format: text

text:
# Absorption of solar radiation by solar neutrinos

## Abstract

We calculate the absorption probability of photons radiated from the surface of the Sun by a left-handed neutrino with definite mass and a typical momentum for which we choose $`|p_1|=0.2`$ MeV, producing a heavier right-handed antineutrino. Considering two transitions the $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _2\nu _3`$ we obtain two oscillation lengths $`L_{12}=4960.8`$ m, $`L_{23}=198.4`$ m, two absorption probabilities $`P_{12}^{\mathrm{abs}.}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}\times 10^{67}`$, $`P_{23}^{\mathrm{abs}.}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.2}\times 10^{58}`$ and the two absorption ranges $`R_{12}^{\mathrm{abs}.}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.47}\times 10^4R_{}=208.0`$ au, $`R_{23}^{\mathrm{abs}.}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.89}\times 10^4R_{}=41.4`$ au, using a neutrino mass differences of $`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}=10`$ meV, $`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|}=50`$ meV and associated transition dipole moments. We collect all necessary theoretical ingredients, i.e. neutrino mass and mixing scheme, induced electromagnetic transition dipole moments, quadratic charged lepton mass asymmetries and their interdependence.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the absorption probability of photons radiated from the surface of the Sun by a left-handed neutrino with definite mass, which produces a heavier right-handed antineutrino. To reach this goal, we start with the geometrical and thermal properties of surface radiation of the Sun to determine the photon flux. The elementary absorption cross section involves transition electric and magnetic dipole moments of neutrinos taken to be Majorana particles, in a minimal extension of the Standard Model to account for neutrino mass and mixing bp ; hm . The electromagnetic transition dipole moments are to be evaluated on the appropriate mass shells for the neutrino-antineutrino transition. As such, they are by definition gauge invariant and must be formed generally combining the vertex and the propagator Green functions IL .

Interestingly, in a recent paper sowieso , the authors consider the fate of an electron neutrino, undergoing the analogous transition in the interior of the sun, induced by the interior magnetic field. They couple this transition with normal oscillations to produce $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from $`\nu _e`$, to be subsequently observed on earth.

To be definite, we consider the absorption cross section of a photon inducing an electromagnetic dipole transition from the initial definite mass eigenstate $`\nu _{L,j}(p_1)`$ with mass $`m_{\nu _L,j}=m_j`$, with left-handed helicity, thus denoted neutrino, to a right-handed mass eigenstate $`\overline{\nu }_{R,k}(p_2)`$ with mass $`m_{\nu _R,k}=m_k`$, denoted antineutrino. This yields the absorption probability per neutrino when integrated from the solar surface to infinity. The kinematics of the dipole transition is then generaly the following:

$`\gamma (q)+\nu _{L,j}(p_1)\overline{\nu }_{R,k}(p_2),`$ (1)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}=m_km_j>0`$, with $`j<k(=1,2,3)`$. We assume hierarchical masses: $`m_1m_2m_3`$ and to simplify this kinematics, we set $`m_1=0`$ throughout the paper.

The absorbing neutrino ($`\nu _{L,j}`$) is taken to emerge from the center of the Sun, defining the radial direction as shown in Fig. 1. From the geometry indicated in Fig. 1

we obtain the integral flux in the solar rest frame at the time when the neutrino $`\nu _{L,j}(p_1)`$ is at a distance $`d`$ from the surface of the Sun:

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi R_{}^2{\displaystyle _{1/a}^1}d\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_K(T)}{\rho ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta (1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
where $`a=1+d/R_{}`$, $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Theta }+\theta `$, with $`R_{}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }+\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta =R_{}+d`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta =R_{}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The above flux represents the Planckian surface radiation of the Sun with the temperature $`T`$ and the occupation number $`n_K(T)`$ given as $`n_K(T)=(e^{K/T}1)^1`$.

The differential flux multiplied by the absorption cross section $`\sigma `$ yields the absorption rate per unit time $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(\nu _{L,j}\gamma \overline{\nu }_{R,k})`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(\nu _{L,j}\gamma \overline{\nu }_{R,k})={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\mathrm{log}P={\displaystyle \sigma 𝑑\varphi },`$ (3)
where $`P`$ represents the survival probability of the initial neutrino $`\nu _{L,j}(p_1)`$. For $`c=1`$, we have $`t=d`$, starting the clock ($`t=0`$) when the neutrino $`\nu _{L,j}(p_1)`$ crosses the surface. The integral survival probability $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is thus given by

$`P_{\mathrm{}}=e^{_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d=t}𝑑t}=1P_{\mathrm{abs}.},`$ (4)
where $`P_{\mathrm{abs}.}`$ is the total probability for the absorption of photons.

Next, we define the absorption probability within a distance $`d`$ as

$`P_{\mathrm{abs}.}(d)=1e^{_0^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d^{}=t}𝑑t}{\displaystyle _0^d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d^{}=t}𝑑t,`$ (5)
because it turns out, as expected, that $`P_{\mathrm{abs}.}(d)P_{\mathrm{abs}.}1`$.

The absorption cross section $`\sigma `$ is given by

$`\sigma _{jk}=2\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}^2|{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu _{jk}|^2}{2p_1q}}\delta \left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}^2}{2p_1q}}\right)\right),`$ (6)
where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}^2|=|m_{\nu _k}m_{\nu _j}|^2`$ and $`|\mu _{jk}|`$ is the magnetic transition dipole moment of neutrino.

Because of the purely left-handed neutrino emitted by the Sun, there appears no spin average over neutrino helicities, contrary to photon polarizations.

The neutrino dipole moments are determined from the effective Standard Model photon–neutrino vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mathrm{eff}}(\gamma \nu \overline{\nu })`$ mst ; SM ; dsm ; MNS ; FY ; FKO ; hnr ; VV ; VVO . The transition $`\nu _j\nu _k\gamma `$ is an electroweak process induced at leading 1–loop order. This order involves the so-called “neutrino-penguin” diagrams through the exchange of $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$ leptons and weak bosons, and is given by IL ; SM ; FY

$`ϵ^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mathrm{eff}}(\gamma \nu \overline{\nu })=ϵ^\mu (q)[G_1(q^2)\overline{\nu }_k(\gamma _\mu q^2q_\mu \overline{)}q)\nu _{jL}`$
$`+iG_2(q^2)(m_{\nu _k}\overline{\nu }_k\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \nu _{jL}+m_{\nu _j}\overline{\nu }_k\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \nu _{jR})].`$ (7)
The above vertex is invariant under the electromagnetic gauge transformations. The first term in (7) vanishes identically for a real photon due to the electromagnetic gauge condition. The expression (7) yields the electric and magnetic dipole moments SM ; FY

$`d_{kj}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_{\nu _j}m_{\nu _k}\right)G_2(0)_{kj},`$ (8)
$`\mu _{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_{\nu _j}+m_{\nu _k}\right)G_2(0)_{kj},`$ (9)
$`G_2(0)_{kj}={\displaystyle \frac{2e}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\mathrm{U}_{ki}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ij}\mathrm{F}\left(x_\mathrm{}_i\right),x_\mathrm{}_i={\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_i^2}{m_W^2}},`$ (10)
where $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$ denotes neutrino species, and

$`\mathrm{F}\left(x_\mathrm{}_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}x_\mathrm{}_i,`$ (11)
was obtained after the loop integration and for $`x_\mathrm{}_i1`$. Here $`M^{}=4\pi v=3.1`$ TeV, and $`v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}=246`$ GeV represents the vacuum expectation value of the scalar Higgs field.

Note that for the off-diagonal transition moments, the first term in (11) vanishes in the summation over $`\mathrm{}`$ due to the orthogonality condition of the mixing matrix U.

For the Majorana neutrinos considered here this matrix is approximative unitary and necessarily of the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{U}_{ki}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ij}=\delta _{kj}\epsilon _{kj},`$ (12)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a hermitian nonnegative matrix (i.e. with all eigenvalues nonnegative) and

$`|\epsilon |=\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}\epsilon ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(m_{\nu _{\mathrm{light}}}/m_{\nu _{\mathrm{heavy}}}),`$ (13)
$``$ $`10^{22}\mathrm{to}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^{21}.`$
The case $`|\epsilon |=0`$ is excluded by the very existence of oscillation effects. As a consequence, there is no exact GIM cancellation in lepton-flavour space, unlike for the cases off-diagonal transition moments and the quark-flavours.

In the Majorana case calculation of the “neutrino–antineutrino–penguin” diagrams, using charged lepton and an antilepton propagators in the loops, produces transition matrix elements which are complex antisymmetric quantities in lepton-flavour space. Finally,

$`d_{jk}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_{\nu _j}m_{\nu _k}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{Re}G_2(0)_{kj},`$ (14)
$`\mu _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_{\nu _j}+m_{\nu _k}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{Im}G_2(0)_{kj}.`$ (15)
Dipole moments describing the transition from Majorana neutrino mass eigenstate-flavour $`\nu _j`$ to $`\nu _k`$ have the following form hm ; IL ; mst ; MNS :

$`d_{jk}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _j}m_{\nu _k}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_i^2}{m_W^2}}\mathrm{ReU}_{ki}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ij},`$ (16)
$`\mu _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e\mathrm{i}}{2M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _j}+m_{\nu _k}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_i^2}{m_W^2}}\mathrm{ImU}_{ki}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ij}.`$ (17)
The quadratic charged lepton mass asymmetry is generated by the electric and magnetic dipole form factors only. The quantities $`\mathrm{U}_{ij}`$ incorporate the neutrino-flavour mixing matrix governing the decomposition of a coherently produced left-handed neutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{L,\mathrm{}}`$ associated with charged-lepton-flavour $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$ into the mass eigenstates $`\nu _{L,i}`$:

$`|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{L,\mathrm{}};\stackrel{}{p}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{}i|\nu _{L,i};\stackrel{}{p},m_i.`$ (18)
We emphasise that the sensitivity of the dipole moments (16), (17) is much larger because of the $`\tau `$–loop, than in the oscillations where only the mixing angles and mass differences(-square), $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|`$, enters.

