text:
# Galactic Constraints on the Sources of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays

## The extragalactic cosmic-ray flux.

In Fig. 2 we compare the UHECR spectrum measured by the three experiments with the largest current exposure, Yakutsk, Fly’s Eye and AGASA, with that expected from a homogeneous cosmological distribution of sources, each generating a power-law, differential number flux of high energy protons, $`dn/dEE^2`$. This power-law slope is expected for astrophysical sources which accelerate particles in strong collisionless shocks , and is found in supernovae  and $`\gamma `$-ray bursts . Experimental differences in the absolute flux calibration at $`3\times 10^{18}`$ eV yield a systematic over-estimation of the event energies by $`20\%`$ ($`10\%`$) in the Yakutsk (AGASA) experiment as compared to the Fly’s Eye experiment; in Fig. 2 we use the Yakutsk energy normalization. The calculation of the model flux follows ref. , and assumes a flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`H_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The generation rate of cosmic rays per unit comoving volume is assumed to trace the redshift evolution of the luminosity density of bright quasars, which is also similar to the evolution of the cosmic star formation rate , namely $`\dot{n}_{CR}(z)(1+z)^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 3`$ at low redshifts $`z<1.9`$, $`\dot{n}_{CR}(z)=\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡}`$ for intermediate redshifts $`1.9<z<2.7`$, and an exponential decay at high redshifts $`z>2.7`$. The cosmic-ray spectrum at energies $`>10^{19}`$ eV is only weakly dependent on the cosmological parameters or the assumed redshift evolution, because the particles at these energies originate from distances shorter than a few hundred Mpc. The spectrum and flux at $`E>10^{19}`$ eV is mainly determined by the present ($`z=0`$) generation rate and spectrum, which for the model shown in Fig. 2 is given by

$$E^2\left(\frac{d\dot{n}}{dE}\right)_{z=0}=0.8\times 10^{44}\frac{\mathrm{erg}}{\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}}.$$
(1)
The suppression of the flux above $`10^{19.7}`$ eV is caused by the energy loss of high energy protons in their interaction with the microwave background, i.e. the “GZK cutoff” . The available data does not allow to determine the existence (or absence) of the “cutoff” with high confidence. The AGASA results show an excess of events (at a $`2.5\sigma `$ confidence level) compared to the model prediction above $`10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$. This excess is not confirmed, however, by other experiments; preliminary results from the new HiRes experiment are consistent with the Fly’s Eye data which does not show this excess . Since the flux at $`10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$ is dominated by sources at distances $`<100\mathrm{Mpc}`$ over which the distribution of known astrophysical systems (such as galaxies or galaxy clusters) is inhomogeneous, significant deviations are expected at this energy relative to the model predictions presented in Fig. 2 under the assumption of a uniform source distribution .

## Galactic enhancement of observed flux.

If the production rate of high energy protons given in Eq. (1) extends to lower energies, then a universal flux of extragalactic protons would be produced as shown by the solid line in Fig. 1. If extragalactic cosmic rays originate in galaxies similar to our own, then the average Galactic flux would be enhanced relative to this extragalactic background by two factors. The first factor is cosmological and is independent of the confinement of cosmic rays by the Galactic magnetic field. Ignoring confinement for the moment, we expect that the extragalactic flux would be diluted relative to the Galactic flux by the volume filling factor of galaxies $`n_\mathrm{G}V_\mathrm{G}`$ (where $`n_\mathrm{G}`$ is the number density of galaxies and $`V_\mathrm{G}`$ is the volume of a galaxy), and be amplified by the ratio between the emission time (which is of order the Hubble time, $`t_\mathrm{H}`$) and the escape time from the Galactic disk (which is of order the vertical crossing time of the scale–height of the Galactic disk, $`h/c`$). The combination of these ratios yields a Galactic enhancement factor of the cosmic ray flux $`J(E)`$,

$$f_1=\frac{J_\mathrm{G}}{J_\mathrm{C}}\frac{1}{ct_\mathrm{H}n_\mathrm{G}A_\mathrm{G}}10^3,$$
(2)
where $`A_\mathrm{G}V_\mathrm{G}/h`$ is the typical cross-sectional area of a galactic disk, and the subscripts $`G`$ and $`C`$ are used to denote the Galactic and cosmological values. The numerical value of $`f_110^3`$ is obtained for the characteristic $`A_\mathrm{G}\pi (5\mathrm{kpc})^2`$ and $`n_\mathrm{G}3\times 10^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ of $`L_{}`$ galaxies similar to the Milky-Way .

A second enhancement factor originates from the confinement of cosmic rays by the Galactic magnetic field. The time that a cosmic ray spends in the disk is larger than $`h/c`$ by a factor $`f_2`$. This factor is directly determined by observations of daughter nuclei produced in interactions of cosmic ray nuclei with H and He nuclei in the Galactic disk. The abundance ratio of daughter to parent nuclei determines the average grammage $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (defined as the path length integral of the gas density) that cosmic ray nuclei traverse prior to their escape. The factor $`f_2`$ is given by the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{disk}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{disk}}=2\times 10^3\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is the surface mass density of the Galactic disk. For cosmic rays with energies of up to 1 TeV per nucleon

$$f_2\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{disk}}}10^4\left(\frac{E/Z}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(3)
where $`Z`$ is the atomic charge and $`\alpha 0.6`$. The extrapolation of this scaling relation to a proton energy $`E10^{16}`$ eV gives $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ or $`f_21`$, which implies that the extrapolation can not be extended to yet higher proton energies since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must be larger or equal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{disk}}`$. Note that the extragalactic background is also enhanced by a factor $`f_2`$ if measured within the Milky-Way galaxy. Hence the ratio between the local values of the mean Galactic and extragalactic fluxes remains $`f_1`$ even in the presence of confinement.

Figure 1 shows that the observed energy flux $`E^2J(E)`$ at $`10^{15}`$ eV is larger by a factor of $`10^3`$ than its value at $`10^{19}`$ eV. This factor is coincidentally comparable to the enhancement factor $`f_1`$. If, as commonly assumed, the cosmic rays at $`10^{15}`$ eV are Galactic in origin while those at $`10^{19}`$ eV are extragalactic, then the energy production rate per galaxy at these two cosmic-ray energies must be comparable. Since the particle spectrum expected for acceleration in astrophysical shocks, $`E^2dN/dE=const`$, implies equal amount of energy per logarithmic energy interval, the above coincidence may seem to suggest that both the $`10^{15}`$ eV and $`10^{19}`$ eV cosmic rays are produced by the same source population . However, the associated Galactic component of cosmic rays with energies between $`10^{15}`$ eV and $`10^{19}`$ eV appears to be missing. The spectrum steepens instead of maintaining a $`J(E)E^2`$ slope in Fig. 1, as expected if the same sources were producing the observed cosmic-ray flux at $`10^{15}`$ eV and $`10^{19}`$ eV. The lack of strong anisotropy in the direction of the Galactic disk at $`10^{19}`$ eV supports this inference. Where are the Galactic counterparts to the extragalactic $`10^{19}`$ eV cosmic rays? To reconcile the data in Fig. 1 with the enhancement factors in Eqs. (2) and (3), we argue that the UHECRs must be produced in transient events and that our galaxy is currently at a dim state in between transients.

## Constraints on transient properties.

The minimum flux of lower energy cosmic rays produced by the UHECR source population corresponds to an extrapolation with a spectral slope of $`J(E)E^2`$, which is the shallowest slope possible in shock acceleration (analysis of the observed spectrum at $`E>10^{19}`$ eV implies that the source spectral slope can not be shallower than $`J(E)E^{1.8}`$ ). The dashed line in Fig. 1 shows this extrapolation together with the expected enhancement factors $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ from Eqs. (2) and (3), assuming conservatively that Eq. (3) with $`\alpha =0.6`$ holds for protons up to $`E10^{16}`$ eV. At energies exceeding $`1`$ TeV, the expected mean Galactic flux of protons exceeds the observed value. The fact that the bulk of the Galactic cosmic rays in this energy range are missing is supported by the isotropy of the observed cosmic rays at $`10^{19}`$ eV. The Galactic field is unable to isotropize the distribution to the observed level since the Larmor radius of a particle of atomic charge $`Z`$ in the Galactic field $`B`$ is $`10\mathrm{kpc}(E/10^{19}\mathrm{eV})/(B/\mu \mathrm{G})`$, significantly larger than the Galactic scale height of this magnetic field.

Our assumption that Eq. (3) holds for protons up to $`E10^{16}`$ eV is conservative since it implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ at $`E10^{16}`$ eV. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is higher, e.g. due to a smaller value of $`\alpha `$ beyond 1 TeV per nucleon, then the expected Galactic counterpart to the extragalactic flux will be higher than shown in Fig. 1.

