roughly half of the known short - period black - hole binaries have low - mass companions ( lee , brown & wijers 2002 ) .
however , it has been realized for more than a decade now that such systems are difficult to form ( see the discussion in podsiadlowski , rappaport & han 2003 [ prh ] and further references therein ) .
the problem is that , in order to produce a short - period system ( i.e. , @xmath4 hrs ) with a low - mass donor star , the progenitor system has to pass through a common - envelope ( ce ) phase where the binary s period is reduced from a typical period of several years to less than a few days . in the standard model for ce evolution ( paczyski 1976 )
, this requires that the orbital energy released in the spiral - in process is sufficient to eject the massive envelope of the primary . for a low - mass companion ( i.e. , @xmath5 ) , this is energetically difficult , if not impossible , in particular considering the large binding energies of the massive envelope of the primaries ( dewi & tauris 2001 ; prh ) .
this problem has led to the suggestion of a number of more exotic formation scenarios for low - mass black - hole binaries , e.g. , involving a triple scenario ( eggleton & verbunt 1986 ) or the formation of the companion from a disrupted envelope ( podsiadlowski , cannon & rees 1995 ; prh ) . alternatively
, the low - mass black - hole binaries could descend from intermediate - mass systems ( justham , rappaport & podsiadlowski 2006 ) , as is the case for the majority of low - mass neutron - star binaries ( pfahl , rappaport & podsiadlowski 2003 ) . in this paper
, we present a new mechanism for the ejection of the common envelope : `` explosive common - envelope ejection '' , involving nuclear rather than orbital energy , which can be highly efficient in ejecting a massive envelope even if the companion is a relatively low - mass star .    a particularly interesting black - hole binary is the well studied system gro j165540 ( nova scorpii 1994 ) .
it has an orbital period of 2.6d and a black hole with a mass @xmath6 ( beer & podsiadlowski 2002 ) .
israelian et al .  ( 1999 ) claimed that the secondary in this system has been highly enriched with the products of explosive nucleosynthesis ( e.g. , mg , si , s , ti ) produced in the supernova explosion that produced the black hole . based on the actual abundance ratios , podsiadlowski et al .
( 2002 ) found some tentative evidence that these are better explained by an energetic supernova explosion , a hypernova , with a typical ejecta energy of @xmath7ergs ( i.e. , 10 times the energy in a ` typical ' supernova ) .
this may suggest that the formation of the black hole in this system could have been accompanied by a long - duration gamma - ray burst ( lgrb ) .
however , in this case it is puzzling why the black - hole progenitor would have been rapidly rotating as required in the collapsar model for lgrbs ( woosley 1993 ; macfadyen & woosley 1999 ) since the core of the primary should have been spun down rather than have been spun up during its evolution ( heger , woosley & spruit 2005 ) . as we will show later in this paper , in the case of explosive ce ejection , this problem does not arise , possibly linking the formation of compact black - hole binaries having low - mass secondaries to lgrbs .
this process of explosive ce was discovered in a systematic study of the slow merger of massive stars ( ivanova 2002 ; ivanova & podsiadlowski 2003 ; ivanova & podsiadlowski 2010 ) , where it was found that , in some cases in the late stage of the spiral - in process , hydrogen - rich material could be mixed into the helium - burning shell leading to a thermonuclear runaway which released enough energy to eject both the hydrogen and the helium envelope ( see figure  1 for a schematic representation ) , possibly explaining why to date all supernovae associated with lgrbs appear to be type ic supernovae ( i.e. , supernovae without hydrogen and helium in their spectrum ; cf .
podsiadlowski et al .
2004 ) .    in this paper
, we will first discuss the numerical method in section  2 , and the physics of the process of explosive ce ejection in section  3 . in section
4 we apply it to the formation of low - mass black - hole binaries and lgrbs , and end with a broader discussion in section  5 .
to model the merging of the two stars , we used a modified one - dimensional henyey - type stellar evolution code ( based on kippenhahn , weigert & hofmeister 1967 ) , which has recently been updated ( podsiadlowski , rappaport & pfahl 2002 ) .
it uses opal opacities ( rogers & iglesias 1992 ) , supplemented by molecular opacities from alexander & ferguson ( 1994 ) at low temperatures and a mixing - lenth parameter @xmath8 .
following the calibration by schrder , pols & eggleton ( 1997 ) and pols et al .
( 1997 ) , we generally assume 0.25 pressure scale heights of convective overshooting , unless stated otherwise .    in the calculation of the spiral - in and merger phase we followed the angular - momentum transport in the envelope of the primary , using prescriptions similar to those given by heger & langer ( 1998 ) , where the source of the angular momentum is the orbital decay of the immersed binary .
this is important for determining the averaged distribution of the heating sources inside the common envelope .
the envelope heating is provided by the dissipation of the kinetic energy of the differentially rotating shells due to viscous friction .
note that this energy is not necessarily released in the same place where the angular momentum has been deposited initially . for modelling the latter
, we included a prescription that simulates the frictional energy input during the spiral - in phase of the companion star similar to the prescription given by meyer & meyer - hofmeister ( 1979 ) ( also see podsiadlowski 2001 ) .
once the immersed secondary fills its own critical potential surface ( i.e. , its equivalent `` roche lobe '' defined by the effective potential of the core - secondary pair ) within the common envelope , we simulate the mass transfer guided by the detailed stream
core simulations presented in ivanova , podsiadlowski & spruit ( 2002 ) .
we use their equation ( 28 ) to determine the depth to which the stream penetrates the hydrogen - exhausted core of the primary and vary the parameter @xmath9 to take into account uncertainties in the modelling of the stream  core impact .
defines the stream penetration efficiency and depends on the amount of entropy that is generated in the stream
core impact : a larger @xmath9 corresponds to the case where the ambient medium near the core has a larger pressure and temperature gradient resulting in the generation of stronger shocks and faster dissipation of the stream . ]    in each time step , we determine how much mass is lost from the secondary and deposit this material with the appropriate entropy at the bottom of the stream . in this phase , the mass - transfer rate from the secondary is still determined by the frictional angular - momentum loss the immersed binary experiences , and reaches up to 100m@xmath10yr@xmath3 in the final phase .
since hydrogen is deposited in layers with temperatures @xmath11k , an extended nuclear reaction network , including all important weak interactions , is included using the reaclib library ( thielemann , truran & arnould 1986 ) .
this library provides the data for reaction rates which can be applied for a wide range of temperatures ( @xmath12k ) for all elements up to @xmath13kr . for heavier elements
, the library has been updated for neutron - capture cross - sections and half - lifes of beta - decays for the s - elements from @xmath14rb up to @xmath15bi .
the data for these cross - sections were taken from the work of beer , voss and winters ( 1992 ) and have been interpolated using the method of minimal squares to fit the formulae for reaction rates used in reaclib .
the data for the half lives of the beta - decays were taken from newman ( 1978 ) .
we note that , in explosive phases , the nuclear timescales of many reactions are shorter than the convective turnover timescales in convective regions , and thus the assumption of homogeneous mixing in the convective layers is not valid . to treat the time - dependent nuclear burning in convective zones
, we therefore use a modified version of the two - stream formalism developed by cannon ( 1993 ) .
to explore the conditions for explosive common - envelope ejection , we performed a detailed numerical study of the merger of a 18@xmath17 primary with secondaries in the range of 15@xmath17 . in all cases
, we assumed that the spiral - in phase started when the primary had completed helium core burning and was ascending the red - supergiant branch for the second time ( so - called case c mass transfer ; lauterborn 1970 ) .
figure  2 shows the results of a typical calculation which illustrates the evolution from the initial spiral - in phase to the point at which the envelope is ejected . to test the effects of convective overshooting
, we used models with 0.25 pressure scale heights of convective overshooting and models without convective overshooting , where the former produces a h - exhausted core of 6.8@xmath17 , 1.3@xmath17 larger than the latter . to examine the uncertainties due the modelling of the stream
core interaction , we use two different parameters for the entropy generation in equation  ( 28 ) of ivanova et al .
