}^4T_H^4)`$. Thus, there should exist some critical mass above which black holes have a net accretion of energy, and thus never evaporate by the Hawking process. Setting $`\dot{M}=0`$ gives $`M_{\mathrm{crit}}=(1/4G)\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}2.7\times 10^{22}M_{}`$ for current estimates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, naive considerations lead us to expect that black holes of size comparable to the de Sitter horizon could escape evaporation, whereas all smaller black holes should eventually evaporate. For comparison, all known black holes are in the mass range $`1M_{}`$ to $`3\times 10^9M_{}`$, comfortably in the evaporation regime.

## 2 Two-dimensional calculation

While the simple estimates above are suggestive, it would be better to perform a more self-consistent calculation. In order to find the black hole’s evaporation rate, we would like to compute the renormalized expectation value of the stress tensor, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, which encodes the flow of energy into and out of the hole. Unfortunately, this is quite difficult to calculate in four spacetime dimensions. It is far easier to calculate the renormalized $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ for massless scalar fields in two dimensional spacetimes, by exploiting the conformal triviality of these spacetimes. For spherically symmetric geometries, one may reduce the dimensionality of the problem to two by suppressing the angular coordinates. Ford and Parker  have shown that the two dimensional calculation is equivalent to the full four dimensional calculation in the geometric optics limit.

With this in mind, it is possible to compute the two-dimensional $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. We may describe the black hole embedded in de Sitter spacetime by the Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry,

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+[f(r)]^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(3)
$$f(r)=1\frac{2GM}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{3}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3r}(rr_h)(r_cr)(r+r_h+r_c)$$
(4)
with black hole mass $`M`$ and cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here, $`r_h`$ and $`r_c`$ are respectively the radii of the black hole horizon and cosmological horizon , found from $`f(r_{\mathrm{horizon}})=0`$. When the two horizons are far from each other $`r_hr_S`$ and $`r_cr_{\mathrm{dS}}`$ defined above. Suppressing the angular coordinates, and changing to double null coordinates $`u=tr_{},v=t+r_{}`$, with $`r_{}`$ the usual Regge-Wheeler “tortoise” radial coordinate given by $`dr_{}=dr/f(r)`$, the line element takes the form $`ds^2=f(r)dudv`$.

With this, we can now compute the components of the stress tensor. For times long after the black hole has formed, the stress tensor becomes

$`T_{vv}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\pi }}\left[2f(r){\displaystyle \frac{d^2f}{dr^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}|_{r=r_c}\right)^2\right]`$ (5)
$`T_{uu}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\pi }}\left[2f(r){\displaystyle \frac{d^2f}{dr^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}|_{r=r_h}\right)^2\right]`$ (6)
$`T_{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi }}f(r){\displaystyle \frac{d^2f}{dr^2}}`$ (7)
where the boundary terms are evaluated at the respective past null infinities, which are the horizon radii $`r_c,r_h`$. As $`u`$ is an outgoing coordinate, $`T_{uu}`$ represents the outwards flow of energy, and similarly $`T_{vv}`$ represents the inwards flow of energy. Note that with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, far from the hole $`T_{uu}`$ is given by the constant term. This is the Hawking term, representing (2D) radiation at the Hawking temperature. This can be seen by noting that the surface gravity at the horizon takes the form

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{2}\frac{df}{dr}|_{r=r_h}$$
(8)
and since the Hawking temperature is given by $`T_H=\kappa /2\pi `$, we have

$$\sigma _{2D}T_H^2=\frac{1}{192\pi }\left(\frac{df}{dr}|_{r=r_h}\right)^2$$
(9)
where $`\sigma _{2D}=\pi /12`$. In the absence of the cosmological term, this outward flux of positive energy from the black hole would be precisely matched by an inward flux of negative energy given by $`T_{vv}(r_h)`$ . The cosmological horizon brings an extra term to the ingoing component, representing positive flux of energy into the black hole.

As a side remark, we note that with no black hole ($`M=0`$), the stress tensor reduces to $`T_{uu}=T_{vv}=0,T_{uv}=f^{\prime \prime }f/96\pi `$. This is just as we expect – the stress tensor is isotropic and proportional to the metric tensor . The conclusions of Adams et al. are based partially upon a calculation by Mallett , who left out the boundary term and therefore did not have $`T_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

With the above expressions for $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, we need only plug in our form for $`f`$ to compute the stress tensor for a massless scalar. This is straightforward, but for general $`r`$ the expressions are somewhat lengthy. We are interested specifically in $`T_{vv}(r_h)`$, since this tells us the ingoing flux of energy into the horizon. Looking at eqn. 5, we see that

$$T_{vv}(r_h)=\frac{1}{192\pi }\left[\left(\frac{df}{dr}|_{r=r_c}\right)^2\left(\frac{df}{dr}|_{r=r_h}\right)^2\right]=\sigma _{2D}\left(T_{\mathrm{GH}}^2T_H^2\right)$$
(10)
The surface gravity takes the form $`\kappa =GM/r_H^2\mathrm{\Lambda }r_H/3`$; inserting the expressions for $`r_c,r_h`$ and dividing by $`2\pi `$ gives $`T_{\mathrm{GH}},T_H`$. The exact expressions are lengthy, but to leading order in $`GM\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ the horizon temperatures become

$`T_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi GM}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{16G^2M^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}+𝒪(G^4M^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\right]`$ (11)
$`T_{\mathrm{GH}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}}\left[12GM\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}}+𝒪(M^2\mathrm{\Lambda })\right]`$ (12)
Since $`GM\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}1.6\times 10^{23}(M/M_{})1`$ for all known black holes, the correction to the ordinary temperatures are negligible. Clearly, all known black holes will evaporate.

