text:
# A Detailed Thermal Analysis of the Binospec Spectrograph

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The refractive optics used in modern astronomical instruments, including multi-object spectrographs and wide-field focal reducers, must typically be designed to operate over a wide range of temperatures. Refractive indices, lens spacings and lens dimensions are all temperature dependent, and athermal designs are necessary to compensate for changes in these quantities. However, it is difficult or impossible for the optical designer to compensate for the temperature gradients arising from temperature transients.

In this paper we study the time dependent thermal behavior of Binospec, a wide-field, multi-aperture spectrograph being developed for the 6.5 m converted MMT. The mechanical layout of the Binospec spectrograph is shown in Figures 1 and 1. Binospec uses an ambitious refractive focal reducer (collimator and camera) (Fabricant et al., 1998; Epps, 1998) to image two adjacent 8$`\mathrm{}`$ by 15$`\mathrm{}`$ fields. Binospec operates at the wide-field f/5 focus of the converted MMT (Fata & Fabricant, 1993).

The collimators (see Figure 1) each contain nine elements in three groups and produce a 200 mm diameter collimated beam. The cameras (see Figure 1) each contain ten elements in four groups that image onto a 4K by 4K CCD array. These elements are mounted in aluminum bezels with athermal, annular room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) rubber bonds (Fata & Fabricant, 1998). The bezels have mounting bases that are attached to Binospec’s optical bench.

The optics are athermalized using a new technique described in Epps & Fabricant (2002). Briefly, the weak lenses formed in the fluid used to couple the multiplets exploit the thermally sensitive refractive index of the coupling fluid to compensate for thermally dependent lens properties: refractive indices, spacings, and dimensions. However, our concern that nonequilibrium conditions might degrade the performance of these optics motivates the present thermal analysis.

Our thermal analysis focuses on calculating the temperature gradients in the optics and the time scale of temperature changes in the instrument due to temperature transients arising from: (1) external conditions in the telescope dome, (2) the intermittent powering of internal heat sources (motors or other actuators) and (3) opening the instrument to change aperture masks, filters, or gratings. We also calculate the thermal stresses in the optics and the thermal deflection of the instrument optical bench. Our primary goals are to verify that Binospec will maintain its specified image quality, stability, and lateral scale under realistic operating conditions and to determine what design modifications would be beneficial.

Thermal analyses usually follow one of two general approaches. One approach is to find a closed form analytical solution for the heat transfer equations. Binospec is too complex for this approach. The second approach is to create a detailed thermal model of the entire instrument. We find that a complete, highly detailed model is not required to understand Binospec’s thermal properties. Our approach to thermal analysis relies on a mixture of coarse and detailed models, and we believe that this approach is applicable to a variety of other instruments.

Our paper is organized to follow the steps in the analysis. We begin in §2 by laying out the basic issues of heat transfer, and in §3 summarize the quantities needed for the heat transfer calculations. In §4, we begin the thermal analysis with calculations of thermal time constants and thermal capacitances. These analytic calculations help us to understand how quickly various Binospec components respond to temperature changes, allowing us to identify the components that dominate the heat transfer. We make detailed models of these components and coarser models of less sensitive components. The analytic calculations also provide an important check of our final thermal models. In §5 we create thermal finite difference models of the instrument and its subassemblies to calculate heat flows and temperature gradients. We use a low-resolution model of the entire spectrograph to provide boundary conditions for high-resolution models of the subassemblies. We model in detail the thermally sensitive components, such as the collimator and camera optics, the optical bench, and the filter changer. In §6 we discuss the results from these models. We conclude in §7.

## 2 HEAT TRANSFER

Heat transfer is driven by temperature differences. There are three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation, all of which are important for Binospec. The heat transfer rates, $`Q`$, for these three modes are:

$`Q_{conduction}=`$ $`kA_x(T_1T_2)/L`$ (1)
$`Q_{convection}=`$ $`hA(T_{air}T_{surface})`$ (2)
$`Q_{radiation}=`$ $`ϵ\sigma A(T_{env}^4T_{surface}^4),`$ (3)
where the variables are defined in Table 1.

Heat transfer is governed by the conservation of energy. In a given interval of time the heat flow into a point plus the heat generated at that point minus the heat flow out equals the net energy gained or lost, $`q_{net}`$. The net energy will cause a change in temperature scaled by the thermal capacitance, $`mC`$:

$$q_{net}=mC(T_{final}T_{initial}).$$
(4)
Thermal finite difference models divide a complicated system, such as the Binospec spectrograph, into a number of lump masses that are connected by the three modes of heat transfer. Discrete time steps are used to numerically solve the time dependent network of heat transfer equations. The time derivative of the temperature is approximated by:

$$\frac{dT}{dt}\frac{T(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)T(t)}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}.$$
(5)
Temperatures are calculated at times incremented by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, so that $`t=n\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The time step must be smaller than the shortest time constant in the model; our time steps are typically a few seconds. We refer the reader to a heat transfer text, such as Incropera & Dewitt (1996), for more details.

## 3 PREPARATION FOR THE THERMAL ANALYSIS

The first step in the heat transfer analysis is to gather information on the instrument’s optical and mechanical designs, the materials it uses, the environment in which it operates, and its intended operational modes. We need to determine the mass, dimensions, cross-sectional area, surface area, and surface emittance for each instrument component. The required level of detail depends on the desired resolution of the results. Temperature gradients in a shutter, for example, will usually not affect the optical performance of the spectrograph and so the shutter may be treated as a lump mass with a single cross-sectional area and surface area. Conversely, temperature gradients in the optical bench are likely to be important, and so its properties should be carefully detailed. In addition we need to determine the density, conductivity, specific heat, and coefficient of thermal expansion for each material used in the instrument. The conductivities of steel and aluminum are orders of magnitude larger than the conductivities of glass, leading to the general result that instrument structures will equilibrate faster than the optics they support.

The environment serves as the boundary condition for the thermal model, and so we need to know the time dependence of the temperature in the instrument operating environment. We must also determine if the instrument’s surface is directly exposed to the night sky or to a nearby heat source. In addition, the air flow speed affects the convection coefficient for the instrument’s exterior surface. The amplitude and time scale of environmental temperature variations turn out to be the dominant factors in determining the heat flow and temperature gradients in Binospec.

The typical and extreme operating modes of an instrument should be identified to determine the location, power output, and duty cycle of internal heat sources. Important internal heat sources include motors, electronics boxes, and calibration lamps.

## 4 FIRST-ORDER CALCULATIONS

We begin the heat transfer analysis with analytic calculations of thermal capacitances and time constants. We use these first-order calculations to determine the level of detail needed in our models and to check our finite difference calculations.

### 4.1 Measurements of the Thermal Environment

Figure 3 shows MMT dome temperatures recorded between 27 April and 6 June 2001. We use the time periods between the dotted lines in the upper and lower panels to represent extreme and moderate environmental conditions, respectively. In what follows, we discuss the results appropriate for the moderate thermal environment (ambient temperature changes by up to 8 C over 48 hours). We have also examined the results for the extreme thermal environment (ambient temperature changes by up to 17 C in 24 hours); the gradients and thermal offsets almost exactly double in this case. The large temperature changes in the extreme case are usually associated with unsettled weather, so that a closed dome will likely be the dominant concern. In any case, it is easy to scale the results we present for the extreme thermal environment.

### 4.2 Thermal Capacitances

The thermal capacitance is the energy stored in an object per unit temperature, and is the product of the mass and the specific heat of the object, $`mC`$. The temperature change $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ produced by a heat input $`q`$ is: $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=\frac{q}{mC}`$ (see Equation 4). The thermal capacitance is therefore a useful tool for understanding the relative thermal properties of instrument components. Table 2 lists the thermal capacitances of the Binospec lens groups and their lens barrels. We can immediately draw two conclusions. First, because the aluminum lens barrels have much smaller thermal capacitances than the lens groups, they will experience greater temperature changes than the lens groups for a given heat input. The lens barrels will therefore enforce radial temperature gradients in the lenses. We will need to model a lens group with a number of radial slices (e.g. Figure 4.3). Second, the second lens groups of both the collimator and camera have approximately twice the thermal capacitance of the neighboring lens groups and for a fixed heat input they will experience smaller temperature changes than their neighbors. We will need to model the large lens groups with a number of axial slices (see Figure 4.3) to look for axial temperature gradients.

### 4.3 Thermal Time Constants

Thermal time constants are useful characterizations of instrument components. An object out of thermal equilibrium with its environment will have a temperature difference that exponentially decays to zero. We calculate the thermal time constant associated with the exponential decay assuming that the object is isothermal, and that the environment has infinite thermal capacitance. The thermal time constants for conduction, convection, and radiation are:

$`\tau _{cond}=`$ $`mCL/kA_x`$ (6)
$`\tau _{conv}=`$ $`mC/hA`$ (7)
$`\tau _{rad}=`$ $`mC/h_rA`$ (8)
where $`h_r=ϵ\sigma (T+T_{env})(T^2+T_{env}^2)4ϵ\sigma T_{av}^3`$. We use $`h=2`$ W m-2 K-1 for still air in an enclosed cavity, and $`h_r=5`$ W m-2 K-1 for temperatures near 0 C.

We model an idealized Binospec lens barrel, shown in Figure 4.3, to illustrate thermal time constant calculations. Our goal is to calculate how quickly heat conducts around a lens barrel from a motor attached to the base of the barrel. We evaluate the time constants in Equations 6 \- 8 for a $`m=20`$ kg aluminum barrel ($`k=164`$ W m-1 K-1, $`C=962`$ J kg-1 K-1) with radius 0.25 m, cross-section $`A_x=0.005`$ m2, and surface area $`A=0.4`$ m2. The time constant for heat to conduct halfway around the lens barrel is $`\tau _{cond}=2.6`$ hours.

We now consider the effects of convection and radiation on the idealized lens barrel. If its outer surface is exposed to the environment, the lens barrel will equilibrate to the environment with $`\tau _{conv}=7`$ hours and $`\tau _{rad}=3`$ hours. Convective and radiative heat transfer occur in parallel, and the summed radiative and convective time constant is 2 hours.

