text:
# Scaling behavior of the conserved transfer threshold process

## I Introduction

The scaling behavior of directed percolation is recognized as the paradigm of the critical behavior of several non-equilibrium systems which exhibits a continuous phase transition from an active state to an absorbing non-active state (see for instance Hinrichsen (2000)). The widespread occurrence of such systems in physics, biology, as well as catalytic chemical reactions is reflected by the well known universality hypothesis of Janssen and Grassberger that models which exhibit a continuous phase transition to a single absorbing state generally belong to the universality class of directed percolation H. K. Janssen (1981); Grassberger (1982). Introducing additional symmetries the critical behavior differs from directed percolation. In particular particle conservation leads to the different universality class of absorbing phase transitions with a conserved field as pointed out in Rossi et al. (2000). In that work the authors introduced two models, the conserved lattice gas (CLG) and the conserved threshold transfer process (CTTP). The latter one is a conserved modification of the threshold transfer process introduced in J. F. F. Mendes et al. (1994). Both models display a continuous phase transition from an active to an inactive phase and are believed to belong to the same universality class Rossi et al. (2000). The steady-state scaling behavior of the CLG model was investigated recently. The order parameter and its fluctuations were numerically examined in Lübeck (2001). The scaling behavior in an external field conjugated to the order parameter was considered in Lübeck (2002). Furthermore a modified CLG model was introduced which allows to determine analytically the steady-state mean-field scaling behavior of the universality class Lübeck and Hucht (2001, 2002).

On the other hand the scaling behavior of the CTTP was investigated in low dimensional ($`D=1,2`$) systems only Rossi et al. (2000); Dickman et al. (2002) and no external field was applied. Therefore we consider in this work the CTTP with and without an external field in various dimensions ($`D=1,2,3,4,5,6`$) and determine a set of critical exponents. All obtained results coincides with those of the CLG model, strongly supporting the universality hypothesis of Rossi et al. (2000).

## II Model and scaling behavior

In this work we consider the CTTP on simple cubic lattices of linear size $`L`$ in various dimensions with $`N`$ particles. The lattice sites may be empty, occupied by one particle, or occupied by two particles. Empty and single occupied sites are considered as non-active whereas double occupied lattice sites are considered as active. In the latter case one tries to transfer both particles of each active site to randomly chosen empty or single occupied nearest neighbor sites. If no active sites exist the system is trapped forever in a certain configuration, a so-called absorbing state.

In the following we denote the densities of active sites with $`\rho _\text{a}`$ and the density of particles on the lattice as $`\rho =N/L^D`$, which is considered as the control parameter of the absorbing phase transition. The density of active sites $`\rho _\text{a}`$ is the order parameter of the absorbing phase transition, i.e., it vanishes at the critical density $`\rho _\text{c}`$ according to

$$\rho _\text{a}\delta \rho ^\beta ,$$
(1)
with the reduced control parameter $`\delta \rho =\rho /\rho _\text{c}1`$ and the order parameter exponent $`\beta `$.

Similar to equilibrium phase transitions it is possible in the case of absorbing phase transitions to apply an external field $`h`$ which is conjugated to the order parameter (see for instance Hinrichsen (2000)). As usually for continuous phase transitions the conjugated field has to destroy the disordered phase and the associated linear response function $`\rho _\text{a}/h`$ has to diverge at the critical point ($`\delta \rho =0`$, $`h=0`$). In the case of an absorbing phase transition the external field acts as a spontaneous creation of active particles, i.e., the external field destroys the absorbing state and thus the phase transition itself. But considering absorbing phase transitions with particle conversation one has to take care that the external field does not change the particle number. A possible realization of the external field was developed in Lübeck (2002) where the external field triggers movements of inactive particles which may be activated in this way. The external field $`h`$ is another relevant scaling field and for sufficiently small values of $`h`$ the order parameter scales as

$$\rho _\mathrm{a}(\delta \rho ,h)\lambda \stackrel{~}{r}(\delta \rho \lambda ^{1/\beta },h\lambda ^{\sigma /\beta })$$
(2)
with the critical field exponent $`\sigma `$ and the scaling function $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$. Choosing $`\delta \rho \lambda ^{1/\beta }=1`$ one recovers Eq. (1) whereas $`h\lambda ^{\sigma /\beta }=1`$ leads at the critical density to

$$\rho _\mathrm{a}h^{\beta /\sigma }.$$
(3)
In our simulations we start with randomly distributed particles. All active sites are listed and this list is updated in a randomly chosen sequence. In the case that an external field is applied the active particle creation is performed after each update step in order to mimic the external field. After a certain relaxation time the system reaches a steady state where the density of active sites at update step $`t`$ fluctuates around the average value $`\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h,t)`$ which is interpreted as the order parameter $`\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)`$ (see for instance Figs. 1 of Lübeck (2001, 2002)).

Additionally to the order parameter we consider its fluctuations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)=L^D\left[\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h,t)^2\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h,t)^2\right].$$
(4)
Approaching the transition point the fluctuations diverge for zero-field according to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h=0)\delta \rho ^\gamma ^{}.$$
(5)
The fluctuation exponent $`\gamma ^{}`$ fulfills the scaling relation Jensen and Dickman (1993)

$$\gamma ^{}=\nu _{}D\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta ,$$
(6)
where the exponent $`\nu _{}`$ describes how the spatial correlation length diverges at the transition point. In the critical regime we assume that the fluctuations obey the scaling ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)=\lambda ^\gamma ^{}\stackrel{~}{d}(\delta \rho \lambda ,h\lambda ^\sigma ).$$
(7)
Setting $`\delta \rho \lambda =1`$ one recovers Eq. (5) for $`h=0`$.

Analogous to equilibrium phase transitions the susceptibility is defined as the derivative of the order parameter with respect to the conjugated field

$`\chi (\delta \rho ,h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{h}}\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^{1\sigma /\beta }\stackrel{~}{c}(\delta \rho \lambda ^{1/\beta },h\lambda ^{\sigma /\beta }).`$
Setting $`\delta \rho \lambda ^{1/\beta }=1`$ one gets that the susceptibility diverges for zero-field as required according to

$$\frac{\rho _\text{a}}{h_{}}|_{h0}\delta \rho ^\gamma .$$
(9)
Furthermore, one yields the scaling relation

$$\gamma =\sigma \beta $$
(10)
which corresponds to the well known Widom equation of equilibrium phase transitions. Using this scaling relation one can calculate the value of the susceptibility exponent $`\gamma `$ from the obtained values of $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma `$. Notice that in contrast to the scaling behavior of equilibrium phase transitions the non-equilibrium absorbing phase transition is characterized by $`\gamma \gamma ^{}`$.

## III Below the upper critical dimension

At the beginning of our analysis we consider the scaling behavior of the order parameter for $`D=1,2,3`$. System sizes up to $`L=131072`$ for $`D=1`$, $`L=2048`$ for $`D=2`$, and $`L=256`$ for ($`D=3`$) are considered. In each cases we start the simulation with randomly distributed particles. After a certain transient regime the system reaches a steady state where the density of active particles fluctuates around an average value which is interpreted as the order parameter. In the steady state up to $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^8`$ update steps for $`D=1`$ and $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ for $`D=2,3`$ are performed to measure the average density of active sites. For zero-field this procedure is repeated for at least 10 different initial configurations in order to get an accurate estimation of the order parameter close to the critical point ($`\rho =\rho _\text{c}`$, $`h=0`$).

In Fig. 1 we present the data of the one-dimensional order parameter at zero-field. Approaching the transition point the corresponding correlation length increases and the system tends to the absorbing state if the correlation length is of the order of the system size. Instead of a finite-size scaling analysis (see for instance Rossi et al. (2000); Dickman et al. (2002, 2001)) we take care of these finite-size effects in the way that we increase the system size before these finite-size effects occur and use only data from simulations that have not reached the absorbing state.

Decreasing the particle density the order parameter decreases and vanishes at the transition point. To determine the critical indices one varies the critical density $`\rho _\text{c}`$ until one obtains asymptotically a straight line in a log-log plot. The exponent is then obtained by a regression analysis. The values of the order parameter as a function of the reduced particle density $`\delta \rho `$ are plotted in Fig. 2. In all cases the asymptotic behavior ($`\delta \rho 0`$) of the order parameter obeys Eq. (1). For $`D=1`$ we get $`\rho _\text{c}=0.96929\pm 0.00003`$ and $`\beta =0.382\pm 0.019`$. The latter value is smaller than the value $`\beta =0.412`$ estimated from significantly smaller system sizes ($`L5000`$Dickman et al. (2002). Furthermore our value differs from $`\beta =0.42\pm 0.02`$ obtained from simulations of the one-dimensional fix-energy Manna sandpile model Dickman et al. (2001) that is expected to belong to the same universality class.

In the two dimensional case we obtain $`\rho _\text{c}=0.69392\pm 0.00001`$ and $`\beta =0.639\pm 0.009`$. Again the order parameter exponent differs slightly from the previously reported result $`\beta =0.656`$ obtained from simulations of small lattice sizes ($`L160`$Dickman et al. (2002). But our value agrees with the estimate of the corresponding two-dimensional Manna sandpile model $`\beta =0.64\pm 0.01`$ Vespignani et al. (2000).

The estimates of the three dimensional model are $`\rho _\text{c}=0.60489\pm 0.00002`$ and $`\beta =0.840\pm 0.012`$. All obtained critical exponents are listed in Table 1.

In Fig. 3 we present the order parameter fluctuations as a function of the control parameter at zero field. We observe for $`D<D_\text{c}`$ a power-law behavior according to Eq. (5). Using a regression analysis we get the estimates $`\gamma ^{}=0.662\pm 0.071`$ for $`D=1`$, $`\gamma ^{}=0.381\pm 0.013`$ for $`D=2`$, and $`\gamma ^{}=0.187\pm 0.030`$ for $`D=3`$.

