text:
# 1

## 1

The charge distribution of the intermediate mass fragments produced in p (8.1 GeV) + Au collisions is analyzed in the framework of the statistical multifragmentation model with the critical temperature for the nuclear liquid-gas phase transition $`T_c`$ as a free parameter. It is found that $`T_c=20\pm 3`$ MeV (90% CL).

PACS : 24.10.Lx, 25.70.Pq

## 2

The extensive study of nuclear multiframentation for the last two decades has been strongly stimulated by the idea that this process is related to a liquid-gas phase transition. One of the first nuclear models, suggested by N. Bohr, K. Weizsäcker and Ya.I. Frenkel 65 years ago, is the liquid-drop model, which is still alive. A liquid-gas phase transition in nuclear matter was predicted much later \[1-3\] on the basis of the similarity between van der Waals and nucleon-nucleon interactions . The equations of state for the two cases are similar. A point of particular interest is the existence of a spinodal region at reduced densities characterized by a phase instability. One can imagine that a hot nucleus expands due to thermal pressure and enters into this unstable region. Due to density fluctuations, a homogeneous system converts into a mixed phase, consisting of droplets (IMF’s, $`2<\mathrm{Z}20`$) surrounded by nuclear gas. In fact, the final state of this transition is a nuclear fog . The neutrons fly away with energies corresponding to the system temperature ($`67`$ MeV), while the charged particles are additionally accelerated by the Coulomb field of the system. The disintegration time is determined by the time scale of the density fluctuations and is very short. Indeed, it was measured in number of papers that the IMF’s emission time is less than 100 fm/c. This is the scenario of nuclear multifragmentation as a spinodal decomposition, considered in a number of papers (see, for example, \[4-12\], and review papers \[13-14\]). The spinodal decomposition is, in fact, the liquid-fog phase transition in a nuclear system.

An important parameter of this scenario is the critical temperature for the nuclear liquid-gas phase transition $`T_c`$ at which the isotherm in the phase diagram has an inflection point. The surface tension vanishes at $`T_c`$, and only the gas phase is possible above this temperature. There are many calculations of $`T_c`$ for finite nuclei. In Ref. , for example, it is done by using a Skyrme interaction and the thermal Hartree-Fock theory. The values of $`T_c`$ were found to be $`1020`$ MeV, depending on the Skyrme interaction parameters and the details of the model. Experimental estimations of the critical temperature for the finite nuclei have been done in several papers.

The main source of experimental information for $`T_c`$ is the fragment yield, but the procedures to extract $`T_c`$ are heavily debated. In some statistical models of nuclear multifragmentation the shape of the IMF charge distribution Y(Z) is sensitive to the ratio $`T/T_c`$. The charge distribution is well described by the power law $`Y(\mathrm{Z})\mathrm{Z}^\tau `$ for a wide range of colliding systems . In earlier studies on multifragmentation  the power-law behavior of the IMF yield was interpreted as an indication of the proximity of the excited system to the critical point for the liquid-gas phase transition. This was stimulated by the application of Fisher’s classical droplet model , which predicted a pure power-law droplet-size distribution with the minimal value of $`\tau =23`$ at the critical point.

In Ref.  Hirsch et al. estimate $`T_c`$ to be $`5`$ MeV simply from the fact that the mass distribution is well described by a power law for IMF’s produced in the collision of p ($`80350`$ GeV) with Kr and Xe targets. In fact, the fragment mass distribution is not exactly described by the power law, therefore it was suggested the use of the term $`\tau _{app}`$, an apparent exponent, to stress that the exact power-law description takes place only at the critical temperature. In paper  the experimental data were gathered for different colliding systems to get the temperature dependence of $`\tau _{app}`$. As a temperature, the inverse slope of the fragment energy spectra was taken in the range of the high-energy tail. The minimal value of $`\tau _{app}`$ was obtained at $`T=1112`$ MeV, which was claimed as $`T_c`$. The later data smeared out this minimum. Moreover, it became clear that the “slope” temperature does not coincide with the thermodynamical one which is several times smaller.

