text:
# Dirac Operator on Fuzzy 𝐴𝑑𝑆₂

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been much interest in applying the Connes spectral triple approach to the study of noncommutative manifolds such as fuzzy sphere and noncommutative $`S^4`$ . In this approach one starts with an algebra $`𝒜`$ (say the algebra of functions on the underlying manifold $`X`$), a Hilbert space $``$ which is a representation of $`𝒜`$, and a Dirac operator $`D`$ which acts on $``$. Having the triple $`(𝒜,,D)`$, the geometry and topology of $`X`$ can be determined . For example, the distance formula is given in terms of $`D`$, and knowing the spectrum of $`D`$, allows one to do the integration over $`X`$.

Fuzzy sphere is the simplest example of a curved noncommutative manifold for which the spectral triple has been explicitly worked out . Another two dimensional and non-flat example that comes to mind is the fuzzy (noncommutative) $`AdS_2`$. Fuzzy $`AdS_2`$ naturally appears in the study of a variant form of (noncommutative) AdS/CFT correspondence in two dimensions . Note that the isometry group of $`AdS_2`$ is $`SO(2,1)`$, and to get the fuzzy version of $`AdS_2`$, one promotes the coordinates defining the embedding of the surface in $`R^{2+1}`$ from ordinary functions to the generators of the group $`SU(1,1)`$. The embedding and the algebra satisfied by the coordinates are invariant under the automorphism group $`SO(2,1)`$ of the algebra and hence the name fuzzy $`AdS_2`$.

For fuzzy sphere, a knowledge of the Dirac operator and its spectrum has allowed the authors of  to compute the Chern numbers of the associated projective module $``$ on fuzzy sphere. Here we will follow  to construct the Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$, and derive its discrete spectrum. In particular, we will find that the discrete spectrum of $`D`$ is nondegenerate. This should be contrasted with the commutative $`AdS_2`$ case where the discrete spectrum of $`D`$ is degenerate. By this, we provide the spectral triple of fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. One may wish to build modules on this space, and, for instance, study the Yang-Mills theory on it. We introduce one such projective module by constructing its corresponding projector on the fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. To compute the Chern number of these modules, however, one has to adapt the Connes formula to the case of noncompact algebras.

In the context of supersymmetric quantum mechanics on $`AdS_2`$, in  the spectrum of the Dirac operator, and the corresponding spinors for a charged particle with spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ – in the presence of a magnetic monopole – was successfully derived. There it was shown that the Dirac spinors represent an $`𝒩=1`$ chiral supersymmetry algebra and a unitary parasupersymmetry algebra of an arbitrary order. Along the lines of , it is interesting to see how these results are modified on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. This is one of our motivations to study the Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$.

## 2 $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermiticity and $`AdS_2`$

In this section we study a special representation for the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$. This we choose to be a non-unitary representation given by $`2\times 2`$ matrices. In this representation, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermiticity – which will be defined shortly – structure of the algebra is very clear. Then we will introduce an appropriate inner product between the elements of the Hilbert space on which $`su(1,1)`$ acts. This will induce the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermiticity structure of the algebra on to the Hilbert space . The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermiticity concept will become important when we come to discuss the spectrum of the Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$.

For every irreducible unitary finite dimensional representation of the compact semisimple Lie group $`SU(2)`$, one can analytically continue the representation to a finite dimensional necessarily non-unitary representation of the noncompact semisimple Lie group $`SU(1,1)SL(2,IR)`$. Both Lie groups $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(1,1)`$ have a common maximal compact subgroup $`U(1)`$, and a common complexification which is the Lie group $`SL(2,𝐂)`$. Considering the lowest dimensional irreducible representation of the Lie algebra $`su(2)`$, which is represented by the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _1`$, $`\sigma _2`$ and $`\sigma _3`$, one can construct a two dimensional non-unitary representation of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=i\sigma _1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=i\sigma _2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=\sigma _3.$$
(1)
It is straightforward to show that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_j=\eta _{ij}I+iC_{ij}^k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k,$$
(2)
where the indices are raised and lowered by $`\eta _{ij}=(1,1,1)`$. The structure constants $`C_{ijk}`$’s are completely anti-symmetric in their indices, and our convention is $`C_{123}=1`$. If we parametrize the Lie group $`SU(1,1)`$ of $`2\times 2`$ matrices of unit determinant as $`U=exp(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^i\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)`$, they will satisfy the following $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-unitary relation

$$U^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3U=U\mathrm{\Sigma }_3U^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3.$$
(3)
In the next section, we will see how this property of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermiticity gets extended to the Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. The relation (3) induces essentially the property of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-self-adjoint on $`2\times 2`$ representation of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_3,$$
(4)
where we note that the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ is self-adjoint, involutory and unitary

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2=I\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^1=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}.$$
(5)
Therefore, the Lie algebra space $`su(1,1)`$ is said to be pseudo-Hermitian with respect to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ (or equivalently, we say $`su(1,1)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian). The eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian operators are known to be either real or appear in complex-conjugates pairs. Let the linear operator $`u:`$ be an arbitrary element of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$ acting on a separable Hilbert space $``$. $`u`$ is expressed as a linear combination of the traceless $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ with real determinants. If we define the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-adjoint for every $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ belonging to the Hilbert space $``$ as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3,$$
(6)
then we can introduce a natural indefinite inner product “$``$” of the two arbitrary elements $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ belonging to the Hilbert space $``$, as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(7)
This has the following property for every arbitrary element $`u`$ of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(u\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}u\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3u\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}u^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(u\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{\left(u\mathrm{\Psi }\right)}\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(u\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(8)
which means that all the generators belonging to $`su(1,1)`$ are $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian with respect to the inner product “$``$”. A Hilbert space equipped with such an indefinite inner product is called the Krein space . Using Eq. (2) the Lie and Clifford algebras corresponding to the generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ are obtained, respectively as

$`[\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j]=2iC_{ij}^k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ (9)
$`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j\}=2\eta _{ij}I.`$ (10)
It is straightforward to show that the structure constants $`C_{ij}^k`$ satisfy the following relation

$$C_{im}^k\eta ^{ij}C_{jl}^n=\eta _m^n\eta _l^k\eta _{ml}\eta ^{kn}.$$
(11)
Next let us discuss the geometrical structure of the Euclidean $`AdS_2`$. The Euclidean $`AdS_2=SU(1,1)/U(1)`$ is defined through the following embedding in 3-dimensional flat Minkowskian space ($`l>0`$)

$$𝐱𝐱:=x_i\eta ^{ij}x_j=l^2.$$
(12)
This could also be thought of as the poincare upper half-plane $`H^2=\{(x,y)IR^2:y>0\}`$ with the Riemannian metric

$$ds^2=l^2\frac{dx^2+dy^2}{y^2}.$$
(13)
If we make the following coordinates transformations

$$x=\frac{2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\rho }{2}\mathrm{sin}\tau }{1+2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\rho }{2}\mathrm{cos}\tau +\mathrm{tanh}^2\frac{\rho }{2}}y=\frac{1\mathrm{tanh}^2\frac{\rho }{2}}{1+2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\rho }{2}\mathrm{cos}\tau +\mathrm{tanh}^2\frac{\rho }{2}},$$
(14)
the metric (13) will transform to

$$ds^2=l^2(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\tau ^2).$$
(15)
The above metric can also be obtained by simply inserting the embedding coordinates

$`x_1=l\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{cos}\tau `$ (16)
$`x_2=l\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{sin}\tau `$
$`x_3=l\mathrm{cosh}\rho `$
into the Minkowskian metric

$`ds^2=dx_1^2+dx_2^2dx_3^2.`$ (17)
Also note that the metric (15) has a negative scalar curvature $`R=2/l^2`$.

## 3  $`U(1)`$ principal fiber bundles over $`AdS_2`$

For the sake of completeness, here we discuss the Hopf construction of the $`U(1)`$ bundles over $`AdS_2`$. This will prove useful in the discussion of the noncommutative analogue of bundles over $`AdS_2`$, i.e., the construction of projective modules over fuzzy $`AdS_2`$.

