text:
# 𝐻₀ Measurement from VLT Deep I–band Surface Brightness Fluctuations in NGC 564 and NGC 7619 Based on observations performed at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile ESO program No 66.A-0361

## 1 Introduction

Future Cosmic Microwave Background missions like MAP (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/) and Planck (http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck/) promise to obtain definitive measurements for cosmological parameters, achieving an accuracy around $`1\%`$. Over the last few years, however, the accuracy of such measurements has improved considerably, as many efforts have been carried out to obtain accurate measurements for the Hubble constant $`H_0`$, to reduce the uncertainty in its determination from 50$`\%`$ to approximately $`10\%`$. The most important among these efforts has been the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale (HSTKP; Freedman et al. 2001 and references therein) where the value of $`H_0`$ was measured to be $`H_0=72\pm 8`$ km s-1, based on a coherent Cepheid calibration of four of the most dependable and precise methods for galaxy distance measurements: Tully–Fisher, Fundamental Plane, SNIa and Surface Brightness Fluctuations. Other important contributions were provided, among others, by Ajhar et al. (2001); Blakeslee et al. (2001); Jensen et al. (2001); Gibson & Stetson (2001); Liu & Graham (2001); Tonry et al. (2000); Suntzeff et al. (1999); Jha et al. (1999); Giovanelli et al. (1997); Hjorth & Tanvir (1997).

$`H_0`$ measurements are affected not only by uncertainties in the derivation of the cosmological distance ladder, but also by the presence of local deviations from the smooth Hubble flow. The average peculiar velocity for galaxies and clusters of galaxies are of the order of 100 - 300 km s-1 (Davis et al. 1997; Giovanelli et al. 1998; Dale et al. 1999). Therefore to minimise their effect on the determination of $`H_0`$, it is preferable to select target objects beyond 4000 km s-1, where the peculiar motions amount to no more than $`10\%15\%`$ of the total velocity. This requirement has led to a number of projects trying to build samples of redshift independent distance estimates restricted to galaxies located beyond 4000 - 5000 km s-1 (Dale et al. 1999; Hudson et al. 2001; Colless et al. 2001; Jensen et al. 2001).

Among the methods used to obtain accurate galaxy distance estimates, Surface Brightness Fluctuations (SBF) are, at present, one of the most accurate and better physically understood methods available. The method was introduced by Tonry & Schneider 1988 (a recent review has been given by Blakeslee et al. 1999a) and is based on the very simple fact that the Poissonian distribution of unresolved stars in a galaxy produces fluctuations in each pixel of the galaxy image. The variance of these fluctuations is inversely proportional to the square of the galaxy distance. The SBF amplitude is defined to be precisely this variance, normalised to the mean flux of the galaxy in each pixel Tonry & Schneider (1988).

The absolute magnitude of the fluctuation is not a constant, but depends on the age and metallicity of the stellar population within the galaxy. Tonry et al. (1997) and Tonry et al. (2001) have quantified these dependencies using an extensive sample of I and V band observations, which are used to empirically calibrate the dependence of the I – band fluctuation magnitude on (V – I) colour. The absolute calibration is then obtained using a set of 5 galaxies with independent Cepheid distances.

As part of the HSTKP, Ferrarese et al. (2000a) have obtained their own calibration based on accurate Cepheid distances to six spiral galaxies with SBF measurements within 1200 km s-1. The Cepheid distances were part of a larger dataset used by HSTKP. The two calibrations are consistent within the errors.

Alternatively, theoretical calibrations have been obtained starting from synthesis models of the galaxy stellar population (Ajhar et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2000; Blakeslee et al. 2001). From Ajhar et al. (2001) the zero points of these calibrations provide an average value of the Hubble constant ($`H_0=77\pm 7`$ km s-1/Mpc) that is in good agreement with the observational results.

With HST and 8-m class telescopes SBF measurements have been extended beyond the local universe ($`cz<4000`$ km s-1). While the survey by Tonry et al. (2001) was limited to galaxies with $`cz<4000`$ km s-1, using HST observations it has been possible to determine distances for more distant galaxies (Thomsen et al. 1997; Lauer et al. 1998; Pahre et al. 1999; Jensen et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2001; Ajhar et al. 2001), up to approximately $`10,000`$ km s-1.

In this paper we extend our ground-based I-band SBF measurements to beyond $`5000`$ km s-1. Advantages and disadvantages of I- versus K-band ground based SBF observations were discussed using theoretical simulations in Mei et al. (2001). Deep I–band SBF observations were obtained for two galaxies : NGC 564, in Abell 194, at $`cz5800`$ km s-1, and NGC 7619 in the Pegasus cluster at $`cz3700`$ km s-1. Both Abell 194 and Pegasus are fiducial clusters in the derivation of observational templates for the Tully–Fisher (TF) and Fundamental Plane (FP) relations (see for example Mould et al. 1991, 1993; Jorgensen et al. 1996; Giovanelli et al. 1998; Scodeggio et al. 1998; Dale et al. 1999; Hudson et al. 2001), while Abell 194 is also part of the sample of clusters studied by Lauer & Postman (1992, 1994). Although distance estimates obtained with the TF and FP relations are comparatively less accurate than those obtained with the SBF method, they are relatively easier to obtain, even for objects located at larger distances than those sampled so far by SBF observations. Therefore the most complete and farthest reaching mappings of the local universe currently make use of TF- and FP-based distances, and they will likely do so in the near future. One of the main motivations behind the selection of targets for this work was the possibility of providing a bridge between SBF distance estimates and TF or FP results, as this is the most direct way to improve the accuracy of the calibration for the latter relations, and consequently that of all distance estimates based on these relations. This effort extends to larger distances the matching of SBF and FP distance scales recently presented by Blakeslee et al. (2002).

In $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 2 we describe our observations, and the SBF analysis. The $`H_0`$ measurements and a summary of this analysis are presented in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3 and 4.

## 2 Surface Brightness Fluctuation analysis

### 2.1 Observations

NGC 564 and NGC 7619 were observed in service mode at the Very Large Telescope unit UT1 (Antu) at the European Southern Observatory in Paranal, Chile, using the FORS1 (FOcal Reducer and low dispersion Spectrograph) imaging camera with a 2048 x 2048 pixel Tektronix CCD. The properties of these galaxies are summarised in Table 1.

The FORS1 high gain, standard resolution mode was used, with a pixel scale 0.2$`\mathrm{}`$/pixel and field of view 6.8$`\mathrm{}`$ x 6.8$`\mathrm{}`$. The detector had four ports with different read out noise and gain. We show the gains for the different ports in Table 2. The dark current is negligible ($`<2e^{}`$/pixel/hour at nominal operating temperature).

I–band and V–band data were obtained, to have an accurate V–I colour to input into the Tonry et al. (2000) calibration of I–band SBF fluctuations. For NGC 564, the nights of observation were on 5 October, 3 November, 2, 19, 22 December 2000, and 1, 18 and 21 January 2001 for the I–band and on 19 August 2001 for the V–band. The raw data were 293 galaxy exposures each of $``$ 65 seconds in the I–band and 5 galaxy exposures each of 100 seconds in the V–band. The total observation time was 5.3 hrs in the I–band and 500 sec in the V–band. For NGC 7619, the nights of observation were on 5 October 2000 for the I–band and the 3 November 2000 for the V–band. The raw data were 55 galaxy exposures each of $``$ 150 seconds, and 4 exposures of 60 seconds in the I–band, and 5 galaxy exposures each of 100 seconds in the V–band. The total observation time was 2.4 hrs in the I–band and 500 sec in the V–band. A summary of observations is in Table 3.

The seeing was $`0.8\mathrm{}`$ FWHM on the nights of observations. Data observed on different nights were calibrated to one photometric night observations for each galaxy in each band, by the use of reference stars in the images. In the case of NGC 7619, some of the images in I–band were not photometric and the final added image has been calibrated on a combination of photometric images.

All observations were obtained in VLT Service Mode. Bias corrected, flat-fielded, and trimmed frames were delivered by ESO and used by us without further processing. Further details about pipeline processed FORS science products and calibration can be found on the ESO Quality Control Web pages (http://www.eso.org/qc/).

The photometric zero-point and the extinction coefficient were extracted from observations of Landolt standards Landolt (1992) and confirmed using the historical data available from the ESO Quality Control Web pages. The I–band filter in the FORS1 camera is a Bessel I filter, but all measurements were transformed into Kron-Cousins I–band magnitudes. In this magnitude scale, for NGC 564 the photometric zero-point is $`m_1=26.59\pm 0.02`$ mag ($`m_1`$ is the zero magnitude which corresponds to a flux of 1 ADUs-1) and the extinction coefficient $`0.06\pm 0.01`$ mag. The colour term correction in (V–I) is –0.05 $`\pm `$ 0.03 mag. For NGC 7619, $`m_1=26.60\pm 0.02`$ mag and the extinction coefficient $`0.07\pm 0.01`$ mag.

In the V–band, the photometric zero-point was $`m_1=27.53\pm 0.02`$ mag for NGC 564 and $`m_1=27.45\pm 0.02`$ for NGC 7619, and the extinction coefficient was $`0.11\pm 0.05`$ mag for NGC 564 and $`0.12\pm 0.05`$ for NGC 7619. The colour term correction in (V–I) is 0.03 $`\pm `$ 0.03 mag.

Bad pixels and cosmic rays were eliminated by a sigma clipping algorithm while combining the images using the IRAF 111The Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories task IMCOMBINE. The images have been scaled in exposure time and median value. Sub-pixel registration was not used to avoid the introducing correlated noise between the pixels in the images.

### 2.2 SBF Measurements

The data were analysed with a standard two–step SBF extraction technique, as detailed, for example, by Tonry & Schneider 1988. Firstly, a smooth galaxy profile was subtracted from the image. The smoothed image was derived by fitting galaxy isophotes to the original image with the IRAF task ISOPHOTE, once visible external sources were subtracted. To account for residual errors that can be due to the galaxy profile subtraction, the resulting image was then smoothed on a scale ten times the width of the PSF, once additional point sources were identified and subtracted using the software tool Sextractor Bertin & Arnouts (1996), and subtracted from the original image.

Secondly, a new galaxy model was fit and subtracted to this difference image. In such way, the sky is also subtracted. In order to make the SBF fluctuations constant across the image, the difference image was finally divided by the square root of the new galaxy model.

This final image was then divided into different annuli, in each of which the power spectrum of the image fluctuations was calculated. The resulting power spectrum was azimuthally averaged, and normalised to the number of non-zero points in the annulus. The external point sources brighter than a magnitude $`m_{cut}`$ where the completeness function of each annulus was greater than 50$`\%`$ were masked out.

Two components contribute to the total image power spectrum: the constant power spectrum due to the white noise, $`P_1`$, and the power spectrum of the fluctuations and point sources that are both convolved by the PSF in the spatial domain. In the Fourier domain these latter terms are given by a constant, $`P_0`$, multiplied by the power spectrum of the PSF:

$$E_{gal}=P_0E_{PSF}+P_1.$$
(1)
To compute $`P_0`$ and $`P_1`$, a robust linear least squares fit was made by minimising absolute deviation (Numerical Recipes, Press et al. 1992). As part of the fit, to calculate $`E_{PSF}`$ a point spread function (PSF) profile was determined from the bright stars in the image and normalised to 1 ADUs-1, following Tonry and Schneider (1988). This means that $`P_0`$ is directly the power that we wish to measure.

Low wave number ($`k`$) points were excluded from the fit (pixel scale greater than 20), because they are contaminated by the galaxy subtraction and subsequent smoothing.