A sophisticated use of Fisher’s droplet model for the estimation of $`T_c`$ has been recently made by Elliott, Moretto et al. . The model was modified by including the Coulomb energy release when a particle moves from the liquid to the vapor. The data from the Indiana Silicon Sphere Collaboration for $`\pi `$ (8 GeV/c) + Au collisions were analyzed . The extracted critical temperature is $`T_c=6.7\pm 0.2`$ MeV. In a recent paper  the same analysis technique is applied to the data for the multifragmentation in collisions of Au, La, Kr (at 1.0 GeV per nucleon) with a carbon target. The extracted values of $`T_c`$ are $`7.6\pm 0.2`$, $`7.8\pm 0.2`$ and $`8.1\pm 0.2`$ MeV respectively.

There is only one paper in which $`T_c`$ is estimated by using data other than the fragmentation ones. In Ref.  it is done by the analysis of the temperature dependence of the fission probability for 4He + 184W collisions . It was concluded that $`T_c>10`$ MeV in contrast to the result of Ref. .

It should be noted that in some papers the term “critical temperature” is used in another meaning than given above. In Ref.  multifragmentation in Au + Au collisions at 35 A MeV was analyzed with the so-called Campi plots to prove that the phase transition takes place in the spinodal region. The characteristic temperature for that process was denoted as $`T_{crit}`$ and found to be equal to $`6.0\pm 0.4`$ MeV. In the recent paper  the bond percolation model is used to interpret 10.2 GeV/c p + Au multifragmentation data. The critical value of the percolation parameter $`p_c=0.65`$ was found from the analysis of the IMF charge distribution. The corresponding “critical temperature” of $`8.3\pm 0.2`$ MeV is estimated by using the model relation between the percolation control parameter “p” and the excitation energy. The more appropriate term for this particular temperature is “break-up” or “crack” temperature, as suggested in Ref. . This temperature corresponds to onset of the fragmentation of the nucleus entering the phase coexistence region. The low-multiplicity channels dominate during the onset of multifragmentation characterized by a U-shaped fragment mass distribution. As shown by means of the statistical multifragmentation model (SMM) , the average hot fragment multiplicity is M=3-5 at an excitation energy around 4 MeV/nucleon, and the probability of the compound nucleus channel is still considerable. Exactly at these relatively low excitation energies the experimenters observed the critical phenomena (see, for example ).

Having in mind the shortcomings of Fisher’s model , we have made an attempt to estimate the critical temperature in the framework of SMM. It describes well the properties of the thermal fragmentation of target spectators produced in collisions by light relativistic ions. As an example, Fig. 1 (top) shows the fragment charge distributions measured by the FASA Collaboration for collisions of p (8.1 GeV), 4He (4 and 14.6 GeV) and 12C (22.4 GeV) with Au targets  along with the calculated charge distributions. The mechanism for the reactions of light relativistic projectiles is usually divided into two stages. The first is a fast energy-depositing stage, during which very energetic light particles are emitted and a nuclear remnant is excited. We use the intranuclear cascade model (INC)  for describing the first stage. The second stage is described by SMM, which considers the multibody decay of a hot and expanded nucleus. But such a two-stage approach fails to explain the observed IMF multiplicities. An expansion stage (Exp) is inserted between the two parts of the calculation. The excitation energies and the residual masses are then fine tuned on an event-by-event basis  to get agreement with the measured IMF multiplicities. The lines in Fig. 1 (top) give the charge distributions calculated in the framework of this combined model assuming $`T_c=18`$ MeV. The agreement between the data and the model prediction is very good. The bottom panel of Fig. 1 shows the power-law fit of the distributions with the $`\tau `$ parameter given in the insert as a function of the beam energy. The corresponding thermal excitation energy range is $`36`$ MeV/nucleon. The power law parameter exhibits the so-called “critical behavior” showing a minimum at an excitation energy corresponding to a temperature three times lower than the assumed $`T_c`$. A conventional explanation of the occurrence of a minimum is given in Ref. .

