text:
# Screened alpha decay in dense astrophysical plasmas and superstrong magnetic fields

## I Introduction

Alpha radioactivity has been known for a long time in heavy nuclei. This process, which is described in various textbooks of physics (see for example Ref. ), can be described by the nuclear reaction

$${}_{Z}{}^{A}X_{N}^{}_{Z2}^{A4}X_{N2}^{^{}}+_2^4He_2+Q$$
(1)
where we have used the usual textbook notation for the parent, the daughter and the alpha nuclei. The value of the $`Q`$ energy, which is released during the decay, can be derived by the application of the conservation-of-energy principle which demands that

$$m_Xc^2=m_X^{^{}}c^2+m_\alpha c^2+Q_n$$
(2)
where $`m_i`$ stands for the mass of nuclei $`\left(i\right)`$and $`c`$is the speed of light. This approach, adopted in most textbooks, yields the energy released due to the rearrangement of nucleons which takes place during the decay. Actually, we have used the subscript $`\left(n\right)`$in order to indicate that this energy is purely nuclear. However, if one wants to be precise in his application of the conservation-of-energy principle then the atomic nature of the reactants should also be taken into account. Thus, the actual $`Q`$ energy released in the emission process is given by

$$Q=Q_n+B_e\left(Z\right)B_e\left(Z2\right)B_e\left(2\right)$$
(3)
Where $`B_e\left(Z\right),B_e\left(Z2\right),B_e\left(2\right)`$ are the total electron binding energies of the parent, the daughter and the alpha atoms, respectively. Although in typical terrestrial conditions, such atomic corrections are of little importance they still have to be taken into account if an accurate experimental value of the half life $`T_{1/2}`$ of the decay is to be obtained. On the other hand, in certain astrophysical environments screened alpha decay can present spectacular properties which have never been investigated before. One of the main features of this paper is to investigate those properties and their possible implications on some long standing theories. The layout of the paper is as follows:

In Sec. II we study the effects of the electron cloud when alpha decay occurs in a usual terrestrial environment. We derive new formulas which, unlike others, can also take into account the degree of ionization of the atomic cloud. The new formulas agree perfectly well with other less sophisticated ones. In Sec. III the parent nucleus is considered to be under the influence of a superstrong magnetic field such as the one encountered in magnetars. In Sec. IV we study the alpha decay of nuclei in a dense astrophysical plasma where the s and r process take place. In Sec. V, the usual Geiger-Nuttall law is modified appropriately for magnetars and dense astrophysical plasmas. Finally, Sec. VI presents briefly the conclusions of the present paper.

## II Screened alpha decay in a terrestrial environment.

Let us assume that the parent nucleus is fully ionized (unscreened). During alpha decay, outside the range of the nuclear forces, the alpha particle $`\left({}_{2}{}^{4}He_2\right)`$experiences only the repulsive Coulomb potential of the daughter nucleus $`\left({}_{Z2}{}^{A4}X_{N2}^{^{}}\right)`$so that the interaction energy will be

$$V_c\left(r\right)=\frac{2\left(Z2\right)e^2}{r}$$
(4)
The maximum height of the barrier will of course be

$$V_0=\frac{2\left(Z2\right)e^2}{R}$$
(5)
where $`R`$ is the minimum distance between the daughter nucleus and the alpha particle roughly given by

$$R=1.3\left[\left(A4\right)^{1/3}+4^{1/3}\right]fm$$
(6)
The alpha decay half-life $`T_{1/2}^{NSC}`$ of an uscreened heavy nucleus is inversely proportional to the penetration factor $`P\left(E_\alpha \right)`$ given by the WKB method:

$$P\left(E_\alpha \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\sqrt{2\mu }}{\mathrm{}}_R^{r_c\left(E_\alpha \right)}\sqrt{V_c\left(r\right)E_\alpha }𝑑r\right]$$
(7)
where the kinetic energy of the $`\alpha `$-particle is

$$E_\alpha =\frac{A4}{A}Q_n$$
(8)
and the classical turning point is given by

$$V\left(r_c\right)=E_\alpha $$
(9)
We will now define the two major limits of our study whose validity and plausibility has been firmly established in the study of multielectron screening effects in astrophysical reactions. Namely, if the nucleus belongs in a neutral atom we should distinguish two modes of decay:

The adiabatic limit $`\left(AL\right),`$which assumes that the atomic clouds around the daughter and the alpha nuclei rapidly adjusts themselves during the decay so that all the participants of the decay (parent, daughter, alpha) are always in a neutral atomic form.

The sudden limit $`\left(SL\right),`$where we assume that throughout the decaying process the atomic cloud of the parent nucleus remains undisturbed so that the daughter nucleus is screened by the same cloud as the parent one and the alpha particle is emitted fully ionized. Note that in that limit the neutral daughter atom will be assumed to have $`Z2`$electrons so that the TF theory can be used.

In the adiabatic limit the kinetic energy $`E_\alpha `$ will be:

$$E_\alpha ^{AL}=E_\alpha +U_e$$
(10)
where the energy shift will be given by

$$U_e=\left(\frac{A4}{A}\right)\left[B_e\left(Z\right)B_e\left(Z2\right)B_e\left(2\right)\right]$$
(11)
The energy shift is usually much smaller than the kinetic energy $`E_\alpha `$imparted on the alpha particle due to the rearrangement of nucleons and can be calculated in the framework of the Thomas-Fermi theory. According to previous studies we can always define a screening enhancement factor (SEF) so that

$$f_\alpha (Z,A,Q_n)=\frac{P^{SC}\left(E_\alpha +U_e\right)}{P^{NSC}\left(E_\alpha \right)}1$$
(12)
where $`P^{SC}\left(E_\alpha +U_e\right)`$ is the screened penetration factor and $`P^{NSC}\left(E_\alpha \right)`$is the unscreened one. Note that the kinetic energy $`E_\alpha `$ in Eq. $`\left(\text{12}\right)`$ refers to the unscreened nucleus.

Since $`T_{1/2}P^1\left(E_\alpha \right)`$ we can write for the screened $`T_{1/2}^{SC}(Z,A,Q_n)`$ and the unscreened $`T_{1/2}^{NSC}(Z,A,Q_n)`$ half lives :

$$T_{1/2}^{SC}(Z,A,Q_n)=\frac{T_{1/2}^{NSC}(Z,A,Q_n)}{f_\alpha (Z,A,Q_n)}$$
(13)
On the other hand, if the screening energy shift $`U_e`$is much smaller than the kinetic energy $`E_\alpha `$of the alpha particle then

$$f_\alpha (Z,A,Q_n)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi n\frac{U_e}{E_\alpha }\right)$$
(14)
The screened half life will therefore be given by

$$T_{1/2}^{SC}(Z,A,Q_n)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi n\frac{U_e}{E_\alpha }\right)T_{1/2}^{NSC}(Z,A,Q_n)$$
(15)
where $`n`$ is the Sommerfeld parameter for the interaction between the daughter and the helium nuclei.

Obviously, the screening effect reduces the half-life of the decaying nucleus. This is of course as expected since the screening cloud reduces the Coulomb barrier thus easing the way of the alpha particle out of the parent nucleus. In Fig.1, we have drawn a simplified picture of the screened alpha decay. According to that figure the Coulomb potential practically vanished at distances further than three screening radii (see next sections and Ref. ).

The SEFs for heavy nuclei has been calculated in a paper dealing with astrophysical nuclear reactions experiments. Actually the derived formulas are particularly relevant here since the atoms involved in alpha decay are always multielectronic. We can easily adjust those formulas appropriately in order to describe the relevant screening effect in alpha decay:

Sudden Limit

$$f_\alpha ^{SL}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{3.856\left(Z2\right)^{7/3}}{Q_n^{3/2}}\left(\frac{A}{A4}\right)\left[S\left(q\right)+\frac{q}{x_0\left(q\right)}\right]\right]$$
(16)
where the degree of ionization is defined by

$$q=1\frac{electrons}{protons}$$
(17)
and the quantities $`S\left(q\right),x_0\left(q\right)`$ are defined in Ref. . For neutral atoms $`q=0,x_0\left(0\right)<\mathrm{}`$ and $`S\left(0\right)=1.588`$so that

$$f_{TF}^{SL}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{6.1233\left(Z2\right)^{7/3}}{Q_n^{3/2}}\left(\frac{A}{A4}\right)\right]$$
(18)
Note that the quantity $`Q_n`$ is measured in $`keVs`$ throughout this paper.

Adiabatic Limit

$$f_{TF}^{AL}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{62\left(Z2\right)\left[F\left(q_{12}F\right)Z^{7/3}F_1\left(q_1\right)\left(Z2\right)^{7/3}F_2\left(q_2\right)2^{7/3}\right]}{Q_n^{3/2}}\frac{A}{A4}\right]$$
(19)
where $`F\left(q\right)`$is defined in Ref. :

$$F\left(q\right)=\frac{12}{7}\left(\frac{2}{9\pi ^2}\right)^{1/3}\frac{e^2}{a_H}\left[S\left(q\right)+\frac{q^2}{x_0\left(q\right)}\right]$$
(20)
and $`a_H`$ is the Bohr radius.

If we assume, according to the AL, that the parent, the daughter and the alpha nuclei are all in a neutral atomic state then $`F\left(q_{12}\right)=F\left(q_1\right)=F\left(q_2\right)=20.98eV`$and the relevant SEF is written:

$$f_\alpha ^{AL}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[1.297\left(Z2\right)\frac{\left[Z^{7/3}\left(Z2\right)^{7/3}2^{7/3}\right]}{Q_n^{3/2}}\frac{A}{A4}\right]$$
(21)
We have compared Eq. $`\left(\text{18}\right)`$ to Eq. $`\left(\text{21}\right)`$ and have found that their results practically coincide for all alpha decaying nuclei. This remarkable coincidence proves the validity of the present method and allows us to use the simple SL formula for the description of the screening effect in terrestrial alpha decay.

Usually in alpha decay studies experimentalists use a semi-empirical formula for screening energy

$$U_e=65.3\left(Z2\right)^{7/5}80\left(Z2\right)^{2/5}eV$$
(22)
which when inserted in Eq. $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ gives roughly the same results as Eq. $`\left(\text{18}\right).`$

Thus we have derived alternative formulas for the accurate description of the screening effect in alpha decay. Those formulas, which are based on the solid mathematical framework of the TF theory, are the only ones available that can take into account the degree of ionization of the participant nuclei.

## III Magnetically catalyzed alpha decay in magnetars

Nowadays, there is a growing body of evidence (see Ref. for a review) for a population of neutron stars with magnetic fields of order $`10^{15}G`$ , which is much larger than the typical magnetic field of a neutron star (i.e. $`10^{12}G)`$. These “magnetars” are distinguished from radio pulsars and accreeting binary neutron stars not only by the strength of their field but also by the fact that their decaying magnetic field is their primary energy source. Moreover, recent observations provide strong evidence for the validity of the old hypothesis that two separate classes of astronomical X-ray sources – the Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGR) and the Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXP)– are actually different manifestations of this peculiar type of star. The giant magnetic field of magnetars has a significant and observable effect on quantum electrodynamic processes operating near the star. It can also support strong and persistent electrical currents, which alter the spindown of the star and contribute to the continuous glow of X-rays and optical light observed in between outbursts. In this section we will investigate its effects on the abundances of alpha-decaying heavy elements which may find themselves in the neighborhood of a magnetar.

In large magnetic fields, such as those existing in the atmospheres of neutron stars, atomic clouds are compressed both perpendicular and parallel to the magnetic field direction. The effects of giant magnetic fields $`\left(B10^{12}G\right)`$on hydrogen and helium atoms have been extensively studied by many authors. Various studies have appeared focusing on such topics as the formation of molecules and chains (and references therein) and nuclear fusion. However, no author has ever considered the effects of such a magnetic field on alpha decay processes.

Let us consider the heavy neutral atom of an alpha decaying element which is under the influence of such an ultrastrong magnetic field. We will disregard all exchange, thermal and relativistic effects as a first approximation and adopt the usual super-magnetic field notation $`B_{12}=\left(B/10^{12}\right)G,B_0=2.351\times 10^9G,b=B/B_0.`$ Moreover, the parent and the daughter nuclei are considered spinless (e.g. U-238,Th-234), just like the alpha particle, so that we can disregard any coupling with the external magnetic field. Note that the effect of a superstrong magnetic field on nuclear properties has also been disregarded in the study of magnetically catalyzed fusion reactions . However, in such cases where the fusing nuclei are not always spinless, coupling effects may play a non-negligible role.