The confinement time of cosmic rays with an energy of $`1`$ GeV per nucleon is measured to be $`10^{7.5}`$ yr, based on the survival fraction of radioactive cosmic-ray nuclei . As the cosmic-ray energy increases, the decline in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ described in Eq. (3) may be caused either by a decrease in the confinement time or by a decrease in the time-averaged gas density through which the cosmic rays propagate (e.g., due to an increase in the thickness $`h_{\mathrm{CR}}`$ of the disk in which the cosmic rays are confined to a value larger than the thickness $`h`$ of the Galactic gaseous disk). Assuming, conservatively, that the decrease in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is only due to a decrease in the confinement time, we get

$$\tau _{\mathrm{conf}}10^{7.5}\mathrm{yr}\left(\frac{E/Z}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^\alpha .$$
(4)
In order that the Galactic counterpart to the extragalactic $`10^{19}`$ eV cosmic ray protons will not exceed the observed proton flux above $`1`$ TeV, the time between Galactic transients must satisfy $`\tau _{\mathrm{trans}}>f_{\mathrm{vis}}\times \mathrm{min}\{\tau _{\mathrm{conf}}(E=\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{GeV}),\tau _{\mathrm{conf}}(E=1\mathrm{TeV})\}`$. Here, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the minimum Lorentz factor of the accelerated protons and $`f_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ is the fraction of all Galactic transients which are visible to us. Since diffusion perpendicular to the Galactic disk drains the cosmic-ray flux from a distant source, a transient would be visible to us only if it has occurred within a distance comparable to the scale height $`h_{\mathrm{CR}}`$ of the cosmic-ray disk. The estimated scale-height, based on the time-averaged density through which the cosmic rays propagate, is $`3`$ kpc  implying $`f_{\mathrm{vis}}0.1`$. We therefore obtain

$$\tau _{\mathrm{trans}}10^{4.5}\left(\frac{f_{\mathrm{vis}}}{0.1}\right)\mathrm{min}[\left(\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}}{10^3}\right)^{0.6},1]\mathrm{yr},$$
(5)
as long as $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}10^7`$. At higher values of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ and the cosmic rays escape freely from the Galactic disk, the only constraints are that $`\tau _{\mathrm{trans}}`$ must be longer than the exposure time of modern experiments (several decades) and that the transients have a short duty cycle.

Radioactive dating provides only a conservative lower limit on the confinement time due to the potential existence of an extended cosmic-ray halo. We note that the above conclusions remain unchanged even if the $`10^{19}`$ eV cosmic rays are heavy nuclei since the factor $`f_1`$ is independent of composition.

## Discussion.

Among the most likely astrophysical sources for the unsteady production of UHECRs are Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) and active galactic nuclei (AGNs). While AGNs (such as SgrA\* in the Milky Way galaxy) are known to be transient just as GRBs, the transient properties of GRBs are better-determined and allow a more detailed comparison with the required properties of UHECR sources. The GRB rate per comoving volume today is $`0.5\times 10^9\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$ . This rate is derived based on the observed value at a redshift $`z1`$, assuming that the rate follows the redshift evolution of the cosmic star formation rate and that the emission of $`\gamma `$–rays by the bursts is isotropic. If the emission is confined to a double sided jet with a small angular radius $`\theta `$, then the burst rate is increased by a factor $`4\pi /2\pi \theta ^2`$. GRB observations indicate a characteristic opening angle $`\theta 0.1`$ . The implied temporal separation between bursts in $`L_{}`$ galaxies is thus $`\tau _{\mathrm{GRB}}10^{4.5}(\theta /0.1)^2`$ yr, consistent with the constraint in Eq. (5).

Under the assumption that supernovae dominate the cosmic-ray production below $`10^{15}`$ eV, the value of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ for GRBs with $`\tau _{\mathrm{GRB}}10^{4.5}`$ yr cannot be substantially lower than $`10^3`$. This constraint is naturally satisfied in GRBs since the plasma within which particles are accelerated, is inferred to expand with a bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10^{2.5}`$ (e.g. ).

The required energy production rate at $`10^{19}`$ eV is $`10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$ , implying that the cosmic-ray energy per burst is $`10^{51}(\tau _{\mathrm{burst}}/10^{4.5}\mathrm{yr})\mathrm{ergs}`$. This energy release is surprisingly close to the energy carried by $`\gamma `$-rays in GRBs for $`\tau _{\mathrm{trans}}=10^{4.5}\mathrm{yr}`$ (corresponding to $`\theta 0.1=6^{}`$) , implying that the local energy generation rate of $`\gamma `$-rays in GRBs is similar to the UHECR energy generation rate ***The AGASA excess above $`10^{20}`$ eV has been used to argue that GRBs can not produce the observed cosmic rays above $`10^{20}`$ eV . As explained above, the excess is not seen in the Fly’s Eye, the Yakutsk and the HiRes data, and if real is likely associated with source inhomogeneities.. This similarity, the agreement with the transient rate constraint, and the fact that protons may be accelerated to energies $`>10^{20}`$ eV by collisionless internal shocks of GRBs  support the suggested association between GRBs and UHECR sources .

The shocks produced due to converging flows during the formation of large scale structure in the intergalactic medium are also expected to accelerate cosmic rays . For the characteristic magnetic field strength and scale of these shocks, we estimate that the maximum proton energy is $`10^{17}\mathrm{eV}`$ and that the intergalactic cosmic rays may approach the observed flux around this energy but fall significantly below the observed flux at lower energies.

In closing, we emphasize that the Earth was exposed to a time-averaged UHECR flux that is greater by three orders of magnitude than the currently measured value. During transients the enhancement is much largerThe transient event rate and intensity might depend on particle energy. For beamed GRBs, the bursts at $`>10^{19}\mathrm{eV}`$ will be less frequent but more intense than those at much lower particle energies, since the collimation of UHECRs at the source will not be entirely smeared by the Galactic magnetic field. When averaged over long timescales the mean flux is independent of beaming; for a fixed energy output the observed flux increases due to beaming but the event rate decreases by the inverse of the same factor.. Any fossil record of this intense cosmic-ray bombardment (e.g. through the detection of stable or radioactive daughter nuclei in ancient rocks) would provide an important test of our conclusions.

## Acknowledgments.

This work was supported in part by grants from the Israel-US BSF (BSF-9800343), NASA (NAG 5-7039, 5-7768), and NSF (AST-9900877, AST-0071019). AL acknowledges support from the Einstein Center during his visit to the Weizmann Institute.


format: text

text:
# A Lensing Reconstruction of Primordial Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization

## I Introduction

The advent of high sensitivity cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments will soon allow detailed observational studies on the CMB polarization field. In addition to a confirmation of the basic picture on how anisotropies were generated during the recombination era , CMB polarization observations, at large angular scales, may allow a measurement of the reionization redshift based on excess power created during the rescattering of CMB quadrupole at the reionization surface . An additional use of polarization observations is the potential detection of inflationary gravitational waves based on its contribution to the so-called curl or B-modes of polarization .

In addition to primordial contributions involving density perturbations, which contribute solely to E-modes, and tensor modes or gravitational waves, the polarization field one observes today also contains secondary contributions associated with the large scale structure. This is similar to well known secondary contributions that dominate the small scale temperature anisotropy signal . In the case of B-modes, the arcminute scale polarization is dominated by a fractional conversion of the dominant E-mode contribution via the gravitational lensing angular deflection of CMB photons . In Ref. , we discussed an approach to separate the gravitational-wave signature in B-modes from the dominant, and contaminant, weak lensing contribution at arcminute scales. We also investigated limits on gravitational wave B-mode detection after a model-independent lensing substraction. This calculation followed previous discussions in the literature on how CMB data can be used for an extraction of statistics involving the gravitational lensing effect, such as shear or deflection angles .

In general, the reconstruction of lensing deflections from CMB data require a priori information on the primordial CMB contribution at the last scattering surface. This knowledge cannot easily be obtained from data alone since the CMB contribution measured today involve contributions resulting from secondary effects and any modifications during the transit to us from the last scattering surface. On the other hand, we can consider an alternative approach to an analogous problem involving a reconstruction of the primordial CMB contribution, at the last scattering surface, by accounting for modifications due to large scale structure. This is, effectively, an inverse problem from what was discussed in  and require prior information related to the lensing effect on CMB, such as the mass distribution of large scale structure in which photons propagated. In the present study, we briefly discuss this possibility using a tracer field of the large scale structure potentials that deflected CMB photons via the gravitational lensing effect.

The discussion presented here follows the recent work of Ref.  where we discussed the lensing reconstruction from CMB data given information related to primordial CMB anisotropy and polarization fields. We refer the reader to the above paper for basic details of lensing and other important ingredients related to the calculation. To illustrate our results, we assume the currently favored $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology.