The charge yield depends on the contribution of the surface free energy of the fragments ($`a_s(T)A^{2/3}`$) to the entropy of a given final state of the partition. The following expression is used in the SMM for $`a_s(T)`$:

$$a_s(T)=a_s(0)\left(\frac{T_c^2T^2}{T_c^2+T^2}\right)^{5/4}.$$
(1)
This equation was obtained in Ref.  devoted to the theoretical study of thermodynamical properties of a plane interface between two phases of nuclear matter (liquid and gas) in equilibrium. The corresponding calculations were performed with the Skyrme interaction. The phase diagram generated by the SMM model (using eq. (1)) is discussed in detail in . This parametrization is successfully used by the SMM for describing the multifragment decay of hot finite nuclei. In particular the SMM describes the experimental critical behaviour of fragments and scaling in multifragmentation  with the standard $`T_c=18`$ MeV. This scaling was taken as a starting point of the analyses  also.

The present calculations are performed for p (8.1 GeV) + Au collisions with $`T_c`$ as a free parameter. For all values of $`T_c`$ the calculations with the INC+Exp+SMM model have been properly adjusted  to get the mean IMF multiplicity close to the measured one. Figure 2 (left) shows the comparison of the measured fragment charge distribution with the model predictions for $`T_c=7`$, 11 and 18 MeV. The statistical errors of the measurements do not exceed the size of the dots. The calculations are close to the data for $`T_c=18`$ MeV. The estimated mean temperature of the fragmenting system is around 6 MeV, the mean charge and mass numbers are 67 and 158 respectively. The theoretical curves deviate from the data with decreasing $`T_c`$. The right panel gives the results of the power-law fits for the data and model calculations (in the range Z=$`311`$).

The final results are shown in Fig. 3. The measured power-law exponent is given as a band with a width determined by the statistical error. The size of the symbols for the calculated values of $`\tau _{app}`$ is of the order of the error bar. The model predicted values of the power-law exponent are significantly smaller than the measured one for the range of $`T_c<13`$ MeV. From the best fit of the data and calculations one concludes that $`T_c=20\pm 3`$ MeV (90% CL).

Figure 3 shows also the results of the calculations with $`a_s(T)`$ linearly dependent on $`T/T_c`$ :

$$a_s(T)=a_s(0)\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right).$$
(2)
The calculated values of $`\tau _{app}`$ in this case are remarkably lower than the measured one for any value of the critical temperature used (up to $`T_c=24`$ MeV).

To conclude, the IMF charge distribution for p + Au collisions at 8.1 GeV has been analyzed within the Statistical Multifragmentation Model with $`T_c`$ (at which surface tension vanishes) as a free parameter. The value $`T_c=20\pm 3`$ MeV (90% CL) obtained from the best fit to the data is considered as an effective value of the critical temperature averaged over all the fragments produced in the collision. This value is significantly larger than those found in Ref.  by the analysis of the multifragmentation data in terms of Fisher’s droplet formalism. A surprisingly large range of $`T_c`$ values in different publications indicates on the severe model dependence of the results. Although our value for $`T_c`$ is model dependent, as is any other estimate of the critical temperature, the analysis presented here provides strong support for a value of $`T_c>15`$ MeV. Another conclusion which can be drawn from this work is that the properties of individual hot fragments, in particular, their surface energies, can be obtained from the experimental data, and they are extremely important for identification of the phase transition. This puts additional constrains on models used for description of the phase transitions in nuclear systems.

