text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The central motivation for any CERN accelerator beyond the LHC must be provided by physics beyond the present Standard Model. LEP has tested the Standard Model very precisely, but has provided no direct evidence for physics beyond it. Atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation experiments have provided the first experimental evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model, and long-baseline experiments using accelerator neutrino beams are underway to verify and explore this new physics. Recently, the Brookhaven experiment on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon has reported a hint of a possible discrepancy with the Standard Model. Nevertheless, the possible direction of experimental physics beyond the Standard Model remains uncertain, and any prediction which experiments will be interesting for CERN after the LHC and the CERN-Gran Sasso neutrino project must be largely speculative.

The most prominent areas where the Standard Model leaves unsolved problems include the origins of the particle masses, the variety of particle types (flavours), the unification of the particle interactions, and a consistent quantum theory of gravity. All of these problems should ultimately be resolved in a ‘Theory of Everything’, and the long-term goal of particle physics is to discover and establish such a theory. Resolutions of the more immediate problems will provide some of its ingredients.

Particle masses are believed to be due to a Higgs boson, and LEP provided last year a hint that it might weigh about 115 GeV. The masses generated by the Higgs mechanism are, however, destabilized by quantum effects, unless new physics is invoked. Favoured theoretical scenarios for stabilizing particle masses have been the idea that the Higgs boson might be composite, or that it might be accompanied by supersymmetric particles, which have identical quantum numbers to the known particles, but have spins differing by half units. More recently, inspired by string theory, it has been suggested that there might be additional spatial dimensions beyond the three we know, and that these might remove the need for a large hierarchy between the intrinsic scale of gravity and the observed particle masses .

These scenarios all predict new physics at the TeV energy scale, which will initially be explored by the LHC. If confirmed, the Brookhaven measurement of a possible discrepancy in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon would also hint at new physics at the TeV energy scale, and interpretations based on supersymmetry and lepton compositeness have been proposed. On the other hand, there is no clear hint of the energy scale where new flavour physics might be revealed, and the natural scales of grand unification and quantum gravity are beyond direct reach at foreseeable colliders, unless there are large extra dimensions. However, these might be tested indirectly, e.g., by the relations they predict between low-energy parameters, or by novel phenomena such as neutrino oscillations.

Despite the lack of direct accelerator evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model, LEP has provided some indirect indications which future directions might prove fruitful, and disfavoured some others. For instance, the precision electroweak data suggest the existence of a relatively light Higgs boson, favouring some weakly-coupled model of electroweak symmetry breaking, such as supersymmetry or a theory with large extra spatial dimensions. On the other hand, these data disfavour strongly-interacting models with composite Higgs bosons, though we do not ignore such a possibility in the following. If there is indeed a light Higgs boson with mass close to the experimental lower limit set by LEP, the Standard Model cannot survive unchanged until the Planck or unification scale, and, more specifically, new physics would be required below about $`10^5`$ to $`10^6`$ GeV if the LEP hint of a 115 GeV Higgs boson were to be confirmed .

Even if the existence of supersymmetry or large extra dimensions were to be discovered by the LHC, full understanding of the theory behind would require additional measurements with a complementary collider. For example, what breaks supersymmetry, or what fixes the sizes of the extra dimensions? Plans for future CERN accelerators beyond the LHC should bear such questions in mind.

The principal options  for possible CERN accelerators beyond the LHC that we have considered include (i) an upgraded LHC with $`E_{cm}=14`$ TeV and a luminosity of $`10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1 that we call the SLHC, (ii) a higher-energy hadron-hadron collider with $`E_{cm}`$= 100 to 200 TeV (the Very Large Hadron Collider - VLHC) , (iii) a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with $`E_{cm}`$ = 3 to 5 TeV, such as the CLIC collider that is being studied actively at CERN , and (iv) a muon collider (MC) with $`E_{cm}<4`$ TeV. We couple the latter with other physics opportunities offered by muon storage rings, such as a neutrino factory and Higgs factories .

## 2 Physics Reach of the LHC

We consider in the following a variety of possible physics topics beyond the Standard Model, including a range of benchmark scenarios for supersymmetric models consistent with the present experimental limits from LEP and elsewhere. We list in the Table the estimated physics reach of the LHC  for these various types of physics beyond the Standard Model, including the accessible ranges for the masses of the possible supersymmetric partners for some known particles, of a new neutral weak boson $`Z^{}`$ analogous to the well-known $`Z`$, of excited quark and lepton states $`q^{}`$ and $`l^{}`$, the accessible size $`R_D`$ of a pair of extra dimensions (which we parametrize by the energy scale $`M_D`$ equivalent to $`1/R_D`$), the sensitivities to strong interactions between pairs of $`W`$ bosons parametrized by a 1 TeV Higgs boson and to deviations from the Standard Model value for the Triple Gauge Coupling (TGC) $`\lambda _\gamma `$, and the reach for a compositeness scale $`L`$ at which elementary particles might reveal internal structure.

As is well known, the LHC has a large reach for the strongly-interacting partners of quarks and gluons (the squarks and gluinos), and would be capable of reconstructing many of their intricate cascade decay modes. However, its reach for non-strongly-interacting supersymmetric particles such as the supersymmetric partners of leptons (sleptons) is more limited. The set of simplified benchmark supersymmetric models we have established  have universal supersymmetric mass parameters that are chosen to be compatible with the various Higgs boson and sparticle limits from LEP . The universality we assume is just one of many specific variants of supersymmetry, and one of the primary tasks of future accelerators may be to probe its assumptions. The first panel of the Figure illustrates crudely the fractions of the rich sparticle spectra in these benchmark models that we estimate to be accessible to the LHC experiments. We see that the LHC discovers some supersymmetric particles in all these scenarios, but never discovers them all. For this reason, the LHC alone will not be able to pin down all the details of supersymmetry breaking.

Likewise, in models with large extra dimensions, the new physics may well show up within the range shown in the Table, although mass scales up to 100 TeV are also possible. Also, if the LHC were to discover a Higgs boson weighing about 115 GeV, but found no supersymmetric particles, the LHC would not cover the energy range up to $`10^5`$ to $`10^6`$ GeV where new physics should appear.

We infer from the Table and the Figure that, although the LHC has excellent prospects of making fundamental discoveries beyond the Standard Model, with mass reach well into the TeV range, it is unlikely to provide complete answers to all the ensuing questions.

To complete the baseline for our subsequent discussion of future CERN colliders, we also include in the Table a column showing the physics reach of a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider (LC) with $`E_{cm}=800`$ GeV, such as TESLA, the NLC or JLC. Such a LC would complement the LHC in several respects, e.g., in the search for new weakly-interacting physics. This point is made in the second panel of the Figure, where we see that such a LC would (in several supersymmetric scenarios) observe non-strongly-interacting supersymmetric particles that would not be visible at the LHC. Moreover, a LC would provide many detailed measurements of sparticle properties that would lie beyond the scope of a hadron-hadron collider.

## 3 Physics Opportunities with Possible Future Accelerators

In this section we discuss the physics accessible to the possible accelerator options introduced above, namely the SLHC, VLHC, CLIC and muon storage rings.

### 3.1 SLHC

Preliminary estimates by the LHC project team  indicate that it should be possible to increase the peak luminosity from the design value of $`10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 up to about $`10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1 by increasing the bunch intensity up to the beam-beam limit, replacing the inner quadrupole triplets with larger aperture magnets to reduce the $`\beta `$-value at the interaction points, and by halving the bunch spacing to 12.5 ns in order to preserve the luminosity lifetime.

On the other hand, more than a modest LHC energy upgrade looks much more difficult. The present dipoles may ultimately sustain a 9 Tesla field, which would correspond to a maximum $`E_{cm}`$ = 15.2 TeV. Even if advances in magnet technology made a substantially larger field possible, other problems such as the extraction of the increased synchrotron radiation power would present difficulties for fitting a significantly higher energy machine into the LHC tunnel.