In the following we analyze the order parameter as a function of the control parameter $`\delta \rho `$ for different fields from $`h=10^5`$ up to $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$. The applied field results in a smoothing of the zero-field curve, i.e., the order parameter increases smoothly with the control parameter for $`h>0`$ (see Fig. 1). According to the scaling ansatz of the order parameter \[Eq. (2)\] we choose $`h\lambda ^{\sigma /\beta }=1`$ and get the scaling form

$$\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)=h^{\beta /\sigma }\stackrel{~}{r}(\delta \rho h^{1/\sigma },1).$$
(11)
Thus one varies the exponent $`\sigma `$ until the curves for different values of the driving field have to collapse onto the scaling function $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ if one plots $`\rho _\text{a}h^{\beta /\sigma }`$ as a function of $`\delta \rho h^{1/\sigma }`$. Convincing results are obtained for $`\sigma =1.770\pm 0.058`$ ($`D=1`$), $`\sigma =2.229\pm 0.032`$ ($`D=2`$), as well as $`\sigma =2.069\pm 0.043`$ ($`D=3`$) and the corresponding scaling plots are shown in Fig. 4.

Next we consider the scaling behavior of the order parameter fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}`$. The fluctuation data for $`D=1`$ are shown for different values of the external field in the inset of Fig. 1. For finite fields the fluctuations display a peak. Approaching the transition point ($`h0`$) this peak becomes a divergence signalling the critical point. In order to analyze the scaling behavior of the fluctuations we use the scaling ansatz Eq. (7) and set $`h\lambda ^\sigma =1`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)=h^{\gamma ^{}/\sigma }\stackrel{~}{d}(\delta \rho h^{1/\sigma },1).$$
(12)
Using the above determined values of $`\rho _\text{c}`$, $`\sigma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ we get good data collapses confirming the accuracy of our analysis. (see Fig. 5)

Furthermore we determine the susceptibility exponent $`\gamma `$. Using the scaling relation Eq. (10) one gets the estimates of the susceptibility exponents $`\gamma =1.388\pm 0.063`$ ($`D=1`$), $`\gamma =1.590\pm 0.033`$ ($`D=2`$), and $`\gamma =1.229\pm 0.045`$ ($`D=3`$).

## IV At the upper critical dimension

In the case of the four dimensional model we considered system sizes from $`L=8`$ up to $`L=64`$. At least $`10^6`$ update steps were used to reach the steady state close to the transition point and $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ update steps were performed to determine the order parameter and its fluctuations.

At the upper critical dimension $`D_\text{c}=4`$ the scaling behavior of the CTTP is affected by logarithmic corrections similar to the CLG model Lübeck (2001, 2002). As argued in Lübeck (2002) the order parameter obeys in leading order the scaling ansatz

$`\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)=`$
$`\lambda |\mathrm{ln}\lambda |^l\stackrel{~}{r}(\delta \rho \lambda ^{1/\beta }|\mathrm{ln}\lambda |^b,h\lambda ^{\sigma /\beta }|\mathrm{ln}\lambda |^s),`$
where the exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma `$ are given by the corresponding mean-field values $`\beta =1`$ and $`\sigma =2`$ Lübeck and Hucht (2002), respectively. Thus, for zero field the asymptotic scaling behavior of the order parameter obeys

$$\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h=0)\delta \rho |\mathrm{ln}\delta \rho |^\text{B}$$
(14)
with $`\text{B}=b+l`$. In our analysis we plot $`\rho _\text{a}/\delta \rho `$ as a function of $`|\mathrm{ln}h|^\text{B}`$ and vary the exponent B as well as the critical density $`\rho _\text{c}`$ until one gets asymptotically a straight line. The best result is obtained for $`\text{B}=0.15`$, $`\rho _\text{c}=0.56705\pm 0.00003`$ and the corresponding plot is shown in Fig. 6. This value of B differs from the corresponding value of the CLG model $`\text{B}=0.24`$ Lübeck (2002).

Similar to the lower dimensions we consider the scaling behavior of the order parameter as a function of the control parameter for different external fields. Choosing $`h\lambda ^{\sigma /\beta }|\mathrm{ln}\lambda |^s=1`$ the scaling ansatz \[Eq. (IV)\] yields in leading order

$$\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)=h^{1/2}|\mathrm{ln}h|^\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{r}(x,1),$$
(15)
where the scaling argument $`x`$ is given in leading order by

$$x=\delta \rho h^{1/2}|\mathrm{ln}h|^{bs/2}$$
(16)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=s/2+l`$. Varying the logarithmic correction exponents one gets for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.28`$ and $`bs/2=0.12`$ a convincing data-collapse, which is shown in Fig. 4. Using the values $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=l+s/2=0.28`$ and $`bs/2=0.12`$ we get the estimation $`\text{B}=b+l=0.16`$ which agrees with $`\text{B}=0.15`$ obtained from numerical simulations in zero-field. On the other hand this values differs from the corresponding estimations of the CLG model $`\text{B}=0.24`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.45`$, and $`bs/2=0.17`$ Lübeck (2002).

Furthermore we consider how the logarithmic corrections affect the scaling behavior of the fluctuations at the upper critical dimension. As pointed out in Lübeck (2002) the order parameter fluctuations are expected to obey the scaling ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}(\delta \rho ,h)=\stackrel{~}{d}(\delta \rho h^{1/2}|\mathrm{ln}h|^\eta ,1).$$
(17)
A good data collapse is observed for $`\eta =0.10`$ (see Fig. 5) which differs again from the corresponding value of the CLG model $`\eta =0.39`$ Lübeck (2002).

## V Above the upper critical dimension

A modified version of the CTTP with random neighbor hopping was recently introduced in Lübeck and Hucht (2002). There, unrestricted particle hopping breaks long range correlations and the scaling behavior is characterized by the mean-field values $`\rho _\text{c}=1/2`$, $`\beta =1`$, and $`\sigma =2`$ which are calculated analytically.

In our simulations of the five dimensional model we considered system sizes from $`L=8`$ up to $`L=32`$ whereas system sizes from $`L=4`$ up to $`L=16`$ are used for $`D=6`$. At least $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ update steps were used to reach the steady state and $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ update steps were performed to determine the order parameter and its fluctuations. The values of the order parameter are plotted in Fig. 2 and the obtained critical densities are $`\rho _\text{c}=0.54864\pm 0.00005`$ for $`D=5`$ and $`\rho _\text{c}=0.53816\pm 0.00007`$ for $`D=6`$, respectively. In both dimensions the asymptotic scaling behavior of the order parameter is in agreement with the mean-field behavior $`\beta =1`$.

The fluctuations of the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}`$ are plotted in Fig. 3. Analogous to the CLG model the fluctuations are characterized by a jump at the transition point corresponding to $`\gamma ^{}=0`$ Lübeck (2001).

Above the critical dimension, i.e. $`D5`$, the scaling behavior of the CTTP is expected to obey again the scaling ansatzes Eqs. (2,7) where the exponents are given by the mean-field values independently of the particular dimension. The obtained data collapse of the order parameter curves are presented in Fig. 4 and confirm the above scenario.

Furthermore we consider the fluctuations above the upper critical dimension. According to the mean-field value $`\gamma ^{}=0`$ Lübeck (2001) we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\text{a}`$ as a function of $`\delta \rho h^{1/2}`$ and the obtained data collapses are shown in Fig. 5.

Finally we address the question how the critical densities depends on the dimension. As can be seen from Table 1 the critical density tends with increasing dimension to the mean-field value $`\rho _\text{c}=1/2`$ Lübeck and Hucht (2002) that corresponds to an infinite dimension. Our analysis reveals that the critical densities approaches that mean-field value according to

$$\rho _\text{c}(D)\frac{1}{2}D^\tau $$
(18)
with $`\tau =1.48\pm 0.05`$ (see Fig. 7). This behavior is different from that of CLG models on simple cubic lattices which is characterized by an exponent $`\tau =1`$ Lübeck and Hucht (2001).

## VI Conclusions

We investigated the steady state scaling behavior of the CTTP model in various dimensions. The order parameter exponent, the fluctuation exponent and the external field exponent are determined and the corresponding values are listed in Table 1. For $`D=1`$ and $`D=2`$ our results of the order parameter exponents differ from previous simulations obtained from significantly smaller system sizes. Our values of the critical exponents $`\beta `$, $`\gamma ^{}`$, and $`\sigma `$ agree within the error-bars with the corresponding exponents of the CLG model (see Fig. 8), strongly supporting the conjecture Rossi et al. (2000) that both models belong to the same universality class.

