abstract: The AMANDA-II data collected during the period 2000–2003 have been analysed in a search for a diffuse flux of high-energy extra-terrestrial muon neutrinos from the sum of all sources in the Universe. With no excess events seen, an upper limit of $\mathrm{E^{2}_{\nu} \times dN_{\nu}/dE_{\nu}}$$<7.4\times10^{-8}$ $\mathrm{GeV\;cm^{-2}\;s^{-1}\;sr^{-1}}$was obtained. The sensitivity of the diffuse analysis of IceCube 9 string for 137 days of data is calculated to be $\mathrm{E^{2}_{\nu} \times dN_{\nu}/dE_{\nu}}$$<1.3\times10^{-7}$ $\mathrm{GeV\;cm^{-2}\;s^{-1}\;sr^{-1}}$. No excess events are observed, which confirms the AMANDA-II upper limit.

; The IceCube Observatory presently consists of an array of 22 vertical strings, deployed between 1450 m and 2450 m of depth and containing 1320 digital optical sensors, and 26 IceTop surface stations with 104 sensors. The denser AMANDA-II array is integrated into IceCube in order to extend the sensitivity to lower energies. The Observatory is the world's largest neutrino telescope in operation. Recent results on the measurement of the atmospheric neutrino flux with IceCube are discussed, with an emphasis on the acceptance and sensitivity potential of the growing IceCube neutrino telescope.

; The first results of a search for high energy neutrinos in excess of the atmospheric neutrino background, both from any sky direction and from 26 known sources, using 9 strings of IceCube are presented. We summarize also the results of AMANDA-II from 2000 to 2006. The expected performance of future configurations of the growing IceCube detector are discussed.

; The existence of dark matter can be inferred from a number of observations, among them rotational profiles of galaxies, large scale structures, and WMAP's anisotropy measurement on the cosmic microwave background. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), 'cold' thermal relics of the Big Bang, are leading dark matter candidates. They are expected to be gravitationally trapped by massive bodies, such as the Sun and the Earth, or objects at the Galactic Center, where they could then annihilate and produce neutrinos, which could be detected by neutrino telescopes. We describe searches performed in AMANDA for these events and the prospects for IceCube.

; The IceCube neutrino observatory is capable of detecting Extremely High Energy (EHE) neutrinos with energies beyond $10^8$ GeV originated in the highest energy cosmic rays. The high energy muon bundles associated with cosmic ray air showers constitute a major background and a reliable rejection mechanism must be developed. A possible approach is to identify events induced by neutrinos inside the detector instrumentation volume. The initial simulation study is briefly reported.

address: Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A.; $^*$Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, WI, US; $^*$ Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, WI, USA, on leave University of Bari, 70126, Italy; Pennsylvania State University, Department of Physics, 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802, USA; Department of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan
author: Kotoyo Hoshina for the IceCube Collaboration[^1]; Paolo Desiati$^*$ for the IceCube Collaboration; Teresa Montaruli$^*$ for the IceCube Collaboration; Carsten Rott for the IceCube Collaboration; M. Ono, A. Ishihara, and S. Yoshida for the IceCube collaboration
title: Contributions to The $10^{th}$ International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics (TAUP) 2007, Sendai, Japan, Sep. 11-15, 2007; Diffuse high-energy neutrino searches in AMANDA-II and IceCube: Results and future prospects; Measurement of the atmospheric neutrino flux with AMANDA-II and IceCube; First Results of the IceCube Observatory on High Energy Neutrino Astronomy; Indirect Searches for Dark Matter with IceCube; Identification of Extremely-high energy starting neutrino events with the IceCube observatory

