text:
# Mass ratios of the components in T Tauri binary systems and implications for multiple star formation Based on observations collected at the German-Spanish Astronomical Center on Calar Alto, Spain, and at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile.

## 1 Introduction

Most stars in the solar neighbourhood are members of multiple systems (e. g. Duquennoy & Mayor Duquennoy91 (1991), Fischer & Marcy Fischer92 (1992)). This raises the question whether most of these systems were formed as binaries or whether they are the result of later capture processes. After high angular resolution techniques in the near infrared (NIR) had been developed at the beginning of the 1990s this problem became an issue of observational astronomy.
A large number of multiplicity surveys in star forming regions (SFRs) and clusters has now been done (see Mathieu et al. Mathieu00 (2000) and references therein). It is still a matter of debate if different environmental conditions of star formation lead to different degrees of multiplicity. One can however conclude that there is at this time no sample of young stars that shows a significant binary deficit compared to nearby main sequence stars. In some SFRs even a strong binary excess is observed. The consequence of these results is that multiplicity must be already established in very early phases of stellar evolution and that star formation to a large extent has to be considered as formation of multiple stars. Multiplicity has to be taken into account if one asks for stellar properties. If this question is addressed to the systems instead of the components, misleading results may be obtained.
In this paper we will discuss young binary systems in the nearby SFRs Taurus-Auriga, Upper Scorpius, Chamaeleon I and Lupus that have been detected by Leinert et al. (Leinert93 (1993)), Ghez et al. (1997a ) and Köhler et al. (Koehler99 (2000)). We present resolved photometry of the components in the NIR spectral bands J, H and K (Sect. 2). Based on these data we discuss the components in a color-color diagram (Sect. 3) and in a color-magnitude diagram (Sect. 4). Using the J-band magnitude as indicator for the stellar luminosity and pulished spectral types for the primaries, we place the components pairwise into the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD, Sect. 5) and derive masses and in particular mass ratios from a comparison with theoretical PMS evolutionary models (Sect. 6). Implications of the results for theoretical concepts of multiple star formation and for binary statistics are discussed in Sect. 7.

## 2 Observational data

### 2.1 System properties

If not stated otherwise we take the systems’ magnitudes, interstellar extinction coefficients $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ and spectral types from the literature. The references are Kenyon & Hartmann (Kenyon95 (1995)) for Taurus-Auriga, Walter et al. (Walter94 (1994)) and also Köhler et al. (Koehler99 (2000)) for Upper Scorpius, Gauvin & Strom (Gauvin92 (1992)) for Chamaeleon I and Hughes et al. (Hughes94 (1994)) for Lupus. Possible effects of variability are discussed in Sect. 4.2.2.

### 2.2 Spatially resolved photometry

Data for the objects in Taurus-Auriga were obtained during several observing runs with the NIR camera MAGIC at the 3.5 m-telescope on Calar Alto from 1993 to 1998. Measurements at this telescope before September 1993 were done with a device for one-dimensional speckle-interferometry that has been described by Leinert & Haas (Leinert89 (1989)). Observations of multiple systems in southern SFRs were carried out in May 1998 at the ESO New Technology Telescope (NTT) on La Silla that is also a 3.5 m-telescope, using the SHARP camera of the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (Hofmann et al. Hofmann92 (1992)).
Since most binaries of our sample have projected separations of less than $`1\mathrm{}`$ a high angular resolution technique is needed to overcome the effects of atmospheric turbulence and to reach the diffraction limit which is $`\lambda /D=0\stackrel{}{.}13`$ for a 3.5 m-telescope at $`\lambda =2.2\mu \mathrm{m}`$. We have mostly used two-dimensional speckle interferometry. Sequences of typically 1000 images with exposure times of $`0.1\mathrm{sec}`$ were taken for the object and a nearby reference star. After background subtraction, flatfielding and badpixel correction these data cubes are Fourier-transformed.
We determine the modulus of the complex visibility (i. e. the Fourier transform of the object brightness distribution) from power spectrum analysis. The phase is recursively reconstructed using two different methods: The Knox-Thompson algorithm (Knox & Thompson Knox74 (1974)) and the bispectrum analysis (Lohmann et al. Lohmann83 (1983)). A detailed description of this data reduction process has been given by Köhler et al. (Koehler99 (2000), Appendix A). Modulus and phase show characteristic strip patterns for a binary. In the case of a triple or quadruple star these patterns will be overlayed by similar structures that belong to the additional companion(s).
Fitting a binary model to the complex visibility yields the binary parameters position angle, projected separation and flux ratio. The errors of these parameters are estimated by doing this fit for different subsets of the data. The comparison of our position angles and projected separations with those obtained by other authors that has been done in another paper (Woitas et al. Woitas2001 (2001)) has shown that systematic differences in relative astrometry are negligible. Differences in resolved K-band photometry have an order of magnitude that can be explained by the variability of T Tauri stars.
Together with the system brightness that is taken from the literature in most cases the flux ratio determines the components’ magnitudes. We present the results of our individual measurements in Table 1. To reduce the effect of the variability of T Tauri stars we calculate the mean of all resolved photometric observations in one filter obtained by us and other authors (see caption of Table 2 for references).

### 2.3 Potential of the data set

Our sample grew out of surveys for multiplicity in star forming regions. With a total of 119 individual components it is of reasonable size. By construction it is largely independent of biases due to duplicity. This makes it well suited for statistical discussions.
From the resolved photometry alone we can check for circumstellar excess emission, search for possible infrared companions, detect contamination by background stars and have some check on whether the components of a binary system are coeval. In the last point we encounter the limitations of our method: the large uncertainty in color, resulting mainly from variability, seriously degrades possible age determinations.
Therefore we use in the HRD known spectral types to derive masses for the components dominating the visual region, and derived masses for the companions on the assumption of coevality. The reliability of these mass determination profits from our explicit knowledge of duplicity.
The presentation of the results starts with those resulting from resolved photometry alone.

## 3 Color-color diagram

### 3.1 Presence of circumstellar excess emission

We correct the resolved JHK-photometry for interstellar extinction using the reddening law of Rieke & Lebovsky (Rieke85 (1985)) and applying the $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ given in Table 2 to all components of one system.
The resulting dereddened colors are not necessarily stellar colors, because infrared excess emission caused by circumstellar disks is a common phenomenon in T Tauri stars (e. g. Beckwith et al. Beckwith90 (1990)). For this reason we first consider a subsample of systems that consist of weak-lined T Tauri stars (WTTS). The adopted classification criterion for WTTS is that their H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width is less than $`10\mathrm{\AA }`$ (Herbig & Bell HBC (1988)). WTTS are not expected to have prominent disks and their mean excess emission in J, H and K is zero (Hartigan et al. Hartigan95 (1995)). Almost all components of these systems have colors comparable to main sequence stars (Fig. 1, left panel) as is expected. The only exceptions are the two components of UX Tau B and the companion of V 773 Tau. For components of systems with classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) where significant circumstellar excess emission is expected, the positions in the color-color diagram are much more spread around(Fig. 1, right panel). These colors cannot be referred to stellar photospheres in a simple way.

### 3.2 Infrared companion candidates

It is interesting to look for companions with extreme red colors, because these can be candidates for infrared companions (IRCs). IRCs are objects that are very weak or have even not been detected at optical wavelengths, but dominate the system’s brightness in the infrared. They are somewhat puzzling for star formation theory, because some of them appear to be more massive than the optical “primary” but are at the same time more embedded and less evolved.
At this time 8 IRCs are known (Koresko et al. Koresko97 (1997), Ressler & Barsony Ressler01 (2001)). Two of these objects – XZ Tau B and UY Aur B – do indeed show unusual red colors in the color-color diagram (Fig. 1, right panel). Two other known IRCs that belong to our sample – T Tau B and Haro 6-10 B – are not discussed here, because we could not detect those objects in the J-band. In Fig. 1 we have also indicated CZ Tau B, Haro 6-28 B, both components of FS Tau and HN Tau A as unsually red objects. For these systems additional spatially resolved observations at longer and shorter wavelengths will be necessary to decide if they really contain IRCs.
The best candidate for a new IRC is the companion of FV Tau /c that we have observed in H and K, but failed to detect in the J-band. Ghez et al. (1997a ) have proposed HBC 603 B and VW Cha C to be IRCs, because these objects were found by their K-band survey, but missed at $`\lambda =0.9\mu \mathrm{m}`$ by Reipurth & Zinnecker (Reipurth93 (1993)). We have observed these systems in J and H and did not detect any companion either, which calls for additional observations at longer wavelengths.
Extinction by circumstellar envelopes or edge-on disks is not the only possible explanation for extremely red colors. The objects mentioned in this section may also have a very late spectral type and may even be young brown dwarfs. We will discuss the topic of possible substellar companions in Sect. 6.1.
In any case extremely red objects are not frequent among the companions detected by Leinert et al. Leinert93 (1993) in Taurus-Auriga. This indicates that the observed overabundance of binaries in this SFR compared to nearby main sequence stars is real and not the result of using infrared wavelengths for multiplicity surveys among young stars.

