text:
# Untitled Document

THE EARLY UNIVERSE AND THE STANDARD MODEL OF PARTICLE PHYSICS

AFSAR ABBAS

Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar-751005, India

(e-mail : afsar@iopb.res.in)

Abstract

The most well tested and successful model of particle physics is the Standard Model (SM). It is shown here that the restoration of the full SM symmetry ( as in the Early Universe ) leads to the result that the electric charge loses all physical meaning and hence does not exist above this scale, As a direct consequence of this we show that ‘time’, ‘light’ along with its velocity c and therefore the theory of relativity, all lose any physical meaning. The space-time structure as known to us, disappears in this phase transition. Thus it is hypothesized that the Universe came into existence when the SM symmetry $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ was spontaneously broken to $`SU(3)_cU(1)_{em}`$. This does not require any spurious extensions of the SM and in a natural and consistent manner explains the origin of the Universe within the framework of the SM itself. Thus the SM, in addition to all its successes, has within itself, the capablity of giving a consistent decription of the origin of the Universe.

As the universe expands, it is predicted that it undergoes a series of phase transitions  during which the appropriate symmetry breakes down in various stages until it reaches the stage of the electro-weak (EW) symmetry. This is given by the group structure $`SU(3)_c`$ $``$ $`SU(2)_L`$ $``$ $`U(1)_Y`$. After $`t10^{10}`$ seconds ( at $`T10^2`$ GeV ) the electro-weak phase transition to $`SU(3)_c`$ $``$ $`U(1)_{em}`$ through the Higgs Mechanism takes place. It is the strucure of this phase transition that I look into in this paper.

Note that the structure $`SU(3)_c`$ $``$ $`SU(2)_L`$ $``$ $`U(1)_{em}`$ forms the basis of the Standard Model ( SM ) of particle physics. This model has been well studied in the laboratory. It is the best tested model of particle physics . However because of subjectively aesthetic reasons some people feel that this may not be the ultimate model of physics and hence there have been several propsals to go beyond the SM like the GUTs, the Superstring theories etc . One has to however remember that none of these have been shown to be correct by any empirical test in the laboratory. Some of these models are perhaps not even testable.

The idea of the electro-weak phase transition  is that above some critical temperature $`T_c^{EW}`$ the full electro -weak symmetry $`SU(3)_c`$ $``$ $`SU(2)_L`$$``$ $`U(1)_Y`$ is restored. This restoration implies that now the $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge particles $`W^{+,}`$, $`W^0`$ and the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge particle $`B_\mu `$ becomes massless. In addition all matter particles $`e`$, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$, u-quark etc becomes massless too. All the proposed extensions presumably become operative above this scale. As all these extensions are trying to go beyond the SM and as the SM is the most established and tested model of particle physics, one expects that all these extensions should be fully consistent with the requirements of the SM. Indeed this was so in the early 70’s when most of the attempts to go beyond the SM were originating . It was believed then that one of the weaknesses of the SM was that the electric charge was not quantized in it. It was seen as a success of the GUTs concept that the electric charge was found to be automatically quantized therein. Hence as per popular perception the GUTs had all that the SM had plus some more .

However, it was as late as 1990 that this was shown to be wrong. Against all expectations, the electric charge was shown to be fully and consistently quantized in the SM . In fact this turns out to be its fundamental property, no less significant than the generation of masses for the gauge particles . It had immediate implications for all extensions beyond the SM . If electric charge quantization in the SM has consequences for other models, does it have more to say about the nature of things. Here in this paper this is what shall be looked into, and we shall find surprising and basic effects, giving us insight into fundamental aspects of Nature. It is heartening that all this shall arise within the SM, which as of today, has withstood closest scrutiny, both experimental and theoretical.

Let us start by looking at the first generation of quarks and leptons (u, d, e,$`\nu `$ ) and assign them to $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ representation as follows

$$q_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right)_L,(3,2,Y_q)$$

$$u_R;(3,1,Y_u)$$

$$d_R;(3,1,Y_d)$$

$$l_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ e\end{array}\right);(1,2,Y_l)$$

$$e_R;(1,1,Y_e)$$
(1)
To keep things as general as possible this brings in five unknown hypercharges.

Let us now define the electric charge in the most general way in terms of the diagonal generators of $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ as

$$Q^{}=a^{}I_3+b^{}Y$$
(2)
We can always scale the electric charge once as $`Q=\frac{Q^{}}{a^{}}`$ and hence ($`b=\frac{b^{}}{a^{}}`$)

$$Q=I_3+bY$$
(3)
In the SM $`SU(3)_c`$ $``$ $`SU(2)_L`$ $``$ $`U(1)_Y`$ is spontaniously broken through the Higgs mechanism to the group $`SU(3)_c`$ $``$ $`U(1)_{em}`$ . In this model the Higgs is assumed to be doublet $`\varphi `$ with arbitrary hypercharge $`Y_\varphi `$. The isospin $`I_3=\frac{1}{2}`$ component of the Higgs develops a nonzero vacuum expectation value $`<\varphi >_o`$. Since we want the $`U(1)_{em}`$ generator Q to be unbroken we require $`Q<\varphi >_o=0`$. This right away fixes b in (3) and we get

$$Q=I_3+(\frac{1}{2Y_\varphi })Y$$
(4)
Next one requires that the L-handed and the R-handed charges be identical in $`U(1)_{em}`$ which is a fundamental property of electrodynamics. Also by demanding that the triangular anomaly cancels (to ensure renormaligability of the theory)  one obtaines all the unknown hypercharge in terms of the unknown Higgs hypercharge $`Y_\varphi `$. Ultimately $`Y_\varphi `$ is cancelled out and one obtain the correct charge quantization as follows.

$$q_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right)_L,Y_q=\frac{Y_\varphi }{3},$$

$$Q(u)=\frac{2}{3},Q(d)=\frac{1}{3}$$

$$u_R,Y_u=\frac{3}{4}Y_\varphi ,Q(u_R)=\frac{2}{3}$$

$$d_R,Y_d=\frac{2}{3}Y_\varphi ,Q(d_R)=\frac{1}{3}$$

$$l_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ e\end{array}\right),Y_l=Y_\varphi ,Q(\nu )=0,Q(e)=1$$

$$e_R,Y_e=2Y_\varphi ,Q(e_R)=1$$
(5)
It has been shown  that for arbitrary $`N_c`$ the colour dependence of the electric charge as demanded by the SM is

$$Q(u)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{N_c})$$

$$Q(d)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{N_c})$$
(6)
One should note that equations (5) and (6) show that the electric charge is quantized in SM. The complete structure of the SM as is, is required to obtain this result on very general grounds. The SM is the best tested model of particle physics. What has this to say about the early universe scenarios available today ?

Clearly the $`U(1)_{em}`$ symmetry which arose due to spontaneous symmetry breaking due to a Higgs doublet in the EW symmetry will be lost above $`T_c^{EW}`$ whence $`SU(2)_L`$ $``$ $`U(1)_{em}`$ symmetry would be restored. As is obvious, above $`T_c^{EW}`$ all the fermions and gauge bosons becomes massless . This properly is well-known and has been incorporated in cosmological models. Here I point out a new phenomenon arising from the restoring of the full EW symmetry .

Note that to start with the parameter b and Y in equation (3) in the definition of electric charge were completely unknown. We could lay a handle on ’b’ entirely on the basis of the presence of spontaneous symmetry breaking and on ensuring that photon was massless $`b=\frac{1}{2Y_\varphi }`$. Above $`T_c^{EW}`$ where the EW symmetry is restored there is no spontaneous symmetry breaking and hence the parameter b is completely undetermined. Together ’bY’ could be any arbitrary number whatsoever even an irrational number. Within the framework of this model above $`T_c^{EW}`$ we just cannot define electric charges at all. It may be a number which is zero or infinite or an irrational etc. Hence the electric charge given by equation (3) loses any physical meaning all together.This is the new amazing result.

