text:
# 1 The SM spectrum at intersecting branes.

FTUAM-02/29; IFT-UAM/CSIC-02-48

hep-ph/0212048

More about the Standard Model at Intersecting Branes 111Contribution to the proceedings of SUSY-02, Hamburg.
D. Cremades, L.E. Ibáñez and F. Marchesano
Departamento de Física Teórica C-XI and Instituto de Física Teórica C-XVI,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain.
Abstract

Intersecting D-brane models seem to be one of the most promising avenues to embed the Standard Model physics within the string context. We review here different aspects of these models. Topics include the question of SUSY and quasi-SUSY in intersecting brane models, model-building, the brane recombination interpretation of the SM Higgs mechanism, Yukawa couplings, the lowering of the string scale and possible new Z’s accessible to accelerators.

In the last couple of years there have been renovated efforts in looking for D-brane configurations with a low-energy effective theory resembling the standard model (SM). One approach which looks particularly successful is that of intersecting D-brane models  (see also ). We will not attempt to give here an introduction to the subject (see e.g.  and references therein). Rather we will concentrate on giving a brief report on some of the work in the subject that we have been involved with in the last year.

In intersecting brane models (fig. 1) the different gauge interactions live on different stacks of D-branes, the simplest configurations having four stacks: baryonic, left, right and leptonic. In particular one considers stacks of branes with multiplicities $`N_a=3`$, $`N_b=2`$, $`N_c=1`$, $`N_d=1`$, yielding initially a gauge group $`U(3)\times U(2)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$. Up to three of the $`U(1)`$’s become massive by combining with some closed string (Ramond-Ramond) fields so that in the simplest situation one is just left with standard hypercharge and the full group is that of the SM.

The D$`p`$-branes (with $`p`$ = 6, 5, 4) worldvolumes contain Minkowski space and the remaining $`(p3)`$ dimensions wrap cycles on compact dimensions. At the brane intersections in extra dimensions live quarks and leptons and the triplication of generations appear because in the compact space the different branes intersect three times. In particular, if we denote by $`I_{ab}`$ the number of times that branes $`a`$ and $`b`$ intersect, the following intersection numbers :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}I_{ab}=1,\hfill & & I_{ab}=2,\hfill \\ I_{ac}=3,\hfill & & I_{ac}=3,\hfill \\ I_{bd}=0,\hfill & & I_{bd}=3,\hfill \\ I_{cd}=3\hfill & & I_{cd}=3,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
give rise to the fermion spectrum of the SM. Specific D6-brane models in which the compact space is just a 6-torus $`T^6`$ and yielding the above SM spectrum were provided in ref.. One can also find D5-brane models in which the compact space is $`T^4\times (T^2/𝐙_N)`$ and one obtains the same SM chiral fermion spectrum . In both classes of constructions there is an interesting connection between the number of generations and the number of colours. Indeed, in order to cancel anomalies the net number of $`U(2)_b`$ doublets has to equal that of anti-doublets , which in these models happens only because the number of generations equals the number of colours. In addition, one of the nicest features of these constructions is that the proton is automatically stable since baryon number ($`U(1)_a`$) is a gauged symmetry .

We must emphasize that the intersecting brane setting just described is quite general. As fig. 2 illustrates, one may consider for example four stacks $`a,b,c,d`$ of D6-branes wrapping 3-cycles on a complicated Calabi-Yau. As long as the intersection numbers are as above, the chiral fermion spectrum is going to be the one of the SM independently of the details of the compactification. As an example the above SM spectrum has also been recently obtained from D6-branes wrapping 3-cycles on the quintic CY  or in certain non-compact manifolds .

The mentioned specific toroidal models are generically non-SUSY due to the presence of the intersections. Thus, for example, associated to each of the intersections there are massive scalar fields which in some sense may be considered ”SUSY-partners”, squarks and sleptons, of the massless chiral fermions, have the same multiplicity $`|I_{ij}|`$ and carry the same gauge quantum numbers. The lightest of those states have masses

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\mathrm{Mass}\right)_1^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\vartheta _1+\vartheta _2+\vartheta _3\right)M_s^2\\ & \left(\mathrm{Mass}\right)_2^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\vartheta _1\vartheta _2+\vartheta _3\right)M_s^2\\ & \left(\mathrm{Mass}\right)_3^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\vartheta _1+\vartheta _2\vartheta _3\right)M_s^2\end{array}`$ (5)
where $`\vartheta _i`$ are the abslute value of the intersection angles (in units of $`\pi `$) at each of the three subtori. As is obvious from these formulae the masses depend on the angles at each intersection and hence on the relative size of the radii. In principle some of the scalars could be tachyonic, but in general it is possible to vary the compact radii in order to get rid of all tachyons of a given model (see ). On the other hand, one can also adjust the radii so that there is one massless scalar at the intersection. Then one gets $`N=1`$ SUSY at that specific intersection. Is it possible to get a fully $`N=1`$ SUSY model, i.e., a model in which all intersections respect the same  $`N=1`$ supersymmetry? The answer is no, at least in the purely toroidal examples as in ref. . The reason for this is that D-brane configurations wrapping compact spaces as in here have to respect the conditions of RR-tadpole cancellation. The overall charge of the configuration with respect to certain tensorial RR-fields has to vanish. In the purely toroidal case those conditions turn out to be incompatible with the geometrical configurations required to get $`N=1`$ SUSY. Fully $`N=1`$ SUSY intersecting brane models may be built in the case with an added $`𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2`$ orbifold twist . However, in that case additional chiral exotics beyond the SM content seem unavoidable.

On the other hand there is an interesting possibility termed quasi-SUSY in ref. and pseudo-SUSY in ref.. The possibility exists that all intersections respect some $`N=1`$ SUSY but different ones. In the case of toroidal models this possibility is still compatible with cancellation of RR tadpoles. For example, certain subset of the models in ref. can be made quasi-SUSY by choosing appropriate radii. Let us denote by $`(n_a^i,m_a^i)`$, $`i`$ = 1, 2, 3 the wrapping numbers of each brane $`D6_a`$, $`n_a^i`$($`m_a^i`$) being the number of times the brane is wrapping around the $`x`$($`y`$)-coordinate of the $`ith`$ torus. Consider in particular the wrapping numbers for the different branes given in table 1.

The number of times the two branes $`D6_a`$ and $`D6_b`$ intersect in $`T^6`$ is given by the intersection number  $`I_{ab}=(n_a^1m_b^1m_a^1n_b^1)`$$`(n_a^2m_b^2m_a^2n_b^2)`$$`(n_a^3m_b^3m_a^3n_b^3)`$. Then one can easily check that this brane setting yields the chiral spectrum of the SM. Now, the masses of the scalars depend on the ratios $`U^i=R_2^i/R_1^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. One can easily check that if we set $`U^1=(n_b^1/2)U^3`$ and $`U^2=(n_a^2/6\beta ^2)U^3`$ massless scalars appear at each intersection and some $`N=1`$ SUSY is preserved at each of them. This property may be depicted in terms of a square quiver diagram, shown in fig. 3.

Thus, now each quark and lepton has a massless SUSY-partner, very much as in the SUSY-SM. The model is however not fully $`N=1`$ supersymmetric because each intersection respects a different SUSY. This kind of quasi-SUSY theories have some interesting properties. In particular, loop corrections to scalar masses appear only at two loops, since only at that order the global non-SUSY structure of the configuration may be noticed . This loop suppression of scalar masses may be interesting phenomenologically in order to address the “modest hierarchy problem”, i.e., in order to maintain a hierarchy between a string scale of order 10-100 TeV and the electroweak scale.

There is a variety of SUSY-quivers that one may consider leading to different low-energy models . One can also find D6-brane configurations wrapping $`T^6`$ leading to the massless chiral spectrum of the MSSM. Some examples were presented in ref. but we will present here a new and remarkably simple model which will be discussed in more detail elsewhere . Consider the stacks of D6-branes with the wrapping numbers of table 2.

