text:
# The nature and size of the optical continuum source in QSO 2237+0305

## 1 Introduction

In the optical continuum, QSO 2237+0305 is a gravitational mirage that consists of four compact components (A-D) round the nucleus of the deflector (lens galaxy). The light bundles corresponding to the components are passing through the bulge of the lens galaxy, and thus, if the galactic mass at the QSO image positions is mainly in stars, the optical depths to microlensing are as high as $`0.5`$ (e.g., Schmidt, Webster & Lewis 1998). In this scenario with large normalized surface mass densities, given a component, microlensing violent events will result from the source either crossing a microcaustic, passing close to a microcusp, or traveling through a network of microcaustics (e.g., Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992). On the other hand, a microlensing violent episode in the light curve of a component can be easily distinguished from a intrinsic variation, since the intrinsic variability must be observed in all four components of the system with extremely short time delays (e.g., Wambsganss & Paczyński 1994; Chae, Turnshek & Khersonsky 1998; Schmidt, Webster & Lewis 1998). However, when the four brightness records of the QSO images have different non-flat shapes, a direct separation between the true microlensing fluctuations and the possible intrinsic variation cannot be achieved. In the case of four incoherent and non-flat observational trends, to find the true microlensing behaviours we must do some hypothesis on the intrinsic variability.

Irwin et al. (1989) discovered microlensing variability in the quadruple system QSO 2237+0305, and that first evidence was confirmed by other observers (Corrigan et al. 1991; Østensen et al. 1996; Woźniak et al. 2000a,b; Schmidt et al. 2001; Alcalde et al. 2002). In very recent years, two gravitational microlensing high-magnification events (HMEs) were clearly detected by the OGLE collaboration (Woźniak et al. 2000b) and corroborated by the GLITP monitoring (Alcalde et al. 2002). As each individual HME is directly related to the intrinsic surface brightness of the source, the two HMEs in the $`V`$ band reported by the OGLE team were used to obtain two measurements of both the optical continuum ($`V`$-band) source size and the rate of brightness decline (Shalyapin 2001). Shalyapin (2001) compared the observational data included in each HME with the time evolution expected from an axially symmetric source crossing a single straight fold caustic. To describe the brightness distribution of the $`V`$-band source, he used a power-law model: $`I_V(r)=2^{p_V}I_V(1+r^2/R_V^2)^{p_V}`$, which is determined by a typical radius $`R_V`$, a typical intensity $`I_V=I_V(R_V)`$, and a power-law index $`p_V`$. The expected microlensing light curves depend on five free parameters, and the most relevant ones are $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=R_V/V_{}`$ and $`p_V`$. We note that a direct measurement of the typical radius $`R_V`$ is not possible, however, using some upper limit on the quasar velocity perpendicular to the caustic line ($`V_{}`$), it can be obtained a very interesting constraint on the source size as measured by means of the typical radius of the 2D brightness distribution. A crossing time of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ 90 days is inferred from the HME observed in the light curve of the component A, whereas a shorter crossing time of about 30 days is consistent with the HME corresponding to the image C. However, the whole HME of image A (from day 1200 to day 1800) seems to be caused by a complex magnification, which is different to the single straight fold caustic magnification law. In other words, when the main portion of the source is far away from the fold caustic of interest (before day 1400 and after day 1600), there is evidence for a rare behaviour, and so, the fit to the whole microlensing event in the brightness record of the component A could give biased estimates of the parameters. Taking into account this perspective, we only take the results based on the HME corresponding to the image C as non-biased parameter estimates. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ 30 days together with the velocity constraint by Wyithe, Webster & Turner (1999) give an upper limit on the $`V`$-band typical radius of $`R_V`$ 3 10<sup>-4</sup> pc. A similar conclusion was obtained by Yonehara (2001), who analyzed the same microlensing event but using a different picture and a typical microlens mass of $``$ 0.1 $`M_{}`$ (Wyithe, Webster & Turner 2000). On the other hand, Shalyapin (2001) found that the value of the power-law index is close to the validity limit of the model ($`p_V`$ 1) and the best-fit reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is significantly greater than 1.

Apart from the very recent papers by Shalyapin (2001) and Yonehara (2001), other previous works also discussed the size of the optical continuum source (e.g., Wambsganss, Paczynski & Schneider 1990; Webster et al. 1991; Wyithe et al. 2000). These first studies are based on a poorly sampled HME which was observed in Q2237+0305A during late 1988. While the continuum mostly arises from a compact source, the line emission comes from a much larger region. From two-dimensional spectroscopy of QSO 2237+0305, Mediavilla et al. (1998) found an arc of extended C III\]$`\lambda `$1909 emission that connects the components A, D, and B. The observed arc is consistent with a source radius larger than 100 pc.

The GLITP (Gravitational Lenses International Time Project) collaboration has monitored QSO 2237+0305 in the period ranging from 1999 October to 2000 February (Alcalde et al. 2002). The GLITP/PSFphotII photometry in the $`V`$ and $`R`$ bands (see Fig. 1 in Alcalde et al. 2002), showed a peak in the flux of the component A and a relatively important gradient in the flux of the component C. These features are related to the two HMEs that were discovered by the OGLE team. The GLITP light curve for image A traced the peak of the corresponding HME, i.e., the maximum and its surroundings, with an unprecedented quality. For example, the OGLE collaboration sampled the $`V`$-band peak at 19 dates, whereas the GLITP record included measurements of the $`V`$-flux at 52 dates. Moreover, the rest of global behaviours (components B-D) were accurately drawn from the GLITP photometry (in this paper, we will use the PSFphotII variant). The $`VR`$ light curves of the four components A-D have been also analyzed from a phenomenological point of view, and the global flat shape for the light curve of Q2237+0305D suggested that the microlensing signal in D and the intrinsic signal are both globally stationary. In consequence of this result, it seems that the global variabilities in A-C are unambiguously caused by microlensing.

As mentioned here above, the whole HME of Q2237+0305A seems to be originated by a complex magnification law. However, in principle, the peak of the HME (just when the main portion of the source crossed a microcaustic) could be a structure mainly caused by a single straight fold caustic, i.e., the curvature and other possible close microcaustics do not significantly perturb the simple magnification law. We adopt this last point of view, and take the GLITP light curve for image A, including only data points very close to the maximum of the HME, to be fitted to the microlensing curves resulting from sources crossing a single straight fold caustic. We remark that the high asymmetry of the peak as well as probabilistic arguments are two strong reasons against an interpretation of the microlensing peak based on a source passing close to a single cusp caustic.

In Section 2 we present the expected microlensing light curves when axially symmetric sources cross a single straight fold caustic, and the fitting procedure. We use a set of axisymmetric sources: brightness distributions enhanced at the centre of the source (standard physical profile, Gaussian profile, and $`p`$ = 3/2, 5/2 power-law profiles) and the uniform brightness distribution (e.g., Shakura & Sunyaev 1973; Schneider & Weiss 1987; Shalyapin 2001). Section 3 is devoted to the parameter estimation from the comparison between the GLITP microlensing peak in the component A and the expected time evolutions for the different source models. A discussion on the V-band and R-band source sizes, the source size ratio ($`R_V/R_R`$), and the reliability of the source models is also included in Section 3. In this paper, to obtain information on the dimension of the $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band sources, we will use the measurements of the transverse galactic velocity reported by Wyithe, Webster & Turner (1999). Finally, in Section 4 we summarize our results and conclusions.

## 2 Theoretical microlensing light curves and fitting procedure

When a source crosses a single straight fold caustic, a microlensing violent phenomenon occurs. This is seen as an important fluctuation in the flux of an image of the source. We are going to describe the properties of a family of axisymmetric sources, present the time evolution of the flux (microlensing curve) corresponding to each source model, and finally, introduce the methodology to compare the theoretical curves with observational data.

### 2.1 Source models

#### 2.1.1 Uniform and Gaussian disks

In a given optical band ($`U`$, $`B`$, $`V`$, $`R`$, $`I`$, …), the two simplest surface brightness distributions are a uniform disk and a Gaussian disk (e.g., Schneider & Weiss 1987). For the source of uniform intensity, one has a well-defined source radius $`R_{opt}(source)`$ that coincides with the typical radius of the intensity distribution $`R_{opt}`$. Both radii contain the total brightness of the source. However, for the source with Gaussian intensity distribution and other sources with distributions enhanced at the central regions, we know a typical radius of the 2D profile ($`R_{opt}`$), and assume that $`R_{opt}(source)R_{opt}`$. This last hypothesis permits us to justify the approximation $`_0^{R_{opt}(source)}_0^{\mathrm{}}`$. For example, in the Gaussian case with $`I_{opt}(r)=eI_{opt}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/R_{opt}^2)`$, the total brightness included in the circle with radius $`R_{opt}(source)`$ is given by $`I_{opt}(source)=I_{\mathrm{}}\{1\mathrm{exp}[R_{opt}^2(source)/R_{opt}^2]\}`$, where $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the brightness derived from an integration between $`r`$ = 0 and $`r`$ = $`\mathrm{}`$. If $`R_{opt}(source)R_{opt}`$, we have $`I_{opt}(source)I_{\mathrm{}}`$. We note that $`I_{opt}=I_{opt}(R_{opt})`$ is the intensity at the typical radius $`R_{opt}`$ (i.e., a typical intensity), and so, $`I_{opt}(0)=eI_{opt}`$ for the Gaussian law. As different models have typical radii with different meanings, in a unified scheme, we define two source sizes: the source radius containing half of the total brightness, $`R_{opt}(50\%)`$, and the source radius containing 90% of the total brightness, $`R_{opt}(90\%)`$. Using factors $`k(50\%)`$ and $`k(90\%)`$, which depend on the source model, the radii $`R_{opt}(50\%)`$ and $`R_{opt}(90\%)`$ can be expressed in terms of the typical radius $`R_{opt}`$ \[e.g., $`R_{opt}(50\%)=k(50\%)R_{opt}`$\]. For a uniform disk, the factors are $`k(50\%)=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`k(90\%)=3/\sqrt{10}`$, while for a Gaussian disk, we obtain $`k(50\%)=\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}2}`$ and $`k(90\%)=\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}10}`$.

