text:
# I. Introduction

## I. Introduction

With so much attention focussed on the properties of branes embedded in higher dimensions, it is of interest to examine the way in which the phase space changes as the space-time is enlarged, since this is what primarily determines the statistical properties of multiparticle systems; only when amplitudes are accentuated or suppressed along certain directions in space is there a pronounced effect on the phase space. This paper is devoted to the topic of multidimensional phase space. We assume that extra dimensions are spatial—though one may envisage that time-like coordinates can be handled by Euclidean continuation—and that all particles propagate into the bulk. Not only that, we suppose that the space-time is flat so that we can neglect topological aspects. If conditions arise that constrain the particles to some subspace, then one may obtain the reduced phase space by altering the number $`D1`$ of spatial dimensions rather trivially; or else if topological effects become important we may be able to sum over discrete modes along flat directions. Thus in almost every respect we are simply investigating the dimensional continuation of standard 4-D expressions for the decay of a system carrying momentum $`p`$ into any number $`N`$ of particles.

There has been much early work in this area , but it is mostly in the context of four dimensions (or lower) and has often been confined to few particles (like two, three or four). The most pertinent recent results in this connection are those of Groote et al  and of Davydychev and Smirnov  because they are the most general. Our own results apply to any value of $`N`$ and $`D`$ and are also singularly well-suited for deriving threshold expansions as $`\sqrt{p^2}(m_1+m_2+\mathrm{}+m_N)`$. Because phase space $`\rho `$ is nothing but the imaginary part of the ‘sunset diagram’ for $`pp_1+p_2+\mathrm{}p_N`$, our procedure will be to start with this sort of diagram and then obtain $`\rho _N`$ from its discontinuity in $`p^2`$ as we cross the threshold. (Pseudothreshold singularities of these diagrams exist too but are not relevant for physical phase space.)

In Section II, we give the most convenient Feynman parametric description of the general diagram for any dimension $`D=2\mathrm{}`$ and show how one may readily derive the leading threshold behaviour by expanding about the minimum of the combined denominator; although one may in principle derive the next to leading behaviour by this method, and so on, we do not pursue this parametric approach any further, as there is a much better way of handling the problem, which is described in the following sections. First, in section III, we derive some special cases of the results (small $`N`$) by making use of phase space recurrence methods  and next show how they may more easily be found by Fourier transformation of the propagator products in section IV. This is our cue for tackling the most general situation, but because the form of our expressions makes it tricky to take the massless limit of any individual particle we specifically suppose that $`M`$ of the particles are massless and $`NM`$ are massive. Our results, stated in section V, are given as a series of hypergeometric terms having the form (herafter $`F`$ stands for the usual $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ function)

$$\rho _N\underset{j=M(3/2\mathrm{})+2N(\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{}+1/2}{}d_j(p^2\sigma ^2)^jF(a,b;c;1p^2/\sigma ^2),$$

where $`\sigma `$ is the sum of the masses. An agreeable property of this expansion is that it terminates for odd $`D`$ and is tailored for deriving the threshold behaviour.

## II. Feynman parametric form

In 2$`\mathrm{}`$ dimensions, sunset diagrams with $`N`$ internal lines, produce integrals of the type444The bar notation means: division by $`2\pi `$ when integrating over each momentum component and a factor of 2$`\pi `$ for each delta function.,

$$I_N(p;\{\nu \})=i\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _i)}{(p_i^2m_i^2)^{\nu _i}}\overline{d}^2\mathrm{}p_i\right)\overline{\delta }^2\mathrm{}(p\underset{i}{}p_i).$$
(1)
We have included a Gamma function in each numerator since the propagator powers usually arise via momentum or mass derivatives of the case $`\nu =1`$, and it simplifies the subsequent expressions. By attaching a Feynman parameter $`\alpha `$ to each internal line, one may combine denominators in the standard fashion and integrate over the internal momenta to establish555This involves some finicky rescaling of the Feynman parameters. See reference  for the case $`N=3`$. that

$$I_N(p;\{\nu \})=\frac{(1)^N}{(4\pi )^{(N1)\mathrm{}}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_0^1\frac{d\alpha _i}{\alpha _i^{\nu _i\mathrm{}+1}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(_i\nu _i+\mathrm{}N\mathrm{})\delta (1_i\alpha _i)}{[p^2_i(m_i^2/\alpha _i)]^{_i\nu _i+\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}}},$$
(2)
but it is easier to prove the result by induction in fact. Suppose that (2) is true for $`N`$; the case $`N+1`$ represents a further convolution:

$$I_{N+1}(p;\{\nu \})=i\overline{d}^2\mathrm{}kI_N(k;\{\nu \})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _{N+1})/[(k+p)^2m_{N+1}^2]^{\nu _{N+1}}$$

so introduce an extra Feynman parameter $`\beta `$. Combining the new denominator with (2) and integrating over intermediate loop momentum $`k`$, one remains with

$$I_{N+1}(p)=\frac{(1)^{N+1}}{(4\pi )^N\mathrm{}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_0^1\frac{d\alpha _i}{\alpha _i^{\nu _i\mathrm{}+1}})_0^1𝑑\beta \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(_{i=1}^{N+1}\nu _iN\mathrm{})\delta (1_i\alpha _i)(1\beta )^{\nu _{N+1}1}\beta ^{\mathrm{}\nu _{N+1}1}}{[p^2(1\beta )_i(m_i^2/\alpha _i)m_{N+1}^2(1\beta )/\beta ]^{_i\nu _iN\mathrm{}+\nu _{N+1}}}.$$

Now all one need do is rescale $`\alpha _i=\beta _i/(1\beta )`$ for $`i=1`$ to $`N`$ and call $`\beta \beta _{N+1}`$. A final relabelling of $`\beta \alpha `$ reproduces (2) for $`NN+1`$. Since we know the result (2) is correct for $`N=2`$ —it is very familiar to graphologists as the simplest self-energy calculation—we have thereby proved the result inductively for any $`N`$.

The singularities of $`I_N(p)`$ in $`p^2`$ will arise when $`p^2`$ equals the combination $`M^2(\alpha )_{i=1}^N(m_i^2/\alpha _i)`$, so let us examine the behaviour of $`M^2(\alpha )`$ in the region of integration $`0\alpha _i1`$, subject to the condition $`_i\alpha _i=1`$. For definiteness, we shall assume for the rest of this section that all masses are nonzero. By introducing a Lagrangian multiplier for the last constraint, it is easy to see that $`M^2(\alpha )`$ is minimised in the physical region when the Feynman parameters equal $`\alpha _{i0}m_i/_{j=1}^Nm_jm_i/\sigma `$, whereupon $`M^2(\alpha _0)=(_{j=1}^Nm_j)^2=\sigma ^2`$. Other values of $`\alpha _i`$ are possible (by reversing one or other of the signs of $`\alpha _{i0}`$) but they correspond to pseudothresholds and lie outside the integration region. It is then clear that the magnitude of $`I_N(p)`$ will be dominated by $`\alpha _i`$ values in the vicinity of $`\alpha _{i0}`$, so it is sensible to expand about these minima if we want to determine the leading behaviour near threshold.

This procedure can be developed systematically (see the Appendix for the example $`N=2`$ with $`\nu _1=\nu _2=1`$) but as there is an alternative and preferable way of tackling the problem, which we defer to the following sections, here we shall simply extract the leading threshold behaviour, because this can be done rather quickly and painlessly. Begin with (2) and note that

$$M^2(\alpha )=\sigma ^2+\underset{i}{}(\alpha _i\alpha _{i0})^2\sigma ^3/m_i\underset{i}{}(\alpha _i\alpha _{i0})^3\sigma ^4/m_i^2+\mathrm{}$$

One sees that for $`1p^2/\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ small the integral is dominated by values of $`\alpha `$ near the minimum $`\alpha _0`$. Therefore write $`\alpha _i=\alpha _{i0}+\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _i`$, so that the denominator of (2) reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\sigma ^2[1+\sigma \underset{i}{}\xi _i^2/m_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^2\underset{i}{}\xi _i^3/m_i^2+O(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)].$$

Since the integrals in $`\alpha `$ can be made to run between 0 and $`\mathrm{}`$, because of the delta-function constraint, the integral over $`\xi _i`$ runs from $`m_i/\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. So, in the limit as $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, we can take $`\xi _i`$ to run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ (the correction to the integral is exponentially small as $`\mathrm{exp}(1/\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$) and expand the product of the $`\alpha _i`$ about the minimum. Assuming all masses are non-zero (see later sections for a relaxation of this condition) we are thereby led to the leading behaviour,

$$I_N(p,\{\nu \})=c_N\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(N1)(2\mathrm{}+1)2_i\nu _i}(\underset{i}{}m_i^{\mathrm{}\nu _i1})/(4\pi )^{\mathrm{}(N1)}\sigma ^{(2N)\mathrm{}N+_i\nu _i},$$
(3)
where

$$c_N\mathrm{}\left(\underset{i}{}𝑑\xi _i\right)(1)^{N_i\nu _i}\frac{\delta (_i\xi _i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(_i\nu _i(N1)\mathrm{})}{[1+\sigma _i\xi _i^2/m_i]^{_i\nu _i(N1)\mathrm{}}}.$$