( 2002 ) , @xmath18 for low - entropy generation and @xmath19 for high - entropy generation .
we note that , in the present study , we did not model how rotation of the core affects the penetration depth ( see section 5.3.2 of ivanova et al .  [ 2002 ] ) and how this changes during the stream  core interaction phase .
we do not expect that this would change our conclusions significantly .          at the end of the spiral - in
, when the secondary starts to fill its roche lobe within the common envelope , the secondary itself is located partially within the outer convective zone ( ocz ) of the primary , although the inner lagrangian point , @xmath20 , is within the radiative zone . the layer of envelope material at the position of the secondary has expanded because of the frictional energy input from the spiral - in and has a density roughly two orders of magnitude less than before the spiral - in , with a typical range from about @xmath21 to about @xmath22 .
the spiral - in does not affect the structure of the primary s core ( the co core plus the surrounding he shell ) , it only affects the structure of the radiative hydrogen zone between the ocz and the he shell ( @xmath23 ) , since the upper part of this zone has been heated and may have become convective .
for example , in the case of a 5@xmath17 donor inside an 18@xmath17 primary , the total mass of the ocz is increased by @xmath24 , while , in the case of a @xmath25 donor , it is only increased by @xmath26 .
it should be noted that , in the first case , the initial @xmath23 is 0.13@xmath17 for our standard case with convective overshooting . without convective overshooting , it would be @xmath27 .
the corresponding radial sizes of this zone ( @xmath28 ) are @xmath29 cm and @xmath30 cm for the case with and without convective overshooting , respectively .
once the stream leaves the secondary , the depth of its penetration depends on the initial entropy of the stream material and on how much this entropy is modified during the stream s penetration into the primary s core by shocks ( ivanova et al .
the latter is a function of the density contrast between the stream and the surrounding matter and depends on how strongly the medium itself is stratified .
a larger density gradient in the primary s material near the stream leads to more entropy generation in the stream .
the stream will stop its fall when the ambient pressure becomes comparable to the stream pressure .    in the test cases ,
the penetration depth is two times smaller in the model with large entropy generation ( with @xmath19 ) than in the model with @xmath18 .
the distance to the he shell from @xmath20 is also larger . for a secondary that is
more massive than @xmath31 , the stream is unable to penetrate into the he shell since the density contrast between the stream and the ambient medium is lower and the stream entropy higher .          in the layer where the hydrogen - rich stream penetrates into the helium - dominated layer ( see the middle and right panels of figure  2 ) , the stream entropy is higher than that of the surrounding material . as a consequence ,
both the entropy and the hydrogen mass fraction @xmath32 have negative gradients .
this leads to the formation of a local convective zone that rapidly expands outwards .
as the stream continues to hit the core , it penetrates progressively deeper into the core for several reasons : first , the entropy of the donor material decreases as material from deeper inside the star is transferred .
second , the outer layer of the he shell starts to expand , reducing the density in the outer part of the he shell .
third , the mass transfer rate steadily goes up , and , fourth , the @xmath20 point moves closer to the helium core . in the case where the initial stream does not penetrate
deeply enough into the he - rich layer and is unable to create a negative entropy gradient in the ambient medium , a convective zone still develops in the region where the stream is being dissolved , but more slowly ( the stream s entropy is still higher than the ambient medium and stream energy is being deposited , further increasing the entropy ) .
this convective zone propagates inwards as the stream penetrates deeper .
we found that in some models this zone can connect with the ocz ; however , it either never penetrates deeply enough to connect to the convective helium - burning shell , or it starts efficient steady hydrogen burning , leading to a drop of the temperature in the he convective shell .      based on these simulations , it seems that the main condition for experiencing explosive ce ejection ( ecee ) is that the stream is able to penetrate deeply enough into the he - rich zone from the very beginning such that both a negative entropy and a negative composition gradient are created .
this favours models with convective overshooting and low - entropy generation .
it also favours lower - mass secondaries with lower entropies .
for example , for @xmath33 , after leaving @xmath20 , the stream can penetrate as much as 2.5@xmath34 of the core , while for @xmath35 it stops further from the primary center , passing through only 1@xmath34 .
an alternative criterion is that @xmath23 is small : @xmath36 .
based on our test calculations , we conclude that the conditions for a successful explosive common - envelope ejection are satisfied for secondary masses up to 3@xmath17 in the models with convective overshooting
. a lower limit on the secondary mass is roughly given by 1@xmath17 where the energy released in the spiral - in does not provide enough energy to lead to an expansion of the envelope ( i.e. lead to a `` slow '' merger ) ; in that case the merger is expected to occur on a dynamical timescale .
with these constraints to guide us , we find that the ecee conditions are found for primaries with masses up to 40@xmath17 .
if the minimum mass for black - hole formation is 25@xmath17 , this leads to co cores in the range of 6.513@xmath17 ( using our standard convective overshooting parameter ) .    the amount of mass transferred from the secondary before the ce ejection also depends on the secondary s mass : it is about 1m@xmath1 for a 3@xmath17 secondary , 0.8@xmath17 for a 2@xmath17 secondary and 0.20.3@xmath17 for a 1@xmath17 secondary ( but this depends somewhat on the stream entropy parameter ) .      while the initial spiral - in and the early merger phase take place on a timescale of @xmath37yr , once the h - rich stream connects to the helium - core - burning shell
, the evolution accelerates .
the overall duration of the explosive phase is @xmath38yr , although 90% of the energy is released in the last few days . at the end of our calculations , the outer parts of the core
expand with a velocity exceeding the local escape velocity , and typically 0.030.06@xmath17 of stream material has been burned explosively .
the nuclear energy that has been released ( @xmath39 ergs ) exceeds the binding energy of both the he - rich layer and the common envelope by about a factor of 2 .    by the time the envelope is ejected , we find that the co core has been moderately spun - up by the accretion of angular momentum and transport into the core during the pre - explosive core - accretion phase .
the characteristic specific angular momentum of the core is @xmath40@xmath41s@xmath3 , at the low end of what is required in the collapsar model for lgrbs .
however , further spin - up is possible , since even after the ejection of the envelope , mass transfer is likely to continue and the system is close enough for tidal spin - up to operate.h ) , the core can be spun up significantly on a timescale of @xmath42yr ( also see brown et al .
however , unlike the case considered by detmers et al .
( 2008 ) , the remaining lifetime of the primary after case c mass transfer is short enough that wind mass loss will not cause significant widening of the system which would then tidally spin down the star again . ]
indeed , despite the ejection of the helium shell , the system does not widen appreciably , if at all , because there is still enough frictional angular - momentum loss to keep the secondary in roche - lobe contact .
this suggests that the system will continue to transfer mass after the ce ejection .
this mass transfer occurs on a thermal timescale since the secondary is highly out of thermal equilibrium , in fact has a radius smaller than its equilibrium radius , and will try to expand towards a new thermal - equilibrium stage .
the remaining evolution of the primary s co core to core collapse is expected to be of order a few @xmath43 to at most @xmath44yr ( in the 18@xmath17 simulation it was 3000yr ) .
we note that this time is significantly longer than it would have taken the core to core collapse without the ejection of the he layer because of the signifiant core expansion and cooling .
in order to assess the importance of ecee events for lgrbs and low - mass black - hole binaries , we first estimate in this section the expected rate of these events and then present detailed binary population synthesis results that simulate the properties of the resulting black - hole ( bh ) binaries .     the cumulative rate for ecee events as a function of the minimum primary mass required .
the black curves assume a maximum primary mass of 40@xmath45 whilst the grey curves take a maximum primary mass of 30@xmath45 .
the solid curves assume a flat initial mass - ratio distribution ( @xmath46 ) , the dotted curves use @xmath47 .
the light grey shading indicates a plausible range for the minimum mass of a single star which can form a black hole at solar metallicity . for these estimates we assumed that 1% of binaries have an orbital period that leads to case c mass transfer
. the actual rate could be higher by an order of magnitude at low metallicity , and the minimum mass for bh formation could be lower .
, width=317 ]      using the results discussed in the previous section , it is straightforward to estimate the fraction of binaries that experience explosive ce ejection .
this depends mainly on the secondary mass and the condition that the systems experience case c mass transfer .
figure [ fig : imftimesimrd ] shows the cumulative rate for ecee events as a function of the minimum primary mass for different assumptions about the maximum mass of the primary and different mass - ratio distributions . here
, we assume that 1% of all binaries experience case c mass transfer at solar metallicity .
the primary masses @xmath48 are chosen from an initial mass function @xmath49 ( kroupa , tout & gilmore 1993 ) .
the rates are nomalised to a core - collapse sn rate of 1 per century ( i.e. , assume that one star more massive than @xmath50 is formed per century in a typical galaxy ) .
this probably underestimates the core - collapse supernova rate in the milky way ( cappellaro , evans & turatto 1999 ) .
we also assumed that all massive stars form in binaries ( kobulnicky & fryer 2007 ) , with a distribution of initial separations @xmath51 that is flat in @xmath52 between 3 and @xmath53 .
a significant source of uncertainty in the ecee rates is the initial mass - ratio distribution @xmath54 , where @xmath55 is the mass ratio and @xmath56 is the mass of the secondary . in figure
[ fig : imftimesimrd ] we consider a distribution where @xmath57 and one where @xmath58 .    in using the ecee mechanism to produce short - period black - hole x - ray binaries ,
we require the primary to form a bh .
the light grey shading in figure  [ fig : imftimesimrd ] indicates the expected minimum mass for black - hole formation , which is generally believed to be in the range of 2025@xmath17 ( see , e.g. , fryer & kalogera 2001 and further references in prh ) .
black - hole formation is also generally assumed to be a requirement for the formation of lgrbs , though we note that rapid rotation at core - collapse for lower mass cores may lead to the formation of magnetars ( e.g. , thompson & duncan 1993 ; akiyama et al .
magnetar formation has also been proposed as a channel for lgrbs ( e.g. , wheeler , hflich & wang 2000 ; burrows et al .  2007 ; uzdensky & macfadyen 2007 ; bucciantini et al .