#### 2.1.2 Power-law models

A more interesting set of source models is the family of intensity profiles with behaviours ($`p_{opt}>`$ 1)

$$I_{opt}(r)=2^{p_{opt}}I_{opt}(1+r^2/R_{opt}^2)^{p_{opt}}.$$
(1)
Along with the simplicity of the trends, these power-law models allow to calculate the expected microlensing curves in an analytical way (see Shalyapin 2001, and the next subsection 2.2.). We shall use two particular values of the power index, $`p_{opt}`$ = 3/2, 5/2, which lead to specially simple laws for the change in flux during a caustic crossing.

For these power-law models, the brightness enclosed within the circle with radius $`r`$ will be $`I_{opt}(<r)=I_{\mathrm{}}[1(1+r^2/R_{opt}^2)^{1p_{opt}}]`$, being $`I_{\mathrm{}}I_{opt}(source)`$. When $`r=R_{opt}(50\%)`$ the second term in the brackets must be equal to 1/2. So $`k(50\%)=[2^{1/(p_{opt}1)}1]^{1/2}`$. On the other hand, it is easy to show that $`k(90\%)=[10^{1/(p_{opt}1)}1]^{1/2}`$.

#### 2.1.3 Standard accretion disk

Up to now we described models that are not directly related to physical ideas about the quasar central engine, i.e., we dealt with effective models. However, we can also consider the standard model of an accretion disk around a supermassive black hole. The standard Newtonian model (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973) is based on the supposition that the released gravitational energy is emitted as a multitemperature blackbody radiation. The temperature profile is

$$T_s(r)=\left[\frac{3}{8\pi }\frac{GM}{\sigma r^3}\dot{M}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{r_{in}}{r}}\right)\right]^{1/4},$$
(2)
where $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan constant, $`G`$ is the gravitation constant, $`M`$ is the mass of the central black hole, and $`\dot{M}`$ is the accretion rate. Here, $`r_{in}`$ is the inner radius of the accretion disk, which is usually assumed to be thrice the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole ($`r_{Schw}`$). The emitted intensity obeys a Planck law

$$I_s(T_s)=\frac{2h\nu _s^3}{c^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(h\nu _s/kT_s)1}$$
(3)
and taking into account the redshift of the source $`z_s`$, the observed intensity $`I=I_s(1+z_s)^3`$ is also a Planck function at the temperature $`T=T_s/(1+z_s)`$,

$$I(T)=\frac{2h\nu ^3}{c^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(h\nu /kT)1}.$$
(4)
At a frequency $`\nu _{opt}`$ (the central frequency of the optical filter), from Eqs. (2) and (4) we infer

$$I_{opt}(r)=\frac{(e^w1)I_{opt}}{\mathrm{exp}\{(r/R_{opt})^{3/4}\left[1u(r/R_{opt})^{1/2}\right]^{1/4}\}1},$$
(5)
where $`I_{opt}=I_{opt}(R_{opt})=2h\nu _{opt}^3/(e^w1)c^2`$, $`R_{opt}=(3GM\dot{M}/8\pi \sigma )^{1/3}[k/h\nu _{opt}(1+z_s)]^{4/3}`$, $`u=(r_{in}/R_{opt})^{1/2}`$, and $`w=(1u)^{1/4}`$. The parameter $`u`$ is taken for simplicity to be negligible, i.e., $`u`$ = 0 ($`w`$ = 1), in such a way that the final intensity profile leads to a theoretical microlensing variation quite similar to the exact standard variation at $`u<<`$ 1. At $`u`$ 1 the simplified version of the standard profile is not a useful approach, but as it will be discussed at the end of Section 3, the observed light curves do not show the strong break predicted by an exact model with $`u`$ 1 and the simplified profile ($`u`$ = 0) works reasonably well.

For the standard source, the coefficients $`k(50\%)`$ and $`k(90\%)`$ must be estimated in a numerical way. Their values are: $`k(50\%)`$ = 2.386, $`k(90\%)`$ = 7.038.

### 2.2 Microlensing curves during a caustic crossing

The microlensing light curves are basically calculated by convolving intensity distributions with the magnification pattern associated with a single straight fold caustic. This simple magnification pattern is given by (e.g., Schneider & Weiss 1987): a constant background magnification $`A_0`$ at points located outside the caustic, and a law $`A_0+a_C/\sqrt{d}`$ at points that are placed inside the caustic. Here, $`a_C`$ is the caustic strength and $`d`$ is the perpendicular distance to the caustic line.

We take a coordinate frame in which the caustic line is defined by the $`y`$-axis and the centre of the circular source has the coordinates ($`x_c`$,0). To obtain the flux from a part of the disk at ($`x`$,$`y`$), its intrinsic intensity should be multiplied by both the extinction factor $`ϵ_{opt}`$ and the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ it subtends on the sky. Considering the relationship: $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=A(x,y)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, where $`A(x,y)=A_0+a_CH(x)/\sqrt{x}`$ is the achromatic magnification factor, $`H(x)`$ is the Heaviside step function, and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ is the solid angle in the absence of lens, the elemental flux will be $`ϵ_{opt}A(x,y)I_{opt}(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, with $`r=\sqrt{(xx_c)^2+y^2}`$. Integrating over the sky, it is inferred a radiation flux of the QSO image (e.g., Jaroszyński, Wambsganss & Paczyński 1992)

$$F_{opt}(x_c)=\frac{ϵ_{opt}}{D_s^2}A(x,y)I_{opt}(r)𝑑x𝑑y,$$
(6)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=dxdy/D_s^2`$ and $`D_s`$ is the angular diameter distance to the source. This flux can be rewritten as

$$F_{opt}(x_c)=\frac{ϵ_{opt}A_0g_{opt}}{D_s^2}\left[1+\frac{a_C}{A_0}f_{opt}(x_c)\right],$$
(7)
where $`g_{opt}=I_{opt}(r)𝑑x𝑑y`$ represents the total intrinsic brightness of the source and

$$f_{opt}(x_c)=\frac{H(x)x^{1/2}I_{opt}(r)𝑑x𝑑y}{I_{opt}(r)𝑑x𝑑y}.$$
(8)
Finally, using normalized coordinates $`\xi =x/R_{opt}`$ and $`\eta =y/R_{opt}`$, one finds $`g_{opt}=R_{opt}^2I_{opt}K`$ and $`f_{opt}(x_c)=R_{opt}^{1/2}J(x_c/R_{opt})`$, being

$$K=\frac{1}{I_{opt}}I_{opt}[R_{opt}\sqrt{(\xi x_c/R_{opt})^2+\eta ^2}]𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta ,$$
(9)
and

$$J(x_c/R_{opt})=\frac{H(\xi )\xi ^{1/2}I_{opt}[R_{opt}\sqrt{(\xi x_c/R_{opt})^2+\eta ^2}]𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta }{I_{opt}[R_{opt}\sqrt{(\xi x_c/R_{opt})^2+\eta ^2}]𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta }.$$
(10)
The function $`J(x_c/R_{opt})`$ was also used by Schneider & Weiss (1987), Shalyapin (2001), and other authors.

From the results in the previous paragraph, one obtains

$$F_{opt}(x_c)=F_0+F_CJ(z),$$
(11)
where $`F_0=(R_{opt}^2/D_s^2)ϵ_{opt}A_0I_{opt}K`$, $`F_C=(F_0/\sqrt{R_{opt}})(a_C/A_0)`$, and $`z=x_c/R_{opt}`$. In Eq. (11) two chromatic amplitudes appear: the background flux ($`F_0`$) and the amplitude of the contribution due to the extra magnification inside the caustic ($`F_C`$). On the other hand, the constant $`K`$ and the function $`J(z)`$ depend on the source model, and we focused on the shape factor $`J`$. In particular we estimated the behaviours of $`J(z)`$ corresponding to the five models discussed in the previous subsection. For the uniform, Gaussian and standard disks, $`J(z)`$ was deduced in a numerical way, whereas for the $`p_{opt}`$ = 3/2, 5/2 power-law profiles, $`J(z)`$ has an analytical form. In the case $`p_{opt}`$ = 3/2, Shalyapin (2001) gave a simple expression for the shape factor, and when $`p_{opt}`$ = 5/2,

$$J(z)=\frac{3\sqrt{1+z^2}2z}{[2(1+z^2)(\sqrt{1+z^2}z)]^{3/2}}.$$
(12)
The trends of $`J(z)`$ for the five models are depicted in Fig. 1: uniform disk (dotted line), Gaussian disk (dashed line), $`p_{opt}`$ = 5/2 power-law model (dash-dotted line), $`p_{opt}`$ = 3/2 power-law model (dash-three-dotted line), and standard accretion disk (solid line). To derive microlensing light curves, the final step will be to use the trajectory of the centre of the source: $`x_c(t)=V_{}(tt_0)`$, where $`V_{}`$ is the quasar velocity perpendicular to the caustic line, and $`t_0`$ is the time of caustic crossing by the source centre. We implicitly assumed that the source enters the caustic, i.e., $`x_c>`$ 0 at $`t>t_0`$. Moreover, we remark that the time $`t`$ is measured by the observer. Inserting the trajectory into Eq. (11), we infer microlensing curves

$$F_{opt}(t)=F_0+F_CJ\left(\frac{tt_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right),$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=R_{opt}/V_{}`$ is the crossing time. When the main part of an axisymmetric source (i.e., the circle containing half of the total brightness) crosses a fold caustic, Eq. (13) will give a good approach to the flux of the involved image as a function of time. However, the photometric behaviour relatively far from a particular fold caustic could be different to the law (13). Firstly, the simple magnification factor $`A(x,y)=A_0+a_CH(x)/\sqrt{x}`$ may be perturbed as due to the curvature of the fold caustic. This problem was studied by Fluke & Webster (1999), and more recently, by Gaudi & Petters (2002). Secondly, the presence of another caustic (i.e., the existence of a network of caustics) could dramaticly change the magnification pattern $`A(x,y)`$ and the predicted time evolution of the flux. Thirdly, the background magnification $`A_0`$, which is caused by all the point source images not associated with the fold of interest, may actually be a function of the position: $`A_0=A_0(x,y)`$. Gaudi & Petters (2002) introduced microlensing curves incorporating a slowly varying background. In practice, when one deals with a given observed microlensing peak or event, the trends (13) must be the first choices to fit it. Of course a family of reasonable source models should be tested. After to do the initial fits, if there is evidence for important post-fit residues using all the effective and physical scenarios, then some corrections must be made (curvature, another caustic, and so on). As we will see in Section 3, our dataset does not suggest the need of corrections, and the behaviour (13) works very well when some source models are considered.

