text:
# Measurements of 𝐵→𝐷_𝑠^limit-from(∗)+𝐷^{∗(∗)} Branching Fractions

## I Introduction

Measurements of weak decays of $`B`$ mesons are fundamental to testing and understanding the standard model. Previous measurements of the inclusive $`BD_s^+X`$ branching fraction report a value of $`(12.1\pm 1.0\pm 3.0)\%`$. The first error is the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, and the second is due to the uncertainty in the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ branching fraction. This is significantly larger than the sum of $`D_s^+`$ production from exclusive $`bc\overline{c}s`$ modes observed to date. These exclusive modes, of the form $`BD_s^+D`$, $`BD_s^+D`$, $`BD_s^+D^{}`$, and $`BD_s^+D^{}`$, sum to $`(6.6\pm 1.3\pm 1.7)\%`$ for the $`B^+`$ case and $`(4.8\pm 1.0\pm 1.2)\%`$ for the $`B^0`$. This yields a deficit of $`(5.5\pm 1.6)\%`$ for the $`B^+`$ and $`(7.3\pm 1.4)\%`$ for the $`B^0`$, where the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ branching fraction uncertainty does not affect this difference. This article reports new measurements of $`BD_s^{()+}D^{()}`$ decays from CLEO.***Reference to a specific state or decay includes the charge-conjugate state or decayThe notation $`D_s^{()+}`$ in this context means either a $`D_s^+`$ or a $`D_s^+`$, $`D^{()}`$ denotes the sum of $`D^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$, and $`D^{}`$ denotes the sum of the charged $`D^+`$ and neutral $`\overline{D}^0`$ states, the specifics of which are discussed in Section IV A. In shortened form, $`D_sD^{}`$ denotes $`D_s^+D^{}`$, $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ denotes $`D_s^+D^{}`$, and $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ denotes the sum of $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ and $`D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0`$.  First evidence is offered for the decay $`B^+D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0`$, where $`\overline{D}^0`$ denotes the sum of the $`\overline{D}_1(2420)^0`$, $`\overline{D}_2^{}(2460)^0`$, and $`\overline{D}_1(j=1/2)^0`$ $`L=1`$ charm meson states. This decay mode may bridge a substantial portion of the inclusive and exclusive rate difference. Also reported are improved measurements of the modes $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ and $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$. These decays occur predominantly via the spectator diagram of Figure 1; the $`W^+`$ decays into a $`D_s^+`$ or $`D_s^+`$ meson, and the charm anti-quark and spectator quark hadronize as either a $`D^{}`$ or $`D^{}`$ meson.

Additionally, this Article presents the first measurement of $`D_s^+`$ polarization for the mode $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$, providing an effective test of the factorization assumption in $`BD^{}X`$ decays with high $`q^2`$, where $`q^2=M_X^2`$, and $`X`$ is a vector meson. Factorization assumes the lack of final state interactions between the products of hadronic $`B`$ decays, and has successfully predicted the vector-vector polarization of the low $`q^2`$ mode $`BD^{}\rho `$. It is possible that the factorization assumption of no final state interactions may be simplistic and inapplicable to modes of higher $`q^2`$ such as $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$; however, the results presented here are consistent with the factorization prediction.

Previous measurements of $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ and $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ at CLEO and ARGUS made use of the full reconstruction technique, which requires reconstruction of all particles in the final state. The most recent CLEO results using full reconstruction reported relatively small event yields of $`18.4\pm 4.5`$ and $`17.7\pm 4.4`$ in the $`D_s^+D^{}`$ and $`D_s^+D^{}`$ channels, respectively. Following these, a partial reconstruction technique was developed that required only some of the $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ final state particles, reporting an increased sample size of $`76\pm 11`$ events.

This analysis employs a more refined partial reconstruction technique, using only the $`D_s^+`$ and the soft pion $`\pi _s^{}`$ from the $`D^{}\overline{D}^0\pi _s^{}`$ decay, thereby increasing the statistics over full reconstruction by a factor between five and eight, depending on mode. The analysis is sensitive to any $`BD_s^+D^{}X`$ final state, such as $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$, when $`D^{}D^{}\pi `$. The method is based on techniques developed by CLEO for improved measurement of $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ and $`BD^{}\pi `$.

After a short description of the detector and the criteria used for selecting charged particle candidates in Section II, the $`D_s^+`$ and $`\pi _s^{}`$ reconstruction is described in Section III. In Section IV the partial reconstruction technique is developed for separating the combined $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal from background. Once the background levels have been determined, in Section V a two-dimensional parameter space is defined and used to separate the individual $`D_sD^{}`$, $`D_s^{}D^{}`$, and $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ signals, followed by a review of systematic errors in Section VI. The polarization of $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ production is measured and compared with the factorization prediction in Section VII, and the results summarized and discussed in the final section.

## II EVENT SELECTION

The data used in this analysis were collected at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) between 1990 and 1995, and consist of hadronic events produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. The integrated luminosity of this data sample is $`3.14\pm 0.06`$ $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (referred to as on-resonance data), and $`1.69\pm 0.03`$ $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ from a center-of-mass energy just below the threshold for producing $`B\overline{B}`$ mesons (referred to as off-resonance or continuum data). The on-resonance data corresponds to $`(3.36\pm 0.06)\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs.

The CLEO II detector is used to measure both neutral and charged particles with excellent resolution and efficiency. Hadronic events are selected by requiring a minimum of three charged tracks, a total visible energy greater than 15% of the center-of-mass energy (this reduces contamination from two-photon interactions and beam-gas events), and a primary vertex within $`\pm 5`$ cm in the $`z`$ direction and $`\pm 2`$ cm in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane of the beam centroid.

Charged tracks are required to be of good quality and consistent with the primary vertex in both the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ and $`r`$-$`z`$ planes. Tracks must also have $`dE/dx`$ and time-of-flight information consistent with their pion or kaon hypotheses, when such information exists and is of good quality.

Apart from the visible energy criterion, neutral particles were not used in this analysis.

A geant based Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate large samples of the individual $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal modes from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ decays, and model their interactions with the CLEO detector. These samples were then processed in the same manner as the data. Further discussion of the simulation is given in the treatment of systematic errors.

## III $`D_s^+`$ AND SLOW $`\pi _s^{}`$ RECONSTRUCTION

The $`D_s^+`$ is reconstructed through the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$, $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$ decay channel, which has a signal-to-background ratio nearly two times higher than the next cleanest $`D_s^+`$ decay mode. Fast $`\pi ^+`$/$`K^+`$ tracks ($`p200\mathrm{MeV}/c`$) must originate within $`\pm 5`$ cm in the $`z`$ direction and $`\pm 5`$ mm in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane of the beam centroid. For slow $`\pi ^+`$/$`K^+`$ tracks ($`p200\mathrm{MeV}/c`$) the $`z`$ requirement is loosened to within $`\pm 20`$ cm. The $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass is required to be within 9 MeV of the $`\varphi `$ mass. Two angles are used in suppressing background. The first is the $`D_s^+`$ decay angle $`\theta _D`$, which is the angle between the $`\varphi `$ direction in the $`D_s^+`$ rest frame and the $`D_s^+`$ boost direction. Requiring $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D0.80`$ eliminates a large combinatoric background peak near $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D=1`$ resulting from the numerous low momentum pions, while the signal is constant in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D`$. The second angle is $`\theta _H`$, the $`\varphi `$ decay angle between the $`K^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$ direction in the $`\varphi `$ rest frame. Due to the $`\varphi `$ helicity the signal follows a $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _H`$ distribution while the background is constant in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _H`$. Requiring $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H|0.35`$ removes 35% of the background and retains 96% of signal. The resulting $`\varphi \pi ^+`$ invariant mass spectrum is shown in Figure 2, and the $`\varphi \pi ^+`$ mass is then required to be within 12 MeV of the $`D_s^+`$ mass. Finally, the kinematics of $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ decays constrain the magnitude of $`D_s^+`$ momentum to between 1250 MeV/$`c`$ and 1925 MeV/$`c`$, and these requirements are imposed here.

The slow pion $`\pi _s^{}`$ from the $`D^{}`$ must have charge opposite to the $`D_s^+`$ and originate within $`\pm 5`$ mm in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane of the primary vertex. No $`z`$ requirement is placed on the $`\pi _s^{}`$, but it must have a momentum greater than 50 MeV/$`c`$ and less than 210 MeV/$`c`$.

## IV SEPARATION OF $`D_s^{()+}D^{()}`$ SIGNAL FROM BACKGROUND

### A Two-Body $`B`$ decays to $`D_s^+D^{}`$ Final States

At the CLEO II experiment, $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions can create an $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, which decays to a pair of $`B`$ mesons. The $`B`$’s are produced nearly at rest ($`\beta =0.0646`$) and, for the decay chain $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0\overline{B}^0`$, $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$, and $`D^{}\overline{D^0}\pi _s^{}`$, the $`D_s^+`$ and soft pion $`\pi _s^{}`$ are nearly back-to-back in the lab frame because of the small $`5.83\pm 0.03`$ MeV energy release in the $`D^{}\overline{D^0}\pi _s^{}`$ transition. By making use of their relative direction, as well as the beam energy and kinematic constraints of the decay, the $`D_s^+`$ and the $`\pi _s^{}`$ allow reconstruction of the $`D_s^+D^{}`$ final state.

