text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In theories with diffeomorphism invariance the Poincaré generators are gauged, and a space-time point is not a gauge invariant concept. It becomes therefore at least very difficult to define local observables. The only known way around this problem is provided by Holography : According to this principle a theory with diffeomorphism invariance should be describable in terms of a dual local quantum field theory defined on the boundary of the bulk space-time. This conjecture was originally obtained from considerations involving black hole entropies: Rather than growing as a function of the volume of the system, they seemed to behave proportionally to the area of a bounding surface. A precise connection between strings and confining quantum field theories was already anticipated by Polyakov, cf. eg. ; The AdS/CFT conjecture  makes these ideas very concrete, even providing an exact relationship between the correlators of the quantum field theory on the boundary and the gravity theory in the bulk.

By holographic duality we mean here that the following rather specific requirement hold: Given a classical diffeomorphism invariant action $`S\left[\varphi \right]`$ on a space-time $`M`$ there should exist a dual quantum field theory with a generating functional $`W\left[J\right]`$ which coincides with the bulk action

$`\mathrm{e}^{S\left[\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}\right]}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{W\left[J\right]}`$ (1)
when the classical action is evaluated on solutions $`\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}`$ that coincide with the currents on the boundary: $`\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}|_M=J`$. In this way the local boundary quantum field theory manages to assemble all classical nonlocal dynamics of the bulk theory. Conversely, the classical bulk theory yields now relatively easily strong nonperturbative results on the QFT side.

The problem we want to attack now (following , see also ) is to understand what theories – both in the bulk and on the boundary – may have a holographic dual. There are some indications that supersymmetry, for instance, might necessarily play a role; another characteristic that might arise naturally is the conformal symmetry also outside the fixed point description. These characteristics, if present, would naturally be very strong, rather undesired constraints on the validity of holography.

We shall choose to use the very specific description of holographic renormalization group flows due to de Boer, Verlinde and Verlinde : Another motivation for these investigations is to find out under what conditions a similar flow equation to theirs can be formulated in the presence of spin and form fields. Finally, on the course of these investigations we shall encounter interesting phenomena connected to the interplay between the bulk constraints and the boundary Ward identities.

## 2 Regularization

As Holography turns the problem of finding the generating functional of a quantum field theory into the problem of solving the classical action given a set of initial data, the appropriate framework is the Hamilton–Jacobi theory. One finds such a canonical transformation that the new phase space coordinates are constants of motion. The generating functional $`F\left[q\right]`$ of the canonical transformation must solve simultaneously all the constraints $`𝒢[p,q]`$ of the classical theory using

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{\delta F\left[q\right]}{\delta q}}.`$ (2)
The function $`F\left[q\right]`$ is then the classical action evaluated at some given (radial) time $`r`$ for fixed boundary values $`q\left(r\right)`$.

From the QFT point of view most of the bulk constraints are Ward identities. An exception is naturally the constraint that generates radial translations (Hamiltonian). It turns out that, in a generic theory containing gravity and scalars, this constraint equation can be written symbolically as

$`(F,F)`$ $`=`$ $`L.`$ (3)
The bracket produces first functional derivatives of the arguments w.r.t. the various fields on the boundary; the functional $`L`$ is the potential part of the original bulk action.

An action that solves these equations will typically diverge at some value of the transversal coordinate $`r=r_{}`$, and must therefore be regularized by subtracting from it a suitable counter term Lagrangian $`S_{\mathrm{ct}}`$

$`W=FS_{\mathrm{ct}}.`$ (4)
The presence of these divergences in the classical theory is expected, as they correspond on the QFT side to the renormalization group fixed points . We should therefore first solve

$`(S_{\mathrm{ct}},S_{\mathrm{ct}})`$ $`=`$ $`LL_{\mathrm{finite}},`$ (5)
so that the remaining piece satisfies

$`(S_{\mathrm{ct}},W)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)+L_{\mathrm{finite}}.`$ (6)
Loosely speaking, this can be written in the form

$`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{W}{J}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)+L_{\mathrm{finite}},`$ (7)
where $`\beta =\frac{S_{\mathrm{ct}}}{J}`$ plays the role of the beta functions. We shall call this equation the Callan–Symanzik equation. Notice that this procedure is not unique, but two solutions may differ by finite parts. When solving the Eq. (5) for $`S_{\mathrm{ct}}`$, one should give the ansatz as a Laurent expansion around $`r=r_{}`$, and solve the equation order by order.

## 3 Model

We will consider the most general two-derivative action with quadratic fermion couplings consistent with gauge symmetry

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(\stackrel{~}{R}2\eta \stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{}_nn+2\eta \stackrel{~}{}\left(ntrK\right)\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}F_AF^A+F_A\overline{\psi }\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }^A\psi +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }MD/\psi \frac{1}{2}\left(D/\overline{\psi }\right)M\psi +\overline{\psi }Z_A\mathrm{\Gamma }^A\psi \right)}.`$
The field strength $`F=\mathrm{d}A`$ is an Abelian $`p`$-form; There can be arbitrarily many fermion flavours, but we always suppress the index that would distinguish them. (For further notation, see Ref. .) This action encaptures, and generalizes, many interesting features of the effective superstring actions. For instance, $`F`$ could be thought of as a Ramond–Ramond field.

Finding the Hamiltonian formulation of this theory is straight forward though laborious. The result includes first class constraints that generate translations in the bulk, Lorentz rotations of the spinors and gauge transformations of the form fields. Due to the presence of spinors also a second class constraint between the spinorial momenta and coordinates arises. This means that one needs a Lorentz invariant way of dividing the fermionic phase space in coordinate and momentum directions; the boundary conditions are then imposed only on the coordinate spinors.

There are essentially three ways to proceed: The one already applied in AdS/CFT correspondence uses the split into positive and negative chirality spinors . One may also divide complex spinors in real and imaginary parts provided one can impose a Majorana condition. If there are several fermion flavours, one may pair them and use the arising symplectic flavour structure as the symplectic phase space structure. In addition, by breaking Lorentz invariance explicitly e.g. using the form field we have in the model one may try to impose generalized Majorana and chirality conditions. Here we shall be mostly involved with the chiral splitting, though we have worked out the details of the other splittings as well, and the results are similar.

In terms of the eigenstates of the chirality operator associated to the normal direction of the boundary the fermionic kinetic term separates into

$`\sqrt{\eta \widehat{g}}\left(\overline{\psi }_{}M\dot{\psi }_{}+\dot{\overline{\psi }_+}M\psi _+\right)_tG{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_{}_t\left(\sqrt{\eta \widehat{g}}M\right)\psi _{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_+_t\left(\sqrt{\eta \widehat{g}}M\right)\psi _+.`$ (9)
Here the total time-derivative term $`_tG`$ should actually be simply subtracted from the action, as argued in . Generally speaking the reason for this procedure is that the generating functional arises also on the bulk side, eventually, from a path integral propagator, defined naturally in Hamiltonian language. There will also arise terms that involve a time derivative of the metric: This will naturally change the gravitational momenta, and it turns out to be necessary to shift them by

$`\pi ^{ij}`$ $``$ $`\pi ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^{ij}G.`$ (10)
The remaining terms then fix the symplectic structure of the fermion phase space.

## 4 The Holographic Callan–Symanzik Equation

Having split the fermion phase space we can now write down the Hamilton–Jacobi equations for the full system. It turns out that, provided there are no marginal operators $`Z`$ present in the bulk and that the rank of the tensor field $`p`$ is odd, the Hamilton–Jacobi equation originating from the constraint that generates translations transversal to the boundary does indeed take the generally expected form

$`(F,F)=L,`$ (11)
where now

$`(F,F)`$ $`=`$ $`(F,F)_g+(F,F)_A+(F,F)_\phi ,`$ (12)
and the right-hand side of (11) is

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}R\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}}F_{\widehat{A}}F^{\widehat{A}}+F_{\widehat{A}}\overline{\phi }\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{A}}\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\phi }M\widehat{D/}\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{D/}\overline{\phi }\right)M\phi \right).`$ (13)
It is useful to define the following operators:

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\phi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }}\phi `$ (14)
$`𝒟^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g_{ij}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ij}𝒟`$ (15)
$`𝒟^{\widehat{A}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_{\widehat{A}}}}+\overline{\phi }\zeta M^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\phi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }}M^1\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{A}}\phi .`$ (16)
Had we also considered $`p`$ even, the last equation would have been different: Then the operator $`𝒟^{\widehat{A}}`$ would have contained terms with either no or two derivatives w.r.t. the fermion fields. Derivatives act from the left, but not on fields included in the same operator. Now the brackets can be written easily

$`(F,H)_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \kappa ^2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\left(g_{il}g_{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}g_{ij}g_{kl}\right)\left(𝒟^{ij}F\right)\left(𝒟^{kl}H\right)`$ (17)
$`(F,H)_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \lambda ^2}{2\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\left(𝒟^{\widehat{A}}F\right)\left(𝒟_{\widehat{A}}H\right)`$ (18)
$`(F,H)_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi }}M^1\widehat{D/}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta \overline{\phi }}}\left(\widehat{D/}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi }}\right)M^1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta \overline{\phi }}}\right).`$ (19)
The reason for the fact that also the fermionic momenta give rise to a bracket is easily seen in the case for Weyl fermions: The chiralities of the coordinates and the momenta are such that if we insert any operator even in Clifford matrices between them, $`\overline{\pi }𝒪_{\mathrm{even}}\phi `$, the result is nontrivial. Similarly, the nontrivial results for odd operators arise from insertions between either two coordinates, $`\overline{\phi }𝒪_{\mathrm{odd}}\phi `$, or two momenta, $`\overline{\pi }𝒪_{\mathrm{odd}}\pi `$. An analogous structure arises also for Majorana fields.

