text:
# Long Time Algebraic Relaxation in Chaotic Billiards

## Abstract

The long time algebraic relaxation process in spatially periodic billiards with infinite horizon is shown to display a self-similar time asymptotic form. This form is identical for a class of such billiards, but can be different in an important special case.

Diffusion and transport of a population of particles whose motion occurs in an infinite periodic array of scatters is a basic problem of continuing interest (e.g., Refs. Geisel  and Sinai ). Here we consider billiards, i.e., systems in which a point particle moves in straight line orbits with constant velocity, executing specular reflection from fixed boundaries (e.g, Refs. Sinai ; Bunimovich ; Bleher ; Lee ). Several examples are shown in Fig. 1 and described in the figure caption. These examples all have channels in which a particle traveling in the proper direction (either exactly horizontally or vertically for the examples in Fig. 1) never experiences reflection; i.e., these are infinite horizon billiards. Particle motion without reflection occurs only for a zero measure set of initial conditions, but it represents a possible source of deviation from classical diffusive behavior. Deviations from classical diffusive behavior (in particular, superdiffusive transport) are of great interest in a variety of physical situations Geisel ; Afanasiev ; ShlesingerBook ; Shlesinger ; Zaslavsky ; Zumofen ; Ishizaki ; Benkadda  and are often associated with the simultaneous presence of chaotic regions and invariant phase space surfaces \[i.e., Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser (KAM) surfaces\]. In those cases the anomalous transport is associated with the “stickiness” Karney ; Hanson ; Meiss  of the KAM surfaces; chaotic particles near these KAM surfaces tend to remain near them for long periods of time during which they experience long flights ShlesingerBook . An analogous phenomenon is present in the infinite horizon billiards of Fig. 1 in that particles in the channels experience long flights if their direction of travel is nearly aligned with the channel. While KAM stickiness remains a rather difficult phenomenon to fully analyze, infinite horizon billiards, like those in Fig. 1, are much simpler to study and offer possible insights into the general phenomenon of nonclassical diffusive transport.

Our work on infinite horizon billiards will concentrate on the relaxation of particle distributions to their invariant long-time asymptotic form. In particular, we will study how a distribution, initially having no particles in phase space regions corresponding to long flights, repopulates these regions. We find, using analytical and numerical methods, that this repopulation process occurs in a self-similar manner diffusion . That is, at long time the relaxing distribution function assumes a particular invariant form when expressed in terms of a properly scaled variable. Furthermore, this distribution function is the same for all the billiards in Figs. 1(a)-(d), but is different for the billiard in Fig. 1(e). The billiard in Fig. 1(e) is of particular interest because its infinite flight invariant set is, in an appropriate sense, more sticky than are the invariant sets in the other examples.

It is important to note that the billiards in Fig. 1 all admit an invariant particle probability distribution function (PDF). In particular, considering a monoenergetic ensemble of particles, a particle distribution function that is uniform in the accessible area of the billiard and isotropic in the angle $`\theta `$ of the particle velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is time invariant. (Here $`\theta `$ is defined by $`|\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{y_o}|=|\stackrel{}{v}|\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`0\theta \pi /2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y_o}`$ is a unit vector in the vertical direction.) Our main concern in this paper is how this invariant distribution, isotropic in $`\theta `$, is approached.

Since the channels where infinite flights occur are of most interest, we are primarily concerned with the manner in which particles enter and leave the vicinity of the vertical infinite flight orbits. For the purpose of exposing the essential features of this problem, we consider the relaxation of an initial distribution, $`P(x,y,\theta ,0)`$, that has no particles in the vicinity of the infinite flight orbits. In particular, we take $`P(x,y,\theta ,0)`$ to be zero outside one of the size $`L`$ cells indicated in Fig. 1, while within the accessible part of such a cell

$$P(\overline{x},\overline{y},\theta ,0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \mathrm{if}\theta \theta _{max},\hfill \\ K\hfill & \mathrm{if}\theta _{max}\theta \pi /2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is a normalization constant, $`\theta _{max}1`$. Our main result is that for large time $`\widehat{P}(\theta ,t)P(x,y,\theta ,t)dxdy`$, where the integral is over $`(x,y)`$ restricted to the vertical channels, approaches a scaling form depending on the single variable $`\varphi =v\theta t/W`$. That is, for large $`t`$ and $`\varphi `$ bounded,

$$\widehat{P}(\theta ,t)S_j(\varphi );j=0\mathrm{or}1.$$
(2)
Furthermore, the form of the scaling function on the right hand side of (2) is the same for the billiards in Figs. 1(a)-(d). We call this function $`S_0(\varphi )`$. For the billiard of Fig. 1(e), however, the scaling function, denoted $`S_1(\varphi )`$, takes another form. In the definition $`\varphi =v\theta t/W`$, $`W`$ is defined as the region of free vertical flights \[for billiard (a) $`W=L2R`$, for billiard (b) $`W=L2(R+\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$, for billiard (c) $`W`$ is the distance between the dashed circles ($`W=L\sqrt{2}d`$), and for billiards (d) and (e) $`W`$ is as shown in Fig. 1.\]

Figure 2(a) shows histogram approximations to $`\widehat{P}(\theta ,t)`$ plotted versus $`\varphi =v\theta t/W`$ for the billiard of Fig. 1(a) with $`L=3R`$ at four times ($`+`$, $`\times `$, $``$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ correspond to $`t=9W/v`$, $`27W/v`$, $`81W/v`$, and $`243W/v`$ respectively). These data are obtained by computing the orbits of a large number of initial conditions chosen randomly from the distribution function (1). Results similar to those in Fig. 2(a) are also obtained for the billiards of Figs. 1(b, c, and d). In all these cases, at long time, the distribution increases linearly with $`\varphi `$ from $`\varphi =0`$, until some critical value $`\varphi _0`$ past which the distribution is constant in $`\varphi `$,

$$\widehat{P}(\theta ,t)S_0(\varphi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}C\varphi \hfill & \mathrm{for}\varphi \varphi _0,\hfill \\ C\varphi _0\hfill & \mathrm{for}\varphi \varphi _0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
In contrast to the results \[e.g., Fig. 2(a)\] for the billiards of Figs. 1(a-d), the billiard of Fig. 1(e) gives a very different time asymptotic distribution. This is shown by the histogram approximations (Fig. 2(b)) to $`\widehat{P}(\theta ,t)`$ obtained for the billiard of Fig. 1(e) with $`W/R=1`$ and the same four times as in Fig. 2(a). Note that in this case the long time distribution function is identically zero for $`\varphi <1/2`$.

We now show how the time asymptotic distributions in Figs. 2 arise. We start with the distribution Eq. (3) \[Fig. 2(a)\] applicable to the billiards in Figs. 1(a-d). As we will subsequently see, for all the billiards in Figs. 1(a-d), the scattering of a long flight upon reflection from a channel wall leads to a much more drastic change in the angle of a particle’s velocity vector than in the case of the billiard in Fig. 1(e).

For example, in the case of the billiard in Fig. 1(a), the angular deflection for small $`\theta `$ is typically of order $`\theta ^{1/2}`$, which is much larger than $`\theta `$. In the case of the billiards in Fig. 1(b-d), a particle moving nearly parallel to a channel axis is scattered by an angle of order one. Furthermore, after a large deflection, the orientation of the particle’s velocity vector is rapidly randomized by a succession of many reflections which, since the particle is no longer in a long flight, occur in a relatively short time. These considerations lead us to a model for the cases in Figs. 1(a)-1(d) in which we adopt the model hypothesis that, when a particle in a long flight suffers a collision with a billiard wall, the orientation of its velocity vector is randomly scattered with uniform probability density in $`[0,2\pi ]`$. We wish to determine the evolution from the initial condition (1) in the case $`\theta _{\text{max}}1`$. This initial distribution is equal to the initial distribution $`P_b(\overline{x},\overline{y},\theta ,0)=K`$ for all $`\theta `$ minus the initial condition $`P_c(\overline{x},\overline{y},\theta ,0)=K`$ for $`\theta <\theta _{max}`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. The distribution $`P_b`$ remains unchanged when it is evolved forward in time (it is an invariant distribution). Thus, to find the evolution from initial condition (1), we can determine the evolution from $`P_c`$, and then subtract it from $`K`$. The long time evolution from $`P_c`$ can be found by considering the time at which particles are scattered. Consider, for example, the billiard of Fig. 1(d), and a particle with a small initial $`\theta _o`$. Suppose the particle is located in the channel at a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ from the boundary of the channel with which it will collide \[left or right vertical dashed line in Fig. 1(d)\]. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }x<vt\mathrm{sin}\theta _ovt\theta _o`$, the particle scatters before time $`t`$; if $`\mathrm{\Delta }x>vt\theta _o`$, it does not scatter. For particles in the channel, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x<W`$, so every particle with $`\theta _o>W/(vt)`$ must have scattered at least once. We assume that $`t>W/(v\theta _{max})t_o`$. Since $`\theta _{\text{max}}`$ is small, the scattered particles contribute a small positive value of order $`\theta _{\text{max}}`$ to $`\widehat{P}_c(\theta ,t)`$ in $`\theta `$. Thus $`\widehat{P}_c(\theta ,t)`$ is small (i.e., of order $`\theta _{\text{max}}`$) for $`\theta >W/vt`$. For $`\theta _o<\mathrm{\Delta }x/(vt)`$, $`t>t_o`$, the particle has not yet scattered. Assuming that the initial spatial distribution of particles in the channel is uniform, the fraction of particles with initial angle $`\theta _o`$ that have scattered is $`\theta _ovt/W`$. Thus

$$\widehat{P}_c(\theta ,t)\{\begin{array}{cc}K(1\theta vt/W)\hfill & \text{ for }\theta <W/(vt),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ for }\theta >W/(vt),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where we have neglected the small, order $`\theta _{max}`$, contribution to $`\widehat{P}_c(\theta ,t)`$ from scattered particles. Subtracting $`\widehat{P}_c`$ from $`\widehat{P}_b`$ as illustrated in Fig. 3, we obtain the time asymptotic form in Eq. (3).

