format: text

text:
# A Black Hole of >6 M⊙ in the X-ray Nova XTE J1118+4801

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The X-ray nova XTE J1118+480 was discovered with the RXTE All-Sky Monitor on 2000 March 29 (Remillard et al. 2000). In outburst the optical counterpart brightened by about 6 mag to V $``$ 13 (Uemura et al. 2000). Extensive optical data in outburst reveal that the orbital period is $``$ 4.1 hr (Patterson 2000; Uemura et al. 2000; Garcia et al. 2000; Dubus et al. 2000). XTE J1118+480 has one truly exceptional attribute: Its very high galactic latitude, b = +62o, and its correspondingly low reddening, E(B-V) $``$ 0.013 mag (N$`{}_{H}{}^{}1.0\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2; Hynes et al. 2000), make it the least reddened of all known X-ray binaries.

Including XTE J1118+480, very strong evidence now exists for black hole primaries in eleven X-ray novae (McClintock 1998; Filippenko et al. 1999; Orosz et al. 2000). Since XTE J1118+480 was known to be optically bright in quiescence (R $``$ 18.8; Uemura et al. 2000), the source appeared to be a good prospect to become the eleventh black-hole X-ray nova. Thus we monitored the brightness of the optical counterpart closely when it first appeared in the night sky in late October and we found that it had returned to its pre-outburst brightness (e.g. V = 19.0 on 2000 October 29.48 UT). In early December, using the new 6.5m MMT, we obtained the spectroscopic observations detailed herein.

## 2. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

Spectroscopic observations of XTE J1118+480 were obtained with the new 6.5 m MMT telescope at the F. L. Whipple Observatory on the nights of 2000 December 1 and 4 (UT). The Blue Channel spectrograph was used with the Loral CCD (3072 x 1024) detector and the 500 gpm grating. This configuration yielded $``$ 3.6 Å resolution (FWHM) for a slit width of 1.0′′, which approximately matched the seeing on the two observing nights. The sky conditions were clear. Two exposures of XTE J1118+480 (900 s each) were obtained on December 1, and six additional exposures (900–1200 s each) were obtained on December 4. Immediately before and after each observation of the object, an exposure was obtained of a wavelength calibration lamp (He-Ne-Ar). We also observed BD+12447, an M2 dwarf with a well-determined systemic velocity, and the flux standard Feige 34. In our data analysis, we also made use of spectra of six additional dwarf stars, which were obtained with precisely the same focal-plane instrumentation in earlier MMT observing runs. The wavelength calibrations were interpolated dispersion solutions scaled according to the time of an observation relative to the time of the lamp exposures. Cross correlations between the flux-calibrated spectra of XTE J1118+480 and the template spectra of the G/M dwarfs were computed for the range 4900–6500 Å. The spectral reductions and the cross-correlation analysis were performed using the software package IRAF555 IRAF (Image Reduction and Analysis Facility) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation..

Photometric monitoring observations were performed using the 1.8 m Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) located at the Mount Graham International Observatory on the nights of 2000 November 30 and December 1 (UT). These observations were conducted using the VATT CCD Camera and Loral CCD detector (2048 x 2048 pixels) and a Harris I filter ($`\lambda _0`$ = 8105 Å; FWHM = 1624 Å). The CCD was binned at 2x2 pixels providing a scale of 0.4′′/pixel. Ninety-six consecutive images were obtained on November 30 and an additional 53 images were obtained on December 1. The typical integration time was 120 s and the time between consecutive observations was typically 3 minutes. On both nights, seeing was 2′′ at the start of the observations due to high airmass, but quickly improved to 1′′ thereafter. There was light cirrus on the first night, and the second night was clear. Images were processed to eliminate the electronic bias, correct for pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations, and remove significant interference fringes in the images. The relative intensities of XTE J1118+480 and selected field stars were computed by using DAOPHOT photometry. The photometric calibration was performed using Landolt standard stars.

Figure 1: Spectroscopic and photometric data folded on the orbital period and the ephemeris given in Table 1. (a) Radial velocity measurements of the secondary star. Smooth curve is a fit to a circular orbit based on the velocity amplitude and phase given in Table 1. (b) The residual differences between the data and the fitted curve. Open/filled symbols are for December 1/4, respectively. (c) Top trace is the I-band light curve of XTE J1118+480 with a superposed ellipsoidal model. Filled/open symbols are for November 30/December 1, respectively. Lower trace shows the intensity of a nearby comparison star of magnitude I = 17.0; the trace has been offset by 0.75 mag for convenience of display. The rms variation in the star’s intensity is 0.015 mag.

## 3. SPECTROSCOPIC RESULTS

We used the spectra of the velocity standards as cross-correlation templates to derive a radial velocity curve for the secondary star. The eight individual spectra of XTE J1118+480 were cross-correlated against each of our seven template stars, which ranged in spectral type from G8V to M2V. Comparable velocity curves were obtained with each template spectrum. However, based on the Tonry & Davis (1979) R value, which is a measure of signal to noise achieved in a cross-correlation, we found that the K3V, K5V and K5/8V templates yielded the best correlations. The eight velocities derived using the K5/8V template star, GJ9698, are shown in Figure 1a. The velocity data imply that the secondary star in XTE J1118+480 is orbiting a compact object with a velocity amplitude of approximately 700 km s-1. The large velocities of the secondary contrast sharply with the behavior of the night-sky lines, which show an rms variation of less than 10 km s-1.

Assuming a sine function, the velocities are well fit by the orbital parameters given in Table 1, where $`T_0`$ is the time of maximum velocity, $`V_0`$ is the systemic velocity, $`K_2`$ is the velocity semiamplitude of the secondary, and $`P`$ is the orbital period. These four parameters were fit simultaneously using the IDL routine curvefit. A preliminary account of these dynamical results (McClintock et al. 2001) and the consistent results obtained by a second group (Wagner et al. 2001) appeared earlier in the IAU Circulars. In §4 we argue that the period given in Table 1 is the correct orbital period, not an alias. In fitting the velocities, we have assumed that the eight velocity errors are all the same because the R values are all comparably high ($``$ 7-12). We have adjusted this error to the value 24 km s-1 in order to give $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 1.0. The orbital parameters in Table 1 define the velocity ephemeris, which is represented by the solid line in Figure 1a. The post-fit residuals are shown in Figure 1b. The mass function may be derived from the above results:

$$f(M)\frac{(M_1sini)^3}{(M_1+M_2)^2}=\frac{PK_2^3}{2\pi G}=6.00\pm 0.36M_{}.$$

Since the mass of the compact primary necessarily exceeds the value of the mass function, our results imply that the primary is much too massive to be a neutron star within general relativity and is therefore a black hole (Rhoades & Ruffini 1974).

| TABLE 1 | |
| --- | --- |
| SPECTROSCOPIC ORBITAL PARAMETERS | |
| Parameter | Result |
| $`T_0`$ (UT)a | 2000 December 1.6476$`\pm `$ 0.0010 |
| $`T_0`$ (heliocentric)a | JD 2,451,880.1485$`\pm `$ 0.0010 |
| $`V_0`$ (km s-1) | 26$`\pm `$17 |
| $`K_2`$ (km s-1) | 698$`\pm `$ 14 |
| $`P`$ (days) | 0.17013$`\pm `$0.00010 |
| a2 sin $`i`$ (R$`{}_{}{}^{})^b`$ | 2.35$`\pm `$ 0.05 |
| $`f(M/M_{}`$) | 6.00$`\pm `$ 0.36 |
| aTime of maximum redshift. | |
| --- | --- |
| bProjected orbital radius of the secondary. | |

An average of the six spectra taken on December 4 in the rest frame of the secondary star is shown in Figure 2a. Before averaging the individual spectra, they were Doppler shifted to zero velocity using the velocities predicted by the ephemeris in Table 1. The spectrum of the template star, GJ9698, is shown in Figure 2b for comparison. Most of the stronger absorption lines of GJ9698 are evident in XTE J1118+480. The most prominent features are the continuum discontinuity at Mg $`b`$ ($``$5175 Å) and the Na I 5890-96 Å doublet. As noted above, the cross-correlation analysis favors template stars of mid-K spectral type over those with spectral types of M0V or later. However, an inspection of the rest-frame spectrum itself suggests that it is somewhat later than mid-K. Given our limited signal-to-noise, we conclude that the spectral type of the secondary is in the range K5-M1. Since the orbital period and mass estimates imply a binary separation of $``$ 3 R, the secondary is presumed to be luminosity class V.

Because of the very low column depth to the source (§1), the Na I line is quite free of interstellar contamination. We therefore use its equivalent width to estimate the relative contributions of the secondary star and the accretion disk to the total light at 5900 Å. For the spectrum of XTE J1118+480 (Figure 2a) we find EW = $`2.8\pm 0.2`$Å. For five comparison stars with spectral types ranging from K5V to M1V, we find EW = 6.6–10.8 Å. From these results we conclude that the K/M dwarf secondary contributes 34% $`\pm `$ 8% of the total light at 5900 Å, a result we use in §4 to analyze the ellipsoidal light curve and we now use to estimate the distance to the source.

Figure 2: (a) Spectrum of XTE J1118+480 in the rest frame of the secondary star. The photospheric absorption features are most apparent in this frame; however, the prominent Balmer emission lines are significantly distorted. (b) The spectrum of GJ9698, which was used as a velocity template for the cross-correlation analysis.

We estimate the distance to XTE J1118+480 using “method II” described in Barret, McClintock, & Grindlay (1996). For the secondary, we compute an average density of $`\rho =6.9`$ g cm-3 from the orbital period and assume M2 = 0.4 M, which is very probably correct to within a factor of 2 (e.g. van Paradijs & McClintock 1994). With these inputs we calculate R2 = 0.45 R. We use the total magnitude of the optical counterpart, V = 19.0 (§1), and the fraction of the light contributed by the secondary, to estimate the magnitude of the secondary: V = 20.1 $`\pm `$ 0.3. Finally, for the range of spectral types in question, K5V–M1V, we obtain an estimate of the distance: d = 1.8 $`\pm `$ 0.6 kpc. There are two nearly equal ($``$ 25%) contributions to the error: the uncertainty in the spectral type of the secondary, and the (assumed) factor of two uncertainty in the mass of the secondary.

