text:
# IFUP-TH 2002/29 Exploring quark-gluon plasma on the loop space

## 1 Introduction

Loop equations in QCD were derived about 20 years ago  (for a review see ref. ), and nowadays there exist numerous applications of the loop-space techniques to other theories in $`D>2`$. Among those, apart from various proposals of string theories obeying loop equations , it is worth mentioning applications to supersymmetric gauge theories , gravity , and turbulence . In the present letter, we shall derive and analyse a novel loop equation describing the dynamics of soft gauge fields in quark-gluon plasma. It is based on the following Langevin-type equation

$$\gamma _tA_i=D_jF_{ji}+g\zeta _i,$$
(1)
where the bilocal correlator of Gaussian noises reads

$$\zeta _i^a(x)\zeta _j^b(y)=2T\gamma \delta _{ij}\delta ^{ab}\delta (xy).$$
(2)
In these equations, $`i,j=1,2,3`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},N^21`$, $`\gamma `$ is the so-called color conductivity, whose value in the pure $`SU(N)`$-theory under study is

$$\gamma =\frac{4\pi T}{9\mathrm{ln}g^1},$$
(3)
$`T`$ is the temperature, $`A_i=igA_i^at^a`$ is an anti-Hermitean matrix with $`\mathrm{tr}t^at^b=\delta ^{ab}`$, $`D_i=_i+A_i`$, and $`F_{ij}=_iA_j_jA_i+[A_i,A_j]`$ (here we have adapted the notations of refs. ).

Let us briefly quote the qualitative derivation of eqs. (1)-(2) presented in ref. . It is based on the idea that soft modes are effectively classical and therefore can be described by the non-Abelian analogue of the Maxwell equation $`\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B}=D_t\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{hard}}`$. Here, $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{A}`$ and all the covariant derivatives involve only soft degrees of freedom, while the color current $`\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ describes hard degrees of freedom. Owing to the fact that plasmas are conductors, this current can be expressed in terms of $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ as $`\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{hard}}=\gamma \stackrel{}{E}`$. Assuming that the characteristic temporal scale of soft modes is much larger than their spatial scale (that will be discussed later) and adapting the gauge $`A_0=0`$, we arrive at the following equation: $`\gamma _t\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$. This equation is dissipative, and the dissipation is a consequence of interaction of the soft modes with the hard ones. However, hard modes not only acquire the energy from the soft modes, but also serve as a source of thermal noise $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }`$. The condition necessary to reach the equilibrium distribution of soft modes is the balance between their excitation by the thermal noise and dissipative decay. For a general Langevin equation of the type $`\gamma _t\stackrel{}{q}=_\stackrel{}{q}V(\stackrel{}{q})+\stackrel{}{\zeta }`$, one can show  that the correct equilibrium distribution $`\mathrm{e}^{V/T}`$ is reproduced by the Gaussian noise, whose correlation functions read

$$\zeta _i(t)\zeta _j(t^{})=2T\gamma \delta _{ij}\delta (tt^{}),\underset{a=1}{\overset{2k+1}{}}\zeta _{i_a}(t_a)=0,\underset{a=1}{\overset{2k}{}}\zeta _{i_a}(t_a)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{possible}\mathrm{pair}}{\mathrm{combinations}}}{}\underset{\mathrm{pairs}}{}\zeta _{i_a}\left(t_a\right)\zeta _{i_b}\left(t_b\right).$$

These are the qualitative considerations that lead to the effective theory for soft modes, described by eqs. (1)-(2).

Let us also discuss the characteristic spatial and temporal scales of soft fields. Since we are interested in soft (or nonperturbative) fields, both terms in the covariant derivative associated with such fields, should be equally important. This means the inequality $`A𝒪(1/gR)`$, where $`A`$ is the amplitude of a typical nonperturbative fluctuation of the spatial size $`R`$. The energy of such a fluctuation is thus $`ERA^2𝒪(1/g^2R)`$. For the probability of fluctuation not to be suppressed as $`\mathrm{e}^{E/T}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{g^2RT}}`$, one needs $`R𝒪(1/g^2T)`$. Therefore, the characteristic spatial scale of soft fields is

$$R\frac{1}{g^2T}.$$
(4)
Next, from eq. (1), we have the following estimate involving the temporal scale $`\tau `$ of soft fields: $`\gamma \tau ^1AR^2A`$, so that $`\tau \gamma R^2\gamma /\left(g^4T^2\right)`$. By virtue of eq. (3), we finally have

$$\tau \frac{1}{g^4T\mathrm{ln}g^1}.$$
(5)
In particular, this yields the estimates

$$\frac{\tau ^1}{\gamma }g^4\left(\mathrm{ln}g^1\right)^21,\frac{\tau ^1}{R^1}g^2\mathrm{ln}g^11,$$

where the inequalities are obviously valid for small enough $`g`$. These inequalities justify the omission of the term $`D_t\stackrel{}{E}`$ in the equation $`\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B}=D_t\stackrel{}{E}+\gamma \stackrel{}{E}`$ above.

The letter is organized as follows. In the next Section, we shall present the derivation of the large-$`N`$ loop equation in quark-gluon plasma. In Section 3, the Cauchy problem for this equation will be solved at a certain class of fields. In Section 4, the regularized version of the equation will be derived, and the perturbative expansion will be briefly discussed. Finally, the main results of the letter will be presented in Summary.

## 2 Derivation of the loop equation in quark-gluon plasma

Similarly to the theory of turbulence , the Wilson loop,

$$WW[C,t]=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{C}{}𝑑x_iA_i(𝐱,t)\right),$$

is a functional of the 3D contour $`C`$ and a function of time. It it worth emphasizing that the average here is implied in the sense of the average over the Gaussian noise,

$$𝒪=\frac{𝒟\zeta _i^a𝒪\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4T\gamma }d^3x\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\zeta _i^{a\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right]}{𝒟\zeta _i^a\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4T\gamma }d^3x\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\zeta _i^{a\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right]},$$

rather than over the Yang-Mills action.

Differentiating $`W`$ with respect to time and using eq. (1) we get

$$\left(\gamma _t+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)W=\frac{g}{N}\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\mathrm{tr}\zeta _i(𝐱,t)U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}.$$
(6)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^1𝑑\sigma _{\sigma 0}^{\sigma +0}𝑑\sigma ^{}\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta x_i(\sigma ^{})\delta x_i(\sigma )}`$ is the functional Laplacian 111Rigorously speaking, this form of the functional Laplacian is admissible only when it acts onto functionals like $`W`$, which do not have marked points. and

$$U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}}{}𝑑z_iA_i(𝐳,t)\right)$$
(7)
is the parallel transporter factor along the piece $`C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}`$ of the contour $`C`$ which starts at the point $`𝐲`$ and ends up at the point $`𝐱`$. The correlator $`\mathrm{tr}\zeta _i(𝐱,t)U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}`$ on the r.h.s. of eq. (6) can further be rewritten as follows 222Although we do not expect any confusion between the space and matrix indices, $`i,j`$, note that the former are always denoted by the lower case, while the latter are denoted by the upper one.:

$$(t^a)^{ij}\zeta _i^a(𝐱,t)U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}^{ji}=2T\gamma (t^a)^{ij}\frac{\delta }{\delta \zeta _i^a(𝐱,t)}U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}^{ji}=2T\gamma (t^a)^{ij}d^3y\frac{\delta A_j^b(𝐲,t)}{\delta \zeta _i^a(𝐱,t)}\frac{\delta }{\delta A_j^b(𝐲,t)}U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}^{ji}.$$

Taking into account that

$$\frac{\delta A_j^b(𝐲,t)}{\delta \zeta _i^a(𝐱,t)}=\frac{g}{2\gamma }\delta _{ij}\delta ^{ab}\delta (𝐱𝐲),$$
(8)
we arrive at the expression $`gT(t^a)^{ij}\frac{\delta }{\delta A_i^a(𝐱,t)}U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}^{ji}`$. It can be evaluated by virtue of the formulae

$$\frac{\delta U_{\mathrm{𝐳𝐲}}^{ji}}{\delta A_i^a(𝐱,t)}=\underset{C_{\mathrm{𝐳𝐲}}}{}𝑑u_jU_{\mathrm{𝐳𝐮}}^{jk}(t^b)^{kl}\frac{\delta A_j^b(𝐮,t)}{\delta A_i^a(𝐱,t)}U_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐲}}^{li}=(t^a)^{kl}\underset{C_{\mathrm{𝐳𝐲}}}{}𝑑u_i\delta (𝐮𝐱)U_{\mathrm{𝐳𝐮}}^{jk}U_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐲}}^{li}$$

and

$$(t^a)^{ij}(t^a)^{kl}=\delta ^{il}\delta ^{kj}\frac{1}{N}\delta ^{ij}\delta ^{kl}.$$
(9)
Using the large-$`N`$ factorization of the resulting two-loop average, we eventually arrive at the following large-$`N`$ loop equation equivalent to the original eq. (1):

$$\left(\gamma _t+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)W=\lambda T\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_i\delta (𝐱𝐲)W[C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}},t]W[C_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}},t].$$
(10)
Here, $`\lambda =g^2N`$ is the ’t Hooft coupling constant which remains finite in the large-$`N`$ limit, and the contours $`C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}`$ are always closed due to the presence of the $`\delta `$-function. Note that functional form of the r.h.s. of eq. (10) is the same as that of the usual loop equation , while the l.h.s. is different due to the presence of the temporal derivative.

## 3 Solution of the Cauchy problem for a certain class of fields

The Cauchy problem for eq. (10) with the initial condition $`W[C,t=0]=W_0[C]`$ can be solved for the case when the only nonvanishing color components of the gauge potential correspond to the Cartan generators $`𝐇=(H^1,\mathrm{},H^{N1})`$ of the group $`SU(N)`$, i.e., $`A_i=𝐀_i𝐇`$, and moreover $`𝐀_i=𝐧\psi _i`$. Here, $`𝐧`$ is a constant unit vector in the Cartan subalgebra, and $`\psi _i(𝐱,t)`$ is an arbitrary 3D vector-function. Introducing the notations $`\phi _{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}=_{C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}}𝑑z_i\psi _i(𝐳,t)`$, $`\phi _{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}=_{C_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}}𝑑z_i\psi _i(𝐳,t)`$ and making use of the obvious formula $`\mathrm{e}^{i\phi \mathrm{𝐧𝐇}}=\mathrm{cos}\phi +i\mathrm{𝐧𝐇}\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ (which stems from the orthonormality of roots , $`H_iH_j=\delta _{ij}`$), we have in the large-$`N`$ limit under study

$$W[C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}},t]W[C_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}},t]=\mathrm{e}^{i\phi _{\mathrm{xy}}}\mathrm{e}^{i\phi _{\mathrm{yx}}}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\phi _{\mathrm{xy}}+\phi _{\mathrm{yx}}\right)}=W.$$

Denoting further $`V=\mathrm{ln}W`$ and using the fact the the functional Laplacian obeys the Leibnitz rule, we can rewrite eq. (10) as

$$\left(\gamma _t+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)V[\stackrel{}{x},t]=J\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right],$$
(11)
where $`J\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]\lambda T_C𝑑x_i_C𝑑y_i\delta (𝐱𝐲)`$ and from now on we shall use an alternative notation $`𝒪[C]𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]`$, so that $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\sigma )`$, $`0\sigma 1`$ is an element of the loop space.