If one now represents the delta function and the denominator by integrals, the coefficient $`c_N\mathrm{}`$ can be explicitly evaluated as follows:

$`c_N\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi _i}\right){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha \alpha ^{_i\nu _i1(N1)\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{\alpha k^2/4\alpha }`$
$`\times (1)^{N_i\nu _i}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sigma }{m_i}}(\xi _i{\displaystyle \frac{ikm_i}{2\alpha \sigma }})^2\right]`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{N_i\nu _i}\varpi ^{1/2}\pi ^{(N1)/2}\sigma ^{N/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\nu _i(\mathrm{}+1/2)((N1));\varpi {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}m_i.`$
So, all told, the leading threshold behaviour is dominated by

$$I_N(p,\{\nu \})=(1)^{N_i\nu _i}\frac{\pi ^{(N1)/2}}{(4\pi )^{(N1)\mathrm{}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(_i\nu _i(N1)(l+1/2))_im_i^{\mathrm{}\nu _i1/2}}{\sigma ^{(2N)\mathrm{}N/2+_i\nu _i}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(N1)(2\mathrm{}+1)2_i\nu _i}.$$
(4)
The case of greatest interest is $`\nu _i=1`$, all $`i`$, when (4) reduces to

$$I_N(p)=\frac{\pi ^{(N1)/2}}{(4\pi )^{(N1)\mathrm{}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N1)/2\mathrm{}(N1))}{\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{N/2+\mathrm{}(2N)}}(1p^2/\sigma ^2)^{\mathrm{}(N1)(N+1)/2}.$$
(5)
We may then continue this expression above threshold ($`p^2\sigma ^2`$), in order to obtain the behaviour of the $`N`$-body phase space as the discontinuity:

$$\rho _N(p)=2\mathrm{}I_N(p)\frac{\pi ^{(N+1)/2}}{(4\pi )^{(N1)\mathrm{}}}\frac{\varpi ^{\mathrm{}3/2}}{\sigma ^{N/2+\mathrm{}(N1)}}\frac{(p^2/\sigma ^21)^{\mathrm{}(N1)(N+1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N1)(\mathrm{}1/2))}$$
(6)
This result agrees with the answer obtained by Davydychev and Smirnov  and reduces to the well-known four-dimensional behaviour found by Hagedorn and Almgren , when we set $`\mathrm{}=2`$, namely

$$\rho _N(p)Q^{(3N5)/2},$$

where $`Q=\sqrt{p^2}\sigma `$ is the energy release. However (6) supplies the answer in any dimension with the appropriate coefficient.

## III. Exact results

We now consider phase space in general and derive some precise results for any $`\mathrm{},N`$ as they arise from recurrence relations between phase space expressions for smaller $`N`$ and not necessarily around threshold. Begin with the definition of the $`N`$-body phase space integral,

$$\rho _N(p)\rho _{p1+2+\mathrm{}N}\underset{i}{}\left(\overline{d}^2\mathrm{}p_i\theta (p_i)\overline{\delta }(p_i^2m_i^2)\right)\overline{\delta }^2\mathrm{}(p\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i).$$
(7)
The measures $`d^{2\mathrm{}1}\stackrel{}{p}=|\stackrel{}{p}|^{2\mathrm{}2}d|\stackrel{}{p}|.(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2\mathrm{}3}d\theta .2\pi ^\mathrm{}1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)=|\stackrel{}{p}|^{2\mathrm{}2}d|\stackrel{}{p}|.2\pi ^{\mathrm{}1/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1/2)`$, come in useful if one were able to integrate over angles. Thus the two-body result is readily evaluated in this way to be

$$\rho _2(p)=\frac{\pi (4\pi )^{1/2\mathrm{}}q^{2\mathrm{}3}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1/2)\sqrt{p^2}},$$

where $`q`$ is the centre of mass spatial momentum, so that $`\sqrt{q^2+m_1^2}+\sqrt{q^2+m_2^2}=\sqrt{p^2}`$. Tidying up, the result can be expressed covariantly as

$$\rho _{p1+2}=\frac{\pi ^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)\lambda ^{2\mathrm{}3}}{2^{2\mathrm{}1}(p^2)^\mathrm{}1\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}2)};\lambda \sqrt{p^4+m_1^4+m_2^42m_1^2m_2^22p^2m_1^22p^2m_2^2}.$$
(8)
The three-body phase space can also be evaluated by brute force methods and reduced to a triangular integral over three Mandelstam variables:

$$\rho _{p1+2+3}=\frac{2\pi (p^2)^1\mathrm{}}{(4\pi )^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}2)}𝑑s𝑑t𝑑u\delta (s+t+um_1^2m_2^2m_3^3p^2)[\mathrm{\Phi }(s,t,u)]^\mathrm{}2\theta (\mathrm{\Phi }),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(s,t,u)`$ is the Kibble  cubic (simply a Gram determinant),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(s,t,u)stus(m_2^2m_3^2+p^2m_1^2)t(m_3^2m_1^2+p^2m_2^2)u(m_1^2m_2^2+p^2m_3^2)$$

$$+2(m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2+p^2m_1^2m_2^2+p^2m_2^2m_3^2+p^2m_3^2m_1^2)=p^2\lambda ^2(|\stackrel{}{p}_1|^2,|\stackrel{}{p}_2|^2,|\stackrel{}{p}_3|^2).$$

By changing variables to $`s`$ and $`tu`$, one integration may be performed and the problem reduced to the single integral ,

$$\rho _{p1+2+3}=\frac{(32\pi )^{22\mathrm{}}}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1/2))^2(p^2)^\mathrm{}1}_{(m_1+m_2)^2}^{(\sqrt{p^2}m_3)^2}s^1\mathrm{}𝒟^{\mathrm{}3/2}𝑑s,$$
(9)
where $`𝒟=[s(m_3+\sqrt{p^2})^2][s(m_3\sqrt{p^2})^2][s(m_1+m_2)^2][s(m_1m_2)^2]`$. When we are in four dimensions ($`\mathrm{}=2`$) the integral is nothing but the area within the Dalitz plot but its evaluation for arbitrary masses is easier said than done, because (9) is an elliptic function in general! However in three dimensions the integration over the region becomes possible because it can be converted into

$$\rho _3(p)\frac{1}{32\pi \sqrt{p^2}}_{(m_1+m_2)^2}^{(\sqrt{p^2}m_3)^2}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s}}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\left(1\frac{m_1+m_2+m_3}{\sqrt{p^2}}\right).$$

In fact the three-body phase space integration is tractable for all odd $`D`$ dimensions, because one remains with a polynomial in half-integral powers of $`s`$ which is readily handled . Two other cases are amenable to an exact treatment in terms of ‘elementary’ functions for any $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`N=3`$, namely (i) two masses are set to zero, or (ii) one mass vanishes and the two other masses are equal. In case (i) put $`m_2=m_3=0,m_1=m`$ so $`𝒟(sp^2)^2(sm^2)^2`$ whereupon the 3-body phase space reads

$$\rho _3(p)\frac{\pi ^{12\mathrm{}}(p^2/m^21)^{4\mathrm{}5}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)]^2}{2^{4\mathrm{}1}(m^2)^{32\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(4\mathrm{}4)}F(3\mathrm{}3,2\mathrm{}2;4\mathrm{}4;1\frac{p^2}{m^2})\theta (p^2m^2),$$

while in case (ii) put $`m_3=0,m_1=m_2=m`$ so that $`𝒟s(sp^2)^2(s4m^2)`$ and

$$\rho _3(p)\frac{\pi ^{3/22\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)(p^24m^2)^{3\mathrm{}7/2}}{2^{6\mathrm{}3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\mathrm{}5/2)(p^2)^\mathrm{}1m}F(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2},3\mathrm{}\frac{5}{2};1\frac{p^2}{4m^2})\theta (p^24m^2).$$

Of course we can also proceed to the limit $`m0`$ in either case. Any other set of masses produces ‘elliptic’ results  for even $`D`$ or integral $`\mathrm{}`$.

A more systematic way of arriving at Lorentz invariant answers, without resorting to integrations over spatial momenta in the standard approach and interpreting them covariantly, is to apply Almgren’s method. In that method one partitions the set of outgoing particles into subsets (call them $`A,B`$ etc.) and obtains $`\rho `$ via mass integration convolutions; for instance the three-body result (9) can be construed as

$$\rho _{p1+2+3}=\rho _{pA+3}\rho _{A1+2}\overline{d}m_A^2,$$

where $`s`$ is interpreted as the intermediate $`m_A^2`$. More generally, one may evaluate the $`N`$-body phase space through the double integral

$$\rho _{p1+2+\mathrm{}+j+(j+1)\mathrm{}+N}=\rho _{pA+B}\rho _{A1+2+\mathrm{}j}\rho _{B(j+1)+\mathrm{}+N}\overline{d}m_A^2\overline{d}m_B^2.$$
(10)
Although this is quite a satisfactory numerical way of calculating $`\rho `$, it does not shed a great deal of analytical light on the nature of the problem; but it does serve as a nice check of analytical results obtained in a different manner, which we will now exhibit.

