text:
# Cosmological Perturbations From Inhomogeneous Reheating, Freeze-Out, and Mass Domination

## I Introduction

During inflation the energy density is dominated by the potential energy of a slowly rolling scalar field, the inflaton. At the end of inflation this energy density has to be converted into normal particles, reheating the universe and starting the standard phase of the hot big bang. In  we suggested that if the inflaton decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ varied in space, density perturbations would be generated during reheating independently of those generated by the standard inflationary mechanism. If two different regions of the universe had different $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$s then effectively the inflaton would decay into radiation first in one region and then in the other. During the time one region is filled with radiation while the other one is not, the universe expands at a different rate in each region, resulting in density perturbations when reheating is finished. The decay rate of the inflaton is determined by the expectation values of some scalar fields. If those scalar fields were light during inflation they fluctuated, leading to density perturbations through the proposed mechanism. Here we extend and generalize this model (§II).

We also calculate the non-Gaussianity of the metric perturbations generated by our mechanism. The standard inflationary model predicts unobservably small non-Gaussianities, while our models generically predict non-Gaussianities of potentially observable magnitude (§III).

## II Mass-Domination Mechanism

### A The Mechanism

We first discuss a generalization of our original mechanism . Assume that density perturbations created during inflation, as well as during reheating, are negligible. So right after reheating the Universe is filled with radiation of uniform energy density and temperature $`T_R`$. Assume that the mass and the decay rate ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) of some of the created particles (call them $`\psi `$) is set by the VEV of a scalar field $`\varphi `$,

$$M=\lambda \varphi $$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ is a coupling constant. We shall assume that the mass of $`\varphi `$ during inflation is smaller than the Hubble parameter. Thus, inflationary fluctuations of $`\varphi `$ on superhorizon scales get imprinted into the mass of $`\psi `$-quanta. As long as the temperature is much larger than $`M`$, the perturbations in mass do not contribute into the energy density. However, once the temperature drops below $`M`$, the mass-fluctuations become important. For the mass fluctuations to be imprinted into the density perturbations, it is essential that $`\psi `$ dominates (or at least becomes a significant component of) the energy density of the Universe during some period. That is, the decay rate of $`\psi `$ must satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }<H_D$$
(2)
where $`H_D`$ the Hubble parameter at the moment when $`\psi `$ starts dominating the energy density. For simplicity, we shall assume that the annihilation rate of $`\psi `$ is much smaller than $`M^2/M_{Pl}`$. Then $`\psi `$ start dominating as soon as they become non-relativistic ($`TM`$, assuming that $`\psi `$ were thermalized at some early time). The corresponding Hubble parameter is $`H_DM^2/M_{Pl}`$.

If (2) is satisfied, the perturbations in $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ get translated into the density perturbations. Due to the variation of $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the interval of $`\psi `$-domination in different regions of the Universe will be different leading to density perturbations at the end of the process.

We shall now derive the magnitude of the resulting density perturbations. We compare final radiation energies (after $`\psi `$-decay) in different superhorizon regions, for the same value of the scale factor $`a`$. It is simplest to compare energy density in any given region to the one in radiation, which scales as

$$\rho _{rad}a^4,$$
(3)
and is the same in all the regions of interest. The $`\psi `$-energy density in a region with mass $`M`$ and decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ scales as radiation for all the values of $`a`$, except the interval of its domination, that is, between the domination and the decay. Domination starts at $`a=a_{domination}`$ when

$$\rho =\rho _{domination}=M^4$$
(4)
and ends at $`a=a_{decay}`$, when

$$\rho =\rho _{decay}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2M_{Pl}^2$$
(5)
Outside this interval $`a_{decay}>a>a_{domination}`$, the energy density in all the domains scales as radiation and is independent of either $`M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However, during the domination interval energy of $`\psi `$ scales as matter

$$\rho a^3$$
(6)
and becomes different in different domains. Thus, we have

$$\left(\frac{a_{decay}}{a_{domination}}\right)^3=\frac{\rho _{domination}}{\rho _{decay}}=M^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2M_{Pl}^2$$
(7)
The final energy density stored in $`\psi `$, right before the decay is

$$\rho \frac{a_{decay}}{a_{domination}}\rho _{rad}=M^{4/3}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2/3}M_{Pl}^{2/3}\rho _{rad}$$
(8)
The resulting density perturbations are given by

