text:
# The Relationship Between the Circular Polarization and the Magnetic Field for Astrophysical Masers with Weak Zeeman Splitting

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The circular polarization of maser radiation where the Zeeman splitting is much smaller than the spectral linebreadth is utilized in efforts to obtain information about the magnetic field in various astronomical contexts (e.g., for recent work, Kemball & Diamond 1997; Sarma, Troland, & Romney 2001; Vlemmings, Diamond, & van Langevelde 2001; Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1999). For a two-level, non-masing (“thermal”) spectral line, a simple relationship exists

$$V/(I/v)=pB\mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(1)
that involves Stokes-$`V`$, the derivative of the intensity $`I`$ with respect to Doppler velocity $`v`$, the magnetic field $`B`$, and the angle $`\theta `$ between the magnetic field and the line-of-sight ($`p`$ is a constant of the molecular physics for the specific transition). When maser saturation is unimportant, the relationship can readily be seen as applicable for masers as well (e.g., Fiebig & Gusten 1989). Though maser polarization in the presence of saturation was the focus of the classic investigation of Goldreich, Keeley & Kwan (1973; hereafter GKK), they provide no guidance about the circular polarization for weak Zeeman splitting. GKK only consider line center, where the circular polarization is zero in the weak splitting regime. For a summary of the theory of maser polarization, see Watson (2001).

The GKK idealization is a uniformly pumped, linear maser in steady-state. The seed radiation is external, weak continuum radiation and the masing involves an angular momentum $`J=10`$ transition in the presence of a constant magnetic field. Even though the actual circumstances may be more complicated, the idealization and solutions of GKK have served as the basis for discussions of maser polarization in general. In this Letter, we partially remedy the omission of GKK for weak splitting by calculating Stokes-$`V`$ for this basic idealization in the limit that the rate $`R`$ for stimulated emission is much less than the Zeeman splitting $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=eB/m_ec`$ and $`g`$ is the Lande $`g`$-factor). This limit certainly is applicable when $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a noticeable fraction (greater than a few percent) of the linewidth as occurs for the 1720 MHz OH masers. It probably also is relevant for the 22 GHz water masers for which $`g\mathrm{\Omega }10^4B(G)s^1`$ for the $`F=76`$ transition and provides at least a basis for discussion for the SiO masers where $`g\mathrm{\Omega }10^3B(G)s^1`$. As a benchmark, the measure of the degree of saturation is the ratio of $`R`$ to the loss rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which ordinarily is taken to be about 1 s-1 and 5 s-1 for the H2O and SiO masers, respectively, and somewhat less for the 1720 MHz masers. We limit our attention to $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ because here the modifications to the standard Zeeman effect are moderate and the magnetic field can still be inferred from Stokes-$`V`$ with some confidence. Both the conceptualization and calculation of Stokes-$`V`$ are considerably simpler in this regime because only “ordinary rate equations” and “ordinary molecular populations” of the magnetic substates are involved. In contrast, when $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ is not satisfied, Stokes-$`V`$ can be much larger (sometimes referred to as “non-Zeeman” effects) than expected from the standard Zeeman relationship (Nedoluha & Watson 1994). It is unclear whether useful information about the magnetic field can be inferred from the observations in this regime. The more involved methods of the quantum mechanical density matrix must be utilized in this regime to incorporate the correlations between the magnetic substates. Large, non-Zeeman circular polarization can also be generated by effects that would not be present in the GKK idealization for masing, such as changes in the direction of the magnetic field within the masing region (Wiebe & Watson 1998).

Calculations of the type being presented here have previously been performed (Nedoluha & Watson 1992), but only for a quite limited range of saturation and angles $`\theta `$, and only for the molecular parameters that are specific to the 22 GHz masing transition. That is, for the high angular momenta ($`F=7`$, 6, 5, & 4) and when the values of the magnetic moments are different for the upper and lower molecular states. These calculations did demonstrate that maser saturation alters equation (1) and that its effect is to increase Stokes-$`V`$ much more at large angles than at small angles relative to that expected from equation (1). The latter is especially significant because lines-of-sight to masers are often likely to be nearly perpendicular to the magnetic fields (e.g., toward circumstellar masing rings, toward the centers of accretion disks viewed edge-on). The intent of this Letter is to provide a comprehensive description of the relationship between the circular polarization and the magnetic field within the limitations outlined above, and to do this for the idealized masing conditions treated by GKK which have served as a basis for discussing maser polarization.

## 2 CALCULATIONS

The rate equations for the normalized (dimensionless) population differences $`n_+,n_{},`$ and $`n_0`$ between the magnetic substates m = +1, -1, and 0 of the upper (angular momentum $`J=1`$) energy level and the m = 0 substate of the lower ($`J=0`$) level, respectively, are functions of the molecular velocity $`v`$ and can be expressed by (e.g., Wallin & Watson 1995; also GKK)

$$1=(1+2R_+)n_++R_0n_0+R_{}n_{}$$
(2)
and the two related equations that are obtained by exchanging the $`\pm `$ and 0 indexes in equation (2). “Phenomenological” pumping and loss rates “$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$” and “$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$”, which are standard in maser theory, have been utilized and incorporated into the normalizations of the populations to obtain equation (2). For a unidirectional linear maser, the normalized rates for stimulated emission in equation (2) are

$$R_\pm =I_\pm (1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )+Q_\pm \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \pm 2V_\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(3)
and

$$R_0=2(I_0Q_0)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$
(4)
where the subscripts $`\pm `$ and 0 indicate that the intensities are to be evaluated at the frequencies (angular) $`\omega _\pm `$ and $`\omega _0`$ for which

$$(1v/c)\omega _\pm =\omega _R\pm g\mathrm{\Omega }/2$$
(5)
and

$$(1v/c)\omega _0=\omega _R$$
(6)
Here, $`\omega _R`$ is the resonance frequency of the transition and $`\pm g\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ are the Zeeman shifts of the $`m=\pm 1`$ magnetic substates. The dimensionless Stokes intensities ($`I,Q,V`$) are actual intensities divided by the characteristic saturation intensity $`I_S=(8\mathrm{}\omega ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }/3\pi c^2A_E)`$ where $`A_E`$ is the Einstein A-value for the transition. Note that whereas $`R_\pm `$ and $`R_0`$ are dimensionless, $`R`$ itself is not normalized and retains its usual dimensions (time-1) in our discussions. The radiative transfer equations

$$dI/ds=AI+BQ+CV$$
(7)
$$dQ/ds=AQ+BI$$
(8)
$$dV/ds=AV+CI$$
(9)
are at a specific frequency $`\omega `$ and can be solved numerically as a function of the normalized distance $`s`$ with the expressions

$$A=(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )(f_+n_++f_{}n_{})+2f_0n_0\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$
(10)
$$B=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (f_+n_++f_{}n_{}2f_0n_0)$$
(11)
$$C=2\mathrm{cos}\theta (f_+n_+f_{}n_{})$$
(12)
where the $`f`$’s are Maxwellian distributions for the component of the velocity that is along the path of the radiation. In these equations, $`f_\pm ,n_\pm ,f_0`$ and $`n_0`$ are evaluated at velocities $`v_\pm `$ and $`v_0`$ given by $`(1v_\pm /c)\omega =\omega _R\pm g\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ and $`(1v_0/c)\omega =\omega _R`$.

Starting from the initial conditions $`I1`$ and $`Q=0=V`$, the radiative transfer equations are integrated numerically at a sufficient number of frequencies $`\omega `$ to delineate the profile of the spectral line. We emphasize that the foregoing equations are valid only when $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$. They are the same as would describe the polarization of ordinary thermal radiation—the only differences being the sign of the net pumping rate which is reflected in the sign of the “1” on the left-hand-side of equation (2) and the ignoring of spontaneous emission.

The main results are presented in the Figure 1 in terms of the ratios $`V/(pBI/v)`$ and $`Q/I`$ computed for a value of $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that is much less than the spectral linebreadth and at a frequency that is essentially (though not exactly) at line center. These ratios are useful because, in the weak splittng regime and consistent with equation (1), they tend to be independent of $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and constant with frequency across the spectral line. At frequencies where the bulk of the intensity occurs, we have confirmed that the ratios in Figure 1 are independent of frequency to a good approximation in the weak splitting regime as delineated in the following paragraph. Exceptions to this generalization do occur at the angles for which the deviations from equation (1) are greatest and also the intensities are in the neighborhood of $`I`$=1. Where there are variations in $`V/(pBI/v)`$ and $`Q/I`$ with frequency, these variations are modest and are smallest near line center. Note that the properties of the radiation at different frequencies within the spectral line are not completely independent because of the coupling that is indicated in equations (5) and (6), and in the analogous expressions for $`v_\pm `$ and $`v_0`$. In detail, the rate for stimulated emission depends on the polarization of the radiation, on the angle $`\theta `$, and is not exactly the same for all of the magnetic substates. It nevertheless is useful to utilize $`I`$ (which is normalized by the characteristic saturation intensity) as the measure of the degree of saturation. That is, $`IR/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The goal here is limited to providing information on the polarization characteristics for the limit of weak Zeeman splitting—that is, for small enough $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that the ratios in Figure 1 are independent of $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to a good approximation for the bulk of the radiation within the spectral line. The precise accuracy of this approximation for a specific $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends upon angle $`\theta `$, the degree of saturation, the Doppler velocity within the spectral line, and is not exactly the same for the linear and the circular polarization. Nevertheless, some useful generalizations can be made. We compute polarizations for $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as large as one-fifth of the FWHM thermal Doppler breadth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _t`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _t=2.4\omega _R[kT/Mc^2]^{1/2}`$ ). As long as the degree of saturation is greater than one, the ratios presented in the Figure 1 are independent of $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to an accuracy of a few percent. Likewise, as long as $`g\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _t0.05`$, these ratios also are independent of $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to a similar accuracy regardless of the degree of saturation. For lower saturations—$`I`$ down to 0.01— and $`0.2g\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _t0.05`$ , the ratio $`V/(pBI/v)`$ is still independent of $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to within about twenty percent accuracy. The main deviations occur at angles less than about forty-five degrees where the effects of saturation are the least.