In order to invert the operator standing on the l.h.s. of eq. (11) (that would lead to the solution of the Cauchy problem for this equation) we shall make use of the method proposed in ref. . Note that this method has been applied in ref.  in order to solve the Cauchy problem for the loop equation in turbulence, and here we shall use the same strategy. In ref. , it has been shown that for an arbitrary functional $`𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]`$ defined on the loop space, the following equation holds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(G)}𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]_\stackrel{}{\xi }=2\frac{d}{dA}𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]_\stackrel{}{\xi }.$$
(12)
In this equation, the smeared Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(G)}`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(G)}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\sigma \text{v.p.}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\sigma ^{}G\left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta x_i\left(\sigma ^{}\right)\delta x_i\left(\sigma \right)}+\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(13)
where $`\text{v.p.}𝑑\sigma ^{}_0^{\sigma 0}𝑑\sigma ^{}+_{\sigma +0}^1𝑑\sigma ^{}`$, and the average over loops is defined as follows

$$𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]_\stackrel{}{\xi }=\frac{\underset{\stackrel{}{\xi }(0)=\stackrel{}{\xi }(1)}{}𝒟\stackrel{}{\xi }e^S𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]}{\underset{\stackrel{}{\xi }(0)=\stackrel{}{\xi }(1)}{}𝒟\stackrel{}{\xi }e^S}.$$
(14)
Here, $`G\left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)`$ is a certain smearing function and

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\sigma \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\sigma ^{}\stackrel{}{\xi }\left(\sigma \right)G^1\left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)\stackrel{}{\xi }\left(\sigma ^{}\right)$$
(15)
with $`G^1`$ standing for the inverse operator. Note that the first term on the r.h.s. of eq. (13) is an operator of the second order (i.e., it does not obey the Leibnitz rule) and is reparametrization noninvariant.

In particular, for

$$G\left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\left|\sigma \sigma ^{}\right|}{\epsilon }},\epsilon 1,$$
(16)
the action (15) becomes local: $`S=\frac{1}{4}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\sigma \left[\epsilon \left(_\sigma \stackrel{}{\xi }\right)^2+\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{\xi }^2\right]`$. For $`G\left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)`$ defined by eq. (16), the contribution of the first term on the r.h.s. of eq. (13) is of order $`\epsilon `$ for smooth contours, and therefore when $`\epsilon 0`$ it vanishes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(G)}`$ tends to the standard functional Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and reparametrization invariance becomes restored. In general, the smearing function $`G(\sigma )`$ obeys the relations $`G(\sigma 0)0`$ at $`\epsilon 0`$, $`G(0)=1`$ and can be obtained from the one given by eq. (16) upon a reparametrization. Equation (12) is then a consequence of the equation of motion

$$\xi _i(\sigma )𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]_\stackrel{}{\xi }=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\sigma ^{}G\left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)\frac{\delta 𝒪\left[\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]}{\delta \xi _i\left(\sigma ^{}\right)}_\stackrel{}{\xi },$$
(17)
which follows from eqs. (14) and (15).

Performing a shift of the contour $`C`$, $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ in eq. (11) and using eq. (12), we arrive at the following equation:

$$\left(\gamma \frac{}{t}+2\frac{}{A}\right)V[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi },t]_\stackrel{}{\xi }=J\left[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]_\stackrel{}{\xi }.$$

The solution to the Cauchy problem for this equation obviously reads

$$V[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi },t]_\stackrel{}{\xi }=V[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A\frac{2t}{\gamma }}\stackrel{}{\xi },0]_\stackrel{}{\xi }+\frac{1}{\gamma }\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑\tau J\left[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A\frac{2}{\gamma }(t\tau )}\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]_\stackrel{}{\xi }.$$

Taking further into account that for nonperturbative fields under study, the minimal area associated with the contour $`C`$, $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$, obeys the inequality $`S_{\mathrm{min}}R^2`$ and recalling eqs. (3)-(5), we obtain the following estimate:

$$\left|\frac{t}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }V[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi },0]_\stackrel{}{\xi }\right|\frac{\tau }{\gamma S_{\mathrm{min}}}\frac{T}{\gamma \mathrm{ln}g^1}=\frac{9}{4\pi }0.72.$$

Using this smallness and eq. (17), it is straightforward to get the following formula:

$$V[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A\frac{2t}{\gamma }}\stackrel{}{\xi },0]_\stackrel{}{\xi }=\left[1\frac{t}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^{(G)}+𝒪\left(\left(\frac{\tau }{\gamma S_{\mathrm{min}}}\right)^2\right)\right]V[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A}\stackrel{}{\xi },0]_\stackrel{}{\xi }.$$

Obviously, an analogous expansion can be derived for $`J\left[\stackrel{}{x}+\sqrt{A\frac{2}{\gamma }(t\tau )}\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]_\stackrel{}{\xi }`$, after which one can send the parameter $`\epsilon `$ to zero and take into account that $`\mathrm{\Delta }J\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]=0`$ 333This fact makes the expansion for the current $`J\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]`$ exact at the zeroth order of the parameter $`\frac{t}{\gamma S_{\mathrm{min}}}`$.. Setting finally the parameter $`A`$ to be equal zero (that removes the $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$-dependence completely) and passing from $`V`$ back to $`W`$, we arrive at the following solution to the Cauchy problem for eq. (11):

$$W[\stackrel{}{x},t]=W_0\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{t}{\gamma }\left(J\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }W_0\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]}{W_0\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]}\right)+𝒪\left(\left(\frac{\tau }{\gamma S_{\mathrm{min}}}\right)^2\right)\right].$$
(18)
In particular, by virtue of the formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_iD_0(𝐱𝐲)=2\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_i\delta (𝐱𝐲),$$
(19)
where $`D_0(𝐱)=(4\pi |𝐱|)^1`$ is the massless propagator, it is straightforward to see that at $`W_0\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda T}{2}_C𝑑x_i_C𝑑y_iD_0(𝐱𝐲)\right)`$, $`W[\stackrel{}{x},t]=W_0\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[𝒪\left(\left(\frac{\tau }{\gamma S_{\mathrm{min}}}\right)^2\right)\right]`$. It is also worth noting once more that the obtained solution (18) is valid only at $`t𝒪(\tau )`$, rather than at an arbitrarily large $`t`$.

## 4 Regularized loop equation and perturbative analysis

In order to regularize eq. (10), one should use the regularized version of eq. (1). It is analogous to the one proposed for the method of stochastic quantization in ref.  and reads

$$\gamma _tA_i^a(𝐱,t)=D_j^{ab}F_{ji}^b(𝐱,t)+gd^3yR(D^2)_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}^{ab}\zeta _i^b(𝐲,t).$$

Here, $`R(D^2)_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}^{ab}=\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{D^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)^{ab}\delta (𝐱𝐲)`$ is the regularizing function with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ standing for the UV cutoff. An analogous method of regularization of the usual loop equation has been used in ref. , where the equality of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the field-space Laplacian (implied in the weak sense) has been employed. Here, we shall perform the regularization directly, without the use of correspondence between the two Laplacians. One has

$$R(D^2)_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}^{ab}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐫\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)=𝐲}{𝐫(0)=𝐱}}{}𝒟𝐫\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{}}𝑑\tau \dot{𝐫}^2(\tau )}\mathrm{tr}\left[t^aU(r_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}})t^bU(r_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}})\right],$$

where the parallel transportes are defined as in eq. (7), but along the regulator paths $`r_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}`$, whose typical length is of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$. By virtue of this representation, we obtain the following analogue of eq. (6):

$$\left(\gamma _t+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)W=$$

$$=\frac{g}{N}\underset{C}{}𝑑x_id^3y\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐫\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)=𝐲}{𝐫(0)=𝐱}}{}𝒟𝐫\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{}}𝑑\tau \dot{𝐫}^2(\tau )}(t^a)^{ij}(t^a)^{kl}(t^b)^{mn}\zeta _i^b(𝐲,t)U^{lm}(r_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}})U^{nk}(r_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}})U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}^{ji}.$$

Having in mind the eventual limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, we may use eq. (8) for the evaluation of the latter average. Indeed, in this case, the use of the regularized expression instead of the $`\delta `$-function in eq. (8) would lead to the excess of accuracy in the ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$)-limit (i.e, to the leading order in $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ under study, the resulting nonlocal expression will anyway be reduced to the local one). By virtue of eq. (9), we then obtain in the large-$`N`$ limit:

$$\left(\gamma _t+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)W=\frac{g^2T}{N}\underset{C}{}𝑑x_id^3y\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐫\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)=𝐲}{𝐫(0)=𝐱}}{}𝒟𝐫\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{}}𝑑\tau \dot{𝐫}^2(\tau )}(t^b)^{mn}\frac{\delta }{\delta A_i^b(𝐲,t)}U^{im}(r_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}})U^{nj}(r_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}})U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}^{ji}.$$

In the evaluation of the last variational derivative, we may take into account that the paths $`r_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}`$ are infinitesimal, i.e., to the leading order in $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ it is enough to differentiate only $`U_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}}^{ji}`$. Integrating then finally over $`d^3y`$ by virtue of the resulting $`\delta `$-function, we arrive at the following regularized equation:

$$\left(\gamma _t+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)W=\lambda T\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_i\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐫\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)=𝐲}{𝐫(0)=𝐱}}{}𝒟𝐫\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{}}𝑑\tau \dot{𝐫}^2(\tau )}W[C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}r_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}},t]W[C_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}r_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}},t].$$
(20)
Clearly, in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, it recovers eq. (10) in the same way, as the regularized equation derived in ref.  recovers the usual large-$`N`$ QCD loop equation. Owing to the closeness of the contours $`C_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}r_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{𝐲𝐱}}r_{\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}}`$, eq. (20) is formulated entirely on the loop space.

Let us now turn ourselves to the perturbative analysis of the formal solution to the Cauchy problem for eq. (10). This solution obviously reads

$$W[\stackrel{}{x},t]=\frac{1}{\gamma }\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\tau t}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }}J[\stackrel{}{x},\tau ]+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{t}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }}W_0\left[\stackrel{}{x}\right],$$
(21)
where $`J[\stackrel{}{x},\tau ]`$ is defined by the r.h.s. of eq. (10). Let us assume that $`_tW`$ vanishes at $`t0`$ and justify this assumption later perturbatively. Then in the limit $`t0`$, eq. (10) takes the form of the usual 3D loop equation (with the only difference that the dimensionful 3D ’t Hooft coupling is replaced by $`\lambda T`$), which is obeyed by $`W_0`$. Owing to this fact, to the order $`\lambda ^1`$, $`W_0`$ can be represented as \[cf. e.g. ref.  and eq. (19)\] 444Clearly, another assumptions imposed on the limit $`lim_{t0}_tW`$ correspond to the choices of $`W_0`$ which yield the perturbative expansions different from the one of eq. (22).

$$W_0=1\frac{\lambda T}{2}\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_iD_0(𝐱𝐲)+𝒪\left(\lambda ^2\right).$$
(22)
Substituting further this expansion together with the Ansatz $`W=W^{(0)}+\lambda W^{(1)}`$ into eq. (21), we immediately find $`W^{(0)}=1`$, while for $`W^{(1)}`$ we have

$$W^{(1)}=\frac{Tt}{\gamma }\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_i\delta (𝐱𝐲)\frac{T}{2}\left(1\frac{t}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_iD_0(𝐱𝐲)=\frac{T}{2}\underset{C}{}𝑑x_i\underset{C}{}𝑑y_iD_0(𝐱𝐲).$$

In the derivation of this expression, apart from the formula $`\mathrm{\Delta }_C𝑑x_i_C𝑑y_i\delta (𝐱𝐲)=0`$, mentioned in the previous Section, we have again used eq. (19). Thus, we see that $`W=W_0`$ up to the first order of the expansion in $`\lambda `$. In particular, this fact justifies our initial assumption $`lim_{t0}_tW=0`$ at least up to this order of $`\lambda `$. The $`t`$-dependence of $`W`$ appears in the next orders of perturbation theory. This is because the action of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$, ($`n=2,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is determined by the order of perturbation theory) onto the respective terms of the expansion of $`W_0`$ gives then a nonvanishing result.