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=\frac{4}{3}\frac{\delta M}{M}\frac{2}{3}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(9)
Depending on the underlying model, one can consider several possibilities. For instance, for $`M=constant`$, this recovers our previous result, where now we are interpreting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the decay rate of the inflaton rather than $`\psi `$. The results carry over from one scenario to the other because during reheating, when the oscillating inflaton dominates the energy density we also have $`\rho a^3`$. Another interesting case for the realistic model building is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$, for which we get

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\delta M}{M}$$
(10)
### B Constraints

The necessary requirement for our mechanism is that an effective mass of $`\varphi `$ must remain smaller than the Hubble parameter during inflation. However, this relation may or may not be violated during $`\psi `$-domination period. If it is violated, then $`\varphi `$ will start oscillations during the $`\psi `$ domination epoch. The calculation of the resulting density perturbations for oscillating $`\varphi `$ is more involved and will not be discussed here.

The simplest situation is when the effective mass of $`\varphi `$ remains smaller than the Hubble parameter all the way until the $`\psi `$ particles decay. This requirement strongly constraints the initial value of $`\varphi `$, provided the $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`\psi `$-mass is significant. Below we shall estimate the constraint for the case of maximal dependence, that is when the entire mass of $`\psi `$ comes from $`\varphi `$ according to (1). Generalization for the case of milder dependence is obvious.

In many cases this puts a non-trivial constraint on the initial value of $`\varphi `$, as we shall now demonstrate. The crucial point is that at high temperature the non-zero density of $`\psi `$-particles generates a large thermal mass for $`\varphi `$. For instance, every scalar degree of freedom that is in thermal equilibrium at temperature $`T`$, and is coupled to $`\varphi `$, generates the following contribution to the $`\varphi `$-mass

$$m_\varphi ^2\lambda ^2T^2$$
(11)
This contribution is there irrespective of $`\varphi `$ itself being in thermal equilibrium. This mass may exceed the value of the Hubble parameter during the $`\psi `$-domination, unless the following condition is met

$$\lambda T_D<H_D$$
(12)
where $`T_D=\lambda \varphi `$ is the domination temperature. This implies that $`\varphi `$ must satisfy the following condition.

$$\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}<\frac{\varphi }{M_{Pl}}$$
(13)
Notice that (13) guaranties that the condition $`m_\varphi <H`$ will be satisfied both before and throughout the domination. This is easy to understand. Above the domination temperatures the thermal mass scales as temperature, and quickly becomes negligible relative to Hubble parameter, which scales as $`T^2`$. During the domination period $`\psi `$-particles are out of thermal equilibrium and their energy scales as non-relativistic matter, according to (6). So does the mass of $`\varphi `$, $`m_\varphi ^2\rho _\psi `$. Thus, $`m_\varphi `$ and $`H`$ scale in the same way, and relation $`m_\varphi <H`$ is maintained throughout the domination.

For typical $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\varphi M_{Pl}`$ implies that the amount of density perturbations created by standard inflationary scenario will not be sub-dominant. So, our mechanism will be the primary source of perturbations only in inflationary scenarios that have no fluctuating inflaton field, e.g., such as recently proposed “self-terminated inflation”. Even in this case the level of the gravitational wave background should be significant.

We should again stress that the above constraint in absent in the models in which $`M`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$. In these class of models our source of density perturbations can dominate over the standard inflationary mechanism by many orders of magnitude.

### C Models

We shall now consider some practical implementations of our mechanism in realistic models. As is obvious from the above, we are interested in theories in which masses of dominating particles $`M(\varphi )`$ and/or their decay rate(s) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$ are functions of the fluctuating flat-direction field $`\varphi `$. Since, in general $`\varphi `$-dependence of functions $`M(\varphi ),\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$ can be very different, it is hard to talk about more than an order of magnitude predictions. However, there is a sub-class of theories in which all the mass-scales (at least during the epoch of interest) are set by $`\varphi `$ alone. In such a case $`M(\varphi )\varphi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )\varphi `$, and density perturbations via our mechanism acquire an especially simple form, practically independent of either the coupling constants or the field content. Interestingly, the Standard Model, as well as its minimal supersymmetric extension, in which $`\varphi `$ is identified with a flat direction field, fall within this category.