Generically the gauge group of this configuration is $`U(3)\times U(1)^3`$. However, one can check that the symmetry is enhanced to $`U(3)_a\times SU(2)_b\times U(1)_c\times U(1)_d`$ if the brane $`b`$ is located on top of its orientifold mirror $`b^{}`$. Computing the intersection numbers as above one gets the result

$$\begin{array}{ccc}I_{ab}=3,\hfill & & I_{ab}=3,\hfill \\ I_{ac}=3,\hfill & & I_{ac}=3,\hfill \\ I_{db}=3,\hfill & & I_{db}=3,\hfill \\ I_{dc}=3\hfill & & I_{dc}=3,\hfill \\ I_{bc}=1\hfill & & I_{bc}=1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
which corresponds to the chiral fermion spectrum of the SM (plus right-handed neutrinos). In addition there is a minimal set of Higgs multiplets if one locates the brane $`b`$ on top of the brane $`c`$ along the first torus. In other words, there is a minimal Higgs sector with a $`\mu `$-parameter given by the distance between branes $`b`$ and $`c`$ along the first torus. If the ratios of radii in the second and third torus are equal ($`U^2=U^3=\chi `$) one can check that the same N=1 SUSY is preserved at all intersections. So this configuration is (locally) $`N=1`$ supersymmetric, and the massless chiral spectrum is that of the MSSM with a minimal Higgs set. The spectrum is anomaly-free in the sense that there are as many fundamentals as antifundamentals of any of the groups. On the other hand the configuration cannot be made fully $`N=1`$ supersymmetric, because it turns out that in order to cancel RR-tadpoles an additional massive $`N=0`$ sector has to be added (see ref. for a discussion of this point). In this model there are three $`U(1)`$’s and only one of them $`(3B+L)`$ is anomalous and gets massive by combining with one RR-field. There are two massless $`U(1)`$’s corresponding to $`(BL)`$ and the 3-d component of right-handed weak isospin ($`U(1)_c`$). So the actual low-energy gauge group is $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_{BL}\times U(1)_c`$.

One of the nice features of the intersecting brane approach is that the low-energy Lagrangian parameters admit a simple geometrical interpretation. We already saw an example: the $`\mu `$-parameter in this model corresponds to the distance between branes $`b`$ and $`c`$ in the first torus. Another example is the generation of tree level Fayet-Iliopoulos terms for the anomalous $`U(1)`$’s . If one has a small departure from the SUSY geometry, i.e., if $`U^2=U^3+\delta `$ with $`\delta `$ small, one finds a FI-term for the anomalous U(1)  :

$$\xi =M_s^2\times \frac{3\rho ^2\delta }{1+(3\rho ^2U^3)^2}.$$
(7)
If $`\delta 0`$, the existence of this FI-term may trigger further gauge symmetry breaking. In particular the additional $`U(1)`$ may be broken down to standard hypercharge by inducing a vev to the right-handed sneutrino.

Before taking into account SUSY-breaking effects, the above local SUSY configuration has (for vanishing $`\mu `$-term) a flat direction in which electroweak symmetry is broken by the vevs of the Higgs scalars lying at the $`bc`$ and $`bc`$* intersections $`H_{bc}`$. The Higgs mechanism has also a geometric interpretation in terms of branes . As illustrated in fig. 4, a vev for the Higgs fields $`H_{bc}`$ corresponds to a process $`b+cf`$ in which branes $`b`$ and $`c`$ recombine into a single brane $`f`$. Since we have started from two branes (plus orientifold mirrors) and end up with one brane and its mirror, the rank of the gauge group has been reduced. Altogether we are left at the end of the day with only three brane stacks, a,d,f and a gauge group $`SU(3)\times U(1)_{em}`$ at the massless level.

The Yukawa couplings also have an interesting geometrical interpretation in intersecting brane models . A Yukawa coupling involves correlators of a Higgs field, a right-handed fermion and a left-handed fermion. The worldsheet of strings connecting those three vertices has a triangular shape, as in fig. 5, with open strings stretching between the three intersecting branes participating in the coupling. The Yukawa couplings are then proportional to $`exp(S_{cl})`$, $`S_{cl}`$ being the classical string action, which is proportional to the area of the worldsheet. This provides a nice physical origin for the observed hierarchy of fermion masses since, as exemplified in fig. 5, the size of the relevant triangles for the different generations is in general different . Thus, e.g., the triangle associated to the top-quark coupling would be smaller than the one associated to the c-quark which would, in turn, be smaller than the one of the u-quark. One can also see that generation mixing as well as complex phases do in general appear. An analysis of Yukawa couplings in intersecting brane models will appear in ref..

One interesting question is whether in this class of intersecting brane models one can realize the low string scale scenario  with $`M_s110`$ TeV. This is particularly relevant in models which are not supersymmetric and in which lowering the string scale down to the TeV scale provides then a solution to the hierarchy problem. As is well known, this requires that at least 2 of the 6 compact dimensions become very large, so that we obtain a large splitting between the string scale $`M_s`$ and the effective 4-dimensional gravity scale $`M_{Planck}`$. In the simple case of D6-branes wrapping a 6-torus, realizing the low string scale scenario is in principle complicated . This is because there are no dimensions which can be made large and are orthogonal to the SM brane system. On the other hand, as pointed out in  and explained in more detail in , one can start from a toroidal model as above and construct a related model in which the compact volume can be made arbitrarily large without affecting the SM branes. This is done by glueing an infinite throat to the torus in a region far away from the branes and then connecting the throat to some large volume. Alternatively one can consider other intersecting brane constructions in which the presence of a couple of dimensions transverse to the SM branes which can be made large is more obvious. For example, one can consider Type IIB compactified on $`T^2\times T^2\times (T^2/𝐙_N)`$ with D5-branes wrapping 2-cycles on $`T^2\times T^2`$ and located at a fixed point of the orbifold $`T^2/𝐙_N`$ (see fig. 6).

One can now have a low string scale $`M_s110`$ TeV while maintaining the experimentally measured four-dimensional Planck mass $`M_p=1.18\times 10^{19}`$ GeV by some dimensions getting very large . Let us denote by $`V_4`$ the volume of $`T^4`$ and by $`V_2`$ that of $`T^2/𝐙_N`$. Then the Planck scale is given by

$$M_p=\frac{2}{\lambda }M_s^4\sqrt{V_4V_2}$$
(8)
In order to avoid too light KK/Winding modes in the worldvolume of the D5-branes let us assume $`V_41/M_s^4`$. Then one has

$$V_2=\frac{M_p^2\lambda ^2}{4M_s^4}$$
(9)
and one can accommodate a low string scale $`M_s1`$ TeV by having the volume $`V_2`$ of the 2-dimensional manifold $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ large enough (i.e., of order $`(mm.)^2`$). Such D5-brane models with the chiral fermion content as in eq.(1) leading to the fermions of the SM have been recently constructed in ref.. Note, however, that those D5-brane constructions are intrinsically non-SUSY since the $`𝐙_N`$ orbifold projection projects out all gauginos.

In the case of a string scale $`M_s`$ close to the 1-10 TeV range, one interesting feature of the intersecting brane models is the presence of a very well defined and model-independent class of extra TeV-scale $`Z`$’ bosons. Indeed, in all models there are some extra $`U(1)`$ symmetries beyond hypercharge which seem rather model independent . We have generators $`U(1)_a`$ and $`U(1)_d`$ which are gauged baryon and lepton numbers respectively. $`U(1)_c`$ correspond to the 3rd component of right-handed weak isospin and $`U(1)_b`$ is a PQ-like gauged symmetry. In the class of models in eq.(6) the latter $`U(1)_b`$ symmetry is absent. Hypercharge is a linear combination of $`(BL)`$ and $`U(1)_c`$. The orthogonal $`U(1)`$’s may get Stueckelberg masses 111 Note that all anomalous $`U(1)`$’s get masses through this mechanism but also some anomaly-free $`U(1)`$’s may get a mass, see ref.. by combining with RR string fields $`B_i^{\mu \nu }`$, as shown in fig. 7. In this way one gets a mass matrix for the Abelian gauge bosons of the form:

$$M_{\alpha \beta }^2=\underset{i}{}g_\alpha g_\beta c_i^\alpha c_i^\beta M_s^2$$
(10)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ run over the $`U(1)`$ factors of each specific model and the $`c_i^\alpha `$ are model-dependent coefficients which may be computed in each particular brane setting . Thus for example, in the class of models discussed in ref. or ref. one sees that this matrix has four eigenvalues $`M=(0,M_2,M_3,M_4)`$, with the zero mode corresponding to standard hypercharge. It turns out that in those models typically one of the eigenvalues is well below the string scale $`M_s`$, so that one could detect the effects of such extra $`U(1)`$ before actually reaching the string threshold. One can also put constraints on those eigenvalues from $`\rho `$-parameter bounds . It would be rather amusing if the first signature of string physics would come from the detection of any of these particular extra Z’ bosons.


format: text

text:
# Spectrophotometry with a transmission grating for detecting faint occultations

## 1 Introduction

The indirect detection of large hot Jupiter-like extrasolar planets with periods on the order of days raises the possibility of direct detection of the reflected light from the planet’s atmosphere. The expected contrast ratio for these close-in gas giant planets is expected to be quite favorable $`(10^410^5)`$ compared to the contrast ratio between Jupiter and our sun $`(10^9)`$. However, the close proximity of these planets to their stars precludes spatially resolving the planet with current telescopes. Thus additional information about these planets requires other methods of discerning its flux in the presence of the much brighter star. Several approaches are possible to separate the starlight from the planet’s light. Charbonneau et al. (1999) and Collier-Cameron et al. (1999) each observed tau Boo with a high resolution spectrometer in an attempt to discern the planet’s light through by the Doppler shift of the reflected light as the planet orbits its star. Although no detection was observed, the data were sufficient to place upper limits on the planet’s albedo.