In any case the present study will exclusively focus on the perturbation of half lives due to atomic (tunneling) effects allowing for an extra perturbation term due to purely nuclear effects. This assumption is based on the Born-Oppenheimer (BO) approximation according to which there is a complete decoupling between electronic and nuclear degrees of freedom. (The BO approximation has been used frequently in screening studies ).

Sudden Limit

The magnetic TF screened Coulomb potential will be given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{sc}\left(r\right)=\frac{Ze}{r}\varphi \left(\frac{r}{R_B}\right)$$
(23)
where the scaling parameter is $`R_B=55133Z^{1/5}b^{2/5}fm`$ and the universal function $`\varphi \left(x\right)`$is given by Kadomtsev’s differential equation with the initial conditions of Ref.

$$\frac{d^2\varphi \left(x\right)}{dx^2}=\left(x\varphi \right)^{1/2},\varphi \left(0\right)=1,\varphi ^{^{}}\left(0\right)=0.938965$$
(24)
where we have set $`x=r/R_B.`$

The above model is valid for neutral atoms when the condition $`Z^{4/3}b2Z^3(`$or according to another study$`Z^{4/3}b4.25Z^3)`$ is satisfied.

In the sudden limit approximation the alpha particle, on its way out of the parent nucleus, will have to penetrate the screened Coulomb potential given by Eq. $`\left(\text{23}\right)`$ so that the tunnelling will involve an interaction potential energy given by

$$V_{sc}(r,B)=\frac{2\left(Z2\right)e^2}{r}\varphi \left(\frac{r}{R_B}\right)$$
(25)
where $`R_B=55133\left(Z2\right)^{1/5}b^{2/5}fm`$ and the respective SEF will of course be given by the screened versus the unscreened penetration factor:

$$f_\alpha ^{SL}(Z,A,B)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\sqrt{2\mu }}{\mathrm{}}\left(_R^{r_c(E_\alpha ,B)}\sqrt{V_{sc}(r,B)E_\alpha }𝑑r_R^{r_c\left(E_\alpha \right)}\sqrt{V_c\left(r\right)E_\alpha }𝑑r\right)\right]$$
(26)
where the classical turning point in the magnetized alpha-decay is given as usual by

$$V_{sc}(r_c,B)=E_\alpha $$
(27)
We might follow the treatment of Sec.II where we derived approximate analytic SL SEFs for conventional alpha-decay, assuming that there exists a constant screening energy shift (much smaller than E$`{}_{\alpha }{}^{})`$. This method, which actually replaces Eq. $`\left(\text{26}\right)`$with Eq. $`\left(\text{14}\right),`$would indeed yield very elegant analytic SEFs but we cannot afford to make any approximations yet. This is due to the fact that we are studying a completely novel effect and thus we must be certain about the accuracy of our results. Thus we will numerically evaluate the SL SEFs given by Eq. $`\left(\text{26}\right)`$.

Moreover, in some cases, relativistic corrections to the TF atom may become important. In order to investigate relativistic effects we will employ the equation derived by Hill, Grout and March and Shivamoggi and Mulser

$$\frac{d^2\varphi \left(x\right)}{dx^2}=\left(x\varphi \right)^{1/2}\left(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\varphi }{x}\right)^{1/2},\varphi \left(0\right)=1,\varphi ^{^{}}\left(0\right)=0.938965$$
(29)
where the relativistic parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{Ze^2}{2m_ec^2R_B}1$$
(30)
or else

$$Z^{4/5}b^{2/5}38286$$
(31)
We have run extensive numerical integrations of Eq. $`\left(\text{26}\right)`$ applying the above relativistic model to various magnetic fields and heavy nuclei. Provided that the conditions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$and $`Z^{4/3}b2Z^3`$are valid, we have concluded that relativistic corrections to $`f_\alpha ^{SL}(Z,A,B)`$ are negligible.

Adiabatic Limit

In an ultrastrong magnetic field, due to the multielectron nature of an alpha decaying atom, the sudden limit is expected to yield practically the same results as the adiabatic limit. This has been shown in the previous section for conventional screened alpha decay and common sense demands that this is the case when supermagnetized atoms are considered. It is obvious that subtracting two electrons from the large number of them which orbit the parent nucleus will induce a very small perturbation to the charge distribution around it. This of course means that the sudden limit is expected to be very accurate just as was shown in the previous section. We can use the total binding energy of a supermagnetized heavy atom $`E13.6Z^{9/5}b^{2/5}eV`$, in order to obtain the screening shift yielded by the adiabatic limit which, according to Eq. $`\left(\text{11}\right),`$reads

$$U_{TF}^{AL}=0.0136b^{2/5}\left[Z^{9/5}\left(Z2\right)^{9/5}2^{9/5}\right]keV$$
(32)
and after some algebra the relevant AL SEF is found to be given by the formula

$$f_\alpha ^{AL}(Z,A,Q,B)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{0.85}{Q_n^{3/2}}\left(Z2\right)\left(\frac{A}{A4}\right)b^{2/5}\left[Z^{9/5}\left(Z2\right)^{9/5}2^{9/5}\right]\right]$$
(33)
In Fig.2 ,we have numerically integrated Eq. $`\left(\text{26}\right)`$ in order to plot the magnetic SL SEF for the alpha decay of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U\left(T_{1/2}=4.46\times 10^9y\right),`$and $`{}_{}{}^{235}U`$ $`\left(T_{1/2}=0.7\times 10^9y\right)`$with respect to the magnetic field strength (measured in units of $`2.351\times 10^9G).`$We have also included the AL SEFs given by Eq. $`\left(\text{33}\right).`$ The solid vertical bar signifies the upper limit of our model for the nuclei in question, while the lower limit is actually that field for which the SEF becomes roughly unity. The results of both limits are very close to each other just as predicted.

We have particularly chosen these two uranium isotopes as they are thoroughly used as cosmochronological tools. By observing the reduction in the half lives of those alpha-decaying isotopes in Fig.1 we can argue that ultrastrong magnetic fields act as giant transformers of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U,^{235}U`$ into their respective daughters $`{}_{}{}^{234}Th`$and $`{}_{}{}^{231}Th`$.

According to Fig.2, magnetars can reduce the half life of uranium by four orders of magnitude. The effect is of a similar order of magnitude for other heavy alpha decaying nuclei as well. Although the mathematics of our model forbids its use at fields larger than $`10^{15}G`$ it is more than obvious that half lives will be further reduced at ever stronger fields where our model is invalid.

Another interesting fact about ultramagnetized alpha decay is that the compression of the electron cloud is particularly large in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, while it is very small in the parallel direction. Thus, the emission of alpha particles will not be isotropic as is usually the case in terrestrial process but it will occur in such a way that it peaks in the perpendicular direction. The phenomenon of anisotropically enhanced alpha-decay has never been investigated before. In Sec. IV we will prove that it also appears in the s and r processes in stellar plasmas, although in such sites the screened half lives can be up to 9 orders of magnitude smaller than the unscreened ones.

Finally, we note that the screened half life (the SEF) is an increasing (decreasing) function of the decay energy $`Q_n.`$This is due to the fact that the classical turning point is a decreasing function of the energy $`Q_n`$ so that the smaller the $`Q_n`$the thicker the barrier that the alpha particle will have to cross and thus the stronger the screening effect. Our tests have shown that the TF screened Coulomb potential exhibits a marked deviation from the unscreened one mainly at large distances from the nucleus. Thus, large turning points allow the screening effect to play a more important role in the tunnelling process.

## IV Screened alpha decay in dense astrophysical plasmas

Although various authors have studied the effects of a very dense astrophysical plasma on fusion reaction rates, no author has ever studied such effects on the alpha decay process.

Actually, heavy nuclei which decay by alpha particle emission exist only in the form of seeds in ordinary massive stars where the zero metallicity scenario is usually valid for most stellar evolution calculations. For example in Population I stars the uranium abundance is roughly eleven (six) orders of magnitude smaller than that of hydrogen (silicon). Nevertheless, there are stellar processes such as the s(low) and r(apid) ones which generate a significant number of heavy nuclei which are then ejected into space via a supernova explosion. Admittedly, the production of such nuclei doesn’t play any significant role in stellar evolution which is governed by light element production-destruction processes. However, the abundances of heavy elements give important information about the formation of the universe and therefore all factors which influence them deserve special attention. In this section we will prove that alpha decay in dense stellar plasmas can play a much more important role in the destruction of heavy elements than initially thought.

Let us consider a heavy alpha decaying nucleus $`{}_{Z}{}^{A}M_{N}^{}`$ in a fully ionized multicomponent plasma which is at thermodynamic equilibrium. We will modify Mitler’s model for screened thermonuclear reactions in order to derive screening corrections in our alpha-decay study. Actually, this modification is perfectly legitimate since all plasma screening models are concerned with the perturbation of the penetration factor $`P\left(E\right)`$which is the same for both fusion and decay.

Sudden Limit

In that limit we assume that the plasma which screens the nucleus $`{}_{Z}{}^{A}M_{N}^{}`$ remains undisturbed by the emission of the alpha particle. According to Sec. II and Sec. III. we model this process by considering the interaction between the daughter nucleus and the alpha particle inside the plasma. If we modify Mitler’s model the screened Coulomb potential is given by

$`V_{sc}^M\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(Z2\right)}{r}}C_o+C_1r^2r<r_0`$ (34)
$`V_{sc}^M\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(Z2\right)C}{r}}r>r_0`$ (35)
where

$$x=\frac{r_0}{R_D}=\left(\frac{3\left(Z2\right)}{4\pi n_eR_D^3}+1\right)^{1/3}1$$
(36)
$`R_D`$ is the usual Debye-Huckel radius (corrected of course for electron degeneracy) , $`n_e`$is the average electron number density in the plasma and the constants $`C_0,C_1`$ are given by

$$C_1=\frac{2}{3}\pi en_eC_0=2\pi en_eR_D^2x\left(x+2\right)$$
(37)
In order to derive a simple analytic formula for the SL SEF let us first assume that the screening energy due to the stellar plasma is much smaller than the decay energy $`Q_n`$ , which is usually a few $`MeVs`$. To the extend that this assumption is wrong then our calculation would yield a conservative estimate of the associated SEF (i.e. the SEF will certainly be larger). However, as we will prove, this assumption is perfectly legitimate in most stellar plasmas away from solidification. In such a case the screening energy will be the properly modified Mitler’s shift:

$$U_e^M=\frac{2\left(Z2\right)e^2}{R_D}g\left(x\right)$$
(38)
where $`g\left(x\right)`$

$$g\left(x\right)=\left(\frac{1+x_1/2}{1+x_1+x_1^2/2}\right)$$
(39)
then using Eq. $`\left(\text{14}\right)`$ we obtain

$`f_\alpha ^M=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi n{\displaystyle \frac{U_e^M}{Q_n}}\right)`$

or else

$$f_\alpha ^M(Z,A,\rho ,T)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\left(Z2\right)e^2\pi ng\left(x\right)}{Q_nR_D}\right)$$
(40)
Adiabatic Limit

In order to be more precise we have to take into account the screening effects induced by the alpha particle as well as that the assumption of a very small screening energy is not necessarily true for all cases. Both those factors are taken into account by the adiabatic limit. If we further assume that the stellar plasma where the alpha-decay takes place has not reached the solidification point, which is the case in s and r process environments, then the screening enhancement factor will be the respective Mitler’s SEF modified appropriately for an alpha-decay process:

$$f_M=\left(f_S\right)^{g(\zeta _1,\zeta _2)}$$
(41)
where $`f_S`$ is the usual Salpeter’s SEF and the parameter $`g`$is

$$g(\zeta _1,\zeta _2)=\frac{9}{10}\left(\frac{1}{\zeta _1\zeta _2}\right)\left[\left(\zeta _1+\zeta _2+1\right)^{5/3}\left(\zeta _1+1\right)^{5/3}\left(\zeta _2+1\right)^{5/3}+1\right]$$
(42)
where $`\zeta _1,\zeta _2`$ are dimensionless parameters which for the alpha decay process are given by

$$\zeta _1=\frac{3\left(Z2\right)}{4\pi N_eR_D^3},\zeta _2=\frac{3\times 2}{4\pi N_eR_D^3}$$
(43)
Thus, the screened half-life of a particular alpha-decaying heavy nucleus will now be a function of plasma composition , density and temperature:

$$T_{1/2}^{SC}(\rho ,T)=\left(f_\alpha ^M\right)^1T_{1/2}^{NSC}$$
(44)
We have compared the results given by Eq. $`\left(\text{41}\right)`$ and Eq.$`\left(\text{40}\right)`$ and have found that they are practically the same for all relevant stellar environments.. Therefore the simple formula given by Eq. $`\left(\text{40}\right)`$describes accurately the reduction of the half-life of the screened alpha-decaying nuclei. In any case, the SEF is well constrained by Eqs. $`\left(\text{40}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{41}\right).`$

The whited out figures of Fig.3 represent the ratio of the unscreened half-life $`T_{1/2}^{NSC}`$ versus the screened one $`T_{1/2}^{SC}`$ (i.e. the SEF) for the isotope $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$in various stellar environments. The screening reduction of half lives is not very sensitive to temperature for completely degenerate environments.. This is due to the fact that, as can be shown after some algebra, in such ultradense environments the screening energy is approximately given for both limits (see Fig.2) by the simple formula

$$U_e^{AL}=0.0176\left(\frac{\rho }{\mu _e}\right)^{1/3}\left[Z^{5/3}\left(Z2\right)^{5/3}2^{5/3}\right]keV$$
(45)
which is independent of temperature. Eq. $`\left(\text{45}\right)`$is actually Salpeter’s formula for completely degenerate electron gases modified appropriately for our study. The relevant SEF is of course still given by Eq. $`\left(\text{14}\right)`$. Note that, according to Fig.3, in supernova shocks, where the r process takes place, the screening effect is particularly accentuated.

