text:
# Heavy Quarks: Effective Theories, Lattice and Models 11footnote 1Summary Talk of the Heavy Quark Session at the 5th International Conference on Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum, Gargnano, Brescia, Italy, 10-14 Sep 2002.

## 1 Introduction

Heavy quarks means charm, bottom and top in the Standard Model (SM). Their masses $`m_c1.5`$ GeV , $`m_b5`$ GeV and $`m_t190`$ GeV are considerably larger than those of the so called light quarks, namely up, down and strange, which lie in the few MeV range. Furthermore, the masses of the heavy quarks turn out to be larger than the masses of the first gapped excitations made out of light quarks only ($`\rho `$, $`N`$, ..), which set the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Most of the theoretical progress on the heavy quark physics of QCD in the last 16 years emanates from exploiting the inequality $`m_Q>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, a job which EFT techniques have proven to be extremely useful at. Indeed, suitable EFTs have been put forward for systems composed of a single heavy quark ( Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) ) and for systems composed of a heavy quark and a heavy antiquark (Non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD)), which nowadays are well established. EFTs however are limited by the fact that they do not address the dynamical properties related to the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, which require non-perturbative techniques, but only parameterize them in a way consistent with QCD and the relevant kinematical situation. Hence they have to be supplemented with additional non-perturbative QCD calculations, most of which are carried out by means of lattice simulations. Unfortunately, many times lattice results for real QCD (with three light fermions) are either not available or not accurate enough. Then detailed information about these systems can only be obtained through models.

Except for the contribution , where general properties of relativistic bound state equations are discussed, the remaining contributions in the Heavy Quarks session were related to the following types of hadrons: (i) mesons composed of a single heavy quark (heavy-light mesons $`Q\overline{q}`$ ) , (ii) mesons composed of a heavy quark and a heavy anti-quark (heavy quarkonium $`Q\overline{Q}`$)  and (iii) baryons composed of two heavy quarks (doubly heavy baryons $`QQq`$) .

## 2 $`Q\overline{q}`$ systems

HQET has become the standard tool to analyze these systems . HQET renders the dependence on the heavy quark mass explicit, but it does not address the dynamics of the light quark and accompanying gluons. Hence statements beyond those which follow from the spin and flavor symmetries  that HQET enjoys usually require external information. This information is mainly extracted from two sources.

The first source is modeling. Models are usually able to produce definite predictions on many observables and hence have the advantage that they can be tested against experimental results or serve experimentalists as a guidance on where to look at. We had a nice example of a relativistic quark model in the session . Unfortunately, since the relation of models for heavy-light systems to fundamental QCD is at the present unclear, their failures do not imply a failure of QCD and conversely their successes do not imply that QCD works either.

The second source is lattice QCD. This is a fundamental approach, which in the past had difficulties to properly account for chiral symmetry and to include light dynamical quarks. The first problem has been overcome in recent years (see  and references therein) and progress is steadily been made in the latter. We had an interesting contribution  where not only the spectrum of heavy-light mesons was studied in the static limit with light dynamical quarks but also the so called radial distributions, which might be used as QCD inputs for suitable kernels of relativistic bound state equation in certain models.

Weak decays of heavy-light mesons, in particular of $`B`$-mesons, are receiving a lot of both theoretical and experimental attention. They are crucial to fix some of the $`CKM`$ matrix elements and hence to give a definite answer to the long standing question whether the SM accounts for all $`CP`$ violation observed in nature. We had an interesting contribution  where $`CP`$ violation was studied through asymmetries in non-leptonic three body $`B`$ decays. Non-leptonic $`B`$ decays usually require factorization hypothesis for weak matrix elements between hadronic states which sometimes are not in a solid footing. Progress in this direction has also been made in the last years (see for instance ) and the introduction of EFTs techniques to address this issue  appears very promising (see  for recent work and references).

## 3  $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems

In the same way that HQET has become the standard theoretical tool to study heavy-light systems, NRQCD has done so for heavy quarkonium . Although the lagrangian of NRQCD is nothing but the addition of the HQET lagrangians for a heavy quark and a heavy antiquark plus local four fermion quark-antiquark interaction terms, the heavy quark mass dependence of the spectrum cannot be easily extracted from it, in contrast to heavy-light systems. This is due to the fact that dynamically generated scales like the typical momentum transfer $`k`$ (inverse size of the system) or the binding energy $`E`$ depend now on the heavy quark mass.

Before the introduction of NRQCD much work had been done, and is still done, using potential models. Writing down a Schrödinger equation with a suitable potential appears to be a reasonable thing to do for two heavy quarks, and a considerable effort had been done in the past to obtain suitable potentials from QCD, both within  and beyond  perturbation theory. Nevertheless, it has not become clear until recently what is the exact relation of such models with NRQCD, and hence with QCD.

