text:
# How far is normal nuclear matter from the chiral symmetry restoration? 1footnote 11footnote 1 We dedicate this work to Prof. S.T. Belyaev, the great theoretical physicist and colleague, on occasion of his 80th birthday

## I Introduction

Properties of strongly interacting matter, especially its possible phase transitions, are presently in the focus of experimental and theoretical investigations. At zero baryon density and high temperature the situation becomes more and more clear due to continuous progress in lattice calculations. Latest simulations Kar02  including dynamical quarks with realistic masses predict a crossover–like deconfinement (chiral) transition at temperatures around 170 MeV. The situation at finite baryon densities remains uncertain and subject to model building. Different models predict many interesting phenomena in this case, ranging from restoration of chiral symmetry to color superconductivity.

In our recent analysis Mis02  we tried to find phenomenological constraints on possible phase transitions at high baryon densities. The main constraint comes from the very existence of a bound state of symmetric nuclear matter at low temperature and baryon density $`\rho 0.17\mathrm{fm}^3`$ . We have found that predictions of some popular models are in direct contradiction with this fact. For example, several quark models predict new phases which have too low pressure as compared to ordinary nuclear matter with the same baryon chemical potential. Therefore, such phases are unstable with respect to hadronization. Our aim in this paper is to construct a QCD motivated effective model which is able to reproduce correctly the nuclear saturation point and then examine its predictions at higher densities.

Many phenomenological models have been suggested to describe properties of cold nuclear matter in terms of nucleonic degrees of freedom. The relativistic mean–field models of the Walecka type Ser85 ; Ser97  turned out to be rather successful in describing properties of medium and heavy nuclei. One should mention also microscopic models, dealing with nucleon–nucleon forces. Parameters of these forces are usually extracted from scattering data and the observed binding energies of light nuclei (see e.g. Ref. Akm98  and references therein). In addition to their numerical complexity, such approaches are essentially nonrelativistic and therefore, their accuracy diminishes at high densities. All these models have a serious drawback, namely, they do not respect the chiral symmetry of strong interactions.

There exist several chiral models which could potentially be used for describing nuclear matter. Most popular are the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model Nam61  and the linear sigma model Gel60 . They are able to explain spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry in vacuum and its restoration at high energy densities. But the simplest versions of these models fail to reproduce nuclear saturation properties. In particular, the linear sigma model predicts only abnormal state of nuclear matter Lee74  where the chiral symmetry is restored and nucleons have vanishing effective mass. Several more complicated models of this kind have been suggested in Refs. Bog83 ; Mis93 ; Pap98 ; Pap99 . Although they are able to reproduce the nuclear ground state, some new problems appear within these models. In particular, some of them do not predict restoration of chiral symmetry at high baryon densities.

There were also attempts to use the NJL model for describing cold nuclear matter Koc87 ; Bub96 ; Mis97  . It was argued in Refs. Koc87 ; Bub96  that bound nucleonic matter with spontaneously broken chiral symmetry is not possible within the standard NJL. This conclusion was based on implicit assumption that the maximum (cut–off) momentum for constituent nucleons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the same as normally used in quark models ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.6`$ GeV). The authors of Ref. Koc87  suggested to include additional (scalar–vector) interaction terms to reproduce the observed saturation properties of nuclear matter. On the other hand, it was shown in Ref. Mis97  that by assuming sufficiently low value of cutoff–momentum ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.3`$ GeV) it is possible to achieve a bound state at normal density even in the standard NJL model. However, in this case the nucleon effective mass at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ is predicted by a factor of two smaller as compared to its empirical value.

Below we reconsider the possibility of using the NJL model for describing cold nuclear matter. We use the generalized version of this model including additionally the scalar–vector interaction. We also take into account explicit symmetry breaking effects by introducing a bare nucleon mass. Indeed, with this modifications a good agreement with observed saturation properties of nuclear matter is achieved.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II we formulate the model and explain the procedure of choosing parameters. Comparison of our results with observed characteristics of nuclear matter is given in Sect. III. In Sect. IV we analyze characteristics of the chiral symmetry restoration and demonstrate the importance of chiral fluctuations. In Sect. V we summarize and discuss the results.

## II Formulation of the model

In this paper we return to the original formulation of the NJL model Nam61  in terms of nucleonic degrees of freedom. Namely, we consider a system of nucleons, interacting via point–like scalar (pseudoscalar) and vector (axial vector) 4–fermion terms. The corresponding Lagrangian for a spinor nucleon field $`\psi `$ is written as ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$)

$$_0=\overline{\psi }(i/m_0)\psi +\frac{G_S}{2}[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }\gamma _5𝝉\psi )^2]\frac{G_V}{2}[(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi )^2],$$
(1)
where $`m_0`$ is the ”bare” nucleon mass, $`𝝉`$ are isospin Pauli matrices, $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are standard Dirac matrices and $`\gamma _5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$ . $`G_S`$ and $`G_V`$ are the coupling constants for the scalar (pseudoscalar) and vector (axial vector) NN interactions, respectively.

As will be clear later, this Lagrangian is too restrictive to reproduce saturation properties of nucleonic matter at zero temperature. In particular, the model should explain the phenomenological fact that binding energy per nucleon of homogeneous isospin–symmetric matter is bound by about 16 MeV at the equilibrium density $`\rho =\rho _00.17\mathrm{fm}^3`$ . In other words, this means that at this density the energy per baryon reaches its minimum value

$$\frac{E}{B}|_{\rho =\rho _0}m_N16\mathrm{MeV},$$
(2)
where $`m_N=938\mathrm{MeV}`$ is the nucleon mass in vacuum.

Following Refs. Bog83 ; Koc87 , below we consider a generalized version of the NJL model including an additional 8–fermion scalar–vector (SV) interaction term. The full model Lagrangian is written as

$$=_0+\frac{G_{SV}}{2}\left[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }\gamma _5𝝉\psi )^2\right]\left[(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi )^2\right].$$
(3)
It is easy to see that at $`m_0=0`$ this Lagrangian is chirally symmetric, i.e. it is invariant with respect to $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ transformations. Below we investigate sensitivity of nuclear matter equation of state to the coupling constants $`G_S,G_V`$ and $`G_{SV}`$ . In fact, they will be chosen to fulfil the condition (2).

Within the mean–field (Hartree) approximation we replace $`(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )^2`$ operators by $`2\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi <\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi ><\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi >^2`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is any combination of matrices appearing in the interaction terms of the Lagrangian (3). The angular brackets denote quantum–statistical averaging at fixed temperature $`T`$ and baryon density $`\rho `$ . In the considered case of isospin–symmetric matter at $`T=0`$ all terms containing $`\gamma _5`$ vanish and the Lagrangian takes the form

$$_{\mathrm{MFA}}=\overline{\psi }(i/m\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_V)\psi U(\rho ,\rho _S),$$
(4)
where $`m,\mathrm{\Sigma }_V`$ and $`U`$ are functions of scalar ($`\rho _S=<\overline{\psi }\psi >`$) and vector ($`\rho =<\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0\psi >`$) nucleon densities. These quantities are defined as follows

$`m=m_0\stackrel{~}{G}_S\rho _S,`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_V=(G_VG_{SV}\rho _S^2)\rho ,`$ (6)
$`U(\rho ,\rho _S)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(G_S\rho _S^2G_V\rho ^2+3G_{SV}\rho ^2\rho _S^2).`$ (7)
In Eq. (5) we have introduced a renormalized scalar coupling

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_S=G_S+G_{SV}\rho ^2G_S\left[1+\alpha \left(\rho /\rho _0\right)^2\right],$$
(8)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless constant, $`\alpha =G_{SV}\rho _0^2/G_S`$ . Solutions of the gap equation (5), denoted below as $`m_N^{}`$, have the meaning of the nucleon effective mass.

The Euler–Lagrange equation for the fermion field $`\psi `$ has the form of Dirac equation with constant effective mass $`m`$ and vector potential $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_V`$. By using the plane wave decomposition of $`\psi `$ one gets the explicit relations

$`\rho _S=\nu _N{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{m}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}\left[n_N(p)+n_{\overline{N}}(p)1\right]},`$ (9)
$`\rho =\nu _N{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left[n_N(p)n_{\overline{N}}(p)\right]},`$ (10)
where $`\nu _N=4`$ is the spin–isospin degeneracy factor for nucleons, $`n_N(p)`$ and $`n_{\overline{N}}(p)`$ are the Fermi–Dirac occupation numbers for nucleons and antinucleons. The last term $`(1)`$ in square brackets of Eq. (9) originates from the negative energy levels of the Dirac sea. It gives divergent contribution which needs to be regularized. Following common practice we do this by introducing 3–dimensional cut–off momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ , i.e. replacing $`1`$ by $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }p)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)(1+\text{sgn}x)/2`$ . One can interpret $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as maximum momentum determining the number of active quasinucleon levels in the Dirac sea 222 Apparently, a more realistic treatment can be achieved by introducing a smooth form factor in the momentum space instead of a sharp cut–off at $`p=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Sch94 ; Rip97 ..

From Lagrangian (4) one can easily derive the energy–momentum tensor. The energy density of homogeneous nuclear matter is written as

$$ϵ=\nu _N\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\sqrt{p^2+m^2}\left[n_N(p)+n_{\overline{N}}(p)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }p)\right]+\mathrm{\Sigma }_V\rho +U(\rho ,\rho _S)+ϵ_0,$$
(11)
where again the three–dimensional regularization is applied to the divergent momentum integral. The constant $`ϵ_0`$ is introduced to set the energy density of the vacuum state ($`\rho =0`$, $`m=m_N`$) equal to zero. Obviously, energy per baryon is $`E/Bϵ/\rho `$ .

Below we consider isospin–symmetric matter at zero temperature. In this case $`n_{\overline{N}}(p)=0`$ and $`n_N(p)=\mathrm{\Theta }(p_Fp)`$ where $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum related to the baryon density,

$$\rho =\frac{\nu _Np_F^3}{6\pi ^2}.$$
(12)
The scalar density reads

$$\rho _S=\nu _N\underset{p_F}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{m}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}=\frac{\nu _Nm}{4\pi ^2}\left[p_F^2\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{m}{p_F}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\right],$$
(13)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\sqrt{1+x^2}\frac{x^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{1+x^2}+1}{\sqrt{1+x^2}1}.$$
(14)
At sufficiently low baryon densities corresponding to $`p_F<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the integral in the r.h.s of Eq. (13) is positive and $`\rho _S<0`$ . However, at high densities, when $`p_F>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the integral becomes negative and, therefore, $`\rho _S>0`$ . Then, according to Eq. (5) the nucleon effective mass becomes smaller than $`m_0`$ . Of course, at large enough momenta the approximation of a point–like NN interaction will fail due to the nontrivial internal structure of nucleons. In this situation one should explicitly consider quark degrees of freedom.

