text:
# ℚ–Gorenstein splinter rings of characteristic 𝑝 are F–regular

## 1. Introduction

A Noetherian integral domain $`R`$ is said to be a splinter if it is a direct summand, as an $`R`$–module, of every module–finite extension ring, see \[Ma\]. In the case that $`R`$ contains the field of rational numbers, it is easily seen that $`R`$ is splinter if and only if it is a normal ring, but the notion is more subtle for rings of characteristic $`p>0`$. It is known that F–regular rings of characteristic $`p`$ are splinters, and Hochster and Huneke showed that the converse is true for locally excellent Gorenstein rings, \[HH4\]. In this paper we extend their result by showing that $``$–Gorenstein splinters are F–regular. Our main theorem is:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`R`$ be a locally excellent $``$–Gorenstein integral domain of characteristic $`p>0`$. Then $`R`$ is F–regular if and only if it is a splinter.

These issues are closely related to the question of whether the tight closure $`I^{}`$ of an ideal $`I`$ of a characteristic $`p`$ domain agrees with its plus closure, i.e., $`I^+=IR^+R`$, where $`R^+`$ denotes the integral closure of $`R`$ in an algebraic closure of its fraction field. We always have the containment $`I^+I^{}`$, and Smith showed that equality holds if $`I`$ is a parameter ideal in an excellent domain $`R`$, see \[Sm1\]. An excellent domain $`R`$ of characteristic $`p`$ is splinter if and only if for all ideals $`I`$ of $`R`$, we have $`I^+=I`$.

For an excellent local domain $`R`$ of characteristic $`p`$, Hochster and Huneke showed that $`R^+`$ is a big Cohen–Macaulay algebra, see \[HH2\]. For further work on $`R^+`$ and plus closure see \[Ab, AH\]. Our main references for the theory of tight closure are \[HH1, HH3, HH4\].

Although tight closure is primarily a characteristic $`p`$ notion, it has strong connections with the study of singularities of algebraic varieties over fields of characteristic zero. For $``$–Gorenstein rings essentially of finite type over a field of characteristic zero, it is known that F–regular type is equivalent to log–terminal singularities, see \[Ha, Sm2, Sm3, Wa\]. Consequently our main theorem offers a characterization of log–terminal singularities in characteristic zero, see Corollary 3.3.

## 2. Preliminaries

By the canonical ideal of a Cohen–Macaulay normal domain $`(R,m)`$, we shall mean an ideal of $`R`$ which is isomorphic to the canonical module of $`R`$. We next record some results that we shall use later in our work.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`(R,m)`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay local domain with canonical ideal $`J`$. Fix a system of parameters $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_d`$ for $`R`$, and let $`sJ`$ be an element which represents a socle generator in $`J/(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)J`$. Then for $`t`$, the element $`s(y_1\mathrm{}y_d)^{t1}`$ is a socle generator in $`J/(y_1^t,\mathrm{},y_d^t)J`$. The ideals $`I_t=(y_1^t,\mathrm{},y_d^t)J:_Rs`$ form a family of irreducible ideals which are cofinal with the powers of the maximal ideal $`m`$ of $`R`$.

###### Proof.

See the proof of \[HH4, Theorem 4.6\]. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`R`$ be a Cohen–Macaulay normal domain with canonical ideal $`J`$. Pick $`y_10`$ in $`J`$. Then there exists an element $`y_2`$ not in any minimal prime of $`y_1`$ and $`\gamma J`$ such that $`y_2^iJ^{(i)}\gamma ^iR`$ for all positive integers $`i`$.

###### Proof.

This is \[Wi, Lemma 4.3\]. ∎

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`(R,m)`$ be a normal local domain and $`J`$ an ideal of pure height one, which has order $`n`$ when regarded as an element of the divisor class group $`Cl(R)`$. Then for $`0<i<n`$, we have $`J^{(i)}J^{(ni)}J^{(n)}m`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`J^{\left(n\right)}=\alpha R`$. Clearly $`J^{\left(i\right)}J^{\left(ni\right)}\alpha R`$, and it suffices to show that $`J^{\left(i\right)}J^{\left(ni\right)}\alpha R`$. If $`J^{\left(i\right)}J^{\left(ni\right)}=\alpha R`$, then $`J^{\left(i\right)}`$ is an invertible fractional ideal, and so must be a projective $`R`$–module. Since $`R`$ is local, $`J^{\left(i\right)}`$ is a free $`R`$–module, but this is a contradiction since $`J^{\left(i\right)}`$ cannot be principal for $`0<i<n`$. ∎

###### Discussion 2.4.

Let $`(R,m)`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein Cohen–Macaulay normal local domain, with canonical ideal $`J`$. Let $`n`$ denote the order of $`J`$ as an element of the divisor class group $`Cl\left(R\right)`$, and pick $`\alpha R`$ such that $`J^{\left(n\right)}=\alpha R`$. Consider the subring $`R[JT,J^{\left(2\right)}T^2,\mathrm{}]`$ of $`R\left[T\right]`$, and let

$$S=R[JT,J^{\left(2\right)}T^2,\mathrm{}]/\left(\alpha T^n1\right).$$

Note that $`S`$ has a natural $`/n`$–grading where $`\left[S\right]_0=R`$, and for $`0<i<n`$ we have $`\left[S\right]_i=J^{\left(i\right)}T^i`$. We claim that the ideal

$$𝔪=m+JT+J^{\left(2\right)}T^2+\mathrm{}+J^{\left(n1\right)}T^{n1}$$

is a maximal ideal of $`S`$. Since each $`J^{\left(i\right)}`$ is an ideal of $`R`$, we need only verify that $`J^{\left(i\right)}T^i𝔪𝔪`$ for $`0<i<n1`$, but this follows from Lemma 2.3. Note furthermore that $`𝔪^nmS`$.

## 3. The main result

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

The property of being a splinter localizes, as does the property of being $``$–Gorenstein. Hence if the splinter ring $`R`$ is not F–regular, we may localize at a prime ideal $`PSpecR`$ which is minimal with respect to the property that $`R_P`$ is not F–regular. After a change of notation, we have a splinter $`(R,m)`$ which has an isolated non F–regular point at the maximal ideal $`m`$. This shows that $`R`$ has an $`m`$–primary test ideal. However since $`R`$ is a splinter it must be F–pure, and so the test ideal is precisely the maximal ideal $`m`$. Note that by \[Sm1, Theorem 5.1\] parameter ideals of $`R`$ are tightly closed, and $`R`$ is indeed F–rational.

Let $`dimR=d`$. Choose a system of parameters for $`R`$ as follows: first pick a nonzero element $`y_1J`$. Then, by Lemma 2.2, pick $`y_2`$ not in any minimal prime of $`y_1`$ such that $`y_2^iJ^{\left(i\right)}\gamma ^iR`$ for a fixed element $`\gamma J`$, for all positive integers $`i`$. Extend $`y_1,y_2`$ to a full system of parameters $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_d`$ for $`R`$. Since $`y_1J`$, there exists $`uR`$ such that $`s=uy_1`$ is a socle generator in $`J/(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)J`$. Let $`Y`$ denote the product $`y_1\mathrm{}y_d`$.

Consider the family of ideals $`\left\{I_c\right\}_c`$ as in Lemma 2.1. If $`R`$ is not F–regular, there exists an irreducible ideal $`I_c=(y_1^c,\mathrm{},y_d^c)J:_Rs`$ which is not tightly closed, specifically $`Y^{c1}I_c^{}`$. Consequently $`sY^{c1}(y_1^c,\mathrm{},y_d^c)J^{}`$. In the ring $`S`$, this says that $`sY^{c1}(y_1^c,\mathrm{},y_d^c)JS^{}`$ and so

$$sTY^{c1}(y_1^c,\mathrm{},y_d^c)JTS^{}(y_1^c,\mathrm{},y_d^c)S^{}.$$

We shall first imitate the proof of \[Sm1, Lemma 5.2\] to obtain an “equational condition” from this statement. To simplify notation, let $`z=sTY^{c1}`$ and $`x_i=y_i^c`$ for $`1id`$. We then have $`z(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)S^{}`$. Consider the maximal ideal $`𝔪=m+JT+J^{\left(2\right)}T^2+\mathrm{}+J^{\left(n1\right)}T^{n1}`$ of $`S`$ and the highest local cohomology module

$$H_𝔪^d\left(S\right)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}S/(x_1^i,\mathrm{},x_d^i),$$

where the maps in the direct limit system are induced by multiplication by $`x_1\mathrm{}x_d`$.

Since the test ideal of $`R`$ is $`m`$, if $`Q_0`$ is a power of $`p`$ greater than $`n`$, we have $`𝔪^{Q_0}z^q(x_1^q,\mathrm{},x_d^q)S`$ for all $`q=p^e`$.