A key observation to establish this link was that NRQCD contains degrees of freedom which are irrelevant for the kinematical situation of most of the heavy quarkonium states . It is then convenient to introduce a new EFT, which was called potential NRQCD (pNRQCD) , where the irrelevant degrees of freedom are integrated out . At leading order pNRQCD reduces to a Schödinger equation, although the aspect (explicit degrees of freedom) of the pNRQCD lagrangian beyond leading order depends on the interplay between $`k`$ , $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. We will use this interplay to classify heavy quarkonium states in nature and the various contributions to this session.

The situation $`k>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, $`E`$ corresponds to the weak coupling regime. In nature the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1s)`$, $`\eta _b(1s)`$ and would-be toponium resonances are in this situation. These states are in a very good theoretical control since NNLL  (see also  and references therein) and NNNLO  calculations have recently become available. It is important to keep in mind that the non-perturbative effects in this situation are conveniently parameterized by condensates (local  or non-local  ) and not by introducing non-perturbative contributions to the potential (i.e. the typical linear term). In fact, it would be very important in order to reduce the systematic error of the above calculations to have up dated lattice estimates of these condensates. In any case, precision experimental data on $`\eta _b(1s)`$ would be very welcome to check these calculations against nature. It is then a good new the $`\eta _b(1s)`$ event found at CDF which was reported in this section . The sum rule techniques reported in  are also related to the weak coupling regime. They allow the extraction of $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ charm and bottom masses from charmonium and bottomonium systems. We also had a report on a search for top-antitop resonances at D0 . This search is, unfortunately, not sensible to the would-be toponium resonances  which will have to wait for the Next Linear Collider being built .

The situation $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}>>E`$ corresponds to the strong coupling regime. In nature this situation appears to be reasonable for all states below threshold which are not too close to it (except for the ones in the weak coupling regime mentioned above). Hence most of the experimental results are related to them, in particular three of the experimental contributions to this session: the BES results reported in , which include a partial wave analysis of radiative two pion and two kaon decays relevant to light meson spectroscopy, the Fermilab E835 measurement of the two photon width of $`\chi _{c}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}`$ , and the results from BELLE  which include a puzzling enhancement of double charmonium production (See  for a possible explanation). We also had an important theoretical contribution  with estimates on branching ratios of various production and decay channels for the missing quarkonium states below threshold ($`\eta _b`$, $`h_b`$ , $`h_c`$ and $`D`$-wave states). Let me make a few remarks concerning this contribution, which also apply to any potential model calculation. Potential models are indeed EFTs of QCD in this kinematical situation  provided that: (i) the interaction with pseudo-Goldstone bosons, which is small, is neglected, (ii) the potentials in the model are the ones obtained from QCD , or a good approximation to them (see for instance ), and (iii) the usual formulas for the decay widths are corrected in order to properly take into account the contributions of the NRQCD color octet operators . Similar modifications are expected in the production formulas but they have not been worked out yet. It would be very useful for eventual tests of QCD in heavy quarkonium physics that potential model practitioners take into account these facts in their calculations.

## 4 $`QQq`$ systems

In contrast to $`Q\overline{q}`$ and $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems, no specific EFT has been built for doubly heavy baryons (yet). Hence, almost all theoretical information available on them is based on models, from which we had a nice example in this session . It is interesting to elucidate how the missing EFT for $`QQq`$ systems would look like . Following the ideas of  we should first integrate out degrees of freedom with energies at the scale $`m_Q`$ or higher. We would get the HQET lagrangian plus four fermion quark-quark local interaction terms, which would be nothing but NRQCD in the heavy quark-quark sector. This lagrangian can either be used to produce lattice results, analogously to $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems (see for instance ), or as a starting point of further EFTs which, hopefully, would be closer to available models, like pNRQCD for $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems is to potential models. In the weak coupling regime the $`Q`$-$`Q`$ interaction has an attractive channel and a repulsive one (like the $`Q`$-$`\overline{Q}`$ interaction) . Hence for very large $`m_Q`$ the attractive channel would give rise to Coulomb-type bound states between the two quarks of energy $`Em_Q\alpha _s^2`$ . If $`m_Q\alpha _s^2>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, one could built an EFT for the $`Q`$-$`Q`$ pair analogous to pNRQCD in the weak coupling regime . The interaction of each Coulomb-type bound state with the non-perturbative gluons would produce a HQET-like spectrum for the remaining interaction with the light quark . In the strong coupling regime, namely when the typical momentum transfer between the heavy quarks $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, the light quark is expected to affect the leading interaction between the heavy quarks in a similar way as the so called hybrid potentials for $`Q\overline{Q}`$ states are affected by the gluonic quantum numbers , which is in turn reminiscent of the fact that valence electrons modify the interaction between ions in a non-trivial way in molecular physics. It would be important to have lattice estimates of $`QQ`$ potentials (static energies) for different quantum numbers of the light degrees of freedom. Finally, let me note that these interesting systems are expected to be produced experimentally soon. In fact, a few states have already been reported .