The $`U(1)`$ principal fiberation $`\pi `$ of the total space $`AdS_3`$ over $`AdS_2`$ can be realized as follows111For a similar construction on $`S^2`$ see .. First we define the total space in $`𝐂^2`$ through the embedding

$$AdS_3=\left\{(z_1,z_2)𝐂^2,\left|z_1\right|^2\left|z_2\right|^2=l^2\right\}.$$
(18)
In the framework of principal fiber bundle, this is projected over the base manifold $`AdS_2`$ as

$$U(1)\stackrel{\text{right}U(1)\text{action}}{}AdS_3\stackrel{\pi }{}AdS_2.$$
(19)
The right $`U(1)`$-action transforms the point $`(z_1,z_2)`$ of $`AdS_3`$ onto another point of $`AdS_3`$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & \begin{array}{cccc}& & AdS_3\times U(1)AdS_3\hfill & \\ & & (z_1,z_2)w=(z_1w,z_2w)\hfill & \end{array}\}\left|z_1w\right|^2\left|z_2w\right|^2=\left|z_1\right|^2\left|z_2\right|^2=l^2.\hfill & \end{array}$$

The complex Hopf bundle projection $`\pi :AdS_3AdS_2`$ is given by

$`x_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\left(z_1\overline{z}_2+z_2\overline{z}_1\right)`$
$`x_2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\left(z_1\overline{z}_2z_2\overline{z}_1\right)`$
$`x_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\left(\left|z_1\right|^2+\left|z_2\right|^2\right).`$ (20)
The relation (12) can now be directly checked. Moreover, the Hopf fibration of $`U(1)`$ bundles over $`AdS_2`$ can also be expressed in the group theoretical framework as follows. There is a canonical one-to-one correspondence between the points on $`AdS_3`$ and the elements of $`SU(1,1)`$, $`g:AdS_3SU(1,1)`$. It is sufficient to choose the one-to-one map $`g`$ as

$`g\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& \\ z_2& \end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{z}_2& iz_1\\ i\overline{z}_1& z_2\end{array}\right)=:U,`$ (25)
in which $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are arbitrary elements of $`AdS_3`$. It is easy to check that it has the unit determinant, and also, satisfies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-unitary relation (3). The homogeneous manifold $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$ can be obtained by the Hopf projection as

$`\pi \left(U\right):=lU\mathrm{\Sigma }_3U^1=𝐱𝚺,`$ (26)
where the coordinates $`x_i`$ (for homogeneous manifold $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$) are obtained from the complex coordinates $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ (for the group manifold $`SU(1,1)`$) via Eqs. (20). The right $`U(1)`$-action over $`SU(1,1)`$ keeps the base point $`𝐱`$ fixed in the sence that all the elements $`Uexp\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\right)`$ of $`SU(1,1)`$ are projected onto the same point $`𝐱`$ on the base manifold $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$. Therefore, we can identify any equivalance class $`\left[U\right]=Uexp\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\right)SU(1,1)/U(1)`$ with the point $`𝐱AdS_2`$ via the projection map (26).

## 4 Fuzzy $`AdS_2`$ and finite dimensional Schwinger representation of the algebra $`𝒜_N`$

As mentioned in introduction, to define the fuzzy $`AdS_2`$, we promote the coordinates $`x_i`$’s of $`AdS_2`$ to play the role of the generators of $`su(1,1)`$, in some unitary representation. For a given integer $`N`$ ($`N>2`$), let ($`𝒜_N`$,$`_N`$) denote the space of all analytic functions of coordinates, and derivations on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$, respectively. As in the case of fuzzy sphere we can work out a Schwinger representation for $`𝒜_N`$. To start with, introduce a real parameter $`\alpha `$ controling the strength of the noncommutativity, and take the coordinates $`x_i`$’s to satisfy the relation

$$[x_i,x_j]=i\alpha C_{ij}^kx_k,$$
(27)
such that $`\frac{2}{\alpha }x^i`$’s satisfy the commutation relations of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$. Like $`SU(2)`$, the Lie group $`SU(1,1)`$ is a group of rank $`1`$, and so possesses one invariant Casimir operator whose eigenvalues label the irreducible representations. The noncommutative relation (27) together with the embedding (12), which now ascribes a negative constant value to the Casimir operator, defines the fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. In fact, this is an analytic continuation of the noncommutative structure of the fuzzy sphere to that of $`AdS_2`$ via the metric $`\eta _{ij}`$. The passage from the fuzzy sphere to the fuzzy $`AdS_2`$ is equivalent analytically to the passage from the ordinary Euclidean Clifford algebra to the Minkowskian Clifford algebra.

The generators $`L_i`$ of $`_N`$ are defined by the adjoint action of $`x_i`$ on the space $`𝒜_N`$:

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }ad_{x_i}x_j=\frac{1}{\alpha }[x_i,x_j]=:L_ix_j.$$
(28)
This induces the commutation relations of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$ on $`_N`$

$$[L_i,L_j]=iC_{ij}^kL_k.$$
(29)
The bigger algebra ($`𝒜_N`$ , $`_N`$) includes the commutation relations (27) and (29), as well as

$$[L_i,x_j]=iC_{ij}^kx_k.$$
(30)
We are now going to introduce a version of the Schwinger operator bases which realizes a representation of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$ using the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian matrices (1). In this formulation, one considers the elements of $`𝒜_N`$ acting on a finite dimensional Hilbert space $`_N`$ spanned by a set of orthonormal bases $`\left\{|k\right\}_{k=0}^{k=N2}`$. Then, the algebra $`𝒜_N`$ can be identified with the algebra of $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ complex matrices, which act on an $`(N1)`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`_N`$. According to the discussion above, the Hilbert space $`_N`$ can be constructed by acting a pair of creation and annihilation operators $`𝐚_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ and $`𝐚^b`$ ($`b=1`$, $`2`$) on the vacuum state $`|0`$, i.e.,

$$|k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k!(N2k)!}}\left(𝐚_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\right)^k\left(𝐚_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\right)^{N2k}|0k=0,1,\mathrm{},N2,$$
(31)
where the commutation relations are

$$[𝐚^a,𝐚^b]=[𝐚_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{},𝐚_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}]=0[𝐚^a,𝐚_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}]=\delta _b^a.$$
(32)
The number operator $`𝐍:=𝐚_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}𝐚^b`$ has the eigenvalue $`N2`$ over the Hilbert space $`_N`$

$$𝐍|___N=N2.$$
(33)
The Schwinger representation for the bases of the algebra $`𝒜_N`$ is now represented as follows

$$x_i=\frac{1}{2}\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)_b^a𝐚_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}𝐚^b.$$
(34)
It is straightforward to see that the generators (34) satisfy the algebra of fuzzy $`AdS_2`$ (27), as well as the following commutation relations:

$`[x_i,𝐚_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)_a^b𝐚_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}`$
$`[x_i,𝐚^a]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)_b^a𝐚^b.`$ (35)
The Casimir operator of the generators (34) is

$$𝐱𝐱=\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}𝐍(𝐍+2).$$
(36)
Restricting the equations over the Hilbert space $`_N`$, and comparing Eq. (12) with (36), we conclude that

$$\alpha =\frac{2l}{\sqrt{N(N2)}},$$
(37)
which implies that the commutative limit $`(\alpha 0)`$ corresponds to the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 Chirality and Dirac operators

Our aim in this section is to construct the Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. This is the most important ingredient in the Connes construction of noncommutative manifolds. To define the Dirac operator, however, first we need to introduce the chirality operator $`\gamma `$. The existence of this latter operator provides a $`Z_2`$ grading of the Hilbert space $``$. $`\gamma `$ has the following properties:

$``$ Commutes with the elements of the algebra $`𝒜_N`$, and squares to one.

$``$ Has a standard commutative limit.
This chirality operator, however, instead of being Hermitian as in the case of compact algebras, turns out to be $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. The Dirac operator $`D`$ is then constructed such that:

$``$ It anticommutes with $`\gamma `$.

$``$ Reduces to the conventional Dirac operator on commutative $`AdS_2`$ , when the noncommutativity parameter $`\alpha `$ is sent to zero.
Notice that the above requirements on $`\gamma `$ and $`D`$ do not uniquely fix the operators. Let us represent the Dirac and chirality operators by the $`2`$-component spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\end{array}\right)`$ as the elements of $`𝒜_N`$-bimodule $`:=𝐂^2𝒜_N`$.

