text:
# Magnetic field inversion symmetry in quantum pumps with discrete symmetries

## I introduction

The quantum pump is a device that generates a dc current at zero bias potential through cyclic change of system parameters Hekking91 ; Altshuler99 ; Lubkin99 . Recently, adiabatic charge pumping in open quantum dots not only has attracted considerable theoretical attention Aleiner98 ; Brouwer98 ; Zhou99 ; Avron00 ; Shutenko00 ; Aleiner00 ; Wei00 ; Brouwer01 ; Vavilov01 ; Polianski01 ; Avron01 ; Sharma01 ; Entin-Wohlman02 ; Moskalets02a , but was also experimentally realized by Switkes et al. Switkes99 . After a cycle of the adiabatic shape change one returns to the initial configuration, but the wavefunction may have its phase changed with respect to the initial wavefunction. This is the geometric or Berry’s phase Berry84 . The additional phase is equivalent to pumped charges that pass through the quantum dot Altshuler99 . From another point of view, the quantum pump is a time dependent system driven by (at least) two different time periodic perturbations with the same angular frequency and a phase difference $`\varphi `$. One can deal with this problem under the adiabatic approximation, or by using the more general Floquet approach Sambe73 ; Kim02\_qp ; Moskalets02b . Recently, it has been shown that in the adiabatic limit with small strength of the oscillation potentials the Floquet and the adiabatic approach give exactly equivalent results Kim02\_qp ; Moskalets02b .

The puzzle unsolved in the experiment performed by Switkes et al. Switkes99  is the magnetic field inversion symmetry (MIS) in pumped currents. It was suggested theoretically Zhou99  that the pumped current $`I`$ is invariant upon magnetic field reversal

$$I(B)=I(B).$$
(1)
The subsequent experiment on open quantum dots appears to be in a good agreement with Eq. (1) Switkes99 . It became immediately clear, however, that such symmetry is not valid in theory Shutenko00 . Recently, Brouwer proposed that the rectified displacement current could account for the MIS Brouwer01 , which means the current observed in the experiment is not attributed to the adiabatic quantum pumping.

Even though in general quantum pumps do not fulfill the MIS, additional discrete symmetries of quantum dots can lead to such MIS. The effect of discrete symmetries on the MIS has been studied by Aleiner, Altshuler, and Kamenev Aleiner00  in the adiabatic limit. They found the reflection symmetries give rise to relations $`I(B)=I(B)`$ or $`I(B)=I(B)`$ depending on the orientation of the reflection axis. In the presense of inversion $`I(B)=0`$. However, the symmetry considered in Ref. Aleiner00  should be kept intact in the pumping cycle. The only way to realize such symmetry is to set $`\varphi =n\pi `$, but then there is no adiabatic pumped current.

In this paper, by using Floquet scattering matrix approach we investigate the MIS of the pumped current for three discrete symmetries, namely LR (left-right), UD (up-down), and IV (inversion), as shown in Fig. 1, both in the adiabatic and in the non-adiabatic cases. Since these symmetries are only applied to the time independent part of the scattering potential with an arbitrary $`\varphi `$ they are more relevant for applying to real experimental situation.

For LR symmetry, we find

$$I_{LR}(B,\varphi )=I_{LR}(B,\varphi )$$
(2)
both in the adiabatic and in the non-adiabatic cases. On the other hand, dots with UD symmetry obey

$$I_{UD}(B,\varphi )=I_{UD}(B,\varphi )$$
(3)
both in the adiabatic and in the non-adiabatic cases, as well. IV symmetry does not have any relevant symmetry for the magnetic field inversion. From the Floquet scattering approach, however, the pumped current is shown to be vanishingly small in the adiabatic limt. It is emphasized that Eqs. (2) and (3) do not correspond to $`I_{LR}(B)=I_{LR}(B)`$ and $`I_{UD}(B)=I_{UD}(B)`$, respectively. In the adiabatic limit it is always true that $`I(B,\varphi )=I(B,\varphi )`$, consequently $`I(B,\varphi =0)=0`$, while it is no longer available in the non-adiabatic case.

In Sec. II Floquet scattering matrix formalism is presented for the case without magnetic field. In Sec. III we discuss magnetic field inversion operation in a quantum pump, and investigate the MIS for three discrete symmetries, i.e. LR, UD, and IV symmetry. In Sec. IV we compare the results obtained in Sec. III with those from Brouwer’s formula, which shows they are consistent with each other in the adiabatic limit. Finally, we conclude in Sec. V.

## II Floquet scattering matrix formalism for a quantum pump

First, we introduce Floquet scattering matrix formulation without magnetic field for simplicity. Consider the one-dimensional time-dependent Schrödinger equation $`i\mathrm{}(/t)\psi =H(t)\psi `$ for a non-interacting electron with mass $`\mu `$ and $`H(t)=\mathrm{}^2^2/2\mu +U(x,t)`$, where $`U(x,t+T)=U(x,t)`$ and $`U(x,t)=0`$ at $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$. Due to the periodicity in time, a solution can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(x,t)=e^{iϵt/\mathrm{}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\chi _n(x)e^{in\omega t},$$
(4)
where $`ϵ`$ is the Floquet energy which takes a continuous value in the interval $`[0,\mathrm{}\omega )`$. Since the potential is zero at $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$, $`\chi _n(x)`$ is given by the following form

$$\chi _n(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}A_ne^{ik_nx}+B_ne^{ik_nx},x\mathrm{}\\ C_ne^{ik_nx}+D_ne^{ik_nx},x+\mathrm{},\end{array}$$
(5)
where $`k_n=\sqrt{2\mu (ϵ+n\mathrm{}\omega )}/\mathrm{}`$. By wave matching, the incoming and the outgoing waves can be connected by matrix $`M`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{B}\\ \stackrel{}{C}\end{array}\right)=M\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{A}\\ \stackrel{}{D}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
If we keep only the propagating modes ($`k_n`$ is real), we can obtain the unitary Floquet scattering matrix unitarity , which can be expressed in the following form Li99 ; Henseler01 ; Kim02\_pole

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}r_{00}& r_{01}& \mathrm{}& t_{00}^{}& t_{01}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ r_{10}& r_{11}& \mathrm{}& t_{10}^{}& t_{11}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ t_{00}& t_{01}& \mathrm{}& r_{00}^{}& r_{01}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ t_{10}& t_{11}& \mathrm{}& r_{10}^{}& r_{11}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`r_{nm}`$ and $`t_{nm}`$ are the reflection and the transmission amplitudes respectively, for modes incident from the left with energy $`ϵ+m\mathrm{}\omega `$ and outgoing to modes with energy $`ϵ+n\mathrm{}\omega `$; $`r_{nm}^{}`$ and $`t_{nm}^{}`$ are similar quantities for modes incident from the right.

The total transmission coefficient from the left to the right as a function of an energy of an incident electron is given by

$$T^{}(E)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|t_{nm}(ϵ)\right|^2,$$
(8)
where $`E=ϵ+m\mathrm{}\omega `$. The total transmission from the right to the left $`T^{}(E)`$ can also be determined in a similar way. Then, the pumped current to the right $`I_r`$ is given by the difference between two currents having the opposite directions Kim02\_qp ; Moskalets02b :

$$I_r=I^{}I^{},$$
(9)
where

$$I^{()}=\frac{2e}{h}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Ef(E)T^{()}(E).$$
(10)
Here, $`f(E)`$ represents the Fermi-Dirac distribution. Without a bias $`f(E)`$ has the same form for all reservoirs. The pumped current to the left $`I_l`$ is equal to $`I_r`$. Without specification $`I`$ denotes $`I_r`$ below. To derive Eq. (10), we need to assume that the reservoirs are always at equilibrium even under external time-dependent perturbation Kim02\_pauli . This is guaranteed if the relaxation time of an electron in the reservoirs is much faster than a pumping cycle $`T`$.

## III magnetic field inversion in a quantum pump

Let us now consider the two-dimensional quantum dot driven by time-periodic perturbations under a static magnetic field, which is attached to two leads (see Fig. 2), whose Hamiltonian is given by

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\left[\frac{(i\mathrm{}+eA)^2}{2\mu }+V(𝐫,t)\right]\psi ,$$
(11)
where $`A`$ is the vector potential. The potential $`V(𝐫,t)`$ is given by

$$V(𝐫,t,\varphi )=V_0(𝐫)+V_1(𝐫)\mathrm{cos}(\omega t\varphi /2)+V_2(𝐫)\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\varphi /2),$$
(12)
where $`V_0`$ represents the confined potential of a quantum dot, and $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are the spatial dependence of two time dependent perturbation. $`\varphi `$ is the initial phase difference of two time-dependent perturbations, and $`𝐫`$ denotes $`(x,y)`$. Note that $`V(𝐫,t,\varphi )=V(𝐫,t,\varphi )`$. When $`\varphi =n\pi `$ without magnetic field, the quantum pump is microscopically reversible (or time reversible), i.e. $`t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }=t_{mn}^{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }`$ represents the transmission amplitude from the Floquet side band $`m`$ of the channel $`\alpha `$ in the left lead to the side band $`n`$ of the channel $`\beta `$ in the right lead, and $`t_{mn}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is a similar quantity for the opposite direction. In a quantum pump the two time dependent perturbations with a finite $`\varphi `$ ($`n\pi `$) as well as the magnetic field break the time reversal symmetry.