## 5  Discussion

The main issue at this conference is the understanding of the quark confinement mechanism, which turns it into a prominently theoretical event. This is why I have put little emphasis on the experimental results. In order to partially compensate for it, let me just recall that most of the excitement in heavy quark physics is nowadays driven by experiment. Indeed experimental groups have had the larger representation ever in the heavy quark session of this conference. This is not accidental. Many years after the discovery of the first charmonium and bottomonium states, we see now close the time where the full spectrum below threshold will finally be uncovered, and precision data for many states is becoming available. Not to mention the wealth of results in $`B`$-physics among others.

Having said that, let me come back to the links between heavy quark physics and the confinement mechanism. In fact the goal of QCD based theory in heavy quark physics has been the parameterization of non-perturbative effects in a way as generic as possible so that any detail depending on the confinement mechanism is encoded in a number of parameters (for instance NRQCD matrix elements) or functions (for instance the Isgur-Wise function). Since these parameters and functions can be extracted from experimental data, heavy quark physics may help to discern between different confinement mechanism in nature (e.g. monopoles  versus vortex ) if these mechanism provide different numbers or different shapes for the above mentioned parameters or functions.

In any case, progress in QCD based theory for heavy quarks goes on basically (but not only) along two lines: EFTs and improved lattice simulations. Still the use of phenomenological models is unavoidable to obtain estimates for many observables. I would like to emphasize that the cooperation between these three approaches may provide important results in the near future. For this cooperation to be successful, it is required that potential model practitioners try to up-grade their models to make them compatible with the current EFTs results and lattice QCD practitioners provide the non-perturbative QCD inputs that are necessary to EFTs.

Let me put an example to illustrate that this is an efficient way to proceed. Suppose we want to calculate the charmonium and bottomonium spectrum from QCD. Let us restrict for simplicity to vector and pseudoscalar states. If we insist in doing the calculation directly from the QCD lagrangian, we would have to calculate non-perturbatively four different two point functions, two of them with five dynamical quarks and the remaining two with four. If we instead use NRQCD at leading order, the calculation reduces considerably. Since spin symmetry tells us that pseudoscalars and vectors are roughly degenerated, we only have to calculate two two point functions with three dynamical quarks . If we go further and use pNRQCD we only have to calculate the static potential with three dynamical quarks 222I am assuming here that the $`1/m`$ potential is subleading., which is a much simpler non-perturbative calculation than any two point function either in QCD or NRQCD. The advantage of using pNRQCD becomes even clearer if we wish next to do the same calculations for the $`B_c`$ system. For a QCD calculation we would have to calculate two extra two point functions, for NRQCD one extra two point function, and for pNRQCD nothing: the same static potential used for charmonium and bottomonium can be used for the $`B_c`$ system as well. Furthermore, since many potential models use potentials which are similar to the lattice QCD static potential (e.g. the Cornell potential ) and reproduce data quite well, we are now close to be actually testing QCD.

Elaborating further on the proposal above, let me finally mention a few lattice calculations which are needed to make the link between potential models and QCD quantitative. First of all, the evaluation of the $`1/m`$ potential discovered in . This potential has been ignored so far in potential models, but on general grounds it could be as important as the static potential. The phenomenological success of potential models (based on the static potential only) suggests that this will not be the case, but it should be confirmed by lattice data. Second, an updated evaluation of the spin dependent potentials  would also be helpful. Finally, it has been shown in  that the inclusive decay widths require a few universal non-perturbative parameters, which should also be calculated on the lattice.

## 6 Conclusions

Let me just conclude with a few sentences which are intended to flash what is going on in the field: (i) there is lot of excitement in experiment, (ii) progress from QCD persists, mainly through the use of EFT techniques and improved lattice simulations, and (iii) a great deal of modeling is still needed for many observables.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Geoffrey Bodwin and Dieter Gromes for suggestions on the preparation of the talk, and to Antonio Pineda for a careful reading of this written version of it. This work is partially supported by MyCT and Feder, FPA2001-3598, and by CIRIT, 2001SGR-00065.


format: text

text:
# Hot plasma in clusters of galaxies, the largest objects in the universe

## I Introduction

Clusters of galaxies are the largest relaxed structures in the Universe. They were initially discovered in optical observations, where clusters appear as concentrations containing $`10^2`$ bright galaxies and $`10^3`$ faint galaxies in a region which is typically $`2`$ Mpc in radius (1 megaparsec $`=3.09\times 10^{24}`$ cm) Abell et al. (1989). For example, Figure (1, left panel) shows the optical image of the central region of the nearby Coma cluster showing many galaxies. In their central regions, clusters are about $`10^3`$ times denser than the average of material in the Universe. Clusters of galaxies are very important cosmological probes Bahcall (2000). Essentially, they are the only objects in the Universe are both small enough to have achieved dynamical equilibrium during the age of the Universe, and large enough to contain a fair sample of the material in the Universe (e.g., the average ratio of baryonic to dark matter).

