text:
# Polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background from Non-Uniform Reionization

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The secondary anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provide a laboratory for the study of the epoch of reionization in the Universe. With the rapid improvement in CMB experimental sensitivity and resolution, it is timely to discuss the signals introduced by the process of reionization, which are at the $`\mu `$K level or below. In this paper, we concentrate on the CMB polarization in models with inhomogeneous reionization. It is well known that the primordial CMB polarization is generated at the recombination epoch through Thomson scattering of the quadrupole of the temperature anisotropy. The same mechanism operates at the reionization epoch and again distorts the shape of the polarization power spectrum. It has been pointed out by Ng & Ng (1996) and Zaldarriaga (1997) that this leads to the polarization anisotropy being suppressed on small scales but enhanced on large scales. The degree of suppression and enhancement typically depend on the optical depth to the recombination epoch produced by reionization. Although the amplitude of the polarization anisotropy is estimated to be much smaller than that in the temperature, it is advantageous to consider the polarization signal since it is generated when photons and electrons scatter for the last time. The temperature fluctuations are produced both by scattering between photons and electrons, and by the gravitational redshift or blue-shift caused by the evolution of the gravitational potential between the last-scattering epoch and the present Sachs & Wolfe (1967). On the other hand, the polarization is affected by the gravitational field only through gravitational lensing Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1998), which causes some smearing of the power spectrum, and also some mixing of the “electric” and “magnetic” parity modes of the polarization. In Benson et al. (2001; hereafter Paper I), we presented a detailed calculation of inhomogeneous reionization of the intergalactic medium (IGM), using a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation to predict the ionizing luminosities of stars in galaxies at different redshifts, and coupling this with an N-body simulation to predict the spatial distribution of the ionizing sources and of the ionized gas. In this paper, we use the same model to predict the effects of reionization on the polarization of the CMB.

Reionization produces interesting effects on CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies at both first and second order in the perturbations. At first order, the effects of reionization are the same as for an IGM with spatially uniform density and ionized fraction. Density fluctuations in the free electrons around the reionization epoch produce CMB anisotropies only at second order, as in the Vishniac effect Vishniac (1987). These second-order anisotropies are small in amplitude, but nonetheless dominate over the first-order anisotropies on small angular scales. They are thus cosmologically interesting as a probe of structure present at reionization. Historically, work on the second-order effects began by considering the temperature anisotropies in the case of a homogeneous reionization of the IGM, with the fluctuations in the free electron density being assumed to follow the variations in the total matter density, the so-called density modulation model Vishniac (1987); Jaffe & Kamionkowski (1998). However, in any realistic model, the reionization is expected to be patchy or inhomogeneous, with some regions already being fully ionized while others are still neutral, and the ionized regions growing until they encompass the whole IGM. Shapiro & Giroux (1987) and Sato (1994) investigated the evolution of spherical ionization fronts in a homogeneous IGM using analytic methods. More recently, numerical simulations of radiative hydrodynamics have also shown how reionization proceeds in an inhomogeneous way Gnedin (2000). Gruzinov & Hu (1998) investigated second-order temperature anisotropies resulting from patchy reionization using a simple analytical model in which the universe is reionized in uncorrelated spherical patches. More realistic calculations which relax the assumption of uncorrelated spherical ionized regions have since been carried out by various authors, using either full simulations Gnedin & Jaffe (2000) or semi-analytic methods (Paper I, Springel, White, & Hernquist 2000, Bruscoli et al. 2000, Valageas, Balbi, & Silk 2000). So far, these works have concluded that second-order effects make significant contributions to the temperature anisotropy on small scales ($`l>3000`$), with peak amplitude in the range $`0.1\mu `$K to $`1\mu `$K.

While the second-order temperature anisotropies are well studied, those of the polarization have received relatively little attention. Seshadri & Subramanian (1998) and Weller (1999) discussed this effect in density modulation and patchy reionization models, respectively. Here, we consider second-order polarization anisotropies in a more realistic model than has previously been possible. In our model, reionization results from photoionization by stars in galaxies, and the spatial fluctuations in the free electron density are the combined effect of fluctuations in the total density and fluctuations in the ionized fraction, thus combining the “density modulation” and “patchy reionization” effects. We calculate these effects in the same way as in our previous work (Paper I), by combining a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation with an N-body simulation of the distribution of dark matter in the universe to determine the distribution of ionized regions. In this paper, we consider only the scalar mode for the primordial fluctuations. In the case of first-order perturbation theory, the scalar mode fluctuations produce only the electric (E-) mode of polarization Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997). For the second-order perturbations, however, this may not be the case. Since the polarization anisotropies are produced by the coupling between the large-scale primordial CMB temperature quadrupole anisotropies and the small-scale density fluctuations in the ionized medium, axisymmetry is broken and the magnetic (B-) mode is also produced Hu (2000). In addition to the primordial CMB temperature quadrupole anisotropy, there is also a kinetic temperature quadrupole in the rest-frame of the scatterers, produced by the quadratic Doppler effect from the peculiar velocity of the ionized medium Sunyaev & Zel’dovich (1980). Coupling between this kinetic quadrupole and the electron density fluctuations can likewise produce a second-order contribution to the polarization, but this contribution is much smaller than the previous one Hu (2000), so we neglect it in the present paper.

This paper is organized as follows. In §2, we present the Boltzmann equation for the first- and second-order polarization anisotropies. We then derive the E- and B-mode power spectra by use of the Boltzmann equation. In §3, we give a brief overview of our model for inhomogeneous reionization and show our numerical results for both the first- and second-order polarization power spectra. §4 is devoted to our conclusions. Throughout this paper we work in units where $`c=1`$.

## 2 SECOND ORDER EFFECTS FROM THE REIONIZATION EPOCH

### 2.1 Boltzmann Equation and Second Order Polarization

The evolution of the temperature perturbation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T(𝐱,\widehat{𝐧},\tau )`$, and the polarization perturbation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P(𝐱,\widehat{𝐧},\tau )`$, are governed by the Boltzmann equation Bond & Efstathiou (1984); Peebles & Yu (1970); Ma & Bertschinger (1995). Here $`𝐱`$ is the comoving coordinate, $`\tau 𝑑t/a`$ the conformal time, where $`a`$ is the expansion factor normalized to unity today, and $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ the direction of photon propagation. Following Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997), to calculate the polarization perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ we work in terms of the perturbed Stokes parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}`$ (see §2.2). In this paper, we do not include tensor perturbations in the metric, and we derive the Boltzmann equation in the conformal Newtonian gauge. Readers interested in the synchronous gauge or the transformation between these two gauges are referred to Ma & Bertschinger (1995). In the Newtonian gauge, the perturbations are specified by two scalar potentials, $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$, which play the role of the gravitational potential and the fractional perturbation to the spatial curvature, respectively. The Boltzmann equation then states that

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_T+\widehat{𝐧}_i_i\mathrm{\Delta }_T=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐧}_i_i\psi +n_e\sigma _Ta(\tau )\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_T+\mathrm{\Delta }_{T0}+\widehat{𝐧}_iv_{\mathrm{b}i}\frac{\sqrt{5\pi }}{5}\underset{m=2}{\overset{m=2}{}}Y_2^m(\widehat{𝐧})\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}\right),$$
(1)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{Q\pm iU}+\widehat{𝐧}_i_i\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}=n_\mathrm{e}\sigma _\mathrm{T}a(\tau )\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}+\sqrt{\frac{6\pi }{5}}\underset{m=2}{\overset{m=2}{}}{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{2}^{m}(\widehat{𝐧})\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}\right),$$
(2)
where $`{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{l}^{m}`$ is a spherical harmonic with spin-weight $`s`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}`$ is defined in terms of the quadrupole components of the temperature and polarization perturbations as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}(𝐱,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(m)}(𝐱,\tau )+12\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,2}^{(m)}(𝐱,\tau )+12\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Delta }_{,2}^{(m)}(𝐱,\tau ).$$
(3)
Here the derivatives are taken with respect to the conformal time, $`v_\mathrm{b}`$ is the velocity of baryons, $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ is the free electron number density, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson cross section. We have also expanded the perturbations in the radiation field in spherical harmonics $`{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{m}^{m}`$ with appropriate spin weight $`s`$ (see also §2.2)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_T(𝐱,\widehat{𝐧},\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}(i)^l\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{Tl}^{(m)}(𝐱,\tau )Y_l^m(\widehat{𝐧}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}(𝐱,\widehat{𝐧},\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}(i)^l\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,l}^{(m)}(𝐱,\tau )_{\pm 2}Y_l^m(\widehat{𝐧}).`$ (4)
When we calculate the perturbations for a mode with wavenumber $`𝐤`$, we define the $`{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{l}^{m}`$’s in a coordinate system for which the $`z`$-axis is parallel to $`𝐤`$. To calculate the first order effect for scalar modes, we can set $`m=0`$, as in Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997), due to the axisymmetry of the radiation field around the mode axis for this case. However, their expansion is not valid for studying the second order effect, in which the rotational symmetry around the wavevector is broken by coupling to other modes. It is very important to take into account $`m0`$ modes for the calculating the second order effect, otherwise the (artificially imposed) axisymmetry guarantees that no magnetic mode can be generated. This is why Weller (1999), who assumed axial symmetry following Seshadri & Subramanian (1998), obtained only the electric mode of polarization for the second order effect. As was found by Hu (2000), who employed the weak-coupling approximation, the magnetic mode of polarization is also generated in the case of the second order effect. Thus, the expansion in equation (4) is more general and useful for our calculation.