Including higher order interactions could be a problem, because they would introduce higher powers of momenta, which would spoil the basic form of the brackets. However, we have seen above an encouraging rearrangement of terms, where the structure of the theory solves a similar problem. For instance, the form field kinetic term absorbs some four fermion couplings in the expression $`\left(𝒟^{\widehat{A}}F\right)^2`$. We can indeed view the fermionic additions in $`𝒟^{\widehat{A}}`$ as a covariantization of the flat derivative with respect to the form field $`\widehat{A}`$.

## 5 Constraints and Ward identities

In addition to the constraint that essentially generates the (radial) time evolution treated above, we have to solve also the rest of the first class constraints that generate, generally speaking, gauge symmetry, diffeomorphism invariance and local Lorentz symmetry on the boundary. The reason why this might not be straight forward is that, in the bulk, these constraints generate symmetry transformations through Dirac brackets. Due to the ansatz (2) in Hamilton–Jacobi formalism they will act differently on $`F`$. As far as the Lorentz and the gauge symmetries are concerned the geometrically expected actions are obtained. In case the of diffeomorphism invariance some additional constraints arise.

For instance, the fact that $`A_{\widehat{A}}`$ enters the generating functional $`F`$ only through its field strength is sufficient to solve the constraint. This simply reflects the fact that the boundary theory must have the same gauge symmetry as the bulk theory. A similar situation prevails as far as the Lorentz constraint is concerned: It guarantees local Lorentz invariance on the boundary. Choosing a gauge and Lorentz invariant $`S_{\mathrm{ct}}`$ will be enough to avoid anomalies in the boundary theory.

The situation is somewhat more involved when the constraints that guarantee diffeomorphism invariance are considered. Solving them we find that the variation

$`\delta _\chi `$ $`=`$ $`_k\chi ^jL_{j\underset{¯}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta L_{k\underset{¯}{\alpha }}}}+\chi ^i\left(_{[i}A_{\widehat{A}]}𝒟^{\widehat{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }}\widehat{D}_i\phi +\widehat{D}_i\overline{\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\phi }}}\right)`$ (20)
should annihilate the effective action. This differs from the expected Lie-derivative in two respects: First, the transformation of the form field is accompanied by a gauge transformation. Second, its action on fermions is modified by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi \phi `$ $`=`$ $`\iota _\chi F_{\widehat{A}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{A}}M^1\zeta \phi `$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi \overline{\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\iota _\chi F_{\widehat{A}}\overline{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{A}}\zeta M^1`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi =\delta _\chi _\chi `$. If we want to restrict to theories where the boundary diffeomorphism invariance still prevails, we have to put this difference to zero.

For instance, if in $`S_{\mathrm{ct}}`$ there is a coupling of the boundary fermions to an external tensor field, that field should be aligned with $`F_{\widehat{A}}`$ in a certain way. Further, if there is a kinetic term $`\overline{\phi }\widehat{D/}\phi \left(\widehat{D/}\overline{\phi }\right)\phi `$ the following restrictions should hold:

$`_\chi \widehat{F}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (23)
$`\iota _\chi F^{i\widehat{A}}\widehat{D}_i\phi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (24)
These are strong requirements, as they concern the boundary fields and not only couplings, and therefore really restrict, from the bulk point of view, the set of acceptable initial conditions. The simplest way to solve them is naturally to exclude the kinetic terms from the action. They can also be solved by assuming $`\iota _\chi \widehat{F}=0`$: This means that the Killing isometry only changes the field $`\widehat{A}`$ by generating a gauge transformation: This would mean that there are no restrictions on the fermion fields, whereas the form field potential is frozen to configurations covariant under flows generated by $`\chi `$.

Considering diffeomorphism invariant terms in $`S_{\mathrm{ct}}`$, one obtains the Ward identity

$`_\chi W+\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi \overline{\phi }𝒪_{\overline{\phi }}𝒪_\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_\chi \phi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi S_{\mathrm{ct}}.`$ (25)
The right-hand side is the failure of the counter-terms to satisfy the full bulk diffeomorphism constraint, while the vacuum expectation values would signal the breaking of Lorentz symmetry in the dual QFT.

In order to understand the implications of these Ward identities let us consider as a toy model the Maxwell theory with a (decoupled) fermion:

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\overline{\psi }/\psi .`$ (26)
Suppose we know, somehow, that in the full quantum theory there is a symmetry

$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \lambda `$ (27)
$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\lambda \psi `$ (28)
$`\delta \overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\psi }\lambda .`$ (29)
Our effective action fails to satisfy this symmetry by $`\delta S_0=i\overline{\psi }[/,\lambda ]\psi `$. We can compensate by adding to the action the piece $`S_1=\overline{\psi }iA/\psi `$. Therefore, due to the presence of the symmetry we are forced to twist the spinor bundle by the line bundle, whose (Abelian) connection $`A`$ is.

In the present system we see similar behaviour in that there, too, a symmetry principle constrains the effective action in a way that seems to force new complicated interactions to compensate the (almost) inevitable violations of the action given by the naive symmetry principles. The situation is much complicated, however, by the fact that the symmetry transformation involves higher rank gamma matrices, and no simple extension of a Dirac operator is yet available.

## 6 Conclusions

We have investigated the relationship between diffeomorphism invariant theories and their holographic duals, showing in particular that, in a theory that contains fermions, nontrivial consistency conditions arise. These conditions restrict, for instance, the couplings of even rank form field field strengths to fermions in dimensions, where we have to – or choose to – consider only chiral boundary data. Although the gauge and the Lorentz constraints did not lead to surprises, the Poincaré ones resulted in an anomalous contribution of the diffeomorphism Ward identity on the boundary. We have also indicated methods for finding counter-terms that solve these constrains exactly.

Acknowledgements

Work supported by the CNRS and the European Commission RTN programme RTN1-1999-00116 in which J.K. is associated to Imperial College, London. D.M. is partly supported by PPARC through SPG#613.


format: text

text:
# Neutrinos from propagation of ultra–high energy protons

## I Introduction

The highest energy cosmic rays are energetic enough to have photoproduction interactions on the microwave background. These collisions cause energy loss affecting the cosmic ray spectrum  – the GZK cutoff. In most astrophysical environments all secondary mesons produced in photoproduction interactions decay into $`\gamma `$–rays and neutrinos. Shortly after the original papers on the GZK cutoff it was suggested  that guaranteed fluxes of ultra-high energy (UHE) neutrinos will be produced by the propagation of UHE cosmic ray (UHECR) protons in the Universe. This suggestion was followed by more sophisticated estimates  that attempted to predict more realistically the expected neutrino fluxes and relate the detection of such fluxes to the neutrino cross section at very high energy and the then unknown mass of the $`W`$ boson. Hill & Schramm  introduced the cosmological evolution of cosmic ray sources and used the measurements of the cosmic ray spectrum by the Haverah Park  and the Fly’s Eye  experiments to determine minimum and maximum allowed normalizations for the flux of such ‘propagation’ neutrinos and calculated detection rates for different types of detectors. More recent estimates include the work of Stecker and collaborators , Yoshida & Teshima , and Protheroe & Johnson .

Meanwhile the world statistics of ultra-high energy cosmic rays has significantly increased  and, most importantly, two events of energy substantially above 1020 eV were detected by the Fly’s Eye  and AGASA  experiments. These events suggest that the maximum energy of cosmic ray acceleration Emax may be significantly higher than the previous nominal estimate of 1020 eV, if these events are not a result of the decay of extremely massive exotic particles  or other exotic processes .

We assume that UHECR are of astrophysical origin and present here a new estimate of the expected neutrino fluxes generated during propagation by the ultra-high energy cosmic rays. We use recent results on the propagation of UHE protons  to estimate the neutrino production. The aim is to explore the neutrino production with a photoproduction interaction model (SOPHIA ) that fits well the experimentally measured multiparticle production data over a wide energy range. For this purpose we extend the calculation of proton propagation in the local universe by Stanev et al.  to cosmological distances. We also study the importance of the cosmological evolution of the sources of cosmic rays in different cosmological models. The aim of the present work is to study the level at which these ultra-high energy neutrinos are indeed guaranteed.

Section II discusses the neutrino production from propagation of ultra-high energy protons in the local Universe. In Section III we obtain the neutrino spectra from homogeneously distributed cosmic ray sources accounting for the cosmological evolution of these sources. Section IV explores variations in this flux under the influence of different assumptions concerning proton injection spectra, source evolution and distribution, and background cosmology. Section V gives a brief overview of the event rates that could be expected in future large neutrino detectors. Discussion of the results and the conclusions from this research are given in Section VI.

## II Neutrino fluxes from proton propagation in the local universe

We begin with our method for calculating neutrino production from proton propagation in the the nearby universe (for a detailed discussion see ). The calculation is carried out as a Monte Carlo simulation of individual particle histories in the presence of the cosmic background radiation, including energy loss processes such as photoproduction, $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production, and adiabatic losses. The extension of this method to cosmological distances is discussed Sec. III.