We now consider the evolution of initial condition (1) in the billiard of Fig. 1(e) for orbits experiencing long flights, Fig. 2(b). When an orbit in a long flight encounters the channel wall it may experience either one reflection (Fig. 4(a)) or two reflections (Fig. 4(b)). A geometrical analysis Lee  shows that for $`\theta ^{}1`$, the relation between the angle $`\theta ^{}`$ before the encounter and the angle $`\theta `$ after the encounter is $`\theta M(ϵ)\theta ^{}`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the distance illustrated in Figs. 4(a,b) and $`M(ϵ)`$ is the piecewise linear function shown in Fig. 4(c). Note from Fig. 4(c) that the trajectory angle can increase or decrease at most by a factor of $`3`$ upon an encounter with the wall. Thus a long flight is again followed by a long flight, in contrast to the billiards of Figs. 1(a-d). That is, the infinite flight invariant set for the billiard of Fig. 1(e) is more sticky than are those of the other billiards, Figs. 1(a-d). Note also that, for $`\theta 1`$, $`ϵ`$ at the next encounter with the end of the channel is very sensitive to a small percentage change in $`\theta `$. This fact, together with the form of $`M(ϵ)`$ shown in Fig. 4(c), leads us to adopt a model for our subsequent analysis whereby upon an encounter with the wall $`\theta ^{}\theta =M\theta ^{}`$ where $`M`$ is chosen randomly with uniform probability density in the interval $`(1/3,3)`$. As previously noted $`S_1(\varphi )0`$ for $`\varphi <1/2`$. This can be understood as follows. $`\widehat{P}(\theta ,0)=0`$ for $`\theta <\theta _0`$, and on subsequent wall encounters $`\theta `$ can decrease at most by a factor of $`3`$. Therefore, after $`n`$ encounters the minimum angle is $`\theta _n=\theta _0/3^n`$ and the minimum time for these $`n`$ encounters is $`t_n=_{n^{}=0}^{n1}W/(v\theta _n^{})(W/v)3^n/(2\theta _0)`$ for $`n1`$, yielding a minimum value of $`1/2`$ for $`\varphi `$.

Let $`Q(\theta ,t)\mathrm{d}\theta `$ be the rate at which particles are scattered into the channel with angle between $`\theta `$ and $`\theta +\mathrm{d}\theta `$. Particles that enter the channel with small angle $`\theta `$ remain in the channel for the time $`W/(v\mathrm{sin}\theta )W/(v\theta )`$. Then for large $`t`$ and small $`\theta `$, since the number of particles in the interval $`\theta `$ to $`\theta +\mathrm{d}\theta `$ at time $`t`$ is approximately $`S_1(\varphi )\mathrm{d}\theta `$, we have $`S_1(\varphi )=_{tW/(v\theta )}^tQ(\theta ,t^{})dt^{}`$. Since the left hand side is only a function of $`\varphi `$, $`Q(\theta ,t)`$ must have the asymptotic scaling form $`Q(\theta ,t)=(v\theta /W)C(\varphi )`$. Thus

$$S_1(\varphi )=_{\varphi 1}^\varphi C(\varphi )d\varphi .$$
(5)
To obtain an equation for $`C(\varphi )`$ consider a particle in a long flight that, at time $`t^{}`$, has just suffered an encounter with a channel wall. Denote its angle as a result of this encounter by $`\theta ^{}1`$ (see Figs. 4(a,b)). The particle then experiences a long flight of duration $`W/(v\theta ^{})`$ before it next encounters a channel wall. According to our model, the velocity angle $`\theta `$ just after this encounter at time $`t`$ is $`\theta =M\theta ^{}`$ where $`M`$ is random with uniform probability density in the interval $`(1/3,3)`$. During a time interval $`t`$ to $`t+\mathrm{d}t`$ the number of particles scattered into the interval $`\theta `$ to $`\theta +\mathrm{d}\theta `$ is $`Q(\theta ,t)\mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}t=3/8_{1/3}^3\left[Q(\theta ^{},t^{})\mathrm{d}\theta ^{}\mathrm{d}t^{}\right]dM`$, where $`\theta ^{}=\theta /M`$, $`t^{}=t\frac{W}{v\theta ^{}}`$, and $`3/8=1/(31/3)`$ is the probability density of the random variable $`M`$. Now substituting $`Q(\theta ,t)=(v\theta /W)C(\varphi )`$ and making a change of the integration variable $`m=1/M`$, we arrive at the following integral equation for $`C(\varphi )`$,

$$C(\varphi )=3/8_{1/3}^3C(m\varphi 1)dm[C(\varphi )]$$
(6)
whose solution along with (5) determines $`S_1`$. We numerically solve (6) by iteration of $`C_{i+1}(\varphi )=[C_i(\varphi )]`$ starting with $`C_0(\varphi )=0`$ if $`\varphi <1`$ and $`C_0(\varphi )=1`$ if $`\varphi 1`$. We use $`10^4`$ grid points uniformly spaced in the $`\varphi `$ interval $`[0,50]`$ with $`C_i(\varphi )`$ set to one for $`\varphi >50`$ (this corresponds to the boundary condition $`C(\varphi )\mathrm{const}.`$ for $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$). The results are virtually unchanged if the $`\varphi `$ interval is increased to $`[0,100]`$ or if the number of grid points is increased, and virtually identical results (i.e., convergence) were found for several $`i>12`$. A result obtained from such a calculation is shown as the solid curve in Fig. 2 $`(i=15)`$ and is in good agreement with our numerical histograms computed from many particle orbits AHO1 .

In conclusion, we have shown that the long-time repopulation of long flights in infinite horizon billiards proceeds in a self-similar manner \[Eq. (2)\]. The corresponding relaxation of the distribution \[which follows from (2)\] is algebraic rather than exponential; e.g., the $`\theta `$ integral of $`|\widehat{P}(\theta ,t)\widehat{P}(\theta ,\mathrm{})|`$ decays like $`1/t`$. Furthermore, the self-similar forms found for a class of billiards that include those of Figs. 1(a-d) are the same, Eq. (3). On the other hand, the special case of the billiard of Fig. 1(e) is shown to yield a different time-asymptotic self-similar form, and this may be ascribed to the greater stickiness of the invariant set of this billiard.

We thank J. R. Dorfman for discussions. This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research (Physics) and by the National Science Foundation (Grants PHYS098632, DMS010487).


format: text

text:
# Delay time and tunneling transient phenomena

## I Introduction

In recent times there has been relevant technological advances that have made possible to design and construct artificial quantum structures at nanometric scales qs ; corrals . On the theoretical side the above achievements have stimulated work on the issue of time-dependent tunneling. In particular, one finds a number of works that deal with the solution to the time-dependent Schrödinger’s equation for cutoff wave initial states jauho ; muga96 ; gcr97 ; gcv01 . One interesting feature of these approaches is that at asymptotically long times the time-dependent solution goes into the well known stationary solution. This establishes a bridge between time-dependent and time-independent approaches that may be used to address some subtle questions, such as the controversial problem of the relevant time scales for tunnelinglandauer .

In a recent work we have used a time-dependent analytic solution to the Schrödinger equation for an arbitrary potentialgcr97 , to explore the tunneling dynamics for a rectangular potential barriergcv01 . We found that the probability density exhibits a transient structure that we named time domain resonance, and obtained that it provides the largest probability of finding the tunneling particle at the potential barrier edge. Moreover we discussed the relevant time scales associated with the time domain resonance as a function of the potential parameters and the incidence energy.

The purpose of this work is to extend the above investigation to study the time evolution of the probability density along the transmitted region of the potential. We found that for a large variation of potential parameters, the probability density exhibits two evolving structures. One of them is a forerunner that corresponds to the time propagation of the time domain resonance, whereas the other structure consists of a propagating wavefront. We find that the forerunner vanishes at asymptotically long times and distances from the interaction region, whereas the propagating wavefront tends to the stationary solution of the problem. The propagating wavefront exhibits a time delay with respect to the free case situation. We corroborate that this dynamical delay time is accurately described by the analytical expression obtained from the phase energy-derivative of the transmission amplitude. The analysis of this time scale as a function of the potential parameters yields positive and negative (time-advance) delay times. We have found that forerunners exist whenever the delay time is negative, thus establishing a deep connection between transient and asymptotic effects in tunneling.

The paper is organized as follows: Section II provides the main expressions of the formalism that are relevant to calculate the probability density along the transmitted region. In Sec. III we consider the time honored rectangular barrier potential model. Here we study through several subsections the time evolution of the transmitted probability density, and discuss the delay time. Finally, in Sec. IV we present the conclusions.

## II Formalism

The relevant expressions to calculate the time evolution of the transmitted wave with the reflecting cutoff wave initial condition were considered in Ref. gcv01 . They follow from a general formalism developed by García-Calderón gcr97  for the solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for tunneling through an arbitrary potential $`V(x)`$ that vanishes outside a region $`0xL`$. Our approach is a generalization of the free case problem considered by Moshinsky mm  that led to the diffraction in time phenomenon. This transient effect has been recently verified experimentallydalibard  and has stimulated further studieszeilinger .