As stated above, $`P_0`$ contains contributions from both SBF and unresolved point sources. The point source contribution $`P_{es}`$ was estimated from the equations:

$$P_{es}=\sigma _{gc}^2+\sigma _{bg}^2$$
(2)
following, i.e., Blakeslee & Tonry (1995); $`\sigma _{gc}^2`$ is the contribution to the fluctuations given by globular clusters, $`\sigma _{bg}^2`$ is the contribution by background galaxies. We adopted the following luminosity function for the globular clusters:

$$N_{gc}(m)=\frac{N_{ogc}}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }e^{\frac{(mm_{peak}^{gc})^2}{2\sigma ^2}}$$
(3)
We have assumed as initial $`M_{peakI}^{gc}8.5`$ and $`\sigma =1.35`$ Ferrarese et al. 2000b  with standard globular cluster colours Gebhardt & Kissler-Patig (2000). For NGC 564, we have fitted to our detected globular cluster number counts an initial maximum likelihood $`m_{peakI}^{gc}=26`$ and have assumed an initial galaxy distance modulus 34.4, from Kelson et al. (2000) and references therein. For NGC 7619, we have fitted to our detected globular cluster number counts an initial maximum likelihood $`m_{peakI}^{gc}=25`$ and have assumed an initial galaxy distance modulus 33.5, from Dale et al. (1999). These initial values were iterated in the process of the SBF distance modulus calculation. The error on the external source contribution includes the uncertainties due to this iteration process. This last error has been calculated as the standard deviation of the estimation of the external source contribution for all the iterations, till stabilisation.

For the background galaxies, a power-law luminosity function was used:

$$N_{bg}(m)=N_{obg}10^{\gamma m}$$
(4)
with $`\gamma =0.27`$ Smail et al. (1995). We kept as fixed parameters in the fit $`\sigma `$, $`\gamma `$, and iterated on $`m_{peak}^{gc}`$, as a function of the galaxy distance, while $`N_{ogc}`$ and $`N_{obg}`$ were estimated by fitting the composite luminosity function to the external sources extracted from the image in the range used for SBF measurements in each galaxy. Identified foreground stars were not included in the fit. From the estimated $`N_{ogc}`$ and $`N_{obg}`$ per pixel, $`P_{es}`$ was calculated as the sum of :

$`\sigma _{gc}^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_{ogc}10^{0.8[m_1m_{peak}^{gc}+0.4\sigma ^2ln(10)]}`$
$`erfc[{\displaystyle \frac{m_{cut}m_{peak}^{gc}+0.8\sigma ^2ln(10)}{\sqrt{2}\sigma }}]`$
and

$$\sigma _{bg}^2=\frac{N_{obg}}{(0.8\gamma )ln(10)}10^{0.8(m_1m_{cut})+\gamma (m_{cut})}.$$
(6)
Blakeslee & Tonry (1995), $`m_1`$ is the zero magnitude which corresponds to a flux of 1 ADUs-1. The $`P_{es}`$ were calculated over the luminosity function with this fitting procedure in each annulus, as in Sodemann & Thomsen (1995). To estimate $`m_{cut}`$ we have calculated the completeness function of each annulus, adding artificial point sources to the original, galaxy subtracted image.

In the calculation of $`P_{es}`$ the fact that $`m_{cut}`$ corresponds to a completeness function of $`50\%`$ has been taken in account, integrating the contribution on the source completeness function.

We show the respective external source luminosity functions of NGC 564 and NGC 7619 in Fig. 1 and Fig 2.

The SBF amplitude is given by:

$$\overline{m}_I=2.5log(P_0P_{es})+m_1k_{ext}sec(z)$$
(7)
where $`k_{ext}`$ is the extinction coefficient and $`z`$ the airmass for the observations. In the I–band, we measured $`k_{ext}=0.06\pm 0.01`$ and $`m_1=26.59\pm 0.02`$ for NGC 564, and $`k_{ext}=0.07\pm 0.01`$ and $`m_1=26.60\pm 0.02`$ for NGC 7619. The effective airmass for the nights that were used as photometric reference was $`sec(z)`$=1.2 for NGC 564 and $`sec(z)`$=1.38 for NGC 7619, as calculated with the IRAF task setairmass on all images from that night (3 November 2000) for NGC 564, and on the photometric images used as a reference for NGC 7619.

In the V–band, we measured $`k_{ext}=0.11\pm 0.01`$ for NGC 564 and $`k_{ext}=0.12\pm 0.01`$ for NGC 7619, and $`m_1=27.53\pm 0.02`$ for NGC 564 and $`m_1=27.45\pm 0.02`$ for NGC 7619. The effective airmass was $`sec(z)`$=1.2 for NGC 564 and $`sec(z)`$=1.24 for NGC 7619.

### 2.3 Results on NGC 564

The power spectrum fitting of NGC 564 is shown in Fig. 3. The results for each annulus are listed in Table 4. The SBF magnitudes we calculated from Eq. 7. The errors on SBF magnitudes for each annulus are the standard deviations among different wavelength cuts (3 $``$ pixel scale $``$ 20). The errors due to external source residual contribution subtraction were added in quadrature to the fitting errors and to the errors due to the zero point magnitude and the $`k_{ext}`$.

The SBF magnitudes $`I_{o,k}`$ were then corrected for galactic absorption assuming $`E(BV)=0.038`$, $`A_I=0.074`$, and $`A_V=0.13`$, from Schlegel et al. (1998), and a $`k`$–correction $`k_I7z=0.12`$ for SBF was applied (Tonry et al. 1997; Liu et al. 2000), $`\overline{I}_{o,k}=\overline{m}_IA_Ik_I`$. The total $`A_I+k_I`$ was equal to 0.19 mag.

The galaxy colour in each annulus is shown in Table 4. The error on each colour measurement was $`0.03`$ mag. The colours that are shown in the table have been corrected for extinction. The adopted $`A_IA_V`$ correction amounts to 0.056 mag. For the calculation of the galaxy colours the $`k`$–correction is $`k_I=1z`$ and $`k_V=1.9z`$.

From the Tonry et al. (2000) calibration :

$$\overline{M}_I=(1.74\pm 0.08)+(4.5\pm 0.25)[(VI)_01.15].$$
(8)
we derive the $`\overline{M}_I`$ shown in Table 4. The error on each value of $`\overline{M}_I`$ is $`\sigma _{\overline{M}_I}=0.18`$. We did not add here the systematic uncertainty due to Cepheid calibration (Ferrarese et al. 2000a; Freedman et al. 2001)(see below).

From the calibration from Ferrarese et al. (2000a), revised to the Freedman et al. (2001) Cepheid distances (as from Ajhar et al. (2001)):

$$\overline{M}_I=(1.73\pm 0.09)+(4.5\pm 0.25)[(VI)_01.15].$$
(9)
we would have obtained a difference in SBF absolute magnitude of 0.01 mag and the same statistical errors.

A systematic uncertainty from the Cepheid calibration amounting to 0.16 mag has to be added to both calibration zero points.

In each annulus we derive an estimated distance modulus $`\overline{I}_{o,k}\overline{M}_I`$. A mean distance modulus was determined as the mean of the values in the considered annuli. The error is given by the standard deviation of those values, around the mean, divided by the square root of the number of considered values.

The final distance modulus is $`(\overline{I}_{o,k}\overline{M}_I)=34.39\pm 0.18`$ and the galaxy distance $`76\pm 6`$ Mpc. If we use the SBF calibration by Ferrarese et al. 2000a, we obtain : $`(\overline{I}_{o,k}\overline{M}_I)=34.38\pm 0.18`$ and the galaxy distance $`75\pm 6`$ Mpc.

To the statistical error has to be added a systematic uncertainty due to the Cepheid calibration that amounts to $`6`$ Mpc.

### 2.4 Results on NGC 7619

The power spectrum fitting of NGC 7619 is shown in Fig. 4. The results for each annulus are listed in Table 5. As for NGC 564, the errors on SBF magnitudes for each annulus are the standard deviations among different wavelength cuts. The errors due to external source residual contribution subtraction were added in quadrature to the fitting errors and to the errors due to the zero point magnitude and the $`k_{ext}`$.

The SBF magnitudes $`I_{o,k}`$ were then corrected for galactic absorption assuming $`E(BV)=0.079`$, $`A_I=0.153`$, and $`A_V=0.261`$, from Schlegel et al. (1998), and a $`k`$–correction $`k_I7z=0.08`$ was applied (Tonry et al. 1997; Liu et al. 2000), $`\overline{I}_{o,k}=\overline{m}_IA_Ik_I`$. The total $`A_I+k_I`$ was equal to 0.23 mag.

The galaxy colour in each annulus is shown in Table 5. The error on each measurement is equal to 0.03 mag. The colours that are shown in the table have been corrected for extinction. The adopted $`A_IA_V`$ correction amounts to 0.11 mag.

From the Tonry et al. (2000) calibration we derive the $`\overline{M}_I`$ shown in Table 5. The error on each value of $`\overline{M}_I`$ is $`\sigma _{\overline{M}_I}=0.18`$. As for NGC 564 with the Ferrarese et al. (2000a) calibration, we would have obtained a difference in SBF absolute magnitude of 0.01 mag and the same statistical errors. This value is compatible with Tonry et al. (2001) measurements ($`\overline{M}_I=33.62\pm 0.31`$).

Again, a systematic uncertainty from the Cepheid calibration amounting to 0.16 mag has to be added to both calibration zero points.

In each annulus we derive an estimated distance modulus $`\overline{I}_{o,k}\overline{M}_I`$. A mean distance modulus was determined as the mean of the values in the considered annuli. The error is given by the standard deviation of those values, around the mean, divided by the square root of the number of considered values.

The final distance modulus is $`(\overline{I}_{o,k}\overline{M}_I)=33.64\pm 0.16`$ and the galaxy distance $`54\pm 4`$ Mpc.

## 3 $`H_0`$ Measurement

The value for $`H_0`$ is derived from our distance measurements and the redshifts of the respective clusters of the galaxies. The cluster redshift and Tully-Fisher peculiar velocity were used.

For NGC 564 the recession velocity of the cluster A194 is $`cz_{CMB}=5253\pm 222`$km s-1 from Dale et al. (1999), and we derive the value of $`H_0`$ = 70 $`\pm `$ 7 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc, where the second error is the systematic uncertainty due to the Cepheid calibration. For NGC 7619, in the Pegasus cluster, the cluster redshift is 3635 $`\pm `$ 221 km s-1 from Giovanelli et al. 1998, and we derive $`H_0`$ = 68 $`\pm `$ 6 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc. When the Ferrarese et al. (2000a) calibration is used, we obtain the same values for $`H_0`$.

We have also measured the distance of IC 4296 from previous VLT measurements (Mei et al. 2000). From that measurement (49 $`\pm `$ 4 Mpc) and the redshift for IC 4296, and the flow corrected galaxy recession velocity $`cz=3341\pm `$ 552 km s-1 (Ferrarese et al. 2000b), $`H_0`$ = 68 $`\pm `$ 10 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc.

From our three galaxy sample, we obtain : $`H_0`$ = 68 $`\pm `$ 5 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc.

Our errors are comparable the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic Scale. We can then measure the Hubble constant from the Ferrarese et al. (2000a) SBF sample (Freedman et al. 2001 Table 10) and our VLT three galaxy sample, calibrated on the Ferrarese et al. (2000a) calibration.

The two samples (Ferrarese et al. and our sample calibrated with the Ferrarese et al. calibration, that gives us the same results then the Tonry et al. calibration) are shown in Table 6, where the statistical errors on $`H_0`$ are given. IC 4296 is present in both Ferrarese and our sample. From the two combined samples we obtain $`H_0`$ = 71 $`\pm `$ 4 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc. The first error is statistical, the second one is the systematic uncertainty due to the Cepheid calibration (Freedman et al. 2001). Our results are comparable with other I–band and K–band SBF measurements, and, increasing the I–band SBF sample beyond 3000 km s-1, we have reduced the statistical error on I–band SBF $`H_0`$ measurements from Freedman et al. 2001 from 5 to 4 km s-1/Mpc (their measurement is in fact: $`H_0`$ = 70 $`\pm `$ 5 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc).

If we combine only galaxies beyond 4000 km s-1 from the two samples, we obtain $`H_0`$ = 72 $`\pm `$ 6 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc).

