text:
# Dilatonic current-carrying cosmic strings

## I Introduction

Most extensions of the standard model of particle physics predict that extra scalar fields, in addition to the ordinary Higgs field, whose experimental detection is still to be done, should exist in Nature. At low energies (compared to the Planck scale), they appear to be classifiable into essentially two main categories, namely those which couple in a straightforward way to the other particle fields (as, e.g. grand unification breaking Higgs fields, supersymmetric partners of ordinary fermions or extra bosonic degrees of freedom coming from the Neveu-Schwartz sector of superstring theory ), and those whose most important coupling is to gravity, such as the dilaton, whose origin can be traced to the Ramond sector in the superstring context. Both kinds, coupled or decoupled, have been studied from different (and often disjoint) perspectives, and both have various cosmological and astrophysically observable consequences; these terms permit us, for instance, to obtain fully nonsingular cosmologies . In particular, scalar-tensor theories of gravity  may provide a natural solution to the problem of terminating inflation , whilst grand unified theory (GUT) scalars, being symmetry breakers, may lead to the formation of topological defects , of which only cosmic strings are viable candidates from the point of view of cosmology.

Among these theories, some predict both kinds of fields. As a result, one expects that cosmic strings could exist whose coupling to gravity would be altered by inclusion of dilaton effects. In Ref. , a local cosmic string solution was considered in the framework of low energy string theory which is reminiscent of the scalar-tensor theories of gravity . Indeed, a massless dilaton is shown to obey a least coupling principle , e.g. to decouple from matter by cosmological attraction in much the same way as the generic attractor mechanism of the scalar-tensor theories of gravity . It was found  then that the metric around a cosmic string in the framework of scalar-tensor gravity is of the Taub-Kasner type  so that the particle and light propagation resembles that around a wiggly cosmic string in ordinary general relativity , although the effect was expected to be one order of magnitude stronger.

Here, we want to point out another effect, namely that the dilaton field may behave as a winding phase along the string, thereby generating a neutral current kind of effect by raising the degeneracy between the eigenvalues of the stress-energy tensor. From the point of view of purely gravitational physics, this seems utterly negligible as the metric would hardly be affected  by such a current (it gives again a Kasner-like metric, up to second order corrections).

The most noticeable consequence of a current-like effect is  to modify the internal dynamics of cosmic strings in such a way that new states are reachable. Indeed, the breaking of the Lorentz boost invariance along the worldsheet allows rotating equilibrium configurations, called vortons, which, if they are stable, can overclose the universe, thereby leading to a catastrophe for the theory that predicts them . Finally, inclusion of such an internal structure could drastically change the predictions of a cosmic string model  in the microwave background anisotropies . Here we show that the long-range effect on a cosmologically relevant network of strings is vanishing on average, but that vorton-like states can be reached by microscopically small loops.

In what follows, after having set the relevant gravitational theory and notations, we derive the corresponding field equations in Sec. II. We then set the vortex (Abelian Higgs) model which we develop in flat space in Sec. III with the aim of using it as a source for the gravitational effects. We then move on to obtain, in this framework, the general solution for the dilaton field in the Einstein frame (Sec. IV). We apply this solution to derive the effective stress-energy tensor (Sec. V) of the string, as seen from a Jordan-Fierz frame observer. We show that this stress-energy tensor has very particular features that can be interpreted by saying that a network of such string will evolve on cosmologically relevant scales as a usual network  of Nambu-Goto strings , but might lead to the formation of equilibrium vorton states  whose density, scaling as matter, could overclose the Universe in the case in which they are stable, an issue which is yet unresolved, depending on the small distance physics. Section VI summarizes our findings and discusses the relevant cosmological conclusions.

## II Gravitational framework

We start with the gravitation action in the Jordan-Fierz frame (also known as the “string” frame, a nomenclature we shall not use in order to avoid the possible risk of confusion with the strings of the cosmic kind we consider below), namely

$`𝒮_{_{\mathrm{J}F}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left[\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\omega (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]}`$ (1)
$`+𝒮_\mathrm{m}[\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{m}(x),\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)],`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the physical metric which contains both scalar and tensor degrees of freedom, $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is the curvature scalar associated with it, and $`𝒮_\mathrm{m}`$ is the action for general matter fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{m}`$ which, at this point, is left arbitrary. The metric signature is assumed to be $`(+,,,)`$.

By varying the action (1) with respect to the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and to the scalar field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ we obtain the “modified” Einstein equations, and a wave equation for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, namely

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{}_\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{,\mu }\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2}}\left(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right),`$
$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})+3}}(8\pi \stackrel{~}{T}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}),`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
where a tilde over a differential operator means it is built out of the Jordan-Fierz metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{R}$$
(5)
is accordingly the Einstein tensor in the Jordan-Fierz frame, and

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\frac{\delta 𝒮_\mathrm{m}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }}$$
(6)
is the energy-momentum tensor of the matter content and $`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu `$ is its trace. Clearly, if $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ vanishes and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is a constant, Eq. (2) reduces to the usual set of Einstein field equations if we identify the inverse of the scalar field with the Newton constant, i.e. $`G__\mathrm{N}=1/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Hence, any exact solution of Einstein equations with a trace-free matter source will also be a particular exact solution of the scalar-field with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ constant. Of course, this particular solution will not be, except in very special situations, the general solution for the matter content .

Let us rewrite the action given by Eq. (1) in terms of the Einstein (conformal) frame in which the kinematic terms of tensor and scalar degrees of freedom do not mix, i.e.

$`𝒮__\mathrm{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G^{}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left(R2g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right)}`$ (7)
$`+𝒮_\mathrm{m}[\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{m},A^2(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }],`$
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is a pure rank-2 metric tensor, $`R`$ is the curvature scalar associated to it, and $`G^{}`$ the bare gravitational constant.

As is well known, the action given by Eq. (7) is obtained from that of Eq. (1) by means of a conformal transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=A^2(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu },$$
(8)
provided the scalar field functions $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ are related through

$$G^{}A^2(\varphi )=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}},$$
(9)
and

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}A(\varphi )}{\mathrm{d}\varphi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})+3}}\alpha (\varphi ),$$
(10)
(thus defining the function $`\alpha `$) which can be interpreted as the (field-dependent) coupling strength between matter and scalar field.

In the conformal frame, Eqs. (2) and (3) are written in a more convenient form

$$G_{\mu \nu }=2_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +8\pi G^{}T_{\mu \nu },$$
(11)
for the gravitational part, and

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =4\pi G^{}\alpha (\varphi )T,$$
(12)
for the dilatonic part, where now the matter stress-energy tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is obtained from

$$T_{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta 𝒮_\mathrm{m}}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }},$$
(13)
which in this new frame is no longer conserved unless the dilaton is constant, i.e. $`_\mu T_\nu ^\mu =\alpha (\varphi )T_\nu \varphi `$. The Einstein frame Einstein tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ appearing in Eq. (11) is defined in the same was as Eq. (5) without the tildes. From Eq. (8), we can easily relate quantities from both frames in the following way:

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=A^2(\varphi )T_{\mu \nu },$$
(14)
which also implies $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu =A^4T_\nu ^\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{\mu \nu }=A^6T^{\mu \nu }`$. For the sake of generality, we choose to leave $`A(\varphi )`$ as an arbitrary function of the scalar field.

Let us now turn to the cosmic string source terms and consider the microscopic field theory out of which vortices stem.

## III Vortex field model

We shall now consider the underlying field model that gives birth to cosmic strings. It consists in a complex scalar Higgs field $`\phi `$, coupled to a gauge vector $`B_\mu `$. Both fields are, as discussed above, minimally coupled to gravity so that the matter action we shall deal with is expressible as

$$𝒮_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(\frac{1}{2}|D\phi |^2\frac{1}{4}H_{\mu \nu }H^{\mu \nu }V\right),$$
(15)
where the U(1) covariant derivative is $`D_\mu _\mu +iqB_\mu `$, the “Faraday”-like tensor $`H_{\mu \nu }_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu `$, and the Higgs potential reads $`V(\phi )=\lambda (\phi ^{}\phi \eta ^2)^2`$; all indices are raised and lowered by means of the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$.

We shall from now on consider the zeroth order approximation for the background fields. This means we are interested in the string as a source for the gravitational and dilaton fields. As a result, in order to derive the relevant stress-energy tensor, we demand that the Einstein-frame metric be that of Minkowski, while the dilaton assumes a constant value, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{(0)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0\varphi _{(0)}=\varphi _0,$$
(16)
so that, at this order, gravity is described by general relativity in both frames and the Jordan-Fierz metric can be taken, in a cylindrical coordinate system $`(t,z,r,\theta )`$, as

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }=A_0^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }=A_0^2\text{Diag }(1,1,1,\frac{1}{r^2}),$$
(17)
i.e. again the Minkowski metric \[up to a constant scaling factor $`A_0A(\varphi _0)`$\]. The usual Newton constant is then $`G__\mathrm{N}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0^1=G^{}A_0^2`$. Note that in Eq. (17) we have inserted the (constant) conformal factor in the Jordan-Fierz metric: this is just for further convenience since we will be mostly working in the Einstein frame in which this extra factor will then be absent.

There exist static vortex configurations that are solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations derivable from the action given by Eq. (15). Such a configuration, for a string along the $`z`$ axis, has the form

$$\phi =h(r)\text{e}^{in\theta },\text{and}B_\mu =\frac{1}{q}\left[Q(r)n\right]\delta _\mu ^\theta ,$$
(18)
where the functions $`h`$ and $`Q`$ depend on the radial distance to the string core $`r`$ only. In what follows, for the sake of definiteness, we shall also assume that the underlying parameters in the matter action are such that only the vortices with winding number $`n=1`$ are stable and we shall therefore concentrate our attention on these configurations. Note however that this requirement will not modify our conclusions, since what is presented here is merely an existence proof that only relies on the presence of the defect itself.

