text:
# Two-point functions for 𝑆𝑈(3) Polyakov Loops near 𝑇_𝑐

## Abstract

We discuss the behavior of two point functions for Polyakov loops in a $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory about the critical temperature, $`T_c`$. From a $`Z(3)`$ model, in mean field theory we obtain a prediction for the ratio of masses at $`T_c`$, extracted from correlation functions for the imaginary and real parts of the Polyakov loop. This ratio is $`m_i/m_r=3`$ if the potential only includes terms up to quartic order in the Polyakov loop; its value changes as pentic and hexatic interctions become important. The Polyakov Loop Model then predicts how $`m_i/m_r`$ changes above $`T_c`$.

Consider the behavior of an $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory, without dynamical quarks, at nonzero temperature. The usual quantity measured by the Lattice is the pressure. While this is all one needs for thermodynamics in equilibrium, near equilibrium how correlation functions behave is also of importance.

In this note we discuss a basic, gauge-invariant correlation function, the two-point function of Polyakov loops. We work with a $`Z(3)`$ model ; near the critical temperature, this is equivalent to the Polyakov Loop Model .

At a nonzero temperature $`T`$, the thermal Wilson line is:

$$𝐋(\stackrel{}{x})=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_0^{1/T}A_0(\stackrel{}{x},\tau )𝑑\tau \right),$$
(1)
with $`A_0`$ in the fundamental representation. This transforms as an adjoint field under the local $`SU(3)/Z(3)`$ gauge symmetry, and as a field with charge one under the global $`Z(3)`$ symmetry. To obtain a gauge invariant operator, the simplest thing to do is to take the trace, forming the Polyakov loop,

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}\left(𝐋\right).$$
(2)
This transforms under the global $`Z(3)`$ symmetry as a field with charge one,

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i}{3}\right)\mathrm{}$$
(3)
The expectation value of $`\mathrm{}`$ is only nonzero above $`T_c`$, which is the temperature for the deconfining phase transition.

For three (or more) colors, $`\mathrm{}`$ is a complex valued field. Implicitly, we assume that the expectation value of $`\mathrm{}`$ is real. In this vacuum, we can then ask for the correlation functions of the real and imaginary parts of the Polyakov loop,

$$\mathrm{}_r=\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_i=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{},$$
(4)
which do not mix. As the theory is globally $`Z(3)`$ invariant, we can define equivalent masses in either of the other two degenerate vacua by an appropriate overall $`Z(3)`$ rotation.

We need a standard feature of propagators in coordinate space. In $`d`$ space-time dimensions, at distances large compared to $`1/T`$, only the $`d1`$ spatial dimensions matter. For a field of mass $`m`$, at distances $`x1/m`$, of course the propagator falls off exponentially,

$$d^{d1}p\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}}{p^2+m^2}d^{d2}p_{}\mathrm{e}^{x(m+p_{}^2/2m)}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{mx}}{x^{(d2)/2}}.$$
(5)
We are interested not in the familiar exponential fall-off, but in power law prefactor of $`1/x^{(d2)/2}`$. While derived in free field theory, it is valid generally. It arises from the fluctuations of a point particle, in the directions perpendicular to the direction along which we measure it.

In perturbation theory, the Polyakov loop is near unity, and can be expanded in powers of $`A_0`$. Assuming for the purposes of discussion that the $`A_0`$ field is purely static, we obtain

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{g^2}{3T^2}\mathrm{tr}\left(A_0^2\right)i\frac{g^3}{3T^3}\mathrm{tr}\left(A_0^3\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
Thus the real part of the Polyakov loop starts out as a coupling to two $`A_0`$’s, and the imaginary part of the Polyakov loop, to three $`A_0`$’s. Thus to lowest order in perturbation theory ,

$$\mathrm{}_r(x)\mathrm{}_r(0)\mathrm{}^2\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2m_Dx)}{x^2},$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{}_i(x)\mathrm{}_i(0)\frac{\mathrm{exp}(3m_Dx)}{x^3}.$$
(8)
Here $`m_D`$ is the Debye mass; to lowest order in perturbation theory, $`m_D=gT`$. Each result is simply the product of either two or three $`A_0`$ propagators over distances $`x1/m_D`$. Thus, if one ignores the difference in prefactors, and defines $`m_r`$ and $`m_i`$ from the exponential falloff of (7) and (8), respectively, we conclude that $`m_i/m_r=3/2`$. These estimates could be altered by mixing with the purely magnetic sector , which we discuss at the end of the paper.

We now turn from the perturbative regime, valid at very high temperatures, to temperatures near $`T_c`$. Instead of dealing with $`A_0`$, we construct an effective Lagrangian directly for the Polyakov loop itself . The theory must be invariant under the global $`Z(3)`$ symmetry of (3). Implicitly, we assume that the deconfining transition for three colors is so weakly first order that it is appropriate to classify the effective Lagrangian according to a renormalization group analysis for a second order transition. At large distances, $`x1/T`$, the theory is effectively three dimensional; by the renormalization group, all relevant and marginal operators include terms up to sixth order in $`\mathrm{}`$. The most general, renormalizable Lagrangian in three dimensions, invariant under a global $`Z(3)`$ symmetry, is

$$𝒵_W|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{}|^2\frac{b_2}{2}|\mathrm{}|^2\frac{b_3}{3}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^3+(\mathrm{}^{})^3}{2}\right)$$

$$+\frac{b_4}{4}\left(|\mathrm{}|^2\right)^2+\frac{b_5}{5}|\mathrm{}|^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^3+(\mathrm{}^{})^3}{2}\right)$$

$$+\frac{b_6}{6}\left(|\mathrm{}|^2\right)^3+\frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_6}{6}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^3+(\mathrm{}^{})^3}{2}\right)^2.$$
(9)
The terms which only involve powers of $`|\mathrm{}|^2`$, proportional to $`b_2`$, $`b_4`$ and $`b_6`$, are each each invariant under a global symmetry of $`U(1)`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\mathrm{}`$ for arbitrary $`\theta `$. The kinetic term is also $`U(1)`$ invariant. For reasons to become clear shortly, we include a factor of wave-function renormalization, $`𝒵_W`$, but suppress all other renormalization constants for mass and coupling constants. The cubic term, $`b_3\mathrm{}^3`$, and the pentic term, $`b_5|\mathrm{}|^2\mathrm{}^3`$, are only invariant under the $`Z(3)`$ symmetry of (3). Of the two hexatic interactions, that $`b_6`$ is $`U(1)`$ invariant, while that $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6\mathrm{}^6`$ is invariant not only under $`Z(3)`$, but under a larger symmetry of $`Z(6)`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(\pi i/3)\mathrm{}`$.

It is natural to require that the potential is bounded from below for large values of $`\mathrm{}`$. At large $`\mathrm{}`$, the hexatic terms dominate over all other couplings. For real $`\mathrm{}`$, this gives

$$b_6+\stackrel{~}{b}_6>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(10)
One can also choose $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /6)\mathrm{}_0`$, with real $`\mathrm{}_0`$; then the term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$ drops out, giving the condition

$$b_6>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(11)
We perform a mean field analysis, where all coupling constants are taken as constant with temperature, except for the mass term, $`b_2|\mathrm{}|^2`$. About the transition, condensation of $`\mathrm{}`$ is driven by changing the sign of $`b_2`$ . The sign of $`b_3`$ is determined by the following. At very high temperature, the favored vacuum is perturbative, with $`\mathrm{}_01`$, times $`Z(3)`$ rotations. We then choose $`b_3>0`$ so that in the $`Z(3)`$ model, there is always one vacuum with a real, positive expectation value for $`\mathrm{}_0`$.

We also choose $`b_4>0`$. This is not a matter of convention. With the above potential, in mean field theory there are two ways of obtaining a first order transition. One is through a non-zero, cubic coupling. The other is if the four point coupling is negative. It is natural, however, to assume that $`b_3,b_50`$ and $`b_4>0`$. For example, if $`b_3=b_5=0`$, then the unbroken symmetry of the effective Lagrangian is not $`Z(3)`$, but $`Z(6)`$. While one can then obtain a first order transition by choosing $`b_4`$ to be negative, it would also imply a six-fold degeneracy between vacua in the broken symmetry phase. Such a degeneracy is not observed, even approximately, by Lattice simulations in the deconfined phase . Consequently, we assume that $`b_3,b_50`$, and that $`b_4`$ is positive. This also agrees with results from the Polyakov Loop Model .