The main effect of saturation on the circular polarization is readily evident in the Figure 1. Instead of decreasing as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ when the angle $`\theta `$ increases from zero, Stokes-$`V`$ tends to increase until a relatively large angle is reached whose value is determined by the exact degree of saturation. At $`\theta `$=0, Stokes-$`V`$ becomes equal to its value for unsaturated masing. The nearly discontinuous change reflects the change in the molecular populations that is associated with the similarly rapid variation of the linear polarization as $`\theta `$ approaches zero in the GKK theory. The variation of the linear polarization with saturation can be sensitive to the angular momentum of the molecular states (e.g., Deguchi & Watson 1990). We have thus performed similar calculations for a $`J=21`$ masing transition, as well, with the idealization that $`g`$ is the same for the upper and lower energy levels (hence, $`p=ge/2m_e\omega _R`$ is the same for both transitions). These also are presented in Figure 1, along with additional results from a further calculation in which the $`J=10`$ masing is treated as bidirectional. The optical depths are the same for radiation propagating in opposite directions in a linear maser. If the external seed radiation is similar at both ends of the maser (or if the seed radiation is due to spontaneous emission), the radiation propagating in the two directions will also be similar and the maser will be “bidirectional”. It is known that the variation of the linear polarization with saturation can be different for uni- and bidirectional masers (Western & Watson 1984). However, the comparisons in Figure 1 demonstrate that the differences for the circular polarization are small for both of these modifications which we have considered beyond the basic unidirectional $`J=10`$ maser .

The fractional linear polarization in Figure 1 is identical with that obtained in previous calculations. We present it here in the same format as the circular polarization for convenience in relating the two polarizations. At high saturation, the fractional linear polarizations in our calculations (see also Western & Watson 1984) do reach those of GKK—which are obtained by GKK only for the limit of high saturation. The fractional linear polarization is seen in Figure 1 to increase more rapidly as a function of saturation for $`J=10`$ than for $`J=21`$ masers, and more rapidly for bidirectional than for unidirectional masers. As found previously, however, to reach the very highest $`Q/I`$ given by GKK, the degree of saturation must be implausibly high for $`J=21`$ masers. Anisotropic (or “$`m`$-dependent”) pumping by starlight is thus the most likely cause for the highest fractional linear polarizations of the SiO and perhaps other masers (Western & Watson 1983).

Unfortunately, the degree of radiative saturation of astrophysical masers is a longstanding uncertainty. In addition to the surface brightness of the maser, the saturation depends on the angle into which the radiation is beamed—a quantity for which direct estimates ordinarily are unreliable (e.g., Watson & Wyld 2000). Note that the “intensities” of the linear maser formulation (by us and by GKK) actually are “mean intensities”$`\times 4\pi `$. Hence, intensities from the observations must be multiplied by the solid angle of the beam (as well as divided by $`I_S`$) in order to relate them to the $`I`$ in the Figures. A comparison of the observed linear polarization with that in Figure 1 can be helpful to restrict the degree of saturation if there are no contaminating effects such as anisotropic pumping, multiple components, or Faraday rotation. The narrowing of the spectral line during unsaturated maser amplification, followed by rebroadening of the line when the maser becomes saturated, can also be used to obtain an indication of saturation (e.g., Nedoluha & Watson 1991) if there are no velocity gradients or multiple components within the maser. A consideration of the linebreadths of certain prominent 22 GHz water masers indicates that the influence of saturation on Stokes-$`V`$ probably is modest for these masers (Nedoluha & Watson 1992). The linebreadth in our calculations is given in Figure 2 as a function of $`I`$. It does depend somewhat on the intensity of the incident continuum seed radiation. The computations in Figure 1 are performed for an incident intensity $`I=10^9`$ which we believe to be representative. We have also performed computations analogous to those in Figure 1 when the incident intensity $`I`$ is $`10^5`$ as might occur when the masing gas is amplifying a strong continuum source. The resulting $`Q/I`$ are essentially identical to those in Figure 1. The Stokes-$`V`$ also are quite similar to those in Figure 1, except near the peaks of the curves for the the largest $`I`$ ($`10^2`$) where they are smaller by 15–20%.

In summary, when the observed masers are believed to be at least somewhat saturated, but there is no good information about the angle $`\theta `$ nor about the exact degree of saturation, simply removing the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ in equation (1) would seem to provide the best way at present to infer magnetic field strengths from the observed Stokes-$`V`$ in the weak splitting regime when “non-Zeeman effects” can be ignored. Saturation with $`I10^2`$ (and probably even $`I10`$) seems unlikely for astrophysical masers. In contrast to the linear polarization, the circular polarization is relatively insensitive to the angular momentum of the molecular states. We emphasize that our results are applicable in detail only for the idealized masing conditions on which the calculations are based (see Introduction). In addition to non-Zeeman effects, velocity gradients, anisotropic pumping, and multiple hyperfine components may be present, but are not considered here. For example, the 22 GHz masing transition of water probably consists of multiple hyperfine components so that equation (1) is unlikely to be directly applicable for it (but see Nedoluha & Watson 1992).

This research has been supported in part by NSF Grant AST99-88104

REFERENCES

Deguchi, S., & Watson, W.D. 1990, ApJ, 354, 649

Fiebig, D., & Gusten, R. 1989, A&A, 214, 333

Goldreich, P., Keeley, D.S., & Kwan, J.Y. 1973, ApJ, 179,111 \[GKK\]

Kemball, A. J., & Diamond, P. J.. 1997, ApJ, 481, L111

Nedoluha, G. E., & Watson, W. D. 1991, ApJ, 367, L63

Nedoluha, G. E., & Watson, W. D. 1992, ApJ, 384, 185

Nedoluha, G. E., & Watson, W. D. 1994, ApJ, 423, 394

Sarma, A. P., Troland, T. H., & Romney, J. D. 2001, ApJ, 554, L217

Vlemmings, W., Diamond, P. J.,& van Langevelde, H. J. 2001, in proceedings of IAU Symposium 206: Cosmic Masers, in press

Wallin, B.K., & Watson, W.D. 1995, ApJ, 445, 465

Watson, W. D. 2001, in proceedings of IAU Symposium 206: Cosmic Masers, in press

Watson, W.D., & Wyld, H. W. 2000, ApJ, 530, 207

Western, L.R., & Watson, W. D. 1983, ApJ, 275, 195

Western, L.R., & Watson, W. D. 1984, ApJ, 285, 158

Wiebe, D.S., & Watson, W. D. 1998, ApJ, 503, L71

Yusef-Zadeh, F., Roberts, D. A., Goss, W. M., Frail, D. A., & Green, A. J. 1999, ApJ, 512,230


format: text

text:
# Formation of a stable decagonal quasicrystalline Al-Pd-Mn surface layer

## Abstract

We report the $`in`$ $`situ`$ formation of an ordered equilibrium decagonal Al-Pd-Mn quasicrystal overlayer on the 5-fold symmetric surface of an icosahedral Al-Pd-Mn monograin. The decagonal structure of the epilayer is evidenced by x-ray photoelectron diffraction, low-energy electron diffraction and electron backscatter diffraction. This overlayer is also characterized by a reduced density of states near the Fermi edge as expected for quasicrystals. This is the first time that a millimeter-size surface of the stable decagonal Al-Pd-Mn is obtained, studied and compared to its icosahedral counterpart.

Quasicrystals are exceptional in many aspects. They emerged from the rather complex Al-Mn phase diagram at the beginning of the 80’s . Their structure is infringing the classic rules of crystallography: they are non periodic, but long-range ordered, and they include forbidden symmetry axes such as five-fold (5$`f`$), 8$`f`$, 10$`f`$ or 12$`f`$, depending on the alloy. Furthermore, the electronic structure of quasicrystals is quite unexpected. The electrical resistivity is a thousand times higher than their constituents, metals, and inversely proportional to temperature. Despite the lack of periodicity a band-like behavior is observed in the electronic structure . Quasicrystals also exhibit properties which are directly attractive for applications, such as low friction, low adhesion or increased hardness.

Even today, producing quasicrystals, and especially monograin samples of stable phases, remains a challenge. In that sense, one of the most fruitful systems is Al-Pd-Mn. In 1990, Tsai et al. discovered a first stable icosahedral ($`i`$) quasicrystal ($`i`$-Al70Pd20Mn10) in the ternary Al-Pd-Mn system. It is possible to produce high-quality large monograins of this alloy. This facilitates experiments, such as neutron or x-ray diffraction, or surface experiments, to be performed on quasicrystals. A $`stable`$, $`decagonal`$ ($`d`$) Al-Pd-Mn quasicrystal was found by Beeli, Nissen and Robadey. It exists only in a very narrow area in the phase diagram. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain a single-phase specimen with high quality of the decagonal structure. Interestingly, a decagonal quasicrystal with high structural quality can be obtained by annealing rapidly quenched tapes of an Al69.8Pd12.1Mn18.1 alloy, which contains a metastable icosahedral phase, but has the equilibrium composition of the decagonal phase. Thus the icosahedral long-range order is coherently transformed into decagonal long-range order. Furthermore, single-grain samples can only be produced by non-equilibrium processes via metastable reactions, and, generally, only by chance single grains with diameters of 0.1 mm are produced. Nevertheless, Al-Pd-Mn has the only known phase diagram containing two stable quasicrystalline phases, the icosahedral and the decagonal.

Until now, many surface experiments have been reported on monograin $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn. Clean surfaces are prepared either by fracturing or by ion sputtering, and by annealing. Composition changes are induced by preferential sputtering of the lightest elements, or by thermal diffusion. For annealing temperatures lower than 400oC subsequent or simultaneous to sputtering, a crystalline phase with cubic domains (Al55Pd40Mn5)  or a $`metastable`$ decagonal quasicrystalline (Al22Pd56Mn22) phase was observed, respectively. Further annealing of these surfaces at temperatures between approximately 450o and 650oC restores a bulk-terminated icosahedral surface and a bulklike composition. Such surfaces are characterized by a reduced density of states close to the Fermi level ($`E_F`$), in contrast to usual metallic surfaces . Annealing at higher temperatures produces either Pd or Mn enrichment of the surface, probably depending on the initial bulk composition. An irreversible precipitation of secondary phases is even reported . The Pd-rich surfaces Al\>66Pd32Mn\<2  or Al50Pd49Mn1 were interpreted as cubic with domains and the Mn-rich Al75Pd6Mn19 surface as corresponding to the crystalline orthorhombic Al3Mn. Both, low- and high-temperature crystalline phases are epitactically grown on the substrate and rather ordered.