An important new ingredient of the calculation is to use the event generator SOPHIA  to simulate in detail the proton/neutron interactions with photons from the cosmic microwave background. This event generator has several main differences from previously used codes:
(1) the inclusion of direct pion production at the photoproduction threshold. In this $`t`$-channel process the photon is absorbed via a $`\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^+`$ vertex, and so only charged pions are produced. Although the cross section for this process is smaller than the dominant $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ resonance, it yields a significant number of neutrinos, when folded with the steep proton injection spectrum.
(2) explicit consideration of 10 different resonance production channels in the important energy region just above the particle production threshold.
(3) QCD motivated multipion production at large center-of-mass energies.

To evaluate the neutrino yields, protons are injected in narrow logarithmic bins and all products of their interactions are collected with the same energy binning. We use 10 bins per energy decade, and 10000 protons per bin weighted by an $`E^2`$ spectrum within each bin. The injection energy ranges from $`10^{19}`$ to $`10^{23}`$ eV. This gives the option to explore different injection power spectra and cutoff energies by rescaling the products of each energy bin.

The results from the Monte Carlo are illustrated in Fig. 1. Concerning the overall yield of neutrinos, the dominant feature is the turn on of the GZK process at $`E_p5\times 10^{19}`$ eV. The ratio of yield in neutrino energy to yield in radiative energy depends primarily on the ratio of charged to neutral pion production. If all pion production occurred through the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ resonance this ratio would be approximately $`(\frac{3}{4}\times \frac{1}{3})/(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{4}\times \frac{1}{3})=\frac{1}{3}`$, where for charged pions $`\frac{3}{4}`$ of the energy goes to neutrinos. At high energies, isospin “democracy” suggests that the ratio should tend to $`(\frac{3}{4}\times \frac{2}{3})/(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}\times \frac{2}{3})=1.`$ For low energy protons, direct production of charged pions plays an important role, again increasing the neutrino yield above that expected from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ resonance.

The next step is to place the neutrino production model into an astrophysical setting. For the proton source spectra we use a power law with an exponential high-energy cutoff

$$\frac{dN}{dE}E^\alpha \times \mathrm{exp}(E/E_c),$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ = 2 unless otherwise stated and $`E_c=10^{21.5}`$ eV. During propagation, adiabatic energy losses for the protons are calculated assuming $`H_0`$ = 75 km/s/Mpc. Similarly, neutrino energies are redshifted by a factor of $`(1+z)`$, where $`z`$ is the redshift of the interaction site.

The energy degradation of ultra-high energy protons in propagation in the microwave background is very fast. The minimum mean free path for photoproduction interactions is 3.8 Mpc at a proton energy of $``$6$`\times `$1020 eV. Protons with an energy of about 1021 eV thus interact on the average twice or more during the first 10 Mpc of propagation and lose close to 50% of their injection energy. A significant fraction of the energy loss (about 40%) goes into neutrinos. The neutrino flux thus originates from the initial stages of proton propagation.

Fig. 2 shows the fluxes of electron and muon neutrinos after propagation over different distances up to a maximum of 200 Mpc. About 60% of the final neutrino fluxes are generated in the first 50 Mpc and more than 80% in the first 100 Mpc. The contribution from the second half of the maximum propagation distance is small because the proton spectrum is deprived of $`>10^{20}`$ eV particles and photoproduction interactions are rare. It follows, therefore, that from the point of view of neutrino production a source at 200 Mpc produces a fully evolved spectrum. Accordingly, for the cosmological scenarios that follow in Section III we scale the neutrino yields to this result.

There are two other noticeable features in the neutrino spectra shown in Fig. 2. The muon neutrino spectra have a single peak at energies between 1018 and 1019 eV. Electron neutrinos, however, exhibit a more complicated double peak structure. The first peak between 1016 and 1017 eV is populated by $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from neutron decay. The neutron decay length equals the photoproduction interaction length at about 4$`\times `$1020 eV and neutrons of lower energy are more likely to decay than to interact. This leads to the formation of an additional peak in the electron neutrino spectrum. The second peak, in a position similar to that of muon neutrinos, is populated mostly by $`\nu _e`$ from $`\mu ^+`$ decay with a small admixture of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ generated predominantly in neutron photoproduction interactions. The ratio of $`(\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu )/(\nu _e+\overline{\nu }_e)`$ in the second peak is 2, as expected, although integrated over the whole spectrum the ratio is closer to 1.

One also notices the slight shift of the peak of the distribution to lower energy with the propagation distance. At longer propagation distance, lower energy protons suffer photoproduction interactions and generate lower energy neutrinos. There is also a small effect from the adiabatic losses of all neutrinos, but this is hardly noticeable here because the maximum source redshift considered is only $`z0.05`$.

Fig. 3 shows the total number of neutrinos produced per source proton as a function of the source distance. Because the protons lose most of their energy during propagation over the first 50 Mpc, one would naively expect that the neutrino number does not change for source distances above 100 Mpc. The continuing rise of the neutrino to proton number ratio is due to redshift effects. The minimum proton energy for photoproduction interactions decreases as $`(1+z)^1`$, which leads to an increase of the number of interacting protons. Even for relatively small redshifts involved ($`z`$ = 0.1 for 400 Mpc) this leads to an increase of the generated number of neutrinos.

Fig. 3 also underlines the importance of the maximum energy of the proton injection spectrum. In this calculation we use an exponential cut–off with $`E_c=10^{21.5}`$ eV. Assuming an $`E_c`$ of 1020.5 eV would not drastically decrease the neutrino flux. Cutting off the proton injection spectrum at lower energy would, however, require very nearby sources for the extremely high energy showers detected by the Fly’s Eye and AGASA experiments.

## III Neutrinos from proton propagation over cosmological distances

In the following we will focus on the case of uniformly distributed sources with identical proton injection spectra. Although a homogeneous source distribution is disfavored by the resulting source energy requirements and arrival proton spectra , it serves here as a simple generic model whose results can be easily rescaled to account for local density enhancements or even nearby point sources.

The local neutrino flux of flavor $`i`$ generated from the propagation of cosmic rays over cosmological distances can be written as an integral over redshift and the proton energy $`E_p^s`$ ($`s`$ denotes “source”)

$$_i(E_{\nu _i})=\frac{c}{4\pi E_{\nu _i}}(z,E_p^s)Y(E_p^s,E_{\nu _i},z)\frac{dE_p^s}{E_p^s}𝑑z.$$
(2)
Here, the neutrino yield function is

$$Y(E_p^s,E_{\nu _i},z)=E_{\nu _i}\frac{dN_{\nu _i}}{dN_pdE_{\nu _i}}.$$
(3)
Also, the source function per unit redshift is

$$(z,E_p^s)=(z)\eta (z)_0(E_p^s),$$
(4)
where $`(z)`$ parametrizes the cosmological source evolution, $`\eta (z)`$ describes the cosmological expansion, and $`_0(E_p^s)`$ is a properly normalized version of the source spectrum in Eq. (1). The metric element $`\eta (z)`$ is defined as

$`\eta (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dz}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_0(1+z)}}[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (6)
$`+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })(1+z)^2]^{1/2}`$
which simplifies to $`1/(H_0(1+z)^{5/2})`$ for the Einstein – de Sitter universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ = 1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0).

The yield function $`Y`$ is evaluated utilizing the Monte Carlo result for a 200 Mpc source and the scaling relation

$$Y(E_p^s,E_\nu ,z)=Y((1+z)E_p^s,(1+z)^2E_\nu ,0).$$
(7)
In scaling $`E_\nu `$ one factor of $`(1+z)`$ arises from redshifting the neutrino energy from its observed value to its production value. Both $`E_\nu `$ and $`E_p^s`$ scale by $`(1+z)`$ to maintain the same invariant reaction energies in the presence of a higher cosmic background temperature. Although it simplifies the numerical work considerably, utilizing the scaling relation introduces some approximations. For redshifts $`\stackrel{<}{}0.05`$ it overestimates the neutrino production as per Fig. 2. However the contribution to the total fluxes coming from $`z<0.05`$ is very small (see Fig. 5 below). Another effect is that at high redshift the competition between neutron decay and neutron photoproduction is altered in favor of photoproduction, and so we make a modest overestimate of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux around $`10^{16}`$ eV. At high energies, the sum of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _e`$ fluxes remains unchanged, but the flavor distribution may be altered.

The source proton luminosity $`_0`$ is parametrized as

$$_0(E_p^s)=P_0\left(_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^{E_{\mathrm{max}}}E_p^s\frac{dN_p}{dE_p^s}𝑑E_p^s\right)^1E_p^s\frac{dN_p}{dE_p^s},$$
(8)
with $`dN_p/dE_p^s`$ given by Eq. (1) and $`P_0`$ denoting the injection power per unit volume.