On small scales, as pointed out by Kaiser (1984), the contribution to secondary temperature anisotropies from homogeneous reionization tends to cancel along the line of sight. Thus, the first order effect on the temperature and polarization anisotropies from the reionization epoch is suppressed at small angles. Hereafter, we concentrate on polarization and develop an equation for the visibility-modulated effect which is the dominant source on small scales.

Firstly, we write the inhomogeneous distribution of the free electron number density as

$$n_\mathrm{e}(𝐱,\tau )=\overline{n}_\mathrm{e}(\tau )[1+\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐱,\tau )],$$
(5)
where $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$ is the fluctuation in the electron number density and $`\overline{}`$ denotes the background quantity. Then, equation (2) can be rewritten in terms of Fourier modes as follows,

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{Q\pm iU}(𝐤,\tau )+ik\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}(𝐤,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{n}_e\sigma _Ta(\tau )(\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}(𝐤,\tau )R_\pm (𝐤,\tau )`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi }{5}}}_{\pm 2}Y_2^m(\widehat{𝐧})(\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )+S^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau ))),`$
where $`S^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )`$ and $`R_\pm (𝐤,\tau )`$ are the Fourier modes of the coupling of $`\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐱,\tau )`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}(𝐱,\tau )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}(𝐱,\tau )`$, respectively. In other words,

$$S^m(𝐤,\tau )=\mathrm{d}^3𝐩\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐤𝐩,\tau )\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}(𝐩,\tau ),$$
(7)
$$R_\pm (𝐤,\tau )=\mathrm{d}^3𝐩\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐤𝐩,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}(𝐩,\tau ).$$
(8)
The polarization perturbations at the present time can be obtained by integrating the Boltzmann equation (6) along the line of sight Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}(𝐤,\mu ,\tau _0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\tau _0}}d\tau \mathrm{e}^{ik(\tau _0\tau )\mu }g(\tau )`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi }{5}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{2}^{m}(\widehat{𝐧})\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )+S^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )\right]R_\pm (𝐤,\tau )\right),`$
where $`\mu =𝐤\widehat{𝐧}`$, and $`g(\tau )`$ is the visibility function defined as

$$g(\tau )\frac{\mathrm{d}\kappa }{\mathrm{d}\tau }\mathrm{e}^{\kappa (\tau _0)\kappa (\tau )},$$
(10)
with $`\kappa (\tau )_\tau ^{\tau _0}𝑑\tau ^{}an_\mathrm{e}\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ being the electron-scattering optical depth. The visibility function has a simple physical meaning, being the probability that a photon had its last scattering at epoch $`\tau `$ and reaches the observer at the present time, $`\tau _0`$. Equation (9) can then be given a simple interpretation, since $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )`$ acts as a first order source term while $`R_\pm (𝐤)`$ and $`S^{(m)}(𝐤)`$ are the contributions from the second order effect. To simplify the calculation, we neglect $`R_\pm (𝐤)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,2}^{(m)}`$ in $`S^{(m)}(𝐤)`$ because the temperature perturbations typically dominate over the polarization perturbations. Furthermore, we assume the first order temperature quadrupole $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(m)}`$ is uncorrelated with $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$ due to the fact that the dominant contributions to these come from large and small scales, respectively. That is, we regard the source term for the second order polarization as

$`S^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )`$ $``$ $`\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐤,\tau ){\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(m)}(𝐩,\tau )}`$ (11)
$``$ $`\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐤,\tau )Q_2^{(m)}(\tau ),`$
with $`Q_2^{(m)}(\tau )`$ defined as $`Q_2^{(m)}(\tau )\mathrm{d}^3𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(m)}(𝐩,\tau )`$ for convenience. Recall that the scalar mode in linear theory only generates the $`m=0`$ component in the $`𝐩`$-basis, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(0)}Y_2^0(\beta ,\alpha )`$, where $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles defining $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ in this basis. Using the addition theorem, we can project the component in the $`𝐩`$-basis onto the $`𝐤`$\- basis (see Ng & Liu 1999),

$$\underset{m}{}Y_l^m(\widehat{𝐧})Y_l^m(\widehat{𝐩})=\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }}Y_l^0(\beta ,\alpha ),$$
(12)
It then follows that

$$Q^{(m)}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{5}}\mathrm{d}^3𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(0)}(𝐩)Y_2^m(\widehat{𝐩}).$$
(13)
Finally, the solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}(𝐤,\widehat{𝐧},\tau _0)=\sqrt{\frac{6\pi }{5}}_0^{\tau _0}d\tau e^{ik(\tau _0\tau )\mu }g(\tau )\underset{m}{}{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{2}^{m}(\widehat{𝐧})X^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau ),$$
(14)
where $`X^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )`$ equals $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(0)}(𝐤,\tau )`$ or $`S^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )`$ for the first and second order contributions respectively.

### 2.2 Stokes Parameters and the Power Spectrum

We follow the approach of Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997) of calculating the polarization in terms of the electric and magnetic modes. We start with the description of the polarization perturbation in terms of the Stokes parameters $`Q`$ and $`U`$. If we consider a wave traveling in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction, $`Q`$ is the difference in intensity polarized in the $`\widehat{y}`$ and $`\widehat{x}`$ directions, while $`U`$ is the difference in the $`(\widehat{x}+\widehat{y})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`(\widehat{x}\widehat{y})/\sqrt{2}`$ directions. The circular polarization parameter, $`V`$, cannot be produced by scattering, so we will not mention it further. Polarization is more complicated than temperature because the values for $`Q`$ and $`U`$ depend on the choice of coordinate system. Under a right-handed rotation through an angle $`\varphi `$ around the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis the temperature is invariant, while $`Q`$ and $`U`$ transform according to

$$(Q\pm iU)^{}(\widehat{𝐧})=e^{2i\varphi }(Q\pm iU)(\widehat{𝐧}).$$
(15)
Thus the functions $`Q\pm iU`$ have spin $`\pm 2`$, and should be expanded in spherical harmonics of spin $`\pm 2`$.

It is possible to produce a rotationally invariant measure of the polarization field if we introduce the spin raising and lowering operators $`^{}`$ and $`\overline{^{}}`$ Newman & Penrose (1966)

$`^{}\eta `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}+i\mathrm{csc}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}\right](\mathrm{sin}\theta )^s\eta ,`$
$`\overline{^{}}\eta `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}i\mathrm{csc}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}\right](\mathrm{sin}\theta )^s\eta ,`$ (16)
with $`\eta `$ as a spin-$`s`$ field. If they act on the spin-$`s`$ spherical harmonics, we have

$`_{}^{}{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(ls)(l+s+1)\right]_{s+1}^{\frac{1}{2}}Y_{lm},`$
$`\overline{^{}}_sY_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(l+s)(ls+1)\right]_{s1}^{\frac{1}{2}}Y_{lm}.`$ (17)
The new bases of the rotationally invariant polarization field, called the electric mode and magnetic mode, are defined as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{{}_{}{}^{}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q+iU}+{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{QiU}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\overline{{}_{}{}^{}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q+iU}{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{QiU}\right).`$ (18)
The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ at a particular direction in the sky are independent of the coordinate system used to define them (unlike $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_U`$). We work in the coordinate system where $`\widehat{k}\widehat{z}`$ and define $`Q>0`$ ($`Q<0`$) in the direction $`\widehat{e}_\theta (\widehat{e}_\varphi `$). For a scalar mode in first-order perturbation theory, the radiation field is axisymmetric around the wavevector. The polarization is produced by scattering of the quadrupolar component of the radiation field, and so has only a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Q`$ component, but no $`\mathrm{\Delta }_U`$ component (which would correspond to a polarization angle at $`45^{}`$ to the $`\widehat{e}_\theta `$ \- $`\widehat{e}_\varphi `$ axes), thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q+iU}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{QiU}=\mathrm{\Delta }_Q`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Q`$ has no $`\varphi `$-dependence, so $`\overline{{}_{}{}^{}}^2={}_{}{}^{}_{}^{2}`$ (eq. 16). As a consequence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E={}_{}{}^{}_{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_Q=\overline{{}_{}{}^{}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B=0`$. This result is important because it shows that no magnetic mode can be produced by scalar modes (density perturbations) in first-order perturbation theory. However, as we will show later, the same situation does not occur in the second-order contribution to the polarization because the coupling between modes breaks axisymmetry.

