text:
# An Hi Rogues Gallery

## 1. Introduction

Arp’s “Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies” (Arp 1966) appeared forty years after the discovery that galaxies are independent stellar systems. It was motivated by some of the questions which form central themes of this conference: How are elliptical galaxies related to spirals? How are galaxies formed, and how do they evolve? These questions are just as compelling today as they were in 1966. It is certainly true that optical compilations of the bizarre objects collected by Arp and others (notably, Vorontsov-Vel’yaminov 1959, 1977; Arp & Madore 1987; Malin & Carter 1983) and the detailed studies that they motivated have brought us an appreciation that peculiar galaxies have an importance far in excess of their statistical occurrence in galaxy catalogs, where they comprise anywhere from 3–9% of all objects (Arp & Madore 1975; Struck 1999). Still, thirty-five years later these questions remain largely unanswered.

By the time atlases of peculiar galaxies appeared, there were several catalogs devoted to demonstrating the various forms of galaxy morphology. Most prominent among these is the Hubble Atlas. These catalogs are arranged in sequences based on the symmetry of the optical morphologies, and focus on single galaxies in isolation, with asymmetric forms relegated to catch-all categories and illustrated with but a few token examples. The compendiums of peculiar galaxies, on the other hand, highlight those forms which deviate from symmetry, with the thinking that such objects are transitional forms illustrating the most spectacular phases of galactic evolution, and perhaps formation.

Optical morphology alone provides an interesting yet incomplete view of galaxies. This is particularly true when considering peculiar systems. The starlight in galaxies rarely extends beyond a few optical scale-lengths, well within the dark matter halos that are widely believed to surround galaxies. Any tracer that extends to larger radii will probe the influence of a larger fraction of the mass of galaxies and, because the dynamical time scales with radius, will sample galactic influences further in the past. The 21 cm line of neutral hydrogen forms just such a tracer. Since the early days of radio astronomy, it has been known that the neutral gas often extends much further than the optical light (Roberts & Rots 1973). Additionally, hydrogen is the raw material from which stars and therefore galaxies are ultimately formed, so if large reservoirs of it exist at the present time, we might hope to find signatures of on-going formation processes in the neutral gas. No picture of galaxy formation and evolution is complete without knowledge of how the gas is distributed at large radii.

It is somewhat surprising, then, that thirty-five years after the optical compilation of Arp, no such compilation of Hi maps exist for peculiar galaxies. This is not for lack of such observations. Hi mapping requires an extensive investment in telescope time and post-observation reduction, limiting most studies to a few to a dozen objects in any give observational program. Nonetheless, an impressive amount of data on Hi in weird galaxies and weird Hi in otherwise normal galaxies has been amassed over the years. By our count, more than 400 peculiar systems have been mapped in Hi. This may be far below the number of objects typically assembled in optical catalogs, but it is enough to warrant an attempt to assemble and arrange them in some organized form.

This Gallery is intended to do just that, and we have taken the occasion of this meeting, celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the VLA, to make a first attempt at its compilation. We concentrate on Hi maps of peculiar galaxies or peculiar Hi in otherwise normal galaxies, rather than attempting to include all Hubble Types. We have further limited ourselves to very disturbed systems, by and large including only a few (or no) examples of systems with less extreme peculiarities. There are already relatively large compilations of the Hi morphology of “normal” Hubble types, many of which exhibit both minor and major peculiarities, in (motsly Dutch) theses or journal supplements (e.g. Wevers, van der Kruit & Allen 1986; Bosma 1978; Warmels 1988; Cayatte et al. 1990; van Driel & van Woerden 1991; Oosterloo 1988; Broeils 1992; Swaters 1999; Verheijen & Sancisi 2001), and the growing database of the Westerbork Hi Survey of Irregular and Spiral Galaxies (WHISP) will eventually contain more than 400 late-type galaxies (van der Hulst, van Albada & Sancisi, these proceedings, p. 451). On the other hand, no large compilation of Hi in peculiars exits anywhere. This “Rogues Gallery” is our attempt to remedy this situation.

This is a very subjective compilation, assembled because one of us noticed the Hi map of a given object somewhere and considered it interesting, or had marked the galaxy as an optically interesting object and subsequently searched the literature or telescope archives for existing Hi observations. This assemblage is definitely not complete, and may not even be representative of all the forms of peculiar Hi morphologies — for that we would need an optically blind Hi survey. But one has to start somewhere, and this is where we have decided to start.

Following the practice of Hubble, Sandage, Arp, and Madore, we have divided the Gallery into several morphological classes. These are described in detail in §3. Within each class we have attempted to arrange objects in a suggestive morphological sequence, where the principles behind those sequences are described in §3.1. The general theme is the connection of similar forms, related from a dyamical (as with the class of interacting galaxies) or a morphological viewpoint (as with the class of galaxies with warps and/or asymmetries). Sometimes there is no clear transition between objects, and the category is just a compilation of systems that fall within the broadly defined class (as with the class of galaxies with extended Hi envelopes).

The Gallery is laid out as follows. We describe the subjective gathering of the images and the proper way to reference them in §2. In §3 we define the different classes used and explain how objects are ordered in the Gallery. The layout of the images is described in §4, while §5 describes the tables and their entries. The acknowledgements appear in §6, followed by the tables, and finally the Gallery itself. At the end of the Gallery we have collected abstracts for authors who have allowed us to reproduce images prior to their publication in the literature.

## 2. Sources of Images and References

A list of candidate objects for the Gallery has been continuously assembled from the literature and personal communications by JEH. Prior to this meeting, we also searched the VLA archive and the compilation of Martin (1998) for Hi mapping observations of galaxies noted by us to be optically peculiar in some manner. As such, this is an entirely subjective assemblage and can in no way be considered complete. We do hope that it is representative (although it may well not be).

Using this list as a guide, we tried to contact the observers who made the observations in the early part of 2000 to see if they would consider donating FITS images or postscript files of the resulting Hi maps for inclusion in the Gallery. We made another attempt to increase the number of objects in the early part of 2001. The present collection includes the results (please see §6 for acknowledgments). It amounts to 181 systems (including over 400 individually cataloged galaxies) out of our original list of $`400`$; there is thus much room for improvement. Additionally, there are likely a large number of objects, either published or unpublished, that we have missed entirely. We plan on actively maintaining this Gallery on the NRAO webpage (currently stored at http://www.nrao.edu/astrores/HIrogues/), and encourage observers who notice any omissions (or wish themselves to contribute an image) to contact us.

The Hi maps in this compilation are mainly from two major centimeter wavelength interferometers, the Very Large Array (VLA) and the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT). A few images were taken from observations with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA), but there are undounbtedly dozens of systems observed with that telescope which are not included here. Our hope is that we can remedy this in the near future, or perhaps that there will be a Northern and Southern Gallery maintained at NRAO and ATNF (a list of all galaxies observed with the ATCA is presently maintained at http://wwwatnf.atnf.csiro.au/people/bkoribal/atca\_obs.html). Similarly, although no mapping observations from the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) are included so far, that instrument is likely to become another major source of images in the future. It is notable that we have included only four mapping observations made with single dish telescopes, primarily because such maps are often unavailable in machine readable form. We can expect very interesting results on the large scale gaseous distribution of local galaxies from single dish maps from the HIPASS survey with Parkes telescope (see Koribalski, these proceedings, p. 439) and the Green Bank Telescope in the near future.

Many of the images presented in this Gallery have appeared in the literature. However, we are particularly and deeply grateful for those observers who have made their data available prior to publication. To ensure that these observers receive proper credit for this work, we have collected short abstracts under their names at the end of the Gallery, which include brief descriptions of these observations. If readers wish to reference these images, they should cite the abstracts, which are also referenced in the figure captions.

## 3. Rogues Gallery Classifications

In this first attempt at constructing an atlas of this sort, we have arranged the systems following the lead of Arp (1966). In particular, we define several broad morphological classes, but make no clear breaks between the classes, and the objects are often arranged so that the last objects of one class are similar to the first objects of the following one. Overall, the major motivation for placing an object on a specific page is to have it appear between systems that it most resembles.

These classes are defined morphologically, and within each category, objects are presented in a suggestive sequence. The order within a class is sometimes motivated by dynamical considerations, e.g., the arrangement of interacting galaxies in a suggested evolutionary sequence. These motivations and guiding principles are explained in the following sub-section, which also gives detailed motivations for placing some specific objects in one sequence rather than another.

Table 1 shows the arrangement of the Gallery, along with the criteria for ordering of objects within classes, and Table 2 lists the individual galaxies in the order in which they appear. As mentioned above the last object of one class is often similar to the first object of the next one. The classification of galaxies is a very subjective task, and many systems could easily fit into several categories. This is a work in progress and we welcome your comments.

### 3.1. Detailed Notes on Classifications and Ordering

The first class of objects in the Gallery is Galaxies with Extended Hi Envelopes, where the Hi extent is compared to the underlying optical light rather than to a fixed physical scale. The rest of the Gallery is dominated by interacting systems, many of which also have very extended Hi distributions. In this first class, we include objects which do not apparently owe their extended Hi to an interaction111This is a somewhat circular argument, since the prime evidence for an interaction is often the extent of the gas distribution, and there are papers in the literature for nearly all of the objects in this class claiming an interacting or merging origin based on this fact.. By this we mean that there is not an obvious partner with which the system is interacting, nor are there tell-tale signs of a prior minor or major merger event (see below), such as stellar shells and loops or multiple nuclei.

This classification includes many Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs), although BCDs also appear elsewhere in the Gallery. For example, UGC 00521 appears with warps, and there are several BCDs filed under Miscellaneous, which may not have been mapped with enough sensitivity to determine whether or not they have extended gas envelopes. BCDs are some of the most unevolved systems in the nearby universe, in terms of their stellar content and metallicity, and as such this Extended Hi class may include examples of galaxies actually forming out of the gaseous reservoirs in which they are embedded. For this reason, we have arranged galaxies within this class based on the regularity of their Hi morphology: galaxies with very irregular outer Hi are at the beginning, and galaxies with disk-like Hi distributions are at the end.

The next class is Galaxies with Hi Extensions. The first subclass is Galaxies with Two-Sided Warps. This is the perhaps the most under-represented class included in the Gallery, as warps are rather common (Bosma 1991). Here we have simply collected some representative examples. This includes the very peculiar system NGC 3718 (Fig. 13). We have placed it here because, like the two-sided warps, it has a 180 sense of symmetry, and we could not think of a more suitable place for it.

The two-sided warps are followed by Galaxies with One-Sided Hi Extensions. Within this subclass are galaxies whose Hi morphology is believed to be due to Ram Pressure Stripping (Figs. 21 — 26). The next system, the BCD galaxy NGC 4861 (Fig. 27), has both an extended Hi envelope and an Hi cloud with no optical counterpart, making it the perfect connector to the next subclass, Galaxies with Detached Hi Clouds222We note that many of the galaxies in other parts of the Gallery have Hi clouds with no identified optical counterparts, but are classified according to their most dominant Hi characteristics.. This is another group of galaxies which is poorly represented in the Gallery, and many more examples appear in the literature. The qualifier “no optical counterpart” obviously depends on the quality of the existing optical data, and to hedge our bets, we have placed this classification between “Hi extensions” and the next class of systems, the Minor Mergers. This way, if an optical counterpart to the Hi cloud is subsequently identified, the Gallery needs not be re-ordered. Similarly, the first member of the Minor Mergers, M 108 (Fig. 30), has an Hi extension toward an optical companion, but the optical companion does not have a known redshift. If it is subsequently shown to be a background object, then this system naturally falls into the prior subclass.