## 4 Color-magnitude diagram

### 4.1 Conversion of PMS models into the observational plane

For comparison with the data, we convert luminosity $`L`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for distinct masses and ages from the theoretical atmosphere models to near-infrared colors and magnitudes. To this purpose we use relationships that give the bolometric correction $`BC_\mathrm{V}`$ and several colors as a function of spectral type or the corresponding $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. These relations are tabulated by Bessell (Bessell91 (1991)), Bessell & Brett (BessellBrett88 (1988)) and Schmidt-Kaler (SchmidtKaler82 (1982)). To interpolate between the datapoints given in these tables we use polynomial fits that have been done by Meyer (Meyer96 (1996)). The apparent J-band magnitude is derived from $`L`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ using the following equation:

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`4.742.5\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{}}}\right)BC_\mathrm{V}(T_{\mathrm{eff}})(VJ)_{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}`$
$`+(mM)0.282A_\mathrm{V}.`$
The coefficient before $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ is taken from the interstellar reddening law of Rieke & Lebovsky (Rieke85 (1985)). For the H- and K-band magnitudes there are similar relations.

### 4.2 Errors of colors and magnitudes

The magnitude errors that are given in Table 2 are the errors of the mean magnitude that result from averaging over all spatially resolved measurements in a given spectral band. If only one observation has been done the error is calculated from the uncertainties of measured system photometry and flux ratio, as given in Table 1. For the comparison of colors and magnitudes to theoretical PMS models additional error sources have to be taken into account.

#### 4.2.1 Distance

To obtain the distance modulus $`mM`$ used in Eq. 4.1 we adopt distances to the SFRs that are the mean of all Hipparcos distances derived for members of the respective association. The values and references are given in Table 1. However, distances to individual objects may be different from these mean values. To take this into account we assume that the radial diameters of the SFRs are as large as their projected diameters on the sky. The latter quantity can be estimated to be $`20^{}`$ for Taurus-Auriga (see Fig. 1 in Köhler & Leinert Koehler98 (1998)) as well as for Scorpius-Centaurus (see Fig. 1 in Köhler et al. Koehler99 (2000)). Concerning the mean distances from Table 1 this corresponds to a diameter of 50 pc. We assume here $`\pm 25\mathrm{pc}`$ as uncertainty for the distance of an individual system which is a very conservative estimate: more than two thirds of the stars will be within $`\pm `$ 15 pc for an even spatial distribution.

#### 4.2.2 Variability

T Tauri stars are variable. Although this effect is much less in the infrared compared to optical wavelengths (Nurmanova Nurmanova83 (1983)), it cannot be neglected. We use those components for which there are observations in the same filter at different epochs to estimate the influence of variability on the magnitudes. The distribution of variability amplitudes is given in Fig. 2. The mean amplitudes that we consider as variability errors are $`\sigma _\mathrm{J}=0.12\mathrm{mag}`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}=0.07\mathrm{mag}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{K}=0.09\mathrm{mag}`$. These variations, as derived from our data set, are similar to those in the tabulation of Rydgren et al. (Rydgren84 (1984)) but smaller than those found by Skrutskie et al. (Skrutskie96 (1996)). Therefore our estimate of variability may be somewhat optimistic.

#### 4.2.3 Dereddening

Kenyon & Hartmann (Kenyon95 (1995)) have given for the extinction an error of $`\sigma (A_\mathrm{V})=0.3\mathrm{mag}`$ for the systems in Taurus-Auriga. We adopt this error also for the systems in other SFRs.

#### 4.2.4 Theoretical Atmosphere Models

The following two error sources do not affect colors or magnitudes, but the transformation of theoretical PMS models to observable quantities. By this way they also enter the error discussion:

* For the bolometric correction used in Eq. 4.1 an error $`\sigma (BC_\mathrm{V})=0.04\mathrm{mag}`$ is adopted as given by Hartigan et al. (Hartigan94 (1994)).
* As already mentioned in Sect. 4.1 the conversion of luminosity and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ into NIR magnitudes and colors uses polynomial fits to tabulated data. This causes an error of $`0.07\mathrm{mag}`$ in J, H and K, except for the models of Baraffe et al (Baraffe98 (1998)), which directly give integrated magnitudes over the near-infrared bands.

#### 4.2.5 Error of colors

All mentioned errors added in quadrature give the uncertainty of a NIR magnitude that has to be considered when placing the components into a color-magnitude diagram. If a color is derived from these magnitudes some errors cancel: The distance is the same for all components and variability is supposed to be negligible if observations at both wavelenghts are carried out in the same night. Unfortunately this is not the case for most of our objects. To obtain a color from $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ one does not need a bolometric correction, so also the respective error can be discarded.

### 4.3 Placing the components into color-magnitude diagrams

In Fig. 3 the placement of the components into a J/(H - K) color-magnitude diagrams is shown. The PMS evolutionary model by D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) is also indicated in the Figure. The distribution of objects in a J/(J - K) colour-magnitude diagram would look quite similar.
Almost all components are above the lower main sequence as they are expected to be. But many stars lie in a region that is not covered by the evolutionary tracks. This cannot be corrected by further dereddening, but must be due to the presence of circumstellar color excesses that we have already mentioned above. E.g., nearly all stars that have an unusually large H - K are CTTS (represented by triangles) and the only WTTS in this region are the components of V 773 Tau and UX Tau where we have noticed excess emission already in Sect. 3.1.

### 4.4 Relative ages of components

Since there is no resolved spectroscopy of the components, we cannot correct for the color excesses mentioned in the previous section. For this reason we restrict the discussion of the components in the color-magnitude diagram to a subsample of 17 systems that consist of WTTS where no significant circumstellar excess emission is expected.

The placement of the individual components into a J/(J-K) color-magnitude diagram is shown in Fig. 4. Object by object, the positons of the components in these plots are compared to the PMS evolutionary model by D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) to check for coevality and validity of the association. We have also used the sets of PMS tracks and isochrones given by Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) and Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) and have obtained similar results.
With respect to the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) tracks in 14 out of 17 cases the components appear to be coeval. Unfortunately, this finding has not much weight because of the large errors in color. Nevertheless some useful checks can be performed. The three problematic cases are V 773 Tau, UX Tau and V 819 Tau. For the first two systems we have already noticed the presence of excess emission (Sect. 3.1 and 4.3). Duchêne et al. (1999b ) have proposed to reclassify UX Tau as a CTTS, because its H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width is $`9.5\mathrm{\AA }`$ and thus above the upper limit for WTTS with spectral type K that is $`5\mathrm{\AA }`$ according to Martín (Martin98 (1998)). The companion of V 819 Tau lies far below the main sequence in the color-magnitude diagram. This indicates that V 819 Tau B is in fact not a binary companion, but a chance projected background star.
For HBC 352/353 Fig. 10 yields an age range of about 2$`\times `$107 \- 2$`\times `$108 yr which is problematic because this age is larger than the age spread found for the Taurus SFR (e. g. Kenyon & Hartmann Kenyon95 (1995)). Also, Martín et al. (Martin94 (1994)) called into question that these are young stars because they do not show significant Lithium line absorption.
With the mentioned exceptions, our data are compatible with the assumption that the components of the T Tauri binaries are coeveal. There are other studies that better prove that this assumption is valid: Brandner & Zinnecker (Brandner97 (1997)) have obtained spatially resolved spectroscopy for the components of eight young binary systems and placed them into the HRD. In all cases the components are coeval. Particularly well this has been shown in the case of the quadruple system GG Tau (White et al. White99 (1999)) from resolved spectroscopy with the HST Faint Object Spectrograph. Below we will use the assumption of coevality to estimate masses for the companions and mass ratios for the components in binary systems.

## 5 Placing the components into the HRD

In this section we will place the components of young binary systems into the HRD and compare their positions in this diagram with theoretical PMS evolutionary models to derive masses and mass ratios. For this purpose one has to know their luminosities and spectral types. Since these quantities are not known as directly measured values we have to make some assumptions to estimate them from our resolved NIR photometry and the system properties that are given in the literature.

### 5.1 Luminosities

As described in Sect. 4.1 for the colour-magnitude diagrams, we transform the theoretical atmosphere models that give $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`L`$ as functions of mass and age into a diagram in which the luminosity is represented by a NIR magnitude.
Circumstellar excess emission is minimal around $`\lambda 1\mu \mathrm{m}`$ (e. g. Kenyon & Hartmann Kenyon95 (1995)). For this reason we prefer the J-band magnitudes of the components to H and K as luminosity indicator. It is however not clear if this excess emission is negligible in the J-band. Hartigan et al. (Hartigan95 (1995)) have measured the veiling in optical spectra of T Tauri stars. Assuming that the excess emission in the J-band is $`r_\mathrm{J}=0.1\times r_\mathrm{V}`$, where $`r_\lambda =F_{\lambda ,\mathrm{excess}}/F_{\lambda ,}`$, they come to the conclusion that for a sample of 19 CTTS and 10 WTTS the mean value is consistent with $`<r_\mathrm{J}>=0.0`$. Folha & Emerson (Folha99 (1999)) determined the NIR excess emission directly using infrared spectra of 50 T Tauri stars. Their result is that $`<r_\mathrm{J}>=0.57`$ for the CTTS in their sample and thus much larger than expected. To take this into account we apply an excess correction of $`0.49\mathrm{mag}`$ corresponding to this $`<r_\mathrm{J}>`$, if we use J magnitudes as an indicator for CTTS stellar luminosities. For the WTTS in their sample Folha & Emerson (Folha99 (1999)) find values of $`r_\mathrm{J}`$ that are compatible with zero, so for the components of WTTS systems no excess correction is necessary.