There have been other two recent measurements of $`H_0`$ with I–band SBF, one from Tonry et al. 2001 with a sample of $``$ 300 ellipticals out to $``$ 3000 km s-1, and their cosmic flow reconstruction($`H_0`$ = 77 $`\pm `$ 4 $`\pm `$ 7 km s-1/Mpc), and another one from Blakeslee et al. 2001 from the comparison of part of the Tonry sample ($`160`$ ellipticals) with Fundamental Plane distances and IRAS density measurements ($`H_0`$ = 73 $`\pm `$ 4 $`\pm `$ 7 km s-1/Mpc).

With K–band SBF measurements by NICMOS with HST, Jensen et al. 2001 have obtained $`H_0`$ = 72 $`\pm `$ 2.3 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc, obtaining for the first time in $`H_0`$ measurements by SBF a statistical error comparable to the supernovae Type Ia one (2 km s-1/Mpc (Freedman et al. 2001)). Their sample includes a dozen of galaxies with distances beyond 4000 km s-1. Liu $`\&`$ Graham 2001 from Keck K–band SBF plus HST I–band measurements have measured $`H_0`$ = 71 $`\pm `$ 8 km s-1/Mpc.

All these measurements are compatible within the errors.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

We have measured the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ in NGC 564 at $`cz5800`$ km s-1 and in NGC 7619 at $`cz3700`$ km s-1 with deep I–band SBF distance measurements at the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT). We obtain $`H_0=70\pm 7\pm 6`$ km s-1/Mpc for NGC 564 and $`H_0=68\pm 6\pm 6`$ for NGC 7619. The actual SBF sample used for the measurement of $`H_0`$ in the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale (Freedman et al. 2001) amounts to six galaxies.

When we combine the measurements from this work with our previous VLT I–band SBF distance measurement in IC 4296 (Mei et al. 2000), we obtain : $`H_0`$ = 68 $`\pm `$ 5 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc. When we add the Freedman et al. (2001) SBF sample and calibrate our sample with the Ferrarese et al. (2000a) calibration, we obtain $`H_0=71\pm 4\pm 6`$ km s-1/Mpc. If we combine only galaxies beyond 4000 km s-1 from the two samples, we obtain $`H_0`$ = 72 $`\pm `$ 6 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc).

Our results are comparable with other I–band and K–band SBF measurements. More importantly we have increased the number of galaxies in the I–band sample with redshifts larger than 3000 km s-1, and thereby reduced the statistical error on I–band SBF $`H_0`$ measurements from the Freedman et al. (2001) value of 5 km s-1/Mpc to 4 km s-1/Mpc (their measurement is in fact: $`H_0`$ = 70 $`\pm `$ 5 $`\pm `$ 6 km s-1/Mpc).

Few galaxies beyond the Fornax cluster have I–band SBF measurements and only five (included NGC 564 from this paper) have distances beyond 4000 km s-1. This lack of distant galaxies is responsible for the fact that the statistical error on $`H_0`$ obtained with SBF measurements is still comparable to the systematic uncertainty due to the Cepheid calibration, which is not the case for SNIa and TF methods (with a statistical error of, respectively, 2 km s-1/Mpc and 3 km s-1/Mpc (Freedman et al. 2001)) SBF being one of the most precise distance indicators, it is important to further reduce the statistical uncertainties. To achieve this, additional SBF measurements beyond 4000 km s-1 are needed.

###### Acknowledgements.

S. Mei acknowledges support from the European Space Agency External Fellowship programme. We thank our referee, John Blakeslee for his comments useful for the improvement of this paper.


format: text

text:
# References

Chaotic inflation with a quadratic potential in all dimensions

Forough Nasseri111Email: nasseri@fastmail.fm

Department of Physics, Neishabour University, P.O.Box 769, Neishabour, Iran

Khayyam Planetarium, P.O.Box 769, Neishabour, Iran

()

## Abstract

We study chaotic inflation with a quadratic potential in all dimensions. The slow-roll parameters, the spectral indices of scalar and tensor perturbations and also their running have been calculated in all dimensions.

Following the advent of string theory and its implication that space may have more than the usual three dimensions, we here study chaotic inflation with a quadratic potential, $`V(\phi )=m^2\phi ^2/2`$, in all dimensions.

Take the metric in constant $`(D+1)`$-dimensional spacetime in the following form (we use natural units or high-energy physics units in which the fundamental constants are $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$, $`G=\mathrm{}_{Pl}^2=1/m_{Pl}^2`$)

$$ds^2=N^2(t)dt^2+a^2(t)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2,$$
(1)
where $`N(t)`$ denotes the lapse function and $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2`$ is the line element for a $`D`$-manifold of constant curvature $`k=+1,0,1`$, corresponding to the closed, flat and hyperbolic spacelike sections, respectively. The Ricci scalar is given by

$$R=\frac{D}{N^2}\left\{\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}+(D1)\left[\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{N^2k}{a^2}\right]\frac{2\dot{a}\dot{N}}{aN}\right\}.$$
(2)
The Einstein-Hilbert action for the pure gravity is given by

$$S_G=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{(D+1)}}d^{(D+1)}x\sqrt{g}R,$$
(3)
and the action for a perfect fluid may be expressed by

$$S_M=d^{(D+1)}x\sqrt{g}\rho .$$
(4)
In Eq.(3), the gravitational coupling constant in $`(D+1)`$-dimensional spacetime, $`\kappa _{(D+1)}`$, is related to the $`(D+1)`$-dimensional gravitational constant $`G_{(D+1)}`$ by

$$\kappa _{(D+1)}=(D1)S^{[D]}G_{(D+1)},$$
(5)
where

$$S^{[D]}=\frac{2\pi ^{D/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}\right)},$$
(6)
where $`S^{[D]}`$ is the surface area of the unit sphere in $`D`$-dimensional spaces. In the case $`(3+1)`$, $`(4+1)`$ and $`(5+1)`$-dimensional spacetime we have $`\kappa _{(3+1)}=8\pi G_{(3+1)}`$ (i.e. $`\kappa =8\pi G`$), $`\kappa _{(4+1)}=6\pi ^2G_{(4+1)}`$ and $`\kappa _{(5+1)}=\frac{32\pi ^2}{3}G_{(5+1)}`$, respectively. Using (5) and (6) we have (See Appendix)

$$\kappa _{(D+1)}=\frac{2(D1)\pi ^{D/2}G_{(D+1)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}\right)}.$$
(7)
Using (3) and (4), we obtain the following Lagrangian

$$L:=\frac{a^D}{2\kappa _{(D+1)}}\frac{D(D1)}{N}\left[\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2\frac{N^2k}{a^2}\right]\rho Na^D.$$
(8)
Varying the above Lagrangian with respect to $`N`$ and $`a`$, we find the following equations of motion in the gauge $`N=1`$, respectively

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _{(D+1)}\rho }{D(D1)}},`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}\right]\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{(D+1)}p}{D1}}=0.`$ (10)
Using (9) and (10), one gets the continuity equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\rho a^D\right)+p\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^D\right)=0.$$
(11)
Inserting $`k=0`$ for a flat universe and the energy density and the pressure of a homogeneous inflaton field

$`\rho `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\phi }^2+V(\phi ),`$ (12)
$`p`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\phi }^2V(\phi ),`$ (13)
in Eqs.(9) and (11), we are led to

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _{(D+1)}}{D(D1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\phi }^2+V(\phi )\right),`$ (14)
$`\ddot{\phi }+DH\dot{\phi }=V^{}(\phi ),`$ (15)
where $`H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$. The slow-roll conditions in $`D`$-dimensional spaces read

$$\dot{\phi }^2V(\phi ),\ddot{\phi }DH\dot{\phi },\dot{H}H^2.$$
(16)
Using these conditions, Eqs.(14) and (15) can be rewritten

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _{(D+1)}V(\phi )}{D(D1)}},`$ (17)
$`DH\dot{\phi }V^{}(\phi ).`$ (18)
During inflation, $`H`$ is slowly varying in the sence that its change per Hubble time, $`ϵ\dot{H}/H^2`$ is less than one. The slow-roll condition $`\eta 1`$ is actually a consequence of the condition $`ϵ1`$ plus the slow-roll approximation $`DH\dot{\phi }V^{}(\phi )`$. Indeed, differentiating (18) one finds

$$\frac{\ddot{\phi }}{H\dot{\phi }}=ϵ\eta ,$$
(19)
where the slow-roll parameters in any constant space dimension are defined by

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(D1)}{4\kappa _{(D+1)}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2,`$ (20)
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{DH^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(D1)}{2\kappa _{(D+1)}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}\right).`$ (21)
The number of e-foldings between $`t_i`$ and $`t_f`$ is given by

$$𝒩=_{t_i}^{t_f}H(t)𝑑t=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_f}{a_i}\right)\frac{2\kappa _{(D+1)}}{(D1)}_{\varphi _i}^{\varphi _f}\frac{V}{V^{}}𝑑\phi .$$
(22)
The amplitudes of scalar and tensor perturbations generated in inflation can be expressed by

$`A_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{2\pi }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{\dot{\phi }}}\right)^2,`$ (23)
$`A_T^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{(D+1})}{(D1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{2\pi }}\right)^2.`$ (24)
These amplitudes are equal to $`\frac{25}{4}`$ times the amplitudes as given in Ref.. The amplitudes of scalar and tensor perturbations generated in inflation can be determined by substituting (17) and (18) into (23) and (24)222It is worth mentioning that the authors of Refs. have studied chaotic inflation in higher dimensions and also in a model universe with time variable space dimensions by taking $`\kappa =8\pi G`$ for all dimensions. Our results above improve the results given in Refs. because we here consider the gravitational coupling constant in all dimensions as a function of spatial dimensions, as given in Eq.(7).

$`A_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _{(D+1)}^3V^3}{D(D1)^3\pi ^2V^2}},`$ (25)
$`A_T^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{(D+1)}^2V}{2\pi ^2D(D1)^2}}.`$ (26)
These expressions are evaluated at the horizon crossing time when $`k=aH`$. Since the value of Hubble constant does not change too much during inflationary epoch, we can obtain $`dk=Hda`$ and $`d\mathrm{ln}k=Hdt=da/a`$. Using the slow-roll condition in $`(D+1)`$-dimensional spacetime

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{V^{}}{DH^2}\frac{d}{d\phi },$$
(27)
and also a lengthy but straightforward calculation by using (17), (18), (20), (21) and (23)-(27) we find

$`n_S1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}A_S^2}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}=6ϵ+2\eta ,`$ (28)
$`n_T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}A_T^2}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}=2ϵ,`$ (29)
where $`n_S`$ and $`n_T`$ are the spectral indices of scalar and tensor perturbations, respectively. If $`n_S`$ and $`n_T`$ are expressed as a function of e-folding $`𝒩`$, one can use the fact that $`\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{d}{d𝒩}`$ to obtain the desired derivatives even more easily. To calculate the running of the scalar and tensor spectral indices in all dimensions, we use Eqs.(20),(21) and (27). Therefore we have in all dimensions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ\eta +4ϵ^2,`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ\eta \xi ,`$ (31)
where the third slow-roll parameter is defined by333This expression for $`\xi `$ in all dimensions improve Eq.(56) of Ref. in which $`\kappa =8\pi G`$ has been considered for all dimensions.

$$\xi \frac{(D1)^2}{4\kappa _{(D+1)}^2}\left(\frac{V^{}V^{\prime \prime \prime }}{V^2}\right).$$
(32)
Using the above equations, running of the spectral indices of scalar and tensor perturbations in higher dimensions have these explicit expressions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_S}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ $`=`$ $`16ϵ\eta 24ϵ^22\xi ,`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_T}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ\eta 8ϵ^2.`$ (34)
For the chaotic inflation with a quadratic potential, $`m^2\phi ^2/2`$, the solution of Eqs.(17) and (18) are given by

