text:
# Gravitation and Electromagnetism II

## 1 Introduction

In a previous communication it was suggested that if we consider a non commutative geometrical underpinnilng to the usual spacetime given by equation

$$[x,y]=0(l^2)$$

$$[x,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}[1+(a/\mathrm{})^2p_x^2];$$

$$[t,p_t]=ı\mathrm{}[1(a/\mathrm{}c)^2p_t^2];$$

$$[x,p_y]=[y,p_x]=ı\mathrm{}(a/\mathrm{})^2p_xp_y;$$
(1)
$$[x,p_t]=c^2[p_{x,}t]=ı\mathrm{}(a/\mathrm{})^2p_xp_t;\text{etc}.$$

Then it is possible to obtain a unified formulation for electromagnetism and gravitation. Infact it was shown that using (1), we can deduce that

$$A^\mu =\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_v^{\mu v}$$
(2)
where $`A^\mu `$ is the electromagnetic four potential and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{\mu v}`$ represents the Christoffel symbols.
Equation (2) provides a link between electromagnetism and gravitation, and infact is mathematically identical to Weyl’s original unified formalism, except that in our case it arises due to spacetime properties given by (1), and is not adhoc as in the former case.
It may be mentioned that the relations (1) arise when there is a minimum non zero spacetime interval $`l`$ and $`\tau =l/c`$, as was demonstrated several decades ago by Snyder. Such considerations, once rejected are now back in the reckoning, for example in the Quantum Superstring theory where also we have extended particles and the above non commutative geometry.
Let us now pursue the above line of thought a little further.

## 2 Mass, Spin and Charge

Our starting point is the formula for the metric in flat spacetime

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(3)
If we use in (3) the relation (1), after rewriting the product of the coordinate differentials as a sum of symmetric and anti symmetric terms, we will get

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+kh_{\mu \nu }$$
(4)
The first term in (4) denotes the usual flat spacetime metric while the second term which represents a departure from flat spacetime denotes the effect of non commutativity, $`k`$ being a suitable constant.
It is interesting to note that such a symmetric-anti symmetric combination for the coordinate differentials is similar to that of torsional theories, with however the important difference that in torsional theories the contribution to the spacetime interval from the anti symmetric term vanishes, where as here, in view of (1) there is a non zero contribution. This again is because due to the non commutative geometry, the spacetime points of conventional theory are ruled out. It must also be noted that if $`0(l^2)`$ and $`0(\tau ^2)`$ are neglected in (1) then we are back again with conventional spacetime.
We next observe that starting from (4) and remembering that the second term is small as $`l`$ and $`\tau `$ are small, we can with standard arguments (Cf.) deduce the linearized general relativistic equation.

$$\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\lambda ^\lambda h+\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\lambda _\sigma h^{\lambda \sigma }=kT^{\mu \nu }$$
(5)
where the term on the right side of (5) arises because of the fact that

$$\frac{}{x^\lambda }\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x^\lambda }\text{goes}\text{over}\text{to}\frac{}{x^\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\nu \frac{}{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\nu $$

which now does not vanish due to the non commutativity.
It can further be shown that using the usual gauge (Cf.), in view of (2) we now have

$$_\mu h^{\mu \nu }=A^\nu $$
(6)
Also introducing the notation

$$\varphi ^{\mu \nu }=h^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }h$$

Equation (5) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{}\varphi ^{\mu \nu }=kT^{\mu \nu }$$
(7)
It is interesting to note that operating on both sides of (7) with $`_\mu `$, we get in view of (6) Maxwell’s equations. Equation (7) describes the spin 2 graviton while the Maxwell equations lead to the spin 1 photon.
We now observe that given equation (5) or (7), as is well known in the linearized theory (Cf. also) we have, taking for simplicity $`k=1`$,

$$h_{\mu v}=\frac{4T_{\mu v}(t|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|,\stackrel{}{x}^{})}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}$$
(8)
It must be mentioned that equation (8) is valid outside the Schwarzchild radius, which in any case is the region of our interest. Further velocities comprable to the velocity of light are allowed and the stresses $`T^{jk}`$ and momentum densities $`T^{0j}`$ can be comparable to the energy momentum density $`T^{00}`$. It can be easily deduced that when $`\frac{|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}{r}<<1`$, where $`r|\stackrel{}{x}|`$, and in a frame with origin at the centre of mass and at rest with respect to the particle, and in units in which the Gravitational constant is unity,

$$m=T^{00}d^3x$$
(9)
$$S_k=ϵ_{klm}x^lT^{m0}d^3x$$
(10)
where $`m`$ is the mass (or approximate mass because of the linear approximation), and $`S_k`$ is the angular momentum (Cf.ref. for details). We next observe that,

$$T^{\mu v}=\rho u^\mu u^v$$
(11)
As can be seen from (1), $`l`$ and $`\tau `$ are the minimum spacetime intervals which we take to be at the Compton scale, the Planck scale being a special case for the Planck mass $`10^5gms`$. The reason for this is that while the Compton scale is the ”size” of elementary particles, as is well known, even in classical physics, this is the limiting case within which we encounter unphysical negative energies, exactly as in Quantum Theory. We also use the input that at the Compton scale, the velocity $`u^ı=c`$ the velocity of light while $`u^0=1`$. Substitution of (11) in (10) now gives, on using the mean value theorem

$$S_k=c<x^l>\rho d^3x$$
(12)
As $`l\mathrm{}/2mc`$ the Compton wavelength, we get from (12) on using (9),

$$S_k=\mathrm{}/2$$

as required for a Fermion.
It is known that the gravitational potential is easily obtained from (8) and (9) and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}(g^{00}\eta ^{00})=\frac{m}{r}+0(\frac{1}{r^3})$$
(13)
(Cf.).
Interestingly, what we have shown is that the particle has mass, spin and charge, and can be described by the Kerr-Newman metric including the otherwise purely Quantum Mechanical anomalous gyromagnetic ratio, $`g=2`$. For the electron, such a description throws up a singularity, which however is shielded by the above unphysical negative energy region within the Compton scale (Cf.). This again is symptomatic of the breakdown of the concept of spacetime points, leading to non commutative geometry.
It is also possible to obtain the electromagnetic field from the above by an alternative method which also enables us to describe QCD effects. Infact using (2) and (8) we get

$$A_0=2\eta ^{\mu v}\frac{}{t}[\frac{T_{\mu v}(t|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|,\stackrel{}{x}^{})}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}]d^3x^{}$$
(14)
For $`|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|=r>>l,`$ (14) can be shown to lead to

$$A_0\frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{r}\rho \omega d^3x^{}(mc^3)\frac{mc^2}{r}$$
(15)
All this has been worked out in detail (Cf.refs.).
Infact if we revert to the usual units, we recover from (15) the well known electrostatic potential with the well known ratio

$$\frac{e^2}{Gm^2}10^{40}$$

It is interesting that the same line of argument also leads to the QCD type of interaction. To see this simply if we expand equation (8) in terms of a Taylor series about $`t`$, and this time consider the case where $`|\stackrel{}{x}||\stackrel{}{x}^{}|`$, we get

$`h_{\mu v}=4{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mu v}(t,\stackrel{}{x}^{})}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}}+(\text{terms independent of}\stackrel{}{x})+2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dt^2}T_{\mu v}(t,\stackrel{}{x}^{})}.|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|d^3x^{}+0(|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2)`$ (16)
Further manipulation (Cf. for details) yields

$$h_{\mu v}\frac{\beta M}{r}+8\beta M(\frac{Mc^2}{\mathrm{}})^2.r$$
(17)
$`\beta `$ being a constant and $`M`$ being the mass of the particle. (17) already resembles the QCD quark potential with both the Coulombic and confining parts. Taking for $`M`$ the mass of a typical $`C`$ quark $`1.8Gev`$, the ratio of the coefficients of the $`r`$ term and the $`\frac{1}{r}`$ term as obtained from (17) is $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}(Gev)^2`$ as in the case of QCD.
These considerations can be refined further (Cf.ref.) and infact we are able to get not only a characterisation of a QCD potential but also an explanation for the peculiar characteristics of quarks such as their one third fractional charge and their handedness.


format: text

text:
# 1 Parameters of the model. The basic coupling constants and the 𝐹/(𝐹+𝐷) ratios are fixed: the sources of the values used are given in the right-hand column. Also note that we assume ideal ϕ-𝜔 mixing, and take the physical 𝜂 to be the pure octet state.

Covariant meson-exchange model of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction

A.D. Lahiff

TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 2A3

(Received: )
A covariant meson-exchange model of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction within the framework of the Bethe-Salpeter equation is presented. With just one free parameter we are able to get a good description of the available experimental data from below threshold to 300 MeV laboratory momentum.

The construction of nonperturbative models of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction has a long history, dating back to early work such as that of Dalitz, Wong, and Rajasekaran . This model consisted of a coupled-channel Schrödinger equation with static vector meson exchange potentials, and was able to dynamically generate the S-wave $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance. More recent calculations are based on similar ideas, and commonly use a coupled-channel Lippmann-Schwinger equation to iterate a set of potentials to infinite order, with the strengths of the potentials in the various channels constrained by SU(3) symmetry. The strong attraction produced by the $`I=0`$ $`\overline{K}N\overline{K}N`$ potential results in the dynamical generation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance as an unstable $`\overline{K}N`$ bound state. Further resonances, including the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1620)`$, have also been found to be formed dynamically .

Previous works have in general relied upon non-relativistic formulations, or have made use of the (ladder) Bethe-Salpeter equation  but solved it in an approximate way. Here we outline a covariant model of low-energy $`\overline{K}N`$ scattering based on the 4-dimensional Bethe-Salpeter equation, and present some preliminary results.

The multi-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation for the $`\overline{K}N`$ system is

$$T_{nm}(q^{},q;P)=V_{nm}(q^{},q;P)\underset{k}{}\frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}d^4q^{\prime \prime }V_{nk}(q^{},q^{\prime \prime };P)G_k(q^{\prime \prime };P)T_{km}(q^{\prime \prime },q;P),$$
(1)
where $`m`$ ($`n`$) label the initial (final) states, and $`k`$ is summed over the included channels ($`K^{}p`$, $`\overline{K}^0n`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\eta `$). Also, $`P=(\sqrt{s},\mathrm{𝟎})`$ is the total 4-momentum in the center-of-mass (c.m.), while $`q`$, $`q^{}`$ and $`q^{\prime \prime }`$ are the relative 4-momenta in the initial, final and intermediate states. The two-body propagator $`G_k(q;P)`$ is given by the product of the appropriate baryon and pseudoscalar meson propagators. The interaction kernels $`V_{nm}`$ are constructed from the $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channel baryon poles and $`t`$-channel vector meson pole diagrams obtained from the usual SU(3)-symmetric $`BBP`$, $`BBV`$, and $`PPV`$ interaction Lagrangians  (here $`B`$, $`P`$, and $`V`$ represent the $`J^P=1/2^+`$ baryons, the pseudoscalar mesons, and the vector mesons, respectively). In order to regularize the Bethe-Salpeter equation all the propagators are multiplied by form factors, which are given by

$$f_{B_k}(p^2)=\left(\frac{m_{B_k}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+iϵ}\right)^2,f_{P_k}(p^2)=\left(\frac{m_{P_k}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+iϵ}\right)^2,f_{V_k}(t)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{t\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+iϵ}\right)^2.$$
(2)
We use the same cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for all particles in order to minimize the number of free parameters.

