text:
# Expectations for SZ cluster counts: mass function versus X-ray luminosity function

## 1. Introduction

There is growing evidence from X-ray observations and numerical simulations that bulk of the baryons in the universe resides in groups and clusters of galaxies, seen as diffuse ionized gas (e.g. Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles 1998). The hot gas interacts the passing cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons through the so-called Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect, depending uniquely on the total thermal energy of the gas contained in the system. Consequently, the effect is not only independent of the redshift of the system but also insensitive to detailed structure of the gas distribution. Therefore, it is well suited for studies of distant groups and clusters and their cosmic evolution. Motivated by these advantages, the purely SZ-based sky surveys have been proposed (Bartlett & Silk 1994; Barbosa et al. 1996) and several dedicated interferometric arrays for non-targeted SZ surveys are under construction (e.g. Kneissl 2000; Holder et al. 2000; Udomprasert, Mason & Readhead 2000; Fan & Chiueh 2001).

It has been realized that non-targeted SZ surveys can act as a sensitive probe of the cosmological parameters via the SZ counts and in particular their redshift distribution (Barbosa et al. 1996). Both numerical simulations (e.g. Holder et al. 2000; Seljak, Burwell & Pen 2000; Springel, White & Hernquist 2000) and analytic treatment (e.g. Bartlett 2000; Fan & Chiueh 2001) have been developed in recent years towards the demonstration of how remarkably one can set tight constraints on the cosmic density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the normalization parameter $`\sigma _8`$ using the forthcoming SZ surveys. Essentially, all these predictions are based on the Press-Schechter (PS) mass function (MF) (Press & Schechter 1974), together with the mass-temperature relation and a constant gas fraction which convert the gas temperature and mass in the SZ effect into the dark halo mass in the PS formalism. While the PS formalism and the mass-temperature relation have been justified by numerous optical/X-ray observations and in particular by numerical simulations on broad mass scales from groups to rich clusters, the robustness of our predictions for SZ source counts based purely on these theoretically motivated mechanisms should be further tested. Recall that SZ surveys provide no direct information about the distribution and evolution of dark halos in the universe. Whenever the gas is involved, we should worry about the contamination of other non-gravitational heating processes, the possible departure of the gas from hydrostatic equilibrium, and the different evolution scenario of the gas from that of the dark halos. Therefore, it is worthy of exploring an independent estimate of SZ counts based more closely on the well-established observational facts, and comparing it with the result from the above standard theoretical model. This permits an examination of the reliability/uncertainty of the theoretically expected SZ counts and their cosmological applications.

In this paper, we calculate the expectations for SZ surveys of clusters using the observationally determined cluster X-ray luminosity function (XLF) and X-ray luminosity($`L_\mathrm{X}`$)-temperature($`T`$) relation instead of the standard PS formalism. Our strategy is to utilize as far as possible our current knowledge of X-ray clusters in the prediction of SZ cluster counts. We wish to compare our prediction on the basis of observational facts with that from the theoretical PS formalism. In fact, there is noticeable difference in the working hypotheses between the two scenarios: First, the cluster XLF exhibits no or only mild evolution at least out to $`z1`$, while the MF of dark halos represented by the PS formalism is sensitive to redshift unless an open cosmological model or a nonzero cosmological constant is properly introduced; Second, the observed $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation for clusters ($`L_\mathrm{X}T^3`$) deviates remarkably from the simply scaling law ($`L_\mathrm{X}T^2`$) expected from self-similar evolution of both dark matter and intracluster gas with cosmic epoch, which compares with the well established mass-temperature relation ($`MT^{3/2}`$) adopted in the standard PS approach. In a sense, the employment of the observed $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation permits the inclusion of other non-gravitational heating in the prediction of SZ cluster counts, although the effect may be minor for rich clusters. Alternatively, we note that the X-ray cluster counts can be reproduced remarkably well within the framework of the PS formalism via the cluster $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation (Kitayama & Suto 1997). It remains interesting to examine the issue of whether the PS formalism and the cluster XLF via the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation can predict the same SZ cluster counts.

## 2. SZ flux

We begin with a brief summary of the procedure of evaluating the total SZ flux for a given cluster at redshift $`z`$ (see also Barbosa et al. 1996). The change in CMB intensity by thermal SZ effect of hot intracluster gas is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I_\nu =j_\nu (x)\sigma _\mathrm{T}n_\mathrm{e}\left(\frac{kT}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}\right)𝑑\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson cross-section, $`m_\mathrm{e}`$, $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`T`$ are the electron mass, density and temperature, respectively, and the integral is along the line-of-sight. The spectral dependence is represented by

$`j_\nu (x)=2{\displaystyle \frac{(kT_{\mathrm{CMB}})^3}{(h_\mathrm{p}c)^2}}f_\nu (x);`$ (2)
$`f_\nu (x)={\displaystyle \frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x1)^2}}\left[x\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}4\right],`$ (3)
in which $`x=h_\mathrm{p}\nu /kT_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{CMB}}=2.728`$ K is the temperature of CMB. The total integrated SZ flux over the cluster face is then

$$S_\nu =\frac{j_\nu (x)}{D_a^2(z)}\left(\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}\right)kTn_\mathrm{e}𝑑V,$$
(4)
where $`D_a(z)`$ is the angular diameter distance to the cluster. If we assume that the gas is isothermal, then the above integral over the entire volume of a cluster can be replaced by the total gas mass of the cluster, $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}`$. Introducing the gas fraction $`f_b=M_{\mathrm{gas}}/M`$, where $`M`$ is the total cluster mass, we have

$$S_\nu =\frac{j_\nu (x)}{D_a^2(z)}\left(\frac{kT}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}\right)\left(\frac{f_b\sigma _\mathrm{T}}{\mu _\mathrm{e}m_\mathrm{p}}\right)M.$$
(5)
Virial theorem suggests that the virial mass $`M`$, virial radius $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and temperature $`T`$ of a cluster are scaled as $`kTGM/r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. Specifically, if we define $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ as the radius within which the mean cluster density is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ times the critical density of the universe $`\rho _c`$, i.e., $`M=4\pi r_{\mathrm{vir}}^3\mathrm{\Delta }_c\rho _c/3`$, then the mass-temperature relation in terms of the notations of Bryan & Norman (1998) reads

$`kT=kT^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10^{15}M_{}}}\right)^{2/3};`$ (6)
$`kT^{}=1.39f_\mathrm{T}(h^2\mathrm{\Delta }_cE^2)^{1/3}\mathrm{keV},`$ (7)
where $`H(z)=100hE(z)`$ is the Hubble constant, $`E^2(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`f_\mathrm{T}`$ is a normalization factor in the range of $`0.75<f_\mathrm{T}<0.92`$. This relation has been well justified by both numerical simulations (Evrard, Metzler & Navarro 1996; Bryan & Norman 1998) and X-ray observations (Horner et al. 1999).

The X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ emitted as thermal bremsstrahlung by the intracluster gas follows $`L_\mathrm{X}n_\mathrm{e}^2T^{1/2}r_{\mathrm{vir}}^3`$. In the self-similar model (Kaiser 1986), this reduces to $`L_\mathrm{X}f_b^2T^2`$. In principle, the X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ can be linked with the virial mass $`M`$ through equation (6). However, there are primarily two reasons that we cannot adopt this approach in our analysis below: Firstly, unlike the $`M`$-$`T`$ relation discussed above, it remains unclear how to properly normalize the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation (see Kitayama & Suto 1997). Secondly, a number of observational tests of the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation have revealed a steeper $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation close to $`L_\mathrm{X}T^3`$ especially in poor clusters (see Wu, Xue & Fang 1999 for a recent summary), which deviates significantly from the theoretical argument $`L_\mathrm{X}T^2`$, provided that the baryon fraction in clusters is universal. Such a discrepancy is often interpreted as the contamination of non-gravitational heating processes in the early phase of formation and evolution of clusters (e.g. Cavaliere, Menci & Tozzi 1998; Wu, Fabian & Nulsen 1998; Ponman, Cannon & Navarro 1999). If we confine ourselves to rich clusters as selected by the ongoing and upcoming SZ surveys, the effect of non-gravitational heating is probably only minor. Nonetheless, without loss of generality we adopt the following $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation determined empirically from X-ray observations

$$kT=kT_0\left(\frac{L_\mathrm{X}}{L_0}\right)^B(1+z)^C,$$
(8)
where the free parameters $`T_0`$, $`L_0`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ can be fixed in the fitting of X-ray data.

Now, the total SZ flux equation (5) can be re-written as

$$S_\nu =S_0\left(\frac{M}{10^{15}M_{}}\right)^{5/3},$$
(9)
or

$$S_\nu =S_0\left(\frac{kT}{kT^{}}\right)^{5/2},$$
(10)
where

$$S_0=(27.69\mathrm{mJy})f_\nu h^2d_a^2f_b\left(\frac{kT^{}}{6.4\mathrm{keV}}\right),$$
(11)
and $`d_a`$ is the dimensionless part of $`D_a(z)`$: $`D_a(z)=(c/H_0)d_a`$. Replacing the gas temperature in equation (10) by the X-ray luminosity in term of equation (8), we have

$$S_\nu =S_0\left(\frac{kT_0}{kT^{}}\right)^{5/2}\left(\frac{L_\mathrm{X}}{L_0}\right)^{5B/2}(1+z)^{5C/2}.$$
(12)
These relations constitute a crucial link between the total SZ flux in SZ surveys and the cluster distribution characterized by MF or XLF.