Although they were first observed as collections of galaxies, the dominant form of matter which has been observed in clusters of galaxies is hot diffuse plasma Sarazin (1986). This intracluster medium (ICM) has typical temperatures of $`7\times 10^7`$ K and typical electron number densities of $`n_e10^3`$ cm-3. At these temperatures, the dominant form of radiation from a plasma is X-ray emission, mainly from thermal bremsstrahlung but also from collisionally excited line emission. As a result, clusters of galaxies are generally very luminous X-ray emitters, with luminosities of $`L_X10^{43}10^{45}`$ ergs s-1. Clusters are second only to quasars as the most luminous X-ray sources in the Universe. For example, Figure (1, right panel) shows the X-ray image of the same central region of the Coma cluster as the left panel. Although the ICM is diffuse, it fills all of the volume between and within the galaxies in clusters, and as a result its mass is large. The total mass of hot plasma in a cluster is typically $`M_{gas}10^{14}M_{}`$, where $`M_{}=1.99\times 10^{33}`$ g is the mass of the Sun. In large clusters, the total mass of hot gas exceeds the mass of all the stars and galaxies by a factor of $``$5. Hot intracluster plasma is the dominant form of baryonic matter in clusters. In general, we now believe that most of the baryonic matter in the low redshift Universe is in the form of hot intergalactic plasma.

## II Physical Properties of the Intracluster Plasma

The mean free paths of electrons and ions in a plasma without a magnetic field are determined by Coulomb collisions. The mean free path of electrons (which is nearly the same as that protons) is Spitzer (1956)

$$\lambda _e=\frac{3^{3/2}(kT)^2}{4\pi ^{1/2}n_ee^4\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}23\left(\frac{T}{10^8\mathrm{K}}\right)^2\left(\frac{n_e}{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}\right)^1\mathrm{kpc},$$
(1)
where $`n_e`$ is the electron number density, the Coulomb logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }38`$, and 1 kpc $`=3.09\times 10^{21}`$ cm. This is about 1% of the radius of a cluster, which suggests that the intracluster plasma can be treated as a fluid. The gyroradii in the intracluster magnetic field are much smaller than this (Sec. III).

The timescale for Coulomb collisions between electrons to bring them into kinetic equilibrium (an isotropic Maxwellian velocity distribution) is about Spitzer (1956)

$$t_{\mathrm{eq}}(e,e)3.3\times 10^5\left(\frac{T}{10^8\mathrm{K}}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{n_e}{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}\right)^1\mathrm{yr}.$$
(2)
The time scale for protons to equilibrate among themselves is $`t_{\mathrm{eq}}(p,p)(m_p/m_e)^{1/2}`$ $`t_{\mathrm{eq}}(e,e)`$ or roughly 43 times longer than the value in Equation (2). Similarly, time scale for the electrons and ions to reach equipartition (equal temperatures) is $`t_{\mathrm{eq}}(p,e)(m_p/m_e)t_{\mathrm{eq}}(e,e)`$, or roughly 1870 times the value in Equation (2). All of these are shorter than the typical ages of clusters of $`>10^9`$ yr. Thus, the intracluster plasma can generally be characterized by a Maxwellian distribution at a kinetic temperature $`T`$. Because the radiation field is much more diffuse than a blackbody at the kinetic temperature, the gas if far from thermodynamic equilibrium in terms of the populations of excited levels of ions and the ionization state. However, the gas is in “coronal equilibrium”; most bound electrons are in their ground levels, they are in excitation equilibrium, and the gas is in ionization equilibrium.

