text:
# On linearity of finitely generated 𝑅-analytic groups This work has been partially supported by the FEDER, the MCYT Grants BFM2001-0201, BFM2001-0180 and the Ramón y Cajal Program.

## 1 Introduction

Let $`R`$ be a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain and $`𝔪`$ its maximal ideal. The concept of an $`R`$-analytic group is defined in \[3, Chapter 13\], where it is shown that if $`R`$ satisfies some additional technical conditions, then every such group contains an open subgroup which is $`R`$-standard. To recall what this means, let $`G`$ be an $`R`$-standard group. Then the underlying set of $`G`$ may be “identified” with the cartesian product $`(𝔪^l)^{(d)}`$ of $`d`$ copies of $`𝔪^l`$, for some $`l`$. The number $`d0`$ is the dimension of $`G`$ and $`l>0`$ is the level of $`G`$. The group operation is given by a formal group law, i.e. a $`d`$-tuple $`𝐅=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_d)`$ of power series over $`R`$ in $`2d`$ variables, as follows: for all $`\text{x},\text{y}G=(𝔪^l)^{(d)}`$ we have

$$\text{x}\text{y}=(F_1(\text{x},\text{y}),\mathrm{},F_d(\text{x},\text{y})).$$

The neutral element of $`G`$ is $`\text{e}=(0,\mathrm{},0)`$. Without loss of generality we will always assume that the level of $`G`$ is 1. We shall write $`G(I)`$ for $`(I)^{(d)}G`$ and $`G_i`$ will denote $`G(𝔪^i)`$. Hence $`G=G_1=G(𝔪)`$.

The $`_p`$-analytic pro-$`p`$ groups are well-understood (see ) and they are linear over $`_p`$. It was conjectured that $`R`$-analytic pro-$`p`$ groups are $`R`$-linear. Since compact $`_p`$-analytic groups are finitely generated, it is natural to consider first finitely generated $`R`$-analytic pro-$`p`$ groups. In  it was proved that just infinite $`R`$-analytic groups are $`R`$-linear. As an $`R`$-analytic group contains an open $`R`$-standard subgroup, we can restrict our attention to $`R`$-standard groups. In  the linearity of $`_p[[t]]`$-perfect groups is shown. Recall that an $`R`$-standard group of level $`l`$ is called $`R`$-perfect if $`[G,G]=G_{2l}`$. Note that $`R`$-perfect groups are finitely generated. In this work we prove:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`R`$ be commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain of characteristic 0 and $`G`$ a finitely generated $`R`$-standard group. Then $`G`$ is $`R`$-linear.

Note that if a pro-$`p`$ group is finitely generated and $`R`$-linear, then it is a closed subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}_n(R)`$ for some $`n`$. In the following we will use the notion $`R`$-linear only for closed subgroups of $`\mathrm{GL}_n(R)`$.

First at all in Section 2 we prove some new results about t-linear pro-$`p`$-groups. In Section 3 we shall describe the Lie algebra $`𝕃=𝕃(G)`$ of an $`R`$-standard group $`G`$. The typical definition is based on the formal group law of $`G`$. We shall introduce another definition coming from the theory of algebraic groups and define $`𝕃`$ as the set of left invariant derivations of $`A=R[[x_1,\mathrm{}x_d]]`$. We shall prove that these two definitions are equivalent (it is a folklore result, however, I do not know any reference for it in the literature). In Section 4, assuming that the characteristic of $`R`$ is 0, we use the BCHF to define on $`\text{p}𝕃`$ (here $`\text{p}=\text{p}(p)=4`$ if $`p=2`$ and $`\text{p}=p`$ if $`p`$ is an odd prime) a group structure. We show that the obtained group is isomorphic to $`G(\text{p}R)`$. In Section 5 we show that if an $`R`$-standard group is finitely generated, then the radical of $`𝕃(G)`$ is nilpotent. It will permit us use the Weigel result about linearity of some Lie rings which we describe in Section 6. In Section 7 we finish the proof of Theorem 1.1.

## 2 Some results about t-linear pro-$`p`$ groups

Recall the definition of t-linear pro-$`p`$ groups from .

###### Definition.

Let $`G`$ be a pro-$`p`$ group. We shall say that $`G`$ is t-linear if it is a closed subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}_n(A)`$ for some commutative profinite ring $`A`$.

In \[5, Theorem 4.1\] it was shown that if $`G`$ is a finitely generated t-linear pro-$`p`$ group, then $`G`$ is linear over some commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ ring. In this section we extend this result. If $`R`$ is a ring, we denote by $`KdimR`$ the Krull dimension of $`R`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`G`$ be a finitely generated pro-$`p`$ group and suppose that $`G`$ is linear over some commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain $`R`$. Then we have

1. If $`\mathrm{char}R=0`$ and $`KdimR>2`$, then $`G`$ is linear over every commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain of characteristic zero and Krull dimension greater than 2.

2. If $`\mathrm{char}R=0`$ and $`KdimR2`$, then $`G`$ is linear over every commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain of characteristic zero and Krull dimension greater or equal than of $`R`$.

3. If $`\mathrm{char}R=p`$ and $`KdimR2`$, then $`G`$ is linear over every commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain $`R`$ of characteristic $`p`$ and Krull dimension greater than 1.

We see that the last theorem reduces the study of linear over pro-$`p`$ domains pro-$`p`$ groups to study of $`R`$-linear pro-$`p`$ groups, where $`R=_p[[t_1,t_2]]`$ or $`R=𝐅_p[[t_1,t_2]]`$.

One of the main step in the proof of the previous theorem is the following proposition. We also will use it in the proof of our main result.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`R`$ be a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain and $`W`$ a finitely generated $`R`$-torsion-free $`R`$-module. Suppose $`G\mathrm{Aut}_R(W)`$. Then there exists a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain $`S`$, satisfying $`\mathrm{char}S=\mathrm{char}R`$ and $`KdimS=KdimR`$, such that $`G`$ is $`S`$-linear. Moreover, if $`R`$ is regular, then $`S=R`$.

First we need some auxiliary results. In the following $`R`$ is always a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`a0,rR`$ and $`T=R[[t]]/(atr)`$. Then the Krull dimensions of $`R`$ and $`T`$ are the same.

###### Proof.

First note that $`KdimR[[t]]=KdimR+1`$ and since $`R[[t]]`$ is domain $`KdimR[[t]]/(atr)`$ is strictly less than $`KdimR[[t]]`$. Hence $`KdimR[[t]]/(atr)KdimR`$.

On the other hand, $`KdimT`$ is equal to the number of elements in a system of parameters of $`T`$ (see \[8, p.27\]), and this number is at least $`KdimR[[t]]1`$. This implies $`KdimR[[t]]/(atr)KdimR`$. ∎

Recall that a (multiplicative non-archimedean) valuation of a field $`D`$ is a mapping $`v:D_0`$ such that for $`a,bD`$.

1. $`v(a)=0`$ if and only if $`a=0`$.
2. $`v(ab)=v(a)v(b)`$.
3. $`v(a+b)\mathrm{max}(v(a),v(b))`$.

We need the following proposition:

###### Proposition 2.4.

(\[8, Proposition 11.9\]) Let $`R`$ be a subring of a field $`D`$ and $`𝔪`$ a non-trivial ideal of $`R`$. Then there exists a valuation $`v`$ of $`D`$ such that $`v(r)1`$ for every $`rR`$ and $`v(m)<1`$ for every $`m𝔪`$.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`S`$ be the integrally closure of $`R`$. Then $`S`$ is also a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ ring of same characteristic and same Krull dimension as $`R`$.

###### Proof.

First we want to see that $`S`$ is local. Let $`D`$ be the quotient field of $`R`$ and $`v`$ a valuation from Proposition 2.4. If $`sS`$ then $`v(s)1`$, because $`s`$ is integral over $`R`$. In order to see that $`S`$ is local it is enough to show that if $`v(s)=1`$ then $`s`$ is invertible in $`S`$. Let $`f(t)=_{i=0}^na_it^i`$ be a monic irreducible over $`R`$ polynomial such that $`f(s)=0`$. Since $`v(s)=1`$, there exists $`a_i`$, $`i<n`$, such that $`a_i𝔪`$. Therefore, since $`R`$ is a Henselian ring (see \[8, Theorem 30.3\]), we have that $`a_0𝔪`$. Hence $`s^1S`$.

Finally, by \[8, Theorem 32.1\], $`S`$ is a finite extension of $`R`$, whence their Krull dimensions coincide. ∎

###### Theorem 2.6.

Let $`R`$ be a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain and $`aR`$. Then there are a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain $`S`$ and an injective homomorphism $`\varphi :RS`$ such that

1. $`\varphi (𝔪^k)\varphi (a)S`$ for some $`k`$;
2. $`S`$ is integrally closed and its Krull dimension is the same as of $`R`$.

Moreover, if $`R`$ is regular, then $`S=R`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`D`$ be the quotient field of $`R`$ and $`v`$ a valuation from Proposition 2.4. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a completion of $`D`$ respect to $`v`$. Since $`R`$ is Noetherian, there exists $`s=\mathrm{max}\{v(r)|r𝔪\}<1`$ Let $`k`$ be such that $`s^k/v(a)<1`$ and put $`S_1=R[[𝔪^k/a]]\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is clear that $`S_1`$ is a local pro-$`p`$ ring. Moreover, if $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ are generators of $`𝔪^k`$ as $`R`$-module, then $`S_1=R[[t_1/a,\mathrm{},t_m/a]]`$. Hence $`S_1`$ is Noetherian. Applying several times Lemma 2.3, we obtain that its Krull dimension is the same as of $`R`$. Finally, let $`S`$ be the integral closure of $`S_1`$. Theorem follows from Lemma 2.5.

If $`R=A[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_l]]`$, where $`A`$ is equal to $`𝐅_q`$ or to a finite extension of $`_p`$, then the homomorphism $`\varphi :RR`$ is defined by means of $`\varphi (t_i)=at_i`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.2.

Let $`D`$ be the field of quotients of $`R`$. Consider the $`D`$-module $`M=D_RW`$. Since $`W`$ is $`R`$-torsion-free, we can see $`W`$ as an $`R`$-submodule of $`M`$.

Let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_r`$ be a $`D`$-basis of $`M`$ lying in $`W`$. Put $`N=Rm_i`$. It is clear that $`N`$ is a free $`R`$-module. Let $`a0`$ be such that $`aWN`$. By the previous result, there are a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ ring $`S`$ and an injective homomorphism $`\varphi :RS`$ such that $`\varphi (𝔪^k)\varphi (a)S`$ for some $`k`$. Moreover, if $`R`$ is regular, then $`S=R`$.

Put $`W_1=𝔪^kW`$ and $`G_1=\{gG|gww(modW_1)\text{ for every }wW\}`$. It is clear that $`G_1`$ is of finite index in $`G`$ and $`G`$ acts faithfully on $`W_1`$. Define $`L=S_RN`$. We have $`L`$ is a free $`S`$-module.

