format: text

text:
# Temperature Dependence of Damping and Frequency Shifts of the Scissors Mode of a trapped Bose-Einstein Condensate

## Abstract

We have studied the properties of the scissors mode of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate of 87Rb atoms at finite temperature. We measured a significant shift in the frequency of the mode below the hydrodynamic limit and a strong dependence of the damping rate as the temperature increased. We compared our damping rate results to recent theoretical calculations for other observed collective modes finding a fair agreement. From the frequency measurements we deduce the moment of inertia of the gas and show that it is quenched below the transition point, because of the superfluid nature of the condensed gas.

The experimental discovery of the scissors mode , first predicted in a geometrical model , has been one of the most exciting findings in nuclear physics during the last two decades (see  for a review). According to the geometrical picture, such a mode arises from a counter-rotational oscillation of the deformed proton and neutron fluids. Extensive studies of this mode in the past two decades have investigated the dependence of its strength on the nuclear deformation and the relationship with the quadrupole collective mode and with the superfluid moment of inertia of the nucleus .

Recently it has been possible to study the scissors mode in Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) of dilute gases . This transverse mode of excitation has been used to demonstrate that the condensate can only flow in an irrotational manner . This work, together with the observation of a critical velocity  and the occurrence of quantized vortices  has provided conclusive evidence for the superfluidity of a trapped condensate. The scissors mode of a trapped BEC has been formally linked to the quadrupole operator and to the moment of inertia of the superfluid system .

In condensed gases the ’scissors’ motion is an irrotational oscillation of the condensate relative to the static trapping potential. The deformation of the system can be controlled independently using the trap frequencies (unlike nuclei). The most striking difference between the scissors mode in nuclei and in condensed gases is that the nuclear system is effectively at $`T=0`$ and the scissors excitation is fragmented because of the interference of the orbital with the spin motion, whereas in a trapped BEC it is possible to control the temperature of the gas, and hence change the fraction $`N_0/N`$ of condensed atoms.

The spectroscopy of the low energy collective modes of the condensate has been extended to include measurements of damping rates and frequency shifts as a function of temperature . These finite temperature measurements test dynamical aspects of the BEC theory that require higher order terms in the calculations. As yet the results have not been fully explained .

In this paper we report a systematic study of the temperature dependent damping and frequency shifts of the scissors mode excitation in a trapped condensed gas. After a brief description of the experimental procedure, we present the scissors mode data for the frequency shifts and damping rates. We then compare our results with the available theoretical calculations for other collective modes. Finally we show how the scissors mode frequency shifts are related to quenching of the moment of inertia of the boson gas.

We excite the scissors mode using the technique described in our previous paper . In summary we prepare atoms at the desired temperature $`T`$ in an untilted TOP trap ($`\omega _x=\omega _y=126`$ Hz, $`\omega _z=\sqrt{8}\omega _x`$). We then adiabatically tilt the confining potential by a small angle $`\varphi =3.4^{}`$ about the y axis (this reduces $`\omega _z`$ by $`2\%`$). We then suddenly flip the trap angle to $`\varphi `$ to excite the scissors mode in the xz plane with an amplitude $`\theta _0=2\varphi `$, about the new equilibrium position. The condensate oscillates at a single frequency $`\omega _{sc}`$ (Fig. 1 (a)). The low temperature limit of the condensate frequency is the hydrodynamic value $`\omega _{sc}=\sqrt{\omega _z^2+\omega _x^2}`$ . The thermal component oscillates at two frequencies $`\omega _+`$ and $`\omega _{}`$, in the collisionless limit $`\omega _+=\omega _z+\omega _x`$ and $`\omega _{}=\omega _z\omega _x`$. The high-lying frequency $`\omega _+`$ corresponds to an irrotational quadrupole velocity flow ($`\times \stackrel{}{v}=0`$) that is the classical counterpart of the superfluid irrotational oscillation. The low-lying frequency $`\omega _{}`$ of the thermal cloud is related to rotational flow, and the absence of a similar mode for the BEC is the key feature that indicates superfluidity.

To observe the scissors mode oscillation for the thermal component we imaged the atomic cloud in the trap using destructive absorption imaging. The images of the cloud in the trap were fitted with a 2D Gaussian distribution from which we extract the cloud angle as a function of time (both above and below the critical temperature).

To observe the condensate we switch off the trapping potential at different times during the scissors mode oscillation, and allow the cloud to expand for $`14`$ ms before taking an image. The thermal cloud expands isotropically while the BEC component has an elongated (prolate) shape (Fig. 1 (b)). The angle of the expanded BEC component is extracted by fitting the two component profile with a 2D double Gaussian distribution . In this way we are able to separate the information on the thermal cloud scissors mode and the BEC scissors mode.

The temperature of the ultracold atomic sample is extracted from a 2D Gaussian fit to the wings of the expanded thermal component using the procedure well described in . For temperatures below $`0.5T_0`$ when the thermal cloud is not visible, we deduced the temperature from the final rf by extrapolating the best fit curve for the available temperature vs rf cut frequency data. To determine the scaled temperature $`T/T_0`$ we need to calculate the critical temperature $`T_0(N)`$ at each final rf cut - in evaporation each rf cut gives a different final number of atoms $`N`$ and hence different $`T_0(N)`$. We calculated $`T_0(N)`$ from the measured final number of atoms in each time-of-flight picture and the known trap frequencies, using the formula for a trapped boson gas . The statistical uncertainty in $`T/T_0`$ is in the range $`36\%`$, but increased to $`10\%`$ for $`T/T_0<0.5`$ where $`T`$ was extrapolated. To check our temperature measurements we compared the condensate fraction vs temperature with theoretical predictions for both the ideal gas and interacting gas  (Fig. 1 (c)).

The measurements of the frequency and damping of the quadrupole modes in previous work  relied on measurement of the radii of the condensate and the thermal cloud. These measurements are sensitive to the fitting model and to shot to shot noise because of their atom number dependence. However the scissors mode has very well defined initial conditions for the excitation of both the BEC and the thermal cloud and the angle oscillations of the two components can be measured independently. The angles of both condensed and thermal clouds do not depend on atom number and could be fitted very reliably, even close to $`T_0`$ to give accurate measurements of frequencies and damping.

Figure 2 shows three different scissors mode oscillations at temperatures of (a) $`T/T_0=1.29`$, (b) $`T/T_0=0.74`$ and (c) $`T/T_0=0.53`$. The measured frequencies of the thermal cloud do not change with temperature and agree very well with the collisionless frequencies, both above and below the critical temperature (see also Fig. 3). Both frequency components have the same amplitude implying that energy is shared equally between rotational and irrotational velocity flow. These thermal cloud excitations have very small damping that is independent of temperature, confirming the collisionless regime of the thermal component in our experiment (see also Fig. 4).

The scissors mode oscillation of the BEC component occurs at a single frequency $`\omega _{sc}`$ (Fig. 2 (c) and (b)). However, the frequency of oscillation and its damping change dramatically with temperature. The low temperature limit of the frequency was $`1\%`$ higher than the hydrodynamic prediction as shown in Fig. 3. This agrees with the frequency we calculated for finite number condensate ($`2\times 10^4`$) using the method detailed in .