Expressing $`\rho _S`$ in terms of $`m`$ from Eq. (5), we rewrite Eq. (11) as

$$ϵ=\nu _N\underset{p_F}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\sqrt{p^2+m^2}+\frac{(mm_0)^2}{2\stackrel{~}{G}_S}+\frac{G_V\rho ^2}{2}+ϵ_0.$$
(15)
One can consider this expression as a functional of two independent variables, $`m`$ and $`\rho `$ . Then the gap equation follows from the minimization of $`ϵ(m,\rho )`$ with respect to $`m`$ . As has been already noticed in Ref. Koc87 , the inclusion of SV interaction is equivalent to renormalizing the scalar coupling, $`G_S\stackrel{~}{G}_S`$ .

From thermodynamic identities at $`T=0`$,

$$\mu =\frac{dϵ}{d\rho },P=\mu \rho ϵ=\rho ^2\frac{d}{d\rho }\left(\frac{ϵ}{\rho }\right),$$
(16)
one can calculate the baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$ and pressure $`P`$ as functions of baryon density $`\rho `$ . It is obvious that pressure should vanish at the saturation point, i.e. $`P(\rho _0)=0`$ . This gives a nontrivial constraint on the model parameters.

Our model contains five adjustable parameters, $`\mathrm{\Lambda },m_0,G_S,G_V,\alpha `$, which we fix by fitting the vacuum masses of nucleons and pions, as well as the saturation properties of nuclear matter. First constraint follows from the gap equation in the vacuum. Taking $`\rho =0`$, $`p_F=0,m=m_N`$ in Eqs. (5), (8), (13) one has

$$m_N=m_0G_S\rho _S^{\mathrm{vac}}=m_0+\nu _NG_S\frac{m_N\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{m_N}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right).$$
(17)
Another constraint Mis97  comes from the soft pion phenomenology. By using the Lagrangian (1) in the random phase approximation one can calculate the polarization operator for pionic excitations (for details see Ref. Vog91 ). By applying further the PCAC equation for the axial–vector current of nucleons in vacuum one gets

$$m_\pi ^2f_\pi ^2=m_0|\rho _S^{\mathrm{vac}}|,$$
(18)
where $`m_\pi 140`$ MeV and $`f_\pi 93`$ MeV are the vacuum values of pion mass and pion decay constant, respectively. This equation is valid in the lowest order approximation in $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and can be considered as analogue of the Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner relation Gor68  following from the quark structure of mesons. According to Eq. (18) the pure chiral limit $`m_0=0`$ , used e.g. in Ref. Koc87 , formally corresponds to vanishing pion mass.

Choosing different cut–off momenta $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as input we use Eqs. (17)–(18) to find $`m_0`$ and $`G_S`$. The parameters $`G_V`$ and $`\alpha `$ can be fixed now by the requirement that $`ϵ/\rho `$ attains the minimum value (2) at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ . At fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we first find $`m=m_N^{}(\rho )`$ from the gap equation (see Eqs. (5), (13)) and then calculate the energy per baryon by using Eq. (15). The calculation shows that at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.2`$ GeV it is not possible to reproduce the saturation point with observable binding energy and density at any $`\alpha `$ . This becomes possible only at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.3`$ GeV 333 Strictly speaking at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$ GeV the minimum in binding energy appears only at $`\rho 0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$ which is less than the $`\rho _0`$ value used in this work. However, having in mind that accuracy in $`\rho _0`$ is currently not better than 10%, we still consider such a low saturation densities as acceptable..

An illustration of the procedure used to determine parameters $`G_V`$ and $`\alpha `$ is given in Fig. 1 for the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV. At fixed $`\alpha `$ we choose the ratio $`\xi G_V/G_S`$ to obtain minimal energy per baryon given in Eq. (2). As one can see in this figure, increasing $`\alpha `$ shifts the minimum in $`ϵ/\rho `$ to smaller baryon densities. In the considered case the choice $`\alpha =0`$ leads to abnormal ($`m_N^{}0`$) bound state at density $`\rho 2.2\rho _0`$ . The correct position of the saturation point is obtained for $`\alpha =0.032`$ . We repeat this analysis for other values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the interval $`0.3\mathrm{GeV}<\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.7\mathrm{GeV}`$ .

The corresponding parameters are listed in Table 1. The second and third columns give $`G_S`$ and $`m_0`$ values. determined, respectively, from Eqs. (17) and (18).

The last two columns show the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\xi `$ which give the best fit of the saturation point at fixed cut–off momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . One can see from the table that the parameter $`\alpha `$ slowly decreases with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.4`$ GeV. On the other hand, the relative strength of vector interaction $`\xi `$ grows noticeably with increasing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . It is natural to assume that the bare nucleon mass should not be smaller than $`3m_{0q}`$ , where $`m_{0q}=(5\pm 1)`$ MeV Pdg02  is the isospin–averaged current mass of light quarks. From this point of view the parameter sets with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0.6`$ GeV should be excluded. Due to the same reason the parameter set with $`m_0=0`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.641\mathrm{GeV},G_S=0.459\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{fm}^3,\alpha =0.023,\xi =2.92,$$
(19)
suggested in Ref. Koc87 , does not seem reasonable.

## III Nuclear matter within the NJL model

Now we present the predictions of the generalized NJL model formulated in the preceding section. Figure 2 shows density dependence of energy per baryon calculated with parameter sets from Table 1. Although the results are similar at $`\rho \rho _0`$ , at higher densities one can see strong sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The curve for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$ GeV shows especially large deviation from the others. As already noted above, one should be very cautious by applying the NJL model at high densities, corresponding to $`p_F>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . This is particularly important for sets with smaller $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . Indeed, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$ GeV $`p_F>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ holds already at $`\rho >1.4\rho _0`$ 444 For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ and $`0.5`$ GeV this takes place at $`3.3\rho _0`$ and $`6.5\rho _0`$ , respectively. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.6`$ GeV the maximal densities become larger than $`10\rho _0`$. Nucleons will be completely dissolved at such high densities..

Figure 3 shows density dependence of the nucleon effective mass $`m_N^{}`$ calculated with the same parameter sets. On can see that the $`m_N^{}`$ behaviour depends strongly on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ even at low densities. For example, at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ GeV it has a very peculiar behavior. In this case $`m_N^{}`$ first increases, reaching maximum value $`m_N^{}1.4`$ GeV at $`\rho 10\rho _0`$ , and then drops down approaching the bare mass at $`\rho 17\rho _0`$. For all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the nucleon effective mass becomes small at sufficiently high densities, but it does not vanish. This would be possible only in the case of exact chiral symmetry ($`m_0=0`$) when $`m_N^{}=0`$ is an exact solution of the gap equation. Therefore, for all parameter sets with $`m_00`$ the chiral symmetry is only approximately restored at high densities. By filled dots in Fig. 3 we show the mass values obtained from the QCD sum rules Fur96 . Although the error bars are large, these estimates clearly favour the parameter set with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV. As compared to vacuum, a 30% reduction of the nucleon mass at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ is predicted in this case. The results for different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are presented in Table 2.

The compression modulus of nuclear matter, $`K`$, is an important characteristics of the equation of state. It is defined as

$$\frac{K}{9}=\frac{dP}{d\rho }=\rho \frac{d\mu }{d\rho }=\rho \frac{d^2ϵ}{d\rho ^2},$$
(20)
where the second and third equalities follow from Eq. (16). The density dependence of $`K`$ is shown in Fig. 4 for different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . Negative $`K`$ values correspond to mechanical instability of matter with respect to density fluctuations. The density interval with $`K<0`$ is known as the spinodal region of a first order (liquid–gas) phase transition. As one can see from Fig. 4, this phase transition is undoubtedly predicted in all cases considered. This is not surprising because such a phase transition is a consequence of the saturating property of the equation of state. Indeed, since pressure is zero at $`\rho =0`$ and $`\rho =\rho _0`$ is must be a nonmonotonous function of $`\rho `$ . Fig. 4 also shows that the compression modulus changes very rapidly in the vicinity of the saturation point, especially in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$ GeV. The values of $`K`$ at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ are given in Table 2. One can see that the parameter set with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV gives the $`K`$ value which is close to the phenomenological estimate, $`K250270`$ MeV Ma01 .

In studies of in–medium effects, the so–called pion–nucleon sigma term, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ , is often used Vog91 ; Coh92 . At small densities it can be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=\left(1\frac{<\overline{q}q>}{<\overline{q}q>_{\mathrm{vac}}}\right)\frac{m_\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}{\rho },$$
(21)
where $`<\overline{q}q>`$ is the quark condensate or, in the context of our model the quark scalar density. Assuming that the scalar nucleon and quark densities are proportional to each other, we calculate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ by using Eq. (21) with the replacement $`<\overline{q}q>/<\overline{q}q>_{\mathrm{vac}}\rho _S/\rho _S^{\mathrm{vac}}`$. The results of this calculation are shown in Fig. 5. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ values at $`\rho 0`$ are also given in Table 2. At $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV the calculated value is close to the estimate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}(35\pm 5)`$ MeV, obtained from the chiral perturbation theory Gas91 .

Based on the results presented above we come to the conclusion that the generalized NJL model with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.4`$ GeV gives the best description of cold nuclear matter in comparison with other choices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . In Fig. 6 we compare energies per baryon predicted by our model with the results of other nuclear models namely, the Walecka–type TM1 model Sug94 , the Chiral Hadron Model (CHM) Pap99  and the Variational Chain Model (VCM) Akm98 . Note that the VCM includes two– and three–body NN forces and takes into account the correlation effects. One can see that at densities $`\rho 2\rho _0`$ our model and other models give very similar results. Thus, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV our fit of nuclear saturation properties is at least of the same quality as in other models listed above.

## IV Identification of the chiral transition

In this section we examine properties and possible signatures of the chiral transition in cold nuclear matter. As noted in Ref. Wel82  the direct signature of the chiral symmetry restoration is not the effective mass (the latter may even increase with energy density), but the vanishing chiral condensate. In our approach the chiral condensate coincides with the scalar nucleon density $`\rho _S=<\overline{\psi }\psi >`$ . Figure 7 displays this quantity calculated for the same parameter sets as before. Unlike the effective mass, $`|\rho _S|`$ decreases practically linearly with $`\rho `$ at not too high densities. We define the critical baryon density of the chiral transition, $`\rho _c`$, by the linear extrapolation of $`\rho _S(\rho )`$ to zero. Numerical values of these densities (in units of $`\rho _0`$) are given in the last column of Table 2.

The results of Fig. 7 suggest that scalar density curves for different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have similar behavior and roughly can be obtained from one another by rescaling the axes. In Fig. 8 we show the same results, but scalar and vector nucleon densities are now scaled by the factor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ . One can see that in these variables the results for different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are indeed very close to each other. It is evident now that the critical density for the chiral transition may be roughly estimated as

$$\rho _c0.06\mathrm{\Lambda }^3.$$
(22)
The corresponding Fermi momentum $`p_F`$ at $`\rho \rho _c`$ equals approximately $`0.96\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . Therefore, the region of the chiral transition is close to the boundary of the model applicability (see discussion above).

