text:
# Untitled Document

MONSTERS AT THE HEART OF GALAXY FORMATION1

John Kormendy2

Black holes with masses of $`10^6`$ – $`10^{9.5}`$ solar masses ($`M_{}`$) were invented in the 1960s to explain active galactic nuclei (AGNs) such as quasars (1 – 4). These supermassive black holes (BHs) stand in sharp contrast to ordinary black holes with masses of a few $`M_{}`$ that are well known to form when massive stars die. Supermassive black holes are more mysterious. Their origin is unknown, and their existence was a hypothesis. But it was a very successful hypothesis, and by the mid-1980s, an enormously complicated AGN paradigm had been developed based on BH engines (5, 6). The most immediate need then was to test whether dynamical evidence of BHs could be found. In the following decade, much effort was invested in looking for dark objects in galactic nuclei (7, 8). The evidence for them is now strong, and in two objects – our Galaxy and NGC 4258 – the dark mass must live inside such a small radius that astrophysically plausible alternatives to a BH can be excluded (9). Still, the emphasis was on checking and further developing the AGN paradigm. That is, the subject had not progressed much beyond its roots. BHs were studied mainly to understand the spectacular but restricted phenomena of AGNs.

This situation is changing rapidly. Surveys with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) are finding BHs in every galaxy that has an elliptical-galaxy-like “bulge” component (10). This strengthens hints from ground-based spectroscopy (11) that BHs are standard equipment in galaxy bulges. The observations imply that BH growth and galaxy formation are closely linked. The result is a profound change in how astronomers view BHs. More than just exotica needed to explain rare AGNs, they are becoming an integral part of our understanding of galaxy formation.

This change in perspective was much in evidence in an all-day session on BHs held on June 6, 2000, at the 196th meeting of the American Astronomical Society. At least 15 new detections were reported, bringing the total number of BHs available for study to at least 34.

The big news at the meeting was a new correlation between BH mass $`M_{}`$ and host galaxy properties that was announced independently by Karl Gebhardt (12, 13) and by Laura Ferrarese (14) and collaborators. More massive BHs live in galaxies whose stars have larger random velocities $`\sigma `$. The figure shows this correlation together with an older correlation (15, 7) between BH mass and the total luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{bulge}}`$ – surrogate for total mass – of the bulge. More massive BHs live in more massive bulges. This is not surprising: many properties of astronomical objects scale with mass. In the present case, more massive galaxies are expected to have more fuel to feed BHs. But the scatter in the $`M_{}`$$`L_{\mathrm{bulge}}`$ correlation is substantial, and a few galaxies stand out as having anomalously large or small BHs. Remarkably, the new correlation has essentially zero scatter. The figure shows all BH detections, but if the sample is restricted to the galaxies with the most accurate mass measurements, then the scatter is consistent with the error bars.

Tight correlations in astronomy have a history of leading to fundamental advances. In this case, the correlation implies a connection between galaxy formation and the process that feeds BHs, building them up to their present masses while making them shine as quasars. To be accreted onto a BH, fuel must be robbed of almost all of its angular momentum. This is difficult, so the process of “feeding the monster” is poorly understood (16). But tying BH growth to galaxy formation is useful progress. This is what the new correlation so nicely accomplishes.

1Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555

2Department of Astronomy, University of Texas at Austin, RLM 15.308, Austin, TX 78712, USA. E-mail: kormendy@astro.as.utexas.edu; URL: http://chandra.as.utexas.edu/$``$kormendy

The argument is as follows (17). The two correlations in the figure are almost equivalent, because bulge mass is proportional to $`\sigma ^2`$. But the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ correlation contains new information. BH mass is so closely connected with this new information that it fixes up the imperfect correlation with total mass and produces a correlation with $`\sigma `$ that has almost no scatter. What is this new information? Why, when a BH is unusually massive for its luminosity, is it also high in $`\sigma `$, so that exceptions in the left panel of the figure are not exceptions in the right panel? There are several possibilities. The stellar mass-to-light ratio could be anomalously large; by the virial theorem, equilibrium demands more velocity for more mass. This proves not to be the main effect. Instead, bulges with unusually high velocity dispersions are unusually compact: they have higher surface brightnesses and smaller radii than normal for their luminosities. Then the stars are closer together, so their gravitational forces on each other are larger, so they must move faster. We conclude that, when a galaxy is hotter than average, it underwent more dissipation than average and collapsed inside its dark halo to a smaller size and higher density than average. But if BHs are unusually massive whenever their bulges are unusually collapsed, then this strongly suggests that BH masses were determined by the bulge formation process.

In sharp contrast to their correlations with bulge properties, BHs do not correlate with galaxy disks. Pure disk galaxies – ones that lack a bulge component – must have BH mass fractions that are much smaller than the canonical 0.2 % that is implied by the $`M_{}`$$`L_{\mathrm{bulge}}`$ correlation. The best studied pure disk galaxy is our neighbor in the Local Group of galaxies, Messier 33. If disks contained BHs like bulges do, then M 33 should have a black hole of mass $`M_{}3\times 10^7`$ $`M_{}`$. But

Correlations of BH mass with properties of the bulge component of the host galaxy, i. e., (left) total luminosity in units of the luminosity of the sun and (right) mean velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ inside the radius $`r_e`$ that contains half of the light of the bulge (13, 17). It is important that the radius used be large enough so that $`\sigma `$ is not inflated by the BH. Apart from this, the dispersion could be averaged in radii that are substantially larger or smaller than $`r_e`$ without affecting the results. In both panels, filled circles indicate $`M_{}`$ measurements based on stellar dynamics, squares are based on ionized gas dynamics, and triangles are based on maser disk dynamics. Note that exceptions to the $`M_{}`$$`L_{\mathrm{bulge}}`$ correlation are not exceptions to the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ correlation.

HST spectroscopy shows that it cannot contain a BH more massive than 2000 $`M_{}`$. So BH growth is connected only with the process that forms bulges.

Bulges and elliptical galaxies (i. e., diskless bulges) form when galaxies collide and merge in a hierarchically clustering universe. Gravitational violence during mergers mixes orbits and redistributes energies and angular momenta; the result is that quiescently formed systems such as disks are turned into ellipsoids. At least in the nearby universe, gas dissipation is required to produce the high densities observed in bulges out of the low densities in disks. The new results on BHs suggest that the major events that form a bulge and the major growth phases of its BH – when it shone as an AGN – were the same events. The likely formation process is a series of dissipative mergers that fuel both starbursts and AGN activity.

The exact relationship between BH growth and bulge formation is not known. Some authors have suggested that BH growth happens before galaxy formation. For example, Silk and Rees (18) explore the idea that giant black holes come first and then regulate how much galaxy can form around them via the radiation pressure and gas outflows from the AGN. We also know that some BH mass is accreted after galaxy formation, because we observe low-level AGN activity in some old galaxies. What fraction of the mass is accreted before, during, and after galaxy formation is likely to be a subject of debate in the years to come.

However, a clear observational guide is provided by our best examples in the local universe of the formation of giant ellipticals. These are “ultraluminous infrared galaxies” or ULIRGs; i. e., infrared-bright galaxies with luminosities $`L`$ $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$$`10^{12}`$ $`L_{}`$. They are known to be mergers in progress that involve large-scale dissipative collapse. Sanders et al. (19, 20) have suggested that ULIRGs are quasars in formation. This idea led to a decade-long debate about whether ULIRGs are powered by active nuclei or by starbursts. Observations now suggest that both sides are correct: about 2/3 of the energy comes from starbursts and about 1/3 comes from nuclear activity (21, 22). In addition, submillimeter observations are finding high-redshift versions of ULIRGs from the quasar era (23). Again, many show AGN activity. ULIRG properties are entirely consistent with the suggestion that bulge formation, BH growth, and quasar activity all happen together.

Black holes affect galaxy formation in other ways, too. For example, some ellipticals have “cuspy cores”, i. e., density distributions that break at small radii from steep outer power laws to shallow inner power laws. Faber et al. (24) suggest that these cores may be produced via the orbital decay of binary BHs. When two galaxies merge, their BHs form a binary once violent relaxation has finished making an elliptical. After that, the BHs sink toward the center by flinging stars away. This reduces the stellar density and may produce a break in the density profile.

Another possible way to make cores involves energy feedback from AGNs (18). If BHs are fed by the same dissipative collapse that makes bulges, then the resulting AGN is easily energetic enough to affect the gas that is trying to collapse toward the BH. It may prevent enough collapse to produce the deficit of stars that we see as the core.

Neither process is well studied, and neither is known to be the correct explanation of cores. But both are examples of how BHs may be a necessary ingredient in our understanding of galaxy formation. The developing interconnection between BHs and other work on galaxy formation is one reason why the combined picture is compelling.

Further progress is likely to be rapid. We have just entered one of the major payoff periods of the Hubble Space Telescope. The search for supermassive black holes was always a major goal of the telescope. Since the 1997 installation of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), the search has become much more efficient, because STIS samples light from a one-dimensional slit rather than from a single aperture. Many groups are conducting BH surveys. The next few years should produce more detections than we have had in the past 15 years of the BH search.

I thank the Nuker team (D. Richstone, PI) for many years of fruitful collaboration and stimulating discussion of the above topics. The Nuker team is supported by HST data analysis funds through grants GO-02600.01-87A and GO-07388.01-96A. I also thank the STIS GTO team (BH PI Richard Green) for communicating their results before publication.