The spectrum of XTE J1118+480 shows strong Balmer lines, which indicate the presence of an accretion disk. In individual exposures, the Balmer lines are often double-peaked and broad with widths in the range 2300–2900 km s-1 (FWHM).

## 4. PHOTOMETRY RESULTS

The I-band light curve of XTE J1118+480 folded on the spectroscopic ephemeris is shown in Figure 1c; data for a comparison star of comparable magnitude are plotted just below. The light curve shows two maxima and two minima per orbital cycle. This behavior is the hallmark of an ellipsoidal light curve, which is commonly observed for quiescent black-hole X-ray novae. However, the light curve deviates significantly from an ideal ellipsoidal light curve, which is represented by the solid line (see §5), in several ways. For example, there is extra light near phase 0.8, which can be explained as due to the bright spot (Warner 1995). A more problematic deviation from the ellipsoidal model is the apparent phase lag of the light curve relative to the spectroscopic ephemeris. Fitting the light curve to a sinusoid gives a phase lag of 0.050 $`\pm `$ 0.008, which corresponds to a time delay of 12.2 $`\pm `$ 2.0 minutes. In contrast, studies of other quiescent X-ray novae indicate good agreement between the photometric and spectroscopic phases (e.g. McClintock & Remillard 1986; Shahbaz et al. 1994; Orosz & Bailyn 1997). Consequently, this 12-minute phase lag calls into question the ellipsoidal nature of the light curve. Possibly XTE J1118+480 was not yet fully quiescent during our observations, even though our dynamical results (Table 1) are entirely consistent with those obtained more than a month earlier by Wagner et al. (2001). Possibly our light curve is dominated by eclipse effects, which can effectively shift the phase of a light curve. An example of this phenomenon is the set of light curves observed for GRO J1655-40 as it approached quiescence in early 1995 (see Fig. 1 in Bailyn et al. 1995). Future observations in deep quiescence can be expected to resolve these issues. In the meantime, we assume below in §5 that the light curve is ellipsoidal.

Could this 12-minute phase difference be due to an error in the data clock at either the VATT or the MMT? We believe that the answer to this question is “no”, despite the fact that the performance of these clocks was not rigorously checked at the time of the observations. The time base for both observatories is Network Time Protocol (NTP) via SUN computers, which routinely provides reliable and precise time to these observatories. Moreover, both observatories also use their NTP connection for the precise ($``$ 1”) pointing of their telescopes. If the NTP-based time had been in error by even 10 s during the observations, the telescope operator and observer would have noted gross errors in the telescope pointing; none was observed. Finally, independent and simultaneous photometry of XTE J1118+480 was obtained by P. Groot using the FLWO 1.2m telescope; the light curve derived from these data agrees in phase with our VATT light curve to within 0.010 in phase or 2.4 minute in time. We conclude that a terrestrial origin of the 12-minute phase offset appears very unlikely, and we believe that the offset is due to the source itself.

We searched the photometric data shown in Figure 1c for periodicities by computing the variance statistic of Stellingwerf (1978) for trial periods between 0.01 d and 0.5 d. Deep minima in the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-statistic occur only at $`P_{phot}`$ = 0.170 $`\pm `$ 0.006 d and at half that period. The statistical uncertainty in the period determination was estimated using a Monte Carlo method (Silber et al. 1992). The adopted spectroscopic period is approximately $`P=0.1701\pm 0.0001`$ d (Table 1) and its two closest aliases are $`P_{}`$ = 0.1610 d and $`P_+`$ = 0.1803 d. We now give four reasons for rejecting these alias periods and adopting $`P`$ = 0.1701 d as the orbital period: (1) The light curves obtained by folding the photometric data on $`P_{}`$ and $`P_+`$ are complex and much less compelling than the light curve shown in Figure 1c, as expected since they differ from the best photometric period by $`>1.5\sigma `$. (2) A superhump modulation (Warner 1995) was repeatedly observed during outburst; its period decreased from 0.1708 $`\pm `$ 0.0001 d (Patterson 2000) to 0.1703 $`\pm `$ 0.0001 d (Uemura et al. 2000) over the course of several weeks. These results argue very strongly in favor of $`P`$ = 0.1701 $`\pm `$ 0.0001 d and against the aliases (e.g. Bailyn 1992; Kato, Mineshige & Hirata 1995). (3) The $`T_0`$ given by Wagner et al. (2001) agrees with our $`T_0`$ for $`P`$ = 0.1701 $`\pm `$ 0.0001 d, but disagrees if one adopts $`P_{}`$ or $`P_+`$. (4) Wagner et al. (2001) independently found $`P`$ = 0.1699 $`\pm `$ 0.0001 d with spectroscopic observations separated by 10 nights. We therefore conclude that $`P`$ = 0.17013 $`\pm `$ 0.00010 d is the correct orbital period.

## 5. ON THE MASS OF THE BLACK HOLE

We now use the absence of X-ray eclipses and a preliminary analysis of the light curve to further constrain the mass of the black hole. Despite very extensive X-ray observations of XTE J1118+480 in outburst, no X-ray eclipses have been reported. We can use this result to place an upper limit on the inclination angle, which boosts somewhat the 6.0 M mass limit that is set by the mass function. We consider two models for the secondary: (1) An 0.5 M star with a radius of 0.5 R that just fills its Roche lobe. In this case we find that an absence of eclipses implies i $`<`$ $`79.5^\mathrm{o}`$ and M1 $`>`$ 7.2 M. (2) A very low-mass secondary, M2 = 0.2 M, which we assume just fills its Roche lobe radius of 0.35 R. In this case, we find i $`<`$ $`81.8^\mathrm{o}`$ and M1 $`>`$ 6.5 M. Here we have used the mean radius of the Roche lobe in calculating the eclipse condition.

We modeled the I-band light curve (Fig. 1c), which we assume to be ellipsoidal (but see §4), using a computer code written by Yoram Avni (1978; see also Orosz & Bailyn 1997). We assumed a K7V stellar atmosphere, a limb darkening coefficient of u = 0.60 (Al-Naimy 1978), and a gravity darkening exponent of $`\beta `$ = 0.08. We assumed that the star fills its Roche lobe and that its rotation period is the orbital period. We further assumed that M1/M2 =20, although the light curve is very insensitive to the choice of this parameter for M1/M$`{}_{2}{}^{}10`$. The biggest uncertainty is the fraction of the light at 8100 Å that is non-stellar; we call this component the “disk fraction.” For the purposes of this approximate analysis, we assume that the disk fraction at 8100 Å is 66%, the same as the value we derived at 5900 Å in §3. We computed a set of ellipsoidal models for the star for i = $`40^\mathrm{o}`$ to i = $`90^\mathrm{o}`$ in steps of $`5^\mathrm{o}`$. To each model, we added a constant component of the flux corresponding to the 66% contribution of the accretion disk.

The model that best matches the folded light curve is shown in Figure 1c. This model corresponds to a very high inclination, i = $`80^\mathrm{o}`$, and a value for the mass of M1 = 7.2 M (for M2 = 0.5 M). This result is consistent, but just barely, with the limits obtained above from the absence of X-ray eclipses. There are several caveats on this preliminary analysis, the most important of which concerns our use of the disk fraction at 5900 Å as a proxy for the unknown disk fraction at 8100 Å. The available evidence indicates that the disk fraction decreases with increasing wavelength (e.g. Oke 1977; Casares et al. 1993; Marsh, Robinson, & Wood 1994). Consequently, we have very likely added too much disk light to our models. As a hypothetical example, consider the effect of adding a disk fraction of only 40% (instead of 66%) to our models: In this case we would have found i = $`52^\mathrm{o}`$ and M1 = 13.2 M (for M2 = 0.5 M). A very strong upper limit on the mass is obtained by making the extreme assumption that the disk contributes no light at all in the I band. In this case we find i $`>40^\mathrm{o}`$ and M1 $`<`$ 24 M. Despite the overriding uncertainty in the I-band disk fraction, our provisional light curve results suggest that the orbital inclination is relatively high, i $`55^\mathrm{o}`$, and that the black hole mass is correspondingly modest M$`{}_{1}{}^{}`$ 10 M. The broad Balmer emission lines (§3) also suggest a high inclination.

## 6. CONCLUSION

With XTE J1118+480 there are now eleven X-ray novae that have been dynamically confirmed to contain black hole primaries. For XTE J1118+480 we find an exceptionally large mass function, $`6.00\pm 0.36`$ M, which is rivaled only by that of V404 Cyg (Casares, Charles, & Naylor 1992). XTE J1118+480 is additionally distinguished by having the shortest orbital period (4.08 hr) of the black hole binaries. Finally, the extraordinarily low column depth (N$`{}_{H}{}^{}1.3\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2) and modest distance ($``$ 1.8 kpc) of XTE J1118+480 make this system central to the study of Galactic black holes.

We are grateful to Paul Groot for help in confirming the photometric phase and to Mike Fitzpatrick and Frank Valdes for IRAF support. This work was supported in part by NASA through grant DD0-1003X and contract NAS8-39073.


text:
# Particle Dark Matter and Solar Axion Searches with a small germanium detector at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory

## 1 Introduction

Substantial evidence and well-founded arguments exist pointing out that the Universe may well consist of a suitable mixture of cold dark matter (CDM), hot dark matter (HDM) and baryons (in the amount required by the primordial nucleosynthesis), which together with a large component of dark energy could complete the proper gravitational balance of the Universe. Regarding the nature of the dark matter, there are compelling reasons to believe it consist mainly of cold non-baryonic particles. Among these candidates, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) and axions are the front runners. The lightest stable particles of supersymmetric theories, like the neutralino, describe a particular class of WIMPs. On the other hand, axions , the light pseudoscalar bosons emerging from the spontaneous breaking of the Peccei-Quinn symmetry proposed to solve the strong CP problem, are also favorite candidates to provide the dark matter density for masses of the order of microelectronvolts .