## II Calculation

The lensing effect on CMB data can be described simply as a transfer of power via changes to photon propagation directions on the sky. In Fourier space, we can consider the E- and B-mode decomposition introduced in Ref.  such that $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}Y(𝐥)=E(𝐥)\pm iB(𝐥)`$. We denote the primordial contribution at the last scattering surface with a $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, while the polarization field observed today is denoted with $`Y`$. We can consider the lensing modification following Ref.  and write

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}Y(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\stackrel{~}{Y}(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}{}_{\pm }{}^{}\stackrel{~}{Y}(𝐥_1)e^{\pm 2i(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)}L(𝐥,𝐥_1)},`$ (1)
where

$`L(𝐥_1,𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (𝐥_1𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})(𝐥_1𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1^{\prime \prime }}{(2\pi )^2}\varphi (𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime })\varphi ^{}(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥_1)(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})(𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐥_1)𝐥_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}},`$ (2)
to the second order in the projected lensing potential $`\varphi `$ given by

$`\varphi (\widehat{𝐦})`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{r_0}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{d_A(r_0r)}{d_A(r)d_A(r_0)}}\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\widehat{𝐦}r).`$ (3)
Here, $`r`$ is the conformal time or comoving radial distance, $`d_A`$ is the analogous comoving angular diameter distance, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the gravitational potential. The latter is related to fluctuations in the density field via the Poisson equation. The deflection angle associated with lensing is the gradient of the projected potential, $`\alpha (\widehat{𝐧})=\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})`$. Using deflections to the first order, we write

$`E(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\left[\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)\right]\varphi (𝐥𝐥_1)(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥_1}`$ (4)
$`B(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\left[\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)+\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥_1)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{𝐥_1}\phi _𝐥)\right]\varphi (𝐥𝐥_1)(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥_1}.`$ (5)
In order to extract the primordial contribution, unaffected by lensing, consider the combination of $`E`$ and $`B`$ fields with a tracer field of the deflecting potential, which we label here as $`X`$. This tracer map has the property that it does not correlate strongly with either $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, the quantities at the last scattering. Thus, only correlation expected is the one resulting due to lensing, and to a lesser extent from other secondary contributions to polarization. Since latter contributions involving scattering effects associated with large scale structure is significantly smaller , we will ignore them in this discussion. Additionally, secondary scattering effects associated with polarization can be removed from data based on their spectral dependences. This is similar to the approach suggested in Ref.  to remove the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect (SZ; ) from dominant temperature anisotropies. We consider a map created by taking the product of the polarization field and the tracer field, e.g., $`EX`$. In Fourier space, we can write this product as a convolution of the Fourier moments of the two fields:

$`(EX)(𝐥)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}\left[E(𝐥_1)X(𝐥𝐥_1)+X(𝐥_1)E(𝐥𝐥_1)\right]W(𝐥,𝐥_1)}`$ (6)
where $`W`$ is a Fourier-space based filter that we will design to maximize the reconstruction of the primordial polarization information. Similarly, we can also construct another quadratic statistic involving B and X-fields. Using equation (5) in (6), we can simplify to obtain

$`(EX)(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]}`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]},`$ (8)
while, analogous contribution to the quadratic statistic involving $`B`$ and $`X`$ fields, $`(BX)(𝐥)`$, is

$`(BX)(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]}`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]}.`$ (10)
As written, these quadratic combinations are proportional to the primordial polarization contributions at the last scattering surface, $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥)`$. This is essentially the basis for the suggested reconstruction. In , suggested quadratic statistics involve combinations of $`EE`$ and $`EB`$ such that these lead to terms which are proportional to $`\varphi `$ times integrals involving $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ and $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}`$; Thus, with some knowledge on these contributions, it was possible to reconstruct lensing deflection potentials. Our approach, though similar, involves the inverse problem of constructing $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ given information related to how $`\varphi `$ behaves. In above, $`C_l^{X\varphi }`$ is the cross-correlation between tracer $`X`$ field and the lensing potentials $`\varphi `$ defined such that

$$X(𝐥)\varphi (𝐥^{})=(2\pi )^2\delta _D(𝐥+𝐥^{})C_l^{X\varphi }.$$
(11)
We can write this cross angular power spectrum as

$$C_l^{X\varphi }=\frac{2}{\pi }k^2𝑑kP_{\delta \delta }(k)I_l^X(k)I_l^\varphi (k),$$
(12)
where

$$I_l^X(k)=_0^{r_0}𝑑rW^X(k,r)j_l(kr),$$
(13)
and similarly for $`I_l^\varphi (k)`$. Here, $`W^i(k,r)`$ is the window function of the X or $`\varphi `$ in radial coordinates, $`j_l`$’s are the spherical Bessel functions and $`P_{\delta \delta }(k)`$ is the power spectrum of density fluctuations (see, Ref.  for details).

To extract power spectra associated with the primordial polarization, $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ and $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}`$, we can either use power spectra constructed from correlating quadratic statistics themselves, e.g., $`(EX)(𝐥)(EX)(𝐥^{})`$, or the quadratic statistic correlated with the polarization field, e.g., $`(EX)(𝐥)E(𝐥^{})`$. The latter approach involves an extraction of the power spectrum from the bispectrum formed by the fields traced by the quadratic statistic and either $`E`$ or $`B`$; this is similar to what was suggested in Ref.  to extract the lensing-SZ correlation from squared temperature-temperature power spectrum. The method based on $`(EX)(𝐥)(EX)(𝐥^{})`$ extracts the power spectrum information via the trispectrum formed by lensing and tracer field correlation associated with quadratic statistics. This is analogous to techniques in Refs.  to extract the lensing information using CMB data. Here, we will use the approach based on the bispectrum since it has less noise contributions; the approach based on the trispectrum has additional non-Gaussian noise contributions which can complicate the extraction while lowering the associated signal-to-noise ratio .

We first consider the power spectrum formed by $`(EX)(𝐥)E(𝐥^{})`$. Following our standard definition, we define the associated power spectrum in this case as

$$(EX)(𝐥)E(𝐥^{})=(2\pi )^2\delta _D(𝐥+𝐥^{})C_l^{EXE}.$$
(14)
Similarly, we define the power spectra involved with other combinations of $`E`$ and $`B`$ with $`(EX)`$ and $`(BX)`$.

We can write the angular power spectrum associated with the $`(EX)(𝐥)E(𝐥^{})`$ correlation as

$`C_l^{EXE}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_l^{\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]}.`$ (15)
Note that there is no contribution coming from the $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ term associated with $`(EX)(𝐥)`$ since there is no correlation between $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐥^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐥)`$ due to parity considerations. Also, there is no resulting contribution associated with the first order lensing term of $`E`$ as lensing deflections, $`\varphi `$, should not correlate with the primordial polarization field. Similarly, the contribution to $`(EX)(𝐥)B(𝐥^{})`$ results in a power spectrum given by

$`C_l^{EXB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]}.`$ (16)
Since $`(BX)`$ provides an addition statistic to correlated with polarization maps, we can also consider the cross-correlation of $`(BX)(𝐥)`$ with $`E(𝐥)`$ and $`B(𝐥)`$. We can write the two contributions as

$`C_l^{BXE}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_l^{\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]},`$ (17)
and

$`C_l^{BXB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]},`$ (18)
respectively. As written, $`C_l^{EXE}`$ and $`C_l^{BXE}`$ are proportional to $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ while $`C_l^{EXB}`$ and $`C_l^{BXB}`$ are proportional to $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}`$. This is the basis of the present approach which is leading to an extraction of these primordial polarization power spectra uncontaminated by the lensing contribution. With an appropriate normalization and a description for the filter, $`W(𝐥,𝐥_1)`$ that optimizes the polarization extraction, one can effectively extract $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ and $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ from the higher order statistics involving polarization maps today and a map of the large scale structure.

The signal-to-noise ratio for the extraction of the primordial power spectra of polarization, for example, in the case of $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ extracted using $`(BX)(𝐥)B(𝐥^{})`$, is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{S}}{\mathrm{N}}}\right)^2=`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{sky}}(2l+1)\left[C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}\right]^2}{\left[C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}\right]^2+2\left[\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left\{C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right\}\right]^2N_l^{BX}C_l^{B,\mathrm{t}}}},`$ (20)
where $`f_{\mathrm{sky}}`$ is the fraction of sky covered and noise contributions given by $`N_l^{BX}`$ where

$$N_l^{BX}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2𝐥_1}{(2\pi )^2}W^2(𝐥,𝐥_1)\left[C_{l_1}^{B,\mathrm{t}}C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X,\mathrm{t}}+C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{B,\mathrm{t}}C_{l_1}^{X,\mathrm{t}}\right],$$
(21)
is the noise associated with $`(BX)`$ statistic. In above, $`C_l^{B,\mathrm{t}}`$, and $`C_l^{X,\mathrm{t}}`$, are the total contributions to B-mode and X-fields respectively. We can write these contributions as $`C_l^{i,\mathrm{t}}=C_l^i+C_l^n+C_l^s`$ where $`C_l^n`$ is any noise contribution, for example, instrumental noise in the B-map, and $`C_l^s`$ any secondary contribution, such as the dominant lensing contribution in the B-map.