The method of solution is the same as that described in Ref. . A partial wave decomposition is applied to Eq. (1) which gives a system of coupled 2-dimensional integral equations. The singularities in the relative-energy variables are handled by performing a Wick rotation , i.e., the relative-energy integration contour is rotated from the real to the imaginary axis. All of the basic coupling constants in the model are fixed using information from other sources, such as decay widths and vector meson dominance (VMD), and are not left as free parameters. The only adjustable parameter is the cutoff mass, which we fix by fitting to the $`\overline{K}N`$ data. The values of the basic coupling constants and the cutoff mass are shown in Table 1.

The $`K^{}p`$ cross sections are shown in Figure 1, where we find good agreement with the experimental data. The $`Y\eta `$ channels give non-negligible contributions, even though the energies we consider are well below the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta `$ thresholds.

We now turn to the threshold behavior. For the $`K^{}p`$ scattering length we find $`a_{K^{}p}=0.54+i1.2`$ fm, which is consistent with the experimental value of $`a_{K^{}p}=0.78\pm 0.18+i(0.49\pm 0.37)`$ fm obtained in a kaonic hydrogen experiment . The relative strengths of the different channels at threshold are tightly constrained by the threshold branching ratios $`\gamma `$, $`R_c`$, and $`R_n`$, which are given in Refs.  as

$$\gamma =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^{})}=2.36\pm 0.04,R_c=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{charged})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{all})}=0.664\pm 0.011,$$

$$R_n=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{neutral})}=0.189\pm 0.015.$$

Our values for the branching ratios are $`\gamma =2.14`$, $`R_c=0.651`$, and $`R_n=0.132`$, which are in reasonable agreement with the experimental values. As found previously by Oset and Ramos , the $`Y\eta `$ channels (in particular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta `$) give important contributions to the branching ratios. When the $`Y\eta `$ channels are neglected, $`R_c`$ and $`R_n`$ are essentially unchanged, but $`\gamma `$ reduces to $`1.38`$.

Finally we consider the energy region below the $`\overline{K}N`$ threshold, where the $`I=0`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$ amplitude exhibits the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance. In Figure 2 we compare the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$ mass spectrum of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ obtained in our model with experiment, and find good agreement.

To summarize, we have solved the multi-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation for the $`\overline{K}N`$ system by means of a Wick rotation, and obtained good agreement with the low-energy $`\overline{K}N`$ experimental data by adjusting a single cutoff mass. Future work will include extending the model to higher energies, and searching for evidence of additional dynamically-generated S- and P-wave hyperon resonances.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported in part by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Causal Bulk Viscous Dissipative Isotropic Cosmologies with Variable Gravitational and Cosmological Constants

## I Introduction

Recent observations of type Ia supernovae with redshift up to about $`z1`$ provided evidence that we may live in a low mass-density Universe, with the contribution of the non-relativistic matter (baryonic plus dark) to the total energy density of the Universe of the order of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$ -. The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is significantly less than unity  and consequently either the Universe is open or there is some additional energy density $`\rho `$ sufficient to reach the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}=1`$, predicted by inflationary theory. Observations also show that the deceleration parameter of the Universe $`q`$ is in the range $`1q<0`$, and the present-day Universe undergoes an accelerated expansionary evolution.

Several physical models have been proposed to give a consistent physical interpretation to these observational facts. One candidate, and maybe the most convincing one for the missing energy is vacuum energy density or cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ .

Since the pioneering work of Dirac , who proposed, motivated by the occurence of large numbers in Universe, a theory with a time variable gravitational coupling constant $`G`$, cosmological models with variable $`G`$ and nonvanishing and variable cosmological term have been intensively investigated in the physical literature -. In the isotropic cosmological model of Chen and Wu  it is supposed, in the spirit of quantum cosmology, that the effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ varies as $`a^2`$ (with $`a`$ the scale function). In the cosmological model of Lima and Maia  the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(H\right)=3\beta H^2+3\left(1\beta \right)H^3/H_I`$ is a complicated function of the Hubble parameter $`H`$, a constant $`\beta `$ and an arbitrary time scale $`H_I^1`$, leading to a cosmic history beginning from an instability of the de Sitter space-time. The cosmological implications of a time dependence of the cosmological of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }t^2`$ have been considered by Berman . Waga  investigated flat cosmological models with the cosmological term varying as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\alpha /a^2+\beta H^2+\gamma `$, with $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ constants. In this model exact expressions for observable quantities can be obtained. Nucleosynthesis in decaying-vacuum cosmological models based on the Chen-Wu ansatz  has been investigated by Abdel-Rahman . The consistency with the observed helium abundance and baryon asymmetry allows a maximum vacuum energy close to the radiation energy today. Anisotropic Bianchi type I cosmological models with variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have been analyzed by Beesham  and it was shown that in this case there are no classical inflationary solutions of pure exponential form. Cosmological models with the gravitational and cosmological constants generalised as coupling scalars and with $`Ga^n`$ have been discussed by Sistero . Generalized field equations with time dependent $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have been proposed in  and  in an attempt to reconcile the large number hypothesis with Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Limits on the variability of $`G`$ using binary-pulsar data have been obtained by Damour, Gibbons and Taylor . A detailed analysis of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) Universes in a wide range of scalar-tensor theories of gravity has been performed by Barrow and Parsons .

Dissipative effects, including both bulk and shear viscosity, are supposed to play a very important role in the early evolution of the Universe. The first attempts at creating a theory of relativistic fluids were those of Eckart  and Landau and Lifshitz . These theories are now known to be pathological in several respects. Regardless of the choice of equation of state, all equilibrium states in these theories are unstable and in addition signals may be propagated through the fluid at velocities exceeding the speed of light. These problems arise due to the first order nature of the theory, that is, it considers only first-order deviations from the equilibrium leading to parabolic differential equations, hence to infinite speeds of propagation for heat flow and viscosity, in contradiction with the principle of causality. Conventional theory is thus applicable only to phenomena which are quasi-stationary, i.e. slowly varying on space and time scales characterized by mean free path and mean collision time.

A relativistic second-order theory was found by Israel  and developed by Israel and Stewart , Hiscock and Lindblom  and Hiscock and Salmonson  into what is called “transient” or “extended” irreversible thermodynamics. In this model deviations from equilibrium (bulk stress, heat flow and shear stress) are treated as independent dynamical variables, leading to a total of 14 dynamical fluid variables to be determined. For general reviews on causal thermodynamics and its role in relativity see  and .

Causal bulk viscous thermodynamics has been extensively used for describing the dynamics and evolution of the early Universe or in an astrophysical context. But due to the complicated character of the evolution equations, very few exact cosmological solutions of the gravitational field equations are known in the framework of the full causal theory. For a homogeneous Universe filled with a full causal viscous fluid source obeying the relation $`\xi \rho ^{1/2}`$, with $`\rho `$ the energy density of the cosmological fluid, exact general solutions of the field equations have been obtained in -. It has also been proposed that causal bulk viscous thermodynamics can model on a phenomenological level matter creation in the early Universe , . Exact causal viscous cosmologies with $`\xi \rho ^s,s1/2`$ have been considered in .

Because of technical reasons, most investigations of dissipative causal cosmologies have assumed FRW symmetry (i.e. homogeneity and isotropy) or small perturbations around it . The Einstein field equations for homogeneous models with dissipative fluids can be decoupled and therefore are reduced to an autonomous system of first order ordinary differential equations, which can be analyzed qualitatively , , .

Recent developments in particle physics and cosmology have shown that the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ought to be treated as a dynamical quantity rather than a simple constant. The dynamics of the scale factor in FRW type models with a variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term has been recently revisited for the pefect fluid case by Overduin and Cooperstock .

The effects of dissipation as expressed in the form of a non-vanishing bulk viscosity coefficient in the stress-energy tensor of the matter in cosmological models with variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`G`$ have been considered by several authors -. The role of a transient bulk viscosity in a FRW space-time with decaying vacuum has been discussed in . Models with causal bulk viscous cosmological fluid have been considered recently by Arbab and Beesham . They obtained both power-law and inflationary solutions, with the gravitational constant an increasing function of time.

It is the purpose of the present paper to consider the evolution of causal bulk viscous dissipative cosmological models in the presence of variable gravitational and cosmological constants. By assuming that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a quadratic function of the Hubble parameter $`H`$ and that the total energy of the Universe is conserved, the gravitational field equations can be exactly integrated and two classes of solutions are obtained. The first class describes a barotropic viscous fluid with arbitrary $`\gamma `$, while the second solution corresponds to a stiff cosmological fluid.

The present paper is organised as follows. The basic equations of the model are written down in Section II. In Section III we present the first class of exact solutions. The case of the stiff bulk viscous cosmological fluid is considered in Section IV. In Section V we discuss and conclude our results.

## II Geometry, field equations and consequences

We consider that the geometry of the Universe filled with a bulk viscous cosmological fluid can be described by a spatially flat FRW type metric given by

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2\left(t\right)\left[dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right].$$
(1)
The Einstein gravitational field equations with variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are:

$$R_{ik}\frac{1}{2}g_{ik}R=8\pi G(t)T_{ik}+\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)g_{ik}.$$
(2)
In the following we consider a system of units so that $`c=1`$.

The bulk viscous effects can be generally described by means of an effective pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, formally included in the effective thermodynamic pressure $`p_{eff}`$ . Then in the comoving frame the energy momentum tensor has the components $`T_0^0=\rho ,T_1^1=T_2^2=T_3^3=p_{eff}`$. For the line element (1) the Einstein field equations give:

$$3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=8\pi G(t)\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda }(t),$$
(3)
$$3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=4\pi G(t)\left(3p_{eff}+\rho \right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(t),$$
(4)
where a dot denotes the derivative with respect to the time $`t`$.

Taking the covariant derivative of the Einstein field equations with respect to the FRW metric (1) we obtain the general conservation law in the presence of variable gravitational and cosmological constants:

$$3H\left(p_{eff}+\rho \right)=\left(\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)}\rho +\dot{\rho }+\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t)}{8\pi G(t)}\right),$$
(5)
where we have also introduced the Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{a}/a`$.