If the interior of the lens barrel is filled with glass lenses ($`k0.95`$ W m-1 K-1, $`C650`$ J kg-1 K-1), the time constant for heat to conduct through the surface area $`A=0.4`$ m2 to the lens center, $`L=0.25`$ m, is $`\tau _{cond}=18`$ hours. Thus, the lens barrel time constant is $``$10 times shorter than the lenses it supports. The difference in time constants means that the lens barrel will act as an approximately uniform temperature boundary condition for the lenses; this allows us to use the lens barrel temperatures from our low-resolution model as boundary conditions for our high resolution models of the lens groups. We use the detailed models, considering exactly how the Binospec lenses are attached to the lens barrels, to calculate the temperature gradients in the optics.

## 5 FINITE DIFFERENCE THERMAL MODELS

We create finite difference thermal models of the instrument. Each piece of the instrument, such as a lens or lens barrel, is broken into isothermal lump mass elements. Finite difference models for a complicated system like the Binospec spectrograph and its components require hundreds of nodes, with each node connected conductively, convectively, and radiatively to dozens of other nodes. Writing out the heat transfer equations for such a complicated system is difficult. We use the Thermal Analysis Kit III (TAK3), a professional thermal analysis package written by K&K Associates, to calculate the large array of heat transfer equations. TAK3 has been previously used by engineers at the Center for Astrophysics to thermally model the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

The heart of the TAK3 software is a general purpose finite differencing thermal analyzer. The masses, dimensions, surface areas, and emittances of the elements, and the conductive, convective, and radiative pathways between them are determined by the user and typed into ASCII input files. TAK3 allows the user to easily modify the model assumptions and boundary conditions and to reanalyze the system.

### 5.1 Binospec Models

The lens barrels, mounts, and support struts are modeled with single elements in the low-resolution model of the Binospec spectrograph. Figure 5.1 shows that each lens group in the low-resolution model is modeled with a total of four elements, dividing the group radially and axially. This level of resolution is sufficient to estimate center-to-edge radial gradients and front-to-back axial temperature gradients in the lens groups.

Radiation exchange is relatively difficult to handle unless a complex instrument is modeled at low resolution. View factors must be calculated for every pair of elements that exchange radiation. Convection is easier to handle because each compartment in the model is assigned an air node that convectively couples the elements. We assume a convection coefficient of 2 W m-2 K-1 for still air inside the instrument. We use the average wind speed at the MMT, $`6\pm 3`$ m s-1 (Milone et al., 1999), to calculate the convection coefficient exterior to the spectrograph. Sequences of temperature measurements recorded at the MMT are used as the model’s boundary condition.

The high-resolution models of the collimator and camera optics, by comparison, divide each lens group into multiple axial, radial, and angular slices. Figure 5.1 illustrates the

lens group 3 portion of the detailed camera model. Spaces between the lenses, and the RTV layers connecting the lenses to the aluminum bezels, are exaggerated for clarity. The coupling fluid that we use in the Binospec lens groups, Cargille Laser Liquid 5610, is an excellent insulator ($`k=0.147`$ W m-1 K-1; B. Sutin 2002, private communication) and so we model the coupling fluid layers with multiple slices as well (see Figure 5.1).

We find that the axial and radial temperature gradients calculated for the lens groups generally agree to better than $`0.02`$ C between the low and high-resolution models. However, the high-resolution models reveal a new result: a diametral gradient in the lens groups because the lens barrels are mounted to the optical bench along one side. The amplitude of the diametral gradient is approximately 25% of the radial gradient.

## 6 FINITE DIFFERENCE THERMAL MODEL RESULTS

The thermal models allow us to calculate heat flows, temperature gradients, and thermal time constants. Our basic picture of heat transfer in Binospec comes from understanding how the instrument responds to the telescope dome environment. Because we are interested in maintaining image quality in the spectrograph, our main emphasis is on the collimator and camera lens groups and the optical bench to which they are mounted. In addition, we wish to determine the thermal consequences of operating

motors, as well as inserting new aperture masks, filters, and gratings. We are interested in how much insulation surrounding the spectrograph is necessary. We will use coefficients of thermal expansion to calculate thermal deformations of the instrument structure and to estimate the rate of thermally induced image drift on the detector caused by thermal deflections of the optical bench.

### 6.1 Heat Flow

Heat flow is the driving force in the thermal models. The greatest source of heat flow will dominate the thermal effects in the instrument. Because the average heat flow with the environment must be zero in the absence of internal heat sources, we consider peak heat flows. Here we compare the peak heat flow from the environment with the peak heat flow from operating motors, using the low-resolution thermal model of Binospec.

The peak heat exchange between the MMT telescope environment and Binospec is $``$30 W. Approximately 60% of the heat flow passes through the large surface area of the instrument; 40% passes through the mounting flange and the spectrograph entrance window. Figure 6 plots the temperatures and heat flows through the exterior insulation, mounting flange struts, and the entrance window for a representative 100 hours of MMT operating conditions. This result assumes 75 mm thick urethane foam insulation surrounding the spectrograph and moderate MMT dome temperatures that vary by up to 8 C over 48 hours. Because the MMT primary mirror is actively controlled to the ambient temperature with a forced air system, we consider the telescope mounting flange to be at ambient temperatures at all times. Table 3 summarizes the peak heat flows.

The Binospec optical bench is attached to the mounting flange with graphite epoxy struts (see Figure 1). If the conductivity (and heat flow) of the graphite epoxy struts were to increase by a factor of three, then the time constant of the optical bench is reduced from 37 to 27 hours and the temperature gradients in the optics are increased by 10%. If the graphite epoxy struts were thermally insulated on 1 cm thick Delrin pads, the heat flow is reduced by a factor of four compared to the baseline model and the time constant of the optical bench increases from 37 to 45 hours.

The peak heat flow from internal motors when Binospec is used for spectroscopy (changing an aperture mask, rotating the gratings, and moving the guide probes every hour) or imaging (assuming a filter change every 5 minutes) is $``$3 W, $``$10% of the peak heat flow from the environment. This heat flow calculation assumes that the motors are powered only when they are required to supply torque. However, we must still look for local temperature gradients. For example, when imaging, the casings of filter motors may rise a few C above the ambient temperature and induce temperature gradients in collimator lens group 1. We explore these issues in subsection 6.3.

### 6.2 Temperatures and Temperature Gradients

One of our primary concerns is that temperature gradients may degrade the optical performance of the instrument. Conveniently, the primary output of the thermal models is temperatures for each element as a function of time. Here, we describe temperature variations in the Binospec optics.

Figure 6.2 illustrates the collimator lens group temperatures from the low-resolution Binospec model. The upper panel shows the cores of the three collimator lens groups responding to the moderate external temperature fluctuations. Lens group 2 has approximately twice the thermal capacitance of the other two lens groups and lags them by six hours; the resulting worst-case temperature differences of $``$0.5 C are shown in the lower panel. Figure 6.2 shows the comparable results for the camera lens groups.

Figure 6.2 plots the worst case radial temperature gradient in the Binospec optics, located in collimator lens

group 2. The detailed collimator model shows that this radial temperature gradient peaks at 0.11 C under moderate conditions. Similarly, Figure 6.2 shows the worst case axial temperature gradient, located in camera lens group 3. The detailed camera model shows that this axial gradient peaks at 0.14 C. Epps & Fabricant (2002) have shown that 0.2 C gradients negligibly affect image quality and image scale.

We have created additional models using different environmental boundary conditions and different designs. We have compared the results with the baseline case shown

in Figures 6.2 \- 6.2. For example, we find that removing the spectrograph entrance window will result in $``$0.2 C ($``$100% larger) temperature gradients in the optics and a 26 hour (30% shorter) optical bench thermal time constant.

### 6.3 Internal Heat Sources

Internal heat sources generate heat flow that cause temperature gradients and temperature transients. Binospec uses motors to move guide probes, and to change aperture masks, filters, and gratings. The motors used to change filters may be operated frequently when Binospec is used for imaging. The Binospec filter changer sits directly above collimator lens group 1 (see Figure 1) and uses four motors, each of which may generate 16 W for 10 s during a filter change. If the filter changer is operated once every five minutes for ten hours, Equation 4 tells us the entire spectrograph will be heated by $``$0.05 C. Though this is a small temperature change, we must consider the effect of larger local temperature gradients.

Figure 6.3 plots the time dependent temperatures of a filter changer motor and the top and bottom of collimator lens group 1. The motor temperature rises 6 C with a time constant of $``$1 hour. After a few hours of operation, the heat flow from the motors causes a 0.03 C top-to-bottom axial gradient in collimator lens group 1. Collimator lens group 2, on the other hand, experiences an uniform rise in temperature with no temperature gradient. We conclude that using the Binospec filter motors every five minutes for a few hours will cause local temperature gradients in the optics smaller than those introduced by the telescope environment (e.g. Figure 6.2).

### 6.4 Time Constants

Binospec’s internal temperature gradients would be minimized if all of its internal parts could be designed to have short time constants. Unfortunately, the large thermal capacitances of the optical elements makes this

impractical. The best we can do is to heavily insulate Binospec from the environment to slow heat exchange.

The thermal time constants presented here are analogous to those in Equations 6 to 8. The thermal time constants quantify the response time of components in the thermal model, and are calculated by starting the thermal model at an uniform temperature 10 C above the environment and finding the $`e`$-folding equilibration time for each component. Large differences between time constants of adjacent components are undesirable because they lead to large temperature gradients.

Thermal time constants for the Binospec collimator lens group 2, for example, are summarized in Table 4. The collimator lens group 2 has an $`48`$ hour thermal time constant in the well insulated Binospec design. There is a small difference in time constant from the center to the edge of the collimator lens group and a corresponding $``$0.2 C temperature gradient for a 10 C temperature change (Figure 6.4). The lens barrel, however, has a 10% shorter time constant than the lens group and a corresponding $``$0.7 C temperature gradient between the barrel and the lens group. This difference in thermal time constant is in agreement with the time constant calculations in section 4.3.