The direct detection of WIMPs relies on the measurement of their elastic scattering off the target nuclei of a suitable detector. The non relativistic and heavy (GeV – TeV) WIMPs supposedly filling (at least partially) the galactic haloes could hit a Ge nucleus producing a nuclear recoil of a few keV. Because of the small WIMP-matter interaction cross sections the rate is extremely low ranging from 1 to 10-2 c/kg/day according to the type of interaction and type of WIMP. The detection of such small and rare signals requires ultra–low background detectors with very low energy thresholds. Many experiments are underway using a variety of techniques to achieve both goals. Germanium ionization detectors have reached one of the lowest raw background levels of any type of detector and have a reasonable ionization yield($`0.25`$). Should they have sufficiently low energy thresholds, they would be attractive devices for WIMP direct detection. This paper presents the case of one of such germanium detectors of rather low energy threshold and fairly low background rate.

As it is well known, solar axions can been searched for with crystal detectors through the axion-to-X ray Primakoff conversion with coherent Bragg diffraction . This paper also deals with a search for such axions with the same germanium detector, COSME.

## 2 Experimental setup

The COSME detector is a p-type coaxial hyperpure natural germanium crystal, of dimensions 22 mm (length) $`\times `$ 52.5 mm (diameter) corresponding to an active volume of 44 cm3 and a mass of 234 g which has a long-term resolution of 0.43 keV full width at half maximum (FWHM) at 10.37 keV. The detector was specially built for dark matter searches, i. e., with a low energy threshold and ultralow background materials. The cryostat, of 1.5 mm thick electroformed copper, was made by Pacific National Northwest Laboratory (PNNL). The field effect transistor (FET) is shielded with 450 year old (Spanish) lead.

The COSME detector was formerly used in the Canfranc tunnel in one of the first dedicated searches for WIMPs . Now it has been placed in a deeper location in the same tunnel within a significantly improved shielding, the same as the IGEX experiment . The innermost shield of the IGEX and COSME detectors consists of 2.5 tons of archaeological lead 2000-year-old forming a 60 cm cube. The detector fits into a precision-machined hole in this lead block to minimize the empty space around the detector available to radon. Nitrogen gas, at a rate of 140 liters per hour, evaporating from liquid nitrogen, is forced into the detector chamber to create a positive pressure and to further avoid radon intrusion. The archaeological lead block is located inside of another shield made of bricks of low-activity-lead ($``$ 10 tons) forming all together a cube of 1 m on a side. A 2-mm-thick cadmium sheet surrounds the external lead shield, and two layers of plastic seal the assembly tightly. A cosmic ray muon veto covers the top and two sides of the shielding. Finally, an external polyethylene neutron moderator 20 cm thick (1.5 tons) covering the six sides of the cube complete the shield. The entire set-up is supported by an iron structure resting on noise-isolation blocks. The experiment is located in a room isolated from the rest of the laboratory which has an overburden of 2450 m.w.e., reducing the muon flux to a (measured) value of $`2\times 10^7`$cm-2s-1.

Further details about the detector are given in Ref. whereas the setup and shielding are described in the IGEX papers . The data acquisition and filtering techniques are similar to the previous experiment  but with the addition of muon vetoes working in anticoincidence as in IGEX .

## 3 Experimental Results

### 3.1 Spectrum

The COSME detector has been running during the years 1998 and 1999 in these new conditions, and has accumulated data corresponding to a statistics of 72.7 kg days of exposure. Figure 1 gives the experimental differential rate corresponding to this acquisition (thick line) compared to the previous set of data from 1990 to 1992  (thin line). A significant decrease of the background with respect to the former data is clearly shown. It is also worth noticing the near disappearance of the peaks at 8.98 keV and 10.37 keV corresponding to cosmogenically induced 65Zn and 68Ge isotopes (T1/2=244.3 d and 288 d EC X-rays from 65Cu and 68Ga respectively) after the long-term underground storage of the detector. Also the 46.5 keV peak of 210Pb shows a significant decrease.

The energy threshold achieved in this new setting is 2.5 keV and the long-term energy resolution obtained in the visible low energy peaks (Pb and Bi X-rays and 46.5 keV from 210Pb) was the same as in the previous run. The background in the low energy region (2.5 - 10 keV) is 0.7 c/keV/kg/day, an improvement of almost one order of magnitude compared with the previous run. The background goes down to 0.4 c/keV/kg/day in the 12–20 keV region, and 0.3 c/keV/kg/day in the 20–30 keV region. Although this background is not as low as that obtained in the other detectors sharing the same shielding (IGEX), its better threshold leads to an improved bound for low mass WIMP exclusion.

### 3.2 WIMP exclusion plot

As previously stated, the new data have been analyzed first to get a limit on the WIMP-nucleon cross section as a function of the WIMP mass. The exclusion plot is derived from the recorded spectrum in 0.5-keV bins (from the 2.5 keV threshold up to 50 keV), by requiring the theoretically predicted signal in an energy bin to be less than or equal to the (90% C.L.) upper limit of the (Poisson) recorded counts. The derivation of such an interaction rate signal assumes standard hypothesis and parameters, i.e., that the WIMPs form an isotropic, isothermal, non-rotating halo of density $`\rho =0.3`$ GeV/cm3, which has a maxwellian velocity distribution with $`v_{rms}=270`$ km/s (with an upper cut corresponding to an escape velocity of 650 km/s), and a relative Earth-halo velocity of $`v_r=230`$ km/s). Other, more elaborated halo models, as well as other kinematical parameters would lead to different results. The cross sections are normalized per nucleon assuming a dominant scalar interaction, as the most likely observable coupling with the current experimental sensitivities:

$$\sigma _{N\chi }=\sigma _{n\chi }A^2\frac{\mu _{W,N}^2}{\mu _{W,n}^2}$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is the target (germanium) mass number, $`\mu _{W,N}^2`$ is the WIMP-nucleus reduced mass, and $`\mu _{W,n}^2`$ the WIMP-nucleon reduced mass. The Helm parameterization  is used for the scalar nucleon form factor. The quenching factor has been assumed to be equal to 0.25, which is a good approximation if the relevant bins for the calculation of the exclusion plot are below $`10`$ keV, as is the case of COSME.

The exclusion plot derived from the data reported here following such a procedure is shown in figure 2 by a thick solid line. This result is compared with the limit obtained with the previous data of COSME (thick dashed line) as well as a combined contour obtained from several previous germanium experiments  (thin dotted line) and two recent germanium results, IGEX-DM  (thin dashed line) and Heidelberg-Moscow  (thin dot-dashed line). All the curves have been computed from the raw data with the same set of assumptions (except for those for which a 0.25 quenching factor was not a good aproximation, for which an appropriate energy dependence has been used ). The DAMA region corresponding to its reported annual modulation effect  is also shown. As can be seen, the new COSME plot improves other germanium bounds in the 12–30 GeV region and together with the other Canfranc results from Ge detectors (COSME I and IGEX-DM) provide the best bound below 200 GeV obtained. up to now with conventional germanium ionization detectors. Better exclusion contours have been obtained with NaI scintillators which use statistical pulse shape background discrimination , as well as with germanium bolometers which simultaneously detect ionization and allow an event-by-event background rejection.

### 3.3 Limit on axion-photon coupling

If axions exist they could be copiously produced in the core of the stars from where they can extract energy efficiently competing with other conventional mechanisms. The cooling of stars by axionic energy emission could affect the star’s properties and its evolution and so, to avoid conflict with the experimental observation, strong constrains on the coupling strength or mass of the stellar axion follow . The discovery of axions, if they exist, –either galactic or stellar– is one of the challenges of current astrophysics and various efforts are underway. As far as this second category of axions is concerned, a nearby and powerful source of stellar axions would be the Sun.

Crystal detectors provide a simple mechanism for solar axion detection . In fact, axions can pass in the proximity of the atomic nuclei of the crystal where the intense electric field can trigger their conversion into photons. In the process the energy of the outgoing photon is equal to that of the incoming axion. The axion production rate in the Sun –through Primakoff conversion of the blackbody photons in the solar plasma– can be easily estimated  within the standard solar model, resulting in an axion flux of an average energy of about 4 keV that can produce detectable X-rays when reconverted again in a crystal detector. Depending on the direction of the incoming axion flux with respect to the planes of the crystal lattice, a coherent effect can be produced when the Bragg condition is fulfilled, with the ensuing strong enhancement of the signal.

A useful parametrization of the solar axion flux at Earth is the following:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dE_a}=\sqrt{\lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{E_0}\frac{(E_a/E_0)^3}{e^{E_a/E_0}1}$$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$=($`g_{a\gamma \gamma }\times 10^8/`$$`\mathrm{GeV}`$-1)4 is a dimensionless coupling introduced for later convenience, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$=5.95 $`\times `$$`10^{14}`$ cm-2 sec-1 and $`E_0`$=1.103 keV.

Making use of eq. 2, as well as the cross-section of the process and appropriate crystallographic information, we have calculated the expected axion-to-photon conversion count rate $`R(t)`$ in a germanium detector (See ref. for further details). An example of the expected count rate is shown in figure 3 as a function of time during one day. As expected, the signal shows a strong time dependence throughout the day, due to the motion of the Sun in the sky. This correlation of the expected rate with the position of the Sun in the sky is a distinctive signature of the axion which can be used, at the least, to improve the signal/background ratio.

To extract all this information from a experimental set of data we introduce, following Ref. , the quantity:

$$\chi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\overline{R}(t_i)<\overline{R}>\right]n_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}W_in_i$$
(3)
where $`\overline{R}(t)=R(t)/\lambda `$, the $`n_i`$ indicates the number of measured events in the time bin $`t_i,t_i+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and the sum is over the total period $`T`$ of data taking. The brackets indicate time average.