In this work, we produce for the first time a large surface of the $`stable`$ decagonal quasicrystalline $`d`$-Al-Pd-Mn. The 10$`f`$-symmetric surface of the stable $`d`$-Al-Pd-Mn is epitactically grown as a single-domain overlayer on the 5$`f`$-symmetric $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn, with the 10$`f`$ axis of the overlayer parallel to the 5$`f`$ axis of the substrate. The Mn-rich decagonal overlayer is produced $`in`$ $`situ`$ by sputtering and annealing the 5$`f`$ $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn at about 650oC. The results on geometrical (Fig. 1) and electronic structure (Fig. 2), obtained with low-energy electron diffraction (LEED), x-ray photoelectron diffraction (XPD), electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) and ultraviolet photoemission (UPS), clearly demonstrate that both the icosahedral surface and the epitactically grown decagonal overlayer can be identified with the corresponding stable bulk phases.

The photoemission experiments were performed in a VG ESCALAB Mk II spectrometer with a base pressure in the $`10^{11}`$ mbar range. The sample stage is modified for motorized sequential angle-scanning data acquisition over the full solid angle . MgKα radiation ($`h\nu `$=1253.6 eV) was used for x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) in order to check the cleanliness of the sample and to determine the composition within the probing depth (mean free path of photoelectrons $`20`$ Å). XPD served to study the geometrical structure of the surface . In angle-scanned XPD, the intensity variations of photoemitted core-level electrons are recorded as a function of emission angle and stereographically projected in a greyscaled map. For kinetic energies $`>`$500 eV, photoelectrons leaving the emitter atom are strongly focused in the forward direction by neighboring atom potentials . So, the intensity is enhanced along densely packed atomic rows or planes. Thus, XPD evidences the average local order around a selected chemical species. UPS measurements are performed with monochromatized He I$`\alpha `$ radiation (21.2 eV). The energy resolution of the analyzer for the UPS measurements was set to 30 meV. All measurements are performed at room temperature.

The symmetry and orientation of substrate and layer were verified $`ex`$ $`situ`$ by EBSD . EBSD patterns were recorded using a standard SEM CamScan CS44LB, equipped with a 50 mm diameter area detector (scintillator and high sensitivity TV camera) placed parallel to the incident beam. Diffraction patterns are formed from the spatial intensity distribution of backscattered electrons, which are induced by a focused stationary electron beam (15 kV, 3nA). The sample surface is tilted 70o against the beam towards the detector. The spatial resolution is in the range of some tenth of a micrometer and anisotropic due to the 70o tilt. Bands of higher intensity arise between pairs of pseudo-Kikuchi lines, the center of which marks the projection of diffracting symmetry planes onto the detector screen. These bands are detected in digitized EBSD patterns by image processing using a Hough transform . The software OIM2.0 (TSL Inc.) was modified by us incorporating quasicrystallography, so that the model pattern could be recalculated which fits best with the detected diffraction bands for EBSD patterns of any orientation and symmetry.

The $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn quasicrystal ingot was grown using the Bridgman method . Its bulk composition was determined to be Al71.6Pd19.6Mn8.6. The sample was an 1.3 mm thick disk with a diameter of 8 mm. It was oriented perpendicular to a 5$`f`$ symmetry axis within 0.25o and polished with diamond paste and colloidal silica.

For the preparation of the icosahedral surface, sputtering and annealing to 550oC resulted in XPS compositions of Al53Pd41Mn6 and Al68Pd26Mn6, respectively. However, for annealing temperatures of 650oC, the surface becomes decagonal with a modified composition of Al76Pd11Mn13. In contrast to a metastable decagonal phase Al22Pd56Mn22 (an icosahedral surface is recovered after annealing above 400oC, Ref. ), the composition is, in our case, compatible with the stable decagonal quasicrystal composition (Al69.8Pd12.1Mn18.1). In addition, the decagonal overlayer, once created, remains stable up to 700oC. After 15 to 30 min sputtering the decagonal surface, the composition is Al66Pd15Mn19 and a 5 min annealing at 650oC is sufficient to recover the decagonal surface. In contrast, typically 5h of sputtering followed by annealing at 550oC are necessary to recover the icosahedral bulk-terminated surface. Therefore, transformation from the decagonal back to the icosahedral surface is also possible.

Figure 1 displays the experimental data comparing the geometrical structure of the icosahedral bulk-terminated surface, and of the stable decagonal overlayer, measured with LEED, XPD and EBSD. The bulk-terminated icosahedral surface is characterised by a 5$`f`$ LEED pattern (Fig. 1(a)), while the LEED picture of the decagonal overlayer (Fig. 1(b)) is 10$`f`$ symmetric. This latter displays four rings of ten fine spots. The relationship between the radii of these four rings is proportional to the golden mean $`\tau `$, confirming a quasicrystalline ordering of the overlayer. LEED spots are visible over a wide range of energies (12-140 eV). This indicates the long-range lateral ordering of the overlayer 10$`f`$ surface, compatible with a stable decagonal quasicrystalline phase. Note, that this pattern drastically differs from the one taken from the low- and high-temperature pseudo-10$`f`$ surface with crystalline domains . Decagonal LEED patterns have been obtained from the $`d`$-Al-Ni-Co .

The Pd $`3d_{5/2}`$ XPD pattern of the bulk-terminated 5$`f`$ surface is shown in Fig. 1(c). The main high-intensity spots can be easily identified with the 2$`f`$-, 3$`f`$\- and 5$`f`$-symmetry axes of the icosahedral group projected stereographically , with a 5$`f`$-symmetry axis in the center (normal emission). These experimental patterns can be reproduced by single-scattering cluster calculations using clusters as inferred from structural models of the $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn phase, confirming that the near surface region is quasicrystalline. So we conclude that the average local environment around the Pd emitter atoms is icosahedral (idem for Al and Mn, not shown). In contrast, Fig. 1(d) displays the XPD pattern of the Mn-rich stable decagonal overlayer, with an evident overall 10$`f`$ symmetry and a central 10$`f`$-symmetry axis. Here, three rings of equivalent intense spots replaces the alternation of spots identified as 2$`f`$-, 3$`f`$\- and 5$`f`$-symmetry axes in Fig. 1(c). This clearly indicates an average short-range decagonal ordering of the overlayer. Strong epitactic-like relationships exist between the icosahedral bulk and the decagonal overlayer. The decagonal XPD pattern resembles the XPD  and secondary electron imaging (SEI)  patterns taken from $`d`$-Al-Ni-Co. Note that the SEI pattern of the decagonal metastable Al22Pd56Mn22 overlayer resembles the sputtered $`d`$-Al-Ni-Co surface . The XPD patterns of Pd-rich pseudo-10$`f`$ surface  and of sputtered $`d`$-Al-Ni-Co surface were both interpreted as crystalline with bcc domains.

Figures 1(e-f) show the EBSD results obtained $`ex`$ $`situ`$ from the icosahedral and decagonal phase created on 5$`f`$ $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn sample. The EBSD pattern presented in Fig. 1 (e) is identified as corresponding to icosahedral phase (Fig. 1(g)) with a 5$`f`$-symmetry axis coinciding with the sample normal (marked by +). Further 2$`f`$\- and 3$`f`$-symmetry axes are situated at crossings of 2$`f`$\- and 5$`f`$-symmetric planes as indicated in Fig. 1 (g). These latter symmetry axes, as well as 5$`f`$-symmetric planes, do not exist in the pattern (Fig. 1(f)) identified as decagonal (Fig. 1(h)). Here, a 10$`f`$-symmetry axis coincides with the sample normal, and only the radial 2$`f`$-symmetric Kikuchi bands crossing the 10$`f`$ axis persist. As EBSD arises from 200 to 500 Å depth, the thickness of the stable decagonal phase is at least of that order of magnitude. Once the decagonal overlayer formed, the appearance of the icosahedral pattern (alone or superimposed to the decagonal pattern with lower contrast) indicates that some patches ($`<`$1$`\%`$) of the surface are covered with a thinner decagonal overlayer or remain uncovered. In addition, this evidences the strong structural and orientational relationship between the icosahedral bulk and the decagonal overlayer.

Figure 2 displays valence-band spectra taken at room temperature of the icosahedral bulk-terminated surface, of the stable decagonal overlayer and of a crystalline phase, obtained by sputtering the icosahedral surface. This latter 5$`f`$ surface consists of five bcc(113) domains rotated by 72o with respect to each other as seen with XPD. The density of states remains high and linear over the complete range of energy and the Fermi edge is sharp, as expected from a metallic surface (Fig. 2a). In Fig. 2(c), the bulk-terminated icosahedral surface exhibits a completely different behaviour. A distinct decrease of the density of states near $`E_F`$, interpreted as the opening of a pseudogap, is observed, as expected from a quasicrystalline surface . Finally, the density of states of the stable decagonal overlayer (Fig. 2 (b)) is lowered close to $`E_F`$, as for the icosahedral quasicrystalline surface. However, the shape of the curve is slightly different, with a steeper Fermi cutoff. This is probably related to the fact that the decagonal surface is periodic in one dimension (along the surface normal) and that the quantity of Mn (Mn 3$`d`$ states determine the spectral weight close to $`E_F`$ ) is doubled in the decagonal phase compared to the icosahedral and crystalline bcc phases.

An important point to be discussed is how to ensure the quasicrystallinity of the surface. In previous work on $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn, we demonstrated that a combination of geometrical and electronic structure techniques can efficiently characterize the quasicrystal surfaces. First, the ordering and the symmetry within differently prepared surfaces were probed with XPD and LEED. But note, that a 5$`f`$ or 10$`f`$ symmetry can also be due to a combination of domains and not only to the intrinsic quasicrystal symmetry. Second, a distinct suppression of spectral weight of the density of states close to $`E_F`$ was observed on quasicrystalline terminated surfaces by UPS. Here, one has to be aware that a suppressed density of states is also reported on a crystalline approximant of quasicrystal. Whereas, even a slight disordering of the quasicrystal surface, induced by a one-minute ion sputtering, produces a sharp Fermi edge cutoff, characteristic of a metallic surface, with no apparent composition changes. So, a careful evaluation of the geometrical and electronic structure data, together with the composition, is essential to identify quasicrystallinity or, at least, to exclude crystallinity of the surface.

