text:
# Excitation of stellar p-modes by turbulent convection:

## 1 Introduction

Oscillation amplitudes and linewidths provide information on excitation and damping processes of stellar oscillation modes. In the solar case, the observed oscillation modes are believed to be damped as a result of a competition between several non-adiabatic and turbulent processes (Osaki, 1990; Houdek et al., 1999). Excitation of solar oscillation modes is attributed to turbulent convection at the surface of the Sun. The first theoretical investigation of solar oscillation excitation by turbulent convection was by Goldreich & Keeley (1977, hereafter GK). These authors identified the turbulent term of Reynolds stress as the main source term of stochastic excitation of solar acoustic modes in the wave equation. GK derived an approximate estimation for the acoustic power injected into the oscillations by turbulent convection which arises from an equipartition of energy between the turbulent elements and the oscillations. The result, however, underestimated the power by a factor $`10^3`$ compared to the solar observations (Osaki, 1990). Amplitude estimations for solar-like oscillating stars have subsequently been computed by Christensen-Dalsgaard & Frandsen (1983) based on this simple picture of equipartition of energy between turbulence and oscillation. GK considered the adiabatic assumption for both the oscillations and the turbulence. A decade later, entropy turbulent fluctuation has been proposed as a possible additional excitation source (Stein & Nordlund, 1991; Balmforth, 1992; Goldreich et al., 1994).

The stochastic mechanism may be understood as follows : turbulent motions of the stellar material and turbulent fluctuations of thermodynamicals quantities, which occur in the convection zone, generate acoustic waves (Lighthill, 1952; Stein, 1967). The corresponding acoustic power then excites resonant modes of the stellar cavity (oscillations). This excitation of the oscillations results from a forcing by incoherent (turbulent) source terms due to the turbulent Reynolds stress and turbulent entropy fluctuations.

An alternative formulation for the power and amplitude oscillation is proposed by Balmforth (1992, hereafter B92) and is used by Houdek et al. (1999) to compute amplitude of oscillation for various solar-type stars. There is some disagreement between the conclusions of both formulations concerning the entropy contribution : it is found dominant in theoretical investigation (Goldreich et al., 1994, hereafter GMK) and as a result of numerical 3D simulations (Stein & Nordlund, 1991), but negligible in some other cases (Balmforth, 1992).

Both formulations are built following the method developed by GK and are based on a simplified description of the turbulent medium. The spectrum of turbulent energy in stellar conditions is, however, not well known. The best-known spectrum is, of course, the solar spectrum (Espagnet et al., 1993; Nesis et al., 1993) and observations tell us that a Kolmogorov spectrum does not represent the complete turbulent solar spectrum (Nesis et al., 1993).

The purpose of the present work therefore is to investigate the effect of several possible models of turbulence on the excitation of solar-like oscillation modes and to establish their signature in power spectra. To do so, a formulation must first be established which includes both (kinetic and entropic) contributions in a consistent and general way. The main goal is to allow the use of any form of the turbulent kinetic energy spectrum, of turbulent entropy fluctuations and the eddy temporal spectrum. Two free parameters are introduced to take into account uncertainties in the definitions of the coherence time of the turbulent eddies and in the magnitude of the wavenumber at which the inertial regime starts.

Once the general formulation is established, we study the specific case of a Gaussian time and Kolmogorov energy spectra, which enables us to compare our findings with results of previous works. In a companion paper, the present formulation is applied to the solar case and several turbulent models found in the literature are discussed. Both free parameters can be calibrated with solar observations and used to compute oscillation amplitudes for other potential solar-like oscillating stars (Samadi et al., 2000, 2001b) in view of forthcoming space seismological experiments : COROT (Baglin & The Corot Team, 1998), MONS (Kjeldsen & Bedding, 1998), MOST (Matthews, 1998), EDDINGTON (Favata et al., 2000).

Sect. 1 recalls how the stochastic excitation mechanism of stellar oscillations is modeled by source terms in the wave equation. We assume the modes are damped and find that they are excited through the turbulent Reynolds stresses (Goldreich & Keeley, 1977) and the turbulent entropy fluctuations arising from the turbulent nature of the stellar convection region (Stein & Nordlund, 1991; Balmforth, 1992; Goldreich et al., 1994). We adopt the GK procedure and assume that the oscillation modes are decoupled from the turbulent medium. This description gives rise to an inhomogeneous wave equation for the oscillation modes. In this framework, the acoustic turbulent source acts as a forcing term for the oscillation normal modes. We consider adiabatic radial oscillations in the Cowling (1941) approximation. A homogeneous, isotropic, stationary turbulence is assumed. A formulation for the Reynolds stress contribution which can include any type of turbulent spectrum is established in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, the contribution of turbulent fluctuations of entropy is worked out. We find that it is the advection of the entropy turbulent fluctuation by the turbulent velocity field which yields the entropy source. An appendix shows that cross terms between Reynolds and entropic sources do not contribute.

Sect. 5 finally establishes a general formulation which can be used to investigate any type of turbulent spectrum. Finally, Sect. 6 discusses the complete formulation, its limitations and advantages.

## 2 Turbulent stochastic excitation

### 2.1 The inhomogeneous wave equation

In the basic hydrodynamical equations, we use the symbols $`P`$, $`\rho `$, $`v`$ and $`g`$ to denote respectively pressure, density, velocity and gravitational acceleration. Equilibrium quantities are represented with a subscript 0. Each variable $`f`$, except for the velocity $`v`$, is written as the sum of the equilibrium quantity , $`f_0`$ and a Eulerian fluctuation, $`f_1`$, $`f=f_0+f_1`$ and we retain terms which are linear and quadratic in the variables $`P_1`$ and $`\rho _1`$ and neglect the gravitational perturbation. Accordingly, one obtains for the perturbed momentum and continuity equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho v}{t}}+:(\rho vv)+P_1\rho _1g_0=0`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{t}}+.(\rho v)=0.`$ (2)
The perturbed equation of state in a Eulerian description is given by:

$`P_1=c_s^2\rho _1+\alpha _ss_1+\alpha _{\rho \rho }\rho _1^2+\alpha _{ss}s_1^2+\alpha _{\rho s}\rho _1s_1`$ (3)
where $`s`$ is the entropy, $`\alpha _s=\left(P/s\right)_\rho `$, $`c_s=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1P_0/\rho _0`$ denotes the average sound speed, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\left(\mathrm{ln}P/\mathrm{ln}\rho \right)_s`$ is the adiabatic exponent and $`\alpha _{\rho \rho }`$, $`\alpha _{ss}`$ and $`\alpha _{\rho s}`$ are the second partial derivatives of $`P`$ versus $`s`$ and $`\rho `$.

We assume adiabatic oscillations : the Lagrangian entropy fluctuations are therefore only due to turbulence. Lagrangian and Eulerian entropy fluctuations are related to each other by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\delta s_t}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{s_1}{t}}+v.(s_0+s_1)`$ (4)
where $`\delta s_t`$ is the turbulent Lagrangian entropy fluctuation. The subscript $`t`$ refers to turbulent quantities. For later use and with the help of Eq.(4), the time derivative of the Eulerian entropy fluctuation $`s_1`$ is written as

$`\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{s_1}{t}}=\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{d\delta s_t}{dt}}\alpha _sv.s_0.(\alpha _ss_1v)`$
$`+s_1v.\alpha _s+\alpha _ss_1.v.`$ (5)
The velocity field $`v`$ is split into a component due to the pulsational displacement $`\delta r_{osc}`$ and a turbulent component $`u`$ as $`v=v_{osc}+u`$.

Linearisation of Eq.(1-3) yields for the velocity field, in the absence of turbulence ($`u=0`$), the homogeneous wave equation

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}L\right)v=0`$ (6)
with the linear wave operator :

$`L(X)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}[(c_s^2.(\rho _0X)+\alpha _sX.s_0)`$
$`g_0.(\rho _0X)].`$ (7)
With appropriate boundary conditions (Unno et al., 1989) one recovers the usual eigenvalue problem :

$`L(\xi (r))=\omega _0^2\xi (r)`$ (8)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the oscillation frequency and $`\xi (r)`$ is the adiabatic (real) displacement eigenvector.

In the presence of turbulence, the pulsational displacement and velocity are written in terms of the above adiabatic solution $`\xi (r,t)`$ and an instantaneous amplitude $`A(t)`$. Accordingly

$$v_{osc}=\frac{d\delta r_{osc}}{dt}=\frac{1}{2}(i\omega _0A(t)\xi (r)e^{i\omega _0t}+cc)$$
(9)
where cc means complex conjugate.