The injection power of cosmic rays with energy above $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=10^{19}`$ eV can be roughly estimated using the local cosmic ray energy density . The cosmic ray flux $`dN/(dEd\mathrm{\Omega }dAdt)`$ at 1019 eV is about 2.5$`\times `$10-28 cm-2s-1ster-1GeV-1. Assuming that:
1) all cosmic rays at that energy are extragalactic;
2) 1019 eV cosmic ray flux is as at injection; and
3) the differential proton spectrum at injection is a power law with spectral index $`\alpha `$ = 2,
one obtains a cosmic ray energy density

$$\rho _e=\frac{4\pi }{c}E\frac{dN}{dEd\mathrm{\Omega }dAdt}𝑑E$$
(9)
of $`1.1\times 10^{54}`$ erg/Mpc3 per decade of energy. To calculate the injection power required to maintain this energy density one needs to make an assumption about the lifetime $`\tau _{CR}`$ of these cosmic rays. A conservative approach would be to use a lifetime close to the Hubble time. Using $`\tau _{CR}=10^{10}`$ yrs gives a power of 1.1$`\times `$1044 erg/Mpc$`{}_{}{}^{3}/`$yr per decade of energy. Of course, the total power for $`E>`$1019 eV depends on the maximum energy at acceleration.

The correct way of calculating the injection power for a model of cosmic ray source distribution and injection (acceleration) spectra is to propagate the accelerated spectra from the sources to us and fit the locally observed spectrum. We do not perform this procedure because it involves assumptions on the cosmic ray source distribution and the structure and strength of the extragalactic magnetic fields which are beyond the scope of this paper. We use instead the cosmic ray injection power obtained in a similar, somewhat simplified way by Waxman , who derived $`P_0=4.5\pm 1.5\times 10^{44}`$ erg/Mpc3/yr between 1019 and 1021 eV for power law cosmic ray injection spectra with $`\alpha `$ between 1.8 and 2.7. We will use this value of $`P_0`$ for the energy spectrum of Eq. (1) integrated between 1019 and 1022 eV. The higher $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ approximately compensates for the factor of $`\mathrm{exp}(E/E_c)`$ as compared to Waxman’s result.

Finally, we have to specify the cosmological evolution of the cosmic ray sources, $`(z)`$. We use the parametrization of , i.e.

$$(z)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(1+z)^3\hfill & :& z<1.9\hfill \\ (1+1.9)^3\hfill & :& 1.9<z<2.7\hfill \\ (1+1.9)^3\mathrm{exp}\{(2.7z)/2.7\}\hfill & :& z>2.7\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`n=3`$ describes the source evolution up to moderate redshifts. We also briefly consider a stronger evolution model with $`n=4`$ up to $`z`$=1.9 and flat at higher redshifts.

Fig. 4 shows electron and muon neutrino fluxes obtained with our nominal choice of astrophysical and cosmological parameters, and carrying out the integration to a redshift of $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=8`$. Integrating to infinity increases the neutrino fluxes by only about 5%.

Fig. 4 also shows the limits on neutrino production in cosmic ray sources derived by Waxman & Bahcall  (WB). As those calculations were carried out for the same source evolution model, similar spectra and the same injection power $`P_0`$, they serve to compare the expectations for ‘source’ versus ‘propagation’ neutrinos associated with UHECR of astrophysical origin. Our propagation flux is slightly below the WB limit for the muon neutrino and antineutrino flux for energies between 1018 and 1019 eV. The differences lie in the assumed neutrino yield per proton. For their limit, WB assume a maximal thin source, i.e. an energy equal to that of the injected proton is deposited into neutrinos, whereas for our calculation only a fraction goes into neutrinos, as shown in Fig. 1. At higher energies one can see the effect of the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(E/E_c)`$ in our source spectrum. At lower energies, the cosmic background radiation is devoid of high energy photons and so low energy protons do not produce neutrinos. In contrast, the cosmic ray sources are assumed to have abundant higher energy photons and so the limit on source neutrinos continues to scale as $`E^2`$ to low energies.

Fig. 5 is designed to show how the neutrino flux is built up from contributions at different redshifts. It is evident that the high and low ends of the neutrino spectrum are sensitive to different epochs of the source evolution. First consider the protons that will contribute to neutrinos with energy $`10^{19}`$ eV. At $`z=0`$ these protons have an energy of a few times $`10^{20}`$ eV, above the threshold for photoproduction. This energy will increase with the source redshift. As a result, the source contribution $`E_pdN/dE_p`$ for these neutrinos effectively decreases as $`(1+z)^1`$. To this we must add additional factors of $`\eta (z)(z)(1+z)^{0.5}`$ for the source evolution in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ cosmology, and a factor of $`(1+z)`$ explicit in the $`(1+z)d/d(1+z)`$ plot. Together, the function plotted naively scales as $`(1+z)^{0.5}`$. This scaling stops at $`z=1.9`$ where $`(z)`$ is assumed to flatten. For higher energy neutrinos $`E_\nu =10^{20}`$ eV, the increasing proton energy runs into the exponential cutoff $`E_c`$ of our model injection spectrum causing a further decrease with $`1+z`$. The result of these considerations is that the highest energy neutrinos are produced primarily by relatively young sources, and are sensitive to assumptions about the recent universe.

For low energy neutrinos, say $`10^{16}`$ eV the story is a bit more complicated. From kinematic arguments the prime production candidate for such neutrinos would be a proton of energy a few times $`10^{17}`$ eV, but such protons are below the photoproduction threshold. Protons with higher energy can, of course, produce low energy neutrinos, but due to the small phase space the production is suppressed by a factor of $`E_\nu /E_p`$. Now, as the source redshift increases, $`E_\nu `$ at production also increases as $`1+z`$. At the same time, the minimum value for $`E_p`$ at production decreases due to the increasing cosmic microwave background temperature. Thus, phase space considerations of the neutrino production process yield a net factor of $`(1+z)^2`$. With the lowering of $`E_p`$, the source spectrum factor yields an increase of $`1+z`$. Including $`\eta (z)(z)`$ and the explicit $`1+z`$ for the plot gives an overall dependence of $`(1+z)^{4.5}`$ at low energies. This behavior continues until
a) the source evolution model changes its $`z`$ dependence, or
b) the photoproduction threshold at $`z`$ has dropped so that there is no phase space suppression for that neutrino energy. At that point there is a transition to the high energy behavior outlined above. The net result of these considerations is that the low energy part of the spectrum is dominated by high redshift sources, and is sensitive to assumptions of a cosmological nature in our calculation.

Finally, we comment on the energy where the neutrino flux peaks in Fig. 4. Given the turn on of photoproduction (Fig. 1) and the kinematics of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, one might expect the peak to occur at around $`10^{19}`$ eV. Our Monte Carlo, however, yields more neutrinos with a softer spectrum than a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance model, so the peak from a low redshift source occurs at about $`3\times 10^{18}`$ eV, as seen in Fig. 2. Moreover, as discussed just above, the peak of the cosmological spectrum is shifted by two factors of $`(1+z)`$ from the redshift which dominates the source contributions. For our $``$, $`\eta `$ and $`_0`$ this occurs at $`(1+z)=2.9`$, and so the resultant neutrino spectrum peaks at around $`3\times 10^{17}`$ eV as seen in Fig. 4.

## IV Variations

Many of the parameters associated with the calculation of the neutrino fluxes shown in Fig. 4 have rather large uncertainties. The power needed to maintain the flux of cosmic rays above 1019 eV varies by about 30% for injection differential spectral indices between 1.8 and 2.7 . The cosmological evolution of the source luminosity evaluated from star formation regions  could be somewhat stronger, as also indicated by the attempts to derive the cosmological evolution of GRB  and their fluences . We show the influence on the generated neutrino fluxes in Fig. 6 where we calculate the neutrino flux with the same injection power but a stronger cosmological evolution - $`(1+z)^4`$ up to $`z`$ = 1.9 and constant thereafter. The stronger cosmological evolution increases the neutrino flux by a factor of 3 and generates a small shift of the maximum flux to lower energy. The integration was carried again to redshift of 8.

The two sets of points in Fig. 6 represent calculations of Yoshida & Teshima (diamonds, source evolution with $`n`$ = 4 and cutoff at $`z=4`$) and of Protheroe & Johnson  (crosses, energy cutoff at $`E=10^{21.5}`$ eV).

All three calculations show the peak of the neutrino spectrum at approximately the same energy of 2-3$`\times `$1017 eV. The spectrum of Yoshida & Teshima is somewhat narrower then the one obtained in this work, while the agreement with Protheroe & Johnson is very good. This latter work uses the cosmological evolution evolution model RLF2  with the ‘fudge factor’ of Rachen & Biermann  rather than a simple redshift dependence.

The neutrino flux calculated by Stecker et al.  (not shown) seems to be based on an injection power not much different from the normalization of Waxman. The spectrum however peaks at higher energy. An error might have been made in accounting for the neutrino redshift (F.W. Stecker, private communication).

In Fig. 7 we show the neutrino fluxes obtained with the source evolution of Eq. (10) and differential injection spectral indices of 2.5 and 3, keeping again the injection power and $`E_c`$ constant. The steeper injection spectra generate smaller neutrino fluxes at high energy, because of the much smaller number of protons above 1020 eV that are mostly responsible for high energy neutrino production. By contrast, low energy neutrinos are predominately generated by protons injected at high redshift, where the threshold for photoproduction is decreased by a factor of $`1+z`$. Because the total injection power is kept constant, a steeper spectrum results in an increase in the flux of lower energy protons and, hence, low energy neutrinos.

All results shown above are calculated for a homogeneous source distribution. It has been suggested in the past, and recently in the context of a specific acceleration model in Ref.  that the observed cosmic ray spectrum can be best fit by a combination of a homogeneous source distribution with an enhancement of local sources at distances less than 20 Mpc or with a single source at a similar distance.