## 3. SZ cluster counts: MF

In the standard model, the PS formalism is adopted to describe the MF of clusters, which provides a reasonable scenario for the evolution of abundance of massive dark halos that grow from random-phase Gaussian initial fluctuations:

$$dn=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{\overline{\rho }}{M}\frac{\delta _c}{\sigma ^2}\frac{d\sigma }{dM}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta _c^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)dM,$$
(13)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the mean cosmic density, $`\delta _c`$ is the linear over-density of perturbations that collapsed and virialized at redshift $`z`$, and $`\sigma `$ is the linear theory variance of the mass density fluctuation in sphere of mass $`M`$. Multiplying this MF by the comoving volume element and integrating over masses greater than the limit $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$ set by the SZ flux $`S_\nu `$ (equation ) yield the differential number of SZ clusters:

$$\frac{dN(>S_\nu )}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{dV}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}_{M_{\mathrm{min}}(z,S_\nu )}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{dn}{dM}\right)𝑑M,$$
(14)
where the comoving volume element is

$$\frac{dV}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3\frac{(1+z)^2}{E(z)}d_a^2dz.$$
(15)
The total SZ cluster counts can be obtained by integrating the above expression over entire redshift space

$$\frac{dN(>S_\nu )}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{dV}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)𝑑z_{M_{\mathrm{min}}(z,S_\nu )}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{dn}{dM}\right)𝑑M.$$
(16)
Following Viana & Liddle (1999), we adopt the linear over-density threshold $`\delta _c=1.688`$ and the approximate expression for the variance of the fluctuation spectrum filtered on the comoving scale $`R=(3M/4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\rho _c)^{1/3}`$

$$\sigma =\sigma _8(z)\left(\frac{R}{8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)^{\gamma (R)},$$
(17)
where

$$\gamma (R)=(0.3\mathrm{\Gamma }+0.2)\left[2.92+\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{R}{8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)\right],$$
(18)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the so-called shape parameter. The quantity $`\sigma _8(z)`$ is defined by

$$\sigma _8(z)=\frac{\sigma _8}{1+z}\frac{g[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(z),\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)]}{g[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]},$$
(19)
in which the linear growth factor can be reasonably approximated by (Carroll, Press & Turner 1992)

$$g(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{5}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}}{[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}^{4/7}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}/2)(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/70)]}.$$
(20)
Numerous studies have been devoted to the calibration of the present value $`\sigma _8`$ using primarily CMB anisotropy measurements and cluster abundances. We adopt the result deduced by Eke, Cole & Frenk (1996) based on the cluster temperature function

$$\sigma _8=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.52\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}^{0.52+0.13\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}},\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1;\hfill \\ 0.52\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}^{0.46+0.10\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}},\hfill & \mathrm{open}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Another parameter is the overdensity of dark matter with respect to the critical density $`\rho _c`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$, for which we take the approximate expression fitted by Bryan & Norman (1998)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\{\begin{array}{cc}18\pi ^2+82x39x^2,\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}=0;\hfill \\ 18\pi ^2+60x32x^2,\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where $`x=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(z)1`$. This formula is accurate to within $`1\%`$ for $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(z)<1`$.

## 4. SZ cluster counts: XLF

The reliability of the theoretical prediction for SZ cluster surveys from the cluster XLF depends on our current knowledge of the dynamical properties of intracluster gas and the cosmic evolution of the cluster XLF. Over the past years, various surveys with ROSAT using different X-ray selection methods have yielded an unprecedented sampling of the XLF of local and distant clusters. Essentially, the local XLF and the XLF at high redshifts out to $`z0.8`$ are found to be in excellent agreement with each other, indicating that bulk of cluster population have experienced no significant evolution since $`z1`$ (e.g. Ebeling et al. 1997; Collins et al. 1997; Rosati et al. 1998; Burke et al. 1997; De Grandi et al. 1999). However, this does not exclude the possibility that the most luminous clusters (typically $`L_\mathrm{X}[0.5`$ $`2`$ keV$`]>5\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1) may become rarer with increasing redshift, at least at $`z>0.5`$ (Rosati et al. 2000). So, we would like to adopt both non-evolving and evolving XLFs of clusters in our theoretical predictions of SZ cluster surveys and compare their differences.

The differential XLF of clusters can be modeled by the Schechter function (e.g. Ebeling et al. 1997; Rosati et al. 2000; etc.)

$$\frac{dn}{dL_\mathrm{X}}=A\mathrm{exp}(L_\mathrm{X}/L_\mathrm{X}^{})L_\mathrm{X}^\alpha ,$$
(23)
where the cosmic evolution is characterized by $`A=A_0(1+z)^{\overline{A}}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}^{}=L_{\mathrm{X0}}^{}(1+z)^{\overline{B}}`$. (Rosati et al. 2000). For the non-evolving XLF, we adopt the local XLF constructed by Ebeling et al. (1997) in the 0.5 - 2 keV band: $`A_0=3.32_{0.36}^{+0.33}\times 10^7`$ Mpc-3 ($`10^{44}`$ ergs s-1)α-1, $`L_{\mathrm{X0}}^{}=5.70_{0.93}^{+1.29}\times 10^{44}`$ ergs s-1 and $`\alpha =1.85_{0.09}^{+0.09}`$, where the Hubble constant is $`h=0.5`$, and the errors are $`68\%`$ confidence limits. For the evolving XLF, we adopt the evolution parameters given by Rosati et al. (2000) for an Einstein-de-Sitter universe: $`\overline{A}0`$ and $`\overline{B}=3`$. In order to convert the above XLF given in a flat cosmological model of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ into the ones in arbitrary cosmological models, we demand that the observed number ($`dN_{\mathrm{obs}}`$) of clusters in a given redshift interval ($`z,z+dz`$) be conserved, namely,

$$dN_{\mathrm{obs}}=\left(\frac{dV}{dz}\right)dn(L_\mathrm{X})dz=\left(\frac{dV_0}{dz}\right)dn_0(L_{\mathrm{x},0})dz,$$
(24)
in which the quantities $`dV`$, $`dn`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ with and without the subscript ‘0’ correspond to the Einstein-de-Sitter universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) and other cosmological models, respectively. This enables us to express the cluster XLF in arbitrary cosmological models in terms of the XLF in the Einstein-de-Sitter universe:

$$\left(\frac{dn}{dL_\mathrm{X}}\right)dL_\mathrm{X}=\left(\frac{dV_0}{dV}\right)\left(\frac{dn_0}{dL_{\mathrm{X},0}}\right)dL_{\mathrm{X},0}.$$
(25)
Here X-ray luminosities in the two cosmological models are connected by

$$L_\mathrm{X}=\left[\frac{D_L}{D_{L,0}}\right]^2L_{\mathrm{X},0},$$
(26)
where $`D_L`$ and $`D_{L,0}`$ are the corresponding luminosity distances. For nearby clusters, the luminosity distance $`D_L`$ and the comoving volume element $`dV`$ are insensitive to the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. So, the local XLF of the Einstein-de-Sitter universe remains roughly unchanged when scaled to arbitrary cosmological models.

Replacing the MF in equations (14) and (16) by the cluster XLF and integrating over X-ray luminosity give the differential and total number of clusters with SZ flux greater than $`S_\nu `$:

$$\frac{dN(>S_\nu )}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{dV}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}_{L_\mathrm{X}(z,S_\nu )}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{dn}{dL_\mathrm{X}}\right)𝑑Lx,$$
(27)
and

$$\frac{dN(>S_\nu )}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{dV}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)𝑑z_{L_\mathrm{X}(z,S_\nu )}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{dn}{dL_\mathrm{X}}\right)𝑑Lx,$$
(28)
respectively, where the lower limit $`L_\mathrm{X}(z,S_\nu )`$ is determined by equation (12).

