text:
# 1 Outline

## 1 Outline

It is an exciting time to be working at the interface between physics and astronomy. Experiments built to detect astrophysical and atmospheric sources of neutrinos, such as Super-Kamiokande, are providing what may be the first definitive evidence for neutrino mass. Cosmology experiments, such as those measuring the the redshifts of type Ia supernovae and those determining the anisotropy of the microwave background, may have an important impact on particle physics as they confront our general view of the origin of the Universe. There have been similarly exciting developments at the high energy frontier of astronomy. Among other things:

1. we have detected a gamma-ray burst that is probably the most powerful explosion recorded since the Big Bang,
2. we have discovered extragalactic astrophysical sources that beam intense fluxes of TeV $`\gamma `$-radiation to us, and
3. we have observed individual particles (possibly protons) arriving from outer space with energies exceeding 25 Joules.

These new developments are clearly of prime importance for the field of high energy astrophysics, but, even more, research in this area in the future may make important contributions to particle physics depending, of course, on the nature of the discoveries.

In this paper, I provide a summary of the field of high-energy astronomy using photons, cosmic rays, and neutrinos. This field is rapidly developing because of recent discoveries and because of new experimental techniques that derive largely from accelerator-based particle physics detectors. I start with a broad overview of the field and discuss the general scientific motivations. Then, the three exciting developments listed above are described in more detail, followed by a discussion of the theoretical considerations. A selective review of the field in terms of the experimental techniques, results, and future prospects makes up the last part of the paper. I conclude with a summary of the prospects for the future.

## 2 Broad Overview

We learn about the Universe outside the immediate neighborhood of the Solar System by studying the arrival of four distinct messengers: 1) photons, 2) cosmic rays, 3) neutrinos, and 4) gravity waves . Here, cosmic rays are defined as nuclei (p, n, He++, etc.) electrons, and their antiparticles. In the future, we may discover other stable particles that convey information across interstellar space. If we do, we can add them to the previous list.

To date, the detection the photons over a wide range of energies has been the basis for the vast majority of astronomical discoveries. Cosmic rays provide important information about high energy processes occurring in our galaxy. Neutrinos and gravity waves both offer great astronomical potential, but are difficult to detect. So far, the neutrino source list is limited to our Sun and the supernova SN1987A.

Photon, cosmic ray, and neutrino astronomy are closely related at high energies (E$`>1`$GeV), both in terms of their astrophysical production mechanisms and in terms of their detection techniques. High energy particles are produced astrophysically by acceleration processes rather than by thermal processes which dominate at lower energies. The high energy particle fluxes typically exhibit rapidly falling power-law spectra, which leads to the requirement of very large detectors. The high energy domain spans a wide dynamic range (from 1 GeV to $`10^{11}`$ GeV), and we cannot expect a single detection technique to work at all energies.

In the future, we imagine studying astrophysical sources with multiple messengers that provide complementary information. A prototypical source would be gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). We know a great deal about GRBs from the electromagnetic radiation they produce, but there is also speculation that they are the source of the highest energy cosmic rays  and that they produce a detectable neutrino flux . Thus, we anticipate that astronomy using these different messengers will become interrelated as the experiments become more powerful and as more detections are made.

The general scientific motivation for particle astronomy is multi-faceted. On the physical side, we use high energy radiation to probe extreme conditions of magnetic or gravitational potential. Our understanding of such astrophysical situations is still far from complete. The copious flux of high energy cosmic rays argues for efficient astrophysical accelerators with beam energies well beyond what we can achieve on Earth. High energy particle astronomy may also shed light on aspects of particle physics or cosmology beyond their respective standard models. On the astronomical side, the movement towards high energies continues the historical expansion of astronomy from optical light into new wavebands (radio, infrared, X-ray, and $`\gamma `$-ray). It is important to emphasize, however, that when discussing the many aspects of high energy astronomy, there is not yet a generally applicable “Standard Model”. For the experimentalist, this situation is ideal in that there are few constraints. New experimental results often change the general paradigm.

## 3 Three Recent Exciting Results

Here I discuss three of the most exciting results in this field in the last few years. The choices are, of course, very subjective.

### 3.1 Gamma Ray Bursts

Even after thirty years of research, the nature of gamma ray bursts (GRBs) remains one of the most important mysteries of astrophysics. We know from the BATSE detector on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory that the arrival directions of GRBs are consistent with isotropy . However, the relatively poor angular resolution of BATSE of a few degrees has made the detection of GRB counterparts (i.e. sources at optical or radio wavelengths) difficult. The lack of counterparts has hindered efforts to pin down the distance scale of GRBs.

In 1997, a major breakthrough was achieved with the first detection of optical counterparts. This work was accomplished by the Beppo/SAX satellite detector in conjunction with powerful optical telescopes, both on the ground (e.g. Keck) and in space (e.g. HST). By using a combination of wide and narrow-field X-ray telescopes, Beppo/SAX determines the positions of some bursts with an accuracy of several arc minutes. This excellent localization allowed the detection of fading optical counterparts for several dozen bursts . Redshift values have been determined for approximately twenty counterparts; they indicate that the correlated bursts are cosmological in origin (typical $`z1`$). The typical inferred energy outputs of the bursts range between $`10^{51}`$ and $`10^{53}`$ ergs (assuming isotropic emission).

The detection of optical counterparts to GRBs is clearly a landmark discovery. Until 1999, however, optical observations were limited to time periods well after the actual bursts because of the long delay (typically 8 hours) required by Beppo/SAX to achieve accurate position localization. What we really want to do is to carry out out simultaneous $`\gamma `$-ray and optical observations of GRBs. Such observations require a fast slewing telescope with a wide field of view to cover the large BATSE error box.

Several wide-field optical telescopes have been constructed or are currently under development. One of the pioneering experiments, known as ROTSE-I, consists of an array of 35 mm telephoto lenses coupled to large format CCD detectors. With an overall field of view of $`16^{}`$x$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}^{}`$, and by slewing in an automated fashion upon receiving an alert from the GRB Coordinates Network (GCN), ROTSE is ideally suited for rapid optical follow-up of GRBs. The careful design of the experiment paid off on January 23, 1999 when ROTSE made the first detection of contemporaneous optical radiation from a GRB .

From the perspective of BATSE, GRB990123 was relatively ordinary, but the optical signature detected by ROTSE, was truly remarkable. As shown in Figure 1, the optical brightness increased by 3 magnitudes in 25 seconds and then waned by 5 magnitudes over a period of 8 minutes. At its peak brightness, the optical magnitude was 8.95 which, when combined with the measured redshift value of 1.60, meant that this burst was the most luminous object ever detected. GRB990123 was brighter than the brightest quasar by several orders of magnitude. Assuming isotropic emission, the inferred energy release of GRB990123 exceeds $`10^{54}`$ergs. Theoretical models, already grappling to explain the wide variety of GRB phenomena, are further strained to deal with this remarkable energy output.

A wide range of theoretical models have been proposed to explain gamma ray bursts. There are almost as many models as bursts! The basic difficulty is to construct a physical mechanism that can produce and extract the intense high energy emission we observe. The general picture calls for a cataclysmic event which produces a relativistic fireball of material with Lorentz factors approaching 1000 . The relativistic material escapes from the region of high energy density along a collimated jet. High energy radiation results when the jet collides with nearby ambient material. The nature of the original cataclysmic event is not fully understood. Generally favored pictures include colliding neutron stars and hypernovae (“failed supernovae” of heavy stars) .

The recent discoveries in the area of gamma ray bursts are clearly profound, but the overall puzzle is far from being solved. Many additional questions remain. For example, when considering the time durations and spectral shapes of GRBs, we know from the BATSE data that there are at least two classes of bursts, (if not more) . For instrumental reasons, Beppo/SAX is sensitive only to longer bursts (duration greater than 1 second). Thus, so far, we can confidently ascribe a cosmological origin only to a portion of the burst population. The medium and short length bursts may have a different origin. We can expect GRB research to remain exciting for years to come.

### 3.2 TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from Extragalactic Sources

The field of very high energy (VHE) $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy has come of age in the last ten years . Ground-based telescopes using the atmospheric Cherenkov technique have made strong detections of TeV photons from galactic and extragalactic sources. The most exciting development in this area has been the discovery of strong VHE emission from active galactic nuclei (AGN), which make up a broad class of extragalactic objects including quasars. AGN are powerful sources at all wavelengths, but the importance of their $`\gamma `$-ray output has only recently been fully appreciated. We now know that in some AGN, those known as blazars, the bulk of their power is emitted at high energies. Explaining this observational fact is an important problem facing theorists.

In 1997, the blazar source Markarian 501 (Mrk 501) entered a period of dramatic activity. The TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emission from the source increased by up to a factor of fifty from earlier epochs. Figure 2 shows the VHE $`\gamma `$-ray flux detected from this source over a four year period by the Whipple experiment. The difference between the average flux level seen in 1997 and in the other years is striking. At certain times, the $`\gamma `$-ray flux from Mrk 501 exceeded the brightest known source in our galaxy, the Crab Nebula, by factors of three to four. This happened in spite of the fact that Mrk 501 is more distant from us than the Crab by a factor of 10,000. At its maximum brightness, Mrk 501 beamed 1011 VHE photons per second to the Earth’s surface. The VHE spectrum extends to maximum energies above $`20`$TeV.

Another impressive feature of the 1997 emission from Mrk 501 was the high degree of variability observed. The $`\gamma `$-ray flux varied by as much as an order of magnitude from night to night and by factors of two on hourly time scales. These variations imply that the acceleration region where the $`\gamma `$-rays are produced must be very compact, presumably several light hours across (times any relativistic Doppler factors). The flux variations of Mrk 501 were studied by several state-of-the-art Cherenkov telescopes around the globe and there was good agreement between the flux levels recorded by the different experiments.

AGN are such luminous objects that the only feasible source for their power is in the intense gravitational field near black holes. The general picture of an AGN is a supermassive ($`10^810^9`$ M) black hole surrounded by a rotating disk. Accreting material provides the power for the broad-band emission observed. It also powers relativistic jets directed along the angular momentum axis of the black hole. As shown in Figure 3, shock acceleration in the jets produces high energy beams of electrons or protons which interact with radiation fields to produce secondary beams of $`\gamma `$-rays and neutrinos. A key aspect of this model is that we observe blazars when their beams are directed into our line of sight.

In the general blazar picture, the high energy $`\gamma `$-rays probe acceleration processes in the jet. The fact that very rapid $`\gamma `$-ray variability has been observed indicates that the acceleration region relevant to high energy particle production is deep within the jet, and possibly quite close to the black hole itself. Thus, understanding the VHE $`\gamma `$-ray emission is of crucial interest.