If we take the complex conjugate of Eq. (11) and at the same time, reverse the vector potential ($`AA`$) and time ($`tt`$), we obtain

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi ^{}}{t}=\left[\frac{(i\mathrm{}+eA)^2}{2\mu }+V(𝐫,t)\right]\psi ^{}.$$
(13)
Compared with Eq. (11) one can see that $`\psi _{B,\varphi }(𝐫,t)=\psi _{B,\varphi }^{}(𝐫,t)`$. The complex conjugation combined with the time inversion of the solution in Eqs. (4) and (5) simply corresponds to the reversal of the momentum direction of the incoming or the outgoing plane waves and simultaneously the replacement of absorption by emission, and vice versa. This simply implies that $`SS^T`$ ($`S^T`$ is the transpose of $`S`$), i.e. $`S_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }S_{mn}^{\alpha \beta }`$. For completion of the magnetic field inversion operation, $`\varphi \varphi `$ also has to be considered.

The total transmission coefficient to the right reservoir after the magnetic field inversion is given by

$`T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )\right|^2`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|t_{mn}^{\alpha \beta }(ϵ,B,\varphi )\right|^2,`$ (15)
where $`E=ϵ+m\mathrm{}\omega `$. It must be noted that Eq. (15) is not equivalent to $`T_{B,\varphi }^{}`$. Figures 1(a) and (b) represent the usual setup of side bands for calculating the total transmission coefficients, e.g. $`T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E)`$, and the setup for calculating Eq. (15), respectively. In general, they are different from each other, so are $`I(B)`$ and $`I(B)`$. The MIS is not valid in Floquet formalism, as well.

### III.1 LR symmetry

If we assume LR symmetry \[$`V_0(x,y)=V_0(x,y)`$ and $`V_1(x,y)=V_2(x,y)`$\], the following relations are obtained \[see Fig. 1(a)\]

$`t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi ),`$
$`r_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi ).`$ (16)
Then, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as

$`T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )\right|^2`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E).`$
From Eq. (9) one reaches $`I(B,\varphi )=I(B,\varphi )`$, i.e. Eq. (2). Since such relation results from the Floquet approach, it is available for both the adiabatic and the non-adiabatic cases. Note that when $`\varphi =0`$ the result obtained in Ref. Aleiner00  is recovered, and its validity is now extended even to the non-adiabatic case. At zero magnetic field one finds $`I(\varphi )=I(\varphi )`$, consequently $`I(\varphi =0)=0`$ even for the non-adiabatic case.

### III.2 UD symmetry

For UD symmetry \[$`V_0(x,y)=V_0(x,y)`$ and $`V_1(x,y)=V_2(x,y)`$\] one finds

$`t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi ),`$
$`r_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )`$ (18)
\[see Fig. 1(b)\]. Then, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as

$`T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )\right|^2`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E),`$
which leads to $`I(B,\varphi )=I(B,\varphi )`$, i.e. Eq. (3). Like the LR symmetry, such symmetry of the quantum pump is correct for both the adiabatic and the non-adiabatic cases. Note also that when $`\varphi =0`$ the result obtained in Ref. Aleiner00  is recovered not only for the adiabatic limit but also for the non-adiabatic case. At zero magnetic field one finds $`I(\varphi )=I(\varphi )`$, which can be understood from the fact that the exchange of $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$, i.e. $`\varphi \varphi `$, does not make any difference in Fig. 1(b).

### III.3 IV symmetry

Finally, we consider IV symmetry \[$`V_0(x,y)=V_0(x,y)`$ and $`V_1(x,y)=V_2(x,y)`$\]. If one assume IV symmetry, one obtains \[see Fig. 1(c)\]

$`t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )=t_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi ),`$
$`r_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi )=r_{nm}^{\beta \alpha }(ϵ,B,\varphi ).`$ (20)
Eq. (15) is reexpressed as

$$T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E)=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|t_{mn}^{\alpha \beta }(ϵ,B,\varphi )\right|^2,$$
(21)
which is different from $`T_{B,\varphi }^{}(E)`$ since the summation is taken for $`n`$ as shown in Fig. 2(c). In general, there is no relevant MIS for dots with IV symmetry. When $`\varphi =0`$, however, Eq. (20) leads to $`T_B^{}(E)=T_B^{}(E)`$, consequently $`I=0`$. The result in Ref. Aleiner00  is also recovered for both the adiabatic and non-adiabatic case.

## IV adiabatic limit

The adiabatic condition in the quantum pump implies that any time scale of the problem considered must be much smaller than the period of the oscillation of an external pumping Brouwer98 . We can then define the instantaneous scattering matrix with time dependent parameters, namely $`X_n(t)`$,

$$\widehat{S}_{ad}(E,t)=\widehat{S}_{ad}(E,\{X_n(t)\})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{r}_{ad}& \widehat{t}_{ad}^{}\\ \widehat{t}_{ad}& \widehat{r}_{ad}^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
Due to the time periodicity of $`X_n`$’s, using a Fourier transform one can obtain the amplitudes of side bands for particles traversing the adiabatically oscillating scatterer with incident energy $`E`$ as following

$$\widehat{S}_{ad}(E,\{X_n(t)\})=\underset{n}{}\widehat{S}_{ad,n}(E)e^{in\omega t},$$
(23)
where

$$\widehat{S}_{ad,n}(E)=\frac{1}{T}_0^T𝑑te^{in\omega t}\widehat{S}_{ad}(E,\{X_n(t)\}).$$
(24)
Thus we can construct the adiabatic Floquet scattering matrix as follows Moskalets02b

$$S(E_n,E)S(E,E_n)\widehat{S}_{ad,n}(E),$$
(25)
where $`E_n=E+n\mathrm{}\omega `$. By exploiting Eqs. (23), (24) and (25) the MIS’s of adiabatic scattering matrices can be obtained directly from those of Floquet scattering matrices for the three symmetry classes.

Once the adiabatic scattering matrix is found, by using Brouwer’s formula Brouwer98  the pumped charge $`Q`$ per one cycle can be expressed as

$$Q(B)=g[\widehat{t}_{ad}(B),\widehat{r}_{ad}^{}(B)]_0^T𝑑t\{f[\widehat{t}_{ad}(B)]+f[\widehat{r}_{ad}^{}(B)]\},$$
(26)
where

$$f(s)=\frac{e}{2\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\mathrm{Im}\frac{s_{\alpha \beta }}{X_k}s_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{dX_k}{dt}.$$
(27)
Then, the pumped current $`I`$ is $`Q/T`$. Below, we will use Eq. (26) for the current.

### IV.1 LR symmetry

The relation (16) implies $`\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad,n}^{\beta \alpha }(E;B,\varphi )=\widehat{t}^{}(\widehat{r}^{})_{ad,n}^{\beta \alpha }(E;B,\varphi )`$ in the adiabatic limit, which, by using Eq. (23), immediately leads to $`\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )=\widehat{t}^{}(\widehat{r}^{})_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )`$. From Eq. (26) one finds

$`I_r(B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`g[\widehat{t}(B,\varphi ),\widehat{r}^{}(B,\varphi )]`$
$`=`$ $`g[\widehat{t}^{}(B,\varphi ),\widehat{r}(B,\varphi )]`$
$`=`$ $`I_l(B,\varphi )=I_r(B,\varphi ).`$
This exactly corresponds to Eq. (2). Note that if the relation $`I(\varphi )=I(\varphi )`$, which is available only in the adiabatic limit, is considered, one reaches simpler form $`I(B)=I(B)`$.

### IV.2 UD symmetry

Like the previous subsection the relation (18) implies $`\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad,n}^{\beta \alpha }(E;B,\varphi )=\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad,n}^{\beta \alpha }(E;B,\varphi )`$ in the adiabatic limit, which, by using Eq. (23), leads to $`\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )=\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )`$. From Eq. (26) one obtains

$`I_r(B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`g[\widehat{t}(B,\varphi ),\widehat{r}^{}(B,\varphi )]`$
$`=`$ $`g[\widehat{t}(B,\varphi ),\widehat{r}^{}(B,\varphi )]`$
$`=`$ $`I_r(B,\varphi ).`$
This exactly corresponds to Eq. (3). Note also that if the relation $`I(\varphi )=I(\varphi )`$ is considered, one reaches simpler form $`I(B)=I(B)`$.

### IV.3 IV symmetry

The relation (20) implies $`\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad,n}^{\beta \alpha }(E;B,\varphi )=\widehat{t}^{}(\widehat{r}^{})_{ad,n}^{\beta \alpha }(E;B,\varphi )`$ in the adiabatic limit, which, by using Eq. (23), leads to $`\widehat{t}(\widehat{r})_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )=\widehat{t}^{}(\widehat{r}^{})_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )`$. Considering the magnetic field inversion operation, one can obtain

$`\widehat{t}_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{t}_{ad}^T(E,t;B,\varphi ),`$
$`\widehat{r}_{ad}(E,t;B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{r}_{ad}^T(E,t;B,\varphi ).`$ (30)
From Eq. (26) one finds

$`I_r(B,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`g[\widehat{t}(B,\varphi ),\widehat{r}^{}(B,\varphi )]`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`g[\widehat{t}^T(B,\varphi ),\widehat{r}^T(B,\varphi )].`$
There is no relevant symmetry in the adiabatic limit, again.