**The IceCube Collaboration**

R. Abbasi$^{20}$, M. Ackermann$^{32}$, J. Adams$^{11}$, J. Ahrens$^{21}$, K. Andeen$^{20}$, J. Auffenberg$^{31}$, X. Bai$^{23}$, M. Baker$^{20}$, B. Baret$^{9}$, S. W. Barwick$^{16}$, R. Bay$^{5}$, J. L. Bazo Alba$^{32}$, K. Beattie$^{6}$, T. Becka$^{21}$, J. K. Becker$^{13}$, K.-H. Becker$^{31}$, M. Beimforde$^{7}$, P. Berghaus$^{20}$, D. Berley$^{12}$, E. Bernardini$^{32}$, D. Bertrand$^{8}$, D. Z. Besson$^{18}$, E. Blaufuss$^{12}$, D. J. Boersma$^{20}$, C. Bohm$^{26}$, J. Bolmont$^{32}$, S. Böser$^{32}$, O. Botner$^{29}$, A. Bouchta$^{29}$, J. Braun$^{20}$, T. Burgess$^{26}$, T. Castermans$^{22}$, D. Chirkin$^{20}$, B. Christy$^{12}$, J. Clem$^{23}$, D. F. Cowen$^{28,\: 27}$, M. V. D'Agostino$^{5}$, M. Danninger$^{11}$, A. Davour$^{29}$, C. T. Day$^{6}$, C. De Clercq$^{9}$, L. Demirörs$^{17}$, F. Descamps$^{14}$, P. Desiati$^{20}$, G. de Vries-Uiterweerd$^{30}$, T. DeYoung$^{28}$, J. C. Diaz-Velez$^{20}$, J. Dreyer$^{13}$, J. P. Dumm$^{20}$, M. R. Duvoort$^{30}$, W. R. Edwards$^{6}$, R. Ehrlich$^{12}$, J. Eisch$^{20}$, R. W. Ellsworth$^{12}$, O. Engdegård$^{29}$, S. Euler$^{1}$, P. A. Evenson$^{23}$, O. Fadiran$^{3}$, A. R. Fazely$^{4}$, K. Filimonov$^{5}$, C. Finley$^{20}$, M. M. Foerster$^{28}$, B. D. Fox$^{28}$, A. Franckowiak$^{7}$, R. Franke$^{32}$, T. K. Gaisser$^{23}$, J. Gallagher$^{19}$, R. Ganugapati$^{20}$, H. Geenen$^{31}$, L. Gerhardt$^{16}$, A. Goldschmidt$^{6}$, J. A. Goodman$^{12}$, R. Gozzini$^{21}$, T. Griesel$^{21}$, A. Groß$^{15}$, S. Grullon$^{20}$, R. M. Gunasingha$^{4}$, M. Gurtner$^{31}$, C. Ha$^{28}$, A. Hallgren$^{29}$, F. Halzen$^{20}$, K. Han$^{11}$, K. Hanson$^{20}$, D. Hardtke$^{5}$, R. Hardtke$^{25}$, Y. Hasegawa$^{10}$, J. Heise$^{30}$, K. Helbing$^{31}$, M. Hellwig$^{21}$, P. Herquet$^{22}$, S. Hickford$^{11}$, G. C. Hill$^{20}$, J. Hodges$^{20}$, K. D. Hoffman$^{12}$, K. Hoshina$^{20}$, D. Hubert$^{9}$, B. Hughey$^{20}$, J.-P. Hülß$^{1}$, P. O. Hulth$^{26}$, K. Hultqvist$^{26}$, S. Hundertmark$^{26}$, R. L. Imlay$^{4}$, M. Inaba$^{10}$, A. Ishihara$^{10}$, J. Jacobsen$^{20}$, G. S. Japaridze$^{3}$, H. Johansson$^{26}$, J. M. Joseph$^{6}$, K.-H. Kampert$^{31}$, A. Kappes$^{20,\: a}$, T. Karg$^{31}$, A. Karle$^{20}$, H. Kawai$^{10}$, J. L. Kelley$^{20}$, J. Kiryluk$^{6,\: 5}$, F. Kislat$^{7}$, S. R. Klein$^{6,\: 5}$, S. Klepser$^{32}$, G. Kohnen$^{22}$, H. Kolanoski$^{7}$, L. Köpke$^{21}$, M. Kowalski$^{7}$, T. Kowarik$^{21}$, M. Krasberg$^{20}$, K. Kuehn$^{16}$, T. Kuwabara$^{23}$, M. Labare$^{8}$, K. Laihem$^{1}$, H. Landsman$^{20}$, R. Lauer$^{32}$, H. Leich$^{32}$, D. Leier$^{13}$, J. Lundberg$^{29}$, J. Lünemann$^{13}$, J. Madsen$^{25}$, R. Maruyama$^{20}$, K. Mase$^{10}$, H. S. Matis$^{6}$, T. McCauley$^{6}$, C. P. McParland$^{6}$, K. Meagher$^{12}$, A. Meli$^{13}$, T. Messarius$^{13}$, P. Mészáros$^{28,\: 27}$, H. Miyamoto$^{10}$, A. Mohr$^{7}$, T. Montaruli$^{20,\: b}$, R. Morse$^{20}$, S. M. Movit$^{27}$, K. Münich$^{13}$, R. Nahnhauer$^{32}$, J. W. Nam$^{16}$, P. Nießen$^{23}$, D. R. Nygren$^{6}$, S. Odrowski$^{32}$, A. Olivas$^{12}$, M. Olivo$^{29}$, M. Ono$^{10}$, S. Panknin$^{7}$, S. Patton$^{6}$, C. Pérez de los Heros$^{29}$, A. Piegsa$^{21}$, D. Pieloth$^{32}$, A. C. Pohl$^{29,\: c}$, R. Porrata$^{5}$, J. Pretz$^{12}$, P. B. Price$^{5}$, G. T. Przybylski$^{6}$, K. Rawlins$^{2}$, S. Razzaque$^{28,\: 27}$, P. Redl$^{12}$, E. Resconi$^{15}$, W. Rhode$^{13}$, M. Ribordy$^{17}$, A. Rizzo$^{9}$, S. Robbins$^{31}$, W. J. Robbins$^{28}$, P. Roth$^{12}$, F. Rothmaier$^{21}$, C. Rott$^{28}$, C. Roucelle$^{6,\: 5}$, D. Rutledge$^{28}$, D. Ryckbosch$^{14}$, H.-G. Sander$^{21}$, S. Sarkar$^{24}$, K. Satalecka$^{32}$, S. Schlenstedt$^{32}$, T. Schmidt$^{12}$, D. Schneider$^{20}$, O. Schultz$^{15}$, D. Seckel$^{23}$, B. Semburg$^{31}$, S. H. Seo$^{26}$, Y. Sestayo$^{15}$, S. Seunarine$^{11}$, A. Silvestri$^{16}$, A. J. Smith$^{12}$, C. Song$^{20}$, G. M. Spiczak$^{25}$, C. Spiering$^{32}$, T. Stanev$^{23}$, T. Stezelberger$^{6}$, R. G. Stokstad$^{6}$, M. C. Stoufer$^{6}$, S. Stoyanov$^{23}$, E. A. Strahler$^{20}$, T. Straszheim$^{12}$, K.-H. Sulanke$^{32}$, G. W. Sullivan$^{12}$, Q. Swillens$^{8}$, I. Taboada$^{5}$, O. Tarasova$^{32}$, A. Tepe$^{31}$, S. Ter-Antonyan$^{4}$, S. Tilav$^{23}$, M. Tluczykont$^{32}$, P. A. Toale$^{28}$, D. Tosi$^{32}$, D. Turčan$^{12}$, N. van Eijndhoven$^{30}$, J. Vandenbroucke$^{5}$, A. Van Overloop$^{14}$, V. Viscomi$^{28}$, C. Vogt$^{1}$, B. Voigt$^{32}$, C. Walck$^{26}$, T. Waldenmaier$^{23}$, H. Waldmann$^{32}$, M. Walter$^{32}$, C. Wendt$^{20}$, C. H. Wiebusch$^{1}$, C. Wiedemann$^{26}$, G. Wikström$^{26}$, D. R. Williams$^{28}$, R. Wischnewski$^{32}$, H. Wissing$^{1}$, K. Woschnagg$^{5}$, X. W. Xu$^{4}$, G. Yodh$^{16}$, S. Yoshida$^{10}$, J. D. Zornoza$^{20,\: d}$
$^{1}$ III Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany
$^{2}$ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508, USA
$^{3}$ CTSPS, Clark-Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA
$^{4}$ Dept. of Physics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA
$^{5}$ Dept. of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
$^{6}$ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
$^{7}$ Institut für Physik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany
$^{8}$ Université Libre de Bruxelles, Science Faculty CP230, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
$^{9}$ Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Dienst ELEM, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
$^{10}$ Dept. of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan
$^{11}$ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
$^{12}$ Dept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
$^{13}$ Dept. of Physics, Universität Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany
$^{14}$ Dept. of Subatomic and Radiation Physics, University of Gent, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
$^{15}$ Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, D-69177 Heidelberg, Germany
$^{16}$ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
$^{17}$ Laboratory for High Energy Physics, École Polytechnique Fédérale, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
$^{18}$ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
$^{19}$ Dept. of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
$^{20}$ Dept. of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
$^{21}$ Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
$^{22}$ University of Mons-Hainaut, 7000 Mons, Belgium
$^{23}$ Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
$^{24}$ Dept. of Physics, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK
$^{25}$ Dept. of Physics, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI 54022, USA
$^{26}$ Dept. of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
$^{27}$ Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
$^{28}$ Dept. of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
$^{29}$ Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden
$^{30}$ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Utrecht University/SRON, NL-3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands
$^{31}$ Dept. of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany
$^{32}$ DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany
$^{a}$ on leave of absence from Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Physikalisches Institut, D-91058, Erlangen, Germany
$^{b}$ on leave of absence from Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-70126, Bari, Italy
$^{c}$ affiliated with School of Pure and Applied Natural Sciences, Kalmar University, S-39182 Kalmar, Sweden
$^{d}$ affiliated with IFIC (CSIC-Universitat de València), A. C. 22085, 46071 Valencia, Spain
**Acknowledgments**
We acknowledge the support from the following agencies: National Science Foundation-Office of Polar Program, National Science Foundation-Physics Division, University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Department of Energy, and National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (supported by the Office of Energy Research of the Department of Energy), the NSF-supported TeraGrid system at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA); Swedish Research Council, Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; German Ministry for Education and Research, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany; Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS-FWO), Flanders Institute to encourage scientific and technological research in industry (IWT), Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural affairs (OSTC); the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO); M. Ribordy acknowledges the support of the SNF (Switzerland); A. Kappes and J. D. Zornoza acknowledge support by the EU Marie Curie OIF Program.

**Table of Contents**

cm

-   K. Hoshina for the IceCube Collaboration, *Diffuse high-energy neutrino searches in AMANDA-II and IceCube: Results and future prospects*

-   P. Desiati for the IceCube Collaboration, *Measurement of the atmospheric neutrino flux with AMANDA-II and IceCube*

-   T. Montaruli for the IceCube Collaboration, *First Results of the IceCube Observatory on High Energy Neutrino Astronomy*

-   C. Rott for the IceCube Collaboration, *Indirect Searches for Dark Matter with IceCube*

-   M. Ono, A. Ishihara and S. Yoshida for the IceCube Collaboration, *Identification of Extremely-high energy starting neutrino events with the IceCube observatory*

# Introduction

Extra-terrestrial neutrinos have been regarded as one of the most promising tools to investigate the non-thermal Universe. Due to their low interaction cross section, neutrinos retain their original source information such as direction and energy spectrum. However, the low interaction cross section makes it difficult to detect neutrinos which must interact within or near the telescope. The size of the telescope must thus be large enough to collect a sufficient number of neutrinos to find and probe extra-terrestrial sources.

