text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most intriguing prediction of the General Theory of Relativity, in its linearized weak–field and slow–motion approximation, is the so called frame–dragging or Lense–Thirring effect (Lense and Thirring 1918). It can be thought of as a consequence of a gravitational coupling between the proper angular momentum $`𝑱`$ of a central body of mass $`M`$, which acts as source of the gravitational field, and the angular momentum $`𝒔`$ of a particle freely orbiting it. It turns out that the spin $`𝒔`$ undergoes a tiny precessional motion (Schiff 1960). The most famous experiment devoted to the measurement of such a gravitomagnetic effect is the Stanford University GP–B mission (Everitt $`etal`$ 2001) which is scheduled to fly in April 2003.

If we consider the whole orbit of a test particle in its geodesic motion around $`M`$ as a sort of giant gyroscope, its orbital angular momentum $`𝒍`$ undergoes the Lense–Thirring precession, so that the longitude of the ascending node $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the argument of pericenter $`\omega `$ of the orbit of the test particle (Sterne 1960) are affected by small secular precessions111In the original paper by Lense and Thirring the longitude of the pericenter $`\varpi =\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega `$ is used instead of $`\omega `$.  $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}`$, $`\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ (Lense and Thirring 1918; Ciufolini and Wheeler 1995; Iorio 2001).

### 1.1 The LAGEOS-LAGEOS II Lense-Thirring experiment

Up to now, the only attempts to detect them in the gravitational field of the Earth are due to Ciufolini and coworkers (Ciufolini $`etal`$ 1998; Ciufolini 2000; 2002) who analysed the laser data of the existing geodetic SLR (Satellite Laser Ranging) satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II over time spans of some years. The observable is a suitable combination of the orbital residuals of the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee of LAGEOS II according to an idea exposed in (Ciufolini 1996). The relativistic signal is a linear trend with a slope of almost 60.2 milliarcseconds per year (mas yr-1 in the following). The claimed total accuracy is of the order of $`20\%30\%`$. The main sources of systematical errors in such kind of measurements are the unavoidable aliasing effect due to the mismodelling in the classical secular precessions induced by the even zonal coefficients of the multipolar expansion of the Earth’s gravitational field (Kaula 1966) and the non–gravitational perturbations affecting especially the perigee of LAGEOS II. It turns out that the mismodelled classical precessions due to the first two even zonal harmonics of the geopotential $`J_2`$ and $`J_4`$ are the most insidious source of error for the Lense–Thirring measurement with LAGEOS and LAGEOS II. The combination of (Ciufolini 1996) is insensitive just to $`J_2`$ and $`J_4`$. According to the full covariance matrix of the EGM96 gravity model (Lemoine $`etal`$ 1998), the error due to the remaining uncancelled even zonal harmonics amounts to almost 13$`\%`$. A reliable evaluation of the impact of the geopotential is a particularly subtle and important topic. Indeed, it is based on the use of the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of some terrestrial gravity models like EGM96. As pointed out in (Ries $`etal`$ 1998), in obtaining the solution of EGM96 and of other previous gravity models a multidecadal observational time span has been used and many seasonal, stochastic and secular variations, which is known that they affect the geopotential, have not been accounted for. Then, according to the remarks of (Ries $`etal`$ 1998), nothing would assure that during any particular relatively short time span as that used in the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II Lense–Thirring experiment the correlation among the geopotential coefficients would be just that of the EGM96 covariance matrix. For example, it seems that the $`13\%`$ favorable estimate is based on a particular correlation between $`J_6`$ and $`J_8`$ (Ries $`etal`$ 1998) which do affect the observable by Ciufolini. If, with a more conservative, although maybe pessimistic, approach, we use the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EGM96 up to degree $`l=20`$ the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential for the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II Lense–Thirring experiment amounts to $`46.6\%`$ (Iorio 2002a). Moreover, it turns out to be insensitive to the even zonal harmonics of degree higher than $`l=20`$ due to the high altitude of the LAGEOS satellites. Indeed, the classical precessions of the node and the perigee depend on $`\left(\frac{R}{a}\right)^la^{\frac{3}{2}}`$, where $`R`$ is the Earth’s radius and $`a`$ is the satellite’s semimajor axis.

### 1.2 The LARES project

The originally proposed LARES mission (Ciufolini 1986; 1998) consists of the launch of a LAGEOS–type satellite–the LARES–with the same orbit of LAGEOS except for the inclination $`i`$ of its orbit, which should be supplementary to that of LAGEOS, and the eccentricity $`e`$, which should be one order of magnitude larger. In Table 1 the orbital parameters of the existing and proposed LAGEOS–type satellites are quoted.

The choice of the particular value of the inclination for the LARES is motivated by the fact that in this way, by using as observable the sum of the nodes of the LAGEOS and the LARES, it should be possible to cancel out exactly all the contributions of the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential, which depends on $`\mathrm{cos}i`$, and add up the Lense–Thirring precessions which, instead, are independent of $`i`$.

Of course, it would not be possible to obtain practically two orbital planes exactly 180 deg apart due to the unavoidable orbital injection errors. It turns out that all depends on the last stadium of the rocket used. According to conservative estimates, if a solid propellant is used for it an error in inclination of the order of 1 deg is to be expected, while if a liquid propellant, which is more expensive, is used the error should amount to 0.5-0.6 deg (Anselmo, private communication 2002). In Figure 1, page 4314 of (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) the impact of such source of error on the originally proposed LAGEOS–LARES mission has been shown. It should be noted that the simple sum of the nodes of the LAGEOS and the LARES is affected by all the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential. Then, when the impact of the departures of the inclination of LARES from its nominal values on the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential has to be calculated, the role of all the correlations among the even zonal harmonics should be important. If we decide to take into account the remarks of (Ries $`etal`$ 1998), the results obtained in (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) might be considered optimistic in the sense that they are based on an extrapolation of the validity of the full covariance matrix of EGM96 up to degree $`l=20`$ to arbitrary future time spans.

In (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) an alternative observable based on the combination of the residuals of the nodes of LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES and the perigee of LAGEOS II and LARES has been proposed. It would allow to cancel out the first four even zonal harmonics $`J_2,J_4,J_6,J_8`$ so that the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential would be rather insensitive to the orbital injection errors in the LARES inclination and would amount to $`0.02\%`$ only.

In (Iorio 2002b) the recent proposal of inserting the LARES in a low–altitude polar orbit (Lucchesi and Paolozzi 2001), so to obtain the so called POLARES, and to analyze only its node has been critically analyzed from the point of view of the impact of the orbital injection errors in the POLARES inclination.

### 1.3 Motivation of the present work

The conclusions obtained in (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002; Iorio 2002b) are based on the assumption of the validity of the EGM96 full covariance matrix in arbitrary future time spans during which, instead, it might happen that the correlations between the even zonal harmonics will be different. This problem is particularly relevant for those observables which are sensitive to the full range of the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential like the originally proposed node–only LAGEOS–LARES combination and the node–only POLARES observable.

Consequently, we wish to reanalyze such issues in a more conservative, although pessimistic, approach by using the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EGM96. We expect that the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of the new proposed observable based on the use of the orbital elements of LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES, which is $`J_2J_8`$-free, should be relatively insensitive to the correlation among the remaining even zonal harmonics, contrary to the sum of the nodes of the LAGEOS and the LARES and the node of the POLARES. If it will be so, the reliability of the modified version of the LARES project will be enforced and posed on a more firm basis.

## 2 The LARES mission

### 2.1 The originally proposed LARES scenario

As pointed out in (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002), the impact of the unavoidable orbital injection errors in the LARES inclination on the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential is of crucial importance for the originally proposed LAGEOS–LARES observable, especially if the LARES satellite will be finally launched with a relatively cheap rocket of not too high quality due to budget restrictions. Figure 1 of page 4314 in (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) has been obtained by considering the root–sum–square error due to the full covariance matrix of EGM96, up to degree $`l=20`$, as a function of the inclination of LARES. Since there are no even zonal harmonics cancelled out by the sum of the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES, the role of the correlation among all the various geoptential’s harmonics in the assessment of the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential should not be neglected. Then, the estimates of (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) might reveal to be rather optimistic. A more conservative approach consists of repeating the analysis by using the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EGM96. The results are summarized in Figure 1.

It can be noticed that, in this pessimistic but perhaps more realistic approach, the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential is of the order of 4$`\%`$–4.5$`\%`$, contrary to the 1$`\%`$–1.4$`\%`$ of (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002). Note also that, even for the nominal values of Table 1 for the LARES orbit, the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential would amount to almost 1$`\%`$, contrary to 0.3$`\%`$ of (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002). This further confirms that, according to the present knowledge of the terrestrial gravitational field, the implementation of the originally proposed LAGEOS–LARES observable would pose some problems in term of accuracy. Of course, the situation should greatly improve when the new data for the geopotential from the CHAMP and GRACE missions will be available. It should also be considered that, in the case of the node–only LAGEOS–LARES configuration, the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential would represent the most relevant part of the systematic error because the non–gravitational perturbations acting on the nodes of the LAGEOS–like satellites are far less relevant.

### 2.2 The modified LARES scenario

The combination of orbital residuals including the nodes of LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES and the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES of eq. (9) in (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) seems to be a better choice. Indeed, also in this pessimistic approach the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential turns out to be very small and insensitive to the orbital injection errors in the inclination of the LARES satellite, as shown in Figure 2.