Before proceeding we have to stress that there can be corrections to the masses and decay rates from other existing scales in the theory. For instance, non-perturbative gravity effects can contribute into the decay rates of the Standard Model particles. If such corrections are there in the first place, their relative value will depend on many factors, such as existence of discrete gauge symmetries, masses of decaying particles etc. It is not hard within a concrete model to make this corrections sub-dominant. This is beyond the scope of the present work, in which we shall deal only with the simplest minimal case.

We shall now apply our mechanism to Standard Model, and to its minimal supersymmetric extension. We assume that (1) during inflation at least some of the MSSM flat direction fields (call them $`\varphi `$) have masses $`H`$; and (2) after the inflaton decay, the Universe is left with a thermal gas of SM particles (and their superpartners) of uniform energy density. Under these assumptions we will demonstrate that the amount of the density perturbations generated through the cooling process, irrespective of the coupling constants or the nature of flat direction, is given by

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\delta \varphi }{\varphi },$$
(14)
provided some of the particles dominate the Universe for a short period.

To show this, let us first ignore superpartners and only consider Standard Model particles. Let $`\varphi `$ be a flat direction corresponding to the Standard Model Higgs field. That is, we shall assume that the value of the Higgs mass during inflation satisfies our requirements, and that the Universe is reheated by producing some of the standard model particles. When the Universe cools down, the heavy particles decouple and decay into the lighter ones. The heavy states that have small annihilation and decay rates can dominate the Universe. Such can only be fermions (quarks and leptons), since the gauge bosons decay through the order one gauge couplings and decay before domination.

For a given species to dominate it must have frozen out but still have not had enough time to decay. Thus both its annihilation and decay rates must be less than $`H`$. This situation can always be achieved for some species for the appropriate initial value of $`\varphi `$. Assume for definiteness that $`\varphi M_P`$, and, of course, we shall assume that $`T_RM_P`$, but big enough that some of the unstable fermions are produced. We shall now discuss under what conditions some of the species can undergo a brief interval of domination. It is useful to consider electrically charged fermions and the neutral ones separately.

Charged fermions can annihilate into photons so their freeze-out abundance will be much smaller than $`M^3`$ unless their mass is of order $`M\alpha _{EM}^2M_{Pl}`$. Their mass however has to be smaller than the reheating temperature at the end of inflation for them to be in thermal equilibrium to start with, so $`M<T_{rh}\sqrt{H_{inf}M_{PL}}10^2M_{PL}`$. This case is only marginally possible so we will concentrate on uncharged fermions, ie. neutrinos.

The story with neutrinos is very different, as we shall now discuss. In order to understand how neutrinos can dominate in very early Universe, we shall specify the origin of their mass. For definiteness, we shall assume the standard “See-Saw” mechanism, in which the neutrino masses are generated by mixing to the heavy gauge-singlet fermions (right-handed neutrinos). The relevant terms in the Lagrangian are

$$\lambda _\nu \varphi \overline{\nu }_L\nu _R+M_R\nu _R\nu _R+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
where $`M_R`$ is the Majorana mass of the gauge-singlet fermion $`\lambda `$ is an Yukawa coupling constant, and generation indicies are suppressed.

In today’s Universe

$$\lambda _\nu \varphi M_R,$$
(16)
and heavy neutrinos can be integrated out. As a result of this integration the light neutrinos acquire small Majorana masses given by

$$M_\nu \frac{(\lambda _\nu \varphi )^2}{M_R}$$
(17)
However, in the epoch of our interest $`\varphi M_{Pl}`$, and the condition (16) can be violated. Depending whether this is the case, the light neutrino will either continue to be a Majorana particle with mass (17), or will effectively become a Dirac particle of mass

$$M_\nu \lambda _\nu \varphi $$
(18)
Neutrino annihilation rate into the fermions happens through the exchange of heavy $`Z,W`$ bosons, with masses $`M_{Pl}`$, and the annihilation into the Higgs particles is suppressed by $`\lambda _\nu ^4/M_R^2`$. So it is safe to assume that their abundance froze out early on.