## IV. Coordinate space method

The sunset diagram having all $`\nu `$=1 is nothing but the $`2\mathrm{}`$-dimensional Fourier transform of the product of $`N`$ causal functions:

$$I_N(p)=id^2\mathrm{}x\mathrm{exp}(ip.x)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[i\mathrm{\Delta }_c(x|m_i)],$$
(11)
and the phase space integral is simply given by

$$\rho _{p1+2+\mathrm{}+N}=2\mathrm{}I_N(p),$$

which is nonvanishing for $`p^2(m_1+m_2+\mathrm{}+m_N)^2`$. Of course (11) is easier stated than done except in the simplest cases (like $`N=2`$ or 3) because the causal function is a Bessel function in general ,

$$i\mathrm{\Delta }_c(x|m)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{\mathrm{}}}\left(\frac{m}{r}\right)^\mathrm{}1K_\mathrm{}1(mr);r\sqrt{x^2+iϵ}.$$

In the massless limit, when $`m0`$, the sunset diagram reduces to a “superpropagator” with integer index since

$$i\mathrm{\Delta }_c(x|0)iD_c(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)/4\pi ^{\mathrm{}}r^{2\mathrm{}2}.$$

However, as noted and indeed emphasized by Berends et al  and by Groote at al , one can make considerable progress using coordinate space methods in the odd-dimensional massive cases, because the Bessel function reduces to an exponential times a polynomial.

Let us begin systematically by considering the most trivial case when all intermediate masses vanish. Carrying out the angular integration in (11), the sunset integral reduces to

$$I_N(p)(2\pi )^{\mathrm{}}q^1\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^{\mathrm{}}J_\mathrm{}1(qr)\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)}{4\pi ^{\mathrm{}}r^{2\mathrm{}2}}\right]^N;q^2p^2,$$
(12)
which can be evaluated straightforwardly . Thus one finds that

$$\underset{m_i0}{lim}I_N(p)=(4\pi )^{\mathrm{}(1N)}\frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)]^N\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+NN\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\mathrm{}N)}(p^2iϵ)^{N\mathrm{}\mathrm{}N},$$
(13)
so the massless phase space integral reduces, in $`2\mathrm{}`$ dimensions, to666Here and afterwards, we use the fact that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)(k^2+iϵ)^a=\pi |k^2|^a\theta (k^2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1a)`$ for real $`a`$.

$$\underset{m_i0}{lim}\rho _N(p)=2\mathrm{}I_N(p)=\frac{(4\pi )^{1+\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)]^N}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\mathrm{}N)\mathrm{\Gamma }((N1)(\mathrm{}1))}(p^2)^{N\mathrm{}\mathrm{}N}\theta (p^2).$$
(14)
Both (13) and (14) are exact too. One may readily check that the cases $`N=1,2,3`$ produce the correct answers, by taking appropriate limits of earliers results. Also it is very instructive to check that the Almgren recurrence formulae, such as (10), are properly obeyed, not only in their momentum dependence, but in their multiplicative coefficients.

Now it turns out that the integral of two Bessel functions with an exponential can also be handled . Therefore one can improve on above and calculate analytically the sunset integral for one particle massive ($`m`$) and the remaining $`N`$-1 particles massless. In those circumstances one is led to

$`I_N(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{m}}\right)^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^{2(N1)(1\mathrm{})+1}J_\mathrm{}1(qr)K_\mathrm{}1(mr).\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)}{4\pi ^{\mathrm{}}}}\right)^{N1}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)]^{N1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+NN\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(NN\mathrm{}+2\mathrm{}1)}{2^{2\mathrm{}(N1)}\pi ^{\mathrm{}(N1)}(m^2)^{N+\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})}}F(\mathrm{}+NN\mathrm{},NN\mathrm{}+2\mathrm{}1;\mathrm{};{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}}).`$
Noting that in respect of the variable $`z`$ the hypergeometric function $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ for real $`a,b,c`$ has a branch point at $`z=1`$ and that the discontinuity across the cut (which runs to +$`\mathrm{}`$) is

$$\mathrm{}F(a,b;c;z)=\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(c)(z1)^{cab}\theta (z1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ab+c)}F(ca,cb;cab+1;1z),$$
(16)
we deduce the phase space result,

$$\rho _N(p)=\frac{\pi ^{1\mathrm{}(N1)}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)]^{N1}(p^2m^2)^{2N\mathrm{}2\mathrm{}2N+1}\theta (p^2m^2)}{2^{2\mathrm{}(N1)1}(m^2)^{N\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2(N1)(\mathrm{}1))}F(N(\mathrm{}1),(N1)(\mathrm{}1);2(N1)(\mathrm{}1);1\frac{p^2}{m^2})$$
(17)
The pair of expressions (16) and (17) are precise as well. Contrast (17) with the expression found by Beneke and Smirnov  for a one-loop vertex diagram with two massive and one massless particle. By taking the limit $`m0`$ of (16) and (17) and suitably manoeuvring the hypergeometric function777e.g. using the relation $`F(a,b;c;z)=(1z)^bF(ca,b;c;z/(z1))`$. one can show that they collapse into (13) and (14). Additionally we may deduce the particular cases $`N=2,3`$ previously by direct substitution; for instance, in four dimensions ($`\mathrm{}=2`$), one gets

$$\rho _N(p)=\frac{2\pi (p^2m^2)^{2N3}}{(16\pi ^2)^{N1}(m^2)^{N1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2N2)}F(N,N1;2(N1);1\frac{p^2}{m^2})\theta (p^2m^2),$$

so the three-body phase space with a single massive particle ($`p^2m^2`$) brings in a logarithmic function:

$$\rho _3(p)=\frac{(p^2m^2)^3}{768\pi ^3m^4}F(3,2;4;1\frac{p^2}{m^2})=\frac{m^2}{256\pi ^3p^2}\left[(\frac{p^4}{m^4}1)2\frac{p^2}{m^2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{p^2}{m^2})\right].$$

## V. Hypergeometric Expansions

As soon as we have at least two massive particles, we come across integrals involving products of three Bessel functions with different arguments and a power of $`r`$. This is not given in the standard texts888 The formula $`2_0^{\mathrm{}}r^{\nu +1}K_\mu (ar)K_\mu (br)J_\nu (cr)𝑑r=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\left(\frac{c}{ab}\right)^{\nu +1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\mu +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \mu +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +3/2)(1+z)^{\nu +1/2}}F(1/2\mu ,1/2+\mu ;3/2+\nu ;(1z)/2)`$, where $`z(a^2+b^2+c^2)/2ab,`$ is given in ., though it is surely some generalization of a hypergeometric function for we definitely know how to evaluate the $`N=2`$ case directly in momentum space; but for larger $`N`$ it would seem that the coordinate space method stalls. Only when $`p=0`$, which corresponds to a vacuum ‘watermelon diagram’, can the integrations sometimes be carried out . However, we will now present a method which is still suitable for handling the general problem and which works wonderfully well in odd-dimensional spaces. It relies on the observation that the modified Bessel function possesses an asymptotic representation ($`\mu 4\nu ^2`$),

$$K_\nu (z)\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2z}}\mathrm{e}^z\left[1+\frac{\mu 1}{8z}+\frac{(\mu 1)(\mu 9)}{2!(8z)^2}+\frac{(\mu 1)(\mu 9)(\mu 25)}{3!(8z)^3}+\mathrm{}\right]$$

that terminates for $`\nu `$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ half-integral, corresponding to $`D`$ odd. Even for integral $`\mathrm{}`$ or even dimensions, we shall see that it provides a very nice threshold expansion in terms of hypergeometric functions . To show how this works, assume first that all the intermediate particles are massive. Since

$$i\mathrm{\Delta }_c(x|m)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{\mathrm{}}}\left(\frac{m}{r}\right)^\mathrm{}1\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2mr}}\mathrm{e}^{mr}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+j1/2)}{j!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}j1/2)}(2mr)^j,$$
(18)
the product of causal Green functions produces the series

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_c(x|m_j)=\left(\frac{\pi ^{1/2\mathrm{}}}{2^{\mathrm{}+1/2}r^{\mathrm{}1/2}}\right)^N\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}m_j^{\mathrm{}3/2}.\mathrm{e}^{r_jm_j}\left[1+\frac{(2\mathrm{}1)(2\mathrm{}3)}{8r}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{m_j}+\mathrm{}\right].$$

The leading (and in 3-D the only) term of the rhs above yields the leading behaviour of the sunset diagram,

$`I_N^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+N/2}}{q^\mathrm{}1\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^{\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+N/2}\mathrm{e}^{r\sigma }J_\mathrm{}1(qr)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{1N\mathrm{}N/2}\pi ^{\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+N/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }((2N)\mathrm{}+N/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})\sigma ^{(2N)\mathrm{}+N/2}\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}}}F({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+N/2}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+N/2+1}{2}};\mathrm{};{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2}}),`$
where $`\varpi _im_i,\sigma _im_i`$. The imaginary part then produces the leading contribution to the phase space integral,