Other two-body $`B`$ decays leading to $`D_s^+D^{}`$ final states, with strong $`(D_s^+,\pi _s^{})`$ correlations, are summarized in Table I. These are modes producing a $`D_s^+`$ that decays to $`D_s^+\gamma `$ or $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$, or producing a $`D^{}`$ that decays to $`D^{}\pi `$. It should be noted that this method is not sensitive to $`BD_s^{}D^{}`$, as the $`D_s^{}`$ decays predominantly to $`DK`$ and no $`D_s^{}D_sX`$ decays have been observed. Other relevant modes, such as three-body $`B`$ decays of the form $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}\pi `$, are treated in the discussion of systematic errors.

### B $`D^{}`$ Properties and $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ Decays

In this measurement several different $`D^{}`$ states contribute to the $`BD_s^{()+}D^{()}`$ decays. The relevant $`D^{}`$ characteristics are summarized here, beginning with the neutral $`D^0`$ which, as an $`L=1`$ charm meson, represents four distinct quantum states. Two of these states, the $`D_1(2420)^0`$ and $`D_2^{}(2420)^0`$, have been characterized by experiment as relatively narrow resonances. The two other states, the $`D_1(j=1/2)^0`$ and $`D_0(j=1/2)^0`$, are expected to be much broader. A preliminary first observation of the $`D_1(j=1/2)^0`$, confirming its broadness, was recently reported by CLEO. Although the $`D_0(j=1/2)^0`$ remains experimentally undetected, conservation of parity and angular momentum forbids its decay to $`D^{}\pi ^+`$, so it does not contribute to this measurement. Table II gives the masses, widths, $`J^P`$ and allowed decays of the neutral $`D^{}`$’s.

In accordance with current experimental limits, the masses and decay widths of the charged $`D_1(j=1/2)^{}`$, $`D_1(2420)^{}`$, and $`D_2^{}(2460)^{}`$ are assumed identical to their corresponding neutral $`D^0`$ counterparts. Like the $`D_0(j=1/2)^0`$, the $`D_0(j=1/2)^{}`$ does not decay to $`D^{}\pi `$.

Throughout this Article $`D^+`$ denotes the sum of the charged $`D_1(2420)^+`$, $`D_2^{}(2460)^+`$, and $`D_1(j=1/2)^+`$ states, while $`D^0`$ denotes the sum of the neutral $`D_1(2420)^0`$, $`D_2^{}(2460)^0`$, and $`D_1(j=1/2)^0`$, and $`D^{}`$ denotes the sum of the three $`D^+`$ and three $`D^0`$ states.

Conservation of isospin and angular momentum predicts the branching fractions for the $`J=1`$ charged and neutral $`D^{}D^{}\pi `$ decays. Heavy quark effective chiral perturbation theory evaluates the branching fractions for the $`J=2`$ case.

$`(D_1(j=1/2)^{}D^{}\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`1/3,`$ (1)
$`(D_1(2420)^{}D^{}\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`1/3,`$ (2)
$`(D_2^{}(2460)^{}D^{}\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`1/10,`$ (3)
$`(\overline{D}_1(j=1/2)^0D^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`2/3,`$ (4)
$`(\overline{D}_1(2420)^0D^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`2/3,`$ (5)
$`(\overline{D}_2^{}(2460)^0D^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`1/5.`$ (6)
These branching fractions are assumed throughout. Applying conservation of isospin to the spectator decay of Figure 1, it is assumed also that the $`B^+D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0`$ and $`B^0D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ production rates are equal:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0D_s^{()+}D^{}).$$
(7)
This equality is assumed throughout.

In the Monte Carlo simulation, the three relevant $`D^0`$ mass states produce nearly identical slow pion $`\pi _s^{}`$ momentum distributions, resulting in signatures that are virtually indistinguishable by means of this partial reconstruction technique. For this reason the relative production ratios of $`D_1(j=1/2)^0`$, $`D_1(2420)^0`$, and $`D_s^{}(2420)^0`$ cannot be measured by this analysis, but are rather taken from previous experimental results. Similarly, it was not possible to separate the $`BD_s^+D^{}`$ from the $`BD_s^+D^{}`$ modes, and the ratio of the branching fractions of these two decays must be assumed. The consequences of both assumptions are treated in the discussion of systematic errors.

### C Partial Reconstruction Kinematics

In the decays $`BD_s^{()+}D^{()}`$, $`D^{}\overline{D}^0\pi _s^{}`$, the $`D_s^+`$ and $`\pi _s^{}`$ are produced nearly back-to-back, and the angle $`\alpha `$ between the reverse $`D_s^+`$ direction and $`\pi _s^{}`$, shown in Figure 3, will be small. For the $`D_sD^{}`$ and $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ signals, $`\alpha `$ ranges between $`0^{}`$ and $`30^{}`$, with most probable values at 11 and $`12^{}`$, respectively. For $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ signal, $`\alpha `$ ranges from $`0^{}`$ to $`50^{}`$, with the most probable value at $`21^{}`$. In contrast to the signal, the background consists of uncorrelated $`D_s^+`$ and $`\pi _s^{}`$ pairs, for which $`\alpha `$ will be distributed at random.

It is possible to further constrain $`\alpha `$ from additional event information that determines the allowed $`D^{}`$ directions. There exist a total of eight unknowns in the decay: the $`\overline{D}^0`$ three-momentum, the parent $`D^{}`$ three-momentum, and the two angles governing the $`B^0`$ direction. The $`B`$ energy is equal to the CLEO beam energy. Requiring conservation of energy and momentum in the $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ and $`D^{}\overline{D}^0\pi _s^{}`$ decays yields eight constraints, where the masses of the $`B^0`$, $`D_s^+`$, $`D^{}`$, $`\overline{D}^0`$, and $`\pi ^{}`$ are assumed. Solving for the unknowns yields a pair of $`D^{}`$ solutions, due to a quadratic ambiguity in the underlying algebra. The procedure of this solution follows.

The $`D^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ energies are determined from the measured $`D_s^+`$ and $`\pi _s^+`$ energies:

$$E_D^{}=E_{Beam}E_{D_s^+},$$
(8)
$$E_{\overline{D}^0}=E_D^{}E_{\pi _s^+}.$$
(9)
The magnitude of $`D^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ momenta follow from their energies $`p_D^{}=\sqrt{E_D^{}^2M_D^{}^2}`$ and $`p_{\overline{D}^0}=\sqrt{E_{\overline{D}^0}^2M_{\overline{D}^0}^2}`$. For the previously-assumed decay, kinematics constrain the $`D^{}`$ to a cone of allowed directions relative to the measured $`D_s^+`$. The radius of this cone, $`\theta _1`$, is shown in Figure 4, and represents the angle between the reverse $`D_s^+`$ direction and inferred $`D^{}`$. Using the $`D_s^+`$ momentum magnitude, beam energy, and particle masses, $`\theta _1`$ can be expressed in the lab frame as:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _1=\frac{M_{B^0}^2M_D^{}^2M_{D_s}^2}{2|\stackrel{}{p}_{D_s}||\stackrel{}{p}_D^{}|}\frac{1}{\beta _{D_s}\beta _D^{}}.$$
(10)
Kinematics also constrain the $`D^{}`$ to a cone of allowed values about the $`\pi _s^{}`$ direction. The radius of this cone is $`\theta _2`$, the angle between the $`\pi _s^{}`$ and inferred $`D^{}`$, defined in the lab frame and shown in Figure 5:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _2=\frac{M_{D^0}^2M_D^{}^2M_{\pi _s}^2}{2|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi _s}||\stackrel{}{p}_D^{}|}+\frac{1}{\beta _{\pi _s}\beta _D^{}}.$$
(11)
Valid solutions for the $`D^{}`$ momentum exist at the intersection of the cones defined by $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$, as shown in Figure 6. For the two cones to intersect, the angle between the measured $`D_s^+`$ and measured $`\pi _s^{}`$—the angle previously defined as $`\alpha `$—must be confined to a range bounded by the sum and difference of $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$:

$$|\theta _1\theta _2|\alpha \theta _1+\theta _2.$$
(12)
For $`\alpha `$ greater than the upper limit $`\theta _1+\theta _2`$, the smaller cone is entirely outside the larger one, preventing their intersection and the existence of a kinematically valid $`D^{}`$ solution. For $`\alpha `$ less than the lower limit $`|\theta _1\theta _2|`$, the smaller cone is completely inside the larger, also preventing their intersection. As shown in Figure 7, the lower limit occurs as the smaller cone grazes the inside edge of the larger one, where this limit is defined as $`\alpha _0`$:

$$\alpha _0|\theta _1\theta _2|.$$
(13)
Since only one $`\alpha `$ and one $`\alpha _0`$ exist for a particular $`(D_s^+,\pi _s^{})`$ pair, they are unaffected by the quadratic ambiguity in the $`D^{}`$ solutions.