References

1. Zel’dovich, Ya. B. 1964, Soviet Physics – Doklady, 9, 195

2. Salpeter, E. E. 1964, Astrophys. J., 140, 796

3. Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690

4. Lynden-Bell, D. 1978, Physica Scripta, 17, 185

5. Rees, M. J. 1984, Annu. Rev. Astr. Astrophys., 22, 471

6. Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., Rees, M. J. 1984. Rev. Mod. Phys., 56, 255

7. Kormendy, J., Richstone, D. 1995, Annu. Rev. Astr. Astrophys., 33, 581

8. Richstone, D., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, A14

9. Maoz, E. 1998, Astrophys. J. (Letters), 494, L181

10. Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, in preparation

11. Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, Astr. J., 115, 2285

12. Kormendy, J., Gebhardt, K., Richstone, D. 2000, Bull. A. A. S., 32, 702

13. Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, Astrophys. J. (Letters), in press (astro-ph/0006289)

14. Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D. 2000, Astrophys. J. (Letters), in press (astro-ph/0006053)

15. Kormendy, J. 1993, in The Nearest Active Galaxies, ed. J. Beckman, L. Colina, H. Netzer (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), 197

16. Gunn, J. E. 1979, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed. C. Hazard, S. Mitton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 213

17. Kormendy, J., et al. 2000, in preparation

18. Silk, J., Rees, M. J. 1998, Astr. Ap., 331, L1

19. Sanders, D. B., et al. 1988a, Astrophys. J., 325, 74

20. Sanders, D. B., et al. 1988b, Astrophys. J. (Letters), 328 L35

21. Genzel, R., et al. 1998, Astrophys. J., 498, 579

22. Lutz, D., et al. 1998, Astrophys. J. (Letters), 505, L103

23. Ivison, R. J., et al. 2000, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc., in press (astro-ph/9911069)

24. Faber, S. M., et al. 1997, Astr. J., 114, 1771


format: text

text:
# 1 Hysteresis loops of period 4ns for flat-ended nanoscale pillars described in the text. One is at 𝑇=0K (solid) and two at 𝑇=100K (dotted).

## Abstract

Numerical integration of the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with thermal fluctuations is used to study the dynamic response of single-domain nanomagnets to rapid changes in the applied magnetic field. The simulation can resolve magnetization patterns within nanomagnets and uses the Fast Multipole method to calculate dipole-dipole interactions efficiently. The thermal fluctuations play an essential part in the reversal process whenever the applied field is less than the zero-temperature coercive field. In this situation pillar-shaped nanomagnets are found to reverse through a local curling mode that involves the formation and propagation of a domain wall. Tapering the ends of the pillars to reduce pole-avoidance effects changes the energies involved but not the fundamental process. The statistical distribution of switching times is well described by the independent nucleation and subsequent growth of regions of reversed magnetization at both ends of the pillar.

Magnetic nanoparticles are important components of nanotechnology. Previously, Ising models, which describe only highly anisotropic materials, have been used to understand thermally activated switching in single-domain magnets . Single-domain magnets with dimensions of only a few nanometers are being manufactured and measured, for instance, using scanning microscopy techniques . We have chosen these nanomagnets as a specific system in which to investigate magnetization switching with more realistic computational models of magnetic materials.

Here magnetic materials are modeled by position-dependent magnetization density vectors $`𝐌(𝐫)`$ with fixed length $`M_s`$, that precess around the local field $`𝐇(𝐫)`$ according to the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation

$$\frac{d𝐌(𝐫)}{dt}=\frac{\gamma _0}{1+\alpha ^2}𝐌(𝐫)\times \left[𝐇(𝐫)\frac{\alpha }{M_s}𝐌(𝐫)\times 𝐇(𝐫)\right],$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _0=1.76\times 10^7\mathrm{Hz}/\mathrm{Oe}`$ is the electron gyromagnetic ratio and $`\alpha `$ is a phenomenological damping parameter. The value $`\alpha =0.1`$ was chosen to give an underdamped system. The saturation magnetization $`M_s=1700\mathrm{emu}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and the exchange length $`\mathrm{}_x=2.6\mathrm{nm}`$ were chosen to match those of bulk iron. Numerical integration of Eq. (1) was carried out using a finite-differencing scheme with $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=1.5\mathrm{nm}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=5\times 10^5\mathrm{ns}`$. The local field includes exchange interactions, dipole-dipole interactions, and thermal fluctuations. Details of the numerical approach will appear in Ref. .

Here we consider nanomagnets with square cross sections of side $`9\mathrm{nm}`$. One geometry has flat ends, and is $`150\mathrm{nm}`$ along the $`z`$-direction . A simulated hysteresis loop at $`T=0\mathrm{K}`$ with a period of $`4\mathrm{ns}`$ for this system is shown in Fig. 1. There is no crystalline anisotropy included in the model, but the shape anisotropy is quite strong, giving a coercive field of about $`1875\mathrm{Oe}`$ . Even for these extremely fast loops, for a significant amount of time the magnet experiences a field just below the coercive field, and thermal fluctuations can carry the magnetization through the configuration associated with the energy barrier. Some hysteresis loops simulated at $`T=100\mathrm{K}`$ are also shown in Fig. 1 to illustrate the extent of this effect.

A more dramatic way to see the effects of thermal fluctuations on the reversal of the magnetization is to hold the magnitude of the applied field fixed just below the coercive field. This traps the magnetization in a shallow metastable energy well, and thermal fluctuations become an essential part of the reversal process. Snapshots of the $`z`$-component of the magnetization separated by $`0.05\mathrm{ns}`$ are shown in Fig. 2(a). The end caps associated with pole avoidance become strong in an antiparallel field, and thermal fluctuations affect their volume. The reversal starts when thermal fluctuations make one of these regions supercritical , after which it propagates at a constant rate towards the other end of the magnet. Tapering the ends of the magnet reduces the pole-avoidance effects, and hence affects the end caps. However, the switching is still characterized by nucleation at the ends; an example is shown in Fig. 2(b) for pillars $`227\mathrm{nm}`$ tall. The major effect we have observed of the tapering is an increase in the coercive field.

A simple model based on independent nucleation at the ends, followed by constant growth, allows calculation of the probability of not switching before time $`t`$ to be

$$P_{\mathrm{not}}\left(t\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill t<t_0\\ e^{2(tt_0)}\left[1+2(tt_0)\right]\hfill & \hfill t_0t<2t_0\\ e^{2(tt_0)}\left[1+2t_0\right]\hfill & \hfill 2t_0t\end{array},$$
(2)
where $`t_0`$ is the earliest time at which a pillar can switch (when both ends start growing at $`t`$$`=`$$`0`$) and $``$ is the nucleation rate for each end. This form is compared to the simulation results for both pillars with flat and tapered ends in Fig. 3. The biggest obstacle to testing Eq. (2) is generating sufficient statistics for the longest and shortest switching times .

In summary, thermal fluctuations and dipole-dipole interactions have been included in a three-dimensional model of single-domain nanoscale magnetic pillars. Simulated dynamics using the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with thermal noise show that magnetization switching in the pillars occurs as the end caps nucleate, grow, and eventually coalesce. A simple model based on the thermally-activated nucleation of end caps for subcoercive fields gives a reasonable description of the simulation results for $`P_{\mathrm{not}}(t)`$.

Supported by NSF grant No. DMR-9871455, U.S. DOE, NERSC, and by FSU/SCRI, FSU/CSIT, and FSU/MARTECH.


text:
# Stochastic Stability

## Introduction

In this talk I will underline the physical meaning of replica symmetry breaking MPV ; PABOOK ; CINQUE . In this framework I will introduce the principle of Stochastic Stability: I will present its far reaching consequences on the equilibrium properties of the system and on the off-equilibrium behaviour.

## The coexistence of many phases

Usually, if a system has different phases which are separated by a first order transition, just at the phase transition point a very interesting phenomenon is present: phase coexistence. This usually happens if we tune one parameter. This behaviour is summarized by the Gibbs rule which states that, in absence of symmetries, we have to tune $`n`$ parameters in order to have the coexistence of $`n+1`$ phases.

In the case of complex systems we have that the opposite situation is valid: the number of phases is very large for a generic choice of parameters. It is usual to assume that all these states are globally very similar: states can be separated only by comparing one state with an other. An example of this phenomenon would be a very long heteropolymer, e.g, a protein or RNA, which folds in many different structures. However quite different foldings may have a very similar density. Of course you will discover that two proteins have folded in two different structures if we compare them.

In order to be precise we should consider a large but (finite) system CINQUE . We want to decompose the phase state in valleys (phases, states) separated by barriers. If the free energy as function of the configuration space has many minima, the number of states will be very large.

Let us consider for definitiveness a spin system with $`N`$ points (spins are labeled by $`i`$, which in some cases will be a lattice point). States (labeled by $`\alpha `$) are characterized by different local magnetizations: $`m_\alpha (i)=\sigma (i)_\alpha ,`$ where $`_\alpha `$ is the expectation value in the valley labeled by $`\alpha `$. The average done with the Boltzmann distribution is denoted as $``$ and it can be written as linear combinations of the averages inside the valleys. We have the relation:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}w_\alpha _\alpha .$$
(1)
We can also write the relation $`w_\alpha \mathrm{exp}(\beta F_\alpha )`$, where by definition $`F_\alpha `$ is the free energy of the valley labeled by $`\alpha `$.

In the rest of this talk I will call $`J`$ the control parameters of the systems. The average over $`J`$ will be denoted by a bar (e.g. $`\overline{F}`$). I will consider here the case where a quenched disorder is present: the variables $`J`$ parametrize the quenched disorder.