$`\rho _N^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2\mathrm{}(1N)+1}\pi ^{\mathrm{}(1N)+(N+1)/2}(p^2\sigma ^2)^{\mathrm{}(N1)(N+1)/2}}{\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{N\mathrm{}1N/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}(N1)(N+1)/2)}}\theta (p^2\sigma ^2)\times `$ (20)
$`F({\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}N/2}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}1N/2}{2}};\mathrm{}(N1){\displaystyle \frac{N1}{2}};1{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2}}).`$
It should be noted that expressions (19) and (20) represent the complete results for 3-D, when they reduce respectively to

$$I_N(p)\frac{\pi ^{3/2N}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3N)}{2^{2N2}\sigma ^{3N}\sqrt{\pi }}F(\frac{3N}{2},\frac{4N}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2})$$

and

$$\rho _N(p)\frac{\pi ^{2N}(p^2\sigma ^2)^{N2}}{2^{3N4}\sigma ^{N1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(N1)}F(\frac{N}{2},\frac{N1}{2};N1;1\frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2})=\frac{\pi (\sqrt{p^2}\sigma )^{N2}\theta (p^2\sigma ^2)}{(4\pi )^{N1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(N1)\sqrt{p^2}}.$$

Nonleading behaviours (for values of $`\mathrm{}3/2`$) of $`I_N`$ and $`\rho _N`$ can be found from expansion (18); for instance to the next order we encounter the terms,

$`I_N^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{}1)(2\mathrm{}3)\pi ^{\mathrm{}((1N)+N/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}1N\mathrm{}+N/2)}{2^{2+N\mathrm{}+N/2}\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}(2N)+N/21}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})\mu }}\times `$ (21)
$`F({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+N/21}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}+N/2}{2}};\mathrm{};{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2}}),`$
$`\rho _N^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{}1)(2\mathrm{}3)\pi ^{\mathrm{}(1N)+(N+1)/2}(p^2\sigma ^2)^{\mathrm{}(N1)+(1N)/2}}{2^{2\mathrm{}(N1)+3}\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{N(\mathrm{}1/2)}\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}(N1)+(3N)/2)}}\theta (p^2\sigma ^2)\times `$ (22)
$`F({\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}+1N/2}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}N/2}{2}};\mathrm{}(N1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3N}{2}};1{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2}}),`$
where $`1/\mu _j1/m_j`$; and so on for higher $`I_N^k,\rho _N^k`$. The method is entirely systematic and one may proceed to as high an order $`k`$ as needed. Observe that the resulting series is a sort of threshold expansion because the powers of $`(p^2\sigma ^2)`$ which multiply $`F(a,b;c;1p^2/\sigma ^2)`$ keep on increasing as we raise $`k`$ while the denominators are associated with sums of the type $`_j(1/m_j)^k`$.

However these expansions are deficient in one respect: it is very tricky to consider the limit as one or several masses vanishes, because the approximation (18) is fairly useless for massless propagators; in that case we should be using directly $`iD_c(x)r^{22\mathrm{}}`$, rather than the asymptotic expansion (18). Finally then we will consider the case where $`M`$ of the $`N`$ particles are massive while the remaining $`NM`$ are massless; this covers essentially all cases of interest. The sunset integral is given ab initio by

$`I_N(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{\mathrm{}}}{q^\mathrm{}1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}drr^{\mathrm{}}J_\mathrm{}1(qr)({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)}{4\pi ^{\mathrm{}}r^{2\mathrm{}2}}})^{NM}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\pi r)^{1/2\mathrm{}}}{2^{\mathrm{}+1/2}}}\right)^M\mathrm{e}^{r\sigma }\varpi ^{\mathrm{}3/2}\times `$ (23)
$`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{}1)(2\mathrm{}3)}{8r\mu }}+\mathrm{}\right],`$
where the symbols now refer simply to the massive intermediate particles; therefore $`\varpi _{j=1}^Mm_j`$, $`\sigma _{j=1}^Mm_j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/\mu _{j=1}^M(1/m_j)`$. The integrals in (23) are readily performed and the leading term of the full answer is

$`I_N^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2(MN)+1M\mathrm{}M/2}\pi ^{\mathrm{}(1N)+M/2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)]^{NM}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}(2M)+(MN)(2\mathrm{}2)+M/2)}{\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}(2M)+(MN)(2\mathrm{}2)+M/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})}}`$ (24)
$`\times F({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(2M)+M/2}{2}}+(MN)(\mathrm{}1),{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(2M)+1+M/2}{2}}+(MN)(\mathrm{}1);\mathrm{};{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2}}).`$
Taking its discontinuity, the leading phase space behaviour is ($`cM(3/2\mathrm{})+2N(\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{}+1/2`$ and $`p^2\sigma ^2`$ below),

$`\rho _N^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2\mathrm{}(1N)+1}\pi ^{\mathrm{}(1N)+(M+1)/2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}1)]^{NM}(p^2\sigma ^2)^{M(3/2\mathrm{})+2N(\mathrm{}1)(\mathrm{}+1/2)}}{\varpi ^{3/2\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{M(7/23\mathrm{})+2(M+N)(\mathrm{}1)1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}}\times `$ (25)
$`F((\mathrm{}1)(NM)+{\displaystyle \frac{M(2\mathrm{}1)}{4}},(\mathrm{}1)(NM)+{\displaystyle \frac{M(2\mathrm{}1)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};c;1{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2}}).`$
All the previous cases fall out of (24) and (25) by making the relevant substitutions for $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Of course one may also derive nonleading terms $`I_N^k,\rho _N^k`$ in exactly the same way as before and they correspond to higher order threshold corrections. Again, these corrections entrain higher powers of $`(p^2\sigma ^2)`$ and terminate for half-integral $`\mathrm{}`$.

## VI. Conclusions

Before we can comprehend the statistical effects of phase space on brane physics, it is vital to understand phase space in flat $`D`$-dimensional spacetime for any number of particles, with arbitrary masses. This paper has been devoted to that subject and we have arrived at results for $`\rho _N(p)`$ and $`I_N(p)`$ that have culminated in formulae (14), (23), (24) and (25). These comprise the high-energy and low-energy characteristics and at any energy in-between. We believe that these analytical expressions are as compact as one can make them and will turn out to be practically useful. Otherwise one will be obliged to resort to numerical methods.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr AI Davydychev for supplying us with a comprehensive list of references in this vast topic, for pointing us in the right direction and for valuable comments on our work. We also thank the Australian Research Council for financial support under grant number A00000780.

## Appendix. At the threshold of a sunset

In this appendix we show explicitly how the threshold expansion can be carried out in momentum space via Feynman parameters. We illustrate the case $`N=2`$ for any dimension $`2\mathrm{}`$ to keep the algebra simple, when the sunset integral is just

$$I_2(p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{})}{(4\pi )^{\mathrm{}}}_0^1𝑑\alpha _1_0^1𝑑\alpha _2\frac{\delta (\alpha _1+\alpha _21)}{[p^2\alpha _1\alpha _2m_1^2\alpha _2m_2^2\alpha _1]^2\mathrm{}}.$$

Never mind the fact that $`I_2`$ can be expressed as a linear combination of two hypergeometric functions ($`a=\mathrm{}1,b=2\mathrm{},c=\mathrm{}`$) with arguments $`\frac{1}{2}[(m_1^2m_2^2\pm p^2)/\lambda +1]`$ or that it can be accorded an exact geometrical interpretation ; our purpose here is to show how one may arrive at a systematic threshold expansion, by expanding about the minimum of the denominator, regarded as a function of $`\alpha `$. Thus change variables to

$$\alpha _i=\frac{m_i}{m_1+m_2}+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _i,p^2(m_1+m_2)^2[1\mathrm{\Delta }^2].$$

The delta-function constraint on $`\alpha `$ corresponds to $`\rho _1=\rho _2\rho `$, whereupon the sunset integral reduces to

$$I_2(p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{})}{(4\pi )^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{2\mathrm{}3}_{\frac{m_1}{(m_1+m_2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}^{\frac{m_2}{(m_1+m_2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}\frac{d\rho }{[m_1m_2+\rho ^2(m_1+m_2)^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (m_1^2m_2^2)]^2\mathrm{}}.$$

The leading behaviour is found by setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ in the denominator of the integrand and extending the limits to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$. Since

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho }{[m_1m_2+\rho ^2(m_1+m_2)^2]^2\mathrm{}}=\frac{(m_1m_2)^{\mathrm{}3/2}}{2(m_1+m_2)}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dvv^{1/2}}{(1+v)^2\mathrm{}}=\frac{(m_1m_2)^{\mathrm{}3/2}}{2(m_1+m_2)}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{})},$$

it follows that

$$I_2^0(p)=\frac{(m_1m_2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{\mathrm{}3/2}\sqrt{\pi }}{(4\pi )^{\mathrm{}}(m_1+m_2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2\mathrm{}).$$