Differentiating Eq. (1) with respect to $`t`$, neglecting non-linear terms in $`v_{osc}`$, assuming an incompressible turbulence ($`.u=0`$) and using Eq. (2, 3, 5) yields the inhomogeneous wave equation

$`\rho _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}L\right)\left[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0}})v\right]+𝒟(𝓋_{𝓈𝒸})`$ $`=`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left(f_t+h_t\right)`$
with

$$f_t=:(\rho _0uu)$$
(11)
the turbulent Reynolds stress,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_t=(\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta s_t.(\alpha _sus_1)+s_1u.\alpha _s),`$ (12)
the source term due to the turbulent entropy fluctuations. The first term in the RHS of Eq. (12) is due to the Lagrangian entropy fluctuation which was considered by GMK and B92. The last two terms are due to the buoyancy force associated with the Eulerian entropy fluctuations. These terms contribute to the excitation as much as the Reynolds source term. The time derivative operator in the LHS of Eq. (12) in the definition of $`h_t`$ is introduced for convenience.

The operator $`𝒟`$ involves both the turbulent velocity field ($`u`$) and the pulsational velocity and is defined as

$`𝒟(𝓋_{𝓈𝒸})`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(:\rho uv_{osc})+(.\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0}}v_{osc}.s_0`$
$`.(\alpha _sv_{osc}s_1)+s_1v_{osc}.\alpha _s`$
$`+\alpha _ss_1.v_{osc}(\alpha _{\rho s}s_1+2\alpha _{\rho \rho }\rho _1).(\rho v_{osc}).).`$
As will be shown in the next section, this term contributes to the dynamical linear damping.

We assume a “free turbulence”, i.e. the turbulent medium evolves freely and is not perturbed by the oscillations. The continuity equation is verified by the turbulent medium such that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _t}{t}}+.\left((\rho _0+\rho _t)u\right)=0.`$ (14)
As a consequence of neglecting the oscillation perturbations in higher order terms, the Eulerian fluctuations $`s_1`$ and $`\rho _1`$ can be seen as due only to the turbulence in evaluating the quantities $`h_t`$ and $`𝒟`$. We therefore substitute $`\rho _1`$ (resp. $`s_1`$) by $`\rho _t`$ (resp. $`s_t`$) in Eq. (12,2.1).

It can easily be shown that the additional terms appearing in the RHS of Eq.(10) are of order $`M_t^2`$, where $`M_t`$ is the turbulent Mach number, compared with the Reynolds source term (see also GK). As $`M_t`$ is small in the solar convection zone ($`M_t0.3`$), these additional terms have been neglected.

The wave operator $`\left(^2/t^2L\right)`$ acting on the turbulent velocity field $`u`$ in Eq. (10) gives rise to contributions which are either negligible compared with the Reynolds source term or of the same order. In this last case, the associated source term does not contribute to the wave excitation because it is linear in terms of the turbulent fluctuations (see also Sect. 4.1). Therefore, in the LHS of Eq.(10), $`v`$ can be replaced by $`v_{osc}`$.

In deriving Eq.(9), the time variation of the amplitude $`A`$ is neglected since we assume, as in the solar case, that the eddy time correlation is of the order of a few minutes in the excitation region and the associated angular frequency is comparable to $`\omega _0`$ ($`3\mathrm{mHz}`$), which is much larger than the oscillation damping rate $`\eta `$ ($`100\mu \mathrm{Hz})`$.

### 2.2 Mean square amplitude

Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (10), gives, with the help of Eq. (6),

$`2\omega _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dt}}\rho _0\xi +i\omega _0𝒟\left(𝒜\xi \right)`$
$`+i\omega _0\rho _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}L\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _t}{\rho _0}}A\xi \right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒮}{t}}`$ (15)
with

$`𝒮\left(𝒻_𝓉+𝒽_𝓉\right).`$ (16)
As previously mentioned, periods of oscillations are much shorter than their lifetime ($`1/\eta `$) such that $`\omega _0\eta `$ and thus $`|d\mathrm{ln}A/dt|\omega _0`$. Therefore the second derivative of $`A`$ arising in Eq. (15) has been discarded. Multiplying Eq. (15) by $`\rho _0\xi ^{}(r,t)`$ and integrating over the stellar volume gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dt}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _0^2I}}{\displaystyle d^3x\xi ^{}}.{\displaystyle \frac{𝒮}{t}},`$ (17)
where we have defined the complex quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega +\eta _D`$ which comes from the contribution of the operator $`𝒟(\xi )`$. This expression is linear in the eigenfunction $`\xi `$, hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ corresponds to a ‘dynamical’ shift of the oscillation frequency due to turbulence. This shift is expected to be smaller or of the order of non-adiabatic frequency shifts, which are not considered here. The dynamical shift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, will therefore be neglected. The real part, $`\eta _D`$, contributes to the dynamical damping. As in B92 and GK, $`\eta _D`$ is replaced in Eq. (17) by the global damping rate $`\eta `$ in order to take into account all damping processes. The solution of Eq. (17) after integration by parts over the time is given by :

$`A(t)={\displaystyle \frac{ie^{\eta t}}{2\omega _0I}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle d^3xe^{(\eta +i\omega _0)t^{}}\xi (x)}.𝒮(𝓍,𝓉^{})`$ (18)
and for the the square amplitude:

$`|A|^2(t)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\eta t}}{4(\omega _0I)^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2{\displaystyle d^3r_1d^3r_2e^{\sigma (t_1,t_2)}}`$
$`\times (\xi (r_1).𝒮(r_1,t_1)\left)\right(\xi (r_2).𝒮^{}(𝓇_\mathcal{2},𝓉_\mathcal{2}))`$ (19)
with $`\sigma (t_1,t_2)=\eta (t_1+t_2)+i\omega _0(t_1t_2)`$. Spatial integrations are performed over the whole stellar envelope. For convenience we define the following coordinates

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x_0=\frac{r_2+r_1}{2}\hfill & & \hfill t_0=\frac{t_1+t_2}{2}\\ r=r_2r_1\hfill & & \hfill \tau =t_2t_1\end{array}$$

$`x_0`$ and $`t_0`$ are the average time-space position where the stochastic excitation is integrated whereas $`r`$ and $`\tau `$ are related to the local turbulence. $`\tau `$ corresponds to the fast time scale associated with the eddy lifetime and $`t_0`$ to the slow time scale associated with the oscillation growth rate ($`\eta `$). In the following, $`_0`$ is the large-scale derivative associated with $`x_0`$, $`_r`$ is the small-scale one associated with $`r`$ and the derivative operators $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are associated with $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ respectively. The mean square amplitude can be rewritten in terms of the new coordinates as

$`A^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(\omega _0I)^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_0e^{2\eta (t_0t)}{\displaystyle _{2(t_0t)}^{2(tt_0)}}𝑑\tau `$ (20)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^3x_0d^3re^{i\omega _0\tau }`$
$`\times \xi .𝒮[𝓍_\mathcal{0}{\displaystyle \frac{𝓇}{\mathcal{2}}},𝓉_\mathcal{0}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\mathcal{2}}}]\xi .𝒮^{}[𝓍_\mathcal{0}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝓇}{\mathcal{2}}},𝓉_\mathcal{0}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\mathcal{2}}}].`$
The operator $`.`$ denotes the statistical average performed on an infinite number of independent realizations.

In the excitation region the eddy lifetime is much smaller than the oscillation lifetime ($`1/\eta `$) such that the integration over $`\tau `$ can be extended to infinity. We assume a stationary turbulence, therefore the source term $`𝒮`$ is invariant over time $`t_0`$. Integration over $`t_0`$ in Eq.(20) and using the definition of $`𝒮`$ in Eq.(16) yields :

$`A^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\eta (\omega _0I)^2}}\left(C_R^2+C_S^2\right)`$ (21)
with

$`C_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x_0_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }d^3r}`$ (22)
$`\times \left(\rho _0u_ju_i_1^j\xi ^i\right)_1\left(\rho _0u_ju_i_2^j\xi ^i\right)_2`$
the turbulent Reynolds stress contribution,

$`C_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x_0_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }d^3r}`$ (23)
$`\times (h_t.\xi )_1(h_t.\xi )_2`$
the entropy contribution. Subscripts 1 and 2 are the values taken at the spatial and temporal positions $`[x_0\frac{r}{2},\frac{\tau }{2}]`$ and $`[x_0+\frac{r}{2},\frac{\tau }{2}]`$ respectively. We adopt the Einstein convention of summation upon repeated indices. Hereafter all time integrations over $`\tau `$ are understood to be performed in the range $`]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[`$. Note that the crossing term between the Reynolds source term and the entropy source term does not contribute to the excitation (see Appendix A).

