text:
# Incoherent Photoproduction of 𝜂-mesons from the Deuteron near Threshold

## I Introduction

Recent measurements by the TAPS collaboration  at the MAMI accelerator of the $`\eta `$-meson photoproduction on deuterium and helium indicate an enhancement of the total inclusive cross section at photon energies close to the reaction threshold. The data were specifically collected with high statistical accuracy in order to clarify the first observation  of the rather large total cross section in that energy regime. It was suggested  that such a threshold enhancement could result either from the formation of the quasi bound $`\eta `$-nucleus state or from the interaction between the final nucleons.

Indeed, a strong influence of the final state interaction (FSI) on the cross sections of $`\pi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ and $`\omega `$-meson production in nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) collisions was observed in experiments at the IUCF, COSY and CELSIUS accelerator facilities . With the exception of the $`\eta `$ channel, those experiments producing mesons in $`NN`$ collisions can be described almost perfectly by theoretical calculations accounting only for the final state interactions between the nucleons . In case of $`\eta `$ production there is evidence that the $`\eta N`$ FSI could play a role as well . Therefore, one might expect that the TAPS data can be understood in terms of the strong neutron-proton ($`np`$) FSI and possibly an $`\eta N`$ FSI.

However, recent calculations  which include the $`np`$ as well as the $`\eta N`$ final state interactions underestimate the cross section for the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ at photon energies close to the threshold. Within a different approach, three body calculations  of the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ performed by the same authors reproduce the main features of the experimental data, but again do not explain the rather large total cross section near the reaction threshold. On the other hand, an older calculation of the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ performed by Ueda , which considers the formation of a quasi bound $`\eta d`$ state, leads to a much too strong enhancement of the production cross section close to threshold, and is ruled out by the TAPS data. Therefore, the explanation of the TAPS data is still open and needs further investigations.

Here we evaluate the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ within the impulse approximation. In addition we account for the FSI between the neutron and proton by employing the most recent CD-Bonn potential . In Sect. 2 we specify the elementary $`\gamma N\eta N`$ amplitude which serves as input for our calculation of the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$. Specifically, we assume that the elementary $`\eta `$-production proceeds via the excitation of the $`N^{}`$ $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance. The free parameters of our model are fixed by a fit to available data for the reaction $`\gamma p\eta p`$. In Sect. 3 we provide some details about the evaluation of the reaction amplitude for $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ and present results for the impulse approximation as well as for the inclusion of the FSI in the $`np`$ system. Possible effects from the $`\eta N`$ FSI are discussed in Sect. 4. In addition we provide predictions for the angular spectrum and for the momentum spectrum of the produced $`\eta `$ meson for selected incident photon energies in the vicinity of the $`\eta `$-production threshold. The section ends with a brief summary of our results.

## II The elementary $`\gamma N\eta N`$ amplitude.

The dominant contribution to $`\eta `$-meson photoproduction from a nucleon is given by the $`N^{}`$ isobar excitation . We do not consider the nucleon s-channel pole term nor $`t`$-channel vector meson exchanges, since their contributions were found to be negligible .

The square of the invariant collision energy of the reaction $`\gamma NN\eta `$ is defined as

$$s=m_N^2+2m_NE_\gamma ,$$
(1)
where $`m_N`$ and $`E_\gamma `$ are the nucleon mass and the photon energy, respectively. The photon momentum $`k`$ and the $`\eta `$-meson momentum $`q`$ in the center of mass system are given by

$$k=\frac{sm_N^2}{2\sqrt{s}},q=\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,m_N^2,m_\eta ^2)}{2\sqrt{s}},$$
(2)
where $`m_\eta `$ stands for the mass of the $`\eta `$-meson. The Kälen function is defined as

$$\lambda (x,y,z)=(xyz)^24yz.$$
(3)
The resonant contribution is given by helicity amplitudes in the relevant partial waves , namely

$`A_{l\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm FA_{1/2}^N,`$ (4)
$`B_{l\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm F\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{l(l+2)}}\right]^{1/2}A_{3/2}^N,`$ (5)
$`C_{l\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm FC_{1/2}^N,`$ (6)
where the factor $`F`$ accounts for the resonance decay into the $`N\eta `$ channel. $`l`$ denotes the orbital angular momentum. Taking into account the phase space factor and the relativistic Breit-Wigner propagator as introduced in Ref.  one obtains

$$F=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\eta }{\pi (2j+1)}\frac{k}{q}\frac{m_N}{\sqrt{s}}\right]^{1/2}\frac{\sqrt{s}}{M_R^2si\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(7)
Here $`M_R`$ is the resonance mass, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\eta `$ are the total and $`RN\eta `$ partial resonance widths, respectively, while $`j`$ is the spin of the resonance.

The standard relation between the Breit-Wigner helicity amplitudes and electric, magnetic and longitudinal multipoles are given in Refs. .

Following the analysis of pion photoproduction, we account for the energy dependence of the hadronic widths  in order to satisfy the threshold dependence  of the multipole amplitudes of the outgoing meson momentum $`q_\xi `$. The energy dependence of the partial width for each final meson $`\xi `$ is given as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi (M_R)\frac{\rho _\xi (\sqrt{s})}{\rho _\xi (M_R)},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi (M_R)`$ is the $`RN\xi `$ partial resonance width at the resonance pole, while $`\rho _\xi `$ is given by

$$\rho _\xi (\sqrt{s})=\frac{q_\xi }{\sqrt{s}}B_l^2(q_\xi R),q_\xi =\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,m_N^2,m_\xi ^2)}{2\sqrt{s}}.$$
(9)
Here $`B_l`$ is the Blatt-Weisskopf function for the orbital angular momentum $`l`$. The interaction radius was taken as $`R`$ = 1 fm, and $`m_\xi `$ stands for the mass of the meson. The function $`\rho _\xi (M_R)`$ in Eq. 9 is evaluated at the resonance pole $`\sqrt{s}=M_R`$. In addition, the total energy-dependent resonance width is given by the sum over the partial widths of all available final states.

In principle, one may consider the contributions from the resonances $`P_{11}(1440)`$, $`D_{13}(1520)`$, $`S_{11}(1535)`$, $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`D_{15}(1675)`$, and higher mass resonances to the photoproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons  and evaluate the resonance parameters from the available differential cross section data and recoil nucleon polarization data . Contributions from $`S`$-wave resonances provide an isotropic angular spectrum $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ of $`\eta `$-mesons, with $`\theta `$ denoting the $`\eta `$-meson emission angle in the c.m. system. The $`P`$-wave resonances contribute proportionally to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, while the $`D`$-wave resonances result in a $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ dependence. Although contributions from higher partial waves to the total photoproduction cross section of $`\eta `$-mesons can be very small, they can be evaluated from the differential $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ cross section with the help of interference terms. However, most recent data  for differential cross sections of the reaction $`\gamma pp\eta `$ at photon energies from 716 to 788 MeV indicate that, within the experimental errors, the angular spectrum is dominated almost entirely by the $`S`$-wave distribution. Estimated contributions from $`P`$ and $`D`$-wave resonances can be given only at very low confidence level . Furthermore, data on the nucleon recoil polarization, which in principle must be sensitive to the resonant contribution , have large uncertainties and are thus not significant.

Since there is no strong experimental evidence  for contributions to the $`\eta `$-meson photoproduction from resonances other than the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance in the near-threshold region, we will consider in the following only this resonance. The partial decay widths, $`S_{11}(1535)N\eta `$ and $`S_{11}(1535)N\pi `$, are related to the relevant coupling constant $`g_{RN\xi }`$, $`\xi =\eta ,\pi `$, by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi =\frac{g_{RN\xi }^2}{4\pi }\frac{q_\xi (E_N+m_N)}{M_R}.$$
(10)
Here the momentum $`q_\xi `$ and the nucleon energy $`E_N`$ are evaluated in the rest frame of the resonance at the pole position of $`S_{11}(1535)`$.

Considering only the contribution of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance, the data for $`\eta `$-meson photoproduction off protons can be well fitted with the following resonance parameters at the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ pole:

$`M_R=1544MeV,\mathrm{\Gamma }=203MeV,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\eta /\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.45,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi /\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.45,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1.`$ (12)
For the electromagnetic helicity amplitudes in Eq. 5 we use the values $`A_{1/2}^p`$ = 0.124 $`GeV^{1/2}`$ and $`A_{1/2}^n`$ = -0.1 $`GeV^{1/2}`$. The result of this fit for the total cross section for the reaction $`\gamma pp\eta `$ is displayed in Fig. 1.

## III The Reaction $`\gamma d\eta np`$

Using the impulse approximation (IA) the amplitude $``$ of the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ for given spin $`S`$ and isospin $`T`$ of the final nucleons can be written as

$$_{IA}=A^T(s_1)\varphi (\stackrel{}{p}_2)(1)^{S+T}A^T(s_2)\varphi (\stackrel{}{p}_1),$$
(13)
where $`\varphi (p_i)`$ stands for the deuteron wave function and $`p_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) is the momentum of the proton or neutron in the deuteron rest frame. The quantity $`A^T`$ denotes the isoscalar or isovector photoproduction amplitude at the squared invariant energy $`s_N`$ given by

$$s_N=sm_N^22(E_\gamma +m_d)E_N+2\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma \stackrel{}{p}_N.$$
(14)
Our calculation within the framework of the IA is shown in Fig. 2 and corresponds to the dashed line. It describes the data  at photon energies above $``$680 MeV reasonably well. Close to the reaction threshold, however, the IA result substantially underestimates the data. We take this as an indication that effects from the ($`NN`$ and/or $`\eta N`$) final state interaction play an important role here. Indeed, as already mentioned in the Introduction, it is well known from meson production in $`NN`$ collisions that close to threshold FSI effects lead to a significant modification of the cross section.