The picture is not so clear at the upper critical dimension $`D_\text{c}=4`$. Although the exponents are identical the logarithmic correction exponents of the CTTP and CLG model are different. This result is rather surprising since the logarithmic corrections exponents are a characteristic feature of the whole universality class (see for instance Pfeuty and Toulouse (1994)). We think that more than statistical uncertainties this result is caused by systematic uncertainties of our analysis. In all cases we focused our attention to the leading order of the scaling behavior. Taking corrections to the leading order into account may result in comparable values of the logarithmic correction exponents. Further investigations are needed to clarify this point.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank A. Hucht, H.-K. Janssen, and R. D. Willmann for helpful discussions. This work was financially supported by the Minerva Foundation (Max Planck Gesellschaft).


format: text

text:
# Taming the BFKL Intercept via Gluon Saturation

## 1 Introduction

At center of mass energies above $`\sqrt{s}100`$ GeV, total hadronic cross sections $`\sigma `$ show a continuous rise which persists up to the highest energies explored so far and which is consistent with a gentle powerlike growth,

$$\sigma s^{\alpha _P},\text{where}\alpha _P=0.08.$$
(1)
However, at asymptotically high $`\sqrt{s}`$, hadronic cross sections satisfy the unitarity or Froissart bound, $`\sigma \frac{\pi }{m^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{s}{m^2}`$ where $`m`$ is the smallest mass in the theory. Thus, the power law growth (1), parametrized by the soft pomeron intercept $`\alpha _P`$, can be valid only in a preasymptotic, though possibly large, kinematical regime. So far, this growth is not understood in the context of QCD. Indeed, perturbation theory in the LO BFKL framework does result in a powerlike growth

$$\sigma s^\omega ,\text{where}\omega =\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }N_c4\mathrm{ln}2\alpha _P,$$
(2)
but the BFKL intercept $`\omega `$ is much larger than the experimentally observed one. Inspecting at large rapidity $`t=\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{m^2}`$ the analytically known dependence of the BFKL density $`\mathrm{\Phi }(b,k,t,k_0)`$ of gluons of momentum $`k`$ at impact parameter $`b`$ originating from a gluon of momentum $`k_0`$ at initial rapidity $`t_0`$, two different perturbative (non-unitary) growth mechanisms can be identified in the BFKL calculation:

1. Growth in density: For $`b<b_{\mathrm{diff}}e^{\sqrt{\alpha _s}t}`$, one finds $`\mathrm{\Phi }(b)e^{\omega t}`$. For BFKL, this is the dominant growth mechanism, resulting in (2).
2. Growth in impact parameter space: For $`b_{\mathrm{spread}}=e^{ϵ\alpha _st}`$, one finds $`\mathrm{\Phi }(b_{\mathrm{spread}})e^{\left(\omega ϵ^2\alpha _s\right)t}`$. For BFKL, this is a subleading growth mechanism.

Here, we review arguments that including “gluon saturation”, i.e. parton density effects, in the LO perturbative QCD calculation allows to regulate the dominant growth in density, thus taming in comparison to BFKL the non-unitary powerlike growth to $`\sigma s^{ϵ\omega }`$. This provides a perspective for a perturbative calculation of the soft pomeron intercept.

## 2 The dipole-hadron total cross section

For an explicit discussion of gluon saturation effects, we take recourse to a toy model of a hadronic collision. At initial rapidity $`t_0`$, we consider a perturbative $`q\overline{q}`$-dipole with quarks at transverse positions $`x`$ and $`y`$ colliding with a hadronic target. The dipole scattering probability is $`N(x,y)`$ \[we also write $`N(b=\frac{x+y}{2},r=\frac{xy}{2})`$\], and the total cross section is obtained by integrating over the impact parameter, $`\sigma (t_0)=2d^2bN(b,r)`$. To calculate the rapidity dependence of the cross section, one may work in the target rest frame where $`t>t_0`$ corresponds to boosting the projectile. This boost generates additional gluons which in the large $`N_c`$-limit translate into additional dipoles at different transverse positions. Pictorially: Calculating the interaction of this boosted dipole wave function with the hadronic target and taking the derivative with respect to the phase space opened up by the boost, one regains the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}N(x,y)=\overline{\alpha }_s{\displaystyle \frac{d^2z}{2\pi }\frac{(xy)^2}{(xz)^2(yz)^2}[N(x,z)+N(y,z)N(x,y)N(x,z)N(z,y)]}.`$ (3)
This non-linear evolution equation differs from the linear BFKL equation by the addition of the last term $`N(x,z)N(z,y)`$ only. The physics contained in this modification of the BFKL equation is that of a double counting correction. Namely, for a projectile consisting of two dipoles $`(x,z)`$ and $`(y,z)`$, the scattering probability is the sum of the individual scattering probabilities minus the probability that both dipoles scatter:

$$N(\{x,z\};\{y,z\})=N(x,z)+N(y,z)N(x,z)N(z,y).$$
(4)
The remaining fourth term $`N(x,y)`$ in (3) is a virtual correction required by the proper normalization of the projectile wavefunction $`|q\overline{q}+|q\overline{q}g`$. In conclusion, the BK evolution equation (3) can be viewed in the target rest frame as BFKL evolution of the boosted projectile but supplemented by the double counting correction for the interaction of the evolved projectile wavefunction with the target. The swelling of the BK dipole projectile wavefunction in impact parameter space is thus known from BFKL. The density of dipoles of size $`r`$ at $`b`$ obtained by boosting the initial dipole of size $`r_0`$ to rapidity $`t`$ takes the form

$`n(r,b,r_0,t)={\displaystyle \frac{32}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{16b^2}{r_0r}}{(\pi a^2t)^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\omega t\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{16r^2}{r_0r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{16b^2}{r_0r}}{a^2t}}\right].`$ (5)
To determine the growth of the total cross section from this density, we consider the smallest dipole for which the scattering probability $`N(r,b)`$ is of order one for $`b<R_0`$: If after boosting the density of dipoles at $`b`$ becomes unity, then the scattering probability is of order unity as well. This establishes the non-unitary growth

$$\sigma (t)=\pi R^2(t,Q^2=1/r^2)\text{with}R^2(t,Q^2)=\frac{r_0r}{16}\mathrm{exp}\left[ϵt\right].$$
(6)
From (5), one finds for the BK intercept $`ϵ=\frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi }7\zeta (3)\left[1+\sqrt{1+8\mathrm{ln}2/7\zeta (3)}\right]`$. This expression is parametrically correct but numerically questionable since (5) is based on a saddle point approximation valid for sufficiently small impact parameter only. Still, the numerical value $`ϵ=0.87\omega `$ is compatible with a numerical result of G. Salam  who finds a non-unitary growth of total cross sections with $`ϵ0.75\omega `$ in a simulation which encodes essentially the same physics as (3).

## 3 Saturation without Unitarization: alternative derivations

The above derivation was given in the target rest frame where the evolution resides in the projectile wavefunction. The same result can be obtained  within Weigert’s formulation where the evolution is ascribed to the target. This latter argument can be viewed as establishing the non-unitary growth of the hadronic cross section for a coloured scattering probe. Moreover, it was shown  that the total cross section violates unitarity for a colourless projectile as soon as it does so for a coloured one. These three arguments are independent of each other but consistent with each other and with Ref. . They establish that while the BK equation ensures saturation of the scattering probability locally in impact parameter space (i.e. $`N(b,r)<1`$ for all $`b`$), it violates unitarization of the total cross section .

## 4 Beyond the BK equation (BBK)

In the target rest frame, the only density effect included in the BK equation (3) is the nonlinear double counting correction in (4). This correction sets in as soon as the number of gluons in the projectile state becomes large, even if the gluonic density may still be small. In addition, as soon as the partonic density in the projectile reaches a critical value of order $`1/\alpha _s`$, one expects wavefunction saturation effects which further tame the growth of density in the projectile and are not included in (3). The rapidity scales for these different effects are:

$$t_{\mathrm{BFKL}}\frac{1}{\alpha _sN_c},t_{\mathrm{BK}}\frac{1}{\alpha _sN_c\mathrm{ln}(R_0/r_0)},t_{\mathrm{BBK}}\frac{1}{\alpha _sN_c\mathrm{ln}(1/\alpha _s)}.$$
(7)
At rapidity $`t_{\mathrm{BFKL}}`$, the BFKL equation violates unitarity due to the growth in density. From (6) one finds that at rapidity $`t_{\mathrm{BK}}`$, the BK equation violates unitarity for a (small) dipole of initial size $`r_0`$ incident on a sufficiently extended target of size $`R_0`$. This violation is due to the growth of the projectile in transverse size. The applicability of the BK evolution, however, crucially depends on the nature of the target. If the target is thick enough, so that the scattering probability is parametrically larger than $`\alpha _s`$ \[for a large nucleus of atomic number $`A`$, it is $`O(A^{1/3}\alpha _s)`$\], and if the target is wide enough, so that saturation occurs before the projectile radius swells beyond that of the target, then there is an intermediate regime $`t<t_{\mathrm{BK}}`$ in which BK applies. However, if the target is a nucleon, neither one of these conditions is satisfied.

Wavefunction saturation effects should set in when the interaction probability of a dipole of size $`r`$ with another dipole of similar size is of order unity, $`\alpha _sr^2n(r)1`$. Taking the density growth exponential in rapidity, $`r^2n(r)=e^{\omega t}`$, this indicates that saturation effects beyond those included in the BK equation become relevant for $`t>t_{\mathrm{BBK}}`$.

It is reasonable to expect that projectile wavefunction saturation effects further diminish the intercept parameter of total cross sections beyond the exponent of the BK equation. The reason is that a tamed growth of the density in the projectile due to dipole interactions will result in a tamed growth in impact parameter. This suggests the hierarchy

$$\omega _{\mathrm{BFKL}}>\omega _{\mathrm{BK}}>\omega _{\mathrm{BBK}}.$$
(8)
Thus, one is led naturally to conjecture that a non-linear generalization of the BFKL equation which goes beyond BK by taking into account wave function saturation effects (“Pomeron loops”) provides a perturbative framework for the calculation of the soft Pomeron intercept, $`\omega _{\mathrm{BBK}}=\alpha _P`$. However, this requires that the perturbative growth mechanism occurs in the hadron on a scale smaller than the confinement scale at which the Froissart bound can be expected to arise as a consequence of non-perturbative physics. As explained in Ref., a picture of the proton as consisting of three small black discs associated with the valence quarks is consistent with what is known about hadronic cross sections and allows for this possibility.


text:
# Absence of an equilibrium ferromagnetic spin glass phase in three dimensions

## Theoretical expectations —

In the mean field picture, based on the infinite range Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model , one has the following sequence at low temperature when the concentration of ferromagnetic interactions is increased (see Fig. 1): (a) an RSB phase with no magnetization ($`m=0`$); (b) a “mixed” phase with both RSB and $`m>0`$; (c) a standard ferromagnetic phase. The same phase diagram arises in the Random Energy Model . In these models the mixed phase follows from the existence of a spin glass phase in a magnetic field; indeed, a non zero magnetization creates an effective magnetic field, and thus mixed phases seem unavoidable in mean field. One can also consider finite connectivity generalizations  of the SK model where a spin is connected at random to a finite number of other spins. A study of the associated phase diagram has been performed  for connectivity $`3`$ and again shows the presence of a mixed phase, while the limit of large connectivities brings us back to the SK model. Now the combination of spin glass ordering and very low connectivity most likely inhibits ferromagnetism, so the size of the mixed phase should grow as the connectivity increases. This is what we illustrate in Fig. 1. If mean field is a good guide for three dimensions, then a mixed phase should be easier to observe on lattices with large connectivities; for this reason we shall consider lattices with next-nearest neighbor interactions.