Following , to construct $`\gamma `$, we introduce the opposite algebra $`𝒜_N^0`$ with the product rule between the elements

$$x_i^0x_j^0(x_jx_i)^0.$$
(38)
In other words, the generators $`x_i^0`$, which form the opposite algebra $`𝒜_N^0`$, are acting from the right hand side on $`𝒜_N`$-bimodule:

$$x_i^0\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }x_i\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(39)
From these, we obtain the commutation relation of this algebra to be

$$[x_i^0,x_j^0]=i\alpha C_{ij}^kx_k^0.$$
(40)
Now let us define the chirality operator to be

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{𝒩_N}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\eta ^{ij}x_j^0+\frac{\alpha }{2}I),$$
(41)
where

$$𝒩_N=\sqrt{l^2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}}=\frac{l(N1)}{\sqrt{N(N2)}}.$$

It is easy to check that $`\gamma `$ is involutory, just note that

$`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\eta ^{ij}x_j^0)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\eta ^{kl}x_l^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{ij}\eta ^{kl}(\eta _{ik}I+iC_{ik}^n\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)x_j^0x_l^0`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`\eta ^{jl}x_j^0x_l^0I+iC^{jln}\mathrm{\Sigma }_nx_j^0x_l^0`$
$`=`$ $`l^2I+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}C^{jln}C_{jl}^r\mathrm{\Sigma }_nx_r^0`$
$`=`$ $`l^2I\alpha \eta ^{nr}\mathrm{\Sigma }_nx_r^0,`$
so

$$\gamma ^2=\frac{1}{𝒩_N^2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}I+\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_i\eta ^{ij}x_j^0+l^2I\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_i\eta ^{ij}x_j^0\right)=I.$$
(43)
Note that the chirality operator $`\gamma `$ is constructed so that it commutes with the elements of algebra $`𝒜_N`$. Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$, it is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian

$$\gamma ^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_3.$$
(44)
Next we introduce the Dirac operator

$$D=\frac{i}{l\alpha }\gamma C_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_m^0x_k.$$
(45)
In the following we show that $`\gamma `$ anticommutes with $`D`$. First note that

$`(\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_ix_j^0)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_k^0)=\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_j^0x_k^0`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{ij}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_l\mathrm{\Sigma }_i2\eta _{il}I)(x_k^0x_j^0i\alpha C_{jk}^rx_r^0)`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_k^0)(\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_ix_j^0)+i\alpha \eta ^{ij}C_{jk}^r\mathrm{\Sigma }_l\mathrm{\Sigma }_ix_r^02x_l^0x_k^0I,`$
where in the first line we have used Eq. (10), and the relation (40). So we learn that

$`\{C_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_m^0,\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_ix_j^0\}`$ $`=`$ $`i\alpha C_{ij}^kC_{sm}^p\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}\eta ^{rs}\mathrm{\Sigma }_l\mathrm{\Sigma }_rx_p^02C_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}x_l^0x_m^0I`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`\alpha C_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}C_{lr}^n\eta ^{jm}\eta ^{rs}C_{sm}^p\mathrm{\Sigma }_nx_p^0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha \eta ^{nm}\eta ^{ks}C_{sm}^p\mathrm{\Sigma }_nx_p^0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha \eta ^{ni}\eta ^{pj}C_{ij}^k\mathrm{\Sigma }_nx_p^0.`$
The second and the third equality follow from Eqs. (2) and (11). Since $`x_i`$ and $`x_j^0`$ commute with each other, we conclude that

$`\{D,\gamma \}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l\alpha 𝒩_N}}\gamma \{C_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_m^0x_k,\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_ix_j^0\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{𝒩_N}}D`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l𝒩_N}}\gamma C_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_m^0x_k+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{𝒩_N}}D`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Further, Eq. (44) implies that

$$D^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3D\mathrm{\Sigma }_3,$$
(49)
so it is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian.

To proceed further and to discuss the commutative limit of the Dirac operator, there are some definitions and algebra among the operators in $`(𝒜_N,_N)`$ that should be discussed. The commutation relations (29), (40) and also

$$[L_i,x_j^0]=iC_{ij}^kx_k^0$$
(50)
which is obtained from Eqs. (28) and (39), define the algebra $`(𝒜_N^0,_N)`$ for the fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. Note that the generators of the algebra $`_N`$ can also be written as a linear combination of the generators of the algebras $`𝒜_N`$ and $`𝒜_N^0`$ as

$$L_i=\alpha ^1\left(x_ix_i^0\right).$$
(51)
Introduce the following operators in $`(𝒜_N,_N)M_2(𝐂)`$

$`\chi :=x_i\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }:=L_i\eta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=iC_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}x_lL_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_k,`$ (54)
which are invariant under the $`SU(1,1)`$ transformations.222Using the commutation relations of the algebra $`(𝒜_N,_N)`$, the (anti)commutation relations of the operators $`\chi `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are    $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\chi ,\chi \}`$ $`=`$ $`l^2+\alpha \chi `$    $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐋𝐋+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$    $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha 𝐱𝐋+l^2𝐋𝐋+\left(𝐱𝐋\right)^2\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }+\alpha 𝐱𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }+l^2\mathrm{\Lambda },`$    $`\{\chi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\chi 𝐱𝐋\right)`$    $`[\chi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\chi +\mathrm{\Sigma }\right),`$    $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }+𝐱𝐋\right)`$    $`[\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\chi 𝐋𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐱𝐋\right),`$    $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi \}`$ $`=`$ $`2l^2+\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\chi \right)`$    $`[\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi ]`$ $`=`$ $`2l^2\left(I\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)2\alpha 𝐱𝐋+\{\chi ,𝐱𝐋\}.`$   Using Eq. (4), one can easily show that

$`\chi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\chi \mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }+2\chi \right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_3.`$ (57)
If we define333Note that the generators $`J_i`$ are $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermitian with respect to the inner product “$``$” defined in the $`𝒜_N`$-bimodule $`:=𝐂^2𝒜_N`$, because
$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(J_i\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\left(L_i+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(L_i+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\left(L_i+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(J_i\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
Also note that the generators $`J_i`$, which like the bases of $`𝒜_N`$ and $`_N`$, constitute the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$, satisfy the following commutation relations
$$[L_i,J_j]=iC_{ij}^kL_k.$$

$$J_i=L_i+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,$$
(58)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=C_{ij}^k\eta ^{jl}x_l\mathrm{\Sigma }_k$$
(59)
then, using Eqs. (2), (11) and (27), it follows that

$$C_{ij}^k\eta ^{il}\eta ^{jm}\mathrm{\Sigma }_lx_m^0x_k=\alpha 𝛀𝐉=i\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\chi \right).$$
(60)
Therefore the Dirac operator can be written in the following compact forms

$$D=\frac{i}{l}\gamma 𝛀𝐉=\frac{1}{l}\gamma \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\chi \right).$$
(61)
In this form the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-pseudo-Hermiticity relation (49) can easily be derived from the second equality in (61) upon taking its dagger and using Eqs. (43), (44), (48), (55) and (57).

Now let us discuss the status of the Casimir operators in $`_N`$. Unlike the commutative case where the only Casimir is $`𝐋𝐋`$, here we get an additional Casimir operator. Though, it will scale to zero in the commutative limit $`\alpha 0`$. First of all, it is clear that the operator $`𝐋𝐋`$, the Casimir operator of the bases of the algebra $`_N`$, satisfies the following relation

$$[L_i,𝐋𝐋]=0.$$
(62)
On the other hand, from the commutation relations (29) and (30), one obtains

$$[L_i,𝐱𝐋]=0,$$
(63)
giving the second Casimir mentioned above. If we define the generalized momentum operators

$$P_i=iC_{ij}^k\eta ^{jl}x_lL_k,$$
(64)
which are invariant under the $`SU(1,1)`$ group transformations, we can obtain the following relations in the algebra $`(𝒜_N,_N)`$

$`[x_i,𝐋𝐋]=2\left(x_i+P_i\right)`$ (65)
$`[x_i,𝐱𝐋]=\alpha \left(x_i+P_i\right).`$ (66)
And finally, one can obtain the action of both operators $`𝐋𝐋`$ and $`𝐱𝐋`$ on the polynomials in the algebra $`𝒜_N`$ using the inductive procedure $`(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{})`$

$`𝐋𝐋\left(x_i\right)^n=2n\left(x_i\right)^n`$ (67)
$`𝐱𝐋\left(x_i\right)^n=n\alpha \left(x_i\right)^n.`$ (68)
Comparing Eqs. (62) and (63), (65) and (66), and also, (67) and (68), it is readily found that

$$𝐱𝐋=\frac{\alpha }{2}𝐋𝐋,$$
(69)
which shows that the commutative limit is reached when $`\alpha 0`$.