Again, following Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997), the power spectra of the electric mode and magnetic mode can be defined as

$$C_{(E,B)l}\frac{1}{2l+1}\frac{(l2)!}{(l+2)!}\underset{m}{}\mathrm{d}^3𝐤<|\mathrm{\Delta }_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau =\tau _0)|^2>,$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}`$ can be extracted using

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}(𝐤)=d\mathrm{\Omega }Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }_{(E,B)}(𝐤).$$
(20)
To calculate equation (20), we can apply the spin raising and lowering operators (eq. 16 or 17) to the polarization perturbations in equation (14) twice. But the plane wave $`e^{ik(\tau _0\tau )\mu }`$ itself carries an angular dependence, thus we expand the plane wave in a series of spherical waves using the Rayleigh equation

$$e^{ik(\tau _0\tau )\mu }=\underset{l}{}(i)^l\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)}j_l[k(\tau _0\tau )]Y_l^0(\widehat{𝐧}),$$
(21)
where $`j_l[k(\tau _0\tau )]`$ is the spherical Bessel function. Furthermore, we calculate the product of two spherical harmonics with spin by using the Clebsch-Gordan relation Sakurai (1985)

$`{}_{s_1}{}^{}Y_{l_1}^{m_1}{}_{s_2}{}^{}Y_{l_2}^{m_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{lms}{}}<l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2|l,m>`$ (22)
$`\times <l_1,l_2,s_1,s_2|l,s>\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{2l+1}}}_sY_l^m.`$
The expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )`$ then becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )=\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\pi }\frac{(l+2)!}{(l2)!}\sqrt{2l+1}_0^{\tau _0}d\tau g(\tau )X^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )T_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}(kr),$$
(23)
with $`r=\tau _0\tau `$. In Table 1, we list the results of $`T_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}(kr)`$, in which the orthonormality relation

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_sY_l^m{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{l^{}}^{m^{}}=\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}},$$
(24)
and the recursion relations of spherical Bessel functions

$$\frac{j_l(x)}{x}=\frac{1}{2l+1}[j_{l1}(x)+j_{l+1}(x)]$$
(25)
have been used. Finally, the power spectrum can be obtained by substituting equation (23) into (19),

$$C_{(E,B)l}=(4\pi )^2\frac{9}{16}\frac{(l+2)!}{(l2)!}\underset{m}{}k^2dk\left|d\tau g(\tau )X^{(m)}(𝐤,\tau )T_{(E,B)l}^{(m)}(kr)\right|^2.$$
(26)
In the case of the second-order effect, eq.(26) can be rewritten as an expression involving the power spectrum of the fluctuations in the free electron density $`\delta _e(𝐤,\tau )\delta _e^{}(𝐤,\tau ^{})`$, connecting the two different times $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$. When we evaluate eq.(26) numerically, we neglect the effect of the difference in times in the power spectrum, and so replace it by $`\delta _e(𝐤,\overline{\tau })\delta _e^{}(𝐤,\overline{\tau })`$, evaluated at a single time $`\overline{\tau }`$ which is an average of $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$. This should be an adequate approximation if the dominant wavelengths in eq.(26) are small compared to the Hubble radius.

## 3 NUMERICAL RESULTS

To calculate the polarization anisotropy spectrum using the results discussed above, we use the publicly available code CMBFast Seljak & Zaldarriaga (1996). We modify the ionization history in this code to follow the more realistic case from our previous work (Paper I), in which the reionization history of the universe is determined by a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation. The semi-analytic model is that of Cole et al. (2000), which includes the following processes: formatinon and merging of dark matter halos through hierarchical clustering; shock-heating and radiative cooling of gas within these halos; collapse of cooled gas to form galactic disks; star formation in disks and feedback from supernova explosions; galaxy mergers; chemical evolution of the stars and gas; and luminosity evolution of stellar populations based on stellar evolution codes and model stellar atmospheres. The model has been shown by Cole et al. to agree well with a wide range of observed properties of galaxies in the local universe. In Paper I we used this model to calculate the ionizing luminosities of galaxies at different redshifts, including the effects of absorption by interstellar gas and dust on the fraction of ionizing photons escaping, and followed the propagation of the ionization fronts around each galaxy. To find the ionizing luminosity, we first calculate the rate at which ionizing photons are being produced by stars in the galaxy, then apply an attenuation due to dust, and finally allow a fraction $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ of the remaining photons to escape into the IGM. The mass of ionized hydrogen in each spherical ionization front is found by integrating the equation Shapiro & Giroux (1987)

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{H}}\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}t}=S(t)\alpha _\mathrm{H}^{(2)}a^3f_{\mathrm{clump}}n_\mathrm{H}\frac{M}{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{H}},$$
(27)
where $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ is the comoving mean number density of hydrogen atoms (total, Hi and Hii) in the IGM, $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom, $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor of the universe normalized to unity at $`z=0`$, $`t`$ is time (related to the conformal time by $`dt=d\tau /a`$), $`S(t)`$ is the rate at which ionizing photons are being emitted and $`\alpha _\mathrm{H}^{(2)}`$ is the case B recombination coefficient. The clumping factor $`f_{\mathrm{clump}}\rho _{\mathrm{IGM}}^2/\overline{\rho }_{\mathrm{IGM}}^2`$ gives the effect of clumping on the recombination rate of hydrogen in the IGM. A larger $`f_{\mathrm{clump}}`$ increases the recombination rate resulting in a delay of the reionization epoch. We use the clumping factor $`f_{\mathrm{clump}}^{(\mathrm{halos})}`$ as defined in Paper I. By summing over the ionized volumes due to all galaxies, we can calculate the fraction of the IGM which has been reionized at any redshift. Having this reionization history, we can then obtain the first order power spectrum of the polarization anisotropies without making any assumptions about the spatial distribution of the ionized gas. We consider only the scalar mode of the primordial perturbations, for which the radiation field for each $`𝐤`$-mode is axially symmetric. Thus, we set $`m=0`$ in equation (26) and find no magnetic mode can be produced (see Table. 1).

The second order effect is more complicated, as the source term contains $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(m)}`$, i.e., the $`m=0,\pm 1`$ and $`\pm 2`$ components of the temperature quadrupole must be considered. The time evolution of the temperature quadrupole components with different $`m`$ in the $`𝐤`$-basis is obtained using equation (13), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}^{(0)}`$ is calculated using the modified CMBFast code. This leaves only the power spectrum of the electron density fluctuations $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$ unknown, which should be calculated from the distribution of ionized regions with different sizes and shapes and with a correlated spatial distribution. An exact calculation would require a high resolution numerical simulation with gas dynamics and radiative transfer included, and so would require very large amounts of computing time. Here we instead calculate the density field $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$ of the ionized gas using the simpler approach of Paper I, in which the semi-analytic galaxy formation model is combined with a high-resolution N-body simulation of the dark matter. The simulation volume, which is a box of comoving length $`141.3h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and contains $`256^3`$ dark matter particles each of mass $`1.4\times 10^{10}h^1M_{}`$, is divided into $`256^3`$ cubical cells of comoving size $`0.55h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. Each dark matter halo in the simulation containing more than 10 particles is populated with galaxies according to the semi-analytic model, and the sum of their ionizing luminosities placed in a source at the center of mass of the halo. Ionizing photons which originate from galaxies in lower mass halos (which are not resolved in the simulation) are added in by assuming that these unresolved halos trace the remaining mass of the simulation (i.e. that mass which is not part of a resolved halo). In Paper I we demonstrated that the locations of unresolved sources do not significantly affect the resulting anisotropy spectrum. We determine which regions of the simulation box become ionized by using one of the five toy models A-E listed below, which span the likely range of possible behaviour. In all cases, the total mass of ionized hydrogen in the simulation box is the same, and is forced to equal that for a large-scale homogeneous distribution with the specified IGM clumping factor $`f_{\mathrm{clump}}`$, calculated by use of equation (27). We assume that the total gas density in the IGM traces the dark matter, thus neglecting the effects of pressure in the IGM. Hu (2000) has shown that this is a good approximation for anisotropies with $`l<10^4`$.

Model A (Growing front model) Ionize a spherical volume around each halo with a radius equal to the ionization front radius for that halo calculated assuming a large-scale uniform IGM. Since in the simulation the IGM is *not* uniform, but is assumed to trace the dark matter, and also because some spheres will overlap, the ionized volume calculated in this way will not contain the correct total ionized mass. We therefore scale the radius of each sphere by a constant factor, $`f`$, and repeat the procedure. This process is repeated, with a new value of $`f`$ each time, until the correct total mass of hydrogen has been ionized.

Model B (High density model) In this model, we ignore the positions of halos in the simulation. Instead, we simply rank the cells in the simulation volume by their density. We then completely ionize the gas in the densest cell. If this has not ionized enough Hi then we ionize the second densest cell. This process is repeated until the correct total mass of Hi has been ionized.

Model C (Low density model) This is like model B, except that we begin by ionizing the least dense cell, and work our way up to cells of greater and greater density. This model mimics that of Miralda-Escudé, Haehnelt & Rees (2000).

Model D (Random spheres model) As Model A, except that the ionized spheres are placed at completely random positions in the simulation volume, rather than on the dark matter halos to which they belong. By comparing to Model A this model allows us to estimate the importance of the spatial clustering of dark matter halos.

Model E (Boundary model) Ionize a spherical region around each halo with a radius equal to the ionization front radius for that halo. This may ionize too much or not enough Hi depending on the density of gas around each source. We therefore begin adding or removing cells at random from the boundaries of the already ionized regions until the required mass of Hi is ionized.

From the results of the simulation, we calculate $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$ as

$$\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐱,\tau )=\frac{x_e(𝐱,\tau )(1+\delta )}{\overline{x}_e(\tau )}1,$$
(28)
where $`x_\mathrm{e}`$ is the ionized fraction (which we take to equal 1 in ionized regions and 0 in neutral regions) and $`\delta `$ is the dark matter overdensity (i.e. we assume that fluctuations in the gas density follow those in the dark matter). Here $`\overline{x}_e`$ is defined as the mass-averaged ionized fraction in the IGM.

We fix the cosmological parameters to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=0.7`$, Hubble constant $`\mathrm{H}_0=70`$ km/s/Mpc and $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. We will consider the effects of varying $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ on the polarization anisotropies and also examine the polarization power spectrum in all five toy models for the distribution of ionized regions. In Fig. 1 we plot the visibility functions of the ionization histories in our simulation for different $`f_{esc}`$ (panel (a)) and different $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ (panel (b)). We find that the visibility function depends strongly on $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$, and also on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$. The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ determines the cooling rate (and so star formation rate) in our model of galaxy formation and also alters the recombination rate in the IGM, and so affects the time at which reionization occurs (panel (b)). Note that when we vary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$, we also vary the fraction of brown dwarfs in the IMF used in the galaxy formation model, in such a way that the model always fits the “knee” of the observed $`H\alpha `$ luminosity function of galaxies at $`z=0`$ (see Paper I for more details). Therefore the production of ionizing photons does not simply scale with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$.