We proceed to numerical evaluations of the transition dipole moments which in general receive very small contributions because of the smallness of the neutrino mass, $`|m_\nu |10^2`$ eV. For the dipole moments the dominant contributions are coming from the $`12`$ and $`23`$ transitions. Since the mixing matrix element $`|\mathrm{U}_{1\tau }|`$ is small Huber , and today still unknown, in the evaluation of the $`12`$ transition we assume the dominance of the $`\mu `$–loops:

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|d_{12}^{\mathrm{el}}|}{|\mu _{12}|}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_W^2}}\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|\mathrm{ReU}_{1\mu }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\mu 2}|}{|\mathrm{ImU}_{1\mu }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\mu 2}|}}\right).`$ (19)
The dominant contributions to the electric and magnetic transition dipole moments of neutrinos for the $`23`$ transition are, due to the $`\tau `$-loops, proportional to Re and Im part of $`\mathrm{U}_{2\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{3\tau }`$ and given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|d_{23}^{\mathrm{el}}|}{|\mu _{23}|}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{m_W^2}}\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|\mathrm{ReU}_{2\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 3}|}{|\mathrm{ImU}_{2\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 3}|}}\right).`$ (20)
Setting for the matrix elements $`|\mathrm{ImU}_{1\mu }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\mu 2}|0.32`$ and $`|\mathrm{ImU}_{2\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 3}|0.5`$ MNS ; FKO , and specifically for hierarchical masses $`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}10\mathrm{meV}`$ SNO  and $`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|}50\mathrm{meV}`$ Kamio  and transforming the moments to Bohr magneton units, we have found the following standard transition magnetic moments of neutrinos

$`|\mu _{12}|_{\mathrm{st}}`$ $``$ $`3.12\times 10^{34}\mathrm{eV}^1=1.05\times 10^{27}\mu _\mathrm{B},`$ (21)
$`|\mu _{23}|_{\mathrm{st}}`$ $``$ $`6.14\times 10^{31}\mathrm{eV}^1=2.07\times 10^{24}\mu _\mathrm{B}.`$ (22)
From above equations we see that the transition $`13`$ is sensitive to value of $`|\mathrm{U}_{1\tau }|`$ down to the $`𝒪(10^3)`$ Huber . Note finally that direct experimental evidence for neutrino flavour transformation from neutral-current interactions (7) is given in Ref. SNO1 .

The absorption rate per unit time in the solar rest system at a given distance $`d`$ from the Sun’s surface is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^d(\nu _{L,j}\gamma \overline{\nu }_{R,k})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle q^2𝑑qd\mathrm{cos}\theta n_K(T)}`$
$`\times \sigma _{jk}(q,\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta (1\mathrm{cos}\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\mathrm{\Theta })}{\mathrm{sin}\theta (a\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }1)}}.`$ (23)
In Eq. (23) the factor $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\mathrm{\Theta })/\mathrm{sin}\theta (a\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }1)`$ is equal to 1, as a consequence of the geometry described in Fig. 1.

From Eqs. (6), (21) and (22), we obtain the standardized form of the absorption cross section

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{st}}=X_{jk}\sigma _{jk}^{\mathrm{red}.}={\displaystyle \frac{X_{jk}}{2p_1q}}\delta \left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}^2}{2p_1q}}\right)\right),`$ (24)
where $`\sigma _{jk}^{\mathrm{red}.}`$ represents the reduced cross section and $`X_{jk}`$ is dimensionless quantity

$`X_{jk}=2\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}^2||\mu _{jk}|_{st}^2,`$ (25)
which receive the following values for the respective magnetic moments (21), (22) and mass differences:

$`X_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`6.10\times 10^{71},`$ (26)
$`X_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`5.91\times 10^{63}.`$ (27)
The reduced cross section $`\sigma _{jk}^{\mathrm{red}.}`$ leads to the following reduced dimensionless absorption rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{\mathrm{red}.}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{\mathrm{red}.}(a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}R_{}{\displaystyle q^2𝑑qd\mathrm{cos}\theta n_K(T)}`$ (28)
$`\times `$ $`\sigma _{jk}^{red.}(q,\theta )(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$
The integral

$`f_{jk}(A)={\displaystyle _1^A}𝑑a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{\mathrm{red}.}(a),A=1+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{R_{}}}`$ (29)
determines the absorption probability defined by Eq. (5) within a distance $`d`$ from the solar surface

$`P_{jk}^{\mathrm{abs}.}(d)=X_{jk}f_{jk}(A),P_{jk}^{\mathrm{abs}.}=X_{jk}f_{jk}(\mathrm{}).`$ (30)
The radius of the Sun given in different units is

$`R_{}=6.961\times 10^8\mathrm{m}=2.322\mathrm{s}=3.528\times 10^{15}\mathrm{eV}^1.`$ (31)
The astronomical unit (Sun–Earth distance) corresponds to $`\mathrm{au}=499.005\mathrm{s}`$, which means that $`A_{}=\mathrm{au}/R_{}=214.91`$.

We choose $`p_1=0.2`$ MeV for the momentum of the solar neutrino emerging from the solar interior through the surface as , yielding the oscillation lengths $`L_{12}`$ and $`L_{23}`$ of neutrinos $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _2\nu _3`$, respectively:

$`L_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi p_1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}}=25.133\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^9\mathrm{eV}^1=4960.8\mathrm{m},`$ (32)
$`L_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi p_1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|}}=1.005\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^9\mathrm{eV}^1=198.4\mathrm{m}.`$ (33)
The solar activity is characterized by the surface temperature $`T_{}`$, which we take as 0.5 eV = 5802.5 K. We note that a significant contribution to the absorption probability comes from wave–lengths of solar radiation comparable with the oscillation lengths $`L_{12}`$ and $`L_{23}`$. Those long wave–lengths constitute the Rayleigh–Jeans tail of the Planckian spectrum. For the standards defined above, we present the functions $`f_{12}(A)`$ and $`f_{23}(A)`$ in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. The enlarged scale figures are displayed separately up to $``$ 1 au.

The analytic structure of the functions $`f_{12}(A)`$ and $`f_{23}(A)`$ gives rise to a characteristic range of solar activity in the absorption process, independently of the small absorption probability:

$`R_{12}^{\mathrm{abs}.}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1T_{}}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}}}=4.47\times 10^4R_{}=208.0\mathrm{au},`$ (34)
$`R_{23}^{\mathrm{abs}.}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1T_{}}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|}}}=0.89\times 10^4R_{}=41.4\mathrm{au}.`$ (35)
The absorption range $`R_{23}^{\mathrm{abs}.}`$, for example corresponds to a distances of 2 astronomical units beyond the semi–major axis of the orbit of Pluto. Ranges $`R_{12}^{\mathrm{abs}.}`$, $`R_{23}^{\mathrm{abs}.}`$ are clearly visible near $`A=5\times 10^4`$ in Fig. 2, in the approach of the function $`f_{12}(A)`$ to its asymptotic value $`f_{12}(\mathrm{})=4087.9`$, and near $`A=10^4`$ in Fig. 3, in the approach of the function $`f_{23}(A)`$ to its asymptotic value $`f_{23}(\mathrm{})=20418.8`$.

Thus the total absorption probabilities per neutrino become

$`P_{12}^{\mathrm{abs}.}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{12}f_{12}(\mathrm{})2.5\times 10^{67},`$ (36)
$`P_{23}^{\mathrm{abs}.}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{23}f_{23}(\mathrm{})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.2}\times 10^{58}.`$ (37)
For the bound on the neutrino magnetic moment, $`\mu _{\nu _e}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\times 10^{12}\mu _B`$, derived from SN1987A AOT , we would obtain $`P_{abs.}10^{35}`$. Taking $`10^{40}`$ similar neutrinos, emitted from the pp cycle of the sun, the rate of so produced antineutrinos from the sun would be $`10^5`$ per year. Our number (36) is meant as a lower bound.

In this work we collected all necessary theoretical ingredients, i.e. neutrino mass and mixing scheme, induced electromagnetic transition dipole moments, quadratic mass asymmetries entering the process of photon absorption by a definitive neutrino flavor producing a massive antineutrino. Obviously the same electromagnetic dipole transitions occur under many more circumstances, e.g. in the core of supernova explosions, in reactions with the cosmic microwave background radiation, in strong magnetic fields like in neutron stars, in coherent Maser light directed at a nuclear reactor. These processes may well lead to larger effects.

As follows from the geometric aspects discussed in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 and displayed in Eqs. (30)–(37), the absorption probability per neutrino scales from our solar example to another similar situation, modula minor logarithmic correction factors, as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{RT}{p^2}},`$ (38)
where $`R_{}`$ is replaced by an irradiating photon surface of radius $`R`$, $`T`$ denotes an average temperature of surface of light emission, replacing $`T_{}=0.5`$ eV, and $`p`$ denotes the momentum of the emitted neutrino. From the above scaling law it follows, that no dramatic changes in absorption probability (per neutrino or antineutrino) occur in a supernova explosion. There the momenta are changed to $`𝒪`$(10-20 MeV) from the neutrinosphere, $`R`$ is adapted to the size of source, before the neutrino is beyond the range of its radiation, i.e. cannot be many orders of magnitude larger than the solar radius, and $`T`$ is (much) below the MeV scale, when becoming effective in the process of $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ dipole transition. The only difference is in the number of neutrinos emitted, offset by the distance(-square) attenuation, towards an observer on earth. For this reason we refrain from giving numerical estimates for supernova explosions here.

The work of P.M. is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The work of G.D. and J.T. is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002.


text:
# An X-ray Image of the Composite SNR G16.7+0.1

## 1 Introduction

Recently, imaging above 3.5 keV has led to a flurry of discoveries of X-ray synchrotron nebulae and, in some cases, to the pulsars which power them. Some nebulae, in common with the prototypical Crab Nebula, show no evidence of a surrounding shell created by the supernova explosion. But the majority of such objects are “composites” showing a flat-spectrum, polarized radio and power-law X-ray synchrotron nebula, presumably powered by a central pulsar, encircled by a typical supernova remnant (SNR) shell. X-ray observations of both Crab-like and composite remnants provide crucial information on the poorly known initial distribution of pulsar magnetic field strengths and spin periods, as well as on the ages and dynamics of the supernovae which created them.

G16.7+0.1 is a classic composite remnant with one of the faintest radio core components detected to date (Helfand et al. 1989). It has comparable radio luminosities in the core and shell components; the shell and core radii are $`2`$ and $`1`$, respectively. A recently published catalog of X-ray sources derived from the ASCA Galactic Plane Survey lists G16.7+0.1 as a detection (Sugizaki et al. 2001), although the ASCA angular resolution is insufficient to resolve the source. We undertook imaging spectroscopy of the source with XMM-Newton in order to separate the shell and core components, determine their luminosities, and search for the central pulsar.

In section 2 we describe our observations and the analysis procedures employed. Section 3 presents the results of this analysis for the remnant’s X-ray core, surrounding shell, and presumably associated (but undetected) pulsar. We conclude in section 4 with a discussion of the implications of these results for G16.7+0.1, and place this source in the context of the class of composite remnants.