2008 ) , which would increase the potential lgrb event rate from this proposed mechanism . because of the steepness of the primary mass function , the upper limit of 40@xmath45 indicated by our hydrodynamic calculations is of lesser importance to the rates .
the fraction of binary systems that experience case c mass transfer is strongly dependent on the metallicity and the assumptions about the wind - loss rate from the primary star ( see justham & podsiadlowski 2010 ) , but for z=0.02 , 1% is a reasonable estimate . on the other hand , if the nieuwenhuijzen & de jager ( 1990 ) wind - loss rates are correct , only primary stars with masses @xmath59 can experience case c mass transfer .
this mass goes up to @xmath60 if the nieuwenhuijzen & de jager rate is reduced by a factor @xmath61 , to take into account that the the empirical rates are not corrected for the effects of wind clumping ( e.g. , moffat & carmelle 1994 ; fullerton , massa & prinja 2006 ) .
however , as figue  3 shows , the uncertainty in this upper mass limit is not a significant contribution to the uncertainty in the ecee rate .
hence , if we only allow primary masses of @xmath62 to produce lgrbs through the ecee channel , and take @xmath63 , we obtain a lgrb rate of @xmath2 gal@xmath3 yr@xmath3 .
this is consistent , though at the lower end , of recent lgrb rate estimates ( e.g. , podsiadlowski et al .
there is some evidence that lgrbs prefer lower metallicity ( e.g. , fruchter et al .
2006 ; wolf & podsiadlowski 2007 ; modjaz et al .  2008 ) .
this is consistent with the ecee scenario , since the rate of case c mass transfer increases with decreasing metallicity , by up to at least a factor of 10 at extremely low metallicity ( @xmath64 ; justham & podsiadlowski 2010 ) . given the uncertainties in these estimates , we conclude that the ecee channel could account for at least a significant subset of the lgrb rate and possibly all of it .
ecee links lgrbs with short - period black - hole x - ray binaries .
wijers ( 1996 ) and romani ( 1998 ) estimated the galactic population of short - period bh xrbs to be at least @xmath65 . for a birthrate of @xmath2 gal@xmath3 yr@xmath3
, this requires a plausible mean system lifetime of @xmath66gyr .
this assumes that the majority of systems will not be disrupted by the supernova explosion and will reach roche - lobe contact in a reasonable time . in the following subsection
we simulate the properties of the predicted x - ray binary population from this channel .      for the population synthesis calculation , we randomly selected a set of @xmath67 binaries with initial primary masses @xmath68 between 25 and 40@xmath69 and initial secondary masses @xmath70 between 1 and 3@xmath69 .
we again adopted an initial mass function @xmath71 and a flat mass - ratio distribution .
after the ce ejection , the secondary is assumed to be filling its roche lobe , although in reality it may be slightly underfilling it because of the mass loss associated with the ce ejection .    the core mass of the primary @xmath72 can be related to the initial primary mass according to the simple estimate @xmath73 ( hurley et al .
this yields post - ecee remnant masses in the range of 9.317.5@xmath17 for initial primary masses between 25 and 40@xmath17 .
the secondary , having lost mass during the ce phase , leaves a donor star of mass @xmath74 , where @xmath75 ( in accordance with the results in sect .
the orbital period and component masses are assumed to be unchanged until the core explodes as a supernova .
after the supernova , the core becomes a bh ; we determine the mass of the bh using the results of fryer & kalogera ( 2001 ) , as formulated in belczynski et al .
( 2008 ) .
mass loss from the system and any kick imparted to the black hole during the supernova will change the orbital period and eccentricity ( see , e.g. , brandt & podsiadlowksi 1995 ; kalogera 1996 ) .
we assume that the supernova kicks are randomly oriented , and sample the kick distributions assuming that it can be described by a maxwellian distribution with a velocity dispersion @xmath76 ( for a discussion of supernova kicks in the formation of black holes , see brandt , podsiadlowski & sigurdsson 1995 ; prh ) .
we explored a range of values for @xmath77 , including zero kick velocity and kick velocities with the same kick _ momentum _ as found for single neutron stars ( hobbs et al .
2005 ) .
if the system is not disrupted in the supernova , we assume that it circularises whilst conserving angular momentum .
we also allow the system to survive even if the roche - lobe radius of the donor star is as small as 90% of the zams radius for the post - ecee donor mass to take into account the fact that the secondary is likely to be still undersized and expanding at this stage , as indicated by our ecee calculations .
we assume that a short period of mass transfer driven by this expansion will increase the orbital period of the system until the star is in equilibrium , and assume , for simplicity , that the mass lost by the donor during that phase is negligible .
the donor star is now assumed to be still essentially unevolved .
we weight the output of this algorithm by the initial mass function and initial mass - ratio distribution .
this produces a probability distribution for the formation of post - supernova black - hole binaries . in order to simulate the population of black - hole x - ray binaries , we combine these formation probabilities with a grid of binary evolution sequences .      to follow the x - ray binary phase , we calculated a grid of 936 binary evolution sequences using an updated version of eggleton s stellar evolution code ( e.g. , eggleton 1971 ; pols et al .
1995 ) and a metallicity of 0.02 .
this grid was equally spaced in 13 donor masses ( 0.8 to 2.0@xmath69 ) , 13 accretor masses ( 5 to 17@xmath45 ) , and 12 values for the initial period . the first model is placed into contact at the start of its evolution , with an orbital period @xmath78 .
the second begins in a binary with @xmath79=1.1 , and the remaining ten orbital periods are equally spaced in @xmath80 between 0.1 and 1.0 ( where @xmath81 is the orbital period at which the donor is filling its roche lobe when unevolved ) .
is a function of donor mass , accretor mass and donor radius . due to angular - momentum loss ,
the models with initial @xmath82 have shorter periods by the time they reach contact . ]
the evolution of the systems is driven by angular - momentum loss .
we include losses due to both gravitational wave radiation and magnetic braking , adopting the formalism of ivanova & taam ( 2003 ) for secondaries with @xmath83 ( see also ivanova & kalogera 2006 ) .
we consider only systems which reach contact before the end of the main sequence and have a maximum age for each system of 13 gyr ; we varied this maximum age and found it to have a relatively minor effect .
the formation probabilities produced by our population synthesis are all distributed among the eight members of the three - dimensional grid nearest to them , i.e. to a cube of gridpoints around each system , using trilinear interpolation to determine the weights attributed to each grid point . each sequence in our binary evolution grid then posesses a formation likelihood , and the grid sequences are binned and combined in proportion to these formation probabilities . within each sequence ,
the statistical weight of each evolutionary timestep is proportional to the duration of that timestep .
this leads to a ` steady - state ' x - ray binary population , assumed to be representative of the distribution in the milky way at the current epoch .
orbital period distribution ( upper panel ) and distribution of effective temperatures of the secondaries for two population synthesis simulations .
the thick grey curves assume a supernova kick dispersion of @xmath84 , and the solid black curves correspond to no kick .
both simulations assume a flat initial mass ratio distribution ( @xmath85 ) ( changing this to @xmath58 makes little difference to the shape of the distribution , but changes the overall normalisation ) . in the top panel ,
the dashed curve represents a histogram of the orbital periods of known systems ( also marked with arrows ) .
the normalisation of the histogram of observed systems is arbitrary .
the shapes of the period distributions are reasonably well matched .
the lower panel shows the median effective temperature ( solid curves ) and upper and lower quartiles ( broken curves ) of the populations as a function of orbital period .
we also mark the maximum effective temperatures consistent with the spectral types of the known systems ( crosses with arrows).,width=317 ]      figure [ fig : teffperioddists ] shows a selection of our population synthesis calculations , which reproduces the shape of the observed orbital - period distribution fairly well , for @xmath86 and for no kick .
however , the donor temperatures do not easily match the observations , unless either our model effective temperatures or our conversion from spectral type to effective temperatures is incorrect .
note that these donor temperatures give a significantly better match to the observations than systems which initially contained intermediate - mass donors would provide ( see , e.g. , justham et al .
