text:
# Fragmentation and Star Formation in Turbulent Cores

## 1. Introduction

Most stars exist in gravitationally bound binary and low-order multiple systems (Bodenheimer et al 2000). Moreover, the observed trend of decreasing fraction of binary and multiple systems with age strongly suggests that multiple star systems must have formed via fragmentation during the earliest stages of cloud collapse, rather than from capture of two or more stars formed individually (i.e. Simon et al. 1995). Multiple star formation is central to our understanding of the star formation process, and has enormous significance for the study of formation of planetary systems as well.

While the results of previous authors (notably Hoyle 1953, Hunter 1967, Low & Lynden-Bell 1977, Silk 1977, Rees 1977, Larson 1985, and Inutsuka & Miyama 1992, among many others) have advanced the state of our knowledge of the dynamics underlying the fragmentation process, no theoretical fragmentation models to date have been able to convincingly explain the observed properties of binaries. Most analytic and semi-analytic work has treated only the earliest phases of the collapse, typically via a linearized analysis, and most numerical work has treated only the earliest isothermal phase of the collapse, well before most of the mass of the cloud core has been accreted onto the fragments. In addition one must also be able to follow the collapse long enough to determine the number of protostars, their masses, and their orbits. Long before this point, the gas ceases to be isothermal. Hence, a nonlinear, nonisothermal analysis is absolutely essential.

Until very recently, the extreme variations in length scale inherent in collapse have made it difficult to perform accurate calculations of the fragmentation process, which is intrinsically three-dimensional in nature. Our recent development of a robust adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) self-gravitational hydrodynamics code has resulted in our discovery of a physically motivated constraint on the resolution (the Jeans condition) that must be satisfied to suppress artificial fragmentation (Truelove et al. 1997). This condition indicates that many published solutions were underresolved and therefore gave misleading results. Since our code is able to adhere to the Jeans criterion, it is ideally suited for the treatment of the collapse and fragmentation of molecular cloud cores.

Over the last year, we have begun a program of research investigating the properties of marginally stable, turbulent low-mass molecular cloud cores. These models have radii, masses, density contrasts, turbulent linewidths, and projected velocity gradients consistent with observations of low-mass molecular cloud cores.

### 1.1. Key Questions to be Addressed

Answers to basic questions concerning the fragmentation process remain elusive:

(1) Why do most stars form in binary systems?

(2) What determines the efficiency of star formation, i.e., the fraction of a core that will end up in protostellar objects?

(3) What are the properties of protostellar disks formed in turbulent molecular cloud cores? Are they typically aligned or misaligned relative to one another?

(4) What determines the distribution of fragment masses, which is related to the initial distribution of stellar masses? Similarly, what determines the initial orbital angular momenta and rotational spins of the individual fragments?

Our goal is to make significant advances in our understanding of all of these questions. We shall study the collapse and fragmentation of of turbulent molecular cloud cores with conditions typical of nearby star-forming regions (Jijina et al. 1999), and determine whether our models are consistent with the observed frequency of binary star systems. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study of binary formation has considered either realistic near-equilibrium clouds or realistic perturbation spectra. This study has the potential of leading to a major advance in our understanding of how fragmentation proceeds in real molecular cloud cores.

## 2. The Key Role of Nonlinear Perturbations : A Numerical Experiment

In order to reach more general conclusions on the outcome of the collapse, several groups have attempted to establish a general criterion as to whether an individual cloud model will fragment or not. Several classic studies were conducted based on the results of early axisymmetric and 3D numerical models. Notably, Tohline, Durisen, and McCollough (1985), Hachisu & Eriguchi (1985) and Miyama (1992) assumed that the collapse of rigidly rotating, uniform density spheres resulted in a self-gravitating, rotating equilibrium isothermal disks consisting of the entire mass of the cloud. By analyzing these disks for linear stability to growing modes using the analysis of Goldreich & Lynden-Bell (1965), they arrived at the classic fragmentation criterion for uniform cores that is still frequently cited in the literature today. Their criterion is stated in terms of the standard two-dimensional parameter space of the cores: $`\alpha =5c_s^2R_0/2GM`$, which is proportional to the ratio of thermal to gravitational energies within the core, and $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2R_0^3/3GM`$, which is proportional to the ratio of rotational to gravitational binding energies within the core. In terms of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, the classic criterion for fragmentation is $`\alpha \beta <0.12`$, suggesting that typical slowly rotating cores with $`\alpha 1`$ and $`\beta 0.02`$ should easily fragment.

More careful analytic work by Tsuribe & Inutsuka (1999a,b; hereafter TI) on the dynamics of a collapsing, rotating ellipsoid, including the inward propagation of the rarefraction front from the boundary of the cloud, revised the classic criterion for the fragmentation of uniform density, rigidly rotating isothermal cores. Their numerical simulations included the effect of small white noise, bar-mode, and ring-mode density fluctuations. The TI criterion predicts that cores in a state of marginal virial stability should never fragment. They report their criterion to be in in good agreement with their numerical results. The TI criterion clarifies almost three decades of previous numerical and analytic work.

In summary, the classic $`\alpha \beta `$ criterion, which predicted ubiquitous fragmentation for slow rotators, is now known to be invalid. Moreover, the TI criterion predicts ubiquitous single-star formation for realistic cores near virial equilibrium. Significantly, this means that the problem of binary formation, even in idealized uniform cores, has remained unsolved to date.

However, TI’s results are limited in that their choice of perturbation spectrum is not physically motivated; in particular, none of the chosen perturbation spectra are consistent with the linewidth-size relation observed in molecular cloud cores (Larson, 1981). More important, the amplitudes chosen for the density perturbations are unrealistically small: typical cores are observed to have turbulent linewidths comparable to the isothermal soundspeed (Jijina et al. 1999), and so the perturbations present in real molecular cloud cores will typically be nonlinear.

The outcome of the initial collapse phase hinges upon whether the timescale for the overall collapse of the core is greater or less than the timescale for the growth of perturbations. When the timescale to grow the perturbation is greater than that of the overall collapse, a single fragment is formed; in the opposite case, a binary or multiple system may be formed. Nonlinear perturbations play a key role in this process, since the timescale for the gravitational instability to grow a nonlinear perturbation is always less than that for a linear perturbation.

To test the sensitivity of the TI fragmentation criterion to the choice of perturbation amplitude, we apply an $`m=2`$ density perturbation to a variety of uniform clouds. We find that a modest increase increase in the amplitude of the applied spectrum can cause models significantly removed from their fragmentation transition curve to fragment. In figure 1, we show such a model system with $`\alpha =1.0`$, $`\beta =0.1`$, and an applied amplitude of $`25\%`$, which produced a binary. In contrast, the same background model run with a slightly smaller perturbation amplitude of $`10\%`$ produced a single object at a comparable compression.

This result illustrates that nonlinear perturbations, which are typically found in molecular cloud cores, play a critical role in fragmenting uniform isothermal spheres close to marginal virial stability. We turn our attention in the next section to a more realistic choice of background core models and applied spectra.

## 3. Turbulent Low-Mass Molecular Cloud Cores: Initial Conditions

The statistics of prestellar versus embedded stellar molecular cloud cores suggest that the prestellar phase is greater than the free-fall time of the core; hence, the core should be in an approximate state of equilibrium (Beichman et al. 1986, Myers et al. 1995, Lee & Myers, 1999). Accordingly, the initial conditions for a typical model we simulate consist of self-consistent hydrodynamic equilibria of turbulent, marginally stable, isothermal molecular cloud cores. In contrast, nearly all calculations that appear in the literature deal with clouds unrealistically initially far from equilibrium (e.g. Boss & Bodenheimer, 1979, Boss 1991, Burkert & Bodenheimer, 1993), leading to highly supersonic collapse velocities.

We perturb the cloud using Gaussian spectral perturbations on the velocity field with a $`k^4d^3k`$ spectrum consistent with Larson’s linewidth-size relation (Larson, 1981; Dubinski, Nararyan, & Phillips 1995). A limitation of our present procedure is that the density perturbations form only after the velocity perturbations have time to evolve; by the time the density perturbations have formed, the turbulence has decayed somewhat.

The Bonnor-Ebert values for mass and radius are rescaled to account for turbulent support :

$$MM(1+^2)^{3/2},$$
(1)
$$RR(1+^2)^{1/2},$$
(2)
where $`=\sigma /c_s`$ and $`\sigma `$ is the 1D nonthermal velocity dispersion. We take $``$ as the first dimensionless parameter specifying our model cores.

As the cloud collapses, the heating rate due to compression rises, while the ability of the gas to cool is impeded by greater opacity due to the higher column density of dust. As a result, the collapse evolves from isothermal to quasi-adiabatic. To follow this evolution in this current set of calculations, we use a barotropic equation of state that transitions from isothermal to polytropic at a characteristic density of $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, i.e.,

$$P(\rho )=c_{\mathrm{iso}}^2\rho +K_{\mathrm{stiff}}\rho ^{\gamma _{\mathrm{stiff}}},$$
(3)
where $`P`$ is the gas pressure as a function of density $`\rho `$, $`c_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ is the isothermal soundspeed, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{stiff}}`$ is the adiabatic exponent in the optically thick regime, and $`K_{\mathrm{stiff}}`$ is a parameter fixed by the requirement that the isothermal and the adiabatic pieces of the equation of state are equal at a characteristic density $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$:

$$K_{\mathrm{stiff}}=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}^{1\gamma _{\mathrm{stiff}}}}{c_{\mathrm{iso}}^2}$$
(4)
(Boss et al. 2000; Klein et al. 1999). We take the density ratio $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}/\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}`$ as our second dimensionless parameter. As Boss et al.  (2000) point out, this barotropic equation of state is very approximate, but it enables us to take a first step in understanding what role non-isothermal effects play in the more general case.