For the sake of completeness and to fix the notation we recall the relevant equations here. The cutoff wave initial condition corresponding to a reflecting wave may be written as,

$$\psi (x,k;t=0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{ikx}e^{ikx},& x0\\ 0,& x>0.\end{array}$$
(1)
The time-dependent solution $`\psi (x,k;t)`$ of Schrödinger’s equation for the transmitted region, $`xL`$ reads,

$$\psi (x,k;t)=\psi _q(x,k;t)+\psi _r(x,k;t)$$
(2)
where $`\psi _q`$ is given by,

$$\psi _q(x,k;t)=T_kM(y_k)T_kM(y_k)$$
(3)
and $`\psi _r`$ by,

$$\psi _r(x,k;t)=\underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_nM(y_{k_n}).$$
(4)
In the above expressions the quantities $`T_k`$ and $`T_k=T_k^{}`$ refer respectively to transmission amplitudes and $`T_n=2iku_n(0)u_n(L)\mathrm{exp}(ik_nL)/(k^2k_n^2)`$ is given in terms of the set of resonant states $`\{u_n(x)\}`$ and the complex poles $`\{k_n=a_nib_n\}`$ of the problemgcr97 . The functions $`M(y_s)`$ are defined asgcr97 ,

$$M(y_s)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{(imx^2/2\mathrm{}t)}w(iy_s),$$
(5)
where the $`w(iy_s)`$ is the complex error function wiz  with the argument $`y_s`$ given by

$$y_s\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /4}\left(\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}t}\right)^{1/2}\left[x\frac{\mathrm{}s}{m}t\right].$$
(6)
In Eqs. (5) and (6), $`s`$ stands either for $`\pm k`$ or $`k_{\pm n}`$, and the index $`n`$ refers to a given complex pole. Poles are located on the third and fourth quadrants of the complex $`k`$-plane. The free case solution to the above problem for a cutoff plane wave was considered by Moshinsky mm . The solution for the free case with a reflecting initial condition is given by,

$$\psi _0(x,k;t)=M(y_k)M(y_k).$$
(7)
Note that in the absence of a potential, i.e., $`T_k=1`$, the term $`\psi _q`$, given by Eq. (3), becomes identical to the free case solution $`\psi _0`$ given above. We shall refer to $`\psi _q`$, that resembles the free contribution, as the quasi-monochromatic contribution and to the sum term given by Eq. (4), namely $`\psi _r`$, as the resonant contribution. From the analysis given in Ref. gcr97  one can see that the exact solution $`\psi =\psi _q+\psi _r`$, given by Eq. (2), satisfies the initial condition and that at asymptotic long times, $`\psi _r0`$ and $`\psi _q`$ goes into the stationary solution. Hence at very long times $`\psi `$ becomes,

$$\psi (x,k;t)=T_k\mathrm{e}^{ikx}\mathrm{e}^{iEt/\mathrm{}}.$$
(8)
As pointed out in Ref. gcv01  a cutoff wave initial state has, in addition to tunneling components, momentum components that go above the barrier height. One sees from Eq. (2), that the probability density exhibits and interplay between tunneling and over-the-barrier processes. However, as Eq. (8) indicates, at asymptotically long times, the transient effects vanish and one ends up with a stationary tunneling solution.

## III The Model

As has been customary in studies involving tunneling times in one dimension we consider a model that has been used extensively in studies on time-dependent tunneling, namely, the rectangular barrier potential, characterized by a height $`V_0`$ in the region $`0xL`$. To calculate the time-dependent solution $`\psi (x,k;t)`$ given by Eq. (2), in addition to the barrier parameters $`V_0`$, $`L`$, and the corresponding incidence energy $`E=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, we need to determine the complex poles $`\{k_n\}`$ and the resonant states $`\{u_n(x)\}`$ of the system. Both the complex poles $`\{k_n\}`$ and the corresponding resonant eigenfunctions $`\{u_n(x)\}`$, can be calculated using a well established method, as discussed elsewhere. gcr97 ; gcv01 . For the rectangular potential barrier the set of complex energies $`E_n=\mathrm{}^2k_n^2/2m=\epsilon _ni\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/2`$ corresponds to the poles of the transmission amplitude of the problemgcv01 , and hence it may be used to describe the well known top-barrier transmission resonances appearing in that system.

### III.1 Dynamics of the transmitted probability density

To exemplify the time evolution of the probability density in the transmitted region we consider a set of parameters typical of semiconductor artificial quantum structuresqs : $`V_0=0.3eV`$, $`L=`$ $`5.0`$ nm, $`E=0.01`$eV and $`m=0.067m_e`$, with $`m_e`$ the electron mass. Our choice of parameters is the same as in Ref. gcv01 , and it guarantees that most momentum components of the initial state tunnel through the potential. The different parameters may also be expressed in terms of the opacity $`\alpha `$ defined as,

$$\alpha =k_0L,$$
(9)
where $`k_0=[2mV_0]^{1/2}/\mathrm{}`$, and the ratio $`u=V_0/E`$. In our case $`\alpha =3.63`$ and $`u=30`$. For example, the regime of opaque barrier is reached for values of $`\alpha >5`$. In what follows we shall explore the time evolution of $`|\psi |^2`$ at several positions $`x_0`$ away from the interaction region. From Eq. (2) we can write,

$$|\psi |^2=|\psi _q|^2+|\psi _r|^2+I_{rq},$$
(10)
where $`I_{rq}=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\psi _q^{}\psi _r)`$ stands for the corresponding interference term. Figure 1 displays the time evolution of $`|\psi |^2`$ (solid line) at the right edge of the potential barrier, $`x=L`$, as considered in Ref. gcv01 . This is the same example exhibited in Fig. 2 of Ref. gcv01  using a larger time scale. The sharp peak at very short times is mainly due to the resonant contribution $`|\psi _r|^2`$ (dotted line). As discussed in Ref. gcv01 , the maximum value of this time domain resonance, $`t_p`$, provides a tunneling time scale representing the largest probability to find the particle at the barrier edge. In our example $`t_p=5.4`$ fs. The figure also shows the quasi-monochromatic contribution $`|\psi _q|^2`$ (dashed-line) that rises and oscillates with time in a manner resembling the free case $`|\psi _0|^2`$ (dashed-dotted line). The interference contribution $`I_{rq}`$ is not shown, although clearly it is necessary to account for the complete solution.

Along the transmitted region, $`x>L`$, the probability density becomes a propagating solution. We can see that the time domain resonance becomes a propagating structure that we shall refer to as forerunner. Figure 2 shows the case for $`x_0=50.0`$ nm. One sees that the amplitude of this transient structure (dotted line) is smaller than the quasi-monochromatic contribution (dashed line). Note also that the solution has separated itself into two well defined structures that propagate with different velocities. The forerunner propagates with a velocity given approximately by $`v_r=\mathrm{}a_1/m`$, the velocity associated to the first top barrier resonance, whereas the quasi-monochromatic contribution does that, approximately by $`v_k=\mathrm{}k/m`$, the velocity associated to the incident particle. From a physical point of view we can understand the above situation by noting that our initial state possesses momentum components in k-space above the barrier, which can be transmitted more effectively by the resonance window corresponding to the first top-barrier resonance. This is the origin of the fast tunneling response, given by the forerunner, mainly described by $`|\psi _r|^2`$. In our example, the main contribution to the resonant term, $`|\psi _r|^2`$, comes from the first top-barrier resonant state. However, depending on the distance $`x_0`$, one may need to sum up over many terms to account for the complete wave function. The second type of response is given in a natural way by the maximum of the first peak of the probability density associated with the quasi-monochromatic contribution $`|\psi _q|^2`$. This comes mostly from the momentum components centered about the momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$, which tunnel through the structure.

At still much larger distances, $`x_0=1000.0`$ nm as shown in Fig. 3, the forerunner has disappeared almost completely, and the time evolution of the probability density is dominated by $`|\psi _q|^2`$.

The behavior of the forerunner may be understood qualitatively by using the asymptotic properties gcr97  of the $`M(y_{k_{\pm n}})`$ functions in Eq. (4). By numerical inspection we find that at a fixed position $`x_0`$, the main features of the forerunner can be described using the one-term ($`n=1`$) approximation to Eq. (4), namely, $`|\psi _f|^2=|T_1M(y_{k_1})|^2`$. Since in the vicinity of the peak of the forerunner the argument $`y_{k_1}`$ of $`M(y_{k_1})`$ lies within $`\pi /2<argy_{k_1}<\pi /2`$, one obtains $`|\psi _f|^2=(4\pi )^1|T_1/y_{k_1}|^2`$. This allows us to write a simple analytical expression for the time evolution of this transient structure, namely,

$$\frac{|\psi _f|^2}{|T_1|^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{(\mathrm{}t/m)}{\left[(x_0\mathrm{}a_1t/m)^2+(\mathrm{}b_1t/m)^2\right]}.$$
(11)
From the above equation we can see that the peak of the forerunner propagates with a velocity $`v_r=\mathrm{}a_1/m`$, as discussed earlier in the text. Figure 4 exhibits a plot of $`|\psi _f|^2`$ (dashed line) as a function of time for the same parameters used in Fig. 1. We observe good agreement with the exact calculation of $`|\psi |^2`$ (solid line), given by Eq. (2). It is worthwhile to point out by inspection of Eq. (11), that as time increases, the maximum of the forerunner, occurring at $`\tau =x_0/v_r`$, diminishes at a rate proportional to $`x_0^1`$. Hence, for an increasing value of $`x_0`$, the transient structure tends to a vanishing value.

It is interesting to mention that in the case of opaque barriers, i.e., $`\alpha >5.0`$, the resonant contribution $`|\psi _r|^2`$ may be much larger than the quasi-monochromatic contribution $`|\psi _q|^2`$. This occurs even at quite large distances from the interaction region. Figure 5 exhibits an example of this situation for $`L=15.0`$ nm and a distance $`x_0=1\times 10^5`$ nm from the potential. Since the solution is normalized to $`|T_k|^2`$ and this quantity becomes very small for large $`L`$, one sees that $`|\psi _r|^2`$ is several orders of magnitude larger than $`|\psi _q|^2`$, depicted in the inset to that figure. Clearly, as previously discussed, and exemplified in Fig. 3, at still much larger values of the distance $`x_0`$, the term $`|\psi _q|^2`$ shall eventually dominate over $`|\psi _r|^2`$.

Let us now discuss another interesting behavior of the forerunner. In Fig. 6 we plot it as a function of time at a given distance $`x_0>L`$, for different values of the barrier thickness, $`L=5.0`$ nm (solid line), $`L=4.5`$ nm (dashed line), $`L=3.0`$ nm (dotted line), and $`L=2.0`$ nm (dashed-dotted line), for the same parameters used in Fig. 1. We can see that the intensity of the transient structure diminishes as $`L`$ decreases. In fact, for the case of a barrier width $`L=2.0`$ nm, we observe that the forerunner disappears. However, as shown in the inset to Fig. 6, what happens is that both the resonant contribution, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r|^2`$, and the interference term, $`I_{rq}`$, in Eq. (10) for the probability density, are not only overwhelmed by the monochromatic contribution $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_q|^2`$ but also almost cancel each other.