### 2.3 Theory vs. observations

Any microlensing peak or event in a component of a lensed quasar can be compared with the theoretical light curves presented here above \[see Eq. (13)\]. Given a source model, the light curve during a caustic crossing (isolated and straight fold caustic) depends on 4 parameters:

1. $`F_0`$ \- a background flux (e.g., in mJy);
2. $`F_C`$ \- a flux related to the extra magnification inside the caustic (e.g., in mJy);
3. $`t_0`$ \- a time of caustic crossing by the source centre (e.g., in JD–2450000);
4. $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ \- a typical crossing time, which is defined as the ratio between the typical radius $`R_{opt}`$ and the perpendicular motion $`V_{}`$ (e.g., in days).

So, assuming a particular intensity profile, the task is to estimate the values of the parameters $`F_0`$, $`F_C`$, $`t_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ which best describe the observed behaviour. The estimation of model parameters is carried out from a fitting method. To fit $`N`$ observational data $`F_{opt}(1),\mathrm{},F_{opt}(N)`$ with errors $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _N`$, respectively, to the expected ones at times $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_N`$: $`F_0+F_CJ[(t_it_0)/\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$, $`1iN`$, a chi-square minimization will be used. We are going to search for the values of the four free parameters ($`F_0,F_C,t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t`$) which minimize the sum

$$\chi ^2(F_0,F_C,t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left\{\frac{F_{opt}(i)F_0F_CJ[(t_it_0)/\mathrm{\Delta }t]}{\sigma _i}\right\}^2.$$
(14)
We must fit a theoretical law that is linear in two parameters ($`F_0,F_C`$) and non-linear in $`t_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. On the other hand, to find the best values of $`F_0`$, $`F_C`$, $`t_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, one must solve the system of equations $`\chi ^2/F_0=\chi ^2/F_C=\chi ^2/t_0=\chi ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$. As the function $`F_{opt}(t)`$ is linear in $`F_0`$ and $`F_C`$, the equations $`\chi ^2/F_0=\chi ^2/F_C=0`$ lead to analytic relations: $`F_0=F_0(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`F_C=F_C(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. From Eq. (14) and these constraints, we can make a new chi-square

$$\chi _{}^2(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{F_{opt}(i)F_0(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)F_C(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)J_i(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{\sigma _i}\right]^2.$$
(15)
It is a clear matter that the function $`\chi _{}^2`$ is the old function $`\chi ^2`$ which has been minimized with respect to the two linear parameters, and thus, the complex problem involving 4 free parameters is reduced to a very simple problem: a minimization of the 2-dimensional distribution $`\chi _{}^2(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. Assuming we have the best values for ($`F_0,F_C,t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t`$), it is necessary to estimate the errors on the parameters. In particular, we concentrated on the most relevant parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Given the chi-square global minimum $`\chi ^2(min)=\chi _{}^2(min)`$, to infer the confidence intervals of a single parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, we take the different values of the parameter of interest verifying the conditions $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=\chi _{}^2(t_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)\chi ^2(min)1`$ (68 percent confidence interval, i.e., 1$`\sigma `$), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^24`$ (95 percent confidence interval, i.e., 2$`\sigma `$), and so on.

To complete the process, we must have an idea of the quality of the fit. If the data correspond to the theoretical law and the deviations (due to the observational noise) are Gaussian, $`\chi ^2`$ should be expected to follow a chi-square distribution with mean value equal to the degrees of freedom, $`dof=N4`$. We thus expect $`\chi ^2`$ to be closed to $`N4`$ if the fit is good. A quick test is to form the reduced chi-square $`\widehat{\chi }^2=\chi ^2/dof`$, which must be close to 1 for a good fit. Moreover, for $`dof`$ 30, the chi-square distribution is essentially normal with standard deviation of $`\sqrt{2dof}`$. Therefore, the relative deviation $`\delta =|\chi ^2dof|/\sqrt{2dof}`$ is expected to be $``$ 1.

## 3 Confrontation between GLITP data for Q2237+0305A and theoretical light curves

The results of the comparison between the GLITP $`V`$-band light curve for Q2237+0305A and the five expected time evolutions are presented in Table 1, while the results from the comparison in the R band appear in Table 2. We are mainly interested in measurements of the $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band source sizes, and so, only the uncertainties (1$`\sigma `$ intervals) in the estimates of the relevant parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ are quoted. In Table 3 (second column) we have included the 1$`\sigma `$ confidence intervals of the source size ratio ($`q=R_V/R_R`$). Table 3 also includes upper limits on the half-light radii. As $`R_{opt}(50\%)=k(50\%)V_{}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, to infer the constraints, we used $`V_{}<`$ 7000 km s<sup>-1</sup> (Wyithe, Webster & Turner 1999) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_{max}=\mathrm{\Delta }t_{bestfit}+\sigma _+(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. For some source models, information on the source radii (containing 100% of the total brightness) or $`R_{opt}(90\%)`$ in the $`V`$ and $`R`$ bands, is quoted for discussion. Wyithe, Webster & Turner (1999) determined upper limits on the transverse galactic velocity ($`v_t`$) from the distribution of light-curve derivatives. In Fig. 12 (bottom panels) of Wyithe, Webster & Turner, it was presented the 95 per cent upper limit to $`v_t`$ as a function of the adopted random errors, the microlens mass distribution, and the source details. For mass distributions which are characterized by a mean microlens mass equal to or less than 1 $`M_{}`$, and any reasonable choice of the random uncertainties, the global bound is of $`v_t`$ 900 km s<sup>-1</sup>. This bound is valid for any source size and intensity profile, and we assumed it as an absolute upper limit. Using the relationship $`V=(D_s/D_d)v_t`$, where $`D_d`$ is the angular diameter distance to the lens (deflector) and $`V`$ is the transverse quasar velocity, one easily derives that $`V_{}<V`$ 7000 km s<sup>-1</sup> ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 1).

The upper limits on the $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band source sizes are presented in Table 3. For the uniform disk: $`R_V,R_R<`$ 6.3 10<sup>-4</sup> pc (= 1.9 10<sup>15</sup> cm). For the $`p`$ = 3/2 power-law model and the standard model, the radii containing 50% of the total disk brightness may be as large as 2.7 10<sup>-3</sup> pc, and interestingly enough the radii containing almost all the brightness (90%) must be smaller than 1.2 10<sup>-2</sup> pc (= 3.7 10<sup>16</sup> cm), in a reasonable agreement with the expected radial size of a hot accretion disk around a 10<sup>8</sup> $`M_{}`$ black hole (10<sup>3</sup> $`r_{Schw}`$ 10<sup>-2</sup> pc). With respect to the parameter $`q`$, a value of $`q`$ less than 1 would suggest the existence of two concentric sources with different radii, the $`V`$-band source being inside the $`R`$-band one. Unfortunately, although the preferred values of $`q`$ vary in the interval 0.65 – 0.98, i.e., $`q<`$ 1, the error bars are quite large and we cannot fairly distinguish between the cases $`q<`$ 1 and $`q`$ = 1. Only the Gaussian model led to $`q`$ 0.86 at 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level. For the standard disk, $`R_{opt}\nu _{opt}^{4/3}`$ and $`q=(\nu _R/\nu _V)^{4/3}`$ 0.8. However, this standard source size ratio cannot be confirmed from our indirect measurement.

In Table 1, the $`\delta (min)`$ values are not good for the $`V`$-band uniform and Gaussian disks (see subsection 2.3). However, it is evident that both the $`p_V`$ = 3/2 power-law model and the $`V`$-band standard disk work very well. The intensity distribution with a power-index of 3/2 and the standard accretion disk are also favored from data in the $`R`$ band (see Table 2). For the standard source, curves of constant chi-square in the $`t_0`$ (JD–2450000)–$`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (days) plane are showed in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2 we can see the contours associated with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ = 1 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ = 4. On the other hand, in Fig. 3 we drawn together the observed light curves and the corresponding standard fits. The agreement between GLITP observations and fits is excellent, and taking as reference the day 1500, it is evident the existence of an important asymmetry. For comparison, in the top panel (dashed line), we also drawn the best-fit from the theoretical microlensing curve related to the exact standard accretion disk (including realistic edges). As the exact microlensing law fits the observations slightly better than the approximated one, we confirm the high feasibility of the model based on physical grounds. However, although the standard disk led to values of $`\widehat{\chi }^2(min)`$ 1, the $`p`$ = 3/2 power-law model is also in good agreement with the observations. As a consequence of this result, we tested if the $`p`$ = 3/2 power-law model is a simplified version of the exact standard model or, on the contrary, we are handling two very different scenarios. The most simple test is a comparison of the 1D intensity profiles, i.e., the integrals of the 2D intensity distributions along the direction defined by the caustic line. Therefore we first simulated a 2D intensity distribution associated with a standard accretion disk (exact model). Then they were derived the standard 1D profile and all the effective 1D profiles fitting the standard one. The comparison between the standard behaviour and the effective trends appears in Fig. 4. The filled circles represent the standard 1D profile (including the two typical ”horns” close to $`x`$ = 0), while the solid lines trace the power-law ($`p`$ = 3/2) 1D profile (left-hand top panel), the power-law ($`p`$ = 5/2) 1D profile (right-hand top panel), the Gaussian 1D profile (left-hand bottom panel), and the uniform 1D profile (right-hand bottom panel). It is now clear that the $`p`$ = 3/2 power-law model very closely mimics the behaviour of the standard scenario, i.e., it is a rough version of the exact standard model.

