text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The top quark plays a special role in particle physics, due to its uniquely large mass. It decays immediately, before forming a hadron. Therefore its spin information is expected to be directly transfered to its daughters. This feature provides us opportunities of probing the top couplings using the information of its daughters. The high energy future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider would be an ideal tool for such studies, because of its clean event environment and the possibility of initial-state polarization.

In this report, we will give a study of top-quark reconstruction in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$, and the initial results of the top-quark anomalous coupling analysis. There are three kinds of final states in the $`t\overline{t}`$ production: (i)two $`b`$ jets and four jets from W’s (45%), (ii)two $`b`$ jets, two jets and one charged lepton(44%), or (iii)two $`b`$ jets and two charged leptons(11%). We study cases (i) and (ii), where (i) six jets and (ii) four jets and one charged lepton are in the final states. In the anomalous coupling analysis, we use the same notations of general top-quark couplings and angular definitions of polar angle, top-decay angle and W-decay angle, as Ref..

## 2 Event Analysis

We generate 60,000 $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ events corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 80 $`fb^1`$ with the PANDORA program, with parton showers and hadronization done by PYTHIA 6.1. A top-quark mass of 175 GeV, a beam energy of 250 GeV and 80% left-handed electron polarization are assumed. Beamstrahlung and initial state radiation are included. No other final states are generated.

To simulate the detector, we use the Linear Collider Detector (LCD) Fast simulation, assuming the Large design. Charged tracks with E$`{}_{track}{}^{}>200`$ MeV and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.90`$, and clusters with E$`{}_{cluster}{}^{}>300`$ MeV and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.98`$ are used.

### 2.1 4 Jets and Lepton Analysis

In this analysis, we use only $`t\overline{t}`$ 4 jets $`+`$ lepton (muon or electron) events (17343 events). We apply the event-selection cuts of i) the number of charged tracks $``$ 20, ii) there is a lepton track (muon or electron) with momentum $`>`$ 20 GeV, and iii) the visible energy $`>`$ 300 GeV. Visible energy is calculated with charged tracks and neutral clusters. No other criteria for lepton identification are required.

Jets are reconstructed with “energy flow” objects, consisting of charged tracks and neutral clusters. Neutral clusters are selected by the absence of a track and cluster association. Here all charged tracks are extrapolated to the cluster cylindrical radius. Then the clusters which have any track with track-cluster distance $`<`$ 8cm are regarded as charged clusters. With this cut, we reject 93% charged while keeping 92% neutral clusters. Using the energy flow objects, except for the charged lepton, we reconstruct jets using an invariant-mass (JADE) algorithm. First we apply $`Y_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.008`$ and select events which have 4 or more jets. Then the $`Y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ value is increased, if necessary, until the event has exactly 4 jets. The efficiency of this selection is 57% for $`t\overline{t}`$ 4 jets events.

To tag the $`b`$ jets, we use the method developed by SLD. The secondary vertex is topologically reconstructed with charged tracks, and its $`P_T`$-corrected mass ($`M_{P_T}`$) is calculated. The jets with $`M_{P_T}`$ $`>`$ 1.8 GeV are tagged as $`b`$ jets. The efficiency and purity of 61% and 95% are obtained, respectively. To identify the light-flavor ($`uds`$) jets, we use the $`N_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ method, where $`N_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ is the number of tracks which have 3D impact parameter with significance $`>3\sigma `$ (excluding $`V^0`$ decay tracks). We select $`uds`$ jets by requiring $`N_{sig}=0`$ with 87% efficiency and 77% purity.

To reconstruct $`W`$’s, we search all two-jets combinations. Here we apply the flavor tagging that 1) none of two jets is tagged as a $`b`$ jet, and 2) at least one jet is tagged as a $`uds`$ jet. Jet pairs with invariant mass within 15 GeV of the nominal W mass are kept. Top-quark candidates are then formed from these W’s and $`b`$ jets. To reduce random combinatoric background, we require $`x_EE_{3jets}/E_{beam}`$ satisfies $`0.9<x_E<1.1`$. The combinations with invariant mass in the range 160 GeV to 190 GeV are regarded as top-quark candidates. We select 2295 (5731 for without flavor tagging) top-quark candidates, with purity of 90% (84%). In this sample, 89% (56%) of the candidates have the correct $`b`$ and W assignment. The mass resolution for the reconstructed top quark is 7.8 GeV (9.2 GeV).

Then we reconstruct the polar angle ($`\theta `$) of top quark, top-decay angle ($`\chi _t`$) and W-decay angle ($`\chi `$). The charge of the top quark is determined by the charge of the lepton. In the 4 jets and lepton analysis, we only reconstruct one $`t`$($`\overline{t}`$) quark, which has 3 jets in the final state. Since the final state of the other $`\overline{t}(t)`$ quark includes a neutrino which can not be detected, we assume that the $`\overline{t}(t)`$ quark has the same energy and the opposite momentum as the reconstructed $`t(\overline{t})`$ quark. We also assume that 1) $`b`$ jet and W are back-to-back in the top rest frame, and 2) lepton and neutrino are back-to-back in the W rest frame, to reconstruct the top-decay and W-decay angles. Fig. 1 shows the reconstructed angular distributions. Reconstruction efficiencies in $`\mathrm{cos}\chi _t>0.6`$ and $`cos\chi <0`$ are significantly dropped because of the acceptance cut. The angular resolutions are 35 mrad, 69 mrad and 115 mrad for $`\theta `$, $`\chi _t`$ and $`\chi `$, respectively.

Using the angular distributions, we estimate the preliminary sensitivities of 0.023 and 0.034 (normalized) for $`F_{1A}^\gamma `$ and $`F_{1A}^Z`$, respectively, at the $`\gamma /Z^0t\overline{t}`$ vertex for an integrated luminosity of 80 $`fb^1`$ with 80% left-handed electron beams.

### 2.2 6 Jets Analysis

In this study, we use 27730 $`t\overline{t}6`$ jets events in the generated $`t\overline{t}`$ sample described above. For the event selection, we require i) the number of charged tracks $``$ 30 and ii) visible energy $`>`$ 350 GeV. The energy flow objects are used to form jets. As before, we first apply $`Y_{cut}=0.003`$ to select events with 6 or more jets, then increase $`Y_{cut}`$ until the event has exactly 6 jets. We require that an event has exactly 2 $`b`$ jets, where $`b`$ jets are identified by a cut $`M_{P_T}`$ $`>`$ 1.8GeV. After identifying the two $`b`$ jets, we exclusively reconstructed two W’s from the remaining 4 jets. Top-quark candidates are then formed from W’s and $`b`$ jets. We require at least one W candidate has an invariant mass within 15 GeV of the nominal W mass, and at least one top candidate satisfies 160 GeV $`<`$ $`M_{top}`$ $`<`$ 190 GeV.

To identify the charge of the top quarks, we measure Vertex Charge of $`b`$ jets. Here the Vertex Charge is a charge sum of the secondary vertex reconstructed by the topological vertexing. We require at least one of two $`b`$ jets has the non-zero Vertex-Charge value. We discard the events which have the same-sign $`b`$ jets. The efficiency of this cut is 57%, and the charge of the top quark is determined with 83% purity. The provability of the correct assignment of $`b`$ and W in the top-quark candidates is 78%. We reconstruct the top-quark polar angle $`\theta `$ and the top-decay angle $`\chi _t`$ with resolutions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ = 48 mrad and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _t`$ = 88 mrad.

To reconstruct the W-decay angle, we tag the $`c`$ quark in the W decay using the $`P_T`$-corrected mass ($`M_{P_T}`$) and momentum of the secondary vertex ($`P_{VTX}`$). We identify the $`c`$ jets with the criteria i) $`20\times M_{P_T}P_{VTX}<10`$ ii) 0.6 GeV $`<M_{P_T}<`$ 1.8 GeV, and iii) $`P_{VTX}>`$ 10 GeV. The purity and efficiency for $`c`$ quarks are 98% and 33%, respectively. Here we get the high purity because there is little $`b`$ background in the reconstructed W’s. We select 689 $`c`$-jet candidates, and reconstruct the W-decay angles with the angular resolution of 90 mrad.

Since we use the heavy-flavor tagging and the charge identification with the Vertex Charge in this analysis, the Vertex Detector performance is expected to be important. Changing the inner radius of the Vertex Detector from 1cm to 2cm, we lose 1% of the top-quark reconstruction efficiency and 13% of the $`c`$-quark tagging efficiency in W decays. Therefore the Vertex Detector performance is important especially for the $`c`$-quark tagging.

## 3 Conclusion

We have studied the top-quark reconstruction in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ events at a 500 GeV linear collider using the LCD Fast simulator.

In the 4 jets and lepton analysis, we estimate the preliminary sensitivities of $`F_{1A}^\gamma `$ and $`F_{1A}^Z`$ at the $`\gamma /Z^0t\overline{t}`$ vertex for an integrated luminosity of 80 $`fb^1`$ with 80% left-handed electron beams. To estimate the other coupling sensitivities, the detailed acceptance correction and background studies are necessary.

In the 6 jets analysis, we determine the charge of the top quark using the Vertex Charge of $`b`$ jet with 83% purity. We also apply the $`c`$-quark tagging in W decays. The Vertex Detector performance is important especially for the $`c`$-quark tagging.


format: text

text:
# The elementary spike produced by a pure 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ pair-electromagnetic pulse from a Black Hole: The PEM Pulse

## 1 Introduction

It is by now clear that the Gamma-Ray Bursts phenomena, here generally called GRBs, far from representing a single physical event, are quite complex and are composite of very different phases, corresponding to distinctively different physical processes. Any data analysis procedure should be done taking into due account these different epochs and avoiding time averaging procedures on different epochs.