We notice that in the commutative limit $`\alpha 0`$ ( or $`N\mathrm{}`$ ), the generators of the opposite algebra, $`x_i^0`$’s, get transformed into the generators of $`𝒜_N`$, i.e. $`x_i`$’s. Therefore, using Eqs. (2) and (11) we get

$$D_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }I\right)\frac{1}{l^2}\chi 𝐱𝐋.$$
(70)
However, taking into account the relation (69), the second term of $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ also vanishes, and we are left with

$$D_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }I\right),$$
(71)
which is in agreement with the results of . Therefore Dirac operator (45) reduces to the conventional Dirac operator on commutative $`AdS_2`$ when the noncommutativity parameter $`\alpha `$ is sent to zero.

Before concluding this section, let us briefly discuss the related subject of projective modules on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$. Projective modules are analogue of fiber bundles on noncommutative spaces. So if we are to study, for instance, the Yang-Mills theory on noncommutative spaces, the concept of projective modules becomes indispensable. To construct a projective module, of a rank say 2, we proceed as follows. First we introduce a projector $`p`$, which is a 2$`\times `$2 matrix with elements in the algebra $`𝒜`$. This, in turn, allows us to define the projective module $`=p𝒜^2`$ of sections $`s𝒜^2`$ such that $`ps=s`$. The connection $`=pd`$ on $``$ is then a map from sections to one-form valued sections in $``$.

From what we did in the case of chirality operator $`\gamma `$, which squares to $`I`$, it is not difficult to guess the form of $`p`$. We define

$$p=\frac{1}{2}(I+\mathrm{\Pi }),$$
(72)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{1}{𝒩_N}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i\eta ^{ij}x_j\frac{\alpha }{2}I),$$
(73)
such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^2=I`$, therefore $`p^2=p`$ and $`p`$ is a projector. Note that in the above, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i`$’s are again the 2-dimensional representations of the $`su(1,1)`$ generators such that $`[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i,\mathrm{\Sigma }_j]=0`$. Now, as mentioned earlier, $`p`$ defines the projective module $`=p𝒜^2`$ over $`𝒜`$ with the sections $`s𝒜^2`$ such that $`ps=s`$. Let us introduce the differential operator $`d`$ through

$$du=i[D,u],$$
(74)
for any $`u`$ in the Lie algeba of $`su(1,1)`$. If $`s`$ is a section of the projective module $``$ then $`s=ps`$, and we define the connection on $``$ to be $`=dp`$. Therefore the curvature of $``$ is $`^2=pdp^2`$ with the first Chern class of

$$C_1(p)=\text{tr}(pdp^2).$$
(75)
For compact algebras, the first Chern number of $``$ is then calculated by taking the Dixmier trace over the Hilbert space $``$ . For the projective module defined by the projector (72), it is straightforward to compute the first Chern class defined in (75). But to calculate the first Chern number and to see whether the associated module is nontrivial needs a modification of the Connes formula to the case of noncompact algebras. This is a problem that we would like to further study in future works.

## 6 Discrete spectrum of Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$

In order to analyze the spectrum of the Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$, first note that using Eqs. (12) and (37) we can write

$$𝐗𝐗=𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}=\frac{N}{2}\left(\frac{N}{2}1\right),$$
(76)
where

$$X_i=\alpha ^1x_iX_i^0=\alpha ^1x_i^0.$$
(77)
The square of the Dirac operator, on the other hand, is calculated by using Eqs. (2), (11), (27), (40), and the definition (45)

$$\frac{l^2}{\alpha ^2}D^2=𝐗𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}\left(𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}I+𝚺\left(𝐗+𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}\right)\right).$$
(78)
This can be simplified further using (51) and (58)

$`𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝐋𝐋𝐗𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}\right)`$ (79)
$`𝚺\left(𝐗+𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}\right)=𝐉𝐉𝐋𝐋+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}I,`$ (80)
the last equation is obtained noticing $`\left(\frac{1}{2}𝚺\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}𝚺\right)=s(s1)I`$ with $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$. Finally, applying Eqs. (79) and (80), the square of Dirac operator transforms to the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{\alpha ^2}}D^2`$ $`=`$ $`𝐗𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝐋𝐋𝐗𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}\right)`$ (81)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝐋𝐋𝐗𝐗𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗^\mathrm{𝟎}\right)+𝐉𝐉𝐋𝐋{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I\right].`$
There are four classes of irreducible representations of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$. The first and the second classes include two principal discrete representations, which are realized in the Hilbert space through

$$𝒟^\pm (j)=\left\{\right|j,m_j:j>0,m_j=\pm j,\pm (j+1),\pm (j+2),\mathrm{}\}$$
(82)
where

$$𝐉^2|j,m_j=j(j1)|j,m_j,J_3|j,m_j=m_j|j,m_j.$$
(83)
It is clear that the state $`|j,j`$ has the lowest weight $`j`$ in the Hilbert space $`𝒟^+(j)`$, while the state $`|j,j`$ has the highest weight $`j`$ in the Hilbert space $`𝒟^{}(j)`$. Also, there exist principal continuos representations on the Hilbert space

$$𝒞_\alpha (\varsigma )=\left\{\right|\varsigma ,\alpha ;m_\alpha :\varsigma IR^+;0\alpha <1;m_\alpha =\alpha +n,nZ\}$$
(84)
where

$$𝐉^2|\varsigma ,\alpha ;m_\alpha =\left(\varsigma ^2+\frac{1}{4}\right)|\varsigma ,\alpha ;m_\alpha ,J_3|\varsigma ,\alpha ;m_\alpha =m_\alpha |\varsigma ,\alpha ;m_\alpha .$$
(85)
Furtheremore, the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$ has complementary continuos representations, which are realized in the Hilbert space as

$`𝒞_\alpha (\tau )=\{|\tau ,\alpha ;m_\alpha :{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\tau <\alpha ,0\alpha <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`\text{or}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\tau <\alpha 1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\alpha <1;m_\alpha =\alpha +n,nZ\}`$ (86)
where

$$𝐉^2|\tau ,\alpha ;m_\alpha =\tau \left(\tau +1\right)|\tau ,\alpha ;m_\alpha ,J_3|\tau ,\alpha ;m_\alpha =m_\alpha |\tau ,\alpha ;m_\alpha .$$
(87)
It is clear that the eigenvalues of the Casimir operator $`𝐉^2`$ corresponding to the principal and complementary continuos representations are the same if we choose $`\tau =\frac{1}{2}+i\varsigma `$ . It is well known that the decomposition of the tensor product of positive (or negative) discrete representations of the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$ is

$$𝒟^\pm (j)𝒟^\pm (s)\underset{lj+s}{}𝒟^\pm (l).$$
(88)
And, for $`js`$ the decomposition of the discrete representations become