Within the droplet or scaling theories, the phase diagram is very different because any magnetic field destroys the spin glass ordering. For instance, within the droplet picture , the mixed phase is incompatible with compact droplets. Similarly, within the scaling picture , having a mixed phase would require a line of neutral fixed points connecting two unstable fixed points under the renormalization group, i.e., highly singular and non generic flows. Not surprizingly, the absence of a mixed phase is explicitly confirmed in the Migdal-Kadanoff bond-moving approach . This picture works very well in low dimensions, and in particular it agrees with the consensus of no mixed phase in dimensions $`d2`$ . Our focus in this work is the case $`d=3`$ where the question of a mixed phase remains open. Note that high temperature series cannot address this problem as the mixed phase resides beyond the first boundary of singularities. A good way to tackle it is via Monte Carlo; unfortunately, such studies have systematically avoided the question of the mixed phase, focusing instead on ordering from the paramagnetic side. The only attempt to search for an equilibrium mixed phase we are aware of is that of Hartmann  who worked at zero-temperature but was not able to estimate precisely the boundary of the spin glass phase and thus made no claims about the existence or not of a mixed phase.

## The models —

We consider Edwards-Anderson-like Hamiltonians on a $`L\times L\times L`$ cubic lattice:

$$H_J(\{S_i\})=(1\rho )\underset{<ij>}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j\rho \underset{<ij>}{}S_iS_j$$
(1)
where $`S_i=\pm 1`$ are Ising spins and $`\rho `$ controls the amount of frustration in the system. The sums are over all nearest neighbor spins in the First Neighbor Model (FNM), and over nearest and next-nearest neighbor spins (a total of $`18`$) in the Second Neighbor Model (SNM). The quenched couplings $`J_{ij}`$ are independent random variables, taken from a Gaussian distribution of zero mean and unit variance and we impose periodic boundary conditions. This Hamiltonian has both a spin glass term and a ferromagnetic term; for $`\rho =0`$ we recover the standard spin glass model while for $`\rho =1`$ we have the usual Ising ferromagnet. We use sizes up to $`L=12`$ for the FNM and up to $`L=8`$ for the SNM. At these sizes, the heuristic algorithm  we use gives the ground state with very high probability so that our systematic errors are much smaller than our statistical ones.

## Ferromagnetic ordering —

We first focus on the transition from a state where the magnetization per spin $`m`$ is zero to a ferromagnetic state ($`m0`$). Note that the Hamiltonian has the global symmetry $`\{S_i\}\{S_i\}`$, so $`m`$ is an order parameter for the transition. For each instance, we determine the magnetization density $`\pm m_J`$ (since the $`J_{ij}`$ are independent continuous random variables, there are only two ground states, related by symmetry). Our order parameter is then

$$m=\left[\overline{m_J^2}\right]^{1/2}$$
(2)
where $`\overline{}`$ denotes the average over the disorder variables $`\{J_{ij}\}`$.

For a large excess of ferromagnetic interactions ($`\rho 1`$), $`m`$ will be close to $`1`$, while for a small excess ($`\rho 0`$), $`m`$ will go to zero in the large volume limit.

For both the FNM and SNM, the transition appears to be of second order; indeed our distributions of $`|m_J|`$ always have a single peak whereas a first order transition should lead to two peaks at the transition point, one at $`m>0`$ and one at $`m=0`$. (These two peaks would be generated by those samples that are magnetized and those that are not.) To determine the critical value $`\rho _F`$, we have computed the Binder cumulant associated with the distribution of $`m_J`$:

$$g(\rho ,L)=\frac{1}{2}\left(3\frac{\overline{m_J^4}}{\overline{m_J^2}^2}\right).$$
(3)
The different $`L`$ curves cross very well for both models, giving $`\rho _F^{FNM}=0.385(5)`$ and $`\rho _F^{SNM}=0.236(5)`$. Moreover, applying finite size scaling, we should have $`g(\rho ,L)=\stackrel{~}{g}\left(L^{1/\nu }\left(\rho \rho _F\right)\right).`$ Doing so for the order parameter, we expect $`m(\rho ,L)=L^{\beta /\nu }F\left(L^{1/\nu }\left(\rho \rho _F\right)\right)`$. The corresponding data collapse is very satisfactory as can be seen in Fig. 2 and 3. Furthermore, the values of the critical exponents are close for the two models: we find $`\beta =0.3(1)`$ and $`\nu =0.9(2)`$. These values are within the error bars of those found by Hartmann who studied the case where $`J_{ij}=\pm 1`$ , obtaining $`\beta =0.2(1)`$ and $`\nu =1.1(3)`$. Last but not least, the values of the Binder cumulant at the critical point are all close to one-another. These results give evidence in favor of universality in spin glasses, at least for this particular transition.

## Replica symmetry breaking and sponges —

RSB literally means that $`P(q)`$, the probability distribution of spin overlaps taken between equilibrium configurations is not concentrated as in a ferromagnet. Unfortunately, estimations of $`P(q)`$ are plagued by finite size effets. Hartmann  measured the width of $`P(q)`$ among ground states of the $`\pm J`$ model but, because of subtleties intrinsic to that model, he was not able to determine the location of the spin glass phase boundary and thus made no claims about the existence of a mixed phase. In our work we use a different probe of RSB that seems to suffer far less from finite size effects. The starting point is to remark that in the presence of RSB several macroscopically different valleys dominate the system’s partition function, having $`O(1)`$ differences in free-energy. Extrapolating such behavior to zero-temperature, we expect to have system-size excitations above the ground state costing only $`O(1)`$ in energy. In our models, we characterize the system-size excitations by their topology, following the procedures developped in . First, we produce an excitation by taking at random $`2`$ spins in the ground state, forcing them to change their relative orientation, and recomputing the new ground state with that constraint. By definition, the spins that are flipped in an excitation form a connected cluster; if it and its complement “wind” around in all three $`(x,y,z)`$ directions, we call it a sponge. (For instance a cluster winds in the $`x`$ direction if there exists a closed walk on it having non-zero winding number in $`x`$.) We use the proportion of such sponge-like (topologically non-trivial) events as an order parameter for RSB. In the droplet model, this quantity decays as $`L^\theta `$ so asymptotically there are no large scale $`O(1)`$ excitations. As in , we increased the signal to noise ratio by first ranking the spins according to their local field; then we took the two spins at random from the list’s top $`25\%`$ (or $`50\%`$, both led to the same conclusions).

We have measured this order parameter as a function of $`\rho `$ and $`L`$. Our results are very similar in the FNM and the SNM. Looking at the plot in Fig. 4, there seems to be a phase transition in the FNM at $`\rho _{RSB}^{FNM}0.380(5)`$. Fitting these curves leads unambiguously to a non-zero large $`L`$ value for the order parameter when $`\rho =0.37`$ and to a zero value when $`\rho =0.39`$. In the SNM (see inset of Fig. 4), we find $`\rho _{RSB}^{SNM}0.235(5)`$ and the extrapolations away from this point behave as in the FNM. Note that, within statistical errors, the curves have a common crossing point. Furthermore, just as for $`\rho =0`$, up to the transition point the fraction of sponge-like events increases with $`L`$. It thus seems most likely that these excitations survive as $`L\mathrm{}`$ if $`\rho <\rho _{RSB}`$. This is as expected in the mean field approach, but not in the droplet/scaling pictures.

However, the transition point $`\rho _{\mathrm{RSB}}`$ is close if not equal to $`\rho _\mathrm{F}`$ in both of our models, so it seems to us that there is no mixed phase having both sponge excitations and positive magnetization. This would be in contrast to the mean field prediction.

## Domain wall wandering and $`\theta _{\mathrm{DW}}`$

We now study directly the spin glass ordering, be-it with or without RSB, so we no longer resort to $`O(1)`$ energy sponges. It is well known that spin glass ordering is sensitive to perturbations; the standard probe for this consists in comparing periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions , thereby creating an interface in the system. The typical energy change for such a modification of boundary conditions should grow more slowly than $`L^2`$ in the spin glass phase, with $`O(1)`$ energy changes arising not too rarely, for instance with a probability going as an inverse power of $`L`$. Another important aspect of such an interface is associated with its position space properties: in a spin glass phase, it is “space spanning”. This can be made precise algorithmically by considering whether the interface winds around the whole lattice. We take this behavior to be an indication of the “fragility” of the ground state; we thus consider that we are in a spin glass phase when there is a positive probability that the interface is “spongy”, i.e., winds around the lattice.

We begin with the FNM. In Fig. 5 we show the fraction of instances where the interface is spongy.

The data suggest a transition at $`\rho _{\mathrm{DW}}0.4`$. However there is a systematic drift of the crossing points to the left so the most straight-forward interpretation of our results is $`\rho _{\mathrm{RSB}}=\rho _F=\rho _{\mathrm{DW}}`$; then the spin glass ordering disappears when the ferromagnetic ordering appears, the two orderings do not co-exist and there is no mixed phase.