Similarly Fig. 7 shows that the forerunner also disappears by diminishing the barrier height $`V_0`$, and again, as the inset shows, this occurs by the same reason as discussed in the previous case. The above results hold also for the time domain resonance, i.e., at $`x=L`$. From the above analysis one could argue that the existence of the time domain resonance, and hence of the forerunners, depends basically on a particular combination of the parameters $`V_0`$ and $`L`$. In the next subsection we shall show that this is indeed the case.

### III.2 Delay time and forerunners

An interesting result of the analysis of the previous subsection, depicted by Fig. 3, is that at very large distances from the interaction region the time evolution of the probability density $`|\psi |^2`$ is essentially given by $`|\psi _q|^2`$ and exhibits a well defined wavefront. As mentioned above, the wavefront propagates with approximately the classical velocity $`v_k=(\mathrm{}k/m)`$, as follows by direct inspection of the argument to the $`M`$function, given by Eq. (6). A comparison of $`|\psi |^2`$ near the above wavefront with the corresponding free probability density $`|\psi _0|^2`$ is exhibited in Fig. 8. The parameters and the value of the position $`x_0`$, are the same as in Fig. 3. Both solutions look very much alike. Note that its corresponding wavefronts are slightly displaced with respect to each other. In fact the maximum values of $`|\psi |^2`$ and $`|\psi _0|^2`$, for the parameters used in our example, exhibit a time difference that corresponds to a negative delay time (time-advance).

The above considerations lead us to the notion of delay time as discussed by Bohmbohm . He has argued that the main contribution to the transmitted probability density comes from values in the neighborhood of space, for which the phase of the wave function changes slowly with energy. This yields the well known expression for the delay timebohm  as $`t_\varphi =(d\varphi /dk)/v_k`$ where $`\varphi `$ stands for the phase of the transmission amplitude, i.e., $`T_k=|T_k|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$ and $`v_k`$ is the classical velocity as defined above. For the case of the rectangular potential barrier the delay time reads,

$$t_\varphi =\frac{m}{\mathrm{}k\kappa }\left[\frac{k_0^4\mathrm{sinh}(2\kappa L)2\kappa Lk^2(k^2\kappa ^2)}{4k^2\kappa ^2+k_0^4\mathrm{sinh}^2(\kappa L)}\right]\frac{mL}{\mathrm{}k}.$$
(12)
We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ as the time difference of the maximum values of the curves for $`|\psi |^2`$ and $`|\psi _0|^2`$ obtained numerically, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=|\psi ^{max}|^2|\psi _0^{max}|^2.$$
(13)
Figure 9 displays a plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (full squares) and the delay time $`t_\varphi `$ (solid line), as a function of the barrier width $`L`$ for a large fixed value of the position $`x_0`$. One sees that $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ reproduces exactly the behavior obtained from the analytical expression for $`t_\varphi `$. The above agreement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ with $`t_\varphi `$, does not hold when the distance $`x_0`$ is very close to the interaction region. There, the effect of the transient structure cannot be ignored. Figure 1 exhibits this situation for $`x_0=L`$. The behavior of $`|\psi |^2`$ (solid line) is very different from that of the free contribution $`|\psi _0|^2`$ (dashed-dotted line). As discussed previously the time domain resonance peak comes from the resonant contribution and hence it is unrelated to the delay time $`t_\varphi `$. The splitting of the solution observed at larger distances and longer times has yet not occurred.

Note also in Fig. 9 that for thin barriers there is a positive delay time, and as $`L`$ increases, there is a transition to a negative delay time. In what follows we shall demonstrate that such a transition occurs for a critical value of the opacity $`\alpha _c`$. In order to show the later, let us rewrite Eq. (12) as a function of the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`u=V_0/E`$, namely,

$$\frac{t_\varphi }{t_0}=\frac{\left[4\gamma ^1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \mathrm{cosh}\gamma +\gamma ^2\alpha ^23\right]}{\left[\gamma ^2\alpha ^2\gamma ^4\alpha ^4/4+\mathrm{sinh}^2(\gamma /2)\right]\left[4\gamma ^2\alpha ^2\right]^{1/2}},$$
(14)
where we have defined $`t_0=(mL/\mathrm{}k_0)`$ and $`\gamma =2\alpha (1u^1)^{1/2}`$. Thus from Eq. (14) the condition for the transition from positive to negative delay times, i.e., $`t_\varphi =0`$, is simply given by the vanishing of the numerator, namely,

$$4\gamma ^1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \mathrm{cosh}\gamma =\left(3\frac{\gamma ^2}{\alpha ^2}\right)$$
(15)
For a particular value of the opacity $`\alpha `$, we can determine from the above equation the value of $`u`$ at which the transition occurs. However, one finds by inspection of Eq. (15), that such a transition is not possible for small values of $`\alpha `$. That is, there exists a critical value of the opacity $`\alpha =\alpha _c`$ such that for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$, the transition does not occur. This situation corresponds to impose the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$ in the solution to Eq. (15). This implies that $`\gamma 2\alpha _c`$, and hence Eq.(15) becomes,

$$\mathrm{cosh}2\alpha _c2\alpha _c^1\mathrm{sinh}2\alpha _c=1.$$
(16)
The numerical solution to Eq. (16) yields the critical opacity $`\alpha _c=2.0653`$. Note that in addition to the potential parameters $`V_0`$ and $`L`$, the opacity depends on the mass $`m`$ of the incident particle. It turns out that this value of $`\alpha _c`$ accounts for systems where the potential barrier is either too shallow or too thin. Therefore, in the regime $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$, only a positive delay time is observed.

We have also found that $`\alpha _c`$ plays an important role in the existence of time domain resonances and hence of forerunners. In fact, we find that for systems where $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$, no time domain resonances nor forerunners are observed. This behavior can be seen in Figs. 6 and 7. For example, in the cases (c) and (d) of Fig. 6 which correspond to barrier widths $`L=3.0`$ nm and $`L=2.0`$ nm, the parameter $`\alpha `$ is, respectively, 2.17 and 1.45. Clearly in case (d) the it forerunner has completely disappeared. In Fig. 7, the cases (b) and (c) corresponding to the potential heights $`V_0=0.2`$ eV, and $`V_0=0.1`$ eV, that refer, respectively, to the values of $`\alpha `$, 2.96 and 2.095. In this case the disappearance of the forerunner occurs in the vicinity of the critical opacity $`\alpha _c`$.

### III.3 Comment on the phase-delay time

Hartman has arguedhartman  that the time it takes to a particle to traverse the classical forbidden region of a potential barrier, can be obtained from an analysis involving the delay time. He referred to this quantity as the transmission time $`\tau _H`$, though nowadays it is often called phase-delay time. It corresponds to the difference between the time at which a transmitted particle of momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$ would leave the rear of the barrier, $`x=L`$, and the time the same particle would arrive at the front of the barrier, $`x=0`$. The transmission time $`\tau _H`$ can be written as (see Eq. (13) of Ref. hartman ),

$$\tau _H=t_\varphi +t_0,$$
(17)
where $`t_\varphi `$ is given by Eq. (12) and $`t_0=(mL/\mathrm{}k)`$ represents the free time across a distance equal to the barrier width $`L`$. Note that $`t_0`$ cancels out exactly the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (17).

The idea of considering $`\tau _H`$ as the relevant time scale for tunneling through a classically forbidden region has been criticized by arguing that there is no physical justification for relating in a causative sense the free evolving peak and the transmitted peak through a barrierbuttiker ; landauer . Our analysis of the time evolution of the probability density supports this criticism. Indeed, as discussed in subsection A, along the transmitted region, the probability density may split into two structures evolving with different velocities. Hence it is not physically justified to choose a feature of one of them to compare it with the free evolving case. In particular, at the barrier edge $`x=L`$, for $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$, the behavior of probability density $`|\psi (L,t)|^2`$ is governed by the time domain resonance, that yields a completely different time scalegcv01  than the phase-delay time. Moreover, even for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$, where there is no time domain resonance, our calculations do not support Hartman’s transmission time $`\tau _H`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 10 (a), where we plot $`\tau _H`$ as a function of the barrier width $`L`$ (solid line), and compare it with a plot of $`\delta _H=\mathrm{\Delta }t+t_0`$ (full squares) measured dynamically at the barrier edge $`x=L`$. Although both curves exhibit a similar qualitative behavior, the values of $`\tau _H`$ and $`\delta _H`$, are quite different. On the other hand, Figure 10 (b) exhibits a plot of $`\delta _H`$ (full squares) as a function of the barrier width $`L`$, measured at a distance $`x_0`$ very far away from the interaction region, i.e., $`x_0=1.0\times 10^5`$ nm. This figure also shows a plot of $`\tau _H`$ (solid line) and we see that they match quite well for all values of $`\alpha `$. The lack of agreement between the plots of $`\tau _H`$ and $`\delta _H`$ in Fig. 10 (a) follows because the time domain resonance, the quasi-monochromatic contribution and the interference term are very close together, as exemplified in Fig. 1 for $`L=5.0`$ nm. On the other hand, at long distances the forerunner and the quasi-monochromatic contribution are quite separated, though it may be shown that the interference term accounts for the delay timegch02 .

In the opaque barrier regime, $`\alpha 1`$, the above times become independent of the barrier width, giving rise to the well known Hartman effect. Indeed at asymptotically large values of $`L`$, $`\tau _H`$ goes as $`2m/(\mathrm{}k\kappa )`$ as follows by inspection of Eq. (17) hartman . As can be seen, it is only at long distances from the interaction region, when $`\delta _H`$ coincides with the dynamical time scale $`\delta _H`$.

The above considerations, therefore, indicate that the transmission time, i.e., $`\tau _H`$ given by Eq. (17), does not represent the tunneling time of the particle through the classically forbidden region. The phase time delay $`t_\varphi `$, in the spirit of Wigner and Eisenbudwigner , represents an asymptotic effect of the potential on the tunneling particle.