Eq. (25) implies that $`t_{m+n,m}t_{m,mn}`$ in the adiabatic limit. After summing up all the side band contributions, the two configurations shown in Fig. 1(c) (the solid and the dashed arrows) give the approximately equivalent total transmission coefficients, i.e. $`T_B^{}(E)T_B^{}(E)`$. By applying similar procedure to the reflection coefficient one can also find $`R_B^{}(E)R_B^{}(E)`$ (make sure that the arrow is now reversed). It is also satisfied that $`T_B^{}(E)T_B^{}(E)`$ since the unitarity of Floquet scattering matrix requires $`T^{()}+R^{()}=1`$. From these two relations the pumped current is shown to be vanishingly small, $`I(B)=𝑑E[T_B^{}(E)T_B^{}(E)]0`$ since $`T_B^{}(E)T_B^{}(E)T_B^{}(E)`$. In Table I, we summarize the MIS of the pumped currents with various situations for the three symmetries.

## V summary and discussion

In summary, we have investigated magnetic field inversion symmetry in a quantum pump with various discrete symmetries using Floquet scattering matrix approach. We found the pumped currents can possess symmetries $`I(B,\varphi )=I(B,\varphi )`$ for LR symmetry, and $`I(B,\varphi )=I(B,\varphi )`$ for UD symmetry. For IV symmetry there is no relevant symmetry. The adiabatic limit for each discrete symmetry has been considered by using Brouwer’s formula.

One possibility to realize the experimentally observed MIS, i.e. $`I(B)=I(B)`$, is that the quantum dot would obey LR symmetry. Then, the MIS is recovered only in the adiabatic limit, while it will be broken in non-adiabatic case. In general, however, it is difficult that a chaotic quantum dot possesses any discrete symmetry like the LR symmetry.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Michael Moskalets, Henning Schomerus, and Hwa-Kyun Park for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Feasibility of a synchrotron storage ring for neutral polar molecules

## I Introduction

An electric field gradient exerts a force on the dipole moment of a neutral polar molecule. The force, $`F_x`$, in the (transverse) $`x`$ direction is:

$$F_x=\frac{W}{x}=\frac{dW}{dE}\frac{E}{x}$$
(1)
where $`W`$ is the potential energy, in an electric field of magnitude $`E=(E_x^2+E_y^2)^{1/2}`$ (Stark effect), of the molecule. A similar expression may be written for the force in the $`y`$ direction.

It is therefore possible to accelerate (decelerate)Bethlem et al. (1999); Maddi et al. (1999); Doyle and Friedrich (1999), deflect, focus, and store polar molecules. Prior to this study, a continuous torroidal ring, without a buncher or matched injector was suggested by Auerbach et al.Auerbach et al. (1966), analyzed by KatzKatz (1997), and Loesch and Schell Loesch and Scheel (2000), and recently constructed by Crompvoets et al.Crompvoets et al. (2001), who captured single pulses (about $`10^6`$ molecules) of deuterated ammonia ($`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$) at 90 m/s (kinetic energy $``$ 9.7 K) and observed them for six turns (0.053 s).

A ring with much longer storage times that can capture and store the high peak intensity of (the decelerated output of) a pulsed molecular beam jet source, could increase the available flux. With bunching, the energy of the stored beam can be varied continuously and the density of the molecules varied. These features make a molecular synchrotron storage ring useful for high-resolution spectroscopy, low energy scattering experiments, and for evaporative cooling See, for example, H.F. Hess (1986); See, for example, W. Ketterle and Druten (1996). With evaporative cooling, the molecules can reach ultra-low temperatures where they may form quantum condensates.

Evaporative cooling requires: high densities to thermalize the molecules by elastic scattering, forced evaporation of the hottest molecules, and long storage times for many repetitions of the cooling cycle. Bunching (and focusing) raises the density to thermalize the molecules and beam drift (and/or debunching) isolates the hottest molecules for removal.

In this paper we present the results of a study showing the feasibility of constructing a molecular synchrotron storage ring that will capture large numbers of molecules in multiple bunches, maintain the bunches, store the molecules for longer than 15 seconds and vary their kinetic energy.

The paper is organized as follows: In section II we discuss the lattice, the choice of molecular state, the necessity of avoiding regions of very weak electric field, and the dynamics calculations. In section III we describe the performance of the synchrotron storage ring, including the dynamic aperture, operating parameters, the effect of gravity, bunching and deceleration, and collisional losses. Finally, in section IV we evaluate the overall performance of the storage ring by adding a molecular beam source, a linear decelerator, and an injection system.

## II Storage ring design

### II.1 Lattice

Many different designs and placements of the elements were considered and analyzed. Our resulting design (Fig.1) is a racetrack configuration consisting of two of 180-degree arcs, 4 triplets of focusing lenses, six bunchers placed in regions having low horizontal dispersion, an injector for loading up to 60 bunches into the ring, space in the long straight sections for an extractor (for example a mirror image of the injector), and for experiments or evaporative cooling.

The lengths of the elements and drift distances between them are listed in Table I.

The strong combined horizontal and vertical focusing in the bend sections makes the ring very compact. The triplet of straight-lens electrodes then transforms the beam to a wider, more collimated beam that can traverse the 32-cm-long straight section as shown in Fig. 2(a). The large variation of focusing strength is apparent in Fig. 2(b), the plot of the focusing parameters $`\beta _x`$ and $`\beta _y`$ around the ring.

The horizontal betatron phase advance in the 180-degree bending region has been made equal to $`4\pi `$ in order to have zero dispersion at the bunching electrode, as shown in Fig. 3. The very low dispersion at the bunching electrodes prevents the development of strong synchro-betatron coupling and preserves the momentum acceptance.

### II.2 Molecular state

Many different molecules and kinetic energies could be used for our feasibility study. We selected 90 m/s $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ molecules in the weak-field seeking upper-inversion level (lowest vibrational state) $`|J,K,M>=|1,1,1>`$ (Fig. 4) because they had been previously used by Crompvoets et al.Crompvoets et al. (2001), and because the focusing properties of weak-field seeking states make the design and feasability assessment easier and the ring more compact.

Molecules in weak-field seeking states (molecules whose potential energy increases in an electric field) can be focused simultaneously in both transverse directions, whereas molecules in strong-field seeking states can be focused in only one transverse direction while defocusing in the other transverse direction.

Fringe fields seen by the molecules upon entering and exiting the bending, focusing, and bunching elements will also exert transverse forces on the molecules. A molecule in a weak-field seeking state traveling in the $`z`$ direction will experience a net focusing effect in the vertical ($`y`$) direction upon entering or exiting an electric field produced by horizontal ($`x,z`$) plane parallel electrodes. A molecule in a strong-field seeking state will defocus.

Except for the rotational state $`J=0`$ (which is always strong field seeking), each rotational state, $`J`$, contains $`M`$ components which are partially or completely degenerate in zero electric field. The different $`|M|`$ states (or $`M`$ states as in Fig. 4) have different Stark shifts and hence experience different forces in an electric field gradient. If the molecules in a ring repeatedly enter regions of weak and direction-changing electric fields, transitions between the different $`M`$ components will take place (Majorana transitions), leading to a loss of the moleculesSee, for example, J. Reuss (1988); See, for example, P. W. Harland et al. (1999); Kajita et al. (2001). Our method of avoiding this problem is described below.

### II.3 Avoiding weak-field regions

In the bend sections, which use electrodes with zero electric field near their center, the centripetal force keeps the trajectory of molecules in a strong electric field at the inner side of that zero (Fig. 5c). And, as did Crompvoets et al.Crompvoets et al. (2001), we take advantage of the combined horizontal and vertical focusing.

Focusing lenses in the straight sections (Fig. 5a,b) are sextupolar with a dipole field added to avoid zero field. The multipole coefficients of the electrodes, their gaps, and electric field strengths on orbit, are listed in Table II. With the added dipole field, these lenses focus in only one transverse direction while defocusing in the other and are used in an alternating-gradient sequence Kalnins et al. (2002). To prevent rapid changes in electric field direction, the field direction, at the molecule’s orbit throughout the ring, is vertical and remains unchanging in polarity (Fig. 6). This results in having some concave and some convex lenses.

In the straight sections, away from focusing fields, we add a weak bias field (about one kV/m for the drift spaces) to maintain the quantization axisSee, for example, P. W. Harland et al. (1999).

### II.4 Dynamics calculation

The force on a molecule in one direction is given by Eq. 1. The basic formulas for motions of the molecules are derived analytically without linearization. Then the beam optics and dynamics are numerically calculated and optimized by using a modified version of the program GoemonNishimura (2001) that was originally developed for relativistic charged particles. The molecules were numerically tracked through the synchrotron for 400 turns (15 s) to determine the beam’s dynamic stability.

The numerical integration was done in the time domain because the speed of a molecule varies as a function of the electric field. The overall dimension of the lattice is chosen to balance easily attainable electric fields and high transverse acceptance with compact (desk top) size.

#### II.4.1 Potential energy

The potential energy, W, in an electric field, of the $`|J,K>=|1,1>`$ level of $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ (Fig. 4) is given, in units of Joules (written out to avoid confusion with the quantum number ”$`J`$”) by:

$$W=\pm \left[\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2E^2}C_1C_3E^2\right]$$

where $`C_1=5.26\times 10^{25}`$Joules is half of the $`|J,K>=|1,1>`$ inversion splitting (Fig. 4), $`C_2=2.52\times 10^{30}\text{Joules}\text{V}^1\text{m}`$, $`C_3=1.78\times 10^{38}\text{JoulesV}^2\text{m}^2`$ and $`E`$ is in V/m. The terms involving $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are taken from Ref.C.H.Townes and Schawlow (1955) to which we add a second order term to account for mixing of the $`|J,K>`$ = $`|2,1>`$ state in strong electric fieldsAmini (2001).

