text:
# Fluctuating spin 𝑔-tensor in small metal grains

With the advance of nanoparticle technology, it has become possible to resolve individual energy levels for electrons in ultrasmall metal grains. Recent experiments addressed their Zeeman splitting under the application of a magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ . The splitting of a level $`\epsilon _\mu `$ is described by a $`g`$-factor, $`\delta \epsilon _\mu =\pm \frac{1}{2}\mu _BgB_z`$, where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton. A free electron has $`g=2`$, but in small metal grains the effective $`g`$-factor may be reduced as a result of spin-orbit scattering . In order to study this reduction, Salinas et al.  have doped Al grains (which do not have significant spin-orbit scattering) with Au (which has). For small concentrations of Au, the effective $`g`$-factor was seen to drop from 2 to around 0.7. Even lower values $`g0.3`$ were reported in experiments on Au grains .

For disordered systems with spin-orbit scattering, the splitting of a level $`\epsilon _\mu `$ does not only depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, but also on its direction. Hence, an analysis in terms of a “$`g`$-tensor” is more appropriate . To be precise, the Zeeman field splits the Kramers’ doublet $`\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\mu \pm \delta \epsilon _\mu `$ with

$`\delta \epsilon _\mu ^2=(\mu _B/2)^2\stackrel{}{B}𝒢_\mu \stackrel{}{B},`$ (1)
where $`𝒢_\mu `$ is a $`3\times 3`$ tensor. In the absence of spin-orbit scattering, the tensor $`𝒢_\mu `$ is isotropic, $`(𝒢_\mu )_{ij}=4\delta _{ij}`$. The effect of spin-orbit scattering on $`𝒢_\mu `$ is threefold: It leads to a decrease of the typical magnitude of $`𝒢_\mu `$, it makes the tensor structure of $`𝒢_\mu `$ important (i.e., it introduces an anisotropic response to the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$), and it causes $`𝒢_\mu `$ to be different for each level $`\epsilon _\mu `$. Hence $`𝒢_\mu `$ becomes a fluctuating quantity, and it is important to know its statistical distribution. The latter problem was addressed in a recent paper by Matveev et al. , however without considering the tensor structure of $`𝒢_\mu `$. The anisotropy of the $`g`$-tensor is a measurable quantity and we here consider the distribution of the entire tensor $`𝒢_\mu `$. The distribution $`P(𝒢_\mu )`$ is defined with respect to an ensemble of small metal grains of roughly equal size. The same distribution applies to the fluctuations of $`𝒢_\mu `$ as a function of the level $`\epsilon _\mu `$ in the same grain.

In general, $`𝒢_\mu `$ has a contribution $`𝒢_\mu ^{\mathrm{spin}}`$ from the magnetic moment of electron spins, and a contribution $`𝒢_\mu ^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ for the orbital angular moment of the state $`|\psi _\mu `$. In Ref. , the typical sizes of both contributions were estimated as $`𝒢^{\mathrm{spin}}\tau _{\mathrm{so}}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒢^{\mathrm{orb}}\mathrm{}/L`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{so}}`$ is the mean spin-orbit scattering time, $`L`$ is the grain size, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L^3`$ is the mean level spacing, and $`\mathrm{}L`$ is the elastic mean free path. We restrict ourselves to the spin contribution $`𝒢^{\mathrm{spin}}`$, which should be dominant for small grain sizes , provided $`\tau _{\mathrm{so}}`$ does not depend on system size, as should be the case for the experiments of Ref. . When orbital contributions are important, the anisotropy of $`𝒢`$ will be affected by the shape of the grain. In that case, our main conclusions apply only to a roughly spherical grain. As the typical magnitude of $`𝒢`$ (we drop the superscript “spin” and the subscript $`\mu `$ if there is no ambiguity) depends on the microscopic parameters $`\tau _{\mathrm{so}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which are in most cases not known accurately, we choose to have the typical magnitude of $`𝒢`$ serve as an external parameter in our theory.