## 4 Conclusions

We have analyzed the peak of a microlensing high-magnification event which was accurately monitored by the GLITP collaboration (Alcalde et al. 2002). The prominent event has occurred in image A of the quadruple system QSO 2237+0305 (Woźniak et al. 2000b), and the GLITP team observed its peak in two optical bands ($`V`$ and $`R`$). As both $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band light curves are characterized by high flux and time resolutions, we attempted to interpret the observational trends in terms of some theoretical microlensing light curves. In principle, the observed microlensing peak could mainly result from the source crossing a microcaustic or passing close to a microcusp. However, taking into account probabilistic arguments and the important asymmetry around day 1500 (see Fig. 3), we have discarded the hypothesis of a source in the vicinity of a single cusp caustic. Thus we only considered the most simple alternative picture: a source crossing a single straight fold caustic. Different axially symmetric source models were used, and consequently, several theoretical microlensing curves were compared with the observed ones. To discuss the reliability/feasibility of different intrinsic intensity profiles, all source models were chosen to cause theoretical microlensing curves with the same number of free parameters. These parameters are two characteristic fluxes, the time of caustic crossing by the source centre, and the typical crossing time.

Our main results and conclusions are:

1. From the fits and the upper limits on the transverse galactic velocity claimed by Wyithe, Webster & Turner (1999), we inferred constraints on the $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band source sizes. For a uniform source model, the $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band radii should be less than 6.3 10<sup>-4</sup> pc = 1.9 10<sup>15</sup> cm, at 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level. For a Gaussian disk, the typical $`V`$-band radius is $`<`$ 7.8 10<sup>-4</sup> pc (= 2.4 10<sup>15</sup> cm, at 1$`\sigma `$ CL), while the typical $`R`$-band radius can be a little larger ($`<`$ 1.6 10<sup>-3</sup> pc = 4.9 10<sup>15</sup> cm, at 1$`\sigma `$ CL). Taking the total size of the $`R`$-band source as the source diameter for a uniform disk, or the full-width at one-tenth maximum for a Gaussian profile, we found that the 1$`\sigma `$ upper limits on the $`R`$-band source size are 3.9 10<sup>15</sup> cm (top-hat) and 1.5 10<sup>16</sup> cm (Gaussian). These bounds agree well with the results by Wyithe et al. (2000). On the other hand, for the standard accretion disk, we obtained that 90% of the $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band luminosities are radiated within a radius of 8 10<sup>-3</sup> pc (= 2.5 10<sup>16</sup> cm, at 1$`\sigma `$ CL), 1.2 10<sup>-2</sup> pc (= 3.7 10<sup>16</sup> cm, at 2$`\sigma `$ CL). As the total luminosity of a standard accretion disk around a 10<sup>8</sup> $`M_{}`$ black hole will be probably enclosed in a circle with radial size of $``$ 10<sup>-2</sup> pc, the standard results are highly consistent with the current paradigm on the central engine in QSOs. However, we remark that other central masses also agree with the constraints. Once upper limits of $``$ 10<sup>15</sup> – 10<sup>16</sup> cm are known, we may attempt to test the hypothesis of a negligible caustic curvature (at $`V_{}<`$ 7000 km s<sup>-1</sup>, the parallel path length during $``$ 100 days will be also less than 10<sup>15</sup> – 10<sup>16</sup> cm). The typical caustic curvature radius is usually assumed to be the Einstein-ring radius on the source plane, i.e., $`R_{CC}R_E10^{17}(m/M_{})^{1/2}`$ cm, where $`m`$ is the microlens mass ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 1, $`H`$ = 60 – 70 km s<sup>-1</sup> Mpc<sup>-1</sup>). Therefore, for $`m1M_{}`$, the ratios between the optical radii and the typical caustic curvature radius will be smaller than 0.01 – 0.1, and this result supports the straight fold caustic approximation. For a small microlens mass ($`m0.1M_{}`$), we however have a smaller $`R_E`$ and cannot confirm the weakness of the curvature effects.
2. We also studied the source size ratio, i.e., the ratio between the $`V`$-band radius and the $`R`$-band radius. The source size ratio values are independent of the transverse quasar velocity. At 1$`\sigma `$ CL, only the Gaussian source model led to a $`V`$-band source being inside the $`R`$-band one. For the standard source, one hopes for a ratio of about 0.8, but this expected value could not be confirmed from our microlensing experiment. The 1$`\sigma `$ confidence interval (0.53 – 1.26) is in agreement with the two possible situations: the $`V`$-band source being inside the $`R`$-band source, and both sources having a similar size.
3. An important issue is the reliability/feasibility of several source models tested by us. With respect to this point, we deduced very interesting conclusions. The usual top-hat and Gaussian profiles are not favored from the data in the $`V`$ and $`R`$ bands. The results are better when power-law profiles are assumed, particularly for the model with a power index of 1.5, which more closely resembles the one-dimensional intensity profile of the exact standard accretion disk. For the standard source model, the reduced chi-square values are very close to one. So, an accretion disk around a supermassive black hole seems a good candidate to be the optical continuum main source in QSO 2237+0305 (see Fig. 3), and a measurement of the black hole mass and the mass accretion rate could be made in that system (e.g., Yonehara et al. 1998). This last topic will be discussed in a separate paper. We also note that a hybrid scenario in which the light in the $`V`$ band is emitted from an accretion disk and the $`R`$-band light comes from the accretion disk and another extended region, is not in contradiction with the observed microlensing peaks. This result totally agrees with the main conclusion of Jaroszyński, Wambsganss & Paczyński (1992), who previously tested the hybrid model from old observational data. The assumption of a complementary $`R`$-band extended source only modifies the expression of the $`R`$-band background flux $`F_{0R}`$ in Eqs. (11) and (13), and thus, the interpretation of its best-value and uncertainties. Exclusively using GLITP data, one can try to analyze the possible existence of a light excess in the $`R`$ band. To do this task, it is needful an accurate calibration of the flux in both optical bands and small uncertainties in the measurements of the background fluxes. A detailed study of this topic is however out of the scope of the paper, which is focused on the optical continuum main (compact) source. On the other hand, in order to fit the observed spectrum of the quasar, Rauch & Blandford (1991) did not consider additional $`R`$ light coming from a large region, but adopted a non-classical accretion disk model. Unfortunately, the disk model by Rauch & Blandford (1991) cannot account for the old microlensing variations in QSO 2237+0305.

We remark that the OGLE collaboration also monitored the $`V`$-band event in Q2237+0305A (http://www.astro.princeton.edu/$``$ogle/ogle2/huchra.html). The GLITP $`V`$-band photometry traced the peak of the microlensing event, whereas the OGLE $`V`$-band dataset described the behaviour of the whole fluctuation. In comparison with the OGLE observational procedure, the GLITP observations are of higher quality because they were obtained with a larger telescope, using a detector with better resolution, and on nights with better seeing. Therefore, as due to the quality of the observations and the excellent sampling rate, the GLITP $`V`$-band peak is probably the best tracer of the underlying signal around the maximum of the whole flux variation. On the other hand, the whole event seems to be caused by a complex magnification, which may include ingredients such as the curvature of the fold caustic (e.g., Fluke & Webster 1999), the presence of another caustic, and a non-constant background magnification (e.g., Gaudi & Peters 2002). The simple fit to the whole event may thus give a wrong estimation of the parameters. In any case, we chose two OGLE observation periods to infer standard solutions and compare them with the standard fit presented in Table 1. The first period included only the end of 1999, from day 1450.6 to day 1529.5. The dataset is called OGLE99, and it corresponds to the GLITP monitoring period. The second dataset (OGLE99-00) covers the 1999-2000 seasons, more exactly from day 1289.9 to day 1766.7. In Table 4 we can see all at once the fits from the GLITP, OGLE99, and OGLE99-00 light curves. As $`\widehat{\chi }^2(min)>`$ 1 for the OGLE best solutions, in the time parameter estimation from the OGLE datasets, we considered the 1$`\sigma `$ bounds associated with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=\widehat{\chi }^2(min)`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ = 1 (e.g., Grogin & Narayan 1996). The GLITP and OGLE99 fits are not consistent each other, but the amplitudes and the crossing time from the OGLE99-00 brightness record are close to the values of $`F_0`$, $`F_C`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ from the GLITP dataset.

Finally, we must emphasize that an important progress can be made from accurate and detailed data of a microlensing peak. One can discuss on the reliability/feasibility of different source models leading to the same number of free parameters, and thus, to discard some of them and to find the models that agree with the observations. Given a good model, which is consistent with the data, it is possible to obtain a robust upper limit on the size of the optical source. If, for example, the good model is an accretion disk around a massive black hole, then one can try to work out a technique to measure the central mass and the accretion rate. Moreover, as the accurate and well-sampled microlensing peaks seem to be inconsistent with some intensity profiles, it could be very interesting to apply the deconvolution method to these peaks and to derive the best brightness distribution in a more direct way (Grieger, Kayser & Schramm 1991; Agol & Krolik 1999; Mineshige & Yonehara 1999). Although we had not success in the accurate and robust indirect estimation of the ratio between the $`V`$-band radius and the $`R`$-band radius (the parameter $`q`$), new multiband monitoring campaigns could also lead to relevant measurements of source size ratios. With regard to this last issue, we note that a direct estimate of $`q`$ from the cross-correlation of our $`V`$-band and $`R`$-band light curves is now in progress, but the expectations are not very promising.