Figure 4 shows the experimental data for the temperature dependent damping rates. Since a finite $`T`$ theory of the scissors mode in a TOP trap is not yet available we have compared our experimental results with recent theories for other observed collective modes of a BEC.
Fedichev et al.  have calculated the Landau damping rate for the $`|m=2|`$ and low-lying $`m=0`$ modes of BEC in the usual TOP trap geometry ($`\omega _x=\omega _y,\omega _z=\sqrt{8}\omega _x`$) for the experimental conditions of the JILA trap , that are close to those of our experiment. In the region $`0.5<T/T_0<0.9`$ their theoretical calculations give a damping rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu `$ for the collective mode $`\nu `$ that is proportional to $`T/\mu `$ and to the frequency of the excitation $`\omega _\nu `$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu =A_\nu \omega _\nu \frac{T}{\mu }(n_0a^3)^{1/2}$$
(1)
where $`n_0`$ is the peak density, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`A_\nu `$ is a numerical coefficient dependent on the shape of the collective excitation. For the quadrupole modes they calculated $`A_{|m=2|}7`$ for the $`|m=2|`$ and $`A_{m=0}5`$ for the low-lying m=0. The numerical coefficient $`A_\nu `$ is likely to be similar for the scissors mode. Assuming that $`A_{sc}A_{|m=2|}7`$ and scaling the results by Fedichev et al.  by the frequency factor $`\omega _{sc}/\omega _{|m=2|}`$, we obtain the theoretical damping rate for the scissors mode (Fig. 4, solid line), which is in fair agreement with our data. This numerical coefficient for the scissors mode could in principle be evaluated by the method described by Fedichev et al. . They use an overlap of the wavefunction of the mode with the wavefunctions of the thermal excitations following classical trajectories within the range $`\mu <T<0.9T_0`$. This method gives a way of calculating the damping process for a trapped BEC, the evaluation of the trajectories and the stochastic averaging is a numerical problem of moderate size. Our measurements of the damping extend to temperatures where $`T\mu `$. In this region $`0<T/T_0<0.5`$ Fedichev et al. predict damping proportional to $`(T/\mu )^{3/2}`$  but our experimental data have a weak dependence on the temperature.
In a recent paper Rusch et al.  have used a full second order theory to calculate the damping and frequency shift of low energy collective modes for a trapped BEC in a spherical geometry . A spherical cloud has no scissors mode but it is possible to identify this mode with the quadrupole mode $`l=2,m=\pm 1`$. Thus we have used their calculations for the $`l=2`$ mode damping rate for comparison scaled by the frequency factor $`\omega _{sc}/\omega _{l=2}`$ (Fig. 4, dotted line). These numerical calculations give a weakly linear dependence of damping on temperature but the experimental data seem to follow a higher power law.
We have not included the observed decrease in damping at higher temperatures (above $`0.85T_0`$) in the above discussion because the uncertainties are large for these data points. In addition the frequency shift of the scissors mode at these temperatures may lead to resonant coupling with other modes or with the thermal cloud. For example in  the lowering of the damping of the quadrupole modes close to the transition point, has been interpreted as a dynamical coupling between the condensed and thermal component.

The moment of inertia of a system is defined as linear response to a rotational field. Superfluids have a moment of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ less than that of a classical rigid body $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{rig}`$ with the same density distribution. The scissors mode is ideally suited to studying this quenching of the moment of inertia below $`T_0`$. Zambelli and Stringari  linked the reduced moment of inertia of the boson gas $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }/\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{r}ig}`$ to the quadrupole moment Fourier signal $`Q(\omega )`$ for the condensate at $`T=0`$ and the thermal cloud at $`T>T_0`$. Applying their derivation to the scissors mode gives the moment of inertia of the condensate and thermal clouds as:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}ond}^{}=\frac{(\omega _z^2\omega _x^2)^2}{\omega _{sc}^4};\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{t}herm}^{}=\frac{(\omega _z^2\omega _x^2)^2}{\omega _+^2\omega _{}^2}.$$
(2)
We can use Eq. 2 to deduce the moment of inertia for the condensate and thermal cloud separately. The moment of inertia for the thermal component is consistent with the rigid body value $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{t}herm}^{}=1`$ for all measured $`T`$. For the point at $`0.99T_0`$ in Fig. 3, the condensate scissors mode has a frequency such that its moment of inertia is close to that of a rigid body. Whereas as $`T0`$ the condensate has a quenched irrotational value of the moment of inertia characteristic of a superfluid. The lower temperature points are in good agreement with the hydrodynamic frequency and the reduced moment of inertia assumes the superfluid value for our geometry $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}ond}^{}=ϵ^2=0.6`$, where $`ϵ=(\omega _z^2\omega _x^2)/(\omega _z^2+\omega _x^2)`$ is the anisotropy of the trap .

In conclusion we have made precise measurements of the frequency and damping of the scissors mode as a function of temperature. The observed damping for low temperatures is consistent with that expected from models of Landau damping, where the damping rate is proportional to the mode frequency. At temperatures just below $`T_0`$ the experimental damping rate was less than predicted. The frequency shift as a function of temperature is consistent with a quenching of the moment of inertia as the temperature is reduced because of the superfluidity of the gas. We await a theoretical calculation of this shift for comparison.

We would like to thank S. Stringari and F. Zambelli, N. Lo Iudice, and all the members of the Oxford theoretical BEC group in particular K. Burnett, M. Davis, M. Rusch, S. Morgan, for many very useful discussions. We are also grateful to A. Minguzzi for providing the theoretical prediction of Fig. 1 (c).

This work was supported by the EPSRC and the TMR ‘Cold Quantum Gases’ network program (No. HPRN-CT-2000-00125). O.M. Maragò acknowledges the support of a Marie Curie Fellowship, TMR program (No. ERB FMBI-CT98-3077).


text:
# General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism

## 1 Introduction

Realistic simulations of stellar core collapse, by which we include the core collapse supernova mechanism, the collapse of stellar cores to black holes, the cooling and deleptonization of nascent neutron stars, the modeling of neutrino-driven winds, and the prediction of neutrino signatures, requires the implementation of accurate numerical radiation-hydrodynamics over extremes of temperature, density, and neutrino luminosities. The wide range of outcomes obtained by different groups engaged in simulating the core collapse supernova mechanism, for example, is testimony to the difficulty of numerically modeling this multicomponent and highly nonlinear phenomenon.

In this paper, we draw attention to the importance of incorporating general relativity in simulations of stellar core collapse, with particular focus on the core collapse supernova mechanism. General relativity must be an essential component in the realistic modeling of this mechanism because of the very strong gravitational fields that arise. (Hereafter GR will be used to denote both the noun “general relativity” and the adjective “general relativistic.”) The core collapse supernova mechanism is still unknown and involves a complex interplay of hydrodynamics and neutrino transport, both of which can be significantly modified by GR effects in the crucial period during which the explosion develops. For example, GR effects can be expected to substantially modify the hydrodynamics of the core at high densities. An extreme example of this, of course, is the possibility that in the GR limit one can have continued collapse and the formation of an event horizon. The neutrino transport will also be modified by GR, directly through redshift, time dilation, curvature, and aberration effects, and indirectly through its strong coupling to the GR modified hydrodynamics.

Other aspects of stellar core collapse will benefit from improved radiation-hydrodynamics codes. The detection of neutrinos from supernova 1987A (Bionta et al., 1987; Hirata et al., 1987) opened up a new window on the Universe, through which we can observe deep inside the core of a massive star as it goes through its death throes. There are now a number of large underground particle detectors, currently on line, such as Super Kamiokande (SuperK) (Totsuka, 1992; Nakamura et al., 1994a, b) and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) (Ewan, 1992, 1996; Sur, 1994; Moorhead, 1997), or detectors being constructed that will be very sensitive to the neutrino radiation from a core collapse occurring within the Milky Way galaxy, and sensitive enough to detect neutrinos from a core collapse occurring anywhere within the Local Group. The information coded in the neutrino fluxes from a Galactic supernova will be voluminous, shedding light on the supernova mechanism, and possibly on the fundamental properties of neutrinos themselves, i.e., whether they have masses and are mixed. Simulations of the energetics and timescales of the neutrino emission in all flavors, incorporating GR hydrodynamics and multigroup neutrino transport, will be essential for extracting important features concerning the physics of stellar core collapse and the fundamental properties of neutrinos from the neutrino signatures recorded by the new terrestrial detectors.

Previous work at various levels has been done on the problem of coupling the GR equations of gravity, hydrodynamics, and radiation transport in spherical symmetry. Lindquist (1966) obtained the general form of the GR Boltzmann equation and its explicit form and the form of the equations for the first two energy integrated angular moments in a spherical coordinate system in a diagonal gauge (i.e., with a zero shift vector). (This was the coordinate system used, for example, by Misner & Sharp (1965) and by May & White (1966) in their derivation of the GR hydrodynamics equations.) These equations were also presented by Baron et al. (1989), who additionally presented the explicit form of the equations for the first two monochromatic angular moments. Mayle (1985), Schinder (1988), and Mezzacappa & Matzner (1989) derived the GR Boltzmann equation for nondiagonal gauges, which have desirable singularity-avoidance properties; Schinder (1988) additionally derived the monochromatic and energy-integrated neutrino distribution zeroth and first angular moment equations.

The first fully GR numerical simulation of stellar core collapse, with the aim of modeling the supernova mechanism, was performed by Schwartz (1967), who coupled GR hydrodynamics in the diagonal gauge with equilibrium diffusion for the neutrino transport. This was followed by more elaborate stellar core collapse simulations by Wilson (1971), who developed a code coupling GR hydrodynamics and GR Boltzmann transport, again in the diagonal gauge, but utilizing much simplified (compared to more recent simulations) neutrino physics (e.g., all neutrino scatterings were treated as absorptions). Other codes were subsequently constructed to simulate stellar core collapse with some implementation of GR—Bowers & Wilson (1982) (post-Newtonian hydrodynamics, some order $`v/c`$ effects in neutrino transport), Van Riper & Lattimer (1981); Van Riper (1982) (GR Hydrodynamics), Bruenn (1985) (GR Hydrodynamics, transport of order $`v/c`$), Mayle (1985) (post-Newtonian hydrodynamics, gravitational redshifting of neutrinos), Myra & Bludman (1989) (GR hydrodynamics, gravitational redshifting of neutrinos), Cooperstein et al. (1986) (hydrodynamics and neutrino transport to order $`v/c`$), Fryer et al. (1999); Fryer (1999) (GR hydrodynamics), Bruenn et al. (2000a) (GR hydrodynamics and transport) Liebendörfer et al. (2000) (GR hydrodynamics and transport).