It is instructive to compare the vacuum value of nucleon scalar density with the quark condensate $`<\overline{q}q>`$ . The phenomenological value of the quark condensate in vacuum is Coh92

$$|<\overline{q}q>|_{\mathrm{vac}}2|<\overline{u}u>|_{\mathrm{vac}}2(225\pm 25\mathrm{MeV})^3(3\pm 1)\mathrm{fm}^3.$$
(23)
According to Fig. 7, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV one gets the value $`|\rho _S^{\mathrm{vac}}|0.54\mathrm{fm}^3`$ which is by about factor 6 smaller than $`|<\overline{q}q>|_{\mathrm{vac}}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5`$ GeV the ratio is close to 1/3 which might be expected from the naive constituent quark model. For higher $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the predicted nucleon condensate is comparable with $`<\overline{q}q>_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ .

When looking for possible phase transitions it is most useful to calculate pressure $`P`$ as a function of chemical potential $`\mu `$ . A first order phase transition is signalled by appearance of several branches of $`P(\mu )`$ . At fixed $`\mu `$ only the branch with highest pressure corresponds to a stable phase. The point of phase transition, $`\mu =\mu _c`$ , is given by intersection of a stable and a metastable branches. At this point $`dP/d\mu `$ exhibits a jump which corresponds to difference of densities between coexisting phases. Figure 9 shows the pressure curves predicted by our model for different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . At small $`\mu `$ one can see the presence of a first–order phase transition which takes place at $`\mu m_N16\mathrm{MeV}922`$ MeV for all considered sets of model parameters. The region of mixed phase covers subnuclear densities, $`\rho <\rho _0`$ . This is a liquid–gas phase transition which is well–known in nuclear physics. It is responsible for the multifragmentation phenomenon in hot nuclear systems. There is no clear evidence of other non–trivial behaviors of $`P(\mu )`$ . Calculating $`P`$ as a function of $`\rho `$ shows that pressure varies rather smoothly at $`\rho \rho _c`$ i.e. in the vicinity of the chiral transition.

The results presented above were obtained assuming validity of the men–field approximation. In particular, fluctuations of the scalar condensate $`\rho _S`$ or, equivalently, the nucleon effective mass $`m`$ around their values determined from the gap equation were completely disregarded. As we shall see below, this approximation becomes rather poor at $`\rho \rho _c`$ . To estimate possible magnitude of mass fluctuations, it is instructive to study the energy per baryon, $`ϵ/\rho `$, as a functional of $`\rho `$ and $`m`$, i.e. without using the gap equation. By fixing baryon density, one obtains the profiles of $`ϵ/\rho `$ as functions of $`m`$ . Their minima correspond to $`m=m_N^{}(\rho )`$ . The results of calculations are shown in Fig. 10 for the parameter set with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV.

As seen in Fig. 10, at $`\rho 0`$ energy per baryon is a sharp function of mass near its minimum at $`mm_N`$ . As $`\rho `$ grows, the minimum of $`ϵ/\rho `$ shifts to smaller masses and its width significantly increases. At $`\rho =\rho _0`$ the minimum corresponds to the saturation point where $`m=m_N^{}0.683m_N`$. When $`\rho `$ approaches the characteristic density of chiral transition $`\rho \rho _c`$ the minimum shifts to $`m0`$ and $`ϵ/\rho `$ curves become rather flat. For example, at $`\rho =2\rho _0`$ the width of mass distribution becomes comparable with the value $`m_N^{}0.3`$ GeV obtained from the gap equation. At higher densities widths of $`ϵ/\rho `$ remain approximately the same.

To qualitatively characterize this behavior, we evaluate $`^2ϵ/m^2`$, the second derivative of $`ϵ`$ with respect to $`m`$ at fixed $`\rho `$ and $`m=m_N^{}(\rho )`$. This quantity describes the stiffness of the effective potential along the mass coordinate. It is analogous to the compression modulus characterizing the stiffness with respect to the density fluctuation. The results are shown in Fig. 11 by the solid line. For comparison, the dashed line shows the same calculation, but with vanishing bare mass $`m_0`$ . One can clearly see that the stiffness drops dramatically at the point of chiral symmetry restoration, where $`m_N^{}`$ and $`\rho _S`$ become small. In the case $`m_0=0`$ the stiffness vanishes at $`\rho =\rho _c`$ and, therefore, the fluctuations diverge. Such behavior is expected for a second order phase transition. It is well known that the mean–field approximation breaks down in the vicinity of the critical point. However, in a realistic case of $`m_00`$ one can speak only about a significant enhancement of fluctuations near the chiral transition point.

Finally, in Fig. 12 we present a three–dimensional plot of $`ϵ/\rho `$ as a function of $`m`$ and $`\rho `$ , calculated for the same set with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ GeV. Thick line connecting local minima of this surface corresponds to solutions of the gap equation (5). One can easily notice approximate symmetry of $`ϵ/\rho `$ with respect to reflections $`mm`$ . At low densities one sees two local minima 555 More careful analysis shows that minima at negative $`m`$ are in fact saddle points in 4-dimensional chiral space. separated by a barrier (see also Fig. 10). At $`\rho \rho _c`$ the barrier disappears and the surface becomes rather flat along the mass axis.

It is interesting to note that in the case of exact chiral symmetry ($`m_0=0`$) the energy functional would be an even function of the effective mass $`m`$ , i.e. $`ϵ(m,\rho )=ϵ(m,\rho )`$ . In particular, at $`\rho 0`$ it has two degenerate minima at $`m=\pm m_N`$ . This symmetry is simply a particular case of the chiral rotation corresponding to angle $`\pi `$ . By using this fact one can prove the following theorem, valid also at $`T0`$ . Namely, the thermodynamic potential of any chirally–symmetric theory, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=P(m,T,\mu )`$ is an even function of the fermion mass $`m`$ and has an extremum (maximum, minimum or saddle point) at $`m=0`$ . Explicit symmetry breaking terms make $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ slightly tilted towards $`m>0`$ . All known chiral models obey this theorem. In contrast, traditional nuclear models of Walecka type strongly violate it. They assign no special significance to the point $`m=0`$ . Such models are tuned to the saturation point of nuclear matter and can not be extrapolated far away from this point. As an example, in Fig. 13 we show the energy surface predicted by the TM1 version of the relativistic mean–field model Sug94 . One can see that the model does not reveal any symmetry with respect to $`mm`$ . Moreover the minima at $`m<0`$ do not appear at all.

## V Summary and discussion

In this paper we describe cold nuclear matter using a generalized version of the NJL model including additional scalar–vector interaction terms. We formulate the model in terms of nucleonic degrees of freedom bearing in mind that normal nuclei are indeed made of nucleons. We have demonstrated that this model is able to reproduce well observed saturation properties of nuclear matter such as equilibrium density, binding energy, compression modulus and nucleon effective mass at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ .The best fit of nuclear properties is achieved with the cut–off momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.4`$ GeV which is noticeably smaller than usually assumed for quark–based models. This is an indication that using nucleonic quasiparticles is only justified at low momenta $`p<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . At higher $`p`$ the quark degrees of freedom should be included explicitly.

The model predicts two interesting features. First, it reveals a first order phase transition of the liquid–gas type occurring at subsaturation densities. This phase transition automatically follows from the existence of the nuclear bound state and, therefore, must be present in any realistic model of nuclear matter. Second, the model predicts an approximate restoration of chiral symmetry at high baryon densities, $`\rho 3\rho _0`$ . This feature is also quite natural for the NJL model and is expected in any chiral model. But as follows from our analysis, this chiral transition does not produce any significant peculiarities in thermodynamical quantities. Only in the case of exact chiral symmetry ($`m_0=0`$) this phenomenon would correspond to a true second order phase transition. It is demonstrated that the chiral transition is manifested by increased fluctuations of the order parameter, i.e. the scalar condensate.

We want to stress that our model is able to describe simultaneously the saturation properties of nuclear matter and restoration of chiral symmetry at high baryon densities. The model exhibits only one first order phase transition of the liquid–gas type at subsaturation densities. Restoration of chiral symmetry develops gradually with increasing baryon density and does not lead to any phase transition. This confirms conclusions of Ref. Mis02  where we have shown that some popular predictions of the first order chiral phase transition are incompatible with phenomenological constraints.

In conclusion, we have achieved a good description of cold nuclear matter on the basis of a relatively simple chiral model. Within this model normal nuclei are interpreted as droplets of baryon–rich matter in a phase with spontaneously broken chiral symmetry. The gradual approach to a phase with restored chiral symmetry is predicted at baryon densities above $`3\rho _0`$ . This model can be easily extended to nonzero temperatures and finite nuclei.

Finally we want to emphasize the following. The liquid–gas phase transition discussed above can be observed via multiple production of nuclear fragments in nuclear reactions at intermediate energies. Nuclear multifragmentation is well established phenomenon and many observations reveal trends expected for such a phase transition. The situation with the chiral/deconfinement transition in baryon–rich matter is less certain. Despite of many interesting suggestions a similar unique phenomenon linked to this transition has not been established yet. We believe that effects of the chiral symmetry restoration will be most clearly seen in nuclear collisions at energies of a few 10 AGeV, when highest baryon densities are expected. But to find them one should be prepared for a thorough study of observables sensitive to chiral fluctuations.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by the DFG Grant 436 RUS 113/711/0-1 and the RFBR Grants 00–15–96590, 03-02-04007.


format: text

text:
# Spectral Irradiance Calibration in the Infrared. XIV: the Absolute Calibration of 2MASS

## 1 Introduction

In an ongoing series of papers, Cohen and his colleagues have described a framework for absolute IR calibration that embraces a variety of spaceborne, airborne, and ground-based photometers and spectrometers (see Cohen et al. (1999: hereafter “Paper X”), and references therein). The framework currently consists of an all-sky network of over 600 stars (Walker & Cohen 2002), each represented by a complete, absolute, low-resolution spectrum from 1.2 to 35 $`\mu `$m. This reliance on calibrated spectra provides the flexibility to incorporate any well-characterized photometer’s passbands, and spectrometers, into this common calibration scheme. Cohen et al. (2003: hereafter “Paper XIII”) have described the extension of this approach from purely IR template spectra to “supertemplates” and Kurucz (1993) models, that extend from the ultraviolet to the mid-IR. These procedures were designed to furnish on-orbit absolute calibrators for the instruments on board NASA’s Space InfraRed Telescope Facility (SIRTF), notably for the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC).