Now we embed $`W_1`$ in $`L`$ in the following way. Let $`wW_1`$. Then $`w=_{i=1}^ra^1k_im_i`$, where $`k_i𝔪^k`$. Define $`\psi (w)=_{i=1}^r\varphi (a)^1\varphi (k_i)m_i`$ (since $`S`$ is domain and $`\varphi (𝔪^k)\varphi (a)S`$, we can speak about $`\varphi (a)^1\varphi (k_i)S`$). The map $`\psi `$ is an $`R`$-homomorphism. So we can see $`W_1`$ as $`R`$-submodule of $`L`$.

Now, we explain how we can extend the action of $`G_1`$ on $`L`$. Let $`gG_1`$ and $`l=_{i=1}^rs_im_i`$. Define $`gl=_{i=1}^rs_igm_i`$. Note that, since $`gG_1`$, $`gm_iW_1+N`$, so the definition is correct. This action gives an embedding $`G_1\mathrm{Aut}_S(L)\mathrm{GL}_r(S)`$. Since $`G_1`$ is of finite index in $`G`$, $`G`$ is also $`S`$-linear. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.

By the structure theorem of complete local rings (see \[8, Corollary 31.6\]), $`R`$ is a finite extension of a regular ring $`T=_p[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_k]]`$ or $`T=𝐅_p[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_k]]`$ for some $`k`$. Hence, $`G\mathrm{Aut}_T(R^n)`$ for some $`n`$, and Theorem 2.2 implies that $`G`$ is $`T`$-linear. Note that the Krull dimensions of $`R`$ and $`T`$ are the same.

1. If $`\mathrm{char}T=0`$ and $`KdimT>2`$. Then by Remark VII.10.4 of , we can embed $`T=_p[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_k]]`$ into $`_p[[s_1,s_2]]`$. On the other hand $`_p[[s_1,s_2]]`$ can be embeded into every commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain $`S`$ of characteristic zero and Krull dimension greater than 2, and so $`G`$ is also $`S`$-linear.

The proofs of 2. and 3. follow the same ideas. ∎

## 3 Lie algebra of an $`R`$-standard group

We use the notation of Section 1. So $`G`$ is an $`R`$-standard group of level 1. The law $`𝐅`$ can be written in the form

$$𝐅(\text{x},\text{y})=\text{x}+\text{y}+𝐁(\text{x},\text{y})+O^{}(3),$$

where $`𝐁`$ is the sum of the all polynomials in x and y of degree 2 and the expression $`O^{}(n)`$ stands for any power series in which every term has total degree at least $`n`$ and has degree at least 1 in each variable. We know, see, for example, \[9, p.26\], that if $`𝐂(\text{x},\text{y})=𝐁(\text{x},\text{y})𝐁(\text{y},\text{x})`$, then $`(R^{(d)},+,𝐂)`$ is a Lie $`R`$-algebra, and we shall denote this Lie algebra by $`𝕃=𝕃(G)`$.

Now, let $`A=R[[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]]`$. Since $`G`$ is identified with $`𝔪^{(d)}`$, $`A`$ can be considered as a subring of the ring of functions from $`G`$ to $`R`$. Note that since $`R`$ is domain, two different elements from $`A`$ give us two different functions. Define two actions of $`G`$ on $`A`$ via left and right translation:

$$(\lambda _\text{x}f)(\text{y})=f(\text{x}^1\text{y}),(\rho _\text{x}f)(\text{y})=f(\text{y}\text{x}),\text{ where }fA,\text{x}G,\text{y}G.$$

Since the multiplication in $`G`$ is given by an analytic function, we have that if $`fA`$ then $`\lambda _\text{x}f`$ and $`\rho _\text{x}f`$ also belong to $`A`$.

The bracket of two $`R`$-derivations of $`A`$ is again a derivation. Therefore, $`\mathrm{Der}A`$ is a Lie algebra. So is the subspace of left invariant derivations $`\mathrm{Der}_lA=\{w\mathrm{Der}Aw\lambda _\text{x}=\lambda _\text{x}w\text{ for all }\text{x}G\}`$, since the bracket of two derivations which commute with $`\lambda _\text{x}`$ obviously does likewise. The next theorem is the main result of this section:

###### Theorem 3.1.

The Lie $`R`$-algebras $`𝕃`$ and $`\mathrm{Der}_lA`$ are isomorphic.

Before the proof of the theorem we need to do some preliminary work.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`w_1,w_2\mathrm{Der}_lA`$ and $`fA`$. Then we have

$`w_1(f)(\text{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}w_1(x_i)(\text{e}),`$
$`w_2(w_1(f))(\text{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2f(\text{z}\text{y}\text{x})}{x_iy_j}}|_{(\text{x},\text{y})=(\text{e},\text{e})}w_1(x_i)(\text{e})w_2(x_j)(\text{e}).`$
###### Proof.

We prove only the first equality, because the second one is obtained applying two times the first.

$`w_1(f)(\text{y})`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda _{\text{y}^1}w_1(f(\text{x})))(\text{e})=w_1(\lambda _{\text{y}^1}f(\text{x}))(\text{e})=w_1(f(\text{y}\text{x}))(\text{e})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}w_1(x_i)(\text{e}).`$
###### Proof of Theorem 3.1.

Define an $`R`$-homomorphism $`\varphi :\mathrm{Der}_l(A)𝕃`$ as follows

$$\varphi (w)=(w(x_1)(\text{e}),\mathrm{},w(x_d)(\text{e})),w\mathrm{Der}_l(A).$$

First we will show that $`\varphi `$ is a bijective map. Fix $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)𝕃`$ and define $`w\mathrm{End}_R(A)`$ by means of

$$w(f)(\text{y})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{f(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}a_i,fA.$$

If $`f_1,f_2A`$, then

$`w(f_1f_2)(\text{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1(\text{y}\text{x})f_2(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}a_i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}f_2(\text{y})a_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}f_1(\text{y}){\displaystyle \frac{f_2(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}a_i`$
$`=`$ $`w(f_1)(\text{y})f_2(\text{y})+f_1(\text{y})w(f_2)(\text{y}).`$
This implies that $`w`$ is a derivation of $`A`$. Now, if $`\text{z}G`$, then

$`w(\lambda _\text{z}f)(\text{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _\text{z}f)(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}a_i`$
$`=`$ $`w(f)(\text{z}^1\text{y})=(\lambda _\text{z}w(f))(\text{y}).`$
Hence, we obtain that $`w`$ is really a left invariant derivation. Define the constructed map from $`𝕃`$ to $`\mathrm{Der}_l(A)`$ by $`\psi `$. Note that if $`w\mathrm{Der}_l(A)`$, then we have

$`\psi (\varphi (w))(f)(\text{y})`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (w(x_1)(\text{e}),\mathrm{},w(x_d)(\text{e}))(f)(\text{y})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\text{y}\text{x})}{x_i}}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}w(x_i)(\text{e})`$
$`=`$ $`w(\lambda _{\text{y}^1}f)(\text{e})=\lambda _{\text{y}^1}w(f)(\text{e})=w(f)(\text{y}).`$
On the other hand if $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)𝕃`$, then

$$\varphi (\psi (a))=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_d),$$

where $`b_k=_{i=1}^d\frac{F_k(\text{y},\text{x})}{x_i}|_{\text{x}=\text{e}}a_i=a_k`$. Hence $`\psi (\varphi (a)=a`$. We conclude that $`\varphi `$ is a bijection.

We shall see now that $`\varphi `$ is also a homomorphism of Lie rings.

Let $`w_1,w_2\mathrm{Der}_l(A)`$. From the previous lemma, we obtain that

$$\varphi ([w_1,w_2])=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_d),$$

where

$$c_k=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{^2F_k(\text{y},\text{x})}{x_iy_j}|_{(\text{x},\text{y})=(\text{e},\text{e})}(w_2(x_i)(\text{e})w_1(x_j)(\text{e})w_1(x_i)(\text{e})w_2(x_j)(\text{e})).$$

We conclude that $`\varphi ([w_1,w_2])=𝐂(\varphi (w_1),\varphi (w_2)).`$

###### Remark 3.3.

Note that the previous proof also gives an identification of $`\mathrm{Der}_l(A)`$ with $`(I/I^2)^{}=\mathrm{End}_R(I/I^2,R)`$. The derivation $`w`$ is identified with the map $`fw(f)(\text{e})`$.

In the rest of the work we shall use the letter $`𝕃`$ for $`\mathrm{Der}_l(A)`$.

## 4 An application of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff Formula

The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff Formula (BCHF) is $`H(x_1,x_2)=\mathrm{log}(e^{x_1}e^{x_2})`$ regarded as a formal power series in two non-commuting variables. Equivalently, this is a formal power series $`H(x_1,x_2)`$ such that

$$e^{H(x_1,x_2)}=e^{x_1}e^{x_2}.$$

The homogeneous component of $`H(x_1,x_2)`$ of degree $`n`$ is denoted by $`H_n(x_1,x_2)`$, so that $`H(x_1,x_2)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}H_n(x_1,x_2)`$. The main fact about the BCHF is that $`H_n(x_1,x_2)`$ is a Lie word in $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ (see, for example, \[6, Theorem 9.11\]). Let $`\{e_k\}`$ be a $``$-basis of the free Lie algebra generated by $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, consisting of simple commutators. Then we can express $`H_n`$ as $`H_n=\lambda _{k,n}e_k`$, for some $`\lambda _{k,n}`$. We need the following fact about the coefficients $`\lambda _{k,n}`$ (\[1, Proposition II.8.1\]):

$$v_p(\lambda _{k,n})(n1)/(p1),$$
(1)
where $`v_p(ap^s)=s`$ if $`(a,p)=1`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`M`$ be a Lie $`_p`$-algebra without $`_p`$-torsion and suppose that $`_ip^iM=0`$. If $`M`$ is complete in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^iM`$, then

1. If $`a,b\text{p}M`$, then $`H_n(a,b)\text{p}M`$ and $`lim_n\mathrm{}H_n(a,b)=0`$ (in particular, we can compute $`H(a,b)`$);
2. $`(\text{p}M,H)`$ is a group.

###### Proof.

The first proposition of the theorem follows directly from the formula (1).

Since $`H(a,0)=H(0,a)=a`$ and $`H(a,a)=0`$ for any $`a\text{p}M`$, then in order to prove the second statement, we only need to show that the operation $`H(x_1,x_2)`$ is associative.