## IV Conclusion

Using an analytical solution to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for cutoff semi-infinite initial waves, we have investigated the dynamics of the transmitted probability density for tunneling through a rectangular potential barrier. We have found two regimes, characterized by a critical opacity parameter $`\alpha _c`$, such that for values of $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ there are no domain resonances and consequently no forerunners, whereas for $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$, these transient structures may exist depending on the value of $`u=V_0/E`$. The above result follows from an unexpected connection between the existence of these transient structures and the delay time. This deserves to be further studied. An interesting feature of the formalism used in this work is that it applies to arbitrary potential profiles of finite range. Hence, the existence of forerunners, for a given problem, would depend on the interplay among the different contributions to the probability density given by Eq. (10). Our results suggest also that the study of transient effects cannot be ignored for a thorough understanding of the tunneling time problem.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors acknowledge partial financial support of DGAPA-UNAM under grant No. IN101301 and from Conacyt, México, through Contract No. 431100-5-32082E.


text:
# Globular Cluster Formation

## 1 Empirical Foundations

Early models of globular cluster formation were largely motivated by two observational results: Milky Way globular clusters are old and massive. Consequently, these models tended to exploit physical conditions unique to the early universe that might give rise to bound clusters of stars with masses around $`10^5M_{}`$. Over the last decade or so, observations of extragalactic globular cluster systems and the discovery of young globular clusters have dramatically expanded the empirical basis of globular cluster formation theories. Perhaps most importantly, young globular cluster systems allow the formation process to be probed directly. In this section I describe the observations that are useful in investigating and constraining the process of globular cluster formation.

### 1.1 What do we know?

The Milky Way globular cluster system is comprised of at least two distinct populations (e.g. Armandroff and Zinn 1988 and references therein). The more numerous metal-poor clusters are distributed in a spherical halo, whereas the metal-rich clusters have spatial and kinematic properties similar to the bulge or thick disk. Despite the marked distinction in these properties between the two populations, the mass distributions of the metal-poor and metal-rich clusters are indistinguishable. Other spiral galaxies also show evidence for similar metal-rich and metal-poor populations of globular clusters, the most compelling case being M31 (Ashman and Bird 1993; Barmby et al 2001; Perrett et al 2002).

A similar metallicity dichotomy is now well-established in the globular cluster systems of many elliptical galaxies (e.g., Kundu and Whitmore 2001; Larsen et al 2001). In the vast majority of cases, there are also clear spatial distinctions between the populations with the metal-rich clusters being more centrally concentrated than the metal-poor ones. There are currently only a handful of detailed kinematic studies of these systems (Zepf, these proceedings). In at least some of these studies kinematic differences between the two globular cluster populations have been demonstrated. As in the case of spirals, the mass distributions of the two populations of globular clusters within an elliptical are indistinguishable. Further, the mass distributions of globular clusters in different galaxies are similar.

Perhaps the most important development in understanding globular cluster formation was the discovery of young globular clusters in currently merging galaxies (e.g., the reviews of Schweizer 1998; Ashman and Zepf 1998). As discussed further below, this allows the formation process to be studied directly rather than relying on extrapolations based on observations of ancient globular clusters. More generally, this discovery demonstrated that globular cluster formation is not a process that is dependent on conditions unique to high redshifts.

The recent discovery of intermediate-aged globular clusters in a handful of youngish ellipticals (see Goudfrooij in these proceedings and references therein) provides a useful link between ancient globular clusters and the very young objects in ongoing mergers. Of considerable interest is the finding that the age of these intermediate systems are consistent with the age of merger signatures in their host ellipticals. This provides additional support to the idea that globular cluster formation is not a uniquely cosmological phenomenon.

### 1.2 What does it all mean?

One of the traditional arguments against a pregalactic origin for globular clusters was the presence of color (interpreted as metallicity) gradients in the globular cluster systems of elliptical galaxies (Harris 1991). Clearly a pregalactic origin is hard to reconcile with such an observation since it requires higher metallicity clusters to preferentially adopt smaller galactocentric distances. However, the finding that these color gradients are the result of two populations of globular clusters with different spatial concentrations complicates this conclusion. Since there is currently no definitive evidence for color gradients within the individual populations, it is possible that one of the populations formed pregalactically, later becoming associated with the parent galaxy through hierarchical clustering. Equally, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that at least one of the globular cluster populations of elliptical galaxies must have formed within the galaxy itself. Again, if both populations were pregalactic there is no obvious mechanism for generating the spatial (and kinematic) differences between the two populations. Similar comments apply to the metal-poor and metal-rich globular cluster systems of the Milky Way and other spiral galaxies.

In order to explore this idea further, it is helpful to examine current ideas on the formation of globular cluster systems. The presence of metallicity bimodality in the globular cluster systems of ellipticals was predicted in the context of the merger model (Ashman and Zepf 1992; see also Zepf and Ashman 1993). The metal-poor globular clusters are identified as those originally in the halos of progenitor spirals, whereas the metal-rich ones are assumed to form in the spiral-spiral merger that formed the elliptical. Thus in this picture, the metal-rich clusters form with the elliptical, whereas the metal-poor ones could have a pregalactic origin. In the dissipationless hierarchical clustering scenario of Côté et al (1998, 2002), metallicity bimodality is attributed to the clustering of a large number of galaxies and their associated globular cluster systems. The metal-poor clusters are those associated with numerous dwarf galaxies, whereas the metal-rich ones formed around the largest “seed” galaxy. Finally, in the multiphase collapse model of Forbes et al (1997), both populations of globular clusters form in situ within a collapsing elliptical, with the metal-poor globular clusters forming first and the metal-rich ones being produced in a secondary burst of star formation.

This discussion illustrates that in all extant models of globular cluster system formation at least some globular clusters are formed within galaxies. Indeed, in all cases, the metal-rich clusters are associated with a significant star formation event in the parent galaxy. Based on the observations outlined above, this general result seems hard to dispute. Beasley et al (2002) have recently studied this issue using a semi-analytic approach. They find consistency with observation in schemes where metal-poor clusters form before massive galaxies and metal-rich ones form in star-forming events associated with massive galaxies such as mergers. The presence of young and intermediate-aged globular clusters in mergers and merger remnants indicates that globular clusters can form in mergers, but does not necessarily require that all globular clusters form in such environments. Indeed, the globular cluster systems of dwarf galaxies clearly did not form in major mergers. I will return to these systems in Section 3.

## 2 Globular cluster formation in mergers

While not all globular clusters form in major mergers, the fact that some do gives us an excellent starting point for investigating the globular cluster formation process. This approach is made more attractive by the evidence that globular cluster formation is rare in other star-forming regions such as the disks of normal spirals. Larsen in these proceedings discusses “young massive clusters” in normal spiral disks. Whether these objects are analogs of young globular clusters or whether they are more diffuse objects is yet to be determined, but the critical issue is that globular cluster formation is clearly more prevalent in regions where the star formation rate is high such as merger-induced starbursts.

### 2.1 The importance of pressure

As noted by several authors (e.g., Elmegreen and Efremov 1997), the mass function of Giant Molecular Clouds (GMCs) in the Milky Way and other nearby galaxies and young globular clusters have similar slopes when parameterized as power laws. Further, the slope of the mass function is also consistent with that of old globular clusters at the high-mass end of the distribution (e.g., Harris and Pudritz 1994).

There are two (possibly related) reasons why such GMCs do not produce a population of young globular clusters in the Milky Way and similar environments. First, the star formation efficiency in such GMCs is low. Consequently, the typical mass of star clusters formed in these clouds is less than that of young globular clusters. In fact, since the mass distribution is well-approximated by a power law, high-mass clusters will still form from ordinary GMCs provided one has a sufficient number of such clouds in a given galaxy. However, if such massive clusters do form, they will not resemble globular clusters. This is because the radii of GMCs in normal star-forming environments are much greater than the characteristic radii of globular clusters.

One of the notable differences between the interstellar medium (ISM) in quiescent disks and starbursts is that the pressure in the latter is inferred to be much higher (e.g., Heckman et al 1993, 1990). The relevance to the formation of dense star clusters is immediately apparent. Clearly GMCs in a high-pressure environment will have higher densities and smaller radii than their counterparts in a galaxy like the Milky Way. This is one reason why high pressure has been suggested as a critical physical reason why globular clusters form in galaxy mergers (Elmegreen and Efremov 1997; Ashman and Zepf 2001).

To quantify this idea it is useful to employ the Ebert-Bonner relations (Ebert 1955; Bonner 1956; see also Harris and Pudritz 1994; McLaughlin and Pudritz 1996) for self-gravitating, pressure-bounded isothermal spheres:

$$M_c=\frac{3.45}{\gamma ^{3/2}}\frac{\sigma ^4}{(G^3P_s)^{1/2}}$$
$`(1)`$
$$r_c=\frac{0.69}{\gamma ^{1/2}}\frac{\sigma ^2}{(GP_s)^{1/2}}$$
$`(2)`$
Here $`M_c`$ and $`r_c`$ refer to the mass and radius of the cloud, $`P_s`$ is the cloud surface pressure, $`\gamma `$ is a factor of order unity which is dependent on the nature of the equilibrium, $`\sigma `$ is the one-dimensional velocity dispersion within the cloud, and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant.

One can eliminate the velocity dipsersion from these expressions to obtain a simple scaling relation:

$$r_cM_c^{1/2}P_s^{1/4}$$
$`(3)`$
If GMCs in the ISM of mergers are in equilibrium, the above relations and inferred pressures in mergers imply that GMCs with masses of order $`10^5M_{}`$ have radii consistent with those of young globular clusters. Along with the similarities in mass functions, this result suggests that GMCs in high-pressure environments are at least plausible progenitors to young globular clusters. At some level, this result is hardly surprising. Given that young globular clusters are found in merging galaxies, it is difficult to imagine any other progenitor than dense molecular clouds. However, it is significant that quantitatively the densities of such clouds in high-pressure environments are consistent with the densities of young globular clusters.