Finally, we come to the observationally determined $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation for clusters. With the improvement of the accuracy in the determination of the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relations for local and distant clusters over the past two decades, it has been well established that the cluster $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation exhibits no significant evolution at least out to $`z0.8`$ (e.g. Mushotzky & Scharf 1997; Della Ceca et al. 2000; Fairly et al. 2000). This sets $`C0`$ in equation (8). However, the observationally determined $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation varies with the X-ray luminosity range: The best-fit $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation becomes shallower for X-ray luminous clusters than for fainter ones, which is probably associated with non-gravitational heating. Here we would like to work with two X-ray luminosity ranges: $`L_\mathrm{X}[0.5`$ $``$ $`2`$ keV\] $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h}=3\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 and $`L_\mathrm{X}[0.5`$ $``$ $`2`$ keV\] $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}=1\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1. The former corresponds roughly to the ongoing and upcoming SZ cluster surveys (e.g. Grego et al. 2000; Udomprasert et al. 2000), and the latter may be useful for future SZ poor cluster surveys. We determine the corresponding cluster $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relations in the 0.5 - 2.0 band using the non-exhausted catalog of X-ray clusters compiled by Wu et al. (1999) and Xue & Wu (2000). A total of 86 luminous ($`L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h}`$) and 162 luminous plus faint ($`L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}`$) clusters whose measurement uncertainties in both $`T`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ are available are used for this analysis. Our best-fit $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relations in the 0.5 - 2 keV band are

$`L_\mathrm{X}=10^{0.85\pm 0.11}T^{1.91\pm 0.12},L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h};`$ (29)
$`L_\mathrm{X}=10^{1.16\pm 0.06}T^{2.27\pm 0.08},L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l},`$ (30)
where $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ is computed for a flat cosmological model of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1`$ and $`h=0.5`$, $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`T`$ are in units of $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1 and keV, respectively, and the quoted errors are $`68\%`$ confidence limits. Note that these relations are apparently shallower than the bolometric X-ray luminosity - temperature relation which reads $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}=10^{0.93\pm 0.06}T^{2.65\pm 0.08}`$ for an ensemble of 162 clusters analyzed above. The similar tendency was noticed by Markevitch (1998) for the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation in the 0.1 - 2.4 band. In principle, the best-fit $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relations in other cosmological models can be correspondingly obtained. Here we’d rather take a simple way to estimate the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relations for other cosmological models in terms of equation (26).

## 5. Numerical results and comparison

Essentially, the PS formalism provides a good approximation of the MF for dark halos over entire mass ranges. The theoretically predicted SZ counts based on equations (14) and (16) have therefore included the contribution of less massive virialized objects satisfying the SZ flux limit $`S_\nu `$ (equation ). On the other hand, we have set a lower X-ray luminosity limit ($`L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h}`$ or $`L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}`$) in the estimate of the SZ cluster counts within the framework of the cluster XLF. In order to facilitate our comparison of the SZ cluster counts between the two different scenarios, the mass thresholds in equations (14) and (16) should be compatible with the X-ray luminosity thresholds in equations (27) and (28). This can be achieved by combining the $`M`$-$`T`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relations, equations (6)-(8). It appears that the resultant lower mass limit $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$ varies with cosmological model, the cluster $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation and redshift. For examples, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`h=0.5`$, the typical values of $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$ at $`z=0`$ set by $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h}=3\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 and $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}=1\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 are $`1.43\times 10^{15}M_{}`$ and $`1.66\times 10^{14}M_{}`$, respectively.

We adopt three cosmological models to perform our numerical computations: the standard cold dark matter (SCDM) model, a low density, flat CDM model with a nonzero cosmological constant of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) and a low density, open CDM model (OCDM), and their parameters are summarized in Table 2. In addition, the baryon fraction is assumed to be $`f_b=0.1`$. We demonstrate our numerical results using a central frequency of $`\nu =90`$ GHz for the SZ survey, which is roughly the AMIBA range (Fan & Chiueh 2001). The differential SZ counts of clusters with a flux density $`S_\nu 20`$ mJy (approximately the AMIBA flux sensitivity) and the integrated SZ counts of clusters within redshift $`z1.5`$ are displayed in Figure 1 and Figure 2 for the three cosmological models and the two X-ray luminosity limits, respectively. We have extrapolated the cluster XLFs to $`z=1.5`$, while at lower redshifts the SZ counts are primarily governed by the lower X-ray luminosity limit $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h}`$ or $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}`$. The latter accounts for the sharp drop of the SZ counts towards $`z=0`$ especially in the case of $`L_\mathrm{X}>L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}`$, leading the maximum location ($`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$) of the differential SZ counts to move to a larger redshift as compared with the curves predicted by the PS approach. Beyond $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the differential SZ counts given by MF follow the well-known dependence on cosmological models (e.g. Barbosa et al. 1996; Holder et al. 2000):

The SZ cluster counts predicted by the MF, the non-evolving and evolving XLFs of clusters demonstrate remarkable differences: Firstly, in the scenario of non-evolving XLF much more clusters would be expected at high redshifts than those predicted by the cluster MF and evolving XLF models. This explains the significant excess of differential SZ counts at high redshifts in the non-evolving XLF model. Secondly, as compared with the SZ cluster counts depicted by the PS formalism, the evolving XLF model yields an excess of the SZ counts within $`z0.7`$ but a deficit at higher redshifts in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM models. In SCDM model, the opposite situation occurs at high redshifts. This last point can be understood qualitatively: The dark halos would experience a rapid evolution in SCDM model than in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM models. Alternatively, we cannot exclude the possibility that the above deficit of SZ cluster counts at high reshifts predicted by the evolving XLF model in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM is partially due to our extrapolation of the evolving XLF model by Rosati et al. (2000) to high redshifts ($`z>1`$). Nonetheless, it is seen that the expectations for SZ cluster counts are indeed sensitive to the evolving XLF model. Thirdly, the expected SZ cluster counts depend critically on the adopted $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation. The fact that neither of the XLF models can precisely reproduce the differential and integrated distributions of the SZ clusters predicted by the standard PS formalism in three popular cosmological models especially in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM arises from our shallow $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relations. Note that the consistency in the distributions of SZ cluster counts between the MF and XLF models are apparently improved for the cluster sample with the lower X-ray luminosity limit $`L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}`$ which exhibits a slightly steeper $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation $`L_\mathrm{X}T^{2.27}`$. Recall that many previous attempts at reproducing the XLF and number counts of clusters from the PS formalism require a steep bolometric X-ray luminosity - temperature relation $`L_\mathrm{X}T^3`$ (e.g. Kitayama & Suto 1997; Mathiesen & Evrard 1998, Borgani et al. 1999). In particular, a shallower $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation leads to an underestimate of the local density of X-ray luminous clusters according to the PS approach (Mathiesen & Evrard 1998), which may partially account for the differences in the predicted SZ clusters between the MF and XLF models at lower redshifts shown in Figure 1. Fourthly, the slope of the integrated SZ cluster counts, $`\mathrm{log}(dN/d\mathrm{\Omega })/\mathrm{log}S_\nu `$, depends not only on cosmological models as noticed in the literature (e.g. Barbosa et al. 1996) but also on cluster XLF. For X-ray luminous clusters with $`L_\mathrm{X}L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h}`$, the total number of the predicted SZ clusters can differ by an order of magnitude among the MF, the non-evolving and evolving XLF models. In a word, the cosmological applications of SZ cluster counts may be complicated by the presence of cosmic evolution of the intracluster gas which may not been fully accounted for in the cluster MS described by the PS formalism.

## 6. Discussion and conclusions

The PS approximation has been widely adopted in the theoretical predictions of non-targeted SZ surveys. In principle, such a treatment allows one to include the contribution of all the virialized halos distributed at different redshifts. It appears that the predicted SZ counts can act as a sensitive probe of the cosmological parameters such as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ (Barbosa et al. 1996; Holder et al. 2000; Springel et al. 2000; Bartlett 2000; Fan & Chiueh 2001; etc.). Yet, the expectation for SZ surveys within the framework of the PS formalism is based on an oversimplified scenario in which the isothermal gas is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium with and follow the cosmic evolution of the underlying gravitational potentials of virialized dark halos. Moreover, it does not account for the hot diffuse gas associated with large-scale structures or distributed beyond the virial radii, or non-gravitational heating effect. Other work is thus needed to test and implement this purely theoretical treatment in order for future non-targeted SZ surveys to become an effective probe of the universe. While a sophisticated treatment of the issue should eventually rely on numerical simulations, an approximate yet useful estimate of the SZ counts of clusters would be possible by working with the observed XLF instead of the theoretically motivated MF.

Current X-ray observations suggest that bulk of rich clusters have experienced no significant evolution out to $`z1`$, whereas the most luminous, high redshift clusters are apparently rarer. With the employment of both non-evolving and evolving XLFs of clusters, together with the observationally determined $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation and the virial theorem which set up a link between the SZ flux and the cluster XLF, we have calculated the expected SZ cluster counts for two X-ray luminosity limits, $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{h}=3\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 and $`L_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{l}=1\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 in the 0.5 - 2.0 band. The non-evolving XLF has resulted in a significant excess of SZ cluster counts at high redshift as compared with the evolving XLF. Moreover, a slightly steeper $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation than the observed one ($`L_\mathrm{X}T^{2.65}`$ in the bolometric band) may be needed to reproduce the distributions of SZ clusters predicted by the standard PS formalism even in the prevailing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model.

A comparison of the predicted SZ number counts of clusters between MF and XLF is potentially important for the cosmological application of future SZ surveys of clusters, e.g. the determination of the cosmological parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\sigma _8`$, etc.). The discrepancy between the SZ cluster counts predicted by the two scenarios shown in the present paper seems to suggest that large uncertainties may arise if future SZ cluster counts are directly fitted to the theoretical prediction by the standard PS model, although the present analysis may suffer from other problems such as the uncertainties in the cluster XLF and $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation at high redshift. We emphasize that SZ cluster surveys are uniquely governed by the content of intracluster gas and its dynamical and cosmic evolution, which are only indirectly related with the virialized dark halos. In this regard, the cluster XLF provides a better estimate of SZ cluster counts. So, regardless of the uncertainties in the adopted XLF and $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation our present expectations for SZ cluster counts from cluster XLF can be considered to be a mock SZ observation of clusters With the improvement of the accuracy in the determinations of the cluster XLF and $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`T`$ relation, one will be soon able to have a more precise estimate of the SZ cluster counts and compare it with the predictions of the PS approach. It is likely that further work should be done before SZ cluster surveys are used for cosmological purpose.