$`𝒟^+(s)𝒟^{}(j){\displaystyle _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}}𝒞_{sj+\mu }(\varsigma )𝑑\varsigma js{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{and}j+s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`𝒟^+(s)𝒟^{}(j){\displaystyle _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}}𝒞_{sj+\mu }(\varsigma )𝑑\varsigma 𝒞_{sj+\mu }(\tau =js)j+s<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`𝒟^+(s)𝒟^{}(j){\displaystyle _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}}𝒞_{sj+\mu }(\varsigma )𝑑\varsigma {\displaystyle \underset{\frac{1}{2}<ljs}{}}𝒟^{}(l)js>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (89)
where $`js\mu <js+1`$, and all the direct sums are in integer steps. Suppose the kets $`|j,m_j`$ span the two principal discrete representation spaces of the operator $`𝐉`$, as given in (58) as (83). According to the decomposition (88) and (89), and since $`m_l=m_j\pm \frac{1}{2}`$, the allowed discrete representations of $`𝐋^2`$ with the spectrum $`𝐋^2=(j+m\frac{1}{2})(j+m\frac{3}{2})`$ is in $`𝒟^\pm (l=j+m\frac{1}{2})`$. Note that $`m0`$ for both possitive and negative principal discrete representations in (88), and $`1j<m1`$ for the negative principal discrete representation in the last equation of (89). If we denote the eigenvalues of $`D`$ by $`\lambda _{j,m}`$, using Eqs. (76), the spectrum of the squared Dirac operator is then calculated as

$$\lambda _{j,m}^2=\left(j+m\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\left[1+\frac{1\left(j+m\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{N(N2)}\right]+m(2j+m1)\left[\frac{4\left(j+m1\right)^21}{2N(N2)}1\right],$$
(90)
where the operators $`𝐉^2`$ and $`𝐋^2`$ are restricted over their common eigenstates. According to the above equation the spectrum of the Dirac operator on fuzzy $`AdS_2`$ depends on both quantum numbers $`j`$ and $`m`$, whereas in the commutative case (hyperbolic plane) the spectrum depends only on $`j`$. It is interesting to see whether the commutative spectrum can be reobtained from the above noncommutative expression. In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, observe that $`\lambda _{j,m}^2\left(j\frac{1}{2}\right)^2`$ which depends only on the quantum number $`j`$, and this is consistent with the fact that the spectrum of the Dirac operator on $`AdS_2`$ is degenerate. Hence, noncommutativity has lifted the degeneracy. Finally note that for a finite $`N`$, the state $`j=N\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`m=0`$ is a zeromode, and if we require the spectrum $`\lambda _{j,m}`$ to be real, we find that $`j+mN\frac{1}{2}`$.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank A. Chamseddine for useful correspondence. A.I. would also like to thank the theory division of CERN for hospitality where part of this work was completed.


format: text

text:
# Foregrounds for 21cm Observations of Neutral Gas at High Redshift

## 1 Introduction

We have as yet no direct observational probes of neutral gas beyond the epoch of reionization. One promising technique which has attracted much attention is 21cm tomography of neutral hydrogen (???). 21cm emission and/or absorption from neutral hydrogen at high redshift should exhibit angular fluctuations as well as structure in redshift space. These fluctuations are due to spatial variations in the hydrogen density, ionization fraction, and spin temperature, and may be detectable by future radio telescopes such as the Square Kilometer Array (SKA)111see http://www.nfra.nl/skai and the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR)222see http://www.astron.nl/lofar. Although the energy density in 21cm emission is about two orders of magnitude less than the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the extreme smoothness of the CMB both spatially and in frequency space would allow this signal to be teased out. The expected brightness temperature fluctuations on arminute scales is about two orders of magnitude larger than CMB fluctuations. In principle, 21cm tomography would allow us to map out the topology of reionization. This could indirectly constrain the nature of the ionizing sources, telling us whether these sources were faint and numerous or bright and rare. It would thus be an invaluable tool for probing the state of the intergalactic medium during an epoch when traditional probes, such as Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption, fail (Gunn-Peterson absorption fully saturates at hydrogen neutral fractions $`x_{HI}10^4`$).

We present a study of possible foregrounds for these observations. On the arcminute angular scales where the signal is expected to peak, detailed studies of the CMB (involving extrapolation from higher frequencies) tell us that fluctuations in the galactic foreground emission are likely to be relatively unimportant. These galactic foregrounds are fairly well understood and multi-frequency observations should enable us to subtract out both the free-free and synchrotron components (see ? for a detailed discussion). Unresolved extra-galactic radio sources, on the other hand, could give rise to brightness temperature fluctuations which would swamp the expected signal, as discussed by ?. However, this model for source counts was based on surveys with limiting flux densities $`100`$mJy at 150 MHz, which were then extrapolated down five orders of magnitude past $`1\mu `$Jy (the expected limiting point source sensitivity of SKA). Therefore, as they acknowledge, this estimate of foreground contamination is highly uncertain; a turnover in source counts at lower flux levels could significantly reduce foreground contamination.

We present a minimal estimate of the brightness temperature fluctuations, based on free-free emission from the ionizing sources that reionized the universe (?). We show that brightness temperature fluctuations from these sources exceed the expected signal, making it unlikely that the previously proposed angular 21cm tomography is feasible. We shall show that this estimate is relatively model-independent and depends primarily on the integrated ionizing emissivity.

An inability to detect angular brightness temperature fluctuations need not render 21cm tomography studies powerless. Since the foreground signal is expected to be smooth in frequency space, 21cm spectral features along a pencil-beam slice, corresponding to alternating patches of neutral and ionized hydrogen, could yield invaluable information on the topology of reionization. However, this relies heavily on the lack of foreground spectral contaminants. We investigate two possible contaminants: spectral fluctuations in the foreground due to the frequency-dependent beam, and radio recombination lines from galactic and extragalactic ionized gas. The former can probably be dealt with if the frequency dependence of the beam can be controlled and its side-lobes mapped out. The latter is much more uncertain but is unlikely to be a show-stopper. If, in fact, it does turn out to be important, it will yield the unexpected bonus of new information about the clumping of ionized gas in our galaxy and in the universe as a whole.

In all numerical estimates, we assume a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology where $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,h,\sigma _{8h^1})=(0.3,0.7,0.019,0.7,0.9)`$.

## 2 Free-Free Emission from Ionizing Sources as a Foreground

We begin by summarizing the properties of the expected signal; the reader is referred to the literature (???) for details. Consider a patch of IGM, with spin temperature $`T_S`$, which fully fills the beam and has a radial velocity width larger than the bandwidth of the radio telescope. The differential brightness temperature between this patch and the CMB is (?):

$$\delta T_b9.0\mathrm{mK}h^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2}{0.02}\right)\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{T_ST_{CMB}}{T_S}\right).$$
(1)
Of course, if ionized bubbles exist within this patch then the signal will be diluted by the corresponding filling factor.

Initially, $`T_S=T_{CMB}`$, but over time Ly$`\alpha `$ photons from the soft UV background emitted by the first stars and quasars will couple the spin temperature of the gas to its kinetic temperature through the Wouthuysen-Field effect. Since initially $`T_K<T_{CMB}`$, neutral hydrogen will be visible for a brief period in absorption until the same Ly$`\alpha `$ photons also heat the gas through recoil of the scattered Ly$`\alpha `$ photons and make $`T_S>T_{CMB}`$. At this point the signal is only visible in emission; from equation (1) the brightness temperature is roughly independent of the spin temperature. Hereafter, we shall focus solely on the emission signal.

If linear theory is used to compute expected density fluctuations, the brightness temperature fluctuations peak on arcminute scales and have a rms value of $`\delta T_b^2^{1/2}10\mathrm{m}\mathrm{K}`$ for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology (see Fig 1 of ?). To give a sense of the lengthscales involved, a bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ corresponds to a comoving length $`L(1+z)cH(z)^1\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\nu =8.6\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)^{3/2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z})h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, where $`\nu =1.4/(1+z)`$Ghz is the observation frequency, and an angular diameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ corresponds to a comoving transverse length $`L=\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (1+z)/d_A(z)1.9\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta /1^{}\right)h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ at z=9.