The technique involves normalizing a spectral supertemplate or model shape, appropriate to the spectral type and luminosity class of a star and suitably reddened, on the basis of optical photometry of the individual star. IRAC has four detector arrays, with central wavelengths of 3.6, 4.5, 6.5 and 8.0 $`\mu `$m. The IRAC detectors are roughly 2000 times more sensitive than those of IRAS and would have saturated on all but the faintest stars of the existing network. To create faint calibrators for IRAC, 2MASS $`JHK_s`$ data will be used to support these normalizations in the near-infrared (NIR). Therefore, it is essential to incorporate the 2MASS RSRs into the larger context described in Papers X and XIII, which already include approximately 110 characterized passbands.

The present paper describes our characterization of the three 2MASS passbands, incorporating information on the optics of the 2MASS cameras, their detector properties, the atmosphere above the two 2MASS telescopes and, in particular, the robustness of the 2MASS RSRs to variations in precipitable water vapor above the telescopes. §2 describes the elements that contribute to the RSRs of the three cameras, and tabulates the requisite combinations of optics+filter+detector+atmosphere that represent the path of starlight through each camera. §3 presents the RSRs, and provides their absolute “zero magnitude” attributes consistently with all other characterized passbands already within Table 2 of Paper X (IR bands), and Tables 3 and 12 of Paper XIII (optical RSRs). §4 investigates the influence of variations in water vapor on the calibration of the $`J`$-band. §5 builds on the set of thirty three absolute calibrators of intermediate brightness recently constructed in Paper XIII, by predicting their 2MASS magnitudes and comparing these with those actually observed. These comparisons are used to determine the “zero point offsets” (hereafter ZPOs: see §5 for their definition) for 2MASS, the final prerequisites before one is able to normalize supertemplate and model spectra directly by 2MASS photometry (see Table 3 of Paper X for details of the ZPOs for other IR photometric systems).

## 2 The 2MASS instruments

### 2.1 Optics

Our effort to characterize the end-to-end RSRs of 2MASS is based on the transmission data for the various components of the cameras 111http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/sec3\_1b1.html, which appears as part of the Explanatory Supplement for 2MASS222http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/explsup.html. Figure 1333http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/figures/seciii1bf2.gif illustrates light paths through the overall instrument, while Table 1 arranges these components from star to detector for each 2MASS band. No end-to-end wavelength-dependent RSRs were measured for the 2MASS system. Therefore, we have constructed these, from the products of the reflection and transmission characteristics of the relevant elements in the optical trains, to yield single files that can be used for synthetic photometry.

The primary and secondary mirrors of the pair of 2MASS telescopes have identical coatings. The plotted curve at the explanatory supplement’s URL is for a single reflection and, therefore, appears squared when one accounts for total system transmission. The transmission of the external dewar window applies identically to the $`JHK_s`$ paths. All three optical paths through the cameras contain seven coated lenses: one common lens ahead of the dichroics and six lenses per channel behind the dichroics. The “Camera Lens Coatings” curve on the Web is for transmission through a single lens element with its coatings. Thus, it is raised to the 7th power to assess the total spectral transmission through each lens assembly. The three dichroic mirrors occur in different combinations of reflection and transmission to provide the distinct light paths for the cameras (Table 1). The $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K_s`$ filter profiles quoted were tested at 77 K. The optical coatings were almost certainly tested at room temperature but the vendor provides no specifications or comparisons to document their behavior at the actual operating temperatures in the 2MASS cameras. The appropriate curves are already flat so that the expected wavelength shifts and shape changes are probably insignificant. The same consideration applies to the dichroic profiles: steep gradients in transmission and/or reflection occur in regions already blocked by the filters.

### 2.2 The NICMOS3 arrays

Adequate data exist within the 2MASS project for all components except for the detector quantum efficiency (hereafter DQE) curves that pertain to the actual 2MASS detector arrays. Only limited work was performed by Rockwell, in general, to characterize DQE as a function of wavelength. No specific characterization was provided for the 2MASS arrays. However, real curves were measured and supplied by Rockwell as part of the characterization and calibration of DENIS (Fouqué et al. 2000) for 12 regions surrounding the DENIS detectors, in each of the boules that provided the material from which the DENIS $`JK_s`$ detectors were cut. The Arcetri Near-Infrared Camera (ARNICA444http://www.arcetri.astro.it/irlab/instr/arnica/arnica.html) also contains a 256$`\times `$256 NICMOS3 array and was tested in Tucson at the same time as the 2MASS arrays were tested. Dr. L. K. Hunt has kindly provided us with the generic DQE information that she was offered by Rockwell when ARNICA’s array was delivered, and she reports that ARNICA has lower quantum efficiency than the 2MASS devices. Figure 2 compares the actual DQE curves for the DENIS $`J`$ and $`K_s`$ arrays with the generic information accompanying ARNICA. There are broad similarities between the structure displayed in the curves for all three devices, particularly within the range from 1–2.2 $`\mu `$m. We have, therefore, chosen to represent the 2MASS DQE curves by the “generic” curve accompanying ARNICA, which was intended as an exemplar of the material used in the 256$`\times `$256 format. The generic curve clearly satisfies the characteristics of NICMOS3 HgCdTe, as suggested by the DENIS curves. Given our ignorance of the actual 2MASS devices’ performance with wavelength, the qualitative statement that the overall value of the DQE for 2MASS’s arrays exceeds that for ARNICA is not an issue because we will renormalize all derived RSRs so their peaks are unity. We are grateful to Dr. M. F. Skrutskie for locating a set of plots from Rockwell characterizing the HgCdTe material produced at about the same time that the 2MASS NICMOS3 arrays were in production (1996). This documents DQE at 8 locations, albeit for a 1024$`\times `$1024 array. The curves are in broad agreement with those we offer in Figure 2, and combine the broad plateau seen in ARNICA around 1.3 $`\mu `$m with the elevated levels of the DENIS arrays beyond 2.0 $`\mu `$m.

### 2.3 The contribution of the atmosphere

To represent the intervening telluric transmissions above Mt Hopkins, AZ (MHO) and Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in Chile, we represented the atmospheric transmissions using PLEXUS555http://www2.bc.edu/~sullivab/soft/plexus.html#Desc, an AFRL validated “expert system” that incorporates atmospheric code, specifically MODTRAN 3.7, SAMM, and FASCODE3P with the HITRAN98 archives. PLEXUS contains an extensive database to support its expert aspect, so that the effects of aerosols and particulates appropriate to the desert conditions of the 2MASS sites were included. Paper X also used PLEXUS calculations to represent the site-specific atmospheric transmissions necessary to represent the more than one hundred ground-based filters characterized in that work.

We first verified that the ratio of PLEXUS-computed transmissions at MHO and CTIO was flat over the entire passbands of the $`H`$ and $`K_s`$ filters, and almost all the $`J`$ band, and very similar. Therefore, the use of a single calculation to incorporate the atmosphere for both 2MASS telescopes is justified.

### 2.4 Assembling the RSRs

With the sole exception of the DQE curves, every element in the 2MASS instrument is represented by data germane to the final survey cameras. Strictly, the direct products of all these component curves are valid only if we can ignore the “Stierwalt Effect”. If an interference filter is placed in close proximity to a detector array, the out-of-band-rejection may be greatly changed due to the increased solid angle seen by the detector. Filters are usually measured in a “collimated” beam, the rejected flux being scattered into a larger solid angle. We have explicitly assumed that this effect is not an issue within the 2MASS cameras. Lacking quantitative uncertainties for the characteristics of all these components, we have assigned an overall wavelength-independent error of 5% to the resulting RSRs.

## 3 2MASS RSRs

Figure 3 presents the three RSRs for 2MASS, including all the optics described above, the (ARNICA) generic DQE curve, and a single PLEXUS atmosphere representative of typical survey conditions. We have followed standard practice by normalizing each RSR to unity at its peak. Note that these RSRs are designed to be integrated directly over stellar spectra in Fλ form, in order to calculate synthetic photometric magnitudes. The quantum efficiency based component was converted to yield photon-counting RSRs by multiplying by $`\lambda `$ and renormalizing, exactly as described by Bessell (2000). These three RSRs can be found on the Web at: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/second/doc/sec3\_1b1.tbl12.html ($`J`$);
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/second/doc/sec3\_1b1.tbl13.html ($`H`$);
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/second/doc/sec3\_1b1.tbl14.html ($`K_s`$), but will soon be moved to analogous URLs on the “allsky” site.

### 3.1 The influence of water vapor variations

On some 2MASS survey nights, as much as a 20% variation in response in the $`J`$-band channel has been seen, presumably due to changes in telluric transmission. Figure 3 indicates that the $`J`$-band RSR is significantly influenced by water vapor near 1.35 $`\mu `$m. It is particularly susceptible to intra-night, as well as night-to-night, variations. If all else were unchanged, it is of interest to find out how variable the response might be if it depended solely on the water vapor content of the atmosphere, especially in the $`J`$-band. Therefore, we investigated the RSRs that would arise as a result of an order of magnitude variation in precipitable water, specifically for amounts of 0.5 and 5 mm. The former would have been a rather rare occurrence during 2MASS operations, while somewhat more than 5 mm would represent the worst conditions under which survey data were collected. These calculations were performed with the ATRAN code (Lord 1992). Calculating for the altitude of MHO, ATRAN predicts about 6.5 mm of precipitable water, but ATRAN enables arbitrary changes, to our selected values of 0.5 and subsequently to 5 mm, without altering any other aspect of the atmosphere (note that, although ATRAN lacks aerosols, particulates, and an expert database, it is a highly flexible code for the study of water vapor variations). Figure 4 illustrates the pair of resulting RSRs. The final adopted $`J`$ RSR also appears in Figure 4 where it is seen to compare very favorably with the ATRAN transmission curve for 5 mm of water. We still prefer the PLEXUS products because they have been used throughout Paper X, and for DENIS (Fouqué et al. 2000), and because the “expert” mode offers additional realism to our characterization of the atmosphere. The amount of precipitable water vapor in an ATRAN model is not directly comparable to that implied by a PLEXUS model for the same site because of the dependence on the database of actual measurements in PLEXUS, and the inclusion of other phenomena.

No effects were found on the 2MASS $`H`$ or $`K_s`$ bands due to these gross variations in water vapor.

## 4 The absolute calibration of 2MASS

To intermingle optical and IR photometry in the normalization of calibrated supertemplates (Paper XIII) requires that every band be well-characterized and that all are integrated over the identical, absolutely calibrated, Kurucz spectrum of Vega published by Cohen et al. (1992), which underpins the entire context of Paper X and, consequently, that of 2MASS and SIRTF too. In the IR we adopt the synthetic Vega spectrum as the definition of zero magnitude, whereas small but nonzero magnitudes apply in the optical (e.g. Bessell et al. 1998; Paper XIII).

Table 2 details the attributes for zero magnitude for 2MASS, giving in-band fluxes, isophotal wavelengths and frequencies, and the corresponding isophotal monochromatic intensities in Fλ and Fν units, all calculated using the RSRs in this paper. 2MASS $`JHK_s`$ can thereby be transparently compared with photometry in any of the bands in Paper X, and with spectra from all instruments using this common calibration scheme that unifies ground-based, airborne, and spaceborne calibrators. Table 3 offers an estimate of the differences in the absolute calibration of the 2MASS $`J`$-band for both 0.5 and 5 mm of water, based on the results of constructing RSRs using ATRAN, not PLEXUS. Although the resulting in-band fluxes vary by almost 11%, the isophotal quantities are quite robust in showing only a 2% variation.

