text:
# Global event properties in proton-proton physics with ALICE

## 1 Introduction

ALICE is a unique opportunity for studying low $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ physics and minimum bias events, and consequently for hunting substructures in strong interactions. The general question concerning global event properties in pp and $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ physics is indeed whether substructures can be seen in the data in a model-independent way. In other terms, can we identify the interface between perturbative and non-perturbative regimes?

A successful approach to this question has recently emerged , as will be shown in the following.

## 2 A summary of substructure hunt in pp collisions

What is known on the subject comes from data taken at ISR, at Spp̄S collider (UA1, UA2 and UA5 experiments) and the Tevatron collider (CDF and E735 experiments) as well as from dedicated theoretical work.

### 2.1 Energy widening of multiplicity distributions.

It is to be stressed that recent results from Tevatron (E735 Collaboration, ) on full phase space multiplicity distributions do not completely agree with those obtained at comparable energies at the Spp̄S collider (UA5 Collaboration, ), see Fig. 1. Tevatron data are more precise than Spp̄S data at larger multiplicities (they have larger statistics and extend to larger multiplicities than UA5 data), but much less precise at low multiplicity. Both sets of data show a shoulder structure, but the Tevatron MD is somewhat wider. It should be noticed that E735 data are measured only in $`|\eta |<3.25`$ and $`p_\mathrm{t}>0.2`$ GeV$`/c`$ then extended to full phase space via a Monte Carlo program.

A standing problem!

### 2.2 The fit with two negative binomial distributions.

The negative binomial (NB) behaviour for final charged particles multiplicity distributions can be trusted in hadron-hadron collisions in full phase space only up to ISR energies . At higher energies shoulder structures start to be clearly visible as shown by the UA5 Collaboration at CERN $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collider . The idea firstly suggested by C. Fuglesang  is to explain observed NB regularity violations as the effect of the weighted superposition of two classes of events, the multiplicity distribution of each component being of NB type:

$$P_n(\alpha _{\text{soft}};\overline{n}_{\text{soft}},k_{\text{soft}};\overline{n}_{\text{semi-hard}},k_{\text{semi-hard}})=\alpha _{\text{soft}}P_n^{\text{NB}}(\overline{n}_{\text{soft}},k_{\text{soft}})+(1\alpha _{\text{soft}})P_n^{\text{NB}}(\overline{n}_{\text{semi-hard}},k_{\text{semi-hard}});$$
(1)
where, for each class, $`\overline{n}`$ is the average multiplicity and parameter $`k`$ is linked to the dispersion $`D`$ by $`k^1=D^2/n^21/n`$. The two classes are interpreted as soft events (events without mini-jets) and semi-hard events (events with mini-jets) and consequently the weight $`\alpha _{\text{soft}}`$ is the fraction of events without mini-jets as measured by UA1 . The conclusion is that the proposed fit in terms of the superposition of two negative binomial multiplicity distributions (NBMD’s) is quite good.

### 2.3 Extrapolations to LHC energy.

The point is to find acceptable energy dependence of the NB parameters $`k`$ and $`\overline{n}`$ for the two components substructures and the corresponding weight factor $`\alpha _{\text{soft}}`$. In a region where QCD has no predictions one must proceed by phenomenological assumptions , which are summarised in the following.

The first assumption concerns energy dependence of the total average charged particle multiplicity :

$$\overline{n}=3.010.474\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{s}+0.745\mathrm{ln}^2\sqrt{s}.$$
(2)
The $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$ term is interpreted as the effect of the sharp increase of minijet production and/or double (even triple) parton collisions as suggested by the rapid increase of $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ with multiplicity. Since below 200 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ c.m. energy one single NB describes multiplicity distribution data very well and above 200 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ c.m. energy the soft component has been disentangled, it is proposed to extrapolate the logarithmic increase with energy of the average charged particle multiplicity of the soft component, $`\overline{n}_{\text{soft}}`$, also at higher c.m. energy. From $`\overline{n}`$ and $`\overline{n}_{\text{soft}}`$, one can calculate the behaviour of $`\alpha _{\text{soft}}`$, which, using the UA1 result $`\overline{n}_{\text{semi-hard}}2\overline{n}_{\text{soft}}`$, gives $`\alpha _{\text{soft}}0`$ at 100 $`\mathrm{TeV}`$, but, if one allows again a $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$ term in $`\overline{n}_{\text{semi-hard}}`$ (with a small coefficient, of the order of 0.1, it is also consistent with the data) one still gets at that energy a sizable (20%) contribution from soft events.

The second assumption concerns the energy dependence of the NB parameter $`k`$. For the soft component, KNO scaling was assumed, since it was found to hold in the ISR region. For the semi-hard components three scenarios were examined, two extreme ones (scenario 1 in which the semi-hard component also obeys KNO scaling and scenario 2 in which the semi-hard component violates KNO scaling with $`1/k`$ growing linearly with $`\mathrm{ln}s`$) and an intermediate case (scenario 3, where $`1/k`$ grows not as fast as linearly with a shape inspired by pQCD calculation).

The behaviour of $`\overline{n}`$ in the TeV region based on UA5 data (Eq. (2)) is shown in Fig. 2 (solid line). It is compared with the mentioned E735 results  obtained by extrapolating to full phase space experimental data with a Monte Carlo calculation; observed discrepancies are clearly consequences of the differences noticed between E735 results and UA5 data on charged particle multiplicity distributions shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in Section 2.1. Accordingly, one relies on Eq. (2) predictions.

Coming to particle rapidity density it should be pointed out that by assuming only a longitudinal growth of phase space and constant height of the rapidity plateau with c.m. energy for semi-hard events, as done in Ref. , CDF data  in pseudorapidity intervals are underestimated (see Fig. 2, dashed lines). These data are well described by allowing a $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$ growth of the total rapidity plateau (Fig. 2, dotted lines): from this consideration one deduces a more appropriate growth of the semi-hard plateau height; the constraint is that $`\overline{n}_{\text{semi-hard}}`$ in full phase space follows a logarithmic growth with $`\sqrt{s}`$ as discussed above. Predicted charged particle multiplicity distributions in the three scenarios of the two component model  for the interval $`|\eta |<1`$ at Tevatron and LHC energies, calculated for the last mentioned case, are shown in Fig. 3 (notice that the comparison with CDF data, in view of the relatively large value of their resolution $`p_\mathrm{t}>0.4`$ GeV$`/c`$, is questionable). If this behaviour for the semi-hard component will be confirmed by data one should conclude that semi-hard events populate mainly the central rapidity region giving an important contribution to the increase of charged particle density in central rapidity intervals.

### 2.4 Soft and hard samples at Tevatron.

It was found by CDF  that by subdividing the minimum bias sample into two groups, characterised respectively by the absence (‘soft’ events) or the presence (‘hard’ events) of mini-jets, interesting features of the reaction can be investigated. More precisely, a ‘hard’ event has been defined as an event with at least one calorimeter cluster in $`|\eta |<2.4`$, a cluster being defined as a seed calorimeter tower with at least 1 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ transverse energy $`E_t`$ plus at least one contiguous tower with $`E_t0.1`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. A subdivision which is interesting per se and can be tested at 14 $`\mathrm{TeV}`$.

In summary, the soft component is found to satisfy KNO scaling (as expected in ), while the hard one does not; also the $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ distribution scales at fixed multiplicity in the soft component and not in the hard one; the dispersion of $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ vs. the inverse of the multiplicity is compatible with an extrapolation to 0 as $`n\mathrm{}`$ in the soft component but not in the hard one, indicating in this limit a lack of correlations in the soft component.

The correlation between $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ and multiplicity was explained by UA1  as related to the onset of gluon radiation. It should be noticed that at CDF such a correlation is found to some extent for both the soft and the hard subsamples as shown in Fig. 4, but the soft subsample is seen to start to saturate (CDF data shown have $`|\eta |<1.0`$ and $`p_\mathrm{t}>0.4`$ GeV$`/c`$).

### 2.5 Low and high transverse momentum at Spp̄S.

An investigation has been recently carried out  on UA1 data also based on the superposition idea: particles are selected according to their $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ (this selection should be contrasted with that performed by CDF in terms of classes of events). It is seen that the high-$`p_\mathrm{t}`$ sample ($`p_\mathrm{t}>0.7`$ GeV$`/c`$) behaves very differently from the low-$`p_\mathrm{t}`$ sample. This difference is interpreted as the effect of a more intense jet-like activity in the high-$`p_\mathrm{t}`$ sample. As far as the low-$`p_\mathrm{t}`$ sample is concerned, it was shown that the dependence of the correlation strength and of higher order cumulants on multiplicity is important in order to test different theoretical models (Monte Carlos are totally inadequate here): for this task the low-$`p_\mathrm{t}`$ cut-off of ALICE at LHC is required. In addition, it would be very interesting to analyse in this way the soft and semi-hard components.

### 2.6 Average transverse momentum versus multiplicity.

The study should be mentioned at Tevatron (E735)  of the correlation between $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ and multiplicity done separately for pion, kaons and antiprotons, which shows that the behaviour is rather different, as illustrated in Fig. 5, and still not theoretically understood. Data show saturation in $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ at large multiplicity for $`\pi ^\pm `$, not for and $`K^\pm `$ and $`\overline{p}`$ (but for kaons it saturates if a cut is imposed on momenta $`p_\mathrm{t}<1.5`$ GeV$`/c`$, see ). At LHC, with $`10^9`$ events, the predictions discussed in Section 2.3 allow the possibility to reach densities from 40 (scenario 1) to 60 (scenario 2) particles per unit rapidity, with good statistics (1000 events). This fact has far reaching consequences which can be tested with ALICE especially at low momentum and the study can be extended to baryon production in the central region (Alice can also measure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). All this, plus the relative abundance of particle species, carries precious information on possible quark-gluon plasma formation, in particular in view of such properties as strangeness enhancement and baryon stopping (see elsewhere in this Chapter).

## 3 Investigations in pp collisions with ALICE

### 3.1 Shape of the multiplicity distribution.

The average multiplicity $`n`$ grows with the c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$: the best fit involves a term proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$, whose theoretical basis is not yet understood. Most theoretical works predict in fact a power-law in $`s`$ or a linear rise with $`\mathrm{ln}s`$. Is LHC energy large enough to distinguish these behaviours? Purely statistical extrapolation based on the above mentioned scenarios (Section 2.3) show that the average multiplicity in full phase space can be measured with 0.2% error with $`10^5`$ events.

The ratio $`D/n`$, where $`D`$ is the dispersion, is constant if KNO scaling holds. KNO scaling is an asymptotic prediction: data at ISR energies are compatible with an ‘early’ KNO scaling, but Spp̄S data clearly showed a violation. Purely statistical extrapolation based on the above mentioned scenarios shows that the variance $`D^2`$ can be measured with less than 1% error with $`10^5`$ events both in full phase space and within the ALICE acceptance.