Let $`\eta `$ denote $`\left[z+(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)S\right]`$ viewed as an element of $`H_𝔪^d\left(S\right)`$, and $`N`$ be the $`S`$–submodule of $`H_𝔪^d\left(S\right)`$ spanned by all $`F^e\left(\eta \right)`$ where $`e`$. Since $`H_𝔪^d\left(S\right)`$ is an $`S`$–module with DCC, there exists $`e_0`$ such that the submodules generated by $`F^{e_0}\left(N\right)`$ and $`F^e^{}\left(N\right)`$ agree for all $`e^{}e_0`$. Hence there exists an equation of the form

$$F^{e_0}\left(\eta \right)=a_1F^{e_1}\left(\eta \right)+\mathrm{}+a_kF^{e_k}\left(\eta \right)$$

with $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_kS`$ and $`e_0<e_1e_2\mathrm{}e_k`$. If some $`a_i`$ is not a unit, we may use suitably high Frobenius iterations on the equation above, and the fact that for $`Q_0n`$ we have $`𝔪^{Q_0}F^e\left(\eta \right)=0`$ for all $`e`$, to replace the above equation by one in which the coefficients which occur are indeed units. Hence we have an equation $`F^e\left(\eta \right)=a_1F^{e_1}\left(\eta \right)+\mathrm{}+a_kF^{e_k}\left(\eta \right)`$ where $`e<e_1e_2\mathrm{}e_k`$ and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ are units. Let $`q=p^e`$, $`q_i=p^{e_i}`$ for $`1ik`$ and $`X=x_1\mathrm{}x_d`$. Rewriting our equation we have

$`\left[z^qX^{q_kq}+(x_1^{q_k},\mathrm{},x_d^{q_k})S\right]=a_1\left[z^{q_1}X^{q_kq_1}+(x_1^{q_k},\mathrm{},x_d^{q_k})S\right]+\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}+a_k\left[z^{q_k}+(x_1^{q_k},\mathrm{},x_d^{q_k})S\right],`$
i.e., $`\left[z^qX^{q_kq}a_1z^{q_1}X^{q_kq_1}\mathrm{}a_kz^{q_k}+(x_1^{q_k},\mathrm{},x_d^{q_k})S\right]=0`$. Since the ring $`S`$ may not necessarily be Cohen–Macaulay, we cannot assume that the maps in the direct limit system $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}S/(x_1^i,\mathrm{},x_d^i)`$ are injective. However for a suitable positive integer $`b`$ we do obtain the equation

$`\left(zX^{b1}\right)^Q(x_1^{bQ},\mathrm{},x_d^{bQ},zX^{bQ1},z^pX^{bQp},\mathrm{},z^{Q/p}X^{bQQ/p})S,`$
where $`Q=q_k`$. Going back to the earlier notation and setting $`t=bc`$, we have

$$\left(sTY^{t1}\right)^Q(y_1^{tQ},\mathrm{},y_d^{tQ},sTY^{tQ1},\left(sT\right)^pY^{tQp},\mathrm{},\left(sT\right)^{Q/p}Y^{tQQ/p})S.$$

Note that $`\frac{1}{T}=\alpha T^{n1}S`$, and multiplying the above by $`\frac{1}{T^Q}`$, we get

$`\left(sY^{t1}\right)^Q(y_1^{tQ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T^Q}},\mathrm{},y_d^{tQ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T^Q}},sY^{tQ1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T^{Q1}}},s^pY^{tQp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T^{Qp}}},\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{},s^{Q/p}Y^{tQQ/p}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T^{QQ/p}}})S.`$
Since $`\left(sY^{t1}\right)^Q\left[S\right]_0=R`$, we may intersect the ideal above with $`R`$ to obtain

$`\left(sY^{t1}\right)^Q(y_1^{tQ}J^{\left(Q\right)},\mathrm{},y_d^{tQ}J^{\left(Q\right)},sY^{tQ1}J^{\left(Q1\right)},s^pY^{tQp}J^{\left(Qp\right)},\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{},s^{Q/p}Y^{tQQ/p}J^{\left(QQ/p\right)})R.`$
Replacing $`s=uy_1`$ above, we get

$`\left(uy_1Y^{t1}\right)^Q(y_1^{tQ}J^{\left(Q\right)},\mathrm{},y_d^{tQ}J^{\left(Q\right)},\left(uy_1\right)Y^{tQ1}J^{\left(Q1\right)},`$
$`\left(uy_1\right)^pY^{tQp}J^{\left(Qp\right)},\mathrm{},\left(uy_1\right)^{Q/p}Y^{tQQ/p}J^{\left(QQ/p\right)})R.`$
Let $`Z=\frac{Y}{y_1}=y_2\mathrm{}y_d`$. We then have

$`\left(uZ^{t1}\right)^Qy_1^{tQ}(y_1^{tQ}J^{\left(Q\right)},y_2^{tQ},\mathrm{},y_d^{tQ},uy_1^{tQ}Z^{tQ1}J^{\left(Q1\right)},`$
$`u^py_1^{tQ}Z^{tQp}J^{\left(Qp\right)},\mathrm{},u^{Q/p}y_1^{tQ}Z^{tQQ/p}J^{\left(QQ/p\right)})R.`$
Using the fact that $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_d`$ are a system of parameters for the Cohen–Macaulay ring $`R`$, we get

$`\left(uZ^{t1}\right)^Q(J^{\left(Q\right)},y_2^{tQ},\mathrm{},y_d^{tQ},uZ^{tQ1}J^{\left(Q1\right)},u^pZ^{tQp}J^{\left(Qp\right)},\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{},u^{Q/p}Z^{tQQ/p}J^{\left(QQ/p\right)})R.`$
Consequently there exists $`aJ^{\left(Q\right)}`$, $`b_iR`$ and $`c_{p^e}J^{\left(QQ/p^e\right)}`$ such that

$`\left(uZ^{t1}\right)^Q=a+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}}b_iy_i^{tQ}+c_1uZ^{tQ1}+c_pu^pZ^{tQp}+\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}+c_{Q/p}u^{Q/p}Z^{tQQ/p}.`$
For $`2id`$, consider the following equations in the variables $`V_2,\mathrm{},V_d`$:

$`V_i^Q=b_i+c_1V_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{y_i}}\right)^{tQt}+c_pV_i^p\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{y_i}}\right)^{tQtp}+\mathrm{}+c_{Q/p}V_i^{Q/p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{y_i}}\right)^{tQtQ/p}.`$
Since these are monic equations defined over $`R`$, there exists a module finite normal extension ring $`R_1`$, with solutions $`v_i`$ of these equations. Working in the ring $`R_1`$, let

$$w=uZ^{t1}\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}v_iy_i^t.$$

Combining the earlier equations, we have

$$w^Q=a+c_1wZ^{tQt}+c_pw^pZ^{tQtp}+\mathrm{}+c_{Q/p}w^{Q/p}Z^{tQtQ/p}.$$

Multiplying this equation by $`y_2^Q`$ and using the fact that $`y_2^iJ^{\left(i\right)}\gamma ^iR`$ for all positive integers $`i`$, we get

$$\left(wy_2\right)^Q=d_0\gamma ^Q+d_1wy_2\gamma ^{Q1}+d_p\left(wy_2\right)^p\gamma ^{Qp}+\mathrm{}+d_{Q/p}\left(wy_2\right)^{Q/p}\gamma ^{QQ/p}.$$

Since the ring $`R_1`$ is normal, The above equation gives an equation by which $`wy_2/\gamma `$ is integral over the ring $`R_1`$. Since $`R_1`$ is normal, we have $`wy_2\gamma R_1`$. Combining this with $`w=uZ^{t1}_{i=2}^dv_iy_i^t`$, we have

$$uZ^{t1}y_2=wy_2+\left(\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}v_iy_i^t\right)y_2(J,y_2^{t+1},y_2y_3^t,\mathrm{},y_2y_d^t)R_1,$$

and so

$$uZ^{t1}y_2(J,y_2^{t+1},y_2y_3^t,\mathrm{},y_2y_d^t)^+=(J,y_2^{t+1},y_2y_3^t,\mathrm{},y_2y_d^t)R.$$

Since $`y_2`$ is not in any minimal prime of $`J`$, we get $`uZ^{t1}(J,y_2^t,y_3^t,\mathrm{},y_d^t)R`$. Multiplying this by $`y_1`$, we get

$$sZ^{t1}(y_1J,y_1y_2^t,y_1y_3^t,\mathrm{},y_1y_d^t)R(y_1,y_2^t,y_3^t,\mathrm{},y_d^t)J,$$

but this contradicts the fact that $`s`$ generates the socle in $`J/(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)J`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.1.

Let $`(R,m)`$ be an excellent integral domain of dimension two over a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Then $`R`$ is a splinter if and only if it is F–regular.

###### Proof.

The hypotheses imply that $`R`$ is F–rational, and so has a torsion divisor class group by a result of Lipman, \[Li\]. Hence $`R`$ must be $``$–Gorenstein. ∎

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]/I`$ be a domain finitely generated over a field $`K`$ of characteristic zero. We say $`R`$ is of splinter type if there exists a finitely generated $``$–algebra $`AK`$ and a finitely generated free $`A`$–algebra $`R_A=A[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]/I_A`$ such that $`RR_A_AK`$, and for all maximal ideals $`\mu `$ in a Zariski dense subset of $`SpecA`$, the fiber rings $`R_A_AA/\mu `$ (which are rings over fields of characteristic $`p`$) are splinter.

Using the equivalence of F–regular type and log–terminal singularities for rings finitely generated over a field of characteristic zero (see \[Ha, Sm3, Wa\]) we obtain the following corollary:

###### Corollary 3.3.

Let $`R`$ be a finitely generated $``$–Gorenstein domain over a field of characteristic zero. Then $`R`$ has log–terminal singularities if and only if it is of splinter type.

## Acknowledgement

It is a pleasure to thank Melvin Hochster for several valuable discussions on tight closure theory.


format: text

text:
# Cooling flows and the entropy of the intragroup medium

## 1 Introduction

Studies of the structure of dark matter in collapsed objects of different masses show a remarkable universality. Numerical simulations have shown that the dark matter density profile has a universal shape (Navarro, Frenk & White 1995). This result provides a framework for the study of the relation between the baryonic and dark matter content of halos. Clusters of different masses, with their large baryonic gas content, are excellent probes for such studies. If the physical properties of the baryonic gas contained in these self-similar potential wells were completely governed by gravity, then the observed properties of the gas would also be scale-free (Kaiser 1986). For example, relation between the gas temperature and the cluster mass or the X-ray luminosity and the temperature, would be independent of the total mass ($`TM^{2/3}`$ and $`LT^2`$, respectively).

Observations, however, show that in reality such relation deviate from being self-similar, pointing out the importance of non-gravitational processes determining the properties of the baryonic gas. The observed relation between luminosity and temperature steepens from the self-similar expectation of $`LT^2`$ for low temperature clusters (e.g., Markevitch 1998; Allen & Fabian 1998). Also the mass-temperature relation shows deviation from self-similarity (e.g., McCarthey et al. 2002).