In order to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio for the extraction of primordial polarization power spectra, we follow the approach in Ref.  and consider a description for the filter. The maximum signal-to-noise ratio is obtained when

$`W(𝐥,𝐥_1)={\displaystyle \frac{\left[C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X\varphi }(𝐥𝐥_1)𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{𝐥_1})+C_{l_1}^{X\varphi }𝐥_1𝐥\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _𝐥\phi _{|𝐥𝐥_1|})\right]}{\left[C_{l_1}^{B,\mathrm{t}}C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{X,\mathrm{t}}+C_{|𝐥𝐥_1|}^{B,\mathrm{t}}C_{l_1}^{X,\mathrm{t}}\right]}}.`$ (22)
We can define similar filters for the extraction of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ from $`(BX)`$ or $`(EX)`$ estimators as well. In analogous to above, these filters involve the noise contributions in the $`(BX)`$ and $`(EX)`$ maps and the behavior of the function that integrates over the filter in each of the integrals in equations (15) to (18). Since each estimate of $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ and $`C_l^{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ comes from two independent statistics involving $`(EX)`$ and $`(BX)`$, we add the individual signal-to-noise estimates of the two. This is equivalent to weighing individual noise contributions inversely.

## III Discussion

We summarize our main results in figure 1 for the extraction of primordial polarization power spectra based on information related to lensing modification to CMB anisotropies. For the reconstruction, we assume a gravitational-wave contribution to B-modes with a tensor-to-scalar ratio of 0.25 and assume no instrumental-noise contributions to polarization observations today. When calculating noise, we include additional secondary noise contribution from lensing to $`E`$ and $`B`$ maps. For simplicity, we also take a tracer field, $`X`$, that corresponds to lensing potentials themselves. Thus, signal-to-noise ratios shown in figure 1 should be considered as optimistic values. Any noise contribution to polarization observations and a tracer field which is less correlated with $`\varphi `$ will lead to a degradation in the signal-to-noise ratios of primordial polarization reconstruction from the ones shown here.

With $`X=\varphi `$, the assumption here is that one can use a properly cleaned CMB temperature map to reconstruct lensing deflections following the approach in  and apply such a construction to polarization observations to reduce contamination from lensing to gravitational-wave detection. We include a noise-contribution to the $`X`$ field, when calculating $`C_l^{X,\mathrm{t}}`$, following the noise calculation for $`\varphi `$ extracted from a no instrumental-noise CMB temperature map in Ref. . Additionally possibilities for $`X`$ include a frequency cleaned SZ map, a map of the convergence from large scale structure lensing observations, the galaxy distribution from surveys such as Sloan but imaging out to a higher redshift; Since contributions to lensing in CMB comes at redshifts of a few and more, in general, a tracer field out to redshifts of $``$ 3 to 5 will be required to appropriately apply this method.

As suggested, the primordial polarization construction is more important for B-modes, given that they contain the distinct signature of gravitational waves, than E-modes. For the extraction of the B-mode power spectrum, we estimate a cumulative signal-to-noise ratio of $``$ 16. The cumulative signal-to-noise for the detection of this contribution, under the assumption that the contaminant lensing contribution can be treated as a known source of noise, is of order $``$ 40. The suggested reconstruction here leads to a roughly a factor of $``$ 2.5 decrease in the associated signal-to-noise ratio. The reconstruction, however, has the advantage that one does not need to make any assumptions on the lensing contribution to the power spectrum of B-modes. Relaxing our assumption of a tensor-to-scalar ratio of 0.25, we find that the suggested extraction can be used to separate primordial B-modes with at least a signal-to-noise ratio of 1 when the tensor-to-scalar ratio is of order 0.01. Though we have not separated individual signal-to-noise values, the reconstruction of B-modes has less noise with the combination of $`(BX)`$ statistic correlated with a map of B-modes instead of $`(EX)`$ correlated with B-modes. This is because the dominant noise associated with E-modes in $`(EX)`$ limit the reconstruction of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-modes significantly. The signal-to-noise values for the reconstruction of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$-modes have similar values whether $`(EX)`$ or $`(BX)`$ is used. This reconstruction has a cumulative signal-to-noise in excess of $`10^3`$ both due to its high contribution and the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$-mode power spectrum peak at arcminute scales compared to $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-mode power spectrum which peaks at degree scales.

It is clear that the reconstruction analysis can be best done for the extraction of primordial $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$-modes. The low signal-to-noise values for $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-modes, however, should not discourage from attempting to do analysis like the one suggested here in upcoming CMB data. The ultimate, and challenging, detection of gravitational wave signature, which, in principle, gives a handle on the inflationary energy scale requires various statistical techniques so that this contribution can be identified confusion free. Since lensing contribution dominates the B-mode signal, we have exploited its use as a possible way to extract primordial polarization field. Given the importance of detecting gravitational waves for future cosmological studies, statistics such as the one discussed are clearly warranted for further studies.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by DoE DE-FG03-92-ER40701 and a senior research fellowship from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation.


text:
# Dust en-route to Jupiter and the Galilean satellites

## 1 Introduction

Until the 1970s, when the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft passed by Jupiter, the exploration of the giant planet and its satellites was restricted to remote astronomical observations from the Earth. It was pure speculation whether dust would exist in the environment of Jupiter. Pioneer 10/11 were equipped with in-situ dust detectors which recorded several impacts when the spacecraft flew by Jupiter . Due to the relatively high detection threshold of the penetration detectors, however, only particles larger than several micrometers could be recognized.

The next spacecraft to visit Jupiter were Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. Although they did not carry dedicated dust detectors on board, they drastically changed our knowledge of dust in the Jovian system. Jupiter’s rings were discovered by remote sensing with Voyager 1, although earlier hints that this faint dusty ring might exist came from a dip in the density of charged particles measured near Pioneer 11’s closest approach to Jupiter , as well as from the impact events recorded by the Pioneer dust detectors. Typical grain sizes derived from the Voyager images were a few micrometers for the faint gossamer ring, whereas the main ring turned out to be composed of macroscopic rocky material. Another discovery by Voyager was tidally driven active volcanism on Io, Jupiter’s innermost Galilean moon. At the time it was speculated that small dust grains entrained in Io’s plumes may get accelerated away from Io by electromagnetic forces .

The next major step forward in the investigation of Jovian dust came from the Ulysses spacecraft which flew by the planet in 1992. Ulysses is equipped with a highly sensitive impact-ionization dust detector capable of measuring dust grains down to sizes of 0.1$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. With Ulysses, periodic collimated streams of dust particles with up to 2000 impacts per day were discovered while the spacecraft was within 2 AU from the giant planet  (Fig. 1). The streams occurred at approximately monthly intervals ($`28\pm 3`$ days) and their impact directions implied that the grains originated from the Jovian system. No periodic phenomenon for small dust grains in interplanetary space was known before.

Confirmation of the Jupiter dust streams came from the Galileo spacecraft which carries a twin of the Ulysses dust detector on board : dust “storms” with up to 10,000 impacts per day were recorded while Galileo was within 0.5 AU from the planet. . Since December 1995, Galileo has been the first man-made spacecraft in orbit about a giant planet of our solar system. It explores Jupiter, its satellites and its huge magnetosphere. With the Galileo dust detector the dust streams seen in interplanetary space were also detected within the planet’s magnetosphere. The grains showed a strong electromagnetic interaction with the Jovian magnetic field (see Sect. 2).

In December 2000 the Cassini spacecraft flew by Jupiter on its way to Saturn and provided a unique opportunity for simultaneous two-spacecraft measurements of the Jovian dust streams. The Cassini cosmic dust analyser  measured the chemical composition of dust stream particles in-situ for the first time.

Apart from the Jovian dust streams, Galileo allowed for studies of impact-generated dust clouds surrounding the Galilean satellites  (Sect. 3), a tenuous dust ring in the region between the Galilean satellites  and further out from the satellites  as well as interplanetary and interstellar particles captured by the Jovian magnetosphere  (Sect. 4). The detection of most of the observed features was unexpected and their discovery has greatly expanded our knowledge about dust in the Jovian magnetosphere.

Comprehensive reviews of more than 10 years of dust measurements with Ulysses and Galileo focussing on Jovian dust as well as interplanetary and interstellar dust have also been given by Grün et al.  and Krüger et al. .

## 2 Jupiter dust streams

### 2.1 Electromagnetically interacting dust

The impact directions of the dust stream particles measured with Galileo and Ulysses in interplanetary space were close to the line-of-sight direction to Jupiter. The approach direction of most streams, however, deviated too much from the direction to Jupiter to be explained by gravitational forces alone. This deviation was correlated with the magnitude and the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field  which implied that strong non-gravitational forces must have been acting on the grains. The observed 28 day period in the impact rate (Fig. 1) was most likely caused by changes in the tangential component of the solar wind magnetic field which periodically accelerated the particles towards and away from the ecliptic plane . Numerical simulations showed that only particles with velocities in excess of 200 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and radii in the range $`5\mathrm{nm}s15\mathrm{nm}`$ were compatible with the observations . Larger (smaller) grains did not interact enough (interacted too strongly) with the interplanetary magnetic field to explain the observed impact directions. This demonstrated that the solar wind magnetic field acts as a giant mass-velocity spectrometer for charged dust grains.