### 6.5 Inserting Aperture Masks and Filters

Changing aperture masks in a multiobject spectrograph like Binospec is a daily task. Opening the instrument to change aperture masks, filters, or gratings may expose the instrument to a troublesome thermal shock. New components placed in the instrument will most likely be at a different temperature than the well insulated instrument and will generate heat flows and temperature gradients inside the instrument.

The aperture masks and filters are located in a compartment that includes the first collimator lens group and the top side of the optical bench (see Figure 1). We assume that a set of ten 0.5 kg aperture masks or a set of twelve

1.2 kg filters will be changed at a time, and that the masks and filters, as well as the air introduced into the compartment are an extreme 10 C hotter than the instrument. Figure 6.5 shows the resulting temperature changes and axial temperature gradients in the optical bench, where temperature gradients may cause significant thermal deflection. These temperature changes and gradients add to the underlying temperature changes and gradients in the baseline model.

For the case of inserting new aperture masks, the optical bench is heated 0.05 C and experiences a 0.01 C axial gradient with a time constant of three hours. For the case of inserting new filters, the optical bench is heated 0.1 C and experiences a peak 0.1 C axial gradient with a time constant of four hours. The first collimator lens group, on the other hand, experiences a nearly uniform $``$0.1 C rise with a time constant of four hours. These temperature changes scale with the initial 10 C temperature difference. We conclude that the temperature gradients induced by inserting aperture masks or filters are small and will equilibrate with an acceptable time constant.

The six diffraction gratings have ten times the thermal capacitance of the aperture masks and filters, and so changing gratings is more of an issue. The six 9 kg gratings plus their 7 kg grating holders will heat the entire instrument by 0.5 C. Secondly, the gratings have a poor conduction path to the rest of the instrument, and their equilibration time constant is long. Finally, the gratings directly view the collimator and camera lens groups. For an initial 10 C temperature difference, the gratings will induce a 0.1 C axial gradient through collimator lens group 3 and camera lens group 1.

### 6.6 Thermal Stress

Temperature gradients cause thermal stress in the optical elements. In this section we estimate the thermal stresses in a simplified Binospec lens. We approximate a lens by a cylindrical disk, and use the following stress equations from Roark & Young (1989). The total stress caused by an uniform axial temperature gradient, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_z`$, in a disk clamped around its edge is given by:

$$S=1/2\alpha E\mathrm{\Delta }T_z/(1\nu ),$$
(9)
where $`S`$ is the stress, $`\alpha `$ is the coefficient of thermal expansion, $`E`$ is the Young’s modulus, and $`\nu `$ is the Poisson’s ratio of the material. The thermal stress caused by a 0.1 C axial gradient in a typical glass lens ($`\alpha 8\times 10^6`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{C}_{}^{1},E70\times 10^9\mathrm{Pa},\nu 0.24`$) is 5 psi. The thermal stress caused by a 0.1 C axial gradient in a CaF2 lens ($`\alpha =19\times 10^6`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{C}_{}^{1},E=76\times 10^9\mathrm{Pa},\nu =0.26`$) is 14 psi.

The stress in a disk caused by an uniform radial temperature gradient, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_r`$, is given by:

$`S_r=1/3\alpha E\mathrm{\Delta }T_r(r_or)/r_o\mathrm{and}`$ (10)
$`S_t=1/3\alpha E\mathrm{\Delta }T_r(r_o2r)/r_o,`$ (11)
where $`S_r`$ and $`S_t`$ are the stresses in the radial and tangential directions, respectively, and $`r_o`$ is the outer radius. Note that both the radial and tangential stresses peak in the lens center ($`r=0`$). If we sum the radial and tangential stress in the lens center, the total stress caused by a 0.1 C radial gradient is 5 psi for a typical glass lens and 14 psi for CaF2. These stress levels are insignificant.

### 6.7 Thermal Deflections

One of our design goals is to minimize image drift at the detector. Image drift degrades image quality and the wavelength calibration during a long spectroscopic exposure. The thermal stability of the Binospec optical bench is a key issue in understanding image drifts. We can simply estimate the thermal deflection of the Binospec optical bench by modeling the bench as an unconstrained circular disk. The disk geometry is a good description of the Binospec optical bench and the formulas can be taken directly from Roark & Young (1989). The radius of curvature $`R`$ of a disk with a uniform, top-to-bottom temperature difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_z`$ is:

$$R=\frac{t}{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }T_z},$$
(12)
where $`\alpha `$ is the coefficient of thermal expansion and $`t`$ is the thickness of the disk. The thermal deflection $`\theta `$ caused by the axial temperature difference is:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta =\frac{r/R}{\sqrt{1(r/R)^2}}.$$
(13)
Binospec has a cylindrical aluminum optical bench that is 2.14 m in diameter and 0.15 m thick. In our thermal models, the optical bench experiences up to $`\pm 0.1`$ C axial temperature gradients. The resulting tilt at the edge of the optical bench is $`\pm 3.5`$ arcsec. We calculate the same tilt when we make a detailed finite element model of the optical bench. The optical bench responds to external temperatures that vary with a time scale of twelve hours, so the rate of deflection at the edge of the optical bench

is $`3.5/12=0.3`$ arcsec hr-1. If we insert new filters into Binospec, the time constant is four hours and the rate of deflection at the edge of the optical bench is 0.9 arcsec hr-1.

We use the ZEMAX optical design software (published by Focus Software, Inc.) to estimate image shifts at the detector due to deflection of various optical elements mounted on the optical bench. The grating is by far the most sensitive optical element: a 4 arcsec deflection of the grating leads to a 1 pixel shift on the detector. The grating experiences 2/3 of the total optical bench deflection, so that the image drift due to external temperature changes is an acceptable 0.05 pixel hr-1. We conclude that thermal deflection of the optical bench by external temperature changes will not significantly degrade an hour long spectroscopic observation. The corresponding result for image drifts following the insertion of new filters is 0.15 pixel hr-1, so we will want to minimize filter changes.

More extreme temperature gradients may be created by internal heat sources, such as a hot motor mounted on the optical bench. We turn to mechanical finite element modeling to assess the deflection caused by a hot spot on the optical bench. We find that a 0.1 C hot spot, with a time constant of 1.5 hours, will cause a local 0.2 arcsec deflection of the Binospec optical bench. A 16 W motor mounted to the optical bench on 6 mm thick Delrin standoffs will produce a 0.1 C hotspot if powered with a 3% duty cycle. Figure 6.7 shows the deflection as a function of distance from the spot. If the grating mount were located next to this hot spot, the resulting image drift rate would be 0.03 pixel hr-1. This is similar to the drift rate caused by the 0.1 C gradient across the optical bench from external temperature changes, and suggests that we want to be careful how we mount motors near the grating. Thermal standoffs are effective in reducing the magnitude of hot spots.

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

We have presented the thermal analysis techniques that we have used to study the thermal behavior of Binospec, a wide-field, multiobject optical spectrograph that uses high performance refractive optics. We begin our analysis by calculating thermal time constants and thermal capacitances to understand the scale of temperature variations in the instrument and to determine what areas of the instrument require detailed modeling. We then generate a low-resolution finite difference thermal model of the entire spectrograph, and high-resolution models of the collimator and camera optics, optical bench, and filter changer. We use temperature data recorded at the MMT to set the boundary conditions for the models. Conduction, convection, and radiation are all important modes of heat transfer in the instrument.

In normal operation, we find that the Binospec lens groups will experience up to $``$0.14 C axial and radial temperature gradients and that lens groups of different mass will have temperatures that differ by $``$0.5 C. These temperature gradients are driven by heat exchange with the environment; internal heat sources are a minor contribution to the total heat flow. Under extreme conditions at the MMT, we find that these gradients and offsets double. Epps & Fabricant (2002) have shown that these temperature gradients and temperature offsets in the optics have a negligible effect on image quality and image scale, even under the extreme conditions.

If the spectrograph is exposed to an environment at a 10 C different temperature in the process of changing aperture masks or filters, we find the optics will experience $`<0.1`$ C temperature gradients, comparable to those experienced in normal operation without opening the spectrograph. The thermal stresses associated with these gradients are negligible.

Our calculations show that the optical bench will experience a peak 0.1 C axial gradient in normal operation from external temperature changes, and an additional 0.1 C axial gradient when the spectrograph is opened to change filters. The time constants for these gradients are twelve hours and four hours, respectively. The resulting time dependent deformations of the optical bench will tilt the grating mount and cause an 0.05 and 0.15 pixel hr-1 image drifts at the detector, respectively. Overall, we conclude that the current Binospec design has acceptable thermal properties.

Further thermal modeling will be helpful as we proceed to the detailed design of Binospec. Thermally isolating the optical bench from the telescope mounting flange will reduce the conductive heat flow into the spectrograph and reduce the temperature gradients in the optical bench. Providing (passive) ventilation around the optical bench will allow convection to equilibrate the temperature of the spectrograph interior. Mounting motors on thermal stand-offs will prevent local hot spots in the structure and allow radiation and convection to distribute heat around the spectrograph. Radiation shields on the motors may also be helpful to prevent motors from directly affecting sensitive optical surfaces. The spectrograph electronics will be mounted in a temperature controlled enclosure that is insulated from the spectrograph interior.

We thank Bob Fata and Jack Barberis for their important contributions to this project and Henry Bergner for providing the finite element model of the optical bench. We thank Brian Sutin for pointing out that the lens coupling fluid may significantly affect temperature gradients and time constants in the lens groups. Steve West kindly supplied the MMT dome temperature data.


format: text

text:
# TESTING GENERAL RELATIVITY WITH SATELLITE LASER RANGING: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

## INTRODUCTION

In the framework of the weak–field and slow–motion linearized approximation of General Relativity (GR), we will deal with some post–Newtonian effects of order $`𝒪(c^2)`$ on the orbits of test bodies freely falling in the terrestrial gravitational field and will examine recent developments about the possibility of measuring them by means of the Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) technique.