Assuming that the total matter content of the Universe is conserved, $`T_{i;j}^{(mat)j}=0`$, the energy density of the matter obeys the usual conservation law:

$$\dot{\rho }+3H\left(p_{eff}+\rho \right)=0.$$
(6)
In the presence of the bulk viscous stress $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the effective thermodynamic pressure term becomes $`p_{eff}=p+\mathrm{\Pi }`$, where $`p`$ is the thermodynamic pressure of the cosmological fluid. Then the energy conservation equation (5) can be split into two independent equations:

$$\dot{\rho }+3H\left(p+\rho \right)=3\mathrm{\Pi }H,$$
(7)
$$8\pi \dot{G}\rho +\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.$$
(8)
The causal evolution equation for the bulk viscous pressure is given by

$$\tau \dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}+\mathrm{\Pi }=3\xi H\frac{1}{2}\tau \mathrm{\Pi }\left(3H+\frac{\dot{\tau }}{\tau }\frac{\dot{\xi }}{\xi }\frac{\dot{T}}{T}\right),$$
(9)
where $`T`$ is the temperature, $`\xi `$ the bulk viscosity coefficient and $`\tau `$ the relaxation time.

The growth of the total comoving entropy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ over a proper time interval $`(t_0,t)`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_0)=\frac{3}{k_B}_{t_0}^t\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }a^3H}{T}𝑑t,$$
(10)
where $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant.

An important observational quantity is the deceleration parameter $`q=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{H}\right)1`$. The sign of the deceleration parameter indicates whether the model inflates or not. The positive sign of $`q`$ corresponds to “standard” decelerating models whereas the negative sign indicates inflation. The deceleration parameter can be expressed as a function of the thermodynamic, gravitational and cosmological quantities in the form

$$q=\frac{4\pi G(t)\left(\rho +3p+3\mathrm{\Pi }\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)}{8\pi G(t)\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)}.$$
(11)
Curvature is described by the tensor field $`R_{ijk}^l`$. It is well-known that if one uses singular behavior of the components of the tensor or its derivatives as a criterion for singularites, one gets into trouble since the singular behavior of components could be due to singular behavior of the coordinates or tetrad basis rather than the curvature itself. To avoid this problem, one should examine the scalars formed out of curvature. The invariants $`R_{ij}R^{ij}`$ and $`R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}`$ (the Kretschmann scalar) are very useful for the study of the singular behavior of the flat FRW metric:

$$R_{ij}R^{ij}=12\left(3H^4+3\dot{H}H^2+\dot{H}^2\right)$$
(12)
$$R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}=12\left(2H^4+2\dot{H}H^2+\dot{H}^2\right)$$
(13)
In order to close the system of equations (3) and (7)-(9) we have first to give the equation of state for $`p`$ and specify $`T`$, $`\tau `$ and $`\xi `$. We shall assume the following laws, :

$$p=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho ,\xi =\alpha \rho ^s,T=T_0\rho ^{\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }},\tau =\frac{\xi }{\rho }=\alpha \rho ^{s1},$$
(14)
where $`1\gamma 2`$, $`\alpha 0,`$ $`T_00`$ and $`s0`$ are constants. Equations (14) are standard in the study of bulk viscous cosmological models, whereas the equation $`\tau =\xi /\rho `$ is a simple procedure to ensure that the speed of viscous pulses does not exceed the speed of light.

With these choices the general solution of the gravitational field equations with variable gravitational and cosmological constants still depends on the functional form of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the present paper we shall fix the mathematical form of the cosmological constant assuming that it is a function of the Hubble parameter only and its time dependence is:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\beta H^2.$$
(15)
This ansatz, initially proposed in  on dimensional ground has been widely used to study decaying vacuum cosmological models , -.

From Eqs. (3), (8) and (15) it follows that in this model the gravitational constant $`G`$ and the energy density $`\rho `$ are given by:

$$G=bH^{n\beta },\rho =\rho _0H^n,$$
(16)
where $`\rho _0=\frac{3}{4\pi bn}0`$ and $`b0`$ are constants and $`n=2/\left(1\beta \right)0.`$ For physically realistic cosmological models the condition $`0<\beta <1`$ must hold, in order to assure a time decreasing energy density of the Universe. One must also assume that $`H`$ is a decreasing function of the cosmological time.

With the use of the barotropic equation of state $`p=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho `$ and Eq. (4), we obtain

$$\dot{H}+\frac{3\gamma }{n}H^2+4\pi G\mathrm{\Pi }=0.$$
(17)
In view of Eq. (16), Eq. (17) becomes

$$\dot{H}+\frac{3\gamma }{n}H^2+4\pi bH^{n\beta }\mathrm{\Pi }=0.$$
(18)
With the use of Eqs. (14) and (18), the causal evolution equation for the bulk viscosity (9) leads to the following equation for the Hubble function $`H`$:

$$\ddot{H}+\left[3H+\alpha _0H^{n\left(1s\right)}\right]\dot{H}+\left(\frac{n4\gamma }{2\gamma }\right)H^1\dot{H}^2+\frac{9}{n}\left(\frac{\gamma }{2}1\right)H^3+\frac{3\gamma \alpha _0}{n}H^{2+n\left(1s\right)}=0,$$
(19)
where we have denoted $`\alpha _0=\left(\rho _0\right)^{1s}/\alpha `$. Eq. (19) generalizes the standard evolution equation for causal bulk viscous models to the case of variable cosmological and gravitational constants and reduces to it in the case $`G=const.`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=const.`$.

By introducing the transformations

$$H=y^{\frac{2\gamma }{n}},\eta =y^{\frac{2\gamma }{n}}𝑑t,$$
(20)
Eq. (19) reduces to

$$\frac{d^2y}{d\eta ^2}+\left(3+\alpha _0y^m\right)\frac{dy}{d\eta }+\frac{9}{2\gamma }\left(\frac{\gamma }{2}1\right)y+\frac{3\alpha _0}{2}y^{m+1}=0,$$
(21)
where we have denoted $`m=\frac{2\gamma \left[n\left(1s\right)1\right]}{n}`$.

## III The first class of solutions

The general solution of the Eq. (21) depends on the values of the parameter $`m`$, combining the effects of the thermodynamic equation of state of matter, of bulk viscosity and of the variation of the cosmological constant. Since a general solution for arbitrary $`m`$ is difficult to obtain, we shall limit our study to some particular values of $`m`$, for which the general solution Eq. (21) can be expressed in an exact analytical form.

As a first class of solutions we consider the solutions generated by the choice $`m=0`$, corresponding to $`s=\left(1+\beta \right)/2`$, with $`0<\beta <1`$ and $`1/2<s<1`$. In this case the evolution of the bulk viscous pressure is directly coupled to the time variation of the gravitational constant, which is described by the parameter $`\beta `$.

Then the general solution of Eq. (21) can be obtained immediately in the form:

$$y=c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta },$$
(22)
where $`c_+`$ and $`c_{}`$ are constant of integration and we have denoted $`m_\pm =\frac{3\alpha _0\pm \sqrt{\alpha _0^2+18/\gamma }}{2}`$.

Therefore we can express the general solution of the gravitational field equations for a FRW isotropic space-time filled with a bulk viscous cosmological fluid in the framework of the full Israel-Stewart-Hiscock causal theory with variable cosmological and gravitational constants in the following exact parametric form:

$$tt_0=\left[c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta }\right]^{2\gamma /n}𝑑\eta ,$$
(23)
$$H=\left[c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta }\right]^{2\gamma /n},a=a_0e^\eta ,$$
(24)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\beta \left(c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta }\right)^{4\gamma /n},G=b\left(3\beta \right)^{n\beta /2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n\beta /2},\rho =\rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n/2},$$
(25)
$$p=\rho _1\left(\gamma 1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n/2},\xi =\alpha \left(\rho _1\right)^s\mathrm{\Lambda }^{sn/2},T=T_0\left(\rho _1\right)^{\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{n\left(\gamma 1\right)}{2\gamma }},\tau =\alpha \left(\rho _1\right)^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{n}{2}\left(s1\right)},$$
(26)
$$q=\gamma \left(\beta 1\right)F\left(\eta \right)1,$$
(27)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{\left(1\beta \right)\gamma }{4\pi b}\left(c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta }\right)^{2\gamma }\left[\frac{3}{2}+F\left(\eta \right)\right],$$
(28)
$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{p}\right|=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}\left|\frac{3}{2}+F\left(\eta \right)\right|,$$
(29)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\frac{3\left(1\beta \right)\gamma a_0^3}{k_B4\pi bT_0\left(\rho _0\right)^{\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}}\left(c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta }\right)^2\left[\frac{3}{2}+F\left(\eta \right)\right]e^{3\eta }𝑑\eta ,$$
(30)
$$R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}=24\left(c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta }\right)^{8\gamma /n}\left[1+\frac{2\gamma }{n}F\left(\eta \right)+\frac{2\gamma ^2}{n^2}F^2\left(\eta \right)\right],$$
(31)
where $`t_0`$, $`a_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ are constants of integration. We have denoted $`F\left(\eta \right)=\frac{c_+m_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}m_{}e^{m_{}\eta }}{c_+e^{m_+\eta }+c_{}e^{m_{}\eta }}`$ and $`\rho _1=\frac{\rho _0}{\left(3\beta \right)^{n/2}}.`$

## IV The second class of solutions

Equation (21) has also other solutions describing the dynamics of the causal bulk viscous FRW universe for appropriate choice of the parameters $`m`$ and $`\gamma `$. By means of further substitutions $`v=1/u`$ and $`u=\frac{dy}{d\eta }`$ the second order differential equation (21) can be transformed into an Abel type differential equation

$$\frac{dv}{dy}=\left[\frac{9}{2\gamma }\left(\frac{\gamma }{2}1\right)y+\frac{3\alpha _0}{2}y^{m+1}\right]v^3+\left(3+\alpha _0y^m\right)v^2.$$
(32)
By introducing two new functions $`A\left(y\right)=\frac{3+\alpha _0y^m/\left(m+1\right)}{9\left(\gamma /21\right)/\left(2\gamma \right)+3\alpha _0y^m/2}`$ and $`B\left(y\right)=\left[\frac{9\left(1\gamma /2\right)y}{2\gamma }\frac{3\alpha _0y^{m+1}}{2}\right]^1`$ allows to rewrite Eq. (32) in the general form

$$\frac{dv}{dy}=\frac{v^3}{B\left(y\right)}\left[\frac{d}{dy}\frac{A\left(y\right)}{B\left(y\right)}\right]v^2.$$
(33)
By introducing a new variable

$$\sigma =\frac{1}{v}\frac{A\left(y\right)}{B\left(y\right)},$$
(34)
Eq. (33) can be rewritten in the general form

$$\frac{dy}{d\sigma }=\sigma B\left(y\right)+A\left(y\right),$$
(35)
or equivalently

$$\frac{dy}{d\sigma }=\frac{\sigma }{\left[9\left(1\gamma /2\right)y/\left(2\gamma \right)3\alpha _0y^{m+1}/2\right]}+\frac{3+\alpha _0y^m/\left(m+1\right)}{9\left(\gamma /21\right)/\left(2\gamma \right)+3\alpha _0y^m/2}.$$
(36)
Since the energy density of the early universe is supposed to be extremely high, we can consider the extreme limit of a stiff cosmological fluid with equilibrium pressure equal to the energy density and then the parameter $`\gamma =2`$. In the case $`m=2,`$ that is $`3s=1+\beta `$, $`0<\beta <1`$ and $`1/3<s<2/3`$, Eq. (36) becomes a Riccati type differential equation:

$$\frac{dy}{d\sigma }=\frac{2}{\alpha _0}y^2\frac{2}{3\alpha _0}y\sigma \frac{2}{3}.$$
(37)
A particular solution of Eq. (37) is given by

$$y=\sigma \left(\sigma ^2/\alpha _0+3/2\right)^1.$$
(38)
In the following we denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\sigma \right)=\left(\sigma ^2/\alpha _0+3/2\right)^1`$. Therefore the general solution of Eq. (37) is

$$y=\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\left(\sigma \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\sigma \right)e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{3\alpha _0}}}{C_1\frac{2}{\alpha _0}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\sigma \right)e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{3\alpha _0}}𝑑\sigma },$$
(39)
where $`C_1`$ is an arbitrary constant of integration.