## The overlap and its probabilities

We have already remarked, states may be separated making a comparison among them. At this end it is convenient to consider their mutual overlap. Given two configurations, we define their overlap:

$$q[\sigma ,\tau ]=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1,N}{}\sigma (i)\tau (i).$$
(2)
The overlap among the states is defined as

$$q(\alpha ,\gamma )=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1,N}{}m_\alpha (i)m_\gamma (i)q[\sigma ,\tau ],$$
(3)
where $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are two generic configurations that belong to the states $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ respectively.

We define $`P_J(q)`$ as probability distribution of the overlap $`q`$ at given $`J`$, i.e. the histogram of $`q[\sigma ,\tau ]`$, where $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are two equilibrium configurations. Using eq. (1), one finds that

$$P_J(q)=\underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{}w_\alpha w_\gamma \delta (qq_{\alpha ,\gamma }),$$
(4)
where in a finite volume system the delta functions are smoothed. If there is more than one state, $`P_J(q)`$ is not a single delta function:

$$P_J(q)\delta (qq_{EA}).$$
(5)
If this happens we say that the replica symmetry is broken: two identical replicas of the same system may state in a quite different state. However at zero magnetic field $`P_J(q)`$ is an even function, so that at low temperature it will contains two delta functions at $`|q|0`$.

There are many models where the function $`P_J(q)`$ is non trivial: a well known example is given by Ising spin glasses MPV ; BY ; FiHe . In this case the Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\underset{i,k}{}J_{i,k}\sigma _i\sigma _k\underset{i}{}h_i\sigma _i,$$
(6)
where $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ are the spins. The variables $`J`$ are random couplings (e.g. Gaussian or $`\pm 1`$) and the variables $`h_i`$ are the magnetic fields, which may be point dependent.

Let is consider two different models for spin glasses:

a) The Sherrington Kirkpatrick model (infinite range): all $`N`$ points are connected: $`J_{i,k}=O(N^{1/2})`$. Eventually $`N`$ goes to infinity.

b) Short range models: $`i`$ belongs to a $`L^D`$ lattice. The interaction is nearest neighbour (the variables $`J`$ are or zero or of order 1) and eventually $`L`$ goes to infinity at fixed $`D`$ (e.g. $`D=3`$).

Analytic studies have been done in the case of the SK model, where one can prove rigorously that the function $`P_J(q)`$ is non-trivial. In the finite dimensional case a homologous theorem has not been proved and in order to answer to the question if the function $`P_J(q)`$ is trivial we must resort to some numerical simulations romani-young  or to experiments.

In this case numerical simulations present ample evidence that in three and four dimensions the function $`P_J(q)`$ is non-trivial, i.e. at zero magnetic field it is not the sum of two delta functions: this can be seen looking to the average of $`P_J(q)`$, shown fig. (1) from YYY . We will see later that the the function $`P_J(q)`$ strongly depends on $`J`$.

## Stochastic stability

In the nutshell stochastic stability states that the system we are considering behaves like a generic random system guerra ; aizenman ; PARI . Technically speaking in order to formulate stochastic stability we have to consider the statistical properties of the system with Hamiltonian given by the original Hamiltonian ($`H`$) plus a random perturbation ($`H_R`$):

$$H(ϵ)=H+ϵH_R.$$
(7)
Stochastic stability states that all the properties of the system are smooth functions of $`ϵ`$ around $`ϵ=0`$, after the appropriate averages over the original Hamiltonian and the random Hamiltonian.

Typical examples of random perturbations are (we can chose the value of $`r`$ in an arbitrary way):

$$H_R^{(r)}=N^{(r1)/2}\underset{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}{}R(i_1\mathrm{}i_r)\sigma (i_1)\mathrm{}\sigma (i_r),$$
(8)
where for simplicity we can restrict ourselves to the case where the variables $`R`$ are random uncorrelated Gaussian variables.

It useful to remark that if a symmetry is present, a system cannot be stochastically stable. Indeed spin glasses may be stochastically stable only in the presence of a finite, non zero magnetic field which breaks the $`\sigma \sigma `$ symmetry. If a symmetry is present, stochastic stability may be valid only for those quantities which are invariant under the action of the symmetry group. It is also remarkable that the union of two non-trivial uncoupled stochastically stable systems is not stochastically stable. Therefore a non-trivial stochastically stable system cannot be decomposed as the union of two or more parts whose interaction can be neglected.

In the general case stochastic stability implies that

$$P(q_1,q_2)\overline{P_J(q_1)P_J(q_2)}=\frac{2}{3}P(q_1)P(q_2)+\frac{1}{3}P(q_1)\delta (q_1q_2).$$
(9)
A particular case of the previous relation is the following one:

$$\overline{q^2^2}=\frac{1}{3}\overline{q^4}+\frac{2}{3}\overline{q^2}^2.$$
(10)
We have tested the previous relations in three dimensions as function of the temperature at different values of $`L`$ CINQUE . In fig. 2 we plot the quantity $`\overline{q^2^2}(\frac{1}{3}\overline{q^4}+\frac{2}{3}\overline{q^2}^2)`$, which should be equal to zero. Indeed it is very small and its values decreases with $`L`$. The two quantities in eq. (10) in the low temperature region are a factor of $`10^3`$ bigger of their difference. I believe that there should be few doubts on the fact that stochastic stability is satisfied for three dimensional spin glasses.

## Off-equilibrium dynamics

The general problem that we face is to find what happens if the system is carried in a slightly off equilibrium situation. There are two ways in which this can be done.

a) We rapidly cool the system starting from a random (high temperature) configuration at time zero and we wait a time much longer than the microscopical one. The system orders at distances smaller that a coherence distance $`\xi (t)`$ (which eventually diverges when $`t`$ goes to infinity) but remains always disordered at distances larger than $`\xi (t)`$.

b) A second possibility consists in forcing the system in an off-equilibrium state by gently shaking it. This can be done for example by adding a small time dependent magnetic field, which should however strong enough force a large scale rearrangement of the system TRE .

In the first case we have the phenomenon of ageing. This effects may be evidenziated if we define a two time correlation function and two time relaxation function (we cool the system at time 0) cuku ; frame . The correlation function is defined to be

$$C(t,t_w)\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i(t_w)\sigma _i(t_w+t),$$
(11)
which is equal to the overlap $`q(t_w,t_w+t)`$ among a configuration at time $`t_w`$ and one at time $`t_w+t`$. The relaxation function $`S(t,t_w)`$ is a just given by

$$S(t,t_w)=\beta ^1\underset{\delta h0}{lim}\frac{\delta m(t+t_w)}{\delta h},$$
(12)
where $`\delta m`$ is the variation of the magnetization when we add a magnetic field $`\delta h`$ starting from time $`t_w`$. More generally we can introduce the time dependent Hamiltonian:

$$H=H_0+\theta (tt_w)\underset{i}{}h_i\sigma _i.$$
(13)
The relaxation function is thus defined as:

$$\beta S(t,t_w)\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\sigma _i(t_w+t)}{h_i}.$$
(14)
We can distinguish two situations:

* For $`t<<t_w`$ we stay in the quasi-equilibrium regime FV , $`C(t,t_w)C_{\mathrm{eq}}(t)`$, where $`C_{\mathrm{eq}}(t)`$ is the equilibrium correlation function; in this case $`q_{EA}lim_t\mathrm{}lim_{t_w\mathrm{}}C(t,t_w)`$.
* For $`t=O(t_w)`$ or larger we stay in the aging regime. If simple aging holds $`C(t,t_w)𝒞(t/t_w)`$.

In the equilibrium regime, if we plot parametrically the relaxation function as function of the correlation, we find that

$$\frac{dS}{dC}=1,$$
(15)
which is a compact way of writing the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.

Generally speaking the fluctuation-dissipation theorem is not valid in the off-equilibrium regime. In this case one can use stochastic stability to derive a relation among statics properties and the form of the function $`S(C)`$ measured in off-equilibrium experiments cuku ; frame ; QUATTRO :

$$\frac{dS}{dC}=_0^C𝑑qP(q)X(C).$$
(16)
The validity of these relation has been intensively checked in numerical experiments (see for example fig. (3) from SG ).

In spin glasses the relaxation function has been experimentally measured many times in the aging regime, while the correlation function has not been measured: it is a much more difficult experiment in which one has to measure thermal fluctuations. Fortunately enough measurements of both quantities for spin glasses are in now progress. It would be extremely interesting to see if they agree with the theoretical predictions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Blazars can be classified also by the shape of their overall SED, as “red” or “blue” objects whether the peak of the synchrotron emission (in a $`\nu F_\nu `$ representation) lies in the IR–optical or UV–soft-X band, respectively. In the X–ray band this distinction becomes quite apparent, since “red” objects show a flat ($`\alpha _x<1`$) inverse Compton spectrum, while “blue” objects show a steep ($`\alpha _x>1`$) spectrum, due to the tail of the synchrotron emission. It was believed that FSRQs showed exclusively “red” properties, while BLLacs were found with either “red” (LBLs, mainly radio selected) or “blue” properties (HBLs, mainly X–ray selected). Recently however, new surveys like the DXRBS (Perlman et al. 1998), the RGB (Laurent–Muehleisen et al. 1998) and the REX (Caccianiga et al. 1999) are revealing a more complete scenario, thanks to the covering of regions of the parameters space previously unexplored (in $`F_x`$, $`F_r`$ and broad band spectral indices $`\alpha _{rx}`$, $`\alpha _{ro}`$ and $`\alpha _{ox}`$). Among FSRQs, they have discovered a new type of objects, with broad band spectral indices very similar to HBLs, which qualify them as “blue quasar” candidates, the missing counterpart in a possible FSRQ–BL Lac simmetric scenario (further details and the BeppoSAX discover of the first “blue” FSRQ in Padovani et al. 2000, in preparation). Among BLLacs, these surveys are showing that they actually form a continuous class with respect to the peak of the synchrotron emission, which smoothly ranges between IR and soft–X frequencies (and up to the 2–10 keV band for some “extreme” sources like Mkn 421). Another interesting question is if there exists a limit at the blue end of the sequence. In fact, the BeppoSAX observations of Mkn 501 (Pian et al. 1997) and 1ES 2344+514 (Giommi et al. 1997) have revealed that, at least in a flaring state, the synchrotron peak can reach even higher energies, around or above 100 keV. In these cases the X–ray slope in the 1–10 keV band is flat even if the radiation process is synchrotron. Here we report on the BeppoSAX observing campaign performed with the aim of finding and studying other sources as “extreme” as Mkn 501 in flaring state.