In summary, this work presents for the first time the formation of an extended and ordered stable decagonal quasicrystalline overlayer on 5$`f`$ $`i`$-Al-Pd-Mn by sputtering and annealing at 650oC. This overlayer was characterized, at different scales, with three structure techniques, XPD, LEED and EBSD. We clearly identified the icosahedral and decagonal symmetries of the surfaces and evidenced the epitactic-like relationships between the decagonal overlayer and the icosahedral bulk. Furthermore the decagonal overlayer exhibited a suppressed density of states near $`E_F`$ as seen with UPS , as expected for quasicrystals. The production of the two quasicrystalline, decagonal and icosahedral, alloys of the same elemental Al-Pd-Mn family gives the unique opportunity to study and compare the properties of these two phases.

With grateful thanks to M. Boudard, Ph. Ebert, T. Janssen, P. Thiel for fruitful discussions; to the members of the XPD team and the technical staff for help; and to the Swiss National Science Foundation for financial support.


text:
# Suppression of Gravitational Structure Formation by Cosmological Accretion Heating

## 1 Introduction

The advent of a data-rich era in cosmology is expected to produce dramatically enhanced understanding of the early universe, from the initial spectrum of perturbations and their processing before radiation decoupling, to the formation of the first galaxies and stars. The high angular resolution power spectra of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) gathered by current and future satellite, balloon, and ground-based experiments are expected to provide precise information about many cosmological parameters, such as the total curvature of the universe and the baryonic mass fraction. These power spectra are also expected to be informative about a number of foreground sources, such as clusters of galaxies and other large-scale structure, and about the epoch of ionization of the intergalactic medium (e.g., Tegmark et al. 2000).

Early results from BOOMERanG and MAXIMA data suggested, surprisingly, that the second acoustic peak is significantly weaker than expected (de Bernardis et al. 2000; Hanany et al. 2000). More recent results from BOOMERanG (Netterfield et al. 2001), DASI (Pryke et al. 2001) and possibly MAXIMA (Lee et al. 2001) are consistent with the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology. However, the systematic uncertainties in current data are significant enough that it is still not possible to tell with precision whether the higher harmonics are at the expected amplitude; this will need to wait for instruments with absolute calibration such as MAP and Planck (e.g., Tegmark et al. 2000). Therefore, despite the encouraging agreement with expectations, it is worthwhile to calculate the impact that other effects have at both high and low redshifts.

The CMB spectrum can strongly constrain ionization at high redshifts, but some ionizing processes that may have only subtle effects (but nonetheless measurable with MAP and Planck) at $`z1000`$ can have important consequences at lower redshifts. One such effect within the standard model has been suggested recently by Peebles, Seager, & Hu (2000): if there exists a radiation source in the universe around the time of decoupling ($`z1000`$), the resulting enhanced density of free electrons at high redshift would Thomson scatter the CMB and suppress the second and higher peaks, in addition to moving the first acoustic peak to larger angular scales. Such sources could have many additional cosmological effects. In particular, if scattering is posited to suppress the second acoustic peak (Peebles et al. 2000) then the luminosity responsible for increased ionization would also heat the universe. As a result, the Jeans mass at early epochs would be raised, which in turn could affect the redshift of collapse of the first nonlinear structures.

One candidate for an early ionization source is accreting compact objects that exist by a redshift $`z1000`$, e.g., black holes formed during the quark-hadron phase transition. The first detailed investigation of the effects of such objects was performed by Carr (1981). He showed that the radiation generated by accretion of ambient gas onto primordial black holes could have a significant effect on the thermal and ionization history of the universe, potentially even preventing the universe from entering a neutral phase. Given large-amplitude baryonic fluctuations, massive black holes could have formed soon after recombination; Gnedin & Ostriker (1992) and Gnedin, Ostriker, & Rees (1995) considered the possible consequences for thermal, ionization, and nucleosynthesis histories of early injection of an AGN-like spectrum from such accreting sources.

An update to Carr’s analysis was performed by Miller (2000), who used the existing limits on electron scattering optical depth between decoupling and the current epoch to place an upper bound on the contribution of primordial compact objects to dark matter. This limit is based on the effect such scattering would have on the angular power spectrum (limits based on distortions of the energy spectrum are much weaker; see, e.g., Griffiths, Barbosa, & Liddle 1999). Miller found that the product $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}ϵ_1(M/10M_{})<4\times 10^3`$ (in the notation of the current paper, $`\xi <4\times 10^3`$), where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ is the fraction of closure density in compact objects, $`ϵ_1`$ is the accretion efficiency divided by 10%, and $`M`$ is the typical mass of the compact object. In this paper we show that current data imply $`\xi \mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}5\times 10^4`$, which corresponds to a limit on optical depth that is three times stronger than used by Miller (2000) based on earlier data.

Here we explore the effect of ionizing sources on the gravitational structure formation history of the universe. We show that if accreting primordial compact objects generate enough ionization to significantly affect the second and third acoustic CMB peaks, then they raise the temperature of the universe to $`T\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}500`$ K when $`z\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}30`$. As has been discussed by a number of authors (e.g., Ostriker & Gnedin 1996; Valageas & Silk 1999; Haiman, Abel, & Rees 2000; Gnedin 2000), an increase in temperature can dramatically alter the progress of structure formation. We show that in the present scenario, the Jeans instability threshold redshift for an $`n\sigma `$ density fluctuation is reduced by $`57`$, compared to the threshold redshift when no extra heating sources are present. For example, $`1\sigma `$ fluctuations can collapse only at $`z5`$.

We find that the parameter $`\xi =\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}ϵ_1(M/10M_{})`$ governs both the distorting effect on the CMB power spectrum and the formation of large-scale structure. Because the two effects are therefore linked, we do not need to assume anything about the accretion efficiency $`ϵ`$ for the compact objects; instead, we may simply say that if accretion onto compact objects has a given effect on the CMB power spectrum, it will have a related (and much stronger) effect on the redshift at which nonlinear density peaks may form in baryons. If the accretion efficiency is low (e.g., if the flow is governed by an ADAF, CDAF, or wind-dominated solution, for which $`ϵ`$ may be less than $`10^4`$; see, e.g., Narayan, Mahadevan, & Quataert 1998; Ball, Narayan, & Quataert 2001; Blandford & Begelman 1999), all effects are proportionally reduced, but what we emphasize here is the relation between possible subtle effects at high redshift and significant effects at lower redshift.

In § 2 we calculate the ionization fraction produced by an accreting compact object beyond the immediate vicinity of the compact object (“HII region”) in the surrounding ambient region which contains many such objects. In order to allow for nonlinear mass concentrations, we generalize the analysis of Miller (2000) to include accretion in a region with density differing from the average density of the universe. In § 3 we compute the temperature of the HII and ambient regions by balancing accretion heating with Compton cooling off the CMB, also assessing the importance of bremsstrahlung, atomic cooling, and molecular cooling. In § 4 we determine the heating implied if Thomson scattering is responsible for reducing the second peak to presently-observed levels. We then evaluate the effect this level of heating would have on the formation of self-gravitating structures. In §5, we discuss the effects of more general ionization and heating, and present our conclusions.

## 2 Ionization Fraction

In this section we focus on accreting primordial compact objects as the source of early ionization and heating. In § 5 we will revisit the heating effects of more general early ionization sources. The physical picture is of compact objects of typical mass $`M`$ capturing matter via Bondi-Hoyle accretion from a surrounding medium. For generality we consider a medium with an ambient Hydrogen number density $`n_{\mathrm{amb}}`$ and temperature $`T_{\mathrm{amb}}`$ that may differ from the average density $`\overline{n}`$ and temperature $`\overline{T}`$ of the universe. This will allow us to treat accretion in underdense or overdense mass concentrations. The luminosity generated by accretion will produce an HII region immediately around each compact object, in which the ionization fraction $`x1`$. Let the number density and temperature inside the HII region be $`n_{\mathrm{HII}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{HII}}`$, respectively. As discussed by many authors (e.g., Silk 1971; Carr 1981; Miller 2000), the hardness of the spectrum produced by an accreting compact object implies that its ionization effect is felt over much greater distances than the radius of its Stromgren sphere, and the resulting ionization fraction decreases much more slowly with distance than is typical around an early-type star (as a power law, not exponentially).

Miller (2000) calculated the average ionization fraction for a differential luminosity spectrum typical of accreting black holes in our Galaxy, $`dL(E)/dEE^1\mathrm{exp}(E/E_{\mathrm{max}})`$ (the range of spectra observed from stellar-mass black holes all give similar answers for the ionization fraction; see Miller 2000 for a more detailed discussion). Typically $`E_{\mathrm{max}}100`$ keV. Over a region large compared to the radius of the Stromgren sphere, the average ionization fraction at redshifts $`z\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}100`$ is

$$\overline{x}3\left[\frac{E_{\mathrm{max}}}{3E_0\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_0)}\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{R_s}{R_{\mathrm{sep}}}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(1)
Here $`E_0`$=13.6 eV is the ground-state ionization energy of hydrogen and the number of compact objects per cosmological volume is $`(4\pi R_{\mathrm{sep}}^3/3)^1`$. In terms of the fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{co}}`$ of closure density in compact objects and the redshift $`z`$,

$$R_{\mathrm{sep}}=8\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}(1+z)^1\left(\frac{M}{10M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{co}}^{1/3},$$
(2)
where we adopt $`H_0=70\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The Stromgren radius is here defined as

$$R_s\left(\frac{2L}{3\pi \alpha n_{\mathrm{amb}}^2E_{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(3)
Here $`\alpha =1.5\times 10^{12}T_3^{0.75}`$ cm3 s-1 is the recombination coefficient to the $`n2`$ states of hydrogen (Hummer 1994); recombination to the $`n=1`$ state produces photons that are absorbed almost immediately, taking the standard “Case B” assumption. We scale the temperature as $`T=10^3T_3`$ K, because we find typical temperatures $`T10^3`$ K at the redshifts of interest. This form for the recombination coefficient is accurate to better than 10% for all $`T>10^2`$ K, and to $`12`$% for $`10^3`$ K$`<T<10^5`$ K (Hummer 1994). The Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate is $`\dot{M}=4\pi \lambda _s(GM)^2\rho c_s^3`$, where for a $`\gamma =5/3`$ gas the accretion eigenvalue is $`\lambda _s=0.25`$. This produces a luminosity per source $`L`$ given by