The decay rate of neutrinos requires some attention. In the early Universe some of the neutrinos that are stable today, could have been unstable. For instance, since the electron and quark masses scale linearly with $`\varphi `$ as opposed to neutrino masses that scale quadratically, the electron neutrino $`\nu _e`$ can become heavier and decay into the electron and the quark-anti-quark pair

$$\nu _ee^{}+u+\overline{d}$$
(19)
In general, the Standard Model fermions decay through the exchange of $`W`$-bosons and the decay rate is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=fM^5/\varphi ^4$$
(20)
Where $`f`$ is a small constant that depends on mixing angles, and is different for different fermions. The crucial point is that because $`M`$ is set by $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is linear in $`\varphi `$ (for neutrino this requires $`\lambda _\nu \varphi >M_R`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=f\lambda ^5\varphi $$
(21)
As a result of this, irrespective which fermion happens to dominate, the imprint of density perturbation is universally given by (14). It is easy to check that for $`\varphi M_{Pl}10^4H`$, the domination condition is always satisfied by at least some SM fermions. For large values of $`\varphi `$ and $`H`$, our mechanism can operate several times and each time imprint the density perturbations.

Interestingly, going to MSSM does not modify this general result, irrespective which flat direction develops large VEV during inflation. This can be understood in the following way. Let $`\varphi `$ be some MSSM flat direction. $`\varphi `$ breaks gauge symmetry and gives masses $`\varphi `$ to some gauge fields and fermions (and their superpartners). Since, for the needed magnitude of perturbations the flat direction VEV must be $`>>H`$, the supersymmetry breaking effects can be ignored. So we can neglect the mass splittings between the superpartners. Thus, irrespective of the particular flat direction, the $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be the same. This is obvious since the masses of particles are set by $`\varphi `$, and heavy particles decay into the light ones through the exchange of the massive gauge bosons. ***The massless exchange cannot lead to a particle decay, due to the fact that the massless gauge bosons couple through unbroken generators, which commute with the Hamiltonian. This leads us to a conclusion that the density perturbations generated via our mechanism is independent of the detailed structure of the couplings as well as the nature of dominating flat directions, and is always given by equation (14).

## III Non-Gaussianities

The WMAP satellite has provided bounds for the degree of non-Gaussianity of the primordial cosmological perturbations. Assuming that the super-horizon gravitational potential fluctuations (during the matter-dominated era) are of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=g+f_{nl}g^2,$$
(22)
where $`g`$ is Gaussian, the WMAP results are $`58<f_{nl}<134`$ at 95% confidence . The Sloan Digital Sky Survey should provide similar accuracy .

The standard one-field slow-roll inflation predicts the degree of non-Gaussianity which corresponds to $`f_{nl}`$ tilt of the perturbation spectrum . The power spectrum measured by WMAP is consistent with scale invariant, however when WMAP data is combined with other probes of large scale structure small tilts maybe preferred . It is fair to say that the largest tilts still allowed by the data are of order $`|n1|0.05`$. Thus the current theoretical expectation is that primordial non-Gaussianity is unobservably small. We will show that in our model non-Gaussianities are much larger.

We will consider non-Gaussianities assuming that the fluctuations of the light field $`\varphi `$ which is responsible for fluctuations of the coupling constants and/or masses are purely Gaussian. The case of non-Gaussianities of $`\varphi `$ will be discussed elsewhere.

To talk about non-Gaussianities, one needs to define a gauge-invariant quantity to quadratic order. We will follow , and use a gauge invariant variable $`\zeta `$ that remains constant outside the horizon. It is defined as follows: $`e^\zeta `$ is proportional to the local scale factor measured on uniform local Hubble parameter hypersurfaces. To linear order, $`\zeta `$ is proportional to the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. During matter domination $`\zeta =(5/3)\mathrm{\Phi }`$, during radiation domination $`\zeta =(3/2)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ .

In our original scenario , the energy density fluctuations on hypersurfaces of constant scale factor $`a`$ are

$$\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }^{2/3}.$$
(23)
Since $`\rho a^4`$, this gives

$$\zeta =(1/6)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(24)
The inflaton reheating rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\lambda ^2m_\varphi `$, where $`m_\varphi `$ is the inflaton mass at its minimum, and $`\lambda `$ is the coupling constant of the inflaton decay. We have to consider two case. First assume that fluctuations of $`\lambda `$ are negligible, and $`m_\varphi \varphi `$ dominates the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then, up to second order,

$$\zeta =\frac{1}{6}\left(\delta _\varphi \frac{1}{2}\delta _\varphi ^2\right),$$
(25)
where $`\delta _\varphi (\varphi /<\varphi >1)`$ is assumed to be Gaussian. The definition of $`f_{nl}`$ used by  corresponds to

$$\zeta =g(3/5)f_{nl}g^2,$$
(26)
And gives

$$f_{nl}=5$$
(27)
for this scenario. If, on the other hand, $`\lambda \varphi `$ dominates the fluctuations of the reheating rate, one obtains a smaller non-Gaussianity,

$$f_{nl}=5/2.$$
(28)
This shows the general trend: less efficient mechanisms of translation of the $`\varphi `$-fluctuation into the metric fluctuation give greater non-Gaussianities (assuming the inefficient mechanism is still the dominant one). Our assumptions that $`m\varphi `$ and $`\lambda \varphi `$ can also be generalized to include non-linear terms, leading different values of $`f_{nl}`$.

The new mass-domination scenario described in §II is of particular interest because of its high universality, based on $`\varphi `$ being the only mass scale of the theory. From $`\rho \varphi ^{2/3}`$, we get a unique answer independent of the Yukawa-couplings:

$$f_{nl}=5.$$
(29)
## IV Conclusions

We proposed a new scenario for generation of metric perturbations after inflation, whereby superhorizon fluctuations of the light fields generated during inflation are translated into metric fluctuations during reheating, mass domination, or freeze-out.

We calculated non-Gaussianities for this model. Our result is $`f_{nl}=5`$ for the mass domination mechanism. Other scenarios give different values, and non-Gaussianities of the light fields $`\varphi `$ also lead to partial compensation or enhancement of the intrinsic non-Gaussianities of our mechanism, but an observable value $`|f_{nl}|`$few is a natural lower bound.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Maldacena, V. F. Mukhanov, P.J.E.Peebles, R. Scoccimarro for useful discussions.

The work of G.D., A.G., and M.Z. is supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The work of G.D. is also supported by the Alfred P. Sloan foundation and by NSF PHY-0070787.


format: text

text:
# A superconductor-insulator transition in a one-dimensional array of Josephson junctions

## I Introduction

The standard description of Josephson junction arrays is given by the theory by Bradley and Doniach (BD) BD . This theory predicts that a Josephson junction array can either be in superconducting or insulating regime, depending on the ratio of the Josephson to the charging energy of the superconducting grains. The two phases are separated by the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition.

The theory of Bradley and Doniach assumes that the gate voltage applied to the arrays is equal to zero. This implies that the electrostatic energy of the islands is minimized when their charge is equal to the integer number of the elementary charge of Cooper pair. More recent work of Glazman and Larkin (GL) GL  demonstrates that the gate voltage could be another important parameter of the Josephson junction arrays, as two additional phases of the array are possible when it is varied.

The BD transition was recently observed in one dimensional Josephson junction arrays CDH . However, the results of Ref. CDH  show only qualitative agreement with the theories of Refs. BD  and CDH .

First of all, the BD theory completely neglects the capacitance of the Josephson junctions $`C`$ as opposed to the capacitance of the superconducting islands $`C_0`$. GL does take nonzero $`C`$ into account, but only as a small perturbation. In experiment, however, $`CC_0`$. Not only does it mean that the junction capacitance terms are large, but it also leads to the long ranged Coulomb interactions between grains which are far away from each other, which is something both BD and GL neglect. As a result, the point in the parameter space where the transition happens is experimentally far from the theoretical point predicted by the BD theory.

It is therefore of some interest to develop a theory of the Josephson junction arrays which would take the condition $`CC_0`$ into account. In fact, such theories were already proposed in the context of both tunnel LA  and Josephson benjacob  junction arrays. The main idea of this approach is to concentrate on the dynamics of charge of the islands as opposed to their superconducting phases. As a starting point of the theory, one takes the problem of single Josephson junction with nonzero capacitance $`C`$ treated in the full quantum mechanical fashion. The solution of this problem is a Josephson junction described by its quasicharge Likh . For a system of connected junctions this description in the continuous limit yields the sine-Gordon Lagrangian describing dynamics of the quasicharge.