While the above indicates that a number of codes have been constructed which implement GR at various levels of approximation (and which implement neutrino transport at various levels of approximation), direct comparisons between Newtonian and GR simulations are few. An exception to this occurred during the period from the late 1970’s through most of the 1980’s. During this period a viable explosion mechanism, referred to as the “prompt mechanism”, was thought to be a purely hydrodynamic one wherein the collapsing core on regaining dynamic stability at nuclear densities overshoots its new equilibrium position and then rebounds to a larger radius. During rebound, the expanding core acts like a spherical piston and generates a shock wave which propagates into the overlaying matter. While the generation of a shock wave on core bounce is a generic feature of core collapse, the prompt mechanism requires that this shock be strong enough to directly propagate outward through the mantle, reverse the velocity of the material there, and eject the outer layers of the star explosively, thereby “promptly” causing the supernova explosion. Critical to the prompt mechanism is the initial strength of the bounce shock and the mass of the outer core through which it must propagate before entering the mantle. This, in turn, was found to depend sensitively on the equation of state and on the use of GR hydrodynamics (Van Riper, 1978; Van Riper & Arnett, 1978; Van Riper, 1979; Baron et al., 1985, 1987; Van Riper, 1988; Swesty et al., 1994). Comparisons of Newtonian versus GR simulations of core infall and bounce show that the stronger “gravitational attraction” of GR and its tendency to reduce the difference above nuclear density between the effective adiabatic index of the matter and the critical adiabatic index causes the GR simulations to produce higher density bounces, larger rebound amplitudes, and stronger initial shocks.

The failure of the prompt mechanism to produce explosions when modeled with accurate neutrino transport (except possibly for a very limited region of core masses and equation of state parameters) and the inability of spherically symmetric simulations to produce explosions at later times caused much of the research on the core collapse supernova mechanism in the early to mid 1990’s to shift to the role of multidimensional effects, and in particular, convection. This focus on convection was motivated in part by the potential of convection for increasing the likelihood of explosions, and in part by a number of observations of SN 1987A, which indicate that extensive mixing occurred throughout much of the ejected material, pointing, by inference, to fluid instabilities arising during the explosion itself. These investigations have employed multidimensional simulations with Newtonian hydrodynamics and transport (Herant, Benz, & Colgate, 1992; Herant et al., 1994; Miller, Wilson, & Mayle, 1993; Janka & Müller, 1996a, b; Burrows, Hayes, & Fryxell, 1995;Mezzacappa et al., 1998a, b). While this work is extremely important, it has ignored the role of GR.

Recent developments in core collapse supernovae theory (e.g., the possibility of r-process nucleosynthesis in neutrino driven winds, further investigations of convection and rotation) have resulted in a growing number of simulations performed with the incorporation of various levels of GR. This, together with the restriction of previous comparisons of Newtonian and GR simulations to infall and bounce, and to the hydrodynamic sector of these simulations, has motivated us to extend these comparisons to the core evolution well beyond bounce and to the neutrino transport sector of the simulations as well.

Two fully GR radiation-hydrodynamic codes have recently been developed which implement multigroup neutrino transport. One code, BOLTZTRAN-AGILE, developed by Liebendörfer (2000), couples GR hydrodynamics, GR Boltzmann neutrino transport, and the Einstein equations. This code is a marriage of an adaptive mesh, conservative GR hydrodynamic code (Liebendörfer, 2000) with a three-flavor Boltzmann neutrino transport solver (Mezzacappa & Bruenn, 1993a, b) extended to GR. The other code, MGFLD-TRANS, developed by (Bruenn, DeNisco, & Mezzacappa, 2000a), couples GR multigroup flux-limited diffusion (MGFLD) to Lagrangian GR hydrodynamics. Both codes give qualitatively similar results for core collapse simulations, and quantitative comparisons are in progress.

Our purpose in this paper is to present results of simulations performed with MGFLD-TRANS of the collapse, bounce, and subsequent ($``$ 1 second) evolution of the cores of massive stars. These simulations will be compared with Newtonian simulations, performed with the Newtonian limit of this same code, in order to assess the effects of general relativity for the evolution of the stellar core, particularly during the critical phase in which the shock stalls and the success or failure of the supernova explosion is thereafter by a competition between the neutrino heating behind the shock and the accretion ram. The code itself will be described in detail in another paper (Bruenn et al., 2000a), but we will give a further very brief description below.

MGFLD-TRANS solves the GR hydrodynamics equations, the GR MGFLD transport equations, and the Einstein equations. A 3 + 1 formalism using a diagonal gauge is used to advance the equations in time. The metric used is

$$ds^2=a^2(t,m)c^2dt^2b^2(t,m)dm^2r^2(t,m)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the total rest mass enclosed by a shell of radius r, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are metric functions. Operator splitting is used to couple the hydrodynamics and transport codes and, very roughly speaking, is implemented by advancing first the matter configuration and metric functions through a time step $`tt+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ using the GR hydrodynamics (using the neutrino fields at time $`t`$), and then advancing the neutrino distribution through the same time step with the GR MGFLD code. The code is capable of performing 1D fully GR simulations of all phases of stellar core collapse and core collapse supernovae. Because of the sensitivity of the supernova mechanism to the neutrino spectra, we believe it is essential that numerical simulations be performed with multigroup neutrino transport. In this way, the neutrino spectrum is computed ab initio, rather than assumed, and the critical energy-dependent neutrino interactions can therefore be calculated accurately.

The plan of this paper is as follows: In Section 2 we give a brief account of the current core collapse supernova paradigm in order to set the stage for this work. We then outline in Section 3 our numerical methods and the simulations we perform. Because matter hydrodynamics and neutrino transport are closely coupled during stellar core collapse, we compare Newtonian and GR hydrodynamics in Section 4. This provides a basis for distinguishing between the modifications of neutrino transport that arise “directly” from the GR terms in the transport equations and those that arise from the effects of GR on the hydrodynamics. Neutrino transport is our focus in Section 5, where we investigate the effects of GR by comparing dynamical simulations that use various combinations of Newtonian and GR hydrodynamics and transport. We state our conclusions in Section 6.

## 2 Supernova Paradigm

To set the stage for this work, we very briefly review the current core collapse supernova paradigm, which is referred to as the “shock reheating mechanism” or “delayed mechanism” (Wilson, 1985; Bethe & Wilson, 1985). It is based on the original Colgate & White (1966) idea that a core collapse supernova explosion is driven by neutrino energy deposition, but the paradigm has been much modified and refined over the intervening years. All investigators agree with the paradigm’s account of the initial phases of the mechanism, which starts with the destabilization and collapse of the core of a massive star. When the density of the core exceeds nuclear matter density, the homologously collapsing inner core rebounds and drives a shock into the outer core. This “bounce” shock, which must ultimately explode the star, weakens and stalls between 100 and 200 km. This temporary “demise” of the shock is brought about by the reduction in the postshock pressure due to both the dissociation of nuclei in the material passing through by the shock and the intense outward radiation of neutrinos from the postshock region. The stalled shock becomes an accretion shock, separating the supersonically infalling material at larger radii from the material at smaller radii, which is subsonically settling onto the surface of the proto-neutron star. Within 10’s of milliseconds, the structure of the core becomes quasi–steady-state. Infalling matter encounters the shock and is shock dissociated into free nucleons. As these nucleons continue to flow subsonically inward, they are heated by absorbing a small fraction of the neutrinos that are being radiated from the hot contracting core. As this accreting matter continues to flow inward, neutrino and compressional heating increase its temperature until the cooling rate, which goes as the sixth power of the temperature, exceeds the heating rate. The inflowing matter thereafter cools and ultimately accretes onto the core. An important radius that we will have a number of occasions to refer to is the “gain radius,” at which the heating and cooling rates balance. Above the gain radius, heating by the absorption of neutrinos dominates; below the gain radius, cooling by the emission of neutrinos dominates. (Gain radii can be defined analogously for each neutrino flavor, e.g., the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ gain radius is the radius at which $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ heating and $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ cooling vanish.)