With equation  we may also find the critical mass above which the black hole will accrete energy overall, and therefore never evaporate. This occurs when $`T_{vv}(r_h)=0`$, implying that the two horizon temperatures are equal. Evaluating the two horizon surface gravities and equating them gives $`r_c=r_h`$; that is, the critical mass is that for which the black hole radius equals the cosmological radius. This occurs at $`M_{\mathrm{crit}}=1/(3G\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }})2.1\times 10^{22}M_{}`$, close to the result from the naive estimate above. However, for this value of $`M`$, $`f=0`$ and the time coordinate $`t`$ is nowhere timelike, so our coordinate system is not valid and our analysis breaks down. See Bousso and Hawking  for a detailed discussion of black holes with masses near and at $`M_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. In any case, for all $`M<M_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ our analysis should be valid, showing that the Hawking radiation exceeds the Gibbons-Hawking accretion. We may safely conclude that black holes in the observed mass range evaporate.

## 3 Adams, Mbonye, and Laughlin calculation

Adams, Mbonye, & Laughlin discuss the Gibbons-Hawking correction to the Hawking radiation and state that it is orders of magnitude too small to affect normal black hole evolution, just as we concluded above. However, to take account of the cosmological constant, they rely on a conjecture that

$$\dot{M}_H4\pi \sigma r_H^2(T_{\mathrm{Vac}}^4T_H^4),$$
(13)
where the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{Vac}}`$ is found from setting $`\rho _V=aT_{\mathrm{Vac}}^4`$, with $`a=4\sigma =\pi ^2/15`$. Thus $`T_{\mathrm{Vac}}=30(\mathrm{\Omega }_V/0.7)\mathrm{K}`$, and the corresponding critical mass black hole from $`\dot{M}=0`$ is $`M_{crit}=2.1\times 10^9M_{}`$. This critical black hole size implies that all known black holes are accreting vacuum energy at a rate larger than they are emitting Hawking radiating, and so will never evaporate.

The conjecture of Adams, Mbonye, and Laughlin is based upon a paper by Mallett  which considered black hole evaporation during GUT scale inflation, and in particular his equation 4.8, (which is same as as equation  with $`T_{\mathrm{Vac}}`$ replaced by $`T_{GUT}`$). Clearly, since $`T_{\mathrm{Vac}}T_{\mathrm{GH}}`$, this equation conflicts with our formulae above, and we argue that Mallett’s equation 4.8 is in error. Our argument is strengthened by the fact that Mallett  derives an expression for $`T_{vv}`$ which, besides the error mentioned in the previous section, has the same form as ours in the relevant limit, and so gives nearly the same critical mass as we find above. Thus Mallett’s equation 4.8 seems to be in conflict with his calculation of $`T_{vv}`$.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

We find that the energy absorbed by black holes in a de Sitter Universe is characterized by the very low Gibbons-Hawking temperature and not the equivalent temperature of a radiation field with a density of the vacuum energy as suggested by Mallett . Adams, Mbonye, and Laughlin conjecture that the cosmological constant is caused by a sea of virtual particles, and that black holes may swallow those virtual particles and thereby accrete energy. An argument against this idea comes from the difference between the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of a field, $`\varphi `$, and its potential $`V(\varphi )`$. Adams et al. note that the sea of virtual particles “must contribute a net positive energy density”, but this fact is actually irrelevant. What matters for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not just the vacuum energy, but the renormalized vacuum energy, which need not be positive despite the nonzero VEV. Indeed, even if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ there still exist fields with nonzero VEV, e.g. the Higgs condensate. Since Adams et al. accept that their conjectured process would not occur for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, and since shifting the zero point of the potential will shift $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ without changing the VEV, we see no reason that an “extra” accretion of particles should exist for nonzero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Besides the above, there is another argument against this conjecture. Adams et al. attribute the unexpected increase in black hole mass in their model to swallowing of virtual particles. Accepting for argument’s sake this heuristic description, we note that in order to have any effect on the black hole mass, these virtual particles must go on mass shell. Within the context of this heuristic picture, this “on-shell” requirement is why black holes can Hawking radiate. One member of a virtual pair can go on shell inside the horizon, and carry with it negative energy as viewed from infinity, while its partner can go on shell with positive energy and escape to infinity. In the ordinary (no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) Hawking process, the black hole cannot gain mass by such processes; the negative energy particle can’t propagate outside the horizon, and if the positive energy particle joins its partner and is swallowed, nothing has changed. Adams et al. conjecture that a cosmological constant alters this process in such a way that a thermal bath of particles at temperature (viewed from infinity) of $`30`$K can go down the hole. Note that there is no restriction upon positive energy particles; they can exist equally well far from the hole as near the horizon. So if there were 30K particles going down the hole, a 30 K thermal bath would also be seen elsewhere (e.g. near the Earth), in contradiction with experiment.

In summary, there are several arguments against the heuristic picture that gave rise to the conjecture that black holes accrete vacuum energy, and our calculations above show that the only accretion is of the Gibbons-Hawking radiation. Finally, several previous authors such as Bousso and Hawking and Davies, Ford, and Page reach conclusions about black hole evaporation in concordance with ours. We conclude that in a Universe dominated by vacuum energy, all isolated black holes will eventually evaporate.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Larry Ford, Dan Holz, Bob Sanders, and Art Wolfe for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DEF03-90-ER 40546.