Let $`F`$ be the $`_p`$-algebra of formal power series in the non-commuting variables $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$. Then we have the following equalities in $`F`$:

$`H(H(x_1,x_2),x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}(e^{H(x_1,x_2)}e^{x_3})=\mathrm{log}(e^{x_1}e^{x_2}e^{x_3})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}(e^{x_1}e^{H(x_2,x_3)})=H(x_1,H(x_2,x_3)).`$
In particular, we obtain

$$H(H(\text{p}x_1,\text{p}x_2),\text{p}x_3)=H(\text{p}x_1,H(\text{p}x_2,\text{p}x_3)).$$
(2)
Let $`L`$ be the Lie $`_p`$-subalgebra of $`F^{()}`$, generated by $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$. It is clear that $`L`$ is a free Lie $`_p`$-algebra. Let$`\{e_k,k\}`$ be a $`_p`$-basis of $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ be the Lie $`_p`$-subalgebra of $`F^{()}`$, consisting from the formal power series $`\lambda _ke_k`$ with $`\lambda _k_p`$ and $`lim_k\mathrm{}(\lambda _k)=+\mathrm{}`$. We have that $`\overline{L}`$ is the completion of $`L`$ in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^iL`$. By (1), if $`y_1,y_2\text{p}\overline{L}`$, then $`H(\text{p}y_1,\text{p}y_2)\text{p}\overline{L}`$.

Now, let $`a,b,cM`$ and $`\varphi :LM`$ be a Lie $`_p`$-algebra homomorphism defined by means of $`\varphi (x_1)=a,\varphi (x_2)=b,\varphi (x_3)=c`$. Since $`M`$ is complete in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^iM`$, this homomorphism can be extended to $`\varphi :\overline{L}M`$. Furthermore, $`\varphi `$ is a continuous map. Then

$`H(H(\text{p}a,\text{p}b),\text{p}c)`$ $`=`$ $`H(H(\varphi (\text{p}x_1),\varphi (\text{p}x_2)),\varphi (\text{p}x_3))`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (H(H(\text{p}x_1,\text{p}x_2),\text{p}x_3))=\varphi (H(\text{p}x_1,H(\text{p}x_2,\text{p}x_3)))`$
$`=`$ $`H(\text{p}a,H(\text{p}b,\text{p}c)).`$
We conclude that the operation $`H(x_1,x_2)`$ is associative and, so, $`(\text{p}M,H)`$ is a group. ∎

We will denote the group $`(\text{p}M,H)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{p}M)`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`D`$ be an associative $`_p`$-algebra without $`_p`$-torsion and suppose that $`_ip^iD=0`$. Assume that $`D`$ is complete in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^iD`$. If $`M`$ is a closed Lie $`_p`$-subalgebra of $`D^{()}`$,then

1. If $`a\text{p}D`$, then $`a^n/n!\text{p}D`$ for $`n1`$ and $`lim_n\mathrm{}a^n/n!=0`$ (in particular, we can compute $`e^a1+\text{p}D`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(1+a)\text{p}D`$);
2. If $`a\text{p}D`$, then $`\mathrm{log}(e^a)=a`$ and $`e^{\mathrm{log}(1+a)}=1+a`$ (in particular, $`e^a=1`$ if and only if $`a=0`$);
3. $`\{e^a|a\text{p}M\}`$ is a group (with multiplication of $`D`$) isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{p}M)`$.

###### Proof.

The first statement follows from the fact that $`v_p(n!)(n1)/(p1)`$ (see \[1, Lemma II.8.1\]).

Let $`P`$ be the subring of $`_p[[t]]`$, consisting of the series

$$\underset{i}{}\alpha _it^i\text{ with }\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}v_p(\alpha _i)=+\mathrm{}.$$

Suppose $`ft\text{p}P`$. Since $`v_p(n!)(n1)/(p1)`$, $`e^fP`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(1+f)P`$. Let $`a=\text{p}b`$. Define a homomorphism of $`_p`$-algebras $`\varphi :_p[t]D`$, by means of $`\varphi (t)=b`$. Since $`P`$ is isomorphic to the completion of $`_p[t]`$ in the topology induced by $`p^k_p[t]`$, we can extend $`\varphi `$ on $`P`$. Note that in $`P`$, the equality $`\text{p}t=\mathrm{log}(e^{\text{p}t})`$ holds. Since $`\varphi `$ is continuous, we have

$$a=\varphi (\text{p}t)=\varphi (\mathrm{log}(e^{\text{p}t}))=\mathrm{log}(e^a).$$

Analogically, $`e^{\mathrm{log}(1+a)}=a`$. This proves the second proposition.

Since $`M`$ satisfies the hypothesis of the previous theorem, in order to prove the third statement we have to show that $`e^ae^b=e^{H(a,b)}`$, for any $`a,b\text{p}M`$. The proof of this equality is analogical of the proof of Theorem 4.1, and we omit it. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`D`$ be an associative $`_p`$-algebra without $`_p`$-torsion and suppose that $`_ip^iD=0`$. Assume that $`D`$ is complete in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^iD`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a $`_p`$-automorphism of $`D`$ and suppose $`(\varphi 1)D\text{p}D`$. Then $`\mathrm{log}\varphi \text{p}\mathrm{End}__p(D)`$ is well-defined and it is a derivation of $`D`$.

###### Proof.

From the hypothesis on $`\varphi `$ it follows that $`\varphi 1+\text{p}\mathrm{End}__p(D)`$. Since $`D`$ is complete in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^iD`$, $`\mathrm{End}__p(D)`$ is complete in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^i\mathrm{End}__p(D)`$. By the previous theorem there exists $`\mathrm{log}\varphi `$.

Let

$$f_n(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^{i+1}(t1)^i}{i}=\underset{i}{}\alpha _it^i.$$

Define $`d_n=f_n(\varphi )`$. Note that $`\mathrm{log}\varphi =lim_n\mathrm{}d_n`$. Then

$$d_n(ab)=\underset{i}{}\alpha _i\varphi ^i(a)\varphi ^i(b)=\underset{j,k}{}\beta _{j,k}(\varphi 1)^j(a)(\varphi 1)^k(b),$$

where $`\beta _{j,k}`$ are coefficients obtained from the following equality:

$$f_n(ts)=\underset{j,k}{}\beta _{j,k}(t1)^j(s1)^k.$$

From the definition of $`f_n`$, it follows that

$$f_n(ts)f_n(t)f_n(s)=\underset{j+k>n}{}\beta _{j,k}(t1)^j(s1)^k.$$

Hence

$$d_n(ab)d_n(a)bad_n(b)=\underset{j+k>n}{}\beta _{j,k}(\varphi 1)^j(a)(\varphi 1)^k(b)$$

and so

$$(\mathrm{log}\varphi )(ab)(\mathrm{log}\varphi )(a)ba(\mathrm{log}\varphi )(b)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}d_n(ab)ad_n(b)d_n(a)b=0.$$

Hence $`\mathrm{log}\varphi `$ is a derivation. ∎

Using the similar argument we can prove the next lemma

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`D`$ be an associative $`_p`$-algebra without $`_p`$-torsion and suppose that $`_ip^iD=0`$. Assume that $`D`$ is complete in the topology induced by the filtration $`p^iD`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a $`_p`$-derivation of $`D`$ and suppose $`\varphi (D)\text{p}D`$. Then $`\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )1+\text{p}\mathrm{End}__p(D)`$ is well-defined and it is an automorphism of $`D`$.

Let $`R`$ be a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain of characteristic 0. We use the notation of the previous section. Suppose that $`\text{x}G(\text{p}R)`$. Then it is clear that the automorphism $`\rho _\text{x}`$ satisfies the condition: $`(\rho _\text{x}1)A\text{p}A`$, whence $`\rho _\text{x}1+\text{p}\mathrm{End}_R(A)`$. By Lemma 4.3, we have the well-defined derivation $`\mathrm{log}(\rho _\text{x})\text{p}\mathrm{End}_R(A)`$. Since $`\lambda _\text{y}`$ and $`\rho _\text{x}`$ commute, $`\mathrm{log}(\rho _\text{x})\text{p}𝕃=\text{p}\mathrm{Der}_l(A)`$.

From the equality $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{log}(\rho _x))=\rho _x`$, we obtain, using Theorem 4.2(iii), that $`G(\text{p}R)`$ can be embedded into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{p}𝕃)`$. In fact, we can prove more:

###### Theorem 4.5.

The groups $`\{\rho _\text{x}|\text{x}G(\text{p}R)\}`$ and group $`\{e^a|a\text{p}𝕃\}`$ coincide. In particular, $`G(\text{p}R)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{p}𝕃)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`V`$ be the group of $`R`$-automorphisms of $`A`$, commuting with all $`\lambda _\text{x}`$, $`\text{x}G`$. We will show that $`V=\{\rho _\text{x}|\text{x}G\}`$.

Let $`vV`$ and put $`\text{x}=(v(x_1)(\text{e}),\mathrm{},v(x_n)(\text{e}))`$. It is easy to see that if $`fA`$, then $`v(f)(\text{e})=f(\text{x})=\rho _\text{x}f(e)`$. Hence if $`\text{y}G`$, we have

$$v(f)(\text{y})=\lambda _{\text{y}^1}v(f)(\text{e})=v\lambda _{\text{y}^1}(f)(\text{e})=\rho _\text{x}\lambda _{\text{y}^1}(f)(\text{e})=\rho _\text{x}(f)(\text{y}).$$

It implies that $`v=\rho _\text{x}`$.

Now, if $`w\text{p}𝕃`$, then by Lemma 4.4, $`e^w`$ is an automorphism of $`A`$. It is clear that $`e^wV`$. Since $`e^w(x_i)x_i+\text{p}A`$, we obtain from the previous paragraph that $`e^w=\rho _\text{x}`$ for some $`\text{x}G(\text{p}R)`$. This finishes the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 4.6.

If the Lie $`R`$-algebra $`𝕃=𝕃(G)`$ can be embedded in $`\mathrm{End}_R(W)^{()}`$ for some finitely generated $`R`$-torsion-free $`R`$-module $`W`$, then $`G(\text{p}R)`$ can be embedded as a closed subgroup in $`\mathrm{Aut}_R(W)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`𝕃`$ is a $`R`$-subalgebra of $`\mathrm{End}_R(W)^{()}`$. By Theorem 4.2, $`H=\{e^a|a\text{p}𝕃\}`$ is a group isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{p}𝕃)`$ and, whence, by the previous theorem to $`G(\text{p}R)`$. Note that $`H`$ is a closed subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}_R(W)`$ because the exponential map is continuous on $`\text{p}\mathrm{End}_R(W)`$ and $`\text{p}𝕃`$ is compact. ∎

## 5 Soluble radical of a finitely generated $`R`$-standard group

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian commutative domain, $`D`$ its field of fractions and $`𝕃`$ an $`R`$-Lie algebra which is a finitely generated free $`R`$-module. We call $`𝕃`$ for short an $`R`$-lattice. Put $`𝕃_D=D_R𝕃`$. $`𝕃_D`$ is a finite dimensional $`D`$-Lie algebra. In the following $`R_s(𝕃_D)`$ will denote the soluble radical of $`𝕃_D`$ and $`R_n(𝕃_D)`$ will denote the nilpotent radical of $`𝕃_D`$. The purpose of this section is the next result:

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`R`$ be a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain of characteristic 0 and Krull dimension greater than 1 and $`D`$ its field of quotients. Let $`G`$ be a finitely generated $`R`$-standard group and $`𝕃=𝕃(G)`$ its Lie algebra. Then $`R_s(𝕃_D)`$ is nilpotent.

