text:
# Cluster Percolation in O(n) Spin Models

## 1 Introduction

The possibility to interpret the critical behaviour of dynamical systems in terms of percolation of geometrical structures of the system has always had a great appeal in the study of critical phenomena  \- . Attempts in this direction were already done in the 70’s, when one began to study the behaviour of clusters of nearest-neighbour like-signed spins in the Ising model. It turned out that in two dimensions these elementary site percolation clusters indeed undergo a geometrical transition exactly at the critical threshold of the Ising model . This result, which is not valid in three dimensions , is anyway not so appealing, because the critical exponents derived by the percolation variables do not coincide with the Ising ones . The correspondence between the geometrical and the thermal phenomenon is therefore only partial.

The problem was solved by A. Coniglio and W. Klein , making use of a different definition for the clusters. Such definition had already been used by Fortuin and Kasteleyn to show that the partition function of the Ising model can be rewritten in purely geometrical terms as a sum over clusters configurations . According to the Fortuin-Kasteleyn prescription, two nearest-neighbouring spins of the same sign belong to the same cluster with a probability $`p=1exp(2\beta )`$ ($`\beta =J/kT`$, J is the Ising coupling). Coniglio and Klein  showed that the geometrical transition of these clusters leads to the required critical indices of the Ising model, threshold and exponents.

The clusters of the Monte Carlo cluster update introduced by U. Wolff  for O(n) spin models coincide with the Fortuin-Kasteleyn ones when n=1 (which is just the Ising model). The O(n) models without external field in three space dimensions ($`n2`$) undergo a phase transition due to the spontaneous breaking of the continuous rotational symmetry of their Hamiltonian. Such models are very interesting: some physical systems in condensed matter physics are directly associated to them. The three-dimensional O(3) model is the low-temperature effective model for a bidimensional quantum antiferromagnet . The O(2) model in three dimensions is known to be in the same universality class as superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$. O(n) models are also very useful to study relativistic field theories. The O(4) model in three dimensions has been conjectured to be in the same universality class as the finite-temperature chiral phase transition of QCD with two flavours massless quarks .

The general definition of Wolff clusters for O(n) spin models inspired this work. Can one describe the critical behaviour of O(n) without field in three dimensions in terms of the percolation of these clusters, like in the case n=1? We will show that this is indeed true at least for O(2), O(3) and O(4). The fact that the Wolff clusters percolate at the physical critical point was recently proven analytically for O(2) and O(3) . Although nothing about the exponents was mentioned, we will show that starting from some relations established in  it is also possible to deduce the equality of the critical exponents for O(2) and O(3). We have also performed computer simulations on O(2) and O(4) in order to illustrate this result for O(2), and to prove it numerically for O(4).

## 2 O(n) models and Wolff clusters

The O(n) spin models with no external magnetic field have the following Hamiltonian:

$$H=J\underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}𝐬_𝐢𝐬_𝐣,$$
(2.1)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are nearest-neighbour sites on a d-dimensional hypercubic lattice, and $`𝐬_𝐢`$ is an n-component unit vector at site $`i`$ ($`J`$ is the coupling). The partition function of these models at the temperature $`T`$ is

$$Z(T)=𝒟[𝐬]\mathrm{exp}\{\beta \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}𝐬_𝐢𝐬_𝐣\}$$
(2.2)
where $`\beta =J/kT`$ and the integral is extended over all spin configurations $`\{𝐬\}`$ of the system. In three dimensions the O(n) models undergo a second-order phase transition. The order parameter of this transition is the normalized magnetization $`M=\frac{1}{V}_𝐢𝐬_𝐢`$ (V is the lattice volume).

Numerical simulations of O(n) models became much quicker and more effective after U. Wolff  introduced a Monte Carlo algorithm based on simultaneous updates of large clusters of spins, generalizing the Swendsen Wang algorithm  to the continuous-spin case. This algorithm has the remarkable advantage that it eliminates the problem of critical slowing down, an effect that makes simulations around criticality very lengthy with traditional local methods (Metropolis, heat bath). The Wolff algorithm can be basically divided in two phases:

1) a cluster of spins is selected;

2) the spins of this cluster are ”flipped”, i.e. they are reflected with respect to some defined hyperplane.

For details of the flipping procedure, see . Here we are interested in the way to build up the clusters. We can split this procedure in two steps:

a) choose a random n-component unit vector r;

b) bind together pairs of nearest-neighbouring sites i,j with the probability

$$p(i,j)=1exp\{min[0,2\beta (𝐬_𝐢𝐫)(𝐬_𝐣𝐫)]\}.$$
(2.3)
From this prescription it follows that if the two spins at two nearest-neighbouring sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ are such that their projections onto the random vector r are of opposite signs, they will never belong to the same cluster ($`p(i,j)=0`$). The random vector r, therefore, divides the spin space in two hemispheres, separating the spins which have a positive projection onto it from the ones which have a negative projection. The Wolff clusters are made out of spins which all lie either in the one or in the other hemisphere. In this respect, we can again speak of ’up’ and ’down’ spins, like for the Ising model. In addition to that, the bond probability is local, since it depends explicitly on the spin vectors $`𝐬_𝐢`$ and $`𝐬_𝐣`$, and not only on the temperature like the Fortuin-Kasteleyn factor.

The analogies with the Ising model are however clear, motivating the attempt to study the percolation properties of these clusters.

## 3 Percolation exponents for O(2) and O(3)

In  the random cluster representations of $`O(n)`$ models, $`n=2,3`$ have been derived (and exploited) through the Fortuin-Kasteleyn transformation  of the Hamiltonians and similar results were obtained in  for the continuous (or classical) spin model . Wolff random cluster probability distributions  for these models have been studied and several monotonicity properties of these distributions (FKG properties)  have been established leading to the proof of the equivalence between the onset of magnetic ordering in the $`O(n)`$ models, $`n=2,3`$ and percolation in the corresponding random Wolff cluster models. From the results stated above follows in a natural way the equality of the critical thermal and geometrical exponents.

In what follows we focus our attention on two variables:

* The percolation strength  $`P`$, defined as the probability that a lattice site picked up at random belongs to the percolating cluster. $`P`$ is the order parameter of the percolation transition.
* The average cluster size  $`S`$, defined as

$$S=\frac{_sn_ss^2}{_sn_ss}.$$
(3.1)
Here, $`n_s`$ is the number of clusters of size $`s`$ per lattice site (i.e. divided by the lattice volume) and the sums exclude the percolating cluster (see ).

We stress that in some cases one speaks of average cluster size referring to the average size of all clusters, including the percolating one. This definition makes the variable infinite above the percolation threshold. Below the threshold the two definitions obviously coincide and therefore they share the same critical exponent.

In the references , it was proved that, if $`P(T)`$ is the percolation strength in the random Wolff cluster representation and $`m(T)`$ is the magnetization in the $`O(n)`$ spin system, then there exists a function $`c(T)C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^+)`$ such that

$$P(T)m(T)c(T)P(T)$$
(3.1)
Similarly, denoting $`S(T)`$ the average size of the Wolff clusters and $`\chi (T)`$ the (linear response) susceptibility, it was also proved that

$$S(T)\chi (T)c(T)^2S(T)$$
(3.2)
where $`c(T)`$ is the same $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$ function as in (3.1).

From scaling theory (see ), near criticality, the susceptibility is believed to behave according to the following law

$$\chi (T)\underset{TT_c^+}{}(TT_c)^\gamma $$
(3.3)
and the average mean cluster size of Wolff clusters should follow the law

$$S(T)\underset{TT_c^+}{}p(T)p(T_c)^\gamma ^{}$$
(3.4)
where $`p(T)`$ is the bond occupation probability in the Wolff random cluster model (i.e. the Coniglio-Klein  bond probability) given by $`p(T)1exp(a/T)`$, where $`a`$ does not depend on $`T`$.

From  the equality of the critical exponents $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ follows readily . Indeed, because of monotonicity, taking the logarithm in (3.3) and (3.4), and using (3.2) one gets

$$\gamma ^{}\mathrm{log}p(T)p(T_c)\gamma \mathrm{log}(TT_c)2\mathrm{log}c(T)\gamma ^{}\mathrm{log}p(T)p(T_c)$$
(3.5)
which reduces to

$$\gamma ^{}\gamma \frac{\mathrm{log}(TT_c)}{\mathrm{log}p(T)p(T_c)}\gamma ^{}\frac{2\mathrm{log}c(T)}{\mathrm{log}p(T)p(T_c)}$$
(3.6)
Now when $`TT_c^+`$ and since $`c(T)C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$, the last term vanishes and it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{log}(TT_c)/\mathrm{log}p(T)p(T_c)\underset{TT_c^+}{}1`$. When $`TT_c^+`$ we get the result $`\gamma =\gamma ^{}`$.

Using (3.1) and the scaling behaviours of the magnetization and the percolation strength in terms of their critical exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ respectively, one can show (following the same lines as before) that $`\beta =\beta ^{}`$ when $`TT_c^+p(T)p(T_c)^+`$, where $`p(T)`$ is again the Coniglio-Klein bond probability already defined above.

Namely, the percolation strength is believed to behave  as a function of the elementary bond occupation probability $`p`$ according to the following law

$$P(p)\underset{pp_c^+}{}(pp_c)^\beta ^{}pp(T)$$
(3.7)
whereas, the magnetization should behave as

$$m(T)\underset{TT_c^{}}{}(T_cT)^\beta $$
(3.8)
then using the same procedure as below, we are led to the following expression

$$\beta ^{}\beta \frac{\mathrm{log}(T_cT)}{\mathrm{log}(p(T)p(T_c))}\beta ^{}\frac{\mathrm{log}c(T)}{\mathrm{log}(p(T)p(T_c))}$$
(3.9)
which, using $`\mathrm{log}(T_cT)/\mathrm{log}(p(T)p(T_c))\underset{TT_c^{}}{}1`$ and $`\mathrm{log}c(T)/log(p(T)p(T_c))\underset{TT_c^{}}{}0`$, gives

$$\beta =\beta ^{}.$$

as claimed.