Although the ultimate LHC centre-of-mass energy with the present magnets could be up to 15.2 TeV, the SLHC studies  presented here  have conservatively assumed $`L=10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1 and $`E_{cm}`$=14 TeV. Running the LHC detectors at ten times the nominal LHC luminosity would cause non-negligible radiation and occupancy problems, but solutions appear feasible . Here we only mention that one of the main consequences of the luminosity upgrade would be that a large part of the inner detectors of both experiments, e.g., the innermost layers of both trackers and the ATLAS Transition Radiation Tracker, would need to be replaced, in order to maintain the required performance for bottom-quark tagging, electron and tau measurements. On the other hand, calorimeters and the external muon spectrometers should be less affected by the luminosity increase, and should remain fully functional with upgrades of smaller scope.

The estimated physics reaches of the SLHC for supersymmetry, $`Z^{},q^{},l^{},M_D`$, strong WW scattering, TGC and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are shown in the third column of the Table. In the discovery channels, we see that the SLHC reaches somewhat further than the LHC, typically by about 20%. The order-of-magnitude increase in statistics should also make possible significant improvements in precision measurements, as indicated by the increased sensitivity to the TGC shown in the Table. Although these improvements are not dramatic, this relatively modest upgrade of the LHC might be very interesting if the LHC finds hints of some phenomena that need to be pinned down. For example, in some of our benchmark supersymmetric models, we expect gluinos to weigh between 2.5 and 3 TeV, which is most likely in the range covered by the SLHC but not the LHC. Alternatively, in some supersymmetric models some flavours of squarks might be heavier than others, and the SLHC could complete the squark spectrum revealed by the LHC.

The results shown in the Table were obtained for final states containing objects with very large transverse energy, such as jets, leptons, photons or missing transverse energy. Since the pile-up noise in the calorimeter increases only by a factor of about 3 for a factor of 10 increase in luminosity, and gives a negligible contribution to the measurements of particles in the TeV range, calorimetric measurements of jets, electrons, photons and missing transverse energy at the SLHC should not suffer from the higher luminosity. However, electron identification requires a combination of calorimeter and tracker information, and the latter will only be available if the LHC inner detectors are largely replaced. Therefore, in order to be conservative, and not knowing a priori what level of detector upgrade will be technically and financially possible, for the studies presented here we have ignored electrons and considered only final states containing muons, jets, photons and missing transverse energy. It is clear, however, that full detector functionality, including the possibility of detecting and identifying all three lepton species, would be essential to profit fully from the increased luminosity of the SLHC, and to obtain more convincing results in the event of a discovery.

The performance of a hadron collider with $`E_{cm}`$ = 28 TeV and $`L=10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 has also been looked at, in order to estimate the available physics as a function of energy as well as luminosity. Such a machine would extend the LHC physics reach by a factor between 1.5 and 2, depending on the channel studied. For example, a signal from strongly-interacting W pairs should be observable at the five-standard-deviation level with only 50 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. However, it is not known currently how such a machine could be housed in the LHC tunnel, since it would require very high-field magnets and new ways to deal with synchrotron radiation.

### 3.2 VLHC

Studies have been made in the United States of the physics offered by a 100-200 TeV hadron collider, the VLHC . Some estimates of the reach of this machine for $`L=10^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 are also presented in the Table, providing useful information about the physics interest of the energy regime beyond the LHC/SLHC.

Primarily for geographical reasons, we do not consider a VLHC to be the most likely option for CERN’s future . The most recent design study for a VLHC presents a machine with a circumference of 233 Km for $`E_{cm}`$ = 200 TeV. The maximum size of ring that could be accommodated in the Geneva basin is guessed to have a circumference of about 80 Km, and the closest that a larger machine could be placed is probably beyond the Jura mountains in France. VLHC technical studies have been underway for several years in the United States. The main engineering issue is to find technically and economically viable solutions for the machine components, such as the magnets and cryogenics, and the tunnel.

Just as the LHC will be the first machine to enter and explore the TeV energy range, the VLHC will be able to explore the energy range up to about 30-40 TeV in the centre of mass for constituent collisions. In the absence of input from the LHC, it is not yet possible to make a compelling case for any particular scenario for new physics at the 10 TeV scale, in contrast to the TeV energy scale. However, we can envisage several possible scenarios emerging from the LHC data which would justify strongly the need for such a machine . A few examples are:

* The LHC discovers supersymmetry, and supersymmetry is mediated by new gauge interactions. In this case, by measuring several sparticle masses and the lifetime of the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle, the LHC experiments should be able to constrain, to within 30% or so, the scale at which supersymmetry breaking is communicated to the visible world. If this scale is in the energy range up to a few tens of TeV, then a VLHC could produce directly the corresponding new particles.
* The LHC discovers supersymmetry, and observes the squarks of the third generation, the supersymmetric partners of the top and bottom quarks, but not the squarks of the first two generations. This is possible in so-called inverted-hierarchy models, where the squarks of the first two generations can weigh several TeV without creating naturalness problems. We will then know that such squarks should exist, and a VLHC, which could produce squarks weighing up to about 15 TeV, is the only presently foreseen machine able to observe them.
* The LHC finds evidence for quark compositeness by observing a significant excess of centrally produced high-$`E_T`$ di-jet events above the Standard Model expectation. It can be seen from the Table that the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would then be in the energy range up to a few tens of TeV. Then a VLHC could probe the production of new particles, such as excited quarks, giving more direct and conclusive evidence for compositeness.
* The LHC finds a hint for strong WW scattering, in which case a VLHC could study it with much higher statistics.
* The LHC finds evidence for large extra spatial dimensions, for instance by observing a significant signal in final states with jets and missing transverse energy. It can be seen from the Table that the fundamental scale of gravity would then be in the region of a few tens of TeV, and a VLHC should again be able to probe directly the scale of new physics.

### 3.3 CLIC

As already mentioned, linear electron-positron collider (LC) projects are being pursued actively in Germany , the U.S.  and Japan , as well as at CERN . The first-generation LC projects being pursued elsewhere typically aim at centre-of-mass energies in the range 0.5 to 1 TeV, and we have chosen $`E_{cm}`$ = 800 GeV as a standard  for comparison with the LHC and CERN’s future options.

The physics reach for such a LC is inferior to the LHC for new strongly-interacting particles. On the other hand, as also seen in the Figure, such a first-generation LC would be largely complementary to the LHC, offering, for example, excellent opportunities to study in detail any light Higgs boson and make precise measurements of any supersymmetric particles within its reach, in particular the supersymmetric partners of weakly-interacting particles . However, there is no guarantee that any supersymmetric particles would be accessible to a LC with $`E_{cm}`$ = 800 GeV, and such a LC would not in general be able to complete the supersymmetric spectroscopy, as seen in the second panel of the Figure. We assume that some such sub-TeV LC will be built somewhere in the world, and that CERN should envisage constructing a higher-energy lepton-lepton collider, such as CLIC or a muon collider.

CERN and its partner laboratories have been developing for several years the CLIC double-beam technology for generating high accelerating gradients in the range 100 to 200 MV/m, enabling a higher-energy LC to be constructed in a tunnel of length similar to that proposed for a lower-energy LC with a lower accelerating gradient . Preliminary geological studies indicate that a tunnel up to about 35 Km long could be accommodated in good rock between the Jura mountains and Lake Geneva, in the immediate neighbourhood of the present CERN site . This would be sufficient to accommodate a CLIC machine with centre-of-mass energy up to 3 or 5 TeV. CLIC would be able to provide polarized beams, which are useful for several physics topics such as sparticle studies and searches for extra dimensions (see the second numbers in the last two columns of the sixth row of the Table), and would also have options for $`e\gamma `$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, which have better reaches for some physics topics.