From it the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential remains almost fixed at the level of 0.1$`\%`$, while in Figure 3 of page 4317 in (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) it is of the order of 0.02$`\%`$–0.04$`\%`$. As it could be expected, since the first four even zonal harmonics are cancelled out by the combined residuals, the impact of the correlation among the remaining ones is relatively not relevant.

Notice also that the part of the systematic error due to the non–gravitational perturbations, as evaluated in (Iorio $`etal`$ 2002) over a time span of 7 years, amounts just to 0.3$`\%`$. This is very important because this means that the combined residuals approach would yield a more accurate measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect than the simple sum of the nodes of the LAGEOS and LARES satellites, even with the conservative evaluations of the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential presented here. Indeed, for, say, $`\delta i_{\mathrm{LARES}}^{\mathrm{inj}}1`$ deg, the total systematic error of the combination of residuals, according to Figure 2, would amount to 0.33$`\%`$, while for the sum of the nodes it would be of the order of 4.5$`\%`$, even if the impact of the non–gravitational perturbations on the nodes is very small and is considered negligible.

Also in this case the role which will be played by the results of the CHAMP and GRACE missions will be of decisive importance.

## 3 The POLARES scenario

The approach followed in this letter for the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential clearly shows in Figure 3 that the option of inserting the LARES satellite in a polar, low–altitude orbit should be considered rather impracticable.

Indeed, the effects of the orbital injection errors in the inclination of POLARES would be greatly enhanced by its low altitude of 2000 km only at a level of 100$`\%`$–150$`\%`$. It should also be considered that the results of Figure 3, as those of Figure 1 of page L178 in (Iorio 2002b), are optimistic because they have been obtained by neglecting the contributions of the classical nodal precessions of the even zonal harmonics of degree higher than $`l=20`$ which, contrary to the LAGEOS satellites, would not be negligible in this case due to the low altitude of the POLARES. Moreover, it is not probable that the improvements due to the CHAMP and GRACE missions will reduce the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential to a level comparable to the other proposed configurations, which, in turn, will benefit from the new Earth gravity models.

## 4 Conclusions

In this letter we have followed a more conservative and realistic approach in evaluating the impact of the orbital injection errors of LARES and POLARES on the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of some proposed observables aimed to the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with LAGEOS–like SLR satellites. In particular, we have used, in a root–sum–square fashion, the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of the even zonal harmonic coefficients of the EGM96 Earth’s gravity model up to degree $`l=20`$.

With regard to the LARES project, it turns out that the recently proposed residuals combination involving the LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES satellites, which cancels out the first four even zonal harmonics, should yield not only a more accurate measurement than the simple sum of the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES, but also more reliable because it would be less dependent on the correlation between the remaining even zonal harmonics of higher degree.

The use of POLARES, according to the present level of knowledge of the terrestrial gravitational field and to the results presented here, should be considered unpracticable. It is probable that, even with the new gravity models from CHAMP and GRACE, such a proposed configuration would not be competitive with the other multisatellite observables which, in turn, would benefit of the new data of the gravitational field.

The new gravity models from the CHAMP and GRACE missions should yield great benefits for a more confident and reliable assessment of the error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential in all the examined missions. However, also in this case the originally proposed LARES orbital configuration, in conjuction with the data from LAGEOS and LAGEOS II, should be the best choice.

## Acknowledgements

L.I. is grateful to L. Guerriero for his support while at Bari.


format: text

text:
# Orbital magnetism in axially deformed sodium clusters: From scissors mode to dia-para magnetic anisotropy

## I Introduction

This paper deals with orbital magnetism in metal clusters. Because of a possibly large number of atoms, the valence electrons may accede single-particle orbitals with very high angular momenta. The occupation of these orbitals has a large impact in cluster static magnetism LS\_ZPD ; SRL ; magrev  or in collective magnetic modes of orbital nature LS\_ZPD ; Ne\_sc ; Re\_M1 ; Ne\_twist . Two remarkable examples are the scissors LS\_ZPD ; Ne\_sc ; Re\_M1  and twist Ne\_twist  modes. The scissors mode is strictly correlated with cluster deformation. It can be viewed as a small-amplitude rotational oscillation of a spheroid of valence electrons against a spheroid of the ionic background (hence the name SM).

The SM is a general dynamical phenomenon already found or predicted in different quantum finite systems. It was first proposed Iu\_M1  and observed richter  in atomic nuclei where it still remains a hot topic for both experimental and theoretical studies (for a review see I97 ). It was later predicted in a variety of different systems, like metal clusters LS\_ZPD ; Ne\_sc , quantum dots QD\_M1  and ultra-cold superfluid gas of fermionic atoms FA\_M1 . More remarkably, it was predicted BE\_M1  and observed BEexp\_M1  in a Bose-Einstein condensate. All these different systems have two features in common: The broken spherical symmetry and the two-component nature (neutrons and protons in nuclei, valence electrons and ions in atomic clusters, electrons and surrounding media in quantum dots, atoms and the trap in dilute Fermi gas and Bose condensate).

The SM strongly affects orbital magnetism in alkali metal clusters. It can be described in terms of Larmor diamagnetism and temperature-independent van Vleck paramagnetism LS\_ZPD ; SRL . They are both weak and, therefore, need to be studied in systems, like alkali metal clusters, where strong forms of magnetism, like ferromagnetism, are absent. Being a low-energy mode, the SM determines the van Vleck paramagnetism and causes a strong anisotropy in the magnetic susceptibility LS\_ZPD ; Ne\_Rich . Moreover, some particular light clusters can exhibit dia-para anisotropy, being diamagnetic along the z symmetry axis and paramagnetic in x-, y-directions Ne\_Rich .

The SM has already been studied in schematic LS\_ZPD  and microscopic Ne\_sc ; Ne\_Rich ; Ne\_SN  approaches. The microscopic calculations, though accounting for quantum shells effects, were not fully self-consistent. A deformed Woods-Saxon Ne\_Tsu , rather than a self-consistent Kohn-Sham, one-body potential was adopted. The quadrupole deformation was deduced from other models or experimental estimates. Certainly, we need to perform fully self-consistent calculations based on density-functional theory in order to settle the subtle issues, like the fragile dia-para anisotropy, the role of the ionic structure, triaxiality, shape isomers, etc..

Self-consistent calculations, accounting for the ionic structure, were performed for spin-saturated ground and spin-polarized isomeric states of light sodium clusters $`\mathrm{Na}_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{Na}_{16}`$ Re\_M1 . It was found that the scissors response remains determined basically by the global deformation, in spite of the fact that triaxiality and ionic structure induce a strong fragmentation in the strength. It was also shown that the detailed ionic structure destroys locally spherical symmetry thereby causing a finite, though very weak, M1 response (transverse optical mode) even in clusters with zero global deformation.

Calculations of the same level of completeness become prohibitive as one moves to heavier clusters. For this reason, we are forced to use in the present paper the Kohn-Sham approach with a soft jellium model for the ionic background ja . This simplifies greatly the calculations and allows to proceed to heavier clusters. At the same time, the jellium approach is accurate enough for the principle problems considered here. The treatment of the electrons is fully self-consistent. We adopt a deformed Kohn-Sham mean field using the energy functional of Gun . The cluster shape (in terms of axial quadrupole and hexadecapole deformations) is determined by varying the jellium deformation and minimizing the total energy of the system. The optical response in the linear regime is calculated within the separable random-phase-approximation (SRPA) method Ne\_PRA ; Ne\_AP  self-consistently derived from the Kohn-Sham functional. The SRPA has been already successfully employed for the description of the dipole plasmon in spherical Ne\_EPJ\_98  and deformed Ne\_AP ; Ne\_EPJ\_02  alkali metal clusters.

In the present paper, we will consider both the optical M1 response and static magnetic orbital effects. In Section 2, macroscopic and microscopic treatments of the SM are briefly outlined. In Section 3 the calculation scheme is presented. The optical response is discussed in Sections 4 and 5. It will be shown that, in analogy with the electric dipole plasmon in deformed clusters Ne\_AP ; Ne\_EPJ\_02 , the M1 response in light clusters has a distinctive profile determined by the deformation. Instead, due to a strong Landau damping and contributions of shape isomers, the response in medium clusters becomes vague and the SM can be viewed as a statistical mix of contributions from different cluster shapes. Besides, we discuss structure of the residual interaction and explain a small collective shift in SM excitations. The coupling between the high-energy SM branch and the electric quadrupole plasmon is demonstrated. In Section 6, the dia-para anisotropy is discussed. In Section 7, we estimate perspectives to observe the SM in photo-absorption, Raman scattering and inelastic electron scattering. The conclusions are given in Section 8.

## II The scissors mode: Brief outline

The macroscopic and microscopic treatment of the SM in clusters is discussed in detail in Refs. LS\_ZPD ; Ne\_sc ; Re\_M1 . Thus, we give here only a brief outline for a better understanding of the results presented in the next sections.