$$L3\times 10^{27}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1ϵ_1(1+z)^3\left(\frac{M}{10M_{}}\right)^2\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{HII}}}{\overline{n}}\right)T_{\mathrm{HII},3}^{3/2},$$
(4)
adopting a cosmological baryon density $`\overline{\rho }=3.6\times 10^{31}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3(1+z)^3`$ from Tytler et al (2000). The accretion efficiency is defined as $`L0.1ϵ_1\dot{M}c^2`$. The Stromgren radius is then

$$R_s4.4\times 10^{19}\mathrm{cm}(1+z)^1ϵ_1^{1/3}\left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{max}}}{10^4E_0}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{M}{10M_{}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{HII}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{2/3}T_{\mathrm{HII},3}^{1/2}T_{\mathrm{amb},3}^{1/4}.$$
(5)
Pressure balance between the ambient medium and the HII region implies $`n_{\mathrm{HII}}T_{\mathrm{HII}}=n_{\mathrm{amb}}T_{\mathrm{amb}}`$. Collecting factors and defining $`\xi ϵ_1(M/10M_{})\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{co}}`$ as a parameter quantifying the generation of luminosity by accretion, the average ionization fraction in the ambient medium for $`z\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}100`$ is

$$\overline{x}0.7\xi ^{1/2}\left[\frac{9}{\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_0)}\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{amb}}}{T_{\mathrm{HII}}}\right)^{7/8}T_{\mathrm{HII},3}^{3/8}.$$
(6)
The factor in brackets depends only on the spectrum, and is very close to unity. We note that the result from equations (1) and (6) is a factor $`[8/\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_0)]^{1/2}1`$ times the result obtained by equating the total ionization at a mean rate $`n_{\mathrm{co}}L/(3E_0)`$ with recombinations at a mean rate $`\alpha n_{\mathrm{amb}}^2x^2`$. Because $`Ln`$ for energy generated via cosmic accretion, the resulting mean cosmic ionization is density independent except indirectly through the temperature.

## 3 Balance of Heating and Cooling

The formation of baryonic structure depends in part on whether the nonlinear mass at a given redshift exceeds the Jeans mass at that epoch. In § 4 we will derive the nonlinear mass. The Jeans mass depends on the typical temperature of the regions that may undergo collapse. We therefore need to compute this temperature in the presence of accretion heating and ionization.

The temperature $`T_{\mathrm{amb}}`$ of the ambient medium is determined by the balance of heating by accretion with cooling by a variety of processes. Since ionization is not perfectly efficient (i.e., only a fraction of available energy goes into ionization), heating by accretion is inevitable. Cooling depends on a number of processes; candidates include Compton cooling, bremsstrahlung, atomic recombination, and molecular cooling. In addition to considering ionization and thermal balance in the ambient medium, we must also evaluate the latter in the HII region. This is important because, at least for heating by accretion, the luminosity per compact object depends on both the temperature and the density inside the HII region (the Bondi radius is smaller than $`R_s`$ for $`M\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}10^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$). We first compute the HII region and ambient temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{HII}}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{amb}}`$ by balancing accretion heating and Compton cooling in each region separately, assuming pressure balance applies at the interface. We then demonstrate self-consistency by showing that if ionization is dominated by radiative ionization (as opposed to collisional ionization) then cooling by bremsstrahlung, atomic recombination, and formation of H2 can be ignored. Only Compton cooling is effective.

Balance of accretion heating and Compton cooling. — In general, the heating rate is related to the ionization rate, with the heating rate per unit volume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_\mathrm{T}\zeta (1x)n_H`$ for $`_\mathrm{T}`$ the typical excess (thermal) energy in each ionization, and $`\zeta `$ the ionization coefficient. As discussed by Carr (1981), through ionization balance the heating rate may be related to the recombination rate as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_\mathrm{T}\alpha xn_Hn_e`$. Numerically, the heating rate at $`z\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}100`$ is thus

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }6.2\times 10^{23}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1xn_Hn_e\left(\frac{_\mathrm{T}}{2E_0}\right)T_3^{0.75},$$
(7)
where the number densities here (and everywhere else in this paper) are measured in cm-3. Carr (1981) estimates that there is $`7`$ eV of heating per ionization within the HII region, in which primarily soft photons interact due to their higher absorption cross sections. In the ambient medium far from the source, the soft photons have already been absorbed and hence the photons are harder. The number of ionizations per primary of energy $`E`$ is then $`E/3E_0`$ for typical photon energies $``$1 keV or higher (Dalgarno, Yan, & Liu 1999), so that $`_\mathrm{T}E(E/3E_0)^1E_0=2E_0`$.

After decoupling but prior to structure formation the entire universe is nearly transparent to CMB photons. Scattering of these photons off of free electrons provides a volume cooling rate $`4\sigma _TaT_{\mathrm{CMB}}^4k(TT_{\mathrm{CMB}})n_e/(m_ec)`$, or

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{CMB}}=5.6\times 10^{33}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1n_e(1+z)^4(T_3T_{\mathrm{CMB},3}).$$
(8)
At the redshifts $`z1000`$ relevant to our heating calculation, the temperature in the HII region or ambient medium is much greater than the temperature of the CMB and hence the factor in parentheses is approximately $`T_3`$. Inside the HII region, we set $`n_H`$ and $`n_e`$ to $`n_{\mathrm{HII}}`$, $`x1`$, and $`T`$ to $`T_{\mathrm{HII}}`$; in the ambient region we set $`n_H`$ to $`n_{\mathrm{amb}}`$, $`n_e`$ to $`xn_{\mathrm{amb}}`$, and $`T`$ to $`T_{\mathrm{amb}}`$, and evaluate $`x`$ from equation (6). From pressure balance with the surrounding ambient medium, $`n_{\mathrm{HII}}T_{\mathrm{HII}}=n_{\mathrm{amb}}T_{\mathrm{amb}}`$.

Equating the accretion heating and CMB Compton cooling rates (eqs. 7,8) in the HII region, we find

$$T_{\mathrm{HII},3}=10(1+z)^{4/11}T_{\mathrm{amb},3}^{4/11}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{4/11}\left(\frac{_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{HII}}}{2E_0}\right)^{4/11}.$$
(9)
Similarly, thermal balance in the ambient region yields

$$T_{\mathrm{amb},3}=70(1+z)^{4/7}\overline{x}^{4/7}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{4/7}\left(\frac{_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{amb}}}{2E_0}\right)^{4/7}.$$
(10)
Combining this with our expressions from equation (6) for the ionization fraction $`\overline{x}`$ in the ambient medium, and equation (9) for the temperature of the the HII region, we solve to obtain

$$T_{\mathrm{amb},3}=28(1+z)^{2/5}\xi ^{5/13}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{2/5}\left(\frac{_\mathrm{T}}{2E_0}\right)^{2/5}\left(\frac{9}{\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_0)}\right)^{5/13},$$
(11)
$$T_{\mathrm{HII},3}=33(1+z)^{1/2}\xi ^{1/7}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{_\mathrm{T}}{2E_0}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{9}{\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_0)}\right)^{1/7},$$
(12)
and

$$\overline{x}=0.19(1+z)^{3/11}\xi ^{2/3}\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)^{3/11}\left(\frac{_\mathrm{T}}{2E_0}\right)^{3/11}\left(\frac{9}{\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_0)}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(13)
The exponents are not exact, but are close approximations to the formally derived exponents. We neglect possible differences between $`_\mathrm{T}`$ in the HII and ambient regions. Equations (11)–(13) apply at redshifts where $`TT_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$; as $`z`$ approaches decoupling, the effects of accretion become negligible. Figure 1 shows the high-redshift ambient ionization boost for $`\xi =5\times 10^4`$ (which we find in § 4.1 gives a good fit to the second-year BOOMERanG and DASI data), compared to the standard model in which there is no extra ionization and hence $`\xi =0`$.

We now consider three other cooling mechanisms: atomic recombination, bremsstrahlung, and molecular cooling by formation of H2. For each of these we assume that the ionization fraction $`x`$ is determined by the radiative ionization balance calculated earlier. In very dense or hot media, collisional ionization will raise the ionization fraction and therefore increase the effectiveness of these cooling mechanisms.

Atomic recombination.—In solving for the ionization fraction by equating the recombination rate with the radiative ionization rate we have already effectively taken atomic recombination cooling into account. This is because the thermal energy, $`kT<1`$ eV, is much less than the ionization energy of 13.6 eV. Therefore, recombination plays a minor role in cooling the medium. If the temperature were high enough that collisional ionization were important, then recombination might play a major role, but here it can be neglected.

Bremsstrahlung.—The bremsstrahlung cooling rate is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{bremss}}=4.4\times 10^{26}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1xn_\mathrm{H}n_eT_3^{1/2}.$$
(14)
The ratio of bremsstrahlung cooling to the heating rate is thus $`6\times 10^4T_3^{5/4}`$, which is small for the present situation.

Molecular cooling.—No metals are present in the early universe, so the only ways to form H2 (by far the dominant molecule) are the two-stage processes (1) $`H+e^{}H^{}+\gamma `$ followed by $`H^{}+HH_2+e^{}`$, and (2) $`H^++HH_2^++\gamma `$ followed by $`H_2^++HH_2+H^+`$. Puy et al. (1993) give rates for these reactions, and (1) dominates by at least two orders of magnitude over the temperature range of interest. Moreover, the second step of process (1) is effectively instantaneous compared to the first, so the reaction rate for $`H+e^{}H^{}+\gamma `$ determines the overall rate of H2 formation. This rate is $`\alpha _{\mathrm{mol}}=10^{15}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^3T_3`$. Assuming as an upper bound that all $``$10 eV released in this process escapes to infinity, the cooling rate in the (low-ionization) ambient medium is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{mol}}=10\mathrm{eV}\times \alpha _{\mathrm{mol}}n_en_{\mathrm{amb}}.$$
(15)
The ratio of this molecular cooling to the mean accretion heating is $`2.7\times 10^4x^1T_3^{7/4}`$. From equations (11) and (13), this ratio becomes

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mol}/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5(1+z)^1\left(\frac{n_{\mathrm{amb}}}{\overline{n}}\right)\left(\frac{_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{amb}}}{2E_0}\right).$$
(16)
This is generally less than unity for the redshift range of interest, for regions that are not strongly overdense compared to the universe as a whole. Once a region becomes significantly condensed ($`n_{\mathrm{amb}}/\overline{n}1`$), molecular cooling begin to dominate other cooling terms (Lepp & Shull 1984). For the purposes of assessing the onset  of collapse, however, we will simply use the result expressed in equation (11) obtained in the approximation that accretion heating and CMB Compton cooling are in balance.