We use the notation of the previous section. From Theorem 4.5 we know that if $`\text{x}G(\text{p}R)`$, then $`\rho _\text{x}=e^a`$ for some $`a\text{p}𝕃(G)`$. Recall that $`I`$ is an ideal of $`A`$ generated by $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_d`$. The conjugation by x which send $`f(\text{y})I`$ to $`f(\text{x}^1\text{y}\text{x})I`$ is the map $`\lambda _\text{x}\rho _\text{x}`$. We need an auxiliary lemma.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`G`$ be a finitely generated $`R`$-standard group and $`\text{x}G(\text{p}R)`$. Let $`a\text{p}𝕃(G)`$ be such that $`\rho _\text{x}=e^a`$. Suppose $`\lambda _\text{x}\rho _\text{x}`$ acts as an unipotent automorphism on $`(I/I^2)`$. Then $`aR_n(𝕃(G)_D)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`fI`$ and $`w𝕃=𝕃(G)`$. We have

$$(\rho _\text{x}^1w\rho _\text{x})(f)(\text{e})=(w\rho _\text{x})(f)(\text{x}^1)=(w\lambda _\text{x}\rho _\text{x})(f)(e).$$

Note that if a linear automorphism acts unipotently on $`V`$, it acts also unipotently on $`V^{}`$. Since $`𝕃`$ can be identified with $`(I/I^2)^{}`$ (see Remark 3.3), we have that the automorphism of $`𝕃_D`$ defined as $`\tau (w)=\rho _\text{x}^1w\rho _\text{x}`$ is unipotent.

In order to prove that $`\mathrm{ad}a`$ is nilpotent, we should to show that every $`\mathrm{ad}a`$-invariant subspace $`W`$ of $`𝕃_D`$ has a nonzero element $`w`$ such that $`\mathrm{ad}a(w)=0`$. So, let $`W`$ be an $`\mathrm{ad}a`$-invariant subspace of $`𝕃_D`$. Since we have

$$\tau (w)=\rho _\text{x}^1w\rho _\text{x}=e^awe^a=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{ad}a)^i(w)}{i!}=e^{\mathrm{ad}a}(w),$$

$`W`$ is also $`\tau `$-invariant. Hence there exists $`0wW`$ such that $`\tau (w)=w`$. Then $`\mathrm{ad}a(w)=0`$. We conclude that $`\mathrm{ad}a`$ is nilpotent. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 5.1.

We suppose the contrary. If $`vR_s(𝕃_D)R_n(𝕃_D)`$, then $`DvR_n(𝕃_D)=\{0\}`$. Put $`T=\text{p}𝕃R_s(𝕃_D)`$ and $`T_1=\text{p}𝕃Dv`$. As in the previous section we see the elements from $`𝕃(G)`$ as left invariant derivations of $`A`$, and the elements from $`G`$ as left invariant automorphisms of $`A`$ (so $`G`$ coincides with $`\{\rho _\text{x}|\text{x}G\}`$).

Put $`H=\{e^a|aT\}`$ and $`H_1=\{e^a|aT_1\}`$. By Theorem 4.5, these two sets are subsets of $`G(\text{p}R)=\{\rho _\text{x}|\text{x}G(\text{p}R)\}=\{e^a|a\text{p}𝕃(G)\}`$. Note also that $`H`$ and $`H_1`$ are subgroups of $`G`$.

If $`h=e^aH`$ and $`gG`$, then $`h^g=(e^{\mathrm{Ad}g(a)})`$. Hence $`H`$ is a normal subgroup of $`G`$. On the other hand since $`T`$ is soluble, $`H`$ is soluble.

In \[5, Proposition 5.1\] we proved that for some $`k`$ the kernel of the action by conjugation on $`I/I^k`$ is $`Z(G)`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the algebraic closure of $`D`$, we can consider $`G/Z(G)`$ as a subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}_m(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`m`$ is the rank of $`I/I^k`$ as $`R`$-module. Let $`\overline{G}`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ be the Zariski closures of $`G/Z(G)`$ and $`HZ(G)/Z(G)`$ respectively in $`\mathrm{GL}_m(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then $`\overline{H}`$ is a normal soluble subgroup of $`\overline{G}`$. By \[4, Lemma 19.5\], $`[\overline{G}^{},\overline{G}^{}]\overline{H}`$ is virtually unipotent.

Suppose $`h=e^a`$, $`a\text{p}𝕃`$ acts as an unipotent automorphism on $`I/I^k`$. Then by the previous lemma, $`aR_n(𝕃)`$. This implies that $`H_1Z(G)/Z(G)`$ does not have non-trivial unipotent elements and so $`[\overline{G}^{},\overline{G}^{}]H_1Z(G)/Z(G)`$ is finite. Since $`DvR_n(𝕃_D)=\{0\}`$, we have $`H_1Z(G)=\{1\}`$, whence $`[\overline{G}^{},\overline{G}^{}]H_1`$ is finite.

On the other hand, since $`G`$ is finitely generated, $`G^{}=G\overline{G}^{}`$ is finitely generated and so $`H_1/([G^{},G^{}]H_1)`$ is abelian of finite rank. We obtain that $`H_1`$ has finite rank. We have a contradiction because $`(R,+)`$ can be embedded in $`H_1`$ and it is not of finite rank. ∎

## 6 The Weigel theorem

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian commutative domain, $`K`$ its field of fractions and $`𝕃`$ an $`R`$-Lie algebra which is a finitely generated free $`R`$-module. $`𝕃_K`$ is a finite dimensional $`K`$-Lie algebra. The Ado-Iwasawa theorem states that $`𝕃_K`$ has a finite dimensional linear representation. The next result shows that if the soluble radical of $`𝕃_K`$ is nilpotent, then this representation can satisfy some additional nice properties.

###### Theorem 6.1.

(T. Weigel,\[10, Lemma 4.3,Proposition 4.4\]) Let $`R`$ be an integrally closed noetherian commutative domain and $`K`$ its field of fractions. Assume that $`𝕃`$ is an $`R`$-lattice and that soluble radical of $`𝕃_K`$ is nilpotent. Then there exist a finitely generated $`R`$-torsion-free $`R`$-module $`W`$ and a faithful $`R`$-linear representation $`\psi :𝕃\mathrm{End}_R(W)`$.

## 7 Linearity of groups

In this section we finish the proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Theorem 7.1.

Let $`R`$ be a commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ ring of characteristic 0 and $`G`$ be a finitely generated $`R`$-standard group. Then $`G`$ is $`R`$-linear.

###### Proof.

The theorem is known in the case when $`KdimR=1`$. So we suppose that $`KdimR>1`$. Let $`𝐅=𝐅(\text{x},\text{y})`$ ($`\text{x}=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),\text{y}=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_n)`$) be the formal law associated with $`G`$ and $`\varphi :RS`$ a homomorphism from Theorem 2.6 when $`a=\text{p}`$. Then we can extend this homomorphism to

$$\varphi :R[[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n,z_1,\mathrm{},z_n]]S[[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n,z_1,\mathrm{},z_n]]$$

in obvious way. Put $`𝐇(\text{x},\text{y})=\varphi (𝐅(\text{x},\text{y}))`$. We have

$$𝐇(𝐇(\text{x},\text{y}),\text{z})=\varphi (𝐅(𝐅(\text{x},\text{y}),\text{z}))=\varphi (𝐅(\text{x},𝐅(\text{y},\text{z})))=𝐇(\text{x},𝐇(\text{y},\text{z})).$$

Hence $`𝐇`$ is also a formal group law. Let $`H`$ be an $`S`$-standard group associated with $`𝐇`$.

Let $`D`$ be the ring of quotients of $`R`$. By Theorem 5.1, the radical of $`D_R𝕃(G)`$ is nilpotent. Let $`E`$ be the field of quotients of $`S`$. Then we have

$$E_S𝕃(H)=E_S(S_R𝕃(G)),$$

which clearly implies that the radical of $`E_S𝕃(H)`$ is also nilpotent.

Applying $`\varphi `$, $`G(𝔪^k)`$ is embedded as a closed subgroup into $`H(\text{p}S)`$:

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)(\varphi (x_1),\mathrm{},\varphi (x_d)).$$

By Theorem 6.1, $`𝕃(H)`$ acts faithfully on a finitely generated $`S`$-torsion-free module $`W`$. Hence, by Corollary 4.6, $`G(𝔪^k)H(\text{p}S)`$ acts faithfully on $`W`$. By Theorem 2.2, $`G(𝔪^k)`$ is linear over some commutative Noetherian local pro-$`p`$ domain $`T`$ of characteristic 0 and same Krull dimension as $`R`$. By Theorem 2.1, $`G(𝔪^k)`$ is $`R`$-linear. Finally, since the index of $`G(𝔪^k)`$ in $`G`$ is finite, $`G`$ is also $`R`$-linear. ∎


format: text

text:
# A Kinship between the EGRET SNR’s and Sgr A East

## 1 Introduction

Sgr A East is a nonthermal radio source with a supernova like morphology located near the Galacic center. Its elliptical structure is elongated along the Galactic plane with a major axis of length 10.5 pc and a center displaced from the apparent dynamical nucleus, Sgr A\*, by 2.5 pc in projection toward negative Galactic latitudes. The actual distance between Sgr A\* and the geometric center of Sgr A East has been estimated to be $`7`$ pc (Yusef-Zadeh & Morris 1987; Pedlar et al. 1989; Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1999).

Recent broadband observations suggest that Sgr A East belongs to a class of SNR’s that have been observed and detected at 1720 MHz, the transition frequency of OH maser emission (Claussen et al. 1997). These observations are consistent with the presence of shocks produced at the interface between the supersonic outflow and the dense molecular cloud environments with which these SNR’s are known to be interacting. In similar fashion, several maser spots with velocities of $`50`$ km s-1 have been resolved in the region where Sgr A East is interacting with a dense molecular cloud (the SE boundary), and an additional spot has been observed near the Northern arm of Sgr A West (a $`6`$-pc mini-spiral structure of ionized gas orbiting about the center) at a velocity of $`134`$ km s-1 (Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1996, 1999). The SNR-Sgr A East kinship is further suggested by the EGRET detection of a $`30`$ MeV \- $`10`$ GeV continuum source (3EG J1746-2852) within the inner $`1^o`$ of the Galactic center (Mayer-Hasselwander et al. 1998), in that the SNR’s observed at 1720 MHz represent a subset of SNR’s clearly associated with EGRET sources (Esposito et al. 1996; Combi, Romero & Bagnaglia 1998; Combi et al. 2001).