Fig. 8 shows the neutrino fluxes generated under the assumption that the injection power of homogeneously distributed sources is $`P_0/2`$ and 50% of the UHECR at $`10^{19}`$ eV are generated by a single source at a distance of 20 Mpc. This scenario will not predict a proton arrival spectrum similar to that of Waxman  because the injection spectrum is kept, up to the normalization, the same for the single source at 20 Mpc and the homogeneously distributed sources. It merely serves as a simple example of the changes to be expected in such a case. It is also a good approximation for a local density enhancement because the difference between the neutrino flux magnitudes for a single source and local enhancement scenarios is very small.

The observational difference is substantial because, for a single source scenario, most of the high-energy neutrinos would come from the direction of that source. Most of the neutrinos due to proton propagation from a local source would be generated in the first interaction of protons of energy above 1020 eV (see Fig. 3). These high-energy protons do not scatter significantly in a random extragalactic field with an average strength of less than 100 nG and the relativistic decay kinematics ensures that the neutrinos are emitted in the direction of the proton momentum.

Finally we discuss the importance of the cosmological model. All calculations shown above are performed with the assumption of a flat, mass dominated universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ = 1). However, recent astrophysical observations agree better with models containing a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . From the behavior of $`\eta `$ (see Eq. (6)) one may expect an increased contribution to the neutrino production from higher redshifts.

Fig. 9 shows the difference in the expected neutrino fluxes for the Einstein – de Sitter Universe (solid line) and a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ = 0.3 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0.7, as currently favored by measurements , both with a source evolution proportional to $`(1+z)^4`$. We use the stronger source evolution and carry the integration out to a redshift of 8 to emphasize the difference between the cosmological models. For a flat universe the ratio of fluxes is always smaller than $`1/\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (see Eq. (6)). The difference between the Einstein – de Sitter Universe and one with a non-vanishing cosmological constant does not, however, depend very strongly on the cosmological evolution model of the sources. The ratio between the two cosmologies is about 1.6 for $`n`$ = 3 evolution and 1.7 for $`n`$ = 4 evolution.

We caution that in the absence of a model which consistently accounts for the effects of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the source evolution function $`(z)`$, this increase should be regarded as an upper limit. Specifically, we have varied $`\eta `$, but kept $``$ constant, whereas it might be argued that keeping the product $`\eta `$ constant would be a better approximation to the effects of a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the source evolution, in which case there would be no change in the neutrino flux.

## V Event rates from these neutrinos

Detection of neutrinos produced during the propagation of UHECR protons is a challenge. The flux peaks above 1017 eV where the neutrino nucleon cross-sections are of order 10-31 cm2. Such values of $`\sigma _{\nu N}`$ are large enough to make the Earth opaque, but still require 100-1000 km of water to ensure an interaction. As a result, there is no sensitivity to upward neutrinos and low efficiency for downward neutrinos. Under these circumstances the prime detector requirement is large mass, of order 100 km3 (water), in order to guarantee a few events per year. With such large volumes, the typical event may be assumed to be a contained event where the visible energy is dominated by the high energy shower associated with the neutrino interaction vertex. Special detector geometries may provide additional sensitivity to $`\mu `$ or $`\tau `$ leptons produced in charge current events. Although we phrase our discussion in terms of water/ice detectors, sufficient mass may also be achieved by monitoring large volumes of atmosphere.

All types of neutrino interactions generate showers. In charged current (CC) interactions of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos the neutrino energy is completely released in the form of shower particles. The hadronic shower carries a fraction $`y`$ of the initial neutrino energy $`E_\nu `$, while the electromagnetic shower carries the remaining $`(1y)E_\nu `$. Although the electromagnetic shower will be stretched out by the LPM effect, both showers are likely to be contained within the detector volume. In charged current interactions of muon neutrino and antineutrinos we only use $`yE_\nu `$ for the shower energy, as we do in the neutral current (NC) interactions of all neutrino types. We use the GRV98  structure functions to calculate the neutrino cross sections at ultra-high energy. The results are similar to those in Glück, Kretzer, and Reya and to those calculated by Gandhi et al.  and Kwiecinski, Martin & Stasto .

Fig. 10 shows the differential rate for showers initiated by charged current interactions of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos for a cosmological source evolution with $`n`$ = 3. The total shower rate is dominated by $`\nu _e`$ interactions around the peak energy of the neutrino flux. As the interaction cross section increases with energy, the signal is dominated by showers with energy above 108 GeV. At this energy there is no significant background, either from neutrinos or muons, produced by cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere. The spike at $`E_\nu =6.3\times 10^6`$ GeV is the rate for $`W^{}`$ boson production by $`\overline{\nu }_e`$–electron interactions , divided by 20. The differential rate in the vicinity of the resonance is very high but the relevant energy range is small and the total rate is 0.03 per km3 yr. Accounting for invisible $`W^{}`$ decay modes would reduce the rate for showers even further.

Table I gives the shower rates per km3 of water per yr for showers generated by different types of neutrino interactions and different flavors. These rates represent $`d\sigma _\nu /dy`$ folded with the flux of neutrinos reaching the detector and do not account for any experimental efficiency and detector biases. As such, they can only serve as an estimate of realistic event rates. The rates are low: the IceCube  and ANTARES  km3-size experiments may not expect to detect these neutrinos. In addition violation of any of the following assumptions may further decrease expectations
(i) the detected ultra-high energy cosmic rays are not produced by a single nearby source,
(ii) the powerful sources of ultra-high energy cosmic rays are homogeneously distributed in the Universe, and
(iii) our normalization of the power of the cosmic ray sources and the injection spectrum are correct.
In case that only a fraction of the UHECR comes from homogeneously distributed sources, these rates come down to the same fraction of the values presented in Table I. On the other hand, for the cosmological evolution model with $`n`$ = 4 the rates will go up by a factor of about 3, and assuming a cosmological constant with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0.7 could give another moderate increase by a factor of 1.6 – 1.7.

The rates shown in Table I do not depend on the assumption that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly could be explained by oscillations of $`\nu _\mu `$ into $`\nu _\tau `$ . On the very long astrophysical pathlength 50% of the muon neutrinos would be converted to tau neutrinos. Charge current interactions of $`\nu _\tau `$ would not, however, be different from the $`\nu _\mu `$ CC interactions and so their sum does not depend on oscillation parameters.

Another interesting process is the detection of $`\tau `$’s produced in $`\nu _\tau `$ CC interactions in the material surrounding the detector. Estimates show that the tau decay inside the detector will generate a signal which is comparable in shower energy and rate to that of $`\nu _e`$ CC interactions. Whether or not $`\tau `$ decays can be observed as separate events depends on the $`\tau `$ energy, which affects both decay length and energy loss , and the detector volume. A proper study of event rates for throughgoing or stopping $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ leptons depends on the detector geometry, location and surrounding material and is beyond the scope of this paper.

## VI Discussion and conclusions

The biggest uncertainty in the magnitude of the neutrino fluxes from proton propagation is related to the distribution of cosmic ray sources. All arguments about the normalization of the cosmic ray injection power and the cosmological evolution of the cosmic ray sources are based on the assumption that the detected UHECR are of astrophysical origin and are not accelerated at a single nearby source. If the latter were the case, and the nearby source were responsible for all particles above 1019 eV, we should have to restrict the source distance to less than 20 Mpc . The local ultra-high energy cosmic ray density would then be much higher than the average cosmic ray density in the Universe. There will be, no doubts, other regions where ultra-high energy cosmic rays are accelerated and are over-abundant. The overall normalization of the cosmic ray power would then depend on the filling factor of such regions. If one estimates this filling factor from the volume of the walls of galactic concentration, such as the supergalactic plane, that describes the galactic distribution within a redshift less than 0.05 , to nearby voids it will certainly not exceed 10%. In such a case the neutrino production due to proton propagation would be minimal as shown in Fig. 8 with the dotted line.

A correct estimate of the power in UHECR depends on the strength of the extragalactic magnetic field in our neighborhood. In case of an average strength of the turbulent field exceeding 1 nG, cosmic rays with an energy of about 1019 eV and below (with a gyroradius of less than 10 Mpc) will have diffusive propagation pattern, which will enhance their flux at Earth. On the other hand, regular extragalactic fields may guide these particles along the walls of matter concentration. All effects related to the propagation of UHECR should be a subject of further investigation before we could give a more reliable estimate of the UHECR power.

Recently several authors have argued that powerful astrophysical systems and potential cosmic ray sources, such as GRB, have a cosmological evolution stronger than $`(1+z)^3`$ . Ref.  presents a combined analysis of the far infrared luminosity as a tracer of the star formation rate  as a function of redshift and the gamma ray burst fluence. The star formation rate is fit with an exponential rise of $`\mathrm{exp}(2.9z)`$ to a redshift of 1.7 and the GRB fluence distribution suggests a slow decrease at higher $`z`$. The use of such strong cosmological evolution and high activity at redshifts higher than 2 would place the estimate of the neutrino flux halfway between the two cosmological evolution models shown in Fig. 9.

Another important factor is the injection spectrum of UHECR and the highest energy at acceleration. The qualitative picture of its influence is demonstrated in Fig. 1. Generally protons have to be accelerated to energies above 1020 eV to generate significant neutrino fluxes from their propagation. This threshold is reduced by $`(1+z)`$ for contributions from high redshift. In view of the observations of cosmic rays of energy significantly higher than 1020 eV this is very likely if the sources of these particles are astrophysical objects.