### The Gravitoelectric Effects

The geodetic, or De Sitter, precession (De Sitter, 1916) refers to the coupling of the static, gravitoelectric part of the gravitational field due to the Schwarzschild metric generated by a central, non–rotating mass to the spin of a particle freely orbiting around it. It has been measured for Earth–Moon orbit, thought of as a giant gyroscope, in the gravitational field of Sun with 1$`\%`$ accuracy (Williams et al., 1996). It should be measured for four superconducting gyroscopes in the gravitational field of Earth by the important GP-B mission (Everitt et al., 2001) at a claimed relative accuracy level of $`2\times 10^5`$. However, such mission has recently experienced some problems (Lawler, 2003a; 2003b).

Perhaps the most famous of the gravitoelectric post–Newtonian orbital effects, the advance of the pericentre $`\omega `$ of the orbit of a test particle (i.e., non–rotating) due to the Schwarzschild part of the metric of a central, non–rotating mass (Ciufolini and Wheeler, 1995) has represented one of the classical tests of GR thanks to the measurement of the perihelion shifts of Mercury and other planets in the gravitational field of Sun with the radar ranging technique. The relative accuracy of such measurements is of the order of 10-2–10-3 (Shapiro, 1990). Here we will present a proposal for obtaining a complementary measurement of such orbital effect in the gravitational field of Earth by using some existing or proposed SLR satellites of LAGEOS–type. The achievable relative accuracy should amount to 10-3 (Iorio et al., 2002a), according to the present–day knowledge of the models of the gravitational and non–gravitational forces acting on the satellites of LAGEOS–type.

### The Gravitomagnetic Effects

Contrary to the classical Newtonian mechanics, GR predicts that the gravitational field of a central mass is sensitive to its state of motion. In particular, if it rotates and has a proper angular momentum $`𝑱`$, it turns out that a freely falling body orbiting it is affected by many so called gravitomagnetic effects. Such name is due to the close formal analogies of the linearized approximation of GR with the Maxwellian electromagnetism. For a recent review see (Ruggiero and Tartaglia, 2002). In regard to such gravitomagnetic effects, they could be divided into two main categories: those induced by the spin–spin coupling and those induced by the spin–orbit coupling.

#### The Gravitomagnetic Spin–Spin Effects

When a spinning particle moves in an external gravitational field one has to describe both its spin precession and the influence of the spin on its trajectory (Khriplovich, 2001).

When the spin $`𝑱`$ of the central object is taken into account, it turns out that it affects the precessional motion of the spin $`𝒔`$ of a particle freely orbiting it in a way discovered by Schiff (Schiff, 1960) in 1960. The detection of this subtle precessional effect, in addition to the gravitoelectric geodetic precession of the spin, is one of the most important goals of the GP-B mission (Everitt et al., 2001); the claimed accuracy amounts to $`1\%`$.

In regard to possible orbital effects on the motion of a spinning particle freely orbiting a central rotating mass in an astrophysical context, they have been recently calculated in (Iorio, 2003a). Unfortunately, they turn out to be too small to be detected in Solar System space–based experiments. See also (Zhang et al., 2001) for a different, phenomenological approach not a priori based on GR, which has been applied to some preliminary Earth–based laboratory tests (Zhou et al., 2002).

#### The Gravitomagnetic Spin–Orbit Effects

The Lense–Thirring drag of the inertial frames (Lense and Thirring, 1918) is an effect due to the stationary, gravitomagnetic part of the gravitational field of a central rotating mass on the geodesic path of a test particle. Such effect could be thought of as a spin–orbit interaction between the spin of the central object and the orbital angular momentum $`\mathbf{}`$ of the test body. For some spin–orbit effects induced by the rotation of Sun on the orbital angular momentum of Earth–Moon system see (Mashhoon and Theiss, 2001). In 1998 the first evidence of the Lense–Thirring effect in the gravitational field of Earth has been reported (Ciufolini et al., 1998) with a claimed accuracy of almost $`20\%`$. It is based on the analysis of a suitable combination of the orbital residuals of the nodes $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II SLR satellites and of the perigee $`\omega `$ of LAGEOS II.

Another interesting gravitomagnetic effect of order $`𝒪(c^2)`$ on the orbit of a test particle has been recently derived in (Iorio, 2002a); it is induced by the temporal variability of the angular momentum of the central mass. Unfortunately, it is too small to be detected with SLR in the terrestrial gravitational field.

In this paper we will show how the launch of the proposed LAGEOS–like LARES satellite could allow to measure the Lense–Thirring effect with an accuracy probably better than $`1\%`$ (Iorio et al., 2002b). Moreover, the concept of twin SLR satellites placed into identical orbits in orbital planes with supplementary inclinations will be extended to new observables and a possible mission involving the use of an entirely new pair of SLR satellites of LAGEOS–type will be sketched.

## 1 THE MAJOR SYSTEMATIC ERRORS

In all the performed or proposed experiments with which we will deal in this paper the reliable assessment of the error budget is of the utmost importance. Indeed, the terrestrial space environment is rich of competing classical perturbing forces of gravitational and non–gravitational origin which in many cases are far larger than the general relativistic effects to be investigated. In particular, it is the impact of the systematic errors induced by the mismodelling in such various classical perturbations which is relevant in determining the total realistic accuracy of an experiment like those previously mentioned.

The general relativistic effects of interest here are linear trends affecting the node $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and/or the perigee $`\omega `$ of the orbit of a satellite. A LAGEOS–type satellite’s orbit is affected by them at a level of $`10^1`$$`10^3`$ milliarcseconds per year (mas/y in the following) for the gravitomagnetic and the gravitoelectric effects, respectively.

In this context the most important source of systematic error is represented by the classical secular precessions of the node and the perigee induced by the mismodelled even ($`l=2n,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) zonal ($`m=0`$) harmonic coefficients $`J_2,J_4,J_6,\mathrm{}`$ of the multipolar expansion of the terrestrial gravitational field, called geopotential. Indeed, while the time–varying tidal orbital perturbations (Iorio, 2001; Iorio and Pavlis, 2001; Pavlis and Iorio, 2002) and non–gravitational orbital perturbations (Lucchesi, 2001; 2002), according to their periods $`P`$ and to the adopted observational time span $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, can be viewed as empirically fitted quantity and can be removed from the signal, this is not the case of the classical even zonal secular precessions. Their mismodelled linear trends act as superimposed effects which may alias the recovery of the genuine general relativistic features. Such disturbing trends cannot be removed from the signal without cancelling also the general relativistic signature, so that one can only assess as more accurately as possible their impact on the measurement. The systematic error induced by the mismodelled part of the geopotential can then be viewed as a sort of unavoidable part of the total systematic error.

The same considerations hold also for the aliasing secular trends induced by some tiny non–gravitational thermal perturbations like the terrestrial Yarkovsky–Rubincam effect (Lucchesi, 2002).

### 1.1 The Systematic Error due to the Geopotential

A possible strategy for reducing the impact of the error due to the geopotential, as we will see in the following sections, consists of suitable combinations of the orbital residuals $`\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\delta \dot{\omega }`$ of the rates of the nodes and the perigees of different SLR satellites. Such combinations can be written in the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_if_i=X_{\mathrm{GR}}\mu _{\mathrm{GR}},$$
(1)
in which the coefficients $`c_i`$ are, in general, suitably built up with the orbital parameters of the satellites entering the combinations, the $`f_i`$ are the residuals $`\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }},\delta \dot{\omega }`$ of the rates of the nodes and the perigees of the satellites entering the combination, $`X_{\mathrm{GR}}`$ is the slope, in mas/y, of the general relativistic trend of interest and $`\mu _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ is the solve–for parameter, to be determined by means of usual least–square procedures, which accounts for the general relativistic effect. For example, in the case of the Lense–Thirring–LAGEOS–LAGEOS II experiment (Ciufolini, 1996) $`X_{\mathrm{LT}}=60.2`$ mas/y, while for the gravitoelectric perigee advance (Iorio et al., 2002a) $`X_{\mathrm{GE}}=3,348`$ mas/y. More precisely, the combinations of Eq.(1) are obtained in the following way. The equations for the residuals of the rates of the $`N`$ chosen orbital elements are written down, so to obtain a non homogeneous algebraic linear system of $`N`$ equations in $`N`$ unknowns. They are $`\mu _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ and the first $`N1`$ mismodelled spherical harmonics coefficients $`\delta J_l`$ in terms of which the residual rates are expressed. The coefficients $`c_i`$ and, consequently, $`X_{\mathrm{GR}}`$ are obtained by solving for $`\mu _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ the system of equations. So, the coefficients $`c_i`$ are calculated in order to cancel out the contributions of the first $`N1`$ even zonal mismodelled harmonics which represent the major source of uncertainty in the Lense–Thirring and gravitoelectric precessions (Ciufolini, 1996; Iorio, 2002b; Iorio et al., 2002a; 2002b). The coefficients $`c_i`$ can be either constant 111In general, the coefficient of the first orbital element entering a given combination is equal to 1, as for the combinations in (Ciufolini, 1996; Iorio, 2002b; Iorio et al., 2002a; 2002b).  or depend on the orbital elements of the satellites entering the combinations.

Now we expose how to calculate the systematic error due to the mismodelled even zonal harmonics of the geopotential for the combinations involving the residuals of the nodes and the perigees of various satellites.

In general, if we have an observable $`q`$ which is a function $`q=q(x_j)`$, $`j=1,2\mathrm{}M`$ of $`M`$ correlated parameters $`x_j`$ the error in it is given by

$$\delta q=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left(\frac{q}{x_j}\right)^2\sigma _j^2+2\underset{hk=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left(\frac{q}{x_h}\right)\left(\frac{q}{x_k}\right)\sigma _{hk}^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(2)
in which $`\sigma _j^2C_{jj}`$ and $`\sigma _{hk}^2C_{hk}`$ where $`\{C_{hk}\}`$ is the square matrix of covariance of the parameters $`x_j`$.