## 3 Reynolds stress contribution

In the derivation of Eq. (22) and Eq. (23) integrations by parts have been performed in order for the gradient to act on the eigenfunction instead of turbulent quantities. We next suppose that the terms $`(\rho _0_1^i\xi ^j)`$ and $`(\rho _0_2^i\xi ^j)`$ in Eq.(22) do not change on the length scale of the eddies. This implies that $`_r^i\xi ^j0`$. Validity of this assumption will be justified a posteriori below. Consequently, the Reynolds stress contribution can be expressed as :

$`C_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x_0\rho _0^2_0^i\xi ^j_0^l\xi ^m}`$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d\tau d^3re^{i\omega _0\tau }u_i^{}u_j^{}u_l^{\prime \prime }u_m^{\prime \prime }`$
where the following notations have been used :

$`u^{}=u(x_0{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}},t_0{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})`$ $`u^{\prime \prime }=u(x_0+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}},t_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}).`$ (25)
The Quasi-Normal Approximation (Lesieur, 1997, Chap VII-2, QNA hereafter) reduces the fourth-order velocity correlations as follows :

$`u_i^{}u_j^{}u_l^{\prime \prime }u_m^{\prime \prime }=u_i^{}u_j^{}u_l^{\prime \prime }u_m^{\prime \prime }+u_i^{}u_l^{\prime \prime }u_j^{}u_m^{\prime \prime }`$
$`+u_i^{}u_m^{\prime \prime }u_j^{}u_l^{\prime \prime }.`$ (26)
This approximation remains strictly valid for normally distributed fluctuating quantities. As shown by Kraichnan (1957) and Stein (1967) neglected terms can be large and therefore not negligible. Here the QNA approximation is nevertheless assumed valid as it is found justified when considering 3D simulations of the solar convection zone (Samadi, 2000, work in progress).

We denote $`\varphi _{ij}(k,\omega )`$ as the well known Fourier transform of the second-order velocity correlations $`u_i^{}u_j^{\prime \prime }`$ (e.g. Stein, 1967). For a stationary, incompressible, homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, the Fourier transform of the velocity correlation has the form (Batchelor, 1970) :

$`\varphi _{ij}(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E(k,\omega )}{4\pi k^2}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ik_j}{k^2}}\right)`$ (27)
where $`E(k,\omega )`$ is the turbulent kinetic energy spectrum and $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kroenecker tensor. Following Stein (1967), the velocity energy spectrum $`E(k,\omega )`$ is written as

$`E(k,\omega )=E(k)\chi _k(\omega ).`$ (28)
Stein (1967) and Musielak et al. (1994) suggest several forms for the frequency factor. The Gaussian function is the simplest choice and is defined as

$$\chi _k(\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega _k\sqrt{\pi }}e^{(\omega /\omega _k)^2}.$$
(29)
The time spectrum is therefore normalized such that (Tennekes & Lumley, 1982, Chap 8.1)

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \chi _k(\omega )=1.$$
(30)
One obtains from Eq.(26) :

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau d^3re^{i\omega _0\tau }u_i^{}u_j^{}u_l^{\prime \prime }u_m^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega d^3k}`$ (31)
$`\times \left[\varphi _{il}(k,\omega _0)\varphi _{jm}(k,\omega )+\varphi _{im}(k,\omega _0)\varphi _{jl}(k,\omega )\right].`$
The first term in the RHS of Eq.(26) when inserted into Eq. (31) gives no contribution. With the help of Eq.(30) and Eq.(31), the Reynolds stress contribution can be written as

$`C_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^2{\displaystyle d^3x_0\left(\rho _0^2_0^i\xi ^j_0^l\xi ^m\right)d^3k}`$ (32)
$`\times \left(T_{ijlm}+T_{ijml}\right){\displaystyle \frac{E^2(k)}{k^4}}\chi _k(\omega _0)`$
where

$$T_{ijlm}=\left(\delta _{il}\frac{k_ik_l}{k^2}\right)\left(\delta _{jm}\frac{k_jk_m}{k^2}\right).$$

Excitation by convection takes place at the top of the convection zone. In this region, eigenvectors of acoustic modes with high radial order can be considered essentially as radial and propagating in a plane-parallel manner. Hence Eq.(32) becomes (see Appendix C)

$`C_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^3𝒢{\displaystyle _0^M}𝑑m\rho _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r}{dr}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{E^2(k)}{k^2}}\chi _k(\omega _0)`$ (33)
where $`𝒢`$ is an anisotropic factor similar to Gough’s (1977) one, as defined in Eq. (93). Because of the term $`\chi _k(\omega _0)`$, eddies with $`\omega _k\omega _0`$ contribute the most to the integration over $`k`$, i.e. to mode excitation. This is in agreement with Goldreich & Kumar (1990), who state that acoustic emission arises from eddies with $`\omega _0\tau _k1`$. We have

$$\frac{\omega _k}{\omega _0}\frac{ku_k}{k_{osc}c_s}\frac{k}{k_{osc}}M_t1,$$
(34)
where $`k_{osc}`$ is the wavenumber of the mode, $`u_k`$ the velocity of an eddy with wavenumber $`k`$ and $`M_t`$ the turbulent Mach number, which is small. Eddies with $`kk_{osc}`$ are those which contribute the most to modal excitation. The oscillation and the contributive eddies are then well decoupled. Moreover, the stratification does not affect the turbulent emission (Goldreich & Kumar, 1990). The above comments altogether justify the assumption- at the beginning of this section- that $`(\rho _0^2_1^i\xi ^j_2^k\xi ^l)`$ remains constant over the length scale of the contributive eddies. These conclusions also justify the use of a homogeneous turbulence because the stratification and the oscillations have a characteristic scale length much larger than the contributive eddies.

## 4 Contribution of entropy fluctuations

As in Sect. 3 we use $`_r^i\xi ^j0`$ in Eq.(23) to obtain :

$`C_S^2={\displaystyle d^3x_0\left(_0^i\xi _i\right)^2𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }d^3rh_t^{}h_t^{\prime \prime }}`$ (35)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}h_t^{}=h_t(x_0\frac{r}{2},\frac{\tau }{2})\hfill & \text{and}& \hfill h_t^{\prime \prime }=h_t(x_0+\frac{r}{2},+\frac{\tau }{2}).\end{array}$$
(36)
Integration over the time of the first term in the RHS of Eq. (12) gives

$$h_t(x,t)=\alpha _s\delta s_t+q_t(x,t)$$
(37)
with

$$q_t(x,t)_{\mathrm{}}^tdt^{}(.(\alpha _sus_t)s_tu.\alpha _s).$$
(38)
Contribution from the crossing term between the term $`\alpha _s\delta s_t`$ (the linear term) and the term $`q_t`$ (the non linear term), i.e. $`\alpha _s\delta s_t^{}q_t^{\prime \prime }`$, vanishes (cf Appendix A). We are left with

$`C_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x_0\left(_0^i\xi _i\right)^2𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }d^3r}`$ (39)
$`\times [.\left(\alpha _s\delta s_t^{}\right)\left(\alpha _s\delta s_t^{\prime \prime }\right)+q_t^{}q_t^{\prime \prime }]..`$
### 4.1 Contribution of the linear term

We consider the contribution of the Lagrangian entropy fluctuations (i.e. the first term in the RHS of Eq. (39)).

In the Boussinesq approximation, the entropy fluctuation $`s_t`$ is related to the temperature fluctuation $`T_t`$ as

$`s_t=\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{T}}\right)_PT_t.`$ (40)
In a free turbulent medium the Eulerian temperature fluctuation acts as a passive scalar (Tennekes & Lumley, 1982; Lesieur, 1997, Chap VI-10). Thus one can expect that the Eulerian entropy turbulent fluctuation acts as a passive scalar.

Let $`\varphi _s(k,\omega )`$ be the Fourier transform of the correlation product of the Eulerian entropy fluctuation. For any passive scalar, one has the relation (Lesieur, 1997, Chap V-10)

$`\varphi _s(k,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{E_s(k,\omega )}{2\pi k^2}},`$ (41)
where the scalar spectrum $`E_s(k,\omega )`$ is related to the scalar variance as (Lesieur, 1997, Chap V-10)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_t^2(x_0,\omega )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kE_s(k,\omega ).`$ (42)
Because the Lagrangian entropy fluctuation acts as a passive scalar as well, $`\delta s_t`$ scales as $`s_t`$. The contribution of the Lagrangian entropy fluctuation is therefore proportional to

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^3re^{i\omega _0\tau }s^{}s^{\prime \prime }}=(2\pi )^4\varphi _s(0,\omega _0),`$ (43)
where the following notations have been defined :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s^{}=s_t(x_0\frac{r}{2},t_0\frac{\tau }{2})& & s^{\prime \prime }=s_t(x_0+\frac{r}{2},t_0+\frac{\tau }{2}).\end{array}$$
(44)
As was done with the kinetic energy spectrum, the scalar energy spectrum $`E_s(k,\omega )`$ is decomposed such that

$`E_s(k,\omega )=E_s(k)\chi _k(\omega )`$ (45)
with $`\chi _k(\omega )`$ the same frequency-dependent factor as in Sect. 3. Let $`\chi _k(\omega )`$ take the Gaussian form : as $`\omega _kku_k`$ we have $`\chi _k(\omega _0)=0`$ for $`k=0`$. As $`E_s(k)`$ increases as $`k^2`$ in the vicinity of $`k=0`$ (Tennekes, 1975; Tennekes & Lumley, 1982, Chap 8.6), the quantity $`\varphi _s(0,\omega _0)`$ vanishes and so does the linear term contribution. We emphasize that in the context of the approximation presented in Eq.(45), no assumption has been made regarding the behavior of the entropy energy spectrum $`E_s(k)`$. Hence, this result remains valid for any scalar spectrum and for the velocity energy spectrum.