## 4 Effects on the Formation of Structure

With the ambient temperature $`T_{\mathrm{amb}}`$ that we derived in the previous section, we can calculate the Jeans mass within a region of ambient density $`n_{\mathrm{amb}}`$ if we know the accretion parameter $`\xi =ϵ_1(M/10M_{})\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{co}}`$. We can then compare the Jeans mass as a function of redshift to the nonlinear mass scales at that redshift and hence evaluate, as a function of $`\xi `$, whether baryonic condensations within nonlinear dark matter peaks can collapse. In this section we first compute the maximum value of $`\xi `$ compatible with current CMB data, then derive the nonlinear masses and determine the epoch of structure formation.

### 4.1 Relation to the CMB power spectrum

We use the code CMBFAST (version 4.0; Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996 and subsequent papers) to generate a power spectrum and compare it to the best current signal to noise data, the second-year BOOMERanG (Netterfield et al. 2001) and DASI (Pryke et al. 2001) data. As an illustrative fit, we fixed all of the cosmological parameters except for $`\xi `$ and then fit for $`\xi `$. We assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}=0.29`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.66`$ (and hence assume a flat universe), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0`$, $`H_0=66`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`T_{\mathrm{CMB}}(z=0)`$=2.726 K, $`Y_{\mathrm{He}}=0.246`$, three generations of massless neutrinos and none of massive neutrinos. These numbers are consistent with fits of recent CMB data that include priors based on large scale structure, Cepheid measurements of the Hubble constant, and Type Ia supernovae. This fit is also consistent with big bang nucleosynthesis. We also assume an $`n=1`$ initial perturbation spectrum and adiabatic initial conditions, and do not include tensor perturbations. We included the additional ionization by modifying the routine “recfast.f”. At high redshift, the temperature of the HII region is no longer much greater than the temperature of the CMB, and hence for high $`z`$ we solve for the ionization numerically without using this assumption.

We plot the resulting curves for no accretion ($`\xi =0`$), $`\xi =5\times 10^4`$, and $`\xi =10^3`$ against the second-year BOOMERanG and DASI data in Figure 2. The vertical bars are the estimated statistical uncertainties in measurement. Netterfield et al. (2001) estimate that there is a 20% systematic uncertainty in the points, and Pryke et al. (2001) estimate that there is a 16% uncertainty in the power measurements, but for this figure we have plotted the raw output from CMBFAST against the data, including only statistical errors. Note that there are also substantial systematic errors contributed by beam uncertainties, particularly for $`\mathrm{}>400`$ (e.g., Netterfield et al. 2001), which have not been included in this figure. Clearly, the power spectrum is fairly sensitive to $`\xi `$ in this range. To get a rough idea of the goodness of fit, we made a simplistic comparison of the model with the data at the center of each $`\mathrm{}`$ range, allowing an overall shift up to $`\pm `$20% but not varying the data to accommodate beam uncertainties. The resulting $`\chi ^2`$ values compared against the BOOMERanG data are: 39.1 for $`\xi =0`$; 26.2 for $`\xi =5\times 10^4`$; and 65.7 for $`\xi =10^3`$. In each case there are 17 degrees of freedom, since there are 19 data points and $`\xi `$ and the overall scale are varied. The best value of $`\xi =5\times 10^4`$ gives a fit acceptable at the 7% level, not including the beam errors, which make all of the curves significantly more compatible with the data. We note that the best-fit value of $`\xi ϵ_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{co}}(M/10M_{})`$ is compatible with a low value of the accretion efficiency $`ϵ`$ and/or a low value of the fraction of closure mass in compact objects $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{co}}`$, provided the compact objects are relatively massive.

### 4.2 Growth of density perturbations

When density perturbations are linear, the relative amplitude $`D(z)`$ of a density perturbation $`\delta =(\rho \overline{\rho })/\overline{\rho }`$ evolves with the overall scale factor $`a(1+z)^1`$ of the universe according to

$$D(z)=E(z)\frac{5\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}_z^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1+z^{}}{E(z^{})^3}𝑑z^{}$$
(17)
(Heath 1977). Here $`E(z)=H(t)/H_0=\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_r(1+z)^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2\right]^{1/2}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the present contributions to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from matter, radiation, and the cosmological constant, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=1(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_r+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the overall curvature (our naming convention corresponds to that of, e.g., Peebles 1993). For the regime of interest, we shall neglect the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ term. The power spectrum of small amplitude fluctuations at redshift $`z`$ thus evolves under linear growth according to

$$P(k,z)=\left[\frac{D(z)}{D(0)}\right]^2P_0(k),$$
(18)
where $`k`$ is the comoving wavenumber of a fluctuation.

To obtain the power spectrum shape and normalization, we follow the development of Bunn & White (1997) and Hu & Sugiyama (1996). We assume that the power law slope of the initial perturbations is $`n=1`$, that the universe is flat $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$, and that $`k`$, the comoving wavenumber, is measured in Mpc-1. Bunn & White (1997) write the present-day power spectrum as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2(k)=k^3P_0(k)/2\pi ^2=\delta _H^2\left(\frac{k}{H_0/c}\right)^{3+n}T^2(k)`$, with $`\delta _H2\times 10^5\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.73}`$. The transfer function is given by (Bardeen et al. 1986)

$$T(q)=T\left(\frac{k}{h\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+2.34q)}{2.34q}\left[1+3.89q+(16.1q)^2+(5.46q)^3+(6.71q)^4\right]^{1/4}$$
(19)
where $`h\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$. From Carroll, Press, & Turner (1992), a good approximation to the present growth factor is

$$D(0)\frac{5\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{4/7}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2)(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/70)\right]},$$
(20)
so for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`D(0)0.8`$.

The potential for collapsed objects of a given mass to form depends first of all on whether perturbations of the corresponding physical scale have grown sufficiently to become nonlinear. The variance in the fluctuation spectrum at a given mass $`M`$ (or comoving length scale $`R`$) is related to the power spectrum at redshift $`z`$ by the following equation (e.g. Barkana & Loeb 2000):

$$\sigma ^2(M)=\sigma ^2(R)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi ^2}k^2P(k,z)\left[\frac{3j_1(kR)}{kR}\right]^2;$$
(21)
we adopt a top-hat filter $`j_1(x)=(\mathrm{sin}xx\mathrm{cos}x)/x^2`$.

A top-hat perturbation on comoving scale $`R`$ collapses in an Einstein-de Sitter universe at the point when its overdensity as predicted by linear theory reaches a value $`\delta _c=1.686`$ (e.g. Peebles 1993); this critical overdensity has only a weak dependence on cosmological parameters. The typical redshift for a 1-$`\sigma `$ peak at mass scale $`M`$ to collapse is therefore given by the implicit solution of $`\sigma (M)=\delta _c`$ for $`z`$ using equation (21); the collapse redshift for a mass scale $`M`$ residing in a 2-$`\sigma `$ peak is given by solution of $`\sigma (M)=\delta _c/2`$, and so on.

Whether the local baryons collapse into a given dark matter halo depends on the halo mass relative to the Jeans mass: baryons collapse with the halo only if the halo’s gravitational potential ($`GM^{2/3}\rho ^{1/3}`$) exceeds the specific thermal energy of baryons ($`kT/\mu `$). If we assume spherical density perturbations then the Jeans mass for a cloud of temperature $`T`$ (and sound speed $`c_s`$) and total matter density $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ (including both baryons and cold dark matter) is

$$M_J=\frac{1}{6}\pi \rho _{\mathrm{tot}}\left(\frac{\pi c_s^2}{G\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)^{3/2}7\times 10^5M_{}(\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}/\rho _{\mathrm{amb}})^{1/2}T_{\mathrm{amb},3}^{3/2}n_{\mathrm{amb}}^{1/2}$$
(22)
for a cosmological abundance of helium. Here $`n_{\mathrm{amb}}`$ is measured in cm-3 and $`\rho _{\mathrm{amb}}`$ is the ambient density in baryons only. If we assume that during collapse the ratio of total mass to baryonic mass in a mass concentration remains approximately constant at the average value (roughly 9), then $`(\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}/\rho _{\mathrm{amb}})^{1/2}1/3`$ and $`M_J2\times 10^5M_{}T_{\mathrm{amb},3}^{3/2}n_{\mathrm{amb}}^{1/2}`$. In the standard model, where there is no extra source of heating, the minimum halo mass for collapsed baryonic objects including shell crossing by dark matter and other effects is (Barkana & Loeb 2000)

$$M_{\mathrm{min}}=5\times 10^3M_{}\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2}{0.15}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2}{0.022}\right)^{3/5},$$
(23)
which is almost identical to the value $`M_{\mathrm{J},\mathrm{stand}}`$ that the Jeans mass of equation (22) would take on in the absence of cosmic heating (see eq. 41 of Barkana & Loeb 2000). If instead heating by accretion is included, then from the results of the previous section we obtain

$$M_{\mathrm{J},\mathrm{mod}}8\times 10^{10}M_{}(1+z)^2\xi ^{7/12}(n_{\mathrm{amb}}/\overline{n})^{1/10}8\times 10^8M_{}\xi ^{7/12}[(1+z)/10]^2.$$
(24)
Note that this mass is virtually independent of $`n_{\mathrm{amb}}`$. Since $`\xi 5\times 10^4`$ fits the BOOMERanG data, this implies $`M_{\mathrm{J},\mathrm{mod}}1.0\times 10^7M_{}[(1+z)/10]^2`$. This mass is vastly greater than it would be sans heating, and hence has a major effect on structure formation.