### 5.2 Spectral types

For nearly all of the systems discussed here we know the combined optical spectral type from the literature (see Sect. 2.1 and Table 2). We assume that these combined spectra represent to a good approximation those of the optical primary components, and we assign the optical spectral type of the system to the brightest component in the J-band. The spectral type and effective temperature of the companion is estimated using the assumption that all components within a system are coeval. We are now ready to place the components into the HRD. The procedure is shown in Fig. 5 using the T Tauri binary system IK Lup as an example. For 48 more systems the placement of the components into the HRD is shown in Fig. 2, available at CDS. The theoretical PMS evolutionary model used is by Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)). The position of the primary is determined by its J-band magnitude and the system’s spectral type. For the latter quantity we assume an error of one spectral subclass as given by Kenyon & Hartmann (Kenyon95 (1995)) for the systems in Taurus-Auriga. The companion’s J-band magnitude and the respective error define a locus for the companion in the HRD. If we assume that both components are coeval the companion is situated at the point of intersection between this locus and the isochrone of the primary. In the same way we also defined the loci of the components in the HRD for the evolutionary tracks of Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) and D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)).

## 6 Masses and mass ratios

The procedure described in the previous section yields the components’ masses. For instance, in the IK Lup system (Fig. 5) the components have masses of $`0.9M_{}`$ and $`0.3M_{}`$ with respect to the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) tracks. The resulting masses derived for the components from all three sets of PMS tracks used are given in Table 2. For some systems (indicated with question marks in Table 2) the primary is located in a region of the HRD that is not covered by the respective tracks. The Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) model does only cover a mass range above $`0.15M_{}`$, so for some secondaries only upper mass limits can be derived from that model. The errors given in Table 2 reflect the range of tracks that is covered by the stars’ locations in the HRD. These uncertainties are 20 - 30% for most stars and thus quite large. However, all error sources discussed so far are random and not systematic. Therefore in a statistical analysis of these masses that we will do in Sects. 6.2 and 6.3, these uncertainties will partially cancel and have less influence to the results.
There are however additional uncertainties within the PMS models theirselves. One can see from Table 2 that there are discrepancies in masses obtained for the same stars from different PMS models that can be much larger than the indicated errors which trace the uncertainty of our measurements. The components’ mass functions derived from the three models (see Fig. 6) are different at a 99% confidence level which indicates that these mass differences are systematic.
There is now some evidence that the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) tracks could be preferrable among the current PMS models: White et al. (White99 (1999)) have placed the four components of GG Tau into the HRD and compared their positions with different sets of PMS tracks. They found that the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) model is best consistent with the assumption that all components are coeval. Simon et al. (Simon2000 (2000)) and Steffen et al. (Steffen2000 (2000)) presented first results of empirical mass determinations from orbital motion around T Tauri stars that are also comparable with the predictions of the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) model. It would however be premature to consider these results as a final solution of the problem of inconsistent PMS models, mainly because the mentioned observations do not cover the whole range of masses and ages expected for T Tauri stars. Therefore in this paper we will – as we have already done in Sect. 4.4 – rely on the three PMS models given by D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)), Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) and Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) and compare the respective results. It can be seen that the uncertainties inherent in the evolutionary model predictions often surpass the uncertainties resulting from the measurement errors.

### 6.1 Candidates for substellar companions

In six of our systems the mass determination from the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) tracks leads to companion masses that are below the hydrogen burning mass limit of $`M0.08M_{}`$ (see Oppenheimer et al. Oppenheimer00 (2000) and references therein). This is the case for CZ~Tau B, V~819~Tau B, HK~Tau/c, GG~Tau b, Haro~6-28 B and HBC~604 B. With respect to the Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) model that does not cover the region close above and below the hydrogen burning mass limit all six mentioned objects have masses below $`0.15M_{}`$. The Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) tracks yield masses of $`M0.08M_{}`$ for V 819 Tau B, HK Tau/c, GG Tau B and Haro 6-28 B. The primary of HBC 604 could not be reliably compared to the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) tracks, so we cannot give a Baraffe mass for the secondary.
We emphasize that a definitive classification of a companion as a substellar object is not possible on the basis of our data and requires spatially resolved spectra of the components. It has already been mentioned (Sect. 3.2) that based on NIR colors we cannot distinguish between stars with very late spectral types and deeply embedded objects. HK~Tau/c definitely belongs to the latter class of objects, because it has an edge-on seen disk detected by Stapelfeldt et al. (Stapelfeldt98 (1998)). For two of the other mentioned objects, namely the companions of CZ Tau and Haro 6-28, we have detected unusually large NIR color excesses by placing them into a color-color diagram (see Fig. 1) which makes them good candidates for heavily extincted objects.
V 819 Tau B may be a chance projected background star as has been mentioned in Sect. 4.4. The apparent low luminosity would in this case be the result of underestimating its distance.
Substellar companions to young stars probably do exist. GG Tau b has been placed into the HRD based on spatially resolved spectroscopy by White et al. (White99 (1999)). They derived a mass of $`0.044\pm 0.006M_{}`$ which is in line with our mass estimate of $`0.04M_{}`$ for this object derived from the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) and the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) models. Meyer et al. (Meyer97 (1997)) have estimated a mass of $`0.06M_{}`$ for the companion of DI~Tau that has been detected by Ghez et al. (Ghez93 (1993)). This system is not within our object list because its projected separation of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$12 is below the diffraction limit of a 3.5 m telescope in the K-band. There are no strong substellar companion candidates among the components covered by our study.

### 6.2 The mass function for the components in Taurus-Auriga

Among T Tauri stars in the Taurus-Auriga association there is a significant overabundance of binaries compared to main sequence stars in the solar neighbourhood (see Köhler & Leinert Koehler98 (1998) and references therein). If the binary excess detected with lunar occultation observations, speckle interferometry and direct imaging is extrapolated towards the whole range of projected separations one comes to the conclusion that nearly all stars in this SFR belong to multiple systems. It is therefore interesting to derive the components’ mass function for the Taurus-Auriga association, because this should be a better representation of the mass function in this SFR than the systems’ mass function - including unresolved binaries - that has been given by Kenyon & Hartmann (Kenyon95 (1995)).
The mass functions for the components of young multiple systems in Taurus-Auriga for which we have given masses in Table 2 are plotted in Fig. 6 for the three sets of PMS tracks used. We have now to ask to what degree these mass functions can be representative of the whole binary population in this SFR. Our sample is taken from Leinert et al. (Leinert93 (1993)). It is restricted to systems with projected separations from 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$13 to 13″and apparent magnitudes $`K_{\mathrm{sys}}9.5\mathrm{mag}`$. For the first restriction one has to assume that the components’ masses are not a function of their separation. The latter restriction means that we can detect all primaries with $`K_{\mathrm{sys}}10.25\mathrm{mag}`$ (for a flux ratio $`I_2/I_1=1`$) while the secondaries are complete to a magnitude of K = 12 mag. After transforming the theoretical evolutionary model from the HRD to a diagram where the luminosity is indicated by the K-band magnitude (see Sect. 4.1) one can determine which mass range is completely above the K = 10.25 mag brightness limit for ages less than $`10^7\mathrm{yr}`$. This leads to completeness limits of $`M0.4M_{}`$ (D’Antona & Mazzitelli dm98 (1998) tracks), $`M0.5M_{}`$ (Baraffe et al. Baraffe98 (1998) tracks) and $`M0.55M_{}`$ (Swenson et al. Swenson94 (1994) tracks). The first incomplete bins are indicated with arrows in Fig. 6. It is thus not possible based on our data to answer the question if and where the components’ mass function has a maximum and how it continues into the substellar regime. For this purpose deep imaging surveys for low luminosity young stars and follow up high angular resolution observations will be necessary. Concerning mass ratios, our sample is much less subject to incompleteness.

### 6.3 Mass ratios

The distribution of mass ratios of binary components and their dependence on other parameters are of special interest, because they can be compared to predictions of theoretical models for multiple star formation (see Sect. 7). To place reliable constraints on this quantity one has to define a complete sample that is unaffected by biases caused by the observational techniques. Köhler et al. (Koehler99 (2000)) have come to the conclusion that using speckle interferometry at a 3.5 m-telescope in the K-band111This discussion can be restriced to the K-band, because all companions examined here have been detected in J, H and K. will detect any companion with a projected separation above 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$13 and a magnitude difference to the primary of $`\mathrm{\Delta }K2.5\mathrm{mag}`$. The first condition is fulfilled for all components in Table 2. By applying the second restriction and obtaining a homogeneous data set we exclude six systems from the following discussion, namely V 819 Tau, UX Tau AC, HK Tau, HN Tau, WX Cha and LkH$α$ 332-17. They have very faint companions that have been detected using direct imaging.

#### 6.3.1 Mass ratio distribution

The mass ratios derived from three sets of PMS tracks are shown in Table 3. For triple and quadruple systems we have only given them for close pairs in hierarchical systems. The errors indicated in Table 3 are formally derived from the mass errors given in Table 2. This is a conservative estimate, since distance errors affect the components of a binary in a similar way and therefore do not fully influence the mass ratio. To take the uncertainties that are within the PMS models into account we compare the mass ratio distributions derived from the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)), Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) and Baraffe et al (Baraffe98 (1998)) models (Fig. 7). The shaded histograms show the restricted sample, the open histograms represent all pairs from Table 2. The distributions derived from the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) and Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) tracks are flat for $`M_2/M_10.2`$ within the uncertainties. The apparent deficit in the first bin is probably due to incomplete detections in this regime. Actually we have found more pairs with mass ratios below $`0.2`$. The Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) model suggests a rising of the mass ratio distribution towards unity, but this may also be caused by incompletes of the sample at low mass ratios and is not very significant. The distribution for $`M_2/M_10.2`$ is still compatible with being flat on a 57% confidence level. In discussing the mass ratio distributions given in Fig. 7 one has to take into account that the mean error of the individual mass ratios (Table 3) is about one binsize. This effect will cause a flattening of any given distribution. We will conclude this discussion with the statement that our data does not support the preference of any mass ratios. On the other hand we admit that it would be premature to say that the mass ratio distribution is definetely flat taking into account the large differences between the distributions shown in Fig. 7.
A flat distribution of mass ratios is supported by the distribution of K-band flux ratios (Fig. 7, lower right panel). For low-mass PMS stars there is a K-band mass-luminosity relation of about $`LM`$ (e. g. Simon et al. Simon92 (1992)), so the distribution of this quantity should in a good approximation resemble that of the mass ratios. There is again no clustering towards $`M_2/M_1=1`$. If also the systems with $`\mathrm{\Delta }K>2.5`$, i. e. $`F_2(K)/F_1(K)<0.1`$ are included there seems to appear even a slight overabundance of low mass ratios.