As just mentioned, the next class of systems is the Minor Mergers. These are two (or more) galaxies which are physically close to each other and show signs of interacting, and in which one of the galaxies is much larger or much brighter than the other(s). While we have by no means quantified the relative size or luminosity ratio, we estimate that the companion is of order 1/4 or less the size or luminosity of the primary. These systems are arranged in order of decreasing separation between the component galaxies. With the exception of M 108, all the pairs of Minor Mergers have known redshifts which imply a physical associaton.

Within the class of Minor Mergers, we include several subclasses. The first is M 51 Types: large grand-design spirals with small companions at the end of one of the spiral arms. The next subclass is 3-body Encounters, of which M 81 (Fig. 53) is the prototype. These are different from the class of Triples later in the Gallery, as one of the participants appears much larger or brighter than the others. The Mrk 348 system (Fig. 52) is a member of both of these subclasses: it has a small companion at the end of a spiral arm, and an Hi distribution very similar to M 51 (although on a much larger physical scale); but there is also a large neighbor (NGC 266) to the northwest, which may have played some role in shaping the outer Hi morphology.

After the 3-body encounters comes NGC 1097 (Fig. 57), which is placed here because its companion (NGC 1097A) appears about ready to merge with it. This is followed by the Minor Merger Remnants. These have a single identifiable nucleus, but optical morphological peculiarities typically ascribed to strong gravitational disturbances, such as shells, ripples, tails, and plumes. They appear here, as opposed to the later class of Merger Remnants, because of the continued survival (or re-formation?) of a large disk. It is widely believed that major mergers destroy disks. While we are not convinced of this fact, the literature on these objects discusses them almost exclusively in terms of a minor merger origin, so we adopt those results here.

The next class of galaxies is the dominant class represented in the Gallery: Interacting Doubles or Major Mergers. These are galaxies of apparently similar mass which are physically associated. This classification has taken precedence over other classifications except Triples — Groups. For example, if the outer Hi morphology appears clearly tidal in origin, we have placed the system in this class rather than under the category of Hi Extensions.

We have subdivided this category into five separate subclasses. In doing so we draw heavily on the lessons learned in the pioneering study of interacting galaxies by Toomre & Toomre (1972; see also Barnes 1998). Specifically, from that work we learn the following: (1) tidal features first form shortly after first orbital periapses; (2) tails are formed at the rate of one per prograde disk; (3) high-inclination or retrograde encounters lead to large epicyclic motions within the disk, but do not form well-defined tails; and (4) bridges form from a wide range of encounter geometries. Further, we know that later-type spirals tend to be rich in Hi, whereas lenticulars and ellipticals tend to be gas poor (Roberts & Haynes 1994).

With these considerations in mind, we have morphologically defined several subclasses which we think are dynamically related to the Hubble types of the participants and the spin geometry of the encounter. We emphasize that this classification is purely morphological: we have made no attempt to check the proposed spin geometries against the velocity fields of the galaxies. The subclasses are defined as follows:

Two Hi Systems; Two Tails: from the above dynamical considerations, we suspect that these are interactions between two prograde disk galaxies, which we indicate in Table 1 by the notation ($`Sp^+Sp^+`$), where $`Sp`$ denotes a spiral progenitor, and the $`+`$ superscript denotes the suggested prograde spin geometry. Objects within this subclass are arranged by decreasing nuclear separation, with well-separated objects at the beginning and single objects with two tails at the end. II Zw 40 (Fig. 6) may reasonably be placed midway through this sequence, but we left it with the BCDs in the class of Galaxies with Extended Hi Envelopes.

Two Hi Systems, One Hi Tail: from the above dynamical considerations, we suspect that these involve interactions between two spiral disk galaxies, only one of which has a prograde geometry. The second disk might have a highly inclined or a retrograde spin geometry, indicated by a superscript $`0`$ in the ($`Sp^+Sp^0`$) notation in Table 1. Objects within this subclass are again arranged by decreasing nuclear separation, with well-separated objects at the beginning and single objects with a single tail at the end. Arp 295 (Fig. 159) belongs near the beginning of this sequence, but has been placed with Groups… due to its large number of Hi companions. The first member of this subclass, the LMC/SMC/MS system (Fig. 73), may more properly belong to the class of 3-body encounters under Minor Mergers, but we decided to place it according to the morphology exhibited in the figure. Arp 215 (Fig. 60) might reasonably be placed at the end of this sequence, rather than with the Minor Merger Remnants.

Two Hi Systems, Bridge, No Tails: we suspect that these involve interactions between two highly inclined or retrograde disk galaxies, denoted by the ($`Sp^0Sp^0`$) notation in Table 1. The first members of this subclass may well have different spin geometries and be caught prior to first orbital periapse, but they fit the above morphological definition so are placed here. The galaxies in this subclass are arranged with nuclear separation first decreasing as morphological distortion increases, then with nuclear separation increasing as more bridge material appears between the two systems. Notably, there are no Merger Remnants included at the end of this sequence. Since the tidal signatures of such encounters are not as well defined, it is much harder to make a confident classification of such objects after the progenitors have merged. VV 114 (Fig. 107 under Merger Remnants) may be an example of such an object. The reader will notice that this sequence ends with Ring Galaxies, which also starts the next subclass.

Two Systems, Only One with Hi: These are presumably encounters between one gas-rich and one gas-poor progenitor ($`ESp`$ notation). The first few systems in the subclass exhibit no tails, while the remaining systems all show one tail. The first three continue the theme of the last five systems of the previous subclass by showing Ring Galaxies, but in this case the smaller penetrating galaxy has no gas. It is possible that the gas was stripped as this system passed through the gas-rich target system, or that the progenitor was always gas-poor. In the Arp 104 system (Fig. 101) it looks like the southern system has a gas-rich tail, but the morphology of this feature resembles numerical simulations in which bridge material passes through the companion and emerges on the opposite side.

The final subclass of Interacting Doubles is that of Merger Remnants of Indeterminate Origin. These systems are clearly the result of the coalescence of separate stellar systems, but it is really not possible to say what has merged or how.

All of the previous classes have been dominated by late-type or spiral galaxies. The next major class, Peculiar Early Types or Early Types with Peculiar Hi, is centered around early types and ellipitcals. Many of these may be Merger Remnants, others may be Minor Merger Remnants, and yet others may owe their gas and/or optical morphological peculiarities to their dense local environments. Since these origins are very difficult to distinguish, we have made subclasses based on both their optical and Hi morphology.

The first subclass is Peculiar Ellipticals with Hi Outside the Optical Body, and is ordered by the amount of Hi in the outer regions (from lots of Hi to no Hi). This sequence may be considered a possible extension of the Toomre Sequence of Major Mergers (Toomre 1977), demonstrating how gas-rich disk galaxies might fall together, merge, and leave a gas-poor bulge-dominated galaxy in their place. The amount of optical peculiarity decreases along this sequence (but not uniformly), with more subtle optical peculiarities in the later than in the earlier stages. At the end of this sequence we have included a montage of optically peculiar early types mapped in Hi, but in which the Hi is not associated with the early type galaxy. These provide an interesting counterpart to optically peculiar systems in which Hi has been detected. It is possible that more sensitive Hi observations might uncover some Hi in these systems, but clearly it will be less than in those that have already been detected. These systems are ordered by decreasing optical peculiarity, as quantified by the Fine Structure Index (FSI) of Schweizer & Seitzer (1992). This index quantifies the number of shells, jets, plumes, ripples, and “X”-structures, as well as the boxiness of the galaxy. We note that many of these galaxies exhibit quite striking peculiarities when imaged with modern CCDs, and the reproductions here, taken from the Digital Sky Survey, really do not do them full justice.

The next subclass is Peculiar Early Types with Hi Within the Optical Body. These are arranged by the degree of regularity of the Hi. The early systems have a very irregular Hi distribution, and the distribution becomes more symmetric and disk-like as the sequence progresses. This sequence demonstrates the intriguing possibility that in some cases enough cold gas is accreted onto a bulge-dominated galaxy to form (or re-form) a disk.

This is followed by Normal Early Types with Peculiar Hi. These galaxies have no obvious optical peculiarities (certainly at a much lower level than the preceding two classes), but have some very interesting Hi distributions. This emphasizes the point that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to guess the Hi morphology based on a system’s optical appearance. The first system of this subclass, the polar ring galaxy UGC 7576 (Fig. 130), could equally well have been the last system of the previous subclass. After this, the Hi distribution becomes increasingly irregular along the sequence. Unlike the previous two subclasses, this ordering is not meant to suggest an evolutionary sequence. Rather, this ordering forms a natural transition from the disk-like Hi distributions of the previous subclass, to the irregular distribution of the next class of objects.

Given the normal optical appearance of the hosts, we are not sure what to make of this subclass of objects. It is possible that future optical observations will reveal as-yet-undiscovered optical peculiarities in these systems, and that they may fit naturally into one of the previous two categories. It is also feasible that the Hi has a tidal origin, and for some reason the encounter geometry left the outer tidal gas in an irregular distribution long after the inner regions have relaxed. In this case, these systems would be an extension of the previous two categories. Yet another possibility is suggested by the fact that most, if not all, of the members of this subclass live in group environments; in this case the gas may have been stripped from the outer regions of other members and accreted onto the early type, which is usually one of the largest members of the group. These objects may therefore belong to the class of Interacting Triples — Groups — Clusters. In the latter class however the effects of interaction are manifested optically, so we have elected to keep these classes separate. The most interesting possibility (in our opinion) is that the gas in these systems was never in a galaxy, and represents accretion from a primordial reservoir. At present it is not possible to discriminate between these and other possible scenarios, but this is in any case one of the most intriguing categories of objects in the Gallery.

The next class of objects is just as interesting, comprising galaxy systems with Intergalactic Debris with No Optical Counterpart. These three objects could easily have been categorized into other classes (the Leo Ring with the previous class; NGC 5291 with peculiar early types with Hi within the optical body; and NGC 4532 with galaxies with one-sided extensions, or with the minor mergers). We have placed them into a separate category since in these cases the relation between the Hi and the neighboring galaxies is less clear.

Interacting Triples — Groups — Clusters form the next major class. As mentioned above, there are a lot of similarities between the Hi distribution seen in triples and groups and those shown in the previous three subclasses of objects, but here there are clear optical distortions suggesting more directly an interaction origin for the intergalactic gas. This class is ordered (for the most part) by the increasing number of members. The exception is at the end, where we have put three early-type-dominated groups. In each of these last three systems there is a significant extended X-ray component, which must have some effect on the presence or absence of cold gas.

Finally, there is the unavoidable Miscellaneous class. These objects do not obviously belong to any of the preceding classes, nor are there enough similar characteristics to warrant the creation of additional classes. The first examples of this class (the low-redshift QSOs and the E+A galaxy) have been called interacting galaxies, but this conclusion was based on the Hi distribution. If there is anything we have learned from the compilation of the Gallery, it is that weird Hi distributions need not always arise due to interactions.