If on the other hand one really believes mean field to be a good guide, one can assume that the mixed phase is present but only in a very small window, something like $`\rho [0.38,0.40]`$. To make such a window larger and thus to give creadence in favor of a mixed phase, we increase the connectivity of the lattice from $`6`$ to $`18`$ by going to the SNM. There, our analysis leads to $`\rho _{\mathrm{DW}}0.255`$; thus in this “improved” model, the most optimistic estimate for the window would be $`\rho [0.236,0.255]`$. However just as in the FNM, the crossing points of the curves drift and again $`\rho _{\mathrm{DW}}\rho _{\mathrm{RSB}}`$ is very small if not zero, a result quite puzzling from the mean field perspective, not to mention the fact that RSB seems to be excluded in this window.

To pursue the search for a mixed phase, we have studied the FNM in $`d=4`$ for sizes $`L5`$. The behavior is similar to the case $`d=3`$, and in particular we obtain $`\rho _F=0.315(5)`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{RSB}}=0.325(5)`$ (data not shown). But the crossing points of the Binder cumulant which determine $`\rho _F`$ now shift towards larger values as $`L`$ increases. As a result, there is no compelling evidence for a mixed phase and probably $`\rho _{DW}=\rho _F=\rho _{RSB}`$.

## Discussion and conclusions —

In spite of our attempts to render finite dimensional models mean-field-like, we are unable to confirm the mean field prediction that RSB and ferromagnetic order can co-exist. Since we also find quite clear signals for RSB via the existence of spongy clusters having $`O(1)`$ energies in the whole unmagnetized region, we cannot explain our results using the droplet/scaling theories either. (There is no RSB in those approaches.) Interestingly, all the results we obtain are compatible with the “Trivial-Non-Trivial” or TNT picture . In that picture, there are system-size excitations whose energies are $`O(1)`$; this leads to RSB, i.e. a non-trivial distribution of spin overlaps. Furthermore, they are also compact, with a surface fractal dimension $`d_s<d`$, leading to a trivial distribution of link overlaps. This TNT picture forbids a mixed phase as follows. Assume that the local magnetization density (in a big enough sub-volume of the whole) is self-averaging and equal to the global magnetization density. Activating compact system-size excitations will not affect the local magnetization but will change the global one unless $`m=0`$. A well behaved magnetization with TNT then forces $`m=0`$, i.e., no mixed phase.

Other numerical studies, in particular based on Monte-Carlo simulations, are needed. On the analytical side, a computation of the phase diagram on the Bethe lattice with RSB , or field theoric approaches for the mixed phase in the spirit of , would be welcome. Finally, experimentally, it may be possible to test whether magnetization and spin glass ordering can co-exist in equilibrium; however this will require careful checks that equilibrium is indeed reached.

## Acknowledgements —

We thank M. Mézard, E. Vincent, O. White and A.P. Young for very useful discussions. FK acknowledges support from the MENRT. The LPTMS is an Unité de Recherche de l’Université Paris XI associée au CNRS.


text:
# SSSPM J0829-1309: A new nearby L dwarf detected in SuperCOSMOS Sky Surveys

## 1 Introduction

Only five years ago, the first field L dwarfs were discovered in a proper motion survey using ESO Schmidt plates (Ruiz et al., 1997) and in the DEep Near-Infrared Survey (DENIS) (Delfosse et al., 1997). In the following years, the new spectral type ”L” was defined using the rapidly growing number of discoveries from the 2-Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS) (Kirkpatrick et al., 1999) and from DENIS (Martín et al., 1999). Most of the additional L dwarfs found since then are from 2MASS (Kirkpatrick et al., 2000; Reid et al., 2000; Gizis et al., 2000) and from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) (Fan et al., 2000; Schneider et al., 2002; Hawley et al., 2002).

The colour-based search for L dwarfs with DENIS, 2MASS and SDSS data has increased the sample size to more than 200, where the majority of the objects lie at distances larger than 25 pc, the limit of the Nearby Star Catalogue (Gliese & Jahreiß, 1991). Nearby L dwarfs, suitable for detailed follow-up observations, have also been found (see the list of Kirkpatrick et al. 2000 and references therein). However, many nearby L stars are still waiting to be discovered according to the predictions on their number densities from observations (Reid et al., 1999; Gizis et al., 2000) and theory (Chabrier, 2002). The number density of early L dwarfs (L0.0-L4.5) alone is expected to be around 0.002 per cubic parsec (Gizis et al., 2000), corresponding to about 70 objects within 20 pc. The completion of the census of L dwarfs in the Solar neighbourhood is important for investigations of the star formation process, the stellar and substellar luminosity function and the initial mass function.

As demonstrated with the recent discovery of three nearby L dwarfs in the Southern sky (Lodieu et al., 2002), the SuperCOSMOS Sky Surveys (SSS) (Hambly et al., 2001a; Hambly et al., 2001b; Hambly et al., 2001c) provide an effective tool to find nearby extremely red and low-luminosity objects via their proper motion and photographic colour. The SSS cover the whole Southern sky with scans of UK Schmidt Telescope (UKST) plates in three different passbands ($`B_J,R,I`$) and at different epochs with additional scans of ESO Schmidt plates. Since practically all very nearby stars ($`d<10`$ pc) in the Nearby Star Catalogue (Gliese & Jahreiß, 1991) have large proper motions ($`\mu >0.18`$ arcsec/yr, i.e. the limit of the New Luyten Two Tenths (NLTT) catalogue, Luyten 1979-80), we can expect large proper motions for all nearby L dwarfs as well. The reason for the non-detection of L dwarfs among the NLTT stars is the lower limiting magnitude of the first Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-1) used by Luyten, compared to later Schmidt telescope surveys (POSS-2, UKST, ESO). UKST and ESO Schmidt plates are much deeper with limiting magnitudes of $`B_J23,R22,I19`$ (Hambly et al., 2001a). It was thus possible to find the first free-floating L dwarf in the Solar neighbourhood, Kelu 1 with $`R=19.7,I=17.1`$ (SSS magnitudes) as high proper motion object on Schmidt plates (Ruiz et al., 1997). Trigonometric parallax measurements (Dahn et al., 2002) have shown this benchmark L2 dwarf to lie at a distance of 19 pc.

In this paper, we announce the detection of another nearby L dwarf using the proper motion search technique.

## 2 Finding nearby L dwarfs in SSS

In order to estimate the chances to find nearby L dwarfs using SSS data, we have looked through the list of known objects ($`d<20`$ pc) in the southern sky. Surprisingly, all known L dwarfs could be identified at least in the $`I`$ band data of the SSS, except one object, for which no $`I`$ plate measurement was available (Table 1). This does not mean that we are able to find all these objects in a proper motion survey based on SSS, since we need measurements at several epochs for that task. Since all early L dwarfs ($`<`$L5) with $`d<20`$ pc were detected in both $`R`$ and $`I`$ data, there is a good chance to discover this class of objects as proper motion objects if the epoch difference is not too small. The epoch differences between $`R`$ and $`B_J`$ plates are typically 10-15 years. Those between $`R`$ and $`I`$ plates are smaller but with at least a few years in many fields still useful. Even for late L dwarfs within 20 pc appearing only in the $`I`$ band data, there is the chance to find them in the overlap area of the Schmidt plates of different epochs. Former attempts to detect L dwarfs in a proper motion survey based on the APM measurements of $`B_J`$ and $`R`$ plates (Scholz et al., 2000) did not lead to success since only early L dwarfs may show up in the $`B_J`$ band and the search area was restricted to a few thousand square degrees.

There are different possibilities to use the SSS data in a search for extremely red proper motion objects. In Lodieu et al. (2002), the basic search strategy started with looking for objects in the SSS catalogues which were not matched with a corresponding object in a different passband to within a nominal search radius of 3 arcsec. Here we used the opposite strategy: in order to find nearby brown dwarf candidates, we set the conditions that 1) an object was measured in all three passbands within a matching radius of 6 arcsec, 2) the SSS computed proper motion (obtained from comparison of $`B_J`$ and $`R`$ plates) is larger than 100 mas/yr, 3) the object has star-like image parameters and 4) the colours are extremely red, i.e. $`B_JR>3`$ and $`RI>2`$. The proper motion determination was then improved by further positional information from the $`I`$ plates and from 2MASS (if available). Only the equatorial zone ($`17^{}<\delta <+3^{}`$) suitable for follow-up observations from Calar Alto was included in the search. The target of the present paper was selected as one of the most promising candidates in that search. It is called SSSPM J0829$``$1309 since it was found via its proper motion in SSS data (see Table 1).

All measured proper motions of the objects in Table 1 are larger than the NLTT limit of 0.18 arcsec/yr. Proper motions obtained by Dahn et al. (2002) are much more accurate than the SSS based proper motions in Table 1. However, for objects not included in Dahn et al. (2002) the use of SSS data allowed a first proper motion determination (DENIS-P J0255$``$47, SDSSp J1326$``$00) or led to an improved proper motion (LHS 102B).

## 3 Spectroscopic distance estimate

Spectroscopic follow-up observations were carried out with CAFOS, the focal reducer and faint objects spectrograph at the 2.2m Calar Alto telescope. The grism B-400 was used with a wavelength coverage from 4000Å to 10000Å. The combination with the SITe-1d CCD (0.53 arcsec per pixel) yields 10Å per pixel. A slit width of 1 arcsec was used. The exposure time was 45 minutes both for SSSPM J0829$``$1309 and for Kelu 1, 23 minutes for 2MASS J1439284$`+`$192915 and 6 minutes for LHS 2924. The spectra of SSSPM J0829$``$1309 and the comparison objects were taken under very similar atmospheric conditions and at comparable airmass. Wavelength and flux calibration was done under MIDAS using the Calar Alto standard reduction procedure SPECTRUM (written by K. Meisenheimer). The wavelength calibration was checked by means of night sky lines.

The resulting spectra of SSSPM J0829$``$1309 and three comparison objects are shown in Figure 1. We classify SSSPM J0829$``$1309 as an L2 dwarf due to the similarity of its spectrum with that of Kelu 1 (decreasing strength of TiO and VO absorption), which can also be seen if compared to the higher signal-to-noise spectra of Kelu 1 shown in Ruiz et al. (1997) and Reid et al. (2000).