2006 ) , and that this apparent mismatch in effective temperature seems to be a problem for all models , unless the donor stars in short - period bh binaries are pre - main sequence stars ( ivanova 2006 ) .
hence this problem with effective temperatures appears to be a generic problem for models of these systems .
in this paper , we have presented a new mechanism for the ejection of a common envelope where the energy source is not orbital energy but nuclear energy .
this provides a new channel to produce plausible progenitors of short - period black - hole binaries and long - duration grbs .
we have also demonstrated that this scenario may be able to explain both the origin and the main properties of short - period black - hole binaries , such as the period distribution , although the distribution of spectral types is still not fully satisfactory .
two of the most attractive features of the explosive ce ejection scenario are that ( 1 ) it leads to the ejection of both the hydrogen and the helium layer , explaining why all lgrb supernovae to - date have been classified as type ic supernovae , and ( 2 ) this ejection occurs late in the evolution of the star ; hence the progenitor will only experience a short wolf - rayet phase , in which it will not be spun down significantly by wind mass loss .
this may also explain why extended wolf - rayet wind bubbles are not being found around lgrbs ; e.g. , in the case of grb 021004 , van marle , langer & garcia - segura ( 2005 ) found that the wolf - rayet phase had to last less than @xmath87yr ; this is consistent with the explosive ce - ejection scenario , since it always requires late case c mass transfer .
this also predicts that such wolf - rayet bubbles are terminated by a dense shell from the ejected common envelope .
our rate estimate for this channel ( @xmath88yr@xmath3 ) implies that this can produce a significant fraction of all lgrbs ; this rate should be higher at lower metallicity , because case c mass transfer is expected to be more common at lower metallicity . unlike some of the single - star progenitor models for lgrbs ( yoon & langer 2005 ; woosley & heger 2006 ; yoon , langer & norman 2006 )
, lgrbs may occur even at solar metallicity , but they are expected to be more common at low metallicity . indeed , there is some evidence now that lgrbs can also occur in super - solar host galaxies ( see , e.g. , levesque et al .
the different metallicity biases may provide a possible way of distinguishing between these two different scenarios .
explosive ce ejection also operates for lower - mass primaries that are expected to produce neutron stars rather than black holes .
it is tempting to associate these with rapidly rotating neutron stars and possibly magnetars , for which sn 2006aj , which was associated with the x - ray flash grb 060218 , may provide an observed example in nature ( mazzali et al .
2006 ) .
ni gratefully acknowledges support from the nserc of canada and from the canada research chairs program .
sj is partially supported by the national science foundation of china under grant numbers 10903001 and 10950110322 , and by the chinese postdoc fund ( award number 20090450005 ) .
akiyama s. wheeler j. c. , meier d. l. , lichtenstadt i. , 2003 , apj , 584 , 965 alexander d. r. , ferguson j. w. 1994 , apj , 437 , 879 beer h. , voss , f. , winters , r. r. , 1992 .
apjs , 80 , 403 beer m. e. , podsiadlowski ph . , 2002 , mnras , 331 , 351 belczynski k. , et al . , 2008 , apjs , 174 , 223 brandt w. n. , podsiadlowski ph .
1995 , mnras , 274 , 461 brandt w. n. , podsiadlowski ph . , sigurdsson s. , 1995 , mnras , 277 , l35 brown g. e. , lee c .- h . , wijers r. a. m. j. , lee h. k. , israelian g. , bethe h. a. , 2000 , newa , 5 , 191 brown g. e. , lee c .- h . , moreno mndez e. , 2007 , apj , 671 , l41 bucciantini n. , quataert e. , arons j. , metzger b.d . ,
thompson t. a. , 2008 , mnras , 383 , l25 burrows a. , dessart l. , livne e. , ott c. d. , murphy j. , 2007 , apj , 664 , 416 cannon r. , 1993 , mnras , 263 , 817 cappellaro e. , evans r. , turatto m. 1999 , a&a , 351 , 459 detmers r. g. , langer n. , podsiadlowski , ph . , izzard r. g. , 2008 , a&a , 484 , 831 dewi j. , tauris t. , 2001 , in podsiadlowski ph . , rappaport , s. , king a. r. , dantona f. , burderi l. , eds , asp conf .
229 , evolution of binary and multiple star systems .
soc .  pac .
, san francisco , p.  225 eggleton p. p. , 1971 ,
mnras , 151 , 351 eggleton p. p. , verbunt f. , 1986 , mnras , 220 , 13 foellmi c. , dall t. h. , depagne e. , 2007 , a&a , 464 , 61 fruchter a. s. , et al . , 2006 nat 441 , 463 fryer c. l. , kalogera v. , 2001 , apj , 554 , 548 fullerton a. w. , massa d. l. , prinja r. k. , 2006 , apj , 637 , 1025 gonzlez hernndez j. i. , rebolo r. , israelian g. , 2008 , a&a , 478 , 203 heger a. , langer n. , 1998 , a&a , 334 , 210 heger a. , woosley s. e. , spruit h. c. , 2005 , apj , 626 , 350 hobbs g. , lorimer d. r. , lyne a. g. , kramer m. , 2005 , mnras , 360 , 974 hurley , j. r. , pols , o. r. , tout , c. a. , 2000 , mnras , 315 , 543 israelian g. , rebolo r. , basri g. , casares j. , martin e. l. , 1999 , nat , 401 , 142 ivanova n. , 2002 , dphil thesis ( oxford ) ivanova n. , 2006 , apj , 653 , l137 ivanova n. , kalogera v. , 2006 , apj , 636 , 985 ivanova n. , podsiadlowski ph .
, 2003 , in w. hillebrandt , b. leibundgut , eds , from twilight to highlight : the physics of supernovae .
springer , berlin , p.  19
ivanova n. , podsiadlowski ph .
, 2010 , in preparation ivanova n. , podsiadlowski ph . , spruit h. , 2002 , mnras , 334 , 819 ivanova n. , taam r. e. , 2003 , apj , 599 , 516 justham s. , rappaport s. , podsiadlowski ph .
, 2006 , mnras , 366 , 1415 justham s. , podsiadlowski ph . , 2010 , in preparation kalogera v. , 1996 , apj , 471 , 352 kippenhahn r. , weigert a. , hofmeister e. , 1967 , in alder b. , fernbach s. , rothenberg m. , eds , methods in computational physics , vol . 7 . academic , new york , p.  129
kobulnicky h. a. , fryer c. l. , 2007 , apj , 670 , 747 kroupa p. , tout c. a. , gilmore g. , 1993 , mnras 262 , 545 lauterborn d. , 1970 , a&a , 7 , 150 lee c .- h . , brown g. e. , wijers r. a. m. j. , 2002 , apj , 575 , 996 levesque e.  m. , kewley l.  j. , graham j.  f. , fruchter a.  s. , 2010 , apjl , 712 , l26 macfadyen a. i. , woosley s. e. , 1999 , apj , 524 , 262 mazzali p. , et al . , 2006 , nat , 442 , 1018 meyer f. , meyer - hofmeister e. , 1979 , a&a , 78 , 167 modjaz m. , et al . , 2008 , aj , 135 , 1136 moffat a. f. j. , carmelle r. , 1994 , apj , 421 , 310 newman , m. , 1978 .
apj , 219 , 676 nieuwenhuijzen h. , de jager c. , 1990 , a&a , 231 , 134 paczyski b. 1976 , in eggleton , p. p. , mitton s. , whelan j. , eds , structure and evolution in close binary systems .
dordrecht , reidel , p.  75
pfahl e. , rappaport s. , podsiadlowski ph . , 2003 ,
apj , 597 , 1036 podsiadlowski ph . , 2001 ,
in podsiadlowski ph . , rappaport s. , king a. r. , dantona f. , burderi l. , eds , asp conf .
voll 229 , evolution of binary and multiple star systems .
, san francisco , p.  239
podsiadlowski ph .
, cannon r. c. , rees m. j. , 1995 , mnras , 274 , 485 podsiadlowski ph . , mazzali p. a. , nomoto k. , lazzati d. , cappellaro e. , 2004 , apj , 607 , l17 podsiadlowski ph . , nomoto k. , maeda k. , nakamura t. , mazzali p. , schmidt b. , 2002 , apj , 567 , 491 podsiadlowski ph . , rappaport s. , han z. , 2003 , mnras , 341 , 385 ( prh ) podsiadlowski ph . , rappaport s. , pfahl e. , 2002 , apj , 565 , 1107 pols o. r. , tout c. a. , eggleton p. p. , han z. , 1995 , mnras , 274 , 964 pols o. r. , tout c. a. , schrder k .-
, eggleton p. p. , manners j. , 1997 , mnras , 289 , 869 rogers f. j. , iglesias c. a. 1992 , apjs , 79 , 507 romani r. w. , 1998 , a&a , 333 , 583 schrder k .-
, pols o. r. , eggleton p. p. 1997
, mnras , 285 , 696 siess l. , livio m. 1999a , mnras , 304 , 925 siess l. , livio m. 1999b , mnras , 308 , 1133 thielemann f .- k . , truran j. w. , arnould m. , 1986 , in advances in nuclear astrophysics , frontieres , gif - sur - yvette , p.  525
thompson c. duncan r. c. , 1993 , apj , 408 , 194 uzdensky d. a. , macfadyen a. i. , 2007 , apj , 669 , 546 van marle a. j. , langer n. , garcia - segura g. , 2005 , a&a , 444 , 837 wheeler j. c. , yi i. , hflich p. , wang l. , 2000 , apj , 537 , 810 wijers r. a. m. j. , 1996 in wijers r. a. m. j. , davies m. b. , tout c. a. , eds , evolutionary processes in binary stars .
kluwer , dordrecht , p.  327
wolf c. , podsiadlowski ph .