In meson production in $`NN`$ collisions FSI effects result predominantly from strong $`S`$-wave interactions in the outgoing $`NN`$ system. Therefore, we will take into account this contribution for the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$. The corresponding amplitude is given by

$$_{FSI}=m_N𝑑kk^2\frac{T(q,k)A^T(s_N)\varphi (p_i)}{q^2k^2+iϵ}.$$
(15)
Here $`q`$ is the nucleon momentum in the final $`np`$ system and $`T(q,k)`$ is the half-shell $`np`$ scattering matrix in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ partial waves. In the calculations presented here, the half-shell t-matrix is obtained at corresponding on-shell momenta $`q`$ from the latest CD-Bonn potential , which describes the $`NN`$ data base with a $`\chi ^2`$/datum of about 1. In order to find out if a high precision description of the $`NN`$ data, in our specific case the $`NN`$ s-waves, is crucial, we carried out the calculations with an older one-boson-exchange model, OBEPQ , also describing the s-waves reasonably well. We found the difference of those two calculations being negligible.

The total cross section $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ including the $`np`$ FSI in $`S`$-waves is displayed in Fig. 2 as solid line. Now the model calculation describes the data  reasonably well and lies, in fact, within the experimental uncertainties. As expected, the FSI interaction gives rise to a significant increase of the production cross section close to threshold as is required for getting agreement with the data.

## IV Discussion

In $`\eta `$-production experiments in $`pp`$ as well as in $`np`$ collisions one has observed that there is an even stronger enhancement of the production cross section close to threshold, which cannot be explained by FSI effects from the $`NN`$ interaction alone . This additional enhancement is, in general, seen as an indication of FSI effects due to the $`\eta N`$ interaction . Thus, it may be suggested that similar effects are seen in the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$. In order to expose a possible influence from the $`\eta N`$ FSI we again show the experimental data in Fig. 3, but now divide them by our model calculation, which includes the enhancement from the FSI between the nucleons. Any effects from the $`\eta N`$ FSI present in the data would then reveal themselves as additional enhancement. Indeed, as can be seen in Fig. 3, there is a deviation from our calculation for energies very close to threshold, which may be interpreted as being caused by an $`\eta N`$ FSI, though the error bars are large. It is interesting to mention, that the magnitude and also the energy range of this deviation are comparable to the effects seen in $`\eta `$-production via hadronic probes. In the reactions $`pppp\eta `$ as well as in $`pnd\eta `$ the observed additional enhancement very close to threshold was a factor of 2 to 3, cf. Ref.  and , respectively, and the enhancement was limited to excess energies below roughly 15 MeV for the former and roughly 10 MeV for the latter reaction. In any case, it would be very useful to have data with higher statistics available at those energies very close to threshold in order to chart the possible enhancement due to the $`\eta N`$ FSI more accurately .

Angular spectra of $`\eta `$-mesons in the photon-deuteron rest frame are shown for different photon energies in Fig. 4. The IA calculation underestimates the data at $`E_\gamma `$=627-665 MeV, but already reasonably reproduces experimental results at 665-705 MeV.

Momentum spectra of the $`\eta `$-mesons in the $`\gamma d`$ rest frame at different photon energies are displayed in Fig. 5. At the lower photon energy, 627-665 MeV, the IA calculation differs considerably from the full calculation including FSI. The latter leads to a significant enhancement of the yield for larger $`\eta `$ momenta. This is not surprising because in this case the $`\eta `$-meson carries away much of the available kinetic energy and the $`NN`$ system emerges with a small relative momentum, and the interaction is particularly strong. This enhancement at large $`\eta `$ momentum is clearly seen in the new still preliminary data of the TAPS collaboration . As the photon energy increases, the difference between the IA and the calculation including the $`NN`$ FSI becomes smaller. At a photon energy of 665-705 MeV, the effect of the FSI has basically vanished, consistent with the observations in Fig. 2.

We would like to emphasize that the theoretical results displayed in Figs. 4,5 represent an average over a finite energy interval. This is done in order to make the predictions comparable to the experiments where likewise an averaging over energy bins is made . Specifically for the momentum distribution of the $`\eta `$ meson this averaging has a significant influence on the results. The maximal $`\eta `$-momentum available at a given fixed photon energy for the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ is defined by

$$p_\eta ^{max}=\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,[m_p+m_n]^2,m_\eta ^2)}{2\sqrt{s}},$$
(16)
where $`s`$ is defined in Eq. 1. Averaging over the photon energy leads to a smearing of $`p_\eta ^{max}`$. Since the $`NN`$ FSI is most strongly felt for $`\eta `$ momenta close to $`p_\eta ^{max}`$ its effect is also smeared out by averaging over $`E_\gamma `$ as is the case with the results shown in Fig. 5. Predictions for a sharp incident photon energy show a much stronger structure due to FSI as is exemplified in Fig. 6. Clearly, this suggests that a high enery resolution in the experiments is very desirable if one wants to see and study effects from the FSI.

## V Summary

We calculated the reaction $`\gamma dnp\eta `$ including the dominant $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance and the neutron-proton final state interaction. We find that the impulse approximation reproduces the cross section for inclusive photoproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons and the $`\eta `$-meson angular spectrum quite well for energies around 680 MeV and higher. At lower energies the consideration of the FSI between the outgoing nucleons is necessary to describe the relative enhancement of the cross-section data with respect to the impulse approximation. Though the $`NN`$ FSI accounts for a large part of the observed enhancement, our analysis suggests that there is still a remaining discrepancy with regard to the data for very small excess energies. This discrepancy is of similar size as found in the $`\eta `$-production in $`NN`$ collisions and may be taken as signature of the $`\eta N`$ final state interaction very close to threshold.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge valuable discussions with V. Baru, A. Gasparian, V. Hejny, B. Krusche, A. Kudryavtsev, V. Metag, H. Ströher and J. Weiss. This work was performed in part under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG02-93ER40756 with the Ohio University.


format: text

text:
# A Microscopic View of Parton 𝑘_𝑇 Effects In High 𝑝_𝑇 Processes

## 1  Brief Background

Direct (prompt) photon production at high $`p_T`$ inclusive processes is regarded as a valuable tool for extracting the gluon content $`G(x)`$  of hadrons, due to its sensitivity to the basic Compton process $`qgq\gamma `$, involving point-like photon-quark coupling. This tool is believed to extend the range of $`x`$-values beyond the (limited) $`x<0.25`$  found from other data. The main theoretical ingredients for such analysis are perturbative QCD for the elementary quark-level process on the one hand, and a model for the inclusion of the nuclear effects on the other. Either of these methods has had a long history, dating back to the Seventies. In particular, the inclusive cross sections for single high-$`p_T`$ particles produced in hadron-nucleus scattering have long been known to show an ‘anomalous’ nuclear dependence growing like $`A^\alpha `$, where the value of $`\alpha `$ is itself a function of $`p_T`$ . This “Cronin effect”  is believed to be due to multiple (mostly double) scattering effects, which tend to increase the value of $`\alpha `$ beyond unity (linear dependence).

The other, more natural ingredient, viz., perturbative QCD, has itself been stretched to a considerable extent for an understanding of the anomalous nuclear enhancement, by extending the same to include higher twist effects . More fancy corrections include soft gluon resummation ; factorization and soft gluon divergences ; such issues and related ones have been discussed in the literature . Yet the existence of sharp deviations between the measured inclusive direct photon production cross-sections and the predictions of perturbative QCD (pQCD), even after the inclusion of next to-leading order (NLO) effects, seems to betray some chinks  in the theoretical armour . To examine this problem in more detail, the E706 Group employed their high statistics samples of hard scattering data on inclusive $`\pi ^0`$ and direct-photon production cross sections with large $`p_T`$ values, using beams of 530 and 800 GeV/c protons, as well as 515 GeV/c pions, incident on a Be target (A=9) , and compared them with the predictions of NLO pQCD \[9-10\]. Their results indicate, in company with other related investigations , that the interacting quark-partons carry significant initial state transverse momentum ($`k_T`$), as evidenced from the greatly improved fits to the data  after a phenomenological incorporation of these $`k_T`$ effects in the NLO calculations.

In this brief report, we offer a microscopic mechanism for understanding the rather large $`k_T`$ effects as inferred from the agreement of the data with the predictions of NLO-pQCD, after smearing the latter with a phenomenological (gaussian) $`k_T`$ distribution with

$$<k_T>=11.5GeV/c$$

.