## 2 Observations and Analysis Procedures

G16.7+0.1 was observed on 2001 March $`89`$ for 13 ks with the EPIC camera on board the XMM-Newton Observatory (Jansen et al. 2001) (see Figure 1). Data were obtained from all three cameras which comprise the EPIC (European Photon Imaging Camera) instrument. The two MOS cameras (Turner et al. 2001) and the PN camera (Strüder et al. 2001) are CCD arrays sensitive to photons with energies between 0.1 and 15 keV; the field of view is 30 in diameter. The CCD pixel sizes are 1.1 and 4.1′′, respectively, while the mirror point spread function (PSF) is $`6`$′′ full-width half maximum. G16.7+0.1 was observed with the medium filter and in full-image mode, so that the time resolution is 2.5 s for the MOS data and 73 ms for the PN. We verified the images’ astrometric accuracy by optically identifying the bright source on the central MOS chip (at XMM reported RA(J2000) $`18^\mathrm{h}21^\mathrm{m}17^\mathrm{s}.35`$, DEC(J2000) $`14^\mathrm{o}15^{^{}}32^{^{\prime \prime }}.6`$ for MOS1 and RA $`18^\mathrm{h}21^\mathrm{m}17^\mathrm{s}.30`$, DEC $`14^\mathrm{o}15^{^{}}33^{^{\prime \prime }}.9`$ for MOS2). This source is coincident with a USNO catalog star; its position agreed with the average MOS position to within 0.01 s in Right Ascension and 3.15′′ in Declination, within the astrometric accuracy expected.

The XMM Standard Analysis System (SAS111version 5.2+, xmmsas-20010728-0329) allows one to filter the data for good events within the camera’s energy range, thereby removing most contamination from internal background and cosmic ray particles. In addition, we examined the light curves for each instrument and removed intervals corresponding to high background activity. The resulting filtering produced 8.8 ks of data for the two MOS cameras, and 5.5 ks for the PN camera.

The absorption column density to the remnant is high, suggesting a relatively large distance to the source. As a consequence, few source photons are detected at energies $`1`$ keV. Unless otherwise noted, all spectral fitting was done over the energy range of $`1`$ to $`8`$ keV, with the upper limit being slightly different for each camera. Furthermore, the position of the remnant on the PN camera was perilously close to the gap between two chips. These data were therefore used exclusively to verify consistency with our primary results, obtained from MOS1 and MOS2.

Bright arcs are easily visible in the data from all three EPIC detectors. We believe that these are due to single-scatter photons from the nearby (but outside the field of view) bright X-ray binary GX17+2. In order to characterize the contribution of these arcs to the source background (where they are dim but present), we first compared the spectra of different arc regions to detect possible variations. Finding none, we divided the central MOS chip into three polygonal areas. This geometry mimics the elliptical shape of the arcs, so that a given region contains a full section of any arc present in that part of the chip.

Figure 2 shows the central chip in the filtered MOS1 image. The area to the right of the remnant is used to characterize the arcs, and the area to the left to characterize the “normal” background (the bright USNO source is excluded from the latter region). These regions are defined exclusively on the central chip to avoid having to account for chip-to-chip variations. The central polygon corresponds to the source background, and encloses two circles centered on the source; the larger includes the entire radio remnant (R = 135$`^{^{\prime \prime }}`$), while the smaller zeroes in on the brightest emission region, comparable in size to the radio synchrotron core (R = 45$`^{^{\prime \prime }}`$). The circles are centered at RA(2000) $`18^\mathrm{h}20^\mathrm{m}57^\mathrm{s}.8`$, DEC(2000) $`14^\mathrm{o}20^{^{}}09^{^{\prime \prime }}.6`$, consistent with the SNR’s apparent geometrical center at 6 cm (Helfand et al. 1989). The areas are obviously not equal and scalings are applied when correcting or comparing them.

Figure 3 summarizes the process by which we modeled the arcs’ contribution to the source background. The dotted line corresponds to the normal field background; the dashed line is the arcs’ spectrum, corrected to remove the contribution of this “standard” noise. The supernova remnant is detected against a background which is a weighted sum of the arc and the normal background contributions. We therefore compared a number of spectra obtained by summing the two to a spectrum directly extracted from the central polygon (without the remnant). In Figure 3, the source background spectrum is the solid curve, while the dot-dashed curve corresponds to the best-fit, weighted sum of normal background and arc spectra (background spectrum + 0.22 arc spectrum). The residuals, obtained by subtracting this model from the direct estimate of the source background, are included. This process was repeated for MOS2, using regions defined similarly on the chip to enclose the arc and source emission and then weighting by factors appropriate to the region areas (background spectrum + 0.6 arc spectrum) to produce a model spectrum. The models obtained for the background allowed us to quantify and remove the contamination of our observation of G16.7+0.1 by the arcs due to GX17+2.

These background models were applied using locally generated RMF and ARF files, and spectra grouped to contain a minimum of $`25\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{bin}^1`$. We also used the canned response files, available from the XMM-Newton website222http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/ccf/epic/, to check for consistency. All errors are quoted for a 1-$`\sigma `$ confidence range.

## 3 Analysis and Results

### 3.1 The X-ray core

We began by analyzing the bright X-ray core of G16.7+0.1 which we take to represent a pulsar wind nebula (PWN; see Figure 1). Spectra were extracted from the MOS images for a circular region of radius 45′′ as described above. We used the standard XSPEC spectral analysis software to fit the spectra simultaneously, with the energy range included being slightly different for the two data sets: 1 to 8.4 keV for MOS1 and 1 to 7.5 keV for MOS2. As noted above, the column density to the remnant is high, and few photons below 1 keV are detected; the upper limits are set by the data quality.

We found that a power-law spectrum modified by interstellar absorption provides an excellent description of our data for the X-ray core. We find a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.17\pm 0.29`$ and a column density $`N_H=4.74\pm 0.98\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, with a reduced $`\chi _\nu ^2=0.82`$ (31 dof) for a fit using the background models created as described above and locally generated RMF and ARF files (see Figure 4); the results obtained using the canned response files are essentially identical, with $`\chi _\nu ^2=0.84`$ (31 dof). Fixing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`N_H`$ to these values when fitting the extracted PN spectrum (for a smaller circular area of R = 28′′ chosen to avoid portions of the source which fell in the interchip gap) produced a $`\chi _\nu ^2=0.79`$ (12 dof) over the energy range 1 to 10 keV. The nominal power law slope for G16.7+0.1 is slightly flatter than that of any known PWN (see Gotthelf 2003 for a recent summary), although within the errors it is consistent with the slopes of the young pulsars in G11.2-0.3 and G54.1+0.3.

For comparison with these results, we retrieved the ASCA data from the HEASARC333This research has made use of data obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. archive and extracted the Gas Imaging Spectrometer (GIS) data in the 0.5-8 keV band within a radius of $`6^{^{}}`$. We find a background-subtracted count rate of $`0.017\pm 0.001`$ counts s-1 per GIS. Using the spectral parameters from the MOS fits, the HEASARC tool PIMMS predicts a 1–8 keV MOS count rate of 0.042 counts s-1, within $`4\%`$ of the observed value. Returning to the XMM data, we estimated the hardness ratio of the core for the two cameras (Table 1). The hardness ratio, defined as (N$`{}_{hard}{}^{}`$ Nsoft)/(N$`{}_{hard}{}^{}+`$ Nsoft), where N is the number of counts, is $`0.56\pm 0.03`$, precisely that expected for the spectral parameters derived from our fits.

The total Galactic HI column density in the direction of G16.7+0.1 is $`1.56\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Generally, the X-ray-derived value for $`N_H`$ is two to three times greater than the neutral hydrogen column density derived from 21 cm observations for a given object, owing to contributions from X-ray absorbing atoms in the molecular and ionized phases of the interstellar medium (Gorenstein and Tucker 1976). The high X-ray value we derive is comparable to that found for the composite remnant Kes 75 (Helfand, Collins, & Gotthelf 2003) which has a measured distance of 19 kpc. This suggests that the G16.7+0.1 is at the very least on the far side of the Galactic Center, and we adopt D = 10 kpc for our calculations. The unabsorbed flux for the SNR’s bright core is $`1.9\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 in the 0.5 to 10 keV band, corresponding to an X-ray luminosity of $`2.3\times 10^{34}\mathrm{D}_{10\mathrm{kpc}}^2`$ ergs s-1.

### 3.2 The extended nebula

In order to compare the outer regions of the X-ray remnant with the known radio shell component, we attempted to extract spectra for an area equivalent to the remnant shell as defined by the radio data (Helfand et al. 1989), an annulus with inner and outer radii of $`45^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`135^{^{\prime \prime }}`$, respectively. In all other respects the analysis was the same as for the core, with the background models being scaled appropriately for the the area of the annulus.

Unfortunately the small number of counts (roughly 100 for each camera) from the X-ray shell does not allow us to constrain the nature of this emission or even to comment on its hardness ratio relative to that of the core. The matter is further complicated by the likely presence of a dust-scattering halo from the pulsar wind nebula. As noted by Helfand et al. (2003) in their analysis of Kes 75, from 10-20% of the PWN flux in the 1-3 keV band is scattered into a halo with an angular diameter of $`4^{^{}}`$ for column densities similar to that measured here. From the count rates recorded in Table 1, and applying the technique outlined in Helfand et al. (2003), it appears that only $`10\%`$ of the photons recorded in our annulus are attributable to a dust-scattering halo in the soft band, while at higher energies the scattered fraction declines substantially. Thus, the remnant does appear to have a net flux associated with the radio shell. We therefore use PIMMS to determine the flux, over the 0.5 to 10 keV range, of a putative Raymond-Smith thermal plasma component (with solar abundances) responsible for emission from this SNR shell. Fixing the column density to our best fit value, we obtain the intrinsic luminosities listed in Table 2 for a range of possible temperatures (not including any correction for a dust halo).

Assuming D = 10 kpc and R = 135′′ for the SNR shell gives a radius of 6.5 pc, while the R = 45′′ core has a radius of 2.2 pc. The distance-independent ratio of core-to-shell diameters is therefore 0.3, consistent with the ratios found from 6 cm observations of other composite remnants (Helfand & Becker 1987). Furthermore, assuming that it is in the free-expansion phase with $`v_{exp}3\times 10^3`$ km s-1, G16.7+0.1 is roughly 2100 years old.

### 3.3 A central point source

It is interesting to place an upper limit on any contribution from a point source to the flux detected from the bright X-ray core. Ghizzardi (2001) provides the best fitting parameters for in-flight measurements of the PSF shape444$`r_c=4.11\pm 0.034`$ and $`\alpha =1.415\pm 0.005`$ for the King profile and an on-axis source; the mean energy is 1.8 keV for this fit.. Comparing the PSF to the profile of the bright core for the MOS1 and MOS2 data over the 1 to 7 keV range for which the PSF parameters are very nearly constant, we find that a point source can contribute no more than 37% of the core’s flux. The consequent upper limit to the source luminosity of $`8.5\times 10^{33}\mathrm{D}_{10\mathrm{kpc}}^2`$ ergs s-1 is comparable to that of the young pulsar at the center of G11.2-0.3 (Torii et al. 1997) and fifty times less than that from the luminous, young pulsar in Kes 75 (Helfand et al. 2003).