In Fig. 2, we show how the first-order polarization anisotropies are affected by scattering by free electrons at the reionization epoch, calculated using the modified CMBFast code. We find, first, that rescattering at the reionization epoch generates a new anisotropy at large scales because the horizon has grown to a much larger size by reionization than it had at recombination ($`z1100`$). More specifically, the location of the new peak reveals the horizon size at last scattering, and its height reveals the duration of last scattering, i.e., this new peak is sensitive to the optical depth produced by reionization. To see how the distortion of the primordial polarization depends on the optical depth $`\kappa _i`$ back to the start of reionization, we plot the resulting power spectrum for various values of $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ in panel (a). We find that the boost in the large-scale power depends strongly on the value of $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$. (The optical depth is $`0.034`$, $`0.017`$ and $`0.014`$ for $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=1.0,0.1`$ and $`0.05`$ respectively, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.02`$.) The location of the new peak depends on the reionization epoch, which is characterized by the redshift $`z_i`$ of the peak of the visibility function as shown in Fig. 1. From numerical simulations of the Boltzmann code for different reionization epochs and cosmological parameters, we obtain a fitting formula for the peak location $`l_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ as a function of the reionization epoch $`z_i`$:

$$l_{\mathrm{peak}}=0.74(1+z_i)^{0.73}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.11}.$$
(29)
This fit is consistent with the peak locations shown in Fig. 2. On the other hand, the first-order polarization fluctuations are suppressed on small scales by rescattering since a fraction of the photons coming from the recombination epoch is scattered after reionization. The tiny optical depth for rescattering causes little erasure of power on small scales, but the new peak reaches an amplitude of $``$0.05–0.1$`\mu `$K. From Fig. 2(b), we can see that the suppression also depends on $`\kappa _i`$.

Let us discuss now the second-order effect. In Fig. 3, we show the contribution to $`C_{El}`$ and $`C_{Bl}`$ from each value of $`m`$ for Model A. For $`m=0`$, only the E-mode is generated because $`T_{Bl}^{(0)}=0`$ (see Table. 1). Our numerical results show that the E-mode (the B-mode) from $`m=\pm 2`$ ($`m=\pm 1`$) dominates the one from $`\pm 1`$ ($`\pm 2`$) by more than four orders of magnitude. However, the total power spectra of the E- and B-modes are almost exactly the same. The difference is less than $`10^6`$, which may be caused by numerical errors. These results are consistent with previous work by Hu (2000), in which the weak-coupling approximation was employed. (The weak-coupling approximation involves making an analytical approximation for the line-of-sight integrals, while in eq.(26) we instead calculate the integrals over $`\tau `$ and $`k`$ numerically.) The reason for the equality of the total E- and B-mode power spectra is essentially that the first-order quadrupole whose scattering produces the polarization is dominated by large scales, and so has a random orientation relative to the small-scale fluctuations in the electron density (c.f eqn.(11)). Scattering of the quadrupole by the small-scale fluctuations therefore on average excites E- and B- modes equally.

Numerically, the amplitude of the second-order signal is found to be about $`10^8`$K. This can also be understood as follows: from (eq. 14), the amplitude of the second order polarization anisotropies is roughly $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Q\pm iU}𝑑\tau g(\tau )Q_2^{(m)}\delta _e\kappa Q_2^{(m)}\delta _e`$. In our calculation $`\kappa ,Q_2^{(m)}`$ and $`\delta _e`$ are typically on the order of $`10^2,10^5\mathrm{K}`$ and $`10^1`$, respectively. The order-of-magnitude of the second-order contribution then follows.

The relation between the angular wavenumber $`l`$ and the comoving wavenumber $`k`$ of the density fluctuations at a given redshift is

$$lkr(z)=k_0^z\frac{dz}{H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3+1\mathrm{\Omega }_0}}.$$
(30)
where $`r(z)`$ is the standard radial coordinate distance in the Robertson-Walker metric, and the final expression assumes a flat cosmology. For our standard choice $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=0.7`$, we find $`r(z)6000h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for reionization at $`z_i510`$. Thus, electron density fluctuations at reionization on comoving scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ produce second-order anisotropies at $`l6000(h^1\mathrm{Mpc}/\mathrm{\Delta }x)`$.

In Fig. 4, we plot the second-order power spectrum of the polarization in the five toy models with fixed extreme escape fraction $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.02`$. Although the shapes of the curves are all very similar, their amplitudes are different. Note that the reduction in power above $`l10,000`$ is artificial and due to the limited resolution of the N-body simulation we use (the density field of the ionized gas is calculated on a grid with cell size $`0.55h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, corresponding to $`l10^4`$). On the other hand, the finite size of the simulation box ($`256h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$) affects the power spectrum for $`l`$ below a few hundred. We see that the amplitude of the power spectrum around the peak ($`l10,000`$) varies by a factor $`2.5`$, depending on which of the models A–E is used. In Paper I we argued that the amplitude of the curves is affected by the strength of the correlations of $`\delta _e`$ present in each model. As a result, the “high density” model (B) is the most strongly correlated and has the highest amplitude, and conversely the “low density” model (C) has the lowest amplitude.

In Fig. 4, we also compare our results to the analytical toy model of Gruzinov & Hu (1998), in which the reionization is described by three free parameters. In their model, each luminous source is assumed to ionize a spherical region with fixed comoving radius $`R`$, the first source appears at redshift $`z_i`$, and new sources turn on at a constant rate until reionization is complete after an interval $`\delta z`$. An artificial assumption is made that luminous sources appear at random locations in space, so there are no correlations between the positions of the ionized spheres. Assuming that the spheres remain ionized forever, the fractional ionization increases with increasing number density of ionized spheres during $`\delta z`$ until the universe is completely ionized. In Paper I, we chose $`R=0.85h^1`$ Mpc, $`z_i`$=11 and $`\delta z=5`$ in the Gruzinov & Hu model to match the peak in the power spectrum of secondary temperature anisotropies predicted for our model E. We choose the same parameters here and find that the toy model likewise matches the peak in the spectrum of polarization anisotropies for model E. For small $`l`$, little power is generated in the Gruzinov & Hu model because, by design, the patches are uncorrelated.

To further clarify what determines the shape of the second-order anisotropy spectrum in our models, we carried out the following additional tests, shown in Fig. 5. The first test was to force the ionized fraction $`x_e`$ to be uniform and equal to the same mean value as before, so that fluctuations $`\delta _e`$ in the free electron density are then simply equal to fluctuations $`\delta `$ in the total density. In this case, the angular power spectrum has an almost identical shape to models A-E, with amplitude about equal to that for models C, D or E, but lower than that for models A or B (by factors of about 1.7 and 2.5 respectively). In the next two tests (labelled “random” in Fig. 5), the total gas density was forced to be uniform (i.e. we set $`\delta =0`$), and put bubbles down at random positions, so that fluctuations in $`\delta _e`$ resulted only from the patchiness of the reionization. In one case, the bubble radii were chosen from the size distribution predicted by our galaxy formation model (this case is thus similar to model D, except that model D had $`\delta 0`$). In the other case, all bubbles were given the same comoving radius of $`0.62h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, which corresponds to the mean bubble radius (weighted by bubble volume) predicted by the galaxy model, at the redshift corresponding to the peak of the visibility curve. Both of these cases give power spectra with shapes (at large scales) similar to the analytical Gruzinov & Hu model, and completely different from when fluctuations in $`\delta `$ are included. In the final test (labelled “clustered” in Fig. 5), we again forced the bubble radii to be equal at a given redshift, but placed them on random halos, and included the fluctuations in the total gas density. The starting value for the radii in this last case was again $`0.62h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, but the spheres were then grown by a uniform factor at each redshift to produce the correct mean ionized fraction, as in model A. The power spectrum in this case is almost the same as in model A, showing that the distribution in bubble sizes in the latter case does not have much effect.

From these tests, we conclude that in our models A-E, the shape of the power spectrum on scales large compared to the typical size of the ionized bubbles is determined primarily by the correlations in total gas density. However, in the case of patchy reionization, the amplitude depends on the spatial distribution of these patches, which produces biasing for the correlations in the ionized gas density relative to those in the total gas density, which in turn boosts the amplitude of the polarization fluctuations. For our models A-E, the boost in amplitude of the power spectrum, relative to the uniform $`x_e`$ case, varies from about a factor 1 to 2.5, the largest boost resulting from the case where the densest cells are ionized first (model B).

The amplitude of the second-order polarization power spectrum also depends on the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$, which affects the visibility function in equation (23). In our calculation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ is set to be $`0.02`$, which is lower than the current estimates based on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which imply $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ Burles et al. (2001). In Fig. 6, we increase $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ to $`0.04`$ (which results in $`\kappa _i`$ increasing to 0.048). If the evolution of the ionized regions were the same in both models, we would expect the amplitude to increase a factor of four (eq. 14). However, the delay of reionization resulting from this increase in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$, as was shown in Fig. 1, reduces the factor to $`2.8`$.

So far we have set $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=1.0`$ only. Whilst this may in fact be a plausible value for high-redshift galaxies based on recent observations (Steidel Pettini & Adelberger 2000), it is instructive to examine the effects of changing $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$. Using Model A we examine the effects on the second order polarization anisotropies of varying $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$. The results are shown in Fig. 7. In contrast to the case of first-order anisotropies, the amplitude of the second-order anisotropies increases only weakly with increasing $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$, with the extreme value $`f_{esc}=1.0`$ differing from the others by only a factor of about $`1.6`$. This is because the source term for the first-order polarization anisotropies is the visibility function multiplied by the temperature quadrupole, $`g(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{T2}`$. Since the temperature quadrupole changes slowly with time, we can say that the power spectrum is mainly determined by the visibility function. However, the source term for the second order anisotropies is the visibility function multiplied by $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$, whose time evolution is roughly proportional to $`1/(1+z)`$. Thus, the signal in the second-order anisotropies is more strongly weighted to low $`z`$, where the differences between models with different $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ are less significant.