There are two caveats with the association of Sgr A East to the EGRET SNR’s. First, nonthermal radio emission from Sgr A East observed at 6 and 20 cm is characterized by a spectral index of $`1`$, which points to an underlying population of nonthermal leptons with a power-law distribution of index $`p3`$ (Pedlar et al. 1989). In contrast, typical SNR’s have radio emission characterized by spectral indeces $`0.5`$ and corresponding lepton indeces $`2`$. Second, the implied $`\gamma `$-ray luminosity of Sgr A East ($`2\times 10^{37}`$ ergs s-1) is roughly two orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding values for the EGRET SNR’s. Interestingly, given the power required to carve out the radio synchrotron remnant within the surrounding dense molecular cloud, it has been argued that the energetics of Sgr A East are quite extreme ($`4\times 10^{52}`$ ergs; Mezger et al. 1989) compared with the total energy released in a typical supernova explosion. We note, however, that this picture may be at odds with the latest Chandra X-ray observations of this region (Maeda et al. 2002), which suggest instead that Sgr A East is the product of a supernova with a typical energy release, $`10^{51}`$ ergs.

Adopting the high-energy interpretation, Melia et al. (1998; hereafter MFYM) invoked a pion-production mechanism within the Sgr A East shell to account for the Galactic center EGRET observations. In their scenario, the decay of neutral pions created in collisions between shock accelerated protons and ambient protons produce a broad spectrum that accounts for the observed emission from this source at energies greater than $`100`$ MeV. A crucial aspect of this mechanism is the decay of charged pions into muons, and subsequently, into “secondary” relativistic electrons and positrons. The emission from these leptons due to inverse Compton scattering with UV photons then accounts for the observed emission at energies below $`100`$ MeV. In addition, leptonic synchrotron emission also accounts self-consistently for the unusually steep ($`\alpha 1`$) radio emission detected from Sgr A East’s periphery.

The work undertaken by MFYM invoked two key elements generally ignored in earlier treatments of pion-decay mechanisms (see, e.g., Sturner et al. 1997; Gaisser, Protheroe, & Stanev 1998; Baring et al. 1999). The first is a correct treatment of the energy-dependent pion multiplicity and its effect on the spectral shape of the pion-decay photons (see also Markoff, Melia, & Sarcevic 1999). The second is the self-consistent use of secondary leptons (by-products of charged pion decays) in the determination of the broadband emission spectrum. The importance of these secondaries becomes significant with a proper treatment of the pion multiplicity, as each relativistic proton produces on average 40 - 60 leptons. As a result, the ratio of secondary leptons to shock-accelerated protons is significantly higher than previously estimated with an assumed pion-multiplicity of three, bringing into question earlier work on pion-production mechanisms that ignored the role of these decay products.

Although the scenario put forth in MFYM succesfully describes the broadband emission of Sgr A East, it does not appear to be consistent with the conclusion drawn from the recent observations with ACIS on board the Chandra X-ray Observatory. These show that Sgr A East is probably a single, mixed-morphology supernova remnant with an age of $`10,000`$ years (Maeda et al. 2002). While the Chandra observation may thus resolve the mystery surrounding the birth of Sgr A East, it creates another in terms of the relatively large $`\gamma `$-ray luminosity discussed above. Of course, it is quite plausible that 3EG J1746-2852 is not associated with Sgr A East. Indeed, it has recently been shown that filaments in the arched magnetic field structure to the North of the Galactic center may also be viable candidates for the EGRET emission (Yusef-Zadeh et al. 2002).

Given this new uncertainty, we reconsider the viability of the scenario put forth by MFYM in the context of standard SNR energetics. Since the EGRET observations fix the neutral pion-decay rate ($`L_\gamma /2/1`$ GeV $`10^{40}`$ s-1), the energy content of the relativistic protons required to produce the necessary number of neutral pions must be sensitive to the ambient proton number density $`n_H`$; lower values of $`n_H`$ require a higher density of relativistic (shock-accelerated) protons to compensate. For example, MFYM found that an ambient proton density of $`10`$ cm-3 yielded an energy content of relativistic particles $`8\times 10^{50}`$ ergs. In contrast, an ambient proton density of $`10^3`$ cm-3 yielded an energy content $`10^{49}`$ ergs. The view that Sgr A East results from a standard SN clearly favors the higher ambient number density.

As the production rates of charged and neutral pions are similar, the EGRET observations (which fix the rate of neutral pion production) also fix the rate at which secondary leptons (the byproducts of charged pions) are produced. (Note, however, that the number of shock accelerated protons required to produce these leptons depends on the pion-multiplicity.) Indeed, MFYM found this rate to be $`4\times 10^{40}`$ s-1, consistent with the above estimate of the neutral pion decay rate. If these particles reach steady-state due primarily to cooling via inverse Compton scattering, as was the case in MFYM, then the lepton number density (and hence the emission due to inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron processes) is also fixed. In contrast, bremsstrahlung emission (by the relativistic particles) scales directly with $`n_H`$. As a result, MFYM concluded that $`n_H`$ had to be less than $`30`$ cm-3 to keep bremsstrahlung emission from swamping the EGRET data.

Taken at face value, the above discussion suggests that the scenario adopted in MFYM is not compatible with a standard SNR view of Sgr A East. However, a steady-state condition for $`n_H=10`$ cm-3 does not appear to be valid either. Specifically, the time required to build up the steady-state distribution assumed by MFYM is easily estimated to be $`7.5\times 10^6`$ years. It is clear that the amount of time required to build up a steady-state distribution of secondary leptons far exceeds any reasonable age for Sgr A East.

This result implies that MFYM significantly overestimated the emission from inverse Compton scattering in their fits to the broadband spectrum, making it unlikely that this component can account for the low energy portion of the EGRET spectrum. However, it is also clear that the lepton number density in Sgr A East was also overestimated by as much as $`750`$, removing the bremsstrahlung constraint that $`n_H<30`$ cm-3. In fact, we will show below that bremsstrahlung emission can account for the EGRET observations at energies below $`100`$ MeV if $`n_H10^3`$ cm-3. This value of $`n_H`$ is consistent with the view that Sgr A East is expanding into an ionized gas halo with a density $`10^3`$ cm-3, and interacting with a cloud with a density $`10^5`$ cm-3 (Maeda et al. 2002).

This paper presents a thorough investigation of this scenario, and is organized as follows. An idealized model of Sgr A East is presented in §2, and then used in §3 to determine what relativistic proton distribution is required to produce a $`\pi ^0`$ emissivity that can account for the high-energy part of the EGRET observations. This distribution is then used in §4 to calculate the secondary lepton injection function, and subsequently, to show that the emission from these secondary leptons can then fill in the low-energy part of the EGRET observations as well as account for the VLA observations of Sgr A East. A summary and conclusion are presented in §5.

## 2 An Idealized Model for Sgr A East

Sgr A East is idealized as a uniform spherical shell with an inner radius of 4 pc and an outer radius of 5 pc. The ambient medium is taken to be fully ionized hydrogen with an expected density of $`n_H10^310^4`$ cm-3 (see discussion above). The region is assumed to be threated by a fairly strong (at least $`0.1`$ mG) magnetic field (see, e.g., Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1996).

Given its proximity to the Galactic center, Sgr A East is known to be bathed by the intense IR and UV radiation fields associated with the central $`12`$ parsecs of the galaxy (Telesco et al. 1998; Davidson et al. 1992; Becklin, Gatley & Werner 1982). For simplicity, we adopt values for the photon energy densities (IR and UV) corresponding to those found at a distance of 7 pc from the Galactic center. Although the age of Sgr A East is not known, its value has been estimated to be $`10^4`$ years by Maeda et al. (2002), and is expected to be less than $`5`$ pc/ $`100`$ km s$`{}_{}{}^{1}5\times 10^4`$ years, as implied by the observed shock velocities. As such, we adopt an age of 30,000 years as a reasonable value consistent with the available constraints for Sgr A East.

Shock accelerated protons are assumed to be uniformly injected throughout Sgr A East with a power-law distribution. These protons cool primarily through inelastic $`pp`$ scatterings on a timescale $`\tau _{pp}=[cn_H\sigma _{pp}]^1`$, where $`\sigma _{pp}`$ is the cross-section for proton-proton scattering. With $`\sigma _{pp}30`$ mbarns (e.g., Sturner et al. 1997), $`\tau _{pp}`$ 35,000 years for $`n_H=10^3`$ cm-3. For simiplicity, we only consider cases where the injected protons in Sgr A East would not have had sufficient time to cool (see discussion in next section), and are therefore described by a distribution function of the form $`n_p(E)=n_oE^\alpha `$ (where $`E`$ is the total particle energy). While $`\alpha `$ is taken as a free parameter, its value is expected to range between 2 and 2.4 (Jones & Ellison 1991).

## 3 The production of $`\pi ^0`$ decay photons

The $`\pi ^0`$ emissivity resulting from an isotropic distribution of shock accelerated protons $`n_p(E_p)`$ interacting with cold (fixed target) ambient hydrogen of density $`n_H`$ is given by the expression

$$Q_{\pi ^0}^{pp}=cn_H_{E_{th}(E_{\pi ^0})}𝑑E_pn_p(E_p)\frac{d\sigma (E_{\pi ^0},E_p)}{dE_{\pi ^0}},$$
(1)
where $`E_{th}(E_{\pi ^0})`$ is the minimum proton energy required to produce a pion with total energy $`E_{\pi ^0}`$, and is determined through kinematical considerations. The resulting $`\gamma `$-ray emissivity is then given by the expression

$$Q_\gamma (E_\gamma )=2_{E_{\pi ^0}^{min}(E_\gamma )}𝑑E_{\pi ^0}\frac{Q_{\pi ^0}^{pp}}{(E_{\pi ^0}^2m_{\pi ^0}^2c^4)^{1/2}},$$
(2)
where $`E_{\pi ^0}^{min}(E_\gamma )=E_\gamma +m_{\pi ^0}^2c^4/(4E_\gamma )`$.

For simplicity, we shall use the isobar model of Stecker (1973) to determine the differential $`\pi ^0`$ cross-section for proton-proton collisions when the shock accelerated protons have an energy of less than 3 GeV (e.g., Dermer 1986a,b; Moskalenko & Strong 1998). The lengthy expressions needed to evaluate the cross-section are given in the Appendix. At energies greater than 7 GeV, the differential cross-section is approximated by the scaling form of Blasi & Melia (2003; see also Blasi & Colafrancesco 1999):

$$\frac{d\sigma (E_p,E_{\pi ^0})}{dE_{\pi ^0}}=\frac{\sigma _0}{E_{\pi ^0}}f_{\pi ^0}(x),$$
(3)
where $`x=E_{\pi ^0}/E_p`$, $`\sigma _0=32`$ mbarn, and

$$f_{\pi ^0}(x)=0.67(1x)^{3.5}+0.5e^{18x}.$$
(4)
This scaling form properly takes into account the high pion multiplicities which occur at high energies. A linear combination of the low and high-energy expressions is used in the intermediate 3 - 7 GeV range.

Fits to the EGRET data for $`\alpha `$ = 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4, are shown in Figure 1. The fitting was done through the proper choice of the product $`n_Hn_o`$, reflecting the fact that an increase in ambient number density must be offset by a corresponding decrease in the number of relativistic particles. Clearly, the total energy budget of the relativistic protons is sensitive to the value of $`n_H`$. For example, the kinetic energy in relativistic protons for the $`\alpha =2.2`$ case is $`10^{53}(n_H/1`$ cm-3) ergs. A standard SNR interpretion of Sgr A East therefore requires high values of $`n_H`$, although too high a value then implies significant proton cooling. We therefore adopt a value of $`n_H=10^3`$ cm-3 for the remainder of this paper.