## 4 Discussion

The PWN in G16.7+0.1 has a radio luminosity of $`0.1\times 10^{34}`$ ergs s-1. Thus we find a value for the core luminosity ratio $`L_{Xc}/L_{Rc}20`$, slightly above the mean value of 15 found for sixteen composite remnants compiled by Helfand (2002). It is similar to that of G11.2-0.3 ($`L_{Xc}/L_{Rc}27`$) and CTB80 ($`L_{Xc}/L_{Rc}15`$), and intermediate between the very young and energetic objects such as Kes 75 ($`L_{Xc}/L_{Rc}140`$), and older remnants such as Vela ($`L_{Xc}/L_{Rc}0.05`$). Its X-ray shell to core luminosity ratio ($`1`$) is poorly constrained, but is roughly similar to that of G11.2-0.3, as is its shell to core diameter ratio (both are $`4`$); for a distance of 10 kpc, the physical diameters of both components are also comparable. Thus, the X-ray and radio properties of the remnant are consistent with that of an object with an age of a few thousand years housing a moderately energetic pulsar.

Seward & Wang (1988) have outlined a method for obtaining the characteristics of a pulsar from the PWN luminosity over the 0.2 to 4 keV range. Our observations of G16.7+0.1 yield a luminosity of $`1.1\times 10^{34}`$ ergs s-1 in this energy range; this produces an estimate that the unseen pulsar’s $`\dot{\mathrm{E}}=2.7\times 10^{36}`$ ergs s-1. Table 3 gives the characteristics of the pulsar derived from this $`\dot{\mathrm{E}}`$ as a function of age assuming the pulsar’s initial spin period $`P_o<<P`$.

More recently, van der Swaluw and Wu (2001) have suggested a method of estimating the pulsar initial spin periods $`P_o`$ in composite remnants from the relative sizes of the PWN core and the remnant shell. For G16.7-0.3, they infer a value $`P_o=0.043`$ s for $`\dot{P}=2.5\times 10^{12}`$, which yields the $`\dot{E}`$ quoted above. Using the well-know relations between the pulsar spin parameters and magnetic fields, and assuming a braking index of 3, this initial spin period and an age of 2000 years leads to a current spin period of 0.33 s and a rather high magnetic field strength of $`3\times 10^{13}`$ G. Such a pulsar would have a spin-down luminosity $`\dot{E}=2.7\times 10^{36}`$ erg s-1 (as above), sufficient to drive the observed X-ray luminosity of the PWN if the efficiency for the conversion of rotational kinetic energy to X-rays was as low as 0.8%, significantly below that of the most efficient X-ray producers (e.g., G29.7-0.3 at 6.5%; Helfand et al. 2003). For a 5000-year old remnant, the current period and magnetic field strength would be $`P=0.17`$ s and a more moderate $`B=8\times 10^{12}`$ G.

In conclusion, this first X-ray image of G16.7-0.3 finds it to be consistent with a classic composite SNR with a central PWN driven by a pulsar with typical parameters. All that remains to confirm this picture is the detection of the pulsar itself and the measurement of its spin parameters. A scheduled Chandra observation should provide the detection and point-source strength, allowing a followup observation with XMM to detect the pulse period.

###### Acknowledgements.

Acknowledgments — D.J.H. acknowledges support from grant NAG5-9928. E.V.G. is supported by NASA LTSA grant NAG5-7935. We thank the XMM help desks for their assistance and the anonymous referee for a meticulous review that led to significant improvements in the manuscript.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

The main purpose of this paper is to describe the physics of as ground vector (V) and axial-vector (A) meson resonances at low energies as excited states with increasing masses at intermediate energies in the framework of effective action of Quasilocal Quark Models (QQM) which were introduced in . We will see that these effective QCD QQM are sufficiently general and from the physical point of view evident to allow a good description of wide set of mass relations for vector and axial-vector mesons. Moreover, using properties of two-point QCD VA correlators of quark densities at high energies (asymptotic freedom and Operator Product Expansion (OPE)) and two-resonance ansatz for VA meson correlators of QQM, we will obtain a number of constraints for parameters of QQM from the so-called Chiral Symmetry Restoration (CSR) sum rules.

It is well known that the effective QCD-inspired quark models with four-fermion interactions of Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) type are often applied to describe the low-energy QCD in the hadronization regime . The appearance of effective quark theory is connected with one of specific property of QCD — the dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking (CSB). The local four-fermion interaction is involved to induce the CSB due to strong attraction in the scalar channel. As a consequence, the dynamical quark mass $`m_{\text{dyn}}`$ is created, as well as an isospin multiplet of pions, massless in the chiral limit, and a massive scalar meson with mass $`m_\sigma =2m_{\text{dyn}}`$ appear. However, it is known from experiment that there are series of meson states with equal quantum numbers . Due to confinement, one expects an infinite number of such excited states with increasing masses. In such a way, the problem arises how to describe the physics of those resonances at intermediate energies. To solve this problem one can extend the NJL quark model taking into account higher-dimensional quark operators with derivatives, i.e. quasilocal quark interactions . For sufficiently strong couplings the new operators promote the formation of additional meson states. Such a quasilocal approach (see also ) represents a systematic extension of the NJL-model towards the complete effective action of QCD where many-fermion vertices with derivatives possess the manifest chiral symmetry of interaction, motivated by the soft momentum expansion of the perturbative QCD effective action. In the effective action of Quasilocal Quark Models (QQM) of NJL type the low-energy gluon effects are hidden in the coupling constants. The alternative schemes including the condensates of low-energy gluons can be found in .

At the same time in the large-$`N_c`$ approach, which is equivalent to planar QCD , the correlators of color-singlet quark currents are saturated by narrow meson resonances. In particular, the two-point correlators of vector and axial-vector quark currents are represented by the sum of related meson poles in Euclidean space:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^C(p^2)=d^4x\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q(x)\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q(0)=\underset{n}{}\frac{Z_n^C}{p^2+m_{C,n}^2}+D_0^C+D_1^Cp^2,$$
(1)
$$CV,A;\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\mu \gamma _5;D_0,D_1=const.$$

The last two terms represent a perturbative contribution, with $`D_0`$ and $`D_1`$ being contact terms required for the regularization of infinite sums. On the other hand, their high-energy asymptotics is provided  by the perturbation theory and OPE due to asymptotic freedom of QCD. Therefrom the above correlators increase at large $`p^2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^C(p^2)_{p^2\mathrm{}}p^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
(2)
When comparing the two expressions above one concludes that the infinite series of resonances with the same quantum numbers should exist in order to reproduce the perturbative asymptotics. So at intermediate energies the correlators of QQM can be matched  to the OPE of QCD correlators. This matching realizes the correspondence to QCD and improves the predictability of QQM.

Meantime the differences of correlators of opposite-parity currents rapidly decrease at large momenta $`p^2\mathrm{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^V(p^2)\mathrm{\Pi }^A(p^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}}{p^6}\frac{m_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}}{p^8}+O\left(\frac{1}{p^{10}}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}16\pi \alpha _s\overline{q}q^2,$$
(3)
where $`m_0^2=0.8\pm 0.2\text{GeV}^2`$ , $`\alpha _s0.3`$ (at 1 GeV), and we have defined in the $`V,A`$ channels

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{V,A}(p^2)(\delta _{\mu \nu }p^2+p_\mu p_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }^{V,A}(p^2).$$
(4)
Therefore the chiral symmetry is restored at high energies and the difference (3) represents an order parameter of CSB in QCD. As it decreases rapidly at large momenta one can perform the matching of QCD asymptotics by means of few lowest lying resonances that gives a set of constraints for QQM parameters from the CSR sum rules.

In the present work the vector QQM model is considered with two channels where two pairs of vector and axial-vector mesons are generated. Respectively it is expected to reproduce the lower part of QCD meson spectrum in the planar limit and the leading asymptotics of chiral symmetry restoration for higher energies. In the Sec. 2 we define the VA, $`SU(2)`$ QQM with two pairs of VA-mesons and the corresponding mass spectrum for boson states is obtained. The Sec. 3 is devoted to the $`U(3)`$ extension of VA QQM. With the help of two-resonance ansatz for VA-mesons the correlators of QQM are matched to the OPE of QCD correlators and a number of constraints for parameters of QQM from CSR sum rules are performed in the Sec. 4.

## 2. VA, $`SU(2)`$ Quasilocal Quark Model

The $`SU(2)`$ QQM Lagrangian for the two-channel vector (V) and axial-vector (A) case in the chiral limit $`m_q=0`$ has the form  (in Euclidean space):

$$_{VA}=\overline{q}i\partial ̸q+\frac{1}{4N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}b_{kl}\left[\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,k}^iq\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,l}^iq+\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,k}^iq\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,l}^iq\right],$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,k}^ii\gamma _\mu f_k(s)\tau ^i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,k}^ii\gamma _\mu \gamma _5f_k(s)\tau ^i,i=1,2,3,$$

where $`qq_j`$ ($`j`$ is the number of flavor $`N_f`$) are color fermionic fields with $`N_c`$ components, $`b_{kl}`$ represents the symmetric nonsingular matrix of real coupling constants, and $`\tau ^i`$ denote Pauli matrices. The quantities $`f_k(s)`$, $`s^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ are the form factors specifying the quasilocal interaction. We accept the following sequence of action of the derivatives for the Hermitian fermion currents:

$$\overline{q}\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}q=\frac{1}{4}\overline{q}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2q.$$
(6)
In addition, let us regularize the interaction vertices by introducing the momentum cutoff

$$\overline{q}q\overline{q}\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+^2)q,$$
(7)
and choose the polynomial form factors as being orthogonal on the unit interval,

$$_0^1f_k(s)f_l(s)𝑑s=\delta _{kl}.$$
(8)
We select out here:

$$f_1(s)=23s,f_2(s)=\sqrt{3}s.$$
(9)
As this model interpolates the low-energy QCD action it is supplied with a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (of order of the CSB scale) for virtual quark momenta in quark loops.

