text:
# Comment on the temperature dependence of the Casimir force.

## Abstract

Linear in temperature correction to the Casimir force is discussed. The correction is important for small separations between bodies tested in the recent experiments and disappears in the case of perfect conductors.

The Casimir force  has been measured with high precision in recent experiments . Also there are plans  to look for very weak hypotetical forces where the Casimir force is the main background. All this makes the precise evaluation of the Casimir force an important problem. Here we will discuss a particular problem concerning the temperature dependence of the force between macroscopic bodies made of nonideal metals.

For perfect conductors the temperature correction has been found many years ago  and it is small for small separations between bodies $`ac\mathrm{}/kT`$ or equivalently for low temperature. For a sphere above a disk the leading term behaves as $`\left(T/T_{eff}\right)^3`$, where $`T_{eff}=\mathrm{}c/2a`$. This result follows from a general expression for the Casimir force given by Lifshitz  modified for the case of sphere-disk geometry with the proximity force theorem :

$$F(a)=\frac{kTR}{c^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}\zeta _n^2\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑pp\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(1G_1e^{2p\zeta _na/c}\right)\left(1G_2e^{2p\zeta _na/c}\right)\right],$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the sphere radius,

$$G_1=\left(\frac{ps}{p+s}\right)^2,G_2=\left(\frac{\epsilon \left(i\zeta _n\right)ps}{\epsilon \left(i\zeta _n\right)p+s}\right)^2,$$

$$s=\sqrt{\epsilon \left(i\zeta _n\right)1+p^2},\zeta _n=\frac{2\pi nkT}{\mathrm{}},$$
(2)
$`\epsilon \left(i\zeta _n\right)`$ is the dielectric function of the used material at imaginary frequencies. The prime over the sum sign indicates that the first term $`n=0`$ has to be taken with the coefficient $`1/2`$.

For small temperature the sum in (1) can be replaced by the integral over $`\zeta `$ and the resulting force does not depend on the temperature at all. In general, the replacement is true with the precision $`T/T_{eff}`$. In condition of the atomic force microscope experiments  the smallest separation was $`0.1\mu m`$ and the replacement error can be as large as 3%. It exceeds the experimental errors $``$1% and, therefore, the finite temperature effect has to be taken into account. We define the temperature correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_TF`$ as difference between forces written as the sum over $`n`$ and as the integral instead of this sum.

Special care needs to treat the first term $`n=0`$ in Eq.(1). The formal reason is that $`\zeta _n^2`$ becomes zero but the integral over $`p`$ diverges. The physical reason is that this term corresponds to the static limit when for metallic bodies $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$. This means that any parameter characterizing the dielectric function of a metal cannot appear in the $`n=0`$ term in contrast with a dielectric for which it will depend on the static permittivity of the material. In the $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$ limit the functions $`G_{1,2}`$ become $`G_1=G_2=1`$. The formal problem is overcome by introducing the integration over a new variable $`x=2p\zeta _na/c`$ and after that one can take $`\zeta _n=0`$ for the $`n=0`$ term. Transformed in this way Eq.(1) will be

$$F(a)=\frac{kTR}{4a^2}\left\{\zeta \left(3\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{x_n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(1G_1e^x\right)\left(1G_2e^x\right)\right]\right\},$$
(3)
where $`\zeta \left(m\right)`$ is the zeta-function and

$$x_n=\frac{2\zeta _na}{c}.$$
(4)
Here the first term is linear in temperature and it corresponds to the $`n=0`$ term in (1).

The sum in (3) as a function of temperature contains a piece linear in $`T`$ which exactly cancels for ideal metals the first term giving the well known result

$$F_T(a)=F_0(a)\left[1+\frac{45\zeta \left(3\right)}{\pi ^3}\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^3\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^4\right],$$
(5)
where $`F_0(a)=\pi ^3\mathrm{}cR/(360a^3)`$ is the bare Casimir force between sphere and plate. (5) is written in the small temperature limit when corrections to $`F_0(a)`$ are very small.

If we are using the dielectric function of a real metal, the cancellation of the first term in (3) can be incomplete and the linear in $`T`$ contribution can survive. That was noted first in , where Eq.(3) was used for numerical calculation of the Casimir force. It was found that for the experiments  the temperature correction at the smallest separation is $`4pN`$ against the experimental errors $`2pN`$. This conclusion has been criticized in Ref., where the linear correction was not found. In this connection we would like to clarify here difference in the approaches.

The $`n=0`$ term was discussed in  on the right basis but for actual calculations the following expression has been used

$$F(a)=\frac{kTR}{4a^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}\underset{x_n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(1G_1e^x\right)\left(1G_2e^x\right)\right],$$
(6)
where for $`n=0`$ the function $`G_11`$. It is clear from the expression for the force in the high temperature limit, where only the $`n=0`$ term survives (Eq.(16) in )

$$F(a)=\frac{kT}{4a^2}R\zeta \left(3\right)\left(1\frac{2c}{a\omega _p}\right).$$
(7)
Here $`\omega _p`$ is the plasma frequency of the used metal. The parameter $`\omega _p`$ in this equation shows that the special prescription for the $`n=0`$ term has not been done. The dielectric function was described by the plasma model where it is

$$\epsilon \left(i\zeta \right)=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\zeta ^2}.$$
(8)
In the high temperature limit only low frequency fluctuations are important and in this range metals can be much better described by the Drude dielectric function

$$\epsilon \left(i\zeta \right)=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\zeta \left(\zeta +\omega _\tau \right)},$$
(9)
where $`\omega _\tau `$ is the relaxation frequency. However, if we use (9) to find the classical limit with the help of (6), the result will be wrong, namely, two times smaller than the well known limit $`kTR\zeta \left(3\right)/4a^2`$. Eq.(3) does not suffer from this problem.

The authors  convincingly demonstrated that for low temperatures Eq.(6) does not give the correction linear in $`T`$ and the leading correction is only $`\left(T/T_{eff}\right)^3`$. One can use this result to extract the linear term from the sum in Eq.(3) explicitly. The difference between (3) and (6) gives the correction we are looking for if one neglects the higher order terms in $`T/T_{eff}`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_TF=\frac{kTR}{4a^2}\left\{\zeta \left(3\right)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(1G_1e^x\right)\left(1G_2e^x\right)\right]\right\}.$$
(10)
The integral here is the linear term contained in the sum in (3) and, of course, it can depend on the material parameters because the summation is going over nonzero frequencies $`\zeta _n`$. On the other hand, since this integral appeared as the $`n=0`$ term in (6), we should take the functions $`G_{1,2}`$ at $`x_n=0`$. In this limit $`G_2=1`$ but $`G_11`$. Using then the relation $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^x\right)=\zeta \left(3\right)`$ one finds the final expression for the correction linear in $`T`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_TF=\frac{kTR}{8a^2}\left[\zeta \left(3\right)+\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx\mathrm{ln}\left(1G_1e^x\right)\right],$$
(11)
where

$$G_1=\left(\frac{x\sqrt{x^2+\alpha ^2}}{x+\sqrt{x^2+\alpha ^2}}\right)^2,\alpha =\frac{c}{2a\omega _p}.$$

Let us stress that (11) is true only for the plasma model. When $`\omega _p\mathrm{}`$ the correction disappears as it should be. Expansion in powers of $`\alpha `$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_TF=\frac{kTR}{8a^2}\zeta \left(3\right)8\alpha \left(13\alpha +O\left(\alpha ^2\right)\right).$$
(12)
For $`\omega _p=210^{16}s^1`$ and $`a=0.1\mu m`$ one gets $`\mathrm{\Delta }_TF2.5pN`$ using (11) or calculating directly with the help of (3) and $`2.9pN`$ using (12). The correction increases further if we will use the Drude dielectric function (9). In this case it has to be evaluated numerically using (3) and (1) with the integral instead of the sum. The relaxation frequency $`\omega _\tau `$ influences mostly on the integral since it changes low frequency behavior of the itegrand. For typical value $`\omega _\tau =510^{13}s^1`$ we found $`\mathrm{\Delta }_TF4.0pN`$. It cannot be compared directly with the value given in  because layered body cover has been considered there but it is clear that the calculations here give the same order of magnitude for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_TF`$.

In conclusion, we have considered the linear in temperature correction to the Casimir force at low temperatures or equivalently at small separations. Special care has to be taken to get the contribution of the fluctuations in the static limit ($`n=0`$term). This contribution is canceled for ideal mirrors but cancellation is incomplete for real metals. The right treatment of the $`n=0`$ term allowed to use the Drude dielectric function for metals which is more appropriate at low frequencies than the function in the plasma model.


format: text

text:
# Dipole scattering in polarization induced two-dimensional electron gases

## I Introduction

The last decade has witnessed a formulation of the microscopic quantum theory of polarization based on a rigorous definition of polarization in a periodic system \[Ref. 1-3\]. The study of polarization and its effects was limited to ferroelectrics before the advent of III-V nitride semiconductors. The spontaneous and piezoelectric polarization fields of this class of semiconductors is unusually high compared to other III-Vs; in fact, it has given birth to a new frontier of semiconductor physics. The wide band gap and strong polarization fields have found wide application in high power, high speed electronic and optical devices \[Ref. 4,5\]. A large amount of effort has been devoted to the fabrication and study of high power AlGaN/GaN heterostructure high electron mobility transistors (HEMTs) \[Ref. 6\]. Of chief importance in such devices is the electron mobility in the two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) formed at the heterointerface. The strong polarization of the III-V nitride heterostructures makes a clear analysis of the effect of microscopic polarization on mobility of considerable interest to device designers and theorists alike.