However we are keen to obtain all the nonleading terms and this can be accomplished by rewriting the sunset integral as

$$I_2(p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{})(m_1m_2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{\mathrm{}3/2}}{(4\pi )^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{p^2}}_u_{}^{u_+}𝑑u[1+u^2u\eta ]^\mathrm{}2,$$

where the new integration variable is $`u=\rho \sqrt{p^2/m_1m_2}`$, the limits are $`u_+=\frac{m_2}{(m_1+m_2)\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{\frac{p^2}{m_1m_2}}`$ and $`u_{}=\frac{m_1}{(m_1+m_2)\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{\frac{p^2}{m_1m_2}}`$, and the new expansion variable is $`\eta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(m_1^2m_2^2)}{\sqrt{p^2m_1m_2}}`$. The series in $`\eta `$ reads

$$I_2(p)=\frac{(m_1m_2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{\mathrm{}3/2}}{(4\pi )^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{p^2}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+n\mathrm{})}{n!}\eta ^nU_n;U_n_u_{}^{u_+}𝑑u(1+u^2)^{\mathrm{}2n}u^n.$$

In evaluating the coefficients $`U_n`$, we make use of the fact that the limits are large and we should distinguish between the cases of $`n`$ even and $`n`$ odd. For $`n`$ even, we split the integral into

$`U_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{|u_{}|}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{|u_+|}^{\mathrm{}}}\right)duu^n(1+u^2)^{\mathrm{}2n}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((n+1)/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }((3+n)/2\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+n\mathrm{})}}\left({\displaystyle _{|u_{}|}^{\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle _{|u_+|}^{\mathrm{}}}\right)duu^{2\mathrm{}4n}(1+1/u^2)^{\mathrm{}2n},`$
where we may expand the latter two integrals in powers of $`1/u^2`$ — which provides a further sub-expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+n\mathrm{})U_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }((n+1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }((3+n)/2\mathrm{})+\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{()^k\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+n+k\mathrm{})}{k!(2\mathrm{}3n2k)}\times $$

$$\left[|u_+|^{2\mathrm{}3n2k}+|u_{}|^{2\mathrm{}3n2k}\right].$$

On the other hand, the case of odd $`n`$ can be treated directly by expanding the integrand below in powers of $`1/v`$:

$`U_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{u_{}^2}^{u_+^2}}𝑑vv^{\mathrm{}(5+n)/2}(1+1/v)^{\mathrm{}2n}\mathrm{so}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+n\mathrm{})U_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^k\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+n+k\mathrm{})}{k!(2\mathrm{}3n2k)}}\left[|u_+|^{2\mathrm{}3n2k}|u_{}|^{2\mathrm{}3n2k}\right].`$
Again one encounters a sub-series in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. (The two series make up the ‘h-h’ and ‘p-p’ contributions of ref  at one stroke.) In short we see that the sunset integral, and of necessity its imaginary part, can be systematically expanded as a series in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is proportional to the $`Q`$-value of the reaction by appropriately handling the Feynman parametric representation. It is possible to treat the sunset diagram with $`N`$ intermediate particles in a similar way, but the method becomes rather unwieldy, which is why we turned to coordinate space methods in sections IV, V.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Free field representation of infinite dimensional Lie algebras is a way to construct representations concretely. It also enables us to compute important quantities in representations. A well known example is solutions for the correlation functions in the Conformal Field Theory .

Among many free field representations, the Feigin-Fuchs construction for the Virasoro algebra  and the Wakimoto representations for affine Lie algebras  are special in the sense that they can be used to realize representations of generic level. For generic highest weights, they are isomorphic to the Verma modules. When they are reducible, the irreducible representations are obtained by means of the BRST-cohomology . Complete description of their submodule structures are also given with Jantzen filtration technique.

Recently the Wakimoto representation in the principal gradation was found for the first time for $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$ in . In this paper, we study the submodule structure and relation to irreducible representations of this Wakimoto representation using the same technique used in the above studies. Since discussions and results are parallel to the preceding cases, we concentrate on the speciality of this Wakimoto representation in proofs. Theorem 2 is about submodule structure and the BRST-resolution is given in Theorem 3.

## 2 Principally graded Wakimoto module of $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$

In this section, we briefly recall $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$ and its Wakimoto representation in the principal gradation, for detail see .

The affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$ in the principal gradation consists of the generators $`\beta _n,x_n,c,\rho `$ which satisfy the following relations:

$`c:\text{central},`$
$`[\rho ,\beta _n]=n\beta _n,[\rho ,x_n]=nx_n,`$
$`[\beta _m,\beta _n]=mc\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`[\beta _m,x_n]=2x_{m+n},`$
$`[x_m,x_n]=2(1)^m\beta _{m+n}+mc(1)^m\delta _{m+n,0}.`$
We introduce currents $`\beta (\zeta ),x(\zeta )`$ as

$`\beta (\zeta )={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\beta _n\zeta ^n,x(\zeta )={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}x_n\zeta ^n.`$
Let us introduce three kinds of bosonic currents

$`\varphi _0(\zeta )={\displaystyle \underset{n:\mathrm{odd}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{0,n}}{n}}\zeta ^n,`$
$`\varphi _1(\zeta )={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n:\mathrm{even}}{n0}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{1,n}}{n}}\zeta ^n+\varphi _{1,0}\mathrm{ln}\zeta +q,`$
$`\varphi _2(\zeta )={\displaystyle \underset{n:\mathrm{odd}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{2,n}}{n}}\zeta ^n,`$
with commutation relations

$`[\varphi _{0,m},\varphi _{0,n}]=+(1(1)^m)2km\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`[\varphi _{1,m},\varphi _{1,n}]=+(1+(1)^m)2(k+2)m\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`[\varphi _{2,m},\varphi _{2,n}]=(1(1)^m)2km\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`[\varphi _{1,0},q]=4(k+2).`$
Fock spaces are constructed on the vacuum vector $`\nu _0`$ as

$`\varphi _{i,n}\nu _0=0\text{for}n0,`$
$`\nu _j=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{j}{2(k+2)}}q\right)\nu _0,`$
$`_j=[\varphi _{1,2},\varphi _{1,4}\mathrm{}\varphi _{0,1},\varphi _{0,3}\mathrm{}\varphi _{2,1},\varphi _{2,3}\mathrm{}]\nu _j,`$
We denote by $`d:_{j,k}_{j,k}`$ the grading operator

$`[d,\varphi _{i,n}]=n\varphi _{i,n},[d,q]=\varphi _{1,0},d\nu _j={\displaystyle \frac{2j^2+k}{4(k+2)}}\nu _j.`$
Then the Wakimoto representation $`(\pi _j,_j)`$ is given by the following Theorem .

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`j,k`$ be complex numbers with $`k0,2`$. Then the following gives a level $`k`$ representation of $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$ on the Fock space $`_j`$:

$`\pi _j\left(\beta (\zeta )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta \varphi _0(\zeta ),`$ (1)
$`\pi _j\left(x(\zeta )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:\left(\zeta \varphi _1(\zeta )+\zeta \varphi _2(\zeta )\right)e^{\frac{\varphi _2(\zeta )}{k}+\frac{\varphi _0(\zeta )}{k}}:,`$ (2)
$`\pi _j(c)=k,\pi _j(\rho )=d.`$ (3)
This representation is the highest weight in the sense that

$`\beta _n\nu _j=0,x_n\nu _j=0\mathrm{for}n>0,`$
$`x_0\nu _j=j\nu _j.`$
The highest weight is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j={\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)+j(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_0){\displaystyle \frac{\{2j(j+k+2)+k(k+3)\}}{8(k+2)}}\delta ,`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ are the fundamental weights of $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$ and $`\delta =\alpha _0+\alpha _1`$.

## 3 Main results

Here and henceforth, we assume $`k+2=p/p^{}`$ where $`p,p^{}`$ are positive integers relatively prime to each other. The following notations are frequently used

$`j_{m,m^{}}=mm^{}(k+2),`$
$`_{m,m^{}}=_{j_{m,m^{}}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,m^{}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j_{m,m^{}}}.`$
Among reducible $`_j`$’s, the case we study in this paper is when $`j=j_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$

$`l\{0\},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}mp1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}m^{}p^{}1.`$ (5)
For the Verma module $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2})`$ having the same highest weight, this is the condition to be completely degenerate i.e the structure of Verma module is described by the following diagram :

(6)
where $`s_i`$ denotes a singular vector. Throughout this paper, an arrow goes from one vector to another if and only if the second vector is in the $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$-submodule generated by the first one. Weights of $`s_i`$ are given as follows:

$`\text{weight}(s_{2i+1})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+(l+2i)p,m^{}+1/2},i,`$
$`\text{weight}(s_{2i})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m(l+2i)p,m^{}+1/2},i,`$
$`\text{weight}(s_{2i})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+(l+2i)p,m^{}+1/2},i,`$
$`\text{weight}(s_{2i+1})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m(l+2i)p,m^{}+1/2},i\{0\}.`$
Using the screening current $`S(\zeta )`$ introduced in , a screening charge $`Q^n`$ is defined as

$`Q^n={\displaystyle _𝒞}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta _i^2}{\zeta _i^2}}S(\zeta _1)S(\zeta _2)\mathrm{}S(\zeta _n),`$ (7)
$`S(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta ^{\frac{2}{k+2}}:\zeta \varphi _2(\zeta )e^{\frac{\varphi _1(\zeta )}{k+2}}:.`$ (8)
The contour $`𝒞`$ is the same one used for the screening charge in  where $`v_i`$ there should be replaced with $`\zeta _i^2`$. The operator $`Q^n`$ is well defined on $`_{m,m^{}}`$ when

$`nm\text{ mod }p,`$
and an intertwiner of Fock modules:

$`Q^n:_{m,m^{}}_{m2n,m^{}},`$
$`[Q^n,a]=0\text{ for }a\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2.`$
###### Proposition 1.