About eventual extensions of analytical results to other spin models, we mention that the equivalence of the thermal and the geometrical phase transitions is true for $`Z(3)`$ and $`Z(4)`$ models as a consequence of the equivalences already established for the continuous spin Ising model and $`O(2)`$ . As for $`O(n)`$ models with $`n>3`$, we remark that the proof for $`O(3)`$ was derived starting from the result for $`O(2)`$. However, some additional conditions remain to be proved in order to be able to extend the result from $`O(n1)`$ to $`O(n)`$ if $`n>3`$.

## 4 Numerical Results

We have investigated numerically the 3-dimensional O(2) and O(4) models performing computer simulations for several lattice sizes. The Monte Carlo update was performed by the Wolff algorithm, described in Section 2. At the end of an iteration, the percolation strength $`P`$ and the average cluster size $`S`$ were measured. This has been done for each of the models using two different approaches.

The first approach is the traditional one, based on a complete analysis of the lattice configuration. Once we have the configuration we want to analyze, we build Wolff clusters until all spins are set into clusters. We assign to $`P`$ the value zero if there is no percolating cluster, the ratio between the size of the percolating cluster and the lattice volume otherwise. We calculate $`S`$ using the standard formula (3.1). The operative definition of percolating cluster was taken as follows. We say that a cluster percolates if it spans the lattice from a face to the opposite one in each of the three directions $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$. We made this choice to reduce the possibility that, due to the finite size of the lattices, one could find more than a spanning cluster making ambiguous the definition of our variables111In three dimensions even this definition of spanning cluster does not exclude the possibility of having more than one of such clusters for the same configuration. Nevertheless the occurrence of such cases is so small that we can safely ignore them..

In this approach we have used free boundary conditions.

The second approach is based on a single-cluster analysis. Basically one studies the percolation properties of the cluster built during the update procedure. For the cluster building we have considered periodic boundary conditions. Suppose that $`s_c`$ is the size of the cluster we built. If it percolates, we assign value one to the strength $`P`$ and zero to the size $`S`$; otherwise, we write zero for $`P`$ and $`s_c`$ for $`S`$. These definitions of $`P`$ and $`S`$ look different from the standard definitions we have introduced above, but it is easy to see that they are instead equivalent to them.

In fact, we build the cluster starting from a lattice site taken at random. In this way, the probability that the cluster percolates (expressed by the new $`P`$) coincides with the probability that a site taken at random belongs to the percolating cluster (standard definition of $`P`$). As far as the average cluster size is concerned, we can repeat the same reasoning: the probability that the cluster we built is a non-percolating cluster of size $`s_c`$ is just the probability $`w_{s_c}`$ that a randomly taken lattice site belongs to a non-percolating cluster of size $`s_c`$; $`w_{s_c}`$ is given by

$$w_{s_c}=n_{s_c}s_c.$$
(4.1)
Because of that, whenever we get a non-vanishing size $`s_c`$, such value will be weighted by the probability $`w_{s_c}`$ in the final average $`S`$, which is then given by the following formula:

$$S=\underset{s_c}{}w_{s_c}s_c=\underset{s_c}{}n_{s_c}s_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(4.2)
where the sum runs over the non-percolating clusters. We notice that Eq. (4.2) coincides with Eq. (3.1), apart from the denominator $`_sn_ss`$, which is just the density of the sites belonging to finite clusters. Since this term does not contribute to the divergence of the average cluster size, the power law behaviour of the two $`S`$’s at criticality is identical, so that the critical exponent $`\gamma `$ is the same in both cases.

As we have said, in the second approach we select a single cluster at a time from the whole configuration. Because of that we have now some freedom of choosing the definition of percolating cluster, as we do not risk, like in the first approach, to find more spanning structures. We say that the cluster percolates if it connects at least one face with the opposite one.

In this way, also the definitions of percolating clusters are different in the two approaches. This certainly influences the results on finite lattices, but has no effects on the infinite-volume properties we are interested in. In fact, it is known that one can have at most a unique spanning cluster above the critical density $`p_c`$ (in our case below the critical temperature $`T_c`$). Exactly at $`p_c`$ ($`T_c`$) there is a finite probability to have more than a spanning cluster . So, the two different definitions of percolating cluster we have adopted can lead to differences between the infinite-volume values only at the critical point $`p_c`$ ($`T_c`$). But the critical exponents are, of course, not influenced by that, as they are determined by the behaviour of the percolation variables near the critical point, not exactly at $`p_c`$ ($`T_c`$).

The second approach has the advantage that it does not require a procedure to reduce the configuration of the system to a set of clusters; on the other hand, since it gets the information out of a single cluster, it requires a higher number of samples in order to measure the percolation variables with the same accuracy of the first method. Nevertheless, the iterations are faster due to the simpler measurement of observables, and are less correlated than in the first approach, since only a (random) limited region of the lattice is considered in each sample. We find that both methods are efficient, and that it is important to be able to compare results obtained in two such different ways.

For our numerical investigations we have also made use of another variable which can be extracted from the percolation strength $`P`$. On a finite lattice there is at any temperature $`\beta `$ a well defined probability of having a spanning cluster. We call it percolation cumulant and indicate it $`\gamma _r`$. When the size of the lattice goes to infinity, $`\gamma _r`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ approaches a step function: it is always zero below $`\beta _c`$ and always one above it. To get the finite-size curves out of our measurements we must basically see how often we found a percolating cluster ($`P0`$) for a definite lattice size and a temperature $`\beta `$.

To evaluate the thresholds and the exponents we have adopted finite-size-scaling techniques. We consider the general finite-size-scaling prediction for an observable $`𝒪`$

$$𝒪(t,L)=L^{\rho /\nu }Q_𝒪(L^{1/\nu }t),$$
(4.3)
where $`t=TT_c`$, $`L`$ is the linear dimension of the lattice, $`Q_𝒪`$ is a universal function and the exponent $`\rho `$ is related to the critical behavior of $`𝒪`$ at infinite volume. Following the definitions given in Section 3, we have $`\rho =\gamma ^{}`$ for the observable $`S`$ and $`\rho =\beta ^{}`$ for $`P`$. For the percolation cumulant $`\gamma _r`$ we have $`\rho =0`$ , which means that $`\gamma _r`$ curves corresponding to different lattice sizes cross at the critical point: for $`t=0`$ and $`\rho =0`$, in fact, the observable of Eq. (4.3) is not $`L`$-dependent.

Figs. 1 and 2 show $`\gamma _r`$ curves for O(2) and O(4), respectively. The agreement with the physical thresholds (dashed lines) is clear. Moreover, we could already get indications about the class of critical exponents of our clusters. In fact, if one knows the critical point and the exponent $`\nu `$, a rescaling of $`\gamma _r`$ as a function of $`(TT_c)L^{1/\nu }`$ should give us the same function for each lattice size (see Eq. 4.3) . Figs. 3 and 4 show the rescaled percolation cumulant curves for O(2), using $`\beta _c=0.45416`$ and two different values of the exponent $`\nu `$, respectively the O(2) value and the random percolation one.

The scaling we get in correspondence of the O(2) value is remarkable. In Figs. 5 and 6 we repeat the same analysis for O(4) ($`\beta _c=0.9359`$); also here it is clear that the percolation exponent $`\nu `$ is in agreement with the O(4) value. (We have considered values for the O(2) and O(4) models from Refs.  and  respectively.)

To determine more precisely the critical point we have used the scaling relation (4.3) for the variables $`S`$ and $`P`$. By plotting $`𝒪`$ as a function of $`L`$ at the critical temperature, we can obtain the exponents’ ratio $`\rho /\nu `$ directly from the slope of the data points in a log-log plot.

We concentrated ourselves on the critical regions that we localized through the percolation cumulant and performed more simulations for several $`\beta `$ values looking for the $`\beta `$’s for which we get the best $`\chi ^2`$ for the linear fit of the data points in a log-log plot. The results for O(2) and O(4) are in Tables I and II, respectively.

|  | $`\beta _c`$ | $`\beta /\nu `$ | $`\gamma /\nu `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Percolation results | 0.45418(2) | 0.516(5) | 1.971(15) |
| Thermal results  | 0.454165(4) | 0.5189(3) | 1.9619(5) |

Table I. Comparison of the thermal and percolation thresholds and exponents for O(2) .

|  | $`\beta _c`$ | $`\beta /\nu `$ | $`\gamma /\nu `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Percolation results | 0.93595(3) | 0.515(5) | 1.961(15) |
| Thermal results | 0.93590(5) | 0.5129(11) | 1.9746(38) |

Table II. Comparison of the thermal and percolation thresholds and exponents for O(4).

The agreement with the physical values in Refs.  is good. So far we have presented the results obtained using the first approach. The results derived using the second approach are essentially the same; besides, we observe an improved quality of the scaling, mainly because of the use of periodic boundary conditions, which reduce considerably the finite-size effects. In particular we show in Figs. 7, 8 the scaling of $`S`$ and $`P`$ at the thermal thresholds reported in Refs. . We observe very small finite-size effects (lattices of $`L20`$ are used in the fits), especially for the O(2) case, which is in contrast to what is observed for thermal observables . The slopes of the straight lines are in agreement with the values of the thermal exponents’ ratios $`\beta /\nu `$, $`\gamma /\nu `$.

We thus confirm numerically the equivalence found in Section 3 for the O(2) case, and verify that it holds also in the O(4) case.