## 5 Summary

In the present letter, we have derived and analysed the large-$`N`$ loop equation in quark-gluon plasma. This equation is based on the Langevin equation which describes the dynamics of soft degrees of freedom. The regularized form of the loop equation, formulated entirely on the loop space, has also been obtained. It is derivable directly from the regularized version of the original Langevin equation. By making use of the method of smearing of the loop-space Laplacian, we have further solved the Cauchy problem for the unregularized equation in some particular case. Namely, this has been done for the gauge potential of the form $`A_i=\mathrm{𝐧𝐇}\psi _i`$, where $`𝐇`$’s are the Cartan generators of the $`SU(N)`$-group, $`𝐧`$ is a $`(N1)`$-dimensional constant unit vector, and $`\psi _i(𝐱,t)`$ is an arbitrary 3D vector-function. The obtained solution is approximate and valid up to terms of the order $`𝒪\left(\left(\frac{\tau }{\gamma S_{\mathrm{min}}}\right)^2\right)`$, which are small for the characteristic temporal and spatial scales of soft fields. We have also briefly addressed the perturbative expansion of the formal solution to the Cauchy problem in the general case (i.e., for an arbitrary gauge potential). Clearly, to perform this analysis, one first needs to fix the perturbative expansion for the initial value of the Wilson loop. In order to extract such an expansion from the obtained loop equation, it is necessary to postulate a certain spatial dependence for $`lim_{t0}_tW`$. In the simplest case, when this limit is set to zero, the loop equation for the initial value of the Wilson loop takes the functional form of the usual large-$`N`$ QCD loop equation. The latter is known  to be satisfied by the perturbative expansion of the Wilson loop, computed in large-$`N`$ QCD. Using this expansion, it has been checked that for the case $`lim_{t0}_tW=0`$ under study and to the first order in the ’t Hooft coupling, the solution to the Cauchy problem is equal to the initial value of the Wilson loop at any times. (In particular, this fact justifies the postulate $`lim_{t0}_tW=0`$ itself, within this order of perturbation theory.) However, even in such a case, the time-dependence of the solution does appear in the higher orders of perturbation theory.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Profs. A. Di Giacomo and Yu.M. Makeenko for useful discussions. He is also grateful to Prof. A. Di Giacomo and to the whole Theory Group of the Physics Department of the Pisa University for cordial hospitality. This work has been supported by INFN and partially by the INTAS grant Open Call 2000, project No. 110.


format: text

text:
# Budker INP 2002-48 Precision luminosity measurement at LHC using two-photon production of 𝜇⁺𝜇⁻ pairs.

## 1 Introduction

The possibility to use the two-photon pair production for luminosity measurements at hadron colliders was first considered in . It was shown that the cross section of the process $`pppp+e^+e^{}`$ for the forward region can be calculated within QED with an accuracy of 1% or better allowing for a precise luminosity determination using the number of events observed and the calculated cross section: $`L=N^{obs}/\sigma ^{obs}`$.

The method suggested in  provides for both the high rate monitoring and the absolute luminosity measurements but requires a dedicated apparatus allowing for the $`e^+e^{}`$-pair detection in the pseudorapidity range of $`|\eta |>`$ 5 and capable of the $`p_T`$ measurements with the accuracy of a few MeV. This approach has never been used. The kinematic domain of the central rapidity pairs is much more attractive from the experimental point of view though the corresponding cross section is smaller and some additional theoretic uncertainties appear.

The application of the centrally produced $`e^+e^{}`$-pairs with $`p_T=0.4÷1`$ GeV for luminosity measurements at LHC with ATLAS was proposed in . The detail study of the trigger issues and the background conditions has shown that using of $`pppp+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ with high-$`p_T`$ muons looks favorable.

Due to the high $`p_T`$ threshold of LHC experiments ($``$ 1 GeV), the cross section of $`pppp+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is small ($`1÷15`$ pb) therefore this process can not be used for the luminosity monitoring but provides for the absolute calibration of any stable high-rate monitor with the statistical accuracy of 1 $`÷`$ 2 % after of a few months operation.

Below the proposal for the ATLAS offline luminosity determination using the two-photon production of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$-pairs  is reported and the preliminary signal and background cross section estimates for the LHCb detector are presented.

It should be mentioned that the application of the forward $`e^+e^{}`$-pairs is under study in ATLAS . The possibility to employ $`pppp+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ for luminosity measurements was manifested in  without a detail consideration of theoretical uncertainties and detector related questions.

## 2 On possibility of the cross section calculation

A review of the two-photon leptoproduction can be found elsewhere . Main features of this process can be illustrated in the Equivalent Photon Approximation (E.P.A.) allowing one to express its cross section via the cross section of the pair production by virtual photons with the equivalent photon spectra

$$d\sigma =\sigma _{\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}LL}dn_1dn_2$$
(1)
For colliding leptons one has

$$dn_{QED}=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\left(1\frac{q_{min}^2}{q^2}\right)=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{𝐪_T^2d𝐪_T^2}{\left(\omega ^2/\gamma ^2+𝐪_T^2\right)^2}$$
(2)
where $`q(\omega ,𝐪)`$ is the four-momentum of the virtual photon and $`\gamma =E/m`$ is the Lorentz factor of the colliding particle (we assume $`\omega E`$).

The cutoff of the spectrum (2) occurs at $`|𝐪_T|W`$ due to the $`q^2`$ dependence of $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}LL}`$ ($`W`$ is the invariant mass of the pair produced). The characteristic value of the the total transverse momentum of the pair produced $`p_T(\omega _1+\omega _2)/\gamma `$ 10 MeV in the luminosity measurements context.

When $`pp`$ collide, the proton can dissociate during the photon emission therefore the elastic and the inelastic two-photon processes should be distinguished.

In the elastic case Fig. (1,a) only the small modification of the equivalent photon spectrum is required:

$$dn_{el}=dn_{QED}\times \frac{G_E^2q^2/4m_p^2G_M^2}{1q^2/4m_p^2}$$
(3)
($`G_E`$, $`G_M`$ are the electromagnetic form factors).

For the inelastic processes Fig. (1,b), (1,c) one has for each inelastic vertex

$$dn_{inel}=dn_{QED}\times \frac{W_2(q^2,M^2)}{2m_p}dM^2dn_{QED}\times \frac{|q^2|}{4\pi ^2\alpha }\frac{\sigma _T^{\gamma p}+\sigma _S^{\gamma p}}{M^2m_p^2}dM^2$$
(4)
where $`M`$ is the invariant mass of the hadronic system, $`W_2`$ is the inelastic scattering structure function and $`\sigma _T^{\gamma p}`$, $`\sigma _S^{\gamma p}`$ are the $`\gamma p`$ cross sections known from the photo- and electro-production experiments. Unlike (2) and (3), the expression (4) is not singular for $`q^20`$ thus the characteristic pair $`p_T`$ for the inelastic production is not small ($``$ 250 MeV).

Diagrams of Fig. 1 reflect the strong interaction inside the single proton, besides, the strong interaction between colliding protons, so called rescattering, should be taken into account (Fig. 2).

In the ATLAS luminosity measurement context, the rescattering has been considered in . It was shown that the elastic strong interaction Fig. (2,b) just modifies the phase of the matrix element and does not change the cross section. The inelastic strong interaction Fig. (2,c) reduces the yield of $`pppp+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ on behalf of $`ppX+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. In the experimental setup when only the muon pair is detected, the total dimuon cross section remains unchanged. To reduce the dimuon background from Drell-Yan process and the hadron decays, the absence of extra particles in the dimuon vertex is necessary. In this case

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{ppX+\mu \mu }=\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{el}+ϵ_{inel}\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{inel}(1ϵ_{rescat})\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{rescat}$$
(5)
where $`ϵ_{inel},ϵ_{rescat}`$ are the probabilities that the event passes the vertex cut; for LHCb and ATLAS $`ϵ_{inel},ϵ_{rescat}>0.8`$.

The first two terms can be estimated using the E.P.A. formulae

$$d\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{el}=dn_{el,1}dn_{el,2}\sigma _{\gamma \gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{}}$$

$$d\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{inel}=\left(dn_{el,1}dn_{inel,2}+dn_{inel,1}dn_{el,2}+dn_{inel,1}dn_{inel,2}\right)\sigma _{\gamma \gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{}}$$

$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{inel}\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{el}`$ for the pair mass $`W>1`$ GeV in absence of cuts on the total pair $`p_T`$.

The $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{rescat}`$ can not be expressed in terms of the equivalent photon spectra. Numerically, $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{rescat}0.1\%`$ of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{el}`$ for $`p_T`$(pair) $`<`$ 30 MeV .

The M.C. calculations performed by us for the ATLAS conditions has demonstrated that $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{rescat}0.1\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{inel}`$ and its dependence of on the pair $`p_T`$ is similar to that of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{inel}`$. So, it causes no additional problems for the luminosity measurements. Below we include the rescattering effect in the inelastic cross section.

It should be noted that the rescattering for the inelastic diagrams (1,b), (1,c) is not considered in  and is ignored in our cross section calculations. This and the bad knowledges of the soft inelastic scattering structure functions make the inelastic cross section estimates rather uncertain.

For the forward $`e^+e^{}`$-pair production the smallness of the pair mass $`W`$ ensures the smallness of $`q^2`$ and makes the inelastic contribution negligible as was stated in . The situation is not so simple concerning the muon pair production with $`p_T(\mu )>`$ 6 GeV and $`W>`$ 12 GeV. In this case the inelastic background is not negligible even with severe experimental cuts (see Fig. 3).

However, the distributions of the pair $`p_T`$ and related variables are very different allowing one to reduce the background to an acceptable level and then subtract it as described below.

The uncertainty in the residual inelastic contribution is about 30%, $``$ 3% of the visible signal, does not affect the luminosity measurement due to the background subtraction. The accuracy of the elastic signal calculation $``$ 0.5% is limited by the accuracy of the proton form factors only.

The formulae (2), (2) are presented above just for the illustration. The actual calculations were performed using the event generator  implementing the exact lowest order matrix element. The muon bremsstrahlung, affecting the essential parameter distributions, was simulated in the soft photon approximation; other types of radiative corrections were not applied. It seems sufficient for the current stage of the work.