Strong electromagnetic interaction of dust grains was also found with the Galileo detector within the Jovian magnetosphere. Figure 2 shows an example of the impact rate measured with Galileo in the inner part of the magnetosphere. During this and most other times when Galileo collected data in this spatial region, the impact rate fluctuated with 5 and 10 h periodicities and the fluctuations typically exceeded 2 orders of magnitude. Furthermore, the impact directions of the grains and the measured charge rise times and charge amplitudes which were used to derive particle speeds and masses showed similar fluctuations . These fluctuations were correlated with the position of Galileo in the Jovian magnetic field (cf. bottom panel of Fig. 2). Due to a $`9.6^{}`$ tilt of Jupiter’s magnetic axis with respect to the planet’s rotation axis the magnetic equator sweeps over the spacecraft in either up- or downward direction every 5 h.

In addition to the 5 and 10 h periods which are compatible with Jupiter’s rotation period, a modulation of the impact rate with Io’s orbital period (42 h) could also be recognized during some time intervals (e.g. Galileo orbits E4 , G7  and C9 ) while at other times an Io modulation was missing (e.g. Galileo orbit G2, Fig. 2). A detailed frequency analysis of a two year dataset showed Io’s orbital frequency as a “carrier frequency” and primary source of the Jovian dust streams . Jupiter’s magnetic field frequency modulates Io’s frequency signal, giving rise to modulation sidelobe products seen around first order (10 h) and harmonic (5 h) Jupiter magnetic field frequencies. These modulation products confirm Io’s role as a primary source of the Jovian dust streams. Io as a source can best explain the time series analysis results showing Io’s orbit periodicity.

An Io source is also compatible with the deduced particle sizes of $`10\mathrm{nm}`$: photometric observations of the Io plumes obtained with Voyager imply a size range of 5 to 15 nm , in agreement with numerical simulations . Recent Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations constrained the grains to be smaller than 80 nm . Hence, given the ejection speeds of more than 200 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, Io turned out to be a source for interplanetary and interstellar dust!

The suggested mechanism to eject dust grains from within the Jovian magnetosphere matched the size and velocity range of the observed stream particles by recognizing that these grains become positively charged in the Io plasma torus and can get accelerated by Jupiter’s corotational electric field . As grains traverse the various plasma regions in the torus, however, their charge will not remain constant. Dust grains escaping Io’s plumes first enter the cold plasma torus where they become negatively charged ($`3\mathrm{V}`$). Grains that reach the outer hot regions of the torus change their sign of charge to positive ($`+3\mathrm{V}`$) because of secondary electron emission. Once positively charged, grains will be accelerated by the outward pointing corotational electric field. They will leave the Jovian system if their radii are between about 9 and 180 nm . Smaller grains remain tied to the magnetic field lines and gyrate around them like ions do, whereas bigger grains move on gravitationally bound orbits which are – depending on the particle size – more or less affected by the Lorentz force. Recent investigations showed that a higher secondary electron yield which leads to potentials of $`5\mathrm{V}`$ in the cold torus and $`+5\mathrm{V}`$ elsewhere gives better agreement with the observations .

Since Io is located very close to Jupiter’s equatorial plane, the particles are to a first order approximation accelerated outward along this plane. Because of the $`9.6^{}`$ tilt of Jupiter’s magnetic field with respect to the planet’s rotation axis, however, the particles also experience a significant out-of-plane component of the Lorentz acceleration: particles continuously released from Io move away from Jupiter in a warped dust sheet which has been nick-named ’Jupiter’s dusty ballerina skirt’ . A detector attached to a spacecraft moving in Jupiter’s equatorial plane detects an increased number of particles when this dust sheet sweeps over its position. The 5 and 10 h fluctuations in the dust impact rate as well as the impact directions of grains observed by Galileo  can be explained with this scenario of electromagnetically coupled dust grains. However, only grains within a narrow size range around 10 nm are in agreement with the observed features. Smaller and larger stream particles were not detected with the Galileo dust instrument.

The charge of a particle escaping from the Io torus strongly depends on variations in the plasma density and temperature in space and time and thus is a function of Io’s position at the time of particle release. In fact, the position where a particle is released from the torus is correlated with Io’s position (Graps, priv. comm.). In addition, the torus shows a strong dawn-to-dusk asymmetry in the plasma conditions that influence the escape of the dust particles. Grain charges are more negative on the dawn side of the torus where a lower electron temperature leads to a reduced secondary electron production. Particles on the dawn side remain captured in the torus for longer times because of their lower positive charge. Six years of Galileo dust stream measurements clearly show a variation of the flux with Jovian local time: significantly higher dust fluxes were measured on the dawn and on the dusk sides than on the noon side of Jupiter (Krüger et al., in prep.) as predicted by numerical modelling . Thus, the Jovian dust streams serve as tracers of the plasma conditions in the Io torus.

The fly-by of the Cassini spacecraft at Jupiter in December 2000 provided a unique opportunity for a two-spacecraft time-of-flight measurement (Cassini-Galileo) of particles from one collimated stream from the Jovian dust streams. Particles in a stream were detected with Galileo as the spacecraft was inside the Jovian magnetosphere close to the orbit of Europa (about 12$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$), and then particles in the same stream were detected by Cassini outside the magnetosphere (at 140$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$). The Cassini data imply that particles of different sizes have different phases with respect to Jupiter’s rotation (Kempf et al., in prep.), a result which was also seen in earlier Galileo data . The comparison of the measurements from both dust instruments, however, is hampered by the higher detection sensitivity of the Cassini detector with respect to the Galileo detector. Both instruments have detected stream particles with different sizes and, hence, different phases. The analysis is ongoing and more detailed modelling to describe the phase relation of different-sized particles is in progress. The present analysis indicates particle speeds of about $`400\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This value is in agreement with speeds for 5 nm particles as derived from dynamical modelling and earlier studies of the Jovian dust stream dynamics .

The Cassini dust instrument is equipped with a time-of-flight mass spectrometer which measures the elemental composition of dust grains with a mass resolution $`\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{M}100`$. During Cassini’s approach to Jupiter impact spectra of a few hundred dust stream particles have been measured and their chemical composition reflects the chemistry found on Io. With the Cassini instrument the surface composition of a satellite other than our Moon has been measured directly.

### 2.2 Io as a source of dust in the Jovian system

How significant is Io as a source of cosmic dust? How does the amount of dust ejected compare with other dust sources in the solar system? With a simple calculation we can derive the total dust production rate of Io. Given the spread of Io dust along and away from Jupiter’s equatorial plane, we assume a cone-shaped emission pattern of dust originating at Jupiter. We assume a cone opening angle of $`35^{}`$ and isotropic dust emission towards all jovigraphic longitudes. Although Galileo measurements were obtained only along the Jovian equatorial plane, this opening angle is justified by the Ulysses measurements. Ulysses measured the dust streams at $`35^{}`$ jovigraphic latitude after Jupiter fly-by (cf. Fig. 1). For a given impact rate $`R`$, particle density $`\rho =2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, particle radius $`a=10\mathrm{nm}`$, a detector sensitive area of $`A=0.02\mathrm{m}^2`$ and a cone radius $`r=`$ 30$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ the total amount of dust emitted from Io per second can be calculated. With $`R=0.1\mathrm{}100`$ impacts per minute detected from 1996 to 2001 the average dust ejection rate is $`10\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$ to 10 $`\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{s}^1`$(Fig. 3). If we take a typical value of 1$`\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ of dust and compare it with $`1\mathrm{ton}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ of plasma ejected from Io into the torus, the dust amounts to only 0.1% of the total mass released. These numbers indicate that Io’s volcanic plumes are also a minor source for interplanetary dust compared with comets or main belt asteroids . Io, however, turns out to be a major dust source for the Jovian system itself. The total mass of dust produced by Io as 10 nm-sized particles is comparable to the mass of dust ejected as micrometer-sized particles by the other Galilean satellites, which have no volcanic activity (Sect. 3).

The Jovian dust stream measurements can serve as a monitor of Io’s volcanic plume activity. With Galileo imaging ten active plumes have been observed which is comparable with nine plumes seen by Voyager . At least tow types of plumes can be distinguished: large, faint ones, with short-lived or intermittent activity (Pele-type) or small, bright, long-lived ones (Prometheus-type). The most powerful plume ever detected on Io, Pele, is the archetype of the first category and was observed to an altitude of more that 400 km . Pele is also the location of the most stable high-temperature hot-spot on Io and is probably related to an active lava lake. Plumes are normally related to hot spots but not vice versa. The Pele plume is known to be rich in $`\mathrm{S}_2`$ gas as well as $`\mathrm{SO}_2`$ . Although it has been suggested that the Pele plume may be a pure gas plume, plume observations can also be interpreted as due to very fine ($`80\mathrm{nm}`$) particulates .