## 5 Conclusions

In this work we have shown that the spontaneous breaking of the continuous rotational symmetry for the 3-dimensional O(2), O(3) and O(4) spin models can be described as percolation of Wolff clusters. For O(2) and O(3) the result was proven analytically, for O(4) it was derived by means of lattice Monte Carlo simulations. In all cases, the number $`n`$ of components of the spin vectors s does not seem to play a role; the result is thus likely to be valid for any O(n) model.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank J. Engels for helpful discussions. We would also like to thank the TMR network ERBFMRX-CT-970122, the DFG Forschergruppe Ka 1198/4-1 and German Science Ministry BMBF under contract 06BI902 for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Cosmological magnetic fields by parametric resonance?

## 1 Introduction

The origin of $`\mu `$G galactic and intergalactic fields which are coherent over Kpc scales is still a puzzle for astrophysicists . These could be generated during galaxy formation or just amplified by a dynamo effect from primordial seeds of cosmological origin  (see also O. Tornkvist in this volume).

The most important requirements to get reasonably agreement with observations concern the amplitude and the large coherence length of the magnetic fields observed. The amplitude of the magnetic field redshifts due to the flux conservation. Moreover, there is a causal upper bound to the scale of coherence at which the magnetic seed is generated, related to the horizon scale (and then to the Hubble scale $`H^1`$ if there is not a mismatch between these two scales).

This latter condition is the most serious problem for all the microphysical mechanisms, such as thermal fluctuations in plasma , phase transition , just to cite few examples, and it resembles the large scale structure (LSS) problem for the Big Bang scenarios. The mechanisms produce easily a magnetic seed with an amplitude of the right order of magnitude, but on too small scales.

In a totally different perspective, one can try to address the problem of cosmological magnetic fields as the LSS problem was faced with inflation. Then the scale is no more a problem, but the amplitude becomes a serious issue. This fact is due to the conformal invariance of the electromagnetic field in conformally invariant space-times, such as the cosmological ones. For this reason electromagnetic fields do not suffer amplification by the time-dependent geometry, as minimally coupled scalar fields, gravitational waves do. Therefore, the breaking of the conformal invariance was investigated as one of the necessary conditions for the generation of primordial magnetic fields by Turner and Widrow . By using alternative theories of gravity (where the electromagnetic field is not conformally coupled to a conformally flat geometry) magnetic seeds of the right order of magnitude can be achieved .

When the electromagnetic (EM) field is considered in interaction with other fields besides gravity -as with a charged scalar field for instance-, then its conformal invariant property is naturally broken because of the interaction term. The study of interacting quantum fields in cosmological spacetimes has received a renewed interest since it was realized that parametric resonance (PR) could play an important role . In the context of generation of cosmological magnetic fields a little attention was paid to the possibility that PR could play some effect in the interaction of the EM field with other fields. Even during a phase transition, the coherent oscillation of the order parameter around its minimum could enhance the production of fields coupled to it. In our opinion, there are four reasons in order to consider the effect of PR for EM fields

a) the photon is massless, and this is almost a necessary condition in order to have appreciable amplification in expanding universe without considering very large couplings

b) the effect due to PR for fields which would be conformally invariant without the interaction is less disputed by the expansion of the universe, because the equations of motion are conformally related to equations of motion in the Minkowsky spacetime

c) the growth due to parametric resonance is exponential as the one predicted by the dynamo effect , one of the astrophysical processes postulated to explain the observational evidence for galactic magnetic fields

d) there are several examples in which the effect of PR is manifest on the maximum causal scale allowed by the problem (the coherence scale of the field). Since the scale of the magnetic seeds is always a crucial issue for a model which aims to explain their origin, this feature of PR is potentially very interesting.

## 2 A scalar electrodynamics model

We consider the Abelian-Higgs model in Robertson-Walker background

$$=\frac{1}{16\pi }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })V(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(1)
By working in the Coulomb gauge, the equation of motion for Fourier component of the transverse fluctuations of the gauge field are

$$𝐀_{Tk}^{\prime \prime }+(k^2+4\pi e^2a^2\rho ^2)𝐀_{Tk}=0,$$
(2)
where a prime denotes derivative with respect to the conformal time $`\eta `$ and $`\rho `$ is implicitly defined as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }(t)}\rho (t)/\sqrt{2}`$ and satisfies

$$\ddot{\rho }+3H\dot{\rho }+\frac{V}{\rho }=0,$$
(3)
where we have neglected any back-reaction term. The non-dynamical quantity $`A_{0k}`$ is given by the equation analogous to the Gauss law.

Equation (2) describes a harmonic oscillator with time dependent frequency: during the oscillation of the complex scalar field Eq. (2) can be reduced to a Mathieu-like equation. The solutions to this type of equation show an exponential instability $`e^{\mu _k\eta }`$, for some interval of frequencies, called resonance bands. The structure of the resonance bands depends strongly on the time behaviour of the homogeneous scalar field, which on turn depends on the form of the potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. An example of stable resonance on long wavelengths is given by $`V=\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2`$ with $`4\pi e^2=2\lambda `$. The physical fields and the energy density $`T_{00}^{\mathrm{EM}}`$ are obtained through

$$𝐄=\frac{1}{a}(A_0𝐀^{})𝐁=\frac{1}{a}\times 𝐀T_{00}^{\mathrm{EM}}=\frac{1}{8\pi a^2}\left(𝐄^2+𝐁^2\right)$$
(4)
## 3 Discussions and Conclusions

The influence of plasma effects on the amplification driven by a coherent condensate is discussed in Ref. : generically, the presence of other not coherent charges counteracts the resonance. However, one can think that in preheating after inflation, when it is assumed that the ”creation” of charged particles is contemporaneous to the amplification of EM fluctuations, the resonance could proceed just as worked out in the vacuum case. In this way a charged inflaton could play the role of the condensate. If the resonance occurs on long wavelengths, then this would be on observable scales, because of the coherence of the inflaton on super-Hubble scales .

This would lead to an additional growth of the fraction of the electromagnetic energy density relative to the total one during reheating, which is missed in the usual predictions based on inflation-inspired models:

$$r_{\mathrm{reh}}\frac{\rho _\gamma }{\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}}|_{\mathrm{reh}}=r_{\mathrm{infl}}\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}e^{2\mu _k\eta }/\eta ^2& \mathrm{for}& V=m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\\ e^{2\mu _k\eta }& \mathrm{for}& V=\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2\end{array}$$

The interpretation of this growth of electromagnetic fluctuations as magnetic fields relies on the same idea used for inflation and string-produced magnetic fields : on large scale the large conductivity suppresses the electric part, and the magnetic part evolves along with magnetic flux conservation.

## Acknowledgments

This work is in collaboration with A. Gruppuso. We thank the organizer of COSMO-99 for a stimulating and enjoyable conference and R. Brandenberger, A.-C. Davis, K. Dimopoulos, A. Riotto, L. Sorbo, O. Tornkvist comments, discussions and questions.


text:
# The B AB AR Calorimeter Light Pulser System

## 1 Introduction

The light pulser system monitors short term changes in the response of the B A B AR calorimeter . It also provides a useful and flexible diagnostic tool for the entire readout chain of the calorimeter from light collection through to data acquisition. The system is designed to have a stability of 0.5% over a period of around one week. It can also monitor long term changes in the calorimeter response to an accuracy of 1% using a reference system which cross-calibrates the intensity of the light pulses against a radioactive source.

The overall design of the light pulser system is shown in figure 1. There are two high stability xenon flash lamps manufactured by Hamamatsu (type L4633). One of the lamps supplies the barrel and the other supplies the endcap calorimeter. The light produced from the xenon lamps is spectrally filtered to match the emission spectrum of CsI scintillation light. It is then attenuated by two neutral density filters to allow the correct equivalent energy in the calorimeter crystals to be selected. The light fills a light mixer bar which uniformly illuminates a bundle of 400$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ multi-mode fibres which deliver the light to the individual calorimeter modules. At each module there is a module mixer which takes the light from each fibre and illuminates a close-packed bundle of 200$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ fibres which transport light to individual CsI crystals. The light is injected into the rear face of each crystal and then diffusely reflects within the crystal. This effectively imitates the crystal scintillation light produced by the energy deposition of an electromagnetic shower. The light is then readout using the full B A B AR calorimeter electronic readout chain from the photodiodes right through to the data acquistion. The light pulser system produces an equivalent energy in the calorimeter which is high enough to allow it to be run with beam backgrounds in the detector. A more detailed description is given elsewhere .

There is a reference system to take out instabilities in the light source. Fibres are routed from the primary mixer systems to the reference system. The reference system itself is cross-calibrated against a mixed alpha source ($`{}_{}{}^{148}\mathrm{Gd}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{241}\mathrm{Am}`$). Both the alpha source and the reference fibres are attached to a small CsI crystal which is readout by a photomultiplier tube and a photodiode. The reference system data from both source events and light pulses is collected in the multi-event buffer of a 12 bit peak sensing ADC (CAEN V556S). The source events are accumulated continuously in the buffer and readout using a 1$`\mathrm{Hz}`$ software trigger. The readout of light pulser system events is triggered from a signal which is derived from the photomultiplier tube in the reference system. This is more accurate than using the input signal to the lamp trigger power supply because there is a time jitter of 200$`\mathrm{ns}`$ in the lamp response with respect to the trigger. The lamps are triggered at a frequency of 14.2$`\mathrm{Hz}`$ which comes from dividing the B A B AR clock.

## 2 Graded index microlenses

In the endcap system graded index microlenses (Newport LGI630-3) are used to ensure that all the light modes in the 400$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ fibres are filled correctly. This led to a better uniformity in the energy distribution. Conventional fibre optics rely upon having a step refractive index where the fibre core is at a higher refractive index than the cladding. Graded index fibre optics however do not have a separate core and cladding. Instead they have a refractive index that varies radially. This results in an optical ray following a sinusoidal path down the fibre rather than discrete total internal reflections, see figure 2. An interesting feature of these fibres is if they are cut at specific lengths they act as minature lenses. If an optical ray completes one sinusoidal oscillation within the lens it is said to have a pitch of 1.0. For our case lenses with a pitch of 0.25 allow a collimated light source to be focused. This is ideal for input into a fibre optic. Each lens is coated in an anti-reflection coating (MgF2) to maximise its transmission. The type of lens which was chosen was plano-plano meaning that the lens is terminated perpendicularly at both ends.