The Fock module $`_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$ with (5) has singular vectors $`u_i,i`$ and cosingular vectors $`w_i,i\{0\}`$. Their weights coincide with the weights of $`s_iV(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,m^{}+1/2})`$ as

$`\mathrm{weight}(u_i)=\mathrm{weight}(s_{2i+1}),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{weight}(w_i)=\mathrm{weight}(s_{2i+1}).`$ (10)
This is the complete list of all singular and cosingular vectors in the module.

###### Proof.

First we show the existence of cosingular vectors. Let $`_j^{}`$ be the restricted dual of $`_j`$ and $`\omega `$ be the Chevalley involution:

$`\omega (\beta _n)=\beta _n,`$
$`\omega (x_n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}& x_n,n:\text{even},\hfill \\ & x_n,n:\text{odd}.\hfill \end{array}`$
We define the contragradient representation of $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$: $`(\pi _j^{},_j^{})`$ as

$`\pi _j^{}(a)v^{},v=v^{},\pi _j\left(\omega (a)\right)v,a\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2.`$
Throughout this proof $`v,v^{}`$ denote arbitrary vectors of $`_j,_j^{}`$. Then there is a one to one correspondence between singular (cosingular) vectors in $`_j`$ and cosingular (singular) vectors in $`_j^{}`$ such that vectors in a pair have the same weight.

Hence we study the singular vectors in $`_j^{}`$. The space $`_j^{}`$ can be regarded as a Fock space as

$$_j^{}=[{}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{1,2}^{},{}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{1,4}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{0,1}^{},{}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{0,3}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{2,1}^{},{}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{2,3}^{}\mathrm{}]\nu _j^{},$$

$${}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{i,n}^{}v^{},v=v^{},\varphi _{i,n}v.$$

Let $`\sigma `$ be the automorphism which changes $`01`$ index of the Chevalley generators of $`\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2`$:

$`\sigma (\beta _n)=\beta _n,\sigma (x_n)=x_n.`$ (11)
Set $`\pi _j^{}=\pi _j\sigma `$, then $`(\pi _j^{},_j)`$ is another Wakimoto representation with the highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$.

Then we define an isomorphism $`\phi :(\pi _j^{},_j)(\pi _j^{},_j^{})`$ by

$`\phi (\varphi _{i,n})=(1)^i\times {}_{}{}^{t}\varphi _{i,n}^{},`$ (12)
$`\phi \left(\pi _j^{}(a)\right)=\left(\pi _j^{}(a)\right)(a\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2).`$ (13)
The last equation comes from

$`\phi \left(\pi _j^{}(a)\right)v^{},v=v^{},\pi _j\left(\omega (a)\right)v=\pi _j^{}(a)v^{},v.`$
With this $`\phi `$ a singular vector in $`(\pi _j^{},_j)`$ can be mapped to a singular vector of the same weight in $`(\pi _j^{},_j^{})`$.

Singular vectors in $`(\pi _{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}^{},_{mlp,m^{}1/2})`$ can be constructed explicitly with screening charges. Denoting the highest weight vector of $`_{m,m^{}+1/2}`$ by $`\nu (m)`$,

$`Q^{ipm}\nu \left((2i+l)pm\right),i,`$ (14)
is a singular vector in $`_{m+lp,m^{}+1/2},l`$. To verify that the vector (14) is non-vanishing, we checked that the matrix element

$`\nu ^{}(m+lp),(\varphi _{2,2(m^{}+1/2)+2(l+i)p^{}})^{m+ip}Q^{ipm}\nu \left((2i+l)pm\right),`$
is non-zero by using a formula in Appendix A of . Note that the quantity $`m^{}+1/2`$ makes the subscript $`2(m^{}+1/2)+2(l+i)p^{}`$ be odd.

By the same argument,

$`Q^{(l+i)pm}\nu \left((2i+l)pm\right),i,`$ (15)
is a singular vector in $`_{mlp,m^{}+1/2},l`$. In $`(\pi _{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}^{},_{mlp,m^{}1/2})`$ vectors (14),(15) are singular vectors of the weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m(l+2i)p,m^{}+1/2},i\{0\}`$ and this proves existence of $`w_i`$ and (10).

To conclude all cosingular vectors in $`(\pi _{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2},_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2})`$ are given by the argument above, we study the determinant $`detC(N,j)`$. The matrix $`C(N,j)`$ connects the elements of $`U(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)\nu _j`$ and monomials of $`_j`$ at the degree $`N`$ , e.g.

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1\nu _j\\ x_1\nu _j\end{array}\right)=C(1,j)\times \left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{0,1}\nu _j\\ \varphi _{2,1}\nu _j.\end{array}\right)`$ (16)
If we look at $`detC(N,j)`$ as a polynomial of $`j`$, its zero of the first degree for the smallest $`N`$ corresponds to a cosingular vector of $`(\pi _j,_j)`$ of the degree $`N`$.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`g(N)`$ denote the number of monomials of the degree $`N`$ in $`U(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$, then

$`detC(N,j)=\mathrm{const}.\times {\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r1\\ s=1,3,5\mathrm{}\\ rsN\end{array}}{}}(jj_{r,s/2})^{g(Nrs)}.`$ (17)
###### Proof.

The cosingular vectors $`w_0`$ of $`(\pi _{r,s/2},_{r,s/2})`$ give RHS as a divisor of $`detC(N,j)`$. The order of $`detC(N,j)`$ is the number of $`x_n`$ ($`n`$:odd) in the LHS of (16), which is given by $`_{k=0}^Nf(N,k)k`$ where $`f(N,k)`$ is defined by the polynomial of indetermimates $`x,y`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x^a)(1yx^{2a1})}}={\displaystyle \underset{N0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}f(N,k)y^kx^N.`$
And this order coincides with the order of RHS from the following identity:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{N0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}f(N,k)kx^N`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{a=1,3,5\mathrm{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^a}{1x^a}}{\displaystyle \underset{b1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x^b)(1x^{2b1})}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{N0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r1\\ s=1,3,5\mathrm{}\\ rsN\end{array}}{}}g(Nrs)x^N.`$
From this lemma, we can see that $`detC(N,j_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2})`$ has zeros of the first degree only at $`N=2(m+(l+i)p)(m^{}+1/2+ip^{})`$ and $`N=2(m+ip)(m^{}+1/2+(i+l)p^{})`$ respectively. Since these zeros correspond to $`w_i`$, there is no cosingular vector other than $`w_i`$ . This ends the proof for cosingular vectors $`w_i`$.

Using similar argument, we can also find all the cosingular vectors in $`(\pi _{m\pm lp}^{},_{mlp,m^{}1/2})`$ and this proves that all singular vectors are given by $`u_i`$ and (9). ∎

###### Remark 1.

The idea of using $`\sigma `$ is used in .

###### Remark 2.

In the homogeneous gradation case, the automorphism $`\sigma `$ does not work well on the $`\beta \gamma `$ system. The bosonization given in  is much more suited to prove the similar proposition.

###### Theorem 2.

The submodule structure of $`_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$ given by (5)

* The space of singular vectors in $`_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$ is $`\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}u_i`$. They generate a submodule $`𝒮_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$ which is a direct sum of irreducible highest weight modules. The quotient $`[1]=_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}/𝒮_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$ contains infinitely many singular vectors $`v_i(i,\mathrm{weight}(v_i)=\mathrm{weight}(s_{2i}))`$. The space of singular vectors in $`[1]`$ is $`\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{}{}}v_i`$ and they generate a submodule $`𝒮[1]`$ which is also a direct sum of irreducible highest weight modules. Finally, the space of singular vectors in $`[2]=[1]/𝒮[1]`$ is the projection of $`\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}w_i`$ and $`[2]`$ is a direct sum of irreducible highest weight modules.
* Every submodule of $`_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$ is generated by vectors $`u_i`$, $`w_i`$ and $`v_i`$.
* The structure of the module $`_{m\pm lp,m^{}+1/2}`$ is described by this diagram

(18)

###### Proof.

In the case of the homogeneous gradation , to prove the same theorem the explicit form of Wakimoto construction is used only to show the existence of singular and cosingular vectors in Prop.4.5. Since their existence is proved in Prop.1 in our case, the theorem can be proved using the same argument. ∎

###### Theorem 3.

*
* If $`1mp1`$ and $`0m^{}p^{}1`$ then the following infinite sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{}& \stackrel{Q^m}{}& \stackrel{1}{_{2pm,m^{}+\frac{1}{2}}}& \stackrel{Q^{pm}}{}& \stackrel{0}{_{m,m^{}+\frac{1}{2}}}& \stackrel{Q^m}{}& \stackrel{1}{_{m,m^{}+\frac{1}{2}}}& \stackrel{Q^{pm}}{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

is a complex $`Q^{pm}Q^m=Q^mQ^{pm}=0`$.
* Its zero-th cohomology group is isomorphic to the irreducible highest weight module $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,m^{}+1/2})`$ of the highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,m^{}+\frac{1}{2}}`$:

$`\text{H}^i=\{\begin{array}{cc}& L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,m^{}+1/2}),i=0,\hfill \\ & 0,i0.\hfill \end{array}`$

###### Proof.

This is proved by the same argument given in Section 4 of . Note that as operators neither $`Q^{pm}Q^m`$ nor $`Q^mQ^{pm}`$ are zero but $`\mathrm{Im}Q^m\mathrm{Ker}Q^{pm}`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}Q^{pm}\mathrm{Ker}Q^m`$ hold on the Fock modules.