## 4. Description of Gallery Figures

We have attempted to present the data in as uniform a manner as possible. To facilitate this, many users contributed the original data in FITS format. The basic Hi data are the integrated Hi intensity maps (zeroth moment), which give the integrated flux ($`S\mathrm{\Delta }v`$; units of mJy beam-1 km s-1) at each location. This is usually constructed with the windowing technique to suppress the inclusion of noise (Bosma 1978). The contour levels are given in terms of the surface density, $`N_{HI}`$ (in units of H atoms per cm2), which is obtained from the integrated flux via the equation (see Spitzer 1978, eqn. 3.38 ):

$$N_{HI}=\frac{1.104\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2}{\theta _x\times \theta _y}\frac{S\mathrm{\Delta }v}{\mathrm{mJy}\mathrm{beam}^1\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}$$
(1)
where $`\theta _x\times \theta _y`$ is the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) size of the synthesized beam along the major and minor axis, measured in arcseconds, and the gas is assumed to be optically thin.

The $`N_{HI}`$ contour levels are given in each figure caption, and are usually separated by factors of two. For a small number of systems, it was not possible to derive contour levels.

Spectral line observations also provide line-of-sight velocity information. This information is very informative, but we have decided against its inclusion here, mostly because we had our hands full collecting the integrated intensity maps, but also because such maps beg for a color reproduction. In the future we hope to make the velocity and velocity dispersion maps available, but for the present the readers should refer to the cited literature.

The Hi data is shown alongside and contoured upon optical images of each object. When available, we use existing optical CCD data, predominantly donated by the Hi observers. Where optical data were not available, we use the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) image obtained from the Space Telescope Science Institute. We use the second generation survey products when available, prefering the blue plates to the red.

There is a wealth of information available in the data, and a single format does not do it justice. We have therefore used a combination of layouts. In order to reproduce the figures at as large a scale as possible, the figure captions do not describe the figure layout, which we believe to be reasonably self-evident. The various layouts are described here. The simplest involves a greyscale representation of the optical image on the left, and the optical image with Hi column density contours on the right. When the faint optical structure warrants it, we present two representations of the optical data with different transfer functions, in addition to the optical image with Hi contours superimposed. Finally, when the complexity of the Hi structure warrants it, we also present a greyscale representation of the integrated Hi emission. These images show clearly Hi minima and maxima, which may be ambiguous in the contour maps. When we do show a greyscale map of the Hi, we sometimes include contours. These are most often single contours from the optical data. When there are multiple contours, these are spaced by factors of ten apart. On a few occasions we show Hi contours upon the Hi greyscales. Since the Hi and optical morphologies are so different, it should be obvious what the contours represent.

Positive Hi contours are drawn with dark solid lines, and negative contours (e.g., Hi absorption against radio continuum sources) are drawn with dashed and/or light lines. Occasionally a larger or smaller field of view (FOV) is also shown, to illustrate either the large-scale Hi distribution, or more distant Hi-detected companions, or to show details of the inner regions. The smaller FOV is usually indicated by dotted boxes in the larger FOV image.

As mentioned above, the information in the figure captions is kept to a minimum. For the Hi data we report the telescope (and array configuration for VLA data), synthesized beam resolution (FWHM), and contour level. For the optical data we report the telescope and filter combination, or simply “DSS” when data from the Digital Sky Survey are used, and we give for each image the approximate FOV in arcminutes. There is a section for minimal notes, and finally the reference. Unpublished data is listed as “\[authors\], these proceedings” with a page number. These refer either to contributions presented at the conference and collected in the first part of these proceedings, or to abstracts collected at the end of the Gallery.

In the first panel of each figure we label each galaxy with a catalog designation and the Hubble Type reported in the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED). We also indicate whether NED lists the galaxy with a Seyfert classification. These classifications have not been verified, and should only be used as rough guides. They are included because we find it interesting when galaxies classified as early types are found to have lots of Hi, and when galaxies classified as spirals are found to have none or very little. Using NED we have attempted to identify all cataloged galaxies with Hi detections, as well as galaxies with known redshifts which place them within the range of the Hi observations. Galaxies with their names labeled in parenthesis have redshifts which put them in the foreground or background.

## 5. Tables

At the beginning of the Gallery we present three tables.

Table 1 outlines the arrangement of the Gallery by morphological class and subclass as described in §3. It gives one line descriptions of the classes and the abbreviations used to indicate the class in Table 3.

Table 2 is the Table of Contents for the Rogues Gallery. It lists the galaxies in the order in which they appear in the Atlas, grouped by class, followed by the Figure and page number.

Table 3 presents basic information for all 432 of the cataloged galaxies labeled in the 181 images of the Rogues Gallery. The entries are listed in order of increasing Right Ascension (J2000) of the main target galaxy in the image. The galaxies are grouped by image and groups are separated by thick horizontal lines. Within a group individual galaxies are separated by thin horizontal lines. In the first two columns we list the most popular catalog names. In column three we list the J2000 coordinates and the heliocentric radial velocity (km sec-1). All information in these first three columns is taken directly from a batch query to the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) in July of 2001. Column 4 lists the morphological type as found in NED, the RSA (Sandage & Tamman 1987) and the RC3 catalogs (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). Column 5 gives the class as defined in §3 and Table 1, and the Figure and page number.

In addition to the three table mentioned above, there is a comprehensive object index at the end of this volume, which includes all objects in the Rogues Gallery.

## 6. Acknowledgments

We could not have compiled this collection without the generosity of dozens of Hi observers within the community. Many of these contributions came as part of the general conference, although others who were unable to attend also contributed. We would like to offer our sincere thanks to these people for making this gallery possible, and implore the reader to properly reference the original work. Specifically, this atlas has greatly benefited from the specific contributions by Tyler Nordgren, Marc Verheijen, Jim Higdon, Rob Swaters, Caroline Simpson and collaborators, Jeremy Lim, D.J. Pisano, Marcel Clemens, Carole Mundell, Salman Hameed, Eric Wilcots, Liese van Zee, Pierre-Alain Duc, Dave Hogg, Judith Irwin, Michele Kaufman, Bev Smith, Veera Boonyasait, Elias Brinks, Vassilis Charmandaris, Jayanne English, Deidre Hunter, Linda Sparke, Andrea Cox, Lourdes Verdes-Montenegro, Min Yun, Phil Appleton, Jim Condon, Michiel Kregel, Glen Langston, Tom Oosterloo, Oak-Kyoung Park, Mary Putman, Rich Rand, Arnold Rots, Sue Simkin, Lister Staveley-Smith, Athanasios Taramopoulos, Helen Thomas, Wei-Hao Wang, and Barbara Williams. We also thank Garrett Bauer and Karen Yeh for adding the FOVs to the image captions.

The VLA is a facility of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by Associated Universities Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The Oschin Schmidt Telescope is operated by the California Institute of Technology and Palomar Observatory. The UK Schmidt Telescope was operated by the Royal Observatory Edinburgh, with funding from the UK Science and Engineering Research Council (later the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council), until 1988 June, and thereafter by the Anglo-Australian Observatory. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions.

The National Geographic Society - Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas was made by the California Institute of Technology with grants from the National Geographic Society. The Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey was made by the California Institute of Technology with funds from the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Sloan Foundation, the Samuel Oschin Foundation, and the Eastman Kodak Corporation.

This research has made extensive use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

## References

Arp, H.C. 1966, ApJS, 14, 1

Arp, H.C. & Madore, B.F. 1975, Observatory, 95, 212

Arp, H.C. & Madore, B.F. 1987, “A Catalog of Southern Peculiar Galaxies and Associations,” Cambridge University Press.

Barnes, J.E. 1998, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course No. 26, “Galaxies: Interactions and Induced Star Formation”, R.C. Kennicutt, Jr., F. Schweizer, & J.E. Barnes (Springer, Berlin), 275

Bosma, A 1991 in “Warped Disks and Inclined Rings Around Galaxies”, S. Casertano, P. D. Sackett, & F. H. Briggs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

Bosma, A. 1978 PhD thesis, University of Groningen

Broeils, A.H. 1992, PhD thesis, University of Groningen

Cayatte, V, van Gorkom, J.H., Balkowski, C., & Kotanyi, C. 1990, AJ 100, 604

de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H., Buta, R., Paturel, G., & Fouque, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (Springer, New York) (RC3)

Malin, D.F. & Carter, D. 1983, ApJ, 274, 534

Martin, M.C. 1998, A&AS, 131, 73

Oosterloo, T. 1988, PhD thesis, University of Groningen

Roberts, M.S. & Haynes, M.P. 1994, ARAA, 32, 115

Roberts, M.S. & Rots, A.H. 1973, A&A, 26, 483

Sandage, A. & Tamman, G.A. 1987, “A Revised Shapley Ames Catalog of Bright Galaxies” (Publ. 635; Carnegie Inst. Washington, Washington, DC)

Schweizer, F. & Seitzer, P. 1992, AJ, 104, 1039

Spitzer, Jr., L. 1978, Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NYC)

Struck, C. 1999, Phys Rep, 321, 1

Swaters, R. A., 1999, PhD thesis, University of Groningen

Toomre, A. 1977, in The Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B.M. Tinsley & R.B. Larson (Yale University Press, New Haven), 401

Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 405, 142

van Driel, W., & van Woerden, H. 1991, AA, 243, 71

Verheijen, M. A. W., & Sancisi, R. 2001, A&A, 370, 765

Vorontsov-Vel’yaminov, B.A. 1959, “Atlas and Catalogue of Interacting Galaxies” (Moscow).

Vorontsov-Vel’yaminov, B.A. 1977, A&AS, 28, 1

Warmels, R.H. 1988, A&AS, 72, 19

Wevers, B.M.H.R., van der Kruit, P.C., & Allen, R.J. 1986, A&AS 66, 505


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We study the semirelativistic (so-called “spinless-Salpeter”) Hamiltonian

$$H=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}+V(r),\beta >0,$$
(1)
in which $`V(r)`$ is a central potential in three dimensions. The eigenvalue equation of this operator is called the “spinless Salpeter equation.” This equation of motion arises as a well-defined standard approximation to the Bethe–Salpeter formalism  for the description of bound states within a (relativistic) quantum field theory and is arrived at by the following simplifying steps:

1. Eliminate all timelike variables by assuming the Bethe–Salpeter kernel that describes the interactions between the bound-state constituents to be static, i.e., instantaneous; the result of this reduction step is called the “instantaneous Bethe–Salpeter equation” or the “Salpeter equation” .
2. Neglect the spin of the bound-state constituents, assume the Bethe–Salpeter kernel to be of convolution type (as is frequently the case), and consider merely positive-energy solutions $`\psi ,`$ in order to arrive at the so-called “spinless Salpeter equation” $`H\psi =E\psi ,`$ with a Hamiltonian $`H`$ of the form (1). (For two particles, this form of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ holds only for equal masses $`m`$ of the bound-state constituents.)

(For a more detailed account of the reduction of the Bethe–Salpeter equation to the spinless Salpeter equation, consult, e.g., the introductory sections of Refs. .) This wave equation describes the bound states of spin-zero particles (scalar bosons) as well as the spin-averaged spectra of the bound states of fermions.