At high temperatures ($`T100K`$) polar optical phonon scattering is the largest scattering mechanism; the effects of the other scattering mechanisms become dominant only at low temperatures. The set of scattering mechanisms needed to understand the low temperature 2DEG mobility of the AlGaAs/GaAs and Si-metal oxide field effect transistor (MOSFET) is fairly complete. Theoretical mobility calculations show very good agreement with experimentally observed values \[Ref 7,8\]. However, the 2DEGs in III-V nitride MDHs have a fundamentally new origin. The 2DEG in such heterostructures can be entirely polarization induced, as opposed to by remote doping as in AlGaAs/GaAs MDHs and gate-induced inversion in Si-MOSFETs. In fact the spontaneous and piezoelectric polarization is large enough to produce 2DEGs without intentionally doping the barrier, leading to the novel concept of piezoelectric doping in such systems \[Ref. 9,10\]. The term ‘modulation doped hetersostructures’ (MDHs) is somewhat erroneous in such devices, so we prefer to call it the more general HEMTs.

Previously published calculations of mobilities in AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs have restricted their analysis to the set of scattering mechanisms that exists for AlGaAs/GaAs 2DEGs \[Ref. 11,12\]. This existing set of well understood scattering mechanisms is insufficient for polarization induced 2DEGs. It needs to be expanded by inclusion of the effects of the different origins of polarization induced 2DEGs. This work is directed towards this extention for the fundamentally new 2DEGs. In section II, we theoretically derive the transport scattering rates for 2DEG electrons due to dipoles. In section III, the results are applied to study the III-V nitride heterostructure 2DEG mobilities. In Section IV, we conclude with a discussion of the results , evaluation of the implications of the newly identified scattering mechanism and suggestion of a method to reduce it’s effect.

## II Theory

Scattering by dipoles and their effects on electron transport in bulk semiconductor samples has been studied, albeit not extensively owing to it’s insignificance in the non-polar Si and relatively weakly polar GaAs material systems \[Ref. 13,14\]. However, the effect of dipole scattering on 2DEG electron transport has not been studied to the best of our knowledge. We derive the scattering rate due to dipoles for a semiconductor two dimensional electron gas.

We consider the 2DEG to be perfect (i.e. ,the extent along the $`z`$ direction to be zero) for our derivation. Extention to the more physical case of a 2DEG with finite extent along the growth direction involves incorporation of the relevant form factors.

Figure shows the model for the system under consideration. The dipole charges are separated from each other by distance $`d_0`$, and the center is a distance $`z`$ from the plane containing the 2DEG. Spontaneous and piezoelectric polarization fields ($`𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}}`$ and $`𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐳}}`$ respectively) in wurtzite AlGaN/GaN is directed perpendicular to the 2DEG plane \[Ref. 15\]. We choose the direction of the dipole to be perpendicular to the 2DEG plane to reflect this.

The unscreened Coulomb potential at the origin due the dipole is written as

$$V_{uns}(r,z)=\frac{e}{4\pi ϵ_0ϵ_b}[\frac{e}{\sqrt{r^2+(z\frac{d_0}{2})^2}}\frac{e}{\sqrt{r^2+(z+\frac{d_0}{2})^2}}].$$
(1)
Here $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`ϵ_0`$ is the permittivity of free space, $`ϵ_b`$ is the dielectric constant of the subsrate semiconductor, and $`r`$ is the in-plane radius vector.

We evaluate the Fourier transform of this potential in the wavevector ($`q`$) space $`V_{uns}(q)=V_{uns}(r)e^{i𝐪𝐫}d^3r`$ to get

$$V_{uns}(q,z)=\frac{e^2}{2ϵ_0ϵ_b}\frac{2e^{qz}sinh(\frac{qd_0}{2})}{q},$$
(2)
where $`q`$ is the $`xy`$ in-plane wavevector.

The Fourier component of screened and unscreened potentials are related for a degenerate 2DEG through the Thomas Fermi approximation of the Lindhard formula for the momentum dependent static dielectric constant \[Ref. 16\]. It is written as $`ϵ_{2D}(q)=1+\frac{q_{TF}}{q}`$, where $`q_{TF}`$ is the Thomas-Fermi wavevector, defined as $`\frac{2}{a_B^{}}`$, $`a_B^{}`$ being the effective Bohr radius in the semiconductor containing the 2DEG. A valley degeneracy of one and spin degeneracy of two is implied. The relation is

$$V_{scr}(q,z)=\frac{V_{uns}(q,z)}{ϵ_{2D}(q)}=\frac{e^2}{2ϵ_0ϵ_b}\frac{2e^{qz}sinh(\frac{qd_0}{2})}{q+q_{TF}}.$$
(3)
This is the final screened potential experienced by an electron in the 2DEG due to a single dipole at a distance $`z`$ from the 2DEG plane.

Scattering rate from a state $`|𝐤>`$ to a state $`|𝐤+𝐪>`$ is now evaluated. Born approximation holds good for evaluation of matrix elements for dilute dipole concentrations. Transport scattering rate by a dilute perturbing potential in the Born approximation is written as \[Ref. 17\]

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{tr}^{2D}}=n_{imp}^{2D}\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}\frac{q^2}{2k^2}|V_{scr}^{tot}(q)|^2\delta [E(k+q)E(k)]\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2},$$
(4)
where $`n_{imp}^{2D}`$ is the 2D impurity concentration, $`k`$ is the 2D electron wavevector before scattering, $`E(k)`$ and $`E(k+q)`$ are the electron energies before and after scattering, the $`\delta `$ function is a statement of the elastic nature of the scattering, and for our case, $`n_{imp}^{2D}`$ is the density of dipoles at each Al(Ga) plane, $`n_{dipole}^{2D}`$. $`V_{scr}^{tot}(q)`$ is the total screened potential experienced by the 2DEG due to the entire distribution of dipoles.

Figure  illustrates the physical location of the dipoles in AlGaN/GaN HEMTs. Their origin is discussed in section III. Owing to the interface roughness, there are dipoles located at the interface too; however, their effect on the 2DEG mobility was found to be much less than the far denser distribution of dipoles in the barrier. We consider the 2DEG to be physically located at the centroid of the spatially extending quasi-2DEG for illustrating the role of dipoles. A Fang-Howard wavefunction approach would yield respective multiplicative form factors, and is a simple extention of the theory presented here.

The screened potential due to the distribution of dipoles in the barrier is hence given by a Fourier-weighted sum over all dipoles \[Ref. 16\]

$$V_{scr}^{tot}(q)=\underset{i}{}e^{i𝐪𝐫_𝐢}\frac{V_{uns}(q,z_i)}{ϵ_{2D}(q)}.$$
(5)
If we assume that the dipole distrubution on each Al(Ga) plane are completely uncorrelated, the cross terms arising in the sum cancel, and we are left with a sum over different planes. The complex exponential can then be factored out and therefore does not contribute to the matrix element. For a thick AlGaN barrier, this evaluates to

$$V_{scr}^{tot}(q)=\frac{e^2}{2ϵ_0ϵ_b}\frac{2e^{q(z_0+c_0)}}{1e^{qc_0}}\frac{sinh(\frac{qd_0}{2})}{q+q_{TF}},$$
(6)
where $`z_0`$ is the distance of the centroid of the 2DEG from the interface \[Figure \], and $`c_0`$ is the separation of the planes containing the dipoles in the barrier.

For a degenerate gas as in a 2DEG, scattering takes place mainly among electrons with wavevectors near the Fermi wavevector $`k_F=\sqrt{2\pi n_s}`$ where $`n_s`$ is the 2DEG sheet density of carriers. So the $`k`$ in the integral can be replaced by $`k_F`$. The elastic nature of the scattering process leads to a relation $`q=2k_Fsin(\frac{\theta }{2})`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the wavevectors $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤+𝐪`$. Using these facts, the expression for scattering rate simplifies to

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{dipole}^{2D}}=n_{dipole}^{2D}\frac{m^{}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3k_F^3}_0^{2k_F}|V_{scr}^{tot}(q)|^2\frac{q^2dq}{\sqrt{1(\frac{q}{2k_F})^2}}.$$
(7)
Using the screened scattering potential of the distribution of dipoles developed in Equation  in Equation , we get the final scattering rate due to dipoles.

## III Application to III-V nitride HEMTs

We concentrate on AlGaN/GaN heterostructures in our analysis. Recent work shows that the 2DEG in such heterostructures is created by the subtle interplay of spontaneous and piezoelectric polarization \[Ref. 15,18,19\]. The ab initio calculations of Bernardini et al show that the III-V nitrides have unusually large polarization coefficients (an order of magnitude larger than AlGaAs/GaAs systems) \[Ref. 15\]. The 2DEG in such heterostructures can be entirely polarization induced. In that sense, it is fundamentally different from the 2DEG in AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructures, which is got by modulation doping. It is argued that the mobility in such a 2DEG should be affected by the cause of its very existence.