### 3.2 Shape fits.

It will be possible to verify the extent of forward-backward (FB) correlations seen at Spp̄S and at Tevatron, to distinguish whether FB correlations grow or decrease and to study their link with the MD .

Predictions exist for the multiplicity distribution at 14 $`\mathrm{TeV}`$, (e.g.  and ; an alternative point of view on the two-component structure based on impact parameter analysis is presented in ). As previously explained in Section 2.3, in  three scenarios can be distinguished at LHC by the value of $`k^1D^2/n^2`$. It turns out that both in full phase space and in restricted pseudo-rapidity regions the difference between the scenarios can be sharply defined if $`D^2/n^2`$ is measured to 15% accuracy, as seen from the following table:

|  | $`k^1`$ | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| scenario | f.p.s. | $`|\eta |<1.5`$ | $`|\eta |<1`$ |
| 1 | 0.17 | 0.37 | 0.39 |
| 2 | 0.42 | 0.74 | 0.78 |
| 3 | 0.24 | 0.54 | 0.56 |

Purely statistical extrapolation shows that in these scenarios $`10^5`$ events will yield 0.5% error, which is expected to be good enough to give extremely relevant information even if none of the envisaged scenarios turns out to be adequate (this would be a strong indication of the presence of an anomalous additional (hard?) component).

The scenarios and predictions should be confirmed not only by the analysis of the first two moments: the whole distribution should be involved. Purely statistical extrapolation shows that data produced in one scenario cannot be adequately fitted by either one of the other scenarios already with $`10^5`$ events. Also fits based on one component only (of NB type) can be excluded with such statistics, as well as the other predictions.

Again on the global side, the information entropy $`S=_nP_n\mathrm{log}P_n`$ can be calculated and compared with the behaviour assumed in  and the one implicit in . Purely statistical extrapolations based on the latter reference show that information entropy can be measured to better than 0.1%, both in full phase space and in $`|\eta |<1`$, with $`10^5`$ events, which is more than enough to distinguish again the mentioned scenarios among them and from the expectation  of a scaling with available phase space. Incidentally, the latter option would produce a correction to $`n`$ of a few percent, thus perfectly identifiable by LHC already with $`10^5`$ events (ignoring again systematic errors).

Feynman scaling ($`dN/dy`$ around $`y=0`$ independent of $`\sqrt{s}`$, where $`y`$ is the rapidity), introduced initially at ISR energies, has been shown to be violated at higher energies: as discussed previously in Section 2.3, the violation is due not only to the increasing importance of semi-hard events, but one expects a growth also of the semi-hard plateau; this should be checked at LHC.

The $`Ed^3N/dp^3`$ vs. $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ distribution is interesting because it can be compared with results from Tevatron and Spp̄S. Is it possible to identify two (or more) components (e.g., different slopes) in this distribution, even if the soft events have a much smaller $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ than the hard ones? The CDF collaboration has shown that the single event’s average $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ is a good candidate for event classification, especially in combination with the event multiplicity (see again Fig. 4). Multiplicity classes can be defined and whole distributions (e.g. in transverse momentum) can be looked at as a function of multiplicity or particle density . Very interesting information for investigating the mechanism of particle production can come from the study of identified particles.

### 3.3 Sign oscillations of higher order moments.

$`H_q`$ moments (the ratio of factorial, $`F_q`$, to cumulant, $`K_q`$, moments) are very important in defining substructures in the multiplicity distribution , as experimentally measured by L3 at LEP , but require very large statistics in order to be measured. Purely statistical extrapolations show that, in $`|\eta |<1`$, $`10^5`$ events allow to confidently calculate $`H_q`$ up to order $`q=7`$, but the expected $`10^9`$ events, will allow to reach at least order $`q=14`$, quite adequate for the purpose. In fact $`H_q`$ vs. $`q`$ oscillations in hadron-hadron collisions in the $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ region  and in e+e- annihilation at LEP energies  have been explained as the effect of the weighted superposition of classes of different topology, each class being described by a NBMD with different parameters. Observed shoulder structure in final charged particle multiplicity distributions and $`H_q`$ vs. $`q`$ oscillations have in this framework the same origin. In addition being $`H_q`$ the ratio of factorial to cumulant moments, $`F_q/K_q`$, the occurrence of the NBMD for a sound description of $`H_q`$ behaviour in each substructure via generalised local parton-hadron duality (GLPHD), i.e. the statement that $`F_q`$ at hadron level is equal to $`\rho ^qF_q`$ at parton level, with $`\rho `$ defined by $`\overline{n}_{\text{hadron}}=\rho \overline{n}_{\text{parton}}`$, leads to the conclusion that $`H_q`$ at hadron level coincide with $`H_q`$ at parton level: an interesting possibility to understand deeply QCD and/or GLPHD.

### 3.4 Underlying event for Higgs production.

As Bjorken pointed out , at LHC energy processes will happen characterised by the presence of virtual electroweak bosons in the hard subprocess, like WW scattering via W or even Higgs exchange, with the bosons treated as partons of the proton beam. If the W’s then decay leptonically, a feature of the event will be a large rapidity gap, i.e., a region without hadrons separating the beam-jets containing the fragments of the projectiles. To turn this into a reliable signature, several issues were raised and discussed in : one of them demands to know how big the rapidity gap must be in order that multiplicity fluctuations do not mimic the effect of $`W`$ scattering and decay. To this question a detailed answer can be given by studying low multiplicity events: the scenarios previously described foresee 25 to 35% of events with less than 4 charged particles in the central region $`|\eta |<1.5`$, which seems a considerable background to the W and Higgs events

One should also not forget that the ‘void probability’ $`P_0`$, i.e., the probability of producing zero charged particles in a given rapidity interval, has interesting properties on its own, since in principle its $`\overline{n}`$ dependence determines the full MD .

### 3.5 Quark-gluon plasma.

It has been argued that the increase of $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ from ISR to Spp̄S energies and its subsequent flattening with multiplicity could be an indication of a phase transition; this view has been abandoned and data analysed later in terms of phase space constraints and the emergence of mini-jets. CDF analysis (see Fig. 4) of $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ vs. central rapidity particle density, $`dN/dy`$, at 630 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 1800 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ reveals a different behaviour for soft and semi-hard events: a saturation is seen in soft events at $`p_\mathrm{t}0.5`$ GeV$`/c`$, a fact to be contrasted with the increase from $`0.44`$ up to $`0.7`$ GeV$`/c`$ for (semi)hard events. In view of the high rapidity density expected with Alice, two important questions should be asked: a) does saturation effect for soft events continue up to 14 $`\mathrm{TeV}`$, or, at a given particle rapidity density, $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ starts to increase again? In the latter case, could the sharp increase be indicative of a deconfinement transition in hot hadronic matter ? b) does $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ for semi-hard events continue to increase up to 14 $`\mathrm{TeV}`$, or at a given particle rapidity density a saturation effect appears? One should expect that hard events at some particle rapidity density start to appear on top of the semi-hard ones in the first case, and the possible occurrence of a phase transition in the second one.

## References


format: text

text: # 1 Selection 1. ϕ_(𝛾,𝑗𝑒𝑡)=180^∘±17^∘. UA1 algorithm . 𝐿_{𝑖𝑛𝑡}=300𝑝𝑏⁻¹.


text:
# Inhomogeneous magnetism in single crystalline Sr3CuIrO6+δ: Implications to phase-separation concepts

## Abstract

The single crystalline form of an insulator, Sr3CuIrO6+δ, is shown to exhibit unexpectedly more than one magnetic transition (at 5 and 19 K) with spin-glass-like magnetic susceptibility behaviour. On the basis of this finding, viz., inhomogeneous magnetism in a chemically homogeneous material, we propose that the idea of ”phase- separation” described for manganites is more widespread in different ways. The observed experimental features enable us to make a comparison with the predictions of a recent toy model on magnetic phase separation in an insulating environment.

PACS Nos. 75.50.-y; 75.20. Ck; 75.30 Cr

Corresponding author. E-mail address: sampath@tifr.res.in

The concept of electronic phase separation has been recently advocated to describe spin-glass-like characteristics induced by disorder in doped manganites and such a state is even thought of as a new state of matter. An important question remaining unaddressed is whether the anomalies characterizing ”phase-separation” phenomenon can be seen even in those homogeneous materials (that is, without any additional chemical doping) where there is no coexistence of localised and itinerant charge carriers characterizing these manganites. In fact, recently, a toy model was also proposed predicting the role of disorder on the behavior of a system in which any two phases in general, not necessarily of insulator and metal, compete and it is of interest to provide experimental data in different situations to test this theory. In this Letter, we report the magnetic behavior of a pseudo-one-dimensional insulator, Sr3CuIrO6, in the single crystalline form. The observed data reveal that the magnetism is of an inhomogeneous nature in these single crystals, with a broad agreement of the experimental features with the predictions of the toy model mentioned above. Hence, we emphasize that the phenomenon of ”phase separation” – within the criterion of inhomogeneous magnetism in a homogeneous material – is not restricted to manganites alone.

The compounds of the type, (Sr, Ca)3MXO6 (M, X = a metallic ion, magnetic or non-magnetic), crystallizing in the K4CdCl6-type rhombohedral structure (space group R$`\overline{3}`$c), are of considerable importance due to the presence of spin-chains (M-X) separated by Sr/Ca ions (see Refs. 3–13 and references cited therein). Among these, in the Cu containing compounds, there is a lowering of the crystal symmetry to monoclinic (space group C2/c) due to Jahn-Teller (JT) effect at the Cu site, a point of importance to the discussion in this article. The readers may see Ref. 7 for more details on crystallographic features.

The single crystals of 3 to 5 mm length and 0.5 to 1 mm diameter were grown by the flux method employing basic alkali fluxes. The crystals were found to undergo monoclinic modification and to grow along the  monoclinic axis using single-crystal x-ray diffraction. The lattice constants were found to be: a = 9.298(2) Å, b= 9.714(2) Å, c = 6.710(2)Å and $`\beta `$ = 92.19(2). For two orientations of the crystal, viz., H// and H$``$, we have measured dc magnetic susceptibility ($`\chi `$) as a function of T (2–300 K) at different magnetic fields (H = 10, 100 and 5000 Oe) for the zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) states of the specimens by commercial magnetometers, superconducting quantum interference device (Quantum Design) as well as vibrating sample magnetometer (Oxford Instruments). In addition, ac $`\chi `$ measurements were performed at low temperatures (2–25 K) at various frequencies.