## 3 Stability of the system

It is important for the light pulser system to have as high a pulse-to-pulse stability as possible. In figure 3 the stability of the system is shown. This is produced by a Gauss fit to the energy distribution in each channel. The data is normalised to the mean energy in each calorimeter module on a pulse-to-pulse basis. There are a small number of noisy channels due to preliminary electronics problems.

## 4 Summary

Using the light pulser data from the inner ring of crystals in the endcap calorimeter, where maximum radiation damage occurs, it is possible to obtain a correlation between the total integrated luminosity of data taken by B A B AR and the differential radiation damage in the endcap. This is the radiation damage to the inner ring with respect to the rest of the endcap. The correlation is shown in figure 4. This demonstrates that the light pulser system can measure accurately very small changes in the response of the B A B AR calorimeter.


text:
# Non-time-orthogonality, gravitational orbits, and Thomas precession

## I. Introduction

An analysis111 Robert D. Klauber, “New perspectives on the relatively rotating disk and non-time-orthogonal reference frames”, Found. Phys. Lett. 11(5), 405-443 (1998). ,222 Robert D. Klauber, “Comments regarding recent articles on relativistically rotating frames”, Am. J. Phys. 67(2), 158-159, (1999). ,333 Robert D. Klauber, “Non-time-orthogonal frames in the theory of relativity”, xxx.lanl.gov paper gr-qc/0005121, submitted for publication May 2000. has been carried out of the non-time-orthogonal (NTO) metric obtained when one makes a straightforward (and also the most widely accepted) transformation from the lab to a relativistically rotating frame. Rather than assuming, as have other researchers, that it is then necessary to transform to locally time orthogonal frames, one can proceed by considering the NTO metric to be a physically valid representation of the rotating frame.

When this is done, one finds time dilation and mass-energy dependence444 Ref 1, pp. 425-429, and ref. 3, eq (5). on tangential speed $`\omega `$r that is identical to the predictions of special relativity and the test data from numerous cyclotron experiments. One also finds resolutions of paradoxes inherent in the traditional analytical treatment of rotating frames. Further, the analysis predicts two different experimental results555 Ref 1, pp. 434-436, and ref 3, section V.B. ,666 Ref. 3, Section V. that, in the context of the traditional analysis, have heretofore been considered inexplicable.

One of these results is a persistent non-null signal found by Brillet and Hall777 A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, “Improved laser test of the isotropy of space,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 42(9), 549-552 (1979). in the most accurate Michelson-Morley type experiment to date, which as Aspden888 H. Aspen, “Laser interferometry experiments on light speed anisotropy,” Phys. Lett., 85A(8,9), 411-414 (1981). pointed out, would correspond to an earth surface speed of approximately 363 m/sec. It is noteworthy that the earth surface speed at the test site is 355 m/sec, and that no other experiment has been sensitive enough to test for this effect.

Though the NTO frames analysis predicts such a signal, the question arises as to why the earth surface speed should differ from the solar and galactic orbital speeds, which yield null signals in the same (and many similar) test(s). This article answers this question, as well as a related question concerning Thomas precession.

## II. NTO Analysis

### A. Predictions

NTO frame analysis makes many of the same predictions as the traditional analysis for rotating frames, and as emphasized in reference 3, is in accord with fundamental principles of relativity theory. Analyses of time-orthogonal (TO) frames, including those described by Lorentz, Schwarzchild, and Friedman metrics, remains unchanged. The line element remains invariant, and differential geometry maintains its reign as descriptor of non-inertial systems, whether TO or NTO.

However, NTO analysis does predict some behavior that may seem strange from a traditional relativistic standpoint, though it appears corroborated by both gedanken and physical experiments999 Ref 3, section II. . In particular, it was found that velocities in the circumferential direction add in a nontraditional way, i.e.

$$u_{circum}=\frac{\omega r+U_{circum}}{\sqrt{1\left(\omega r\right)^2/c^2}}=\frac{v+U_{circum}}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},$$
(1)
where ucircumis circumferential speed in the rotating frame of an object having circumferential speed Ucircum in the non-rotating frame, $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity measured from the non-rotating frame, r is the radial distance from the center of rotation, and v=$`\omega `$r. Note that when Ucircum=0, the object appears in the rotating frame to be moving opposite the direction of $`\omega `$ at speed $`\omega `$r (to first order), as is physically reasonable. Time dilation effects account for the familiar factor in the denominator.

Expanding on (1), NTO analysis finds the specific result for the speed of light in the circumferential direction for rotating (NTO) frames to be non-invariant, non-isotropic, and equal to101010 Ref. 1, pg. 425, eq. (19) modified by the time dilation factor discussed in the subsequent paragraphs to yield physical velocity., and pg. 430, eq. (33).

$$u_{light,circum}=\frac{\omega r\pm c}{\sqrt{1\left(\omega r\right)^2/c^2}}=\frac{v\pm c}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},$$
(2)
where the sign before c depends on the circumferential direction of the light ray at r. Note the circumferential light speed varies to first order with $`\omega `$r.

Relationship (2) leads readily to the prediction of i) the Sagnac111111 E.J. Post, ”Sagnac effect,” Mod. Phys. 39, 475-493 (1967).  effect, and ii) a signal due to the earth surface speed v precisely like that found by Brillet and Hall. For bodies in gravitational orbit (2) does not hold, and $`|u_{light,circum}|=c`$, as in traditional relativity. This is because such bodies are in free fall, and are essentially inertial, Lorentzian, time orthogonal (TO) frames. They are not subject to the idiosyncrasies of non-time-orthogonality, so their orbital speed would result in a null Michelson-Morley signal.

### B. Orbital Speeds Reconsidered

While the statements at the end of the preceding subsection may at first seem reasonable, under scrutiny they are seen, not only as somewhat superficial, but also in apparent conflict with logic used to form the basis of the NTO analysis.

In particular, the gedanken experiment of reference 3 addresses an observer fixed to the rim of a rotating disk who sends out two very short pulses of light (of length 1/360 of the circumference) that travel in opposite directions around the rim of the disk. From the lab frame both light pulses have speed c. As the two light pulses are traveling the disk is rotating ccw, so from the lab frame it is readily apparent that the cw pulse strikes the original observer before the ccw pulse. The conclusion reached by the disk observer, who knows that both pulses traveled the same distance around the rim in his frame, is that in his frame the cw speed of light must be greater than the ccw speed of light. This seeming contradiction of the relativistic tenet that light speed is invariant, isotropic, and equal to c is resolved by the NTO analysis leading to (2). That is, in TO frames (local, physical) light speed is invariant and isotropic, but in NTO frames, such as the rotating frame, it is not.

Applying the same logic to a sun centered rotating frame in which the earth is fixed, one would expect the same result, i.e., different ccw and cw light speeds as seen from the earth leading to a non-null Michelson-Morley result. Yet, as claimed above, the earth in that frame is in gravitational orbit, in free fall, and in a Lorentz frame. In such a frame the speed of light must always be equal to c, and the analysis appears to be internally inconsistent.

## III. Resolution of Apparent Inconsistency

### A. Non-spinning Body in Orbit

As a first step in answering the above conundrum, consider a planet in orbit about a star where the planet is not rotating on its own axis relative to distant stars, i.e., one solar day equals one year. (See Figure 1.) K is an inertial frame with its origin fixed at the center of the sun. The K0 frame is fixed to the planet and has $`\omega `$ = 0, though it has orbital angular velocity about the sun of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ relative to K. R is the distance in K from the sun center to the planet center, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$R = V is the planet’s orbital speed in K. For simplicity, all velocities are co-planar, the orbit is circular, and unless otherwise noted, analysis is confined to first order effects in velocity, time, and distance (higher order effects are not measurable.)

Note that an observer on the planet doing experiments (Foucault pendulum, Coriolis effects, etc.) inside a closed laboratory (similar to Einstein’s gedanken intergalactic elevator) would measure zero angular velocity, and be unable to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Now reconsider our gedanken experiment of section II.B with V = c/3. At time TA=0, two light rays are emitted from the origin of K0, one in the ”forward” or positive Y0 direction and one in the ”backward” or negative Y0 direction. These light rays are reflected off of mirrors placed suitably in orbit such that they travel around a circumference in K at the orbital radius. In K the speed of light is invariant and equal to c. Therefore from K we would expect the two rays to arrive back at the K0 origin at different times, TB and TC (= 2TB), since K0 moves along the orbit while the light rays are in transit.

In K0 the speed of light must also be c. The conundrum dissolves when we note the paths of the two light rays, as depicted in Figure 2, are not the same as seen from K0. This is because K0does not rotate and hence the two light pulses do not travel the same circular path as seen from K0. In this particular case, the path of the ccw pulse is twice that of the cw pulse as seen from K0121212 This result, as well as Figure 2, can be found by inputting the components of the displacement vector from the origin of Ko to the light rays as a function of time into a spreadsheet or other computer program. . Hence for invariant light speed in K0, TC = 2TB as was found in K131313 To simplify the discussion we are considering weak gravitational fields, first order effects on speed, time, and distance, and hence K0 as an effectively Lorentzian frame even at distances removed from the K0 origin. Essentially, we are restricting observable effects to those arising from the numerator of (2) and ignoring effects such as that from the denominator, which are too subtle to measure in experiments. .