While the value of the pentic coupling constant is not well fixed, but it cannot dominate the hexatic couplings. If the hexatic interactions vanish, $`b_6=\stackrel{~}{b}_6=0`$, then with $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /3)\mathrm{}_0`$, the pentic term is negative for $`\pi /2<\theta <3\pi /2`$, and the potential is unbounded from below. Consequently, we consider the pentic interactions as a small perturbation on the other couplings.

This is an effective Lagrangian in three dimensions, so that $`\mathrm{}`$ has dimensions of mass1/2; then the coupling constants $`b_n`$ have dimensions of mass(6-n)/2. In particular, $`b_6`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$ are dimensionless. To make the equations somewhat simpler, we choose the overall mass scale so that $`b_4=1`$; expressions for arbitrary values of $`b_4`$ can be derived from the following by an obvious rescaling. We remark that in the Polyakov Loop Model , the dimensions of $`\mathrm{}`$, and of the coupling constants, are all made up by powers of temperature. Near $`T_c`$, however, this doesn’t matter.

We now compute the masses for the real and imaginary parts of the Polyakov loop. As stated, we choose the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_0`$, to be real. The equation for $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is just the first derivative of the potential for $`\mathrm{}`$,

$$b_2\mathrm{}_0b_3\mathrm{}_0^2+\mathrm{}_0^3+b_5\mathrm{}_0^4+(b_6+\stackrel{~}{b}_6)\mathrm{}_0^5=0.$$
(12)
Computing second derivatives of the potential, the mass squared for the real part is:

$$m_r^2=b_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}b_3\mathrm{}_0+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\mathrm{}_0^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}b_5\mathrm{}_0^3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}(b_6+\stackrel{~}{b}_6)\mathrm{}_0^4,$$
(13)
while that for the imaginary part is:

$$m_i^2=b_2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}b_3\mathrm{}_0+\mathrm{}_0^2\frac{4}{5}b_5\mathrm{}_0^3+(b_62\stackrel{~}{b}_6)\mathrm{}_0^4.$$
(14)
The two-point function of Polyakov loops is then,

$$\mathrm{}_r(x)\mathrm{}_r(0)\mathrm{}^2\frac{\mathrm{exp}(m_rx)}{x},$$
(15)
$$\mathrm{}_i(x)\mathrm{}_i(0)\frac{\mathrm{exp}(m_ix)}{x}.$$
(16)
Notice that unlike (7) and (8), the power law prefactor is in each case just $`1/x`$, from the exchange of a single $`\mathrm{}`$-field. Above $`T_c`$, $`m_im_r`$.

The global $`Z(3)`$ symmetry is unbroken below $`T_c`$: $`\mathrm{}_0=0`$. With our conventions, $`b_2<0`$; the mass squared for $`\mathrm{}_r`$ and $`\mathrm{}_i`$ are positive and equal. Thus in our $`Z(3)`$ model, below $`T_c`$ the two-point functions of Polyakov loops remain as in (15) and (16) at large distances, with $`m_i=m_r`$. We remark that the prefactor of $`1/x`$, for $`T<T_c`$ and $`x1/T`$, agrees with calculations in Nambu-Goto string models . This is true for any number of space-time dimensions: the transverse motion of a point particle, and the transverse fluctuations of a world-sheet, both give the same prefactor of $`1/x^{(d2)/2}`$. This is an important consistency check on models of Polyakov loops, such as , below $`T_c`$.

When $`b_3`$ or $`b_5`$ are nonzero, the transition is necessarily of first order. Henceforth, we restrict ourselves to the critical temperature, $`T_c`$. This occurs when the nontrivial minimum is degenerate with the trivial minimum; i.e., when

$$\frac{b_2}{2}\mathrm{}_0^2\frac{b_3}{3}\mathrm{}_0^3+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{}_0^4+\frac{b_5}{5}\mathrm{}_0^5+\frac{b_6+\stackrel{~}{b}_6}{6}\mathrm{}_0^6=0.$$
(17)
This then becomes an equation which determines the value of $`b_2(T_c^+)`$.

If we compute each mass individually, $`m_r`$ and $`m_i`$, then there is a complication which we have set aside. The kinetic term for $`\mathrm{}`$ does not have a standard normalization; at tree level, it equals $`3/g^2`$, where $`g`$ is the QCD coupling constant . At one loop order, Wirstam  finds that this wave function renormalization is

$$𝒵_W=\frac{3}{g(T)^2}\left(1\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}.08}\frac{g^2}{4\pi }+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(18)
Consequently, the masses measured on the Lattice are actually $`1/\sqrt{𝒵_W}`$ of the expressions above. Thus the overall scale of $`m_r`$ and $`m_i`$ depend upon the value of $`g^2(T)`$, which is not easy to extract directly from Lattice data.

To avoid the dependence on $`𝒵_W`$, instead we compute the ratio of $`m_i/m_r`$, in which $`𝒵_W`$ completely drops out. It is this ratio which we think would be especially interesting to compute on the Lattice.

These equations can be solved numerically for arbitrary values of $`b_5`$, $`b_6`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$. It is illustrative to first solve for the case in which $`b_5=b_6=\stackrel{~}{b}_6=0`$. For arbitrary $`b_2`$,

$$\mathrm{}_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(b_3+\sqrt{4b_2+b_3^2}\right).$$
(19)
With this $`\mathrm{}_0`$, at the transition temperature, $`b_2=2b_3^2/9`$, and $`m_i/m_r=3`$. This ratio changes as $`b_5`$, $`b_6`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$ increase from zero. To lowest nontrivial order in these coupling constants,

$$\frac{m_i}{m_r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\left(1\frac{8}{15}b_3b_5\frac{4}{27}b_3^2\left(4b_6+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}\stackrel{~}{b}_6\right)\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(20)
For positive values of $`b_5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$ (remember $`b_6`$ is necessarily positive), the ratio $`m_i/m_r`$ decreases from $`3`$ as $`b_5`$, $`b_6`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$ increase. It is also easy to obtain $`m_i/m_r>3`$, though. The coupling $`b_5`$ could be negative; even if $`b_5=0`$, when $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6=b_6`$, etc.

One can also solve for large values of $`b_6`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$. Taking $`b_5=0`$, in this case

$$\frac{m_i}{m_r}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{1+\frac{b_6}{b_6+\stackrel{~}{b}_6}}+\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
The combination of $`b_6`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$ on the right hand side is necessarily a ratio of positive numbers in all cases.

Working up from $`T_c`$, it is also possible to compute $`m_i/m_r`$ within the context of the Polyakov Loop Model (PLM) . In the PLM, the pressure is determined by the potential of $`\mathrm{}`$ times $`T^4`$; for constant values of $`b_3`$, $`b_4`$, $`b_5`$, $`b_6`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$, the temperature dependence of the pressure then fixes $`b_2(T)`$. Consequently, this also determines how $`m_i/m_r`$ changes with temperature. This appears to be a crucial and unambiguous test of the PLM. For example, if we take $`b_6=\stackrel{~}{b}_6=0`$, then at very high temperatures, where $`\mathrm{}_01`$, (19) fixes $`b_2=1b_3`$, and

$$\frac{m_i}{m_r}=\sqrt{\frac{3b_3}{2b_3}}.$$
(22)
To agree with the perturbative result as $`T\mathrm{}`$, $`=3/2`$, fixes $`b_3=6/7`$. This is remarkably close to the value found from a fit to the pressure near $`T_c`$, which is $`b_30.9`$ . A more careful analysis, including the effects of pentic and hexatic interactions, is necessary in order to make a detailed comparison.

To summarize, naively in the perturbative regime at very high temperature, $`m_i/m_r=3/2`$ . If pentic and hexatic terms in $`\mathrm{}`$ are a small perturbation on the quartic terms, then as $`TT_c`$, $`m_i/m_r`$ should increase; at $`T_c`$, how close this ratio is to $`3`$ then indicates how important these other coupling constants are. Conversely, if $`m_i/m_r`$ does not increase significantly as the temperature decreases from $`2T_c`$ down to $`T_c^+`$, then while it might be able to obtain a fit with large values of $`b_6`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_6`$, to us this would seem unnatural, and disfavor the present analysis.