We first present our main results. With a suitable choice of the coordinate axes (“principal axes”), the tensor $`𝒢`$ can be diagonalized. Writing its eigenvalues as $`g_j^2`$ and denoting the components of the magnetic field along the principal axes by $`B_j`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, Eq. (1) takes a particularly simple form,

$$\delta \epsilon _\mu ^2=\frac{1}{4}\mu _B^2(g_1^2B_1^2+g_2^2B_2^2+g_3^3B_3^2).$$
(2)
We refer to the numbers $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, and $`g_3`$ as principal $`g`$-factors. For a generic metal grain of a cubic material, rotational symmetry implies that, for a given level $`\epsilon _\mu `$, the positioning of the principal axes is entirely random in space, as long as they are mutually orthogonal. Hence, it remains to study the distribution $`P(g_1,g_2,g_3)`$ of the principal $`g`$-factors $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, and $`g_3`$ for the level $`\epsilon _\mu `$. Our main result is, that for sufficiently strong spin-orbit scattering, $`P(g_1,g_2,g_3)`$ is given by the distribution

$$P(g_1,g_2,g_3)\underset{i<j}{}|g_i^2g_j^2|\underset{i}{}e^{3g_i^2/2g^2},$$
(3)
where $`g^2=\frac{1}{3}(g_1^2+g_2^2+g_3^2)`$ is the average of $`(2\delta \epsilon _\mu /\mu _BB)^2`$ over all directions of $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`g^2`$ is its average over the ensemble of grains. In random matrix theory , this distribution is known as the Laguerre ensemble. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`g_1^2g_2^2g_3^2`$. Figure 1 shows the averages $`g_j^2`$ and a realization of the principal $`g`$-factors $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, and $`g_3`$ for a specific sample, as a function of a parameter $`\lambda (\tau _{\mathrm{so}}\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}`$ measuring the strength of the spin-orbit scattering. (A formal definition of $`\lambda `$ in a random-matrix model will be given below.) From the figure, one readily observes that, typically, the three principal $`g`$-factors differ by a factor $`2`$$`3`$. This implies that, in spite of the average rotational symmetry of the grains, the response of a given level $`\epsilon _\mu `$ to an applied magnetic field is highly anisotropic because of mesoscopic fluctuations. The mathematical origin of this effect is the “level repulsion” factor $`|g_i^2g_j^2|`$ in the probability distribution (3), which signifies that, to a certain extent, $`𝒢_\mu `$ can be viewed a as a “random matrix”.

Let us now turn to a more detailed discussion of our results. Without magnetic field, the Hamiltonian $``$ of the grain is invariant under time-reversal, so that all eigenstates come in doublets $`|\psi _\mu `$ and $`|𝒯\psi _\mu `$, where $`𝒯\psi =i\sigma _2\psi ^{}`$ is the time-reversal operator. To study the splitting of the doublets by a magnetic field, we add a term $`\mu _B\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ to $``$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$ being the vector of Pauli matrices. From degenerate perturbation theory we find that a level $`\epsilon _\mu `$ is split into $`\epsilon _\mu \pm \delta \epsilon _\mu `$, with $`\delta \epsilon _\mu `$ of the form (1). For the real symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`𝒢_\mu `$ one has

$$𝒢_\mu =G_\mu ^\mathrm{T}G_\mu ,$$
(4)
where $`G_\mu `$ is a real $`3\times 3`$ matrix with elements

$`(G_\mu )_{1j}+i(G_\mu )_{2j}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒯\psi _\mu |\sigma _j|\psi _\mu `$ (5)
$`(G_\mu )_{3j}`$ $`=`$ $`2\psi _\mu |\sigma _j|\psi _\mu ,`$ (6)
We use random-matrix theory (RMT) to compute the distribution of $`𝒢_\mu `$. In RMT, the microscopic Hamiltonian $``$ is replaced by a $`2N\times 2N`$ random hermitian matrix $`H`$, where at the end of the calculation the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ is taken. (The factor $`2`$ accounts for spin.) The wavefunction $`\psi _\mu (\stackrel{}{r})`$ is replaced by an $`N`$-component spinor eigenvector $`\psi _{\mu n}`$ of $`H`$, where $`n`$ is a vector index. To study the effect of spin-orbit scattering, we take $`H`$ of the form

$$H(\lambda )=S𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}+𝕚\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟜}}}\underset{𝕛}{}𝔸_𝕛\sigma _𝕛,$$
(8)
where $`S`$ ($`A_j`$) is a real symmetric (antisymmetric) $`N\times N`$ matrix with the Gaussian distribution