The sound crossing time for a cluster is

$$t_s\frac{D}{c_s}6.6\times 10^8\left(\frac{T}{10^8\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{D}{\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)\mathrm{yr},$$
(3)
Here, $`D`$ is the diameter of the cluster, and $`c_s`$ is the sound speed. This is somewhat smaller than the likely ages of clusters, so unless they are being disturbed (Sec. IV), the gas should be nearly in hydrostatic equilibrium. For a spherical cluster in hydrostatic equilibrium, the gas distribution is given by

$$\frac{1}{\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{gas}}}{dr}=\frac{GM(r)}{r^2},$$
(4)
where $`M(r)`$ is the total cluster mass within a radius $`r`$. The gas pressure in the ICM is given by the ideal gas law, $`P_{\mathrm{gas}}=\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}kT/(\mu m_H)`$, where $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the mass density in the gas, and $`\mu m_H`$ gives the mean mass per particle. One often assumes that magnetic forces, pressure from relativistic particles, and other forces are relatively weak in clusters, although it is not certain that this is correct (Sec. III). Equation (4) has been used to determine the total masses or total density profiles of clusters by solving for $`M(r)`$. The temperature of the ICM can be determined from observations of the X-ray spectrum of the gas, while the X-ray surface brightness can easily be de-projected to give the gas density. Such measurements indicate that the total masses of large clusters are about $`10^{15}M_{}`$, which considerably exceed the total mass of all of the intracluster gas and of all the galaxies combined. As such, clusters provide some of the strongest evidence for the domination of (probably nonbaryonic) dark matter on large scales in the Universe. In a typical large cluster, $``$16% of the mass is in hot ICM, $``$3% of the mass is in stars and galaxies, and $``$81% of the mass appears to be dark matter.

As is true of most materials in the Universe, the ICM consists primarily of ionized hydrogen ($`71`$% of mass) and helium ($`28`$% of mass). However, the ICM does contain a significant amount of the common heavier elements (O, Fe, etc.; $`1`$% of mass). This fraction is only about a factor of 2–3 times smaller than the fraction in the Sun. Many of these heavy elements are detected through X-ray lines observed in the spectra of clusters of galaxies; these lines occur because the heavier elements are not quite completely ionized, even at the high temperatures in clusters. Because most of the baryonic matter in clusters is in the ICM, it turns out that most of the heavy elements are actually located there as well. Hydrogen and helium are formed in the Big Bang, but the only source of the common heavier elements is fusion reactions in the centers of stars. At present, the only significant populations of stars are located in galaxies. The dispersal of heavy element into the diffuse intracluster gas required that stars in galaxies be disrupted by supernova explosions, and that the enriched gas escape the gravity of the galaxy in which the stars are located. Detailed models for the chemical evolution of the ICM suggest that about 25% of the gas originated in stars in galaxies, and that the remaining 75% came from primordial intergalactic gas. Because there is presently about five times as much mass in the ICM as in stars and galaxies, this requires that the galaxies located in clusters lost significant amounts of their baryonic content. At present, the galactic population in clusters of galaxies consists mainly of elliptical (E) and lenticular (S0) galaxies, which have only low mass stars which do not produce a high rate of supernovae. To explain the large amounts of heavy elements in the ICM, these galaxies must have had much higher rates of star formation and supernovae at earlier times, possibly associated with the formation of the galaxies.

Initially, the very high temperature ($`10^8`$ K) of the ICM might seem surprising. However, this is one feature of clusters which is easily understood. Clusters of galaxies contain enormous masses of material, and have very deep gravitational potential wells. Almost any natural process which introduces gas into clusters will cause it to move very rapidly and be shock-heated to roughly the observed temperature. For example, if the ICM fell into clusters, it would be accelerated to roughly the escape speed from clusters, which is $`2000`$ km/s. A portion of the ICM may have been ejected from galaxies; galaxies in clusters move on random orbits with velocities of $`1000`$ km/s. In either case, infalling or ejected gas would encounter other gas moving at similar velocities, and would be undergo strong hydrodynamical shocks. Shocks at speeds of $`1000`$ km/s heat gas to temperatures of $`10^8`$ K.

## III Magnetic Fields and Relativistic Particles

Although the ICM is dominated in mass and energetically by thermal plasma, it does contain magnetic fields and populations of relativistic, nonthermal particles as well. The most direct way to measure the magnetic field in clusters of galaxies is through the Faraday rotation of the polarization of background or embedded radio sources Clarke et al. (2001). Most strong extragalactic radio sources emit synchrotron radiation which is strongly linearly polarized. When this radiation passes through a magnetized plasma, the plane of polarization is rotated through an angle

$$\varphi =(RM)\lambda ^2,$$
(5)
where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of the radiation. The rotation measure, $`RM`$, is given by

$$RM=\frac{e^3}{2\pi m_e^2c^4}n_eB_{}𝑑l,$$
(6)
where $`l`$ is the path length through the medium, and $`B_{}`$ is the component of the magnetic field parallel to the direction of propagation of the radiation. The rotation measures seen through the central regions of clusters are $`RM100`$ rad m-2. Unfortunately, Equation (6) shows that the rotation measure only determines an integral of $`B_{}`$ along the line of sight. and this integral is strongly affected by the poorly known topology of the magnetic field. Field reversals along the line of sight will greatly reduce $`RM`$. If one assumes that the coherence length of the field is about 10 kpc, the rotation measure observations suggest that the typical magnetic field strength is $`B5\mu `$G Clarke et al. (2001). This would imply that the fields are still significantly subthermal; the ratio of magnetic to gas pressures is only $`(P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}})0.05`$. In the central regions of clusters with cooling cores (Sec. V), much larger rotations measures are observed ($`RM10^4`$ rad m-2), which suggest that the magnetic fields in these regions may approach equipartition with the gas pressure.