Using a prime to denote differentiation with respect to the radial distance $`r`$, the field equations derivable from the action (15) are

$$h^{\prime \prime }+\frac{h^{}}{r}=h\left[\frac{Q^2}{r^2}+4\lambda A_0^2(h^2\eta ^2)\right]$$
(19)
and

$$Q^{\prime \prime }\frac{Q^{}}{r}=q^2QA_0^2h^2,$$
(20)
and the boundary conditions for these fields to describe a vortex line read

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}h(0)=0,\hfill & Q(0)=1,\hfill \\ & \\ \underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}h(r)=\eta ,\hfill & \underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}Q(r)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
The field equations (19) and (20), together with the conditions (21) are usually solved numerically; an example of such a solution is shown on Fig. 1, adapted from Ref . . On the figure are shown the dimensionless quantities

$$X\frac{h}{\eta }$$
(22)
and $`Q(\rho )`$ as functions of the rescaled (dimensionless) distance to the string core

$$\rho \frac{r}{r_\mathrm{h}},\text{ where }r_\mathrm{h}\lambda ^{1/2}\eta ^1$$
(23)
is the Compton wavelength of the Higgs field. Such generic configurations are the source for the dilaton field.

In order to derive the internal string solution for the dilaton field in which we are interested, we need to first obtain the stress-energy tensor (13), namely

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(D_\mu \phi \right)^{}D_\nu \phi +\left(D_\nu \phi \right)^{}D_\mu \phi \right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }|D\phi |^2`$ (24)
$`+\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }V(\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }H^2\stackrel{~}{g}^{\alpha \beta }H_{\mu \alpha }H_{\nu \beta },`$
and, setting $`VV(h)=\lambda \left(h^2\eta ^2\right)^2`$, this yields the following components

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_z^z`$ $`=`$ $`V+{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^2}{2}}\left[h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(h^2Q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{q^2A_0^2}}\right)\right],`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`V{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^2}{2}}\left[h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(h^2Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{q^2A_0^2}}\right)\right],`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`V+{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^2}{2}}\left[h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(h^2Q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{q^2A_0^2}}\right)\right],`$ (27)
and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t^t=\stackrel{~}{T}_z^z`$. This zeroth order stress-energy tensor should in principle be used as a source for the modified Einstein equations.

It can be noted that, as is clear from Eqs. (19) and (20) as well as (25) to (27), the normalization $`A_0`$ of the dilaton function $`A(\varphi )`$ can be modified at will provided one performs simultaneously a redefinition of the coupling constants $`\lambda `$ and $`q`$ through $`\overline{\lambda }=A_0^2\lambda `$ and $`\overline{q}=A_0q`$. In fact, this normalization turns out to be completely irrelevant for the vortex configurations since all the properties of such vortices only depend on the ratio  $`\lambda /q^2=\overline{\lambda }/\overline{q}^2`$. This stems from the fact that $`A_0^2\stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu `$ can be expressed in terms of $`\overline{\lambda }`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ only, so the only effect is a normalization one. It is therefore possible in principle to set $`A_0=1`$, a convention within which the metrics in either the Jordan-Fierz or the Einstein frame are exactly equal. In order to distinguish between these frame, we shall however not adopt this convention, unless stated otherwise.

## IV First order dilaton solution

We now switch to the Einstein frame. The stress-energy tensor just derived then provides the new frame one through the relation (14), so that the trace needed in Eq. (12) thus takes the form $`T=A^4\stackrel{~}{T}`$. Inserting Eqs. (25)–(27) into Eq. (12), we obtain the dynamical equation, up to first order in the gravitational constant, for the dilaton as

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =4\pi G^{}\alpha (\varphi _0)A_0^2\left[h^2+\frac{h^2Q^2}{r^2}+4\lambda A_0^2\left(h^2\eta ^2\right)^2\right],$$
(28)
which may be expressed as

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =ϵ(r),$$
(29)
where we have set $`\alpha _0\alpha (\varphi _0)`$. The function $``$ on the right hand side of Eq. (29) is given, in terms of the dimensionless quantities, by \[see Eq. (22) and below\]

$$=\frac{\alpha _0A_0^2}{r_\mathrm{h}^2}\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}X}{\mathrm{d}\rho }\right)^2+\frac{X^2Q^2}{\rho ^2}+4A_0^2\left(X^21\right)^2\right],$$
(30)
and is exhibited in Fig. 2.

In Eq. (29), we have emphasized the constant combination

$$ϵ4\pi G^{}\eta ^24\pi \left(\frac{\eta }{M__\mathrm{P}}\right)^2,$$
(31)
which will be used in what follows as a small expansion parameter. Indeed, even for the highest possible energy phase transition leading to cosmic strings compatible with cosmological data , i.e. the GUT scale, the quantity $`\eta `$ is of order $`10^{15}10^{16}`$ GeV, which is at most three orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck scale $`M__\mathrm{P}G__\mathrm{N}^{1/2}`$ so that one has $`ϵ10^5`$.

Let us now expand all the fields involved in terms of the small parameter $`ϵ`$. In what follows, we shall concentrate on the dilaton field, because the solution of the Einstein equations (11) for the metric has already been obtained in the cosmic string case . In this reference, it had been found that the external metric, far from the string core, was of the Kasner-like form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^k\left(\mathrm{d}t^2\mathrm{d}z^2\right)\mathrm{d}r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }r^2\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{2k}\mathrm{d}\theta ^2,$$
(32)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`k`$ two arbitrary constants, and that it could be matched with the interior solution provided $`k=4/3`$ or $`k=0`$ in the presence of the string.

From Fig. 2, it is clear that there exists a distance $`r_0`$ such that for $`rr_0`$, the source function is approximately vanishing, so that the exterior solution for the dilaton should satisfy

$$\mathrm{}\varphi _{\mathrm{ext}}=0.$$
(33)
Therefore, the dilaton field, in vacuum ($`T_{\mu \nu }=0`$), assumes the general form

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{ext}}=\varphi _0+\kappa \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right),$$
(34)
where $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\kappa `$ are constant, the latter being determined by a matching with the internal solution, while the former gives the strength of gravitational coupling.

In the absence of a string, one would have $`\kappa =0`$, as demanded also by the requirement that the Ricci tensor be regular . This solution, as it turns out , is valid, to first order in the weak field approximation, both inside and outside the string. We will thus use this solution to derive the string structure itself, and show, for self-consistency, that a modification of the dilaton solution with respect to Ref.  does not modify this metric (again, at least to first order in $`ϵ`$). The mild (logarithmic) divergence observed in Eq. (34) for the dilaton far from the string stems from the infinite string approximation we are making use of, and can easily be accounted for by introducing a long range cutoff such as, e.g. the curvature radius of the string, or the interstring distance in a cosmological network. We shall see later that it can also be altogether cancelled once the source term is taken into account \[see the discussion below Eq. (43)\].

It is interesting to note here that the solution (34) for the dilaton actually also diverges as $`r0`$, implying a breakdown of the underlying four-dimensional effective field theory. This is similar to the situation encountered when the axion field is taken in consideration in cosmic strings formed at the symmetry breaking of the pseudo-anomalous U(1) that characterizes  most cases of superstring compactification , indicating that topological defect cores might be objects of comparable theoretical interest as black hole or cosmological singularities in that they probably require a full knowledge of the non linear theory to be properly understood. In what follows, we shall assume a short-range cutoff for the dilaton, expected to be of order $`M__\mathrm{P}^1`$, and subsequently neglect distances shorter than the Planck length; inclusion of this cutoff scale merely renormalizes the string energy per unit length and tension by factors of order unity  that are irrelevant to the following discussion. Another implication of this divergence is that some cosmologically interesting effects, such as formation of wakes by dilatonic strings, may break down due to the logarithmic divergence of this solution .

Assuming the dilaton to behave as

$$\varphi =\varphi _0+ϵ\varphi _1,$$
(35)
where, as before, $`\varphi _0`$ is the constant dilaton value in the absence of string, and $`\varphi _1`$ depends on the radial coordinate $`r`$ as well as the string coordinates $`z`$ and $`t`$ (we assume rotational symmetry so that $`_\theta \varphi _1=0`$), Eq. (29) inside the string, up to first order in $`ϵ`$, becomes

$$\left(\ddot{\varphi }_1\overline{\overline{\varphi }}_1\right)\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}\left(r\frac{\varphi _1}{r}\right)=(r),$$
(36)
where a dot and a bar respectively stand for derivations with respect to the coordinates $`t`$ and $`z`$.