It has also been observed that the surface brightness profiles of poor groups (with lower temperatures than richer clusters) are relatively shallow (Ponman et al. 1999), showing that the underlying gas density profile is also shallow. All these observations clearly point towards some physical process which raises the entropy of the gas. Indeed, direct determination of the gas entropy (one defines an ‘entropy’ $`S=T/n_e^{2/3}`$ which is the entropy of an ideal gas, stripped of the logarithm and the constant factors) shows the existence of an ‘entropy floor’, a minimum level of entropy. Lower temperature clusters, therefore, have relatively high entropy gas, compared to the expectations from self-similar models. It has been estimated that this ‘entropy floor’ corresponds to $`100`$ keV cm-2 (Ponman et al. 1999).

One way to achieve this high level of entropy is to pre-heat the gas (Kaiser 1991), and previous authors have estimated that extra non-gravitational heating of order $`1`$ keV per (gas) particle should suffice to explain the observations. The natural choices for the heating agents are supernovae driven winds (e.g., Ponman et al. 1999) and active galactic nuclei (e.g, Yamada & Fujita 2001; Nath & Roychowdhury 2002), although uncertainties prevail in the estimates of their effects on the intracluster medium.

The other alternative is to siphon off the lowest entropy part of the gas through cooling, from the diffuse intracluster medium (ICM) to some other phase, so that it does not enter the calculations of the X-ray luminosity or X-ray weighted temperature of the gas. Voit & Bryan (2002) recently argued on the basis of the cooling function for a metallicity of $`Z=0.3Z_{}`$ that radiative cooling can be an efficient process (given a Hubble time to operate on) in introducing an entropy floor of the appropriate level. Voit et al. (2002) have studied the effect of different kinds of entropy modifications on the properties of the cluster gas. As an example of such an entropy modification, they considered the effect of radiative cooling, assuming that it would introduce an entropy threshold corresponding to the entropy at the cooling radius (where cooling time equals the age of the system). They found that profiles with such an entropy threshold can adequately explain the observations. Wu & Xue (2002b) also considered the effect of radiative cooling by removing the parcel of gas whose cooling time scale is less than the age of the cluster, which would cause the outer layers of gas to flow inside to again assume a hydrostatic profile. Their calculation, however, assumes that the entropy of the outer gas remains unchanged as it flows inward. Their predicted fraction of cool gas, however, exceeds the observed stellar mass fractions estimated by Roussel, Sadat & Blanchard (2000).

It is clear that radiative cooling would set the intracluster gas in motion towards the center (e.g., Silk 1976, Fabian 1994, and more recently Böhringer et al. 2002, and references therein). Since the X-ray properties of the gas mostly depend on the density and temperature profile of the gas, it is important to determine these profiles as accurately as possible, taking into account the changes brought about by such a flow.

Several authors have performed numerical simulations of cooling flows in clusters of different masses in light of the deviant X-ray properties of poor cluster, for example, Knight & Ponman (1997), Davé et al. (2002) and Muanwong et al. (2002). Knight & Ponman (1997) found that the density and temperature profiles caused by cooling flows were not sufficient to explain the X-ray properties, although they had used a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ cosmology with a dark matter profile from Bertschinger (1985), different from the universal profile used by more recent authors. Also, they did not address the problem of the entropy ‘floor’ as it was not known then. More recently Muanwong et al. (2002) found that cooling flows which come about as a result of radiative cooling can reproduce all observations, whereas Davé et al. (2002) find some discrepancy in their results compared to the observations.

In this paper, we study simple models of cooling flows for the effect they have on the X-ray properties of clusters, and in setting up the ’entropy floor’. We simplify the cooling flow equations motivated by the recent X-ray observations (e.g., Böhringer et al. 2002). We do not have any heating sources in the flow equations, so that we can study the effect of radiative cooling alone.

We begin by setting up the background dark matter potential and the default profiles of the gas in the next section. We also introduce the cooling flow equations later in the section. We present the result of our calculations in §3 and discuss the implications, along with the uncertainties and limitations of our calculations in §4.

We assume throughout the paper that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`h=0.65`$.

## 2 Density profile

We first consider the density profile of the dark matter which provides the potential for the gas particles.

### 2.1 Dark matter density profile

We assume that the gas mass is negligible compared to that of the total dark matter mass in the clusters, and that the dark matter density profile is given by the ‘universal’ profile, expressed in terms of a characteristic radius $`r_s`$ (e.g., in Komatsu & Seljak 2002),

$$\rho _{dm}(r)=\rho _sy_{dm}(r/r_s),$$
(1)
where $`\rho _s`$ is a normalizing density parameter and $`y_{dm}(x)`$ is given by

$$y_{dm}(x)=\frac{1}{x^\alpha (1+x)^{3\alpha }}.$$
(2)
Here the parameter $`\alpha `$ characterizes the shape of the profile. The total dark matter mass within a radius $`r`$ is

$$M(r)=4\pi \rho _sr_s^3m(r/r_s),$$
(3)
where,

$$m(x)=_0^x𝑑uu^2y_{dm}(u)=\mathrm{ln}(1+x)\frac{x}{1+x};$$
(4)
Here, the last equality is valid for $`\alpha =1`$ which is the much used NFW profile (Navarro et al. 1996, 1997). Recently, Moore et al. (1998) and Jing & Suto (2000) thought that $`\alpha =1.5`$ better described their simulation results. For $`\alpha =1.5`$, $`m(x)=2\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{1+x})2\sqrt{\frac{x}{1+x}}`$ (Suto et al. 1998). The characteristic radius $`r_s`$ is related to the virial radius $`r_{vir}`$ by the ‘concentration parameter’ ($`c`$), as

$$c\frac{r_{vir}}{r_s}.$$
(5)
The total mass of the cluster is assumed to be the mass inside its virial radius. The virial radius is calculated in the spherical collapse model to be,

$$r_{vir}=\left[\frac{M_{vir}}{(4\pi /3)\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)\rho _c(z)}\right]^{1/3}=\left[\frac{M_{vir}}{4\pi c^3\rho _sm(c)}\right]^{1/3},$$
(6)
where the second equality comes from evaluating equation (3) at the virial radius. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)`$ is the present day spherical overdensity of the virialized halo within $`r_{vir}`$ at $`z`$ in the units of the critical density of the universe $`\rho _c(z)`$. Following Komatsu & Seljak (2002), we assume a value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z=0)=100`$ for a cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$.

We follow Seljak (2000) in adopting the approximation for $`c`$ as a function of the cluster mass,

$$c=6\left(\frac{M_{vir}}{10^{14}h^1M_{}}\right)^{1/5}.$$
(7)
The above set of equations specify the dark matter density profile given the mass of the cluster. We now turn our attention the profile assumed by gas in these clusters.

To compare our results with observations, which usually use the radius $`r_{200}`$ where the overdensity is $`200`$, we compute in each case this radius, and present our results in its terms.

### 2.2 Gas density profile

Our aim is to determine the changes in the properties of the cluster which come about as a result of radiative cooling. For this we need to assume a ‘default’ profile of the gas and then study the changes wrought upon the profile by these processes.

We assume that the default profile is that of gas in hydrostatic equilibrium with the background dark matter potential. This does not specify the gas density profile as more constraints are needed. One choice is that the gas obeys a polytropic equation of state. This has been shown to be provide an accurate description of the gas density and temperature profile for rich clusters. Recent analyses find that gas profiles in hydrostatic equilibrium with a polytropic index $`\gamma 1\text{}1.2`$, where pressure of the gas is related to the density as $`p\rho ^\gamma `$ describe the observations well (Markevitch et al. 1998). Since the rich clusters are thought to have been affected minimally by non-gravitational processes, these profiles provide a natural choice for the default profile. We note that this was also the approach of Wu, Fabian & Nulsen (2000).

Recently, Komatsu & Seljak (2002) have determined the solutions to the hydrostatic equilibrium equation, in the case of a polytropic gas, with the constraint that the gas profile is proportional to that of the dark matter at large radii. This physically motivated constraint limits the range of the polytropic index $`\gamma `$, and they find that their solutions yield values of $`\gamma `$ within the range between $`1.1`$ and $`1.2`$ for clusters with masses between $`10^{13}\text{}10^{15}`$ M, as found in observations. They also provide useful analytical fits for their solutions.

We adopt these profiles obtained by Komatsu & Seljak (2002) as one set of our default profiles (set A). We normalize these profiles by assuming that the ratio of the gas mass inside the virial radius to the total virial mass is constant for all clusters, and equals $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. We adopt a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ as constrained by primordial nucleosynthesis, as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.02h^2`$ (Burles & Tytler 1999).

We also use another set of default profiles (set B), in which the gas density is given by $`\rho _g(r)=(\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m)\rho _d(r)`$, being proportional to the background dark matter density. This has been choice of several recent authors, e.g., Bryan (2000), Voit et al. (2002) and others. The temperature profile is then given by the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium,

$$\frac{dp}{dr}=\rho _g(r)\frac{GM(r)}{r^2}.$$
(8)
where $`M(r)`$ is the total mass inside radius $`r`$. We calculate the temperature profile of the gas with the boundary condition that the pressure is zero at infinity (as in Wu & Xue (2000a)). The resulting profiles are different from that of Bryan (2000) only near the virial radius and does not affect our calculations of the X-ray properties, since we compute these properties only to an extent $`r_{200}`$, which is somewhat smaller than $`r_{vir}`$ for our choice of cosmology.

As we will find in the next section, the default temperature profiles for set A and B differ substantially. The temperature profile for set A are flat in the core region, whereas those for set B decline towards the centre. The recent observations with the help of CHANDRA for the X-ray gas fraction in clusters favour the default profiles for set A, with gas fraction increasing with cluster mass (Allen, Schmidt & Fabian 2002). In contrast, the gas fraction for set B is constant by construction. Recent CHANDRA observations of temperature profiles of some relaxed clusters do show declining temperature in the very central region though, as in set B profiles (e.g, Schmidt, Allen & Fabian 2001).

### 2.3 Effect of cooling

If we define a cooling radius, $`r_{cool}`$ as where the cooling time of the gas equals the age of the cluster, then the gas inside this cooling radius would cool rapidly. It is widely believed that in this case a cooling flow would ensue (Fabian 1994). Although it was generally believed in the last decade that cooling flows would have several phases, with gas being deposited at different radii, recent observations find that such multiphase gas occurs only at the very central region and for most of the region of the flow, one can assume it to be homogeneous (e.g., Böhringer et al. 2002, and reference therein). Also, recent observations rule out flows with very large mass flux and gas temperatures dropping to very low temperatures, unless at the very central regions, pointing towards the subsonic nature of the flows.