Hence, our barotropic models are completely specified in a two-dimensional parameter space: ($``$, $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}/\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}`$). Both of these parameters are constrained by observation. Nearby star-forming low-mass cores have typical values of $`0.51.5`$ (Jijina et al. 1999). We choose a fiducial value of the external density of $`\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}=5\times 10^{20}`$ gm cm-3 and a critical density ratio in the range $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}/\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}10^410^6`$. Following Masunaga & Inutsuka (1998), the critical density ratio can be related to the Planck mean opacity $`\kappa _P`$ by noting that an optically thick, gravitationally bound structure at $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ will have a characteristic scale of about the local Jeans length $`\lambda _J`$. Hence,

$$\kappa _P\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}\lambda _J1$$
(5)
With some rearrangement, and assuming we have a cosmic gas mix, we find

$$\kappa _P210^1\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}(\frac{510^{20}\mathrm{gm}/\mathrm{cm}^3}{\rho _{edge}})^{1/2}(\frac{10^5}{\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}/\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}})^{1/2}(\frac{T_{init}}{10\mathrm{K}})^{1/2}$$
(6)
Values of $`\kappa _P`$ appropriate for cold, dense molecular cloud cores are model-dependent on dust grain composition, carbon and silicate inclusions, icy mantles, and dust size distribution in the presence of sticking and destructive effects. Ranges $`\kappa _P`$ 0.02 - 0.2 cm2/g are cited in the literature (Preibisch et al. 1993). This implies a range of $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}/\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}10^510^7`$.

Below we explore the effect of turbulence by fixing $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}/\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}=10^4`$, and vary $``$ from $`0.53.0`$. This choice of the stiffening parameter is slightly too stiff in comparison to realistic dust grain models. However, the enhanced stiffening allows us to evolve our calculations much longer in accretion clock time. A future set of calculations will relax this assumption, and will evolve with a relatively soft equation of state for comparison.

The principal physical processes that we are neglecting in this study are those associated with magnetic fields. Although ambipolar diffusion diminishes the importance of the magnetic field relative to both gas pressure and gravity as the collapse proceeds (Ciolek & Mouschovias, 1994), the role of the field in the dynamical processes underlying fragmentation is almost completely unknown. However, in order to fully understand the dynamics of the collapse, it is worthwhile to carry out careful unmagnetized as well as magnetized studies; our current program of research represents a step in this direction. We also note that some recent studies have suggested that the magnetic field may be less important than previously believed (Padoan & Nordlund 1998).

## 4. Results

We have conducted a preliminary survey of the parameter space of turbulent cores by holding the equation of state fixed (i.e., setting $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}/\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}=10^4`$) while varying the turbulent Mach number $``$ over the range of typical values seen in low-mass cores (median $`0.51.5`$, with the low and high values corresponding to Taurus and Orion, respectively), to small cluster-forming clumps ($``$ several) (Jijina et al. 1999).

All calculations reported utilize our AMR code, which obeys the local Jeans condition by resolving the local Jeans length with at least four cells at all points in space and time (Truelove et al. 1997; Truelove et al. 1998). Our initial, unperturbed, centrally condensed equilibrium isothermal spheres are chosen to be very slightly subcritical, with a density contrast of edge to center of 10, and a mass of $`99.9\%`$ that of the critical Bonnor-Ebert value. As a result, without turbulence, the models remain stationary indefinitely. In order to obtain physical values from our dimensionless models, we set the density at the edge of the cloud at $`\rho _{\mathrm{edge}}=5\times 10^{20}`$ g cm-3 as remarked above and the isothermal soundspeed at $`c_{\mathrm{iso}}=1.8\times 10^4`$ cm s-1 (corresponding to $`T10`$ K and cosmic abundances). A fiducial turbulent core with $`=1.0`$ then has a radius of $`R=0.07`$ pc and a mass of $`M=2.9M_{}`$. The characteristic timescale for the evolution of the entire cloud is the free-fall time evaluated at the edge density, $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}(3\pi /32G\rho _{\mathrm{edge}})^{1/2}=3.0\times 10^5`$ yr. These fiducial choices are typical of nearby star-forming regions, though a substantial variance exists within in each molecular cloud, and from cloud to cloud.

### 4.1. $`=0.58`$

This model corresponds roughly to the median level of turbulence seen in the Taurus molecular cloud, which has the lowest level of turbulence of any of the nearby star-forming molecular clouds (Jijina et al. 1999). In the fiducial choice of edge density and sound speed specified above, this model has $`R=0.06`$ pc and $`M=1.58M_{}`$. A single fragment is formed, surrounded by a centrifugally supported protostellar disk (see Fig. 2). By the end of the calculation, which was run for a time $`0.5t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ after the time of formation of the fragment, the total amount of mass in the fragment is roughly half of the initial core mass. This is consistent with a nearly constant mass accretion rate over this time interval.

### 4.2. $`=1.7`$

In the opposite extreme of turbulence seen in nearby molecular clouds is Orion, which has a median value $`1.5`$ (Jijina et al. 1999). We ran a calculation with turbulent level of support consistent with this value, $`=1.7`$. Using the fiducial edge density and sound speed, we find this model has $`R=0.1`$ pc and $`M=8.2M_{}`$. It appears that a binary system has formed, which by the endpoint of the calculation has accreted about $`10\%`$ of the total mass of the core. The binary system is seen to emerge along the ends of a filamentary structure in the turbulent flow (see Fig. 3). Simple estimates of the mass flux through the filamentary structure reveal that the density within the filament is typically one-several orders of magnitude greater than the ambient medium density, and hence that virtually all mass flux occurs along filaments. Both of the members of the binary appears to have formed a protostellar disk. Moreover, the disks appear to be misaligned relative to one another, as Smith et al. (Smith et al. 1999) suggest is the case for T Tau. We note that at this point in the evolution, the binary has a very wide separation, $`10^4`$ AU. It is possible that this system will evolve into a much closer binary, but at present this is too computationally demanding to determine.

### 4.3. $`=2.9`$

Lastly, extending our models into the range of more turbulent clumps that can form clusters of stars, we evolved one model with $`=2.9`$. Using the fiducial edge density and sound speed, this model has $`R=0.16`$ pc and $`M=29M_{}`$. A complex network of shocked filamentary structures rapidly evolves, and at least six fragments emerge from the flow. However, due to computational constraints, we have been able to evolve this model only to the point that $`0.1\%`$ of the total mass of the core has been accreted. The fragments appear to form within the filamentary structures, at those locations in the flow where filaments cross or bend. We are examining the possibility that the mass accretion flow in the filaments is largely responsible for the growth of the protostellar fragments for such higher Mach cases, though the duration of this calculation is too short to draw firm conclusions.

## 5. Conclusions

Beginning with models that have density contrasts, linewidths, radii, masses, and projected linewidth gradients consistent with observations of low-mass molecular cloud cores, we have demonstrated that turbulence plays a critical role in their fragmentation. Cores that are significantly subsonic do not fragment in our models, whereas transonic and supersonic cores typically do. Since we inject turbulence on a level consistent with what is actually observed, our results suggest that turbulent fragmentation is likely to play a critical role in the formation of binary and multiple systems in molecular cloud cores. Our preliminary calculations suggest that filament formation is ubiquitous in turbulent cores. The protostellar cores appear to form within the filamentary structure, and the filaments themselves may be the principal conduit for mass transfer onto the protostellar disk.

However, several important issues remain to be resolved. First, our models have difficulty producing binary systems for low turbulent Mach numbers (i.e. $`<0.5`$), whereas observations in Taurus indicate no diminution in the number of binaries in this range of $``$. Second, all models must be evolved for a global freefall timescale in order to conclusively answer questions concerning the outcome of fragmentation in the cores. Lastly, many different turbulent realizations must be used in order to gather statistics regarding final orbital separation and mass ratio, which must also be checked against observation. We plan to address all of these issues in a subsequent paper (Fisher et al. 2000). This gauntlet of tests provides us an unprecedented opportunity to examine the fragmentation paradigm in the context of realistic models.

#### Acknowledgments.

This work is supported in part by a grant from the NASA ATP program to the Center for Star Formation Studies. The research of RIK is supported in part under the auspices of the US Department of Energy at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract W-7405-Eng-48. The research of CFM is supported in part by NSF grant AST95-30480. RTF is supported in part by the NASA GSRP program. We thankfully acknowledge the use of the NSF NPACI high performance computing facility; all calculations reported here were performed on the NPACI T90.

## References

Beichman, C., Myers, P., Emerson, J., Harris, S., Matthieu, R., Benson, P., & Jennings, R. 1986, ApJ, 307, 337.

Bodenheimer, P., Burkert, A., Klein, R. I., & Boss, A. P. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. Russell (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), p. 675.

Boss, A. P., Fisher, R. T., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., 2000,ApJ, 528, 325.

Boss, A., & Bodenheimer, P., 1979, ApJ, 234, 289.

Boss, A. P. 1991, Nature, 351, 298.

Burkert, A. & Bodenheimer, P. 1993, MNRAS., 264, 798.

Ciolek, G. & Mouschovias, T. 1994, ApJ, 425, 142.

Dubinski, J, Narayan, R., & Phillips, T. 1995, ApJ, 448, 226.

Fisher, R., Klein, R., & McKee, C. 2000, to appear in ApJ.

Goldreich, P., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 97.

Hachisu, I., & Eriguchi., Y. 1985, A & A, 143, 355.

Hoyle, F. 1953, ApJ, 118, 513.

Hunter, C. 1967, ApJ, 136, 594.

Inutsuka, S. & Miyama, S. 1992, ApJ, 388, 392.

Jijina, J., Myers, P., & Adams, F. 1999, ApJS, 125, 161.

Klein, R. I. 1999, JCAM, 109, 123.

Klein, R. I., Fisher, R. T., McKee, C. F., & Truelove, J. K. 1999, in Numerical Astrophysics 1998, eds. Miyama, S., & Tomisaka, K.

Larson, R. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809.

Larson, R. 1985, MNRAS, 214, 379.

Lee, C., & Myers, P., ApJS, 123, 233.

Low, C., & Lynden-Bell, D., MNRAS, 176, 367.

Masunaga, H. & Inutsuka, S. 1998, ApJ, 495, 346.