In recent years much attention has been devoted to analyzing GRB afterglows, originating from the interaction of a relativistic expanding fireball with the surrounding baryonic material, leading to important correspondences between observational data and phenomenological models (see e.g. Vietri, (1998), Sari & Esin, (2000) and Djorgovski, Frail, et al., (2000)).

Less progress has been made in understanding the basic mechanism which produces the fireball and in explaining the structure of the burst itself. In the existing literature, it has been alternatively assumed that GRBs originate:
a) by the smooth transition to transparency of an optically thick electron-positron plasma, whose origin is not discussed (see e.g. Goodman, (1986));
b) from external shock processes in the collision of an expanding fireball, whose origin is not discussed, with baryonic matter at rest (see e.g. Mészáros & Rees, (1992));
c) from the interaction with each other of different parts of the fireball due to different expansion velocities, by internal shock processes (see e.g. Paczyński & Xu, (1994));
d) from a mixed “internal-external” scenario, in which both effects are present (see e.g. Piran, (1999));
e) from a Compton-drag process, caused by the interaction of a relativistic fireball, whose origin is not discussed, with a very dense soft photon bath (see e.g. Ghisellini, et al., (2000)).

Important as they are, these semi-empirical approaches miss the completeness of a comprehensive quantitative model. Some of the above processes could indeed be present in the different epochs of the GRBs. In order to evaluate their relative magnitude and give a quantitative estimate of the associated relativistic effects is necessary to have a detailed model, with the corresponding equations of motion and the time evolution of the system.

For this reason we consider the model which assumes the energy source of GRBs to be the process of vacuum polarization around a black hole endowed with electromagnetic structure (EMBH) (see Damour & Ruffini, (1975) and Ruffini, (1998)). For such a system the fundamental energetic aspects have been clarified by the introduction of the Dyadosphere of an EMBH (Preparata, et al., 1998b ) as well as the equations of motion for the system have been integrated and are summarized in the next section.

We proceed in four separate steps:

In this paper, we make a first step. We consider the simplest possible case: the one corresponding to a pulse produced by a pure $`e^+e^{}`$ pair-electro-magnetic plasma, the PEM pulse, in the absence of any baryonic matter.

The equations of motion of this system have already been integrated (Ruffini, et al., (1999)). We here examine how the PEM pulse gradually emits radiation during its evolution and the GRB simply occurs during the smooth approach to the transparency condition, when the mean free path of the photons in the plasma, $`L_\gamma `$ in the comoving frame and $`\lambda `$ in the laboratory frame, given by

$$L_\gamma =\frac{1}{\sigma _{\gamma ,e}n_{e^\pm }},\lambda =\frac{L_\gamma }{\gamma },$$
(1)
approaches the thickness of the PEM pulse itself. Here $`\sigma _{\gamma ,e}`$ is the photon and electron Compton scattering cross-section, whose Thomson limit is $`\frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{m^2}6.6610^{25}\mathrm{c}m^2`$ and $`n_{e^\pm }`$ is the proper number density of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs. Thus the GRB is essentially determined by the electron-positron pair annihilation and the expansion and cooling of the PEM pulse.

It has been clear since the classic work of Rees on expanding radio sources that relativistic effects are central to the understanding of the astrophysics of extragalactic sources (Rees, (1966)). The typical Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor considered in that study was of the order of $`\gamma 5`$ and essentially constant over the time of observation of the astrophysical source. In the case of GRBs such relativistic effects are also important, but there are three major differences:

1. The relativistic effects are much more extreme. It was pointed out (see Ruffini, et al., (1999)) that, in the case of the absence of baryonic matter, a Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor of up to $`10^4`$ can be reached. This result has also been extended to the case of the expansion of the PEM pulse in the presence of baryonic matter (see Ruffini, et al., (2000)) where even larger values of the Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor can be reached.
2. The transition from $`\gamma =1`$ to $`\gamma 10^4`$ occurs in a few hundreds of the characteristic travel times in the PEM pulse (i.e. a few seconds). It is therefore impossible, as shown in Fig. 2, in Fig. 8 and in sections 4, 5, 6, 7 of the present paper, even as a rough approximation, to consider the Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor to be constant during the emission process of the GRB.
3. The transparency condition given by Eq.(1) is reached gradually by the effect of the cooling and the expansion of the plasma and the corresponding decrease in the number of the electron-positron pairs. Consequently, in principle, all the stages from $`\gamma =1`$ to $`\gamma 10^4`$ contribute to the final burst structure.

The main point of the present paper is to clarify the interplay of relativistic effects at work in this extreme case, in order to obtain the elementary spike intensity as a function of the arrival time, and its observed duration. In particular we here take into account, still for simplicity in the case of a spherical geometry, the effects due to:

* the varying thickness of the emitting region,
* the energy flux, essentially modulated by a time varying “screening factor” (see appendix A and B),
* the time variation of the $`\gamma `$ factor and consequences for the observed arrival time.

We examine explicitly, for simplicity, the case of Reissner-Nordström EMBHs with $`\frac{Q}{M}=0.1`$ and $`M=10M_{}`$, $`M=10^2M_{}`$ and $`M=10^3M_{}`$. Some considerations on the expected spectrum and its departure from the thermal one are also presented in section (8) and will be further examined in forthcoming publications.

All the results of the treatment presented in this paper can be observationally relevant for a very special class of short GRBs without any afterglow. They can also be of qualitative interest for the first spike and early features of a more complex long burst. It is important to stress that in the case of the elementary spike here considered the entire energy of the Dyadosphere is emitted in the burst. This is not the case for the long bursts, the large majority of the currently observed GRBs, where much of such energy is transferred to the kinetic energy of the baryonic component.

In a forthcoming paper (Bianco, Ruffini, Xue, in preparation), we consider the emission from a PEM pulse interacting with baryonic matter, before the condition of transparency be reached, and the corresponding consequences for the observable effects on the intensity, spectrum and time structure of the burst. The equations of motion for such a pair-electromagnetic-baryonic pulse (PEMB Pulse) have been integrated and the relative intensity to be expected for the GRB versus the kinetic energy left in the accelerated baryonic material (Ruffini, et al., (2000)) has also been given.

In a final paper (Bianco, Chardonnet, Fraschetti, Ruffini, Xue, in preparation) we analyze the interaction of the accelerated baryonic material (ABM Pulse) with the interstellar medium. As the transparency condition is reached all the baryonic matter is left having acquired an enormous Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor reached at the time of decoupling, typically in the range $`1010^4`$. The interaction of these very high energy baryons with the surrounding interstellar medium gives rise to the afterglow.

We finally consider (Chardonnet & Ruffini, in preparation), within the above model, the production of very high energy cosmic rays by the electrostatic acceleration process of the remnant EMBH.

## 2 Main assumptions of the EMBH model

The most general black hole expected from gravitational collapse is an EMBH characterized by a Kerr-Newmann geometry endowed with axial symmetry and electric and magnetic fields (Ruffini & Wheeler, (1971)). That indeed an EMBH with mass smaller than $`7.210^6M_{}`$, can give rise to vacuum polarization and to the creation of $`e^+e^{}`$ pair-electromagnetic plasma outside the horizon via the Heisenberg-Euler-Schwinger process was clearly demonstrated (see Damour & Ruffini, (1975)). It was there shown how these process can approach reversibility, in the sense of Christodoulou and Ruffini (Christodoulou & Ruffini, (1971)) and that this phenomenon would lead to a most natural model for GRB.

The discovery of the afterglow of GRB by the Beppo-Sax satellite and the consequent clear determination of the distance and energetics of the GRB’s has motivated us to return to this field. In order to give an estimate of the efficiency of the quantum electrodynamical process in the gravitational field of an EMBH we have considered the idealized case of a spherically symmetric Reissner-Nordström geometry, neglecting all the effects associated with rotation, to be later examined in a much more complex treatment. We have then computed the physical parameters, the spatial extension, the total energy, and the spectrum of the relativistic plasma of electron-positron pairs created by the vacuum polarization process and introduced the concept of the Dyadosphere (Preparata, et al., 1998a,b ).

The computation of the relativistic hydrodynamics of such an $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ pairs and electromagnetic radiation plasma in the field of an EMBH, still in the simplified case of spherical symmetry, have been carried out both with simple semi-analytical and numerical approach carried out in Rome and their validation by the full hydrodynamical numerical computation at Livermore (see Ruffini, et al., (1999)). The main result shows the formation of a sharp slab of $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ pairs and electromagnetic radiation: the PEM pulse. Such a PEM pulse keeps a constant width in the laboratory frame and in a few hundreds of characteristic crossing times of the Dyadosphere reaches extreme relativistic conditions with characteristic Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factors of $`10^3`$ \- $`10^4`$. The pair density at the beginning is so high that the plasma is optically thick, and only very few photons can escape from the plasma. With the expansion, cooling and annihilation of electron-positron pairs, the condition of transparency is gradually reached (see Eq.(1)). The details of the temporal development of the burst emitted as the transparency condition is reached, as well some indications on the expected spectra, are the subject of the present paper. For simplicity, we have neglected the feedback of the PEM pulse on the adiabaticity condition prior to reaching the final moment of transparency.