It is convenient to pass to the auxiliary vector ($`\rho _\mu ^i`$) and axial-vector ($`a_\mu ^i`$) fields,

$`_{\text{aux}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}i\partial ̸q+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}i\overline{q}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,k}^i\rho _{k,\mu }^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,k}^ia_{k,\mu }^i\right)q+`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(\rho _{k,\mu }^ib_{kl}^1\rho _{l,\mu }^i+a_{k,\mu }^ib_{kl}^1a_{l,\mu }^i\right).`$
After integrating out the quark fields

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(d^4x\right)_{\overline{q}q}\mathrm{exp}(S_{\text{eff}}),$$

one comes to the bosonic effective action:

$$S_{\text{eff}}(\rho _{\mu ,k}^i,a_{\mu ,k}^i)=N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\{\rho _{k,\mu }^ib_{kl}^1\rho _{l,\mu }^i+a_{k,\mu }^ib_{kl}^1a_{l,\mu }^i\}N_fN_c\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\overline{)}D|_{\text{reg}},$$

$$\overline{)}Di(\partial ̸+M)+i\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,k}^i\rho _{k,\mu }^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,k}^ia_{k,\mu }^i\right),$$
(11)
where we have introduced the dynamic mass function $`M_k\sigma _kf_k(s)`$, with $`\sigma _k`$ being the vacuum expectation values of scalar fields . We use the chirally invariant regularization of fermionic determinant:

$$\mathrm{ln}det\overline{)}D=\text{Tr}^{\text{all}}\mathrm{ln}\overline{)}DN_fN_c\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\overline{)}D|_{\text{reg}}\frac{1}{2}N_fN_c\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{)}D\overline{)}D^{}}{\mu ^2},$$

where the constant $`\mu `$ is a normalization scale for quark fields and the trace ”Tr” is assumed over all degrees of freedom except color and flavor ones. We will carry out further analysis in the mean field approximation ($`N_c1`$). Expanding the Eq. (11) in boson fields and retaining the quadratic in fields part only, one obtains:

$$S_{\text{eff}}^{(2)}(\rho _{\mu ,k}^i,a_{\mu ,k}^i)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}[\rho _{k,\mu }^iC_{kl}^{\rho ,\mu \nu }\rho _{l,\nu }^i+a_{k,\mu }^iC_{kl}^{a,\mu \nu }a_{l,\nu }^i].$$
(12)
The inverse propagators are defined by the corresponding second variation of $`S_{\text{eff}}(\rho _{\mu ,k}^i,a_{\mu ,k}^i)`$:

$$C_{kl}^{(\rho ,a)\mu \nu }=2N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2b_{kl}^1\delta _{\mu \nu }N_fN_c\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\times $$

$$\text{tr}\left\{(i\gamma _\mu ,i\gamma _\mu \gamma _5)\frac{f_k\left(\left(\frac{q+p/2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\right)}{\mathit{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathit{}+iM}(i\gamma _\nu ,i\gamma _\nu \gamma _5)\frac{f_l\left(\left(\frac{qp/2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\right)}{\mathit{}\frac{1}{2}\mathit{}+iM}\right\},$$
(13)
where the trace ”tr” spans the Dirac indices only.

To obtain mass spectrum we expand (13) in a small external momentum $`p`$ ($`p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^21`$) up to terms $`p^2`$ and calculate the corresponding loop integral using the momentum cutoff regularization. To compensate the quadratic divergences in this integral we parametrize the matrix of coupling constants as follows:

$$16\pi ^2b_{kl}^1=\delta _{kl}\frac{4}{3}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2};\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$
(14)
The general structure of (13) is:

$$C_{kl}^{(\rho ,a)\mu \nu }=\frac{N_fN_c}{12\pi ^2}\left[\left(\widehat{A}_{kl}^{(\rho ,a)}p^2+\widehat{B}_{kl}^{(\rho ,a)}\right)\delta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{A}_{kl}^{(\rho ,a)}p_\mu p_\nu \right]+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right),$$
(15)
where the two symmetric matrices - the kinetic term $`\widehat{A}`$ and the momentum independent part $`\widehat{B}`$ \- have been introduced:

$$\widehat{A}^{(\rho ,a)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}4\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}\frac{15}{2}& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}& \frac{3}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
$$\widehat{B}^\rho \left(\begin{array}{cc}2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}& 2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}\\ 2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}& 2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
$$\widehat{B}^a\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}+\sigma _{11}& 2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}+\sigma _{12}\\ 2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}+\sigma _{12}& 2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}+\sigma _{22}\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
$$\sigma _{11}24M_0^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}\frac{477}{2}\sigma _1^215\sqrt{3}\sigma _1\sigma _2+\frac{9}{2}\sigma _2^2,$$

$$\sigma _{12}\frac{15\sqrt{3}}{2}\sigma _1^2+9\sigma _1\sigma _2+\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2}\sigma _2^2,$$

$$\sigma _{22}\frac{9}{2}\sigma _1^2+3\sqrt{3}\sigma _1\sigma _2+\frac{27}{2}\sigma _2^2.$$

Here $`M_0M(0)=2\sigma _1`$ is the dynamic quark mass at zero external momentum. The remaining logarithmic divergences will be absorbed later by meson masses and renormalization of meson fields.

The physical mass spectrum is defined by the secular equation

$$det(\widehat{A}p^2+\widehat{B})^{(\rho ,a)}=0,m_{phys}^2=p_0^2.$$
(19)
As it will be seen further the consistency with CSR sum rules imposes the following scale condition:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}=O\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right).$$
(20)
Using (16), (17) one has for the Eq. (19):

$$6\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}2\right)p^4\left(8\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}15\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}+3\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}+2\sqrt{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}\right)p^2+$$

$$+4det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}=0,$$
(21)
The solution of Eq. (21) in the large-log approximation $`\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}1`$ is as follows:

$$m_\rho ^2=\frac{det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}}+c_1+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right),$$
(22)
$$m_\rho ^{}^2=\frac{4}{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}+\delta +c_2+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right).$$
(23)
To obtain the A-meson mass spectrum it is enough to make the replacement (see (17), (18)): $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}1/2\sigma _{kl}`$. The result is:

$$m_{a_1}^2=\frac{det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}}+6M_0^2+c_1+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right),$$
(24)
$$m_{a_1^{}}^2=\frac{4}{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}+3\overline{\sigma }+\delta +c_2+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right).$$
(25)
The prime labels everywhere the corresponding excited meson state and we have introduced the notations:

$$\delta \frac{6m_\rho ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}+d}{6\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}},c_1c_2=O\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right),$$
(26)
$$d3\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}+2\sqrt{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22},\overline{\sigma }\sigma _1^2+\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3}\sigma _1\sigma _2+3\sigma _2^2>0.$$
(27)
As it is seen from the Eqs. (22)-(25) the scale of mass squared for ground VA states is $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2})`$ and for excited ones is $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. Thus, the excited states turn out to be logarithmically heavier than ground ones as it was for the scalar (S) and pseudoscalar (P) case . This qualitative property is independent of any concrete choice of form factors. Combining the Eqs. (22)-(25) with the corresponding results in  one obtains:

$$m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2=6M_0^2+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right)=\frac{3}{2}m_\sigma ^2+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right),$$
(28)
$$m_{a_1^{}}^2m_\rho ^{}^2=3\overline{\sigma }+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right)=\frac{3}{2}(m_\sigma ^{}^2m_\pi ^{}^2)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}\right).$$
(29)
The last equalities in Eqs. (28), (29) do not depend on model parameters. Note also, that differences of masses squared both in the Eq. (28) and in the Eq. (29) are of order $`O(1)`$, which indicates the chiral symmetry restoration at a scale over 1 GeV.

Let us comment the approximations used to derive the meson mass spectrum: namely, the large $`N_c`$ and leading-log approximations. The first one is equivalent  to the neglect of meson loops. The second one fits well the quarks confinement as quark-antiquark threshold contributions are suppressed in two-point functions in the leading log approximation. The accuracy of this approximation is controlled also by the magnitudes of higher dimensional operators neglected in QQM, i.e. by contributions of heavy mass resonances not included into QQM. All these approximations are mutually consistent. In particular, in the effective action without gluons the quark confinement should be realized with the help of an infinite number of quasilocal vertices with higher-order derivatives. Then the imaginary part of quark loops can be compensated and their momentum dependence can eventually reproduce the infinite sum of meson resonances in the large-$`N_c`$ limit. If the effective action is truncated with a finite number of vertices and thereby deals with only a few resonances one has to retain only a finite number of terms in the low-momentum expansion of quark loops in the CSB phase, with a non-zero dynamic mass.

## 3. VA, $`U(3)`$ extension of Quasilocal Quark Model

In this section we build $`U(3)`$ version of QQM , with current quark masses being taken into account. The corresponding extension of the VA, $`SU(2)`$ QQM Lagrangian (5) is:

$$_{VA}=\overline{q}i(\widehat{\partial ̸}+\widehat{m})q+\frac{1}{4N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}b_{kl}^i[\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,k}^iq\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,l}^iq+\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,k}^iq\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,l}^iq],$$
(30)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,k}^ii\gamma _\mu f_k(s)\lambda ^i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,k}^ii\gamma _\mu \gamma _5f_k(s)\lambda ^i,i=0,\mathrm{},8,$$

where $`\lambda ^i`$ represent Gell-Mann matrices. The current quark mass matrix is $`\widehat{m}=diag(m_u,m_d,m_s)`$. In the sequel we adopt the exact isospin symmetry $`m_u=m_d`$. The symbol $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ will stand everywhere for the $`u`$, $`d`$, $`\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{d}`$ quarks. The symbol $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ will denote $`s`$ or $`\overline{s}`$ quarks. The generalization of fine-tuning condition (14) takes the form:

$$16\pi ^2(b_{kl}^i)^1=\delta _{kl}^i\frac{4}{3}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2};\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^i\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$
(31)
The couplings $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^i`$ satisfy the relations

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^m=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^0,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^n=\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^0+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}^8\right);m=1,2,3,n=4,5,6,7,$$
(32)
which provide the $`U(3)`$ Gell-Mann-Okubo relations

$$m_{\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2+m_{\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}}^2=2m_{\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2;m_{\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{u}}=m_{\alpha ,singlet}.$$
(33)
Here $`\alpha V,A,V^{},A^{}`$. The scheme of calculation of the mass-spectrum for VA, $`U(3)`$ QQM is the same as in the Sec. 2 and the details can be found in . We point out only some features. First, the self-consistency of mass-spectrum imposes the self-consistency condition (20) for all $`i`$. Second, in the effective action we did not take into account so far both the $`PA`$ mixing and different mixing terms, which are proportional to the current quark masses, since these contributions do not influence on the meson mass spectrum.

The mass relations, which are independent of model parameters in the large-log approach are:

$$m_{a_1,\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_\rho ^2\frac{3}{2}\left(m_{\sigma ,\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_\pi ^2\right),m_{a_1,\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_K^{}^2\frac{3}{2}\left(m_{\sigma ,\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_K^2\right),$$
(34)
$$m_{a_1,\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}}^2m_\phi ^2\frac{3}{2}\left[m_{\sigma ,\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}}^2\left(2m_K^2m_\pi ^2\right)\right].$$
(35)
$$m_{a_1^{},\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_\rho ^{}^2\frac{3}{2}\left(m_{\sigma ^{},\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_\pi ^{}^2\right),m_{a_1^{},\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^2\frac{3}{2}\left(m_{\sigma ^{},\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{u}}^2m_K^{}^2\right),$$
(36)
$$m_{a_1^{},\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}}^2m_\phi ^{}^2\frac{3}{2}\left(m_{\sigma ^{},\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}}^2m_{(\eta )^{}}^2\right).$$
(37)
The $`(\eta )^{}`$ in the Eq. (37) is the radial excitation of $`\eta `$ meson and throughout the paper the sign $``$ denotes the large-log approximation. The corresponding fits and comparisons with experiment are carried out in . The agreement with experimental data is within 10% for V-case and 15% for the A-one. In such a way, the VA, $`U(3)`$ extension of QQM provides the certain relations between meson masses of multiplets which are independent of model parameters.