As we want to match the solution of Eqs. (35) and (36) with the already derived solution (34), we seek the following form:

$$\varphi _1(t,r,z)=\chi (r)+f(r)\psi (z,t),$$
(37)
where the function $`f(r)`$ is required to vanish asymptotically far from the defect, i.e. in practice for $`rr_0`$, in order to ensure that the corresponding effect is localized into the worldsheet only. Note that the $`z`$ and $`t`$ dependence of the dilaton in Eq. (37) is not incompatible with the assumption of time-independence and cylindrical symmetry for the metric at the first order in $`ϵ`$. Indeed, as can readily be seen in Eqs. (11) and (35), the leading contribution in the metric of the correction $`\varphi _1`$ is second order in $`ϵ`$. With such a tentative solution, Eq. (36) reduces to

$$\left(\ddot{\psi }\overline{\overline{\psi }}\right)f\frac{1}{r}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}r}\left(r\frac{\mathrm{d}\chi }{\mathrm{d}r}\right)\frac{1}{r}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}r}\left(r\frac{\mathrm{d}f}{\mathrm{d}r}\right)\psi =(r).$$
(38)
In order for our solution to be valid regardless of the behavior of $`\psi (z,t)`$, i.e. including the case $`\psi =0`$, we demand that the function $``$ sources only the pure radial component of the dilaton, i.e. we impose

$$\chi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}\chi ^{}=(r),$$
(39)
which implies

$$\chi =A+B\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)+\chi __\mathrm{S},$$
(40)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two arbitrary constants and the special solution

$$\chi __\mathrm{S}=_{r_1}^r\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{r}}{\stackrel{~}{r}}_{r_2}^{\stackrel{~}{r}}(\overline{r})\overline{r}d\overline{r},$$
(41)
depends a priori on the two constants $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. Note however that $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ have no physical influence and can be chosen at will. In particular, it is convenient to set $`r_1=r_2=0`$, so that, with $`_0+_2r^2`$, which is the short distance behavior of $``$ (see Fig. 2), one gets

$$\chi A+B\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)+\frac{_0}{4}r^2+\frac{_2}{9}r^3+\mathrm{},$$
(42)
close to the string core, i.e. in the limit $`r0`$. The special solution $`\chi __\mathrm{S}`$ cannot alleviate the divergence of the dilaton near the string core.

On the other hand, Eq. (41) can also be used to match the exterior solution (34) to the interior solution. In particular, it is interesting to note that for large distances, and because the function $``$ vanishes exponentially fast,<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2This can be seen through a careful examination of the asymptotic behaviors of the various fields involved, as derived, e.g. in Ref. . one has, for large values of $`r`$, e.g. $`r>r_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ far away from the string core,

$`\chi __\mathrm{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^r_{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{r}}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{r}}}(\overline{r})\overline{r}d\overline{r}+{\displaystyle _r_{\mathrm{}}^r}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{r}}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{r}}}(\overline{r})\overline{r}d\overline{r}`$ (43)
$``$ $`\text{f.p. }+\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}(\stackrel{~}{r})\stackrel{~}{r}d\stackrel{~}{r}\right]\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{}}}}\right),`$
where “f.p.” stands for the finite part of the above relation. Because the constant $`B`$ in Eq. (40) is, at this stage, arbitrary, it can be chosen to exactly compensate for the asymptotic logarithmic divergence in $`\chi __\mathrm{S}`$, in such a way that the exterior solution for the dilaton can be consistently imposed to be a constant, i.e. $`\kappa =0`$ in Eq. (34). As opposed to any other choice, this one leads to a finite amount of energy. This is reminiscent of what happens around the vortices studied in Ref. , whose coupling with the axion made them local even though they were initially global.

Now, returning to Eq. (38) in which we insert the solution for $`\chi `$ and separating, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\psi }\left(\ddot{\psi }\overline{\overline{\psi }}\right)=\frac{1}{f}\left(f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}f^{}\right)=w,$$
(44)
with $`w`$ a constant. Therefore, we have the following set of equations:

$$\ddot{\psi }\overline{\overline{\psi }}=w\psi ,$$
(45)
and

$$f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}f^{}=wf,$$
(46)
for $`f`$ satisfying the boundary condition $`lim_r\mathrm{}f(r)=0`$. The arbitrary constant $`w`$ can assume a priori both positive and negative values, so we will inspect both cases in turn later, but from now on let us consider Eq. (45) for the phase modulation $`\psi `$ depending on the variables $`(t,z)`$, and seek a solution of the form

$$\psi (t,z)=\psi (kz\omega t)\psi (u),$$
(47)
which gives

$$\left(\omega ^2k^2\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\psi }{\mathrm{d}u^2}=w\psi .$$
(48)
An overall rescaling of the coordinates being always possible, we can without lack of generality assume that $`w=\pm \left(\omega ^2k^2\right)`$. The positive sign choice however leads to exponentially growing or decaying solutions in the variable $`u`$ which are either unbounded or vanishing, hence physically irrelevant. We are thus led to impose the negative sign, namely

$$w=k^2\omega ^2,$$
(49)
and the solution for the dilaton

$$\psi =\psi _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sin}\left(kz\omega t\right)+\psi _\mathrm{c}\mathrm{cos}\left(kz\omega t\right).$$
(50)
It is worth noting that if $`w0`$ (respectively $`w0`$), the variable $`u`$ defines a new spacelike (resp. timelike) coordinate. In order to simplify the following calculations, we shall perform a Lorentz boost along the string such that if $`w0`$ (respectively $`w0`$), the new time and space coordinates $`t^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ and the corresponding new constants $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`k^{}`$ are such that $`u=k^{}z^{}`$ (resp. $`u=\omega ^{}t^{}`$) and $`w=k^2`$ (resp. $`w=\omega ^2`$). Assuming this new frame from now on, we will then drop the primes as there is no risk of confusion.

Consider first the case for which $`w=\omega ^2`$, i.e. a negative constant. It can be seen that Eq. (46) then becomes the Bessel equation of order zero, with general solution

$$f(r)=f_JJ_0(\omega r)+f_YY_0(\omega r),$$
(51)
with a priori arbitrary numerical coefficients $`f_J`$ and $`f_Y`$, $`J_0`$ and $`Y_0`$ being respectively Bessel functions of the first and second kind. The boundary condition that $`f`$ should vanish asymptotically is not enough to impose any condition on the choice of the constants; even the fact that $`Y_0`$ diverges near the axis does not lead to any new constraint since $`Y_0(\omega r)\mathrm{ln}(\omega r)`$, i.e. a divergence similar to that already observed for the radial part $`\chi (r)`$, for which a cutoff need be imposed at the Planck scale. However, as we shall show later, there are other constraints stemming from the requirement that the eigenvalues of the energy-momentum tensor, once integrated in the directions transverse to the string, be finite.

Let now $`w`$ be a positive constant, i.e. $`w=k^2`$. Equation (46) is in this case the modified Bessel function of order zero, with solution

$$f(r)=f_II_0(kr)+f_KK_0(kr).$$
(52)
Here again, the constants $`f_I`$ and $`f_K`$ are a priori arbitrary and must be designed in such a way as to match the exterior solution. It is clear however that since we demand the dilaton first order correction to vanish asymptotically, we must impose $`f_I=0`$ since $`I_0`$ is exponentially divergent for large arguments. Note that here as well as in the previous case (51), the solution involves a logarithmic divergence reminiscent of the behavior given by Eq. (34), whose significance is discussed underneath that equation.

Equations (51) and (52), together with Eq. (50), appear to completely determine the space-time behavior of the dilaton field in all possible situations. We now turn to the consequences that this solution produces in the effective stress-energy tensor.

## V Effective Stress-Energy tensor

We now consider the effective stress-energy tensor $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\mathrm{eff})}^{\mu \nu }`$ that is seen by an observer wishing to describe the string behavior in the framework of Einstein general relativity. This means $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\mathrm{eff})}^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by assuming Eq. (2) takes the form

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{R}=8\pi G__\mathrm{N}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})},$$
(53)
a relation that we will use later to identify the effective energy per unit length and tension of the string to first order in $`ϵ`$. In order to achieve this goal, let us remark that Eq. (9) implies that

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}G^{}A_0^2\left(1+2ϵ\alpha _0\varphi _1\right),$$
(54)
i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(12ϵ\alpha _0\varphi _1\right)`$, which depends on space and/or time coordinates only through the first order dilaton field $`\varphi _1`$. Plugging this form back into Eq. (53), keeping in mind that $`G__\mathrm{N}\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\mathrm{eff})}^{\mu \nu }`$ is already a first order quantity and that $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=2\alpha _0ϵ_\mu \varphi _1/G__\mathrm{N}`$, we find that, to first order, the effective stress-energy tensor we are seeking reads

$$8\pi \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})}=8\pi \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+\left(_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha _\alpha \eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}+𝒪_{\mu \nu }^{(2)},$$
(55)
where $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ is the zeroth order stress-energy tensor given by Eqs. (25)–(27) and $`𝒪_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ contains only terms proportional to $`ϵ^2`$.

In order to determine the influence of the dilaton field on the string dynamics, let us first recall the relevant pieces of formalism needed to describe it from the macroscopic point of view . We shall consider our string to be describable by means of a surface action and accordingly integrate the effective stress-energy tensor over the transverse degrees of freedom, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{||}^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\mathrm{eff})}^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}^2x^{},$$
(56)
where $`\mathrm{d}^2x^{}`$ accounts for the transverse measure around the string. To the required zeroth order (since the integrand $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{eff})}`$ is of first order) and given the symmetry in the solution, this is $`\mathrm{d}^2x^{}=2\pi r\mathrm{d}r`$. The macroscopic stress-energy tensor $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}__\mathrm{M}`$, depending only on the internal string coordinates $`\xi _a`$, is derivable from the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{||}^{\mu \nu }(x^\alpha )=\stackrel{~}{T}__\mathrm{M}^{\mu \nu }\delta \left[x^\alpha X^\alpha \left(\xi _a\right)\right]\mathrm{d}^2\xi ,$$
(57)
with $`a=0,1`$ and $`X^\alpha \left(\xi _a\right)`$ defining the two-parameter locus of the string. In the case at hand for which the string is aligned along the $`z`$ axis, the coordinates $`\xi _a`$ can be identified with $`t`$ and $`z`$; we shall make this choice in what follows.