The case in which some baryonic matter is engulfed by the PEM pulse, prior to reaching the condition of transparency, has been the subject of a successive work (Ruffini, et al., (2000)). Our simplified model, as well as the validation by the full numerical codes at Livermore, have shown how the slab approximation is still valid in this more general case for a large range of the masses of the baryonic matter (a pairs-electromagnetic-baryons pulse, PEMB pulse). Most important, the addition of baryonic matter leads, through the electronic component, to an increase in the opacity of the PEMB pulse. The transparency condition is now reached at later times, leading to an ever increasing transfer of the total energy of the PEMB pulse to the kinetic energy of the baryonic component. The larger the amount of baryonic matter, the smaller is the energy of the PEMB pulse released in the GRB, for fixed values of the mass and charge of the EMBH.

All these treatments refer to the idealized case of an already formed EMBH, it is clear, however, that in reality the Dyadosphere will be formed during the process of gravitational collapse itself, prior to the formation of the EMBH, and such a process may have some distinct detailed observational signature. The general energetic features of GRBs here presented have been obtained from the idealized model which considers as a starting point an already formed black hole (Preparata, et al., 1998b ). In order to obtain the fine details observed in the time structure of GRBs, as well as their detailed spectral evolution, there is no alternative but to study the gradual formation of the Dyadosphere, as the horizon of the EMBH is approached and formed. In preparation of this more complicated analysis and the one corresponding to axially symmetric configurations, we have obtained some preliminary results concerning the relevant physics of a charged collapsing shell in general relativity (Klippert and Ruffini, in preparation). The general energetic aspects here considered will not be modified but the time constant will be longer due to general relativistic effects (Cherubini, Jantzen, Ruffini, in preparation).

## 3 The radiation flux from the PEM pulse

The frequency $`\omega `$ and wave-vector $`𝐤`$ of photons emitted from the PEM pulse (see Fig. 1) expressed in the laboratory frame are:

$$𝐤=\frac{\omega }{c}\left(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta 𝐮+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta 𝐯\right),\left|𝐤\right|=\frac{\omega }{c},$$
(2)
where $`\vartheta `$ is the angle (in the laboratory frame) between the radial expansion velocity and the direction from the origin of the PEM pulse to the observer, $`𝐯`$ is a unit vector along the radial expansion velocity of the PEM pulse, and $`𝐮`$ is a unit vector orthogonal to $`𝐯`$ oriented toward rising $`\vartheta `$. We are assuming here that $`𝐤`$ and $`R_\mathrm{T}`$ are parallel, also for photons emitted with $`\vartheta 0`$. This is clearly a good approximation, because the distance $`R_\mathrm{T}`$ corresponds to a redshift $`z1`$, while the radius of the emitting region is of the order of magnitude of a few light seconds.

Then the Lorentz boost along $`𝐯`$ to the comoving frame of the PEM pulse yields the corresponding comoving quantities:

$$\omega _{}=\gamma \omega \left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right),\omega _{}=\left|𝐤_{}\right|c,$$
(3)
$$𝐤_{}=\left|𝐤\right|\mathrm{sin}\vartheta 𝐮+\gamma \left|𝐤\right|\left(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \frac{v}{c}\right)𝐯,$$
(4)
In the comoving frame photons radiating out of the PEM pulse must have (see Eq.(4)):

$$\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \frac{v}{c},$$
(5)
because the component of the photon momentum in the comoving frame along the radial expansion velocity direction must be positive in order to escape.

The large amount of high-energy photon emission is mainly due to electron-positron annihilations. Thus, as a preliminary consideration and approximation, we assume that photons are in equilibrium at the same temperature $`T`$ with electron-positron pairs before and at decoupling. In the comoving frame of the photon electron-positron pair plasma fluid, the black-body spectrum of photons that are in thermal with $`e^+e^{}`$-pairs is given by

$$\frac{dn_\gamma }{d^3k_{}}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}{kT}\right)1},$$
(6)
where $`n_\gamma `$ is the number-density of photons and $`T`$ is the temperature in the comoving frame. The non-thermal spectrum due to multiple inverse Compton scattering may slightly modify these assumptions. These consideration relevant to the details of the spectrum (see section 8) do not modify the temporal profile of the total detected radiation flux, which largely depends on the screening factor $`S(t)`$ rather than on the radiative spectrum.

Note that due to the Liouville theorem on the invariance of the distribution function (see e.g. Ehlers, (1971)), we can write:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}{kT}\right)1}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{kT_{\mathrm{lab}}}\right)1}$$
(7)
where $`\omega _{}`$ and $`T`$ are the photon energy and temperature in the comoving frame, while $`\omega `$ and $`T_{\mathrm{lab}}`$ are the same quantities in the local laboratory frame. We can now use Eq.(3) for $`\omega _{}`$ obtaining:

$$T_{\mathrm{lab}}=\frac{T}{\gamma \left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)}.$$
(8)
Therefore we can use the following formula for the photon spectrum:

$$\frac{dn_\gamma }{d^3k}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega \gamma \left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)}{kT}\right)1}.$$
(9)
Integrating Eq.(9) over all photon momenta, we obtain the total radiation flux in the local laboratory frame of the PEM pulse.

The number of photons ($`kk+dk`$) radiating per unit time from a small surface element $`d^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the PEM pulse to the detector is given by (per unit area of detector):

$$\frac{dn_\gamma }{d^3k}(\widehat{k}𝐯)cd^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_k}{A},d\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\frac{A}{R_\mathrm{T}^2}$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{k}=\frac{𝐤}{\left|𝐤\right|}`$ is directed towards the observer, $`A`$ is the area of detector, $`R_\mathrm{T}`$ the distance to the detector from the origin of the PEM pulse and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is the solid angle subtended by the detector. From Eqs.(5,2), we have

$$\widehat{k}𝐯=\mathrm{cos}\vartheta [\frac{v}{c},1].$$
(11)
By using Eq.(9), we integrate Eq.(10) over all photon energies and obtain the observed infinitesimal energy flux in the case of an optically thin PEM pulse $`\left(\mathrm{in}\frac{\mathrm{erg}}{\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}}\right)`$:

$`dF^\mathrm{T}(t,\vartheta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_\mathrm{T}^2}}a\left({\displaystyle \frac{T\left(t\right)}{\gamma \left(t\right)\left(1\frac{v\left(t\right)}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)}}\right)^4`$
$`c\mathrm{cos}\vartheta d^2\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ (12)
Integrating only $`d\varphi [0,2\pi ]`$ in the surface-element $`d^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the PEM pulse, and adding the screening factor $`S\left(t\right)`$, we finally obtain the infinitesimal photon energy flux directed towards the detector and emitted at time $`t`$ with an angle $`\vartheta `$ for an optically thick PEM pulse:

$`dF(t,\vartheta )=2\pi a\left({\displaystyle \frac{T\left(t\right)}{\gamma \left(t\right)\left(1\frac{v\left(t\right)}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)}}\right)^4`$
$`r^2\left(t\right)c\mathrm{cos}\vartheta S\left(t\right)d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ,`$ (13)
where we omit the factor $`R_\mathrm{T}^2`$. $`dF`$ will be then measured in terms of $`\frac{\mathrm{erg}}{\mathrm{s}}`$, and we will still have to multiply the result by $`R_\mathrm{T}^2`$ to obtain the observed intensities. Note that the radiation flux is axially symmetric with respect to the axis directed towards the detector.

## 4 The arrival time versus emission time

Due to the high value of the Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor $`\left(10^310^4\right)`$ for the bulk motion of the expanding PEM pulse, the spherical waves emitted from its external surface appear extremely distorted to a distant observer (see e.g. Rees, (1966)). The surface emitting the photons detected at an arrival time difference $`t_\mathrm{a}`$, measured from the arrival of the first photon, is not trivially the spherical surface of the fireball at a fixed time difference $`t`$, measured from the initial emission, but photons emitted at different $`t`$ and at different angles reach the detector at the same time $`t_\mathrm{a}`$. The relation between emission time $`t`$ and arrival time $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ in the case of a constant $`\gamma `$ for the expanding fireball, has been found by Rees (for the definition of $`\vartheta `$ see Fig. 1) (see Rees, (1966)):

$$t_\mathrm{a}=t\left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right).$$
(14)
The external radius $`r\left(t\right)`$ of the fireball, due to the constancy of $`\gamma `$, is obviously given by:

$$r\left(t\right)=vt$$
(15)
If, in Eq.(14), we fix the value of the arrival time $`t_\mathrm{a}=t_\mathrm{a}^{}`$, using Eq.(15) we can find the equation describing the “surface” emitting the photons detected at arrival time $`t_\mathrm{a}^{}`$:

$$r=\frac{vt_\mathrm{a}^{}}{1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta },$$
(16)
which describes an ellipsoid of eccentricity $`\frac{v}{c}`$ (see Rees, (1966)).

This is the approximation that has been widely used in the gamma ray burst literature: see e.g. Sari & Piran, (1997), Sumner & Fenimore, (1997), Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore, (1999), Fenimore, et al., (1996), Granot, et al., (1999), Fenimore, (1999), Panaitescu & Mészáros, (1998), Piran, (1999) and references therein.

However, in our case the velocity $`v`$ is not constant: in a few hundreds of the PEM pulse crossing time<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The crossing time of the PEM pulse is given by $`\frac{r_{\mathrm{ds}}r_+}{c}`$, and this is $`10^2`$ seconds, for a black hole with $`M=10^3M_{}`$ and $`Q=0.1Q_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the $`\gamma `$ factor of the bulk motion of the expanding PEM pulse goes from $`0`$ to $`10^4`$, and so we have to find the generalization of Eq.(14) for nonconstant velocity. This can be done using the geometry of Figure 1.