This result may also be explained as follows: in term of mode excitation, the linear entropy source term acts as a second-order correlation product $`s^{}s^{\prime \prime }`$. Turbulence and oscillation are coupled through the phase term $`e^{i\omega _0\tau }`$ and through the turbulent time spectrum $`\chi _k(\omega )`$, which is the frequency-dependent component of $`s^{}s^{\prime \prime }`$ in the Fourier space. Therefore coupling between turbulence and oscillation occurs at frequencies close to the oscillation frequency $`\omega _0`$ and thus involves eddies of wavenumber $`kk_{osc}M_t^1`$ according to Eq. (34). On the other hand, the spatial component of $`s^{}s^{\prime \prime }`$ in the Fourier space favors eddies with the largest size ($`k0`$). These two opposite effects clearly are incompatible and lead to vanishing of the entropy fluctuation contribution.

This does not happen for the contribution of the Reynolds source term, which involves the fourth-order velocity correlation product. According to the QNA this term can be decomposed in terms of a product of two second-order velocity correlations. Coupling with the oscillation then becomes non-linear and leads to an effective non-zero contribution. Thus, only non-linear terms can contribute to mode excitation while linear terms do not. This may be considered as a general result and justifies neglect of several source terms in section 2.2.

### 4.2 Contribution of the non-linear terms

As the linear term does not contribute to the acoustic emission, Eq.(39) becomes, with Eq.(38),

$`C_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x_0(_0.\xi )^2{\displaystyle }d\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }{\displaystyle }d^3r`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_3{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_4`$
$`\times \{_1\alpha _s.\left(s_tu\right)_3\left(s_tu\right)_4._2\alpha _s`$
$``$ $`2_1\alpha _s.\left(s_tu\right)_3_2.\left(\alpha _ss_tu\right)_4`$
$`+`$ $`_1.\left(\alpha _ss_tu\right)_3_2.\left(\alpha _ss_tu\right)_4\}`$
where subscripts $`3`$ and $`4`$ refer to evaluations at positions $`[x_0r/2,t_3]`$ and $`[x_0+r/2,t_4]`$ respectively. Similar way to the Reynolds contribution, we have $`_1^i\alpha _s_2^i\alpha _s_0^i\alpha _s`$. We use an integration by parts and the derivative operators $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are replaced by the large-scale gradient $`_0`$. This finally gives

$`C_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x_0(\alpha _s_0.\xi )^2g^{ij}{\displaystyle }d\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }{\displaystyle }d^3r`$ (47)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_3{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_4\left(s_tu_i\right)_3\left(s_tu_j\right)_4`$
with

$`g^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`_0^i(\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)_0^j(\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)`$
$`2_0^i(\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)_0^j(\mathrm{ln}_0.\xi )`$
$`+_0^i(\mathrm{ln}_0.\xi )_0^j(\mathrm{ln}_0.\xi ).`$
Again, we consider the gradient of the stratification as radial and a plane parallel approximation in the excitation region. One obtains (see Appendix B and Appendix C)

$`C_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^3}{\omega _0^2}}{\displaystyle d^3x_0\left(\alpha _s\frac{d\xi _r}{dr}\right)^2g_r}`$ (49)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dk{\displaystyle \frac{E_s(k)E(k)}{k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\omega \chi _k(\omega _0+\omega )\chi _k(\omega )`$
with

$`g_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}r}}\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}r}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\xi _r\right)^2`$ (50)
and $``$ an anisotropic factor similar to Gough’s anisotropic factor (see Appendix C).

The Mixing-Length Theory (hereafter MLT Böhm - Vitense, 1958; Cox, 1968; Gough, 1977) provides an estimate of the vertical velocity of the convective flow. The corresponding kinetic energy is transferred to smaller scales through the turbulent cascade. The kinetic energy spectrum $`E(k)`$ is normalized as

$$\frac{1}{2}u^2(x_0)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kE(k)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }w^2=\frac{3}{2}u_0^2$$
(51)
where $`w`$ is an estimate for the vertical convective velocity and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a factor introduced by Gough (1977) to take into account anisotropy effects (Eq. 93). $`u_0`$ in the RHS of Eq.(51) has been introduced for convenience.

The MLT provides a relation between the temperature fluctuations and the vertical convective velocity $`w`$ (Gough, 1977) :

$$w^2=\frac{g\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta }{2\mathrm{\Phi }T}T_t^2^{1/2}$$
(52)
where $`\delta =\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\rho _0}{\mathrm{ln}T}}\right)_P`$. Thus Eq. (40, 52) provide an estimate of the entropy scalar variance

$$\stackrel{~}{s}^2s_t^2(x_0)=\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }C_P}{g\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta }\right)^2w^4.$$
(53)
This enables us to normalize the entropy spectrum $`E_s(k)`$

$$\frac{1}{2}s_t^2(x_0)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kE_s(k)=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{s}^2.$$
(54)
Following GMK we define $``$ as

$$\frac{\alpha _s\stackrel{~}{s}}{\rho _0u_0^2}=\frac{6}{\alpha _c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,$$
(55)
where $`\alpha _c`$ is the mixing-length parameter defined as usual by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\alpha _cH_p`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being the mixing-length and $`H_p`$ the pressure scale height and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is the usual adiabatic index. The quantity $`^2`$ roughly measures the ratio of the excitation by entropy fluctuations to that by fluctuations of Reynolds stresses.

The entropy contribution can then be written as :

$`C_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^3{\displaystyle _0^M}𝑑m\rho _0u_0^4^2^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r}{dr}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _0}}\right)^2`$ (56)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_s(k)E(k)}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2u_0^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\omega \chi _k(\omega _0+\omega )\chi _k(\omega )`$
with $`^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2g_r`$.

## 5 Complete formulation

With Eq.(33) and Eq.(56), the oscillation amplitude Eq.(21) is rewritten as

$`A^2={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{2\eta (\omega _0I)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^M}𝑑m\rho _0u_0^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r}{dr}}\right)^2`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E(k)}{u_0^2}}F(k,\omega _0)`$ (57)
where

$`F(k,\omega _0)`$ $``$ $`𝒢{\displaystyle \frac{E(k)}{u_0^2}}\chi _k(\omega _0)+^2^2{\displaystyle \frac{E_s(k)}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _0}}\right)^2`$ (58)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\omega \chi _k(\omega _0+\omega )\chi _k(\omega ),`$
where $`𝒢`$ and $``$ are given in Appendix C.

Results in Samadi et al. (2001a) for the solar case and in Samadi et al. (2001b) for Procyon are based on the above general expression for the mean square amplitude. In order to compare with results of previous works, we next consider specific temporal and energy spectra, namely the Gaussian time spectrum and the Kolmogorov spectrum.

### 5.1 Gaussian time spectrum

Let consider the Gaussian time spectrum given by Eq.(29). This time spectrum corresponds in the time space to a gaussian function where linewidth is equal to $`2\tau _k`$ and $`\tau _k`$ is the characteristic time correlation length of an eddy of wavenumber $`k`$. Hence $`\omega _k`$ and $`\tau _k`$ are related to each other as

$$\omega _k=\frac{2}{\tau _k}.$$
(59)
As in B92 we define $`\tau _k`$ as

$$\tau _k\frac{\lambda }{ku_k}$$
(60)
where the velocity $`u_k`$ of the eddy with wave number $`k`$ is related to the kinetic energy spectrum $`E(k)`$ as (Stein, 1967)

$$u_k^2=_k^{2k}𝑑kE(k).$$
(61)
The factor $`\lambda `$ in Eq.(60) is introduced in order to gauge the definitions of $`\tau _k`$ and $`u_k`$ which involve some arbitrariness.

Let us define the wavenumber $`k_0`$ as the wavenumber of the largest eddy in the inertial range. Thus we relate $`k_0`$ to the mixing length as follows :

$$k_0=\frac{2\pi }{\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(62)
where the parameter $`\beta `$ is introduced here again in order to gauge the definition of $`k_0`$.

For convenience we define the following variables :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}K=\frac{k}{k_0}& ,& u_K=\frac{u_k}{u_0}& ,& \omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{2\pi u_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.\end{array}$$
(63)
The mean square amplitude of Eq.(57) for the Gaussian form of Eq. (29) is given by

$`A^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \beta ^4}{32\pi \eta (\omega _0I)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^M}𝑑m\rho _0u_0^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r}{dr}}\right)^2`$ (64)
$`\times \left[𝒢𝒮_R(X)+^2^2𝒮_S(X)\right]`$
with the “source functions”

$`𝒮_R(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dK}{K^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0^2E^2(K)}{u_0^4}}e^{Z^2}`$ (65)
$`𝒮_S(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{X^2}{2\left(2\pi \right)^{5/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dK}{K^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_K}}`$ (66)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{k_0E_S(K)}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_0E(K)}{u_0^2}}\right)e^{(Z\sqrt{2})^2},`$
where $`X(m,\omega _0)\omega _0/\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the ratio $`Z=\lambda \beta X/2Ku_K`$. As shown below, the ratios $`k_0E_S(K)/\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ and $`k_0E(K)/u_0^2`$ only depend on $`K`$.