It is here that the shock reheating mechanism becomes murky, as different groups fail to agree on when, how, or even if the shock is revived. The problem is that simulating this epoch realistically presents many difficulties. Neutrino transport plays a key role, for example, but until now the state of the art in neutrino transport algorthms has been multigroup flux-limited diffusion. In this scheme, the neutrino spectrum is computed as part of the transport solution rather than being assumed, which is very important, but the diffusion and free streaming limits are bridged by interpolation. Unfortunately, this interpolation encompasses the critical neutrino heating region between the gain radius and the shock. Furthermore, a generic problem with flux-limited diffusion is that it underestimates the isotropy of the neutrino distribution when the transition from large to small neutrino opacities is abrupt, as it is near the neutrinospheres shortly after the formation of the proto-neutron star. \[Fortunately, “exact” Boltzmann transport simulations of neutrino transport are becoming available (Mezzacappa & Bruenn, 1993c, a, b; Messer et al., 1998; Mezzacappa et al., 2000).\] Another difficulty is that the neutrino heating between the gain radius and the shock sets up an unstable entropy gradient that drives convection. This convection, referred to as neutrino-driven convection, may help in reviving the shock, but can only be modeled realistically by multidimensional (preferably 3-dimensional) simulations. It is also likely that fluid instabilities also arise below the neutrinospheres, and these may drive fluid motions which, by advecting entropy and leptons to or from the neutrinospheres, may modify the neutrino transport. It is not clear yet whether these fluid instabilities above and below the neutrinopsheres play an essential or a peripheral role in the explosion mechanism. In any case, the radius of the shock is determined by the competition between the thermal and convective pressure generated by neutrino heating, on the one hand, and by the ram pressure of the infalling material on the other. The generation of a successful explosion requires that this radius becomes unstable (Burrows & Goshy, 1993) so that quasi-hydrostatic readjustment becomes impossible, i.e., that the neutrino heating be sufficiently rapid in the region between the gain radius and the shock for the thermal and convective pressure to overcome the accretion ram, causing the shock to accelerate outwards. Unfortunately, explosions seem to be marginal at best in many of the detailed numerical simulations, and perhaps in Nature as well; therefore, they depend sensitively on the implementation of the physics and numerics: e.g., the equation of state, neutrino opacities, hydrodynamics, neutrino transport, and general relativity. In particular, realistic simulations of core collapse supernovae must include the effects of GR.

## 3 Method

To assess the GR effects on the evolution of the core in the context of the above core collapse supernova paradigm, we have performed two sets of simulations, one set initiated from a 15 $`M_{}`$ precollapse model, S15s7b, the other set initiated from a 25 $`M_{}`$ precollapse model, S25s7b. These precollapse models were provided by Woosley (1995), and are described in Woosley & Weaver (1995). The precollapse models S15s7b and S25s7b were chosen to represent small-iron-core and large-iron-core precollapse models, respectively. When core collapse begins, the iron core mass of model S15s7b is 1.278 $`M_{}`$, while that of model S25s7b is 1.770 $`M_{}`$.

The set of simulations initiated from model S15s7b consists of a simulation with Newtonian hydrodynamics and Newtonian transport, referred to as simulation S15s7b\_nt, a hybrid simulation with GR hydrodynamics and Newtonian transport, referred to as simulation S15s7b\_hyb, and a fully GR simulation, referred to as simulation S15s7b\_gr. Likewise, the set of simulations initiated from model S25s7b consists of the same combinations of Newtonian and GR hydrodynamics and transport, and are referred to as S25s7b\_nt, S25s7b\_hyb, and S25s7b\_gr. In each simulation, the model was evolved through core collapse, bounce, and through an 0.8 to 1.0 second interval after bounce. (The simulations beginning with S25s7b with GR hydrodynamics (viz., simulations S25s7b\_hyb and S25s7b\_gr) resulted in the formation of an event horizon $``$ 0.6 seconds after bounce, and had to be terminated.) For the simulations carried out with Newtonian transport (viz., simulations S15s7b\_nt, S15s7b\_hyb, S25s7b\_nt, and S25s7b\_hyb), the transport was computed using the Newtonian limit of our fully GR MGFLD code, MGFLD-TRANS, described briefly in Section 1. In this limit, the code is essentially as described in Bruenn (1985) and Bruenn & Haxton (1991). We will refer to this transport as “Newtonian MGFLD”, even though, technically, the transport equations in this limit are derived from the $`O(\frac{v}{c})`$ Boltzmann equation. For the simulations carried out with GR transport (viz., simulations S15s7b\_gr and S25s7b\_gr), the neutrino transport was computed with MGFLD-TRANS in its fully GR mode.

With the above described simulations, we will compare Newtonian and GR hydrodynamics as they affect such quantities as the locations of the shock, the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ gain radii, and the infall speed of the matter between the shock and the gain radii (and therefore the time available for a comoving fluid element to be heated by neutrinos). We will also compare Newtonian and GR transport as they affect such quantities as the luminosities and rms energies of each neutrino flavor. Comparisons between the Newtonian and hybrid simulations will highlight the effects on the neutrino transport of the differences between Newtonian and GR hydrodynamics. On the other hand, the hydrodynamics in the hybrid and the fully GR simulations is the same, and comparisons between these simulations will highlight the differences between Newtonian and GR neutrino transport.

In all simulations, the Lattimer-Swesty equation of state (Lattimer & Swesty 1991) was used when the following three conditions were satisfied locally: (1) $`n_\mathrm{B}>10^8`$ fm<sup>-3</sup> ($`\rho >1.67\times 10^7`$ g cm<sup>-3</sup>), where $`n_\mathrm{B}`$ is the number density of nucleons (free and bound) per cubic Fermi, (2) $`T>0.05`$ MeV, and (3) the matter was assumed to be in nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE). The Cooperstein-BCK equation of state (Cooperstein, 1985; Baron, Cooperstein, & Kahana, 1985) was used when the second and third condition was satisfied, but not the first. For nuclei not in NSE, which comprised the silicon layer, oxygen layer, and other exterior layers until they encountered the shock, the nuclei were treated as an ideal gas (with excited states), and a nine-species nuclear reaction network was used to follow the nuclear transmutations. A zone not in NSE were flashed to NSE if its temperature reached 0.44 MeV (Thielemann, Nomoto, & Hashimoto, 1996). Three-flavor GR multigroup flux-limited diffusion, as described in (Bruenn et al., 2000a), was used for the neutrino transport, with twenty energy zones spanning in geometric progression the neutrino energy range from 4 MeV to 400 MeV. The neutrino microphysics described in Bruenn (1985) and Bruenn & Haxton (1991) was used, as well as the ion screening corrections given by Horowitz (1996), described in detail in Bruenn & Mezzacappa (1997).

## 4 General Relativistic versus Newtonian Hydrodynamics

The structure of the core during the shock reheating epoch consists of a quasi-stationary accretion shock separating the supersonic infall of mantle material outside the shock from the subsonic inward flow of material between the shock and the surface of the proto-neutron star. This structure is similar to that of a neutron star undergoing hypercritical accretion (i.e., accretion far in excess of the photon Eddington limit), which can occur after the supernova explosion if some of the ejecta falls back onto the neutron star, or if a neutron star spirals into the envelope of a binary companion. Hypercritical accretion has been investigated by Colgate (1971), Zel’dovich, Ivanova, & Nadëzhin (1972), Blondin (1986), Chevalier (1989), Chevalier (1995), and Houck & Chevalier (1991). As emphasized by Houck & Chevalier (1991) and Chevalier (1995), the steady-state position of the shock is determined by the condition that the neutrino radiation, which occurs in a thin layer around the neutron star surface, release the gravitational binding energy gained by the infalling material. The neutrino radiation occurs in a thin layer because of the sensitivity of the neutrino emissivity to the temperature. The dependence is $`T^9`$ for the pair process, applicable for the wide range of expected accretion rates ($`10^8`$$`10^4`$ $`M_{}`$/yr) after the supernova, and $`T^6`$ for electron and positron capture, applicable for the much higher accretion rates (and densities) during the shock reheating epoch.