The discovery that the planet around HD 209458 occulted its star during the 3.5 day orbit (Charbonneau et al., 2000) was a significant step in verifying the existence of the extrasolar planet candidates. Brown et al. (2001) followed up this initial detection with high precision HST photometric measurements of the transit. This yielded a more precise light curve of the occultation, and gave the first indication of the composition of the planet’s atmosphere. The transit was detected to be slightly deeper at the wavelength of sodium absorption (Charbonneau et al., 2002), as predicted by various groups (Brown, 2001; Seager & Sasselov, 2000; Hubbard et al., 2001).

Direct detection of the reflected light from a close-in planet has the potential of telling us the albedo of a planet, and thus also, the temperature of the planet. From a more pedestrian viewpoint detection of the planet’s reflected light would be the indication of what the planet “looks” like. The color is more than just a curiosity, though, allowing the first constraints on the planet’s chemical makeup and vertical structure (such as the existence of clouds).

We observe the HD209458 system just before and after the eclipse of the planet by its parent star. Theoretical models suggest the planet may have a bright (0.7) albedo with a wide ($`R/\mathrm{\Delta }R20`$) absorption feature due to pressure broadened sodium at 591 nm (Sudarksy et al., 2000). The reflected light fraction from the star is $`2\times 10^4`$ for a geometric albedo of one, so a detection level of $`1\times 10^4`$ per wavelength band is needed to produce a useful constraint on the albedo of the planet.

Colour information is obtained with the use of a transmission grating in front of a CCD detector, in an objective prism configuration. Objective prism surveys are used with wide field imaging telescopes for spectral typing of stars and classifications of the brighter galaxies. The low dispersion, high throughput and no slit jaw losses make the objective prism method suitable for colour dependent transits. The main challenge is then in obtaining accurate spectrophotometry with the variation in transmission of the atmosphere as a function of airmass and the variation of spectral resolution due to the local seeing at the telescope.

## 2 Observations

All our observations were taken at the Kuiper telescope on Mount Bigelow, North of Tucson, a 1.54 m reflecting telescope with a CCD camera mounted at the Cassegrain focus.

The grating is a 72 lines/mm epoxy layer stamped onto glass $`24\times 24\times 3`$mm, manufactured by Edmunds Scientific. The ruling is blazed to give maximum transmission ($`32\%`$) in the first order. The grating is placed in the camera filter wheel approximately 10 cm from the detector.

The CCD is an unthinned $`2048^2`$ pixel detector manufactured by the University of Arizona Imaging Technology Laboratory. The camera scale is 0.15 arcseconds per pixel and the unbinned spectral dispersion of the transmission grating at 5000Å is approximately 20Å/pixel. We on-chip bin the CCD to 3 by 3 pixels, to maximize the readout rate of the detector, while still retaining the full spatial and spectral resolution for the typically 1 arcsec images at the Kuiper telescope. The distance between the grating and detector results in a spectral resolution of 39 at 5000A in 1 arcsecond seeing. Exposures were set at 5 seconds to give a peak flux integration of 50,000 ADUs, to keep the detector in a linear response range and to avoid going out of range on the 16 bit analog-to-digital converter for the CCD.

The secondary eclipse of the planet lasts three hours, with a period of just over 3.5 days (Brown et al., 2001). The data presented are from 12 November 2001 UT, which was a calm photometric night during which the secondary eclipse started soon after the star crossed the meridian (see Table 1). Over 600, five second frames of HD 209458 were acquired as the star began setting, going from airmass 1.03 to 3.0 during the observations (see Figure 1). Approximately equal numbers of frames were obtained of the star in and out of secondary eclipse. For all observations the telescope was manually guided to keep the spectrum in approximately the same part of the CCD. This number was reduced to 575 after rejection of frames where the flux of Star 1 (discussed later) showed a significant drop, most likely due to thin cloud passing overhead late in the evening.

## 3 Throughput

An observation of a WD primary spectrophotometric standard GD 71 (Bohlin et al., 1995) provides an estimation of the throughput of the instrument. The spectrum of the standard star is corrected to an airmass of one, and Figure 2 gives the estimated total throughput from above the atmosphere through to counts in the detector. The estimated contributions to the throughput are presented in Table 3. The dominant errors for the calculation are from the uncertainty in the gain factor for the CCD.

## 4 Colour response of the pixels

The gain ,$`g`$, of modern CCDs is assumed to be a function of pixel position $`x,y`$ and of wavelength $`\lambda `$, making $`g=g(x,y,\lambda )`$. In imaging the assumption is that the gain is achromatic ($`g(x,y,\lambda )=g(x,y)`$) for a given fixed passband. A spectrograph uses a dispersing element to convert wavelength into spatial position on the detector, i.e. $`g=g(x,y,\lambda (x,y))`$ where $`\lambda (x,y)`$ is a well defined function fixed by the position of the dispersing element and the entrance slit.

Objective grating spectroscopy lies between these two extremes. The “entrance slit” is defined by the position and image size of the object in the sky, and any image motion of the object results in a motion of its spectrum on the CCD. This means that $`\lambda (x,y)`$ is not a well-defined function. Without a slit in the system we need to apply a gain correction which is based on white light illumination and assume this is valid for the range of wavelengths observed with the grating.

To see if our assumption of an achromatic gain ($`g(x,y,\lambda )=g(x,y)`$) is valid for our CCD we took two sets of flat fields with different colours, one with the telescope dome open and the telescope pointing to the morning twilight sky (a predominantly blue colour) and the other with the dome closed and tungsten lights switched on (a 3000 K blackbody) and pointing at the dome ceiling. Both sets were taken with the filter wheel rotated to the “clear” slot.

For the twilight (sky) flats, frames with mean counts above 50000 or lower than 10000 were rejected, along with any that have an exposure time shorter than 2 seconds, to prevent illumination gradients due to the finite shutter speed. For the tungsten lamp (dome) flats, a set of 114 exposures were taken with a mean count level of 50,000. For both sky and dome flats, the individual frames are scaled individually by their respective modes and then combined as an average with avsigclip rejection.

The two flat fields are processed by MKSKYFLAT to remove large scale illumination effects. Both flats show CCD manufacturing imperfections and ’mirror donuts’ symptomatic of dust on the dewar window surfaces, and dividing the dome flat by the sky flat removes virtually all the larger dust artefacts (see left-hand of Figure 3). Given the quoted gain of $`3.2\pm 0.1e^{}/\mathrm{ADU}`$ for the CCD the statistics shown in table 2 are consistent with photon shot noise being the dominant source of noise in the combined flats.

Dividing the dome flat into the sky flat produces the image shown in the right-hand side of Figure 3. The residual artefacts are a triangularly spaced set of higher-gain spots, and some fringing that is just visible in the noise of the image. The spots are thought to be where adhesive holds the CCD in its protective housing, and the fringes are variations in the doping applied in the manufacturing process of the CCD.

Measuring the fractional noise in flat regions of this image gives a value of $`9.0\pm 1.0\times 10^4`$, consistent with the noise level of $`8.17\pm 1.56\times 10^4`$ expected when dividing the sky flat into the dome flat. This image shows that, apart from some obvious regions of the CCD which can be avoided, both the sky flat and dome flat agree with each other within errors. The lack of any major gradient across the CCD means that $`g(x,y,\lambda )=g(x,y)`$ is valid to within measurable errors and the flat with the higher S/N ratio can be used without introducing any colour biased systematic noise into the data. We can therefore use a “white light” flat to correct for gain variations over the whole spectrum.

## 5 Data Reduction

### 5.1 Frame reduction

The data were reduced with the IRAF data reduction tasks. 100 zero frames are combined with the CCDPROC task using the ccdclip rejection for removing outlying events, and this combined zero frame is subtracted from the data. The data is then trimmed to remove the bias and overscan regions of the CCD.