#### II.4.2 Electric field gradient

Within an electrode, the electric field, as a function of distances $`x`$ and $`y`$ from the reference orbit, is calculated from a scaler potential $`\psi `$ by $`E=\psi (x,y)`$ and $`\psi `$ is taken to be uniform in the longitudinal ($`z`$) direction within the electrode length. The fringe fields, at the ends of the electrodes, where the electric field is changing in the $`z`$ direction of motion produce additional transverse forces. These are evaluated separately, and are described in section II.4.3.

In a straight (focusing/defocusing) electrode, the potential is a combination of dipole and sextupole terms Kalnins et al. (2002) given by $`\psi _s=E_0[y+A_3(x^2y\frac{1}{3}y^3)]`$ where $`E_0`$ is the central electric field, $`A_3`$ is the sextupole coefficient (see Table II) and the dipole coefficient has been set equal to 1.

In a bending electrode of constant radius $`\rho `$, $`\psi `$ is a combination of dipole, quadrupole, and sextupole terms given by:

$$\psi _b=E_b\left[y+yB_2\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{x}{\rho }\right)+B_3J_0[k(\rho +x)]\mathrm{sinh}(ky)\right]$$

Relating this to the Cartesian multipoles, we find: $`E_b=E_0\left[1+2A_3/k^2\right]`$, $`B_2=\rho A_2\left[k^2/k^2+2A_3\right]`$, where $`A_2`$ is the quadrupole coefficient,

$$B_3=\frac{1}{kJ_0(k\rho )}\frac{2A_3}{k^2+2A_3},$$

$`J_0`$ and $`J_1`$ are the $`0^{th}`$ and $`1^{st}`$ order Bessel functions and the value of $`\rho k`$ is the first root of $`J_1(k\rho )=0`$. An approximation for $`\psi _b`$ useful for comparison with $`\psi _s`$ up to third order is

$$\psi _b=E_0\left[y+A_2xy+A_3\left[\left(1\frac{A_2}{2\rho A_3}\right)x^2y\frac{y^3}{3}\right]\right]$$

#### II.4.3 Fringing fields

To evaluate the transverse vertical focusing forces in the fringing regions of the elements, a two - dimensional numerical calculation, using the geometries of the electrodes, was carried out to find the electric field as a function of z on the midplane. The magnitude of the fringe fields are shown in Fig. 6. The focusing action was then calculated analytically from the derivatives of this field, evaluated as equivalent thin lenses at the ends of the focusing, bending, and bunching electrodes, and included in the calculation of trajectories around the ring.

#### II.4.4 Hamiltonian

All optics, orbit, and tracking calculations were carried out using a second-order symplectic integrator and the Hamiltonian: $`H=H_0+W(x,y)`$. In straight regions, $`H_0=\frac{1}{2m}(P_x^2+P_y^2+P_z^2)`$ where $`m`$ is the mass of the molecule, $`P_x=mv_x`$, $`P_y=mv_y`$, and $`P_z=mv_z`$ is the momentum, with $`v_x`$, $`v_y,`$ and $`v_z`$ the velocities in Cartesian coordinates. Conservation of energy requires that $`P_z`$ changes when the molecule passes through a field gradient at the ends of the electrodes.

In a bending region, the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ becomes:

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2m}\left[P_x^2+P_y^2+\frac{P_\theta ^2}{(\rho +x)^2}\right]$$

where $`P_\theta `$ is an angular momentum, $`\rho `$ is a reference bend radius, $`x`$ is a radial excursion with respect to $`\rho `$, and $`P_z=(P_\theta /\rho +x)^2`$.

## III Synchrotron performance

### III.1 Dynamic aperture

The survival of molecules, tracked through 400 turns, is calculated to determine the usable dynamic apertures, $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$. Fig. 7 shows a scatter plot of the starting coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ at center of the straight section of those molecules that survive the 400 turns. From these we calculate the acceptances, $`ϵ`$, as 1/$`\pi `$ times the areas in displacement-angle phase space, $`ϵ=a^2/\beta `$. The dynamic apertures, values of beta at center of straight section, and acceptances are given in Table III. In Table III the circulation period is 38 ms whereas 3.357/90=37.3 ms, reflecting the 3% to 4% reduction in velocity when the molecules enter the electric fields.

The dynamic aperture of off-momentum molecules determines the momentum acceptance. Fig. 8 shows the effect of momentum on the dynamic aperture, and indicates an acceptance of about -3% to +1.7%. We shall see later that this reduces to about $`\pm 2\%`$ when the bunchers are operating.

The betatron tunes, as a function of momentum, are found by tracking the motions of a molecule over 512 turns. The chromaticities, are $`\zeta _x=0.0885`$ and $`\zeta _y=0.0942`$. The effect of momentum-deviation upon the circulation period T, expressed as the momentum-compaction factor $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T_0=\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }P/P_0`$, is strong. The value of $`\alpha `$ is -0.991; this will result in prompt debunching if the bunching voltages are turned off.

### III.2 Effect of gravity

The effect of gravity is visible in the orbit because the velocity of the beam is low. The vertical phase advance of $`4\pi `$ (same as the horizontal phase advance), is favorable in reducing the effect of the gravity force on the vertical closed orbit. Fig. 9 shows the vertical closed-orbit displacement (COD) due to gravity. It ranges from -0.13 mm to 0.09 mm and is small enough to be neglected in the case of linear optics calculations. In the case of dynamic aperture calculations we have confirmed that gravity changes only the details of the dynamic aperture at its edges and does not affect its core portion (Fig. 7).

### III.3 Bunching and deceleration

Bunching action is provided by six sets of parallel-plate electrodes, each 20 mm in length with 10 mm half-gap, placed in low dispersion regions around the ring (Fig.1, 3). The voltage on the plates is pulsed in a triangular waveform that produces a maximum electric field of 1.0 MV/m for on-energy molecules. Each buncher is synchronized to the on-energy molecules (Fig. 10) so that the energy lost upon entering the buncher is matched by the energy gained upon exit. A higher-energy molecule reaches the buncher at an earlier time when electric field gradient is higher upon entrance and lower upon exit, resulting in a net energy reduction for a molecule in a weak-field seeking state.

The buncher frequency is 1.58 kHz and allows 60 bunches around the ring, spaced 56 mm apart. To prevent Majorana transitions the voltage is biased to avoid negative fields. The rate of change of the electric field in the bunchers can be made as large as about 7 GVm-1s-1. The synchrotron tune is proportional to the square root of the rate of change and is 0.92 at our reference value of 7 GVm-1s-1.

The lattice is optimized for a nominal velocity of 90 m/sec. After stacking at this velocity, the beam can be decelerated by synchronously changing the electrode and buncher settings. This provides an opportunity to scan the velocity during an experiment. The betatron tunes stay constant but the straight section becomes dispersive. At 63 m/sec, the horizontal transverse acceptance reduces from 35 to 13 mm-mrad and the momentum acceptance from 2.0% to 1.2%.

### III.4 Collisional losses

So far, we have only examined storage ring losses associated with the limits of the dynamic aperture and momentum acceptance of the lattice. A real storage ring will also have losses due to elastic and inelastic scattering of the molecules. Scattering by room-temperature background gasses is the major elastic scattering contribution and of the gasses likely to be present in the ring, xenon and ammonia have the largest scattering coefficients. Assuming hard sphere binary collisions between the $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ molecules and 300 K xenon (leaking in from the source), the mean time between collisions is 15s at a (xenon) pressure of $`1\times 10^7`$ Pa ($`7.5\times 10^{10}`$ Torr), where we have used the equations and collision diameter in Ref.Lide (2002).

For inelastic scattering between the $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ molecules, their relative kinetic energy spread of about $`\pm `$ 0.4 K ($`\pm 5.5\times 10^{24}`$J) is small enough to prevent any significant excitation to higher rotational states. A molecule can however collisionally relax to a strong-field seeking state, causing it to be lost from the storage ring Crompvoets et al. (2001). Bohn Bohn (2001) and Kajita Kajita (2002) have calculated inelastic collision rates for molecules in a weak-field seeking state in electrostatic traps. They find that the loss rates can be significant, in some cases precluding successful evaporative cooling, and are influenced both by the electric fields and the size of the electric dipole moment.

Thus, the use of a synchrotron storage ring with high densities of molecules in a weak-field seeking state will need to confront this issue. Obviously, the alternative would be to use molecules in the strong-field seeking rotational ground ($`J=0`$) state. A synchrotron storage ring for molecules in the $`J=0`$ state will be discussed in a future paper.

## IV Synchrotron storage ring system

The overall performance of a molecular synchrotron storage ring also depends upon the beam delivered by the source, decelerator and injection line. To model performance and determine the stored beam from the complete system we also modeled a decelerator, injector and source.

### IV.1 Linear decelerator

Slow molecules, suitable for injection into a storage ring, can be produced by time-varying electric field gradient deceleration, by mechanical cancellation of the molecular beam velocityGupta and Herschbach (1999), and possibly by buffer-gas coolingDoyle et al. (1995) (without magnetic trapping). Time-varying electric field gradient deceleration is the easiest of these for us to model and to match to the storage ring. It has been used by Bethlem et al. Bethlem et al. (2000, 2002) and Crompvoets et al. Crompvoets et al. (2001) to decelerate $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$.

Our model linear decelerator takes the 310 m/s (115 K kinetic energy) output of a $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ \- seeded xenon pulsed-jet source (room temperature reservoir) and decelerates it to 90 m/s (9.75 K kinetic energy). The number of electrodes is set by the decrease in kinetic energy in each electrode (equal to the change in potential energy of the molecule entering the electric field). We use 79 decelerating electrodes, decreasing in length from 48 mm to 8.75 mm effective length to keep the transit time of the molecules constant through each electrode. We choose the overall length of the decelerator, 3.4 m, comparable to the 3.36 m circumference of the storage ring, to balance high velocity acceptance with compact size.

