format: text

text:
# Finite Noncommutative Chern-Simons with a Wilson Line and the Quantum Hall Effect

## 1 Introduction

Recently, Susskind  proposed that the coordinates of electrons moving in a strong magnetic field $`B`$ be described by matrices, similar to the description of $`D0`$ brane coordinates. The corresponding lowest Landau level action, consisting of only the magnetic term , becomes a noncommutative version of the Chern-Simons action, which has found numerous applications in physics . In the present context, it describes Laughlin fractional quantum Hall states , the Chern-Simons level becoming the inverse filling fraction. For a recent introduction to the quantum Hall effect see .

The above Chern-Simons theory can describe only an infinite number of electrons. In a previous paper, one of us (A.P.) proposed a regularized version of the noncommutative theory on the plane in the form of a Chern-Simons matrix model with boundary terms . This model describes a system of finitely many electrons (a quantum Hall ‘droplet’) and reproduces all the relevant physics of the finite Laughlin states, such as boundary excitations , quantization of the filling fraction (see also ) and quantization of the charge of quasiparticles (fractional holes). An extension of this model for electrons on a cylinder, involving unitary matrices, is also introduced in . An explicit, but non-unitary, mapping between the states of the matrix model and Laughlin states was presented in , while possible wavefunction mappings were explored in .

An essential ingredient of the above models is the so-called ‘boundary’ term. Its role is to absorb the anomaly of the theory and allow a finite matrix representation of the Gauss’ law. In practice, it ‘feeds’ the representation of the gauge group $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ carried by the matrix coordinates of the model. This representation is fixed by the filling fraction and determines the physics of the electrons; it is the $`(n1)N`$-fold symmetric representation of $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ , with the integer $`n=\nu ^1`$ representing the inverse filling fraction.

A natural question is whether other boundary terms could have been chosen and, correspondingly, different representations for $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$. To approach this, we observe that the boundary term essentially corresponds to a Wilson line operator (see also ) and that a natural expression for such Wilson lines is through a first order gauge invariant action on the group manifold . We therefore propose to use such a Wilson line action as the boundary term of the matrix model and study its classical and quantum structure.

The layout of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we review the noncommutative Chern-Simons and its finite dimensional cousin. Section 3 describes the proposed generalization of the action of . Quantization of this action is equivalent to the insertion of a Wilson line. In Section 4 we show how our proposal relates to that of . We discuss both the classical and quantum equivalence. In the last section we discuss the quantum Hall interpretation and possible applications of the model. Finally, in order to fix our conventions and to make the paper relatively self-contained, we have included a brief description of the quantization of the symplectic form on coadjoint orbits in an appendix.

## 2 Review of Noncommutative Chern-Simons in the Quantum Hall Effect

In Susskind’s proposal, the dynamics of a system of $`N`$ electrons in the large $`N`$ limit is described by the action

$$𝒮_{NCCS}=𝑑t\frac{B}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\{ϵ_{ij}(\dot{X}^i+i[A_0,X^i])X^j+2\theta A_0\},$$
(1)
where $`\theta `$ is related to the average planar electron density $`\rho _0=1/2\pi \theta `$. The subscript $`NCCS`$ stands for noncommutative Chern-Simons and will be explained shortly. Similar actions first appeared in matrix Chern-Simons theory as a possible approach to the fundamental formulation of M-theory .

Gauss’ law obtained by varying $`A_0`$ in the action (1) takes the Heisenberg algebra form

$$[X^1,X^2]=i\theta .$$
(2)
Let $`X^i=y^i`$ be the solution of the Gauss’ law equation (2) corresponding to $`y^1=x`$ and $`y^2=\theta p`$ where $`x`$ and $`p`$ are the matrices representing the position and momentum operators in the harmonic oscillator basis. If we insert $`X^i=y^i+ϵ^{ij}\theta A_j`$ into the the action (1), where $`A_i`$ parameterizes perturbations around the $`y^i`$ solution, one obtains the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ noncommutative Chern-Simons action in the operator language

$$𝒮_{NCCS}=\frac{k}{4\pi }𝑑tϵ^{\mu \nu \xi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta \mathrm{Tr}\left(A_\mu [_\nu ,A_\xi ]+\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu A_\xi \right).$$

Here $`_ii\theta ^1ϵ_{ij}y^i`$ and is regarded as a (matrix) operator. The level $`k`$ of the Chern-Simons action equals (classically) the inverse filling fraction $`\nu ^1`$ where the filling fraction $`\nu `$ is defined as

$$\nu =\frac{2\pi \rho _0}{B}.$$

Taking the trace of (2) we see that Gauss’ law is only compatible with infinite dimensional matrices. In order to describe a finite number of electrons, one of the authors , proposed a minimal addition to the action (1) to make it compatible with finite dimensional matrices. The proposed action is

$$𝒮=𝒮_{NCCS}+𝒮_\mathrm{\Psi }+𝒮_\omega ,$$
(3)
where

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(i\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}A_0\mathrm{\Psi })},`$ (4)
$`𝒮_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑tB\mathrm{Tr}\{\omega (X^i)^2\}}.`$ (5)
The action (4) involves a complex bosonic N-vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that we have a $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ gauge invariance

$$\mathrm{\Psi }U\mathrm{\Psi },X^iUX^iU^1,_t+iA^0U(_t+iA_0)U^1.$$

The term (5) is just a spatial regulator, a harmonic potential whose role is to keep the electrons close to the origin. One can take $`\omega `$ arbitrarily small.

The $`A_0`$ equation of motion is now modified and reads

$$iB[X^1,X^2]\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+B\theta =0.$$
(6)
The trace of (6) then simply implies

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=Nk,$$
(7)
which is compatible with finite dimensional matrices. It was shown in , using the equivalence to the Calogero model, that upon quantization this system describes Laughlin states for the Quantum Hall effect of $`N`$ electrons at fractional filling fraction $`\nu =1/(k+1)`$. For a recent discussion of the equivalence of (3) and the Calogero model see  and references there. In the $`A_0=0`$ gauge, one can first quantize the system ignoring the constraint (6) and then impose it on physical states. In the absence of the constraint we have a system of free harmonic oscillators, some coming from the matrix elements of $`X^i`$ and some from the components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Gauss’ law (6) implies that physical states are invariant under $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ gauge transformationsaaaWe have included the background charge $`B\theta `$ .. A group theoretical analysis of this physical state condition was used in  to find a more direct mapping to Laughlin states.

## 3 The Wilson Line Action

In this section we propose a generalization of the action (3). We propose to replace $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with with

$$𝒮_g=𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left[i\lambda g^1(_t+iA_0)g\right],$$
(8)
where $`g`$ is valued in the $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ group and $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary hermitian matrix . Without loss of generality $`\lambda `$ can be taken to be diagonal. Let $`H`$ denote the stability group of $`\lambda `$ under the adjoint action of $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$. For generic $`\lambda `$ the subgroup $`H`$ is just the diagonal Cartan subgroup.

This system is gauge invariant under the transformations $`g^{}=gh`$, where $`h`$ is time dependent and $`H`$ valued. In fact, the action (8) is invariant under infinitesimal transformations. For large gauge transformations the action changes by an integer multiple of $`2\pi `$ only if $`\lambda `$ is quantized. The gauge invariant degrees of freedom are points on the coadjoint orbit of $`G`$ passing through $`\lambda `$ . These are symplectic leaves, and it is a well known fact  that their quantization gives the unitary representations of the Lie group $`G`$ . The quantization of this system for $`g`$ valued in a simple Lie group $`G`$ is reviewed in the appendix. The method there, is similar in spirit to the one used in . See also  for a path integral quantization, using Darboux coordinates. Here we only explain the necessary modifications for

$$\mathrm{U}(N)\left(\mathrm{SU}(N)\times \mathrm{U}(1)\right)/_N.$$

First let us obtain the quantization of $`\lambda `$. Let the Cartan generators $`H_i`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ be

$$H_i=\mathrm{diag}(0,\mathrm{},0,1,1,\mathrm{},0),i=1,\mathrm{},N1,$$
(9)
where the only nonvanishing entries are on the $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ positions. To this we append $`H_N=𝕀`$ so that we have a complete set in the Cartan subalgebra of $`\mathrm{u}(N)`$. Similarly, let the fundamental weights of $`\mathrm{su}(N)`$ be given bybbbSince the trace is nondegenerate we will identify the Lie algebra with its dual. The same can be done for the Cartan subalgebra and its dual.

$$\mu ^i=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{diag}(Ni,\mathrm{},Ni,i,\mathrm{},i),i=1,\mathrm{},N1,$$

where the first $`i`$ and the last $`Ni`$ diagonal entries of $`\mu ^i`$ are equal. To this set we add $`\mu ^N=1/N𝕀`$ such that we now have $`\mathrm{Tr}(H_i\mu ^j)=\delta _i^j,i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Using this we can write $`\lambda =n_i\mu ^i`$ where $`n_i=\mathrm{Tr}(\lambda H_i)`$. Consider now a large gauge transformation of the form

$$h(t)=e^{2\pi iH_i\xi ^i(t)},$$

where $`\xi ^i`$ are real functions of time such that $`h(t)=𝕀`$ for large positive or negative times. This periodicity implies that

$$H_i\mathrm{\Delta }\xi ^i=\mathrm{diag}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N),$$
(10)
where the diagonal elements $`k_i`$ must be integers. Under the gauge transformation $`h(t)`$ the Lagrangian changes by a total derivatives which can be integrated to give the following change of the action