It is important to add that there is little direct information about the properties of molecular clouds in these environments. It seems unlikely that globular cluster progenitors are simply those GMCs originally in the disks of the merging spirals. This is because the compression of such clouds when the surrounding warm ISM is shock-heated is likely to cause cloud fragmentation before high densities are reached (e.g., Jog and Solomon 1992; Jog and Das 1996). That is, the original GMCs of the spirals are unlikely to reach equilibrium with the high-pressure ISM before fragmentation. It seems more probable that globular cluster progenitor clouds form within the ISM of the merger once high pressures have been established.

### 2.2 The strange case of the mass-radius relationship

While the above considerations provide a simple framework for the formation of globular clusters in mergers, there is one oddity that must be explained if molecular clouds at high pressure are to be identified as globular cluster progenitors. This is the observation that GMCs, at least in normal star-forming regions, have a mass-radius relation consistent with the Ebert-Bonner relations given above \[see equation (3)\] whereas young globular clusters have a weak or non-existent relation between mass and radius (Ashman and Zepf 2001). These results have been established for GMCs in the Milky Way (see the summary of observations given by Harris and Pudritz 1994), as well as M33, the LMC and the SMC (Wilson and Scoville 1990; Johansson 1991; Rubio et al 1993). For young globular clusters, observations of the galaxy merger NGC 3256 indicate that there may be a weak correlation between mass and radius (Zepf et al 1999), but one that is clearly much shallower than the mass-radius relation of GMCs given in equation (3). A similar weak or absent correlation between mass and radius is well-established for the old globular clusters of the Milky Way (van den Bergh et al 1991; Djorgovski and Meylan 1994; Ashman and Zepf 1998) and also seems to hold for the young star clusters in the LMC (van den Bergh 1991), and for young star clusters in the Galaxy (e.g. Testi, Palla and Natta 1999).

### 2.3 A variable star formation efficiency

Assuming that globular cluster progenitors are clouds in equilibrium, these observations require that the original mass-radius relationship of such clouds is wiped out during the globular cluster formation process. For this to occur it is apparent that either the mass or the radius (or both) of the final star clusters must differ from those of the original clouds. One promising mechanism for producing such an effect is that the star formation efficiency within clouds varies with mass and/or radius. Much of the following discussion of this possibility follows the study given in Ashman and Zepf (2001).

Let $`ϵ`$ to be the star formation efficiency such that

$$ϵ=\frac{M_{}}{M_c}$$
$`(4)`$
where $`M_{}`$ is the mass of the star cluster resulting from a cloud mass $`M_c`$. To determine the mass-radius relation of clusters, it is clear that we also need to be able to calculate the final cluster radius, $`r_{}`$, produced by a cloud with radius $`r_c`$. In general, recently formed clusters are expected to undergo a phase of expansion so that $`r_{}>r_c`$. We assume that a cloud fragments and produces an initial cluster of radius $`r_c`$. If the gas loss is slow (i.e., it occurs on timescales longer than the cluster dynamical time) the product of mass and radius is an adiabatic invariant. Under these conditions, the final cluster radius is related to the star formation efficiency by:

$$\frac{r_{}}{r_c}ϵ^1.$$
$`(5)`$
(Hills 1980; Richstone and Potter 1982; Mathieu 1983). Thus lower star formation efficiencies lead to greater expansion with sufficiently low efficiencies producing unbound clusters. This expression has recently been verified numerically by Geyer and Burkert (2001) for the case of slow mass loss. For more rapid mass loss, these authors find larger expansion rates at a given $`ϵ`$, but for $`ϵ<0.4`$ the clusters are unbound.

Ashman and Zepf (2001) investigated the consequences of a star formation efficiency scaling with some power of cloud binding energy per unit mass, $`M_c/r_c`$:

$$ϵ\left(\frac{M_c}{r_c}\right)^n$$
$`(6)`$
Using equations (3) through (6) and some algebra one obtains a mass-radius relation for the resulting clusters:

$$r_{}M_{}^{(1n)/(n+2)}P_s^{[12(n+1)]/[2(n+2)]}$$
$`(7)`$
The weak or absent mass-radius correlation of globular clusters is reproduced if the exponent on $`M_{}`$ in equation (7) is close to zero. This occurs when $`n1`$. For the specific case of the young globular clusters in NGC 3256, Zepf et al (1999) found $`r_{}M_{}^{0.1\pm 0.1}`$ (assuming a constant cluster mass-to-light ratio) which is reproduced by $`n0.75\pm 0.25`$. The value $`n=1`$ is interesting since it corresponds to the case of a star formation efficiency which is directly proportional to the binding energy per unit mass of the precursor gas clouds. An increase in star formation efficiency with velocity dispersion (which scales as the square root of binding energy per unit mass, $`n=0.5`$) has been suggested by Elmegreen et al (1993) and Elmegreen and Efremov (1997).

Throughout the above discussion it has been assumed that globular clusters form from clouds in equilibrium, since it is this equilibrium that leads to the cloud mass-radius relationship. It is important to note that there is currently little information about the nature of molecular clouds in the ISM of merging galaxies. There have been suggestions that the progenitor clouds to globular clusters may not be in equilibrium prior to fragmentation (see McLaughlin in these proceedings and references therein). As far as I am aware, the implications for the mass-radius relation of the resulting clusters have not been investigated.

### 2.4 Constraints on star formation efficiency variations

One important aspect of this discussion is that independent considerations place stringent constraints on variations in star formation efficiency. This is because of the similarity of the mass function slopes of GMCs and young globular clusters. Any star formation efficiency that includes a dependence on mass will inevitably produce a cluster mass function with a different slope to that of the progenitor clouds. To quantify this, consider the usual parameterization of the mass spectrum of clouds and clusters:

$$N(M_c)dM_cM_c^\beta dM_c.$$
$`(8)`$
$$N(M_{})dM_{}M_{}^\alpha dM_{},$$
$`(9)`$
These quantities can be related through the expression

$$N(M_{})dM_{}N(M_c)\left(\frac{dM_c}{dM_{}}\right)dM_{}$$
$`(10)`$
Ashman and Zepf (2001) showed that for a star formation efficiency given by equation (6) this last expression implies a relation between the cloud and cluster mass function slopes:

$$\alpha =\frac{2\beta +n}{n+2}.$$
$`(11)`$
Since $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are found observationally to be comparable, it is apparent that the value of $`n`$ is constrained to be small. If, as argued by Elemegreen and Falgarone (1996), $`\beta =2`$, then a typical observational value of $`\alpha `$ of 1.8 implies $`n=0.5`$. Using these same values and the weak mass-radius relation for young globular clusters in NGC 3256 leads to marginal consistency with $`n=1`$.

Note that in general this picture predicts that $`\alpha <\beta `$. Thus determinations of the mass distributions of clouds and clusters have the potential to refute or support this scenario. Unfortunately, the current uncertainties in these quantities, as well as the fact that cluster and cloud mass spectra are rarely derived for the same systems, do not allow a definitive test of the scenario as yet. Future observations of the mass functions of molecular clouds and globular clusters in the same system will address this question. For example, ALMA will have the angular resolution and sensitivity to pin down the cloud mass spectrum in merging systems. Interestingly, a dependence of star formation efficiency to any positive power of cloud density, as is the case in Schmidt-type laws, can already be ruled out (Ashman and Zepf 2001).

One further potential constraint on a variable star formation efficiency is that for low enough values the resulting star clusters will be unbound. There are several complicating factors in determining the mass-scale at which this occurs. For example, the center of a cloud might produce stars with a sufficiently high efficiency to form a bound cluster, but the global star formation efficiency (relevant to the arguments above) might be low. More generally, the lowest star formation efficiency that can produce a bound cluster is still a debated question. It is also worth noting that in the current picture it is the low-mass clusters that have the lowest star formation efficiencies and thus are most likely to be unbound. The dissolution of these clusters in this manner may be relevant to low-mass cluster destruction in general, which is required if the young globular cluster mass function is to evolve into that of old globular clusters (e.g., Fall and Rees 1977; Murali and Weinberg 1996; Gnedin and Ostriker 1997; Vesperini 1997 and in these proceedings).

### 2.5 The connection between pressure and star formation efficiency

A critical question in this discussion is why there might be a relationship between star formation efficiency and the surface pressure of molecular clouds. First, it is important to note that observationally the star formation efficiency in merger-induced starbursts is high. Several authors have attributed this high star formation efficiency to the high pressure in such environments (e.g., Jog and Solomon 1992; Jog and Das 1996; Elmegreen and Efremov 1997). It is exactly the high ambient pressure, of course, that produces clouds with a high binding energy.

More generally, there are plausible reasons why star formation efficiency might depend on the binding energy per unit mass of clouds (see also Elemegreen et al 1993; Elmegreen and Efremov 1997). To a first approximation, the disruptive energy input from massive stars will be proportional to the number of such stars and thus the mass of the cloud, hence the normalization of binding energy to unit mass. It seems likely that clouds with a higher binding energy will be less affected by such disruption and therefore convert a higher fraction of their gas mass into stars. It is important to distinguish in this context between global and local effects. Clearly binding energy considerations are central to establishing whether a young cluster will remain bound at all. In terms of a rationale for a star formation efficiency dependent on binding energy, the issue is that local feedback effects are likely to be more important (and therefore more likely to suppress further star formation) in clouds of higher binding energy.

### 2.6 More on cloud fragmentation

In the above discussion no attempt has been made to address the details of the cloud fragmentation process. Further, the Ebert-Bonner relations that underpin the scaling arguments refer to the mean properties of clouds. Consequently, the potentially important issue of the density profiles of clouds is not addressed in the above approach. It seems inevitable that any understanding of fragmentation must include a study of how fragmentation and subsequent feedback processes occur locally within clouds, and thus on the density profile of clouds. Many of these issues are discussed in the comprehensive review by Elmegreen (2002; see also McLaughlin in these proceedings).

Of possible relevance to the elimination of the mass-radius relationship is the fact that fragmentation is dependent on the equation of state of the cloud (see, for example, Li in these proceedings). This can be understood using standard Jeans mass arguments. If the equation of state is expressed using the usual polytropic form:

$$P\rho ^\gamma $$
$`(12)`$
it follows that the Jeans mass can be written

$$M_J\rho ^{3/2(\gamma 4/3)}$$
$`(13)`$
One expects fragmentation to proceed if cloud contraction, and thus an increase in cloud density, leads to a decrease in the Jeans mass. Clearly this occurs when $`\gamma <4/3`$. Simulations by Li (these proceedings; see also Spaans and Silk 2000 and references therein) support this expectation.