$`\phi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _im\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{D\kappa _{(D+1)}}}}t,`$ (35)
$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_i\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{(D+1)}}{2(D1)}}\left[\phi _i^2\phi ^2(t)\right]\right).`$ (36)
Using the slow-roll parameters

$$ϵ=\eta =\frac{(D1)}{\kappa _{(D+1)}\phi ^2},$$
(37)
and the failure of the slow-roll conditions

$$\mathrm{max}\{ϵ_f;|\eta _f|\}1,$$
(38)
one concludes that

$$\phi _f=\sqrt{\frac{(D1)}{\kappa _{(D+1)}}}.$$
(39)
Substituting this value of $`\phi _f`$ into (22), one gets

$$𝒩=\frac{\kappa _{(D+1)}}{2(D1)}\phi _i^2\frac{1}{2}.$$
(40)
One can also obtain the spectral indices of scalar and tensor perturbations ans their running in ($`D+1`$)-spacetime dimension

$`n_s1`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{4(D1)}{\kappa _{(D+1)}\phi ^2}},`$ (41)
$`n_T`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{2(D1)}{\kappa _{(D+1)}\phi ^2}},`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_S}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ $`=`$ $`8ϵ^2={\displaystyle \frac{8(D1)^2}{\kappa _{(D+1)}^2\phi ^4}},`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_T}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ^2={\displaystyle \frac{4(D1)^2}{\kappa _{(D+1)}^2\phi ^4}}.`$ (44)
Appendix: Gravitational coupling constant in higher dimensions

In $`(3+1)`$-dimensional spacetime, the gravitational coupling constant is given by $`\kappa =8\pi G`$. Looking for the roots of the factor of $`8\pi `$ in $`\kappa `$ we across the relation

$$R_{00}=(D2)_D^2\varphi ,$$
(45)
where $`_D`$ is the $``$ operator in $`D`$-dimensional space. In $`(3+1)`$-dimensional spacetime, the Poisson equation is given by

$$^2\varphi =4\pi G\rho .$$
(46)
Applying Gauss law for a $`D`$-dimensional volume, we find the Poisson equation for arbitrary fixed dimension

$$_D^2\varphi =S^{[D]}G_{(D+1)}\rho ,$$
(47)
where $`S^{[D]}`$ is the surface area of a unit sphere in $`D`$-dimensional spaces, see Eq.(6). On the other hand we get

$$R_{00}=\left(\frac{D2}{D1}\right)\kappa _{(D+1)}\rho .$$
(48)
Using (6), (45), (47) and (48), we are led to the gravitational coupling constant in $`(D+1)`$-dimensional spacetime as given in (5) and (7).

Acknowledgments: F.N. thanks Hurieh Husseinian and A.A.Nasseri for noble helps and also thanks Amir and Shahrokh for truthful helps.


text:
# Motions of Isolated G-Band Bright Points in the Solar Photosphere

## 1 Introduction

Observations of the Sun with high spatial resolution show network bright points (Muller 1983, 1985, 1994; Muller & Keil 1983; Muller & Roudier 1984, 1992) and “filigree” (Dunn & Zirker 1973; Mehltretter 1974; Berger et al 1995), which are chains of bright features located within the intergranular lanes. The bright points and filigree are seen in the wings of strong spectral lines such as H$`\alpha `$ and Ca II H & K, in lines formed in the photosphere, and even at continuum wavelengths (with reduced contrast). The widths of these structures is 100 to 200 km, at the limit of resolution of ground-based solar telescopes. In the following we collectively refer to these bright structures as bright points (BPs). The BPs are associated with regions of strong magnetic field (Chapman & Sheeley 1968; Title, Tarbell & Topka 1987; Simon et al 1988; Title et al 1989, 1992; Keller 1992) and correspond to magnetic flux tubes of kilogauss field strength that stand nearly vertically in the solar atmosphere (Stenflo 1973; Stenflo & Harvey 1985; Sánchez Almeida & Martínez Pillet 1994; see review by Solanki 1993).

The dynamical behavior of BPs has been studied by a number of authors. Muller (1983) found that facular points on the quiet sun are predominantly located in patches at the periphery of supergranule cells, indicating that the magnetic elements are advected by the supergranular flow. The BPs always first appear in the dark spaces at the junction of several granules, never inside a granule nor in the space between only two granules. As the granulation pattern evolves, the BPs remain in the intergranular spaces throughout their lifetime, but not necessarily at the junction of several granules like at the time of their first appearance. New BPs have a tendency to appear adjacent to existing points, and 15 % of the BPs seem to split into two points which move apart until a separation of 1 to 1.5″ is reached.

Muller et al (1994) measured velocities of 29 isolated BPs and found a mean speed of 1.33 km s-1. Strous (1994) studied BPs in a growing active region. Using line-center images taken in Fe I (5576 Å), he found velocities between 0.26 km s-1 and 0.62 km s-1. Berger & Title (1996) measured velocities of 1 to 5 km s-1 for G-band (4305 Å) BPs in the “moat” around a sunspot; they showed that the motions are constrained to the intergranular lanes and are primarily driven by the evolution of the granulation pattern. They found that the BPs continually split up and merge, with a mean time between splitting events of few hundred seconds. Löfdahl et al (1998) and Berger et al (1998) analyzed G-band and continuum images obtained at the Swedish Vacuum Solar Telescope (SVST) on La Palma and found rapid splitting and merging of BPs in an enhanced network region. Van Ballegooijen et al (1998) used a “cork tracking” method to measure the proper motions of G-band BPs and found that BPs appear to be passively advected by the granulation flow. The filigree are known to be associated with abnormal granulation patterns (Dunn & Zirker 1973), and the granules near network BPs are smaller and more numerous than near a normal intergranular space (Muller, Hulot & Roudier 1989), suggesting that the magnetic field has some effect on the granulation flow.

Little is known about the small-scale dynamics of flows in intergranular lanes and the interaction of magnetic elements with such flows. Theoretical models (e.g., Stein & Nordlund 2000; Emonet & Cattaneo 2001) predict that vorticity is concentrated in the lanes and that magnetic elements exhibit rapid rotational motions. At present, there is no direct observational evidence for vorticity in intergranular lanes. More detailed measurements of vorticity are needed for testing magneto-convection models, and as input for models of flux-tube waves that heat the upper solar atmosphere (Hasan et al 2002).

In this paper we present measurements of BP proper motions within the intergranular lanes. In particular, we look for evidence of vortical motions. Tracking BPs is a difficult task. Long sequences of images with very good seeing (or corrections of seeing) are needed. Image jitter due to residual atmospheric effects needs to be reduced as much as possible. The measurements of BP positions need to be made with respect to some frame of reference. The solar granulation is used as a reference, and the motion of this reference frame is determined by correlation tracking on the granulation pattern. We also tested measuring the BPs with respect to the average position of the bright points in each field, but found that the result is nearly identical to the result from correlation tracking. BPs vary widely in lifetime and contrast, so it is very difficult to automate the process of tracking them. In this paper, we use manual selection of BPs followed by fitting the peaks.

## 2 Observations

Image sequences recorded with good seeing in the G band (4305 Å) are essential for tracking BPs over many frames. Here we use G-band images recorded with the Dutch Open Telescope (DOT) (Hammerschlag & Bettonvil 1998; Rutten et al 2001, 2002; Sütterlin et al 2001). The image sequence was collected on 2001 October 19 starting at 10:39 UT under good seeing conditions from a Network region close to disk center. The pixel size for these images was 0.071″ (corresponding to 51.5 km on the Sun), and the filter bandpass was 10 Å. The data were recorded at a rate of 6 frames per second, and a burst of 100 frames was collected every 30 s. Each burst is combined into a single reconstructed frame using speckle image processing. The speckle processing uses an improved version of the code of de Boer, Kneer & Nesis (1992), who first applied the speckle masking method of Weigelt (1977) to solar images, making use of the spectral line ratio technique (von der Lühe 1984). The resulting 199 frame sequence (1 frame every 30 seconds) achieves 0.2″ resolution over the entire sequence. This is very close to the diffraction limit of the 43.8 cm aperture. Figure LABEL:f1a is a typical frame from the sequence.

The images in the sequence were crudely co-aligned by visual tracking of a group of BPs. We then selected two subregions, each 256$`\times `$256 pixels in size, for measurement of BP positions (see Figure LABEL:f1a). For each subregion we used correlation tracking to determine a series of displacements of the granulation pattern in consecutive frames. These displacements were measured with sub-pixel accuracy by finding the peak of the cross-correlation of consecutive subimages and fitting a quadratic function to the values near the peak. We accumulated these displacements to obtain a series of positions of the granulation pattern, $`(x_{\mathrm{gran},n},y_{\mathrm{gran},n})`$, where $`n`$ is the frame index. We then went through each frame many times, using a cursor to select a BP and follow it for as many frames as we could, before it disappeared or merged with other BPs. Each BP position was again measured with sub-pixel accuracy by quadratic fitting, and the granulation position was subtracted. The result was a list of BP positions $`x_{k,n}`$ and $`y_{k,n}`$ in a reference frame tied to the solar granulation pattern, where $`k`$ is the BP index. The advantage of this method is that an accurate co-alignment and interpolation of the subimages is not required.

We only selected BPs that were clearly separated from other BPs so that we could follow them without confusing their identity. We stopped tracking them if they started to merge with other BPs. Any BPs that we could not track for at least 3.5 minute (7 frames) were discarded. Our measurements yielded 2992 positions for 161 BPs. The longest-living BP we were able to track lived for 25 minutes (50 frames). The mean lifetime was 9.2 minutes.

Figure 2 shows four subregion frames, separated in time by 1 minute. The circles show the positions of the BPs selected from each frame. Figure 3 shows the paths of four individual BPs. In some cases, like the upper-left and upper-right plots, the BP followed a simple curved path. In other cases, the motions were erratic and complicated, as in the lower-right plot. Some BPs move in nearly straight lines, following intergranular lanes.

## 3 Analysis

We calculated BP velocities $`v_{x,k,n}`$ and $`v_{y,k,n}`$ from position differences over time intervals of 30 seconds. Figure 4 shows histograms of $`v_x`$, $`v_y`$ and $`v`$ ($`=\sqrt{v_x^2+v_y^2}`$), and a scatter plot of $`v_x`$ versus $`v_y`$. The histograms are consistent with a Gaussian distribution with rms velocity of 1.31 km s-1. This includes both real signal and measurement errors. We also computed the auto-correlations $`C_{xx,m}`$ and $`C_{yy,m}`$, and the cross-correlation $`C_{xy,m}`$:

$$C_{xx,m}=v_{x,k,n}v_{x,k,n+m},C_{yy,m}=v_{y,k,n}v_{y,k,n+m},C_{xy,m}=v_{x,k,n}v_{y,k,n+m},$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the number of time steps separating two velocity measurements for the same BP, and the brackets denote an average over the BP index $`k`$ and frame number $`n`$. Figures 5a and 5b show the auto-correlations as function of the delay time $`t=30m`$ \[s\]. Figure 5c shows the cross-correlation function. The velocities $`v_x`$ and $`v_y`$ appear to be uncorrelated to within the measurement errors (note the expanded vertical scale of this figure compared to Figures 5a and 5b). Figure 5d shows the number of measurements used to derive these correlation functions.

Each auto-correlation function shows a strong peak at zero time lag, and dips at lags of $`\pm 1`$ frame (30 seconds time delay). We suggest that these features are due to the measurement errors. Let $`u_{x,k,n}`$ be the $`x`$-component of the true velocity of BP $`k`$ in the time interval between frames $`n`$ and $`n+1`$, then the measured velocity is

$$v_{x,k,n}=u_{x,k,n}+\frac{\delta x_{k,n+1}\delta x_{k,n}}{\mathrm{\Delta }t},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = 30 \[s\] is the time between frames, and $`\delta x_{k,n}`$ are the errors in position measurement. Now assume that these errors are randomly distributed with standard deviation $`\sigma `$ (the same for all BPs) and are uncorreleated from frame to frame. Then the observed auto-correlation $`C_{xx,m}`$ is:

$`C_{xx,0}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{x,k,n}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{v}^2,`$
$`C_{xx,\pm 1}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{x,k,n}u_{x,k,n\pm 1}\sigma _\mathrm{v}^2/2,`$ (3)
$`C_{xx,m}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{x,k,n}u_{x,k,n+m}\text{for}|m|2,`$
and similar for $`C_{yy,m}`$, where $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}=\sigma \sqrt{2}/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the error in the velocity measurement. The position errors increase the observed correlation at $`m=0`$ by $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}^2`$ and reduce the correlation at $`m=\pm 1`$ by $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}^2/2`$. Therefore, the average auto-correlations, defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{xx}\frac{1}{3}\underset{m=1}{\overset{+1}{}}C_{xx,m},\stackrel{~}{C}_{yy}\frac{1}{3}\underset{m=1}{\overset{+1}{}}C_{yy,m},$$
(4)
are not systematically affected by the measurement errors. These average correlations are indicated by the thin lines in Figures 5a and 5b. The difference between $`C_{xx,0}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{xx}`$ provides an upper limit on $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}^2`$ because the true auto-correlation $`u_{x,k,n}u_{x,k,n+m}`$ decreases with increasing $`|m|`$. The auto-correlations for $`v_x`$ and $`v_y`$ yield upper limits on $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}`$ of 0.98 km s-1 and 1.12 km s-1, respectively. Therefore, the upper limit on the position error $`\sigma `$ is about 24 km.