In the geometrical model of Iu\_M1 , the SM arises from a rotational oscillations of valence electrons versus the ions, both assumed to form distinct spheroids (see left part of Fig. 1). Following the alternative view of LS\_ZPD  (right part of Fig. 1, the displacement field of the mode is a sum of the rigid rotation and a quadrupole term (the latter provides vanishing velocity of electrons at the surface):

$$𝐮(𝐫)=𝛀\times 𝐫+\delta _2(1+\delta _2/3)^1(yz)$$
(1)
where $`\delta _2`$ is the quadrupole deformation parameter (to be defined in the next section). In axially symmetric systems, the SM is generated by the orbital momentum fields $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ perpendicular to the symmetry axis $`z`$, and it is characterized by the quantum numbers $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pi =1^+>`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the eigenvalue of $`L_z`$ and $`\pi `$ is the space parity. Energy and magnetic strength of the mode can be estimated macroscopically LS\_ZPD ; Ne\_sc :

$$\omega =\frac{20.7}{r_s^2}N_e^{1/3}\delta _2eV,$$
(2)
$`B(M1)`$ $`=`$ $`41^+\widehat{L}_x0^2\mu _b^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}N_e<r^2>\omega \mu _b^2`$
$``$ $`N_e^{4/3}\delta _2\mu _b^2`$
where $`N_e`$ is the number of valence electrons and $`r_s`$ the Wigner-Seitz radius. We use here natural units $`m_e=\mathrm{}=c=1`$. The value $`B(M1)`$ stands for summed strength of the degenerated x- and y-branches. The z-branch vanishes for symmetry reasons. It is worth noting that $`B(M1)`$ does not depend on $`r_s`$ and so is the same for different metals.

The microscopic treatment of the SM yields the shell structure of an axially deformed mean field. One can characterize the emerging single-electron states in terms of the quantum numbers of the axially deformed harmonic oscillator (Clemenger-Nilsson basis). These are the triplets $`\nu =[𝒩n_z\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ where $`n_z`$ labels the number of nodes in $`z`$-direction (=symmetry axis) and $`𝒩`$ is the principle shell number $`𝒩=n_z+2n_r+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (from which one can derive the number $`n_r`$ of radial nodes). The angular momenta orthogonal to the symmetry axis, $`\widehat{L}_x`$ and $`\widehat{L}_y`$, promote low-energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩=0`$ transitions inside the valence shell and high-energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩=2`$ transitions across two shells. Moreover, one may expand wave functions in terms of the spherical basis $`(nL\mathrm{\Lambda })`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu =[𝒩n_z\mathrm{\Lambda }]}=\underset{nL}{}a_{nL}^\nu R_{nL}(r)Y_{L\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(4)
This allows to evaluate the single-particle orbital M1 transition amplitude between hole ($`\nu =h`$) and particle ($`\nu =p`$) states

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_p|\widehat{L}_x|\mathrm{\Psi }_h\delta _{\pi _p,\pi _h}^{}\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p,\mathrm{\Lambda }_h\pm 1}^{}`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{nL}{}}a_{nL}^pa_{nL}^h\sqrt{L(L+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_h(\mathrm{\Lambda }_h\pm 1)}.`$
Eq. (5) shows that the scissors mode is generated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=\mathrm{\Lambda }_h\pm 1`$ transitions between the components of one and the same spherical $`(nL)`$-level. In spherical systems, $`(nL\mathrm{\Lambda })`$-states belonging to the level $`(nL)`$ are degenerate while in deformed systems they exhibit the deformation splitting and so may be connected by M1 transitions with non-zero excitation energies. This is the origin of the scissors mode. The energy scale of the scissors mode is determined by the deformation energy splitting and so is rather small. This explains the predominantly low-energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩`$=0) character of the scissors mode. Just the low-energy branch carries most of the scissors $`B(M1)`$ strength (see also discussion in Section IV). The high-energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩`$=2) branch of the mode is much weaker since the particle states involved into ($`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩`$=2) transitions include only small $`(nL)`$-components from the valence shell.

## III Calculation scheme

Our approach Ne\_AP  employs the Kohn-Sham equations for the electronic mean field using actually the energy-density functional of Gun . The positive ionic background is modeled by a soft jellium density

$$\rho _I(𝐫)=\frac{\rho _{I0}}{1+exp((rR(\theta ))/\alpha )}$$
(6)
where quadrupole and hexadecapole axial deformations are introduced through the jellium radius as

$$R(\theta )=R_0\left[1+\delta _2Y_{20}(\theta )+\delta _4Y_{40}(\theta )\right].$$
(7)
The optimal deformation parameters $`\delta _2`$ and $`\delta _4`$ are determined by minimizing the total energy.

We consider the clusters $`\mathrm{Na}_{11}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{15}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{19}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{35}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^+`$, and $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$, which, according to jellium estimates Ne\_AP ; Ne\_EPJ\_02 ; Rein\_def ; Yan\_def ; Thom\_def ; Pash\_def , exhibit axial deformations. These clusters represent a wide size region and, as shown in Table I, cover prolate ($`\mathrm{Na}_{11}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{15}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^+`$) and oblate ($`\mathrm{Na}_{19}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{35}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$) shapes in ground states. Moreover, few of them ($`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$) have shape isomers with a tiny energy deficit $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.02`$ eV Ne\_AP ; Ne\_EPJ\_02  and with quadrupole deformation of opposite sign with respect to the ground state. The largest sample $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$ has also a hexadecapole isomer.

Table I also shows the multipole moments

$`\beta _\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑𝐫\rho _0(𝐫)r^\lambda Y_{\lambda 0}}{N_e\stackrel{~}{R}^\lambda }},\stackrel{~}{R}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑𝐫\rho _0(𝐫)r^2}{𝑑𝐫\rho _0(𝐫)}}}`$ (8)
where $`\lambda =2,4`$ and $`\rho _0(𝐫)`$ is the ground state density of valence electrons. The dimensionless multipole moments $`\beta _\lambda `$ are less model dependent because they are computed from expectation values. Thus they can serve for robust characterization of the deformation and for comparison between different models. The quantities $`\delta _\lambda `$ in the jellium model (6) coincide with the $`\beta _\lambda `$ for small deformation.

The optical response is calculated in the framework of the random phase approximation (RPA). Full RPA for deformed systems is extremely involved. We employ a separable approximation of RPA where the residual interaction is expanded into a sum of separable terms Ne\_AP . The expansion employs local one-body operators $`Q_{\lambda 1p}(𝐫)`$. Their structure is constructed as to map the response mean-field in RPA and the generating operators (to which response is explored) are chosen to cover the leading multipole operators. The expansion coefficients are computed self-consistently. It was shown that this procedure provides a sufficiently precise reproduction of the exact residual interaction Ne\_AP . In particular, for the description of the SM, we use the basis of generating operators

$`f_{21p}`$ $`=`$ $`r^{2+p}(Y_{21}(\theta )+Y_{21}^{}(\theta )),p=0,2,4,`$
$`f_{41p}`$ $`=`$ $`r^{4+p}(Y_{41}(\theta )+Y_{41}^{}(\theta )),p=0,2.`$ (9)
The same set of operators was used for the description of $`\lambda \mu =21`$ branch of the quadrupole plasmon Ne\_AP . The close similarity between scissors and quadrupole fields was discussed in Ne\_sc . The $`p=0`$ component of the input field $`f_{210}`$ has a form of the external quadrupole field in the long-wave approximation. It generates the main piece of the separable interaction, peaked at the surface of the system. The next two quadrupole fields ($`p=2`$ and 4) result in the separable operators $`Q_{21p}(𝐫)`$ peaked in more interior of the cluster. We include also hexadecapole fields $`f_{41p}`$ in order to account for coupling between quadrupole and hexadecapole modes, arising with the onset of deformation, especially in systems having both quadrupole and hexadecapole deformations. The set of the fields (9) ensures good convergence of the separable expansion to exact results. Explicit expressions for $`Q_{\lambda 1p}(𝐫)`$ are given in Ne\_AP .

We study the SM response in terms of photo-absorption. In axially deformed systems, the photo-absorption cross-section from the ground state to the excited state $`j=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pi `$ of excitation energy $`\omega _j`$ is

$$\sigma (X\lambda \mu ,gsj)=\frac{8\pi ^3\lambda +1}{\lambda [(2\lambda +1)!!]^2}(\frac{\omega _j}{\mathrm{}c})^{2\lambda 1}|<j|\widehat{O}_{\lambda \mu }^X|gs>|^2$$
(10)
where $`<j|\widehat{O}_{\lambda \mu }^X|gs>`$ is the reduced transition matrix element and $`\widehat{O}_{\lambda \mu }^X`$ is the operator of electric $`(X=E)`$ or magnetic $`(X=M)`$ transition. For the scissors mode, we have $`\widehat{O}_{11}^M=\widehat{l}_x`$ (in Bohr magnetons $`\mu _B`$). The selections rules are $`\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`(1)^\lambda =\pi `$ for $`(X=E)`$ or $`(1)^{\lambda +1}=\pi `$ for $`(X=M)`$. The electric photo-absorption strength (10) will be used in Section VII for estimation of the competition between the scissors and low-energy electric excitations.