The authors are thankful to A. Hrynkiewicz, A.N. Sissakian, S.T. Belyaev, A.I. Malakhov, N.A. Russakovich for support and to A.V. Ignatyuk, I.N. Mishustin, V.D. Toneev, W. Reisdorf, W. Trautmann and ALADIN Workshop-2002 for illumintating discussions. The research was supported in part by Grant No 00-02-16608 from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, by the Grant of the Polish Plenipotentiary in JINR, by Grant NATO PST.CLG.976861, by Grant No1P03 12615 from the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, by Contract No 06DA453 with Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie and by the US National Science Foundation.

Figure 1. Karnaukhov, PRC.

Figure 2. Karnaukhov, PRC.

Figure 3. Karnaukhov, PRC. Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Fragment charge distributions for p+Au at 8.1 GeV, 4He+Au at 4 GeV, 4He+Au at 14.6 GeV and 12C+Au at 22.4 GeV. The lines (top) are calculated and normalized at Z=3. The power-law fits are shown on the bottom panel with $`\tau `$ parameters given in the insert as a function of beam energy.

Fig. 2. Fragment charge distribution for p+Au at 8.1 GeV (dots). The lines (left side) are calculated assuming $`T_c`$ = 18 MeV (solid), 11 MeV (dotted) and 7 MeV (dashed lines). The power law fits are presented on the right panel.

Fig. 3. The power-law exponent for p(8.1 GeV)+Au. The band corresponds to the measured value and its error bar. The symbols are obtained by the power-law fits of IMF charge distributions calculated assuming different values of $`T_c`$ and different parameterizations of the surface tension: squares are for eq. (1), solid circles are for eq. (2).


format: text

text:
# Chandra discovery of the intracluster medium around UM425 at redshift 1.47

## 1 Introduction

It is becoming increasingly clear the we live in a weird Universe, filled with about 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter and only some 4% ordinary matter (Bennett et al. 2003, Spergel et al. 2003). One expectation from this “low density” cosmological model is that large scale structures formed early in time. A number of cluster surveys are designed to find high redshift clusters of galaxies in optical and radio wavelengths (e.g. Shectman et al. 1996, Kurk et al. 2001) to provide independent cosmological constraints. In X-rays, clusters are identified by the diffuse thermal emission from the intracluster gas, which in fact accounts for most of their baryonic mass. A number of X-ray surveys have been very successful in finding clusters, determining their physical properties and using them as cosmological tools (e.g. Vikhlinin et al. 1998, Vikhlinin et al. 2002a).

Chandra , because of its exquisite mirrors (Van Speybroeck et al. 1997) and detectors (Garmire et al. , in preparation), started a new era of cluster research. The sub-arcsecond point spread function and low background of Chandra allowed detailed studies of low redshift X-ray bright clusters (e.g. McNamara et al. 2000, Fabian et al. 2000) and also led to the discovery of the highest redshift cluster candidate (at z =1.78, Fabian et al. 2001). While the clustering properties of low redshift clusters are used to determine cosmological parameters (e.g. Bahcall et al. 1999, Schuecher et al. 2001), just the number density of hot, high redshift clusters can also provide constraints to the matter density of the Universe (Donahue et al. 1998, Fabian et al. 2001). For example, the existence of z=1.78 cluster with temperature of $`>3`$ keV is inconsistent with a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0`$ Universe (Fabian et al. 2001). Finding hot, X-ray clusters at high redshifts, therefore, becomes important.