Figures 5a and 5b show that the auto-correlations are significantly different from zero for delays up to 500 s. The average correlations for are $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{xx}=0.83\pm 0.03`$ $`\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{yy}=0.78\pm 0.03`$ $`\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$, where the error estimates are based on the cross-correlations shown in Figure 5c. This provides a lower limit on the true velocity dispersion $`u_0`$ of BPs in one direction: $`u_00.89`$ km s-1 based on the average of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{xx}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{yy}`$. Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{xx}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{yy}`$ are about twice the auto-correlations at $`m=\pm 2`$. Therefore, the correlation time of the BP velocity is about 60 seconds (2 frames).

We were interested in using BPs as a possible diagnostic of vortical motions in the intergranular lanes. A BP caught up in a vortex within an intergranular lane might exhibit rotational motions. In an effort to detect such motions, we computed changes in direction angle, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, of BP velocity in two neighboring time intervals. For this calculation we discarded any measurements for which $`v<1.5`$ km s-1 in either time interval, since the angle errors became large for smaller velocities. This left us with 687 measurements. A histogram of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is shown in Figure 6a. The distribution shows a broad peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$, indicating that the direction of motion persists from one time interval to the next. Figure 6b shows a histogram of the centrifugal acceleration, $`vd\varphi /dt`$, which is the relevant quantity when considering the generation of transverse waves in magnetic flux tubes. Histograms such as these could be useful tools for comparing models of flux tube waves to observations.

The above measurements use the granulation pattern as a reference frame. In order to check whether the granulation provides a stable reference frame, we also measured BP positions relative to each other (independent of the granulation pattern). For this purpose we computed a reference position $`(x_{\mathrm{ref},n},y_{\mathrm{ref},n})`$ as follows. For each pair of frames $`n`$ and $`n+1`$, we determine the average positions $`(\overline{x}_n,\overline{y}_n)`$ and $`(\overline{x}_{n+1},\overline{y}_{n+1})`$ of all BPs in common between these consecutive frames. Then we accumulate the position differences:

$$x_{\mathrm{ref},n+1}=x_{\mathrm{ref},n}+\overline{x}_{n+1}\overline{x}_n,y_{\mathrm{ref},n+1}=y_{\mathrm{ref},n}+\overline{y}_{n+1}\overline{y}_n,$$
(5)
starting with $`x_{\mathrm{ref},0}=y_{\mathrm{ref},0}=0`$ in the first frame. This provides a reference position against which the individual BPs can be measured. The relative positions are $`x_{k,n}^{}=x_{k,n}x_{\mathrm{ref},n}`$ and $`y_{k,n}^{}=y_{k,n}y_{\mathrm{ref},n}`$. The auto-correlations of $`v_x^{}`$ and $`v_y^{}`$ yield $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{xx}=0.71\pm 0.03`$ $`\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{yy}=0.66\pm 0.03`$ $`\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$, which is about 15% less than the values derived for the granulation reference frame. This reduction in BP velocities is to be expected because there are on average only 7.0 BPs in common between consecutive frames, and subtracting the mean velocity of these 7 BPs should reduce $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{xx}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{yy}`$ by a factor $`6/7`$. The fact that the observed reduction is not any larger than predicted implies that there is nothing to be gained by measuring the BP motions relative to each other, and in fact this causes the BP velocities to be systematically underestimated. We conclude that the granulation pattern provides a stable reference frame for measurement of BP motions.

## 4 Discussion

We have shown that with good enough data we can precisely measure positions for isolated BPs, obtaining both their linear and angular motions. The errors due to image jitter have been reduced to levels of 25 km (0.5 pixels) or less. This allows us to measure the motions of individual BPs to a precision of less than 1 km s-1 for each 30 second time interval, which will be important for studying the generation of MHD waves in flux tubes. We also track BPs for sufficiently long times that we can see the regularity in their motions.

The rms velocities we measured for isolated BPs were almost a factor of three higher than velocities measured using cork tracking (van Ballegooijen et al 1998). We believe this is due to a selection effect. By only measuring isolated BPs we measure the fastest-moving features. Once BPs cluster with other BPs, mostly at lane interstices, they seem to be “captured” by the group and their motions are reduced. There are many more BPs in these clusters than there are isolated BPs so the cluster statistics dominate when measurements are made with cork tracking and the average velocity is reduced.

In measuring the motions of BPs, we have found that they move in somewhat circular paths. Combining the angular change of their motions with the distance they travel is a potential way of estimating the (vertical) vorticity in the flow field, assuming the BPs act as test particles. While performing the tracking of individual BPs, we saw little evidence of vorticity other than the tracks of the BPs themselves. We looked for, but did not find, pairs of BPs that orbited one another; in fact, BPs that came in close proximity to other BPs tended to have reduced motion. We also saw little evidence of swirling motions in the granules or granular lanes that would correspond to the observed BP motions. This might indicate that BPs are affected not only by surface flows associated with the solar granulation, but also by other flows that occur at larger depth below the photosphere. Further modeling will be required to establish whether or not the BPs move passively with the surface flow, and to determine whether the observed BP motions are consistent with models of flux tube waves and heating of the upper solar atmosphere.

The authors wish to thank R. J. Rutten, R. Hammerschlag and F. Bettonvil for the use of DOT solar data. We also wish to especially thank R.J. Rutten for his very helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. We wish to acknowledge support for the work from the National Science Foundation (Grant ATM-9811523) to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.


text:
# Spin-Orbital Fluctuations and a large mass enhancement in LiV2O4

## I introduction

The metallic spinel $`\mathrm{LiV}_2\mathrm{O}_4`$ is a unique 3$`d`$ heavy-fermion (HF) compoundkondo . Its $`\gamma `$ coefficient amounts to $`420`$ mJ/mol$``$K2 and, strikingly, the low-temperature properties below $`T^{}=2030`$ are quite similar to those of the lanthanide or actinide HF compoundskondo ; urano . Since the $`d`$ electrons, 1.5 per vanadium ion, are responsible for both transport and magnetism in $`\mathrm{LiV}_2\mathrm{O}_4`$, it is not trivial whether one can apply a scenario analogous to the conventional HF mechanism. Moreover, the large spatial extent of $`d`$ orbitals compared with well-localized $`f`$ orbitals is also unfavorable for the electrons to be treated as localized. In fact, some transport properties, such as the steep increase of resistivity above $`T^{}`$urano  and the pressure-induced metal-insulator transitionurano2 , are different from those of the typical $`f`$-electron HF compounds.

Apart from the HF behavior, geometrical frustration is another specific feature of this system. The B site of the normal-spinel ($`\mathrm{AB}_2\mathrm{O}_4`$) is known to form the network of corner-sharing tetrahedra (pyrochlore lattice). In most spinels, the geometric frustration is partially released by the structural phase transition. As a result, the ordered ground state is realized in the tetragonal phase, such as the possible charge ordering in $`\mathrm{Fe}_3\mathrm{O}_4`$ or the Néel ordering in $`\mathrm{ZnV}_2\mathrm{O}_4`$ueda . In contrast, $`\mathrm{LiV}_2\mathrm{O}_4`$ remains cubic and no static magnetic order was observed down to 0.02 K. The Curie-Weiss fit of the susceptibility ($`100T300`$) results in an effective spin-1/2 moment per V with an antiferromagnetic (AF) coupling ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cw}}=37K`$)urano . AF long range order (LRO) will be suppressed by the geometric frustration and, indeed, the inelastic neutron scattering experiment captures the development of short-range AF correlations below $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{cw}}`$lee . Interestingly enough, the large enhancement of $`\gamma `$ is shared by other geometrically frustrated systems with strong AF spin fluctuations, like $`\mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{Sc})\mathrm{Mn}_2`$shiga  and $`\beta `$-Mnnakamura . These facts seem to suggest that the formation of the heavy-mass $`d`$ electron is related to the geometric frustration. In view of the geometric frustration, it should be noted that, already at the 10% electron doping, the HF ground state is easily destroyed into the spin-glass phaseueda .

In $`\mathrm{LiV}_2\mathrm{O}_4`$, the crystal filed around each V atom is nearly cubic with a slight trigonal distortion. The band-structure calculations indicate that the Fermi level lies within the cubic-$`t_{2g}`$ manifold with a bandwidth of about 2 eVanisimov ; matsuno ; eyert ; singh , which is actually the superposition of the two components; the relatively narrow $`A_{1g}`$ ($``$ 1eV) and the broad $`E_g`$ orbital ($``$ 2 eV) of the $`D_{3d}`$ group. Matsuno $`etal.`$ considered this trigonal split less important, and stressed the importance of the geometric frustration and/or orbital degeneracymatsuno . On the other hand, the LDA+$`U`$ calculation by Anisimov $`etal.`$ suggested that the correlation effect leads to the orbital polarization, where the $`A_{1g}`$ orbital is occupied singly to form a localized spin-1/2 moment and the rest 0.5 electron fills the $`E_g`$ band. Thereby, they proposed the Kondo scenario based on the effective Anderson impurity modelanisimov .

Followed by these band-structure calculations, various theoretical models are proposed in connection with the microscopic origin of the 3$`d`$ HF behaviorkusunose ; flude ; fujimoto ; lacroix ; hopkinson ; laad . Especially, the role of the geometric frustration has been featured in recent studies. Motivated by the Curie-Weiss law around room temperature, the formation of the localized $`s=1/2`$ is assumed by several authors on the grounds of the orbital polarizationlacroix ; laad  or the local valence fluctuationshopkinson . In these treatments the spin frustration is their main concern.

In this paper, we consider that the present system realizes the prototypical itinerant frustrated model and investigate the $`t_{2g}`$-band pyrochlore Hubbard model with particular emphasis on orbital fluctuations. Within the random phase approximation (RPA) scheme, all kinds of fluctuations are included simultaneously without prejudice. In principle, geometric frustration prevents any kinds of LRO and thus the large $`\gamma `$ would be expected by the resultant enhanced fluctuations. In this scenario, not only the spin but also both of the orbital and spin-orbital fluctuations are responsible for the enhancement. To our knowledge, this is the first theoretical attempt to attribute the heavy-mass $`d`$ electron directly to the orbital degrees of freedom. The instability itself of the same model was discussed by Tsunetsugutsunetsugu . We have explicitly calculated the $`T`$-linear coefficient of the imaginary part of the generalized susceptibility and found the large enhancement of $`\gamma `$ mainly due to the spin-orbital fluctuations.