Most heavy nuclei, which undergo alpha decay, are produced during the s and r processes of stellar evolution either during a long epoch of thousands of years or during short pulses and shocks of milliseconds. Let us assume that such a nucleus of abundance $`N\left(t\right)`$ is produced in a dense stellar plasma . We know that this abundance will actually follow the usual law of exponential decay that is

$$N\left(t\right)=N\left(0\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{T_{1/2}}t\right)$$
(46)
According to the evolutionary stage of the star, there are various mechanisms which generate or destroy the heavy nucleus in question with the paramount ones being neutron capture (i.e. s and r processes), beta decay and photodisintegration. It a very an important finding of the present paper that alpha decay half lives in dense astrophysical plasmas can become so small that alpha decay can play an equally significant role in the evolution of heavy element abundances. Instead of presenting a detailed analysis of this effect we can give a fair approximation to the actual extend of the new effect by comparing the screened half lives to the timescale of the destruction/production mechanisms: First we note that if we disregard all other factors then alpha decay alone can reduce the stellar abundance of a nucleus by three orders of magnitude within ten half lives. Since the half life itself in a screened environment can be many orders of magnitude smaller than the unscreened one it is obvious that a new important mechanism of destruction has been discovered which so far has been considered negligible for a lot of heavy elements. In fact if $`\tau `$ is the time scale for a certain process which produces or destroys a heavy nucleus then the abundances of all nuclei whose unscreened half life is of the order of

$$T_{1/2}^{NSC}f_\alpha ^M(Z,A,\rho ,T)\times \tau $$
(47)
will be considerably affected by the alpha decay process . Considering that the timescales of the s and r processes vary from seconds to millions of years the importance of the present findings in now obvious.

## V The Geiger-Nuttall law for magnetars and dense thermonuclear plasmas

The success of the quantum mechanical description of alpha decay has been established by the Geiger-Nuttall (GN) law which is described in most textbooks dealing with alpha decay theory. According to that law, in an unscreened environment, a good fit to the half life data $`T_{1/2}`$ of a large number of alpha emitters is obtained with the formula

$$\mathrm{log}_{10}T_{1/2}(Z,A,Q_n)=C_1\left(Z\right)Q_n^{1/2}+C_2$$
(48)
where $`C_2`$is a constant and $`C_1\left(Z\right)`$ a slowly varying parameter of the atomic number $`Z`$.

These relationships have been proved more effective than most microscopically based calculations in the prediction of alpha decay half lives. Their application to the decays of all isotopic sequences of the heaviest elements with neutron number $`N>126`$ has long been known to yield spectacularly straight line plots. The validity of this linear correlation has been established for lighter nuclei, as well.

According to the new findings of the present paper the GN law in magnetar atmospheres and dense thermonuclear plasmas should be modified. Therefore, if the GN law in an unscreened environment is given as a plot of the half life with respect to the atomic number and the decay energy then in the previously studied screened environments all such plots should be modified so that the readings on the mantissa should be shifted by $`\mathrm{log}_{10}f_\alpha ^1.`$Thus, in our study of alpha decay in magnetars and dense plasmas, we can use all conventional GN plots and data currently available provided we apply the following rules:

$$\mathrm{log}_{10}T_{1/2}^{SC}(Z,A,B)=\mathrm{log}_{10}T_{1/2}^{NSC}(Z,A)\mathrm{log}_{10}f_\alpha ^{TF}(Z,A,B)$$
(49)
for magnetars and

$$\mathrm{log}_{10}T_{1/2}^{SC}(Z,A,\rho ,T)=\mathrm{log}_{10}T_{1/2}^{NSC}(Z,A)\mathrm{log}_{10}f_\alpha ^M(Z,A,\rho ,T)$$
(50)
for dense stellar plasmas.

A final argument concerning heavy element production/destruction should be expressed: Alpha decay is a nuclear process which bears a lot of physical similarities to fission. Since fission is also important (e.g. the californium hypothesis) in the evolution of heavy element abundances we argue that similar strong screening effects are bound to appear when fissionable nuclei exist in the astrophysical environments discussed in the present paper.

## VI Conclusions

We have studied electron screening effects in alpha decay processes applying a formalism which so far has been exclusively used in the study of astrophysical fusion reactions. We have derived alternative analytic SEF formulas for terrestrial alpha decay processes which can also take into account the degree of ionization of the decaying atom.

More importantly, this paper also studies the effects of superstrong magnetic fields (such as those of magnetars) on alpha decay proving that the relevant half life can be reduced by several orders of magnitude. The whole effect, which is expressed in the form of a very handy formula, namely Eq. $`\left(\text{33}\right),`$ may possibly have notable implications on heavy element abundances and the cosmochronological models that rely on them.

Finally, there has been shown, for the first time, that alpha decay half lives in dense astrophysical plasmas can be reduced by many orders of magnitude due to plasma screening. Those results may have significant implications on the evolution of heavy element abundances during the s and r processes. A very simple analytical formula has been produced (i.e. Eq.$`\left(\text{40}\right)`$) which can take into account all those novel effects.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. A simplified picture of screened alpha decay. The alpha particle is emitted with a (relative) kinetic energy $`E_\alpha ,`$while the screened $`\left(r^{SC}\right)`$and unscreened $`\left(r^{NSC}\right)`$classical turning points are also shown. Note that the maximum height of the Coulomb barrier in the screened case will be shifted downwards by $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_c`$ while the nuclear state of the parent nucleus is described by a potential well of depth $`V_0.`$ The relative distance is measured in screening radii while the mantissa has been modified (exaggerated) in certain points to help visualization of the effect.

Figure 2.The ratio of the unscreened half life $`T_{1/2}^{NSC}`$ to the screened one $`T_{1/2}^{SC}`$ (i.e. the SEF) for two important alpha decaying isotopes with respect to the magnetic field strength (measured in units of $`2.351\times 10^9G):^{238}U`$ (upper/lower solid curves), $`{}_{}{}^{235}U`$ (upper/lower dotted curves). The upper (lower) curves stand for the AL (SL) SEFs for each isotope$`.`$

Figure 3. The ratio of the unscreened half-life $`T_{1/2}^{NSC}`$ to the screened one $`T_{1/2}^{SC}`$ (i.e. the SEF) for the isotope $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$in various stellar plasmas. The vertical column of values $`(10,5,etc.)`$on the right-hand-side mantissa stands for the well-known degeneracy parameter $`a`$which is related to the electron chemical potential $`\mu _e`$via the formula $`a=\mu _e/kT`$. In the plot five electron degeneracy regimes are shown: ND:Non Degenerate, WD:Weakly Degenerate, ID:Intermediate Degeneracy, SD:Strong Degeneracy, CD:Complete Degeneracy (defined in Ref. ). The numbers in the whited-out areas of the plot correspond to the SEFs for $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$calculated according to the theory of Sec.IV. Various stellar sites are shown while the thick horizontal line at $`\rho =7.3\times 10^6g/cm^3`$defines the relativistic domain of the the equation of state.

This work was presented during the conference ”Supernova, 10 years of SN1993J”, April 2003, Valencia, Spain. The author is grateful to Prof. Hillebrandt for useful comments and discussions.


format: text

text:
# More lead starsBased on observations carried out at the European Southern Observatory (La Silla, Chile; Program 65.L-0354) and at the Observatoire de Haute Provence (operated by CNRS, France)

## 1 Introduction

The overabundances of elements heavier than iron observed at the surface of Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars (Smith & Lambert 1990) clearly indicate that the s-process takes place during the AGB phase in the evolution of low- and intermediate-mass stars ($`0.8M(\mathrm{M}_{})8`$). It is now widely accepted that the neutron exposure required to produce s-elements originates in some partial mixing of protons (PMP) from the envelope down into the C-rich layers resulting from the former intermittent operation of He-burning during thermal pulses. PMP activates the chain of reactions $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{13}\mathrm{N}(\beta )^{13}\mathrm{C}(\alpha ,\mathrm{n})^{16}\mathrm{O}`$. The s-elements thus produced in the deep interior by successive neutron captures are subsequently brought to the surface by the third dredge-up (3DUP). The mixing scenario has recently received a new impetus from the inclusion in AGB models of mechanisms like overshooting (Herwig et al. 1997) or rotation (Langer et al. 1999) that trigger simultaneously the 3DUP and the PMP. Unfortunately, model predictions at the present time do not agree, neither on the mechanism responsible for the 3DUP or PMP, nor on their physical characteristics, such as their extent into the C-rich layers or the number of pulses required for the 3DUP and PMP to set in (see e.g., Lattanzio 1998). It is therefore of prime importance to devise predictions that may be tested against abundance observations. One such prediction is that stars with metallicities \[Fe/H\] $`1`$ (where $`[A/X]=`$ log$`(N_A/N_X)`$log$`(N_A/N_X)_{}`$) should exhibit large overabundances of Pb–Bi as compared to lighter s-elements (Pb/Ba ratios as large as 70 are predicted in AGB stars with \[Fe/H\]$`=1.3`$; Goriely & Mowlavi 2000). Therefore, if the standard PMP scenario holds, low-metallicity Pb-stars should exist. Such an observation would provide strong support to the state-of-the-art s-process models, provided that a possible r-process origin of Pb be excluded from the absence of overabundances for r-process elements.

The first three such lead stars (HD 187861, HD 196944 and HD 224959, with metallicities in the range $`2.0`$ to $`2.5`$) have been reported among CH stars by Van Eck et al. (2001, hereafter Paper I). At the same time, Aoki et al. (2001) found that the slightly more metal-deficient stars LP 625-44 and LP 706-7 are enriched in carbon and s-elements, and yet, with \[Pb/Ce\] $`<0.4`$, cannot be considered as lead stars, in disagreement with the standard PMP predictions. To clarify this situation, it is important to derive heavy element abundances for more metal-deficient stars. The present paper adds 5 more stars to this set.

## 2 The stellar sample

CH stars (Keenan 1942, 1993) are good candidates to investigate the properties of the s-process at low metallicities, since these C-rich stars have very weak lines of the iron-group elements but enhanced lines of the heavy elements (Vanture 1992c).

Late-type and early-type CH stars, that may be distinguished from their spectral types and 12C/13C ratios (late-type CH stars have 12C/13C $`500`$ as compared to $`10`$ for early-type CH stars; Kipper et al. 1996; Aoki & Tsuji 1997), probably form two distinct families, with possibly different evolutionary histories. It has been suggested that the same dichotomy as that observed between intrinsic and extrinsic S stars (Van Eck & Jorissen 2000) may be present among CH stars. In that framework, late-type CH stars would be identified with intrinsic stars (i.e., genuine low-metallicity AGB stars, as confirmed by their relatively bright absolute visual magnitudes; see Table 1), whereas early-type CH stars would be identified with extrinsic stars (i.e., post-mass-transfer binaries, as confirmed by McClure & Woodsworth 1990).