The data frames are flat-fielded using a gain map constructed from the dome flat field described in the previous section. The grating creates a non-uniform illumination pattern across the detector, due to vignetting of the incoming light. To remove this a sky background frame is generated by combining 100 frames taken with the telescope drive switched off. These frames are median scaled and median combined with the ccdclip rejection algorithm. The resulting image is filtered with a boxcar median filter 51 pixels to a side to smooth out high spatial frequency noise (see Figure 4). Differencing this smoothed image from the unsmoothed original shows no remaining large scale variations in the sky background image. This sky background frame is then scaled to a blank region of the CCD and subtracted on a per frame basis. Bad columns and hot pixels are replaced by interpolation from the nearest neighbouring pixel values with FIXPIX (see Figure 5).

The plate scale is determined from the position of three stars in the field of view from an image taken at an airmass of 1.03. Centroid fitting for each of the stars is performed, and the relative separations of the stars are taken from the astrometric solution attached to the DSS image 111The Digitized Sky Survey was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions. covering the region around HD 209458. The plate scale is calculated to be $`0.4314\pm 0.0015\mathrm{}/\mathrm{pix}`$.

We use the three brightest stars in the frame to provide registration between the frames. The IRAF routine IMCENTROID gives the frame offset relative to the first frame of the night.

The total range of image motion is (8.5,5.8) pixels in the (RA,dec) axes, with typical (RMS) shift of $`\delta RA_{rms}=1.119,\delta dec_{rms}=0.823`$ pixels, less than the typical seeing disk size of 3 pixels (1 arcsecond). The larger drift in the RA axis is thought to be due to periodic corrections in the siderial rate applied by the telescope guidance computer when a certain drift limit is exceeded.

The remaining sources of light are the zeroth order images, the first and second order spectra from the grating, and a halo of scattered light surrounding the spectra themselves. A typical sky background subtracted image is shown in Figure 6, with a contour plot showing the scattered light profile around the spectrum. As can be seen in Figure 6, the scattered light around the spectrum is constant for images at the beginning and end of the night, indicating it does not effect our measurement of the light in the core of the spectrum in a systematic way.

### 5.2 Spectrum extraction and calibration

Using the centroid of Star 1 as a fiducial, a box is drawn around and centered on the first order spectrum, where the columns are perpendicular to the dispersion axis of the grating. A Gaussian curve is fit along each column to measure the PSF of the grating at that wavelength and to trace the centroid of the spectrum across the CCD. A low-order polynomial is fit to both the measured FWHM and centroid positions (see Figure 7). The RMS between the FWHM fit and data is $`1.48\times 10^2`$ pixels for all frames during the evening. A plot of the transverse FWHM at 7000Å as a function of Frame Number (Figure 8) shows that the seeing varies on timescales of seconds, minutes and hours during the observations.

The counts within each column are summed to give a one-dimensional spectrum with flux per wavelength bin. The width of the box is set at 41 pixels (17 arcsec), extending well into the scattered light region from the grating. Increasing the extraction width of the box does not change the extracted planetary spectrum, implying that our assumption about the scattered light is valid.

The wavelength zero point is determined from the position of atmospheric absorption due to the Fraunhofer A band of Oxygen (hereafter referred to as the ’notch’) at 7620 Angstroms. Measuring the notch pixel position with respect to the zeroth order image of the star is performed by fitting a gaussian to the notch in the extracted spectrum. The position of the notch is expected to smoothly change with airmass during the night, and so we take the fitted value of the notch position to be our wavelength zero point. Figure 9 shows the centroid of the notch as a function of frame number and the residuals after taking off a linear fit in effective airmass $`a`$. The RMS between the centroid fit and measured centroid of the notch is $`6.0\times 10^2`$ pixels. Assuming that the measured notch centroids are independent of each other, the mean centroid error is reduced by the square root of the number of frames used in the notch fit. This gives a mean notch centroid error of $`6.0\times 10^2/\sqrt{573}=2.5\times 10^4`$ pixels ( $`3.5\times 10^2`$Å).

As the star moves from the zenith an extra component of dispersion due to colour-dependent refraction in the the Earth’s atmosphere is added to the dispersion of the grating and the wavelength solution changes smoothly and continuously throughout the night. This atmospheric dispersion adds vectorially to the transmission grating dispersion to produce the observed wavelength solution on a given frame.

At the zenith, the grating is assumed to have a low-order polynomial wavelength solution where distance from the zeroth order image is monotonic with wavelength. A planetary nebula (PNe) of small angular extent (IC 2165) is observed and provides wavelength calibration for the extracted spectrum in the form of emission lines of $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ and O\[III\]. This observation was taken at a high airmass, and so the line positions are corrected using an atmospheric refraction model back to the zenith. We use a model of atmospheric refracton for the Earth’s atmosphere from Filippenko (1982), taking estimated values for the temperature and pressure from the observatory log sheets. The PNe wavelength data is corrected back to the zenith, and the resultant dispersion solution is linear within measuring errors, implying that the grating dispersion is linear with wavelength.

Using the wavelength solution for the grating and the vector correction for dispersion in the atmosphere at the required airmass, the spectra are resampled using cubic spline interpolation into $`50`$Å wavelength bins from $`40008000`$Å. This spectral range is limited by the efficiency of the detector in the blue end of the spectrum, and the second order spectrum appearing beyond $`8000`$Å.

## 6 The Atmospheric Model

For a single observed stellar spectrum $`I(a,\lambda )`$ as observed from the ground at effective airmass $`a`$, we assume an atmospheric model of the form:

$$I(a,\lambda )=I(\lambda ).e^{a.\tau (\lambda )}$$
(1)
where $`I(\lambda )`$ is the stellar spectrum for an effective airmass of zero, i.e. above the atmosphere, and $`\tau (\lambda )`$ is the atmospheric absorption.

For an eclisping binary at secondary eclipse, the unobscured fraction of the secondary’s disk varies from 1 at first contact to 0 at second contact, remaining at 0 until it emerges from behind the primary at third contact and rising up to 1 at fourth contact. This function is represented as $`p(t)`$. For the geometry of the HD 209458 system, the reflected light also varies as the phase of the planet varies, but the $`p(t)`$ is a good approximation to the actual phase for our data set.

The usual definition of $`a=\mathrm{sec}z`$ holds true for a semi-infinite plane-parallel atomsphere. We keep the semi-infinite atmosphere and take account of the curvature of the Earth. A simple function relates the zenith distance $`z`$ of the star to an effective airmass $`a`$:

$$a_{eff}=\frac{R}{r}.\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2z+2.\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)+\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^2}\mathrm{cos}z\right)$$
(2)
Where the radius of the Earth is $`R=6378\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}`$ and the height of a homogeneous atmoshpere (finite height, constant temperature equal to the surface temperature and constant density equal to surface density) at 15 Celsius is $`r=8.43\mathrm{km}`$ (Cox et al., 1999). Using equation 2 we calculate the effective airmass as a function of time.

Given knowledge of the ingress and egress times for an eclipsing binary system and the geometry of the system, a model for the secondary eclipse as observed on the ground is constructed:

$$I(a,t,\lambda )=I(\lambda ).[1+f(\lambda ).p(t)]e^{a(t).\tau (\lambda )}$$
(3)
Here we define $`f(\lambda )`$, the ratio of the secondary’s spectrum to that of the primary star. For reflected light from an ESP, this is proportional to the planet’s albedo.

Taking the logarithm of this equation and realising that $`\mathrm{ln}(1+x)x`$ for $`x1`$ gives:

$$\mathrm{ln}I(a,t,\lambda )=\mathrm{ln}I(\lambda )+f(\lambda ).p(t)a(t).\tau (\lambda )$$

This linear equation is then fitted numerically with linear methods to produce estimates of $`I,f,\tau `$. Errors on each of the free parameters are estimated by simulating data for the star system assuming limitations due to Poisson distributed noise. For a given set of $`I_0`$, $`\tau _0`$, and $`f_0`$ at a particular wavelength, an ideal noiseless $`I(a)`$ is constructed and noise commensurate with our observations is added. The noise is estimated by taking the r.m.s. of the difference of the fitted light curve and the actual data. A linear fitting routine then extracts “measured” values of $`I,\tau ,f`$. Repeating this process with a different sample of Poisson noise produces distributions of $`I_m\pm \delta I,\tau _m\pm \delta \tau ,f_m\pm \delta f`$, where the $`\delta `$ quantities correspond to 1-sigma limits of the resultant Poisson distributions, and these are the error bars on our results.