The amplitude (Eq. 64) is very sensitive to the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$ because it scales as $`\lambda \beta ^4`$ and the quantity $`\lambda \beta `$ is involved in the exponential function of Eq.(65) and Eq.(66). In section 5.2 some physical arguments yield a crude estimate for the parameter $`\beta `$. Values of parameters $`\lambda `$, $`\beta `$ are discussed in some details in Samadi et al. (2001a) in connection with solar seismic observations.

### 5.2 Kolmogorov energy spectrum

The normalization condition Eq.(51) allows us to express the Kolmogorov spectrum (Lesieur, 1997, Chap VI-4) as

$$E(K)=\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{u_0^2}{k_0}K^{5/3}& \mathrm{for}& K>1.\end{array}$$
(67)
The expression for the mean square amplitude (Eq. 57) involves also the entropy spectrum $`E_s(k)`$ which must therefore be determined. We recall that the energy spectra of the temperature and of the entropy fluctuations exhibit the same behavior (see section 4.1). Turbulence theory predicts that the energy spectrum of the temperature fluctuations follows the same scaling law as that of the kinetic energy spectrum $`E(k)`$ in the inertial-convective range (Lesieur, 1997, Chap VI-10) and it decreases as $`k^{17/3}`$ in the inertial-conductive range because molecular-conductive effects are predominant. This behavior seems to be quite well supported observations of solar granulation as is claimed by Espagnet et al. (1993) and Nesis et al. (1993).

We next turn to a specific case where we assume that the entropy energy spectrum lies in the inertial-convective range i.e. the turbulent entropy spectrum scales as the kinetic spectrum. According to the normalization conditions of Eq.(51) and of Eq.(54), this assumption provides the relation:

$$\frac{E_s(k,\omega )}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{E(k,\omega )}{u_0^2}.$$
(68)
The source functions with Eq.(67) and Eq.(68), Eq. (65) and Eq. (66) become :

$`𝒮_R(X)`$ $``$ $`0.92{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑K{\displaystyle \frac{u_K^3}{K^5}}e^{Z^2}`$ (69)
$`𝒮_S(X)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.008}{X^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑K{\displaystyle \frac{u_K^3}{K^5}}e^{(Z/\sqrt{2})^2}`$ (70)
with $`X`$ and $`Z`$ defined below Eq.(66). The source function $`S_R(X)`$ (Eq. 69) is similar to the source function $`S_Q(m,\omega )`$ obtained by B92 (Eq. 2.20). However the source function for the entropy contribution $`S_S(X)`$ (Eq. 70) differs from the one established by B92 (Eq. 3.9) in that the author extrapolated GK’s formulation of the Reynolds stress contribution for the contribution due to the Lagrangian entropy fluctuations.

For sake of comparison with the GMK formulation, we simplify Eq.(69) and Eq.(70) by using the fact that most of the stochastic emission occurs from eddies with $`\omega _k\omega _0`$ (i.e. with $`e^{(\omega _0/\omega _k)^2}1`$). For $`\omega _0/\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ integration over $`K`$ leads then to the asymptotic forms

$`\begin{array}{ccc}𝒮_R(\omega _0/\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda })^{15/2}& \mathrm{for}& {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}1,\end{array}`$ (72)
$`\begin{array}{ccc}𝒮_S(\omega _0/\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda })^{19/2}& \mathrm{for}& {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}1.\end{array}`$ (74)
The asymptotic frequency dependence, Eq. (72), is as that found by GMK. On the other hand, GMK assume the same frequency dependence for the two contributions while here the source function $`𝒮_S`$ (Eq. 74) corresponding to the entropy contribution exhibits a steeper slope. This result shows us that the power emission from the entropy contribution is less efficient at high frequency compared to the Reynolds term and thus differs from the results of GMK but is consistent with the GK statement that the contribution of the entropy fluctuation is larger for the long period $`p`$-modes than for the short period $`p`$-modes.

### 5.3 Constraints on free parameters

We next turn to the parameter $`\beta `$. The time scale at which the convective energy dissipates through the turbulent cascade is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/w`$. Thus for stationary turbulence and using Eq.(51), the rate of injection of kinetic energy $`ϵ`$ (Lesieur, 1997, Chap VI-3) can be crudely estimated as

$$ϵ\frac{3}{2}u_0^2w/\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(75)
As $`E(k)=C_Kϵ^{2/3}k^{5/3}`$ (see Lesieur, 1997, Chap VI-4) where $`C_K`$ is the Kolmogorov universal constant, which is close to $`1.5`$, and from Eq.(67) and Eq.(75) one obtains

$$k_0\frac{3}{2}C_K^{3/2}(\mathrm{\Phi }/3)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1$$
(76)
and then

$$\beta \frac{4\pi }{3}C_K^{3/2}(\mathrm{\Phi }/3)^{1/2}.$$
(77)
This suggests that crudely $`\beta 1.9`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=2`$, the value of the anisotropic factor consistent with BV’s MLT.

The value suggested for $`\beta `$ is somewhat approximate. Therefore, as in the case of the parameter $`\lambda `$, we consider $`\beta `$ as a free parameter. However, the value of $`\beta \lambda `$ is constrained by an upper limit. Indeed, let $`\tau _{k_0}`$ be the correlation time of the largest eddy in the inertial domain. The lifetime of the largest eddies in the inertial range cannot be longer than the characteristic time $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/w`$ at which the convective energy dissipates into the turbulent cascade. Therefore we must have $`\tau _{k_0}\mathrm{\Lambda }/w`$ and according to Eqs.(60,61) evaluated for $`k=k_0`$ and Eqs.(62,51) we obtain $`\beta \lambda 2.7\mathrm{\Phi }^{1/2}`$.

## 6 Discussion

In the present work, a formulation has been established which yields the oscillation amplitude of a stellar oscillation mode when it is stochastically excited by turbulent convection. The main result of this paper is the expression for the mean square oscillation amplitude $`A^2`$ given by Eq.(57) and Eq.(58). The derivation is based on theoretical developments of previous works (GK, GMK, B92) but an effort has been made to obtain a sufficiently general expression which enables one to implement any type of turbulent (kinetic and entropic) spectra and any type of temporal spectra for the turbulent eddies.

For comparison purpose, we next focused on a gaussian temporal and Kolmogorov energy spectra; we then ended up with the same expression for the Reynolds stress contribution as obtained in GMK and B92. We must stress however that in order to use the same formulation for an energy spectrum other than the Kolmogorov one, such as for instance the Spiegel spectrum, a general expression such as Eq. (57) must be used.

As far as the entropy contribution is concerned, we found that the linear term due to the entropy fluctuation gives no contribution and that it is the advection of the Eulerian entropy fluctuations by the turbulent velocity field which produces a nonzero acoustic emission.

In the derivation of the expected mean-square amplitude (Eq. 57), several assumptions and approximations have been made. For instance, it has been assumed that the oscillations and the stratification are decoupled for the eddies which contribute to the stochastic power emission. This assumption was shown to be valid and is in agreement with Goldreich & Kumar (1990). In addition, we have used the plane-parallel approximation, which is valid in the excitation region. Other assumptions are based on results from Stein’s work (1967), such as the separation of the kinetic energy spectrum $`E(k,\omega )`$ in term of a purely spatial energy spectrum $`E(k)`$ and a time-dependent factor $`\chi _k(\omega )`$ for an eddy of wavenumber $`k`$. As in Stein (1967) the QNA has been used. We have used crude approximations for estimations of the velocity and the life-time of an eddy as proposed by Stein (1967). This led us to introduce the free parameter $`\lambda `$ in the definition of the eddy lifetime.

The entropy fluctuation has been considered to act as a passive scalar and we have extended the separation of the kinetic energy spectrum in terms of a purely spatial energy spectrum $`E(k)`$ and a time-dependent factor to the entropy energy spectrum.

The MLT was required in order to estimate the power injected in the velocity and entropy turbulent cascade (Eq. 64). This theory, which assumes the Boussinesq approximation, is well known to be a crude approximation. For instance the MLT predicts that the characteristic size of the largest turbulent element is comparable with the scale height of the stratification. This is in contrast with the homogeneous hypothesis considered here for the description of the turbulent medium. However, it has already been stressed that the stochastic emission is not affected by the stratification. The use of an homogeneous turbulence is therefore valid.

The size of the largest eddy in the inertial range is estimated by the mixing length ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) according to the MLT. We have related the wavenumber of the largest eddy in the inertial range ($`k_0`$) to the mixing length. However, as for the eddy lifetime, this relation is rather arbitrary and therefore involves uncertainties. We have therefore introduced an additional free parameter $`\beta `$.