For the perfectly periodic III-V nitride crystal, the microscopic picture of polarization is a dipole in each primitive cell aligned along the (0001) axis. The dipole moment $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟎}=ed_0`$ ($`d_0`$ is the effective charge separation) is related to the macroscopic polarization $`𝐏`$ by the relation $`𝐏=𝐩_\mathrm{𝟎}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the primitive cell \[Ref. 20\]. $`𝐏`$ is the total polarization, which includes the spontaneous and piezoelectric components.

$$𝐏=𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}}+𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐳}}$$
(8)
A perfect binary polar lattice thus has a periodically arranged array of dipoles with equal dipole moments. Such a periodic arrangement of similar dipoles has a characteristic wavevector, and hence does not contribute to the scattering matrix element.

However, the 2DEG in AlGaN/GaN heterostructures is confined by a barrier due to the undoped $`Al_xGa_{1x}N`$ ternary alloy barrier. The alloy is a disordered system with Al and Ga atoms arranged in a random array such that the overall composition over any plane is constant over Al(Ga) planes. The difference in spontaneous and piezoelectric polarizations between AlN and GaN implies that we have a dipole moment of randomly fluctuating magnitude in the barrier. We adopt a method similar to the treatment of disordered alloys by virtual crystal approximation to treat dipoles in disordered polar semiconductor alloys.

We first arrive at the dipole moments in a primitive cell of coherently strained AlN and GaN binary wurtzite crystals. $`𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}}`$ and the piezoelectric constants for both the semiconductors were calculated by Bernardini et. al. in their recent paper \[Ref. 15\]. The piezoelectric field in a binary wurtzite primitive cell coherently strained to a $`xy`$ lattice constant $`a(x)`$ from it’s unstrained lattice constant $`a_0`$ and $`c(x)`$ from $`c_0`$ in the $`z`$ direction is given by the relation \[Ref. 18\]

$$P_{pz}(x)=2\left(\frac{a(x)a_0}{a_0}\right)[e_{31}e_{33}\frac{C_{13}}{C_{33}}],$$
(9)
where $`e_{31}`$ and $`e_{33}`$ are the piezoelectric coefficients and $`C_{13}`$ and $`C_{33}`$ are the elastic constants of the crystal structure. The volume of the primitive hexagonal cell is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}c_0(x)a_0^2(x).$$
(10)
Thus the dipole moment in a strained binary crystal is given by

$$p_{dipole}(x)=\left(P_{sp}+P_{pz}(x)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }(x).$$
(11)
This dipole moment is calculated for both semiconductors as $`p_{dipole,AlN}(x)`$ and $`p_{dipole,GaN}(x)`$.

We model the disordered $`Al_xGa_{1x}N`$ barrier as a perfect crystal superposed with a randomly fluctuating dipole moment at each primitive cell. Such a virtual crystal has a dipole moment of magnitude

$$p_{dipole}(av)=xp_{dipole,AlN}(x)+(1x)p_{dipole,GaN}(x).$$
(12)
The deviation from the perfect virtual crystal at all Al sites is $`(1x)\mathrm{\Delta }p_{dipole}`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p_{dipole}=p_{dipole,AlN}(x)p_{dipole,GaN}(x).$$
(13)
The deviation at Ga sites is $`(x)\mathrm{\Delta }p_{dipole}`$. Since there are $`x`$ Al sites and $`(1x)`$ Ga sites on average on a Al(Ga) plane, the average randomly fluctuating dipole moment at each site is

$$\delta p_{dipole}=ed_0=2x(1x)|\mathrm{\Delta }p_{dipole}|.$$
(14)
The absolute value is used in adding the dipole contributions since the direction of the dipole is immaterial in the scattering matrix element, which involves the square of the dipole potential. The number of such dipoles present on each Al(Ga) plane is given by

$$n_{dipole}^{2D}=\frac{1}{\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}a_0^2(x)},$$
(15)
where the in plane lattice constant $`a_0(x)`$ is interpolated for the alloy.

The polarization induced 2DEG sheet density is given by the difference in polarization at the interface as a function of alloy fraction $`x`$ \[Ref. 18\],

$$n_s(x)=|P_{pz}(Al_xGa_{1x}N)+P_{sp}(Al_xGa_{1x}N)P_{sp}(GaN)|.$$
(16)
Note that the 2DEG concentration does not involve any modulation dopants; it is formed entirely to satisfy the discontinuity in the polarization fields at the interface.

## IV Results and discussion

The mobility inhibited by dipole scattering alone $`\mu _{dipole}^{2D}=e\tau _{dipole}^{2D}/m^{}`$ is evaluated for different alloy compositions. The results are plotted in Figure . We also plot the polarization induced 2DEG sheet density in the same figure for easy comparision. In Figure , we plot the dipole scattering inhibited 2DEG sheet conductivity given by $`G=e\mu _{dipole}^{2D}n_s`$, and finally, in Figure , we plot the dipole scattering limited mobility as a function of the 2DEG sheet density.

An expected increase in mobility with the increase in the binary nature of the alloy barrier is seen. The intrinsic low temperature mobility limit in the $`x=0.1`$ to $`x=0.4`$ range (which is typical of state of the art III-V nitride HEMTs) is in the $`400,000cm^2/Vs`$ to $`200,000cm^2/Vs`$ range. It is well worth noticing that this is much lower than the record low temperature mobilities ($`10^7cm^2/Vs`$) of AlGaAs/GaAs modulation doped heterostructures, and an order of magnitude higher than the record high mobilities in AlGaN/GaN HEMTs observed till date ($`51,700cm^2/Vs`$) \[Ref. 19,21\]. It hints at some more severe scattering mechanism(s) that determine the low temperature mobility in the III-V nitrides.

Interface roughness was initially thought to be a mobility limiting mechanism owing to a) very high 2DEG sheet densities, and b) trying to fit experimental data to the existing set of scattering mechanisms for AlGaAs/GaAs MDHs \[Ref. 12,22\]. Recent experiments with double heterostructures point towards the contrary \[Ref. 23\]. The III-V nitrides is a fundamentally new system, and it is necessary that we address issues that make the material system so different from the AlGaAs/GaAs systems.

Dislocation scattering was identified as becoming dominant at high dislocation densities, which result from the lattice mismatch of the epitaxial GaN layer with the present substrates of choice - SiC or Sapphire \[Ref. 24\]. The novel method of lateral epitaxial overgrowth (LEO) is a promising candidate for reducing the density of dislocations in the nitrides \[Ref. 25\]. The effects of dipole scattering will be the next hurdle to overcome in pushing the mobilities higher. Digital alloy growth is suggested as a technique to reduce the severity of dipole scattering. By growing either purely Al or purely Ga layers, we use periodicity to overcome the scattering originating from the random nature of the alloy. However, digital alloy growth suffers from interdiffusion of atoms in the growth process, so dipole scattering cannot be completely eliminated by this method.

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge illuminating discussions with S. Keller, I. P. Smorchkova, and J. S. Speck. The authors are grateful to I. P. Smorchkova for sharing her data on the latest record high low temperature mobilities in AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs.


text:
# Pseudovector versus pseudoscalar coupling in kaon photoproduction — revisited

## Abstract

The question of pseudovector versus pseudoscalar coupling schemes for the kaon-hyperon-nucleon interaction is re-examined for the reaction $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in several isobaric models. These models typically include Born terms, $`K^{}`$\- and $`K_1`$-exchange in the t-channel, and a few different combinations of spin-1/2 baryon resonances in the $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channels. The coupling constants are obtained by fitting to a large data set. We find that both pseudoscalar and pseudovector couplings can allow for a satisfactory description of the present database. The resulting coupling constants, $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ and $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$, in the pseudovector coupling scheme are smaller than those predicted using flavor SU(3) symmetry, but consistent with the values obtained in a QCD sum rule calculation.

PACS numbers: 13.60.Le, 25.20.Lj

Kaon electromagnetic production has been studied for more than three decades. However, the progress has not been as swift as in the case of pion production. It is due mostly to the lack of precise experimental data. This is changing as abundant data are coming out from various high energy, high duty cycle electron accelerators like TJNAF, ELSA and ESRF.

On the theoretical side, most of the calculations have employed the isobar model approach . Such an approach includes a limited number of low-lying $`s`$-, $`t`$-, and $`u`$-channel resonances, together with the Born terms, in a fit to data. These phenomenological analyses have been hampered by the fact that many resonances can, in principle, contribute due to the large energy needed to produce a kaon. They differ from each other mostly in the particular set of resonances considered. Despite many persistent efforts to reproduce data , serious problems remain in the description of kaon production. For example, the coupling constant $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ obtained from the fits by Adelseck-Saghai (AS) , Williams, Ji and Cotanch (WJC)  and Mart, Bennhold and Hyde-Wright (MBH)  are $`4.17\pm 0.75,2.38`$, and $`0.51`$, respectively, as compared with the SU(3) value of $`3.7\pm 0.7`$ .