There are no 2MASS magnitudes available for SSSPM J0829$``$1309. The distance estimate has therefore been obtained from a comparison with the photographic SSS magnitudes of Kelu 1, for which a trigonometric parallax ($`d=18.7`$ pc) has been determined by Dahn et al. (2002). Our target is roughly one magnitude brighter in both $`R`$ and $`I`$ so that we get a distance estimate of approximately 12 pc assuming the same absolute magnitude as for Kelu 1.

We have also obtained a higher resolution spectrum of SSSPM J0829$``$1309 using grism R-100 (2Å per pixel) with 1 hour exposure time. Low signal-to-noise features in this spectrum are consistent with Lithium absorption (at 6708Å) and $`H_\alpha `$ emission. This interpretation, if true, would make SSSPM J0829$``$1309 a brown dwarf similar to Kelu 1, but a confirmation by a higher signal-to-noise spectrum is needed.

## 4 Conclusions

We have discovered one of the nearest field L dwarfs, SSSPM J0829$``$1309, which we classify as L2 dwarf similar to Kelu 1. Based on the comparison of SSS magnitudes of these two objects we estimate SSSPM J0829$``$1309 to lie at a distance of about 12 pc. The newly discovered L dwarf is a potential target for both Northern and Southern parallax programmes.

## Acknowledgements

This research has made use of data products from the SuperCOSMOS Sky Surveys at the Wide-Field Astronomy Unit of the Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh. The authors would like to thank Nigel Hambly for advise on the use of SSS data.

The spectroscopic classification and distance estimate is based on observations made with the 2.2 m telescope of the German-Spanish Astronomical Centre, Calar Alto, Spain. We would like to thank the staff of the Calar Alto observatory for their help during the observations.


text:
# Color Confirmation of Asteroid Families

## 1  Introduction

Asteroid dynamical families are groups of asteroids in orbital element space (Gradie, Chapman & Williams 1979, Gradie, Chapman & Tedesco 1989, Valsecchi et al. 1989). This clustering was first discovered by Hirayama (1918, for a review see Binzel 1993), who also proposed that families may be the remnants of parent bodies that broke into fragments. About half of all known asteroids are believed to belong to families; recent work (Zappalá et al. 1995, hereafter Z95), applying a hierarchical clustering method to a sample of 12,487 asteroids, finds over 30 families. The contrast between families and the background is especially strong in the space spanned by the so-called proper orbital elements. These elements are nearly invariants of motion and are thus well suited for discovering objects with common dynamical history (Valsecchi et al. 1989, Milani & Knežević 1992, hereafter MK92). The current asteroid motion is described by osculating orbital elements which vary with time due to perturbations caused by planets, and are less suitable for studying dynamical families.

Asteroid clustering is much weaker in the space spanned by directly observed osculating elements than in the space spanned by derived proper elements. Figure 1 compares the osculating (top panel, Bowell 2001) and proper (bottom panel, MK92) orbital inclination vs. orbital eccentricity distributions of 1,720 asteroids from the outer region of the main asteroid belt (proper semi-major axis larger than 2.84 AU). This region contains all three major asteroid families: Eos, Koronis and Themis, with approximate ($`a,\mathrm{sin}(i),e`$) of (3.0, 0.18, 0.08), (2.9, 0.03, 0.05) and (3.15,0.02, 0.15), respectively. Here $`a`$ is proper semi-major axis, $`\mathrm{sin}(i)`$ is the sine of the orbital inclination angle, and $`e`$ is eccentricity.

The proper elements are derived from the osculating elements by an approximate perturbation method (MK92), and it is possible that the overdensities evident in the bottom panel are at least partially created by that algorithm (Valsecchi et al. 1989, Bendjoya 1993). A firm proof that families are real therefore requires their confirmation by a method that is not based on dynamical considerations, for example, that dynamically selected groups have distinctive colors. While there is observational evidence that at least the most populous asteroid families have characteristic colors (Degewij, Gradie & Zellner 1978, Chapman 1989), even the most recent studies of the colors of asteroid families include fewer than 50 objects per family (Florczak et al. 1998, Doressoundiram et al. 1998, Florczak et al. 1999). The large number (about 10,000) of color measurements for catalogued asteroids (Bowell 2001) recently made available by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, York et al. 2000) allows a detailed investigation of this question.

## 2  SDSS Observations of Asteroids

The SDSS is a digital photometric and spectroscopic survey which will cover one quarter of the Celestial Sphere in the North Galactic cap and produce a smaller but much deeper multi-epoch survey in the Southern Galactic hemisphere (Stoughton et al. 2002). The survey sky coverage will result in photometric measurements (Smith et al. 2002, Hogg et al. 2002) for about 50 million stars and a similar number of galaxies, and spectra for about 1 million galaxies and 100,000 quasars. Although primarily designed for observations of extragalactic objects, the SDSS is significantly contributing to studies of solar system objects, because asteroids in the imaging survey must be explicitly recognized to avoid contamination of the quasar samples selected for spectroscopic observations (Lupton et al. 2001). The SDSS will increase the number of asteroids with accurate five-color photometry (Fukugita et al. 1996, Gunn et al. 1998) by more than two orders of magnitude (to about 100,000), and to a limit more than five magnitudes fainter than previous multi-color surveys (Ivezić et al. 2001, hereafter I01).

### 2.1  SDSS Moving Object Catalog

Most of the asteroids observed by the SDSS are new detections, because the SDSS finds moving objects to a fainter limit ($`V21.5`$) than the completeness limit of currently available asteroid catalogs ($`V18`$). However, SDSS observations, which are obtained with a baseline of only 5 minutes (Lupton et al. 2001, I01), are insufficient to determine accurate orbits, and we consider only objects that have previously determined orbital parameters. The details of the matching procedure and a preliminary sample are described by Jurić et al. 2002 (hereafter J02). Here we extend their analysis to a significantly larger sample, and introduce a new method for visualizing the distribution of asteroids in a multi-dimensional space spanned by orbital parameters and colors.

The currently available SDSS moving object list (Ivezić et al. 2002, hereafter SDSSMOC) includes over 58,000 observations; 10,592 are detections of unique objects listed in the catalog of known asteroids (Bowell 2001), and 2,010 detections are multiple observations of the same objects. For a subset of 6,612 objects from this list, the proper orbital elements are also available (MK92) and are analyzed here. These samples are about an order of magnitude larger than used in previous studies of the colors of asteroids, and also benefit from the wide wavelength range spanned by SDSS filters111The $`z`$ band extends to the near-infrared range and allows efficient recognition of Vesta type asteroids (Binzel & Xu 1995). (Gunn et al. 1998).

### 2.2  Asteroid Colors as Observed by SDSS

SDSS colors can distinguish asteroids of at least three different color types (I01, J02). Using four of the five SDSS bands, we construct the color-color diagram shown in Figure 2. The horizontal axis222See I01 for a discussion of $`a^{}`$ color. is

$$a^{}0.89(gr)+0.45(ri)0.57,$$
(1)
and the vertical axis is $`iz`$, where $`gr`$, $`ri`$, and $`iz`$ are the asteroid colors measured by SDSS (accurate to about 0.03 mag). Each dot represents one asteroid, and is color-coded according to its position in this diagram (note that these colors do not correspond directly to asteroid colors as would be seen by the human eye). As discussed by I01, the asteroid distribution in this diagram333For the position of asteroid taxonomic classes in this diagram see Figure 10 in I01. is highly bimodal, with over 90% of objects found in one of the two clumps that are dominated by rocky S type asteroids ($`a^{}0.15`$), and carbonaceous C type asteroids ($`a^{}0.1`$). Most of the remaining objects have $`a^{}`$ color similar to S type asteroids, and distinctively blue $`iz`$ colors. They are dominated by Vesta type asteroids (Binzel & Xu 1995, J02).

Figures 3 and 4 show two two-dimensional projections of the asteroid distribution in the space spanned by proper semi-major axis, eccentricity, and the sine of the orbital inclination angle, with the points color-coded as in Figure 2. The vertical bands where practically no asteroids are found (at $`a`$ of 2.065, 2.501, 2.825 and 3.278 AU) are the 4:1, 3:1, 5:2, and 2:1 mean motion resonances with Jupiter (the latter three are the Kirkwood gaps). Figure 5 is analogous to the bottom panel in Figure 1.

## 3  Discussion

A striking feature of Figures 3, 4 and 5 is the color homogeneity and distinctiveness displayed by asteroid families. Each of the three major Hirayama families, Eos, Koronis and Themis, and also the Vesta family at ($`a,\mathrm{sin}(i),e`$) of (2.35, 0.12, 0.09), has a characteristic color. This strong color segregation provides firm support for the reality of asteroid dynamical families. The correlation between the asteroid colors and their heliocentric distance has been recognized since the earliest development of asteroid taxonomies (Chapman, Morrison & Zellner 1975, Gradie & Tedesco 1982, Zellner, Tholen & Tedesco 1985, Gradie, Chapman & Tedesco 1989). Our analysis indicates that this mean correlation (see e.g. Figure 23 in I01) is mostly a reflection of the distinctive colors of asteroid families and their heliocentric distribution.

When only orbital elements are considered, families often partially overlap each other (Z95), and additional independent information is needed to improve their definitions. With such a massive, accurate and public database as that discussed here (SDSSMOC), it will be possible to improve the classification of asteroid families by simultaneously using both the orbital elements and colors. For example, the SDSS colors show that the asteroids with ($`a,\mathrm{sin}(i)`$) about (2.65, 0.20) are distinctively blue (Figure 3), proving that they do not belong to the family with ($`a,\mathrm{sin}(i)`$) about (2.60, 0.23), but instead are a family in their own right. While this and several similar examples were already recognized as clusters in the orbital parameter space (Z95), this work provides a dramatic independent confirmation. Figures 3, 4 and 5 suggest that the asteroid population is dominated by families: even objects that do not belong to the most populous families, and thus are interpreted as background in dynamical studies, seem to show color clustering. Using the definitions of families based on dynamical analysis (Z95), and aided by SDSS colors, we estimate that at least 90% of asteroids are associated with families444The preliminary analysis indicates that about 1–5% of objects do not belong to families. A more detailed discussion of the robustness of this result will be presented in a forthcoming publication. Similarly, it is not certain yet whether objects not associated with the families show any heliocentric color gradient..