Here we report a serendipitous discovery of a cluster candidate traced by hot intracluster medium around quasar pair UM425 A & B at z=1.47. This quasar pair, separated by $`6.5^{\prime \prime }`$, was discovered by Meylan & Djorgovski (1989) as a gravitational lens candidate because of the unusually large luminosity of the brighter of the pair and its relatively large redshift. Ever since, whether the pair represents lensed or binary quasars has been a matter of debate. To cause such a wide angle separation a massive cluster of galaxies along the line sight would be required, but none was found down to a limiting magnitude of $`m_\mathrm{R}24`$ (Courbin et al. 1995). UM425 A & B also happen to be broad absorption line quasars (BALQSOs). BALQSOs are extremely faint X-ray sources, and in pre-Chandra era, X-ray spectroscopy of BALQSOs was practically impossible (Mathur et al. 2000 and references there in). With Chandra , many BALQSOs were detected in X-rays (Green et al. 2001, Gallagher et al. 2002), but spectroscopy was feasible for only a handful of them. The original objective behind our Chandra proposal was to study the X-ray spectrum of UM425 A, taking advantage its unusual brightness. While the main focus of this paper is the unexpected discovery of diffuse intracluster medium, we also briefly discuss the BALQSOs. A cosmological model with $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0.7`$ is used throughout the paper.

## 2 Observation and Analysis

### 2.1 Chandra observation

We observed UM425 with Chandra on 13 December 2001 for a exposure time of 110 ksec. The advanced CCD imaging camera for spectroscopy (ACIS-S, C. R. Canizares et al. in preparation) was used at the nominal aimpoint. The data were reduced in a standard manner using Chandra interactive analysis software (CIAO version 2.3, Elvis, M. et al. in preparation) and following the thread for imaging analysis 111see: http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/index.html. Figure 2 shows the soft band (0.3–3 keV) image of the field. The quasars UM425 A & B are clearly detected with $`4675\pm 69`$ and $`20\pm 5`$ net, background subtracted counts each in the broad band (0.3–8 keV). In addition, faint extended emission is clearly seen extending to west-southwest of UM425 A. Contours of 2,3,4,5 and 6 times the background are overlayed on the image showing the extent and significance of the diffuse emission. Figure 2 shows the adaptively smoothed image of the field in the soft band created using CIAO tool csmooth and used to generate the contours mentioned above. We used a Gaussian smoothing function with a threshold of 2$`\sigma `$. The smooth image was then divided by the smoothed exposure map. The resulting image is displayed in figure 2 and clearly shows the diffuse emission.

### 2.2 The extended diffuse emission

The diffuse emission is somewhat elliptical in shape and extends to about $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ west-southwest of UM425 A with total extent of about $`17^{\prime \prime }`$. This corresponds to about 140 kpc at z=1.47. Because of the presence of the strong point source (UM425 A), it is difficult to determine the exact number of counts from the diffuse emission. First, we extracted counts from a smaller region well outside the area occupied by the point sources. Then we scaled these counts by the area of the entire diffuse emission as shown in figures 1 and 2. In this way we estimate 130 counts from the diffuse emission. Background counts from a region of same size are estimated to be about 38. With $`98\pm 13`$ net counts, the diffuse emission is thus highly significant at $`7.6\sigma `$ level.

As another method of estimating the total counts from the diffuse emission, we extracted all counts from an annular region surrounding UM425 A. The inner $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ core of the bright point source was excluded, and the extraction region extended out to a radius of 12 arcsec, completely covering the apparent extent of the diffuse emission. We then used the ChaRT222http://asc.harvard.edu/chart/ and MARX333http://asc.harvard.edu/chart/threads/marx/ tools to simulate the point spread function (PSF) of UM425 A, and used the same region described above to extract the counts from the outer wings of the simulated PSF. There were $`281\pm 22`$ counts in the image extraction region, $`157\pm 13`$ in the simulated PSF region, and $`20\pm 5`$ in UM425 B, resulting in $`104\pm 26`$ net counts from the diffuse emission, consistent with the estimate above.