Of interest in this context is the fact that the critical value of $`\gamma =4/3`$ also corresponds to clouds with no mass-radius relationship. This is because such a value implies that cloud mass is independent of density, as is apparent from equation (13). If the progenitor clouds of globular clusters initially have $`\gamma >4/3`$ with this value subsequently decreasing, it is possible that fragmentation begins once the value of 4/3 is reached. Consequentky, the resulting clusters would likely have no mass-radius relationship. The critical issue is therefore whether molecular clouds in starburst enviroments are likely to experience this kind of evolution. Unfortunately, there is currently no clear consensus on the equation of state of molecular clouds and related stability issues even in systems where these objects are well studied (e.g., McLaughlin and Pudritz 1996; McKee and Holliman 1999; Curry and McKee 2000 and references therein).

Despite this uncertainty, there are general considerations that suggest molecular clouds in starbursts may be initially characterized by large values of $`\gamma `$ (assuming a single polytropic index is adequate at all; see Curry and McKee 2000). As argued earlier, clouds that produce globular clusters in such environments probably formed after the initial shock-heating of the ISM, since pre-exisiting clouds would fragment before reaching the densities typical of globular clusters. Consequently, the progenitor clouds will be in an environment with a significant radiation field. The resulting heating of clouds will tend to push $`\gamma `$ to large values. Spaans and Silk (2000) have investigated this issue and note that opaque dust in starbursts is an additional factor that tends to lead to large values of $`\gamma `$. These authors also find that $`\gamma `$ subsequently decreases towards unity in such enviroments. It therefore seems at least plausible that there is a physical connection between the critical value of $`\gamma `$ required for cloud fragmentation and the absence of a mass-radius relation in globular clusters.

## 3 The origin of metal-poor clusters

While there is compelling evidence that metal-rich globular clusters formed during major star-forming events within their parent galaxies, the origin of metal-poor clusters is less clear. Empirically, metal-poor clusters are found in a wide range of environments from the faintest dwarfs to the halos of massive spirals and ellipticals. This ubiquity suggests that the metal-poor globular clusters may have a pregalactic origin. However, it seems unlikely that such globular clusters represent the first bound structures to form in the universe, as originally envisaged by Peebles and Dicke (1968). The well-known problem is that such cosmological structures are expected to be surrounded by dark matter halos, whereas observations of metal-poor globular clusters in the Milky Way rule out the presence of such halos (e.g., Moore 1996).

One interesting possibility for resurrecting a pregalactic origin has recently been proposed by Bromm and Clarke (2002). These authors have carried out numerical simulations of structure formation within dwarf galaxies at early epochs. They suggest that gas in dark matter “subhalos” within such dwarfs fragments to form the stellar component of globular clusters and that subsequent violent relaxation of the dwarf galaxy itself wipes out the individual subhalos around the globular clusters. The mass of globular clusters in this picture is thus effectively set by the mass of the subhalos and the ratio of gas to dark matter. This differs from the original Peebles and Dicke (1968) scenario in the sense that globular cluster formation occurs within a larger bound system, but it does connect at least some globular cluster formation with cosmological conditions through the dark matter mass spectrum.

To some extent, the picture of Bromm and Clarke (2002) is similar to other ideas in which the sites of metal-poor globular clusters are larger objects with masses around $`10^8M_{}`$. There are several motivations for such a view. For instance, there is evidence that the halo of the Milky Way was assembled from “Searle-Zinn” sub-galactic fragments (e.g., Searle and Zinn 1978). Further, such a picture is consistent with succesful models of the formation of cosmological structure. Current dwarf galaxies may be the surviving remnants of such objects (see, however, the caveats presented by Santos in these proceedings). Hierarchical clustering of some of these fragments into larger galaxies leads to metal-poor globular clusters in the halos of spirals and ellipticals. Along similar lines, Harris and Pudritz (1994; also McLaughlin and Pudritz 1996) presented a globular cluster formation model in which the sites of formation are “Super Giant Molecular Clouds” (SGMCs). While it may be difficult to produce such massive clouds in current galaxy mergers (e.g., Ashman and Zepf 1998), such SGMCs are similar to the Searle-Zinn fragments discussed above.

In Section 2 I argued that high pressure is a necessary condition for globular cluster formation. It is therefore of some interest to establish whether high-pressure conditions might have existed in sub-galactic fragments at earlier epochs. Steve Zepf and I are currently investigating this question. Our preliminary results suggest that high pressure conditions can be achieved in such systems through feedback processes associated with massive stars. However, the shallow potential wells of these systems mean that the gas is unlikely to remain bound to the fragments for long (see also Dekel and Silk 1986). The implications for globular cluster formation are currently being investigated.

A critical observational issue at the center of understanding the formation of metal-poor clusters is the uniformity of the metallicity of these objects. If all metal-poor globular cluster systems have similar mean metalicities, it suggests that all metal-poor clusters formed in similar environments. In this case, pregalactic formation in sub-galactic fragments is an attractive possibility (e.g., Ashman and Zepf 1992; Ashman and Bird 1993). Some variation in mean metallicity would not rule out this option provided it did not correlate with properties of the current parent galaxy. This is because there is evidence that the mean metallicity of the globular cluster systems of dwarf galaxies increases with galaxy luminosity (e.g., Lotz, these proceedings and references therein).

## 4 Conclusions

While there are still many aspects of globular cluster formation that are poorly understood, there does appear to have been significant progress over the last few years. Specifically, the discovery of young globular clusters in ongoing mergers has provided an empirical basis to the study of globular cluster formation. One notable result is that there is no longer any need to invoke conditions unique to the early universe in order to explain the origin of these objects. Indeed, the approach to understanding globular cluster formation advocated in this paper is to first understand why globular clusters form in such abundance in regions where the star-formation rate is high.

The realization that globular cluster formation is not a process unique to the early universe has also made globular clusters themselves less unique. Current evidence is consistent with the view that all star clusters are fundamentally similar and that globular clusters represent one end of the star cluster spectrum. This view is reinforced by the finding that both open and globular clusters share the curious weak or absent correlation between mass and radius. While this state of affairs may produce some semantic issues, such as how to define a globular cluster, it also offers the exciting possibility of a unified approach to the formation of all star clusters.

The work described in this paper would not have been possible without the many collaborators with whom I have worked on these topics. My collaboration with Steve Zepf is particularly notable, both for its productivity and longevity. Some of the ideas in this paper were improved by many stimulating conversations with other workshop participants including Henny Lamers, Yuexing Li, Arunav Kundu, Dean McLaughlin and Enrico Vesperini. This work was supported in part by NASA Astrophysics Theory grant NAG5-11320.

## References

Armandroff, T.E., & Zinn, R. 1988, AJ, 96, 92

Ashman, K.M., & Bird, C.M. 1993, AJ, 106, 2281

Ashman, K.M., & Zepf, S.E. 1992, ApJ, 384, 50

Ashman, K.M., & Zepf, S.E. 1998, Globular Cluster Systems, Cambridge University Press.

Ashman, K.M., & Zepf, S.E. 2001, AJ, 122, 1888

Barmby, P., Huchra, J.P., & Brodie, J.P. 2001, AJ, 121, 1482

Beasley, M.A., Baugh, C.M., Forbes, D.A., Sharples, R.M., & Frenk, C.S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 383

Bonner, W.B. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 351

Bromm, V., & Clarke, C.J. 2002, ApJLett, 566, L1

Côté, P., Marzke, R.O., & West, M.J. 1998, ApJ 501, 554

Côté, P., West, M.J., & Marzke, R.O. 2002, ApJ, 567, 853

Curry, C.L., & McKee, C.F. 2000, ApJ, 528, 734

Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39

Djorgovki, S.G. & Meylan, G. 1994, AJ, 108, 1292

Ebert, R. 1955, Z. Astrophys, 37, 222

Elmegreen, B.G. 2002, ApJ, 577, 206

Elmegreen, B.G., & Efremov, Y.N. 1997, ApJ, 480, 235

Elmegreen, B.G., & Falgarone, E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 816

Elmegreen, B.G., Kaufman, M., & Thomasson, M. 1993, ApJ, 412, 90

Fall, S.M., & Rees, M.J. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 37

Forbes, D.A., Brodie, J.P., & Grillmair, C.J. 1997, AJ, 113, 1652

Geyer, M.P., & Burkert, A. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 988

Gnedin, O.Y., & Ostriker, J.P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223

Harris, W.E. 1991, ARAA, 29, 543

Harris, W.E., & Pudritz, R.E. 1994, ApJ, 429, 177

Heckman, T.M., Armus, L., & Miley, G.K. 1990, ApJS, 74, 833

Heckman, T.M., Lehnert, M.D., Armus, L. 1993, in The Environment and Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J.M. Shull & Thronson, H.A., Jr. (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 455

Hills, J.G. 1980, ApJ, 225, 986

Jog, C., & Das, M. 1996, ApJ, 473, 797

Jog, C., & Solomon, P. 1992, ApJ, 387, 152

Johannson, L.E.B. 1991, in IAU Symp. 146, Dynamics of Galaxies and Their Molecular Cloud Distributions, ed. F. Combes & F. Casoli, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 1

Kundu, A., & Whitmore, B.C. 2001, AJ , 121, 2950

Larsen, S.S., Brodie, J.P., Huchra, J.P., Forbes, D A., & Grillmair, C. J., 2001, AJ, 121, 2974

Mathieu, R.D. 1983, ApJ, 267, L97

McKee, C.F., & Holliman, J.H. 1999, ApJ, 522, 313

McLaughlin, D.E., & Pudritz, R.E. 1996, ApJ, 457, 578

Moore, B. 1996, ApJLett, 416, L13

Murali, C., & Weinberg, D. 1996, MNRAS, 288, 767

Peebles, P.J.E., & Dicke, R.H. 1968, ApJ, 154, 891

Perret, K.M., Bridges, T.J., Hanes, D.A., Irwin, M.J., Brodie, J.P., Carter, D., Huchra, J.P., & Watson, F.G. 2002, AJ, 123, 2490

Richstone, D.O., & Potter, M.D. 1982, ApJ, 254, 451

Rubio, M., Lequeux, J., & Boulanger, F. 1993, A&A, 271, 9

Schweizer, F. 1998, in Galaxies: Interactions and Induced Star Formation, Saas-Fee Course 26, eds. R.C. Kennicutt et al (Springer: Berlin), 105

Spaans, M., & Silk, J. 2000, ApJ, 538, 115

Testi, L., Palla, F., & Natta, A. 1999, A&A, 342, 515

van den Bergh, S. 1991, ApJ, 369, 1

van den Bergh, S., Morbey, C.L., & Padzer, J. 1991, ApJ, 375, 594

Vesperini, E. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 915

Wilson. C.D., & Scoville, N. 1990, ApJ, 363, 435

Zepf, S.E., & Ashman, K.M. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 611

Zepf, S.E., Ashman, K.M., English, J., Freeman, K.C., & Sharples, R.M. 1999, AJ, 118, 752


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At the LHC silicon microstrip and pixel detectors will be exposed to unprecedented levels of ionizing and hadronic radiation. As a consequence of displacement damage arising from hadronic radiation, the silicon detectors will change their characteristics during their lifetime . Potential radiation-induced performance degradation is a serious issue, which has been studied in detail.