Most theoretical analyses performed so far have employed pseudoscalar coupling (PS) for the kaon-hyperon-nucleon vertex. This is because  the use of pseudovector coupling would lead to a further suppression of the leading Born couplings in the fit to data . Another reason is that the value of the coupling constant $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ obtained from the fit within the pseudovector coupling scheme is, in general, considerably smaller than the SU(3) value. However, under flavor SU(3) symmetry, kaon is a member of the pseudoscalar meson octet, as well as the pion and eta meson. Thus, it is natural to expect that the kaon-hyperon-nucleon $`(KYN)`$ vertex takes the same form as $`\pi NN`$. In the $`\pi N`$ system, it is well-established that the pseudovector (PV) coupling scheme has an advantage over PS coupling as it respects current algebra and incorporates low energy theorems. Furthermore, with SU(3) symmetry breaking effects taken into account, a recent QCD sum rule calculation  gave $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }=1.96`$, which is only about half of the SU(3) value. We remind the readers that the result of $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }=4.17\pm 0.75`$ obtained by AS , which appears to agree well with the SU(3) value, was actually more of a constraint imposed in the fitting. They found many other possibilites within the PS coupling scheme which could give a comparable reduced $`\chi ^2`$. It is clear then that the issue is far from being settled. Bennhold and Wright (BW)  investigated this question of PV versus PS coupling for the KYN vertex in kaon photoproduction more than ten years ago. They concluded that the data did not prefer one coupling over the other. However, only Born terms were included in the model considered by BW and the fitted data were those available before 1984 which were rather limited. Accordingly, we want to re-address this important question for kaon photoproduction within more extended models and the larger database which is currently available, as recently called for by Bennhold et al. .

The extended models we considered are similar to those employed by AS  and WJC . They consist of Born terms, $`K^{}(892)`$ and $`K_1(1270)`$ exchanges in the $`t`$channel, and a number of spin-1/2 baryon resonances in the $`s`$ and $`u`$channels. The kaon-baryon-baryon $`(KBB^{})`$ interaction, where $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ can be $`N,N^{},Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$, in either coupling scheme is given as follows:

$`_{KBB^{}}^{PS}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{KB^{}B}\overline{\psi }_B^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm \psi _B\varphi _K,`$ (1)
$`_{KBB^{}}^{PV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{KB^{}B}}{m_K}}\overline{\psi }_B^{}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm \psi _B^\mu \varphi _K,`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=i\gamma _5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=1`$, depending on whether $`B^{}`$ and $`B`$ have the same or opposite parity. As in the $`\pi N`$ interaction, the “equivalent” coupling constant for the $`KBB^{}`$ in PV coupling is related to that in PS coupling through the relation

$$\frac{g_{KBB^{}}}{(m_B+m_B^{})}=\frac{f_{KBB^{}}}{m_K}.$$
(3)
In pseudoscalar coupling, the Born terms are those given in Figs. 1(a)-1(c), while the additional “seagull” diagram of Fig. 1(d) is needed in pseudovector coupling in order to maintain gauge invariance. The couplings of vector mesons $`K^{}`$ and $`K_1`$ with baryons are taken to be a sum of vector and tensor parts, as given in Ref. . With the standard form for the electromagnetic vertices $`\gamma BB^{}`$ and $`\gamma MM^{}`$, where $`M(M^{})=K,K^{}`$ and $`K_1`$ , it is straightforward to derive the resulting kaon photoproduction amplitude. Explicit expressions for various amplitudes within the PS coupling scheme can be found in Ref. . In our present calculation, the amplitudes in both PS and PV coupling schemes are evaluated by a computer program which carries out the Dirac algebra in helicity basis.

The first model (I) we consider is that employed by AS  which includes the Roper resonance $`N(1440)`$ (N1) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$ (L3) in the $`s`$ and $`u`$channels, respectively. We follow the notation, e.g., N1 and L3 used above, of Ref.  to denote various baryon resonances. In the second model (II), one more resonance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ (L1) in the $`u`$channel is added to AS model. As can be seen in Table I, where the meson and baryon resonances included in each model are listed, the third model (III) we study contains four more resoances, i.e., $`N(1650)`$ (N4), $`N(1710)`$ (N6), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1750)`$ (L5) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1660)`$ (S1), than model II.

The fitted data set used in the BW’s study of PS vs PV coupling  consists of 131 data points for the photon laboratory energy $`E_\gamma `$ in the range of $`9301400`$ MeV, all for the reaction of $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Of these 131 data points, 108 of them are differential cross sections while the rest are polarization data. In the present study, 242 data points (cross sections and polarization) from the $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction are used in the fitting procedure, as used in the calculation of Ref. .

The resulting parameters obtained in the least-squared fit to the data and the chi-square per degree of freedom within both PS and PV coupling schemes for the three models described above are listed in Table I. In several cases certain combinations of strong and electromagnetic couplings, e.g., $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N^{}}\kappa (NN^{})`$, where $`\kappa (NN^{})`$ is the transition magnetice moment of $`NN^{}`$, always arise together. Therefore, only their product like $`G_N^{}=g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N^{}}\kappa (NN^{})`$ can be determined in current study as given in Table I. We first repeat the calculation of AS , which used PS coupling and fitted to only 117 differential cross section data for the reaction $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ available at that time. We find a set of coupling contants which differ slightly from those of their Model A but lead to a smaller $`\chi ^2/N=1.21`$ as shown in the first column of Table I. We then employ the same model, i.e., including the Born terms and keeping only N1 and L3 resonances but refit to a larger database of 242 data points from the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction. The refitted coupling constants are listed in the column denoted by PS-I. The resulting $`\chi ^2/N`$ increases to $`1.56`$ since the number of data points considered is considerably larger. Many of the coupling constants obtained differ substantially from the AS values , e.g., $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ changes from $`4.11`$ to $`1.55`$. Clearly the selection of database is very important in determining the coupling constants. As demonstrated in Ref. , we also find that the coupling constant $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ can not be determined by the data for the reaction $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ alone (even the sign of $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ may change). The column labeled by PV-I gives the results within the same Model I, but with the PV coupling scheme for the $`KBB^{}`$ vertices. It gives an almost identical $`\chi ^2/N`$ as in PS-I, but the resulting fundamental coupling constants, $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ and $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ decreases by about $`20\%`$ as compared to PS-I value.

PS-II and PV-II columns give the results obtained with model II which contains an additional hyperon resonance, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ (L1) as compared to model I. The addition of L1 strongly affects other coupling constants, in particular, $`G_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ and $`G_{L3}(1670)`$. As in model-I, the coupling constant $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ in the PV scheme is smaller than that in the PS scheme. We have tried a number of combinations of baryon resonances in our fitting process. We find that a reasonable $`\chi ^2/N`$ can be achieved by several different models due to the quality of the present database. A typical result is presented in the last two columns, PS-III and PV-III, of the table. The $`\chi ^2/N`$’s obtained with model III become smaller because four more resonances are included.

In Fig. 2 we show the differential cross sections for the above three models as a function of the photon energy (Left) and the scattering angle (Right). Note that the points with open square are the latest data from SAPHIR collaboration  and are not included in our fitting procedure. At lower energies, both PS and PV schemes can provide reasonable descriptions, in other words, the data do not distinguish PS and PV couplings in this region. As the photon energy increases, the theoretical predictions in the PS and PV schemes differ considerably.

In Fig. 3 we show recoil polarization of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with respect to the photon energy (Left) and the scattering angle (Right). Due to scarcity of data and large error bars, this quantity gives a small contribution to $`\chi ^2`$. As in Fig. 2 the deviations start mainly after $`E_\gamma =1.3`$ GeV. We would like to point out that the present simple model is not able to reproduce the node structure in the angular distribution of the $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as indicated by the recent data from SAPHIR . Since $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is due to the interference between helicity amplitudes, resonances and final state interactions play significant role. A quantitative fit to this observable is possible only with refined models including form factors and final state interactions. For completeness, we last present the total cross section in Fig. 4. For photon energies below 1.5 GeV, both schemes work quite well. To reproduce the higher energy data, it is essential to have hadronic form factors at all interaction vertices .

Generally, the models with PS coupling give diversified results for the fundamental coupling constants (differing by up to a factor of 3). This implies that the Born terms are not stable with respect to the addition of higher resonances in the PS scheme. In contrast, the fitted results with PV coupling are quite stable toward such additions, and the leading coupling constants in PV schemes are close to each other. Note that the role of $`N(1650)`$ emphasized by other group  is not as explicit in our work. The ability to reach a small $`\chi ^2`$ in most of our cases indicates that the neglect of higher spin resonances (spin-3/2 and higher) is justified in the energy region in which we are interested.

In summary, we have tested the PS and PV schemes for the kaon-baryon interaction in the $`\gamma +pK^++\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction. Our results show that the PV coupling scheme for the kaon-hyperon-nucleon can not be ruled out by the present database. Both schemes can provide reasonable descriptions of the data for the differential cross section below $`E_\gamma =1.5`$ GeV. The resulting coupling constants in the PV scheme are somewhat smaller than those from the SU(3) limit, but are consistent with values obtained from a QCD sum rule calculation . To resolve this question, precise data, in particular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization at backward angles will be helpful, together with a refined theoretical model with a proper treatment of hadron size and final state interactions.

Another possibility of examining the coupling scheme is the study of kaon photoproduction from nuclear matter. In this case, whether the leading order term proceeds through the contact interaction, which only appears in the PV scheme, or not could help to distinguish these two schemes. Any contribution due to the PS coupling must rely on the propagation of the nucleon or the hyperon inside the nuclear medium, which shall manifest itself in the cross sections.