Figure 10 and 11 show the fitted spectrum of HD 209458 and the derived extinction curve of the atmosphere. The derived spectrum for the planet HD 209458b is shown in Figure 12. The mean planet flux over the passband 5000-7000Å is $`7.0\pm 8.4\times 10^4`$, the sensitivity of which is approximately 4 times larger than the maximum reflected light fraction of $`2\times 10^4`$.

Using our model of the atmosphere we construct a set of model spectra for the measured range of airmass $`a(t)`$ and planet phase $`p(t)`$. For $`I(\lambda )`$ and $`\tau (\lambda )`$ we use the values derived in the extraction of HD 209458 and we assume a constant reflected light fraction $`f(\lambda )=2\times 10^4`$. Adding only photon shot noise results in an extracted spectrum as shown in Figure 13. The measured planet flux is detected with a level of $`(2.0\pm 1.8)\times 10^4`$ per 50Å bin. Averaged over the 40 bins in the range of 5000-7000Å this results in an accuracy of $`2.8\times 10^5`$ in the limit of photon noise.

Making the assumption that the PSF along the spectra is the same as the PSF measured across the spectrum, we apply atmospheric seeing effects to the data set. The extracted planetary spectrum (Figure 14) shows a significant systematic error similiar in sign and magnitude to that seen in our measured data. Our exposure times are short enough that we are also affected by scintillation noise and including this contribution produces the spectrum shown in Figure 15.

A simulated spectrum can be created with no planetary signal which has the same systematic errors as the actual data, as shown in Figure 15. This can be used to normalise the signal detected in the data. We create a normalised spectrum $`f_{norm}(\lambda )`$ with:

$$f_{norm}(\lambda )=\frac{1+f_{meas}}{1+f_{model}}$$

where $`f_{meas}`$ is our observed planet spectrum, and $`f_{model}`$ is the simulated planet spectrum.

The resultant spectrum in Figure 16 shows a reduction in systematic effects and gives a mean fractional planet flux of $`8.2\pm 6.2\times 10^4`$ averaged over the bandpass of 5000-7000Å.

## 7 Limits to the Precision

The fundamental limit to the precision of the photometric measurement in each wavelength bin is set by the number of photons collected. The uncertainty in the intensity is governed by Poisson statistics, and is thus given by the square root of the photons collected per wavelength bin per exposure. As can be seen in Figure 10 the peak flux per exposure per 50Å wavelength bin at an airmass of zero is approximately $`4.0\times 10^5`$ photons for most of the 5000-7000Å portion of the spectrum. Taking into account the absorption of the atmosphere averaged over the night, this figure lowers to $`3.5\times 10^5`$ photons, creating an uncertainty of $`1.69\times 10^3`$ in the intensity. However, no correlation exists between wavelength bins or exposures, allowing this uncertainty to be reduced. For the 240 exposures taken while the planet was eclipsed by the star, and the 200 taken when the planet was not, these give uncertainties of $`1.12\times 10^4`$ and $`1.09\times 10^4`$ which when combined in quadrature give a photon-limted uncertainty per wavelength bin of $`1.56\times 10^4`$, comparable to the $`1.8\times 10^4`$ from the photon-limited model in the previous section.

The measured variations in intensity per frame are also expected to be affected by scintillation of the starlight. Young (1967) derived the variations in intensity due to scintillation. The uncertainty in intensity for typical scintillation is given by the equation

$$\sigma =S_0.D^{2/3}(\mathrm{sec}Z)^{1.75}e^{h/h_0}/(t)^{1/2}$$

where $`D`$ is the telescope aperture in meters, $`t`$ is the exposure time in seconds, $`Z`$ is the zenith angle, $`h`$ is the height of the observatory (2.5 km for the Kuiper telescope), and $`h_0`$ is the turbulence weighted atmospheric altitude (typically 8 km). $`S_0`$ is the normalization constant for the effect, which is typically 0.003, but can vary due to the strength and height of the turbulence. Work by Dravins et al. (1998) have verified this equation for various timescales and aperture sizes, showing that the strength of scintillation varies (as parameterized by $`S_0`$ in the equation above) and is not well correlated with the local seeing. For the 5 second frames, at airmass 1.5 each frame would have a variation of 1.5$`\times 10^3`$. As indicated by the square root dependence on exposure time, successive images are not correlated. Thus for the 240 exposures taken while the planet was eclipsed by the star we expect the scintillation-induced uncertainty per wavelength bin to be 1.3$`\times 10^4`$. However, studies by Dravins et al. (1997) and Ryan & Sandler (1998) do show that the the effects of scintillation can be considered achromatic in their effect on a spectrum. That is, the variations in intensity are correlated between wavelength bins.

The value of $`S_0`$ changes significantly between nights and observing sites (Dravins et al., 1997), and so we use the measured flux of Star 1 to determine the value of this scintillation constant for our data. We calculate the flux of Star 1 as a fuction of airmass and fit an exponential curve to the data, assuming a single value for $`\tau `$. From our observed data, we know that $`\tau `$ changes as a function of wavelength, and the difference of the fit and the data show this as a low-order residual with a peak of approximately 0.5% of star 1’s flux at 1 airmass. A low-order curve is fitted to remove this remaining flux, and for each observed value of the star 1’s flux, an estimate of the poisson noise and the scintillation noise is made (see Figure 17). The scintillation coefficient that best fits the scatter in star 1’s flux is $`0.006\pm 0.002`$, and the short-term variations in the flux are attributed to variations in $`S_0`$ during the night. This corresponds to a scintillation-induced uncertainty of approximately $`3\times 10^3`$ per frame or 2.6$`\times 10^4`$ over the transit of the planet.

As can be seen by the comparison of photon and scintillation noise, for nominal scintillation the spectral resolution is appropriate for nearly equal noise contributions from each. Higher spectral resolution would cause photon noise to dominate for each wavelength bin, while lower resolution would cause scintillation noise to dominate. Thus a spectral resolution of 30-60 is suitable for balancing these two sources of error. The photon noise scales inversely with the diameter of the telescope while the scintillation scales inversely as the 2/3 power of the diameter. In general this means that the optimum resolution for balancing these sources of noise (for HD 209458) is given by $`R_{opt}30\times D^{1/3}`$ where D is the telescope diameter in meters. This suggests that even for a large aperture telescope (8-10 m) the optimum resolution is relatively low (around 100) even for planets around fairly bright stars.

In addition to random variations in intensity we expect systematic effects which may cause variations in intensity from several sources. For the low-resolution spectrum, each wavelength bin is actually a blend of a range of wavelengths corresponding to approximately 150Å. This blending of wavelengths creates a systematic curvature to the extinction fit for regions of the spectrum where either the atmospheric extinction is changing or the intensity is changing.

From comparison with our simulated data it is clear that the dominant effect limiting our precision is the effect of wavelength blending in our spectra, and the inability to fit this properly. As shown in Figure 16 this limits measurements of the planet flux in the 5000-7000Å range to a level of approximately 0.1%.

The discrepancy between the model fit and the extracted spectra show that the PSF blurring along the spectral dispersion axis may not be well represented by the transverse profile. For a comprehensive image deconvolution method to be used on the data frames, careful calibration of the PSF as a function of position on the detector, and relative position of star and grating and detector must be built up for a range of seeing conditions and all with a signal to noise of at least the required sensitivity. Even so, we have looked at various deconvolution techniques based on minimising a function that trades chi squared of a trial fit with the trial spectrum’s entropy, as used in many maximum entropy codes. Our success, however, has been severely limited by the lack of knowledge of the PSF introduced by the atmosphere and grating.

## 8 Conclusions

The current approach to obtaining data of HD 209458 results in very inefficient observing. For every 5 second exposure, approximately 30 seconds of real time is needed in order to read out the CCD, resulting in 16% efficiency to the observing. The exposures are limited to 5 seconds currently to avoid saturating the CCD. However, an increase in the efficiency can be made by spreading the light out perpendicular to the direction of dispersion with a cylindrical lens. This will allow much longer exposures resulting in an efficiency $`>50\%`$. This would result in a decrease in the noise associated with both the photon and scintillation noise allowing reduction of these quantitie to well below the expected signal due to a planetary secondary eclipse.

The power of the technique we describe is that it requires very little in extra calibration data - an estimate of the atmospheric blurring is made from transverse cuts across the spectrum, and each frame thus provides its own calibration data.

Precision spectrophotometry from ground-based telescopes is an attractive technique for probing secondary eclipses of planetary orbits, but the current work shows the technique is limited by systematic effects of atmospheric extinction to precision of 0.1%. It is possible that future refinements of the technique will allow an improvement by calibrating out the effect of the atmosphere through appropriate standard star observations. This will allow explorations of intensity variations down to the level set by the photon and scintillation noise of the star.