We have considered an isotropic turbulence. However, effects of anisotropy in the amplitude computaion have been partially taken into account. In this way, two anisotropic factors $``$ and $`𝒢`$ have been introduced for both contributions respectively. These factors have been related to Gough (1977) anisotropic factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

It is possible to validate some of these approximations by comparing them with results of 3D simulations of the solar envelope (Samadi, 2000, work in progress): for instance, the QNA is found to be reasonably valid.

To date, and in the solar case, several possible turbulent spectra can be investigated and compared with solar seismic observations (Samadi et al., 2001a). But we can anticipate that the entropy contribution will be dominant, as already pointed out by GMK. Comparison with solar data allows us to calibrate the free parameters which in turn can be used to compute oscillation power spectra for various solar-like oscillation stars. Indeed, unlike the Sun, it is not possible to determine the turbulent spectra of other stars from observations of the surface granulation. In the prospect of forthcoming space seismic projects (COROT, MONS, MOST, EDDINGTON) comparison of theoretical computations with seismic data of several solar-like oscillation stars will provide useful constraints on stellar turbulent spectra.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted to A. Mangeney for particularly useful suggestions and advice without which this work would not have been possible. We also thank J.-P. Zahn, M. Rieutord and A. Baglin for useful discussions.

## Appendix A Crossing terms

The entropy and Reynolds source terms involve three crossing terms arising from Eq. (20). These terms are proportional to

$`{\displaystyle d^3rs^{}u_i^{\prime \prime }u_j^{\prime \prime }}`$ (78)
$`{\displaystyle d^3ru_l^{}s^{}u_i^{\prime \prime }u_j^{\prime \prime }}.`$ (79)
The QNA gives the following relation

$`u_l^{}s^{}u_i^{\prime \prime }u_j^{\prime \prime }=u_l^{}s^{}u_i^{\prime \prime }u_j^{\prime \prime }+u_l^{}u_i^{\prime \prime }s^{}u_j^{\prime \prime }`$
$`+u_l^{}u_j^{\prime \prime }s^{}u_i^{\prime \prime }.`$ (80)
For an isotropic, homogeneous and incompressible turbulence we have $`s^{}u_j^{\prime \prime }=0`$ (Lesieur, 1997, Chap V-8). Thus the three terms in the RHS of Eq. (80) vanish.

The entropy source term introduces a crossing term between the linear and the non-linear terms of Eq.(38). This term is proportional to

$$d^3rs^{}s^{\prime \prime }u_i^{\prime \prime }.$$
(81)
Third order correlation products of quantities following a normal distribution are expected to be equal to zero. Turbulent quantities, such as the entropy fluctuations ($`s_t`$) and the turbulent velocity field ($`u`$), are not Gaussian random functions, since such turbulence would have no energy transfer between wavenumbers (Lesieur, 1997). However, for a strongly turbulent medium, as in a stellar convection zone, approximation of turbulent quantities by Gaussian random functions is consistent with the QNA and can therefore be considered as valid.

As a conclusion, the crossing term $`C_{RS}`$ and the crossing terms between the linear and non-linear terms of the entropy contribution do not contribute to oscillation excitation.

## Appendix B Entropy contribution

The QNA provides the relation

$`u_3^iu_4^js_3s_4=u_3^iu_4^js_3s_4+s_3u_3^is_4u_4^j`$
$`+s_3u_4^js_4u_3^i.`$ (82)
The terms of type $`u_3^is_3`$ and $`u_3^is_4`$ vanish (Lesieur, 1997, Chap V-8) and Eq. (47) reduces to

$`C_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x_0(\alpha _s_0.\xi )^2g_{ij}{\displaystyle }d\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }{\displaystyle }d^3r`$ (83)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_3{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_4u_3^iu_4^js_3s_4.`$
Stationarity of the turbulence allows us to write Eq.(83) as

$`C_S^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }d^3r_{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}𝑑t_3}`$ (84)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_4u^iu^j(t_4t_3)s_ts_t(t_4t_3)`$
which can be expanded in the Fourier space as

$`C_S^2`$ $``$ $`(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _0\tau }d^3k}`$ (85)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_3{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau /2}}dt_4{\displaystyle }d\omega _3d\omega _4`$
$`\times \varphi _{ij}(k,\omega _3)\varphi _s(k,\omega _4)e^{it_3(\omega _3+\omega _4)}e^{it_4(\omega _3+\omega _4)}.`$
Integrating over $`t_3`$ and $`t_4`$ in Eq.(85) and then over $`\tau `$ yields :

$`C_S^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^4}{\omega _0^2}}{\displaystyle d^3k𝑑\omega \varphi _{ij}(k,\omega )\varphi _s(k,\omega _0+\omega )}.`$ (86)
According to Eqs.(27, 28, 41, 45), Eq.(86) can be written as

$`C_S^2={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^4}{\omega _0^2}}{\displaystyle }d^3x_0(\alpha _s_0.\xi )^2g_{ij}{\displaystyle }d\omega {\displaystyle }d^3k`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{E(k)}{4\pi k^2}}\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ik_j}{k^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{E_s(k)}{2\pi k^2}}\chi _k(\omega _0+\omega )\chi _k(\omega ).`$ (87)
## Appendix C Anisotropy effects

We establish here the derivation of Eq. (33) and Eq. (49) where the anisotropy factors $`𝒢`$ and $``$ have been introduced. Thus we evaluate these factors for several cases. Let $`(x,y,z)`$ be the real (anisotropic) coordinates and $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y},\stackrel{~}{z})`$ are isotropic coordinates. We assume an isotropic turbulence in the horizontal layers while the anisotropy occurs in the vertical direction only. The two sets of coordinates are then related to each other by the anisotropic factor $`𝒬`$ as

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}x=𝒬\stackrel{~}{x}& & y=𝒬\stackrel{~}{y}& & z=\stackrel{~}{z}.\end{array}$$
(88)
$`𝒬`$ is also the ratio of the horizontal to vertical correlation lengths of the eddies. The equivalent relation in the wavenumber space is

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}k_x=𝒬^1\stackrel{~}{k}_x& & k_y=𝒬^1\stackrel{~}{k}_y& & k_z=\stackrel{~}{k}_z\end{array}$$
(89)
where $`(k_x,k_y,k_z)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{k}_x,\stackrel{~}{k}_y,\stackrel{~}{k}_z)`$ are anisotropic and isotropic wavenumber coordinates respectively. $`𝒬=1`$ corresponds to an isotropic turbulence. We place ourselves in the case $`𝒬1`$ but suppose that the energy spectra remain unchanged i.e. consistent with an isotropic turbulence. We therefore model only geometrical effects due to non-isotropic shapes of the eddies.

Evaluation of Eq. (32) gives

$`C_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^3{\displaystyle _0^M}𝑑m\rho _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r}{dr}}\right)^2`$ (90)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dk{\displaystyle \frac{E^2(k)}{k^2}}\chi _k(\omega _0)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta (1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{(𝒬^21)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +1}})^2.`$
We define for convenience the factor $`𝒢`$ as

$`𝒢={\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{(𝒬^21)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +1}}\right)^2.`$ (91)
This leads to Eq. (33).

As was done with the Reynolds stress contribution , it is straightforward to obtain Eq. (49) from Eq. (87) where the anisotropic factor $``$ is

$`={\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{(𝒬^21)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +1}}\right).`$ (92)
Gough (1977) defines the velocity anisotropic factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{u^2}{u_z^2}.$$
(93)
The lifetime of an eddy is the same in any direction ; we then have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬\mathrm{\Lambda }}{u_x^2^{1/2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝒬\mathrm{\Lambda }}{u_y^2^{1/2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{u_z^2^{1/2}}}`$ (94)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the correlation length of the largest eddy in the vertical direction. Thus one obtains from Eqs. (93 , 94) a relation between $`𝒬`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=1+2𝒬^2.`$ (95)
Integration of Eqs (91 , 92) gives

$`𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^{5/2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2a^{3/2}3\sqrt{a}}{a1}}3\mathrm{atanh}(\sqrt{a})\right]`$ (96)
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^{3/2}}}\left[\mathrm{atanh}(\sqrt{a})\sqrt{a}\right]`$ (97)
with

$`a=1𝒬^2=\left(3\mathrm{\Phi }\right)/2.`$ (98)
Table 1 gives values for $`𝒢`$ and $``$ for different values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.


format: text

text:
# Stellar Associations and their Field East of LMC 4 in the Large Magellanic Cloud

## 1. Introduction

OB stellar associations represent the younger stellar systems in a galaxy. The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is characterised by a large number of such systems, as well as of giant and super-giant shells detected in Hi. The edges of super-giant shells are in many cases the loci of recent star formation. In order to investigate the population of young stellar systems of the LMC, Gouliermis et al. (2000a) developed an objective technique for the detection of low concentrated young stellar groups. The detected systems are classified according to their stellar densities (in M pc-3) into three categories, namely ‘unbound’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘bound’ systems. It was found that the unbound systems are the stellar associations of the galaxy, while most of the intermediate ($``$ 70%) are probably stellar associations or open clusters.