Late-type CH stars might thus be considered as the Population II analogues of N-type carbon stars, and as such, are ideal targets for the present purpose of studying the operation of the s-process at low metallicity. However, not many are known, so that our sample has been extended to early-type CH stars. Being post-mass-transfer binaries, these stars may be considered as the Population II analogues of barium stars. The mass-function distribution of these binaries is consistent with the invisible companion being a white dwarf. The envelope of the giant star has been polluted by C-rich matter transferred from the companion when it was an AGB star. The chemical composition of early-type CH stars should therefore bear the signature of the nucleosynthesis processes operating in low-metallicity AGB stars, provided that chemical fractionation processes similar to those operating in post-AGB stars (Van Winckel et al. 1992; Waters et al. 1992) did not alter the composition of the accreted matter.

The target stars for this paper and Paper I are listed in Table 1, along with the effective temperature and gravity adopted from the literature (except for HD 189711; see Sect. 4).

## 3 Observations and data reduction

The present project was conducted during two separate observing runs. A first run at the Observatoire de Haute Provence (August 21–23, 2000) explored at medium resolution two spectral windows containing Pb lines in the optical domain. A subsequent run at the European Southern Observatory (September 16–17, 2000) then secured high-resolution spectra of what appeared to be the most promising – albeit blended on the medium-resolution OHP spectra – Pb line (Pb I $`\lambda 405.781`$ nm).

The OHP spectra were obtained on the AURELIE spectrograph (Gillet et al. 1994) mounted on the 1.52m-telescope equipped with a 2048$`\times `$1024 EEV CCD (13.5 $`\mu `$m pixels). Two different spectral settings were used. The 1200 rules/mm grating (with filter OG 515) delivering a resolution $`R=\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =`$ 85 000 in the second order at 720.0 nm was used to explore the 722.897 nm Pb I line detected by Gonzalez et al. (1998) in FG Sge. The 3000 rules/mm holographic grating was then used to explore the 401.963, 405.781 and 406.214 nm Pb I lines with a resolution of 45 000.

The ESO spectra were obtained on the Coudé Echelle Spectrometer (CES) fed by the 3.6 m-telescope using the Very Long Camera (f/12.5) in the blue path, the high-resolution image slicer and the thinned, back-side illuminated CCD#61 (EEV, 2K $`\times `$ 4K pixels). A resolution of 135 000 was achieved at the central wavelength of 405.8 nm. The spectra approximately cover the wavelength range 404.5–407.1 nm.

The reduction of the CCD frames followed the usual steps (bias and flat-field corrections, optimal extraction of the stellar spectrum, wavelength calibration) which were performed within the ‘long’ context of the MIDAS software package. The signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio (per pixel) achieved in the extracted spectrum is listed in Table 1 along with the heliocentric radial velocities. Our radial velocities agree with the orbital ephemeris for HD 198269 and HD 201626, but they differ by about 5 km s-1 for HD 224959, for an unknown reason. The newly determined velocity of HD 187861 strongly suggests that this star is a binary since the two available velocities differ by more than 12 km s-1. On the contrary, there is no clear evidence so far that HD 196944 is a binary star. The radial-velocity variations observed for V Ari are not unusual for a SRb variable, and do not necessarily hint at the binary nature of V Ari.

## 4 Abundance analysis

Abundances were derived using the Turbospectrum spectral synthesis package (Alvarez & Plez 1998). MARCS model atmospheres (Gustafsson et al. 1975; Plez et al. 1992 and subsequent updates) matching the atmospheric parameters ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ as listed in Table 1), metallicity and C/O ratio have been used. A microturbulent velocity $`\xi =2`$ km s-1 has been adopted for all stars (the available spectral window is too narrow to allow a firm determination of the microturbulence). Larger values for the microturbulence of the two late-type CH stars of our sample (HD 189711 and V Ari) were adopted by Tsuji et al. (1991, respectively 4 km s-1 and 6 km s-1). Such large microturbulent velocities yield, however, a much worse fit of the observed spectrum than the smaller value of 2 km s-1 (see Fig. 1). In any case, Fig. 1 shows that the intensity of the Pb I $`\lambda `$ 405.78 nm line used in the abundance analysis (see below) is almost not altered by a change in the microturbulence velocity from 2 to 6 km s-1. More precisely, if the value of the microturbulence velocity were to be 6 km s-1, the lead abundance would be diminished by less than 0.05 dex.

The C, N and O abundances play an important role in the strength of CN and CH lines present in our spectra. Since the C/O ratios taken from the literature and listed in Table 1 did not provide satisfactory fits to the data, a better match was seeked by adjusting the C abundance on the CN and CH lines present in the considered spectral window. Since the strength of CH lines is also sensitive to O through C$``$O (more than through C/O), an independent estimate of the oxygen abundance is needed. It is provided by the assumption that \[O/Fe\] = $`+0.35`$ in halo stars. Since our C/O ratios are thus dependent upon this assumed O abundance, they are not listed in Table 1 since they contain some degree of arbitrariness. Estimates of the C, N and O abundances were in fact just needed to provide satisfactory fits to the molecular lines blending the atomic lines of interest. Some mismatch persist, despite our efforts to improve upon existing line lists for CN and CH (Luque & Crosley 1999).

For the star HD 189711, no satisfactory fit whatsoever could be obtained for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=3100`$ K as adopted by Kipper et al. (1996). It seems necessary to adopt instead a somewhat larger temperature. The $`BV`$ and $`JK`$ indices of HD 189711 from Mendoza V & Johnson (1965) further support that conclusion, since the observed indices are not consistent with the values derived from synthetic models at 3100 K, but rather point towards $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=3500`$ K, as listed in Table 1. Note, however, that the gravity listed Table 1 is not well constrained.

Since the 406.214 nm and 722.897 nm Pb I lines are not visible on our spectra, the Pb abundance was derived using the 405.781 nm Pb I line only, including the contributions from the isotopes 204Pb, 206Pb, 207Pb, 208Pb as well as the hyperfine structure due to 207Pb. The corresponding wavelengths and $`\mathrm{log}(gf)`$ values are listed in the Appendix. To derive the Pb abundance in the presence of such an isotopic and hyperfine structure requires to make an a priori assumption of the isotopic ratios. Nucleosynthesis calculations predict that the operation of the s-process in a low-mass, low-metallicity AGB star results in highly non-solar isotopic ratios. In a $`Z=\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}10}^5`$ (\[Fe/H\] = $`2.5`$), $`M=0.9`$ M AGB star, 204Pb: 206Pb: 207Pb: 208Pb = 0.001: 0.026: 0.049: 0.924, and these values have been adopted in the present analysis. Adopting the solar isotopic ratio instead (204Pb: 206Pb: 207Pb: 208Pb = 0.015: 0.236: 0.226: 0.523) typically decreases the Pb abundance by about 0.1 dex, in agreement with the conclusions of Aoki et al. (2002). Fig. 2 presents the effect of changing the Pb abundance by $`\pm 0.3`$ dex on the intensity of the 405.781 nm Pb I line in different stars.

An attempt has been made to derive as well abundances for a few other elements (Fe, Zr, La, Ce, Nd and Sm) with useful lines falling in the 404.5 – 407.1 nm spectral window. The oscillator strengths of these lines have been taken from the VALD library (Kupka et al. 1999). Whenever possible, these oscillator strengths have been confirmed from a fit to the solar spectrum. The comparison with the models presented in Sect. 5 requires the Pb abundances to be normalized by the abundance of an element of the hs group (Ba, La or Ce, where hs stands for ‘heavy-s’), as well as an estimate of the metallicity. Despite the difficulty of this endeavour on a spectral window covering only 3 nm in the violet spectrum of carbon stars, such abundance ratios derived in a homogeneous manner (and thus less prone to systematic errors) are probably preferable over ratios obtained from La or Ce abundances taken from the literature. As it will be shown in Sect. 5, the distribution of low-metallicity, s-process-rich stars in diagrams like (\[Pb/La\], \[Fe/H\]) and (\[Pb/Ce\], \[Fe/H\]) exhibits interesting properties, whose identification is the main asset of the present paper. Of course, the abundance analysis will have to be redone on a firmer basis when UVES/VLT spectra covering the full optical domain will become available to us. A comparison with existing abundance data (see below and Table 2) makes us confident, however, that the present abundance ratios111The abundance ratios listed in Table 2 are normalized by the meteoritic abundances of Grevesse & Sauval (1998), with $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{Fe})=7.50`$, albeit preliminary, should not be too far off. As stressed above, the abundance ratios listed in Table 2222The differences between the abundances obtained in this paper and those from Paper I for the three stars in common may be ascribed to the different metallicities adopted in the two papers. must be considered as tentative, since, except for Ce, only few lines are available for each element, and they lie in a very crowded region of the spectrum, veiled by molecular lines. Since Ce has quite a few lines available, its abundance is probably more reliable than that of the other heavy elements.

The uncertainties mentioned in Table 2 are estimated from the range of abundances derived from the various available lines, although these uncertainties are not the standard deviation of the abundances from the various lines, to account subjectively for the different qualities of the different lines. Errors caused by the uncertainties on the atmospheric parameters have been estimated for HD 26 and V Ari, and are listed in Table 3 (see Paper I for a similar error analysis in the case of HD 196944).

The large uncertainties on the abundances for all the carbon stars (i.e., all stars but HD 196944) are mainly due to remaining inaccuracies in the CN line list. The general quality of the fit between the synthetic and observed spectra may be judged from Fig. 3.

Table 2 compares as well our abundances with those from the literature. Our metallicities are systematically lower by 0.6 to 1 dex as compared to those of Vanture (1992c), although the agreement with other authors is better (see HD 196944 and V Ari). It is worth noting in this respect that the metallicities derived in this paper are based on Fe lines falling in the Bond-Neff depression present in CH stars (Bond & Neff 1969). This depression grossly covers the range 400–440 nm, and has a depth of about 10% around 400 nm (Gow 1976). Luck & Bond (1982) showed that the metallicity derived from Fe lines falling in the Bond-Neff depression may be too low by as much as 1 dex. This strengthens the importance of deriving the Fe, hs and Pb abundances from the same spectral window, and to discuss abundance ratios relative to Fe rather than relative to H.

For the heavy elements, the agreement between the different determinations appears to be much better, however, giving some confidence to the abundances derived here. Despite the various difficulties encountered in the determination of the abundances listed in Table 2 (narrow wavelength range, contaminating CN and CH lines), the remarkable agreement between our abundances and those obtained by Aoki et al. (2002) for HD 196944 is very encouraging.

## 5 Discussion

Detailed heavy-element abundance patterns are available in the literature for all the stars studied in this paper \[Paper I: HD 187861, HD 196944 and HD 224959; Vanture (1992c): HD 26, HD 187861, HD 198269, HD 201626 and HD 224959; Kipper et al. (1996): HD 189711; Kipper & Kipper (1990): V Ari; Aoki et al. (2002): HD 196944\] and they reveal that it is the s- rather than the r-process which is responsible for the observed overabundances. The situation is somewhat less clear for V Ari, since Kipper & Kipper (1990) obtain \[Eu/hs\] and \[Gd/hs\]$`0`$, which cannot be accounted for by the s-process. These authors obtain, however, extremely large overabundance factors (\[hs/Fe\] of the order of 3 to 4 dex!), and caution the reader about the large uncertainties affecting their results.

Fig. 4 reveals that HD 187861, HD 196944, HD 198269, HD 201626 and HD 224959 all belong to the class of ‘lead stars’, since their \[Pb/Ce\] ratios comply with the predictions for the standard model for PMP operating in low-metallicity AGB stars. The two stars HD 189711 and V Ari deviate from the expected trend, however, since they have Pb/Ce ratios far too small with respect to these predictions (the large uncertainty on the metallicity of HD 26 makes the situation unclear for that star). HD 189711 and V Ari are the two coolest CH stars studied in the present paper, and abundance determinations in cool carbon stars represent a real challenge to the spectroscopist. Nevertheless, these two late-type CH stars add to similar (albeit much warmer) cases of metal-poor, s-process-rich, non-lead stars uncovered by Aoki et al. (2001, 2002). All low-metallicity, s-process-rich stars studied so far (Paper I; this paper; Aoki et al. 2001, 2002; Johnson & Bolte 2002) are displayed in the (\[Pb/Ce\],\[Fe/H\]) diagram displayed in Fig. 4. Clearly, not all low-metallicity, s-process-rich stars comply with the predictions of the standard PMP theory. The large uncertainty on the metallicity (see the discussion in Sect. 4 and Fig. 4), does not alter this conclusion, especially since the \[Pb/Ce\] does not appear to be very sensitive to the adopted metallicity. This can be judged from the \[Pb/Ce\] ratios obtained in this paper and in Paper I for two different choices of the metallicity for the stars HD 187861 and HD 224959. Decreasing the metallicity by about 0.5 dex resulted in a decrease of the \[Pb/Ce\] ratio of only 0.15 dex.