The electric field is nearly a square wave 158 $`\mu `$s long with a repetition rate of 3.16 kHz and the maximum electric field is 8 MV/m in a 1.75 mm half-gap and is the same for all decelerating electrodes. After the molecules enter the electric field it drops to nearly zero so that the molecules that exit the electrode must relinquish kinetic energy to enter the field in the next set of electrodes. This is done either by having successive electrodes 180 degrees out of phase or by using only every other bunch. The electric field does not return completely to zero and the horizontal focusing elements (see below) have their electric field in the same direction as the decelerating electrodes to minimize Majorana transitions.

Bunching, as the molecules decelerate, is accomplished by having the electric field (in each bunching electrode) decrease, linearly over the 158 $`\mu `$s from 8 MV/m to 7.76 MV/m so that the fastest molecules, arriving early, receive the most deceleration. This results in a $`\pm `$1% momentum spread at 90 m/s which falls within the momentum acceptance of the storage ring.

The spacing between individual decelerating electrodes remains constant. This fixes the fringe field which provides vertical focusing. The decelerating electrodes are grouped in sets of four as shown in Fig. 12. After each quadruplet of decelerating electrodes is placed a horizontal focusing element with length appropriate to keep the molecules in phase with the next decelerating quadruplet. (One section has only three decelerating electrodes.) The 20 focusing elements all have the same field but their focusing strength increases as the molecules slow. The lattice is, in the vertical direction, FFFFD and in the horizontal direction OOOOF. The overall length of the decelerator is 3.4 m.

Upon exit from the decelerator, bunches are 7 mm long with a vertical and horizontal half-width of 1.30 mm and 1.61 mm, respectively. The vertical and horizontal betas are: $`\beta _v=56.3`$ mm and $`\beta _h=86.7`$ mm corresponding to vertical and horizontal emittances both of 30 mm-mr. Being less than the 71 mm-mr and 35 mm-mr vertical and horizontal acceptances of the synchrotron storage ring, this sets the overall transverse acceptance of the entire system.

### IV.2 Injector

A bunched beam of molecules is injected onto the closed orbit of the synchrotron at the downstream end of a straight section. Starting at the exit of the decelerator, this beam is guided along a trajectory by electric fields that focus transversely and transform it s size and divergence to match the vertical and horizontal acceptances of the storage ring.

The last element must be a pulsed deflecting electrode that turns off after the bunch or bunches have entered. Several different injection protocols are available: a string of 158 $`\mu `$s pulses can be injected into the ring in less than the circulation period of 38 ms, or single bunches may be filled at any time by switching the pulsed deflecting electrode during the interval between bunches.

The injector guide field consists of two bending sectors, each an arc of about $`\pi /8`$ rad, arranged as shown in Fig.1. In each bending sector the field is configured to provide equal horizontal and vertical focusing. The phase advance of transverse motion is near $`\pi /2`$ in a sector; thus, it exchanges angle for displacement and changes the ratio of angle to displacement. Focusing strengths are adjusted to provide the required match between injecting beam and ring acceptance. The boundaries of the beam phase space are shown in Fig.13.

It was possible to choose the first sector to have radius and strength equal to that of the bend in the storage ring. The second sector must have larger aperture and radius and it must be pulsed to zero at the end of injection. Parameters of the injector guide field are shown in Table IV. The sum of the two inverse curves was made near zero so that the line of the decelerator is about parallel to the straight section of the synchrotron storage ring.

### IV.3 Source and intensity

To estimate the number of molecules that can be decelerated, injected, and stored, we assume $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ source conditions similar to those reported by Crompvoets et al.Crompvoets et al. (2001) and by Bethlem et al.Bethlem et al. (2002): a pulsed jet source of 0.8% $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ seeded in 152 kPa (1140 Torr) of xenon (reservoir temperature 300 K) exiting through a circular 0.80 mm dia. orifice into vacuum. Following Crompvoets et al. Crompvoets et al. (2001), we assume that 15% of the molecules entering the decelerator are in the desired state. From the formulas in MillerMiller (1988), we find a flux of $`4.4\times 10^{18}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{N}_{}^{2}\text{H}_3`$ molecules $`\text{sr}^1\text{s}^1`$ in the desired $`M`$ state.

The decelerator’s transverse emittance of $`\pm `$30 mm-mr and momentum spread of $`\pm 1`$% at 90 m/s set a transverse acceptance from the 310 m/s jet source beam of $`\pm 9`$ mm-mr and momentum spread of $`\pm 0.29\%`$. If we assume an initial Gaussian velocity distribution with a mean of 310 m/s and a standard deviation of $`\pm 20\%`$, approximately 1.1 % of the molecules from the jet source fall within our decelerator momentum acceptance. With a pulse length of 158 $`\mu `$s, the intensity of the decelerated beam is roughly $`6\times 10^8`$ molecules/pulse.

The horizontal acceptance of the storage ring matches the emittance of the decelerator and the vertical acceptance and momentum acceptance of the storage ring is about twice the emittance of the injected beam, so all $`6\times 10^8`$ molecules/pulse should be captured and stored in a single bunch. If all sixty bunches are filled (over multiple turns) the total stored beam is $`3.6\times 10^{10}`$ molecules and the circulating flux is $`9.5\times 10^{11}`$ molecules/s.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Swapan Chattopadhyay and Ying Wu for early assistance with this work. Work on the synchrotron storage ring is supported by the Director, Office of Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy, and work on the linear decelerator is supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy; both under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.


text:
# Charged hadron transverse momentum distributions in Au+Au collisions at √𝑠__{𝑁𝑁}= 200 GeV

## Abstract

We present transverse momentum distributions of charged hadrons produced in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 200 GeV. The evolution of the spectra for transverse momenta $`p_T`$ from 0.25 to 5 GeV/c is studied as a function of collision centrality over a range from 65 to 344 participating nucleons. We find a significant change of the spectral shape between $`p\overline{p}`$ and peripheral Au+Au collisions. Comparing peripheral to central Au+Au collisions, we find that the yields at the highest $`p_T`$ exhibit approximate scaling with the number of participating nucleons, rather than scaling with the number of binary collisions.

In this paper, the yield of charged hadrons in collisions of gold nuclei at an energy of $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200`$ GeV is presented as a function of collision centrality and transverse momentum $`p_T`$. The data were taken with the PHOBOS detector during the second run of the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. In the theoretical analysis of particle production in hadronic and nuclear collisions, a distinction is often made between the relative contributions of “hard” parton-parton scattering processes and “soft” processes. Hard processes are expected to contribute an increasingly larger fraction of particle production with increasing collision energy, particularly for produced particles with higher $`p_T`$.

Collisions of heavy nuclei offer ideal conditions to test our understanding of this picture, as “hard” processes are expected to scale with the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions $`N_{coll}`$, whereas “soft” particle production is expected to exhibit scaling with the number of participating nucleons $`N_{part}`$. In the Glauber picture of nuclear collisions, $`N_{coll}`$ approximately scales as $`(N_{part}/2)^{4/3}`$. For central collisions of Au nuclei, one therefore obtains an increase in the ratio of $`N_{coll}/(N_{part}/2)`$ by a factor of six, relative to proton-proton collisions. The collision centrality therefore represents a control parameter for the relative contributions of hard and soft processes to particle production.

The data presented in this paper were collected using the PHOBOS two-arm magnetic spectrometer. Details of the setup and track reconstruction procedure can be found elsewhere . The invariant cross-sections of charged hadrons were obtained by averaging the yields of positive and negative hadrons as a function of transverse momentum for particles with rapidity of $`0.2<y_\pi <1.4`$ where the pion mass was assumed in the determination of $`y_\pi `$. The cross-sections were corrected for the geometrical acceptance of the detector, the reconstruction efficiency and the distortion due to binning and momentum resolution. We also corrected the spectra for “ghost” tracks and particles produced in secondary interactions and weak decays. Details of the corrections applied can be found in

In Fig. 2 the data are shown for 6 centrality bins. Table 1 gives the event statistics for all centrality bins, along with the average number of participants and binary collisions determined by a Glauber calculation. Details of the trigger, event selection and centrality determination can be found in . The integrated yields, when scaled by $`N_{part}/2`$, increase by 15% over the centrality range, in good agreement with the centrality evolution of the mid-rapidity particle density presented in .

To study the evolution of the spectra with centrality we proceed in two steps. First, in Fig. 2 for each centrality bin we show the spectrum divided by $`N_{part}/2\times f(p_T)`$, where $`f(p_T)`$ is a fit of the invariant cross-section in proton-antiproton collisions at the same energy . This comparison shows that already in Au+Au collisions with an impact parameter of $`b10`$ fm, the spectral shape is modified relative to that in $`p+\overline{p}`$ collisions. It is worth noting that the ratio $`\frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}/2}`$ increases by a factor of almost three from $`p+\overline{p}`$ to the most peripheral Au+Au collisions. Going from peripheral to central events we observe only a moderate change in spectral shape.

The detailed evolution of the spectra with collision centrality is shown in Fig. 4, where the spectra for the six centrality bins have been divided by a fit to the most peripheral bin scaled by $`N_{part}/2`$. It is remarkable that the change in spectral shape over this range of centralities is small compared to that between peripheral events and $`p+\overline{p}`$ collisions.