In the case of the signal $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ mode, $`\alpha `$ is small, $`\alpha _0`$ is as small or smaller, and the difference between $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _0`$ is very small. Since the background is relatively isotropic in $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$, it is more convenient to work with the cosines of the angles, where it is found that the difference $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ peaks sharply for signal at small values. Signal Monte Carlo distributions are shown in Figure 8 over the range $`(0.04,2.00)`$ for $`D_s^+D^{}`$, $`D_s^+D^{}`$, and $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$. Two backgrounds are also shown in the figure: the $`B\overline{B}`$ background, from simulated non-signal $`B`$ meson events, and continuum background, from $`e^+e^{}c\overline{c}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$, $`u\overline{u}`$, or $`d\overline{d}`$. The three signals display sharp peaking in $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$, where the $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ and $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ peaks are measurably broader than the $`D_sD^{}`$. In the $`D_s^+D^{}`$ case, this broadness results from the random nudge given the $`D_s^+`$ by the $`\gamma /\pi ^0`$ in the $`D_s^+D_s^+\gamma /D_s^+\pi ^0`$ transition, causing the two particles to be not quite so back-to-back. For the $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$, the broad peak comes from the thrust given the $`D^{}`$ from the unreconstructed $`\pi ^+`$ produced during the intermediate $`\overline{D}^0D^{}\pi ^+`$ decay. It should be noted that no sharp peaking occurs in either background where the $`D_s^+`$ and $`\pi _s^{}`$ are nearly uncorrelated, though some hint of a peak is exhibited due to kinematic correlations.

It is seen from Figure 8 that $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ occasionally drifts below zero. This is due to detector resolution effects that distort the quantities used to calculate $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$.

### D Fit of the Data

A sharp signal peak in the $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ distribution of the CLEO on-resonance data previously described in Section II, superimposed on a relatively flat background, is seen in Figure 9. The figure also shows a binned maximum-likelihood fit to this data consisting of three components: $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal, $`B\overline{B}`$ background, and continuum background. The $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal and $`B\overline{B}`$ background components are allowed to float, while the continuum level is fixed by scaling the off-resonance background by the on/off-resonance ratio. The $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ component is a weighted combination of $`D_sD^{}`$, $`D_s^{}D^{}`$, and $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ signals, as the signal distribution shapes in $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ are too similar for meaningful separation. The signal is concentrated in the relatively small region $`0.04\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha 0.12`$, where the data contains 528 events. Table III lists fit results of the three components for this signal region. The errors listed are statistical. The subsequent analysis of the relative $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ rates and polarizations is confined to the signal region:

$$0.04\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha 0.12$$
(14)
## V SEPARATION OF $`D_sD^{}`$, $`D_s^{}D^{}`$, AND $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ SIGNALS. MEASUREMENT OF $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ POLARIZATION

### A Definition of the Two-Dimensional $`p_{D_s}`$ vs $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ Parameter Space

Once the background levels have been determined, the signal modes may be separated from one another. This separation is effected by constructing a two-dimensional parameter space, where each signal carries a distinctive shape. Two variables are required, of which the first is the magnitude of $`D_s^+`$ momentum $`p_{D_s}`$. The kinematics of the $`BD_s^{()}D^{()}`$ decays constrain the relevant $`D_s`$ momentum range to $`1250\mathrm{MeV}/cp_{D_s}1925\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. The second variable of interest is the cosine of the $`\pi _s^{}`$ decay angle as expressed in the $`D^{}`$ frame—$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$—where $`\theta _\pi `$ is a helicity angle, shown in Figure 10. It is possible to calculate $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ from available event information, without reconstructing the $`D^{}`$:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi =\frac{\beta _D^{}(E_{\pi _s}^{}E_{D^0}^{})}{2p_{D^0}^{}}+\frac{p_{\pi _s}^2p_{D^0}^2}{2\gamma _D^{}^2\beta _D^{}M_D^{}p_{D^0}^{}}$$
(15)
Here the kinematics of the $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ mode have been assumed. The quantities $`\gamma _D^{}`$, $`\beta _D^{}`$, $`p_{\pi _s}`$, and $`p_{D_s}`$ are expressed in the lab frame, while $`E_{\pi _s}^{}`$, $`E_{D^0}^{}`$, and $`p_{D^0}^{}`$ are in the $`D^{}`$ frame,

$$E_{D^0}^{}=\frac{M_D^{}^2+M_{D^0}^2M_{\pi _s}^2}{2M_D^{}}$$
(16)
$$E_{\pi _s}^{}=\frac{M_D^{}^2M_{D^0}^2+M_{\pi _s}^2}{2M_D^{}}.$$
(17)
In the $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ mode, the $`D^{}`$ is produced in a $`(J,J_z)=(1,0)`$ state, and conservation of helicity distributes the $`\pi _s^{}`$ as $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\pi `$. Imperfect detector resolution smears the shape. For the case of longitudinally polarized $`D_s^+D^{}`$ from $`B^0`$ decays, the $`D^{}`$ is also produced in a $`(1,0)`$ state. However, the resulting $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\pi `$ shape is not centered at the origin, but is rather shifted downwards. This shift comes from the missing $`\gamma /\pi ^0`$ (where $`D_s^+D_s^+\gamma /D_s^+\pi ^0`$), which was not taken into account in the calculation of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$. Nevertheless the original $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\pi `$ shape is well preserved, centered at $`0.2`$, and falls over the range $`(1.2,0.8)`$. In the case of transversely polarized $`D_s^+D^{}`$, the $`D^{}`$ is produced in a $`(1,1)`$ or $`(1,1)`$ state, and the resulting $`\pi _s^{}`$ produces a helicity distribution of $`1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\pi `$, also centered at $`0.2`$. Finally, the three $`D^0`$ states each produce the $`\pi _s^{}`$ in their unique helicity distributions: the $`D_1(2420)^0`$ decays as $`1+3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\pi `$, the $`D_2^{}(2460)^0`$ decays as $`1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\pi `$, and the $`D_1(j=1/2)^0`$ decays isotropically. However, blending the three $`D^0`$ states according to their production ratios in $`D_s^+D^{}`$ and $`D_s^+D^{}`$ effectively washes out any characteristic helicity shape. The resulting blended distribution is centered at $`0.4`$ and ranges over $`(1.4,0.5)`$, because of the missing intermediate $`\pi `$ (from $`D^{}D^{}\pi `$), which is not accounted for in calculating $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$. The limits of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ relevant to this analysis are therefore $`1.40\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi 1.05`$.

The $`p_{D_s}`$ versus $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ two-dimensional distributions are shown in Figure 11 for each of the four signals ($`D_sD^{}`$, Longitudinally Polarized $`D_s^{}D^{}`$, Transversely Polarized $`D_s^{}D^{}`$, and $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$) and two backgrounds ($`B\overline{B}`$ and continuum). Because the longitudinally polarized and transversely polarized $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ produce markedly different shapes in this two-dimensional distribution, they can be separated into two components. The two-dimensional on-resonance CLEO data distribution is shown in Figure 12.

### B The Fitted Data

A two-dimensional binned maximum-likelihood fit is applied to the data. The $`B\overline{B}`$ and continuum backgrounds, whose levels were determined in the previous one-dimensional fit to the $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ distribution, are fixed here, and their shapes are parameterized as products of Chebyshev polynomials. The two-dimensional Monte Carlo distributions are used for the $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signals. Four signal components are allowed to float: the number of $`D_sD^{}`$, number of $`D_s^{}D^{}`$, number of $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$, and the relative longitudinal $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ polarization. Converting the likelihood to a $`\chi ^2`$-like quantity ($`2\mathrm{ln}`$), the resulting fit has a likelihood of 125.4 for 130 bins with 4 floating parameters. Projections of data and fit along both the $`p_{D_s}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ axes, broken down into signal and background components, are shown in Figure 13. In Table IV, the number of events resulting from the two-dimensional maximum-likelihood fit are reported for each of the $`D_s^{()+}D^{()}`$ modes, along with their statistical and systematic uncertainties, where the systematics will be discussed in Section VI.

The relative longitudinal polarization of the $`D_s^+D^{}`$ production is measured to be:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }=(50.6\pm 13.9\pm 3.6)\%$$
(18)
where the first error is statistical and the second systematic.

### C The Fitted Data With the $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ Component Removed

Because production of $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ has not been previously observed, one might question its inclusion in the preceding fit. A worthwhile consistency check is to remove the $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ from the set of functions and repeat the two-dimensional fitting procedure. The results, without the $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$, are projected along the $`p_{D_s}`$ axis and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ axis in Figure 14. The $`p_{D_s}`$ fit projection shape matches the data well, but is shifted systematically upwards by about 50 MeV/$`c`$. The $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ fit projection shape is decidedly different from the data, since the projection is systematically low over the region $`1.2\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi 0.2`$ and systematically high over the region $`0.2\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi 0.8`$. The $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ fit projection also displays a pair of symmetric peaks that are not reflected in the data. This two-dimensional fit has a likelihood of 139.9 for 130 bins with three floating parameters, and since for this fitting procedure the likelihood follows closely the $`chi^2`$ behavior, this corresponds to a reduced significance of 3.8 standard deviations. A study of the data sideband regions off the $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ signal peak (i.e. where $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha 0.12`$) reveals an amount of $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ that is consistent with the amount of $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ observed in the signal region $`0.04\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha 0.12`$. Taking the factors all together, we conclude that the data strongly indicate a substantial $`D_s^{()+}D^{()}`$ component.