Useful measures for the SM are provided by the sum rules

$$S_m(M1)=\underset{j}{}\omega _j^mB(M1)_j$$
(11)
for $`m=1,0,`$ and 1. The ratios $`\omega =\sqrt{S_1/S_1}`$ or $`\omega =S_1/S_0`$ provide a rough energy centroid of the low-energy mode. The $`S_1`$ is proportional to the paramagnetic susceptibility and $`S_1`$ to the integral photo-absorption cross section. The detailed values for the $`S_m`$ are obtained from explicit RPA results. A simple estimate for $`S_1`$ can be obtained using Eqs. (2) and (II):

$$S_1(M1)=\underset{j}{}\omega _jB(M1)_j=\frac{20.7}{r_s^2}N_e\delta _2^2\mu _b^2.$$
(12)
Sum rules do exist also for electric excitations where they can be reduced to the simple expressions Ne\_PRA

$`S_1(E\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\omega _j|<j|er^\lambda Y_{\lambda \mu }|gs>|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2e^2}{8\pi m_e}}\lambda (2\lambda +1)^2N_e<r^{2\lambda 2}>.`$
## IV Scissors response

The M1 optical responses in light clusters are shown in Fig. 2. The present Kohn-Sham calculations yield results close to the ones obtained by using a deformed Woods Saxon potential Ne\_sc . Only the excitation energies in prolate clusters are $`0.2`$ eV higher, because of the larger quadrupole deformations obtained in the self-consistent approach. The main characteristic of the M1 response is the occurrence of one or two prominent peaks below 1 eV. They are only slightly shifted from their unperturbed $`1ph`$ (particle-hole) spectrum. In the low-energy region, the 1ph $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pi =1^+>`$ spectrum is very dilute and, therefore, does not meet the conditions for Landau fragmentation or for pronounced coherent superpositions. Because of these features, the low-energy scissors strength can be associated to well defined $`1ph`$ transitions. In the Nilsson-Clemenger notation $`[𝒩n_z\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$, they are $`[110][101]`$ in $`\mathrm{Na}_{11}^+`$, $`[211][202]`$ and $`[211][200]`$ in $`\mathrm{Na}_{15}^+`$, $`[211][220]`$ in $`\mathrm{Na}_{19}^+`$, $`[321][310]`$ and $`[321][312]`$ in $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$, $`[310][321]`$ and $`[312][321]`$ in $`\mathrm{Na}_{35}^+`$.

As shown in Fig. 2 (compare full and dashed lines), the residual interaction induces a rather moderate blue-shift that is much smaller than e.g. the shift for the electric dipole plasmon. The underlying physics is explained in Fig. 3 where the exchange-correlations and Coulomb contributions to the leading part of the separable operator $`Q_{211}(𝐫)`$ are presented for the case of $`\mathrm{Na}_{19}^+`$ (the repulsive Coulomb is negative in this representation). It is seen that both contributions compensate each other to a large extent. The final outcome is a slight repulsive interaction responsible for the blueshift. It is worth noting that the balance between these two contributions is rather fragile and can be affected by different factors, e.g. triaxiality and detailed ionic structure, making even the sign of the net interaction uncertain Re\_M1 .

Table II collects summed scissors strengths in wide- (0-6 eV) and low-energy (0-1 eV) regions, calculated within the SRPA. It is seen that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩=0`$ low-energy scissors mode, being mainly concentrated below 1 eV, contributes strongly to $`S_1`$ and $`S_0`$. This justifies using $`S_1`$ and $`S_0`$ for a rough estimation of the energy of the mode as $`\omega =\sqrt{S_1/S_1}`$ (or $`\omega =S_1/S_0`$). Besides, since $`S_1`$ is proportional to the paramagnetic susceptibility, this means that just the low-energy SM determines the van Vleck paramagnetism (see discussion in Section VI). The high-energy part of the scissors strength (associated with $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩=2`$ transitions) contributes appreciably to the $`S_1`$ sum rule, i.e. to the total photo-absorption cross section. Table II also shows that the increase of the $`S_m`$ with cluster size is not monotonous. The fluctuations are caused by the predominantly 1ph character of the low-energy SM and by the difference in cluster deformations. $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$ demonstrates especially strong M1 strength, while in oblate clusters $`\mathrm{Na}_{19}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{Na}_{35}^+`$ the strength is relatively weak.

Fig. 4 illustrates the coupling of the high-energy scissors branch to the quadrupole plasmon in $`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^+`$. The correlation between M1 and E2 peaks at $`3`$ eV is clearly seen. The coupling of electric and magnetic modes with the same quantum numbers $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pi `$ is a general feature of deformed finite quantum systems. It is well known, for example, in atomic nuclei (see, e.g. I97 ; Kva\_PRC ).

The coupling of the SM with dipole and spin-dipole oscillations in clusters was discussed in detail in Ref. Re\_M1 . In particular, it was shown that breaking the symmetry by the ionic lattice results in a weak coupling between these oscillations of opposite space parity. This feature may change for clusters deposited on a surface since symmetry breaking is much stronger there.

## V Effects of shape isomers and ionic structure

The calculations Ne\_AP ; Ne\_EPJ\_02  show that light axially deformed clusters ($`N_e<40`$) have at the deformation-energy surface one distinct minimum corresponding to the ground-state deformation. The heavier clusters ($`40<N_e<100`$ ) have usually two minima with opposite quadrupole deformations (prolate and oblate) and very close energies. The energy difference between the ground and the shape isomeric states is often less than 0.02 eV = 200 K. The number of shape isomers with a tiny energy deficit increases with cluster size. These isomers may have a variety of very different shapes. And significant amounts of isomers can be found in a thermal ensemblse and thus contribute to the SM, e.g., at room temperature.

Fig. 5 compares the scissors modes built on the ground and isomeric states in $`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$. Both of them show a rich spectrum of low lying M1 states. But the spectra and typical strengths of the two states differ substantially. Indeed, the M1 spectra are generated by several $`1ph`$ M1 transitions between the levels lying in the vicinity of the Fermi surface. Prolate and oblate shapes yield different sequences of the single-particle levels just at the Fermi surface. As a result, some of the $`1ph`$ M1 transitions which are significant in the prolate case are transformed to $`1pp`$ or $`1hh`$ transitions in the oblate case, thus strongly decreasing the strength.

Fig. 5 compares also the SRPA results obtained with soft jellium model (6) and detailed ionic structure Re\_M1 . In the case of the ionic structure, the global cluster deformations slightly deviate from those in the jellium case. It is seen that calculations with the ionic structure give somewhat different positions of the SM peaks with respect to the jellium case. Such a redistribution of the peaks is due to different energies of the single-particle levels in the ionic calculations. The photo-absorption response in the ionic case is stronger, which is also explained by the redistribution of the levels in the mean field. The level sequence in this case favors a few more $`1ph`$ transitions of M1 type.

Altogether, the calculations demonstrate some important points concerning the SM in medium clusters:
i) The mode is distributed over several $`1ph`$ transitions.
ii) The single particle spectrum near the Fermi level is rather dense and so even small changes in the calculation scheme can redistribute visibly the spectrum and open (or close) some relevant $`1ph`$ transitions.
iii) As was mentioned above, the ground and first isomeric states in medium clusters can be very close in energy. So, the scissors mode in free medium clusters should be considered as a statistical mixture of contributions from different shapes (predominantly of the ground state and first isomer). Such kind of the analysis (involving the deformation splitting, Landau fragmentation and contributions of shape isomers) was recently applied to explain experimental E1 optical response in deformed sodium clusters with $`50<N_e<60`$ Ne\_EPJ\_02 .
Less ambiguous deformations will be provided by the SM in metal clusters deposited on insulating substrates Tra . These clusters are oblate and their mean size and magnitude of the deformation can be well controlled. Such clusters seem to be the most promising systems for experimental search of the SM.

## VI Magnetic anisotropy

RPA calculations show that the SM energies and B(M1) strengths scale with the deformation $`\delta _2`$ and the electron number $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ basically according to the trends (2) and (II). Strong fluctuations, however, take place in small clusters Ne\_sc . They reflect the $`1ph`$ nature of the transitions and may affect the magnetic susceptibility.

The total orbital magnetic susceptibility in clusters is the sum of Langevin diamagnetic and van Vleck paramagnetic terms LS\_ZPD ; SRL :

$$\chi _k=\chi _k^{dia}+\chi _k^{para},$$
(14)
where

$$\chi _k^{dia}=\mu _b^2N_e<\rho _k^2>=\mu _b^2\mathrm{\Theta }_k^R,$$
(15)
$$\chi _k^{para}=2\mu _b^2\underset{j}{}\frac{|<j|\widehat{L}_k|0>|^2}{\omega _j}=\mu _b^2\mathrm{\Theta }_k,$$
(16)
having denoted by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_k=2\underset{j}{}\frac{|<j|\widehat{L}_k|0>|^2}{\omega _j}$$
(17)
the moment of inertia and by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_k^R=N_e<\rho _k^2>$$
(18)
its rigid-body value. The sum in (16) and (17) runs over excited states. Further, $`k=x,y,z`$ is the coordinate index. In axial systems, one has $`\rho _z^2=2<x^2>`$ and $`\rho _{x,y}^2=<x^2>+<z^2>`$.

Note that for $`k=x,y`$ the operator entering in the matrix element in (16) is exactly the scissors generator. This makes evident that just the low-energy SM mainly contributes to $`\chi _{x,y}^{para}`$. Indeed Table II shows that contribution of the low-energy scissors mode to the value $`S_1\chi _k^{para}`$ achieves $`85100\%`$. So, just the SM determines the van Vleck paramagnetism.

In the schematic model LS\_ZPD , the moment of inertia comes out as the rigid-body value, so that $`\theta _{x,y}=\theta _{x,y}^R`$ and, therefore, $`\chi _{x,y}^{para}=\chi _{x,y}^{dia}`$, i.e. a complete compensation of dia- and para-magnetic terms in $`\chi _{x,y}`$ takes place. Due to axial symmetry, one also has $`\chi _z^{para}=0`$. The total susceptibility becomes, therefore, strictly anisotropic LS\_ZPD

$$\chi _x=\chi _y=0,\chi _z=\chi _z^{dia},$$
(19)
going from zero to diamagnetic values.

On the other hand, strong shell effects in some peculiar light clusters may alter appreciably the above result. This is illustrated for $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$ in Fig. 6. Because of very low excitation energy of the SM in this cluster (see an exceptionally large value of $`S_1`$ for $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$ in Fig. 2 and, also, in Table II, the paramagnetic susceptibility is enhanced considerably and is no longer balanced by the diamagnetic term. So, $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$ should be paramagnetic in x,y-directions and diamagnetic in z-direction. The cluster $`\mathrm{Na}_{11}^+`$ also hints this property. The magnetic moments in $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$ are sufficiently large to allow for a measurement of the dia-para anisotropy. The observation of this effect would provide a strong (though indirect) evidence of the SM in clusters.