Motivated by these points, we simplify the fluid equations by assuming a steady, homogeneous and subsonic flow, in which the flow is dictated by the following equations:

$`\dot{M}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi r^2\rho u`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dr}}`$
$`\rho u{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(H+\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`n_e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_N(T),`$ (9)
where $`H=\frac{5}{2}\frac{k_BT}{\mu m_p}`$ is the specific enthalpy, $`n_e`$ is the electron density, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N(T)`$ denotes the normalized cooling function in the units of erg cm3 s-1, and $`\varphi `$ is the gravitational potential. The cooling function is normalized in a way so that the total rate of cooling is given by $`n_en_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_N(T)`$ where $`n_i`$ is the ion density (here we take $`n_e=n_i`$).

We assume a metallicity of $`Z/Z_{}=0.3`$ for the ICM that is observed in rich clusters and which has been used by all previous authors. We note here that there is a large uncertainty in the abundance measurements for the gas in poor clusters (Davis et al. 1999; Buote 2000). We use a fit to the normalized cooling function for this metallicity as calculated by Sutherland & Dopita (1993) as described in Appendix A.

If we scale the density and temperature to their values at $`r_{cool}`$, defining $`T^{}=T/T_c`$ (where $`T_c`$ is the temperature at $`r_{cool}`$), $`n^{}=n/n_{cool}`$ and $`x=r/r_{cool}`$, also $`\beta =r_{cool}/r_s`$, then the above equations can be cast into a set of two equations with dimensionless variables,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT^{}}{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`n^2x^2{\displaystyle \frac{t_{fo}}{t_{co}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_c)}}A{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}(1+x\beta )\frac{x\beta }{(1+x\beta )^2})}{(x\beta )^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn^{}}{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{An^{}}{T^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}(1+x\beta )\frac{x\beta }{(1+x\beta )^2})}{(x\beta )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{T^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dT^{}}{dx}},`$ (10)
where we have assumed $`\alpha =1`$ for the background dark matter profile, and where

$$A=4\pi G\rho _sr_sr_{cool}\mu m_p/k_BT_c$$
(11)
is a dimensionless quantity and is a measure of the ratio between the potential and thermal energies at $`r_{cool}`$. Here $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular weight. If $`A`$ is small, as is the case for rich clusters, then gravity is negligible and one has a constant pressure solution. In the last equation, we have defined the flow time at $`r_{cool}`$ as,

$$t_{fo}=r_{cool}/u_{cool}=4\pi \rho _{cool}r_{cool}^3/\dot{M},$$
(12)
and the cooling time at $`r_{cool}`$ to be,

$$t_{co}=\frac{(5/2)n_{cool}k_BT_c}{n_{e,cool}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_c)}.$$
(13)
### 2.4 Family of solutions

It is then possible to have a family of solutions for this equations for different boundary conditions. In the spirit of Nulsen et al. (1982; Appendix A), we will refer to the solution for which $`T^{}0`$ as $`x0`$ (meaning $`T0`$ as $`r0`$) as the ‘cooling eigensolution’. This boundary condition will fix the value of the ratio $`\frac{t_{fo}}{t_{co}}`$, which will in turn fix the value of the mass flux. The value of this ratio for the eigensolutions are of order unity as expected (Nulsen et al. 1982).

Larger values of $`\frac{t_{fo}}{t_{co}}`$ than these particular values would then yield solutions for which temperatures plunge to very low values at $`rr_{cool}0`$. These profiles would give rise to X-ray holes in clusters of galaxy, and we will not study them here. Smaller values of the ratio lead to solutions for which temperatures are larger than those for the eigensolutions.

At the other extreme, there are solutions to the cooling flow equations with very small values of $`\frac{(t_{fo}}{t_{co})}`$ corresponding to flows with very large mass flux rate. We find that the profiles for such small values differ little if one decreases this ratio below values of order $`0.01`$. One can actually get a formal limit to the profiles by putting this ratio equal to zero in the cooling flow equations, and numerically obtained profiles tend toward these limiting profiles very rapidly below this value of $`(\frac{t_{fo}}{t_{co}})`$. For these solutions, gas temperature is determined mainly by the gravitational potential, as in this case $`T(r)H(r)=\varphi (r)`$ (see also Fabian et al. 1984), especially for poor clusters where gravity is important (where $`A`$ is large). Such cases correspond to flows with mass flux rates that are $`100`$ times larger than the rates for eigensolutions. We will refer to these set of limiting solutions as flows with the highest entropy and very large mass flux rates.

These two limits of the family of solutions parameterized by the ratio $`(\frac{t_{fo}}{t_{co}})`$, or, equivalently, the mass flux rate, constrain the physical solutions of the cooling flow equations relevant for our purpose.

Gas beyond the cooling radius, $`r_{cool}`$ will remain at hydrostatic equilibrium. For gas beyond this radius, we adopt the profiles as discussed in the preceding section, which allow us to calculate the extent $`r_{cool}`$ and then $`\rho _{cool}`$ and $`T_c`$. We then use these values in equation (10) to determine the cooling eigensolution for $`r<r_{cool}`$.

We find that although the cooling eigensolutions are easily determined for set A profiles, the transition from the case of $`T=0`$ at $`r0`$ to $`T=0`$ at $`r=0`$ happens over an extremely small range of values of the ratio $`\frac{t_{fo}}{t_{co}}`$, making it difficult to evaluate the exact eigensolution. We have therefore used the lowest entropy profile, with the lowest temperature possible at the central region, as the eigensolutions for set B default profiles.

We perform two sets of calculations with the age of the clusters being $`10^{10}`$ and $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ yr for the two sets. We have done the calculations for cluster masses for which $`r_{cool}/r_{vir}0.01`$ where the cooling flows could have some tangible effects on the observable properties of the gas. We have checked that the effect of cooling flows on the total X-ray luminosity is less than $`20\%`$ for clusters with larger masses.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Gas density, temperature and entropy profiles

We have computed the profiles for these two extreme cases for default profiles in set A and B. An example of the gas density and temperature profiles for a cluster mass of $`3.5\times 10^{13}`$ M is shown in Figure 1, for a cooling time of $`10^{10}`$ yr. The top panels in Figure 1 show the density profiles, where the dotted lines show the default profile, the solid slines show the lowest entropy and the dashed lines show the highest entropy cases. The bottom panels show the temperature profiles for the corresponding cases.

An important difference between the set A and B cases is that the default gas temperature at a given radius in set B (in which the gas density is proportional to the dark matter profile) is smaller than in set A. This results in making the cooling radius larger for set B than in set A (as the cooling function in the relevant temperature range increases with decreasing temperature). This makes cooling flows somewhat more extensive for set B profiles. Although this is true for clusters of a given mass, the emission weighted temperature for set B profiles are smaller than those for set A profiles. Since the emission weighted temperature is the observed parameter, and not the mass, we find that for a given cluster temperature, set B profiles have cooling flows with smaller extent. We show the ratio $`r_{cool}/r_{vir}`$ as a function of the emission weighted temperature (see below) in Figure 2 for the two sets of default profiles and two choices of the cooling time. Curves in Figure 2 also show that the cooling flows are more extensive for lower temperature clusters as expected.

The corresponding entropy profiles are shown in Figure 3, which shows more differences between the cases set A and B. Firstly, set A profiles (with polytropic equation of state) have higher entropy to begin with (upper dotted line). This is expected from other results obtained by Komatsu & Seljak (2000) regarding the shape of the profile. They showed that their profiles assuming polytropic equation of state could already explain the observed relation between the parameter $`\beta `$ (which defines the density profile). Observations show that $`\beta `$ increases with cluster mass, showing that poor clusters have shallower profiles, which is an indication of higher entropy. It is therefore expected that these default profiles would have higher entropy than the other set of default profiles.

Secondly, cooling eigensolutions with the lowest entropy (upper solid line) can decrease the entropy of the set A default profiles. The default profile for set B (lower dotted line), however, has very low entropy to begin with, and it is difficult to find solutions of the cooling flow with entropy lower than this. The lowest entropy flows (lower solid line) in fact has larger entropy than the default profile in this case.

This difference is also manifested in the mass flux rates. Figure 4 shows the mass flux rates for the cooling eigensolutions (lowest entropy cases), with solid line for set A and dotted line for set B. Observational data points from White et al. (1997) are also shown for comparison, although we note that in light of the new measurements (see Böhringer et al. 2002) these data points may be overestimates for the mass flux. The mass flux is plotted against the emission weighted temperature (see below). As expected from our definition of ‘cooling eigensolutions’, these solutions should provide the lowest mass flux rate for observed cooling flows, since flows with mass flux lower than this would correspond to holes in X-ray. The locus of these solutions for set A indeed seems to provide a lower envelope for the data points. The mass flux rate for the lowest entropy cases for set B profiles are larger than these.

Since the appropriate mass flux rate for our highest entropy flows are $`100`$ times larger than those for the cooling eigensolutions, from the curves in Figure 4, we find that these highest entropy flows are characterized by mass fluxes in excess of $`1000`$ M per yr, for clusters with emission weighted temperature $`T_w1`$ keV.

Going back to the entropy profiles in Figure 3, the long dashed lines show the highest entropy cases. It is seen from this figure that there is a variety of entropy profiles for the gas undergoing cooling flow depending on the boundary conditions. We wish to point out that all these profiles have only one free parameter, once the default profile is given, and that is the age of the system (assumed to be $`10^{10}`$ and $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ yr here). In other words, there is no single entropy threshold given the time allowed for the gas to cool, but that there is a large number of possibilities spanning a large range in entropy, depending on the mass flux.