## VI SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES

The single largest uncertainty in the analysis is the 25% uncertainty in the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ branching fraction:

$$(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)=(3.6\pm 0.9)\%$$
(19)
This uncertainty is displayed separately from the other systematic uncertainties, which are listed in Table V.

A 1% systematic uncertainty in track finding and fitting efficiency is estimated for each fast charged track, which for the $`D_s^+`$ add linearly to a 3% total. The slow pion $`\pi _s`$ track finding and fitting uncertainty is estimated at 5%. The uncertainty in the total number of $`B\overline{B}`$ meson pairs introduces a systematic error of 1.8%.

The two-dimensional fit to the data estimates the total amount of $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal at 323.2 events. Since the previous one-dimensional fit to the $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ distribution, summarized in Table III, determined the level of $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal at $`314.0\pm 24.0`$, the two-dimensional fit result overestimates the amount of signal by 9.2 events. To test for a systematic bias in the two-dimensional fitting procedure, fifty simulated datasets were created and filled with $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal Monte Carlo, $`B\overline{B}`$ background, and continuum background according to the proportions of Tables III and IV. Following the procedure of fixing both backgrounds and allowing all four signal components to float, two-dimensional fits to these simulated datasets gave fifty estimates of total $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ signal. The difference between the estimate from each fit and the number of input $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$ events forms a distribution centered at 1.1 with an rms of 5.3, consistent with zero and indicative of an unbiased fitting procedure. In the case of the fit to the real dataset, the additional 9.2 events differ from the expected total by an acceptable 1.7 standard deviations. In order that these events might be accounted for, a systematic error of 2.9% is introduced into the overall signal yield. The polarization measurement is not affected by this systematic error in the fit normalization.

Forty thousand signal Monte Carlo events were generated for each of the nine signal modes: $`D_s^+D^{}`$, longitudinally polarized $`D_s^+D^{}`$, transversely polarized $`D_s^+D^{}`$, $`D_s^+\overline{D}^0`$ (for each of $`\overline{D}_1(2420)^0`$, $`\overline{D}_2^{}(2460)^0`$, and $`\overline{D}_1(j=1/2)^0`$) and $`D_s^+\overline{D}^0`$ (also for all three $`\overline{D}^0`$ states). To estimate statistical limitations, the signal samples were divided in half and the half-samples used to refit the two-dimensional $`p_{D_s^+}`$ vs $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ data distribution. The resulting fits differ from the original by less than 1.0%.

An uncertainty is introduced by statistical fluctuations in the amount of continuum background. Varying the number of continuum background events by one standard deviation ($`\sigma `$) affects the overall two-dimensional fit yields by a maximum of 3.7% and the polarization by a maximum of 1.8%. The uncertainty from statistical fluctuations in the total number of $`B\overline{B}`$ background events is anti-correlated with the continuum background. This is the result of highly similar background shapes in the one-dimensional fit to the $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ data distribution. Refitting the two-dimensional data distribution with these fluctuations changes the yields by a maximum of 1.6%, and the polarization by a maximum of 1.0%, where the small uncertainty results from the anticorrelation.

The two-dimensional continuum and background shapes are parameterized as products of Chebyshev polynomials. Varying the polynomial coefficients by the parameterization errors and refitting the two-dimensional data distribution changes the results by less than 1.0% for either background.

In the two-dimensional fit to the data distribution, there is a single component containing $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ signal. The $`D^{}`$ label denotes the sum of three $`L=1`$ charm states: the $`D_1(j=1/2)`$, $`D_1(2420)`$, and the $`D_2^{}(2460)`$. Each of these three states has a unique mass and width, and produces a different pattern of $`\pi _s^{}`$ helicities. In building the $`D^{}`$ signal component, it is assumed that the $`D^{}`$ production rate from $`B`$ mesons is at a $`D_1(j=1/2):D_1(2420):D_2^{}(2460)`$ ratio of $`2:1:6.7`$, in accordance with the known $`D_1(2420)`$ and $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ production rates in $`BD^{}\pi `$ and the preliminary evidence for the $`D_1(j=1/2)`$. To understand the systematic bias introduced by this choice of ratios, the data was refit using widely varying ratios of ($`2:1:3.3`$, $`2:1:13.5`$, $`1:1:6.7`$, $`4:1:6.7`$, $`2:2:6.7`$, and $`2:0.5:6.7`$). This caused the $`D_sD^{}`$ yield to vary by 0.8%, the $`D_s^{}D^{}`$ yield to vary by as much as 2.9%, the $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ yield to vary by 4.5%, and the polarization to vary by 0.6%.

The $`D_s^+D^{}:D_s^+D^{}`$ ratio in the $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ component has been fixed a priori at $`1:2`$ in the two-dimensional fit. The assumption of this ratio follows from the analogous modes $`BD_s^{()}D^{}`$, where $`D_sD^{}:D_s^{}D^{}`$ has been previously measured at $`1:2`$, a ratio confirmed by this analysis. The pseudoscalar/vector $`D_s:D_s^{}`$ ratio in this spectator decay implies that the same ratio should hold for the $`D_s^{()}D^{}`$ case as well. All the decays $`B^0D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^{()}`$ are spectator decays described by a single Feynman diagram and differentiated only by the final angular momentum states of the $`c\overline{s}`$ ($`D_s^+`$ or $`D_s^+`$) and $`\overline{c}q`$ ($`D^{}`$ or $`D^{}`$) quark pairs. To be particularly conservative, the $`D_sD^{}:D_s^{}D^{}`$ ratio is allowed to vary between $`1:1`$ and $`1:4`$. Pseudoscalar/vector spin considerations strongly suggest that the ratio be confined between these two limits. Varying the $`D_s^+D^{}:D_s^+D^{}`$ ratio between $`1:1`$ and $`1:4`$ changes the fit results significantly, as the $`D_s^+D^{}`$ varies by a maximum of 2.4%, the $`D_s^+D^{}`$ by 9.8%, the $`D^{()+}D^{}`$ by 14.8%, and the polarization by 3.2%. These errors are the second largest systematic uncertainty, after the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ branching fraction uncertainty.

There exists the possibility that significant non-resonant $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}\pi `$ production could contribute to the data sample. The three-body $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}\pi `$ decay peaks nearly as strongly as resonant signal in $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. While no measurements of the $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}\pi `$ non-resonant production have been made, an analogy can be drawn to non-resonant production of $`BD^{}\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$. ALEPH has measured the inclusive branching fraction $`BD^{}\pi \mathrm{}^{}\nu `$ at $`(1.25\pm 0.25)\%`$, and the product of exclusive branching fractions $`(\overline{B}D_1(2420)\mathrm{}^{}\nu )(D_1(2420)^0D^{}\pi )=(0.52\pm 0.17)\%`$. ALEPH has also placed an upper limit on the $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ branching fraction at $`(\overline{B}D_2^{}(2460)\mathrm{}^{}\nu )(D_2^{}(2460)D^{}\pi )<0.39\%`$. Although there is no measurement of the mode $`\overline{B}D_1(j=1/2)\mathrm{}^{}\nu `$, recent observations at CLEO of the related mode $`B^+\overline{D}^0\pi ^+`$ report $`(B\overline{D}_1(2420)^0\pi ^+)2/3(B^+\overline{D}_1(j=1/2)^0\pi ^+)2/3(B^+\overline{D}_2^{}(2460)^0\pi ^+)`$. Assuming that $`(\overline{D}_1(2420)^0D^{}\pi ^+)=(\overline{D}_1(j=1/2)^0D^{}\pi ^+)=2/3`$ and $`(\overline{D}_2^{}(2460)^0D^{}\pi ^+)=1/5`$, and assuming that these relative $`D^{}\pi `$ ratios hold in the semileptonic case, nearly all of the inclusive $`BD^{}\pi \mathrm{}^{}\nu `$ will be accounted for by resonant $`BD^{}\mathrm{}^{}\nu `$. This would leave only a small nonresonant component. Thus a conservative upper limit is that non-resonant $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}\pi `$ could be as large as 40% of the resonant $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ branching fraction. Three $`BD_s^{()}D^{}`$ $`+`$ (Non-Resonant) samples were created: one that contained 60% pure $`BD^{()+}D^{}`$ with 30% non-resonant $`BD_s^+D^{}\pi `$ and 10% $`BD_s^+D^{}\pi `$, one that contained 60% pure $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ with 10% non-resonant $`BD_s^+D^{}\pi `$ and 30% non-resonant $`BD_s^+D^{}\pi `$, and one that contained 60% pure $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ with 20% non-resonant $`BD_s^+D^{}\pi `$ and 20% non-resonant $`BD_s^+D^{}\pi `$. Refitting the data distribution with these $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ $`+`$ non-resonant $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}\pi `$ samples changes the results by 2.2% for the $`BD_s^+D^{}`$ case, by 4.5% for the $`BD_s^+D^{}`$, by 5.9% for the $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$, and by 1.2% for the polarization. These are the systematic errors listed in Table V. Should it be the case that by 60% of resonant $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ branching fraction be non-resonant, the systematic errors increase would increase to 3.0% for the $`BD_s^+D^{}`$, to 6.3% for the $`BD_s^+D^{}`$, to 8.1% for the $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$, and to 1.8% for the polarization. It should be noted that other non-resonant modes, such as $`BD_s^+D^{}\pi \pi `$, produce the $`D_s^+`$ in a momentum range that is almost entirely below the lower limit of 1250 MeV/$`c`$, excluding these modes from this analysis.