The axial anomaly was not yet considered in framework of QQM and, thus, we did not include the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. Since the ground P-meson masses are subject to rather $`SU(3)`$ Gell-Mann-Okubo relation one has no $`\eta `$ meson mass in the Eq. (35). On the other hand, we do not expect a strong $`U_A(1)`$ anomaly effect for the case of excited $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. As a result, the relations (33) hold for excited P-multiplet, which is reflected in the Eq. (37).

## 4. Chiral symmetry restoration sum rules and constraints on parameters of VA, $`SU(2)`$ QQM

In this section we exploit the constraints based on chiral symmetry restoration in QCD at high energies for the $`SU(2)`$ QQM. Expanding the meson correlators (1) in powers of $`p^2`$ one arrives to the CSR sum rules:

$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^V\underset{n}{}Z_n^A=4F_\pi ^2,$$
(38)
$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^Vm_{V,n}^2\underset{n}{}Z_n^Am_{A,n}^2=0,$$
(39)
$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^Vm_{V,n}^4\underset{n}{}Z_n^Am_{A,n}^4=\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA},$$
(40)
$$\underset{n}{}Z_n^Vm_{V,n}^6\underset{n}{}Z_n^Am_{A,n}^6=m_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}.$$
(41)
The first two relations are the Weinberg sum rules. The quantity $`F_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant which is equal in the QQM :

$$F_\pi ^2=\frac{N_fN_cM_0^2}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}+O(1).$$
(42)
The residues in resonance pole contributions in the vector and axial-vector correlators have the structure,

$$Z_n^{(V,A)}=4f_{(V,A),n}^2m_{(V,A),n}^2,$$
(43)
with $`f_{(V,A),n}`$ being defined as electromagnetic decay constants.

The corresponding two-point correlators for the $`SU(2)`$ QQM can be calculated by variation of external vector fields. Let us first consider the V-case. Taking into account the external vector sources $`V_{k,\mu }^i`$ the Lagrangian reads as follows:

$$_{\text{aux}}^V=\overline{q}\left(\overline{)}D+i\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,k}^iV_{k,\mu }^i\right)q+N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\rho _{k,\mu }^ib_{kl}^1\rho _{l,\mu }^i.$$

After shifting the bosonic fields

$$\rho _{k,\mu }^i\rho _{k,\mu }^iV_{k,\mu }^i,$$

and integrating over fermionic degrees of freedom one comes to the following effective action in external V-fields:

$$S_{\text{eff}}^V(\rho _{k,\mu }^i,V_{k,\mu }^i)=N_fN_c\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\overline{)}D|_{\text{reg}}+$$

$$+N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2d^4x\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}b_{kl}^1\left\{\rho _{k,\mu }^i\rho _{l,\mu }^i2V_{k,\mu }^i\rho _{l,\mu }^i+V_{k,\mu }^iV_{l,\mu }^i\right\}.$$

Expanding $`\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\overline{)}D|_{\text{reg}}`$ up to quadratic in fields terms, one has

$$S_{\text{eff}}^{(2)}(\rho _{k,\mu }^i,V_{k,\mu }^i)=\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\rho _{k,\mu }^iC_{kl}^{(\rho )\mu \nu }\rho _{l,\nu }^i+N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2b_{kl}^1\left[2V_{k,\mu }^i\rho _{l,\mu }^i+V_{k,\mu }^iV_{l,\mu }^i\right]\right\},$$

where $`C_{kl}^{(\rho )\mu \nu }`$ is given by Eq. (15). Introducing the vectors

$$\rho _\mu \left(\begin{array}{c}\rho _{1,\mu }^i\\ \rho _{2,\mu }^i\end{array}\right),V_\mu \left(\begin{array}{c}V_{1,\mu }^i\\ V_{2,\mu }^i\end{array}\right)$$

and taking into account (14) (where we neglect the last term), one integrates over $`\rho _\mu `$ with the result:

$$\frac{12\pi ^2}{N_fN_c}S_{\text{eff}}(V_\mu )=\frac{9}{8}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\right)V_\mu ^T\widehat{H}_{\mu \nu }^\rho V_\nu +\frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}V_\mu ^TV_\nu \delta _{\mu \nu },$$
(44)
$$\widehat{H}_{\mu \nu }^\rho \left(\widehat{A}p^2+\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1\widehat{A}\left(\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1(p^2\delta _{\mu \nu }+p_\mu p_\nu )+\left(\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1\delta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(45)
The last term in the Eq. (45) together with that of in (44) form a local term which will be cancelled by the same term in the A-case. Substituting the identity

$$\overline{q}\gamma _\mu q=\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{q}f_1(s)\gamma _\mu q\sqrt{3}\overline{q}f_2(s)\gamma _\mu q\right)$$

into the vector correlator

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\rho (p^2)=4d^4x\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\overline{q}\gamma _\mu q(x)\overline{q}\gamma _\nu q(0),$$
(46)
the latter can be rewritten through the second variational derivatives:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\rho )}(p^2)=\frac{N_fN_c}{12\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{(\rho )}+3\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^{(\rho )}2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\rho )}\right](\delta _{\mu \nu }p^2+p_\mu p_\nu ),$$
(47)
$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{(\rho )}\left(\widehat{A}p^2+\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1\widehat{A}\left(\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1.$$
(48)
On the other hand, this correlator is parametrized as follows (see Eq. (1)):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\rho )}(p^2)=\left[\frac{Z_\rho }{p^2+m_\rho ^2}+\frac{Z_\rho ^{}}{p^2+m_\rho ^{}^2}\right](\delta _{\mu \nu }p^2+p_\mu p_\nu ).$$
(49)
Comparison of (47) and (49) allows to obtain the corresponding residues. (see Eqs. (54), (55)). In the mean-field approximation the vector correlator and residues can be calculated exactly which is displayed in the Appendix.

The A-mesons must be considered together with the P-ones due to the $`PA`$ mixing. The relevant term in the effective action

$$S_{\text{eff}}^{(2)}(\pi _k^i,a_{k,\mu }^i)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}2\pi _k^iC_{kl}^{\pi a,\mu }a_{l,\mu }^i,$$

appears by virtue of non-zero value of the corresponding second variation of $`S_{\text{eff}}(\pi _k^i,a_{k,\mu }^i)`$:

$$C_{kl}^{\pi a,\mu }=N_fN_c\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\text{tr}\left\{(i\gamma _5)\frac{f_k\left(\left(\frac{q+p/2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\right)}{\mathit{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathit{}+iM}(i\gamma _\mu \gamma _5)\frac{f_l\left(\left(\frac{q+p/2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\right)}{\mathit{}\frac{1}{2}\mathit{}+iM}\right\}=$$

$$=\frac{4iN_fN_c}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4qMf_k\left(\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)f_l\left(\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}{\left[\left(q+\frac{1}{2}p\right)^2+M^2\right]\left[\left(q\frac{1}{2}p\right)^2+M^2\right]}p_\mu +O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right).$$
(50)
In order to exclude the mixing terms one makes the shift of A-fields:

$$a_{k,\mu }^ia_{k,\mu }^i+D_{kl}^i\pi _l^ip_\mu ,$$

with the elements $`D_{kl}^i`$ being defined by the requirement of cancellation of $`PA`$ terms. This leads to changing of the kinetic matrix $`\widehat{A}^\pi `$ due to contribution of longitudinal A-part:

$$\widehat{A}^\pi \widehat{A}_{ren}^\pi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}4\frac{m_\rho ^2}{m_{a_1}^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}+O(1)& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)& \frac{3}{2}+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\end{array}\right),$$
(51)
where the Eq. (28) and the scale (20) have been exploited. The redefinition (51) does not influence on the mass spectrum of P-mesons, but renormalizes the pion decay constant (42) is:

$$F_\pi ^2=\frac{N_fN_cM_0^2m_\rho ^2}{4\pi ^2m_{a_1}^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}+O(1).$$
(52)
For the model under consideration the relation (52) fixes the logarithm of the cutoff in terms of physical parameters.

Taking into account the point above the further calculations for the A-case are the same as for the V-one. As a result one finds the residues in the meson poles. In the large-log approach one has:

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_\pi =4F_\pi ^2\frac{(m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2)\delta }{m_\rho ^2m_{a_1}^2m_{a_1^{}}^2}Z_1,Z_1\frac{3N_fN_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{16\pi ^2},$$
(53)
$$Z_\rho \frac{m_{a_1}^2}{m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}F_\pi ^2,Z_{a_1}\frac{m_\rho ^2}{m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}F_\pi ^2,$$
(54)
$$Z_\rho ^{}\frac{Z_1}{m_\rho ^{}^2},Z_{a_1^{}}\frac{Z_1}{m_{a_1^{}}^2},$$
(55)
where $`\delta `$ is given by (26). Unlike the situation in the SP-case the residues in the VA-poles are of the same order of magnitude:

$$Z_\rho Z_{a_1}Z_\rho ^{}Z_{a_1^{}}=O\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right).$$

The statement (20) follows from the comparison of Eqs. (52), (53). The relation for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\pi `$ is a constraint on effective coupling constants of the QQM $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{kl}`$.

The first and the second sum rules are fulfilled identically. The third one takes the form:

$$Z_1\left(m_{a_1^{}}^2m_\rho ^{}^2\right)16\pi \alpha _s\overline{q}q^2\text{or}3Z_1\overline{\sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}.$$
(56)
Notice that the analog of Eq. (56) in the scalar case  may be cast into the form

$$\frac{N_fN_c}{2\pi ^2}\left(m_\sigma ^{}^2m_\pi ^{}^2\right)24\pi \alpha _s\overline{q}q^2\text{or}3Z_1\overline{\sigma }=\frac{27}{32}\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}.$$
(57)
The minor discrepancy between relations (56) and (57) is about 16% and can be referred to the quality of two-resonance approximation. The fourth sum rule looks as follows :

$$m_{a_1^{}}^2m_\rho ^{}^2\frac{m_0^2}{2}\text{or}\frac{4}{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}3\overline{\sigma }\frac{m_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}}{2Z_1}.$$
(58)
Numerical estimations  show that the last sum rule fails for QQM with the ground and first excited sets of $`VA`$ mesons. The structure of $`Z_\rho ^{}`$ and $`Z_{a_1^{}}`$ shows that if $`m_{a_1^{}}m_\rho ^{}`$ then $`Z_{a_1^{}}Z_\rho ^{}`$ and therefore $`f_{a_1^{}}f_\rho ^{}`$. As a consequence, these residues approximately cancel each other in sum rules and the one-channel results for $`f_\rho `$, $`f_{a_1}`$ hold  (see also ):

$$f_\rho \frac{F_\pi m_{a_1}}{m_\rho \sqrt{m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2}},f_{a_1}\frac{F_\pi m_\rho }{m_{a_1}\sqrt{m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2}}.$$
(59)
After evaluating we get $`f_\rho 0.15`$ and $`f_{a_1}0.06`$ to be compared with the experimental values $`f_\rho =0.20\pm 0.01`$, $`f_{a_1}=0.10\pm 0.02`$ .