The sine-Gordon model in (1+1)-dimensions is one of the best studied models of field theory. This model admits a quantum phase transition: the excitation spectrum depends on the coupling constant and becomes gapless when this constant exceeds a certain critical value. In the underlying Josephson array this transition corresponds to the superconductor-insulator transition predicted by BD. We have to note, however, that according to the opinion widely circulating in the literature the quasicharge sine-Gordon description of the Josephson junction arrays loses its validity at large coupling constants and therefore cannot ascertain the existence of the transition benjacob .

In this paper we critically examine the conditions of validity of the sine-Gordon description of Josephson junction arrays. We conclude that the quasi-charge sine-Gordon description remains self-consistent in the region of large couplings. Hence one can use it to get quantitative information about the array even in the vicinity of the transition.

We have to emphasize that the BD theory also describes the transition in terms of the sine-Gordon equation. However, being written in the limit $`CC_0`$, the parameters of that equation are different from the one extracted from the sine-Gordon equation considered in this paper. We conclude therefore that while the universality class of the transition does not depend on whether $`C`$ is large or small, the details of the description do depend on it.

Secondly, contrary to Ref. GL , the experiments failed to observe any additional phases of the array due to the change in gate voltage. Most likely, this is the result of the presence of random background charges in the realistic Josephson junction arrays, which lead to the voltage being randomized along the length of the array Explain . An important outstanding question is thus the effect the random charges may have on the array and how their presence affects the transition.

The problem of Josephson junction arrays with random background charges is equivalent to the problem of randomly pinned charge density waves FL , which was extensively studied in the literature. The best understood case is that of classical pinned charge density waves, which corresponds to the array deeply in the insulating phase. In that regime, the random background charges lead to the AC conductance of the array AR ; Fogler ; GC

$$\sigma (\omega )\omega ^4,\omega \omega _p$$
(1)
on the condition that the array length is much longer than the so-called Larkin length $`l_p`$ Larkin . Here $`\omega _p`$ is the pinning frequency. Additionally, for a special value of the sine-Gordon coupling parameter $`\beta ^2=4\pi `$ (see later in the text for a precise definition of $`\beta `$), the AC conductance is known to go as berezinskii :

$$\sigma (\omega )\omega ^2\mathrm{ln}\omega $$
(2)
This can in principle be checked experimentally. In this paper we discuss a relationship between $`\beta ,l_p`$, $`\omega _p`$ and parameters of the junction array.

Unfortunately, at other values of the coupling parameter $`\beta `$, the solution to the random background charge problem is not known. Therefore, we are not able at this time to discuss how the presence of the random background charges affects the superconductor-insulator transition.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next chapter we derive the quasicharge sine-Gordon equation. Then we discuss its applicability and show that it can indeed describe the transition superconductor-insulator transition. In the end we discuss how the random background charges affect the properties of the array.

## II Derivation of the Model

Let us consider a one-dimensional array of weakly coupled Josephson junctions (see Fig. 1). A single junction is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{E_c}{2}\frac{^2}{d\varphi ^2}+\frac{1}{2}E_j\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )$$
(3)
where $`E_c=\frac{(2e)^2}{C}`$ is the charging energy of the junction, $`E_j`$ is the Josephson energy and $`\varphi `$ is the phase difference on the junction.

We work in the limit $`E_jE_c`$. In this regime, the energy spectrum consists of narrow bands separated by gaps (see Ref. LA ; Likh ). The interband splitting frequency is estimated as

$$W=2\sqrt{E_cE_j}$$
(4)
We shall restrict our consideration to the lowest band. Therefore $`W`$ will serve as the ultraviolet cut-off in our effective theory. The energy eigenvalues in the lowest band are labelled by the quasicharge $`q`$:

$$E=E_b\left[1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi q)\right]$$
(5)
Here

$$E_b=16E_j\left(\frac{E_c}{\pi ^2E_j}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\sqrt{\frac{E_j}{E_c}}\right).$$
(6)
The junction array consists of junctions separated by superconducting islands. Following benjacob , we treat the array in the adiabatic approximation, so that the $`n`$-th junction is characterized by a slowly varying function $`q_n(t)`$. The characteristic frequencies are supposed to be much smaller than the interband splitting $`W`$. The charge on the $`n`$-th junction is $`2e\times q_n`$. Since the total charge in the unit cell is zero, the charge on the wire connecting the two junctions is $`2e(q_nq_{n+1})`$. The Coulomb energy of the wire is