The general solution of the gravitational field equations for a flat FRW space-time filled with a bulk viscous cosmological fluid and variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be obtained in the following exact parametric form, with $`\sigma `$ taken as parameter:

$$t\left(\sigma \right)t_0=\frac{2}{3\alpha _0}y^{2\beta 1}\left(\sigma \right)𝑑\sigma ,$$
(40)
$$H=y^{2\left(1\beta \right)}\left(\sigma \right),a=a_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{3\alpha _0}y\left(\sigma \right)𝑑\sigma \right],$$
(41)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\beta y^{4\left(1\beta \right)}\left(\sigma \right),G=by^{4\beta }\left(\sigma \right),\rho =\rho _0y^4\left(\sigma \right),$$
(42)
$$p=\rho _0y^4\left(\sigma \right),\xi =\alpha \left(\rho _0\right)^sy^{4s}\left(\sigma \right),T=T_0\left(\rho _0\right)^{1/2}y^2\left(\sigma \right),\tau =\alpha \left(\rho _0\right)^{s1}y^{4\left(s1\right)}\left(\sigma \right),$$
(43)
$$q=2\left(1\beta \right)\left[3\frac{\sigma }{y\left(\sigma \right)}\frac{\alpha _0}{y^2\left(\sigma \right)}\right]1,\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{1\beta }{4\pi b}y^2\left(\sigma \right)\left[3y^2\left(\sigma \right)2\sigma y\left(\sigma \right)2\alpha _0\right],$$
(44)
$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{p}\right|=\frac{2}{3}\left|\frac{3y^2\left(\sigma \right)2\sigma y\left(\sigma \right)2\alpha _0}{y^2\left(\sigma \right)}\right|,$$
(45)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\frac{\left(1\beta \right)a_0^3}{2\pi bk_B\alpha _0T_0\left(\rho _0\right)^{1/2}}y\left(\sigma \right)\left[3y^2\left(\sigma \right)2\sigma y\left(\sigma \right)2\alpha _0\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\alpha _0}y\left(\sigma \right)𝑑\sigma \right]𝑑\sigma ,$$
(46)
$$R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}=24y^{48\beta }\left[y^4+2\left(\beta 1\right)y^2\left(3y^2y\sigma \alpha _0\right)+2\left(\beta 1\right)^2\left(3y^2y\sigma \alpha _0\right)^2\right],$$
(47)
where $`t_0`$, $`a_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ are constants of integration.

## V Discussions and final remarks

In the present paper we have considered the evolution of a full causal bulk viscous Universe in the presence of variable gravitational and cosmological ”constants”. We have adopted a particular model for the time variation of the cosmological constant, assuming that it is a quadratic function of the Hubble parameter $`H`$. Consequently, the gravitational constant has also a power dependence on the Hubble parameter. In both classes of solutions the evolution of bulk viscosity coefficient is related to that of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. While the first solution describes a cosmological fluid with barotropic equation of state for arbitrary $`\gamma `$, the range of application of the second solution is restricted to a very high energy density fluid, obeying the stiff equation of state.

The causal bulk viscous Universe described by the first class of solutions starts its evolution from a singular state with zero value of the scale factor $`a`$, $`a\left(t_0\right)=0`$, and infinite value of the energy density, $`\rho \left(t_0\right)\mathrm{}`$.

The existence of a singular initial state is also showed by the behavior of the invariant $`R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}`$, represented in Fig.1, which is singular function of time.

The evolution of the Universe is expansionary, with the scale factor an increasing function of time. The Hubble parameter, presented in Fig. 2, is a monotonically decreasing function of time, similar to the energy density of the cosmological fluid, represented in Fig. 3.

The bulk viscous pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, shown in Fig. 4, satisfies the condition $`\mathrm{\Pi }<0`$ only for time intervals greater than an initial value $`t_1`$.

Hence this model can describe the dynamics of the causal bulk viscous Universe with variable gravitational and cosmological constants only for a finite time interval.

The deceleration parameter $`q`$, represented in Fig. 5, shows an initial non-inflationary evolution, with $`q>0`$, but in the large time limit the Universe ends in an inflationary epoch.

During the viscous effects dominated era a large amount of comoving entropy is produced. Fig. 6 shows the time variation of the entropy.

The time variation of the cosmological and gravitational constants is represented in Figs. 7 and 8.

The cosmological constant is a decreasing function of time, while the gravitational constant $`G`$ tends in the large time to a constant value. But in this model the ratio of the bulk viscous pressure and of the thermodynamical presssure is greater than one during the inflationary period. Consequently during this period the model is not consistent thermodynamically.

The evolution of the stiff cosmological fluid filled bulk viscous Universe, described by the second class of solutions, also starts from a singular state, with $`a\left(t_0\right)=0`$. The invariant $`R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}`$, represented in Fig. 9, is also singular in the large time limit.

The evolution of the Universe is expansionary, with the scale factor, represented in Fig. 10, an increasing function of time.

The Hubble parameter and the energy density, represented in Fig. 11, are monotonically decreasing functions of time.

The bulk viscous pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ satisfies the condition $`\mathrm{\Pi }<0`$ for all time intervals and for all values of the parameter, as can be seen from Fig. 12.

The deceleration parameter $`q`$, represented in Fig. 13, satisfies in this model the condition $`q>0`$ for all times and in the acceptable range of the physical parameters.

Therefore the evolution of the high density causal bulk viscous Universe is non-inflationary. Consequently, the model is consistent thermodynamically satisfying the condition of the smallness of the bulk viscous pressure. The time evolutions of the cosmological constant represented in Figs. 14 is similar to the behavior of this quantity in the first model, with the cosmological constant a decreasing function of time, while in the large time limit the gravitational constant, showed in Fig. 15, is a slowly increasing function of time.

The possibility that the cosmological constant and the gravitational coupling are not real constants is an intriguing possibility, which has intensively been investigated in the physical literature. It is a very plausible hypothesis that these effects were much stronger in the early Universe, when dissipative effects also played an important role in the dynamics of the cosmological fluid. Hence the solutions obtained in the present paper could give an appropriate description of the early period of our Universe.


text:
# Triggering the Formation of Young Clusters

## 1. Introduction

Star formation may be triggered in a variety of ways. This review concentrates on three mechanisms: (1) sequential, in which pressures from one generation of stars move and compress the surrounding gas, causing another generation of stars to form, (2) turbulent, in which random and chaotic supersonic flows converge and diverge, bringing the gas into dense regions that last for about a crossing time, and (3) self-gravitational, in which density perturbations grow as a result of gravitational forces. Other compressive instabilities may contribute to the gravitational instability to drive star formation, such as the thermal or Parker instabilities. Cloud collisions are included in (2) and (3), considering that most clouds are part of a pervasive fractal network that is probably generated by turbulence and self-gravity. Density wave triggering is included in (3) if the waves induce local gravitational instabilities, forming the characteristic beads-on-a-string pattern of giant cloud complexes in spiral arms.

These processes trigger both individual stars and whole star clusters, the difference being a matter of scale for the self-gravitating cloud that forms. If a cloud is big enough, then smaller versions of the same three processes can trigger smaller clouds inside of it, eventually getting down to the scale of individual stars. For example, the dust lane in a spiral arm may be gravitationally unstable to make $`10^7`$ M cloud complexes. These complexes will be born with a lot of turbulent energy, from both the pre-cloud gas and the binding energy, and the turbulence will randomly compress the gas inside, making smaller clouds. If some of these clouds form stars, then the pressures caused by these stars can trigger more star formation inside other turbulence-compressed clouds. Thus all three processes can happen simultaneously in the same region, sometimes in a nested fashion and sometimes in juxtaposition. The point of this classification of processes is not to suggest that star formation follows only one of three possible paths, but to distinguish between the various morphologies of clustering that we see in young stellar regions.

Many young clusters are embedded in dense gas clumps that are at the interface between a molecular cloud and a high-pressure source, such as an HII region. These clusters were probably triggered by the HII region as it expanded into the cloud and are examples of the first process. When the same clusters are viewed from a greater distance, they are often found to be part of a fractal hierarchy of many other clusters, including slightly older OB associations and even older star complexes. This hierarchical pattern and a corresponding correlation between age and size has the same form as in a compressibly turbulent fluid, in which case the turbulent nature of cluster triggering becomes evident on the larger scale. It might also be true that all of this region is one of the beads in a galactic spiral arm, or perhaps it is a flocculent spiral arm by itself. We know that gaseous self-gravity is important on these large scales, so the whole process will appear to have begun with an instability that led to a cascade of interconnected events. What is the actual process of cluster formation in a case like this (which resembles Gould’s Belt)? Is it (1), (2), or (3) in the list above? The individual clusters resulted from a combination of processes. Yet the distinct morphologies of where and when they formed help us to understand which process dominates on which scale.

In the following sections, observations of these three processes are reviewed. A more comprehensive review of the sequential process is in Elmegreen (1998). Other reviews of star formation are in Evans (1999) and in the conference proceedings for Protostars and Planets IV (Univ. Arizona Press, 2000).

## 2. Sequentially Triggered Star Formation

There are many examples in the recent literature where clusters appear to have been triggered by nearby high-pressure events. Lefloch & Chernicharo (2000) found 12 $`\mu `$ cores that are probably protostars inside dense clumps that are seen in 1.3 mm at the edge of the Trifid Nebula. They derived an expansion age of the HII region to be 0.35 My, and a preshock density $`2\times 10^3`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>. The instability time, $`0.25\left(G\rho \right)^{1/2}0.35`$ My (Elmegreen 1989a), agrees with the expansion age, suggesting triggering. A similar configuration with an embedded cluster next to the Rosette nebula was discussed by Phelps & Lada (1997).