## II Model Hamiltonian

The pyrochlore lattice is a fcc-array of tetrahedra. The cubic unit cell shown in Fig. 1 contains 16 lattice points covered by 4 tetrahedra and the primitive unit cell includes a single tetrahedron. Therefore the $`t_{2g}`$ electrons are specified by the following 4 indices; the unit cell (denoted by $`j=1,\mathrm{},4L^3`$), the sublattice ($`n=1,\mathrm{},4`$), the orbital ($`m=d_{xy},d_{yz},d_{zx}`$), and the spin ($`\sigma =/`$), where $`L`$ is the number of the cubic unit cell along one direction. By using the standard notation of the multi-band Hubbard model, the $`t_{2g}`$-band Hubbard model on the pyrochlore lattice is given by $`=_0+_\mathrm{I}`$;

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma mnm^{}n^{}}{}}t_{nn^{}k}^{mm^{}}c_{kmn\sigma }^{}c_{km^{}n^{}\sigma }`$ (1)
$`_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jn}{}}\{U{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}n_{jmn}n_{jmn}+U^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m>m^{}\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}n_{jmn\sigma }n_{jm^{}n\sigma ^{}}`$ (2)
$`J{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}c_{jmn}^{}c_{jmn}c_{jm^{}n}^{}c_{jm^{}n}\}.`$
Here $`t_{nn^{}}^{mm^{}}`$ is the transfer integral between the $`m`$ orbital at $`n`$ sublattice and the $`m^{}`$ orbital at $`n^{}`$ sublattice when $`(m,n)(m^{},n^{})`$. In addition, the parameter of $`t_{nn}^{mm^{}}(=\pm D/3)`$ type is also included to describe the trigonal split of $`t_{2g}`$, $`E_{a_{1g}}E_{e_g}=D`$. Since the nearest-neighbor (NN) hoppings already depend on the bond direction and the orbital symmetry the NN tight-binding model would be sufficient for the present study. By the symmetry relation, all the hopping matrices are represented by the following three independent parameters, $`t_0=t_{12}^{xy,xy}`$, $`t_1=t_{13}^{xy,xy}`$, and $`t_2=t_{14}^{xy,yz}`$. The $`T_d`$ symmetry of the unit cell, as well as the spin SU(2), are incorporated in the $`12\times 12`$ matrix $`_0`$, though here we do not display the matrix explicitly.

The tight-binding fit of the LAPW band-structure calculation gives the parameters in $`_0`$ to be $`t_0=0.281`$ eV, $`t_1=t_2=0.076`$ eV, and $`D=0.140`$ eVmatsuno . By applying the orthogonal transformation $`c_{k\mu \sigma }=_\nu U_{\mu \nu }(k)a_{k\nu \sigma }`$, the single-electron Hamiltonian is diagonalized into $`_0=_{k\sigma \nu }ϵ_{k\nu }a_{k\nu \sigma }^{}a_{k\nu \sigma }`$, where $`\mu =(m,n)`$ and $`\nu `$ are 12-dimensional indices. The calculated $`t_{2g}`$-multiplet ($`ϵ_{k\nu },\nu =1,\mathrm{},12`$) are shown in Fig. 3 along some typical symmetric lines. The almost flat bands near the Fermi level results in high density of state (DOS) at the Fermi level. Actually, the $`\gamma `$ coefficient estimated from the DOS of the band-structure calculation is relatively large; $`\gamma _{\mathrm{band}}`$ 17 mJ/mol$``$Kmatsuno . However, the experimentally observed value ($`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$) is about 25 times larger than $`\gamma _{\mathrm{band}}`$. As a possible origin of this enhancement, in the following, we consider the effect of electron correlations from the weak-coupling limit.

## III Free energy and RPA equations

In order to describe various kinds of fluctuations concerning the $`t_{2g}`$ electrons in a simple way, we introduce the thirty-five generators of the SU(6) group $`X^\gamma (\gamma =1,\mathrm{},35`$) and the identity operator $`X^0`$, where the normalization condition is $`\mathrm{Tr}X^\gamma X^\gamma ^{}=\delta ^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}/2`$. The SU(6) generators are classified into the pure spin, the pure orbital and the spin-orbital coupled components. Spin and orbital degrees of freedom are described by the generators of SU(2) ($`S^\alpha `$; three dimensions) and SU(3) ($`T^\beta `$; eight dimensions) groups, respectively, and the spin-orbital coupled modes are made of the products of the two ($`2\sqrt{3}S^\alpha T^\beta `$; twenty four dimensions). To be explicit, these operators are represented by using the electron creation and annihilation operators as follows,

$`X_{jn}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma m}{}}c_{jmn\sigma }^{}c_{jmn\sigma },`$ (3)
$`S_{jn}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}m}{}}c_{jmn\sigma }^{}\sigma _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^\alpha c_{jmn\sigma ^{}},`$ (4)
$`T_{jn}^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma mm^{}}{}}c_{jmn\sigma }^{}\lambda _{mm^{}}^\beta c_{jm^{}n\sigma },`$ (5)
$`2\sqrt{3}S^\alpha T_{jn}^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}mm^{}}{}}c_{jmn\sigma }^{}\sigma _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^\alpha \lambda _{mm^{}}^\beta c_{jm^{}n\sigma ^{}},`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ are the Pauli and the Gell-Mann matrices in the standard notationsgroup , respectively. Note that the overall signs of non-diagonal operators for different sublattices are selected to be consistent with the $`T_d`$ unit-cell symmetry. Since the trigonal distortion in $`_0`$ violates the $`O(3)`$ orbital symmetry, the usual representations of the $`t_{2g}`$ orbital by the fictitious $`\stackrel{}{l}=1`$ and its higher moments do not reflect the proper symmetry. Instead we construct the tensor products of the real $`\stackrel{}{l}=2`$ moment and reduce them into the irreducible representations of $`T_d`$ in the cubic $`t_{2g}`$ subspace. As a result, we find that $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ is the proper set of basis, which is classified into three irreducible representations; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$-dipolar moments ($`\lambda _2,\lambda _5,\lambda _7`$), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$-quadrupolar moments ($`\lambda _1,\lambda _4,\lambda _6`$), and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$-quadrupolar moments ($`\lambda _3,\lambda _8`$).

Next we transform the interaction part of Hamiltonian in terms of $`X^\gamma `$’s so that

$`_\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \underset{jn}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =0}{\overset{35}{}}}a_{\gamma \gamma }X_{jn}^\gamma X_{jn}^\gamma `$ (7)
except for a constant energy shift. Here $`a_{\gamma \gamma }`$’s are a function of $`U,U^{}`$ and $`J`$. Such transformation is always possible for any $`U,U^{}`$ and $`J`$, though the choice of $`a_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is not unique because of the spin rotational invariance and/or the identity $`n_{jmn\sigma }^2=n_{jmn\sigma }`$. By applying a coupling constant integration together with Eq. (7), the Free energy for this system is given by

$`F(U,U^{},J)`$ $`=`$ $`F(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{2}}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{qn}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}a_{\gamma \gamma }{\displaystyle _0^1}dx\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}\chi _{nn}^{\gamma \gamma }(q,\omega )|_{xU,xU^{},xJ},`$
where the momentum sum is taken all over the 1st Brillouin zone and the generalized susceptibility per tetrahedron is defined by

$`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4L^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^{i(\omega +i\delta )\tau }[X_{qn}^\gamma \left(\tau \right),X_{qn^{}}^\gamma ^{}\left(0\right)].`$ (9)
We apply the random phase approximation (RPA) in the evaluation of the generalized susceptibility ($`\chi `$). Including the charge degree of freedom ($`X^0`$), our $`\chi `$ is the $`144\times 144`$ matrix with the row index $`n\gamma `$ and the column $`n^{}\gamma ^{}`$. Since we are concerned with the paramagnetic state, as suggested by the experiment, the SU(2) symmetry ensures that $`\chi `$ is decomposed into the spin singlet and triplet sectors. Each sector is represented by the charge-charge (denoted by $`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(c)}`$) and the $`S^z`$-$`S^z`$ susceptibilities ($`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(s)}`$), respectively. In these two $`36\times 36`$ matrices, the spin indices ($`\alpha `$) is reduced and the rest indices are the row index $`n\beta `$ and the column $`n^{}\beta ^{}`$. Here $`\beta =0`$ is defined to represent the totally symmetric orbital operator. To sum up, $`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(c)}`$ describes the correlations among the charge ($`\beta =0`$) and the orbital ($`\beta 1`$), while $`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(s)}`$ among the spin ($`\beta =0`$) and the spin-orbital ($`\beta 1`$). By using these notations, the RPA equations are given as follows,

$`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(c/s)}=\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(0)}+{\displaystyle \underset{n_1\beta _1}{}}\chi _{nn_1}^{\beta \beta _1(0)}2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta _1\beta _1}^{(c/s)}\chi _{n_1n^{}}^{\beta _1\beta ^{}(c/s)},`$ (10)
Since the interaction is local, the interaction matrices ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(c/s)}`$) are always $`n`$-diagonal and independent of $`n`$. Thus the rest indices are row $`\beta `$ and column $`\beta ^{}`$. Moreover the $`9\times 9`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(c/s)}`$ may have a simple representation. This is because $`_0`$ has the $`T_d`$ symmetry and Eq. (10) is invariant under any $`T_d`$ transformation. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(c/s)}`$’s must be diagonal and these matrix elements are the same within each irreducible representation, see Table 1.

$`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(0)}`$ in Eq. (10) is the paramagnetic susceptibility of the Hartree-Fock approximation. When we calculate $`\chi ^{(0)}`$ of the usual single band Hubbard model, the Hartree-Fock terms just renormalize the chemical potential. In our model the Hartree term similarly changes the diagonal part of $`_0`$, however the Fock terms introduce off-diagonal terms of the orbital hoppings on the same site, giving rise to the crystal field effect. This crystal field is totally symmetric concerning the entire unit cell, but its local symmetry on each sublattice is trigonal. The effect of this additional field is included in the band-structure calculations. Therefore the free paramagnetic susceptibility calculated by using the tight-binding parameters gives the appropriate $`\chi _{nn^{}}^{\beta \beta ^{}(0)}`$. In the actual calculation, we used the free $`\chi ^{(0)}`$ per tetrahedron of the form

$`\chi _{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}^{(0)}(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1\nu _2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(ϵ_{k+q\nu _2})f(ϵ_{k\nu _1})}{ϵ_{k\nu _1}ϵ_{k+q\nu _2}+\mathrm{}(\omega +i\delta )}}`$ (11)
$`\times U_{\mu _1\nu _1}(k)U_{\mu _4\nu _1}(k)U_{\mu _2\nu _2}(k+q)U_{\mu _3\nu _2}(k+q),`$
and rotated the orbital basis from $`\{m_1m_2m_3m_4\}`$ into $`\{\beta \beta ^{}\}`$, where $`f(ϵ)`$ is the Fermi distribution function.

## IV estimation of the specific heat coefficient

Since we are primarily interested in the mass enhancement in $`\gamma `$, let us now focus on the $`\omega `$-linear part of $`Im\chi `$ in the Free energy of Eq. (8). As is seen from the band structure (Fig. 2), nothing singular would happen in $`\chi ^{(0)}`$, therefore a constant $`Re\chi ^{(0)}`$ and an $`\omega `$-linear $`Im\chi ^{(0)}`$ behaviors are expected in the leading order of $`\omega `$. Then it is sufficient to solve the RPA equations in the lowest order of $`Im\chi ^{(0)}\omega `$. For the 1/2-filled $`s`$-band pyrochlore Hubbard model, in contrast, the complete matching of the Fermi level and flat bands brings a non-Fermi liquid behaviorisoda ; fujimoto2 . As for the still-unfixed $`a_{\gamma \gamma }`$, we take

$`a_{\gamma \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\gamma \gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(c)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(s)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(s)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(s)}\right).`$ (12)
It is easy to check that the $`a_{\gamma \gamma }`$’s of this form reproduce the original interaction term, Eq. (7). This choice is natural in the sense that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\gamma \gamma }`$ reflects the symmetry of the non-interaction term (SU(2) and $`T_d`$). We neglect the weak dependence of $`\chi ^{(0)}`$ on the interaction through the Fock terms for simplicity, then the $`x`$-integral in Eq. (8) can be performed analytically. After some calculations, $`\gamma `$ coefficient (=$`^2F/^2T`$) per tetrahedron is given by

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}={\displaystyle \underset{\beta =0}{\overset{8}{}}}\left(\gamma ^{\beta (c)}+3\gamma ^{\beta (s)}\right),`$ (13)
with

$`\gamma ^{\beta (c/s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_B^2}{12L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{qn}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1\beta _1}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta \beta }^{(c/s)}{\displaystyle \frac{Im\chi _{nn_1}^{\beta \beta _1(0)}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )}{\omega }}`$ (14)
$`\times \left(\mathrm{𝟏}2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta _1\beta _1}^{(c/s)}Re\chi _{n_1n}^{\beta _1\beta (0)}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )\right)^1.`$
This equation is exact after taking $`\omega ,\delta ,T0`$ and $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit. Note that we neglect the zero-point fluctuation term in the $`\omega `$ integral because it will only show a weak temperature dependence through that of $`\chi ^{(0)}`$.