Tab. 1 - LECS+MECS best fit parameters

## 2 Extreme BL Lacs

Our candidates have been selected from the Einstein Slew Survey and the RASSBSC catalogues. The selection criteria were based on properties suggesting a high $`\nu _{peak}`$: a) very high $`F_x/F_{radio}`$ ratio ($`>3\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 / Jy, at \[0.1–2.4\] keV and 5 GHz, respectively); b) flat X–ray spectrum (when available), connecting smoothly with the flux at lower frequencies; c) appropriate values of $`\alpha _{ro}`$, $`\alpha _{ox}`$ and $`\alpha _{rx}`$ (Padovani & Giommi 1995). A high X–ray flux ($`>10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1) was also requested, to achieve a good detection in the PDS instrument. In Table 1 the main results for the first 4 sources observed by BeppoSAX are reported. All have been detected in the PDS band. For three of them the spectrum is best fitted with a convex broken power–law: this locates the peak of the synchrotron emission at 1–4 keV, thus confirming the “extreme” nature of these sources. The spectrum of 1ES 1426+428 is instead well fitted by a single power–law, with a flat spectral index ($`\alpha =0.92`$) up to 100 keV, thus constraining the synchrotron peak to lie near or above 100 keV. This result was not straightforward, due to the presence of the quasar GB 1428+422 (Fabian et al. 1998) at 41 arcmin, i.e. inside the PDS f.o.v. ($`1.3^{}`$ FWHM) but outside the imaging instruments’ f.o.v. ($`28^{}`$ radius, for the MECS). However, for a lucky coincidence, BeppoSAX observed both sources only four days apart: thanks to the collaboration between the two proposing groups, we have been able to estimate the inter–contamination. The strategy has been to add the LECS$`+`$MECS best fit model of one source into the PDS model for the LECS$`+`$MECS$`+`$PDS fit of the other source, after accounting for the instrument off–axis response, and cross–checking the results for consistency. As shown in Fig. 1 (left) the PDS points remain slightly above the flat ($`\alpha _x=0.92`$) powerlaw, with no sign of declining, up to 100 keV. This result remains unchanged even in the hypothesis, for GB 1428+422, of a variability of a factor $``$4 in 4 days, from $`F_{1keV}=0.30\mu `$Jy to $`F_{1keV}=1.44\mu `$Jy (more details in Costamante et al., in preparation). Note that the observed X–ray flux of 1ES 1426+428 (the source is monitored by XTE) was not particularly high: this suggests that the object, unlike the others “over 100 keV” sources, was not in a flaring state during the BeppoSAX observation. It is then likely that 1ES 1426+428 is the first source found in a “quiescent extreme” state, offering us the best opportunity to study the acceleration mechanism at its limit. It is interesting also to study the relation between the broad spectral index $`\alpha _{rx}`$ and the frequency of the synchrotron peak: compared to the HBLs data in Wolter et al. (1998), the “extreme” BLLacs parameters suggest a flattening at high frequencies of the correlation between $`\alpha _{rx}`$ and $`\nu _{peak}`$ (see Fig. 1, right). This behaviour is expected in a scenario in which the synchrotron peak moves smoothly from lower to higher energies: as long as the radio and X–ray bands are observing different branches of the synchrotron emission (before and after the peak), radio and X fluxes change differently as the peak shifts towards higher frequencies, thus changing $`\alpha _{rx}`$. When the peak moves into the X–ray band and beyond, both bands start observing the same branch of the emission, and so both fluxes change similarly as the peak moves further. Consequently $`\alpha _{rx}`$ stabilizes at a common (flat) value.

For all these 4 sources, the high values of the synchrotron peak frequencies make them good candidates for TeV emission through the Inverse Compton mechanism.

## Acknowledgements

L.C. thanks the STScI Visitor Program and the Cariplo Foundation for support.


text:
# Limit on Lorentz and CPT Violation of the Neutron Using a Two-Species Noble-Gas Maser

## Abstract

A search for sidereal variations in the frequency difference between co-located 129Xe and 3He Zeeman masers sets the most stringent limit to date on leading-order Lorentz and CPT violation involving the neutron, consistent with no effect at the level of $`10^{31}`$ GeV.

Lorentz symmetry is a fundamental feature of modern descriptions of nature, including both the standard model of particle physics and general relativity. However, these realistic theories are believed to be the low-energy limit of a single fundamental theory at the Planck scale. Even if the underlying theory is Lorentz invariant, spontaneous symmetry breaking might result in small apparent violations of Lorentz invariance at an observable level. Experimental investigations of the validity of Lorentz symmetry therefore provide valuable tests of the framework of modern theoretical physics.

Clock-comparison experiments  serve as sensitive probes of rotation invariance and hence of Lorentz symmetry, essentially by bounding the frequency variation of a clock as its orientation changes. In practice, the most precise limits are obtained by comparing the frequencies of two different co-located clocks as they rotate with the Earth. Typically, the clocks are electromagnetic signals emitted or absorbed on hyperfine or Zeeman transitions.

Here, we report on a search for sidereal variations in the frequency of co-located 129Xe and 3He masers, both operating on nuclear spin-$`1/2`$ Zeeman transitions. In the context of a general standard-model extension allowing for the possibility of Lorentz and CPT violation , the 129Xe/3He-maser experiment sets the most stringent limit to date on leading order Lorentz and CPT violation of the neutron: about $`10^{31}`$ GeV, or more than six times better than the best previous measurements .

The standard-model extension motivating this experiment emerges from any underlying theory that generates the standard model and contains spontaneous Lorentz violation . For example, this might occur in string theory . The standard-model extension maintains theoretically desirable properties of the usual standard model . Its formulation at the level of the known elementary particles is a key feature enabling quantitative comparison of a wide array of tests of Lorentz and CPT symmetry. In this context, theoretical studies have been performed to investigate the sensitivity of clock-comparison experiments , tests of QED in Penning traps , experiments with a spin-polarized torsion pendulum , hydrogen-antihydrogen spectroscopy , studies of photon birefringence in the vacuum , observations of muons , measurements of neutral-meson oscillations , studies of the baryon asymmetry , and observations of cosmic rays .

In the context of the standard-model extension, the most sensitive prior clock-comparison experiment is the 199Hg/133Cs comparison of Hunter, Lamoreaux et al. . Recent experimental work motivated by the standard-model extension includes Penning trap tests by Gabrielse et al. on the antiproton and the H- ion  and by Dehmelt et al. on the electron and positron . A reanalysis by Adelberger, Gundlach, Heckel, and co-workers of existing data from a spin-polarized torsion pendulum experiment  sets the most stringent bound to date on Lorentz and CPT violation of the electron, at about $`10^{28}`$ GeV . A recent Lorentz-symmetry test using hydrogen masers has searched for Zeeman-frequency sidereal variations, placing a bound on Lorentz violation at the level of $`10^{27}`$ GeV . Together with the results of Ref. , this implies an improved clean limit of $`10^{27}`$ GeV on Lorentz-violating couplings involving the proton. Also, the KTeV experiment at Fermilab and the OPAL and DELPHI collaborations at CERN have constrained possible Lorentz- and CPT-violating effects in the $`K`$ and $`B_d`$ systems .

The standard-model extension predicts that the leading-order Lorentz- and CPT-violating correction to the 3He-maser frequency, using the 129Xe maser as a co-magnetometer, is :

$$2\pi \left|\delta \nu _J\right|=\left|3.5\stackrel{~}{b}_J^n+0.012\stackrel{~}{d}_J^n+0.012\stackrel{~}{g}_J^n\right|.$$
(1)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_J^n`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_J^n`$ are small parameters characterizing the strength of Lorentz-violating couplings of the neutron to possible background tensor fields that may arise from spontaneous symmetry breaking in a fundamental theory. The couplings associated with $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_J^n`$ also violate CPT. All three parameters are linear combinations of more basic quantities in the underlying relativistic Lagrangian of the standard-model extension .

In the analysis leading to Eq. (1), the Lorentz-violating coupling of either the 3He or 129Xe nucleus has been taken as that of a single $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{1/2}^{}`$ valence neutron in a Schmidt model . The parameters appearing in Eq. (1) are therefore associated only with neutron couplings, as indicated by the superscript $`n`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_J^n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_J^n`$. Equation (1) also assumes that the applied magnetic field, which sets the quantization axis of the experiment, is directed east-west in the Earth’s reference frame. The subscript $`J=X,Y`$ indicates components in the sidereal reference frame that are orthogonal to the Earth’s axis of rotation.