We would like to thank Joachim Wambsganss for comments on a first version of the paper. We also acknowledge the anonymous referee for some interesting suggestions. The GLITP observations were made with Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT), which is operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de Los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC). We are grateful to the technical team of the telescope and E. Puga for fulfill almost all the observational work. This work was supported by the P6/88 project of the IAC, Universidad de Cantabria funds, DGESIC (Spain) grant PB97-0220-C02, and the Spanish Department of Science and Technology grants AYA2000-2111-E and AYA2001-1647-C02.

FIGURE CAPTIONS


format: text

text:
# Bose-Einstein condensation of indirect excitons in coupled quantum wells

## I Introduction

Excitons are bound states of electrons and holes which form in excited semiconductors , very much like positronium atoms. Since excitons consist of two fermions, at least as long as the mean spacing between them is much larger than their Bohr radius, they are expected to behave as bosons . While the phase transition to a Bose-Einstein condensed phase has been realized experimentally in vapours of alkali-metal atoms , the formation of an exciton Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) has turned out to be more tricky. A lot of experimental effort has been made on the formation of a BEC of excitons in Cu2O , and in quantum wells . Excitons resemble atoms, with one major difference being their mass, since they are much lighter particles and as a result they exhibit quantum-mechanical effects more easily. In that respect, excitons are more advantageous than atoms for forming a BEC. On the other hand, their basic disadvantage is their finite lifetime due to various decay mechanisms , which destroy them.

For a gas of bosons of mass $`m`$ and density $`n`$, the phase transition to a Bose-Einstein condensed phase occurs when their thermal de-Broglie wavelength becomes comparable to their interparticle distance, which implies that $`k_BT_c\mathrm{}^2n^{2/3}/m`$, where $`T_c`$ is the critical temperature. For $`T_c`$ being on the order of liquid-helium temperature, i.e., 1 K, and for $`m`$ being on the order of the electron mass, $`n`$ turns out to be on the order of $`10^{17}`$ cm-3. For such densities, the boson-boson spacing is $`500`$ Å, while typically the exciton Bohr radius is smaller than this length scale, and therefore the excitons are expected to behave as point-like (bosonic) particles.

Recently in an interesting paper Butov et al.  (see also ) reported the formation of a degenerate gas of excitons in a quasi-two-dimensional geometry in coupled quantum wells. More precisely, in the experiment of Ref.  indirect excitons formed between two parallel layers, after an electric field was applied perpendicular to the two planes. Then, spatially resolving the photoluminescence that comes from the layers, isolated bright localized spots were observed. These spots were attributed to the recombining excitons which have concentrated in regions of local minima (lakes) that exist due to irregularities in the heterostructures. The presence of these local minima is important, since the excitons concentrate in them. Furthermore, the exciton lifetime is long due to the small overlap between the electron and the hole wavefunctions, and also the cooling due to the scattering of excitons with acoustic phonons is enhanced because of the relaxation of the momentum conservation along the direction of confinement. All the above effects favor the formation of a cold and dense gas of excitons, and indeed signs of degenerate behaviour in these lakes were observed.

Motivated by this experiment, we examine in the present paper the ground-state properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate of excitons in such a system . Our goal is to demonstrate some important physics which, in addition to other things, would allow the detection of a Bose-Einstein condensate and not to give a detailed quantitative description. On the other hand, our results should be reliable at least as order-of-magnitude estimates. In that spirit, and since the real system is quite complicated, we make some simplifying assumptions. For example, we neglect the finite lifetime of excitons, since typically this is larger by one or two orders of magnitude  than the thermalization timescale . In addition, the rate of non-radiative, Auger-like processes is expected to be suppressed because of the spatial separation between the electron and the hole of each individual exciton .

In what follows we examine in Sec. II the interactions between the excitons and in Sec. III how the statistics due to the Pauli principle between the electrons and/or the holes of different excitons affect them. We then make some estimates in Sec. IV, where we model the in-plane confinement with a harmonic potential. Using a variational ansatz for the order parameter we calculate in Sec. V the energy and the width of the cloud in the case of an asymmetric confining potential. Finally we discuss in Sec. VI how one could get evidence for the existence of a BEC, while Sec. VII summarizes our results. As shown, the width of the condensate is expected to be of the same order as that of the thermal cloud and for finite temperatures, that would obscure the detection of the condensate. In that respect, an important point of our study is that (similarly to the atomic condensates ) as long as the trapping potential is anisotropic, the kinetic-energy distribution of an expanding BEC (upon release of the excitons from the trap) is also anisotropic, while the kinetic-energy distribution of a thermal gas is always isotropic. Therefore, any experiment which is sensitive to the anisotropy of the kinetic-energy distribution of the excitons could be used as a “smoking gun” for the detection of a BEC.

## II Interaction between the excitons

As mentioned above, the interactions play a very important role in this system. Numerous studies have examined this problem - mostly the effect of the reduced dimensionality and of the band structure of specific materials. It is not the purpose of the present paper to investigate such questions in detail, but rather to follow a method that captures the essential physics we want to demonstrate.

It is important to remember that the electrons and the holes in this system are spatially separated and as a result the corresponding electron-hole pairs (that form in the limit of dilute densities that we consider) have a dipole moment. As shown in Ref.  in such a system the effective exciton-exciton interaction is dominated by the one that reduces to the usual dipole-dipole term for large exciton separations and this is the approach that we follow here. Viewed in another way, this approach is phenomenological. While it is certainly reliable for large separations between the excitons, it is less reliable for short distances, where one needs to worry about the exchange terms between the electrons and the holes of different excitons. However, the dipole moment of the excitons dominates the interaction and our approach is certainly valid for low exciton densities; a similar approach was followed in Ref. . References  have studied a problem close to the present one in the context of atomic condensates which are subjected to an external electric field.

More precisely, let us consider the two-exciton problem, i.e., two electrons confined on a plane and two holes confined on a parallel plane, with the planes being separated by a distance $`D`$. As in the experiment of Ref.  we assume that $`D`$ is on the order of the Bohr radius $`a_B`$ of a single exciton (this is a reasonable thing to do, since if $`Da_B`$ the electron-hole bound state is essentially a $`p`$-like hydrogenic state). Fixing the position of, say, the two electrons at an infinite distance, in the lowest state each hole binds with one electron and two excitons form, with the total energy of the system being twice the binding energy of a single exciton. If the two excitons are brought to a finite distance from each other, the interaction between them is given by

$$V(𝐫𝐫^{})=\frac{e^2}{ϵ}\left(\frac{2}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}\frac{1}{|𝐫𝐫^{}+𝐃|}\frac{1}{|𝐫𝐫^{}𝐃|}\right),$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant, and $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$ is the vector connecting the electrons or the holes of the two excitons. In our study we assume for simplicity that the exciton dipole moment is parallel to the electric field (i.e., perpendicular to the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane) and we neglect the fluctuations around this orientation. For small distances between the two excitons, $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|D`$, Eq. (1) reduces to the usual Coulom interaction between the two electrons and the two holes, $`V(𝐫𝐫^{})=2e^2/(ϵ|𝐫𝐫^{}|)`$. For large distances between the two excitons, $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|D`$, Eq. (1) reduces to the usual dipole-dipole interaction, $`V(𝐫𝐫^{})=e^2D^2(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )/ϵ|𝐫𝐫^{}|^3,`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐃`$ and $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$. In our case, since the system is quasi-two-dimensional, $`\theta \pi /2`$. Therefore $`V(𝐫𝐫^{})`$ is purely repulsive, which guarantees that there are no instabilities against the formation of e.g., molecules.

## III Effect of the Pauli principle

When the separation between the excitons becomes of order $`a_B`$, one has to worry about the Pauli principle between the electrons and/or the holes. If the spins of either the electrons, or the holes are parallel, the relative wavefunction between the two excitons is highly suppressed for values of $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$ smaller than $`a_B`$ (on the other hand, this effect is absent when both the electrons and the holes have antiparallel spins). As a result, the excitons are not allowed to get to distances shorter than $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|a_B`$. Therefore, for exciton-exciton separations on the order of $`a_B`$, the true many-body wavefunction behaves in a similar way (since for the low densities we consider, the effect of other excitons is negligible) ; however our mean-field approach ignores these correlations at such small scales. For this reason, to calculate the interaction energy when the Pauli principle is active, we will use Eq. (1) assuming that the two excitons cannot get to distances closer than $`a_B`$. It is important to point out two things concerning these implications that result from the Pauli principle: (i) as shown in detail below, the energy of the system is not very sensitive to the choice of the cutoff length (which we choose to be $`a_B`$ for simplicity), and (ii) the bosonic nature of the electron-hole pairs is not affected, as long as the mean exciton-exciton spacing is larger than $`a_B`$, which is indeed the case in the experiment of Ref. .