Proper orbital elements (MK92) are not available for asteroids with large semi-major axis and orbital inclination. In order to examine the color distribution for objects with large semi-major axis, such as Trojan asteroids ($`a5.2`$) and for objects with large inclination, such as asteroids from the Hungaria family ($`a1.9,\mathrm{sin}(i)0.38`$), we use osculating orbital elements. Figure 6 shows the distribution of all the 10,592 known asteroids observed by the SDSS in the space spanned by osculating semi-major axis and the sine of the orbital inclination angle, with the points color-coded as in Figure 2. It is remarkable that various families can still be easily recognized due to SDSS color information. This figure vividly demonstrates that the asteroid population is dominated by objects that belong to numerous asteroid families.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to E. Bowell for making his ASTORB file publicly available, and to A. Milani, Z. Knežević and their collaborators for generating and distributing proper orbital elements. We thank Princeton University for generous financial support of this research, and M. Strauss and D. Schneider for helpful comments.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is a joint project of The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington. Apache Point Observatory, site of the SDSS telescopes, is operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC). Funding for the project has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the SDSS member institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.


text:
# Feshbach Resonance Cooling of Trapped Atom Pairs

## Abstract

Spectroscopic studies of few-body systems at ultracold temperatures provide valuable information that often cannot be extracted in a hot environment. Considering a pair of atoms, we propose a cooling mechanism that makes use of a scattering Feshbach resonance. Application of a series of time-dependent magnetic field ramps results in the situation in which either zero, one, or two atoms remain trapped. If two atoms remain in the trap after the field ramps are completed, then they have been cooled. Application of the proposed cooling mechanism to optical traps or lattices is considered.

A Feshbach resonance Feshbach (1992); Stwalley (1976); Tiesinga et al. (1993) occurs for two atoms when their collision energy becomes degenerate with a vbound state in a closed collision channel, producing brief transitions into and out of this state. In recent years, these resonances have been used extensively to control the interaction strength in dilute atomic gases Inouye et al. (1998); Courteille et al. (1998); Roberts et al. (1998). Here, we utilize some of the unique characteristics of a Feshbach resonance to develop a cooling mechanism that is applicable to two externally-confined atoms. Application of a series of field ramps (i.e., cooling cycles) leads to a cooled atom pair (an atom pair with reduced internal energy), provided that the atom pair remains trapped.

In the following, we first develop the basic mechanism of the Feshbach resonance cooling process. The feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed scheme are then illustrated through an application to a realistic system of two atoms in a trap. Finally, possible applications to optical traps are discussed.

The concept of Feshbach resonance cooling grows out of the observation that the quantum-mechanical energy levels of two atoms in a harmonic trap shift by an energy corresponding to approximately two trap quanta, as a control parameter is swept in one direction across the resonance. Throughout this article, we refer to this control parameter as the magnetic field $`B`$ used to manipulate the atom-atom scattering length $`a`$ in the vicinity of a pole. In other contexts, the shift of the energy levels could be introduced by varying the detuning of an off-resonant dressing laser, or by varying an electric field strength. The ideas presented here in terms of the control parameter $`B`$ can be straightforwardly extended to those other contexts.

The Schrödinger equation for two interacting identical mass $`m`$ atoms under spherical harmonic confinement with trapping frequency $`\nu `$ decouples into two equations: one involving the three relative coordinates of the pair, and another involving the three center-of-mass (CM) coordinates Busch et al. (1998); Blume and Greene (2002). We consider the Schrödinger equation in the relative coordinate for two trapped atoms interacting through a central potential and assume for the time being that the center of mass coordinate is translationally cold. Accounting for an applied external magnetic field $`B`$ through a $`B`$-dependent quantum defect $`\beta _{El}(B)`$, the energies $`E_{nl}(B)`$ associated with the relative motion of an atom pair are given by Blume and Greene (2002)

$$E_{nl}(B)=\left(2n2\beta _{El}(B)+l+3/2\right)\mathrm{}\omega ,$$
(1)
where $`\omega =2\pi \nu `$. Here, the quantum defect $`\beta _{El}(B)`$ depends strongly on the relative orbital angular momentum $`l`$ of the pair, while it depends only weakly on the radial oscillator quantum number $`n`$. The dependence of $`\beta _{El}(B)`$ on the energy is weak on the scale of an oscillator quantum, i.e., $`\left|\text{d}\beta _{El}(B)/\text{d}E_{nl}\right|1/\mathrm{}\omega `$.

As will become clear later, the quantum defect for one relative partial wave $`l`$ for an atom pair, e.g., the $`s`$-wave, $`p`$-wave, or $`d`$-wave, must rise by unity across the energy range $`k_\text{B}\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ of interest, and across the accessible range of the control parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$. In fact, this variation of $`\beta _{El}(B)`$ by unity corresponds to the Feshbach resonance, which causes the scattering phaseshift to rise by $`\pi `$. A simple closed-form expression exists for $`\beta _{El}`$ Blume and Greene (2002); Bolda et al. (2002), which simplifies at energies higher than a few trap quanta to $`\beta _{El}(B)\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{a(E_{nl},B)\mathrm{}\omega }{2L_{\text{osc}}E_{nl}\sqrt{e}}\right)`$ where $`a(E_{nl},B)`$ is the energy- and field-dependent scattering length and $`L_{\text{osc}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/\left(\mu \omega \right)}`$ with $`\mu =m/2`$ denotes the characteristic oscillator length.

In this paper, we focus on an $`s`$-wave resonance, though this formalism can be readily extended to higher partial wave resonances. When an $`s`$-wave Feshbach resonance occurs, the limiting low-energy scattering phaseshift is proportional to the wavenumber $`k=(2\mu E/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}`$. Omitting the subscript $`l`$, the $`E`$\- and $`B`$-dependent scattering length is then given by

$$a(E_n,B)=a_{\text{bg}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_E\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2/(8\mu E_n)}}{E_n+(BB_{\text{res}})E_{\text{res}}^{}(B)},$$
(2)
where $`a_{\text{bg}}`$ is the background scattering length. At the magnetic field strength $`B_{\text{res}}`$ of the resonance a zero-energy bound state occurs. The resonance width in energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$ is related to the width in the control parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E=2ka_{\text{bg}}E_{\text{res}}^{}(B)\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`E_{\text{res}}^{}`$ denotes the rate at which the resonance energy $`E_{\text{res}}`$ varies with the control parameter Mies et al. (2000). Figure 1 illustrates the characteristic $`s`$-wave energy levels $`E_n`$ appropriate for the relative motion of two atoms in a spherical harmonic oscillator trap, as functions of the applied magnetic field $`B`$ for a magnetic Feshbach resonance in 85Rb$`(2,2)+^{85}`$Rb$`(2,2)`$. In Fig. 1, the parameters adopted are $`B_{\text{res}}=155.2\text{G}`$, $`E_{\text{res}}^{}=3.5\text{MHz}/\text{G}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B=10\text{G}`$, and $`a_{\text{bg}}=380a_0`$, where $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius.

Feshbach resonance cooling entails ramping the magnetic field through the region where the energy levels shift by $`2\mathrm{}\omega `$. Figure 1 denotes the initial $`B`$-field by $`B_1`$. For an atom pair taken from a source of atoms with temperature $`T`$, the probability of the pair being in the energy eigenstate $`|n(B_1)`$, and hence, of having the energy $`E_n(B_1)`$, is given by the corresponding Boltzmann factor. By ramping the magnetic field from $`B_1`$ to $`B_2`$ (also shown in the inset of Fig. 1), sufficiently slowly to be adiabatic, the population of each energy level remains unchanged, while the energy level itself is reduced compared to its value at $`B_1`$, $`E_n(B_2)E_n(B_1)2\mathrm{}\omega `$; the atom pair has lost energy. To further reduce the energy of the two atoms, another field ramp has to be applied. In order to do this, it is necessary to return the magnetic field to $`B_1`$ without adding the energy back that has been just removed. A fast, nonadiabatic change of the magnetic field from $`B_2`$ to $`B_1`$ ensures this, since this change simply projects the eigenstate $`|n(B_2)`$ onto the eigenstate $`|n(B_1)`$. Note that this proposed energy reduction (cooling) comes at the expense of an energy gain of a single level (or a few levels, see below for a detailed discussion).

To model the effects of the magnetic field ramps, we have developed a two-channel Feshbach resonance model, based on the single-channel model described in Ref. Borca et al. (2003). Both of these models describe a two-atom Feshbach resonance for a harmonic trap, and utilize a zero-range potential to describe the interaction between the two atoms. The two-channel model has the advantage of allowing for a field-dependent resonance state. In the two channels, the $`s`$-wave radial solutions for the relative coordinate $`r`$ of the atom pair satisfy the equations

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}+\frac{1}{2}\mu \omega r^2\right)u_1(r)=Eu_1(r)$$
(3)
$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}+\frac{1}{2}\mu \omega r^2\right)u_2(r)=\left(E\epsilon \right)u_2(r),$$
(4)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy shift of the second channel from the first channel. The zero-range potential imposes a boundary condition at the origin, which is parameterized as

$$\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}r}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_1(r)\\ u_2(r)\end{array}\right)_{r=0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/a_1& \beta \\ \beta & 1/a_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_1(r)\\ u_2(r)\end{array}\right)_{r=0}.$$
(5)
A quantum-defect-theory treatment, similar to Ref. Borca et al. (2003), can then be applied. The scattering length predicted by this model (when $`\omega 0`$) is

$$a(E,B)=\left(\frac{1}{a_1}+\frac{\left|\beta \right|^2}{\sqrt{2\mu \epsilon (B)/\mathrm{}^22\mu E/\mathrm{}^2}1/a_2}\right)^1,$$
(6)
which can be compared to the measured scattering length to determine the values of the parameters $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, and $`\beta `$. The parameters also affect the magnetic-field dependence of the adiabatic energy states, and their adjustment is able to provide satisfactory agreement with experimental data in the regions of interest to us. E.g., for $`{}_{}{}^{85}\text{Rb}`$, we find $`a_1=435a_0`$, $`a_2=1.485a_0`$, and $`\beta =0.0011618a_0^1`$. Simulations can then be performed by specifying an initial state of the system and numerically propagating the Schrödinger equation.