Our discussion neglects mixing between the electric sector and the static, magnetic sector . While the former might be perturbative, the latter never is. Static, magnetic glueballs couple to each other as a three-dimensional gauge theory, with coupling constant $`g^2T`$. Hence the mass of any static, magnetic glueball is some number times $`g^2T`$. In weak coupling, then, as the Debye mass is $`m_DgT`$, electric fields are much heavier than magnetic glueballs. The real part of the Polyakov loop, $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0^2)`$, can then mix with spin-zero glueballs, such as $`\mathrm{tr}(G_{ij}^2)`$. Also, the imaginary part of the Polyakov loop, $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0^3)`$ can mix with the spin-zero glueball $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0G_{ij}^2)`$. (There is also a spin-one glueball, $`ϵ^{ijk}\mathrm{tr}(A_0G_{jk})`$. However, the coupling of such a spin-one state to any spin-zero state must involve one derivative, and so vanish at zero momentum. Spin here refers to a classification in three dimensions.)

Simulations from temperatures of $`2T_c`$ on up have been done by Hart, Laine, and Philipsen ; for related work, see . They find that the magnetic sector is not lighter than the electric until temperatures $`T>10^2T_c`$. Unexpectedly, they do not see significant mixing between states such as $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}(G_{ij}^2)`$. For example, at extremely high temperatures of $`10^{11}T_c`$, the mass of $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0^2)`$ is approximately equal to that of $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0^3)`$; both masses are about $`1.9`$ times the mass of the lightest static, magnetic glueball, $`\mathrm{tr}(G_{ij}^2)`$. The lightest electric state is the spin-one glueball, $`ϵ^{ijk}\mathrm{tr}(A_0G_{jk})`$; we note the (presumably meaningless) numerical coincidence that its mass is $`=1.5`$ of the lightest static, magnetic glueball to within $`0.1\%`$, although the quoted statistical errors are $`\pm 6\%`$.

At temperatures of $`2T_c`$, the situation is completely reversed: then the electric sector is lighter than that for the static, magnetic sector. The lightest state is that for the real part of the Polyakov loop, $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0^2)`$. Relative to this state, the mass of the spin-zero electric state, $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0^3)`$, is $`1.81`$; that of the spin-one electric state, $`ϵ^{ijk}\mathrm{tr}(A_0G_{jk})`$, is $`1.76`$; that of the lightest static, magnetic glueball, $`\mathrm{tr}(G_{ij}^2)`$, is $`2.4`$.

Thus at $`2T_c`$, the ratio $`m_i/m_r1.81`$. It would be very interesting to know how $`m_i/m_r`$ changes at $`T:2T_cT_c`$; we are unaware of data on $`m_i`$ in this range. Nevertheless, at least we can safely neglect mixing of the (light) electric sector with the (heavy) magnetic sector.

At present, most Lattice data is for the two point function of complex conjugate Polyakov loops, $`\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}^{}(0)|\mathrm{}|^2`$. From either the $`Z(3)`$ model, or perturbation theory, in the deconfined phase it appears that $`m_i`$ is always greater than $`m_r`$. Thus without extracting excited states, this correlation function only gives us information on $`m_r`$, and not on $`m_i`$.

One can also decide whether an effective model of Polyakov loops applies by seeing if the power law prefactor is $`1/x`$, as in (15), or $`1/x^2`$, as in (7). From Lattice simulations in $`3+1`$ dimensions by Kaczmarek, Karsch, Laermann, and Lutgemeier , the power law prefactor is very near unity only near $`T_c`$, and increases to $`1.4`$ by $`2T_c`$. Thus our effective model does appear to hold in at least some limited region near $`T_c`$. As the exchange of any massive state generates a prefactor of $`1/x`$, instead of varying the prefactor, to us it seems more natural to take a sum over several states, each a prefactor of $`1/x`$. We do admit that this is only true in mean field theory, as (nearly) critical fluctuations introduce nonzero anomalous dimensions, $`\eta `$, which change the prefactor to $`1/x^{1\eta }`$. In three dimensions, however, such anomalous dimensions $`\eta `$ are usually very small; $`\eta <.1`$ for either $`Z(2)`$ or $`O(2)`$ symmetry groups .

It is also of interest to consider the transition in $`2+1`$ dimensions. While mean field theory suggests a first order transition, fluctuations in two dimensions are so strong that the transition is in fact of second order. Then our mean field analysis is completely inappropriate; one is at the symmetric phase at $`T_c`$, with $`m_i=m_r`$. However, correlation functions of both imaginary and real parts of the Polyakov loop have been computed above $`T_c`$ by Bialas, Morel, Petersson, and Petrov . In all cases, the power law prefactor is found to be $`1/\sqrt{x}`$, which is what it should be for single particle exchange in $`d=2+1`$ dimensions. Bialas et al. have also computed $`m_i/m_r`$; working down from high temperatures, this ratio increases to $`2.0`$, then seems to decrease. This might arise from a trade-off between mean field effects, as discussed herein, and critical fluctuations near $`T_c`$, special to $`2+1`$ dimensions.

In passing, we also comment that studies with two colors are also of interest. For two colors, $`\mathrm{}`$ is real, and so there is only $`m_r`$. One could test, however, to see whether the relation between $`m_r`$ and the pressure, as given by the PLM, holds up . With only one mass to measure, the value of $`m_r`$ does depend upon $`𝒵_W`$, and so $`g^2(T)`$. Also, the effects of critical fluctuations must be incorporated. On the other hand, the potential for $`\mathrm{}`$ only involves two coupling constants, $`b_4`$, and $`b_6`$; $`b_3=b_5=\stackrel{~}{b}_6=0`$. Still, one basic test is that in $`3+1`$ dimensions, the deduced value of $`g^2(T)`$ increases as $`T`$ decreases. Lastly, there are speculative reasons for thinking that the width of the critical region is greater in $`2+1`$ dimensions than in $`3+1`$ dimensions .

We look forward to future measurements of these and other quantities on the Lattice, near the critical temperature.

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by DOE grant DE-AC02-98CH10886. We thank A. D. Hart, J. T. Lenaghan, S. Ohta, and O. Philipsen for useful comments and discussions. We are especially indebted to M. Laine for pointing out the existence of the pentic coupling.


format: text

text:
# Generation of two-mode nonclassical states and a quantum phase gate operation in trapped ion cavity QED

## Abstract

We propose a scheme to generate nonclassical states of a quantum system, which is composed of the one-dimensional trapped ion motion and a single cavity field mode. We show that two-mode SU(2) Schrödinger-cat states, entangled coherent states, two-mode squeezed vacuum states and their superposition can be generated. If the vibration mode and the cavity mode are used to represent separately a qubit, a quantum phase gate can be implemented.

In recent years, there is much interest in methods of nonclassical state generation by entangling quantum systems. In this field advances in ion cooling and ion trapping opened new prospects by controlling the quantized ion motion precisely MM CCVPZ Gerry2 . In particular, motional Fock states, squeezed states and Schrödinger-cat states are in the scope. More recently, various schemes were proposed to control two vibration-modes of a single ion, which is confined in a two-dimensional trap Gerry2 GN GGM zou . Most of these proposals concern the quantized ion vibration by treating the laser field classicaly. But, the quantization of the laser field brings more possibilities. A number of schemes were proposed for generating various nonclassical states of single mode cavity fields a1 . An experimental realization of a Schrödinger-cat state in a cavity system was reported a2 . Furthermore, a single trapped ion can be used as a probe for measuring the cavity field intensity walter . A new possibility for quantum state engineering and quantum information processing is opened by using a trapped ion in a high-Q cavity. The influence of the field statics on the ion dynamics zz  was investigated as well as the transfer of the coherence between the motional state and the light field pp . In a recent paper ss  a simple scheme was proposed to generate the whole Bell basis composed of the vibrational mode of a single ion and a cavity field.
In this paper, we propose a scheme to generate two-mode nonclassical states of a quantum system, which is composed of the vibration mode of one trapped ion and a single light field mode. The set of these states includes two-mode SU(2) Schrödinger-cat states Sanders2 GGJMO , entangled coherent states Sanders Chai , two-mode squeezed vacuum states and their superpositions GGJMO . We also show that quantum phase gates can be implemented by representing the qubits by the vibration mode of a single trapped ion and the cavity mode quantum state restricted on the subspace spanned by the two lowest Fock states. In order to relate our scheme to this physical arrangement, we consider a trapped ion confined in a harmonic trap located inside an optical cavity. The atomic transition between the two internal electronic states $`|e`$ and $`|g`$ (frequency $`\omega _0`$) is coupled to a single mode of the cavity field of the frequency $`\omega _{cav}`$ and is also driven by an external classical laser field of the frequency $`\omega _A`$. The cavity is aligned along the $`x`$-axis, while the laser field is incident from a direction along the $`y`$-axis. Thus, in a frame rotating at the laser frequency $`\omega _A`$ the system’s Hamiltonian is in the form pp