In this paper we consider potentials which are at the same time convex transformations $`V(r)=g(h(r))`$ of the Coulomb potential $`h(r)=1/r`$ and concave transformations of the harmonic-oscillator potential $`h(r)=r^2.`$ The reason for this is that spectral information is known for these two “basis” potentials $`h(r)`$. Thus the class of potentials is those $`V(r)`$ that have a dual representation

$$V(r)=g^{(1)}\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=g^{(2)}(r^2),$$

in which $`g^{(1)}`$ is convex ($`g_{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }>0`$) and $`g^{(2)}`$ is concave ($`g_{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }<0`$). An example of a potential in this class is

$$V(r)=\frac{c_1}{r}+c_2\mathrm{ln}r+c_3r+c_4r^2,$$
(2)
where the coefficients $`\{c_i\}`$ are not negative and are not all zero. Thus tangent lines to the transformation function $`g(h)`$ are of the form $`ah+b`$ and are either Coulomb potentials lying below $`V`$, or harmonic-oscillator potentials lying above $`V.`$ This geometrical idea is the basis for our approach to the spectral problem posed by $`H.`$ We shall consider applications of this idea to the (nonrelativistic) Schrödinger problem, the relativistic kinetic-energy operator, and the full Salpeter Hamiltonian in Secs. 3, 4, and 5, respectively. We shall show that all our upper and lower bounds on the eigenvalues of the semirelativistic Salpeter Hamiltonian $`H`$ of Eq. (1) can be expressed in the compact form

$$E\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\beta \sqrt{m^2+\frac{P^2}{r^2}}+V(r)\right],$$

where $`P`$ is a constant for each bound, and a sign of approximate equality is used to indicate that, for definite convexity of $`g(h),`$ the envelope theory yields lower bounds for convex $`g(h)`$ and upper bounds for concave $`g(h).`$ The main purpose of the present considerations is to establish the general envelope formalism in terms of which such bounds can be proved, and to determine the appropriate values of $`P.`$

It is fundamental to our method that we first know something about the spectrum of $`H`$ in those cases where $`V(r)`$ is one of the basis potentials, i.e., the Coulomb and the harmonic oscillator. These two spectra are discussed in Sec. 2 below. In Sec. 6 we look at the example of the Coulomb-plus-linear potential.

## 2 The Coulomb and harmonic-oscillator potentials

### 2.1 Scaling behaviour

Since the two basis potentials are both pure powers, it is helpful first to determine what can be learnt about the corresponding eigenvalues by the use of standard scaling arguments. By employing a wave function $`\varphi (cr)`$ depending on a scale variable $`c>0,`$ we find the following scaling rule for the eigenvalues corresponding to attractive pure power potentials $`v\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q.`$ The Hamiltonian

$$H=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}+v\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q$$

has the (energy) eigenvalues $`E(v,\beta ,m),`$ where

$$E(v,\beta ,m)=\beta mE(\frac{v}{\beta m^{1+q}},1,1),q1.$$

The scaling behaviour described by the above formula allows us to consider the one-particle, unit-mass special case $`m=\beta =1`$ initially, that is to say, to work w.l.o.g. with the operator

$$H=\sqrt{1+𝐩^2}+v\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q.$$

### 2.2 Coulomb potential

In the case of the Coulomb potential $`V(r)=v/r`$ it is well known  that the Hamiltonian $`H`$ has a Friedrichs extension provided the coupling constant $`v`$ is not too large. Specifically, it is necessary in this case that $`v`$ is smaller than a critical value $`v_\mathrm{c}`$ of the coupling constant:

$$v<v_\mathrm{c}=\frac{2}{\pi }.$$

With this restriction, a lower bound to the bottom of the spectrum is provided by Herbst’s formula

$$E_0\sqrt{1(\sigma v)^2},\sigma \frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(3)
By comparing the spinless Salpeter problem to the corresponding Klein–Gordon equation, Martin and Roy  have shown that if the coupling constant is further restricted by $`v<\frac{1}{2},`$ then an improved lower bound is provided by the expression

$$E_0\sqrt{\frac{1+\sqrt{14v^2}}{2}},v<\frac{1}{2}.$$
(4)
It turns out that our lower-bound theory has a simpler form when the Coulomb eigenvalue bound has the form of Eq. (3) rather than that of Eq. (4). For this reason, we have derived from Eq. (4), by rather elementary methods, a new family of Coulomb bounds. To this end, we begin with the ansatz

$$\sqrt{\frac{1+\sqrt{14v^2}}{2}}\sqrt{1(\sigma v)^2}$$

and look for conditions under which it becomes true. Since both sides are positive, we may square the ansatz and rearrange to yield

$$v^2\frac{\sigma ^21}{\sigma ^4}.$$

Meanwhile from (4) we must always satisfy $`v<\frac{1}{2}.`$ This establishes the inequality we’ll need, namely,

$$E_0\sqrt{1(\sigma v)^2},v\frac{\sqrt{\sigma ^21}}{\sigma ^2}<\frac{1}{2}.$$
(5)
Examples are

$`\sigma ^2=2,v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};`$
$`\sigma ^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(3\sqrt{5}\right)1.145898,v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}};`$
$`\sigma ^2=84\sqrt{3}1.071797,v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$
All these (lower) bounds are slightly weaker than the Martin–Roy bound (4) but above the Herbst bound (3). We note that these functions of the coupling constant $`v`$ are all monotone and concave.

### 2.3 Harmonic-oscillator potential

In the case of the harmonic-oscillator potential, i.e., $`V(r)=vr^2,`$ much more is known . In momentum-space representation the operator $`𝐩`$ becomes a $`c`$-variable and thus, from the spectral point of view, the Hamiltonian

$$H=\sqrt{1+𝐩^2}+vr^2$$

is equivalent to the Schrödinger operator

$$H=v\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{1+r^2}.$$
(6)
Since the potential in this operator increases without bound, we know  that the spectrum of this operator is entirely discrete. We call its eigenvalues $`_n\mathrm{}(v),`$ $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ $`\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},`$ where $`n`$ counts the radial states in each angular-momentum subspace labelled by $`\mathrm{}.`$ In what follows we shall either approximate the eigenvalues $`_n\mathrm{}(v)`$ analytically or presume that they are known numerically. The concavity of nonrelativistic Schrödinger energy eigenvalues has been discussed in Refs. . Theorem 2 of Ref.  establishes concavity for the ground state; the same proof can be applied to states which are (1) in the subspace corresponding to angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ and (2) orthogonal to the first $`n1`$ exact energy eigenstates in this subspace. This establishes concavity also for all the higher Schrödinger energy eigenvalues. Thus the eigenvalues $`_n\mathrm{}(v),`$ regarded as functions of the coupling parameter $`v,`$ are concave.

### 2.4 The spectral comparison theorem

For the class of interaction potentials given by (2) with the coefficient of the Coulombic term satisfying the constraint

$$\underset{r0}{lim}r^2V^{}(r)<\frac{2\beta }{\pi },$$

the semirelativistic Salpeter Hamiltonian $`H`$ is bounded below and is essentially self-adjoint . Consequently, the discrete spectrum of $`H`$ is characterized variationally  and it follows immediately from this that, if we compare two such Hamiltonians $`H`$ having the potentials $`V^{(1)}(r)`$ and $`V^{(2)}(r),`$ respectively, and we know that $`V^{(1)}(r)<V^{(2)}(r),`$ then we may conclude that the corresponding discrete eigenvalues $`E_n\mathrm{}`$ satisfy the inequalities $`E_n\mathrm{}^{(1)}<E_n\mathrm{}^{(2)}.`$ We shall refer to this fundamental result as the “spectral comparison theorem.” In the more common case of nonrelativistic dynamics, i.e., for a (nonrelativistic) kinetic term of the form $`\beta 𝐩^2/2m`$ in the Hamiltonian $`H`$, a constraint similar to the above would hold for the coefficient of a possible additional (attractive) $`1/r^2`$ term in the potential $`V(r).`$

## 3 Envelope representations for Schrödinger operators

We distinguish a potential $`V(r)=vf(r)`$ from its shape $`f(r),`$ where the positive parameter $`v`$ is often called the “coupling constant.” The idea behind envelope representations  is suggested by the question: if one potential $`f(r)`$ can be written as a smooth transformation $`f(r)=g(h(r))`$ of another potential $`h(r),`$ what spectral relationship might this induce? We consider potential shapes that support at least one discrete eigenvalue for sufficiently large values of the coupling $`v`$ and suppose for the sake of definiteness that the lowest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Delta }+vh(r)`$ is given by $`H(v)`$ and that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }+vf(r)`$ by $`F(v).`$ If the transformation function $`g(h)`$ is smooth, then each tangent to $`g`$ is an affine transformation of the “envelope basis” $`h`$ of the form $`f^{(\mathrm{t})}(r)=a(t)h(r)+b(t),`$ where $`r=t`$ is the point of contact. The coefficients $`a(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$ are obtained by demanding that the “tangential potential” $`f^{(\mathrm{t})}(r)`$ and its derivative agree with $`f(r)`$ at the point of contact $`r=t.`$ Thus we have

$$a(t)=\frac{f^{}(t)}{h^{}(t)},b(t)=f(t)a(t)h(t).$$

The corresponding geometrical configuration is illustrated in Fig. 1 in which the potential $`f`$ is chosen to be the Coulomb-plus-linear potential, $`f(r)=1/r+r,`$ and the envelope basis $`h`$ is, for the upper family, the harmonic-oscillator potential $`h(r)=r^2`$ and, for the lower family, the Coulomb potential $`h(r)=1/r.`$ The spectral function $`F^{(\mathrm{t})}`$ for the tangential potential $`f^{(\mathrm{t})}(r)=a(t)h(r)+b(t)`$ is given by $`F^{(\mathrm{t})}(v)=H(va(t))+vb(t).`$ If the transformation $`g(h)`$ has definite convexity, say $`g^{\prime \prime }(h)>0,`$ then each tangential potential $`f^{(\mathrm{t})}(r)`$ lies beneath $`f(r)`$ and, as a consequence of the spectral comparison theorem, we know that each corresponding tangential spectral function $`F^{(\mathrm{t})}(v),`$ and the envelope of this set, lie beneath $`F(v).`$ Similarly, in the case where $`g`$ is concave, i.e., $`g^{\prime \prime }(h)<0`$, we obtain upper bounds to $`F(v).`$ These purely geometrical arguments, depending on the spectral comparison theorem, extend easily to the excited states of the problem under consideration. The spectral curves corresponding to the envelope representations for the potential in Fig. 1 are shown in Fig. 2 for the excited state $`(n,\mathrm{})=(2,4).`$ For comparison the exact curve $`E=F(v)`$ is also shown in Fig. 2; this curve will be close to the Coulomb envelope for large $`v`$ and to the oscillator envelope for small $`v.`$ Of course, the envelopes of which we speak still have to be determined explicitly. Extensions of this idea to completely new problems, such as simultaneous transformations of each of a number of potential terms , the Dirac equation , or the spinless-Salpeter problem of the present paper, are best formulated initially with the basic argument outlined above.