Lada et al. (1991) found two dense embedded clusters in the Orion molecular cloud at the locations of the densest cloud cores. These cores are the heads of giant cometary clouds, pointing toward and probably formed by the expansion of the Orion nebula (Bally et al. 1987). The head of the southern core is a thin cloud running parallel to the ionization front (Dutrey, et al. 1991) that is probably compressed gas. Many young stars and protostars are lined up along this strip (Reipurth, Rodriguez & Chini 1999). Images from 2MASS of the whole region are in Carpenter (2000).

An IRAS image of the embedded cluster near rho Ophiuchus makes it look like a comet head too (IPAC image from http://www.ipac.caltech.edu). The source of pressure is in the northwest. This is the triggering configuration proposed by de Geus (1992) who attributed the compression to shocks from the Upper Sco OB association. Shocks from the Cen-Lupus association probably triggered Upper Sco in a previous step (Preibisch & Zinnecker 1999). Another giant shell containing several young clusters surrounds the HII region and bubble source W5, as seen in IRAS 15 $`\mu `$ and 25 $`\mu `$ maps (Kerton & Martin 2000).

One of the first examples of sequential star formation, found by Sancisi et al. (1974), includes the Per OB2 association and its two clusters, IC 348 and NGC 1333. Sancisi et al. pointed out that this association lies in an OH+HI shell with a peculiar velocity, and they suggested that the clusters were triggered by the shell’s expansion. CO maps of the Perseus region by Sargent (1979) found other age sequences inside the association. The embedded clusters are not very dense (Lada & Lada 1995; Lada, Alves, & Lada 1996), but the region is older than Orion (Palla & Stahler 1999, 2000) and the pressures are not as large. Now the whole region can be seen with 2MASS (Carpenter 2000).

There are many other embedded clusters in the solar neighborhood. Most of them look triggered because of their proximity to high pressure sources (see the table of sources and discussion in Elmegreen et al. 2000). Clusters whose formation is not so clear tend to be older, so their pressure sources could have decayed. The partially embedded cluster IC 5146 is an example (Lada, Alves, & Lada 1999). It has no obvious source of high pressure nearby, but it is at the tip of an elongated cloud that makes it look triggered anyway.

Supernovae can trigger star formation, but most catalogued supernova remnants are too young to have started this process yet. A recent example of supernova triggering seems to be G349.7+0.2, which has 3 IRAS sources along the perimeter of a supernova shell (Reynoso & Magnum 2001). Other shells have triggered star formation on their periphery (Xie & Goldsmith 1994; Yamaguchi et al. 2001), but these shells are probably older than single supernova remnants and result from a combination of supernova and stellar wind pressures in an aging OB association (McCray & Kafatos 1987).

Giant shells in other galaxies are often seen with triggered star formation along their peripheries (Brinks & Bajaja 1986; Puche et al. 1992; Wilcots & Miller 1998; Steward et al. 2000; Stewart & Walter 2000). IC 2574 (Walter & Brinks 1999; Steward & Walter 2000) has an example where HII regions on a shell contain clusters $`3`$ My old, and another cluster 11 My old is in the center.

What are the characteristics of sequentially triggered star formation? To be reasonably sure that such triggering happened, we need two distinct regions of star formation observable as either stars or IR clusters with a separation and age difference that has a ratio equal to a reasonable propagation speed. The age difference should also be several tenths of the ambient gas dynamical time, $`\left(G\rho _0\right)^{1/2}`$, for density $`\rho _0`$ near the younger cluster. Between the two clusters, there should be a region with a low density where the gas was cleared away by the pressure disturbance from the older cluster. The clusters should also be young enough that neither has had time to move very far from its point of origin.

Observations of star formation within the nearest several kiloparsecs suggest that most of it occurred in dense clusters, and that most of these clusters were triggered by previous generations of stars. Further from the Sun, such triggering will be harder to see unless there is an obvious shell. This is because most triggering inside OB associations has a short length scale, perhaps 1 to 10 pc, and external galaxies are too far away to resolve this scale. Also, shells tend to shear away quickly and high pressures last only a relatively short time, so it will be unusual to catch a triggering event in the act. Most clusters also disperse rather quickly. Only 10% of young local stars are in clusters, even though most stars probably formed this way, and this suggests that most newborn clusters lose their stars quickly. A triggering act has to be confirmed while the stars are still in their clusters so we can be sure where they formed.

## 3. Turbulence Triggering

Supersonic turbulence compresses gas in random places, making transient clouds that last for about an internal crossing time once they form – longer if we consider also their formation time, which is the flow time in the external medium (Elmegreen 1993). Numerical simulations show this process well (Vázquez-Semadeni, Passot, & Pouquet 1996; Ballesteros-Paredes, Vázquez-Semadeni, & Scalo 1999; Klessen, Heitsch, & Mac Low 2000; Padoan et al. 2001).

A characteristic of turbulence triggering is that clusters are born in hierarchical and fractal patterns on both galactic scales (Elmegreen & Elmegreen 2001) and local scales. T Tauri stars in the local field are hierarchically distributed (Gomez, et al. 1993), and the embedded stars in clusters can be hierarchical too (Elmegreen 2000; Testi et al. 2000). Hierarchical structure is probably the result of the scaling between velocity and separation for a turbulent fluid: large scales have large relative velocities, making large compressed sub-regions, and small scales have small relative velocities, making small compressed sub-regions.

Interstellar turbulence is pervasive, although not all regions are turbulent and not all structures are fractal. Non-fractal structures include expanding shells, two-arm density wave modes, relaxed clusters, cometary clouds and Bok globules. Fractal structures include diffuse clouds, flocculent spiral arms, young clusters where the stars have not moved much from their birth, and the interiors of many weakly self-gravitating clouds. When directed pressures shape a cloud, shell or spiral arm, the overall morphology is determined by those pressures, but when turbulence is free to define a structure independent of rigid boundaries, fractal patterns appear.

Turbulence can be generated by expansion or other directed pressures as the moving gas mixes with the environment and undergoes Rayleigh-Taylor and Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities. Self-gravity can make turbulence as gas collapses locally and mixes. It can also be generated by Parker (1965) instabilities (Asseo et al. 1978) and Balbus-Hawley (1991) instabilities (Sellwood & Balbus 1999) which involve magnetic mixing. Turbulence decays rapidly (Stone, Ostriker, & Gammie 1998; MacLow, et al. 1998), but in a self-gravitating medium, there is always a source for more turbulence as the region contracts.

Star formation in a turbulent medium should have several special characteristics. First, the star-forming clouds should be randomly placed in part of an overall fractal gas distribution. This fractal gas will have a scale-free power spectrum (Crovisier & Dickey 1983; Green 1993; Lazarian & Pogosyan 2000; Stützki et al. 1998; Stanimirovic et al. 1999; Westpfahl et al. 1999; Elmegreen, Kim, & Staveley-Smith 2001). The young stars that form in these clouds should have the same fractal pattern as the gas at the time of their birth. Their birth times could be random, although there could be some fractal substructure in their birth times too. The clouds and clumps in a fractal gas should also be clustered together. As a result, most stars should be born in clusters of other stars (Elmegreen et al. 2000). These clusters will then have a mass spectrum close to $`n(M)dMM^2dM`$ because hierarchical structure has equal total mass in equal intervals of log mass. Fractal structure that is clipped to give only fractal islands has the same mass spectrum for those islands (Elmegreen 2001). Fractal star fields should also be correlated with respect to age and distance. Larger regions will have longer durations of star formation with a duration-size relation similar to the crossing-time-size relation for interstellar turbulence (Efremov & Elmegreen 1998; Battinelli & Efremov 1999; Harris & Zaritsky 1999). Models of this duration-size relation are in Scalo & Chappell (1999) and Nomura & Kamaya (2001). Evidence for short star formation times in small regions is in Ballesteros-Paredes, Hartmann, & Vazquez-Semadeni (1999) and Elmegreen (2000).

The turbulence model of star formation is important for clusters because it offers the most natural explanation for the cluster mass spectrum (Elmegreen & Efremov 1997), which is observed to be close to $`M^2dM`$ for local clusters (Battinelli et al. 1994) and OB associations, as seen by the distribution of HII region luminosities (Kennicutt, Edgar, & Hodge 1989; Comeron & Torra 1996; Rozas, Beckman & Knapen 1996; Feinstein 1997; McKee & Williams 1997; Oey & Clarke 1998).

The $`M^2dM`$ power law also appears at the high mass end of the globular cluster luminosity function (Ashman, Conti, & Zepf 1995), and for super-star clusters in starburst regions (Whitmore & Schweizer 1995; Zhang & Fall 1999).

The turbulence model explains the correlation between the number of clusters and the mass of the largest cluster (Whitmore 2000) as a size of sample effect in a random cluster formation model. Similarly, it explains the correlation between the star formation rate and the relative fraction of star formation that occurs in the form of clusters (Larsen & Richtler 2000). These are both statistical properties for an ensemble where the clusters form in virialized clouds in a medium with a uniform average total pressure (total pressure considers the sum of the ram pressure from flows and the thermal pressure in the compressed regions). The derivation for the Larsen & Richtler correlation goes like this:

For a general interstellar disk, the total pressure scales with the product of the gas mass column density and the total mass column density of all the material, including stars, dark matter, and gas, that lies inside the gas layer (Elmegreen 1989b). For an interstellar medium that is close to the threshold for instability, the gas mass column density is roughly proportional to the total. Thus the pressure scales approximately as the square of the gas mass column density in a critical ISM:

$$P_{ISM}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}^2.$$
(1)
The star formation rate scales with this gas column density approximately as $`\mathrm{SFR}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}^{1.4}`$ (Kennicutt 1998), presumably as a result of the conversion of the available gas (one power of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) into stars on a dynamical time scale (the extra fractional power of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). These two equations give

$$P_{ISM}\mathrm{SFR}^{1.4}.$$
(2)
For clusters, the virial theorem, $`c^20.2GM/R`$, and the internal pressure, $`P_{int}0.1GM^2/R^4`$ give a relation between mass and pressure,

$$M6\times 10^3\mathrm{M}_{}\left(P_{int}/10^8\mathrm{K}\mathrm{cm}^3\right)^{3/2}\left(n/10^5\mathrm{cm}^3\right)^2.$$
(3)
The normalization for this relation comes from the properties of the molecular core near the Trapezium cluster in Orion (Lada, Evans & Falgarone 1997). From this we get $`MP_{int}^{3/2}`$ for internal pressure $`P_{int}`$, which is generally larger than the environmental pressure, $`P_{ISM}`$, but proportional to it on average; thus $`MP_{ISM}^{3/2}`$. This last step, setting $`P_{int}P_{ISM}`$, is more of an assumption than an observation, but it seems reasonable for an ensemble average. The above equations can now be combined to give $`M\mathrm{SFR}^2`$.

Now it is important to realize from the fractal model that this mass is the largest mass than can form, on average, in a virialized cloud at the ambient pressure. Smaller mass clusters form as part of the hierarchy of structures on smaller scales. Larger clusters cannot form systematically because they will be over-pressured. Of course, larger mass clusters can form in statistical fluctuations of the local pressure, but the present discussion concerns only the average properties of clusters. For this reason, we write explicitly $`M_{max}\mathrm{SFR}^2`$ to remind us that this is a maximum cluster mass.