$`P(S)`$ $``$ $`e^{(\pi ^2/4N\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\mathrm{tr}S^\mathrm{T}S},`$ (9)
$`P(A_j)`$ $``$ $`e^{(\pi ^2/4N\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\mathrm{tr}A_j^\mathrm{T}A_j},j=1,2,3.`$ (10)
The Hamiltonian $`H(\lambda )`$ is similar to the Pandey-Mehta Hamiltonian used to describe the effect of time-reversal symmetry breaking in a system of spinless particles . In Eq. (9), $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the average spacing between the Kramers doublets near $`\epsilon =0`$. The amount of spin-orbit scattering is measured by the parameter $`\lambda (\tau _{\mathrm{so}}\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}`$ . The case $`\lambda =0`$ corresponds to the absence of spin-orbit scattering, when $`H=S`$ is a member of the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE) of random matrix theory. The case $`\lambda =(4N)^{1/2}`$ corresponds to the case of strong spin-orbit scattering, when $`H`$ is a member of the Gaussian Symplectic Ensemble (GSE). The ensemble of Hamiltonians $`H(\lambda )`$ corresponds to a crossover from the GOE to the GSE. Similar crossovers were studied previously in the literature, in particular for the cases GOE–GUE and GSE–GUE (GUE is Gaussian Unitary Ensemble) .

The distribution of the tensor $`𝒢_\mu `$ for an eigenvalue $`\epsilon _\mu `$ of the matrix $`H(\lambda )`$ is related to the statistics of eigenvectors of $`H(\lambda )`$ in this crossover ensemble. To deal with the twofold degeneracy of the eigenvalue $`\epsilon _\mu `$, we combine the two $`N`$-component spinor eigenvectors $`\psi _\mu `$ and $`𝒯\psi _\mu `$ into a single $`N`$-component vector of quaternions $`\overline{\psi }=(\psi ,𝒯\psi )`$ . The quaternion vector $`\overline{\psi }`$ can be parameterized as,

$$\overline{\psi }=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _ku_k\varphi _k,$$
(11)
where the $`u_k`$ are quaternion numbers with $`\text{tr}u_k^{}u_l=2\delta _{kl}`$ (“quaternion phase factors”), the $`\varphi _k`$ are $`N`$-component real orthonormal vectors, and the $`\alpha _k`$ are positive numbers such that $`_k\alpha _k^2=1`$ ($`k,l=0,1,2,3`$). A eigenvector in the GOE corresponds to $`\alpha _0=1`$, $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\alpha _3=0`$, while an eigenvector in the GSE has typically $`\alpha _0\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3\frac{1}{2}`$. A similar parameterization has been applied to the GOE–GUE crossover . Orthogonal invariance of the distributions of $`S`$ and $`A_j`$, together with the freedom to choose the overall quaternion phase of $`\overline{\psi }`$, give a distribution of the $`u_k`$ and $`\varphi _k`$ that is as random as possible, provided the above mentioned orthogonality constraints are obeyed. Hence, all nontrivial information about the eigenvector statistics is encoded in the numbers $`\alpha _k`$. Substitution of the parameterization (11) into Eq. (6) yields