The design and operation of the two-species 129Xe/3He maser has been discussed in recent publications . Here, we give a brief review. The two-species maser contains dense co-located ensembles of 3He and 129Xe atoms. Each ensemble performs an active maser oscillation on its nuclear spin-$`1/2`$ Zeeman transition at approximately 4.9 kHz for 3He and 1.7 kHz for 129Xe in a static magnetic field of 1.5 gauss. This two-species maser operation can be maintained indefinitely. The population inversions for the two maser ensembles are created by spin-exchange collisions between the noble-gas atoms and optically pumped Rb vapor . The 129Xe/3He maser has two glass chambers, one acting as the spin exchange “pump bulb” and the other serving as the “maser bulb.” This two chamber configuration permits the combination of physical conditions necessary for a high flux of spin-polarized noble gas atoms into the maser bulb, while also maintaining 3He- and 129Xe-maser oscillations with good frequency stability: stability of about 100 nHz is typical for measurement intervals larger than about an hour . Either noble-gas species can serve as a precision magnetometer to stabilize the system’s static magnetic field, while the other species is employed as a sensitive probe for Lorentz- and CPT-violating interactions.

We used the 129Xe/3He maser to search for a Lorentz-violation signature by monitoring the relative phases and Larmor frequencies of the co-located 3He and 129Xe masers as the laboratory reference frame rotated with respect to the fixed stars. The system was operated with the 129Xe maser as the co-magnetometer, the 3He maser free-running, and the quantization axis directed east-west in the Earth’s reference frame. To leading order, the standard-model extension predicts that the Lorentz-violating frequency shifts for the 3He and 129Xe maser are the same size and sign. Hence, the resultant sidereal variation of the 3He maser frequency observed in the laboratory frame takes the form

$$\delta \nu _{He}=\delta \nu _X\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }_st)+\delta \nu _Y\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_st),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ is the angular frequency of the sidereal day , and the parameters $`\delta \nu _J`$ given by Eq. (1) represent the net effect of the Lorentz- and CPT-violating couplings on the 3He maser frequency with the 129Xe maser acting as a co-magnetometer. The time $`t`$ was measured in seconds from the beginning of the sidereal day in Cambridge, Massachusetts (longitude $`71.11^{}`$).

Data collection and analysis were performed as follows. The 129Xe- and 3He-maser signals from an inductive pickup coil were buffered, amplified, and sent to a pair of digital lock-in detectors. Typical raw-signal levels were about 3 to 5 $`\mu `$V. All reference signals used in the experiment were derived from the same hydrogen-maser clock, thus eliminating concerns about unmeasurable electronic phase shifts between the reference oscillators. The hydrogen maser operated on the standard hyperfine clock transition, and thus had no leading-order sensitivity to Lorentz and CPT violation . Active feedback to the solenoid’s magnetic field locked the phase of the 129Xe maser to that of a 1.7 kHz reference signal, and thereby isolated the experiment from common-mode systematic effects (such as stray magnetic field fluctuations) that would otherwise shift the frequencies of the noble-gas masers in proportion to the ratio of their magnetic moments. When phase locked, the short- and long-term frequency stability  of the 129Xe maser was several orders of magnitude better than that of the free-running 3He maser, so the 129Xe Zeeman frequency was treated as constant in the data analysis.

The phase and amplitude of both maser signals were recorded at four-second intervals by the lock-in amplifiers and downloaded for analysis every 23.93 hours. A one-sidereal day run thus contained approximately 21,540 evenly spaced measurements of the relative phases of the two masers. The values of the two coefficients $`\delta \nu _X,\delta \nu _Y`$ were computed, providing a measure of potential Lorentz-violation for that day’s run. Seven additional diagnostic signals were recorded, including the temperatures of the pump bulb, maser bulb, and external resonator; an optical monitor of the Rb magnetization in the pump bulb; the broadband power emitted by the optical-pumping laser-diode array; the ambient room temperature; and the east-west component of the ambient magnetic field. Control loops stabilized the system temperatures to about 10 mK. Two additional control loops were used, feeding back to the optical-pumping laser to reduce systematic effects arising from variations in the density and polarization of Rb in the pump bulb .

Small noble-gas polarization-induced frequency shifts were the dominant source of instability (i.e., phase drift) in the free-running 3He maser. For a typical one-day run, the linear-correlation coefficient between 3He phase data and the integrated amplitude of either maser was in the range 0.95 - 0.99. We admitted terms to our data-analysis model to account for this polarization-induced phase drift. The effect of potential Lorentz-violating couplings on the evolution of the 3He phase was expressed in terms of the coefficients $`\delta \nu _J`$ via integration of Eq. (2), and initial reduction of each one-day run was performed using the minimal fit model

$`\delta \varphi _{He}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0+2\pi \nu _0t`$ (4)
$`+2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_s^1[\delta \nu _X\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_st)\delta \nu _Y\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }_st)],`$
where the coefficients $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\nu _0`$ account for absolute phase and frequency offsets between the 3He maser and the ultra-stable reference oscillator. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ statistic for this fit model was determined, and then additional terms corresponding to quadratic and maser amplitude-correlated phase drift were incorporated into the model if they significantly improved the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ . The coefficients $`\delta \nu _X`$ and $`\delta \nu _Y`$ for each one-day run were extracted using a linear least-squares routine on the best-fitting model for that day, which contained at most seven free parameters and thus at least $`(215007)`$ degrees of freedom. See Fig. 1 for an example of the residuals from one day’s data. As a final check, a faux Lorentz-violating effect of known phase and amplitude was added to the raw data and the analysis was repeated. Data reduction for a given sidereal day was considered successful if the synthetic physics was recovered and there was no change in the covariance matrix generated by the fitting routine.

Data for this experiment were acquired with three different maser cells over a period of 30 days in April 1999 (cell S3), 24 days in September 1999 (cell E9), and 60 days in February-May 2000 (cell SE3, runs 1 and 2). A total of 90 usable sidereal-day values of $`\delta \nu _X`$, $`\delta \nu _Y`$ were obtained. The main magnetic field of the apparatus was reversed about every 10 days to help distinguish possible Lorentz-violating effects from diurnal systematic variations. Field reversal and subsequent re-equilibration of the masers required approximately 24 hours.

Systematic effects resulting from possible diurnally varying ambient magnetic fields would not average away with field reversals. Thus, the effectiveness of the 129Xe co-magnetometer at eliminating such effects was carefully assessed before beginning data acquisition. Since the two maser ensembles do not have perfect spatial overlap, penetration of external magnetic fields through the nested magnetic shields and into the interaction region could induce small frequency shifts in the free-running 3He maser despite the presence of the 129Xe co-magnetometer. Large coils ($``$ 2.4 m diameter) surrounding the 129Xe/3He-maser apparatus were used to switch on and off 0.5 G external magnetic fields in the north-south and east-west directions. A bound on the ratio $`|\delta \nu _{He}/\delta B_{external}|`$ was obtained. The drifts in the ambient magnetic field near the apparatus were measured to be about 0.2 mG over a typical 24-hour period, resulting in a worst-case shift on the free-running 3He maser of less than 8 nHz, well below the present sensitivity of the experiment to Lorentz and CPT violation. It should be noted that the relative phase between the solar and sidereal day evolved about $`2\pi `$ radians over the course of the experiment (April 1999 to May 2000). Hence, diurnal systematic effects from any source would tend to be reduced by averaging results from all measurement sets.

The measured values of $`\delta \nu _J`$ exhibited a small dependence on the direction of the solenoidal magnetic field in the laboratory frame. This dependence was most likely due to hysteresis and asymmetry in magnetic interactions between the solenoid and the nested $`\mu `$-metal shields under field reversal. For each cell, the data for the east and west magnetic-field orientations were analyzed separately to determine mean values and standard errors for $`\delta \nu _J`$, yielding the results in Table 1. As an example, Fig. 2 shows the single-day values of $`\delta \nu _X`$ obtained in the first run with cell SE3 in the east field orientation (SE3 E1).

| Cell | $`\delta \nu _X`$ (nHz) | $`\delta \nu _Y`$ (nHz) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| S3 E | $`95\pm 118`$ | $`197\pm 114`$ |
| S3 W | $`43\pm 138`$ | $`88\pm 148`$ |
| E9 E | $`86\pm 234`$ | $`194\pm 207`$ |
| E9 W | $`206\pm 186`$ | $`60\pm 134`$ |
| SE3 E1 | $`100\pm 148`$ | $`9\pm 141`$ |
| SE3 W1 | $`1\pm 88`$ | $`62\pm 109`$ |
| SE3 E2 | $`2\pm 180`$ | $`68\pm 107`$ |
| SE3 W2 | $`35\pm 118`$ | $`197\pm 120`$ |

Table 1: Means and standard errors for $`\delta \nu _X`$ and $`\delta \nu _Y`$. Results are displayed for each of the three cells (S3, E9, and SE3) with both east (E) and west (W) orientations of the magnetic field. Two runs were performed for cell SE3.

The total weighted means and uncertainties for $`\delta \nu _X`$ and $`\delta \nu _Y`$ were then formed from all data sets. Finally, the results were used to extract the measured value of $`R\sqrt{\delta \nu _X^2+\delta \nu _Y^2}`$, giving $`53\pm 45`$ nHz (1-$`\sigma `$ level).

The size of the coefficients in Eq. (1) indicates that the 129Xe/3He-maser experiment is most sensitive to the Lorentz- and CPT-violating coupling associated with $`\stackrel{~}{b_J^n}`$. Under the assumption of negligible $`\stackrel{~}{d}_J^n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_J^n`$ , the above experimental result for $`R`$ corresponds to a value for $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{}^n\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{b}_X^n)^2+(\stackrel{~}{b}_Y^n)^2}=(4.0\pm 3.3)\times 10^{31}`$ GeV. This result is consistent with no Lorentz- and CPT-violating effect, given reasonable assumptions about the probability distribution for $`R`$ . It represents the most stringent limit to date on possible Lorentz- and CPT-violating couplings involving the neutron and is more than six times better than the best previous measurements .