## VII Experimental perspectives

### VII.1 General analysis

As was mentioned in the Introduction, the SM is not yet observed experimentally in metal clusters. The search of the SM is hindered by several factors:

1) The mode has very low photo-absorption cross section. Following our results, in sodium clusters with $`N_e1010^2`$ , $`\sigma (M1)/N_e10^510^7\AA ^2`$ as compared to $`\sigma (E1)/N_e2\AA ^2`$ for the dipole plasmon. Such a weak M1 signal is at the edge of the sensitivity of modern detectors.

2) Eqs. (10)-(III) allow to estimate the ratios for maximal optical responses as

$$\sigma (E1)/\sigma (M1)=0.3510^5\AA ^2(\frac{r_s}{\delta _2})^2$$
(20)
and (for $`\omega _{E2}3`$ eV Ne\_PRA ; Ne\_AP )

$$\sigma (E2)/\sigma (M1)=0.8210^2\AA ^4(\frac{r_s^2}{\delta _2})^2N_e^{2/3}.$$
(21)
This gives for deformed ($`\delta _2=0.2`$) sodium ($`r_s=2.1\AA `$) clusters $`\sigma (E1)/\sigma (M1)410^6`$ and $`\sigma (E2)/\sigma (M1)10^2`$ (the latter for $`N_e=125`$). So, the SM suffers from the competition with E1 and E2 strengths. Besides, the competition with E2 increases with cluster size. The above estimates compare the SM optical response with the maximal responses of E1 and E2 plasmons. As is shown in the next subsection, the competition is much weaker in the low-energy region where the SM has its stronghold, but one has still to be aware of large amounts of E1 strength.

3) The low-energy scissors mode lies in the infrared region where commonly used detectors for a visible light are not efficient enough.

4) The SM energy decreases with cluster size and reaches the region of phonon excitations, $`0.1eV`$, in very big clusters.

In spite of these hindrances, clusters offer enough opportunities to look for the optimal conditions for observing the SM: one may change cluster size and (or) deformation, use different metals, choose between free and supported clusters, etc.. The macroscopic estimates (2)-(II) and the present jellium RPA calculations may serve as a guide. Such analysis is briefly given below. To this purpose, we consider, as a typical case, sodium clusters with a moderate deformation $`\delta _2=0.2`$.

Larger clusters help because the M1 photo-absorption cross section grows linearly with the size. Already in deformed clusters with $`N_e=10^410^6`$ the scissors signal should be detectable. Unfortunately, the corresponding energy $`\omega 0.10.01`$ eV approaches or even covers the region of phonon excitations. Thus the best compromise for free sodium clusters is achieved at $`N_e10^3`$. Besides that, these clusters are large enough to ensure the dominance of the orbital scissors mode over spin M1 excitations.

We may also look for clusters of larger density and deformation to increase the energy and the strength of the mode. For example, Li clusters ($`r_s=1.7`$ Å) allow to increase both the energy and optical response by a factor of $`1.5`$ with respect to Na ($`r_s=2.1`$ Å). Further improvement may be achieved with Ag ($`r_s=1.6`$ Å), Mg ($`r_s=1.4`$ Å), or Al ($`r_s=1.1`$ Å). In any case, highly deformed clusters are welcome because $`\sigma (M1)\delta _2^2`$ and $`\omega \delta _2`$.

In general, free clusters seem not suitable for observing the SM. They are well mass-separated only up to sizes of hundred atoms. However, these systems have a weak M1 signal. As for heavier clusters, they suffer from a poor mass separation and are expected to be weakly deformed Pash\_def . Moreover, as was discussed in Section V, their M1 signal is a statistical mix of contributions of different shapes given by the ground state and isomers.

Deposited clusters look more promising. One can adopt techniques that allow to get oblate clusters (Na and Ag) on dielectric surfaces Tra  and, more remarkably, to monitor their size and deformation. Clusters with $`10^210^6`$ atoms can be used for this aim. In this way, one can obtain supported clusters of a desired size and shape. High density of clusters on the surface gives good statistics in the measurements. Last but not least, monitoring the shape of clusters gives the chance to use the trends $`\sigma (M1)\delta _2^2`$ and $`\omega _{M1}\delta _2`$ to distinguish the SM from the E1 and E2 signals. To this end, one has to irradiate clusters of the same size but of different deformations. Then the low-energy E1 and E2 cross sections are also affected but, hopefully, in an irregular fashion (thus averaging out) or, at least, in a way different from the trends mentioned above. The cross sections measured at different deformations can be mutually subtracted to extract a small useful signal. For the analysis of such experiments, we need accurate theoretical estimates accounting for all the main factors and, in particular, the influence of the surface on the electric and scissors plasmons. Such work is in progress.

The competition with E1 and E2 modes may be bypassed partly by resorting to specific reactions and techniques capable of hindering if not suppressing the E1 and E2 channels. We will discuss this issue for three relevant reactions: photo-absorption, resonance Raman scattering, and inelastic electron scattering.

### VII.2 Photo-absorption

The SM lies much lower than the dipole and quadrupole plasmon modes (0.2-1.0 eV against 2.5-3.0 eV for the dipole and 2-4 eV for the quadrupole Ne\_PRA ; Ne\_AP ). In principle, one could exploit this energy separation to focus on the SM. However, its M1 photo-absorption cross section is still very small as compared to the E1 strength and can be masked by the tail of close E1 modes. This is illustrated in Fig. 7 which compares E1, E2 and M1 photo-absorption strengths calculated within SRPA approachNe\_AP  in axially deformed $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$ (ground state). The E1 strength, though extremely small compared to the dipole plasmon peak, is still strong enough to mask the SM. The competition with the quadrupole E2 strength in $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$ is negligible (though it can be stronger in heavier clusters).

The competition with the E1 channel can be decreased by using deformed (oblate) clusters with $`N10^310^4`$ atoms, supported on dielectric surfaces, and adopting infrared techniques with polarized light. For the SM, the magnetic field of the incoming light should be parallel to the surface. This can be done with both s- and p-polarizations (with the electrical field to be perpendicular and parallel to the incident plane, respectively). The s-polarized light under an angle $`0^{}`$ with the surface normal suppresses the $`\mu =0`$ E1 branch without weakening the SM. The p-polarized light at angle $`90^{}`$ suppresses the $`\mu =1`$ E1 branch, again without weakening the SM. The second variant seems to be preferable since the $`\mu =1`$ branch is generally stronger (see, e.g., Fig. 7.

### VII.3 Resonant Raman scattering

In resonance Raman scattering (inelastic scattering of polarized photons), the SM may be populated through the de-excitation of the dipole plasmon excited by the incoming photon. The difference between energies of incoming and outgoing photons gives the energy of the mode. One must look at E1 decays, which represent the leading channel and may populate in deformed systems M1 as well as E2 states. With respect to photo-absorption, resonance Raman scattering has the advantage of excluding the competition with the strong E1 mode and to work in the visible light region. An experiment of this kind was carried out in supported Ag clusters Duval . The analysis of the data suggested, however, that the E2 rather than the SM was populated through the E1 decay. On the other hand, it is not simple to separate clearly the E2 from the M1 modes which are mixed in deformed systems.

### VII.4 Inelastic electron scattering

Inelastic electron scattering is also a promising technique. At backward scattering angles, the M1 signal should prevail over the electric ones. This property enabled the discovery of the scissors mode in deformed atomic nuclei richter . Polarization of the electrons provides additional possibilities to extract the magnetic response. In nuclear physics, electrons with very high energies (tens and hundreds MeV) are used, which favors creation of well collimated, intense and monochromatic electron beams. Moreover, at so high energies, it is easier to enhance the relative contribution of the transverse form factor.

The low-energy, intense and monochromatic electron beams, suitable for our purpose, as well as the angular resolved techniques are now available Birm . To our knowledge, however, inelastic electron scattering was used so far only to observe the dipole plasmon. Theoretical estimates Sol  show that at certain scattering angles the dipole contribution can be well suppressed in favor of the quadrupole plasmon, which, therefore, can be observed. From the latter analysis, we may infer that also the SM may be extracted. Indeed, in the low-energy region the SM can be stronger excited in the photo-absorption than the E2 mode. The analogy with atomic nuclei suggests that it should be favored even more in electron scattering at backward angles.

## VIII Conclusions

The scissors mode (SM) in axially deformed sodium clusters has been studied within a self-consistent RPA approach based on the soft jellium model for the ionic background and density-functional theory for the electrons. The calculations show that the distribution of the low-energy scissors strength is dominated by $`1ph`$ states with only small shifts by the residual interaction. The SM thus reflects almost directly the density of $`1ph`$ M1 transitions near the Fermi surface and exhibits an extreme sensitivity to the actual deformation. The SM is rather unambiguous in light clusters ($`N_e<40`$) while it should be a statistical mix of contributions from different shapes in heavier clusters. Furthermore, the high-energy branch of the SM in deformed systems is coupled with the quadrupole plasmon.

The calculations show that the SM determines the Van Vleck paramagnetism and results in a strong anisotropy of the magnetic susceptibility. Moreover, due to quantum shell effects, some clusters ($`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$) demonstrate dia-para anisotropy when the axial cluster is diamagnetic along the symmetry axis and paramagnetic along other two axes. The magnetic moments are large enough to be measured. The experimental observation of the dia-para anisotropy, being interesting itself, could also serve as an indirect evidence of the SM in clusters.