The authors thank B. Saghai for providing them with data set used in this study and useful discussions. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council of ROC under grant No. NSC-89-2112-M002-038.


text:
# A Merger Scenario for the Dynamics of Abell 6651footnote 11footnote 1Optical observations reported here were obtained at the Multiple Mirror Telescope, a joint facility of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Arizona.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The study of galaxy clusters has revealed them as powerful probes of such cosmological quantities as the baryon fraction of the Universe (e.g., White & Fabian 1995), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (Richstone et al. 1992), and the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ (Gunn 1978; Birkinshaw 1979). However, our knowledge of the physics of galaxy clusters has not yet reached the same level of understanding that we have gained for, arguably, the most important cosmological probe to date, i.e., Cepheid variables, and this remains as one of the most significant limitations in our use of clusters for cosmological studies. For instance, one can compute $`H_0`$ by combining measurements of the decrement in the brightness temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) caused by the inverse Compton scattering of CMBR photons by the hot electrons in the cluster (the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect, Sunyaev & Zel’dovich 1972) with spectral and imaging observations of the X-ray emission produced by the same hot gas. This technique requires accurate 3-D models of the properties (temperature, density, metallicity, etc.) of the cluster atmosphere, which in turn demands that the physics and astrophysics of clusters be well understood. However, this understanding presents a problem because even present-day clusters are dynamically young and active, showing evidence for the accretion and merger of other systems. The resulting rich complexity in their internal properties greatly complicates their use for precision cosmology.

Abell 665 was initially classified by Abell (1958) as the richest cluster in his catalog. As such, it has been the subject of considerable study across the wavebands. Evidence for subclustering in the spatial distribution of the galaxies was first presented by Geller & Beers (1982). This was later confirmed through BVR photometry of 178 galaxies by Kalloglyan et al. (1990). The luminosity function has been recently studied by Garilli et al. (1996), Wilson et al. (1997), and Trentham (1998) for comparison with other clusters and in an effort to evaluate models for galaxy evolution.

Despite its richness, only 33 cluster members in A665 have published redshifts (Oegerle et al. 1991, hereafter OHFH). OHFH examined the kinematical properties of these galaxies and found that the velocity distribution was well described by a Gaussian with a relativistically-corrected line-of-sight velocity dispersion of $`\sigma =1201_{126}^{+183}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This seemed to indicate a fairly relaxed, but massive cluster. However, these authors did not completely reject the possibility that the cluster could be more complex. They suggested that the observed spatial substructure in the galaxy distribution and the relatively large peculiar velocity (vpec = 447 km s-1) of the brightest cluster member (BCM) argued for a non-relaxed dynamical state for A665. We will have more to say on this point later.

A665 is also a luminous source of X-ray emission, as its optical richness and high velocity dispersion would suggest. The presence of hot gas in this cluster was demonstrated by early observations performed by the Einstein Observatory and the Ginga satellite (Birkinshaw, Hughes, & Arnaud 1991; Hughes & Tanaka 1992). These pioneering observations revealed some evidence that the spatial distribution of the X-ray–emitting gas deviated from circular symmetry. Birkinshaw et al. modeled the complex gas distribution and found that a combination of two isothermal-$`\beta `$ models separated by $``$3 provided a considerably better fit to the data than a single isothermal-$`\beta `$ model did. Hughes & Birkinshaw (1996, 2000) have applied this type of modeling in much greater detail to ROSAT PSPC data and came to the conclusion that the properties of the X-ray emission required that a major merger was occurring or had occurred recently in this system. Note that Markevitch (1996) also suggested that a recent merger could explain the temperature gradient and asymmetric X-ray emission detected in ASCA observations of A665.

Further support for a merger scenario comes from Buote & Tsai’s (1996) study of the X-ray morphologies of a sample of 59 bright X-ray clusters. Their work quantifies cluster substructure by characterizing the X-ray surface brightness in terms of a multipole expansion of the two-dimensional gravitational potential. They detect a tight correlation between specific multipole power ratios that suggests an evolutionary track for clusters (i.e., the location of a cluster in the $`P_2/P_0`$$`P_4/P_0`$ power ratio plane is a function of its dynamical state). Interestingly, Buote & Tsai find that the only cluster in their entire sample that deviates from this correlation is A665. They hypothesized that A665 is undergoing a major merger event and is in a brief period of its evolution when the X-ray emitting hot gas does not follow the dark matter distribution or the gravitational potential.

The goal of this paper is to present new velocity measurements for galaxies in A665 and, by combining them with data from the literature, to study the cluster’s dynamics and to investigate the parameters of the cluster merger that we infer to have taken place recently. In section 2 we describe the acquisition and reduction of new optical and ROSAT X-ray data. In the following section we present our analysis of these data. Then in section 4 we present our model for the dynamical state of A665. We summarize our conclusions in section 5. We use $`H_0`$=75 km s-1 Mpc-1 and q0=0.5 throughout the paper.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION

### 2.1 Optical

Initially we used a 0.6 m telescope CCD image to identify and measure the positions of a total of 147 objects in the inner 5$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 region of A665 to a relative position uncertainty of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5. Later we obtained rough R band photometry for these objects from images obtained on 31 December 1991 and 6 March 1992 at the Fred L. Whipple Observatory 1.2 m telescope on Mt. Hopkins. At that time, the telescope was equipped with a thick, front-illuminated Loral 2048$`\times `$2048 CCD with a nominal pixel size of $``$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$32. Its $``$10$`\mathrm{}`$ field-of-view allowed us to mosaic a large area of the cluster by observing the cluster center and four regions offset by $`5\mathrm{}`$ to the NW, NE, SW, and SE. Each set of observations consisted of six individual 300 s exposures (with small positional offsets between frames) in order to reduce cosmic-ray contamination and cosmetic defects in the CCD chips. Each image was bias-subtracted and flat-fielded using a dome flat and then a sky flat was constructed from the median combination of all individual frames.

A grayscale plot of the final image is shown in Figure 1. From this image we computed R band magnitudes for the galaxy targets within a fixed 5$`\mathrm{}`$ radius aperture. Short observations of Landolt (1992) standard stars allowed us to reduce our measurements to the Johnson-Kron-Cousins system. To determine the zero point offset we compared our measurements with the magnitudes from a photometric, calibrated sample of galaxies in A665 (Trentham 1998). We find a root-mean-square (rms) dispersion of $`m_\mathrm{R}0.13`$ in the magnitudes of the 55 galaxies in common between our and Trentham’s sample. We consider this to be the uncertainty in the overall accuracy of our photometry.

Of the 147 potential targets in our sample, we observed a total of 89 objects during seven spectroscopic observing runs at the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT). Table 1 lists the combination of spectrographs, gratings, and aperture masks used in these runs. The atmospheric conditions were generally good, except for the March 1990 observing session, which was hampered by bad weather and poor seeing. The first three runs used the faint-object grism spectrograph (FOGS) (Geary, Huchra, & Latham 1986) while the remaining spectra were acquired with the Red Channel spectrograph (Schmidt, Weymann, & Foltz 1989).

Two gratings, one with 400 lines mm-1 and the other one with 300 lines mm-1, were used with the FOGS. They offered resolutions of 11Å and 15Å over nominal spectral ranges of 4000Å–6700Å and 3800Å–7500Å, respectively. The red channel spectrograph was equipped with a 270 lines mm-1 grating that provided a typical spectral resolution of $``$11Å over 3800Å–7400Å (nominal). Note that the exact spectral range depended on the location in the focal plane of the slit for each spectroscopic target. This was because, in order to acquire simultaneous observations of order 10 galaxies per exposure, we used either a movable multislit assembly (labeled “slitlets” in Table 1; Geary et al. 1986) or a set of custom-made aperture plates (Fabricant et al. 1991). The choice of spectroscopic targets for any individual field was constrained by factors associated with laying out the aperture plates or the positions of the slitlets. Nevertheless the large number of aperture plate or slitlet configurations we used (11) resulted in a reasonably uniform sampling of cluster member galaxies.

The total exposure time was 1–2 hrs for each field. These exposure times were built up of individual exposures of 20–30 minutes each in order to avoid excessive contamination by cosmic rays. We traced and extracted sky-subtracted spectra from each individual flat-fielded frame using standard IRAF tasks. The tracing of the spectra had typical rms residuals of $``$1 pixel. Then the He-Ne-Ar arc lamp spectra (extracted from the 2-D spectral data using the same tracing as for the corresponding object spectrum) were wavelength calibrated by identifying at least 30 spectral lines and fitting their pixel positions against their known laboratory wavelengths with a third order polynomial function. The fits produced solutions with rms residuals of $``$1Å ($``$50 km s-1). Subsequently, we co-added the spectra from the individual frames and checked the accuracy of the wavelength solution by measuring the positions of several night sky lines in galaxy spectra that were not sky subtracted. The typical differences between the measured and actual sky line positions were generally $`<`$ 1Å except for the June 1989 and January 1990 observations, which showed larger offsets ($``$20Å). Although we were unable to determine the cause of these large offsets, we were able to correct for both the large and small wavelength offsets by shifting the overall wavelength scale of the data by the average difference of the measured and true wavelengths of the night-sky lines. We verified that the large corrections applied to the January 1990 data were accurate by comparing the velocity of galaxy #7 (see Table 2) from that observing run with a previous one and noting a small velocity difference ($``$68 km s-1). Moreover, observations of NGC 4486B during the June 1989 and January 1990 runs for calibration purposes resulted in corrected velocities that were in general agreement (within 180 km s-1) with published values (de Vaucoulers et al. 1991).