We are planning improved Lorentz and CPT tests using noble-gas masers. Upgrading laser and temperature control and acquiring a larger data set could better the present Lorentz and CPT constraint from the 129Xe/3He system by up to an order of magnitude. Also, a new two-species Zeeman maser using 3He and 21Ne might provide even greater improvements to constraints on neutron parameters .

David Phillips, Mark Rosenberry, Federico Cané, Timothy Chupp, Robert Vessot and Edward Mattison helped greatly with this project. Development of the 129Xe/3He Zeeman maser was supported by a NIST Precision Measurement Grant. Support for the Lorentz-violation test was provided by NASA grant NAG8-1434, ONR grant N00014-99-1-0501, and the Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Studies Program. This work was supported in part by the DOE under grant DE-FG02-91ER40661.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

High energy neutrinos other than the atmospheric ones are expected to come from energetic astronomical objects, where protons and/or ionized nuclei are efficiently accelerated, and also from special places where ultra-heavy particles are rich and can decay or annihilate. Examples of the former objects are pulsars, active galactic nuclei, etc. where accelerated particles can interact with nearby gases or photons resulting in pion/kaon decays. Examples of the latter are the core of Earth, Sun, Galactic center, etc. where relic WIMPs produced at the time of Big Bang are trapped via elastic scatterings and made annihilate with each other.

To find such high energy neutrinos being excess in specified directions, upward going muons produced in rock surrounding the Super-Kamiokande via charged current interactions of neutrinos are used. Assuming the same energy spectrum as that of atmospheric neutrinos, the average energies of neutrinos are ranging around 10GeV for muons stopping inside the detector and around 100GeV for those going out through the detector, respectively, with muon track lengths $`>`$ 7m in the detector.

Therefore the upward going muons keep directions of parent neutrinos better than the muons produced inside the detector which have average energy of about 1GeV. As well known, higher energy neutrinos with their larger interaction cross section and longer path length of the resulting muons will compensate the disadvantage of their low flux, especially for a harder spectrum generally expected from an astronomical origin.

The most likely candidate of WIMP is the neutralino assuming the lightest supersymmetric particle of supersymmetric theories. Current LEP data and cosmological constraints impose the allowed range of the neutralino mass between 50GeV and 600GeV . This mass range matches the energies of the upward going muons ($`>`$ 1.6GeV).

The analyses of the upward through-going muons and also the upward stopping muons at Super-Kamiokande for the study of the atmospheric neutrinos were already published . Here we concentrate our interest on the astronomical neutrino sources and WIMPs obtain the corresponding flux limits.

## 2 Detection of upward muons

The Super-Kamiokande detector is a 50 kton cylindrical water Cherenkov calorimeter located at the Kamioka Observatory $``$1000 m underground in the Kamioka mine, Japan. The detector is divided by an optical barrier instrumented with photomultiplier tubes (“PMT”s) into a cylindrical primary detector region (the Inner Detector) with inward-facing 11,146 50cm PMTs and a surrounding shell of water (the Outer Detector) equipped with 1,885 20cm PMTs which allows the tagging of entering and exiting particles .

The cosmic ray muon rate at Super-K is 2.2 Hz. Because of this dominant background, the downgoing muons can not be used for the present analysis. The trigger efficiency for a muon entering the detector with momentum more than 200 MeV/$`c`$ is $``$100% for all zenith angles. The nominal detector effective area for upward coming muons with a track length $`>`$ 7m in the Inner Detector is $``$1200 m2.

An event is classified as an upward going muon, if all the following criteria have been satisfied. They are a) a muon event that has a clear entering signature, b) particle track’s zenith angle cosine being less or equal to 0, and c) length of track inside the Inner detector being greater than 7m.

For each event, we obtain the arrival direction and time. After a visual scan by two independent groups and a final handfit direction, 1265 upward through-going and 311 upward stopping muons have been observed in 1138 live observing days that span between April of 1996 and Nov of 1999. The handfits agree with each other within 1.5. More details of the data reduction procedures can be found in .

The above sample is contaminated by some downward going cosmic ray muons close to the horizon due to the tracking angular resolution of the detector and multiple Coulomb scattering in the rock. The total numbers of such non-$`\nu `$ background events has been estimated to be 9.1 $`\pm `$ 0.8 for the upward through-going muons and 21.4 $`\pm `$ 8.8 for the upward stopping muons, all contained in the -0.1 $`<`$ cos$`\theta <`$ 0 bin, where $`\theta `$ is the zenith angle. The contamination from photoproduced upward going pions from downward going cosmic ray muons is estimated to be $`<1\%`$ .

## 3 Analysis for point source search

### 3.1 Sigma deviation sky map

To find out the direction(s) of the sky from which the upward muon events show statistically significant excess, a sigma excess sky map is generated. The expected noise and its standard deviation for each sky point is calculated using so called bootstrap method. In this method, the real data is used to generate faked sky maps by swapping the event time and event direction randomly. Because of an usage of the real events, all the systematics due to upward muon angular distribution, neutrino oscillation, live time unevenness in sidereal day, etc. are all taken care of automatically. However, if there is a strong astronomical neutrino source in the direction of south pole, this method of using the real data could lead to an underestimate of the source. We are under investigation of such effects by a Monte Carlo simulation.

To generate sigma deviation sky map, each upward muon is smeared with a Gaussian distribution of 4 degree sigma. Here, 4 degree is the angular deviation of a typical upward through-going muon from the direction of its parent neutrino. Then, weight contributions of each event to entire sky points are calculated and summed up at each point. The resulting weighted sky map is compared with the average noise weight and its standard deviation to calculate sigma deviation of each sky point. The result is shown in Figure 1.

In the same figure, fit result of sigma deviation distribution to the Gaussian above 1.5 sigma deficit is also shown. As one can see in this figure, a fit to Gaussian is reasonable in this area and there is no data point above 3.6 sigma excess. Therefore, there is no sign of statistically significant excess in upward muon data in the sky.

### 3.2 Flux limits from neutrino point sources

Flux limits against various potential neutrino sources are obtained by the following procedure. First, the number of upward muons within 4 degree half angle cone from the sources is counted. Then, 90 % Poisson confidence limit for that number is used to calculate flux limit for the source. Table 1 shows the flux limit results for the selected potential neutrino sources, which are comparable with the latest data from the MACRO Collaboration . The expected noise in this table is calculated using the same faked sky map method described above, though no noise is subtracted to calculate the flux limit in the table.

The same method is employed to obtain flux limit for each of sky points. The resulting sky map is shown in Figure 2, along with a figure showing the number of upward muons in the cone. In the Figure 3, the event number distribution of upward muons in the cone is shown with that expected from noise. This noise distribution is also obtained using the faked sky map method mentioned above. The event number distribution of upward muons is consistent with noise, hence there is no sign of astronomical neutrino source in this method either.

## 4 Analysis for WIMP search

Recently the WIMP search at Super-Kamiokande was reported . Here updated data are presented.

### 4.1 Comparison of data with simulations of atmospheric neutrinos

The expected background for a WIMP search, which is due to interactions of atmospheric $`\nu `$’s in the rock below the detector is evaluated with 40-year Monte Carlo simulations. These simulations use the Bartol atmospheric $`\nu `$ flux , the GRV94 parton distribution function , and energy loss mechanisms of muons in rock from . There is a 20$`\%`$ uncertainty in the prediction of absolute upward-going muon fluxes.

Analysis of the most recent Super-Kamiokande data  of upward going muons and contained events is consistent with $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{m}^2=3.5\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$ being the best fit values. Therefore for evaluating our background we suppress the atmospheric muon neutrino flux due to oscillations from $`\nu _\mu `$ to $`\nu _\tau `$. The distribution of upward through-going muons with respect to the Earth is shown in Figure 4.

In order to compare the expected and observed distribution of upward through-going muon events with respect to the Sun and Galactic Center, each Monte Carlo event was assigned random times based on the arrival times of the observed upward through-going muon events. This procedure allows us to obtain the angle between the upward muon and any celestial object for each Monte Carlo event. The distribution of upward muons with respect to the Sun and the Galactic Center is shown in Figures 5 and 6 respectively. All the Monte Carlo events in Figures 4,5 and 6 are normalized by livetime.

### 4.2 Flux limits due to WIMPs

We searched for statistically significant excess of muons in cones with half angles ranging from 5 to 30 degrees. This ensures that we catch about $`90\%`$ of the signal for a wide range of WIMP masses. Thus, searching in different cone angles allows us to optimize the signal to noise ratio for various neutralino masses.

No statistically significant excess was seen in any of the half angle cones. We calculate the flux limit of excess neutrino-induced muons in each of the cones.

The flux limit is obtained from the upper Poissonian limit (90$`\%`$ C.L.) given the number of measured events and expected background  due to atmospheric neutrinos, taking into account oscillations.

We also found that varying the oscillation parameters and other normalization schemes hardly changes the flux limits close to the celestial objects. It is only in the cone with half angle $`30^{}`$ that the flux limits vary within 10$`\%`$ for different oscillation parameters.