AMANDA-II is a neutrino telescope consisting of 677 optical modules attached to 19 strings, deployed between 1500 m to 1950 m depth within a 200 m diameter in glacial ice at the South Pole. Following the success of AMANDA-II, the cubic kilometer-sized IceCube experiment started construction in 2005. By the spring of 2007, 22 strings with 1320 digital optical modules (DOMs) out of the 4800 planned had been deployed, at a depth of 1450 m - 2450 m surrounding AMANDA-II.

With these observatories numerous analyses are performed to search for extra-terrestrial neutrinos . The target of diffuse analysis are neutrinos from unresolved sources. If the neutrino flux from an individual source is too small to be detected by point source search techniques , it is nevertheless possible to investigate their characteristics by combining events from isotropically distributed sources. The extra-terrestrial neutrinos are predicted to follow a energy spectrum resulting from shock acceleration processes . Since the atmospheric neutrino flux has a much softer energy spectrum, an excess of events at higher energy over the expected atmospheric neutrino background would be indicative of an extra-terrestrial $\nu$ flux.

In this paper we present analyses with AMANDA-II data collected during the period 2000–2003 and IceCube data obtained with 9 strings (IC9) in 2006.

# Search Method

Cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere create pions, kaons, and charmed hadrons which can later decay into muons and neutrinos. The main background for this analysis consists of atmospheric muons traveling downward through the ice. Diffuse analyses use the Earth as a filter to search for upgoing astrophysical neutrino-induced events. Once the background muons have been rejected, the data set mainly consists of neutrino-induced upward events . To separate atmospheric neutrinos from extra-terrestrial neutrinos, we make use of the number of optical modules that reported at least one Cherenkov photon during an event ($N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$$\!$) as the energy estimator. The number of events above an $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$cut has been compared with sets of monte-carlo prediction for E$^{-2}$ and atmospheric neutrino models (Bartol , Honda ). The $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$cut was optimized to produce the best limit setting sensitivity . In order not to bias the analysis, data above the resulting $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$cut were kept hidden from analyzer while the lower $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$ events were compared to atmospheric neutrino expectations from Bartol and Honda.

# AMANDA-II diffuse muon searches

Searches for a diffuse flux have been performed with AMANDA-II data obtained 2000-2003 (807 days livetime) . The observed $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$distribution is compared to the atmospheric neutrino background calculations in Figure . For $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$$>100$ region, 6 events were seen, while 7.0 were expected. Using the range of atmospheric uncertainty (shaded band in Figure ) in the limit calculation  leads to an upper limit on a $\Phi \propto E^{-2}$ flux of muon neutrinos at Earth of $\mathrm{E^{2}_{\nu} \times dN_{\nu}/dE_{\nu}}$$= 7.4\times10^{-8}$ $\mathrm{GeV\;cm^{-2}\;s^{-1}\;sr^{-1}}$. This upper limit is valid in the energy range 16–2500 TeV. Figure  shows the upper limit on the $\nu_{\mu}$ flux from sources with an E$^{-2}$ energy spectrum. The limit from the AMANDA-II 807 days analysis is a factor of four above the Waxman-Bahcall upper bound .

# IceCube 9 String diffuse muon searches

Data from the first nine IceCube strings (IC9), with livetime 137 days, was analyzed to search for a diffuse flux. The atmospheric muon rejection and $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$cut threshold are re-optimized  to accommodate the new detector geometry. The finalized $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$cut=33 for the IC9 137 days gives a sensitivity $\mathrm{E^{2}_{\nu} \times dN_{\nu}/dE_{\nu}}$$= 1.3\times10^{-7}$ $\mathrm{GeV\;cm^{-2}\;s^{-1}\;sr^{-1}}$ on the neutrino energy range of 25 TeV to 10 PeV, which is a factor of two above the AMANDA-II 807 day upper limit.

Since the sensitivity of IC9 137 days was well above the AMANDA-II upper limit, we revealed the high-energy events ($N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$$>$`<!-- -->`{=html}33) for the sake of a verification study of the detector. 6 events were observed while 6.5 were expected from the Bartol atmospheric neutrino model , which indicates no signal observation, consistent with the better AMANDA-II upper limit.

# Outlook for IceCube 22 strings

It is an encouraging sign that the IC9 137 day is within a factor of two of the 807 day AMANDA-II result. With same atmospheric muon rejection and $N_{\mathrm{ch}}\;$cut as IC9, a sensitivity of IceCube 22 strings (IC22) for 137 days is expected to reach $\mathrm{E^{2}_{\nu} \times dN_{\nu}/dE_{\nu}}$$= 4.0\times10^{-8}$ $\mathrm{GeV\;cm^{-2}\;s^{-1}\;sr^{-1}}$. This is already a factor of three better than IC9. Improvements of event separation to extract extra-terrestrial neutrinos from atmospheric neutrinos  are ongoing together with the optimization of background muon rejection for the IC22 geometry, which should improve the sensitivity further.

# Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Office of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation.

# References

# Introduction

Neutrinos are the ideal cosmic messengers that allow us to probe the origin of cosmic rays and high energy mechanisms that shaped our Universe, since they can propagate through huge distances almost undisturbed from their sources. Detection of neutrinos in correlation with possible sources of cosmic rays would be the awaited smoking gun that would prove hadronic acceleration. On the other hand, the very same reasons that make neutrinos interesting cosmic messengers, make them also difficult to detect, requiring large volume detectors deployed in the deep oceans or in the antarctic ice .

The IceCube Observatory is a kilometer-cube size neutrino telescope in construction at the geographic South Pole , and it presently consists of 22 strings (hence tagged as IC22). The strings are located on an hexagonal array with a spacing of about 125 m, each of which contains 60 digital optical sensors that are 17 m apart. IceCube embeds the predecessor AMANDA-II array, which consists of 677 analog optical sensors compactly arranged in 19 strings .

The goal of neutrino telescopes is the detection of high energy neutrinos of extra-terrestrial origin . The major background is the intense flux of downward muons produced by the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's atmosphere: about a million of them for each neutrino-induced event. The virtually background free upgoing atmospheric neutrinos constitute a foreground of diffuse events among which we search for the high energy extra-terrestrial events. The IceCube Observatory will collect an unprecedented statistics of atmospheric neutrinos, allowing us to measure this foreground and to understand it, and, therefore, to do neutrino astrophysics.

# Selecting Atmospheric Neutrinos

An upward moving event in a neutrino telescope would be guaranteed to be neutrino-induced muon track, if the direction reconstruction was not affected by any ambiguity. In reality, less than 5% of the downward muon bundles are mistakenly reconstructed as upgoing. Moreover, in the IC22 array, about 5% of the recorded events are pairs of uncorrelated muon bundles that happen to pass through the detector in time coincidence. Around 10% of the coincident events mimic upward moving tracks. Both these sources of background are in excess of about $10^3-10^4$ with respect to the neutrino-induced events, if no specific selection criteria are applied. The event selection is designed to achieve a good track directional resolution. For instance, requiring an angular resolution of about 2$^{\circ}$, we can collect about one atmospheric neutrino per hour in the IC22 array (with a selection efficiency of about 15-20%), of which about 10-15% are fakes. The first analysis of atmospheric neutrinos in IceCube was performed on data collected by the first 9 strings during 2006. 234 events were recorded in 137.4 days livetime, with an expectation of 211$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}76.1(syst)$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}14.5(stat) from Monte Carlo simulations . As shown in Fig. , most of the selected neutrino events have energy just below 1 TeV. The low energy profile is dominated by the experimental trigger and selection efficiency, while the high energy shape is determined by the steep spectrum and neutrino cross section.