Assuming homogeneously distributed astrophysical sources we obtain a neutrino flux similar to the Waxman & Bahcall limit at neutrino energies above 1018 eV. This means that, with the assumptions and restrictions discussed above, one may expect similar fluxes of UHE neutrinos produced in astrophysical sources and in UHECR propagation.

Since the signature of these ultra-high energy neutrinos are showers, different types of air shower detectors should also be able to observe the highest end of the neutrino spectrum. The effective volume of the Auger observatory for UHE neutrino interactions was estimated to 30 km3 of water equivalent . If this effective volume was achieved for a shower energy of 1019 eV, the Auger observatory would see about 0.3 events per year from the estimates shown in Table I. It is interesting to note that at an energy of 1018 eV the $`\tau `$ decay length ($`l_\tau =49E/(10^{18}\mathrm{eV})`$ km) is of the order of the dimensions of the Auger observatory. ‘Double bang’ events, caused by $`\tau `$ neutrinos as suggested by Learned & Pakvasa , could be detected if the sensitivity of the array was significant in this energy range.

As the effective volumes required are extremely large, the proposed satellite air shower experiments EUSO and OWL  might be well suited for the observation of ultra-high energy neutrino fluxes; however, with the current advertised threshold of $`5\times 10^{19}`$ eV most of the potential event rate would go undetected. Because of their large field of view, these detectors should in principle be able to observe ‘double bang’ events of energy above 1019 eV – if the threshold energy were lowered to that level.

Showers generated by ultra-high energy neutrinos could also be observed by their radio emission . Prototype experiments are in operation  and suggestions have been made for full scale experiments  that would have an energy threshold of 1018 eV and a full effective volume of 102-104 km3. Such detectors could take advantage of the higher shower rate that corresponds to the maximum of the neutrino flux as shown in Fig. 10.

The potential detection of ultra-high energy neutrinos is a crucial experimental result that will help us distinguish between an astrophysical (acceleration) and cosmological (top–down) origin of UHECR. In top–down scenarios the neutrino fluxes are primary, roughly equal to the gamma ray fluxes and at least an order of magnitude above the ultra-high energy nucleon fluxes. In all astrophysical scenarios the neutrinos, due to cosmic ray interactions at their sources or in propagation, are secondary and their flux is a fraction of the cosmic ray flux.

Measuring neutrinos from CR propagation can also help to distinguish between protons and heavy nuclei, such as iron, as highest energy cosmic rays. The energy loss of heavy nuclei during propagation over cosmological distances is governed by photo-disintegration. The absorption of photons leads mainly to giant dipole resonance excitation of the nuclei and, with a high probability, subsequently to the emission of a single nucleon in the de-excitation process . Hence the neutrino spectrum is expected to be dominated by relatively low-energy neutrinos ($`E_\nu \stackrel{<}{}10^7`$ GeV) from the beta decay of neutrons and unstable nuclei.

Finally it should be mentioned that the magnitude of the flux and the arrival direction of UHE neutrinos are a good indication of the cosmic ray source distribution in astrophysical scenarios.

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with T.K. Gaisser, R.J. Protheroe and F.W. Stecker. The research of TS is supported in part by NASA Grant NAG5-7009. RE is supported in part by the US Department of Energy contract DE-FG02 91ER 40626. These calculations are performed on DEC Alpha and Beowulf clusters funded by NSF grant PHY–9601834.


text:
# Chandra Observations of the Gravitationally Lensed System 2016+112

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Wide-separation bona fide gravitational lens (GL) systems with spectroscopically confirmed lens redshifts have been found to contain, in many cases, galaxy-cluster or galaxy-group lenses. The presence of such massive deflectors contributes significantly to the large deflection angles observed in these systems. Solid cases of wide image separation systems containing galaxy cluster lenses are RXJ0911+0551 (Burud et al. 1998) and Q0957+561 (Walsh, Carswell & Weyman 1979; Garrett et al. 1992; Angonin et al. 1994). 2016+112 also falls in the category of confirmed wide-separation GL systems and was first identified by Lawrence et al. (1984) to be comprised of at least three lensed images of an AGN at a redshift of 3.273. The lens contains a giant elliptical galaxy at $`z`$ = 1.01 (Schneider et al. 1986; Langston, Fisher, & Aspin 1991; Lawrence, Neugebauer, & Matthews 1993). The initial deep optical observations of 2016+112 (Schneider et al. 1985; 1986; Lawrence, Neugebauer, & Matthews 1993) did not reveal a galaxy cluster near the lens position.

Hattori et al. (1997) reported the detection of resolved X-ray emission at $`z`$ $``$ 1 centered on the giant elliptical. This result was based in part on the detection of an X-ray line at 3.35 keV in the ASCA SIS spectra of 2016+112; the feature was interpreted as Fe-K line emission originating from a cluster at $`z`$ $`1`$. One of the significant conclusions of the Hattori et al. (1997) detection was the unexpectedly large M/L ratio $``$ 3000 implied by the X-ray luminosity (LX(2-10 keV) = 8.5 $`\times `$ 1044 erg s-1) and the blue luminosity of the giant elliptical lens galaxy (LB = 1.1 $`\times `$ 1011 $`L_{}`$). Their spectral fits to the ASCA SIS spectra of 2016+112 also imply a high iron abundance, Z = 1.7 $`\times `$ $`Z_{}`$. One of the puzzling aspects of the Hattori et al. (1997) result was the non-detection of optical and IR emission from the stars in the cluster galaxies even though the X-ray data suggested the presence of metal rich galaxies (Mushotsky et al. 1997). The spatial resolution of $``$ 3 arcmin and positional accuracy of $``$ 1 arcmin of ASCA were inadequate to establish whether the detected X-ray emission was extended.

Detection of extended X-ray emission near the giant elliptical galaxy was needed to confirm the presence of a galaxy cluster, so 2016+112 was observed with the ROSAT HRI, which has a spatial resolution of $``$ 5 arcsec. Hattori et al. (1997) detected a “diffuse” source with 76 $`\pm `$ 24 counts (0.2 - 2 keV), (1.4 $`\pm `$ 0.4) $`\times `$ 10-3 counts s-1, within 1 arcmin radius. The Hattori et al. (1997) analysis suggested that the object was extended. Benitez et al. (1999) re-analyzed the ROSAT HRI data and found a faint, elliptical X-ray source spatially coincident with a red galaxy over-density. In particular, their deep imaging in $`V`$ and $`I`$ bands using Keck identified a red sequence of galaxies in color-magnitude diagrams of $`VI`$ vs. $`IK`$, suggesting that these are members of a galaxy cluster at $`z`$ $``$ 1. Additional spectroscopic observations have confirmed the presence of several red galaxy members at a redshift $`z`$ $``$ 1 (Kneib et al. 1998; Soucail et al. 2000; Clowe et al. 2000). This faint X-ray source is considered in their analysis as the counterpart of the optical galaxy cluster. Two additional X-ray sources are detected in the vicinity of 2016+112 that were smoothed together in the analysis by Hattori et al. (1997).

The Benitez et al. (1999) analysis indicated that the cluster lens is an order of magnitude more luminous in the optical than previously reported and the X-ray luminosity is lower than previously estimated. A revised mass-to-light ratio of M/LV = 372 $`\pm `$ 94 $`h_{100}`$(M/LV) , within a radius of 400 $`h_{100}^1`$ kpc, for the cluster lens of 2016+112 was reported by Benitez. The hypothesis of the presence of a dark matter lens in 2016+112 is not supported with the Benitez et al. (1999) analysis and the recent Chandra observation presented in this letter.

With the launch of the Chandra X-ray observatory on 23 July 1999, it has been possible for the first time to spatially resolve the components of most GL systems in the X-ray band. The GL system 2016+112 was observed with Chandra as part of a snapshot survey of GL quasars aimed at finding suitable candidates for time-delay measurements.

In this letter we describe our observation of 2016+112 using the Chandra Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS; Garmire et al. 2000, in preparation), results from our data analysis and the comparison to previous X-ray results. We use $`H_0`$ = 50 km s-1 Mpc-1, q0 = 0.5, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0, unless mentioned otherwise.

## 2. CHANDRA OBSERVATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS

The GL system 2016+112 was observed with Chandra on April 12, 2000 for $``$ 7.7 ks. The X-ray image of the Chandra observation is shown in figure 1a. A comparison of this image with that taken with the ROSAT HRI has resolved the mystery surrounding the reported detection of extended X-ray emission that was attributed to a dark cluster of galaxies at a redshift of z $``$ 1. With the Chandra observation, we clearly identify several point-sources in this region and detect the three lensed images, A, B, and C (see figure 1b). The image presented in figure 1b was obtained by binning the X-ray event positions to 0.1′′ and smoothing the binned image with a Gaussian of width $`\sigma `$ = 0.2′′.

The X-ray image of 2016+112 obtained by the ROSAT HRI and presented in Hattori et al. (1997) is shown in figure 2a. In figure 2b, we show the Chandra image of 2016+112 rebinned by a factor of 12 and smoothed with a Gaussian of width $`\sigma `$ = 15′′, to reproduce the Hattori el al. 1997 analysis of the ROSAT HRI image. It is obvious that the extended component in the ROSAT HRI observation was merely an artifact produced by the inadequate spatial resolution of the ROSAT HRI and image smoothing. The unbinned Chandra image shows several point sources in the vicinity of 2016+112. Chandra has resolved the image components with locations in good agreement with recently reported optical and radio positions for this object. Table 1 lists the relative positions of the lensed images B and C with respect to A as observed with Chandra and HST. The properties of the detected sources in the vicinity of 2016+112 are presented in Table 2.