Figure 3 exhibits this effect. Here we show, as a function of redshift, the nonlinear mass $`M_{\mathrm{nl}}`$ for 1-$`\sigma `$, 2-$`\sigma `$, and 3-$`\sigma `$ peaks, along with the standard Jeans mass and the Jeans mass modified by accretion heating (with $`\xi =5\times 10^4`$). The nominal collapse redshift for a given rarity of peak is significantly less than it would be without heating.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

We have shown that if accretion onto primordial compact objects produces enough luminosity to increase significantly the ionization fraction of the universe at $`z1000`$, then this luminosity has a dominant effect on the thermal evolution of the universe at lower redshifts. In particular, the Jeans mass is raised by some three orders of magnitude at $`z10`$, which would substantially delay baryonic structure formation. Even if the ionization produced by compact objects is insufficient to affect the second CMB acoustic peak strongly, the moderate dependence of the Jeans mass in equation (24) on the accretion luminosity parameter $`\xi `$ implies that the presence of even a relatively small number of (evenly-distributed) primordial compact objects could have a strong effect on structure formation.

Effects on the observed cosmic background radiation other than on the power spectrum are very subtle. For example, the existence of extra free electrons with a temperature elevated above the radiation temperature will distort the photon energy spectrum. To first order this can be characterized by the Compton $`y`$ parameter, $`y=𝑑\tau k\mathrm{\Delta }T/m_ec^2`$. However, even with the enhanced ionization and temperature, $`y=2\times 10^9`$ when $`\xi =5\times 10^4`$, compared with the limit $`|y|<7\times 10^6`$ from COBE measurements (Mather et al. 1999). Thus, energy spectral distortions from scattering place far weaker limits on extra ionization than do limits to changes in the power spectrum (see also Griffiths et al. 1999). Another potential contributor to the energy spectrum is the luminosity from the accretion itself. However, this is also negligible. From equation (4), at $`z10^3`$ the luminosity per source is roughly $`10^{36}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1ϵ_1(M/10M_{})^2`$. The total luminosity is $`L2\times 10^{57}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1ϵ_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}(M/10M_{})^2=2\times 10^{57}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\xi (M/10M_{})`$. Taking redshifts into account and assuming a radius of $`10^{28}`$ cm for the universe, the observed flux would be $`F2\times 10^6\xi `$ erg cm-2 s-1. Even for $`\xi =1`$ this is a factor of $`10^3`$ less than the flux from a 2.7 K blackbody. Taking into account that only a small fraction of the accretion radiation will be near the blackbody frequencies and that $`\xi =5\times 10^4`$, the ratio of fluxes is $`10^7`$. The direct radiation is unobservable. Thus, at high redshift the power spectrum places the strongest limits on accretion by primordial compact objects. However, as we have shown, at low redshifts the effects can be much more dramatic.

An important difference between ionization by accreting primordial objects and ionization by, e.g., the first generation of stars or quasars is that the latter only exist after ordinary structure has already formed, whereas the former ionize and heat the universe independent of any structure formation. Hence, accretion onto primordial objects, or any other mechanism independent of structure formation at moderate redshift, can in principle delay any structure formation. Similar effects from early stars or quasars are self-limiting, and thus may not prevent – but nevertheless will regulate – further growth of structure (Ostriker & Gnedin 1996).

More generally, any ionization source will also heat the universe. For example, Peebles et al. (2000) analyzed a simple model in which a uniform source of Ly $`\alpha `$ photons exists early in the universe. More hydrogen atoms are therefore in the $`n=2`$ state, so they can be ionized more easily. The enhanced ionization produces more free electrons, which scatter the CMB background, moving the surface of last scattering to lower redshift and therefore moving the first CMB peak to lower $`\mathrm{}`$ (larger angular scales) and decreasing the amplitude of the second CMB peak. In their model, they assume that the rate of production of Ly $`\alpha `$ photons per unit volume is

$$\frac{dn_\alpha }{dt}=ϵ_\alpha n_HH(t).$$
(25)
Here $`n_H`$ is the number density of hydrogen, $`ϵ_\alpha `$ is a free parameter, and $`H(t)=\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter at time $`t`$. Peebles et al. (2000) found that with this model, $`ϵ_\alpha =10`$ gave a good fit to the first-year BOOMERanG data.

Let us assume that for each Ly $`\alpha `$ photon produced by the sources there is some heating as well, and that the energy that heats the universe is a fraction $`f`$ of the energy in the Ly $`\alpha `$ photons themselves. At moderate and high redshifts with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`H1.2\times 10^{18}\mathrm{s}^1(1+z)^{3/2}`$; the baryon density is $`n_H=1.5\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}^3(1+z)^3`$ from Tytler et al. (2000). The energy of a Ly $`\alpha `$ photon is approximately 10 eV, so the volume heating rate associated with equation (25) would be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }& =fϵ_\alpha (10\mathrm{eV})n_HH(t)\hfill \\ & =3\times 10^{36}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1fϵ_\alpha (1+z)^{9/2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
From § 3, CMB cooling dominates over recombination and molecular cooling for the conditions of interest. If the ionization fraction is $`x`$ and the temperature of the ambient medium is $`10^3T_{\mathrm{amb},3}`$ K, the cooling rate is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{CMB}}=1\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1x(1+z)^7T_{\mathrm{amb},3}.$$
(27)
Equating the two, the temperature is $`T_{\mathrm{amb},3}=3000fϵ_\alpha x^1(1+z)^{5/2}`$. If the hydrogen is completely ionized ($`x=1`$), $`ϵ_\alpha =10`$ from Peebles et al (2000) implies a temperature of $`1.5\times 10^4f`$ K at $`z=20`$; reducing the ionized fraction raises the temperature. Thus, unless the generation of Ly $`\alpha `$ photons occurs almost free of heating ($`f0.01`$), the heating present if this source persisted at moderate redshift would raise the temperature dramatically above what it would be in the standard model, and hence increase the Jeans mass and delay structure formation. The only type of ionization source that could significantly affect the CMB power spectrum and yet not significantly affect structure formation is one with a very steep redshift dependence. If the energy generation rate per volume is $`ϵ(1+z)^n`$ with $`n>7`$, heating effects at low redshift will be small. Otherwise, such heating will affect structure formation dramatically.

The richness of data available from upcoming cosmological experiments will rapidly establish whether such ionizing and heating sources exist. If, for example, the first nonlinear baryonic objects did not form until $`z15`$ or more recently, evidence of this should be readily apparent in data from many future satellites, including NGST (see, e.g., Robinson & Silk 2000) and SIRTF (e.g., Fazio, Eisenhardt, & Huang 1999), and in the redshifts and absorption line spectra from distant gamma-ray bursts observed with HETE-2 and SWIFT (Wijers et al. 1998; Lamb & Reichart 2000; Blain & Natarajan 2000). In addition, as more data with better calibrations are available from CMB experiments, the effects at higher $`\mathrm{}`$ will be more sensitive to the presence of any extra ionization (Miller 2000). In either case, the role of extra ionizing and heating sources in the early universe will be clarified greatly in the next five years.

We are grateful to N. Gnedin for useful information, and to J. Ostriker, D. Lamb, and A. Loeb for helpful comments on the manuscript. We also thank the referee for suggestions that improved the clarity of the paper. This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG 5-9756.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A slight modification of the formulation of the Lagrangian of the Standard Model implies that the coupling $`g_𝐤`$ of a simple gauge group of dimension $`dim_𝐤`$ absorbs a hidden factor proportional to $`\sqrt{dim_𝐤}`$. This suggests the possibility that these dimension-dependent factors are the ultimate origin of the experimentally observed differences of the coupling strengths of the three gauge interactions. We state the hypothesis, that the ratios $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_𝐤}{\sqrt{dim_𝐤}}}`$ are equal for $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$, $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ before quantum corrections. This then implies:

* $`\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _{W\mathrm{cl}}=0.25`$ before quantum corrections
* Strong coupling of $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ gauge fields as compared to electroweak:
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{s\mathrm{cl}}}{\alpha _{\mathrm{cl}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}10.67`$
* Unification of the gauge couplings without unification of the gauge group: A larger, simple gauge group is not required, nor are, therefore, unobserved heavy gauge bosons.

## 2 Action Coherence Assumption

A Yang-Mills Lagrangian of the form

$$=_0\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{tr}(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })$$
(1)
can be rewritten, using the unit matrix 1I\_ in the space of the generators $`T^a`$ of the adjoint representation of the gauge group and

$$dim=\mathrm{tr}\text{1I\_}=\delta ^{aa},$$
(2)
as

$$=\frac{1}{dim}\mathrm{tr}(_0\text{1I\_})\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{tr}(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })=\frac{1}{dim}\mathrm{tr}\left(_0\text{1I\_}\frac{dim}{2g^2}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(3)
Similarly,

$$=_0\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{1}{2g_𝐤^2}\mathrm{tr}_𝐤(F_𝐤^{\mu \nu }F_{𝐤\mu \nu })$$
(4)
can be rewritten as (omitting the $`\text{1I\_}_𝐤`$’s)

$$\begin{array}{cc}=\hfill & \left(\underset{𝐢}{}\frac{1}{dim_𝐢}\mathrm{tr}_𝐢\right)\left(_0\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{dim_𝐤}{2g_𝐤^2}F_𝐤^{\mu \nu }F_{𝐤\mu \nu }\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \left(\underset{𝐢}{}\mathrm{tr}_𝐢\right)\left(\frac{1}{𝐝}_0\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{dim_𝐤}{2𝐝g_𝐤^2}F_𝐤^{\mu \nu }F_{𝐤\mu \nu }\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where

$$𝐝=\underset{𝐢}{}dim_𝐢,$$
(6)
and, if we include fermions,

$$\begin{array}{cc}=\hfill & \overline{\psi }i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi \underset{𝐤}{}\frac{1}{2g_𝐤^2}\mathrm{tr}(F_𝐤^{\mu \nu }F_{𝐤\mu \nu })\hfill \\ \hfill =& \left(\underset{𝐢}{}\mathrm{tr}_𝐢\right)\left(\frac{1}{𝐝}\overline{\psi }i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi \underset{𝐤}{}\frac{dim_𝐤}{𝐝g_𝐤^2}(2J_𝐤^\mu A_{𝐤\mu }+\frac{1}{2}F_𝐤^{\mu \nu }F_{𝐤\mu \nu })\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
On the level of the matrix space, “before” traces, the place of the couplings $`g_𝐤`$ is taken by the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐤=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝}{dim_𝐤}}}g_𝐤,`$ which we call reference couplings. It is essential, that all quantities here are normalized in such a way that the couplings $`g_𝐤`$ don’t explicitly appear in their definitions and the Yang-Mills equations.

$$\begin{array}{c}D_\mu =_\mu iA_\mu =_\mu iT^aA_\mu ^a\\ F_{\mu \nu }=i[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]\\ J^\nu =[D_\mu ,F^{\mu \nu }],\end{array}$$
(8)
Especially the customary appearance of $`g`$ in the inhomogeneous Yang-Mills equation usually conceals the homogeneous $`g`$-dependence of the combined gauge field and current term in the Lagrangian which will be crucial in the following. Since this also plays a pivotal rôle for the Slavnov-Taylor identities, we can expect renormalization not to invalidate the foundation of our argument.