The T-dependence of dc $`\chi `$ below 25 K is shown in Fig. 1 for the ZFC and FC states of the crystal. On comparing the magnitudes of the magnetization for the two different orientations mentioned above, we can conclude that the easy axis of magnetization lies perpendicular to the  direction. This is in agreement with the conclusions based on neutron diffraction pattern of a similar Cu compound. The low-field (H = 10 and 100 Oe) data show that distinct magnetic ordering appears at two temperatures, 5 K (T1) and 19 K (T2), the former being much more prominent. The intensity (at low fields) at T2 is nearly the same for both the directions, whereas at T1 it is markedly enhanced for H$``$ as compared to H//. This suggests that there is a significant magnetic anisotropy only for the T1 transition. For comparison, in the same figure we also display the low-field behavior of the polycrystalline form reported earlier. In contrast to single crystal data, in polycrystals the 19 K transition is very prominent while that at 5 K appears only as a shoulder in the low field ZFC data; this transition gets more pronounced for moderate values of H. The fact that this crystal is characterized by more than one magnetic transition is endorsed by similar features in the ac $`\chi `$ data (Fig. 2).

We now address the question of the nature of the magnetic ordering at T1 and T2. The real part of ac $`\chi `$ data (Fig. 2) reveals a spin-glass-like frequency dependence with a marginal shift of the curves to higher temperatures with increasing frequency. This is observed for both the transitions, implying that the magnetic structure is frustrated both at T1 and T2. In support of this, we note that there is a significant difference between ZFC and FC $`\chi `$ vs T curves at low fields for both the transitions (Fig. 2). We have also observed well-defined upturn in the imaginery part of ac $`\chi `$ at these transitions with a similar frequency dependence, a feature typical of only magnetically frustrated systems, and due to space limitations we do not present these data.

The presence of more than one magnetic transition with spin-glass-like behavior is the crucial finding for our main conclusion. It may be noted that all the octahedral (as well as trigonal-prismatic) sites are crystallographically equivalent in the undistorted structure and that spin-glass behavior is not necessarily a favored state as the analogous Zn compound Sr3ZnIrO6 (Ref. 6) is antiferromagnetic (vide infra). The reversal of relative intensity of these two transitions for single crystals when compared with the polycrystalline behavior also clearly excludes the possibility of a single magnetic transition showing progressive spin reorientation effects with a change in temperature. The features attributable to this phenomenon should be intrinsic to the material and should not depend upon single/poly-crystalline physical states. The same argument can be given to rule out possible independent ordering of Cu and Ir at T1 and T2; this is also inferred from the observation of unequal magnitudes of $`\chi `$ at these transitions even though spin of each of these ions is = 1/2. However, our conclusion is not dependent on whether both these ions order simultaneously or separately (as a given magnetic segment proposed below can contain either of these or both). In view of this situation, we propose that this single crystal could be classified as a magnetically phase separated system in the sense that there is a coexistence of magnetic-segments, isolated by defects, ordering magnetically at different temperatures. If these segments are strongly magnetically coupled in a homogeneous manner, one should have expected only one magnetic transition of a long-range type in contrast to the observations.

This scenario prompts us to view the present finding in light of the predictions of a recent toy model, relevant points of which are briefly outlined now. In order to extend the concept of phase separation to situations more general than manganites, Burgy et al explored the consequences of a competition between two ordered states (separated by first order transition) in the presence of disorder within a toy model; this model does not even assume itinerancy or localisation of the carriers and in this sense it is more general. This theory predicts that, below a characteristic temperature, there is an intermediate temperature range with preformed clusters, but with uncorrelated order parameters, giving a globally paramagnetic state; in the lower-T regime, the clusters grow in size although the disorder is uncorrelated and percolate upon cooling eventually resulting in long range ordering; an application of a small magnetic field should have a dramatic influence on initial isothermal magnetization (M) followed by non-saturation at higher fields in the event of a competition between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic phases.

In light of above model, we now look at the magnetic behavior of this material, both in polycrystals as well as in single crystal (see Fig. 3, top). The plots of inverse $`\chi `$ versus T are found to be non-linear. One can see this dramatically in single crystals for H// (see Fig. 3, top) in the sense that there is a steep, but gradual, fall of inverse $`\chi `$ below 100 K, though the non-linearity persists even for the perpendicular direction. This implies varying size of the magnetic cluster with decreasing temperature. This increasing intercluster coupling is apparently manifested as a weak magnetic transition at about 19 K in the single crystal, with the rest being paramagnetic at this temperature. The intensity of the response at 19 K however must depend upon the number of such clusters. As the disorder in the polycrystalline form is expected to be more, one expects large number of such independent clusters, and hence the response for the polycrystalline form is relatively larger compared to the single crystalline form (see Fig. 1). With a further decrease of T, true bulk ordering develops around 5 K. There is also a steep increase of M (from zero in zero H) by a small application of magnetic field at 2 K without any saturation at higher fields. These observations are in accordance with the above theory. However, there are some difficulties in claiming that there is a total agreement with respect to this model. For instance, (i) we are unable to precisely pinpoint the characteristic temperature, whether it is 100 K or 19 K, as the magnetic cluster formation appears to be a continuous process with decreasing temperature and (ii) the magnetic ordering at T1 appears to be more of a spin-glass-like, rather than of a long range type. However, we believe such details may be redundent for the present purpose; real systems can behave in a slightly different fashion depending on other complexities (e.g., the degree of disorder, the way the segments grow and couple with a variation of T, crystallographic arrangement, dimensionality etc) of the systems. In our case it appears that the competition regime occurs in a more extended T range than assumed by the theory. What is important is that this system catches essential physics of the model in terms of how the magnetic interaction among the competing ”magnetic phases” evolve with decreasing temperature in the presence of disorder in a homogeneous material. Finally, we like to stress that this compound is in fact on the verge of long range magnetic order as elaborated in Ref. 5, since small applications of H (as low as 1 kOe) depress spin-glass characteristics. This is found to be true for single crystal as well. Therefore, the discrepancy (ii) is not a serious one and it is of interest to focus future studies to subject this system to other small perturbations (by chemical or external pressure?) to stablise this long range magnetic phase, so as to demonstrate the behavior of this system closer to the predictions of the theory.

We now briefly discuss how defects (creating segments) can occur in this class of compounds and the reader can see Ref. 17 for details. Apart from vacancies along the magnetic chains, the defects can also arise due to the movement of a small fraction of Sr ions to vacant sites in the chain and it has been shown that the degree of such defects could be tuned by varying synthetic conditions. It has also been established that certain heat treatment conditions increase the oxygen content and the extra oxygen (0$`<`$ $`\delta `$ $`<`$ 1) occupies a trigonal prismatic site, resulting in the conversion of one such site into two octahedral sites. These kinds of defects are found to occur not only for Cu compounds, but also for Zn/Ni compounds and such ”defective” forms have been called ”incommensurate” phases. In our earlier polycrystalline studies, for the Cu specimens with extra oxygen, the magnetic transition temperature has been found to be lower. For such reasons, we have denoted the oxygen content as ”6+$`\delta `$” at least at few places in this article.

Further comparison of the magnetic behavior of this Cu system with the analogous Zn compound, Sr3ZnIrO6 (Ref. 6), is quite intriguing. As mentioned earlier, the Zn compound undergoes long-range magnetic ordering (antiferromagnetic, from Ir ions) at 19 K and the Néel temperature is quite robust to synthetic conditions, unlike in the Cu compound, in spite of the presence of defects. Therefore, an additional crucial effect must be necessary in the Cu compound to make the magnetism inhomogeneous. As discussed in Ref. 3, the JT active Cu ion results in multiple Cu-Cu and Cu-Ir distances, which we believe is a crucial factor for randomizing magnetic interaction. However, one can also argue that this distortion alone may cause a uniform, rather than non-uniform, modification of the nearest neighbour Cu-Cu and Cu-Ir magnetic interaction throughout the crystal. Therefore, we propose that it is the presence of the defects that somehow separates out islands of magnetic ions (”phase separation”) of a given exchange interaction strength following JT distortion. We welcome future experiments to verify this conjecture.

Various other interesting observations arise from our measurements. (i) The peak in the low-field ZFC dc $`\chi `$ data at about 3 K vanishes at a higher field (5 kOe), as does the ZFC-FC bifurcation. This implies complex thermomagnetic history effects on magnetism even in single crystals. (ii) The saturation moment (at 2 K) obtained by linear extrapolation of the high field data (60–120 kOe) to zero field even for H parallel to easy axis ($`0.4\mu _B`$ for H$``$) is much lower than that expected for ferromagnetically-coupled Ir and Cu (S = 1/2) ions (see Fig. 3, bottom). The reduced value implies the existence of a moment-compensation effect, e.g., the magnetic frustration among the segments/chains. This behavior is the same as in polycrystals. Further evidences for frustration were presented in our earlier, e.g., by the absence of a heat-capacity anomaly at the transition. (iii) The ac $`\chi `$ data for H// reveal that there are at least two transitions below 5 K separated by about 1 K, with the vertical arrow in Fig. 3 marking one transition and the peak representing another transition. A careful inspection of the ZFC dc $`\chi `$ data at low fields also reveals the existence of a shoulder at a temperature slightly above the peak. These observations suggest that one gets additional transitions at different temperatures depending upon the size of the segments regulated by defects/disorder as pointed out by Dagotto et al. We find that the relative contribution to $`\chi `$ for the two closely-spaced transitions near T1 is also a sensitive function of H, as revealed by reversal of the peak positions in dc and ac $`\chi `$ plots. In addition, the transitions at T1 and T2 broaden out upon application of a higher field (5 kOe) (Fig. 1), indicating strong field-induced intersegment coupling effects. (iv) For H//, for the ZFC data at low fields, the value of $`\chi `$ for T1 $`<`$ T $`<`$ T2 is negligibly small, indicating near-compensation of the magnetic moments among the segments. This behavior too is modified by changing the history of the sample (FC, higher fields, etc). All these observations, revealing the sensitivity of magnetically separated segments to the magnetic field, history effects, etc., may be useful for further refinement of theoretical formulations.

To conclude, we have observed distinct evidence for inhomogeneous magnetism in single crystalline Sr3CuIrO6+δ, on the basis of which the idea of phase-separation for a chemically homogeneous insulating medium is proposed. Presumably, an interplay between Jahn-Teller-effect and defects is required to result in inhomogeneous magnetism in this material. We have argued that this material apparently serves as a favorable testing ground for a recent toy model of phase-separation in an insulating environment. It will be very fascinating if there is a consensus on the kind of phase-separation proposed in this article, as unlike in manganites (i) there is no coexistence of localised and itinerant magnetic species and (ii) the ”magnetic phases” are produced without involving any chemical doping. In this sense, the root-cause of spin-glass-like anomalies in this system is different from that in other conventional spin-glasses in which chemical substitution is required for randomizing exchange coupling. In view of this, we offer an explanation to a question raised in this regard: In which way are phase-separated materials different from spin-glasses? In our opinion, it is the ”cause” which is responsible for the ”result” that makes the former fundamentally different from the latter. Finally, we hope that this article triggers more work on spin-chain oxides with this crystal structure.