Since one expects $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\mathrm{eff})}^{\mu \nu }`$ to be conserved<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3Note in that respect that Eq. (3) can be seen as a simple consequence of Eqs. (2) and (4), i.e. of the conservation of the matter stress-energy tensor and that of Einstein tensor. by virtue of Eq. (2), reproducing the steps of Ref.  leads to the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}__\mathrm{M}`$ can only depend on two integrated quantities. It turns out that it can in fact be given the form

$$\stackrel{~}{T}__\mathrm{M}=Uu^\mu u^\nu Tv^\mu v^\nu ,$$
(58)
with $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐯`$ respectively a unit timelike and spacelike vector parallel to the string worldsheet; again, in our case, these are $`𝐮=(1,0,0,0)`$ and $`𝐯=(0,1,0,0)`$ \[recall Eq. (17)\].

The eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}__\mathrm{M}`$ are the energy per unit length $`U`$ and the tension $`T`$, which we are now in a position to express directly from the effective stress-energy tensor as

$$U=2\pi \stackrel{~}{T}_{(\mathrm{eff})}^{tt}rdr,$$
(59)
and

$$T=2\pi \stackrel{~}{T}_{(\mathrm{eff})}^{zz}rdr.$$
(60)
Turning back to Eq. (55), it is straightforward to convince oneself that these quantities take the form

$$U=m_0^2+2\pi _t^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}r\mathrm{d}r,T=m_0^22\pi _z^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}r\mathrm{d}r,$$
(61)
where $`m_0^2`$ is an integral over the transverse direction of the part of the microscopic fields that depends only on the radial distance $`r`$, i.e. a constant with the dimension of a mass square (hence the notation).

Using the solutions (37) and (50) together with the expansion (54), we get

$$U=m_0^2+4\pi \alpha _0\omega ^2ϵ\psi (kz\omega t)f(r)rdr,$$
(62)
and

$$T=m_0^24\pi \alpha _0k^2ϵ\psi (kz\omega t)f(r)rdr,$$
(63)
relations that imply that not only is the stress-energy tensor no longer degenerate when inclusion of the dilatonic field is taken into account, but also that the resulting string is not of the Witten superconducting kind  since the energy per unit length and tension explicitly depend on the internal coordinates.

From Eqs. (62) and (63) and the solution (51), one sees immediately that because of the asymptotic behavior of the Bessel functions $`J_0`$ and $`Y_0`$, the timelike case $`w<0`$ is excluded for the case at hand since it leads to divergent integrals in $`U`$ and $`T`$. Indeed, the integrals {see Eq. (5.52/1) in Ref. } are<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4We call $`𝒵_p`$ any Bessel function, modified or not, of order $`p`$. proportional to $`r𝒵_0\left(\omega r\right)dr=(r/\omega )𝒵_1\left(\omega r\right)`$, which asymptotically behaves as $`\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{}}}`$, with $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ an appropriate cutoff, for the timelike case (51), and exponentially converges for the spacelike case (52).

The timelike case can however be accounted for by adding a potential term for the dilaton, i.e. by substituting the Einstein frame action (7) with

$`𝒮__\mathrm{E}^{(\mathrm{pot})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G^{}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R2g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +V\left(\varphi \right)\right]}`$ (64)
$`+𝒮_\mathrm{m}[\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{m},A^2(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }],`$
which turns Eq. (12) into

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}\varphi }4\pi G^{}\alpha (\varphi )T.$$
(65)
Defining the dilaton mass $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ through

$$M_\mathrm{d}^2\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2V}{\mathrm{d}\varphi ^2}|_{\varphi =\varphi _0},$$
(66)
and following the same steps as in Sec. IV, we find that the first order dilaton $`\varphi _1`$ satisfies

$$\left(\ddot{\varphi }_1\overline{\overline{\varphi }}_1\right)\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}\left(r\frac{\varphi _1}{r}\right)+M_\mathrm{d}^2\varphi _1=(r),$$
(67)
instead of Eq. (36). To obtain Eq. (67), we have made use of the fact that in this context, $`\varphi _0`$ is the vacuum expectation value of $`\varphi `$ and the dilaton is stabilized in the sense that $`\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}\varphi =0`$ for $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ and that $`M_\mathrm{d}^2>0`$. Making use again of the expansion (37) and choosing the purely radial part to satisfy

$$\chi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}\chi ^{}M_\mathrm{d}^2\chi =(r),$$
(68)
instead of Eq. (39), one sees that Eq. (45) is left unchanged, implying the same solution (50), while Eq. (46) is turned into

$$f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}f^{}=\left(M_\mathrm{d}^2+w\right)f,$$
(69)
whose solution is an exponentially convergent modified Bessel function \[cf. Eq. (50)\] provided the phase frequency, in the frame in which $`k0`$, is below the threshold  $`\omega <\omega _{\mathrm{th}}=M_\mathrm{d}`$. It is remarkable that this threshold is, just like in the Witten superconducting string model , also set by the mass of what one could thus, by analogy, call the current carrier.

From the point of view of cosmology, the stress-energy tensor eigenvalues given by Eqs. (62) and (63) depend on the internal worldsheet coordinates, but in a very special way. In fact, defining the average of the quantity $`X`$ over the spacelike or timelike variable $`u=kz\omega t`$ by means of

$$X\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi X(u)du,$$
(70)
we obtain the very simple Nambu-Goto  relation

$$U=T=m_0^2,$$
(71)
showing that on distances much larger than the characteristic dilaton length scale, for instance over distances of cosmological relevance, a network of such cosmic strings will evolve in a way that is similar to ordinary (non-current-carrying) strings. In particular, one therefore expects the overall network to rapidly reach a scaling solution and to produce a large number of small loops . At this level, all the cosmological predictions of the ordinary string models are unchanged.

Once we consider the smaller loops, however, the situation can be drastically modified, in a fashion comparable to the vorton case : since the degeneracy between $`U`$ and $`T`$ is raised microscopically, one might also expect centrifugally supported equilibrium configurations to exist, leading to the usual vorton excess problem. Indeed, the presence of an explicit phase factor $`\psi `$ in their definition implies that the quantization condition in the spacelike case

$$kL=2\pi N,$$
(72)
with $`N`$ and $`L`$ the loop circumference, must hold. It is not clear however if the dilaton can leave the string, and the mechanism by which it could be possible presumably depends on what happens below the cutoff at short distance.

Finally, one can note that the difference between the eigenvalues $`U`$ and $`T`$ is $`UT\psi `$, which, given Eq. (50), is not positive definite. This can be traced back to the well-known expected violation of the null energy condition (NEC) in such scalar-tensor theories. A similar violation allows cosmological solutions to have bouncing scale factors with ordinary matter components (fluids and/or scalar fields) . In the string case under consideration here, this seemingly acausal violation of the NEC stems from the coupling of the dilaton field to the matter fields. The causality issue here stems from the fact that in the usual treatment of string perturbations , the velocity of transverse perturbations along the string is found to be $`c__\mathrm{T}^2T/U`$, which clearly exceeds unity if the NEC is violated. However bizarre it may sound, this need not worry us unduly. Indeed, since the theory given by Eq. (1) satisfies the requirement of causality however, it is clear that $`c__\mathrm{T}^2`$ cannot, in this framework, represent the propagation velocity of transverse perturbations along the string.

## VI Conclusions

We have reexamined the field equations of a cosmic string coupled to a tensor-scalar theory of gravity. This coupling is shown to induce effects along the string comparable to a current flow in the sense that the resulting effective stress-energy tensor eigenvalues, the energy per unit length $`U`$ and tension $`T`$, are no longer degenerate, due to the presence of the dilaton. However, we have found that there are many differences with the ordinary mechanism of current formation in cosmic strings as was first proposed by Witten . In the latter case, it was shown  that the generated currents can be either of the spacelike kind or of the timelike kind. In the dilatonic situation under scrutiny here, the timelike case is found to be pathological and can be accounted for only by addition of a potential term for the dilaton. Once this is done however, one finds that the phase frequency threshold derived in the Witten case  has an exact counterpart since the timelike kind of “current” can only be reached provided the equivalent of the state parameter is larger than the dilaton mass.

Another difference concerns the fact that the current is not formed after the string forming phase transition but should instead appear exactly at the same time. This is due to the fact that the dilaton is not an ordinary scalar field but acts as a component of the gravitational interaction. From this peculiarity also stems the possibility for the surface stress-energy tensor to be NEC-violating, in the sense that its timelike eigenvalue is not necessarily larger than its spacelike eigenvalue, as should be the case in the more restrictive field theory based situation. As a result, we have found that the average values of the macroscopically relevant quantities are unaltered by inclusion of dilatonic effects: the strings, from the point of view of cosmology, are expected to form a Nambu-Goto-like network.

However, the network of strings here produced would suffer from the vorton excess problem  because of the short-range effects of the dilaton. As the stress-energy tensor eigenvalues depend explicitly on the string worldsheet coordinates in a periodic way, it is necessary, in order to form a string loop, that the wave number of the dilatonic perturbation along the string be quantized.

We also found that even though a short-distance cutoff must be imposed, just like in the axionic situation , the long-distance behavior of the dilaton can be adjusted so as to suppress the logarithmic divergence. This means that a dilatonic network of strings, apart from having an energy per unit length that should be renormalized by inclusion of Planck scale effects, behaves exactly as a usual network. Accordingly, all the results derived for the latter  may be straightforwardly applied to the former, in particular in regards of the predictions relative to the loop production and the would-be “vorton” production.