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_g=2\pi \mathrm{Tr}\left[\lambda (H_i\mathrm{\Delta }\xi ^i)\right]=2\pi n_i\mathrm{\Delta }\xi ^i.$$

The requirement that the action only changes by an integer multiple of $`2\pi `$ together with (10) implies that all the diagonal elements of $`\lambda `$ must be integers. Then $`n_i=\mathrm{Tr}(\lambda H_i)`$ are also integers. For arbitrary $`hH`$, one can show that $`\lambda _i`$ , the diagonal matrix elements of $`\lambda `$ satisfy

$$\lambda _i=\frac{1}{N}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}(Ni)n_i+n_N\right]+0\mathrm{mod}(1).$$

Thus, to be free of global gauge anomalies $`n_i`$ must all be integers and satisfy

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}(Ni)n_i+n_N=0\mathrm{mod}(N).$$
(11)
The quantization can be now be performed similarly to the treatment in the appendix of a simple Lie group. Here we will be brief and only outline the steps (see the appendix for details). The same dynamics can be obtained from a nondegenerate first order action

$$𝒮=𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left[ipg^1\dot{g}gpg^1A_0\right],$$
(12)
together with the constraint

$$p\lambda =0.$$
(13)
The symplectic structure obtained from the first term in (12) is the standard one on the cotangent bundle of $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$. The Hilbert space of the unconstrained system is given by square integrable functions on $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ whose harmonic expansion is given by Peter-Weyl theorem. Just as in the appendix, one then imposes only the constraints (13) associated with the Cartan and positive roots generators. The physical Hilbert space is then finite dimensional and provides an irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$. It is the representation whose lowest weight is given by $`\lambda `$. Note that the first term on the left hand side of (11) is just the number of boxes in the Young tableau of the $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ representation, while the second is the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ charge.

Finally we can now explain the title of this section. The path integral over $`g`$ in the action (8) gives a Wilson line in the irreducible representation discussed above

$$𝑑ge^{i𝒮_g}=\mathrm{P}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tA_0^a(t)t_a}},$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{P}`$ denotes path ordering. Both the right and the left hand side of (14) are understood as operators acting in the physical Hilbert space. This can be seen as follows. Using the notation in the appendix we can write

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\lambda gA_0g^1)=\stackrel{~}{p}_aA_0^a.$$

Upon quantization as can be seen from (31), $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$ becomes the operator acting on the Hilbert space as $`t_a`$. Since the relation between operators and path integral also involves time ordering, which is path ordering in this case, we obtain the desired result.

Gauss’ law for the full action $`𝒮=𝒮_{NCCS}+𝒮_g+𝒮_\omega `$ now reads

$$iB[X^1,X^2]g\lambda g^1+B\theta =0,$$
(15)
and the trace of (15) implies a constraint on the trace of $`\lambda `$

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\lambda )=Nk.$$

## 4 Relation to Boundary Fields

In this section we will demonstrate the correspondence of this model with the previous model with boundary $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ terms. Specifically, we will show that the Wilson line action involving $`g`$ is a particular sector of a version of the previous model involving $`N`$ different boundary fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

First let us discuss the classical equivalence. The $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ matrix $`g`$ can be written in terms of its columns $`\psi _j`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$. Since $`g^1=g^{}`$, the action $`𝒮_g`$ becomes

$$𝒮_g=𝑑t\underset{j}{}\left[i\lambda _j\psi _j^{}(_t+iA_0)\psi _j\right].$$
(16)
We have the sum of $`N`$ decoupled actions. The vectors $`\psi _j`$ are still coupled through the relations

$$\psi _j^{}\psi _k=\delta _{jk},$$
(17)
implied by the unitarity of $`g`$. Upon imposing Gauss’ law, however, and putting $`A_0=0`$ the equations of motion for $`g`$ are

$$[\lambda ,g^1\dot{g}]=0,$$
(18)
and in terms of $`\psi _j`$ they become

$$(\lambda _j\lambda _k)\psi _j^{}\dot{\psi }_k=0(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sum}\mathrm{in}j,k).$$
(19)
For generic values of $`\lambda _j`$ the above equations imply that $`\dot{\psi }_j=0`$ is orthogonal to all other $`\psi _k`$, and therefore $`\dot{\psi }_j\psi _j`$. Since $`\psi _j`$ is normalized, this means that only its phase can vary. The Wilson line action (8), on the other hand, has an additional $`\mathrm{U}(1)^N`$ gauge invariance, corresponding to right-multiplication of $`g`$ by an arbitrary diagonal unitary matrix. This transformation is exactly the redefinition of the phases of $`\psi _j`$. So the above motion of $`\psi _j`$ corresponds to a $`\mathrm{U}(1)^N`$ gauge transformation and, as a gauge choice, we can take $`\dot{\psi }_j=0`$. These are the same equations of motion that we would have derived from the action (16), ignoring the constraints (17). The constraints, then, can be imposed as initial data for the $`\psi _j`$.

We can go one step further and redefine the $`\psi _j`$ to absorb $`\lambda _j`$. We distinguish between the cases $`\lambda _j<0`$ and $`\lambda _j>0`$. We define

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_j=\sqrt{|\lambda _j|}\psi _j.$$
(20)
Assuming that there are $`n`$ positive and $`Nn`$ negative $`\lambda `$’s the action becomes

$$𝒮_g=𝑑t\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(i_tA_0)\mathrm{\Psi }_j\right]+\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(i_t+A_0)\mathrm{\Psi }_j\right].$$
(21)
This is identical to the original action $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where, now, we have introduced a multiplet of boundary fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$, with $`n`$ of them transforming under the fundamental of the gauge group and $`Nn`$ transforming under the anti-fundamental representation. We must further choose as initial conditions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_k=|\lambda _j|\delta _{jk}.$$
(22)
So we have traded $`\lambda `$ for the initial conditions of the lengths of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$, and we have the additional condition of orthogonality between the different $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$. This last requirement is not a restriction. The generator of gauge transformations for the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$, which enters Gauss’ law, is

$$G_\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}.$$
(23)
This is a hermitian matrix which obviously projects in the space spanned by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$, so it can be diagonalized by a unitary transformation in this space. This amounts to a linear redefinition of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ such that they be orthogonal to each other. These redefined $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ satisfy (22).

If any of the $`\lambda _j`$ are equal to each other then the equations of motion (19) do not imply that $`\dot{\psi }_j`$ is proportional to $`\psi _j`$, for the corresponding values of $`j`$, but rather to an arbitrary linear combination of these $`\psi _j`$’s. In this case, however, the Wilson line action has an enhanced gauge invariance under right-multiplications of $`g`$ by unitary matrices in the corresponding subspace. The equations of motion then allow an arbitrary motion in this subspace, which becomes a gauge transformation. It is consistent, therefore, to also impose $`\dot{\psi }_j=0`$ in this case, which amounts to a gauge choice. The gauge generator $`G_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in (23) in this case will have a degenerate subspace for the corresponding $`j`$, and the gauge arbitrariness corresponds to the freedom of rotating the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ in this subspace.

We conclude that in all cases the Wilson line action $`𝒮_g`$ is essentially equivalent to the action $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for $`N`$ independent boundary fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ transforming in the (anti)fundamental of $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$, after fixing the initial conditions and choosing the basis where the matrix generator $`G_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the Gauss’ law is already diagonalized. The corresponding theories with many boundary fields are similar to the models in  which, upon proper reduction, lead to spin-Calogero models.

Quantum mechanically a similar picture emerges. In the theory with $`n`$ boundary fields in the fundamental and $`Nn`$ boundary fields in the antifundamental the components of the fields $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)_k`$ for $`jn`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)_k^{}`$ for $`j>n`$ (where $``$ now stands only for operator, not matrix, hermitian conjugation) become oscillator annihilation operators (note the opposite sign of the canonical term in (21) for $`j>n`$). The boundary gauge generators are the sum of $`N`$ independent oscillator realizations of the generators of $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$. Renaming $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)_k=(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)_k^{}`$ we have the ordering

$$G_\mathrm{\Psi }^a=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_k)_i^{}T_{ij}^a(\mathrm{\Psi }_k)_j\underset{k=n+1}{\overset{N}{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)_i^{}T_{ji}^a(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)_j.$$
(24)
The Fock spaces of the $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi }`$ embeds the tensor product of the representations of each oscillator realization; for $`jn`$ the oscillator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ reproduces all totally symmetric irreps of $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ (all irreps with a single row in their Young tableau), with $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ charge equal to the total number operator. For $`j>n`$ the oscillator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ reproduces the conjugates of the above representations (irreps with $`N1`$ rows of equal length). The tensor product of $`N`$ such irreps of all possible lengths contains all representations of $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$. Therefore, the model with $`N`$ boundary fields allows for the most general representation of the Gauss’ law generator. Picking a particular irrep is the quantum mechanical analog of fixing initial conditions and diagonalizing the classical gauge generator matrix. The action $`𝒮_g`$, on the other hand, also reproduces an arbitrary representation of the Gauss’ law generator, upon picking the appropriate $`\lambda `$.