The application of this method on a digitised 1.2m UK Schmidt Telescope Plate in the U band resulted in a Catalog of young stellar systems in the central (6$`.^{}`$5 $`\times `$ 6$`.^{}`$5) region of the LMC (Gouliermis et al. 2000b). It was found that the systems show to be aligned in filamentary structures (or arcs). A comparison of this survey with the newly detected giant and super-giant shells by Kim et al. (1999) showed that some of these arcs are related to the edges of the shells (Figure 1). We report the results of an investigation of stellar associations located on the north-east edge of one of the most interesting super-giant shells in this galaxy, LMC 4.

## 2. Stellar Content of the Observed Systems and the Field

We performed $`BVR`$ photometry in an area of 20$`.^{}`$5 $`\times `$ 20$`.^{}`$5 to investigate the stellar content of three stellar associations: LH 91 & LH 95 (Lucke & Hodge 1970) and LH 91-I (Kontizas et al. 1994) and their field, situated to the east of LMC 4. Our observations include H$`\alpha `$ measurements to identify the Be population of the region. We found that Be stars exist in all the associations. In LH 95 we verified that the Hii emission is strongly related to Be stars located in the very centre of the system. We estimated the reddening and the age of the systems based on isochrone fitting. The reddening was found to vary between $`E(BV)0.15`$ and 0.20 mag. All systems were found to be younger than 10 Myr, while the field is older than $`80`$ Myr. Both LH 91-I and LH 95 were identified as distinct stellar groups using star counts, while LH 91 does not show to represent any specific stellar concentration.

### 2.1. Luminosity and Mass Functions

We constructed the luminosity functions (LFs) of the MS populations of the systems and the field using the $`B`$ magnitudes. The slopes $`s`$ of the completeness corrected and field subtracted LFs ($`\mathrm{log}NsB_{\mathrm{bin}}`$) of LH 91-I and LH 95 were found to be around $`0.16\pm 0.06`$, while the one of LH 91 is steeper and similar to the field’s ($`s0.51\pm 0.08`$) for the same magnitude range of 16.5 $`<B<`$ 19.5 mag.

For the construction of the mass functions (MFs) we performed counts of stars in mass intervals. We corrected the counted numbers for incompleteness and we normalized them to a surface of 1 kpc2. A Salpeter IMF corresponds to slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.35`$. It was found that the systems have MF slopes in the range between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.6\pm 0.3`$ (field subtracted MF of LH 95) and $`2.2\pm 0.4`$ (LH 91), much more shallow than the MF slope of the field, which varies from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3.7`$ up to $`4.9`$.

In Figure 2 the most interesting case of LH 95 is presented, where a radial dependence of the MF slope was observed, possibly an indication that stars escape from the system contributing to the enrichement of the field population. We verified that LH 95 is not an extended system (further than $``$ 1$`.^{}`$5), and probably is being disrupted (Gouliermis et al. 2000c).

## References

Gouliermis, D., Kontizas, M., Korakitis, et al. 2000a, AJ, 119, 1737

Gouliermis, D., Kontizas, M., Korakitis, R., Kontizas, E. 2000b, in preparation

Gouliermis, D., Keller, S. C., de Boer, K. S., et al. 2000c, A&A submitted

Kim, S., Dopita, M. A., Staveley-Smith, L., Bessell, M. S. 1999, AJ, 118, 2797

Kontizas, M., Kontizas, E., Dapergolas, A., et al. 1994, A&AS, 107, 77

Lucke, P. B. & Hodge, P. W. 1970, AJ, 75, 171


text:
# Two-particle correlations via quasi-deterministic analyzer model

## Abstract

We introduce a quasi-deterministic eigenstate transition model of analyzers in which the final eigenstate is selected by initial conditions. We combine this analyzer model with causal spin coupling to calculate both proton-proton and photon-photon correlations, one particle pair at a time. The calculated correlations exceed the Bell limits and show excellent agreement with the measured correlations of \[M. Lamehi-Rachti and W. Mittig, Phys. Rev. D 14 (10), 2543 (1976)\] and \[ A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Rogers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 91 (1982)\] respectively. We discuss why this model exceeds the Bell type limits.

Past efforts to explain two-particle correlation measurements with hidden variable theories combined with probability methods have failed . Could we successfully explain measured correlations by replacing the probability feature by a deterministic decision process, accumulating the distributions one particle pair at a time? A deterministic trajectory model has been previously used to explain ”ghost diffraction” patterns . In a separate more extensive paper , we use a quasi-deterministic analyzer model, to explain the law of Malus for in-sequence photon counting. Here, we use this model in detailed calculations to explain the proton-proton correlations of , as well as the four-angle photon-photon correlations of Aspect et al. .

Polarized beam splitters as well as Stern-Gerlach type analyzers for spinors are eigenvalue splitters. The quasi-deterministic model outlined here is based on eigenvalue selection. To describe this theory we first rewrite certain relations contained in the generic two-component eigenvalue equation in terms of a convenient Stokes variable representation. Stokes representations for both spinors and vectors are similar and well developed .

Consider a Hermitian matrix with elements $`h_{11}=a`$, $`h_{22}=d`$, $`h_{12}=h\mathrm{exp}(ı\varphi )`$, and $`h_{21}=h\mathrm{exp}(ı\varphi )`$, where $`a`$, $`d`$, $`h`$, and $`\varphi `$ are real. With $`\mathrm{\Psi }^T=[\mathrm{\Psi }_x,\mathrm{\Psi }_y]`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_x=A_x\mathrm{cos}(\beta )\mathrm{exp}(ı\alpha _x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_y=A_y\mathrm{sin}(\beta )\mathrm{exp}(ı(\alpha _x+\delta )`$, we can extract from the eigenvalue equation $`h\mathrm{\Psi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }`$ the following relations .

$$\text{P}\text{S}=\pm P_0S_0$$
(1)
$$S_3P_2S_2P_3=0$$
(2)
$$S_1P_1=\pm (P_1)^2S_0/P_0$$
(3)
Here, $`S`$ and $`P`$ are Stokes sets that represent the field and matrix respectively and the two signs are associated with the two eigenvalues. The components of $`S`$ have the standard form $`S_0=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`S_1=S_0\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$, $`S_2=S_0\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\delta )`$, and $`S_3=S_0\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\delta )`$. The components of $`P`$ are given by $`P_0=\sqrt{(ad)^2+4h^2}`$, $`P_1=P_0\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )`$, $`P_2=P_0\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ and $`P_3=P_0\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$, where $`\mathrm{tan}(2\alpha )=2h/(ad)`$ and the eigenvalues are given by $`\lambda _\pm =(a+d\pm P_0)/2`$. Equation (2) means $`\mathrm{sin}(\delta \varphi )=0`$.

The vectors S and P represent points on the Poincare’ polarization sphere. If an incident field is to make a transition to an eigenstate, equations (1), (2), and (3) must be satisfied. From (3) we see that the eigenstate condition is related to the sign of the product $`S_1P_1`$. The Stokes variables rotate with twice the rotation angle of the field components.

The traditional e and o rays of classical macroscopic electro-optics correspond to two points on opposite sides of the Poincare’ sphere indicated by $`P_1=1`$ and $`S_1=\pm 1`$ for one crystal type. The two eigenvalues, on which the separation decision is made, determine the $`P`$ sphere radius via $`\lambda _+\lambda _{}=P_0`$, but not the direction of P. For a fixed relative phase $`\varphi `$, this gives one free variable for the matrix Stokes vector.

The point of view here is that the classical matrix Stokes vector used for a macroscopic field of many photons does not necessarily represent the matrix Stokes vector experienced by individual photons. The first assumption of this model (The distributive assumption) is that the P vectors experienced by individual incident pulses are distributed in the one free variable, at least for the surface transition region. For a given incident pulse, we randomly select this degree of freedom of P from a distribution described below.

The second assumption of this model (The deterministic assumption) is that the incident pulse makes a transition to one eigen-channel or the other, and that the choice is made with a deterministic criteria based on initial conditions of the incident pulse at the analyzer and the randomly selected P. From (2) we see that the sign of $`S_1P_1`$ indicates the eigen-channel choice. We indicate this product as a function of $`z`$, the depth into the crystal, as follows.

$$T(z)=S_1(z)P_1(z)$$
(4)
The deterministic criteria on which the calculations here are based is that the sign of $`T(z)`$ after the transition is the same as, and determined by the sign of $`T(0)`$. For a given value for $`S_1(0)`$ and $`P_1(0)`$ we make the eigen-channel decision by testing the sign of $`T(0)`$. Are the residual deviations of $`P_1(z)`$ from the macroscopic field value only surface affects, rapidly decreasing with depth into the crystal, or, do they extend throughout the crystal? Both cases give the same correlations, and as shown in , both cases give rise to the law of Malus. To correctly describe the correlations, or the law of Malus, it is only necessary that the surface value $`P_1(0)`$ is selected from a distribution. Because of averaging, it would be unreasonable to expect to answer this distribution question with experiments using a macroscopic field of many photons.