It is clear from the fits shown in Figure 1 that neutral pion decay cannot account for the lowest energy EGRET data. However, $`pp`$ scattering also produces charged pions, which in turn decay into muons, and subsequently, electrons and positrons. We consider the production and emission of these leptons in the following section.

## 4 Secondary lepton production and emission

Inelastic $`pp`$ scatterings produce two charged pions for every neutral pion. These charged pions quickly decay into muons, which in turn decay into positrons and electrons (hereafter referred to collectively as leptons) with a resulting emissivity

$`q_e(E_e)=n_Hc{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle _{E_\mu ^{min}}^{E_\mu ^{max}}}dE_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{dP}{dE_e}}{\displaystyle _{E_\pi ^{min}}^{E_\pi ^{max}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE_\pi }{\beta _\pi E_\pi }}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{E_{th}(E_\pi )}}𝑑E_pn_p(E_p){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (E_\pi ,E_p)}{dE_\pi }}.`$ (5)
Integration limits in the above expression are determined through kinematic considerations, and the lepton distribution from a decaying muon is given by the three-body decay probability

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{dE_e}}={\displaystyle \frac{8pc}{\beta _\mu m_\mu ^3c^6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑u\frac{u[u^2\gamma _\mu ^2m_e^2c^4]^{1/2}}{(pcE_e+u)^2}\left(3\frac{4\gamma _\mu u}{m_\mu c^2}\right)}`$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{E_e(E_eu)}{p^2c^2}}\right],`$ (6)
where $`u=(E_e\beta _\mu pc`$ cos $`\theta )`$, $`p`$ is the electron momentum, and $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$ is the Lorentz factor for the designated particle (Markoff, Melia & Sarcevic 1999).

As with the neutral pion production, we use the isobaric model to determine the differential cross-section for energies less than $`3`$ GeV (see the Appendix). For energies greater than $`7`$ GeV, the differential cross-section is given by the same expression used for the neutral pion case (Equation 3), but with the scaling function multiplied by a factor of two – that is – $`f_\pi (x)=2f_{\pi ^0}(x)`$. A linear combination is used in the intermediate regime.

The lepton injection rate function $`\dot{n}(\gamma )`$ is shown in Figure 2 for a proton spectral index of $`\alpha =2.2`$ and the value of $`n_Hn_o`$ used in the fit to the EGRET data shown in Figure 1. This injection rate is tied directly to the pion production rate, and hence, to the gamma-ray emission from neutral pion decay. That is, once the proton spectral index $`\alpha `$ is chosen, the lepton injection rate follows directly from fitting the neutral pion flux to the EGRET data observed at Earth.

The dominant energy loss mechanisms for relativistic leptons with Lorentz factor $`\gamma =[1\beta ^2]^{1/2}`$ in the Sgr A East environment are: (1) Synchrotron losses at a rate

$$\frac{dE_s}{dt}=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _Tc\beta ^2\gamma ^2\frac{B^2}{8\pi };$$
(7)
(2) Compton scattering losses at a rate

$$\frac{dE_\gamma }{dt}=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _Tc\beta ^2\gamma ^2\left[\frac{u_{uv}\sigma _c\left(2.7x_{uv}\right)}{1+x_{uv}}+\frac{u_{ir}\sigma _c\left(2.7x_{ir}\right)}{1+x_{ir}}\right],$$
(8)
where $`x_{uv}=\gamma kT_{uv}/m_ec^2`$, $`x_{ir}=\gamma kT_{ir}/m_ec^2`$, and

$$\sigma _c(x)=\frac{3}{4}\left\{\frac{1+x}{x^3}\left[\frac{2x(1+x)}{1+2x}\mathrm{ln}(1+2x)\right]+\frac{1}{2x}\mathrm{ln}(1+2x)\frac{1+3x}{(1+2x)^2}\right\};$$
(9)
(3) bremsstrahlung emission losses at a rate

$$\frac{dE_B}{dt}=\frac{3\alpha }{\pi }\sigma _Tm_ec^3n_H\gamma \mathrm{ln}(2\gamma 1/3),$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant; and (4) Coulomb losses at a rate of

$$\frac{dE_C}{dt}=\frac{3}{2}\sigma _Tm_ec^3n_H\beta ^1\lambda _C,$$
(11)
where the Coulomb logarithm $`\lambda _C`$ is $`24`$. The corresponding cooling rates as a function of $`\gamma `$, defined by the general expression $`R=E^1(dE/dt)`$, are plotted in Figure 3 for $`n_H=10^3`$ cm-3, $`B=0.18`$ mG, and the UV and IR photon fields defined in §2 above.

It is clear from Figure 3 that most of the leptons will have had sufficient time to cool for the assumed age of $`3\times 10^4`$ years. We therefore find the lepton distribution function $`n(\gamma )`$ presently in Sgr A East by solving the steady-state equation

$$\frac{}{E_e}\left[n(\gamma )m_ec^2\left(\frac{dE_e}{dt}\right)_{total}\right]=q_e(E_e),$$
(12)
where $`n(\gamma )d\gamma =n(E_e)dE_e`$. The result is shown as a dotted curve in Figure 4 (the significance of the solid line will be discussed below).

The resulting bremsstrahlung emission from this distribution of leptons is then given by the corresponding emissivity

$$Q_b=cn_H𝑑\gamma n(\gamma )\beta \frac{d\sigma }{dE},$$
(13)
where the lengthy expression for the differential cross section is taken from Koch & Motz (1959; see also Sturner et al. 1997). The resulting bremsstrahlung spectrum observed at Earth is shown as a dotted curve in Figure 5, with the corresponding spectrum from neutral pion decays shown by the short-dashed line. (The significance of the long-dashed and solid lines will be discussed below).

The bremsstrahlung emission at $`100`$ MeV is produced primarily by leptons with $`\gamma <10^3`$. For the physical environment considered here, these leptons cool primarily via interactions with the ambient medium (see Figure 3), and as such, their steady-state distribution $`n(\gamma )`$ scales as $`n_H^1`$. Under steady-state conditions, the bremsstrahlung emissivity is therefore specified solely by $`q_e`$ (see Equation 5), and hence is directly tied to the EGRET data.

It is clear that the pion decay mechanism presented here can naturally account for the EGRET data in a very robust way. In stark contrast, however, the resulting population of relativistic leptons (shown by the dotted line in Figure 4) cannot possibly account for the radio observations of Sgr A East. Specifically, the observed radio emission has a spectral index of $`\alpha 1`$ which in turn requires a power-law lepton distribution with spectral index $`p3`$. For the assumed field strength of $`B=0.18`$ mG, the leptons which contribute most to the observed $`\lambda `$ = 6 cm and 20 cm radio emission have Lorentz factors of

$$\gamma \left(\frac{4\pi m_ec^2}{eB\lambda }\right)^{1/2}24\times 10^3.$$
(14)
For this range of $`\gamma `$, the lepton distribution function is well approximated by a power-law of spectral index $`p2`$, thereby producing synchrotron emission with a spectral index of $`0.5`$.

One could naively argue that the magnetic fields in the Sgr A East region are much higher than $`0.18`$ mG, resulting in cooling rates that scale as $`\gamma ^2`$ over most of the lepton energies. Since the injection rate (see Figure 2) can be characterized as a power law with spectral index $`p2.2`$ above $`\gamma 10^2`$, it is clear that the lepton population would then have the desired spectral index of $`p3`$. However, it is relatively easy to show analytically (using the power-law expression for synchrotron emission) that the resulting radio flux in Sgr A East would then be about two orders of magnitude too high.

As such, we make the reasonable assumption that high-energy particles are diffusing out of the Sgr A East region, and modify the particle distribution function by a diffusion loss factor $`\chi =\gamma _0^2/(\gamma +\gamma _0)^2`$. The parameter $`\gamma _0`$ reflects a threshold limit below which diffusion does not significantly effect the particle population. While this expression is empirical in nature, it is motivated by the fact that the particle gyration radius scales as $`\gamma `$. For a random walk diffusion, one would then expect that the diffusion of particles scales as $`\gamma ^2`$ above some threshold value. (We note that if the diffusion mechanism is due to collisions with the ambient medium, it would not be efficient in normal supernova remnants, as the lower ambient densities in those regions would dramatically reduce the number of random steps that leptons could take over the remnant lifetime.)

The diffusion-modified particle distribution function for $`n_H=10^3`$ cm-3, $`\alpha =2.2`$, $`B=0.18`$ mG, and $`\gamma _0=5.2\times 10^3`$ is shown by the solid line in Figure 4. Since most of the bremsstrahlung emission at around $`100`$ MeV is produced by particles with $`\gamma <10^3`$, the resulting $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum (represented by the long-dashed line in Figure 5) is only slightly reduced. Neverthelss, this slight reduction yields a better fit to the EGRET data, as shown by the solid line in Figure 5, which represents the sum of the neutral pion decay photon spectrum and the diffusion modified bremsstrahlung spectrum.

The radio emission is easily calculted through the emissivity

$$Q_s=\left(\frac{3^{1/2}e^3}{hmc^2}\right)\frac{B}{h\nu }𝑑En_e(E_e)_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\theta \text{sin}^2\theta F\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right),$$
(15)
where

$$F(x)=x_x^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zK_{5/3}(z),$$
(16)
and $`\nu _c=(3e\gamma ^2B`$ sin$`\theta /4\pi m_ec)`$. The synchrotron emission for the assumed parameters is shown in Figure 6 along with the 6 cm and 20 cm VLA data (Pedlar et al. 1989). The solid line represents the observed radio flux at Earth from the diffusion-modified particle distribution (solid line in Figure 4) and the dashed line represents the emission from the unmodified distribution (dotted line in Figure 4).

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

The recent Chandra observations of Sgr A East indicate that this nonthermal Galactic center source is a mixed-morphology supernova remnant with an age of $`10^4`$ years. In light of the Chandra results, we consider the viability of a pion-production mechanism as the source of the broadband emission observed from Sgr A East. Our results indicate that such a mechanism can naturally account for both the EGRET and VLA observations associated with this source. The success of this mechanism in accounting for both radio and $`\gamma `$-ray emission can be traced to the proper treatment of the pion multiplicity (as developed by Markoff, Melia and Sarcevic 1999) which enhances the importance of secondary leptons with respect to shock accelerated protons. As these leptons accounted for part of the $`\gamma `$-ray emission observed by EGRET as well as the radio synchrotron emission observed by the VLA, there is no need for an assumed distribution of shock accelerated primary electrons, which we have here assumed to represent a negligible population relative to that of the secondary particles.