We thank an anonymous referee for constructive comments that improved the presentation of this work. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China, under Grant 19725311, and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, under Grant NKBRSF G19990754.


format: text

text:
# To Phenomenological Theory of Superconductivity. Superconductivity - not fading electrical current in dissipative medium

## I Introduction

In 1911 Dutch physicists H.Kamerlingh-Onnes has found out at temperature 4.12 the superconductivity of mercury - the electrical resistance of mercury suddenly disappeared and remained equal the zero at the further downturn of temperature. A bit later superconductivity was found out and in others metals and also in some alloys.

Long years was supposed, that the superconductivity is the phenomenon of low temperature physics. The high-temperature superconductivity was found out for the first time only in 1986 by Bednorz and Muller.

In 1933 by Meissner and Ochxenfeld have found out that the weak magnetic field is pushed out from a massive superconductor - ”Meissner effect”. The value of a superconducting current in a sample, which is a part of a consecutive circuit, by a source of a current in the circuit is determined. The superconductivity disappears, when the value of a current reaches some critical value.

The first phenomenological theory of superconductivity was proposed in brothers London work in 1935 (see. London, 1954). They have admitted the existence of the superconductivity. On this basis they have shown, that the Meissner effect is inevitable consequence of the superconductivity phenomenon. A question on validity of the opposite statement remained open.

In 1950 on the basis of London equations the phenomenon of quantization of magnetic flow was predicted. It was revealed almost simultaneously by two groups of experimenters in 1961. They showed that the quant of magnetic flow is defined by the particles with the double of electron charge. This result has confirmed the Cooper effect. The last served as the basis of the Bardeen \- Cooper - Schriffer (BCS) microscopic theory of superconductivity (1957).

In 1950 the Ginsburg - Landau (GL) the stationary equation for some effective wave function have offered. The coefficients of GL equation by measured values of the critical magnetic field and the by the London penetration depth are defined.

The appreciable contribution to the theory of superconductivity was made By Bogolubov (1958). In the Gor’kov paper (1959) the connection of GL and BCS theories was established.

After opening of high-temperature superconductivity new mechanisms of this phenomenon were discussed. However the enough convincing microscopic theory of the high-temperature theory in the present time yet does not exists (see Abrikosov, 1987; Plakida, 1996). In such situation the phenomenological description of superconductivity plays the important role.

The of London and GL equations are not dissipative and correspond to approximation of continuous medium. As all equations in approximation of continuous medium are generally dissipative, that the following basic question arises: How in the dissipative system exists not fading electrical current?

The possible answer on this question was discussed earlier (Klimontovich, 1990abc, 1995). It was shown that the existence of not fading electric current becomes possible due to occurrence of flicker noise and appropriate residual temporary correlations (Kogan, 1985; Klimontovich, 1982, 1983). In present paper this works serve by the basis of more general description of the superconductivity.

The possibility of connection between the two seemingly antagonistic phenomena: flicker noise and superconductivity has the following explanation.

First, both, flicker noise and superconductivity are spatial coherent phenomena. In the domain of flicker noise the distribution on wave numbers has a very sharp maximum near to its zero value. Moreover, the dispersion is proportional to frequency, and therefore tends to zero together with $`\omega `$. Thus has a place original Bose condensation

## II The GL and London equations

Let’s designate number of Cooper pairs through $`n^{}(T)`$ and shall enter the effective wave function of pairs of superconductive electrons $`\psi (R,t)`$.

The Debye radius is much smaller of characteristic scale of Cooper pairs, together with size of a point of continuous medium. On this reason the Coulomb interaction not play an essential role in processes of superconductivity. The square of the module of function $`\psi (R,t)`$ defines average density of number of electron pairs

$$\left|\psi (R,t)\right|^2n^{}(T)=\frac{n_S(T)}{2}.$$
(1)
In the GL work the stationary equation for the effective wave function is considered only. The one from opportunities of the temporary description - the use for of effective wave function, appropriate, the nonlinear Schroedinger equation (Hartree equation) for particles with the double electron charge $`e^{}=2e`$. Just so acts, for example, Feinman, (1967.

$$I\mathrm{}\frac{\psi (R,t)}{t}=\frac{1}{2m^{}}\left|\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{R}\frac{e^{}}{with}A\right)\right|^2\psi (R,t)+\phi (R,t)\psi ,divA=0.$$
(2)
The GL potential $`\phi _{GL}(R,t)`$ will be defined below.

Let’s wrote the appropriate equation of a continuity

$$\frac{|\psi (R,t|^2}{t}+\frac{j_S(R,t)}{R}=0.$$
(3)
The current created by electron pairs is defined by expression:

$$j_S(R,t)=\frac{ie^{}\mathrm{}}{2m^{}}(\psi ^{}\psi \psi \psi ^{})\frac{e^2}{2m^{}c}|\psi |^2A(R,).$$
(4)
Let’s present complex function $`\psi (R,t)`$ as

$$\psi (R,t)=\left|\psi (R,t)\right|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\theta (R,t)\right)a(R,t)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\theta (R,t)\right).$$
(5)
Then the electric current created by the superconductive pairs is defined by expression:

$$j_S(R,t)e^{}|\psi (R,t|^2u_S(R,t)=\frac{e^{}\mathrm{}}{m^{}}(\frac{\theta }{R}\frac{e^{}}{\mathrm{}c}A)|\psi (R,t|^2.$$
(6)
From here the expression for the mean velocity of superconductive electron follow:

$$u_S(R,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m^{}}\frac{\theta }{R}\frac{e^{}}{m^{}c}A,divA=0.$$
(7)
It consists from the sum of the potential and the vortical components. The current $`j_S(R,t)`$ in a normal state is equal to zero.

In massive metals the electron density $`|\psi (R,t|^2=const.`$ and the Maxwell equations look like

$$rotB=\frac{4\pi }{c}j_S^,E=0.B=rotA,divj_S=0.$$
(8)
Under condition of a constancy of a phase $`\theta (R)=const,`$, that has a place for continuous (without holes) superconductor, the potential component of the velocity $`u_S(R,t)`$ is equal to zero and the current is connected to the vector potential by the equation of London

$$j_S(R)=|\psi (R,t|^2\frac{e^2}{m^{}c}A|\psi (R,t|^2\frac{2e^2}{mc}A.$$
(9)
From it in a combination to the Maxwell equations the closed equation for the magnetic field follows:

$$\frac{^2B}{R^2}+\frac{1}{\delta _L^2}B=0.$$
(10)
Designation for the depths of penetration - the London parameter $`\delta _L`$here is used

$$\delta _L^2=\frac{m^{}c^2}{4\pi e^2\left|\psi (T)\right|^2}\frac{mc^2}{4\pi e^2n_S},$$
(11)
Thus the theory of London, in which the fact of the existence, of not fading electrical current is accepted, gives the explanation of Meissner effect. The expression, received by such way, for penetration depth $`\delta _L`$, corresponds to experimental data. Typical size $`\delta _L`$ of the order 10 $`^^5`$ cm.

So, the theory of London is based on the assumption of the existence of a not fading electrical current, and gives the explanation of Meissner effect. The equations describing the screening of magnetic field and the current are classical ones - does not contain the Planck constant.

At an establishment of the equation of London the equation of continuity was used only . Let’s show, that the equation of London satisfies to complete system of the reversible hydrodynamical equations, which turns out on the basis of the Schroedinger equation.

Being based on the Schroedinger equation for the effective wave function it is possible to receive and equation for average velocity of superconducting electrons:

$$\frac{u_S}{t}+\left(u_S\frac{}{R}\right)u_S=\frac{e^{}}{m_{}}\left(E+\frac{1}{c}\left[u_SB\right]\right)+\frac{1}{m_S}\frac{U_{quant}}{R}.$$
(12)
Designation is entered here

$$U_{quant}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\sqrt{\rho _S}}\frac{^2\sqrt{\rho _S}}{R^2}$$
(13)
for ” the quantum potential energy”, through which enters a quantum source”.

In the theory of London a magnetic field and, as a consequence, and hydrodynamical velocity are small. In linear approximation the equation of motion has form:

$$\frac{u_S}{t}=\frac{e^{}}{m^{}\stackrel{~}{n}}\frac{A}{t}.$$
(14)
This equation is consequence of the Schroedinger equation, therefore does not contain a dissipation. In view of a constancy of the density of electron pairs can it be rewrite as the London equation

$$u_S(R)=\frac{e^{}}{m^{}c}A(R).$$
(15)
Thus the reversible equation (14) is carried out just by virtue of the London equation.

The London theory does not explain the phenomenon of existence of superconductive current, but essentially bases on fact of its existence. The condition is used also: $`|\psi (R,t|^2=const`$ is used also. Thus the question on dependence of number of superconducting electrons on temperature there is without the answer.

## III Comparison with the GL theory

The following essential step in development of the phenomenological theory of superconductivity was made in work GL. However, the nature of phase transition in superconductors was not concretized. It was found out only at creation if the BCS theory.