Houck & Chevalier (1991) studied hypercritical accretion onto a neutron star with GR hydrodynamics and found that the shock radius was reduced by a factor of about two from the value given by Newtonian hydrodynamics. Their explanation for this GR reduction in shock radius applies to a similar reduction in shock radius found in our simulations of the shock reheating epoch. The explanation begins with the fact that the pressure at the neutron star surface is fixed by the temperature required for neutrinos to radiate away the gravitational binding energy of the infalling material. At a given accretion rate, more binding energy must be radiated away with GR than with Newtonian hydrodynamics because of the more compact core structure and deeper gravitational potential well that results with GR. On the other hand, the high temperature sensitivity of the neutrino emission rates leads to temperatures in the two calculations, and therefore pressures, that do not differ greatly at the emission surface despite the difference in the emission rates. Above the emission surface, however, the stronger effective gravitational field strength in the GR calculation results in a larger pressure gradient. The approximately equal pressures at the neutron star surfaces in the two calculations together with a larger pressure gradient in the GR calculation results, in the latter calculation, in a more compact structure between the neutron star surface and the shock.

Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism compare the shock radius and the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ gain radii as a function of time for the postbounce evolution of models S15s7b and S25s7b, respectively, as given by Newtonian and GR hydrodynamics for the same (Newtonian) transport, i.e., simulations S15s7b\_nt, S15s7b\_hyb, S25s7b\_nt, and S25s7b\_hyb. We mention again that the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ gain radius for the inflowing material is the radius at which cooling by $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ emission is equal to heating by $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ absorption. Above the gain radius, $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ heating dominates; below the gain radius, $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ cooling dominates. The $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ gain radius is defined analogously, and, as in the case of the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$’s, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ heating and cooling dominate above and below the $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ gain radius, respectively. The energy transfer between neutrinos and matter behind the shock during the postshock evolution considered here is mediated primarily by the charged current reactions

$$\nu _\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{e}^{},\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}+\mathrm{e}^+.$$
(2)
Although $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ neutrinos are also emitted by the proto-neutron star at this time, they couple very weakly with the material above the proto-neutron star and, therefore, play a negligible role in matter heating. We omit their gain radii in Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism.

It is seen from the figures that, as in the case of hypercritical accretion onto a fully formed neutron star, the structure above the proto-neutron star during the shock reheating epoch is considerably more compact in the GR simulations than in the Newtonian simulations. The shock radius is reduced by a factor of about 2 after $`t_{pb}0.3`$ s for simulation S25s7b\_hyb versus simulation S25s7b\_nt, and after $`t_{pb}=0.6`$ s for simulation S15s7b\_hyb versus simulation S15s7b\_nt. Throughout most of the postbounce evolution, the distance between the gain radius and the shock is also reduced by a factor of about 2 for the simulations with GR hydrodynamics. This constriction of the heating region exhibited by the simulations with GR hydrodynamics will result in a reduction in the time spent in this region by inwardly moving fluid elements, and therefore, for given neutrino luminosities and rms energies, in a reduction in the net heat acquired by these fluid elements.

In addition to the width of the heating region, the material inflow speed through the heating region affects the net heat acquired by the material, and is modified by the use of GR hydrodynamics. We note first that the material inflow speed through the heating region below the shock is a very shallow function of the radius. This behavior can be understood from the fact that the flow below the shock is subsonic, approximately adiabatic until intense cooling sets in near the neutrinospheres, and has an approximately constant $`\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is the adiabatic index. Under these conditions (Chevalier, 1989),

$$vr^{(32\gamma )/(\gamma 1)},$$
(3)
which follows by integrating the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium and the continuity equation through this region. Now the material below the shock is a mixture of radiation, leptons, and free baryons, with a value of gamma between 1.4 and 1.5. Equation (3) shows that $`v`$ is indeed a rather shallow function of $`r`$ for this range of gamma. We can therefore characterize the speed of the material through the heating region by its immediate postshock velocity. Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism compares the postshock velocities as a function of time for simulations S15s7b\_nt, S15s7b\_hyb, S25s7b\_nt, and S25s7b\_hyb. It is seen that the postshock velocities given by the simulations with GR hydrodynamics, i.e., simulations S15s7b\_hyb and S25s7b\_hyb, are substantially larger in magnitude than those given by the simulations with Newtonian hydrodynamics, i.e., simulations S15s7b\_nt and S25s7b\_nt, the difference being $``$ 2 for each model after roughly 0.2 s. The larger postshock velocities in the GR simulations follows from the fact that (a) the immediate preshock velocities in the GR limit are about a factor of 2 larger than those given in Newtonian limit because of the smaller shock radii and the stronger effective gravity in the GR case, and (b) the fact that the ratios of the velocities across the shock are approximately the same for both the Newtonian and GR simulations. The differences between GR and Newtonian hydrodynamics, in particular, the much reduced time that a given fluid element spends between the shock and the gain radius in the GR simulations, may have implications for the development of neutrino-driven convection.

## 5 General Relativistic versus Newtonian Hydrodynamics and Transport

In this section, we will compare complete dynamic simulations of core collapse with Newtonian hydrodynamics and transport, GR hydrodynamics and Newtonian transport, and GR hydrodynamics and transport.

### 5.1 Infall and Bounce

We will begin our comparisons with the infall, bounce, and immediate postbounce epochs as computed with Newtonian hydrodynamics and transport, viz., simulations S15s7b\_nt and S25s7b\_nt, and GR hydrodynamics and transport, viz., simulations S15s7b\_gr and S25s7b\_gr. Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova MechanismGeneral Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism show radius versus time trajectories of Lagrangian surfaces enclosing selected rest masses. Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism show this for the GR simulations, Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism show this for the corresponding Newtonian simulations. For both precollapse models, collapse to bounce takes slightly less time in the GR simulations — 0.1829 s for S15s7b\_gr versus 0.2013 s for S15s7b\_nt, and 0.2723 s for S25s7b\_gr versus 0.2895 s for S25s7b\_nt. Bounce occurs at a slightly higher density in the GR simulations — $`4.23\times 10^{14}`$ g/cm<sup>3</sup> for S15s7b\_gr versus $`3.20\times 10^{14}`$ g/cm<sup>3</sup> for S15s7b\_nt, and $`4.15\times 10^{14}`$ g/cm<sup>3</sup> for S25s7b\_gr versus $`3.34\times 10^{14}`$ g/cm<sup>3</sup> for S25s7b\_nt. For both models, the shock propagates slightly farther out in radius in the GR simulations before receding — 172 km for S15s7b\_gr versus 155 km for S15s7b\_nt, and 231 km for S25s7b\_gr versus 226 km for S25s7b\_nt. After the secondary quasistatic rise in the shock radius, the shock radius declines considerably more rapidly in the GR simulations than in the corresponding Newtonian simulations.

Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism shows for simulations S15s7b\_gr and S15s7b\_nt the luminosity as a function of time for $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$’s, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$’s, and $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s. Here $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ refers to either a $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$, or $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$. (These have very similar interactions with matter at the energies of importance in core collapse supernovae, and are treated identically in the transport code.) Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism is similar, plotting the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ luminosities as a function of time for simulations S25s7b\_gr and S25s7b\_nt. The spike in the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ luminosity is produced when the shock propagates out through the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$-sphere, which at this time is located at a radius of roughly 100 km for all models. The source of the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ luminosity spike is (a) the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$’s produced by the rapid electron capture on the free protons released by the shock-dissociated nuclei, and (b) their production near the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$-sphere which results in their rapid escape from the core. The delay in the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$-burst for S15s7b\_nt relative to S15s7b\_gr, and in S25s7b\_nt relative to S25s7b\_gr, is a consequence of the corresponding delay in the bounce and shock generation in the Newtonian relative to the GR simulations, described above. In the case of simulations S25s7b\_gr and S25s7b\_nt (Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism), there is a small secondary spike in the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ luminosities that occurs $``$ 15 ms after the primary $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ spike. These spikes are caused by the recollapse of material that occurs $``$ 15 ms following bounce, as evident in Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism. The recollapse of material draws in and heats the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ neutrinospheres, thus hardening the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ spectra (Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism) and increasing their luminosities.

Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism shows for simulations S15s7b\_gr and S15s7b\_nt the rms energy as a function of time for the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$’s, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$’s, and $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s. Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism is similar, plotting the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ rms energies as a function of time for simulations S25s7b\_gr and S25s7b\_nt. These figures show that in all the simulations there is a trifurcation of the rms energies of the different neutrino flavors which begins immediately after bounce—the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$’s having the smallest rms energy at any given time, and the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s having the largest. This well known effect is caused by the flavor dependence of the coupling strength of neutrinos with matter, which cause the different neutrino flavors to thermally decouple from the matter at different radii. The $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$’s and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$’s thermally couple with matter primarily by the charged current processes (2). For a given neutrino energy, the large neutron to proton ratio in the core endows the matter with higher $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ opacity than $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ opacity, and the $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$’s therefore tend to thermally decouple from the matter deeper in the core where it is hotter. The $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s lack any charged current opacity contribution, and they thermally decouple from the matter deepest in the core and thus have the highest rms energies.