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`2(\alpha _0^2+\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2\alpha _3^2),`$ (12)
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`2(\alpha _0^2\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2\alpha _3^2),`$ (13)
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`2(\alpha _0^2\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2+\alpha _3^2).`$ (14)
While the squares $`\alpha _k^2`$ ($`k=0,1,2,3`$) are all positive, the principal $`g`$-factors as given by Eq. (13) can also be negative. Permutations of the $`\alpha _k`$ alter the signs of the individual $`g_j`$, but not of their product $`g_1g_2g_3`$. \[The product $`g_1g_2g_3=detG`$ also follows from Eq. (6); one verifies that it does not change when $`|\psi `$ is replaced by a linear combination of $`|\psi `$ and $`|𝒯\psi `$.\] Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`g_1^2g_2^2g_3^2`$, and that $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ are positive. Then equation (13) provides the constraint $`g_2+g_32+g_1`$, which poses a bound on the occurrence of negative values for the product $`g_1g_2g_3`$. We conclude that all information on the eigenvector statistics in the GOE–GSE crossover is encoded in the magnitudes of $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, and $`g_3`$ and the sign of their product. Since for the level splitting $`\delta \epsilon _\mu (\stackrel{}{B})`$ only the squares $`g_j^2`$ are of relevance, we disregard the sign of $`g_1g_2g_3`$ in the remainder of the paper. The sign of $`g_1g_2g_3`$ may be determined in principle, however, by a spin-resonance experiment .

In order to calculate the distribution $`P(g_1,g_2,g_3)`$ one has, in principle, to carry out the same program as was done in Refs.  for the GOE–GUE crossover. However, it turns out that in the present case the calculation is considerably more complicated. This can already be seen from the mere observation that the wavefunction statistics in the GOE–GSE crossover is governed by three variables $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, and $`g_3`$, whereas in the case of the GOE–GUE crossover only one variable was needed . In the field-theoretic language of Ref. , one has to use a nonlinear sigma model of $`16\times 16`$ supermatrices, instead of the usual $`8\times 8`$ for the GOE–GUE crossover . Here we refrain from such a truly heroic enterprise. Instead we focus on the regimes of strong and weak spin-orbit coupling, and study the intermediate regime by means of numerical simulations of the model (Fluctuating spin $`g`$-tensor in small metal grains).

Before we address the case of strong spin-orbit scattering $`\lambda 1`$ in the crossover Hamiltonian, we first consider the GSE, corresponding to $`\lambda ^2=4N`$. In the GSE, the wavefunction $`\psi `$ is a vector of independently Gaussian distributed complex numbers. Then, one easily verifies that, for large $`N`$, the elements of the matrix $`G`$ of Eq. (6) are real random variables, independently distributed, with a Gaussian distribution of zero mean and variance $`2/N`$. Hence $`G`$ is a random real matrix with distribution

$$P(G)\mathrm{exp}(N\mathrm{tr}G^\mathrm{T}G/4).$$
(15)
The principal $`g`$-factors are the eigenvalues $`g_j^2`$ of the product $`𝒢=G^\mathrm{T}G`$. The distribution of the eigenvalues of such a matrix product is known in literature . It is given by Eq. (3) with $`g^2=6/N`$.

Let us now turn to the Hamiltonian $`H(\lambda )`$ for large $`\lambda 1`$, but still $`\lambda N^{1/2}`$. In that case, spin-rotation invariance is broken globally (so that a wavefunction as a whole does not have a well-defined spin), but not locally; on short length scales, the particle keeps a well-defined spin. We then argue that, in the random matrix language, one may think of the quaternion wavevector $`\overline{\psi }`$ as consisting of $`\lambda ^21`$ components, each with a well-defined spin (or “quaternion phase”), but with uncorrelated spins for each component. The distribution of $`𝒢`$ is then given by the distribution for the GSE with $`N`$ replaced by a number $`\lambda ^2`$ . We have found that the precise correspondence is $`N2\lambda ^2`$, by estimating the exponential term in the exact distribution, along the lines of Ref. . In order to verify this statement we have numerically generated random matrices of the form (Fluctuating spin $`g`$-tensor in small metal grains). The comparison with the GSE distribution with $`N`$ replaced by $`2\lambda ^2`$ is excellent, see Fig. 2.