We thank Bob Peterson and the Mount Bigelow crew for their patience with our constant requests for observing time and modifications to the telescope.


text:
# Spread theory of the special theory of relativity

## 1. Introduction

Einstein’s special relativity modify all the laws of physics, where necessary, so as to make them a metaprinciple : it puts constraints on all the lows of physics. The modifications suggested by the theory, though highly significant in many modern applications, have negligible effect in most classical problems, which is of course why they were not discovered earlier. However, they were not exactly needed empirically in 1905 either. This is a beautiful example of the power of pure thought to leap ahead of the empirical frontier-a feature of all good physical theories, though rarely on such a heroic scale. It has led, among other things, to a new theory of space and time, and in particular to the relativity of simultaneity and the existence of a maximum speed for all particles and signals, to a new mechanics in which mass increases with speed, to the formula $`E=mc^2`$ $`[15]`$. The special theory of relativity is based on two postulates formulated by Einstein $`[5]`$:
1. All laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames. In other words, we can say that the equations expressing the laws of nature are invariant with respect to transformations of coordinates and time from one inertial reference frame to another.
2. light always propagates in a vacuum at a definite constant speed $`c`$ not depending on the state of motion of the emitting body.
Einstein’s two assumption are all right in all inertial reference frames in which their relative velocity $`v`$ is less than light speed, because all the results are proved by the experiment. However, when two inertial reference frames relative velocity $`v`$ is $`v=c`$ or $`v>c`$, the two assumption in the above don’t hold. For example, when a beam of photons move in the same direction, all photons relative velocity $`v`$ is zero and isn’t light velocity $`c`$. So, the assumption about the invariant of the light speed is incorrect in this situation, and the result that light velocity $`c`$ is a maximum speed is also incorrect, because the relative velocity of two beams of lights moving along opposite direction exceeds light speed $`c`$. So, when two inertial reference frames relative velocity $`v`$ is equal to or more than light speed Einstein’s two postulations and some results must be modified.

## 2. The space-time relation at $`v=c`$

Consider two inertial reference frames $``$ and $`^{}`$ in which their relative velocity is $`v`$ ($`v=c`$). We shall select the coordinate axes of these frames so that the axes $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ are directed along the velocity $`𝐯`$ of the frame $`^{}`$, and the axes $`y`$ and $`z`$ are parallel to the axes $`y^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$. Let us assume that at the time $`t=0`$ a electromagnetic wave leaves the origin of $``$ and $`^{}`$, which propagates with a speed $`c`$ in all directions in inertial reference frames $``$, but it propagates with different velocity in different direction in inertial reference frames $`^{}`$. So, the electromagnetic wave is a spherical wave in $``$, and it is a ellipsoid wave in $`^{}`$. That is,

$$c^2t^2x^2y^2z^2=0$$
(1)
$$\frac{(x^{}+\frac{act^{}}{2})^2}{(\frac{act^{}}{2})^2}+\frac{(y^{})^2}{(bct^{})^2}+\frac{(z^{})^2}{(bct^{})^2}=1$$
(2)
where $`ac`$ is the light velocity along with $`x^{}`$ axes’ negative direction, and the light velocity is zero in $`x^{}`$ axes positive direction, and $`bc`$ is the light velocity along with $`y^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ axes in the $`^{}`$ reference frames.
Obviously, the events coordinates satisfy

$$x=\gamma ^{}(x^{}+ct^{})$$
(3)
$$x^{}=\gamma (xct)$$
(4)
$$y=y^{},z=z^{}$$
(5)
From Eqs. (3)-(4), we have

$$t^{}=\gamma [t\frac{x}{c}(1\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}})]$$
(6)
and from Eqs. (1)-(6), we obtain

$`(4b^2\gamma ^24ab^2\gamma ^2+4ab^2\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}})x^2+(8ab^2c\gamma ^28b^2c\gamma ^24ab^2c\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^{}}})xt+(4b^2c^2\gamma ^24ab^2c^2\gamma ^2)t^2`$
$`=a^2x^2a^2c^2t^2`$ (7)
from Eq. (7), we obtain

$$a^2=4b^2\gamma ^24ab^2\gamma ^2+4ab^2\frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^{}}$$
(8)
$$8ab^2c\gamma ^28b^2c\gamma ^24ab^2c\frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^{}}=0$$
(9)
$$4b^2c^2\gamma ^24ab^2c^2\gamma ^2=a^2c^2$$
(10)
from Eqs. (8)-(10), we have

$$\frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^{}}=\frac{a}{2b^2}$$
(11)
If we let

$$\gamma =\gamma ^{},b=1$$
(12)
then

$$a=2$$
(13)
By substituting these values into Eqs. (3)-(6), we obtain, finally, the following transformation equations of the events coordinates and velocity

$$x^{}=xct$$
(14)
$$x=x^{}+ct$$
(15)
$$y^{}=y,z^{}=z$$
(16)
$$t^{}=t$$
(17)
$$v_x^{}=v_xc$$
(18)
$$v_y^{}=v_y,v_z^{}=v_z$$
(19)
for the general a and b, we have

$`\gamma =\gamma ^{}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2(ab)}}}`$ (20)
$$x^{}=\sqrt{\frac{a}{2(ab)}}(xct)$$
(21)
$$x=\sqrt{\frac{a}{2(ab)}}(x^{}+ct^{})$$
(22)
$$t^{}=\sqrt{\frac{a}{2(ab)}}(t\frac{x}{c}(\frac{2b}{a}1))$$
(23)
$$v_x^{}=\frac{v_xc}{1\frac{1}{c}(\frac{2b}{a}1)v_x}$$
(24)
$$v_y^{}=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{2(ab)}{a}}}{1\frac{1}{c}(\frac{2b}{a}1)v_x}$$
(25)
$$v_z^{}=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{2(ab)}{a}}}{1\frac{1}{c}(\frac{2b}{a}1)v_x}$$
(26)
from Eq. (18), when

$$v_x=c$$
(27)
then

$$v_x^{}=2c$$
(28)
from Eq. (28), we find the phenomenon exceeding light velocity can happen in the reference frames of photons movement. This is different from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which light speed $`c`$ is the maximum velocity in the nature.

## 3. The space-time relation at $`v>c`$

We consider two inertial reference frames $``$ and $`^{}`$ in which their relative motion is the same as section 2, and the only different is the relative velocity $`v>c`$. We can obtain the following equations

$$x^2+y^2+z^2c^2t^2=0$$
(29)
$$\frac{(x^{}+\frac{act^{}+fct^{}}{2})^2}{(\frac{act^{}fct^{}}{2})^2}+\frac{(y^{})^2}{(bct^{})^2}+\frac{(z^{})^2}{(bct^{})^2}=1$$
(30)
where $`ac`$ is the amplitude of light velocity along the $`x^{}`$ axes negative direction in the $`^{}`$ reference frames which corresponds to the light velocity $`c`$ along the $`x`$ axes negative direction in the $``$ reference frames, and $`fc`$ is the amplitude of light velocity along the $`x^{}`$ axes negative direction in the $`^{}`$ reference frames which corresponds to the light velocity $`c`$ along the $`x`$ axes positive direction in the $``$ reference frames, and $`bc`$ is the light velocity along with $`y^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ axes in $`^{}`$ reference frames.