, 2007 , mnras , 375 , 1049 woosley s. e. , 1993 , apj , 405 , 273 woosley s. e. , heger a. , 2006 , apj , 637 , 914 yoon s .- c . , langer n. , 2005 , a&a , 443 , 643 yoon s .- c . , langer n. , norman c. , 2006 , a&a , 460 , 199 yungelson l. r. , lasota j .-
p . , nelemans g. , dubus g. , van den heuvel e. p. j. , dewi j. , portegies zwart s. , 2006 , a&a , 454 , 559


recently a program has been proposed to study neutrino masses @xcite .
this program is based on the following assumptions .    * assumption 1 : * there are three right - handed dirac neutrinos in addition to the three known left - handed neutrinos .
* assumption 2 : * the lepton mass matrices have the same structure as the quark mass matrices , as described by lehmann _
_ @xcite .    in carrying out this program ,
one of the technically most difficult aspects is to treat the mikheyev - smirnov - wolfenstein ( msw ) effect for the sun @xcite .
it is the purpose of this paper to discuss this problem .
the difficulty arises in the following way . on the basis of the super - kamiokande data on atmospheric neutrinos @xcite , the muon neutrino @xmath0 oscillates with another neutrino which is not the electron neutrino @xmath1 . from assumption  1
, this neutrino must be the tau neutrino @xmath2 .
in other words , @xmath0 and @xmath2 are coupled significantly . again from assumption  1 , the electron neutrinos @xmath1 from the sun
must therefore oscillate with either @xmath0 or @xmath2 . since
@xmath0 and @xmath2 are coupled significantly , the electron neutrinos @xmath1 from the sun must oscillate with _ both _
@xmath0 _ and _ @xmath2 .
it is accordingly necessary to understand the msw effect with all three generations of neutrinos @xmath1 , @xmath0 and @xmath2 .    while there is an extensive literature on the msw effect for two generations of neutrinos @xcite , relatively little
is known for the case of three generations @xcite .
one of the major differences between these two cases is the following . for two generations ,
the msw effect occurs predominantly in the vicinity of a particular density in the sun .
for this reason , the important parameter is the rate of change of the density at this particular density .
in contrast , for three generations , the important contributions to the msw effect can come from several regions . when the parameters , such as the neutrino masses , vary , these regions not only move but also merge and separate , features that are absent for the much simpler case of two generations .
there are many different ways to formulate the problem of the msw @xcite effect in the sun for three generations of neutrinos .
these different formulations are of course closely related to each other ; it has been found that , at least for the present program @xcite , the following one is most appropriate .    in a current basis , the charged lepton currents are @xmath3 where @xmath4 \quad { \rm and } \quad \ell=\left[\tighten\matrix { \ell_1 \cr \ell_2 \cr \ell_3\cr}\right]\ ] ] denote the neutrino and charged lepton fields .
the neutrino mass matrix @xmath5 @xcite , from the vacuum expectation value of the higgs field in the neutrino - higgs coupling , is @xmath6    let @xmath7 be the momentum of the neutrino , the value of which is taken to be much larger than the neutrino masses , which are the eigenvalues of @xmath5 .
typically , @xmath7 is in the range from 0.4  mev/@xmath8 to 10  mev/@xmath8 , while the neutrino masses are believed to be no more than about 1  ev ; hence this assumption is well satisfied . under this assumption , it is @xmath9 that enters in the msw effect .
let @xmath10\ ] ] be real and symmetric .
note that @xmath11 are not defined , only @xmath12 .
of course the eigenvalues of this matrix @xmath9 are the squares of the neutrino masses .    in terms of this @xmath9 ,
the msw effect for neutrino oscillations is described by the coupled ordinary differential equation @xcite @xmath13 = \left ( \left[\tighten\matrix { d(r ) & 0 & 0\cr 0 & 0 & 0\cr 0 & 0 & 0\cr}\right ] + \frac{1}{2p } \left[\tighten\matrix { m^2_{11 } & m^2_{12 } & m^2_{13}\cr m^2_{21 } & m^2_{22 } & m^2_{23}\cr m^2_{31 } & m^2_{32 } & m^2_{33 } \cr}\right ] \right ) \left[\tighten\matrix { \phi_1(r)\cr \phi_2(r)\cr \phi_3(r ) \cr}\right],\ ] ] where @xmath14 with @xmath15 the fermi weak - interaction constant and @xmath16 the electron density at the point @xmath17 .
so far this formulation is general . in view of the observation in sec .
i that , for three generations of neutrinos , important contributions to the msw effect can come from several values of @xmath17 , we propose to choose a suitable function @xmath18 .
on the one hand , this @xmath18 should describe approximately the electron density in the sun ; on the other hand , this @xmath18 should be sufficiently simple so that eq .
( [ eq : schr-1 ] ) can be solved explicitly .
this choice is made in the following way .
first , since most neutrinos are produced by nuclear reactions @xcite near the center of the sun , the simplifying assumption is made that the neutrinos are produced at the center of the sun .
this has the consequence that the @xmath17 in eqs .
( [ eq : schr-1 ] ) and ( [ eq : define - d ] ) is the radial distance from the center of the sun .
this is the reason for the notation @xmath17 .    secondly , the density of the sun as a function of the radial distance is fairly accurately known @xcite , as shown by the solid curve in fig .  1 , where the vertical axis is the density in g/@xmath19 in a logarithmic scale , and the horizontal axis is @xmath20 . the radius of the sun is @xmath21 from this solid curve in fig .
1 , it is seen that the solar density is approximately exponential , as shown by the dotted line of fig .  1 .
this fit is reasonably good , to an accuracy of roughly 15% , for @xmath22 in other words , @xmath18 is taken to be given by @xmath23    [ fig : rho ]    ( 12,7.5 ) ( 2.0,1.0 )    from the dotted line of fig .  1 ,
the following values are obtained @xmath24 the problem is therefore to solve the msw differential equation , for @xmath25 , @xmath26 = \frac{1}{2p } \left[\tighten\matrix { 2pd(0)e^{-r / r_0}+m^2_{11 } & m^2_{12 } & m^2_{13}\cr m^2_{21 } & m^2_{22 } & m^2_{23}\cr m^2_{31 } & m^2_{32 } & m^2_{33 } \cr}\right ] \left[\tighten\matrix { \phi_1(r)\cr
\phi_2(r)\cr \phi_3(r ) \cr}\right]\ ] ] with the boundary conditions @xmath27 = \left[\tighten\matrix { 1\cr 0\cr 0\cr}\right].\ ] ]
the differential equation ( [ eq : schr-2 ] ) can be solved explicitly in terms of generalized hypergeometric functions .
this is to be carried out in the present section .
indeed , this is the underlying reason for the choice of the exponential function ( [ eq : d - exponential ] ) .
let @xmath28 with @xmath29\sim -8.07.\ ] ] then ( [ eq : schr-2 ] ) is @xmath30 = \left[\tighten\matrix { e^{-u}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{11 } & { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{12 } & { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{13}\cr \noalign{\vskip4pt } { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{21 } & { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{22 } & { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{23}\cr \noalign{\vskip4pt } { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{31 } & { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{32 } & { \displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2p}}\,m^2_{33 } \cr}\right ] \left[\tighten\matrix { \phi_1\cr \phi_2\cr \phi_3 \cr}\right].\ ] ] note that @xmath31 corresponds to @xmath32    in view of the form of eq .
( [ eq : schr-3 ] ) , it is convenient to diagonalize the @xmath33 matrix @xmath34.\ ] ] let @xmath35 be the angle of rotation that diagonalizes this @xmath33 matrix , i.e. , @xmath36 \frac{r_0}{2p } \left[\tighten\matrix { m^2_{22 } & m^2_{23}\cr m^2_{32 } & m^2_{33 } \cr}\right ] \left[\tighten\matrix { \cos\theta_0 & \sin\theta_0\cr -\sin\theta_0 & \cos\theta_0 \cr}\right ] = \left[\tighten\matrix { \omega_2 & 0\cr 0 & \omega_3 \cr}\right]\ ] ] with @xmath37 the reason for this eq .