We also plot the first-order power spectrum as heavy solid lines in Figs. 4-7. This shows that the second order signal dominates over the first order signal on small scales $`(l>6000)`$. This will be useful for a high resolution experiment since we will be able to distinguish the secondary signal from the primordial one.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We have investigated the polarization anisotropies created during the reionization epoch, for a realistic model of reionization by galaxies, in particular focusing on the second-order effect. It is found that the boost in the large-scale polarization anisotropy from the first-order effect is very sensitive to the optical depth due to reionization, with larger optical depths giving larger boosts. Using a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation to calculate reionization (Paper I), the optical depth from the present to the recombination epoch, $`\kappa _i`$, is predicted to be in the range $`0.0140.048`$, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ in the range $`0.020.04`$, and the escape fraction of ionizing photons from galaxies $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ in the range $`0.051.0`$. This first-order effect causes a new peak in the polarization at large scales with amplitude around $`0.050.15\mu `$K. The position of the peak is determined by the size of the horizon at reionization. If this peak can be detected by future experiments such as Planck, it would offer valuable evidence to guide our understanding of reionization of the universe.

We have also studied the second-order polarization effects resulting from the coupling of fluctuations in the free electron number density, $`\delta _\mathrm{e}`$, with the quadrupole of the temperature anisotropies. We obtained $`\delta _\mathrm{e}(𝐱,t)`$ by combining the semi-analytic model of galaxy formation with a high resolution N-body simulation, as in our previous work (Paper I). The semi-analytic model determines the average ionized fraction at each redshift, but the spatial distribution of ionized gas is based on using the simulation to determine the locations of the ionizing sources and density field of the IGM. We determine which regions of the IGM are ionized using one of five toy models. We summarize our results for the second-order polarization anisotropies as follows: (1) The second order effect dominates over the first-order effect on small scales ($`l>6000`$). (2) The B-mode of polarization is induced as well as the E-mode. The angular power spectra of these two modes $`C_{El}`$ and $`C_{Bl}`$ are the same. (3) The shapes of the $`C_{(E,B)l}`$ are very similar in all of the toy models we considered for the spatial distribution of the ionized regions, but differ considerably from the toy model of Gruzinov & Hu (1998), having much more power on larger angular scales. The reason for this difference is the spatial correlations of the total gas density in our model, which produce corresponding large-scale correlations in the density of ionized gas also. The shape of $`C_{(E,B)l}`$ on large scales is determined mostly by the correlations in the total gas density, but its amplitude is sensitive to the geometry of the ionized regions, which determines the biasing factor of the correlations in ionized density relative to those of the total gas density. (4) The difference in amplitude between our different toy models for the spatial distribution of ionization is large in the second order effect, for example, Models B and C differ by a factor of $`2.5`$. Thus, they provide a very important constraint on galaxy formation and reionization, in spite of the fact that the shapes of all curves are similar. The cosmological parameters which also affect the amplitude of the second-order effect will be determined by forthcoming precise measurements of CMB anisotropies by MAP and PLANCK. Therefore we expect that when the second order polarization is observed, its amplitude will provide an important signature of the galaxy formation and reionization processes. (5) The amplitude also depends on the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$. If the evolution of the ionized regions were the same for any value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$, we would expect the amplitude to be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}^2`$. However, the scaling in our model is somewhat weaker than this, because increasing the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ delays reionization. In our calculation, the second-order power spectrum for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.04`$ model has an amplitude 2.8 times greater than for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.02`$ model. (6) The amplitude of $`C_{(E,B)l}`$ depends only weakly on $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ (and so on the redshift of reionization). Since the amplitude of the power spectrum for the extreme value of $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=1.0`$ differs from that with $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}=0.1`$ only by a factor of about $`1.5`$, the results in Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 should be only weakly dependent on the true value of $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$.

While second-order effects can make a significant contribution to the temperature anisotropy ($``$0.1–1$`\mu `$K), the second-order polarization anisotropies generated by inhomogeneous reionization are, as expected, very small. We conclude that the signals are typically of order 10nK on arcminute scales, comparable to estimates from other authors studying Vishniac-type polarization Seshadri & Subramanian (1998) or toy models of patchy reionization Weller (1999). A signal of this amplitude is below the detectability limits of the Planck Surveyor mission, which is the most accurate experiment in the near future. However, it is worthwhile to note that this second order effect generates the same power in the E- and B-modes. Thus a detection of B-mode polarization on arcminute scales or below is essential to distinguish the second-order effect from other possible effects. Since it provides more information about galaxy formation and the process of reionization than the first-order effect, detection of this signal should be a key aim of a post-Planck experiment with increased sensitivity and resolution in the next decade. Among currently planned instruments, the most useful one for detecting the second-order signal is probably the mm-wavelength interferometer ALMA, which will be able to measure CMB fluctuations on arcminute scales. Since the second-order signal is very small, polarized Galactic foregrounds, from dust (e.g. Prunet et al (1998).) and synchrotron emission (e.g. Baccigalupi et al (2001)), are a concern. However, the amplitude of these foregrounds on arcminute scales is currently unknown, as observational estimates have been obtained only for larger scales ($`l<1001000`$). The detectability of the CMB polarization signal can thus only be decided by future observational work.

We thank U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga for the use of CMBFast, the Virgo Consortium for making available the GIF N-body simulations used here, and Shaun Cole, Carlos Frenk and Carlton Baugh for allowing us to use their model of galaxy formation. GCL thanks N. Seto for useful discussion and acknowledges the fellowship of Interchange Association. NS, AN and CGL acknowledge kind hospitality of Carlos Frenk and the physics department of University of Durham during the TMR network meeting. NS is supported by the Sumitomo fundation. CGL acknowledges support at SISSA from COFIN funds from MURST and from ASI. AN and AJB acknowledge the support of the EC RTN network “The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium”.


format: text

text:
# Standard-Model-like scenarios in the 2HDM and Photon Collider potential

## I Introduction. SM-like scenario

It could happen that no new particles will be discovered at the Tevatron, the LHC and $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Colliders Accomando:1998wt  except the SM-like Higgs boson. In this case the main task for new colliders will be to search for signals of new physics via deviations of observed quantities from Standard-Model predictions. The study of Higgs boson production at a Photon Collider GKST  offers excellent opportunities for this Ginzburg:1999fb . Indeed, in the SM and in its extensions, all fundamental charged particles contribute to the $`h\gamma \gamma `$ and $`hZ\gamma `$ effective couplings. Besides, these couplings are absent in the SM at tree level, appearing only at the loop level. Therefore, the background for signals of new physics will be relatively lower here than in processes which are allowed at tree level of the SM.

We assume gko  that an SM-like scenario is realized, i.e., the Higgs particle has been found at the Tevatron or the LHC and its partial widths or coupling constants squared are precisely measured (mainly at the $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider), being in agreement with those of the SM, within the anticipated experimental accuracies. This can happen not only in the SM, but also if Nature is described by some other theory, for example, the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). Here we compare the SM and the SM-like scenario in the 2HDM (II).

The SM-like scenario can be defined by the following criteria:

* One Higgs boson will be discovered with mass above today’s limit for an SM Higgs boson, 115 GeV LEPC . This can be either the Higgs boson of the SM or one neutral Higgs boson from some other model.
* No other Higgs boson will be discovered. Any other Higgs boson is weakly coupled with the $`Z`$ boson, gluons and quarks, or sufficiently heavy to escape observation: $`M_H,M_A,M_{H^\pm }>𝒪(800\text{ GeV})`$ lhc .
* Any other new particle that may exist is beyond the discovery limits of LHC and the $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider.
* The measured decay widths of this Higgs boson (or coupling constants squared) to quarks, charged leptons, electroweak gauge bosons and gluons, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ ($`i=q,l,W,Z,g`$), will be in agreement with their SM values $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ within the experimental precision, $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\mathrm{exp}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\mathrm{SM}}1|1`$.

## II Precision of measured SM Higgs couplings

At the TESLA $`e^+e^{}`$ collider the discussed production cross sections are expected to be measured with a significantly higher precision than at the LHC lhc . At $`M_h=120\text{GeV}`$, with integrated luminosity 500 fb-1 one can expect for the basic couplings the following relative accuracy Battaglia:2001jb :

$$\delta _b=0.021,\delta _t=0.022,\delta _{W/Z}=0.012.$$
(1)
Experiments at Photon Colliders open new perspectives. Even with a modest integrated luminosity of a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider in the high energy peak of about $`40`$ fb-1, a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider makes it possible to obtain the accuracy in measuring $`h\gamma \gamma `$ Jikia:2000en :

$$\delta _\gamma =0.02\text{ for }M_h<140\text{ GeV},$$
(2)
to be compared to 13% at a linear collider at 500 fb-1 Battaglia:2001jb ; boos . The accuracy in the measurement of the effective $`hZ\gamma `$ ($`HZ\gamma `$) coupling in the process $`e\gamma eh`$ ($`e\gamma eH`$) is lower.