The total star formation mass in the form of young dense clusters equals the integral of the cluster mass weighted by the cluster mass spectrum over the mass interval ranging from some smallest mass, $`M_{min}`$, up to the maximum cluster mass, $`M_{max}`$. For an $`n(M)dM=n_0M^2dM`$ mass spectrum, we first integrate from $`M_{max}`$ to infinity to give the normalization factor $`n_0`$, i.e. $`_{M_{max}}^{\mathrm{}}n_0M^2𝑑M=1`$, or $`n_0=M_{max}`$. Then $`n(M)dM=M_{max}M^2dM`$. With this normalization, the total mass is $`M_{tot}M_{max}\mathrm{ln}\left(M_{max}/M_{min}\right)`$, which depends only weakly on $`M_{min}`$. Considering only the first term, which is the most strongly varying, we get $`M_{tot}M_{max}\mathrm{SFR}^2`$. From this, the fraction of the star formation in the form of dense clusters, $`M_{tot}/\mathrm{SFR}`$, scales directly with the star formation rate:

$$M_{tot}/\mathrm{SFR}\mathrm{SFR}$$
(4)
This is essentially the relation found by Larsen & Richtler (2000). In addition, an intermediate step in this derivation, not shown here, gives $`M_{max}`$ the number of clusters, which is the correlation found by Whitmore (2000).

We see from this discussion how easily the turbulence model explains the mass function of clusters and the correlations between maximum cluster mass, star formation rate, pressure, and total number of clusters. This means that turbulence alone explains why starburst regions have more, bigger, and denser clusters. It may also explain how the high pressure environment in the early Universe (e.g., in the turbulent proto-halo) led to the formation of globular clusters. It does not explain the Gaussian distribution for globular cluster magnitudes, however, which may be a problem for the model if low mass cluster destruction is so sensitive to local environment that the theoretical peak of the evolved Gaussian cluster luminosity function is more variable with environment than the observed peak (e.g., Vesperini, this conference, but also see Fall, this conference).

## 4. Gravitational Instability Model

Gravitational instabilities may drive random structure in interstellar gas, as shown by spiral chaos models (Toomre & Kaljnas 1991; Huber & Pfenniger 1999; Semelin & Combes 2000) and in the simulations by Wada & Norman (1999, 2001) and Wada, Spaans, & Kim (2000). In these models, gravity makes scale-free structures because of non-linear interactions between the primary structures that form at the Jeans length. The Jeans length is about equal to the scale height, but neither is well defined in a turbulent medium.

Gravitational instabilities are easier to see when they occur in spiral arms and resonance rings. The identification of giant spiral arm cloud and star-forming complexes as the result of gravitational instabilities has been made in a series of papers, beginning with Elmegreen (1979) and including Viallefond, Goss & Allen (1982), Nakano et al. (1987), Grabelsky et al. (1987), Elmegreen & Elmegreen (1983, 1987), Lada et al. (1988), Ohta, et al. (1988), Boulanger & Viallefond (1992), Tilanus & Allen (1993), Rand (1993a,b), Garcia-Burillo, Guelin & Chernicharo (1993), and Kuno et al. (1995). The identification of giant star-forming regions in ILR rings as the result of gravitational instabilities was made by Elmegreen (1994), D. Elmegreen, et al. (1999) and Buta, Crocker, & Byrd (1999). Similar complexes in an outer resonance ring were found in NGC 1300 (Elmegreen et al. 1996). In the case of ILR rings, there are also super star clusters (Maoz et al. 1996), perhaps for the reasons given above: the total SFR is large so the clusters sample far out in their mass function.

Gravitational instabilities have also shown up in interacting systems. The merger galaxy NGC 6090 has most of its interstellar medium between the two nuclei and at very high column density, around $`10^{3.5}`$ M pc<sup>-2</sup> (Mazzarella & Boroson 1993; Bryant & Scoville 1999; Dinshaw et al. 1999). This gives the average interstellar pressure a value of $`10^8`$ K cm<sup>-3</sup>, which is four orders of magnitude larger than the local interstellar pressure. At this position, there is a chain of four, regularly-spaced, young massive star clusters along a spiral arm. Their morphology is like the familiar beads-on-a-string pattern in disk spiral arms (Kuno et al. 1995), but in this case in an extreme environment.

Other examples might be the unusual supermassive clusters in NGC 253 (Watson et al. 1996; Keto et al. 1999) and NGC 5253 (Turner, Beck & Ho (2000). They are by far the largest clusters in these galaxies. They are located near the galaxy centers and are not part of any obvious fractal pattern or sequential triggering event. They are also not part of a similar chain of clusters, so they do not look like a beading instability as do complexes in spiral arms or ILR rings. Nevertheless, they probably formed by gravitational instabilities in the inner disks of these galaxies.

## 5. Summary

Most stars form in clusters and most clusters in the solar neighborhood formed as a result of direct and sequential triggering stimulated by other clusters. When viewed from a distance, clusters can have a fractal and time-correlated pattern suggestive of turbulence. Presumably ISM turbulence sets up the fractal pattern independent of star formation, and then star formation inside this pattern operates locally by a variety of methods, preserving the overall pattern. Gravitational instabilities also operate in the turbulent medium, inside sequentially triggered clouds, and in larger-scale environments organized by systematic flows. The most obvious evidence for such organized patterns comes from spiral arms and resonance rings, where a confinement in two dimensions leads to the formation of regularly spaced ring hotspots and spiral arm beads on a string.

## References

Asseo, E., Cesarsky, C.J., Lachieze-Ray, M. & Pellat, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, L21

Ashman, K.M., Conti, A., & Zepf, S.E. 1995, AJ, 110, 1164

Balbus, S.A., & Hawley, J.F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214

Bally, J., Langer, W.D., Stark, A.A., & Wilson, R.W. 1987, ApJ, 312, L45

Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Hartmann, L., & Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 1999, ApJ, 527, 285

Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Vazquez-Semadeni, E., & Scalo 1999, ApJ, 515, 286

Battinelli P., Brandimarti A., & Capuzzo-Dolcetta R. 1994, A&AS, 104, 379

Battinelli, P., & Efremov, Y. N. 1999, A&A, 346, 778

Boulanger, F., & Viallefond, F. 1992, A&A, 266, 37

Brinks, E., & Bajaja, E. 1986, A&A, 169, 14

Bryant, P.M., & Scoville, N.Z. 1999, AJ, 117, 2632

Buta, R., Crocker, D.A., & Byrd, G.G. 1999, AJ, 118, 2071

Carpenter, J.M. 2000, AJ, 120, 3139

Comerón, F., & Torra, J. 1996, A&A, 314, 776

Crovisier, J., & Dickey, J.M. 1983, A&A, 122, 282

Dinshaw, N., Evans, A.S., Epps, H., Scoville, N.Z., Rieke, M. 1999, ApJ, 525, 702

Dutrey, A., Langer, W.D., Bally, J., Duvert, G., Castets, A. & Wilson, R.W. 1991, A&A, 247, L9

Efremov, Y. N., & Elmegreen, B. G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 588

Elmegreen, B.G. 1979, ApJ, 231, 372

Elmegreen, B.G. 1989a, ApJ, 340, 786

Elmegreen, B.G. 1989b, ApJ, 338, 178

Elmegreen, B.G. 1993, ApJ, 419, L29

Elmegreen, B.G. 1994, ApJ, 425, L73

Elmegreen, B.G. 1998, in Origins, ASP Conf. Series 148, ed. C.E. Woodward, M. Shull, & H.A. Thronson, p. 150

Elmegreen. B.G. 2000, ApJ, 530, 277

Elmegreen, B.G. 2001, ApJ, in preparation

Elmegreen, B.G., & Elmegreen, D.M. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 31

Elmegreen, B.G., & Elmegreen, D.M. 1987, ApJ, 320, 182

Elmegreen, B.G., & Efremov, Yu. N. 1997, ApJ, 480, 235

Elmegreen, B.G., Efremov, Y.N., Pudritz, R., & Zinnecker, H. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. G. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 179

Elmegreen, B.G., Kim, S., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2001, ApJ, 548, 749

Elmegreen, B.G., & Elmegreen, D.M. 2001, AJ, 121, 1507

Elmegreen, D.M., Chromey, F., Elmegreen, B.G., & Hasselbacher, D. 1996, ApJ, 469, 131

Elmegreen, D.M., Chromey, F.R., Sawyer, J.E., & Reinfeld, E.L. 1999, AJ, 118, 777

Evans, N.J., II, 1999, ARAA, 37, 311

Feinstein, C. 1997, ApJS, 112, 29

Garcia-Burillo, S., Guelin, M., & Chernicharo, J. 1993, A&A, 274, 123

de Geus, E.J. 1992, A&A, 262, 258

Gomez, M., Hartmann, L., Kenyon, S. J., & Hewett, R. 1993, AJ, 105, 1927

Grabelsky, D.A., Cohen, R.S., May, J., Bronfman, L., & Thaddeus, P. 1987, ApJ, 315, 122

Green, D.A. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 327

Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 1999, AJ, 117, 2831

Huber, D., & Pfenniger, D. 1999, in The Evolution of Galaxies on Cosmological Timescale, eds. J.E. Beckman & T.J. Mahoney, Astrophysics and Space Science, poster paper

Kennicutt, R.C., Jr. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

Kennicutt, R.C., Edgar, B.K., & Hodge, P.W. 1989, ApJ, 337, 761

Kerton, C.R., & Martin, P.G. 2000, ApJS, 126, 85

Keto, E., Hora, J.L., Fazio, G.G., Hoffmann, W., & Deutsch, L. 1999, ApJ, 518, 183

Klessen, R.S., Heitsch, F., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2000, 535, 887

Kuno, N., Nakai, N., Handa, T., & Sofue, Y. 1995, PASJ, 47, 745

Lada, C.J., Margulis, M., Sofue, Y., Nakai, N., & Handa, T. 1988, ApJ, 328, 143

Lada, C. J., Depoy, D. L., Merrill, K. M., & Gatley, I. 1991, ApJ, 374, 533

Lada, C.J., Alves, J., & Lada, E.A. 1996, AJ, 111, 1964

Lada, C.J., Alves, J., & Lada, E.A. 1999, ApJ, 512, 250

Lada, E.A., & Lada, C.J. 1995, AJ, 109, 1682

Lada, E.A., Evans, N.J., II., & Falgarone, E. 1997, ApJ, 488, 286

Larsen, S.S., & Richtler, T. 2000, A&A, 354, 836

Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2000, ApJ, 537, 720

Lefloch, B., & Cernicharo, J. 2000, ApJ, 545, 340

MacLow, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., Burkert, A., & Smith, M. D. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 2754

Maoz, D., Barth, A.J., Sternberg, A., Filippenko, A.V., Ho, L.C., Macchetto, F.D., Rix, H.W., & Schneider, D.P. 1996, AJ, 111, 2248