## IV Estimates

Before we calculate the order parameter of the condensate, it is instructive to make some estimates. Let us assume that the excitons are confined on the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane within a lake of radius $`d`$. For low enough densities the dipole expansion can be used and in this case the energy per particle of a BEC of excitons is (apart from numerical factors of order unity),

$`(d)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2md^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega ^2d^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Ne^2D^2}{ϵd^2D}},`$ (2)
where $`N`$ is the number of excitons. In the above equation we have assumed that the excitons are trapped in a harmonic potential of frequency $`\omega `$ (corresponding to the confinement in the lake). Equation (2) can also be written as

$`(d){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2md^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{ND}{a_B}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega ^2d^2,`$ (3)
where $`a_B=ϵ\mathrm{}^2/\mu _xe^2`$ is the exciton Bohr radius, with $`\mu _x=m_em_h/m`$ being the reduced mass of the effective electron mass $`m_e`$ and the effective hole mass $`m_h`$, and $`m=m_e+m_h`$. For $`\mu _x0.1m_0`$, where $`m_0`$ is the electron mass and $`ϵ10`$, then $`a_B100`$ Å, which is $`D`$. Under typical conditions, $`N10^6`$, the first term on the right side of Eq. (3) is negligible. Under this assumption, the confinement due to the lake is balanced by the (repulsive) interactions between the dipoles, while the kinetic energy (due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) is negligible, very much like the Thomas-Fermi approximation in atomic condensates ,

$`(d){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2md^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ND}{a_B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega ^2d^2,`$ (4)
and thus the radius of the condensate is

$`d_0/a_{\mathrm{osc}}=c_1(ND/a_B)^{1/4},`$ (5)
with $`a_{\mathrm{osc}}=(\mathrm{}/m\omega )^{1/2}`$ being the oscillator length and $`c_1`$ being a constant of order unity. Also,

$`(d_0)/\mathrm{}\omega =c_2(ND/a_B)^{1/2},`$ (6)
where $`c_2`$ is a constant of order unity. A useful formula is the one that compares the radius of the condensate $`d_0`$ with the radius of the thermal cloud $`R`$. Since $`m\omega ^2R^2k_BT`$, and assuming that $`k_BT_c\mathrm{}\omega N^{1/2}`$ ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_0}{R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{k_BT}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ND}{a_B}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{T}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{a_B}}\right)^{1/4}.`$ (7)
Remarkably, the ratio $`d_0/R`$ does not depend on the number of excitons $`N`$. Turning to the speed of sound $`c`$, $`mc^2V`$, where $`VNe^2D/ϵd_0^2`$ is the interaction energy per particle, and thus $`c(\mathrm{}/md_0)(ND/a_B)^{1/2}`$. Also, the coherence or healing length $`\xi `$, satisfies the equation $`\mathrm{}^2/2m\xi V`$, and thus $`\xi /d_0(a_B/ND)^{1/2}`$. Finally the critical frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ for creating a vortex state is $`(\mathrm{}/md_0^2)\mathrm{ln}(d_0/\xi )`$.

Let us make some numerical estimates now. Since the radius $`R`$ of a thermal cloud of excitons in the lakes is $`10`$ $`\mu `$m for $`T1`$ K , the formula $`m\omega ^2R^2k_BT`$ implies that $`\omega 10^9`$ Hz for $`m`$ being on the order of $`0.1m_0`$. Given this value for $`\omega `$, the oscillator length $`a_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ is $`1`$ $`\mu `$m, and $`\mathrm{}\omega 5\times 10^4`$ meV. Therefore, since $`Da_B`$, then $`ND/a_BN10^6`$, and the size of the condensate $`d_0`$ is $`30`$ $`\mu `$m, the surface density $`n_{2D}`$ is $`3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 and the mean exciton-exciton spacing $`d_0/N^{1/2}`$ is $`300`$ Å. The fact that $`n_{2D}a_B^2`$ is $`0.03`$, i.e., much less than unity, where $`n_{2D}`$ is the surface density, justifies the treatment of the excitons as bosons and the use of Eq. (1) as the appropriate expression for the interaction between the excitons. Turning to the energy per particle of the condensate, this is $`1`$ meV. The transition temperature $`T_c`$ is $``$ 5 K, while for $`T=T_c`$, Eq. (7) implies that $`d_0R`$. Also the speed of sound $`c`$ is $`10^6`$ cm/s, and the coherence length $`\xi `$ is $`100`$ Å, which gives the typical size of vortices . Since $`\xi /d_010^3`$, the superfluid properties of this system should resemble those of helium (and not those of nuclei). Finally the critical frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ for creating a vortex state is $`5\times 10^5`$ Hz.

## V Variational calculation of the order parameter

Let us now get more precise. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ is the order parameter of a BEC of excitons, as long as the estimates made earlier are accurate, it is enough to consider only the relevant terms in the Hamiltonian,

$`\left(V_t(𝐫)+{\displaystyle V(𝐫𝐫^{})|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})|^2d^2r^{}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\mu \mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫),`$ (8)
where $`V_t(𝐫)`$ is the trapping potential and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. We will now use the variational approach to calculate the order parameter and the energy. For simplicity we restrict ourselves to two dimensions , i.e., on the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane and assume that the trapping potential has the form

$`V_t(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega ^2(x^2+\lambda ^2y^2),`$ (9)
with $`\omega =\omega _x`$, and $`\lambda =\omega _y/\omega _x`$, and also

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{N^{1/2}}{\pi ^{1/2}(a_xa_y)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2a_x^2y^2/2a_y^2),`$ (10)
where $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$ are variational parameters. Then, the energy per particle is,

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left({\displaystyle V_t(𝐫)|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2d^2r}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle V(𝐫𝐫^{})|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})|^2d^2rd^2r^{}}\right).`$ (11)
Starting with the expectation value of $`V_t`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }|V_t|\mathrm{\Psi }/N=m\omega ^2(a_x^2+\lambda ^2a_y^2)/4`$. Turning to the interaction energy

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2Nϵ}}{\displaystyle |\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})|^2\left(\frac{2}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}\frac{1}{|𝐫𝐫^{}+𝐃|}\frac{1}{|𝐫𝐫^{}𝐃|}\right)d^2rd^2r^{}},`$ (12)
where, as we argued earlier, $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|a_B`$. To evaluate the above integral, we use the relative coordinates $`𝐫_{12}=𝐫𝐫^{}`$, and $`𝐑_{12}=(𝐫+𝐫^{})/2`$. Equation (12) then involves an integration over $`𝐑_{12}`$ and $`𝐫_{12}`$,

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{Ne^2}{\pi ^2ϵ(a_xa_y)^2}}{\displaystyle e^{2R_{12}^2f(\varphi )}d^2R_{12}\frac{1}{r_{12}}\left(1\frac{r_{12}}{\sqrt{r_{12}^2+D^2}}\right)e^{r_{12}^2f(\varphi ^{})/2}d^2r_{12}},`$ (13)
where $`f(\varphi )=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi /a_x)^2+(\mathrm{sin}\varphi /a_y)^2`$. Since $`Da_x,a_y`$, we take the exponential in the integral over $`𝐫_{12}`$ to be equal to unity, and thus

$`{\displaystyle _{a_B}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{12}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_{12}}{\sqrt{r_{12}^2+D^2}}}\right)e^{r_{12}^2f(\varphi ^{})/2}d^2r_{12}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{a_B}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{12}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_{12}}{\sqrt{r_{12}^2+D^2}}}\right)d^2r_{12}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`2\pi (\sqrt{a_B^2+D^2}a_B).`$ (15)
Combining the equations above, the energy per particle is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m\omega ^2(a_x^2+\lambda ^2a_y^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2Ne^2(\sqrt{a_B^2+D^2}a_B)}{\pi ϵ(a_xa_y)^2}}{\displaystyle e^{2R_{12}^2f(\varphi )}d^2R_{12}}`$ (16)
expressed in terms of the two variational parameters $`a_x,a_y`$, and $`\lambda `$. For $`\lambda =1`$, then $`a_x=a_y=d`$, $`f=1/d^2`$, the integral in Eq. (16) is equal to $`\pi d^2/2`$, and Eq. (16) gets the simple form

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega ^2d^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Ne^2(\sqrt{a_B^2+D^2}a_B)}{ϵd^2}}.`$ (17)
As Eq. (17) implies, the energy of the system scales as $`(\sqrt{a_B^2+D^2}a_B)^{1/2}`$, which shows that indeed $``$ is not very sensitive to the cutoff length for $`a_BD`$. Furthermore, if the cutoff length in Eq. (15) is set equal to zero,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega ^2d^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Ne^2D}{ϵd^2}},`$ (18)
in agreement with the estimates of Eq. (4). Equation (18) implies that $`c_1`$ in Eq. (5) is equal to $`(2m/\mu _x)^{1/4}`$, and $`c_2`$ in Eq. (6) is equal to $`(2m/\mu _x)^{1/2}`$, where $`m=m_e+m_h`$.

Returning to the more general problem of $`\lambda 1`$, we have minimized the energy of Eq. (16), setting for simplicity the cutoff length equal to zero. Measuring $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$ in the second term of this expression in units of $`a_{\mathrm{osc}}`$, the energy scale $`2Ne^2D/\pi ϵa_{\mathrm{osc}}^2`$ can be written as $`\mathrm{}\omega (2ND/\pi a_B)(m/\mu _x)`$. We choose $`(2ND/\pi a_B)(m/\mu _x)`$ to be equal to $`0.5\times 10^6`$. We also consider the value $`\lambda =0.8`$, which corresponds to a trapping potential with equipotential lines which are elongated along the $`y`$ axis, with a ratio of the oscillator lengths $`a_{\mathrm{osc},x}/a_{\mathrm{osc},y}`$ equal to $`\lambda ^{1/2}0.894`$. Minimizing numerically the energy, we find that $`/\mathrm{}\omega 1.119\times 10^3`$ with $`a_x/a_{\mathrm{osc}}33.3`$ and $`a_y/a_{\mathrm{osc}}42.0`$. It is interesting that the ratio $`a_x/a_y0.793`$ is smaller than $`\lambda ^{1/2}`$. Therefore, the interactions enhance the anisotropy of the cloud due to the trapping potential, (i.e., they make the interacting cloud more elongated along the $`y`$ axis), as compared to a non-interacting gas, which would result from the uncertainty principle. A similar effect has been observed in atomic condensates with contact interactions .

## VI Discussion of the results and experimental relevance

In the last part of this study we examine how the above results can be used in practice. Getting indisputable evidence and clear signatures for the existence of a BEC of excitons is not at all a trivial problem , since even for small but finite temperatures the condensate co-exists with the thermal cloud. More precisely, as Eq. (7) implies, the width of the condensate is, even for $`T=T_c`$, comparable or even larger than that of the thermal component, and this ratio gets even larger as the temperature decreases. This is opposite to the atomic condensates, where typically the thermal cloud is much broader than the condensate. This fact would certainly obscure the detection of a BEC of excitons in the present system.