Some low-metallicity, s-process-rich stars deviate as well from the standard PMP predictions in the (\[Pb/La\], \[Fe/H\]) diagram (Fig. 5), indicating that this behaviour is not dependent upon the normalizing element (Ce or La). The agreement with the model predictions is, however, not as good for \[Pb/La\] as it is for \[Pb/Ce\], the observed La abundances being systematically larger than the predicted ones.

The scatter in \[Pb/Ce\] and \[Pb/La\] at a given metallicity observed in Figs. 4 and 5 is reminiscent of the situation prevailing among the (intrinsic, non-binary) post-AGB stars studied by Van Winckel & Reyniers (2000), who found a large scatter of \[hs/ls\] also for s-process-rich stars with metallicities typical of the disk ($`1[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.3`$).

It should be stressed here that the predictions of the standard PMP scenario are rather robust (see the discussion by Goriely & Mowlavi 2000), in the sense that they do not depend upon the details of the diffusive mixing (like its depth) as long as the proton profile assumes a monotonic evolution with depth. In the framework of the standard PMP scenario, there is thus no obvious degree of freedom that could be used to reduce the lead production in low-metallicity AGB stars, as seems to be required by the results presented in Figs. 4 and 5. The situation may change when AGB models will include the effect of rotation, but such models are currently very preliminary and do not include s-process calculations (Langer & Herwig 2001). We do not endorse therefore the claim by Aoki et al. (2001) that the Pb abundance observed in LP 625-44 could be accounted for by reducing the 13C abundance in the 13C pocket by a factor 20, since there is no freedom to do so in the framework of the PMP scenario, where the 13C profile is fixed by the proton profile. The 13C pocket required for the operation of the s-process will form at that location in the intershell layer where the proton to 12C ratio is just slightly below unity. Above unity, the CN chain would set in, producing a large amount of the 14N neutron poison; too far below unity, the 13C abundance will be very low and its contribution to the s-process will be largely overidden by the contribution from the upper layers where 13C is far more abundant. Such a layer with p/12C $`1`$ necessarily exists in the framework of the PMP scenario, since p/12C $`>100`$ in the outer hydrogen envelope, and goes down to 0 at the bottom of the proton diffusion layer. Finally, the 13C abundance in the layer where p/12C $`1`$ is fixed by the 12C abundance (see for instance Eq. 8 in the analytical description provided by Jorissen & Arnould 1989), which is in turn fixed by the properties of He-burning in the thermal pulse, leading inevitably to $`X(^{12}`$C) $`0.2`$ to 0.5. On the other hand, if no dredge-up occurs, PMP takes place in He-rich layers depleted in 12C (typically $`X(^{12}`$C) $`10^4`$) and the 13C production is too small to trigger any s-process.

A scenario to account for the low-metallicity, \[Pb/hs\]$`0`$ stars has been promoted by Iwamoto et al. (2002) and invokes the sudden mixing of protons from the envelope directly into the thermal pulse. Detailed simulations remain, however, to be performed in that framework.

For some of the stars from Fig. 4, the comparison of the observed abundances with predictions from AGB nucleosynthesis may even be questionable since some of them are subgiant stars with no evidence for binarity (LP 706-7; Norris et al. 1997). Their s-process enrichment can therefore not be ascribed to pollution by mass transfer from a former AGB companion. To make the situation even more obscure, this conclusion cannot be generalized to all the non-lead stars in Fig. 4, since some are indeed binaries (LP 625-44, CS 22942-019; Preston & Sneden 2001; Aoki et al. 2000, 2002), and might be relevant to the mass-transfer scenario. Similarly, lead stars include bona fide post-mass-transfer binaries (like CS 29526-110 and the classical CH binaries HD 198269, HD 224959; McClure & Woodsworth 1990; Aoki et al. 2002) as well as presumably single stars (CS 22898-027, CS 22880-074; Preston & Sneden 2001; Aoki et al. 2002). A whole new class of nucleosynthesis processes must be at work in the non-binary stars, or at least, their abundance peculiarities must have their origin in a very tricky scenario. One such scenario has recently been promoted by Thoul et al. (2002). It assumes that these peculiar stars have evaporated from a globular cluster, where they acquired their s-process enrichment from the pollution by the wind from a nearby AGB star.

## 6 Conclusion

We presented in this paper lead abundances for 8 low-metallicity, s-process-rich stars. Although 5 among these conform with the predictions of the partial proton-mixing operating in low-metallicity AGB stars (and may therefore be tagged ‘lead stars’), two do not since their \[Pb/La\] and \[Pb/Ce\] ratios are too low by at least one order of magnitude with respect to the predictions. These two stars add to similar cases uncovered by Aoki et al. (2001, 2002). A large scatter is observed in the (\[Pb/hs\],\[Fe/H\]) diagrams collecting all low-metallicity, s-process-rich stars studied so far. Lead stars conforming to the \[Pb/hs\] predictions from the standard PMP scenario co-exist with stars having \[Pb/hs\] ratios up to 2 dex lower. The existence of non-lead stars at low metallicities is especially puzzling, since no physical phenomena can at the present time be called for to explain, within the PMP scenario, the observed abundances.

Moreover, to add to the puzzle, some of the non-lead stars (especially LP 706-7 and CS 22880-027) are subgiant stars with no evidence for binarity, so that their s-process enrichment seems to call for a rather exotic scenario (new site for the operation of the s-process, or accretion from an s-process-rich wind from a nearby AGB star in a globular cluster and subsequent evaporation thereof).

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to recognize G. Bihain for help with the abundance analysis of HD 26.

## Appendix A Hyperfine and isotopic shifts of the Pb I $`\lambda `$ 405.78 nm line

The Pb I $`\lambda `$ 405.78 nm line has a complex structure consisting of three components arising from the hyperfine structure due to 207Pb plus three isotopic components associated with 204Pb, 206Pb and 208Pb. We present below a derivation of the position and intensities of these various components, which differ from the line list obtained by Aoki et al. (2001)

### A.1 Energy levels for pure 208Pb

The energy levels for the 208Pb isotope have been taken from Wood & Andrew (1968), and yield a difference in energy of 24636.8973 cm$`{}_{}{}^{1}(\pm 0.0012)`$ for the 405.78 nm transition ($`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}^3P_2`$).

### A.2 Isotopic shifts

Isotopic shifts for the 405.78 nm transition were taken from Table I of Bouazza et al. (2000).

### A.3 Hyperfine structure of 207Pb

The hyperfine structure of the levels involved in the 405.78 nm transition are presented in Fig. 6. The Russel-Saunders coupling of the total electronic angular momentum $`J`$ (orbital + spin) with the nuclear spin momentum ($`I=1/2`$) predicts three components $`a,b`$ and $`c`$, with respective intensity weights of 9/15, 1/15 and 5/15, in agreement with the experimental results of Manning et al. (1936).

The energy shifts are predicted by the Casimir formula, using the magnetic hyperfine structure constant $`A`$ provided by Bouazza et al. (2000) as listed in Fig. 6 ($`B=0`$, since $`I=1/2`$).

The isotopic shift taken from Table I of Bouazza et al. (2000) has then been added to the hyperfine shift, to yield the final energy levels listed in Table 4.

### A.4 Wavelengths and oscillator strengths for the Pb I $`\lambda 405.78`$ nm transition

The final results are listed in Table 4. The line structure is consistent with that observed in the laboratory by Simons et al. (1989, his Fig. 2a), but not with the line list provided by Aoki et al. (2001). The $`\mathrm{log}gf`$ listed in Table 4 is that from Biémont et al. (2000, $`\mathrm{log}gf=0.22`$), weighted by the hyperfine intensity ratios in the case of 207Pb.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The interacting, superconformal field theories living on a stack of $`N`$ M2- or M5-branes are not well understood. An improved understanding of these M-branes should lead eventually to a better understanding of M-theory itself, a theory that encompasses all the different superstring theories and is one of the best hopes for a quantum theory of gravity. While the full M-brane theories remain mysterious, the low energy, large $`N`$ behavior is conjectured to be described well, via the AdS/CFT correspondence , by certain classical solutions to eleven dimensional supergravity equations of motion. Recent work on AdS/CFT correspondence by Son, Starinets, Policastro, and the author  provides a prescription for writing Lorentzian signature correlators for these types of theories. In , this prescription was used to calculate viscosities and diffusion constants for M-brane theories in this low energy limit, thus generalizing the work of  for D3-branes. This paper completes the program started in  by considering sound waves on M2- and M5-branes, and also generalizes similar work by Son, Starinets, and Policastro  for D3-branes.

The behavior of any field theory perturbed a small amount away from thermal equilibrium is expected to be described well by fluid mechanics . In particular, in this limit the size of the fluctuations are small compared to the temperature. Moreover, fluid mechanics supports sound waves. Thus, we expect the finite temperature field theory living on a stack of M-branes to conduct sound.

The existence of sound waves has strong implications for the two-point function of the stress-energy tensor. In particular, we expect to see poles in some of the components of this two-point function from which we can extract the speed of sound and a damping term.

Using the techniques described in , we calculate the the relevant components of the two-point function of the stress-energy tensor in these M-brane theories using their gravity duals.111 For a different perspective on the prescription for writing field theory, Lorentzian signature Green’s functions from gravity using AdS/CFT, see .  We find a sound wave pole exactly of the form predicted by fluid mechanics:

$$\omega =u_sqi\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+𝒪(q^3),$$
(1)
where $`\omega `$ is the frequency and $`q`$ is the wave vector. Moreover, we will see that the speed of sound $`u_s`$ and the damping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ take exactly the values they should. In particular, we find that $`u_s=1/\sqrt{d}`$ where $`d`$ is the number of spatial dimensions of the theory. Also, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is related in a precise way to the viscosity calculated in  from the non-propagating shear modes.

There were two main results of . The first was that finite temperature AdS/CFT correspondence can be used to describe M-brane theories in the hydrodynamic limit. Indeed, the AdS/CFT description passed some nontrivial consistency checks, among them two independent derivations of the viscosity. The second result was more evidence in support of the Lorentzian signature prescription proposed in  for calculating field theory correlators from gravity.

The two main results of this paper are largely the same. With sound waves and more internal consistency checks, among them a third independent calculation of the viscosity, we find additional reason to believe that AdS/CFT describes well the hydrodynamic limit of M-brane theories. This paper also provides further support for the Lorentzian signature prescription of .

We begin in section 2 by reviewing shear modes and sound waves in fluid mechanics and the constraints they place on the two-point function of the stress-energy tensor. In section 3, we discuss the field theory Ward identities. We show how these identities constrain the components of the stress-energy two-point function. In particular, the identities essentially constrain the infrared behavior of the Green’s functions up to the location of the sound wave pole and a thermal factor.

Section 4 contains the body of the paper, the calculations of the stress-energy two-point functions from gravity. These calculations produce the correct sound wave pole and match precisely the Green’s functions obtained from the Ward identities.

## 2 Sound Waves and the Hydrodynamic Limit

In the hydrodynamic limit, small perturbations of the stress-energy tensor from thermal equilibrium correspond to sound and shear modes. We review the differential equations governing these modes. We are interested in the thermal field theories living on M2- and M5-branes. Thus the stress tensor will be respectively $`2+1`$ or $`5+1`$ dimensional.

One of the differential equations is the conservation condition $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$. The second equation is the linearized form of the stress-energy tensor, which describes how small, slowly varying velocity gradients produce extra stresses in the fluid because of viscosity :

$`T^{ij}=P\delta ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{ϵ+P}}\left(_iT^{0j}+_jT^{0i}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{d}}\delta ^{ij}_kT^{0k}\right)`$ (2)
where $`P=T^{ii}`$ is the pressure, $`ϵ=T^{00}`$ is the energy density, and $`\eta `$ is the viscosity. The dimension $`d`$ is 2 for the M2-branes and 5 for the M5-branes, and $`i`$, $`j`$, and $`k`$ run only over the spatial indices. To analyze these equations, it is helpful to split $`T^{0i}`$ into longitudinal and transverse parts (see for example ):

$$T^{0i}=g_i^{(t)}+g_i^{(\mathrm{})}.$$
(3)
In more abstract language, we treat $`T^{0i}`$ as a one-form that lives in Euclidean $`d`$-dimensional space, and we express the form as a sum of a closed (or longitudinal) one-form $`g^{(\mathrm{})}`$ and a co-closed (or transverse) one-form $`g^{(t)}`$. In index notation, $`_ig_i^{(t)}=0`$ and $`_ig_j^{(\mathrm{})}=_jg_i^{(\mathrm{})}`$.