We set $`t=0`$ when the fireball starts to expand and the first photons are emitted, so that $`r\left(0\right)=r_{\mathrm{ds}}`$. Let a photon be emitted at time $`t`$ from the point $`P`$. Its distance from the observer is $`L`$. The time it takes to arrive at the detector is, of course, $`\frac{L}{c}`$. So, its arrival time, measured from the arrival of the first photon a time $`\frac{R_0}{c}`$ after its emission at $`t=0`$, is:

$$t_\mathrm{a}=t+\frac{L}{c}\frac{R_0}{c}$$
(17)
where we have defined $`t_\mathrm{a}=0`$ when the first photon emitted at $`t=0`$ and $`\vartheta =0`$ reaches the observer. $`L`$ is clearly given by:

$$L=\sqrt{R_\mathrm{T}^2+r\left(t\right)^22R_\mathrm{T}r\left(t\right)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }$$
(18)
where at any given value of emission time $`t`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ can assume any value between $`\frac{v\left(t\right)}{c}`$ and $`1`$ as noted above, where $`v\left(t\right)`$ is the expansion speed of the fireball at time $`t`$ (see Eq.(5)). Now, $`r\left(t\right)`$ is of the order of magnitude of some light-seconds, and $`R_\mathrm{T}`$ corresponds to a redshift $`z1`$. So we can expand the right hand side of equation (18) in powers of $`\frac{r\left(t\right)}{R_\mathrm{T}}`$ at first order:

$$LR_\mathrm{T}\left(1\frac{r\left(t\right)}{R_\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right),$$
(19)
which corresponds to neglecting the lateral displacement from the line of sight axis.

Substituting (19) into (17) yields:

$$t_\mathrm{a}=t+\frac{r_{\mathrm{ds}}}{c}\frac{r\left(t\right)}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ,$$
(20)
where we have used the fact that $`R_\mathrm{T}=R_0+r_{\mathrm{ds}}`$ (see Figure 1). For $`r\left(t\right)`$ we can use the following expression:

$$r\left(t\right)=_0^tv\left(t^{}\right)𝑑t^{}+r_{\mathrm{ds}},$$
(21)
so that equation (20) can be written in the form:

$$t_\mathrm{a}=t\frac{_0^tv\left(t^{}\right)𝑑t^{}+r_{\mathrm{ds}}}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\frac{r_{\mathrm{ds}}}{c},$$
(22)
which reduces to Equation (14) only if $`v`$ is constant and $`r_{\mathrm{ds}}`$ is negligible with respect to $`r\left(t\right)`$.

Also in Eq.(22) we can fix $`t_\mathrm{a}=t_\mathrm{a}^{}`$ to obtain the equation describing the surface that emits the photons detected at an arrival time $`t_\mathrm{a}^{}`$. In this case, we no longer have ellipsoids of constant eccentricity $`\frac{v}{c}`$. Since the velocity is strongly varying from point to point, we have more complicated surfaces like the profiles reported in Fig. 2 where at every point there will be a tangent ellipsoid of constant eccentricity, but such an ellipsoid varies in eccentricity from point to point.

For a fixed time $`t`$ of emission in Eq.(22), the allowed angular interval $`\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta 1`$ leads to a corresponding smearing of the arrival time $`t_a`$ over the interval

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_a=\frac{r}{\gamma ^2c\left(1+\frac{v}{c}\right)},$$
(23)
called the angular time scale (see e.g. Piran, (1999)).

## 5 The radiation flux with respect to arrival time for an infinitely thin fireball

Eq.(13), integrated with respect to $`\vartheta `$, gives us the value of $`F\left(t\right)`$, the flux emitted from the PEM pulse at time $`t`$. Instead we want to compute $`F\left(t_\mathrm{a}\right)`$, the flux detected at an arrival time $`t_\mathrm{a}`$. In principle, we should substitute Eq.(22) into Eq.(13) before the integration, but we have no analytical relation between $`v\left(t\right)`$ and $`t`$, so a numerical integration must be performed. We used the following approach:

1. We fix the value of the emission time $`t`$, and let $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ assume a discrete set of values between $`1`$ and $`\frac{v\left(t\right)}{c}`$.
2. For each discrete value of $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$, we compute $`dF(t,\vartheta )`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}(t,\vartheta )`$.
3. Then, we change the value of $`t`$ and repeat, thus letting $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ vary with fixed $`t`$ over its allowed range, and $`t`$ vary from the beginning of the emission to the decoupling time, and at each step, we compute all the values of $`dF(t,\vartheta )`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}(t,\vartheta )`$.
4. Now we have a large number of corresponding values of $`dF`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}`$, and we have to compute $`F\left(t_\mathrm{a}\right)`$ as the sum of all the values of $`dF`$ corresponding to the same $`t_\mathrm{a}`$. Unfortunately, we have computed these values numerically, and so they are not exact. Thus some $`dF`$ that should correspond to the same $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ may correspond to slightly different $`t_\mathrm{a}`$, and vice versa. So we define $`F\left(t_\mathrm{a}\right)`$ as the sum of all the values of $`dF`$ corresponding to an arrival time between $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}+r_\mathrm{c}`$, where the value of $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is assigned “by hand.”
5. Of course, during this integration we can see which values of $`t`$ and $`\vartheta `$ give us the “same” (in the meaning discussed above) value of $`t_\mathrm{a}`$, and in this way we obtain plots like the one in Fig. 2.

This process yields $`F\left(t_\mathrm{a}\right)`$, the so called “light curve” of the GRB, and this is shown in Fig. 3, which reveals a very big problem with our computation. In fact, we see that the simulated time profile of the GRB seems to be “cut” after the peak, going to zero too fast, while experimentally long “tails” are observed after the peak. This is because we have assumed that all photons are emitted from the external surface of the expanding fireball, but they can also be emitted from a certain depth inside the surface, and this implies a time delay in the arrival time for photons emitted from different depths. This effect is almost negligible at the beginning, when the screening factor $`S\left(t\right)`$ satisfies $`S\left(t\right)1`$, but this condition changes very rapidly during the expansion, when $`S\left(t\right)1`$. The time required by a photon to cross the entire PEM pulse is about $`10^2`$ seconds, when $`S\left(t\right)1`$, in the case reported in Fig. 3, while the duration of the peak we have obtained is about $`10^4`$ seconds. Therefore the thickness effect cannot be neglected and we must change our numerical integration scheme.

## 6 The radiation flux with respect to arrival time for a thick fireball

In the previous section we computed the emitted flux by considering the suppression factor $`\frac{\lambda }{D}`$ and assuming that all the radiation is emitted from the external surface of the expanding fireball. Now, we relax this last assumption, and modify the estimate of the arrival time given in Eq.(22) by including the delay due to the thickness of the emission region in the fireball. We assume that, at a fixed emission time $`t`$, only the region of the fireball between $`r\left(t\right)`$ and $`r\left(t\right)\lambda \left(t\right)`$ is active in the photon emission, so the new formula is:

$$t_\mathrm{a}=t\frac{_0^tv\left(t^{}\right)𝑑t^{}+r_{\mathrm{ds}}r_2}{c}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\frac{r_{\mathrm{ds}}}{c},$$
(24)
where $`0r_2\lambda \left(t\right)`$. This interval, for a fixed value of $`t`$ and for $`\vartheta =0`$, leads to a corresponding maximum smearing of the arrival time $`t_a`$ over the interval

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_a=\frac{\lambda }{c},$$
(25)
called the intrinsic time scale.

Due to this extra factor, the numerical integration is also slightly different:

1. We pick the first value of $`t`$ and divide the emitting part of the fireball into $`N`$ emitting sub-shells, each of width $`\frac{\lambda \left(t\right)}{N}`$ and characterized by different values of the depth $`r_2`$, and we assume that the flux emitted by each sub-shell is $`\frac{dF}{N}`$. We pick the first sub-shell at the surface with $`r_2=0`$ and vary the value of $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ from $`\frac{v\left(t\right)}{c}`$ to $`1`$ with a large number of very small finite steps. At each step we compute $`dF`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}`$. Next we pick the second sub-shell, increasing $`r_2`$ by one step, and repeat the computation of $`dF`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ varying $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$, and so on for every sub-shell so that the intrinsic time scale of photons traveling within the emitting region is considered.
2. Next we pick the second value of $`t`$ and divide again the emitting shell of the fireball of width $`\lambda \left(t\right)`$ into $`N`$ sub-shells of width $`\frac{\lambda \left(t\right)}{N}`$. Note that $`\frac{\lambda \left(t\right)}{N}`$ is an increasing function of $`t`$, while $`N`$ is fixed, so these sub-shells are not the same as before. We repeat the computation of $`dF`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ varying $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ for each sub-shell. We pick the third value of $`t`$ and repeat, and so on until the decoupling time. In other words, we vary $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ at fixed $`r_2`$ and $`t`$, and vary $`r_2`$ at fixed $`t`$.
3. The last task to perform is the same of in previous case, assigning to the arrival time $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ the total flux of all the $`dF`$ corresponding to an arrival time between $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`t_\mathrm{a}+r_\mathrm{c}`$.

The results of this new computation are shown in Figs. 4, 5 and 6, respectively regarding a black hole with mass equal to $`10^3M_{}`$, $`10^2M_{}`$ and $`10M_{}`$ with charge $`Q=0.1Q_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and in Fig. 7 where the three different cases are shown together for comparison purposes.