Miyama, S. 1992, PASJ, 44, 193.

Myers, P., Bachiller, R., Caselli, P., Fuller, G, Mardones, D., Tafalla, M., & Wilner, D. 1995, ApJ, 319, 340.

Padoan, P., & Nordlund, A. P. 1998, ApJ, 504, 300.

Preibisch, T., Ossenkopf, V., Yorke, Y., & Henning, T. 1993, A & A, 279, 577.

Rees, M. 1977, MNRAS, 176, 483.

Silk, J. 1977, ApJ,214,152.

Simon, M., Ghez, A., Leinert, C., Cassar, L., Chen, W., Howell, R., Jameson, R., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., & Richichi, A. 1995, ApJ, 443, 625.

Smith, D., Wood, K., Whitney, B., Kenyon, S., and Stassun, K. 1999. AAS, 195, 210.

Tohline, J., Durisen, R., & McCollough, M. 1985. ApJ, 298, 220.

Truelove, J.K., Klein, R.I., McKee, C.F., Holliman, J.H., Howell, L. H., Greenough, J.A., & Woods, D. T., 1997. ApJ, 489, L179.

Truelove, J.K., Klein, R.I., McKee, C.F., Holliman, J.H., Howell, L.H., Greenough, J.A., 1998. ApJ, 495, 821.

Tsuribe, T., & Inutsuka, S. 1999. ApJ, 526, 307.

Tsuribe, T., & Inutsuka, S. 1999. ApJ, 523, 155.


format: text

text:
# Uncertainties on Clusters of Galaxies Distances.

## 1 Introduction

Large surveys of clusters of galaxies are commonly used in modern observational cosmology both for optical (e.g. ENACS: Katgert et al. 1996, CNOC: Carlberg et al. 1996) and X-ray studies (e.g. Ebeling et al. 1998, Rosati et al. 1998, Vikhlinin et al. 1998, Romer et al. 2000). Only the mean redshift of the clusters is necessary for example for constraining cosmological models using the N/z relation (Oukbir $`\&`$ Blanchard 1997), i.e. the variation of the cluster abundance as a function of redshift and mass. Since masses of these clusters can be measured from X-ray data, thus spectroscopy is only necessary to compute the mean redshift. For very large (typically more than 100 clusters) and deep surveys, however, it is difficult to measure a large number of redshifts for each cluster due to observing time constraints. But, too low a number of redshifts can induce errors for the mean redshift. We propose in this work to quantify these errors by using simulations. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines for estimating statistical errors on the distance of clusters of galaxies in existing catalogs as a function of the galaxies sampled (number of redshifts per line of sight and nature of the galaxies) and of the distances and characteristics of these clusters. Estimates based only on a small number of redshifts and a limited number of cases can be found in Holden et al. (2000).

The first part of the article describes the method and the sample. The second part gives the results of the simulations. The third part discusses these results.

We used H0=100 km.s-1.Mpc-1 and q0=0.05.

## 2 General methodology and Sample.

We have tested the influence on the mean redshift uncertainty of: (1) the number of galaxy structures along the line of sight; (2) the morphology of the clusters (regular/substructures); (3) the nature of the observed galaxies (cD/normal galaxies); (4) the number of observed galaxies; and (5) the distance of the clusters.

These clusters were selected from the ENACS database (Katgert et al. 1996), from a literature compilation by A. Biviano (described for example in Adami et al. 1998), and from the public CNOC database (Carlberg et al. 1996). We only selected the very well sampled clusters, i.e. those with a sufficient number of redshifts to allow us to assume safely that the redshift measurements provided the true value of the mean cluster redshift. We then resampled each of these clusters with $`n`$ galaxies before re-computing the mean redshift to estimate the error for this redshift. The method we used to compute the mean redshift after the resampling with $`n`$ galaxies is as follows: we used the same analysis methods as for the ENACS lines of sight (Katgert et al. 1996). We excluded the galaxies classified as field objects (see below) and we used a Biweight estimator (Beers et al. 1990) of the mean for the cluster galaxies. Briefly, field galaxies were discriminated by searching for velocity gaps of more than 1000 km.s-1 in the redshift distributions of the galaxies sorted by increasing redshift. If two galaxies were separated by more than 1000 km.s-1, they were assumed to belong to different structures. The method is explained in detail in Katgert et al. (1996), but we note that the choice of a value of 1000 km.s-1 for the gap has no significant influence on the structure membership determination (see Adami et al. 1998): a value between $``$600 and $``$1200 km.s-1 gives similar results.

In order to remove possible interloper clusters (with too small a number of redshifts) from the sample, we selected only the lines of sight with more than 50 redshifts in the main groups (the “clusters” hereafter). We also discarded the lines of sight with too high a contamination level in a first step: we rejected the lines of sight with more than two structures sampled with more than 20 redshifts. This limitation corresponds approximatively to the separation between the massive and minor groups in the ENACS sample. These lines of sight are considered in section 3.3. At this step, there were 73 lines of sight in the sample. As we used a literature compilation, selection effects are sometimes significant. For example, galaxies along a few lines of sight in the sample were observed by using a color-magnitude selection of the targets (Mazure et al. 1988) or only the cluster galaxy redshifts were given in the literature. This potentially induced a bias toward the cluster galaxies. In order to limit this problem, we discarded all the lines of sight with more than 95% of the galaxies inside the main cluster (cf. Fig. 1) because these lines of sight were very likely to be biased toward the cluster galaxies. This value of 95% is based on our analysis of the ENACS results (Katgert et al. 1996). In this survey there was no selection of galaxies with a color-magnitude relation. All the redshifts measured along the lines of sight were provided. We found that these ENACS lines did not have more than 95% of the galaxies within a single structure.

In total, after all the rejections, we used a sample of 58 lines of sight (Table 1). We split this sample of 58 clusters in five different redshift bins in order to compute the redshift estimate precision as a function of the cluster distance (and of the number $`n`$ of sampling galaxies). The first bin (z=\[0; 0.07\]) contains 37 clusters, the second bin (z=\[0.07; 0.13\]) contains 14 clusters, the third and the fourth bins (z=\[0.13,0.30\] and z=\[0.30,0.45\]) contain 3 clusters and the last bin (z=\[0.45,0.60\]) contains 2 clusters. We note that the fourth and the last bins mainly used CNOC data (Carlberg et al. 1996).

## 3 The results

### 3.1 Lines of sight with only one dominant structure

We resampled all the 58 lines of sight (i.e. with only one dominant structure) with $`n`$ galaxies, with n=\[5;47\] (the method we used to compute the mean redshift is not effective for a sampling rate of less than 5 galaxies). In order to have the same statistical significance for each of the five redshift bins (they do not have the same number of clusters), we made about 5000 realizations (bootstrap technique with 5000 resampling) for a given $`n`$ (number of selected redshifts along the line of sight) and for a given cluster redshift range. This means that we made 135 different resamplings for each line of sight and each $`n`$ in the first redshift bin (37 clusters $`\times `$ 135 simulations $``$5000 simulations), 357 different resamplings for each line of sight and each $`n`$ in the second redshift bin, 1667 different resamplings for each line of sight and each $`n`$ in the third and fourth redshift bins, and 2500 different resamplings for each line of sight and each $`n`$ in the fifth redshift bin.

For each of the 5000 realizations we computed the difference between the true value of the cluster redshift and the estimated value of this redshift. We finally computed the dispersion of the 5000 percentage differences. The mean values of these difference percentages were always consistent with an error of 0% and in the range $`\pm 2\%`$. We focus here on the variation of the dispersion $`\sigma `$ of these 5000 differences as a function $`n`$ (the number of selected redshifts along the line of sight). These variations are given in Fig. 2 for the five different cluster redshift bins. The 1-$`\sigma `$ error is always less than 5% for the clusters at z$``$0.30, whatever the number of redshifts (greater than 5) we use along the line of sight to compute the mean distances of the clusters. These errors become greater than 5% (but are still lower than 10%) for the clusters more distant than z=0.30 when we use less than 13 galaxies along the lines of sight to compute the mean redshifts of the clusters.

### 3.2 Influence of the nature of the clusters: regular vs substructured clusters.

The dynamical state of the clusters is also important for the redshift estimate: regular or with more perturbed history. When the clusters have a very complex velocity structure we need to know if the statistical approach of using a larger number of fainter galaxies will succeed.

We have chosen to repeat the analysis of Section 3.1. This time we used a discrimination between the regular and the irregular clusters. We used the work of Bird (1994), Bird $`\&`$ Beers (1993) and Solanes et al. (1999) to produce a classification for the Abell clusters in our sample. These authors have performed substructure tests with a subsample of the clusters in Table 1. We classified a cluster of Table 1 as regular only if no one of the tests provided by these authors gave evidence of substructures at the 10$`\%`$ level. For the CNOC clusters, we plotted galaxy isodensity contours and we selected as regular the clusters providing regular contours. We assumed that no substructures in a cluster was an indication of a quiescent history. The same kind of classification could possibly be achieved in the future using X-ray data. However, for most of the clusters in our sample, the only X-ray images available have too low a spatial resolution or too weak a signal to allow us to resolve substructures for the distant clusters.

We have separated the clusters of the sample with substructure information into 3 redshift bins: the bins 1, 2 and 5 of Section 3.1 (the bins 3 and 4 do not provide alone robust estimates). We plot on Fig. 3 the variation of the redshift error percentage as a function of the number of measured galaxies used to compute the mean distance of the cluster for the regular clusters. This is directly comparable with the percentages given in Fig. 2. We see that the error percentages are slightly lower when we use the regular clusters compared to the whole sample (regular + substructured + unknown). The difference is close to 1 or 2 percent. This means that the clusters with substructures do not produce very significantly higher errors in the mean redshift estimate. The approach of Section 3.1 is, therefore, not very sensitive to the nature of the clusters.