We thank Satish Ogale for his useful comments.


text:
# The clustering of X-ray and sub-mm sources

## 1. Introduction

Our understanding of the high-redshift Universe changed dramatically with the advent of the SCUBA array at the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. It appears that a significant (perhaps dominant) fraction of the star-formation in the high-redshift Universe ($`z>2`$) took place in highly luminous, dust-enshrouded galaxies (Smail et al. 1997, Hughes et al. 1998, Barger et al. 1998, Eales et al. 1999). The discovery of this population was heralded by many as the discovery of the major epoch of dust-enshrouded spheroid formation (Lilly et al. 1999, Dunlop 2001, Granato et al. 2001).

On a similar timescale, it has become clear that essentially every massive galaxy in the local Universe hosts a supermassive black hole (Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Magorrian et al. 1998). In particular, the remarkable relationship between the black hole mass and the spheroidal velocity dispersion suggests a possible link between an early epoch of quasar activity and the formation of the spheroid (Gebhardt et al. 2000, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000).

Observationally, however, it would appear that only a small fraction of SCUBA sources display any signs of powerful AGN activity (Fabian et al. 2000; Severgnini et al. 2000; Hornschemeier et al. 2000). This argues for a time-lag between these two stages of evolution. I present further evidence to support this scenario, combined with a potential detection of clustering between X-ray and sub-mm sources. Possible explanations are briefly discussed.

## 2. The ELAIS N2 field

The 8mJy SCUBA survey is the largest extragalactic sub-mm survey undertaken to date, covering $`260`$ arcmin2 in two regions of sky (ELAIS N2 and the Lockman Hole East) to a typical rms noise level of $`\sigma =2.5`$ mJy at $`850\mu `$m (Scott et al. 2002). Chandra observations of the N2 field were presented in Almaini et al. (2002). The main results can be summarised as follows:

(1) Only $`1/17`$ SCUBA sources are detected by Chandra. For the remaining SCUBA sources our X-ray upper limits allow us to strongly rule out an AGN SED, even with a large absorbing column, unless the central engine is completely obscured by Compton-thick material.

(2) We find evidence for angular clustering between the X-ray and sub-mm populations, with a significance of $`3.54\sigma `$ within $`100`$ arcsec. This surprising result appears to suggest that a large subset of the two populations are tracing the same large-scale structure (see Figure 1a).

## 3. The HDF flanking fields

The clustering seen in the ELAIS N2 field clearly requires confirmation in an independent field. Borys et al. (2001) have recently obtained a contiguous, shallow SCUBA scanmap covering an $`11\times 11`$ arcmin region centred on the HDF. They find 12 sources brighter than $``$10mJy with a significance above $`3.5\sigma `$. For the X-ray population I use the recently published catalogue from the 1Ms Chandra observation of this region (Brandt et al. 2001). To ensure a uniform X-ray coverage across the SCUBA map I choose only the X-ray sources with a flux above $`5\times 10^{16}`$erg s-1cm-2 ($`0.58.0`$ keV). Cross-correlating these populations, I obtain a $`2.4\sigma `$ excess of pairs within $`100`$ arcsec.

Barger et al. (2000) have surveyed this region to greater depth with SCUBA by targeting optically-faint radio sources. This is arguably the most efficient way to find SCUBA sources, although somewhat incomplete and potentially biased against very high redshift objects ($`z>3`$). Nevertheless, I supplement the Borys et al. catalogue by adding 6 additional sources from Barger et al. to reach a ‘flux limit’ of 7mJy (comparable with ELAIS N2). With potential biases in mind, we note that the addition of these sources boosts the significance of the cross-correlation signal to $`2.9\sigma `$ within $`100`$ arcsec (see Figure 1b).

## 4. Discussion

It would appear that only a small fraction of SCUBA sources are detected by Chandra as luminous X-ray sources. The implication is that (for a given galaxy) the major episode of star-formation is essentially distinct from the period of observable quasar activity. Are the black holes in the remaining SCUBA sources dormant, still growing or very heavily obscured? This remains a major unanswered question, which we are currently investigating.

In addition to the low coincidence rate, for two independent fields I find evidence for clustering between bright SCUBA sources and X-ray selected AGN. If this is real large-scale structure the redshift distribution of the X-ray sources would argue for a large fraction of the SCUBA population lying at $`z<2`$. I propose an alternative explanation which invokes gravitational lensing, motivated by the particularly steep sub-mm source counts. In the ‘weak’ lensing regime, for example, where the typical magnification $`\mu `$ is not significantly greater than unity, one can readily demonstrate that a population with cumulative number counts given by a power law of index $`\beta `$ will be modified as follows:

$$N^{}(>S)=\mu ^{\beta 1}N(>S)$$
(1)
Observed sub-mm number counts have a slope with $`\beta 2.5`$ (possibly steepening beyond 8mJy). Foreground large scale structure (e.g. foreground groups) can readily lead to a magnification of $`\mu 1.21.3`$. Thus in the vicinity of such structure one would expect an enhancement in number counts of $`3050`$% which could easily produce a positive cross-correlation with foreground populations.

Estimates for the global fraction of lensed sources have been modeled by Blain et al. (1999) and Perrotta et al. (2001) and predicted to be only a few per cent. The fields analysed here may therefore be particularly rich in foreground structure, and this is under investigation. Alternatively, the lensing cross-sections assumed in the models could easily be underestimated (due to halo substructure, for example). In addition, the intrinsic slope of the bright sub-mm counts may be turning over more rapidly than previously assumed, perhaps reflecting a steep turn over in the underlying sub-mm luminosity function.

## References

Almaini O. et al., 2002, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0108400)

Barger A.J. et al, 1998, Nature, 394, 248

Barger A.J., Cowie L.L., Richards E.A., 2000, AJ, 119, 2092

Blain A.W., Moller O., Maller A.H., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 423

Borys C., Chapman S., Halpern M., Scott D., 2001, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0107515)

Brandt W.N. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 2810

Dunlop, J.S., 2001, World Scientific, in press. (astro-ph/0011077)

Eales S. et al, 1999, ApJ, 517, 148

Fabian A.C., et al., 2000, MNRAS, 315, L8

Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, ApJ, 539, 9

Gebhardt K., et al., 2000, ApJ, 539, 13

Granato G.L. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 324, 757

Hornschemeier A.E., et al., 2000, ApJ, 541, 49

Hughes D.H. et al., 1998, Nature, 394, 241

Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A 33, 581

Lilly S.J. et al. 1999, ApJ, 518, 641

Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

Perotta F. et al,. 2001, MNRAS submitted (astro-ph/0111239)

Scott S.E., et al., 2001, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0107446)

Severgnini P. et al., 2000, A&A, 360, 457

Smail I., Ivison R.J., Blain A.W., 1997, ApJ, 490, L5

Vignati P., et al., 1999, A&A 349, L57


text:
# Binding Energy of Scalar Bound State by Topologically Massive Interaction: Fermion and Anti-fermion System with Heavy Mass

## 1 Introduction

A peculiar type of quantum field theory exists in (2+1)-dimensional (generally odd-dimensional) space-time. It is the theory that has a Chern-Simons term in the action . While the Chern-Simons term may be added to the action by hand, the term can be induced in an effective action by a vacuum polarization effect of a fermion as the anomaly . Our understanding on the theory has progressed by studying the topological structure due to the Chern-Simons term

In addition to the theoretical interests, two important phenomena were discovered in planar condensed matter systems. One is the quantum Hall effect  and the other is the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity . Both phenomena may be thought of as realizations of the macroscopic quantum effects in the planar systems in which electrons have a strong correlation. It is plausible that these phenomena may have their origins in the dimensions of the space-times. It is challenging to ask whether and how the Chern-Simons term is related to these phenomena discovered in the two-dimensional electron systems.

These situations have activated the study of the (2+1)-dimensional quantum field theories. In fact, there appeared many approaches to understand these macroscopic quantum effects by using the (2+1)-dimensional quantum field theories and by paying special attention to the effects of the Chern-Simons term. For example, the (2+1)-dimensional quantum electrodynamics (QED3) was used to explain the quantum Hall effect  and QED3 with the Chern-Simons term (Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED3) provided an anyon model  which was expected to give us an essential mechanism for the high-$`T_C`$ superconductivity. These investigations produced important results and are still in progress.

What is the physical meaning of the Chern-Simons term? In the (2+1)-dimensional gauge theories, the behaviors in the infrared regions seem to be unstable at least in the perturbative treatment. The Chern-Simons term gives the gauge field a topological mass without breaking the gauge symmetry so that the term may rescue the theory from the infrared catastrophe. This is an original motivation of including the Chern-Simons term in the action.

Reminding those studies, we think that one of the most important problems which are still unclear is what is a role of the Chern-Simons term in a $`nonperturbative`$ region. It is our purpose to clarify how the Chern-Simons term affects the nonperturbative dynamics. In previous works , a dynamical mass generation of a fermion has been investigated by using the Schwinger-Dyson equation. It is an important phenomenon induced by a nonperturbative effect in one-body system. In this paper, we study a bound state problem which is another important nonperturbative phenomenon appeared in two-body system. We are interested in how the Chern-Simons term affects the bound system through the nonperturbative dynamics.

In Ref. , a fermion-anti-fermion bound system in QED3 was studied. In the model used there, the (anti-) fermion had four components and the gauge field did not have the topological mass. On the other hand, a binding problem of fermion-fermion system  was investigated in Ref. . A two-component fermion was used and the Chern-Simons term was included in the action of gauge field. The effective fermion-fermion low-energy potential was evaluated in the lowest order perturbation. However, the result was claimed to be incorrect .

As mentioned above, what we are interested in is the effect of the Chern-Simons term in the nonperturbative dynamics. It is still unclear and controversial. We think that it is important to perform the microscopic nonperturbative calculation based on the first principle. For this purpose, the best theoretical tool is the Bethe-Salpeter equation which makes it possible to perform the systematic nonperturbative analysis of the structure of the bound system. As a system suitable for our purpose, we use the two-component massive fermion and anti-fermion in QED3 with the Chern-Simons term. This model has the topological nature and also has applications in the condensed matter physics.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. 2, we explain the quantum electrodynamics with the Chern-Simons term. The Bethe-Salpeter equation is formulated under the lowest ladder approximation in Sec. 3. In Sec. 4, we derive the Schrödinger equation using the large fermion mass expansion. After that, by solving the Schrödinger equation numerically, we evaluate the binding energy for the bound states and we find a specific logarithmic scaling behaviour of the binding energy in Sec. 5. Finally, we conclude on the results with discussions in Sec. 6.