#### 6.3.2 Correlations between mass ratios and other binary parameters

First, we want to examine a possible correlation of mass ratios and the components’ separations. For this purpose it is useful to convert the measured projected angular separations to physical separations. This allows us to discuss binaries in SFRs with different distances (see Table 1) simultaneously. Moreover this yields a comparison between mass ratios and characteristic length scales like the radii of circumstellar disks. Applying this conversion one has to consider that values for the projected distance obtained with “snap-shot” observations can be very different from the semimajor axis $`A`$. This cannot be corrected for individual systems. Leinert et al. (Leinert93 (1993)) have however calculated that the relationship between the projected separation $`d_{\mathrm{proj}}`$ and the semimajor axis $`A`$ is on average

$$d_{\mathrm{proj}}=0.95A.$$
(2)
So for a large sample the distribution of $`d_{\mathrm{proj}}`$ will resemble the distribution of semimajor axes in a good approximation. In Fig. 8 the mass ratios derived from three sets of PMS evolutionary tracks are plotted as a function of $`d_{\mathrm{proj}}`$. To present the results more clearly we have divided these scatter plots into four fields (Table 4) and have particularly discriminated between separations that are larger or lower than a typical circumstellar disk radius that is $`100\mathrm{AU}`$ (e. g. Hartmann Hartmann98 (1998)).
With respect to the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) and the Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) models in both regions the numbers of systems with low and high mass ratios are comparable within the uncertainties. The result obtained from the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) model suggests a slight preference of larger mass ratios at lower separations, but this is significant only at the 1$`\sigma `$ level.

Finally we ask for a correlation between the mass ratio and the primary mass. The result is shown in Fig. 9 and Table 5. The threshold between “low” and “high” primary masses is arbitrarily chosen to have a comparable number of objects in both groups for each theoretical PMS model considered. With regard to the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) model the behaviour of both groups is the same. The D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) and Swenson et al. (Swenson94 (1994)) models suggest a preference of higher mass ratios for lower primary masses. The latter result has also been mentioned by Leinert et al. (Leinert93 (1993)) on the basis of K band magnitudes and flux ratios.
We conclude that correlations between mass ratio and other binary parameters are weak if they exist at all.

## 7 Discussion

### 7.1 Theoretical models for multiple star formation

It is now widely believed that fragmentation during protostellar collapse is the major process for forming multiple stars in low-density SFRs as discussed here (e. g. Clarke et al. Clarke2000 (2000)). Our results generally are in line with this assumption:

* We have some additional support from our data for coeval formation of the components (Sect. 4.4). Capture processes of independently formed single stars (that would produce a widespread distribution of relative ages) should not play a dominant role in the formation of the binaries discussed here.
* There are only a few companions with masses $`M0.1M_{}`$ which is a typical mass of a T Tauri stars’ disk (Beckwith et al. Beckwith90 (1990)). Furthermore these low mass companions do not preferentially occur at separations $`d100\mathrm{AU}`$ that are comparable to typical disk radii. This is difficult to reconcile with the idea that a large number of companions is formed from disk instabilities.
* Fragmentation during protostellar collapse does not lead to a preference of distinct mass ratios or to a dependence of mass ratio from other binary parameters like the components’ separation (e. g. Ghez et al. Ghez2000 (2000)). We have indeed not seen any such correlations (Sect. 6.3).

Regarding the last item one has however to consider that there is a large time span between the end of numerical simulations of fragmentation during protostellar collapse and the state of dynamically stable T Tauri multiple systems as observed by us. Particularly, at the end of the simulations presented e. g. by Burkert et al. (Burkert96 (1996)) only $`10\%`$ of the parent cloud’s mass has condensed into fragments. Therefore it is a highly important question how subsequent accretion processes influence the properties of young multiple systems. Since it is not possible today to cover the entire evolution of a molecular cloud core into a binary system with one simulation, theory has to take a different approach.
For this purpose Bate (Bate97 (1997), Bate98 (1998)) and Bate & Bonnell (BateBonnell97 (1997)) have simulated the behaviour of a “binary” formed out of two point masses that are situated in a cavity within a surrounding gas sphere. The mass ratio of the binary and the angular momentum of the infalling material are variable initial conditions. The result of these simulations is that in the course of the accretion process the system’s mass ratio increases and approaches unity if the total cloud mass is accreted. Mass ratios close to unity should be more probable in close systems than for wide pairs.
This is not in agreement with our result (Sect. 6.3) that there is no significant preference of mass ratios close to unity and that the mass ratio is probably independent of the components’ separation. So it seems that the initial conditions used by Bate & Bonnell are somehow unrealistic and that the “final” stellar masses are more dependent on the fragment masses than on the following accretion processes. One explanation for this could be that in the course of protobinary evolution most of the initial mass is condensed into fragments, before accretion becomes important. Another idea is that there is some process that halts accretion before a large amount of the remaining cloud mass is accreted onto the fragments. In any case our knowledge about this issue is preliminary and additional theoretical and observational effort is necessary to decide what physical processes determine stellar masses.

### 7.2 Implications for binary statistics

Multiplicity surveys by Leinert et al. (Leinert93 (1993)) and Ghez et al. (Ghez93 (1993)) led to the surprising result that there is a significant overabundance of binaries in the Taurus-Auriga SFR compared to main sequence stars in the solar neighbourhood. This result was further proved by the follow-up studies done by Simon et al. (Simon95 (1995)) and Köhler & Leinert (Koehler98 (1998)). Although this paper is not directly concerned with binary statistics, we can draw some conclusions that further support the idea that this binary excess is real and not a result of observational biases.
If one compares the binary frequency among young and evolved stars one has to take into account that due to evolutionary effects companions can be relatively bright in their PMS phase, but invisible on the main sequence stage. This is particularly the case for substellar companions. One has further to consider that the multiplicity surveys were done at infrared wavelengths in SFRs, but in the optical range for main sequence stars. So there might be a bias that supports the detection of very red “infrared companions” (IRCs, see Sect. 3.2) in the vicinity of PMS stars. Another problem is that the surveys in Taurus-Auriga and the solar neighbourhood could be not directly comparable if they were sensitive to a different range of mass ratios and thus stellar masses.
If the presence of substellar companions or IRCs in the vicinity of T Tauri stars in Taurus-Auriga were a common phenomenon this could at least partially explain the observed binary excess in this SFR. Our results presented in Sect. 3.2 and 6.1 show that this is not the case: Köhler & Leinert (Koehler98 (1998)) have found that after applying a statistical correction for chance projected background stars there are $`48.9\pm 5.3`$ companions per 100 primaries (including single stars) in Taurus-Auriga. We have denoted only 5 out of 40 companions (for which we have given masses in Table 2) as candidates for substellar objects based on masses derived from the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) PMS evolutionary tracks (Sect. 6.1). With respect to the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) model this number is even lower. If we take the mentioned 5 out of 40 companions as an estimate for the real number of brown dwarf companions in Taurus-Auriga and subtract this from the companion frequency given by Köhler & Leinert (Koehler98 (1998)) this value diminishes to $`42.8\pm 6.0`$. This is still far above the value of $`25.3\pm 3.9`$ that was given by Duquennoy & Mayor (Duquennoy91 (1991)) for G-dwarfs in the solar neighbourhood. Furthermore we have found that only 3 out of 51 companions in Taurus-Auriga are detectable in the H-band and at longer wavelengths, but were missed at $`1.25\mu \mathrm{m}`$, so IRCs are probably not a frequent phenomenon. The binary frequency does not have to be corrected for IRCs, because their successors in the main sequence phase will be “normal” stellar companions (see Koresko et al. Koresko97 (1997) for estimates of IRCs’ masses).
Duquennoy & Mayor (Duquennoy91 (1991)) have claimed that their sample is complete for mass ratios $`M_2/M_10.1`$. It has already been mentioned by Köhler & Leinert (Koehler98 (1998), Sect. 5.2) that the completeness limit of the binary surveys in Taurus-Auriga is in any case not lower, the actual value dependent on the mass-luminosity relation used. We can further prove this result, because there are only 2 out of 51 systems with mass ratios less than 0.1 with respect to the D’Antona & Mazzitelli (dm98 (1998)) PMS model and 1 out of 50 considering the Baraffe et al. (Baraffe98 (1998)) tracks (Table 3).
We conclude that the observed binary excess in Taurus-Auriga compared to nearby main sequence stars is neither the result of a higher sensitivity in mass ratio nor a consequence of a large frequency of substellar or infrared companions. The strange overabundance of binaries in Taurus-Auriga remains a fact also after this more detailed analysis of the systems found by Leinert et al. (Leinert93 (1993)).