It is of special interest to see whether variations in the dust production rate deduced from the dust stream measurements can be related to the activity of the Pele or other plumes on Io, or to the total thermal output of the satellite. A correlation with the activity of the Pele plume seems most promising because only the most powerful plumes are expected to accelerate the grains to sufficient altitudes so that they can finally escape from the satellite .

The dust production of Io for individual orbits of Galileo is shown in Fig. 3. Here, the vertical bars indicate the variation in the derived dust production rate if we vary the jovicentric distance at which the dust flux is taken between 10 and 30$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ during one orbit. This reveals a strong variation in the dust production rate from orbit to orbit which is up to two orders of magnitude. If the plasma conditions in the Io torus and the Jovian magnetic field did not change too drastically from orbit to orbit, it reflects the variation of the activity of the Io plumes.

We have compared the dust production rate shown in Fig. 3 with the total thermal output of Io deduced from Galileo near-infrared measurements (Spencer, priv. comm.). Unfortunately, this did not give a clear picture. This negative result, however, is not too surprising because Io’s overall thermal output is not very well correlated with plume activity. The Pele plume was observed in July 1995, July 1996, December 1996 and possibly July 1997 . It was absent in June 1996, February 1997, June 1997 and July 1999. Although, the strong drop in the dust impact rate from December 1996 to February 1997 (E4 to E6 orbit) is consistent with these detections/non-detections, for other measurements it is not. Especially, the non-detection of the plume on 2 July 1999 is in contradiction with the large measured dust emission.

A correlation of the in-situ dust measurements with either Galileo or Earth-based imaging observations turns out to be very difficult because the imaging observations represent only sporadic glimpses. Many more observations would be needed to establish a firm link between the Galileo dust measurements and the activity of (an) individual plume(s) on Io. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the plume activity sometimes changes on timescales of days to weeks. Ideally, one would need imaging observations at exactly the same time as the dust measurements.

We have also estimated the Io dust production from the measurements of Galileo and Ulysses in interplanetary space out to 1 AU from Jupiter assuming again that the dust is uniformly distributed into a cone of $`35^{}`$. This leads to unrealistically high dust production rates of more than $`10^7`$ $`\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. It indicates that this simple picture cannot be extrapolated to interplanetary space and that the dust is not distributed uniformly to such large distances. Rather, the dust particle trajectories must undergo some focussing effect due to electromagnetic interaction with the interplanetary magnetic field.

Additional evidence for such a focussing effect came from Galileo measurements in 2000 when the spacecraft has left the Jovian magnetosphere for the first time since 1995. Measurements outside the magnetosphere at a distance of $`280`$$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ (0.13 AU) from Jupiter gave a surprisingly high impact rate of up to 10 impacts per minute (Fig. 4). This value was comparable with the rates detected both in interplanetary space (Fig. 1) and close to Jupiter during Galileo’s early orbital mission (Fig. 2).

In May and June 2000 (days 145 to 170), while Galileo was receding from Jupiter (from 10 to 170$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$), the impact rate dropped by more than two orders of magnitude (from 0.05 to 0.0005 impacts per minute). This drop was close to the inverse square of the source distance. When Galileo was outside the magnetosphere, beyond $``$200$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ from Jupiter (after day 180), the impact rate increased by about four orders of magnitude. Between August and October 2000 (days 230 to 280), Galileo remained more or less stationary with respect to Jupiter and Io, and the impact rate remained remarkably constant for about two months with roughly 1 impact per minute. Assuming – as before – that dust particles get ejected into a $`35^{}`$ cone, this leads to a dust production of Io of $`100`$$`\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. It seems unlikely that such a high dust production is maintained over such a long time period. More likely is a focussing effect of the grains due to the boundary between the Jovian magnetosphere and the interaction with the interplanetary magnetic field. Interestingly, the impact directions measured with Galileo indicate that the grains approached the sensor from a direction very close to the ecliptic plane. Similarly high impact rates were was also detected with the Cassini dust instrument  in September 2000 at $`0.3`$AU from Jupiter when the spacecraft was approaching the planet (Kempf et al., in prep.).

Frequency analysis of the Galileo dust impact rates measured beyond $`250`$ $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ did not reveal 5 and 10 h periodicities as was seen within the magnetosphere. Instead, a strong peak at Io’s orbital period showed up in the frequency spectrum (A. Graps, priv. comm.), much stronger than seen close to Jupiter.

## 3 Dust-enshrouded satellites

Between December 1995 and January 2002 the Galileo spacecraft had a total of 31 targeted encounters with all four Galilean satellites. During many of these fly-bys the impact rate of dust grains showed a sharp peak within about half an hour centered on closest approach to the satellite . This indicated the existence of dust concentrations in the close vicinities of Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. No dust cloud could be measured close to Io because the spacecraft orientation prevented the detection of dust particles during all fly-bys at this satellite.

Analysis of the impact directions and impact speeds showed that the grains belonged to steady-state dust clouds surrounding the satellites . The measured radial density profiles of the dust clouds (Fig. 5) together with detailed modelling of the impact-ejection process implied that the particles had been kicked up by hypervelocity impacts of micrometeoroids onto the satellite’s surface . The projectiles were most likely interplanetary dust particles.

The measured mass distribution of the grains was consistent with such an ejection mechanism with grain sizes being mostly in the range 0.5 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ $`s`$ 1.0 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. It implied that the particle dynamics was dominated by gravitational forces, whereas non-gravitatonal, especially electromagnetic forces were negligible. Most ejected grains follow ballistic trajectories and fall back to the surface within minutes after they have been released. Only a small fraction of the ejecta has sufficient energy to remain at high altitudes for several hours to a few days. Although they eventually strike the satellite’s surface, these short-lived but continuously replenished particles form a tenuous steady-state dust cloud which entirely envelopes the satellite. The total amount of debris contained in such a steady-state cloud is roughly 10 tons.

The optical thickness of the cloud is by far too low to be detectable with imaging techniques. Only a highly sensitive detector of the Galileo/Ulysses type could recognize a sufficient number of grains to detect these clouds. The low dust density is illustrated by the fact that only 35 cloud particles impacted the detector during 4 fly-bys at Ganymede .

A detailed analysis of the entire Galileo dataset for the three Galilean satellites is ongoing. One goal is to check for signatures of a leading-trailing asymmetry of the ejecta clouds, which can be expected from the orbital motion of the satellite with respect to the field of impactors .

The Galileo measurements are the first successful in-situ detection of satellite ejecta in the vicinity of a source moon. All celestial bodies without gaseous atmospheres (asteroids, planetary satellites of all sizes) should be surrounded by an ejecta dust cloud. Before Galileo, there were few attempts of direct in-situ detections of ejecta close to satellites — most notably, near the Moon . These experiments, however, did not lead to definite results.

## 4 Dusty Jovian rings

Apart from Io dust streams (Sect. 2) and circum-satellite ejecta-clouds (Sect. 3) the in-situ Galileo measurements have revealed additional populations of Jovian dust (Tab. 1): since the beginning of Galileo’s orbital tour about Jupiter the dust detector has measured more than 400 impacts of mostly micrometer-sized grains widely distributed in circum-jovian space. Although the highest fluxes of grains occurred in the region between Io’s and Callisto’s orbit ($`6`$ to 26$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ from Jupiter, , Fig. 6) impacts were also detected out to 200$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ and beyond. These grains form a tenuous dust ring around Jupiter with a number density of $`210^2\mathrm{km}^3`$ at Europa’s orbit. The spatial locations where these grains were detected, the impact directions and the charge signals imply that these are actually two populations: besides a population of particles on prograde orbits about Jupiter, another population on retrograde orbits must exist as well . The grains on retrograde orbits are most likely interplanetary or interstellar grains captured by the Jovian magnetosphere . Numerical models show that a tiny fraction of the impact debris released from the surface of the satellites by hypervelocity impacts (Sect. 3) is ejected at speeds sufficient to escape from the satellites entirely  (an amount of $`10\mathrm{g}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ has been estimated to leave Ganymede). The ejected material goes into orbit about Jupiter and forms a tenuous ring of dust particles mostly on prograde orbits. This ring extends at least from Io’s orbit (5.9$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ from Jupiter) out to Callisto’s orbit (26$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$) but the dust detections indicate that it continues further out and further in (see below).

In the outer region of the Jovian system, between 50 and 300 $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$, about 100 dust impacts were detected. Their orbits are compatible with prograde and retrograde jovicentric orbits with a wide range of inclinations . The number densities of $`10\mathrm{km}^3`$ are more than an order of magnitude lower than those found in the region between the Galilean satellites but, on the other hand, by about an order of magnitude larger than the interplanetary background. Sources for these grains are Jupiter’s outer regular and irregular moons.