The GL theory not give also the answer on the basic question: Why in superconductor, which, as any continuous medium is a dissipative system, is possible not fading electrical current?

The stationary GL equation has a form:

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\frac{^2}{R^2}+\left(\alpha \frac{TT_C}{T_C}+b\left|\psi \right|^2\right)\psi =0.$$
(16)
It presents the ”synthesis” of the quantum mechanics and the Landau theory of a second order phase transition. The BCS theory allows to connect coefficients $`\alpha ,b`$ of the GL theory with parameters of a normal state of superconductor.

There are two opportunities of temporary generalization of this equation. Above was is used the quantumechanic generalization. It has resulted to the nonlinear Schroedinger equation (2). It corresponds to the Hartree equation with the GL potential

$$\phi _{GL}=\alpha \frac{TT_C}{T_C}+b\left|\psi \right|^2.$$
(17)
Above at the description of temporary evolution the preference to quantum was given up. In result came to the nonlinear Schroedinger equation (the Hartree equation):

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{1}{2m^{}}\left|\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{R}\frac{2e}{c}A\right)\right|^2\psi +\phi _{GL}\psi .$$
(18)
The members responsible for phase transition, are expressed through appropriate potential - potential ”GL”:

$$\phi _{GL}=\left(\alpha \frac{TT_C}{T_C}+b\left|\psi \right|^2\right).$$
(19)
The presence of additional potential $`\phi _{GL}`$ does not change a form of the continuity equation. The second hydrodynamical equation accepts the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_S}{t}}+\left(u_S{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}}\right)u_S={\displaystyle \frac{e^{}}{m^{}}}\left(E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\left[u_SB\right]\right)`$

$$\frac{1}{m^{}}\frac{\left(U_{quant}+\phi _{GL}\right)}{R}.$$
(20)
Through the additional force the dependence of number of superconductive electron pairs from temperatures enters. This dependence in the London theory is not taken into account. Under former conditions (constancy of a phase and density of superconducting electrons) the London equation satisfies in linear approximation to he last equation.

The Hartree equation with potential GL is reversible and, gives only dynamic description of a superconductor. As, however, the number the superconducting electrons pairs depends on temperature, that more adequate is not ”dynamic”, but ”chemical” way of temporary generalization of the stationary GL equation. This question repeatedly was discussed in the literature (see, for example, Elesin and Kopaev, 1981; Oraevskii, 1993). Let’s consider the appropriate generalization of the G-L equation for the description of temporary processes in superconductors.

## IV Relaxation GL and kinetic equations

Let’s give back now the preference to dissipative processes, which take place at phase transitions. Thus instead of the GL equation we come to the relaxation GL equation (RGLE).

For system of superconducting pairs the characteristic length - the coherence length at zero temperature and the coefficient of spatial diffusion are defined by expressions:

$$\xi _0^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}\alpha }\frac{p_F^2}{p_{T_C}}\lambda _B^2;D=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m^{}}.$$
(21)
Expressions for time diffusion time and, appropriate, from here follow of the friction coefficient from here follow

$$\tau _D=\frac{1}{\gamma }=\frac{\xi _0^2}{D}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha };\gamma =\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}.$$
(22)
The RGLE at ($`A=0`$) has form:

$$\frac{\psi (R,t)}{t}=\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\gamma \left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}+\frac{\left|\psi \right|^2(R,t)}{n}\right)\psi +D\frac{^2\psi (R,t)}{R^2}.$$
(23)
It serves an example of the reaction diffusion equation. In it interactions with normal electrons and phonons, dissociation and formation of Cooper pairs it are taken into account only through coefficients.

The RGLE follows from the Schroedinger equation by formal replacement of the time $`t`$ by imaginary time $`it`$. Let’s consider other way of the description of relaxation processes, which is, indubitably, more consecutive.

Let’s begin from a case, when the distribution of values of phase is not essential. The appropriate Fokker-Planck equation for the local distribution function $`f(n^{},R,t)`$ of values of $`\left|\psi \right|^2=n^{}`$ has the following form:

$$\frac{f}{t}=\frac{}{n^{}/n}\left[D_n^{}\frac{n^{}}{n}\frac{f}{n^{}/n}\right]+\frac{}{n^{}/n}\left[\gamma \left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}+\frac{n^{}}{n}\right)\frac{n^{}}{n}f\right]+D\frac{^2f}{R^2}.$$
(24)
The diffusion coefficient $`D_n^{}`$ is defined by the expression:

$$D_n^{}=\frac{1}{N_{ph}}\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(25)
This results to appropriate the smoothed Boltzmann distribution.

In the self-consistent approximation on the first moment (when $`f(n^{},R,t)=\delta (n^{}n^{}(R,t)`$) we have the following equation:

$$\frac{n^{}(R,t)/n}{t}=\left[D_n^{}\gamma \left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}+\frac{n^{}(R,t)}{n}\right)\frac{n^{}(R,t)}{n}\right]+D\frac{^2n^{}(R,t)/n}{R^2}.$$
(26)
In it two important factors are not yet taken into account: evolution of a phase and action electrical and magnetic fields. Without its the explanation neither superconductivity, nor Meissner effect it is impossible. The corresponding more general kinetic equation will be carried out below.

In the stationary and spatial - homogeneous state is received the algebraic equation for function $`n^{}(T)`$:

$$\left(\frac{n^{}(R,t)}{n}\right)^2+\frac{TT_C}{T_C}\frac{n^{}(R,t)}{n}=\frac{D_n^{}}{\gamma }=\frac{1}{N_{ph}}\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\gamma }=\frac{1}{N_{ph}}\frac{k_BT}{\alpha }.$$
(27)
This equation defines a finite solution at all values of temperature. For temperatures is significant larger critical one, the solution has following form:

$$n^{}(R,t)=\frac{1}{N_{ph}}\frac{k_BT}{\alpha }\frac{T_C}{TT_C}n;$$
(28)
In the critical point

$$n^{}(R,t)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{ph}}\frac{k_BT}{\alpha }}n$$
(29)
and, at last, for temperatures, below critical, the density of numbers of superconducting electrons is defined by expression:

$$n^{}(R,t)=\frac{T_\mathrm{?}T}{T_C}n,$$
(30)
which coincides with result of the Landau theory.

## V Whether exists now theory of superconductivity?

Two variants of temporary generalization of the stationary GL were considered. In the first case temporary evolution is described on the basis of the reversible Hartree equation with potential, which is determined by distribution of density of superconducting electrons. As well as in the London theory, still have open a question on a nature of superconductive electric current in a dissipative medium. In the second case were used the appropriate relaxation equation.

In both cases there is open the question on a physical nature not fading electrical current. Thus despite of doubtless successes, rather complete theory the superconductivity now does not exist yet.

In such situation the aspiration is natural to construct the evolutionary equations for the description of superconductivity with the simultaneous account as dynamic, so and the dissipative contributions.

Will be shown, that the existence of the superconducting current becomes possible due to occurrence of flicker noise and, appropriate, residual temporary correlations.

## VI Dynamic reaction diffusion equation in the theory superconductivity

Was shown that hydrodynamical equations at rather small velocity does not contain the Planck constant. Let’s remind also, that classical expression for the London length invariant concerning replacement:

$$e,m,n,e^{},m^{},n^{}.$$
(31)
and in the theory of London there is no dependence on a kind of statistics: Fermi or Bose. The role of the electron pairs is reduced to the following.

The first, due to them in the nonideal fermi-gas there is a phase transition \- there is the equilibrium state with lower energy, than appropriate state of free electrons.

The secondly, the superconductive state represents continuous medium, in which the size of a point is defined by the quantum parameter - the de Broglie wave length $`\lambda _B=\mathrm{}/p_{T_C}.`$ This length considerably exceeds the Debye radius. Thanks to this, the superconductor represents unusual continuous quantum medium. In it ” physical Knudsen number” - the basic small parameter of continuous medium, is defined by expression:

$$\left(K_n\right)_{ph}=\frac{\lambda _B}{L}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{p_{T_C}L}$$
(32)
and, hence, is the quantum characteristic. For a superconductor role of parameter $`L`$ play the size of the Cooper pair $`\xi _0=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{2m^{}\alpha }`$ and the London length $`\lambda _B`$. For superconductors of the London type the greatest is dimensionless small parameter (Klimontovich, 1995):

$$\left(K_n\right)_{ph}=\frac{\lambda _B}{\xi _0}\frac{p_{T_C}}{p_F}1.$$
(33)
Thus, the phase transition in the superconducting state, caused by existence of the Cooper pairs, it is possible to treat as transition to quantum continuous medium. By the basic dimensionless small parameter which serves the quantum physical Knudsen number.

Be taking into account that the dynamic in the London theory is classical, the dissipative kinetic equation for the local distribution function $`f(n^{},R,v,t)`$ of values of density of electron pairs it is possible to write in form:

With the account of dissipation for the equation for the local distribution function $`f(n^{},R,v,t)`$ of values of density of pairs of superconducting electrons it is possible to write down as:

$$\frac{f}{t}+v\frac{f}{R}+\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}\left(E(R,t)+\frac{1}{c}\left[u_SB(R,t)\right]\right)\frac{f}{v}=I_{(v)}+I_{(R)}+I_{(n^{})};divE=0$$
(34)
The norm of the distribution function $`f(n^{},R,v,t)`$ will be carried out on the average of particles, which depends on temperature.