The new feature here comes from the equitemporal surfaces of the burst. In fact, due to the extra term $`r_2`$, the relation between $`t`$ and $`\vartheta `$ at fixed $`t_\mathrm{a}`$ is no longer monotonic. Thus it can happen that photons emitted with a certain $`t`$, $`\vartheta `$ and $`r_2`$ arrive after the ones emitted at a subsequent time $`t`$, at a larger angle $`\vartheta `$, but from a lower depth $`r_2`$. The result is that the points which in Fig. 2 lie along curves are now spread on the plane, with no possibility of finding clean surfaces, as can be seen in Fig. 8.

In this case, the light curves are much more similar to the observed ones: we can see that the first part after the peak shows an exponential behavior, followed by a tail with a power law dependence. So we suppose that the second part can be represented by a function like:

$$F=\left(p_1t_\mathrm{a}^{p_2}\right)+p_3,$$
(26)
with $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ free parameters, and the first part by:

$$F=\left(p_4e^{p_5t_\mathrm{a}}\right)+p_6,$$
(27)
with $`p_4`$, $`p_5`$ and $`p_6`$ free parameters. We now apply a “fit” algorithm separately on the two parts of the “tail” to estimate the parameters. The results are shown in Figs. 9, 10 and 11.

It seems that there is a relation between the values of $`p_2`$ and $`p_5`$. In fact, decreasing the value of the black hole mass, and so decreasing the energy of the burst, $`p_2`$ rises, making the power law decrease slower. In contrast, as $`p_5`$ decreases the exponential part will be steeper. So the decrease in the energy released in the burst corresponds an “L” like shape, with a very steep exponential decrease, followed by an almost constant power-law part.

## 7 The temporal structure and time duration

Within the validity of our approximation, which has the very strong assumption of spherical symmetry, we can now present the main predicted theoretical features of the GRBs which should be compared with observations:

1. The “fast-rise, exponential-decay” profile which represents a clear time trigger of the GRB signal, characterized by an exponential-decay profile with $`e^{\beta t_\mathrm{a}}`$ (see Figs. 9, 10 and 11).
2. The “tail” of the total radiation flux with a power law dependence given by $`t_\mathrm{a}^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is close to unity (see Figs. 9, 10 and 11).

From the temporal profiles of the radiation flux as a function of the EMBH masses we find that the more massive systems have an exponential behavior with a smaller absolute value of the coefficient of the exponent and, correspondingly, a larger absolute value of the exponent of the power law. These effects can be compared and contrasted with GRB observations (see section 6).

The time duration of the GRB is usually observationally characterized by the so-called “$`T_{90}`$ criterion”, that is the time interval starting (ending) when the energy detected is the 5% (95%) of the total emitted. Namely the $`T_{90}`$ is the time duration of the emission of 90% of the energy. This criterion is very useful in describing observed GRBs, because, due to the background noise, it is very difficult to find the exact starting time and ending time of the emission, while at 5% and 95% of the emission the signal is usually well above the noise. We can apply the same procedure to our theoretically computed bursts, obtaining their $`T_{90}`$. The results for the three different black holes masses considered are reported in the captions of Figs. 4, 5 and 6. Since now the angular time scale corresponding to different emission epochs are taken into account as well as the intrinsic time scale of the emitting region, the $`T_{90}`$ computed are significantly larger (see Fig. 12) than the ones of Ruffini, et al., (1999), computed only on the basis of the angular time scale (see Eq.(23)) at the last transparent point.

We emphasize the fact that by breaking the assumption of spherical symmetry that we have adopted and by introducing inhomogeneities in the PEM pulse, the complex sub-structures of the observed GRBs can be easily accommodated in our scenario, using the two different time scales (angular and intrinsic) of the emission process. An inhomogeneity in the PEM pulse with time scale smaller than the angular one (see Eq.(23)),

$$\delta <\frac{r}{\gamma ^2c\left(1+\frac{v}{c}\right)}O\left(10^4\right),$$
(28)
is invisible in the light-curve. However, any inhomogeneities with time scale $`\delta `$ within the range between the angular and the intrinsic time scale (see Eq.(23) and Eq.(25)),

$$\frac{r}{\gamma ^2c\left(1+\frac{v}{c}\right)}<\delta <\frac{\lambda }{c},$$
(29)
would give rise to complex sub-structures in the light curve, up to a number given by

$$\frac{\frac{D}{c}}{\frac{r}{\gamma ^2c\left(1+\frac{v}{c}\right)}}.$$
(30)
## 8 General considerations about the spectrum

Although the main topic of this article deals with the structure of the burst and its time structure as seen from the observer, we can add some qualitative considerations about the spectrum and especially on its departure from a black body one. If one takes the assumptions of section 3, it is easy to compute the expected spectrum of the observed radiation. The observed number spectrum $`N_ϵ`$, per photon energy $`ϵ`$, per steradian, of photons emitted by a single shell is given by (in photons/eV) (see Eq.(65) of Ruffini, et al., (1999)):

$`N_ϵ(v,T,R)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑V\frac{u_ϵ}{ϵ}}=(5.23\times 10^{11})4\pi R^2dR{\displaystyle \frac{ϵT}{v\gamma }}`$ (31)
$``$ $`\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1exp[\gamma ϵ(1+\frac{v}{c})/T]}{1exp[\gamma ϵ(1\frac{v}{c})/T]}}\right],`$
which has a maximum at $`ϵ_{max}1.39\gamma TeV`$ for $`\gamma 1`$. We can then sum this spectrum over an equitemporal surface of our PEM-pulse to get the total spectrum of the radiation observed at a certain arrival time, and this is reported in Fig. 13, in the case of a black hole with $`M=10^3M_{}`$ and $`\xi =0.1`$, together with a black body spectrum fitted on the peak, for comparison. It is clear that this spectrum is already different from a black body, both at low and high frequency.

These simplified results may be, however, affected by two additional effects, which are not very relevant for determining the equation of motion of the PEM pulse and the time profile of the bursts, but can indeed be of relevance for the definition of the spectrum. The first modification would affect some of the considerations in section 6, where a radial dependence of the temperature of the radiation may be needed following a more detailed description of the transparency condition. This will lead to a further broadening of the spectrum given in Fig. 13. The second modification may be due to the consideration of multiple inverse Compton scattering of the photons, described by Kompaneets equation (Kompaneets, (1956); see also Felten & Rees, (1972)). Since the increase of energy of a photon per scattering is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\frac{4kT}{m_ec^2}E,$$
(32)
the condition for the distortion becomes

$$y=\frac{kT}{m_ec^2}\sigma _{\gamma ,e}n_e𝑑r=\frac{kT}{m_ec^2}\mathrm{max}(\tau _T,\tau _T^2)1$$
(33)
with $`n_e`$ the number of the electrons, $`\sigma _{\gamma ,e}`$ the Thomson cross section and $`\tau _T`$ the opacity due to Thomson scattering

$$\tau _T=n_e\sigma _{\gamma ,e}D,$$
(34)
Then, the number of scatterings is

$$N=\left(\frac{D}{\lambda }\right)^2=\tau _T^2.$$
(35)
In the present model, at emission time, say, $`2`$ seconds after the beginning of the expansion, the comptonization appears to be a crucial effect. Indeed, the optical depth for free-free absorption is:

$$\tau _{ff}=k_{ff}\mathrm{\Sigma }10^81$$
(36)
where

$$k_{ff}0.610^{23}m_pn_eT^{7\mathrm{/}2}g^1cm^2$$
(37)
and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the surface density of the electrons. However, the medium is opaque with respect to the Compton scattering (described by the Thomson cross section):

$$\tau _T610^41$$
(38)
so that the condition for comptonization (Eq.(33)) is fulfilled.

Hence, the black body spectrum, which exists in the comoving frame at the very initial stage of the expansion, quite soon will undergo modifications due to the comptonization. The observed spectrum $`F_\nu `$, in this case, will depart even more from a thermal one, with black body distribution at low energies, and a plateau up to the Wien exponential cutoff. In the Fig. 14 we give a qualitative form of the spectrum.

The variation of the spectrum in the course of the expansion of the fireball can be determined via the simultaneous solution of the hydrodynamical equations of motion and energy balance (given in Ruffini, et al., (1999)) together with the Kompaneets equation (Kompaneets, (1956)):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{y}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left[x^4\left(n+n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{x}}\right)\right],x={\displaystyle \frac{h\nu }{kT}}`$
where $`n`$ is the occupation number density of photons:

$$n\left(\nu \right)=\frac{c^3}{8\pi h\nu ^3}F_\nu $$
(39)
The location of the cutoff, which depends on the number of collisions, will give independent information on the physical parameters of the initial Dyadosphere. This computation is beyond the scope of the present paper.