## 3 Procedure for signal extraction

The following criteria are proposed for the ATLAS event selection:

1. Two muon tracks of opposite charges (measured in both the Inner Detector and the muon spectrometer and triggered by the Muon systems) with $`p_t>6`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<2.2`$;
2. Muon pair invariant mass $`<60`$ GeV (against $`Z^0`$);
3. $`p_T`$ of the muons are equal within 2.5$`\sigma `$ of the measurement uncertainty ($`\sigma (p_T)/p_T`$ 1.5% for $`p_T<`$ 20 GeV);
4. Acollinearity angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }>1^{}`$ so the muons are not exactly back-to-back (against the cosmic ray background);
5. Probability of $`\chi ^2>1\%`$ for the muon vertex fit;
6. No other charged tracks with $`p_t>0.5`$ GeV, $`|\eta |<2.5`$, $`\sigma (z_v)<1`$ mm and a good $`\chi ^2`$ from the muon vertex ($`\sigma (z_v)`$ is the estimated error in $`z`$ for the nearest point to the beam).

The condition (6) strongly reduces the background from Drell Yan process and hadron decays but makes the detection efficiency dependent on the event pile-up probability. For the longitudinal LHC bunch size of 7.5 cm and the luminosity $`L=10^{33}`$ cm$`^2`$s-1, the loss of two-photon events is about 3%.

The expected acoplanarity distribution for selected events in shown in Fig. 4. (the acoplanarity angle $`\varphi `$ is defined as the angle between the muon production planes). The simulation was performed using the particle level Monte Carlo code  with the detector properties parameterized according to the ATLAS specification. The signal and background cross section estimates for the reference region $`|\varphi |<`$ 5 mrad containing about 50% of the signal are presented in Table 1.

The acoplanarity distribution has the sharp signal peak at $`\varphi =0`$ and is almost uniform for background processes in the range of $`|\varphi |<`$ 50 mrad. Unlike the distribution of the pair transverse momentum, it is not much affected by the detector resolution. Using this, the final signal extraction can be performed by fitting the $`\varphi `$ distribution in the range of $`\pm 20÷40`$ mrad with the signal shape obtained by Monte Carlo and the symmetric parabolic background $`AB\varphi ^2`$.

With the proper modification of the event selection criteria and the background subtraction $`\varphi `$ interval, the procedure describe above can be employed in CMS and LHCb experiments.

## 4 On accuracy of ATLAS luminosity determination

The expected statistical accuracy of the luminosity determination $``$ 1.5% for the integrated luminosity of 10 fb-1 (about 4 months of operation at $`L=10^{33}`$ cm$`^2`$s-1) and the detection (trigger and reconstruction) efficiency of 0.65.

The systematic errors due to the uncertainty in the proton form factors and the background subtraction procedure are expected to be $``$ 0.5%. The pile-up correction can be done using the experimental data. The systematic error should not exceed 1% at $`L=10^{34}`$ and is negligible at $`L=10^{33}`$cm$`^2`$s-1.

The uncertainty of the detection efficiency seems dominating source of the systematic error. This efficiency can be determined experimentally using the $`pppp+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ event sample with the accuracy better than 1% (it can be keep clean enough with some selection criteria relaxed). For the low luminosity operation ($`L=10^{33}`$ cm$`^2`$s-1) the first level trigger on the single muon with $`p_T>`$ 6 GeV is foreseen , and the trigger efficiency can be determined using the second muon (a minor modification of the second level trigger software is required). For the operation at $`L=10^{34}`$ cm$`^2`$s-1 the single muon trigger with $`p_T>`$ 6 GeV will have too high rate therefore two such muons will be required in the first level trigger. The trigger efficiency for this case is supposed to be known from the low luminosity run. The other option is triggering on the common dimuon track in ($`\rho ,\phi `$)-projection as shown schematically in Fig. 5. This allows additionally to reduce the $`p_T`$ threshold and substantially increase the signal rate. This needs some extending of the ATLAS first level trigger.

Without the experimentally measurement efficiency one has to rely on the Monte Carlo calculations involving tracking of low momentum muons in the detector material and in the inhomogeneous magnetic field of the air core toroid. In this case the accuracy of the luminosity measurement with $`pppp+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ would hardly be better than 5%.

## 5 Cross section estimates for LHCb

To study the potential of the method suggested for the LHCb experiment, the cross section estimates has been obtained using the particle level Monte Carlo code. The particles were tracked through some model of the LHCb detector without interaction with the material. The resolution in $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ angles was fixed by the number and the width of the strips hitted in the vertex detector. The total momentum resolution of $`0.3p`$ % was assumed .

The following event selection criteria were applied:

1. Two muon tracks of opposite charges with $`p_T>1`$ GeV, $`E>8`$ GeV are detected;
2. Muon pair invariant mass $`<30`$ GeV;
3. Difference in the measured values of muon $`p_T`$ is small:
$`|p_T^+p_T^{}|/(p_T^++p_T^{})<0.13`$.
4. No other charged tracks are observed in the event.

The preliminary results obtained for the reference region $`|\varphi |<25`$ mrad are presented in Table 2. The observed multiplicity for all background sources except the two-photon one are $`30÷60`$. No events passing the condition (4) were generated, the suppression factors were roughly estimated using the fits of the multiplicity distributions for the relaxed cut (3).

Due to lower $`p_T`$ threshold, the estimated LHCb signal cross section is more than 10 times larger then that for ATLAS. The statistical accuracy of 1% seems reachable at the designed luminosity of $`2.10^{32}`$ cm$`^2`$s-1.

By the same reason the variation of the background level in the background subtraction interval $`|\varphi |<100`$ mrad is bigger than for ATLAS. Some optimization of cuts might be necessary to keep the systematic error small.

## 6 Conclusion

The method described allows for the ATLAS offline luminosity determination using the two-photon process $`pppp+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ with the accuracy $``$ 2% in the luminosity range of $`10^{33}÷10^{34}`$ cm$`^2`$s-1. The preliminary cross section estimates done for LHCb promise the same level of the luminosity measurement accuracy at $`L=210^{32}`$ cm$`^2`$s-1.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank I.F. Ginzburg, N. Ellis, D. Froidevaux, P. Jenni, V. Khoze, K. Piotrzkowski, M.G. Ryskin, V.G. Serbo and Yu.A. Tikhonov for support of the work and useful discussions.


text:
# The optical counterpart of the ultra-luminous x-ray source NGC 5204 X-1This work is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

EINSTEIN and ROSAT observations show that at high energies most nearby (spiral) galaxies are dominated by a relatively small number of discrete, compact, but highly luminous x-ray sources. These so-called ultra-luminous x-ray sources (ULXs) have luminosities of $`L_\mathrm{x}10^{39}10^{41}`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup>, far in excess of the Eddington limit for spherical accretion onto a neutron star (Roberts and Warwick 2000).

Nearly 20% of ULXs appear to be associated with supernova remnants (SNR, Roberts et al. 2002), while the rest are thought to be powered by accretion onto a compact object. One possibility is that ULXs represent the missing class of intermediate mass ($`10^210^5`$M) black holes (Colbert and Mushotzky 1999). However, recent Chandra observations reveal a strong association between ULXs and active star-forming regions (Fabbiano et al. 2001, Lira et al. 2002), that are far too young to contain massive black holes (King et al. 2001). Subsequently, at least two alternative scenarios have been proposed. In the first, ULXs are stellar mass black hole binaries undergoing a period of super-Eddington accretion (e.g. Watarai et al. 2001, Begelman et al. 2002). In the second, the apparent super-Eddington luminosities are due to the beamed x-ray emission from an otherwise normal intermediate/high-mass x-ray binary (King et al. 2001, Georganopoulos et al. 2002). While both scenarios tie in neatly with the observed association between ULXs and active star forming regions (Long et al. 2002, Terashima and Wilson 2002, Zezas et al. 2002), the latter requires a significantly larger number of ULXs to be present.

Roberts et al. (2001) identified the first optical counterpart to a ULX, NGC 5204 X-1, based on its Chandra position and optical multi-fibre spectroscopy. The counterpart, located within 1” of the nominal Chandra position, displays a blue featureless continuum and is surrounded by an ionized bubble of gas with a diameter of some 360 pc (Pakull and Mirioni 2002). Here, we present archival HST/WFPC2 V and I band images of this source, together with an improved analysis of the multi-fibre data. These data allow us to place more robust constraints on the nature of the counterpart, and thus obtain a deeper insight into the ULX phenomenon.

## 2 HST/WFPC2 images of NGC 5204 X-1

We have obtained archival HST/WFPC2 V and I band (F606W and F814W) images of the dwarf magellanic type galaxy NGC 5204 (Fig 1 - upper panel). This data (now public) was obtained as part of an ongoing HST/WFPC2 snapshot survey of nearby dwarf galaxies (Seitzer, PI).

The HST/WFPC2 V and I band images (Fig 1, lower panel) show that the optical counterpart can be resolved into at least two sources, here designated HST-1 and HST-2, separated by 0.47”. We also identify a third source designated HST-3, located 0.8” to the east of the nominal Chandra position. This source was not detected in the fibre data of Roberts et al. but due to its close proximity remains a possible counterpart to the ULX. The observed separations correspond to distances of 10$``$16 pc at the distance of NGC 5204 (4.8 Mpc).

We have performed PSF fitting photometry on the V and I band images using HSTphot (Dolphin 2000). Unfortunately, only one image was available in each filter, hampering cosmic ray rejection. Given the difficulty of identifying real point sources, we decided against iterative adjustment of HSTphot’s standard PSFs on the basis of the fit residuals. The chip positions, RA, DEC, V and I band magnitudes (referenced to a 0.5” aperture), colours, and distances from the nominal Chandra position ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$), are quoted in Table 1 for each source.

Our HSTphot photometry reveals that all sources are blue (i.e. $`F_\lambda `$ decreases with increasing $`\lambda `$), consistent with the finding of Roberts et. al. for a single unresolved source. However the two fainter sources are significantly bluer than HST-1. The combined magnitudes of HST-1 and HST-2 are 20.1 in V and 19.6 in I, with a V$``$I colour of 0.5. These magnitudes are referenced to a 0.5” aperture, becoming 20.0 and 19.5 when corrected to infinite aperture. We do not include HST-3 in the combined magnitude estimate, as it does not fall within the same fibre in the data of Roberts et al.

The best-fit Chandra position for the ULX (determined using WAVDETECT; Freeman et al. 2002) – $`\alpha =`$13 29 38.61, $`\delta =`$+58 25 05.7 – is located 0.34” east of HST-1. The 1$`\sigma `$ error associated with the Chandra reference frame is $`\pm 0.6`$” (Aldcroft et al. 2000). However, errors of up to 1.0” are not uncommon when linking the Chandra and HST reference frames (see e.g. Grindlay et al. 2001). Thus while HST-1 is the preferred location for the optical counterpart, neither HST-2 or HST-3 can be ruled out.

## 3 Comparison with WHT/INTEGRAL multi-fibre spectroscopy

We have reanalysed the optical multi-fibre data on NGC 5204 X-1 from Roberts et al. (2001) with the aim of improving the photometric accuracy of their spectrum. This allows a direct comparison of their results with our new results from HSTphot. Our new analysis takes better account of fibre throughput corrections (using an improved throughput image, with repeatability errors of $`<0.1`$%) and contamination by the nightsky background. More importantly, we have also tried to correct for diffuse emission from within the host galaxy.