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\nu b^{}b+\delta _{cA}a^{}a+\mathrm{\Delta }_{oA}\sigma _+\sigma _{}+E_A\sigma _++E_A\sigma _{}`$ (1)
$`+g_0\mathrm{sin}\eta (b^{}+b)(a^{}\sigma _{}+a\sigma _+).`$
Here $`(a,a^{})`$ and $`(b,b^{})`$ are the boson annihilation and creation operators of the cavity field and the quantized atomic vibration. The operator $`\sigma _{}=|ge|`$ changes the internal electronic state from $`|e`$ to $`|g`$ and $`\eta `$ is the corresponding Lamb-Dicke parameter. The detuning $`\delta _{cA}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{oA}`$ are given by $`\delta _{cA}=\omega _{cav}\omega _A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{oA}=\omega _o\omega _A`$. The quantity $`E_A`$ is the amplitude of the laser field. The single photon atom-cavity dipole coupling strength is given by $`g_0`$, while the $`sin`$-function describes the standing wave structure of the cavity field. We assume that the center of the trap is located at the node of the cavity field. Since the detuning of the laser field from the atomic transition frequency is assumed to be very large ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{oA}>>\nu ,\delta _{cA},g_0,E_A`$), the internal atomic dynamics can be adiabatically eliminated. The corresponding Hamiltonian takes the form

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\nu b^{}b+\delta _{cA}a^{}a{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{oA}}}\mathrm{sin}^2\eta (b^{}+b)a^{}a\sigma _z`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_0ϵ_A}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{oA}}}\mathrm{sin}\eta (b^{}+b)(e^{i\phi _A}a^{}+e^{i\phi _A}a)\sigma _z,`$
with $`\sigma _z=|ee||gg|`$ and $`E_A=ϵ_Ae^{i\phi _A}`$. In the following we choose $`\phi _A=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. In the Lamb-Dicke region ($`\eta <<1`$) we may write $`\mathrm{sin}\eta (b^{}+b)\eta (b^{}+b)`$. If we choose the detuning between the cavity and the laser field to be $`\delta _{cA}=\nu `$ the effective interaction Hamiltonian

$`H_1=i\mathrm{\Omega }_1(a^{}bab^{})\sigma _z`$ (3)
is obtained in the rotating wave approximation. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ denotes the effective interaction strength. We consider the situation in which the ion’s internal state is prepared initially as a superposition $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g+|e)`$ and the vibration mode of the ion is in the Fock state $`|n_b`$. The cavity field is prepared in the vacuum state $`|0_a`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|g+|e)|0_a|n_b.`$ (4)
If the laser pulse of the interaction (3) is applied, the system evolves into

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})]|e|0_a|n_b`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})]|g|0_a|n_b.`$
The carrier transition $`|e|g`$ is driven in order to generate a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse on the internal state: $`|e\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g+|e)`$; $`|g\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g|e)`$. The quantum state evolves into

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})]+\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})])|g|0_a|n_b`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})]\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})])|e|0_a|n_b.`$
Upon a detection of the internal state, this state vector is projected into the two-mode quantum states, which we denote with

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm =\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})]|0_a|n_b\pm \mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Omega }_1t(a^{}bab^{})]|0_a|n_b.`$ (7)
The quantum state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ is obtained if the internal state $`|g`$ of the ion is detected. Otherwise the quantum state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is generated. These two-mode quantum states (7) are the SU(2)-Schrödinger-cat states of the form $`(|\zeta ,j\pm |\zeta ,j)`$ GGJMO , if the SU(2)-coherent states $`|\zeta ,j=\mathrm{exp}[\beta J_+\beta ^{}J_{}]|j,j`$ Buzek  are used with the identification: $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_1t`$; $`j=\frac{n}{2}`$; $`\zeta =\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1t}{2}`$.

In order to entangle coherent states of a special form, we again initialize the internal ion state in $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g+|e)`$ but we prepare the two bose-modes in the coherent states $`|\alpha _a`$ and $`|\beta _b`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|g+|e)|\alpha _a|\beta _b.`$ (8)
If the laser pulse, which corresponds to the interaction (3), is applied over a time interval $`t_1=\frac{\pi }{4\mathrm{\Omega }_1}`$, the system evolves into

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|e|(\alpha +\beta )/\sqrt{2}_a|(\beta \alpha )/\sqrt{2}_b`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|g|(\alpha \beta )/\sqrt{2}_a|(\alpha +\beta )/\sqrt{2}_b.`$
Then the atom is subjected to a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse, which is resonant with the transition $`|e|g`$. Upon a detection of the internal state, the state vector is projected into the two-mode coherent states

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`|(\alpha +\beta )/\sqrt{2}_a|(\beta \alpha )/\sqrt{2}_b`$ (10)
$`\pm |(\alpha \beta )/\sqrt{2}_a|(\alpha +\beta )/\sqrt{2}_b.`$
This equation demonstrates the generation of entangled coherent states of a special type. Entangled coherent states of another type can be generated, if the interaction time is chosen two times longer: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1t_1=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. In this example the initial state (8) evolves into

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|e|\beta _a|\alpha _b`$ (11)
$`+|g|\beta _a|\alpha _b.`$
If the atom’s internal state is subjected to a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse, like it is described above, the detection of the ground state $`|g`$ or the excited state $`|e`$ projects into the entangled coherent states

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm =|\beta _a|\alpha _b\pm |\beta _a|\alpha _b.`$ (12)
There is also the possibility of choosing the detuning between cavity field and laser field to be $`\delta _{cA}=\nu `$. In this case, we can obtain the corresponding effective interaction Hamiltonian

$`H_2=i\mathrm{\Omega }_2(aba^{}b^{})\sigma _z.`$ (13)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ denotes the effective interaction strength. The interaction (12) is a parametric amplifier, which leads to a two-mode squeezed vacuum state, if the two bose-modes are at the beginning in the vacuum state and the ion’s vibration ground state. Again we initialize the ion’s internal state in the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g+|e)`$. Thus, the system’s initial state

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|g+|e)|0_a|0_b.`$ (14)
evolves under the interaction (13) into

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_2t(a^{}b^{}ab)]|e|0_a|0_b`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_2t(a^{}b^{}ab)]|g|0_a|0_b.`$
After subjecting the atom’s internal state to a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse and detecting the internal state, a projection into the squeezed cat states results

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm =\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_2t(a^{}b^{}ab)]|0_a|0_b\pm \mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_2t(a^{}b^{}ab)]|0_a|0_b.`$ (16)
Finally we consider the case $`\omega _0\omega _{cav}=\nu `$. In the Lamb-Dicke limit we obtain after discarding the rapidly oscillating terms in Hamlitonian (1) the interaction Hamiltonian ss

$`H_3=\mathrm{\Omega }_3(ab\sigma _++a^{}b^{}\sigma _{}).`$ (17)
This was used to generate Bell-states of a single ion vibration mode and the cavity field state ss . When the ion’s internal state is initially in the ground state $`|g`$, the interaction (17) is applied with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3t_1=\pi `$. We obtain

$`|0_a|0_b|g`$ $``$ $`|0_a|0_b|g`$
$`|0_a|1_b|g`$ $``$ $`|0_a|1_b|g`$
$`|1_a|0_b|g`$ $``$ $`|1_a|0_b|g`$
$`|1_a|1_b|g`$ $``$ $`|1_a|1_b|g,`$ (18)
where the states to the left of the arrows represent initial states $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ and the states to the right are the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_1)`$. The Eq.(18) shows that a quantum phase gate operation can be implemented, if the vibration mode and the cavity mode are used to represent separately a qubit.