So above $`T_c^{EW}`$ all the particles have not only become massless, they have forgotten their charges also. It just does not make sense to talk of their charges. The concept of electric charge has been lost. There is no such thing as charge anymore. The photon (which was a linear combination of $`W^0`$ and $`B_\mu `$ after spontaneous symmetry breaking ) with it’s defining vector characterteristic does not exist either. So the conclusion is that there is no electrodynamics above $`T_c^{EW}`$.

Note that the electric charge in the SM was not an elementary or fundamental object at all. In fact it was a secondary quantity defined in terms of the elementary objects $`I_3`$ and Y ( see equation(3)). So it should not be really surprising to see it loose it’s meaning under special circumstances. The same is true of the photon of $`U(1)_{em}`$ . In short $`U(1)_{em}`$ owes its existence to SSB and looses it’s meaning when the full EW symmetry is restored .

I have demostrated that actually electric charge is quantised in SM and when at high temperature the EW symmetry is unbroken, the concept of electric charge does not arise. At those and still higher temperatures ie at still earlier universe  extensions like GUTs, Supergravity, Superstrings are believed to be relevant. Note that in all these models, as a generic property charge is always believed to exist and is quantized . Quite clearly the existence of electric charge demanded by these models in the very early universe is in conflict with what I have shown that there was no elctric charge before about $`10^{10}`$ seconds. Hence all these extensins can not give a valid description of the very early universe .

All this misunderstanding and confusion arose because we had not understood the electro-weak phase transition correctly. We have already seen that the restoration of the full SM symmetry leads to the result that there is no electric charge above it and also that there was no photon. All the so called hypothetical extenions beyond the SM are already ruled out as shown above. So what remains?

The above result shows that above the electro-weak phase transition there was no electromagnetism. Maxwells equations of electrodynamics show that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Hence above the electro-weak phase transition there was no light and no Maxwells equations. And surprisingly we are led to conclude that there was no velocity of light c as well. One knows that the velocity of light c is given as

$$c^2=\frac{1}{ϵ_0\mu _0}$$
(7)
where $`ϵ_0`$ and $`\mu _0`$ are permittivity and permeability of the free space. These electromagnetic properties disappear along with the electric charge and hence the velocity of light also disappears above the electro-weak phase transition.

The premise on which the theory of relativity is based is that c, the velocity of light is always the same, no matter from which frame of reference it is measured. Relativity theory also asserts that there is no absolute standard of motion in the Universe. Of fundamental significance is the invariant interval

$$s^2=(ct)^2x^2y^2z^2$$
(8)
Here the constant c provides us with a means of defining time in terms of spatial separation and vice versa through l = c t. this enables one to visualize time as the fourth dimension. Hence time gets defined due to the constant c. Therefore when there were no c as in the early universe ,there was no time as well. Hence above the electro-weak breaking scale there was no time. As the special theory of relativity depends upon c and time, above the electro-weak breaking scale there was no special theory of relativity. As the General Theory of relativity also requires the concept of a physical space-time, it collapses too above the electro-weak breaking scale. Hence the whole physical universe collapses above this scale.

Therefore it is hypothesized here that the Universe came into existence when the electro-weak symmetry was broken spontaneously. Before it there was no ’time’, no ’light’, no maximum and constant velocity like ’c’, no gravity or space-time structure on which objective physical laws as we know it could exist.

Note that this new picture of the origin of the Universe arises naturally within the best studied and the best verified model of particle physics. It does not require any ad-hoc or arbitrary models or principles. One only has to do a consistent and careful analysis of the hitherto misunderstood electro-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking.

In short we find that the SM of particle physics is not only good to explain all known facts, it is also capable of giving a natural and consistent description of the origin of the Universe. It is beautiful as it is so simple. This work should be seen as further strengthening the SM.

REFERENCES

1. E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, ” The Early Universe ” Edison Wesley, New York ( 1990 )

2. T. P. Cheng and L. F. Lee, ” Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics ”, Clarendon Press, Oxford ( 1988 )

3. A. Abbas, Phys. Lett. , B 238 ( 1990) 344

4. A. Abbas, J. Phys. G. , 16  ( 1990 ) L163

5. A. Abbas, Nuovo Cimento , A 106 ( 1993 ) 985

6. A. Abbas, Hadronic J., 15 ( 1992 ) 475

7. A. Abbas, Ind. J. Phys., A 67 ( 1993 ) 541

8. A. Abbas, Physics Today  ( July 1999 ) p.81-82

9. A. Abbas, ‘On standard model Higgs and superstring theories’ ”Particles, Strings and Cosmology PASCOS99”, Ed K Cheung, J F Gunion and S Mrenna, World Scientific, Singapore ( 2000) 123


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Is entanglement observer-dependent?

Italo Vecchi

Vicolo del Leoncorno 5 - 44100 Ferrara - Italy

email: vecchi@isthar.com

Abstract: The properties of quantum entanglement are examined and the role of the observer is pointed out.

PACS: 03.65.Bz

Entanglement plays a crucial role in current quantum theory, but it is hard to find any clear introduction to its properties. In this note some issues related to entanglement are examined and some conclusions are drawn, pointing out how unphysical hidden assumption have seeped into the formalism used to describe entanglement. We refer to  for references and background material on entanglement, although some of our conclusions will differ from those proposed in the literature.

The inadequacy of language in the description of quantum phenomena has been stressed by numerous authors. The need to clarify the meaning of words is not new in scientific debate. Leibniz’s letters to Clarke and Bohr’s reply to the EPR paper  are classic texts where the search for the proper meaning of words plays a crucial role . The dialogic form appears appropriate for such a purpose. Asking questions is an effective rethorical device and it may alert us to problems that may be hidden by a more reassuring formulation.

In the physical literature entanglement appears for the first time in the classic EPR paper , where the the entangled state

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+_A|_B|_A|+_B)$$

of two spin-1/2 particles $`A`$ and $`B`$ is examined.

The most striking feature of entanglement is its non-local charachter: the measurement of the physical properties of one part of an entangled system appears to affect instantaneously other parts of the system. In the classic example of  the measurement of the spin of particle $`A`$ appears to determine the value of the spin measurement of the entangled but spatially separated particle $`B`$. In general we may say (Statement A) that ”Two particles are entangled when the measurement of one of them affects the subsequent measurement of the other”.

A disturbing feature of Statement A is its ambiguity. If we identify a system with its state vector (i.e. with its wave-function), it is not clear ”a priori” how we can meaningfully refer to any of its components and what we mean by ”particle”. We define particles through clusters of measurements, so that Statement A is intrinsecally circular. A good way around this problem is given by Statement B: ”Two measurements are entangled if one of them affects the outcome of the other.”.

At this point however there is still the problem of defining what constitutes a measurement. If we assume that the evolution of an isolated system is governed by a Schroedinger equation we must conclude that its evolution is unitary. A salient feature of measurement is its irreversibility, while unitary evolution is always reversible. As long as the system can be imbedded in an isolated system its evolution is unitary and no irreversible change can take place.

There appears to be a contradiction here, but again we may find a way out considering the meaning of the words we are using. The key question in this setting is: ”What constitutes an isolated system?”. More precisely we may ask: ”Isolated from what?”. The easy answer is: ”Isolated from the observer.”.