The full IceCube array will be able to collect about 5-10 atmospheric neutrinos per hour, depending on the selection criteria and, as a consequence, on the event quality.

The detection of electron neutrino-induced events is more critical than muon events, since their rate is about one order of magnitude lower that the one of muon neutrinos. Such events in IceCube are identified through the hadronic cascades produced by charged current interactions. The main background is due to bremsstrahlung energy loss by muon bundles. A detailed study on background rejection is under way.

## Low Energy Neutrinos

The criteria currently under investigation to achieve a good background rejection, result in a neutrino energy threshold of 100 GeV. At these energies, the uncertainty on the flux of atmospheric neutrinos is estimated to be larger than 30% . Almost one third of the uncertainty is due to the composition of cosmic rays above 1 TeV, and the reminder to the high energy hadronic interaction models. Due to kinematical reasons, neutrinos produced in the decays of kaons (K) dominate the atmospheric flux above about 100 GeV , with uncertainties significantly larger than on pion ($\pi$) production in the same energy region. Therefore the measurement of atmospheric neutrinos below 100 GeV would probe a region affected by smaller theoretical uncertainties and would help in constraining the absolute normalization. With theoretical uncertainties below 25%, we can test the experimental capabilities of the IceCube experiment and assess its systematics down to that order of magnitude.

The IC22 and AMANDA-II arrays can detect events in time coincidence, lowering the neutrino energy threshold to about 30 GeV (resulting in about 50% more events, see Fig ), since AMANDA-II is a denser detector and, combined with IceCube, improves the track angular resolution below 100 GeV. At 30 GeV standard oscillations inevitably affect the measurement of neutrino flux, and for vertical tracks, about 70% of muon neutrinos have oscillated into another flavor . On the other hand, experimental energy and angular resolutions dilute the effect of oscillations. A less systematics prone reconstruction of high quality low energy upward moving tracks close to the IceCube strings, is under way. The muon neutrino survival probability has its minimum at 30 GeV for vertical tracks. Since the optical sensors are only 17 m apart, it is possible to statistically estimate the muon track length $L_{\mu}$ and its energy $E_{\mu}$, and deconvolve them in a L$_{\nu}$/E$_{\nu}$ measurement with minimized systematics due to the $\nu_{\mu}-\mu$ kinematics, where $L_\nu$ is the neutrino path length and $E_\nu$ the neutrino energy.

## High Energy Neutrinos

Due to the steep atmospheric neutrino spectrum most of the events are around a few TeV. Above this energy the detailed measurement of the spectrum slope depends on the primary cosmic ray spectrum and composition, on the K production in the atmosphere and, mainly above 100 TeV and on the yet unknown contribution of charm production. The atmospheric muon flux is also used to probe interaction models. The $\mu^+/\mu^-$ ratio measured by the MINOS experiment at about 1 TeV has provided an important constraint on the K$^+$/K$^-$ ratio in the atmosphere . Neutrinos are even more heavily affected by the K ratio above 1 TeV, therefore this constraint is more relevant for neutrino production. With IceCube it will be possible to probe the K/$\pi$ relative contribution to the atmospheric neutrino flux, with a combined analysis of energy and zenith angular shapes.

Atmospheric neutrinos above 10 TeV can be used to probe the internal structure of the Earth, that starts to be opaque to neutrino propagation at about 25 TeV, where the Earth's diameter equals the neutrino absorption length . Due to the steepness of the atmospheric neutrino energy spectrum, IceCube will take 10 years to become sensitive to the Earth's matter profile, providing direct geophysical information. Above 100 TeV neutrinos starts to be dominated by the decay of heavy mesons and baryons containing the charm quarks . This component of the atmospheric neutrinos is still very uncertain, mainly because of the unknown baryon contribution. A better assessment of the charm background is critical for the discovery of a high energy extra-terrestrial signal.

# References

# Introduction

The main objective for neutrino telescopes is the detection of astrophysical neutrinos at energies above some tens of GeV, which would prove proton or nuclei acceleration in sources. This discovery would help in identifying the sources of the ultra-high energy cosmic rays observed up to about $10^{21}$ eV in giant air shower arrays. The analysis techniques illustrated here aim at finding the signal of neutrinos from point-sources on top of the background of atmospheric neutrinos, which is more uniformly distributed in arrival direction. We refer to other contributions at this conference for a general introduction to IceCube and for the detection of diffuse and atmospheric neutrino fluxes . IceCube is now running with 22 strings (IC22) and during this construction season, just started in Nov. 2007, we aim at installing 14 to 18 more strings. When completed in 2011, it will be composed of up to 80 strings (IC80) holding 4800 photomultipliers at depths between about 1.5 and 2.5 km in the Antarctic ice. IceCube can measure all neutrino flavors but muon neutrinos are the only ones that allow a pointing accuracy at the level of a degree. Hence we focus here on this channel. Searches for steady-state emission of neutrinos from point-sources typically require a sample of neutrinos with $<10\%$ contamination by background atmospheric muons. To achieve this goal we are limited to lower (Northern) hemisphere searches, unless other time or energy-dependent constraints are included in the analysis (eg. for bursting emissions such as gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) or very high energy extra-galactic sources with much harder spectra than atmospheric neutrinos). The Earth acts as a filter and absorbs the background of atmospheric muons. It begins to absorb neutrinos above the PeV range depending on the direction, which determines the column density crossed by neutrinos. The first results of IC9 are summarized in Sec. , together with the 2005-6 data of AMANDA-II, which combined with the previous 5 years constitutes the largest sample of high energy neutrinos ever collected for these studies (924+887 in 386 d in 2005-6 + 4282 in 1001 d in 2000-4). These results, together with the anticipated performance for various configurations of IceCube and expected and measured results from other experiments are represented in Fig 1 (left), summarizing the state of the art for neutrino point-like source searches.

# IC9 and AMANDA-II results and expected performance of future configuration

The data sample for IC9 was obtained in 137.4 d during Jun.-Nov. 2006: 233 neutrino events (227 expected from atmospheric neutrinos and less than 10% from mis-reconstructed atmospheric muons) are extracted by a filtering procedure including two cuts aimed at rejecting coincident events from 2 independent showers (NDir = number of PMTs hit by unscattered light $> 8$ and $\sigma$ = event by event accuracy of tracking $<2.5^{\circ}$). More details on the analysis are in . We have developed for these events and for the 2005-6 analysis of AMANDA-II a likelihood-based analysis that employs the angular distribution of the background + source hypothesis compared to the background only one. This method can be extended by including further information, as shown in Fig. (right) where the two curves allow a comparison of the method using additional energy-based information and not using it. The variable used here that relates to the neutrino energy is Nch, the number of hit photomultipliers along the track. This variable is sensitive to different spectra and allows a better separation of signal from background (atmospheric neutrinos follow an $E^{-3.6}$ power law above about 100 GeV) when the signal spectrum is harder. It can be seen that for an $E^{-2}$ source spectrum the improvement is of the order of 30% compared to the case using only the directional information, and the total improvement compared to more traditional binned analyses using optimized angular windows is about 45% at declinations of $\sim 40^{\circ}$. Similar studies will be performed using time dependent information especially in view of multi-wavelength studies involving the enormous amount of information coming from gamma-ray experiments. Other programs ongoing in the experiment are Target of Opportunity programs in which IceCube sends alerts to other experiments . In Fig  we show the effective area and point spread function for IC9 and what we expect for IC22 and IC80. These estimates are based on the selection criteria used in the IC9 analysis, while work continues on optimizing the cuts for the latest configuration. With these cuts we expect about 3,700 events in IC22, and 40,000 in IC80 per year from atmospheric neutrinos from the lower hemisphere.

GRBs are extremely promising source candidates for IceCube, which will be at least 10 times more sensitive than AMANDA-II and should detect GRB neutrinos in a few years if fireball models are correct. We refer to for more details.