Mazzarella, J.M., & Boroson, T.A. 1993, ApJS, 85, 27

McCray, R., & Kafatos, M. 1987, ApJ, 317, 190

McKee, C.F., & Williams, J.P. 1997, 476, 144

Nakano, M., Ichikawa, T., Tanaka, Y.K., Nakai, N., & Sofue, Y. 1987, PASJ, 39, 57

Nomura, H., & Kamaya, H. 2001, AJ, 121, 1024

Oey, M. S., & Clarke, C. J. 1998, AJ, 115, 1543

Ohta, K., Sasaki, M., & Saito, M. 1988, PASJ, 40, 653

Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Goodman, A.A., & Nordlund, A. 2001, ApJ, 553, 227

Palla, F., & Stahler, S.W. 1999, ApJ, 525, 772

Palla, F., & Stahler, S.W. 2000, ApJ, 540, 255

Parker, E.N. 1966, ApJ, 145, 811

Phelps, R.L., & Lada, E.A. 1997, ApJ, 477, 176

Preibisch, T., & Zinnecker, H. 1999, AJ, 117, 2381

Puche, D., Westpfahl, D., Brinks, E., & Roy, J-R. 1992, AJ, 103, 1841

Rand, R.J. 1993a, ApJ, 404, 593

Rand, R.J. 1993b, ApJ, 410, 68

Reipurth, B., Rodriguez, L.F., & Chini, R. 1999, AJ, 118, 983

Reynoso, E.M., & Mangum, J.G. 2001, AJ, 121, 347

Rozas, M., Beckman, J.E., & Knapen, J. H. 1996, 307, 735

Sancisi, R., Goss, W. M., Anderson, C., Johansson, L. E. B., & Winnberg, A. 1974, A&A, 35, 445

Sargent, A.I. 1979, ApJ, 233, 163

Scalo, J., & Chappell, D. 1999, ApJ, 510, 258

Sellwood, J.A., & Balbus, S.A. 1999, ApJ, 511, 660

Semelin, B., & Combes, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 1096

Stanimirovic, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dickey, J.M., Sault, R.J., & Snowden, S.L. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 417

Stewart, S.G., Fanelli, M.N., Byrd, G.G., Hill, J.K., Westpfahl, D.J., Cheng, K.-P., O’Connell, R.W., Roberts, M.S., Neff, S.G., Smith, A.M., & Stecher, T.P. 2000, ApJ, 529. 201

Stewart, S.G., & Walter, F. 2000, AJ, 120, 1794

Stone, J.M., Ostriker, E.C., & Gammie, C.F. 1998, ApJ, 508, 99

Stützki, J., Bensch, F., Heithausen, A., Ossenkopf, V., & Zielinsky, M. 1998, A&A, 336, 697

Testi, L., Sargent, A.I., Olmi, L., & Onello, J.S. 2000, ApJ, 540, L53

Tilanus, R.P.J., & Allen, R.J., 1993, A&A, 274, 70

Toomre, A., & Kalnajs, A.J. 1991, in Dynamics of Disk Galaxies, ed. B. Sundelius, University of Chalmers, p. 341

Turner, J.L., Beck, S.C., & Ho, P.T.P. 2000, ApJ, 532, L109

Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Passot, T., & Pouquet, A. 1996, ApJ, 473, 881

Viallefond, F., Goss, W.M., & Allen, R.J. 1982, A&A, 115, 373

Wada, K., & Norman, C. A. 1999, ApJ, 516, L13

Wada, K., & Norman, C. A. 2001, ApJ, 547, 172

Wada, K., Spaans, M., & Kim, S. 2000, ApJ, 540, 797

Walter, F., & Brinks, E. 1999, AJ, 118, 273

Watson et al. 1996 AJ 112, 534

Westpfahl, D.J., Coleman, P.H., Alexander, J., & Tongue, T. 1999, AJ, 117, 868

Whitmore, B.C. 2000, in STScI Symposium Series 14, ed. M. Livio, astroph/0012546

Whitmore, B.C., & Schweizer, F. 1995, AJ, 109, 960

Wilcots, E.M, & Miller , B.W. 1998, AJ, 116, 2363

Xie, T., & Goldsmith, P.F. 1994, ApJ, 430, 252

Yamaguchi, R., Mizuno, N., Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., & Fukui, Y. 2001, ApJL, 553, 185

Zhang, Q., & Fall, S.M. 1999, ApJ, 527, L81


text:
# Higgs Bosons at Muon Colliders1footnote 11footnote 1Submitted to the Proceedings of “The Future of Particle Physics”, Snowmass 2001, P1 group. An expanded version of the Physics of Higgs Factories has been submitted to the E1 Groupe1group .

## I Introduction

Interest has grown rapidly in muon colliders in the last several years as it became clear that the technological challenges might not be insurmountableAnkenbrandt:1999as . Muon colliders are of interest to particle physics exploration for a number of reasons: a) the absence of significant bremsstrahlung allows one to contemplate circular accelerators of much higher energy than is possible with $`e^+e^{}`$ machines, b) the coupling of Higgs bosons is proportional to particle mass (see Fig. (1)), and hence there is the possibility that Higgs bosons can be produced in reasonable numbers in the $`s`$-channelBarger:1997jm ; Barger:1995hr , c) there are regions of parameter space for which it will be impossible for either the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) or a Linear Collider (LC) to discover the heavier Higgs bosons of supersymmetry or, in the case of a general two-Higgs-doublet or more extended model, Higgs bosons of any mass with small or zero $`VV`$ coupling, d) the neutrinos from the decays of muons can be used as a source for a neutrino factoryAyres:1999ug ; Holtkamp:2000xn .

The large mass of the muon in comparison to that of the electron results in a number of advantageous features of a muon collider. The beam energy spreads of a muon collider can be very small, making them useful for studying narrow resonances like the SM Higgs boson. In addition, there is little bremsstrahlung, and the beam energy can be tuned to one part in a million through in situ spin-rotation measurementsRaja:1998ip .

High rates of Higgs production at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders rely on substantial $`VV`$ Higgs coupling for the Higgs-strahlung process $`Z+`$Higgs or for the $`WW`$ fusion process $`WW`$Higgs ($`WW`$ fusion). In contrast, a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider can provide a factory for producing a Higgs boson with little or no $`VV`$ coupling so long as it has SM-like (or enhanced) $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ couplings. Important examples of this last form of Higgs boson are the heavy neutral Higgs bosons $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

If the a light ($`130`$ GeV) Higgs boson exists, then both $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders will be valuable; the Higgs boson would have been discovered at a previous higher energy collider (possibly a muon collider running at high energy), and then the Higgs factory would be built with a center-of-mass energy precisely tuned to the Higgs boson mass. The most likely scenario is that the Higgs boson is discovered at the LHC via gluon fusion ($`ggH`$) or perhaps earlier at the Tevatron via associated production ($`q\overline{q}WH,t\overline{t}H`$), and its mass is determined to an accuracy of about 100 MeV. If a linear collider has also observed the Higgs via the Higgs-strahlung process ($`e^+e^{}ZH`$), one might know the Higgs boson mass to better than 50 MeV with an integrated luminosity of $`500`$ fb-1. The muon collider would be optimized to run at $`\sqrt{s}m_H`$, and this center-of-mass energy would be varied over a narrow range so as to scan over the Higgs resonance.

## II SM-Like Higgs Bosons

The production of a Higgs boson (generically denoted $`h`$) in the $`s`$-channel with interesting rates is a unique feature of a muon collider Barger:1997jm ; Barger:1995hr . The resonance cross section is

$$\sigma _h(\sqrt{s})=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(h\mu \overline{\mu })\mathrm{\Gamma }(hX)}{\left(sm_h^2\right)^2+m_h^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^h\right)^2}.$$
(1)
In practice, however, there is a Gaussian spread ($`\sigma _\sqrt{s}^{}`$) to the center-of-mass energy and one must compute the effective $`s`$-channel Higgs cross section after convolution assuming some given central value of $`\sqrt{s}`$:

$`\overline{\sigma }_h(\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\sqrt{s}^{}}}{\displaystyle \sigma _h(\sqrt{\widehat{s}})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{s}\right)^2}{2\sigma _\sqrt{s}^2}\right]𝑑\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}\stackrel{\sqrt{s}=m_h}{}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{m_h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{BF}(h\mu \overline{\mu })\mathrm{BF}(hX)}{\left[1+\frac{8}{\pi }\left(\frac{\sigma _\sqrt{s}^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}}.`$ (2)
It is convenient to express $`\sigma _\sqrt{s}^{}`$ in terms of the root-mean-square (rms) Gaussian spread of the energy of an individual beam, $`R`$:

$$\sigma _\sqrt{s}^{}=(2\mathrm{MeV})\left(\frac{R}{0.003\%}\right)\left(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right).$$
(3)
It is clear from Eq. (1) that a resolution $`\sigma _\sqrt{s}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is needed to be sensitive to the Higgs width. Furthermore, Eq. (2) indicates that $`\mathrm{BF}(h\mu \overline{\mu })`$ must not be extremely suppressed for there to be large event rates for Higgs production. The width of a light SM-like Higgs is very small (e.g. a few MeV for $`m_{h_{SM}}110\mathrm{GeV}`$), implying the need for $`R`$ values as small as $`0.003\%`$ for studying a light SM-like $`h`$. In addition to the very small beam energy spread, one must also be able to determine very accurately the beam energy to perform a scan over such a narrow resonance. This can be accomplished utilizing the spin precession of the muon noted above. A sample scan is illustrated in Fig. 2 for a $`m_{h_{SM}}=110\mathrm{GeV}`$ SM Higgs boson.

The SM Higgs cross sections and backgrounds as well as the integrated luminosity required for a $`5\sigma `$ signal are shown in Fig. 3 for $`R=0.003\%`$ and $`m_{h_{SM}}`$ values such that the dominant decay mode is $`b\overline{b}`$. The significance of the signal is impacted by two physical processes: 1) For a Higgs mass near the $`Z`$-pole there is a significant background from $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}Zb\overline{b}`$. However the most recent experimental results from LEP have pushed the SM Higgs mass bound well above $`91`$ GeV. 2) For a Higgs mass $`130`$ GeV, the Higgs width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ becomes much larger as the $`WW^{}`$ decay channel opens up.

The Higgs bosons in supersymmetric models are in general detectable at muon colliders. If the masses of the supersymmetric particles are large, the Higgs sector typically exhibits decoupling behavior in which the lightest supersymmetric Higgs boson $`h^0`$ will be very similar to the $`h_{SM}`$ when the other Higgs bosons are heavy, and the $`h^0`$ rates will be very similar to $`h_{SM}`$ rates. On the other hand, the heavier Higgs bosons in a typical supersymmetric model decouple from pairs of gauge bosons $`VV`$ at large mass and remain reasonably narrow ($`<1`$ GeV unless the $`t\overline{t}`$ decay mode is open). As a result, their $`s`$-channel production rates remain large, and a muon collider can avoid the production channels that depend on a sizable coupling to gauge bosons.