( [ eq : omega - order ] ) is that , if @xmath38 , then the problem reduces to neutrino oscillations with only two neutrinos .
define also @xmath39 = \frac{r_0}{2p } \left[\tighten\matrix { \cos\theta_0 & -\sin\theta_0\cr \sin\theta_0 & \cos\theta_0 \cr}\right ] \left[\tighten\matrix { m^2_{12}\cr m^2_{13 } \cr}\right]\ ] ] and @xmath40 = \left[\tighten\matrix { \cos\theta_0 & -\sin\theta_0\cr \sin\theta_0 & \cos\theta_0 \cr}\right ] \left[\tighten\matrix
{ \phi_2(u)\cr \phi_3(u ) \cr}\right];\ ] ] then eq .  (
[ eq : schr-3 ] ) becomes @xmath41 = \left[\tighten\matrix { \omega_1+e^{-u } & \chi_2 & \chi_3\cr \chi_2 & \omega_2 & 0\cr \chi_3 & 0 & \omega_3 \cr}\right ] \left[\tighten\matrix { \psi_1(u)\cr \psi_2(u)\cr \psi_3(u ) \cr}\right].\ ] ]    if @xmath42 or @xmath43 is zero , then once again this reduces to neutrino oscillations with two generations . by reversing the signs of @xmath44 and/or @xmath45 if necessary , it follows that , without loss of generality @xmath46 let @xmath47 , @xmath48 and @xmath49 be the eigenvalues of the @xmath50 matrix @xmath51;\ ] ] then these three @xmath52 s are the squares of the neutrino masses multiplied by @xmath53 . note that @xmath54 for cases of interest @xcite , the @xmath55 will typically be large , @xmath56 .
this is of course not a question of units , but rather a reflection of the physical situation of having a large number of oscillations within the solar radius .
the interlacing property implies that , by renumbering the @xmath52 s if necessary , @xmath57 again assuming that there is no reduction to two - neutrino oscillation .    the following properties are easily verified : with fixed @xmath58 , @xmath59 , @xmath42 and @xmath43 ,    * @xmath60 * as @xmath61 , @xmath62 * as @xmath63 , which is physically not possible , @xmath64    a third - order ordinary differential equation can be obtained from eq .
( [ eq : schr-4 ] ) as follows .
define @xmath65 , @xmath66 and @xmath67 such that @xmath68 these @xmath65 , @xmath66 and @xmath67 are of course not unique .
it then follows from eqs .
( [ eq : schr-4 ] ) and ( [ eq : chi - positive ] ) that @xmath69 therefore , @xmath70 in particular , @xmath71 define this function of eq .
( [ eq : psi22-psi33 ] ) to be @xmath72 , then it follows that @xmath73 substitution into eq .  ( [ eq : psi - i ] ) then expresses @xmath74 , @xmath75 and @xmath76 in terms of the single function @xmath72 : @xmath77 furthermore , this @xmath72 is unique because of ( [ eq : omega - order ] )    to obtain the third - order ordinary differential equation for @xmath72 , it only remains to substitute ( [ eq : psi1 - 2 - 3 ] ) into the first equation of ( [ eq : schr-4 ] ) : @xmath78\psi.\end{aligned}\ ] ] from the definition of @xmath47 , @xmath48 and @xmath49 , this can be rewritten as @xmath79 to put this equation into the form of the differential equation for the generalized hypergeometric function , let @xmath80 then the differential equation ( [ eq : schr-5 ] ) for @xmath72 is @xmath81\psi=0.\ ] ] this is the differential equation for the generalized hypergeometric function @xmath82see , for example , p.  184 of @xcite .
three linearly independent solutions of this third - order differential equation ( [ eq : schr-6 ] ) are @xmath83 , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi^{(2 ) } & = & k_2e^{-i\mu_2u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { -i(\omega_2-\mu_2 ) , & -i(\omega_3-\mu_2)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_2 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_3-\mu_2 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right ] , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi^{(3 ) } & = & k_3e^{-i\mu_3u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { -i(\omega_2-\mu_3 ) , & -i(\omega_3-\mu_3)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_3 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_2-\mu_3 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath84 , @xmath85 and @xmath86 are arbitrary non - zero constants . for the convenience of numerical calculations
, we make the following choice : @xmath87^{-1/2 } , \nonumber \\
k_2&=&\left[(\omega_2-\mu_2)(\omega_3-\mu_2)(\mu_1-\mu_2)(\mu_3-\mu_2 ) \right]^{-1/2 } , \nonumber \\
k_3&=&\left[(\omega_2-\mu_3)(\omega_3-\mu_3)(\mu_1-\mu_3)(\mu_2-\mu_3 ) \right]^{-1/2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the function @xmath82 can be defined by the following series expansion emerges as the solution when one of the @xmath88 s equals one of the @xmath89 s , i.e. , for the case of two generations . ]
@xcite @xmath90 = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(\alpha_1)_k(\alpha_2)_k}{(\rho_1)_k(\rho_2)_k}\ , \frac{z^k}{k!},\ ] ] where the pochhammer symbol is defined as @xmath91    since the taylor series of @xmath82 about @xmath92 , eq .
( [ eq : f22-series ] ) , is always convergent , the differentiations specified in eqs .
( [ eq : psi1 - 2 - 3 ] ) can be carried out term by term on these taylor series .
thus these derivatives of @xmath93 can be easily expressed in terms of @xmath82 with parameters slightly modified .
the result is @xmath94 where @xmath95 , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi_1^{(2)}&=&k_2(\mu_2-\omega_2)(\mu_2-\omega_3)e^{-i\mu_2u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { 1-i(\omega_2-\mu_2 ) , & 1-i(\omega_3-\mu_2)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_2 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_3-\mu_2 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right ] , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi_1^{(3)}&=&k_3(\mu_3-\omega_2)(\mu_3-\omega_3)e^{-i\mu_3u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { 1-i(\omega_2-\mu_3 ) , & 1-i(\omega_3-\mu_3)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_3 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_2-\mu_3 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath96 , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi_2^{(2)}&=&k_2\chi_2(\mu_2-\omega_3)e^{-i\mu_2u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { -i(\omega_2-\mu_2 ) , & 1-i(\omega_3-\mu_2)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_2 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_3-\mu_2 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right ] , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi_2^{(3)}&=&k_3\chi_2(\mu_3-\omega_3)e^{-i\mu_3u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { -i(\omega_2-\mu_3 ) , & 1-i(\omega_3-\mu_3)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_3 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_2-\mu_3 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath97 , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi_3^{(2)}&=&k_2\chi_3(\mu_2-\omega_2)e^{-i\mu_2u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { 1-i(\omega_2-\mu_2 ) , & -i(\omega_3-\mu_2)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_2 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_3-\mu_2 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right ] , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \psi_3^{(3)}&=&k_3\chi_3(\mu_3-\omega_2)e^{-i\mu_3u } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { 1-i(\omega_2-\mu_3 ) , & -i(\omega_3-\mu_3)\cr 1-i(\mu_1-\mu_3 ) ,     & 1-i(\mu_2-\mu_3 ) \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right].\end{aligned}\ ] ] in eqs .
( [ eq : psi1 - 2 - 3-b ] ) , the constants @xmath98 , @xmath99 and @xmath100 are determined by the boundary conditions eqs .
( [ eq : boundary - cond ] ) . for the exponential matter distribution ( [ eq : d - exponential ] ) , this gives completely the solution of eq .
( [ eq : schr-1 ] ) , which describes the msw effect in the sun .
we recall that by eq .
( [ eq : u0 ] ) , @xmath101 . thus , the prefactors @xmath102 are proportional to the exponentials describing propagation in vacuum , @xmath103 .
in fact , as @xmath104 , all these functions approach a simple limit : @xmath105=1.\ ] ]    while this solution ( [ eq : psi1 - 2 - 3-b ] ) is specifically for three generations of neutrinos , generalization , if desired , to @xmath106 generations is completely straightforward , leading to the generalized hypergeometric function @xmath107 . even for three generations
, @xmath82 is a complicated function . from eq .
( [ eq : u0 ] ) , corresponding to the center of the sun , @xmath108 is about 3000 ; for arguments of this order of magnitude , it is not practical to calculate the various @xmath82 of eqs .
( [ eq : psi1])([eq : psi3 ] ) using the taylor series expansion .
sections  iv and  v are devoted to the issue of how these @xmath82 can be calculated . of the nine @xmath82 that appear in eqs .