### 3.3 Cosmic Rays with Energies Exceeding $`10^{20}`$eV

We have known about the existence of extremely high energy ($`E>10^{20}`$eV) cosmic rays for more than forty years. In 1966, it was realized by Greisen, Zatsepin, and Kuz’min (GZK)  that cosmic rays above the energy of $`6\times 10^{19}`$eV (if they existed!) would interact with the 3 K cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). This GZK cutoff limits the mean free path for the highest energy cosmic rays to less than 100 Mpc, a distance that is quite small in comparison to typical extragalactic scales. Until recently, conventional wisdom held that cosmic rays above the GZK cutoff would not be detected on Earth because: 1) it was hard to construct astrophysical sources capable of accelerating particles to these energies, and 2) if such source existed, they would almost certainly be located at great distances and the cosmic rays they produced would be absorbed by the CMBR. This wisdom proved to be wrong. It now seems clear that the cosmic ray spectrum continues to energies of $`10^{20}`$eV, and beyond.

The most compelling evidence for particles beyond the GZK cutoff comes from the AGASA experiment . AGASA is a large surface array covering an area of approximately $`100`$km2, and located in the central portion of the Japanese island of Honshu. The array samples the particle cascade in giant air showers produced from extremely high energy cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere. The cosmic ray energy is estimated from the particle density determined a fixed distance from the core of the shower. Uncertainties in the energy measurement are estimated by several techniques, including simulation methods. The typical energy resolution is $`30`$%. More importantly, the proportion of events with a 50% or more overestimation in energy is less than 3%.

The latest cosmic ray energy spectrum released by AGASA is shown in Figure 4 . Based on a data sample collected between 1993 and 1998, the spectrum shows no evidence for a cutoff above $`6\times 10^{19}`$eV. Instead, seven events are detected above $`10^{20}`$eV. The measured spectrum from AGASA is inconsistent with that expected from a population of extragalactic sources distributed uniformly in the Universe. Barring an unforeseen loophole to the GZK cutoff, the AGASA results, in conjunction with the detection by the Fly’s Eye experiment of a cosmic ray at $`3\times 10^{20}`$eV , strongly support the idea the sources of the highest energy cosmic ray events are “local”.

Considering the enormous rigidity of $`10^{20}`$eV particles and the weakness of the intergalactic magnetic field ($`B<10^{10}`$g), we do not expect substantial deflection of such particles over path lengths of 50 Mpc. Thus, it is reasonable to consider doing astronomy with the extremely high energy cosmic rays. The arrival directions of the cosmic rays above $`10^{19}`$eV have been examined. No obvious concentration in the sky can be discerned. Also, there is no significant correlation between the cosmic ray positions and those of known astronomical sources (e.g. quasars, radio galaxies, etc.). Thus, we are faced with a quandary similar to that of gamma ray bursts. Since the sources of the highest energy cosmic rays cannot be correlated with known astronomical objects, they must represent something new. To achieve their extreme energies, the cosmic rays must be produced in a truly remarkable astrophysical accelerator. They could, in fact, come from physics at a higher mass scale. It is perhaps this latter possibility that makes these particles so intriguing.

## 4 Theoretical Considerations

### 4.1 Extreme Astrophysics

As introduced in Section 2, we expect high energy $`\gamma `$-rays, cosmic rays, and neutrinos to be produced via particle interactions at sites of powerful acceleration. When discussing such production, we must distinguish between the power source and the acceleration mechanism. For sources using conventional (i.e. known) physics, the power source will make use of extreme electromagnetic or gravitational potentials. Pulsars, such as the Crab, are examples of the former case. Supernova remnants and AGN are examples of the latter.

High energy $`\gamma `$-radiation has been detected from a number of known radio pulsars. The radiation can be categorized as being pulsed (i.e. with the same period as that detected in the radio) or unpulsed. For both categories, the ultimate power source derives from the spin-down of a highly magnetized neutron star. At the highest energies, the radiation is believed to originate from inverse-Compton scattering of soft photons by a relativistic wind of electrons . In the case of the Crab, from which $`\gamma `$-rays up to 50 TeV have been detected, the electron spectrum is believed to extend above $`1`$PeV, making the Crab the high-energy accelerator known in the Universe.

Supernova remnants (SNRs) are attractive candidates for particle acceleration because of the enormous power contained in the original explosion. Supernova explosions typically release $`10^{51}`$ergs of kinetic energy and they occur every few decades somewhere in the galaxy. Therefore, the average power injected into the interstellar medium by these explosions is $`10^{42}`$ergs s-1. Since the power required to replenish the cosmic rays is $`10^{40}10^{41}`$ergs s-1, supernova remnants can explain the origin of the cosmic rays if $`110`$% of the kinetic energy released in the explosion goes into the acceleration of protons and nuclei.

Particle acceleration in SNRs is expected to occur at the shock front produced as the remnant material traverses the interstellar medium. Charged particles scatter off magnetic field irregularities as they diffuse back and forth across the shock front. Because the velocity distributions of the scattering centers on either side of the shock are isotropic, the particles see a converging flow of scattering centers on both sides of the front. They thus gain energy with each round trip passage. This particle acceleration process, first proposed by Fermi in a different context , continues as long as the particles are contained in the vicinity of the shock front. The containment time is proportional to energy, and so diffusive shock acceleration naturally leads to a power law energy spectrum for the accelerated particles, (dN/dE $``$Eα). For strong (highly supersonic) shocks, the power law spectral index is $`\alpha 2`$.

The maximum obtainable particle energy in SNRs is determined by the lifetime of the shock itself. As the shock wave expands, it slows downs and weakens. For typical shock lifetimes ($`5000`$yr), the maximum particle energy is calculated to be Z$`\times 10^{14}`$eV, where Z is the particle charge . Thus, SNRs offer a plausible explanation for the origin of cosmic rays up to an energy of $`10^{15}`$eV (and possibly up to $`10^{16}`$eV), but a new source is required to explain higher energy cosmic rays.

There is a great deal of speculation about the origin of particles above $`10^{16}`$eV. Galactic objects do not in general have the combination of size and magnetic field strength to contain a particle at these energies . Therefore, it is generally believed that the sources must be extragalactic. AGN are attractive possibilities because they are known to be powerful emitters of $`\gamma `$-rays. They may also produce very high energy cosmic rays and neutrinos.

The general model for AGN was outlined in Section 3.2 (see Figure 3). Charged particles are accelerated to high energies in the jet via the Fermi shock mechanism. The accelerated particles are likely to be electrons or protons (or a combination of the two). Electrons are certainly needed to explain the broad-band synchrotron emission observed. If electrons dominate, $`\gamma `$-rays could naturally be produced by inverse-Compton scattering off low energy photons . The soft photons may originate from synchrotron radiation, from disk emission, or from reprocessed emission from clouds or dust . If protons dominate, they would interact with radiation fields to produce electromagnetic cascades that would ultimately produce high energy $`\gamma `$-rays . Protons may also produce neutrinos via a beam dump mechanism (i.e. by impinging on material to produce charged pions which then decay).

Extragalactic sources, such as AGN, may explain the origin of cosmic rays between $`10^{16}`$eV and $`10^{19}`$eV. However, as discussed in Section 3.3, the highest energy particles cannot come from large extragalactic distances. Their origin is a true mystery. Given our inability to explain their origin via known astrophysics, we are forced to seriously consider other possibilities, such as new astrophysics or particle physics beyond the Standard Model.

### 4.2 Non-Standard Astrophysics or Particle Physics

When explaining the existence of particles arriving at Earth with very high energies, we must naturally consider possible sources outside known astrophysics. In this case, particles would acquire their energies in a “top down” picture,i.e. as coming from physics at a higher mass scale, as opposed to the “bottom up” picture of acceleration. Cosmology must come into play here, because the early Universe offers the most natural conditions needed to generate interactions or particles beyond the Standard Model. Here we give a few examples of non-standard sources of very high energy particles.

There is speculation that the highest energy cosmic rays result from the collapse of topological defects produced in the early Universe . Defects such as cosmic strings resulting from phase transitions could produce grand unified (GUT) scale particles at with masses of $`10^{14}10^{15}`$GeV. GUT particles would decay to leptons and quarks, producing electromagnetic and hadronic cascades whose eventual tertiary products would cosmic rays or $`\gamma `$-rays. Under certain assumptions, the cosmic rays would be produced close enough to Earth to avoid the GZK cutoff.

Another interesting possibility is that of primordial black holes. Black holes are not truly black, but emit a spectrum of radiation . As the black hole loses energy, it gets hotter, and this results in more available quantum states for the emission. Eventually, the black hole evaporates in a final explosion that releases a burst of radiation. Small black holes created in the early Universe with masses near $`10^{14}`$g would be in the process of evaporation now. Such primordial black holes would produce bursts of VHE $`\gamma `$-rays on time scales of microseconds to seconds .

The search for evidence of supersymmetry is a very important frontier area of particle physics. Given the possibility that supersymmetry may manifest itself at TeV energies, it is natural to consider VHE astrophysical signatures. One possible signature would be the direct detection of neutral supersymmetric particles. For example, it has been proposed that the highest energy cosmic rays are supersymmetric strongly interacting particles ($`S^0`$) having a much greater path length through the CMBR than ordinary nucleons . A second possible signature for supersymmetry would be the detection of secondary decay products from a supersymmetric particle. The most interesting possibility here is that of the neutralino, X̃0. Neutralinos may be the lightest supersymmetric particles and they may also comprise a large fraction of the dark matter in the galaxy . Since neutralinos must couple to ordinary matter through weak interactions, the weak scale cross-section determines the temperature at which the neutralino would freeze out, and hence its relic abundance. Neutralinos concentrating in the galactic center would annihilate via loop processes, X̃0$`{}_{}{}^{0}\gamma \gamma ,Z\gamma `$, yielding a very high energy $`\gamma `$-ray signature . Similarly, neutrinos would be produced from the annihilations of gravitationally trapped neutralinos in the center of the Sun or the Earth. Estimates for the $`\gamma `$-ray or neutrino fluxes are sensitive to parameters of the given model of supersymmetry, to the mass of the neutralino, and to the density profile of galactic dark matter. In spite of large uncertainties in expected flux levels, the search for supersymmetry by these techniques is important for several reasons: 1) the signature, a highly directional, mono-energetic flux of $`\gamma `$-rays or neutrinos, would be unambiguous, (i.e. it would provide “smoking gun” evidence for supersymmetry), 2) a statistically significant detection would allow measurement of the neutralino mass, and 3) the next generation of $`\gamma `$-ray and neutrino telescopes are sensitive to neutralino masses up to several TeV, which may be out of reach of accelerator experiments for some time to come.