### 3.3 Lines of sight with more than one dominant structure

We only use here the clusters satisfying the conditions of Sect. 3.1, but with at least one group with more than 20 galaxies in addition to the main structure. These clusters are A151 (z=0.052, 3 groups with more than 20 gal.), A1656 (z=0.024, 3 groups with more than 20 gal.), A2390 (z=0.23, 2 groups with more than 20 gal.), A2634 (z=0.030, 2 groups with more than 20 gal.), A4038 (z=0.029, 5 groups with more than 20 gal.) and MS1512+36 (z=0.37, 3 groups with more than 20 gal.). The results of the simulations show a higher 1-$`\sigma `$ error in percentage, as expected, but the difference is not very significant. First, we have no difference when we use more than 10 redshifts, whatever the distance of the cluster is. When we used less than 10 redshifts, we add about 2$`\%`$ to the values of Fig. 2. We have an unchanged number of redshifts required to have an error smaller than 5$`\%`$ for z$``$0.3. For z$``$0.3, we now need more than 8 or 9 redshifts measurements (instead of 5). We also note that such superpositions are not very likely. They represent only $``$10$`\%`$ of the total sample we used in this study. We will, therefore, refer only to the Fig. 2 results.

### 3.4 Influence of the nature of the galaxies: using the cD velocities.

The three previous sub-sections deal with normal galaxies. However, an important question with fundamental implications is to know if the first ranked galaxy (assumed to be the central Dominant galaxy hereafter) is a good measure of the cluster redshift. This kind of galaxy is, in a simple picture, at the bottom of the cluster potential, at the spatial center of the cluster and, therefore, at a redshift very close to the mean cluster redshift. In theory, this allows the cluster redshift measurement to be made with only one galaxy (e.g. Gunn et al. 1986, Hill $`\&`$ Oegerle 1998). However, when the cluster history is complex (mergings), the cD galaxies can be sometimes classified as $`speedingcD^{}s`$ (see e.g. Zabludoff et al. 1993 and references therein), i.e. cD galaxies with a significant velocity difference compared to the mean cluster velocity. Moreover, those can be shifted compared to the cluster center (e.g. Peres et al. 1998). In this case, the use of the cD alone can fail in measuring accurately the cluster mean redshift.

In order to investigate this point, we have used the clusters of our real sample using the first ranked galaxies with a measured redshift. Moreover, to separate the normal cD’s and the speeding cD’s, we used only the clusters with an X-ray center (see Tab. 1). The peak emission of the X-ray gas is assumed to be the real center. The distance between the cD and the X-ray center is used as an indication of the nature of the cD galaxies. When the cD galaxy is located at less than 50 kpc in projected distance from the cluster center (the X-ray center), the difference between the cluster mean velocity and the cD velocity is (0.15$`\pm `$0.12)$`\times `$$`\sigma _v`$ (with $`\sigma _v`$ the biweight velocity dispersion of the cluster). For the cD’s at more than 50 kpc, the difference is (0.53$`\pm `$0.47)$`\times `$ $`\sigma _v`$. Despite the large uncertainties, it seems clear that when the cD’s are far from the X-ray center, they provide a less reliable estimate of the mean cluster velocity: for a typical cluster with a velocity dispersion of 1000 km.s-1, the mean difference is $``$550 km.s-1 ($``$150 km.s-1 when X-ray center and cD position match).

Besides testing the cD derived redshift as a function of the distance from the cluster center, we also tested the cD versus the mean redshift (as identify the true cD can be more difficult with increasing redshift). In order to have enough clusters with an X-ray center in each bin, we could only separate the sample into two bins: redshifts lower and higher than 0.06. For the nearby clusters and the cD galaxies close to the center, the error on the cluster mean redshift estimate is (0.14$`\pm `$0.11)$`\times `$$`\sigma _v`$. For the nearby clusters and the cD galaxies far from the center, the error is (0.39$`\pm `$0.29)$`\times `$$`\sigma _v`$. For the more distant clusters and the cD galaxies close to the center, the difference is (0.19$`\pm `$0.16) $`\times `$$`\sigma _v`$. Finally, for the more distant clusters and the cD galaxies far from the center, the difference is (0.68$`\pm `$0.60)$`\times `$ $`\sigma _v`$. According to the uncertainties, the differences are not very significant but still very suggestive. Whatever the cluster redshift (nearby or more distant), the cD galaxies close to the center are better estimators of the mean cluster velocity compared to the cD galaxies far from the center. However, this trend tends to become stronger at higher redshifts, perhaps due to the fact that we are dealing with younger structures, therefore at earlier formation stage and smaller than present day clusters.

The conclusion of this section is that the cD galaxies are good estimators of the cluster velocities when they are not speeding cD galaxies. Given in the same units as in the previous sections, the redshift error is lower than 1$`\%`$ when we use the cD galaxy redshift as the cluster redshift.

When we deal with disturbed clusters and speeding cD galaxies, the error is larger but often acceptable: for example for clusters at z=0.05 and with a velocity dispersion of 1000 km.s-1, the error on the mean redshift estimate is 3$`\pm `$2 $`\%`$. However, in a few cases, this error can be close to 10$`\%`$ (at the 3-$`\sigma `$ level). Moreover, for the very distant cluster, it is not trivial to find which galaxy is the dominant one due to foreground galaxies. In these cases, the cD approach fails to measure the mean distance of the clusters.

## 4 Summary

We have used a sample of 58 rich clusters of galaxies (from z=0 to z=0.60) in order to investigate the error on the cluster redshift estimate as a function of the distance of the cluster, of the number $`n`$ of measured redshifts along the line of sight, of the nature of the galaxies (cD galaxies or normal galaxies) and of the nature of the clusters (regular/substructures).

The mean redshift of the clusters are used, for example, to compute the absolute magnitudes of the galaxies in a given cluster from the observed apparent magnitudes (luminosity function studies, e.g. Lumsden et al. 1997, Valotto et al. 1997, Rauzy et al. 1998) or to measure the X-ray luminosity of this cluster (e.g. Romer et al. 2000) from the observed X-ray flux. If we require an error in the optical magnitude of a cluster galaxy of less than 0.25 magnitude or of less than 10% on a cluster X-ray luminosity, we need to measure the mean redshift of this cluster with an accuracy of less than $``$5%. For nearby clusters (z$``$0.30), if we use our method to compute the mean redshift (discrimination of field galaxies with a gap analysis and Biweight estimators of the mean: Beers et al. 1990), the error on the redshift estimate is better than 5% even with only 5 redshift measurements along the line of sight.

If we now consider more distant clusters (z in the \[0.30;0.60\] range), we have an error of less than 5% if we measure more than 12 redshifts along the line of sight. With only 5 redshifts, the error on an optical magnitude can be (at the 67% level) 0.5 mag and that on an X-ray luminosity will be 20%. These estimates use galaxy redshifts distributed in a region of about 4 h-2Mpc2 (the typical size covered for each cluster in clusters of galaxy surveys such as ENACS: Katgert et al. 1996) around the cluster centers and magnitude without selection criteria. This means that the errors we plotted in Fig. 2 probably would decrease with a more concentrated survey around the cluster centers (but we have not tested this point in this article).

We show that it is slightly easier to measure an accurate mean redshift for the regular clusters (with quiescent history and, therefore, with symmetric potential well) using the approach of Section 3.1 (measuring a few dozens of redshifts). This method does not provide, however, significantly worse results for the substructured clusters (with more perturbed an history).

Finally, we showed that for the regular clusters, the measure of the cD galaxy redshift is a good way to measure accurately the mean redshift of the parent-cluster. Sometimes, however, this approach fails (for the substructured clusters or very distant clusters where the cD nature of a given galaxy is not straightforward to define). This approach should be replaced with a multi-redshift measure. The 5$`\%`$ error level is reached with 5 redshift measurements for the cluster closer than z=0.30 and with about 12 redshift measurements for the more distant clusters (z$``$0.60).

###### Acknowledgements.

CA thanks the Dearborn Obs. staff for their hospitality during his postdoctoral fellowship. CA and MPU thank the referees for useful and constructive comments, Florence Durret for a careful reading of the manuscript and Andrea Biviano for his compilation. CA thanks the LAM for support.


text:
# Thickness dependence of the stability of the charge-ordered state in Pr0.5Ca0.5MnO3 thin films.

## I
Figure Captions

Fig.1 : Room temperature $`\theta 2\theta `$ XRD pattern of a 750Å film. Note the high intensity and the sharpness of the peaks. The inset depicts the $`\varphi `$-scan of the {103} family peaks with a four-fold symmetry, showing the good epitaxy of the film.

Fig2: Evolution of the in-plane  (i.e. 100C), and the out-of-plane parameter  (i.e. 001C) of PCMO films with different thickness. The inset depicts the evolution the ratio between the in-plane and the out-of-plane parameters. Full lines are only a guide for the eyes.

Fig3: $`\rho `$(T) under different magnetic field (0, 5T and 9T) applied in the plane of the substrate for different films (a): 150Å, (b): 750Å and (c): 1100Å. Arrows indicate the direction of the temperature variation.

Fig4: Resistivity vs magnetic field at 75K, 100 K and 125K for a 1100Å film. Runs in field-increasing and field-decreasing are denoted by arrows. Note the large hysteretic region.

Fig5: In-plane magnetization vs magnetic field at 70K, 100 K and 120K for a 1100Å film. Runs in field-increasing and field-decreasing are denoted by arrows. The inset shows the magnetization vs temperature recorded under a magnetic field of 1.45T. The magnetization of the substrate was measured at each temperature and field and subtracted point by point.

Fig6: Electronic phase diagram of a 1100Å PCMO thin film determined by the critical fields. $`H_c^+`$ and $`H_c^{}`$ are respectively taken as the inflexion points in $`\rho (H)`$ in for up and down sweeps. In the dashed region, both CO insulating and metallic state are coexisting.


text:
# Effective Field Theory in Nuclear Physics1footnote 11footnote 1 Talk presented at the 7th Conference on the Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics, Quebec City, Canada, May 22-28, 2000. NT@UW-00-018.