## 2 Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED3

The Lagrangian density of QED3 with the Chern-Simons term, which is called the Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED3 or the topologically massive QED3, is expressed as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu _\nu A_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(_\mu A^\mu )^2+\overline{\psi }(i\partial ̸e\mathit{}m)\psi ,`$ (1)
where $`e`$ is the coupling constant and $`\alpha `$ is the gauge-fixing parameter. $`\psi `$ is a two component fermion field with an explicit mass $`m`$, which belongs to the irreducible spinor representation in (2+1)-dimensions. In the dimensions, the square of the coupling constant $`e^2`$ has a dimension of mass. The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (1) is the so-called Chern-Simons term. This term has a topological meaning as a secondary characteristic class  and provides the topological mass $`\mu `$ to the gauge field without breaking the gauge symmetry. The free propagator of the gauge field $`iD_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ derived from Eq. (1) is

$`iD_{\mu \nu }(p)=i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2\mu ^2}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right)+\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho }p^\rho i\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^4}}.`$ (2)
We find a massive pole at $`p^2=\mu ^2`$ in the propagator so that $`\mu `$ can be regarded as a mass of the gauge field.

The Dirac matrices in (2+1)-dimensions are defined by

$`\gamma ^0=\sigma _3,\gamma ^1=i\sigma _1,\gamma ^2=i\sigma _2,`$ (3)
with diag$`(g^{\mu \nu })=(1,1,1)`$. $`\sigma _i`$’s $`(i=1,2,3)`$ are the Pauli matrices. In this representation, there is no matrix which anti-commutes with all of the $`\gamma `$-matrices so that we cannot define the chiral transformation. Instead, the parity symmetry  forbids the mass terms of both the fermion and the gauge field. The Lagrangian density (1) breaks the parity symmetry in both the gauge and fermion sectors.

## 3 Bethe-Salpeter Equation

The Bethe-Salpeter amplitude $`\chi _B(x_a,x_b)`$ is defined as

$`\chi _B^{ij}(x_a,x_b)0|T(\psi ^i(x_a)\overline{\psi }^j(x_b))|k,`$ (4)
where $`|k`$ is the fermion-anti-fermion bound state with the total momentum $`k_\mu `$ and mass $`M`$. The mass shell condition is $`k^2=k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2=M^2`$ with $`0<M<2m`$. The integral Bethe-Salpeter equation  for $`\chi _B(x_a,x_b)`$ is given by

$`\chi _B(x_a,x_b)=e^2{\displaystyle d^3z_ad^3z_biS_F^{}(x_az_a)\gamma ^\mu \chi _B(z_a,z_b)\gamma ^\nu }`$
$`\times iS_F^{}(z_bx_b)iD_{\mu \nu }^{}(z_az_b),`$ (5)
where $`iS_F^{}`$ and $`iD_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ are full propagators of the fermion and gauge fields respectively.

Now we limit ourselves to solve Eq. (5) in the lowest ladder approximation. Then $`iS_F^{}`$ is replaced by the free fermion propagator $`iS_F`$ as

$`iS_F(x_ax_b)=i{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ik(x_ax_b)}S_F(k)},iS_F(k)=i{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathit{}+m)}{k^2m^2+iϵ}},`$ (6)
and $`iD_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ by the free gauge field propagator $`iD_{\mu \nu }`$ as

$`iD_{\mu \nu }(x_ax_b)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}iD_{\mu \nu }(k)e^{ik(x_ax_b)}},`$ (7)
where $`iD_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ is given by Eq. (2).

The dependence of $`\chi _B(x_a,x_b)`$ on the coordinates of the centre of mass can be factored out as

$`\chi _B^{ij}(x_a,x_b)=e^{iPX}\chi _B^{ij}(x,P),`$ (8)
where $`X=(x_a+x_b)/2`$ is the coordinates of the centre of mass and $`x=x_ax_b`$ the relative coordinates. $`P`$ is the momentum of the centre of mass. By the Fourier transformation of the relative coordinates $`x`$, we obtain

$`\chi _B^{ij}(x_a,x_b)=e^{iPX}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ipx}\chi _B^{ij}(p,P)},`$ (9)
where $`p`$ is the relative momentum.

We may rewrite the Bethe-Salpeter equation by using an amputated Bethe-Salpeter amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is defined as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)\left[iS_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}}{2}}+\mathit{}\right)\right]^1\chi _B(p,P)\left[iS_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}}{2}}+\mathit{}\right)\right]^1.`$ (10)
From Eqs. (5) $``$ (10), we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}iD_{\mu \nu }(qp)\gamma ^\mu iS_F(\frac{\mathit{}}{2}+\mathit{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,P)iS_F(\frac{\mathit{}}{2}+\mathit{})\gamma ^\nu }.`$ (11)
Now the problem is to find the amputated Bethe-Salpeter amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by solving Eq. (11). Because of the Lorentz invariance, the amplitude which is a bi-spinor, can be decomposed as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)M(q,P)+N(q,P)\mathit{}+F(q,P)\mathit{}+G(q,P)\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }q_\mu P_\nu \gamma _\rho ,`$ (12)
where $`M,N,F`$ and $`G`$ are the functions of the Lorentz scalar variables $`q=\sqrt{q_\mu q^\mu }`$, $`P=\sqrt{P_\mu P^\mu }`$ and $`Pq=P_\mu q^\mu `$. The equations for the four unknown functions $`M,N,F`$ and $`G`$ can be obtained by taking the trace of the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as

$`M(q,P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)\right],`$ (13)
$`N(q,P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^2q^\sigma (Pq)P^\sigma }{P^2q^2(Pq)^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)\right],`$ (14)
$`F(q,P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2P^\sigma (Pq)q^\sigma }{P^2q^2(Pq)^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)\right],`$ (15)
$`G(q,P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \sigma }q_\alpha P_\beta }{P^2q^2(Pq)^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)\right].`$ (16)
In the following section, we rewrite the obtained four coupled integral equations into the non-relativistic form using the large fermion mass expansion. This leads to the Schrödinger equation which will be used actually to study the bound states. The non-relativistic treatment reduces the complexity of the equations as we will see in the next section.

## 4 Schrödinger Equation

We consider the bound state in the rest frame where the momentum of the centre of mass is

$`P_\mu =(2m+E^B,0,0).`$ (17)
$`E^B`$ indicates the binding energy and $`m`$ the (anti-) fermion mass. If the system makes bound states, $`E^B`$ should be negative because of a stability. We replace all $`P_\mu `$’s in Eq. (11) by Eq. (17). Then the fermion propagator in the right-hand side of Eq. (11) can be approximated as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pm \frac{\mathit{}}{2}+\mathit{}+m}{(\pm \frac{P}{2}+p)^2m^2+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \gamma ^0}{E^B\pm 2p_0\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{}{p}^2+iϵ}},`$ (18)
in the large limit of the fermion mass. $`\stackrel{}{p}^2/m^2`$ term must be kept in the equation since this term may play an important role for the convergence of the integration over $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ in the right-hand side of Eq. (11). The amputated Bethe-Salpeter amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the rest frame of bound states can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,P)`$ $`=`$ $`M(p,P)+N(p,P)\mathit{}+F(p,P)(2m+E^B)\gamma ^0`$ (19)
$`+G(p,P)\epsilon ^{i0j}p_i(2m+E^B)\gamma _j,`$
by substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (12). Using Eqs. (18) and (19), we find the non-relativistic Bethe-Salpeter equation for the amputated Bethe-Salpeter amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,P)`$ $`=`$ $`2e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}iD_{\mu \nu }(qp)\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma ^0)\gamma ^j\gamma ^\nu K_j(p,P)},`$ (20)
where

$`K_j(p,P)`$ $``$ $`\{N(p,P)p_j+(2m+E^B)G(p,P)\epsilon _{i0j}p^i\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(p,P)}},`$ (21)
$`K(p,P)`$ $``$ $`(E^B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\stackrel{}{p}^2+iϵ)^24p_0^2.`$ (22)
Now, we can derive the four coupled integral equations for four unknown functions $`M,N,F`$ and $`G`$ from Eq. (20).

After tedious calculations111The details will be appeared elsewhere. , we find that the essential coupled equations are those of $`N`$ and $`G`$. $`M`$ and $`F`$ are calculated from $`N`$ and $`G`$. Furthermore, we find that the independent unknown function is only $`T(q,P)`$ defined by

$`T(q,P)N(q,P)i(2m+E^B)G(q,P),`$ (23)
which is required to satisfy

$`T(q,P)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}R(qp)(i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})\frac{T(p,P)}{K(p,P)}},`$ (24)
where

$`R(qp)=4{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qp)^2\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})^2}{(qp)^2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{(q^0p^0)^2}{(qp)^4}}\right\}.`$ (25)
The symbol “$``$” was defined as $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}ϵ^{0ij}q_ip_j`$. Thus by taking the non-relativistic limit, the number of the independent equations reduces from four to one. Next we derive the Schrödinger equation from the non-relativistic Bethe-Salpeter equation (24). Using the residue theorem, we perform the integration over $`p^0`$ in Eq. (24). We consider poles in the function $`K(p,P)`$ defined by Eq. (22) and get

$`T(q_0,\stackrel{}{q},P)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}R(q_0p_0^B,\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}+i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})\frac{T(p_0^B,\stackrel{}{p},P)}{E^B\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{m}+iϵ}},`$ (26)
where $`p_0^B(E^B\stackrel{}{p}^2/m)/2`$. If we fix $`q_0`$ to $`q_0^B=(E^B\stackrel{}{q}^2/m)/2`$ in the both sides of Eq. (26) and also neglect $`\stackrel{}{q}^2/2m`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}^2/2m`$ for the large fermion mass $`m`$ again, $`R(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})`$ reduces to a simple form as

$`R(q_0^Bp_0^B,\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})4{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})^2+\mu ^2}}.`$ (27)
Then, as the self-consistent equation, we obtain

$`T(q_0^B,\stackrel{}{q},P)=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}\frac{1}{(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})^2+\mu ^2}(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})\frac{T(p_0^B,\stackrel{}{p},P)}{E^B\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{m}+iϵ}}.`$ (28)
Now we have to define the Schödinger wave function $`\psi ^B(p)`$ of the bound states from $`T(p_0^B,\stackrel{}{p},T)`$. It is natural to assume that there exists an effective theory for the bound states. The Hamiltonian of the effective theory, from which the Schrödinger equation is derived by a variational principle, should be hermite since an energy eigenvalue has to be real. The hermiticity decides that the wave function should be defined as

$`\psi ^B(p){\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|T(p_0^B,\stackrel{}{p},P)}{(E^B\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{m}+iϵ)}},`$ (29)
up to a multiplicative constant.222See Ref.  for the details Finally we have

$`(E^B{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{m}}+iϵ)\psi ^B(q)=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{q}||\stackrel{}{p}|}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}}{(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})^2+\mu ^2}\psi ^B(p)}.`$ (30)
Notice that the term with $``$-product drops in Eq. (30) because the wave function depends on only $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$. This is the Schrödinger equation in the momentum space which we solve in Sec. 5 to obtain the binding energy .