# Outlook

Up to now there is no significant detection of astrophysical neutrinos. Nevertheless, we have well-developed methods to achieve a high discovery potential as the detector size approaches the cubic-kilometer scale. At the moment the collaboration is considering extending the detector for high energy studies by deploying some of the outer strings of the final detector at a larger distances than others. There is also interest to deploy an inner core array inside IceCube to enhance the detection capability for atmospheric neutrinos, WIMPs and galactic sources and lower the energy threshold down to about 30 GeV.

# References

# Introduction

In the concordance model of cosmology, only about $4\%$ of the universe's mass-energy content is described by standard model particles. The remaining fraction is predicted to be $23\%$ non-baryonic cold dark matter (DM) and $73\%$ dark energy. Understanding the dark sector of the universe is one of the most challenging problems in modern physics. Neutrino telescopes such as IceCube can search indirectly for DM by detecting neutrinos created in DM annihilation processes. IceCube will instrument a volume of $1~{\rm km}^3$ by 2011 with 80 strings, of which 22 have been deployed, each containing 60 Digital Optical Modules (DOMs). The AMANDA detector, which has been taking data in its final configuration since 2000 has been integrated into IceCube and is combinedly operated .

# WIMP Searches with IceCube and AMANDA

Massive objects could gravitationally capture cold DM, resulting in an enhanced DM density at the center. Neutrinos could then be produced in annihilation processes and would escape from the source, providing a potential signal for kilometer scale neutrino telescopes. Indirect searches for such DM signals are competitive to direct searches for models with significant spin-dependent neutralino-proton couplings .

We have searched for such signals (from the Sun and center of the Earth) with AMANDA and upper limits were placed on the neutrino flux produced by neutralino annihilation processes.

In the search for solar WIMPs  the background was estimated from off-source data in the same declination band as the Sun. A $90\%$ CL exclusion limit on the neutrino flux was set for a neutralino mass range from $100~{\rm GeV}$ to $5~{\rm TeV}$ as seen in Fig. . Two annihilation channels were compared: ${\rm W}^+{\rm W}^-$, which produces a hard neutrino energy spectrum, and $b\bar{b}$ yielding a soft spectrum. The sensitivity for solar WIMPs has also been evaluated using the combined IceCube/AMANDA detector  and a considerable improvement compared to AMANDA was achieved. The improvement is due to a reduced trigger threshold, a larger effective volume, and the detector configuration, in which AMANDA forms a more densely instrumented subarray inside the IceCube detector, which is especially important for detection of sub-TeV neutrinos. Peripheral strings can be used as a veto region to more effectively reduce the atmospheric muon background. The detector configuration allows for an analysis of fully and partially contained events yielding additional sensitivity.

We have also searched for vertically up-going muon neutrinos as expected from neutralino annihilations in the Earth's core using the AMANDA dataset and placed a $90\%$ CL upper limit on the flux  as shown in Fig.  and compared to other experiments.

The region around the Galactic Center is another good potential candidate for sources of neutrinos from DM annihilations. Located in the Southern sky, it was so far inaccessible to AMANDA due to an irreducible down-going atmospheric muon background. However, the much larger IceCube detector might offer the potential to observe these neutrinos as fully or partially contained events. A dedicated filter for these contained events has been implemented .

# Conclusions and Outlook

The combined IceCube/AMANDA detector provides a significant improvement in sensitivity for searches of DM. Dedicated filters for these events have been implemented and the analysis effort is ongoing. Extensions of IceCube to construct a more densly instrumented detector array near the bottom inside IceCube are also being studied. Such a configuration would further improve the sensitifity to sub-TeV neutrinos, as the deep ice is clearer, the deeper location provides an improved shielding from cosmic ray backgrounds, and surrounding IceCube strings can be used to reject down-going atmospheric muons.

# References

.

# Introduction

Extremely high energy (EHE) neutrinos are expected to play a key role in understanding the origin of EHE cosmic rays (EHECRs), because energetic neutrinos can be produced by collisions of EHECRs and the cosmic microwave background photons, a process known as GZK mechanism . In the initial stage, IceCube neutrino observatory  has performed the search for these EHE neutrinos by looking for extremely luminous events as the signal . Rejection and estimation of atmospheric muon background events is central to the analysis. However, the simulation of atmospheric muon events is associated with rather incomplete knowledges of the hadronic interactions in the relevant energy range, which leads to a hard-to-reduce uncertainty in muon background identification and rejection. One way to reduce this uncertainty is by selecting the neutrino events which are induced inside the detector instrumented volume, which in principle minimizes the dependence on our knowledge about the atmospheric muon bundles.

We report here the initial study of startingEHE neutrino event identification with full IceCube using Monte Carlo simulation. The MC sample studied consists of isotropic muons and starting $\nu_{\mu}$ events with energies from 10$^5$ GeV to 10$^{11}$ GeV, following $E^{-1}$ spectrum.

# The methods to identify neutrino-induced events

We can expect that the location of $\nu_\mu$-N interaction is close to the center of the IceCube detector, so are the positions of the IceCube digital optical modules (DOMs) which first records the Cherenkov photons from the neutrino induced charged lepton or hadron secondaries in the event, while the earliest hits in atmospheric muon events are always found in the outer layer in-ice detectors. Fig.  shows the distribution of the first hit DOM locations of the simulated events in cylindrical coordinates where $z$ is depth and $\rho$ the distance from the central axis of the array. Only the DOMs recording more than 5 photo-electrons contribute in the plot to reduce the chance of mistaking the earliest hit from noise as signal. This threshold was determined by the real data generated from nitrogen laser deployed in the deep ice together with the DOMs . One can see that $\mu$ and starting $\nu_\mu$ events are clearly separated.

Another approach is based on the fact that, unlike muon which emits Cherenkov photons throughout its track, trajectories of neutrinos are invisible to the optical sensors and thus a starting neutrino induced event leaves sizable number of DOMs without photon signal near the neutrino trajectories. This can be observed in the characteristic lateral distributions. Shown on the left and middle in Fig.  is the number of photo electrons recorded in each DOM as a function of lateral distance (LD) of the DOMs from the MC-truth trajectories of the through-going $\mu$ and $\nu_{\mu}$ respectively. The green band at the bottom of each distribution represents those DOMs recording less than 0.3 photo-electron. To describe the difference, we define the two right triangles shaded in black and red shown in the left panel of Fig. . One has the right apex at zero LD, and the other at the LD of the closest LD DOMs with no photon signal recorded. Taking the ratio of the areas of these triangles event-by-event, it is observed that neutrino induced events are more likely to give this ratio close to unity because DOMs without photon hit exist at smaller lateral distances. The area ratio distributions are shown in the right panel of Fig. . The plot indicates that this method identifies approximately 70 % of the starting neutrino events with the area ration cut of 0.85, while rejecting 99.95 % of muon events.

# Discussion

The first hit DOM method shows high efficiency but it relies on a single DOM information and requires state-of-the-art level of understanding of the detector response. The lateral distribution method can be more reliable, but a high accuracy of the track trajectory reconstruction is necessary. Note that the present study uses the simulation truth trajectories. We also found that irreducible background to this approach is a muon decay event which very rarely occurs in EHE range. A combination of the two methods described here might provide a more reliable way to identify neutrino induced events with less dependence on detailed detector response.