In the 1-term case the question arises as to whether there is a simple way of determining the envelopes of the families of upper and lower spectral functions. One effective solution of this problem is by the use of “kinetic potentials” which were introduced  precisely for this purpose. The idea is as follows. To each spectral function $`F_n\mathrm{}(v)`$ there is a corresponding “kinetic potential” (that is, a minimum mean iso-kinetic potential) $`\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s).`$ The relationship between $`F_n\mathrm{}`$ and $`\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}`$ is invertible and is essentially that of a Legendre transformation : we can prove in general that $`F`$ is concave, $`\overline{f}(s)`$ is convex, and

$$F^{\prime \prime }(v)\overline{f}^{\prime \prime }(s)=\frac{1}{v^3}.$$

The explicit transformation formulas are as follows:

$$\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s)=F_n\mathrm{}^{}(v),s=F_n\mathrm{}(v)vF_n\mathrm{}^{}(v)$$
(7)
and

$$\frac{F_n\mathrm{}(v)}{v}=\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s)s\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}^{}(s),\frac{1}{v}=\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}^{}(s).$$
(8)
An a-priori definition of the ground-state kinetic potential $`\overline{f}_{10}(s)=\overline{f}(s)`$ is given by

$$\overline{f}(s)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi 𝒟\left(H\right)}{(\psi ,\psi )=1}}{(\psi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\psi )=s}}{inf}(\psi ,f\psi ),$$

where $`𝒟L^2(\text{ }\text{R}^3)`$ is the domain of the Hamiltonian. The definition for the excited states is a little more complicated  and, in view of (7) and (8), will not be needed in what follows.

What is crucial is that the spectral functions, either exact or approximate, are recovered from the corresponding kinetic potentials by a minimization over the kinetic-energy variable $`s.`$ In this way the total minimization required by the minimum–maximum principle  has been divided into two steps: the first is constrained by $`(\psi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\psi )=s`$ and the second is a minimization over $`s.`$ We have in all cases:

$$F_n\mathrm{}(v)=\underset{s>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[s+v\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s)\right].$$

Another form of this expression is possible for the kinetic potential is monotone and allows us to change variables $`(sr)`$ by $`f(r)=\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s).`$ Thus we have

$$F_n\mathrm{}(v)=\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[K_n\mathrm{}^{(f)}(r)+vf(r)\right],K_n\mathrm{}^{(f)}=\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}^1f.$$
(9)
The two corresponding expressions of the envelope approximation then become

$$\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s)g(\overline{h}_n\mathrm{}(s)),\mathrm{or}K_n\mathrm{}^{(f)}K_n\mathrm{}^{(h)}.$$

The second form (9) of the explicit expression for $`F_n\mathrm{}(v)`$ isolates the potential shape $`f`$ itself and leads to an inversion sequence  which reconstructs the potential from a single given spectral function; but this is another story .

It is useful here to provide the formulas for the kinetic potentials $`\overline{f}`$ corresponding to pure power-law potentials $`V(r)=v\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q.`$ Elementary scaling arguments for the Hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }+v\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q$$

show that the eigenvalues satisfy

$$F_n\mathrm{}(v)=v^{\frac{2}{2+q}}F_n\mathrm{}(1),$$

where $`F_n\mathrm{}(1)=E_n\mathrm{}(q)`$ are the eigenvalues of $`H`$ with coupling $`v=1,`$ i.e., of $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q.`$ From Eq. (7) we immediately find that the kinetic potentials $`\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s)`$ for these potentials $`V(r)`$ are given by

$$\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s)=\frac{2}{q}\left|\frac{qE_n\mathrm{}(q)}{2+q}\right|^{\frac{2+q}{2}}s^{\frac{q}{2}}.$$
(10)
Meanwhile the corresponding $`K`$-functions all have the same simple form

$$K_n\mathrm{}^{(q)}(r)=\left(\frac{P_n\mathrm{}(q)}{r}\right)^2,$$

where the $`P`$ numbers are given by

$$P_n\mathrm{}(q)=\left|E_n\mathrm{}(q)\right|^{\frac{2+q}{2q}}\left(\frac{2}{2+q}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\left|\frac{q}{2+q}\right|^{\frac{1}{2}},q0.$$

Consequently, the power-law kinetic potentials (10) may be expressed in the simple form

$$\overline{f}_n\mathrm{}(s)=\mathrm{sgn}(q)\left(\frac{P_n\mathrm{}(q)}{\sqrt{s}}\right)^q,q0.$$

Some of the eigenvalues $`E,`$ and thus the corresponding $`P`$ numbers, are known exactly from elementary quantum mechanics. From the known eigenvalues $`E`$ for the Coulomb potential, $`E_n\mathrm{}(1)=[2(n+\mathrm{})]^2,`$ and the harmonic-oscillator potential, $`E_n\mathrm{}(2)=4n+2\mathrm{}1,`$ we immediately obtain the corresponding $`P`$ numbers:

$`P_n\mathrm{}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`n+\mathrm{},`$
$`P_n\mathrm{}(2)`$ $`=`$ $`2n+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$
The case $`q=0`$ corresponds exactly to the logarithmic potential ; the $`P`$ numbers for the lowest states of the logarithmic and the linear potentials may be found in Table 1.

In summary, if the potential $`V(r)`$ is a smooth transformation $`V(r)=g(\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q)`$ of the pure power-law potential $`\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q`$, then the eigenvalues of

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }+V(r)$$

are given approximately by the expression

$$E_n\mathrm{}\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\frac{P_n\mathrm{}^2(q)}{r^2}+V(r)\right].$$
(11)
Here, a sign of approximate equality is used to indicate that, for a definite convexity of $`g(h),`$ Eq. (11) yields lower bounds for convex $`g`$ ($`g^{\prime \prime }>0`$) and upper bounds for concave $`g`$ ($`g^{\prime \prime }<0`$). The numbers $`P_n\mathrm{}(q)`$ can be derived from the eigenvalues of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{sgn}(q)r^q.`$

The lower bounds derived in the framework of envelope theory can be improved by use of the refined comparison theorems of Ref. , which allow comparison potentials to intersect; a detailed study of the latter approach is, however, beyond the scope of the present analysis.

As an immediate application we consider the (nonrelativistic) Schrödinger Hamiltonian (6) for the semirelativistic spinless-Salpeter harmonic-oscillator problem (1). Here we have

$$H=v\mathrm{\Delta }+V(r),$$

with

$$V(r)=\beta \sqrt{m^2+r^2};$$

this potential is a convex transformation of a linear potential and a concave transformation of a harmonic-oscillator potential. We conclude therefore from Eq. (11) (see also Ref. ):

$$\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[v\frac{P_n\mathrm{}^2(1)}{r^2}+\beta \sqrt{m^2+r^2}\right]_n\mathrm{}(v)\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[v\frac{P_n\mathrm{}^2(2)}{r^2}+\beta \sqrt{m^2+r^2}\right],$$
(12)
where the numbers $`P_n\mathrm{}(1)`$ are given in Table 1 and $`P_n\mathrm{}(2)=2n+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}`$. By a simple change of variables, $`rr^{}=P/r,`$ we are able to recast the inequalities (12) into the “preferred” form

$$_n\mathrm{}(v)\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\beta \sqrt{m^2+\frac{P_n\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}}+V(r)\right],V(r)=vr^2,$$

in which the function to be minimized is simply the spinless-Salpeter Hamiltonian with the momentum operator $`|𝐩|`$ replaced by $`P/r;`$ the $`P`$ numbers yielding upper and lower bounds are as in Eq. (12). Interestingly, the upper and lower bounds in Eq. (12) are equivalent to the corresponding bounds obtained in Ref. ; however, these earlier specific bounds were not derived as part of the general envelope theory. If we approximate the square root from above again, by using the elementary inequality

$$\sqrt{m^2+r^2}m+\frac{r^2}{2m},$$

we obtain from (12) the weaker upper bound

$$_n\mathrm{}(v)\beta m+\sqrt{\frac{\beta v}{2m}}(4n+2\mathrm{}1),$$

which is identical to that given by the general “Schrödinger upper bound”  obtained by initially approximating the relativistic kinetic-energy operator above by

$$\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}\beta \left(m+\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\right).$$

The latter upper bound, and an improvement on it, will be discussed in the next section.

## 4 Envelope approximations for the relativistic kinetic energy

The relativistic kinetic-energy operator $`T=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}`$ is a concave transformation of $`𝐩^2.`$ Thus “tangent lines” to this operator all are of the form $`a𝐩^2+b`$ and each one generates a Schrödinger operator that provides an upper bound to $`T.`$ In a given application with given parameter values, one can search for the best such upper bound. By elementary analysis we can establish the operator inequality

$$H=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}+V(r)\frac{\beta }{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mu }+\mu +\frac{m^2}{\mu }\right)+V(r),$$
(13)
where $`\mu =\sqrt{m^2+p_1^2},`$ and $`|𝐩|=p_1`$ is the “point of contact” of the tangent line with the square-root function. The inequality (13) is identical to that obtained  by employing the inequality $`(T\mu )^20.`$ Optimization over $`\mu `$ for the Coulomb case $`V(r)=v/r`$ recovers the explicit upper-bound formula of Ref. :

$$E_n\mathrm{}(v)m\beta \sqrt{1\left(\frac{v}{\beta (n+\mathrm{})}\right)^2}.$$

In the case of the harmonic-oscillator potential, $`V(r)=vr^2,`$ we obtain the upper bounds

$$E_n\mathrm{}(v)\underset{\mu >0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\sqrt{\frac{\beta v}{2\mu }}(4n+2\mathrm{}1)+\frac{\beta }{2}\left(\mu +\frac{m^2}{\mu }\right)\right].$$

(Brief reviews of analytical upper bounds on the energy eigenvalues of the spinless Salpeter equation derived by combining operator inequalities with the minimum–maximum principle may be found in Refs. .)

The strategy of the present section is to regard the relativistic kinetic-energy operator $`T`$ as a concave function of $`𝐩^2,`$ so that “tangent lines” generate “upper” Schrödinger operators. This general approach leads to the same upper bounds as those of Martin  who used the particular square-root form of the relativistic kinetic energy to construct an operator whose positivity yields the bounds.

## 5 Envelope approximations for Salpeter Hamiltonians

### 5.1 The principal envelope formula

Let us now turn to our main topic and consider the spinless-Salpeter Hamiltonian of Eq. (1),

$$H=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}+V(r),$$

and its eigenvalues $`E.`$ We shall assume that the potential $`V(r)`$ is a smooth transformation $`V(r)=g(h(r))`$ of another potential $`h(r)`$ and that $`g`$ has definite convexity so that we obtain bounds to the energy eigenvalues $`E`$. We suppose that the “basis” potential $`h(r)`$ generates a “tangential” Salpeter problem

$$=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}+vh(r),$$

for which the eigenvalues $`e(v),`$ or bounds to them, are known. We shall follow here as closely as possible the development in Sec. 3 for the corresponding Schrödinger problem.

First of all, we recall that the approximations or bounds to the energy eigenvalues of the relativistic Coulomb and harmonic-oscillator problems we shall eventually use from Secs. 2 and 3, when regarded as functions of the coupling $`v,`$ are all concave. Furthermore, it is easy to convince oneself that all the (unknown) energy functions $`e(v)`$ of the “tangential” Salpeter problem are concave, that is, $`e^{\prime \prime }(v)<0.`$ Suppose that the exact eigenvalue and (normalized) eigenvector for the problem posed by the “tangential” Hamiltonian

$$=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}+vh(r)$$

are $`e(v)`$ and $`\psi (v,r).`$ Then, by differentiating the expectation value $`(\psi ,\psi )`$ with respect to the coupling $`v,`$ we find

$$e^{}(v)=(\psi ,h\psi ).$$

If we now apply $`\psi (v,r)`$ as a trial vector to estimate the energy of the operator

$$\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}+uh(r),$$

in which $`v`$ has been replaced by $`u,`$ we obtain an upper bound to the corresponding energy function $`e(u)`$ which may be written in the form

$$e(u)e(v)+(uv)e^{}(v).$$

This inequality tells us that the function $`e(u)`$ lies beneath its tangents; that is to say, $`e(u)`$ is concave. Convexity properties of the energy functions of the corresponding (nonrelativistic) Schrödinger problem have been investigated in Refs. .