The sum of second and third ”collision integrals” we shall present as the sum of two contributions. First describes spatial diffusion of distribution function. Second - diffusion in the space of values of number of electron pairs:

$$I_{(R)}+I_{(n^{})}=D\frac{^2f}{R^2}+\frac{}{n^{}}\left[D_n^{}nn^{}\frac{f}{n^{}}\right]+\frac{}{n^{}}\left[\gamma \left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}+\frac{n^{}}{n}\right)n^{}f\right].$$
(35)
The diffusion $`D_n^{},`$ $`D`$ and friction $`\gamma `$ coefficients are defined by the formulas:

$$D_n^{}=\frac{1}{N_{ph}}\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}};D=\mathrm{}/2m^{};\gamma =\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}.$$
(36)
”The collision integral” $`I_{(v)}`$ defines redistribution of pairs of electrons on velocity. It has the same properties, as the Boltzmann collision integral in the kinetic theory of gases.

Let’s proceed from the kinetic equation to the equations for local functions $`n^{}_{R,t},`$ $`u_S(R,t).`$ In The self-consistent approximation on the first moments for the distribution function $`f(n^{},R,v,t)`$ it is represented as:

$$f(n^{},R,v,t)=\delta \left(vu_S(R,t)\right)\delta \left(n^{}n^{}_{R,t}\right).$$
(37)
In result is received the equation for average local density number particles:

$$\frac{}{t}\frac{n^{}_{R,t}}{n}+\frac{}{R}\frac{n^{}_{R,t}u_S(R,t)}{n}=D_{n_S}\gamma \left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}+\frac{n^{}_{R,t}}{n}\right)\frac{n^{}_{R,t}}{n}+D\frac{^2}{R^2}\frac{n^{}_{R,t}}{n}.$$
(38)
It contains the members, taking into account birth and disappearance of electron pairs (”chemical reaction”) and a self-diffusion contribution. To this reason the flow of electron pairs is defined not only the convective transfer $`n^{}_{R,t}u_S(R,t)`$, but also by the spatial diffusion. The similar results take place at the description of nonequilibrum processes in gases and plasma (Klimontovich, 1995.1999).

In the London equations the electron pairs density $`n^{}_{R,t}=const.`$ Now in the stationary state we have the equations:

$$D_n^{}\gamma \left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}+\frac{n^{}}{n}\right)\frac{n^{}}{n}=0;\frac{u_S(R,t)}{R}=0.$$
(39)
This equation defines $`n^{}`$ at all values of temperature. From the second equation follows, that the superconducting current is vortical.

## VII Dissipative London equation

With the help of the kinetic equation we shall receive the equation for velocity:

$$\frac{u_S}{t}+\left(u_S\frac{}{R}\right)u_S=\nu \frac{^2u_{Si}}{R^2}+\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}\left(E(R,t)+\frac{1}{c}\left[u_SB(R,t)\right]\right);divE=0$$
(40)
We assume, that coefficient of diffusion, of viscosity and of temperature conductivity are identical. This gives the basis for replacement $`D\nu .`$

At weak currents and weak magnetic field it is possible to neglect the nonlinear terms and to write down the equation for hydrodynamic velocity of electron pairs the following equation:

$$\frac{u_S}{t}=\nu \frac{^2u_S}{R^2}+\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}E.$$
(41)
In a combination with the Maxwell equations:

$$rotB=\frac{4\pi }{c}j_S,rotE=\frac{1}{c}\frac{B}{t},divE=0$$
(42)
we have the closed system of the equations for density and hydrodynamical velocity of electron pairs, and also for electrical and magnetic fields.

Thus we have ” the dissipative London equation” (41). How to explain presence of a superconducting current in a dissipative system?

In the following section the question on connection of an opportunity of existence of a superconductive electric current and the presence of the flicker noise - ”of noise $`1/f`$. will be discussed. The assumption, that the flicker noise defines an opportunity existence coherent state - superconductivity, on first sight seems as paradoxical. However we shall see, that the flicker-noise presents a coherent state similar, in some measure, to condensation of bose-gas. Now, however, ”condensation” in space of wave numbers occurs in a dissipative medium.

## VIII Flicker noise and superconductivity

The physical phenomenon ”flicker noise” (” $`1/\omega \mathrm{"}`$ noise) consists in abnormal behavior of a spectrum of fluctuation of any physical characteristics in the region of low frequencies $`\omega .`$ (Kogan, 1985; Klimontovich, 1982, 1983). The flicker noise is characterized as well is by abnormal large of time correlations $`\tau _{cor}`$.

In spite of on efforts of many scientists until now absent the unified point of view on the nature of the flicker noise. Our point of view on this problem is presented in (Klimontovich, 1982, 1983, 1995).

The flicker noise exists in the region of frequencies is restricted from the side of large frequencies by the diffusion time $`\tau _D=L^2/D.`$ Here $`D`$ \- the coefficient of spatial diffusion, and $`L`$ the minimal characteristic scale of sample.

For the minimal frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{min}}`$ there are possible two definitions - ”subjective ”, dependent from the observation time $`\tau _{obs}`$, and ”objective ”, is defined by the parameters of all system. Experience shows that the dependence $`1/\omega `$ conserves in during of the increasing of the observation time. This gives the reason to suppose that the minimal frequency of the flicker noise spectrum is defined by the time life $`\tau _{life}.`$ Thus, the region of the flicker noise is defined by inequalities:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{life}}\frac{1}{\tau _{obs}}\omega \frac{1}{\tau _D}=\frac{D}{L^2}.$$
(43)
In the flicker noise domain appears the new scale and corresponding volume:

$$L_\omega =\sqrt{\frac{D}{\omega }}L,V_\omega =L_\omega ^3V.$$
(44)
At these conditions the dimension of a sample $`d`$ is not play the role and in the limit of very large observation times it can count equal to zero, that corresponds to zero volume $`V`$. Below under $`L`$ we shall use the minimal from characteristic scales.

Thus. we have the chain of inequalities for volumes

$$V=V_DV_\omega V_{obs}V_{life}.$$
(45)
According to stated representations the equilibrium flicker noise arises at diffusion in limited volume. In the unlimited sample appropriate spectral density at diffusion is defined by known expression:

$$\left(\delta n\delta n\right)_{\omega ,k}=\frac{\left(yy\right)_{\omega ,k}}{\omega ^2+\left(Dk^2\right)^2},\left(yy\right)_{\omega ,k}=2Dk^2\left(\delta n\delta n\right)_k.$$
(46)
Designation for the spectral density of appropriate the Langevin source here is entered. For ideal gas $`\left(\delta N\delta n\right)_k=n.`$ In a general case it is defined through the isothermal compressibility of a sample.

For domain of the flicker noise are carried out the following inequalities $`\sqrt{D/\omega }L,V_\omega V.`$ First of them is possible to write down as $`1/\omega \tau _D=L^2/D.`$ The spectral density of the appropriate the Langevin source is defined by expression (Klimontovich, 1990abc, 1995)

$$\left(yy\right)_{\omega ,k}=2Dk^2AV_\omega \delta n_V\delta n_V\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Dk^2}{2\omega }\right)n_{eff}=AV_\omega \delta n_V\delta n_V.$$
(47)
Here $`\delta n_V\delta n_V`$ \- correlator of fluctuations, averaged on volume $`V`$. For ideal gas $`\delta n_V\delta n_V=n/V.`$

Appropriate expression for intensity of a Langevin source has a form:

$$\left(yy\right)_{\omega ,k}=2Dk^2An\frac{V_\omega }{V}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Dk^2}{2\omega }\right).$$
(48)
Thus, for the domain of flicker of noise has place the replacement

$$nn_{eff}=An\frac{V\omega }{V}.$$
(49)
By this the repeated diffusion is taken into account - each particle covers the diffusion volume $`V_\omega ,`$ which is a lot of greater volume of a sample $`V`$.

Thus each particle ”works” much times. It also is resulted that the effective density of particles in $`V_\omega /V`$ times more of real one. This is taken into account by replacement (49). The constant multiplier $`A`$ will be determined from a normalization condition.

In intensity of a Langevin source there is a strong dependence from frequencies and stronger dependence on wave number. Thus the dispersion on wave numbers is proportional to frequency $`\omega `$:

$$\left(\delta k\right)^2\frac{1}{L_\omega ^2}=\frac{\omega }{D},$$
(50)
therefore in a domain of flicker noise arises a very sharp distribution on to wave numbers - original Bose-condensation. It speaks about that in the field of the flicker noise arises the spatial coherence.