The 1998 PDG values for the $`\varphi `$ and $`D^{}`$ branching fractions are $`(\varphi K^+K^{})=(49.1\pm 0.8)\%`$ and $`(D^{}\overline{D}^0\pi _s^{})=(68.3\pm 1.4)\%`$. These introduce systematic errors of 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, into the extraction of the $`D_s^{()+}D^{()}`$ branching fractions.

It is assumed in measuring the longitudinal and transverse $`D_s^+D^{}`$ polarizations that these final states are independent of one another. In actuality there exists, in the differential decay rate, an interference term between the longitudinal and transverse states that is proportional to the azimuthal angle between the planes of the $`D_s^+D_s^+\gamma `$ and $`D^{}\overline{D}^0\pi ^{}`$ decays. This interference vanishes in the integral over the azimuth, and introduces no systematic error into the analysis.

## VII FACTORIZATION AND PREDICTION OF POLARIZATIONS

The factorization assumption, when expressed in the framework of Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) and extrapolating from the form factors measured by the semileptonic $`B`$ decays $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$, allows accurate estimate of the hadronic decay rates for the modes $`BD^{()}\pi `$, $`D^{()}\rho `$, $`D_s^{()}D^{()}`$, and $`D^{()}D^{()}`$. Additionally, factorization, HQET, and the semileptonic decays, predict the relative polarization of the vector-vector hadron products for $`BD^{}X`$ decays, such as $`BD^{}\rho `$ and $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$.

We observe a longitudinal polarization in $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }=(50.6\pm 13.9\pm 3.6)\%`$ for $`q^2=M_{D_s^{}}^2`$, where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. The observation is consistent with the prediction of $`(53.5\pm 3.3)\%`$ from factorization, HQET, and the semileptonic form factor measurements. The same combination also predicts in $`BD^{}\rho `$ a longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }=(89.5\pm 1.9)\%`$ at $`q^2=M_\rho ^2`$, which compares favorably with the most recent measurement of $`(87.8\pm 5.3)\%`$. Finally, predictions are also made that at low $`q^2`$ the longitudinal polarization will be nearly 100%, and at $`q^2=q_{max}^2`$ decreases to 33%. Longitudinal polarization as a function of $`q^2`$ is plotted in Figure 15 for the factorization prediction and compared with the $`D^{}\rho `$ and $`D_s^+D^{}`$ measurements. The agreement is excellent, confirming the validity of the factorization assumption and HQET in extrapolating the semileptonic form factor results for regions of high $`q^2`$. The polarization of the semileptonic decays remains unobserved.

Another vector-vector hadronic $`B`$ decay mode which may further test the factorization assumption at high $`q^2`$ is $`B^0D^+D^{}`$. This decay is Cabibbo-suppressed, and a polarization measurement will require higher statistics than those provided by present experiments. Future experiments will also reduce the errors of the $`D^{}\rho `$ and $`D_s^+D^{}`$ measurements.

## VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Removing the $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ signal component from the two-dimensional fit reduces the likelihood by $`3.8\sigma `$, and the resulting projections along both the $`p_{D_s}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi `$ axes are systematically different from the data as discussed in Section V C. Furthermore, a level of $`D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ is observed in the data sideband regions of $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ consistent with that seen in the signal region. We conclude that the data support first evidence for $`BD_s^{()+}D^{}`$ decays.

From the event yield of Table IV, we can calculate the exclusive branching fractions $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$, $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$, and $`B^+D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0`$, where the $`\overline{D}^0`$ is the sum of the $`D_1(2420)^0`$, $`D_2^{}(2460)^0`$, and $`D_1(j=1/2)^0`$ states

$$(B^0D_s^+D^{})=(1.10\pm 0.18\pm 0.11\pm 0.28)\%,$$
(20)
$$(B^0D_s^+D^{})=(1.82\pm 0.37\pm 0.25\pm 0.46)\%,$$
(21)
$$(B^+D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0)=(2.73\pm 0.78\pm 0.51\pm 0.68)\%.$$
(22)
The first error is statistical, the second systematic, and the third the contribution from the uncertainty of the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ branching fraction. These $`B^0D_s^{()+}D^{}`$ branching fractions supersede the previous CLEO measurements. The extraction of the combined $`D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0`$ branching fraction is contingent on the assumption of Equation (7), where the charged-$`B`$ decay rate, $`B^+D_s^{()+}\overline{D}^0`$, is presumed equal to the neutral-$`B`$ decay rate, $`B^0D_s^{()+}D^{}`$. The extraction also requires some presumption of the individual $`D^{}D^{}\pi `$ rates, shown in Equations (1)–(6). The assumptions follow from conservation of isospin in the spectator $`B`$ decay of Figure 1. It is further assumed that the production rates of $`B^+`$ and $`B^0`$ in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays are equal for all branching fraction measurements.

The relative longitudinal $`D_s^{}`$ polarization in $`B^0D_s^+D^{}`$ is measured for the first time as:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B^0D_s^+D^{})=(50.6\pm 13.9\pm 3.6)\%$$
(23)
where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. The measurement is consistent with the recent factorization prediction of $`(53.5\pm 3.3)\%`$, confirming the validity of the factorization assumption in the domain of relatively high $`q^2`$.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. I.P.J. Shipsey thanks the NYI program of the NSF, M. Selen thanks the PFF program of the NSF, A.H. Mahmood thanks the Texas Advanced Research Program, M. Selen and H. Yamamoto thank the OJI program of DOE, M. Selen and V. Sharma thank the A.P. Sloan Foundation, M. Selen and V. Sharma thank the Research Corporation, F. Blanc thanks the Swiss National Science Foundation, and H. Schwarthoff and E. von Toerne thank the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung for support. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


format: text

text:
# Interstellar Grains

## Interstellar Grains

B. T. Draine, Princeton University

### Overview

Submicron solid particles are dispersed through interstellar gas. These interstellar grains absorb and scatter light, thus shielding some regions from ultraviolet radiation, but also limiting our ability to detect photons which have been emitted by astronomical objects. Dust grains reradiate absorbed energy in the infrared, thus contributing to the overall emission spectrum of astronomical systems ranging from dusty disks around stars to ultraluminous starburst galaxies.

A naked-eye view of the sky from a dark site on a clear summer night reveals dramatic dark patches in the Milky Way. These dark regions are not due to a deficiency of stars – they are instead the result of obscuration by dust clouds interposed between the Earth and distant stars. The obscuration tends to be greater at shorter wavelengths; as a result, the light reaching us from distant, obscured stars is “reddened”. This reddening by interstellar dust can be understood as arising from scattering and absorption by a population of interstellar submicron dust grains.

The grain population spans a range of sizes, from molecules111 Since all grains are “molecules”, it is natural to consider small molecules as the small-size end of the overall grain population.  containing only tens of atoms to particles as large as $`0.3\mu \mathrm{m}`$, containing $`10^{10}`$ atoms. Most of the grain mass appears to be due to two types of solid, in approximately equal amounts: (1) amorphous silicate mineral, and (2) carbonaceous material. A number of elements – including silicon and iron – are primarily in solid form in the interstellar medium. Approximately 2/3 of the interstellar carbon in diffuse clouds is in solid form (see INTERSTELLAR ABSORPTION LINES).

It is of course important to characterize the wavelength-dependent interstellar extinction so that astronomical observations can be “corrected” for the obscuring effects of dust. In addition, the infrared emission from dust grains provides a valuable probe of dense regions, and the dust grains themselves play important roles in interstellar chemistry (shielding from ultraviolet radiation, and catalyzing the formation of H2), interstellar gas dynamics (radiation pressure forces on dust grains, and coupling of charged dust grains to magnetic fields) and heating and cooling of interstellar gas. Dust grains are central to many problems in modern astrophysics.