Next, in order to prove the main result of this section, the “principal envelope formula,” we begin by using an envelope representation for the potential $`V(r)`$ in the Hamiltonian (1) and then demonstrate that all the spectral formulas that follow possess a certain structure. Finally, as an application, we specialize to the case of pure power-law “basis” potentials $`h(r)`$ and, more particularly, to the Coulomb potential and the harmonic-oscillator potential for which, at this time, we have spectral information \[cf. the discussions in Secs. 2.2 and 2.3, and the exact bounds (12) on the energy levels $`_n\mathrm{}(v)`$ of the relativistic harmonic oscillator\].

The tangential potentials we shall employ have the form $`V^{(\mathrm{t})}(r)=a(t)h(r)+b(t),`$ where, as in the Schrödinger case, the coefficients $`a(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$ are given by

$$a(t)=\frac{V^{}(t)}{h^{}(t)}=g^{}(h(t)),b(t)=V(t)a(t)h(t)=g(h(t))g^{}(h(t))h(t),$$

and $`r=t`$ is the point of contact of the potential $`V(r)`$ and its tangent $`V^{(\mathrm{t})}(r)`$. If, for the sake of definiteness, we assume that $`V=g(h)`$ with $`g`$ concave (i.e., $`g^{\prime \prime }<0`$), we obtain a family of upper bounds given by

$$E\epsilon (t)=e(a(t))+b(t).$$

The best of these is given by optimizing over $`t`$:

$$E\epsilon (\widehat{t})=e(a(\widehat{t}))+b(\widehat{t}),$$

where $`\widehat{t},`$ the value of $`t`$ which optimizes these bounds, is to be determined as the solution of

$$e^{}(g^{}(h(\widehat{t})))=h(\widehat{t}).$$

In the spirit of the Legendre transformation  we now consider another problem which has the same solution; this second problem is the one that provides us with our basic eigenvalue formula. We consider

$$\underset{v>0}{\mathrm{min}}[e(v)ve^{}(v)+g(e^{}(v))],$$

which is well defined since $`e(v)`$ is concave. The solution has the critical point

$$\widehat{v}=g^{}(e^{}(\widehat{v})).$$

If we now apply the correspondence $`h(\widehat{t})=e^{}(\widehat{v}),`$ it follows that the critical point $`\widehat{v}`$ becomes

$$\widehat{v}=g^{}(h(\widehat{t})),$$

and the tangential-potential coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ become

$$a(\widehat{t})=g^{}(e^{}(v))=v,b(\widehat{t})=g(e^{}(v))ve^{}(v),v=\widehat{v}.$$
(14)
Meanwhile the original critical (energy) value is given by

$$\epsilon (\widehat{t})=e(a(\widehat{t}))+b(\widehat{t})=e(v)ve^{}(v)+g(e^{}(v)),v=\widehat{v}.$$

Thus we conclude that the spectral approximation obtained by envelope methods is given by the following “principal envelope formula:”

$$E\underset{v>0}{\mathrm{min}}[e(v)ve^{}(v)+g(e^{}(v))].$$
(15)
If $`g`$ is concave (that is, $`g^{\prime \prime }<0`$), then $`E;`$ if $`g`$ is convex (that is, $`g^{\prime \prime }>0`$), then $`E.`$ From the above considerations it follows immediately that, if the exact energy function $`e(v)`$ corresponding to the basis potential $`h`$ is not available, then, for $`g(h)`$ concave, concave upper approximations $`e_\mathrm{u}(v)>e(v)`$ or, for $`g(h)`$ convex, concave lower approximations $`e_\mathrm{l}(v)<e(v)`$ may be used instead of the exact energy function $`e(v)`$ in the principal envelope formula (15). Then all the lower tangents will lie even lower and all the upper tangents will lie even higher. If $`g`$ is convex, we obtain a lower bound; if $`g`$ is concave, we obtain an upper bound; because of the concavity of $`e(v),`$ this extremum is a minimum in both cases. If we wish to use numerical solutions to the “basis” problem (generated by $`h(r)`$), or if a completely new energy-bound expression becomes available, the principal envelope formula (15) is the relation that would at first be used.

Interestingly, in the formula (15) the tangential-potential apparatus is no longer evident; only the correct convexity is required. As in the Schrödinger case , once we have the basic result, the reformulation in terms of “kinetic potentials” is often useful: the kinetic potential $`\overline{h}(s)`$ corresponding to some basis potential $`h(r)`$ is given by the Legendre transformation

$$\overline{h}(s)=e^{}(v),s=e(v)ve^{}(v).$$

Meanwhile the envelope approximation has the kinetic-potential expression $`\overline{V}(s)g(\overline{h}(s)).`$

For both the Coulomb lower bounds (3) or (5) and the harmonic-oscillator upper bounds (12) which we have at present, we may express our general results in a special common form which will now be derived.

### 5.2 The Coulomb lower bound

We consider first the Coulomb lower bound in which we assume that the potential $`V(r)`$ is a convex transformation $`V(r)=g(h(r))`$ of the Coulomb potential $`h(r)=1/r.`$ According to Sec. 2.2, in this case all the “lower” $`e_\mathrm{l}(v)`$ have been arranged—with the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`m`$ returned—in the form

$$e_\mathrm{l}(v)=\beta m\sqrt{1\left(\frac{\sigma v}{\beta }\right)^2}.$$

From this it follows by elementary algebra that if we define a new optimization variable $`r`$ by $`e_\mathrm{l}^{}(v)=h(r)=1/r,`$ we have

$$e_\mathrm{l}(v)ve_\mathrm{l}^{}(v)=\beta \sqrt{m^2+\frac{P^2}{r^2}},P\frac{1}{\sigma }.$$

Consequently, the lower bound on the energy eigenvalues $`E`$ of the spinless Salpeter equation becomes

$$E\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\beta \sqrt{m^2+\frac{P^2}{r^2}}+V(r)\right],v<\beta v_P.$$
(16)
Here the boundary value $`v_P`$ of the Coulomb coupling $`v`$ is given, when simply determined by the requirement of boundedness from below of the operator (1), by the critical coupling $`v_\mathrm{c}`$,

$$v_P=v_\mathrm{c}=\frac{2}{\pi },$$

and, when arising from the region of validity of our Coulomb-like family of lower bounds (5), via $`P=1/\sigma ,`$ by

$$v_P=P\sqrt{1P^2}<\frac{1}{2}.$$
(17)
Some $`\{P,v_P\}`$ pairs may be found in Table 2; others can be easily generated from the upper bound on the coupling $`v`$ given in Eq. (17). The meaning of the Coulomb-coupling constraint is $`a(\widehat{t})<\beta v_P,`$ where $`a`$ is the coefficient in the tangential Coulomb potential given by (14).

As a rather trivial consistency check of our formalism, the Coulomb lower energy bound of Eq. (16) may be applied to the Coulomb potential $`V(r)=v/r`$ in order to re-derive, for $`P=2/\pi ,`$ the Herbst formula (3)—which is nothing else but the starting point of the present “lower-bound” considerations.

### 5.3 The harmonic-oscillator upper bounds

Next, let us turn to the harmonic-oscillator upper bounds. Our main assumption is here that $`V(r)=g(r^2),`$ with $`g^{\prime \prime }<0.`$ In this case the only difficulty is that the basis problem $`h(r)=r^2`$ is equivalent to a Schrödinger problem whose solution $`_n\mathrm{}(v)`$ is not known exactly. Following the discussion of suitable bounds after the proof of the principal envelope formula, Eq. (15), let us call the upper bound provided by Eq. (12) $`e_\mathrm{u}(v),`$ and let us introduce the shorthand notation $`P_n\mathrm{}(2)=2n+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}=P.`$ Then we have the following parametric equations for $`e_\mathrm{u}(v)`$:

$$e_\mathrm{u}(v)=v\frac{P^2}{r^2}+\beta \sqrt{m^2+r^2},v=\frac{\beta r^4}{2P^2\sqrt{m^2+r^2}},e_\mathrm{u}^{}(v)=\frac{P^2}{r^2}.$$

By substituting these expressions into the fundamental envelope formula (15) we obtain the following upper bound on all the eigenvalues of the spinless-Salpeter problem with potential $`V(r)=g(r^2)`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }<0`$:

$$E_n\mathrm{}\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\beta \sqrt{m^2+\frac{P^2}{r^2}}+V(r)\right],P=P_n\mathrm{}(2)=2n+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}.$$
(18)
## 6 The Coulomb-plus-linear (or “funnel”) potential

In order to illustrate the above results by a physically motivated example, let us apply these considerations to the Coulomb-plus-linear or (in view of its shape) “funnel” potential

$$V(r)=\frac{c_1}{r}+c_2r,c_10,c_20.$$

(This potential provides a reasonable overall description of the strong interactions of quarks in hadrons. For the phenomenological description of hadrons in terms of both nonrelativistic and semirelativistic potential models, see, e.g., Refs. .) By choosing as basis potential the Coulomb potential $`h(r)=1/r,`$ we may write $`V(r)=g(h(r))`$ with

$$g(h)=c_1h\frac{c_2}{h},$$

which is clearly a convex function of $`h<0`$: $`g^{\prime \prime }>0.`$ Thus the convexity condition is satisfied. However, we are not free to choose the coupling constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ as large as we please. It is immediately obvious that, for a particular $`\{P,v_P\}`$ pair, we must in any case have $`c_1<\beta v_P.`$ For the full problem the coefficient $`c_2`$ of the linear term will also be involved. The coupling $`v`$ we are concerned about is given by (14). We have

$$v=g^{}(e^{}(v))=\frac{\beta P^2}{r\sqrt{m^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{r}}\right)^2}}=c_1+\frac{c_2}{h^2}=c_1+c_2r^2.$$

From this we obtain, for given values of the parameters $`m`$ and $`\beta `$ and for a given $`\{P,v_P\}`$ pair, as a sufficient condition for $`v<\beta v_P`$ the “Coulomb coupling constant constraint” on the two coupling strengths $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ in the funnel potential:

$$c_1+\frac{P^2}{m^2}\left(\frac{P^2}{v_P^2}1\right)c_2<\beta v_P.$$
(19)
In the case $`\{P=1/\sqrt{2},v_P=1/2\}`$ and $`\beta =m=1`$ this condition reduces to $`c_1+\frac{1}{2}c_2<\frac{1}{2}.`$ For Herbst’s lower bound (3), i.e., $`P=v_P=v_\mathrm{c}=2/\pi ,`$ this constraint clearly yields $`c_1<\beta v_P.`$ There is no escaping this feature of all energy bounds involving the Coulomb potential: the constraint derives from the fundamental observation that the Coulomb coupling $`v`$ must not be too large, so that the (relativistic) kinetic energy is able to counterbalance the Coulomb potential in order to maintain the Hamiltonian (1) with $`V(r)=v/r`$ bounded from below.