The simulations reveal the effect of the adiabatic and nonadiabatic field ramps: Assume first that the atom pair is in a pure state at $`B=B_1`$. As expected, the adiabatic field ramp ($`B_1`$ to $`B_2`$ in Fig. 1) decreases the energy of the atom pair irrespective of the initial eigenstate chosen. A nonadiabatic ramp ($`B_2`$ to $`B_1`$ in Fig. 1) causes a state at $`B_2`$ that is not degenerate with the resonance state to project onto a state at $`B_1`$, with approximately the same energy as the initial state at $`B_2`$. However, if the pair is initially in the state at $`B_2`$ that is degenerate with the resonance state, the fast ramp results in a strong projection onto the resonance state. In this case, the atom pair gains energy since the resonance state at $`B_1`$ has a higher energy than the initial state at $`B_2`$.

We now generalize our scheme to the more practical situation of a mixed initial state, and show how removal of hot atoms leads to an intriguing cooling scheme. For a mixed state, the occupation probability of a pair level with energy $`E_n`$ in the relative motion is determined in terms of a Boltzmann factor by $`e^{E_n/\tau }/Z(\tau )`$ with $`\tau =k_\text{B}T`$, where $`k_\text{B}`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $`Z(\tau )`$ is the (relative) partition function, and $`T`$ is the temperature of the source of the two atoms. Based on the results of field ramps for pure states discussed above, we see that application of a cooling cycle (slow ramp from $`B_1`$ to $`B_2`$ plus fast ramp back to $`B_1`$) for a mixed state will do two things: (a) decrease by $`2\mathrm{}\omega `$ the energy of the population in states which undergo a full energy shift between $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$, and (b) increase the energy of the population in the state that is degenerate with the resonance (i.e., undergoing an energy shift) at $`B_2`$ by moving it to the state (or states) degenerate with the resonance at $`B_1`$. We will denote this state from which the heated population originates as $`n=Q`$.

Figure 2 illustrates the effect of a single cooling cycle on a mixed state, using the same Feshbach resonance as shown in Fig. 1. The black line represents an initial $`s`$-wave probability distribution for the states associated with the relative coordinate of an atom pair in a harmonic trap with $`\nu =1`$MHz and source temperature $`T=1`$mK. The red line represents the same probability distribution after application of a slow and a fast magnetic field ramp, for $`Q=10`$. Application of one cooling cycle moves the population of the state $`Q`$ to states with much higher energy, here $`n85`$, evidenced by the spike in Fig. 2. At the same time, the field ramps move the population of each state with $`n>Q`$ to the next-lowest state, which has $`2\mathrm{}\omega `$ less energy. Our numerical simulations indicate that, on average, the net energy of the system is increased after application of one cooling cycle. The few cases where the pair gains a large amount of energy overcomes the many cases where the pair looses a small amount of energy. This behavior is expected, since Ketterle and Pritchard Ketterle and Pritchard (1992) in 1992 pointed out the impossibility of creating a cooling scheme relying solely on time-dependent potentials.

An estimate of the efficiency of cooling can be made by assuming that the population of the state $`Q`$ is removed from the trap, while the population of all states with $`n>Q`$ are moved to the next-lowest state, that is, to states with $`n1`$. This assumes that the range of the field ramps is such that the heated fraction ($`n=Q`$) ends up at an energy corresponding to negligible thermal population (this is the case in Fig. 2), and that all population above a specified energy can be removed. If we approximate the level energies at $`B=B_1`$ by $`E_n(B_1)2n\mathrm{}\omega `$, the probability to remove an atom pair during a cooling cycle is

$$P_{\text{rem}}(Q,\tau )=\frac{e^{2\mathrm{}\omega Q/\tau }}{Z(\tau )}.$$
(7)
The average energy decrease in a cooling cycle is due to the energy of the $`nQ`$ population removed from the trap, plus the energy loss for states $`n>Q`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }E(Q,\tau )=\left(2\mathrm{}\omega Q+E_{\text{CM}}\right)\frac{e^{2\mathrm{}\omega Q/\tau }}{Z(\tau )}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{n=Q+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2\mathrm{}\omega \frac{e^{2\mathrm{}\omega n/\tau }}{Z(\tau )}.\end{array}$$
(8)
Noting that $`E_{\text{CM}}=3\tau `$ (since $`E_{\text{tot}}=3\tau `$ for a single atom in a harmonic trap), and with $`_{n=Q+1}^{\mathrm{}}e^{2\mathrm{}\omega n/\tau }e^{2\mathrm{}\omega Q/\tau }\tau /2\mathrm{}\omega ,`$ Eq. (8) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(Q,\tau )=\frac{e^{2\mathrm{}\omega Q/\tau }}{Z(\tau )}\left(2\mathrm{}\omega Q+4\tau \right).$$
(9)
The energy efficiency $`E_{\text{eff}}`$, defined as the amount of energy removed per atom removed, is then given by

$$E_{\text{eff}}(Q,\tau )=2\mathrm{}\omega Q+4\tau .$$
(10)
Since $`Q`$ determines the efficiency of the cooling process, it is referred to as the cooling parameter. Results from our numerical model indicate that Eq. (10) provides a good estimate of the efficiency.

The time scale for one cooling cycle is determined by the speed of the adiabatic field ramp. This speed in turn is determined by the strength of the coupling between the resonance state and the trap states. The smaller the coupling for an avoided crossing, the slower is the field ramp required to maintain adiabaticity. The coupling between the resonance state and the trap states is related to the resonance width parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$, which can be used in a Landau-Zener estimate of the transition probability Mies et al. (2000),

$$P_{\text{tr}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2}{\left|\text{d}B/\text{d}t\right|}\frac{\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_E}{\left|\text{d}E/\text{d}B\right|}\right).$$
(11)
Motivated by the possibility of experimentally trapping a small, deterministic number of atoms Frese et al. (2000), we now explore the experimental feasibility of our cooling scheme. A Feshbach resonance cooling experiment involves a sequence of cooling cycles. As discussed above, a single experiment could result in a heated atom pair, which in turn would be lost from the trap. To end up with a cooled atom pair, multiple ramp cycles are required. To see the effect of cooling, Eqs. (7) and (8) can be iterated. For a variety of cooling efficiency parameters $`Q`$, Fig. 3 shows the probability for an atom pair to remain trapped vs. the average total kinetic energy (the energy of both the relative and the CM degrees of freedom) of the two atoms in oscillator units. Included in this calculation is the probability that the atom pair is in an $`s`$-wave state to begin with, because the field ramp has no effect on other partial waves. We assume that rethermalization occurs between cooling cycles, which could be ensured by, for example, introducing a slight anharmonicity into the trapping potential.

To be more specific, we consider a crossed-beam optical dipole trap Barrett et al. (2001) which offers a good blend of large trap frequency (for a large $`s`$-wave fraction), isotropy, and anharmonicity (for rethermalization between the relative and CM degrees of freedom). Assuming the dipole trap has an average frequency of $`\nu =10`$kHz and contains two atoms taken from a source with temperature $`T=8\mu `$K ($`E_{\text{tot}}/\mathrm{}\omega =100`$), we see from Fig. 3, solid line, that a temperature of $`0.16\mu `$K ($`E_{\text{tot}}/\mathrm{}\omega =2`$, both atoms in the ground state) could be reached $`10\%`$ of the time by performing less than 20,000 cooling cycles. For a range in magnetic field for the ramps of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B1`$G, and using Eq. (11) with $`P_{\text{tr}}=0.1`$, we see that such a series of field ramps could take place in under $`1`$s. A pertubative calculation accounting for the trap anharmonicity (see Ref. Bolda et al. (2004) for details of a similar treatment) indicates that rethermalization between the relative and CM degrees of freedom should occur on a time scale comparable to a single ramp time for a crossed-beam dipole trap. This will ensure that the relative $`s`$-wave distribution will rethermalize with each ramp and that the cooling of the relative coordinate will also cool the CM coordinate (both of which we have assumed up to this point).

Another possibility would be to apply our cooling scheme to atom pairs trapped in an optical lattice. In this case, field ramps could be performed on the lattice ensemble of atom pairs, with a certain percentage of sites resulting in cooled pairs, while other sites will have either zero atoms or one (uncooled) atom. It may also be possible to prepare the optical lattice by some other means to have a high probability of exactly double occupancy at each lattice cite (see for example Ref. Rabl et al. (2003)). From such an initial state, a Feshbach resonance cooling scheme could be used to efficiently cool atom pairs to low-lying trap states.

In summary, we have proposed a novel cooling scheme that makes use of Feshbach resonances. We have also shown that such a cooling scheme may be experimentally feasible, although it may not be competitive with proven cooling methods like evaporation. At the same time, plenty of room for exploration remains. Extension to atom clouds might also be possible.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation. We thank M. Holland, C. Wieman, E. Cornell, P. Julienne, D. Jin, and M. Baertschy for helpful discussions.