For the transverse or shear modes, the conservation condition and the linearized stress-energy tensor combine to give

$$_0g_i^{(t)}=\frac{\eta }{ϵ+P}(_j)^2g_i^{(t)}.$$
(4)
In short, the shear modes obey a diffusion law, and one expects a corresponding diffusion pole $`i\omega =Dq^2`$ in the Green’s functions where $`D=\eta /(ϵ+P)`$. These modes were analyzed in , where it was discovered from a gravity calculation that $`D=1/4\pi T`$ for both the M2- and M5-branes to leading order in $`1/N`$.

For the longitudinal or sound modes, one finds that

$$\left((_0)^2+u_s^2(_i)^2+\frac{2\eta (d1)}{(ϵ+P)d}(_i)^2_0\right)T^{00}=0$$
(5)
along with the subsidiary relation $`_0T^{00}=_ig_i^{(\mathrm{})}`$. We have defined the speed of sound $`u_s^2P/ϵ`$. For a perturbation of the form $`T^{00}=ϵ+ae^{i\omega t+iqx}`$ where $`aϵ`$, there is a dispersion relation of the form

$$\omega =\pm u_sq\frac{i(d1)}{d}\frac{\eta }{ϵ+P}q^2+𝒪(q^3).$$
(6)
The theories we are considering are conformal and so the stress-energy tensor is traceless. In other words $`ϵ=Pd`$ and $`u_s=1/\sqrt{d}`$.

## 3 Ward Identities

The one- and two-point functions of the stress-energy tensor are highly constrained by Ward identities. In particular, we will find that the components of the two-point function relevant to sound propagation are constrained up to one free parameter $`\alpha `$. In the following, we will review the relevant Ward identities and try to motivate a particular choice of $`\alpha `$.

In a flat metric, the Ward identity for $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is conservation of energy, $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$. For our thermal field theories, $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant with $`T^{00}=ϵ`$ and $`T^{ij}=P\delta ^{ij}`$.

For the two-point function,

$$iG_F^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }(q)=d^{d+1}ye^{iqy}T\left(T^{\mu \nu }(y)T^{\lambda \rho }(0)\right),$$
(7)
the Ward identity takes a more complicated form:

$$q_\mu \left(G^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }(q)\eta ^{\nu \lambda }T^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \rho }T^{\mu \lambda }+\eta ^{\mu \nu }T^{\lambda \rho }\right)=0.$$
(8)
The conformal invariance of our field theories leads to an additional conformal Ward identity:

$$\eta _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }(q)=2T^{\lambda \rho }.$$
(9)
As mentioned before, the Ward identities do not completely constrain $`G`$, and we have removed the subscript from the Green’s function so that we may think of $`G`$ as any function that satisfies these identities (8) and (9).

We now identify the particular components of $`G^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ relevant to sound propagation. We choose our sound wave to have wave vector $`(\omega ,q,0,0,\mathrm{})`$. In this frame, we are only interested in components of $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ which are invariant under rotations in the remaining $`d1`$ spatial directions perpendicular to the $`x_1=x`$ axis, i.e. $`T^{tt}`$, $`T^{tx}`$, $`T^{xx}`$, and $`T^{aa}=T^{x^2x^2}+\mathrm{}+T^{x^dx^d}`$. Therefore, there are ten independent correlators $`G^{AB}`$ where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`tt`$, $`xx`$, $`tx`$, or $`aa`$.

There are twelve Ward identities for these correlators, nine of which are linearly independent. Thus, there is a one parameter family of Green’s functions $`G`$ that satisfy these Ward identities. Let $`G_1`$ be a particular solution to the identities such that the complex conjugate $`G_1^{}G_1`$. As the identities have real coefficients, $`G_1^{}`$ will also be a solution, and we can write the most general solution as

$$G=(1+\alpha )G_1\alpha G_1^{},$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$ is the free parameter.

We now find a particular solution $`G_1`$ such that $`G_1G_1^{}`$ with a desirable quality: $`G_1`$ will be closely related to the retarded Green’s function $`G_R`$. We expect the only singularities of the retarded Green’s functions, $`G_R`$, to be simple poles at $`\omega =\pm q/\sqrt{d}i\mathrm{\Gamma }q^2+𝒪(q^3)`$, corresponding to sound propagation; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0`$ is the damping term. Let us assume that $`G_1`$ has the same pole structure as $`G_R`$. With this additional constraint, the correlators become

$$G_1^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }(\omega ,q)=\frac{P}{(d\omega ^2q^2)+i\beta q^2\omega }P^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }(\omega ,q)$$
(11)
where the $`P^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ are polynomials in $`\omega `$ and $`q`$. The constant $`\beta =2\mathrm{\Gamma }d`$ is proportional to the damping. That the $`P^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ are polynomials uniquely constrains them to be

$`P^{tttt}`$ $`=`$ $`d\left[\left((d+2)q^2d\omega ^2\right)i\beta q^2\omega \right],`$ (12a)
$`P^{tttx}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega qd(d+1)`$ (12b)
$`P^{ttxx}`$ $`=`$ $`d\left[(\omega ^2+q^2)i\beta q^2\omega \right],`$ (12c)
$`P^{txtx}`$ $`=`$ $`(d^2\omega ^2+q^2)i\beta q^2\omega ,`$ (12d)
$`P^{txxx}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega q(1+d)(1i\beta \omega ),`$ (12e)
$`P^{xxxx}`$ $`=`$ $`\left((1+2d)\omega ^2q^2\right)i\beta (1+d)\omega ^3+i\beta q^2\omega ,`$ (12f)
$`P^{ttaa}`$ $`=`$ $`d\left[(d1)(\omega ^2+q^2)+2i\beta q^2\omega \right],`$ (12g)
$`P^{txaa}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega q(d^21)+i\beta (1+d)\omega ^2q,`$ (12h)
$`P^{xxaa}`$ $`=`$ $`(d1)(\omega ^2+q^2)+i\beta (1+d)\omega ^3+i\beta (1d)q^2\omega ,`$ (12i)
$`P^{aaaa}`$ $`=`$ $`(d1)\left((3d1)\omega ^2+(d3)q^2\right)`$ (12j)
$`i\beta (1+d)\omega ^3+i\beta (5d3)q^2\omega .`$
Because they have the same pole structure $`G_1`$ and $`G_R`$ are closely related. However, it was shown in  that the two differ by real contact terms. For example $`G_R^{tttt}=G_1^{tttt}+ϵ`$.

To compare with the gravity calculations to come, we need an expression for the Feynman Green’s function $`G_F`$. As the $`G`$ in the Ward identities are defined by taking functional derivatives of an appropriately defined path integral, we expect that one of these solutions to the Ward identities should be identified with the Feynman Green’s functions, $`G_F`$. There must be some $`\alpha `$ in (10) for which $`G=G_F`$. From the definitions of the various Green’s functions and the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS) condition, we know that $`G_F=(1+n)G_RnG_R^{}`$, up to real contact terms, where $`n=(\mathrm{exp}(\omega /T)1)^1`$. Thus it seems likely that $`G=G_F`$ in (10) when $`\alpha =n`$, i.e.

$$G_F=(1+n)G_1nG_1^{}.$$
(13)
There has been some guess work involved in arriving at this expression for $`G_F`$, namely in the particular choice $`\alpha =n`$. However, we will see that this form for $`G_F`$ matches precisely the gravity calculations in the following section.

## 4 Two-Point Functions from Gravity

In the following, we check that a gravitational calculation produces stress-energy correlators that obey the Ward identities. Indeed, we will find that the M2- and M5-brane correlators calculated from gravity have precisely the form (13).

### 4.1 M2-branes

The background metric is

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{2\pi TR}{3u}\right)^2\left[f(u)dt^2+dx^2+dy^2\right]+\frac{R^2}{4u^2f(u)}du^2$$
(14)
where $`f(u)=1u^3`$, and $`R`$ is the radius of curvature of AdS. We expect the gravitational description of the M-branes to be valid in the limit where $`R`$ is large compared to the eleven dimensional Planck length $`\mathrm{}_P`$. The number $`N`$ of M2-branes is related to $`\mathrm{}_P`$ and $`R`$ through Dirac quantization, $`R/\mathrm{}_PN^{1/6}`$ . Thus, we are working in the large $`N`$ limit, and there could in principle be $`𝒪(1/N)`$ corrections to our results.

To study the two-point functions of the stress-energy tensor, we introduce perturbations to this background metric of the form $`g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+h_{\mu \nu }`$. We choose a gauge where $`h_{u\mu }=0`$. We consider waves that move in the $`x`$ direction. Such waves break into two categories, depending on whether the metric perturbations are odd or even under $`yy`$. The odd perturbations correspond to diffusive shear waves and were treated in . The even perturbations correspond to sound waves and will be treated here. For sound waves, the nonzero elements of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ are $`h_{xx}`$, $`h_{yy}`$, $`h_{tt}`$, and $`h_{xt}`$.

We decompose the metric perturbations into their Fourier components

$$h_{\mu \nu }(t,x,u)=\frac{d\omega dq}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i\omega t+iqx}h_{\mu \nu }(\omega ,q,u).$$
(15)
We also introduce the dimensionless energy and momentum

$$\omega _2=\frac{3\omega }{2\pi T};q_2=\frac{3q}{2\pi T}.$$

To first order in the $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, the Einstein equations are

$$H_{tt}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2u}\left(\frac{9}{f}+7\right)H_{tt}^{}+H_s^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2u}\left(\frac{3}{f}+1\right)H_s^{}=0,$$
(16a)
$$H_{tt}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2u}\left(\frac{9}{f}+3\right)H_{tt}^{}+\frac{1}{2u}\left(\frac{3}{f}+1\right)H_s^{}\frac{q_2^2}{4f}H_{tt}+\frac{\omega _2^2}{4f^2}H_s+\frac{\omega _2q_2}{2f^2}H_{xt}=0,$$
(16b)
$$H_s^{\prime \prime }\frac{2}{u}H_{tt}^{}+\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{3}{f}1\right)H_s^{}\frac{q_2^2}{4f}H_{tt}+\frac{\omega _2^2}{4f^2}H_s\frac{q_2^2}{2f}H_{yy}+\frac{\omega _2q_2}{2f^2}H_{xt}=0,$$
(16c)
$$H_{yy}^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{u}H_{tt}^{}\frac{1}{u}H_s^{}\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{3}{f}1\right)H_{yy}^{}+\frac{1}{4f^2}\left(\omega _2^2fq_2^2\right)H_{yy}=0,$$
(16d)
$$H_{xt}^{\prime \prime }\frac{2}{u}H_{xt}^{}+\frac{\omega _2q_2}{4f}H_{yy}=0,$$
(16e)
$$q_2(2fH_{tt}^{}+3u^2H_{tt})2q_2fH_{yy}^{}+2\omega _2H_{xt}^{}=0,$$
(16f)
$$\omega _2(2fH_s^{}+3u^2H_s)+q_2(2fH_{xt}^{}+6u^2H_{xt})=0.$$
(16g)
We have defined $`H_s=H_{xx}+H_{yy}`$ and $`H_{tt}=h_t^t`$, $`H_{xt}=h_t^x`$, $`H_{ii}=h_i^i`$. Here $`h_\mu ^\nu `$ are the Fourier decomposed metric perturbations where the indices have been raised with the background metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ (14).