## Introduction

A question that I have been asked many times is “Why use Effective Field Theory in Nuclear Physics”? The simple and somewhat glib answer to this question is that the only other option that one has to using an effective field theory (EFT) is to use the “Theory of Everything” (TOE), string theory or some derivative thereof. All other descriptions must be incomplete at some level and when precise predictions are compared with precise measurements, differences will become obvious. It is a daunting prospect for us (maybe only me) to use the TOE to compute low-energy hadronic processes, and in fact, it is quite silly to even consider such calculations. After all, we know that processes in QED can be computed to high precision which agree with experimental observations, without knowing anything about physics at the Planck scale, $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$.

The renormalizability of QED assures that ultra-violet divergences, arising from our lack of understanding of physics at short-distances, can be explicitly removed by a few constants (electric charge and fermion mass), allowing observables to be related to each other to arbitrary precision. In contrast, EFT’s are non-renormalizable but are still predictive when a systematic power counting in small expansion parameters can be established. Relations between observables at a given precision will involve a finite number of constants that are not dictated by the symmetries of the EFT alone. For instance, the standard model is a renormalizable field theory but processes at energies much less than the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking can be described by an non-renormalizable EFT of reduced symmetry, $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU_Y(1)SU(3)_cU_{\mathrm{em}}(1)`$, where weak interactions are incorporated by higher-dimension four-fermi operators. Even with quantum effects, the theory provides a systematic expansion of observables in terms of $`q^2/M_W^2`$ and $`m_f^2/M_W^2`$, where $`m_f`$ is a fermion mass, $`M_W`$ is the mass of the weak gauge bosons, and $`q`$ is the external momentum.

If one were interested in calculating the cross section for $`npd\gamma `$–radiative neutron capture by a proton to form a deuteron–directly from QCD, then a lattice calculation is the only technique available. The lattice calculation will provide an unambiguous cross section in terms of the quark masses and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, or equivalently in terms of other hadronic observables. A cartoon of a contribution to $`npd\gamma `$ in terms of perturbative quarks and gluons is shown in Figure 1.

Sources of quarks and gluons that have non-zero overlap with the proton, neutron, deuteron and a source for the photon would used to generate the amplitude for $`npd\gamma `$. It is clear that a significant amount of work goes into forming the hadronic states themselves, let alone computing the interaction terms. In addition, as the deuteron has such a small binding energy and hence is quite extended compared to the nucleon, considerable effort will be required to generate the deuteron itself. Unfortunately, at this point in time the lattice community is not even close to being able to perform this multi-hadron calculation. Indeed, the deuteron itself remains to be generated in lattice calculations. 222During the Effective Field Theory workshop to be held at the Institute for Nuclear Physics at the University of Washington during the summer of 2000, efforts will be made to estimate the computer resources necessary to determine the deuteron binding energy from lattice QCD Lepage . If all nuclear lengths scales were of order the chiral symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ then (very) naively lattice computations of nuclear observables would not be that much harder than computations in the single-nucleon sector. However, there are several low-energy length scales that play important roles in nuclear physics. Firstly $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, below which a hadronic description makes sense, and higher-dimension operators are induced that describe contributions from scales above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. Secondly, the scale of the repulsive part of the nucleon-nucleon interaction, which is conventionally modeled by the exchange of vector mesons (far from mass-shell) and numerically is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. Thirdly, the mass of the pion, which is much less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ due to its special status as a pseudo-Goldstone boson. Finally, nuclear binding energies which are much smaller than one would naively guess.

If one is interested in this process at energies much less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, or the mass of the $`\rho `$-meson, but comparable to the mass of the pion, then it should be sufficient to use an EFT with only nucleons, pions and photons as dynamical degrees of freedom. All contributions from higher mass scales will be encapsulated in the infinite number of higher dimension operators that arise in the momentum and chiral expansions. Some diagrams that will contribute to $`npd\gamma `$ are shown in Figure 2.

Unlike most EFT’s that one encounters, higher dimension operators (dim-6) involving the nucleon field play a central roleWeinberg -KSW . The fact that the deuteron is barely bound, with a binding energy of $`B=2.2\mathrm{MeV}`$, requires a fine-tuning between pion exchange and short-distance physics. Naively, one would expect a binding energy set by $`f_\pi `$, the pion decay constant, much larger than one finds in nature. Therefore, the class of diagrams shown in Figure 2(b) is not expected to be suppressed compared to those in Figure 2(a). In addition, contributions from diagrams shown in Figure 2(c) must be included. These arise from an insertion of operators that are gauge invariant by themselves, and are not related in any way to operators describing nucleon-nucleon scattering. They arise from short-distance physics and have a scale typically set by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$.

Continuing our descent in energy, if one is interested in this process at energies much less than the pion mass, $`m_\pi `$, then it should be sufficient to use an EFT with only nucleons and photons as dynamical degrees of freedom. All contributions from mass scales greater than $`m_\pi `$ will be encapsulated in the infinite number of higher dimension operators that arise in the momentum expansion (chiral symmetry is explicitly broken, leaving isospin symmetry as the only relic of the flavor symmetries). Some diagrams that will contribute to $`npd\gamma `$ are shown in Figure 3.

It is important to realize that nucleon-nucleon scattering described by this EFT uniquely reproduces Effective Range Theory (ERT)ERtheory . However, for all other observables, such as those involving electroweak gauge fields, ERT (e.g. ERtheory ; Noyes ) is seen to be an uncontrolled approximation to EFT (e.g. CRSa ).

In the following sections I attempt to indicate the status of EFT descriptions in the various energy regimes. Firstly, I will discuss low-energy $`|𝐩|m_\pi `$ processes involving two and three nucleons, focusing on the recent high precision calculations that have been performed. Secondly, the issues, results and the present roadblocks to successfully describing the intermediate energy regime $`|𝐩|\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }m_\pi `$ are presented. Finally, efforts to translate the understanding gained in EFT developments to many-nucleon systems are described. Such translation is necessary in order to achieve the ultimate goal of having a perturbative theory of nuclei that faithfully reproduces QCD.

## $`npd\gamma `$ at Low Energies

During the past year there has been considerable focus placed on the radiative capture process $`npd\gamma `$. Firstly, it was pointed outBNTTa  that the uncertainty in the cross section for $`npd\gamma `$ contributed significantly to the uncertainties in the predictions of Big-Bang-Nucleosynthesis (BBN) of light element abundances. This resulted from the lack of data in the energy region important for BBN from either $`npd\gamma `$ or $`\gamma dnp`$. Further, available potential model calculations of these processesENDF  are undocumented and error estimates are absent. Tools have recently been developed that allow for a $`1\%`$ calculation of the cross section with EFTCSa ; Ra . This was facilitated in part by realizing that it is advantageous to get not only the location of the deuteron pole correct, but also the normalization of the deuteron s-state component. This had long been implemented in the methods of Parka ; Parkeft , and implicit in the construction of WeinbergWeinberg ; Bira , but was only recently implemented in the dimensionally regulated EFTPRSa . Finally, there are experimental efforts to measure the small isoscalar $`E2_S`$ and $`M1_S`$ amplitudes contributing to $`npd\gamma `$ using polarized neutrons on polarized protonsnppolexpt . At the second workshop on Effective Field Theory in Nuclear Physics held at the Institute for Nuclear Physics at the University of Washington in 1999, Mannque Rho challenged the participants to compute the $`E2_S`$ and $`M1_S`$ amplitudes with the group whose predictions are verified experimentally winning a bottle of exceptional wine. With such a wonderful prize at stake, many workshop participants redirected their efforts to this project. This is now known as the Rho-challenge.

### $`npd\gamma `$ for Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis 333I thank Gautam Rupak for allowing me to present his results in this section

As existing potential model calculations of $`npd\gamma `$ are undocumented and error estimates unavailable, a $`5\%`$ uncertainty was assigned to the cross section as input into BBN codesSKMa . It would be somewhat dismal if, after several decades of investigations into nuclear physics, the cross section for this process was uncertain at the $`5\%`$ level. However, EFT calculations have demonstrated that the actual uncertainty is much less than $`5\%`$. EFT is a well defined method of calculation and estimates of the uncertainty in a given calculation can be made by considering the magnitude of higher order terms that have been omitted. The expression for the cross section for $`npd\gamma `$ valid at the $`3\%`$ level (with nonrelativistic kinematics) is

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha \left(\gamma ^2+|𝐏|^2\right)^3}{\gamma ^3M_N^4|𝐏|}}\left[|\stackrel{~}{X}_{M1}|^2+|\stackrel{~}{X}_{E1}|^2\right].`$ (1)
The isovector $`M1_V`$ and $`E1_V`$ amplitudes are

$`|\stackrel{~}{X}_{M1}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1^2\gamma ^4\left(\frac{1}{a_1}\gamma \right)^2}{\left(\frac{1}{a_1^2}+|𝐏|^2\right)\left(\gamma ^2+|𝐏|^2\right)^2}}\left[Z_dr_0{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{\gamma }{a_1}+|𝐏|^2\right)|𝐏|^2}{\left(\frac{1}{a_1^2}+|𝐏|^2\right)\left(\frac{1}{a_1}\gamma \right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{np}}{\kappa _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2+|𝐏|^2}{\frac{1}{a_1}\gamma }}\right]`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{X}_{E1}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐏|^2M_N^2\gamma ^4}{\left(\gamma ^2+|𝐏|^2\right)^4}}\left[Z_d+{\displaystyle \frac{M_N\gamma }{6\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{3}}+|𝐏|^2\right)\overline{C}^{(P)}\right],`$ (2)
where $`\kappa _1`$ is the isovector nucleon magnetic moment, $`a_1=23.714\pm 0.013\mathrm{fm}`$ is the scattering length in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel, $`r_0=2.73\pm 0.03\mathrm{fm}`$ is the effective range in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel, $`\gamma =\sqrt{M_NB}`$ is the deuteron binding momentum, $`\overline{C}^{(P)}`$ is a number derivable from the nucleon-nucleon p-wave amplitudes, $`Z_d=1/(1\gamma \rho _d)`$ is the residue of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ nucleon-nucleon amplitude at the deuteron pole, and $`\rho _d`$ is the effective range in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel. There is also a contribution from an operator that is not related by gauge invariance to nucleon-nucleon scattering, $`L_{np}`$. This is the coefficient of a local operator involving four-nucleon fields and a magnetic photon. For incident neutrons with speed $`|v|=2200\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ the cross section for capture by protons at rest is measured to be $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cold}}^{\mathrm{expt}}=334.2\pm 0.5\mathrm{mb}`$CWCa . The value of $`L_{np}`$ is fixed by requiring that the expressions in eqs. (1) and (2) reproduce $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cold}}^{\mathrm{expt}}`$. The amplitudes in eq. (2) have been computed to one higher order by RupakRa , including relativistic effects and the appearance of an E1 counterterm, providing a $`1\%`$ calculation of $`npd\gamma `$. Once $`L_{np}`$ has been fixed, the photo-dissociation cross section $`\gamma dnp`$ can be determined, and is shown in Figure 4.