Finally we numerically estimate $`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ in the SU(6) limit ($`U=U^{}`$ and $`J=0`$), where the orbital fluctuations are mostly enhanced. For this purpose, we calculated the free susceptibility, Eq. (11), for the parameter set of $`(\omega ,\delta ,T)=(0.02\mathrm{eV},0.02\mathrm{eV},0.02\mathrm{eV})`$ and $`L=16`$. We checked the convergence of $`\chi ^{(0)}`$ against $`\omega `$ and $`L`$ along some symmetric lines. Especially, we confirmed that $`Im\chi ^{(0)}`$ shows a clear $`\omega `$-linear dependence in the range of $`\omega =0.01,0.02,0.04,0.08`$ eV. The convergence of the $`\omega `$-linear coefficient regarding the system size ($`L=12,16,24,32`$ ) is fairly good except for a few points very close to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. As a result, we obtained the $`\gamma `$-value per $`\mathrm{LiV}_2\mathrm{O}_4`$ mole as shown in Fig. 3. The total $`\gamma `$ is the summation of the contributions from charge (denoted by $`\gamma _c=\gamma ^{0(c)}`$), spin ($`\gamma _s=3\gamma ^{0(s)}`$), orbital ($`\gamma _o=_{\beta =1}^8\gamma ^{\beta (c)}`$), and spin-orbital fluctuations ($`\gamma _o=3_{\beta =1}^8\gamma ^{\beta (s)}`$). The critical value $`U_c`$ is about 0.92 eV and there the complicated eigenvectors, made of the four-sublattice summations of the spin and spin-orbital components with quadrupole orbital modes, characterize the instability at the wave vector near $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. Since we fixed $`\omega `$ finite and took the limit of $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$, our calculated $`Re\chi ^{(0)}`$ does not correspond to the $`\omega 0`$ limit at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. Therefore we can not determine that the most prominent modes are just at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point or not. The real part of $`\chi ^{(0)}`$ is studied for different hopping parameters at zero temperaturetsunetsugu . In the present calculation, we do not detect the peak structure around $`X`$ and $`L_2`$ points found in tsunetsugu . The reason for the difference might be that our calculations have done at finite $`T`$ and/or these single modes are quite sensitive to the nesting of the Fermi surface.

Fig. 3 shows that the correct order of $`\gamma `$ can be reproduced even away from the critical point, say $`0.8U_c`$. Around there, the enhancement of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ (about 80%) is mainly attributed to the various spin-orbital fluctuations. Both spin and spin-orbital fluctuations contribute $`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ by the same order as a single component. However, the magnitude of the components, 3 for spin and 24 for spin-orbital modes, results in the different contribution in $`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}`$. In order to gain the same enhancement solely by the spin fluctuations, $`U`$ must be very close to $`U_c`$ even after the inclusion of $`J`$ term. Away from the $`U_c`$, the enhancement of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ comes from the entire momentum space because the spin and spin-orbital fluctuations have rather weak $`q`$-dependences. This result seems to be consistent with the naive picture that the geometric frustration induces local fluctuations, which is responsible for the heavy mass.

## V conclusion

In conclusion we have studied the origin of the large enhancement of $`\gamma `$ in LiV2O4 based on the 1/4 filled $`t_{2g}`$-band pyrochlore Hubbard model. We introduced $`T_d`$ irreducible operators for orbital density operators and derived the RPA equations in a simple form. The $`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ obtained by the coupling constant integration of $`Im\chi `$ is enhanced typically by order of 10 due to the spin-orbital fluctuations compared with the $`\gamma _s`$ due to the spin alone. This conclusion itself seems to be general for the orbital disordered system and thus it may be possible to apply the present scenario to other systems, such as Y(Sc)Mn2 and $`\beta `$-Mn. To be more specific to LiV2O4, the calculated $`\gamma _{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ value is of the same order as $`\gamma _{\mathrm{exp}}`$. However, it should be noted that our simple theory does not include the effect of the geometrical frustrations sufficiently, since the mode-mode coupling between various fluctuations is neglected. In general, the RPA approximation overestimates the fluctuations, therefore the most prominent mode itself would be suppressed and the $`U_c`$ becomes larger if we include the couplings between the modes with different momenta. At the same time, the overall structure of $`\chi `$ in $`q`$ space would change into more and more structure-less and thus the additional enhancement of $`\gamma `$ could be expected.

It is well-known that the mode-mode coupling theory leads to the Curie-Weiss behavior of the magnetic susceptibility. As for the $`R_\mathrm{W}`$, it is of order of 0.1 in the RPA approximation. This value would be increased by including $`J`$, although it is not clear whether the Hund’s rule coupling is sufficient to obtain $`R_\mathrm{W}1.7`$. To address the similarity to the 4$`f`$ HF compounds, we need to develop a more sophisticated theory including the coupling between fluctuations. The fluctuation exchange approximation for the multi-band model would be useful as the next step.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank H. Tsunetsugu for sending us his related worktsunetsugu  prior to the publication. Y.Y. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). K.U. is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the JSPS.


text:
# Varying Fine Structure Constant and Black Hole Physics

## I Introduction

Some recent astrophysical observations suggest that, $`\alpha `$, the fine structure constant of quantum electrodynamics is not a constant, but has increased by approximately $`\delta \alpha /\alpha 10^5`$ over $`610`$ billion years, corresponding to a rate of change of about $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha 10^{16}/year`$ . Although this result is unconfirmed and quite controversial (see for example the recent paper by Bahcall et al  where upper bounds on the variation of $`\alpha `$ and its rate of variation were set at $`\delta \alpha /\alpha <10^4`$ over about $`10`$ Billion years and $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha <10^{13}/year`$), it provides motivation for learning as much as we can about the consequences of such potential variations (for other observations see , a review , implications of varying $`\alpha `$ in cosmology , in string and brane theory  and other probable consequences ).

Now, from the definition

$$\alpha =\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}c}$$
(1)
it is clear that one of the following may be true: (i) the electronic charge $`e`$ is increasing (ii) the speed of light $`c`$ is decreasing (iii) Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ is decreasing. Also, any combination of the above is possible, and moreover, situations such as increasing $`\mathrm{}`$ and decreasing $`c`$ (at a faster rate) are also viable. Although it was suggested by Duff in  that only dimensionless constants can legitimately be thought to evolve, here we adopt the viewpoint of Carlip , whereby varying $`c`$, for example, is simply regarded as a shorthand for variation of all dimensionless parameters that depend on $`c`$. Moreover, as will be seen in subsequent sections, our final results depend on the (dimensionless) quantities $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta \alpha /\alpha `$.

It was argued in  that since the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a Reissner-Nordström black hole is given in terms of its mass $`M`$, charge $`Q`$ and the fundamental constants of nature by:

$$S_{BH}=\frac{k_B\pi G}{\mathrm{}c}\left[M+\sqrt{M^2\frac{Q^2}{G}}\right]^2,$$
(2)
increase of $`Q`$ appears to decrease $`S_{BH}`$, while decrease of $`c`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ increases $`S_{BH}`$. Since only the latter is consistent with the second law of black hole thermodynamics, the authors of  concluded that the variation of $`\alpha `$ must be due to a decrease in $`c`$ (here and in other articles, for simplicity it is assumed that $`\mathrm{}`$ does not change). However, it was recently shown in  that the above conclusion may be somewhat premature. If one rigorously defines a thermodynamic ensemble by considering a black hole in a ‘box’, then $`S_{BH}`$ increases whenever $`\alpha `$ increases, irrespective of whether the change is due to an increase of $`e`$ or decrease of $`c`$ . This means that the observed variation of fine structure constant, and the second law of black hole thermodynamics are perfectly compatible with each other, without further assumptions. In fact, one might even say that if $`\alpha `$ changes at all, it has to increase, if black hole thermodynamics has to hold. The issue of compatibility of varying $`\alpha `$ with the second law was also examined in .

In this article, we take a somewhat different approach by first arguing that on fairly general grounds that the variation of $`\alpha `$ should be treated as adiabatic in the context of macroscopic, isolated black holes. For concreteness, we then focus on a specific model of quantized spherically symmetric charged black holes, considered in , and show that an increase in $`\alpha `$ automatically implies an increase in $`S_{BH}`$, once again, irrespective of the source of the variation, and consistent with the conclusions of . We remind the reader that the model considered here as well as the related spectrum of black hole observables are somewhat speculative. However, as was shown in , the qualitative features of our results may be expected to survive for spectra arising in quantum theories of gravity such as string theory and loop quantum gravity.

There are two essential ingredients associated with our analysis, namely:

* Black holes are isolated dynamical systems that only interact with the outside world through the time variation of fundamental constants.
* The $`\alpha `$ variation is adiabatic (which will be proven in the next section)

Under the above assumptions, there are certain quantum numbers that do not change under the variation. For example, it was first argued by Bekenstein that black hole entropy, or horizon area, is an adiabatic invariant, and that its quantum spectrum should be equally space. This had been assumed in the algebraic approach to black hole area quantization by Bekenstein and Gour . Subsequently it was shown in  that for charged black holes, it is actually the “entropy above extremality” which is an adiabatic invariant. Thus the latter does not change under slow variation of $`\alpha `$. However, the total entropy does change and in fact increases with increasing $`\alpha `$. This will be shown in section (III). Another natural consequence of these assumptions is that, as with most adiabatic variations in quantum mechanics, there will be a shift in energy of the black hole. This does not, of course, violate any conservation laws, since the energy is provided by ‘work’ being done by external forces to change the constants.

In the next section, we argue on general grounds that for black holes which are far from extremality, the observed $`\alpha `$-variation can indeed be regarded as adiabatic. This result is independent of any specific model of black hole. In subsequent sections we examine the consequences of the adiabatic invariant in the context of the specific quantum model for charged black holes mentioned above. Finally, we conclude with a summary and some open questions.

## II Adiabaticity of Variation of Fine Structure Constant

First let us consider uncharged black holes, which have associated with them a natural time scale

$$t_{char}=\frac{2GM}{c^3}.$$
(3)
This scale can either be thought of as the characteristic light transition time across one horizon radius, or as ‘inverse-Hawking temperature’ $`t_{char}=\mathrm{}/4\pi k_BT_H`$. Suppose $`H(q,p;\lambda )`$ is the Hamiltonian governing the dynamics of these black holes with $`\lambda `$ any slowly varying parameter. In the current context, it could be $`\alpha `$, $`c`$ or $`e`$. A necessary condition for adiabaticity is that the parameter change only a little during the characteristic time scale of the system. More precisely, :

$$\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{\lambda }\frac{1}{t_{char}},$$
(4)
Plugging in the experimental value $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha 10^{16}/year=10^{23}/sec`$ , we get from (3) and (4) :

$$\frac{c^3}{8\pi GM}10^9,$$

which yields the bound

$$M10^{27}M_{},$$
(5)
where $`M_{}=2\times 10^{33}g`$ is the solar mass. If the upper bound of Bahcall et al was used instead , namely $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha <10^{13}/year`$, then the upper bound on $`M`$ would have been $`10^{24}M_{}`$. In any case, since masses of astrophysical black holes are at most of the order of billion solar masses, the above bound is always satisfied, and the variation of $`\alpha `$ can be regarded as adiabatic as far as phenomena involving black holes are concerned. Adiabatic variations of $`\alpha `$ were also considered recently in .