## 5 The Experimental Situation

### 5.1 Detection Techniques: $`\gamma `$-rays and Cosmic Rays

As shown in Figure 5, $`\gamma `$-rays and cosmic rays span an enormous range of energies, from $`1`$MeV to $`10^{20}`$ eV. Given this range, a single detection technique will not suffice. Satellite and balloon experiments above the Earth’s atmosphere operate at MeV and GeV energies. At high energies, the particle flux is small enough so that space-borne instruments become flux limited. For $`\gamma `$-rays, the practical upper limit of sensitivity for the instruments on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory is $`20`$GeV. For cosmic rays, the upper range of space-borne detectors is higher by several orders of magnitude due to the greater cosmic ray flux.

At energies above the reach of balloon and satellite experiments, we use the Earth’s atmosphere as the target and absorber of high energy particles. Primary $`\gamma `$-rays and cosmic rays interact in the atmosphere to create extensive air showers that propagate to the ground. Ground-based detectors sample the Cherenkov radiation, the charged particles, or the blue/UV fluorescence from nitrogen excitations to determine the arrival directions and energies of the incoming primary particles. As shown in Figure 5, atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, air shower arrays, and Nitrogen fluorescence detectors operate in various energy ranges from $`200`$GeV to $`10^{20}`$eV.

### 5.2 $`\gamma `$-ray Experiments and Results

There are a number of ground-based $`\gamma `$-ray telescopes in operation around the world. This paper does not attempt to be comprehensive, and several recent articles have reviewed the experimental situation . The state-of-the-art Cherenkov telescopes include Whipple in Arizona, USA, HEGRA on the island of La Palma, CAT at Themis, France, and CANGAROO at Woomera, Australia. Operating air shower arrays include HEGRA and the Tibet Array in Yanbajing, Tibet.

$`\gamma `$-ray astronomy is a quickly changing field with a variety of sources and new phenomena discovered during the last decade. The EGRET experiment on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory has detected $`150`$ sources at energies between 30 MeV and 20 GeV. Many of the EGRET sources remain unidentified, but others have been associated with pulsars and AGN. At energies above 200 GeV, the current status of the field is shown in Figure 6. Atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes have detected at least seven VHE sources and five additional sources have been tentatively identified.

The sources detected at very high energies can be categorized as pulsar nebulae, AGN, and SNRs. The detection of each different source category was a significant advance which brought us new information about high energy astrophysical phenomena . These detections have also raised numerous questions. For example, for AGN, remarkable emission has been detected from a few nearby sources, but many questions remain about how these sources work and why we cannot see more distant objects.

For the future, there are a variety of important areas that need exploration:

1. To date, no sensitive experiments have operated in the energy range between 20 and 200 GeV. New instruments, and possibly new techniques, are needed to explore this energy band where the likelihood of exciting new astrophysics is high. For example, it is in this energy range that we expect to measure spectral features resulting from the absorption of $`\gamma `$-rays from by the cosmic infrared radiation .
2. So far, it appears that we have detected very high energy radiation from the most luminous astrophysical sources. Significant increases in flux sensitivity should lead to the detection of fainter objects and more types of sources.
3. The most important $`\gamma `$-ray results at energies above 200 GeV have come from atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes which have limited fields of view and operate only on dark, clear nights. We need instruments which have wide fields of view and operate with close to 100% duty cycle. Such instruments would be able to detect dramatic transient phenomena, such as gamma ray bursts.

To address the major goals for the future, there are a number of new high energy $`\gamma `$-ray telescopes soon to come on line or being proposed for the future. To extend the reach of ground-based telescopes to lower energies, the STACEE and CELESTE experiments each use large arrays of solar heliostat mirrors to detect fainter Cherenkov showers and thus to observe $`\gamma `$-rays at lower energies. Both experiments are in the final stages of construction and have reported promising initial results . The MAGIC imaging Cherenkov telescope , which consists of a large 17 m reflector and a state-of-the-art camera, is now under construction. MAGIC hopes to achieve an effective energy threshold as low as 20 GeV.

A new air shower experiment that has recently come on line is MILAGRO . Consisting of a large man-made pond of purified water viewed by $`1000`$ photomultiplier tubes, MILAGRO detects air showers at a median energy threshold of 1 TeV. By using the air shower technique, MILAGRO will carry out the first all-sky survey at TeV energies. The encouraging initial results from a prototype of MILAGRO include the tentative detection of Mrk 501 and possible correlated TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emission from a gamma ray burst .

In order to substantially improve the sensitivity, and to extend the energy range, of the atmospheric Cherenkov technique, several groups are developing new telescopes that employ arrays of imaging reflectors / HESS, initially consisting of four 12 m reflectors in Namibia, and Super-CANGAROO, consisting of four 10 m reflectors located in Australia, will be the premier ground-based $`\gamma `$-ray telescopes in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Northern Hemisphere, VERITAS , is being proposed as an array of seven 10 m reflectors. As shown in Figure 7, the dramatic improvement in sensitivity of VERITAS over Whipple (which represents the current generation of atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes) will allow for much more detailed study of rapid very high energy phenomena.

The single most important new $`\gamma `$-ray telescope will be flown in space. GLAST , will be a state-of-the-art detector using many techniques of experimental particle physics, such as Si-strip tracking and CsI calorimetry. With a very wide field of view, and a suitable pointing strategy, GLAST will scan the entire sky on every orbit, offering unparalleled coverage of transient $`\gamma `$-ray phenomena, such as AGN flares and gamma ray bursts. GLAST will have substantially improved characteristics (angular resolution, energy resolution, energy range, etc.) relative to its predecessor, EGRET. The resulting improvement in sensitivity of GLAST will enable the detection of up to two orders of magnitude more sources (e.g. approximately 3000-4000 AGN). An artist’s conception of GLAST is shown in Figure 8.

### 5.3 Cosmic Ray Experiments and Results

The variety of experimental techniques for the detection of high energy cosmic rays is summarized in Figure 5. Satellite instruments have measured the elemental composition of the cosmic rays at energies up to $`10^{14}`$ eV. An important outstanding issue concerns the level of antimatter, e.g. positrons, antiprotons, antihelium, etc. A primordial source of antimatter would be an important discovery. Searching for this source is one of the main goals of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) satellite detector. In June 1998, AMS took initial cosmic ray data during a flight on the space shuttle Discovery. Initial results based on the AMS data have been presented . AMS is now in the process of reconfiguration for an extended physics program on the International Space Station.

At energies above $`10^{14}`$ eV, ground-based air shower detectors provide the only effective way to carry out cosmic ray measurements. Determining the cosmic ray composition by indirect detection techniques has been notoriously difficult. No clear understanding of the composition exists in the energy region near the bend in the energy spectrum (the “knee” at $`3\times 10^{15}`$eV). It is in this region, however, where we expect to learn something about the origin of cosmic rays . Future ground-based and satellite experiments may shed light on this difficult, but important, problem.

For the highest energy cosmic rays above the GZK cutoff, the current experimental situation is summarized in Figure 4. There is good evidence that the cosmic ray spectrum extends to $`10^{20}`$ eV and beyond, but the statistics are not overwhelming. It is important to keep in mind that the flux of particles above $`10^{20}`$ eV is approximately 1 per km2 per century! The AGASA experiment, which has detected the majority of the events beyond the GZK cutoff, has a collection factor of approximately 120 km$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$sr. The newly commissioned Fly’s Eye HiRes experiment improves upon this factor by an order of magnitude. Fly’s Eye HiRes consists of two fluorescence detector sites located 13 km apart. Each detector employs spherical mirrors to reflect air shower fluorescence light onto photomultiplier tube cameras. The construction for the experiment has been completed, and preliminary results based on data-taking with an initial configuration have been reported . The early Fly’s Eye results provide clear confirmation of the AGASA result that the cosmic ray spectrum continues to $`10^{20}`$eV, and beyond.

The exciting results relating to the highest energy cosmic rays have prompted the development of new, and even larger, cosmic ray experiments. The Auger Project plans to construct two giant air shower arrays, one each in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres. The arrays incorporates both particle and nitrogen fluorescence detectors . Each array consists of 1600 particle detection stations on a grid covering approximately 3000 km2. Three fluorescence detectors are used to improve the energy calibration of the ground array. As shown in Figure 9, a detector station employs a large water tank viewed by self-contained instrumentation to record the arrival of the air shower particles. The Southern Hemisphere array is currently under construction in Mendoza, Argentina.

The Northern Hemisphere array of Auger is planned for construction in Millard County, Utah. A very large fluorescence detector, the Telescope Array, is also being considered for construction in the same general region as Auger. A possible future satellite experiment, OWL/Airwatch , would detect giant air showers using a downward-looking fluorescence detector. This ambitious instrument is currently under development by groups in the United States and Italy.

### 5.4 Very High Energy Neutrino Astrophysics

As pointed out by Greisen forty years ago , there is an obvious connection between $`\gamma `$-ray and neutrino astronomy. Both fields involve the detection of neutral particles produced as secondaries in high energy astrophysical accelerators. In many cases, the same sources give rise to fluxes of high energy $`\gamma `$-rays and neutrinos.

There are important differences, however, between photon and neutrino astronomy. Neutrinos have the great advantage over $`\gamma `$-rays in that their very small interaction cross section allows them to travel unimpeded from their production sites to Earth. Thus, in principle, neutrino astronomy allows us to probe the dense central regions of objects such as gamma ray bursts, AGN, and supernovae. We can also search for neutrino signals coming from the annihilation of dark matter concentrated at the center of the Earth and Sun. Neutrino astronomy may also shed light on important aspects of particle physics. A clear demonstration of this possibility is the evidence for the oscillation of neutrinos produced by cosmic ray interactions in our atmosphere.

The most probable source of high energy astrophysical neutrinos is from the decay of charged pions produced in a hadronic beam. Thus, unlike $`\gamma `$-rays, which can arise from electromagnetic processes such as synchrotron radiation and inverse-Compton scattering, neutrinos will likely arise from astrophysical sources containing proton beams. Although we have not yet conclusively identified sources such as these, we know from the flux of cosmic rays that energetic hadrons are produced somewhere in large quantities.

The fact that neutrinos have a very small interaction cross section also poses a big difficulty for the experimentalist in that very large detectors are required. So far, this difficulty has limited the astrophysical information learned from neutrino telescopes. It is difficult to predict for certain how large experiments must be in order to detect neutrinos from AGN or gamma ray bursts. The appropriate detector collection area is probably 1 km2, or perhaps even larger .

For some time, it has been recognized that clear water (liquid or ice) would make a very suitable medium for neutrino detection. The basic idea is to instrument a large volume of water with photomultiplier tubes arranged on long strings. Upward-going neutrinos (coming from astrophysical sources on the other side of the Earth) interact in the large volume of Earth below the detector. The high energy muons produced from these interactions are detected via their Cherenkov radiation in the instrumented volume. The general method is shown in Figure 10. The upward-going signature is required to reduce the very large ($`>10^5`$) background of downward-going muons produced in cosmic ray air showers. The cosmic rays also produce a flux of atmospheric neutrinos on the other side of the globe that can be used as a calibration source for the detector.