We see in the Table that CLIC with $`E_{cm}`$ = 3 to 5 TeV has an impressive physics reach for all the physics topics studied , with many capabilities beyond those of the LHC and a first-generation LC. Moreover, we see in the Figure that CLIC would be able to complete much of the sparticle spectroscopy opened up by the LHC, going significantly beyond the reach of a lower-energy LC. As an example, CLIC may be the first machine able to disentangle the different squark flavours and complete the spectra in most of our simplified benchmark models if it attains $`E_{cm}`$ = 5 TeV. We think it is important not to lose sight of this ultimate goal for CLIC. CLIC also has excellent potential for many of the other physics topics in the Table, such as extra dimensions, strong WW scattering, measuring the TGC, and lepton compositeness. For example, CLIC would enable multi-TeV Kaluza-Klein resonances in extra dimension scenarios to be studied in great detail.

The experimental environment at CLIC offers several challenges, as compared to a lower-energy LC. For example, the colliding beams are expected to radiate energetic photons much more strongly, reducing and smearing the nominal centre-of-mass energy, and leading to an imbalance in the visible momentum in the final state. Also, photon-photon collisions are expected to be relatively more copious than at a lower-energy LC, and large incoherent creation of electron-positron pairs is also expected. Dealing with these problems requires close collaboration on the machine-detector interface, which has already started within the CLIC physics study group.

Initial analyses do not reveal any showstopping problems created by the relatively large beam energy spread inherent to CLIC at high energy and luminosity. For example, direct studies of a heavy $`Z^{}`$ boson analogous to the known $`Z`$ would be very easy at CLIC, enabling many of its properties to be measured with per mille precision . Studies have also been made of the production of pairs of supersymmetric particles . Their missing-energy signatures would be quite distinctive, and the thresholds for their production could also be measured easily. In addition to discovering and measuring precisely new supersymmetric particles, CLIC would also be able to distinguish and measure more precisely sparticles discovered at the LHC.

There are several ways in which the extra information provided by CLIC could prove to be essential. A few examples are:

* The LHC discovers supersymmetry and measures the masses of a few supersymmetric particles, with the first-generation LC perhaps finding and measuring some more. As previously mentioned, in the simplified benchmark supersymmetric models we have studied, CLIC would complete the supersymmetric spectrum and enable detailed measurements to be made. Thus it might cast light on the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking, which might be a window into string physics.
* The LHC finds evidence for large extra dimensions. In this case, the combination of data at different CLIC energies will enable the number and size of the extra dimensions to be determined independently. The LHC finds evidence for quark compositeness. In this case, CLIC could reveal lepton compositeness, completing the revelation of a new layer of fundamental structure. It might well also be that excited leptons would appear at CLIC even if excited quarks have not appeared at the LHC, if CLIC attains 5 TeV.
* The Higgs boson weighs 115 GeV, as suggested by LEP, but the LHC finds no supersymmetry or evidence for quark compositeness. CLIC would be able to measure the Higgs self-coupling with better than 10% precision, enabling the effective potential to be mapped, would observe any charged Higgs bosons weighing up to 2 TeV or so, and would provide new opportunities to observe the heavier neutral Higgs bosons in supersymmetric models. Moreover, we see from the Table that CLIC is best placed to find compositeness over essentially all the energy range up to about $`10^5`$ to $`10^6`$ GeV, where new physics must appear if the Higgs boson weighs 115 GeV.
* The LHC finds a hint of strong WW scattering, in which case CLIC could study it with high statistics and precision .

### 3.4 Muon Storage Rings and Colliders

Another possible option for CERN’s future is to develop a complex of muon storage rings. The first component would be a high-intensity proton driver, for example a superconducting proton linac (SPL) that would reuse LEP radiofrequency cavities . This could also make possible interesting upgrades for other CERN facilities, ranging from ISOLDE to the CERN-Gran Sasso neutrino beam and the LHC. The SPL would also offer interesting possibilities in short-baseline neutrino physics and studies with stopped muons.

The next steps in a programme of physics with muons would be to capture them, cool them, and accelerate them in recirculating linacs. The first physics option offered would be simply to store the energetic muons, allowing them to decay producing intense and well-understood beams of electron and muon neutrinos – a neutrino factory . This would offer interesting physics opportunities in the search for long-baseline oscillations between electron and muon neutrinos and matter effects on neutrino oscillations. The most exciting opportunity may be the search for CP violation . A neutrino factory would be the logical next step after the current generation of long-baseline neutrino experiments, and might provide a unique window on grand unification via the lepton sector.

If the technique of muon cooling could be refined, the next options might be to collide muons in one or more Higgs factories, exploiting the direct-channel $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H`$ production mechanism. Such a MC would be a unique machine for measuring the Higgs line shape, as LEP did for the $`Z`$. It would also offer ideal opportunities to study CP violation in the Higgs sector, as expected in some supersymmetric models. In the longer run, one could also envisage building a high-energy MC, which would probably be limited to $`E_{cm}<4`$ TeV by the neutrino radiation hazard. Its physics reach would be equivalent to that of CLIC for the same $`E_{cm}`$ and luminosity, and the smaller beam-energy spread and better energy calibration would confer some advantages on a MC, though the absence of $`\mu \gamma `$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions might be a handicap. There are some physics scenarios in which colliding muons may be preferable to colliding electrons, for example in Higgs physics or in certain supersymmetric models that violate R parity. On the other hand, muon decays will provide important challenges to detector builders, and large controlled beam polarization will not be available, unlike at CLIC.

Since there are many technical hurdles on the route to a MC, which surely has a longer development time-scale than CLIC, we do not discuss it further, except to comment that a muon storage ring complex, including a high-energy MC, could fit comfortably within the area of the existing CERN accelerators.

## 4 Summary

We have discussed briefly possible future high-energy accelerator options for CERN, and note the following preliminary impressions.

* (a) The SLHC presents interesting possibilities that may provide good physics return for the relatively modest capital investment required to upgrade the LHC luminosity and the LHC detectors.
* (b) CLIC provides excellent long-term perspectives within all the speculative scenarios for physics beyond the Standard Model that we have considered, and is therefore a very attractive option for CERN’s long-term future beyond the LHC. CLIC would complement and go beyond the LHC, being an ideal machine to study heavy new weakly-interacting particles, and could fit comfortably in the neighbourhood of the CERN site.
* c) A neutrino factory based on a muon storage ring would provide an exciting and complementary scientific programme, probing grand unified theories, but a high-energy muon collider is not a prospect for the near future.
* d) A decision on the construction of a VLHC, which is unlikely to fit in the neighbourhood of the CERN site, could only be taken after a few years of LHC running at the design luminosity. Should the LHC data give indications that the next energy scale, e.g., that of supersymmetry breaking, compositeness or extra dimensions, lies around 50 TeV or below, then a VLHC would be the ideal machine to produce directly the corresponding new particles and probe their interactions.

In conclusion, we comment that many open questions will be answered by the LHC, and possibly other experiments, before the decision about CERN’s following high-energy accelerator needs to be finalized. The LHC will certainly provide many clues to the ‘Theory of Everything’, but further accelerator experiments will be needed to identify it. Quite possibly, some completely new phenomenon will be discovered at the LHC that will be more exciting than any of the theoretical speculations discussed here. This brief survey has indicated that there are already many strong options for new CERN accelerators beyond the LHC, suitable for addressing the questions it will leave open.

CERN has, in the LHC, a forefront project that will establish its leadership in high-energy physics. The organization should have similar ambition for its projects after the LHC.

## Acknowledgements

We thank M. Battaglia, U. Baur and A. Blondel for their help.


format: text

text:
# Nonlinear Constraints from Non-Abelian Internal Symmetries

## I INTRODUCTION

Let us consider a multiparticle interacting system with the internal symmetry. The problem arises what are global constraints of the system due to the symmetry conservation. In the microscopic formulation with symmetry invariant dynamical equations the answer is given by an analysis of corresponding solutions — assuming that solutions are known.