These results suggest that Sgr A East belongs to a subset of SNR’s that have been observed at 1720 MHz (the transition frequency of OH maser emission) and that have been associated with EGRET sources. What connects these objects physically is their interactions with dense molecular cloud environments (Gaisser, Protheroe & Stanev 1998). The singularly high $`\gamma `$-ray luminosity of Sgr A East, as well as its unusually steep radio spectral index, are then attributed to the high-density ($`n_H=10^3`$), strong magnetic field ($`B=0.18`$ mG) environment in which it is located. Although Sgr A East is also bathed by intense IR and UV fields, our results indicate that they play a minor role. That is, Compton cooling of the relativistic leptons is negligible, and in turn, the emissivity from inverse Compton scattering is considerably lower than both the bremsstrahlung and neutral pion decay photon emissivities.

As a consistency check, we compare the X-ray luminosity in the 2 - 10 keV band resulting from bremsstrahlung emission to the (model dependent) value obstained by Chandra observations. The former was found to be $`10^{32}`$ ergs s-1, while the latter is $`8\times 10^{34}`$ ergs s-1 for an assumed isothermal plasma model (Maeda et al. 2002). It appears then that most of the X-ray emission from Sgr A East is emitted by the thermal ambient plasma rather than the shock accelerated particle byproducts.

Appendix

We adopt the isobaric model of Stecker (1973) as discussed in Dermer (1986a,b) and Moskalenko & Strong (1999) to calculate the pion-production cross-sections for energies less than 3 GeV. In this treatment, the differential cross-sections are expressed as

$$\frac{d\sigma (E_p,E_\pi )}{dE_\pi }=\sigma _i(E_p)\frac{dN(E_p,E_\pi )}{dE_\pi },$$
(17)
where $`\sigma _i(E_p)`$ is the inclusive cross-section. The subscript $`i`$ denotes one of three decay channels: (1) $`pp\pi ^0X`$, (2) $`pp\pi ^+X`$, (3) $`pp\pi ^{}X`$, where $`X`$ refers to the inclusive production of deacy products. The decay channel $`pp\pi ^{}d`$ is not considered here, as its inclusion would not significantly affect our results. The inclusive cross-sections for each of these decay channels are given by the following parametric expressions (Dermer 1986a):

$`\sigma _{\pi ^0X}=`$ $`0.032\eta ^2+0.040\eta ^6+0.047\eta ^8,`$ $`p_{p,thr}^{\pi ^0X}p_p0.96,`$ (18)
$`32.6(p_p0.8)^{3.21},`$ $`0.96p_p1.27,`$
$`5.40(p_p0.8)^{0.81},`$ $`1.27p_p8.0,`$
$`32.0\text{ln}(p_p)+48.5p_p^{1/2}59.5,`$ $`8.0p_p,`$
$`\sigma _{\pi ^+X}=`$ $`0.95\eta ^4+0.099\eta ^6+0.204\eta ^8,`$ $`p_{p,thr}^{\pi ^+X}p_p0.95,`$ (19)
$`0.67\eta ^{4.7}+0.3,`$ $`0.95p_p1.29,`$
$`22.0(p_p1.27)^{0.15},`$ $`1.29p_p4.0,`$
$`27.0\text{ln}(p_p)+57.9p_p^{1/2}40.9,`$ $`4.0p_p,`$
and

$`\sigma _{\pi ^{}X}=`$ $`2.33(p_p1.65)^{1.2},`$ $`1.65p_p2.81,`$ (20)
$`0.32p_p^{2.1},`$ $`2.81p_p5.52,`$
$`28.2\text{ln}(p_p)+74.2p_p^{1/2}69.3,`$ $`5.52p_p,`$
where $`p_p`$ is the incident (shock-accelerated) proton momentum in units of GeV/c, $`p_{p,thr}^{\pi ^0X}=0.78`$ GeV/c, and $`p_{p,thr}^{\pi ^+X}=0.80`$ GeV/c.

The quantity $`\eta `$ is given by the expression

$$\eta =\frac{\left[\left(\overline{s}m_\pi ^2m_\chi ^2\right)^24m_\pi ^2m_\chi ^2\right]^{1/2}}{2m_\pi \overline{s}^{1/2}},$$
(21)
where $`\overline{s}=s/c^2=2m_p(E_p/c^2+m_p)`$, and $`m_\chi `$ depends on the decay channel as follows: $`m_\chi =2m_p`$ for the $`\pi ^0`$ decay channel, $`m_\chi =2m_p+m_\pi ^+`$ for the $`\pi ^{}`$ decay channel, and $`m_\chi =m_p+m_n`$ for the $`\pi ^+`$ decay channel (where $`m_p`$ and $`m_n`$ are the proton and neutron mass, respectively). In Equation  (as well as those below), $`m_\pi `$ is taken as the mass of either neutral or charged pions, as warranted by the choice of decay channel.

The normalized production spectrum of secondary pions is given by

$$\frac{dN(E_\pi ,E_p)}{dE_\pi }=w_r(E_p)_{m_p+m_\pi }^{\overline{s}^{1/2}m_p}𝑑m_\mathrm{\Delta }B(m_\mathrm{\Delta })f(E_\pi ;E_p,m_\mathrm{\Delta }),$$
(22)
where the isobar mass spectrum is given by

$$B(m_\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\pi }\left[\left(m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{\Delta }^0\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\right]^1,$$
(23)
and

$$w_r(E_p)=\pi \left[\text{tan}^1\left(\frac{\overline{s}^{1/2}m_pm_\mathrm{\Delta }^0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)\text{tan}^1\left(\frac{m_p+m_\pi m_\mathrm{\Delta }^0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)\right]^1.$$
(24)
For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}`$(1232), which was the only one considered by Dermer (1986b) and, hence, the only one considered here, the resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1/2\times 0.115`$ GeV. (The mass and widths of the deltas that decay to two pions are comparable to those of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}`$(1232).)

The normalized energy spectrum of the pions in the laboratory frame is given by

$`f(E_\pi ;E_p,m_\mathrm{\Delta })=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_\pi }}\text{{}\left(2\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\beta _\pi ^{}\gamma _\pi ^{}\right)^1H[\gamma _\pi ;\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma _\pi ^{}(1\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\beta _\pi ^{}),\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma _\pi ^{}(1+\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\beta _\pi ^{})]`$ (25)
$`+\left(2\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\beta _\pi ^{}\gamma _\pi ^{}\right)^1H[\gamma _\pi ;\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\gamma _\pi ^{}(1\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\beta _\pi ^{}),\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\gamma _\pi ^{}(1+\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\beta _\pi ^{})]\text{}},`$
where $`H[x;a,b]=1`$ if $`axb`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. The lab frame Lorentz factors of the forward (+) and backward (-) isobars are

$$\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm =\gamma _c\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\left(1\pm \beta _c\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\right),$$
(26)
where $`\gamma _c=\overline{s}^{1/2}/2m_p`$ is the center of mass frame Lorentz factor (with respect to the lab frame), $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=(\overline{s}+m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_p^2)/(2\overline{s}^{1/2}m_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the isobar’s Lorentz factor in the center of mass frame, and $`\gamma _\pi ^{}=(m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+m_\pi ^2m_p^2)/(2m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi )`$.

Acknowledgements

MF is supported by the Hauck Foundation through Xavier University.


text:
# Universality of anisotropic fluctuations from numerical simulations of turbulent flows

\[

## Abstract

We present new results from a direct numerical simulation of a three dimensional homogeneous Rayleigh-Bénard system (HRB), i.e. a convective cell with an imposed linear mean temperature profile along the vertical direction. We measure the SO(3)-decomposition of both velocity structure functions and buoyancy terms. We give a dimensional prediction for the values of the anisotropic scaling exponents in this Rayleigh-Bénard systems. Measured scaling does not follow dimensional estimate, while a better agreement can be found with the anisotropic scaling of a different system, the random-Kolmogorov-flow (RKF) . Our findings support the conclusion that scaling properties of anisotropic fluctuations are universal, i.e. independent of the forcing mechanism sustaining the turbulent flow.

\] Small scales turbulent statistics is a challenging open problem for both theoretical and experimental studies in hydrodynamical systems . Typical questions are connected to the understanding of the universality issue, i.e. to which extent small-scale turbulent fluctuations are statistically independent of the large-scale set-up used to inject energy in the flow. Robustness of small-scale physics cannot be exact. For instance, different forcings may inject large-scale different anisotropic fluctuations, which must have some direct/indirect influence on small-scale statistics.

A first strong requirement for universality to hold is therefore that large-scale anisotropic fluctuations becomes more and more sub-leading by going to smaller and smaller scales. In other words, at scales small enough, the omnipresent and universal isotropic fluctuations must be the leading statistical components. Such a requirement is always observed in both experiments and numerical simulations, although some subtle effects may show up due to the existence of anomalous anisotropic scaling (see  for a detailed discussion of this issue). Another important question which must be asked about universality of small scales statistics, is connected to the anisotropic components on their own, independently on their comparison with the isotropic ones. In particular, it is important to understand whether the anisotropic components of any turbulent correlation functions have a scaling behavior characterized by universal exponents or not, in the limit of high Reynolds numbers.

In this Letter we present first results of an attempt to study the small-scale anisotropic behavior of a homogeneous three dimensional Rayleigh-Bénard system (HRB), i.e. a convective cell with fixed linear mean temperature profile along the vertical direction. The main focus of our analysis is a comparison between the statistical behavior of HRB system with a completely different anisotropic flow, a random-Kolmogorov-flow (RKF) . From the comparison, we show that the two systems have almost indistinguishable, in the limit of our numerical resolution, small-scale anisotropic (and isotropic) scalings, i.e. we find a high degree of small-scale universality for all measurable anisotropic components. This result is particularly relevant because its validity is only possible if HRB has anomalous (to be defined below in details) anisotropic small-scale fluctuations.

This Letter is organized as follows. First we briefly discuss the physics of HRB flow and the details of our numerical simulations. Second, we review the technique of SO(3) decomposition to disentangle different anisotropic contributions to any velocity correlation functions. We then present our numerical results on the HRB.

We first show that the observed anisotropic scaling is anomalous, i.e. it does not follow the dimensional predictions than can be derived by an analysis of the equation of motion. We then address in details small-scale universality by making the comparison between HRB and RKF anisotropic properties, the central point of the present Letter.

An Homogeneous Rayleigh-Bénard system (HRB) is a convective cell with fixed linear mean temperature profile along the vertical direction. The flow is obtained by decomposing the temperature field as the sum of a linear profile plus a fluctuating part, $`T(x,y,z;t)=T^{}(x,y,z;t)+(\mathrm{\Delta }T/2z\mathrm{\Delta }T/H)`$, where $`H`$ is the cell height and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ the background temperature difference. The evolution of a HRB system can be described by a modified version  of the Boussinesq system :

$`_t𝒗`$ $`+`$ $`\left(𝒗\right)𝒗=p+\nu ^2𝒗+\alpha gT^{}\widehat{𝒛}`$ (1)
$`_tT^{}`$ $`+`$ $`\left(𝒗\right)T^{}=\kappa ^2T^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{H}}v_z.`$ (2)
Fully periodic boundary conditions are used for the velocity field, $`𝒗`$, and temperature, $`T^{}`$, fields.
For large Rayleigh numbers, HRB shows a turbulent convective dynamics with absence of both viscous and thermal boundary layers . The Bolgiano scale, $`L_Bϵ^{5/4}N^{3/4}(\alpha g)^{3/2}`$, is of the order of the integral scale of the cell (H), hence temperature fluctuations have a leading role only at the largest scales in the system. This has been already shown in a similar simulation , and is consistent with the picture presented in .