## 2  A Microscopic View Of $`<k_T>`$

The essential idea is the following. At incident projectile momenta as high as $`1TeV/c`$, the confinement barriers that keep the quark-partons residing in the individual nucleonic constituents of the target nucleus from mixing with their counterparts from neighbouring nucleons, are torn apart in a tube-like zone around the projectile’s path, so that all the nucleons within this zone tend to behave like a collection of $`3A_{eff}`$ quark-partons, where $`A_{eff}`$ is the number of nucleons falling with this zone. To estimate $`A_{eff}`$, note that if the nucleus is sufficiently small (say $`A10`$), almost all the constituents will lie within this zone, so that $`A_{eff}=A`$ in this case. On the other hand, if the nucleus is rather big, then many nucleons will be outside the path of the projectile, and hence largely unaffected by the encounter. One therefore expects a more or less sharp cut-off value of $`A`$ beyond which the size of the nucleus will hardly matter. While a precise estimate of $`A_{eff}`$ depends on the radius of the tube surrounding the projectile’s path, and is a difficult geometrical/dynamical problem, a working value is $`A_{eff}10`$ which will be adopted for the calculation to follow. This is perhaps an oversimplified description of the scenario, but hopefully captures the essential flavour of the basic mechanism: A huge proliferation in the number of scattering centers from the nucleonic to the quark-partonic level greatly enhances the scope for the transverse momentum distribution in the initial nucleus to influence the inclusive scattering process, albeit within the constraints of $`AA_{eff}`$. This is a feature which the NLO pQCD theory  seems unable to capture. Ignoring double scattering effects \[3-4\], which are presumably small, the mechanism is nevertheless expected to depend on the incident energy per nucleon, so that a higher mass number ($`A`$) would need a proportionately larger energy to penetrate the confinement barriers in the constituent nucleons, but an incident momentum as high as $`>500GeV/c`$ is probably high enough to pulverize the nucleons lying within the projectile’s path. As will be shown below, with the use of simple combinatorial principles, the resultant $`<k_T>^2`$ value works out as $`(3A_{eff}1)\beta ^2`$, where $`\beta `$ is a scale parameter incorporating the basic (gluonic) interaction of the quark pairs.

### 2.1  A Non-perturbative Estimate of $`\beta ^2`$

Since an estimate of $`\beta `$ is as yet inaccessible to pQCD, it calls for a resort to the non-perturbative QCD regime on which unfortunately no consensus exists on the calculational techniques, necessitating a certain amount of model building. To minimise the uncertainties of the model, its key parameters must be subjected to several crucial tests bearing on its predictions as a prior check on its reliability. The model we have chosen to employ is based on a QCD-motivated Bethe-Salpeter equation \[14-17\] in which the key ingredient is the gluon propagator  whose infrared part incorporates confinement, and thus represents the soft-QCD regime. It is calibrated to both $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`qqq`$ spectroscopy , as well as to the hadron form factors  within a common dynamical framework, and makes a definitive prediction for $`\beta ^2`$ which controls the quark-parton distribution in a non-strange baryon with the value $`\beta ^2=0.068GeV^2`$ \[15b, 17b\]. This is the input we propose to take as a means of accounting for the high $`<k_T>`$ value needed for the process under study , but its mode of derivation does not concern us here, and may be found in the cited references \[14-17\].

### 2.2  Derivation of $`<k_T>^2`$ = $`(3A_{eff}1)\beta ^2`$

To fix our ideas on the essential steps of the calculations, we start with the quark-parton distribution in the proton wherein the two normalized internal Jacobi variables ($`\xi ,\eta `$) are

$$\sqrt{3}\xi =p_1p_2;3\eta _=2p_3+p_i+p_2$$
(1)
which can be further broken up into longitudinal $`(\xi ,\eta )_{}`$ and transverse $`(\xi ,\eta )_{}`$ components. Being interested in the transverse part of the distribution here , we concentrate only on

$$\rho _{}=N_{}\mathrm{exp}[\xi _{}^2\eta _{}^2]/\beta ^2$$
(2)
where $`N_{}`$ is the normalization attuned to $`\rho _{}=1`$. The mean square transverse momentum for the quark-parton distribution may now be defined as

$$<\xi _{}^2+\eta _{}^2>=d^2\xi _{}d^2\eta _{}(\xi _{}^2+\eta _{}^2)\rho _{}$$
(3)
which works out simply to $`2\beta ^2`$. Its square root which may be identified as $`<k_T>`$ = $`\sqrt{2}\beta `$ = $`0.37GeV/c`$, is unfortunately too small to account for the observed value in Be , but now we are to take account of the mass number ($`A_{eff}`$) effect.

Now the transverse degrees of freedom in a nucleus with $`3A`$ quark-partons are $`2\times (3A_{eff}1)`$, (after subtracting unity for the overall c.m. motion). This gives the initial transverse quark-parton momentum distribution as

$$\rho (\xi _i)=N_{}\mathrm{exp}[\underset{i1}{\overset{3A1}{}}\xi _i^2]/\beta ^2$$
(4)
where the normalization constant is constrained by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^{3A_{eff}1}d^2\xi _{}\rho (\xi _i)=1$$
(5)
The mean square transverse momentum now works out as

$`<k_T>^2`$ $`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3A_{eff}1}{}}}\xi _i^2>`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^{3A_{eff}1}d^2\xi _{}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3A_{eff}1}{}}\xi _i^2)\rho (\xi _i)}`$
$`=`$ $`(3A_{eff}1)\beta ^2`$
Substitution of $`\beta ^2=0.068GeV^2`$ \[15b,17b\] gives for $`A_{eff}=9`$  the value $`<k_T>`$ = $`1.33GeV/c`$, which is well within the range of values considered by the E706 Group .

## 3 Resume And Discussion

We have tried to offer a microscopic description of $`k_T`$ effects in the rather specific context of direct-photon production in proton-Be collisions found by the E706 Group . The assumption underlying the description is that the basic scale of the transverse quark-parton distribution is the same as that obtaining in a $`qqq`$ hadron (proton). And $`this`$ in turn is determined by the parameters of the $`infrared`$ part of the gluon propagator mediating the quark-pair interaction in the non-perturbative QCD regime, a logic which points to effects beyond the NLO pQCD scenario . The other aspect of the assumption concerns the $`A`$-dependence of the effect which comes about from the fact that at sufficiently high incident momenta the projectile is able to “see” the quark constituents that come in the immediate zone surrounding the path of the projectile through the nucleus, and this greatly enhances the source of the $`k_T`$ distribution to almost three times that of the number of “effective”nucleons.

Table I: Major Expts on Direct Photon Production
$`k_T`$ values for various targets
Expt Beam, Target $`k_T`$ expt(GeV/c) $`k_T`$ theory (GeV/c)  E-706  p , H 0.7 0.52  E-706  p , Be 1.2-1.4 1.32  E-629  p , C  1.54

Table I gives a list of major experiments on various targets, together with the $`k_T`$-values which fit the data, including the corresponding values according to the proposed mechanism. For sufficiently small $`A`$, our formula seems to account for the observed value of $`<k_T>`$ needed to understand the $`Be`$ data  for which the full $`A`$ value is hopefully operative. For $`pp`$  and $`p\overline{p}`$  reactions, $`A_{eff}2`$, (taking account of the resultant effect of the target and projectile), and the best fit value at $`k_T0.7GeV/c`$ for both  is not much different from the value of $`0.52GeV/c`$ predicted by our formula which indicates a fairly strong dependence on the $`A`$-value. Similar experiments have been carried out for $`Cu`$, $`Be`$ and $`H`$ by the E-706 group ; and for $`Be`$, $`C`$ and $`Al`$ by the E-629 group , but no clear data on $`<k_T>`$ are as yet available. Although we expect on the basis of our ansatz that for heavier nuclei like $`Cu`$  and $`Al`$ , the $`k_T`$ value should $`not`$ increase proportionately with the mass number, the fuller implications of the ansatz would, in all probability, need several more targets with considerable variations in their $`A`$-values, as well as a wider range of incident energies, before the proposed mechanism can claim a proper test.


text:
# Hadron freeze-out conditions in high energy nuclear collisions

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of the current heavy ion programs at CERN (Switzerland) and Brookhaven National Laboratory (USA) is to probe strongly interacting matter under extreme conditions, i.e. at high densities and temperatures. The central subject of these studies is the transition from the quark-gluon plasma to hadronic matter. In the early phases of ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions, when a hot and dense region is formed in the center of the reaction, there is copious production of up, down, and strange quarks. Transverse expansion is driven by the multiple scattering among the incoming and produced particles. As the medium expands and cools, the quarks/gluons combine to form the hadrons that are eventually observed.

In June 2000, the long awaited gold collisions were delivered by the RHIC collider at $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 130 GeV. A great amount of new data, analyzed from that brief period of running, was presented at this conference . From SPS, results on the systematic of the transverse momentum distributions of $`\varphi `$  and $`J/\psi `$  were shown. New results from 40 and 80 A$``$GeV ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ $`9`$ and 12 GeV)  collisions were also shown.

In this paper, we will summarize the recent experimental results on transverse momentum distributions and particle ratios. The related physics issues are chemical equilibrium and collective expansion. While the former has to do with the inelastic collisions, the later is dominated by the elastic cross section. We will focus at the relatively low transverse momentum region, $`p_t`$ $`2`$ GeV/c, where the bulk production occurs. For results on high momentum transfer, global measurements, and correlations readers are referred to .

## 2 Kinetic freeze-out: transverse momentum distributions

At this conference, identified particle transverse momentum distributions at mid-rapidity were shown by the BRAHMS, PHENIX, and STAR experiments . While PHENIX measured $`\pi ,K,`$ and $`p`$ up to 2.5 GeV/c in $`p_t`$ , the STAR TPC provided clean spectra of identified particles up to about 1 GeV/c in $`p_t`$ within a somewhat wider rapidity window. The preliminary transverse momentum distributions for negative pions, kaons, and anti-protons from the STAR Collaboration are shown in Fig. 1. The results are from the 6% most central Au+Au collisions. Hydrodynamic motivated fits are also shown in the figure as dashed lines . The extracted common freeze-out temperature and collective velocity parameters are about 100 MeV and 0.6$`c`$, respectively. In Fig. 2, the preliminary transverse momentum distribution of anti-protons from the PHENIX collaboration  is compared to the STAR results . It is important to note that the transverse momentum distributions are consistent within the overlap region. Below $`m_tmass`$ = 0.7 GeV/$`c^2`$, both sets of data are consistent with the hydrodynamic fit. The lower part of the distribution is from the NA44 Collaboration at SPS ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 17.2 GeV) .