We are looking here for global conditions to provide consistency with the overall symmetry of the system. These conditions should not depend an exact analytic form of the solutions. An old fashioned example would be Kepler’s laws in the classical mechanics which are related to the orbital momentum conservation and can be proved without knowledge of the analytic solutions of Newton equations. As an another very simple example let us consider $`N^{(a)},N^{(b)},\mathrm{},N^{(n)}`$ charged particles with corresponding individual charges $`q_a,q_b,\mathrm{},q_n.`$ Particle numbers are time-dependent but the global charges must be conserved (exact $`U(1)`$ symmetry). So there is a condition

$$q_a\frac{dN^{(a)}}{dt}+q_b\frac{dN^{(b)}}{dt}+\mathrm{}+q_n\frac{dN^{(n)}}{dt}=0,$$
(1)
valid for any charge conserving interaction.

Our aimTurRaf  is to find a corresponding condition for non-abelian symmetries.

## II GENERALIZED PROJECTION METHOD

On the first Bielefeld conference in 1980 I presented a paper Redlich:1980bf  devoted to the problem of a formulation of thermodynamics with internal symmetries taken into account. Group projection techniques allowed for a consistent treatment of equilibrium systems and gave tools to obtain canonical partition functions corresponding to the system transforming under given representation of the symmetry group. This technique can also be used for a more general non-static problem.

Let us consider a system consisting of particles belonging to multiplets $`\alpha _j`$ of the symmetry group. Particles from the given multiplet $`\alpha _j`$ are characterized by quantum numbers $`\nu _j`$ — related to the symmetry group, and quantum numbers $`\zeta _j`$ characterizing different multiplets of the same irreducible representation $`\alpha _j`$.

The number of particles of the specie $`\{\alpha ,\nu _\alpha ;\zeta \}`$ is denoted here by $`N_{\nu _\alpha ;(\zeta )}^{(\alpha )}.`$ These occupation numbers are time dependent until the system reaches the chemical equilibrium. However the representation of the symmetry group for the system remains constant in the course of a time evolution. A multiplicity $`N^{(\alpha _j)}`$ of the representation $`\alpha _j`$ in this product is equal to a number of particles which transform under this representation:

$$N^{(\alpha _j)}=\underset{j}{}\left(\underset{\zeta _j}{}N_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}\right)=\underset{j}{}N_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}.$$
(2)
We introduce a state vector $`|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$ in particle number representation. The probability that $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$ particles transforming under the symmetry group representations $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$ combine into a state transforming under representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the symmetry group is given by

$`\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\left|𝒫^\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$ (3)
The projection operator $`𝒫^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the form (see e.g. Wigner ):

$$𝒫^\mathrm{\Lambda }=d(\mathrm{\Lambda })\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)U(g).$$
(4)
Here $`\chi ^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ is the character of the representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`d(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the dimension of the representation, $`d\mu (g)`$ is the invariant Haar measure on the group, and $`U(g)`$ is an operator transforming a state under consideration. In particle number representation the operator $`U(g)`$ is defined as:

$`U(g)|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\nu _n^{(N_{\nu _n})}}{}}D_{\nu _1^{(1)}\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}\mathrm{}D_{\nu _1^{(N_{\nu _1})}\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}\mathrm{}D_{\nu _n^{(1)}\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}\mathrm{}D_{\nu _n^{(N_{\nu _n})}\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}.`$
$`D_{\nu ,\nu }^{(\alpha _n)}`$ is a matrix elements of the group element $`g`$ corresponding to the representation $`\alpha `$.

One gets finally

$$\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}d(\mathrm{\Lambda })\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}.$$
(6)
$`D_{\nu ,\nu }^{(\alpha _n)}`$ is a matrix elements of the group element $`g`$ corresponding to the representation $`\alpha `$ and $`𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}`$ is an overall permutation normalization factor:

$$𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}=\underset{j}{}\underset{\zeta _j}{}𝒜_{(\zeta _j)}^{\alpha _j},$$
(7)
where $`𝒜_{(\zeta _j)}^{\alpha _j}`$ are partial factors for particles of the kind $`\{\alpha ,\zeta \}:`$

$`𝒜_{(\zeta )}^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩_{(\zeta )}^{(\alpha )}!}{\underset{\nu _\alpha }{}𝒩_{\nu _\alpha ;(\zeta )}^{(\alpha )}!}};`$ (8)
The permutation factor gives a proper normalization of state vectors reflecting indistinguishability of particles:

$$N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}=𝒜^{\{𝒩\}};$$
(9)
Because of symmetry conservations all weights in Eq. (6) should be constant:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=0.$$
(10)
Introducing here the result of Eq. (6) one obtains:

$`0={\displaystyle \frac{d𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}}{dt}}d(\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}}𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}d(\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}\mathrm{log}[D_{\nu _j\nu _j}^{(\alpha _j)}].`$
The integrals which appear in Eq. (II) can be expressed explicitly in an analytic form for any compact symmetry group.

To write an expression for the time derivative of the normalization factor $`𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}`$ we perform analytic continuation from integer to continuous values of variables $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}.`$ All factorials in Eq. (7) are replaced by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–function of corresponding arguments. We encounter here also the digamma function $`\psi `$ Abram :

$$\psi (x)=\frac{d\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)}{dx}.$$
(12)
This allows to write:

$$\frac{d𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}}{dt}=𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}\underset{j}{}\underset{\zeta _j}{}\left[\frac{d𝒩_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}\psi (𝒩_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)\underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}\frac{d𝒩_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}\psi (𝒩_{\nu _\alpha ;(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)\right]$$
(13)
Eq. (II) can be written in a form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta _j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dN_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}}\psi (N_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}}\psi (N_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)\right).`$
where

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}$$
(15)
is analytically extended for continuous values of variables $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}.`$ This gives

$$\frac{d\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}=\frac{\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}\mathrm{log}[D_{\nu _j\nu _j}^{(\alpha _j)}]}{\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}}.$$
(16)
For higher multiplicities digamma functions in Eq. (II) can be replaced by corresponding logarithmic functions according to the asymptotic formulaAbram :

$$\psi (N+1)\mathrm{log}N.$$
(17)
Eqs. (II) and (16) give a set of conditions related to the internal symmetry of a system. They are meaningful only for nonzero values of coefficients (6). It is easy to see that coefficients $`\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ are different from zero only if parameters $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are consistent with the conservation of the simultaneously measurable charges related to the symmetry group. A number of such charges is equal to the rank $`k`$ of the symmetry group. For the isospin $`SU(2)`$ group that is the third component of the isospin, for the flavour $`SU(3)`$ that would be the third component of the isospin and the hypercharge. In general case one has $`k`$ linear relations between variables $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}`$ what reduces correspondingly the number of independent variables.

## III CONCLUSIONS

We have got relations which are necessary global conditions to provide consistency with the overall symmetry of the system. They do not depend on the form of the underlying microscopic interaction. Abelian internal symmetries lead to simple and obvious linear relations as in Eq. (1). Non-abelian internal symmetries lead to nonlinear relations as in Eq. (II).

If we know solutions of symmetry invariant evolution equations then all those constraints would become identities. In other case they give a subsidiary information about the system and can be used as a consistency check for approximative calculations. A case of generalized Vlasov - Boltzman kinetic equations was considered in TurRaf .

New constraints lead to decreasing number of available states for the system during its evolution. New correlations appear and the change in the thermodynamical behavior can be expected Elze:2001ss .