In particular at high $`p_T>3`$ GeV/c, to a good approximation the yields scale with $`N_{part}/2`$ as a function of centrality. The scaling behaviour in various regions of $`p_T`$ is further illustrated in Fig. 4. Here we show the yield of charged hadrons scaled with $`N_{part}/2`$ relative to the yield in the most peripheral bin at $`N_{part}=65`$ in Au+Au and proton-antiproton collisions at $`p_T=`$ 0.45, 1.5, 3.13 and 4.25 GeV/c. The ratio was determined by interpolating the data shown in Fig. 2 using power law fits. The centrality range shown in Fig. 4 covers a change in $`\frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}/2}`$ by about a factor of two as indicated by the line drawn in the lower right hand panel.

The observed trends can be contrasted with the expectation that particle production should be characterized by a change from $`N_{part}`$-scaling at low $`p_T`$ to $`N_{coll}`$-scaling at high $`p_T`$. No corresponding increase in particle production per participant at $`p_T=3`$ GeV/c and above is observed. Rather, the yields in this region scale approximately with the number of participating nucleons. It has recently been argued that the observed scaling could be naturally explained in a model assuming the dominance of surface emission of high $`p_T`$ hadrons . However, the approximate participant scaling has also been predicted in the context of initial state saturation models . Upcoming studies of d+Au collisions at RHIC should also provide insight into the modification of particle spectra in a nuclear environment.

This work was partially supported by US DoE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER-404802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-94ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, W-31-109-ENG-38. NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204. The Polish groups were partially supported by KBN grant 2-P03B-10323. The NCU group was partially supported by NSC of Taiwan under contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.


text:
# Local thermometry technique based on proximity-coupled superconductor/normal-metal/superconductor devices

## Abstract

In mesoscopic superconductor/normal-metal/superconductor (SNS) heterostructures, it is known that the resistance of the normal metal between the superconductors has a strong temperature dependence. Based on this phenomenon, we have developed a new type of thermometer, which dramatically enhances our ability to measure the local electron temperature $`T_e`$ at low temperatures. Using this technique, we have been able to measure small temperature gradients across a micron-size sample, opening up the possibility of quantitatively measuring the thermal properties of mesoscopic devices.

Interest has grown in recent years in the thermal properties of mesoscopic samples, after the electrical characteristics of such devices have been extensively studied in the past two decades. In order to make thermal and thermoelectric measurements, a temperature gradient needs to be set up across the sample. Experimentally, this can be done by applying a direct (dc) current through a metallic wire to heat up a part of the sample to a temperature higher than the substrate temperature $`T_b`$ dikin ; parsons , while keeping the substrate and other parts of the sample cold. The length of this heater line is normally much longer than the electron-electron scattering length $`L_{ee}`$, but shorter than the electron-phonon scattering length $`L_{ep}`$. In this configuration, the electrons in the center of the heater achieve local thermodynamic equilibrium by energy exchange between electrons henny1 . As the local electron temperature $`T_e`$ in the heater is higher than $`T_b`$, a temperature gradient can be generated in the electron bath. Conventional low temperature thermometers cannot be used to make a direct measurement of $`T_e`$ on mesoscopic samples, because their physical size is much larger than the sample of interest. Hence special thermometry techniques are needed on the submicron length scale.

Heretofore, only a few techniques have been used to measure $`T_e`$ directly. Aumentado *et al.* introduced a thermometer which could determine the electron temperature over $``$100 nm size scale joe . This thermometer was based on the proximity effect, the fact that the resistance of a normal metal wire in proximity to a superconductor shows a measurable temperature dependence at temperatures below the critical temperature, $`T_c`$, of the superconductor. From the base temperature of dilution refrigerator to $`T`$$``$0.8 K, the overall resistance change of such a thermometer is normally $``$1% of the normal state resistance. Unfortunately, a $`1\%`$ resistance change cannot always give one enough sensitivity to precisely measure a small temperature difference across a sample. Another technique to directly determine $`T_e`$ is through noise thermometry, since the Johnson-Nyquist noise of the electrons, defined by $`S_V`$=$`4kTR`$, has a linear temperature dependence. However, this technique imposes restrictive constraints on the design of the samples. In addition, noise measurements typically have a cutoff sensitivity below which the measurement accuracy drops. For example, Henny *et al.* mention a cutoff at a value of $`2`$$`\times `$$`10^{20}`$ V2s henny2 , which requires a minimum thermometer resistance of 3.6 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at 100 mK. Superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) can increase the sensitivity of noise measurements, but need relatively complicated circuits and sample fabrication steinbach ; jehl .

In this paper, we describe a more sensitive thermometer based on the resistance of a four-terminal Al/Au device that shows a strong temperature dependence at low temperatures. The magnitude of the thermometer resistance change, from 18 mK to $``$350 mK, is up to 102$`\%`$ of the normal resistance measured at a temperature just above $`T_c`$. Above 350 mK, the thermometer enters the proximity effect regime and can be used like the thermometer described in joe .

The device discussed in this paper was patterned onto an oxidized Si substrate (100-nm-thick) using conventional multi-level electron beam lithography. Figure 1 shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of our device. This device was fabricated for thermal conductance measurements on Andreev interferometers; these measurements will be described in detail elsewhere. Here we concentrate on the design and fabrication of the thermometers used in the experiments. The brighter regions in the image of Fig. 1 are a 46-nm-thick Au film, which was deposited first. A 76-nm-thick Al film (darker regions) was deposited on top of the Au in another level of lithography, after an *in situ* Ar plasma etch was used to clean the Au surfaces in order to obtain good normal-metal/superconductor (NS) interfaces. The device is divided into four sections (see Fig. 1): (a) The “Hot” section, on the left, consists of a 0.73-$`\mu `$m-wide long heater line and a “Hot” thermometer. Applying a dc current through the heater increases the electron temperature $`T_e`$ above the substrate temperature $`T_b`$. (b) The “Cold” section, on the right, includes a large normal metal pad and a “Cold” thermometer. (c) The sample section consists of the structures between the “Hot” and “Cold” sections. The sample is an Andreev interferometer, which is a 3.18-$`\mu `$m-long and 0.18-$`\mu `$m-wide Au wire with an Al loop hooked up in the middle. Since the “Hot” and the “Cold” sections are at different temperatures, a temperature gradient is generated across the sample. The temperature difference can be accurately controlled by the dc current through the heater line. (d) The last section is a single thermometer electrically isolated from the rest of the sample, which measures the temperature of the substrate. This “Sub” thermometer can be used to monitor the heat leak from the heater to the substrate by electron-phonon scattering.

All three thermometers on the device have similar structure. They consist of a short normal metal wire and four probes, each covered by a superconducting lead. The superconducting contacts are designed to be close to each other to increase the coupling between them, but not close enough to cause a supercurrent to flow between them, as this would effectively short the resistance of the normal metal wire, and defeat its use as a thermometer. The superconducting contacts also drastically reduce the heat flow through the leads, giving a relatively uniform electron temperature profile across the length of each thermometer. Figure 2(a) demonstrates the normalized resistance of all three thermometers as a function of temperature. The resistance was measured by a conventional four-probe technique using an ac resistance bridge with a 20 nA excitation current. In order to increase the measurement sensitivity, a step-up transformer, an instrumentation amplifier (AD624) and a lock-in amplifier (PAR 124) have been used in series to amplify the signal out of the resistance bridge. The instrumentation amplifiers, current source and resistance bridges are battery powered, and placed as close as possible to the top of the dilution refrigerator in a mumetal shielded box to reduce interference and inadvertent heating from line frequency sources. In addition, each electrical line into the dilution refrigerator is filtered with a $`\pi `$-filter with a cut-off frequency of 5 MHz in order to minimize sample heating due to ambient radio-frequency (rf) sources. The background noise from the spectrum of the signal from the samples using this setup, as measured by a spectrum analyzer attached to the lock-in amplifier, was approximately 6 nV/$`\sqrt{\text{Hz}}`$, close to the 4 nV/$`\sqrt{\text{Hz}}`$ expected input noise of the AD624, and showed an essentially flat frequency response (with no peaks at the harmonics of the line frequency) up to the maximum frequency of 100 kHz of the analyzer. In order to maximize the gain of the transformer, a frequency of 103 Hz was used for the measurements.