The reconstructed multi-fibre image of our source, shows that emission from the optical counterpart lies within a single central fibre and its surrounding nearest 6 neighbours. If we adopt the procedure followed by Roberts et al. and correct for nightsky background only, we derive a V-band magnitude of 19.9. This is 0.2 magnitudes fainter than found by Roberts et al.; this difference is due partly to our improved throughput correction and partly to the use of a median (instead of a mean) nightsky background.

As noted above, we have also tried to account for diffuse emission from the host galaxy, which shows a clear west-east gradient (see Fig 1). We do this by taking a median of the local background continuum over 18 fibres arranged in a hexagonal ring $`3`$ arcseconds from the source. This avoids including source flux in the background fibres. As in Roberts et al. the resultant spectrum (Fig 2) is blue and featureless at the resolution of our instrument (6 Å per 2 pixel resolution element). However, removal of local galaxy contributions results in a cleaner, fainter, and marginally bluer spectrum. The measured flux near 5500 Å translates to a V-band magnitude of $`20.4\pm 0.1`$. This is 0.7 mag fainter than the magnitude quoted by Roberts et al. and 0.4 mag fainter than that derived from the HST/WFPC2 V-band image. The discrepancy between the WHT V-band flux estimate and that determined directly from the HST/WFPC2 V-band image most likely results from the intermittent presence of high cloud during some of the ground-based observations. This gives an indication of the accuracy of the absolute spectral flux calibration of the fibre data.

## 4 The nature of the ULX and its counterpart.

Roberts et al. (2001) found that the optical counterpart to NGC 5204 X-1 was unlikely to be a galactic foreground object, but could not rule out the possibility that it was a background BL Lac. This was because the derived x-ray to optical slope $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}1.0`$, lies well within the parameter range occupied by BL Lacs. However, a recent measurement of the radio-flux at 8.3 GHz with the VLA (Wong et al. 2002), shows the source to be radio faint ($`<84\mu `$J), yielding an upper limit to $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}<`$0.08. This places the source well outside the parameter space occupied by BL Lacs and confirms the status of NGC 5204 X-1 as a bona-fide ULX.

### 4.1 ULXs in young star clusters?

The HST/WFPC2 colours show that our composite WHT spectrum, which is dominated by the brighter and significantly redder source, must flatten towards longer wavelengths. Based on the colours alone, HST-1 has an apparent spectral type F2-F5, HST-2 is type A2, and HST-3 type B5-B6 (Zombeck 1990). The absolute magnitudes of the three sources are $`M_v=8.1`$ (HST-1), $`M_v=6.4`$ (HST-2), and $`M_v=6.0`$ (HST-3), which at the bare minimum requires $``$1-2 F supergiants, $``$2-3 A2 supergiants, and $``$2-3 B5 supergiants respectively. However, a much more likely scenario is that the colours are representative of young stellar clusters.

Indeed there is increasing evidence to support such an idea. Zezas et al. (2002) find several instances of ULX/young stellar cluster coincidences in the Antennae galaxies. Further, based on its location and colour, one of the two optical counterparts to the known ULXs in NGC 4565 has been associated with a globular cluster located in the outer bulge of this galaxy (Wu et al. 2002).

In Figure 4 we show V$``$I colours as a function of age for three stellar cluster models. Each model assumes a single instantaneous burst of star formation. The adopted stellar initial mass function (IMF) is here represented by a powerlaw with slope 2.35 between the low- and high-mass cut-offs and approximates the classical Salpeter IMF (Salpter 1955), appropriate for most observations of star-forming regions. Two of the models are from the Starburst99 models of Leitherer et al. (1999). For comparison, we also show the solar metallicity model of Bruzual and Charlot (1993), which highlights the effect of adopting a smaller lower mass cut-off.

If each of our sources represents a stellar cluster, and the clusters are co-eval, then Fig 4 shows that the observed V$``$I band colours are broadly consistent with young stellar clusters with ages between $`10^{6.6}10^{7.3}`$ yrs. Furthermore, asuming that the clusters have the same metallicities, then the low-metallicity model is inconsistent with the V$``$I colour of HST-1, and the age constraint is tightened to between $`10^{6.6}10^{6.9}`$ yrs. This timescale is much shorter than the formation timescale of a low mass x-ray binary, $`10^810^9`$ yrs, but is consistent with the formation timescale of an intermediate/high mass x-ray binary, $`10^7`$ yrs (King et al. 2001).

By comparing the absolute V-band magnitudes, with the V-band magnitudes predicted by the nuclear Starburst99 models of Leitherer et al. (1999), we estimate the number of cluster members to be between several hundred (HST-3) and a few thousand stars (HST-1). We note that the upper limit to our source “sizes” (a few pcs at the distance of NGC 5204) are consistent with cluster sizes determined for nearby starburst galaxies (2-3 pcs, see Meurer et al. 1995).

## 5 Conclusions

We have used archival HST/WFPC2 V and I band images to show that the previously reported optical counterpart to the ultra-luminous x-ray source NGC 5204 X-1, can be resolved into two sources separated by 0.47”. We have also identified a third possible counterpart 0.8” east of the nominal Chandra position. All three sources appear blue (i.e. $`F_\lambda `$ decreases with increasing $`\lambda `$), with the fainter sources being significantly bluer. PSF fitting photometry with HSTphot yields source magnitudes of 20.3, 22.0 and 22.4 in V. Assuming that all three sources are co-eval, the V$``$I band colours suggest that NGC 5204 X-1 lies within a young ($`<`$10 Myr) stellar cluster. This is consistent with the idea that ULXs are intermediate/high-mass x-ray binaries.


text:
# Revised NLTT

## 1 Description of the Revised Catalog

Construction of the revised catalog and the properties of the original and the revised NLTT are discussed in Gould & Salim (2002); Salim & Gould (2002).

The revised catalog contains information grouped in six sections, 1) summary, 2) NLTT, 3) source identifications, 4) USNO, 5) 2MASS, 6) binaries, plus the last column which is an internal reference for debugging.

### 1.1 Summary Information

This section contains 11 entries: 1) the NLTT number (drawn consecutively from 1 to 58,845), 2) a letter code ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’ if the NLTT “star” has been resolved into several sources, 3) $`\alpha `$ (2000, epoch and equinox), 4) $`\delta `$ (2000), 5) $`\mu _\alpha `$, 6) $`\mu _\delta `$, 7) $`\sigma (\mu _\alpha )`$, 8) $`\sigma (\mu _\delta )`$ (all four in arcsec yr<sup>-1</sup>), 9) $`V`$, 10) $`VJ`$, 11) 3-digit source code.

The three digits of the source code refer to the sources of the position, proper motion, and $`V`$ photometry. 1 = Hipparcos, 2 = Tycho-2, 3 = Tycho Double Star Catalog (TDSC), 4 = Starnet, 5 = USNO/2MASS, 6 = NLTT, 7 = USNO (for position) or common proper motion companion (for proper motion). More specifically, “555” means 2MASS based position, USNO based $`V`$ photometry, and USNO/2MASS based proper motion.

The (2000) position has been evolved forward from whatever epoch it was measured using the adopted proper motion. When the positon source is Hipparcos, Tycho-2, or TDSC, the position is given in degrees to 6 digits, otherwise to 5 digits. For proper motions derived from a PPM catalog, the errors are adopted from that catalog. Proper motions from USNO/2MASS determinations have an estimated error of $`5.5\mathrm{mas}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. NLTT proper motions are $`20\mathrm{mas}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. CPM binary companions (without other astrometry) are not assigned an error, and zeros are entered into the error fields.

As described in Paper I, $`V`$ refers to the Johnson $`V`$ entry for Hipparcos, Tycho $`V`$ for Tycho-2 and TDSC, and Guide-star catalog $`R`$ for Starnet. The conversion from USNO photometry is given by,

$$V=R_{\mathrm{USNO}}+0.23+0.32(BR)_{\mathrm{USNO}}.$$
(1)
We remind the reader that for USNO-A1 photometry, we first convert to USNO-A2 using equation

$$B_{\mathrm{A2}}=B_{\mathrm{A1}}+49.0569.5613B_{\mathrm{A1}}+0.669B_{\mathrm{A1}}^20.0198B_{\mathrm{A1}}^3+0.0002B_{\mathrm{A1}}^4,(B_{\mathrm{A1}}>13.07)$$
(2)
before applying equation (1). When NLTT photometry is used, $`V`$ is evaluated using equations:

$$R_{\mathrm{USNO}}=0.9333R_{\mathrm{NLTT}}+0.6932,(R_{\mathrm{NLTT}}>10.39)$$
(3)
and $`R_{\mathrm{USNO}}=R_{\mathrm{NLTT}}`$ for $`R_{\mathrm{NLTT}}<10.39`$, and

$$(BR)_{\mathrm{NLTT}}(BR)_{\mathrm{USNO}}=0.23870.055R_{\mathrm{NLTT}},(R_{\mathrm{NLTT}}<16.5)$$

$$(BR)_{\mathrm{NLTT}}(BR)_{\mathrm{USNO}}=7.3817+0.4067R_{\mathrm{NLTT}},(R_{\mathrm{NLTT}}16.5).$$
(4)
to convert to USNO mags, and then applying equation (1). In the rare cases for which NLTT photometry is employed and one of the two bands is not reported, a color of $`(BR)_{\mathrm{NLTT}}=1`$ is assumed. No effort has been made to “de-combine” photometry in the case of unresolved binaries. For example, if a binary is resolved into two stars in 2MASS, but is unresolved in USNO, then different $`J`$ band measurements will be reported for the two stars, but both with have the same, combined-light $`V`$ photometry. The $`VJ`$ color reported in field 10 will be the simple difference of these two numbers. Similarly, if the NLTT “star” is resolved by TDSC but not 2MASS, then the $`V`$ light will be partitioned between the two stars but not the $`J`$ light. Finally, note that if no $`J`$ band photometry is available (whether because of saturation, faintness, or the star being in an area outside the second incremental 2MASS release) $`VJ`$ is given as $`9.`$

When multiple sources of information are available, the priority for what is presented in the summary is as follows. Positions: 3,1,2,5,4,7,6; Proper Motions: 3,2,1,5,4,7,6; Photometry: 3,1,2,5,4,6.

As discussed in Paper I, Tycho-2 proper motions are given precedence over Hipparcos primarily because they better reflect the long-term motion when the stars are affected by internal binary motions, but also because at faint magnitudes they are generally more precise. When Hipparcos proper motions are given, it is often because the star is so faint that it does not show up in Tycho. In this case, the nominal Hipparcos errors are often quite large and true errors can be even larger. We found a handful of cases by chance in which the Hipparcos proper motion was grossly in error and we removed the Hipparcos entry and substituted the USNO/2MASS value. However, we made no systematic effort to identify bad Hipparcos proper motions.

Only stars for which we are providing additional information are recorded in the catalog. There are 36,020 entries for 35,662 NLTT stars including a total of 723 entries for 361 NLTT “stars” that have been resolved in TDSC.