Indications for the existence of the ring can already be found in earlier measurements by the Pioneer 10/11 and Ulysses spacecraft: 12 meteoroid penetrations have been recorded with Pioneer within 45$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ (Jupiter radius, $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ = 71,492 km) from Jupiter  and Ulysses has recorded 9 impacts of micrometer-sized dust grains in this spatial region. Two-third of the Ulysses impacts were detected at $`35^{}`$ jovigraphic latitude after Jupiter fly-by.

Between Io’s orbit at 5.9$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$ and the outer extension of the gossamer ring at about 3.1$`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{J}`$, extremely little is presently known about the dust environment. Although Galileo has traversed part of this region during orbit insertion in December 1995, dust measurements were very patchy because the instrument had to be saved from the hazards of Jupiter’s radiation environment. However, a few probably micrometer-sized dust impacts were detected within Io’s orbit .

Still closer to Jupiter lies the region of Jupiter’s prominent ring system which consists of three components: the main ring, the halo and the tenuous gossamer rings. Here, the dust densities are so large that dust investigations habe been performed with remote sensing techniques. The vertical extension and density profiles of the rings imply that a significant fraction if not all of the dust forming the rings is impact-ejecta derived from the inner moons Adrastea and Metis (in the case of the main ring), and Amalthea and Thebe (in the case of the gossamer rings ). These satellites orbit Jupiter inside the ring system. The motion of the dust grains in a certain size range contained in the gossamer ring is most probably dominated by the Poynting-Robertson drag force, indicating that the plasma density in this region is much lower than previously thought .

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

The Galileo dust measurements have drastically expanded our knowledge about dust in the Jupiter system. In fact, Jovian dust has been studied to at least a similar extent as cosmic (i.e. non-artificial) dust in the Earth environment. The properties of the various Jovian dust populations studied in-situ with Galileo are summarised in Tab. 1.

All Galilean satellites are sources of dust in the Jovian system. The Galileo measurements have for the first time demonstrated the electromagnetic interaction of charged dust grains with a planetary magnetosphere. Jupiter’s magnetosphere acts as a giant mass-velocity spectrometer for charged dust grains in space. The Io dust streams can be used as a potential monitor of the activity of Io’s plume activity.

The Io dust stream particles probe the conditions in the Io plasma torus. Since in a completely radially symmetric plasma and magnetic field configuration no 10 h period should show up in the impact rate, only the 5 h period should be there. The prominent modulation of the rate with the 10 h period points to variations in the acceleration mechanism of the grains correlated with Jovian local time which are presently not completely understood.

In February 2004, Ulysses will approach Jupiter to 0.8 AU again. Additional dust stream measurements with Ulysses in interplanetary space at high jovigraphic latitudes and for varying Jovian local times will be beneficial to test our understanding of this new phenomenon.

The Galileo measurements of impact-generated dust clouds surrounding the Galilean satellites can be considered as unique natural impact experiments to study the dust ejection mechanism due to hypervelocity impacts onto celestial bodies without atmospheres. They complement laboratory experiments in an astrophysically relevant environment. Although far from being perfect impact experiments, the Galileo results offer two extremely important improvements over laboratory experiments: 1) the projectile and target materials and projectile speeds are astrophysically relevant, and 2) the masses and speeds of the ejecta particles can be determined in an important region of parameter space (micrometre sizes and $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ impact speeds). This is especially important in view of the Cassini mission. Cassini will start its exploration of the Saturnian system in 2004 and will fly by several of Saturn’s satellites during its orbital tour about the giant planet. It will provide a unique opportunity to study the dust environments of many of the small Saturnian satellites.

Although considered to be the archetype of an ethereal dusty planetary ring, the Jovian gossamer and main ring system has been relatively incompletely studied to date. The in-situ measurements of ejecta grains escaping from the circum-satellite dust clouds and images of Jupiter’s main and gossamer rings have demonstrated that impact-ejecta derived from hypervelocity impacts onto satellites is the major – if not the only – constituent of these dusty planetary rings. The details of the complex dynamics of grains over a large size range and under the various forces acting on the grains are as yet only poorly understood.

In November 2002 – during its final orbit about Jupiter – Galileo will traverse the gossamer ring system and fly by Amalthea (Fig. 7). Detailed in-situ studies of the dust grains in the gossamer rings will provide a better understanding of the forces dominating the grain dynamics in the rings (gravity, Lorentz force, plasma drag, Poynting-Robertson drag, radiation pressure). The relative importance of each force varies strongly with grain size and distance from the planet and leads to drastically different size distributions at different locations along the gossamer rings and in the main ring. Investigation of why the Poyting-Robertson drag dominates over the other forces will lead to a comprehensive picture of the grain dynamics in the gossamer ring, a neccessary step in deriving a full picture of the dust dynamics throughout the Jovian magnetosphere. In-situ studies of the ring material can provide valuable information about the surface properties of the source moons. Comparative studies of ejecta from the large Galilean moons and the smaller ones embedded in the gossamer rings will provide information about the ejection process over a large range in speed not accessible in the laboratory. Especially the close fly-by at Amalthea ($`<300`$km) will allow to test on a small moon the models for the impact-ejection process which have been developed for the much larger Galilean satellites.

In-situ dust measurements provide information about the physical properties of the dust environment not accessible with imaging techniques. Since all dusty planetary rings in our solar system are most likely dominated by impact-ejecta, studies of Jupiter’s gossamer ring provide valuable information not only about the mechanism feeding this ring system but also about the processes that govern planetary rings in general. Studies of the Jovian ring with Galileo and of the Saturnian ring with Cassini will lead to a vastly improved understanding of the formation and evolution of dusty planetary rings.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the Ulysses and Galileo projects at ESA and NASA/JPL for effective and successful mission operations. We also wish to express our gratefulness to our co-investigators. Without their continuous efforts over the years the results presented here would not have been achievable. We are also grateful to John R. Spencer and John Stansberry who provided thermal near-infrared data of Io. This research has been supported by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung through Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR, grant 50 QJ 9503 3). Support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) are also gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Multiple Functionality in Nanotube Transistors

## Abstract

Calculations of quantum transport in a carbon nanotube transistor show that such a device offers unique functionality. It can operate as a ballistic field-effect transistor, with excellent characteristics even when scaled to 10 nm dimensions. At larger gate voltages, channel inversion leads to resonant tunneling through an electrostatically defined nanoscale quantum dot. Thus the transistor becomes a gated resonant-tunneling device, with negative differential resistance at a tunable threshold. For the dimensions considered here, the device operates in the Coulomb blockade regime, even at room temperature.

In the quest for nanoscale devices, carbon nanotubes (NTs)  have emerged as a promising material with unique electronic and mechanical properties. Theoretical studies of NT devices have focused primarily on two-terminal devices . However, practical device architectures generally require three-terminal devices; and current technology is built primarily around field-effect transistors (FETs). A number of groups have fabricated NT-based FETs , and have demonstrated promising transistor functionality. The devices realized experimentally typically have dimensions in the micron range. However, the real promise of NTs lies in the possibility of nanoscale devices. At this size scale, new effects can become important, creating new problems but also new opportunities.

Here we show that a nanoscale NT FET offers unique functionality that goes beyond any existing device. The device geometry we consider, shown in Fig. 1, is a straightforward idealization of that already used for NT FETs , and does not require doping  or structural modification  of the nanotube. Our calculations show that, for a 10 nm channel length, the device operates as an excellent ballistic transistor, with current saturation at high bias. In addition, the gate voltage can be used to drive the channel into inversion, defining a nanoscale “quantum dot”. Tunneling through a state localized in the dot gives strong negative differential resistance, even at room temperature. The FET can thus operate as a gated resonant tunneling device. This approach lifts one of the major limitations of resonant tunneling diodes — the resonance occurs at a source-drain voltage that can be directly controlled via the gate voltage .

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the device consists of a single-wall, semiconducting carbon NT. It is embedded in metal contacts on either side, defining the source and drain. Between the source and drain electrodes, an insulating dielectric surrounds the NT up to a radius of 10 nm. A cylindrical gate of radius 10 nm wraps the dielectric and serves to control the device behavior. In our calculations, the NT and the metals are separated by a van der Waals distance of 0.3 nm. (The insulator has dielectric constant $`\epsilon =3.9`$, as for SiO2, and it is also separated from the tube by 0.3 nm.)

We treat a zigzag NT of index (17,0), which has radius 0.66 nm and band gap 0.55 eV. The qualitative aspects of our results also apply to other semiconducting NTs. We use a tight-binding Hamiltonian with one $`\pi `$ orbital per carbon atom and a nearest-neighbor matrix element of 2.5 eV . The metal Fermi level is chosen to be 1 eV below the NT midgap. (For the NT midgap 4.5 eV below the vacuum level , this corresponds to a metal workfunction of 5.5 eV, roughly that of Au and Pt.)