Early pioneering work in building very large neutrino telescopes was carried out by the DUMAND and BAIKAL collaborations. Indeed, BAIKAL was the first detector to observe very high energy atmospheric neutrinos . Presently, the AMANDA installation at the South Pole represents the current state-of-the-art in high energy neutrino telescopes. AMANDA has grown in stages during the last five years. The current instrument, AMANDA-II, comprises 675 optical modules on 19 strings located at ice depths of 1450 to 2050 meters. AMANDA-II has a collection area of approximately 30,000 m2 ( 1 TeV). An earlier version of the detector, AMANDA-B, operated between 1997 and 1999 and recorded a large data set. As shown in Figure 11, by means of stringent quality cuts on the track fitting, a clean sample of 17 muon tracks due to atmospheric neutrino events has been isolated . This result demonstrates that AMANDA can detect a neutrino signal.

To increase the likelihood of detecting astrophysical neutrinos, several groups have proposed water Cherenkov telescopes on much larger scales than AMANDA. There are three projects being considered for deployment in the deep Mediterranean water: ANTARES, NESTOR, and NEMO. Of these various efforts, the French ANTARES project is perhaps the furthest along. The ANTARES group has secured approval to build a telescope consisting of 1000 optical modules arranged on 13 vertical strings. The modules will deployed at water depths of 2100 to 2400 m, 30 km off shore. The baseline design for ANTARES calls for an effective collection area of approximately 0.1 km2. The neutrino energy threshold should be below 100 GeV which will permit the study of atmospheric neutrino oscillations, in addition to the search for neutrinos from astrophysical sources.

A very large km3 size detector is being considered for deployment in the South Pole ice. The IceCube collaboration is proposing an array of 81 detector strings arranged on a square grid of 125 m string spacing . Each string would hold 60 optical modules with a vertical module spacing of 16 m. The effective neutrino energy for IceCube of approximately 400 GeV would be somewhat higher than for ANTARES, but IceCube will have a very large collection area ($`1`$km2 10 TeV) for neutrinos from astrophysical sources.

## 6 Summary

Astronomy using very high energy particles ($`\gamma `$-rays, cosmic rays, and neutrinos) is a diverse and rapidly developing field. It is currently a field largely driven by experimental results where significant scientific progress can be made on a relatively short time scale. For example, in the last few years there have been several exciting discoveries. Using $`\gamma `$-rays, we are probing remarkable and unexpected phenomena in objects such as active galaxies and gamma ray bursts. We are also searching for the origins of the cosmic radiation. At the very highest energies, we are discovering cosmic ray particles that probably should not be there, but are. Discoveries in this field often raise as many questions as they answer.

For the future, there will be an expanding interest in this field, both to understand astrophysics under extreme conditions and to search for evidence of physics beyond the standard models of elementary particles and cosmology. Future next-generation experiments in space and on the ground will greatly expand our discovery horizon. For $`\gamma `$-rays, the new projects include more powerful atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes and a new $`\gamma `$-ray satellite, GLAST. Larger air shower detectors, such as Fly’s Eye HiRes and Auger, will explore questions relating to the highest energy cosmic rays. In the world of neutrinos, the AMANDA experiment has demonstrated the ability to detect neutrinos produced in the atmosphere. Future experiments, such as IceCube and ANTARES, will greatly expand the possibility of detecting high energy astrophysical neutrino sources. We can only hope that our overall knowledge of high energy particles from the Universe advances at the same rate as new instruments are being constructed.

I wish to acknowledge the help and encouragement of many people in the particle physics and astrophysics communities. The contributions of the following people were particularly important: Katsushi Arisaka, Steve Barwick, Michael Catanese, Corbin Covault, Jim Cronin, Francis Halzen, Charles Jui, Tadashi Kifune, Peter Leonard, Eckart Lorenz, John Matthews, Masaki Mori, Gus Sinnis, David Smith, Simon Swordy, Steve Ritz, Pierre Sokolsky, Masahiro Takeda, Masahiro Teshima, Trevor Weekes, and Heinz Völk. I also thank the organizers of the Lepton-Photon Symposium (especially John Jaros, Helen Quinn, and Michael Peskin) for their encouragement and patience. Any inaccuracies are my fault alone. This research is supported in part by the National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Anomalous diffusion associated with nonlinear fractional derivative Fokker-Planck-like equation: Exact time-dependent solutions

## Abstract

We consider the $`d=1`$ nonlinear Fokker-Planck-like equation with fractional derivatives $`\frac{}{t}P(x,t)=D\frac{^\gamma }{x^\gamma }\left[P(x,t)\right]^\nu `$. Exact time-dependent solutions are found for $`\nu =\frac{2\gamma }{1+\gamma }`$ ($`\mathrm{}<\gamma 2`$). By considering the long-distance asymptotic behavior of these solutions, a connection is established, namely $`q=\frac{\gamma +3}{\gamma +1}`$ ($`0<\gamma 2`$), with the solutions optimizing the nonextensive entropy characterized by index $`q`$ . Interestingly enough, this relation coincides with the one already known for Lévy-like superdiffusion (i.e., $`\nu =1`$ and $`0<\gamma 2`$). Finally, for $`(\gamma ,\nu )=(2,0)`$ we obtain $`q=5/3`$ which differs from the value $`q=2`$ corresponding to the $`\gamma =2`$ solutions available in the literature ($`\nu <1`$ porous medium equation), thus exhibiting nonuniform convergence.

PACS: 05.60.+w, 05.20.-y, 05.40.+j, 66.10.Cb

A great variety of diffusive problems in nature, namely those referred to as normal diffusion, are satisfactorily described by the Fokker-Planck linear equation

$$\frac{}{t}P(𝐱,t)=D^2P(𝐱,t)$$
(1)
where $`P(𝐱,t)`$ is the density of probability in the $`𝐱\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$ space and $`D>0`$ is the diffusion coefficient. Such processes are currently characterized by the fact that $`𝐱^2t`$, as shown by Einstein in his celebrated 1905 paper on Brownian motion.

More recently, several works  have focused on the same type of linear equation but with fractional derivatives. More precisely

$$\frac{}{t}P(𝐱,t)=D^\gamma P(𝐱,t)(\mathrm{}<\gamma 2)$$
(2)
where $`^\gamma _{i=1}^d\frac{^\gamma }{x_i^\gamma }`$ . Also, the nonlinear equation with ordinary derivatives has been  focused on as well. More precisely

$$\frac{}{t}P(𝐱,t)=D^2\left[P(𝐱,t)\right]^\nu (\nu >1)$$
(3)
(no solutions are known for $`\nu 1`$ which are integrable ).

These two generalized Fokker-Planck equations have been used to study anomalous Lévy-like diffusion as well as correlated-like diffusive processes in porous media . The present paper addresses the unification of both equations as follows:

$$\frac{}{t}P(x,t)=D^\gamma \left[P(x,t)\right]^\nu (\mathrm{}<\gamma 2)$$
(4)
We will restrict ourselves to the $`d=1`$ case. More specifically, we are interested in normalized scaled solutions of the type

$$P(x,t)=\frac{1}{\varphi \left(t\right)}F\left[\frac{x}{\varphi \left(t\right)}\right]$$
(5)
Inserting this form into Eq.(4) (and, without loss of generality, setting $`D=1`$) we obtain:

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi }\left(t\right)}{\varphi \left(t\right)^2}\left[\frac{d}{dz}F\left(z\right)+zF\left(z\right)\right]=\frac{1}{\varphi \left(t\right)^{\nu +\gamma }}\frac{d^\gamma }{dz^\gamma }\left[F\left(z\right)^\nu \right]$$
(6)
where we have used the generic property

$$\frac{d^\delta }{dx^\delta }F\left(ax\right)=a^\delta \frac{d^\delta }{dz^\delta }F\left(z\right)(\delta )$$
(7)
with $`z=ax`$. This basic property holds not only for the ordinary derivative but also for all fractional operators we are aware of. By choosing the ansatz

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi }\left(t\right)}{\varphi \left(t\right)^{2\nu \gamma }}=k$$
(8)
where $`k`$ is an arbitrary constant, we obtain

$$\varphi \left(t\right)=\frac{1}{\left(k_1t+k_2\right)^{\frac{1}{\nu +\gamma 1}}}$$
(9)
$$\frac{d^\gamma }{dz^\gamma }\left[F\left(z\right)\right]^\nu =k\frac{d}{dz}\left[zF\left(z\right)\right]$$
(10)
with $`k_1\left(\gamma +\nu 1\right)k`$, $`k_2`$ being another arbitrary constant. Finally making an integration we obtain

$$\frac{d^{\gamma 1}}{dz^{\gamma 1}}\left[F\left(z\right)\right]^\nu =kzF\left(z\right)+c$$
(11)
where $`c`$ is another arbitrary constant.

Thus far it has not been necessary to specify the fractional operator we refer to. Indeed, several fractional generalizations exist for the ordinary derivative, namely the Riemann-Liouville  (based on Laplace transform), Weyl  (based on Fourier transform) and Caputo  (also based on Laplace transform) ones. From now on we will use the Riemann-Liouville operator, since it is for this one that it has been possible to find new exact solutions. In this case we will work with the positive $`x`$ axis and, later on, we will use symmetry to extend the results to the entire real axis (we are working, in other words, with $`\frac{^\gamma }{|x|^\gamma }`$). Also, we will use the following generic result  (see Appendix):

$$D_x^\delta \left[x^\alpha \left(a+bx\right)^\beta \right]=a^\delta \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha +1\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha +1\delta \right]}x^{\alpha \delta }\left(a+bx\right)^{\beta \delta }$$
(12)
with $`D_x^\delta \frac{d^\delta }{dx^\delta }`$ and $`\delta \alpha +\beta +1`$. By defining $`g(x)x^{\frac{\alpha }{\nu }}\left(a+bx\right)^{\frac{\beta }{\nu }}`$ and $`\lambda \alpha \left(1\frac{1}{\nu }\right)\delta `$, and rearranging the indices, Eq.(12) can be rewritten as follows:

$$D_x^\delta \left[g\left(x\right)\right]^\nu =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha +1\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\alpha +1\delta \right]}a^\delta x^\lambda g\left(x\right).$$
(13)
Using this property in Eq. (11) and, for simplicity, choosing $`c=0`$, we find