## 9 Conclusions

In our model the most general GRB is characterized by six different phases (see e.g. Ruffini, (2000)), each one with distinct physical processes which can lead to specific observational features:

1. The identification of the precursor. Since the mass range of the EMBH in which the vacuum polarization process can occur varies from $`3.2M_{}`$ to $`7.210^6M_{}`$, it is particularly important to identify the precursors of the collapsing core. While in the case of $`10M_{}`$ EMBH the understanding of the process of gravitational collapse has been achieved on the ground of binary X-ray sources (see Giacconi & Ruffini, (1978)), in the case of more massive collapsing systems ($`10^510^6M_{}`$) various scenarios can be considered (see e.g. Gurzadyan & Ruffini, in preparation). In addition to the identification of the precursor, it is important in our model to identify the magnetohydrodynamical conditions leading to the charge separation process in the collapsing core (see Ruffini, (2000)).
2. The process of gravitational collapse which leads to the formation of the Dyadosphere. As mentioned in section 2, the case of spherical symmetry is currently been investigated (Klippert, (2000)). In nonspherical gravitational collapse, this phase may lead to the observation of gravitational waves and the associated gravitationally induced electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetically induced gravitational radiation (see Johnston, et al., (1973) and Johnston, et al., (1974)).
3. The acceleration of the sole $`e^+e^{}`$ electromagnetic plasma component (the PEM pulse) to relativistic Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factors greater than $`10^2`$. The dynamic of this phase has been treated in a previous paper (see Ruffini, et al., (1999)). This phase may last all the way to the reaching of the transparency condition. The observational consequence of this phase are the topic of the present paper.
4. The interaction of the PEM pulse, prior to reaching the transparency condition, with some baryonic matter. The possible acceleration to even larger values of the Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor ($`10^410^5`$) of the plasma composed of $`\gamma `$, $`e^+`$, $`e^{}`$ and the electron and nucleons of the baryonic matter (the PEMB pulse) has been treated in a previous paper (Ruffini, et al., (2000)). The observational aspects of this phase will be presented in a forthcoming paper (Bianco, Ruffini & Xue, in preparation) where we compute the duration $`T_{90}`$ values predicted by this more general model as well as their temporal structure and intensity variation and compare and contrast these results with the observed ones.
5. A substantial part of the energy of the Dyadosphere, in the presence of a large quantity of baryonic matter, will be carried away by the kinetic energy of the baryons. The relative importance of the energy transfer from the Dyadosphere to the kinetic energy of the baryonic component has been estimated in a previous paper (Ruffini, et al., (2000)). The observational aspects of this phase, particularly relevant to the observed afterglow and possibly to neutrinos, will be presented in a forthcoming paper (Bianco, Fraschetti, Ruffini & Xue, in preparation).
6. The acceleration of ultra high energy cosmic rays by the remnant electrodynamic structure of the EMBH (see Ruffini, (1999)). This problem is also under current examination (see Chardonnet & Ruffini, in preparation).

We have used the detailed model of the creation of photons and electron-positron pairs around an EMBH by the process of vacuum polarization (see Damour & Ruffini, (1975), Ruffini, (1998) and Preparata, et al., 1998b ) and their subsequent time evolution (see Ruffini, et al., (1999)) in order to compute the different relativistic effects occurring in the determination of the time profile of the observed radiation flux of a GRB with respect to arrival time, as the PEM pulse gradually reaches transparency. If these theoretical predictions will be supported by observational evidence, they will offer an important tool and a strong connection between the observations of GRBs and the properties of the central engine which supplies the energy. This is even more compelling since the simplified model has only two basic parameters, the mass $`M`$ and charge to mass ratio $`\frac{Q}{M}`$ of the EMBHs, giving the first clear evidence, in an astrophysical system, of using the extractable mass-energy of a black hole (see Christodoulou & Ruffini, (1971)). In addition, we make precise predictions of the structure of the bursts and of their time variability which can be observationally verified.

The considerations presented in this paper refer only to the above mentioned phase 3 or to the initial evolution of phase 4. The reaching of transparency by a pure $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ component can only occur for very low baryonic matter density around EMBH, $`\rho _B10^9g/cm^3`$. This very special circumstance will define a special class of GRB with the specific signature presented in the present paper: short and elementary time variability and absence of afterglow. The estimate of the $`T_{90}`$ and the shape of the burst may be an important tool for their identification. The spectra features can also be an important tools for verifying the consistency of the model.

The theoretical tools developed in this paper are applied in the forthcoming publications to the more general case where baryonic matter is present. In this more general case only a small part of the energy of the Dyadosphere will be radiated in the burst. A fraction of the energy, increasing with the amount of baryonic matter, will be transferred to the kinetic energy of the baryonic matter, leading to observational consequences and to the afterglow epoch.

## Appendix A Electron-positron pairs annihilation and GRBs

The evolution of the PEM pulse is completely described by the general relativistic hydrodynamical equations (see Ruffini, et al., (1999)) and the rate equation for the number-densities of electrons and positrons

$`(n_{e^\pm }U^\mu )_{;\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(n_{e^\pm }U^t)_{,t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(r^2n_{e^\pm }U^r)_{,r}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }\overline{v}\left[n_e^{}(T)n_{e^+}(T)n_e^{}n_{e^+}\right],`$
where $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is the mean annihilation-creation cross-section of electron-positron pairs, $`\overline{v}`$ is the thermal velocity of electron-positron pairs, $`n_{e^+}(T)`$ and $`n_e^{}(T)`$ are the proper number-densities of electrons and positrons, given by appropriate Fermi integrals. We clearly have

$$n_{e^\pm }(T)=n_\gamma (T),$$
(41)
where $`n_\gamma (T)`$ is the number-density of photons given by the Bose integral, integrated from $`2m_e`$ to infinity.

In the initial evolution stages of the PEM pulses, the temperature $`T`$ is larger than the energy-threshold $`0.5`$ MeV of electron-positron pair creation (see Fig. 15). The electrons and positrons created in dyadosphere are in thermal equilibrium with photons, by the process $`e^++e^{}\gamma +\gamma `$.

$$n_{e^\pm }n_{e^\pm }(T)n_\gamma (T),$$
(42)
The rate equation becomes

$$(n_{e^\pm }U^\mu )_{;\mu }=0,$$
(43)
that is just the conservation of the total number of electron-positron pairs (see Ruffini, et al., (1999)).

As the temperature $`T`$ (see Fig. 15) drops first close to and then below the threshold $`0.5`$ MeV, the electrons and positrons that were in thermal equilibrium with photons annihilate to photons,

$$n_\gamma (T)>n_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}$$
(44)
when PEM pulses approach transparency. The ratio between the number-densities of photons $`n_\gamma (T)`$ and pairs $`n_{e^\pm }`$, defined as $`\frac{n_{e^\pm }}{n_\gamma (T)}`$, are indicated in Fig. 16, for $`T1`$MeV, for selected EMBHs.

## Appendix B The screening factor in the radiation flux

At the beginning, the PEM pulse is optically thick, so the mean free path $`\lambda `$ of the photons in the plasma (see Eq.(1)) is more than ten orders of magnitude lower than the thickness $`D`$ of the fireball: for a PEM pulse created by an EMBH with $`M=10^3M_{}`$ and $`Q=0.1Q_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the initial numerical values are: $`D10^9`$ cm and $`\lambda 10^6`$ cm. So practically we have no radiation emission. During the expansion, the plasma density and temperature both decrease, while $`\lambda `$ rises, and also the emitted flux rises, until $`\lambda D`$, when the plasma is optically thin and all the remaining photons escape. We then assume that the black-body radiation flux $`F_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ (in erg/s) emitted by our fireball is given by:

$$F_{\mathrm{BB}}\left(t\right)\stackrel{def.}{}S\left(t\right)F_{\mathrm{BB}}^\mathrm{T}\left(t\right)4\pi aT^4r^2c\gamma ^2S\left(t\right),$$
(45)
where $`a1.3710^{26}\frac{\mathrm{erg}}{\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{MeV}^4}`$, $`T`$ is the comoving frame plasma temperature given in $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factor of the bulk motion of the expanding plasma, $`r`$ is the radius of the external surface of the PEM pulse and $`S\left(t\right)`$, is the “screening factor”, given by (see Preparata, et al., (1999)):

$$S\left(t\right)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{\lambda \left(t\right)}{D}.$$
(46)
In Fig. 17 are plotted the screening factors $`S\left(t\right)`$ for different plasmas, originated around EMBHs characterized by charge $`\frac{Q}{M}=0.1`$ and by mass $`M=10M_{}`$, $`M=10^2M_{}`$ and $`M=10^3M_{}`$ respectively.

Using the quantities obtained by the numerical simulation of the expansion of the PEM pulse (see Ruffini, et al., (1999)), we can now make a plot of the emitted flux versus emission time $`t`$, again for selected EMBHs (see Fig. 18). A clear radiation flash corresponding to an increase of the order of magnitude of $`10^{10}`$ in the radiation flux is observed as the screening factor $`S\left(t\right)`$ approaches unity.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank V. Gurzadyan, J. Salmonson and J. Wilson for helpful discussions, as well as the anonymous referee for attracting our attention on the spectral distributions, complementary to the results of the present work, as well as for the wording of the manuscript.


text:
# Supersymmetry and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories

## 1 HOW SUPERSYMMETRY HELPS

Supersymmetric nonrenormalization (NR) theorems aid in the identification of exactly marginal operators, and ensure exact flat directions giving rise to moduli spaces of vacua. The structure of superconformal algebras aids in the determination of exact anomalous scaling dimensions. And the structure of supersymmetry algebras with central charges can determine the exact mass spectrum of states invariant under a fraction of the supersymmetry generators (the BPS states). We will discuss each of these topics in turn.

### 1.1 Exactly marginal operators

Knowledge of exactly marginal operators (and their associated dimensionless couplings) is crucial to probing the strong coupling physics of field theories since one way of approaching strong coupling is by appropriately tuning a marginal coupling to a large value. The NR theorems of supersymmetric field theories give information to all orders in perturbation theory (see the talks by Iliopoulos and West) and nonperturbatively (following the work of Seiberg ) about certain classes of couplings.