## 5 Numerical Analysis

### 5.1 Control parameter

In the Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED3, the square of the coupling constant $`e^2`$ has the dimension of mass. The theory is under a control of dimensionless parameters defined by

$`\widehat{\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{e^2}},\widehat{m}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{e^2}}.`$ (31)
These two parameters, not three, are independent in the theory. Further more, by defining the dimensionless momenta $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$, and dimensionless binding energy $`\widehat{E}_B`$ as

$`\stackrel{}{\widehat{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{\mu }},\stackrel{}{\widehat{p}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{\mu }},\widehat{E}^B={\displaystyle \frac{E^B}{e^2}},`$ (32)
we can rewrite the Schrödinger equation (30) to

$`(\widehat{E}^B\stackrel{}{\widehat{q}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{me^2}}+iϵ)\psi ^B(\widehat{q})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\widehat{p}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{\widehat{q}}||\stackrel{}{\widehat{p}}|}\frac{\stackrel{}{\widehat{q}}\stackrel{}{\widehat{p}}}{(\stackrel{}{\widehat{q}}\stackrel{}{\widehat{p}})^2+1}\psi ^B(\widehat{p})}.`$ (33)
We can see that only the combination of parameters as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{me^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }^2}{\widehat{m}}},`$ (34)
fully controls Eq. (33). Namely, if one chooses a certain value of $`\mu ^2/(me^2)`$, the dimensionless energy $`\widehat{E}^B`$ and the wave function $`\psi ^B(\widehat{q})`$ are decided. To obtain the eigenenergy $`E^B`$ from the dimensionless $`\widehat{E}^B`$, we need to fix one more parameter, $`\widehat{m}`$ or $`\widehat{\mu }`$. In the followings, we draw the results in pictures by fixing $`\widehat{m}`$ to see the topological mass dependence of $`\widehat{E}^B`$ and also by fixing $`\widehat{\mu }`$ to see the fermion mass dependence.

### 5.2 Topological mass dependence

What we are most interested in is to find how the topological mass affects a property of the bound system. It can be seen in the shift of the energy eigenvalue by varying the topological mass. Especially, it is very important to clarify whether the effect by the topological mass is attractive or repulsive and how strong the effect is.

In Fig. 1, we show the topological mass dependence of the dimensionless binding energy $`E^B/e^2`$. The vertical axis indicates the binding energy and the horizontal axis is the topological mass $`\widehat{\mu }`$ in the logarithmic scale. As the topological mass $`\widehat{\mu }`$ increases, the absolute value of the binding energy becomes smaller and the number of the bound states decreases. We find that there exists a critical value of the topological mass $`\widehat{\mu }`$ where the bound states disappear, for each a quantum number. For example, the critical value of topological mass $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is numerically $`44.4844.49`$ in the case of the ground state.

On the other hand, we can see another interesting feature of the topological mass dependence of the binding energy from this result. In the region where the binding energy is lower than about $`0.3`$, the topological mass dependence of the binding energy is almost linear in the semi-logarithmic figure and the value of its slope is $`1/(2\pi )`$ at least for lower energy states. Namely, the dependence of the binding energy seems to be approximated by a function form as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_n^B}{e^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{e^2}}\right)+C_n^{(1)},`$ (35)
where the index $`n`$ is a quantum number indicating the energy level. $`C_n^{(1)}`$ is determined so as to reproduce the calculated value of $`E^B/e^2`$ at $`\widehat{\mu }=0.4`$ for each $`n`$ in Fig. 1. Before we discuss about the meaning of this dependence in Eq. (35), we show the fermion mass dependence of the binding energy. After that, we shall return to this point.

### 5.3 Fermion mass dependence

In Fig. 2, we show the fermion mass dependence of the binding energy. The vertical axis indicates the dimensionless binding energy $`E^B/e^2`$ and the horizontal axis shows the fermion mass $`\widehat{m}`$ in the logarithmic scale. The topological mass $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is fixed to be $`1.0`$. As we can see from this figure, the absolute value of the binding energy increases as the fermion mass $`m`$ increases. We find the interesting feature again from this figure that the results are well approximated by the function as we have seen in the case of the topological mass dependence. In the region of the binding energy lower than about $`0.3`$, the fermion mass dependence is almost linear with the slope $`1/(4\pi )`$ in the semi-logarithmic figure. Therefore, the fermion mass dependence of the binding energy seems to be approximated by the function form as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_n^B}{e^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{e^2}}\right)+C_n^{(2)},`$ (36)
where $`C_n^{(2)}`$ is determined by the value of $`E^B/e^2`$ at $`m/e^2=5.0\times 10^5`$ for each $`n`$ in Fig. 2.

### 5.4 Logarithmic scaling of binding energy

Here, we return to the topological mass dependence of the binding energy expressed by Eq. (35). By combining Eqs. (35) and (36), we find that the dependence of the binding energy on $`\widehat{m}`$ and $`\widehat{\mu }`$ can be unified to the expression as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_n^B}{e^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{me^2}}\right)+C_n^{(3)},`$ (37)
where $`C_n^{(3)}`$ is a constant to be consistent with Eqs. (35) and (36). We can see that the dimensionless binding energy $`E^B/e^2`$ is completely determined by the value of the parameter $`\mu ^2/(me^2)`$ which is only one essential parameter included in the theory as seen in Sec. 5.1.

In addition, we see the dependence of the binding energy on the quantum number $`n`$ in Fig. 3. We can fit the data points for lower energies by a logarithmic function. Combining the fitting with Eq. (37), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_n^B}{e^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{me^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\pi }}\mathrm{ln}(n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{me^2}}n^{\frac{4}{a}}\right)`$ (38)
where $`a`$ is a fitting parameter used in Fig. 3. Compared with the fittings in Figs. 1 and 2, the fitting in Fig. 3 results us a deviation of the values of $`a`$ for each fitting line. For $`n=15`$, the fitting parameter varies as $`a2.11572.1505`$.

The most interesting point of Eq. (38) is that $`E_n^B/e^2`$ is scaled by the logarithmic function of $`\mu ^2/(me^2)`$ and also $`n`$. If we make a shift as $`\mu ^2/(me^2)\lambda \mu ^2/(me^2)`$ or $`n\lambda n`$ where $`\lambda `$ is a constant, then $`E_n^B/e^2`$ is changed as $`E_n^B/e^2E_n^B/e^2+1/(4\pi )\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$ or $`E_n^B/e^2E_n^B/e^2+1/(a\pi )\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$. Thus the logarithmic scaling behaviour means that the multiplicative shift of the parameter or the quantum number results the additive shift of the binding energy.

The scaling has been found only through the numerical analysis in this paper. We may expect any simple explanation about the approximated logarithmic dependence of $`E^B`$ on the unique parameter $`\mu ^2/(me^2)`$ and also the energy level $`n`$. The coefficient $`1/(4\pi )`$ is also suggestive for us since it might be a signal of a topological nature in the theory. These will be studied in future investigations.

## 6 Conclusion

We have investigated the bound states of the fermion-anti-fermion system in the three-dimensional QED with the Chern-Simons term. We used the two-component fermion field which belongs to the irreducible spinor representation in (2+1)-dimensions. We have formulated the Bethe-Salpeter equation which makes it possible to perform the systematic non-perturbative evaluation based on the first principle. We have performed the calculations in the non-relativistic limit constructing the Schrödinger equation in the momentum space under the large fermion mass expansion. By solving this Schrödinger equation numerically, we investigated how the Chern-Simons term affects to the fermion-anti-fermion bound states.

We have discovered some important features of the effects of the Chern-Simons term in the numerical analysis. First, we have found that the absolute value of the binding energy becomes smaller as the topological mass $`\mu `$ larger. This fact indicates that the effect of the Chern-Simons term is to weaken the binding of the fermion-anti-fermion bound states. We have found that there exists a critical value of the topological mass where the bound state disappears.

Secondly, we have found the interesting features of the binding energy that in the region where the energy eigenvalue is smaller than about $`0.3`$, the dependence of the binding energy $`E_n^B`$ on the topological mass $`\mu `$, the fermion mass $`m`$ and the energy level $`n`$ is almost linear in the semi-logarithmic plots. We find that this dependence can be expressed as $`E_n^B=e^2/(4\pi )\mathrm{log}(\mu ^2/(me^2)\times n^{4/a})`$ with $`a2.11572.1505`$ for the energy levels $`n=15`$. Thus the binding energy has a logarithmic scaling behaviour for varying the topological mass, fermion mass and also the quantum number.

In future investigations, first we should make clear the meanings of the logarithmic scaling, the coefficient $`1/(4\pi )`$ and the critical value of the topological mass. We should try to obtain any analytical information which helps us to understand the meanings of these behaviors of the numerical results. Further, we can investigate this problem using the relativistic formulation itself without making the non-relativistic approximation. We will develop the combined treatment of the Schwinger-Dyson equation and the Bethe-Salpeter equation in order to incorporate the effect of the dynamical mass generation. In addition, we think that one of the most interesting subjects which should be done in future is to extend this study to the bound states of the fermion-fermion system . This is important due to the possible connection to the high-$`T_C`$ superconductivity observed in the condensed matter systems.

## Acknowledgment

One of the authors (T. M.) would like to thank Professor M. Kenmoku for his hospitality at the Nara Women’s University. We would like to thank Professor S. Hirenzaki for useful comments and advises. We also thank to Professor I.I. Kogan for an information on earlier related works, and to Professor O.M. Del Cima for an encouraging comment on a future development of our analyses.


text:
# Formation of Galactic Disks

## 1. Introduction

Two key ingredients in the formation of galactic disks are dissipation and rotation. Dissipation by radiative cooling causes the gas in a protogalaxy to collapse inward; rotation then halts the collapse in the directions perpendicular but not parallel to the overall angular-momentum vector, resulting in a thin centrifugally supported disk. Other processes likely to play some role in the formation and subsequent evolution of galactic disks include dynamical friction, internal torques, kinematic viscosity, mergers, and star formation and the associated heating and stirring of the gas (feedback). In this article, we consider the general cosmogonic scenario in which the extended halos of galaxies form hierarchically by the gravitational clustering of non-dissipative dark matter, and the luminous components of galaxies form by a combination of the gravitational clustering and dissipative collapse of baryons, as proposed by White & Rees (1978). The formation of galactic disks and the origin of their rotation in this scenario were first studied by Fall & Efstathiou (1980). Most of the currently popular models of galaxy formation, including all variants of the cold and warm dark matter (CDM and WDM) models, are specific versions of this general scenario.