For (2), let $`S^{}:V(\mathrm{\Lambda }_j)_j`$ be the canonical homomorphism and modules $`V_1,V_1,M_{v_0},M_{u_1}`$ be submodules generated from $`s_1,s_1,v_0,u_1`$ in diagrams (6)(18). Properties of the map $`S^{}`$ are known in the proof of Theorem 2 with the Jantzen filtration and we can show

$`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,m^{}+1/2})S^{}\left(V(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,m^{}+1/2})/(V_1+V_1)\right)M_{v_0}/M_{u_1}\mathrm{Ker}Q^m/\mathrm{Im}Q^{pm}.`$
Acknowledgement
The first author would like to thank S. Odake for helpful discussions.


text:
# The temperature-mass relation in magnetized galaxy clusters

## 1 Introduction

Magnetic fields are common in galaxy clusters. They are inferred from Faraday-rotation measurements (Vallee et al. 1986, 1987) in polarised background radio sources, and from diffuse radio haloes around galaxy clusters (Kronberg 1994). Depending on several assumptions, most notably on the characteristic length scale of field coherence, magnetic field strengths inferred from observations in typical galaxy cluster centres range from $`0.1\mu \mathrm{G}`$ up to some tens of $`\mu \mathrm{G}`$.

Provided the magnetic field is tangled on sufficiently small scales for it to be considered randomised, it contributes a non-thermal pressure $`p_\mathrm{B}`$, which is related to the thermal pressure $`p_{\mathrm{th}}`$ through

$$\frac{p_\mathrm{B}}{p_{\mathrm{th}}}=2.5\%\left(\frac{|\stackrel{}{B}|}{3\mu \mathrm{G}}\right)^2\left(\frac{n}{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}\right)^1\left(\frac{T}{10^8\mathrm{K}}\right)^1.$$
(1)
Conversely, magnetic fields ordered on scales comparable to the cluster scale can add anisotropic non-thermal pressure.

The structure of intracluster magnetic fields is largely unclear at present, and consequently the magnetic field strengths in clusters are equally uncertain. We investigate in this paper the amount of non-thermal pressure support due to realistic magnetic fields in simulated galaxy clusters.

Our approach is as follows (see Dolag et al. 1999). We set up gas-dynamical cosmological cluster simulations at high redshift and impose magnetic fields of variable strength and structure as summarised in Table 2 below. Since the origin of magnetic fields on cluster scales is unknown, we use two extreme types of seed fields, namely either completely homogeneous or chaotic initial magnetic field structures. The evolution of the intracluster fields is then computed during cluster collapse. The initial mean magnetic field strength (or energy density) is a free parameter in our simulations. We choose its range such that the simulated clusters at low redshift well reproduce the statistics of observed Faraday-rotation measurements taken from Kim et al. (1991). It turned out in earlier work (Dolag et al. 1999; hereafter DBL99) that (i) the initial field structure is irrelevant because the final field structure is completely determined by the dynamics of the cluster collapse, and (ii) initial field strengths of order $`10^9\mathrm{G}`$ at the initial redshift of the simulations (see Table 1) are adequate to reproduce the measured Faraday-rotation statistics.

## 2 Models

We use a set of 90 numerically simulated galaxy clusters for investigating the effect of magnetic fields on the temperature and pressure stratification in these clusters. Here, we summarise the numerical technique only briefly because details on the methods applied, their implementation, and their performance in test problems have been published elsewhere (DBL99).

### 2.1 Numerical method: GrapeMSPH

We use the cosmological MHD code described in DBL99 to simulate the formation of magnetised galaxy clusters from an initial density perturbation field. The code combines the merely gravitational interaction of a dark-matter component with the hydrodynamics of a gaseous component. The gravitational interaction of the particles is evaluated on GRAPE boards (cf. Sugimoto et al. 1990), while the gas dynamics is computed in the SPH approximation (Lucy 1977; Monaghan 1992). The original “GrapeSPH” code (Steinmetz 1996) was extended by adding the magneto-hydrodynamic equations to trace the evolution of the magnetic fields. Because of the assumed ideal electric conductivity, the fields are frozen into the gas flow. The back-reaction of the magnetic field on the gas via the Lorentz force is included. The numerical viscosity required to capture shocks in SPH is chosen such that angular-momentum transport in presence of shear flows is carefully controlled. The SPH kernel width is automatically adapted to the local number density of SPH particles, which results in an adaptive spatial resolution of the code.

Extensive tests of the code were performed and described in DBL99. The code succeeds in solving the co-planar MHD Riemann problem posed by Brio & Wu (1988). Although the simulated magnetic field is not strictly divergence-free, $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is always negligible compared to the magnetic field divided by a typical length scale of $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ (see DBL99 for details). The code also assumes the intracluster medium to be an ideal gas with an adiabatic index of $`\gamma =5/3`$, and neglects cooling. The surroundings of the clusters are important because their tidal fields affect the overall cluster structure and the merger history of the clusters. Therefore, the cluster simulation volumes are surrounded by a layer of boundary particles whose purpose it is to accurately represent the tidal fields of the cluster neighbourhood. Here we specially focus on the dynamical influence of the magnetic field in galaxy clusters, e.g. on the pressure support and the temperature in the clusters.

### 2.2 Initial conditions

We set up cosmological initial conditions for two CDM-dominated universes (EdS and FlatLow) as specified in Table 1. For each cosmology, we calculate ten different realisations of the initial density-fluctuation field at redshift $`z_{\mathrm{ini}}`$, which result in clusters of different final masses and dynamical states at redshift $`z=0`$. We simulate each of these clusters with up to five different initial magnetic field configurations, listed in Table 2, yielding a total of 90 cluster models.

In lack of any detailed knowledge on the origin of primordial seed fields, we explore two extreme cases of initial field configurations. In one case (“homogeneous”), we assume that the field is initially constant throughout the cluster volume. In the other case (“chaotic”), we let the initial field orientation vary randomly from place to place, subject only to the condition that $`\stackrel{}{B}=0`$. The initial field strengths in both cases are determined by setting the mean field energy densities. Table 2 summarises the initial field set-ups and the mean field strengths in the cluster cores. The initial field strengths are of order $`10^9`$G, the final field strengths of order $`\mu `$G.

### 2.3 Evolution of intra-cluster fields

At low redshifts, our simulated clusters reach temperatures of $`kT\stackrel{<}{}10\mathrm{keV}`$, in agreement with observed clusters of similar mass. The gas densities in their cores range within $`10^410^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$, as inferred from X-ray luminosities and temperatures of observed clusters.

In agreement with our earlier paper (DBL99), we find that the structure of the intra-cluster magnetic fields at low redshifts is entirely independent on the structure of the initial magnetic field. For homogeneous and chaotic initial field set-ups, the mean strength and the coherence length are the same. Initial fields of $`10^9\mathrm{G}`$ at $`z_{\mathrm{ini}}`$ turn into final fields of $`\mu \mathrm{G}`$ strength at redshift zero, and the typical coherence length of the fields is of order $`50\mathrm{kpc}/h`$. In comparison to expectations based on magnetic flux conservation in spherically collapsing spheres, the amplification of the field is one order of magnitude higher because of shear flows in the intracluster plasma.

During cluster collapse, the magnetic field is highly compressed, twisted, tangled and sheared. Any information on its initial structure is lost in that process. This is confirmed by Fig. 1, where it is shown that the magnetic pressure support does not depend on the initial field structure. We can therefore restrict our study to the homogeneous initial field set-up, which is numerically easier to handle.

Due to the violent motion of the intracluster plasma during cluster collapse, the final magnetic field strength depends on the dynamics of the cluster formation. Starting with identical initial magnetic field set-ups, final field strengths differ by a factor of $`45`$, depending essentially on cluster mass. The mean magnetic field strength drops by about two orders of magnitude between the cluster centre and the virial radius. A detailed study of the evolution and the structure of intracluster magnetic fields in different cosmologies will be described in a forthcoming paper.

A direct way to compare simulated magnetic fields in galaxy clusters with observations is provided by Faraday-rotation measurements. We created samples of synthetic rotation measures by integrating the Faraday rotation along $`10^4`$ light rays randomly shot through each of a sub-set of our cluster simulations. As in DBL99, the cumulative rotation-measure distributions obtained in simulations with either homogeneous or chaotic initial field set-up were statistically identical, confirming once again that the structure of the initial field has no observable consequences for the structure of the final field processed by cluster collapse.

We further performed two types of comparison between synthetic and observed Faraday-rotation data. In the first, we compared the radial distribution of rotation measures seen in the Coma cluster (Kim et al. 1990) with that obtained from one of our simulated clusters with mass similar to Coma. In the second, the sample of rotation measures compiled by Kim et al. (1991) from observations of many Abell clusters was compared to synthetic rotation measures obtained from our set of simulated clusters. In both cases, synthetic rotation-measure distributions were obtained along $`10^4`$ light rays randomly shot through the simulations.