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\gamma \right)\gamma }{12\gamma }}`$ (14)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^23\gamma +2}{12\gamma }}`$ (15)
$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{1+\gamma }}.`$ (16)
These results allow us to write the solution in the form

$$P(x,t)=\frac{A}{\left(|k_1|t\right)^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}}}\left[\frac{z^{\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)}}{\left(1+bz\right)^{1\gamma ^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{12\gamma }}$$
(17)
$$A=\left[k\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1))}\right]^{\frac{1+\gamma }{12\gamma }}$$
(18)
$$z\frac{x}{\left(|k_1|t\right)^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}}}$$
(19)
where $`b`$ is an arbitrary constant (to be taken, later on, as $`\pm 1`$ according to the specific solutions that are studied) and where, without loss of generality, we have set $`k_2=0`$ and $`a=1`$. Indeed, the $`k_2`$ constant can be incorporated into a shift of the origin of time, and $`a`$ can be incorporated into the normalization constant $`A`$. We also mention the exact solution

$$F\left(z\right)z^{\frac{\gamma }{\nu 1}}$$
(20)
that is not normalizable. Several regions will have to be considered, namely

$$\mathrm{}<\gamma <1,1<\gamma <0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}<\gamma <\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}<\gamma <1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}<\gamma <2$$
(21)
We start with the region $`\mathrm{}<\gamma <1`$ for which, again without loss of generality, we can choose $`b=1`$. The normalization condition implies

$$A\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}\left[\frac{z^{\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)}}{\left(1z\right)^{1\gamma ^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{12\gamma }}𝑑z=2A\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}{12\gamma }\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{\gamma \left(\gamma 2\right)}{2\gamma 1}\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[1\gamma \right]}=1$$
(22)
See Fig. 1. Also, as we can see from the limits of the different regions (21), we will have to consider different particular cases, namely $`\gamma =1,\gamma =0,\gamma =1/2,\gamma =1`$ and $`\gamma =2`$.

Let us start with $`\gamma =1`$ and arbitrary $`\nu `$. The corresponding equation is

$$\frac{}{t}P(x,t)=\underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}\left[P(y,t)\right]^\nu 𝑑y$$
(23)
To solve it let us go back to Eq. (10); after derivation with respect to $`z`$, we obtain

$$k\frac{d^2zF(z)}{dz^2}=\left[F\left(z\right)\right]^\nu $$
(24)
We are not going to treat this equation in detail; we rather limit ourselves to remark that the value $`\gamma =1`$ corresponds to $`\nu \pm \mathrm{}`$ in the curve (16). In the region $`1<\gamma <0`$ the probability density has a compact support, on the edges of which it diverges. See Fig. 1.

Let us now address the $`0<\gamma <1/2`$ region (where $`b=1`$). In the limit $`\gamma =0`$ ($`\gamma =1/2`$) integrability fails at infinity (at the origin); no such problems exist for $`0<\gamma <1/2`$. Normalization implies

$$A=\left[k\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{23\gamma +\gamma ^2}{12\gamma }\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1\gamma ^2}{12\gamma }\right)}\right]^{\frac{1+\gamma }{12\gamma }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1\gamma ^2}{12\gamma }\right)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\gamma \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}{12\gamma }\right)}$$
(25)
It is easy to show that $`P(x,t)`$ achieves a maximum (see Fig. 2) at

$$z=\frac{\gamma }{\left(12\gamma \right)}$$
(26)
Let us now address the $`\gamma =0`$ limit. It corresponds to the equation

$$\frac{}{t}P(x,t)=\left[P(x,t)\right]^\nu $$
(27)
that can be resolved analytically for arbitrary $`\nu `$. To obtain this solution it is convenient to go back to Eq.(10). It follows that

$$F\left(z\right)=\frac{B}{z}\left[1+cz^{1\nu }\right]^{\frac{1}{1\nu }}$$
(28)
Therefore, in the $`z\mathrm{}`$ (or, equivalently $`x\mathrm{}`$) limit, we have that $`F(z)1/z`$ if $`\nu >1`$ and $`F(z)`$ is a constant if $`\nu <1`$. The $`\nu =1`$ case needs specific discussion and we obtain $`F(z)z^{\frac{1}{k}1}`$. It is worthy reminding that the $`\gamma =0`$ solutions cannot be considered as distributions of probabilities since they are not normalizable.

The $`\gamma =1/2`$ limiting case corresponds to the following linear equation:

$$\frac{}{t}P(x,t)=\frac{^{\frac{1}{2}}}{x^{\frac{1}{2}}}P(x,t)$$
(29)
This equation can be solved by using the Laplace transform on both $`t`$ and $`x`$. It can also be solved by taking the limit $`\gamma 1/2`$. We have followed this procedure and, after tedious though straightforward calculations, we obtain $`k\frac{8}{3}(12\gamma )`$ and $`A[\frac{8\pi }{3}(12\gamma )]^{1/2}/2`$, which, replaced into Eq. (17), yield

$$P_{1/2}(x,t)\underset{\gamma \frac{1}{2}}{lim}P_\gamma (x,t)=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }t^2}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{t^2}{4x})}{(x/t^2)^{3/2}},$$
(30)
which is a distribution of the Poisson type. Let us stress that the above distribution can indistinctively be obtained by solving the fractional differential equation for $`\gamma =1/2`$, or by taking the $`\gamma >1/2`$ and the $`\gamma <1/2`$ solutions and then considering the $`\gamma 1/2`$ limit.

Let us now focus on the $`1/2<\gamma <2`$ region (where $`b=1`$). The solutions strictly vanish inside an interval which contains the origin. Outside this interval, the solutions are everywhere finite if $`1/2<\gamma <1`$, whereas they diverge if $`1<\gamma <2`$ (see Fig. 2).

The solutions corresponding to the $`1/2<\gamma <1`$ region are as follows:

$$P(x,t)=\frac{A}{\left(kt\right)^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}}}\left[\frac{z^{\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)}}{\left(1+z\right)^{1\gamma ^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{12\gamma }}$$
(31)
Normalization implies

$$2A\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{z^{\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)}}{\left(1+z\right)^{1\gamma ^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{12\gamma }}𝑑z=2A\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\gamma \right]\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{\gamma \left(\gamma 2\right)}{2\gamma 1}\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)}{2\gamma 1}\right]}=1$$
(32)
from which $`A`$ is uniquely determined; finally, $`k`$ is obtained from $`A`$ by using Eq. (18). See Fig. 2.

Let us now focus the special case $`\gamma =1`$. In this case the equation becomes

$$\frac{}{t}P(x,t)=\frac{}{x}P(x,t)^\nu .$$
(33)
Its generic solution of the form indicated in Eq. (5)) is:

$$[F\left(z\right)]^\nu =kzF(x,t)+c,$$
(34)
which implicitly determines $`F(z)`$. The solution corresponding to $`c=0`$ is

$$F\left(z\right)z^{1/(\nu 1)}.$$
(35)
In the region $`1<\gamma <2`$ we have the same analytic solution that we had in the region $`1/2<\gamma <1`$ (i.e., Eq. (31)); however, at the point $`z=1`$, a divergence is now present (see Fig. 2). It is clear that this solution cannot be used without appropriate asymptotic considerations for $`\gamma =2`$, since for $`\gamma 2`$, $`\nu 0`$.

Let us now specifically focus on the possible $`x\mathrm{}`$ tail of $`P(x,t)`$ for arbitrary $`t`$. For $`\mathrm{}<\gamma <0`$ the support is compact, hence there is no tail. For $`0<\gamma <2`$, we obtain, using either Eq. (17) (for $`0<\gamma <1/2)`$ or Eq. (31) (for $`1/2<\gamma <2`$), the following asymptotic behavior:

$$P(x,t)\frac{1}{t^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}}}z^{\frac{\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)+\gamma ^21}{12\gamma }}\frac{t^{\frac{\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)}{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}}}{x^{1+\gamma }}$$
(36)
We can easily verify that the exponent $`[\gamma \left(\gamma +1\right)]/[\gamma ^2\gamma +1]`$ monotonically increases from zero to $`\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}+1`$ when $`\gamma `$ increases from zero to $`\frac{1+\sqrt{3}}{2}`$. Also, we verify that, for $`0<\gamma <1`$, both $`|x|`$ and $`x^2`$ diverge; for $`1<\gamma <2`$, only the latter does. For $`\gamma <0`$, all momenta are finite since the support is compact. Finally, in all cases, $`x`$ vanishes because of symmetry.

Let us now address the solutions for $`\nu =1`$ and arbitrary $`\gamma `$. The equation to be solved becomes

$$\frac{}{t}P(x,t)=\frac{^\gamma }{x^\gamma }P(x,t)$$
(37)
This equation can be solved using Laplace transform and the solutions are discussed in . Moreover, we can see (in Fig. 3), that the point $`(\gamma ,\nu )=(1/2,1)`$ is at the crossing of two solvable lines. Since solution (30) has been found as the limit of either one of these lines, it seems reasonable to conjecture that the same solution is found as a limit along any curve through that point.

Let us summarize the present work. We have addressed a generic Fokker-Planck-like diffusive equation, namely the one-dimensional case of Eq. (3), and have looked for exact scaled solutions of the type in Eq. (5). In the $`(\gamma ,\nu )`$ parameter space, the solutions corresponding to $`\gamma =2`$ and $`\nu >1`$ (porous medium equation) as well as to $`0<\gamma <2`$ and $`\nu =1`$ are available in the literature, as already mentioned. We are now exhibiting exact solutions along two new lines, namely the line $`\gamma =1`$ and arbitrary $`\nu `$, and the line indicated in Eq. (16) (i.e., $`\nu =(2\gamma )/(1+\gamma )`$ with $`\mathrm{}<\gamma <2`$). For the latter, we observe on Eq. (36) that the spatial asymptotic behavior is characterized by the exponent $`1+\gamma `$, which exactly coincides with that corresponding to Lévy superdiffusion. This is a remarkable result, since the present solutions concern a nonlinear Riemann-Liouville-fractional differential equation, ! and not the usual linear Fourier-fractional one, whose solutions are known to essentially be Lévy distributions. It would no doubt be interesting to know whether the same behavior is obtained no matter the value of $`\nu `$ ($`0<\gamma <2`$).