The comparison of Super-Kamiokande flux limits with previous estimates by other experiments is shown in Figures 79, and 9 respectively. All the other experiments have muon energy thresholds around 1 GeV. The WIMP flux limits for Earth and Sun by MACRO, Kamiokande, Baksan, and IMB are in  respectively. The WIMP flux limits for the Galactic Center by MACRO, Kamiokande, IMB, and Baksan are in  respectively.

Once WIMPs are captured in the Sun and the Earth they settle to the core with an isothermal distribution equal to the core temperature of the Sun or the Earth . The Kamiokande collaboration  has calculated the angular windows for Sun and Earth which contain 90$`\%`$ of signal for various neutralino masses. These angular windows agree quite well with those obtained by the MACRO collaboration  for masses down to 20 GeV. Using these windows, 90$`\%`$ confidence level flux limits can be calculated as a function of neutralino mass using cones which collect 90 $`\%`$ of expected signal for any given mass. These flux limits as a function of neutralino mass are shown in Figure 10 for Earth and Sun.

Contrary to the Sun and Earth, the annihilation profile for the Galactic Center does not depend on the neutralino mass, because collisionless particle dark matter does not come into thermal equilibrium near the Galactic Center . However the apparent size of the annihilation region is less than 0.05. Hence the Galactic Center can be considered a point source for WIMP annihilation. Thus, similar to the Sun, one can exploit the angular dependence of the charged current interaction and multiple coulomb scattering on neutrino energy to obtain the flux limits for the Galactic Center as a function of mass. The results are shown also in Figure 10 (bottom).

These flux limits can be compared with predictions from supersymmetry models. Recently, the DAMA/NaI experiment for direct detection of dark matter reported an annual modulation effect at 4$`\sigma `$ confidence level which they claim is caused by WIMP scattering in their detector . Their data is consistent with a relic neutralino forming a major dark matter component of the Galactic Halo . The Super–Kamiokande flux limits could be used to rule out some regions of parameter space suggested by DAMA results, These results shall be reported in a future publication.

## 5 Conclusions

A search for astronomical neutrino point sources was done using neutrino induced 1265 upward through-going and 311 upward stopping muon events corresponding to 1138 days of livetime. Also an indirect search for dark matter was done using the 1265 upward through-going muon events on the plausible assumption that high energy neutrinos can be produced from WIMP annihilation in the Sun, the Earth, and the Galactic Center.

We looked for an excess of upward muons over atmospheric neutrino background in the direction close to the potential celestial objects. No statistically significant excess was seen.

Flux limits from almost all directions in the sky were obtained and the definite numbers are given to various prominent astronomical objects. Also flux limits for various cone angles around the potential WIMP sources were obtained and compared with previous estimates by other detectors. These flux limits can be calculated as a function of the WIMP mass.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the Kamioka Mining and Smelting Company. The Super-Kamiokande experiment has been built and operated from funding by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, and the United States Department of Energy.


text:
# LINEAR COLLIDER PHYSICS Invited talk at Les Rencontres de Physique de la Vall e d’Aoste, La Thuile, Italy; February 27-March 4, 2000

## 1 Where are we?

If there is a decision in 2003 to go ahead with a Linear Collider programme the machine and detectors could be ready for operation in 2010. By then the LHC at CERN will have overcome any teething troubles and be well into its mainstream programme. In particular, it may have found at least one Higgs boson, if the Higgs mass lies in the range below 250 GeV which is favoured by current fits to the standard model , or if Higgs bosons are generated by SUSY theories which are perturbative up to a high scale . There may still be discovery opportunities for the Linear Collider, but its main role will be to make clean precision measurements, whether or not new physics has already been found. These will either identify just what it is that has been found and see how it explains electroweak symmetry breaking, or they will further constrain the standard model in order to anticipate how the symmetry will be broken.

Studies of physics for the future linear collider are now focussing on the case to be made for funding. This case will be presented in Europe in Spring 2001 and at about the same time in the USA. Japan has plans on a similar timescale. By 1 March 2001 DESY will produce a Technical Design Report (TDR) for the TESLA machine, including an X-ray free-electron-laser facility for biomedical and condensed matter studies. European physicists are collaborating in the 2nd ECFA/DESY Study  which will provide the sections of the TDR on the physics programme, the detector and the machine-detector interface. Unlike earlier studies, this TDR will contain a full costing of all parts of the programme. The ECFA/DESY Study has held a series of workshops in Orsay, Lund, Frascati, Oxford and Obernai (France), continuing in Padova in May 2000 and DESY in September 2000. There will be a TESLA “launch conference” in Autumn 2001 when the TDR is ready. In parallel with the ECFA/DESY study there are North American workshops , the next at LBL in March 2000 , ACFA workshops in Asia  and a worldwide series where the three regions exchange ideas. The next worldwide Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS) will be at Fermilab in October 2000. (Previous LCWS were at Saariselka, Finland ; Waikoloa, Hawaii ; Morioka-Appi, Japan ; Sitges, Spain )

There is no space here for a description of the possible detector to do this physics. The ECFA/DESY study has based most of its simulations on the detector design outlined in the 1997 Conceptual Design Report , though the version now being used includes developments in vertexing - which will improve the identification of charm, a higher magnetic field - which will improve the resolution on missing masses (see section 3.1 below), and more finely segmented calorimetry - expressly driven by the need to make the best possible measurements of hadron jets in multi jet final states.

## 2 Requirements on the Accelerator

The main factor which has delayed Linear Collider development has been the imperative need to achieve very high luminosities, much higher than LEP which delivers $`250pb^{}1`$/year at best. LEP felt like a high luminosity machine when it was sitting on 30 nb total cross section at the $`Z^0`$ resonance peak, but even with improved luminosity at LEP2 we can still only produce handfuls of $`Z^0`$-pair events. Figure 1 shows how the cross sections for some interesting processes should vary with beam energy. The standard reference process is $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, “1 unit of R”, whose cross section falls like 1/s, as do $`t\overline{t}`$ or light Higgs boson production in the higgstrahlung channel $`e^+e^{}Z^0H`$. Some other channels, with dominant t-channel exchanges, rise more slowly from their thresholds - for example single W production $`e^+e^{}e^\pm \nu W^{}`$, $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }H`$ or $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }W^+W^{}`$ or some of the SUSY processes in Figure 1.

Table 1 shows the numbers of events to be expected in some interesting channels on the assumption that $`500fb^1`$ can be collected at $`500GeV`$, or $`1000fb^1`$ at $`1TeV`$. The relativistic shrinkage of emittance in the machine will actually help to increase the luminosity at higher energies, so long as the beam alignment can be kept under control. With event numbers like these definitive studies can be made of, for instance, the branching ratios of a light Higgs boson - see below.

To get $`500fb^1`$ in a $`10^7`$sec machine-year will require a luminosity of
$`5.10^{34}cm^2sec^1`$. We believe this to be possible, both because of what has been learned from running the Stanford Linear Collider, and because of the advances beyond that made by the competing linear collider development teams - including the Russians until they were forced by financial circumstances to drop out. The single most important advance over SLC will be a reduction in vertical spot size from a few microns to a few tens of nanometres. A big part of the technology needed for this was proven by the world wide collaboration that worked with the Final Focus Test Beam at SLC. Another big part of it has to come from high brightness electron guns and from damping rings to reduce the beam emittance. The most advanced damping ring test is under way at KEK in Japan.

The largest part of the cost will be for the accelerating structure of the linac itself. Here the competition is primarily between the normally-conducting X-band structure being developed by SLAC  and KEK  and the superconducting TESLA concept from DESY and collaborators . Each has strengths and weaknesses. After the costed Technical Designs appear it will be important to make a choice between them which is driven by the quality of the physics, not the nationality of the supporting laboratories. Both designs will initially be optimised for $`\sqrt{s}=500GeV`$. TESLA at the moment appears to offer better luminosity for a given power consumption. Its larger aperture and more widely spaced bunches may make it easier to overcome alignment and vibration problems. Once a tunnel is built the ultimate energy of the machine will be limited by the peak accelerating gradient. The very best performance so far from TESLA-type cavities suggests that their present design, which is already capable of delivering the accelerating gradient needed for $`\sqrt{s}=500GeV`$ in the planned tunnel, might be developed to give maximum energy of a little over 800 GeV in the same tunnel. The proponents of the X-band design hope that with more and better klystrons they may eventually be able to raise the energy to 1 TeV. The longer term future, however, may rest with a change of technology to the CLIC concept developed at CERN . This might eventually achieve six or seven times the 23.5 MV/m which is the design gradient of TESLA for 500 GeV.

The possibility to polarise of the electrons to about 80% is another legacy from SLC, and the TESLA designers are hopeful that their positron production scheme will give 60% polarisation, though R&D is needed to prove this.

Although the principal programme of the future collider will be with $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at high energies from the top threshold at 350 GeV upwards, there are other important options being studied. A Novosibirsk group  suggested the Compton Collider, in which one or both beams from an $`e^{}e^{}`$ linear collider are intercepted with laser light a few millimetres before the interaction point. With the right choice of laser energy, laser polarisation and beam polarisation the resulting $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions can have more than $`1/10`$ of the luminosity of the collider in its $`e^+e^{}`$ mode, with a peak at close to 80% of the full energy. In the $`e^{}\gamma `$ mode the peak in the photon energy spectrum contrasts extremely favourably with the soft bremsstrahlung of virtual photons used in $`e\gamma `$ scattering until now. There is R&D to be done before the Compton Collider can be considered a proven option, but there are no known showstoppers .

No R&D is needed to prove the possibility of $`e^{}e^{}`$ collisions, just a polarised electron gun at the nominally positron-end of the linac. The other options which have been discussed in both Japanese and European studies are to modify the linac for high luminosity running at the $`Z^0`$ peak and/or at the WW threshold.