Indeed we know that the act of observation induces state-vector reduction which implies loss of unitarity. This well-known fact underlies the popular ”many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Everett. The problem is avoided only by the assumption of spontaneous state-vector reduction, i.e. of spontaneous loss of unitarity, which we will not consider.

A relevant question at this point is: ” When does state vector reduction takes place?”. Mollifying answers based on dubious distinctions between the macroscopic and the microscopic level are quite popular, but such paths around the problem turn out to be circular. The straightforward answer to the above question is: ”When the system under consideration ceases to be isolated from the observer”.

Now a new question arises: ”What consitutes an observer?”. This is perhaps the hardest of all questions. A possible answer is ”Human beings are observers”. A frankly repulsive but operative one is ”Physicists are observers”.

We can try to put things together. Based on the above we can claim that ”State-vector reduction takes place when the system ceases to be isolated from the observer”.

We may reformulate the above as: ”State-vector reduction takes place when the observer’s perception of the system’s state takes place”. We may stop for a moment here. Perception is based on physical interaction. Without physical interaction there can be no perception. A system that is perceived interacts physically with the observer. If it interacts physically it is not isolated. It somehow makes sense: ”Unitarity is lost when the boundary between observer and observed breaks down, i.e. when perception takes place”. Different perception may relie on different physical mechanisms, but without a physical interaction with the observer, e.g. a flow of photons hitting the observer’s retina, no breakdown of the the observer/observed boundary, i.e. no measurement, can take place.

There is nothing really new here. We are just drawing the ”Heisenberg cut” all the way back to the observer.

There is a thorny issue that must be tackled. State-vector reduction takes place in a certain basis in the system’s state-space. Different bases yield different state-vector reductions. An obvious question is : ”How is the basis in which state-vector reduction takes place determined?”. The answer is easy. A basis is a reference system in the system’s state space. Reference systems are picked by the observer. In science there is no such thing as a physical system picking a basis, except perhaps in Tolemaic astronomy and certainly in decoherence theory (). So the answer to the question is: ”The observer picks the basis”, i.e. ”pointers” depend on the observer. Von Neumann may be nodding and adding: ”The basis actually defines the observer”.

Yes, but ”why do different observers agree on their measurements?”. In the Everett interpretation the question has been asked and answered in various ways, but mostly ignored . Maybe all observers we can communicate with are just instances of one observer, one mind, whatever. Maybe not all observers agree. Maybe certain groups of observers agree more among themselves than with other observers. Maybe there are clusters of observers with different degrees of relatedness. The less they are related, the harder it is for them to agree on what they observe and communicate effectively. We may just accept the fact that, as far as physical experiments are concerned, state-vector reduction relative to one experimenter appears to affect all experimenters. If it were not so, scientific communication, i.e. agreeing on observed facts, would be harder and perhaps impossible.

Let us sum up what we have got. Any physical system evolves as a wave-function governed by a Schroedinger equation and its evolution is unitary as long as no measurement is performed by the oberver. When the system is observed, its state-vector is projected into an observer-dependent basis. This projection process is in general non-unitary. The observer-dependent nature of this process centers on the fact that the basis is observer-dependent. The amplitudes of the system s state-vector projections on the basis correspond to the probabilities of the possible outcomes. Probabilities measure the observer’s ignorance of the measurement outcome in the observer’s basis. In general we may note that probability, being a measure of ignorance, always refers to an observer.

We may have a look at the density matrix formalism in the light of the above remarks. Let us consider mixtures. In this setting the density matrix of mixtures represents the observer’s knowledge on the possible outcomes of an experiment. It does not represent the state of the system. Mixtures simply describe the observer s knowledge of possible measurement outcomes in a certain basis.

We can now go back to entanglement and ask the question: ”What is entanglement?” .The answer may be: ”Entanglement is the observer’s blueprint for state-vector reduction”. It should be clear that entanglement can be defined only in terms of the observer-dependent basis. Prior to observation all bases are equivalent so that speaking about entanglement is meaningless. It is only when state-vector reduction takes place that the system’s state-vector is cast according to an observer-dependent set of rules . Entanglement has an observer-independent support, since the observer’s perceptions are based on the information it extracts from its interaction with the system’s state vector, which is determined by the system’s evolution. However for state-vector reduction the physical features of the system, as encoded in the system’s state-vector, must be interpreted through a blueprint that depends on the observer. Loosely speaking we may say that physical interaction, as described by the relevant Schroedinger equation, may leave ”marks” on the system‘s state-vecto affecting the measurement outcome, e.g. the scrambling/vanishing of superpositions, but such ”marks” are read according to an observer-dependent blueprint only when state-vector reduction takes place. Without an observer the ”marks” are meaningless ripples on the system’s wave-function.

It follows that when we use the standard notation relative to entanglement we are not describing the state of the system, but a set of possible measurement outcomes. This means that in the above EPR example the apparently harmless notation $`|+_A|_B`$ does not refer to any intrinsic property of the system’s state vector, but it indicates how state-vector reduction will be enforced on the system. The ”product state” $`|+_A|_B`$ in EPR is not a state at all, but just a notational convention on measurement outcomes, expressing how subsequent measurements will be related. Actually the requirement that total spin is conserved is a constraint on measurement outcomes, i.e. on spin measurements. Such a constraint is meaningless as a condition on the system’s state-vector. This distinction is not purely formal, since prior to observation the system may evolve in a way that may not be consistent with the formalism describing entanglement. Such a discrepancy may be experimentally detected ().

References

 P.Kwiat, H.Weinfurter, T.Herzog and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74(24), 4763 (1995)

 A.Einsten, B.Podolsky and N.Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

 I.Vecchi, at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0002084 (see also: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0102130).

 I.Vecchi, at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0007117


text:
# HST observations of NGC 6240

## 1. Introduction

The luminous IR galaxy NGC 6240 has both the tidal tails and a double nucleus that are characteristic of a merging system. Since its identification by the IRAS satellite as one the most nearby ULIRGs, NGC 6240 has been the subject of numerous studies at virtually all wavelengths.

One of the key results emerging from these studies is that NGC 6240 harbors both a starburst and an AGN. Several lines of evidence indicate the presence of young stars, including e.g. the observed strength of the CO bandhead (Rieke et al. 1985). However, observations with various X-ray satellites show a strong X-ray component that can only originate from an AGN (e.g., Vignati et al. 1999). Spectroscopic line diagnostics in the mid-IR support the view of a composite AGN/starburst source, but indicate that most of the IR luminosity of $`5\times 10^{11}L_{}`$ must be powered by the starburst (Genzel et al. 1998).

To improve our understanding of the double nucleus we have studied this region at high resolution using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST; GO Programs 6430 and 8261; PI: van der Marel). We have obtained WFPC imaging and longslit STIS spectra to determine both the gaseous and the stellar kinematics. An additional set of emission line spectra was obtained some 12 arcsec from the double nucleus to examine the nature of a large velocity gradient that exists at this location (Bland-Hawthorn, Wilson & Tully 1991).

## 2. Double Nucleus

### 2.1. Imaging

The two nuclei of NGC 6240 are separated by 1.8 arcsec or about 0.8 kpc. Figure 1a shows close-ups of our WFPC2 observations in the $`B`$, $`V`$ and $`I`$ bands (filters F450W, F547M and F814W, respectively), together with a K-band NICMOS image retrieved from the HST Data Archive (filter F222M, GO program 7219, PI: Scoville). There is a clear change in the morphology of the double nucleus as the wavelength increases, due to strong dust absorption, especially on the southern nucleus. This is consistent with the previous finding from lower-resolution ground-based data that the distance between the flux-centroids of the two nuclei appears to decrease with wavelength (Schulz et al. 1993).