By definition the quantity $`\chi `$ is expected to be compatible with zero in absence of a signal, while it weights positively the events recorded in coincidence with the expected peaks.

The time distribution of $`n_i`$ is supposed to be Poissonian, with mean:

$$<n_i>=\left[\lambda \overline{R}(t_i)+b\right]\mathrm{\Delta }t.$$
(4)
Assuming that the background $`b`$ dominates over the signal the expected average and variance of $`\chi `$ are given by:

$`<\chi >`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda A`$ (5)
$`\sigma ^2(\chi )`$ $``$ $`b/A`$ (6)
with $`A_iW_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Each energy bin $`E_k,E_k+\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ with background $`b_k`$ provides an independent estimate $`\lambda _k=\chi _k/A_k`$ so that one can get the most probable combined value of $`\lambda `$:

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\chi _k/{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}A_l`$
$`\sigma (\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}A_k/b_k\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (7)
This method provides an estimation of the axion-photon coupling $`g_{a\gamma \gamma }`$ if an axion signal is present in the experimental data (and is accessible to the sensitivity of the experiment), or an upper limit to $`g_{a\gamma \gamma }`$ in case of a negative result. If the exact orientation of the crystal is not known we must repeat the calculation for all possible ones, and take the most conservative result. We know only the direction of one of the crystallographic axis of COSME, which is vertical with respect to the laboratory frame, so we have repeated the calculation for all possible rotations around the fixed vertical axis. The different values for $`\lambda `$ so obtained are shown in figure 4 with the corresponding 90% error derived from $`\sigma (\lambda )`$. All of them are compatible with absence of signal, so taking the most conservative value, we obtain an upper limit $`\lambda <0.006`$ at 95% C.L., which corresponds to a limit on $`g_{a\gamma \gamma }`$:

$$g_{a\gamma \gamma }<2.78\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}^1$$
(8)
The application of the statistical analysis described above can be viewed as a background rejection technique, which in our case results in a reduction of about two orders of magnitude. The limit presented here is practically equal to that obtained by the SOLAX Collaboration with another Ge detector. These limits are the *mass independent* (although solar model dependent) most stringent laboratory bounds for the axion-photon coupling obtained so far. A recent result, however, obtained with the Tokyo helioscope  (a $``$ 2 m long superconducting magnet which converts axions into photons in a $``$ 4 Tesla magnetic field), improves by a factor 3-5 the COSME and SOLAX bounds for axion masses below 0.26 eV.

## 4 Conclusion

A small (234 g) germanium detector of natural isotopic abundance, with an energy threshold of 2.5 keV and an energy resolution of 430 eV at the 10.37 keV X-ray 68Ga peak, has collected data up to a statistics of 311 days, in a search for WIMPs. The timing information of the same set of data has allowed also a search for the characteristic time pattern of an hypothetical solar axion signal as expected from the relative motion of the detector with respect to the Sun along the day. Both searches have provided bounds for the couplings $`\sigma _W(m)`$ and $`g_{a\gamma \gamma }`$ of both types of hypothetical particles to matter and radiation respectively. The obtained results have been proven to be competitive (or superior) with other current searches of such types of particles, which use similar techniques.

## Acknowledgements

The Canfranc Astroparticle Underground Laboratory is operated by the University of Zaragoza under contract No. AEN99-1033. This research was partially funded by the Spanish Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT), the U.S. National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Vortex dynamics in the two-fluid model

## I Introduction

In recent years papers have been published which appear to give an exact expression for the transverse force, including the superfluid Magnus force, acting on a quantized vortex moving in a neutral superfluid . These methods were extended to give the transverse force on a flux line in a superconductor in the ultraclean limit , and to give a corresponding (but not easily calculable) expression for the longitudinal force on a vortex in a neutral superfluid . These results have been criticized  on the grounds that they do not agree with the widely, but by no means universally, accepted results in the literature . In particular, a transverse force proportional to the superfluid density, and independent of the normal fluid density and velocity, was found, whereas it is generally supposed that the asymmetrical scattering of phonons or rotons by a vortex, demonstrated many years ago by Lifshitz and Pitaevskii  and by Iordanskii , should lead to a contribution to the transverse force proportional to the normal fluid density and to the velocity of the vortex relative to the normal fluid component.

In order to shed new light on this controversy we have decided to examine carefully the predictions of the two-fluid model for a pinned vortex in a moving fluid. The two-fluid equations should be valid under conditions in which the pressure, temperature, and normal and superfluid velocities are varying slowly on the length scale set by the normal fluid mean free path. This cannot be true close to the core of a vortex, but it can be true everywhere if the vortex is pinned by a sufficiently large cylinder, on which either zero velocity or zero rate of shear (slip) boundary conditions are imposed. The equations are also valid at sufficient distances from the pinning center, even if the pinning center has a radius less than the mean free path. This line of thought is not entirely new, since similar arguments were used in the original work of Hall and Vinen  on vortex arrays in helium, and by Vinen  on mutual friction. Their arguments, however, did not address the question of a transverse force.

In sec. II we write down the equations of two-fluid theory for steady state flow, and examine the simple equilibrium solution associated with a vortex in a stationary fluid.

In sec. III we set up linearized steady state equations and study their solutions. We want to find solutions linearized about the equilibrium vortex solution, and examine the behavior of the steady state solutions at large distances from the vortex. Such an approach should be adequate to derive any transverse force proportional to normal fluid velocity and superfluid circulation, such as is quoted in refs. B, B and B, as well as to derive the force proportional to superfluid velocity and superfluid circulation. The partial differential equations are separable in cylindrical polar coordinates, so by a combination of analytical and numerical methods we can get a fairly complete description of those solutions that have the same symmetry as uniform flow past the vortex.

In sec. IV we examine the influence of boundary conditions on the solutions of the equations of motion. In our initial discussion we look at the case of a cylindrical inner boundary on which the normal fluid is at rest and the temperature is uniform. There is a complication, known long ago for the classical theory of flow of viscous fluid past a cylindrical obstacle, and discussed for superfluids in the works of Hall and Vinen  and Vinen , which is that the linearized equations are not valid at very large distances, where the Reynolds number is of order unity even though the speed of flow is small . This is true for any reasonable set of short-distance boundary conditions. This difficulty was circumvented by Oseen, and we can use the same technique. The drag force, in the linear regime, is transmitted by a normal fluid velocity which increases with the logarithm of the distance from the vortex core, but this must be cut off at some distance $`R_c`$ at which nonlinear inertial effects become more important than the viscous force. The cut-off may alternatively be set by the spacing between vortices, by the finite size of the system, or by finite viscous diffusion length at nonzero frequency of vortex motion. It was initially surprising to us that for these conventional boundary conditions there should be a transverse force, but it exists because the coupling between normal fluid flow and superfluid flow at small distances from the inner boundary produces it. We find that the magnitude of this transverse force is proportional to

$$\rho _n\frac{h}{m}\frac{u_n}{[\mathrm{ln}(R_c/r_0)]^2}\frac{L^2}{r_0^2},$$
(1.1)
where $`u_n`$ is the normal fluid velocity at distances of the order $`R_c`$, $`r_0>>L`$ is the distance from the axis at which inner boundary conditions are applied, and $`L`$ is the mean free path for excitations. This transverse force due to the normal fluid is small unless the radius of the boundary is comparable with the mean free path. A significant result that we get from our generalization of Lamb’s solution  of the Oseen equation is that at large distances from the vortex there is a normal fluid circulation, contrary to what was assumed by TAN, but this circulation is proportional to $`1/\mathrm{ln}^2U`$, where $`U`$ is the asymptotic normal fluid velocity, so it goes slowly to zero as the normal fluid velocity goes to zero. Our results do agree with TAN’s relation between the transverse force and the circulation of momentum at large distances. Some details of the calculation are shown in Appendix A.

In sec. V we give a brief discussion of how the inner boundary conditions can be modified to allow for the transverse force generated by flow of normal fluid past a bare vortex. Our study of the asymptotic flow shows that any force dependent on the normal fluid velocity is modified by a logarithmic dependence on the cut-off distance $`R_c`$. In the low velocity limit any force due to the normal fluid motion, such as the Iordanskii  force, is renormalized away by logarithmic denominators; the force on a bare vortex has the form given by eq. (1.1) in the case $`r_0L`$. In practice these terms should not be ignored, and may give a significant normal fluid contribution to the transverse force on a vortex, in addition to the superfluid Magnus force. The relation between vortex velocity and the transverse force on it does have a topological structure similar to the relation between voltage and current in a quantum Hall device , but, unlike the quantum Hall conductance, this relation is subject to large corrections due to the finite size of the system, or the nonzero value of the velocity, decreasing only as the reciprocal of the square of the logarithm of the relevant length parameter.

There is a discussion of the relation of this work to the original work of Hall and Vinen in Appendix B.

In a recent paper by Sonin  there is a similar discussion of the relation of the TAN results to two-fluid theory. Sonin argues that there must be an additional contribution to the Berry phase from the flow of phonons or rotons past a vortex, and that this force is transmitted to large distances by the usual hydrodynamic processes.