A general analysis of possible routes for experimental observation of the scissors mode was done. The photo-absorption with a polarized light, inelastic electron scattering and Raman scattering were considered. The former two reactions seem to be more promising. Moreover, deposited clusters favor the detection of the SM. Its features need yet to be worked out in detail. Work along that direction is in progress.

Acknowledgement:
The work was partly supported (V.O.N.) by RFBR (00-02-17194), Heisenberg - Landau (Germany-BLTP JINR) and DFG (436RUS17/102/01) grants.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1: Macroscopic view of scissors mode : rigid rotation Iu\_M1  (left), and rotation within a rigid surface LS\_ZPD  (right).

Figure 2: Photo-absorption cross-section for the scissors mode, weighted by the Lorentz function with the averaging parameter 0.25 eV. The responses with (solid curve) and without (dashed curve) the residual interaction are presented.

Figure 3: Radial profile of the residual interaction in $`\mathrm{Na}_{19}^+`$. Exchange-correlation (long-dashed curve) and Coulomb (shot-dashed curve) contributions are given together with their sum (solid curve).

Figure 4: Coupling between the high-energy scissors branch and E2 quadrupole plasmon in prolate $`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^+`$. M1 and E2 photo-absorptions are weighted by the Lorentz function with the averaging parameter 0.25 eV.

Figure 5: The strength distribution of the scissors modes in $`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^+`$, built on the prolate ground state (upper panel) and oblate first isomer (lower panel). Jellium (solid curve) and ionic (dashed curve) SRPA results are compared.

Figure 6: Normalized diamagnetic, paramagnetic and summed moments $`\mu =\chi B`$ ($`B=4T`$) in axial deformed clusters $`\mathrm{Na}_{11}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{15}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{19}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{27}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{35}^+`$, $`\mathrm{Na}_{55}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$.

Figure 7: Photo-absorption E1, E2 and scissors cross sections in $`\mathrm{Na}_{119}^+`$ weighted by the Lorentz function with the averaging parameter 0.25 eV. The E1 $`\mu =0`$ and 1 branches are given separately to show their relative contributions to the competition with the scissors mode.


text:
# Reply to cond-mat/0211660: Comments on ”A model for fatigue in ferroelectric perovskite thin films” published in Appl. Phys. Lett, 76, 1060 (2000); addendum, ibid. p.3655

(Centre for Ferroics, Dept of Earth Sciences, Downing St, Cambridge, CB2 3EQ, UK.
Email: mdaw00@esc.cam.ac.uk, jsco99@esc.cam.ac.uk)

Although the appropriate forum for discussion of published papers should be the journal itself through the properly refereed process where we are given an opportunity to have a reply published simultaneously with the comments, Taganstev has chosen instead to attack our paper through this unrefereed forum. In this context it is worth noting that the comments that Tagantsev has made were in fact submitted to Applied Physics Letters more than two years ago. At that time we wrote a reply to these comments. The decision of the referee at that time was that Tagantsev’s comment was wrong and should not be published. Although we do not feel this is the appropriate forum for this discussion, Tagantsev has chosen to resume this debate in the unrefereed public forum of cond-mat and so we feel the need to defend ourselves against the 8 points he has raised.

Our model was a first attempt to produce a quantitative analytic model for fatigue based on earlier work by Yoo and Desu, and as such requires further testing and development. We note that our model has already been extended and applied successfully by Wang et al. (Physica Status Solidi A, 191 482 (2002)). Tagantsev’s ”model” for fatigue is untestable (falsifiable).We would encourage feedback from other authors who have attempted to apply our model, and are always happy to discuss our work. Please contact us directly on the above email addresses if you have any concerns about the publications mentioned here.

1. Taganstsev objects to our use of the Onsager expression for the local field at an oxygen vacancy, preferring instead an expression that is linear in the dielectric constant. One wonders what might happen when a ferroelectric goes through its phase transition and the dielectric constant (and hence local field, if one uses Taganstev’s expression) diverges. The Tagantsev model of ferroelectric detonation in which internal fields diverge as a ferroelectric material is field cooled through its transition temperature does not seem to have been experimentally observed. Perhaps one should look beyond undergraduate textbooks such as Kittel’s. A more detailed calculation of the effective charge on an oxygen vacancy has been recently undertaken by Prof. S.A. Prosandeev (cond-mat/0209019) in which he found that our result was much more appropriate than Taganstev’s.

2. Taganstev claims that our equation is quite different from that of O’Dwyer. Simple inspection of the two equations show that this is not true. In the high field limit sinh(x)=exp(x), and as our local field is only 1.5 times the applied field Taganstev’s claim that use of this field changes the result by ”orders of magnitude” is clearly unfounded.

3.Tagantsev’s point on equation 10 is taken. The reason that there appears to be a change in the oxygen vacancy concentration at the interface in the absence of an applied field is that we have used the high field limit of the sinh(x) term in the diffusion equation ie. (exp(x)). This means that our equations are not appropriate for low fields, but it should be noted that during polarisation switching high fields are applied. The reason for the use of the exponential limit of the sinh term was so as to simplify the derivation that followed.

4.We consider that the approximations we have taken are appropriate for the situation. The applied field in our model is very high because the applied potential falls across a quite narrow depletion region in the ferroelectric. Therefore in our opinion the space charge field is not significant compared to the applied field.

Tagantsev is correct that one would expect to see an increase in concentration of charge at the electrodes in non-ferroelectric back-to-back Schottky diodes, however his claim that this has never been observed is false. This has been observed for at least twenty years in zinc oxide varistors. (e.g. Hayashi et al., J. Appl. Phys. 58 5754 (1982)) Thus his argument helps prove our model - as confirmed by Hayashi.

5. The activation energy of electrons was used to calculate the number of oxygen vacancies that would be charged, not the concentration of oxygen vacancies. The activation energy of 0.7 eV in fact corresponds to the trapping energy of Ti3+ which is known to be associated with oxygen vacancies. We originally considered that the important activation energy originated from the charge state of the oxygen vacancy. However following our new ideas on oxygen vacancy ordering we believe that the entropy term is more important than originally anticipated. We would refer readers to further references on this subject for more details. (J.F. Scott and M. Dawber, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76 3801 (2000), M. Dawber and J. F. Scott, Integr. Ferroelectr. 32 951 (2001) J. F. Scott, Ferroelectric Memories (Springer, Heidelberg, 2000), pp. 134)

6. Ref. 6 of Tagantsev’s paper was originally cited by us because it gave a reasonable number for the depletion width, which we used in our calculations. In the years since we published our paper we have re-examined the data of reference 6. We are no longer convinced that the current observed in this paper is in fact Fowler-Nordheim tunneling. We do not wish to further criticize this paper in this unrefereed forum, but any interested reader should attempt to fit the data of ref 6 to a Schottky plot to see the origin of our concerns. Readers can contact us directly for a more detailed explanation of these concerns which are partly based on our own unpublished results. We also have concerns about the effective masses used in Tagantsev’s analysis and the lack of specification of carrier type (electron/hole). \[Their m\* = 1.4 me (Bull Am Phys Soc, Seattle, March 2001) value disagrees by x4 with the known electron band mass, and in undoped PZT films the carriers are NOT holes.\] We have previously discussed these problems elsewhere (J.F. Scott, Integr. Ferroelectr. 42 1 (2002).

7. In our original paper the figure was incorrectly labelled due to technical error in journal production. Our addendum clearly acknowledges this error. We apologize for any confusion caused by this error. The prediction of the equations in both papers is in line with the data of Mihara.

8. Our model does predict a frequency dependence for fatigue. This has been seen in other papers than that of Colla et al., where it is true that the use of different waveforms complicates interpretation. Examples of such papers include, Lee et al, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 821 (2001) ; Zhang et al., Ferroelectrics, 259 109 (2001).


text:
# Comment on ”"Forbidden" transitions between quantum Hall and insulating phases in p-SiGe heterostructures”

## Abstract

It is shown that recent and earlier  experiments, which claimed to observe a disagreement with the global phase diagram (GPD) of the quantum Hall effect, do not, in fact, contradict the GPD. Two aspects should be taken into account: (i) insulating phases between quantum Hall phases are possible owing to the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations of the ”bare” diagonal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}^0`$; (ii) according to the two-parameter scaling theory, the filling factor $`\nu `$ does not determine directly the positions of the quantum Hall phases on the magnetic field axis at $`\omega _c\tau 1`$.

In a recent paper Sakr et al. reported that they observed multiple quantum Hall-insulator-quantum Hall transitions (MQH-I-QHT) in p-SiGe heterostructures, where insulating phases occurred between quantum Hall (QH) phases at filling factors $`\nu =1`$ and $`2`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$, and $`4`$ and $`6`$. Previously it was reported that MQH-I-QHT had been observed in silicon MOSFETs, and the insulating phase had been detected between QH phases at $`\nu 1.5`$ in p-SiGe heterostructures. The authors of the papers  claimed that their results are in a glaring contradiction with the global phase diagram (GPD) for the QH effect , which follows from the scaling theory , and a new type of the phase diagram was suggested.

In this comment I argue that, in fact, the experimental results do not contradict the GPD if two circumstances are taken into account:

(i) The insulating phase between the QH phases is possible owing to the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations of the ”bare” diagonal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}^0`$, which corresponds to diffusive motion of electrons without interference effects over a distance larger than diffusion length.

(ii) According to the two-parameter scaling theory, the filling factor $`\nu =nh/eB`$ does not determine directly positions of the QH phases on the magnetic field axis at $`\omega _c\tau 1`$ ($`\omega _c=eB/m`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`\tau `$ is the transport relaxation time).