For spectral analysis, we used only the counts from the small extraction region defined above, which is about half the size of the total area of the diffuse emission. With just 46 net counts, spectral shape cannot be determined accurately. Nevertheless, we performed spectral analysis to obtain rough estimate of the temperature of the diffuse plasma using Sherpa spectral fitting package within CIAO. Using Raymond-Smith thermal plasma model, and fixing the abundance to 0.1 solar and foreground absorbing column to Galactic ($`4.1\times 10^{20}`$ atoms cm-2), we find the best fit temperature to be 2.1 keV at the redshift of the cluster, assumed to be z=1.47. This estimate is highly uncertain, with lower limit on the rest frame temperature being $`kT`$ $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$$`0.8`$ keV with 90% confidence; upper limit is unconstrained. Assuming the rest frame temperature of $`kT=2.1`$ keV, the observed unabsorbed flux is $`f_X(0.12.5keV)=4.6\times 10^{15}`$ and $`f_X(210keV)=4.6\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2.

### 2.3 The BALQSOs

Because BALQSOs are believed to be highly absorbed sources, we used absorbed power-law models to fit their X-ray spectra. The presence of excess soft photons, however, often points to partial covering of the source by absorbing material (see Grupe, Mathur & Elvis 2003 for detailed procedure of spectral analysis that we follow). For UM425 A, the best fit spectrum ($`\chi ^2=82.1`$ for 112 degrees of freedom) yields following parameters: power-law slope $`\alpha =0.93\pm 0.08`$ ($`f_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$), column density at the source N$`{}_{H}{}^{}=3.1\pm 0.7\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 and the covering fraction $`f=0.74\pm 0.04`$. This spectrum, and those of other BALQSOs, show that strong absorption is the main cause of their X-ray faintness (Grupe et al. 2003, Green et al. 2001, Gallagher et al. 2001).

UM425 B has too few counts for accurate spectral analysis, but we can test whether the UM425 A spectrum provides adequate description of UM425 B data. Keeping all other parameters constant, and allowing only normalization to be the free parameter, the fit is not good with too few counts around a keV compared to the model. If we allow both normalization and absorbing column density to vary, then the resulting N$`{}_{H}{}^{}=5\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2, over an order of magnitude higher than that in the A component. Alternatively, keeping the NH constant as in component A, but allowing the covering fraction to vary, leads to $`f`$ reaching the hard limit of $`f=1`$. Thus the spectra of UM425 A & B are found to be inconsistent.

## 3 Discussion

Chandra observations of UM425 field led to the discovery of hot intracluster medium around the quasar pair. High-z clusters are rare, and so are the large separation quasar pairs; chance association of these two uncommon phenomena is unlikely. Is the X-ray cluster at the redshift of the quasars, hosting the pair, or is it the foreground lens? Aldcroft et al. (2003) have shown that to produce the large observed separation between the quasar pair, the minimum cluster temperature will have to be $`kT=1.5keV`$, with luminosity $`L_X(0.12.4keV)1.5\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 at z=0.5 resulting in observed flux of $`f_X(0.12.5keV)2.3\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. Given the uncertainty, we cannot rule out the temperature of 1.5 keV at z=0.5 ($`\mathrm{\S }2.2`$). However, if the observed cluster has this temperature at z=0.5, the resulting flux is $`f_X(0.12.4keV)=4.2\times 10^{15}`$ and $`f_X(210keV)=5.6\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. Thus the observed X-ray flux is over five times fainter than the minimum flux estimated for the foreground lens, so the X-ray cluster is unlikely to be the lower redshift lensing cluster. UM425 field has been a target of cluster searches because the quasar pair was thought to be lensed and because there is a small overdensity of galaxies in the field, suggestive of a foreground cluster (Meylan & Djorgovski 1989, Corbin et al. 1995). However, no such cluster is found. This also suggests that the X-ray cluster reported here is at a much higher redshift. Deep imaging and spectroscopic studies will be required to confirm the redshift of the X-ray cluster, but it is highly likely to be at the redshift of the quasars, hosting the pair. This is exciting, because only one other cluster at a higher redshift is known (Fabian et al. 2001)