## II Equilibrium solutions

The equations of two-fluid hydrodynamics are given in the book by Khalatnikov , in eqs. 9-13, 9-14, 9-15, 9-16, 8-14, 8-19 and 9-11. We want these equations in steady state conditions, when all time derivatives are zero. The equation of conservation of matter is then

$$(\rho _s𝐯+\rho _n𝐮)=0,$$
(2.1)
where we have written $`𝐯`$ for the superfluid velocity, and $`𝐮`$ for the normal fluid velocity. The momentum balance equation (Navier–Stokes equation) is

$`_k\left(\rho _sv_iv_k+\rho _nu_iu_k\right)+_ip=_k[\eta (_ku_i+_iu_k)]`$

$$_i\left[\left(\frac{2}{3}\eta +\zeta _1\rho \zeta _2\right)𝐮+\zeta _1𝐮\rho \right],$$
(2.2)
where $`\eta `$ is the first viscosity, and the $`\zeta `$s are coefficients of second viscosity in the two-fluid model. We have set $`𝐣`$ equal to zero here, from eq. (2.1). The equation for superfluid dynamics integrates to give

$$\mu \mu _0+\frac{1}{2}v^2=(\zeta _4\rho \zeta _3)𝐮\zeta _3𝐮\rho .$$
(2.3)
The equation for thermal balance is

$$\left(S𝐮\kappa \frac{T}{T}\right)=\frac{R}{T},$$
(2.4)
where $`S`$ is the entropy density, $`\kappa `$ is the thermal conductivity, and $`R`$ is the rate of heat generation by dissipative processes, a term which is quadratic in the normal fluid velocity and temperature gradient, and will be set equal to zero in the linear approximation. Finally, there is a thermodynamic relation

$$dp=SdT+\rho d\mu +\frac{1}{2}\rho _nd(𝐯𝐮)^2.$$
(2.5)
The equilibrium vortex, if the pinning center has cylindrical symmetry, is described very simply by the solution

$`𝐮=0,𝐯={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{mr}}\widehat{\theta },\mu =\mu _0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^2r^2}},`$

$$\frac{dp}{dr}=\rho _s(r)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m^2r^3},T=T_0.$$
(2.6)
This is compatible with the local thermodynamic relation, eq. (2.5).

## III Linearized steady state equations

Now we want to linearize the equations (2.1)–(2.5) about the vortex solution (2.6). We will take full account of first order terms in $`\delta 𝐯,𝐮,\delta p,\delta T,\delta \mu `$, but will neglect the consequent variations of $`\rho _s,\rho _n,S`$, and of the transport coefficients. This is an additional simplifying assumption, and does not affect the asymptotic form of the solutions, since such variations all come into the equations accompanied by an additional factor of $`r^2`$. We consider only motion in the $`xy`$ plane, so all equations will be two-dimensional. The equation of conservation of matter becomes

$$\rho _n𝐮=\rho _s^2w,$$
(3.1)
where the superfluid velocity has been written as

$$𝐯=(W+w),\mathrm{where}W=\mathrm{}\theta /m.$$
(3.2)
It is convenient now to write the normal fluid velocity in the form

$$u_i=ϵ_{ij}_j\chi \frac{\rho _s}{\rho _n}_iw,$$
(3.3)
where $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is the alternating tensor in two dimensions. The linearized Navier–Stokes equation can then be written

$`_i\left(\rho _s(_jW)_jw+\delta p\right)+\rho _s(_iW)^2w`$

$$=\eta ϵ_{ij}_j^2\chi \frac{\rho _s}{\rho _n}\left(\frac{4}{3}\eta \zeta _1\rho +\zeta _2\right)_i(^2w).$$
(3.4)
This can conveniently be split into two parts by taking the curl and divergence of the equation. The curl gives

$$\rho _sϵ_{ij}(_iW)_j^2w=\eta ^4\chi ,$$
(3.5)
which is an equation relating the viscous force on the normal fluid to the momentum flow in the superfluid. The divergence gives

$`^2\delta p+2\rho _s_i_j[(_iW)_jw]`$

$$+\frac{\rho _s}{\rho _n}\left(\frac{4}{3}\eta \zeta _1\rho +\zeta _2\right)(^4w)=0.$$
(3.6)
The superfluid equation gives

$$\delta \mu +(_iW)_iw=\frac{\rho _s}{\rho _n}(\zeta _4\rho \zeta _3)^2w.$$
(3.7)
The heat flow equation gives

$$\frac{S\rho _s}{\rho _n}^2w+\frac{\kappa }{T}^2\delta T=0.$$
(3.8)
The linearized thermodynamic relation gives

$`\delta p=S\delta T+\rho \delta \mu +\rho (_iW)_iw`$

$$\rho _nϵ_{ij}(_iW)_j\chi .$$
(3.9)
Substitution of eqs. (3.9), (3.8), (3.7), in eq. (3.6) gives

$`2\rho _s_i_j[(_iW)_jw]\rho _n^2[ϵ_{ij}(_iW)_j\chi ]`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s}{\rho _n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\eta \rho \zeta _1\rho \zeta _4+\zeta _2+\rho ^2\zeta _3\right)(^4w)`$

$$\frac{S^2T\rho _s}{\kappa \rho _n}^2w=0.$$
(3.10)
The last two terms on the left side of this equation describe counterflow between normal and superfluid components, while the first two terms give coupling of this counterflow to the vortex motion. From now on we will ignore the contributions of second viscosity, which greatly simplifies the analysis. Only for $`\zeta _2`$ do we have experimental values (from the observed attenuation of first sound) , although we know from Khalatnikov’s  eq. (9.12) and the inequality (9.18) that their contribution to the coefficient of $`^4w`$ is positive. With this simplification we can rewrite eqs. (3.5) and (3.10) in a dimensionless form. These coupled linear fourth order equations have eight independent solutions for each angular symmetry.

Since temperature gradient and heat flow may be important both in the interpretation of these equations and in the boundary conditions, we take the gradient of eq. (3.9), and substitute eqs. (3.4) and (3.7) to get

$`S_iT=\rho _s(_iW)^2w\rho _s_i[(_jW)_jw]`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s}{\rho _n}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\eta _i^2w+\eta ϵ_{ij}_j^2\chi `$

$$+\rho _n_i[ϵ_{jk}(_jW)_k\chi ].$$
(3.11)
We introduce the length scale $`L`$ defined by

$$L^2=\frac{4\eta \kappa }{3S^2T}.$$
(3.12)
From kinetic theory $`L`$ should be of the order of the mean free path for the excitations. We rewrite the equations in terms of the dimensionless complex variables $`z=(x+iy)/L`$ and its conjugate complex $`\overline{z}`$, using the symbols $``$ and $`\overline{}`$ to denote the partial derivatives with respect to these two variables. In these variables we have

$$W=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2mi}\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{\overline{z}}$$
(3.13)
for the vortex potential. In these variables there is one dimensionless parameter in the equations of motion, which is

$$\alpha =\frac{3\mathrm{}\rho _n}{4m\eta };$$
(3.14)
this is of order unity at high temperatures, but falls off at lower temperatures in 4He in a similar manner to $`\rho _n/\rho `$, since $`\mathrm{}\rho /m\eta `$ remains of order unity. We look for solutions of the form

$$\rho _sw=\mathrm{}zf(z\overline{z}),\rho _n\chi =\mathrm{}zg(z\overline{z})$$
(3.15)
since these have the symmetry which corresponds to uniform flow. We use $`s`$ to denote the variable $`z\overline{z}=r^2/L^2`$, and then the components of velocity are given by

$`L\rho _s(v_xiv_y)=f+sf^{}+s\overline{f}^{}e^{2i\theta },`$

$`L\rho _n(u_xiu_y)=gf+s(g^{}f^{})`$

$$s(\overline{g}^{}+\overline{f}^{})e^{2i\theta }.$$
(3.16)
In these new variables eq. (3.5) gives

$$3s\left(s\frac{d^2}{ds^2}+2\frac{d}{ds}\right)^2g=i\alpha (2s^2f^{\prime \prime \prime }+7sf^{\prime \prime }+2f^{}),$$
(3.17)
and eq. (3.10) gives

$`4s\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{ds^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{ds^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\right)f`$

$$=2i\alpha (sf^{\prime \prime }+f^{})+i\alpha (2s^2g^{\prime \prime \prime }+5sg^{\prime \prime }).$$
(3.18)
It is helpful to consider the case $`\alpha =0`$, where the two equations (3.17) and (3.18) decouple. In this case eq. (3.17) has four solutions, namely

$$gs,g\mathrm{ln}s,g\mathrm{constant},g1/s.$$
(3.19)
The first of these gives a solution of the Navier–Stokes equation with flow which is quadratic at large distances, the second is the well-known solution that is logarithmic at large distances and gives rise to a constant viscous force on any surface surrounding the axis, the third gives uniform flow, and the fourth dipolar flow falling off like $`1/r^2`$ at large distances. Equation (3.18), in the limit $`\alpha 0`$, has solutions

$`f\mathrm{constant},f1/s,`$

$$fs^{1/2}I_1(\sqrt{s}),fs^{1/2}K_1(\sqrt{s}),$$
(3.20)
where $`I_1,K_1`$ are modified Bessel functions. The first two of these, combined with the corresponding solutions of eq. (3.19), give uniform and dipolar superfluid flow, while the third and fourth give counterflow of the normal and superfluid components, growing and decreasing exponentially with distance from the axis.

Solutions of the actual equations (3.17) and (3.18) have the same character at large distances, but some of them are modified at small distances from the axis. The four solutions that are unchanged are $`f^{}=0`$, $`g^{}=0`$, $`g^{}`$ constant, and the solution $`f=1/s,g=1/s`$. Combinations of the first two give uniform superfluid or normal fluid flow, the third gives quadratically growing normal fluid velocity, and is not of interest to us, while the fourth gives dipolar superfluid flow. The real part of the solution

$$f=\rho _sv_0,g=\rho _sv_0,$$
(3.21)
gives uniform superfluid flow, no normal fluid flow. The temperature is a constant $`T_0`$ everywhere, and the other thermodynamic variables are given by

$$\delta p=\rho _sv_0\frac{\mathrm{}}{mr}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\delta \mu =v_0\frac{\mathrm{}}{mr}\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(3.22)
This is an exact solution of the equations as we have approximated them, but would be perturbed by terms from the inhomogeneity in the equilibrium value of $`\rho _s`$. These perturbations lead to corrections of $`w`$ which are of order $`1/r`$, and to corrections of the pressure which are of order $`1/r^3`$. The net force per unit length on a large cylindrical volume of fluid of radius $`R`$ due to pressure is

$$_0^{2\pi }\delta p𝐫𝑑\theta =\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{m}\rho _s\widehat{z}\times 𝐯_0,$$
(3.23)
while the momentum flowing into the cylinder per unit length is

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}\rho _s\widehat{\theta }𝐯_0\widehat{r}𝑑\theta =\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{m}\rho _s\widehat{z}\times 𝐯_0.$$
(3.24)
This gives the usual expression for the Magnus force on the vortex pinning center as the sum of these two contributions, equal to

$$𝐅_M=\frac{h}{m}\rho _s\widehat{z}\times 𝐯_0.$$
(3.25)
This derivation is exactly the same as the derivation for the Magnus force in a classical compressible fluid.