In our case the observable $`q`$ is any residuals’ combination

$$q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_if_i(x_j),j=1,2\mathrm{}10,$$
(3)
where $`x_j,j=1,2\mathrm{}10`$ are the even zonal geopotential’s coefficients $`J_2,J_4\mathrm{}J_{20}`$. Since

$$\frac{q}{x_j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_j},j=1,2\mathrm{}10,$$
(4)
by putting Eq.(4) in Eq.(2) one obtains, in mas/y

$$\delta q=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{10}{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_j}\right)^2\sigma _j^2+2\underset{hk=1}{\overset{10}{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_h}\right)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_k}\right)\sigma _{hk}^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5)
The percent error, for a given general relativistic trend and for a given combination, is obtained by taking the ratio of Eq.(5) to the slope in mas/y of the general relativistic trend for the residual combination considered.

The validity of Eq.(5) has been checked by calculating with it and the covariance matrix of the EGM96 gravity model (Lemoine et al., 1998) up to degree $`l=20`$ the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of the Lense–Thirring LAGEOS–LAGEOS II experiment; indeed the result

$$\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}=13\%\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}$$
(6)
claimed in (Ciufolini et al., 1998) has been obtained again. For the systematic errors due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of alternative proposed gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric experiments, according to EGM96, see (Iorio, 2002b; Iorio et al., 2002a; 2002b). It is worth noticing that, since the orbits of the LAGEOS satellites are almost insensitive to the geopotential’s terms of degree higher than $`l=20`$, the estimates based on the covariance matrix of EGM96 up to degree $`l=20`$ should be considered rather reliable although the higher degree terms of EGM96 might be determined with a low accuracy.

It should also be pointed out that the evaluations of the systematic error due to geopotential based on the approach of the combined orbital residuals should be free from some uncertainties due to possible seasonal effects. Indeed, according to (Ries et al., 2003), the covariance matrix of EGM96 (and of other previous gravity models as well) would not yield reliable results for a generic time span of a few years, but only just for the temporal interval during which the data used for its construction have been collected or, at most, for some very long, averaged time span. It would be so because of the impact of possible secular, seasonal and stochastic variations of the terrestrial gravity field which would have not been accounted for in the model solution. However, since it turns out that such seasonal effects would mainly affect just the first even zonal harmonic coefficients of the geopotential, the uncertainty related to them should be very small for residual combinations which, by construction, cancel out just the first even zonal harmonic coefficients of the geopotential. On the other hand, if we cancel out as many even zonal harmonics as possible, the uncertainties in the evaluation of the systematic error based on the remaining correlated even zonal harmonics of higher degree should be greatly reduced, irrespectively of the chosen time span. Moreover, also certain time–dependent harmonic perturbations of gravitational origin are canceled out. I.e., the most insidious of such perturbations is the 18.6–year tide which is just a $`l=2,m=0`$ constituent with a period of 18.6 years due to the motion of the Moon’s node and which affects both the nodes and the perigees of the LAGEOS satellites at a level of 103 mas (Iorio, 2001). It is cancelled out by the combinations of orbital residuals.

A very important point to stress is that the forthcoming new data on Earth gravitational field by CHAMP (Pavlis, 2000), which has been launched in July 2000, and especially GRACE (Ries et al., 2002), which has been launched in March 2002, should have a great impact on the reduction of the systematic error due to the mismodelled part of geopotential, provided that the great expectations about the level of achievable improvement of our knowledge of the terrestrial gravity field will be finally satisfied. In particular, if the other existing LAGEOS–type satellites have to be included in the combined residual combinations, it would be very important that the new terrestrial gravity models improve the accuracy in determining the even zonal harmonics of higher degree to which they are sensitive, contrary to the LAGEOS satellites. The first, very preliminary Earth gravity models including some data from CHAMP and GRACE seem to confirm such expectations (Iorio and Morea, 2003).

## MEASURING THE GRAVITOELECTRIC PERIGEE ADVANCE WITH SLR

The gravitoelectric secular rate of the pericentre of a test body freely orbiting a central static mass is (Ciufolini and Wheeler, 1995)

$$\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{GE}}=\frac{3nGM}{c^2a(1e^2)}\times \frac{2+2\gamma \beta }{3},$$
(7)
in which $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum, $`M`$ is the mass of the central object, $`a`$ and $`e`$ are semimajor axis and eccentricity, respectively, of the orbit of the test body and $`n=\sqrt{GM/a^3}`$ is its mean motion. In the following we define $`\nu \frac{2+2\gamma \beta }{3}`$, where $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ are the Eddington–Robertson–Schiff PPN parameters (Will, 1993) which test the alternative metric theories of gravitation. The gravitoelectric precessions for the LAGEOS satellites, according to GR ($`\beta =\gamma =1`$) amount to

$$\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{GE}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}=3,312.4\text{mas/y},\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{GE}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}=3,348.5\text{mas/y}.$$
(8)
In regard to the possibility of measuring such rates in the terrestrial gravitational field with SLR, in (Ciufolini and Matzner, 1992) a first attempt using the perigee of LAGEOS only is reported, but the estimated total systematic error is of the order of 20$`\%`$.

### The Use of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II

If the perigee of LAGEOS or LAGEOS II only was used, the systematic relative error due to the geopotential, according to the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics up to the degree $`l=20`$ of EGM96, would amount to $`8\times 10^3`$ and $`2\times 10^2`$, respectively. Instead, following the approach of the combined residuals outlined in the previous section it is possible to adopt as observable (Iorio 2002b; Iorio et al., 2002a)

$$\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+k_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+k_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}=3,348.46\times \nu ,$$
(9)
with

$$k_1=0.87,k_2=2.86,$$
(10)
so that we could exploit the insight acquired with the Lense-Thirring LAGEOS–LAGEOS II experiment. The systematic relative error due to the geopotential, according to the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics of EGM96 up to the degree $`l=20`$, amounts to $`6\times 10^3`$. The total systematic relative error over a time span of 8 years, including other sources of error, amounts to almost 7$`\times 10^3`$ (Iorio et al., 2002a). As a secondary outcome of such experiment, it would be possible to use its results with those for $`\eta =4\beta \gamma 3`$ from Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) (Anderson and Williams, 2001) in order to get independent measurements of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ with an accuracy of $`3\times 10^3`$ and $`1\times 10^2`$, respectively. The estimates for $`\nu `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ should be improved by the new forthcoming gravity models from the CHAMP and GRACE missions.

## A REVISITED VERSION OF THE LARES MISSION

The Lense–Thirring secular rates of the node and the perigee of a test body freely orbiting a central rotating mass are (Lense and Thirring, 1918)

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}=\frac{2GJ}{c^2a^3(1e^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}},\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}=\frac{6GJ\mathrm{cos}i}{c^2a^3(1e^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}},$$
(11)
where $`J`$ is the proper angular momentum of the central mass and $`i`$ is the inclination of the orbit of the test particle to the equator of $`M`$. The Lense–Thirring precessions for the LAGEOS satellites amount to

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}=31\text{mas/y},\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}=31.5\text{mas/y},\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}=31.6\text{mas/y},\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}=57\text{mas/y}.$$
(12)
The first measurement of this effect in the gravitational field of Earth has been obtained by analyzing a suitable combination of the laser-ranged data to the existing SLR LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites (Ciufolini et al., 1998). The observable is a linear trend with a slope of 60.2 mas/y and includes the residuals of the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee222The perigee of LAGEOS was not used because it introduces large observational errors due to the smallness of the LAGEOS eccentricity (Ciufolini, 1996) which amounts to 0.0045. of LAGEOS II(Ciufolini, 1996). The claimed total relative accuracy of the measurement of the solve-for parameter $`\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}`$, introduced in order to account for this general relativistic effect, is about $`2\times 10^1`$ (Ciufolini et al., 1998).

As already pointed out, in this kind of experiments using Earth satellites the major source of systematic errors is represented by the aliasing trends due to the uncancelled classical secular precessions of the node and the perigee induced by the mismodelled even zonal harmonics of the geopotential $`J_2,J_4,J_6,\mathrm{}`$.

In order to achieve a few percent accuracy, in (Ciufolini, 1986) it was proposed to launch a passive geodetic laser-ranged satellite- the former LAGEOS III - with the same orbital parameters of LAGEOS ($`a=12,270`$ km, $`e=0.0045`$, $`i=110^{}`$) apart from its inclination which should be supplementary to that of LAGEOS, i.e. $`i_{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{III}}=70^{}`$.

This orbital configuration would be able to cancel out exactly the classical nodal precessions, which are proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}i`$ (Iorio, 2002c), provided that the observable to be adopted is the sum of the residuals of the nodal precessions of LAGEOS III and LAGEOS

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{III}}+\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}=62\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}.$$
(13)
Later on the concept of the mission slightly changed. The area-to-mass ratio of LAGEOS III was reduced in order to make less relevant the impact of the non-gravitational perturbations, the total weight of the satellite was reduced to about 100 kg, i.e. to about 25$`\%`$ of the weight of LAGEOS, and the eccentricity was enhanced to $`e_{\mathrm{LR}}=0.04`$ in order to be able to perform other general relativistic tests: the LARES was born (Ciufolini, 1998). At present the LARES experiment has not yet been approved by any space agency. Although much cheaper than other proposed and approved complex space–based missions, funding is the major obstacle in implementing the LARES project.

### Some Possible Weak Points of the Originally Proposed Lares Mission

Since the eccentricities of LAGEOS and LARES are 0.0045 and 0.04, respectively, the cancellation of the classical secular nodal precession amounts to 0.3$`\%`$, according to Eq.(13) applied to to the LAGEOS–LARES configuration and the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics of EGM96 up to the degree $`l=20`$ and using the nominal values of the orbital parameters of LARES.