A challenging point is to find structures which would correspond to chemical potentials when system approaches the equilibrium distribution. The equilibrium distribution in the presence of constraints can be constructed by the Lagrange multipliers method. The multipliers related to the “abelian constraints, such as Eq. (1), are well known chemical potentials. Multipliers related to the “nonabelian” constraints (II) are more complicated. Because these constraints are nonlinear ones, corresponding multipliers cannot be treated as standard additive thermodynamical potentials.

###### Acknowledgements.

Work supported in part by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under contract KBN - 2P03B 030 18


text:
# HI and dark matter in spiral galaxies

## 1. Ken Freeman’s early contribution to the dark matter problem

In his classic paper on exponential disks (Freeman, 1970), Ken presents a unifying scheme to describe the photometric properties of disk galaxies, using a simple law which describes the radial distribution of the surface brightness of the disk of a spiral or S0 galaxy reasonably well. He then works out the dynamics of such disks, and discusses issues related to disk formation. In the Appendix of that paper he concentrates on four galaxies, and points out that for two of them the available data hint at a discrepancy between the photometric scalelength of the disk and the expected peak of the rotation curve if the mass-to-light ratio of the disk is independent of radius. While for the LMC and the SMC there is no such discrepancy, the available data for M33 and NGC 300 do indicate one:

“For two of four systems with weak spheroidal components, the LMC and the SMC, the turnover radii of the rotation curves predicted from the photometrically derived gradients $`\alpha `$ appear to be consistent with those observed. For NGC 300 and M33, the 21-cm data give turnover points near the photometric edges of these systems. These data have relatively low spatial resolution; it they are correct, then there must be in these galaxies additional matter which is undetected, either optically or at 21 cm. Its mass must be at least as large as the mass of the detected galaxy, and its distribution must be quite different from the exponential distribution which holds for the optical galaxy.”

These remarks have been quoted by several authors retracing the history of the dark matter problem in spiral galaxies (e.g. Van Albada et al. 1985, Sciama, 1993). It is actually interesting to examine how the interpretation of the data of these two galaxies changed as the instrumentation improved. This is of intellectual relevance to see how scientific debate advances with time : it is sometimes said that the dark matter problem constitutes a “revolution”, in the sense of Kuhn’s book (Kuhn 1962), or worse a “paradigm shift” – but then “what is a paradigm ?” (cf. Lakatos & Musgrave 1970) – so what is the contribution of Ken’s paper to this revolution ?

Early data on M33 are very confusing, and the most up-to-date information available in 1969 is summarized in an IAU Symposium published in Russian (cf. Demoulin et al. 1969). Dramatic improvements in the kinematical data on M33 were obtained in the early 70’s, first through the work of the Cambridge HI group (Warner et al. 1973), and then by Rogstad et al. (1976). In the latter paper, one of the key characteristics of the HI distribution was pointed out : the HI layer is strongly warped beyond the edge of the optical disk. It turns out that if the points on the rotation curve in the warped part are ignored, as done by Kalnajs (1983), one can fit the rotation curve assuming the mass follows the light. If the rotation curve is extended with the HI points from the warped parts, this cannot be achieved anymore (Athanassoula et al. 1987, fig. 5).

For NGC 300, the early HI data are from a Parkes single dish study, (Shobbrook & Robinson 1967), and the surface photometry from De Vaucouleurs & Page (1962). Ken pointed out the discrepancy between the expected and observed turnover point of the rotation curve. HI data with much better angular resolution, analysed by Rogstad et al. (1979), show that the HI layer is strongly warped beyond the optical disk. Further study of this galaxy was done by a Puche, Carignan & Bosma (1990) – a student of a student of Ken, a student of Ken and a postdoc of Ken – which showed that there is indeed a mass discrepancy starting well within the optical radius, vindicating Ken’s 1970 remark.

Thus we can say that Ken’s study, as he reported it in the Appendix of his 1970 paper, pointed for the first time in an elegant manner to a mass discrepancy in a galaxy, based on a then novel general description - which is still standing - of how the luminosity is distributed in the disk (the exponential law), the idea that the mass-to-light ratio in a disk could well be constant, and appealing to HI studies to get information on galaxy rotation curves.

Dark halos came later (Ostriker & Peebles 1973), and their implication that spiral galaxy masses could really be large a year after (Einasto et al. 1974, Ostriker et al. 1974). These studies based themselves on the early work by Roberts & Rots (1973) and Rogstad & Shostak (1972). Yet at the observational side a long debate was spun about the validity of the data (in particular for M31, e.g. Roberts 1975, Baldwin 1975), the question whether fits with constant M/L were still possible (Emerson & Baldwin 1973, Baldwin 1975), the technical questions of sidelobes and beam smearing (e.g. discussions by Sancisi and Bosma following Salpeter 1977), and the interpretation of rotation curves derived from tilted ring models to describe warps (cf. discussion after Toomre 1977). Many of these problems were settled using high resolution HI data from the Westerbork telescope, accompanied by surface photometry and H$`\alpha `$ kinematics (Bosma 1978, 1981, Bosma & Van der Kruit 1979, Van der Kruit & Bosma 1978).

The work of Rubin et al. (1978), which later led to a series of papers on the rotation curves of Sc, Sb and Sa galaxies (Rubin et al. 1980, 1982, and 1985) was contemporary, but the HI data extends further out. Moreover, when, in the early 80s, everybody thought that dark halos are necessary to explain the flatness of rotation curves, Kalnajs (1983) showed that for optical rotation data, in four cases, there is no need for a dark halo, a conclusion corroborated for many more optical rotation curves by Kent (1986, 1987), Athanassoula et al. (1987), Buchhorn (1992) as reported in Freeman (1992), Moriondo et al. (1999), and Palunas & Williams (2000).

## 2. Current problems with mass models of spiral galaxies

### 2.1. “Standard” composite mass models

The current practice is to construct mass models using components : the bulge and disk components are derived from surface photometry, and a gas component from the radially averaged HI distribution. For the bulge and the disk it is assumed that each have a constant mass-to-light ratio, independent of radius. The molecular gas is implicitly assumed to follow the optical light. All components are quadratically added and then compared with the observed rotation curve. If there is a discrepancy, which is usually the case in the outer parts for extended HI rotation curves, a dark halo component is added.

Current debate centers on whether the disk is maximum, i.e. whether the value of the mass-to-light ratio of the disk is such that there is a maximum of mass in the disk, and thus a minimum amount of mass in the dark halo. As already mentioned above, for many optical rotation curves the radial extent is not large enough to show the presence of a dark halo, assuming that the disk is maximal. On the other hand, for many of the HI rotation curves the data come from tilted ring models (e.g. Rogstad et al. 1974) fitted to the warped part of the HI disk. Since warps are not really understood, there is always a lingering worry that such curves contain small systematics errors due to the neglect of systematic perpendicular motions.

### 2.2. Examination of the underlying hypotheses

Modern surface photometry (e.g. de Jong 1996) shows clearly that, if there is any colour gradient in disk galaxies, it is in the sense that disks become bluer in the outer parts. This means that the mass-to-light ratio in the disk could be decreasing with radius, which leads, in the composite models, to an increase in the concentration index of the dark halo. It seems best to use the K-band to get the stellar disk mass distribution, but there are as yet still few galaxies for which there are both the requisite K-band photometry and detailed HI and H$`\alpha `$ kinematics. Since the molecular gas scales better with the B-band (Young & Scoville 1982), a minor error can be introduced on this account.

A comparison between the HI rotation data by Verheijen (1997) for Ursa Major galaxies and my old collection of rotation curves (Bosma 1978) shows that, while it easy to increase the number of galaxies for which there is HI data, the quality of the curves does not increase dramatically. This is due to the fact that it takes quite a lot of telescope time to get really good HI data, and for the more distant galaxies this is simply not available.