Figure 1b shows our narrow band WFPC2 $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$+\[NII\] image. The double nucleus is visible also in ionized gas. The large-scale morphology of the gas has a highly filamentary structure that is characteristic of a starburst wind (Heckman, Armus & Miley 1987).

### 2.2. Gas Kinematics

To map the velocity field of the ionized gas in the nuclear region we obtained a set of STIS $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$+\[NII\] emission line spectra with the slit parallel to the line that connects the nuclei. We used slit widths of $`0.1^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`0.2^{\prime \prime }`$ to cover an area with a full width of $`1.1^{\prime \prime }`$. The spectra were analysed by fitting Gaussians to the emission lines. The best-fitting Gaussian parameters yield the flux, radial velocity and velocity dispersion. The results are shown as contour maps as a function of position in Figure 2a–c.

The flux distribution corresponds well with that in the $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$+\[NII\] narrow band image. Although the northern nucleus is less luminous than the southern nucleus in continuum emission, it is more centrally concentrated and has a higher peak intensity in the emission lines.

The velocity field does not show clear signs of rotation around either of the two nuclei. However, it does show a steep velocity gradient of 400 km s-1 arcsec-1 between the two nuclei, as shown in Figure 2d. The velocity field of molecular CO gas obtained by Tacconi et al. (1999) yields a similar picture, with the same velocity gradient that we observe in $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$+\[NII\] (same peak to peak velocity amplitude and turn-over radius). While Tacconi et al. observe that the CO velocity field is highly complex, they are able, with some simplifying assumptions, to fit it with a model of a rotating disk between the two nuclei. This is not unreasonable, given that the observed CO flux peaks between the two nuclei. However, the ionized gas emission that we observe clearly does not peak between the two nuclei, cf. Figure 2a. It is therefore surprising that the ionized gas and the molecular gas do have very similar kinematics.

Current N-body simulations do not yet have sufficient resolution to follow the gaseous and stellar kinematics inside the central kpc of mergers in much detail. However, they do indicate that the dynamics can be complex and out of equilibrium, so the interpretation of the gas velocities in NGC 6240 as due to organized disk rotation should be viewed with some caution. Note that gas disks are often observed around the nuclei of ULIRGs, but not generally in between the nuclei.

The velocity dispersion map of the ionized gas shows peaks that roughly coincide with the two nuclei. However, the difference between the maximum and minimum velocity dispersions is small, less than 25 percent. To first order, the velocity dispersion of the ionized gas is consistent with $``$ 250 km s-1 over the entire nuclear region. One of the goals of the gas kinematical observations was to find evidence for broad emission lines that could identify the AGN responsible for the X-ray emission. However, we see no sign of broad emission lines or strongly increasing line widths towards either of the nuclei.

### 2.3. Stellar Kinematics

We also obtained STIS spectra at the near-IR Ca triplet to study the stellar kinematics in the region of the double nucleus. Due to the lower S/N of absorption lines it was not possible to make a two-dimensional map of the kinematics, so instead only a single spectrum was obtained with the slit along the line connecting the nuclei. The inferred mean velocities and velocity dispersions of the stars are shown in Figures 2e,f.

The stellar kinematics differ considerably from the gas kinematics. The large velocity gradient seen in the ionized gas is absent in the stellar kinematics and there appears to be very little rotation around the nuclei. However, a ground based stellar velocity field derived from the CO bandhead (Tezca et al. 2000) does show rotation around both nuclei but at large angles to the position angle of the line that connects the nuclei.

The stellar velocity dispersion (derived after binning rows along the spectrum to increase signal-to-noise) peaks at the nuclei. At both nuclei the measured velocity dispersion is around 200 km s-1, well below earlier, spatially unresolved, observations of $``$ 350 km s-1 (Lester & Gaffney 1994; Doyon et al. 1994), but consistent with the more recent observations by Tezca et al. The signal-to-noise ratio between the two nuclei is too low, even after rebinning, to reliably determine the stellar velocity dispersion. Tezca et al. find that in their data the velocity dispersion actually peaks between the nuclei. However, the dynamical importance of this observation is unclear because N-body simulations show that projection effects can lead to spurious peaks in the observed velocity dispersions (Mihos 2000).

Stars are collisionless objects, unlike gas which can be influenced by shocks, infall and starburst winds. In general stars therefore trace the gravitational potential of a galaxy more reliably than gas. One of the goals of the stellar kinematical observations was to find evidence for an increasing velocity dispersion towards either of the nuclei, which would have provided evidence for the gravitational influence of the black hole that is responsible for the X-ray emission. However, we do not observe the large velocity dispersions that would unambiguously identify a black hole.

## 3. The Hypothesized Off-Nuclear Black Hole

Bland-Hawthorn et al. (1991) reported the presence of a steep velocity gradient in a ground-based $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$ velocity field of NGC 6240 at a projected distance of 6 kpc from the double nucleus (marked by a cross in Figure 1b). This was interpreted with a model in which the velocity gradient is due to rotation around a black hole of $`10^{11}M_{}`$. This would be quite remarkable, given that the most massive black hole ever convincingly detected is only $`3\times 10^9M_{}`$ (e.g., Kormendy & Gebhardt 2001). Also, no counterpart is seen at the position of the hypothesized black hole in optical continuum, ionized gas, radio emission or X-ray wavelengths.

We have mapped the $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$ velocity field around the hypothesized black hole using STIS spectra obtained with the $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ wide slit placed at several parallel positions (Figure 3b). While the resulting spatial resolution is admittedly low for HST standards, it is still a few times better than for the best available ground-based data. Although a steep gradient is observed in the HST data, the gradient is not steeper than the measured ground based value. This is not consistent with expectation if there were indeed a $`10^{11}M_{}`$ black hole present. Then the gradient should be steeper when observed at higher spatial resolution. If the velocity gradient observed with HST were interpreted with a model of gas orbiting a black hole, the implied black holes mass would only be $`10^{10}M_{}`$. However, such a model is inconsistent with the observed two-dimensional structure of the velocity field. The predicted velocity field at the observational resolution for an inclined Keplerian disk is shown in Figure 3a. The velocity gradient quickly flattens perpendicular to the kinematical major axis, by contrast to the observed gradient. Hence, the observed velocity field is inconsistent with the signature expected from a black hole. The location of the observed velocity gradient along the extension of a filament (see Figure 1b) suggests instead that it is due to kinematic gradients in the starburst wind, or possibly projection effects.

## References

Bland-Hawthorn, J., Wilson, A. S., & Tully, R. B. 1991, ApJ, 371, L19

Doyon, R., et al. 1994, ApJ, 437, L23

Genzel, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 498, 579

Heckman, T. M., Armus, L., & Miley, G. K. 1987, AJ, 93, 276

Kormendy, J., & Gebhardt, K. 2001, in ‘Proc. 20th Texas Symposium’, AIP, in press \[astro-ph/0105230\]

Lester, D. F., & Gaffney, N. I., 1994, ApJ, 431, L13

Mihos C., in ‘Dynamics of Galaxies: from the Early Universe to the Present’, Combes F. et al., eds., ASP Conference Series, Vol. 197, 275, 2000

Rieke, G. H., et al. 1985, ApJ, 290, 116

Schulz, H., Fried, J.W., Röser, S., & Keel, W. C., 1993, A&A, 277, 416

Tacconi, L. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, 732

Tecza, M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, 178

Vignati, P., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, L57


text:
# MRST Global Fit Update

## Abstract

We discuss the impact of the most recent data on the MRST global analysis \- in particular the new high-$`E_T`$ jet data and their implications for the gluon and the new small $`x`$ structure function data. In the light of these new data we also consider the uncertainty in predictions for physical quantities depending on parton distributions, concentrating on the $`W`$ cross-section at hadron colliders.