More work needs to be done on such strings, as it is not clear in particular whether there is any way to get rid of the “current.” If no possibility can be found, that would mean that the vortons-like configurations produced after the relevant phase transition would be absolutely stable. As a result, one would have to conclude that cosmic strings cannot be formed in the early universe if the underlying theory of gravity is of the scalar-tensor type. Such models, stemming from string theory, would therefore be incompatible with cosmic strings; in view of the recently released CMB data , this might be presented as a useful constraint for the underlying microscopic field theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

V. C. de A. would like to thank FAPESP – BRASIL for financial support. M. E. X. G. would like to acknowledge the kind hospitality of the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris where this work has been completed. We would also like to thank Jérôme Martin and Raymond Schutz for enlightening comments and discussions.


format: text

text:
# Temperature and total mass profiles of the A3571 cluster of galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Abell 3571 (hereafter A3571) is a nearby (z=0.04) bright and hot ($``$ 7 keV) cluster of galaxies, situated in the Shapley supercluster. A3571 is a rich ($`>100`$ galaxies) Bautz-Morgan type I cluster (Abell et al. 1989). It is known to possess at its center a giant galaxy MCG05-33-002 with extensive optical halo (Kemp & Meaburn 1991). The galaxy distribution, as well as the optical halo, are aligned in the direction of the major axis of the central galaxy. Even though the optical data imply dynamical activity, the X-ray observations have revealed that A3571 is a relaxed cluster. The ROSAT PSPC (position sensitive proportional counter) image of this cluster shows no substructure and no deviations from the azimuthal symmetry (Nevalainen et al. 2000) while the ASCA temperature map shows no azimuthal structure indicative of cluster mergers (Markevitch et al. 1998). A3571 has a considerable cooling flow (Peres et al. 1998), also indicative of a relaxed cluster.

In this paper we report on a BeppoSAX observation of A3571. We use the data to perform spatially resolved spectroscopy in order to determine the temperature profile of A3571. Using the BeppoSAX temperature profile derived here, together with the ROSAT brightness profile (Nevalainen et al. 2000), and ASCA temperature profile of A3571 (Markevitch et al. 1998), we constrain the total mass in A3571, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium.

We use $`H_050\mathrm{h}_{50}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, which corresponds to the linear scale of 65 kpc/arcmin at the cluster redshift z = 0.04. We consider uncertainties and significances at 90% level throughout the paper.

## 2 Observations

The cluster of galaxies A3571 was observed by BeppoSAX (Boella et al. 1997a) between 2000 February 2 17:42 and February 6 07:41 UTC. In this paper we discuss data from the imaging Medium-Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (MECS; 1.8–10 keV; Boella et al. 1997b), and the imaging Low-Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (LECS; 0.1–10 keV; Parmar et al. 1997). The MECS consists of two identical grazing incidence telescopes with imaging gas scintillation proportional counters in their focal planes. The LECS uses an identical concentrator system to the MECS, but utilizes an ultra-thin entrance window and a driftless configuration to extend the low-energy response to 0.1 keV. The fields of view (FOV) of the LECS and MECS are circular with diameters of 37′ and 56′, respectively. The MECS has a 2′ thick circular window support structure, or strongback, which is centered 10′ from the FOV center. In addition, four 2′ thick radial spokes extend outwards from the circular support. The LECS strongback consists of a square grid with a separation of 4′. Standard screening and reduction procedures were applied to produce linearized event files using the SAXDAS 2.0.0 package. The exposure times for the MECS and LECS were 66 ks and 28 ks, respectively.

## 3 Spatially resolved spectroscopy

The energy dependent Point Spread Functions (PSF) of the LECS and MECS instruments complicate the analysis of extended objects such as clusters of galaxies. In the case of the MECS the problem is less severe, because the mirror and the detector PSF partially cancel each other. For the LECS, the 90% encircled energy radius increases from 6′ to 9′ between 8 keV and 0.2 keV. In this work, we accounted for the energy dependent PSF by generating appropriate instrument response files to be used when fitting the accumulated spectra. For the response generation, we used the ROSAT brightness profile of A3571 (Nevalainen et al. 2000) to model the flux distribution. For the MECS we produced corrected auxiliary responses with the SAXDAS Effarea tool, as was used for the clusters A2319 (Molendi et al. 1999) and A2256 (Molendi et al. 2000). Effarea convolves the brightness model with an analytical model for the MECS PSF to calculate the instrumental response (see D’Acri et al. 1998 for details). Effarea corrects for the energy-dependent vignetting. For the LECS we used the ray-tracing code LEMAT (Lammers 1997) to produce appropriate responses, taking into account the extraction region size and source position on the detector, mirror vignetting and obscuration by the strongback. For any given extraction region and energy LEMAT estimates the contribution of photons from regions external to the extraction region, and the number of photons originating from within the extraction region that are detected externally (see Kaastra et al. (1999) for the application of LEMAT in the case of the A2199 cluster).

We accumulated LECS and MECS spectra in annular regions centered on the X-ray emission maximum in the MECS (see Fig. 1). The bounding radii for MECS and LECS spectra are 0′–2′, 2′–4′, 4′–6′, 6′–8′, and 12′–16′. Between 16′–25′ only MECS data were used due to the smaller LECS FOV. The MECS data between radii of 8′–12′ are shadowed by the strongback, and the LECS data alone do not give adequate constraints on the spectral parameters. Between radii of 12′–16′ the regions shadowed by the strongback are excluded from the MECS spectra. Between 16′–25′ the regions affected by the strongback and the calibration sources are excluded. We obtained background spectra from standard blank sky observations using the same extraction regions as for the source spectra. LECS and MECS data were selected in the energy ranges 0.1–4.0 keV and 1.8–10 keV, respectively.

The LECS and MECS spectra were rebinned to oversample the full-width half maximum of the energy resolution by a factor 3 and additionally to have a minimum of 20 counts per bin to allow use of the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic, except at radii of 12′–16′ and 16′–25′ where a minimum of 30 and 40 counts per bin was used to improve the signal to noise ratio. At given radii (below 16′) the MECS and LECS spectra were fit simultaneously allowing the relative normalization between the two instruments to vary by $`\pm `$30% to allow for cross-calibration uncertainties (e.g., Fiore et al. 1999). We allowed a 2% systematic error in the fits to account for absolute calibration uncertainties.

### 3.1 Radial analysis

#### 3.1.1 Global fit

To obtain the global properties of the intracluster gas, we fitted the MECS and LECS data between radii 2′–8′. The inner 2′ region was excluded from the fit, because A3571 is known to have a moderate cooling flow in the center (see below), and the data beyond 8′ were excluded due to strongback obscuration. We model the emission from the hot intracluster gas using the mekal model (Mewe et al. 1995) in XSPEC. A single temperature fit to 2–8′ spectra with the absorption, $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$ fixed at the galactic value of $`4.4\times 10^{20}`$ atom cm-2 (Murphy et al. 2000) is unacceptable with a $`\chi ^2`$ of 120.0 for 95 degrees of freedom (dof). There are systematic residuals below 0.3 keV (positive) and between 0.3–0.6 keV (negative), (see Fig. 2). These features suggest the presence of a warm absorber, which has been detected in several cooling flow clusters (Buote 2000a, 2000b). To get an order-of-magnitude estimate of the properties of this component, we added an absorption edge to the model to account for the extra absorption between 0.3–0.5 keV and an additional mekal component to account for the excess emission below 0.3 keV. We kept $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$ fixed at the galactic value and constrained the metal abundances of both thermal components to be equal, since the data are not adequate to determine them both separately. The resulting fit is acceptable with a $`\chi ^2`$/dof of 90.3/91 and requires an absorption depth of $`5.9_{2.7}^{+2.6}`$ at an edge energy of $`0.27\pm 0.01`$ keV. The warm component has T = $`0.18\pm 0.03`$ keV and a normalization 0.27$`{}_{0.20}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.16}`$ that of the hot component.

However, this model is not physically meaningful, because the edge energy and the temperature are not linked by physical processes. Therefore we built a warm absorber model by computing the transmission of the mekal model as a function of energy for a grid of temperatures, abundances and column densities, and imported this table model into XSPEC. We fitted the data with a model consisting of the above warm absorber model, Galactic $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$, a mekal component and an additional mekal component, whose temperature we fixed to that of the absorber. We were not able to explain the observed features with this model. To produce the observed depletion at 0.3-0.5 keV the absorber should have a temperature below $``$0.01 keV, but at such low temperatures the model does not produce the observed excess emission at 0.1-0.3 keV. Also, the oxygen absorption edge at 0.6 keV, predicted with this model, is not observed. The observed features may be due to LECS background or response uncertainties, or due to a more complex absorber. At the lowest energies the background level is comparable to the cluster emission. The PSF correction applied to the LECS response is largest at the lowest energies and so the uncertainties may be stronger there. Also, the galactic absorption reduces the intrinsic flux by three orders of magnitude at 0.1 keV, and small deviations in the abundances of the absorbing material could produce low-energy structure. More complex absorption could result from ionized or partially covered material. However, the quality of the data is insufficient to disentangle these effects.

Fitting the data with a model consisting of a Galactic $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$ and a single mekal component, excluding bins below 0.6 keV leads to an acceptable fit (see Table 1). As seen in Fig. 2, the slight miscalibration of the MECS pulseheight-channel to energy relation results in slight offset between the iron 6.7 keV line of the plasma model and the data (as noticed in the case of A2256 by Molendi et al. 2000). The reason for this is unclear. The in-flight response calibration is made using Crab data, and possible gain problems should have been taken care of by the response creation procedures. At the moment it is not possible to accurately correct for this effect. However, the mismatch of the iron line energy has a negligible effect on temperatures. We verified this by fitting the data excluding the 6 – 7 keV band and noticing that the changes in best-fit temperatures were less than the parameter uncertainties. We estimated the effect of the gain miscalibration on the temperature measurements by adjusting the gain linear coefficient by 1%, after which the model iron line matched the data, and redoing the fits with this adjustment (see Table 1). This does not properly correct for the gain problem, but we use this as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty due to gain miscalibration. This adjustement results in systematic shift towards lower temperatures of about the size of the parameter uncertainties at radii below 8′ . At larger radii the effect is negligible. In the following, when presenting results we include this uncertainty in the parameter values.