# References

[^1]: IceCube web site at http://icecube.wisc.edu


abstract: Some essential conceptual aspects that will fill some logical gaps of the frame to interpret the gravity as an entropic force was investigated, we focus on some crucial issues that didn't emphasized in Verlinde's original paper\[arXiv:1001.0785\]. This note explains the context that holographic screen can be endowed with an entropy that proportional to it's area and the meaning in using equipartition law in spacetime thermodynamics, thermodynamic quantities such as entropy and temperature are observer dependent is the crucial concept in explaining those problems. Coarse graining will leave information in the gravitational potential, which will connect different observer's point of views for the same object. This will help us to understand the coarse graining dependent definition of entropy and the nature of spacetime. It also indicates the way that entropy bounds work, which is consistant with Bekenstein entropy bound and holographic entropy bound.
address: *Department of physics, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, 312000, China*
author: Qiao-Jun Cao
bibliography: entropic.bib
title: Notes on Entropic Interpretation of Gravity

# Introduction

Since the discovery of black hole thermodynamics by Bekenstein and Hawking, the concept that gravity is an emergent phenomenon has been widely approved. This idea that there should be internal degrees of freedom exist for spacetime can be traced back to the year 1968, when Sakharov found some similar behavior in the elasticity and the spacetime dynamics. The similarity between gravitational force and Elastic force is not just a coincidence, but have some profound connections. Elastic force is not seem as a fundamental force, gravitational force should also not fundamental, if elasticity and gravity originate from the same kind of mechanism. Current gravity theory such as Einstein's general relativity may be an emergent low-energy long-distance phenomenon that is insensitive to the details of the underlying quantum theory of gravity. It will be very exciting if we have an statistical description of the internal degrees of freedom of spacetime, although this is just an extravagant hope at present.

In 2010, a paper by Erik P. Verlinde attracts tremendous attention. He advocated the idea that gravity is an emergent phenomenon and asserted that gravity is an entropic force in . The main idea of entropic interpretation of gravity is summarized as follows: gravitional system have an microscopic structure, that is to say, it is a thermodynamic system that all of the thermodynamic variables can be endowed, gravity is just a statistical tendency to return to a maximal entropy state. Based on some general assumptions, such as the holographic princple, the equipartion law of energy and the Unruh temperature formula, the Newton's law of gravity and the second law of Newton can be derived.

The entropic interpretation of gravity give rise to a variety of debates, the scientific community is divided into two sides, some people support the idea, others don't, for the criticism, see and . The entropic interpretation of gravity give us a new perspective in the study of cosmology, the Friedmann equation can be derived by using this frame. It also have been used to study the dark energy, cosmological inflation and acceleration.

In this note, we disscuss some essential conceptual aspects of this paradigm that is still obscure in Verlinde's paper. As we have stated in , those aspects stated below should be further investigated:

1.  In Verlinde's paper , the boundary of a gravitational system is a suppositional holographic screen, the derivation of the dynamic equation of gravity and the discussion of the emergence of spacetime is all related to the holographic screen. However, there is no explicit explanation in that how can we endow the holographic screen a temperature and an entropy. It should be noticed that the temperature and entropy of a gravitational system is observer dependent, since we can only endow a temperature and an entropy to an observer dependent horizon, when it comes to a holographic screen, we need an explanation to fullfills the logical gap.

2.  The equipartition law is a key assumption in deriving Newton's law and Einstein's field equation in , but we still don't kown the implication of being used to spacetime thermodynamics and the context of its application.

3.  In , holographic screen is viewed as the boundary that separate the spacetime into an emergent part and a non-existent part. It is of no sense to separate the space into two regions with a suppositional screen, and said that one part is existed and the other is not. What is the real edge that separate the emergent spacetime region from which has not emerged yet?

Those problems stated above are crucial, we want to clarify those problems in this note. It is surprised that they are all close related to the properties of horizon, and thermodynamic quantities are observer dependent in the thermodynamic description of spacetime. All those problems will be automatically resolved after we made some conceptual change about the spacetime.

Some authors have developed a formal thermodynamic first law on holographic screens with spherical symmetry, but the physical implication of their results is ambiguous. We found that out result will provide an explanation to what is the explicit physical meaning of the thermodynamic parameters used in their formula.

This note will be organized as follow: In sec., the important role of horizon played in spacetime thermodynamics was discussed, and we explain the context that holographic screen can be endowed with an entropy that proportional to it's area. In sec., we illustrate the meaning and conditions when we apply the thermodynamic equipartition law to spacetime thermodynamics. In sec., we discuss coarse graining in gravitational system and it's implication in understand the coarse graining dependent definition of entropy and the entropy bounds. Discussions and conclusions were made in sec..

# Horizons and Holographic Screens

In general relativity, light cones are effected by gravity, and it follows that there will exist observers who do not have access to part of the spacetime, that is to say those observers will perceive horizons. It should be noticed that all horizons are observer dependent, and in general relativity all observers are set on an equal footing because this is the crucial reason for Einstein to establish general relativity, we should also treat all horizons equally in the study of spacetime thermodynamics.

Compared to ordinary screens in spacetime, horizons have distinctive features. It has a key property that it can block information from the corresponding observer which ordinary screens don't have, it is this property of horizon that make us to endow an entropy to the horizon for the observers who perceive the horizon. Supposing energy flows across the horizon, the entropy in the region accessible to the observer can decrease because the entropy carried by the energy flow is not accessible to the observer any longer, if the horizon doesn't have an entropy, the second law of thermodynamics will be violated. Therefore, horizon should have an entropy and a corresponding temperature, and the field equation of gravity can be derived by demand the Clausius relation is hold on horizons.

It seems unnatural to endow an entropy to ordinary screens, because it is not necessary to require ordinary screens have an entropy to avoid the violation of the second law of thermodynamics, the information carried by energy flow across a ordinary screen is still approachable for the corresponding observer. In fact, the distinction between horizons and ordinary screens is artificial, the black hole horizon is just an ordinary screen from the point of view of an free falling observer, and we can construct local Rindler horizons to cover every small patch of any ordinary screens, is it a horizon or not is all depend on which kinds of observers watch it.

It should be noticed that observer dependent is a crucial concept in the discussion of following paragraphs. The holographic screen is introduced by susskind to illustrate the holographic principle. For an observer a holographic screen could be a horizon or an ordinary screen that encompass the horizon. The holographic principle states that a macroscopic region of space and everything inside it can be represented by a boundary theory living on the boundary of the region. The strongest supporting evidence for the holographic principle comes from black hole physics and the AdS/CFT correspondence, in those two cases the number of degrees of freedom of the boundary surface agrees with the number of physical degrees of freedom contained in the bulk. The entropy of a Schwarzschild black hole, $S_{BH}=A_{horizon}/4$, precisely saturates the holographic entropy bound. In this sense, if we view the black hole as an isolate system, a black hole is the most entropic object one can put inside a given spherical surface. This is not surprising since the gravitaional evolution can be viewed as a thermodynamic process for a system to reach an equilibrium state that the holographic principle attained. For complete weakly self-gravitating physical system surrounded by a spacelike surface with area $A$, entropy of the system, $S<A/4$, will not saturate the bound, notice that this surface is not a horizon from the point of view of the observers that view the system as an ordinary one. We may take the surface as a holographic screen, and there possibly exits a theory on it –though hard to establish, and may have peculiar properties, don't like the AdS/CFT– that dual to the bulk theory for the system. The difficulty in establishing such theory probably have something to do with redundant degrees of freedom on holographic screen, we will discuss it in sec..