Substitution of expression (49) in the first formula ( 46) results in expression for spatially temporary spectral density in the region of flicker noise:

$$\left(\delta n\delta n\right)_{\omega ,k}=\frac{2Dk^2}{\omega ^2+\left(Dk^2\right)^2}AV_\omega \delta n_V\delta n_V\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Dk^2}{2\omega }\right).$$
(51)
Here it is possible to execute integration on $`k`$ and to receive expression for appropriate temporary spectral density:

$$\left(\delta n\delta n\right)_\omega =\frac{\pi \delta n_V\delta n_V}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\tau _{life}/\tau _D\right)}\frac{1}{\omega },\frac{1}{\tau _{life}}\frac{1}{\tau _{obs}}\omega \frac{1}{\tau _D}.$$
(52)
The constant multiplier $`A`$ is determined from a the normalization condition:

$$_{1/\tau _{life}}^{1/\tau _D}\left(\delta n\delta n\right)_\omega \frac{d\omega }{\pi }=\delta n_V\delta n_V.$$
(53)
It is supposed, thus, that the basic contribution to the correlator $`\delta n_V\delta n_V`$ is in the domain of the flicker noise.

### A Residual temporary correlation

The temporary correlation is connected to temporary spectral density by relation:

$$\delta n\delta n_\tau =_{1/\tau _{life}}^{1/\tau _D}\left(\delta n\delta n\right)_\omega \frac{d\omega }{\pi }.$$
(54)
From here follows, that

$`\delta n\delta n_\tau =\left(C{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\tau /\tau _D\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\tau _{life}/\tau _D\right)}}\right)\delta n_V\delta n_V\text{ at }\tau _D\tau \tau _{life},`$

(55)
$`C=1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{ln}\left(\tau _{life}/\tau _D\right)}},\text{ }\gamma =0.577.`$

Here are used the Euler constant.

Thus, in the domain of the flicker noise dependence from $`\tau `$ very much weak - logarithmic at the large value of argument. It gives the basis to speak about presence of residual temporary correlations.

Let’s define the appropriate time of correlation:

$$\tau _{cor}=_{\tau _D}^{\tau _{life}}\delta n\delta n_\tau 𝑑\tau /\delta n\delta n_{\tau =\tau _D}.$$
(56)
For an estimation of correlation time is spent the integration at performance of the inequalities $`\tau _D\tau \tau _{life}.`$ In result we find, that

$$\tau _{cor}\tau _{life}/\mathrm{ln}\frac{\tau _{life}}{\tau _D}.$$
(57)
Thus, the time of correlation at the unlimited time life $`\tau _{life}`$ aspires to infinity.

Stated gives the basis for a conclusion, that in the region of the flicker noise has a place as spatial, and temporary coherence. It also opens an opportunity for an establishment connection of two coherent phenomena: the flicker noise and the superconductivity.

### B Flicker noise and superconductivity

The flicker noise represents spatial - temporary coherent structure. It makes existence of connection between the flicker noise and the superconductivity less surprising.

In approximation of the first moments from the equation (12.12.10) was received the appropriate system of the hydrodynamical equations. It consists from two equations of a continuity with ” a chemical source ” (12.12.23), which at condition $`n_S_{R,t}=const.`$ is equivalent to the equations (39). First of them allows to find dependence of this quantity $`N_S_{R,t}`$ from temperature. Second shows, that the velocity field is vortical.

The equation for average velocity we shall rewrite as the equation for a whirlwind of electrical current and also we shall enter into it the appropriate Langevin source:

$$\frac{}{t}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{e^2n_S}{m^{}c}B\right]=\nu \frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{R^2}+y_\mathrm{\Omega }(R,t),\mathrm{\Omega }=rotj,D=\nu .$$
(58)
This equation should be complemented by the Maxwell equation:

$$rotB=\frac{4\pi }{c}j.$$
(59)
Thus for the whirlwind we have the equation of diffusion type with the Langevin source?. For the spectral density of the Langevin source it is passible to use the expression similar to formula (47)

$$\left(y_\mathrm{\Omega }y_\mathrm{\Omega }\right)_{\omega ,k}=2\nu k^2AV\omega \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\nu k^2}{2\omega }\right)\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_V\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_V.$$
(60)
The normalization condition has the form:

$$_{1/\tau _{life}}^{1/\tau _D}\frac{d\omega }{\pi }\frac{dk}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\delta \mathrm{\Omega }\delta \mathrm{\Omega }\right)_{\omega ,k}=\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_V\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_V.$$
(61)
Now we need the equation for the description of temporary evolution of a whirlwind of average current.

Let’s return to the formula (60) } and we shall rewrite it as the fluctuation dissipation relation (FDR):

$$\left(y_\mathrm{\Omega }y_\mathrm{\Omega }\right)_{\omega ,k}=2\gamma (\omega ,k)A\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_V\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_V.$$
(62)
The designation for appropriate dissipative coefficient here is entered at presence both temporary, and spatial dispersion

$$\gamma (\omega ,k)=\nu k^2V\omega \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\nu k^2}{2\omega }\right).$$
(63)
By return the Fourier transformation it is possible to receive expression for appropriate the dissipative operator. We use its elementary representation in form $`\mathrm{"}1/\tau _{rel}\mathrm{"}`$ .

In this approximation the relaxation time about time of correlation, i.e.

$$\tau _{rel}\tau _{cor}\tau _{life}/\mathrm{ln}\frac{\tau _{life}}{\tau _D}\tau _{obs}\tau _D.$$
(64)
In result for a whirlwind of an electrical current instead of (12.13.24) is received the following ”model” equation for average value of a whirlwind

$$\frac{}{t}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{e^2n_S}{m^{}c}B\right]=\frac{1}{\tau _{rel}}\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }=rotj.$$
(65)
It should be solved together with the Maxwell equation (59).

As the relaxation time is the order of the time life of installation, in zero approximation on dimensionless parameter

$$\frac{\tau _{obs}}{\tau _{life}}\text{at }\tau _{life}\tau _{obs}\tau _D$$
(66)
in the equation (65) it is possible to neglect by dissipation. We come, such to the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2n_S}{m^{}c}}B\right]=0.`$

At integration on time a constant of integration it is possible to accept for zero, that will be coordinated to the Meissner. In result we come to the London equation

$$rotj=\frac{e^2n_s}{mc}B.$$
(67)
We consider it together with the Maxwell equation (59). It enables to receive the closed equation for a magnetic field

$$\frac{^2B}{R^2}\frac{1}{\delta _L^2}B=0,$$
(68)
which, as we already know, describes the Meissner effect.

So, many times diffusion and, as a consequence, the flicker noise allows to understand an opportunity of simultaneous existence of the not fading electrical current and screening of a magnetic field. Here it is difficult to tell, which of these two phenomena is more fundamental, so they are bound among themselves. Both of them appear possible thanking spatially temporary coherent fluctuations of a whirlwind of a current or magnetic field.

Let’s return to inequalities (66). We shall estimate values of the observation tines, at which becomes possible to observe ”not fading” superconducting electrical current.

The diffusion time $`\tau _D`$ defines $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ for domain of the flicker noise: $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}1/\tau _D.`$ The minimal scale is the London length $`\delta _L`$ 10 $`^{\text{-5}}`$ cm. The diffusion coefficient can be estimated by one of two formulas: $`D\mathrm{}/2m^{};`$ $`v_Fl`$ ($`l`$ \- the effective length of free paths of electron pairs). From these formulas follows, that

$$\left(\tau _{obs}\right)_{\mathrm{min}}D=\delta _L^2/D\text{10}^{\text{-10}}\text{-10}^{\text{-11}}\mathrm{sec}.$$
(69)
Let’s address now to definition of concepts ”not fading” or ”superconductive ” current.

One of definition of these concepts is ”measuring”. It is connected with the observation time. Outside of the observation time it is impossible to guarantee the constancy of a current.

However, as in process of increase of the observation time it is impossible to find out attenuation of a current, it is natural to assume, that the constancy of a current has a place within the limits of greatest temporary interval $`\tau _{life},`$ i.e. ” the time life ” of installations.

## IX Conclusion

So, the attempt is made to connect two, apparently, incompatible phenomena: the existence of the flicker noise and the superconductivity in a dissipative medium.

The flicker noise arises due to formation of the spatial coherent structure at the many times diffusion process. Due to this the dissipation, caused with viscous friction, is replaced on dissipation with characteristic time about time of life of installation. It also opens an opportunity for existence not fading (within the limits of time life of installation) current, and also of the screening of a magnetic field.

The connection of the flicker noise and superconductivity allows to spill additional light on the question on an opportunity of existence superconducting current in the dissipative medium. According to stated, the occurrence of the flicker-noise, and consequently also superconductivity, is promoted by the smallest scale of length.

In the theory, considered above, the role of such parameter play the London length. In this connection it is possible to expect, that preferable to occurrence of superconductivity are the substances having layered structure.

At last, the phase transition results to occurrence of quantum continuous medium, for which the basic small parameter is the quantum the physical Knudsen number.

REFERENCES

1.Abrikosov A.A.., Foundation of theory of metals (”Nauka” Moscow 1987 (in Russian)).

2 .Bardeen J., Cooper L., Schriffer J. Theory of superconductivity (Phys.Rev. 106 (1957) 162).