There has recently been a great deal of updated data which help to determine parton distributions, particularly on small $`x`$ structure functions from HERA and on inclusive jets from the Tevatron. In both cases these new data are both more precise and extend the kinematic range, and thus determine the parton distributions more accurately than ever before. The MRST global fit is performed by minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$ for all data adding statistical and systematic errors in quadrature (this procedure will be improved before producing finalized distributions), except for the jet data where the dominant correlated errors render a proper treatment absolutely essential. The evolution begins at $`Q_0^2=1\text{GeV}^2`$, and data are cut for $`Q^2<2\text{GeV}^2`$ and $`W^2<10\text{GeV}^2`$ in order to exclude regions where higher twist and/or higher orders in $`\alpha _S`$ are expected to play an important role.

The main effect of the new data is to constrain the gluon distribution, and hence, via evolution the small $`x`$ quark distributions. The jet data are important in determining the high $`x`$ gluon. Previously MRST used prompt photon data to perform this role, but it has become clear that there are both large theoretical uncertainties and conflicts between data sets, and we now drop this approach. The best fit to jet data produces a high $`x`$ gluon in between our previous $`g`$ and $`g`$ distributions, i.e. $`xg(x)(1x)^{5.5}`$. If the gluon becomes smaller at high $`x`$ the fit to the jets becomes unacceptable. If it becomes larger, then although the jet data are initially supportive, the fit to DIS data deteriorates dramatically. Hence, there is an uncertainty of $`20\%`$ at $`Q^2=20\text{GeV}^2`$, $`x=0.4`$.

The improved HERA data also significantly affect the gluon. In order to obtain an acceptable fit the parameterization at $`Q_0^2`$ is extended to the form

$$xg(x,Q_0^2)=A_g(1x)^{\eta _g}(1+ϵ_gx^{0.5}+\gamma _gx)x^{\delta _g}A_{}(1x)^\eta _{}x^\delta _{},$$
(1)
which allows the gluon to become negative at small $`x`$. $`\eta _{}`$ is fixed at $`10`$ so that the large $`x`$ form is unchanged, and $`\delta _{}0.2`$ \- the gluon becoming quite negative at the smallest $`x`$. It becomes positive for all $`x>10^5`$ for $`Q^2>23\text{GeV}^2`$. A good fit is obtained for the HERA structure function data as seen in fig. 1. Compared to the last MRST fit $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ is flatter in $`Q^2`$ at the smallest $`x`$, but steeper at $`0.05<x<0.0004`$. In this intermediate range the data would prefer an even higher $`dF_2(x,Q^2)/d\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$. Also, we find that the jet and DIS data push in opposite directions for $`\alpha _S(M_Z^2)`$. Once the high $`x`$ constraint on the gluon is imposed, the DIS data prefer $`\alpha _S(M_Z^2)=0.121`$ while the jet data prefer $`\alpha _S(M_Z^2)=0.117`$, a compromise of $`0.119`$ being reached.

In order to improve the analysis of physical quantities sensitive to structure functions and make truly quantitative predictions there are a number of issues to address. Many important ones are theoretical, such as higher orders, resummation of $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ terms, higher twist, etc.. However, a direct issue which has been a recent focus of attention is the uncertainty due to the experimental errors on current data. Rather than obtain parton distributions with errors, we follow our original suggestion and look at the error on a physical quantity determined by the parton distributions, in practice the $`W`$ cross-section at hadron colliders.

We study $`\sigma _W`$ for the Tevatron and LHC, which probes mainly the quarks in the region $`0.5<x<0.005`$ for the former and $`0.5<x<0.00007`$ for the latter. For our best fit we find

$$\sigma _W(\mathrm{Tev})=22.3nb,\sigma _W(\mathrm{LHC})=192nb.$$
(2)
In our previous study we examined the variation in $`\sigma _W`$ due to variation in normalization of data, $`\alpha _S(M_Z^2)`$, form of high $`x`$ gluon etc, rather than the uncertainty on the data. In order to do this the best way to proceed is to perform the global fit whilst constraining the value of the quantity in question, i.e. to use the Lagrange multiplier method. However, this previous study produced a large value for the uncertainty in $`\sigma _W`$ of order $`58\%`$. We have now performed an analogous study using the most up-to-date data, and also using a different method of determining the limits of an unacceptable fit. We impose the rough criterion that no data set has a less than $`1\%`$ confidence level. This leads to an estimated uncertainty on $`\sigma _W`$ of about $`\pm 2\%`$. In short, for the upper limit on $`\sigma _W(\mathrm{LHC})`$ the fit to H1 data fails, for the lower limit on $`\sigma _W(\mathrm{LHC})`$ the fit to ZEUS data fails, for the upper limit on $`\sigma _W(\mathrm{Tev})`$ the fit to NMC proton data fails and for the lower limit on $`\sigma _W(\mathrm{Tev})`$ the fit to NMC $`n/p`$ data fails. Often at least one other data set has a deteriorating quality of fit and the increase in global $`\chi ^2`$ is about 80. A roughly symmetric deterioration in the fit quality to CCFR, for example, is shown in fig. 2.

We conclude that the uncertainty in $`\sigma _W`$, and similarly $`\sigma _Z`$, due to experimental errors is rather small. We can repeat the procedure for a variety of other observables, e.g. Higgs production will be directly sensitive to the small $`x`$ gluon rather than small $`x`$ quarks, and the uncertainty due to experimental errors will obviously be largest for quantities sensitive to the large $`x`$ gluon. However, we also need to consider the uncertainty due to theoretical errors. As was shown in , the perturbative series seems fairly convergent for quark sensitive processes (though an improvement is perhaps needed in $`dF_2(x,Q^2)/d\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) probably because it is the quarks that are directly tied down by experiment at present. However, the expansion is less reliable for gluon sensitive quantities - especially in the region where resummations are expected to be important. Hence, although we will continue detailed work into uncertainties due to experimental errors, we believe that the great precision of data now leads to the theoretical errors being dominant in most cases, and suggest that this should be a major area of study in the immediate future.


text:
# Kinematics of Globular Clusters in M49 and M87

## 1. Introduction

There is still considerable controversy about how and when elliptical galaxies form. As survivors from the earliest epochs of galaxy formation, globular clusters (GCs) are incredibly useful probes of their host galaxies. Of great recent interest has been the finding of bimodality in the GC colour distributions in many elliptical galaxies. Several models have been put forward to explain this bimodality, including spiral-spiral mergers (Schweizer 1987; Ashman & Zepf 1992), multi-phase collapse (Forbes, Brodie, & Grillmair 1997), and hierarchical accretion (Côté, Marzke, & West 1998).

The kinematics and ages of metal-poor and metal-rich GCs around ellipticals will be key to distinguishing between these different scenarios, hence the importance of cluster spectroscopy. However, this spectroscopy is difficult, given the faintness of GCs in even the nearest ellipticals. It has only been with the advent of multi-object spectrographs on 4m and 8$``$10m telescopes that real progress has been made in this area. However, the sample of ellipticals with signficant numbers of GC spectra is still very small, limited to giant elliptical (gE) galaxies such as Centaurus A, NGC 1399, and M49 and M87 in Virgo. Here we present recent multi-slit spectroscopy of GCs in the latter two galaxies.