In summary, we presented a scheme to generate nonclassical two-mode states of a single trapped ion vibration mode and the light field state. This quantum state generation scheme makes the generation of two-mode SU(2)-Schrödinger-cat states, entangled coherent states, two mode squeezed vacuum states and their superposition possible. We also showed that a quantum phase gate can be implemented, if the two-qubit states are identified with the two-mode Fock states with the quantum numbers $`0`$ and $`1`$.
These results demonstrate the usefulness of this trapped ion cavity system in respect of the nonclassical state generation.
Note add: After we submitted this manuscript, we noticed two different proposals to implement quantum logic gates in a trapped ion cavity QED system mmm .


text:
# Dynamical condition of neutral hydrogen envelopes of dwarf galaxies and their possible morphological evolution

## 1 Introduction

For a hierarchical cosmic structure formation scenario, the star-formation history of dwarf galaxies, which are building blocks of the structure, needs to be known. To determine their star-formation history, the effect of stellar feedback (e.g., supernova-driven winds and stellar winds) on the dynamical condition of the interstellar medium (ISM) of dwarf galaxies is essential, since their gravitational potential well is rather shallow (Skillman & Bender 1995 for a review). Thus, the dynamics of the ISM in dwarfs is a central issue for their evolution. In this paper, we study isolated dwarf galaxies to investigate their evolution, and examine the effect of stellar feedback on the star-formation rate (SFR) (Larson 1974; Saito 1979; Dekel & Silk 1986).

Dwarf galaxies whose star-formation is currently observable have sufficient amounts of Hi gas, compared to their dynamical mass (e.g. Thuan & Martin 1981). These gas-rich dwarfs are categorized as dwarf irregular galaxies (dIrrs) and blue compact dwarf galaxies (BCDs) by their SFR relative to their size. Since their Hi gas mostly surrounds their central star-forming regions (e.g. van Zee et al. 1998), we call it an Hi envelope in this paper. Although it is widely believed that the Hi envelope is gravitationally bound to host galaxies, the dynamical evolution of the Hi envelope is not completely understood. This is not only because the peaks of the rotation curves in the Hi envelopes are not always satisfactorily determined (e.g. Pustilnik et al. 2001), but also because there is no confirmation that the Hi gas in the envelope is used for a subsequent star-formation (e.g. Thuan 1985). Therefore, it is useful to investigate the dynamical evolution of the Hi envelope from another point of view, that is, in the framework of a star formation history (see also Legrand et al. 2001).

Indeed, it has been suggested that the Hi envelope is related to star-formation activity (e.g. Thuan 1985), which results in the morphological exchange among dwarf galaxies (e.g. Kormendy 1985). Concerning the morphological evolution, Thuan (1985) suggested from photometric observations that gas-rich galaxies like BCDs and dIrrs evolve into gas-less galaxies like dwarf ellipticals (dEs). The inverse evolution is also theoretically expected: dEs acquire Hi gas from the ambient intergalactic medium (IGM), and evolve into dIrrs and BCDs (Silk et al. 1987). According to Saitō et al. (2000), the morphological exchange between BCDs and dIrrs is also expected, if Hi gas in the envelope is channeled into star-forming regions. Contrary to the above suggestion, it is also shown from the difference of their surface brightness (Bothun et al. 1986) and their dynamical (van Zee et al. 2001) properties that gas-rich dwarfs do not easily evolve into dEs. Thus, it is still premature to judge which model is correct. In this paper, we investigate this unclear star-formation history of gas-rich dwarf galaxies, considering the dynamical condition of the Hi envelope which is affected by stellar feedback.

This paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we construct a dynamical model of the Hi envelope from a momentum conservation law. The observational data are compared with the model in section 3. The implications for the morphological evolution of dwarfs are given in section 4. In the last section, we summarize our conclusions and comment on Legrand et al. (2001), whose conclusions are very similar to and consistent with those in this paper.

## 2 Model description

In this paper, we try to connect the dynamical condition of the Hi envelope and star-formation history of gas-rich dwarf galaxies. For such a complicated problem, a simple analytical model is very useful. Indeed, this would allow us to predict the critical limit of a SFR where gas-rich dwarfs can sustain the Hi envelope. If a SFR is larger than the critical one, the Hi envelope will be blown away by stellar feedback (e.g. Saito 1979; Dekel & Silk 1986). Ferrara & Tolstoy (2000) analyze similar dynamical conditions of Hi envelopes in dwarf galaxies with their dynamical mass being blown-away (all gas is removed), blown-out (partial gas is removed), or no-mass-loss (no gas is removed) (classification proposed by De Young & Heckman 1994). These hydrodynamical processes are numerically examined in Mac Low & Ferrara (1999), and their results are confirmed by Silich & Tenorio-Tagle (2001). Silich & Tenorio-Tagle (2001) have also shown that the low density halo suppresses the outflow of gas from the main body of a galaxy. From this standpoint, the circulation of the ISM is expected to be like a chimney (Kunth & Östlin(2000) for a review). This means that a closed box approximation is adequate to consider the evolution of gas-rich dwarfs whose ISM is not blown out or blown away. To confirm these results with a SFR that can be easily observed compared to dynamical mass (Pustilnik et al. 2001), we reformulate a critical value that determines a condition for the Hi envelope. Consequently, as shown in the following, we can get intuitive pictures of the star-formation history and dynamical properties of the Hi envelope. We have newly considered this useful representation which is similar to that of Legrand et al. (2001).

Before discussing the critical SFR, we review the stellar feedback (i.e., supernovae and stellar winds) effect on the Hi envelope. Stellar feedback causes turbulence in the ISM, and can make super-bubbles. Indeed, turbulence in the Hi envelope is observed (van Zee et al. 1998), and super-bubbles are also observed in some BCDs (e.g. Gil de Paz et al. 1999). In a BCD, the typical size of a super-bubble is larger than that of its star-forming regions, but is smaller than that of its Hi envelope. Martin (1996) thus suggested that the Hi envelope must suffer from the stellar feedback. From the fact that the Hi envelope is not blown away, we are able to deduce the allowed strength of the stellar feedback, the critical SFR, $`\psi _{\mathrm{cirt}}`$ (e.g. Silich & Tenorio-Tagle 1998). Legrand et al. (2001) have considered a similar condition and developed a self-consistent model that treats together both the Hi envelope and the low density halo (including dark matter). On this point, our discussion can provide further insight into the dynamical evolution of the Hi envelope.

To determine $`\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, we deduce the following dynamical condition between the momentum of the Hi envelope, $`p_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, and that supplied from the total stellar feedback by supernovae, $`p_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ (Lamers & Cassinelli 1999), as being

$`(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}})p_{\mathrm{gas}}>p_{\mathrm{SN}},`$ (1)
where $`A_{\mathrm{halo}}`$ denotes the contribution from the low density halo. It can reach at most 1 when a closed box model is satisfied (Legrand et al. 2001), which is a good assumption, as confirmed in the next section. This inequality is called “the momentum condition” (e.g. Ferrara & Tolstoy 2000). Here, we assume that the feedback energy from stellar winds is comparable to that of supernova explosions.

The momentum of the Hi envelope is expressed as $`p_{\mathrm{gas}}=M_{\mathrm{gas}}v_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the total mass of the Hi envelope, and $`v_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the out-going velocity of the Hi gas. For simplicity, we adopt the same velocity for the low density halo to use Eq.(1), which does not alter our main conclusion since the escape velocity of the low density halo is generally larger than $`v_{\mathrm{gas}}`$. In order to estimate $`p_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, we consider the evolution of a supernova remnant in the Sedov phase. As is discussed in Chevalier (1976), the Sedov phase of expanding supernova remnants starts when the swept-up mass of a shell of ISM or circumstellar medium is comparable to the ejected mass of a supernova (e.g. Jones, Smith, & Straka 1981). Thus, the total momentum supplied from supernova remnants during a single generation of star-formation is expressed as $`p_{\mathrm{SN}}=\eta M_{\mathrm{SN}}v_{\mathrm{SN}}^2/v_\mathrm{s}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is the total mass of supernova remnants during the generation, $`v_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is the typical velocity of the initial expansion of the remnants, and $`v_\mathrm{s}`$ is the final expanding velocity of the shell. Here, $`\eta `$ is a coefficient whose value is adopted as 15/77 from Mac Low & McCray (1988) and which denotes net energy reduction owing to the shell formation and the energy conversion to the thermal energy of the inner coronal gas. Therefore the momentum condition is re-written as being

$`(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}})M_{\mathrm{gas}}v_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{77}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{SN}}v_{\mathrm{SN}}^2}{v_\mathrm{s}}}.`$ (2)
We can relate the right hand side of Eq. (2) to a current SFR. Assuming a mass function, $`\varphi (m)`$, we estimate $`M_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ as

$`M_{\mathrm{SN}}={\displaystyle \frac{\psi t_{\mathrm{SF}}{\displaystyle _{8M_{}}^{100M_{}}}m\varphi (m)𝑑m}{{\displaystyle _{0.1M_{}}^{100M_{}}}m\varphi (m)𝑑m}},`$ (3)
where $`\psi `$ is a current SFR in the unit of $`M_{}`$ yr-1, and $`t_{\mathrm{SF}}`$ is the duration of a single generation of star-formation in the unit of yr.