For example, if we seek the largest allowed value of the parameter $`P`$ by solving Eqs. (17) and (19) together, we find that this largest $`P`$ is given by

$$\frac{c_2\mathrm{sin}^4t}{\mathrm{cos}^2t(\beta \mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}tc_1)}=m^2,P\mathrm{sin}t.$$
(20)
For the Coulomb-plus-linear potential $`V(r)=c_1/r+c_2r`$ under consideration, Fig. 3 shows the lower and upper bounds on the lowest energy eigenvalue $`E`$ of the spinless Salpeter equation, given by the envelopes of the lower and upper families of tangential energy curves (16) and (18), as functions $`E(m)`$ of the mass $`m`$ entering in the semirelativistic Hamiltonian. In the case of the Coulomb lower bound (16), we have employed for each $`m`$ the best possible $`P(m)`$ provided by (20). As $`m0,`$ the “basis” Coulomb problem $`H=\beta \sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}v/r`$ has energy $`e(m)0;`$ thus the Coulomb lower bound for a non-Coulomb problem becomes very weak for small values of $`m.`$ Of course, Eq. (18) provides us with rigorous upper bounds for every energy level.

In order to get an idea of the location of the exact energy eigenvalues $`E`$, Fig. 3 also shows the ground-state energy curve $`E(m)`$ obtained by the Rayleigh–Ritz variational technique  with the Laguerre basis states for the trial space defined in Ref. . Strictly speaking, this energy curve represents only an upper bound to the precise eigenvalue $`E`$. However, from the findings of Ref.  the deviations of these Laguerre bounds from the exact eigenvalues may be estimated, for the superposition of 25 basis functions used here, to be of the order of 1 %.

Figure 4 shows, for a Coulomb-plus-linear potential of the form $`V(r)=v(a/r+br),`$ the lower and upper bounds on the lowest energy eigenvalue $`E`$ of the spinless Salpeter equation, given by the envelopes of the lower and upper families of tangential energy curves (16) and (18), as functions $`E(v)`$ of the “overall” coupling parameter $`v`$ which multiplies the potential shape $`a/r+br.`$ Again we compare these bounds with the ground-state energy curve $`E(v),`$ obtained by the Rayleigh–Ritz variational technique  with the Laguerre basis states .

## 7 Summary and conclusion

In this analysis we have studied the discrete spectrum of semirelativistic “spinless-Salpeter” Hamiltonians $`H,`$ defined in Eq. (1), by an approach which is based principally on convexity. We have at our disposal very definite information concerning, on the one hand, the bottom of the spectrum of $`H`$ for the Coulomb potential, $`h(r)=1/r,`$ and, on the other hand, the entire spectrum of $`H`$ for the harmonic-oscillator potential, $`h(r)=r^2.`$ The class of potentials that are at the same time a convex transformation of $`1/r`$ and a concave transformation of $`r^2`$ includes, for example, arbitrary linear combinations of Coulomb, logarithmic, linear, and harmonic-oscillator terms. In order to obtain information about the eigenvalues $`E`$ of $`H`$ for arbitrary members within this class of potentials, we have extended the—for nonrelativistic Schrödinger operators well-established—formalism of envelope theory to Hamiltonians with relativistic kinetic energies. The envelope technique applied here takes advantage of the fact that all “tangent lines” to the interaction potential $`V(r)=g(h(r))`$ in $`H`$ are potentials of the form $`ah(r)+b,`$ and that, by convexity and the comparison theorem recalled in Subsec. 2.4, the energy eigenvalues corresponding to these “tangent” potentials provide rigorous bounds to the unknown exact eigenvalues $`E`$ of $`H.`$ If $`e(v)`$ denotes the energy function—or a suitable bound to it—corresponding to the problem posed by a “basis” potential $`vh(r),`$ where $`v`$ is a positive coupling parameter, the envelopes of upper and lower families of energy curves may be found with the help of the “principal envelope formula”

$$E\underset{v>0}{\mathrm{min}}[e(v)ve^{}(v)+g(e^{}(v))].$$

Here, a sign of approximate equality is used to indicate that, for a definite convexity of $`g(h),`$ the envelope theory yields lower bounds for convex $`g(h)`$ and upper bounds for concave $`g(h).`$ With the above principal envelope formula at hand, all new spectral pairs $`\{h(r),e(v)\}`$ which may become available at some future time can immediately be used to enrich our collection of energy bounds. If the basis potential $`h(r)`$ is a pure power, these bounds can be written as

$$E_n\mathrm{}\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\beta \sqrt{m^2+\frac{P_n\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}}+V(r)\right],$$

where the numbers $`P_n\mathrm{}`$ are obtained from the corresponding underlying basis problems. The power of this technique is illustrated, in Sec. 6, by our application to the “funnel” potential, $`V(r)=c_1/r+c_2r.`$ For this problem, we have employed both the semirelativistic Coulomb and harmonic-oscillator problems to calculate, respectively, lower and upper bounds on the energy eigenvalues of the spinless Salpeter equation.

We expect that such results would provide bounds on the energy eigenvalues for general theoretical discussions, or be used as guides for more tightly focussed analytic or numerical studies of the spectra of semirelativistic “spinless-Salpeter” Hamiltonians.

## Acknowledgement

Partial financial support of this work under Grant No. GP3438 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the hospitality of the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna is gratefully acknowledged by one of us (R. L. H.).


text:
# Correlations for non-Hermitian Dirac operators: chemical potential in three-dimensional QCD

## 1 The Model

In  a RMM has been introduced to study the influence of a chemical potential on the support of Dirac operator eigenvalues. Here, we aim to derive microscopic correlations of complex eigenvalues at zero virtuality which are important for spontaneous symmetry breaking. For simplicity we consider a non-chiral RMM relevant for three-dimensional QCD with broken flavor symmetry  as well as in four dimension away from zero. In the spirit of  we replace the QCD Dirac operator with a constant complex matrix of size $`N\times N`$ as the Dirac eigenvalues become complex at finite density:

$$𝒵_{QCD3}^{(2N_f)}(\{m_f\})=𝑑J𝑑J^{}\underset{f=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\left|det[Jim_f]\right|^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{N}{1\tau ^2}\text{Tr}\left(JJ^{}\tau \mathrm{}\text{e}J^2\right)\right].$$
(1)
The measure follows from taking the same Gaussian distribution for both the Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts of $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`i[(1\tau )/(1+\tau )]^{1/2}A`$, respectively. We present results in the limit of weak non-Hermiticity where $`lim_N\mathrm{}2N(1\tau )\alpha `$ is kept fixed as well as in the limit of strong non-Hermiticity with $`\tau [0,1)`$. In the weak limit the parameter $`\alpha `$ mimics the influence of the chemical potential. The model (1) has been solved for $`N_f=0`$ both in the strong  and weak limit , where in the latter the existence of orthogonal (Hermite) polynomials in the complex plane was exploited. Here, we extend both results to include $`2N_f`$ fermions flavors, massive or massless, using the same method as in . For that reason we have to take the absolute value of the fermion determinant.

## 2 Results

We present the two-flavor case as an example and refer to  for the general case. In the weak limit the eigenvalues $`z`$ of the matrix $`J`$ and the quark masses $`m_f`$ are rescaled as $`Nz=\xi `$ and $`Nm_f=\mu _f`$, respectively. The microscopic density shown in Fig. 1 reads

$$\rho _S^{(2)}(\xi )=\frac{1}{\pi \alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{}\text{m}^2\xi \right]\left\{g_\alpha (2i\mathrm{}\text{m}\xi )\frac{g_\alpha (\xi +i\mu )g_\alpha (i\mu \xi ^{})}{g_\alpha (2i\mu )}\right\},$$
(2)
with $`g_\alpha (\xi )_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑u\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha ^2u^2/2+i\xi u\right]/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ being the condensate. It displays the exponential suppression in the complex plane as for $`N_f=0`$  and the oscillations and level repulsion at the origin of the density of real eigenvalues . Analytically this is seen as eq. (2) matches in the Hermitian limit $`\alpha 0`$ with the corresponding density .

In the strong non-Hermitian limit we rescale $`\sqrt{N}z=\xi `$ due to the change of mean level spacing. Formally it can also be obtained from eq. (2) by taking $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. The density

$$\rho _S^{(2)}(\xi )=\frac{1}{\pi (1\tau ^2)}\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{1\tau ^2}|\xi i\mu |^2\right]\right\}$$
(3)
displayed in Fig. 1 (right) shows an additional level repulsion at zero compared to the entirely flat density of Ginibre  at $`N_f=0`$. The transition from real ($`\alpha =0`$) to strong non-Hermitian ($`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$) correlations resembles the results  from lattice simulations of QCD in four dimensions with chemical potential.


text:
# On the transverse mode of an atom laser

## Abstract

The transverse mode of an atom laser beam that is outcoupled from a Bose–Einstein condensate is investigated and is found to be strongly determined by the mean–field interaction of the laser beam with the condensate. Since for repulsive interactions the geometry of the coupling scheme resembles an interferometer in momentum space, the beam is found show filamentation. Observation of this effect would prove the transverse coherence of an atom laser beam.

Research on atom lasers is an active and fascinating area in atomic physics Ketterle:97 ; Esslinger:99 . Several laboratories around the world are now using continuous output couplers to produce atom laser beams from Bose-Einstein condensates. It is therefore important to characterize the qualities of these beams. Recently, their temporal coherence was verified Esslinger:01  and their transverse divergence was measured Aspect:01 .

Although atom lasers and optical lasers show strong similarities, the possibility for atoms to scatter off each other leads to various effects absent in optical lasers. In the following we will show that a strong, inhomogeneous repulsive potential, as is represented by the remaining Bose-Einstein condensate, can be a source of instabilities for the beam and, in particular, can lead to its transverse filamentation. Since most experimental setups involve asymmetric traps with two stiff directions, our results are immediately applicable to these experiments.

In magnetic traps output couplers for atom laser beams are realized by coupling a fraction of the Bose-Einstein condensate into a magnetically untrapped state. This process happens inside the trapped sample along a surface where the resonance condition for output coupling is fulfilled, subjecting the output coupled atoms to the repulsive mean field potential of the condensate. Since gravity displaces the symmetry axis of the Bose-Einstein condensate with respect to the symmetry axis of the magnetic trapping field, the repulsive potential is however not homogeneous over the resonance surface. In a classical picture this situation corresponds to particles rolling off a potential from different heights, leading to a non–negligible momentum spread or dispersion in the transverse directions MomentumSpread . Moreover, the finite interaction time of the falling beam with the remaining condensate leads to a non–monotonic increase of the transverse atomic position $`x(t)`$ as a function of the points of resonant output coupling $`x_i`$. In the quantum dynamics, this leads to the interference of atoms with different transverse momenta within the beam.

In the following we will investigate this interference process. First we consider an idealized, one–dimensional model in the direction perpendicular to gravity, and we examine its classical, semiclassical and quantum behaviour. After we have identified and described the relevant processes, we will include the effects of gravity and propagation in more than one dimension.