## 2. M49 Globular Clusters

With K. Ashman, M. Beasley, D. Geisler, D. Hanes, R. Sharples, and S. Zepf. See Sharples et al. (1998) and Zepf et al. (2000) for further details of the M49 GC kinematics, and Beasley et al. (2000) regarding the GC ages and metallicities.

### 2.1. Sample Selection and Observations

Object selection was based on Washington photometry of M49 cluster candidates from Geisler, Lee, & Kim (1996). To improve the GC yield, we imposed magnitude and colour cuts: 19.5 $`<`$ V $`<`$ 22.5, 0.5 $`<`$ C$``$T1 $`<`$ 2.2. Cluster spectra were obtained at the WHT with LDSS in 1994, and at the CFHT with MOS in 1998. Spectra covered the region from 3800$``$6000 Å with a resolution of 3$``$6 Å, giving velocities good to 50$``$100 km/sec; exposure times were 3$``$4 hours per mask. The combined cluster sample from the two runs (also including some GCs from Mould et al. 1990) is 144; of these, 93 are blue/metal-poor and 51 are red/metal-rich (dividing at C$``$T1 = 1.625, or \[Fe/H\] $``$ $``$1.6). We suffered only 15% contamination from non-clusters, and our overall completness was 65%. Our sample extends out in radius to $``$ 8 arcmin ($``$ 6 Reff, or $``$ 35 kpc for D=15 Mpc). Cluster velocities were obtained from cross-correlation with radial velocity stars.

### 2.2. Results

#### Kinematics

Figure 1(a) shows the GC rotation and velocity dispersion radial profiles, for the total sample, and for the blue and red GCs separately. These profiles were obtained by smoothing with a Gaussian kernel with $`\sigma `$ = 100′′ . The blue GCs have a significantly larger velocity dispersion than the red GCs (300$``$350 km/sec compared to $``$ 200 km/sec), as already found by Sharples et al. (1998). Figure 1(a) shows that the M49 GCs have a slowly declining velocity dispersion profile, seen in both the full and blue/red samples. There is little evidence for rotation in the red GCs (but some evidence that the rotation increases outwards), while the rotation is roughly constant for the blue GCs. At all radii, the rotation is much smaller than the dispersion, and for the red GCs we can set an upper limit of (v/$`\sigma `$)proj $`<`$ 0.34 at 99% confidence; thus, rotation is not dynamically important for the M49 GCs.

#### M/L Ratio and Orbital Anisotropy

We use the velocity dispersion and luminosity density profiles, together with the Jeans equation, to estimate the M49 mass distribution; we assume isotropic orbits and spherical symmetry. Figure 1(b) shows the M49 mass vs. radius; the lines represent our cluster data, and the points with errorbars are the masses inferred from ROSAT X-ray data (Irwin & Sarazin 1996). There is reasonable agreement between the two mass determinations, suggesting that both are roughly correct, and that our assumption of isotropic cluster orbits isn’t too far wrong. We find a total M49 mass in excess of 1012 M, and a M/L ratio at least five times greater at 30 kpc than at a few kpc, confirming the existence of a substantial dark matter halo in M49.

## 3. M87 Globular Clusters

with P. Côté, D. Geisler, D. Hanes, G. Harris, J. Hesser, D. McLaughlin, and D. Merritt. See Hanes et al. (2001) and Côté et al. (2001) for further details.

### 3.1. Observations and Final Sample

Object selection was based on Washington C, T1 imaging (Geisler, Lee, & Kim 2001), with 0.8 $``$ C$``$T1 $``$ 2.35. Spectra were obtained at the CFHT in 1996 with MOS, with a dispersion of 3.6 Å/pixel. We used a filter centered at 5100 Å with a bandwidth of 1200 Å to allow us to place up to 100 slits per mask without spectral overlap. Galactic GCs were observed as radial velocity templates. We obtained velocities for 109 M87 GCs, 54 of these new measurements. By combining with previous work (most importantly, 205 velocities from Cohen & Ryzhov 1997), we obtain a final sample of 278 bona-fide M87 GC velocities. Of these, 161 are classified as “blue” (C$``$T1 $`<`$ 1.4) or metal-poor (\[Fe/H\] $`<`$ $``$1.15) and 117 as “red” or metal-rich (C$``$T1 $`>`$ 1.4, \[Fe/H\] $`>`$ $``$1.15).

### 3.2. Results

#### Cluster Kinematics

We investigate the global rotation and velocity dispersion of the M87 GCS by fitting our velocities with the function $`v_p(\mathrm{\Theta })=v_{sys}+(\mathrm{\Omega }R)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }_0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ is the GCS rotation axis, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$R is the rotation amplitude. When we average over all radii, we find similar rotation, dispersion, and position angles for the full sample, and for the blue and red clusters separately: $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$R $``$ 160$``$170 km/sec, a dispersion of 360$``$400 km/sec, and a position angle between 60$``$75.

When we look at the kinematics as a function of radius, however, it starts to get interesting. Figure 2(a) shows the cluster rotation amplitude vs. radius for the total sample, and for the red and blue clusters separately, while Figure 2(b) shows the cluster best-fit position angle vs. radius. These (smoothed) curves were obtained by sliding a bin of radial width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R= 90′′ ($``$ 6.5 kpc) through the cluster datapoints, and solving for the kinematics in each bin. From Figure 2(a), we see that the rotation is roughly constant with radius, but there is some evidence that the rotation increases at larger radius, especially for the blue GCs. Figure 2(b) shows that, at large radius, the blue GCs rotate conventionally around the minor axis of M87, but for R $``$ 16$``$18 kpc, they appear to rotate about the major axis! Similar behavior is seen in the red GCs, though not as pronounced. This flip in the rotation axis may be evidence for a past major merger.

#### Dynamical Models and Cluster Orbits

Our dynamical approach is to assume a total M87 mass profile, as given by McLaughlin (1999). We plug this mass profile, the deprojected globular cluster surface density profile, and the velocity anisotropy $`\beta _{cl}(r)1\sigma _\theta ^2/\sigma _r^2`$ into the Jeans equation and solve for the radial velocity dispersion $`\sigma _r`$(r). A deprojection then gives the projected velocity dispersion profile $`\sigma _p`$(r), which can then be compared with the observed profiles. Thus, we input various values of $`\beta `$ \[specifically $`\beta `$ = $``$99 (strong tangential bias), $``$0.4 (moderate tangential bias), 0 (isotropic), +0.4 (moderate radial bias), and 0.99 (strong radial bias)\], and see which value fits the data best.

Figures 3(a-c) show the results of this, for the combined sample, and for the metal-poor and metal-rich GCs separately. From Figure 3(a), the M87 GCS as a whole has an almost perfectly isotropic velocity ellipsoid. However, the metal-poor GCs appear to have a modest tangential bias, with $`\beta _{cl}`$ $``$ $``$0.4 at small radii, while the metal-rich GCs appear to have a slight radial bias of roughly the same magnitude, $`\beta _{cl}`$ $``$ +0.4. Thus, the metal-poor and metal-rich GCs appear to have quite different orbits.

## 4. Discussion: Comparison of M49 and M87

What can we learn by comparing the M49 and M87 GCSs?