Beam smearing is another problem, which, while thoroughly understood in principle, is still playing an unnecessary large role in the discussion. Partly this is due to the unfortunate circumstance that for late type spirals the differences between the H$`\alpha `$ and HI rotation curves are not very large, and sometimes so small within the admittedly large errors of both datasets, that some people are misled into assuming that they can be ignored. This is sometimes justified a posteriori by taking a high resolution H$`\alpha `$ spectrum along the major axis, which agrees with the HI rotation curve in some cases, but not in others. Systematic programs are now underway to remedy this situation, using several techniques : long slit spectroscopy of emission lines such as H$`\alpha `$ (e.g. de Blok et al. 2001), 3D imaging using Fabry-Pérot techniques (e.g. Corradi et al. 1991, Blais-Ouellette et al. 2001), or CO data from e.g. the BIMA interferometer (Wong 2000).

High resolution is crucial in the debate about the predicted slopes for the density profiles of the dark matter in LSB galaxies – inner power law slopes of order -1.5 (Moore et al. 1999, Fukushige & Makino 2001) or -1.0 (Navarro et al. 1996) – and those observed, which are of order 0.0, as argued e.g. in De Blok et al. (2001) and De Blok & Bosma (2001).

### 2.3. Is the dark matter directly associated with the HI ?

A relation between the HI gas mass density and the total mass density has been pointed out by Bosma (1978, 1981), who found that the ratio of gas mass surface density to total mass surface density becomes constant in the outer parts. This implies that the HI and the dark matter are somehow related, and inspired Pfenniger & Combes (1994) to postulate that the dark matter is in cold fractal molecular gas. In the context of composite mass models, the HI gas rotation curve is similar to the one of the dark halo, at least for maximum disk models, as discussed by Carignan et al. (1990). This is of course in some sense a restatement of the original result. Note that in this approach any molecular gas as inferred from the CO-distribution is assumed to scale as the light distribution.

Hoekstra et al. (2001) examine this further for a sample of well observed spiral galaxies already discussed in Broeils (1992). They calculate for 24 galaxies a histogram of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{dark}}`$/$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, determined by scaling up the HI rotation curve so that the observed rotation curve is fitted by a combination of disk, bulge, and scaled gas. The average ratio of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{dark}}`$/$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is about 7, but with some spread. If one includes in this histogram the values given for dwarf galaxies determined by Swaters (1999), the distribution becomes quite dispersed, with no single peak.

## 3. Are galactic disks self-gravitating ?

In this section I will summarize the attempts to pin down more precisely the value of the mass-to-light ratio of the disk, in order to ascertain whether disks are maximal or not. A convenient way to put a number to this question is to consider a parameter $`\gamma `$, which is the ratio of the maximum amplitude of the disk rotation curve to that of the total rotation curve, evaluated at 2.2 disk scalelengths (which is roughly the radius of the peak of the disk rotation curve) :

$$\gamma =\left(\frac{V_{disk}}{V_{total}}\right)_{atR=2.2h}$$
(1)
Note that the maximum value $`\gamma `$ can attain depends on whether there is a bulge present in the galaxy. If a bulge is present, $`\gamma `$ can not reach unity even in the case of “maximum disk”. In what follows, I will rapidly review various methods to pin down $`\gamma `$, as an update to the discussion in Bosma (1999).

### 3.1. constraints from spiral structure

#### Swing amplifier criteria :

Athanassoula et al. (1987) have discussed the application of spiral structure constraints to composite mass models. They examine for each model whether there is the possibility of swing amplification based on the mechanism of spiral amplification discussed by Toomre (1981). A more graphical description is given in Bosma (1999). The physics of the swing amplifier depend on the shape of the rotation curve and on a characteristic X parameter, which in turn depends on the epicyclic frequency $`\kappa `$, the number of arms m, and the active surface mass density of the disk.

The range in mass-to-light ratio varies with about a factor of two if one requires swing amplification of the m = 2 perturbations : the lower limit is set by requiring that the disk is massive enough so that amplification of the m = 2 perturbations is just allowed, and an upper limit is set by requiring that amplification of the m = 1 perturbations is just prohibited. Usually the latter condition is fulfilled if one requires a model with maximum disk and a halo with non-hollow core. See Athanassoula et al. (1987) for more details.

#### Velocity signatures of spiral arm perturbations :

Already in the M81 HI data obtained with the Westerbork telescope (Rots & Shane 1974) the effects of peculiar motions due to the spiral arms are clearly seen. These were modeled with a response calculation by Visser (1980),who did not use a dark halo in his models. Lately, Alfaro et al. (2001) show a single long-slit spectrum of the galaxy NGC 5427, where the presence of “wiggles” in the position-velocity curve are quite clearly associated with the spiral arms. It is clear that the presence of such wiggles indicates that the disk is self-gravitating enough to produce them.

In what promises to be the first of a series of papers, Kranz et al. (2001) present long-slit data for NGC 4254, a spiral galaxy in the Virgo cluster for which also HI data are available from Phookun et al. (1993). They try to reproduce the observed velocity perturbations with a stationary gas flow model using the K-band image of the galaxy as input to the evalution of the disk part of the galactic potential. They find that a maximum disk model produces too large velocity perturbations, and put an upper limit on $`\gamma `$ of 0.8. However, this galaxy is lopsided in the HI, the spiral may be evolving, and the small bar in the center of the galaxy might have a different pattern speed than the main spiral pattern. Moreover, the inclination may not be as low as the authors take it.

### 3.2. bar slow down due to dynamical friction

Debattista & Sellwood (1998, 2000) performed N-body simulations to study the slow down of a bar due to the dynamical friction with the surrounding dark halo. They argue that realistic bars can be made only if their disks are close to maximum. Athanassoula (this volume) addresses this subject anew. She finds that all strongly barred galaxies have maximum disks. Indeed, even if they start as sub-maximum, the rearrangement of the disk material due to the formation of the bar will lead to a maximum disk (cf. also Athanassoula & Misiriotis 2002).

### 3.3. fits of gas flow models to barred spirals

Weiner et al. (2000) modeled in detail the gas flow in the barred spiral NGC 4123, and find that the best fit to the velocity data requires a maximum disk model for the mass distribution. Note that here again the modelling is done as a response calculation for a stationary flow in the potential derived from an optical image. As in the case of NGC 4254, no time evolution has been considered.

### 3.4. warped and flaring HI disks

Data on the vertical axis ratio of the halo, c/a, have been collected and discussed by Olling and Merrifield (2000). Several methods are used, but for spirals the favourite method is that of the flaring of the HI layer (cf. Olling 1996). Relatively few galaxies have been studied this way, and more work on this is in progress (collaboration OBrien, Bosma & Freeman).

Warps also could in principle tell us something about the dark halo. If they are steady, and the halo is misaligned with the disk, MOND could in principle be ruled out. However, warps may well evolve rather rapidly, as simulations attest (Kuijken & Dubinski 1995). It is then not clear whether the presently observed HI warps can be used as a diagnostic of halo properties. Bosma (1991) showed that the frequency of warps is rather high, a result confirmed by more recent data of the WHISP survey. Bosma (1991) also discussed a relation between warps and halo properties : warps avoid the region where the ratio of halo core radius to optical radius is small. More work on this is needed.

### 3.5. stellar velocity dispersions in disks

Bosma (1999) and Fuchs (1999) report efforts to use stellar velocity dispersions to pin down $`\gamma `$, using data from Bottema (1993), or newer data of comparable quality. The series of assumptions made by Bottema (1993) were abandoned in those works, and the conclusion is that, strictly speaking, maximum disk models lead to Q-values slightly less than 1. However, the constant 3.36 in the formula for the critical velocity dispersion is dependent on the assumptions for the shape of the velocity ellipsoids, on the thickness of the layer, and on the presence of gas. Hence there is quite a bit of intrinsic uncertainty to this method. Moreover, a recent paper by Vega Beltran et al. (2001) shows that at the observational side the error bars are rather large. Nevertheless, further work on this is warranted, given the fundamental importance of velocity dispersions for the dynamics of spiral galaxies.