The contribution of radio-loud AGN and radio galaxies at low flux levels is highly uncertain. We therefore construct a minimal model of the low-frequency radio background from free-free emission by ionizing sources. This background is unavoidable in the sense that a minimal emissivity in ionizing photons is necessary to reionize the universe. We present a brief summary here; refer to ? for details. The free-free luminosity of an ionizing source can be estimated from the fact that the free-free emissivity $`ϵ_\nu n_e^2`$ is directly proportional to the recombination rate and thus to the production rate of ionizing photons: $`L_\nu ^{ff}n_e^2V\dot{N}^{recomb}(1f_{esc})\dot{N}_{ion}`$. We thus obtain:

$$L_\nu ^{ff}1.1\times 10^{27}\left(\frac{\dot{N}_{ion}}{10^{53}\mathrm{photon}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)\left(\frac{1f_{esc}}{0.9}\right)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1$$
(2)
where $`\dot{N}_{ion}`$ is the production rate of ionizing photons, and $`f_{esc}`$ is the escape fraction of ionizing photons from the host galaxy. For a Salpeter IMF with stars of solar metallicity, $`N_{ion}=10^{53}\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{s}^1\left(\mathrm{SFR}/1\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\right)`$. For a given star formation rate (SFR), stars with zero metallicity can be one to two orders of magnitude more effective at producing ionizing photons, since the effective temperature of these stars is higher (?), and the IMF of zero-metallicity stars is often thought to be top-heavy. The escape fraction of ionizing photons is observed to be $`f_{esc}5\%`$ in the local universe (?), and thought to decline with redshift (??), although this is highly uncertain (for calculations arriving at the opposite conclusion, see ?). The observed free-free flux is then given by $`S_{\mathrm{ff}}=L_\nu ^{\mathrm{ff}}(1+z)/4\pi d_L^2`$, or:

$$S_{\mathrm{ff}}1.2\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)^1\left(\frac{\dot{N}_{ion}}{10^{53}\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)\left(\frac{1f_{esc}}{0.9}\right)\mathrm{nJy}.$$
(3)
Note that the uncertainty in the escape fraction of ionizing photons introduces uncertainties of at most a factor of only a few in the free-free luminosity. Only in the unlikely scenario of virtually all the ionizing photons escaping into the IGM without any photo-electric absorption in the host ISM, would order of magnitude uncertainties creep in as $`f_{esc}1`$.

To compute the brightness temperature fluctuations due to these sources, we need to construct a luminosity function. ? followed the star formation model of ?, who assumed that some constant fraction of the gas $`f_{}`$ in halos with virial temperatures $`T_{vir}>10^4`$K fragments to form stars, and that each starburst lasts for $`10^7`$yr. The star formation efficiency parameter $`f_{}`$ is tuned for consistency with the observed metallicity of the IGM at z=3, with $`f_{}1.717\%`$ corresponding to $`Z10^310^2Z_{}`$, respectively. With this prescription, $`\dot{N}_{ion}2\times 10^{53}\left(M_{halo}/10^9M_{}\right)\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Press-Schechter theory can be used to compute the abundance of halos and hence the source counts $`dN/dS`$. The power spectrum of Poisson fluctuations can then be computed from:

$$C_l^{Poisson}=_0^{S_c}𝑑S\frac{dN}{dS}S^2$$
(4)
where $`S_c`$ is the minimal flux above which point sources can be identified and removed. The power spectrum due to clustering can be computed from:

$$C_l^{clustering}=w_lI_\nu ^2$$
(5)
where $`w_l`$ is the Legendre transform of the angular correlation function of sources $`w(\theta )`$, and $`I_\nu =_0^{S_c}𝑑S(dN/dS)S`$ is the surface brightness of the radio background at frequency $`\nu `$. The spatial correlation length can be computed from linear theory assuming linear bias; the decrease in the linear growth factor at high-redshift is increased by the number-weighted bias of objects with $`T_{vir}>10^4`$. This results in an angular correlation function $`w(\theta )=(\theta /\theta _o)^{0.8}`$ with a nearly constant angular correlation length $`\theta _o2^{}`$ independent of redshift for $`z>3`$ (see Fig. 5 of ?). The rms temperature fluctuations can then be computed from $`T_{rms}=\left(l(l+1)C_l/4\pi \right)^{1/2}\times c^2/2k_B\nu ^2`$, where the frequency dependence of the temperature conversion is appropriate in the Rayleigh-Jeans limit. This quadratic frequency dependence implies that the population of free-free emitters only becomes important at low frequencies. Thus, for instance, their existence does not violate any present CMB distortion constraints.

What is the minimal flux $`S_c`$ above which point sources can be identified and removed? The detector noise is: (?):

$$S_{\mathrm{inst}}=\frac{2kT_{\mathrm{sys}}}{A_{\mathrm{eff}}\sqrt{2t\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }}0.3\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{1\mathrm{MHz}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{t}{10^5s}\right)^{1/2}\mu \mathrm{Jy}$$
(6)
where we have used $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}/T_{\mathrm{sys}}=2\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{K}^1`$. On the other hand, the confusion noise is:

$$S_{\mathrm{conf}}=\left(C_l^{cluster}(S_c)\theta ^2\right)^{1/2}2\left(\frac{S_c}{20\mathrm{n}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y}}\right)^{0.3}\left(\frac{\theta }{0.3^{\prime \prime }}\right)^{1.6}\mathrm{nJy}$$
(7)
Thus, for a 10$`\sigma `$ detection, the cutoff flux is $`S_c20\mathrm{nJy}`$. Note that $`S_{\mathrm{conf}}\left(C_l^{cluster}(S_c)\right)^{1/2}S_c^{0.3}`$ depends only weakly on the flux cutoff (see Fig. 1 and also Fig. 4 of ?). This is because $`C_l^{cluster}I_\nu ^2(S_c)`$, and from equation (3) the majority of sources which constitute the free-free background are generally fainter than $`20`$nJy; removal of rare bright sources has little effect on the mean free-free background $`I_\nu `$. We have assumed unresolved point sources so that $`\theta `$ is given by the beam resolution; the confusion noise becomes correspondingly larger if the source is extended.

Confusion noise, rather than instrumental noise, is the limiting factor in source identification and removal for free-free sources. The free-free flux is largely frequency-independent. If instrumental noise were the limiting factor, point sources could be identified and removed with higher frequency observations, for which instrumental noise is much lower (for instance, in 10 days a 5$`\sigma `$ detection of a 16 nJy source at 2 GHz is possible, for a bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1`$ GHz). However, since confusion noise is frequency independent, once the confusion limit is reached no further source removal is possible, even with multi-frequency observations.

We compute the Poisson and clustering contributions to the free-free background with the above model. The results are displayed in Figure 1. The 21cm signal is likely to be swamped by Poisson fluctuations at small scales and by fluctuations due to clustering of free-free sources at all scales. This calculation should be compared with that of ?, who use a power law extrapolation of observed number counts to compute the same quantities. Although we arrive at similar conclusions, below we argue that these estimates (in particular the temperature fluctuations due to the clustering component) are significantly more robust.

The results obviously depend on the specifics of the star formation model assumed. Since this is highly uncertain, we highlight here the most robust features of the calculation, which are largely model independent. The number counts in the Poisson signal are dominated by rare bright objects just below the detection threshold $`S_c`$, and can vary widely depending on the shape of the luminosity function at these low flux levels. We therefore disregard this term as it is excessively model dependent. On the other hand, the clustering term, equation (5) is significantly more robust. Our estimate of $`\theta _o2^{}`$ is likely a minimal estimate of the angular clustering strength since it is dominated by the bias of halos at the threshold virial temperature $`T_{vir}10^4`$K, which are most abundant. Star formation in lower virial temperature halos, which cannot cool by atomic line cooling, is expected to be extremely inefficient; see e.g. ? for a general review. If, in fact, star formation is more efficient in deeper potential wells (e.g., since feedback processes are less devasting there), the luminosity weighted correlation function will be more heavily weighted towards rare massive halos, which are more highly biased. Thus, the $`w_l`$ term is generally a minimal estimate. The surface brightness term $`I_\nu ^2`$ is independent of the model for the luminosity function and depends only on the overall normalization of the comoving luminosity density. We can see this from the equation of cosmological radiative transfer (?):

$$I(\nu _o)=\frac{c}{4\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{dt}{dz}\frac{ϵ[\nu _o(1+z)]}{(1+z)^3}$$
(8)
where $`ϵ(\nu )`$ is the comoving emissivity. Since $`ϵ\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(1f_{esc})`$ (from equation 3), the radio surface brightness $`I(\nu _o)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(1f_{esc})/(1+\overline{z})^3`$, where $`\overline{z}`$ is the median redshift at which $`50\%`$ of all stars have formed. Thus, a given comoving stellar density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ directly and robustly implies a minimal free-free surface brightness on the sky (the dependence on the star formation history $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(z)`$ is weak, since most stars formed at late times). In our calculation we have conservatively included only sources at $`z>3`$ (which are too faint to be identified and removed) and simply normalized to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(z=3)=6\times 10^3\left(\overline{Z}/10^{2.5}Z_{}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, where $`\overline{Z}`$ is the mean metallicity of the IGM at $`z3`$, and we assume a Salpeter IMF where $`1M_{}`$ of metals form for every $`100M_{}`$ of stars formed. As previously noted, because the majority of sources are significantly fainter than the threshold flux for point source removal $`S_c`$, the mean surface brightness depends only weakly on $`S_c`$ (see Fig. 4 of ?). Since both the estimates for the clustering strength $`w_l`$ and the mean surface brightness $`I_\nu `$ are minimal and robust, we conclude that our estimate for $`C_l^{cluster}`$ constitutes a robust minimal estimate for angular temperature fluctuations on the sky. These fluctuations will swamp the expected brightness temperature fluctuations due to 21cm emission by at least an order of magnitude.