The scaling theory presented graphically by the flow diagram deals with the Hall $`\sigma _{xy}`$ and the diagonal $`\sigma _{xx}`$ conductivity components, and it does not require the Landau quantization of the electron spectrum. The Landau quantization is incorporated into the theory through the starting values for the renormalization (i.e. the change in the conductivity due to diffusive interference effects) which are the ”bare” conductivities $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$ and $`\sigma _{xx}^0`$ .

For a totally spin polarized electron system, maxima of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations of the ”bare” resistivity $`\rho _{xx}^0`$ occur when the centers of the Landau levels

$$E_i^L=(i+1/2)\mathrm{}\omega _c(i+1/2)\frac{E_F}{\nu }$$
(1)
cross the Fermi level $`E_i^L=E_F`$ (as is shown in Fig.1 for the case $`E_F=const`$) at half-integer filling factors $`\nu =i+1/2`$. Here $`i`$ is an integer. The

renormalization leads to a transformation of the magnetic-field dependence of $`\rho _{xx}^0`$ with the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations to the QH effect picture with peaks in the resistivity $`\rho _{xx}`$ (and conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$) separating different QH phases at magnetic fields where

$$\sigma _{xy}^0=(i+1/2)e^2/h.$$
(2)
The Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}=\sigma _{xy}^0`$ is not renormalized at these fields. The nonzero $`\sigma _{xx}`$ implies that the extended states are situated at the Fermi level.

The energies of the extended states, $`E_i^c`$, as functions of magnetic field can be calculated by Eq.(2) with the classical expression for $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$

$$\sigma _{xy}^0(E)=\frac{n(E)e^2\tau }{m}\frac{\omega _c\tau }{1+\left(\omega _c\tau \right)^2}=\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{E\tau }{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega _c\tau }{1+\left(\omega _c\tau \right)^2}.$$
(3)
Here the conduction band is occupied up to energy $`E`$, $`n(E)=Em/h\mathrm{}`$ is the electron density, $`\mathrm{}=h/2\pi `$. As a result

$$E_i^c=(i+1/2)\mathrm{}\omega _c\left[1+\frac{1}{\left(\omega _c\tau \right)^2}\right]$$
(4)
(see Fig.1). The positions of the $`\rho _{xx}`$ peaks are determined by equation $`E_i^c=E_F`$. It is assumed here that $`\tau `$ is independent on the energy $`E`$. This assumption, however, is not important for finding the peaks positions since only the value of $`\tau `$ at the Fermi level is essential for this calculation.

For a pure 2D system at high magnetic field, when $`\omega _c\tau 1`$, the filling factor $`\nu =nh/eB`$ is equal to $`\sigma _{xy}^0h/e^2`$. Therefore, peaks of $`\rho _{xx}`$ should occur at the same fields where the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations have maxima. For $`\omega _c\tau 1`$the value $`\sigma _{xy}^0h/e^2`$ is different from $`\nu `$ and the positions of the $`\rho _{xx}`$ peaks are very different from the positions of the maxima of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations.

In the plane $`\rho _{xy}^0\rho _{xx}^0`$ the phase boundaries are semicircles (see Fig.2) described by the equation

$$\sigma _{xy}^0=\frac{\rho _{xy}^0}{\left(\rho _{xx}^0\right)^2+\left(\rho _{xy}^0\right)^2}=(i+1/2)e^2/h,$$
(5)
following from Eq.(2). At a given magnetic field, the quantized value of the Hall resistance $`\rho _{xy}=h/ie^2`$ is determined by the position of point $`(\rho _{xx}^0,\rho _{xy}^0)`$ on the phase diagram. For example, for $`(\rho _{xx}^0,\rho _{xy}^0)`$ located between the two upper semicircles, $`\rho _{xy}=1`$. As the magnetic field increases, $`\rho _{xx}^0(\rho _{xy}^0)`$ follows a straight horizontal line which crosses each phase boundary two times because $`\rho _{xx}^0=m/ne^2\tau `$ is independent of the magnetic field. The QH phases are situated between low- and high-field insulators in this model.

The classical expression (3) for $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$ is quite adequate at low magnetic fields, $`\omega _c\tau 1`$, and at high magnetic field, $`\omega _c\tau 1`$. At $`\omega _c\tau 1`$ the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations of $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$ should be taken into account in accurate calculations of $`E_i^c`$. This could give rise to additional crossing points between lines $`E_i^c(\omega _c\tau )`$ and the Fermi level, hence we have more crossing points between the curve of $`\rho _{xx}^0(\rho _{xy}^0)`$ and the phase boundary (see Fig.2), as compared with the case of the classical expression for $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$. The insulating phase occurs between the QH phases at $`\rho _{xy}^0(C)<\rho _{xy}^0<\rho _{xy}^0(D)`$, in addition to low- $`\rho _{xy}^0<\rho _{xy}^0(A)`$ and high-field $`\rho _{xy}^0>\rho _{xy}^0(E)`$ insulators. Note that in the case illustrated by Fig.2, $`i=1`$ at filling factor $`\nu =2`$ and $`i=0`$ at $`\nu =4,6\mathrm{}`$.

Thus, the filling factors $`\nu `$ do not directly determine the positions of the QH phases on the magnetic field axis, so $`i\nu `$ at integer values of $`\nu `$ if $`\omega _c\tau 1`$. Sakr et al.  treat the shallow minima at $`\nu =2,3,4,6`$ with values of $`\rho _{xx}>0.3h/e^2`$ as QH minima of the diagonal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}`$ with $`i=\nu `$. This interpretation of the experimental data seems questionable.

Note that equation(4) does not describe exactly an electron system with two different spin projections , and the phase boundaries are different from those plotted in Fig. 2. Even so, in the case of the spin splitting energy smaller than $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, the topology of the phase diagram should remain the same.

In summary, the existence of the insulating phase between the quantum Hall phases observed in Ref. is quite consistent with the global phase diagram for the quantum Hall effect. It is possible owing to the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations of ”bare” diagonal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}^0`$. The experimental results do not produce evidence in favor of direct transitions from the insulating to quantum Hall phases with large $`i`$.

I would like to thank S. I. Dorozhkin, V. M. Pudalov and V. N. Zverev for helpful discussions. This work is supported by RFBR, PICS-RFBR and INTAS.


text:
# A posteriori reading of Virtual Impactors impact probability

## 1 Introduction

Soon after a new Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) is discovered, a preliminary orbit is computed using its positions in the sky over a suitable (minimal) interval of time (astrometric observations). Like every physical measurement, astrometric ones are affected by errors which make the resulting orbit uncertain to some variable degree. Sophisticated mathematical and numerical tools are currently available to orbit computers which allow to propagate such measurement errors to the six orbital elements which identify the orbit of the asteroid. For this reason, the new NEA, soon after its discovery, is not represented by a single point in the 6-dimensional dynamical elements space; rather, it is represented by an uncertainty region, a 6-dimensional volume with diffused contours. Obviously, the volume of this uncertainty region changes (usually shrinks) when new more observations become available and the orbit refines.

Moreover, when the nominal orbit of the new NEA is geometrically close to the orbit of the Earth, and it shares some other peculiar orbital characteristics, it can happen that some orbital solutions which lead to a future collision of the asteroid with the Earth can not be excluded only on the basis of the available astrometric observations. Namely, orbital solutions which lead to a collision are inside the uncertainty region and they are fully compatible with the available astrometric observations and their errors.

What is substantially done in these cases by the researchers, with various sophisticated techniques whose description is well beyond the scope of this paper (see Milani et al., 2000; 2003), is to sample the uncertainty region according to a suitable frequency distribution (closely related to what is currently known about error statistics) and then evaluate the relative probability that the “true” orbit of the asteroid is one of the collision ones. From now on we will refer to this probability with the symbol $`𝒱_i`$. The collision orbits are nowadays commonly called Virtual Impactors (or VIs; for an exhaustive review see Milani et al., 2003).

Every time new more astrometric observations become available, the quality of the asteroid orbit improves and the estimated impact probability $`𝒱_i`$ is re-computed. Its value is almost always such that $`𝒱_i1`$ and during the phases of the orbital refinement it fluctuates, usually with a somewhat increasing trend111The reason of such increasing behavior is rather technical and it is essentially connected to the fact that uncertainty region shrinks with new more observations. until it falls to zero, its most probable final value.

Starting from 1999, some press announcements were made regarding as many newly discovered NEAs which were found to have non zero collision chances in the near future (given the highly chaotic dynamics involved in the multiple planetary close encounters, which are at the basis of the impact calculations, impact analysis procedures can safely cover only time spans of the order of a century). The computations were carried out mainly by two research groups, that at the University of Pisa and that at NASA–JPL. One of the first and, maybe, most famous of such cases was that of asteroid 1999 AN10 (for more information, see for example Milani et al., 1999; 2003 and http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news/1999/apr/21.html; for a detailed historical account of these cases, see Chapman, 1999), being that of the asteroid 2002 NT7 the most recent one (up to this date). These objects obviously rose the somewhat alarmed attention of the public opinion and of the whole astronomical community for a while. Then, after the asteroids orbits were refined thanks to new more astrometric observations and the impact possibilities definitively ruled out, they have become again of purely academic interest.

Currently, the only two existing automatized VIs monitoring systems, CLOMON222http://newton.dm.unipi.it/neodys at University of Pisa and SENTRY333http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ at NASA–JPL, find tens of newly discovered NEAs with VIs orbital solutions every year, and some with not so small impact probability (for a preliminary statistics of VIs detections see Tab. 1, more later).