The behavior of the thermometer resistance below $`T_c`$ can be divided into two regimes. The first regime is the low temperature regime, which extends from the base temperature of the dilution refrigerator up to temperatures of 300-350 mK. The thermometer shows a strong temperature dependence in this regime, much larger than can be expected from the enhancement of conductance due to the proximity effect. It appears that this strong resistance change is associated with Josephson coupling between the pairs of superconducting contacts on either end of the thermometers. Due to this coupling, the resistance of those parts of the thermometers near these contacts drops significantly, but the entire thermometer does not go superconducting, since distance between superconducting contacts on opposite ends of thermometer is too large for significant Josephson coupling to occur between them in our measurement temperature range. A number of experimental facts support this picture. First, the temperature range over which this strong temperature dependence is observed correlates well with the temperature range where Josephson coupling between the superconducting contacts is expected. The temperature at which one expects to see Josephson coupling between the superconducting contacts is determined by the correlation energy $`E_c`$=$`\mathrm{}D/L^2`$ courtois , where $`D`$ is the electronic diffusion coefficient in the normal metal, and $`L`$ the length between the superconducting contacts. Taking, as an example, the “Cold” thermometer, with the measured value of $`D`$=104 cm2/sec, and the length $`L`$=0.485 $`\mu `$m between the nearest pair of contacts, the temperature below which Josephson coupling between the two superconducting contacts should become significant is $`E_c/k_B`$$``$336 mK courtois , which is in good agreement with the experimentally observed value of $``$350 mK where the resistance starts to drop rapidly (see Fig. 2(a)). Second, the resistance of the thermometers in this regime is strongly dependent on the measurement current. Figure 2(b) illustrates the temperature-dependent resistance $`R(T)`$ at low temperatures of the “Cold” thermometer taken with different values of the ac measurement current. As the ac measurement current is reduced from 200 nA to 20 nA, the overall change in resistance from approximately 350 mK to base temperature increases substantially. Below 20 nA, there is essentially no change in the resistance of the thermometer. Third, the differential resistance $`dV/dI`$ of the thermometers as a function of the dc current $`I`$ through the thermometer is strongly reminiscent of the differential resistance of a SNS junction, except that the differential resistance at $`I`$=0 is not zero. Figure 2(c) shows the current-voltage ($`I`$-$`V`$) curve of the “Cold” thermometer, obtained by integrating the $`dV/dI`$ vs. $`I`$ curve after the $`I`$=0 value of the differential resistance was subtracted. The overall shape of this $`I`$-$`V`$ characteristic is very much like the $`I`$-$`V`$ characteristic for a SNS junction. Extrapolation of the high current part of the curves gives a ‘critical current’ of $`I_c`$$``$40 nA. However, the $`I`$=0 resistance of the thermometer is not 0. The resistance of the thermometer would vanish only if the Josephson coupling between superconducting contacts on opposite sides of the thermometer is appreciable. Using $`L`$=1.15 $`\mu `$m as the length between superconducting contacts on opposite sides of the “Cold” thermometer, the temperature below which Josephson coupling would be appreciable is $`E_c/k_B`$$``$60 mK, at the lower end of our temperature range. Consequently, the critical current between the superconducting contacts on opposite sides of the thermometer is expected to be exponentially smaller, so it is not surprising that we observe a finite resistance of the thermometer even at our lowest temperatures. It should also be noted that, in spite of our best efforts to shield all sources of extrinsic noise, there may still be some noise coupled to the sample, which suppresses the critical current across the thermometers.

The second regime in Fig. 2(a) is the proximity effect regime (from $``$350 mK up to $`T_c`$). The resistance of a normal metal in proximity to a superconductor should decrease below its normal state value $`R_n`$ when the temperature drops below $`T_c`$ of the superconductor. This is the so-called proximity effect. It is due to the penetration of the order parameter of superconductor into the normal metal gennes . However, Fig. 2(a) shows an increase in resistance of all the thermometers in this temperature regime. Similar behavior has been observed before in proximity coupled devices wilhelm , and was explained as arising from current redistribution in samples with a four-probe configuration, where the width of the sample is of the same order as its length, as the sample is cooled below $`T_c`$. In our device, the “Cold” thermometer, which has the largest width, but the shortest length, is the most likely candidate for this mechanism. This correlates with the fact that the “Cold” thermometer has the strongest temperature dependence of the three thermometers just below $`T_c`$.

The large change in the resistance of these devices makes them excellent candidates for use as local electron thermometers in mesoscopic thermal transport experiments. For this purpose, the thermometers are calibrated at a fixed base temperature $`T_b`$, as a function of the dc current $`I_h`$ through the heater joe . Figure 3 shows the result of this measurement, at $`T_b`$=49.5 mK. These measurements are then numerically cross-correlated with the measured $`R(T)`$ curves shown in Fig. 2(a), to obtain the electronic temperature $`T_e`$ as a function of $`I_h`$. The resulting $`T_e`$ for the “Hot” and “Cold” thermometer is shown in Fig. 4, expressed as a function of the power through the heater $`P_h`$=$`I_h^2R_h`$. Figure 4 shows that a significant fraction of the power generated in the heater flows through the sample, because $`T_e`$ in both thermometers increases substantially when we increase the heater power, while the electron temperature differential $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_e`$ increases only gradually. Furthermore, note that the substrate thermometer resistance shown in Fig. 3 has a very weak dependence on $`I_h`$ at low values of $`I_h`$. This demonstrates that there is very little heat leak through the substrate at low temperatures and small heater currents, showing that heat loss from the electron bath due to electron-phonon interactions is very small in this regime.

The ability to measure small temperature differences in the electron temperature opens up the possibility of quantitatively measuring the thermal properties of mesoscopic samples. For example, in the sample of Fig. 1, if we have a way of determining the heat current through the Andreev interferometer, we can directly measure its thermal conductance. In this sample, the electrical connections from the heater line and thermometers extending out to the outside patterns are all designed to be superconducting. The advantage of these superconducting leads is that they block the heat transport from the device to its surroundings. At temperatures well below $`T_c`$, the thermal conductance of the superconductors is so small that we can assume most of the power $`P_h`$ generated in the heater flows out only through the Andreev interferometer. (Heat conduction due to phonons is also negligible below 200 mK, as noted above.) The heat flow through the Andreev interferometer can therefore be determined by simply measuring $`P_h`$, which is represented by the abscissa in Fig. 4. The thermal conductance is then $`G_T`$=$`P_h/\mathrm{\Delta }T_e`$. For the data represented in Fig. 4, we obtain $`G_T`$=0.12 nW/K, at a heater power of 1 pW.

In summary, we have developed a new type of thermometer, which has a simple structure but strong temperature dependence. It can be used to quantitatively measure small temperature gradients across mesoscopic samples, and to explore thermal properties on the micron and nanometer scale.

This work is supported by the NSF through grant number DMR-0201530, and by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2001-003-D00051).


text:
# A new extragalactic distance determination method using the flux-weighted gravity of late B and early A supergiants1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations obtained at the ESO Very Large Telescope.

## 1 Introduction

Bright supergiants in external galaxies have been recognized as valuable extragalactic distance indicators for a long time, since the pioneering work of Hubble (1936). A number of works have attempted to calibrate photometric and/or spectroscopic signatures of blue supergiants (those of spectral type OBA) for this purpose, but the uncertainty in the derived distances (typically 0.4 mag or larger in distance modulus) have always been a major drawback for these techniques (Humphreys 1988, Tully & Wolff 1984).

The discovery of a wind momentum-luminosity relationship (WLR) for blue supergiants (Kudritzki & Puls 2000) exploits the dependency of the strength of the radiation driven winds of massive stars on stellar luminosity, offering a potentially more accurate distance indicator. While hot O stars provide so far the best calibration of the WLR (Puls et al. 1996, Puls et al. 2002), it is the visually brightest late B and early A supergiants ($`M_V9`$) which offer the largest potential as extragalactic standard candles (Kudritzki 1998, Kudritzki et al. 1999). This can now be investigated for the nearby galaxies ($`D<10`$ Mpc) with multiobject spectroscopy at 8-m class telescopes, as the exploratory work of Bresolin et al. (2001, 2002) has shown. Quantitative spectroscopy of individual BA supergiants leads to the determination of gravities, temperatures, metallicities and stellar wind parameters (based on the wind emission in H$`\alpha `$), which are then combined to provide distances.

In this Letter we suggest a novel method, based on the absorption strengths of the higher Balmer lines formed in the photosphere. The concept is not entirely new, since a relationship between the equivalent width of H$`\gamma `$ and $`M_V`$ for Galactic and Magellanic Clouds BA supergiants, together with a temperature dependence, has already been discussed by several authors (Petrie 1965, Crampton 1979, Tully & Wolff 1984, Hill et al. 1986). The recent improvements in the modelling of A supergiant atmospheres in NLTE and the development of new diagnostic tools (Venn 1995a, b, 1999; Venn et al. 2001, Przybilla et al. 2001; Przybilla & Butler 2001; Przybilla 2002) allows us to determine stellar parameters with unprecedented accuracy and reliability. Based on these achievements, we discuss here a promising application on a set of high-to-intermediate resolution spectra obtained for a sample of A supergiants in the Milky Way, the Magellanic Clouds, NGC 300 and NGC 3621, and few additional objects in a handful of nearby galaxies. The theoretical concept is explained in §2, and we present the observational tests in §3 and §4. Future work on supergiants in nearby galaxies is briefly summarized in §5.

## 2 Basic concept

Massive stars during their evolution towards the Red Supergiant stage pass through the phase of late B and early A supergiants quickly and with roughly constant mass and luminosity (Meynet & Maeder 2000; Meynet et al. 1994; Heger & Langer 2000). This means that in this phase the stellar gravity $`g`$ and effective temperature $`T_{\text{eff}}`$ are coupled through the condition $`g`$/$`T_{\text{eff}}^4`$ $`=const.`$ We call $`g`$/$`T_{\text{eff}}^4`$ the “flux-weighted gravity”. Assuming that mass and luminosity follow the usual relation $`LM^\alpha `$, ($`\alpha 3`$), we derive a relationship between absolute bolometric magnitude $`M_{bol}`$ and the flux-weighted gravity of the form

$$M_{bol}=a\mathrm{log}(g/T_{\text{eff}}^4)+b$$
(1)
with $`a`$ of the order of $`3.75`$. This means that for these spectral types the fundamental stellar parameters of effective temperature and gravity are tightly coupled to the absolute magnitude rendering the possibility of purely spectroscopic distance determination. In the following, we refer to Eq. 1 as the “Flux-weighted Gravity - Luminosity Relationship (FGLR)”.