In addition to the thermal plasma in the intracluster medium, significant population of relativistic electrons are observed in some clusters. The observations are crudely consistent with a power-law distribution for the relativistic particles; that is, $`N_e(E)E^p`$, where $`N_e(E)dE`$ gives the number of electrons with energies in the range $`EE+dE`$. Similar distributions are seen in other astrophysical plasmas including the Galactic cosmic rays. However, it is likely that the particle distributions are more complex, and also vary spatially. Relativistic electrons interact with the intracluster magnetic field to produce synchrotron radio emission; the electrons which produce the emission typically have energies $`10`$ GeV. Diffuse emission, not associated with any individual galaxy, is seen in $``$40 clusters of galaxies; when the emission is centrally located, the sources are called “cluster radio halos,” while “cluster radio relics” are peripherally located Giovannini and Feretti (2002). For example, Figure (2) shows two radio relic sources in the cluster Abell 3667 Rottgering et al. (1997).

Relativistic electrons in clusters can also produce observable emission through the inverse Compton scattering of low energy photons; the main source of these photons in clusters of galaxies is the Cosmic Microwave Background. Typically, inverse Compton scattering produces emission which is observable either in the extreme-uv/soft X-ray band (near 0.1 keV) or in the the hard X-ray band (20–100 keV). Recently, inverse Compton hard X-ray emission has been detected from several clusters Fusco-Femiano et al. (1999), Extreme-uv/soft X-ray emission, which might also be from relativistic electrons, may have also been detected Sarazin and Lieu (1998). Detecting both inverse Compton and synchrotron emission from the same population of relativistic electrons is useful, because the synchrotron emission depends on the product of the energy density in relativistic electrons and that in the magnetic field, while inverse Compton emission depends on the product of the energy density in relativistic electrons and that in the Cosmic Microwave Background (which is very well determined). In principle, the combination of these two measurements allows both the total energy in relativistic electrons and the magnetic field strength to be determined. However, one needs to assume that the particles and magnetic field have the same distribution and that both are reasonably uniform, which may not be true. For the very few clusters with such data, the present observations and this simple argument suggest that the magnetic field strengths are $`0.5\mu `$G, about an order of magnitude smaller than those derived from Faraday rotation. This disagreement may indicate that the assumption of a similar and uniform distribution for the particles and magnetic fields is wrong; for example, the magnetic field in clusters may be very inhomogeneous. Assuming these uncertain values are correct, the energy density and pressure in relativistic electrons may be a few percent of values for the thermal plasma in clusters. However, the total contribution from relativistic particles is also uncertain because the ions have not been detected.

## IV Cluster Mergers: the Most Energetic Events Since the Big Bang

There now is considerable evidence that clusters of galaxies and other large structures in the Universe form hierarchically; that is, smaller structures form first, and gravity pulls these smaller structures together to make larger structures. Clusters of galaxies form by the merger of smaller subclusters and groups of galaxies.

Major cluster mergers, in which two subclusters with a total mass of $`10^{15}M_{}`$ collide together at velocities of more than 2000 km/s, are the most energetic events which have occurred in the Universe since the Big Bang itself Sarazin (2002). Cluster mergers release total energies of $`3\times 10^{64}`$ erg. The motions in cluster mergers are transonic, and the mergers drive shocks into the intracluster gas. In major mergers, these merger shocks dissipate total energies of $`3\times 10^{63}`$ erg. Such merger shocks are, in fact, the primary heating source of the intracluster plasma. For example, Figure (3) shows the Chandra image of the merging cluster Abell 85 Kempner et al. (2002).

Hydrodynamical simulations of cluster formation and evolution have shown the importance of merger shocks Ricker and Sarazin (2001). The evolution of the structure of merger shocks is illustrated in Figure 4, which shows an off-center merger between two symmetric subclusters. At early stages in the merger (the first panel and earlier), the shocked region is located between the two subcluster centers and is bounded on either side by two shocks. At this time, the subcluster centers, which may contain cooling cores and central radio sources, are not affected. Later, these shocks sweep over the subcluster centers (between the first and second panels). The main merger shocks pass into the outer parts of the merging system (panel 2), and secondary shocks may appear in the inner regions (panel 3). Eventually, the cluster begins to return to equilibrium (panel 4).