## 8 Summary

From speckle interferometry and direct imaging we have derived resolved JHK photometry for the individual components of T Tauri binary systems in nearby star forming regions. These measurements are combined with other data taken from literature (resolved JHK photometry from other authors, system magnitudes and spectral types, extinction coefficients) to study properties of the components in young binary systems. The main results are:

* We have found only very few unusually red objects that may be young substellar objects or infrared companions. Their number is too small to have significantly influenced the binary statistics in Taurus-Auriga.
* The placement of the components into NIR color magnitude diagrams is affected by large errors and thus allows no precise determination of stellar ages from PMS evolutionary models. We can however detect problematic cases and find that V~819~Tau B is probably an unrelated background object. The locations of the components of the 16 other WTTS systems into the the CMDs are in line with the assumption that all components within a system are coeval.
* The determination of masses from the HRD has been performed using the following procedure: We derive stellar luminosities from the J-band magnitudes, assign the optical system spectral type to the primary and use the assumption that all components within one system are coeval.
* The use of three different sets of PMS tracks then yields mass functions that are different at the 99% confidence level. For this reason we discuss the results of all three models used separately. These differences tend to be larger than the uncertainties resulting from observational errors. In addition, the latter mass errors are random and thus partially cancel in a statistical discussion.
* Within the uncertainties the distribution of mass ratios is flat for $`M_2/M_10.2`$. There are no significant correlations between mass ratio and projected separation or mass ratio and primary mass. These results are in line with the wideley accepted idea that binaries are formed by fragmentation during protostellar collapse processes. Moreover, they suggest that the final masses of the components are largely determined by fragmentation itself and not by subsequent accretion.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Andreas Eckart and Klaus Bickert for their support in observing with the SHARP camera. We also thank the staff at ESO La Silla and Calar Alto for their support during several observing runs. The authors appreciate fruitful discussions with Michael Meyer, Monika Petr, Matthew Bate and Coryn Bailer-Jones, and they thank an anonymous referee for pointed and productive comments. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, France.

## Appendix A Near-infrared photometry for the components of young binary systems

The spatially resolved observations of T Tauri binary systems obtained by the authors are listed in Table A1. Column 1 gives the most common name of the object, columns 2 and 3 the wavelength band and the date of observation, column 4 the brightness ratio (secondary/primary, usually but not always $`<`$ 1), columns 5 through 7 the magnitude of system, primary and secondary components in the respective wavelength band.

Table A2 contains the adopted near-infrared magnitudes of the components of the young binary systems which compose our sample. The values given here are the mean of all spatially resolved photometric observations, i. e. our data from Table 1 and measurements published by Chelli et al. (Chelli95 (1995)), Duchêne (1999a ), Ghez et al. (Ghez93 (1993), 1997a , 1997b ), Haas et al. (Haas90 (1990)), Hartigan et al. (Hartigan94 (1994)), Köhler et al. (Koehler99 (2000)), Moneti & Zinnecker (Moneti91 (1991)), Richichi et al. (Richichi99 (1999)), Roddier et al. (Roddier96 (1996)) and Simon et al. (Simon92 (1992)). The values for visual extinction $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ and the spectral type given with the primaries, belong to the systems (see Sect. 2.1 for references). The numbers in the last column denote the star forming region: Taurus-Auriga (1), Upper Scorpius (2), Chamaeleon I (3) and Lupus (4).

## Appendix B Color-magnitude diagrams

## Appendix C Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams


format: text

text:
# Atom laser divergence

## Abstract

We measure the angular divergence of a quasi-continuous, rf-outcoupled, free-falling atom laser as a function of the outcoupling frequency. The data is compared to a Gaussian-beam model of laser propagation that generalizes the standard formalism of photonic lasers. Our treatment includes diffraction, magnetic lensing, and interaction between the atom laser and the condensate. We find that the dominant source of divergence is the condensate-laser interaction.

A dilute gas of atoms condensed in a single quantum state of a magnetic trap cornell ; ketterle ; hulet ; kleppner ; hebec ; gasou  is the matter-wave analog of photons stored in an optical cavity. A further atomic parallel to photonics is the “atom laser” mewes ; anderson ; hagley ; bloch , a coherent extraction of atoms from a Bose-Einstein condensate. Atom lasers are of basic interest as a probe of condensate properties 2laser  and as a coherent source of atoms fringe . Furthermore, just as optical lasers greatly exceeded previous light sources in brightness, atom lasers will be useful in experiments that simultaneously require monochromaticity, collimation, and intensity, such as holographic atom lithography shimizu , continuous atomic clocks clocks , and coupling into atomic waveguides wgload .

Initial work on atom lasers has demonstrated several types of coherent, pulsed output couplers mewes ; anderson ; hagley  as well as a coherent narrow-band coupler bloch ; narrowband , which is the type employed in our work. In this Letter, we address the nature of propagation of an atom laser outcoupled from a condensate. Our experimental data show that the laser beam is well characterized by a divergence angle. We measure this angle versus radio-frequency (rf) outcoupler frequency, which chooses the vertical extraction point of the atom laser from the condensate (see Fig. 1a). In choosing the extraction point, one chooses the thickness of the condensate to be crossed by the extracted atoms, as well as the width of the atom laser beam at the extraction plane. To interpret this data, we use a formalism that generalizes the ABCD matrices treatment of photonic lasers kogelnik ; borde . This treatment allows us to calculate analytically the divergence of the laser due to diffraction, magnetic lensing, and interactions with the condensate. We find that, for our typical experimental conditions, the divergence of the laser is primarily due to interaction between the atoms in the laser and the atoms remaining in the condensate. We describe this interaction as a thin lens. Note that the existence of such an interactive lensing effect is in stark contrast to a photonic laser, since photons do not interact. Interactions were estimated to be similarly important for pulsed atom lasers mewes ; hagley . In our case, the divergence is also magnified by a thick-lens-like potential due to the quadratic Zeeman effect of the magnetic trapping fields.

The technique we use to obtain Bose-Einstein condensates with 87Rb is described in detail elsewhere orsayBEC . Briefly, a Zeeman-slowed atomic beam loads a MOT in a glass cell. Typically 108 atoms are transferred to a magnetic trap, which is subsequently compressed to oscillation frequencies of $`\omega _x=\omega _z=2\pi \times 144`$ Hz and $`\omega _y=2\pi \times 9`$ Hz$`=\lambda \omega _z`$ in the quadrupole and dipole directions, respectively, where $`𝐳`$ is vertical. The Ioffe-Pritchard trap is created with an iron-core electromagnet, with a typical quadrupole gradient of 11.7 T$``$m-1, and an uncompensated dipole bias field of $`B_0=`$5.4 mT. A 40 s, rf-induced evaporative cooling ramp in the compressed trap results in condensates of typically $`5\times 10^5`$ atoms, with a 15% rms shot-to-shot variation.

Atom lasers are created by applying a rf field at about 38.6 MHz, to transfer condensate atoms from the trapped $`|F,m_F=|1,1`$ state to the weakly anti-trapped $`|1,0`$ state, which also falls under gravity (see Fig. 1a). The rf field is weak (approximately 0.1 $`\mu `$T) and applied for a relatively long duration ($`t_{\mathrm{oc}}=10`$ ms) narrowband . There is no significant coupling to the $`|1,+1`$ state because the $`F=1`$ sublevel transitions are split by 0.8 MHz due to the nonlinear part of the Zeeman effect at 5.4 mT. To measure the spatial distribution of the atom laser, we take an absorptive image with a pulse of resonant light 6 ms after the moment when the rf outcoupling ends and the trap is turned off. As depicted in Fig. 1b, the image is taken at a $`\varphi =55^{}`$ angle from the weakly confining $`𝐲`$ axis of the trap. Figure 2a shows a typical image of an atom laser.

The gravitational sag $`g/\omega _z^2`$ shifts the entire condensate from the center of the magnetic trap to a region where iso-field surfaces are approximately planes of constant height $`z_0`$ across the condensate bloch . The relation between rf frequency $`\omega _0+\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}`$ and coupling height $`z_0`$ is

$$\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{z_0}{R_z}\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{z_0^2}{R_z^2}\right)$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=MgR_z/\mathrm{}`$ is the spectral half-width of the condensate, $`M`$ is the mass of the atom, $`g`$ is gravitational acceleration, and $`R_z`$ is the Thomas-Fermi (TF) radius dalfovo  of the condensate along $`𝐳`$. The radius $`R_z`$ is $`\sqrt{2\mu /M\omega _z^2}`$, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential $`(\mathrm{}\overline{\omega }/2)(15a_{11}N)^{2/5}(M\overline{\omega }/\mathrm{})^{1/5}`$, where $`N`$ is the number of atoms in the condensate, $`a_{11}=5.67`$ nm is the s-wave scattering length between 87Rb atoms in the $`|1,1`$ state hall , and $`\overline{\omega }^3=\omega _x\omega _y\omega _z`$. In Eq. (1), we have chosen $`\omega _0`$ such that $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$ when $`z_0=R_z`$. For our experimental parameters, $`\mu /\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, so $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}`$ is roughly linearly dependent on $`z_0`$, with slope $`Mg/\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, in choosing the coupling frequency, we choose the height within the condensate at which the laser is sourced.