## 3 Physics

The main question to be tackled is “why does the standard model work?” How the linear collider starts to answer that will depend upon the second quesion, “what will the LHC have discovered?” The ECFA/DESY Linear Collider workshop at Obernai  involved some of the leaders of the LHC physics studies in detailed debate on the relative strengths of the two colliders in tackling different analyses. The conclusion was that there are a clear roles for both LHC and the Linear Collider. LHC may be first to find a Higgs boson (if we do not see it at LEP this year - and if it is indeed there to be seen), but the linear collider is where its properties will be pinned down and the kind of Higgs boson established.

### 3.1 Properties of a light Higgs boson

Figure 2 shows the key to precision measurement of Higgs boson properties at the Linear Collider. In the higgsstrahlung channel $`e^+e^{}Z^0H`$, the $`Z^0`$ decays to $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$can be well measured and constrained to the $`Z^0`$ mass. The missing mass peak in the recoiling system then contains all of the decays of the Higgs boson, visible or invisible. For the standard model Higgs there should be no invisible channels, and with a good microvertex detector it will be possible to “mine” into the peak in Figure 2 for its branching ratios. And, of course, for the clearer channels such as $`Hb\overline{b}`$, recoils against the much more copious hadronic $`Z^0`$ decays can also be used, not just the leptonic events shown in Figure 2 which are used in the search for exotic or invisible Higgs decays. See Figure 3 for the kind of precision which may be achieved in different channels with an integrated luminosity of $`500pb^1`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500GeV`$. Note the large error bars on the “cc” measurement. The best possible vertex detector will be needed to resolve the charm-pair sample from the much more copious beauty-pairs.

There are two promising strategies for measuring the total width of the Higgs boson. If its mass is more than $`115GeV`$, which it must be if LEP2 has not seen it, then the total width can be found from the ratio

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{total}^H=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W^{}W^{}}^HB(Hb\overline{b})}{B(HWW^{})B(Hb\overline{b})}.$$
(1)
Where the branching ratios on the bottom line can be measured in the higgsstrahlung final states, and the product on the top line is deduced from the rate of the $`W^{}W^{}`$ fusion process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }H`$ with $`Hb\overline{b}`$.

If the Higgs mass is less than 140 GeV there is an alternative possibility:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{total}^H=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }^HB(Hb\overline{b})}{B(H\gamma \gamma )B(Hb\overline{b})}.$$
(2)
Again, the branching ratios on the bottom line may be measured from higgsstrahlung final states (though $`B(H\gamma \gamma )`$ needs at least $`1000pb^1`$ integrated luminosity. The top line would have to be measured in the Compton Collider mode. Perhaps the strongest part of the case for the Compton Collider will come after a light Higgs boson has been discovered, because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }^H`$ receives contributions from any loops of new charged particles which couple perturbatively to the Higgs - so the Compton Collider could look ahead to higher masses than the Linear Collider would see directly. The branching ratio to gluons is also sensitive to loops which couple to colour, though the gluon pair final state is likely to be hard to separate from $`c\overline{c}`$.

Measurement of the branching ratios shown in Figure 3 gives direct tests of the Yukawa couplings of the Higgs boson to different fermion flavours, which could discriminate between SUSY models. But the strongest of the Yukawa couplings of a light Higgs boson is to the top quark, and that cannot be measured in Higgs decays. The Barcelona group  has studied what can be done to measure the $`ttH`$ coupling by looking at the bremmsstrahlung of Higgs bosons in top-quark pair production, $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}H`$, which has a cross section of $`2.5fb`$ for 800 GeV collisions. In $`1000fb^1`$ of running they show that a signal can be found with expected statistical errors of less than 10 %, but the backgrounds to be overcome are huge, especially from top-pair production with gluon radiation in the final state. Their verdict is that this coupling will only be measurable when the background calculations are all thoroughly understood, modelled and checked. This is one of the studies which demands the best possible separation and measurement of hadronic jets.

### 3.2 SUSY

Another possible answer to “why does the standard model work?” could be that supersymmetry exists at an accessible scale. If it does then there could be many signatures of it within the range of the Linear Collider - as well as the possibility of measuring non-SM coupling strengths for the light Higgs boson, as is likely to be required if SUSY remains perturbative up to a high scale. The slepton sector will be hard to see at the LHC, but any slepton states below the pair production threshold will be directly accessible in $`e^+e^{}`$. Feasibility studies show that the masses of such states will be measureable to $`\pm 500GeV`$, using final state kinematics. Threshold scans could give even better precision. Chargino and neutralino pair production will also be much easier to measure at the Linear Collider. The heavier Higgs bosons could be pair produced; $`e^+e^{}hA`$, $`e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$. Polarisation will be very important for their analysis. The Compton Collider would be able to prove that the A is CP odd.

### 3.3 WW Physics

If no light higgs boson is found at LHC or Linear Collider, and no SUSY, then the reason for the standard model to work has to be some other source of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking which must show up at some stage in the behaviour of the WW system. The triple gauge boson couplings are already being investigated at LEP, but the Linear Collider will measure them with much better precision. Figure 4 shows that, for instance, the anomalous coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _\gamma `$ can be determined to $`4\times 10^4`$ at a high luminosity 500 GeV linear Collider, compared with $`6.10^2`$ at LEP or $`2.10^2`$ at LHC. Again, polarised beams will give extra sensitivity. To exploit the Linear Collider measurements it will be necessary to make substantial improvements to the precision of calculations of the electroweak matrix elements, including higher order loops which have been neglected so far. To get such calculations going in the ECFA/DESY Study we have just instituted a dedicated theorists’ working group called the “Loopverein” .

An important search channel for strong electroweak symmetry breaking will be direct vector-vector scattering, especially $`W^+W^{}`$. The LHC will certainly be able to look for this, but may be forced to use only those events with a leptonic W decay. At 800 GeV the Linear Collier would have about 2000 $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$ in 1000 $`fb^1`$, all of which could be reconstructed if the detector has the good jet separation and energy flow resolution which is planned in the detector design from the ECFA/DESY Study.

### 3.4 Other ways of pressing the Standard Model

A classic task for the Linear Collider is to scan in small energy steps across the threshold for top quark pair production. The rapid decay of the top quark prevents the formation of narrow “toponium” resonances, but it also damps higher order corrections to the shape of the threshold excitation. Extensive simulations in Europe, the USA and Japan have shown that the top quark mass can be determined from the scan to a precision of about $`\pm 120MeV`$. To do this it will be necessary to limit the energy spread in the colliding beams to less than about 2 parts in $`10^3`$. The spectrum is also spread out by beamstrahllung - the radiation of energy from electrons before collision due to scattering off the coherent electromagnetic field of the opposing bunch - but with current designs for the Collider there is always a significant spike of events in which the beamstrahlung loss is small. These effects combine to give a luminosity spectrum which can be well monitored by using the acollinearity of Bhabha scattered electrons  in the endcap region of the detector ($`100`$ to $`300mr`$ from the beam direction).

With high luminosity and polarised beams it is also worth considering returning to the LEP/SLC energy region, running at the $`Z^0`$ peak to make precise measurements of $`sin^2\theta _W`$ (to $`\pm 0.00002`$). The $`W^+W^{}`$ threshold will also be worth revisiting, to reduce the error on the W mass to $`\pm 6MeV`$. This will require special by-pass facilities in the LINACs to maintain high luminosity; it is inefficient to run the beams through all of the accelerating the cavities at much less than their maximum gradient. TESLA should be able to produce $`10^9`$ $`Z^0`$s per year with a by-pass. Combining these precise electroweak measurements with the precise measurement of the top mass will enable even tighter constraints to be placed on the parameters of the theory - probing beyond the first Higgs boson, if one has been found, or tying down the possibilities for a Higgsless theory.

There are also worthwhile jobs to be done in testing QCD. High statistics at 500 GeV will allow another point to be measured in the running of $`\alpha _s`$, using event shapes and jet multiplicity ratios, with comparable errors to the LEP1 measurements , and with a significantly increased lever-arm compared with LEP2. The Compton Collider in its $`e^{}\gamma `$ mode will be ideally suited to making measurements of the photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ at the highest possible $`Q^2`$. We are fighting hard to reach $`Q^21000GeV^2`$ at LEP2, with poor reconstruction of the Bjorken variable $`x=Q^2/(Q^2+W^2)`$ because the target photon is drawn from a continuous bremmstrahlung spectrum and the mass $`W`$ of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ system can only be measured from the final state hadrons. At the Compton Collider with a nearly monochromatic photon beam $`x`$ will be much better determined and there will be good statistics for $`Q^2`$ up to $`10,000GeV^2`$. This will allow a completely independent measurement of the strong coupling to be made from the evolution of the contribution due to the direct photon-quark interaction.

## 4 Conclusions

The designs for the Linear Collider machines are looking increasingly solid and believable. The choice between the options is about 2 years away. The physics programme of a linear collider will be an essential complement to that of the LHC, whether or not a light Higgs boson is discovered. The detectors will have to be better than those at LEP but they will be recognisably related to them and there are no very daunting performance goals to be achieved. More effort is needed to do feasibility studies of physics processes and to study the detector and the machine-detector interface. Come to your local linear collider worskhops .

## 5 Acknowledgements

I must thank all of the participants in the 2nd ECFA/DESY Study on Physics and Detectors for a Linear $`e^+e^{}`$ Collider  who have done most of the work reported in this talk. In particular, Marco Battaglia and Ties Behnke have supplied figures.