### 1.2 NLTT Information

The next 6 columns give information taken from NLTT, namely 12) $`\alpha `$ (2000), 13) $`\delta `$ (2000), 14) $`\mu _\alpha `$, 15) $`\mu _\delta `$, 16) $`B_{\mathrm{NLTT}}`$, 17) $`R_{\mathrm{NLTT}}`$. The coordinates and proper motions are precessed from the original 1950 equinox to 2000, and the position is updated to 2000 epoch using the NLTT proper motion.

### 1.3 Source Information

The next 2 columns give source information. Column 18 is the Hipparcos number (0 if not in Hipparcos). Column 19 is the identifier from TDSC, Tycho-2, or Starnet, whichever was used to determine the position in columns 3 and 4. When the position comes from Hipparcos, 2MASS, or USNO, or NLTT, “null” is entered in this field with one exception: when a Starnet measurement has been superseded by a 2MASS measurement, the Starnet identifier has been retained for ease of recovery of this source. It can easily be determined that the summary information comes from 2MASS because the first digit in field 11 will be a “5”.

### 1.4 USNO Information

The next six fields give USNO information: 20) Integer RA, 21) Integer DEC, 22) $`B_{\mathrm{A1}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{A2}}`$, 23) $`R_{\mathrm{A1}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{A2}}`$, 24) USNO Epoch, 25) 3-digit search-history code. The Integer RA and DEC together serve as a unique USNO identifier since that is the form RA and DEC are given in the original USNO-A1 and USNO-A2 releases. They can also be converted into degree $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ (at the USNO epoch) using the formulae: $`\alpha `$ = (Integer RA)/360000, $`\delta `$ = (Integer DEC)$`/36000090`$. Regarding the 3-digit search history code, the first digit tells which USNO catalog the entry is from: 1 = USNO-A1, 2 = USNO-A2. The second tells whether the USNO source was found in the rectangle (1) or the circle (2). The third tells whether it was a unique match (1), or had to be resolved by hand from among several possible matches (2). If there is no USNO information, all of these fields are set to zero.

### 1.5 2MASS Information

The next six fields contain 2MASS information: 26) $`\alpha `$, 27) $`\delta `$ (both at 2MASS Epoch), 28) $`J`$, 29) $`H`$, 30) $`K_s`$, 31) 2MASS Epoch. If no 2MASS data are available, all fields are replaced by zeros. If there are 2MASS data, but not for a particular magnitude measurement, that value is replaced by $`9`$.

### 1.6 Binary Information

The next six fields contain information about binarity: 31) binarity indicator, 32) NLTT number of binary companion, 33) NLTT estimated separation, 34) NLTT estimated position angle, 35) our estimated separation, 36) our estimated position angle. Regarding the binarity indicator, 0 means NLTT does not regard this as a binary. Otherwise, it is a NLTT binary and the indicator is set according to whether the companion is (2) or is not (1) in our catalog. The NLTT estimates of the separation position angle come from the NLTT Notes. Our estimates come from the difference of the 2000 positions of the two stars. In cases for which the companion is not in our catalog, the fields with “our” separation and position angle are replaced by values found from the difference of the NLTT coordinates (i.e., fields 12 and 13). The companion numbers are based on what we think is obviously what Luyten intended, rather than what was literally written down. However, no effort has been made to clean up any other transcription errors, even when these are equally obvious. No binary information is recorded in these fields about NLTT “stars” that were resolved by TDSC. Rather, the reader should recognize each of those binaries from the upper case letter appended to its NLTT number (column 2).

The final column (37) is an integer that is used in the program that assembles the catalog from the various subcatalogs that are described in Paper I and II. It is useful mainly to us, but for completeness: 1 = PPM+2MASS, 2 = USNO/2MASS, 3 = CPM, 4 (not used), 5 = 2MASS-only, 6 = PPM (no 2MASS), 7 = Annulus match, 8 = USNO-only.

The catalog is available from http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/{̃}gould/NLTT. The Fortran format statement for the catalog record is: (i5,a1,2f11.6,2f8.4,2f7.4,2f6.2,1x,3i1,2f10.5,2f8.4,2f5.1,i7,1x,a12, 2i10,2f5.1,f9.3,i2,2i1,2f10.5,3f7.3,f9.3,i2,i6,f7.1,f6.1,f7.1,f6.1,i2)


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The prototypical microquasar GRS 1915+105 was discovered by Granat  as a transient X-ray source. RXTE observations revealed astonishing X-ray variability  which has been classified by Belloni et al.  into twelve different X-ray states.

The analysis presented here is based on the data reduction described in full detail in Rau & Greiner . We analyzed 139 observations from 89 days from the RXTE public archive of GRS 1915+105 from November 1996 to September 2000, when the source was in the $`\chi `$-state . The absence of large amplitude variations and structured variability in these states suggests quasi-stable geometry and parameters during each observation and allows to fit the spectrum of an entire observation at once. $`\chi `$-states are connected with radio emission of varying strength and the most common states observed.

From each observation we used data from PCU0 and HEXTE cluster 0 and fitted these with a model consisting of cold absorption (WABS), a disk blackbody (DISKBB) and a power-law spectrum reflected from an ionized relativistic accretion disk (REFSCH ,) in XSPEC . Energies between 4 and 8.5 keV were ignored during the fitting process because of the known response problems of the PCA at these energies. The hydrogen column density was fixed at $`N_H`$=5$``$1022 cm-2.

Our model implies obvious simplifications, e.g. compared to the theoretical Comptonization models the power law overestimates the flux at low energies. Despite the simplicity of the three component model, we achieved surprisingly good fit results for our sample of $`\chi `$-state observations (reduced $`\chi ^2`$$`<`$2 for all and $`\chi ^2`$$`<`$1.1 for more than 60% of the observations).

## 2 Comptonization of the X-ray radiation

Two main models for the origin of the hard power-law tail in X-ray binaries exist. i) the bulk motion Comptonization ,, where the soft disk photons are inverse Compton scattered on a cloud of free falling, hot electrons inside the last inner stable orbit around the black hole and ii) the disk corona geometry (e.g. ), where the soft seed photons are scattered on a distribution of hot electrons located above the accretion disk.

The bulk motion model predicts a time lag between hard and soft X-ray photons of $``$0.2 ms, much smaller than the observed time lags of 0.1 s ,. This rules out the bulk motion Comptonization as the origin of the hard X-ray photons in the $`\chi `$-states of GRS 1915+105. Therefore, the disk corona is the most probable geometry. It is still unresolved if the hard power law tail continuous up to the MeV-range or if the spectrum cuts off. The electron distribution can either be thermal, non-thermal or hybrid. The absence of a clear cut off in the RXTE spectra however, requires high coronal temperatures ($`200`$ keV) and an optical depth, $`\tau _T1`$.

The analysis shows a bimodal distribution of an increasing normalization, $`K_{po}`$, with increasing slope, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of the power law (Fig. 1), suggesting a pivoting of the hard X-ray tail. Pivoting was recently found also in Cyg X-1  and can be explained by a variation in the flux of the soft seed photons or in the size of the corona. Assuming constant $`\tau _T`$, if the amount of intercepted soft seed photons is high, the electrons in the corona are cooled efficiently and the hard X-ray spectrum is steep. On the other hand, if the soft seed flux decreases, the temperature of the corona increases and the spectrum hardens.

The two branches in Fig. 1 represent observations during which long radio flares occurred (upper) and observations of times with short radio flares or without radio emission (lower) . Therefore, the different Comptonization behavior results probably from a difference in the optical depth or in the electron composition (thermal, hybrid).

## 3 Correlation of X-ray and radio emission

We analyzed 39 Ryle Telescope, RT, (15 GHz) and 9 Green Bank Interferometer, GBI, (2.25 & 8.3 GHz) observations taken simultaneously with the RXTE observations and searched for correlations in all model parameters and fluxes. No correlation is seen between the soft X-ray and radio components. Instead, the slope of the hard power law tail correlates with the radio flux, $`F_R`$, (Fig. 2).

It is generally assumed that both the radio jets ,  and the hard spectral component originate near the black hole. Similar to the interpretation of the pivoting behavior of the X-ray spectra, an increasing outflow of matter implies an increasing size of the scattering medium and therefore an increasing amount of intercepted soft seed photons. This leads to a lower plasma temperature due to cooling and to a softer X-ray spectrum.

This suggest the following scenario: when the radio emission is weak or absent, the Comptonization takes place in the corona above the accretion disk. With increasing outflow (higher radio emission) the matter in the jet intermingles with the corona. At high outflow rate the corona is blown away and the soft seed photons are scattered on the base of the jet , .

## 4 Long term periodicity

The analysis of the X-ray model parameters for all $`\chi `$-state observations of GRS 1915+105 reveals a remarkably periodic behavior of the hard X-ray component, for example the power law slope (see Fig. 4 in ). An analysis of variance for several model parameters and X-ray and radio fluxes was performed using the Fisher-Snedecor distribution function . It shows a maximum at a period of 590$`\pm `$40 (FWHM) days in the hard X-ray components and in the radio fluxes of RT and GBI . This confirms the 19 month periodicity which was already briefly mentioned by Kuulkers et al. .

Fig. 3 shows the power law slope (left) and the GBI radio flux at 2.25 GHz in periods of 590 days. Where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a quasi-sinusoidal behavior the periodicity in the radion flux is visible in the radio outbursts. Both the broad outburst with exponential cutoff at phase $``$0.2 and the shorter and steeper outbursts repeat periodically.

Long-term periodicity in X-ray binaries is known since more then two decades  and radiation driven warping of the accretion disk is the generally assumed mechanism for the periodicity in low-mass X-ray binaries , . The outer, tilted part of the accretion disk is irradiated by the central source. If the radiation is absorbed and re-emitted parallel to the local disk gradient, a torque due to gas pressure affects the disk. A small warp grows exponentially if the luminosity is sufficient to depress the dissipative processes forcing the disk back into the orbital plane .

The periodicity accrues because the Roche lobe overflow of the donor star hits the not co-rotating accretion disk at different disk radii during an orbital cycle. This leads to regions in the disk with differing mass density. The radial flow in the inner part of the accretion disk is therefore not homogeneous leading to a periodic variation of the amount of soft seed photons being comptonized in the corona. Therefore, the electron temperature in the corona varies on the same time scale due to Compton cooling and the power law slope varies. The amount of matter to be ejected in a jet changes with similar periodicity which explains the overall periodicity in the radio flux.

The soft X-ray component (ASM count rate & hardness ratios, soft model components) do not show any periodicity in the $`\chi `$-state observations. The periodicity can simply be masked by the high short term variability in timing and spectral behavior of GRS 1915+105.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank M. L. McCollough (BATSE) and G. G. Pooley (MRAO) for providing the BATSE and RT data. The Ryle Telescope is supported by PPARC. The Green Bank Interferometer is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated by the NRAO in support of NASA High Energy Astrophysics programs.


text:
# 1 The Δ𝐸 distributions for three-body final states.