The major drawback of Eq.(13), applied to the LAGEOS–LARES configuration, is that it turns out to be rather sensitive to the possible departures of the LARES orbital parameters from their nominal values due to the unavoidable orbital injection errors. More precisely, for deviations of just 1 from the projected nominal supplementary configuration with LAGEOS, the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential would amount to 1-2$`\%`$. Of course, this fact would put rather stringent constraints on the quality and, consequently, the cost of the LARES launcher.

### A New, More Accurate Residuals Combination

Following the strategy of the combined orbital residuals previously outlined, it could be possible to adopt the following observable

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+c_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+c_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LARES}}+c_3\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+c_4\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LARES}}=61.8\mu _{\mathrm{LT}},$$
(14)
with

$$c_1=6\times 10^3,c_2=9.83\times 10^1,c_3=1\times 10^3,c_4=2\times 10^3.$$
(15)
According to the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics of EGM96 up to the degree $`l=20`$, the systematic error in Eq.(14) due to the geopotential reduces to 0.02$`\%`$, i.e one order of magnitude better than Eq.(13). Moreover, and this is a crucial point, it turns out that such result is completely insensitive to the possible departures of the LARES orbital parameters from their nominal values, especially in regard to the inclination $`i_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, contrary to Eq.(13). This would allow to use a rather cheap launcher for LARES. In (Iorio, 2003d) it has been shown also that the correlations among the various even zonal harmonics are not relevant for the error in Eq.(14).

In regard to the time–dependent gravitational and non–gravitational perturbations which sensibly affect the perigee, it should be noticed that the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES are weighted, in Eq.(14), by coefficients of order of $`10^3`$, so that the impact of the time–varying harmonic perturbations on $`\omega `$ would be notably reduced333This result is really important, especially in view of possible new phenomena in the surface properties of the LAGEOS satellites which might affect the perigee, as it seems to happen for LAGEOS II (Iorio et al., 2002b). .

According to the estimates of (Iorio et al., 2002b), the total systematic error should be $`1\%`$. Of course, when the new, hopefully more accurate data on the static and dynamical parts of the terrestrial gravitational field from the CHAMP and GRACE missions will be available, a substantial improvement in such estimate should occur.

### Using LARES for the Measurement of the Gravitoelectric Perigee Advance

It would also be possible to include the data of LARES in some combinations of orbital residuals in order to measure the gravitoelectric perigee advance. E.g., a possible observable is

$$\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+w_1\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LARES}}+w_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}=X_{\mathrm{GE}}\mu _{\mathrm{GE}},$$
(16)
with

$$w_1=4.71,w_2=2.26,X_{\mathrm{GE}}=12,117.4\mathrm{mas}/\mathrm{y}.$$
(17)
The impact of the uncancelled even zonal harmonics, with degree higher than four, amounts to an uncertainty of about $`6\times 10^3`$, according to the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics up to the degree $`l=20`$ of EGM96. This error should be further reduced when the new gravity models from the CHAMP and GRACE missions will be available. An interesting feature of Eq.(16) is that the impact of the non–gravitational perturbations would produce an uncertainty of about $`4\times 10^3`$ over a time span of 7 years, according to very conservative estimates (Iorio et al., 2002a); in particular the Earth thermal thrust, i.e. the so-called Yarkovski–Rubincam effect, would induce a mismodeled secular trend with an uncertainty of only $`6\times 10^5`$. For Eq.(9) the error due to the non–gravitational perturbations amounts to $`1\times 10^2`$, while the impact of the Yarkovski–Rubincam effect amounts to $`1\times 10^4`$. The inclusion of LARES would thus represent an improvement with respect to the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II scenario of Eq.(9), especially when, in the near future, the impact of the mismodeled non–gravitational perturbations will increase relatively to the gravitational perturbations thanks to the more accurate Earth gravitational field models.

## NEW OBSERVABLES FOR THE SUPPLEMENTARY SATELLITES CONFIGURATION

Up to now, the concept of twin LAGEOS–type satellites in identical orbits with supplementary inclinations has been used in the context of the originally proposed LAGEOS–LARES mission whose observable is the sum of the nodes of Eq.(13).

### The Difference of the Perigees

It turns out that such concept could be fruitfully extended to another independent observable sensitive to the gravitomagnetic Lense–Thirring effect. Indeed, for a pair of satellites in such orbital configuration, according to (Iorio, 2002c) and to Eq.(11), on one hand the classical secular precessions of the perigee due to the even zonal harmonics of the geoptential are equal because they depend on $`\mathrm{cos}^2i`$ and on even powers of $`\mathrm{sin}i`$, on the other the Lense–Thirring rates of the perigee are equal and opposite because they depend on $`\mathrm{cos}i`$. So, besides the sum of the nodes, also the difference of the perigees

$$\delta \dot{\omega }^i\delta \dot{\omega }^{180^{}i}=X_{\mathrm{LT}}\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}$$
(18)
could be considered as another independent, although less precise, gravitomagnetic observable (Iorio, 2003b; 2003c).

Of course, such observable could not be used in the LARES mission because the perigee of LAGEOS is not well defined. Moreover, it would neither be a good idea to think about a possible LARES II satellite supplementary to LAGEOS II because the perigee of LAGEOS II is affected by some gravitational and non–gravitational time–varying perturbations with periods of many years (Iorio, 2001; Lucchesi 2001), so that over reasonable time spans of only a few years they would resemble superimposed biasing linear trends which would corrupt the measurement of the genuine Lense–Thirring secular trend.

It turns out that an entirely new pair of twin LAGEOS–type satellites in identical eccentric orbits ($`a=12,000`$ km, $`e=0.05`$) with supplementary critical inclinations ($`i^{(1)}=63.4^{}`$, $`i^{(2)}=116.6^{}`$) would be a good choice. Indeed, the so obtained frozen perigee configuration444For $`i=63.4^{}`$ the classical secular precession on $`\omega `$ due to $`J_2`$ vanishes. would allow to reduce the periods of all the time–dependent harmonic perturbations, so that they could be easily fitted and removed from the signal over a time span of a few years. Moreover, since the eccentricities would be the same, the cancellation of the mismodelled classical secular precessions due to the even zonal harmonics of the geoptential would occur at an higher level of accuracy than that of the originally proposed LAGEOS–LARES mission.

According to numerical estimates based on the physical and geometrical properties of the existing LAGEOS satellites, the total accuracy over an observational time span of 6 years would be of the order of $`5\%`$ (Iorio and Lucchesi, 2003). In it a very important role would be played by the non–gravitational perturbations. It is worth noticing that their importance in the determination of the total error budget will greatly increase when the new, more accurate data for the static and time–varying parts of Earth gravitational field will be available from the CHAMP and, especially, GRACE missions.

Of course, such new configuration would allow to increase the precision of the sum of the nodes as well. According to very preliminary numerical estimates based on the physical and geometrical properties of the LAGEOS satellites, the total accuracy over an observational time span of 6 years would be $``$ $`1\%`$ (Iorio and Lucchesi, 2003).

The addition of the sum of the nodes and of the difference of the perigees

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^i+\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{180^{}i}+\delta \dot{\omega }^i\delta \dot{\omega }^{180^{}i}=X_{\mathrm{LT}}\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}$$
(19)
would increase the accuracy to 2.8$`\%`$ (Iorio and Lucchesi, 2003). Such estimates should further improve because they do not account for the possibility of fitting and removing some time–dependent orbital perturbations with known periodicities from the time series.

### The Combined Residuals Scenario

If, instead of LARES, we would use the data of one of the two new proposed satellites with critical inclination in some combinations of orbital residuals we could measure both the gravitoelectric perigee advance and the Lense–Thirring effect. A possible observable would be

$$\delta \dot{\omega }^i+p_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+p_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+p_3\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+p_4\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^i=\mu _{\mathrm{GR}}X_{\mathrm{GR}},$$
(20)
in which

$$p_1=1.55,p_2=2.77,p_3=0.348,p_4=0.361.$$
(21)
For the gravitoelectric perigee advance we would have $`X_{\mathrm{GE}}=4,636.5`$ mas/y and a systematic relative error due to the geopotential of $`2\times 10^4`$, according to the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics of EGM96 up to the degree $`l=20`$. For the gravitomagnetic Lense–Thirring effect we would have $`X_{\mathrm{LT}}=187`$ mas/y and a systematic relative error due to the geopotential of $`5\times 10^3`$, according to the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics of EGM96 up to the degree $`l=20`$. In regard to the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect, the combination of Eq.(14) involving LARES, LAGEOS and LAGEOS II would be more accurate than Eq.(20). On the other hand, in regard to the measurement of the gravitoelectric perigee adavance, Eq.(20) would represent a notable improvement with respect to Eq.(16).

## CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have illustrated some new recent developments in the field of precise testing GR with SLR.

By suitably combining the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee of LAGEOS II it would be possible to obtain a complementary measurement of the gravitoelectric perigee advance in the gravitational field of Earth with the SLR technique at an accuracy level of 0.7$`\%`$.

A modified version of the observable to be used in the LARES mission, which includes not only the node of LAGEOS but also the node and the perigee of LAGEOS II and the perigee of LARES in a suitable combination, should be able to measure the gravitomagnetic Lense–Thirring effect at an accuracy level of the order of 1$`\%`$ by using a not too expensive launcher for LARES. Indeed, the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the new proposed observable would be insensitive to the unavoidable orbital injection errors, to the correlations among the even zonal harmonic coefficients and, to a certain extent, to the adopted Earth gravity model.

The use of a couple of entirely new SLR LAGEOS–type satellites placed into identical eccentric orbits with critical supplementary inclinations would allow to use not only the sum of the nodes but also the difference of the perigees as independent observables for the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect. According to preliminary numerical estimates based on the properties of the existing LAGEOS satellites, the accuracy would be of the order of $`1\%`$ and $`5\%`$, respectively.

When the new, more accurate data for the terrestrial gravitational field from the CHAMP and, especially, GRACE missions will be available, such estimates should be notably improved. The first, very preliminary, Earth gravity models including some data of CHAMP and GRACE seem to confirm such expectations.