Note that a Michelson-Morley (MM) interferometer on the surface of the planet (i.e., in a Lorentz frame) would detect no variance or anisotropy in the speed of light. Yet the Sagnac effect around the orbit would manifest completely.

### B. Body in Orbit Spinning with $`\omega `$ = $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

Consider next Figure 3 where the planet spins on its own axis (perpendicular to the orbital plane) at $`\omega `$ = $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is similar to the rotating disk case in that the same side of the planet faces its sun at all times, just as every element on the disk maintains the same alignment relative to the disk center. The frame of the rotating planet is designated kω=Ω.

For the frame K, fixed relative to the distant stars, the analysis of two light paths in opposite directions around the planet’s orbit is identical to that for two light rays as seen from the lab frame in the rotating disk case of section II.B. For orbital speed of the planet V in K equal to one-third the speed of light, we would again find TC=2TB.

From the point of view of the planet frame kω=Ω, rotation is taking place about the planet’s center. Hence the angular velocity our experimentalist on the planet would measure would be $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }`$. She would then determine the tangent velocity of the planet’s surface to be

$$v_{\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }}=\omega r_p=\mathrm{\Omega }r_p$$
(3)
where rp is the radius of the planet, not the orbital radius about the star.

Based on NTO analysis, a Michelson-Morley experiment on the surface of the planet would find a non-null signal corresponding to the same velocity. Hence, a number of independent experiments could detect the planet surface tangent velocity, though not the orbital tangent velocity.

As seen from the rotating planet frame kω=Ω, the two light pulses would travel in opposite directions along the same circular path. (See Figure 4.) Each pulse has a different speed, according to the +/- sign in (2), but with the notable difference that these speeds are now variable since r, the distance from the planet center to a given light pulse is no longer constant. That is, circumferential light speed in the planet frame is a function of distance r from the origin of the frame to the light pulse, i.e.,

$$u_{light,orbit,k_\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(r\right)=\frac{\omega r\pm c}{\sqrt{1\left(\omega r\right)^2/c^2}}=\frac{v\left(r\right)\pm c}{\sqrt{1v\left(r\right)^2/c^2}}.$$
(4)
Note that the velocity corresponding to this speed is perpendicular to the r vector corresponding to distance r. That is, (4) is only one component of the light velocity along the path traveled as seen in kω=Ω.

One can then use the two speeds of (4) to determine each pulse speed along the paths traveled. When this speed is integrated with respect to time between zero and arbitrary time t, and the result set equal to the distance traveled 2$`\pi `$R, one finds t equals (to first order) TB for the ccw light pulse and TC = 2TB for the cw pulse, as before.141414 One does not have to actually make this tedious calculation. The times TB and TC have been calculated in the frame K, and those values can be transformed to the frame kS(introduced in a subsequent paragraph), where they will be found to be unchanged to first order. From kS they can be again transformed to frame kω=Ω, and found unchanged once again. The first transformation is shown by both references 1 and 3 to have ts=TK. The second transformation is purely a spatial coordinate value shift and has no effect on time.

In the kω=Ω frame, the paths traveled are equal, but the speeds differ. In the K frame the speeds are equal, but the paths differed. In both frames the times of arrival of each pulse are the same.

From the point of view of an observer in a third frame kS, centered on the sun and rotating at $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ the speeds (again to first order) of the two pulses are -$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$R + c and -$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$R \- c. (These are not, as mentioned, the speeds a free fall observer in orbit at radius R would measure.) In kS the path lengths of the two light pulses are equal, but the difference in speeds results once again in the same values for TB and TC.

### C. Comparison with Sagnac Experiment

The above analysis agrees with the Sagnac experimental results reported by Post11. In the Sagnac experiment the light beams are not short as in our gedanken experiment so arrival times are supplanted by interference fringing of the two beams. The number of fringes difference between the two beams varies with wave maxima arrival times, and so increases directly with the rotational speed. Post151515 Ref. 11, equation (1). gives the empirically determined relative fringe shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Z=$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\lambda /\lambda `$0 as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Z=4\mathrm{\Omega }𝐀/\lambda _0c,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity, and A is the area enclosed by the paths of the two oppositely directly light beams with the vector direction orthogonal to the area surface. Although this is an empirical result, as noted in reference 1, it can be readily derived from (2).

To find arrival time difference between light beams multiply (5) by $`\lambda `$0/c to yield

$$T_CT_B=4\mathrm{\Omega }𝐀/c^2.$$
(6)
Post acknowledges that (5) (and therefore also (6)) is only accurate to first order. He also clearly points out that the area A does not have to be circular, nor does it have to have the axis of rotation at its center. Further, (5) and (6) can be used by observers in either a rotating or non-rotating frame, since all quantities used therein are readily measured by experimenters in either type of frame.

Hence, all three frames considered in section III.B would yield the same experimental results, since to first order all have the same A and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ values. Thus the experimental results would be in full accord with the NTO analysis of section III.B.

### D. Body in Orbit with Arbitrary $`\omega `$

For a situation like the earth where $`\omega >>\mathrm{\Omega },`$ or more generally for any $`\omega `$, similar logic would hold. In the former case, light following the path of the earth’s orbit would seem from the earth frame to follow a corkscrew-like path with varying velocity, yet all Sagnac type results (interference fringing, arrival times) would be the same regardless of the frame from which they are analyzed. The light speed anisotropy would in all cases, however, be related to the earth surface velocity relative to the inertial frame in which the earth axis is stationary. In particular, the earth surface speed at its equator would be determined by Michelson-Morley, Foucault pendulum, Coriolis, etc. experiments to be

$$v_{eq}=\omega r_{eq},$$
(7)
where req is the equatorial radius of the earth.

## IV. Thomas Precession

### A. Traditional Analysis of Thomas Precession

Figure 1 can be used as an aid in discussing Thomas precession. However, instead of a gravitationally bound orbit we now consider Figure 1 to depict a charged object such as a classical electron held in orbit by a central charge of opposite sign such as an atomic nucleus. Although the orbiting K0 frame is not spinning, the orbiting (Bohr) electron is spinning (unlike the planet in Figure 1) and thereby possesses both intrinsic angular momentum and a magnetic moment. Consider that at time T=0 a projection of the angular momentum vector (which is not necessarily orthogonal to the orbital plane) onto the plane of the figure would be aligned with the X0 axis (and hence the X axis as well).

In Newtonian theory, as the origin of the X0-Y0 axes orbits the central charge at radius R, the angular momentum vector orientation remains fixed (relative to K, the frame of the distant stars), and so its projection would remain aligned in the direction of the X axis. In traditional relativity theory, however, the spin (angular momentum) axis precesses as seen from K, due to Lorentz contraction effects which vary in time due to the oscillating (from the point of view of K) centrifugal acceleration. This precession is called Thomas precession161616 Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, (W.H. Freemand and Co., San Francisco, 1966) pp. 169-174. Taylor and Wheeler have as lucid and readily assimilable a treatment of Thomas precession as any in the literature. ,171717 George P. Fisher, “The Thomas Precession”, Am. J. Phys., 40, 1772-1781 (1972). ,181818 A. E. Ruark, and H.C. Urey, Atoms, Molecules, and Quanta (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1930) pp. 162-163. after its discoverer.

Note that the X0-Y0 axes frame is not an NTO frame, but an accelerating TO frame. It is no different in this regard from any frame that undergoes (variable or constant) acceleration without rotation. Hence NTO analysis is not in conflict with the traditional treatment of Thomas precession for orbital electrons, which is based on TO frames only.

For reference, we note that (to second order), where v=$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$R, Thomas precession equals191919 Ref. 16, equation (134) on pg. 173.

$$\omega _T\frac{1}{2}\frac{v^2}{c^2}\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(8)
and is the precession of the spin vector relative to the X axis direction of K, as seen from K.

### B. Alternative Analysis of Thomas-like Effect

As is well known, Thomas precession of orbiting electrons alters the spin-orbit interaction (which is a function of the precession rate of the spin vector) and results in fine structure splitting of atomic spectra. There is, however, another way to find the same effect using NTO analysis.

Consider the same spinning electron in the same orbit, but analyze it using the orbiting frame kS (which is sun centered and rotating at $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ relative to K). Use the kω=Ω frame (see Figure 3) as a convenient local representation of kS, and note that the projection of the spin angular momentum vector rotates relative to kω=Ω (and hence also relative to kS) at -$`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$

According to NTO analysis, there is no Lorentz contraction effect between the kS and K frames, and hence no Thomas-like rotation can arise. However, there is time dilation in kS, and so the rate of rotation of the spin vector projection relative to the Xω=Ω axis will not be the same as seen from K as it is seen from kS. Specifically, if $`\tau `$S is the time on a standard clock in kS travelling with the electron for one full rotation of the spin vector relative to the Xω=Ω axis, then the time TK for the same rotation as seen in K is

$$T_K=\frac{\tau _S}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$
(9)
Hence the rotation rates seen in the two frames are related by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_K=\mathrm{\Omega }_S\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_S\frac{v^2}{2c^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_S.$$
(10)
So

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{v^2}{2c^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_S\frac{v^2}{2c^2}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(11)
Thus, from (11) one sees the difference in spin vector precession rate between that seen in K and that seen in kS found from NTO analysis to be the same as that of (8) found from Thomas precession analysis using only TO frames. Hence the difference between energy levels measured in the lab and the corresponding energy levels that would be measured on a frame traveling with the electron is the same for both methods.

### C. Rotating Disks and Thomas Precession

NTO analysis does not, however, predict any type of Thomas precession phenomena for objects such as a macroscopic rotating disk in which every element of the object rotates with the same angular velocity. According to such analyses, no Lorentz contraction effects manifest as internal disk stresses. This is in conflict with some analyses based on a more traditional approach202020 Daniel P. Whitmire, “Relativistic Precessions of Macroscopic Objects”, Nature, 239, 207-207 (1972). , but in accord with the Phipps212121 Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., “Kinematics of a Rigid Rotor”, Nuovo Cimento Lett., 9, 467-470 (1974). experiment, which found no evidence of the predicted Thomas precession-like effects for a spinning disk.