Assuming the cluster to be at z=1.47, we find its size to be 140 kpc and luminosity $`L_X(0.310keV)=6.2\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 and $`L_X(210keV)=3\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 for temperature kT=2.1 keV. These values of temperature and luminosity lie right on the LX–T relation for low redshift groups and cluster (Mulchaey & Zabludoff 1998), which is remarkable given the large uncertainty determination of both the quantities and possible evolution of the LX–T relation with redshift (Vikhlinin et al. 2002b). The luminosity is at the lower end of that found for clusters. The observed size of the diffuse emission, however, is small, more like that of a group. The faint diffuse emission that we detect must trace the more luminous intracluster gas from the cluster core. Our estimates of temperature and luminosity may then be considered as lower limits. Given the serendipitous nature of this discovery, we cannot determine the space density of such hot high redshift clusters. The presence of a few such clusters on the sky at redshifts of about 1.5 and higher is consistent with the currently popular cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0.7`$, but we cannot rule out the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0`$ model based on just this observation with poor temperature constraint (c.f. Fabian et al. 2001, who find that the maximum number of collapsed objects with temperature larger than 10 keV to be about 100 for redshifts higher than z=1.8).

The association of the X-ray cluster with the quasars also implies that they are just a pair of quasars, not lensed images of the same quasar. This interpretation is also supported by the different X-ray spectra of the two objects (though, in principle, slightly different sightlines to the nuclear X-ray source can explain the observed difference). We can also explain the unusual brightness of UM425 A without invoking lens magnification. Association of UM425 A & B with the X-ray cluster, and observations by Martini et al. (2002) who found high fraction of AGNs in cluster Abell 2104, suggests that a cluster environment is conducive for triggering of AGN activity. UM425 A is about two magnitudes brighter than other quasars at similar redshifts (Aldcroft et al. 2003). Czerny et al. (1997) have shown that most quasars usually radiate at $`0.010.2`$ of their Eddington luminosity. If UM425 A is radiating at close to Eddington limit, it can easily have an order of magnitude larger luminosity for similar black hole mass and radiative efficeincy. Such a high accretion rate relative to Eddington may be related to the recent triggering of the quasar (Mathur 2000) and supports the hypothesis that BALQSOs represent an early phase in quasar lifetimes (Canalizo & Stockton 2001, Fabian 1999, Becker et al. 2000). If the fraction of quasars with unusually high luminosity is small, it may imply that the high accretion phase does not last long. The faint B component was only discovered because of its close proximity to UM425 A.

To summarize, our Chandra observations led to two interesting results. First, the discovery of a cluster candidate with second highest redshift and second, evidence suggesting a connection between cluster environment and quasar activity and supporting evolutionary hypothesis to understand the BALQSO phenomenon.

We are grateful to the entire Chandra and NASA community for a superb mission. We thank David Weinberg, Brian McNamara & Brad Peterson for useful discussions and Tom Aldcroft & Paul Green for their contribution to our Chandra proposal.


text:
# A NOTE ON DERIVATION OF RUTHERFORD FORMULA WITHIN BORN APPROXIMATION

## Example 1

The scattering amplitude for a particle of mass $`m`$ in the spherically symmetric potential energy $`V(r)`$ within the Born approximation is given by

$$f(\theta )=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }_0^{\mathrm{}}drrV(r)\mathrm{sin}(\kappa r),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{\kappa }=\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the wave vector of incident particle and $`\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$ is the wave vector of scattered particle. The vector $`\kappa `$ is related to the scattering axial angle $`\theta `$ by the equation $`\kappa =2q\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$. If we insert the Coulomb law

$$V(r)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0r}$$

into (1) instead of $`V`$ we get

$$f(\theta )=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}_0^{\mathrm{}}dr\mathrm{sin}(\kappa r).$$

The above written integral does not converge, of course. The standard procedure to make the integral to have a sense is to regularize the Coulomb law by multiplying it by the function $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu r)`$, where $`\mu >0`$ and after having performed integration to make the limit $`\mu 0^+`$. We will show that the regularizator has not to be of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu r)`$ .