Both comparisons showed that the medium initial magnetic field strength could reproduce the observed statistics very well. In both cases, the simulated and the observed rotation-measure distributions could not significantly be distinguished in a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. However, the scatter in both measurements and simulations is large. This is due to the relatively low number of simulated clusters per set, and to the selection criteria of galaxy clusters involved in the simulations and the observations. We therefore decided to allow for a range of initial magnetic field strengths which results in a range of synthetic Faraday-rotation distributions which are still well in agreement with the observed data. Further detail can be found in DBL99 and Dolag (2000). Comparing with more recent data by Clarke et al. (1999), we find identical or even improved agreement. A study of clusters in different cosmologies, using newer observational data, is under way.

Choosing a realistic model to distribute relativistic electrons in the simulated clusters, the simulations are also able to match the properties of observed radio-haloes very well, including the observed very steep relation between cluster temperature and radio luminosity (see Dolag & Ensslin 2000).

### 2.4 Quantities calculated

The correlation length of final magnetic field configurations near cluster centres is of order $`50\mathrm{kpc}`$ (see DBL99). Field orientations in regions large compared to the correlation length can therefore be considered as randomised. For instance, there is no preferred direction in the final magnetic pressure distribution. Thus, we can safely average thermodynamic quantities like the gas pressure and gas temperature in spherical shells, provided these shells are sufficiently thick compared to the field correlation length.

The radial distances to the cluster centres are scaled by the virial radius $`r_{200}`$. For simulated clusters, $`r_{200}`$ is defined as the radius enclosing a mean density $`\overline{\rho }(r_{200})`$ of 200 times the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}`$,

$$\overline{\rho }(r_{200})=\frac{3M(r_{200})}{4\pi r_{200}^3}=200\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}.$$
(2)
The temperature profiles give mass-weighted temperatures averaged in shells, divided by the mass-weighted temperatures in the shell at the radius $`r_{200}`$ of the corresponding non-magnetised cluster.

## 3 Results

During cluster formation and evolution, the simulated intracluster magnetic field strengths are amplified by compression, tangling and bending of field lines, and shear flows in the gas. The magnetic field structure is also affected by merging, accretion of sub-clumps, and consequent relaxation processes. In combination, these processes amplify the initial magnetic fields in the simulation by factors of order $`1000`$. Final fields reach strengths of a few $`\mu \mathrm{G}`$ in and near cluster centres, in good agreement with field strengths inferred from observations. The growing magnetic fields affect the balance between the gravitational force and the total (magnetic plus thermal) pressure during cluster formation.

### 3.1 Radial structure

On the whole, the fairly isotropic magnetic pressure has the tendency to counteract the gas collapse, and therefore acts in a similar manner as the thermal pressure. This implies that the gas stratification can achieve hydrostatic equilibrium at lower temperature, because lower thermal pressure is required in presence of the additional pressure support due to the magnetic field. Figure 1 shows, averaged in shells, the ratio

$$_\mathrm{p}(R)=\frac{p_\mathrm{B}(R)}{p_{\mathrm{th}}(R)}=\frac{|\stackrel{}{B}|^2/8\pi _{R_1RR_2}}{p_{\mathrm{th}}_{R_1RR_2}}$$
(3)
between the magnetic pressure $`p_\mathrm{B}`$ and the thermal pressure $`p_{\mathrm{th}}`$ as a function of the radius $`R`$. Due to compression and turbulence in the gas flow, the magnetic field is highest in and near the centres of the simulated clusters, where the thermal pressure is also highest. As Fig. 1 shows, the relative contribution of magnetic fields to the pressure support appears to peak somewhere between the cluster core radii and the virial radii $`r_{200}`$. This feature, however, is not very pronounced, so that the ratio between magnetic and thermal pressure support is almost constant across a large range of cluster-centric radii. Due to the smaller final masses of the clusters in the FlatLow cosmology, the magnetic pressure support is also smaller in these clusters. Nevertheless, these less magnetized clusters are able to match the observed Faraday-rotation. This is because the value of $`H_0`$ is chosen higher in the low-density universe, so that the projected, physical distances of the measurement locations with respect to the cluster centre shrink. Closer to the cluster centre, the magnetic field is generally higher, and therefore these less magnetised clusters well reproduce the measurements.

The overall structure of the magnetic field in the outer regions of the clusters differs from that near the cluster centre. Accretion and merger events arrange the magnetic fields in the outer cluster regions in coherent patterns on fairly large scales. Near the cluster centre, the gas flow pattern is almost randomised, and the magnetic field is consequently tangled and bent on fairly small scales. Although the magnetic pressure can be considered isotropic at or near the cluster centre, it may well be anisotropic further out. Even though the fraction of the magnetic relative to the thermal pressure, averaged within spherical shells, is approximately constant across the cluster, the detailed effects of magnetic pressure on the gas flow depend on the direction of the magnetic field relative to other locally preferred directions, like the orientation of filaments surrounding a cluster, the local path of matter infall, the orbit of a merging sub-clump and such. Therefore, the same overall magnetic pressure can have different effects on the local dynamics of gas flows, depending on whether the magnetic field is ordered on scales comparable to the cluster scale, and on the orientation of the magnetic field. In addition, the magnetic field alters the dynamical time scale of a (simulated) cluster. Therefore, when comparing simulated clusters with and without magnetic fields at equal redshifts, we must be aware that we may be comparing them at slightly different evolutionary stages according to their intrinsic timescale.

Figure 2 shows the temperature profile averaged across the set of ten simulated clusters. On the whole, the temperature increases towards the cluster centre by a factor of $`2`$. For different cosmologies, the final clusters have a different amount of substructure. This leads to different shapes of the temperature profiles for the clusters in the two different cosmologies used. Although the detailed temperature profile of an individual cluster depends on its dynamical state and formation history, the tendency is clearly visible that the cluster temperature decreases with increasing initial magnetic field strength towards the cluster centre. Deviations from this general trend are possible in individual clusters because of the reasons mentioned before. The mean across the entire cluster sample, however, reveals a monotonic trend increasing towards the cluster centre. This behaviour is expected in view of the previous discussion about the impact of the magnetic field in different parts of the cluster.

### 3.2 Temperature-mass relation

The effect of magnetic fields on the temperature-mass relation in galaxy clusters is shown in Fig. 3. Different initial magnetic field strengths are marked with different symbols. As shown before, the effect of the magnetic pressure on the temperature is on average strongest near cluster centres. Therefore, the strength of the effect on the temperature-mass relation depends on the chosen radius within which the mean temperature is calculated. It changes also if we choose the emission-weighted instead of the mass-weighted temperature. For Fig. 3, we have chosen to calculate the emission-weighted temperature within the virial radius $`r_{200}`$ in order to be comparable to the measurements. We also translated the masses of the simulated galaxy clusters to velocity dispersions. Figure 3 also shows the measured relationship between cluster temperatures and velocity dispersion as dashed-dotted line. The fairly large scatter in individual clusters is clearly seen. In the mean, the temperature difference between the magnetised and non-magnetised clusters is $`5\%`$, and it can go up to $`1015\%`$ in individual clusters.

Although the systematic effect of magnetic fields on the emission-weighted temperature profiles is small, the magnetic fields also increase the scatter in the mass-temperature relation. Values for the rms scatter are given in Table 3. This effect is more pronounced in the EdS cosmology because of the smaller gas fraction in a high-density universe.

## 4 Discussion

We tested the influence of the non-thermal pressure support due to magnetic fields in galaxy clusters. To do so, we performed cosmological MHD simulations of ten clusters in two different cosmologies, each with four different initial magnetic field configurations, thus yielding a total of 90 cluster models.

We chose initial magnetic field strengths such that the final intracluster fields were able to statistically reproduce the amplitude and spatial distribution of observed Faraday-rotation measurements. For such fields, we found a relatively small non-thermal pressure support of about $`5\%`$. The temperature change in the cluster cores is therefore on average $`5\%`$, with the general tendency towards decreasing temperature with increasing magnetic field strength. This tendency is most pronounced in cosmologies with a low gas fraction, i.e. a high dark-matter density. The effect of the magnetic fields can be substantially stronger in individual clusters, introducing a cosmology-dependent scatter of up to $`(1015)\%`$ into the mass-temperature relation.

Our overall conclusion is that the statistical rotation-measure data, taken in the most straightforward interpretation, suggests that magnetic fields are generally dynamically unimportant in galaxy clusters. We are aware that simulations like those presented here do not include the full range of physical processes required for a definitive calculation of intracluster fields, like small-scale turbulence and non-ideal magneto-hydrodynamics. A detailed study of such processes is currently out of reach for realistic numerical simulations, rendering our simulations illustrative rather than definitive. We point out, however, that the inclusion of magnetic fields in cluster simulations does constitute an improvement over previous studies, even if it confirms earlier conjectures.

## 5 acknowledgements

We wish to thank Harald Lesch for useful discussions, and the referee, Jean Eilek, for her very detailed and thoughtful report.