3. Bednorz J., Mueller K. (The Nobel Foundation, 1988).

4. Bogolubov N.N. (JETP 34 (1958) 58; JETF 34 (1958) 71).

5. Elesin V.F., Kopaev Yu.V. Uspechi Fiz. Nauk 133 (1981) 259).

6. Feinman R. The Feinman Lectures on Physics. V.9 (Addison, Massachusetts, London, 1963).

7. Ginsburg V.L. Landau L.D. (JETP, 20 (1950) 1064).

8. Gor’kov L.P. (JETP 34 (1959) 1818.)

9. Guliyan A.M., Jarkov G.F. Superconductors in external field (”Nauka” Moscow, 1990).

10. Klimontovich Yu.L. Statistical Physics (”Nauka” , Moscow, 1982; Harwood, New York, 1986).

11. Klimontovich Y.L. (Pis’ma v JTP 9 (1983) 406; Sov. Techn. Phys. Lett. 9 (1983) 174).

12. Klimontovich Y.L. (Pis’ma v JETP 51 (1990) 43).

13. Klimontovich Yu.L. (Physica A 167 (1990) 782).

14. Klimontovich Yu.L. Turbulent Motion and the Structure of haos (”Nauka”, Moscow, 1990; Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991).

15. Klimontovich Yu.L. Statistical Theory of Open Systems. (V.I ”Yanus” Moscow, 1995; Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995); V.II ”Yanus”, Moscow, 1999; V.III ”Yanus”, Moscow, 2001).

16. Kogan Sh.M. (Uspehi Fiz. Nauk 145 (1985) 286).

17. Lifshitz E.M., Pitaevskii L.P. Statistical Physics. Part 2 (”Nauka?” Moscow, 1978).

18 London F. Superfluids. Vol.I Superconductivity (Wiley New York, 1950).

20. Oraevskii A.N. (PETP 103 (1993) 262).

21. Plakida N.M. Hightemperature superconductors (”International Program of Education” Moscow,1996 (in Russian)).

22. Tinkham M. Introduction in Superconductivity (”Atomizdat”, Moscow, 1980 (in Russian)).


text:
# Measurement of direct CP violation by the NA48 experiment at CERN

## 1 Introduction

CP violation occurs in the Standard Model through the imaginary phase in the CKM mixing matrix. An alternative mechanism, proposed shortly after the discovery of the effect, is a superweak interaction. The latter can be ruled out by experimental observation of direct CP violation, parametrized by $`\epsilon ^{}`$. Theoretical calculations of $`\epsilon ^{}`$ within the Standard Model are hard, but most predictions give $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon 𝒪(10^6)`$ .

The previous generation of experiments to measure direct CP violation (NA31 at CERN and E731 at Fermilab) gave inconclusive results. New experiments were setup to clarify the situation. In 1999 both new experiments presented results based on the first set of their statistics: Re($`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$)=$`(28.0\pm 4.1)\times 10^4`$ (KTeV, FNAL) and Re($`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$)=$`(18.5\pm 7.3)\times 10^4`$ (NA48, CERN). The existence of direct CP violation is thus confirmed. The final results of these two experiments, with substantially smaller uncertainties, are expected to conclude on the size of the direct CP violation effect.

The experimental determination of Re($`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$) is based on the fact that the two CP violating neutral kaon decay amplitudes into two pions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\eta _+\frac{A(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{A(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})}\epsilon +\epsilon ^{}\hfill & & \hfill \eta _{00}\frac{A(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{A(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)}\epsilon 2\epsilon ^{}\end{array}$$
(1)
contain different admixture of the two CP violating processes in charged and in neutral mode. Therefore a double ratio

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)}/\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})}$$
(2)
is an observable sensitive to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ via $`\mathrm{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )\frac{1}{6}(1R)`$.

This paper describes the preliminary result from the analysis of data taken by NA48 in 1998.

## 2 NA48 method

To measure Re($`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$) to an accuracy of $`𝒪(10^4)`$, high statistics and good controls of systematic biases are required. NA48 uses nearly collinear simultaneous $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ beams for maximum benefit from cancellations in the double ratio. By weighting $`K_L`$ decays to the $`K_S`$ lifetime distribution, performing the analysis in bins of kaon energy and collecting all four modes simultaneously, effects due to detection efficiencies and accidental activity are minimised. Low backgrounds are obtained by using high resolution detectors.

## 3 Experimental setup

The NA48 beams and detector are described in detail in . A schematic is shown in figure 1, and the key feaures are listed below.

* A primary beam of 450 GeV protons ($`1.4\times 10^{12}`$ ppp) is delivered by the SPS accelerator to the $`K_L`$ target. A bent crystal deflects the required small fraction ($`𝒪(10^5)`$) of the non-interacting protons through a system of tagging counters and onto the $`K_S`$ target.
* The $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays are reconstructed using a liquid krypton electro-magnetic calorimeter ($`\frac{\sigma _E}{E}=[0.5\frac{3.2}{\sqrt{E/\mathrm{GeV}}}\frac{10.}{E/\mathrm{GeV}}]\%`$). The neutral trigger uses calorimeter information and a look-up table to make a fast decision. The inefficiency for 2$`\pi ^0`$ decays is $``$0.1 %.
* A magnetic spectrometer detects $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. The momentum resolution is $`\frac{\sigma _P}{P}=[0.50.009P(\mathrm{GeV}/c)]\%`$. The charged trigger consists of a fast pretrigger and a processor farm which computes the decay vertex position and invariant mass from the drift chamber signals. This trigger has an inefficiency of $``$2.5%, and dead time of $`<`$5 %.

## 4 Data analysis

### 4.1 Event selection and backgrounds

* All four modes are counted in the same kaon energy interval (70 to 170 GeV), and decay volume (0 to 3.5 $`K_S`$ lifetimes). The beginning of the $`K_S`$ decay volume is determined by an anti-counter placed in the $`K_S`$ beam.
* Dead time in the trigger or read out is applied to all four modes.
* For charged events, the momentum asymmetry rejects background from decays of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particles. Cuts on $`E/p`$ and associated muon counter hits reject the semi-leptonic backgrounds. A signal region in invariant mass and rescaled transverse momentum squared is used. The background is estimated using cleanly identified background decays (figure 2).
* For neutral events no additional clusters are allowed. The four clusters must have a low $`\chi ^2`$ for a $`K^02\pi ^04\gamma `$ hypothesis. The background is measured from the tail of this distribution (figure 2).

### 4.2 $`K_S`$ tagging

Decays from the $`K_S`$ beam are identified by virtue of their having a coincidence between the event time and the nearest proton time as shown in figure 3. There are two forms of mistagging: tagging inefficiency ($`\alpha _{SL}`$) - at least one of the two times was mismeasured, and accidental tagging ($`\alpha _{LS}`$) - there was an accidental coincidences between a proton and a $`K_L`$ decay. The double ratio is sensitive only to differences between the mistagging probabilities:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }R_{SL}6(\alpha _{SL}^{00}\alpha _{SL}^+)=6\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{SL}\hfill & & \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }R_{LS}2(\alpha _{LS}^{00}\alpha _{LS}^+)=2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{LS}\end{array}$$
(3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{SL}`$ is measured using 3$`\pi ^0`$ decays with one photon conversion, The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{LS}`$ is estimated using sidebands away from the coincidence peak.

### 4.3 Acceptance and proper time weighting

To avoid a large acceptance correction on the double ratio due to the difference between the two neutral kaon lifetimes, the $`K_L`$ candidates are weighted with a factor to make the lifetime distributions the same. After weighting the acceptance correction reduces to a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{R}=(+31\pm 6_{MCstat}\pm 6_{syst})\times 10^4`$, with an increase of statistical error of $``$35 %.

### 4.4 Other systematics

In order to avoid strong sensitivity to the distance scale uncertainty the beginning of the decay region is defined by an anti-counter, placed in the $`K_S`$ beam. In the neutral decay mode the distance scale is directly related to the energy scale. The total uncertainty on the double ratio from neutral reconstruction systematics is $`<10\times 10^4`$.

Care has to be given to losses and gains in the event counts due to accidental activity. The correction on the double ratio due to different $`K_S`$/$`K_L`$ illumination of the detector (calculated by overlaying data with events triggered proportionally to the beam intensity) is $`(2\pm 6)\times 10^4`$. Other effects (variation of the $`K_S`$/$`K_L`$ intensity ratio, noise) are absorbed in a limit of $`<10\times 10^4`$.

## 5 Result

Table 1 shows the statistics collected in 1998 run, next to a list of all corrections applied to the raw double ratio and of all systematic uncertainties.

The stability of the corrected double ratio (figure 4) has been extensively checked. The preliminary result obtained from the data collected in the year 1998 is

$$\mathrm{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )=(12.2\pm 2.9_{stat}\pm 4.0_{syst})\times 10^4.$$
(4)
The combined 1997 and 1998 result is

$$\mathrm{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )=(14.0\pm 4.3)\times 10^4.$$
(5)
## 6 Conclusions and outlook

The result presented in this paper confirms the existence of the direct CP violation. Further analysis on systematic studies and the data collected in the 1999 run should lead to a total uncertainty on Re($`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$) of $`3\times 10^4`$.

Taking into account the three most precise published results and the combined NA48 result the world average is $`\mathrm{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )=(19.3\pm 2.4)\times 10^4`$. However the $`\chi ^2=10.5/3`$ indicates poor consistency among the values. New results with better accuracy from both KTeV and NA48 as well as first results from KLOE at DA$`\varphi `$NE should help to clarify this situation.