### 3.2 X-ray luminosity

We compute the bolometric X-ray luminosity, and emission weighted temperature corresponding to the profiles discussed above (in the band $`0.5\text{}10`$ keV), using the Raymond Smith code, for a metallicity of $`Z/Z_{}=0.3`$. We compute the luminosities within the fiducial radius $`r_{200}`$ as mentioned earlier to facilitate better comparison with data, as previous authors have done. The X-ray luminosity and emission weighted temperature is computed as,

$`L_x`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{r_{200}}}4\pi r^2n_i(r)n_e(r)ϵ_{0.510}𝑑r`$
$`T_w`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{_0^{r_{200}}4\pi r^2n_i(r)n_e(r)ϵ_{0.510}T(r)𝑑r}{_0^{r_{200}}4\pi r^2n_i(r)n_e(r)ϵ_{0.510}𝑑r}},`$ (14)
where $`n_i,n_e`$ represent the ion and electron density and $`ϵ_{0.510}`$ denotes the emissivity relevant for the $`0.5\text{}10`$ keV band. We present the results in Figure 5 where the top panel shows the result for set A and the bottom panel shows the result for set B default profiles. The left panels show the results for a cooling time of $`10^{10}`$ yr and the right panels for a cooling time of $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ yr. In the figure, the dotted lines again show the luminosities for the default profiles, the solid lines show the case for the eigensolutions (lowest entropy) and the long dashed lines show the case for very large mass flux rates. Dotted lines between the solid and dashed lines connect the cases of equal cluster masses. Data points from Helsdon & Ponman (2000) (filled circles) and Arnaud & Evrard (1999) (empty circles), corrected for our choice of $`h=0.65`$ are also shown for comparison. The luminosities plotted here from our calculations are not ‘cooling flow’ corrected, since the data points are also not corrected for any possible cooling flows.

### 3.3 Entropy at $`r=0.1r_{200}`$

We next present the values of the entropy at the fiducial radius $`r=0.1r_{200}`$ in Figure 6, with results for set A in the top panel and those for set B in the bottom panel. The dotted lines in each case show the entropy for the default profile, the solid line show the case for the eigensolutions and the long dashed lines show the case of the highest entropy profiles. The dot-and-dash line shows the result of N-body simulation from Ponman, Cannon & Navarro (1999), showing the self-similar case, and the data points are also taken from this work.

Below this temperature, it is possible to raise (or even lower) the entropy level of the gas undergoing cooling flow, depending on the mass flux, and it is possible that cooling flows in very poor clusters may be responsible for raising the entropy of the gas to some extent.

## 4 Discussion

We will discuss some of the implications of our results as well as a few uncertainties involved in our calculations in this section.

The results presented in the previous section show some of the difficulties of explaining the observations with radiative cooling alone. To recapitulate the premises of our calculations, we assumed that radiative cooling must give rise to a gas flow towards the centre. Here we have only studied steady and subsonic flows for simplicity, and motivated by the fact that recent X-ray observations do not detect flows with very high mass flux which require supersonic flows (except in the very vicinity of the centre) and also flows with mass deposition (which would make it inhomogeneous) are not detected. Let us discuss the implications of our results given these assumptions.

### 4.1 Entropy

Curves in Figure 6 show that the default profiles do not differ much from the self-similar case, although the set A profiles generally have larger entropy. The region bounded by the solid and long dashed lines show the possible values of entropy at $`r=0.1r_{200}`$ for cooling flows with different mass fluxes, with flows of larger mass flux rate occupying regions with larger entropy. As the curves show, these solid and dashed lines merge with the dotted line of the default profile at high temperatures. This is because of the simple reason that for high temperature clusters, the cooling radius is smaller than the fiducial radius $`r=0.1r_{200}`$, and so cooling flows do not affect the entropy measurement at this fiducial radius for high temperature clusters.

Since the entropy measurements are made at a given fiducial radius of $`r=0.1r_{200}`$, for cooling flows to have any effect on the raising of the entropy, the cooling radius must exceed this fiducial radius. We find that for both of our choice of default profiles, the cooling radius is inside this fiducial radius for $`T_w1`$ keV, for a cooling time of $`10^{10}`$ yr. For a longer cooling time of $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ yr, the set A profiles provide a larger cooling radius, and can potentially explain the entropy measurements given the uncertainties.

Below this temperature, it is possible that cooling flows can enhance the entropy of the gas given a large enough mass flux rate (shown by the long dashed lines in Figure 6, corresponding to mass flux rates of $`1000`$ M per yr). It is interesting to note that the maximum attainable entropy (at $`r=0.1r_{200}`$) is much larger than the entropy at the cooling radius (as seen from the example of entropy profile in Figure 3). The entropy at the cooling radius is obtained by setting the cooling time of the gas equal to the age of the system, as was calculated by Voit & Bryan (2002). Flow of gas under the influence of the gravitational potential can heat up the gas substantially and raise the entropy inside the cooling radius, which is clearly shown in the example portrayed in Figure 3.

### 4.2 X-ray luminosity

From the results in Figure 5, we find that although cooling flows decrease the luminosities to some extent, the calculated X-ray luminosities are still larger than observed luminosities. The inclusion of cooling flows decreases the X-ray luminosities to some extent for set A profiles, and to a large extent for set B profiles. This effect steepens the $`L_x`$ vs. $`T`$ relation compared to those of the default profiles. The lowest attainable X-ray luminosities correspond to the long dashed lines, which show the case of flows with $`(\frac{t_{fo}}{t_{co}})=0.01`$, and with mass flux rate of $`1000`$ M per yr. Increasing the cooling time to $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ yr decreases the luminosities somewhat more, but are still larger than the observed luminosities. We therefore find that flows with mass flux rates in excess of $`1000`$ M per yr are required to explain the X-ray luminosities with radiative cooling alone.

Recently Bryan (2000) and Wu & Xue (2002a) showed that one can explain the X-ray observations by eliminating the gas in the central region (defined by the cooling region by Wu & Xue (2002b)) and replacing this gas by the outer gas, keeping the entropy constant. In reality, however, the flow that would ensue as a result of cooling flows will not keep the entropy of the gas constant, since it is not an adiabatic process. It is however possible to neglect the cooling of the gas, and therefore assume an isentropic transport of the gas, if the flow time is much smaller than the cooling time of the gas. This situation, however, corresponds to flows with very large mass flux rates, as shown by equation (12) that defines the flow time. We therefore reach the conclusion that flows with very large mass flux rates are needed to explain the observations.

### 4.3 Limitations

In reality the cooling radius is an increasing function of time, and the results presented above pertain to a simplified treatment of steady cooling flows, with the mass flux rate being constant in time and for all radii. One expects the mass flux rates to vary in time, as shown by the study of self-similar cooling flows by Bertschinger (1989), or the numerical simulation by Knight & Ponman (1987). Also, the cooling flows are expected to be disrupted from time to time by mergers of subclusters which would change the mass flux rate, as seen in the numerical simulation by Knight & Ponman (1987). Admittedly our simplified treatment cannot capture these aspects of cooling flows, but the conclusions reached in the previous paragraphs are expected to be general and robust.

Also, there has been a recent surge of interest in the study of cooling flows in light of the recent X-ray observations, and a number of authors have pointed out the intimate connection between active galaxies and cooling flows (e.g, Churazov et al. 2001; Binney & Kaiser 2002, and references therein). For example, Binney & Kaiser (2002) pointed out that as the entropy is continually lowered by cooling flows, it will trigger some nuclear activity in the centre from time to time. They argued that this would make flows with a large drop in temperature in the centre less probable for detection. We did not include any heating source in our cooling flow equations so that we could study the effect of only radiative cooling. In fact our results suggest that additional heating sources, possibly from active galaxies, would be needed to explain the observations.

### 4.4 Uncertainties

We wish to discuss some of the uncertainties pertaining to our calculations. First, there is an uncertainty of the background dark matter density profile. In the preceding sections, we have only discussed the case of the universal profile with the value of $`\alpha =1`$. We have also calculated the lower and upper bounds of the X-ray luminosity in the case of $`\alpha =1.5`$, and found that results differ only by a small amount. Recently, however, Kelson et al. (2002) have pointed out that it is even possible for the value of $`\alpha `$ to be much smaller than unity. Also, it was shown by Lloyd-Davies et al. (2002) that the choice of the concentration parameter can introduce some uncertainty in the calculations of X-ray properties of the gas. Voit et al. (2002) also showed the choice of the concentration parameter can shift the results to some extent. We based our calculations on two different sets of default profiles for these uncertainties, to determine the effects of the assumption of initial profiles on the final result. Although the details of cooling flows for our two choices of default profiles are somewhat different, the final conclusions do not differ much, suggesting that our conclusions are robust.

## 5 Summary

We have studied cooling flow solutions for two different sets of default profiles, one with gas obeying a polytropic equation of state (set A) and the other in which the gas density is proportional to that of the dark matter (set B). We have simplified the cooling flow equations to the case of steady, homogeneous and subsonic flows. Within the purview of such flows, we find that :

(a) cooling flows can either increase or decrease the entropy of the gas compared to the default (‘no-cooling’) profile depending on the mass flux rate. In other words, cooling for a given duration does not introduce a given entropy threshold for the gas; the entropy profile depends on the mass flux rate.

(b) For a cooling time of $`10^{10}`$ yr, the cooling radius exceeds the fiducial radius $`r=0.1r_{200}`$ only for clusters with $`T_w1`$ keV, which makes it difficult for cooling flows to have any effect on the entropy at this radius for clusters with $`T_w`$ of order of a few keV, where the expected entropy from the self-similar case falls short of the observed values. Increasing the cooling time to $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ yr can increase the cooling radius for clusters beyond $`T_w1`$ keV, and can potentially explain the observations. We also find that cooling flows can increase the entropy at this fiducial radius for lower temperature clusters.

(c) Cooling flows that are caused by radiative cooling of gas in the central region can decrease the X-ray luminosities for poor clusters and steepen the relation between $`L_X`$ and $`T`$ compared to the self-similar expectation, but flows with mass flux rates in excess of $`1000`$ M per yr are required to explain the observations if heating sources are not taken into account.

Acknowledgement I am indebted to Drs. Xiang-Ping Wu and Yan-Jie Xue for their gracious help with using the Raymond-Smith code. The comments of the anonymous referee which helped to improve the paper are also acknowledged with thanks.