It should be mentioned that introducing VA-meson fields influences on some CSR constraints for SP-case obtained in . Due to the redefinition (51) the first SP sum rule is not fulfilled now identically but up to terms of order $`O(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ because of the scaling (20). The second SP sum rule is not changed in the large-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approximation. The relation $`Z_\sigma Z_\pi `$ is not now valid. Instead one has

$$Z_\sigma \frac{m_\rho ^2}{m_{a_1}^2}Z_\pi .$$

The relevant physical discussions and fits for the SPVA QQM can be traced in . From the estimations , in particular, follows that $`m_{a_1^{}}m_\rho ^{}60`$ MeV which proves a fast restoration of chiral symmetry.

## 5. Summary

1. We have shown that $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(3)`$ versions of Quasilocal Quark Model with chirally invariant four-fermion vector and axial-vector vertices including derivatives in fields can serve to describe the physics of vector and axial-vector meson resonances at intermediate energies. The corresponding mass spectrum for the ground and first excited VA boson states was derived in the mean field and large-log approximations. The qualitative features of the mass spectrum obtained turned out to be the same as in the scalar-pseudoscalar case : the excited states are logarithmically heavier than ground ones and a fast restoration of chiral symmetry over the scale 1 GeV is predicted. Comparison with the SP, $`SU(2)`$ QQM permitted to obtain two relations between boson masses independent of model parameters:

$$m_{a_1}^2m_\rho ^2\frac{3}{2}m_\sigma ^2,$$

$$m_{a_1^{}}^2m_\rho ^{}^2\frac{3}{2}(m_\sigma ^{}^2m_\pi ^{}^2).$$

The latter relation predict the mass of the first radial excitation of axial-vector meson in the energy range $`m_{a_1}=1500÷1550`$ MeV.
2. The VA, $`U(3)`$ generalization of QQM allowed to derive much more relations between masses of meson states which do not depend on any model parameters (see Eqs. (34)-(37)). The agreement with experimental data is within 10% for the V-case and 15% for the A-one .
3. From the expansion of QCD two-point colour-singlet current correlators for VA-fields in inverse powers of large momentum and the comparison with OPE one obtains the set of sum rules for the differences of VA-correlators, which show a rapid decrease at large momenta. Therefore, the chiral symmetry is restored at high energies and one can perform the QCD matching by means of few lowest lying VA-resonances that gives a set of constraints on parameters for VA, $`SU(2)`$ QQM. In particular, the residues for the ground and excited VA states turned out to be of the same order of magnitude unlike the situation in the SP case. The inclusion of excited states did not change the electromagnetic decay constants of the ground VA states compared with the one-channel results: $`f_\rho 0.15`$, $`f_{a_1}0.06`$.
4. The main results of our work have been obtained by means of method of effective action and on the basis of the idea of chiral symmetry restoration at high energies and on OPE of the two-point correlators for vector and axial-vector quark densities. All calculations have been performed in the large-$`N_c`$ and log-approximations.
5. We conclude that the VA Quasilocal Quark Model reflects phenomenology of low and intermediate energy meson physics and the matching to non-perturbative QCD based on chiral symmetry restoration at high energies improves the predictability of the models.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to A. A. Andrianov for the numerous fruitful discussions and attention to our work. This work is supported by Grant RFBR 01-02-17152, INTAS Call 2000 Grant (Project 587), and The Program ”Universities of Russia: Fundamental Investigations” (Grant UR.02.01.001).

## Appendix

In this Appendix we calculate in the mean field approach the two-point vector correlator for the two-channel QQM. After introducing external vector fields $`V_{k,\mu }^i`$ and integrating over $`\rho _{k,\mu }^i`$ one has for the quadratic in fields part of effective action:

$$\frac{12\pi ^2}{N_fN_c}S_{\text{eff}}^{(2)}(V_\mu )=\frac{9}{8}\mathrm{\Lambda }^4V_\mu ^T\widehat{K}\left(\widehat{A}p^2+\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1\widehat{A}\left(\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1\widehat{K}V_\nu (p^2\delta _{\mu \nu }+p_\mu p_\nu )+$$

$$+\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V_\mu ^T\left(\widehat{K}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\widehat{K}\left(\widehat{B}^\rho \right)^1\widehat{K}\right)V_\nu \delta _{\mu \nu },$$
(60)
where

$$\widehat{K}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{4\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}}{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}& \frac{4\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}}{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\\ \frac{4\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}}{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}& 1\frac{4\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}}{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\end{array}\right).$$

In order to obtain the correlator of local currents (1) one needs to project the expression (60) on the local current:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^V(p^2)=\text{tr}\left\{\widehat{P}\frac{\delta ^2S_{\text{eff}}^{(2)}}{\delta V_\mu \delta V_\nu }\right\},\widehat{P}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \sqrt{3}\\ \sqrt{3}& 3\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\widehat{P}`$ is the projection operator. It is a formal way to obtain the relation (47). The final result is:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^V(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1\left(ap^2+b+c\right)(p^2\delta _{\mu \nu }+p_\mu p_\nu )}{24\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}2\right)det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(p^2+m_\rho ^2\right)\left(p^2+m_\rho ^{}^2\right)}}+`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{3d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}}4\right)\delta _{\mu \nu }.`$
In the Eq. (61) we introduced the following notations:

$$a6\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}2\right)\left[d+8\epsilon det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\epsilon ^2det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}+3\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}2\sqrt{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12})\right],$$

$$b8\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}2\right)\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}+\sqrt{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}+\epsilon det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)^2,$$

$$c\left(d+4\epsilon det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)^2,\epsilon \frac{4}{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},$$

and $`d`$, $`Z_1`$ are given by (27), (53). The residues in poles of the transverse part of correlator (61) are:

$$Z_\rho =\frac{Z_1\left(am_\rho ^2+b+c\right)}{24\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}2\right)det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(m_\rho ^{}^2m_\rho ^2\right)}$$
(62)
$$Z_\rho ^{}=\frac{Z_1\left(am_\rho ^{}^2+b+c\right)}{24\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_0^2}2\right)det\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(m_\rho ^2m_\rho ^{}^2\right)}$$
(63)
One can check that the expressions (62), (63) in the large-log approximation turn into corresponding quantities (54), (55).

The exact calculation of axial-vector correlator is much more difficult because of $`PA`$ mixing.


text:
# A dynamical fossil in the Ursa Minor dwarf spheroidal galaxy

## 1 Introduction

The CDM model of structure formation (e.g. Ostriker, 1993) postulates that galaxies form when initial perturbations in a sea of cold (non-relativistic) dark matter particles seed the growth of larger dark matter haloes characterised by a central density cusp $`\rho (r)r^a`$, where $`a=1`$ to $`1.5`$ (Navarro, Frenk, & White, 1997; Ghigna et al., 2000). However, the rotation curves of massive galaxies almost invariably suggest that haloes have a flat density core rather than a sharp cusp (e.g. de Blok, McGaugh, & Rubin, 2001). It has been suggested that an initial cusp may be destroyed by feedback mechanisms that couple supernovae driven winds to the dark matter (e.g. Binney, Gerhard, & Silk, 2001), but models of this sort have had mixed success.

The dSph galaxies (e.g. Mateo, 1998) surrounding the Milky Way provide a good laboratory in which to test CDM predictions on small scales: most are sufficiently nearby to allow us to measure the velocities of hundreds of member stars, and most have such meagre baryonic content that their internal dynamics is everywhere dominated by the dark matter. Although it has argued for some time that CDM greatly overpredicts the number of dwarfs, some recent work (Stoehr et al., 2002) suggests that CDM is actually in good agreement with the local dSph population. Ursa Minor is, with Draco, one of the two most dark matter dominated dSphs of the Local Group, with a central mass to light ratio $`M/L70M_{}/L_{}`$ (Hargreaves et al., 1994; Armandroff, Olszewski, & Pryor, 1995). UMi’s stars appear to have been formed in a single burst (Carrera et al., 2002), and its size, stellar velocity dispersion, and luminosity resemble those of Draco, which has been shown to have a mean mass to light ratio $`M/L400M_{}/L_{}`$ within three core radiii (Kleyna et al., 2001). Unlike most other dSphs, however, UMi has substantial morphological distortions: UMi is highly elongated, and appears to possess a secondary clump or shoulder on the northeast side of the major axis (Irwin & Hatidimitriou, 1995; Kleyna et al., 1998; Palma et al., 2002). It is often argued that this clump cannot be a persistent feature because the $`2\times 10^7`$ year stellar crossing time of the system is orders of magnitude shorter than its $`10^{10}`$ year age, so that stellar orbits within an unbound clump will diverge over hundreds of dSph crossings. UMi’s relatively circular orbit (Schweitzer et al., 2003) weighs against the common explanation that the clump is a temporary artefact generated through ongoing tidal disruption by the Galaxy. Generally, models that attempt to explain the dSphs’ large velocity dispersions by tidal disruption still require dark matter, or else must postulate an unseen supply of dSphs to replace those that are disrupted (Oh, Lin, & Aarseth, 1995), or require that dSphs are disintegrated remnants viewed along a very fortuitous line of sight (Kroupa, 1997).