The events coordinates in $``$ and $`^{}`$ reference frames satisfy following equations

$$x=\gamma ^{}(x^{}+et^{})$$
(31)
$$x^{}=\gamma (xet)$$
(32)
$$y^{}=y,z^{}=z$$
(33)
where $`e=v`$ $`(v>c)`$, from Eqs. (31)-(32), we obtain

$$t^{}=\gamma [t\frac{x}{e}(1\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}})]$$
(34)
and from Eqs. (29)-(34), we have

$`4b^2\gamma ^2[(1(a+f)c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}+(a+f)c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{afc^2}{e^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{afc^2}{e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2afc^2}{e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}})x^2`$
$`(2e2(a+f)c+(a+f)c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}}+2afc^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}2afc^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}})xt`$
$`+(e^2(a+f)ce+afc^2)t^2]`$
$`=(af)^2x^2(af)^2c^2t^2`$ (35)
from the Eq. (35), we can obtain

$$4b^2\gamma ^2[1(a+f)c\frac{1}{e}+(a+f)c\frac{1}{e}\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}+\frac{afc^2}{e^2}+\frac{afc^2}{e^2}\frac{1}{\gamma ^2\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{2afc^2}{e^2}\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}]=(af)^2$$
(36)
$$2e2(a+f)c+(a+f)c\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}+2afc^2\frac{1}{e}2afc^2\frac{1}{e}\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}=0$$
(37)
$$4b^2\gamma ^2[e^2(a+f)ce+afc^2]=(af)^2c^2$$
(38)
from the Eqs. (36)-(38), we find

$$\gamma ^2=\frac{(af)^2c^2}{4b^2[(a+f)cee^2afc^2]}$$
(39)
$$\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{4b^2afc^2(e^2(a+f)ce+afc^2)}{(af)^2(e^4ace^3fce^3+afc^2e^2e^2c^2+fc^3e+ac^3eafc^4)}$$
(40)
from Eqs. (31)-(34), we obtain

$$v_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{v_xe}{1\frac{1}{e}v_x+\frac{1}{e}\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}v_x}$$
(41)
when

$$v_x=c$$
(42)
then

$`v_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{ce}{1+\frac{c}{e}\frac{c}{e}\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}}}=ac`$ (43)
and when

$$v_x=c$$
(44)
then

$`v_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{ce}{1\frac{c}{e}+\frac{c}{e}\frac{1}{\gamma \gamma ^{}}}}=fc`$ (45)
from Eqs. 39-45, we have

$$e^2\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=b^2\gamma ^2e^2\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b^2\gamma ^2\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c^2+2c^2\gamma \gamma ^{}c^2$$
(46)
for $`e>c`$, the Eq. (46) is identical equation. So, we have

$$b^2\gamma ^2=1$$
(47)
$$b^2\gamma ^2\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c^2c^2+2c^2\gamma \gamma ^{}=0$$
(48)
from the Eqs. (47)-(48), we find

$$\gamma =\gamma ^{}=1,b=1$$
(49)
By substituting these values into Eqs. (31)-(34), we can obtain the transformation equations of the events coordinates and velocity in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reference frames.

$$x=(x^{}+et^{})$$
(50)
$$x^{}=(xet)$$
(51)
$$y^{}=y,z^{}=z$$
(52)
$$t=t^{}$$
(53)
$$v_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=v_xe$$
(54)
$$v_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=v_y,v_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=v_z$$
(55)
Now, we can obtain the following result: when the relative velocity of two inertial reference frames $``$ and $`^{}`$ is $`v=c`$ and $`v>c`$ they have the same transformation relation about space-time, and they are different from the Lorentz transformation in the special theory of relativity.

## 4. Mass and energy of a particle

In special theory of relativity, Einstein found the relation of a particle mass and energy with its motion velocity $`v`$, which is less then light speed $`c`$. In this section, when a particle motion velocity $`v`$ is large than light speed $`c`$ or equal to $`c`$, the relation of its mass and energy with its velocity $`v`$ will be established. We consider the collision of two particles which they are identical particle. The $``$ is laboratory frame, and the $`^{}`$ is the mass center frame, and two inertial reference frame relative velocity is $`c`$. Before colliding, two particle’ velocity is $`d`$ $`(d>c)`$ and $`v_2`$ in the $``$ frame, and it is $`v^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$ in the $`^{}`$ frame. After colliding, all particle’ velocity is $`c`$, and their velocity are zero in $`^{}`$ frame.
from the law of momentum conservation, we have

$$m_1d+m_2v_2=(m_1+m_2)c$$
(56)
from Eq. (18), we obtain

$$d=v^{}+c$$
(57)
$$v_2=v^{}+c$$
(58)
By substituting Eqs. (57)-(58) into Eq. (56), we have

$$m_1(d)=m_2(v_2)$$
(59)
$$d=2cv_2$$
(60)
from Eqs. (59)-(60), we obtain

$`m_1(d)=m_2(v_2)={\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{v_2^2}{c^2}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{(2cd)^2}{c^2}}}}`$ (61)
So, when a particle has movement velocity $`d`$ $`(d>c)`$, its mass is:

$$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{(2cd)^2}{c^2}}}$$
(62)
where $`m_0`$ is its rest mass. In the following, we calculate a particle mass when it moves at light speed $`c`$. It is similar to calculating $`m(d)`$ $`(d>c)`$ the above. Before colliding, two particle’s velocity are $`d`$ $`(d>c)`$ and $`c`$ in the $``$ frame, and they are $`f^{}`$ and $`f^{}`$ in the $`^{}`$ frame respectively. After colliding, all particle’ velocity are $`c`$, and their velocity are zero in $`^{}`$ frame.
In according to the law of momentum conversation, we have

$$m_1dm_2c=(m_1+m_2)c$$
(63)
from Eq. (18), we obtain

$$d=c+f$$
(64)
$$c=cf$$
(65)
from Eqs. (63)-(65), we have

$$m_1(d)=m_2(c)$$
(66)
$$d=3c$$
(67)
So, we have

$$m_2(c)=m_1(d)=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{(2cd)^2}{c^2}}}=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{c^2}{c^2}}}=\mathrm{}$$
(68)
from the special theory of relativity, the relation of a particle mass with its velocity $`v`$ $`(v<c)`$ is:

$$m(v)=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$
(69)
from the Eqs. (62), (68), and (69), we get the following results: when a particle’s velocity $`v`$ is less then light speed $`c`$, its mass $`m`$ is increased as its speed $`v`$ increases. when a particle’s velocity is $`c`$, its mass is infinity. when a particle’s velocity $`v`$ is larger then light velocity $`c`$, its mass $`m`$ is decreased as its speed $`v`$ increases. when a particle’s velocity $`v`$ is $`v>3c`$, its mass is imaginary number.

In the following, Let’s consider the relation of a particle energy with the amplitude of its velocity $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ $`(V>c)`$, and mass-energy equation, and its dynamics equation.
a particle’s momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and exerted force $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ are defined as:

$$\stackrel{}{P}=\frac{m_0\stackrel{}{V}}{\sqrt{1\frac{(2cV)^2}{c^2}}}$$
(70)
$$\stackrel{}{F}=\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{P}$$
(71)
and

$$\frac{d}{dt}w=\stackrel{}{F}\stackrel{}{V}$$
(72)
where $`w`$ is a particle energy. from the Eq. (70)-(72), we have

$$w=\frac{m_0c^2}{\sqrt{1\frac{(2cV)^2}{c^2}}}\frac{(3c2V)V}{(2cV)c}$$
(73)
and mass-energy equation

$$P^2(\frac{(3c2V)c}{2cV})^2w^2=0$$
(74)
and a particle’s dynamics equation

$$\stackrel{}{F}=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{(2cV)^2}{c^2}}}\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{V}\frac{m_0\stackrel{}{V}}{(\sqrt{1\frac{(2cV)^2}{c^2}})^3}\frac{2cV}{c^2V}\stackrel{}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{V}$$
(75)
## 5. conclusion

To summarize, we have discussed the time-space transformation in two inertial reference frames which their relative velocity is equal to or more than light speed and researched the relation of a particle’s mass and energy with its motion velocity and its dynamics equation. It is different from the special theory of relativity, which based on Einstein’s principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light. When two inertia reference frames’ relative velocity and a particle’s velocity is less than light velocity they are described by the special theory of relativity. However, when two inertial reference frames’ relative velocity and a particle’s velocity is equal to or larger than light velocity it must be described by the spread theory of the special theory of relativity.


text:
# Absorbing-boundary-condition method for drip-line nuclei

## 1 Absorbing boundary condition (ABC)

Advances in radioactive beams provide us with a good opportunity to study physics of weakly-bound finite-quantum systems. Since excitation spectra above the particle-emission threshold are continuum spectra, theoretical analysis requires continuum wave functions. We have recently investigated an efficient and comprehensive method of treating the continuum. This is practically identical to the one called “Absorbing Boundary Condition (ABC) method” in the chemical reaction studies. The method allows us to calculate the continuum wave functions with the outgoing asymptotic behavior of many-body systems in a finite spatial region where particles interact with each other.

The essential trick for the treatment of the continuum in the ABC method is to allow the infinitesimal imaginary part in the Green’s function, $`iϵ`$, to be a function of coordinate and finite, $`iϵ(𝐫)`$. The $`ϵ(𝐫)`$ should be zero in the interacting region and be positive outside the physically relevant region of space. Wave functions obtained using the ABC method are meaningful only in the interacting region. However, this is enough to solve scattering problems of particles which interact by a force with finite range.