A feature in these plots that appears in all the simulations is the prominent spike in the rms energy of the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s at bounce. The luminosities of the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s at this time are still small, so the overall number of $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s affected is small. The spike in the rms energy has its origin in the compression of the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s by the shock immediately before it propagates through the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-sphere, and is numerical artifact of the pseudoviscous terms in the numerical hydrodynamics which enable the hydrodynamics code to track shock waves automatically, but which spread the shock compression-front over several radial zones. This numerical artifact arises from the fact that, unlike the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$’s and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$’s, the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-opacity is dominated by isoenergetic scattering on nucleons and nuclei. Much weaker are the processes that thermally equilibrate the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s with matter, i.e., nucleon bremsstrahlung (not included in these simulations), neutrino-electron scattering, and $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-$`\overline{\nu }_x`$ pair annihilation. Therefore, the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-thermalization-sphere, defined as having the radius at which the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s are last thermally equilibrated with the matter, lies considerably deeper in the core than the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-sphere, defined as having the radius at which the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s decouple from the matter completely. During the brief time that the supernova shock generated from core bounce propagates outward through the region between the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-thermalization-sphere and the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-sphere, the artificially large width of the pseudoviscous-spread shock compression-front exceeds the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-scattering mean-free-paths, and the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$’s are therefore compressed along with the matter and boosted up in energy. The $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-spectrum, which normally reflects the conditions at the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-thermalization-sphere, is thus momentarily and unphysically hardened by this shock-compression.

### 5.2 Shock Reheating

Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism shows a comparison of the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ luminosity as a function of time during the shock reheating epoch for simulations S15s7b\_nt, S15s7b\_hyb, and S15s7b\_gr. Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism are similar to Figure General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and show, respectively, a comparison of the $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ luminosity and the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ luminosity for these simulations. Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism, General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism, and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism show, respectively, a comparison of the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ luminosity as a function of time during the shock reheating epoch for the simulations S25s7b\_nt, S25s7b\_hyb, and S25s7b\_gr. Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism show that the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ luminosities for all simulations of model S25s7b exhibit an abrupt decline beginning at about 0.42 s after bounce. This occurs when the interface between the silicon and oxygen shells passes through the neutrinospheres. There is a considerable jump in entropy and a corresponding drop in density at this interface, and the passage of this interface through the neutrinospheres reduces the mass accretion rate there by almost a factor of three. This substantially reduces the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$ accretion luminosities, and accounts for the above mentioned drop in their overall luminosities. The $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ luminosity arises deeper in the core, has very little contribution from the accreting matter, and is therefore unaffected by the drop in the mass accretion rate.

Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism, General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism, and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism show, respectively, a comparison of the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ rms energy as a function of time from bounce for the simulations S15s7b\_nt, S15s7b\_hyb, and S15s7b\_gr. Figures General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism, General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism, and General Relativistic Effects in the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism do the same for the simulations S25s7b\_nt, S25s7b\_hyb, and S25s7b\_gr. The neutrino luminosities and the rms energies exhibit a trend that is common to all neutrino flavors for both models S15s7b and S25s7b. During the shock reheating phase, the luminosity and rms energy of any neutrino flavor increase when switching from Newtonian to GR hydrodynamics, and decrease when switching from Newtonian to GR transport. The increase in the neutrino luminosity and rms energy in switching from Newtonian to GR hydrodynamics can be understood by recalling that GR hydrodynamics produces a more compact core structure, as discussed in Section 4. This results in hotter neutrinospheres at smaller radii. For example, in simulation S15s7b\_nt, at 0.4 s after bounce, the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$-sphere has a radius and temperature of 37.7 km and 3.89 MeV, respectively. The corresponding values for radius and temperature in simulation S15s7b\_hyb are 29.0 km and 4.80 MeV, respectively. At the same postbounce time, the $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$-sphere has a radius and temperature of 35.5 km and 4.15 MeV, respectively, in simulation S15s7b\_nt, compared to a radius and temperature of 27.0 km and 4.92 MeV, respectively, in simulation S15s7b\_hyb. Moreover, at this time, the $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$-thermalization-sphere has a radius and temperature of 25.8 km and 6.53 MeV, respectively, in simulation S15s7b\_nt compared to a radius and temperature of 24.28 km and 7.66 MeV, respectively, in S15s7b\_hyb.

The decrease in the luminosity and rms energy of all neutrino flavors when switching from Newtonian to GR transport is primarily a consequence of (a) gravitational redshift, as the neutrinos propagate out to large distances, and (b) the difference between the rate of proper time at the respective neutrinospheres and at large radii. The gravitational redshift occurs as a neutrino propagates from its neutrinosphere to a large radius and affects both the neutrino luminosity and rms energy. The difference between the rates of proper time causes an additional reduction in the neutrino luminosity (by the same factor as the gravitational redshift), as it causes an observer at a large radius to see a reduced rate of photon emission from the neutrinosphere.

The radii and temperatures of the various $`\nu `$-spheres are similar for simulations S15s7b\_hyb and S15s7b\_gr at corresponding times after bounce. The same is true for simulations S25s7b\_hyb and S25s7b\_gr. They differ from the radii and temperatures given by the corresponding Newtonian simulations, S15s7b\_nt and S25s7b\_nt, mainly by the tendency, discussed above, of the GR hydrodynamics to produce a more compact and hotter core structure. Therefore, the main effect on the radii and temperatures of the various $`\nu `$-spheres occurs when switching from Newtonian to GR hydrodynamics. However, there are some other rather small effects on the properties of the $`\nu `$-spheres that occur when switching from the hybrid to the fully GR simulations. For example, as the neutrinos gradually decouple from the matter, they propagate outward with increasingly long mean free paths. In the simulations with GR transport, they consequently suffer some gravitational redshifting between successive interactions with the matter before they completely decouple. This slightly lowers their rms energies, reduces their interaction cross sections, and causes them to decouple from the matter at a slightly smaller radius. The net effect is a slight reduction (about 0.2 km) in the radii of the neutrinospheres. These small effects will be discussed in Bruenn et al. (2000a), along with a detailed description of the GR transport code.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusions

We have developed a general relativistic MGFLD neutrino transport code, coupled it to Lagrangian GR hydrodynamics, and used it to simulate core collapse supernovae. Beginning with several precollapse models, we have performed purely Newtonian simulations, hybrid simulations using general relativistic hydrodynamics and Newtonian MGFLD neutrino transport, and fully general relativistic simulations. We have shown that the effect of general relativistic hydrodynamics, versus Newtonian hydrodynamics, is to make substantially more compact the structure of the core up to the stagnated shock: the shock radius is reduced by a factor of 2 for postbounce times exceeding 300 ms for model S25s7b and 600 ms for model S15s7b. Moreover, the inflow speed of the material behind the shock is also increased by about a factor of 2 throughout most of the postbounce evolution in these models.

We have also compared the $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\nu _x`$ luminosities and rms energies for the same three sets of simulations. We find that switching from Newtonian to GR hydrodynamics increases the luminosity and rms energy of all neutrino flavors during the shock reheating epoch. This arises because of the more compact core structures that develop with GR hydrodynamics, which yields $`\nu `$-spheres at smaller radii and higher temperatures. The higher $`\nu `$-sphere temperatures increase the luminosities and rms energies of all three neutrino flavors. The smaller radii reduce their luminosities, but not enough to offset the luminosity increase due to the higher temperatures. Switching from Newtonian to GR transport reduces the luminosities and rms energies of all three neutrino flavors during the shock reheating epoch because of the gravitational redshift of the neutrinos as they propagate out to large radii and because of the difference between the rate of proper time at the various $`\nu `$-spheres compared with the rate of proper time at larger radii. With one exception (the rms $`\nu _\mathrm{x}`$ energies for model S15s7b), the reduction in neutrino luminosities and rms energies when switching from Newtonian to GR transport does not fully compensate for the increase in these quantities when switching from Newtonian to GR hydrodynamics. Therefore, the net effect in switching from a fully Newtonian to a fully GR simulation in most cases is an increase in both the luminosities and rms energies of neutrinos of all flavors during the shock reheating epoch.

The results described in this paper show that GR effects make substantial changes in both the structure of the postcollapse core and the neutrino emission (luminosities and spectra) at this epoch. Therefore, it is important that simulations focused on the supernova mechanism, observables such as the neutrino signatures in underground neutrino observatories, and the nucleosynthesis occurring in the neutrino-driven wind immediately following a supernova explosion, be carried out in the fully GR limit.