We will use the above uncertainties to constrain ratios of actual (in principle measurable) coupling constants of each neutral Higgs scalar $`\varphi `$ ($`h`$ or $`H`$) of the 2HDM (II) in the SM-like realizations111Discussing both these scalars, we use the notation $`\varphi `$ for $`h`$ and $`H`$. with particle $`i`$ to the corresponding value for the Higgs boson in the SM,

$$\chi _i^\varphi =\frac{g_i^\varphi }{g_i^{\mathrm{SM}}},\mathrm{where}\chi _i^\varphi =\pm (1ϵ_i),\text{with }|ϵ_i|1.$$
(3)
The allowed ranges for $`ϵ_i`$ are constrained by the experimental accuracies $`\delta _i`$, $`|ϵ_i|\delta _i`$. Additional constraints follow from the structure of the considered model.

## III Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (II)

We here consider the CP-conserving Two-Higgs-Doublet Model in its Model II implementation, denoted by 2HDM (II) Hunter ; Santos:1997vt ; Haber:1995be . Here, one doublet of fundamental scalar fields couples to $`u`$-type quarks, the other to $`d`$-type quarks and charged leptons. The Higgs sector contains three neutral Higgs particles, two CP-even scalars $`h`$ and $`H`$, one CP-odd (pseudoscalar) $`A`$, and charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$ — it coincides in the 2HDM (II) and in the MSSM.

In the SM-like scenario realized in the 2HDM we need to consider both possibilities: not only the light scalar Higgs boson, $`h`$, but also the heavier one, $`H`$, could imitate the SM Higgs boson if the lighter scalar $`h`$ escapes detection light-Higgs ; Grzadkowski:1999ye .

The ratios of the direct coupling constants of the Higgs bosons $`\varphi =h,H`$ to the gauge bosons $`V=W`$ or $`Z`$ bosons, to up and down quarks and to charged leptons, relative to their SM values can be expressed via angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ Hunter ; Haber:1995be :

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _V^\varphi =\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha +\delta _\varphi ),\hfill \\ \chi _u^\varphi =\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha +\delta _\varphi )+\mathrm{cot}\beta \mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha +\delta _\varphi ),\hfill \\ \chi _d^\varphi =\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha +\delta _\varphi )\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha +\delta _\varphi ),\hfill \end{array}\delta _h=0,\delta _H=\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(4)
Here, $`\beta (0,\pi /2)`$ parameterizes the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two basic Higgs doublets and $`\alpha (\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0})`$ parameterizes mixing among the two neutral CP-even Higgs fields.

The coupling of the charged Higgs boson to the neutral scalars $`\varphi `$ depends on the Higgs-boson masses and on the additional parameter $`\lambda _5`$ (compare Hunter ; Djouadi:1998yq , note that the paper Haber:1995be  uses another parameterization of the 2HDM)

$$\chi _{H^\pm }^\varphi =\left(1\frac{M_\varphi ^2}{2M_{H^\pm }^2}\right)\chi _V^\varphi +\left(\frac{M_\varphi ^2}{2M_{H^\pm }^2}\frac{\lambda _5}{2\lambda _4}\right)(\chi _u^\varphi +\chi _d^\varphi ),\lambda _4=\frac{2M_{H^\pm }^2}{v^2}.$$
(5)
## IV  Pattern relation and allowed ranges for couplings

The quantities $`\chi _i^\varphi `$ for the couplings (4) of each scalar (referred to below as basic couplings) are closely related to the observables and it is more natural to use them, instead of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Since for each $`\varphi `$ these three $`\chi _i`$ can be expressed in terms of two angles, they fulfill a simple relation (pattern relation), which plays a basic role in our analysis (it is valid in the MSSM as well). It has the same form for both $`h`$ and $`H`$, namely $`(\chi _u\chi _V)(\chi _V\chi _d)+\chi _V^2=1`$, or

$$(\chi _u+\chi _d)\chi _V=1+\chi _u\chi _d.$$
(6)
Furthermore, from Eq. (4) follows the condition: $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta =(\chi _V\chi _d)/(\chi _u\chi _V)=(1\chi _d^2)/(\chi _u^21)`$.

In the following discussion we will assume only one value for each up-type quark, down-type quark, charged lepton and gauge boson coupling with the Higgs boson, in numerical calculation we will use the best estimate for each category, e.g. $`\delta _b`$ for $`\delta _d`$. The SM-like scenario means, in particular, that $`\chi _i^21`$ for the basic couplings. We consider solutions of the equations (3) constrained by the pattern relation (6).

These solutions can be further classified as follows. For solutions $`A_{\varphi \pm }`$ the relative couplings are approximately identical, $`\chi _V\chi _u\chi _d\pm 1`$. There are also solutions $`B_{\varphi \pm q}`$, where some of the $`\chi _i1`$ but other $`\chi _j1`$. Here, the first subscript labels the observed Higgs boson ($`\varphi =h,H`$). The second subscript $`\pm `$ labels the sign of $`\chi _V^\varphi `$. The third subscript $`q=d,u`$ (only for solutions $`B`$) labels the quark whose coupling constant to the Higgs boson is opposite to that of the vector boson. Our analysis gko  shows that an SM-like scenario can be realized for only a limited part of the 2HDM parameter space, summarized in Table 1.

## V Distinguishing models via loop couplings

In order to distinguish models in the considered SM-like scenario, we compute loop-induced couplings of the Higgs boson with photons or gluons Hunter ; Djouadi:1998yq  for these solutions $`A`$ and $`B`$ within the ranges of the coupling constants allowed by the anticipated experimental inaccuracies from Eq. (1). To estimate the deviation from the SM, we consider the ratios of widths $`|\chi _{\gamma \gamma }|^2`$ and $`|\chi _{Z\gamma }|^2`$ obtained in the 2HDM (II) and in the SM. In the 2HDM the couplings with photons, $`\varphi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi Z\gamma `$, contain contributions from fermions, and from the charged gauge boson $`W^\pm `$, like in the SM. In addition, there are contributions from the charged Higgs boson, $`H^\pm `$. For definiteness, we perform all calculations for $`M_{H^\pm }=800`$ GeV. At $`M_\varphi <250`$ GeV the contribution of the charged Higgs boson loop varies by less than 5% when $`M_{H^\pm }`$ varies from 800 GeV to infinity. We have kept track of all relevant couplings to make sure they are in the perturbative regime for observed Higgs boson masses up to 3 TeV. If the SM-like Higgs is $`h`$ then any non-perturbative coupling would correspond to the unobserved Higgs boson $`H`$.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ width looks the most promising one for distinguishing models.

Solutions A. A new feature of the two-photon width, as compared to the SM case, is the contribution due to the charged Higgs boson loops. It is known that the scalar loop contribution to the photonic widths is less than that of fermion and $`W`$ boson loops (the last is the largest). The contributions of $`W`$ and $`t`$-quark loops are of opposite sign, i.e., they partially compensate each other, thus, the effect of scalar loops is enhanced here. The coupling $`\chi _{H^\pm }`$ depends on $`\lambda _5`$, which is not fixed by the observable masses. This dependence is linear:

$$|\chi _{\gamma \gamma }|^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }^{2\mathrm{H}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{M}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{SM}}}=1R_{\gamma \gamma }\left(1\frac{\lambda _5}{\lambda _4}\right)$$
(7)
with a similar dependence for the $`Z\gamma `$ decay.

For the solutions $`B`$ the coupling of the charged Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$ to the observed neutral one, $`\chi _{H^\pm }`$, is practically independent of $`\lambda _5`$ since $`\chi _d+\chi _u0`$. Also, if the charged Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$ is heavy (as is the case in the SM-like scenario), its coupling to the neutral Higgs scalars $`\varphi `$ is close to that of the vector bosons, $`\chi _{H^\pm }\chi _V`$. For solutions $`B_{\varphi \pm d}`$ the main difference in the two-photon width from that of the SM is given by the contribution of charged Higgs bosons, for the solution $`B_{h+u}`$ also in the change of sign of the coupling to the $`t`$-quark as compared to the SM case.

In Fig. 1 we show the ratio of the two-photon Higgs widths to the SM value for the solutions $`A`$ (left) and $`B`$ (right). For the solutions $`A`$ these curves correspond to the case $`\lambda _5=0`$. Solid curves correspond to the “exact” case with $`|\chi _i|=1`$, for $`i=q,W/Z`$. As discussed above, these curves are below unity due to the contribution of the charged Higgs boson, and for the solution $`B_{h+u}`$, also due to the “wrong” sign of the $`huu`$ (or $`htt`$) coupling. The shaded bands are derived from the anticipated 1 $`\sigma `$ bounds around the SM values of two measured basic coupling constants: for the solution $`A`$ for $`g_d`$ and $`g_u`$, for solution $`B_{h\pm d}`$ ($`B_{h+u}`$) for $`g_Z`$ and $`g_d`$ ($`g_u`$). The third basic coupling is, by virtue of the pattern equation, much closer to the SM value than the corresponding anticipated error for this quantity.

In Table 2 we present values for these ratios, and for comparison also for $`Z\gamma `$ and $`gg`$, for $`M_\varphi =120`$ GeV, and for the “exact” case ($`|\chi _i|=1`$).

The deviation from unity is large enough to allow a reliable distinction of the 2HDM from the SM in the process $`\gamma \gamma h,H`$. This conclusion is valid in a wide range of $`\lambda _5`$ values. The possible precision in the determination of $`\lambda _5`$ from the two-photon width depends on the mass of the charged Higgs boson. The deviations of the $`\varphi Z\gamma `$ width from its SM value was found to be lower than that of the two photon width, see Table 2.