In this paper, we use a data set consisting of new and extant UMi stellar velocities to argue that the second peak in UMi’s stellar distribution has a cold kinematical signature, and we demonstrate that a plausible explanation is that the clump is a disrupted stellar cluster sloshing back and forth within UMi’s halo. We use numerical simulations and analytical arguments to show that persistent substructure is consistent with a cored halo, but not with a cusped CDM halo.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

In May 2002, we obtained spectra of 63 stars in UMi using the WYFFOS multifibre spectrograph at the William Herschel Telescope on La Palma. We cross-correlated the spectra with a synthetic template of the Ca triplet lines at $`850`$ nm to measure velocities (e.g. Kleyna et al., 2002); the median velocity error was 5 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, less than the UMi’s 8.8 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ central velocity dispersion. As our stars were mostly at large projected radii in UMi, we combined our data with the more centrally concentrated sample of Armandroff et al. (1995), after subtracting the mean velocity difference of the two data sets. The combined data set contains 134 stars. Because the observing run was curtailed by bad weather, the data did not extend to a sufficiently large radius to allow a fit to the halo shape and anisotropy (c.f. Wilkinson et al., 2002; Kleyna et al., 2002). However, we noted that a histogram of stellar velocities near the clump on the northeast side of UMi’s major axis appeared narrower than the $`8.8\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ Gaussian describing UMi’s overall line of sight velocity distribution (Figure 1). This observation suggested constructing a model of UMi’s population consisting of the sum of two Gaussians, one representing the underlying $`\sigma _0=8.8\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ Gaussian, and the other representing a sub-population of unknown fraction $`f`$, velocity offset $`v_s`$, and velocity dispersion $`\sigma _s`$. Assuming an observational velocity uncertainty $`\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, the probability of observing a particular velocity in this model is

$`P(v|f,\sigma _s,\sigma _0,\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}})`$ $`=`$ $`f\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{(vv_s)^2}{\sigma _{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^2}\right]}{\sqrt{2\pi (\sigma _{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^2)}}}+`$
$`(1f)\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{v^2}{\sigma _0^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^2}\right]}{\sqrt{2\pi (\sigma _0^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^2)}}}`$
and the likelihood of obtaining a ensemble of velocities $`\{v_i\}`$ with errors $`\{\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\}`$ is

$$P(\{v_i,\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\})=\underset{i}{}P(v_i|f,\sigma _s,\sigma _0,\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{})$$
(2)
Next we scanned the face of UMi in RA and Dec in $`2^{}`$ increments. At each point, we collected all velocities in a $`6^{}`$ radius aperture, and computed the statistical likelihood of drawing these velocities from an 8.8 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ Gaussian (Equation 2 with $`f=0`$), as well as the likelihood of drawing the velocities from each member of a grid of two-Guassian models (Equation 2, with $`f=0.1,0.2\mathrm{}1.0`$, $`v_s=10,9\mathrm{}10`$, $`\sigma _s=0.5,1.0\mathrm{}15.0`$). When the likelihood of the best-fitting two-Gaussian model exceeded the likelihood of the single Gaussian model by a large factor, we deemed that aperture to contain a kinematic subpopulation distinct from the rest of UMi’s stars. Figure 2 shows the result of the scanning procedure. Large dots are apertures where we found a significant (likelihood ratio $`>10^3`$) sub-population. At the largest dot, the best two-Gaussian population ( $`\sigma _s=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`v_s=1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`f=0.7`$) is $`4.7\times 10^4`$ times more likely than the default 8.8 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ single-Gaussian model. Moreover, the largest dot is very close to where the isopleth contours indicate the presence of a secondary peak in the stars. The small value of $`v_s`$ suggests that the sub-population is either on a radial orbit or a face-on circular orbit. We note that our best-fit $`\sigma _s`$ is ill-determined because it is much smaller than the velocity measurement errors . Also, this small value of $`\sigma _s`$ applies only to the surviving phase space region of the progenitor cluster - any faster stars may have joined UMi’s general population. We verified the statistical significance of the second kinematical population with a Monte-Carlo test: we repeatedly generated artificial data drawn from an 8.8 k m/s Gaussian at the same locations and with the same velocity uncertainties as our actual data, and subjected it to the scanning procedure described above. We found that only 11 of 2000 (0.055%) artificial data sets give as large a likelihood ratio as the actual data anywhere in UMi. Only one of these false positives suggested an orbit in the plane of the sky, and all of the others had $`v_s>5`$.

## 3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE COLD SUB-POPULATION

To investigate the survival of a cold kinematical sub-population in a dSph, we integrated the motion of a group of unbound stars inside a plausible halo model. We assumed a halo density law $`\rho (r)(a^2+r^2)^{1/2}`$, which has a core for $`a>0`$ and a $`r^1`$ cusp for $`a=0`$. We dropped an unbound clump modelled as a three dimensional spatial Gaussian with a three dimensional Gaussian velocity dispersion into this halo, and followed its evolution with an adaptive stepsize Runge-Kutta code for 12 Gyr. Using the mass of Draco as a reference (Kleyna et al., 2001), we normalised the enclosed mass of the model to $`5\times 10^7M_{}`$ inside $`r=1`$, where $`r=1`$ corresponds to 600 pc, approximately the maximum extent of the stellar distribution. In our dimensionless units, the clump orbits within $`r=0.25`$, or 150 pc in physical units.

Figure 3 shows the results of the simulations. When a clump with an initial one dimensional dispersion $`\sigma _s=0.5\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and a one-sigma radius of 0.02 (12 pc) is dropped at an initial radius $`r_0=0.25`$ into a halo with an $`a=0.85`$ core (top panel) on near-radial orbit with a tangential velocity equal to 0.07 times the circular speed at $`r_0`$, the resulting sub-structure is visible for many Gyr. Even at 12 Gyr, nearly the age of the Universe, the remnants of the clump are spatially concentrated and asymmetrical. When an identical clump is dropped into a $`a=0`$ cusped halo (bottom panel) the clump dissipates completely within 1 Gyr.

The total velocity $`v=(v_x^2+v_y^2+v_z^2)^{1/2}`$ histograms of Figure 3 demonstrate that the stars remain cold for much of the evolution of the cored model, whereas they quickly achieve a flat distribution in a cusp. However, the fact that the orbit is constructed to be approximately in the plane of the sky implies that the measured line-of-sight $`v_z`$ distribution remains cold for both the core and cusp. The distinguishing observable feature of the cored model, therefore, is a localized population that is cold in the line-of-sight.

Further simulations demonstrate that this conclusion holds good both for more circular orbits and for triaxial haloes. Cusps shallower than $`r^1`$ only slightly increase the longevity of the clump: for example, a clump in a $`\rho (r)r^{0.5}`$ cusp survives approximately twice as long as in a $`r^1`$ cusp. If the halo core is an order of magnitude larger than the clump’s orbit, a clump can survive almost unalterned for a Hubble time. If the core radius is equal to or smaller than the clump’s orbit, however, the clump is destroyed within one or two Gyr. We conclude that a clump can survive for a large fraction of a Hubble time only if it is embedded in a core at least two or three times the size of its orbit.

An additional concern is the possibility that Galactic tides may destroy substructure in a cored halo. To address this point, we added the effect of tides to our simulation. We modelled the Galaxy as an isothermal sphere of mass $`10^{12}M_{}`$ inside 50 kpc, somewhat more massive than the value of Wilkinson & Evans (1999); at a 60 kpc apogalacticon, the tidal force from this Galaxy model is 0.02 times as strong as the dwarf’s gravity at a unitless dSph radius $`r=1`$. We then created a varying tidal force in the dwarf’s $`x,y`$ plane by moving the isothermal Galaxy model around the dSph on 1.6 Gyr orbits with eccentricities between 0 and 0.5. In no instance did this weak tidal force significantly affect the survival of substructure either in a core or in a cusp. Indeed, we could safely make the tidal force an order of magnitude larger without causing the clump to disintegrate in the above $`a=0.85`$ core.

We emphasize that these simulations are not in any sense a fit to the UMi data. Rather, they demonstrate that substructure can easily persist for many Gyr in a plausible cored halo, but is quickly erased in a cusp. Several unconstrained parameters affect the survival of substructure in a core. In addition to increasing the core size, for example, one can decrease the dSph’s mass, slowing the internal time scale and decreasing the number of orbits over which a clump can dissipate. Similarly, one can increase the longevity of the clump by decreasing its initial size or velocity dispersion. We find that strong substructure continues to persist for 12 Gyr when we double or treble the size or dispersion of our model clump in Figure 3, although the final distribution is less compact than in our illustrative example.

We note that there is a simple explanation for the persistence of a clump in any cored halo: a generic feature of dark matter haloes with cores is that the potential is close to that of a harmonic oscillator. The one dimensional $`x`$ motion of a particle with position $`x_1`$ and velocity $`v_1`$ at time $`t=0`$ is $`X_1(t)=x_1\mathrm{cos}(\omega _xt)+v_1\omega _x^1\mathrm{sin}(\omega _xt)`$. Then the $`x`$ distance between two particles dropped into a harmonic potential at positions and $`x_1,x_2`$ with velocities $`0,v_2`$ is given for all time as

$$X_1(t)X_2(t)=(x_1x_2)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _xt)+x_2\left(\frac{v_2}{x_2\omega _x}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _xt)$$
(3)
The cosine term is bounded by the initial separation, and the sine term is bounded by the orbital amplitude times the ratio of the relative speed (dispersion) to the orbital speed, in the approximation that the dispersion is smaller than the orbital speed. Because the three dimensions of the harmonic oscillator are independent, this result does not depend on spherical symmetry and is valid for any triaxial harmonic potential. Hence, if the non-harmonic terms of the Taylor expansion of the potential are sufficiently small, an unbound stellar clump with a small but finite internal dispersion can persist over a long time, pulsating in size without disintegrating.

In view of the above discussion, the fact that the tidal force only weakly affects clump survival is not surprising. The lowest order term of the tidal force arises from a rotating quadratic effective potential. This quadratic potential changes adiabatically, because the dwarf’s orbit around the Galaxy is $`10^2`$ times longer than the internal time scale. Thus particles on adjacent sinusoidal orbits remain on adjacent sinusoidal orbits as the potential evolves.

The low-dispersion substructure that we observe in UMi is consistent with a clump progenitor similar to star clusters seen elsewhere in the Local Group. By rescaling the number of stars in the best aperture by the best-fit subpopulation fraction $`f=0.7`$, we estimate that the clump contains $`7\%`$ of UMi’s population. If we assume that UMi has a normal stellar mass to light ratio $`2M_{}/L_{}`$ and a total V-band luminosity $`L_v=2\times 10^5L_{}`$, the clump has a luminosity of $`1.5\times 10^4`$ $`L_{}`$ and a mass $`M=3\times 10^4M_{}`$. These parameters are similar to the low mass globular clusters in the SMC and LMC. A cluster with the mass of our clump and a half-mass radius $`r_{1/2}=10\mathrm{pc}`$ has a characteristic one-dimensional internal velocity $`\sqrt{1/3}\sqrt{G(M/2)/r_{1/2}}1.5\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, cold compared to UMi’s overall population. Such low-mass clusters can become unbound immediately after formation when supernovae expel the gas content (Goodwin, 1997), or possibly slowly though tidal interactions with the parent galaxy’s halo (Giersz & Heggie, 1997).

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

Ursa Minor is known to possess a second peak in its stellar distribution. We demonstrate that the stars in the vicinity of this peak comprise a kinematically distinct cold sub-population; the probability of obtaining a similarly strong false positive in the absence of a sub-population is $`0.055\%`$. We show that the properties of this clump are consistent with the remnants of a disrupted stellar cluster orbiting in the plane of the sky within the harmonic potential of cored dark matter halo. Although a clump can persist for a Hubble time in a harmonic potential, the potential of a CDM cusped halo would destroy the clump within $`<1`$ Gyr. This finding suggests that the haloes of even the least massive, most dark matter dominated galaxies possess a core rather than a cusp.

NWE is supported by the Royal Society, while MIW and JK acknowledge support from PPARC. The authors gratefully thank the staff of the Isaac Newton Group for help in acquiring the data, and the anonymous referee for useful criticisms and suggestions.