Short-term (ms-scale) stability of the bias field is verified by the continuity of flux along the laser (Fig. 2a). We find that the shot-to-shot stability and reproducibility of the bias field, between each 80 s cycle of trapping, cooling, and condensation, is about $`\pm 0.4`$$`\mu `$T or $`\pm 3`$ kHz. This stability is sufficient to scan through the condensate spectral width of about 20 kHz. In one out of five runs (a run is a set of about 10 cycles), the data were not self-consistent, which we attribute to a larger ($`>`$1 $`\mu `$T) bias field fluctuation during that run. We could maintain this bias field stability, typically one part in $`10^4`$ yoke , by using either a low-noise power supply or a battery, since only 1.3 A is used to energize the dipole coils during evaporation and outcoupling.

We analyze the images (such as Fig. 2a) to measure the flux and divergence of the outcoupled laser. Figures 2b through 2d shows the first step in the analysis, a series of fits to the transverse spatial profile of the laser, as measured at several heights $`z_n`$, averaging across $`\pm 140`$$`\mu `$m. The column density profile is fit at each $`z_n`$ by $`\rho _n(1r^2/R_n^2)^{3/2}`$, where $`r`$ is the horizontal coordinate in the image plane (see Fig. 1b), $`\rho _n`$ is the peak column density, and $`R_n`$ is the width. This fit function would be the rigorously correct function for an atom laser without divergence gerbier  or for a free condensate undergoing mean field expansion profile ; here, we observe empirically that the fits are good. From the integral of the column densities at each height, we determine the output flux $`F`$ with a fit to $`F/\sqrt{2g(zz_0)}`$, a form that assumes constant flux, purely gravitational acceleration, and a density that decreases with the inverse of the classical velocity, valid when $`\left|zz_0\right|\mathrm{}_g`$, where $`\mathrm{}_g=[\mathrm{}^2/(2gM^2)]^{1/3}`$ is the gravitational length. Finally, from the series $`\{R_n\}`$ and $`\{z_n\}`$, we determine a geometric expansion angle by a linear fit (see Fig. 2e). We will discuss below why one would expect a linear rather than parabolic shape for a laser falling under gravity.

We repeated the above imaging, and analysis for atom lasers coupled at a variety of rf coupling frequencies. Figure 3 shows the averaged half-angle divergence versus outcoupler detuning, from 15 laser images. We see that the divergence clearly decreases at higher $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}`$, corresponding to lower initial heights $`z_0`$. These divergence data will be analyzed in more detail below. The inset of Fig. 3 shows laser flux $`F`$ versus $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}`$, and is compared to

$$\frac{F}{F_0}=\left(1\frac{z_0^2}{R_z^2}\right)^2\left[1\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{z_0}{R_z}+\frac{2\mu ^2}{3\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}(1\frac{z_0^2}{R_z^2})\right],$$
(2)
where $`F_0`$ is the peak flux, and Eq. (1) defines the relation between $`z_0`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}`$. Equation (2) assumes the laser flux is simply proportional to the linear density of the condensate at the coupling point. For the solid curve shown in the inset of Fig. 3, we have used $`N=4\times 10^5`$ to give $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi \times 9.1`$ kHz and $`R_z=4.2`$$`\mu `$m. The peak flux is measured to be about $`1\times 10^7`$ s-1 by the reduction in condensate number, as in bloch . This is in agreement with the theory of gerbier , given the applied field strength and uncertainty in the atom number and field polarization narrowband .

There are several possible sources of divergence of the atom laser, including diffraction, magnetic lensing, and interactions both within the laser and between the laser and the condensate. In order to understand the divergence with a simple analytical model, we make several approximations: 1) that the interactions between atoms within the laser are not significant, valid in the low-flux limit; 2) that the roughly parabolic density profile of the atom laser can be approximated by a Gaussian; and 3) that we can use stationary solutions of the Schrödinger Equation with a paraxial-type of approximation, in which the fast degrees of freedom gerbier  are decoupled from the slow evolution of the transverse degrees of freedom, as in wallis . We follow a Gaussian optics treatment similar to that of photonic lasers kogelnik : the spatial distribution in $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$ described by the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)=\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{exp}\left[iP(t)+ix^2/2q_x(t)+iy^2/2q_y(t)\right]`$, where $`P(t)`$ describes the overall phase and amplitude, and beam parameters $`1/q_{x,y}(t)=i/w_{x,y}^2(t)+c_{x,y}(t)`$ describe the widths $`w_x`$ and $`w_y`$ and curvatures $`c_x`$ and $`c_y`$ of the beam. The observable width is $`w(t)=(w_x^2(t)\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi )+w_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi ))^{1/2}`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the observation angle (Fig. 1b). The initial widths $`w_x^2(0)=2(R_z^2z_0^2)/5`$ and $`w_y(0)=w_x(0)/\lambda `$ give the same rms width as would an initial Thomas-Fermi density profile.

The beam parameters $`q_x`$ and $`q_y`$ follow an “ABCD law” similar to that for an photon laser beam: $`q^{}=(Aq+B)/(Cq+D)`$, where the coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, and $`D`$ are the four elements in a matrix which transform ray vectors $`x,p/\mathrm{}`$ to $`x^{},p^{}/\mathrm{}`$ according to classical equations of motion in the same potential. In the following paragraphs, we will calculate the ABCD matrices for interaction with the condensate, propagation with the magnetic trap on, and free flight after the trap is turned off. Note that even though the ray matrices can be derived using classical equations of motion, their application in the Gaussian beam formalism includes diffraction.

The mean-field interaction potential between an atom in the laser and the condensate is $`U_I(𝐫)=g_{01}\rho _c(𝐫)`$, where $`g_{01}`$ is the s-wave coupling strength $`4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{01}/M`$ between atoms in the $`|1,0`$ state and the trapped $`|1,1`$ state, and $`\rho _c(𝐫)`$ is the condensate density. Here we use $`a_{01}=a_{11}`$. We calculate the action of this potential treating it as a lens, and using the thin lens approximation that each trajectory is at its initial transverse position $`x_0,y_0`$. In the Thomas-Fermi limit, the potential $`U_I(𝐫)`$ is quadratic, and thus gives an impulse $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_x,\mathrm{\Delta }p_y=\left(2\mu t_1(x_0,y_0)/R_z^2\right)x_0,\lambda ^2y_0`$ after an interaction time $`t_1`$. The on-axis power of the lens is given for $`x_0R_x`$ and $`y_0R_y`$, with which assumption we find $`t_1^22(R_z+z_0)/g`$. This gives the thin lens ABCD matrix for the $`𝐱`$ direction

$$M_{1x}(z_0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}R_z^2}\sqrt{2(R_z+z_0)}& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
When applied to the beam parameter $`q_x`$, the nontrivial term in Eq. (3) is the wavefront curvature added to the beam. A similar ray matrix $`M_{1y}(z_0)`$ transforms $`q_y`$, but with a curvature term multiplied by $`\lambda ^2`$. For both $`M_{1x}(z_0)`$ and $`M_{1y}(z_0)`$, the curvature is positive for all $`z_0`$, since the interaction is always repulsive. A positive curvature corresponds to an expanding wave, and thus the condensate with repulsive interactions ($`g_{01}>0`$) is always a diverging lens.

When the atom laser falls qzesplit , it evolves in the anti-trapping potential due to the quadratic Zeeman effect of the $`|1,0`$ state, $`U_{\mathrm{QZE}}(𝐫)=\mu _BB^2(𝐫)/B_{\mathrm{HF}}`$, where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, and $`B_{\mathrm{HF}}=0.4883`$ T is the hyperfine splitting in magnetic units. We can neglect $`y`$-dependent and higher-order terms, since they are several orders of magnitude smaller for the fields in our experiment, to get $`U_{\mathrm{QZE}}(𝐫)\mu _BB_0^2/B_{\mathrm{HF}}M\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x^2+z^2)/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi \times 30.3\pm 0.1`$ Hz. Below, we will return to evolution in $`𝐲`$. The classical motion of a particle in an inverted quadratic potential is given by hyperbolic functions. In the vertical direction, an elongation of the laser is evident: we observe a length of 1.84$`\pm `$0.09 mm, while with gravity alone, one would expect a length of 1.33 mm after 10 ms of coupling and 6 ms of free flight. Including $`U_{\mathrm{QZE}}(𝐫)`$ and our measured trap parameters, we calculate 1.87 mm, in agreement with our observations. The ray matrix for the transverse $`𝐱`$ direction is

$$M_2(t_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t_2)& \frac{\mathrm{}}{M\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t_2)\\ \frac{M\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t_2)& \mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t_2)\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`t_2`$ is the time of evolution, ranging between $`0`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{oc}}`$. This interaction is a thick lens, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }t_{\mathrm{oc}}>1`$, and thus there is sufficient time for the laser to change diameter and curvature during its interaction. During the same time, the beam parameter $`q_y`$ transforms by the free flight matrix

$$M_{\mathrm{FF}}(t_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{}t_2/M\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
which is the $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ limit of $`M_2(t_2)`$. Note that it is due to the acceleration in both the $`𝐳`$ and $`𝐱`$ directions that make the atom lasers well characterized by an asymptotic expansion angle (see Fig. 2e): if there were no acceleration in $`𝐱`$, the laser would have parabolic borders.

The third and final transformation of the laser is free-flight expansion between turning the trap off and observing the laser, described by $`M_{\mathrm{FF}}(t_\mathrm{F})`$, where $`t_\mathrm{F}`$ is the time of flight. To find the width of the laser at any position, we evolve the initial beam parameter $`q_x(0)=iw_x(0)^2`$ and $`q_y(0)=iw_y(0)^2`$ with the elements of the matrix product $`M_{\mathrm{FF}}(t_\mathrm{F})M_2(t_2)M_{1x}(z_0)`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{FF}}(t_2+t_\mathrm{F})M_{1y}(z_0)`$, respectively. The angle is the ratio of the difference between the observed rms beam size at $`t_2=0`$ and $`t_2=t_{\mathrm{oc}}`$ to the length of the laser. Note that this theory has no adjustable parameters since the atom number, output flux, trap frequencies, interaction strength, and bias field have all been measured.