Uniform normal fluid flow is given by

$$f=0,g=\rho _nu_0.$$
(3.26)
This gives uniform pressure, no momentum flow, and no viscous forces. The dipolar superfluid flow is obtained by taking the derivative of the vortex solution with respect to the position of the vortex core, which is, in our notation,

$$f(s)\frac{1}{s},g(s)=f(s).$$
(3.27)
Various methods are available to find the remaining four solutions of the equation, or, rather, the three solutions that do not grow exponentially at large distances. We have solved the equations numerically, we have studied the power series solutions in positive or negative powers of $`s`$, and we have looked at the systematic expansion of the solutions in increasing powers of $`\alpha `$ using a standard Green function technique for solving the inhomogeneous ordinary differential equations that arise. Since $`\alpha `$ is indeed a small parameter for much of the temperature range of superfluid 4He, and the expansion in powers of $`\alpha `$ is more transparent than the other methods, we will outline this method, and mention some of the results from the other methods.

We start with a zero order approximation that is a linear superposition of the solutions in the limit $`\alpha =0`$, excluding those that increase faster than logarithmically at large distances, and excluding the uniform superfluid flow, which we know about already, so that we have

$`g_0(s)=c_1+c_2{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{s}}+c_3\mathrm{ln}(s/a^2),`$

$$f_0(s)=d_2\frac{a^2}{s}+d_3\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}K_1(\sqrt{s}).$$
(3.28)
Substitution of this in the right hand sides of eqs. (3.17), (3.18) gives two functions $`i\alpha G_0,i\alpha F_0`$ which have the form

$`G_0=d_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}K_1^{}(\sqrt{s}),`$

$$F_0=2(c_2+d_2)\frac{a^2}{s^2}c_3\frac{1}{s}+d_3\frac{1}{2\sqrt{s}}K_2^{}(\sqrt{s}),$$
(3.29)
where $`aL=r_0`$ is the distance at which short distance boundary conditions will be imposed. This leads to the inhomogeneous equations

$`3s\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{ds^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\right)^2g_1=i\alpha G_0,`$

$$4s\left(s\frac{d^2}{ds^2}+2\frac{d}{ds}\frac{1}{4}\right)\left(s\frac{d^2}{ds^2}+2\frac{d}{ds}\right)f_1=i\alpha F_0.$$
(3.30)
Particular integrals of these inhomogeneous equations can be obtained by a standard Green function technique, in the form

$`g_1(s)=i\alpha {\displaystyle _{a^2}^{\mathrm{}}}K_g(s,t)G_0(t)𝑑t,`$

$$f_1(s)=i\alpha _{a^2}^{\mathrm{}}K_f(s,t)F_0(t)𝑑t,$$
(3.31)
and solutions $`c_1^{}+c_2^{}a^2/s,d_2^{}a^2/s+d_3^{}K_1(\sqrt{s})/\sqrt{s}`$, should be added to the particular integral so that the boundary conditions at $`s=a^2`$ are satisfied. We keep the coefficient of $`\mathrm{ln}(s/a^2)`$, the dominant term at large distances, constant during the iterative procedure. The Green functions $`K_f,K_g`$ can be written as

$`K_f(s,t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1/s(2/\sqrt{st})K_1(\sqrt{s})I_1(\sqrt{t})\hfill & \text{if }t<s\text{,}\hfill \\ 1/t(2/\sqrt{st})I_1(\sqrt{s})K_1(\sqrt{t})\hfill & \text{if }t>s\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$

$$K_g(s,t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(2\mathrm{ln}tt/s)/6\hfill & \text{if }t<s\text{,}\hfill \\ (2\mathrm{ln}ss/t)/6\hfill & \text{if }t>s\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.32)
but it is actually convenient sometimes to use other forms which differ from these by a solution of the homogeneous equation.

The process can be repeated by substituting $`f_1,g_1`$, etc., in the right hand sides of eqs. (3.17), (3.18) to generate $`F_1,G_1`$, and so to find the second order corrections in $`f,g`$.

All the solutions generated in this way have series solutions in ascending powers of $`s`$, with the leading power $`n_0`$ given by the solutions of the complex indicial equation

$$12n_0^2(n_0^21)+6i\alpha n_0^2\alpha ^2(4n_0^21)=0.$$
(3.33)
The solution generated by a combination of $`c_2,d_2`$ has a power series solution in descending powers of $`s`$, with $`1/s`$ as the leading term. The solution generated by $`c_3`$ is $`\mathrm{ln}s`$ times a descending power series, and is the solution which leads to a net viscous force at large distances. The solution generated by $`d_3`$ has a singular point at infinity.

## IV Boundary conditions and solutions

In the previous section we have shown how linearized solutions of the two-fluid equations in the presence of a straight superfluid vortex can be found. We must combine these solutions in a way that satisfies appropriate boundary conditions. We already know that superfluid flow gives rise to a Magnus force whose magnitude depends on the superfluid velocity at large distances. It remains to find the corresponding solution for the normal fluid component. As with a classical fluid, we cannot satisfy boundary conditions simply with a flow which is asymptotically uniform, but we need the logarithmically growing term. Four relations between the other five coefficients must be determined by boundary conditions on some inner boundary.

If the fluid is rotating around a wire of circular cross-section, radius $`r_0=aL`$, as in the Vinen experiment , it is natural to take both components of normal fluid velocity, and the radial component of superfluid velocity, to be zero at $`r_0`$, or, in the notation of eq. (3.15),

$`2a^2f^{}(a^2)+f(a^2)=0,g(a^2)=0,`$

$$2a^2g^{}(a^2)f(a^2)=0.$$
(4.1)
An additional condition must be imposed, such as that the temperature is uniform on the boundary (alternatively, it might have been more realistic to take the heat flux to be zero at the boundary). From eq. (3.11) the condition for constant temperature at $`r=aL`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s\mathrm{}}{maL}}\left(^2w+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2L^2}}_\theta ^2w\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4\rho _s\eta }{3\rho _naL}}^2_\theta w`$

$$+\left(\eta ^2+\frac{\rho _n\mathrm{}}{ma^2L^2}_\theta \right)_r\chi =0,$$
(4.2)
or, in terms of $`f`$ and $`g`$, and making use of eq. (4.1),

$$3(2a^4g^{\prime \prime \prime }+7a^2g^{\prime \prime }+2g^{})=4(1i\alpha )(a^2f^{\prime \prime }+2f^{}).$$
(4.3)
Only the terms for which $`^2\chi `$ and $`^2w`$ are nonzero contribute to this.

Our main concern in this work is to what extent the normal fluid flow past a vortex can generate a transverse force. The direction of the viscous force is determined by the phase of the coefficient of the term in $`g`$ which is logarithmic in $`s`$ for large $`s`$, while the direction of flow is determined also by the constant term. The existence of a transverse force depends on the complexity of the solutions of eqs. (3.17) and (3.18), imposed either by the form of the equations or by the boundary conditions. Numerical solution shows that in this case (no tangential normal fluid flow or temperature gradient at the boundary) there is a transverse force due to normal fluid flow, and that this transverse force is proportional to $`\rho _n`$ and more or less independent of $`\eta `$. This transverse force is small when the radius of the inner boundary is significantly greater than $`L`$, but rises as $`a`$ approaches unity.

In Appendix A some of the details of the solution of the equations with these boundary conditions to first order in $`\alpha `$ and lowest nonvanishing order in $`1/a`$ are shown. To zero order in $`\alpha `$ and for $`a>>1`$, eq. (A3) gives

$$c_1=\left[1+\frac{3}{2a}\right]c_3,$$
(4.4)
which shows that the solution is similar to the solution of the classical problem, and the coupling between normal and superfluid components simply reduces the effective radius of the cylinder by an amount close to $`3L/4`$.

There are imaginary corrections to this solution to first order in $`\alpha `$, coming both from the combined effect of the Green functions in eq. (3.31), and from the boundary conditions. The detailed work in Appendix A shows that the most important terms for $`a>>1`$ are of order $`i\alpha /a^2`$. When the coefficient $`c_3`$ of the logarithmic term in $`𝐮`$ is kept equal to a constant $`C_3`$ in the iterative procedure, the coefficient of the constant term is, from eq. (A10),

$$C_1c_1+c_1^{}=\left[1+\frac{3K_0(a)}{2aK_1(a)}\right]C_3\frac{2i\alpha }{a^2}C_3.$$
(4.5)
In general the normal fluid velocity at large distances should have the form

$$L\rho _n(u_xiu_y)=C_3[\mathrm{ln}(s/a^2)+1]\overline{C}_3e^{2i\theta }+C_1.$$
(4.6)
Because of the logarithmic term, this does not tend to uniform flow at large distances, which is the basis of the well-known Stokes paradox for slow viscous flow past a cylinder. The resolution of the Stokes paradox was provided by Oseen in 1910 (see refs.  and ), who pointed out that at sufficiently large distances the nonlinear inertial term, $`\rho _n𝐮𝐮`$, in the equation of motion, overwhelms the viscous term, $`\eta ^2𝐮`$, however small the fluid velocity $`𝐮`$ is. This was discussed in the context of the drag on superfluid vortices by Hall and Vinen  and by Vinen , and Appendix B shows how our discussion relates to this early work. In the region where these nonlinear terms are important there is negligible coupling between the superfluid and normal components, so the classical theory can be taken over with little modification.