## V. Summary

We have shown that NTO analysis of bodies in gravitational orbit is internally consistent and in agreement with expected results based on the Sagnac experiment. The speed of light on bodies in orbit that do not rotate relative to distant stars is invariant, isotropic and equal to c. For a rotating body in orbit, light speed on the surface is anisotropic and a function of both the angular velocity of the body and the radial distance from the axis of rotation.

NTO analysis does not contravene the traditional analysis of Thomas precession for a spinning object held in orbit by a non-gravitational force. It does not, however, predict any Thomas precession type effects for an object such as a rotating disk wherein every local element in the object rotates at the global rotation rate and maintains fixed distance to the axis of rotation.


text:
# Improved efficiency with variational Monte Carlo using two level sampling

## Abstract

A two level sampling method is applied to variational Monte Carlo (VMC) that samples the one and two body parts of the wave function separately. The method is demonstrated on a single Li2 molecule in free space and 32 H2 molecules in a periodic box. This simple modification increases the efficiency of a VMC simulation by up to 72%.

Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) mcmillan65  is an effective method for computing the ground state properties of atoms, schmidt90 ; umrigar88  molecules, filippi96 ; umrigar99  and solids. fahy90 ; fahy99 ; williamson96 ; kralik98  Explicitly including the electron correlation into the wave function allows VMC to recover a large percentage of the correlation energy, typically 70-90% (or more for small atoms and molecules). schmidt90 ; filippi96 ; lin00

VMC computes matrix elements with respect to the square of a trial wave function, $`\psi `$. The most common matrix element is the energy,

$$E=\frac{𝑑R\psi ^2(R;a)E_L(R;a)}{𝑑R\psi ^2(R;a)}$$
(1)
where $`E_L=\frac{1}{\psi }H\psi `$. The variational principle states that this energy will be greater than or equal to the true ground state energy for any $`\psi `$. Typically, the wave function is parameterized and those parameters are varied until a minimum energy lin00  (or alternatively, minimum variance schmidt90 ; williamson96 ) is reached.

The Metropolis method metropolis53  constructs a transition probability, $`𝒫(s^{}s)`$, for use in a Markov process. The result of that process is the desired normalized probability distribution. A correct transition probability can be constructed by satisfying detailed balance,

$$\pi (s)𝒫(ss^{})=\pi (s^{})𝒫(s^{}s)$$
(2)
where $`\pi (s)`$ is the desired probability distribution ($`\psi ^2(R)`$ for VMC ). In the generalized Metropolis method, the transition probability is split into two pieces, an a priori sampling distribution, $`T(ss^{})`$ and an acceptance probability $`A(ss^{})`$.

The original Metropolis method generates a trial move, $`R^{}`$, of one particle inside a box of side $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ centered about the old position, $`R`$. This leads to a constant $`T`$ inside the box and zero outside. The trial move is then accepted or rejected with probability

$$A=\mathrm{min}[1,\frac{\psi ^2(R^{})}{\psi ^2(R)}]$$
(3)
In electronic problems, a typical wave function is

$$\psi =De^U$$
(4)
where $`D`$ is the product of spin up and spin down Slater determinants of single particle orbitals and $`U`$ is the two (or higher) body Jastrow factor. This latter part contains the explicit electron-electron correlation.

A simulation step consists of a trial move of every electron. Each trial move is accepted or rejected according to Eq (3).

A single electron is moved at a time, which only changes one column of the Slater matrix. By saving and using the inverse of this matrix, computing the new determinant and its derivatives is an $`𝒪(N)`$ operation. ceperley77  If the move is accepted, the inverse matrix can be updated with $`𝒪(N^2)`$ operations. (Note that computing the determinant directly is of order $`𝒪(N^3)`$.) A smaller acceptance ratio will be faster, since fewer updates need to be performed.

Multilevel sampling has been used extensively in path integral Monte Carlo. ceperley95  In multilevel sampling, the wave function is split into several factors (levels), and an accept/reject step is performed after computing each factor. The entire wave function is computed only if there is an acceptance after every factor. Rejections will make the overall algorithm faster, since not all the factors need to be computed. For VMC it is natural to use two factors - the single body part, $`D`$, as one factor and the two body part, $`e^U`$, as the other. The single body part is the cheaper of the two to compute, so computing it first will give the greatest reduction in time.

The two level sampling algorithm for VMC proceeds as follows. A trial move, $`R^{}`$, is proposed and accepted at the first stage with probability

$$A_1=\mathrm{min}[1,\frac{D^2(R^{})}{D^2(R)}]$$
(5)
If accepted at the first stage, the two body part is computed and the trial move is accepted with probability

$$A_2=\mathrm{min}[1,\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[2U(R^{})\right]}{\mathrm{exp}\left[2U(R)\right]}]$$
(6)
It can be verified by substitution that these satisfy detailed balance in Eq. (2). After an acceptance at this second level, the inverse Slater matrices are updated as described previously.

The figure of merit for these simulations is the efficiency

$$\xi =\frac{1}{\sigma ^2T}$$
(7)
where $`T`$ is the computer time and $`\sigma `$ is the error estimate of the average of some property such as the energy.

Maximum efficiency results from a competition between two effects. The first is that a lower acceptance ratio will yield a lower run time and a larger efficiency. The second is serial correlations. A lower acceptance ratio will give a longer correlation time, hence a larger error and lower efficiency.

In maximizing the efficiency, the obvious parameter to adjust is the step size, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. But the number of steps between computations of $`E_L`$ can also be adjusted. The Metropolis algorithm produces correlated state points, so successive samples of $`E_L`$ don’t contain much new information. It is advantageous to compute $`E_L`$ every few steps rather than every step. In this work the local energy was computed every 5 steps.

The algorithm is demonstrated using a Li2 molecule in free space and a collection of 32 H2 molecules in a periodic box. The wave functions, which are the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{III}}`$’s from Reynolds, et al., reynolds82  use a simple electron-electron and electron-nuclear Jastrow term, and use floating Gaussians for the orbitals. The hydrogen molecules were in box of side 19.344 atomic units ($`r_s=3.0`$).

The results for the different sampling methods for the Li2 molecule are given in Tables 1 and 2. The second level acceptance ratio is quite high, indicating the single body part is a good approximation to the whole wave function. The efficiency is also shown in Figure 1.

The results for the different sampling methods for the H2 molecules are given in Tables 3 and 4. The efficiency is also shown in Figure 2.

Comparing the maximum efficiency for each sampling method, two level sampling is 39% more efficient than the standard sampling for Li2, and 72% more efficient for 32 H2’s.

More complicated schemes using more levels or different splittings of the wave function could be devised. This particular scheme is attractive because it uses quantities readily available in a VMC computation, and requires minimal modification to existing VMC sampling algorithms.

This work has been supported by the computational facilities at NCSA and by NSF grant DMR 98-02373.


text:
# Massive Star Forming Regions: from diagnostic tools to derived properties

## 1. Introduction

In a variety of objects ranging from stellar clusters, Hii regions, over dwarf and irregular galaxies, to full-fledged starburst (SB) galaxies and distant Lyman-break galaxies, massive star formation plays a major role in the budget of radiative, mechanical and chemical output. Indeed, when present, such stars (mostly OB and Wolf-Rayet stars) dominate the light at UV–optical wavelength, they are responsible for the ionisation of the ISM, and they also dominate (together with SN) mechanical feedback processes.

The present review deals with diagnostic techniques and the properties of objects of the types mentioned above, for which the “generic” term massive star forming regions (MSFR) will be used subsequently. As such we are mostly limited to objects where the properties of integrated populations (as opposed to resolved stellar populations; cf. Gallart, Grebel, these proceedings) are observed. The aim is to review the current state-of-the-art of various tools (evolutionary synthesis, photoionisation models) and some of their inputs (especially ionising fluxes), to assess their main successes and failures (and the lessons to be learned from that), and to summarise some of the main properties of stellar populations in various MSFRs.

## 2. Radiative output from massive stars

Schematically the main observed UV to far-IR features of integrated stellar populations can be grouped as follows:

1. Continuum: From the UV to $``$ 4 $`\mu `$m (approx. L or M bands) the continuum is usually dominated by stellar light, except in very young objects (e.g. strong emission line (EL) objects) where continuous nebular emission may be non-negligible and may in particular affect observed colours. At longer wavelength dust emission usually starts to dominate the continuum emission.
2. Stellar signatures: Due to the increasing nebular and dust emission towards the near-IR, stellar signatures are preferentially detected at UV – optical – K band wavelengths. Among the strongest stellar features are: UV P-Cygni lines (C iv $`\lambda `$1550, Si iv $`\lambda `$1400, $`\mathrm{}`$) emitted in the stellar winds of OB stars, broad emission lines (He ii $`\lambda `$4686, C iv $`\lambda `$5808) from Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars, H and He absorption lines from OBA stars in the optical, and various absorption features (e.g. Ca ii triplet, TiO features in the optical, CO absorption bands in K band) from cool giants and supergiants.
3. Nebular lines: Relatively few and faint lines are in the UV, opposed to numerous H and He recombination lines and forbidden lines from abundant metals (N, O, S etc.) in the optical. A rich spectrum of H recombination lines and fine structure lines is observed from the near to far IR (Ne, S, Ar: $``$ 3-40 $`\mu `$m; C, N, O $`>`$ 40 $`\mu `$m). The emission originates mostly from ionised gas (“Hii” regions in the former case; the latter also includes lines emitted in photo-dissociation regions (PDR; e.g. \[C ii\] 158 $`\mu `$m).