### 3.6. attempt to refute a MOND prediction

For a number of well observed galaxies, Begeman et al. (1991) have worked out maximum disk models as well as mass models based on MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (Milgrom 1983). They conclude that MOND fits the data equally well, and determine the universal constant in this theory, the value of the critical acceleration parameter a0, to be 1.21 10-8 cm-2, by averaging the best fit values for a number of spirals. However, to fit the galaxy NGC 2841 with this value, it is required that its distance is about twice the distance inferred from the Hubble flow, i.e. 19.5 Mpc instead of 9.5 Mpc.

A recent study by Macri et al. (2001) determines the distance to this galaxy using Cepheids discovered on HST images. They derive a final value of 14.1 $`\pm `$ 1.5 Mpc. In collaboration with Erwin de Blok, I looked again at the data : we took some H$`\alpha `$ data in the inner parts, and tried to fit a mass model based on MOND. The model is uncertain in the inner parts; in the outer parts, its prediction is below the observed curve. But here again we are in the warped part of galaxy, hence we cannot yet rule out MOND with certainty using these data.

## 4. Extent of rotation curves

HI studies are limited to radii of about 30 - 50 kpc for a large galaxy, and rarely reach beyond that. The deepest HI image of a spiral galaxy is the one obtained by Van Gorkom et al. (unpublished), for the galaxy NGC 3198. As discussed in Maloney (1993), the HI in the outer parts drops relatively suddenly, but the total gas density may not drop as abruptly. Efforts to detect the ionized gas supposedly surrounding the HI at large radii have remained unsuccesful.

Further information at larger radii can be obtained by the study of satellites. Since most galaxies do not have many companions, a statistical treatment is in order. Zaritsky & White (1994) and Zaritsky et al. (1997) have done this for a large sample of spiral galaxies and conclude that dark halos are indeed extended. Weak lensing studies using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (McKay et al. 2001) confirm these results and show that the size of a typical halo is about 260 h-1 kpc, which amounts, for a Hubble constant of 70 km s-1 Mpc-1, to 364 kpc – half the distance between our Galaxy and M31.

It may well be asked whether the rotation curve of such an extended halo stays flat, or whether a decline sets in. For our Galaxy, this question has been addressed in several papers (e.g. Zaritsky et al. 1989), and the result seem to be depend on the exact radial velocity of the Leo II system. For other galaxies, from HI data alone, the study of Verheijen (1997, 2001) shows for bright galaxies that there is a slight difference between Vmax and Vflat, the latter referring to the rotation speed of the HI envelope. The Tully-Fisher relation tightens significantly when one uses the relation between the absolute magnitude in the K-band and Vflat instead of Vmax. This comes on top of the tightening of the relation at the faint end by considering a “baryonic correction” (cf. Freeman 1998, McGaugh et al. 1999). Thus the Tully-Fisher relation is between the amount of baryons in a spiral galaxy and the rotation speed of its dark halo.

The difference between Vmax and Vflat is not new, and for maximum disks it leads to the breakdown of the conspiracy between disk and halo (cf. Casertano & Van Gorkom 1991). Most often, the rotation curve drops rather suddenly just beyond the optical image, as already noted for NGC’s 5033 and 5055 by Bosma (1978, 1981). This feature could by itself be used to argue that disks are not far from maximum. However, an attempt to quantify this properly, for the galaxy NGC 4414 by Bosma (1998), shows that while a maximum disk model is preferred, a no m = 2 model cannot be excluded clearly. From statistics, both for a sample of galaxies with large rotation speeds I am working on, and one from the WHISP survey, I find that roughly 10 - 20 % of large spirals (Sa’s - Sc’s) have such a feature. This should be quantified further.

## 5. Conclusion

A comparison with Bosma (1999) and Sellwood (1999) shows where progress has been made on the issue of whether disks are self-gravitating: the results from Athanassoula et al. (1987) based on the swing amplifier criteria still stand, new results from Kranz et al. (2001) favour less than maximum disks, several studies argue that barred galaxies have maximum disks, and the use of stellar velocity dispersions is hampered by lack of good data. So not much progress ? Better data will come from the gravitational lensing methods, which rather soon might come up with a clear answer. Until then, we can still try to improve things by getting better data and simulations along the lines discussed above.

##### Acknowledgments.

Thanks are due to Lia Athanassoula for frequent discussions, and to Jerry Sellwood for recent exchanges of our points of view. Ken Freeman gave me freely his advice when I was a student in Groningen in the seventies (… better be a good observer than a lousy theoritician …), arranged for a Research Fellowship for me in Stromlo after my thesis, and kept in contact over the years. In the nineties, we took up old collaborative work, and started new projects, some of which are still ongoing. I benefitted a lot from his comments on many topics. It is a pleasure to acknowledge also the kind hospitality Ken and Margaret have shown me on numerous occasions.

## References

van Albada, T.S., Bahcall, J., Begeman, K.G., Sancisi, R. 1985, ApJ, 295, 305

Alfaro, E.J., Perez, E., Gonzalez Delgado, R.M., Martos, M.A., Franco, J. 2001, ApJ, 550, 253

Athanassoula, E., Bosma, A., Papaioannou, S. 1987, A&A, 179, 23

Athanassoula, E., Misiriotis, A. 2002, MNRAS, (in press), astro-ph/0111449

Baldwin, J.E. 1975, in IAU Symp. 69, Dynamics of Stellar Systems, ed. A. Hayli (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 341

Begeman, K.G., Broeils, A.H., Sanders, R.H. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 523

Blais-Ouellette, S., Amram, P., Carignan, C. 2001, AJ, 121, 1952

Bosma, A. 1978, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Groningen, The Netherlands

Bosma, A. 1981, AJ, 86, 1791 & 1825

Bosma, A. 1991, in Warped Disks and Inclined Rings, eds. S. Casertano, P. Sackett & F. Briggs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 181

Bosma, A. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 136, Galaxy halos, ed. D. Zaritsky, (San Francisco: ASP), 193

Bosma, A. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 182, Galaxy dynamics, ed. D.R. Merritt, M. Valluri & J.A. Sellwood, (San Francisco: ASP), 339

Bosma, A., van der Kruit, P.C. 1979 A&A, 79, 281

Bottema, R. 1993, A&A, 275, 16

de Blok, W.J.G., Bosma, A. 2001, A&A, (submitted)

de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S., Bosma, A., Rubin, V.C. 2001, ApJ, 552, L23

Broeils, A.H. 1992, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Groningen, The Netherlands

Buchhorn, M., 1992, Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University

Carignan, C., Charbonneau, C., Boulanger, F., Viallefond, F. 1990, A&A, 234, 43

Casertano, S., van Gorkom, J.H. 1991 AJ, 101, 1231

Corradi, R., Boulesteix, J., Bosma, A., Capaccioli, M., Amram, P., Marcelin, M. 1991, A&A, 244, 27

Debattista, V., Sellwood, J.A. 1998, ApJ, 493, L5

Debattista, V., Sellwood, J.A. 2000, ApJ, 543, 704

Demoulin, M.H., Viton, M., Georgelin, Y.P. 1969, in IAU Symp. 29, Non-stable phenomena in Galaxies, ed. V.A. Ambartsumian (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR), 434

Dubinski, J., Kuijken, K. 1995, ApJ, 442, 492

Einasto, J., Kaasik, A., Saar, E. 1974, Nature, 250, 309

Emerson, D., Baldwin, J.E. 1973, MNRAS, 165, P9

Freeman, K.C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811

Freeman, K.C. 1992, in Physics of Nearby Galaxies, Nature or Nurture ?, ed. T.X. Thuan, C. Balkowski & J. Tran Thanh Van (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontières), 201