E-mail address of L.Iorio Lorenzo.Iorio@ba.infn.it
Manuscript received 19 October 2002


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this talk we give a brief overview of recent developments on CP violation in supersymmetric theories. We begin with a discussion of the current experimental status of CP violation in the Standard Model. The electro-weak sector of the Standard Model has one CP violating phase in the CKM matrix. An important constraint on the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix is that of unitarity and one such constraint is $`V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0`$. This constraint can be represented by a unitarity triangle whose angles $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are defined by the relations $`\alpha =arg(V_{td}V_{tb}^{}/V_{ud}V_{ub}^{})`$, $`\beta =arg(V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}/V_{td}V_{tb}^{})`$, and $`\gamma =arg(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}/V_{cd}V_{cb}^{})`$ Currently there are four pieces of experimental evidence for the existence of CP violation in nature. Two of these come from the kaon system in the form of $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$. A third piece of evidence appeared last year from a direct measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ in B meson decays $`B_d^0(\overline{B_d^0})J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s`$ which gave $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =(0.75\pm 0.10)`$ (BaBar) and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =(0.99\pm 0.15)`$ (Belle). The fourth piece of evidence for CP violation is indirect as it comes from the existence of baryon asymmetry in the universe so that $`n_B/n_\gamma =(1.56.3)\times 10^{10}`$. Now the first three pieces of evidence appear to be consistent with the CP violation given by the Standard Model while the fourth one points to a new source of CP violation above and beyond the one from the standard model. CP violation also leads to electric dipole moments of elementary particles. However, in the lepton sector of the standard model EDMs arise at the multi loop level and are typically more than ten orders of magnitude smaller than the current experimental limits and thus for all practical purposes too small to be experimentally observed in the foreseeable future. This means that the observation of a lepton EDM would be a clear indication of new physics beyond the standard model. In addition to the CP violation arising from the CKM matrix in the electro-weak sector of the Standard Model, one also has an additional CP violation given by the strong interaction of the theory, in the form of a term $`\theta _G\frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi }G\stackrel{~}{G}`$ which can give a huge EDM to the neutron unless $`\theta `$ is fine tuned to be very small.

There is a large amount of literature now on how to suppress the strong CP violation effects. Some of the early ideas discussed in this connection consist of using axions, a massless up quark or a symmetry argument to suppress CP violating effects. There is also considerable recent literature on this subject. which we discuss briefly. The analysis of Ref. invokes the idea of a gluino-axino and uses a Peccei-Quinn mechanism for the gluino rather than the quarks. Thus it is proposed that the axion couple to the gluino rather than the quark and that supersymmetry breaking have the same origin as the axion. One finds then that the $`\theta _{QCD}`$ is canceled exactly by the minimization of the dynamical gluino phase and thus the calculation of the EDMs in MSSM becomes unambiguous. The analysis of Ref. is based on Left-Right symmeteric models. In these models the strong CP parameter $`\overline{\theta }`$ is zero at the tree level, due to parity (P), but is induced due to P -violating effects below the unification scale. It is estimated that $`\overline{\theta }10^{16}`$ for models with universal scalar masses. In more general SUSY breaking scenario, one finds $`\overline{\theta }(10^810^{10})`$ close to experimental observation. In the analysis of Ref. a solution to the strong CP problem using supersymmetry is proposed. Thus the work of Ref: envisions a solution to the strong CP problem based on supersymmetric non-renormalization theorem. In this scenario CP is broken spontaneously and its breaking is communicated to the MSSM by radiative corrections. The strong CP phase is protected by a SUSY non-renormalization theorem and remains exactly zero while the loops can generate a large CKM phase from wave function renormalization. Finally in the analysis of Ref. a solution based on gauging away the strong CP problem is proposed. Thus the work of Ref. proposes a solution that involves the existence of an unbroken gauged $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry whose gauge boson gets a Stuckelberg mass term by combining with a pseudoscalar field $`\eta (x)`$ which has a axion like coupling to $`G\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Thus the $`\theta `$ parameter can be gauged away by a $`U(1)_X`$ transformation. This leads to mixed gauge anomalies which are canceled by the addition of an appropriate Wess-Zumino term.

## 2 Large Phases in SUSY, String, and Brane Models

Assuming that the strong CP problem is solved we still have a SUSY CP problem. Thus in the minimal supergravity model one has two arbitrary phases which are theoretically unrestricted and can get large. Similarly in a broad class of string and brane models one finds that soft susy breaking generates CP violating phases of sizes which are typically $`O(1)`$. Thus one finds that even in the absence of the strong CP problem one has a SUSY CP problem in that in most models based on SUSY, string and branes the phases of the soft parameters are large and this is problematic for the satisfaction of the EDM constraints. Many avenues have been explored on how to overcome this problem. Some possible solutions to this problem that have been discussed are the following: (i) Arrange the satisfaction of the EDMs by fine tuning the phases to be small. (ii) Assume the phases are large but suppress their effects on the EDMs of the quarks and the leptons by making masses of the sparticles heavy. Effectively this requires that the sparticle masses lie in the range of several TeV. While this is a valid solution it appears contrary to the concept of naturalness. (iii) Arrange so that the phases in the first two generations and the flavor blind phases vanish and the only phases present are in the third generation. (iv)Internal cancellations: Here one looks for regions of the parameter space where, one has cancellations between the various contributions to the EDMs of the leptons and of the quarks. If this mechanism holds then one will expect to observe EDMs by a factor of 10 improvement in experiment. In addition to the above there are several variants of the above ideas available in the literature. The EDM of the mercury $`{}_{}{}^{199}H_{g}^{}`$ is known to a great degree of accuracy and one may wish to impose this constraint on the SUSY phases. However, atomic EDMs have several uncertainties which are not fully understood. These include uncertainties associated with particle physics effects (such as the uncertainties associated with the strange quark content of the nucleons), uncertainties associated with the nuclear physics models at low energy, and uncertainties associated with atomic physics effects. In addition to the above estimates made in computing the atomic EDMs have ignored the effects of the CP violating dimension six operator. While the effect of the CP violating dimension six operator may be small in some regions of the parameter space there is no reason to believe it would be small in all allowed regions of the MSSM parameter space.

An interesting issue concerns the origin of CP violation. The two possibilities that present themselves are (1) compactification and (2) spontaneous symmetry breaking. Thus in the first case while the string or M theory in its uncompactified form is CP symmetric CP violation can appear after compactification. In such a circumstance the Yukawa couplings are the ones likely to get complex phases which are eventually translated in terms of CP violation in the CKM matrix. Thus one can view the CP violation in the CKM matrix as directly originating from the string compactification. Regarding the second possibility CP violation can arise when the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry occurs. In supergravity and string models this breaking arises also at the string/Planck scale. Here one is led a priori to the presence of many more phases. (In gauge mediated breaking, or in M theory/brane models the scale where soft CP phases appear could be in the 10 TeV region.) There is yet another possibility for the origin of CP violation in the context of spontaneous breaking, and this is via spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electro-weak sector. Now while the spontaneous CP violation does not occur in the Higgs sector of MSSM it can occur in extensions of MSSM. Thus, for example, a recent analysis with an extensions of MSSM with the addition of two Higgs singlets exhibits such a spontaneous breaking. There are now the following possibilities: (a) The SUSY contributions to K and B physics turn out to be small: In this case one has a rather clean demarcation, that is the CP violations in K and B physics are probe of string compactification, and baryogenesis and other CP phenomena that may be seen in sparticle decays etc become a probe of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking. (b) The second possibility is that the SUSY contributions to the K and B systems are significant. In this case one has a more involved picture in that both $`\delta _{CKM}`$ and the SUSY phases contribute here and thus one would need to disentangle the SUSY CP effects from the effects of $`\delta _{CKM}`$ to get any meaningful constraints on either $`\delta _{CKM}`$ or on the SUSY phases. On a more theoretical level one might ask if in MSSM there exists a connection at some level between the CP violation in the CKM matrix and the CP violation that arises in the soft parameters. A priori there does not appear to be a connection as the origins of these types of CP violations are very different, since one arises from string compactification and the other from spontaneous supersymmetry breaking. This is mostly true except that the soft trilinear couplings $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ have a dependence on the Yukawa couplings $`Y_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ via the a term of the form $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }F^i_iY_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ where $`i`$ refer to the moduli fields. Thus in this case the CP violating phases in the Yukawa couplings will filter into the trilinear couplings $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$. However, the exact nature of compactification in string theory that takes us from 10 space time dimensions to 4 dimensions in string theory is not known. Similarly, the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry in string theory is not fully understood. Thus in view of the above one cannot put strict theoretical restrictions on the size of CP violation either on $`\delta _{CKM}`$ that arises via string compactification or on the soft SUSY parameters that arise from spontaneous supersymmetry breaking.