Our recommended calibration of 2MASS at $`J`$ appears in Table 2, based on PLEXUS. Table 3 is shown purely to quantify the impact of isolated water variations on the $`J`$-band absolute calibration.

## 5 Zero point offsets

2MASS represents an extremely large body of system magnitudes, defined with respect to an internally homogeneous set of reference stars. Because these stars are not already members of the all-sky network of relatively bright calibrators of Paper X, we require one final step before we can convert 2MASS magnitudes into physical units that are self-consistent with those used by the Diffuse InfraRed Background Explorer, InfraRed Telescope in Space, Kuiper Airborne Observatory, Midcourse Space eXperiment, Infrared Space Observatory, and SIRTF. This step is the definition of the 2MASS ZPOs. The ZPOs are necessary in order to compute absolute quantities using 2MASS magnitudes and Table 2, in the form $`10^{0.4(m+z)}\times F_\lambda `$(0m), where m is the observed 2MASS magnitude and z is the algebraic ZPO for that band. Ideally, any photometric system calibrated in the common context of Paper X would be based on the use of any of the more than 600 stars now represented by complete, absolute, 1.2–35 $`\mu `$m spectra (e.g., those of Paper X). However, the extension of this network to a set of calibrators of intermediate brightness (i.e. $`K`$=4–10), suitable for use by 2MASS, has occurred only very recently, in readiness for SIRTF. Therefore, we will compute the ZPOs post facto, as the ensemble-averaged algebraic differences between observed and predicted 2MASS $`JHK_s`$ for a set of stars previously absolutely calibrated using other well-characterized NIR data not based on 2MASS.

Paper XIII sets out the procedures by which the suite of IRAC absolute calibrators has been defined, and then applies them to the creation of a set of thirty three 1.2–35 $`\mu `$m fiducial K0-M0IIIs and A0-A5V stars, drawn from two sets of precision standards: Landolt’s (1992) optical standards, and the Carter & Meadows (1995) optical-NIR photometric stars. These stars now extend the all-sky network described in Paper X downward by factors of 100-1000 in IR brightness. At these levels, they are suitable for cross-ties to 2MASS. The twenty four cool giants are based on $`BVRI`$ data (supplemented when available by Hipparcos and Tycho data, also calibrated in the common context: see Table 12 in Paper XIII) and on well-characterized $`JHK`$ measurements either from Tenerife (“TCS”) or South Africa (“SAAO”: see Paper X, Tables 2 and 3). The nine A-dwarfs are based entirely on $`BVRIJHK`$ data from Carter & Meadows (1995).

By integrating these absolute spectra through the newly-defined 2MASS RSRs and converting the resulting in-band fluxes into magnitudes using Table 2, we have derived the predicted set of 2MASS magnitudes. Direct comparison of these with the final version of observed 2MASS magnitudes enables us to define the “mean algebraic deviation” (hereafter MAD) of a star, by averaging the $`JHK_s`$ differences for that star. Table 4 presents the data for all thirty three stars, giving, for every star: name; spectral type; predicted and observed 2MASS $`JHK_s`$ magnitudes and uncertainties; the differences between these, with their associated errors; and the MAD. The ensemble average MAD results from combining all the (observed-minus-predicted) differences among the thirty three stars, either without weighting (-0.001$`\pm `$0.005 mag) or using inverse-variance weighting (+0.002$`\pm `$0.003 mag). We conclude that this set of stars has no significant bias, rendering it ideal to define the 2MASS ZPOs.

The uncertainty used for each observed 2MASS magnitude is the associated $`j`$, $`h`$, or “$`k\mathrm{\_}msigcom`$”, i.e. the “complete” error which incorporates the results of processing the photometry, internal errors (from $``$N photon statistics and sky background), and calibration errors (nightly zero point, flat fielding, and normalization uncertainties for each band). We were able to use differences for 33 $`J`$, 30 $`H`$, and 32 $`K_s`$ magnitudes. $`H`$-band data for three stars (HD172651 = SA110-471; SA107-35; SA108-827) were rejected because of saturation and/or the concomitant reduced “N out of M” (where only N measurements with aperture photometry above 3$`\sigma `$ were obtained out of a possible M, a common occurrence for objects on the R1 saturation threshold), or the intrusion of an artifact on one star’s $`H`$-band image. One $`K_s`$ magnitude (for SA110-471) was rejected from consideration because fewer than 3 non-saturated frames were obtained (“ph\_qual”=“E”). All rejected magnitudes and the associated MADs are identified by an asterisk in Table 4.

We have plotted the resulting MADs for the individual stars of the ensemble against spectral type (Figure 5), 2MASS $`JK`$ color (Figure 6), and 2MASS $`K`$ magnitude (Figure 7) and found no perceptible biases with respect to these quantities. The resulting ensemble-averaged ZPOs required to align 2MASS with our common context by algebraically adding them to the final 2MASS magnitudes are: +0.001$`\pm `$0.005 ($`J`$); –0.019$`\pm `$0.007 ($`H`$); +0.017$`\pm `$0.005 ($`K_s`$).

## 6 Conclusions

We have defined element-by-element, photon-counting RSRs for all three 2MASS filter bands, incorporating the properties of detectors, filters, dichroics, lenses, coatings, dewar window, telescopes, and the earth’s atmosphere. The RSRs are absolutely calibrated in the common context of Cohen et al. (1999,2003), and zero point offsets have been developed for 2MASS using thirty three new absolute calibrators of intermediate brightness. 2MASS data are now directly supporting the development of faint calibrators for IRAC and cross-calibrators between pairs of SIRTF instruments using these RSRs to compute synthetic photometry.

We are grateful to Drs. Mike Skrutskie and Roc Cutri for providing us with the 2MASS project’s corporate memory and understanding of the nuances of the documentation of optical components available over the Web, and for valuable comments on this manuscript. We thank Dr. Leslie Hunt for supplying the Rockwell generic HgCdTe DQE curve. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. MC’s work on IRAC’s calibrators is supported under contract SV9-69008 between UC Berkeley and The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.


text:
# A Review of The O–C Method and Period Change 11footnote 1published in 1999, Publ. Beijing Astron. Obs., 33, p.17

## 1 Introduction

The O–C diagram is a plot showing the observed times of maximum light(O) minus those calculated according to an adopted ephemeris(C) plotted as a function of time, mostly, the number of elapsed cycles. In the same way, the O–C diagram can also be constructed by the difference between the observed times of maximum radial velocity and the times predicted from an adopted ephemeris. One may find the minima are used instead of maxima for some variables. In particular, the spectroscopic and photometric O–C values are combined to produce a single O–C diagram.

The employment of the O–C diagram almost means normal or regular periodic light curve with a large amplitude is concerned. In other words, the times of maximum light can be determined sufficiently well from the observed light data. One can find ‘O’ by fitting a single sinusoid with an assumed pulsation period to observations. ‘O’ may be derived through local fit to the light curves around individual maxima as well. The latter is very useful in the case of asymmetrical light curves or light curves with changing amplitude such as the cycle-to-cycle or the day-by-day variations.

The Calculated times of maximum light ($`C_n`$) based on an adopted or estimated period ($`P_{\mathrm{est}}`$) and an initial epoch or Time of maximum light ($`T_0`$). Assuming that the observed times of maximum light, ($`T_0,T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N`$), are determined in different ways depending on different observers, we give O–C series as

$$(OC)_n=T_n(T_0+nP_{\mathrm{est}}),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},N$$
(1)
where n is the cycle number elapsed from the initial epoch at the observed point. Followings refer to different cases of period change in the point of O–C curve.

## 2 Different O–C Curves

### 2.1 Period Changing Nothing

At the beginning, we consider the case of period P keeps constant over the time span of observations covered. By assuming that

$$\begin{array}{c}P_{\mathrm{est}}=P+\delta P,T_0^{\mathrm{est}}=T_0+\delta T_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
then we can compute O–C as

$$(OC)_n=T_n[T_0+\delta T_0+n(P+\delta P)]$$
(3)
If $`\delta `$P=0, namely

$$\begin{array}{c}(OC)_n=T_n(T_0+\delta T_0+nP),(OC)=\delta T_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
the O–C diagram will consist of points scattered around a horizontal line:

$$(OC)_n=\delta T_0$$
(5)
by assuming $`T_n(T_0+nP)=O(0.0)`$, the same below.
If $`\delta T_0`$=0, that is

$$\begin{array}{c}(OC)_n=T_n(T_0+nP)n\delta P\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Clearly, $`(OC)_n`$ decreases with n increases, the O–C plot will be a straight line:

$$(OC)_n=n\delta P$$
(7)
If $`\delta P>0`$, that is $`P_{\mathrm{est}}`$ is longer than P, the O–C line will slop downwards; otherwise, $`\delta P<0`$, slop upwards. A vertical shift of the $`(OC)_n`$ line relative to $`\delta `$P=0, $`\delta T_0`$=0 lines in Fig. 1 tells us a shift in the epoch, the change in the phase of variation in other words.

### 2.2 Period Changing with Time

Now, if the period is changing with time, may be increasing or decreasing. Let P(t) stands for a changing period with a slow, constant rate $`\beta `$ as caused by stellar evolution, we write

$$P(t)=P_0+\beta t$$
(8)
The derivative of the equation above gives the rate of period changing $`\frac{dP(t)}{dt}=\beta `$. The stellar radius or mass changes due to evolutionary effects or mass loss often results in a slowly changing in period. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}C_n=T_0+nP_0,O_n=T_0+nP(T_n)\hfill \\ (OC)_n=n[P(T_n)P_0]=n\beta T_n,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},N\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
By denoting $`\mathrm{}`$P as the mean change during one period, when $`T_1=P,T_2=2P,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},T_N=NP`$, we obtain

$$P(T_1)=P_0+\mathrm{}P,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},P(T_N)=P_0+N\mathrm{}P$$
(10)
So during the time span of the observations concerned, the change of the period is

$$(OC)_n=n[P(T_n)P_0]=\mathrm{}Pn^2$$
(11)
This is a parabola equation (see Fig. 2).

With assumption that

$$C_{n_0}=T_0+P_0n_0,O_{n_0}=T_0(n_0)+P_0n_0$$
(12)
we have

$$(OC)_n=(OC)_{nn_0}+(OC)_{n_0}=\mathrm{}P(nn_0)^2+(T_0(n_0)T_0)$$
(13)
Now the equation demonstrates the information of both the epoch $`T_0`$ and the period change $`\mathrm{}`$P are included in the O–C diagram. The measured accuracy of period changes increases as $`n^2`$. Hence it is more important to extend the observations for a well-studied variable star.