The gas mass of the Hi envelope is known to be dominated by the Hi compared to H2 (Barone et al.2000). This also means that the direct contribution of halo gas to the Hi envelope is small. However, we take into account halo gas using a coefficient of $`(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}})`$ in Eq. (2), because we consider the whole gas system under a closed box approximation. The out-going velocity $`v_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is assumed to be about the escape velocity of the dwarfs with a flat rotation curve, given as

$`v_{\mathrm{gas}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2G}{R_{\mathrm{gal}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{gas}}}{F}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.6\times 10^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{gas}}\left(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}}\right)}{10^8M_{}}}\right)^{2/7}\left(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}}\right)^{2/7}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{0.5}}\right)^{2/7}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{sec}^1,`$ (4)
where we adopt the Burkert profile of gas-rich dwarf galaxies (Burkert 1995) using a radius, $`R_{\mathrm{gal}}=6.9\times 10^4M_{\mathrm{gas}}^{3/7}F^{3/7}\mathrm{kpc}`$. Here, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, and $`F`$ is the gas mass ratio to dynamical mass of a galaxy. The typical parameters are taken from the data of BCDs in Table 1. It should be noted that the value of $`F`$ used is a larger than $`F`$ in Burkert (1995), 0.2, and thus that our underestimated $`\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ reinforces all gas-rich dwarfs.

Equating both sides of the momentum condition, we obtain $`\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ once a mass function has been determined. The Salpeter mass function, $`\varphi (m)`$; $`\varphi (m)m^{2.35}(0.1m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}\mathrm{M}_{})`$ (Salpeter 1955) is assumed here. Hence,

$`(1+C_{\mathrm{csf}})\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}=1.1\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{gas}}\left(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}}\right)}{10^8M_{}}}\right]^{9/7}\left(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}}\right)^{2/7}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1,`$ (5)
where we adopt the typical values $`t_{\mathrm{SF}}=10^7`$ yrs, $`F=0.5`$, $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}=10^8M_{}`$, $`v_{\mathrm{SN}}=1000`$ km s-1, and $`v_\mathrm{s}=100`$ km s-1. A correction coefficient of $`C_{\mathrm{csf}}`$ is for the component of continuous star-formation, $`C_{\mathrm{csf}}=t_{\mathrm{age}}\psi _{\mathrm{cont}}/t_{\mathrm{SF}}\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, while $`\psi _{\mathrm{cont}}`$ is a continuous SFR and $`t_{\mathrm{age}}`$ is galaxy age. Here $`C_{\mathrm{csf}}`$ is generally less than 1/10 the size of the component of current star-formation (Legrand et al. 2001; their table 2). Thus, we neglect it since we are interested in the current condition of the Hi envelope. As long as the observed SFR is well below $`\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, the Hi envelope is not blown away by stellar feedback. If we adopt another IMF and another set of mass ranges, there is generally 20 percent uncertainty (e.g., Inoue et al. 2000).

In the next section, we compare $`\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ with the SFR of dwarfs that is estimated from observations. For this purpose, we deduce $`\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ with luminosity of H$`\alpha `$, $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ (e.g. Kennicutt 1983), using the relation $`\psi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.32}\times 10^{42}L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ that is compiled in and used by Legrand et al. (2001) and based on Leitherer & Heckman (1995). Thus, we can obtain a critical $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ from eq.(5):

$`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha ,\mathrm{crit}}=4.1\times 10^{41}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{gas}}}{10^8M_{}}}\right]^{9/7}\left(1+A_{\mathrm{halo}}\right)^{9/7}\mathrm{erg}.`$ (6)
## 3 Observational investigation

### 3.1 Hi envelope and star-formation rate

We compare the observational data of $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ with eq.(6). The sample galaxies are selected from van Zee et al. (1998), Sage et al. (1992), van Zee (2000), and van Zee (2001), according to the condition that they are isolated systems. Regarding four galaxies found in the several papers, the latest data of each galaxy are adopted. We also plot dIrrs in the primary sample of van Zee (2000) and van Zee (2001) to present how well our criterion is satisfied by dIrrs as well as BCDs. The sample BCDs are summarized in Table 1. The result is depicted in Figure 1. Filled circles are BCDs and the pluses are dIrrs. We draw four model lines. The main line is the thick solid line from eq.(6) with $`A_{\mathrm{halo}}=0.0`$. Clearly, all the sample BCDs are located below this line. That is, all the Hi envelopes are not blown away by the current stellar feedback. This result is the same as Ferrara & Tolstoy (2000), since the dynamical mass-range of our sample galaxies is from $`10^7M_{}`$ to $`10^9M_{}`$. The thick dashed line is from eq. (6) with average internal extinction of gas-rich dwarf galaxies (E(B-V)$`=`$0.2) (Hunter & Gallagher 1986) and $`A_{\mathrm{halo}}=0.0`$. Even if we consider the effect of extinction, the conclusion is not altered. The thin lines are the cases with $`A_{\mathrm{halo}}=1.0`$. The thin lines are also sufficiently above the sample BCDs. This strongly indicates that the Hi envelope is not blown out by the support of the low density halo as predicted in Silich & Tenorio-Tagle (1998).

We find one interesting sample galaxy, Mrk 67, which is plotted at ($`M`$(Hi),$`L`$(H$`\alpha `$)) $`=`$ ($`10.0^{7.4}M_{}`$, $`10.0^{39.9}`$) in Figure 1. It is a Wolf-Rayet galaxy (Conti 1991). This galaxy is located near the solid line. The Hi envelope is strongly affected by stellar feedback. Thus, if we want to know the precise effect of the low density halo, the detailed observation of the more extended Hi envelope of Mrk 67 is important.

### 3.2 Star-formation history of BCD

In this paper, we are interested in the star-formation history of isolated BCDs, which can be given by their chemical abundance in their star-forming region. We present this in Figure 2, while the data of sample galaxies is listed in Table 1. In panel (a), we plot the metallicity of BCDs and the gas mass to the dynamical mass ratio. The metallicity is determined in the current star-forming region (van Zee et al. 1998; Izotov & Thuan 1999). The figure shows that the mass ratio becomes smaller as the metallicity grows larger. Thus, panel (a) supports a closed box assumption for the isolated BCDs, as is originally found in Lequeux et al. (1979). For a detailed review, see Kunth & Östlin (2000). Furthermore, as long as a closed box assumption is satisfied, it can suggest that the Hi gas in the envelope is used for the subsequent star-formation in the current star-forming region. This is consistent with Figure 1, as long as Hi gas is generally bound to the host galaxies. It should be noted that higher mass ratios than 1 are obtained simply from observational uncertainties of Hi gas and/or estimation of dynamical mass (Thuan & Martin 1981). Panel (b) represents the metal abundance and the same mass ratio. This is also interesting since there are no significant differences in abundance among the BCDs (The abundance is located around 0.4, which is a typical value of SN ii). Panel (b) suggests that the star-formation histories of BCDs are not very different from each other, as discussed in Kinman & Davidson (1981). Thus, we can conclude that almost all BCDs have experienced a similar star-formation history.

## 4 Discussion

Our results can provide some insight into a morphological evolutionary model among dwarf galaxies (Kormendy 1985). The most standard model for this kind of research, which discusses the Hi envelope, is Thuan (1985). They predict that gas-rich dwarfs evolve into dEs after the Hi envelope is stripped for some reasons, such as: (1) interaction with clusters and/or galaxies; and (2) stellar feedback. Since the gas-rich dwarf sample in this paper is isolated, only the stellar feedback effect is expected to be important for the morphological exchange. Importantly, the current stellar feedback does not blow away the Hi envelope as shown in Figure 1. Presumably, it does not blow out the Hi envelope because of the effect of the low density halo (see also Legrand et al. 2001). Thus, we conclude that the isolated gas-rich dwarfs can keep their morphological type, until they no longer experience any interactions. As long as the the Hi envelope has been retained, the kinematics of Hi envelope is expected to be different from that of stars in dEs. This is checked by estimating the specific angular momentum, and indeed a difference exists (van Zee et al. 2001). Thus, our conclusion is consistent with other studies, since isolated BCDs never evolve into dEs.