Figure 1 The STAR preliminary results of the transverse mass distributions for negative pions, kaons, and anti-protons from Au+Au central collisions. Dashed lines represent the model fit results.

Figure 2  Preliminary anti-proton transverse mass distributions from STAR and PHENIX (circles) are compared. Squares represent the results from central Pb+Pb collisions. Open symbols represent the model fit results.

The measured transverse momentum distributions also have been fitted by the exponential function $`f=Aexp(m_t/T),`$ where $`T`$ is the slope parameter and $`A`$ is the normalization constant. The magnitude of the slope parameter provides information on temperature (random motion in local rest frame) and collective transverse flow. Fig. 3(a) shows the measured particle slope parameters from Pb+Pb central collisions at SPS ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 8.8 GeV and $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 17.2 GeV) energies . The new results are:

* Particle distributions from 40 A$``$ GeV ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 8.8 GeV) collisions were reported by NA45 and NA49 . The slope parameters are similar to the ones observed at 158A$``$ GeV, i.e., they follow the established systematic trend ;
* For the first time, the systematic of the transverse momentum distributions for charm particles ($`J/\psi `$) was reported by the NA50 experiment . It is interesting to note that the slope parameter of $`J/\psi `$ is similar to those for $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$;
* For central collisions the $`\varphi `$ slope parameter of NA49 is about 300 MeV  whereas that of the NA50 is about 240 MeV. NA49 and NA50 reconstructed $`\varphi `$ mesons via $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channels, respectively. As discussed in , part of the difference may be caused by the final state interaction of the decay kaons. In fact, if one studies the centrality dependence of the $`\varphi `$ slope parameter, one finds that at peripheral collisions, both experimental results agree with each other and the value is close to that from $`p+p`$ collisions .

Figure 3 Slope parameters as a function of particle mass for (a) Pb+Pb central collisions at SPS ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 17.2 GeV) and Au+Au central collisions at (b) RHIC ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 130 GeV). Weak and strong interacting limits are indicated by $`I`$ and $`II`$, respectively.

Preliminary results of the slope parameters from Au+Au central collisions at RHIC ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 130 GeV)  are shown in Fig. 3(b). It is obvious that the mass dependence of the slope parameter is stronger than that from collisions at SPS energies.

As one can see from Fig. 3(a), the slope parameters appear to fall into two groups: group (I) is flat as a function of particle mass, whereas the slopes in group (II) increase strongly with particle mass. At the RHIC energy, the slope parameter systematic of $`\pi ,K,`$ and $`p`$ shows an even stronger dependence on the particle mass. The strong energy dependence of the slope parameter might be the result of the larger pressure gradient at the RHIC energy. With a set of reasonable initial/freeze-out conditions and equation of state, the stronger transverse expansion at the RHIC energy was, in deed, predicted by hydrodynamic calculations . In addition, the results are consistent with the large value of the event anisotropy parameter $`v_2`$ at the RHIC energy .

Within the hadronic gas, the interaction cross section for particles like $`\varphi ,\mathrm{\Omega },`$ and $`J/\psi `$ are smaller than that of $`\pi ,K,`$ and $`p`$ . Therefore the interactions between them and the rest of the system are weak, leading to the flat band behavior in Fig. 3(a). On the other hand, the slope parameter of these weakly interacting particles may reflect some characteristics of the system at hadronization. Then it should be sensitive to the strength of the color field . Under this assumption, the fact that the weak interacting particles show a flat slope parameter as a function of their mass would indicate that the $`flow`$ develops at a later stage of the collision. Should the collective flow develop at the partonic level, one would expect a mass dependence of the slope parameters for all particles .

Based on the idea of Color Glass Condensate, McLerran and Schaffner-Bielich predicted  that the measured mean $`p_t`$ is controlled by the intrinsic $`p_t`$ broadening rather than transverse flow. It will be interesting to see the slope parameters of $`\varphi ,\mathrm{\Omega },`$ and $`J/\psi `$ from collisions at RHIC energies. As indicated by the horizontal bar in Fig. 3(b), one might expect both the absolute magnitude and the slope as a function of particle mass to be different from that observed at SPS energies.

Figure 4 shows the bombarding energy dependence of the freeze-out temperature $`T_{fo}`$ and the average collective velocity $`\beta _t`$. It is interesting to observe that both $`T_{fo}`$ and $`\beta _t`$ saturate at a beam energy of about 10 A$``$GeV. The saturation temperature is about 100 - 120 MeV, very close to the mass of the lightest meson . The steep rise of the $`T_{fo}`$ and $`\beta _t`$ up to about 5 A$``$GeV incident energy indicates that at low energy collisions the thermal energy essentially goes into kinetic degrees of freedom. The saturation at $``$10 A$``$GeV shows that particle generation becomes important. As proposed in , for a pure hadronic scenario there may be a limiting temperature $`T_c140`$ MeV in high-energy collisions, although the underlying physics for both, the transition from partonic to hadronic degrees of freedom and the transition from interacting hadrons to free-streaming is not clear at the moment. By coupling the limiting temperature idea to a hydrodynamic model calculation, Stöcker et al. successfully predicted  the energy dependence of the freeze-out temperature. It is worth noting that measurements of the pion phase density  at freeze-out also show saturation at $`E_{beam}`$10 A$``$GeV.

Figure 4 Systematics of kinetic freeze-out temperature parameter $`T_{fo}`$ and average collective transverse flow velocity $`\beta _t`$ as a function of beam energy. At $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ $``$ 5 GeV, both values of temperature and velocity parameters seem to saturate. However, the velocity parameter extracted from central collisions at the RHIC energy is higher than values from collisions at lower beam energies.

At the RHIC energy, the collective velocity parameter seems to be larger than that from collisions at AGS/SPS energies. This can already be seen in Fig. 3 where the increase from pion to proton at $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 130 GeV (Fig. 3(b)) is much faster than at $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 17 GeV (Fig. 3(a)). Is this the manifestation of van Hove’s  picture? On the other hand, compared to results from lower energy collisions, the temperature parameters seem to be lower. Is this the consequence of hydrodynamic expansion  from a higher initial density fireball? An energy scan between $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 20 - 130 GeV will be extremely important in order to study this evolution in more detail.

## 3 Mid-rapidity $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios and net-proton distributions

All RHIC experiments have consistently measured the ratio of $`\overline{p}/p`$ at mid-rapidity . The dependence of the $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios as a function of the center of mass energy is shown in Fig. 5. Only central collision results were used for heavy ion collisions. Clearly, although the ratio is not unity, a dramatic increase in the ratio is observed from SPS to RHIC, meaning that the system created at $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 130 GeV is close to net-baryon free.

Figure 5 Mid-rapidity $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios measured in central heavy-ion collisions (filled symbols) and $`p+p`$ collisions (open symbols). The left end of the abscissa is the $`p`$-$`\overline{p}`$ pair production threshold in $`p+p`$ ($`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ =3.75 GeV).

Figure 6 Net-protons yields as a function of charge particle multiplicity. Open and filled symbols represent the yields within 0.3 $`p_t`$ 1.0 GeV/c and the values extracted from the full transverse momentum range, respectively. No hyperon decay corrections have been applied to the yields.

One of the unsolved problems in high energy nuclear collisions is the baryon transfer that occurs at the early stage of the collision . The later dynamic evolution of the system is largely determined at this moment since the available energy is fixed at this stage of the collision. On the theoretical side, a novel mechanism, the non-perturbative gluon junction, was proposed to address this problem . From the STAR measured $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios  and the STAR preliminary results of anti-proton yields , we have extracted the net-proton yields at mid-rapidity. The values are shown in Fig. 6 as a function of collision centrality. Open symbols represent the measured yields within $`|y|`$ $``$ 0.1 and 0.3 $``$ $`p_t`$ $``$ 1.0 GeV/c. The fill symbols show the values extracted from the full transverse momentum range. Estimated systematic uncertainties are shown as caps. No hyperon decay corrections have been applied as that requires the knowledge of the yields of hyperons. The hatched bar represents the BRAHMS preliminary results .

One can see that the number of net protons increase as the number of the negatively charged particles increases. This implies that more and more protons (baryons) are transfered from the incoming nuclei to mid-rapidity as the overlap of the two nuclei increases. More data are needed to study the role of the junction mechanism  in heavy ion collisions. In this respect, the rapidity distributions of the net-protons as a function of collision centrality will be of crucial importance.

## 4 Chemical freeze-out: particle ratios

Recently, much theoretical effort has been devoted to the analysis of particle production within the framework of statistical models . These approaches are applied to the results of both elementary collisions ($`e+e^{}`$, $`p+p`$) and heavy ion collisions ($`Au+Au`$ and $`Pb+Pb`$) . Many features of the data imply that a large degree of chemical equilibration may be reached both at AGS and SPS energies. The three most important results are: (i) at high energy collisions the chemical freeze-out (inelastic collisions cease) occurs at about 160-180 MeV and it is ‘universal’ to both elementary and heavy ion collisions; (ii) the kinetic freeze-out (elastic scatterings cease) occurs at a lower temperature $`120140`$ MeV; (iii) the compilation of freeze-out parameters  in heavy ion collisions in the energy range from 1 - 200 A$``$GeV shows that a constant energy per particle $`E/N1`$ GeV can reproduce the behavior in the temperature-potential ($`T_{ch}\mu __B`$) plane .