* In M49, there is little or no rotation in the red GCs, and $``$ 100 km/sec rotation for the blue GCs. In M87, there is a similar rotation of $``$ 170 km/sec for both red and blue GCs.
* In M49, there is little or no evidence that the rotation or velocity dispersion is rising with radius, whereas in M87 there is a suggestion that both the rotation and dispersion are increasing outwards. This is most likely because M87 is at the center of Virgo, and the M87 GCs are tracing the transition to the Virgo cluster potential. See Côté et al. (2001) for more discussion on this point.
* In M49, V/$`\sigma `$ $``$ 0.3/0.1 for the blue/red GCs, while in M87 V/$`\sigma `$ $``$ 0.45 for both subpopulations.
* The combined samples of GCs in M49 and M87 are both consistent with isotropy. In M87, the blue GCs appear to have a tangential bias, while the red GCs have a radial bias.

Thus, in both galaxies, the metal-poor and metal-rich GCs have different kinematics (rotation, velocity dispersion, and orbital anisotropy), but these differences are not consistent between the two galaxies. It is difficult to think of a single formation model that can explain the properties (kinematic and other) of both GCSs. There is obviously a huge need for further kinematical samples in a wider range of galaxies. Luckily, we will soon have fabulous new multi-slit spectrographs on 8m telescopes: GMOS on Gemini and VIMOS on the VLT. The next few years will be very exciting.

##### Acknowledgments.

I’d like to thank my collaborators for allowing me to discuss our work at this conference, and for the pleasure of working with them. I’d also like to thank the organizers, particularly Doug and Eva, for arranging such a fantastic conference, and for financial support. It was a wonderful week.

## References

Ashman, K.M., & Zepf, S.E. 1992, ApJ, 384, 50

Beasley, M.A., Sharples, R.M., Bridges, T.J., Hanes, D.A., Zepf, S.E., Ashman, K.M., & Geisler, D. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1249

Cohen, J.G., & Ryzhov, A. 1997, ApJ, 486, 230

Côté, P., Marzke, R.O., & West, M.J. 1998, 501, 554

Côté, P., McLaughlin, D.E., Hanes, D.A., Bridges, T.J., Geisler, D., Merritt, D., Hesser, J.E., Harris, G.L.H., & Lee, M.G. 2001, ApJ, in press (astroph 0106005)

Forbes, D.A., Brodie, J.P., & Grillmair, C.J. 1997, AJ, 113, 1652

Geisler, D., Lee, M.G., & Kim, E. 1996, AJ, 111, 1529

Geisler, D., Lee, M.G., & Kim, E. 2001, in preparation

Hanes, D.A., Côté, P., Bridges, T.J., McLaughlin, D.E., Geisler, D., Harris, G.L.H., Hesser, J.E., & Lee, M.G. 2001, ApJ, in press (astroph 0106004)

Irwin, J.A., & Sarazin, C.L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 683

McLaughlin, D.E. 1999, ApJ, 512, L9

Mould, J.R., Oke, J.B., de Zeeuw, P.T., & Nemec, J. 1990, AJ, 99, 1823

Schweizer, F. 1987, in Nearly Normal Galaxies, (New York: Springer-Verlag), 18

Sharples, R.M., Zepf, S.E., Bridges, T.J., Hanes, D.A., Carter, D., Ashman, K.M., & Geisler, D. 1998, AJ, 115, 2337

Zepf, S.E., Beasley, M.A., Bridges, T.J., Hanes, D.A., Sharples, R.M., Ashman, K.M., & Geisler, D. 2000, AJ, 120, 2928


text:
# Anisotropy of Quasiparticle Lifetimes and the Role of Disorder for Ultrafast Electron Dynamics in Graphite

## Abstract

Femtosecond time-resolved photoemission of photoexcited electrons in highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) provides strong evidence for anisotropies of quasiparticle (QP) lifetimes. Indicative of such anisotropies is a pronounced anomaly in the energy dependence of QP lifetimes between 1.1 eV and 1.5 eV – the vicinity of a saddle point in the graphite bandstructure. This is supported by recent *ab initio* calculations and a comparison with experiments on defect-enriched HOPG which reveal that disorder, e.g. defects or phonons, increases electron energy relaxation rates.

Studies of the ultrafast dynamics of electronic excitations in solids have challenged experiment and theory for years. Advances in ultrafast laser technology and the latest theoretical developments allow us to investigate electron dynamics in growing detail and further our understanding of fundamental scattering processes in solids at the femtosecond time scale .

For an interacting 3D-electron gas the standard theory of *e-e* scattering – Landau’s theory of Fermi-Liquids – predicts a quadratic dependence of scattering rates on the quasiparticle (QP) energy $`(EE_F)`$ . In a periodic potential, however, the electronic states are modified with respect to those of a free electron gas and form Bloch states which may result in different QP lifetimes at the same energy if distinct $`k`$–states within the Brillouin zone are compared. Such anisotropies were indeed predicted by recent ab initio self-energy calculations for Al and Cu, which find strong variations of QP lifetimes for electrons in different bands . Experimental verification of these predictions, however, remains truly challenging. Time-resolved photoemission from different copper surfaces has revealed some dependence of the measured electron dynamics on the crystallographic surface orientation, but the observed effects could not be clearly attributed to anisotropies of QP lifetimes . Similar experiments on aluminum  have likewise not been able to identify band structure effects predicted theoretically .

Graphite, a semi-metal with layered structure, is expected to be an ideal candidate if band structure effects are to be observed experimentally. The strongly anisotropic band-structure of graphite is expected to furnish electron scattering processes with similar anisotropies, leading to anomalous QP lifetimes. The special topology of the graphite bandstructure has indeed been used to explain apparent deviations of the electron dynamics observed on a ceasiated HOPG surface  from the standard predictions for a 3D-electron gas . However, the experiments provided no evidence for anomalies that might be associated with anisotropic QP lifetimes. Furthermore, the overlap of the energy range probed experimentally in Ref.  and the range of validity of the approximations used in Ref.  is small and calls for more extended and more detailed theoretical as well as experimental work.

Here we present a time-resolved photoemission study of the electron dynamics in HOPG, with particular focus on its energy dependence and the influence of disorder on the relaxation rates. The most striking observation – a pronounced anomaly in the energy dependence of the electron dynamics between 1.1 eV and 1.5 eV – can be associated with electrons near a saddle point in the graphite band structure at the $`M`$-point of the Brillouin zone. This, and a comparison with experiments on defect enriched HOPG provide strong evidence for anisotropies of QP lifetimes in graphite which have also been predicted by a recent *ab initio* calculation .

The HOPG sample  was attached to a tantalum disk which could be temperature controlled from 25 K to 1200 K. It was mounted in an UHV chamber with a base pressure of $`2\times 10^{10}`$ mbar. Experiments were performed at room temperature, unless mentioned otherwise. The HOPG sample was cleaved directly before being transferred into UHV and heated repetitively to 900 K. The defect enriched HOPG surface was produced by Ar-ion sputtering (0.5 keV, 7 $`\mu A`$, 300 s).

Photoelectron spectra are obtained by means of the time-of-flight technique with an energy resolution of 10 meV. For time resolved pump-probe measurements a visible pump and frequency doubled probe pulse of typically 85 fs duration are focused on a spot of 50 $`\mu `$m diameter on the sample. The photon energy of the probe pulse was chosen to exceed the work function of the sample ($`e\mathrm{\Phi }=4.50`$ eV $`\pm 0.05`$ eV) by typically 0.15 eV in order to probe not only low energy electron but also hole dynamics. A more detailed description of the experiment can be found elsewhere .

We start our discussion with a brief overview of processes contributing to the dynamics of photoexcited carriers. After optical excitation the energy absorbed by the electrons is redistributed via electron-electron scattering (*e-e*), electron-phonon scattering (*e-ph*) and transport from the surface into the bulk. In graphite the transport of electrons out of the photoemission detection volume into the bulk is hampered due to the comparatively weak interlayer coupling and is further suppressed by frequent stacking faults in HOPG . Therefore, the dynamics observed in the experiments are expected to be dominated by *e-e* and *e-ph* scattering processes with *e-ph* scattering becoming increasingly important closer to the Fermi level.