We conclude that the two theories are essentially equivalent, with the difference that $`𝒮_g`$ picks an irreducible component for the Gauss’ law generator, that is, a particular sector of the $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory. The original single-$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory only has one sector and it is completely reproduced by the Wilson line model with all but a single of the $`\lambda _j`$’s vanishing:

$$\lambda =Nk\mu ^{N1}+Nk\mu ^N=\mathrm{diag}(0,\mathrm{},0,Nk).$$
(25)
Notice that the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ charge of the representation, determined by $`\mathrm{tr}\lambda `$, corresponds to the total number operator of the oscillators. By adding such a $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ part we could render all $`\lambda _j`$ positive and dispense with the anti-fundamental fields in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ representation. We stress, however, that the total $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ charge essentially determines the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ (the filling fractions) through the Gauss’ law. Including, therefore, some antifundamental fields is crucial is we wish to reproduce all irreps of $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ for a fixed value of $`\theta `$.

## 5 Discussion

The proposed generalization allows for the maximal flexibility in the choice of the representation for the Gauss’ law for the matrix coordinates $`X_i`$. The Wilson line ($`g`$) representation is particularly convenient in that it picks a single irreducible representation. The boundary field ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$) representation, on the other hand, is most suited to discuss the physics of the model.

One obvious application of the many-$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ model would be to describe many layers of quantum Hall fluids and/or fluids with spin. Intuitively, the presence of many boundary fields creates many boundaries for the quantum Hall droplet which, then, decomposes into many layers. The total number of electrons in all layers is always $`N`$.

As an example, consider the case of two fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}`$, both in the fundamental, satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j=kN_i\delta _{ij},N_1+N_2=N,$$
(26)
where $`N_{1,2}`$ are integers. Then the Gauss’ law implies

$$iB[X^1,X^2]+k\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{}1N_1,1,\mathrm{}1N_2)=0.$$
(27)
We have chosen a basis in which the Gauss’ law is diagonal, with the entry $`1N_1`$ appearing in the position $`N_1`$ in the diagonal. In this way the trace of the first $`N_1`$ elements of the above matrix vanishes. So (27) admits block-diagonal solutions for $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$, each representing a quantum Hall droplet with $`N_1`$ or $`N_2`$ electrons. The two droplets can obviously overlap. So this model can describe different quantum Hall layers as well as their interactions (non-block diagonal solutions). The generalization to $`n`$ layers is straightforward. The layers can, equivalently, be viewed as spin components for the electrons. The relation of the $`n`$-component model to the $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$-spin Calogero model  further enhances the likelihood of such a correspondence, although the details are yet to be worked out.

Another obvious application of the proposed model is as a regularization of $`\mathrm{U}(n)`$ noncommutative Chern-Simons theory. For the infinite plane case the Gauss’ law (2) can admit reducible representations corresponding to the direct sum of $`n`$ Heisenberg representations. Perturbations around such a solution would give rise to $`\mathrm{U}(n)`$ NCCS action. The single-boundary matrix model, on the other hand, has a ground state corresponding to a single layer which reproduces $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ NCCS theory. By choosing, however, $`n`$ boundary fields in the fundamental and taking them to be orthogonal and of norm squared $`kN/n`$ ($`N`$ should be a multiple of $`n`$) we have a situation analogous to the one above, which admits as ground state a block-diagonal configuration which is the direct sum of $`n`$ ground states of size $`N/n`$ each. Clearly there is an extra $`\mathrm{U}(n)`$ symmetry mixing the $`n`$ components. Perturbations around this configuration would give a regularized version of $`\mathrm{U}(n)`$ theory.

In conclusion, the extended model proposed here has many potential applications both in noncommutative gauge theory and in the quantum Hall context, which are the topic of further investigation.

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Klaus Bering, Dimitra Karabali, Parameswaran Nair, Bunji Sakita and Lenny Susskind for illuminating discussions. A.P. would also like to thank the Physics Department of Columbia University for hospitality during part of this work. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract Number DE-FG02-91ER40651-TASK B.

## Appendix A Coadjoint orbits quantization

In this appendix we describe the quantization of the system defined by the action

$$𝒮=𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left[i\lambda g^1(_t+iA_0)g\right],$$
(28)
where $`g`$ is valued in the group $`G`$ which we assume to be a simple Lie group. See  and references there, and for a recent treatment see . The normalization of the trace is chosen such that the length square of a long root equals two. For $`G=\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ this reduces to the matrix trace in the defining representation. In (28) $`\lambda `$ is a constant weight.

The action (28) is equivalent to the action

$$𝒮=𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left[ipg^1\dot{g}gpg^1A_0\right],$$
(29)
together with the constraint

$$p\lambda =0.$$
(30)
The first term in the action (29) gives the standard symplectic form on the cotangent bundle of the group $`G`$

$$\omega =d\mathrm{Tr}(ipg^1dg),$$

from which we can derive the Poisson bracket

$$i\{f,h\}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{f}{g^T}g\frac{h}{p^T}\frac{h}{g^T}g\frac{f}{p^T}+\frac{f}{p^T}p\frac{h}{p^T}\frac{h}{p^T}p\frac{f}{p^T}\right).$$

Let $`p_a=\mathrm{tr}(t_ap)`$ and $`g_{MN}`$ be coordinates on the cotangent bundle. They have the following Poisson brackets

$$i\{p_a,p_b\}=if_{ab}^cp_c,i\{p_a,g_{MN}\}=(gt_a)_{MN},$$

which upon quantization become

$$[p_a,p_b]=if_{ab}^cp_c,[p_a,g_{MN}]=(gt_a)_{MN}.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{p}=gpg^1`$ designate the matrix in front of $`A_0`$ in the action (29). Then the operators $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a=\mathrm{tr}(t_a\stackrel{~}{p})`$ commute with $`p_a`$ and satisfy

$$[\stackrel{~}{p}_a,\stackrel{~}{p}_b]=if_{ab}^c\stackrel{~}{p}_c,[\stackrel{~}{p}_a,g_{MN}]=(t_ag)_{MN}.$$
(31)
We can represent the Hilbert space $``$ of the unconstrained system using square integrable functions on the group manifold. By Peter-Weyl theorem any function on the group has the decomposition

$$\psi (g)=\underset{R}{}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}c_R^{\alpha \beta }R_{\alpha \beta }(g),$$
(32)
where $`R_{\alpha \beta }(g)`$ are the matrix elements of the $`R`$ representation of $`G`$. They satisfy the following orthogonality conditions

$$𝑑gR_{\alpha \beta }(g)\overline{R}_{\rho \sigma }^{}(g)=\frac{1}{d_R}\delta _{RR^{}}\delta _{\alpha \rho }\delta _{\beta \sigma },$$

where $`dg`$ is the the Haar measure and $`d_R`$ is the dimension of the $`R`$ representation.

The operators $`p_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$ act on this Hilbert space generating an action of $`G_l\times G_r`$, where we used a subscript to distinguish the two $`G`$ factors. Under the action of $`(g_l^{},g_r)G_l\times G_r`$ we have the following transformation

$$\psi (g)\psi ^{}(g)=\psi (g_l^1gg_r).$$
(33)
In particular $`R_{\alpha \beta }(g)`$ transforms as

$$R_{\alpha \beta }(g)R_{\rho \sigma }(g)\overline{R}_{\rho \alpha }(g_l^{})R_{\sigma \beta }(g_r),$$

that is, the index $`\beta `$ transforms in the representation $`R`$ while the index $`\alpha `$ transforms in the representation $`\overline{R}`$. We can reinterpret (32) as the decomposition of the Hilbert space $``$ under the action (33) into the following sum of irreducible representations

$$\underset{R}{}V_{\overline{R}}V_R.$$
(34)
Here $`V_R`$ is the vector space in which the representation $`R`$ acts, $`\overline{R}`$ is the complex conjugate representation and the sum is over all the inequivalent unitary irreducible representations of $`G`$. If the states $`|\alpha ,R`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},d_R`$ form a basis of $`V_R`$ and $`|\overline{\alpha ,R}`$ a basis of $`V_{\overline{R}}`$, the isomorphism is given by

$$R_{\alpha \beta }(g)|\overline{\alpha ,R}|\beta ,R.$$

Let us now consider the constraint (30). Using the raising and lowering generators $`e_\alpha `$ and $`e_\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ are positive roots (not to be confused with the index labeling the components of representations), and $`H_i`$ forming a basis in the Cartan subalgebracccUsing the trace, $`H_i`$ can be identified with the simple coroots $`\alpha _i^{}`$. we define

$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(H_ip),i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{rank}(G),`$
$`p_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(e_\alpha p),p_\alpha =\mathrm{tr}(e_\alpha p),\alpha >0.`$
Using $`\mathrm{tr}(H_i\mu ^j)=\alpha _i^{}(\mu ^j)=\delta _i^j`$ we can rewrite the constraint (30) as

$$p_in_i=p_\alpha =p_\alpha =0,\alpha >0,$$
(35)
where $`n_i=\mathrm{tr}(H_i\lambda )`$ . At the classical level, some of these constraints are first class and some are second class. To see this, note that for some positive roots $`\alpha `$ the Poisson bracket $`\{p_\alpha ,p_\alpha \}`$ gives linear combinations of the Cartan $`p_i`$ which can be nonvanishing due to the constraints $`p_i=n_i`$. At the quantum level we can not impose all the constrains simultaneously. We can however use a Gupta-Bleuer type quantization and require that physical states $`\psi `$ satisfy only