Assuming constant luminosity and, in particular, a simple (one-exponent) power law for the mass-luminosity relationship is, of course, a simplification. One might argue that the mass-loss history of supergiants and its dependence on stellar angular momentum and metallicity will complicate the situation. However, we are encouraged by detailed evolutionary calculations (Meynet & Maeder 2000; Meynet et al. 1994), which indicate for the luminosity and mass range of late B and early A supergiants that the amount of mass lost on the way from the main sequence is still relatively small and that differences in mass-loss caused by stellar rotation and metallicity have no substantial effects on the theoretical FGLRs derived.

Table 1 lists the effective temperature scale for late B and early A supergiants based on the recent quantitative spectroscopic work cited above. We conclude that spectral classification allows for a temperature determination with a relative accuracy of about 4 percent. Then, for a given spectral type (and effective temperature) the higher Balmer lines as typical photospheric absorption lines allow for a rather precise determination of the gravity even for only medium resolution spectra of faint and distant objects (see Fig. 1). Assuming a typical relative uncertainty of 0.05 for $`\mathrm{log}g`$ we estimate the uncertainty in $`M_{bol}`$ from Eq. (1) to be about 0.3 mag for a single object. This is a very encouraging estimate. Note that at this point we do not have to worry about absolute errors in the determination of $`g`$ and $`T_{\text{eff}}`$, as long as we calibrate the method with a stellar sample at a known distance and apply the method strictly differentially.

## 3 Supergiants in NGC 300 and NGC 3621

Recently Bresolin et al. (2002) studied the population of blue supergiants in the Sculptor Group spiral galaxy NGC 300 at a distance of $`2.0`$ Mpc ($`mM=26.53`$, Freedman et al. 2001). Using FORS1 at the VLT medium resolution ($`5`$Å) spectra of 70 blue supergiant candidates were obtained and spectral types, magnitudes and colours (the latter based on the work by Pietrzyński et al. 2001) for 62 objects were presented. These observations provide the ideal data for a careful test of the new method.

In our analysis we restrict ourselves to objects where we can be sure that the higher Balmer lines (H$`\gamma `$, H$`\delta `$, etc.) are not contaminated by H II region emission, i.e. we avoid objects with clear indication of nebular H$`\alpha `$ emission or with a hint of nebular emission at H$`\gamma `$ above or below the 2-D stellar spectrum. In addition, we select only spectral types within a narrow range between B8 and A4, where we know from our recent work (Przybilla et al. 2001; Przybilla & Butler 2001; Przybilla 2002) that our model atmosphere analysis tools are very reliable, in particular with regard to the relative accuracy of a strictly differential study. For the given spectral types we adopt effective temperatures according to Table 1 and determine gravities from the higher Balmer lines as displayed in Fig. 1. We then calculate intrinsic colours with our model atmosphere code to determine reddening and extinction and use the calculated bolometric correction and the distance modulus to obtain bolometric magnitudes.

The data set for NGC 300 is not the only one available to us. In a similar way, Bresolin et al. 2001 have used FORS1 at the VLT to study 17 objects in the spiral galaxy NGC 3621 at a distance of 6.7 Mpc ($`mM=29.08`$, Freedman et al. 2001). Applying the same selection criteria as above we can add four more objects to the sample and apply the same spectral analysis.

The result of the test is displayed in Fig. 2, which shows a surprisingly tight correlation, as predicted by Eq.(1). The linear regression coefficients are $`a=3.85`$ and $`b=13.73`$, the standard deviation of the the residual bolometric magnitude from this regression being $`\sigma =0.26`$ mag. The objects in NGC 3621 seem to indicate a somewhat smaller distance modulus (by 0.2 mag) than adopted. However, we prefer to wait for forthcoming stellar photometry of both NGC 300 and NGC 3621 with the Advanced Camera on board of HST, before we follow up on the relative distance of these two galaxies.

## 4 Objects from Local Group galaxies

The small standard deviation obtained in Fig. 2 might be an artifact resulting from the relatively low number of objects studied. We, therefore, analyze additional high resolution spectra presently available to us of a larger sample of objects in the Milky Way, the Magellanic Clouds, M31, M33 and NGC 6822. We apply the same technique as before, except for the three objects in the SMC, NGC 6822 and M33, which are extremely metal poor. For those (following Venn 1999) we do not rely on the spectral type, but determine $`T_{\text{eff}}`$ from the non-LTE ionization equilibrium of Mg I/II and N I/II. We note that the inclusion of the galactic objects is somewhat problematic, as their distances are more uncertain (Kudritzki et al. 1999; Przybilla 2002). We also note that the strictly differential character of our analysis using the same model atmosphere and non-LTE line formation codes and the same technique in fitting Balmer line profiles is essential for the internal accuracy of our method. This is why we do not include the results of other published quantitative studies of additional objects, for which we do not have spectra at our disposal.

Fig. 3 shows the FGLR with all objects included. The regression coefficients are very similar ($`a=3.71`$, $`b=13.49`$) and the standard deviation of the residual bolometric magnitude has only slightly increased to $`\sigma `$ = 0.28 mag. We note that the scatter increases at absolute magnitudes brighter than $`8`$ mag (see discussion below).

Fig. 3 also includes the relationship obtained from the evolutionary calculations including stellar rotation and mass-loss (Meynet & Maeder 2000). While the slopes practically agree (note that the stellar evolution relationship shows a slight curvature reflecting the mild change in the mass-luminosity exponent $`\alpha `$), there is a small off-set in log($`g`$/$`T_{\text{eff}}^4`$) by 0.07 dex. This can be the result of a systematic effect in the determination of gravity or in the temperature scale, but it can also indicate a small deficiency of the evolutionary models. In any case, as long as an empirical calibration of the relationship with stars at known distances is used, the accuracy of the distance determination will not be affected.

## 5 Discussion and future work

The results presented in the previous sections are very encouraging. The flux-weighted gravities of late B and early A supergiants are obviously very tightly correlated with absolute bolometric magnitude. The application of this relationship, once properly calibrated, for extragalactic distance determinations is straightforward. It requires multi-colour photometry of galaxies containing a young stellar population to identify possible blue supergiants and subsequent medium resolution ($`5`$Å) multi-object spectroscopy (see Bresolin et al. 2001, 2002) to determine effective temperature and gravity directly from the spectra. The spectral analysis will also yield bolometric correction (which is small for these spectral types) and intrinsic colour so that an accurate correction for reddening and extinction is possible. Application of the FGLR will then provide the absolute bolometric magnitude, which by comparison with the de-reddened visual magnitude will give the distance modulus. Assuming a residual scatter of $`\sigma `$ = 0.3 mag for the FGLR (see Fig. 2 and 3) we estimate that with 10 supergiant stars per galaxy we can achieve an accuracy of $`0.1`$ mag in distance modulus. We are confident that in one night of observing time we can reach down to $`V=22.5`$ with the existing very efficient medium resolution multi-object spectrographs attached to 8m-class telescopes. With objects in an absolute magnitude range between $`8`$ and $`10`$ mag the FGLR method appears to be applicable out to distance moduli of $`mM=30.5`$ or even beyond.

The restriction to medium resolution spectroscopy in the blue spectral range provides significant advantages. Most importantly, contamination from sky and H II region emission is by far less critical than in the red, which is needed as an additional spectral range, for instance, for the WLR method, which requires the measurements of H$`\alpha `$ profiles with at least $`2`$Å resolution. Moreover, the amount of observing time for an accurate distance determination is significantly reduced, if only spectra in the blue are required.

The accurate calibration of the FGLR (and the WLR) will become the crucial element of future work, before the method can be applied seriously for extragalactic distance determinations. Local Group galaxies with well determined distances provide the ideal laboratory for this purpose. Multi-object spectrographs with rather high spectral resolution attached to 8 to 10m-class telescopes such as FLAMES (VLT) or DEIMOS (Keck 2) will allow high quality spectra of large candidate samples in each galaxy with a rather modest amount of observing time.

Such a systematic study of hundreds of blue supergiants in Local Group galaxies will not only provide an accurate calibration of the FGLR. It will also enable us to investigate important aspects of stellar evolution, which are related. The most crucial ones concern the role of metallicity and stellar rotation. Investigating stellar evolutionary tracks at different metallicity and with different initial rotation at the main sequence (Meynet & Maeder 2000; Meynet et al. 1994) we find small, but noticeable effects on the theoretical FGLR. Mass-loss in evolutionary stages prior to the blue supergiant phase depends on metallicity (Kudritzki & Puls 2000) and has a small influence on the FGLR. Rotation affects the strength of mass-loss and the internal mixing processes and introduces a modification of the mass-luminosity relationship in the blue supergiant stage. The effect of rotation becomes larger at higher luminosities. This might be the reason for the increase of the residual scatter at luminosities above $`M_{bol}=8`$ mentioned above.

Another very important issue is the fraction among the sample of observed blue supergiants evolving backwards to the blue after a previous phase as red supergiants. Those objects are expected to have lost a significant fraction of their mass as red supergiants and might form an additional sequence below the observed relationship. Evolutionary calculations indicate that the relative number of those objects might depend crucially on metallicity and rotation. Systematic studies of Local Group galaxies at different metallicity, as proposed above, will allow to investigate this problem.

In general, the observational detection of the tight relationship between flux-weighted gravity and absolute bolometric luminosity is a triumph of two classical areas of astrophysics, stellar evolution and stellar atmospheres. It confirms the general scenario of stellar evolution with mass-loss and rotation away from the main sequence and the predicted mass-luminosity relation. It also confirms the power and accuracy of present day spectroscopic stellar diagnostics. It is very satisfying to see the potential of these disciplines for a significant contribution to quantitative extragalactic studies.