To take the most famous example, in four-dimensional ($`d=4`$) $`N=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories, the superpotential and gauge kinetic terms,

$$Sd^4xd^4\theta \left\{\lambda 𝒪(\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{1}{g^2}W_\alpha ^2\right\},$$
(1)
are protected by such an NR theorem. More precisely, the theorem says that the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _i`$ of the chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ (coming from their kinetic terms) can only enter into the renormalization group (RG) running of the couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`g^2`$ in a prescribed manner. Suppose, for instance, that

$$𝒪\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{n_i}.$$
(2)
Then the NR theorems imply the exact RG $`\beta `$ function relations

$`\beta _g`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}T(\mathrm{𝐚𝐝𝐣}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}T(𝐑_i)(1\gamma _i),`$
$`\beta _\lambda `$ $``$ $`3d_𝒪{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i\gamma _i,`$ (3)
where $`𝐑_i`$ is the gauge group representation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, $`T(𝐑_i)`$ is its index, and $`d_𝒪`$ is the canonical scaling dimension of $`𝒪`$.

This NR theorem helps in finding exactly marginal operators in those cases where the choice of representations $`𝐑_i`$ and operators $`𝒪`$ are such that $`\beta _g\beta _\lambda `$. In this case one can deduce the existence of linear combinations of couplings with exactly vanishing $`\beta `$ functions (see  and references therein).

A simple example  illustrating this is the $`d=4`$ $`N=1`$ $`SU(n)`$ theory with three adjoint chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$, with superpotential

$`𝒲`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}[a\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3+b\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ (4)
$`+c(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^3+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^3+\mathrm{\Phi }_3^3)].`$
From the symmetry under cyclic permutations of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ we see that the $`\gamma _i`$ are all equal, to $`\gamma `$, say. Then (1.1) implies $`\beta _g\beta _a\beta _b\beta _c\gamma `$. Thus, in this four complex dimensional space of couplings $`\{g,a,b,c\}`$ we would generically expect to find a three dimensional submanifold of exactly marginal couplings; furthermore, since this submanifold goes through the origin (i.e. weak coupling) we are assured that it indeed exists. The precise equation for the manifold of marginal couplings $`\gamma (a,b,c,g)=0`$ is in general not known exactly away from the origin. (In this particular example, though, a one dimensional subspace is, namely $`\{c=0,a=b=g\}`$ where there is an enhanced $`N=4`$ supersymmetry.)

### 1.2 Moduli spaces of vacua

Another way of probing the strong coupling behavior of field theories is by tuning the vacuum expectation values (vevs) of scalars to approach a strongly coupled vacuum. This can only be done if the scalars are moduli of the theory—i.e. have exactly flat potentials.

The nonperturbative control over potential terms implied by the NR theorem discussed above allows us in the case of 4 conserved supercharges (e.g. $`d=4`$ $`N=1`$ supersymmetry) to tune the couplings to ensure the existence of flat directions. In the case of 8 or more supercharges (e.g. $`d=4`$ $`N2`$ or $`d=6`$ $`N(1,0)`$) the flat directions are generic—no tuning is necessary.

A well known example is the $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ $`SU(n)`$ superQCD theory. Here the complex scalar $`\varphi `$ in the vector multiplet has an $`(n1)`$ complex dimensional moduli space, the Coulomb branch, where $`\varphi `$ generically breaks $`SU(n)U(1)^{n1}`$. In the cases where the superQCD theory is asymptotically free (AF) with strong coupling scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the Coulomb branch breaking for $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is just a weakly coupled Higgs mechanism. On the other hand, sending $`\varphi 0`$ probes strongly coupled $`SU(n)`$ physics. As pioneered in , using analytic continuation in $`\varphi `$ together with some qualitative physical assumptions allows an exact determination of the nonperturbative low energy effective action on the Coulomb branch for all values of $`\varphi `$.

More generally, this program of analytic continuation on a moduli space of vacua is greatly aided by the fact that the geometry of the moduli space is constrained by supersymmetric selection rules. For example, as discussed in the talks of De Wit and Ferrara, $`d=4`$ $`N=1`$ supersymmetry implies that the moduli space is a Kahler manifold; $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ implies a kind of product of rigid special Kahler and hyperKahler manifolds; while $`d=4`$ $`N=4`$ theories have locally flat moduli spaces with orbifold singularities.

Finally, it is sometimes useful to note that the existence of exactly marginal couplings and exactly flat directions are not unrelated. By embedding a given theory, $`A`$, in a larger AF theory, $`B`$, marginal couplings in $`A`$ can often be realized as vevs along a submanifold of the moduli space of $`B`$. Indeed, in gravitational (string or M) theories there are no couplings: all field theory marginal couplings are lifted to flat directions for some scalars.

### 1.3 Superconformal algebras

The structure of superconformal algebras (discussed in the talks by Ferrara and West) allows the determination of the exact anomalous scaling dimensions of certain operators, which often provide useful “diagnostics” for strongly coupled vacua.

If a scale invariant supersymmetric vacuum is also conformally invariant, then the theory is invariant under the superconformal extension of the supersymmetry algebra. Thus, heuristically, if the supersymmetry algebra is

$$\{Q_n,Q_m\}=\delta _{nm}\overline{)}P$$
(5)
where $`n`$, $`m`$ run over the different supersymmetry generators in extended supersymmetry, then the superconformal algebra has double the number of fermionic generators, with a superconformal generator $`S_n`$ for each $`Q_n`$, satisfying

$$\{S_n,S_m\}=\delta _{nm}\overline{)}K$$
(6)
where $`K_\mu `$ is the generator of special conformal transformations. Associativity of the algebra then implies

$$\{Q_n,S_m\}=\delta _{nm}D+R_{nm}+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
where $`D`$ is the generator of dilatations and $`R_{nm}`$ are the R-symmetry generators. These algebras are tightly constrained by associativity; for example, for $`d>4`$ they only exist for $`N=1`$ in $`d=5`$ and $`N=(1,0)`$ or $`(2,0)`$ in $`d=6`$, and not at all if $`d7`$ .

The classification of unitary (or “positive energy”) representations of the superconformal algebras  imply inequalities on the eigenvalues of $`D`$ and $`R_{nm}`$ following essentially from the positivity of operators like $`[(Q_n+Q_n^{})+(S_n+S_n^{})]^2`$ and the algebra (57). These inequalities are saturated for certain chiral fields (annihilated by some of the $`Q_n`$ and $`S_n`$ generators). Knowledge of the R-symmetry charges of these operators then allows one to deduce their $`D`$ charges, i.e. their exact scaling dimensions .

### 1.4 BPS states

BPS states are supersymmetric particle states whose mass can be determined exactly from the structure of the supersymmetry algebra. They can thus provide another “diagnostic” of (non-scale-invariant) strongly coupled vacua.

The argument is analogous to that determining scaling dimensions from the superconformal algebra. In the non-conformal case the R-charges do not enter the algebra, but a set of $`U(1)`$ charges—the central charges $`Z_{nm}`$—commuting with all other generators can enter:

$$\{Q_n,Q_m\}=\delta _{nm}\overline{)}P+Z_{nm}.$$
(8)
Positivity of operators like $`(Q_n+Q_n^{})^2`$ then give inequalities between the eigenvalues of $`P_\mu `$ and $`Z_{mn}`$, i.e. between particle masses and their $`U(1)`$ charges. For certain states—the BPS states—which are annihilated by some fraction of the $`Q_n`$, these inequalities are saturated and the mass is determined by the central charge . In certain cases the supersymmetric selection rules and analytic continuation techniques mentioned in Section 1.2 above can be used to determine the central charges and thus the BPS spectrum as functions of the couplings and vevs at strong coupling; e.g. .

## 2 THREE QUESTIONS

Instead of attempting a survey of the kinds of strongly coupled phenomena that have been found using the tools outlined in the last section, I will focus on three open questions concerning strongly coupled phenomena which I think are both important and on which progress can be made.

### 2.1 “Ultra-strong” coupling

Different values of the exactly marginal complex gauge coupling

$$\tau \frac{\theta }{2\pi }+i\frac{4\pi }{g^2},$$
(9)
where $`g^2`$ is the gauge coupling and $`\theta `$ the theta angle in a scale invariant $`d=4`$ gauge theory, are typically identified under S-duality (also known as Montonen-Olive duality or strong-weak coupling duality) transformations. The prototypical example of this  is the $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ group of S-duality identifications in $`d=4`$ $`N=4`$ superYang-Mills. This group is generated by the theta angle $`2\pi `$ rotation $`\tau \tau +1`$ and by inversion of the gauge coupling $`\tau 1/\tau `$. This S-duality group relates weak ($`g0`$) to ultra-strong ($`g\mathrm{}`$) couplings, but does not “solve” the strong coupling behavior of $`N=4`$ superYang-Mills. This is illustrated in Figure 1 which shows a fundamental domain in the complex $`\tau `$ upper half plane under these identifications. This domain includes a weak coupling limit ($`g0`$) at $`\tau =+i\mathrm{}`$ as well as some special strong coupling vacua at $`\tau =i`$ and $`e^{i\pi /3}`$ (where $`g1`$). These special strong coupling points have enhanced $`𝐙_2`$ and $`𝐙_3`$ discrete global symmetries, respectively, but apparently no other more striking behavior. A similar story holds for scale invariant $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ superQCD with four fundamental hypermultiplets .