$`p_i\psi (g)`$ $`=`$ $`n_i\psi (g),`$ (36)
$`p_\alpha \psi (g)`$ $`=`$ $`0,\alpha >0.`$
These are the defining relations for a highest weight state which only exists in the decomposition (34) if $`n_i`$ are positive integers. This is how the quantization of the weight $`\lambda `$ is obtained in the Hamiltonian approach. Physical states must therefore have the form

$$|\overline{\beta ,R}|\beta _0,R\beta =1,\mathrm{},d_R,$$

where $`|\beta _0,R`$ is the highest weight state of weight $`\lambda `$. In the wave function on the group description we are restricted to functions of the form

$$\psi (g)=\underset{\beta }{}c^\beta R_{\beta \beta _0}(g).$$

The physical Hilbert space is the irreducible representation of $`G_l`$ whose complex conjugate representation highest weight is $`\lambda `$. Equivalently, the physical Hilbert space is the irreducible representation whose lowest weight is $`\lambda `$.


text:
# A lower bound on the local extragalactic magnetic field

\[

## Abstract

Assuming that the hard $`\gamma `$-ray emission of Cen A is a result of synchrotron radiation of ultra-relativistic electrons, we derive a lower bound on the local extragalactic magnetic field, $`B>10^8`$ G. This result is consistent with (and close to) upper bounds on magnetic fields derived from consideration of cosmic microwave background distortions and Faraday rotation measurements.

\]

Increasing our knowledge of the properties of extragalactic magnetic fields (EGM) on scales between Mpc and the visible horizon could significantly impact our understanding of phenomena in cosmic ray physics (propagation, dissipation via synchrotron radiation), cosmology (distortion of cosmic microwave background (CMB)), and particle physics (early universe primordial magnetogenesis during phase transitions). At present, surprisingly little is actually known about EGM: there are some measurements of diffuse radio emission from the bridge area between the Coma and Abell superclusters , which, under assumptions of equipartition allows an estimate of $`𝒪(0.20.6)\mu `$G for the magnetic field in this region. Such a large field may possibly be understood if the bridge region lies along a filament or sheet . Faraday rotation measurements  have thus far served to set upper bounds of $`𝒪(10^910^8)`$ G on EGM on various scales , as have the limits on distortion of the CMB . The Faraday rotation measurements sample EGM of any origin out to quasar distances, while the CMB analyses set limits on primordial magnetic fields . We will discuss these bounds in some detail in the concluding section, when comparing with our results.

In this paper, we will use the results of a set of cosmic ray measurements taken over a ten-year period at the Sydney University Giant Air-shower Recorder (SUGAR) , and covering much of the southern sky, in order to set a lower bound on the size of the $`B`$-field between Earth and the nearby galaxy Centaurus A (Cen A), at a distance $`d3.4`$ Mpc. The bound will be based on current models of dynamics in the “hot spots” of radiogalaxies, and these assumptions will be tested by future observations of ultra-high energy cosmic ray (CR) and high energy gamma ray fluxes from the direction of Cen A. We will initially outline the dynamical picture concerning the generation of high energy gamma rays. This picture leads to our Eq. (9), and then as a consequence to our lower bound on $`B.`$ We may immediately note that we are aware of the crude angular and energy resolutions of the SUGAR observations. Our analysis will take into account these uncertainties.

Fanaroff-Riley II (FRII) galaxies  are the largest known dissipative objects (non-thermal sources) in the universe. Localized regions of intense synchrotron emission, so-called “hot spots”, are observed within their lobes. These regions are presumably produced when the bulk kinetic energy of the jets ejected by a central active nucleus (supermassive black hole + accretion disk) is reconverted into relativistic particles and turbulent fields at a “working surface” in the head of the jets . In what follows, we will adopt the first order Fermi shock acceleration mechanism in hot spots of FRII glaxies, as discussed in Refs. , to account for particle acceleration to ultra high energies . The applicability of this scenario to Cen A will be discussed in the next paragraph. The subtleties surrounding the conversion of particles’ kinetic energy into radiation provide ample material for discussion . The most popular mechanism to date relates $`\gamma `$-ray emission to the development of electromagnetic cascades triggered by secondary photomeson products that cool instanstaneously via synchrotron radiation . The characteristic single photon energy in synchrotron radiation emitted by an electron is

$$E_\gamma =\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{heE^2B}{2\pi m_e^3c^5}5.4B_{\mu \mathrm{G}}E_{19}^2\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(1)
For a proton this number is $`(m_p/m_e)^36\times 10^9`$ times smaller. Here, $`B_{\mu \mathrm{G}}`$ is the magnetic field in units of $`\mu `$G and $`E_{19}E/10^{19}`$ eV. Thus, it is evident that high energy gamma ray production through proton synchrotron radiation requires very large ($`𝒪(100\mathrm{G})`$) magnetic fields.

We now discuss how the less luminous FRI galaxy Cen A fits into this picture. This radio-loud source ($`l310^{}`$, $`b20^{}`$), identified at optical frequencies with the galaxy NGC 5128, is the closest example of the class of active galaxies . Different multi-wavelength studies have revealed a rather complex morphology: it comprises a compact core, a jet also visible at $`X`$-ray frequencies, a weak counterjet, two inner lobes, a kpc-scale middle lobe, and two giant outer lobes. The jet would be responsible for the formation of the northern inner and middle lobes when interacting with the interstellar and intergalactic medium, respectively. There appears to be a compact structure in northern lobe, at the extrapolated end of the jet. This structure resembles the hot spots like those existing at the extremities of FRII galaxies. However, at Cen A it lies at the side of the lobe rather than at the most distant northern edge, and the brightness contrast (hot spot to lobe) is not as extreme .

In order to ascertain the capability of Cen A to accelerate particles to ultra high energies, one first applies the Hillas criterion  for localizing the Fermi engine in space, namely that the gyroradius $`r_g=110E_{20}/B_{\mu \mathrm{G}}`$ kpc ($`E_{20}E/10^{20}`$ eV) be less than the size of the magnetic region. Low resolution polarization measurements in the region of the suspected hot spot give fields as high as $`25\mu \mathrm{G}`$ . In certain of the regions where measurements at both high and low resolution are available, the $`B`$-field at high resolution can be twice that at low resolution. The higher resolution can reveal amplification in the post-shock region , yielding $`B`$-fields possibly as high as $`5060\mu \mathrm{G}`$ . The radio-visible size of the hot spot can be directly measured from the large scale map of Ref., giving $`R_{\mathrm{HS}}2`$ kpc. The actual size can be larger by a factor $`2`$ because of uncertainties in the angular projection of this region along the line of sight . If one assumes that the magnetic field of the hot spot is confined to the visible region, then the limiting energy is $`2\times 10^{20}`$ eV. However, it is plausible that the shock structure in the hot spot extends beyond the radio-visible region .

In light of this, we apply to Cen A the analyses of Refs. , in which a limiting energy is obtained by balancing the characteristic time scale for diffusive shock acceleration

$$\tau _{\mathrm{acc}}\frac{40}{\pi }\frac{1}{c\beta _{\mathrm{jet}}^2}\frac{1}{u}\left(\frac{E}{eB}\right)^{1/3}R^{2/3}$$
(2)
against the energy loss time scale

$$\tau _{\mathrm{loss}}\frac{6\pi m_p^4c^3}{\sigma _Tm_e^2B^2(1+Aa)}E^1.$$
(3)
In the above, $`\beta _{\mathrm{jet}}=`$ jet velocity in units of $`c,`$ $`u`$ is the ratio of turbulent to ambient magnetic energy density in the region of the shock (of radius $`R`$), $`B`$ is the total magnetic field strength, $`a`$ is the ratio of photon to magnetic energy densities, $`\sigma _T`$ is the classical Thomson cross section, and $`A`$ is a measure of the relative strength of $`\gamma p`$ interactions against the synchrotron emission. In Ref., $`A`$ is estimated to be $`200`$ almost independent of source. In Eq.(2) we assume that the turbulent component of the magnetic field follows a Kolmogorov spectrum with spectral index $`5/3.`$ Equating these characteristic times yields a value for the maximum proton energy

$$E_{20}=1.4\times 10^5B_{\mu \mathrm{G}}^{5/4}\beta _{\mathrm{jet}}^{3/2}u^{3/4}R_{\mathrm{kpc}}^{1/2}(1+Aa)^{3/4},$$
(4)
where $`R_{\mathrm{kpc}}R/1\mathrm{kpc}.`$ One can estimate $`u0.4`$ from the radio spectral index of synchrotron emission in the hot spot and the observed degree of linear polarization in the same region . The jet velocity is model dependent, and estimates range from $`500`$ km s-1 to $`0.99c`$ . For FRI galaxies, $`a`$ is expected to be $`1`$ , and in our analysis we will sample a region of small $`a.`$ In Fig. 1 we plot the relation between $`\beta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and $`a`$ required to attain various energies, for fiducial values $`B=60\mu \mathrm{G},R=4`$ kpc. Since the range of values for $`a`$ and the jet velocity conform to expected values, it is plausible that Cen A can accelerate particles to energies $`10^{20}`$ eV.