In order to understand how the ABC method is functioning in later applications, it is useful to consider the potential scattering of a particle. The scattering wave function is given by

$$|\psi _𝐤^{(+)}=|𝐤+\frac{1}{EH+iϵ}V|𝐤|𝐤+|\psi _{\mathrm{scat}}^{(+)}.$$
(1)
The scattering amplitude, $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, is usually defined by its asymptotic behavior

$$\psi _𝐤^{(+)}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐫)+f(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ikr)}{r},(r\mathrm{}),$$
(2)
but can be written in a form

$$f(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}𝐤^{}|V|\psi _𝐤^{(+)}=\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}𝑑𝐫\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤^{}𝐫)V(𝐫)\psi _𝐤^{(+)}(𝐫),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the direction of $`𝐤^{}`$ and $`|𝐤^{}|=|𝐤|`$. Equation (3) implies that the $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ can be determined by the scattering wave function, $`\psi _𝐤^{(+)}(𝐫)`$, in the interacting region where $`V0`$. In other words, behavior of $`\psi _𝐤^{(+)}(𝐫)`$ outside the interacting region is irrelevant to determination of the scattering properties.

Figure 1 shows calculated phase shifts for a nucleon scattered by a square-well potential:

$$V(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}V_0\hfill & \text{for }r<r_0\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }r>r_0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`V_0=20`$ MeV and $`r_0=3`$ fm. The upper part of Fig. 1 shows the phase shifts calculated with a standard numerical procedure. Namely, we solve the radial Schrödinger equations to obtain the regular wave functions of $`s`$-, $`p`$-, and $`d`$-waves, and determine the phase shifts at a certain point of $`r>r_0`$.

On the other hand, Eqs. (1) and (3) supply another way of solving the problem. The $`|\psi _{\mathrm{scat}}^{(+)}`$ in Eq. (1) satisfies the Schrödinger equation with a source term

$$(EH+iϵ)|\psi _{\mathrm{scat}}^{(+)}=V|𝐤.$$
(5)
This equation must be solved with the outgoing boundary condition. Here, the ABC plays an essential role. The infinitesimal quantity $`iϵ`$ in Eq. (5) is now replaced by $`iϵ(𝐫)`$, then, the equation can be solved with the vanishing boundary condition. The conditions and limitations on $`ϵ(𝐫)`$ are discussed in a number of works. As is emphasized before, the obtained wave function, $`\psi _{\mathrm{scat}}^{(+)}(𝐫)`$, is correct only in the interacting region. The scattering amplitude, $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, is calculated using Eq. (3), and $`\mathrm{arg}(f(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ corresponds to the phase shift, which is displayed in the lower part of Fig. 1. The results are identical to those of the standard method. The agreement in results of the two methods clearly indicates that the continuum in the interacting region ($`r<r_0`$) is properly taken into account in the ABC calculation.

## 2 Application to nuclear breakup reactions of 11Be

The solution of the two-body problem in Sec. 1 was trivial. The ABC did not show any advantage over the standard techniques. However, quantum three-body scattering problems are much more difficult, and one can find usefulness of the ABC.

Let us consider a reaction of a projectile, composed of core (C) plus neutron (n), on a target nucleus (T). Denoting the projectile-target relative coordinates by $`𝐑`$ and the neutron-core relative coordinates by $`𝐫`$, the Hamiltonian of this three-body system is expressed as

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }_𝐑^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_𝐫^2+V_{nC}(𝐫)+V_{nT}(𝐫_{nT})+V_{CT}(𝐑_{CT})$$
(6)
where $`\mu `$ and $`m`$ are the reduced masses of projectile-target relative motion and neutron-core relative motion, respectively. $`V_{nC}`$, $`V_{nT}`$, $`V_{CT}`$ are the interaction potentials of constituent particles.

The wave function may be expressed as a sum of the Coulomb wave in the incident channel and the scattered wave.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(+)}(𝐑,𝐫)=\psi ^{(+)}(𝐑)\varphi _0(𝐫)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{scat}}(𝐑,𝐫)$$
(7)
where $`\varphi _0(𝐫)`$ is the ground state of the projectile, described as a n-C bound state. The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{scat}}`$ satisfies the following inhomogeneous equation in the ABC,

$`\left\{E+e_0+iϵ_{nC}(r)+iϵ_{PT}(R)H\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{scat}}(𝐑,𝐫)`$
$`=\left\{V_{nT}(𝐫_{nT})+V_{CT}(𝐑_{CT})V_C\right\}\psi ^{(+)}(𝐑)\varphi _0(𝐫),`$ (8)
where $`V_C`$ is the Coulomb distorting potential and $`e_0`$ is the ground-state energy of the projectile. One should note that the right hand side $`\left\{V_{nT}+V_{CT}V_C\right\}\psi ^{(+)}(𝐑)\varphi _0(𝐫)`$ is a localized function in space, being analogous to the fact that right hand side of Eq. (5) is localized. Numerical details can be found in our recent paper. We have studied a deuteron breakup reaction and compared our results with those of the continuum discretized coupled channel (CDCC) calculation. The results agree with those of CDCC. In this paper, we report the application to a breakup reaction of 11Be.

The 10Be-n potential is taken as Woods-Saxon shape whose depth is set so as to produce the $`2s`$ orbital binding energy. We adopt the optical potential for 10Be-12C and the Becchetti-Greenlees potential for $`n^{12}`$C. The radial region up to 30 fm and 50 fm are used for $`R`$ and $`r`$, respectively. The $`iϵ_{nC}(r)`$ and $`iϵ_{PT}(R)`$ is non-zero in the region 20 fm $`<R<`$ 30 fm and 25 fm $`<r<`$ 50 fm. The n-10Be relative angular momenta are included up to $`l=3`$.

In Fig. 3, we show the elastic breakup cross sections of 11Be-12C reaction. The filled circles are the result of the ABC calculation and the open circles for the eikonal calculation. The elastic breakup cross section is substantially larger than that in the eikonal approximation at lower incident energy. The failure of the eikonal approximation is apparent at the incident energy below 50 MeV/A. There, the quantum-mechanical treatment is required for the three-body continuum.

## 3 Giant dipole resonances in superdeformed 14Be

In studies of giant resonances, effects of the continuum has been treated in the random-phase approximation (RPA) with Green’s function in the coordinate space. However, it is very difficult to directly apply the method to deformed nuclei because construction of the Green’s function becomes a difficult task for the multi-dimensional space. We have shown that the ABC method is very useful to treat the electronic continuum in deformed systems, such as molecules and clusters. We have also investigated the applicability of the ABC in studies of nuclear response calculations. In this section, we discuss a giant dipole resonance (GDR) in 14Be.

We use the ABC in the time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) calculations on a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate grid. In the real-time calculations, the linear response is computed by applying the isovector-dipole field to the Hartree-Fock (HF) ground state of 14Be,

$$𝐕_{\mathrm{ext}}(t)=k𝐫\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(1\tau _z\right)e\frac{Ze}{A}\right\}\delta (t),$$
(9)
where $`k`$ should be small enough to validate the linear response approximation. We calculate the expectation values of the $`E1`$ operator as a function of time, and then Fourier transforming to get the energy response . Since all frequencies are contained in the initial perturbation, the entire energy response can be calculated with a single time evolution.

We use the Skyrme energy functional of EV8 with the SIII parameter set. For the time evolution of the TDHF state, we follow the standard prescription. The model space is a sphere whose radius is 22 fm. The $`iϵ(r)`$ is zero in a region of $`r<10`$ fm, while it is non-zero at $`r>10`$ fm. The TDHF single-particle wave functions are discretized on a rectangular mesh in a 3D real space. Now, we can perform the TDHF simulation together with the vanishing boundary condition at $`r=22`$ fm. Time evolution is carried out up to $`T=10\mathrm{}`$/MeV.

The density distribution of the 14Be ground state is calculated to have a prolate superdeformed shape. Therefore, we expect the deformation splitting of the GDR peak. The $`E1`$ oscillator strengths of 14Be are shown in Fig. 3. Here, we use a smoothing parameter of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ MeV. The calculation predicts the large deformation splitting of about 10 MeV. However, the width of each peak is so large that the double-peak structure is almost smeared out in the total strength (thick line). This is different from our results of stable nuclei. We have observed prominent two-peak structure in those nuclei. The significant damping width may be a peculiar nature of drip-line nuclei.

## 4 Summary

The idea of absorbing boundary condition is presented. The continuum is properly treated in the interacting region, although the equations can be solved with the vanishing boundary condition. Since we do not need to construct the outgoing boundary wave functions, the ABC greatly facilitates the scattering problems for cases of the continuum in many degrees of freedom. We apply the ABC to the quantum reaction studies of elastic breakup of 11Be and the linear response calculation for the isovector GDR of superdeformed 14Be.

This work is supported by the Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 14740146) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.