### Observational Evidence: Summary

There are many different astronomical phenomena which both reveal the existence of interstellar dust grains, and provide information allowing us to infer the properties of this dust. Some of the information is quite direct, due to absorption, scattering, or emission of light by the grains:

* Wavelength-dependent extinction – attenuation and “reddening” of the light from distant stars due to intervening dust (see Figure 1).
* Spectroscopic features in the extinction. There are a number of extinction features, including:

+ A strong and very broad extinction “bump” at 217.5nm (see Figure 1), probably due to carbonaceous material, perhaps graphite.
    + Infrared extinction features at 9.7$`\mu `$m and 18$`\mu `$m, almost certainly due to silicates.
    + A number of weaker “diffuse interstellar bands” (see Figure 2), the strongest of which are at $`443\mathrm{nm}`$ and $`578\mathrm{nm}`$, and which remain generally unidentified.
    + An absorption feature at 3.4$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, seen in diffuse clouds, presumably due to the C-H stretching mode in aliphatic hydrocarbons.
    + A number of absorption features, seen only in molecular clouds, due to ice mantles which apparently coat the grains in these regions. The strongest such feature is a 3.1$`\mu `$m feature attributed to H2O ice.
* Polarization of starlight – preferential attenuation of one linear polarization over another by aligned interstellar dust grains, so that initially unpolarized light from a star is partially polarized by the time it reaches the Earth (see POLARIZATION OF STARLIGHT).
* Reflection nebulae – dust clouds which are relatively close to bright stars, so that the starlight reflected by dust grains near the cloud surface renders the cloud visible (see REFLECTION NEBULAE).
* X-ray haloes around X-ray point sources located behind interstellar dust clouds. The haloes result from small-angle scattering of X-rays by interstellar dust grains.
* Infrared emission from dust grains heated by interstellar starlight (see Figure 3).
* Infrared emission features indicative of aromatic hydrocarbons. The strongest features from the general interstellar medium are at 11.3$`\mu `$m, and 7.7$`\mu `$m (see Figure 3).
* Emission features at 18$`\mu `$m and 9.7$`\mu `$m, generally thought to be due to silicates, from dust in regions with radiation fields $`>10^4`$ times stronger than the average starlight background.
* There is strong evidence for emission from interstellar grains in the far-red, presumably fluorescence following absorption of a shorter wavelength photon.
* In the local interstellar medium, the dust-to-gas ratio appears to be approximately constant – the dust follows the gas.

Although limited, we also have some quite direct evidence concerning interstellar grains:

* Relic interstellar grains found in primitive “carbonaceous chondrite” meteorites.
* Impacts with interplanetary probes of interstellar grains passing through the solar system.

In addition, there are a number of astrophysical phenomena which provide indirect information about interstellar grains:

* Underabundances, relative to solar abundances, of certain elements in interstellar gas – including iron, silicon, magnesium, and carbon (see INTERSTELLAR ABSORPTION LINES). These elements are presumed to be underabundant in the gas phase because a large fraction of the atoms are locked up in interstellar grains.
* The presence in different parts of the interstellar medium of molecular hydrogen (H2) with abundances far exceeding what could be produced by purely gas-phase processes. The required rate of of H2 catalysis on interstellar grain surfaces provides information on interstellar grain properties, including total surface area.

### Extinction by Interstellar Dust Grains

The “extinction curves” shown in Figure 1 represent the wavelength-dependent extinction $`A_\lambda `$ at wavelength $`\lambda `$ observed on different kinds of sightlines. Careful studies of the extinction on many lines of sight reveals that the extinction curves can be approximately described by a one parameter family of extinction curves, and the curves shown in Figure 1 are obtained from fitting functions originally developed by Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis (1989) and others. It is convenient to take $`R_VA_V/(A_BA_V)`$ as the parameter, where $`V=550\mathrm{nm}`$ and $`B=440\mathrm{nm}`$. Values of $`R_V`$ as small as 2.75, and as large as 5.5, are observed in different regions.

Grains in diffuse regions tend to have $`R_V3.1`$, while larger values of $`R_V`$ tend to be seen when studying the extinction by dust in dense clouds. Larger values of $`R_V`$ – corresponding to “greyer” extinction – are indicative of larger grains. The observed tendency for larger values of $`R_V`$ to be found in denser regions strongly suggests that characteristic grain sizes are larger in these regions. It can be shown that the increased values of $`R_V`$ cannot be explained simply by accretion of atoms and molecules from the gas phase – because of the very large amount of surface area contributed by the smaller grains, accretion from the gas phase would result in only a very small increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ in the radii of all grains, with minimal effect on the extinction at $`B`$ and $`V`$. Instead, small grains must coagulate with larger grains to convert diffuse cloud dust to dense cloud dust.

### Extinction Features

The strongest spectroscopic feature in the extinction curve is a conspicuous “bump” at $`217.5`$nm (see Figure 1). This feature has approximately the wavelength and width expected for small (radius $`a<15`$nm) particles of graphite. While identification of the feature is still not certain, it appears highly likely that it is due to small carbonaceous particles with $`sp^2`$ carbon-carbon bonds as in graphite and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The strength of the 217.5nm feature requires that $``$15% of the solar abundance of carbon be present in small ($`a<15`$nm) particles.

Between 1.32$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 400 nm there are many weak diffuse extinction features, known as the “diffuse interstellar bands”, or DIBs. Approximately 300 such features have been identified, with full width at half-maximum (FWHM) ranging from $``$0.05nm up to $``$4nm. The strongest DIB is at 442.9nm.

The first DIBs were recognized in 1934 by Merrill, yet they remain essentially unidentified to this date. They must be due to either “impurities” within dust grains, or to small free-flying molecules (i.e., ultrasmall dust grains). A few of the weaker features have been identified recently as electronic transitions of C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{7}{}^{}`$, and it seems likely that many other of the DIBs are also produced by small hydrocarbon molecules, either neutral or charged (either positively or negatively).

A broad extinction feature at 3.4$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ is attributed to the C–H stretching mode in aliphatic (chainlike) hydrocarbons. This feature is present in the diffuse interstellar medium.

There are strong infrared extinction features peaking at 9.7$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 18$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ which are almost certainly due to amorphous silicates with a composition approximating that of olivine (MgxFe2-xSiO4). In regions where the dust is hot (e.g., circumstellar dust, or the dust near the Trapezium in the Orion Nebula), these features appear in emission. In some circumstellar dust shells and disks (e.g., the dusty disk around the Herbig Ae/Be star HD 100546), sharp features characteristic of crystalline silicates appear in emission, but these features have not been detected in either emission or absorption in the interstellar medium, indicating that the bulk of interstellar silicates are amorphous.

In dark clouds, a number of additional features appear in the infrared extinction, presumably due to growth of molecular ice mantles on the refractory dust grain cores. The strongest feature is at 3.08$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and is due to amorphous H2O ice. Additional features have been identified as frozen CH3OH (3.53$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$), CO (4.67$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$), CH4 (7.65$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$), and CO2 (15.2$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$).

### Alignment of Dust Grains

When initially unpolarized starlight passes through the dusty interstellar medium, it acquires both linear and circular polarization. The linear polarization is due to preferential attenuation of one linear polarization over the other, due to a population of nonspherical dust grains which are somehow aligned. The linear polarization peaks near $`V=550`$nm, with peak polarization $`P0.03A_V`$. The circular polarization, generally quite small, is due to conversion of linear to circular polarization when the alignment direction of the dust grains undergoes a twist along the line-of-sight to the source.

Spinning dust grains have magnetic moments antiparallel to their angular velocities, and the angular momentum therefore precesses around the local galactic magnetic field. As a result, the observed direction of starlight linear polarization must be either parallel or perpendicular to the projection of the magnetic field on the sky. Theories of grain alignment lead us to expect the grain angular momentum to tend to align with the magnetic field, and the “long” axis of the grains to tend to be perpendicular to the angular momentum. The long axis of the grain therefore tends to be perpendicular to the magnetic field, and as a result light becomes linearly polarized parallel to the projection of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky.

Our understanding of the physics of dust grain alignment is not yet complete, but it appears that the observed alignment in diffuse clouds is produced mainly by a combination of paramagnetic dissipation (originally proposed by Davis and Greenstein in 1951) and radiative torques on irregular dust grains due to anisotropic starlight. In some cases the alignment may result from drift of the dust grains through the gas cloud.

### Scattering of Light by Dust Grains

Reflection nebulae such as NGC2023 or the beautiful filamentary structures near the Pleaides show that dust grains scatter starlight. While most conspicuous when a bright star is located near the surface of a dense clouds, reflected starlight also manifests itself as the “diffuse galactic light” – reflected starlight seen in all directions in the sky where there is dust. Measurements of the surface brightness of reflection nebulae, or of the diffuse galactic light, provide constraints on the scattering properties of interstellar dust grains – both the total “albedo” $`\omega =C_{sca}/C_{ext}`$, and the angular dependence of the scattering, often characterized by $`g\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. At visible wavelengths, the albedo $`\omega 0.5`$ and the grains are moderately forward-scattering, $`g0.5`$, consistent with current models for interstellar grains which reproduce the wavelength-dependent extinction as well as the infrared emission from dust.

Scattering by dust grains can also be observed at X-ray wavelengths. A grain is essentially transparent to $`h\nu >0.5`$keV X-ray photons. Since the refractive index of the grain material is very close to 1, the scattering can be calculated in the “Rayleigh-Gans” approximation, and one finds that only small-angle scattering is expected. X-ray halos around compact X-ray sources have been imaged by the Einstein and ROSAT observatories; the observed X-ray halos appear to be approximately consistent with the scattering expected for a grain model developed to account for the optical-UV extinction curve.