Recent observations of the gamma ray flux for energies $`>100`$ MeV (by the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) ) allow an estimate $`L_\gamma 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the source . This value of $`L_\gamma `$ is consistent with an earlier observation of photons in the TeV-range during a period of elevated activity , and is considerably smaller than the estimated bolometric luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}10^{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Data across the entire gamma ray bandwidth of Cen A is given in Ref., reaching energies as high as 150 TeV . Data at this energy await confirmation. For values of $`B`$ in the $`\mu `$G range, substantial proton synchrotron cooling is suppressed, allowing production of high energy electrons through photomeson processes. The average energy of synchrotron photons scales as $`\overline{E}_\gamma 0.29E_\gamma `$ . With this in mind, it is straightforward to see that to account for TeV photons Cen A should harbor a population of ultra-relativistic electrons with $`E6\times 10^{18}`$ eV. We further note that this would require the presence of protons with energies between one and two orders of magnitude larger, since the electrons are produced as secondaries .

There are plausible physical arguments  as well as some observational reasons  to believe that when proton acceleration is being limited by energy losses, the CR luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{CR}}L_\gamma `$. In the spirit of , we introduce $`ϵ`$, the efficiency of ultra high energy CR production compared to high energy $`\gamma `$ production—from the above, we expect $`ϵ1.`$ Using equal power per decade over the interval $`(E_{\mathrm{min}},E_{\mathrm{max}})`$, we estimate a source luminosity

$$\frac{E^2dN_0^{p+n}}{dEdt}\frac{6.3ϵL_{41}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{52}\mathrm{eV}/\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_{\mathrm{min}})}$$
(5)
where $`L_{41}`$ luminosity of Cen A$`/10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the subscript “0” refers to quantities at the source.

For a relatively close source like Cen A, one can neglect interactions of cosmic ray protons with the universal background radiations. Consequently, the shape of the spectrum would be unmodified . In order to discuss directionality, we first consider the case where there is no intergalactic magnetic field. Then en route to us the protons suffer no deflections and no spectral distortions. With the source luminosity (5), the counting rate at Earth in an energy bin $`(E_1,E_2)`$ for a detector of area $`S`$ due to Cen A would be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dt}}|_{B=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{4\pi d^2}}{\displaystyle _{E_1}^{E_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^2dN_0}{dEdt}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{E^2}}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`14.3{\displaystyle \frac{(S/100\mathrm{km}^2)ϵL_{41}}{\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_{\mathrm{min}})}}`$ (8)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{1,20}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{2,20}}}\right)\mathrm{events}/\mathrm{yr}.`$
(Here $`E_{1,20}=E_1/10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$, etc.) This would all be concentrated in a cone of half-angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{res}},`$ the observational resolution, about the direction of Cen A.

As mentioned previously, the only existing measurements of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays arriving from directions which include Cen A were carried out at SUGAR during a ten year period 1968-1979. The array was located at $`30^{}32^{}`$ S, $`149^{}46^{}`$ E, and presented a total area of 100 km2. Shown as asterisks in Fig. 2, as given in Ref. , are the arrival directions of 80 events with energies above $`4\times 10^{19}`$ eV. The direction of Cen A is indicated with a five-pointed star, and the experimental 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainties in arrival directions of events near the Cen A direction are indicated by dashed lines . The solid line ovals surrounding Cen A indicate regions within $`10^{}`$ and $`25^{},`$ respectively, of Cen A, and their significance will be explained shortly.

We now obtain the $`B=0`$ event rate expected at SUGAR in the direction of Cen A, as predicted by Eq.(8). The energy bin is appropriate to the data of , $`E_{1,20}=0.4,E_{2,20}=2.`$ A conservative lower bound on the energy of protons which are progenitors of high energy gamma radiation is $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=1\times 10^{19}`$ eV. It also reasonable to take for the upper bound $`E_{\mathrm{max}}=4\times 10^{20}`$ eV . With this input, we obtain from Eq.(8)

$$\frac{dN}{dt}|_{B=0}8ϵL_{41}\mathrm{events}/\mathrm{year}.$$
(9)
In the preceding discussion we have indicated that under plausible conditions may expect $`ϵ1.`$ However, even if $`ϵL_{41}`$ is as small as 0.1, we may, in the absence of a magnetic field, expect 8 events in 10 years from the direction of Cen A.

The cosmic ray orbits undergo bending in both the Galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields. The magnetic deflection of protons in the Galactic disk has been studied in detail in . This analysis includes two extreme options for the behavior of the field, reflecting the different symmetries with respect to field reversals in the $`r`$\- and $`z`$-directions. The $`B`$-field has a $`1/r`$ behavior, with deviations calculated out to 20 kpc from the Galactic center. The r.m.s. deviation (averaged over arrival direction), for an energy of $`4\times 10^{19}`$ eV, varies from $`7.9^{}`$ to $`10.5^{}`$ in going between the two models. This deviation shows an approximately linear decrease with increasing energy. All the events which we will consider have energies $`>4\times 10^{19}`$ eV, so that conservatively, we allow an uncertainty of $`10^{}`$ in arrival direction due to deviation in the Galactic magnetic field. Events within the inner oval of Fig. 2 represent events which could have originated from Cen A, and have suffered deflection only in the Galactic field. It is clear that at most 1 event can be categorized in this manner, so that in order to have at least 8 events (see previous paragraph), some amount of extragalactic field is necessary.

We treat the extragalactic deviation in a standard manner . With $`B_{\mathrm{nG}}=B/10^9\mathrm{G},`$ the Larmor radius of a particle in this field is $`r_\mathrm{L}10^2`$ Mpc $`E_{20}/B_{\mathrm{nG}}.`$ If this is sizeably larger than the coherence length of the magnetic field $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{coh}}`$, the typical deflection angle from the direction of the source, located at a distance $`d`$, can be estimated assuming that the particle makes a random walk in the magnetic field

$$\theta (E)0.54^{}\left(\frac{d}{1\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{coh}}}{1\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{B_{\mathrm{nG}}}{E_{20}}.$$
(10)
Thus, in the case that $`\theta (E)1,`$ we expect that the counting rate (8) would be spread out over a cone of half-angle

$$\overline{\theta }(E)\left(\theta (E)^2+\theta _{\mathrm{res}}^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(11)
We now draw a second oval in Fig. 2 to include the least number of events compatible with the expectation from Cen A. This second oval contains (or partially contains) 7 events within $`25^{}`$ of Cen A. From our previous discussion of the Galactic effects, this leads us to conclude that cosmic rays with $`E>4\times 10^{19}`$ eV experience a deviation of at least $`15^{}`$ in extragalactic magnetic fields during their transit from Cen A to Earth.

In conjunction with Eqs.(10) and (11) we utilize this conclusion to obtain a lower bound on the $`B`$-field between Earth and Cen A. The average energy $`\overline{E}`$ of the cosmic ray events above $`4\times 10^{19}`$ eV, as reported in , is $`6.3\times 10^{19}`$ eV. Requiring $`\overline{\theta }(\overline{E})>15^{},`$ with $`\theta _{\mathrm{res}}=3^{}`$ and $`d=3.4`$ Mpc, we obtain from (10) and (11)

$$B>9.5\times 10^9\left(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{coh}}/1\mathrm{Mpc}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{G}.$$
(12)
Since the coherent length is most likely $`<1`$ Mpc, we obtain the bound stated in the abstract,

$$B>1.0\times 10^8\mathrm{G}.$$
(13)
Our analysis has utilized the SUGAR data with energies assigned according to the Hillas model . With this prescription, the energy spectrum agrees with that of other experiments . An alternate method  which underestimates the energy by a factor of more than 2 leads to a spectrum which does not show this agreement . The lower energy would have two effects in our analysis: $`(i)`$ the expected event rate (9) would double because of the smaller lower limit on the energy bin $`(ii)`$ the deviation in the Galactic magnetic field would roughly double , leading to an increase in the size of the inner oval in Fig. 2. Following the same procedure as previously, and still utilizing the conservative bound $`ϵL_{41}0.1,`$ we would find that $`B>5`$ nG. However, because there is general consensus  that the spectral evidence strongly favors the Hillas energy normalization, we maintain our bound as $`B>`$ 10 nG .

The limit (13) has an immediate implication with respect to lower energy cosmic rays: from Eq.(10), one can conclude that if $`B>`$ 10 nG all directionality is lost for protons with energies below $`2\times 10^{19}`$ eV. This is consistent with the absence of any anisotropy in the events observed at SUGAR at these lower energies .