#### 3.1.2 Center

In the 0′–2′ radial bin the spectral fit is formally acceptable with a model consisting of a single absorber and a single temperature plasma component with Galactic $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$. However, the fit improves significantly, when $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$ is allowed to be a free parameter. The resulting absorption ($`(11.3_{2.6}^{+2.7})\times 10^{20}`$ atom cm-2) is significantly (by a factor of 2.6) above the galactic value. Qualitatively similar behavior has been found in other cooling flow clusters (e.g. Allen & Fabian 1997; Molendi et al. 1998; Molendi & De Grandi, 1999; De Grandi & Molendi 1999b). The corresponding BeppoSAX metal abundance (0.49$`\pm 0.08`$ in solar units) is significantly (by a factor of 1.5) above the global value. A study of several clusters, including A3571 using ASCA data (Dupke & White 2000) also shows central metal enhancement and gives for A3571 abundance values consistent with ours.

The cooling flow found in the center of A3571 (Peres et al. 1998) contributes a comparable amount of flux to the ambient gas in the central bin. To study this more we added a cooling flow model (mkcflow in XSPEC) fixing the lower boundary of the continous temperature range to 0.1 keV and forcing the upper boundary to equal the ambient temperature. The metal abundance was constrained to be equal to the ambient one, because the data quality does not allow them to be measured separately. We also fixed the mass flow rate to 75 $`\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ as found in ROSAT analysis (Peres et al. 1998). As a result, the temperature of the ambient gas in the central bin becomes $`9.5_{1.5}^{+1.1}`$ keV. Letting the mass flow rate to be a free parameter, the temperature of the gas becomes very uncertain, but nevertheless the cooling flow is significantly detected, i.e. $`\dot{M}=80\pm 40\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ at 90% confidence level.

#### 3.1.3 Other radii

Using a single mekal model (as explained above), we find that temperatures and metal abundances in the radial bins 2′–4′, 4′–6′ and 6′–8′ are consistent with being constant (see Fig. 3 for the T profile). Between 12′–16′ the best fit temperature is lower, but still agrees within the uncertainties with the 2′–8′ fit results. In the 16′–25′ bin the temperature is significantly lower than in the other bins. The BeppoSAX temperature profile of A3571 derived here has slightly higher values than that derived using ASCA for this cluster (Markevitch et al. 1998), but both agree within 90% confidence uncertainties at each radius.

To quantify the behavior of the temperature profile, we modeled the 3-dimensional temperature profile with a constant value $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{const}}`$ out to r = 10′, and with a behavior $`\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{i}`$ at larger radii. We projected this model into BeppoSAX and ASCA bins and iteratively determined the best-fit parameters to the data and to the Monte - Carlo sets (see below) in order to obtain the uncertainties. We obtain $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{const}}=7.8_{0.4}^{+0.5}`$ and i$`=0.55_{0.24}^{+0.27}`$ which corresponds to a polytropic model $`\mathrm{T}\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}^{\gamma 1}`$ with $`\gamma =1.28_{0.12}^{+0.14}`$ beyond r = 10′. However, because the observed T is constant up to r = 10′ and therefore different from the gas density profile, the polytropic model does not give an acceptable fit to the data.

Due to the strongback obscuration and low count rates at large radii the BeppoSAX data are not ideal for measuring the spatial variation of the spectral parameters in A3571. However, we divided the 2′–8′ MECS and LECS data into four sectors and between radii 12′ and 25′ we used two sectors of MECS data. The temperatures and metal abundances in these sectors are consistent with the average values, i.e. we find no spatial variation. This is consistent with the ASCA results of A3571 (Markevitch et al. 1998).

#### 3.1.4 Fluxes

With the best-fit models (using the MECS normalizations) we determined the fluxes and luminosities in complete annuli in different radial bins. Above 8′, where the sky coverage is incomplete due to exclusion of strongback and calibration source regions, we assume azimuthal symmetry when computing the fluxes. In the 2′–8′ region we measure unabsorbed 2-10 keV fluxes and luminosities of $`\mathrm{F}_{210}=7.3\pm \mathrm{0.4\; 10}^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 and $`\mathrm{L}_{210}=5.1\pm 0.2\mathrm{h}_{50}^210^{44}`$ erg s-1 and bolometric values of $`\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{bol}}=15.5\pm \mathrm{0.7\; 10}^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, $`\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{bol}}=10.8\pm 0.4\mathrm{h}_{50}^210^{44}`$ erg s-1. For comparison, we distribute the measured ROSAT flux of A3571 (Markevitch 1998) between different radii using the best-fit $`\beta `$ profile from Nevalainen et al. (2000). Between 2′–8′ the 0.1–2.4 keV ROSAT flux is $`5.9\pm \mathrm{0.3\; 10}^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 and agrees with the BeppoSAX value of $`5.8\pm \mathrm{0.1\; 10}^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. Also within the 12′–16′ annulus the ROSAT value of $`0.87_{0.05}^{+0.04}10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 is consistent with our value of $`0.84_{0.07}^{+0.07}10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. At the largest radii there is some model dependent discrepancy, because the ROSAT flux estimate is obtained with a single temperature model, whereas the BeppoSAX temperature decreases at large radii. However, the ROSAT value for radii of 16′–25′ ($`0.96_{0.04}^{+0.05}10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) agrees with our value ($`1.4_{0.2}^{+0.3}10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) within 3$`\sigma `$ confidence.

## 4 Mass determination

### 4.1 Method

The ASCA temperature map (Markevitch et al. 1998) and the ROSAT brightness distribution (Nevalainen et al. 2000) of A3571 show no deviations from azimuthal symmetry and no substructure, and the BeppoSAX data do not contradict this view. Therefore we are justified in assuming that the hot X-ray emitting material in A3571 is in hydrostatic equilibrium.

Since the BeppoSAX temperature profile agrees with the ASCA profile, we use both simultaneously to constrain the total mass. For the details of the method we refer to the similar analysis of the ASCA data of A3571 (Nevalainen et al. 2000) and A401 (Nevalainen et al. 1999). Briefly, we model the dark matter density with two different types of profiles. In the “core” model

$$\rho _{\mathrm{dark}}\left(1+\frac{r^2}{a_d^2}\right)^{\alpha /2}$$
(1)
the density is relatively constant inside the core radius and has a constant slope $`\alpha `$ at large radii, analoguous to the $`\beta `$ model for the gas density. The “cusp” profile

$$\rho _{\mathrm{dark}}\left(\frac{r}{a_d}\right)^\eta \left(1+\frac{r}{a_d}\right)^{\eta \alpha }.$$
(2)
has a changing slope and a central cusp. With $`\eta =1`$ and $`\alpha =3`$, the cusp model corresponds to the “universal density profile” which is a good description of the cluster cold dark matter halos in simulations of hierarchical clustering (Navarro et al. 1995, 1997, hereafter NFW). Our data are not adequate to determine the shape of the cusp, and therefore we fix the shape parameter $`\eta `$ to be 1 in the cusp models, as suggested by the above simulations, but vary the other parameters. We solve the hydrostatic equilibrium equation (e.g., Sarazin 1988):

$`M_{\mathrm{tot}}(r)=3.70\times 10^{13}M_{}{\displaystyle \frac{T(r)}{\mathrm{keV}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\mathrm{Mpc}}}\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}}{d\mathrm{ln}r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}T}{d\mathrm{ln}r}}\right),`$ (3)
(using $`\mu =0.60`$), with respect to $`T`$, in terms of the dark matter and gas density profile parameters (the analytical solutions are given in Markevitch & Vikhlinin 1997). We fix the gas density to that found from the ROSAT analysis (i.e. $`\beta `$ model with slope parameter $`\beta =0.68\pm 0.03`$ and core radius a$`{}_{x}{}^{}=3.85\pm 0.35`$′ which describes well the PSPC surface brightness profile data in the radial range considered in this work (Nevalainen et al. 2000), calculate the 3-dimensional temperature profile model corresponding to given dark matter parameters, project it on the BeppoSAX and ASCA annuli, compare these values to the observed temperatures and iteratively determine the dark matter distribution parameters.

To propagate the errors of the temperature profile data to our mass values, we repeat the procedure for a large number of Monte - Carlo temperature profiles with added random errors. The gain calibration uncertainty will only affect the BeppoSAX temperatures and its effect on the combined BeppoSAX + ASCA mass profile is negligible and we thus ignore it. From the distribution of the acceptable Monte - Carlo models, we determine the 1$`\sigma `$ confidence intervals of the mass values as a function of radius. We convert these values to 90% confidence values, assuming a Gaussian probability distribution.

### 4.2 Results

Even though our BeppoSAX temperature profile is consistent with the ASCA profile (Markevitch et al. 1998), the BeppoSAX profile is somewhat steeper. As a consequence the best-fit cusp model becomes too steep to be convectively stable above r = 26′, i.e. the effective polytropic index

$$\gamma (r)=\frac{d\mathrm{log}T(r)}{d\mathrm{log}\rho (r)}+1$$
(4)
exceeds $`\frac{5}{3}`$. However, some of the Monte - Carlo models, which quantify the effect of the model parameter uncertainties, are convectively stable. Therefore the cusp model, as well as the NFW model are only marginally acceptable, and thus we report no mass values based on this model.