Figure 7 STAR preliminary particle ratios vs. results of thermal model fits. The thermal parameters for temperature and chemical potential are $`T_{ch}=190\pm 20`$ MeV and $`\mu __B=45\pm 15`$ MeV, respectively.

Figure 8 Phase plot $`T_{ch}`$ vs. $`\mu __B`$. Dashed-line represents the boundary between interactions involving hadronic and partonic degrees of freedom. Dotted-lines represent the results of . The ground state of nuclei is shown as half circle.

The measured mid-rapidity particle ratios  were fitted with a statistical model  and the results are shown in Fig. 7. The resulting thermal parameters for temperature and baryon potential are $`T_{ch}=190\pm 20`$ MeV and $`\mu __B=45\pm 15`$ MeV, respectively. It is not surprising that the temperature parameter is close to the prediction  for RHIC.

The systematics for chemical parameters is shown in the phase plot in Fig. 8 where the dashed lines represent the boundary between interactions involving hadronic and partonic degrees of freedom. The dotted lines represent the results of . Results from heavy ion collisions at SIS, AGS, and SPS energies are shown as circles. The result from collisions at the RHIC energy is shown as star. The lattice prediction on $`T_c`$ ($`160`$ MeV) is shown at $`\mu _B=0`$ and the baryon density for neutron star is indicated at the $`T_{ch}=0`$.

There are technical caveats in above approaches. The application of a statistical model requires that the measurement is done over the whole phase-space, i.e., with 4$`\pi `$ particle yields. This is because conservation laws that apply to the collisions are only valid for global measurements, not locally. In all experiments the coverage of the phase-space is limited. Therefore, extracting the yields measured within limited phase-space to 4$`\pi `$ yields is almost impossible, especially for the collider experiments. In addition, we should point out that the non-local effect is common to all global conservation laws (baryon number, charge, and so on), not only to the strangeness.

## 5 Summary

In summary, the most interesting results from collisions at RHIC are that the system is indeed approaching net-baryon free and the transverse expansion is much stronger than that from collisions at AGS/SPS energies.

In order to understand the trend of the collective velocity, an energy scan between $`\sqrt{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}`$ = 20 - 200 GeV, is important. In addition, systematic studies on the anisotropy parameter $`v_2`$ and the transverse momentum distributions of $`\varphi ,\mathrm{\Omega },`$ and $`J/\psi `$ are necessary as they will help in determining whether the collectivity is developed at the partonic stage.

—–

We are grateful for many enlightening discussions with Drs. P. Braun-Munzinger, W. Busza, M. Gyulassy, U. Heinz, B. Holzman, P. Huovinen, B. Jacak, F. Navarra, S. Panitkin, K. Redlich, H.G. Ritter, K. Schweda, E.V. Shuryak, R. Snellings, D. Teaney, F.Q. Wang, and X.N. Wang. This work has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.


text:
# Enhancement of Rabi Splitting in a Microcavity with an Embedded Superlattice

## Abstract

We have observed a large coupling between the excitonic and photonic modes of an AlAs/AlGaAs microcavity filled with an 84-$`\mathrm{\AA }`$/20$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ GaAs/AlGaAs superlattice. Reflectivity measurements on the coupled cavity-superlattice system in the presence of a moderate electric field yielded a Rabi splitting of 9.5 meV at T = 238 K. This splitting is almost 50$`\%`$ larger than that found in comparable microcavities with quantum wells placed at the antinodes only. We explain the enhancement by the larger density of optical absorbers in the superlattice, combined with the quasi-two-dimensional binding energy of field-localized excitons.

The ability of semiconductor multilayers to mimic atomic cavities has allowed the observation of phenomena that until recently seemed reserved to atomic physics. Among these, the best studied so far is the coupling of a two-level atom and the electromagnetic modes of a cavity enclosing it, which results in the so-called Rabi splitting when there is a resonance between one of those modes and the energy difference between the atomic levels.  Analogously, in a semiconductor microcavity formed by two dielectric mirrors and a quantum well (or a small set of quantum wells) in the cavity between them, the excitonic mode of the quantum well is coupled to a photonic mode of the cavity when the characteristic energies of the two modes, h$`\nu _{exe}`$ and h$`\nu _{cav}`$, coincide.

If strong enough, this coupling is manifested as a splitting into two of the optical features associated with that energy, for instance, a minimum in the reflectivity spectrum or a peak in the absorption or luminescence spectrum. In atomic systems the Rabi splitting is seen easily at room temperature, but in semiconductors the splitting is much less apparent because of a smaller splitting-to-linewidth ratio and a considerable decrease with increasing temperature.

The magnitude of the splitting is proportional to the overlap between the exciton’s wavefunction and the photon’s electric field and to the square root of the product of oscillator strength and linear density of excitons.  Therefore, it is not surprising that a considerable effort has been made to increase these factors. To this end, more than one quantum well has been placed at the antinodes of the mirror-defined cavity, and various material systems have been used. In microcavities made out of III-V semiconductors, such as GaAs, AlAs, and InAs, typical Rabi splittings are 6 to 7 meV at low temperature and less than 5 meV at room temperature.  Because of their larger exciton binding energy (and corresponding larger oscillator strength) CdTe-based microcavities have shown splittings as large as 23 meV at 4 K and 17 meV at 300 K.

The Rabi splitting is often limited by the imperfect confinement of the photon field within the physical boundaries of the cavity, which reduces the photon-exciton overlap.

To ameliorate that effect, selectively oxidized AlAs/GaAs mirrors, with a larger index-of-refraction contrast, have been used.  Others have embedded quantum wells in the mirror regions, thus increasing that overlap.  In still another scheme the entire cavity between the two mirrors consisted of just one material (GaAs), thus forming a ”bulk” microcavity in which the larger number of excitons per unit length partially compensated both for the smaller binding energy of three-dimensional (3D) excitons and the spatially non-uniform coupling to the photon field.  The Rabi splitting found experimentally for these structures was about half of that in comparable quantum-well microcavities.

In this Communication we present a simple way of enhancing the exciton-cavity coupling in a quantum-well microcavity system.  By exploiting the localization properties of a superlattice under a longitudinal electric field, we have overcome the limitation in a previous scheme brought out by the small binding energy of a 3D exciton, while keeping the benefits of a thick active medium. Our approach consists of filling the entire cavity with a superlattice subjected to an electric field, rather than placing a few isolated wells at the antinodes of the cavity. A narrow-barrier superlattice within the active region maximizes the density of quantum wells while the field enhances the exciton binding energy through Wannier-Stark localization of the superlattice states.  Using this scheme we have found a 9.5 meV Rabi splitting at T = 238 K, which represents almost a $`50\%`$ increase of the splitting found in a comparable optical structure in which the field is absent and quantum wells are placed exclusively at the antinodes.

In a superlattice of period D, the electronic wavefunctions are extended, and the exciton’s binding energy is comparable to that of a 3D semiconductor. However, under a longitudinal (that is, parallel to the superlattice direction) electric field $`\epsilon `$, the spatial extension of the wavefunctions is reduced to a length of the order of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{e\epsilon }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the energy width of the miniband, and e is the electronic charge. Beyond a certain field, electrons and holes become localized into individual quantum wells, excitons become quasi two-dimensional, and their binding energy increases drastically. Then, it should be possible to achieve enhanced Rabi splitting by filling a semiconductor microcavity with a superlattice that is subjected to a strong enough electric field, applied either internally or externally.

The microcavities we have used to test this idea consisted of two distributed Bragg reflector mirrors (DBRs) flanking a 30 period 84-$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ GaAs / 20-$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ $`\mathrm{Al}_{.25}\mathrm{Ga}_{.75}\mathrm{As}`$ superlattice, which formed the active region of the cavity (see Fig. 1). The top (bottom) reflector had 20.5 (24) periods of alternating 689-$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ AlAs and 602-$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ $`\mathrm{Al}_{.35}\mathrm{Ga}_{.65}\mathrm{As}`$ $`\frac{\lambda }{4}`$ layers. In sample A, the top mirror was p-type doped (Be,1 $`times`$ $`10^{18}`$ $`cm^3`$ and the bottom mirror was doped n-type (Si, 1 $`times`$ $`10^{18}`$ $`cm^3`$, while the cavity was undoped, thus forming a p-i-n heterostructure. In sample B, the entire structure was undoped. The number of superlattice periods was chosen so that the length of the cavity was $`\frac{3\lambda }{2}`$, where $`\lambda `$ = $`\frac{\lambda _0}{n}`$. $`\lambda _0`$ is the wavelength associated with the exciton binding energy $`E_{ex}`$ ($`\lambda _0`$= $`\frac{ch}{E_{ex}}`$); n is the active region’s index of refraction. c is the speed of light in vacuum, and h is Planck’s constant. In our case, $`\lambda _0`$ equaled 8040 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, which corresponds to the e1–hh1 exciton energy for the 84 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$/20 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ superlattice at around liquid-nitrogen temperature. We also prepared a quantum-well microcavity (sample C) in which the superlattice of sample A was replaced by two uncoupled 89 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ quantum wells at each of the three anti-nodes of the $`\frac{3\lambda }{2}`$ cavity. The focus of the work reported here is on sample A, with samples B and C serving as controls.