We turn to discuss our result in light of considerations which impose upper bounds on magnetic fields. (1) An analysis of He4 production provides a weak bound $`B_0<10^6`$ G on a homogeneous primordial field ; however, such fields are largely dissipated prior to nucleosynthesis . (2) From limits on distortions of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), there is an upper bound $`B_0<3.4\times 10^9`$ G for fields homogeneous on present horizon scales . Our lower bound (13) exceeds this, so that we may conclude that the magnetic field from here to Cen A contains components in excess of a homogeneous relic background field. (3) The analysis of CMB distortions extended to inhomogeneous fields provides a larger bound $`B_0<3\times 10^8`$ G on scales between 400 pc and 0.6 Mpc . This lies above our limit, so that the local EGM is consistent with being of primordial origin. (4) The absence of a positive signal in Faraday rotation measurements on QSO’s  provides upper limits on magnetic fields (of any origin) as a function of reversal scale. These bounds depend significantly on assumptions about the electron density profile as a function of red shift $`z.`$ When electron densities follow that of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest, the average magnitude of the magnetic field receives an upper limit of $`B<10^9`$ G for reversals on the scale of the horizon, and $`B<10^8`$ G for reversal scales on the order of 1 Mpc . The latter upper bound is roughly coincident with our lower limit in our galactic neighborhood. Local fluctuations in electron densities on scales of 1-30 Mpc can lead to very large concommitant fluctuations in the corresponding magnetic field , so that the bound in  should be read as averaged over many reversal cells between Earth and the light sources at distances out to $`z=2.5.`$ If it should happen that the fluctuations in the magnitude of $`B`$ in the Mpc cells out to the horizon are of the same order as $`B_{\mathrm{avg}}`$ itself, then our result can imply that the average value of the intergalactic magnetic field is of the order of $`10^8`$ G. Because of the $`B^2`$ dependence of synchrotron radiation loss by secondary electrons, a field of this strength can have important implication on the development of electromagnetic cascades. Such cascades are characteristically associated with the decay of supermassive relic particles or topological defects. An average magnetic field of $`10^8`$ G will impose strong constraints on “top-down” models .

The SUGAR observations used in this analysis were recorded more than twenty years ago. Both resolution and statistics will be vastly improved with data to be available from facilities which will observe the southern sky. These are now coming on line (Auger ), or are expected to (EUSO/OWL ) in the not-too-distant future. These data will significantly enhance our knowledge of magnetic field strengths in the extragalactic neighborhood of the Milky Way.

We would like to thank Peter Biermann for sharing with us his expertise about magnetic fields in shock environment. This work was partially supported by CONICET (LAA), and the National Science Foundation (HG).


text:
# The gravitational torque of bars in optically unbarred and barred galaxiesBased on observations made with the William Herschel Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias.

## 1 Introduction

Bars have been recognized in galaxies since the time of Curtis (1918) and Hubble (1926), but only recently have methods been developed that quantify the impact of these features on galaxy structure. Bar strength is important in galaxy morphological studies because phenomena such as gas inflow, angular momentum transfer, noncircular motions, lack of abundance gradients, nuclear activity, starbursts, and the shapes and morphologies of rings and spirals, may all be tied in various ways to the effectiveness with which a bar potential influences the motions of stars and gas in a galactic disk (e.g., Sellwood & Wilkinson 1993; Buta & Combes 1996; Knapen 1999).

In the past, bar strength was judged visually from galaxy images on blue-sensitive photographic plates. Hubble (1926) divided galaxies into barred (SBa, SBb, …) and normal (Sa, Sb, …) spirals along a famous “tuning fork.” This view was revised by de Vaucouleurs (dev59 (1959)), whose classification volume recognized apparent bar strength (SA, SAB, SB) as a continuous property of galaxies called the “family”. De Vaucouleurs’ main contribution here was to recognize the existence of galaxies having a bar intermediate in apparent strength between nonbarred and barred spirals. This is the essence of category SAB.

However, neither the Hubble nor the de Vaucouleurs bar classifications can be expected to be accurate measures of bar strength because apparent bar strength is impacted by wavelength, the effects of extinction and star formation, inclination and bar orientation relative to the line of sight, and also on observer interpretations. It is well known that bars are more prominent in near-infrared images than in blue-light images (e.g., Block & Wainscoat 1991; Knapen, Shlosman & Peletier 2000; Eskridge et al. 2000). Clearly, the near-infrared is the best wavelength regime for judging bar strength.

In the near-infrared, one probes the older, star dominated disk. This led Block and Puerari (1999) to propose a simple classification scheme for spirals in the near-IR involving the dominant Fourier $`m`$-mode and the pitch angle of the spiral arms. Old disks may be grouped into three principal archetypes: the tightly wound $`\alpha `$ class, an intermediate $`\beta `$ class (with pitch angles of $``$ 25); and the $`\gamma `$ class, in which the pitch angles in the near-infrared are $``$ 40. Flat or falling rotation curves give rise to the tightly wound $`\alpha `$ class; rising rotation curves are associated with the open $`\gamma `$ class. Hence, these dust penetrated classes are inextricably related to the rate of shear in the stellar disk (Block et al. 1999).

In this paper, we further describe the newest quantitative parameter in our near-infrared classification scheme: the gravitational torque of a bar embedded in its disk, based on the theoretical definition of Combes & Sanders (combes81 (1981)). This parameter, called $`Q_b`$, has recently been developed by Buta & Block (buta01 (2001)). Our goal here is to build on this study and to evaluate the visual bar classifications of Hubble and de Vaucouleurs by comparing them with $`Q_b`$.

## 2 Dust-Penetrated Classifications for 45 Galaxies

We base our study on a combination of the sample used by Buta & Block (2001) and analysis of a new sample of galaxies imaged with the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) using the Isaac Newton Group Red Imaging Device, INGRID. The INGRID camera uses a 1024$`\times `$1024 HgCdTe HAWAII array, optimised for imaging between 0.8 to 2.5$`\mu m`$. The scale is 0.242′′ per pixel, giving a 4.13 $`\times `$ 4.13 field of view. INGRID can be used to efficiently mosaic relatively large galaxies in rather short amounts of observing time. We used the $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ filter (central wavelength 2.150$`\mu m`$) in securing the observations reported here. Three galaxies (NGC 628, 6140 and 6946) were observed by R.S. de Jong using Steward Observatory’s 2.3m Bok Telescope on Kitt Peak.

The galaxies were selected to have an angular diameter greater than 4.2 arcminutes and an inclination less than 50 degrees. Our sample covers a wide range of Hubble types, de Vaucouleurs class (T index) as well as form family (SA, SAB and SB). The Elmegreen arm class (Elmegreen & Elmegreen 1987) for the sample spans the entire range, from flocculent types 1-3 to ‘extreme grand design’ class 12. A discussion of the sample appears in Stedman & Knapen (sted01 (2001)) and in Knapen et al. (in preparation). The latter paper also gives a full description of the data gathering and reduction procedures used.

Table 1 lists the galaxies observed. This sample has the advantage in that it contains many famous spirals whose angular diameters would normally be too large to be included in other 4-m class near-infrared imaging surveys. Included are galaxies such as NGC 4501 (M88, one of the largest spirals in the Virgo cluster) and Hubble Atlas prototypes such as NGC 628 (M74), NGC 3351 (M95) and NGC 4321 (M100).

A variety of quantitative parameters has been suggested or could be interpreted to represent a measure of the strength of a bar, as discussed by Buta & Block (2001). The simplest is the deprojected bar axis ratio, $`(b/a)_{bar}`$, developed by Martin (1995) and listed in his Table as $`(b/a)_i`$. (This can be expressed as a bar ellipticity index $`ϵ_{bi}=10[1(b/a)_i]`$.) Martin’s parameter does not depend on spectroscopic observations, surface photometry, or mass-to-light ratio assumptions, but nevertheless should relate to bar strength based on the analytical models of Athanassoula (1992). This kind of parameter has also been used in a number of other recent papers such as Rozas, Knapen & Beckman (rozas98 (1998)), Knapen, Shlosman & Peletier (2000), and Abraham & Merrifield (abr00 (2000)). A $`K`$\- band Fourier analysis of bar strength is discussed by Regan & Elmegreen (1997). Martin (1995) notes that $`(b/a)_i`$ is not a complete description of bar strength, but merely the most accessible one. The $`Q_b`$ parameter has the advantage in that it is not necessary to rigorously define the bar to measure its strength in this manner (i.e., where the bar begins or ends), while bar axis ratios depend on what we see as the bar.

Dust-penetrated classifications, including principal harmonic H$`m`$, arm pitch angle class Pc, and bar torque class Bc, were derived for each galaxy in Table 1 following Block & Puerari (block99 (1999)) and Buta & Block (2001), and are listed in column 4 in the form H$`m`$PcBc. Fig. 1 shows our near-infrared tuning prong for nine of the galaxies observed using the WHT; all galaxies illustrated in this Figure have been deprojected to appear ‘face-on’.

The amplitude of each Fourier component is given by (Schröder et al., 1994):

$$A(m,p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^I\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j=1}^JI_{ij}(\mathrm{ln}r,\theta )\mathrm{exp}(i(m\theta +p\mathrm{ln}r))}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^I\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j=1}^JI_{ij}(\mathrm{ln}r,\theta )}$$

where $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ are polar coordinates, $`I(\mathrm{ln}r,\theta )`$ is the intensity at position $`(\mathrm{ln}r,\theta )`$, $`m`$ represents the number of arms or modes, and $`p`$ is the variable associated with the pitch angle $`P`$, defined by $`\mathrm{tan}P={\displaystyle \frac{m}{p_{\mathrm{max}}}}`$. In other words, to find the pitch angle of the dominant spiral pattern or mode, we determine that value of $`p`$ which maximises the Fourier amplitude A(m,p) (see Block & Puerari 1999 for a full discussion).