Subsequently we shall summarise the current state-of-the-art of analysis of stellar populations based on stellar signatures (Sect. 3) and through nebular lines (Sect. 4).

## 3. Starbursts in the UV and optical: stellar features

In recent years analysis of UV spectra have mostly been performed by the groups of Leitherer, Heckman, Robert, Meurer, Conti, González-Delgado and other co-workers, Mas-Hesse & Kunth and others. Most of the observations are based on HST (GHRS or STIS), HUT and IUE (FUSE data upcoming) of nearby starbursts. Restframe UV spectra of Lyman-break galaxies (e.g. Lowenthal et al. 1997, Pettini et al. 2000) now allow to extend such studies to high-redshift star forming galaxies. The Starburst99 evolutionary synthesis models (Leitherer et al. 1999) used for the interpretation of the data include for this wavelength range empirical IUE high-resolution spectral libraries of Galactic O and WR stars (+ B stars: de Mello et al. 2000); low-resolution spectra are used in the Mas-Hesse & Kunth (1999) models. Work by several groups is in progress to include libraries of low metallicity stars.

Most studies where this UV technique has been applied yield similar results which can, “on average”, be summarised as follows (e.g. González Delgado et al. 1998, Leitherer 1999b): 1) the presence of the UV wind features indicates young bursts (ages $`<`$ 10–20 Myr); 2) often it is difficult to distinguish between constant SF or instantaneous bursts; 3) the observations are generally compatible with a “normal” Salpeter IMF extending to high masses ($`M_{\mathrm{up}}`$ 60–100 M). Extended SF and older ages are e.g. favoured for the high redshift galaxy cB58 (de Mello et al. 2000, Pettini et al. 2000). Such a difference is probably simply due a larger mixture of various regions included in the aperture for such distant an object. Some interesting extensions of the UV analysis are the potential use of wind lines to estimate the metallicity of these objects (Leitherer 1999a), and the simultaneous interpretation of interstellar lines indicative of the state of the ISM (e.g. González Delgado et al. 1998, Heap 2000).

In the optical, studies of the so-called Wolf-Rayet (WR) galaxies (see compilation by Schaerer et al. 1999b) have provided useful insight on massive star populations in starbursts, in particular because these objects cover a large metallicity range and, given the nature of WR stars, they represent the best probe of the upper end of the IMF. Recent reviews on WR galaxies are found in the IAU Symp. 193 (van der Hucht et al. 1999), Mas-Hesse (1999), and Schaerer (1999ab). Here we shall briefly summarise the main results from the large sample of Schaerer et al. (1999a) and Guseva et al. (2000).

In general a good agreement is found between the observations and the synthesis models of Schaerer & Vacca (1998), with a possible exception for some very low metallicity objects (Guseva et al. 2000, but also de Mello et al. 1998). This comparison indicates fairly short time scales of SF (bursts with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<`$ 2–4 Myr) for the bulk of the objects at subsolar metallicity (mostly BCD galaxies). Again the IMF is compatible with a Salpeter slope and the existence of high mass stars is required. Similar conclusions are obtained by Mas-Hesse & Kunth (1999) and in earlier studies. The detection of WR stars of both WN and WC subtypes and the deduced WC/WN ratio provides strong constraints for stellar evolution models (see Schaerer et al. 1999a). This work was recently extended to a detailed analysis of five metal-rich starbursts which indicates a lower limit of $`M_{\mathrm{up}}>`$ 30–40 M for the upper mass cut-off of the IMF in such environments (Schaerer et al. 2000).

New models synthesising the higher order Balmer and He i absorption lines were constructed by González Delgado et al. (1999ab; see references therein for earlier work). These lines are detected in a variety of objects (starbursts, Seyfert 2, post starbursts etc.) and provide useful information on massive (OB) star populations as well as later types (A). The first applications of these models to starbursts and Hii regions are demonstrated in González Delgado et al. (1999b) and González Delgado & Pérez (2000). With no doubt this tool will be very useful to unravel massive star populations from integrated spectra.

## 4. Revealing starburst properties from nebular lines

Several types of diagnostics can be drawn from measurements of nebular lines:

* “Basic diagnostics”, i.e. quantities such as the total ionising photon flux, electron densities, temperatures, abundance ratios (requiring knowledge of $`T_e`$ and a correction for unobserved ionisation stages), which can be derived from first principles.
* “Advanced diagnostics”, such as the $`R_{23}`$ or $`S_{23}`$ metallicity indicators (e.g. Vilchez & Esteban 1996, Díaz & Pérez-Montero 2000) and stellar temperature indicators (softness parameter $`\eta ^{}`$: cf. Vilchez et al. 1998; HeI/$`\mathrm{H}\beta `$: Kennicutt et al. 2000; \[Ne iii\]/$`\mathrm{H}\beta `$: Oey et al. 2000), are based on empirical calibrations and/or photoionisation models.
* Other diagnostics require the use of photoionisation models.

In all cases the translation to the physical properties of interest here, i.e. the exciting stellar population, depends on the additional use of stellar atmosphere and stellar evolution models as well as on evolutionary synthesis models. Given the strong sensitivity of the derived parameters to these fundamental ingredients (stellar models) it is important to verify their reliability. In the following we shall briefly summarise the current status of such tests regarding the ionising fluxes from massive stars. The latest developments in stellar evolution models are reviewed in Maeder & Meynet (2000).

### 4.1. Ionising fluxes of O and WR stars: theory and observations

State-of-the-art atmosphere models for O stars include non-LTE effects, stellar winds and line blanketing (CoStar models: Schaerer & de Koter 1997; Pauldrach et al. 1998) which lead to important modifications of the ionising spectrum when compared e.g. to the popular plane parallel LTE models of Kurucz.

The implications of the CoStar fluxes on Hii regions have been discussed by Stasińska & Schaerer (1997) and in various papers relying on these atmosphere models. Agreement is found for the predicted number of Lyman continuum photons, $`N_{\mathrm{Lyc}}`$, from studies of nebulae with known stellar content (Oey & Kennicutt 1997). However, this does not represent very strong constraints since the observations provide a priori only a lower limit to $`N_{\mathrm{Lyc}}`$, and for stars with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}>`$ 40 kK the predicted $`N_{\mathrm{Lyc}}`$ is little model dependent. Support for the predicted SED of the CoStar models in the Lyman continuum comes from comparisons of optical and IR observations to grids of photoionisation models (Stasińska & Schaerer 1997), detailed modeling of two LMC nebulae with known stellar content and a constrained ionisation parameter (Oey et al. 2000), and the agreement with the He i/H hardness (indicated by He i $`\lambda `$5876/$`\mathrm{H}\beta `$) over a large range of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ shown in Figure 1. The work of Oey et al. (2000) indicates a possibly too hard spectrum in the 41-54 eV range. The first comparisons of the Pauldrach et al. (1998) models with Hii region data shows a similar agreement with He i $`\lambda `$5876/$`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ (Kennicutt et al. 2000). Further detailed comparisons along the lines of the work of Oey et al. (2000) are necessary to provide accurate constraints on the atmosphere models. The reasonable success of the CoStar models indicates that such models can quite confidently be used in the interpretation of MSFR.

Due to the higher complexity (e.g. stratified ionisation, unknown hydrodynamics) of WR atmospheres their modeling is presently more uncertain than that of O stars. Although WR stars are less numerous than O stars, which usually dominate the ionising flux production, the former can in certain starburst phases contribute a non-negligible fraction of the ionising flux especially at high energies (e.g. Schmutz et al. 1992, Schaerer & Vacca 1998) and need thus to be investigated in a similar fashion. It is presently not fully clear how realistic the hardness predicted by the synthesis models is in these phases (e.g. Bresolin et al. 1999). Regarding this issue it must be recognised that this prediction depends not only on the atmosphere model used, but is also affected by the uncertainty in the link between the interior and atmosphere in these phases (cf. Schmutz et al. 1992), which is not discussed here.

The current status can be summarised as follows. First, evidence for hard spectra of hot WR stars (WNE, WC/WO) at low metallicity comes from the presence of nebular He ii $`\lambda `$4686 emission in some WR nebulae and in many giant Hii regions harbouring WR stars (Garnett et al. 1991, Schaerer et al. 1999b) and the rather good quantitative agreement between predicted and observed nebular He ii (Schaerer 1996, de Mello et al. 1998). Indirectly this is also supported by the observations of O iv in IR spectra of two metal-poor galaxies (Schaerer & Stasińska 1999). Second, there is evidence against hard WR spectra at higher metallicities ($``$ LMC – solar): few nebulae with He ii $`\lambda `$4686 emission are known; line blanketed WR model atmospheres with softer spectra are in better agreement with the properties of WR nebulae (Esteban et al. 1993, Crowther et al. 1999); the observed EL ratios of Hii regions may be in conflict with photoionisation models incorporating the Schmutz et al. (1992) WR atmospheres and tracks from Maeder (1990; see Bresolin et al. 1999). The latter finding is, however, strongly model dependent and no such discrepancy is found in the models of Stasińska et al. (2000) using up-to-date stellar tracks. Somewhat surprisingly also, unblanketed WR atmosphere models are quite successfully applied to PN with WR central stars (Peña et al. 1998).

It is thus well possible that the pure-He models of Schmutz et al. (1992) provide a reasonable description of the ionising fluxes of WR stars at low metallicity, while at LMC, solar and higher metallicities the spectra should be softer due to line blanketing. New developments of line blanketed WR atmospheres are in progress (see IAU Symp. 193, van der Hucht et al. 1999). This work should be of particular importance for the interpretation of young “metal-rich” starbursts.

### 4.2. Starbursts in the optical and IR

We shall now summarise recent work using combined evolutionary synthesis and photoionisation models to study the properties of starbursts from their optical and IR emission lines.