In order to further analyze $`P(𝒢)`$ for strong spin-orbit scattering, we introduce the orientationally averaged $`g`$-factor,

$$g^2=\frac{1}{3}(g_1^2+g_2^2+g_3^2)=(2\delta \epsilon _\mu /\mu _B|B|)^2_\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(16)
where the brackets $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ indicate an average over all directions of the magnetic field. Further, we introduce the ratios $`r_{12}=|g_1/g_2|`$ and $`r_{23}=|g_2/g_3|`$ to characterize the anisotropy of $`𝒢`$. Changing variables in Eq. (3), we find that $`P(g,r_{12},r_{23})`$ reads

$`P`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{23}^3(1r_{23}^2)(1r_{23}^2r_{12}^2)(1r_{12}^2)}{(1+r_{23}^2+r_{23}^2r_{12}^2)^{9/2}}}g^8e^{9g^2/2g^2}.`$ (17)
Note that the distribution of $`r_{12}`$ and $`r_{23}`$ does not depend on $`g^2`$ (provided the spin-orbit scattering is sufficiently strong). The “$`g`$-factor” $`g_z`$ for a magnetic field in the $`z`$-direction (which is a random direction with respect to the principal axes) is given by $`g_z=(𝒢_{zz})^{1/2}`$. Its distribution follows from Eq. (15) as $`P(g_z)g_z^2\mathrm{exp}(3g_z^2/2g^2)`$, in agreement with Ref. .

The case of weak spin-orbit scattering can be addressed by treating the terms proportional to $`\lambda `$ in Eq. (Fluctuating spin $`g`$-tensor in small metal grains) as a small perturbation. To second order in $`\lambda `$ we find,

$$𝒢=44\lambda ^2\underset{\nu \mu }{}a_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{T}a_{\mu \nu }^{}\frac{1}{(\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _\mu )^2},$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean level spacing and $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ is an antisymmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrix proportional to the matrix elements of the perturbation in the eigenbasis $`\{|\psi _\nu \}`$ of $`H(0)=S`$, $`(a_{\mu \nu })_{ij}=N^{1/2}\psi _\mu |A_k|\psi _\nu \epsilon _{kij}`$, where $`\epsilon _{kij}`$ is the antisymmetric tensor. We first consider the change in the principal $`g`$-factors due to the matrix element $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ coupling the level $`\epsilon _\mu `$ to a close neighboring level $`\epsilon _\nu `$ where $`\nu =\mu +1`$ or $`\mu 1`$. (Level repulsion rules out the possibility that both levels $`\epsilon _{\mu \pm 1}`$ are very close.) In view of the energy denominators in Eq. (18), we may expect that this contribution is dominant. Taking only the relevant matrix element $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ into account, we find

$$g_3=2,g_1=g_2=2\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2(\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu )^2\mathrm{tr}a_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{T}a_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(19)
where $`\nu =\mu \pm 1`$. Since the spacing distribution $`P(|\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu |)\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^2|\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu |`$ for small $`\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu `$ , we find that the distribution $`P(g)`$ of both $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ has tails $`P(g)=(3\lambda ^2/2\pi )(2g)^2`$ for $`2g\lambda ^2`$. The main effect of contributions from the other energy levels in Eq. (18) is a reduction of $`g_3`$ below $`2`$, and a separation of $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 1. The three regimes of weak, intermediate, and strong spin-orbit scattering are compared in Fig. 3, using a numerical evaluation of the distributions of the three principal $`g`$-values.

We gratefully acknowledge discussions with T. A. Arias, D. Davidovic, K. M. Frahm, Y. Oreg, D. C. Ralph, and M. Tinkham. Upon completion of this project, we learned of Ref. , which contains some overlap with our work. This work was supported in part by the NSF through the Harvard MRSEC (grant DMR 98-09363), and by grant DMR 99-81283.


format: text

text:
# Patterns of Super Star Cluster Formation in ‘Clumpy’ Starburst Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

The optical morphologies of active star forming galaxies are often dominated by kpc-scale star-forming regions, which appear as luminous ‘clumps’ or ‘islands’. These clumps can have very high optical and UV surface brightnesses, making them visible signatures of intense star formation over cosmological distances. High angular resolution imaging with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and ground-based telescopes, reveals that clumps consist of associations of dense star clusters. These are usually superimposed on a more diffuse background, probably made up of massive stars.

The presence of numerous star clusters influences the evolution of clumps through their interactions with the surrounding ISM, that must respond to photoionization, as well as mechanical energy and momentum inputs from the evolving star clusters. These processes can trigger star formation and simultaneously remove ISM from the clump. Since star clusters can be age-dated from their spectra, their presence also offers the possibility of measuring the history of star-forming activity in starburst galaxies.