## 6 Appendix A

We have found that the following function fits the Sutherland & Dopita (1993) cooling function for $`Z/Z_{}=0.3`$ very accurately, with an accuracy of $`5\%`$ in the range $`4.8<\mathrm{log}_{10}T<8.5`$, which we have used in our calculations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}{10^{23}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.02({\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\times 10^4}})^{4.8}(\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{8.3\times 10^4}})^4)`$ (15)
$`+24.({\displaystyle \frac{T}{8\times 10^4}})(\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{2.75\times 10^5}})^5)`$
$`+5.5(\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{7.4\times 10^5}})^{8.5})`$
$`+150.T^{0.3}(\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{2.2\times 10^6}})^8)`$
$`+2.1(\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{3.\times 10^6}})^{1.8})`$
$`+6.\times 10^7T(\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{2.8\times 10^6}})^7)`$
$`+0.35({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^6}})^{0.4},`$
We plot this function along with the net cooling function from Sutherland & Dopita(1993) for $`Z/Z_{}=0.3`$, in Figure A.


text:
# Influence of collective effects and the d-CDW on electronic Raman scattering in high-Tc superconductors

## Abstract

Electronic Raman scattering in high-Tc superconductors is studied within the $`tJ`$ model. It is shown that the $`A_{1g}`$ and $`B_{1g}`$ spectra are dominated by amplitude fluctuations of the superconducting and the d-wave CDW order parameters, respectively. The $`B_{2g}`$ spectrum contains no collective effects and its broad peak reflects vaguely the doping dependence of $`T_c`$, similarly to the pronounced peak in the $`A_{1g}`$ spectrum. The agreement of our theory with the experiment supports the picture of two different, competing order parameters in the underdoped regime of high-Tc superconductors.

PACS numbers:74.72.-h, 71.10.Hf, 71.27.+a

Electronic Raman scattering in superconductors probes charge excitations across the superconducting gap and thus provides information on the magnitude and the anisotropy of the gap. Commonly used weak-coupling theories for the interpretation of the data are, however, not able to account for the experimental spectra in the cuprates, especially, as a function of doping. Such theories yield values for the d-wave gap which have no simple relation to $`T_c`$ and which are substantially smaller than those measured in ARPES experiments. In our view, these problems arise because electronic correlation effects are not adequately taken into account. Below we consider a strong-coupling model which allows to consider interaction effects between excited quasi-particles as well as the appearance of a d-CDW at lower dopings in a systematic way.

Our calculations of Raman response functions are based on the widely accepted t-J model where the two spin components have been generalized to N components and the leading diagrams at large N are taken into account. As discussed in detail in Ref. the phase diagram in this limit is largely determined by the onset of a flux phase with d-wave symmetry, often also called d-CDW, at a doping $`\delta =\delta _0`$. The corresponding order parameter has the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤)=i/2N_c_{𝐪\sigma }J(𝐤𝐪)\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐪\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐪+𝐐\sigma }`$. $`J`$ is the Heisenberg coupling, $`\stackrel{~}{c}^{},\stackrel{~}{c}`$ are creation and annihilation operators for electrons under the constraint that double occupancies of lattice sites are excluded, $`N_c`$ is the number of primitive cells, $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an expectation value, and $`𝐐`$ is the wave vector of the d-CDW. Furthermore, there exists for all dopings an instability towards d-wave superconductivity. Keeping only the instantaneous term in the effective interaction, the order parameter is $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=1/2N_c_𝐪(J(𝐤𝐪)V_C(𝐤𝐪))\stackrel{~}{c}_𝐪\stackrel{~}{c}_𝐪`$. As shown in Ref. it is in general necessary to include the Coulomb potential VC in order to stabilize the d-CDW with respect to phase separation. The resulting superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ decreases with increasing doping for $`\delta >\delta _0`$. For $`\delta <\delta _0`$ the two order parameters compete with each other leading to a strongly decreasing $`T_c`$ with decreasing doping. As a result optimal doping is essentially determined by $`\delta _0`$. In the presence of the two order parameters the operators $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤,}^{},\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤,},\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤+𝐐,}^{},\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤𝐐,})`$ are coupled leading to the following Green’s function matrix

$$G^1(z,𝐤)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}zϵ(𝐤)& \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)& i\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤)& 0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)& z+ϵ(𝐤)& 0& i\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{𝐤})\\ i\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤)& 0& zϵ(\overline{𝐤})& \mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{𝐤})\\ 0& i\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{𝐤})& \mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{𝐤})& z+ϵ(\overline{𝐤})\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
$`ϵ(𝐤)`$ is the one-particle energy, $`ϵ(𝐤)=(\delta t+\alpha J)(cos(k_x)+cos(k_y))2t^{}\delta cos(k_x)cos(k_y)\mu `$, with $`\alpha =1/N_c_𝐪cos(q_x)f(ϵ(𝐪))`$. $`f`$ is the Fermi function, $`\delta `$ the doping away fom half-filling, $`\mu `$ a renormalized chemical potential, $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ are nearest and second-nearest neighbor hopping amplitudes, z a complex frequency, and $`\overline{𝐤}=𝐤𝐐`$.

Expressing the expectation values in the order parameters by $`G`$ and using Eq.(1) one obtains two coupled equations for the order parameters. Detailed considerations show that for dopings in the neighborhood of the optimal doping $`\delta _0`$ the most stable order parameters have d-wave symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma (𝐤),\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma (𝐤)`$, with $`\gamma (𝐤)=(cos(k_x)cos(k_y))/2`$. Fig. 1 shows the doping dependence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at zero temperature, calculated for $`t^{}/t=0.35`$ and $`J/t=0.3`$. The energy unit is $`t`$. A repulsive nearest-neighbor Coulomb interaction was also included with $`V_C/t=0.06`$. In the overdoped region $`\delta >\delta _0`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is zero and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases monotonically with decreasing $`\delta `$. After the onset of the flux phase at $`\delta _0`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is first suppressed by superconductivity and then, with decreasing doping, increases steeply and suppresses now, in addition to V, the superconducting order parameter. In our calculation we assumed the value $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ for the wave vector $`𝐐`$. Fig. 1 shows that superconductivity coexists in the underdoped region with the d-CDW and that the competition between the two order parameters leads to the rapid decay of $`T_c`$ towards small dopings.

The scattering intensity of electronic Raman scattering is proportional to $`(1+n(\omega ))Im\chi _\alpha (\omega +i\eta )`$, where $`n`$ denotes the Bose factor, $`\omega `$ the frequency, and $`\chi _\alpha `$ a response function of the non-local density operator $`\rho _\alpha (𝐤)=1/N_c_{𝐤,\sigma }\gamma _\alpha (𝐤)\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤\sigma }`$. $`\alpha =1,3,4`$ stands for the representations $`A_{1g},B_{1g},B_{2g}`$ of the point group $`D_{4h}`$ of the square lattice, respectively. In the large N limit of the t-J model we have $`\gamma _1(𝐤)=(\delta t+J\alpha )(cosk_x+cosk_y)/2+2\delta t^{}cosk_xcosk_y`$, $`\gamma _3(𝐤)=(\delta t+J\alpha )(cosk_xcosk_y)/2`$, $`\gamma _4(𝐤)=2\delta t^{}sink_xsink_y`$. The response function $`\chi _\alpha `$ is determined at large N by the sum over ladder diagrams shown in Fig. 2.

In the case of the $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ spectra the residual interaction is the Heisenberg interaction. Decomposing it into irreducible basis functions of $`D_{4h}`$ it contains one $`B_{1g}`$ kernel but no contribution with $`B_{2g}`$ symmetry. This means that $`\chi _4`$ is given by the free susceptibility $`\chi _4^{(0)}`$ which reduces to the standard expression if the d-CDW order parameter vanishes. We find the following analytic expressions $`\chi _3(z)=\chi _3^{(0)}(z)/(1+J^{}\chi _3^{(0)}(z))`$, $`J^{}=J/(\delta t+J\alpha )^2`$, $`\chi _4(z)=\chi _4^{(0)}(z)`$, with

$`\chi _\alpha ^{(0)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\gamma _\alpha ^2(𝐤)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{11,11}(𝐤,z)\mathrm{\Pi }_{12,21}(𝐤,z)`$ (2)
$`+(1)^\alpha [\mathrm{\Pi }_{13,31}(𝐤,z)\mathrm{\Pi }_{14,41}(𝐤,z)]),`$ (3)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij,kl}(𝐤,z)=T\underset{n}{}G_{ij}(i\omega _n+z,𝐤)G_{kl}(i\omega _n,𝐤),$$
(4)
for $`\alpha =3,4`$.

Fig. 3 shows $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ spectra for the parameters $`t^{}/t=0.35`$, $`J/t=0.3`$, and $`T=0`$. The upper diagram, corresponding to $`\delta =0.178`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.040`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, is typical for the overdoped region. In the $`B_{2g}`$ spectra $`\gamma _4`$ heavily weights transitions near the diagonals in $`𝐤`$-space where the gap vanishes. As a result the spectrum is broad and peaks substantially below $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Neglecting vertex corrections $`\chi _3^{(0)}`$ is determined by free particle-hole excitations mainly across the maximum of the d-wave gap. This leads to a well-pronounced peak at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as shown by the dashed curve in the upper diagram of Fig.3. Including also vertex corrections $`\chi _3`$ develops a bound state well within the d-wave gap which is somewhat broadened by the finite density of states in the d-wave gap. Practically all spectral weight is shifted from the region around and above $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ into the bound state which, in anlogy to semiconductors, can be viewed as an exciton state.

The middle and lower diagrams in Fig. 3 decribe a slightly and a strongly underdoped case, respectively. In the extreme case of $`\mathrm{\Phi }>>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the density of quasi-particles shows a small gap due to superconductivity embedded into a larger gap structure due to the flux phase. The $`B_{2g}`$ spectra (dotted lines) are always very broad with a maximum which is located roughly in the middle of the BCS-gap which decreases with decreasing doping. In addition it contains a weak and structureless background which extends over the whole gap region. The dashed lines in Fig. 3 describe the $`B_{1g}^{(0)}`$ spectrum due to non-interacting particle-hole excitations. It is rather insensitive to the BCS-part of the gap and consists of one strong peak around the maximal total gap. Taking also vertex corrections into account practically the total spectral weight of the $`B_{1g}^{(0)}`$ curve is shifted into one peak which monotonically increases with decreasing doping. It describes amplitude fluctuations of the d-CDW order parameter.