Three-body charmless $`BKhh`$ decays at Belle

Alexei Garmash (representing the Belle Collaboration)
High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK)
1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, JAPAN

Study of three-body $`B`$ decays can significantly broaden the understanding of $`B`$ meson decay mechanisms and provide additional possibilities for CP violation searches. The decays of $`B`$ mesons to charmless three-body $`Khh`$ final states can be described by a $`bu`$ tree-level spectator diagram and a $`bs(d)g`$ one-loop penguin diagram. (Although $`bu`$ $`W`$-exchange, annihilation, or vertical $`W`$ loop diagrams can also contribute to these final states, they are expected to be smaller and we neglect them for simplicity.) Three-body decays of $`B`$ mesons to final states with odd numbers of kaons ($`s`$-quarks) are expected to proceed dominantly via the $`bsg`$ penguin transition since the $`bu`$ contribution in these cases has an additional CKM suppression. In contrast, decays with two kaons in final state proceed via $`bu`$ tree transition (with possible contribution from $`bdg`$ penguin), and have no contribution from $`bsg`$ penguin. From this simple consideration we can naively expect that the $`K\pi \pi `$ and $`KKK`$ final states have the largest signal among other three-body $`Khh`$ final states. The observation of $`K^{+(0)}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^{+(0)}K^+K^{}`$ final states has been reported recently by the Belle Collaboration . Here, we report the results of a study of $`B`$ mesons decays to three-body $`K\pi \pi `$, $`KK\pi `$, and $`KKK`$ final states, where no prior assumptions are made about intermediate hadronic resonances. The inclusion of charge conjugate states is implicit throughout this report.

The data sample used for this analysis was collected with the Belle detector  operating at the KEKB asymmetric energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. It consists of 43 fb<sup>-1</sup> taken at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, corresponding to $`45.3\times 10^6`$ produced $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs.

Charged tracks are selected with a set of track quality requirements based on the average hit residual and on the distances of closest approach to the interaction point. We also require that the transverse track momenta be greater than 0.1 GeV/$`c`$ to reduce the low momentum combinatoric background. Charged kaons and pions are identified basing on $`dE/dx`$ measurements by the central drift chamber, information from threshold Čerenkov counters and time-of-flight scintillation counters. Tracks that identified as protons or electrons are rejected. Neutral kaons are reconstructed via their decay chain $`K^0(\overline{K}^0)K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The invariant mass of the two pions is required to satisfy $`|M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})M_{K^0}|<10`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and the displacement of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ vertex from the interaction point in the transverse ($`r`$-$`\varphi `$) plane is required to be greater than 0.1 cm and less than 20 cm. The $`K_S`$ flight direction and combined pion pair momentum direction in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane must agree within 0.2 radians. Photons are identified as isolated clusters in the electromagnetic calorimeter with energy greater than 50 MeV. Pairs of photons with an invariant mass within 15 MeV of the $`\pi ^0`$ nominal mass are considered as $`\pi ^0`$ candidates. The reconstructed $`\pi ^0`$ momentum is required to be more than 0.2 GeV/$`c`$.

We reconstruct $`B`$ mesons in three-body $`K\pi \pi `$, $`KK\pi `$, and $`KKK`$ final states with charged or neutral (not more than one) pions and charged or neutral kaons. The candidate events are identified by their center of mass (CM) energy difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=(_iE_i)E_\mathrm{b}`$, and the beam constrained mass, $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=\sqrt{E_\mathrm{b}^2(_i\stackrel{}{p}_i)^2}`$, where $`E_\mathrm{b}=\sqrt{s}/2`$ is the beam energy in the CM frame, and $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ and $`E_i`$ are the CM three-momenta and energies of the candidate $`B`$ meson decay products. We select events with $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.20`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`0.30<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.50`$ GeV, and define a signal region of $`|M_{\mathrm{bc}}M_B|<9`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.04`$ GeV and two $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sideband regions defined as $`0.08`$ GeV $`<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.05`$ GeV and $`0.05`$ GeV $`<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.15`$ GeV.

To suppress the large combinatorial background which is dominated by two-jet-like $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ continuum events, variables that characterize the event topology are used. The procedure is described in detail in Ref. . The potentially dangerous sources of background from other $`B`$ decays were studied with a large sample of $`B\overline{B}`$ Monte Carlo (MC) events. As a result of this study we found that $`BDh`$, where $`h`$ stands for a charged pion or kaon, produce the dominant background to the most of the three-body final states. To suppress this background we introduce $`D`$ veto cut: we reject candidates if any two-particle invariant mass is consistent with a $`DK\pi `$ hypothesis, independently of the PID information. In the analysis of $`K^{+(0)}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final states we also apply a charmonium veto: candidates, with a two-pion invariant mass consistent with $`J/\psi (\psi (2S))\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ are rejected.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions for some of the three-body final states are shown in Fig. 1, where the points with errors represent the experimental data, and histograms show the expected background distributions. To extract the signal yield in the $`K\pi \pi `$ and $`KKK`$ final states, we fit the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions to the sum of signal and background components. The signal shape is parameterized by a double Gaussian function with the same mean. There are two sources of background: $`q\overline{q}`$ continuum background that is approximated by the linear function and $`B\overline{B}`$ background which is final state dependent. The shape of the $`B\overline{B}`$ background for each particular three-body final state was determined using a large set ($``$3.5 times the data set) of MC events. The $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`B\overline{B}`$ component are also shown in Fig. 1. The $`B\overline{B}`$ is found to be substantial in $`K\pi \pi `$ final states, while it gives very small contribution in three-kaon final states. For other final states, a different technique is used for signal yield extraction. We subdivide the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ region into 20 MeV bins and determine the signal yield in each bin from the fit to the corresponding $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ spectrum. The signal yield from the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit is then plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The results for the $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ final state is shown in Fig. 1 as points with errors, where the $`B\overline{B}`$ contribution is also shown. The more detailed description can be found in Ref. .

The results of the fit are summarized in Table 1. Statistically significant signals are observed in $`K^{+(0)}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and all three-kaon final states. The resulting branching fractions for the three-body final states are presented in Table 1, where the results of Ref.  are also included for comparison.

To examine possible intermediate quasi-two-body states, we analyze two-particle mass spectra. The $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass spectra for the $`B^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ signal are shown in Fig. 2. To suppress the feed-across between the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ states, we require the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ ($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) invariant mass to be larger than 2.0 (1.5) GeV/$`c^2`$ when making the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ ($`K^+\pi ^{}`$) projection. The hatched histograms shown in Fig. 2 are the corresponding two-particle invariant mass spectra for the background events in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands with proper normalization. The Dalitz plot analysis procedure is described in Ref.  in detail.

In conclusion, the results of the branching ratio measurement for the $`B`$ decays to three-body $`K\pi \pi `$, $`KK\pi `$, and $`KKK`$ final states are presented, where the $`K_SK_SK^+`$ and $`K_SK_SK_S`$ final states are observed for the first time. We also report 3$`\sigma `$ evidence for the signal in $`K^+K^{}\pi ^{}`$ final state. The analysis of quasi-two-body final states reveals large signals of $`B^+f_0(980)K^+`$, $`B^+K^{}(892)^0\pi ^+`$ in $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final state and $`B^+\varphi K^+`$ in $`K^+K^+K^{}`$ final state. The measured branching fraction product for the $`f_0(980)K^+`$ final state is $`(B^+f_0(980)K^+)\times (f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(9.6_{2.31.50.8}^{+2.5+1.5+3.4})\times 10^6`$. This is the first observation of a $`B`$ meson decay to a charmless scalar-pseudoscalar final state. We find that effects of interference between different quasi-two-body intermediate states can have significant influence on the observed two-particle mass spectra and a full amplitude analysis of three-body $`B`$ meson decays is required for a more complete understanding. This will be possible with increased statistics.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator.


text:
# Using single quantum states as spin filters to study spin polarization in ferromagnets

## Abstract

By measuring electron tunneling between a ferromagnet and individual energy levels in an aluminum quantum dot, we show how spin-resolved quantum states can be used as filters to determine spin-dependent tunneling rates. We also observe magnetic-field-dependent shifts in the magnet’s electrochemical potential relative to the dot’s energy levels. The shifts vary between samples and are generally smaller than expected from the magnet’s spin-polarized density of states. We suggest that they are affected by field-dependent charge redistribution at the magnetic interface.

Quantum dots are useful for studying electron spins, because they allow individual spin-resolved states to be examined in detail. Previous experiments have probed spin physics within several types of quantum dots: semiconductors , nonmagnetic metals , carbon nanotubes , and ferromagnets . Here we use the individual spin-resolved energy levels in a quantum dot to investigate the physics of a bulk magnetic electrode. The spin polarization in the magnet affects electron tunneling via the dot levels in two ways. First, tunneling rates are different for spin-up and spin-down electrons; we demonstrate how the tunneling polarization can be measured by using quantum-dot states as spin filters . Second, as a function of magnetic field, the electrochemical potential of the magnetic electrode shifts relative to the energy levels in the dot. Previously, tunneling polarizations  and electrochemical shifts  have been measured by other techniques in larger devices having continuous densities of electronic states. By probing at the level of single quantum states, we are able to compare both effects in one device. We also achieve more precise measurements of the electrochemical shifts which demonstrate that they are not determined purely by the bulk properties of the magnet, as has been assumed previously .

Our quantum dot is an Al particle, 5-10 nm in diameter, connected by Al2O3 tunnel junctions to an Al electrode on one side and a cobalt or nickel electrode on the other (Fig. 1, inset). We use an Al particle to minimize spin-orbit coupling, so that electronic states within the particle are to a good approximation purely spin-up or spin-down . Device fabrication is done following the recipe in , except that in the final step we deposit 80 nm of magnetic Co or Ni at a pressure of $`2\times 10^7`$ torr to form the second electrode. We conduct tunneling measurements in a dilution refrigerator, using filtered electrical lines that provide an electronic base temperature of approximately 40 mK. Beyond a threshold voltage determined by the charging energy, electron tunneling via individual quantum states in the Al particle produces discrete steps in the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve  or equivalently peaks in $`dI/dV`$ vs. $`V`$ (Fig. 1). The sign of bias refers to the sign applied to the Al electrode. Figure 2 shows how the energy levels in the particle undergo Zeeman spin-splitting as a function of magnetic field ($`B`$, applied in the plane of the nitride membrane) . The Co-lead sample also exhibits nonlinearities for $`B<`$ 0.3 T, possibly associated with magnetic-domain rotation.

Before we turn to our main results, we note some experimental details. In order to convert the measured voltages of the resonances to energy, one must correct for the capacitive division of $`V`$ across the two tunnel junctions. For a tunneling transition across the nonmagnetic (N) junction, this is accomplished by multiplying $`V`$ by $`eC_F/(C_N+C_F)`$ and for the ferromagnetic (F) junction by $`eC_N/(C_N+C_F)`$, where $`C_N`$ and $`C_F`$ are the two junction capacitances. The capacitance ratio can be determined by comparing the voltage for tunneling through the same state at positive and negative $`V`$ . We must also understand whether a resonance corresponds to a threshold for an electron tunneling on or off the particle, and across which tunnel junction. The transitions which correspond to tunneling between the particle and the Al electrode can be identified by the presence of a shift in their $`V`$ positions as the Al electrode is driven from superconducting to normal by a magnetic field, and by the effect of the superconducting density of states (DOS) on the resonance shape . The sign of $`V`$ then determines whether an electron is tunneling on or off the particle. For the sample (Ni#1) shown in Figs. 1(a) and 2(a,b), the transitions at positive $`V`$ correspond to tunneling first from the dot to the Al electrode, with $`eC_F/(C_N+C_F)`$ = (0.42 $`\pm `$ 0.02)e. For the sample (Co#1) in Figs. 1(b) and 2(c), at positive $`V`$ electrons are initially tunneling from the Co electrode to the particle, and $`eC_N/(C_N+C_F)`$ = (0.44 $`\pm `$ 0.01)e.