The reported ROSAT HRI count-rate for 2016+112 of 1.4 $`\pm `$ 0.4 $`\times `$ 10-3 cnts s-1 (Hattori et al. 1997) was extracted within a 1 arcmin circle centered on 2016+112 and would have included the three additional point sources resolved with Chandra (see figure 2). We converted the observed ROSAT HRI and ASCA SIS count-rates of 2016+112 to ACIS-S S3 CCD count-rates of 1.9 $`\pm `$ 0.6 $`\times `$ 10-2 cnts s-1 and 3.4 $`\pm `$ 0.3 $`\times `$ 10-2cnts s-1, respectively, assuming an absorbed power law model with a Galactic column density of 15.6 $`\times `$ 1020 cm-2 and a photon spectral index of 2. The total count-rate observed with the ACIS-S S3 CCD from the lensed images of 2016+112 and three additional point sources within a circle of 1 arcmin radius centered on 2016+112 is 1.4 $`\pm `$ 0.2 $`\times `$ 10-2cnts s-1, consistent with the ROSAT HRI count-rate. The total count-rate detected with ACIS from the lensed images of 2016+112 and additional point sources within a circle of 3.5 arcmin radius centered on 2016+112 is 3.3 $`\pm `$ 0.2 $`\times `$ 10-2cnts s-1 consistent with the ASCA count-rate.

As an additional comparison between the ASCA and Chandra results, we extracted a composite spectrum from only the point-like sources located within a circle of 3.5 arcmin radius of 2016+112. Following the standard Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) analysis procedures, we applied the appropriate gain map correction, eliminated times with bad aspect and created response and anciliary files using the CXC software tools mkrmf and mkarf. During the Chandra observation of 2016+112 the background detected on the ACIS CCD S3 was fairly constant with a rate of approximately 4.4 $`\times `$ 10-7 counts s-1 pixel-1 within the energy band 0.4 to 8 keV and for events with standard ASCA grades 0,2,3,4,6. Our simple spectral fit to the Chandra composite spectrum of all point sources within 3.5 arcmin centered on 2016+112 yields a 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity of LX = 9.0$`{}_{0.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.3}`$ $`\times `$ $`10^{44}`$ $`h_{50}^2`$ erg s-1. The 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity reported for the ASCA observation of 2016+112 is LX = 8.4$`{}_{1.7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.4}`$ $`\times `$ $`10^{44}`$ $`h_{50}^2`$ erg s-1. We conclude that the X-ray flux attributed to a galaxy cluster in the lens plane of the 2016+112 GL system is accounted for by point-like X-ray sources resolved by Chandra.

We compared the locations of the X-ray sources detected with Chandra in the field of 2016+112 (Table 2) to those detected in the optical with the Nordic Optical Telescope (Table 1 in Soucail et al. 2000). We find no matches within 5 of 2016+112, indicating that the detected X-ray sources are not associated with the galaxies detected by Soucail et al. (2000) that are bound to the $`z`$ = 1.01 cluster. We also searched the USNO catalog and found no optical counterparts to the X-ray sources.

## 3. CLUSTER MASS AND MASS-TO-LIGHT ESTIMATES

The lenses of several candidate gravitationally lensed systems with image separations larger than $``$ 3 arcsec have eluded detection in the optical and radio bands. These non-detections have lead to the hypothesis of the existence of large dark matter lenses with mass-to-light ratios $`M/L>1000(M/L)_{}`$ (Schneider, Ehlers, and Falco 1992). The GL system 2016+112 was originally proposed as containing a dark matter lens based on the X-ray mass estimate of 3.6$`{}_{}{}^{+1.8}{}_{1.3}{}^{}`$ $`\times `$ 1014 $`h_{50}^1`$ M within 500 $`h_{50}^1`$ kpc (Hattori et. al. 1997) and the blue luminosity of the lensing galaxy D.

As described in the introduction, recent deep optical and IR observations have detected several galaxy cluster members, significantly revising the luminosity of the cluster. Specifically, the reported value for the luminosity of the galaxy cluster members is 3.2 $`\times `$ 1011 $`h_{100}^2`$ LV⊙ within a radius of 400 $`h_{100}^1`$ kpc (Benitez et. al. 1999). The significant galactic extinction in the direction of 2016+112 has made it extremely difficult to obtain reliable estimates for the luminosities of the galaxy cluster members, even in the $`I`$ band. By applying the cluster virial theorem to 6 galaxies of the cluster Soucail et al. (2000) find a virial mass of $`M`$ = 2.8$`{}_{1.0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+4.0}`$ $`\times `$ 1014 $`h_{50}^1`$ M within a radius of 350 $`h_{50}^1`$ kpc.

Our Chandra observations indicate that the cluster mass estimates based on previous X-ray measurements must be revised. In particular, Chandra has clearly resolved the three X-ray lensed images of 2016+112, and 13 additional point-like sources within 3.5 arcmin centered on the lensed AGN. Our estimated X-ray 2-10 keV fluxes within circles of radii 1 and 3.5 arcmin centered on 2016+112 and originating from point-like sources alone are 0.7 $`\pm `$ 0.2 $`\times `$ 10-13 erg s-1 cm-2 and 1.3 $`\pm `$ 0.1 $`\times `$ 10-13 erg s-1 cm-2, in good agreement with the reported values from similar sized regions of ROSAT HRI and ASCA. The ASCA spectrum of this source was therefore dominated by emission from point-like objects unrelated to the cluster. Any cluster parameters derived from the ASCA spectral analysis cannot be considered reliable. Also previous estimates of the cluster core radius and $`\beta `$ parameter based on the ROSAT HRI observations are incorrect. Obviously, the previously reported total mass of the cluster lens of 2016+112 derived from cluster parameters $`kT`$, rc and $`\beta `$ must be considered unreliable.

To estimate the upper limit on the X-ray luminosity of an extended component we extracted events within a 1.56 arcmin radius ( $``$ 0.8 Mpc) centered on 2016+112 and excluded all point sources within this region listed in Table 2. We used an iterative procedure to place 3$`\sigma `$ upper bounds on the intracluster temperature and 2-10 keV luminosity. We began with a initial guess of 3 keV for the cluster temperature and estimated the X-ray luminosity assuming a Raymond-Smith thermal spectrum for the ICM gas, a redshift of $`z`$ = 1.01, an abundance of 0.3 cosmic, and a column density (Galactic) of NH = 0.15 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2. From the $`L_XT`$ relation for clusters of galaxies (Markevitch, 1998), we select a new trial cluster temperature and repeat the calculation of the cluster luminosity. We repeat this iterative process untill the solution converges. We place a 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit of 3.7 keV on the cluster temperature and 3$`\sigma `$ upper limits of 1.7 $`\times `$ 1044 erg s-1 and 1.6 $`\times `$ 10-14 erg s-1 cm-2 on the 2-10 keV luminosity and flux of the cluster.

Using the empirically derived relation between total cluster mass and ICM temperature, M500 = 2.00$`\times `$ 1015 $`h_{50}^1`$ M (TX/10 keV)3/2, where M500 is the mass within the radius r500, in which the mean overdensity is 500, and r500 = 2.37 $`h_{50}^1`$ Mpc (TX/10 keV)1/2, (Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard, 1999) we find that our temperature limit of 3.7 keV corresponds to a mass limit of, M500 $`<`$ 4.5 $`\times `$ 1014 $`h_{50}^1`$ M with r500 = 1.44 $`h_{50}^1`$ Mpc. We use a luminosity from all galaxy types of LV = 1.28 $`\times `$ 1012 $`h_{50}^2`$ LV⊙ within a radius of 800 $`h_{50}^1`$ kpc, as derived by Benitez et. al. (1999), and our estimated upper-bound on the cluster mass to derive a mass-to-light ratio limit of M/L $`<`$ 190 $`h_{50}`$ (M/LV⊙) within 800 $`h_{50}^1`$ kpc.

Our 7.7 ks Chandra observation does not yield any useful upper limit on emission from a possible redshifted Fe-K$`\alpha `$ line originating from the cluster of galaxies. A much deeper observation of 2016+112 with the ACIS-I CCD that has lower background than the ACIS-S CCD may result in the detection and characterization of the properties of the distant z=1.01 cluster of galaxies. In addition to the cosmological implications of detecting clusters of galaxies at high redshifts, an estimate of the center of mass and mass distribution will improve gravitational lens models of this system. These improved models may yield an estimate for the Hubble constant and also provide the absolute distance to the lensing cluster.