## 2. Tidal Torques

The formation of objects by gravitational clustering automatically endows them with some angular momentum (Peebles 1969). This is because the (proto)objects initially have irregular shapes and hence non-zero quadrupole moments. They therefore exert tidal torques on each other, with random strengths and directions. The objects acquire most of their angular momentum in the translinear regime, when their density contrasts are appreciable ($`\delta \rho /\rho 1`$), but before they reach their maximum sizes and begin to contract. The rotation induced by tidal torques is usually quantified in terms of the dimensionless spin parameter

$$\lambda J|E|^{1/2}G^1M^{5/2},$$
$`(1)`$
where $`J`$, $`E`$, and $`M`$ are the total angular momentum, energy, and mass of the object, and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. Rapidly rotating objects, such as disks, have $`\lambda 1`$, whereas slowly rotating objects, such as spheroids, have $`\lambda 1`$.

Cosmological $`N`$-body simulations have revealed that the distribution of spins induced by gravitational clustering alone (i.e., without dissipation) is approximately lognormal:

$$p(\lambda )d\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\lambda /\lambda _m)}{\sigma (\mathrm{ln}\lambda )}\right]^2\right\}d\mathrm{ln}\lambda ,$$
$`(2)`$
with

$$\lambda _m0.05\mathrm{and}\sigma (\mathrm{ln}\lambda )0.5.$$
$`(3)`$
Most objects rotate slowly although there is a wide range of spins. This distribution appears to be nearly universal in the sense that it has little or no dependence on the cosmological parameters, the initial spectrum of density perturbation, or the masses and densities of the objects (Barnes & Efstathiou 1987; Zurek, Quinn, & Salmon 1988; Warren et al. 1992; Cole & Lacey 1996). These results are very useful, even if they are not yet fully understood theoretically.

## 3. Analytical Collapse Model

We can relate the factor by which the baryons collapse in the radial direction before they reach centrifugal balance in a disk to the initial rotation of a protogalaxy as follows (Fall 1983). For simplicity, we consider a galaxy with a luminous disk (D) and a dark halo (H) but not a luminous spheroid. Furthermore, we assume that the baryons destined to become the disk receive the same tidal torques as the dark matter before much dissipation occurs and that during and after the collapse the total specific angular momentum of each component is conserved:

$$J_D/M_D=J_H/M_H.$$
$`(4)`$
In other words, we assume for now that angular momentum is not transferred between the disk and the halo, or if it is, that this is accompanied by the transfer of enough mass (outflow or inflow) that equation (4) is still satisfied.

We approximate the disk by an exponential model with a scale radius $`\alpha ^1`$ (sometimes denoted by $`R_d`$) and the halo by a singular isothermal sphere with a circular velocity $`v_c`$ and a truncation radius $`r_t`$. Then, neglecting the self-gravity of the disk, we have

$$J_D/M_D=2v_c\alpha ^1,$$
$`(5)`$
$$J_H/M_H=\sqrt{2}\lambda v_cr_t.$$
$`(6)`$
Equating these gives a very simple relation between the collapse factor $`\alpha r_t`$ of the baryons in the disk and the spin parameter $`\lambda `$ of the halo:

$$\alpha r_t=\sqrt{2}/\lambda .$$
$`(7)`$
This implies $`\alpha r_t30`$ for $`\lambda 0.05`$ and hence $`r_t100`$ kpc for a typical spiral galaxy like the Milky Way (with $`\alpha ^13`$ kpc). The collapse factor is larger in halos with smaller spin parameters and smaller in halos with larger spin parameters. The collapse factor would also be larger if the baryons were to lose some of their specific angular momentum.

Equation (7) is an excellent approximation even when the halo has a finite core radius and when the self-gravity of the disk is included (Fall & Efstathiou 1980; see their Fig. 3). It is also a good approximation if the halo has an NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk, & White 1996, 1997) that is later deformed by the (adiabatic) contraction of the disk within it (Mo, Mao, & White 1998). The radius $`r_t`$ of the halo in equation (7) should be the one within which the baryons have collapsed onto the disk. This may be compared and contrasted with the radius $`r_{200}`$ within which the mean density of the protogalaxy is 200 times the critical (closure) density. The latter is near the transition between the virialized and infalling parts of the halo (Cole & Lacey 1996). In recent work in this field, it has been customary to identify $`r_t`$ with $`r_{200}`$. This assumption, however, does not have much physical justification beyond the constraint $`r_t\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r_{200}`$. It is likely that $`r_t`$ depends on cooling, heating, and other non-gravitational processes at least as much as it depends on the gravitational clustering that determines $`r_{200}`$. Thus, we have no guarantee that $`r_t`$ and $`r_{200}`$ will be equal or even proportional to each other. (Anyone who doubts this should compare the cooling and virial radii in clusters of galaxies.)

## 4. Scaling Relations

The properties of the halos that form in a hierarchy by gravitational clustering obey some simple scaling relations. We can combine these with the relation between the collapse factor and the spin parameter to derive the corresponding scaling relations for the properties of galactic disks as follows (Fall 1983). We approximate the relation between the typical masses $`M_H`$ of the halos (within $`r_t`$) and their circular velocities $`v_c`$ by a power law, $`M_Hv_c^k`$. The index $`k`$ depends in general on the initial spectrum of density perturbations, the cosmological parameters, the range of masses considered, and the relation between $`r_t`$ and $`r_{200}`$. Simple arguments based on the different formation times of objects with different mean densities give $`k=12/(1n)`$ for $`(\delta \rho /\rho )_{\mathrm{rms}}M^{(3+n)/6}`$ (White & Rees 1978). This implies $`k4`$ for the effective index $`n2`$ of the CDM spectrum on galactic scales (Blumenthal et al. 1984). $`N`$-body simulations indicate instead $`k3`$ for the NFW halos in CDM cosmogonies (Navarro et al. 1997). This index is appropriate for $`r_t=r_{200}`$ and hence for perfectly synchronous formation. In view of the unknown initial spectrum (index $`n`$) and unknown relation between $`r_t`$ and $`r_{200}`$, we regard $`k`$ as a parameter with some theoretical uncertainty.

The scaling relation for the halos can be reexpressed in terms of the typical luminosities and circular velocities of the disks as

$$L_D(f_D/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D)v_c^k,$$
$`(8)`$
where $`f_DM_D/M_H`$ is the ratio of masses of the disks and halos, and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_DM_D/L_D`$ is the mass-to-light ratio in the disks. This may be compared with the observed Tully-Fisher (1977) relation, $`L_Dv_c^l`$, the index of which varies from $`l3`$ in the $`B`$ band (0.44 $`\mu `$m) to $`l4`$ in the $`K`$ band (2.2 $`\mu `$m) (Verheijen 2001). Most of this variation can be explained by a dependence of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D`$ on $`v_c`$, indicated by the observed correlation between the colors and the luminosities of galaxies. When this effect, including the mass of interstellar gas, is taken into account, the index of the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation is found to be $`k=3.5\pm 0.4`$ for $`f_D=\mathrm{const}`$ (Bell & de Jong 2001).

The central surface brightness of an exponential disk is given by $`I_0=\alpha ^2L_D/2\pi `$. Using equations (7) and (8) and the relation $`v_c^2=GM_H/r_t`$, we can rewrite this in the form

$$I_0\lambda ^2v_c^{l2k+4}v_c^{l2k+4},$$
$`(9)`$
where all of the dependence on $`f_D`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D`$ is contained in the factor $`v_c^{lk}`$. The second proportionality holds because the spin parameters of the halos are statistically independent of their other properties. For $`k3.5`$, we expect $`I_0\mathrm{const}`$ in the $`B`$ band ($`l3`$) and $`I_0v_c`$ in the $`K`$ band ($`l4`$). The first of these is the same as the original Freeman (1970) relation in the $`B`$ band. It would be interesting to search for the predicted correlation in the $`K`$ band.

The scaling relations above indicate how the typical luminosities and surface brightnesses of galactic disks depend on their circular velocities. The dispersions about these relations are determined in part by the dispersion in the spin parameter. We expect the $`L_D`$-$`v_c`$ correlation to have relatively little scatter because it is independent of $`\lambda `$ \[equation (8)\], while we expect the $`I_0`$-$`v_c`$ correlation to have a great deal of scatter because it includes the factor $`\lambda ^2`$ \[equation (9)\]. These trends are qualitatively consistent with the observed Tully-Fisher and Freeman relations. The distribution of $`I_0`$ at fixed $`v_c`$ can be derived from equation (2) for $`p(\lambda )`$ and equation (7) for $`\alpha r_t`$ (Dalcanton, Spergel, & Summers 1997; Mo et al. 1998; Weil, Eke, & Efstathiou 1998). These results can then be combined with the luminosity function of galaxies to derive the joint distributions of $`I_0`$ and $`\alpha ^1`$ (Dalcanton et al. 1997) and $`L_D`$ and $`\alpha ^1`$ (de Jong & Lacey 2000). In all these studies, the observed distributions are reproduced quite well provided the coefficient in equation (7) is reasonably close to $`\sqrt{2}`$, i.e., provided the disks have retained most of the specific angular momentum they acquired by tidal torques.

## 5. Origins of Exponential Disks

The results above are based on the assumption that the total specific angular momenta in the disks are the same as those in their halos \[equation (4)\]. We may refer to this as the weak form of the assumption of angular-momentum conservation. In addition, it is sometimes supposed that the distributions of specific angular momentum in the disks are the same as those in their halos. This is usually expressed in terms of the fractions of mass with specific angular momentum below $`h=Rv_\varphi `$ in the two components:

$$M_D(h)/M_D=M_H(h)/M_H.$$
$`(10)`$
We may refer to this as the strong form of the assumption of angular-momentum conservation. It is analogous to Mestel’s (1963) hypothesis that $`M_D(h)`$ would be conserved in the collapse of a one-component protogalaxy (made before dark halos were discovered). Note that equation (10) implies equation (4), but the converse is not true in general. It is possible to change $`M(h)/M`$ in either component without affecting the corresponding $`J/M`$.

Several authors have pointed out that the distribution $`M_D(h)/M_D`$ for an exponential disk with a flat rotation curve is similar to that for a uniform sphere with a constant angular velocity (Gunn 1982; van der Kruit 1987; Dalcanton et al. 1997). This in turn resembles the distribution $`M_H(h)/M_H`$ caused by tidal torques (Barnes & Efstathiou 1987; Quinn & Zurek 1988), although there has been a recent tendency to emphasize the differences rather than the similarities (Firmani & Avila-Reese 2000; Bullock et al. 2001; van den Bosch 2001). Thus, the strong form of the assumption of angular-momentum conservation provides a possible explanation for the fact that the radial profiles of most galactic disks are approximately exponential. The main concern here is that several processes could alter $`M_D(h)/M_D`$ and hence the radial profiles of the disks over their lifetimes. These include the torques exerted by non-axisymmetric features in the disks (bars and spiral arms), the non-conservation of angular momentum as gas flows though shocks in spiral arms, and the exchange of angular momentum in collisions between clouds, not to mention galactic outflows, fountains, and mergers. It seems likely that these processes play some role in determining the present distributions of specific angular momentum in galactic disks.