Oseen proposed replacing the nonlinear term $`\rho 𝐮𝐮`$ in the Navier–Stokes equation by $`\rho 𝐔𝐮`$, where $`𝐔`$ is a constant vector equal to the asymptotic velocity of the fluid. This gives the leading term in a small Reynolds number asymptotic expansion, uniform in $`r`$, and is a good approximation in the regions where the nonlinear term is more important than the viscous term. The vorticity for the normal fluid then satisfies the equation

$$\rho _n𝐔\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐥}𝐮=\eta ^2\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐥}𝐮,$$
(4.7)
which follows from the curl of eq. (2.2) by dropping all terms involving the divergence of $`𝐮`$. The general solution of this equation with the right asymptotic behavior, with $`𝐔`$ in the $`x`$ direction, is

$$\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐥}𝐮=e^{kx}\underset{n}{}p_nK_n(kr)e^{in\theta },$$
(4.8)
where the $`p_n`$ are arbitrary coefficents, $`K_n`$ is a modified Bessel function, and

$$k=\frac{\rho _nU}{2\eta }.$$
(4.9)
Lamb  gave an explicit solution for $`𝐮`$, and a simple generalization of this solution to allow for a transverse component of the force is

$`u_xiu_y=UAe^{kx}K_0(kr)\overline{A}e^{i\theta }[e^{kx}K_1(kr)1/kr]`$

$`=UAe^{kL(z+\overline{z})/2}K_0(kL\sqrt{z\overline{z}})`$

$$\overline{A}\sqrt{\frac{\overline{z}}{z}}e^{kL(z+\overline{z})/2}K_1(kL\sqrt{z\overline{z}})+\frac{\overline{A}}{kLz}.$$
(4.10)
It can be verified that this indeed gives incompressible flow whose curl satisfies the Oseen equation, since we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}}}(u_xiu_y)=\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐥}𝐮+i\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐯}𝐮`$

$$=2ke^{kx}[\mathrm{}AK_0\mathrm{}(Ae^{i\theta })K_1].$$
(4.11)
The vorticity given by this expression vanishes for $`kr>>1`$, except in a parabolic wake bounded by $`\theta ^22/kr`$; outside the wake the flow is a combination of dipolar and vortex motion. A general discussion of this method has been given by Proudman and Pearson .

The leading term in the expansion of eq. (4.10) in powers of $`k`$ is

$$u_xiu_yU+A\mathrm{ln}(kL|z|/2)+A\gamma \frac{\overline{A}}{2}\frac{\overline{A}\overline{z}}{2z},$$
(4.12)
where $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant. In the range $`L<<r<<1/k`$ this should match the form given in eq. (4.6), and this requires

$$A=2C_3/L\rho _n,$$
(4.13)
and

$$L\rho _nU=C_3[2\mathrm{ln}(2/kLa)2\gamma ]+C_3+\overline{C}_3+C_1.$$
(4.14)
The complex ratio $`C_1/C_3`$ is determined by the solution of the differential equations (3.17) and (3.18), and by the boundary conditions, so the phases of $`C_1,C_3`$ are determined by the imaginary part of eq. (4.14), and the amplitudes are related to the asymptotic normal fluid velocity $`U`$ by the real part. In the case that we have studied in detail this is given in eq. (4.5).

Substitution of eq. (4.6) in eq. (2.2) gives the change of pressure and the viscous stress tensor in the region $`L<<r<<1/k`$ as

$`\delta p={\displaystyle \frac{4\eta }{rL\rho _n}}(\mathrm{}C_3\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{}C_3\mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$

$$S_\eta =\frac{4\eta }{rL\rho _n}(\widehat{r}\widehat{r}\widehat{\theta }\widehat{\theta })(\mathrm{}C_3\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{}C_3\mathrm{sin}\theta ).$$
(4.15)
Pressure and viscous stress each contribute half the net force, so that the total force per unit length due to normal fluid flow is

$$𝐅_n=\frac{8\pi \eta }{L\rho _n}(\mathrm{}C_3\widehat{x}\mathrm{}C_3\widehat{y}),$$
(4.16)
in agreement with the results for an ordinary fluid quoted in hydrodynamics text books . Equations (4.10) and (4.13) show that the normal fluid has circulation

$$\kappa _n=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}C_3}{kL\rho _n}$$
(4.17)
in the region $`r>>1/k`$. Comparison of this with eqs. (4.16) and (4.9) shows that the transverse component of the force is given by

$$F_t=\rho _n\kappa _nU.$$
(4.18)
This is in full agreement with the equations derived in TAN , but not with the discussion, since it was assumed that the normal fluid circulation is zero. In fact, as we shall show, $`\kappa _n`$ goes to zero as $`U`$ goes to zero, but only as fast as $`1/|\mathrm{ln}U|^2`$.

The real parts of eqs. (4.14) and (4.16) combined with the approximation (4.4) gives

$$\frac{𝐅_n\widehat{x}}{U}\frac{8\pi \eta }{2\mathrm{ln}(4\eta /\rho _nUa)2\gamma +1+3/2a},$$
(4.19)
which is the standard result from classical hydrodynamics, apart from a small correction of order $`1/a`$ in the denominator. Combination of the imaginary parts of eqs. (4.5) and (4.14) gives

$$\mathrm{}C_3\frac{4\alpha /a^2}{2\mathrm{ln}(4\eta /\rho _nUa)1+3/2a}\mathrm{}C_3,$$
(4.20)
so that, after substitution of the value of $`\alpha `$ from eq. (3.14), the transverse force is given by

$$𝐅_n\widehat{y}\frac{3\rho _n(h/m)}{a^2[\mathrm{ln}(4\eta /\rho _nUa)\gamma /2]^2}U.$$
(4.21)
which agrees with the result written down in eq. (1.1). As the cut-off $`R_c=4\eta /\rho _nUa`$ goes to infinity both these components go to zero, the transverse force faster than the longitudinal force. For any finite value of the cut-off these corrections of order $`1/\mathrm{ln}R_c`$ and $`1/(\mathrm{ln}R_c)^2`$ will be needed. Our numerical results agree with these expressions (4.19) and (4.21).

This calculation shows that even a solid core can give rise to a transverse force which is proportional to the normal fluid density, and its ratio to the normal fluid velocity close to the core can be quite large if the core radius is comparable with $`L`$ ($`a`$ of order unity), however, its ratio to the asymptotic value of the normal fluid velocity is reduced by a factor proportional to $`1/(\mathrm{ln}R_c)^2`$.

As was observed by Hall and Vinen, the actual cut-off may be reduced to lower values, if a nonzero angular velocity produces a finite spacing of vortices, producing a situation analogous to the array of cylindrical obstacles considered for a viscous fluid by Sewell , or if there is a nonzero frequency $`\nu `$ of oscillation of the normal fluid relative to the vortex, in which case a cutoff of magnitude

$$R_c\sqrt{\frac{\eta }{\rho _n\nu }},$$
(4.22)
is appropriate.

## V Free vortices and the Iordanskii force

For a free vortex core, or one bound by a core whose size is much less than the mean free path of excitations, then we should take account of the effect of the superfluid flow on noninteracting excitations, in accordance with the discussions of Lifshitz and Pitaevskii , Iordanskii , and others . According to these works the flow of phonons or rotons past a stationary vortex produces a transverse force equal to

$$𝐅_t=\frac{\rho _nh}{m}\widehat{z}\times 𝐮_c,$$
(5.1)
where $`𝐮_c`$ is the normal fluid velocity at a distance of the order of a mean free path from the vortex core. In the phonon dominated regime there is a longitudinal force

$$𝐅_{lp}=\frac{\rho _nh}{m}\frac{k_BT}{mc^2}\frac{15\pi \zeta (5)}{4\zeta (4)}𝐮_c,$$
(5.2)
where $`c`$ is sound velocity and $`\zeta `$ denotes the Riemann $`\zeta `$-function. In the roton dominated region the longitudinal force is

$$𝐅_{lr}\frac{\rho _nh}{m}3\pi \sqrt{\frac{2\pi \mu }{m}\frac{p_0^2}{mk_BT}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{2\mu k_BT}\frac{2L}{h}\right)𝐮_c,$$
(5.3)
where $`\mu `$ is roton mass and $`p_0`$ is the magnitude of roton momentum. For helium in the phonon-dominated region, the longitudinal force due to normal fluid flow is about 40% of the transverse force, while in the roton dominated region the longitudinal force is considerably larger than the transverse force.

A detailed calculation of what happens in this case is not easy to undertake, since we have no satisfactory theory of the transition region between the collisionless region of the order of a mean free path in radius and the hydrodynamic region beyond a few mean free paths from the vortex core. The best we have been able to do is to join one region abruptly to the other. Qualitatively the same thing will happen that happens for a solid core, which is that the growth of the logarithmic term in the normal fluid velocity will lead to an increasing alignment of the direction of normal fluid flow with the direction of the force at larger distances from the core, until the Oseen or other cut-off radius $`R_c`$ is reached. Indeed, with a solid core whose radius $`r_0`$ is comparable with the mean free path $`L`$, two-fluid hydrodynamics, although it is not strictly applicable, predicts a transverse force comparable with the Iordanskii force.The phonon-dominated regime is a little different, because the transverse force is initially somewhat larger than the longitudinal force, so, even after the logarithmic growth of the normal fluid comes into effect, there is still a significant angle between the direction of the force and the direction of flow.

## VI Discussion

In this paper we have investigated how to combine the TAN expression relating the transverse force on a vortex to the circulation of momentum round the vortex to the usual results based on a combination of two-fluid hydrodynamics with the Lifshitz–Pitaevskii–Iordanskii expressions for the force on a free vortex in the presence of superfluid and normal flow. We have found that for a single stationary vortex in an infinite superfluid the TAN relation between transverse force and circulation of momentum is correct — this is not surprising, since the relation depends on little more than conservation of momentum and the independence of normal and superfluid flows at large distances from the vortex. The assumption that is wrong in ref. B is that there is no normal fluid circulation, which is only literally true when the normal fluid is at rest. Application of the methods of Oseen and Lamb to the two-fluid situation shows that normal fluid flow with speed $`U`$ round a vortex induces a circulation proportional to $`\rho _nhU/m[\mathrm{ln}(4\pi \eta U/\rho _na)]^2`$.