We will now analyze how the currents carried by individual states allow measurements of spin-dependent tunneling rates. The resistances of our tunnel junctions are sufficiently large (at least 1 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }h/e^2`$) that transport can be modeled by sequential tunneling . The analysis takes a particularly simple form when the offset charge  has a value that permits tunneling at a low value of $`V`$ so that only a single orbital state on the quantum dot contributes to current flow near the tunneling threshold . This is the case for sample Co#1; the thresholds for more complicated non-equilibrium tunneling processes, involving the lowest-energy even-electron excited state , are $`V<`$ -5.8 mV or $`V>`$ 4.2 mV at $`B=0`$ in this sample. In general the simple equilibrium tunneling regime can be achieved for any nanoparticle device made with a gate electrode so that the offset charge can be adjusted . In Fig. 3(a) we show the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve for sample Co#1 with $`B`$ = 1 T to Zeeman-split the resonances. The first step in current for either sign of $`V`$ corresponds in this sample to an electron tunneling through only a spin-up (majority-spin) state. The sequential tunneling theory  predicts that these two currents should have identical magnitudes,

$$I_{1+}=|I_1|=e\gamma _{}\gamma _N/(\gamma _{}+\gamma _N),$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _{}`$ is the bare tunneling rate between the magnet and the spin-up state, and $`\gamma _N`$ is the tunneling rate to the Al electrode. The fact that the steps do have the same magnitude confirms that electrons are tunneling via just one state. When $`|V|`$ is increased to permit tunneling through either the spin-up or spin-down state, the predicted values for the total current, using the methods in , are for positive and negative $`V`$,

$$I_{2+}=\frac{e\gamma _N(\gamma _{}+\gamma _{})}{\gamma _N+\gamma _{}+\gamma _{}},$$
(2)
$$|I_2|=\frac{2e\gamma _N}{1+\gamma _N/\gamma _{}+\gamma _N/\gamma _{}}.$$
(3)
We have made use of time-reversal symmetry which requires that the tunneling rates from the nonmagnetic electrode to both Zeeman-split states should be the same. This has been verified in a previous experiment . We have also neglected spin relaxation based on experimental limits of relaxation rates slower than 5$`\times `$107 s-1 in Al particles with Al electrodes , much slower than the tunneling rates. Equations (1)-(3) can be inverted to determine $`\gamma _N`$, $`\gamma _{}`$, and $`\gamma _{}`$ from $`I_{1+}`$, $`I_{2+}`$, and $`I_2`$ (Fig. 3(c)). The resulting tunneling polarization, $`(\gamma _{}\gamma _{})/(\gamma _{}+\gamma _{})`$, is positive (Fig. 3(d)), meaning that the tunneling rate for spin-up (majority) electrons in the ferromagnet is faster than for spin-down. This sign agrees with results for tunneling from ferromagnets through Al2O3 into thin-film superconducting Al (FIS devices) , although the sign is opposite to the polarization of the DOS at the Fermi level within band structure calculations . This is understood to be due to much larger tunneling matrix elements for predominantly $`sp`$-band majority-spin electrons compared to predominantly $`d`$-band minority electrons, so that the matrix elements dominate over the DOS effect in determining the relative tunneling rates . The magnitude of the tunneling polarization that we measure (8-12%) is considerably less than the values 35-42% found for Co using FIS devices , and we observe some field dependence not seen in larger samples (Fig. 3(d)). Both effects may indicate imperfections in our tunnel barriers; they have not undergone the process of optimization which achieved large polarizations in larger-area devices . The presence of any oxidation at the magnetic interface can reduce the tunneling polarization . Our barriers are also very thin (with resistance-area products less than 200 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\mu `$m2 compared to 107-1010 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\mu `$m2 in most prior experiments ), which might reduce the polarization by increasing the relative tunneling rate of $`d`$-states . (However, recent work on optimized large-area F/Al2O3/F tunnel junctions with $`RA`$ 100 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\mu `$m2 does not show reduced polarization .) We have considered whether the magnetic electrode might enhance spin relaxation within the particle so that it should not be neglected. This cannot explain the full reduction in our polarization; treating the relaxation rate as a free parameter, the maximum polarization consistent with the current steps in Fig. 3(a) is 21%.

In Figs. 1(b) and 2(c) at negative $`V`$, some higher-energy spin-down resonances produce $`dI/dV<0`$, meaning that they decrease the total current. This is a consequence of the slower rate of tunneling for minority-spin electrons; an electron in the spin-down state blocks current flow through the spin-up channel until the electron tunnels slowly to the F electrode. By incorporating additional states into the sequential-tunneling model, we find a tunneling polarization of $`15\pm 6\%`$ for the second Zeeman pair in sample Co#1.

Let us now consider the $`V`$ positions of the tunneling resonances as a function of $`B`$. The magnitude of the Zeeman splitting is similar to previous measurements in all-Al devices . After converting from $`V`$ to energy as described above, we determine the g-factor according to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{Zeeman}=g\mu _BB`$. For the levels in Ni#1, $`g`$ is between 1.83 $`\pm `$ 0.05 and 1.90 $`\pm `$ 0.07, in Co#1 between 1.98 $`\pm `$ 0.07 and 2.05 $`\pm `$ 0.06, and in the other devices discussed in this paper, 1.9 $`g2.0`$. However, the data in Fig. 2 differ from studies with non-magnetic electrodes  in that the slopes of the spin-up and spin-down Zeeman shifts are not symmetric about 0; in Figs. 2(a,b) the midpoints of the Zeeman-split states tend to higher $`|V|`$ as a function of $`B`$ and in Fig. 2(c) they tend to lower values of $`|V|`$. This effect is expected in single-electron transistors (SETs) made with magnetic components, as a result of a field-dependent change in a magnet’s electrochemical potential . A related shift has been observed in micron-scale Ni/Co/Ni, Co/Ni/Co, and Al/Co/Al SETs . When a magnetic field is applied to any bulk metal, it will flip some electron spins to align with $`B`$. Because a ferromagnet has different densities of states at the Fermi level for majority- and minority-spin states, the electrochemical potential must shift with B to accommodate the flipped spins. The magnitude of the shift will also be enhanced by exchange interactions in the magnet . We will parameterize the shift by the variable $`S`$, such that for an isolated magnetic sample $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_F(B)=S\mu _BB`$. When a magnet is incorporated as one electrode in an otherwise nonmagnetic SET, the experimental consequences of this shift are equivalent to a change in the energy of all the states in the nanoparticle by the amount $`dE/dB=\mu _BSC_F/(C_N+C_F)`$ . This analysis assumes that the magnetic field does not induce any rearrangements of charge density (see below).

Within each sample, the average slopes of the different Zeeman-split pairs correspond to the same value of $`S`$ within measurement uncertainty. For the data in Figs. 2(a,b), the average slopes are (2.6 $`\pm `$ 0.2) $`\times `$ 10-2 mV/Tesla for positive $`V`$ and (1.85 $`\pm `$ 0.2) $`\times `$ 10-2 mV/Tesla for negative $`V`$, giving in both cases $`S`$ = $`0.45\pm 0.04`$. For non-interacting electrons with different majority and minority densities of states per unit energy at the Fermi level, $`\rho _{}`$ and $`\rho _{}`$, the DOS polarization would give a shift $`S=(1/2)g[(\rho _{}\rho _{})/(\rho _{}+\rho _{})]`$, where $`g`$ is the $`g`$-factor . Therefore a positive sign for $`S`$ corresponds to a greater density of minority-spin states at the Fermi level, in agreement with band structure calculations for Ni and Co . However, the magnitude of the measured shift is surprisingly small. Band-structure calculations for Ni give $`\rho _{}/\rho _{}`$ = 8.5 , so that one would expect $`S>`$ 0.79. We write this as a lower limit, because exchange interactions should increase $`S`$ relative to predictions for non-interacting electrons . For two other devices with a Ni electrode, made by the same procedure, we find even more striking discrepancies: $`S`$ = 0.15 $`\pm `$ 0.1 and 0.2 $`\pm `$ 0.1. For 3 samples with a Co electrode, for which band structure calculations suggest that $`S>`$ 0.59 , we observe $`S`$ = 0.1 $`\pm `$ 0.1, 0.37 $`\pm `$ 0.05 (for Co#1), and 0.7 $`\pm `$ 0.1. Even though the electrochemical shift is expected to be a bulk property of the magnet , we find significant sample-to-sample variations for the shift in the magnet’s electrochemical potential relative to the Al particle.

We propose that the explanation of these discrepancies is that a magnetic field may produce rearrangements in the charge distribution inside a magnetic tunnel junction that will shift the energy levels of the particle as a function of $`B`$, with different strengths in each device. The predominantly $`d`$-band character of the minority electrons in Co or Ni will cause their wavefunctions to decay over a shorter distance as they penetrate into the tunnel barrier than for the predominantly $`sp`$-band majority electrons . Therefore, as an applied magnetic field transfers electrons from minority to majority states, some charge density at the surface of the magnet should shift slightly toward the barrier region . More complicated spin-dependent interface states could act similarly. The sign of the effect should cause the measured values of $`S`$ to decrease for Ni and Co electrodes, and the magnitude will be given by the work that the moving charge does on an electron in the particle. Making the approximation that the spin-dependent densities at the magnet’s surface are similar to the bulk, the charge density per unit area which changes spin at the last monolayer of the magnet is $`\sigma ea\rho _{}\rho _{}g\mu _BB/(\rho _{}+\rho _{})`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice constant. If the average position for charges in the minority and majority states differs by $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ at the surface layer, then this charge movement should change the measured electrochemical shift by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵ_0}}ga(\mathrm{\Delta }x){\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{}\rho _{}}{\rho _{}+\rho _{}}}`$ (4)
$``$ $`12\mathrm{\Delta }x/\AA `$ (5)
for either a Co or Ni electrode. Therefore even in micron-scale devices , $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ as small as 0.01 $`\AA `$ may decrease $`S`$ by 10%, and foil attempts to measure the DOS polarization. In our devices, which have possibly non-uniform tunnel barriers, variations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ by less than 0.05 $`\AA `$ can explain the sample-to-sample differences.

In summary, we have studied tunneling between a bulk ferromagnet and the spin-resolved energy levels in a quantum dot. The energy levels can be used as spin filters, permitting a measurement of the different tunneling rates from the magnet for spin-up and spin-down electrons. As a function of $`B`$, the electrochemical potential in the magnet shifts relative to the energy levels in the quantum dot. In addition to the shift that is expected due to the magnet’s bulk density-of-states polarization , we suggest that there is an important contribution from $`B`$-dependent redistributions of charge at the magnetic interface.

We thank R. A. Buhrman, A. Champagne, S. Guéron, A. H. MacDonald, D. J. Monsma, and E. B. Myers for discussions. Funding was provided by ARO (DAAD19-01-1-0541), the Packard Foundation, and NSF (DMR-0071631 and use of the National Nanofabrication Users Network).