However, the story changes qualitatively for $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ superQCD with gauge groups with rank $`2`$. For the generic such theory, the S-duality relations no longer identify all ultra-strong coupling points with weak coupling points. This is illustrated in Figure 2 which shows a fundamental domain for the S-duality group of $`SU(n)`$ $`n3`$ $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ superQCD  which is an index three subgroup of $`SL(2,𝐙)`$. Note that a point ($`\tau =0`$) with $`g=\mathrm{}`$ is included in the domain.

The question thus arises as to what is the nature of the physics at these ultra-strongly coupled theories with $`\tau =0`$. That there is some qualitatively new physics (as compared to the merely strongly coupled theories) can be deduced from the behavior of the low energy $`U(1)^{n1}`$ effective action on the Coulomb branch of these theories, where we observe that as $`\tau 0`$ the effective action becomes singular, indicating the appearance of new light degrees of freedom. Moreover, these new singularities appear everywhere on the Coulomb branch and not just on a submanifold of it.

There are a number of possibilities for the answer to this question. Perhaps these ultra-strong coupling points are in fact the weak coupling limits of some other theory. If so this would raise the possibility of a “web of dualities” connecting different field theories similar to what is seen in Calabi-Yau compactifications of string theories. However in the simplest case of $`SU(3)`$ $`N=2`$ superQCD an explicit survey of all known scale-invariant theories with rank 2 gauge groups finds no weak coupling candidate which matches onto the $`SU(3)`$ theory. For example, a promising candidate (from hints from a IIA string construction of the $`SU(3)`$ theory) is the scale invariant $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ theory with 2 fundamental hypermultiplets in each factor and one bifundamental hypermultiplet; an analysis  of the coupling space of this theory shows no ultra-strong coupling points.

A second possibility is that due to an ambiguity in the overall scaling of operators as one approaches the ultra-strong point, the singularity in the effective action is really just a kind of coordinate singularity—i.e. a place where no new light states occur, but where the coupling space joins smoothly to that of another theory.

A final, and most likely, possibility is that the ultra-strong coupling points signal a genuinely new strongly coupled “phase” of gauge theories. Perhaps a hint of this comes from the IIA brane construction  for the $`N=2`$ theories, where the ultra-strong points correspond to brane configurations with coincident NS5 branes. We will discuss the $`d=6`$ physics of stacks of NS5 branes in Section 2.3 below.

### 2.2 Gauge theories with no weak coupling limits

Another interesting class of strongly coupled theories occur as superconformal vacua at special points on a moduli space of vacua. For example, all the $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ superconformal field theories with a one complex dimensional Coulomb branch (which we will parameterize as the complex $`u`$ plane) can be described by the singular degenerations of Seiberg-Witten tori as shown in Table 1.

Here $`x`$ and $`y`$ are the auxiliary complex variables describing the Seiberg-Witten Riemann surface. The mass scaling dimensions $`D(u)`$ of the $`N=2`$ chiral superfield $`U`$ whose lowest component is the modulus $`u`$ are found using the superconformal algebra as described in Section 1.3 above. The dimensions of the associated coupling $`\lambda `$ is $`D(\lambda )=2D(u)`$ as follows from the form of the $`N=2`$ superspace coupling

$$d^4xd^4\theta \lambda U.$$
(10)
Referring to these theories by their global symmetry groups, we see that only the global $`SO(8)`$ theory has an exactly marginal coupling. This coupling is in fact the gauge coupling of the scale invariant $`SU(2)`$ theory with four fundamental hypermultiplets described in . The three global $`U(n)`$ theories were found in  by tuning masses and vevs in the global $`SO(8)`$ theory.

What interests us here are the three $`E_k`$ theories found in  which have no known embedding in $`d=4`$ gauge theories. In other words they have not been shown to appear as limits of other AF or scale invariant gauge theories in four dimensions. There is in fact a large class of such “exceptional” or “isolated” $`d=4`$ conformal field theories: many can easily be found with 2 complex dimensional Coulomb branches (though no complete classification is known in this case), and evidence from the AdS/CFT correspondence  shows that the global $`E_k`$ theories have relatively benign large $`N`$ limits (where $`N`$ refers to the “rank” of the theory, in this case given by the dimension of its Coulomb branch).

Given that these theories have no known embedding in a $`d=4`$ theory with a weakly coupled limit, how do we know they actually exist at all as consistent field theories? The evidence for their existence comes from string constructions: they can be realized as compactifications of similar isolated $`d=5`$  or $`d=6`$ conformal theories  which in turn have known string constructions. For instance, the $`d=5`$ theories can be constructed  as the field theory on coincident D4 brane probes of a IIA string background with D8 branes and O8 orientifold planes.

The question naturally arises as to what is an intrinsically four dimensional definition of these theories. Possible ways of answering this question would be to either embed these theories in some higher rank AF theories (possibly with less supersymmetry); or to find something analogous to the lattice definition of AF gauge theories, i.e. a direct nonperturbative definition.

This question is equivalent to asking for a $`d=4`$ characterization of the universality classes of these theories. Note that these isolated $`d=4`$ conformal field theories should be contrasted to other $`d=4`$ theories which are thought to have only higher-dimensional definitions, such as the “scale invariant” $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ theories with compact Coulomb branch , or the infrared (IR) free $`d=5`$ $`N=2`$ superYang-Mills theory . Unlike the $`d=4`$ conformal field theories we have been discussing, there is no reason to think that these latter theories have to have a $`d=4`$ (or $`d=5`$) definition, since they include irrelevant operators which may indeed be inherited from a higher dimensional theory.

### 2.3 Little string theories

Perhaps the strangest and most interesting strong coupling behavior yet encountered in supersymmetric field theories are the “little string” theories which can be thought of either as $`d=6`$ non-gravitational string theories at a fixed (strong) coupling, or as quasi-local field theories which lack operators more localized than a certain length scale.

These theories are known through their string constructions. Below I will simply list some of the properties of these theories in the simplest case of $`d=6`$ with 16 supercharges. Their string construction is as the theory living on a stack of $`k`$ NS5 branes in either IIA or IIB string theory with fixed string tension $`1/\alpha ^{}=M_s^2`$ and in the limit as the string coupling vanishes $`g_s0`$. This limit implies that bulk ($`d=10`$) string modes including gravity decouple, and leaves a non-trivial $`d=6`$ theory with a scale $`M_s`$ .

The IR properties of these theories, i.e. at scales below $`M_s`$, are as follows (short reviews are ). At the origin of their moduli spaces one finds either an $`N=(1,1)`$ supersymmetric IR free Yang-Mills theory with a general rank $`k`$ gauge group $`G_k`$  (from the IIB string construction); or an $`N=(2,0)`$ conformal field theory with a $`G_k=A_k`$-$`D_k`$-$`E_k`$ classification (from the IIA string construction). At a generic point on moduli space the $`N=(1,1)`$ theory is broken down to $`k`$ massless $`U(1)`$ vector multiplets, while the $`N=(2,0)`$ theory is broken down to $`k`$ self-dual antisymmetric tensor multiplets. These theories both have BPS string states with tensions which approach $`M_s^2`$ at the origin in the $`N=(1,1)`$ theory and zero in the $`(2,0)`$ theory. The density of states at the origin depends on the rank as $`k^2`$ in the $`(1,1)`$ theory and $`k^3`$ in the $`(2,0)`$ theory. The long wavelength limit of compactifications of both these theories on a circle gives a $`d=5`$ $`N=2`$ superYang-Mills theory with gauge group $`G_k`$.

The $`(2,0)`$ low energy properties strongly hint at some kind of “nonabelian self-dual 2 form gauge theory”. However no such local classical field theory has been constructed, despite interesting guesses at the algebraic structure which might play a role analogous to the Lie algebra structure of Yang-Mills theory (for example, ), and systematic computations of the self-interactions of 2 form gauge fields from the effective action of 5 branes (for example, ). In any case, the IR properties of the little string theories by themselves are consistent with them being some relevant deformation of a $`d=6`$ local superconformal field theory. The real surprise is that this is not the case: the theory is in fact nonlocal above the scale $`M_s`$.

The most striking evidence of this is the fact that these theories inherit the T-duality of their IIA and IIB superstring parents. Thus, the $`(2,0)`$ theory compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$ is equivalent to the $`(1,1)`$ theory compactified on a circle of radius $`(M_s^2R)^1`$. This sort of behavior is characteristic of closed string degrees of freedom with tension $`M_s^2`$. Furthermore, these theories have a Hagedorn density of states $`\rho (E)e^{E/T_H}`$ with $`T_HM_s/\sqrt{k}`$ . These high energy properties suggest that there may be a weakly coupled (and non-gravitational) description of these theories as strings, though perhaps only at high enough energy densities.

The question here, as in Section 2.2, is what is an intrinsic or minimal definition of little string theory. Actually, there is already an answer: the discrete light cone quantization of little strings in (uncompactified) $`d=6`$ is equivalent to the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of a certain $`SU(N)`$ supersymmetric quantum mechanics or a $`1+1`$ dimensional sigma model . Although in principle this gives a nonperturbative definition of the theory, it is very hard to compute with it. Moreover, basic properties of the theory, such as Lorentz invariance and its BPS spectrum are not manifest and are only expected to be recovered in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit. On the other hand, it has been argued that these theories obey the axioms of “quasi-local” field theory in which correlators exist in momentum space but not in position space on length scales less than $`M_s^1`$ . Perhaps this indicates that there is a more direct definition of little string theories.