SWB and KRD are supported at Florida Atlantic University in part by NSF grant AST–9618423 and NASA grant NAG5-3903. AM is supported at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Some of the simulations presented here were performed on the Multidisiplinary Research Computing Facility (MDRCF) at the College of Science at Florida Atlantic University, funded in part by FAU and the NSF.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the past LEP and SLC have contributed a lot to our knowledge of particle physics. On one hand the measurements of the Z-mass and couplings near the Z pole and the measurement of the W mass above the W-pair threshold test the Standard Model at the loop level and open a window to new physics at much higher scales through virtual effects. On the other hand the large cross section at the Z pole for all fermions apart from t-quarks provides a rich source for some particles like $`\tau `$’s, D-mesons or B-mesons that can be studies in a rather clean environment.

A linear collider can potentially repeat all the measurements done at LEP and SLC with much higher statistics. It is therefor worth studying in which fields Z-running at such a machine can still contribute in the light of the competition from new machines, namely the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ B-factories, run II of the Tevatron and the LHC.

## 2 The Giga-Z setup

The Linear Collider in the so called Giga-Z scenario should be able to provide about $`10^9`$ recorded Z-decays. As it will be discussed later this is only useful if also a high degree of electron polarization ($`80\%`$) is possible. In addition one needs either a very good precision on polarimetry ($`𝒪(0.10.5\%)`$) or positron polarization of at least 20%.

In addition to Z running also running with similar luminosity at the W-pair threshold should be possible.

In the NLC design  the positron source under study is independent of the electron beam. It is thus feasible to start the machine around the Z-pole and upgrade it to higher energies later.

The TESLA design  uses the high energy ($`>150\mathrm{GeV}`$) electron beam to produce the positrons by sending the beam through a wiggler or a helical undulator. To run at the Z-pole one needs one part of the electron arm to produce the $`45\mathrm{GeV}`$ physics beam and the other part to accelerate the high energy beam for positron creation. In this design one would therefor prefer to come back to the Z pole only after the basic high energy program is completed.

Table 1 shows the luminosity, beamstrahlung and depolarization for the two designs. The option with low beamstrahlung is shown for the NLC as an example, however it is possible with all designs.

The total hadronic cross section at the Z pole is given by $`\sigma \sigma _u(1+𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{})`$ with $`𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}`$ ($`𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{}`$) being the positron (electron) polarization and $`\sigma _u30\mathrm{n}\mathrm{b}`$. $`10^9`$ Zs can thus be be produced in 50-100 days of running with a Z rate of 100-200Hz. If it is found worthwhile also $`10^{10}`$ Zs can be produced in three to five years (150days/year) of running time.

The beamstrahl effects seem manageable and the depolarization in the interaction is almost negligible.

## 3 Electroweak Physics

The interesting quantities in electroweak physics, accessible at Giga-Z are:

* the normalization of the Z axial-vector coupling to leptons ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$) which is measured from the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$;
* the effective weak mixing angle measured from the ratio of vector to axial vector coupling of $`Z\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$);
* the mass of the W ($`m_\mathrm{W}`$);
* the strong coupling constant from the Z hadronic decay rate ($`\alpha _s(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$);
* the vertex correction to Zbb vertex measured from $`R_\mathrm{b},𝒜_\mathrm{b}`$.

From the parameters listed above $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ are obtained from a scan of the Z-resonance. Table 2 shows the LEP precision on the minimally correlated observables. $`\alpha _s`$ can be obtained from $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ only. For $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$, however, one needs to improve on all parameters apart from $`m_\mathrm{Z}`$, so that a scan and an absolute luminosity measurement are needed.

A measurement of the beam energy relative to the Z-mass of $`10^5`$ seems possible. This would improve the relative accuracy on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}`$ to $`0.410^3`$. The selection efficiency for muons, taus and hadrons should be improved by a factor three relative to the best LEP experiment , resulting in $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}/R_{\mathrm{}}=0.310^3`$. Also the experimental error on the luminosity might improve by this factor. However if the theoretical uncertainty stays at its present value (0.05%) the possible precision on $`\sigma _0^{\mathrm{had}}`$ is only $`0.610^3`$. It should however be noted that beamstrahlung plus energy spread increase the fitted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}`$ by about $`60\mathrm{MeV}`$ and decrease $`\sigma _0^{\mathrm{had}}`$ by 1.8%, where the majority comes from the beamspread. For the $`\alpha _s`$ measurement these effects need to be understood to roughly 10% while for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ one needs 2%. There is the potential to achieve this precision with the acolinearity measurement of Bhabha events  or to extend the scan to five scan points and fit for the beamspread, but both options need further studies.

Table 3 compares the parameters that can be obtained from a scan at Giga-Z with the results obtained at LEP. Gains of a factor two to three are generally possible.

Much more interesting are the prospects on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ . With polarized beams the most sensitive observable is the left-right cross section asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$:

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒫}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _L\sigma _R}{\sigma _L+\sigma _R}}`$
$`=`$ $`𝒜_\mathrm{e}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2v_ea_e}{v_e^2+a_e^2}}`$
$`v_e/a_e`$ $`=`$ $`14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$
independent of the final state. With $`10^9`$ Zs, an electron polarization of 80% and no positron polarization the statistical error is $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}=410^5`$. The error from the polarization measurement is $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}/A_{\mathrm{LR}}=\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫/𝒫`$. With electron polarization only and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫/𝒫=0.5\%`$ one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}=810^4`$. If also positron polarization is available $`𝒫`$ in equation (3) has to be replaced by $`𝒫_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}+𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{}}{1+𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{}}`$. For $`𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{}(𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+})=80\%(60\%)`$, due to error propagation, the error in $`𝒫_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is a factor of three to four smaller than the error on $`𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+},𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{}`$ depending on the correlation between the two measurements .

However, with positron polarization a much more precise measurement is possible using the Blondel scheme . The total cross section with both beams being polarized is given as $`\sigma =\sigma _u\left[1𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{}+A_{\mathrm{LR}}(𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}𝒫_\mathrm{e}^{})\right]`$. If all four helicity combinations are measured $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ can be determined without polarization measurement as

$$A_{\mathrm{LR}}=\sqrt{\frac{(\sigma _{++}+\sigma _+\sigma _+\sigma _{})(\sigma _{++}+\sigma _+\sigma _++\sigma _{})}{(\sigma _{++}+\sigma _++\sigma _++\sigma _{})(\sigma _{++}+\sigma _++\sigma _+\sigma _{})}}$$

Figure 1 shows the error on $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ as a function on the positron polarization. For $`𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}>50\%`$ the dependence is relatively weak. For $`10^9`$ Zs a positron polarization of 20% is better than a polarization measurement of $`0.1\%`$ and electron polarization only.

However polarimeters for relative measurements are still needed. The crucial point is the difference between the absolute values of the left- and the right-handed states. If the two helicity states for electrons and positrons are written as $`𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^\pm }=\pm |𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^\pm }|+\delta 𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^\pm }`$ the dependence is $`\mathrm{dA}_{\mathrm{LR}}/\mathrm{d}\delta 𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^\pm }0.5`$. One therefor needs to understand $`\delta 𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^\pm }`$ to $`<10^4`$. To achieve this a polarimeter with at least two channels with different analyzing power to handle effects like polarization dependent e-$`\gamma `$ luminosity internally is needed.

Due to $`\gamma Z`$-interference the dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ on the beam energy is $`\mathrm{dA}_{\mathrm{LR}}/\mathrm{d}\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=210^2/\mathrm{GeV}`$. The difference $`\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$ thus needs to be known to $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$. For the same reason beamstrahlung shifts $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ by $`910^4`$ (TESLA design), so its uncertainty can only be a few percent. If beamstrahlung is identical in the Z-scan to calibrate the beam energy it gets absorbed in the energy calibration, so that practically no corrections are needed for $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$. How far the beam parameters can be kept constant during the scan and how well the beamstrahlung can be measured still needs further studies. However, for $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ only the beamstrahlung and not the beamspread matters. If the beamstrahlung cannot be understood to the required level in the normal running mode one can still go to a mode with lower beamstrahlung increasing the statistical error or the running time.

Other systematics should be small. A total error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}=10^4`$ will thus be assumed, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}=0.000013`$. This is an improvement of a factor 13 relative to the combined LEP/SLD  result.

For the b-quark observables one profits from the improved b-tagging and, in the case of the forward backward asymmetries, also from beam polarization. In summary for $`R_\mathrm{b}`$ a factor five improvement and for $`𝒜_\mathrm{b}`$ a factor 15 is possible relative to LEP/SLD . If the present slight discrepancy between the measured and the predicted $`𝒜_\mathrm{b}`$ is real it cannot be missed with Giga-Z.