Figure 3 shows the calculated angle $`\theta `$ in comparison with the data. The primary feature of this curve is its monotonous decrease with increasing $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}`$ throughout the range of the data. This trend is due to the condensate lens, as is demonstrated by comparison to $`\theta `$ without the transformation $`M_1`$ (dashed line in Fig. 3). Simply put, a laser sourced at lower heights (greater $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}`$) interacts for less time with the condensate. The quadratic Zeeman potential $`U_{\mathrm{QZE}}`$ acts to magnify the divergence of the condensate lens, increasing the slope in this region by roughly a factor of four. Out of the range of our data, there are two more salient features: (1) The angle $`\theta `$ decreases at $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}<5`$ kHz. This is due to a reduction in initial width of lasers sourced from the very top of the condensate, since divergence angle is proportional to beam radius for a constant focal length. (2) The angle $`\theta `$ increases for $`\delta _{\mathrm{rf}}>5`$ kHz due to diffraction. A combination of diffraction and interactions imposes the minimum divergence possible on the atom laser, in our case approximately 6 mrad.

In conclusion, we have measured the divergence of an atom laser. We demonstrate that in our case, interactions are a critical contributor to the observed divergence. The strong parallel between atom and photon lasers beams, both fully coherent, propagating waves, is emphasized by the success of a model obtained by generalization of the standard treatment of optical laser beams. The understanding of atom laser propagation provided by our measurements and model provides a basic tool for future experiments with atom lasers.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank W. D. Phillips, C. I. Westbrook, Ch. J. Bordé, M. Kohl, and S. Seidelin for comments. J. T. acknowledges support from a Chateaubriand Fellowship. This work was supported by the Direction Général de l’Armement (grant 99.34.050) and the European Union (grant HPRN-CT-2000-00125).


text:
# KeV Astrophysics With GeV Beams; Blazing a New Trail on the Summitt of Nuclear Astrophysics 11footnote 1Work Supported by USDOE Grant No. DE-FG02-94ER40870.

## 1 Introduction: The $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be(p,\gamma )^8B`$ Reaction at Low Energies

The solar neutrino problem  may allow for new break through in neutrino physics and the standard model of particle physics. The precise knowledge of the astrophysical $`S_{17}`$-factor \[$`=\sigma _{17}\times E\times exp(2\pi \eta )`$ where $`\eta `$ is the Sommerfeld parameter $`=Z_1Z_2\frac{\alpha }{\beta }`$), is crucial for interpreting terrestrial measurements of the solar neutrino flux . This is particularly true for the interpretation of results from the Homestake, Kamiokande, SuperKamiokande and SNO experiments  which measured high energy solar neutrinos mainly or solely from 8B decay. In Fig. 1 we show the world data including our new GSI measurement of $`S_{17}`$ . It is clear from this figure that if we are to quote $`S_{17}(0)`$ with an accuracy of $`\pm 5\%`$, many more experiments using different methods are required.

Fig. 1: World data on $`S_{17}`$ as reported by our GSI collabortion .

## 2 The Coulomb Dissociation of $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ and the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be(p,\gamma )^8B`$ Reaction at Low Energies

The Coulomb Dissociation (CD)  is a Primakoff  process that could be viewed in first order as the time reverse of the radiative capture reaction. The large relative velocities of light ion beams create a large flux of virtual photons and instead of studying for example the fusion of a proton plus a nucleus (A-1), one studies the disintegration of the final nucleus (A) in the Coulomb field, to a proton plus the (A-1) nucleus. The reaction is made possible by the absorption of a virtual photon from the field of a high Z nucleus such as $`{}_{}{}^{208}Pb`$. In this case since $`\pi /k^2`$ for a photon is approximately 100-1000 times larger than that of a particle beam, the small cross section is enhanced. The large virtual photon flux (typically 100-1000 photons per collision) also gives rise to enhancement of the cross section. Our understanding of the Coulomb dissociation process  allows us to extract the inverse nuclear process even when it is very small. However in Coulomb dissociation since $`\alpha Z`$ approaches unity (unlike the case in electron scattering), higher order Coulomb effects (Coulomb post acceleration) may be non-negligible and they need to be understood . The success of CD experiments  is in fact contingent on understanding such effects and designing the kinematical conditions so as to minimize such effects.

Hence the Coulomb dissociation process has to be measured with great care with kinematical conditions carefully adjusted so as to minimize nuclear interactions (i.e. distance of closest approach considerably larger then 20 fm, or very small forward angles scattering), and measurements must be carried out at high enough energies (many tens of MeV/u) so as to maximize the virtual photon flux.

### 2.1 The GSI Results at 254 A MeV

An experiment to measure the Coulomb dissociation of 8B at a higher energy of 254 $`A`$ MeV was performed at GSI . The present experimental conditions have several advantages: (i) forward focusing allows us to use the magnetic spectrometer KaoS  at GSI for a kinematically complete measurement with high detection efficiency over a wider range of the p-7Be relative energy; (ii) because of the smaller influence of straggling on the experimental resolution at the higher energy, a thicker target can be used for compensating the weaker beam intensity, (iii) effects that obscure the contribution of E1 multipolarity to the Coulomb dissociation like E2 admixtures and higher-order contributions are reduced . The contribution of M1 multipolarity is expected to be enhanced at the higher energy, but this allows to observe the M1 resonance peak and determine its $`\gamma `$ width.

A 8B beam was produced by fragmentation of a 350 $`A`$ MeV 12C beam from the SIS synchrotron at GSI that impinged on a beryllium target with a thickness of 8.01 g/cm2. The beam was isotopically separated by the fragment separator (FRS)  by using an aluminum degrader with a thickness of 1.46 g/cm2 with a wedge angle of 3 mrad. The beam was transported to the standard target-position of the spectrometer KaoS . The average beam energy of 8B in front of the breakup target was 254.5 $`A`$ MeV, a typical 8B intensity was 104 /spill (7s/spill). Beam-particle identification was achieved event by event with the TOF-$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ method by using a beam-line plastic scintillator with a thickness of 5 mm placed 68 m upstream from the target and a large-area scintillator wall discussed later placed close to the focal plane of KaoS. About 20 % of the beam particles were 7Be, which could however unambiguously be discriminated from breakup 7Be particles by their time of flight.

An enriched 208Pb target with a thickness of 199.7 ($`\pm `$ 0.2) mg/cm2 was placed at the entrance of KaoS. The average energy at the center of the target amounted to 254.0 $`A`$ MeV. The reaction products, 7Be and proton, were analyzed by the spectrometer which has a large momentum acceptance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p50`$ % and an angular acceptance of 140 and 280 mrad in horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. For scattering-angle measurement or track reconstruction of the two reaction products, two pairs of silicon micro-strip detectors were installed at about 14 and 31 cm downstream from the target, respectively, measuring either x- or y-position of the products before entering the KaoS magnets. Each strip detector had a thickness of 300 $`\mu `$m, an active area of 56 $`\times `$ 56 mm2, and a strip pitch of 0.1 mm.

The measured complete kinematics of the breakup products allowed us to reconstruct the p-7Be relative energy and the scattering angle $`\theta _8`$ of the center-of-mass of proton and 7Be (excited 8B) with respect to the incoming beam from the individual momenta and angles of the breakup products.

To evaluate the response of the detector system, Monte-Carlo simulations were performed using the code GEANT. The simulations took into account the measured 8B beam spread in energy, angle, and position at the target, as well as the influence of angular and energy straggling and energy loss in the layers of matter. Losses of the products due to limited detector sizes were also accounted for. Further corrections in the simulation are due to the feeding of the excited state at 429 keV in 7Be. We used the result by Kikuchi et al.  who measured the $`\gamma `$-decay in coincidence with Coulomb dissociation of 8B at 51.9 $`A`$ MeV.

The Monte Carlo simulations yielded relative-energy resolutions from the energy and angular resolutions of the detection system to be 0.11 and 0.22 MeV (1$`\sigma `$) at $`E_{\mathrm{rel}}=0.6`$ and 1.8 MeV, respectively. The total efficiency calculated by the simulation was found to be larger than 50% at $`E_{\mathrm{rel}}=02.5`$ MeV. due to the large acceptance of KaoS. The experimental angular distributions are well reproduced by the simulation using only E1 multipolarity, in line with the results of Kikuchi et al.  and Gai and Bertulani .

To study our sensitivity to a possible E2 contribution, we have added the simulated E2 angular distribution from the E2 Coulomb dissociation cross section calculated by Bertulani and Gai . Note that nuclear breakup effects are also included in the calculation. By fitting the experimental angular distributions to the simulated ones, we obtained 3$`\sigma `$ upper limits of the ratio of the E2- to E1-transition amplitude of the 7Be(p,$`\gamma `$)8B reaction, $`S_{\mathrm{E2}}`$/$`S_{\mathrm{E1}}`$ of $`0.06\times 10^4`$, $`0.3\times 10^4`$ and $`0.6\times 10^4`$ for $`E_{\mathrm{rel}}=`$ 0.3$``$0.5, 0.5$``$0.7 and 1.0$``$1.2 MeV, respectively. These numbers agree well with the results of Kikuchi et al. , and suggest that the results of the model dependent analysis of Davids et al.  needs to be checked. The MSU collaboration recently also published values for $`S_{17}(0)`$  which are in agreement with the arlier results of the RIKEN II experiment .