In Figure 2, we suggest that the Hi gas is used for the subsequent star-formation. This might permit BCDs and dIrrs to evolve to dEs. However, the consumption time-scale, which is defined as the mass of the Hi envelope divided by the current star-formation rate, should be longer than $`10^{10}`$ years. It is difficult for current BCDs and dIrrs to evolve into dEs. Our discussion may confirm the observational implication on its difficulty (Ferguson & Binggeli 1994) in terms of a SFR. We comment that the photoionization effect can be important during the evolution from dIrrs to dEs (Ferrara & Tolstoy 2000), while this effect cannot be examined in our framework. This possibility, related to photoionization effects, will be discussed in a future work.

There is another possibility for the morphological change between dIrrs and BCDs. According to Saitō et al. (2000), gas-rich dwarfs change their morphology between BCDs and dIrrs. This means that the star-formation activity is related to the extent of the Hi envelope. Here, we re-consider this evolution in Figure 1: dIrrs with massive Hi gas move upper-leftward in Figure 1 and are recognized to be BCDs, when the Hi gas falls onto galaxies and is consumed for the successive star-formation period. On the contrary, when BCDs decrease their star-formation, they move downward in Figure 1, and are recognized as dIrrs. Thus, our plot of Figure 1 is consistent with the preliminary idea of Saitō et al.(2000). The trend of consumption of Hi mass in Figure 2(a) may support this evolutionary model of gas-rich dwarfs.

An inverse evolutionary scenario from dEs to gas-rich dwarfs has been suggested by Silk et al. (1987). The IGM was heated and enriched by galactic winds at higher redshift. When galaxy groups formed recently, this gas was compressed, cooled and accreted onto dwarf galaxies with some metallicity. Thus, dEs evolve into dIrrs and BCDs. This scenario is re-interpreted if we exchange the IGM for the low density halo around the BCDs. Since the low density halo is expected to be bound to the galaxy, a closed box assumption can also be invoked here. Furthermore, both IGM and the low density halo have a similar role in the dynamical evolution of Hi envelope (Silich & Tenorio-Tagle 1998). Also, if a past SFR was larger than $`\psi _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, the Hi envelope could have been blown away from the host dwarf galaxy, while being retained in the galaxy by the low density halo. Hence, when future observations will reveal the large past SFR of BCDs, unlike current observations of their spectral energy distribution, then, it will be interesting for us to re-examine the possibility of the morphological evolution model of Silk et al. (1987) with caution.

## 5  Summary

In this paper, we have shown that the Hi envelope are not easily blown away by stellar feedback without the low density halo but with dark matter, since the envelope is not accelerated to the escape velocity (see also Legrand et al. 2001). This dynamical state is observationally confirmed for isolated gas-rich dwarfs. Furthermore, we have confirmed the possibility that all the isolated BCD samples have a similar star-formation history, as is suggested from their metallicity and Hi mass consumption. Our results support that (1) It is difficult for the isolated gas-rich dwarfs to evolve into dEs, since the present SFRs of gas-rich dwarfs are not so large. They will change their morphological types only when they suffer exceptionally intense star-burst and/or interaction among galaxies, and/or clusters of galaxies. (2) The morphological exchange among gas-rich dwarfs may be possible. But, as a future work, we must describe the star-formation mechanism due to the Hi gas fueled into star-forming regions, suggested from the anti-correlation between Hi mass and metallicity. The effect of the low density halo may be essential. (3) A morphological evolutionary model from dEs to gas-rich dwarfs is possible if the Hi gas falls onto the host galaxy. But, even in this case, the low density halo should be investigated further. Recently, Legrand et al. (2001) has reported a very similar result to our Figure 1. The essential meaning of the two results are the same and consistent with each other, such that the ISM is sustained in the BCDs themselves. However, we consider especially the Hi envelope, and find that the Hi envelope is neither blown away nor blown out from BCDs by means of the current stellar feedback.

###### Acknowledgements.

Critical comments of the referee, Dr. Daniel Kunth, much improved the clarity of the paper and our English. The authors appreciate his very careful reading and much kindness. They are also grateful to H. Hirashita for valuable comments and discussion. HK wishes to thank Prof. S.Mineshige, S.Inagaki, and J.Silk for their encouragement.


text:
# A new upper limit on the total neutrino mass from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey

## Abstract

We constrain $`f_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu /\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, the fractional contribution of neutrinos to the total mass density in the Universe, by comparing the power spectrum of fluctuations derived from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey with power spectra for models with four components: baryons, cold dark matter, massive neutrinos and a cosmological constant. Adding constraints from independent cosmological probes we find $`f_\nu <0.13`$ (at 95% confidence) for a prior of $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.5`$, and assuming the scalar spectral index $`n=1`$. This translates to an upper limit on the total neutrino mass $`m_{\nu ,\mathrm{tot}}<1.8\mathrm{eV}`$ for ‘concordance’ values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and the Hubble constant. Very similar results are obtained with a prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ from Type Ia supernovae surveys, and with marginalization over $`n`$.

Whether neutrinos are massive or not has been an open question for a long time, but the recent data from atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments  are most naturally interpreted in terms of neutrino oscillations, which implies that not all neutrinos are massless . However, since the oscillation probability depends on the mass-squared differences, and not on the absolute masses, the oscillation experiments cannot provide absolute masses for neutrinos. The mass scale can in principle be obtained from e.g. the energy spectrum in the beta-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ , or from neutrinoless double beta decay . At the present, cosmological data  provide stronger constraints on the total neutrino mass than particle physics experiments. Since neutrinos with masses of the order of a few tenths of an electron volt (eV) can have a significant effect on the formation of large-scale structures in the Universe, observations of the distribution of galaxies can provide us with an upper bound on the density of massive neutrinos. We will in this paper use data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS), which is the largest existing redshift survey , to obtain an upper bound on the sum of the neutrino masses.

Massive neutrinos make up part of the dark matter in the Universe. In the cosmological model favoured by data on large-scale structure and the observed fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) , the Universe is flat, and the contributions to the mass-energy density in units of the critical density are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ from vacuum energy or a ‘quintessence’ field, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.3`$ from matter. Baryons make up only $`f_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.15`$ of the matter contribution , most of the remaining being in the form of cold dark matter (CDM), the exact nature of which is still unknown. ‘Cold’ in this context means that the particles were moving at non-relativistic speeds when they dropped out of thermal equilibrium. Particles drop out of equilibrium roughly when their interaction rate falls below the expansion rate of the Universe. For neutrinos with masses in the eV range this happened when they were still relativistic, and so they will be a ‘hot’ component of the dark matter (HDM). This has implications for large-scale structure, since the neutrinos can free-stream over large distances and erase small-scale structures (see e.g.  for an overview). As a result, mass fluctuations are suppressed at comoving wavenumbers greater than $`k_{\mathrm{nr}}=0.026(m_\nu /1\mathrm{eV})^{1/2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{1/2}h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ , where $`m_\nu `$ is the neutrino mass of one flavour. The neutrino contribution to the total mass-energy density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$, in units of the critical density needed to close the Universe, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2=\frac{m_{\nu ,\mathrm{tot}}}{94\mathrm{eV}},$$
(1)
where $`m_{\nu ,\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the sum of the neutrino mass matrix eigenvalues, and the Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ at the present epoch is given in terms of $`h`$ as $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. Eq. (1) assumes that all three neutrino flavours drop out of equilibrium at the same temperature, which is a reasonable approximation. The suppression of the matter power spectrum $`P_\mathrm{m}(k)`$ on small scales is given approximately by (see e.g. )

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{m}}{P_\mathrm{m}}8f_\nu ,$$
(2)
where $`f_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu /\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. Therefore even a neutrino mass as small as $`0.1\mathrm{eV}`$ gives a reduction in power of 5-15 %.

The 2dFGRS has now measured over 220 000 galaxy redshifts, with a median redshift of $`z_m0.11`$, and is the largest existing galaxy redshift survey . A sample of this size allows large-scale structure statistics to be measured with very small random errors. An initial estimate of the convolved, redshift-space power spectrum of the 2dFGRS has been determined  for a sample of 160 000 redshifts. On scales $`0.02<k<0.15h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, the data are robust and the shape of the power spectrum is not affected by redshift-space or non-linear effects, though the amplitude is increased by redshift-space distortions. These data and their associated covariance matrix form the basis for our analysis.