The system above is not linearly independent, but can be reduced to the following four linearly independent differential equations

$$H_{tt}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2u}\left(\frac{9}{f}+7\right)H_{tt}^{}+H_s^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2u}\left(\frac{3}{f}+1\right)H_s^{}=0,$$
(17a)
$$q_2(2fH_{tt}^{}+3u^2H_{tt})2q_2fH_{yy}^{}+2\omega _2H_{xt}^{}=0,$$
(17b)
$$\omega _2(2fH_s^{}+3u^2H_s)+q_2(2fH_{xt}^{}+6u^2H_{xt})=0,$$
(17c)
$$\frac{4}{u}H_{tt}^{}+\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{3}{f}+1\right)H_s^{}+\frac{q_2^2}{2f}(H_{tt}+H_{yy})\frac{\omega _2^2}{2f^2}H_s\frac{\omega _2q_2}{f^2}H_{xt}=0.$$
(17d)
The five integration constants correspond to the choice of incoming boundary condition at $`u=1`$ and the four Dirichlet boundary conditions at $`u=0`$.

These systems of differential equations are invariant under three residual gauge transformations. These pure gauge solutions are linear combinations of $`H^I`$, $`H^{II}`$, and $`H^{III}`$ whose explicit forms are

$`H_{xt}^I`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2,`$ (18a)
$`H_{xx}^I`$ $`=`$ $`2q_2,`$ (18b)
$`H_{tt}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _2,`$ (19a)
$`H_{xt}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2f,`$ (19b)
$`H_{tt}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _2^2{\displaystyle \frac{u}{f^{3/2}}𝑑u}4\left({\displaystyle \frac{2+u^3}{f^{1/2}}}\right),`$ (20a)
$`H_{xt}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2q_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{f^{1/2}}𝑑u}+f{\displaystyle \frac{u}{f^{3/2}}𝑑u}\right),`$ (20b)
$`H_{xx}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`2q_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{u}{f^{1/2}}𝑑u}8f^{1/2},`$ (20c)
$`H_{yy}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`8f^{1/2}.`$ (20d)
There is an incoming solution to these differential equations, where by incoming we mean that the wave fronts at the horizon are purely incoming. The incoming solution to linear order222 In , the authors used the quadratic order solution to $`H^{inc}`$ to compute the correlators and the damping. We will see, however, that the correct damping appears already at linear order. in $`\omega _2`$ and $`q_2`$ is

$`H_{tt}^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(\omega _2^2,\omega _2q_2,q_2^2),`$ (21a)
$`H_s^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(\omega _2^2,\omega _2q_2,q_2^2),`$ (21b)
$`H_{xt}^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`(1u)^{i\omega _2/6}\left({\displaystyle \frac{iq_2}{6}}f(u)+𝒪(\omega _2^2,\omega _2q_2,q_2^2)\right),`$ (21c)
$`H_{yy}^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`(1u)^{i\omega _2/6}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega _2}{6}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+u+u^2}{3}}+𝒪(\omega _2^2,\omega _2q_2,q_2^2)\right).`$ (21d)
There is also naturally an outgoing solution at the horizon which is just the complex conjugate of $`H^{inc}=(H^{out})^{}`$. The nonperturbative piece $`(1u)^{\pm i\omega _2/6}`$ enforces the incoming or outgoing boundary condition at the horizon $`u=1`$, as discussed in more detail in .

Setting the boundary conditions is a delicate issue. In , it was argued that the correct boundary conditions for calculating field theory propagators using AdS/CFT are purely incoming for positive frequency modes and purely outgoing for negative frequency modes where positive and negative frequency are defined with respect to Kruskal time. Moreover, the full Penrose diagram for this black hole background and a second boundary were used to reproduce the $`2\times 2`$ matrix of Schwinger-Keldysh propagators. For simplicity, we will focus on deriving just the Feynman propagator, i.e. the first entry in this $`2\times 2`$ matrix, in what follows.

Let $`H(u)`$ be the solution to the system of ODE’s which contains no $`H^{out}`$ component, i.e.

$$H(u)=aH^{inc}(u)+bH^I(u)+cH^{II}(u)+dH^{III}(u),$$
(22)
where $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ depend on the boundary values of the bulk graviton field $`H_{tt}^0`$, $`H_s^0`$, $`H_{yy}^0`$, and $`H_{xt}^0`$ in the limit $`u0`$. Ignoring the dependence of the propagators on the second boundary, the bulk-graviton wave-function $`H_K`$ with the more complicated Kruskal time-dependent boundary conditions can be written in terms of $`H(u)`$. In particular, $`H_K=(1+n)H(u)nH(u)^{}`$ where $`n=(\mathrm{exp}(\omega /T)1)^1`$, as discussed in . As the $`H_K`$ can be constructed out of $`H(u)`$ without too much difficulty, it is convenient to focus on $`H(u)`$. The fact that $`H(u)`$ does not rely on the outgoing piece of the bulk-graviton wave-function means that it has a causal structure and is thus more closely connected with the retarded Green’s function $`G_R`$ in field theory while $`H_K`$ is related to the Feynman propagator.

Solving this system (22) of equations to linear order in $`\omega _2`$ and $`q_2`$, one finds that the constants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ are all proportional to

$$\left(\left(1+\frac{i\omega _2}{6}\mathrm{ln}(3)\right)(2\omega _2^2q_2^2)+\frac{iq_2^2\omega _2}{3}\right)^1.$$
(23)
In other words, the Green’s function will have a pole at

$$\omega =\pm \frac{q}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{iq^2}{8\pi T}+𝒪(q^3)$$
(24)
corresponding to sound waves with a speed of $`1/\sqrt{2}`$, as expected. Moreover, from  we know that $`\eta /(ϵ+P)=1/4\pi T`$. Thus the damping term matches what is expected from the dispersion relation (6).

### 4.2 M5-branes

The calculations for the M5-brane are very similar. The background metric is

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{4\pi TR}{3}\right)^2\frac{1}{u}\left[f(u)dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right]+\frac{R^2}{u^2f(u)}du^2$$
(25)
where $`f(u)=1u^3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4,x^5)`$. We introduce perturbations to this background metric of the form $`g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+h_{\mu \nu }`$. We choose a gauge where $`h_{u\mu }=0`$. We consider waves that move in the $`x^1x`$ direction. Such waves break into two categories, depending on whether the metric perturbations transform as a vector or a scalar under the residual rotations in the directions transverse to $`x`$ and $`t`$. The vector perturbations correspond to diffusive shear waves and were treated in . The scalar perturbations correspond to sound waves. For sound waves, the nonzero elements of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ are $`h_{xx}`$, $`h_{tt}`$, $`h_{xt}`$, and $`h_{yy}h_{x^2x^2}=h_{x^3x^3}=h_{x^4x^4}=h_{x^5x^5}`$.

We again decompose the metric perturbations into their Fourier components (15). We also introduce the dimensionless energy and momentum

$$\omega _5=\frac{3\omega }{4\pi T};q_5=\frac{3q}{4\pi T}.$$

To first order in the $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, the Einstein equations are

$$H_{tt}^{\prime \prime }\frac{9u^2}{2f}H_{tt}^{}+H_s^{\prime \prime }\frac{3u^2}{2f}H_s^{}=0,$$
(26a)
$$H_{tt}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{9}{2f}+2\right)H_{tt}^{}+\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{3}{2f}+1\right)H_s^{}\frac{q_5^2}{uf}H_{tt}+\frac{\omega _5^2}{uf^2}H_s+\frac{2\omega _5q_5}{uf^2}H_{xt}=0,$$
(26b)
$$H_s^{\prime \prime }\frac{5}{2u}H_{tt}^{}\frac{3}{2u}\left(\frac{2}{f}+1\right)H_s^{}\frac{q_5^2}{uf}H_{tt}+\frac{\omega _5^2}{uf^2}H_s\frac{8q_5^2}{uf}H_{yy}+\frac{2\omega _5q_5}{uf^2}H_{xt}=0,$$
(26c)
$$H_{yy}^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{2u}H_{tt}^{}\frac{1}{2u}H_s^{}+\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{3}{f}+1\right)H_{yy}^{}+\frac{1}{uf^2}\left(\omega _5^2fq_5^2\right)H_{yy}=0,$$
(26d)
$$H_{xt}^{\prime \prime }\frac{2}{u}H_{xt}^{}+\frac{4\omega _5q_5}{uf}H_{yy}=0,$$
(26e)
$$q_5(3u^2H_{tt}2fH_{tt}^{})8q_5fH_{yy}^{}+2\omega _5H_{xt}^{}=0,$$
(26f)
$$\omega _5(2fH_s^{}+3u^2H_s)+q_5(2fH_{xt}^{}+6u^2H_{xt})=0.$$
(26g)
We have defined $`H_s=H_{xx}+4H_{yy}`$ and $`H_{tt}=h_t^t`$, $`H_{xt}=h_t^x`$, and so forth as before.

This system is equivalent to the four linearly independent equations

$$H_{tt}^{\prime \prime }\frac{9u^2}{2f}H_{tt}^{}+H_s^{\prime \prime }\frac{3u^2}{2f}H_s^{}=0,$$
(27a)
$$q_5(3u^2H_{tt}2fH_{tt}^{})8q_5fH_{yy}^{}+2\omega _5H_{xt}^{}=0,$$
(27b)
$$\omega _5(2fH_s^{}+3u^2H_s)+q_5(2fH_{xt}^{}+6u^2H_{xt})=0,$$
(27c)
$$\frac{5}{u}H_{tt}^{}+\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{3}{f}+2\right)H_s^{}+\frac{2q_5^2}{uf}(H_{tt}+4H_{yy})\frac{2\omega _5^2}{uf^2}H_s\frac{4\omega _5q_5}{uf^2}H_{xt}=0.$$
(27d)
These systems of differential equations are invariant under three residual gauge transformations. These pure gauge solutions are linear combinations of $`H^I`$, $`H^{II}`$, and $`H^{III}`$ whose explicit forms are

$`H_{xt}^I`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _5,`$ (28a)
$`H_{xx}^I`$ $`=`$ $`2q_5,`$ (28b)
$`H_{tt}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _5,`$ (29a)
$`H_{xt}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`q_5f,`$ (29b)
$`H_{tt}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _5^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^{3/2}}𝑑u}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+2u^3}{f^{1/2}}}\right),`$ (30a)
$`H_{xt}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _5q_5\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^{1/2}}𝑑u}+f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^{3/2}}𝑑u}\right),`$ (30b)
$`H_{xx}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`2q_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^{1/2}}𝑑u}f^{1/2},`$ (30c)
$`H_{yy}^{III}`$ $`=`$ $`f^{1/2}.`$ (30d)
The incoming solution to linear order in $`\omega _2`$ and $`q_2`$ is

$`H_{tt}^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(\omega _5^2,\omega _5q_5,q_5^2),`$ (31a)
$`H_s^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(\omega _5^2,\omega _5q_5,q_5^2),`$ (31b)
$`H_{xt}^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`(1u)^{i\omega _5/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4iq_5}{3}}f(u)+𝒪(\omega _5^2,\omega _5q_5,q_5^2)\right),`$ (31c)
$`H_{yy}^{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`(1u)^{i\omega _5/3}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega _5}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+u+u^2}{3}}+𝒪(\omega _5^2,\omega _5q_5,q_5^2)\right).`$ (31d)
The solution to this system of ODE’s with pure incoming boundary conditions at the horizon is thus a linear combination of

$$H(u)=aH^{inc}(u)+bH^I(u)+cH^{II}(u)+dH^{III}(u).$$
(32)
Solving this system of equations to linear order in $`\omega _5`$ and $`q_5`$, one finds that the constants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ are all proportional to

$$\left(\left(1+\frac{i\omega _5}{3}\mathrm{ln}(3)\right)(5\omega _5^2q_5^2)+\frac{8i\omega _5q_5^2}{3}\right)^1.$$
(33)
In other words, the Green’s function will have a pole at

$$\omega =\pm \frac{q}{\sqrt{5}}\frac{iq^2}{5\pi T}+𝒪(q^3)$$
(34)
corresponding to sound waves with a speed of $`1/\sqrt{5}`$, as expected. Moreover, the damping term matches precisely (6), given that $`\eta /(ϵ+P)=1/4\pi T`$ .

### 4.3 Two-Point Functions from the Boundary Action

Although one can see immediately from the constants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ in the solution to the bulk graviton (22) and (32) that the two-point functions of the stress-energy tensor will have poles that are consistent with sound wave propagation, it is a worthwhile exercise to work out the two-point functions explicitly using the AdS/CFT prescription. One benefit is that we will be able to check the two-point functions calculated from the gravity against the formulae we derived from the Ward identities (12a)–(12j).