The galaxy recessional velocities were computed using the IRAF task FXCOR. This task allowed us to cross-correlate the observed spectra (after removal of cosmic rays and any possible emission lines and ignoring spectral regions containing bright night-sky lines) with a high signal-to-noise spectrum of NGC4486B generated for the CfA redshift survey. Table 2 lists the coordinates (in epoch J2000), heliocentric velocities and errors, the Tonry & Davies (1979) ‘R’ parameter (TDR) from the cross-correlation, the R-band magnitude, and comments, as appropriate, for the 147 galaxies in our original sample. In the top part of the table we list the 55 spectroscopic targets that we confidently identify as galaxies, based on a high TDR value ($``$3.5) and visual inspection of the spectra. The galaxies are ordered by right ascension and numbered sequentially. Each cross-correlation was further inspected and the derived redshifts were confirmed by identifying the locations of prominent absorption line features. The bottom part of the table lists the remaining objects in the original sample, also in right ascension order. Secure identification was not possible for these objects, either because the object was not observed spectroscopically or because its spectrum was insufficient to admit a positive identification (e.g., TDR values $`<`$ 3.5). The objects in the latter case were generally faint: the median magnitude of the unidentified spectroscopic targets was 19.5, versus a median magnitude of 18.6 for the identified ones. In the bottom part of the table we also indicate possible stars, which we consider to be any unresolved object brighter than the BCM and in fact, two of these appear in the HST Guide Star Catalog. A possible background galaxy is indicated as well.

The velocity errors listed in this table were computed by adding in quadrature the formal uncertainty from the cross-correlation (as output by task FXCOR), with our estimates for the errors from sky-subtraction, arc-lamp wavelength calibration ($``$50 km s-1), and shift in the absolute wavelength scale from the wavelengths of the night sky lines ($``$20 km s-1). The errors caused by sky-subtraction were estimated by varying the parameters of the function used to fit the positional variation of the night sky brightness in the cross-dispersion direction. We estimate these errors to be $``$45 km s-1. Finally, we note that the template galaxy used for the cross-correlation was not completely successful at identifying galaxies with strong Balmer absorption line features. Two of our galaxies (numbered 9 and 11, denoted BLG in Table 2) appeared to show such spectra. We calculated their redshifts manually and estimate a velocity error of 150 km s-1 for them.

As an internal check on our velocity measurements, we made repeat observations of five galaxies during the course of the project. The average difference in the derived velocities is 58 km s-1, well within our quoted errors. And as a final check, we compared our velocities with those published by OFHF for the seven galaxies in common, viz., 1, 2, 12, 34, 42, 46, and 49 (which correspond to galaxies 231, 235, 225, 201, 224, 218, and 234, respectively, in OFHF’s numbering scheme). The average velocity difference is $`51.0`$ km s-1 and the rms dispersion is 130 km s-1, which is also within our velocity uncertainty. The largest difference was for galaxy 1, which showed a difference of $``$324 km s-1; however, OFHF report the presence of a cosmic ray in their spectrum of this galaxy, which might have affected their estimate of its redshift.

In order to determine how representative of the cluster our final spectroscopic sample is, we compared the radial distributions of the identified galaxies in the top part of Table 2 with all the galaxy candidates in our catalog minus an estimate for the galaxy field population (Trentham 1998). The ratio of the number of identified galaxies to the number of candidate galaxies was computed for three radial bins each 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 (200 kpc) wide centered on the BCM. We obtained values of 0.49, 0.5, and 0.46 for the ratios in the three bins. This distribution is fairly flat, which suggests that there is not a serious radial bias in the final sample of identified cluster galaxies. We also compared the number-magnitude counts of galaxies in the velocity range 50,000–60,000 km s-1, which are likely cluster members, with the photometric results of Trentham (1998). Our sample of members of A665 is not complete; we have spectroscopically confirmed the membership of only 57% of the expected number of cluster galaxies down to $`m_R=19`$ (or 40% of the expected members brighter than $`m_R=20`$). Nevertheless the shape of the number-magnitude distribution is quite similar to that of Trentham’s at least down to magnitude 19. Thus although our sample of galaxies is not a complete or well-defined subsample of the full population of cluster members, it appears fairly representative.

### 2.2 X-ray

Our ROSAT high resolution imager (HRI) observation of A665 was carried out in two parts; the first set of observations (rh800774) was done on April 1996 and lasted for a total of 41,224 seconds (live-time corrected) while the second set (rh800900) was performed in May 1997 and contained 57,650 seconds of live-time corrected exposure. These individual observations were summed after verifying that there was no significant offset in their relative pointing directions. Next, we boresight-corrected the absolute positions of the combined data set using two known radio sources (MB20 and MB28 from Moffet & Birkinshaw 1989) that were also X-ray sources. The difference in X-ray and radio source positions were 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 (right ascension) and 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 (declination). With these corrections, we estimate that the absolute X-ray positions are accurate to $`<`$$``$ 1$`\mathrm{}`$.

The raw data were block-averaged to produce an image with 8$`\mathrm{}`$ pixels. The total background level was determined by computing the counts from an annular region centered on the cluster with an inner radius of 5′ and a width of 10′ avoiding obvious point sources. This yielded a background level of $`4.8\times 10^3`$ counts s-1 arcmin-2 which is consistent with the range seen in other ROSAT HRI observations (David et al. 1998). Note that the total number of background subtracted counts within a radius of 5$`\mathrm{}`$ of the peak of X-ray emission ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{J2000}}=8^\mathrm{h}30^\mathrm{m}59.8^\mathrm{s}`$, $`\delta _{\mathrm{J2000}}=65^{}50^{}31.3^{\prime \prime }`$) is $``$ 17780. Figure 1 shows an overlay on the R-band image of the X-ray surface brightness contours from the background-subtracted HRI data adaptively-smoothed to an approximate signal-to-noise ratio of 5 which yields a typical smoothing scale of 15$`\mathrm{}`$ within the inner 2.$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 of the image (see Huang & Sarazin 1996 for a description of the smoothing algorithm).

## 3 DATA ANALYSIS

### 3.1 Optical Data Analysis

We assembled a sample of 89 potential cluster members by combining our 55 galaxies with 34 different ones from OHFH. Note that OHFH’s entire sample contained 41 galaxies, but there were seven objects in common with our sample; for these we use our redshift measurements. Cluster membership was determined using an iterative 3$`\sigma `$ clipping criteria (Yahil & Vidal 1977). The outlier galaxies were easily identified (after a single iteration): we find the same eight outlier galaxies as OHFH did in their sample as well as four more in our own sample. These latter are flagged in Table 1 as lying in either the foreground or background. We are left with 77 galaxies as cluster members in the total sample. Due to the relatively modest number of galaxies in our sample, we replaced the classical statistical estimators for the mean and dispersion with the more robust biweight estimators (Danese et al. 1980, Beers et al. 1991). The redshift of the cluster from the total sample is $`0.18285_{0.00064}^{+0.00045}`$ and the 1-D velocity dispersion is $`1390_{110}^{+120}`$ km s-1 (1 $`\sigma `$ errors). The uncertainties were determined through a bootstrap technique using the ROSTAT software (Beers et al. 1991). Our value of the cluster’s velocity dispersion is consistent with the value derived from the well-known correlation between X-ray temperature $`kT`$ and velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$. Using an average X-ray temperature for A665 of $`kT=8.3`$ keV (Hughes & Tanaka 1992) and the relationship between $`kT`$ and $`\sigma `$ given by Girardi et al. (1996), we estimate $`\sigma `$ = 1230 km s-1. Table 3 lists the redshift and 1-D velocity dispersion for the total sample and various subsamples of the cluster galaxies. Since we are especially interested in the dynamics of the galaxies located near the center of the cluster, we concentrate the remainder of our analysis on the 54 galaxies located within 4$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 (750 kpc) of the BCM (galaxy #34 in Table 2). Figure 2 shows the velocity histogram for these galaxies.

We applied a number of statistical tests to search for evidence of substructure in the spatial and kinematical distribution of the central galaxies in A665. Our tests find weak evidence for skewness in the velocity distribution. Specifically, using the B1 (D’Agostino 1986) and W (Yahil & Vidal 1977) tests we can reject the Gaussian hypothesis at the 92% confidence level. The B1 test is the usual third moment in the distribution while the W test computes the skewness based on ordered data. Note that the more conservative Asymmetry Index estimator (Bird & Beers 1993), which tests for symmetry by comparing gaps on the left and right side of the ordered velocity data, yields a significance of $``$97% for skewness. The statistical significance of other deviations from Gaussianity (e.g., kurtosis and bimodality) is even smaller. Therefore, the velocity distribution is barely distinguishable from Gaussian in form.

Furthermore there is no evidence for significant substructure in the 2-D spatial distribution of the centrally located galaxies, i.e., we do not detect strong asymmetries or bimodality in the locations of the galaxies.

Finally, we tested for the presence of substructure using 3-D tests that consider both the spatial and kinematical positions of the galaxies. The only test that resulted in even a marginal signal is the Dressler-Schectman test (Dressler & Shectman 1988). This test compares the local mean velocity ($`v_i`$) and dispersion ($`\sigma _i`$) for galaxy $`i`$ (computed in this case from the seven nearest neighbors) with the global mean velocity ($`v`$) and dispersion ($`\sigma `$) by calculating the quantity $`\delta _i`$, where $`\delta _i^2=[(\sqrt{N}+1)/\sigma ^2][(v_iv)^2+(\sigma _i\sigma )^2]`$ and $`N=55`$ is the number of sample galaxies, and then summing to compute the statistic, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta _i`$. The statistical significance of the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=69.2`$ that we calculate for the galaxies in A665 was determined through Monte-Carlo simulations. We find that our observed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is larger than 95% of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values obtained by random simulations in which the velocities were shuffled while keeping the positions fixed. Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the Dressler-Schectman test, where a circle, whose radius is proportional to the quantity $`e^{\delta _i}`$, is plotted at the position of each cluster member galaxy. A concentration of large circles in any particular area indicates the presence of galaxies whose kinematical properties differ from the global values. Although no obvious pattern dominates the deviations between the local and global values, the plot shows that most of the galaxies with large delta values (i.e., large circles in Fig. 3) lie close to a line that is perpendicular to the axis of X-ray elongation. These galaxies have local mean velocities that differ from the global mean velocity by as much as 1350 km s-1 and signal the presence of non-relaxed groupings of galaxies in the cluster. In the following section we will review what implications can be drawn from these results.