In the alkali-metal atoms, in the first experiment where the formation of a BEC was reported , the atoms were confined in a disk-shaped trap. Following their release from the trap, for very low – essentially zero – temperatures, the kinetic-energy distribution of the atoms was observed to be anisotropic, while for higher temperatures (but still lower than $`T_c`$) a more broad isotropic background was also observed, corresponding to the thermal component. Above $`T_c`$, only the isotropic component remained. Therefore, the anisotropic expansion of the cloud is a unique characteristic of a BEC, and does not show up in a thermal cloud.

Turning to the present problem, ideally one could think about releasing somehow the excitons from the lake and watching them as they expand. Actually, such a possibility has already been studied theoretically . In such an experiment, any sign of anisotropic expansion of the cloud on the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane below some temperature (the transition temperature $`T_c`$) would provide strong evidence in favour of the presence of a BEC of excitons. On the other hand, from the estimates made earlier, one can see that the typical velocity of expansion is expected to be $`(/m)^{1/2}10^6`$ cm/s. Since excitons with velocities up to $`1.4\times 10^6`$ are radiatively active , the expanding excitons may or may not be radiatively active. Additionally, since the velocity of expansion is close to the sound velocity of the material ($`3.7\times 10^5`$ cm/s), the interaction with phonons will slow them down. Apart from these possible difficulties, more generally one should remember that any experiment that is sensitive to the directionality of the kinetic-energy distribution of the excitons could be used to provide evidence for the formation of a BEC.

## VII Summary

To summarize, in this study we examined the ground-state properties of a quasi-two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate of indirect excitons, which are confined in an anisotropic harmonic potential. Incorporating the interactions we made estimates for the size of the cloud, the energy per particle, the density, the speed of sound, the coherence length, and the critical frequency for creating a vortex state. We also calculated the order parameter variationally within the mean-field approximation and we examined the effect of the Pauli principle. Concerning the detection of a BEC, since the size of the condensate is expected to be of the same order as that of the thermal cloud, we examined the possibility of releasing the excitons from an anisotropic trap, which would result in an anisotropic kinetic-energy distribution and it would provide evidence for the presence of a BEC. An interesting result is that the interacting gas exhibits this anisotropy in a more pronounced way as compared to an ideal gas.

## VIII Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to G. Baym, A. D. Jackson, I. E. Perakis, and S. M. Reimann for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR), and by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF).


text:
# Photo-thermal transitions of magneto-excitons in quantum wells

## Abstract

By monitoring changes in excitonic photoluminescence (PL) that are induced by terahertz (THz) radiation, we observe resonant THz absorption by magnetoexcitons in GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells. Changes in the PL spectrum are explored as a function of temperature and magnetic field, providing insight into the mechanisms which allow THz absorption to modulate PL. The strongest PL-quenching occurs at the heavy hole $`1s2p^+`$ resonance where heavy hole excitons are photo-thermally converted into light hole excitons.

Undoped quantum wells (QW) have been studied extensively using interband optical techniques (for examples, see Ref. ). These experiments have revealed a rich structure which is dominated by correlated electron-hole pairs known as excitons. Excitons in square QW form hydrogen-like states with binding energy of approximately 10 meV (the energy of a terahertz photon) and Bohr radius of 100 Å. The internal dynamics of excitons can be explored by using visible or near-infrared photons to create excitons, and THz radiation (of order 80 cm-1, 10 meV, 2.4 THz) to manipulate them directly. At low THz intensities, one expects direct transitions between even- and odd-parity states of the exciton which are not observable with linear interband spectroscopy. Such transitions provide new, sensitive tests for the theory of excitons, which is fundamental in the physics of semiconductors. At higher THz intensities, one also can probe the dephasing and energy relaxation rates of excitons.

Undoped direct gap (Type I) QW are especially interesting since they are so commonly used and provide a simple model system for theoretical analysis. However, the short lifetime of excitons in Type I QW makes it difficult to achieve the large population of cold excitons required for THz absorption studies. Experimental progress has been made in QW using photoinduced absorption in staggered (Type II) QW and time-resolved THz spectroscopy in Type I QW. Optically-detected THz resonance (ODTR) spectroscopy was used to probe direct excitations of internal transitions of magnetoexcitons in Type I QW for the first time. More recent work has included the study of charged as well as neutral magnetoexcitons in Type I QW.

Though ODTR has proven to be a powerful and successful technique, it remains an indirect measurement of THz absorption which still is not well understood. In this paper we use a multichannel technique to capture the full PL spectrum as a magnetic field sweeps exciton energy levels through THz resonances. We find a combination of resonant and quasi-thermal excitations are responsible for THz-induced changes in PL. In a particularly striking resonant process, THz radiation converts heavy-hole excitons (HX) to (radiative) light-hole excitons (LX).

The undoped sample consists of fifty 100 Å-wide GaAs square QW between 150 Å-wide Al0.3Ga0.7As barriers. UCSB’s Free-Electron Lasers (FEL) provide intense radiation (up to 1 MW/cm2) that can be continuously tuned from 4 to 160 cm-1 (0.5-20 meV, 0.12-4.8 THz). As shown in Fig. 1, visible radiation from an Ar+ laser is used to create electron-hole pairs in the undoped sample. Simultaneously, THz radiation with the electric field polarized in the plane of the QW, and therefore not coupling to intersubband transitions, passes through the sample. Measurements are performed with a visible laser excitation intensity of approximately 100 Wcm-2, creating an exciton density of approximately $`3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 per well in the sample. The resulting PL is captured by eighteen 50 $`\mu `$m diameter optic-fibers that surround a central fiber used for excitation. The PL is delivered to a monochromator and detected by an image-intensified charge-coupled device (ICCD) camera. The output of the Ar+ laser is modulated acousto-optically to produce a 20 $`\mu `$s visible excitation pulse that coincides with the 5 $`\mu `$s THz pulse at the sample. The ICCD is gated in time to capture the entire PL spectrum while the THz radiation pulse illuminates the sample. Since the THz pulse is much longer than any carrier relaxation time, the measurement is in steady-state. The PL change during the THz pulse is due to carrier excitation; no lattice heating is observed.

The measurement involves monitoring the PL spectrum as a function of magnetic field $`B`$ while fixed frequency THz radiation illuminates the sample. Unlike a single channel measurements using a photo-multiplier tube, the ICCD allows the entire PL spectrum to be captured at each value of $`B`$. This powerful new technique is referred to as multichannel optically-detected THz resonance (MOTR). A separate MOTR run is made with the THz radiation blocked to serve as a reference.

Figure 2 shows the difference of the PL spectra with and without THz irradiation plotted as a function of $`B`$. The THz frequency is 103 cm-1 and the intensity is approximately 50 kW/cm2. The sample temperature is 10 K. Stronger PL quenching is represented by more negative values (shown in blue) of the PL difference. The false color image of this surface plot is projected on the bottom of the graph. There are strong qualitative differences in the PL modulation at different magnetic fields. Since experiments begin from $`B=0`$ T, it is convenient to label the excitonic states using a hydrogenic notation (principal quantum number, orbital angular momentum, z-projection of the orbital angular momentum). At $`B=0`$ T, the difference spectrum shows the quenching of the heavy hole $`1s`$ ($`H1s`$) PL peak amplitude (labeled A in Fig. 2), the enhancement of high energy tail of the $`H1s`$ PL (B), and the enhancement of the light hole $`1s`$ ($`L1s`$) PL amplitude (C). These effects were previously observed and studied in detail. As $`B`$ increases, the $`H1s`$ PL amplitude is resonantly quenched at the $`H1s`$$``$$`H2p^+`$($`m_z=+1`$) transition at 3.5 T (D and D’), while the $`L1s`$ PL reaches a maximum (E and E’). The THz-induced transitions from $`H1s`$ to $`L1s`$ states is clearly seen. At 8 T, further resonant quenching is observed (F) which is assigned to the $`H2p^{}(m_z=1)H2s`$ transition. Note that above 3.5 T, quenching is reduced and the dominant effect of THz radiation is to enhance and blueshift the $`H1s`$ PL peak (F). This can seen in the depth (height) of the PL difference surface plot above and below 3.5 T and is is also shown by the color difference between these two regions in the projected image plot. A ridge that begins at 1.58 eV at 0 T and appears to follow the quadratic magnetic field dependence of the $`H1s`$ PL peak also is indicated (G). This ridge is consistently higher than the $`H1s`$ state by one THz photon energy throughout the magnetic field range. Note that this ridge appears to cross a more strongly curved second ridge at point E’, which is where the $`L1s`$ is resonantly enhanced. Neither ridge is consistent with magnetic field dependence of PL from the $`L1s`$. Also note that the line where the PL difference sheet crosses zero (yellow line in the projected image plot) is nearly independent of magnetic field and does not follow the $`B^2`$ dependence of $`H1s`$ PL peak energy.

The information contained in Fig. 2 is more accessible when cross-sections through this surface plot are examined. The resonant enhancement of the $`L1s`$ PL peak at the expense of the $`H1s`$ PL amplitude is shown in Fig. 3(b), where the $`H1s`$ and $`L1s`$ PL amplitudes are plotted against $`B`$. Note that this figure shows the PL amplitudes, not the normalized PL ratios (i.e., PL with divided by PL without THz irradiation, as shown in most ODTR spectra), which adds a baseline that depends on $`B`$. The $`H1sH3p`$ feature at 2.1 T splits into two dips ($`H1sH3p^+`$ and $`H1sH3p^{}`$) above 2.5 T. The $`L1s`$ PL enhancement is asymmetric in $`B`$, with a fast decay above 3.5 T, and a more gradual decrease below 3.5 T. The $`H1s`$ amplitude shows similar asymmetry and reflects the conventional ODTR results. Figure 3(a) sketches the energy difference between the $`H1s`$ and higher energy exciton states (based on data published in Ref. ). The diagrams in the inset of Fig. 3(a) sketch the photo-thermal carrier distributions at different magnetic fields, and will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper.