The Rabi splitting was determined primarily from reflectivity measurements, complemented by photoluminescence experiments. The energy coupling between the exciton and the cavity-photon modes was tuned in and out of resonance by varying either the temperature of the sample or the spot that was probed. A slight taper of the microcavity, inherent to the epitaxial MOCVD growth process, shifted the energy of the cavity mode along the radial direction of the 3” GaAs wafers on which the multilayers were grown. The cavity mode shifted approximately 10 meV (and in one sample up to 30 meV) from the center to the edge, while the exciton energy remained practically unchanged. On the other hand, the energy of the exciton changed with temperature at a rate of 3.8 meV per 10 K, a rate more than five times larger than that of the cavity mode.

The reflectivity of the microcavities was measured at normal incidence, using a micro-reflectivity spectroscopy set-up coupled to a broad-spectrum quartz tungsten halogen lamp and a filter to block photon energies above 1.9 eV. The spatial and spectral resolutions of the system are better than 2 $`mum`$ and 0.20 meV, respectively.

Figure 2 shows reflectivity spectra for sample A in the temperature range 188 K–313 K in the 1.46 eV–1.55 eV spectral region, which corresponds to the high-reflectivity region of the Bragg reflectors. At the lowest temperature the strongest reflectivity minimum is at 1.5078 eV, with a second one at 1.5238 eV and a third, barely visible dip at 1.5382 eV. As the temperature increases, the latter two minima shift to lower energy faster than the former, and simultaneously the relative intensity of the three minima gradually changes. Above 260 K, the highest-energy minimum is most pronounced and shifts the least as the temperature increases.

The energy positions of the three minima as a function of temperature are summarized in Fig. 3. The linear shift of these features at the two ends of the temperature range attests their origin: at low T, the stronger, low-energy feature evidences the cavity mode (labeled C in the figure), whereas the two features at higher energy have excitonic character and are labeled as $`X_0`$ and $`X_1`$ in Fig. 3. At high T, the situation is reversed: the stronger, high-energy minimum corresponds to the cavity mode and the much weaker minima at low energy are excitonic in nature. At intermediate temperatures, two anticrossings are observed, one between C and $`X_0`$ at T = 238 K and another between C and $`X_1`$ at T = 253 K, with anticrossing energies of 9.5 meV and 6.9 meV, respectively.

We interpret the $`X_0`$ line as the electric-field localized e1–hh1 exciton of the superlattice, which interacts with the cavity mode C and forms a mixed state at intermediate temperatures. The minimum 9.5 meV splitting corresponds to the maximum coupling and is a measure of the Rabi splitting. This interpretation is supported by temperature-dependent photoluminescence measurements, which show a behavior and anticrossing similar to that of $`X_0`$ and C in Fig. 3. Room temperature, position-dependent reflectivity measurements on a different portion of sample A exhibited two clear minima whose relative strength and energy separation depend on the spot probed, from which a Rabi splitting of 8.5 meV was inferred.

The 9.5 meV splitting is almost 50$`\%`$ larger than the splitting obtained in similar temperature-dependence reflectivity measurements in sample C, in which the superlattice was replaced by quantum wells at the antinodes. This shows that the larger number of wells favors a larger Rabi splitting, even though many are not in optimal positions in the cavity to couple effectively to the optical field. That the superlattice excitons are localized by the electric field is essential to the enhancement of Rabi splitting, as evidenced by the 4.5 meV splitting obtained for sample B. In sample A, the built-in field of the p-i-n structure provides substantial, if not complete (see below), wavefunction localization for both electrons and holes. In contrast, the cavity in sample B is in flat-band configuration; the electrons and holes are delocalized and the exciton binding energy is comparable to that of bulk material.

The origin of the $`X_1`$ line in Fig. 3, the line responsible for a secondary anticrossing of 6.9 meV with the cavity mode at T = 253 K, is less clear. One possibility is that $`X_1`$ is associated with the field-localized light-hole exciton (e1–lh1) of the superlattice. The calculated energy difference between the first heavy-hole and light-hole states in an isolated 84-$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ GaAs / $`\mathrm{Al}_{.25}\mathrm{Ga}_{.75}\mathrm{As}`$ quantum well is 18 meV, which is not very different from the 15 meV average separation between the $`X_0`$ and $`X_1`$ lines when both are far from the anticrossing region with the cavity mode C.  Within this interpretation, the weakness of the reflectivity minima associated to $`X_1`$ (see Fig. 2) could be explained by the smaller oscillator strength of the light-hole exciton.

Another possibility is that the $`X_1`$ line is due to a spatially indirect exciton involving electrons in one quantum well of the superlattice and holes in an adjacent well (see the inset of Fig. 3) that is, the +1 exciton involving the electron and hole Wannier-Stark ladders of the superlattice. Although at high electric fields ($`\epsilon >>\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{eD}`$) there is complete localization of electrons and holes to individual wells, at smaller fields the localization is incomplete, with the electronic wavefunctions extended beyond a single well. In sample A, the calculated energy widths of the electron and heavy hole minibands are 19.5 meV and 1.5 meV, respectively, which implies that the high-field regime is reached for $`\epsilon >>`$ 20 kV/cm. If we assume that the built-in electric field in sample A’s p-i-n configuration does not penetrate into the doped dielectric mirrors, then that field is $``$ 50 kV/cm, which is sufficient for almost complete localization. However, in view of the well-known difficulty to incorporate impurities as electrically active dopants in AlGaAs dielectric mirrors with high Al content, it is possible that the effective electric field across the superlattice in sample A is significantly smaller than 50 kV/cm. Indeed, if we interpret the $`X_1`$ line as the +1 exciton, then the effective field is 15 kV/cm, based on the $`X_0`$ \- $`X_1`$ energy separation.

In spite of the difference between these two field values, we favor the interpretation for $`X_1`$ in terms of spatially indirect excitons since it is consistent with the absence of the $`X_1`$ line in samples B and C. A light-hole exciton line would be present in the spectra of all three samples. The T-dependence PL spectra of sample A also favor that interpretation. In addition to a feature analogous to $`X_1`$, we resolved at low T a weak feature about 14 meV below that of $`X_0`$, which eventually had a small anticrossing with the cavity-mode peak. That feature can be seen as the -1 exciton of the Wannier-Stark ladder. The smaller anticrossing is then the result of the smaller binding energy of the $`\pm `$1 exciton, in comparison with that of the $`X_0`$ exciton.

Our main observation–an enhanced Rabi-splitting in sample A between the spatially direct exciton and the cavity mode–agrees with a simple classical simulation of the reflectivity for a set of 30 GaAs absorbers (each 84 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ thick and 20 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ apart from each other) distributed throughout the cavity defined by two dielectric mirrors. Figure 4 shows the calculated reflectivity spectra in the strong-coupling regime, for various values of the detuning parameter $`\delta `$, defined as $`\delta =1\frac{\nu _{exc}}{\nu _{cav}}`$. For simplicity, we have kept constant the exciton energy h$`\nu _{exc}`$ at 1.5098 eV and varied the characteristic energy of the cavity, h$`\nu _{cav}`$. We have used ”realistic” values for the linewidth and oscillator strength of the exciton, 4 meV and 0.035 respectively, so that the calculated lineshapes resemble the experimental curves at 238 K. With this set of parameters the anticrossing is about 15 meV. In contrast, a similar simulation for a microcavity with only three 84 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$-thick GaAs wells, each located at one of the antinodes of a $`\frac{3\lambda }{2}`$ cavity, yielded a minimum separation three times smaller. The large difference in splitting between the two configurations confirms qualitatively our observations.

In this work, we have taken advantage of the built-in electric field of a p-i-n junction to illustrate how, using a simple scheme, an electric-field-localized superlattice embedded in a microcavity can enhance the exciton-photon coupling. Further enhancements are expected by applying a larger (external) electric field or by optimizing the well-to-barrier thickness ratio so that complete exciton localization is achieved. The ideas presented in this paper can also be combined with existing schemes (e.g. extending the superlattice into the mirrors) and/or implemented in other semiconductor materials (e.g., II-VI compounds) to obtain even larger Rabi splittings.

This work has been sponsored in part by the Army Research Office and by the Spanish Interministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICyT). We acknowledge partial support from a Turner Fellowship (J. H. D.) and a Spanish CAM fellowship (S. M.).


text:
# Cosmological Parameter Extraction from the First Season of Observations with DASI

## 1 Introduction

The angular power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has much to teach us about the nature of the Universe in which we live (Hu, Sugiyama, & Silk 1997). Measurements are improving rapidly (de Bernardis et al. 2000; Hanany et al. 2000; Padin et al. 2001), and for a wide variety of theoretical scenarios the predicted spectra can be calculated accurately (Zaldarriaga & Seljak 2000). Comparison of the data and models allows quantitative constraints to be placed on the parameters of the Universe in which we find ourselves, and is the subject of this paper.

The Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI), along with its sister instrument the CBI (Padin et al. 2001) and the VSA (Jones 1996), is one of several new compact interferometers specifically designed for observations of the CMB. This paper is the third in a set of three. Paper I (Leitch et al. 2001) gives a detailed description of the instrument, observations, and data calibration. Paper II (Halverson et al. 2001) focuses on the extraction of the angular power spectrum from the calibrated interferometric data, and provides band-power estimates of the angular power spectrum of the CMB. In this paper we combine the low-$`l`$ measurements made by the COBE-DMR instrument (Bennett et al. 1996) with the new measurements from DASI to constrain the parameters of cosmological models.

The layout of this paper is as follows. The considerations which drive our selection of the model and parameter space to probe are detailed in §2. In §3 we review the method used to compare band power data to theoretical spectra. The results of this comparison are described in §4, and in §5 we draw some conclusions.