The ATLAS Pixel Detector  is required to be tolerant to an hadronic fluence 111In this paper the fluences are converted in $`\text{n}_{\text{eq}}\text{cm}^2`$where $`n_{\text{eq}}`$ is the number of particles with the non-ionizing energy loss of a 1 MeV neutron. of $`10^{15}`$ $`\text{n}_{\text{eq}}\text{cm}^2`$and an ionizing dose of 550 kGy. In order to verify their ability to meet these requirements, some pixel detectors produced according to the ATLAS design have been exposed to 110% of the target fluence and dose and have been operated in a test-beam experiment at CERN. Measurements of the thickness of the depleted region, of the efficiency and uniformity of charge collection, of hit detection efficiency and spatial resolution have been performed and are reported here.

## 2 Tested devices and experimental setup

The ATLAS Pixel sensors  consist of $`\text{n}^+`$ implants on a high resistivity n-bulk substrate. This choice allows the detector to be operated in partial depletion mode after type inversion due to irradiation, as the n-p junction and the depleted zone are located near the pixels. The substrate is oxygenated to improve its radiation hardness.

The pixel dimensions are $`50\times 400\mu \text{m}^2`$ and the sensor thickness is 250 $`\mu `$m. The isolation between pixels is achieved with the p-spray technique . A network of bus lines, one every other column pair of pixels, is connected to an $`\text{n}^+`$ implant dot near each pixel. This bias grid allows to bias the detector during testing, before attachment of the front-end electronics.

The irradiated devices had a $`8\times 8\text{mm}^2`$ sensor connected to a front-end electronics chip  of the same size. In ATLAS, pixel sensors will have a size of $`16\times 64\text{mm}^2`$ and will be connected to 16 front-end chips.

Every pixel cell in the sensor is connected via bump-bonding to a matching cell in the front-end chip, which includes a charge preamplifier and a discriminator. The pulse height is obtained from the time the signal stays over the discriminator threshold. The Time-Over-Threshold (ToT) is calibrated  for each pixel by injecting a known charge, with an accuracy of about 10%. During test-beam operation the pixel thresholds had a mean value of 3000 electrons with a dispersion of 300 electrons rms. The noise was 400 electrons.

Irradiation was performed after bump-bonding at the CERN PS with a beam of 20 GeV protons . The detectors received the total ionizing dose of 600 kGy, corresponding to a fluence of $`1.1\times 10^{15}`$ $`\text{n}_{\text{eq}}\text{cm}^2`$.

The test beam was performed at the CERN SPS accelerator with a pion beam of 180 GeV/$`c`$ momentum. A beam telescope  consisting of 4 pairs of double-sided silicon microstrip modules was used to track the particles. The position resolution of tracks projected onto the devices under test was 6 $`\mu `$m.

During irradiation, between irradiation and the test beam operation and during the test beam operation the devices were kept below 0 0C, suppressing the time dependence of defect concentration in the silicon. At the LHC, the cumulative effect of defect annealing after 10 years of operation is predicted to reduce the initial concentration of defects, so that the results presented here are conservative.

## 3 Thickness of depletion zone

The measurement of the depletion zone depth is performed with data taken with particle beam incident on the sensor at an angle of 300 respect to the normal to the pixel plane (Fig. 1), as described in . A particle crossing the detector produces a cluster of hits consisting of the pixel cells that collect a significant fraction of the charge released in the subtended segment of the track. To measure the depth of the depleted region the maximum depth of track segment was used (Fig. 1); it was defined as the distance of the center of the track-segment subtended by a given pixel from the pixel itself. Since the entrance points of the tracks are uniformly distributed, all of the depths vary continuously and the maximum observed depth $`D`$ is a measurement of the depletion depth within the detector.

In Fig. 2 the depletion depth measurements of the irradiated sensors are plotted as a function of the applied bias voltage. The three different symbols refer to three sensors irradiated to the same fluence. The continuous line is the prediction based on the model  for the depletion depth of oxygenated sensors irradiated to $`1.1\times 10^{15}`$ $`\text{n}_{\text{eq}}\text{cm}^2`$before annealing, assuming a uniform space charge, so that the depletion depth scales as the square root of the bias voltage. The measured depletion depth is in good agreement with this assumption. At 600 V, which is the maximum bias voltage foreseen in ATLAS, the sensors are almost fully depleted.

## 4 Charge collection efficiency and uniformity

The sum of the charges collected by the pixels in a cluster (cluster charge) provides a measurement of the charge collection efficiency of the sensor.

In Fig. 3 the average cluster charge at normal incidence is plotted against the depletion depth. As expected, the two quantities are proportional. At 600 V an average signal of 20000 electron is seen, to be compared with 25000 electrons collected by not irradiated and fully depleted sensors. Both numbers are affected by the 10% uncertainty on the absolute scale provided by charge calibrations. The ratio between charge and depletion depth, coming from the fit to the data is $`Q/d=87\pm 9\text{e}^{}/\mu `$m.

The charge collection uniformity have been studied by considering the mean cluster charge as a function of the impact point of traversing particles relative to the center of a pair of pixel cells (Fig. 4) as done in  The coordinate axes $`x,y`$ are parallel to the short (50 $`\mu `$m) and long (400 $`\mu `$m) edges of the pixels, respectively, and are centered in $`x`$ at the centre of a single pixel and in $`y`$ between two adjacent pixels belonging to a column pair.

The uniformity is pretty good, except in the region between two columns where the bias grid is located ($`y=0`$). Here a significantly reduced signal is observed. No loss is observed between pixel columns where the bias grid is not present ($`y=\pm 0.4`$ mm) or between pixel rows.

## 5 Detection efficiency

At the LHC the pixel detectors will be required to identify the bunch crossing which has produced a particle with an efficiency in excess of 97%. As the LHC bunch crossing rate is 40 MHz, the charge collected by pixel must be detected in a time window of 25 ns.

Since the extracted beams used at CERN did not have an RF structure and the readout electronics was operated with a 40 MHz asynchronous clock (with respect to the particles), the phase between the arrival time of every particle and the clock was measured. During operation at the LHC this phase can be set for each individual module. Further, for an accepted trigger of beam particle the pixel hits belonging to 16 contiguous “bunch crossings” (clock periods) were read out. This allowed to study the timing behaviour of the detectors .

In Fig. 5 the detection efficiency is plotted against the difference between the beam trigger and the beginning of the clock period in which hits are looked for. The maximum efficiency is 98.2% which is well within the Pixel Detector requirements.

## 6 Spatial resolution

Spatial resolution is a key feature of the Pixel Detector, which strongly affects the vertex-finding performances of ATLAS. If there is no charge sharing between pixels, the hit position is reconstructed as the centre of the fired pixel, and the resolution $`\sigma `$ is related to the pixel pitch $`p`$ by $`\sigma =p/\sqrt{12}`$. If the charge released by the particle is shared by adjacent pixels, charge interpolation is possible, leading to improved resolution. The amount of charge sharing depends on the particle incidence angle, the thickness of depleted zone and the charge collection performances.

In what follows, resolution along the short (50 $`\mu `$m) pixel direction will be considered.

In Fig. 6 the distribution of the residuals between the hit position measured by the pixel detector and the track position provided by the beam telescope is shown for normal incidence and an incidence angle of $`10^0`$. The latter was chosen to be representative of ATLAS tracking conditions . The lighter histograms represent the one-pixel cluster residuals, the darker ones include all clusters. The resolution is worse at normal incidence because of the larger fraction of one-pixel clusters, for which no charge interpolation is possible. A gaussian fit to the residuals distribution yields $`\sigma =13.4\mu `$m at normal incidence and $`\sigma =9.6\mu `$m at $`10^0`$ incidence angle.

## 7 Conclusions

ATLAS Pixel detectors with oxygenated silicon sensors and rad-hard electronics have been irradiated to $`1.1\times 10^{15}`$ $`\text{n}_{\text{eq}}\text{cm}^2`$fluence and 600 kGy dose, 10% more than the design values. They have been tested in a beam and were found to meet all ATLAS specifications. The thickness of the depletion zone was found to be $`229\pm 8\mu `$m at 600 V of reverse bias voltage. The mean signal height was $`20000\pm 10`$% electrons, to be compared with $`25000\pm 10`$% electrons before irradiation. The hit detection efficiency in a time window of 25 ns was 98.2% and the spatial resolution at 100 incidence angle was 9.6 $`\mu `$m.

Acknowledgements

The work reported here represents the joint effort of many individuals in the ATLAS Pixel collaboration. I would like to thank all of them, in particular John Richardson and Kevin Einsweiler from LBNL, Berkeley, and Attilio Andreazza, Francesco Ragusa and Clara Troncon from the Milan ATLAS group.