The essential features of Fig.3 agree with experiments in the cuprates, in particular, the increase of the frequency of the $`B_{1g}`$ peak with decreasing doping and the nonmonotonic behavior of the $`B_{2g}`$ peak as a function of doping similar to that of $`T_c`$. Quantitative fits to experimental curves need, however, the inclusion of additional interactions, e.,g., with impurities, and are therefore not attempted here. To what extent the predicted large excitonic effect in the $`B_{1g}`$ spectrum is compatible with experiment is presently unclear: The larger gap values deduced from ARPES data in comparison to the Raman $`B_{1g}`$ peak in the

underdoped regime and the small difference between $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ peaks on the overdoped side are in favor of excitonic effects in the $`B_{1g}`$ channel. ARPES gives in slightly overdoped $`Bi2212`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }7075meV`$ whereas the $`B_{1g}`$ peak lies near $`5963meV`$, for the same doping. ARPES yields in untwinnned $`YBa_2CuO_7`$ gaps of 58 and 88 meV at the $`X`$ and $`Y`$-points, respectively, wheras the corresponding peaks in Raman scattering are at 50 and 60 meV. Excitonic effects in the $`B_{1g}`$ channel thus seem not to be in conflict with available data. The overall decrease in intensity as a function of doping of the theoretical B-spectra is mainly caused by the $`\delta ^2`$ factor in the Raman vertices. It agrees with experiment, however, the experimental $`B_{1g}`$ spectrum decreases faster than the $`B_{2g}`$ spectrum in contrast with the theoretical curves.

The dotted lines in Fig. 4, called $`A_{1g,s}`$, show screened $`A_{1g}`$ spectra. Their absolute intensities are about 2 orders in magnitude smaller than those for $`B_{1g}`$ scattering. Moreover, they show in general two gap features, a weaker one related to the BCS and a stronger one reflecting the total gap. All these features clearly indicate that the $`A_{1g,s}`$ curves are unable to explain the experimental $`A_{1g}`$ spectra.

According to Ref. density fluctuations may couple to the superconducing order parameter via the modulation of the density of states at the Fermi energy. This indirect coupling also applies to the density fluctuations induced by the the $`A_{1g}`$ Raman vertex $`\gamma _1`$. Using the BCS-assumption with a cutoff $`\omega _0`$ the effective Raman coupling is $`_𝐤\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{c}_𝐤^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_𝐤^{}`$ \+ h.c., with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1=g\gamma (𝐤)`$ and $`g=\mathrm{\Delta }ln(\omega _0/\mathrm{\Delta })\delta N(0)/N(0)`$, where $`\delta N(0)`$ is the change in the projected d-wave density at the Fermi surface due to the original Raman vertex $`\gamma _1`$. The effective vertex $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1`$ is unscreened. Moreover, $`g`$ is large in the optimal and overdoped region because of the proximity of the van Hove singularity which enhances $`\delta N(0)`$ and decays rapidly in the underdoped region because of the factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The resulting $`A_{1g}`$ spectrum is again given by the diagram in Fig. 2 with external Raman vertices $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1`$ and the Heisenberg interaction for the dashed line. Denoting the resulting susceptibilities with a tilde we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1(z)=\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{(0)}(z)/(1+J\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{(0)}(z)/g^2)`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{(0)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\gamma ^2(𝐤)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12,12}(𝐤,z)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11,22}(𝐤,z)`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{14,32}(𝐤,z)\mathrm{\Pi }_{13,42}(𝐤,z)+(zz)).`$ (6)
The dashed and solid lines in Fig. 4, denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{1g}^{(0)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{1g}`$, show the negative imaginary part of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{(0)}`$ and, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1`$, respectively, for the same three dopings as in Fig. 3, calculated with the cutoff $`\omega _0=J`$. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{1g}^{(0)}`$ exhibits a steplike feature at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the overdoped regime which transforms into a well-pronounced peak towards lower dopings. The peak coincides with the maximum of the total gap and there is no indication of any contribution from the smaller BCS gap, similar as in the $`B_{1g}^{(0)}`$ spectrum. Including also vertex corrections spectral weight around $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ accumulates into a pronounced collective peak at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the overdoped region describing amplitude fluctuations of the superconducting order parameter. Going from the overdoped to the underdoped regime this peak first increases, then passes through a maximum around optimal doping, and then decreases in frequency and intensity, becoming at the same time rather broad. The decrease in its frequency can easily be understood: The denominator of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1(z)`$ becomes zero at zero frequency in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfies the gap equation. This implies that the frequency of the collective peak in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1(z)`$ has to go to zero at the onset of superconductivity in the underdoped region in the absence of damping. The density of states is, however, nonzero in the d-CDW gap even at low frequency. As a result, the collective peak varies as $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at larger energies but becomes rather broad at low energies. This agrees with experiments in Bi2212 where the $`A_{1g}`$ peak passes through a maximum and then decreases on the underdoped side. Taking also data on phonon renormalizations into account it even has been conjectured in the case of $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ that the $`A_{1g}`$ peak corresponds to the superconducting gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Fig. 4 shows that $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{1g}`$ is much larger in magnitude than $`A_{1g,s}`$ for all dopings, in spite of the fact that the coupling to the superconducting order parameter occurs in an indirect way. One reason is that the $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1`$ vertex is unscreened in contrast to $`\gamma _1`$ and that screening reduces the intensity by one order of magnitude or more. A second reason is that the proximity to the van Hove singularity leads to rather large values for $`\delta N(0)/N(0)`$ between 2 and 5 in the considered doping region. Comparing the theoretical intensities for $`B_{1g}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{1g}`$ scattering with the experimental ones one finds that $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{1g}`$ has the right magnitude whereas $`A_{1g,s}`$ would be much too small. We would like to point out, however, that the coupling constant $`g`$ also depends on the cutoff $`\omega _0`$ and thus is subject to considerable uncertainty.

In conclusion, we have shown that the observed different behavior of the three symmetry components of the electronic Raman spectrum in high-Tc superconductors as a function of doping can be explained within a t-J model in the larg N limit. Basic ingredients of this approach are the strong competition of the superconducting and the d-CDW order parameters in the underdoped regime and the importance of collective effects. The peak in the $`B_{1g}`$ spectrum in the superconducting state is explained by amplitude fluctuations of the d-CDW order parameter which, in the optimal and overdoped region, can also be viewed as excitonic states. We also found that the indirect coupling of light to the superconducting order parameter is important leading to the conclusion that the $`A_{1g}`$ peak is caused by amplitude fluctuations of the superconducting order parameter.

The authors thank Secyt and the BMBF ( Project ARG 99/007) for financial support and C. Bernhard for a critical reading of the manuscript.


text:
# Bilocal Dynamics in Quantum Field Theory

(September 15, 2002)

## Abstract

An essential aspect of noncommutative field theories is their bilocal nature. This feature, and its role in the IR/UV mixing, are discussed using a canonical quantization procedure developed recently.

Locality has been long considered as an essential ingredient of Quantum Field Theories, although attempts to go beyond this powerful constraint ocasionally appeared. Recently, a peculiar form of nonlocality atracted attention, in the context of noncommutative (NC) field theories (FT) . Intuitive, stringy or Weyl-Moyal based arguments appeared to favour a dipolar nature of the degrees of freedom of such theories .

We will present here a different approach, based on a canonical quantization procedure developed recently . It clearly demonstrates the intrinsic bilocal nature of noncommutative fields, and renders transparent the nature of the real space-time on which dynamics takes place, and on which measurements could be performed (as opposed to the fictitious Weyl symbols space). This approach allows one to view our space from different perspectives , corresponding to the representation of the NC algebra one chooses. Comments on the IR/UV mixing are also presented.

Bilocal objects

The simplest NC field is a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\widehat{x},\widehat{y})`$, defined over a commuting time $`t`$ and a pair of NC coordinates which satisfy

$$[\widehat{x},\widehat{y}]=i\theta .$$
(1)
The extension to several NC pairs is straightforward. The action is

$$S=\frac{1}{2}dtTr_{}\left[\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2(_x\mathrm{\Phi })^2(_y\mathrm{\Phi })^2m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^22V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right].$$
(2)
We will exemplify with a quartic potential, $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{g}{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$. The operators $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{y}`$ act on a harmonic oscillator Hilbert space $``$ in the usual way. $``$ may be given a discrete basis $`\{|n>\}`$ formed by eigenstates of $`\widehat{x}^2+\widehat{y}^2`$ , or a continuous one $`\{|x>\}`$, composed of eigenstates of, say, $`\widehat{x}`$ .

To quantize $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ , start with a usual classical commuting field, expanded into normal modes with coefficients $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$. Upon usual field quantization, $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ become operators acting on a standard Fock space $``$. To make the underlying space noncommutative, introduce (1) and apply the Weyl quantization procedure  to the exponentials $`e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)}`$. The result is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{dk_xdk_y}{2\pi \sqrt{2\omega _\stackrel{}{k}}}\left[\widehat{a}_{k_xk_y}e^{i(\omega _\stackrel{}{k}tk_x\widehat{x}k_y\widehat{y})}+\widehat{a}_{k_xk_y}^{}e^{i(\omega _\stackrel{}{k}tk_x\widehat{x}k_y\widehat{y})}\right].$$
(3)
which means the following: $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a ‘doubly’-quantum field operator, acting on a direct product of two Hilbert spaces, $`\mathrm{\Phi }:`$. Physically, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ creates (destroys), via $`\widehat{a}_{k_xk_y}^{}`$ ($`\widehat{a}_{k_xk_y}`$), an excitation represented by a ”plane wave” $`e^{i(\omega _\stackrel{}{k}tk_x\widehat{x}k_y\widehat{y})}`$. The nature of such an excitation will be discussed now.