We do not detect any significant peculiar velocity of the BCM with respect to the sample of 54 centrally-located galaxies. In particular we measure a peculiar velocity of $`20\pm 220`$ km s-1 while OHFH found a velocity of 447 km s-1 for the BCM relative to their sample of galaxies, a difference that was statistically significant at the 98% confidence level. Our separate, independent velocity measurements for the BCM are in agreement, so it is the difference in our estimates for the mean recessional speed of the cluster that must be the cause of the discrepancy. As Table 3 shows, the galaxies located close to the center of the cluster (our sample) have a mean velocity that is slightly larger than the mean velocity of the galaxies located in the outer regions of the cluster. Since the mean recessional velocity of the latter sample agrees well with OHFH’s sample, the discrepancy between our results, at least, is explained. The relativistically-corrected velocity difference between the inner and outer samples of galaxies is $`580\pm 290`$ km s-1, yet another marginal (2 $`\sigma `$) indication that the galaxy population in A665 is not fully relaxed. Whether this indicates that there is a radial velocity gradient in the cluster, or a velocity differentiation based on galaxy type awaits improved imaging data and a larger sample of measured redshifts.

Finally, Figure 4 shows a grey scale map of the surface density of central cluster galaxies overlaid with the X-ray surface brightness contours. Two features to note are (1) the offset of the peaks of the X-ray emission and the galaxy density by a small amount $``$1′ (167 kpc) and (2) the NW-SE elongation of the brighter parts of both distributions. The generally good agreement between the spatial distributions of the gas and confirmed cluster member galaxies argues strongly against the possibility that the distorted appearance of the X-ray emission is the result of a superposition of unrelated clusters along the line of sight.

### 3.2 X-ray Data Analysis

We carried out an elliptical isophotal analysis of A665’s X-ray surface brightness using the algorithm developed by Jedrzejewski (1987) as implemented in IRAF (using task ellipse in the stsdas package). The program uses an iterative least-squares technique to model the radially decreasing surface brightness with elliptical isophotes. The centroid (row and column pixel positions), axial ratio, and position angle of the major axis are varied to obtain the best fit. Figure 5 shows the results of these fits to the adaptively-smoothed ROSAT HRI data in four panels that present the radial variation from the peak of the X-ray emission ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{J2000}}=8^\mathrm{h}30^\mathrm{m}59.8^\mathrm{s}`$, $`\delta _{\mathrm{J2000}}=65^{}50^{}31.3^{\prime \prime }`$) of the axial ratio, position angle (measured positive counter-clockwise from north), and centroid shifts in right ascension and declination.

The errors shown were estimated using a Monte Carlo technique. One hundred simulated images of the cluster were generated by adding Poisson noise to the original adaptively-smoothed X-ray data. Each separate realization was re-smoothed and then run through the ellipse program. The error at each radial point was estimated by computing the rms dispersion of the 100 fitted values obtained from the different realizations. Note that this technique explicitly takes account of the statistical error from Poisson noise as propagated through the ellipse fitting process.

As figure 5 shows, there is significant centroid movement, ellipticity variation, and isophotal twisting. For example, by a radius of 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 the centroid of the isophotes has shifted by over $`1^{}`$ toward the NW. Note that this shift is larger than the overall smoothing scale within this region ($``$ 15$`\mathrm{}`$) and roughly the same as the direction of elongation of the central part of the galaxy surface density distribution mentioned in the previous section. The shape and orientation of the isophotes are also a function of radius. They are initially fairly elliptical ($`ϵ=1b/a0.17`$) with the major axis aligned slightly toward the NE. Over the next arcminute in radius, the isophotes twist as the position of the major axis rotates by $`45^{}`$ (i.e., toward the west). At this point the major axis points in nearly the same direction as the direction of the centroid shift. The orientation of the isophotes remains nearly constant for the next arcminute or so in radius before continuing to twist further toward the west. Beyond a radius of $``$2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5, the signal to noise ratio of the data has become too low to pursue further fits. These results are generally consistent with the substructure detected in the PSPC images of A665 by Hughes & Birkinshaw (2000), which required a number of spatial components, at least two isothermal-$`\beta `$ models as well as two ellipsoidal distributions of hot gas, to explain in detail.

## 4 DISCUSSION

Based on the results of our optical data alone, we would be hard pressed not to conclude that A665 is a relaxed cluster. The velocity dispersion, although high, is not inconsistent with measurements of other rich clusters (e.g., Zabludoff et al. 1993; Edge & Stewart 1991). We detect only marginal evidence for substructure and non-Gaussianity in the velocity distribution of the cluster members. The BCM appears to be at rest with respect to the gravitational potential, at least as traced by the dense concentration of galaxies near the cluster center. In short, all the tests that we have used on the galaxy data are consistent with a fairly simple, relaxed cluster scenario.

On the other hand, the morphology of the X-ray emitting gas indicates an entirely different situation for the dynamical state of the cluster. The strongly asymmetric distribution of the X-ray emitting gas, the isophotal twisting and centroid variation presented above, and the exceptional nature of A665’s morphology as discussed by Buote and Tsai (1996) all argue strongly against a typical relaxed cluster interpretation. These facts suggest that the hot cluster gas is not in hydrostatic equilibrium with the cluster gravitational potential or, if it is, then the gravitational potential must be strongly asymmetric, clumpy, or highly structured in some way. The possibility of a chance line-of-sight superposition of two isolated, nearly-regular, clusters giving rise to the distorted appearance of A665 can be rejected based on the general agreement between the spatial distribution of cluster member galaxies (with $`cz50000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and the X-ray emission (Fig. 4). An alternate scenario that may be consistent with the observations is one in which A665 is undergoing a recent merger and that the inherent complexities in the dynamics of the galaxies are somehow hidden from us. This scenario could naturally account for the X-ray substructure and, depending on the merger epoch and viewing geometry, might be consistent with the spatial and kinematical properties of the galaxies. In the following, we explore this merger hypothesis in more detail.

Numerical simulations (e.g., Evrard 1990; Pearce et al. 1994; Schindler & Müller, 1993; Roettiger et al. 1996) show that during a major merger, the gravitational potential of a cluster is severely disrupted. Shocks heat and compress the gas, eventually redistributing a portion of the energy associated with the merger to the cluster gas. However during the actual merger itself, the gravitational potential evolves too rapidly for the cluster atmosphere to respond on the sound-crossing timescale, and consequently the gas falls out of hydrostatic equilibrium. Shocks, the exchange of gas between the merging components, and the reaction of the gas to the gravitational forces all give rise to structures, elongations, and other asymmetries in the X-ray emission. These processes, we believe, provide a plausible qualitative explanation for the X-ray substructure seen in A665. Yet these simulations also predict the presence of substructure in the spatial and kinematical distributions of the cluster member galaxies. Have we failed to observe these effects in A665 because our galaxy sample is too small, the properties of the merger (epoch and viewing geometry) are unfavorable (see, for example, Pinkney et al. 1996), or because the underlying premise of a major merger in A665 is just plain wrong?

We decided to test the merger hypothesis by comparing our optical data with the results of N-body simulations of simple head-on cluster mergers. We do not aim for a precise match between the data and simulations (and we do not carry out an exhaustive study); we try only to determine whether this general type of merger can produce the subtle kinematic deviations from an apparently relaxed cluster that we observe. We assume that the galaxies are good probes of the underlying gravitational potential and that light traces mass.

Given the significant distortions in the X-ray emission, we have chosen to focus on major mergers for maximum effect. We tried two general types of merger: one consisting of a merger of equal mass components (1:1) and one with merging components in mass ratio of 1 to 2 (1:2). All simulations were performed using Hernquist’s N-body code (TREECODE, Hernquist 1987). We started with simple, idealized initial conditions. Each of the component subclusters was modeled as an isothermal sphere (King 1966, Binney & Tremaine 1987) characterized by a concentration parameter of 1.08 (so that the tidal radius is $``$ 12 times the core radius). The initial core radii were fixed at a value of 250 kpc for the equal mass cluster simulation, while in the 1:2 merger they were 250 kpc (main cluster) and 198 kpc (subcluster). These choices ensured an equal matter density between the merging subclusters and are consistent with values found in the literature (e.g., Mohr et al. 1999). Note that this choice fixed the length scale for the simulations and left, as the single remaining scalable parameter, either the mass per N-body particle or the time step of the simulation. The two subclusters were allowed to merge head-on under the influence of their mutual gravity. At the start the two merging components were separated by 8 Mpc and 6 Mpc for the 1:1 and 1:2 models, respectively, and had initial velocities consistent with their free-fall velocities ($`1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). The total number of particles in the computations was 30000, divided appropriately between the two components.