The main advantage of the HRB system is that the intrinsic homogeneity along the three directions allow a systematic study of scaling properties without spurious (non-homogeneous) effects, always present in standard Rayleigh-Bénard systems with boundary layers.

In order to asses the importance and properties of anisotropic components for any correlation function it is necessary to make a decomposition on the complete basis of the SO(3) group . In particular, in the following, we are mainly interested in the SO(3) decomposition of scalar quantities, as for the case of velocity longitudinal structure functions, $`S^{(p)}(𝒓)=\left[\left(𝒗\left(𝒓\right)𝒗\left(0\right)\right)\widehat{𝒓}\right]^p`$:

$$S^{(p)}(𝒓)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}𝒮_{jm}^{(p)}(r)Y_{jm}(\widehat{𝒓});$$
(3)
where the indices $`(j,m)`$ label the total angular momentum and its projection on a reference axis of the spherical harmonics $`Y_{jm}(\widehat{𝒓})`$, respectively (see  for more details). The physics is hidden in the projections, $`𝒮_{jm}^{(p)}(r)`$. We are interested to measure what are the scaling properties (if any) of each projections on different anisotropic sectors:

$$𝒮_{jm}^{(p)}(r)c_{jm}r^{\xi ^j(p)}.$$
(4)
where we have assumed, on the basis of theoretical  and numerical  evidences, that the scaling exponents do not depend on the $`m`$ index. To go back to the universality issue discussed at the beginning; we expect that the coefficients $`c_{jm}`$ are strongly dependent on the anisotropic properties of the large-scale physics while the values of the scaling exponents, $`\xi ^j(p)`$, must enjoy a much higher degree of universality. In other words, whether a particular sector is alive, $`|c_{jm}|>0`$, or not, $`c_{jm}=0`$, depends on the forcing; while, once that sector is switched-on, the way it propagates to small-scale is forcing-independent. This picture can be proved on a rigorous basis for some problems of scalar/vector advection by Gaussian, white-in-time, velocity fields (Kraichnan models ).
Concerning the SO(3) analysis let us notice that velocity structure functions have even parity with respect to $`𝒓`$, therefore projections on odd $`j`$ values vanish. In the following, we consider also mixed velocity and temperature structure functions which have, on the other hand, dominant odd parity.
From equation (1) one may easily write down the stationary equation for the second order velocity structure functions; the extension of Kármán-Howarth equation in the presence of a buoyancy term . The result is, neglecting for simplicity tensorial symbols:

$`\delta v(𝒓)^3`$ $``$ $`ϵr+\alpha g\widehat{𝒛}r\delta T(𝒓)\delta v(𝒓)`$ (5)
j=0,1,… $`{}_{j=0}{}^{}_{j=1j=1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ (6)
where with $`ϵ`$ we denote the energy dissipation and with, $`\delta v(𝒓)^3`$ and $`\delta T(𝒓)\delta v(𝒓)`$, the general third-order velocity correlation and temperature-velocity correlation, respectively. The two terms on the r.h.s. of equation (5) are called respectively the energy-dissipation term and buoyancy term. In (5) we report for each term the value of its total angular momentum, $`j`$. Let us notice that the energy dissipation term in (5) has a non-vanishing limit, for high Reynolds numbers, only in the isotropic sector, $`j=0`$. On the other hand, the buoyancy coupling, $`\alpha g\widehat{𝒛}`$, brings only angular momentum $`j=1`$. Due to the usual rule of composition of angular momenta we have that the buoyancy term, $`\alpha g\widehat{𝒛}\delta T(𝒓)\delta v(𝒓)`$, has a total angular momentum given by the rule: $`j_{tot}=1j=\{j1,j,j+1\}`$. Using the angular momenta summation rule for $`j`$ we can decompose the previous equation obtaining the following dimensional matching, in the isotropic sector:

$$\delta v(r)^3_{j=0}ϵr+\alpha g\widehat{}zr\delta v(r)\delta T(r)_{j=1}+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
and in the anisotropic sectors, $`j>0`$:

$$\delta v(r)^3_j\alpha g\widehat{}zr\delta v(r)\delta T(r)_{(j1)}+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
where only dominant contributions are reported.

In the isotropic sector the buoyancy term is sub-dominant with respect to the dissipation term at scales smaller than the Bolgiano length, $`r<L_B`$ . Therefore, in our simulation the isotropic velocity fluctuations are closer to the typical Kolmogorov scaling, $`\delta v(r)r^{1/3}`$, rather than to the Bolgiano-Obhukhov scaling, $`\delta v(r)r^{3/5}`$.
Let us now focus on the anisotropic sectors. Equation (8) is the simplest dimensional prediction one can derive for this system consistently with the anisotropic properties of the buoyancy term, sector by sector. It plays a key role in the following because we will show that the observed anisotropic scaling in our HRB system differ from the matching (8), i.e. we measure anomalous anisotropic scaling exponents.

Our HRB simulation was performed using a Lattice Boltzmann scheme, with spatial resolution of $`240^3`$. We stored roughly 270 statistical independent configurations. The Prandtl number for the simulation is equal to unit, and the Rayleigh number $`Ra=(\alpha g\mathrm{\Delta }TH^3)/(\nu \kappa )=1.3810^7`$. Measured Bolgiano scale is $`L_B370`$, roughly one and half the cell size, while $`\alpha g`$ used in the equation of motion (1) is $`210^3`$. A typical snapshot of the temperature field is shown in Figure 1. Notice the well detectable structures typical of all other Rayleigh-Bénard cell . In particular, there is a beautiful hot plume on the central bottom/left part of the picture.

We now present our numerical results. In order to check the small-scale properties of the HRB system we have carried out the SO(3) decomposition of both longitudinal velocity structure functions (3) up to order $`p=6`$ and of the simplest set of buoyancy-like terms made of $`q`$ velocity longitudinal increments and of one temperature increment, $`B^{(q,1)}(𝒓)=\left[\left(𝒗\left(𝒓\right)𝒗\left(0\right)\right)\widehat{𝒓}\right]^q\left(T\left(𝒓\right)T\left(0\right)\right)`$:

$$B^{(q,1)}(𝒓)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}_{jm}^{(q,1)}(r)Y_{jm}(\widehat{𝒓}).$$
(9)
The dimensional matching made in (8) can be extended to any order of correlation function, giving, in terms of the velocity and buoyancy projections, the leading scaling contribution:

$$𝒮_{jm}^{(p)}(r)r_{j1,m}^{(p2,1)}(r).$$
(10)
Denoting with $`\chi ^j(q,1)`$ the anisotropic scaling properties of the buoyancy terms, $`_{j1,m}^{(q,1)}(r)r^{\chi ^j(q,1)}`$ we get the dimensional estimate linking velocity and buoyancy scaling:

$$\xi _d^j(p)=1+\chi _d^{j1}(p2,1)$$
(11)
where we have added a subscript $`d`$ to remind the reader that it is the result of a dimensional matching.

Let us first discuss the issue of anisotropic anomalous scaling by making a comparison between the numerical measurements and the dimensional estimate (11). In Fig. 2 we show a comparison between the velocity and buoyancy $`j=4`$ projections for $`p=3,5`$.

The inertial scaling measured for the projection of the velocity structure function, $`𝒮_{jm}^{(p)}(r)`$, is more intermittent than the corresponding buoyancy term, $`r_{j1,m}^{(p2,1)}(r)`$. In other words, the observed velocity scaling is different from the dimensional matching derived from the equations of motion: it is anomalous. This result holds for all measurable orders also for $`j=2`$ and for $`j=6`$ sector ($`j=6`$ is shown in the inset).

Let us now discuss the other important issue of universality. We argue that not only HRB has anomalous anisotropic scaling but also that the measured behavior is indistinguishable from what measured in the random-Kolmogorov-flow . The point is far from being trivial and must not be underestimated. The HRB has an anisotropic forcing, given by the buoyancy term, which acts at all scales, $`g\widehat{𝒛}\delta T(r)`$, i.e. there is also a direct inject of anisotropies at small-scale, at variance with the RKF where the forcing was only at large scales. In Fig. (3) we show an overall comparison of $`𝒮_{jm}^{(p)}(r)`$ measured on the HRB and on the RKF . Comparison is limited to $`j=4`$ and $`j=6`$, because RKF data from the simulation of  have a sign inversion in the $`j=2`$ sector which makes comparison inconclusive. As can be seen the agreement is quite satisfactory, except for the very small scales, smaller then the viscous scale, where as usual the SO(3) decomposition suffers from interpolation errors. The small discrepancies at large scales are also to be expected: the inertial properties of the two flows have to match quite different conditions at large scale.

The same comparison for $`j=6`$, shown in the inset, qualitatively supports the same result.

The fact that inertial-scales fluctuations of both flows are almost indistinguishable is the first important confirmation of the universality of anisotropic fluctuations in sectors with $`j=4,6`$. Similar conclusions can be drawn for the $`j=2`$ sector in different experimental set-up  (the only sector measurable, indirectly, in experiments).

Let us conclude by summarizing the two main results of this Letter. First, anisotropic fluctuations in Rayleigh-Bénard systems are anomalous. Second, notwithstanding the direct influence of the forcing mechanism at all small-scale, anisotropic fluctuations are universal, i.e. the small-scale dynamics is dominated by anomalous fluctuations, coming from the self-organization of the inertial evolution. Similar behavior is at the origin of anomalous scaling in Kraichnan models of passive/vector advection as already discussed in the introduction. In the latter case, one connects rigorously the anomalous inertial scaling with the existence of zero-modes of the inertial operator (see for example  for a detailed analysis of anisotropic scaling in passive advection of scalar and vector quantities, respectively). Here, for Navier-Stokes equation, one may only stress the striking similarities, without being able to push it to some rigorous statement. Concerning universalities for the isotropic scaling of this Rayleigh-Bénard system, we notice that due to the large value of the Bolgiano scale –of the order of the system size– we expect to observe small-scale isotropic fluctuations close to the usual Kolmogorov 1941 scaling (plus intermittency). This is indeed the case. The Bolgiano-Obhukhov isotropic regime with $`\delta v(r)r^{3/5}`$ cannot be accessed from this simulation. In the framework of the dimensional matching (7) the existence of a Bolgiano-Obhukhov scaling in the isotropic sector corresponds to a leading influence of the buoyancy term in the scaling range .

We acknowledge useful discussion with A. Lanotte. This research was supported in part by the EU under the Grant No. HPRN-CT 2000-00162 “Non Ideal Turbulence” and by the INFN (through access to the APEmille computer resources). E. C. has been supported by Neuricam spa (Trento, Italy) in the framework of a doctoral grant program with the University of Ferrara.