The predicted evolutionary period changes of variable stars is commonly difficult to be revealed in the O–C diagram because the evolutionary changes may still be too small to be detected after a few tens of years. In that cases, the O–C diagram should be essentially a straight line. In special, in those stars evolving to the red toward the end of their horizontal branch lifetimes, the evolutionary period changes, while still small, ought to be large enough to be detected. In these cases, the O–C diagram should be well represented by a parabolic curve, which should indicate a slow rate of period increase. A few stars might be caught in the interval of core instability, and could show period increases or decreases much larger than $`dP/dt`$=0.025 days per million years.

Prager (1939) noted that three field RR Lyrae stars’ periods did not change at a constant rate, but were better modeled assuming abrupt period changes. Abruptness, of course, does not accord with a model in which period change results from smooth evolution. Usually, the period changes revealed in the O–C diagram were more abrupt than a perfect parabola would allow. The period changes are small compared to the length of the period itself but because many cycles have passed by, the cumulative effects on the O–C diagram may be large. In some stars, the observations can be well fit by assuming that the period is changing at a constant rate (parabola O–C diagram), but many others follow Prager’s stars seem to have abrupt changes in period. When fit by a parabola, the derived rates of period change are usually in the range of $``$1 to +1 days per million years, or a change of less than 10 seconds during 50–100 years in which the stars have been under observation.

### 2.3 The Phase-shift Diagram

In addition to the O–C diagram, an analogy, the phase-shift diagram is also applied to interpret period changes in light (e.g. Percy et al. 1980, Breger 1990). Followings show the phase-shift diagram functions exactly the same as the classical O–C diagram. We define quantity $`f_i`$ as below:

$$f_i\frac{t_it_0}{P_{\mathrm{est}}}$$
(14)
here $`t_i`$ is the observed times such as times of maximum light of pulsating stars, $`t_0`$ is any arbitrary reference time, $`P_{\mathrm{est}}`$ is an estimated period. The fraction remained of $`f_i`$ constructs the phase $`\varphi _i`$, and the integer of $`f_i`$ produces the cycle number N. A plot of the phase against the cycle number is thus called the phase-shift diagram. Under the assumption that the period P is changing uniformly at a rate of $`\beta `$ described by eq.(8) where $`P_0`$ is the period value at $`t_0`$, t is the time interval passed by from $`t_0`$, hence

$$P_i=P_0+\beta (t_it_0),i=1,2,3,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},N$$
(15)
If we take the mean of $`P_0`$ and $`P_i`$, the period at middle point of the two periods is

$$P=\frac{1}{2}(P_i+P_0)=P_0+\frac{1}{2}\beta (t_it_0)$$
(16)
we have cycle numbers from $`P_0`$ to $`P_i`$:

$$n=\frac{t_it_0}{P}=\frac{t_it_0}{P_0+\frac{1}{2}\beta (t_it_0)},(t_it_0)=\frac{nP_0}{1\frac{1}{2}\beta n}$$

Such that we find $`\varphi _n`$:

$$\varphi _n=\frac{t_it_0}{P_{\mathrm{est}}}n=\frac{nP_0}{P_{\mathrm{est}}(1\frac{1}{2}\beta n)}n$$
(17)
Without loss of generality, $`\frac{1}{2}\beta n1`$, we make use of series expansion that

$$\frac{1}{1\frac{1}{2}\beta n}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\frac{1}{2}\beta n)^n1+\frac{1}{2}\beta n$$
(18)
therefore,

$$\varphi _n=\frac{nP_0}{P_{\mathrm{est}}}(1+\frac{1}{2}\beta n)n=(P_0P_{\mathrm{est}})\frac{n}{P_{est}}+\frac{1}{2P_{\mathrm{est}}}P_0\beta n^2=(P_0P_{\mathrm{est}})\frac{n}{P_{\mathrm{est}}}+\frac{1}{2}\beta n^2$$
(19)
($`P_0/P_{\mathrm{est}}1,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},N`$). The equation presents a parabola about cycle number n. Quantity $`\beta `$, is generally used to characterize the period change rates of variables. It is the rate of period change determined through fitting a parabola to the O–C diagram, and is normally presented in the unit of days/days or days/year. A unit of days per million years for $`\beta `$ is chosen by some authors. $`\frac{1}{P}\frac{dP}{dt}`$ is sometimes presented as the period change rate in unit cycle/year.

## 3 Analytic O–C Curves

We describe the light brightness of a variable star with a sinusoidal waveform as:

$$L(t)=L_0+A\mathrm{sin}(2\pi t/P)$$
(20)
where P is the period of light variation, A is the amplitude of the sinusoidal wave, $`L_0`$ is the zero point. It is well known that the times of maximum light occur at $`L^{}(t)=0`$, which yields $`O_n=\{T_0,T_1,T_2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},T_N\}`$. At the same time, $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P}`$ 1 and $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P}`$ 0, at the times of maximum light. The period changes in the light curves are discussed in several different sources below.

### 3.1 Frequency Modulation

For frequency or period modulation, theoretical light curve is defined by

$$L_\mathrm{f}(t)=L_0+A\mathrm{sin}(2\pi t/P(t))$$
(21)
$`L_\mathrm{f}^{}(t)`$=0 produces $`O_n`$ as

$$O_n=\frac{P(t)}{4}(2n+1),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},N$$
(22)
$`C_n`$ are naturally derived from $`L(t)=L_0+A\mathrm{sin}(2\pi t/P)`$, so

$$(OC)_n=\frac{1}{4}(2n+1)(P(t)P),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},N$$
(23)
Recalling eq.(8): $`P(t)=P+\beta t=P+\beta Pn`$ which means $`\beta `$ is the period change over one cycle, thus

$$(OC)_n=\frac{1}{2}\beta Pn^2+\frac{1}{4}\beta Pn$$
(24)
this is a parabola with respect to cycle number n.

### 3.2 Amplitude Modulation

The change in period caused by the variability of amplitude called amplitude modulation is described as:

$$L_\mathrm{a}(t)=L_0+A(t)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi t/P),A(t)a\mathrm{sin}(2\pi t/P_\mathrm{A})$$
(25)
A(t) refers to a sinusoidal amplitude modulation which causes a secondary period $`P_\mathrm{A}`$ in the light curve. The calculus of $`L_\mathrm{a}`$(t), $`L_\mathrm{a}^{}(t)`$, gives observed times of maximum light $`O_n`$:

$$\frac{1}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi O_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi O_n}{P}+\frac{1}{P}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi O_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi O_n}{P}=0$$
(26)
By making use of the replacement of $`O_n=(OC)_n+C_n`$ just for the triangle functions involving P and expanding them. Without loss of generality we presume

$$(OC)_nP;\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P}$$
(27)
and with the help of the features mentioned in the beginning of this section: $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P}1`$, we find

$$\frac{1}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi O_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}(\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P}+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P})+$$

$$\frac{1}{P}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi O_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}(\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P})=0$$
(28)
Expanding similarly now the two functions including $`P_\mathrm{A}`$, and recalling that $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P}`$ 0, $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P}`$ 1, $`L_\mathrm{a}^{}(t)=0`$ becomes

$$\frac{1}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}\frac{1}{P_\mathrm{A}}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}$$

$$\frac{1}{P}\frac{[2\pi (OC)_n]^2}{PP_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}\frac{1}{P}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}=0$$

Note that the coefficient of the third term of the equation above is infinitely small at higher order of $`\frac{(OC)_n}{P}`$ which is set to almost zero as our original consideration. This yields

$$2\pi (OC)_n(\frac{1}{P_\mathrm{A}^2}\frac{1}{P^2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}})+\frac{1}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}=0$$
(29)
When $`P_\mathrm{A}`$ is so large enough that $`\frac{(OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}`$ 1, we can make following simplifications:

$$\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}1\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}},\frac{[2\pi (OC)_n]^2}{P_\mathrm{A}}0$$
(30)
Consequently, we get

$$(OC)_n=\frac{P_\mathrm{A}}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}}{1+(\frac{P_\mathrm{A}}{P})^2+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}}$$
(31)
This relation shows the shape of O–C is predominated by the modulation period $`P_\mathrm{A}`$. If $`P_\mathrm{A}P`$, like cycle-to-cycle modulation,

$$(OC)_n\frac{P_\mathrm{A}}{2\pi }$$

that indicates a shift of $`P_\mathrm{A}/2\pi `$ with respect to the zero line showing constant periodic light. In the case of great difference between $`P_\mathrm{A}`$ and P, if $`P_\mathrm{A}P`$, the long-term amplitude modulation, stimulation shows only a tiny scatter around the zero of the O–C, while $`P_\mathrm{A}P`$, the high frequency amplitude modulation, the feature of the O–C is of the behaviour of periodic amplitude variation, we have after neglecting the term including P in eq.(29),

$$(OC)_n=\frac{P_\mathrm{A}}{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_\mathrm{A}}$$
(32)
A sinusoidal light curve with an amplitude modulation may have a significant variation in O–C, while a saw-tooth light curve with the same amplitude modulation will show an absolutely flat O–C.

### 3.3 Double Mode Case

As for double-mode variables with small amplitudes, we choose:

$$L_\mathrm{d}(t)=L_0+Asin\frac{2\pi t}{P_1}+Bsin(\frac{2\pi t}{P_2}+\varphi )$$

Let $`L_\mathrm{d}^{}(t)`$=0 for finding $`O_n`$ and so $`(OC)_n`$. Replacing $`O_n`$ with $`(O_nC_n)+C_n=(OC)_n+C_n`$. With assumption of $`(OC)_nP_1`$, so $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_1}1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_1}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_2}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_2}`$, and recall that we want to find $`P_2`$ in the O–C diagram. Therefore, the expanding of $`L_d^{}(t)`$=0 is equivalent to

$$\frac{P_2}{P_1}\frac{A}{B}\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_1}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_1}+\frac{2\pi (OC)_n}{P_2}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )=\frac{P_2}{P_1}\frac{A}{B}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_1}+\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )$$

thus we have $`(OC)_n`$ like

$$(OC)_n=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\frac{P_2}{P_1}\frac{A}{B}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_1}+\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )}{\frac{P_2}{P_1^2}\frac{A}{B}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_1}+\frac{1}{P_2}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )}$$
(33)
At the times of maximum light, we know $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_1}0,\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_1}1.`$ Finally, we get

$$(OC)_n=\frac{P_2}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )}{(\frac{P_2}{P_1})^2\frac{A}{B}+\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )}$$
(34)
For the two different periods, $`P_2/P_10.78`$ is the normal case for the large-amplitude $`\delta `$ Sct stars. Taking a common amplitude ratio value of 0.30 and a second period of 0.03 d we may simplify eq.(34) to be

$$(OC)_n\frac{0.005\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )}{0.2+\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )}$$

Beating phenomenon can also be involved in the feature of the O–C curve when the two periods are closely spaced with near amplitudes. Furthermore, the effects of the beating will be particularly obvious in the times of maximum light, giving a large O–C amplitude. An interference of two oscillations with the same amplitude A for a suspect $`\beta `$ Cep star, 53 Psc (Wolf 1987), leads to the amplitude modulation of the form:

$$A_\mathrm{b}=A\sqrt{2(1+cos\frac{2\pi t}{P_\mathrm{b}})},\frac{1}{P_\mathrm{b}}=\frac{1}{P_2}\frac{1}{P_1}$$
(35)
here $`P_b`$ is the beat period. Based on this equation, the time required for the amplitude to reach a certain value $`A_{obs}`$, counted from the epoch of $`A_\mathrm{b}`$=0, can be derived as

$$\mathrm{}t\frac{P_\mathrm{b}A_\mathrm{b}}{2\pi A}$$
(36)
One more example is the light-time effect in a binary system if $`P_2P_1`$, from which the O–C curve may be interpreted,

$$(OC)_n=\frac{P_1^2}{2\pi P_2}\frac{B}{A}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\pi C_n}{P_2}+\varphi )$$
(37)
The information revealed by the O–C diagram depends on both ‘O’ constructed from maxima (often used for pulsating stars) or minima (as in binary) and the methods used to derive the ‘O’ from the data. Usually four ways to find ‘O’, we take

* the time of maximum brightness for each single observation;
* the time of maximum brightness in a smoothed light curve;
* the phase of the maximum of a representative mean light curve fitted to all or a portion of the observations over that cycle;
* the time of maximum derived from an exact solution for a Fourier series which has been fitted to the data.