### 2.2 Conclusion: The Coulomb Dissociation Method

In conclusion we demonstrated that the Coulomb dissociation (when used with ”sechel”) provides a viable alternative method for measuring small cross section of interest for nuclear-astrophysics. First results on the CD of $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ are consistent with the lower measured values of the cross section and weighted average of all thus far data is: $`S_{17}(0)=18.9\pm 1.0eVb`$, see Table 1. The accuracy of the extracted S-factors are now limited by our very understanding of the Coulomb dissociation process, believed to be approx. $`\pm `$10%. The value of the E2 S-factor as extracted from both the RIKEN and GSI experiments are consistent and shown to be very small, $`S_{E2}/S_{E1}`$ of the order of $`10^5`$ or smaller, see Table 1. The adopted value of $`S_{17}`$ from the CD experiments, shown in Table I is in good agreement with recent direct measuremenst .

Table 1: Measured S-factors in Coulomb dissociation experiments.

|  | Experiment | $`S_{17}(0)`$ eV-b | $`S_{E2}/S_{E1}`$(0.6 MeV) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |
|  | RIKEN1 | $`16.9\pm 3.2`$ | $`<7\times 10^4`$ |
|  |
|  | RIKEN2 | $`18.9\pm 1.8`$ | $`<4\times 10^5`$ |
|  |
|  | GSI1 | $`20.6+1.21.0`$ | $`<3\times 10^5`$ |
|  |
|  | GSI2 | ? | ? |
|  |
|  | MSU | $`17.8+1.41.2`$ | $`4.7+2.01.3\times 10^4`$ |
|  |
|  | ADOPTED | $`18.9\pm 1.0`$ | $`<3\times 10^5`$ |

## 3 Introduction: Oxygen Formation in Helium Burning and The $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ Reaction

The outcome of helium burning is the formation of the two elements, carbon and oxygen . The ratio of carbon to oxygen at the end of helium burning is crucial for understanding the fate of a Type II supernovae and the nucleosynthesis of heavy elements. While an oxygen rich star is predicted to end up as a black hole, a carbon rich star leads to a neutron star . At the same time helium burning is also very important for understanding Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) now used as a standard candle for cosmological distances . All thus far luminosity calibration curves and the stretching parameter are used as empirical observation without fundamental understanding between the time characteristics of the light curve and the luminosity of a Type Ia supernova. Since the first burning stage in helium burning, the triple alpha-particle capture reaction ($`{}_{}{}^{8}Be(\alpha ,\gamma )^{12}C`$), is well understood , one must extract the p-wave \[$`S_{E1}(300)`$\] and d-wave \[$`S_{E2}(300)`$\] cross section of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction at the Gamow peak (300 keV) with high accuracy of approximately $`10\%`$ or better to completely understand stellar helium burning. An independent R-matrix analysis  of all available data can not rule out a small S-factor solution (10-20 keV-b). It is thus doubtful that one can indeed rule out a small E1 S-factor solution based on current data. The confusion in this field mandates a direct measurement of the cross section of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction at low energies at energies even .

## 4 The Proposed $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(\gamma ,\alpha )^{12}C`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(e,e^{}\alpha )^{12}C`$ Experiments

For determination of the cross section of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ at very low energies, as low as $`E_{cm}=700`$ KeV considerably lower than measured till now , it is advantageous to have an experimental setup with larger (amplified) cross section, high luminosity and low background. It turns out that the use of the inverse process, the $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(\gamma ,\alpha )^{12}C`$ reaction may indeed satisfy all three conditions. The cross section of $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(\gamma ,\alpha )^{12}C`$ reaction (with polarized photons) at the kinematical region of interest (photons approx 8-8.5 MeV) is larger by a factor of approximately 100 than the cross section of the direct $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction. Note that the polarization yields an extra factor of two in the enhancement. Thus for the lowest data point measured at 0.9 MeV with the direct cross secion of approx. 60 pb, the photodissociation cross section is 6 nb. It is evident that with similar luminosities and lower background, see below, the photodissociation cross section can be measured to yet lower center of mass energies, as low as 0.7 MeV, where the direct $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ crosssection is of the order of 1 pb. However, we cannot observe cascade gamma decay, which are considered to be small at low energies.

The High Intensity Gamma Source (HIGS) , shown in Fig. 2, has already achieved many milestones and is rapidly approaching its design goal of 2-200 MeV gammas, with 9 MeV gammas at a resolution of 0.1% and intensity of order $`10^9`$ /sec. Current intensities are of the order of $`10^6`$ /sec and resolution of 0.8The backscattered photons of the HIGS facility are collimated and will enter the target/detector TPC setup as we propose below. With a Q value of -7.162, our experiment will utilize gammas of energies ranging from 8 to 10 MeV. Note that the emitted photons are linearly polarized  and the emitted particles are primarily in a horizontal plane with a $`sin^2\varphi `$ azimuthal angular dependence . This simplifies the tracking of particles in this experiment. The pulsed photon beam provides a trigger for the image intensified CCD camera, and the time projection information from the chamber yields the azimuthal angle of the event of interest. Background events will be discriminated with time of flight techniques, and flushing of the CCD between two events. To reduce noise, the CCD will be cooled. We note that similar research program with high intensity photon beams and a TPC already exists at the Tokyo Institute of Technology . An $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(e,e^{}\alpha )^{12}C`$ is proposed at the MIT-Bates accelerator . This meausrement with virtual photons is sensitive mostly to d-wave astrophysical cross section factor.

Fig. 2: Schematic diagram of the HIGS facility  for the production of intense MeV gamma beams.

### 4.1 Proposed Time Projection Chamber (TPC)

We intend to construct an Optical Readout Time Projection Chamber (TPC), similar to the TPC constructed in the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt, (PTB) in Braunschweig, Germany and the Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel , for the detection of alphas and carbon, the byproduct of the photodissociation of $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$. Since the range of available alphas is approximately 8 cm (at 100 mbars) the TPC will be 30 cm wide and up to one meter long for later phases of our studies. We intend first to construct a 30 cm long TPC prototype and place it on the HIGS beam line at TUNL/Duke. The TPC that we intend to construct will be largely insensitive to single Compton electrons, but will allow us to track both alphas and carbons emitted almost back to back in time correlation. The very different range of alphas and carbons (approx. a factor of 4), and differences in the lateral ionization density, will aid us in particle identification. Such a TPC detector would also allow us to measure angular distributions with respect to the polarization vector of the photon thus seperating the E1 and E2 components of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction. The excellent energy resolution of the TPC (approx. 2%) allows us to exclude events from the photodissociation of nuclei other than $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$, including isotopes of carbon, oxygen and fluorine, which may also be present in the gas. In Fig. 3, taken from Titt et al. , we show a schematic diagram of the Optical Readout TPC we proposed to construct. A photon beam enters the TPC through an entrance hole in the drift chamber part of the TPC and mainly produce background $`e^+e^{}`$ pair and a smaller amount of compton electrons, as well as the photodissociation of various nuclei present in the $`CO_2+Ar`$ gas mixture, including $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$. As we discuss later the background events are easily rejected.

Fig. 3: Schematic diagram of the Optical Readout TPC .

The charged particle byproducts of the photodissociation create delta electrons that create secondary electrons that drift in the chamber electric field with a total time of the order of 1 $`\mu s`$ for 5 cm. The time projection of the drift electrons allows us to measure the inclination angle ($`\varphi `$) of the plane of the byproducts, and the tracks themselves allow for measurement of the scattering angle ($`\theta `$), both with an accuracy of better than two degrees. The electrons that reach the multi-wire chamber are multiplied (by approx. a factor of $`10^7`$) and interact with a small (3%) admixture of triethylamine (TEA)  or $`CF_4`$  gas to produce UV or visible photons, respectively. The light detected in the photomultiplier tube, see Fig. 4, triggers the Image Intensifier and CCD camera which takes a picture of the visible tracks. The picture is downloaded to a PC and analyzed for recognition of the two back-to-back alpha-carbon tracks. The background electrons lose approx. 100 keV in the entire TPC and are removed by an appropriate threshold on the Photo Multiplier Tube (PM), and events from the photodissociation of nuclei other than $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$ are removed by measuring the total energy (Q-value) of the event.

### 4.2 Design Goals

The luminosity of a our proposed $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(\gamma ,\alpha )^{12}C`$ experiment can be very large. For example, with a 100 cm long target of pure $`CO_2`$ at a pressure of 76 torr (100 mbar) and a photon beam of $`2\times 10^9`$ /sec, we obtain a luminosity of $`10^{30}sec^1cm^2`$, or a day long integrated luminosity of 0.1 pb-1. Thus a measurement of the photodissociation of $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$ with cross section of 10 pb, with our proposed high efficiency TPC will yield one count per day. Hence it is conceivable that a facility with such luminosity and low background together with the high efficiency TPC will allow us to measure the photodissociation cross section to a few tens of pb and thus as low as several hundreds of fb for the direct $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reaction, corresponding to energies as low as Ecm = 700 keV.

## 5 Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge the work of N. Iwasa, T. Kikuchi, K. Suemmerer, F. Boue and P. Senger on the data analyses of the GSI CD data. I also acknowledge discussions and encouragements from Professors J.N. Bahcall, C.A. Bertulani, G. Baur, Th. Delbar and H. Weller. The help of Drs. A. Breshkin, A. Gandi, and V. Radeka in the design and production of the TPC is also acknowledged.