The best-fit core model temperature profile is acceptable with a $`\chi ^2`$ of 8.5 for 4 dof. This model is on the border of being convectively unstable, but can still be accepted (see Fig. 5 for the profile). The best-fit is obtained with a core radius of $`\mathrm{a}_\mathrm{d}`$ = 10$`\stackrel{}{.}`$1, a slope of $`\alpha =6.0`$, a central temperature of $`T_0=6.2`$ keV and central dark matter density of $`\rho _\mathrm{d}(0)=6.6\times 10^{26}`$ g cm-3 (6 times as high as the central gas density). The temperature data covers the radial range up to 35′. Extrapolating the temperature profile slightly (to $`39^{}`$) using our best fit model, we can determine the cluster mass at the cosmologically interesting radius, $`r_{178}`$, i.e. the virial radius in ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) universe based on the spherical collapse model (Eke et al. 1996). We obtain

$$\mathrm{r}_{178}=38.4\mathrm{}=2.5h_{50}^1\mathrm{Mpc}$$
(5)
and the total mass within this radius is

$$\mathrm{M}_{178}=9.1_{1.5}^{+3.6}\times 10^{14}h_{50}^1\mathrm{M}_{},$$
(6)
(see Table 2 for the mass values at several interesting radii). We note that half of the Monte - Carlo fits used for the mass uncertainty estimation are convectively unstable. Models with larger negative temperature gradients at a given radius are more massive if the temperatures at that radius are equal (see Eq. 3). Thus, applying the convective stability constraint would produce a strong constraint for the upper bound to the mass profile (e.g. at $`\mathrm{r}_{178}`$ we would obtain $`\mathrm{M}_{178}=9.1_{1.8}^{+0.7}\times 10^{14}h_{50}^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$). However, such a constraint is model dependent and does not allow the uncertainties in the temperature measurements to be propagated to the mass estimates. We therefore choose not to use this constraint to reject any of the Monte - Carlo fits.

The mass values obtained here are consistent with the corresponding values obtained using only ASCA (Nevalainen et al. 2000), and more precise. In addition to the better data, the improvement in the precision is due to the fact that in the present work we cannot apply the cusp model (due to convective instability) as in Nevalainen et al. (2000). However, if we were to apply the convective stability constraint for the Monte - Carlo fits with the core model, the mass uncertainties derived here would be much smaller. Our mass values within r500 and $`r_{178}`$ are smaller by factors of 1.1 and 1.4, respectively, than the mass obtained assuming that the cluster is isothermal with the emission-weighted ASCA value $`T_X`$ = 6.9 keV (Markevitch 1998) but consistent within the uncertainties. Within r500 our total mass value is significantly smaller (by a factor of 1.6) than the value predicted by the cosmological simulations of Evrard et al. (1996) for a cluster with T = 6.9 keV.

Our results indicate that the dark matter density falls as r-6 whereas the gas density falls as r-2 and thus the gas mass fraction increases rapidly at large radii. At r500 our gas mass fraction value (see Table 2) is consistent with those for A2256 (Markevitch & Vikhlinin 1997), A401 (Nevalainen et al. 1999), A2199 and A496 (Markevitch et al. 1999) and for samples in Ettori & Fabian (1999) and Mohr et al. (1999). At the virial radius we obtain

$$f_{gas}(r_{178})=0.26_{0.10}^{+0.05}h_{50}^{3/2}.$$
(7)
Assuming that this is a lower limit on the cosmological baryon fraction, or that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\frac{\mathrm{M}_b}{\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{tot}}}f_{gas}(r_{178}),$$
(8)
and using $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.076\pm 0.007`$ (Burles & Tytler 1998) and $`\mathrm{H}_050`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 we obtain an upper limit for the cosmological mass density parameter of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.41`$.

## 5 Conclusions and discussion

The heavy element abundace in the central 2′ radial bin is significantly above the cluster average. Our values are consistent with the values obtained from ASCA data of A3571 (Dupke & White III 2000a) who also found similar enhancements in clusters A2199 and A496 (Dupke & White III 2000b). Also BeppoSAX analyses on several clusters (Irwin & Bregman 2000; Molendi & De Grandi 1999; De Grandi & Molendi 1999b; Molendi et al. 2000) have yielded central metal enhancements. These observations are consistent with the hypothesis of the metal enrichment of the intracluster gas by supernovae (e.g. Arimoto & Yoshii 1987; Matteucci & Gibson 1995). The central BeppoSAX absorption is significantly above the galactic value. Qualitatively similar behavior has been found in other cooling flow clusters (e.g. Allen & Fabian 1997; Molendi et al. 1998; Molendi & De Grandi, 1999; De Grandi & Molendi 1999b). This suggests that the excess absorption is due to the cooling material accumulated in the central region of the cluster.

The significantly decreasing temperature profile of A3571 derived here with BeppoSAX data agrees with the ASCA temperature profile of Markevitch et al. (1998). Similarly, the BeppoSAX temperature profiles for clusters A2029 (Molendi & De Grandi, 1999), A2256 (Molendi et al. 2000), and A3266 (De Grandi & Molendi 1999) show a temperature decline in good agreement with the respective ASCA results (Sarazin et al., 1999; Markevitch & Vikhlinin, 1997; Markevitch et al., 1998), although the BeppoSAX profile for A2319 (Molendi et al. 1999) does not indicate a decline reported by Markevitch (1996) from ASCA data, even though both give consistent temperatures in the entire overlapping radial range. We used both BeppoSAX and ASCA temperature profiles to constrain the total mass of A3571, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium. The BeppoSAX profile, even though it is formally consistent with the ASCA one, is somewhat steeper and results in problems with convective stability. The best fit cusp model (and the NFW universal profile) for the dark matter density are too steep compared to the gas density profile for the system to be convectively stable, but they are acceptable within the uncertainties of the data. The almost constant temperature up to r = 10′ and steep decrease at larger radii, as exhibited with both BeppoSAX and ASCA analysis cannot be acceptably modeled with polytropic models. The data are well modeled using the “core” model for the dark matter density, which is analogous to the $`\beta `$ model for the gas density. The best-fit core model is at the border of being convectively unstable, but can still be accepted. The measured masses within r500 and r178 are factors of 1.1 and 1.4 smaller than the values obtained with the isothermal analysis of A3571 data, respectively, where the difference is consistent with the uncertainties. Within r500 the measured mass is significantly smaller, by a factor of 1.6, than that predicted by the simulations of Evrard et al. (1996).

The dark matter density profile in A3571 decreases as r-6, much faster than the gas density. Hence the gas mass fraction increases with radius, with f$`{}_{\mathrm{gas}}{}^{}(\mathrm{r}_{178})=0.26_{0.10}^{+0.05}\times \mathrm{h}_{50}^{3/2}`$. Assuming that this is the lower limit for the primordial baryonic fraction, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.4`$ at 90% confidence.

###### Acknowledgements.

The BeppoSAX satellite is a joint Italian-Dutch programme. We thank the staffs of the BeppoSAX Science Data and Operations Control Centers for help with these observations. J. Nevalainen acknowledges an ESA Research Fellowship.


text:
# LA-UR-00-5683 Improvement and Renormalization Constants in 𝑂(𝑎) Improved Lattice QCD Presented by Rajan Gupta. Calculations supported by the DoE Grand Challenges award at the ACL at Los Alamos and NERSC.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In quenched Lattice QCD, axial and vector Ward identities can be used to determine, at $`O(a)`$, all the scale independent renormalization constants for bilinear currents ($`Z_A`$, $`Z_V`$, and $`Z_S/Z_P`$), the improvement constants ($`c_A`$, $`c_V`$, and $`c_T`$), the quark mass dependence of all five $`Z_𝒪`$, and the coefficients of the equation of motion operators . Here we summarize results at $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`6.2`$ and discuss the highlights of our calculations. Details and notation are given in .

We start with the generalized axial Ward identity involving operators improved on and off-shell

$$\delta S^{(12)}𝒪_{R,\mathrm{𝑜𝑓𝑓}}^{(23)}(y)J^{(31)}(0)=\delta 𝒪_{R,\mathrm{𝑜𝑓𝑓}}^{(13)}(y)J^{(31)}(0)$$

where $`\delta 𝒪`$ is the result of the axial variation of $`𝒪`$ ($`A_\mu V_\mu `$, $`SP`$, and $`T_{\mu \nu }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }T_{\rho \sigma }`$), and $`\delta S`$ is the variation in the action.

At $`O(a)`$ there exists only one dimension 4 off-shell operator (which vanishes by the equations of motion) for each bilinear that has the appropriate symmetries . Consequently, we define

$`𝒪_{R,\mathrm{𝑜𝑓𝑓}}^{(ij)}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_𝒪^{(ij)}𝒪_{I,\mathrm{𝑜𝑓𝑓}}^{(ij)},`$ (1)
$`𝒪_{I,\mathrm{𝑜𝑓𝑓}}^{(ij)}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_I^{(ij)}(1/4)ac_𝒪^{}E_𝒪^{(ij)},`$ (2)
$`E_𝒪^{(ij)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^{(i)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{𝒲}\psi ^{(j)}\overline{\psi }^{(i)}\stackrel{}{𝒲}\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi ^{(j)}.`$ (3)
Here $`(ij)`$ (with $`ij`$) specifies the flavor, and $`\stackrel{}{𝒲}\psi _j=(\stackrel{}{\overline{)}D}+m_j)\psi _j+O(a^2)`$ is the full $`O(a)`$ improved Dirac operator for quark flavor $`j`$. This ensures that the equation-of-motion operator $`E_𝒪`$ gives rise only to contact terms, and does not change the overall normalization $`Z_𝒪`$. The $`O(a)`$ on-shell improved renormalized operators $`𝒪_R^{(ij)}`$ are

$`𝒪_R^{(ij)}`$ $``$ $`Z_𝒪^0(1+b_𝒪am_{ij})𝒪_I^{(ij)},`$ (4)
$``$ $`Z_𝒪^0(1+\stackrel{~}{b}_𝒪a\stackrel{~}{m}_{ij})𝒪_I^{(ij)}.`$ (5)
$`(A_I)_\mu `$ $``$ $`A_\mu +ac_A_\mu P,`$ (6)
$`(V_I)_\mu `$ $``$ $`V_\mu +ac_V_\nu T_{\mu \nu },`$ (7)
$`(T_I)_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`T_{\mu \nu }+ac_T(_\mu V_\nu _\nu V_\mu ),`$ (8)
$`P_I`$ $``$ $`P,S_IS,`$ (9)
The $`Z_𝒪^0`$ are renormalization constants in the chiral limit, $`m_{ij}(m_i+m_j)/2`$ is the average bare quark mass, $`am_i=1/2\kappa _i1/2\kappa _c`$, $`\kappa _c`$ is the value of the hopping parameter in the chiral limit, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{ij}`$ is the quark mass defined by the axial Ward identity (AWI) in Eq. 12. Note that $`m`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ are identical in a discretized theory with chiral symmetry, like staggered fermions. With these definitions, $`b_𝒪=1`$, $`c_𝒪=0`$, $`c_𝒪^{}=1`$ at tree level .