One finds that this relatively simple analytic expression reproduces the data very well, once the counterterm $`L_{np}`$ has been determined at a given energy. An idea of the convergence of the effective field theory calculation can be obtained from the numerical results of RupakRa ,

$`\sigma (2\mathrm{MeV})`$ $`=`$ $`0.0218\left(1+0.6389+0.01350.00530.0001+\mathrm{}\right)\mathrm{fm}^2`$
$`\sigma (20\mathrm{keV})`$ $`=`$ $`0.1917\left(1+0.1076+0.0001+\mathrm{}\right)\mathrm{fm}^2,`$ (3)
which are both seen to converge rapidly.

The cross section at various energies computed with EFT by RupakRa , along with those from the on-line nuclear data centerENDF  are shown in Table 1. As expected the EFT calculation agrees with the numerical values from ENDF  at the $`1\%`$ level.

### Isoscalar M1 and E2 Amplitudes in $`npd\gamma `$

As mentioned earlier, the Rho Challenge focused on the $`M1_S`$ and $`E2_S`$ isoscalar amplitudes that contribute to $`npd\gamma `$, so that predictions can be compared with the imminent measurement of polarization observablesnppolexpt . Two works were completed soon after the challenge was issued, one by Kubodera, Park, Min, and RhoPKMRnp , and one by Chen, Rupak and myselfCRSb .

There are a couple of angular distributions that can be measured in $`\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{p}d\gamma `$, but if in addition, the polarization of the $`\gamma `$ can be measured one finds that there is a different cross section for production of right-handed versus left-handed circularly polarized photons. Defining the asymmetry $`A^\gamma (\theta )`$ to be the ratio of the difference to the sum of these cross sections,

$`A_{\eta _\mathrm{n}}^\gamma (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _\mathrm{n}\left[\left(P_\gamma (M1)+P_\gamma (E2)\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta +P_\gamma (E1)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right],`$ (4)
where the $`P_\gamma (\mathrm{\Pi }L)`$ are combinations of the $`M1_V`$, $`M1_S`$, $`E1_V`$ and $`E2_S`$ amplitudes, and $`\eta _\mathrm{n}`$ is the neutron polarization vector.

The amplitudes and polarizations are computed in two very different ways. In PKMRnp  EFT wavefunctions are developed with a coordinate-space cut-off, which are then used to determine matrix elements of the various electric and magnetic multipole operators. Pions appear as dynamical degrees of freedom and determine the long-range part of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. In addition, counterterms are included via short-distance interactions (e.g. “delta-shell” and others) so that the magnetic and quadrupole moment of the deuteron are recovered. A very different construction is used in CRSb . The EFT without pions is used and divergences are dimensionally regulated. As in PKMRnp , the four-nucleon-one photon counterterms are chosen to recover the deuteron magnetic and quadrupole moments, to give $`P_\gamma (M1)=7.1\times 10^4`$, $`P_\gamma (E2)=3.5\times 10^4`$ and a total of $`P_\gamma =1.06\times 10^3`$ in the forward direction, approximately $`2/3`$ of the experimentally determined value ofBazh  $`P_\gamma ^{\mathrm{expt}}=(1.5\pm 0.3)\times 10^3`$. Given the large uncertainty in the calculation of the $`M1_S`$ amplitude, and the uncertainty of the measurement, the two are not inconsistent. $`P_\gamma (M1)=7.1\times 10^4`$ agrees with the results of Burichenko and KriplovichBKa  of $`P_\gamma (M1)=7.0\times 10^4`$ from a Reid soft-core calculation, but is somewhat less than their zero-range calculation of $`P_\gamma (M1)=9.2\times 10^4`$. However, given the large uncertainty in the $`M1_S`$ amplitude of CRSb , both values are consistent. $`P_\gamma (E2)=3.5\times 10^4`$ calculated in CRSb  agrees well with that computed in PKMRnp , and therefore these observables do not distinguish between the two EFT methods.

## Weak Interactions of the Deuteron

Weak interaction processes involving the deuteron are central to current research efforts in nuclear physics. In addition to the accelerator based programs to elucidate the flavor structure of the nucleon, such as the SAMPLE experimentsSAMPLE  at Bates, the interactions between neutrinos and the deuteron form the core of our efforts to learn about the neutrino and look beyond the standard model of electroweak interactions. Both in production, e.g. $`ppde^+\nu _e`$, and in detection at SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory), e.g. $`\nu _\mu d\nu _\mu np`$, charged and neutral current weak interaction matrix elements between the deuteron and continuum states are required.

Much effort over the past few decades has been put into calculating the production mechanism $`ppde^+\nu _e`$, both from standard non-relativistic quantum mechanicsPotBah , and from sophisticated potential model techniquesPotSch . Recently, EFT has been applied to this process by Kong and RavndalKRpp  and by Park, Kubodera, Min and RhoPKMRpp  giving elegant expressions and numerical values of the weak capture cross section that are consistent with previous estimates444 There has also been recent work in Ivan  that I have so far failed to comprehend.. The cross section depends somewhat on the value of a four-nucleon-one-weak-gauge-boson interaction, with coefficient $`L_{1,A}`$, as defined in BCa .

The detection reactions, $`\nu dnp\nu `$, $`\nu _ede^{}pp`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_ede^+nn`$ had been looked at by two groups, Ying, Haxton and Henley (YHH)YHH  and Kubodera and Nozawa (KN)KN , using sophisticated potential models. The two sets of calculations differ at the $`5\%`$ level, due to different treatments of meson-exchange currents (MEC). Recently, Butler and ChenBCa  have determined the break-up cross sections with EFT. Only $`L_{1,A}`$ needs to be fixed in order to perform a $`1\%`$ calculation. The YYH and KN numerical results can be recovered with different choices of $`L_{1,A}`$, as shown in Figure 5555 I thank Malcolm Butler and Jiunn-Wei Chen for allowing me to reproduce their figures,

confirming that the difference between the two potential-model calculations is short-distance in origin. Therefore, to predict the break-up cross section with a precision of better than $`5\%`$, one has two options. Firstly, compute the $`\beta `$-decay of tritium, and use this to determine the counterterm $`L_{1,A}`$ in the EFT, or equivalently the MEC’s in the potential models666 This method of fixing the MEC’s has already been implemented for $`ppde^+\nu _e`$PotSch . . Secondly, one can perform an experiment to measure one of the break-up cross sections to high accuracy, and thereby extract $`L_{1,A}`$, or the MEC’s. Such an experiment is currently under considerationAvig .

An important input into determining if neutrinos are changing flavor as they move out of the sun and to the earth is the ratio of charged current to neutral current cross sections. Figure 6 shows that this ratio, unlike the individual cross sections, is relatively insensitive to the counterterm $`L_{1,A}`$.

## Low-Energy Three-Body Processes

Significant progress has been made in understanding three-body systems with EFTthreebod ; triton . A couple of years ago, Bedaque, Hammer and van Kolck777I thank Paulo Bedaque, Hans-Werner Hammer and Bira van Kolck for allowing me to reproduce their figure. showed very clearly that low-energy $`Nd`$ scattering in the $`J=\frac{3}{2}^+`$ channel could be described by EFT using contact interactions alone. One of the more impressive results was the calculation of $`a_{\frac{3}{2}}`$, the scattering length in the quartet s-wave channel. Bedaque and van Kolck calculated the first three terms to be $`a_{\frac{3}{2}}=5.01+1.0+0.32+\mathrm{}\mathrm{fm}`$ where the ellipses denote higher order contributions, that are estimated to be $`\pm 0.1\mathrm{fm}`$. The calculated $`a_{\frac{3}{2}}=6.32\pm 0.1\mathrm{fm}`$ agrees very well888 Subsequent “second generation” potential-model calculations agree with this resultFHWPa . with the experimental $`a_{\frac{3}{2}}^{\mathrm{expt}}=6.35\pm 0.02\mathrm{fm}`$a32expt . The first term had been computed in 1957 by Skornyakov and Ter MartirosianSMa  while the second term was computed in 1991 by EfimovEfi . The third term had not been computed before and was determined unambiguously from the nucleon-nucleon scattering amplitude threebod . The results of extending this analysis to non-zero energythreebod  can be seen in Figure 7 and are found to agree well with data.

Scattering in higher partial waves has been examined by Bedaque, Gabbiani and GrießhammerBGGa  in the theory with only contact interactions between nucleons. A comparison between the EFT calculations999I thank Paulo Bedaque, Fabrizio Gabbiani and Harald Grießhammer for allowing me to reproduce their figure., sophisticated potential model calculations and data for one partial wave is shown in Figure 8.

Computations in the spin-doublet channel required much more development as local three-nucleon operators can contribute to the scattering amplitudetriton . The scale-dependence of the counterterm (more commonly known as the three-body force) is quite different from those that are familiar from perturbative field theory. Bedaque, Hammer and van Kolck showed that a single momentum independent counterterm could absorb all cut-off dependence from the leading operators resummed by the integral equation that describe three-body systems. The observed periodicity as a function of scale indicates that if a given calculation is performed with a given value of the cut-off, it is possible that the three-body “force” vanishes, while for a different value of the cut-off the three-body “force” may dominate. Further, the appearance of only one three-body counterterm required to render the scattering amplitude scale independent also naturally explains the Phillips line found in potential-models.