What can a muon collider add to the LHC and LC? The LHC and quite likely a linear collider will be available already, and the Higgs boson will be detected and some of its properties determined before a muon collider will become operational. Current expectations for the luminosity at an LC are 500 fb-1 over 1-2 years. This yields a SM Higgs boson production rate of greater than $`10^4`$ per year in the process $`e^+e^{}Zh`$. Therefore the latest estimates of the luminosity at a linear collider yield numbers of Higgs bosons that are comparable to what will be available at a muon collider/Higgs factory with its more modest integrated luminosity (expected with the current machine parameters) of the order of one inverse femtobarn. A linear collider with such high luminosity can certainly perform quite accurate measurements of certain Higgs parameters such as the Higgs mass, couplings to gauge bosons, couplings to heavy quarks, etc.Battaglia:2000jb .

The $`s`$-channel production process allows one to determine the mass, total width, and the cross sections $`\overline{\sigma }_h(\mu ^+\mu ^{}hX)`$ for several final states $`X`$ to very high precision. The Higgs mass, total width and the cross sections can be used to constrain the parameters of the Higgs sector. For example, in the MSSM their precise values will constrain the Higgs sector parameters $`m_{A^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values (vevs) of the two Higgs doublets of the MSSM). The main question is whether these constraints will be a valuable addition to LHC and LC constraints.

Precise measurements of the couplings of the Higgs boson to the Standard Model particles are important tests of the mass generation mechanism. In the Standard Model with one Higgs doublet, this coupling is proportional to the particle mass. In the more general case there can be mixing angles present in the couplings. Precision measurements of the couplings can distinguish the Standard Model Higgs boson from the SM-like Higgs boson typically present in a more general model. If deviations are found, their magnitude can be extremely crucial for constraining the parameters of the more general Higgs sector. In particular, it might be possible to estimate the masses of the other Higgs bosons of the extended Higgs sector, thereby allowing a more focused search for them.

The precision possible at a muon collider for measuring $`m_h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of a SM-like $`h`$ with $`m_h110\mathrm{GeV}`$ are $`13\times 10^6`$ and $`0.2`$ respectively. To achieve these accuracies, one first determines the Higgs mass to about 1 MeV by the preliminary scan illustrated in Fig. 2. Then, a dedicated three-point fine scanBarger:1997jm  near the resonance peak using $`L0.2\mathrm{fb}^1`$ of integrated luminosity (corresponding to a few years of operation) would be performed. For a SM Higgs boson with a mass sufficiently below the $`WW^{}`$ threshold, the Higgs total width is very small (of order several MeV), and the only process where it can be measured directly is in the $`s`$-channel at a muon collider. An accurate measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ would be a very valuable input for precision tests of the Higgs sector. In particular, since all the couplings of the Standard Model $`h_{SM}`$ are known, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h_{SM}}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is precisely predicted. Therefore, the precise determination of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ obtained by this scan would be an important test of the Standard Model, and any deviation would be evidence for a nonstandard Higgs sector (or other new physics).

Other interesting measurements of Higgs boson properties can be performed at a muon collider in the case where at least a hundred inverse femtobarns of luminosity is available. Then the mass, width and spin of a SM-like Higgs boson can also be determined by operating either a muon collider or a linear collider at the $`Zh`$ production threshold where the rate is sensitive to the Higgs massBarger:1997pv . With 100 fb-1 of integrated luminosity, an error of less than $`100`$ MeV can be achievedBarger:1997pv  for $`m_h<150`$ GeV. The shape of the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}Zh`$ threshold cross section can also be used to determine the spin and to check the CP nature of the HiggsMiller:2001bi .

## III Heavy Higgs Bosons

In supersymmetric models there are multiple physical Higgs bosons. Often the Higgs spectrum includes a SM-like Higgs boson with mass close to the $`Z`$ boson mass and some heavier Higgs bosons whose couplings are very much different than a SM particle of the same mass. For example, in the MSSM there is a light, neutral $`h^0`$ and two heavier neutral Higgs bosons, $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$. As one adjusts the parameters of the theory to make the $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ heavier, the light Higgs boson $`h^0`$ becomes more and more like the SM Higgs boson. It may very well be the case that after the initial discovery of this SM-like Higgs boson the primary question will involve detecting deviations from the SM Higgs sector by a) measuring very precisely the SM-like Higgs boson properties, and/or b) directly discovering additional Higgs bosons.

In the context of the MSSM, It is highly likely that the process $`e^+e^{}ZH`$ used to find and study the light Higgs state at a first generation LC will not be suitable for the heavier Higgs bosons, because in the decoupling limit the coupling of the Higgs to gauge bosons is greatly suppressed (this is a corollary to the statement that the light Higgs boson in Standard Model-like). There is a $`250500\mathrm{GeV}`$ range of heavy Higgs boson masses for which discovery is not possible via $`H^0A^0`$ pair production at a $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ LC. Further, the $`A^0`$ and $`H^0`$ cannot be detected in this mass range at either the LHC or LC for a wedge of moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. (For large enough values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the heavy Higgs bosons are expected to be observable in $`b\overline{b}A^0,b\overline{b}H^0`$ production at the LHC via their $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decays and also at the LC.) A linear collider operating in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode can produce Higgs bosons in the $`s`$-channel, and there have been a number of studies of such processesJikia:1993di ; Berger:1993tr ; Dicus:1994ux ; Gounaris:2000un ; Muhlleitner:2001kw ; Asner:2001ia ; Berger:1992nr . This requires that such an option exists, and the energy of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ system is not as sharply peaked at the center-of-mass energy as it is for the muon collider.

A muon collider can fill some, perhaps all of this moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ wedge. If $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large, the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^0`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}A^0`$ couplings (proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ times a SM-like value) are enhanced, thereby leading to enhanced production rates in $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collisions. These bosons can be discovered via the radiative return mechanismBarger:1997jm , and once a peak is found the machine energy can be set to $`m_{A^0}`$ or $`m_{H^0}`$ and the muon collider becomes a Higgs factory for the heavier Higgs bosons. The resolution requirements for studying the heavy Higgs bosons in the $`s`$-channel are not as stringent as those for the light Higgs boson because the heavier Higgs boson widths are generally much larger. Since $`R=0.1\%`$ is sufficient, much higher luminosity ($`L210\mathrm{fb}^1/\mathrm{yr}`$) would be possible as compared to that for $`R=0.01\%0.003\%`$ as required for studying the $`h^0`$.

In the MSSM, the heavy Higgs bosons are largely degenerate, especially in the decoupling limit where they are heavy. In that case, a muon collider with sufficient energy resolution might be the only possible means for separating out these states. Examples showing the $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ resonances for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`10`$ are shown in Fig. 4. For the larger value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the resonances are clearly overlapping. For the better energy resolution of $`R=0.01\%`$, the two distinct resonance peaks are still visible, but they are smeared out and merge into one broad peak for $`R=0.06\%`$.

Muon colliders excel at making precise measurements of Higgs boson masses since they can exploit the $`s`$-channel production process. This is reminiscent of the very accurate determination of the $`Z`$ boson mass to just 2.2 MeV from the LEP measurementsGroom:2000in . Precise measurements of supersymmetric Higgs boson masses could provide a powerful window on radiative correctionsBerger:2001et . Supersymmetry together with gauge invariance in the MSSM implies the mass-squared sum rule

$`m_{h^0}^2+m_{H^0}^2=m_{A^0}^2+m_Z^2+\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a calculable radiative correction (the tree-level sum rule results from setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$). This formula involves observables (masses) that can be precisely measured in the $`s`$-channel processes. Solving for the mass difference

$`m_{A^0}m_{H^0}={\displaystyle \frac{m_{h^0}^2m_Z^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{m_{A^0}+m_{H^0}}},`$ (5)
and one obtains a form that indicates in the decoupling limit, $`m_{A^0}\mathrm{}`$, the mass difference between the heavy Higgs bosons becomes small. As discussed in the previous section, the light Higgs mass $`m_{h^0}`$ can be measured to less than an MeV in the $`s`$-channel. The masses of and the mass difference between the heavy Higgs states $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ can also be measured precisely by $`s`$-channel production. The ultimate precision that can be obtained on the masses of the $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ depends strongly on the masses themselves and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. But a reasonable expectation is that a scan through the resonances should be able to determine the masses and the mass-difference to some tens of MeV with just $`0.1`$ fb-1 of integrated luminosityBerger:2001et . Altogether these mass measurements yield a value for the radiative correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to a precision of order $`10`$ GeV2. Since the typical size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is of order $`10^4`$ GeV2, this constitutes a measurement of roughly one part in $`10^3`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is calculable in terms of the self-energy diagrams of the Higgs bosonsBerger:1990hg , and a comparison between the measured value and the theoretical prediction yields a test of radiative corrections in the MSSM. Further progress in the theoretical calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would be needed to fully exploit the expected precision of the experimental measurements.

## IV Concluding Remarks

Recent experimental results hint that a muon collider may play a crucial role in studying the next generation of physics signals. There is the evidence from LEPBarate:2000ts ; Abreu:2000fw ; Acciarri:2000ke ; Abbiendi:2000ac ; Okpara:2001jf  for a Higgs boson near $`m_H115`$ GeV. This $`2\sigma `$ signal is not definitive, but it has been taken very seriously since it is consistent with the current precision electroweak data and fits well with a supersymmetric interpretation. A Higgs boson with such a mass is in the optimal range for study at a Higgs factory. Such a Higgs boson sits comfortably above the $`Z`$-pole where there is a large background from $`Z`$ decay to $`b\overline{b}`$, and a $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ mass is sufficiently below the $`WW^{}`$ threshold that the decay width remains small and the ability of the muon collider to achieve a very narrow beam energy spread can be exploited.

In the MSSM such a Higgs boson mass of $`115`$ GeV is near the theoretical upper limit of $`m_{H^0}<130`$ GeV, and would indicate a value of the supersymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ substantially above 1 (assuming stop masses $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$). This is consistent with recent evidence for non-SM contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muonBrown:2001mg  which also can be explained in the MSSM with a moderately large value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. If these early indications prevail, and we are left with a supersymmetric Higgs sector with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, then it is likely that the heavy Higgs $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ will not be observable at the LHC or a LC. The detection of these Higgs bosons could be accomplished in the $`s`$-channel at a muon collider, and some precision tests involving the Higgs boson masses can be performed to check radiative corrections in the Higgs sector. More generally, the muon collider has the potential to find and study Higgs bosons that exist in more general models than the MSSM with extended Higgs sectors. In this more general context, the muon collider offers the possibility of studying the CP nature of the Higgs bosons that are found.

Finally the muon collider program encompasses much more than physics of Higgs factories described here. Interesting physics can be envisioned at all stages of the development of muon colliders: from neutrino factories to Higgs factories to even higher energies.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40661.