The cleanest way to measure the W-mass is from a threshold scan where no uncertainties from fragmentation, color reconnection etc. enter. Near threshold the cross section is dominated by the neutrino t-channel exchange with a phase space suppression of $`\beta `$, compared to the $`\beta ^3`$ suppressed s-channel. The hard process is thus dominated by the well understood We$`\nu `$-coupling. However, for the radiative corrections a full one loop calculation is needed, since the double pole approximation  is not applicable in this region. To estimate the obtainable precision on $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ a scan around $`\sqrt{s}=161\mathrm{GeV}`$ has been simulated  with $`=100\mathrm{fb}^1`$, corresponding to one year of running. Beam polarization has been used to enlarge the signal and to measure the background which requires a polarization measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫/𝒫<0.25\%`$. Assuming efficiencies and purities as at LEP the error on $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ will be $`6\mathrm{MeV}`$ if the luminosity and the efficiencies are known to $`0.25\%`$, increasing to $`7\mathrm{MeV}`$ if they are left free in the fit.

Before the precision data can be interpreted in the framework of the Standard Model or one of its extensions the uncertainties of the predictions stemming from the uncertainties in the input parameters need to be discussed. At the moment the by far largest uncertainty, especially for the prediction of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ comes from the running of the electromagnetic coupling from zero to the Z-scale. Using data only, ignoring the latest BES results, the uncertainties on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}=0.00023`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{W}=12\mathrm{MeV}`$ . Using perturbative QCD also at lower energies, these errors can be reduced by about a factor of three . Only if the hadronic cross section up to the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is known to 1% the errors can be brought down to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}=0.000017`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{W}<1\mathrm{MeV}`$ .

The $`2\mathrm{MeV}`$ error on the Z mass induces an error of 0.000014 on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and, if the beam energy is calibrated relative to the Z-mass $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$ on $`m_\mathrm{W}`$. Unless a new circular collider for Z-pole running is built, where it is easier to measure the absolute energy scale, this error limits even further improvement on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

A $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ error on $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}=0.00003`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{W}=6\mathrm{MeV}`$. With an error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{t}100\mathrm{MeV}`$ as it is expected from a threshold scan at a linear collider, the contribution from $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ on the predictions will be negligible.

If it is assumed that the Standard Model is the final theory the Higgs mass can be determined from the Giga-Z data to a precision of 5%. Figure 2 compares the sensitivity of the Higgs fit to the Giga-Z data with the present situation .

Also in extensions of the Standard Model the precision data can be used to predict model parameters. As an example figure 3 shows a possible prediction for $`m_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the MSSM, once the light Higgs is found and the parameters of the stop sector are measured .

The data can also be analyzed within the model independent $`\epsilon `$  or STU  parameters. Figure 4 shows the allowed regions in the $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _3`$ (S-T) plane with $`\epsilon _2`$ (U) fixed to its Standard Model prediction for various configurations compared to the Standard Model. Removing $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ from the fit is equivalent to not constraining $`\epsilon _2`$ (U). The tight constraint in the direction of the SM trajectory is dominated by the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ measurement, while the orthogonal direction mainly profits from $`m_\mathrm{W}`$.

Figure 5 shows as an application the S,T-predictions from the 2-Higgs doublet model (2HDM) for the cases, where a light Higgs exists, but cannot be seen  compared to present and Giga-Z data. Only Giga-Z allows to distinguish the Standard Model with a light Higgs from the 2HDM, but this also needs the precise measurement of $`m_\mathrm{W}`$.

## 4 B-physics

Within $`10^9`$ Z-decays about $`410^8`$ B-hadrons are produced. This is a sample comparable to the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$-B-factories. Compared to these machines the large boost allows a good separation of the two B’s in the event and gives a much better decay length resolution. In addition all B-hadron species are produced, while at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ only $`B^0`$ and $`B^\pm `$ are present.

Compared to the experiments at hadron colliders (BTeV, LHCb) the statistics is much smaller. However all events are triggered and the environment is much cleaner.

Due to the large forward backward asymmetry with polarized beams one gets also a very efficient tagging of the initial state flavor from the direction of the event axis only. In all other machines the flavor must be tagged by reconstructing the other B in the event.

Up to now the studies mainly repeat the ones done for the other machines. Only very little exists on reactions that cannot be measured somewhere else.

To understand CP-violation in B-decays the time dependent asymmetries in $`B^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s^0`$ have been analyzed to measure $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to measure $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ . The analysis of $`B^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s^0`$ is experimentally relatively easy. For $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ one needs to separate the mode from $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. Figure 6 shows the reconstructed invariant mass for these two modes under the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ hypotheses for the TESLA detector. The excellent mass resolution separates the two modes already very well and the remaining background can be rejected using dE/dx in the TPC.

Table 4 compares the Giga-Z reach with other machines for $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ under the assumption that the penguin contributions to $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ are negligible. For $`10^9`$ Zs interesting cross checks are possible while for $`10^{10}`$ Zs the linear collider gets highly competitive.

To disentangle the penguin contributions to $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ the branching ratios $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{B}^0\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{B}^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)`$ can be measured. With $`10^9`$ Zs the precision at Giga-Z is similar to the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$-B-factories.

The large boost and the good vertex resolution also offers the possibility to measure $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$-mixing . In the fully reconstructed mode $`B_sD_s\pi ,D_s\mathrm{\Phi }\pi ,KK`$ the detector resolution is about $`40\mathrm{p}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Probably $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$-oscillations will be discovered at that time, but the good resolution should allow for a precise measurement of the frequency.

There are also some studies which are only possible in the Giga-Z environment. As two examples  one can measure the branching ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{s}\nu \overline{\nu })`$ or one can test quark hadron duality in B-decays, for example by measuring $`V_{cb}`$ in $`B_s`$-decays. This assumption is essentially untested but is needed for the interpretation of many results.

## 5 Other physics topics

In principle all LEP/SLD analyses can be repeated at Giga-Z. However many of them are already now systematics limited or can be done better at other machines. Not many detailed studies exist beyond the ones already reported.

One field specific to $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ colliders running on the Z pole is the study of flavor violating Z decays. The lepton flavor violating decays $`Ze\tau ,\mu \tau `$ have been studied in detail . With $`10^9`$ events Giga-Z is sensitive to the $`10^8`$ level. With this precision one would be sensitive to the predictions of models with heavy neutrinos in the $`\mathrm{TeV}`$ mass range or some supersymmetric models.

## 6 Detector and machine issues

In the present design NLC plans to run for Giga-Z with 180 bunch trains per second, 190 bunches per train and a bunch spacing of 1.4ns. On the contrary TESLA might run with 5 bunch trains per second, 2800 bunches per train and a bunch spacing of 340ns. In the NLC design the detector basically integrates over a full bunch train, while for TESLA single bunches can be separated. Table 5 shows the Z-multiplicity per NLC train or TESLA bunch.

Z counting for the $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ measurement should be possible in both cases. However how much a larger Z multiplicity inside an NLC train affects more complicated B-physics analyses needs detailed studies.

The presently planned detectors provide excellent momentum resolution, b-tagging and hermeticity and are more or less ideal for the electroweak measurements. The excellent vertexing also helps to separate different Zs within one bunch or train using the different vertex positions along the beam axis.

For some analyses in B-physics a good particle identification is required. Partly this can be replaced by the superb invariant mass resolution and the large magnetic field helps also to separate close-by particles to optimize the dE/dx resolution. Past experience has shown that specialized particle identification devices for this energy region tend to compromise the other features of the detector so that it is not clear in how far a detector optimized for B-physics at Giga-Z would be different from the high energy one.

$`10^9`$ Zs can be recorded in 50 to 100 days of running. Since some Z running is required for detector calibration in any case this can be accommodated easily within the normal schedule of the machine.

If however $`10^{10}`$ Zs are found a worthwhile goal, which needs several years of running, one might need a specialized interaction region and detector that can run simultaneously with the high energy experiment.

## 7 Conclusions

With a relatively modest effort a huge gain in the precision measurements on the Z-pole is possible. Also the W-mass can be improved significantly if one year is spent for it. These measurements allow stringent tests of the then-Standard-Model. By no means the possibility to do these measurements should be excluded by the machine and detector designs.

Some interesting cross check in B-physics can be done with $`10^9`$ Zs and there might be the possibility to improve on the precision from hadron machines with $`10^{10}`$ Zs. However this option needs further studies and it is too early to conclude on that.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers of the conference for the superb organization and the pleasant atmosphere at the meeting. Also I’d like to thank J. Gunion, S. Heinemeyer, T. Raubenheimer, P. Rowson, B. Schumm, N. Walker, G. Weiglein, and M. Woods for useful discussions.