For a gravitating system enclosed by a holographic screen, we can construct local Rindler horizons for every observers placed on the holographic screen who will experience an acceleration $a$ produced by the gravitational body, then, we can attribute an Unruh temperature $T=\frac{\hbar a}{2\pi k_{B}c}$ to it, and attribute an entropy $$S_{screen}=\frac{c^{3}}{4G\hbar}\int_{\mathcal{S}}dA\label{eq:holographic entropy}$$ to the holographic screen. Obviously, this amount of entropy will violate the Bekenstein entropy bound, we will clarify this problem in sec. and . One can think about the holographic screen as a storage device for information, as stated in, we call the fundamental degree of freedom (or fundamental atom) on holographic screen bit, note that the bit here is not the unit used to measure information. If we assume the holographic principle holds, the total number of bits $N$ on holographic screen is proportional to it's area $A$, that is $$N=\frac{Ac^{3}}{G\hbar}.\label{eq:total bits}$$ The degrees of freedom is consistent with entropy formula eq., and the dynamics of those bits on holographic screen is governed by the unknown dual theory mentioned above, which also rules how to store information by bits. Note that, for an observer, the holographic principle doesn't set the horizon and ordinary screen on an equal footing. The maximal storage capability of a holographic screen equals the total number of bits $N$ when the holographic screen is a horizon, that is encode one bit information by one fundamental degree of freedom, which happens when the holographic entropy bound is saturated. When the holographic entropy bound is not saturated and the holographic screen is not a horizon, more than one bits are used to encode one bit information, which is stored and processed in an unknown coarse graining way.

# The observer dependence of equipartition law

Horizon can block information from the corresponding observer and separate the spacetime into two different parts, one part is accessible and the other is not. In this sense, the horizon plays as a boundary of a gravitaional system, the system is not separated from the other by a suppositional screen, but by a causality barrier, and the "system" contain the degrees of freedom beyond the horizon which can have a dual description on the horizon.

A complete understand of the fundamental degree of freedom requires a consistent theory of quantum gravity, which has so far proved elusive. However, just as semiclassical analysis such as the Bohr model was important in the early development of quantum mechanics, a similar approach may be helpful in understanding some of the microscopic features of spacetime. To gain some intuitive understanding of the spacetime atom, let us do some semiclassical analysis for a Schwarzschild black hole with Schwarzschild radius $R$ and mass $M$. The number of the microscopic degrees of freedom of the black hole is $N=A_{horizon}$. If we divide the black hole mass $M$ evenly over the microscopic degrees of freedom, each spacetime atom will have an energy $E_{\gamma}=\frac{1}{8\pi R}$, and the Compton wavelength of it is $\lambda_{\gamma}\sim R$. This means the black hole horizon behaves like a "box" that confine the whole spacetime atom within it. Modes with Compton wavelength $\gtrsim R$ can not be confined in the black hole, and do not contribute to the entropy of the black hole; while modes with Compton wavelength $\lesssim R$ is not the most effective way to increase the entropy of the black hole, this is conflict with that black hole is a most entropic object. We speculate that the formation of a black hole is to distribute ordinary form of matter in a manipulative way with efficiency to make it as a most entropic object from the point of view of a proper observer. There is a gap in magnitude between black hole entropy and ordinary entropy, it was proven in that entropy bound for ordinary system is bounded by $A^{\frac{3}{4}}$ , it should undergo a peculiar process when the black hole is formed, we will come back to this issue in sec..

The thermodynamic description of spacetime is independent of the exact nature of the degrees of freedom, although we don't have definite knowledge about atoms of spacetime, we can apply the thermodynamic laws to gravitational system. In Verlinde's original paper , the equipartition law play a crucial role in deriving Newtion's law and Einstein's field equation. This is analogous to what we did to a Schwarzschild black hole, the total energy $E$ for a system is divided evenly over the microscopic degrees of freedom of spacetime $N$: $$E=\frac{1}{2}Nk_{B}T\label{eq:equipartition law}$$ where $k_{B}$ is Boltzman's constant and $T$ represents the temperature of the system. We can get this result if we attribute an energy $(1/2)k_{B}T$ to each microscopic degree of freedom of spacetime.

In Verlinde's paper , the meaning of the temperature $T$ is obscure. When $T$ equals the Unruh temperature $T=\frac{\hbar a}{2\pi k_{B}c}$, we can get the second law of Newton: $F=ma$; if $T$ is explained as the temperature of the holographic screen and also equals the Unruh temperature, the following entropy formula () of the screen will violate the Bekenstein entropy bound as we stated in eq.(). What are the reasons of this discrepancy ? In fact, this discrepacncy could be avoid after some issues of this problem are clarified. The entropy of a complete weakly self-gravitating physical system is bounded by the Bekenstein entropy bound, and the Bekenstein entropy bound has been explicitly shown to hold in wide classes of equilibrium systems, the system considered in Verlinde's paper is unlikely to violate the Bekenstein entropy bound. On the other hand, it is absurd to conclude that the temperature of the holographic screen is not the Unruh temperature, although the Unruh temperature formula is not necessary in deriving Newton's law of gravitation $F=G\frac{Mm}{R^{2}}$, if this is true, the gravitational force should not an ordinary force which obey the second law of Newton, since the origin of the temperature are different.

We should note that the temperature and entropy are observer dependent quantities in the thermodynamical description of gravity. An observer falling into a black hole will ascribe different thermodynamic properties to the black hole compared to an observer who is remaining stationary outside the horizon. It is also true that an inertial observer will attribute different temperature and entropy to the Minkowski vacuum compared to a Rindler observer. The entropy of the holographic screen $S_{screen}=\frac{c^{3}}{4G\hbar}\int_{\mathcal{S}}dA$ is associate with the observers who will experience an Unruh temperature $T=\frac{\hbar a}{2\pi k_{B}c}$, those observers will ascribe this entropy to the holographic screen because they experience an acceleration produced by the gravitational body and we can construct local Rindler horizon for any small patch of the holographic screen, any other observers will not attribute the same amount of entropy to the holographic screen.

When one does quantum field theory in curved spacetime, "particle" become an observer dependent notion, it is not surprise to associate different amount of entropy with a gravitational system for different kinds of observers. In , the authors showed that the entropy associated with a ordinary localized object in flat and otherwise empty space is not an invariant quantity defined by the system alone, but rather depends on which observer we ask to measure it. From the inertial observer's point of view, the entropy of an object with $n$ possible microstates and energy $\delta E$ is $\delta S_{inertial}=\ln n$, form the point of view of the Rindler observer, the entropy of the object with the same resolution is $$\delta S_{Rindler}=\frac{\delta E}{T},\label{eq:first law}$$ we see the Rindler entropy is not necessary equals to the inertial entropy, the relation between those two kinds of entropy is still in the dark, but we have reasonable ground to believe this problem will be uncovered after we understand the nature of spacetime, in section , we will argue that it has something to do with coarse gaining dependent of entropy. From the Rindler observer's point of view the relation () can be interpreted as the first law of thermodynamics on holographic screens in some sense, if an object carries energy $\delta E$ falling into the local Rindler horizon, the associated change of the holographic screen entropy will be $\frac{\delta E}{T}$.

Now, the obscureness in apply the equipartition law to gravitational system discussed above can be cleared up. When we want to measure the length of a object, we need a ruler,which means we have to use certain quantity of length as the standard length, similarly, we can apply the equipartition law to a gravitational system because spacetime have microscopic degrees of freedom. We have to conclude that the application for the equipartition law is also observer dependent, since the fundamental energy $k_{B}T/2$ is temperature dependent, and different $T$ correspond to different Rindler observer. We should note that in Schwarzschild spacetime a infinity observer is immersed in a Hawking radiation with temperature $T=\frac{1}{8\pi M}=\frac{1}{4\pi R}$, this observer will have a "ruler" with standard fundamental energy $\frac{1}{2}k_{B}T=\frac{k_{B}}{8\pi R}$, it happens that each fundamental degree of freedom have the same energy as we discussed above. In the above case used in Verlinde's paper, Rindler observers in different spherical surfaces will experience different Unruh temperatures, and will have different "ruler", so they will divide the same system into different amount of degrees of freedom. Eq.() can be thought as the integrated form of eq.().