In order to use the AdS/CFT prescription, we need to find the boundary action for our gravitational systems. The full action is

$$\frac{R^{10d1}\mathrm{Vol}(𝐒^{10d1})}{2\kappa _{11}^2}\left(d^{d+1}x𝑑u\sqrt{g}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g^B}(2K+a)\right)$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a bulk cosmological constant, $`a`$ is a boundary cosmological constant that is necessary to cancel overall $`H`$ independent divergences in the boundary action, $`K`$ is the extrinsic curvature, and $`g_{ij}^B`$ is the metric on the boundary $`u=0`$. The number $`\mathrm{Vol}(𝐒^n)`$ is the volume of a unit $`n`$-dimensional sphere. For $`AdS_4`$, $`d=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=12/R^2`$, and $`a=8`$, while for $`AdS_7`$, $`d=5`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=15/4R^2`$, and $`a=5`$. The gravitational coupling constant $`\kappa _{11}`$ is related by Dirac quantization to the number of M2- and M5-branes. For the M2-branes, $`R^9\pi ^5=N^{3/2}\kappa _{11}^2\sqrt{2}`$, while for the M5-branes, $`N^3\kappa _{11}^2=2^7\pi ^5R^9`$ . A more detailed discussion of this bulk action can be found in .

Using the equations of motion, the full action can be reduced to a boundary term. This boundary action for the M2-branes is

$`S_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{8}}{\displaystyle }d^3x[88H_{tt}+4H_{xx}+4H_{yy}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}\left(H_{tt}(H_{xx}+H_{yy})+H_{xx}H_{yy}+H_{xt}^2\right)^{}`$
$`(H_{xx}+H_{yy})H_{tt}H_{xx}^2+2H_{xx}H_{yy}H_{yy}^2+2H_{tt}^28H_{xt}^2],`$
where the constant $`P=8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2T^3N^{3/2}/81`$ is the pressure.

For the M5-branes, the boundary action is

$`S_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{8}}{\displaystyle }d^6x[820H_{tt}+4H_{xx}+4H_{aa}`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}\left(4H_{tt}(H_{xx}+H_{aa})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H_{aa}^2+4H_{aa}H_{xx}+4H_{xt}^2\right)^{}`$
$`4H_{tt}(H_{xx}+H_{aa})H_{xx}^2+2H_{aa}H_{xx}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{aa}^2+5H_{tt}^220H_{xt}^2]`$
where $`P=2^6\pi ^3N^3T^6/3^7`$. We have defined $`H_{aa}_{i=2}^5H_{x^ix^i}=4H_{yy}`$.

Before looking at the two-point functions, we make two easy and reassuring observations. First, the constant term in the boundary actions is exactly the free energy density, i.e. minus the pressure, multiplied by the volume, as it should be . As an independent check, the pressure can be calculated from the entropy $`S`$ using the fact that $`S=P/T`$. The entropy for M2- and M5-branes was first determined in .

The second observation concerns the one-point functions. By definition

$$T_\mu ^\nu =2\frac{\delta S_b}{\delta H_{\mu \nu }^0}.$$
(38)
Thus we see that $`T^{tt}=Pd=ϵ`$ and $`T^{ij}=P\delta ^{ij}`$ as they should.

The two-point functions are defined similarly:

$$T_\mu ^\nu T_\lambda ^\rho =4\frac{\delta ^2S_b}{\delta H_{\mu \nu }^0\delta H_{\lambda \rho }^0}.$$
(39)
To calculate the two-point functions, we will need to use our series expansion for $`H_K`$, (22) and (32), substituting explicit expressions for the $`H^{}`$ in the boundary action. Some details of this calculation have been included as an appendix. We find that the resulting two-point functions match the predictions from the Ward identities. In particular, we find (13) with $`G_1`$ given precisely by (12a)–(12j).

## 5 Conclusion

We have succeeded in calculating components of the stress-energy tensor two-point functions relevant for sound propagation on M2- and M5-branes in the hydrodynamic limit. These two-point functions have poles in the complex frequency plane in precisely the locations predicted by hydrodynamics. Moreover, the two-point functions calculated from gravity satisfy the field theory conformal Ward identities, providing an elaborate check of the AdS/CFT correspondence at finite temperature. The agreement between gravity and field theory gives further support for the Lorentzian signature prescription of  for calculating correlation functions.

Presumably, a general statement can be made that correlation functions calculated from Schwarzschild black holes in $`AdS`$ of an arbitrary dimension will show evidence of sound propagation. We have checked this statement for M2- and M5-branes. Previously, the statement had been checked only for D3-branes .

To see a familiar phenomenon such as sound emerge from a poorly understood theory, such as those that are meant to describe M-branes, is in the author’s mind interesting and remarkable. In the M5-brane case, there is not even a Lagrangian description, and yet we can understand sound waves.

An interesting direction to pursue is gauge/gravity duality for non-conformal field theories in the hydrodynamic limit. The diffusion constants and viscosities calculated should exhibit a scale dependence. One candidate gauge/gravity duality where we have high temperature asymptotics is the finite temperature Klebanov-Tseytlin solution . We leave investigation of these issues for future work.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank A. Starinets especially for some very helpful suggestions. I would also like to thank D. T. Son and J. Walcher for conversations and correspondence. Finally, I would like to thank O. DeWolfe and N. Drukker for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.

## Appendix A The Bulk Graviton and Correlation Functions

We present here in more detail some intermediate steps for calculating stress-energy two-point functions for M-branes.

By assumption, the bulk graviton components $`H_{xt}`$, $`H_{tt}`$, $`H_s`$, and $`H_{yy}`$ take on the values $`H_{xt}^0`$, $`H_{tt}^0`$, $`H_s^0`$, and $`H_{yy}^0`$ at the boundary $`u=0`$. However, to calculate the two-point functions, we also need an expression for $`H(u)^{}`$ at the boundary. Define $`P_{\mu \nu }=H_{\mu \nu }Q`$ where $`Q=2\omega _2^2q_2^2+\frac{1}{3}iq_2^2\omega _2`$. Then, for the M2-branes, from the solution to (22), we find

$`P_{tt}^{}|_{u=ϵ}=P_s^{}|_{u=ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^2\left(3(2\omega _2q_2H_{xt}^0q_2^2H_{tt}^0+\omega _2^2H_s^0)+iq_2^2\omega _2H_{yy}^0\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (40a)
$`P_{yy}^{}|_{u=ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{2}}(3(2\omega _2q_2H_{xt}^0q_2^2H_{tt}^0+\omega _2^2H_s^0)2i\omega _2^2q_2H_{xt}^0`$ (40c)
$`+2i\omega _2(\omega _2^2q_2^2)H_{yy}^0i\omega _2^3H_s^0+iq_2^2\omega _2H_{tt}^0)+\mathrm{}`$
$`P_{xt}^{}|_{u=ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{2}}(3q_2(2q_2H_{xt}^02\omega _2H_{tt}^0+\omega _2H_s^0)`$ (40e)
$`2iq_2^2\omega _2H_{xt}^0iq_2\omega _2^2H_s^0+2iq_2\omega _2^2H_{yy}^0)+\mathrm{}`$
The ellipses denote higher order terms in $`ϵ`$, $`\omega _2`$, and $`q_2`$. The leading term in $`ϵ`$ is precisely of the form to cancel the leading $`1/ϵ^2`$ divergence in the boundary action (36).

For the M5-branes, there is an analogous expression for $`H(u)^{}`$. Defining $`P_{\mu \nu }H_{\mu \nu }Q`$, where now $`Q=5\omega _5^2q_5^2+\frac{8}{3}iq_5^2\omega _5`$, one finds from (32) that

$`P_{tt}^{}|_{u=ϵ}=P_s^{}|_{u=ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}(2\omega _5q_5H_{xt}^0q_5^2H_{tt}^0+\omega _5^2H_s^0)+20iq_5^2\omega _5H_{yy}^0\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (41a)
$`P_{yy}^{}|_{u=ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^2({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(2\omega _5q_5H_{xt}^0q_5^2H_{tt}^0+\omega _5^2H_s^0)+5i\omega _5(\omega _5^2q_5^2)H_{yy}^0`$ (41c)
$`i\omega _5^3H_s^0+iq_5^2\omega _5H_{tt}^02i\omega _5^2q_5H_{xt}^0)+\mathrm{}`$
$`P_{xt}^{}|_{u=ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^2({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}q_5(2q_5H_{xt}^05\omega _5H_{tt}^0+\omega _5H_s^0)`$ (41e)
$`8iq_5^2\omega _5H_{xt}^04iq_5\omega _5^2H_s^0+20iq_5\omega _5^2H_{yy}^0)+\mathrm{}`$
The next step in calculating the stress-energy two-point functions is to insert these expressions for $`H(u)^{}`$ into the boundary action (36) or (37). The terms in the boundary action that produce the two-point functions can be represented schematically as $`H^2`$ and $`HH^{}`$. The $`H^2`$ pieces produce constant contact terms. The $`HH^{}`$ terms, on the other hand, are responsible for the sound wave pole structure.

There is an apparent ambiguity how to proceed. Looking more closely, it should not matter at the level of the action whether the $`HH^{}`$ are written as $`H(k,u)H(k,u)^{}`$ or $`H(k,u)H(k,u)^{}`$. However, sending $`kk`$ sends our solution $`H(u)H(u)^{}`$.

Recall that according to , we should be substituting $`H_K(u)=(1+n)H(u)nH(u)^{}`$ into the boundary action, and not just $`H(u)`$. $`H_K(u)`$ is invariant under the transformation $`kk`$. Rather than carry these cumbersome thermal factors $`n`$ along, we will adopt the equivalent procedure of always writing $`HH^{}`$ as $`H(k,u)H(k,u)^{}`$ and using the simpler incoming solution $`H(u)`$. Let $`S_b`$ be the resulting boundary action. We can reconstruct $`G_F`$ by taking functional derivatives of $`(1+n)S_bnS_b^{}`$ instead of just $`S_b`$.

In this spirit, for the M2-branes, the $`HH^{}`$ pieces of the boundary action become

$`S_b|_{HH^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{8}}(2\omega _2^2q_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}iq_2^2\omega _2)^1(12\omega _2q_2(2H_{xt}^0H_{tt}^0H_{xt}^0H_{xx}^0H_{xt}^0H_{yy}^0)`$ (42)
$`+3\omega _2^2\left(2H_{tt}^0H_{xx}^0+2H_{tt}^0H_{yy}^0(H_{xx}^0)^2(H_{yy}^0)^22H_{xx}^0H_{yy}^0\right)`$
$`+3q_2^2\left(H_{tt}^0H_{xx}^0+H_{tt}^0H_{yy}^04(H_{xt}^0)^22(H_{tt}^0)^2\right)`$
$`+iq_2^2\omega _2\left(3H_{yy}^0H_{tt}^02(H_{yy}^0)^2+4(H_{xt}^0)^2H_{tt}^0H_{xx}^0\right)`$
$`+4i\omega _2^2q_2H_{xt}^0(H_{xx}^0H_{yy}^0)+i\omega _2^3(H_{xx}^0H_{yy}^0)^2).`$
The quadratic terms in $`H`$ are tacitly assumed to be of the form $`H(\omega ,q)H(\omega ,q)`$. Also, the integral over $`\omega `$ and $`q`$ has been suppressed.

For the M5-branes, the $`HH^{}`$ piece of the boundary action is similarly

$`S_b|_{HH^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{4}}(5\omega _5^2q_5^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}iq_5^2\omega _2)^1(12\omega _5q_5(5H_{xt}^0H_{tt}^0H_{xt}^0H_{xx}^04H_{xt}^0H_{yy}^0)`$ (43)
$`+3\omega _5^2\left(5H_{tt}^0H_{xx}^0+20H_{tt}^0H_{yy}^0(H_{xx}^0)^216(H_{yy}^0)^28H_{xx}^0H_{yy}^0\right)`$
$`+3q_5^2\left(H_{tt}^0H_{xx}^0+4H_{tt}^0H_{yy}^04(H_{xt}^0)^25(H_{tt}^0)^2\right)`$
$`+8iq_5^2\omega _2\left(6H_{yy}^0H_{tt}^05(H_{yy}^0)^2+4(H_{xt}^0)^2H_{tt}^0H_{xx}^0\right)`$
$`+32i\omega _5^2q_5H_{xt}^0(H_{xx}^0H_{yy}^0)+8i\omega _5^3(H_{xx}^0H_{yy}^0)^2).`$
Recall that $`H_{yy}=H_{x^2x^2}=H_{x^3x^3}=H_{x^4x^4}=H_{x^5x^5}`$ for these M5-branes.