As a last comment on the three-body work, the techniques that have been developed in the nuclear physics setting are being applied to atomic systems, most notably scattering lengths and recombination rates in Bose condensatesBose .

## Issues at Higher Energies

The situation regarding the applicability of EFT’s at higher momentum, near or above the pion mass, is much less clear. In Weinberg’s schemeWeinberg , pion exchange and local four-nucleon operators contribute to nucleon-nucleon scattering at the same order in the expansion parameter. A great calculational and conceptual simplification would arise if the exchange of pions between nucleons could be treated in perturbation theory in all partial waves, as suggested by Kaplan, Wise and myself (KSW)KSW . Unfortunately, one of the more disappointing results found during the past year is that the EFT with perturbative pionsKSW  appears not to be converging FMSa  (also, see earlier work by Cohen and Hansencohen ). Fleming, Mehen and Stewart FMSa  performed an analytic calculation of the NNLO amplitude for nucleon-nucleon scattering in the theory with pions and KSW power-countingKSW . They found large non-analytic contributions that appear to destroy the convergence of the series. In contrast, several computations were performed with Weinberg’s power-counting Weinberg  for the nucleon-nucleon potential which appears to give converging amplitudes. However, the formal inconsistency of Weinbergs power-counting remains. Amplitudes are not renormalization (cut-off) independent at any order in Weinberg’s expansion, however, the cut-off dependence is found to be numerically small when renormalized at a typical strong interaction scale. Therefore, at this point in time there is no formally consistent, converging, perturbative EFT to describe nuclear interactions for momenta of order or higher than the mass of the pion.

To give you an idea of what has been attempted at these higher energies with both Weinberg and KSW power-counting, let me show you the results obtained for $`\gamma d\gamma d`$, deuteron Compton scattering. Three-orders in Weinberg’s counting have been completed for $`\gamma d\gamma d`$ at higher energiesBMPKa . The angular distribution of scattering photons at $`E_\gamma =69\mathrm{MeV}`$ is shown in Figure 9101010 I thank Daniel Phillips, Silas Beane and Bira van Kolck for allowing me to reproduce their figure..

One can see from Figure 9 that the expansion appears to be converging nicely to the experimental values. Similarly, $`\gamma d\gamma d`$ has been computed to two orders in KSW power-countingCGSSa , the results of which can be seen in Figure 10.

Very good agreement between data and the parameter free-prediction at NLO is found at $`E_\gamma =49\mathrm{MeV}`$. The agreement is somewhat worse at $`E_\gamma =69\mathrm{MeV}`$, and does not appear to be approaching the data in the same way that the calculation with Weinberg’s counting appears to. It is clear that higher order calculations must be performed once the perturbative pions versus non-perturbative pions issue is understood, and further, it is clear that more precise data is required at low-energies. It is worth mentioning at this point that neither counting schemes, nor any theoretical calculation that exists at present comes close to reproducing the recent data at $`E_\gamma =95\mathrm{MeV}`$sask .

There is much work still to be done in this area.

## On the Road to Nuclei

In parallel to the efforts that I have described in the two- and three-body sectors, Haxton and collaboratorswick  have been developing techniques to apply the ideas underpinning EFT to the nuclear shell model (efforts are ongoing by othersothers  but I will not discuss their work in this talk).

Before I discuss this work I wish to show you the results of a relatively simple but demonstrative calculation by PhillipsPhilT  (see also PCa ). To show how the ideas of EFT can be translated into a potential-model mode of thinking, Phillips compared the deuteron quadrupole form factor, presented as $`T_{20}`$, computed with the Nijmegen93 potentialNij  with that generated by an effective potential, $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^L(r)`$ (where $`L`$ denotes the orbital angular momentum state) and local quadrupole moment counterterm. The effective potential consists of one-pion exchange at long distances and a square-well at short-distances, $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^L(r)=V^{\mathrm{OPE}}(r)`$ for $`r>R`$, and $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^L(r)=V_{0,L}`$ for $`r<R`$. The values of the $`V_{0,L}`$ are chosen to reproduce the deuteron binding energy, and low-energy nucleon-nucleon scattering for each choice of $`R`$. Therefore, the long-distance behavior of the “true” potential and effective potential are identical. Further, the tail of the deuteron wave-function produced by the “true” potential and effective potential are identical. As one is brutalizing the nucleon-nucleon interaction at short-distances while preserving nucleon-nucleon scattering, it is expected that predictions for other observables, such as electromagnetic form factors, will deviate significantly from nature when probing distance scale comparable to or less than $`R`$, for reasonable values of $`R`$. In addition one expects to find that the static moments differ somewhat from nature. It was shown in CRSa ; KSWem  that such short-distance modifications can be compensated by the inclusion of gauge invariant local operators. In the case of the deuteron quadrupole moment it is necessary to introduce a four-nucleon-one-quadrupole-photon operator, that is in no way related to the operators determining nucleon-nucleon scattering. These operators are induced at the chiral symmetry breaking scale, and must be included in any consistent calculation, and in fact, their omission is responsible for the discrepancy between all sophisticated potential model calculations of the deuteron quadrupole momentQuadPot  and its experimental value. Phillips choose a value of this operator to reproduce the observed deuteron quadrupole moment for each value of $`R`$, and then predicted $`T_{20}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the effective theory, the results of which are shown in Figure 11111111 I thank Daniel Phillips for allowing me to reproduce his figure..

It is clear from Figure 11 that by fixing parameters in the effective theory to reproduce low-energy observables that, even with a nucleon-nucleon potential that has been brutalized at short-distances, one can essentially recover the “true” form factor over a quite impressive range of momentum transfers. This provides a very clear demonstration that $`T_{20}`$ is determined largely by the tail of the deuteron wavefunction, the OPE tail of the nucleon-nucleon interaction and the deuteron quadrupole moment. For potential model calculations to accurately determine $`T_{20}`$, they must first recover the deuteron quadrupole moment, and to do so they must include a four-nucleon quadrupole operatorCRSa ; KSWem .

A very similar exploration is ongoing by Haxton and collaborators wick . They are attempting to construct a model-space-independent shell model, and are presently focusing on the deuteron to optimize their techniques. The underpinnings of EFT are basis independent, and as such should be able to be implemented in both a plane-wave basis (PWB) or a harmonic oscillator basis (HOB). For a continuum process, obviously the PWB is preferable, but for a bound state it seems reasonable that a bound state basis, such as the HOB, will be optimal. In an HOB basis it is natural to integrate out the levels of the HO step by step to allow for an easier calculation in a reduced model-space. As each HO level is removed, the hamiltonian and coefficients of gauge invariant operators are redefined to preserve observables. This is a discrete analog of the renormalization group (RG) implemented in the PWB.

In Figure 12121212 I thank Wick Haxton for allowing me to reproduce his figure. the magnetic form factor of the deuteron $`F_{M1}(q)`$ is shown versus momentum transfer, where the $`n=50`$ calculation provides the “true” calculation. The other curves correspond to the same calculation, but with the insertion of the bare $`M1`$ operator in each reduced model space. The solid line, however, is not just the $`n=50`$ calculation but also the calculation from ALL reduced model-spaces when the renormalized $`M1`$ operator is inserted and NOT the bare operator. Clearly, a discrete RG can be implemented in an HOB.

One of the advantages of constructing a discrete RG for the nuclear shell model would be to greatly reduce the computer time required to compute matrix elements in a nucleus with $`A2`$. Presently, efforts are being made to reduce the shell-model space for the deuteron down from $`n=140`$, which reproduces the deuteron binding energy perfectly (by construction), down to $`n=20`$ or $`30`$ and faithfully reproduce all deuteron observables. Part of the effort is to include the short-range part of the nucleon-nucleon interaction by local operators. If successful, this program will allow for high precision computations of nuclear properties, with greatly increased speed.

## Discussion

I have tried to give you an overview of a number of important developments of the last year or so. At low-energies, high precision calculations, $`1\%`$ have been performed in the two-body sector, and progress is being made toward calculations of similar precision in the three-body sector.

At somewhat higher energies, a formally consistent and converging EFT describing nucleon-nucleon interactions is yet to be uncovered. Weinberg’s power-counting is formally ill-defined, yet gives numerical results that appear to be converging. In contrast, KSW power-counting is formally well-defined, yet appears not to be converging! I suspect, as do others, that some sort of union between the two power-countings may in fact be the correct one, but this is merely speculation.

Some of the more interesting developments this year were made in the implementation of EFT ideas in nuclear many-body calculations. There are indications that the EFT techniques may provide a means to compute properties of nuclei presently beyond reach. However, more work is required before any conclusions can be drawn.


text:
# The mean free path for electron conduction in metallic fullerenes

The electrical resistivity $`\rho `$ of a metal is usually interpreted in terms of the average distance $`l`$ an electron travels before it is scattered. As the temperature $`T`$ is raised, $`\rho `$ is increased and the apparent mean free path $`l`$ is correspondingly reduced. In this semi-classical picture $`l`$ cannot be (much) shorter than the distance $`d`$ between two atoms. This has been confirmed for many systems and was considered a universal behaviour. Recently, some apparent exceptions were found, e.g., alkali-doped Fullerenes and high temperature superconductors. These systems could, however, be in exotic states where only a small fraction of the conduction electrons contribute to the conductivity, and $`l`$ would then have to be correspondingly larger to explain the observed $`\rho `$. Here we report on an essentially exact calculation for a model of alkali-doped Fullerenes, where the electrons are scattered by intramolecular vibrations. The resistivity at large $`T`$ corresponds to $`ld`$, demonstrating that there is no fundamental principle of the type $`l>d`$. At large $`T`$ the semi-classical picture breaks down and the electrons cannot be described as quasi-particles.