## 3 Foregrounds for Spectral Measurements

Even if brightness temperature fluctuations due to 21cm emission are not detectable, spectral variation along a pencil-beam might still be detected. This relies on the fact that foreground sources should in general have smooth power-law continuum spectra, and averaging over many sources with different spectral indices and spectral structure will yield a smooth power-low foreground (see ? for simulations of this) which would still allow detection of spectral structure corresponding to alternating regions of neutral and ionized hydrogen. To give an idea of scale, an ionized ’bubble’ created by a source forming stars at a rate $`2\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for $`10^7`$yr has a diameter $`1.4[(1+z)/10]^1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ comoving, while a bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ spans a comoving length $`L8.6\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)^{3/2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z})h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. Of course, as reionization proceeds the ionized regions expand in size and neutral regions contract. As ? point out, observing with 2 MHz resolution at $`\nu _o=150`$MHz with an error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta 0.05`$ in the measured foreground spectrum spectral slope should allow one to distinguish a signal that is $`[(\nu /\nu _o)^{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }1]6\times 10^4`$ times smaller than the foreground. Here, we discuss two potential foregrounds for such spectral measurements: beam smearing of foreground sources and radio recombination lines.

The radio telescope does not sample exactly the same patch of sky at all frequencies, since the beam-size and sidelobes are frequency dependent. This would by itself naturally introduce frequency space fluctuations in the measured brightness temperature as additional sources fill the beam, an effect of order:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}}\right)_{fg}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }{\theta }}2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{\nu }}`$
$``$ $`1.4\times 10^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{2\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{10}}\right)`$
Since we have seen that the clustering foreground $`T_{fg}^2^{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}T_{21cm}^2^{1/2}`$, the noise in frequency space introduced by beam-size variation will be $`\delta T_{fg}\mathrm{few}\times 0.1T_{21cm}^2^{1/2}`$, comparable to temperature fluctuations due to 21cm emission. An exception may be in the very early/late stages of reionization, when the size of ionized/neutral patches is small; the beamsize does not vary signficantly over the small bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ necessary to detect spectral feaures. Otherwise, it would be necessary to develop scaled beams and controlled sidelobes, which are capable of sampling exactly the same patch of sky at all frequencies. Note that frequency calibration of the telescope for pencil beam tomography is considerably more challenging than frequency calibration for detecting an all-sky signal, such as that produced at the tail end of reionization (?). In the case of an all-sky signal, one could simply average the results over many independent patches of sky, as well as perform a differencing experiment off the moon, which blocks emission behind it (?).

Another possible source of structure in frequency space is the signal from radio recombination lines (RRLs). These lines have been observed both in emission and absorption at a wide range of frequencies, although generally only against bright sources in the Galactic plane (see ? for a comprehensive review). The frequencies of the hydrogen lines are:

$$\nu 153\mathrm{\Delta }n\left(\frac{n}{350}\right)^3\mathrm{MHz}.$$
(10)
The important question is whether RRLs will provide a significant source of contamination on lines of sight outside the Galactic plane. There have been few RRL line searches away from bright sources outside the Galactic plane, and in any case surveys for radio recombination lines generally have low-frequency detection limits above the strength of the 21cm features we seek. We can place a useful limit using the fact that the observed brightness of both RRL and H$`\alpha `$ emission depends on the emission measure $`EM=𝑑sn_e^2`$, and that optical surveys for H$`\alpha `$ have much lower limiting sensitivities. Fabry-Perot surveys have detected H$`\alpha `$ emission from every Galactic latitude, with minimal values $`0.250.8`$ Rayleighs toward the Galactic pole (?). The emission measure corresponding to an observed H$`\alpha `$ intensity $`I_\alpha `$ (in Rayleighs) is: $`EM(H\alpha )=2.75T_4^{0.9}I_\alpha \mathrm{cm}^6\mathrm{pc}`$. Based on the width of the H$`\alpha `$ line, ? estimates $`T8000`$K. Given the density, temperature and size of a region, as well as an estimate of the linewidth and a frequency to observe at, one can also calculate the recombination line optical depth (?):

$$\tau _L=\frac{518EM}{\nu \mathrm{\Delta }V_LT_e^{5/2}}b_n\left[120.8\frac{T_e}{\nu }\frac{d\mathrm{ln}b_n}{dn}\right],$$

where $`EM`$ is the emission measure in cm$`^{\text{-}6}`$pc defined by $`n_e^2l`$, $`\nu `$ is the line center frequency, $`V_L`$ is the line width in km/s, $`T_e`$ is the electron temperature, and $`b_n`$ is the departure coefficient, which takes into account departures from local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). For LTE, $`b_n1`$. For an unresolved line, the velocity width is simply: $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_L=c(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\nu )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ is the observational bandwidth. Assuming $`I_\alpha =0.25R`$ (which corresponds to $`EM=0.5\mathrm{cm}^6\mathrm{pc}`$) and $`T_L=\tau _LT_e`$, we can employ the optical depth calculation to estimate the hydrogen RRL temperature:

$$T_L=1.3\times 10^6\left(\frac{T_e}{8000K}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{EM}{0.5\mathrm{cm}^6\mathrm{pc}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}\right)^1\mathrm{K}$$
(11)
which is negligible. Note, however, that this estimate assumes thermodynamic equilibrium. Particularly for lower frequency lines, stimulated emission may become important.

Carbon radio recombination lines are another possible source of contamination. They have been detected in the frequency range 34-325 MHz toward Cass A in the Galactic plane (?), and also in a 327 MHz survey centered at $`b=14^{}`$ (?). Optical depths are generally $`\tau 10^3`$ and they are thought to arise in dense, cold ($`T_e20200`$K), partially ionized regions where non-LTE effects are important. Carbon RRL emission is generally confined to $`b<3^{}`$ and their intensity out of the plane is probably small (?).

Detections of radio recombination lines from extragalactic sources have generally been confined to bright starburst galaxies and the intensity appears to be correlated with the star formation rate (?). They are unlikely to be significant contaminants. One can show that for reasonable assumptions about the excitation parameter only nearby sources ($`D10`$Mpc) will be detectable in RRL emission if spontaneous emission is responsible (?). It was thought that stimulated emission could allow observation of much more distant sources (?), but that has not turned out to be the case.