( [ eq : psi1])([eq : psi3 ] ) , three of them are evaluated approximately in sec .
iv . in sec .
v , the remaining six @xmath82 are then expressed in terms of another set of generalized hypergeometric functions @xmath109 .
these @xmath109 have convenient integral representations , useful for numerical evaluation .
the approach described in the rest of this paper is the best we have found , but there may well be other methods that are superior .
in this section , we study the three @xmath82 that appear in the expressions of @xmath111 , @xmath112 and @xmath113 as given by eqs .
( [ eq : psi1])([eq : psi3 ] ) .
define @xmath114 then by ( [ eq : interlace ] ) @xmath115 and the three @xmath82 of interest are @xmath116 , \nonumber \\[5pt ] _ 2f_2(2)&= & _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { i\rho_2 , & 1+i\rho_4\cr 1+i\rho_1 , & 1+i\rho_3 \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right ] , \nonumber \\[5pt ] _ 2f_2(3)&= & _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { 1+i\rho_2 , & i\rho_4\cr 1+i\rho_1 , & 1+i\rho_3 \cr } \right|ie^{-u } \right].\end{aligned}\ ] ] let @xmath117 be considered in some detail ; the treatments of @xmath118 and @xmath119 are similar .    from the definition of @xmath82 by its taylor series , which is always convergent , it is straightforward to verify , by closing the contour of integration in the right half - plane , that @xmath120 & & \mbox{}\times\int_{\gamma - i\infty}^{\gamma+i\infty } \frac{\gamma(-s)\gamma(1+i\rho_2+s)\gamma(1+i\rho_4+s ) }       { \gamma(1+i\rho_1+s)\gamma(1+i\rho_3+s ) } \left(e^{-i\pi/2}e^{-u}\right)^s   ds\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath121 this integral is to be evaluated approximately for @xmath122 large and negative .
except for an indentation near @xmath123 , the contour of integration can be taken along the imaginary axis .
it is therefore convenient to let @xmath124 the stirling formula @xmath125 takes the form @xmath126 when @xmath127 is purely imaginary . using ( [ eq : stirling ] ) ,
the integrand in ( [ eq : f21-contour ] ) is @xmath128 & = & \frac{\gamma(-i\tau)\gamma(1+i(\tau+\rho_2))\gamma(1+i(\tau+\rho_4 ) ) }       { \gamma(1+i(\tau+\rho_1))\gamma(1+i(\tau+\rho_3))}\ , e^{\pi\tau/2}e^{i|u|\tau } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & \sim&\left(\frac{2\pi}{-i\tau}\right)^{1/2 } \frac{[i(\tau+\rho_2)]^{1/2}[i(\tau+\rho_4)]^{1/2 } }       { [ i(\tau+\rho_1)]^{1/2}[i(\tau+\rho_3)]^{1/2 } } \ , e^{\pi\theta_1(\tau)/2}\,e^{i\theta_2(\tau)},\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath129 and @xmath130 the condition @xmath131 for stationary phase gives @xmath132 eq .  ( [ eq : stat - phase ] ) together with the fact that @xmath133 is a non - decreasing function of @xmath134 implies that the relevant point of stationary phase occurs when @xmath134 is positive . let @xmath135 be the unique positive root of the cubic equation @xmath136 then @xmath135 is the point of stationary phase that gives the leading contribution to @xmath117 .
the result is , with all gamma functions replaced by the corresponding stirling formula ( [ eq : stirling-0 ] ) , @xmath137^{1/2}\ , e^{i[\rho_1(\ln\rho_1 - 1)-\rho_2(\ln\rho_2 - 1 )      + \rho_3(\ln\rho_3 - 1)-\rho_4(\ln\rho_4 - 1 ) ] } \nonumber \\ & & \mbox{}\times \left[1+\frac{\tau_0}{\tau_0+\rho_1}-\frac{\tau_0}{\tau_0+\rho_2 } + \frac{\tau_0}{\tau_0+\rho_3}-\frac{\tau_0}{\tau_0+\rho_4}\right]^{-1/2 } e^{i\theta_2(\tau_0)},\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath122 negative and large .
similarly , @xmath138 \label{eq : f22-stirling-3 } _
2f_2(3 ) & \sim&\frac{\rho_4}{\tau_0+\rho_4}\ , _ 2f_2(1).\end{aligned}\ ] ] these are the desired results .
the next step is to study the @xmath82 that appear in the expressions ( [ eq : psi1])([eq : psi3 ] ) for @xmath141 , @xmath142 and @xmath143 with @xmath144 .
it should be emphasized that , while the treatment in the preceding sec .
iv involves approximations , what is to be carried out in this section is exact . since exact manipulations are usually more straightforward , the description will be relatively more brief in this section .
consider the third - order ordinary differential equation @xmath145f=0.\ ] ] a comparison with eq .
( [ eq : schr-6 ] ) shows that @xmath146 the values of @xmath147 and @xmath148 are different for the various @xmath72 s : @xmath149 the three linearly independent solutions of eq .
( [ eq : schr-7 ] ) are @xmath150 , \nonumber \\[5pt ] f^{(2)}(z)&=&z^{-\beta_2 } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { \alpha_1-\beta_2 , & \alpha_2-\beta_2\cr 1+\beta_1-\beta_2 , & 1+\beta_3-\beta_2 \cr } \right|z \right ] , \nonumber \\[5pt ] f^{(3)}(z)&=&z^{-\beta_3 } { } _ 2f_2\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { \alpha_1-\beta_3 , & \alpha_2-\beta_3\cr 1+\beta_1-\beta_3 , & 1+\beta_2-\beta_3 \cr } \right|z \right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath151 is the function treated in the preceding sec .
iv .    on the other hand , if in eq .
( [ eq : schr-7 ] ) the independent variable is changed to @xmath152 then the differential equation is @xmath153f=0.\ ] ] in this form , two of the three linearly independent solutions of eq .
( [ eq : schr-7 ] ) are ( in terms of @xmath127 ) : @xmath154 , \nonumber \\[5pt ] \hat f^{(2)}(z ) & = & z^{-\alpha_2 } { } _ 3f_1\left[\left .
\tighten\matrix { -\beta_1+\alpha_2 , & -\beta_2+\alpha_2 , & -\beta_3+\alpha_2\cr 1-\alpha_1+\alpha_2 & & \cr } \right|-z^{-1 } \right].\end{aligned}\ ] ] for a discussion of the generalized hypergeometric functions @xmath155 with @xmath156 , see for example chapter  v of @xcite .
it should be added parenthetically that , for the present purposes , @xmath157 , as an example , can sometimes be very small because by eqs .
( [ eq : z - u ] ) and ( [ eq : beta - mu ] ) @xmath158 thus , when @xmath47 is large , which is often the case , for numerical calculations it is convenient to replace @xmath157 by @xmath159 , and similarly for the other powers of @xmath127 multiplying the @xmath82 and @xmath109 .    since eq .
( [ eq : schr-7 ] ) is a third - order linear ordinary differential equation , the two solutions as given by eq .
( [ eq : hat - f ] ) must be expressible as linear combinations of the three solutions of eq .
( [ eq : f1-f2-f3 ] ) .
the result is @xmath160 & & \mbox{}\times\left [   \frac{\gamma(-\beta_2+\beta_1)\gamma(-\beta_3+\beta_1 ) } { \gamma(1-\alpha_1+\beta_1)\gamma(1-\alpha_2+\beta_1 ) } \,\frac{1}{\sin\pi(\alpha_1-\beta_1)}\ , f^{(1)}(z)\right . \nonumber
\\[4pt ] & & \mbox{}+\frac{\gamma(-\beta_1+\beta_2)\gamma(-\beta_3+\beta_2 ) } { \gamma(1-\alpha_1+\beta_2)\gamma(1-\alpha_2+\beta_2 ) } \,\frac{1}{\sin\pi(\alpha_1-\beta_2)}\ , f^{(2)}(z ) \nonumber \\[4pt ] & & \mbox{}+\left.\frac{\gamma(-\beta_1+\beta_3)\gamma(-\beta_2+\beta_3 ) } { \gamma(1-\alpha_1+\beta_3)\gamma(1-\alpha_2+\beta_3 ) } \,\frac{1}{\sin\pi(\alpha_1-\beta_3)}\ , f^{(3)}(z ) \right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath161    eqs .
( [ eq : hat - f1 ] ) and ( [ eq : hat - f2 ] ) can be considered to be the formulas that express @xmath162 and @xmath163 in terms of @xmath164 , @xmath165 and @xmath151 . since @xmath151 is given by eqs .
( [ eq : f22-stirling-1])([eq : f22-stirling-3 ] ) , it only remains to obtain @xmath164 and @xmath165 , which are given by @xmath109 rather than @xmath82 .
the advantage of @xmath109 over @xmath82 is due to the integral representation @xmath166 = \frac{1}{\gamma(a_1)}\,x^{a_1 } \int_0^\infty dt\ , e^{-xt}\ , t^{a_1 - 1}\ , { } _ 2f_1(a_2,a_3;b ;- t),\ ] ] where @xmath167 is the usual hypergeometric function .
this eq .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) follows from eq .