In addition to their thermal effects, astrophysical shocks at velocities $`>1000`$ km/s always convert at least a few percent of the shock energy into the acceleration of relativistic electrons and ions Blandford and Eichler (1987). In general, this occurs through a first-order Fermi acceleration process. One would thus expect that merger shocks would produce relativistic electrons, which would be observable through radio synchrotron emission. In fact, cluster radio relic and cluster radio halo sources are seen in many clusters (Sec. III). In every case, these clusters appear to be undergoing a cluster merger; the cluster Abell 3667 in Figure (2) is an example. Recent Chandra X-ray images indicate that the radio relics lie just behind merger shocks; the central radio halos may be due to turbulent particle acceleration after the passage of the merger shock Markevitch and Vikhlinin (2001).

One exciting discovery made with the Chandra X-ray Observatory is the importance of “cold fronts” in merging clusters. Figure (5) shows the cold front seen in the Chandra X-ray image of the central regions of the merging cluster Abell 3667 Vikhlinin et al. (2001); this is the same cluster shown in Figure (2). The cold front is the sharp surface brightness discontinuity to the lower right. When these features were first seen, it was initially assumed that they merger shocks, and that the brighter inner region resulted from shock compression. However, X-ray spectral measurements show that these features are not shocks. The temperature of the denser gas is actually lower than that of the less dense gas in such a way that the pressure is continuous across the surface brightness discontinuity. Thus, the specific entropy is actually lower in the denser region. Shocks are irreversible changes which increase the density, pressure, and entropy. The observed “cold fronts” in clusters are not shocks, but rather contact discontinuities between higher density cool gas and lower density hot gas.

As discussed below (Sec. V), the centers of many clusters often contain relative cool ($`10^7`$ K rather than $`10^8`$ K) gas. It is believed that cold fronts occur when clusters containing such cool cores merger. The gas in the core is dense enough to survive for some time after the merger. As the clusters merge, the cool cores move rapidly through the lower density shocked gas, producing the cold fronts.

Observations of cluster merger shocks and cold fronts can be used to derive the kinematics of the merger Markevitch et al. (1999); Vikhlinin et al. (2001). Most of these diagnostics give the Mach number of the merger $``$, which is the ratio of the merger velocity to the sound speed in the pre-merger gas. The Rankine–Hugoniot jump conditions across a merger shock give the pressure increase across the shock and the shock compression as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_2}{P_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma +1}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_2}{v_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma +1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma +1}},`$ (7)
where $`\gamma =5/3`$ is the adiabatic index for fully ionized plasma, where $`C\rho _2/\rho _1`$ is the shock compression, and the subscripts 1 and 2 denote the pre-shock and post-shock gas. X-ray observations can provide the gas temperature and density on either side of the shock, and the jump conditions yield $``$ and the merger velocity.

For the case of a cold front, the stagnation condition at the leading edge of the cold front gives Vikhlinin et al. (2001)

$$\frac{P_{\mathrm{st}}}{P_1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(1+\frac{\gamma 1}{2}^2\right)^{\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}},& 1,\hfill \\ ^2\left(\frac{\gamma +1}{2}\right)^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma 1}}\left(\gamma \frac{\gamma 1}{2^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma 1}},& >1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`P_{\mathrm{st}}`$ is the pressure at the stagnation point. If $`>1`$ there will be a bow shock ahead of the cold front, and one can also apply the shock jump conditions, (Equation 7). The bow shock will be located at some distance (the “stand off” distance $`d_s`$) ahead of the cold front, and the ratio of this distance to the radius of curvature of the cold front is a decreasing function of $``$. Finally, the opening angle of the Mach cone formed from the merger shock will depend on the Mach number as $`\theta _M=\mathrm{csc}^1()`$.

Applications of these techniques to observed cluster mergers give values for the merger Mach number of $`2`$ and merger velocities of $`2000`$ km/s Vikhlinin et al. (2001); Kempner et al. (2002).

## V Central Cooling Cores in Clusters

At the centers of many clusters of galaxies, the gas temperature is seen to drop significantly from $`10^8`$ K further out to $`10^7`$ K near the center. At the same time, the gas density rises very rapidly, which gives these regions very large X-ray surface brightnesses. The low gas temperatures and high gas densities are the result of radiative cooling of the gas. Since the X-ray emissivity varies with the square of the density, while the thermal energy density is proportional to the gas density, the X-ray radiation we observe can cool the gas most rapidly in the dense, central regions of clusters. In these regions, the radiative cooling times are $`<3\times 10^8`$ yr, which is much shorter than the ages of typical clusters of $`10^{10}`$ yr. As the central gas cools, the weight of the overlying outer gas compresses the inner gas, resulting in cooler temperatures and very high densities. I will refer to these cool central regions as “cooling cores”.