## 4 The Light–Time Effect of A Binary

If a pulsating star is a member of a binary system, an independent estimate of the mass from stellar pulsation theory can be given. This is the intention of the detection of the light-time effect (LTE) of a pulsating star.

### 4.1 Examples of Three $`\beta `$ Cep Stars

Pigulski has throughly investigated the nature of the period changes of three large-amplitude $`\beta `$ Cephei-type stars: $`\beta `$ Cephei itself (the prototype of this class), $`\sigma `$ Scorpii and BW Vulpeculae in terms of the combined O–C diagram constructed from both the light and radial velocity data. It was shown that the observed period changes were caused by the superposition of a constant-rate period change originated from normal stellar evolution and of the light-time effect in a binary system.

Pigulski and Boratyn (1992) proposed that the observed changes of $`\beta `$ Cephei (=HR 8238=HD 205021, V=3.23, B1 IV) can be understood in terms of orbital motion of the variable in a binary system, in which the secondary is the less massive companion resolved by speckle interferometry. In fact, the companion in the system of $`\beta `$ Cep was found in the speckle interferometric way by Gezari et al. (1972). By assuming that the orbital motion is the unique cause of the observed variation of the pulsation period,

$$P_{\mathrm{puls}}=P_0(1+\frac{V_{\mathrm{rad}}}{c})$$
(38)
$`V_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is fully described by six elements of the spectroscopic orbit: $`\gamma `$, radial velocity of the system’s barycentre; $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$, orbital period; $`K_1`$, semi-amplitude of the radial velocity curve, due to orbital motion of the variable; $`e`$, eccentricity of the orbit; $`\omega `$, longitude of periastron; $`T_0`$, the time of periastron passage. The analyses of a single O–C diagram constructed in terms of both the photometric and radial velocity times of maximum offered by Pigulski and Boratyn (1992) show that the apparent changes of the pulsation period of $`\beta `$ Cep can be explained by the light-time effect, induced by the orbital motion of the variable around the barycentre of the variable-speckle companion system.

$`\sigma `$ Scorpii (=HR 6084=HD 147165, B1 III) is a quadruple system. Its light variability can be described as a superposition of four periodic terms( Jerzykiewicz & Sterken 1984), of which the main pulsation period $`P_2`$= $`0^d`$.24684 and $`P_1`$=0d.23967 are also observed in radial velocity. The combined O–C diagram using the times of maximum radial velocity and light displays both an increase and a decrease of the main pulsation period. The period changes seen in the O–C curves can be explained neither by an evolutionary effect nor by LTE alone.

$$(OC)_{\mathrm{LT}}=(OC)+0^d.000015E1^d.29\times 10^{10}E^2$$
(39)
In fact, both effects contributed to the observed changes of the main pulsation period of $`\sigma `$ Sco. And LTE is caused by the speckle tertiary. Due to the observations do not cover the whole orbital period of the tertiary, the $`(OC)_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ diagram cannot help to give a more accurate value of the orbital period than that provided by Evans et al. (1986), is of the order of 100–350 yr. In this sense, the spectroscopic elements are unavailable from the $`(OC)_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ diagram. But it is sure that the changes seen in the $`(OC)_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ diagram can be fully explained by the orbital motion (Pigulski 1992).

BW Vulpeculae (=HR 8007=HD , V=6.55, B2 III) is a monoperiodic large-amplitude $`\beta `$ Cep star. Odell (1984) and Jiang Shi-Yang (1985) showed that the parabolic fit to the O–C diagram of BW Vul yields periodic residuals. Both authors attributed these residuals to LTE induced by the motion of the star in a binary system with an orbital period of about 25 yr. Pigulski (1993) showed that the combined effect of the increase of period with a rate of +2.34 s/cen and LTE in a binary system ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$=33.5$`\pm `$0.4 yr) fully accounts for the observed changes of the pulsation period of BW Vul. The light-time effect in the $`(OC)_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ diagram is, for the time being, the only observational evidence for the presence of a companion to BW Vul (see Fig. 3). For BW Vul, the times of minimum light and of minimum radial velocity were used in the determination of period changes. One ephemeris of minimum radial velocity was adopted so as to produce a single O–C diagram.

All periodic variables with stable periods such as pulsating stars, eclipsing binaries and pulsars offer the possibility of detecting unseen companion(s) by means of the light-time effect. A pulsating star is a promising candidate for the detection of LTE provided that it belongs to a binary or multiple system. A simplest case is the LTE in a double system with a circular orbit. In the O–C diagram, the changes of the period P of a signal emitted by the visible component (pulsating primary) due to LTE will have the form of a sine curve with semi-amplitude equal to $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}K_1/2\pi c`$, where $`2K_1`$ is the range of the primary’s radial velocity curve, $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is the orbital period. The amplitude of LTE depends proportionally on $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and $`K_1`$ and is equal to the time which light needs for passing the projected orbit. For a given orbital period, short-period variables are more suitable for the study of LTE than the long-period ones because the visibility of LTE depends on the $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}/P`$ ratio. Pigulski (1995) listed 10 objects including eclipsing binaries for which period changes attributable to LTE are observed.

### 4.2 The Binary Model of The $`\delta `$ Sct Star CY Aqr

The possibility that CY Aqr is a spectroscopic binary (see Fig. 4) immediately leads to the hope that a mass can be determined. In Figure 5 we show the relationship between the masses of the two companions for assumed values of the orbital inclination. The curve for $`i=90^{}`$ sets a lower limit to $`m_2`$ at each $`m_1`$. Recent results given by McNamara et al.(1996) indicate: $`m_1`$=1.06 M, $`M_v`$=2.5. For this mass value of the primary star $`m_2`$ rounds 0.15 M. The companion must be fainter than CY Aqr by about 8.8 mag. We stress that, the binary model seems to us to be the most plausible interpretation of the variable times of maximum light. It remains only a reasonable hypothesis until new confirming data are available. The simplest and most easily accomplished test is to examine the radial velocity of CY Aqr with a 1.4 km s-1 amplitude predicted by the model.

## 5 Period Change Noise

Some stars appear to be unchanged in period over the time span of observations; others have undergone multiple changes in period. Some stars have exhibited both an increase and a decrease in period, as can be seen in the O–C diagram of RR Gem in Fig. 6. Stellar evolution is not expected as we know to act so quickly as to cause period changes in both directions in so short a span. Moreover, the sizes of the observed period changes are often much larger than expected from theory. We call this difference as “period change noise”. In this regard, it is not unquestionable to attribute the period changes observed in any individual star to evolution alone.

The period change noise is a result of random mixing events associated with the semiconvective zone of the stellar core (Sweigart and Renzini 1979). The changes in the internal structure of a variable star arise in two ways: through the gradual change in core composition caused by nuclear burning, but also through a composition redistribution in the deep interior caused by convective overshooting and the formation of a semiconvective zone. Whereas this composition redistribution is assumed in standard calculations to proceed smoothly on the same timescales as nuclear burning. The nuclear reaction and convection need not be perfectly coupled at every instant of time. For an actual star, the composition redistribution is a discontinuous process. There might then be many mixing events, each slightly altering the internal of the star, and each leading to a change in period. Furthermore, different types of mixing events can account for both period increasing and decreasing. The observed timescales of period changes are in at least rough agreement with the mixing event hypothesis. Nuclear burning would be expected to produce a slow rate of period change which would be essentially unvarying over the span of a century. The mixing events, on the other hand, if they took place quickly would produce period changes which would seem abrupt; to the contrary, on a longer timescale they might produce period changes which, for one hundred years, would seem constant in rate. Of course, over a sufficiently long period of time, the period changes due to nuclear burning and discrete mixing events at the semiconvective zone must average to the value predicted by those evolutionary calculations which assume that the composition redistribution takes place smoothly.

As another origin for the period change noise, proposed by Stothers (1980), which invoking hydromagnetic effects (such as for RR Lyrae stars). It is a common phenomenon involving stellar magnetism.

Third, Dearborn et al. (1990) suggested that exotic particles, such as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS), might produce changes in the pulsation periods (say of RR Lyrae stars). The existence of these particles has been postulated to explain the apparent existence of large amounts of dark matter in galaxies. These particles might become trapped within stars, where they can provide a new mechanism of energy transfer. In the case of horizontal branch stars, WIMPS might cause thermal pulses to occur on the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale for the stellar core. These thermal pulses would produce period changes. The timescale calculated for these changes, however, on the order of $`10^6`$ yr, is too long to explain the shorter term period noise.

Fourth, the light travel time effect because of orbital motion in a binary stars system may be another possible source for apparent period changes as in RR Lyrae variables identified by Coutts (1971), and in $`\beta `$ Cephei stars inspected by Pigulski & Boratyn (1992) and Pigulski (1992, 1993). The motion of a star in a binary system could introduce a long term periodic oscillation in the O–C diagram for the time of maximum light, as the star alternately approaches and recedes from us. It is difficult, however, to build a case for the binary nature of any variables from O–C data alone. The examples are comparatively few. Saha and White (1990) have argued on the basis of O–C data and radial velocity observations that TU UMa, a RR Lyrae stars, may be a binary; Barnes III and Moffett(1975) and Moffett et al. (1987, 1988) evidenced the duplicity of SZ Lyncis, a dwarf Cepheid; others as BS Aqr (Fu Jiang-Ning et al. 1997), CY Aqr(Zhou Ai-Ying & Fu Jiang-Ning 1998), BE Lyn (Kiss & Szatmary 1995, Liu et al. 1994, Tang et al. 1992, Liu et al. 1991), BW Vul (Pigulski 1993) and so on (we refer the reader to examples preceded by Pigulski 1993, 1995). However, does the binary hypothesis by itself provide an adequate explanation for the period change behavior?