Since the equation-of-motion operators contribute only contact terms, Eq. (1) can be rewritten in terms of just on-shell improved operators:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_Vd^4x\delta S_I𝒪_I^{(23)}(y_4,\stackrel{}{y})J^{(31)}(0)}{\delta 𝒪_I^{(13)}(y_4,\stackrel{}{y})J^{(31)}(0)}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\delta 𝒪}^{(13)}}{Z_A^{(12)}Z_𝒪^{(23)}}}+a{\displaystyle \frac{c_P^{}+c_𝒪^{}}{2}}\stackrel{~}{m}_{12}+O(a^2)`$
where

$$\delta S_I(x)2\stackrel{~}{m}_{12}P_I^{(12)}(x)_\mu (A_I)_\mu ^{(12)}(x).$$

Our calculation is limited to the case $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\stackrel{~}{m}_2`$ (this simplification was used due to limited computer resources), in which case the r.h.s. of Eq. 10 reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\delta 𝒪}^0}{Z_A^0Z_𝒪^0}}\left[1+(\stackrel{~}{b}_{\delta 𝒪}\stackrel{~}{b}_𝒪){\displaystyle \frac{a\stackrel{~}{m}_3}{2}}\right]+`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\delta 𝒪}^0}{Z_A^0Z_𝒪^0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{b}_{\delta 𝒪}\stackrel{~}{b}_𝒪)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{b}_A\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{c_P^{}+c_𝒪^{}}{2}}\right]a\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i\stackrel{~}{m}_{ij}|_{m_j=m_i}`$. Using Eqs. 10 and 11, all the $`b_𝒪`$ (except $`b_T`$ which requires $`m_1m_2`$), $`c_𝒪`$, $`c_𝒪^{}`$, and the scale independent normalization constants are determined by making suitable choices for $`J`$, $`𝒪`$, and $`y`$ in Eq. 10 and studying it as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_3`$ (Eq. 11).

## 2 RESULTS

The lattice parameters used in our calculation are given in Tab. 1 and 2. Our final results, which supercede those in Ref. , are given in Tab. 3.

In many cases a given on-shell improvement and normalization constants can be determined in a number of ways as discussed in . Results in Tab. 3 are based on the AWI with the best signal and smallest error. Table 3 also includes results by the ALPHA collaboration  and the one-loop tadpole improved perturbative results. To simplify comparison with previous results, we quote both $`\stackrel{~}{b}_V,\stackrel{~}{b}_A`$ and $`b_V,b_A`$.

One of the goals of our calculation is to quantify the residual $`O(a^2)`$ errors and to understand the shortcomings of 1-loop perturbation theory. For $`O(a^2)`$ errors we use two estimates: (i) the difference between our results and those by the ALPHA collaboration , and (ii) the difference between using 2-point and 3-point discretization of the derivatives  in the extraction of $`c_A`$ from

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_\stackrel{}{x}_\mu [A_\mu +ac_A_\mu P]^{(ij)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)J^{(ji)}(0)}{_\stackrel{}{x}P^{(ij)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)J^{(ji)}(0)}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{m}_{ij},`$
and the subsequent effect of the difference in $`c_A`$ on other constants. This latter variation is quoted as the second error in Tab. 3.

These differences are compared to the expected size of the residual discretization errors: $`(a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})0.15`$ and $`0.1`$ for the improvement constants and $`(a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})^20.02`$ and $`0.01`$ for the normalization constants at $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`6.2`$ respectively.

A comparison, at $`\beta =6.0`$, between simulation at $`c_{SW}=1.4755`$ (tadpole improved theory) and $`c_{SW}=1.769`$ (non-perturbatively $`O(a)`$ improved theory) shows that all the constants are sensitive to the choice of $`c_{SW}`$. It is therefore important to use $`c_{SW}`$ determined non-perturbatively.

The most significant comparison is between our results and those of the ALPHA collaboration. The only results which do not agree within 2-$`\sigma `$ statistical errors are those for $`Z_V^0`$, $`c_A`$ and $`c_V`$ at $`\beta =6`$, and for $`Z_V^0`$ at $`\beta =6.2`$. The differences for $`Z_V^0`$ are of size $`0.01`$ and $`0.005`$ at $`\beta =6`$ and $`6.2`$ respectively, and are thus consistent with the expected differences of $`O(a^2)`$. The differences for $`c_A`$ and $`c_V`$ are also consistent with the size expected of $`O(a)`$ differences, but are more notable because they correspond to very large fractional differences (e.g. our $`c_A`$ at $`\beta =6`$ has less than half the magnitude of that found by the ALPHA collaboration). What we learn is that (i) $`c_𝒪`$, which vanish at tree level and are numerically small, depend substantially, at $`\beta =6`$, on the method/definition used to extract them; (ii) the variation between 2-pt and 3-pt derivatives significantly smaller than the difference between our results and those of the ALPHA collaboration; and (iii) these differences in $`c_V`$, and even more so in $`c_A`$, are substantially reduced at $`\beta =6.2`$. The change appears too rapid to be an $`O(a)`$ effect.

Both $`c_V`$ and $`c_T`$ are obtained as a small difference between two large terms. Nevertheless, we are able to design Ward identities that yield these quantities with reasonable precision. In particular, the significant improvement we obtain in determining $`c_V`$ using methods described in  reduces the error in $`Z_A^0`$, $`Z_P^0/Z_S^0`$, $`c_T`$ and $`c_A^{}`$ as the uncertainty in $`c_V`$ feeds into these quantities.

When comparing against perturbative estimates the yardstick we use for the missing higher order terms is $`\alpha _s^20.02`$ and $`0.016`$, respectively. We find that tadpole-improved 1-loop perturbation theory underestimates the deviations of renormalization and improvement constants from their tree level values. In all but one case, however, these discrepancies can be understood as a combination of a 2-loop correction of size $`(12)\times \alpha _s^2`$ \[for $`Z_V^0`$, $`Z_A^0`$, and $`c_A`$\], higher order discretization errors of size $`(12)\times a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ \[for $`c_V`$, $`c_T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_V`$\], and statistical errors \[for $`\stackrel{~}{b}_A`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_P`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_S`$\]. The only exception is $`Z_P^0/Z_S^0`$, for which a very large higher order perturbative contribution of size $`4\times \alpha _s^2`$ is needed to reconcile our non-perturbative results with 1-loop perturbation theory.

In Tab. 4, we present, first results for the equation-of-motion improvement constants $`c_X^{}`$. The combination $`c_P^{}+c_𝒪^{}`$ is extracted by studying the dependence of Eq. 10 on $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ once the other constants defined in Eq. 11 have been determined. The errors in the determination of the $`c_𝒪^{}`$ are dominated by two quantities: (i) The uncertainty in $`c_A`$ feeds into the extraction of $`c_A^{}`$, and (ii) the correlation function from which $`c_P^{}+c_P^{}`$ is determined has a poor signal (the intermediate state is a scalar for $`J=S`$, $`𝒪=P`$ and $`\delta 𝒪=S`$ in Eq. 10). The uncertainty in $`c_P^{}`$ then feeds into $`c_V^{}`$, $`c_S^{}`$, and $`c_T^{}`$. Overall, we find a very significant improvement in the quality of the results with increasing $`\beta `$, $`i.e.`$, between $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`\beta =6.2`$.

Finally, we comment on results presented in two recent papers. Using the Schrödinger functional, Ref.  calculates $`b_Ab_P`$, $`b_S`$ and $`Z_P^0/(Z_S^0Z_A^0)`$ for a range of $`\beta 6`$. Their most striking result is that different discretizations of derivatives lead to very different results for $`b_Ab_P`$. For example, at $`\beta =6`$, this quantity varies roughly from $`0.17`$ to $`0.17`$. While our number lies within this range, our estimate of $`O(a)`$ uncertainties is clearly a substantial underestimate.

Reference  has determined $`c_A`$ using the same method and similar lattice parameters as here but with significantly more configurations. They study, at one $`\kappa `$ ($`\kappa _5`$ at both $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`6.2`$), the effect of using derivatives that are tree-level improved through $`O(a^2)`$ (our 3-pt), $`O(a^4)`$ and $`O(a^6)`$. They find a larger dependence than what we get between 2-pt and 3-pt discretizations at $`\kappa _5`$. The $`O(a^2)`$ errors in the two calculations are, however, different due to the choice of source and the fit range in time. Also, we find that after chiral extrapolation these discretization effects are significantly reduced. Nevertheless, once again the large variation should serve as a warning that the $`O(a)`$ errors in $`c_𝒪`$ can be substantial.