### Dust Grain Luminescence

Observations of reflection nebulae (e.g., NGC 7023) as well as the general interstellar diffuse clouds or “cirrus” appear to show evidence of far-red continuum radiation in excess of what is expected from simple scattering of starlight by dust grains. The far-red emission peaks near $``$700nm, and has a spectrum resembling the luminescence from hydrogenated amorphous carbon illuminated by $`\lambda <550`$nm radiation. This suggests that some of the grain material may resemble hydrogenated amorphous carbon, although ultrasmall silicon grains have also been proposed as the source of the emission. Even if it is assumed that hydrogenated amorphous carbon is responsible for the observed emission, an accurate estimate of the quantity of material required is not possible, since luminescence efficiencies of hydrogenated amorphous carbon in the laboratory depend on the preparation of the sample.

### Infrared Emission from Dust Grains

Starlight is in part absorbed by dust grains, and the absorbed energy is reradiated by dust grains in the infrared. The observed emission spectrum for interstellar dust is shown in Figure 3. It consists of far-infrared emission peaking at $`\lambda 140\mu \mathrm{m}`$, plus substantial emission at shorter wavelengths.

The emission at $`\lambda <12\mu \mathrm{m}`$ shows conspicuous emission features at 11.3, 8.6, 7.7, 6.2, and 3.3$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$; emission peaks at these same wavelengths have also been observed from reflection nebulae, planetary nebulae, HII regions, and circumstellar dust. The emission features have been identified as characteristic of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): C-H stretch (3.3$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$), C-C stretch (6.2 and 7.7$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$), in-plane C-H bend (8.6$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) and out-of-plane C-H bend (11.3$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$). Variations in the relative strengths and precise wavelengths of these features from one object to another may be due to changes in the PAH mixture, including changes in the fraction which are positively or negatively charged.

The “classical” grains with radii $`0.010.3\mu \mathrm{m}`$ radiate a spectrum characteristic of thermal emission at the (steady) temperature of the grain, $``$15–20 K for grains in the diffuse interstellar medium. This accounts for nearly all of the emission at $`\lambda >60\mu \mathrm{m}`$. For very small grains, however, absorption of a single starlight photon can appreciably change the grain temperature. For example, a single photon of energy $`h\nu =10`$eV can heat a 230 atom graphite grain to a peak temperature $`T300`$K. At this temperature the grain can radiate effectively at wavelengths as short as $`\lambda 8\mu \mathrm{m}`$. The observed emission feature near $`7.7\mu \mathrm{m}`$ could therefore be due to thermal emission from grains with $`100300`$ atoms. The relatively large amount of power radiated at $`\lambda <10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ requires that the grains with $`<300`$ atoms account for an appreciable fraction ($`>15`$%) of the total absorption of starlight by interstellar grains.

### Microwave Emission from Dust Grains

Sensitive observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation have revealed 10–60 GHz emission from interstellar matter with intensities greatly exceeding what would be expected from an extrapolation of the thermal far-infrared emission to these lower frequencies. It appears likely that the observed 10–60 GHz emission is largely rotational electric dipole emission from very rapidly rotating ultrasmall grains, although a fraction of the radiation could be thermal emission from grains containing materials that are ferromagnetic (e.g., metallic Fe inclusions) or ferrimagnetic (e.g., magnetite Fe3O4).

### Interstellar Dust Grains in the Solar System

The solar system was formed out of interstellar gas and dust approximately 4.5 billion years ago. The formation of planetesimals and planets was accompanied in many cases by high temperatures and violent conditions, and most interstellar dust particles were destroyed. However, the class of meteorites known as carbonaceous chondrites (see METEORITES) contain small particles with unusual isotopic ratios (see ISOTOPIC ANOMALIES) which indicate that they did not form in the solar nebula, but rather must have been formed in a region with an anomalous composition (e.g., outflow from an evolved star) long before the formation of the solar system. Therefore these particles must have been part of the interstellar grain population prior to the formation of the solar nebula.

To date, 5 different type of presolar grains have been isolated and identified (see Table 1). The evidence that the grains listed in Table 1 were truly interstellar is compelling, but it is important to realize that they apparently do not include typical interstellar grains, for the simple reason that the procedures used to isolate interstellar grains in meteorites are designed to deliberately destroy silicate material (which comprises the bulk of the carbonaceous chondrite meteorite “matrix”). These laboratory procedures are therefore not going to find interstellar silicate grains even if they are present.

Detectors aboard the Ulysses and Galileo probes measured impacts by interplanetary dust particles, but also observed impacts attributed to the flux of interstellar grains expected due to the 20 km s-1 motion of the Sun relative to the local interstellar medium. The detectors are sensitive only to collisions with the large-size end of the interstellar grain distribution, but the observed distribution of impact energies appears to be consistent with both the overall numbers and size distribution expected based on studies of interstellar extinction.

The lines of evidence listed above serve to strongly constrain theoretical models for the interstellar grain population. Unfortunately, interstellar grain researchers have thus far not been able to uniquely determine the grain model from the available observational constraints, so debates continue concerning the details.

Nevertheless, there is broad consensus on a number of properties of interstellar grains:

* The grain population must have a broad size distribution, with grain radii444The particles are of course not spherical. By grain “radius” we refer to the radius of a sphere of equal volume.  covering the range 0.5nm – 300nm – a factor of at least $`10^8`$ in grain mass.
* Most of the grain mass is in particles with radii $`50<a<300`$nm.
* Most of the grain area is in particles with radii $`a<50`$nm.
* Approximately 50% of the grain mass in diffuse clouds is contributed by amorphous silicate material, accounting for the broad 9.7$`\mu `$m and 18$`\mu `$m silicate features. Most of the silicon, iron, and magnesium abundance is in solid form.
* Approximately 50% of the grain mass in diffuse clouds is contributed by carbonaceous material. Approximately 2/3 of the total carbon abundance is in solid form.
* The 217.5nm feature is probably due to some form of carbonaceous material, possibly graphitic.

### Graphite-Silicate Grain Model

It is not possible to invert the observations to obtain a unique grain model. Instead, one makes some assumptions concerning the grain composition and the form of the size distribution, and then attempts to adjust the model to achieve a good match to the observed interstellar extinction, infrared emission, and other constraints such as observed gas phase abundances.

One grain model which has proven fairly successful in conforming to observations consists of a mixture of carbon grains and silicate grains. The carbon grain material is taken to have the optical constants of crystalline graphite. A good fit to the extinction can be obtained if both graphite and silicate grains have size distributions which are approximately a power-law, $`dn/daa^{3.5}`$, truncated at $`a_{\mathrm{min}}5\mathrm{nm}`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{max}}250\mathrm{nm}`$ The $`217.5\mathrm{nm}`$ feature is then reproduced by the $`a<15\mathrm{nm}`$ graphite grains. This grain model – the combination of graphite and silicate grains, and the $`dn/daa^{3.5}`$ power-law – was first put forward in 1977 by Mathis, Rumpl, and Nordsieck, and is often referred to as the “MRN” model. The MRN model achieves a good fit to the $`R_V=3.1`$ extinction curve for diffuse clouds with essentially all of the Mg, Si, and Fe in the silicate grains, and approximately 2/3 of the C in the graphite grains, in reasonable agreement with observed depletions. The grains are heated to temperatures $``$18 K by starlight, and the resulting thermal emission is approximately consistent with the observed far-infrared emission at $`\lambda >60\mu \mathrm{m}`$.

### Ultrasmall Dust Grains

Unfortunately, the original graphite-silicate grain model described above fails to reproduce the $`\lambda <50\mu \mathrm{m}`$ infrared emission shown in Figure 3. The model lacks the ultrasmall grain component required to explain the observed $`3<\lambda <50\mu \mathrm{m}`$ infrared emission from interstellar dust. The simplest modification is to allow the carbon grain distribution to extend down to very small sizes, with the smallest grains assumed to have infrared optical properties suitable to explain the emission features at 3.3, 6.2, 7.6, 8.6, and 11.2$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ when heated to the appropriate temperatures by absorption of single starlight photons. In order to have sufficient numbers of ultrasmall grains, while still reproducing the extinction curve, the size distribution of at least the carbonaceous grains can no longer be approximated by a single power-law.

### Other Grain Models

Other grain models, with different grain geometries and/or compositions, have been proposed to account for the observed interstellar extinction and infrared emission.

* Mathis and Whiffen proposed a grain model wherein the larger grains are porous aggregates of small graphite and silicate particles.
* Some authors have favored metal oxides (MgO, SiO, FeO) either in addition to, or in place of, silicates.
* Some models assume the silicate grains in diffuse clouds to be coated with a carbonaceous “mantle” material, which might be hydrogenated amorphous carbon.
* Metallic Fe and FeS incorporate significant fractions of the Fe in some grain models.
* Small particles of crystalline silicon, with hydrogenated or oxidized surfaces, have been proposed as an explanation for the observed luminescence near $``$700nm.

Grain models generally tend to have the bulk of the Fe, Mg, Si in dust, approximately 2/3 of the C, and about 20% of the O, resulting in dust-to-gas mass ratios of $``$0.007.