Let us finally mention a connection between the present problem and the solutions obtained from the optimization, under appropriate constraints (normalization and finite $`q`$-expectation value of $`x^2`$ in the interval $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$), of the nonextensive entropy  $`S_q[1𝑑xp(x)^q]/[q1]`$. It has been shown that these optimizing distributions precisely coincide with the solutions of the present diffusive problem for $`\gamma =2`$. It comes out that $`q=2\nu `$ ($`\nu >1`$) . Along the line indicated in Eq. (16), the exact solutions of the entropic optimization problem and the present diffusive one do not coincide for arbitrary value of $`x`$. However, comparison of the $`x\mathrm{}`$ asymptotic behaviors is possible . Indeed, by identifying the behavior exhibited in (36) with the behavior $`1/|x|^{2/(q1)}`$ obtained  for the entropic problem, we obtain

$$q=\frac{\gamma +3}{\gamma +1}(0<\gamma <2),$$
(38)
which, as commented above, precisely reproduces the connection established for Lévy distributions . By using Eq. (16), this relation can be rewritten as follows:

$$q=\frac{5+2\nu }{3}(0<\nu <2).$$
(39)
(We remind that the distributions for $`\nu >2`$ and $`\nu <1`$, i.e., $`\gamma <0`$, have compact support). The present nontrivial solution provides, for $`(\gamma ,\nu )=(2,0)`$, $`q=5/3`$, whereas the porous medium equation solution $`q=2\nu `$ provides $`q=2`$. This discrepancy exhibits that the point $`(\gamma ,\nu )=(2,0)`$ is a singular one, at least within the fractional derivative that we have adopted in this work.

Another point worth to be mentioned is that we have compared the present solutions with those optimizing $`S_q`$ defined in the interval $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ and using finite $`q`$-expectation for $`x^2`$ (whereas the $`q`$-expectation value of $`x`$ vanishes). This is appropriate since, through symmetry, we have extended the solutions that we have found in the interval $`(0,\mathrm{})`$ to the entire real axis. Another possibility would of course be to compare the present results in the positive real semi-axis with those optimizing the entropy $`S_q`$ defined in the same semi-axis and using finite $`q`$-expectation value of $`x`$. If we did so, relation (39) would be replaced by $`q=(\gamma +2)/(\gamma +1)`$ (see also ).

Finally, last but not least, now that we have finished the presentation of the various exact solutions that emerged within the present work, it is worthy to mention that it would be very welcome the discussion of the stability of such solutions. More precisely, if we start at $`t=0`$ with an arbitrary distribution $`P(x,0)`$ and make it evolve through the present differential equation, what would be the $`t\mathrm{}`$ asymptotic distribution $`P_a(x,t)`$? ($`a`$ stands for attractor, in the space of the distributions). For instance, if the evolution is determined through the convolution product (i.e., a linear fractional-derivative Fokker-Planck equation, using a Fourier-based definition of fractional derivative), then the standard and the Lévy-Gnedenko central limit theorems apply, and consequently the attractor $`P_a(x,t)`$ is either a Gaussian or a Lévy distribution (respectively when the second cumulant is finite or infinite). If the evolution is instead det! ermined through a nonlinear integer-derivative Fokker-Planck equation like the one considered in , then $`P_a(x,t)`$ is given (as numerical verifications have shown) by the distributions which optimize the nonextensive entropy, where $`x`$ scales with a simple function of $`t`$. If the time evolution is obtained, as sometimes done, through recursive use of maps , $`P_a(x,t)`$ can present a variety of shapes depending on the specific map which is used. Finally, in our present case (nonlinear fractional-derivative Fokker-Planck equation using a Laplace-based definition of fractional derivative), the solutions we have found might well be $`P_a(x,t)`$. This point, however, deserves analysis on its own.

APPENDIX

We give a short review of the property of the fractional operator used to solve the nonlinear equation (4). The Riemann - Liouville operator is used in many applications of fractional calculus. The usual integral representation for this operator is:

$$D_x^\alpha f\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n\alpha \right)}\frac{d^n}{dx^n}\underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}\frac{dtf\left(t\right)}{\left(xt\right)^{\alpha +1}}(n1<\alpha <n).$$
(A-1)
For the calculations in this paper we have instead used the following equivalent form:

$$D_x^\alpha x^\rho =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\rho +1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\rho +1\alpha \right)}x^{\rho \alpha }$$
(A-2)
We have also used the generalized Leibnitz formula for this kind of fractional derivative, namely

$$D_x^\alpha \left[f\left(x\right)g\left(x\right)\right]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{n}\right)D_x^{\alpha n}\left[f\left(x\right)\right]D_x^n\left[g\left(x\right)\right]$$
(A-3)
Let us also mention that, for this operator, the following property holds under Laplace transform:

$$L\left[D_x^\alpha f\left(x\right)\right]=s^\alpha F\left(s\right)f^{\left(\alpha 1\right)}\left(0\right)$$
(A-4)
for $`\alpha 1`$ and where $`f^{\left(\alpha 1\right)}\left(0\right)`$ means fractional derivative calculated in $`x=0`$.

Let us now show how formula (A-3) leads to Eq. (12), that is used in the text. By assuming no restrictions on the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ and applying the generalized Leibnitz rule to the function $`x^\alpha \left(a+bx\right)^\beta `$ we obtain

$$D_x^\delta \left[x^\alpha \left(a+bx\right)^\beta \right]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta }{n}\right)D_x^{\delta n}\left[x^\alpha \right]D_x^n\left[\left(a+bx\right)^\beta \right].$$
(A-5)
After some algebra we obtain

$$D_x^\delta \left[x^\alpha \left(a+bx\right)^\beta \right]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta }{n}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +1\delta +n\right)}x^{\alpha \delta +n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta +1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta +1n\right)}\left(1\right)^nb^n\left(a+bx\right)^{\beta n}.$$
(A-6)
A closed form for this series can be achieved if $`\alpha +\beta +1=\delta `$. Indeed, by using the Gamma function property $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(z\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1z\right)=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{sin}\pi z}`$ we obtain

$$D_x^\delta \left[x^\alpha \left(a+bx\right)^\beta \right]=a^\delta \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +1\delta \right)}x^{\alpha \delta }\left(a+bx\right)^{\beta \delta },$$
(A-7)
which essentially is Eq. (12).

For completeness, it is worthy to briefly mention here a recent variation of Riemann-Liouville operator that we have mentioned in the text, namely, the Caputo derivative. Its definition is:

$$^CD_x^\alpha f\left(x\right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(m\alpha \right)}\underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}\frac{dtf^{\left(m\right)}\left(t\right)}{\left(xt\right)^{\alpha +1m}}.$$
(A-8)
($`C`$ stands for Caputo). The main advantage with respect to the Riemann-Liouville operator is that Caputo derivative of a constant is zero, which is not the case of the Riemann-Liouville one. Substantially, this kind of fractional derivative is a formal generalization of the integer derivative under Laplace transform. As disadvantage, it exhibits the fact that, whenever the derivation index is an integer number, it recovers the usual derivative excepting for an additive constant, whereas the Riemann-Liouville operator has no such disagreable property.

Finally, let us also mention the definition of Weyl fractional derivative. It is based on the properties of Fourier transform, and it is defined as follows:

$$^WD_x^\alpha f\left(x\right)=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}(ık)^\alpha c_k\mathrm{exp}(ıkx),$$
(A-9)
its continuum version being

$$^WD_x^\alpha f\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d\omega (ı\omega )^\alpha \widehat{f}\left(\omega \right)\mathrm{exp}(ı\omega x).$$
(A-10)
($`W`$ stands for Weyl).


text:
# Near and mid-IR sub-arcsecond structure of the dusty symbiotic star R Aqr

## 1 Introduction

R Aqr is a mass-losing long-period variable (LPV) star believed to be in a symbiotic system with an obscured hot companion whose presence is betrayed by nebular emission lines. Long noted for its peculiar elliptical visible nebulosity extending up to 2’ (first reported in Lampland 1923), this star has recently been subject to intense scrutiny with the latest generation of astronomical instrumentation both on the ground and in space. Much of this attention can be traced to the detection in the optical (Wallerstein (1978); Herbig (1980)) and radio (Sopka et al. (1982)) of what is believed to be the nearest astrophysical jet to the earth ($`200`$ pc; Van Leeuwen Feast Whitelock & Yudin (1997); Hollis, Pedelty & Lyon (1997)). Thought to originate in the accretion disk around an unseen hot sub-dwarf, this jet has been studied extensively at UV, optical and radio wavelengths (e.g. Burgarella, Vogel & Paresce (1992); Paresce & Hack (1994); Lehto & Johnson (1992)).

A difference in location of the peak intensity of the $`\nu =1,J=10`$ SiO maser line and the nearby lineless continuum from 7 mm VLA maps was reported by Hollis, Pedelty and Lyon (1997). These authors interpreted the SiO peak as the location of the LPV and the continuum peak marking the accretion disk of the companion, and were thus able to derive a binary separation of $`55\pm 2`$ mas with a position angle of $`18^{}\pm 2^{}`$.

With its ability to penetrate layers of obscuring dust, the infrared might be thought an ideal wavelength to image the inner regions of this system, from photospheres of the stars to dust and jets in their immediate surroundings. However the high angular resolutions required and the presence of the enormously luminous LPV have limited the efficacy of this approach. Infrared interferometric measurements with the IOTA array (Van Belle et al. (1996)) yielded photospheric diameter measurements of $``$14–15 mas for the LPV but no evidence for an additional component. Speckle observations at J band (Karovska MCCarthy & Christou (1994)) suggestive of an elongated image were interpreted in terms of a distorted inner dust shell, possibly due to the presence of the companion. Anandarao & Pottasch (1986) were able to match the near- to far-IR fluxes using a two-temperature dust shell model, while more recently Le Sidaner & Le Bertre (1996) were able to fit similar spectral energy distributions with a simple uniform outflow model.

In the following section of this paper, we briefly describe our observational methods and apparatus for obtaining near- and mid-IR interferometric measurements. In Section 3 the experimental results are given, together with discussion of model fitting and physical interpretation. A brief summary of our conclusions is found in Section 4.

## 2 Observations

A brief synopsis of the observing techniques used to secure the near- and mid-IR interferometric measurements is given below. Near-IR data was taken at the Keck-I telescope in 1998 July and 1999 January covering 4 narrowband wavelengths between 1.25 and 3.08 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$. Visibility data at 11.15 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ were taken with the Infrared Spatial Interferometer (ISI) over the period 1992 to 1999 with various baselines sampling the visibility function.

### 2.1 Near-Infrared Interferometry

Near-IR observations at the Keck-I telescope have utilized the technique of aperture masking interferometry, in which a mask is placed over the telescope pupil so as to only pass light from selected regions, in effect transforming the telescope into an array of small subapertures. Starlight passing through the mask, in this case a 21-hole non-redundant configuration, was brought to a focus in the Near InfraRed Camera (Matthews & Soifer (1994); Matthews et al. (1996)), a $`256\times 256`$ InSb array with a pixel scale of 20.57 milli-arcsec/pixel. At focus, an interference pattern is formed containing sets of fringes at various spatial frequencies corresponding to baselines in the pupil. Subsequent analysis of datasets consisting of 100 rapid-exposure ($`140`$ msec) frames using Fourier techniques enables recovery of the visibility amplitudes and closure phases corresponding to the complex visibility function of the object. With the exception of the sparse telescope pupil which has been shown to confer signal-to-noise advantage for bright targets, the observational and data processing techniques used were very similar to those utilized in speckle interferometry (for a review, see Roddier (1988)).