We have also calculated the resistivity due to electron-electron scattering for a half-filled Hubbard model. In this case the resistivity saturates and $`l`$ is not very much smaller than $`d`$. This difference is traced to the difference between bosons and fermions. The resistivity is often calculated using the Boltzmann equation. Although this equation is usually derived semi-classically, assuming $`ld`$, in our model for electron-vibration scattering it does not break down qualitatively at large $`T`$, where $`ld`$. For small $`T`$ the calculated $`\rho `$ due to electron-vibration scattering has a linear dependence on $`T`$ and a strong dependence on the pressure, in agreement with experiment.

For A3C60 (A= K, Rb) at $`T500`$ K, the resistivity is $`\rho 25`$ m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm. Assuming a spherical Fermi surface and three conduction electrons per site, we find that $`l12`$ Å is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the separation $`d=10`$ Å of the C60 molecules. The experimental data have substantial uncertainties, but this is unlikely to influence the qualitative discussion of $`l`$. Different experimental methods (direct and optical) for different types of samples (thin films and doped single crystals) all suggest that $`ld`$ for large $`T`$. It has been suggested that the large $`\rho `$ is due to the electrons being scattered inside the molecules. This would imply scattering between bands separated by at least 1 eV, and it plays a fairly small role for experimental $`T`$. In addition, we find that this interband scattering reduces the resistivity by providing an additional channel for conduction.

The conduction in A3C60 takes place in a partly filled $`t_{1u}`$ band. The $`T`$-dependent part of the resistivity is assumed to be due to scattering against phonons (vibrations) with Hg symmetry. We therefore consider a model with a three-fold degenerate $`t_{1u}`$ level and a five-fold degenerate Hg Jahn-Teller phonon on each molecule, the hopping between the molecules and the coupling between the electrons and the phonons. The hopping takes into account the orientational disorder of the molecules. The one-particle band width is $`W=0.6`$ eV and the phonon frequency is $`\omega _{ph}`$. The coupling is determined by the dimensionless $`\lambda =(5/3)N(0)g^2/\omega _{ph}`$, where $`N(0)`$ is the density of states per spin, $`g`$ is the electron-phonon coupling constant and $`\omega _{ph}`$ is the phonon frequency.

We perform a finite temperature QMC calculation, treating the phonons quantum mechanically. We calculate the current-current correlation function for imaginary times and make a transformation to real frequencies, using a maximum entropy method. The QMC method has no “sign-problem”, and the resistivity of the model can be calculated essentially exactly down to quite small $`T`$.

Fig. 1 shows the resistivity for a cluster of 48 C60 molecules for $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`\omega _{ph}=0.2`$ eV. The QMC calculation (full line) shows that the resistivity can become very large, corresponding to $`l0.7`$ Å at $`T=0.5`$ eV. By also considering an unrealisticly large $`T`$, we emphasise the lack of a limitation of the type $`l>d`$. Then there cannot be any general principle requiring $`l>d`$, because such a principle would then also apply to the present model. Qualitatively similar result were obtained by Millis et al., using the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) and assuming classical phonons. Their calculation, however, does not prove that $`ld`$ is possible, since it involves approximations. The moderate differences to our results are probably due to different models and their use of classical phonons.

While the QMC calculation is essentially exact, it is hard to interpret the results. For this purpose we use a diagrammatic approach. The idea is to simplify the diagrams as far as possible without loosing the qualitative agreement with the QMC results. These diagrams are then studied to obtain a qualitative understanding of the results. This approach (Kubo formalism) requires the calculation of a bubble diagram including vertex corrections (see Fig. 2a). We neglect the vertex and calculate the bubble using the electron Green’s function from the QMC calculation. The resulting resistivity (dashed line in Fig. 1) is practically identical to the QMC result, justifying the neglect of vertex corrections for the present model. It was shown by Holstein that in the limit of a broad electronic band, all vertex corrections except ladder diagrams can be neglected and that a Boltzmann equation can be derived. Holstein’s derivation is not valid for the narrow band considered here, but our calculations show that his arguments are still rather accurate. For our model with a $`𝐪`$-independent electron-phonon coupling, even the ladder diagrams can be neglected. Essentially following Holstein we obtain approximately a Boltzmann like conductivity

$$\sigma (T)𝑑\omega N(\omega )(\frac{df(\omega )}{d\omega })\frac{1}{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )}|j_k|_{\epsilon _k=\omega }^2,$$
(1)
where $`N(\omega )`$ is the density of states, $`f`$ is the Fermi function, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ is the electron self-energy, $`j_k`$ is the current matrix element for a state with the label $`k`$ and the energy $`\epsilon _k`$. We interpret Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the inverse of the relaxation time. For a large $`T`$, Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ becomes comparable to or larger than the one-particle band width. Since Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is related to the inverse life-time of the quasi-particles, this means that the life-times become so short that the concept of a quasi-particle breaks down at large $`T`$.

The resistivity thus depends crucially on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. To understand its behavior, we consider the diagram in Fig. 2b calculated with bare Green’s functions and for simplicity neglecting the orbital degeneracy

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(𝐤,\omega )`$ (2)
$`=g^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{n_B(\omega _{ph})+1f(\epsilon _𝐪)}{\omega \omega _{ph}\epsilon _𝐪}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_B(\omega _{ph})+f(\epsilon _𝐪)}{\omega +\omega _{ph}\epsilon _𝐪}}],`$ (3)
where

$$n_B(\omega _{ph})=\frac{1}{e^{\omega _{ph}/T}1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{T\mathrm{}}\frac{T}{\omega _{ph}}$$
(4)
is the Bose occupation number. For large $`T`$, $`n_B`$ becomes large, leading to a large Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, a small $`\sigma `$ and a large $`\rho `$. The Bose nature of the phonons is therefore of crucial importance for our result.

This is further illustrated by comparing with the resistivity due to the electron-electron scattering. Using the DMFT we have calculated the resistivity for a nondegenerate Hubbard model on a Bethe lattice with $`d=1`$ Å. We focus on the half-filled case, which is relevant for A3C60, and we do not consider the case of a doped Mott insulator. The impurity problem is solved with a QMC method. Fig. 3 shows $`\rho (T)`$ for different values of the on-site Coulomb interaction $`U`$. For $`U/W<1`$ the system is a metal and $`\rho (T)`$ grows with $`T`$, while for $`U/W>1`$ it is an insulator and $`\rho (T)`$ decreases with $`T`$. The important observation is that in the metallic case $`\rho (T)`$ saturates at $`\rho 0.4`$ m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm, which corresponds to $`l/d1/3`$. Thus, in contrast to the electron-phonon scattering case, $`l`$ is not very much smaller than $`d`$ in the metallic state of this model and within DMFT.

To understand this, we study the electron self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to second order in $`U`$, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ determines $`\rho `$ in the DMFT. For low $`T`$, there is little scattering due to the small phase space available, as controlled by the Fermi functions. As $`T`$ increases, the available phase space grows and $`\rho `$ increases. However, for large $`T`$, $`\rho `$ essentially saturates, since the Fermi functions approach a constant value. This is in strong contrast to the Bose occupation numbers (Eq. (4)), which keep increasing with $`T`$. The qualitative difference between the two models for large $`T`$ can then be traced to the difference between fermions and bosons.

We now address the validity of the Boltzmann equation for the case of the electron-phonon scattering in view of $`ld`$. We have calculated the resistivity using the Ziman version of the Bloch-Grüneisen solution of the Boltzmann equation and added the resistivity due to the orientational disorder as a $`T`$-independent contribution. Using the plasma frequency $`\omega _p=1.2`$ eV, we obtain the dotted line in Fig. 1. The Boltzmann result is larger than the QMC result for large $`T`$, but there is no qualitative break down of the Boltzmann equation, although $`ld`$ and the quasi-particle concept is not applicable. The justification for the Boltzmann equation in this limit is not the semi-classical derivation, but the (approximate) derivation from the full quantum mechanical Kubo formulation (Eq. (1)). The proper language is not in terms of a very short mean free path, but in terms of a very broad spectral function (Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ large), as discussed above.

The QMC calculation gives an approximately linear $`T`$ dependence. This agrees with the experimental result that $`\rho `$ is linear down to about 100-200 K. although the linearity is not as pronounced as for some high temperature superconductors. The result may seem surprising, since at small $`T`$ the probability of exciting finite energy phonons is exponentially small as is the contribution to $`\rho `$. Calculating the bubble diagram in Fig. 2a using electron Green’s functions with the self-energy in Fig. 2b indeed gives an exponential behaviour. The use of the QMC Green’s function, however, gives a linear behavior, in agreement with the full QMC calculation. The reason is that the QMC Green’s function also involves processes like in Fig. 2c, where a virtual phonon is created followed by the decay of this phonon into an electron-hole pair. The excitation energy of such a pair can be arbitrarily small, leading to a quadratic $`T`$-dependence for $`\rho `$. In our model this goes over in an approximately linear behavior already for very small $`T`$.

Calculations for different values of $`\lambda `$ show a strong $`\lambda `$-dependence for small $`T`$. This is in agreement with the strong pressure dependence observed experimentally, since the application of pressure increases the band width and reduces $`N(0)`$ and thereby $`\lambda `$. For $`\lambda 1`$ there is a transition to an insulating state.

Our use of a fairly realistic model with a three-fold degenerate electronic level and a five-fold degenerate phonon is not crucial for the qualitative behaviour of $`\rho (T)`$, like $`ld`$ for large $`T`$. An essential feature is, however, the use of intramolecular phonons acting on a narrow band. The phonon induced shifts ($`T`$) of the $`t_{1u}`$ levels can be substantial compared with the small band width. It would be interesting to perform calculations for a model where the phonons couple to the hopping matrix elements and where interband transitions become important for large $`T`$. Such a model would be more relevant for, e.g., transition metal compounds, where the resistivity typically saturates when $`ld`$.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to M. Jarrell for making his MaxEnt program available and E. Koch for a careful reading of the manuscript. The work has been supported by the Max-Planck-Forschungspreis.

Correspondence and requests for materials should addressed to O.G.

(e-mail gunnar@and.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de)