## 4. X-RAY PROPERTIES OF LENSED AGN

The optical spectra of the lensed images of 2016+112 are quite unusual; strong and narrow emission lines of Ly$`\alpha `$, N$`𝐕`$, C$`\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}`$, He$`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$ and C$`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}]`$ at a redshift of 3.273 are detected in all images (Lawrence et al. 1984; Yamada et al., 1999). It has been recently proposed that the lensed object is a luminous type-2 quasar (Yamada et al. 1999). Here we define as a type-2 quasar an AGN that contains no broad optical emission-lines and is sufficiently luminous (i.e., LX (2-10 keV) $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 2 $`\times `$ 1044 erg s-1 ) to qualify as a quasar. We investigated the nature of the lensed object by estimating its unabsorbed X-ray luminosity. Unfortunately, the lensed AGN is quite faint in X-rays with 6, 5, and 12 detected counts in images A, B and C respectively. The similarity of the optical and radio spectra of images A and B suggests that they are produced from the gravitationally lensing of a background AGN by the giant elliptical galaxy D and the host cluster of galaxies. Yamada et al. (1999) conclude that the optical spectra of images A, B and C are consistent in showing a type-2 spectrum. Yamada et al. (1999) attribute the observed differences in the optical emission line ratios in images B and C to the different degree of photoionization of the lensed regions that produce the emission of these images. In particular, recent lens modeling of 2016+112 (Benitez et al. 1999) can reproduce the observed morphology, including the extended nature of image C, by placing the center of the lensed source just outside the magnification caustic and an extended emission component within the caustic. The optical emission in image C, thus, may arise from larger radii of the narrow line region (NLR), its radio emission from a possible jet, and its X-ray emission may be lensed synchrotron self Compton (SSC) emission from the jet. Since we are interested in estimating the unlensed luminosity of the central object we only consider the emission from images A and B. We modeled the Chandra spectrum of 2016+112 images A and B with an absorbed power-law with the Galactic contribution to the column density held fixed at NH = 0.15 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2, an intrinsic absorption column at $`z`$ = 3.27 and a spectral slope fixed at 2. The 90% confidence range for the intrinsic absorption column is (3 - 85) $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2. The luminosity in the rest frame 2-10 keV band corrected for lens magnification for the above range of intrinsic absorption is 3 $`\times `$ 1043 \- 1.4 $`\times `$ 1044 erg s-1. We assumed magnification factors of 8.5 and 6 for the observed X-ray images A and B respectively, based on the lens models of Benitez et al. (1999). Our upper bound on the X-ray luminosity of the lensed object places it near the “grey” area between low and high luminosity AGN’s.

## 5. CONCLUSIONS

A Chandra observation of the GL system 2016+112 has clearly resolved the image components of this system in agreement with previous optical and radio observations. Derived parameters for the mass and M/L of the lensing cluster based on previous X-ray observations are unreliable due to the contamination produced by several X-ray sources in the field. Based on the non-detection of the lensing cluster of galaxies in this 7.7ks Chandra observation we place a 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit of 1.7 $`\times `$ 1044 erg s-1 on the 2-10 keV luminosity of the cluster. We place upper limits on the mass and mass-to-light ratio of the galaxy cluster of $`M`$ $`<`$ 2.5 $`\times `$ 1014 $`h_{50}^1`$ M and $`M`$/LV $`<`$ 190 $`h_{50}`$ $`(M/L_V)`$ within 800 $`h_{50}`$-1 kpc, respectively. With the detection of galaxy members of the cluster in the optical band (Soucail et al., 2000; Benitez et al. 1999) and the present revision of the cluster X-ray luminosity, we conclude that the lensing cluster of 2016+112 can be ruled out as a dark cluster candidate. The nature of the lensing source is still unclear. We estimate that the X-ray luminosity of the lensed object (corrected for intrinsic absorption and the magnification effect) must be less than 1.4 $`\times `$ 1044 erg s-1 at the 3$`\sigma `$ level which is within the range of a Seyfert galaxy.

We would like to thank M. Eracleous for helpful discussions and comments. We acknowledge financial support by NASA grant NAS 8-38252 and AST99-00703 (DPS).

| TABLE 1 | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Optical and X-ray Offsets of 2016+112 Images | | | | | |
| Telescope | (RA, Dec)A a | (RA, Dec)B a | (RA, Dec)C a | B/A b | C/A b |
|  | arcsec | arcsec | arcsec |  |  |
| HST | (0,0) | (-3.010,-1.506) | (-2.057,-3.255) | 0.97 $`\pm `$ 0.02 | 1.20 $`\pm `$ 0.04 |
| CHANDRA | (0,0) | (-2.9,-1.2) | (-2.0,-3.2) | 0.8 $`\pm `$ 0.6 | 2 $`\pm `$ 1.3 |

NOTES-
a Offsets in RA and Dec with respect to image A
b Image flux ratios. The Chandra and HST flux ratios are calculated in the 0.4-8 keV and H bands (centered on 1600 Å), respectively. The HST offsets and flux ratios are taken from the CfA-Arizona Space Telescope LEns Survey (CASTLES) of gravitational lenses website http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/glensdata/.

| TABLE 2 | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sources in the Near Vicinity of 2016+112 | | | | |
| Object | RA (J2000) | DEC (J2000) | Distance a | Source Counts b |
|  |  |  | arcsec | cnts |
| CXO J201917.3+112751 | 20 19 17.37 | 11 27 51.8 | 39.9 | 42.9 $`\pm `$ 6.5 |
| CXO J201920.1+112627 | 20 19 20.13 | 11 26 27.9 | 54.2 | 30.8 $`\pm `$ 5.6 |
| CXO J201917.7+112555 | 20 19 17.78 | 11 25 55.7 | 78.0 | 23.9 $`\pm `$ 4.9 |
| CXO J201921.3+112831 | 20 19 21.36 | 11 28 31.6 | 91.4 | 17.9 $`\pm `$ 4.2 |
| CXO J201915.5+112458 | 20 19 15.58 | 11 24 58.5 | 140.2 | 34.6 $`\pm `$ 5.9 |
| CXO J201916.0+112454 | 20 19 16.01 | 11 24 54.8 | 142.2 | 10.9 $`\pm `$ 3.3 |
| CXO J201929.0+112855 | 20 19 29.06 | 11 28 55.0 | 190.2 | 14.8 $`\pm `$ 3.9 |
| CXO J201921.6+112356 | 20 19 21.62 | 11 23 56.3 | 203.8 | 17.8 $`\pm `$ 4.2 |
| CXO J201908.7+112434 | 20 19 8.782 | 11 24 34.3 | 210.3 | 12.8 $`\pm `$ 3.6 |
| CXO J201930.3+112450 | 20 19 30.34 | 11 24 50.0 | 229.8 | 42.3 $`\pm `$ 6.6 |
| CXO J201929.1+112931 | 20 19 29.11 | 11 29 31.9 | 212.5 | 14.9 $`\pm `$ 3.9 |
| CXO J201931.4+112902 | 20 19 31.49 | 11 29 02.2 | 224.3 | 9.8 $`\pm `$ 3.2 |
| CXO J201922.3+112227 | 20 19 22.35 | 11 22 27.5 | 292.6 | 11.4 $`\pm `$ 3.5 |

NOTES-
a Distance from image 2016+112 C.
b Source counts extracted with the CXC software tool wavdetect in the 0.4-8 keV band.

## References

> Angonin-Willaime, M.-C., Soucail, G., Vanderriest, C., 1994, A&A, 291, 411
>
> Benitez, N., Broadhurst, T., Rosati, P., Courbin, F., Gordon, S., Lidman, C., & Magain, P., 1999, ApJ, 527, 31
>
> Burud, I., Courbin, F., Lidman, C., Jaunsen, A. O., Hjorth, J., Ostensen, R., Andersen, M. I., Clasen, J. W., Wucknitz, O., Meylan, G., Magain, P., Stabell, R., and Refsdal, S., 1998, ApJ, 501, L5
>
> Clowe, D., Trentham, N., and Tonry, J., 2000, A&A, astro-ph/0001309
>
> Garrett, M. A., Walsh, D., and Carswell, R. F., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 27
>
> Hattori, M., Ikebe, Y., Asaoka, I., Takeshima, T., Bohringer, H., Mihara, T., Neumann, D. M., Schindler, S., Tsuru, T., & Tamura, T., 1997, Nature, 388, 146
>
> Kneib, J.-P., Soucail, G., Jaunsen, A., Hattori, M., Hjorth, J., & Yamada, T., 1998, CFHT Inf. Bull. 38.
>
> Langston, G., Fischer, J. & Aspin, C., 1991, AJ, 102, 1253
>
> Lawrence, C. R., Neugebauer, G. & Matthews, K. 1993, AJ, 105, 17
>
> Lawrence, C. R., Schneider, D. P., Schmidt, M., Bennett, C, L., Hewitt, J. N., Burke, B. F., Turner, E. L., and Gunn, J. E., 1984, Science, 223, 46
>
> Markevitch, M., 1998, $`\mathrm{ApJ}`$, 504, 27
>
> Mohr, J. J., Mathiesen, B. & Evrard, A. E., 1999, $`\mathrm{ApJ}`$, 517, 627
>
> Mushotzky, R., 1997, Nature, 388, 126
>
> Schneider, D. P., Lawrence, C. R., Schmidt, M., Gunn, J. E., Turner, E. L., Burke, B. F. and Dhawan, V., 1985, ApJ, 294, 66
>
> Schneider, D. P., Gunn, J. E., Turner, E. L., Lawrence, C. R., Hewitt, J. N., Schmidt, M. & Burke, B. F. 1986, AJ, 91, 991
>
> Soucail, G., Kneib, J.-P., Jansen, A. O., Hjorth, J., Hattori, M., and Yamada, T., 2000, submitted to A&A, astro-ph/0006382
>
> Yamada, T., S. Yamazaki, M. Hattori, G. Soucail, and J.- P. Kneib, submitted to A&A, astro-ph/9908089
>
> Walsh, D., Carswell, R. F., & Weymann, R. J., 1979, Nature, 279, 381.