After calibration utilizing nearly-contemporaneous observations of nearby point-source stars, the visibility data could be interpreted in a number of ways, including the fitting of model brightness distributions. The recovery of diffraction-limited maps was also possible with the help of self-calibration methods such as the Maximum-Entropy Method (Gull & Skilling (1984); Sivia (1987)) or CLEAN algorithm (Högbom (1974)). The signal-to-noise advantages of sparse-aperture observations for bright sources have been exploited previously (e.g., Baldwin et al. (1986); Haniff et al. (1987); Roddier (1988)), while a more detailed description of this particular apparatus and technique may be found in Monnier et al. (1999) and Tuthill et al. (1999a). An observing log of near-IR observations is given in Table 1 showing the dates, filters and stellar phases (Mattei (1999)) pertaining to our two sets of measurements in 1998 June and 1999 January.

### 2.2 Mid-Infrared Interferometry

Our mid-IR visibility data were obtained at 11.15 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ with the U.C. Berkeley ISI, a two-element heterodyne stellar interferometer located on Mt. Wilson, CA. Both telescopes are mounted within movable semi-trailers which allowed periodic reconfiguration of the baseline from 4 to 32 m over the course of these measurements. Detailed descriptions of the apparatus and recent upgrades can be found in Bester et al. (1990; 1994), Lipman (1998) and Hale et al. (1999). A journal of R Aqr observations taken with the ISI is provided in Table 2, which shows observations broken into seven separate observing epochs labeled for convenience ‘A’ through ‘G’. As individual visibility measurements taken with the ISI can have low signal-to-noise, we have averaged together measurements taken over these periods with the result that the observing parameters (such as sky position angle or stellar variability phase) pertinent to any single datum can be traced back to the range of values given in Table 2. Observations of K giant stars $`\alpha `$ Tau and $`\alpha `$ Boo were utilized to monitor system visibility drifts which could be as large as 15% from year to year, thus ensuring reliable calibration (to better than 5%) of science targets as is discussed at some length in Danchi et al. (1990; 1994)

## 3 Results and Discussion

### 3.1 Near-Infrared Visibility Measurements

The principal aim of the near-IR program was to attempt to detect the presence of hot circumstellar material, either in the immediate environment of the LPV or associated with the symbiotic companion. The full two-dimensional Fourier coverage out to 10 m baselines afforded by the masking experiment has proved highly successful at recovering asymmetric circumstellar structures in other systems (e.g., Monnier et al. (1999); Tuthill et al. 1999b ). However, in the case of R Aqr, the optical depth to the star is relatively low in the near-IR ($`\tau =`$ 0.01 at 2.2 $`\mu `$m), so that the star greatly outshines the contribution from the dust shell. No circumstellar features were detected at any wavelength in the near-IR from J through K bands, and we are able to place an upper limit of around $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$$`\stackrel{>}{_{}}`$ 5 magnitudes for the relative brightness in the near-IR of any such companion.

Failure to detect a second star may seem surprising in view of previous indications of a hot companion. Resolution of the interferometry is about 15 mas (FWHM) and the projected distance to a second star might possibly be less than this. However, Hollis et al. (1997) reported indications in 1996 of a companion separated by 55 mas, or 11 AU assuming the distance to R Aqr is 200 pc. The orbital period was estimated to be 44 years, so that its distance during the present measurements would have to be comparable with 55 mas and easily resolved. However, a near-IR intensity less than 1% of that of the R Aqr Mira is in fact not unreasonable. The LPV has a diameter of 15 mas, or 3 AU, whereas a hot star even as large as our Sun would have a diameter at least 100 times smaller, and even allowing for its higher irradiance, a factor of $`10^3`$ less flux should result in the near-IR.

Although the stellar disk of R Aqr itself was not well resolved with the baselines available, its size was determined by fitting the available data. Figure 1 displays visibility curves for four different colors and two observing epochs (see Table 1). In order to increase the signal-to-noise in the plotted data, the two-dimensional visibility function for each wavelength has been azimuthally averaged, allowing visibilities to be plotted as a function of baseline length. On this occasion, additional correction had to be made for the size of the calibrator star 30 Psc, which was itself a late-type (M3III) variable expected from effective temperature and photometric arguments to present an angular diameter of 7.52 mas (Ochsenbein & Halbwachs (1982)). Also overplotted on Figure 1 are the best-fitting circular uniform disk model profiles with diameters given in the figure key. As short baseline visibilities can suffer from poor calibration due to seeing changes (the well-known ‘seeing spike’ problem c.f. Tuthill et al. 1999a), we have chosen to fit data only at spatial frequencies higher than $`2\times 10^5`$ rad-1.

It should be noted that over the wavelength range 1.236 – 2.260 $`\mu `$m (upper four sets) the stellar diameter is really at the limit of our detection. Visibility curves have only dropped some $`1020`$% as compared to an unresolved source. Although the formal diameter errors to the plotted data are small, the larger errors given in Figure 1 reflect systematic sources of uncertainty due to seeing-related mismatches between the source and point calibrator measurements. The likely spread of this dominant term in the uncertainty was determined by examination of large volumes of additional calibration data taken with the same observing parameters. Asymmetries in the errors are a consequence of the nonlinear relationship between visibilities and angular diameters – symmetric error bars on a visibility datum will result in asymmetric diameter errors for such barely-resolved targets. Despite these large uncertainties, we find good agreement with the published K band angular diameters of van Belle et al. (1996) of 14.95 and 14.06 mas in 1995 Jul 11 and 1995 Oct 07. We note also, in passing, that our 1999 January 2.26 $`\mu `$m diameter taken after minimum light is larger than the 1998 June observation near to maximum. Such cycle-dependent size behavior has been studied by Burns et al. (1997) for the case of R Leo, and although our enlargement is in rough accord with this earlier work, our large errors and poor phase sampling cast doubt on the tentative detection of such dynamical changes here.

The masking experiment at the Keck telescope recorded full two-dimensional Fourier information out to the maximum possible $``$10 m baselines, and in the preceding discussions we have restricted our attention only to the azimuthally averaged visibilities. Departures from circular symmetry would be manifest in the visibilities as a modulation with position angle, while departures from inversion symmetry are indicated by non-zero closure phase signals. As R Aqr is barely resolved, second-order terms in the visibility function were hard to extract given the random and systematic errors on the visibility data. However at all near-IR wavelengths of observation, the visibilities were consistent with a circular disk, with the upper limits on any ellipticity given by the error bars to the circular disk fits given in Figure 1. With the exception of the 3.08 $`\mu `$m observations mentioned below, closure phase signals were within the error bars of zero, implying no significant departures from inversion symmetry in the data.

Images of the R Aqr system in the J band were recently reported by Karovska, McCarthy and Christou (1994) from 1991 November speckle observations with the MMT (effective aperture 6.86 m). These authors found R Aqr to be dramatically elongated, presenting a size of 60 mas along a position angle of 140 while being unresolved in the orthogonal direction. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for such a signal in our data. Our 1.236 $`\mu `$m data rule out elongations greater than 15 mas in any direction, and we note that the expected signal from a 60 mas elongation would cause our Keck visibility function to pass beyond the first null – a radical departure from the observations. Unless profound secular changes in the brightness profile occurred between 1991 and 1999, such elongations appear to be ruled out and we can see of no way to reconcile these two datasets. Full determination of source structure must await the coming generation of separated-element imaging interferometers working at substantially higher angular resolutions.

It is apparent, from Figure 1, that the 3.08 $`\mu `$m data are qualitatively quite different from the shorter wavelength sets, with significantly larger ($``$34 mas) best-fit uniform disk diameters. Such dramatic enlargement has been reported before, and seems to be most pronounced for objects of extremely late spectral type (Tuthill et al. 1999c ). Furthermore, at both 1998 June and 1999 January epochs, the visibilities can be seen to be a poor match to the uniform disk profile, implying instead that a significant proportion of the flux originates in an extended halo. Simple geometrical models, consisting of a uniform disk plus an extended Gaussian shell, were investigated to see if the 3.08 $`\mu `$m visibility functions could be fit. Good fits to both epochs of data were found for models in which $``$20% of the flux came from a Gaussian halo of $``$100 mas FWHM. Following earlier workers in the optical (Labeyrie et al. (1977); Scholz & Takeda (1987); Haniff, Scholz & Tuthill (1995)), changes of angular diameter and radial profile with wavelength can be attributed to the reprocessing of radiation at different levels in the atmosphere by molecular layers whose opacity characteristics are strongly wavelength-dependent. In contrast to the abundance of prominent molecular features such as TiO and VO in optical spectra, recent ISO spectra of a number of late M-type stars (Tsuji et al. (1997)) did not show strong spectral structures near 3.1 $`\mu `$m, although there was some unaccounted absorption in this region. Water ice shows an extremely strong absorption at 3.1 $`\mu `$m, however this would seem to be ruled out on physical grounds and further investigation of the possible blanketing effects of common molecules such as CO and H2O is needed. An alternative scenario is that this extended halo arises from emission from the innermost hot circumstellar dust, just beginning to make its presence felt as we move towards longer wavelength.

As a final note concerning the 3.08 $`\mu `$m data, the closure phase signals did exhibit a small (few degrees) departure from zero as would be expected if the source had a non centro-symmetric brightness distribution. One way the phase signals could be modeled was to allow the $``$100 mas FWHM Gaussian halo (mentioned above) to move 10 mas to the southwest with respect to the star. Although this identification of non-centro symmetric elements must be labeled as tentative, it is hoped that with the longer baselines available to separated-element interferometers, any such complexity in this source will be subject to careful scrutiny.

### 3.2 Mid-Infrared Visibility Measurements

Visibilities at 11.15 $`\mu `$m, recorded over the seven observing epochs (‘A’ through ‘G’ from Table 2), are plotted in Figure 2. Although an interferometer baseline is a vector quantity, visibilities are shown as a function of the (scalar) baseline length. This approach is often adopted in cases such as this where coverage of the UV plane is sparse so as to make full two-dimensional modeling of the visibility function unwarranted.

Data are separated into three categories according to the stellar phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the LPV at the time of observation (Mattei (1999)); $`\mathrm{\Phi }>0.875`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }<0.125=`$ ‘Maximum’; $`0.375<\mathrm{\Phi }<0.625=`$ ‘Minimum’; with all other data considered ‘Intermediate’. Although the spatial frequency coverage is far from uniform for all stellar phases, the general shapes of the visibility curves are broadly similar at all phases, and they exhibit two clear components. The relatively rapid drop in visibility at low spatial frequencies argues for a resolved dust shell component, while the flattening off towards high spatial frequencies is indicative of a compact (stellar) component contributing some 30$``$40% of the flux.