Extragalactic RRLs could be a foreground in the search for 21cm absorption against radio-loud sources at high redshift (??). Since high-redshift objects are in general much denser $`n_e^2(1+z)^6`$, their emission measures are much higher. Consider an isothermal disk at temperature $`T_{gas}`$ embedded in a halo with virial temperature $`T_{vir}`$. One can solve for the density profile of such a disk, $`n\mathrm{exp}(r/R_d)\mathrm{sech}^2(z/z_o)`$ (?; see also ?), and the emission measure of the disk will be $`EM(r)𝑑zn^2(r,z)`$. For a disk seen face-on, the emission measure becomes a function of the radial distance $`r`$ from the center:

$`EM(r)2\times 10^9\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{d}}{0.5}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{gas}}}{10^4\mathrm{K}}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{vir}}}{5\times 10^4\mathrm{K}}}\right)^{3/2}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{0.05}}\right)^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{10}}\right)^{9/2}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r}{R_\mathrm{d}}}\right)\mathrm{cm}^6\mathrm{pc}`$ (12)
where $`f_d=(M_{disk}/M_{halo})/(\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_o)`$ is the fraction of baryons in the disk, $`\lambda `$ is the spin parameter and $`R_d\lambda r_{vir}/\sqrt{2}`$. The optical depth at line center for a $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=1`$ RRL will be:

$$\tau _L=2\times 10^2\left(\frac{T_e}{10^4K}\right)^{5/2}\left(\frac{EM}{10^8\mathrm{cm}^6\mathrm{pc}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}\right)^1,$$
(13)
assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium and that the line is unresolved. This could be considerably enhanced if stimulated emission and/or non-LTE effects become important (which is likely since one is looking along the line of sight to a radio-bright source). This optical depth is comparable to the central optical depths due to 21cm absorption by the IGM (?) or mini-halos/mini-disks (?), which are of order $`\tau 10^2`$. If one uses Press-Schechter theory to calculate abundances of halos with $`T_{vir}>10^4`$K, a random line of sight would intersect $`\mathrm{few}\times 0.1`$ disks per redshift interval, for the redshifts of interest (?). Even a single disk along the line of sight would introduce a plethora of RRL features in emission and/or absorption. This would make the task of picking out the spectral features due to 21cm absorption much more difficult. On the other hand, such observations would also be an invaluable probe of gas clumping at high redshift. However, this is a rather speculative scenario, and we shall not comment on it further.

In general, radio recombination lines are unlikely to be significant contaminants. If they are, they will have to be removed with observations of higher spectral resolution (using the fact that they occur at known frequency intervals for identication and removal). In many ways their detection could be an unexpected bonus, as RRLs have the potential to teach us a great deal about the clumping of ionized gas both within our Galaxy and in the universe as a whole.

## 4 Detection of Mini-Halos

Recently, it has been proposed that mini-halos with $`T<10^4`$K, which are not collisionally ionized but which have gas densities sufficiently high to collisionally couple the spin temperature to the kinetic temperature, may be detectable in emission (??). For $`T_ST_{CMB}`$, the flux is independent of the spin temperature and depends only on the HI mass. Although the signal from an individual mini-halo is very faint, the combined signal from many mini-halos within a sufficiently large comoving volume may be detectable. We point out that because $`S_\nu M_{HI}`$, the flux from mini-halos will always be swamped by the flux from the neutral IGM, as the HI mass in the IGM is larger. The ratio of fluxes is given by the relative fraction of HI in collapsed halos with $`T_{vir}<10^4`$K:

$$\frac{S_\nu ^{halos}}{S_\nu ^{IGM}}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{HI,halos}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{HI}}\frac{1}{\rho _m}_{M_{low}}^{M_{high}}𝑑M\frac{dN}{dM}M$$
(14)
where $`dN/dM`$ is the halo abundance given by Press-Schechter theory, $`M_{high}=10^8[(1+z)/10]^{3/2}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is the mass of halos with $`T_{vir}=10^4`$K, and $`M_{low}`$ is the baryonic Jeans mass below which gas cannot accrete onto halos. If there is no heating of the IGM, $`M_{low}`$ is given by the cosmological Jeans mass $`M_J=8\times 10^3[(1+z)/10]^{3/2}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, where the temperature of the IGM $`T_{IGM}=1.7[(1+z)/10]^2`$K is simply set by the amount of adiabatic cooling since decoupling from the CMB. In reality it is likely that the gas will be heated up to higher temperatures by soft X-ray and Ly$`\alpha `$ photon recoil heating from the first sources of light, as well as by free-free emission from collapsing structures (?). This will suppress the accretion of gas onto the smallest mini-halos.

We plot the ratio of fluxes from equation (14) in Fig (2). Even if heating is negligible, this ratio is at most a $`\mathrm{few}\times 0.1`$. This may be amplified in high density peaks by a factor of no more than a few due to clustering bias (?). Thus, the flux from mini-halos only dominate in two limits: (i) in reionized regions, for self-shielded mini-halos which have not yet been photo-evaporated, and (ii) very early in the structure formation process, when the background radiation field is low and the spin temperature of the IGM is still coupled to that of the CMB. The former case is unlikely to be detectable as the mini-halos contribute a small signal superimposed on the much larger fluctuating signal of alternating neutral and ionized regions of the IGM. The latter may be detectable provided the mini-halos indeed remain neutral and do not form stars via $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ cooling: even a single star in a halo is capable of photo-ionizing and photo-evaporating much of the gas.

It is worth checking if this is possible. From ? (see their Fig. 6), the level of background UV flux capable of photo-dissociating $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ in mini-halos and preventing star formation is:

$$J_{diss}10^310^2J_{21}$$

in the redshift range z=10-20 where $`J_{21}`$ (in units of $`10^{21}\mathrm{ergs}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$) is the UV flux in the Lyman-Werner bands $`11.213.6`$eV. On the other hand, the critical thermalization flux of Ly$`\alpha `$ photons (which consists of redshifted photons from the Lyman-Werner bands) required to decouple the spin temperature of the IGM from the CMB and drive $`T_ST_K`$ is (?):

$$J_{therm}0.9J_{21}\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right).$$

Since $`J_{diss}J_{therm}`$, there certainly exists a period in the history of the IGM where gas in mini-halos cannot cool to form stars, but the IGM does not emit in 21cm radiation. In this case, the halos would give rise to a period in which 21cm is detectable in emission before it is seen in absorption when $`T_{S,IGM}<T_{CMB}`$. 21 cm radiation would once again be detectable in emission due to heating when $`T_{S,IGM}T_{CMB}`$. The duration of each of these epochs can be used to time the rise of the radiation field. Of course, this is all assuming that the noise from foregrounds previously discussed can be overcome for the smaller signal levels expected from mini-halos. Note that a period of early reionization would wipe out the mini-halo population by raising the baryonic Jeans mass (?). Also, early star formation would provide trace metal contamination, and if $`Z\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3Z_{}`$ (?), the gas in mini-halos would be able to cool via metal line cooling and form stars. If the mini-halo signal is detectable in spectral pencil-beam measurements, it is preferable to have as small a bandwidth as possible ($`0.1`$MHz) to maximize intensity fluctations due to the varying number of halos within a bandwidth along the line of sight.

## 5 Conclusions

We have considered a number of foregrounds for 21cm emission studies. We perform a robust minimal estimate of temperature fluctuations across the sky due to free-free emission by ionizing sources assuming only: (i) a number-weighted clustering bias with a cutoff for halos with $`T_{vir}<10^4`$K, (ii) a star formation history normalized to the metallicity of the z=3 Ly$`\alpha `$ forest, and (iii) an escape fraction of ionizing photons into the IGM of no more than $`\mathrm{few}\times 0.1`$. We conclude that the clustering component of temperature fluctuations will swamp the expected angular brightness temperature fluctations due to 21cm emission during the cosmological Dark Ages by at least an order of magnitude. Performing 21cm tomography by detecting spectral features along a single line of sight requires developing scaled beams which sample exactly the same patch of sky at all frequencies. Otherwise, excess variance in foreground sampling due to the frequency dependence of the beam will swamp the signal. We also discuss radio recombination lines as possible contaminants. It is unlikely that this will be a problem for surveys outside of the Galactic plane, although this is still fairly uncertain.

Detection of a 21cm spectral signature in absorption against a high-redshift radio loud source (??) will not suffer from the foregrounds discussed here, except for the rather speculative possibility that intervening high-redshift disks could give rise to a plethora of obscuring radio recombination lines. Of course, this ’foreground’ would itself be a marvellous window on the high-redshift universe! The main difficulty of absorption studies, of course, is whether such bright radio sources exist at early times, when structure formation is in its infancy.

## acknowledgments

KM thanks Mark Gordon, Bill Erickson, Peter Shaver, Harry Payne, Miller Goss, and Rod Davies for helpful correspondence and the Caltech Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) office at Caltech for financial support. SPO was supported by NSF grant AST-0096023.