Let $`\{g_n(r)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the sequence of monotonically decreasing functions defined on the half-line $`r0`$ such that $`\{g_n\}`$ converges point-wise to $`1`$ and we request that $`g_n(0)=1`$ and $`lim_r\mathrm{}g_n(r)=0`$. Moreover we request that the derivatives $`g_n^{}(r)`$ approach zero at $`r\mathrm{}`$ uniformly with respect to $`n`$.
The scattering amplitude (1) for the potential energy

$$V_n(r)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{1}{r}g_n(r)$$

is given by

$$f_n(\theta )=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}_0^{\mathrm{}}dr\mathrm{sin}(\kappa r)g_n(r)\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}I_n(\kappa ).$$

The integral $`I_n(\kappa )`$ exists (as Riemann integral) due to our assumptions on the functions $`g_n`$ and the Dirichlet’s criterion. Let us compute the integral $`I_n(\kappa )`$ per partes. We get

$$I_n(\kappa )=\frac{1}{\kappa }+\frac{1}{\kappa }_0^{\mathrm{}}dr\mathrm{cos}(\kappa r)g_n^{}(r).$$

Our task is to show that the second term goes to zero as $`n`$ goes to infinity. But this is true because of the properties of the sequence $`\{g_n\}`$ and because of the fact that there exists such positive constant $`K>0`$ that for all $`A>0`$ we have

$$\left|_0^Adx\mathrm{cos}(\kappa x)\right|K.$$

Therefore we have

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}f_n(\theta )=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{1}{\kappa ^2},$$

from which we get the differential cross-section

$$\frac{d\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}=|f_n(\theta )|^2=\frac{4m^2e^4}{\mathrm{}^4(4\pi ϵ_0)^2\kappa ^4}$$

which is nothing else but the Rutherford formula.
As an example we can take the sequence of functions

$$g_n(r)=1\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{r}{n}\right).$$

In this case we are able to compute $`f_n(\theta )`$ in terms of elementary functions. In fact:

$`I_n(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dr{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\kappa r)}{1+\left(\frac{r}{n}\right)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dx{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\kappa nx)}{1+x^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\left[12\pi i\underset{zi}{lim}(zi){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\kappa nz)}{1+z^2}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\left[1\mathrm{exp}(\kappa n)\right]^n\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}.`$
We mention, that it is possible to take less limiting assumption on $`g_n`$ to get the same result.

## Example 2

In this section we will show another possibility how to regularize the Coulomb potential. Now, let us take the potential

$$V(r,a)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{1}{r^{1+a}},0<a<2.$$
(2)
Then the scattering amplitude has the form

$$f(\theta ,a)=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2\kappa }\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}_0^{\mathrm{}}dr\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\kappa r)}{r^a}.$$
(3)
So, we have to compute the following integral

$$I(a,\kappa )=_0^{\mathrm{}}dr\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\kappa r)}{r^a}.$$
(4)
To do this it would be useful to realise that the following identity holds

$$\frac{1}{x^a}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}_0^{\mathrm{}}dtt^{a1}e^{tx}.$$
(5)
Inserting (5) into (4) we have

$`I(a,\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dtt^{a1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dr\mathrm{sin}(\kappa r)e^{tr}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{t^{a1}}{\kappa ^2+t^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`|t=\kappa u|={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{a1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{d}u{\displaystyle \frac{u^{a1}}{1+u^2}}=|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+u^2}}=w|`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{a1}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dw(1w)^{a/21}w^{a/2}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{a1}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi a}{2}\right)}}.`$
So, the scattering amplitude for the potential (2) is given by the following formula

$$f(\theta ,a)=\frac{2me^2}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}^2\kappa ^{2a}}\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi a}{2}\right)},$$
(6)
from which we get in the limit $`a0^+`$ the amplitude

$$f(\theta )=\frac{2me^2}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}^2\kappa ^2}$$

which leads just to the Rutherford formula.