For an isolated vortex this factor proportional to the inverse square of a logarithm will be rather small, and so the transverse force due to normal fluid flow will be small compared with the transverse force due to superfluid flow. There is a possible modification of this conclusion when the normal fluid component is primarily phonons, but then the normal fluid density is very small relative to the superfluid density, so the transverse force due to the normal fluid flow is still going to be small.

Similar conclusions have been reached in the recent paper by Sonin .

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the US NSF under grant number DMR-9813932, by a Sarah Moss Fellowship, and by the Research Corporation. We have had many useful discussions with Ping Ao, Moo-Young Choi, Qian Niu, Edouard Sonin, Boris Spivak, Michael Stone, Jian-Ming Tang and Carlos Wexler. Jian-Ming Tang has been particularly helpful in looking for errors at a late stage in drafting this paper. We are grateful for the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics and of the Isaac Newton Institute of Cambridge University.

## A First order corrections

We work out the first order corrections to the flow, taking the specific case of the boundary conditions in which there is no normal fluid flow and constant temperature at $`r=aL`$, where $`a`$ is large, as given in eqs. (4.1) and (4.3).

To zero order the functions $`g`$ and $`f`$ are given by

$$g=c_1+c_2\frac{a^2}{s}+c_3\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{a^2},f=d_2\frac{a^2}{s}+d_3\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}K_1(\sqrt{s}).$$
(A1)
The four boundary conditions give

$$d_2=d_3K_1^{}(a),c_2+c_1=0,2c_2+2c_3=d_2+d_3\frac{1}{a}K_1(a),3c_3=(1i\alpha )d_3aK_1(a).$$
(A2)
These equations have solutions

$$c_1=\left[1+\frac{3K_0(a)}{2aK_1(a)(1i\alpha )}\right]c_3=c_2,d_2=\frac{3K_1^{}(a)}{aK_1(a)(1i\alpha )}c_3,d_3=\frac{3}{aK_1(a)(1i\alpha )}c_3.$$
(A3)
Substitution of eq. (3.29) in eqs. (3.31) and (3.32) gives

$$g_1(s)=d_3\frac{i\alpha }{24}_s^{\mathrm{}}\left[2\mathrm{ln}\frac{t}{s}\frac{t^2s^2}{st}\right]K_1^{}(\sqrt{t})𝑑t=d_3\frac{i\alpha }{3}_s^{\mathrm{}}\frac{t+s}{t^{5/2}}K_1(\sqrt{t})𝑑t,$$
(A4)
where three integrations by parts have been performed, and

$`f_1(s)=i\alpha (c_2+d_2)[{\displaystyle _s^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2a^2(ts)}{st^3}}dt+{\displaystyle _{a^2}^s}{\displaystyle \frac{4a^2}{s^{1/2}t^{5/2}}}K_1(\sqrt{s})I_1(\sqrt{t})dt+{\displaystyle _s^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4a^2}{s^{1/2}t^{5/2}}}I_1(\sqrt{s})K_1(\sqrt{t})dt`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{s^{1/2}a^2}}K_1(\sqrt{s})I_1(a)]+i\alpha c_3[{\displaystyle _{a^2}^s}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{st}}dt+{\displaystyle _{a^2}^s}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{s^{1/2}t^{3/2}}}K_1(\sqrt{s})I_1(\sqrt{t})dt+{\displaystyle _s^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{s^{1/2}t^{3/2}}}I_1(\sqrt{s})K_1(\sqrt{t})dt`$

$$+\frac{4}{s^{1/2}a^2}K_1(\sqrt{s})I_1(a)]+i\alpha d_3\{_s^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ts}{2st^{3/2}}K_2^{}(\sqrt{t})dt+_s^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{s^{1/2}t}[K_1(\sqrt{s})I_1(\sqrt{t})I_1(\sqrt{s})K_1(\sqrt{t})]K_2^{}(\sqrt{t})dt\}.$$
(A5)
To leading orders in $`a,s`$, these give

$$g_1(s)d_3i\alpha \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\left(\frac{4}{3s^{5/4}}\frac{25}{6s^{7/4}}\right)e^\sqrt{s},f_1(s)i\alpha \left[(c_2+d_2)\frac{a^2}{s^2}c_3\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}(s/a^2)d_3\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{1}{s^{5/4}}e^\sqrt{s}\right].$$
(A6)
Now we substitute the expressions

$$g_1(s)+c_1^{}+c_2^{}\frac{a^2}{s},f_1(s)+d_2^{}\frac{a^2}{s}+d_3^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}K_1(\sqrt{s}),$$
(A7)
in the boundary conditions (4.1) and (4.3) to get

$`c_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{K_0(a)}{aK_1(a)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(2a^6g_1^{\prime \prime \prime }+7a^4g_1^{\prime \prime }+2a^2g_1^{})+2(a^4f_1^{\prime \prime }+2a^2f_1^{})\right]+a^2(f_1^{}g_1^{})+f_1g_1,`$

$$c_2^{}=c_1^{}g_1,d_3^{}K_0(a)=2c_2^{}+2a^2(f_1^{}g_1^{})+2f_1,d_2^{}=d_3^{}K_1^{}(a)+2a^2f_1^{}+f_1.$$
(A8)
The coefficient $`c_1^{}`$ is the most important one, since, with $`c_1,c_3`$ it dominates the behavior for large $`s`$. In the expression for $`c_1^{}`$ it can be seen that the only terms giving contributions of order $`i\alpha /a^2`$ are the terms proportional to $`a^3g_1^{\prime \prime },a^2g_1^{},a^3f_1^{\prime \prime },a^2f_1^{},f_1`$, while the term proportional to $`a^5g_1^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ gives a contribution of order $`i\alpha /a`$ which cancels with a similar term in $`c_1`$. There is no contribution to this order from the terms in $`f_1`$ proportional to $`d_2`$ or $`d_3`$. With the substitution of eqs. (A3) and (A6) in this we get

$$\frac{c_1^{}}{i\alpha }d_3\frac{K_0(a)}{2}(c_2+c_3)\frac{1}{a^2}+d_3\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{2}{3a^{3/2}}e^ac_3\left[\frac{3K_0(a)}{2aK_1(a)}+\frac{4}{a^2}\right].$$
(A9)
Combined with eq. (A3) this gives

$$\frac{c_1+c_1^{}}{c_3}\left[1+\frac{3K_0(a)}{2aK_1(a)}\right]4\frac{i\alpha }{a^2}.$$
(A10)
The last term in eq. (A10) gives the imaginary part of the coefficient, which leads to a velocity at large distances which is not in the same direction as the force.

## B Relation to the Hall–Vinen theory

As is clear from earlier parts of this paper, some of the problems that we have addressed were foreseen by Hall and Vinen  (HV) and by Vinen , and it may help the reader if we examine the extent to which the results derived in this earlier work accord with those derived here. The earlier work referred to a vortex with a core of microscopic size (much smaller than the excitation mean free path); furthermore, as we have noted, it did not include any transverse force due to flow of the normal fluid, such a force having been ruled out, incorrectly, by a supposed symmetry of the scattering of excitations by the vortex. However, it is easy to modify the earlier work by the addition of a transverse force, as we now show.

In the presence of a transverse component of the force, equation (2) of HV must be generalized to

$$f_{}=Dv_RD^{}v_R,f_{}=Dv_R+D^{}v_R;$$
(B1)
The symbols $``$ and $``$ refer to directions parallel and perpendicular to the asymptotic normal fluid velocity, $`U`$ (i.e. $`f_{}=𝐅_n\widehat{x}`$ and $`f_{}=𝐅_n\widehat{y}`$ in the notation of section 4 ), and $`𝐯_R`$ is the velocity of the normal fluid close to the (stationary) vortex. Equation (4) of HV still holds and gives the relationship between $`U`$ and $`𝐯_R`$

$$Uv_R=\frac{f_{}}{E},v_R=\frac{f_{}}{E},$$
(B2)
where $`E`$ is given by equation (5) of HV for the case of finite frequencies. The parameter $`L`$ in $`E`$ is roughly the mean free path of the excitations constituting the normal fluid, as in earlier parts of this paper. In the case of zero frequency, with which this paper is concerned, the parameter $`\lambda `$ in equation (5) of HV must be replaced by  $`\rho _nU/2\eta `$, so that the logarithmic term in equation (5) of HV becomes $`\mathrm{ln}R_e`$, where $`R_e`$ is the Reynolds number $`L\rho _nU/4\eta `$. When $`U`$ is sufficiently small the magnitude of this (negative) logarithmic term is much larger than unity, and then $`E`$ can be written in the approximate form

$$E\frac{4\pi \eta }{\mathrm{ln}R_e}.$$
(B3)
From these equations we can derive the relations between the components of the force on the vortex and $`U`$, analogous to equations (4.19) and (4.21) in section 4.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{}}{U}}=E{\displaystyle \frac{(D+E)E^2}{(D+E)^2+D^2}};`$

$$\frac{f_{}}{U}=\frac{E^2D^{}}{(D+E)^2+D^2}.$$
(B4)
For sufficiently small values of $`U`$ we must have $`DE`$. It follows that the leading term in $`f_{}/U`$ is proportional to $`[\mathrm{ln}R_e]^1`$ , while the leading term in $`f_{}/U`$ is proportional to $`[\mathrm{ln}R_e]^2`$. Equations (4.19) and (4.21) in section 4 exhibit the same feature. According to HV the feature has its origin in the form of equations (B2), which give the response of the normal fluid to the line force $`𝐟`$. The cut-off in the solution of the linearized Navier-Stokes equation that is required at large distances (section 1) forces this response to decrease logarithmically as $`U`$ decreases and the corresponding cut-off distance increases.