Absorption of THz radiation can heat carriers, resulting in a quasi-thermal distribution with a temperature above that of the lattice. It is thus useful to compare changes in photoluminescence induced by THz radiation to those induced by changing the temperature of the sample. Figure 4 plots the $`L1s`$ to $`H1s`$ PL amplitude ratio as a function of inverse lattice temperature, without (a) and with (b) THz irradiation of approximately 100 Wcm-2. These data form Arrhenius plots where straight lines indicate thermally activated population of the $`L1s`$ from $`H1s`$ states. The slopes of these lines determine the activation energies, which are shown in the legends of Fig. 4. Note the dramatic decrease in the activation energy when the sample is illuminated by THz radiation at 3.5 T.

We propose a qualitative explanation of THz-induced changes in PL which involves three processes. 1. Absorption: THz radiation is absorbed via internal transitions of excitons, or by Drude-like free carrier excitations of ionized electrons and holes. 2. Quasi-thermalization: Each species of excitons (for example, $`H1s`$, $`H2p^+`$, or $`L1s`$), is associated with a band of states with different center-of-mass momenta. The power transferred into the electron-hole system indirectly heats each band of excitons to a temperature warmer than that of the lattice. 3. Luminescence: The luminescence under THz irradiation only reflects the population of states that can participate in radiative interband transitions. In bands with even parity ($`1s`$, $`2s`$, for example), the radiative states are those with in-plane momentum $`K_{\mathrm{COM}}`$ near zero. In bands with odd parity, such as $`2p`$, no states are radiative.

We now discuss the experimental data as a function of increasing magnetic field with a fixed THz frequency of 103 cm-1. The case $`B=0`$ T has been studied extensively in Ref. . In this nonresonant case, the mechanism for absorption was shown to be Drude-like heating of ionized electrons and holes. These hot electrons and holes heat luminescing excitons. The non-resonant photo-thermal distribution is represented by the cartoon on the left side of the inset in Fig. 4(a). Under THz illumination, the exciton system (including both $`H1s`$ and $`L1s`$ excitons) could be reasonably well described by a single temperature larger than that of the lattice. This temperature could be measured by matching the PL spectrum with THz irradiation at a low lattice temperature to the PL spectrum without THz radiation at an elevated lattice temperature. As either temperature or THz power increases, the magnitude of $`H1s`$ luminescence decreases, and the $`L1s`$/$`H1s`$ PL ratio increases. Either of these quantities could be used to measure the temperature of the exciton system. Both measures produce consistent results.

Between 0 T and about 3.5 T, the qualitative features of Figs. 2 and 3 are similar to those at B=0, with a quenching of the $`H1s`$ luminescence and enhancement of $`L1s`$. In this regime, there are many internal states which have energies below that of the 103 cm-1 pump, and which can be excited by it.

One of the most striking features of the data is the resonant transfer of PL from $`H1s`$ to $`L1s`$ which occurs near 3.45 T (E and E’ in Fig. 2, also Fig. 3). Our explanation is a resonant photo-thermal mechanism, shown schematically in the central cartoon in the inset of Fig. 4(a). THz radiation promotes excitons from $`H1s`$ to $`H2p^+`$. The dark $`H2p^+`$ state is only about 1 meV below the radiative $`L1s`$ state according to PL and ODTR data. Thermal fluctuations, associated with the quasi-temperature of the $`H2p^+`$ excitons, are sufficient to then populate $`L1s`$ exciton states to a much greater degree than they could be populated via thermal excitation directly from $`H1s`$. According to photo-thermal ionization experiments on shallow donors in GaAs, the $`2p^+`$ state allows extremely efficient ionization. Reference  found that the probability of ionization from the $`2p`$ state is much larger than expected from the energy separating this state and the continuum; the ionization probability at 4.2 K is essentially unity. $`L1s`$ excitons decay, emitting the observed luminescence. The photo-thermal hypothesis is supported by the observation that, in Fig. 4(b), the ratio of $`L1s`$ to $`H1s`$ luminescence is nearly independent of temperature for the case of THz on, B=3.45 T. This demonstrates an effective activation energy which is negligible. In contrast, without THz irradiation, the $`L1s`$/$`H1s`$ at 3.45 T increases strongly with temperature, consistent with an activation energy on the order of 10 meV.

A second hypothesis is that the THz radiation heats the entire exciton system efficiently on resonance, but that all bands of excitons can still be described with a single temperature. We call this the thermal hypothesis. The thermal hypothesis could be consistent with the insensitivity of the $`L1s`$ /$`H1s`$ ratio to increasing temperature at resonance. However, it predicts that, as was observed for B=0 T, the photoluminescence spectrum under THz illumination at low temperatures can be mapped onto the photoluminescence spectrum without THz excitation at some higher temperature. This is not the case. At 3.45 T and at a lattice temperature of 10 K with THz illumination of 110 kW/cm2, the $`H1s`$ PL amplitude is the same as for a lattice temperature of 70 K without THz illumination at 3.45 T. However, the $`L1s`$ peak for the cold sample illuminated with THz is over 40% larger than for the unilluminated warm sample. Furthmermore, the $`L1s`$ PL amplitude increases linearly with THz intensity at the $`H1s`$$``$$`H2p^+`$ resonance, while the increase in the absence of THz illumination is consistent with exponentially activated behavior as a function of temperature. This is consistent with the photo-thermal hypothesis, and inconsistent with the thermal hypothesis.

Above 3.45 T, the changes in photoluminescence induced by THz irradiation are qualitatively different from those induced at lower magnetic fields. At high magnetic fields in Fig. 3(a), the THz photon energy is smaller than the lowest dominant exciton transition ($`H1s`$$``$$`H2p^+`$). The high magnetic field photo-thermal distribution is shown schematically in the cartoon on the right side of the inset in Fig. 3(a). In this regime, lower energy exciton transitions (e.g., $`H2p^{}`$$``$$`H2s`$) can occur, and the hot carriers can impact with and heat cold excitons, which produces a PL quenching signal at 8 T in Fig. 2. The heating is not efficient and high THz and visible intensities are required to produce the $`H2p^{}`$$``$$`H2s`$ feature. There are several reasons for this reduced efficiency. First, at low temperature, most of the carriers are bound in $`1s`$ (ground state) excitons, so the population in excited states (e.g., $`2p^{}`$ which has an energy that has a characteristic temperature of 80 K above the $`1s`$ state), especially at low THz and visible intensities, is significantly lower than the $`1s`$ population. Higher intensities increase the exciton temperature, and hence enhance the population of $`2p^{}`$ excitons that can participate in the $`H2p^{}`$$``$$`H2s`$ transition. Second, PL amplitudes are not as sensitive to temperature changes at higher $`B`$. Finally, most hot heavy hole excitons (HX) (with center of mass momentum $`K_{\mathrm{COM}}0`$) will eventually cool to contribute to the main HX PL line within the radiative cone ($`K_{\mathrm{COM}}0`$). Since radiative recombination for the hot HX ($`K_{\mathrm{COM}}0`$) is suppressed due to momentum conservation, and since non-radiative recombination is weak, most of the hotter HX have nowhere to go but back to the $`K_{\mathrm{COM}}=0`$ state where they can efficiently recombine radiatively. The closest escape for HX is the $`L1s`$ which is over 14 meV (163 K) higher in energy at $`B=0`$ (see Fig. 3(a)). This activated behavior can be seen in Fig. 4, where the activation energy to populate the $`L1s`$ state is approximately 10 meV without (a) and with (b) THz irradiation at 8 T. As a result, heating may increase the $`H1s`$ lifetime as it journeys through $`K_{\mathrm{COM}}`$-space, but will not significantly change the quantum efficiency of the $`H1s`$ PL nor the steady-state ODTR signal.

This model does not explain the THz-induced enhancement and blueshift of the $`H1s`$ PL amplitude. One expects an energy shift in the PL close to THz resonances due to the ac Stark effect. The calculated shift changes sign depending on whether the THz frequency is higher or lower than the transition frequency. The data, on the other hand, show a shift that increases monotonically with $`B`$. The lack of a sign change may be due to the fact excitonic transition energies are swept across the energy of the photons in the strong THz radiation field. As a result the detuning frequency is not fixed, but is swept from positive to negative values, and hence no single laser induced energy shift is observed.

MOTR has been used to study the THz dynamics of magnetoexcitons in GaAs QW. Excitonic transitions have been identified and are in good agreement with theory. A simple qualitative model can be used to understand the PL modulation due to THz radiation. On the other hand, this work has generated several new puzzles which still require exploration. The MOTR baseline and the higher energy ridge (labeled G in Fig. 2) that follows the $`H1s`$ peak are still not clearly understood. The higher energy ridges (G and E’ in Fig. 2) appear to indicate mixing of excitonic and photonic states. Significant energy shifts of over 3 meV are observed in the $`H1s`$ PL close to $`H2p^{}`$$``$$`H2s`$, which may be related to an ac Stark effect. The information gained from studying excitons in QW will provide an important foundation for research of excitons in even lower dimensional systems such as quantum wires and dots.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of T. Gutierrez, G.E.W. Bauer and A.B. Dzyubenko. Samples were kindly provided by M. Sundaram and A. C. Gossard. We would also like to thank D.P. Enyeart and J.R. Allen at the Center for Terahertz Science and Technology for their technical support. This work has been supported by the NSF Science and Technology Center for Quantized Electronic Structures DMR 91-20007, NSF-DMR 0070083, ONR N00014-K-0692, AFOSR 88-0099, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (MSS).  All measurements were performed at the Center for Terahertz Science and Technology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California.