## 2 Models, Parameters and Model Grid Considerations

Following the discovery of the CMB, and the realization that the Universe went through a hot plasma epoch, it was proposed that adiabatic density perturbations in that plasma would lead to acoustic oscillations (Peebles & Yu 1970), and a series of harmonic peaks in the angular power spectrum (Doroshkevich, Zeldovich, & Sunyaev 1978). It was assumed that the initial fluctuations were scale invariant only because this is the simplest possible case. It was not until later that (New) Inflation was proposed (Guth & Pi 1982; Bardeen, Steinhardt, & Turner 1983; Hawking 1982; Starobinsky 1982) — an elegant cosmo-genic mechanism which naturally produces such conditions. The simplest versions of this theory also make the firm prediction that the Universe is exactly flat, i.e., has zero net spatial curvature.

Although Inflation sets the stage at the beginning of the plasma epoch it has nothing to say about the contents of the Universe. Over the last several decades a wealth of evidence has accumulated for the existence of some form of gravitating matter which does not interact with ordinary baryonic material; the so-called cold dark matter (CDM). Conflicting theoretical expectations and experimental measurements led to the proposal that a third component is present — an intrinsic vacuum energy. This three component model is the scenario we have chosen to consider.

The density required to produce zero net spatial curvature is referred to as the critical density $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)`$, where $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant ($`H_0100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1). It is convenient to measure the present day density of a component of the Universe in units of $`\rho _c`$, denoting this $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$: the density of baryonic matter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, the density of CDM $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}`$, and the equivalent density in vacuum energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus the density of matter is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_b+\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}`$ and the total density is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\rho _i/\rho _c`$ note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_ih^2`$ is a physical density independent of the value of the Hubble constant.

To generate theoretical CMB anisotropy power spectra we have used version 3.2 of the freely available CMBFAST program (Zaldarriaga & Seljak 2000). This is the most widely used code of its type, and versions 3 and greater can deal with open, flat and closed universes. CMBFAST calculates how the initial power spectrum of density perturbations is modulated through the acoustic oscillations during the plasma phase, by the effects of recombination, and by reionization as the CMB photons stream through the Universe to the present. The program sets up transfer functions, taking as input $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as well as $`H_0`$, the optical depth due to reionization ($`\tau _c`$), and some other parameters. It can then translate initial perturbation spectra into the mean angular power spectra of the CMB anisotropy which would be observed in such a universe today. Inflation predicts that the initial spectrum is a simple power law with slope close to, but not exactly, unity.

In any given comparison of data to a multidimensional model we may have external information about the values of some or all of the parameters. This may come from theoretical prejudice, or from other experimental results. It may also be that the data set in hand is unable to simultaneously constrain all of the possible model parameters to the precision which we desire. In such cases we can choose to invoke our external knowledge, and fold additional information about the preferred parameter values into the likelihood distribution. Often this occurs because a parameter which could potentially be free is fixed at a specific value (an implicit prior). Or we may multiply the likelihood distribution by some function which expresses the values of the parameters which we prefer (an explicit prior). The choice of measure, e.g., whether a variable is taken to be linear or logarithmic, is also an implicit prior — although such distinctions become less important as a variable becomes increasingly well constrained.

There is no a priori reason to suppose that the marginal likelihoods of the cosmological parameters are Gaussian. Thus the curvature of the likelihood surface at the peak does not fully characterize the distribution. To set accurate constraints it is therefore necessary to explore the complete likelihood space by testing the data against a large grid of models. If the introduction of priors is to be avoided the grid must be expanded until one can be confident that it encompasses essentially all of the total likelihood.

Unfortunately it turns out that even within the paradigm of adiabatic CDM models the anisotropy power spectrum of the CMB does not fully constrain the parameters of the Universe. For example, it is well known that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are highly degenerate. It is always necessary to invoke external information in any constraint-setting analysis. The clear articulation of these priors, both implicit and explicit, is critically important, as has previously been noted (Jaffe et al. 2001).

We have chosen to consider a seven dimensional model space. The parameters which we include are the physical densities of baryonic matter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2\omega _b`$) and CDM ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2\omega _{cdm}`$), as well as the spectral slope of the initial scalar fluctuations ($`n_s`$), and the overall normalization of the power spectrum as measured by the amplitude at the tenth multipole ($`𝒞_{10}l(l+1)C_{10}/2\pi `$). Noting that the degeneracy in the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane is along a line of constant total density we opt to rotate the basis vectors by 45 and grid over the sum and difference of these parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This reduces the size of the model grid required to box in the region of significant likelihood. The seventh parameter is the optical depth due to reionization ($`\tau _c`$). Note that for each point in $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot},\omega _b,\omega _{cdm})`$ space there is an implied value of the Hubble constant ($`h=\sqrt{2(\omega _b+\omega _{cdm})/(\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta })}`$) so we can calculate the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },h)`$ values for input to CMBFAST.

We assume, as is the theoretical prejudice, that the contribution of tensor mode perturbations is very small as compared to scalar, and ignore their effect (Lyth 1997). Tensor modes primarily contribute power at low $`l`$ numbers, so if a large fraction of the power seen by DMR were caused by this effect the scalar spectrum would need to be strongly tilted up to provide the observed power at smaller angular scales. However we know that $`n_s`$ cannot be $`1`$ as this would conflict with results from large scale structure studies. Our constraints should, however, be taken with an understanding of our assumption regarding tensor modes.

In principle some of the dark matter could be in the form of relativistic neutrinos (hot as opposed to cold dark matter). However the change that this would make to the CMB power spectrum is negligible compared to the uncertainties of the DASI data (Dodelson, Gates, & Stebbins 1996). We therefore assume that all the dark matter is cold, and set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0`$, although it should then be understood that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ value we find may, in principle, contain some hot dark matter.

Papers fitting the BOOMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 band-power data (Balbi et al. 2000; Lange et al. 2001; Jaffe et al. 2001) considered seven dimensional grids rather similar to our own. Other studies have examined model grids with as many as 11 dimensions (Tegmark, Zaldarriaga, & Hamilton 2001), including an explicit density in neutrinos and tensor mode perturbations, generally finding both effects to be small.

Taking the philosophy that simplicity is a virtue, we have not made use of $`l`$-space or $`k`$-space splitting to accelerate the calculation of the model grid (Tegmark et al. 2001). In addition we have generated a simple regular grid, rather than attempting to concentrate the coverage in the maximum likelihood region. Finally we have not treated the normalization parameter $`𝒞_{10}`$ as continuous, preferring to explicitly grid over this parameter as well. This is computationally somewhat slower, but makes the marginalization simpler, and involves no assumption about the form of the variation of $`\chi ^2`$ versus this parameter. Using the notation lower-edge:step-value:upper-edge (number-of-values) our grid is as follows: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }=1.0:0.2:3.4`$ (23), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=0.7:0.05:1.3`$ (13), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0100:0.0025:0.0400`$ (13), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2=0.00:0.05:0.5`$ (11), $`\tau _c=0.0:0.1:0.4`$ (5), $`n_s=0.75:0.05:1.25`$ (11), and $`𝒞_{10}=300:50:1300`$ (21). Excluding the small, physically unreasonable corner of parameter space where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0`$, we make $`205,205`$ runs of CMBFAST generating $`205,205\times 11=2,257,255`$ theoretical spectra and calculating $`2,257,255\times 21=47,402,355`$ values of $`\chi ^2`$ against the data.

For theoretical and phenomenological discussions of how the various peak amplitudes and spacings of the power spectrum are related to the model parameters see Hu et al. (1997) and Hu et al. (2001). In this paper we choose to compare data and models without explicitly considering such connections.

## 3 Comparison of Data and Models

Consider a set of observed band-powers $`𝒟_i`$ in units of $`\mu `$K2, together with their covariance matrix $`P_{ij}`$. If the overall fractional calibration uncertainty of the experiment is $`s`$ we can add this to the covariance matrix as follows:

$$N_{ij}=P_{ij}+s^2𝒟_i𝒟_j.$$
(1)
For the purposes of the present analysis we assume $`s=0.08`$ which includes both temperature scale and beam uncertainties (the fractional error on the band-powers is 8% corresponding to 4% in temperature units — see Paper II).

Now consider a model power spectrum $`𝒞_l`$. The expectation value of the data given the model is obtained through the “band-power” window function $`W_{il}^\mathrm{B}/l`$ (Knox 1999),

$$𝒯_i=\underset{l}{}𝒞_l\frac{W_{il}^\mathrm{B}}{l}.$$
(2)
The band-power window functions $`W_{il}^\mathrm{B}/l`$ are calculated from the band-power Fisher matrix, $`F`$, and the Fisher matrix $`F^\mathrm{s}`$ of the bands, $`b_i`$, sub-divided into individual multipole moments,

$$\frac{W_{il}^\mathrm{B}}{l}=\underset{i^{}}{}\left(F^1\right)_{ii^{}}\underset{l^{}b_i^{}}{}F_{ll^{}}^\mathrm{s},$$
(3)
(adapted from Knox 1999, for Fisher matrices with significant off-diagonal elements). The sum of each row of the array $`W_{il}^\mathrm{B}/l`$ is unity, so Equation (2) simply represents a set of weighted means. Note that any experiment with less than full sky coverage will always have non top-hat band-power window functions. In practice, we calculate Equation (3) by subdividing each band into four sub-bands, and interpolate the results. The functions for the DASI band-powers are plotted in Figure 1, and are available at our website111http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi. In practice the effect of using the correct window function, versus simply choosing the $`𝒞_l`$ at the nominal band center, is extremely modest.