Even though we only modify the notation of the standard Lagrangian, it is possible to test whether our reformulation has any physical content. Relative to our version the three Standard Model couplings $`g_𝐤`$ have absorbed the dimension-dependent factors $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{dim_𝐤}{𝐝}}}`$. If experimental evidence for such factors can be established then our reformulation would effectively be a correction to an oversight in the standard formulation. To secure gauge invariance of separate, individual terms is necessary but not sufficient. The normalization of separate terms needs to take into account the existence of every gauge group, even for terms on which it does not act.

Action Coherence Assumption: Lagrangian terms which are not the trace over the adjoint representation of a gauge group are to be considered as arising from the trace of the corresponding unit matrix. As a consequence, they pick up a factor $`dim_𝐤=\mathrm{tr}_𝐤\text{1I\_}_𝐤=\delta ^{a_𝐤a_𝐤}`$. To compensate the effect on the invariant part, the Lagrangian as a whole is rescaled by a factor $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐝}}`$. As a consequence the gauge couplings $`g_𝐤`$ have absorbed dimension dependent factors $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{dim_𝐤}{𝐝}}}`$.

## 3 Standard Model couplings

A correlation exists between the strengths of the three Standard Model gauge couplings (at physically relevant energy scales)

$$g_1<g_2<g_3$$

and the dimensions of the corresponding gauge groups

$$dim\mathrm{U}(1)<dim\mathrm{SU}(2)<dim\mathrm{SU}(3).$$

To see whether a quantitative connection between the couplings and the group dimensions can be established, we compare the ratios of couplings with those of the corresponding reference couplings.

$$\begin{array}{c}dim_1=dim\mathrm{U}(1)=1\\ dim_2=dim\mathrm{SU}(2)=3\\ dim_3=dim\mathrm{SU}(3)=8\\ 𝐝=24\end{array}$$
(9)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{g}_1=\sqrt{24}g_1\\ \stackrel{~}{g}_2=\sqrt{8}g_2\\ \stackrel{~}{g}_3=\sqrt{3}g_3\end{array}$$
(10)
### 3.1 $`\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _W`$

From the tree level definition $`\mathrm{tan}\vartheta _W={\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{g_2}}`$ and the experimentally determined value $`\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _W0.23`$ we have

$$4.35\frac{1}{0.23}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _W}=1+\frac{g_2^2}{g_1^2}=1+\frac{3\stackrel{~}{g}_2^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}_1^2}$$
(11)
$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_2^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}_1^2}1.12\text{vs.}\frac{g_2^2}{g_1^2}3.35$$
(12)
### 3.2 $`\alpha _s/\alpha `$

Using the value $`\alpha _s(M_Z)0.12`$ for the QCD coupling in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme and the low energy limit $`\alpha \frac{1}{137}`$ for the fine structure constant for a qualitative approximation (using $`\alpha (M_Z)\frac{1}{129}`$ is equivalent for our purposes), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}16.44\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha }=\frac{g_3^2}{e^2}=\left(\frac{1}{g_1^2}+\frac{1}{g_2^2}\right)g_3^2=\left(1+\frac{g_2^2}{g_1^2}\right)\frac{g_3^2}{g_2^2}4.35\times \frac{8\stackrel{~}{g}_3^2}{3\stackrel{~}{g}_2^2}\hfill \\ 11.59\times \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_3^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}_2^2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_3^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}_2^2}1.42\text{vs.}\frac{g_3^2}{g_2^2}3.78$$
(14)
$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_3^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}_1^2}1.58\text{vs.}\frac{g_3^2}{g_1^2}12.66$$
(15)
## 4 Dimension-Coupling Hypothesis

These calculations are only meant to give order-of-magnitude approximations for the ratios of the $`\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐤`$’s. The quantities $`\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _W`$, $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha `$ are energy scale and renormalization scheme dependent, and their experimentally measured values depend on the specific processes which are used for the measurement, while the relations we use are valid on tree level. Thus, the above ratios implicitly contain quantum corrections. The main point is the juxtaposition of the respective $`\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐤`$\- and $`g_𝐤`$-ratios which allow a reasonably valid comparison since they involve exactly the same approximations. We note the following: Unlike in the case of the $`g_𝐤`$’s, the $`\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐤`$-ratios are sufficiently close to $`1`$ to allow the possibility that their deviation from $`1`$ is exclusively due to quantum corrections, while classically (corresponding to tree level in perturbation theory) the three $`\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐤`$’s coincide.

Dimension-Coupling Hypothesis We assume that the classical reference couplings of the gauge fields of the Standard Model gauge group SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) coincide:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{3\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}.$$
(16)
For the classical couplings we therefore have:

$$\begin{array}{c}g_{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}\\ g_{2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}\\ g_{3\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}\end{array}$$
(17)
(If the Dimension-Coupling Hypothesis is correct, the question of coupling constant unification will, therefore, be settled, and the proton will remain stable. A related discussion of the Standard Model couplings in GUTs is given in \[GQW\].)

Let us now reformulate the meaning of the $`\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐤`$-ratios in consistency with the Dimension-Coupling Hypothesis. We relate the classical couplings to the physical ones through

$$g_{𝐤\mathrm{ph}}^2=g_{𝐤\mathrm{cl}}^2(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤).$$
(18)
Then we have

$$\frac{dim_𝐢}{dim_𝐤}\frac{g_{𝐤\mathrm{cl}}^2}{g_{𝐢\mathrm{cl}}^2}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{𝐤\mathrm{cl}}^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}_{𝐢\mathrm{cl}}^2}=1,$$
(19)
while the ratios which were denoted $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐤^2}{\stackrel{~}{g}_𝐢^2}}`$ above, now become, more precisely,

$$\frac{dim_𝐢}{dim_𝐤}\frac{g_{𝐤\mathrm{ph}}^2}{g_{𝐢\mathrm{ph}}^2}=\frac{g_{𝐢\mathrm{cl}}^2}{g_{𝐤\mathrm{cl}}^2}\frac{g_{𝐤\mathrm{ph}}^2}{g_{𝐢\mathrm{ph}}^2}=\frac{1+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢}.$$
(20)
Thus, equations (12), (14), and (15) indicate the progressive antiscreening effect due to vacuum polarization: the larger the gauge group, the stronger the antiscreening effect \[W\]. The relationship between $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{ph}}`$ and $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{cl}}`$ is reminiscent of that between the renormalized coupling $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{R}}`$ and the bare coupling $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{b}}`$ in renormalized perturbation theory. In fact, we take renormalized $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{R}}`$ as our physical $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{ph}}`$. Since our approach does not involve any recourse to perturbation theory we hope to be able to avoid tying our classical $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{cl}}`$ to the bare $`g_{𝐤\mathrm{b}}`$ and infinite renormalization constants. It seems more natural to expect the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ to be small (i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤|<1`$), than having to identify $`1+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ with infinite renormalization constants. Renormalized perturbation theory implies that any fixed classical value entering the bare Lagrangian may be arbitrarily changed in the quantum theory. In a comparable case, the experimentally observed vanishing of the QCD $`\theta `$-angle is not in agreement with the theoretical prediction that it should assume an arbitrary value \[J\]. This, together with the fundamental non-perturbative nature of reality, as well as the inherent circularity of the argument concerning the coupling – which, after all, is the parameter of the perturbative expansion – seems to justify an approach that does not outright discard the possibility of a finite and definite classical coupling. The crucial element entering our hypothesis seems more suggestive and natural to us than a claim that no classical, geometric information contained in the classical (or bare) couplings could possibly survive renormalization.

### 4.1 Note on $`\alpha `$

In principle, for spin representations an argument analogous to the one for gauge group representations applies, even though the corresponding dimension factors cancel for the ratios of coupling constants. They need to be taken into account, however, if we want to discuss the values of coupling constants rather than just their ratios.

While the analog of the trace-dimension argument for the Lorentz group requires a careful discussion which we don’t give here, it can be argued that a factor 3 (rather than 4) will be produced as the dimension of the adjoint representation of spin $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. This inspires us to set $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}=\sqrt{3}\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, from which we infer

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{e_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{1}{g_{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}^2}+\frac{1}{g_{2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}}^2}\right)^1=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{24+8}{\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}\right)^1=\frac{3\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}{32\times 4\pi }\frac{\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}{134},$$
(21)
and, thereby,

$$1+\mathrm{\Delta }_e=\frac{e_{\mathrm{ph}}^2}{e_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\alpha _{\mathrm{cl}}}\frac{134}{137}\times \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}0.978\times \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}=(10.022)\times \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}^2}.$$
(22)
Since screening implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e<0,`$ this allows for the possibility that

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}=1.$$
(23)
## References

| \[ \] | Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1 (2000) |
| --- | --- |
| \[GQW\] | H. Georgi, H. Quinn, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 451 (1974) |
| \[J\] | R. Jackiw, “Topological Investgations of Quantized Gauge Theories”, in |
|  | S. Treiman, R. Jackiw, B. Zumino, and E. Witten, Current Algebra and |
|  | Anomalies (World Scientific/Princeton University Press, Singapore/ |
|  | Princeton NJ 1985), p286 |
| \[W\] | F. Wilczek, “Beyond the Standard Model: An Answer and Twenty |
|  | Questions”, hep-ph/9802400, p10 |