## 3 CP phases and low energy phenomena

In the absence of any reliable string models that might in a natural fashion determine the CP phases to either vanish or be small, one has to assume that these phases will in general be sizable and that the resolution of the EDM problem comes about by one of the methods discussed in the previous section. In this circumstance when the phases are sizable a whole arrary of low energy phenomena will be affected. The list of such phenomena is indeed large and encompasses essentially all of current low energy phenomenology. We list below a few of these. They include sparticle masses and decay branching ratios and cross-sections, Higgs boson decays, neutralino relic density and detection rates in dark matter detectors, g-2, CP even -CP odd mixing in neutral Higgs system, FCNC $`bs+\gamma `$, trileptonic signal, $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$, CP effects on $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider phenomenology, CP effects on $`b\overline{b}`$ system, baryogenesis, proton decay and $`B_{s,d}^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. Of the above we will discuss the CP effects in the neutral Higgs in some detail in Sec.4 and the effects of SUSY CP phases on $`g_\mu 2`$ and on the muon EDM in Sec.5. Here we discuss briefly some general aspects of the phases. One question one might ask is how one may determine the phases. This is a more difficult task that might appear at the surface. The reason for this is that supersymmetric phenomena in general depend typically on a combination of phases and thus deciphering the phases would require a simultaneous determination of many observables. To see the complexity of this problem we exhibit the phase dependence of a few experimentally observable quantities. To streamline the discussion we begin by defining the soft parameters that enter the low energy theory that will be the focus of our discussion. The low energy theory in general consists of the following soft parameters: sfermion masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_R}`$, the U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) gaugino masses $`m_i=|m_i|e^{i\xi _i}`$ (i=1,2,3), the trilinear soft parameters $`A_f`$= $`|A_f|e^{i\alpha _{A_f}}`$, and the Higgs mixing paramrter $`\mu =|\mu |e^{i\theta _\mu }`$. Let us now consider the chargino and neutralino masses. The chargino masses depend on the single combination $`\xi _2+\theta _\mu `$ while the neutralino masses depend on the phases $`\xi _1,\xi _2,\mu `$. The FCFC decay $`bs+\gamma `$ depends on four combinations $`\xi _1+\theta _\mu `$,$`\xi _2+\theta _\mu `$,$`\xi _3+\theta _\mu `$ and $`\alpha _{A_t}+\theta _\mu `$. Similary, at least four combinations of phases appear in the decay of charginos $`\stackrel{~}{W}q_1\overline{q}_2+\chi _1`$ which may be taken to be $`\xi _1+\theta _\mu `$,$`\xi _2+\theta _\mu `$, $`\alpha _{q_1}+\theta _\mu `$, and $`\alpha _{q_2}+\theta _\mu `$. Clearly then measurement of several quantities will be necessary in order to determine the phases. A relevant question then is the accuracy with which such phases can be determined. The linear collider is an appropriate instrument for the accurate determination of the phases. Thus, for example, accurate measurements of the chargino and neutralino masses and their pair production cross sections at linear colliders can allow a determination of the CP violating phases to a good accuracy. With the design parameters of the linear colliders a determination of some phases to an accuracy of one tenth of a radian is possible.

## 4 Effects of CP violation in the neutral Higgs sector

At the tree level the Higgs mass matrix in MSSM is block diagonal between the CP even and the CP odd odd states and here one gets two CP even states and one CP odd state. The situation changes when one includes the effects of loop corrections to the effective potential. In the presence of CP violating phases the loop corrections mix the CP even and the CP odd Higgs sectors and the neutral Higgs mass matrix no longer factorizes into CP even and CP odd sectors. Thus in MSSM one has two Higgs doublets $`(H_1^0,H_1^{})`$ and $`(H_2^+,H_2^0)`$ where $`H_2`$ gives mass to the up quarks and $`H_1`$ gives mass to the down quarks and the leptons. We denote the real and imaginary parts of the $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_2^0`$ by $`\varphi _1,\psi _1`$, and $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\psi _2`$. After spontaneous breaking we go to the basis $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\psi _{1D},\psi _{2D}`$ defined by $`\psi _{1D}=\mathrm{sin}\beta \psi _1+\mathrm{cos}\beta \psi _2`$, $`\psi _{2D}=\mathrm{cos}\beta \psi _1+\mathrm{sin}\beta \psi _2`$. In this basis $`\psi _{2D}`$ decouples and one is left with a $`3\times 3`$ matrix which mixes the 2 CP even and one CP odd states. It was first shown in Ref. that the effect of top-stop exchange can generate a significant mixing between the CP even and the CP odd states. In Ref. it was extended to include the chargino, $`W`$ and charged Higgs boson exchange and it was found this exchange could be very significant for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. it turns out that that a similar computation to include the CP violation effects from the neutralino, $`Z`$ and neutral Higgs exchanges is far more difficult. The reason for this is that while the computation of the top-stop and charged Higgs, $`W`$ and chargino exchange calculation involves diagonalization of only 2x2 mass matrices, the computation of the neutralino exchange contribution involves the diagonalization of a 4x4 neutralino mass matrix. To deal with this problem one needs to use some special techniques. A full analysis of the neutralino exchange corrections with inclusion of CP effects is given in Ref.. Again one finds that the effects of neutralino exchange contributions for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be quite significant comparable to the contributions from the top-stop exchange contributions. There are a variety of signals associated with the effects of CP violation in the Higgs sector. One interesting signal associated with the CP even -CP odd mixing in the neutral Higgs sector can be seen directly in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, e.g., three peaks in the process $`e^+e^{},q\overline{q}Z^{}Z+H_i`$, and modified rates of $`hb\overline{b},c\overline{c}`$ etc. Further, a very interesting observation in made in Ref. is that if a mixing effect is observed experimentally then among the three possibilities, i.e., the fine tuning, the heavy sparticle spectrum, and the cancellation mechanism, it is only the cancellation mechanism that can survive under the naturalness constraint. Another possible way to detect the existence of CP violation is in polarization asymmetries in the Higgs decays which have been analyzed recently. Specifically in this case one analyzes the spin correlated decays of the Higgs into neutralinos and charginos and one can express the decays in terms of the longitudinal and the transverse polarization of the final charginos and neutralinos. These spin correlated decays show a strong dependence on the CP violating phases. Thus an observation of the spin correlated decays can shed a considerable light on the presence of supersymmetric CP violation in the Higgs sector.

## 5 CP violation and flavor structure

The contribution of the supersymmetric CP violation to the K and B systems can act as a probe of the flavor structure of supersymmetric models. Specifically one can envision three scenarios: (a) Negligible or small contribution from the supersymmetric phases to the K and B system: In this case essentially all of the CP violation in K and B physics has standard model origin, i.e., arises from $`\delta _{CKM}`$ and K and B physics provides us with no guide to the presence of a new flavor structure beyond what is present in the Yukawa couplings; (b) Sizable contribution from SUSY phases to K and B physics: If it turns out that there is a large contribution to the K and B physics from supersymmetry, then in addition to large supersymmetric CP phases, a new flavor structure beyond the Yukawas is indicated. For example, one needs a non negligible $`(\delta _{12})_{LR}(d)=m_{LR}^2(d)/\stackrel{~}{m}_q^2`$ to get a significant contribution to $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ from supersymmetry; (c) The entire CP phenomena in K and B system arises from SUSY phases: As in (b) in this case one needs a new flavor structure in addition to large phases. However, there is no compelling reason for this extreme view point. In the latter two scenarios, i.e., in (b) and (c) one can view CP violation as a probe of the flavor structure of the supersymmetric theory.

## 6 CP violation, $`g_\mu 2`$ and the Muon EDM

As mentioned already the muon anomalous moment is a very sensitive function of CP phases and this effect has been analysed theoretically at considerable length in Ref.. It turns out that an experimental determination of the deviation of $`g_\mu 2`$ from the standard model also has strong implications on constraining the CP phases. These constraints were also analyzed in Ref.. One very interesting result of the CP phases is that the usual hierarchy between the chargino-sneutrino and the neutralino-smuon exchange contributions to $`g_\mu 2`$ no longer applies when phases exist. Thus in the absence of CP phases one finds that the chargino-sneutrino exchange contribution to $`g_\mu 2`$ is typically much larger than the neutralino-smuon exchange contribution. However, in the presence of phases this does not necessarily hold. Thus while the chargino-sneutrino exchange contribution depends only on the phase combination $`\xi _2+\mu `$, the neutralino-smuon exchange contribution depends on the phases $`\xi _1`$, $`\xi _2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha _{A_\mu }`$. Thus in this case depending on the numerical value of the phases one finds that the neutralino-smuon exchange contributions can become comparable to and even exceed the chargino-sneutrino exchange contribution. The large sensitivity of $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ on the phases implies that a constraint on $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ can be turned into a constraint on the phases and this constraint turns out to be quite significant if $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}10^{10}`$. Of course in the presence of CP phases there will be an EDM associated with the muon and it is interesting to ask what the size of this EDM is. This question is interesting in view of the fact that there is a recent proposal by BNL to probe the muon EDM ($`d_\mu `$) with a sensitivity of $`d_\mu O(10^{24})ecm`$. This proposed limit will be six orders of magnitude more sensitive that the current limit of $`10^{18}`$ ecm, Now for wide class of models one finds that a so called scaling holds so that the EDMs scale by the masses, i.e., $`d_\mu /d_em_\mu /m_e`$. Since the electron EDM has an experimental upper limit of $`d_e<4.3\times 10^{27}ecm`$ scaling implies $`d_\mu <10^{25}ecm`$ which lies below the sensitivity (i.e., $`d_\mu <10^{24}ecm`$) that will be accessible in the proposed BNL experiment. The question then is if there are any models which could produce a muon EDM sensitive to the proposed BNL experiment. Clearly this can happen only by a violation of scaling. Such scaling violations can occur in some Left-Right symmetric models. More recently it was proposed that slepton nonuniversalities can generate such violations, These slepton non-universalities can easily arise from the soft trilinear couplings, either in the magnitude or in phase. It is found that such nonuniversalities can easily generate a muon EDM in excess of $`10^{24}ecm`$ which is the sensitivity limit of the BNL experiment.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we have given a brief overview of the current status of CP violation in supersymmetric theories. We argued that CP violation arising from supersymmetric phases can influence a wide range of low energy phenomena. These include masses and decays of sparticles, the neutral Higgs system, flavor changing processes such as $`bs+\gamma `$, the trileptonic signal, the process $`B_{s,d}^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, dark matter, proton decay and many other processes. Clearly, the CP phases then have an important impact on SUSY and Higgs searches. On a theoretical level, the origin of CP violation can be traced back to string compactification and to the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry. The CP violation associated with Yukawa couplings that arise as a consequence of string compactification largely affects the CKM matrix, while phenomena such as the EDMs, low energy SUSY phenomenology and the baryon asymmetry of the universe are largely governed by the CP phases that are associated with the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry. Assuming K and B physics is largely controlled by the CP violation in the CKM matrix, such physics gives us a glimpse into the nature of string compactification, while CP violation in low energy SUSY and Higgs phenomena which we expect to observe in collider experiments will reveal the nature of CP violation associated with soft parameters, and such physics will give us a glimpse into the nature of spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry.

## 8 Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0139967.