On one hand extensive model grids have been compared to samples of Hii galaxies (e.g. García-Vargas et al. 1995, Stasińska & Leitherer 1996, Stasińska et al. 2000). In particular such studies have shown that at subsolar metallicities no variations of the IMF with O/H are necessary, contrary to earlier claims. Instead of studying global trends of EL ratios, the modeling of individual objects, for which sufficient observational constraints are available, is a complementary approach providing in particular more insight to fundamental physical processes responsible for the emission lines. We shall now briefly discuss few such recent studies.

The giant Hii region NGC 7714 was modeled by Gracía-Vargas et al. (1997) based on optical spectra (including also stellar features) and on morphological information. A composite population consisting of a young burst and an older population including RSG was found. The main difficulties in reproducing the EL ratios concern \[O i\] $`\lambda `$6300/$`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ and \[O iii$`\lambda `$4363/5007, which are underpredicted by the model. NGC 2363 was recently modeled by Luridiana et al. (1999) based on optical spectra and H$`\alpha `$ imaging. They find that the strategic line ratios are not reproduced by their model, if the metallicity derived from standard techniques is adopted. They suggest that temperature fluctuations may be present which would lead to an underestimate of O/H. Assuming a higher O/H leads to an agreement with most observed line ratios. Interestingly, as for NGC 7714, the temperature sensitive ratio \[O iii$`\lambda `$4363/5007 is underpredicted in all of their models111 Note: this is NOT a contradiction with their hypothesis of temperature fluctuations.. Most clearly the problem of \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363 is illustrated in the study of I Zw 18 by Stasińska & Schaerer (1999) using ground-based and HST UV–optical data. The failure to reproduce the electron temperature deduced from \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363 indicates a missing energy source not included in the stellar photoionisation model. Although most observables can be reproduced by the combined starburst and photoionisation models — and the tool can thus be used to derive SB properties from the EL — one has to conclude that for accurate studies relying on nebular lines from Hii regions (and presumably also more complex objects) some additional physical process(es) (possibly shocks, conductive heating at X-ray interfaces etc.) must be taken into account.

Analysis of IR observations (mostly from SWS and LWS on ISO) of starbursts based on combined SB + photoionisation models are just beginning to appear in the literature. In this context it is useful to keep some intrinsic difficulties in mind are. Given the nature of objects and the large apertures involved, the integrated spectrum generally includes a large variety of regions. This fact, together with the complex geometries involved, render a priori the construction of photoionisation models difficult.

Simple models were constructed for case studies of Arp 299 and M82 by Satyapal et al. (1998) and Colbert et al. (1999) to interpret their LWS (40-200 $`\mu `$m) spectra. Colbert et al. (1999) find that the observed EL spectrum of M82 is compatible with an instantaneous burst at ages $``$ 3–5 Myr, a Salpeter IMF, and a high upper mass cut-off. Surprisingly, inspection of models with similar ingredients (cf. Stasińska & Leitherer 1996), show that the shorter wavelength data (see Genzel et al. 1998) is clearly incompatible with the Colbert et al. model predicting too hard a spectrum. In view of the few line ratios originating from the Hii gas and the large number of free parameters the photoionisation model is underconstrained. A larger wavelength coverage or other constraints are required.

Förster-Schreiber (1998) has described the geometry of clusters and gas clouds in M82 by a single “effective” ionisation parameter. This value has been adopted as typical for a sample of 27 starbursts in the SB + photoionisation models of Thornley et al. (2000). Instead of modeling a simple stellar population their models are based on an ensemble of Hii regions following an observed luminosity function, which overall leads to a reduction, albeit small, of the hardness of the ionising spectrum. From the ISO/SWS \[Ne iii\]/\[Ne ii\] line ratios they conclude that the observations are compatible with a high upper mass cut-off ($`M_{\mathrm{up}}`$ 50–100 M). To reproduce the relatively low average \[Ne iii\]/\[Ne ii\] ratio, short timescales of SF are required.

A different approach has been taken by Schaerer & Stasińska (1999), who modeled two well studied objects (NGC 5253, II Zw 40) with a fairly well known massive star population and existing UV-optical-IR observations. While their model successfully reproduces the stellar features and the observed ionisation structure of H, He, and O (as revealed from the optical and IR lines), the predicted IR fine structure line ratios of \[Ne iii\]/\[Ne ii\], \[Ar iii\]/\[Ar ii\], and \[S iv\]/\[S iii\] show too high an excitation. The origin of this discrepancy (atomic data? other?) is still unknown. In any case this attempt to describe two relatively “simple” objects illustrates the current limitations and shows that further progress is needed for a proper understanding and use of the IR fine structure lines as reliable diagnostics. Improvement is expected from multi-wavelength analysis of simpler objects (e.g. Galactic and LMC Hii regions, PN) and other work. Such studies should be crucial to reliably extend the diagnostic tools to the IR to fully exploit the enormous observational capabilities provided by recent and upcoming facilities in probing the properties of massive star formation from the local Universe to high reshift.

#### Acknowledgments.

I thank the organisers for the invitation to this interesting workshop and the LOC for financial support.

## References

Bresolin, F. , Kennicutt, R. C. , Jr., Garnett, D. R., 1999, ApJ 510, 104

Crowther, P.A., et al., 1999, A&A, 350, 1007

Colbert, J.W., et al., 1999, ApJ, 511, 521

de Mello, D.F., Leitherer, C., Heckman, T.M., 2000, ApJ, 530, 251

de Mello, D.F., Schaerer, D., Heldmann, J., Leitherer, C., 1998, ApJ, 507, 199

Diaz, A.I., Pérez-Montero, E., 2000, MNRAS 312, 130

Esteban, C., 1993, A&A, 272, 299

Förster-Schreiber, N.M., 1998, PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität, Munich

García-Vargas, M.L., et al., 1995, A&AS, 115, 13

García-Vargas, M.L., et al., 1997, ApJ, 478, 112

Garnett, D.R., et al., 1991, ApJ, 373, 458

Genzel, R., et al., 1998, ApJ, 498, 579

González Delgado, R.M., Pérez, E., 2000, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0003067)

González Delgado, R.M., et al., 1998, ApJ, 495, 698

González Delgado, R.M., et al., 1999a, ApJS, 125, 479

González Delgado, R.M., et al., 1999b, ApJS, 125, 489

Guseva, N., Izotov, Y.I., Thuan, T.X., 2000, ApJ, 531, 776

Heap, S.R., 2000, in “The evolution of Galaxies. I. Observational clues”, ApSS, in press

Heckman, T.M., et al., 1998, ApJ, 503, 646

Kennicutt, R.C., et al., 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0002180)

Leitherer, C., 1999a, in “Chemical evolution from zero to high redshift”, ESO workshop, J.R. Walsh, M.R. Rosa (eds.), Berlin, Springer, p. 204

Leitherer, C., 1999b, in “Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and Galaxies”, I. Hubeny, S.R. Heap, R.H. Cornett (eds.), ASP Conf. Series 192, p. 3

Leitherer, C., et al., 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

Luridiana, V., et al., 1999, ApJ, 527, 110

Lowenthal, J.D., et al., 1997, ApJ, 481, 673

Maeder, A., 1990, A&AS, 84, 139

Maeder, A., Meynet, G., 2000, ARAA, in press

Mas-Hesse, J.M., 1999, in “The Interplay between massive stars and the ISM”, JENAM99 meeting, D. Schaerer, R.M. Gonzalez Delgado (eds.), New Astronomy Reviews, in press

Mas-Hesse, J.M., Kunth, D., 1999, A&A, 349, 765

Oey, M.S., Kennicutt, R.C., 1997, MNRAS, 291, 827

Oey, M.S., et al., 2000, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/9912363)

Peña, M., et al., 1998, A&A, 337, 866

Pauldrach, A., et al., 1998, in “Boulder-Munich II” Properties of hot, luminous stars”, I.D. Howarth (ed.), ASP Conf. Series, 131, p. 258

Pettini, M., et al., 2000, ApJ, 528, 96

Satyapal, S., et al., 1998, in preparation

Schaerer, D., 1996, ApJ, 467, L17

Schaerer, D., 1998, in “Boulder-Munich II” Properties of hot, luminous stars”, I.D. Howarth (ed.), ASP Conf. Series, 131, p. 310

Schaerer, D., 1999a, in “Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and Galaxies”, I. Hubeny, S.R. Heap, R.H. Cornett (eds.), ASP Conf. Series 192, p. 49

Schaerer, D., 1999b, in “Massive Stellar Clusters”, A. Lancon, C.M. Boily (eds.), ASP Conf. Series, in press (astro-ph/0001531)

Schaerer, D., Contini, T., Pindao M., 1999b, A&AS, 136, 35

Schaerer, D., Contini, T., Kunth D., 1999a, A&A, 341, 399

Schaerer, D., de Koter, A., 1997, A&A, 322, 598

Schaerer, D., Guseva, N., Izotov, Y.I., Thuan, T.X., 2000, A&A, in press

Schaerer, D., Stasińska, G., 1999, A&A, 345, L17

Schaerer, D., Vacca, W. D. 1998, ApJ, 497, 618

Schmutz, W., Leitherer, C., Gruenwald, R., 1992, PASP, 104, 1164

Stasińska, G., Leitherer, C., 1996, ApJS 107, 661

Stasińska, G., Schaerer, D., 1997, A&A, 322, 615

Stasińska, G., Schaerer, D., 1999, A&A, 351, 72

Stasińska, G., Schaerer, D., Leitherer, C., 2000, A&A, in preparation

Thornley, M.D., et al., 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0003334)

Vacca, W.D., Garmany, C.D., Shull, M.J., 1996, ApJ, 460, 914

van der Hucht, K., et al. (eds.), 1999, IAU Symp. 193

Vilchez, J.M., Esteban, C., 1996, MNRAS 280, 720

Vilchez, J.M., et al., 1988, MNRAS, 235, 633