One could work with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as an operator ready to act on both $``$ and $``$ . It is however simpler to saturate its action on $``$, working with expectation values $`<x^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }|x>:`$. It is at this point, of eliminating noncommutativity, that bilocality appears. To see that, consider the family $`\{|x>\}`$ of eigenstates of $`\widehat{x}`$: $`\widehat{x}|x>=x|x>`$, $`\widehat{y}|x>=i\theta \frac{}{x}|x>`$. A simple but key equation is

$$<x^{}|e^{i(k_x\widehat{x}+k_y\widehat{y}}|x>=e^{ik_x(x+k_y\theta /2)}\delta (x^{}xk_y\theta )=e^{ik_x\frac{x+x^{}}{2}}\delta (x^{}xk_y\theta ).$$
(4)
This is a bilocal expression, and we already see that its span along the $`x`$ axis, $`(x^{}x)`$, is proportional to the momentum along the conjugate $`y`$ direction, i.e. $`(x^{}x)=\theta k_y`$. In general, for $`n`$ pairs of NC directions, one can keep only one coordinate out of every pair; commutativity is gained on the reduced space, at the expenses of strict locality. Using (3,4), one sees that

$$<x^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }|x>=\frac{dk_x}{2\pi \sqrt{2\omega _{k_x,k_y}}}\left[\widehat{a}_{k_x,k_y}e^{i(\omega _\stackrel{}{k}tk_x\frac{x+x^{}}{2})}+\widehat{a}_{k_x,k_y}^{}e^{i(\omega _\stackrel{}{k}t+k_x\frac{x+x^{}}{2}}\right]$$
(5)
where $`k_y=(x^{}x)/\theta `$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ annihilates a rod of (arbitrary) momentum $`k_x`$ and (fixed) length $`\theta k_y`$, and creates a rod of momentum $`k_x`$ and length $`\theta k_y`$. Due to (1), one degree of freedom apparently disappears from (5). Its presence shows up only through the modified dispersion relation

$$\omega _{(k_x,k_y=\frac{x^{}x}{\theta })}=\sqrt{k_x^2+\frac{(x^{}x)^2}{\theta ^2}+m^2}.$$
(6)
One notices the intrinsic IR/UV-dual character of the dipoles: both big momentum (UV) and big extension (IR) increase the energy. This second term reminds a string stretched between two separated D-branes.

Other bases can also be used for $``$. For instance, the basis $`\{|n>\}`$, formed by the eigenvectors of $`\widehat{n}x^2+y^2`$, leads to a discrete remnant space .

Correlators

Two-point correlation functions for such dipoles are the VEV of the product of two bilocal fields (taken on the vacuum, $`|0`$, of the Fock space $``$):

$$0|<x_4|\mathrm{\Phi }|x_3><x_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|x_1>|0=\frac{dk_x}{8\pi ^2\omega _\stackrel{}{k}}e^{ik_x[\frac{x_3+x_4}{2}\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}]}\delta (x_4x_3x_2+x_1).$$
(7)
Again, $`k_y=(x^{}x)/\theta `$, $`\omega _\stackrel{}{k}=\omega _{k_x,k_y}`$ obeys (6), and there is no integral along $`k_y`$. If one compares (7) to the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional correlator of two commutative fields, $`0|\varphi (X_2)\varphi (X_1)|0`$, with $`X_1=(x_1+x_2)/2`$ and $`X_2=(x_3+x_4)/2`$, the differences are the $`\frac{(x^{}x)^2}{\theta ^2}`$ term in (6), and the delta function $`\delta ([x_4x_3][x_2x_1])`$, which ensures that the length of the rod is conserved. Thus, our bilocal objects propagate in a $`(1+1)`$dimensional space. The extra $`y`$ direction is accounted for by their lenght, which contributes to the energy, and their orientation. Although we also call these rods dipoles, they do not necessarily have charges at their ends and they have extension in the absence of any background. Those rods may remind one about stretched open strings, or the double index representation of Yang-Mills theories.

Interactions

The quartic interaction term in (2) can be written as

$$𝑑tTr_{}V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{g}{4!}𝑑t_{x,a,b,c}<x|\mathrm{\Phi }|a><a|\mathrm{\Phi }|b><b|\mathrm{\Phi }|c><c|\mathrm{\Phi }|x>.$$
(8)
To find the Feynman rules, we need the vacuum correlator (7), and a slight modification of the Dyson procedure. The basic ‘vertex’ for four-dipole scattering follows from

$$\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4|:𝑑t_{x,a,b,c}<x|\mathrm{\Phi }|a><a|\mathrm{\Phi }|b><b|\mathrm{\Phi }|c><c|\mathrm{\Phi }|x>:|\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2.$$
(9)
$`|\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ is a Fock space state with two quanta of momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$. The momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_{i,i=1,2,3,4}`$ have each two components: $`\stackrel{}{k}_i=(k_i,l_i)`$. $`k_i`$ is the momentum along $`x`$, whereas $`l_i`$ represents the dipole extension along $`x`$ (corresponding to the momentum along $`y`$) . Using Eq. (5) and integrating over $`x,a,b`$ and $`c`$, one obtains the conservation laws $`k_1+k_2+k_3+k_4=0`$ and $`l_1+l_2+l_3+l_4=0`$. The final result differs from the four-point scattering vertex of $`(2+1)`$ commutative particles with momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i=(k_i,l_i)`$ only through the phase

$$e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}_{i<j}(k_il_jl_ik_j)}.$$
(10)
This is precisely the star-product modification of the usual Feynman rules. The phase (10) appears due to the bilocal nature of generic $`<x^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }|x>`$’s.

By contracting various terms in (9), one obtains the one-loop corrections to the free rod propagator, together with the recipe for calculating loops. Again, the derivation is straightforward. The main point is that, in the end, one has to integrate over both the momentum and length of the dipole circulating in a loop. This $`\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑k_{loop}𝑑l_{loop}`$ integration, together with the dispersion relation (6), brings back into play - especially as far as divergences are concerned - the $`y`$ direction. It is easy to extend the above reasoning to $`(2n+1)`$dimensions: unconstrained dipoles will propagate in a $`(n+1)`$-dimensional commutative space-time, with Feynman rules obtained as outlined above. Once the dipole lengths are interpreted as momenta in the conjugate directions, the rules are identical to those obtained long ago via star-product calculus.

IR/UV

We have derived directly from field theory the dipolar character of NC excitations; the momentum in the conjugate direction became the lenght of the dipole. A connection between UV and IR physics appeared naturally, and on a somehow more rigorous basis than in , for instance.

One can also view geometrically the differences between planar and nonplanar loop diagrams, and the role of low momenta in nonplanar graphs. To illustrate this, consider $`(4+1)`$-dimensions, $`t,\widehat{x},\widehat{y},\widehat{z},\widehat{u}`$, with $`[\widehat{x},\widehat{y}]=[\widehat{z},\widehat{w}]=i\theta `$. In the $`\{|x,z>\}`$ basis, one has a commutative space spanned by the axes $`x`$ and $`z`$, on which dipoles with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}=(p_x,p_z)`$ and length $`\stackrel{}{l}=(l_x,l_z)=\theta (p_y,p_w)`$ evolve. During the scattering, four such dipoles meet in a four-edged poligon of area $`𝒜`$ (figure 1a).

One has two possibilities for the one-loop correction to the propagator: planar and nonplanar. In the planar case, adjacent dipole fields are contracted. Momentum and length conservation enforce then the poligon to degenerate into a one-dimensional, zero-area object (figure 1b). UV divergences persist. In the nonplanar case, due to the nonadjacent contraction the area $`𝒜`$ does not go to zero (cf. figure 1c) unless the external dipole length vanishes (figure 1d). $`𝒜0`$ appears thus to be related to the disappearance of UV divergences. Actually, the true regulator is the phase (10). This is zero, i.e. ineffective, when $`𝒜=0`$ in both the $`|x,z>`$ and $`|y,u>`$ bases. That corresponds to zero external length and momentum in the dipole picture, which means that the resulting divergence is half IR ($`\stackrel{}{p}_{ext}=0`$) and half UV ($`\stackrel{}{l}_{ext}=0`$)! In Weyl space this is just the usual zero external momentum, say $`p_\mu ^{ext}=0`$, and one speaks about an IR divergence. For dipoles the divergence comes from having zero vertex area $`𝒜`$ in any basis, and is half IR and half UV. NCFT appears to be somehow in between usual FT and string theory: when the interaction vertex is a point, UV infinities appear; when it opens up, as in string theory, amplitudes are finite.

Remarks

We saw that by dropping $`n`$ coordinates, intuition is gained: the remaining space admits a notion of distance, although bilocal (and in some sense IR/UV dual) objects probe it. An important question is: how do the dimensionality and noncommutativity of space-time exactly depend on the regime in which we probe the theory? To start, we have a NC $`(2n+1)`$dimensional theory. Then, at tree level (i.e. classical plus tree level interference effects), one has $`D=n+1`$ commuting directions. However, loop effects drive us back to $`D=2n+1`$. At a scale $`r\sqrt{\theta }`$, space is NC. For $`r>>\sqrt{\theta }`$ it is believed to be commutative. However, if $`r`$ is the radius in the largest available commutative subspace, the IR/UV connection suggests a connection (duality?) between the $`r>>\sqrt{\theta }`$ and $`r<<\sqrt{\theta }`$ regimes. A clarification of these issues is desirable.

One may also consider the case in which time is NC, e.g. $`[\widehat{t},\widehat{x}]0`$. In a basis in which $`\widehat{t}`$ is diagonal, $`\{|t,\mathrm{}>\}`$, the elementary excitations become bilocal in time, $`<t,\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Phi }|t^{},\mathrm{}>`$. Their time-length contributes to the energy, $`\omega =\sqrt{(tt^{})^2/\theta ^2+k_x^2+k_y^2+m^2}`$. Preliminay results indicate that, upon appropriate definition of the perturbation series, the theory is unitary, in agreement with  and in disagreement with .

Acknowledgments

This work was supported through a European Community Marie Curie fellowship, under Contract HPMF-CT-2000-1060.