The uncertainties of the $`𝒟_i`$ are non-Gaussian so it would not be correct to calculate $`\chi ^2`$ at this point. However it is possible to make a transformation such that the uncertainties become Gaussian to a very good approximation (Bond, Jaffe, & Knox 2000). An additional set of quantities $`x_i`$ need to be calculated from the data which represent the component of the total uncertainty which is due to instrument noise. We can then transform each of the variables as follows,

$`𝒟_i^Z`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(𝒟_i+x_i)`$ (4)
$`𝒯_i^Z`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(𝒯_i+x_i)`$ (5)
$`M_{ij}^Z`$ $`=`$ $`N_{ij}^1(𝒟_i+x_i)(𝒟_j+x_j),`$ (6)
and calculate $`\chi ^2`$ as usual,

$$\chi ^2=(𝒟_i^Z𝒯_i^Z)M_{ij}^Z(𝒟_j^Z𝒯_j^Z).$$
(7)
The inverse covariance matrix elements $`M_{ij}^Z`$ will be approximately independent of the bandpowers $`𝒟_i`$. This is true even with the added calibration uncertainty term in Equation (1), under the assumption that the band-power uncertainty is sample variance dominated, i.e., $`𝒟_i/x_i1`$ (as is the case with almost all the DASI band-powers), or that the fractional calibration uncertainty is small compared to the total uncertainty in the band-power, $`s^2N_{ii}/𝒟_i^2`$, which is the case for DMR. Use of this transformation is very important as it allows us to use $`\chi ^2`$, and therefore not only to find the best fitting model, but to determine an absolute goodness of fit.

The ability of smaller angular scale ($`l>100`$) CMB data to set constraints on model parameters is much improved when the large angular scale ($`l25`$) information from the DMR instrument is included. We use the DASI bandpowers described and tabulated in Paper II together with the 24 DMR band-powers provided in the RADPACK distribution (Knox 2000; Bond et al. 2000), concatenating the $`𝒟_i`$ and $`x_i`$ vectors and forming a block diagonal covariance matrix. Note that while the effect of the transformation described above is modest for the DASI points, it is very important for those from DMR (due to the large sample variance at the lower $`l`$’s).

## 4 Results

Figure 2 shows the DASI band-powers, together with the DMR data condensed to a single point for display. The $`\chi ^2`$ of the best fit model which falls on our grid is $`29.5`$ for the 9 DASI plus 24 DMR band-powers. Assuming a full 7 degrees of freedom are lost to the fit, this is at the 71% point of the cumulative distribution function (cdf)222In fact since there is not sufficient freedom in the model that an arbitrary set of 7 band-powers could be fit exactly the effective loss of degrees of freedom is less than 7. For example assuming 4 shifts us to the 56% point of the cdf.. The parameters of this model are $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2,\tau _c,n_s,𝒞_{10})=(0.725,0.325,0.0200,0.15,0.0,0.95,800)`$, equivalent to $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\tau _c,n_s,h)=(0.09,0.64,0.33,0,0.95,0.48)`$. However, no particular importance should be ascribed to these — the concordance model (Ostriker & Steinhardt 1995; Krauss & Turner 1995) which is shown has a $`\chi ^2`$ of 30.8 (76%) and is also rather a good fit. The message of Figure 2 is simply that there are models within the grid which fit acceptably well, and that we are therefore justified in proceeding to marginalized parameter constraints. We convert $`\chi ^2`$ to likelihood, $`=e^{\chi ^2/2}`$.

The extreme degeneracy of CMB data in the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane has already been mentioned. This inability to choose between models with the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ is in fact weakly broken at very low-$`l`$ numbers by the Sachs-Wolfe effect (Efstathiou & Bond 1999). The likelihood contours diverge from the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$ line as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes $`1`$, and the allowed region broadens. Consequently the marginal likelihood curve of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ acquires a high side tail as models with progressively greater $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are included. These high $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ models have very low values of $`h`$, and are known to be invalid from a wide range of non-CMB data. This being the case it is clearly not sensible to allow them to influence our results.

We are therefore prompted to introduce additional external information. We could simply restrict $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to some “reasonable” range; for example requiring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<1`$. Instead we choose to introduce a prior on $`h`$ since this strongly breaks the degeneracy and is a quantity which is believed to have been measured to 10% precision (Freedman et al. 2000). We use two $`h`$ priors; a weak $`h>0.45`$, and a strong $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$ assuming a Gaussian distribution. For the weak prior adding the additional restriction $`h<0.90`$ has almost no effect as the excluded models already have very small likelihoods. To apply the prior we simply calculate the $`h`$ value at each grid point, assign it the relevant likelihood, and multiply the two grids together.

Figure 3 shows how the marginal likelihood distributions of the model parameters change as we move from the implicit prior of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }3.4,\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}1.3)`$, to weak, and then strong prior cases. Note that most of the curves fall to a small fraction of their peak value before the edge of the grid is reached. For all parameters where this is not the case one must introduce external priors such that it becomes so, and/or acknowledge the implicit top-hat prior which the range of that grid parameter represents — only then can the constraint on any of the parameters be accepted. All such priors must then be quoted with the constraints. In fact we see that $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2,n_s,𝒞_{10})`$ are almost completely unaffected by the choice of prior on $`h`$ — this indicates that correlations between these parameters and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot})`$ are modest, and is a fortunate result.

We turn now to $`\tau _c`$ which, as is evident in Figure 3, is a very poorly constrained parameter. The effect of reionization is to suppress power at small angular scales, and tilt the spectrum down. However this can be compensated by adjusting $`n_s`$ upwards making these two parameters largely degenerate. Worse still, unlike the $`h`$ prior discussed above, we have very weak experimental guidance as to the value of $`\tau _c`$ — we know only that reionization occurred at $`z6`$, roughly equivalent to $`\tau _c0.03`$. From theoretical ideas regarding early structure formation, and energy emission, it seems essentially impossible that $`\tau _c>0.4`$ (see Haiman & Knox 1999, for a recent review of our knowledge regarding reionization). The theoretical prejudice for $`n_s1`$ is strong, but since this is a fundamental parameter of the cosmology which we are trying to measure, we are very reluctant to place a prior on it.

We have opted to accept the top-hat prior implicit in our model grid, i.e., that the likelihood of $`\tau _c`$ falling between 0.0 and 0.4 is uniform. In Table 1 we list the spline interpolated median, $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ points of the integral constraint curves. The modal (maximum likelihood) value is also given. All of the constraints quoted in this paper are 68% confidence intervals about the median. Although one can argue that the mode is perhaps more natural, in practice it makes little difference.

Referring to Figure 3 we see that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ constraint is almost wholly driven by the prior on $`h`$; for this reason we have not included it in table 1. However, if one is prepared to accept the strong prior $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$, then our data indicates that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1.00\pm 0.04`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.40\pm 0.15`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.60\pm 0.15`$.

Figure 4 illustrates the effect of setting $`\tau _c=0.0`$ (which the data weakly prefers). As already mentioned the primary degeneracy is with $`n_s`$ which shifts to $`n_s=0.97_{0.04}^{+0.05}`$.

The selection of the particular set of nine bandpowers which we have used in this analysis is quite arbitrary. We have tested increasing the number of bins — as expected the variance and covariance of the points increases to compensate, and the constraint curves remain the same. Shifting the bins in $`l`$ also leaves the results unchanged — for instance the alternate binning shown in Paper II leads to results which are indistinguishable from those presented here.

## 5 Conclusion

We have compared the DASI+DMR data to adiabatic CDM models with initial power law perturbation spectra. The best fitting model has an acceptable $`\chi ^2`$ value, indicating that for data of the present quality models within this class are a plausible representation of the underlying physics. Adopting the conservative priors $`h>0.45`$ and $`0.0\tau _c0.4`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1.04\pm 0.06`$ and $`n_s=1.01_{0.06}^{+0.08}`$, consistent with the predictions of Inflation. Moving to more aggressive priors on $`h`$ and $`\tau _c`$ tightens the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ and $`n_s`$ respectively but they remain consistent with the theory.

We find that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.022_{0.003}^{+0.004}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2=0.14\pm 0.04`$, adding to the already very strong evidence for non-baryonic dark matter. These constraints are only weakly affected by the choice of $`h`$ and $`\tau _c`$ priors. Setting a strong $`h`$ prior breaks the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ degeneracy such that we constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.40\pm 0.15`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.60\pm 0.15`$— consistent with other recent results.

The current best value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ derived from the well developed theory of big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), combined with measurements of the primeval deuterium abundance, is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ (Burles, Nollett, & Turner 2001, 95% confidence). The $`\chi ^2`$ of the difference between this and our own value is at the 42% point of the cdf (assuming Gaussian errors on both); the values are hence consistent. Previous CMB analyses have seen little power in the second peak region, and have determined $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ values higher than, and inconsistent with, BBN at the $`3\sigma `$ level (Lange et al. 2001; Jaffe et al. 2001).

We would like to thank the staff of Argonne National Laboratory for allowing us to use the “Chiba City” computer cluster to generate the model grid used in this paper. Lloyd Knox, Wayne Hu and Mike Turner are thanked for useful conversations. Most importantly we thank U. Seljak & M. Zaldarriaga for making CMBFAST publicly available. We would also like to thank the CBI team at Caltech for assistance with the design and implementation of the DASI instrument. This research is supported by the National Science Foundation under a cooperative agreement (NSF OPP 89-20223) with CARA, a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center.