Lin & Pringle (1987) showed that the radial distributions of the stars in galactic disks would evolve toward exponential-like profiles if two conditions were met. (1) The net effect of the processes that redistribute angular momentum in the interstellar gas can be described by an effective viscosity $`\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$. (2) The associated timescale, $`t_\nu =R^2/\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, is about the same as the timescale for star formation, $`t_{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_g/\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s`$. This is plausible because both the redistribution of angular momentum and the formation of stars may be regulated by instabilities in the disks, including bars and spiral arms, although we lack a full understanding of just how or even whether this would actually happen. The Lin-Pringle model has been explored further, including its chemical evolution, by several authors (Clarke 1989; Yoshii & Sommer-Larsen 1989; Sommer-Larsen & Yoshii 1989, 1990). This model raises the possibility that the ubiquitous exponential profile is the result of viscous processes operating in the disks after they formed rather than tidal torques acting on the galaxies while they formed. More likely, both are involved: the exponential profile is first established by external torques and is then reinforced by internal viscosity.

## 6. The Angular-Momentum Problem

About a decade ago, it became possible to simulate the hierarchical formation of galaxies with both dark matter and baryons by a combination of $`N`$-body and hydrodynamical models. The early simulations included the radiative cooling of the gas but not the formation of stars and the associated feedback (heating and stirring of the gas). The results were very different from the analytical models described above (Navarro & Benz 1991; Navarro & White 1994). The baryonic objects that formed in these simulations were ellipsoidal in shape and an order of magnitude smaller than galactic disks of the same scaled mass. Thus, they resembled the spheroids more than the disks of real galaxies. The reason for this is that the gas cooled quickly and collapsed into dense subunits within the halos. A combination of dynamical friction and gravitational torques within the halos then transferred most of the orbital angular momentum of the baryons to the dark matter, causing the subunits to sink toward the centers of the protogalaxies, where they then merged. (For a prescient discussion of how these processes might determine the different properties of galactic spheroids and disks, see Zurek et al. 1988.) The discrepancy between the baryonic objects produced in such simulations and real galactic disks has become known as the angular-momentum problem of galaxy formation. It is so severe that it is sometimes referred to as a crisis or catastrophe.

Steinmetz & Navarro (1999) have explored this and related issues with a series of high-resolution simulations. They have tried to alleviate the angular-momentum problem by including some feedback in their simulations but find this makes little difference to the outcome. This conclusion, however, depends on their particular prescription for feedback. Steinmetz & Navarro assume that the gas is heated only in the immediate vicinity of ongoing star formation. Then, since the gas is very dense at these locations, the energy input is quickly radiated away, before it can influence the motions or the thermodynamic state of the gas at other locations. Steinmetz & Navarro (1999) have also found that the zero-point of the relation between luminosity and circular velocity in their simulations differs significantly from that of the observed Tully-Fisher relation, especially in the Einstein-de Sitter cosmological model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) with CDM. More recently, Eke, Navarro, & Steinmetz (2001) have shown that this problem is reduced substantially or solved completely in the concordance cosmological model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$) with CDM or WDM.

## 7. Possible Solutions

It is now widely believed that the solution of the angular-momentum problem must be found in some extreme form of feedback that prevents the baryons from collapsing until after the violent relaxation in their halos is complete. The baryons would then collapse within relatively smooth halos, with little quadrupole coupling, and hence would retain most of their specific angular momentum, as was originally, although perhaps naively, envisaged (Fall & Efstathiou 1980). That this idea goes a long way toward solving the angular-momentum problem has been demonstrated explicitly in a number of recent simulations (Weil et al. 1998; Sommer-Larsen, Gelato, & Vedel 1999; Eke, Efstathiou, & Wright 2000; Thacker & Couchman 2001). In the Weil et al. and Eke et al. simulations, the gas evolves adiabatically until the redshift $`z=1`$ and is then allowed to cool radiatively and collapse. In the Sommer-Larsen et al. and Thacker & Couchman simulations, the feedback is driven by local star formation but is extensive in both time and position (in contrast to the Steinmetz & Navarro prescription). The common result of these studies is that the disks retain much more of their specific angular momentum.

Several other effects also help. The transfer of angular momentum is less severe in simulations with warm dark matter than in simulations with cold dark matter (Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov 2001). The reason for this is that the halos in WDM simulations have much less substructure and hence less dynamical friction and internal torques than the halos in CDM simulations. The transfer of angular momentum is also reduced in simulations with a cosmological constant (Eke et al. 2000). This happens because protogalaxies acquire their angular momenta earlier, before the gas cools, and then suffer fewer late mergers in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated simulations. It is also likely that some of the baryons in the inner parts of the protogalaxies, where the specific angular momentum is lowest, either formed the luminous spheroids or were expelled entirely in galactic winds (Eke et al. 2000).

The specific angular momenta of real galactic disks can be explained by a combination of extreme feedback and one or more of the other effects mentioned above. Does this mean the angular-momentum problem has been solved? Yes and no. Yes, because we now know that some mechanisms are capable of reconciling the simulations with observations. No, because we do not yet know whether these mechanisms operate in real galaxies. The issue of feedback is especially vexing because it probably depends on features of the interstellar medium on the scales of individual star-forming clouds, of order parsecs. (For a promising model of feedback, see Efstathiou 2000.) The energy released by young stars—in ionizing radiation, stellar winds, and supernova ejecta—is more than sufficient to alter radically the collapse of the baryons in protogalaxies. The key issues are where, when, and how this energy is deposited, in particular, whether it is absorbed within the clouds themselves or is distributed more widely within the protogalaxies. This, in turn, depends on the sizes and masses of the clouds, the locations of the stars within them, whether the clouds are porous, and so forth.

## 8. Perspective

The goal of the research reviewed here has been to find a physically consistent model that accounts for the observed properties of galactic disks. Two decades ago, it seemed as if we might be close to achieving this goal. At that time, the observed properties of galactic disks were explained remarkably well by an idealized model in which the baryons and dark matter in protogalaxies acquired the same specific angular momenta by tidal torques and then conserved them during and after the collapse of the baryons. A decade later we recognized that, if the gas in protogalaxies were to cool rapidly, most of the angular momentum of the baryons would be transferred to the dark matter. We now know that this angular-momentum problem can be solved by stellar feedback and other effects in principle, but we do not yet know how effective these processes are in practice. In another decade, with some luck, NGST will be in operation, and we should be able to observe the formation of galactic disks directly. It will be interesting to see how much theoretical and numerical progress has been made by then. The simulations will undoubtly improve, but it will be a formidable challenge to include all the relevant physics on all the relevant scales.

Appreciation. This article is dedicated to Ken Freeman at the celebration of his sixtieth birthday on Dunk Island. I am grateful to Ken for his friendship and collaboration over many years.

## References

Barnes, J., & Efstathiou, G. 1987. ApJ, 319, 575

Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517

Bullock, J. S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T. S., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., Porciani, C., & Primack, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240

Clarke, C. J. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 283

Cole, S., & Lacey, C. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 716

Dalcanton, J. J., Spergel, D. N., & Summers, F. J. 1997, ApJ, 482, 659

de Jong, R. S., & Lacey, C. 2000, ApJ, 545, 781

Efstathiou, G. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 697

Eke, V., Efstathiou, G., & Wright, L. 2000, MNRAS, 315, L18

Eke, V. R., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2001, ApJ, 554, 114

Fall, S. M. 1983, in IAU Symp. 100, Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies, ed. E. Athanassoula (Dordrecht: Reidel), 391

Fall, S. M., & Efstathiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189

Firmani, C., & Avila-Reese, V. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 457

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

Gunn, J. E. 1982, in Astrophysical Cosmology, ed. H. A. Brück, G. V. Coyne, & M. S. Longair (Vatican: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum), 233

Lin, D. N. C., & Pringle, J. E. 1987, ApJ, 320, L87

Mestel, L. 1963, MNRAS, 126, 553

Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

Navarro, J. F., & Benz, W. 1991, ApJ, 380, 320

Navarro, J. F., & White, S. D. M. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 401

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

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393

Quinn, P. J., & Zurek, W. H. 1988, ApJ, 331, 1

Sommer-Larsen, J., & Dolgov, A. 2001, ApJ, 551, 608

Sommer-Larsen, J., & Yoshii, Y. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 133

Sommer-Larsen, J., & Yoshii, Y. 1990, MNRAS, 243, 468

Sommer-Larsen, J., Gelato, S., & Vedel, H. 1999, ApJ, 519, 501

Steinmetz, M., & Navarro, J. F. 1999, ApJ, 513, 555

Thacker, R. J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2001, ApJ, 555, L17

Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661

van den Bosch, F. C. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1334

van der Kruit, P. C. 1987, A&A, 173, 59

Verheijen, M. A. W. 2001, ApJ, 563, 694

Warren, M. S., Quinn, P. J., Salmon, J. K., & Zurek, W. H. 1992, ApJ, 399, 405

Weil, M. L., Eke, V. R., & Efstathiou, G. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 773

White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

Yoshii, Y., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 779

Zurek, W. H., Quinn, P. J., & Salmon, J. K. 1988, ApJ, 330, 519

## Discussion

Quinn:  With respect to the angular-momentum catastrophe, I think we all knew the simulations had problems since the cooling mechanisms (prescriptions) were not well defined physically and the heating was totally absent. Secondly, the loss of $`J/M`$ by a factor $`10`$ is a great success in making ellipticals and spheroids, as pointed out by Zurek, Quinn, & Salmon (1988).

Fall:  I tend to agree with both of your points. Thanks for reminding me of your paper with Zurek and Salmon. My impression is that the simulations without stellar feedback produce mainly spheroid-like objects, whereas those with extreme feedback produce mainly disk-like objects. Eventually, we should aim to produce both types of objects in the observed proportions in the same simulations. It would be nice to find a simple mechanism to do this.

Silk:  The feedback models in which the gas is kept hot until $`z1`$ are going to have a problem in accounting for the observations of relatively massive disks at $`z1`$ and also for the apparent lack of evolution in the Tully-Fisher relation back to this redshift.

Fall:  The kinds of observations you mention are potentially valuable constraints on, or input to, the models. However, my impression is that such comparisons are still very tentative. The samples of galaxies at high redshifts have not been selected in the same way as the nearby samples, and the photometric evolution of the disks remains quite uncertain.

Illingworth:  Physically, why is it that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated cosmologies help with the angular-momentum problem?

Fall:  In $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated models, protogalaxies acquire their angular momenta earlier, before the gas cools, and are then disrupted by fewer late mergers than in matter-dominated models (see Eke et al. 2000).

Bosma:  Are the angular-momentum and cuspy-halo problems related?

Fall:  One might think so. Both problems seem to be aggravated by substructure within galactic halos. And for this reason, they should both be alleviated in models with warm dark matter. Recent simulations indicate, however, that WDM has more impact on the angular-momentum problem than it does on the cuspy-halo problem.