The two-gluon width is determined by the contributions of $`t`$ and $`b`$ quarks. For not too high values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`t`$-quark contribution dominates. So, the difference $`\chi _{gg}1`$ is determined by the difference $`\chi _u1`$, and with high accuracy $`\chi _{gg}12(\chi _u1)`$. If $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$ then the deviation of the Higgs boson coupling with $`t`$-quark from its SM value can for solutions $`B`$ be large compared to the expected experimental uncertainty (1), see Table 2. In this case the two-gluon width can differ from its SM value by more than the expected experimental uncertainty (5.5% at the Linear Collider), and the measurement of the two-gluon width could exclude the SM-like scenario from being realized by the 2HDM. In such a case the Photon Collider can be used for a more detailed study of the realized non-standard Higgs sector.

## VI Conclusion

An SM-like scenario observed at the LHC and $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Colliders can occur both in the SM and in other models, including the 2HDM (II). In order to distinguish these models, we implement a pattern relation among basic couplings which is valid in the 2HDM and in the MSSM. Taking into account anticipated uncertainties in future measurements of the basic couplings of the Higgs boson, we found that the considered SM-like scenario (in which partial widths of Higgs boson decay are close to their SM values) has three types of allowed realizations.

The comparison of the presented results for the two-photon width with the anticipated experimental uncertainty (2) shows that the deviation of the two-photon width ratio from unity is generally large enough to allow a reliable distinction of the 2HDM (II) from the SM at a Photon Collider. For the solutions $`B`$ this conclusion is valid for arbitrary values of $`\lambda _5`$ and arbitrary masses of other (unobserved) Higgs bosons. For the solutions $`A`$, according to Eq. (7), this conclusion is valid in a wide range of values $`\lambda _5(\lambda _4\lambda _4\delta _\gamma /R_{\gamma \gamma },\lambda _4+\lambda _4\delta _\gamma /R_{\gamma \gamma })`$ with $`\lambda _4=2M_{H^\pm }^2/v^2`$. The possible precision in the determination of $`\lambda _5/\lambda _4`$ from the two-photon width depends strongly on the achieved precision in the determination of the $`ht\overline{t}`$ coupling.

These conclusions are accurate for a Higgs boson lighter than 140 GeV. A new analysis of experimental uncertainties is necessary if the observed Higgs boson will be heavier than 140 GeV. The measurement of the Higgs boson production in the process $`e\gamma eh`$, which is sensitive to the $`hZ\gamma `$ coupling, will be an additional test of the nature of the Higgs sector.

The obtained predictions are practically identical for the cases when the observed scalar is the lighter Higgs boson of 2HDM ($`h`$) or the heavier one ($`H`$).

MK is grateful to the Organizing Committee for financial support. This research has been supported by RFBR grants 99-02-17211 and 00-15-96691, and by the Research Council of Norway.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are many works where the estimations of the coronal magnetic field strength are made using solar radio emission observations (see, for example, Dulk and McLean, 1977; Mann et al., 1987; Gelfreikh, 1998; Ledenev and Messerotti, 1999). Observations of the fine structures of the microwave bursts, which were made recently (Huang and Fu, 1999; Izliker and Benz, 1994; Karlicky and Jiricka, 1995, Karlicky et al., 1996) open new possibilities for a determination of the coronal magnetic field strength. Bursts of the solar emission with the superimposed fine structures are observed in the microwave range frequently. It is natural to suppose that properties of these narrowband structures with the bandwidth about few percents are determined by the coronal magnetic field, because the dispersion characteristics of the plasma become complicated significantly in the presence of the magnetic field. Sometimes these fine structures consist of a number of the narrow bands, which are almost parallel each other. It is natural to suppose that these bands are the cyclotron harmonics. But if we take the distance between adjacent frequency bands as the cyclotron harmonic frequency we get the numbers of harmonics of the order of some tens. It is unlikely to generate an intensive radio emission on such high harmonics by any mechanisms. We suppose that this emission is generated at low cyclotron harmonics, by some energetic electron beam, in significantly inhomogeneous magnetic field. As examples we consider two microwave bursts with the fine structures, which were observed with the Beijing Astronomical Observatory spectrometer (China) and the radiospectrograph at the Ondrejov Observatory (Czech Republic).

## 2 Observations

The observations were performed by the newly developed Solar Radio Broadband Fast Dynamic Spectrometers (1-2, 2.6-3.8, and 5.2-7.6 GHz frequency range) at Huairou Solar Observing Station of the Beijing Astronomical Observatory (Fu et al., 1995), and by the 1-4.5 GHz radiospectrograph at the Ondrejov Observatory (Jiricka et al., 1993).

### 2.1 The April 15, 1998 event

In April 15, 1998 during a weak solar flare (SN, 07:39-08:06 UT), which occurred in the active region NOAA 8203 at position N29W15, the radio bursts were observed. There are many complex radio fine structures in the time interval 07:59:30-08:01:40 UT, e.g. the sub-second type U burst and millisecond spikes, registered by the 1.0-2.0 GHz and 2.6-3.8 GHz spectrometers at BAO (Huang and Fu, 1999; Wang et al., 2000). The event discussed here was recorded by the 2.6-3.8 GHz spectrometer and it is shown in Figure 1 as the cascade plot of radio spectrograms in the right polarization. The left polarization was very weak. So it was a strong polarized event. In the time interval 08:01:27-08:01:31 UT the fine structure consisting of three narrow frequency bands ($`20`$ MHz) was observed. The average distance between the bands is $`50`$ MHz. Especially distinct bands were observed at 08:01:29-08:01:30 UT. At this time all bands show drift to higher frequencies (df/dt $`300`$ MHz $`s^1`$), and then this drift changes to lower ones (df/dt $`100`$ MHz $`s^1`$).

### 2.2 The July 12, 2000 event

During the July 12, 2000 flare (X1.9/2B, 10:18-10:46 UT, N17E27, in the NOAA 9077 active region), at 10:35:45-10:36:45 UT the unique drifting zebra pattern was observed by the 1-4.5 GHz Ondrejov radiospectrograph (Figure 2). It consists of two branches which frequencies are in harmonic ratio (1:2): a) the fundamental frequency branch, and b) the harmonic frequency one. In both branches the fine structures, superimposed on the weak narrowband drifting continua, can be seen. The bandwidth of the continuum is measurable better in the harmonic branch ($`400`$ MHz). Both branches are drifting towards lower frequencies. The mean frequency drift of the harmonic branch is -15 MHz $`s^1`$, in the 10:36:00-10:36:30 UT interval. The maximum drift ($``$ -30 MHz $`s^1`$) in the harmonic branch was observed during the observation of the zebra pattern at 10:36:15-10:36:22 UT. The zebra pattern in the harmonic branch consists of 4 nearly parallel drifting narrowband ($`50`$ MHz) lines. Parameters of this zebra pattern are summarized in Table 1. It is important to mention that the ratio of the zebra line frequencies is decreasing with the frequency decrease, with one exception. Furthermore, in the harmonic branch at 10:36:00 and 10:36:30 UT weak zebra patterns can be recognized, but by a special inspection. On the other hand the fundamental branch shows also fine structures, in some sense similar and also different. For example, at time (10:36:15-10:36:22 UT) of the zebra pattern we can see in the 1.15-1.3 GHz frequency range a weak, but enhanced continuum, in which two weak zebra line can be recognized. On the other hand, at 10:35:53-10:36:14 UT (the time of the very weak zebra pattern in the harmonic branch), in the 0.8-1.45 GHz the drifting structure was observed. This structure consists of several lines, some of them are splitted in frequency. It looks that some part of this structure has a counterpart in the harmonic branch, but some part, especially on lower frequencies (0.8-1.1 GHz), not. The frequency drift of the narrowband line (starting at 10:35:53 UT, 1.43 GHz and ending at 10:36:14 UT, 1.15 GHz) is -13 MHz $`s^1`$, and its bandwidth is$`20`$ MHz.

## 3 Estimation of the magnetic field strength

If an electron beam moves in plasma with the magnetic field, it excites longitudinal waves at the Cherenkov resonance and anomalous Doppler effect resonance (Mikhailovsky, 1975). A spectrum of the waves determines a spectrum of solar radio emission, which originates due to a conversion of the longitudinal waves into electromagnetic ones (Zheleznyakov, 1977). But the bandwidth of the emission at the Cherenkov resonance is determined mainly by the length of the beam, which is relatively large and, as observations show, cannot be less than about 10 % without special suppositions concerning an inhomogeneity of plasma or short length of the beam. One can see such emission on Figure 1 as the fast drifting structures which intensity is changing mainly in the course of time. The emission at the anomalous Doppler effect has also relatively large bandwidth, because the resonance condition $`\omega k_{}v_{}+\omega _{Be}=0`$ can be satisfied in the wide range of $`k_{}`$ values and the bandwidth of the longitudinal waves spectra is determined by the length of the beam also. Here $`\omega `$ is the longitudinal wave frequency, $`k_{}`$ is the component of the wave vector along the magnetic field, $`v_{}`$ is the component of the electron velocity along the magnetic field and $`\omega _{Be}`$ is the electron cyclotron frequency.