# Coarse graining of entropy and Entropy bound

We want to point out that we can't talk about the entropy of a holographic screen without regarding to the circumstance of physical system. For a inertial observer, it is ridiculous to endow an entropy to a screen in Minkowski spacetime that is equal to it's area, similarly, for a observer placed at infinity, the entropy of a Schwarzschild black hole will not change when we go away from the horizon and choose a holographic screen that contains the horizon inside it, the observer dependent entropy is always equals to $\frac{A_{horizon}}{4}$. We therefore conclude that information can be stored on screens, and the amount of information that stored on it is determined by circumstance of the whole system and the corresponding observer that measures it, rather than the screen itself. Generally speaking, the capacity of the screen to store information is no less than information stored on the whole system surrounded by it unless the holographic screen happened to be the horizon of the corresponding observer.

Entropy is an extremely subtle concept in general relativity, a proper framework for general discussion of entropy is still lack. We have known that entropy is an observer dependent quantity and it's definition is coarse graining dependent, a question follows, what is the relationship between observers and coarse graining? We will see that the entropic force interpretation of gravity will give us some clue about this problem.

Verlinde's entropic force interpretation of gravitational force is really of some attractive properties and profound meanings. It is the first time that uncovered the origin of the gravitational force and inertia, and the mechanism of gravity is really clear and imaginable. Lots of interesting application of Verlinde's proposal have been studied, in , the authors showed that the UV/IR relation proposed by Cohen et al., as well as holographic dark energy can be derived from the entropic force formalism. The crucial equation used in is a relation between entropy $S$, used bits $N$ and Newton potential $\Phi$: $$\frac{S}{N}=-k_{B}\frac{\Phi}{2c^{2}}.\label{eq:coarse graining}$$ The Newton potential $\Phi$ can be identified as a coarse graining variable, and $0\leqslant-\frac{\Phi}{2c^{2}}$$\leqslant\frac{1}{4}$. This relation is extremely consistent with our illustration in section , because it makes it clear that the number of bits on the holographic screen which are used to dually describe the object in the bulk can be either equal to or larger than the entropy of the bulk object. Consider two observers placed on two different equipotential holographic screens with Newton potential $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$, they will experience different acceleration produced by the bulk object, and will endow two observer dependent entropy $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ to the gravitating object, according to eq.(), $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ satisfy $$\frac{S_{1}}{S_{2}}=\frac{\Phi_{2}}{\Phi_{1}},$$ we see, this relation indicate a relationship between observers and coarse graining, in other words, Newton potential $\Phi$ is a phenomenological parameter, which keeps track of the message for a coarse graining description of the bulk object on different holographic screens. Observers at rest on different holographic screens will experience different acceleration produced by the bulk object, different observers will endow different entropy to the bulk object, as we discussed in section ,and those different entropy correspond to different observers are link by gravitational potential.

We can use another example to illustrate gravitational potential measures the amount of coarse graining. Consider a object with proper energy $E$ that can surrounded by a sphere with radius $r$ in a Schwarzschild black hole background, with Schwarzschild radius $R$ and mass $M$. When place the object at infinity, a infinity observer is immersed in a Hawking radiation with temperature $T=\frac{1}{8\pi M}=\frac{1}{4\pi R}$, for this observer each microscopic degree of freedom will attribute an energy $\frac{1}{2}k_{B}T=\frac{k_{B}}{8\pi R}$, note that a fundamental degree of freedom of the black hole will have the same energy if we divide $M$ evenly over $N_{horizon}=A$, then, the total number microscopic degrees of freedom of the object at infinity is $N_{infinity}=\frac{8\pi ER}{k_{B}}$, and the entropy is $S_{infinity}=2\pi ER$. On the other hand, when we place the object just hanging out the black hole, that is the proper distance from the center of the object to the horizon is $r$, the infinity observer will attribute an energy $\frac{Er}{2R}=\frac{Er}{4M}$ to the object, where $V=\frac{r}{2R}$ is the red shift factor, when it captured by the black hole, the entropy change of the black hole is $\delta S_{BH}=8\pi M\delta M=2\pi Er$, then, the entropy of the object should be bounded by $\delta S_{BH}$, that is $S_{hanging}\leq2\pi Er$. We found that for an infinity observer in Schwarzschild black hole background, the same object placed in different location that have different gravitational potential will be attributed different entropy. This means when an object is in a background of gravity, the object is not a isolate system, it's entropy is determined by the observer as well as the gravitational background.

Next, we want to show that the eq.() is consistent with the entropy bound proposed both by Bekenstein and Susskind. First, let's go back to the problem noticed by Verlinde in Sec. 6.4 of Ref., which state that if one endow an Unruh temperature to a holographic screen that is not a horizon, the following entropy formula $S_{screen}=\frac{c^{3}}{4G\hbar}\int_{\mathcal{S}}dA$, will violate the Bekenstein entropy bound. This problem can be clarified, as we state above different observers will attribute different amount of entropy to the same object, from the Rindler observer's point of view the object is no longer an isolate system in ordinary asymptotically flat spacetime, it is not a contradiction that a inertial observer who looks the object as a complete, weakly self-gravitating, isolate system in ordinary asymptotically flat spacetime will endow it a different amount of entropy.

Now, let's explain the consistency of entropic interpretation of gravity and entropy bound more explicit. Using eq.()and(), we get $$S=-k_{B}\frac{\Phi}{2c^{2}}\frac{Ac^{3}}{G\hbar}\leqslant\frac{Ak_{B}c^{3}}{4G\hbar},\label{eq:susskind bound}$$ we use the fact that the maximum value of the ratio $-\Phi/2c^{2}$ is $1/4$ when the maximum coarse graining happens at horizons. This is just Susskind's holographic entropy bound, and we should also note that this is from the point of view of the observers that looks the object as a complete, weakly self-gravitating, isolate system in ordinary asymptotically flat spacetime.

If we use the equipartition rule $E=\frac{1}{2}Nk_{B}T$, then, eq.() can be write as: $$S=-k_{B}\frac{\Phi}{2c^{2}}\frac{2E}{k_{b}T}.$$ Due to the Unruh effect, for the system with mass $M=E/c^{2}$ which can be surrounded by a sphere of radius $R$, it is argue that $T\geqslant\frac{1}{8\pi M}\geqslant\frac{1}{4\pi R}$. The Bekenstein entropy bound $S\leqslant2\pi ER$ is followed straightforward.

# Discussions and conclusions

The entropic interpretation of gravity present in Verlinde's paper is a very provocative idea, this is a good start, but the theory is also very incomplete, first of all, these idea should be recast in more precise way, and we still have a long journey to go to build a complete gravity theory.

In this small note, we present some explanations to some essential conceptual aspects that will fill some logical gap in interpreting the gravity as an entropic force which is missed in Verlinde's origin paper, and we think this is a small step to get a more precise theory. We have argued that thermodynamic quantities are observer dependent is very important concept in studying spacetime thermodynamic. In curved spacetime, energy is a observer dependent quantity, and particles also become an observer dependent notion, observers can disagree on the entropy and temperature of a system. Horizon is observer dependent and the thermodynamic laws established in spacetime thermodynamic are crucial related to it, because the entropy and temperature can not be defined without horizon, moreover, horizon plays as a edge of a gravitational thermodynamic system. The entropic interpretation of gravity give us some clue to understand that coarse graining will leave informations in the gravitational potential, this message can help us to link different observer's point of views about the same object.

From the point view of Verlinde, gravitational force is caused by entropy gradients when locations of material bodies changes, which means, gravity is a statistical tendency to return to a maximal entropy state. We know every object carries a amount of entropy, so the process in tending to the maximal entropy state is a process to rearrange the information, this is closely related the maximum speed of process information for a system. We will investigate the relation between the entropic interpretation of gravity and Margolus-Levitin Theorem in future.