( 8) on p.  214 and eq .
( 1 ) on p.  215 of @xcite , and has the great advantage of not containing in the integrand any gamma function that depends on the variable @xmath168 , because such gamma functions require excessive computer time .    for the @xmath167 in the integrand of ( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) , the representation @xmath169 & & \mbox{}\times\int_{\cal p } s^{b-1}(1-s)^{c - b-1}(1+ts)^{-a}ds\end{aligned}\ ] ] is convenient , where @xmath170 is the pochhammer contour of fig .  2 .
in the numerical evaluation through eqs .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) and ( [ eq : f21-pochhammer ] ) , it is convenient to deform the contours of integration through the point of stationary phase .
this point is discussed in more detail in the appendix .
[ fig : pochhammer ]    ( 8,7.0 ) ( -3.,2.0 )
the mikheyev - smirnov - wolfenstein effect in the sun has been studied and the differential equations solved for three types of neutrinos coupled through their mass matrix . under the assumption , as expressed by eq .
( [ eq : d - exponential ] ) , that the electron density can be approximated by an exponential function , the msw differential equations are solved exactly in sec .
iii , especially eqs .
( [ eq : psi1 - 2 - 3-b])([eq : psi3 ] ) , in terms of the generalized hypergeometric function @xmath82 .
the method used there can be immediately generalized to @xmath106 types of neutrinos coupled in the same way , leading to @xmath107 .    since @xmath82 can not be considered to be a familiar function , secs .
iv and  v are devoted to the issue of how they can be calculated . of the nine @xmath82 that appear in eqs .
( [ eq : psi1])([eq : psi3 ] ) , three are evaluated approximately in sec .
iv . in sec .
v , the remaining six @xmath82 are then expressed in terms of another set of generalized hypergeometric functions , @xmath109 .
these @xmath109 have convenient integral representations given by eqs .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) and ( [ eq : f21-pochhammer ] ) , useful for numerical evaluation . eqs .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) and ( [ eq : f21-pochhammer ] ) can also be used to get asymptotic expressions for @xmath109 and hence @xmath82 , but this development is not discussed here because it is not needed for the study of neutrino oscillations @xcite .
finally , it should be mentioned that , while the calculation of sec .
iv can be generalized immediately to @xmath106 types of neutrinos , there does not seem to be a similar straightforward generalization for sec .  v. more precisely , while @xmath107 can be related to @xmath171 , the generalization of eq .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) involves @xmath172 , which does not have an integral representation similar to eq .
( [ eq : f21-pochhammer ] ) involving a single integral .
we believe that , for @xmath171 , it is necessary to use an @xmath173-fold integral to avoid having gamma functions that depend on the variables of integration .      in this appendix , eqs .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) and ( [ eq : f21-pochhammer ] ) are studied further . for definiteness ,
let @xmath147 and @xmath148 be defined by ( [ eq : psi-1-alphas ] ) , and consider the @xmath109 that appears in the first equation in ( [ eq : hat - f ] ) .
use the inequality ( [ eq : interlace ] ) to define the four positive quantities @xmath174 then eq .  ( [ eq : f31-int - rep-1 ] ) gives , for this @xmath109 under consideration , @xmath175 } \qquad\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \mbox{}=\frac{1}{\gamma(1+i\xi)}\,\left(e^{i\pi/2}y\right)^{1+i\xi } \int_0^\infty dt\ , e^{-ity}\ , t^{i\xi}\ , { } _ 2f_1(1-i\eta,1+i\zeta;1+i\zeta';-t),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where , by eq .
( [ eq : z - u ] ) , @xmath176 is large for @xmath122 negative and large . the substitution of eq .
( [ eq : f21-pochhammer ] ) into eq .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-2 ] ) then gives @xmath177}\qquad \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \mbox{}=\frac{1}{\gamma(1+i\xi)}\,\left(e^{i\pi/2}y\right)^{1+i\xi } \frac{\gamma(1+i\zeta')e^{-i\pi(1+i\zeta ' ) } } { \gamma(1-i\eta)\gamma(i(\eta+\zeta'))4\sin\pi(1-i\eta)\sin\pi i(\eta+\zeta ' ) } \ , i,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath178 & = & \int_0^\infty dt \int_{\cal p } ds\ , ( 1+s+st)^{-1}\ , e^{-i\phi(t , s)},\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath179 this @xmath180 is of course not related to the @xmath181 of eq .
( [ eq : schr-1 ] ) .    for the double integral in eq .
( [ eq : i - t - s ] ) , the point or points of stationary phase are given by @xmath182 or @xmath183 and @xmath184 elimination of @xmath185 between eqs .
( [ eq : stat - cond-1 ] ) and ( [ eq : stat - cond-2 ] ) gives the cubic equation for @xmath168 , @xmath186 with @xmath187 t -\xi(\zeta'-\xi).\ ] ] when @xmath188 , the three roots of eq .
( [ eq : ell - cubic ] ) are explicitly @xmath189^{1/2 } \bigr\ } > 0 , \\ t&=&t_-=(2y)^{-1}\bigl\{-(y-\xi-\eta)-[(y-\xi-\eta)^2 + 4\xi y]^{1/2 } \bigr\ } < 0 , \\ t&=&-(\zeta-\xi)/y
< 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ] since by ( [ eq : xi - eta - zeta - zetap ] ) @xmath190 we have @xmath191 it therefore follows that the cubic equation ( [ eq : ell - cubic ] ) has one and only one positive root .
since the @xmath168 integral in eq .
( [ eq : i - t - s ] ) is along the positive real axis , this implies that there is exactly one relevant point of stationary phase , say ( @xmath192 ) , with @xmath193 given by this unique positive root of eq .
( [ eq : ell - cubic ] ) . furthermore ,
since @xmath194 it follows from ( [ eq : t0-cases ] ) that @xmath195    from eq .
( [ eq : stat - cond-1 ] ) , the corresponding @xmath196 is given by @xmath197^{-1},\ ] ] and hence @xmath198 for the numerical evaluation of this @xmath109 of eq .
( [ eq : f31-int - rep-3 ] ) , using eq .
( [ eq : i - t - s ] ) , it is convenient and efficient to choose the pochhammer contour @xmath170 to go through this value of @xmath196 , and also to deform the contour for the @xmath168 integration so that at @xmath193 it is locally the path of steepest descent .
l. wolfenstein , phys .
d * 17 * , 2369 ( 1978 ) and d * 20 * , 2634 ( 1979 ) ; + s. p. mikheyev and a. yu .
smirnov , yad .
* 42 * , 1441 ( 1985 ) [ sov .
j. nucl .
42 * , 913 ( 1985 ) ] , nuovo cimento * 9c * , 17 ( 1986 ) .      for an exponential density ,
see , for example t. kaneko , prog .
phys .  * 78 * , 532 ( 1987 ) ; m. ito , t. kaneko and m. nakagawa , _ ibid .
_ * 79 * , 13 ( 1988 ) ; + s. toshev , phys .  lett .
b * 196 * , 170 ( 1987 ) ; + s. t. petcov , phys .
b * 200 * , 373 ( 1988 ) ; nucl .
b ( proc .  suppl . )
* 13 * , 527 ( 1990 ) .
see , for example : t. k. kuo and j. pantaleone , phys .
lett .  * 57 * , 1805 ( 1986 ) ; + c. w. kim and w. k. sze , phys .
d * 35 * , 1404 ( 1987 ) ; + h. w. zaglauer and k. h. schwarzer , z. phys .
c * 40 * , 273 ( 1988 ) ; + g. l. fogli , e. lisi and d. montanino , phys .
d * 49 * , 3626 ( 1994 ) ; + e. torrente lujan , phys .
d * 53 * , 4030 ( 1996 ) ; + t. sakai , o. inagaki and t. teshima , int .
a , * 12 * , 1953 ( 1999 ) ; + t. ohlsson and h. snellman , royal inst .
stockholm , preprint ( oct 1999 ) , hep - ph/9910546 + g. l. fogli , e. lisi , d. montanino and a. palazzo , preprint bari - th/365 - 99 , hep - ph/9912231 .
the early papers on the nuclear reactions in the sun are : + c. f. von weizsacker , phys
.  zeits .
( leipzig ) * 38 * , 176 ( 1937 ) and * 39 * , 633 ( 1938 ) ; + h. a. bethe and c. l. critchfield , phys .
rev .  * 54 * , 248 ( 1938 ) and _ ibid . _ 862 ; + h. a. bethe , phys .
* 55 * , 434 ( 1939 ) .