Atom lasers with radiofrequency output couplers usually couple different Zeeman substates of the trapped atoms. For a Bose-Einstein condensate in a $`|F=1,m_F=1`$ state, two output states are possible. Either $`m_F=0`$ or $`m_F=1`$, the first of which has a vanishing magnetic moment and the latter experiences a repulsive force by the magnetic trap. However, since the output coupling rate from the $`m_F=1`$ state into the $`m_F=0`$ state is usually chosen to be small, subsequent transitions into the $`m_F=1`$ state can be neglected. We therefore restrict our considerations to a two–level system, where the important coupling parameters are the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the rf–field. For weak coupling the resonance condition is determined by the spatial dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ within the Bose-Einstein condensate. After a transformation into a co–rotating frame $`\psi _{m_F}(t)e^{im_F\omega _{\text{rf}}t}\psi _{m_F}(t)`$ followed by the standard rotating wave–approximation, the equations for the condensate wave function $`\psi _c`$ and the atom laser beam wave function $`\psi _b`$ are given by a set of coupled Gross–Pitaevskii–equations Scott:97

$$\begin{array}{cc}i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi _i=\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi _i+V_i(𝐫)\psi _im_F\mathrm{}\omega _{\text{rf}}\psi _i\hfill \\ & \\ & +U(|\psi _i|^2+|\psi _j|^2)\psi _i+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _j,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
with $`i,j=c,b`$ and $`U=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_s/m`$. We have assumed that all triplet scattering lengths have the same value $`a_{ij}=a_s`$ Inguscio:99 , and we will choose $`a_s`$ to be positive. The external potentials are given by $`V_c(𝐫)=\frac{m}{2}\left(\omega _{}^2(x^2+z^2)+\omega _y^2y^2\right)+mgz`$ and $`V_b(𝐫)=mgz`$, where $`g`$ is the gravitational constant, $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\omega _y`$ are the trapping frequencies of the cylindrically symmetric magnetic field and $`m`$ denotes the mass of the atoms.

It has been found, using a separation ansatz for the spatial modes, that the atom laser beam in the direction of gravity can be almost perfectly described by an Airy–Function Schenzle:99 ; Gerbier:01 ; Savage:00 . We therefore first consider the behavior in the transversal $`x`$–direction as independent of the other directions.

A naive, strictly one–dimensional treatment of the atom laser in the horizontal $`x`$–direction would result in exactly two resonance points $`x=\pm \sqrt{2\mathrm{}\omega _{rf}/m\omega _{}^2}`$ Wallis:97 . This, however, is not a good approximation to the three dimensional situation of the experiment. Since gravity leads to a displacement of the condensate from the center of the magnetic field by an amount $`z_g=g/\omega _{}^2`$, the resonance shell crosses the condensate with very low curvature Esslinger:99  and is therefore better approximated by a plane. This means that in the horizontal directions output coupling happens along the full Thomas–Fermi distribution and the initial beam wave function is a scaled down copy of the condensate wave function Savage:00 .

While the atoms fall under gravity, the mean field potential they experience from the condensate changes. To account for this in the one–dimensional approximation one has to diminish the mean field potential, $`U_c(x,t)=U|\psi _c(x,z_t)|^2`$ during the evolution according to the free fall of the atoms, $`z_t=z_g+gt^2/2`$.

However, the principal physics of the horizontal mode and its instability is most clearly demonstrated by first considering the case with $`g=0`$, i.e. taking $`U_c(x,t)=U_c(x,z_g)`$ to be constant in time. The effective one–dimensional Gross–Pitaevskii equation for the beam is then given by

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _b}{t}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{x^2}+U_c(x)+U|\psi _b|^2\right]\psi _b$$
(2)
In the Thomas-Fermi approximation the mean field potential is given by a truncated inverted harmonic oscillator

$$U_c(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mu \left(1\frac{x^2}{x_{TF}^2}\right)\hfill & \text{for}|x|<x_{TF},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for}|x|>x_{TF}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Here $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`x_{TF}=\sqrt{2\mu /m\omega _{}^2}`$ the Thomas–Fermi radius of the condensate.

Let us first analyse eq. (2) classically and neglect the nonlinear term $`U|\psi _b|^2`$, because it is normally three orders of magnitude smaller than $`U_c(x)`$. Neglecting for a moment the truncation of the potential at the condensate border, i.e., assuming the potential $`U_c(x)=\mu (1x^2/x_{TF}^2),x`$, the classical equation of motion

$$m\ddot{x}=\frac{dU_c(x)}{dx}$$
(4)
can be exactly integrated by $`x(t)=x_i\mathrm{cosh}(\omega _{}t)`$, with $`x_i`$ the initial position of the atoms at the time of the outcoupling. Since the $`\mathrm{cosh}`$ is an exponentially increasing function of the time, the resulting evolution is a spreading of the initial distribution. This means that atoms with larger $`x_i`$ will also have larger $`x`$ at later times $`t`$, (see dashed line in Fig. 1a).

The density distribution using the potential in eq. (3) is shown in Fig. 2 (dashed lines). The atoms show a temporary localization at the Thomas–Fermi radius, since the arrival time distribution for the atoms at the Thomas–Fermi edge

$$t_{TF}(\alpha )=\frac{1}{\omega _{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}}{\alpha }\right),$$
(5)
with $`\alpha =x_i/x_{TF}`$, shows a plateau (see Fig. 1b). Once the atoms have passed the Thomas–Fermi radius all their initial potential energy, $`E=\mu (1\alpha ^2)`$, has been transformed into kinetic energy and atoms starting closer to the condensate center ($`x=0`$) therefore end up with higher final velocity. In the asymptotic limit, atoms originating from the center will have overtaken all other atoms and the density distribution that originally had a negative slope will have a positive slope. This can be seen from the dashed curves in Fig. 2.

The full quantum mechanical behaviour can be found by solving Eqs.(1) numerically, for which we use a standard split–operator/FFT technique. As can be seen from Fig. 2 (solid lines), although the general feature of localization is preserved, the density distribution is modulated by an interference pattern. The reason is that for finite times, $`t>t_{TF}`$, atoms with different initial positions arrive at $`x`$ at the same time $`t`$, because the equation

$$x(t)=x_{TF}\left(1+\omega \sqrt{1\alpha ^2}\left(tt_{TF}(\alpha )\right)\right)$$
(6)
has more than one solution for $`\alpha `$, and quantum mechanically, atoms coherently outcoupled at different $`\alpha `$’s interfere. Observation of these fringes would prove the transversal coherence of the atom laser beam.

A mathematically and conceptually very elegant method to calculate the interference pattern is by use of path integrals Feynman:65 . The unitary wave function propagator is obtained by adding phase factor contributions over all paths $`x(t)`$ along which an argument $`x_i`$ in the initial wave function can evolve into the argument $`x_f`$ of the final state

$$\psi (x_f,t_f)=D[x(t)]e^{iS[x(t)]/\mathrm{}}\psi (x_i,t_i),$$
(7)
The phase factor is the classical action along the path

$$S[x(t)]=_{t_i}^{t_f}𝑑t\left[\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2V[x(t)]\right].$$
(8)
Path integrals are usually not exactly solvable, but they can be approximated well when for example few classical paths $`x_{cl}(t)`$ are dominant. We can then restrict the integral to small deviations around them $`S[x]=S[x_{cl}+\delta x]`$. This will provide a qualitative understanding of the observed fringes as well as a very good account of the quantitative results of the quantum calculations.

From Fig. 1 one can immediately make the observation that for $`x>x_{TF}`$ two classical paths contribute. The atoms emerge from two different initial positions, and they will therefore arrive at $`x`$ with two different momenta $`\mathrm{}k_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}k_2`$. This suggests interference fringes of width $`(|k_1k_2|)^1`$, i.e., larger fringes for large values of $`x`$ (see inset of Fig.3).

For potentials whose second spatial derivative is constant, the propagator can be written as Swift:82

$$D[x(t)]e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S[x(t)]}=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S[x_{cl}]}\left(2\pi ik_fk_i_{x_i}^{x_f}\frac{dx}{k(x)^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(9)
with $`k_i=k(x_i)`$, $`k_f=k(x_f)`$ and the classical action is given by

$$S[x_{cl}]=E(t_ft_i)+\mathrm{}_{x_i}^{x_f}𝑑xk(x).$$
(10)
Inserting the inverted and truncated harmonic oscillator potential of eq. (3), $`V(x)=U_c(x)`$, the action can be calculated to give

$`S[x_{cl}]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\omega _{}}}\left[\alpha ^2\omega _{}t_{TF}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_fx_{TF}}{x_{TF}}}\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}\right]`$
$`\mu (t_ft_i)(1\alpha ^2)`$ (11)
for $`x_f>x_{TF}`$ and the bracketed expression in eq. (9) can be calculated to be

$$\left(2\pi ik_fk_i_{x_i}^{x_f}\frac{dx}{k(x)^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi ia_0^2}\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}}},$$
(12)
where $`a_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _{}}`$ . In Fig. 3 the evolution of the wave function according to the semiclassical approximation to eq. (7) is shown (dashed line). Comparison with the full quantum mechanical evolution of eq. (2) shows almost perfect agreement.

To justify and understand the semiclassical approximation, let us note that restriction to classical paths and the assumption of quadratic potentials is formally equivalent to a WKB approximation Swift:82  and the condition of validity can be written as

$$\frac{1}{k^2}\left|\frac{dk}{dx}\right|=\frac{x}{a_0^4}\frac{1}{k(x)^3}<1$$
(13)
where we have used the momentum of the atoms given by $`\mathrm{}k(x)=\sqrt{2m(EV(x))}`$. This condition is well fulfilled as long as $`V(x)`$ is an inverted harmonic oscillator for all atoms. One may, however, question the validity close to the Thomas–Fermi radius, where the slope of the potential changes strongly within the healing length of the system, i.e., one might expect the appearance of quantum reflection effects at this point. To estimate the reflectivity of the potential step, we note that the de-Broglie-wavelength of the atoms when reaching the Thomas–Fermi radius is larger than the healing length $`\xi `$

$$\lambda _{\text{dB}}=\frac{2\pi a_0^2}{\sqrt{x_{TF}^2x_i^2}}\frac{2\pi a_0^2}{x_{TF}}>\frac{a_0^2}{x_{TF}}=\xi .$$
(14)
One can therefore approximate the edge of the condensate by an effective step. Since the exact choice of the position of the effective potential step is not crucial, one can from eq. (14) estimate its effective height to be as large as $`10\%`$ of the central mean field potential. This leads to a reflection coefficient

$$R=\left|\frac{1}{120\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}}\right|^210^2$$
(15)
justifying very well the semiclassical treatment.

Let us finally consider a two dimensional situation including gravity. The beam atoms are subjected to the mean-field potential for a time of the order of $`0.51`$ms assuming a typical condensate radius of $`4\mu `$m. Most of the atoms therefore do not experience a complete horizontal roll–off from the mean–field potential (compare Fig. 1b), however qualitatively the above picture remains unchanged. We have solved the two–dimensional version of eq. (1) in the $`x`$– and $`z`$–plane numerically and in Fig. 4a the atom laser beam for short evolution times is shown. Once the beam has left the overlap area with the Bose-Einstein condensate its evolution within the transverse direction is completely determined by a free evolution and the far–field result can be simply calculated by the Fourier transform. A cut through the density distribution is shown in Fig. 4b and the far field of this distribution is shown in Fig. 4c. Both pictures show good qualitative agreement with the results of the one-dimensional analysis.

In summary we have shown that the transverse mode of an atom laser is strongly determined by the interaction of the beam with the mean–field of the residing condensate. Due to the finite time of this interaction, the system resembles an interferometer in momentum space and the beam shows filamentation in the transverse directions.

This work has been supported by the Danish Natural Science Research Council and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.