In order to compare to the observed velocity distribution of the galaxies it was necessary to apply a numerical scaling to the velocities of the N-body particles, since the model calculations were done in scale-free coordinates. Fixing the velocity scaling is equivalent to defining the time step of the simulations which in turn determines the masses of the merging components. The other quantities of interest to us for the comparison were the merger epoch and the viewing direction, i.e., the angle between our line-of-sight and the merger axis. We investigated three different viewing angles: 30$`\mathrm{°}`$, 45$`\mathrm{°}`$, and 90$`\mathrm{°}`$ (where 0$`\mathrm{°}`$ corresponds to viewing along the merger axis). Only N-body particles within a projected radius of 750 kpc about the center of mass of the system were used in the model velocity distribution. The Kolmorov-Smirnoff (KS) test was used for the comparison.

The results are shown in Figure 6. The two panels show the two different mass ratios used for the initial conditions. In each panel the vertical axis shows the initial mass of the main merging subcluster while the horizontal axis shows the time since core-crossing. The different symbols indicate the different viewing directions assumed. Only models with a (2-sided) KS probability for rejection of 90% or less (i.e., those with a maximum difference between the model and the data distributions of $`<`$$``$ 0.076) are plotted. Overall 8700 possible models as a function of epoch (from $``$6 Gyr to 5 Gyr with a typical timestep of $``$0.3 Gyr) and initial main subcluster mass (from $`0.7\times 10^{15}M_{}`$ to $`1.5\times 10^{15}M_{}`$ with a typical mass spacing of $``$$`4\times 10^{13}M_{}`$ ) were sampled for each viewing angle. These results demonstrate that the observed velocity distribution in A665 is consistent with the velocity distribution expected from the major merger of two similar sized subclusters, close to or after the time of core-crossing, with the exact epoch depending on the mass ratio and viewing geometry.

Another view of the mass of A665 inferred from the allowed merger models is shown in Figure 7. Here we plot the mass within $`r_{500}`$, which is the radius at which the cluster density is equal to 500 times the critical density. Evrard et al. (1996) have shown from numerical simulations of cluster evolution that $`r_{500}`$ can be expressed as a power law of the gas temperature. For A665 with a global temperature of 8.3 keV, we compute a value of $`r_{500}=1.5`$ Mpc from this relation. According to Fig. 7 the inferred total cluster mass within this radius based on galaxy dynamics is in the range $`1.6\times 10^{15}M_{}`$ to $`2.4\times 10^{15}M_{}`$. These estimates are consistent with the total mass ($`1.7\times 10^{15}M_{}`$) predicted by the scaling relations proposed by Evrard et al. (1996). However, they are somewhat in excess of the mass estimate ($`0.91.5\times 10^{15}M_{}`$) from an X-ray analysis by Hughes & Tanaka (1992) under the typical assumptions of hydrostatic equilibrium and spherical symmetry. Numerical simulations of cluster mergers and evolution (e.g., Evrard et al. 1996, Roettiger et al. 1996) show that one can overestimate or underestimate the actual mass of a merging cluster by factors of 2 if one assumes hydrostatic equilibrium and isothermal $`\beta `$-models. The exact difference between the true cluster mass and the inferred mass from X-ray analysis depends on the geometry, epoch, and other gas parameters (e.g., temperature, core radius, $`\beta `$) of the merging clusters. Thus, it is not surprising that our mass estimates from galaxy dynamics are not in perfect agreement with the X-ray–derived mass.

Looking at the results of the 1:1 merger in more detail, we find that the K-S test rejects mergers at epochs slightly earlier than $``$0.5 Gyr because the velocity distributions tend to be either bimodal or very broad (depending on the viewing angle) and therefore incompatible with the data. On the other hand, mergers at even earlier epochs (before $`1`$ Gyr) or at late epochs (after 1 Gyr) are rejected because the K-S test finds the velocity distributions to be more symmetric and/or wider than our data. Thus, this test is more sensitive to the marginal non-Gaussianity of our data than the generic statistical tests that we used before (see section 3.1). The situation for the 1:2 mass ratio mergers is somewhat different. The velocity distributions produced by these simulations do allow a larger range of models due to the smaller effect that the subcluster has on the overall shape of the velocity distribution. In other words, our analysis is consistent with two similar-size clusters caught in the middle of a merger or a larger system being affected by a smaller subcluster. Note that there are no acceptable models for earlier epochs (more than 1 Gyr before core-crossing) that would correspond to relaxed clusters seen in projection if viewed along the merger axis since such models would display spatial distributions of galaxies that would be clearly bimodal and therefore inconsistent with the data.

Our optical velocity data showed marginal evidence for a difference in the mean velocity and velocity dispersion with position (Table 3). We have used this information in an attempt to further discriminate among allowed models. From the N-body models we extracted the line-of-sight velocities of 54 objects in the inner 750 kpc (corresponding to our central sample) and 23 objects from within an annular region from 750 kpc to 2 Mpc (corresponding to the outer sample). Here we have estimated 2 Mpc to be roughly the outermost radial extent of OHFH’s study. For each merger epoch, mass ratio, and viewing angle we calculated the mean velocities and dispersions in the two extraction regions. Sampling errors were taken into account by averaging the values obtained from 100 independent random extractions. The 1:1 merger does not show any evidence at all for a gradient in the mean velocity, although there is evidence for a velocity dispersion gradient especially for epochs close to core-crossing. Specifically, the velocity dispersions from the two regions differ by approximately 300–600 km s-1 with the maximum difference occurring at core crossing. The situation is much different for the 1:2 merger. In this case there is evidence for a gradient in both mean velocity and velocity dispersion. For epochs between $``$1 Gyr and 2 Gyr from core crossing, the mean velocities differ by 200–400 km s-1 and the velocity dispersions differ by 400–800 km s-1 for the inner and outer galaxy samples. These values are comparable to our measured values. Therefore, of all the models considered in our analysis, the 1:2 merger seen close to the time of core crossing appears to be the most consistent with our galaxy velocity data.

Although detailed modeling of the properties of the X-ray emission arising from a merger of this type is beyond the scope of our work, the properties of the merger inferred from the galaxy velocities (i.e., small mass ratio, close to core-crossing) are qualitatively consistent with the distorted morphology of the X-ray emission (Roettiger et al. 1996). We await upcoming X-ray spectral images from Chandra that will allow us to further investigate the properties of the hot gas in A665 and probe the evolutionary state of this complex merging system in greater detail.

## 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We measured new R-band optical magnitudes for 147 galaxy candidates in the vicinity of the rich galaxy cluster A665. A total of 89 of these candidates were observed at the MMT; good signal-to-noise spectra that resulted in the identification and determination of recessional velocities were obtained for 55 galaxies. Combining with data in the literature results in a total of 77 known cluster member galaxies in A665. We concentrate our study of the cluster’s kinematics on the subsample of 54 galaxies within the inner 4$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 (750 kpc) central region of the cluster.

We find, at most, marginal evidence for kinematic structure and non-Gaussianity in the velocity data of the central subsample of galaxies. In addition for these galaxies there is only weak evidence for 3-D spatial and kinematical clustering as detected by the Dressler-Schectman test. Comparison of the central subsample to the sample of cluster members beyond 4$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 of the center, shows marginal ($``$2 $`\sigma `$) evidence for a drop in both the mean velocity and velocity dispersion. Taken at face value the optical velocity data therefore appear consistent with a massive relaxed cluster, exhibiting only subtle signs of substructure. Others have pointed out that the spatial distribution of galaxies shows some evidence for substructure.

Our deep ROSAT HRI observation of A665 reveals strong signatures of substructure in the spatial distribution of the X-ray emitting gas that are consistent with PSPC observations (Hughes & Birkinshaw 2000). We have measured centroid shifts, ellipticity variations, and the rotation (or twist) of elliptical isophotes as a function of distance from the cluster center. These indicate recent merger activity in the cluster.

In order to reconcile these two apparently conflicting views of the cluster’s evolutionary state, we have undertaken simple N-body simulations of head-on cluster mergers. We find that the velocity distributions produced by the merger of two subclusters with mass ratios of 1:1 or 1:2 near the time of core-crossing provide an acceptable match to the observed velocity distribution of the central subsample for a range of reasonable viewing geometries. In addition, near the epoch of core-crossing the 1:2 merger produces a radial gradient in mean velocity and dispersion that also agrees with our measurements. A major merger of this type is at least qualitatively consistent with the distorted X-ray morphology of A665.

Major new insights into the nature of this cluster and the process of cluster formation in general should be forthcoming with the data expected from the new generation of X-ray missions recently launched. Chandra and XMM will provide detailed measurements of the cluster’s gas temperature and density that are sure to provide excellent views of shocks and other plasma processes in the hot gas. Furthermore, our simulations indicate that increasing to $``$ 250 the number of cluster member galaxies in A665 with good redshift measurements would allow us to observe directly the effects of the merger on the galaxy velocity distribution. Each of these techniques yields a different view of the ongoing merger in A665 and thus merits follow-up.

This work was partially supported by a PPARC grant to MB and NASA grants NAG5-3432, NAG5-4794, and NAG5-6420 to JPH. We would like to express our thanks to Neil Trentham who kindly provided us with his A665 optical images and to Tad Pryor for insightful comments about the work. We also thank the CfA time allocation committee for their patience and generosity in awarding us MMT observing time over the many years this project took. Support from Monique Arnaud and the hospitality of the XMM group at the Service d’Astrophysique of the CEA-Saclay is also gratefully acknowledged by JPH.