Freeman, K.C. 1998, in IAU. Coll. 171, The low surface brightness Universe, ed. J.I. Davies, C. Impey & S. Phillips, (San Francisco: ASP), 3

Fuchs, B. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 182, Galaxy dynamics, ed. D.R. Merritt, M. Valluri & J.A. Sellwood, (San Francisco: ASP), 365

Fukushige, T., Makino, J. 2001, ApJ, 557, 533

Hoekstra, H., van Albada, T.S., Sancisi, R., 2000, MNRAS, 323, 453

de Jong, R.S. 1996, A&A, 313, 377

Kalnajs, A. 1983, in IAU Symp. 100, Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies, ed. E. Athanassoula, (Dordrecht: Reidel), 87

Kent, S.M. 1986, AJ, 91, 1301

Kent, S.M. 1987, AJ, 93, 817

Kranz, T., Slyz, A., Rix, H.-W. 2001, astrop-ph/0107239

van der Kruit, P.C., Bosma, A. 1978, A&AS, 34, 249

Kuhn, T.S. 1962, The structure of scientific revolutions, (Chicago : Chicago University Press)

Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A, 1970, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Macri, L.M., Stetson, P.B., Bothun, G.D., Freedman, W.L., Garnavich, P.M., Jha, S., Madore, B.F., Richmond, M.W. 2001, ApJ, 559, 243

Maloney, P. 1993, ApJ, 414, 41

McGaugh, S.S., Schombert, J.M., Bothun, G.D., de Blok, W.J.G. 2000, ApJ, 533, L99

McKay, T.A., Sheldon, E.S., Racusin, J., et al. 2001, astro-ph/0108013

Milgrom, M. 1983, ApJ, 270, 365

Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., Lake, G. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1147

Moriondo, G., Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M.P. 1999, A&A, 346, 415

Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

Olling, R.P. 1996, AJ, 112, 481

Olling, R.P., Merrifield, M.M. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 361

Ostriker, J.P., Peebles, P.J.E. 1973, ApJ, 186, 467

Ostriker, J.P., Peebles, P.J.E., Yahil, A. 1974, ApJ, 193, L1

Palunas, P., Williams, T.B. 2000 AJ, 120, 2884

Pfenniger, D., Combes, F. 1994, A&A, 285, 94

Phookun, B., Vogel, S.N., Mundy, L.G. 1993 ApJ, 418, 113

Puche, D., Carignan, C., Bosma, A. 1990, AJ, 100, 1468

Roberts, M.S. 1975, in IAU Symp. 69, Dynamics of Stellar Systems, ed. A. Hayli (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 331

Roberts, M.S., Rots, A.H., 1973, A&A, 28, 483

Rogstad, D.H., Shostak, G.S., 1972, ApJ, 176, 315

Rogstad, D.H., Lockhart, I.A., Wright, M.C.H. 1974, ApJ, 193, 309

Rogstad, D.H., Wright, M.C.H., Lockhart, I.A. 1976, ApJ, 204, 703

Rogstad, D.H., Chu, K., McCutcheon, 1979, ApJ, 229, 509

Rots, A.H., Shane, W.W., 1974, A&A, 31, 245

Rubin, V.C., Ford, W.K., Jr., Thonnard, N. 1978, ApJ, 215, L107

Rubin, V.C., Ford, W.K., Jr., Thonnard, N. 1980, ApJ, 238, 471

Rubin, V.C., Ford, W.K., Jr., Thonnard, N., Burstein, D. 1982, ApJ, 261, 439

Rubin, V.C., Ford, W.K., Jr., Burstein, D., Thonnard, N. 1985, ApJ, 289, 81

Salpeter, E.E., 1977, in IAU Symp. 77, Structure and Properties of Nearby Galaxies, ed. E.M. Berkhuysen & R. Wielebinski (Dordrecht: Reidel), 23

Sciama, D.W., 1993, Modern Cosmology and the Dark Matter Problem, (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press)

Sellwood, J.A. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 182, Galaxy dynamics, ed. D.R. Merritt, M. Valluri & J.A. Sellwood, (San Francisco: ASP), 351

Shobbrook, R.R., Robinson, B.J. 1967, Austr. J. Phys. 20, 131

Swaters, R.A. 1999, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Groningen, The Netherlands

Toomre, A. 1977, in IAU Symp. 77, Structure and Properties of Nearby Galaxies, ed. E.M. Berkhuysen & R. Wielebinski (Dordrecht: Reidel), 268

Toomre, A. 1981, in The Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed. S.M. Fall & D. Lynden-Bell (Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press), 111

de Vaucouleurs, G., Page, J. 1962, ApJ, 136, 107

Vega Beltran, J.C., Pizzella, A., Corsini, E.M., Funes, J.G., Zeilinger, W.W., Beckman, J.E., Bertola, F. 2001, A&A, 374, 394

Verheijen, M.A.W. 1997, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Groningen, The Netherlands

Verheijen, M.A.W. 2001, astro-ph/0108225

Visser, H.C.D. 1980, A&A, 88, 159

Warner, P.J., Wright, M.C.H., Baldwin, J.E., 1973, MNRAS, 163, 163

Weiner, B.J, Williams, T.B., Sellwood, J.A. 2001, ApJ, 564, 931

Wong, T. 2000, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Berkeley

Young, J.S, Scoville, N.Z. 1982, ApJ, 258, 467

Zaritsky, D., White, S.D.M. 1994, ApJ, 435, 599

Zaritsky, D., Olszewski, E.W., Schommer, R.A., Peterson, R.C., Aaronson, M. 1989, ApJ, 345, 759

Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 478, 53

## Discussion

Van der Kruit:  I would comment that to avoid confusion we should refrain from redefining the constant in the Toomre Q parameter, but rather require it to be at least some other value than 1. My question is the following. You ask : “are galaxy disks self-gravitating”, and answer probably yes for larger disks. What do you think the answer is for the Galactic disk in the solar neighbourhood ?

Bosma:  OK for the comment. As for the question, the microlensing results in particular indicate that there is a lot of baryonic matter in the central parts of the Galaxy, so that there does not seem much room for a cuspy halo, as seemingly required by current models based on cosmological numerical simulations of cold dark matter, cf. a recent paper by Binney & Evans (astro-ph/0108505).

added after the meeting:  The solar radius is roughly at 2.2 times the scalelength of the disk, and the “measured” disk surface density of 48 M pc-2 gives a peak speed of 126 km s-1. It thus really matters whether the bulge/bar system is considered as part of the disk, and not as part of a spherical (and thus stabilizing) bulge component. This brings the circular speed of the combined bulge/disk to about 160 km/s at least. Thus $`\gamma `$ could be of order 0.8 in our Galaxy, or even higher since the contribution of the molecular gas is quite uncertain.

King:  As a spectator in this field rather than a participant, I get the overall impression that because of a lot of uncertainties (warps, asymmetries, etc., etc.) the estimation of the characteristics of dark halos is still very uncertain. Is this fair ?

Bosma:  Yes, this is fair enough. I think that most people agree about the existence of the mass discrepancies, as brought out by the HI observations of extended gas disks, and many would say that implicates dark matter, but other than that there is not much agreement on how important the contribution of the dark matter is in the inner parts of disk galaxies.

King:  You would then emphasize the qualitative conclusions, but not the quantitative ones.

Sellwood:  A comment on the Kranz et al. paper : They assume a constant amplitude, constant pattern speed spiral, which will induce large amplitude responses at strong resonances. A more realistic transient spiral pattern may require more mass in the disk to produce the observed non-circular motions.

Bosma:  As I said in the talk, the authors acknowledge that some of their assumptions are problematic, including the question of the stationarity of the spiral pattern for which they compute the gas response. Your suggestion may well be right. For this particular galaxy, NGC 4254, I am myself worried about the inclination they assume. But I understand that they have more data on other spirals, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with.