The only one possibility to explain the narrow band emission, if do not special suppositions concerning the inhomogeneity of the plasma and parameters of the beam, is the resonance at the normal Doppler effect, namely, $`\omega k_{}v_{}s\omega _{Be}=0`$ (s is the cyclotron harmonic number) on the anisotropic distribution function of energetic electrons, when $`T_{}>T_{}`$ and $`k_{}v_{}<\omega _{Be}`$. Here $`T_{}`$ and $`T_{}`$ are the temperatures of energetic electrons across and along the magnetic field, respectively. This resonance condition is fulfilled at the fixed level in the corona under an assumption that a transverse dimension of the electron beam is small enough such that the density of the background plasma does not change more than few percents on the transverse dimension of the beam. The anisotropic distribution function is formed by a natural way due to differentiation in space of the electrons with different velocities. In this case the higher cyclotron harmonics can be excited; higher than in the case of the isotropic beam distribution function (Mikhailovsky, 1975). The condition $`k_{}v_{}<\omega _{Be}`$ is fulfilled, because the growth rate of the longitudinal waves is (Mikhailovsky, 1975)

$$\gamma =\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\alpha \omega ^3}{v_{Te}^3k^2\left|k_{}\right|}\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}I_s\mathrm{exp}\left(z_{}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{\omega k_{}v_{}s\omega _{Be}}{k_{}v_{Te}}\right)^2\right]\left[\omega k_{}v_{}s\omega _{Be}\left(1\frac{T_{}}{T_{}}\right)\right]$$

i.e. inversely proportional to $`k_{}`$. At the same time the value of $`k_{}`$ is limited from below, because $`\gamma 0`$ with $`k_{}0`$ under $`s>2`$ (under s = 2 we have $`\gamma Const`$ with $`k_{}0`$). Here $`\alpha `$ is the ratio of the beam density $`n_b`$ to the density of background plasma n, $`\omega _{pe}`$ is the electron plasma frequency, $`v_{Te}`$ is the thermal electron velocity along the magnetic field, k is the wave number, $`I_s\left(k_{}v_{}/\omega _{Be}\right)`$ is the modified Bessel function, $`z_{}=k_{}^2T_{}/m\omega _{Be}^2`$, m is the electron mass, $`k_{}`$ is the transverse component of the wave number.

So in this case we have $`k_{}<<k_{}`$ for the most effectively excited longitudinal waves. It means that the frequency of excited waves is $`\omega \left(\omega _{pe}^2+\omega _{Be}^2\right)^{1/2}`$ and $`\omega s\omega _{Be}`$, under the condition $`k_{}v_{}<\omega _{Be}`$ and for the case with the cold background plasma. It is also the favorable condition for an emission generation on the second harmonic of the longitudinal waves due to a mergence of them (Zheleznyakov, 1977). The generation of the fundamental emission (at the first harmonic of the longitudinal wave frequency) is possible, but there is the problem of the emission escape. From here one can see that the cyclotron harmonics are excited beginning from the second one.

Hence we can estimate the medium parameters in the region of the emission under suggestion that the emission takes place on the second harmonic of the longitudinal waves, i.e. $`\omega ^t2\omega `$. Consequently, $`\omega _{pe}\left(\omega ^t/2\right)\left(11/s^2\right)^{1/2}`$ and $`\omega _{Be}\omega ^t/2s`$, where $`\omega ^t`$ is the frequency of the radio emission. The problem is to find the harmonic number s for the determination of $`\omega _{Be}`$. For the determination of $`\omega _{pe}`$ it is not necessary to know s, because $`\omega _{pe}\omega ^t/2`$ for $`s3`$ with the accuracy a few percents. As for s = 2, this relation gives the estimation of $`\omega _{pe}`$ with accuracy up to 15 %.

Hence we can estimate the ratio of the emission frequencies for adjacent harmonics, namely, $`\omega _s/\omega _{s+1}=\left(\omega _{pes}/\omega _{pes+1}\right)\left[s^3\left(s+2\right)/\left(s+1\right)^3\left(s1\right)\right]^{1/2}`$. Here $`\omega _s`$ and $`\omega _{s+1}`$ are the frequencies of the emission corresponding to s and s+1 cyclotron harmonics, $`\omega _{pes}`$ and $`\omega _{pes+1}`$ are the electron plasma frequencies corresponding to levels of the emission of the s and s+1 harmonics. If the density changes slowly with the height so that $`\omega _{pe}`$ changes slower than $`\omega _{Be}`$, we can take $`\omega _{pes}\omega _{pes+1}`$ and consequently we have

$`\omega _s/\omega _{s+1}\left[s^3\left(s+2\right)/\left(s+1\right)^3\left(s1\right)\right]^{1/2}`$.

Hence we have $`\omega _2/\omega _31.09`$, $`\omega _3/\omega _41.03`$ and $`\omega _4/\omega _51.01`$. These are minimal ratios, because really $`\omega _{pe}`$ changes also.

It should be noted that we can not exclude the possibility of higher harmonics generation under such ratios of frequencies, if the magnetic field changes slowly or the density changes quickly enough with height. But in our opinion it is unlikely, because of the growth rate of the longitudinal waves and consequently the intensity of the emission decreases quickly with the increase of the harmonic number. Consequently in this case, when wpe changes essentially slower than wBe, we can distinguish only not more than four first harmonics, if the frequency band of the emission is about 1

On Figure 1 one can see the spectrogram with three frequency bands. Their average ratios are not lower than 1.03. So we can conclude that there are three harmonics beginning from the third one on the Figure 1. The frequency of the third cyclotron harmonic is about 1.8 GHz and the corresponding magnetic field at the level of third harmonic emission is $`200`$ G. On Figure 2 there are four frequency bands well distinguishable. It makes possible to determine the ratios of the frequencies of adjacent frequency bands at different moments of time accurately enough. The results are shown in Table 1. The ratios of lowest adjacent frequency bands are more than 1.03 and less than 1.09. It means that we have the cyclotron harmonic emission beginning from the third one. The frequency of the third cyclotron harmonic is 1.3 GHz and the corresponding magnetic field strength is about 140 G.

It is essential that in the event on July 12, 2000 the fundamental emission has observed. Its intensity is lower than the one at the second harmonic of the longitudinal wave frequency due to strong collision damping (Benz, 1993) and its structure is different apparently due to another mechanism of the longitudinal waves conversion into the radio emission.

## 4 Estimation of density variations

During a non-stationary process the ratio between the density and the magnetic field changes. If a coronal mass ejection takes place, the magnetic field gradient may decrease due to a drawing out of the magnetic field lines. Hence the ratio between adjacent cyclotron harmonics increases. First of all, it increases at higher harmonics, because the magnetic field is drawn out more significantly at larger heights in the corona. Thus, the frequency distances among the harmonic frequency bands can become equal. Such event can be seen on Figure 1 at 08:01:28.5 UT. There is a small coronal ejection with duration about 0.1 s. The emission frequency decrease is 1.5

## 5 Conclusions

Observations of the solar radio emission in the microwave range are made at Beijing Astronomical Observatory (China) and Ondrejov Observatory (Czech Republic) with the spectrographs of high temporal and spectral resolutions. These observations show different fine structures superimposed on the microwave bursts. In particular, there are the observed structures consisted of almost parallel narrow frequency bands (zebras) with the ratios of the adjacent bands frequencies not more than 1.05.

For an interpretation of these events the model of the emission generation by the anisotropic electron beam at low cyclotron harmonics is suggested. Such an electron beam excites longitudinal waves at the normal Doppler effect resonance. Then these waves are converted into the radio emission at the second harmonic of the longitudinal wave frequency and sometimes also into the fundamental emission. This model gives the minimal values of the cyclotron harmonic ratios: $`\left(\omega _2/\omega _3\right)=1.09`$, $`\left(\omega _3/\omega _4\right)=1.03`$, $`\left(\omega _4/\omega _5\right)=1.01`$. Using these values one can determine the numbers of the cyclotron harmonics corresponding to each frequency bands and then determine the magnetic field strength. For events observed at Beijing Astronomical Observatory and Ondrejov Observatory we determined that emissions took place at the cyclotron harmonics beginning from third one. Hence we determined the magnetic field strength $`200`$ G for the emission, which observed at the Beijing Astronomical Observatory and $`140`$ G for that observed at the Ondrejov Observatory.

Acknowledgment  The work is supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the NSFC Grants: 19773016, 19833050, 49990451 and Russian Basic Research Foundation (Grant 98-02-17727). We acknowledge the Huairou staff members for operating the Radio Spectrographs properly.

REFERENCES

Dulk, G., McLean, D.J., 1977, Solar Physics, 57, 279.

Gelfreikh, G.B., 1998, Astron. Soc. Pac. Conf. Ser., 155, 110.

Huang, G., and Fu, Q., 1999, in Solar Physics with Radio Observations, Proc. Nobeyama Symp.,1998, NRO Report No. 479, p.287.

Isliker, H., and Benz,A.O., 1994, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 104, 145.

Ji, H., Fu, Q., Liu, Y., Cheng, C., Chen, Z., Lao, D., Ni, C., Pei, L., Xu, Z., Chen, S., Yao, Q., Qin, Z. and Yang, G., 2000, ACTA Astrophysica Sinica, 20, 209.

Jiricka K., Karlicky M., Kepka O., Tlamicha A., 1993, Solar Phys.,147, 203.

Karlicky M., Jiricka K., 1995, Solar Phys., 160,121.

Karlicky M., Sobotka M., Jiricka K., 1996, Solar Phys., 168, 375.

Ledenev, V.G. and Messerotti, M., 1999, Solar Phys., 185, 193.

Mann G., Karlicky M., Motschmann U., 1987, Solar Phys., 110, 381.

Mikhaylovsky, A.B., 1975, Theory of Plasma Instabilities, Nauka, Moscow, Vol.1.

Wang, S., Yan, Y. and Fu, Q., 2000, in Heating and Energetics of the Solar Corona and Solar Wind, COSPAR 33 SA, Warsaw, Poland.

Zheleznyakov, V.V., 1977, Electromagnetic Waves in Space Plasma, Nauka, Moscow.