For each model, we calculate its linear-theory matter power spectrum, and for the 2dFGRS power spectrum data it is sufficiently accurate to use the fitting formulae derived in . The relation between the measured galaxy power spectrum and the calculated matter power spectrum is given by the so-called bias parameter $`b^2P_g(k)/P_m(k)`$. By definition, $`b`$ is in principle a function of scale, and several biasing scenarios have been proposed . This issue is of some importance for our analysis. For example, if the galaxy distribution is more biased on small scales than on large scales, a non-zero best-fit value for $`f_\nu `$ may be obtained. However, on the scales we consider there are theoretical reasons to expect that $`b`$ should tend to a constant . For the 2dFGRS, a recent analysis  looking for deviations from linear biasing found no evidence for it. We will therefore in the following assume that the biasing is scale-independent. In particular two independent analyses  suggest that that the data are consistent with $`b1`$ on large scales. We choose to avoid the complications in the normalization of the power spectra caused by redshift-space distortions and the actual value of the bias parameter by leaving the amplitude of the power spectrum, from here on denoted by $`A`$, as a free parameter, and then marginalize over it.

We shall consider here a model with four components: baryons, cold dark matter, massive neutrinos (hot dark matter) and a cosmological constant. As an illustration, we show in Fig. 1 the power spectra for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0`$, $`0.01`$, and $`0.05`$ (all other parameters are fixed at their ‘concordance model’ values given in the figure caption), after they have been convolved with the 2dFGRS window function, and their amplitudes fitted to the 2dFGRS power spectrum data. For the 32 data points, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0`$-model had $`\chi ^2=32.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0.01`$ gives $`\chi ^2=33.4`$, whereas the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0.05`$ provides a poor fit to the data with $`\chi ^2=92.2`$.

Clearly, the inference of the neutrino mass depends on our assumptions (‘priors’) on the other parameters. We therefore add constraints from other independent cosmological probes. The Hubble parameter has been determined by the HST Hubble key project to be $`h=0.70\pm 0.07`$ , and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis gives a constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ on the baryon density. For these parameters, we adopt Gaussian priors with the standard deviations given above.

Perhaps the least known prior is the total matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. The position of the first peak in the CMB power spectrum gives a strong indication that the Universe is spatially flat, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ . The CMB peak positions are not sensitive to neutrino masses, because the neutrinos were non-relativistic at recombination, and hence indistinguishable from cold dark matter. Although the shape of the power spectrum is independent of curvature, the curvature does affect the choice of priors on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, and we choose to consider flat models only. When the constraint of a flat universe is combined with surveys of high redshift Type Ia supernovae , one finds $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.28\pm 0.14`$. However, studies of the mass-to-light ratio of galaxy clusters find values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ as low as 0.15 , whereas cluster abundances give a range of values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.30.9`$ . Another measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.25`$ which is independent of the power spectrum of mass fluctuations and the nature of dark matter has been derived from the baryon mass fraction in clusters of galaxies, coupled with priors on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ and $`h`$ . We will therefore use two different priors on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. The first is a Gaussian centered at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.28`$ with standard deviation $`0.14`$, motivated by . As an alternative, we use a uniform (‘top hat’) prior in the range $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.5`$. Given that we use the HST Key Project result  for $`h`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.5`$ is required to be consistent with the age of the Universe  being greater than 12 Gyr.

Finally, the CMB data  are consistent with the scalar spectral index of the primordial power spectrum being $`n=1`$, but we also quote results for $`n=0.9`$ and $`n=1.1`$, and for the case when we marginalize over $`n`$ with a Gaussian prior $`n=1.0\pm 0.1`$, motivated by the latest data from VSA and CBI .

Results will be presented for the case of $`N_\nu =3`$ equal-mass neutrinos, but the derived upper bound on the total neutrino mass is only marginally different for $`N_\nu =1`$ or 2. For each set of parameters, we computed the theoretical matter power spectrum, and obtained the $`\chi ^2`$ for the model given the 2dFGRS power spectrum. We then calculated the joint probability distribution function for $`f_\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h`$ (which represents the shape of the CDM power spectrum) by marginalizing over $`A,h`$ and $`f_\mathrm{b}`$ weighted by the priors given above. For $`A`$ we used a uniform prior in the interval $`0.5<A<10`$, where $`A=1`$ corresponds to the normalization of the ‘concordance model’, discussed in . Using instead a prior uniform in $`\mathrm{log}A`$, or fixing $`A`$ at the best-fit value had virtually no effect on the results. We evaluated the likelihood on a grid with $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h<0.5`$, $`0f_\nu <0.3`$, $`0<f_\mathrm{b}<0.3`$, $`0.4<h<0.9`$, and $`0.5<A<10`$. In  it was found that the 2dFGRS data alone allow a solution with a high baryon density $`f_\mathrm{b}=0.4`$, in addition to a low density-low baryon density solution. However, given the above priors, the solution with high baryon density gets little weight and the fitting-formulae in  are sufficiently accurate for the measured BBN baryon density.

The results are shown in Fig. 2 for the cases of no prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ (left panel) and with the uniform prior $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.5`$ (right panel). Marginalizing the distributions in the right panel of Fig. 2 over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h`$, we get the one-dimensional distribution for $`f_\nu `$ given by the solid line in Fig. 3, and an upper limit $`f_\nu <0.13`$ at 95% confidence. For comparison, marginalizing without any priors, the limit becomes $`f_\nu <0.24`$. Adding just a prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, we find $`f_\nu <0.15`$, so this is clearly the most important prior. Marginalizing with just a prior on $`h`$ or on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$, the 95 % confidence limit becomes $`f_\nu <0.20`$. As a further test of the stability of our analysis, we used the full set of priors, but only the power spectrum data at scales $`k<0.1h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. In this case the limit increases to $`f_\nu <0.20`$.

There is a further degeneracy of $`f_\nu `$ with the scalar spectral index $`n`$, since increasing $`n`$ increases power on small scales and leaves more room for suppression by the massive neutrinos. Also shown in Fig. 3 are the distributions for the cases $`n=0.9`$ (dotted line) and $`n=1.1`$ (dashed line). With $`n=1.1`$, the 95% confidence limit on $`f_\nu `$ increases slightly to 0.16. The results are summarized in Fig. 3 and in Table I. Also included in the this table are the results obtained using the Type Ia supernova prior, and it is seen that the results for the two different choices are almost identical. Running a grid of models with $`n`$ as an added parameter, and marginalizing with a prior $`n=1.0\pm 0.1`$, consistent with the CMB data , we find $`f_\nu <0.16`$ at 95 % confidence.

To summarize, we have analyzed the shape of the 2dFGRS power spectrum to obtain an upper bound on the fractional contribution of massive neutrinos to the total mass density, $`f_\nu `$, and found an upper limit $`f_\nu <0.13`$ at 95% confidence for $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.5`$ and the scalar spectral index $`n=1`$. This translates into a constraint on the sum of the neutrino mass matrix eigenvalues $`m_{\nu ,\mathrm{tot}}<1.8\mathrm{eV}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2=0.15`$. With marginalization over $`n`$ with a prior $`n=1.0\pm 0.1`$, the limit becomes $`m_{\nu ,\mathrm{tot}}<2.2\mathrm{eV}`$. Previous cosmological bounds on neutrino masses come from data on galaxy cluster abundances , the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest , and compilations of data including the CMB, peculiar velocities, and large-scale structure . They give upper bounds on the total neutrino mass in the range 3–6 eV. Note that the fluctuation amplitude derived from the cluster abundances is still under some debate . The most recent limit is that of , from a combined analysis of CMB and large-scale structure data an upper limit $`m_{\nu ,\mathrm{tot}}<4.2\mathrm{eV}`$ was found. Our bounds, summarized in Table I, are stronger, largely because of the small statistical errors in the 2dFGRS power spectrum, although the priors on the other parameters, in particular on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, are also important. Note also that all of these results are stronger than current constraints from particle physics. As they stand, the controversial results of  imply a nearly degenerate neutrino mass matrix and a bound on neutrino mass matrix eigenvalue $`0.1<m_\nu <120\mathrm{eV}`$ , where the upper limit is somewhat model-dependent. Our results are consistent with this range. If the largest neutrino mass is in fact of order a tenth of an eV, it should be possible to measure its value using a combination of cosmological data, combining 2dFGRS, SDSS, MAP and/or Planck.

ØE acknowledges support from the Research Council of Norway through a postdoctoral fellowship.