The analysis can easily be extended to black holes with charge, in which case,

$$t_{char}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi k_BT_H}=\frac{\left[GM+\sqrt{(GM)^2GQ^2}\right]^2}{2c^3\sqrt{(GM)^2GQ^2}}=\frac{2GM}{c^3}\left[1+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{Q}{\sqrt{G}M}\right)^4+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(6)
Since charge appears as a fourth-order effect, its influence can be ignored for all practical purposes in the adiabaticity analysis (as long as the black hole is away from extremality). Similar conclusions would follow for black holes with angular momentum, with the replacement $`QJc/\sqrt{G}M`$. Thus, the bound (5) appears to be quite robust.

The above analysis is useful if one knows the adiabatic invariants associated with black holes. Bekenstein has long argued that the entropy of a black hole is an adiabatic invariant . We will now outline a proof that this is so for uncharged black holes. Our basic assumption is that the time scale $`t_{char}`$ is due to an intrinsic periodicity of the system, with characteristic frequency:

$$\omega (E)\frac{c^3}{2GM},$$
(7)
where $`E=Mc^2`$. Since black holes are static, it is at first glance difficult to see what the physical source of this periodicity might be. Two possibilities have been suggested in the literature. This intrinsic periodicity can be connected with the periodicity in Euclidean time that characterizes the thermodynamical properties of the black hole, in which case the constant of proportionality is $`1/8`$. Alternatively, one can use the high damping limit of the quasi-normal mode frequency of the black hole  in which case the constant of proportionality is $`\mathrm{ln}(3)/4\pi `$.

It can be shown that for any periodic system, there exists an adiabatic invariant, which can be calculated (up to a constant shift) as follows:

$$𝒥\frac{1}{2\pi }p𝑑q\frac{dE}{\omega (E)},$$
(8)
where $`(q,p)`$ are its phase space variables. Using (7), we get:

$$𝒥\frac{8GM^2}{c}=\frac{\mathrm{}S_{BH}}{2\pi k_B},$$
(9)
where $`S_{BH}`$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole. Invoking the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantisation principle yields the result that black hole entropy is uniformly spaced:

$$S_{BH}2n\pi k_B,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
From the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics, under adiabatic variation of any parameter in the entropy, the quantum number $`n`$ does not change . We will return to the issue of adiabatic invariance for charged black holes in the next section.

## III Charged Black Holes

To further probe the consequences of such adiabatic variation of parameters, we now consider a specific reduced phase space model of charged black hole . The starting point of this model is the result of  that that the dynamics of static spherically symmetric charged configurations in any classical theory of gravity in $`d`$-spacetime dimensions is governed by an effective action of the form

$$I=𝑑t\left(P_M\dot{M}c^2+P_Q\dot{Q}H(M,Q)\right)$$
(11)
where $`M`$ and $`Q`$ are the mass and the charge respectively and $`P_M,P_Q`$ the corresponding conjugate momenta. The momentum $`P_M`$ has the interpretation of asymptotic time difference between the left and right wedges of a Kruskal diagram. Note that $`H`$ is independent of $`P_M`$ and $`P_Q`$, such that from Hamilton’s equations, $`M`$ and $`Q`$ are constants of motion.

Now, to incorporate thermodynamics of black holes, one assumes that the conjugate momentum $`P_M`$ is periodic with period equal to inverse Hawking temperature (times $`\mathrm{}`$). That is,

$$P_MP_M+\frac{\mathrm{}}{k_BT_H(M,Q)}.$$
(12)
Similar assumptions were made in the past using different arguments . Note that the above identification implies that the $`(M,P_M)`$ phase subspace has a wedge removed from it, which makes it difficult, if not impossible to quantise on the full phase-space. Thus, one can make a canonical transformation $`(M,Q,P_M,P_Q)(X,Q,\mathrm{\Pi }_X,\mathrm{\Pi }_Q)`$, which on the one hand ‘opens up’ the phase space, and on the other hand, naturally incorporates the periodicity (12) :

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(S_{BH}S_0(Q))}{\pi k_B}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi P_Mk_BT_H/\mathrm{}\right)`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_X`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(S_{BH}S_0(Q))}{\pi k_B}}}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi P_Mk_BT_H/\mathrm{}\right)`$ (14)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`Q`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_Q`$ $`=`$ $`P_Q+\mathrm{\Phi }P_M+S_0^{}(Q)P_MT_H/k_B`$ (16)
where the ‘entropy at extremality’ is given by $`S_0(Q)=\pi k_BQ^2/\mathrm{}c`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}d/dQ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the electrostatic potential at the horizon. The new phase space is $`^4`$, on which, a rigorous quantization can be performed in a straightforward fashion. Moreover, as shown in  it is straightforward to calculate the adiabatic invariant for charged black holes in this parameterization. In particular, Eqs.(9), (10) generalise to the following adiabatic invariant :

$$𝒥\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Pi }_X𝑑X=\mathrm{}(S_{BH}S_0(Q))/2\pi k_B=(2n+1)\mathrm{}$$
(17)
Quantization yields the following spectra for entropy and charge of the four dimensional quantum black hole (we refer the reader to  for details. For relation of the following spectra with that proposed by Bekenstein and collaborators , we refer to ) :

$`S_{BH}`$ $`=`$ $`(2n+p+1)\pi k_B,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`m,m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ (19)
$`p`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{}c}}=m^2\alpha .`$ (20)
where consistency requires $`p`$ to be a non-negative integer. This in turn implies that the fine structure constant is constrained to be a rational number:

$$\alpha =\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}c}=\frac{p}{m^2},$$
(21)
This somewhat strange constraint can be interpreted in either of two ways: (a) given an observed value of $`\alpha `$, the the black hole quantum numbers $`p`$ and $`m`$ must be such that it satisfies this constraint or (b) even the presence of a single black hole in the universe constrains the admissible values of $`\alpha `$. We will examine the consequences of this constraint in the next section, but first we look at the effects of a small variation of $`\alpha `$ on the entropy(18)-(21). Since the quantum number $`m`$ measures the number of constituent fundamental charged particles making up the black hole, it remains fixed during the time in which $`\alpha `$ varies. This implies $`p`$ increases if $`\alpha `$ increases. Since the quantum number $`n`$ is associated with the adiabatic invariant $`𝒥`$, it remains fixed. We therefore conclude, via Eq.(18), that the black hole entropy $`S_{BH}`$ increases monotonically with $`\alpha `$, irrespective of the source of the $`\alpha `$ variation. This conclusion is identical to that found in , although we arrived at it via a different route. While the one hand, we assumed a specific model of quantum black holes, on the other hand, we did not have to use any detailed thermodynamic stability analysis.

## IV Minimum Charge and Mass

In this section, we show that lower bounds on the mass and charge of black holes follow from requiring the variation of $`\alpha `$ to be compatible with the constraint (21). Consider again Eq.(21), which implies (with $`m`$ constant as explained before):

$$\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }=\frac{\delta p}{p}p=\delta p(\delta \alpha /\alpha )^1.$$
(22)
Now, since $`\delta \alpha /\alpha 10^5`$ and $`\delta p1`$, it follows that

$$p10^5.$$
(23)
In general $`p=10^5\delta p`$, where $`\delta p`$ is an integer. This, coupled with the relations $`Q=\sqrt{p\mathrm{}c}=\sqrt{p}e/\sqrt{\alpha }`$ and $`\alpha =1/137`$ further imply the condition:

$$Q3,000e\sqrt{\delta p}$$
(24)
Thus, the minimum charge of a black hole is given by ($`\delta p=1`$):

$$Q_{Min}=3,000e$$
(25)
and higher charges are square root of integer multiples of the above unit. If one uses the limit set by Bahcall et al , namely $`\delta \alpha /a<10^4`$ over about $`10`$ Billion years, then it can be easily shown that the bound reduces to $`Q_{Min}=1,000e`$.

Also, combining (2), (18) and (19), we can write the mass of the black hole as:

$$\frac{M}{M_{Pl}}=\frac{2n+2p+1}{2\sqrt{2n+p+1}},$$
(26)
where $`M_{pl}=5\times 10^5g`$ is the Planck mass. Let us consider the astrophysically relevant, ‘small charge regime’, defined by:

$$\frac{Q/\sqrt{\mathrm{}c}}{M/M_{Pl}}k1.$$
(27)
Using (20) and (26), this gives:

$$n=\frac{1}{k^2}\left[p\sqrt{1k^2}+p(1k^2)\frac{k^2}{2}\right]\frac{2p}{k^2}p.$$
(28)
In this case, we get from (26):

$$\frac{M}{M_{Pl}}=\frac{\sqrt{2n+1}}{2},$$
(29)
This, along with (23) and(28) gives a lower bound on the black hole mass:

$$M_{Min}=200M_{Pl}.$$
(30)
Again, we recover the lower bound on mass found in , although unlike there, variation of $`n`$ has not been used to derive the result, since the latter does not in fact change. Once again, the upper bound set by Bahcall et al  would reduce $`M_{Min}`$ to about $`70M_{Pl}`$. Also, it may be noted that the lower bounds derived here hold for charged black holes, leading one to believe that the constraints (25) and (30) are indeed robust. We observe from Eqs.(25) and (30) that the minimum $`p`$ and minimum $`n`$ both increase with decreasing $`\delta \alpha /\alpha `$. The situation is similar to one encountered in  for the quantum number $`N`$. If future observations were to make the bound on the $`\alpha `$ variation even smaller than current values (as opposed to confirming the results of Webb et al), the most natural conclusion might be that $`\delta \alpha =0`$, since in this case $`\delta p=0=\delta n`$, amounting to no constraints on $`p`$ and $`n`$ themselves.

Finally, let us calculate the work done by a black hole of mass $`M`$ due to evolution of $`\alpha `$. Variation of (26) yields ($`n`$ remaining fixed due to adiabatic invariance).

$$\frac{\delta M}{M}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta c}{c}+\frac{6n+2p+3}{2(2n+2p+1)(2n+p+1)}\delta p\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta c}{c}+\frac{3p}{4n}\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta c}{c}[np],$$
(31)
where we have used $`M_{Pl}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}\delta M_{Pl}/M_{Pl}=\delta c/2c`$. Since $`|\delta c/c|\delta \alpha /\alpha 10^5`$, the work done due to (so far unknown) external source which is responsible for the variation of $`\alpha `$ is bounded from above by:

$$W=\delta (Mc^2)\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }(Mc^2)=10^5Mc^2.$$
(32)
Thus, for a solar mass black hole, $`W10^{48}erg`$, about $`10^{33}`$ times the Planck energy.

## V Discussions

We have argued that the claimed variations of $`\alpha `$ should be considered adiabatic with respect to the dynamics of all physical black holes. Within a specific model, we showed that such an adiabatic increase of $`\alpha `$ predicts an increase of $`S_{BH}`$, no matter what the source of the variation. This conclusion follows from the spectra of black hole parameters stated in section (III). It differs somewhat from that in , but agrees with that in .

However, if the claimed variation of $`\alpha `$ turns out to be real, the spectra in our model also require minimum values of charge and mass, roughly equal to $`3,000e`$ and $`200M_{Pl}`$ respectively. Although this may seem somewhat disturbing at first, note that these numbers are by far much less than those associated with astrophysical black holes.

There remain, of course many open questions. For example, are there other theoretical tests which depend only on variation of $`c`$ or $`e`$, and not both? These could be used to determine the source of $`\alpha `$ variation . Is it legitimate to assume $`\mathrm{}`$ does not change? What are the implications of a minimum charge and mass in the spectrum for Hawking radiation? Recall that the minimum charge and mass were a direct consequence of the constraint on the fine structure constant in our model. Do similar constraints occur in other models of quantum black holes, or can they be avoided? Finally it would be interesting to repeat the above analysis in the context of the spectrum obtained recently by Medved and Gour for Kerr-Newmann black holes.

We hope that answers to at least some of these questions will emerge in the near future as more research gets underway in such a fundamental aspect of experimental and theoretical physics as this. Clearly, if the astrophysical observations about $`\alpha `$ variation are confirmed by more precision experiments, it may provide a much needed experimental laboratory for the study of some features of quantum gravity.

Acknowledgements:

We thank J. Gegenberg and V. Husain for interesting discussions and S. Carlip for helpful comments. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.