We first examine the conductance of the device at low source-drain voltage, as the gate voltage is varied. For a given gate voltage, we obtain the zero-bias conductance from

$$G=\frac{4e^2}{h}P(E)\left[\frac{f(E)}{E}\right]𝑑E,$$
(1)
where the energy $`E`$ is relative to the Fermi level, $`P(E)`$ is the electron transmission probability across the device at energy $`E`$, and $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi function. We calculate $`P(E)`$ using the quantum-transport procedure of Ref. , which requires the electrostatic potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ along the NT. (Our device is much smaller than observed scattering lengths , so there is no need to include scattering other than reflection by the device itself.) The NT device is divided into three regions: two semi-infinite “leads”, and a “device region”, which is 18.3 nm in length here unless otherwise specified. Within the scattering region we use the full self-consistent potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$. The potentials in the leads are taken as constant, and equal to the potentials at the boundaries of the scattering region.

To obtain the self-consistent potential, as in Ref.  we start from a charge $`\sigma (z)`$, and obtain $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ by solving Poisson’s equation with boundary conditions set by the source, drain, and gate voltages, with the dielectric. The electronic charge $`\sigma (z)`$ is re-calculated using $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$, and the procedure is iterated to self-consistency. (Thus charge transfer and energy alignment between NT and metal electrode is included self-consistently.) To calculate $`\sigma (z)`$, the “scattering region” is periodically repeated, the diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian are shifted by $`e\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$, the local density of states on each atomic site is obtained by direct diagonalization of the Hamiltonian, and the charge on each site is given by integration of the product of the local density of states and the Fermi function. (Modifications to include Coulomb blockade effects are discussed below.) The charge associated with a “ring” of atoms is approximated as uniformly distributed over a length 0.07 nm of the NT cylinder and over a radial thickness of 0.1 nm. The potential is not sensitive to the details of this approximation . Because the NT does not form covalent bonds with the metal or dielectric, we focus on the limit of weak metal-NT coupling. Then the matrix elements of the NT Hamiltonian are unaffected by the metal, but charge transfer between metal and NT (and the resulting electrostatic potential) must still be included.

Figure 2a shows the calculated conductance as a function of gate voltage $`V_G`$. Three distinct regimes are seen. At low $`V_G`$ (region I in Fig. 2a), the device exhibits high conductance, while at higher $`V_G`$ (region II in Fig. 2a) the conductance drops to practically zero. These correspond to the “on” and “off” states of a FET. In addition, there is a third regime (region III of Fig. 2a) which has no analog in conventional transistors. Here the conductance rises sharply with $`V_G`$, and then drops to practically zero again.

This behavior can be understood in terms of the band diagram of the device in the respective regimes. Figure 2b shows the band diagram at low $`V_G`$. The Fermi level falls below the valence-band edge of the NT, due to the high metal workfunction, so there is substantial free charge (as holes) in the leads. There is essentially no barrier to hole transport through the channel of the device, explaining the very high conductance. (The highest conductance possible is 1 on this scale, corresponding to perfect transmission through the device.)

With increasing $`V_G`$, the bands in the channel are pulled down in energy, Fig. 2c. This creates a substantial energy barrier for transport of holes across the depleted channel, turning off the current. The gate voltage required to turn off the device could be reduced by increasing the channel length or reducing the gate radius.

With increasing gate voltage $`V_G`$, conduction-band states are electrostatically pulled down into the band gap. The resulting quantum confinement defines a “quantum dot” with localized states, Fig. 2d. For sufficiently large $`V_G`$, the lowest energy level of the quantum dot drops below the asymptotic valence band edge. Electrons (or equivalently, holes) can then tunnel through the quantum dot, giving a sharp rise in conductance. At this point the quantum-dot level is a resonance, rather than truly localized. The conductance is maximal when the localized level reaches the Fermi level. Once the level drops more than $`k_BT`$ below the Fermi level, there are exponentially few holes at the energy of the localized level, and the conductance drops sharply. This resonant tunneling also leads to strong negative differential resistance, as described below. Moreover, in principle one could design a transistor with sharper turn-on, by operating near the resonance voltage  (i.e. at the transition between regions II and III of Fig. 2, rather than the normal operation at the transition between regions I and II).

Due to the small size of the quantum dot, Coulomb blockade (CB) effects play an important role in the resonant-tunneling regime, even at room temperature. The single-electron charging energy is roughly $`U0.5`$ eV, much larger than either $`k_BT`$ or the width in energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the resonant state. (Here $`k_BT0.025`$ eV. The finite resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ arises because the localized state is degenerate in energy with the continuum of states in the NT leads, and we calculate that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ 0.015 eV). Since $`U\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the device is in the CB regime, and the resonant level behaves in many ways as if truly localized.

We can include the most important effects of CB in our calculation in a relatively simple way. Because of the large value of $`U`$, there is no need to consider higher levels beyond the first CB resonance — they contribute negligible charge over the range of gate voltage of interest here. The first CB resonance occurs when the empty and singly-occupied states are degenerate, which is satisfied when the first one-electron level reaches the Fermi level. A localized electron has no “self-interaction”, i.e. it does not feel its own electrostatic potential, so we calculate the potential in the quantum dot region treating the localized levels as empty. Outside of this region the states are extended, so we use the charge and potential calculated with the actual occupancies. Because of the strong spatial separation of the localized and extended states relevant for transport, this provides a reasonable approximation to a full self-interaction correction. We emphasize that this procedure is not a full many-body calculation of the transport. It is intended to give the position of the resonance. The actual conductance values are only suggestive. (The width of the peak in Fig. 2a corresponds to the gate voltage required to move the localized level by $``$$`k_BT`$ in energy, so it is probably fairly accurate.)

The band diagram of Fig. 2d and the conductance of Fig. 2a (solid line) were calculated using this approximation. To illustrate the importance of the CB effect, we also calculated the conductance without any correction for CB, as if $`U\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The result is shown with a dotted line in Fig. 2a. The conductance peak is much sharper when CB is included, and is shifted to lower gate voltages.

So far we have considered only the conductance at small source-drain voltage, where the system is close to equilibrium. To provide a more complete picture of the device characteristics, we calculated the current at larger voltage from

$$I=\frac{4e}{h}P(E)\left[f(E)f(E+eV_D)\right]𝑑E,$$
(2)
where $`V_D`$ is the drain voltage (taking the source as “ground”).

At any finite drain voltage, the system is not in equilibrium, so we adapt our calculation of the charge $`\sigma (z)`$ as described previously . For large resistance (low transmission probability), the left and right sides of the device are each in approximate internal equilibrium, but with Fermi levels that differ by the drain voltage. We therefore calculate the charge using separate Fermi functions for the two regions. (In between, the Fermi level is deep in the bandgap, so the details of the cross-over from one side to the other have no effect on the charge or potential.) In the opposite limit of high transmission probability, we can approximate the electrons travelling from left to right as obeying the Fermi distribution of the left lead, while those moving from right to left obey the distribution of the right lead.

Figure 3 shows the current as a function of both drain and gate voltages. The device is a very effective transistor — for gate voltages corresponding to regions I and II of Fig. 2, the device exhibits high and low current respectively, with an abrupt transition between the two regimes. (For this figure, we use the low-transmission and high-transmission models for $`V_G>`$ 4 V and $`V_G<`$ 3 V, respectively. A smooth interpolation is used for intermediate gate voltages.)

At higher gate voltages, the resonant-tunneling peak (region III of Fig. 2a) appears as a ridge in Fig. 3a. At fixed gate voltage, with increasing drain voltage the current increases at first, because of the significant tunneling conductance. The current then reaches a maximum and decreases, as the resonant level moves into the bandgap of the drain, where there are no states available for tunneling. This behavior is shown in Fig. 3b. The gate voltage controls the energy of the resonant level, and so controls the position of the current maximum. Thus the device provides gated resonant tunneling and negative differential resistance.

An important characteristic of conventional transistors is that the current saturates with increasing drain voltage. Figure 4 shows that our NT device also displays current saturation. In conventional devices, the saturation is due to “pinch-off”. The NT device, however, is ballistic, and the current is ultimately limited only by the number of available carriers in the leads. The dotted line in Fig. 4 shows the current in the limit of perfect transmission through the device. The actual current calculated numerically is within about 20% of this ideal value. (For these calculations, we increased the length of the region treated self-consistently, because of electric field penetration into the contact region.)

Our results suggest that nanotube devices are excellent candidates for future nanoscale devices. In addition to their suitability as FETs, they can provide novel functionality such as room-temperature gated resonant tunneling. We anticipate that future NT device designs will provide further improvements in performance and additional new functionality.

F.L. acknowledges support from the NSERC of Canada and from the Office of Basic Energy Sicences, Division of Materials Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC04-94AL85000. Discussions with S. Datta are gratefully acknowledged.