Given such past experience of public (and professional) reactions and given the current rate of VIs orbital solutions discoveries, some questions rise to the author’s mind: how are VIs impact probabilities actually related to the real impact threat? How much threat should we reliably read in a VIs detection announcement? Equivalently, soon after the discovery of VIs orbital solutions of a new asteroid, what is the probability that $`𝒱_i`$ approaches and eventually reaches the unity (within this paper we will use the compact notation “$`𝒱_i1`$”), after the right amount of new more astrometric observations has become available?

In this paper we give a statistical, a posteriori reading of VIs impact probabilities (which actually are in their very nature “deterministic”, or, more properly, a priori) in order to provide an answer to such questions.

## 2 Statistical reading of $`𝒱_i`$

Soon after the discovery of VIs orbital solutions of a new asteroid, what is the probability of $`𝒱_i1`$, after the right amount of new more astrometric observations has become available? It would seem quite obvious that such probability is simply $`𝒱_i`$, according to the definition of $`𝒱_i`$. But we believe that this is not the case. This is essentially because $`𝒱_i`$, as we have said before, fluctuates every time new more astrometric observations become available and the computations are redone: which particular value should we consider for our needs? The value obtained with the second batch of astrometric observations following the discovery observations? Or the third? Or just the value of $`𝒱_i`$ calculated with the discovery observations? And, in latter case, if the discovery was made in another period of the year, would the calculated value of $`𝒱_i`$ have been the same? Actually, what we are asking is: only knowing that a newly discovered NEA exhibits some VIs orbital solutions, what is the probability that $`𝒱_i`$ will be equal to $`1`$ at the end of the whole orbital refinement process? We believe that only a statistical, a posteriori analysis can give an acceptable and verifiable answer.

Now, let us make the following thought experiment, only functional to the presentation of our point. Suppose that we are able to discover all asteroids with absolute magnitude less than or equal to $`H`$ which pass close to the Earth. Moreover, we reasonably suppose that every discovered impacting asteroid will show some VIs, with low $`𝒱_i`$ soon after the discovery and fluctuating with an increasing trend as soon as subsequent astrometric observations become available. In other words, we are putting ourselves in the somewhat idealized situation where every impacting asteroid brighter than $`H`$ is surely discovered and for it VIs monitoring systems surely spot some VIs soon after its discovery.

Thus, we define the a posteriori probability of $`𝒱_i1`$, which could be also interpreted as a kind of “weight” of the VIs impact probability calculation (more on this later), as:

$$W(H)=\frac{n(H)}{v(H)}|_T=\frac{\rho _i(H)}{f_{𝒱_i}(H)},$$
(1)
where $`n(H)`$ is the number of impacts of asteroids with absolute magnitude less than or equal to $`H`$ and $`v(H)`$ is the number of asteroids with same absolute magnitude found among all the newly discovered NEAs to exhibit VIs orbital solutions, both counted in the period of $`T`$ years. Note that, according to what we have said at the beginning of this section, the number $`n(H)`$ is counted in the number $`v(H)`$, since we have assumed that every impacting asteroid is identified soon after its discovery as having some VI orbital solutions.

Let us explain better the meaning of eq. (1). Within the hypotheses introduced above on the almost perfect NEAs discovery efficiency and VIs monitoring capabilities, we imagine to be able to wait for a very long period of years, $`T`$, and count the number $`n(H)`$ of asteroid impacts and the number $`v(H)`$ of VIs orbital solutions detected among all the discovered NEAs below the characteristic absolute magnitude $`H`$, within that period of time. Hence the fraction of these two numbers gives the a posteriori probability that a newly discovered asteroid, for which the VIs monitoring systems have spotted some VIs orbital solutions, is just that which will fall on the Earth. In the third member of eq. (1) we rewrite $`W`$ in terms of the background annual impact frequency $`\rho _i`$, namely that extrapolated through a statistical analysis from close encounters of the known NEA population (Morrison et al., 2003), and the annual frequency $`f_{𝒱_i}`$ of finding VIs among the newly discovered NEAs. A sketch of the average time between impacts ($`1/\rho _i`$) is given in Fig. 1 as a function of the impactor’s diameter.

Before we have said that $`W`$ can be interpreted as a kind of “weight” of the VIs impact probability calculation. This is because the greater is $`f_{𝒱_i}`$, the lesser is the a posteriori probability of $`𝒱_i1`$, no matter how is the initial numerical value of $`𝒱_i`$. Namely, the higher is the frequency with which we find VIs among newly discovered asteroids (with respect to the background frequency of impacts, $`\rho _i`$), the lesser is their a posteriori weight in expressing the threat of those particular newly discovered asteroids. This mechanism shares inevitable analogies with the well-known “crying wolf” experience, bad faith apart.

Moreover, we can see that $`W`$ is not directly related to the specific numerical value of $`𝒱_i`$. Rather, it depends upon $`f_{𝒱_i}`$, namely the annual rate of VIs discovery, which, in turn, depends upon some observational characteristics. These are the annual number of NEA discoveries, the amount of astrometric observations available at discovery, the magnitude of astrometric errors and the conventions in their statistical treatment, as well as the observational geometry and orbital characteristics of the newly discovered asteroid. But, we guess, it is not easy to give an exact estimate of its value at the moment. A larger sample of VIs detections is necessary in order to better estimate $`f_{𝒱_i}`$ and thus the probability $`W`$.

Anyway, having an idea of the total number of VIs detections found at every size between calendar years 2000 and 2001 (a sufficient but not complete archive of VIs detections could be found in the Observing Campaigns web pages of the Spaceguard Central Node at http://spaceguard. rm.iasf.cnr.it), a conservative estimate of $`W`$ cannot be too much different from that we get with $`f_{𝒱_i}`$ of the order of the unity. From Tab. 1 we see that the numerical value of $`f_{𝒱_i}`$ varies between $`1`$ and $`10`$, in the reported range of absolute magnitudes $`H`$. For the sake of simplicity, in this paper we choose to adopt $`f_{𝒱_i}1`$ for all $`H`$, being confident of committing a justifiable approximation, surely comparable with the uncertainty with which $`\rho _i`$ is currently known (at least within some ranges of absolute magnitude). With this reasonable assumption, we simply have $`W\rho _i`$.

Note that relaxing the optimistic assumptions on the almost perfect NEAs discovery efficiency and VIs monitoring capabilities makes $`f_{𝒱_i}`$, as approximated with the aid of Tab. 1, even an underestimate. And consequently, it makes $`W\rho _i`$ an overestimate.

Therefore, the probability of $`𝒱_i1`$ is nearly of the order of the background impact probability, no matter how is $`𝒱_i`$’s specific, initial (fluctuating) numerical value.

This result should not be a surprise since it simply re-states what we already know: the actual impact threat of a newly discovered NEA exhibiting VIs orbital solutions is always the same estimated through the close encounters statistics of known population. The fact that in the last few years many VIs orbital solutions have been detected among newly discovered NEAs obviously does not make NEAs more threatening than they have ever been.

As a matter of fact, the annual rate of VIs detections, if compared with the background impact probability, suggests an order of magnitude of the weight VIs detections have in expressing the real threat of a newly discovered NEA with $`𝒱_i0`$.

## 3 Conclusions

From the definition and the discussion of the a posteriori probability $`W`$ done in this paper it follows that, rigorously speaking, the VIs impact probability $`𝒱_i`$ does not give the real expression of the actual impact threat posed by a newly discovered NEA exhibiting VIs orbital solutions. This is properly done by $`W`$, which is strictly related to the so-called background impact probability $`\rho _i`$ (that extrapolated through a statistical analysis from close encounters of the known NEA population) and to the annual frequency with which the impact monitoring systems (currently NEODyS-CLOMON at University of Pisa and SENTRY at NASA–JPL) find VIs among newly discovered asteroids. Of $`W`$ we also provide a conservative estimate, which turns out to be of nearly the same order of $`\rho _i`$.

All this might seem a bit paradoxical, given the definition of $`𝒱_i`$. Yet, a closer look at the definition of $`W`$ shows that our conclusions are straightforward and even obvious.

## References

Chapman, C.R., 1999. The asteroid/comet impact hazard. Case Study for Workshop on Prediction in the Earth Sciences: Use and Misuse in Policy Making, July 10-12 1997 - Natl. Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO and September 10-12 1998, Estes Park, CO. Available on-line at: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/clark/ncar799.html

Chesley, R.S., Chodas, P.W., Milani, A., Valsecchi, G.B., Yeomans, D.K., 2002. Quantifying the risk posed by potential Earth impacts. Icarus, in press.

Milani, A., Chesley, S.R., Valsecchi, G.B. 1999. Close approaches of asteroid 1999 AN10: resonant and non-resonant returns. Astronomy & Astrophysics 346:L65-L68.

Milani, A., Chesley, S.R., Valsecchi, G.B. 2000. Asteroid close encounters with Earth: Risk assessment. Planetary & Space Science 48: 945-954.

Milani, A., Chesley, S.R., Chodas, P.W., Valsecchi, G.B. Asteroid close approaches and impact opportunities. Chapter for Asteroids III book edited by William Bottke, Alberto Cellino, Paolo Paolicchi, and Richard P. Binzel. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (2003).

Morrison, D., Harris, A.W., Sommer, G., Chapman, C.R., Carusi, A. Dealing with the Impact Hazard. Chapter for Asteroids III book edited by William Bottke, Alberto Cellino, Paolo Paolicchi, and Richard P. Binzel. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (2003).