Finally, mass loss might alter the theoretical period changes. For stars on the horizontal branch lost their masses when they were in the instability strip, that is, when they were RR Lyrae stars. But, the predicted rates of period changes were not significantly changed for mass loss rates as high as $`10^9`$M/yr.

## 6 Period Change to Metallicity

As a variable star evolves through the H–R diagram, crossing its various stages of evolution, the metal abundance or chemical composition changes as well as its period does. In other words, at each given effective temperature periods vary with metallicity. Thus it is natural there is some correlation between the two observable quantities. In real, the period change depends on the change of chemical abundance. We write the relationship of the period change with respect to metallicity, P—\[Fe/H\], as

$$\frac{dP}{dt}=\frac{dP}{dt}([Fe/H],P)$$

The spectral type determined from the hydrogen Balmer lines (termed Sp(H)) was often later than the spectral type determined from the prominent Ca II K line at 3933Å(termed Sp(K)), which investigated by Preston (1959) under a low resolution spectroscopic survey of RR Lyrae stars in the solar vicinity. On the basis of the difference, Preston then proposed $`\mathrm{}S`$ index as an indicator of metal abundance (hereafter the $`\mathrm{}`$S method):

$$\mathrm{}S=10[Sp(H)Sp(K)]$$
(40)
which was later on confirmed by the analyses of high resolution spectra of RR Lyrae stars (Preston 1961; Butler 1975) and of model stellar spectra (Manduca 1981). Butler(1975) derived

$$[Fe/H]=0.230.16\mathrm{}S$$
(41)
Blanco(1992) further improved above as

$$[Fe/H]=(0.34\pm 0.02)(0.18\pm 0.05)\mathrm{}S$$
(42)
Based on the globular cluster metallicity scale (adopted by Zinn & West 1984, and Zinn 1985), Suntzeff et al. (1991) got following calibration,

$$[Fe/H]=0.4080.158\mathrm{}S$$
(43)
is about 0.2 dex more metal-poor than Butler’s scale. In the case of RRab stars, lower $`\mathrm{}`$S (high metallicity), smaller period changes; higher $`\mathrm{}`$S (low metallicity), bigger period changes. Iron abundance \[Fe/H\] is inferred from the strength of the calcium H-line. Certainly, such a calibration does not require that \[Fe/H\] = \[Ca/H\]. Thus, it does require that there exist a one-to-one correlation between iron and calcium abundances. In fact, \[Ca/H\] appears to be slightly high compared to \[Fe/H\] for metal-poor stars in general. Manduca (1981) provided an approximate relation as

$$[Ca/H]=0.8[Fe/H]$$
(44)
for theoretical calibration of the $`\mathrm{}`$S index.

In addition to the method, other metallicity indicators have also been developed. The photometric indices among which are Sturch’s(1966) broadband ultraviolet blanketing index $`\delta `$(U-B), the photometric k-line index $`(kb)_2`$ (Jones 1971, 1973), the Strömgren $`m_1`$ index (Epstein 1969, Epstein and Epstein 1973), and the Walraven system $`\delta `$\[B-L\] index (Lub 1977, 1979). In brief, metallicity can be estimated from $`\mathrm{}S`$(Preston), $`(kb)_2`$(Jones), $`\mathrm{}(BL)`$ (Walraven), $`\delta (UB)`$ (Sturch) and $`\delta m_1`$ (Strömgren photometry). For the range 0$`\mathrm{}`$ S$``$12, we have relationships below among the approaches:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}S=84\delta (UB)+14\hfill \\ \mathrm{}S=44(kb)_2+10\hfill \\ \mathrm{}S=99(m_1)_0+16\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
(Butler 1975) and

$$\mathrm{}S=11.9194\mathrm{}[BL]+815(\mathrm{}[BL])^2$$
(46)
(Blanco 1992). If metallicity did not change over the pulsation cycle of the star, these indices would remain constant. Rodríguez et al.(1990) failed a test of this internal consistency in the fact of SX Phe and the large amplitude $`\delta `$ Sct stars. Instead, they concluded that the $`m_1`$ index variation is larger when the metal abundance is smaller.

## 7 Ending Remarks

The O–C diagram provides us the accurate period and maximum epoch of a variable star, a detector of its period and phase changes, and the information about the spectroscopic orbital elements if it is a binary. Plus, the O–C data provide constraints on stellar evolution theory. For binary systems, O–C analyses of eclipses can reveal very gradual changes due to tidal interactions, or even to gravitational radiation.

The information of period changes is also presented as a phase diagram instead of a classical O–C diagram. Various shapes of the O–C curves correspond to following different cases:

1. The O–C diagram for a star without measurable changes in period is a straight line.
2. If the period of the star is constant, and if the correct period has been adopted, points on the O–C diagram will scatter around a straight horizontal line (see Fig. 1).
3. If the period of the star is constant, but the adopted period is too long or too short, the straight line will slop up or down (see Fig. 1).
4. If the period of the star is changing at a slow, constant rate (i.e. $`P(t)=P_0+\beta t`$ where $`\beta `$ is small), then a good approximation of the O–C diagram can be represented by a parabola (see Fig. 2).
5. If the period change is caused by the light-time effect in a binary system, the light curve appears to be sinusoidal (see Fig. 3).
6. Broken lines—abrupt or jump changes of period (see Fig. 6).

In order to interpret an O–C diagram correctly, it is necessary to know a number of cycles have elapsed between two observed maxima or since an initial epoch. The determination of elapsed cycles from an epoch is not always easy and reliable especially while the period of the star has been changing significantly.

All common period-finding techniques assume that the periods are constant over the time span of the observations and that the phases are stable. However, these conditions are not always met by variables. Therefore, the O–C method is, in fact, one of the necessities of period analysis. A short review on the O–C method we refer to Willson (1986), a detailed theoretical study may be also referred to the paper series published in MNRAS (Koen &Lombard 1993, 1995; Lombard & Koen 1993; Koen 1996). Koen and Lombard had paid scrupulous attention to the O–C methodology. They pointed out that the problem suffered from within the O–C method that the series of intervals among times is non-stationary so that the applications of this technique may lead to spurious conclusions. As well, they modelled the period changes in variable stars on a quantitative basis, especially supplied tests for the presence of intrinsic scatter in the periods of the long-period pulsating stars.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

References

Barnes III T. G. and Moffett T. J., 1975, AJ, 80, 48
Blanco V., 1992, AJ, 104, 734
Breger M., 1990, in Confrontation Between Stellar Pulsation and Evolution, eds. C. Cacciari and G. Clementini, ASP Conf. Ser., Vol.11, p.263
Butler D., 1975, ApJ, 200, 68
Coutts C. M., 1971, in New Directions and New Frontiers in Variable Star Research, veroff. der Remeis-Sternwarte Bamberg, IX, Nr. 100, 238
Dearborn D., Raffelt G., Salat P., Silk J., and Bouquet A., 1990, ApJ, 354, 568
Epstein I., 1969, AJ, 74, 1131
Epstein I. and Epstein A. E. A., 1973, AJ, 78, 83
Evans D. S., Mcwilliam A., Sandmann W. H., Frueh M., 1986, AJ, 92, 1210
Fu Jiang-Ning, Jiang Shi-Yang, Gu Sheng-Hong, Qiu Yu-Lei, 1997, IBVS No.4518
Gezari D. Y., Labeyrie A., Stachnik R. V., 1972, ApJ, 173, L1
Jerzykiewicz M. and Sterken C., 1984, MNRAS, 211, 297
Jiang Shi-Yang, 1985, Acta Astrophys. Sinica, 5, 192
Jones D. H. P., 1971, MNRAS, 154, 79
Jones D. H. P., 1973, ApJS, 25, 487
Kiss L.I. and Szatmary K., 1995, IBVS No.4166
Koen C., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 471(IV)
Koen C. and Lombard F., 1993, MNRAS, 263, 287(I)
Koen C. and Lombard F., 1995, MNRAS, 274, 821(III)
Liu Yan-Ying, Jiang Shi-Yang, Cao Ming, 1991, IBVS No.3606
Liu Zong-Li and Jiang Shi-Yang, 1994, IBVS No. 4077
Lombard F. and Koen C., 1993, MNRAS, 263, 309(II)
Lub J., 1977, A&AS, 29, 345
Lub J., 1979, AJ, 84, 383
Manduca A., 1981, ApJ, 245, 248
McNamara, D. H., Powell, J. M., and Joner, M. D. 1996, PASP, 108, 1098
Moffett T.J., Barnes III T.G., Fekel F.C., et al., 1987, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 19, 1085
Moffett T.J., Barnes III T.G., Fekel F.C., et al., 1988, AJ, 95, 1534
Odell A. P., 1984, PASP, 96, 657
Percy, J. R., Mattews, J. M., and Wade, J. D. 1980, A&A, 82, 172
Pigulski A., 1992, A&A, 261, 203
Pigulski A., 1993, A&A, 274, 269
Pigulski A. and Boratyn D. A., 1992, A&A, 253, 178
Pigulski A., 1995, in Astronomical and Astrophysical Objectives of Sub-Milliarcsecond Optical Astronomy. eds. E. H$`ø`$g and P. K. Seidelmann, IAU Symp., Vol.166, p.205
Prager R., 1939, Harv. Bull., No.911, 1
Preston G. W., 1959, ApJ, 130, 507
Preston G. W., 1961, ApJ, 134, 633
Rodríguez E., López de Coca P., Rolland A., Garrido R., 1990 , Rev. Mexican Astron Astrof., 20, 37
Saha A. and White R. E., 1990, PASP, 102, 148(erratum: 102, 495)
Smith H. A., 1995, RR Lyrae Stars, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Stothers R., 1980, PASP, 92, 475
Sturch C., 1966, ApJ, 143, 774
Suntzeff N. B., Kinman T. D., and Kraft R. P., 1991, ApJ, 367, 528
Sweigart A. V. and Renzini A., 1979, A&A, 71, 66
Szabados L., 1988, PASP, 100, 589
Tang Qing-Quan, Yang Da-Wei, Jiang Shi-Yang, 1992, IBVS No.3771
Willson L. A., 1986, in The Study of Variable Stars using Small Telescopes, ed. John R. Percy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.219
Wolf M., 1987, IBVS No.3003
Zhou Ai-Ying and Fu Jiang-Ning, 1998, Delta Scuti Star Newsletter, 12, 28(Vienna)
Zinn R., 1985, ApJ, 293, 424
Zinn R. and West M. J., 1984, ApJS, 55, 45