A typical photoelectron spectrum for simultaneous pump and probe excitation is shown in the inset of Fig. 1. The electron dynamics are obtained by plotting the change $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ of the photoemission intensity, resulting from excitation by the visible pump pulse, as a function of the pump-probe time-delay (see Fig. 1). These cross correlation traces (XCs) can clearly be characterized using a bi-exponential decay with a fast component decaying on the sub-picosecond time-scale and a slower component decaying on the ps time-scale.

A detailed analysis of photoelectron spectra obtained at different pump-probe time-delays shows that the electronic system approaches an internal equilibrium with a characteristic time constant of $`(250\pm 50)`$fs. This is estimated using the deviation of photoelectron spectra from the best fit to a Fermi-Dirac distribution . This process – referred to as internal thermalization – is associated with the initial fast decay seen in XC-traces and results in an increase of the electron gas temperature by 400 K. This is in reasonably good agreement with the calculated temperature rise using the electronic heat capacity of graphite and the estimated laser power deposited within the optical penetration depth. The slow component of the XCs can be associated with thermalization of the electronic system with the lattice due to *e*-ph interaction .

In the following we focus on the initial fast decay, associated with the internal thermalization of the electronic system. The corresponding decay rates – as obtained from the fast component of the bi-exponential fit – are plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of the intermediate state energy $`(EE_F)=E_{kin}+e\mathrm{\Phi }h\nu _{probe}`$. The data shown in Fig. 2 extend to energies $`0.15`$eV below $`E_F`$, and present, to the best of our knowledge, the first 2PPE measurements of electron and hole dynamics close to $`E_F`$. Note, that lifetimes of holes in the copper *d*-bands have been deduced indirectly from hot electron lifetimes by Petek and coworkers .

Obviously the energy dependence of the decay rates cannot be described by a $`(EE_F)^n`$-dependence with $`n=2`$ as expected for a Fermi Liquid or $`n=1`$ as previously predicted for a simplified bandstructure model of graphite . The most striking deviation from a simple power law is the anomaly between 1.1 eV and 1.5 eV. In this energy range we observe a plateau-like region with no significant increase of the relaxation rates. The error bars in Fig. 2 reflect statistical errors obtained from the bi-exponential fit after averaging over 13 experimental runs. Systematic errors due to day-to-day variations are somewhat larger.

The most obvious feature in the graphite bandstructure with which this plateau may be associated is a saddle point of the $`\pi ^{}`$-bands at the $`M`$-point of the graphite Brillouin zone (see Fig. 3a)) and the resulting van Hove singularity at 1.5 eV in the DOS. Electrons excited to this region of the band-structure can only decay by a transfer of comparatively large momentum to secondary excitations (*e-h* pairs), in contrast to electrons decaying from other iso-energetic regions of the bandstructure. This is illustrated schematically in the lower right panel of Fig. 3b) for a simplified band structure model of a graphene sheet . The *e*-h pair excitation spectrum of graphene on the other hand (lower left panel) has no overlap with the energy-loss and associated momentum-change for electrons decaying from the vicinity of the $`M`$-point. In contrast, a much smaller mismatch exists for iso-energetic electrons along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }K`$ line. We speculate that this gives rise to strongly anisotropic QP lifetimes in graphite and ultimately leads to the observed anomaly in the decay rates. Note, that no comparable anisotropies exist for a free electron gas (upper panels in Fig 3b)) or for lower energy excitations in graphene.

Recent *ab initio* calculations of QP lifetimes in graphite by Spataru et al.  show a similar anomaly around 1.5 eV. The authors find pronounced anisotropies in the QP lifetimes with a distinct anomaly at 1.5 eV arising from electrons in the $`\pi ^{}`$-band around the $`M`$-point of the Brillouin zone. If averaged over the entire Brillouin zone – mimicking the averaging process in 2PPE due to scattering in the intermediate and final states – the calculated decay rates are reproduced by the dashed line in Fig. 2. The qualitative trends and features of both, experimental and theoretical decay rates are evidently the same.

The calculations by Spataru et al. strongly support, that the experimentally observed plateau around 1.5 eV is a direct consequence of anisotropic QP lifetimes in graphite. A quantitative comparison of theoretical and experimental results, however, appears to be difficult. This is most likely because theory does not account for finite temperatures, unavoidable lattice defects, and possible corrections from diffusive or ballistic transport of excited carriers out of the detection volume; effects which are expected to lead to higher decay rates as observed experimentally.

The influence of disorder, *e.g.* defects or phonons, on the electron dynamics is expected to depend strongly on anisotropies of QP lifetimes. This is best understood if one considers that lattice distortions break the translational symmetry of the crystal lattice and, thereby, lead to a coupling of different electronic states. If the states coupled in this manner have different lifetimes this should ultimately change the global electron dynamics. Matthiesens rule – which states that the rates of competing decay channels simply add up – would imply that the global dynamics is increasingly dominated by short-lived states once the coupling among states in the Brillouin zone is turned on.

To test this hypothesis we introduced lattice defects by Ar-ion sputtering. In Fig. 4 we plot the relaxation times of the electron population – the inverse of the rate – as a function of intermediate state energy. Qualitatively we find that the decay of the electronic population is accelerated significantly irrespective of the electron energy.

In agreement with the arguments presented above, these results provide further evidence for anisotropies in the QP lifetimes in graphite. Furthermore, they extend a recent study on the influence of defects on the electron dynamics in surface states  to the dynamics in bulk states.

Alternatively, coupling between electronic states can be introduced by heating of the sample, *i.e.* by an increase of dynamic lattice distortions. This is most clearly illustrated by plotting the decay-time found at the peak of relaxation time curves like the one in Fig. 4, as a function of lattice temperature (see inset of Fig. 4). Very much like static defects, lattice vibrations can lead to a coupling of electronic states and reduce the measured relaxation times. We note, however, that the trend seen in Fig. 4 may be a superposition of different effects with additional contributions from the temperature dependence of *e-e* scattering rates and enhanced inelastic *e-ph* scattering.

These results may also shed new light on the apparent discrepancies between electron dynamics measured by different groups in graphite. Xu *et al.*, for example, have observed somewhat shorter relaxation times on a cesiated graphite surface  whose absolute values lie in-between our results for the pristine and the sputtered surface. Furthermore, as in our experiments on the defect enriched surface, neither Xu *et al.* nor Ertel *et al.*  find any evidence for a plateau around 1.5 eV Ṫhis may indicate that surface preparation and defect density plays a more important role for measurements of bulk electron dynamics than previously assumed.

In summary, we have investigated the electron dynamics in HOPG resulting from ultrafast optical excitation. The observed anomaly in the energy dependence of the electron dynamics can be linked to strongly anisotropic lifetimes of electrons excited to about 1.5 eV above the Fermi level. Electrons excited to a saddle point in the graphite bandstructure at the same energy are expected to be very long lived due to a mismatch of their energy loss spectrum and the *e*-h pair excitations available for scattering processes. Disorder is found to accelerate global electron dynamics, most likely due to the coupling of long- to short-lived states. This provides further evidence for the anisotropy of QP lifetimes, which have also been predicted by a recent *ab initio* calculation .

We thank W. Ekhardt and A. Rubio for helpful discussions and M. Bovet for kindly providing the graphite band structure. It is our pleasure to acknowledge G. Ertl for his continuing and generous support. R. F. acknowledges financial support by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.