For a frame attached to the crystal analyzer (say aligned with the e and o rays), we can partition the matrix Poincare’ sphere with hemispheres indicated by the sign of $`P_1`$. However, viewed from a frame attached to one analyzer, this partition for the other analyzer is rotated. With respect to an analyzers attached frame, we choose P by choosing $`2\alpha `$ via $`2\alpha =arg`$ where $`arg=\mathrm{arccos}(u)\pi /2`$ and $`u`$ is selected uniformly from the interval $`[1,1]`$. For our linear polarizer, we have $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )=\pm 1`$ in the crystal frame. Viewed from a frame fixed to the first analyzer, the $`\text{P}^{}`$ hemisphere axis for the second analyzer is rotated from the first by $`q=\theta `$ for spinors and $`q=2\theta `$ for vectors. In this fixed reference frame, sampling for the second analyzer is made using $`2\alpha ^{}=arg(u^{})\pm q`$ where $`u^{}`$ is selected uniformly from the interval $`[1,1]`$, but independent of $`u`$. The independence of the selection of $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ represents a local stochastic element of this theory, and is the reason why we call this a quasi-deterministic model.

Pair counts for the four different coincidence combinations are represented here by $`N_{++}`$ ,$`N_+`$ , $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ . For instance $`N_+`$ is the count for the number of pairs with a $`(+)`$ for the first analyzer an $`()`$ for the second analyzer. The four pair-counts are accumulated, one pair at a time. The correlations are calculated using the function $`\gamma (\theta )=(N_{++}+N_{}N_+N_+)/N`$ , where $`N=N_{++}+N_{}+N_++N_+`$ is the total number of pairs counted.

The proton-proton correlations in  were measured using two protons in coincidence produced via scattering a proton beam by a hydrogen target. Only a small percent (We assume $`3\%`$ for the calculations reported here.) of these proton pairs are in the triplet state. Information about the spin correlations of the protons was obtained in  via scattering from a carbon target rather than using a Stern-Gerlach apparatus in each beam. The two protons each are incident upon carbon targets. Four detectors are used, two after each carbon target. On one side, the two detectors are positioned in the reaction plane. On the other, the two detectors are rotated out of the reaction plane by an angle $`\theta `$. This is an azmuthal rotation around the incident beam direction on that side.

For our reference side, we choose a $`(123)`$ right handed coordinate system with $`P_3`$ in the beam direction, and $`P_2`$ perpendicular to the plane of the two detectors. With this, one detector is in the $`P_10`$ hemisphere and the second detector is in the other. With a similar choice for the other analyzer, its $`P_1^{}0`$ hemisphere seen in the fixed reference frame is rotated by $`\theta `$ around the beam axis. This comparison is made after a rotation to account for the non-alignment of the proton beams. For convenience, we use unit normalization and $`S_1(0)=\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$ for the spinor incident on the first analyzer side, where $`2\beta `$ is sampled uniformly from the interval $`[0,2\pi )`$ . For the triplet case, we set $`S_1^{}(0)=S_1(0)`$, and for the singlet case, we set $`S_1^{}(0)=S_1(0)`$. This represents the causal coupling between the two sides.

Calculations are made using about $`10000`$ pairs at each relative angular setting. For each member of a pair of proton spinor states, the deterministic decision at the analyzer is made via testing the sign of $`T(0)`$ at each analyzer. For this, recall that $`T^{}(0)`$ , given in (4), has two factors each of which can have either sign for the rotated analyzer.

Results of calculations assuming that $`100\%`$ of the proton pairs are mutually orthogonal are shown by the solid circles in Fig. 1. The solid line corresponds to the formula $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ of quantum mechanics for the same case. The deterministic correlations calculated with $`3\%`$ of the incident pairs parallel and $`97\%`$ orthogonal are shown by the solid squares in Fig. 1. This curve falls well within the error bars of the measurements of . The proton-proton correlations calculated with this deterministic analyzer model agree well with results of quantum mechanics and with the experimental data .

Here we present calculations for four-angle photon-photon correlation  in which the two analyzers are set at angles $`(a,a^{})`$ and $`(b,b^{})`$. These angles are chosen to give a relative angle of $`\theta `$ for two of the combinations, $`\theta `$ for another combination, and $`3\theta `$ for the fourth. Each of the four angular settings represents an independent measurement. Here, the correlation function $`\gamma (\theta )`$ for each case is calculated as described above and the four-angle correlation function is then calculated by $`\gamma _4(\theta )=2\gamma (\theta )+\gamma (\theta )\gamma (3\theta )`$. For the input light, we use an isotropic distribution around the beam axis, sampling $`2\beta `$ uniformly from $`[0,2\pi ]`$. We use $`S_1^{}(0)=S_1(0)`$ for the causal coupling.

In Fig. 2 the solid circles indicate the calculated four-angle correlation, and the solid line represents the function $`3\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{cos}(6\theta )`$ of quantum mechanics. The two dash lines represent the well known (CHSH) limits . We emphasize that all contributions to each $`\gamma (\theta )`$ were calculated using the four pair counts only so there is no chance that an accidental scale factor can be included. The calculated results presented in Fig. 2 clearly confirm that the four-angle photon-photon correlations can be explained using this causal quasi-deterministic analyzer model.

In contrasting the above results with previous studies and views on this topic, many questions are raised. In discussions with many colleagues, the questions seem to focus into three. First, if we replaced the deterministic decision at each analyzer with one based on probability, would we get the same results? The answer is no! In studies leading to this work, the author has tried many different hidden variable probability models, and not found one, no matter what sampling distribution used, that agrees with the deterministic model and quantum mechanics. This finding seems to be consistent with the many studies of probability models by previous authors .

We have the second question. Since this theory is based on individual photons making transitions to one or the other eigenvalue channel, is it consistent with the Law of Malus? To the author’s mind, this question is more important than asking if this theory can explain photon-photon correlations. We recall that for distributions accumulated from individual photon counting, the law of Malus is postulated as a fundamental starting point. The analysis of this question is the central theme of a separate and more extensive study by the author  . The answer is that this theory is not only consistent with the law of Malus, but as shown in , it gives rise to it for in-sequence photon counting. We must take double serious any theory that explains both the observed photon-photon correlations and the law of Malus.

A third question is asked. Why do these calculations not respect the Bell limits, in particular the CHSH limits  for the four-angle correlation ? First, given the assumptions used, these limits follow rigorously . The answer is that this deterministic model does not respect some assumptions on which this Bell type theorem is based. To elucidate this, consider the analyzer functions $`T(0)=S_1(0)P_1(0)=\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(arg(u))`$ and $`T^{}(0)=S_1(0)P_1^{}(0)=\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(arg(u^{})\pm 2\theta )`$. The independent parameters $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ represents local stochastic features of this theory. Within the distribution range, and depending on the angle $`2\theta `$ , there are certain values of $`u^{}`$ for which the second factor in $`T^{}(0)`$ can be positive, and certain values for which this factor is negative. Because of the stochastic variable $`u`$ , we cannot know the path of the individual quantum pulse until after we have measured it. However, we still have distribution information. The number of times the second factor in $`T^{}(0)`$ is positive depends on the angle $`2\theta `$. The causal link for individual photon pairs is contained in the first two factors of $`T(0)`$ and $`T^{}(0)`$. As a consequence, we have correlations in the distributions which depend on the relative angle. The presence of the local stochastic variable, a necessary part of this theory, does not destroy all causal correlation information in the distributions.

Using $`\gamma =A_iB_i/N`$, with $`A_i=\pm 1`$ and $`B_i=\pm 1`$, where $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ represent the signs of $`T(0)`$ and $`T^{}(0)`$ respectively, we can easily arrive at the following inequality.

$`\left|\gamma _4\right|{\displaystyle \left|B_i(ab)+B_i^{}(ab^{})\right|/N}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \left|B_i(a^{}b)B_i^{}(a^{}b^{})\right|/N}`$ (6)
Because of the angular dependence of the second factor in $`T^{}(0)`$, the selection of $`B_i`$ depends on the relative angle. If we did not have this relative angular dependence, this inequality would reduce to $`\left|\gamma _4\right|2`$ of . This angle dependence does not mean that what happens at one analyzer influences what happens at the other. Rather, the angle dependence is created by the causal coupling relative to the analyzer settings.

In this model calculations, we make no use of entangled states. Our calculated results depend on the causal coupling, the deterministic decision at the analyzer and the stochastic matrix model. If we leave one of these out, such as replacing the deterministic process at the analyzer with probability, we can not describe the data. This is a simple theory which can explain the law of Malus for in-sequence photon counting as well as explain some well known two-particle correlations.