The physical parameters of the R Aqr circumstellar environment were modeled using radiative transfer computations of simulated stellar dust shells attempting to match the visibility data, together with published spectrophotometry. The modeling code used for this purpose, based on the work of Wolfire & Cassinelli (1986), calculates the equilibrium temperature of the dust shell as a function of the distance from the star (assumed to be a blackbody). A wide range of optical properties of dust grains and density distributions of dust shells can be modeled, as is described in more detail in Danchi et al. (1994) and Monnier et al. (1997). As R Aqr has an oxygen-rich atmosphere, it is appropriate to use optical constants for astronomical silicates while the grain size distribution follows that of Mathis, Rumpl & Nordsieck (1977) with dust opacities calculated assuming spheroidal Mie scattering using a method developed by Toon & Ackerman (1981). In the absence of detailed multi-wavelength polarization measurements, this standard model was favored over more complex scenarios such as those with elongated grains, which should have little effect on the main conclusions of the paper except perhaps to produce somewhat different optical depths in model fits. Radiative transfer calculations at 67 wavelengths allow the wavelength-dependent visibility curves, the broadband spectral energy distribution, and the mid-infrared spectrum all to be computed for comparison with observations. Dense sampling of the silicate band in the 10 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ region is particularly useful for comparison with published spectrophotometry. Figure 3 gives near- and mid-IR spectrophotometric data taken from various literature sources for comparison with model spectra. The optical constants of Draine & Lee (DL 1984), Ossenkopf, Henning, & Mathis (OHM 1992), and David & Papoular (DP 1990), were all tested in modeling the dust shell, with the result that OHM (used hereafter) and DP constants both provided high-quality fits to the shape of the silicate feature, while DL optical constants were not preferred.

For model calculations, the simplifying assumption of uniform isotropic outflow has been made, resulting in a spherical dust shell with a $`\rho r^2`$ density distribution beginning at a discrete dust condensation radius. Although there is considerable evidence for departures from spherical symmetry at larger scales, the primary constraints on the models from the mid-IR visibilities and spectra were not extensive enough to warrant more complex models.

Two models were constructed, one at stellar maximum and one at minimum and their computed mid-IR visibility functions are given in Figure 2, while simulated spectra and physical parameters are in Figure 3. The diameter of the central star was fixed at 16 mas (or 3.2 AU assuming a distance of 200 pc) from near-IR observations (Section 3.1; Van Belle et al. (1996)) and the temperature fixed to match the mid-IR luminosity. As can be seen from Figure 2, the visibility data at maximum and minimum light are well fit by the model curves, and we note that all parameters of the dust shell model are identical for the two models, with the increase in stellar flux being simulated by an elevation in the effective stellar temperature of the star by 500 K. This in turn leads to an elevation of the temperature of the dust at the inner radius from 850 K to 1170 K.

Serious inadequacies in this simplest-case model scenario are revealed upon comparison of model predictions with spectro-photometry and intermediate-phase visibility data. As can be seen from Figure 3, the simulated spectral energy distributions are not well matched to the observations. In the mid-IR, although the overall flux level and the shape of the model silicate feature are in fair accord with the measurements of Monnier et al. (1998), the spectral slope towards longer wavelengths is too steep. This lack of long-wavelength flux argues for the presence of more cool dust, or a cooler underlying stellar spectrum. Near-IR photometric measurements (Le Bertre (1993); Kamath & Ashok (1999)) fall well below the models implying increased near-IR opacity, or again a cooler underlying star; our model overestimates the bolometric luminosity. However, such decreases in stellar temperature and increases in density of the circumstellar dust shell were not possible without seriously perturbing the fits to the visibility data, in particular the relatively high visibilities recorded at long baselines.

Put simply, the strong point-source (30$``$40%) evident from the mid-IR visibility curves drives models to low optical depths and in turn high stellar luminosities to account for the mid-IR flux (which could otherwise come from the dust if the optical depth were higher). Although a wide range of model parameter space was explored, including variations on the density-radius law, the inner and outer radii, the dust opacity properties, and the dust densities, no spherically symmetric model could be found which overcame the shortcomings with the spectral fitting. The reader is therefore cautioned against taking the model parameters from Figure 3 as an accurate description of this star; rather they describe the best fit to our interferometric dataset which can be provided by a uniform-outflow spherical dust shell.

There are many imperfections in the modeling process, mostly due to oversimplifications or limited knowledge, which could lead to misfitting of the data. Although the use of a blackbody spectrum for the star is common practice, evolved stars exhibit significant departures (see for example, Lobel Doyle & Bagnulo (1999)). The optical properties of the dust can also have a significant impact on the radiative transfer results, and detailed knowledge of crucial aspects such as the true grain size distribution are lacking (the dust of Mathis, Rumpl & Nordsieck (1977) is more appropriate for the ISM). However, it may be that not all difficulties in fitting may stem from the fact that the simple dust radiative transfer models, with available silicate opacity functions do not give a realistic picture of actual circumstellar dust shells.

Examination of the intermediate-phase visibilities (bottom panel, Figure 2) points to an additional possible explanation for the poor spectral performance of our models. While visibilities from data set ‘A’ fall between the Max and Min model curves as might be expected, those from data set ‘F’ are higher than either, especially at low spatial frequencies well covered in the other plots. A likely explanation for this change in visibility can be found by examination of Table 2: most of the short baseline data underpinning the models (sets ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘G’) along with set ‘A’ were taken at a position angle on the sky of around $`70100^{}`$, while the baselines constituting data set ‘F’ were taken at a very different orientation ($`145^{}`$ for the short-baselines). Hence the difference in these visibilities taken at angles differing by $`4575^{}`$ argues for substantial departures from sphericity. In such an anisotropic circumstellar environment, the spherical model assumptions break down and failure to fit to the spectral energy distribution may be the result of complications such as patchy extinction of the star or radiation leaking through holes in the cloud. Indeed, the extension of asymmetric structure from the well-known nebula down to successively smaller scales is not surprising, and has already been suggested from findings of time-variable polarization (Deshpande et al. (1987)).

The visibility data set ‘F’ has rather dense sampling over a range of spatial frequencies together with small probable errors, and as is seen from Figure 2, it exhibits wiggles or bumps (e.g. at $`6\times 10^5`$ rad-1) which indicate departure from a simple smooth radial intensity distribution. In order to assess this further evidence for anisotropy in the R Aqr dust shell, model brightness distributions (not, in this case, based on radiative transfer computations) have been fit, the result of which is overplotted as a dotted line in panel 3 of Figure 2. The stellar component of our best-fit model contributed 36% of the flux, with 61% coming from a spherical circumstellar dust shell assumed to have a simple Gaussian profile with a FWHM of 350 mas. A third component, modeled as a localized point-source contributing 3% of the total flux and located 700 mas from the star at a position angle of $`100^{}`$ (or $`80^{}`$), produces the wiggles noted in the data. Although such a feature might be some localized concentration of dust, or possibly a local warming, serious discussion should be deferred until more complete Fourier coverage can be obtained. With the sparse coverage afforded by the single interferometer baseline, a host of different models could be devised in which some additional flux is originating at some distance from the star and thereby generating the high-frequency signal we see. Therefore the likely significance to be placed upon our model parameters is low. This discussion is included simply as additional evidence for departure from a uniform outflow, and as an encouragement to further efforts at full high angular resolution imaging of this system in the mid-IR.

When non-spherical dust halos occur, it is rarely possible to discriminate between a number of viable outflow models when only relatively limited Fourier data are available, even though reasonable models may be chosen (e.g. Lopez et al. (1997)). The simple isotropic outflow model given here provides a reasonable fit to most of our mid-IR visibility data. However, deviations from the model are clear, and the more involved task of mapping and fitting of spectral data await the recovery of the full two-dimensional complex visibility function. For this reason, a detailed comparison with other models such as the two-shell model of Anandarao & Pottasch (1986) or the uniform outflow model of Le Sidaner & Le Bertre (1996) is not given here. However, our inner dust shell radius is in agreement with results of these earlier workers (for Anandarao & Pottasch (1986), we consider only their hot inner shell which should dominate over the cool outer shell ($`T_2=87.1`$ K) in this wavelength region). On the other hand, significant differences include lower optical depths and hotter stellar temperatures.

All spherically symmetric models investigated have been found to be inadequate in fitting the expanded dataset encompassing near- and mid-IR interferometry and the spectral energy distribution from the near- to the far-IR. This finding is in agreement with studies of $`o`$ Ceti, another symbiotic system observed interferometrically in the mid-IR Lopez et al. (1997). With further work at high resolutions, particularly directed towards full imaging of these systems, the effects of the companion’s presence, both gravitational and radiative, in the shaping of the circumstellar dust shell may be elucidated.

## 4 Conclusions

High-resolution interferometric studies of R Aqr at narrow bandwidths within the J, H and K bands find no evidence for any significant departure from the best-fitting model of a marginally-resolved stellar disk, which we identify with the LPV component of the system. Any companion present and separated by more than $`15`$ mas must exhibit a magnitude difference in excess of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$$`\stackrel{>}{_{}}`$ 5 mag in the near infrared. These results are consistent with those of Van Belle et al. (1996), but not with Karovska et al. (1994). An enlargement, by approximately a factor of 2, is reported for the apparent size at a wavelength of 3.08 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ as compared with shorter near-infrared bands, which is attributed to molecular blanketing by an unidentified species in the atmosphere, or thermal emission from material in an extended halo. Tentative evidence for asymmetry at this wavelength is also reported. In the mid-IR, visibility data obtained with the ISI have been used to constrain simple uniform spherical outflow models. Using self-consistent radiative transfer calculations, good fits to most of the visibility data have been obtained. However, serious shortcomings were found when comparing the synthetic spectral energy distributions to measurements, many of which may be attributed to inadequate knowledge of the detailed dust shell parameters. Furthermore, mid-IR interferometry obtained at a different position angle on the sky points towards substantial departures both from spherical symmetry and from a simple radial distribution. These indicate that the shortcomings of the present models are probably in large part be due to the oversimplistic assumption of an isotropic uniform outflow. Further high-resolution studies, both in near-infrared with higher spatial resolution and dynamic range, and in the mid-infrared with more complete Fourier coverage, are important in order to fill in the gaps in understanding of this star.

We thank Everett Lipman for help in securing many of the ISI measurements published herein, and for developmental work on the instrument. Long-baseline interferometry in the mid-infrared at U.C. Berkeley is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grants AST-9315485, AST-9321289, AST-9500525, & AST-9731625) and by the Office of Naval Research (OCNR N00014-89-J-1583 & FDN0014-96-1-0737). Some of the measurements herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, made possible by the generous support of the W.M. Keck Foundation, and operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and NASA.