One mystery with previous X-ray observations was whether the gas continues to cool below $`10^7`$ K, and if so, what happens to it. The rates of gas cooling at higher temperature are quite large, and corresponding amounts of much cooling gas are not seen. However, at the center of every cluster with a cooling core, there is a giant cD galaxy. These cD galaxies are the largest galaxies seen in the Universe, and are $``$ 10 times larger in mass and radius than other very large galaxies. The cD galaxies at the centers of cooling flows often contain some cool gas and some star formation, although in amounts which are $`<10`$% of those expected from the rates of radiative cooling of the X-ray gas.

In nearly every case, these central cD galaxies host radio sources. Recent X-ray observations with the Chandra X-ray Observatory suggest that interactions between the radio source and the X-ray gas in the central regions of clusters strongly affects both components. For example, Figure (6) shows the inner region of the the cluster Abell 2052, which has a cooling core. The central cD galaxy has the strong radio source 3C 317. There are central point sources in X-rays and radio which are coincident with the center of the cD galaxy, which is believed to contain a supermassive black hole. The extended radio emission corresponds with “holes” in the X-ray emission, and the radio source is surrounded by a brightened “shell” of X-ray emission. We refer to these structures as “radio bubbles.” Similar structures are seen in many other cooling core clusters.

The pressures in the X-ray-bright shells are nearly continuous with the pressure of the surrounding gas. There is no clear evidence for strong shocks. Thus, it seems likely that the radio lobes are displacing and compressing the X-ray gas, but are, at the same time, confined by the X-ray gas. The radio bubbles contain relativistic electrons and magnetic fields, and emit radio synchrotron radiation.

The total energy of the the radio plasma is $`10^{59}`$ erg. If this energy is eventually dissipated into thermal energy in the X-ray gas, the energy input would be sufficient to balance cooling for about $`10^8`$ yr, which is about the radiative cooling time of the gas. Thus, energy input from radio sources at the centers of cooling core clusters may partly balance radiative cooling, and may help to explain why only a fraction of the X-ray gas cools to low temperatures.

If there were no physical connection between the radio source and the X-ray emitting plasma in a cluster, then any balance between X-ray cooling and radio source heating would be a coincidence. However, one possibility is that the two are coupled, and form a “feedback loop.” Observations of nearby examples indicate that all large galaxies, such as cluster-central cD galaxies, contain supermassive black holes (SMBHs) with masses of $`10^8M_{}`$. Radio sources occur when such a SMBH accretes gas from its environment. In radio sources, much of the energy release is converted into the kinetic energy of a pair of oppositely-directed jets of plasma which expand away from the black hole. Consider an inactive SMBH black hole at the center of a cD galaxy in the cooling core of a cluster. If there is no heat source to balance radiative cooling in the X-ray gas, it will cool and flow towards the central supermassive black hole. Part of this gas will be accreted by the supermassive black hole, and the accretion energy (gravitational binding energy) will power radio jets. These will expand into the surrounding X-ray gas, and will inflate two radio bubbles like those in Figure (6). These bubbles will displace and may eventually heat the X-ray gas, balancing its radiative cooling. This will stop the flow of material towards the central SMBH, and eventually turn off the radio source. Heating from the radio source will be unable to prevent cooling of the X-ray gas, and the cycle will start anew. Various arguments suggest that the radio sources in these systems are very strongly active for $`10^7`$ yr, and that the cycle repeats about every $`10^8`$ yr.

## VI Conclusions

Recent observations and theoretical work indicate that the majority of the normal, baryonic matter in the low-redshift Universe is in the form of hot, diffuse plasma. Clusters of galaxies are particularly striking examples of this. Large clusters contain $`10^{14}M_{}`$ of hot plasma at a temperature of $`10^8`$ K and typical electron densities of $`n_e10^3`$ cm-3. The total thermal energy content of this plasma is $`3\times 10^{63}`$ erg. This plasma emits most readily in the X-ray band. Recent X-ray observations with the Chandra X-ray Observatory have confirmed that the clusters are formed by the merger of smaller structures, and that merger shocks heat the gas to high temperatures. Mergers may also accelerate relativistic electrons. In the central regions of clusters, the hot plasma cools radiatively. Recent Chandra X-ray Observatory images indicate that the hot thermal plasma interacts with cluster-central radio sources.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Huub Rottgering and Alexey Vikhlinin for their very kind permission to use figures from their publications. Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Chandra Award Numbers GO1-2123X, GO1-2133X, and GO2-3159X, issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-39073, and by NASA XMM/Newton Grant NAG5-10075.