It is important to note that in our formulation, a logarithmic spiral (with a single, well-defined pitch angle independent of radius) may be generated for each mode $`m`$ (corresponding to the locale where A(m,p) peaks). A set of possibly different pitch angles may be computed, but we bin galaxies in Table 1 according to the ‘principal’ pitch angle corresponding to the dominant mode. However, we are fully aware that the spiral arms in barred galaxies often depart from a logarithmic shape. The arms may break at a large angle to the bar and then wind back to the other side, as in a “pseudoring.” Also, barred spirals may have two spiral patterns, as in an “inner pseudoring” and an “outer pseudoring” (e.g. NGC 3504; see Sandage san61 (1961)). These distortions show that the disk structure ‘feels’ the potential of the bar (Kormendy 1979, Kennicutt 1981). We minimize the impact of rings and pseudorings by excluding from our analysis the bar regions of the galaxies in question. The pitch angles listed in Table 1 correspond to arms outside of the inner bar/bulge or inner pseudoring region.

To illustrate what the Fourier method is extracting in a typical inner-ringed system in Table 1, consider the SB(r) galaxy NGC 5921 (Figs. 1 and 3). Fig. 3 shows the $`m`$=2 inverse Fourier transform contours superposed on a deprojected image. The contours trace out the two grand design arms extending outward from the ring (see also panel 206 in ‘The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies’, Sandage & Bedke 1994). The Fourier method provides a reasonable measure of the openness of the two outer arms in this case. In galaxies with stronger rings, the dominant part of the outer arm pattern should still provide a well-defined pitch angle.

In general, strong outer rings and pseudorings have little impact on our classifications because the relative frequency of such features is fairly low. Only 10% of RC3 disk galaxies within about 20 Mpc have such features (Buta & Combes 1996), therefore the classifications for barred and nonbarred galaxies should have a comparable precision. Our pitch angle classes in Table 1 are in any case a ‘first order’ approximation, set within the limits imposed by the distortions of the arms in both normal and barred galaxies. As in the case of optical classifications of barred galaxies, we find that from an operational point of view, the dominant degree of openness of the arm pattern for galaxies in Table 1 can be determined, quantified and placed in one of our three broad classes $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ or $`\gamma `$.

Bar torque classes are derived from the maximum value of the ratio of the tangential force to the mean axisymmetric radial force (Combes & Sanders 1981) using gravitational potentials derived from the near-IR images under the assumptions of a constant mass-to-light ratio and an exponential vertical scale height (Quillen, Frogel, & González 1994). Bar class Bc=1 includes galaxies having relative torques $`Q_b`$= 0.1$`\pm `$0.05 (meaning the tangential force reaches a maximum of 10% of the axisymmetric background radial force); class 2 involves those with $`Q_b`$= 0.2$`\pm `$0.05, etc., up to class 6 (Buta & Block 2001). Uncertainties introduced in the torque method are fully discussed in Buta & Block (buta01 (2001)). In cases where pitch angles for spiral arms could not be determined due to low S/N for example, only the bar class number is given for the dust penetrated (DP) class in Table 1.

The referee questions whether the bar strength code could be deceived by two strong spiral arms in a nonbarred galaxy, giving a falsely significant bar strength. In general, this is not likely. Two-armed spirals betray their presence by peaks at either $`p>0`$ or $`p<0`$ in the $`m`$=2 mode, whereas bars reveal their presence by a peak at $`p`$=0 in the $`m`$=2 component. A relative maximum in A(2, 0) is the Fourier spectral indicator of the presence of a bar. An independent check to ensure that one never confuses $`m`$=2 spirals with bars is simply to look at the tangential-to-radial force ratio map: in such a map, the characteristic signature of a bar is the rectangular or parallelogram pattern of the four maxima or minima (see Fig. 1 of Buta & Block 2001). It is always possible to overlay the locations of these points on deprojected images, as in Fig. 2, to make sure that they are not connected with the spiral arms.

The constancy of the mass-to-light ratio has not been explicitly tested for any of the galaxies in Table 1 (e.g., by fitting an observed rotation curve or computing a near-IR color distribution). However, based on discussions by Freeman (1992) and Persic, Salucci, and Stel (1996), we believe the assumption should be valid for the galaxies in our sample, whose average luminosity is comparable to the Galaxy. (It would not be valid for dwarf galaxies, none of which we study here).

Constraints on the dark halo content of barred galaxies may also be deduced from the dynamical friction or drag of bars rotating within dark matter halos. The studies of Debattista & Sellwood (deb98 (1998), deb00 (2000)) indicate that bars are only able to maintain their high pattern speeds if the disk itself provides most of the gravitational potential; a high central density, dark matter halo would simply provide too much drag on the bar. Such independent studies suggest that light effectively traces mass within the optical disks of barred spiral galaxies.

The vertical scaleheights of our preferentially face-on galaxies are also not known. As noted by Buta & Block (2001), this is one of the principal uncertainties in the $`Q_b`$ technique. Our run of bar torque determinations in Table 1 assume an exponential scaleheight for each galaxy of 325 parsecs (in other words, equal to the exponential scaleheight of our Galaxy; see Gilmore & Reid gil83 (1983)). Of course not all galaxies have the same exponential scaleheight: the study by de Grijs (deg98 (1998)) indicates that late-type galaxies on average have a thinner disk than earlier type systems. To account for possible variations in scaleheight based on morphological type, and for the possibility that some bars are thicker than their disks, we have conducted separate potential runs for scaleheights $`h_z`$ = 225pc and 425pc.

The effect of varying the scaleheight from 225 to 425 pc is to move a galaxy by one bar class, at most; many galaxies retain their bar classes with the three different scaleheight runs. When a galaxy does move from one bar class to the next, the effect of decreasing the scaleheight is to increase the bar strength; increasing the scaleheight leads to a decrease in the bar strength. Buta & Block (buta01 (2001)) find that an uncertainty of $`\pm `$100pc in $`h_z`$ produces an average uncertainty of $``$13% in bar strength. In the future, it should be possible to improve our judgment of $`h_z`$ by scaling from values of the radial scalelength, as done by Quillen, Frogel & González (qui94 (1994)).

Finally, in this preliminary analysis, we have assumed that each bulge is as flat as the disk. If the light distribution of a spherical bulge is transformed into a potential assuming it is a thin disk, then the axisymmetric radial forces derived will be too large, especially in the bulge-dominated region where the error can reach a factor of two. However, as discussed by Buta & Block (2001), as long as the bulge-dominated region is well inside the ends of the bar, this effect will have little or no impact on the measured bar strength.

The ratio of the tangential force to the mean axisymmetric radial force reaches a maximum or minimum around or near the ends of the bar. Fig. 2 shows a montage of nine WHT $`K_s`$ images wherein galaxies are ranked in terms of increasing gravitational bar torque. The characteristic signature of a bar in each of the images may be seen in Fig. 2 by noting the location of the filled black or yellow dots, where the ratio reaches a maximum or minimum in each quadrant.

## 3 Bar Torque and Form Family

Combining the sample in Table 1 with that in Table 1 of Buta and Block (2001), we have 75 galaxies for which $`Q_b`$ is now available. Six of the galaxies in Table 1 are in common with the list in Buta & Block (2001). Except for NGC 4548, the values are in good agreement, with differences attributable to the quality of the images. We give preference in our analysis to the Table 1 values, because the INGRID images are superior in signal- to-noise to the images used by Buta & Block (2001). In the case of NGC 4548, a rebinning error caused Buta & Block (2001) to overestimate the bar strength; the Table 1 value is the actual bar torque in this galaxy.

Fig. 4 shows $`Q_b`$ versus the Hubble S and SB classifications, extracted from the “Revised Shapley-Ames Catalog” (RSA; Sandage & Tammann san81 (1981)). Fig. 5 is a similar plot, but for the de Vaucouleurs (dev63 (1963)) classifications.111In some SAB classifications, de Vaucouleurs (1963) underlined the A or the B to emphasize further subdivisions in this category. However, we ignore the underlines here since there are too few galaxies in the underlined subdivisions in our sample. For a number of galaxies in Table 1, Martin (1995) lists an estimate of the deprojected visual bar axis ratio, $`(b/a)_{bar}`$. Fig. 6 shows a plot of our gravitational bar torque $`Q_b`$ vs. $`(b/a)_{bar}`$. Several points are noteworthy:

(i) Category S in Fig. 4 includes galaxies ranging from bar torque class 0 (e.g., NGC 628) to bar class 3 (e. g., NGC 1042). NGC 4321, a Hubble Sc prototype, has a bar class of 2. Likewise, NGC 4450 (Sab) is of bar class 2. NGC 4450 is illustrated in Panel 110 of Sandage & Bedke 1994, and there is a distinct visual impression of a bar. This is clearly evident in the near-infrared (see Fig. 7).

Similarly, Hubble category SB in the RSA has a wide range of bar strengths. This category commences at a bar torque of class 1 (NGC 3344) and reaches bar class 5 (e.g., NGC 7741) in Table 1 and bar class 6 in Table 1 of Buta & Block (2001). In other words, the bar strengths of some RSA SB galaxies may be weaker than those found in RSA unbarred spirals such as NGC 1042 (Sc; near-infrared bar class 3). This is not due to the uncertainties in the $`Q_b`$ method, but instead reflects the difficulties of making reliable bar strength judgments in the visual Hubble system. The work of Knapen et al. (2000) reaches this identical conclusion, using their independent definition of bar strength.