Starbursts are well-known producers of dense, massive star clusters and thus are an excellence place to study these interactions. In this paper we explore the spatial and temporal patterns of massive star cluster formation in a small sample of relatively nearby starburst galaxies.

The primary objects in this study are NGC 2415 (Haro 1), NGC 3310 and NGC 7673. The Haro 1 and NGC 7673 data are HST WFPC2 ultraviolet (UV) and optical images, while we use ground-based optical images from the WIYN 3.5-m telescope for NGC 3310. Details are presented in Gallagher et al. (2000).

## 2. Star Clusters in Starbursts

We begin with NGC 3310, the least intense example in our sample (Figure 1). WIYN optical images reveal compact star clusters in the ring and along the arms of this galaxy, with a wider distribution of fainter cluster candidates outside of these regions. While clusters are numerous, their spatial distribution in this non-clumpy starburst resembles that of a normal spiral galaxy.

Haro 1 is an intense starburst with high optical brightness, producing a luminous galaxy with a diameter of only about 13 kpc. The spectrum shows strong Balmer absorption lines indicating that this is a relatively evolved starburst. High quality ground-based images with the WIYN Telescope suggest a transition to a clumpy structure. Our WFPC2 image in the emission line-free F547M filter displays a moderate degree of clustering of dense, luminous star clusters, and high surface brightness regions usually containing more than one compact star cluster.

NGC 7673 is a star bursting clumpy irregular galaxy. Colors and magnitudes derived for star cluster candidates in the F255W, F555W, and F814W WFPC2 bands indicate that young clusters are mixed through the optically prominent clumps; their colors appear to be driven at least as much by locally variable extinction as by ages. A low level of organization may be present, with clusters near the galaxy’s center possibly being made in a linear structure by bar-induced gas flows. Some clumps are roughly circular, and so propagating star formation could be present. Figure 2 shows the spectral energy distribution (SED) of two clumps in NGC 7673, while Figure 3 shows model calculation SEDs for star clusters at various ages. Probably more than one mechanism structures the distribution of star clusters within clumps, but in most cases populations of star clusters are formed over relatively short time scales of $`<`$ 100 Myr.

## 3. Discussion

Clumps seem to be features of active star bursts with high intensities. This fits with theoretical models (Elmegreen & Efrenov 1997; Noguchi 1999) where stellar clumps form in gas-rich galactic disks with higher than average internal velocity dispersions, leading to large Jeans masses and lengths. Such conditions could be natural consequences of collisional perturbations of gassy disk galaxies. They would be more common in less evolved galaxies with higher gas contents and lower degrees of organization, providing a possible explanation for the clumpy appearances of high redshift galaxies (Noguchi 1997). Although super star clusters can form in a range of conditions, clumps may be particularly important in unevolved galaxies; observations of nearby clumps then may provide insight into the formation of globular clusters.

Once star formation begins in a clump, the subsequent evolution must be complex. Energy and momentum inputs from massive stars and star clusters produce obvious observational signatures in emission line profiles (Homeier & Gallagher 1999) will disturb the ISM, and likely lead to compressed regions which are excellent sites for further cluster formation (eg., Scalo & Chappell 1999). The close spacing between clusters and high densities of gas clouds may also lead to cluster-cluster mergers or cluster rejuvenations due to gas cloud captures. These possibilities reinforce the capabilities for massive star forming clumps to be prime producers of massive super star clusters. Once made these clusters will be the most likely to survive and observed at later times.

We thank the WFPC2 Investigation Definition Team, and the Space Telescope Science Institute Archival Observer program for providing support through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for this work.

## References

Elmegreen, B.G. & Efrenov, Y.N., 1997, ApJ, 480, 235

Gallagher, J.S., Homeier, N.L., Conselice, C.J., et al., 2000, in Preparation

Homeier, N.L. & Gallagher, J.S., 1999, ApJ, 522, 199

Noguchi, M., 1999, ApJ, 514, 77

Noguchi, M., 1997, Nature, 392, 253

Scalo, J. & Chappell, D., 1999, ApJ, 510, 258