### Dynamics of Interstellar Grains

Interstellar grains are acted on by forces due to a number of distinct physical processes, including:

* Gas drag forces when the grain velocity differs from that of the gas. In addition to direct collisions with atoms and ions, there is also a “plasma drag” force on charged grains due to momentum transfer with ions which do not actually collide with the grain. For subsonic motion, the plasma drag force is typically a factor $``$20 – 30 larger than the drag due to direct collisions with ions.
* Electromagnetic forces on charged grains. Since there is usually a “plasma” reference frame in which the electric field is very small (interstellar plasma being a very good conductor), the electromagnetic force can be attributed to the Lorentz force $`𝐅=Q(𝐯/c)\times 𝐁`$ Lorentz force, where $`Q`$ is the grain charge, $`𝐁`$ is the magnetic field and $`𝐯`$ is the grain velocity relative to the plasma.
* Scattering and absorption of photons (“radiation pressure”) when the grain is illuminated by an anisotropic radiation field.
* Poynting-Robertson drag, as when a grain is moving perpendicular to a directional radiation field. While not normally important in the interstellar medium, Poynting-Robertson drag can be very important for dust grains orbiting stars (see INTERPLANETARY DUST).
* Recoil forces when photoelectrons or photodesorbed molecules are emitted anistropically from a grain which is illuminated by an anisotropic ultraviolet radiation field.
* Gravitational force. In clouds supported by gas pressure, dust grains will tend to “sediment” toward the minimum of the gravitational potential.

Because the gas and grains are subject to different forces, the dust grains generally have a drift velocity relative to the gas. In typical diffuse clouds, anisotropic starlight can result in drift velocities of order $``$$`0.1\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. In regions with strongly anisotropic ultraviolet radiation fields (such as photodissociation regions) the drift velocities can be larger.

The rotational dynamics of interstellar grains are also of great interest, in connection with both the problem of grain alignment (which requires alignment of the grain angular momentum vector with the local magnetic field) and with electric dipole radiation which will be radiated by very rapidly-rotating ultrasmall grains. The grain angular momentum is affected by:

* Collisions with gas atoms and molecules.
* Recoil associated with photoelectric emission.
* Recoil associated with H2 formation on the grain surface.
* Absorption and scattering of starlight by an asymmetric grain.
* Thermal infrared emission.
* The interstellar magnetic field acting on the magnetic dipole moment resulting from the Barnett effect in a spinning grain.
* The interstellar magnetic field acting on the magnetization induced in the spinning grain by the interstellar magnetic field (the “Davis-Greenstein” torque associated with paramagnetic dissipation).

Because the interstellar medium is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, some of these torques can act systematically.

Grains can be driven to rotational kinetic energies much larger than $`kT_{gas}`$ (where $`T_{gas}`$ is the gas temperature) by collisions with gas atoms and molecules (because the grain and gas temperatures differ), by photoelectric emission or by absorption and scattering of starlight (because the starlight radiation field is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the grain temperature), and by H2 formation (because the H2 abundance and gas and grain temperatures are not in thermodynamic equilibrium).

Gradual alignment of the grain angular momentum with the magnetic field can be produced by paramagnetic dissipation (because the grain rotational kinetic energy is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the “vibrational” temperature of the grain).

### Effects of Interstellar Grains

#### Photoelectric Heating

Perhaps the most important effect of interstellar dust grains is their role in heating the gas via photoelectric emission. When a dust grain absorbs an ultraviolet photon of energy $`h\nu `$, there is a probability $`Y(h\nu )`$ – often referred to as the “yield” – that a photoelectron will escape from the grain surface and thermalize with the local gas. When this happens, the kinetic energy of the emitted electron (at “infinity”, since the grain it is escaping from may be charged) acts to heat the interstellar medium. On average, grains must capture electrons as rapidly as they are ejected, and the net heating rate then is equal to the difference between the mean energy of the emitted electrons and the captured electrons. Since photoelectric yields $`Y`$ may be of order $``$10%, and since the kinetic energy of the electron at infinity may be of order $`1`$eV (if the grain is not highly positively charged) the photoelectric heating mechanism – at best – converts $``$few % of the absorbed ultraviolet starlight energy into heating of the gas. While this $``$few % conversion efficiency may seem small, the availability of energy in starlight is so great that photoelectric heating is generally the dominant heating mechanism for diffuse interstellar gas.

#### Radiative Forces on Dust Grains

In astrophysics, anisotropic radiation fields are the rule, rather than the exception, and these anisotropic radiation fields can have dynamical consequences for dust and gas. Circumstellar grains are of course subject to extremely anisotropic radiation from the star. At a typical point in the interstellar medium, the nonuniform distribution of stars in the galaxy, together with patchy obscuration by interstellar dust, results in starlight with appreciable anisotropy. The dipole component of the starlight anisotropy may be typically $``$10%.

When the radiation field is anisotropic, scattering and absorption by the grain produces a net force on the grain, commonly referred to as the “radiation pressure” force. If the grain is coupled collisionally to the gas by gas drag and perhaps magnetic fields, then the force exerted on the grains is transmitted to the gas. These radiation pressure forces can dominate the dynamics of gas in certain regions, such as dust-forming winds from cool stars.

#### H2 Formation on Grains

Interstellar chemistry largely starts with the catalysis of H2 on interstellar grain surfaces (see INTERSTELLAR CHEMISTRY). The inferred production rate of H2 in the interstellar medium requires that an appreciable fraction of the H atoms arriving at interstellar grains surfaces must leave the grains as part of H2 molecules. While the details of the kinetics remain uncertain, the overall picture is broadly as follows: When an H atom in a diffuse cloud arrives at a grain surface, it has a high probability of sticking. The H atom then explores some fraction of the grain surface by either thermal diffusion or quantum tunnelling, until it either finds another H atom with which it can recombine to form H2, or it arrives at a location on the grain surface where the binding by either van der Waals forces (“physisorption”) or formation of a chemical bond (“chemisorption”) is strong enough that it becomes trapped. If such trapping occurs, then the surface coverage of trapped H atoms builds up until newly-arrived H atoms have an appreciable probability of reacting with a previously-trapped H atom rather than becoming trapped themselves, or the adsorbed H atoms are removed by some other process (e.g., photodesorption or thermal desorption).

#### Coupling Magnetic Fields to Neutral Gas

Dynamically important magnetic fields are commonly present in interstellar gas (see INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELDS). In dense molecular gas with very low fractional ionization, a large fraction of the “free” charge resides on positively and negatively charged dust grains. Under these conditions – which prevail in high density regions in molecular clouds, and presumably in protostellar disks – dust grains dominate the coupling of magnetic fields to the gas, since the neutral gas atoms and molecules themselves are not directly coupled to the magnetic field. The charged dust grains are coupled both to the magnetic field (by Lorentz forces) and to the neutral gas (by collisional drag). As a result, the grains will drift with a velocity which is intermediate between the velocity of the neutral gas and the velocity with which the magnetic field lines (and plasma) “slip” through the neutral gas. Thus the dust grains determine the rate of “ambipolar diffusion” of magnetic field lines in dense molecular regions.

Charged dust grains play a similar role in the dynamics of magnetohydrodynamic shock waves in gas of low fractional ionization but dynamically significant magnetic fields.

### Formation and Destruction of Interstellar Grains

While interstellar grains are observed to be ubiquitous, it is not obvious that this should be so. In the violent interstellar medium (see INTERSTELLAR MATTER, SUPERNOVA REMNANTS), grains can be destroyed when the gas which they are in is overtaken by a shock wave with shock speed $`v_s>200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, as is expected in supernova blastwaves. Estimates of the rate of occurrence of supernovae, together with models for the resulting blastwaves, lead one to estimate that the mass in interstellar grains will be returned to the gas phase on a timescale of $`5\times 10^8\mathrm{yr}`$, short compared to the age of the Galaxy and the interstellar medium. We know that grains are injected into the interstellar medium in outflows from cool red giants and supergiants, and even in supernova ejecta, but if there were no conversion of gaseous atoms back to solid form in the interstellar medium, we would expect very little grain material to be present at any time. In particular, even for elements like Fe we would expect most of the atoms to be in the gas phase. The fact that this is not so – that most of the interstellar Fe is in fact missing from the gas phase – requires that there be efficient recondensation of Fe, Si, Ca, and other elements back into solid form in the interstellar medium. The “mineralogy” of interstellar grains must therefore largely reflect the surface chemistry which will occur on the surfaces of interstellar grains.

### Bibliography

Dust in the Galactic Environment, by D.C.B. Whittet (London: IOP Publishing; 1992), provides an excellent overall description of interstellar dust grains.

The observed optical properties of dust have been recently reviewed by J.S. Mathis (1990), Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys., 28, 37.

The ultrasmall grain population is discussed by Puget, J.L., & Leger, A. (1989), Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys., 27, 161.

An overall review of interstellar and circumstellar dust is given by Dorschner, J., & Henning, T. (1995), Astr. Astrophys. Rev., 6, 271.

Microwave emission from dust grains is reviewed by Draine, B.T., & Lazarian, A. (1999), in Microwave Foregrounds, ed. A. de Oliveira-Costa & M. Tegmark (San Francisco: Astron. Soc. Pacific), p. 133

BRUCE T. DRAINE