The gravitational influence of bars is thus poorly recognized by the Hubble classification scheme. Table 2 shows that, on average, RSA SB galaxies have relative bar torques only 2.5 times as strong as in RSA S galaxies, with a very large range in $`Q_b`$ in each class. In this table, two galaxies of RSA type Sb/SBb have been included in the SB category.

(ii) Fig. 5 and Table 2 show that the situation is better for de Vaucouleurs classifications. The mean value of $`Q_b`$ changes smoothly with de Vaucouleurs family, and in fact verifies the continuity in bar strength embodied in de Vaucouleurs classifications. De Vaucouleurs SB galaxies have relative bar torques 5.5 times that of SA galaxies and twice that of SAB galaxies. However, the scatter is still very large in the SAB and SB categories. In Table 1, SAB galaxies encompass bar torque classes over the wide range 0 (e.g., NGC 6946) to 3 (e.g., NGC 4303), while SB galaxies encompass the range 2 (e.g., NGC 3351) to 5 (e.g., NGC 1300). NGC 7479 (Buta & Block buta01 (2001)) is a type SB galaxy of bar class 6.

(iii) Fig. 6 shows that $`Q_b`$ correlates fairly well with Martin’s (1995) $`(b/a)_{bar}`$ parameter, confirming that bar ellipticity does provide a measure of bar strength. However, the scatter at a given bar axis ratio is still large. Buta & Block (2001) had noted that highly elongated bars (such as in M83; an example of Martin’s bar ellipticity class 7) may have weak torques. At $`(b/a)_{bar}`$ = 0.5, $`Q_b`$ ranges from 0.1 to 0.5. Thus, apparently strong bars with significant ellipiticity (e.g., with elongations of $`(b/a)_{bar}`$ $``$ 0.5) may be strong, weak, or intermediate as far as $`Q_b`$ torque values are concerned. $`Q_b`$ does not measure just the shape of an isolated bar; it also accounts for the disk in which the bar is embedded.

(iv) We suspect that some of the scatter seen in Figs. 4 to 6 could be due to dilution of the bar torque by a strong bulge. We might expect this because bars that are strong in terms of the $`m`$=2 Fourier component of the optical light distribution (Elmegreen & Elmegreen elm85 (1985)) can have either small or large relative torques, depending on the relative mass of the bulge. If the bulge is weak, then even a weak bar can have a strong torque compared to the radial component of the force (e.g., NGC 1073). Bars that are long can have a strong torque because the end of the bar is far from the bulge (e.g., NGC 1300). This means that the simultaneous decreases in relative bulge strength and bar length with later Hubble type partially offset each other, giving a relative torque that can either go up or down, depending sensitively on the mass distribution.

However, when we replot Fig. 5 separating the points by Hubble type, we find that the galaxy-to-galaxy variation in the bar torque for each bar type is not entirely the result of a varying force dilution from the bulge. This is shown in Fig. 8, which includes the same galaxies as in Fig. 5 but with different symbols for early, intermediate, and late Hubble types. These subtypes reflect a variation in the relative strength of the bulge, with earlier types having stronger bulges in both barred and non-barred galaxies. Even within a subtype, some optically barred galaxies have smaller bar torques than some optically unbarred galaxies. The relative bar torque comes from a mixture of bar amplitude, radial profile and relative length, all combined with the bulge strength. These quantities vary in different ways along the Hubble subtype sequence, producing a wide range in relative bar torques.

Variations in torque with bar type are not obvious from the morphology. If bars drive spirals, particularly in early Hubble types where the presence of a bar correlates well with grand design spiral structure (Elmegreen & Elmegreen elm89 (1989)), they tend to do so only to the point of saturation, producing very strong arms after only a few revolutions. This is apparently true for both high and low bar torques, because even the low torques are enough to make strong spirals. Thus there is little sensitivity in spiral arm strength to the bar torque, aside from the known sensitivity of arm strength to the relative magnitude of the $`m`$=2 component of the infrared light (Elmegreen & Elmegreen 1985).

Several bars in Fig. 2 show a two-component morphology: a broad oval bulge or bar-like structure extending out to about half or two-thirds of the full bar length, and a thin spindle-like structure extending out further. NGC 4314 is an example; the thick component is outside the ILR in this case because there is a small ILR ring much closer to the center. These two bar components generally appear to be from two distinct populations of stars: a warm or hot population to make the thick bar, and a cool population to make the spindle. The two components could also have formed at different times, with the hot component being much older. In this case, it would be interesting to study these galaxies as possible examples where a relatively short bar formed first and dissolved by the instabilities discussed in Hasan, Pfenniger, & Norman (hasan93 (1993)), producing the oval we see today, and then another, larger bar formed afterwards out of a younger population of stars and gas, producing the spindle. We also note that some galaxies have the thick oval leading the thin spindle in the direction of rotation (e.g., NGC 1300), and other galaxies have it lagging (e.g., NGC 4123). This variation might indicate some dynamical interaction between the two bars, such as an oscillation about the equilibrium aligned configuration.

## 4 Robustness of $`Q_b`$ in the high-redshift universe

Block et al. (2001) have suggested that a physically meaningful classification system for high-redshift galaxies may be more easily devised at rest-frame infrared wavelengths, rather than in the optical regime. Sub-mm observations indicate that at least some of these systems are heavily obscured by dust (Sanders 1999). Lessons from our local Universe are that optical morphologies can be radically different from near-infrared ones; some optically flocculent galaxies, for example, may have beautiful grand design stellar disks when examined at $`K`$. The decoupling of gaseous and stellar disks can be dramatic (see e.g., Puerari et al. 2000, Elmegreen et al. 1999, Grosbøl & Patsis 1998 and Block et al. 1994). Block et al. (2001) show that Fourier spectra may be generated on simulated Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) rest-frame $`K`$ post-stamp FITS images which may be as small as 1′′ on a side.

With the tremendous importance in attempting to bridge the low and high-redshift universe from a morphological point of view, it is natural to enquire how robust our bar torque method is as we degrade the quality of the images. First indications are that $`Q_b`$ is surprisingly robust in the presence of noise and limited spatial resolution.

Recreated rest-frame $`K`$-band NGST images of the galaxies NGC 2997 and NGC 922 when moved out to redshifts of $`z`$ = 0.7 and $`z`$ = 1.2, are presented in Block et al. (2001). We have applied our $`Q_b`$ method to NGC 922, which may serve as an excellent morphological interface between the low and high redshift universe (see Block et al. 2001 for full details).

The results are indicated in Fig. 9. Even in the presence of significant image degradation of NGC 922 when this galaxy is moved out to a redshift of $`z`$=1.2 (the eye now cannot easily distinguish the boundaries of a bar, see Fig. 9) – the four locations where the ratio of the tangential force to the mean axisymmetric radial force reaches a maximum (in modulus) may readily be identified. NGC 922 in the groundbased as well as in the simulated image (Fig. 9) belongs to bar class 2. Further work on moving each galaxy in Table 1 out to $`z`$ $``$ 1 ($`L`$ and $`M`$ band imaging) as well as to $`z`$ $``$ 3 (simulated $`N`$-band imaging) at rest-frame $`K`$-band, with NGST, are in progress. This would yield a statistically complete sample upon which to test the robustness in preservation of bar torque class with increasing $`z`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown that RSA and de Vaucouleurs bar classifications correlate poorly with relative bar torque. It is not unexpected that there would be some average correlation; as shown in Table 2, the S, SA/SAB categories do indeed select weaker bars on average than the SB categories. However, the scatter in any given category is so large that all categories have significant overlap. Some RSA SB galaxies have much weaker bars than some RSA S galaxies. Deprojected bar axis ratios are a better measure of bar strength, but even with this more quantitative parameter, the scatter in $`Q_b`$ is still large for each axis ratio.

The relative bar torque parameter $`Q_b`$ provides a logical addition to the dust-penetrated classification of Block & Puerari (1999). As noted by Buta & Block (2001), there is still room for improvement that would involve better estimates of orientation parameters, more quantitative treatments of the bulge, better tests of the constant M/L assumption using near-IR colors, and a derivation of the vertical scaleheight as a fraction of the radial scalelength. These issues will be addressed in more depth in a future paper.

At least for NGC 922, the $`Q_b`$ bar torque method is surprisingly robust in the presence of noise and limited spatial resolution, when simulated images of this galaxy are recreated at a redshift of $`z`$ = 1.2 in the dust-penetrated rest-frame $`K`$-band.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the anonymous referee for valuable comments. A note of deep gratitude is expressed by DLB to the entire SASOL Board, including P. Kruger (Chairman) and P. Cox (CEO). SASOL Corporate Affairs Manager Mr S. Motau has been most helpful. We are also most indebted to the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund; in particular, we warmly thank the Board of Trustees and CEO Mrs. M. Keeton for the funding of two of us (RJB and IP) to work in South Africa. DLB freely acknowledges the saving grace of God in allowing this research to continue after a motor car accident; ‘Iam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum’ (Tertullian). We thank R.S. de Jong and D.M. Bramich for help with the new images. IP would like to express his deep gratitude to E. Athanassoula for interesting discussions on spiral structure. These discussions were made possible in terms of the ECOS/ANUIES exchange project M99-U02, for which IP is most grateful. The groundbased near-infrared image of NGC 922 from which Fig. 9 was created, was kindly secured by Dr A. Stockton.