$$E_{\text{Coulomb}}=\frac{(2e)^2}{2C_0}\underset{n}{}(q_nq_{n+1})^2𝑑xa\frac{(2e)^2}{2C_0}q_x^2$$
(7)
where $`a`$ is the size of the island. The inductive energy of the junction is

$$E_{\text{Inductive}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}(2e)^2L\dot{q}_n^2,$$
(8)
where $`L`$ is the inductance of the islands. The experiments conducted in Ref. hysteresis  indicate that real arrays have a very considerable inductance ($`L\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{e^2E_j}`$), though its microscopic origin remains somewhat obscure.

Combined, Eqs.(5,7,8) produce the Lagrangian describing the array,

$$=𝑑x\left\{\frac{(2e)^2}{2a}L\dot{q}^2a\frac{(2e)^2}{2C_0}q_x^2\frac{E_b}{a}\left[1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi q)\right]\right\}$$
(9)
By introducing a new variable $`Q=2\pi q/\beta `$ the latter Lagrangian can be rewritten in the form of the sine-Gordon model:

$$=\mathrm{}v_c^1𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2\frac{1}{2}v_c^2Q_x^2\frac{m_0^2}{\beta ^2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\beta Q\right)\right]$$
(10)
where

$$m_0^2=\frac{\pi ^2E_b}{e^2L},$$
(11)
$$v_c=\frac{a}{\sqrt{LC_0}},$$
(12)
and

$$\beta ^2=\frac{(2\pi )^2\mathrm{}v_cC_0}{(2e)^2a}=\frac{(2\pi )^2\mathrm{}}{(2e)^2}\sqrt{\frac{C_0}{L}}=2\pi R_Q\sqrt{\frac{C_0}{L}},$$
(13)
where $`R_Q=h/4e^2`$ is the quantum of Cooper pair resistance.

The sine-Gordon equation (10) goes through a quantum phase transition as $`\beta ^2`$ is tuned through $`8\pi `$. Let us estimate whether this value of $`\beta `$ can realistically be achieved. Assuming that the island has a form of a thin superconducting wire we can use for its impedance $`\sqrt{L/C_0}`$ the formula derived by Likharev old :

$$\sqrt{L/C_0}=\frac{4\pi }{c}\left[1+\frac{2\pi \lambda ^2}{A\mathrm{ln}(D/d)}\right]^{1/2}$$
(14)
where $`\lambda `$ is the penetration depth, $`A`$ is the cross-section area of the wire, $`d`$ is its thickness and $`D`$ is the distance from the gate. Taking into account that $`\mathrm{}c/e^2137`$ we get

$$\frac{\beta ^2}{8\pi }\frac{4.3}{\left[1+\frac{2\pi \lambda ^2}{A\mathrm{ln}(D/d)}\right]^{1/2}}$$
(15)
We see that $`\beta ^2`$ can be driven through the transition by changing $`\lambda `$ which can be achieved by adding nonmagnetic impurities private .

## III Applicability limits of the sine-Gordon model

As we have mentioned above, the sine-Gordon model Eq. (10) is one of the best studied models of one-dimensional field theory. Its spectrum and behavior of correlation functions dramatically depend on the value of coupling constant $`\beta ^2`$, because $`\beta ^2`$ controls the renormalization group (RG) dimension of the cosine term in Eq. (10). At $`\beta ^2<8\pi `$, the cosine term is relevant, all excitations have spectral gaps and the system is an insulator. At $`\beta ^2<4\pi `$ the spectrum consists of electrically charged solitons and antisolitons and their neutral bound states, while at $`8\pi >\beta ^2>4\pi `$ the bound states disappear. At $`\beta ^2>8\pi `$, the cosine term is irrelevant and the spectrum becomes gapless. This is a superconducting regime; in the absence of disorder it allows ballistic transport through the system.

Let us critically examine conditions of validity of theory (10). It is based on the following assumptions:

* The harmonicity of the effective potential. The potential acquires cosine form (5) in the limit $`E_JE_c`$. The presence of higher harmonics will affect the integrability of the sine-Gordon model, but will not change the fact of the transition since these harmonics will become irrelevant even sooner than the primary one.
* The abiabaticity. All characteristic energies of sine-Gordon model (in particular, the spectral gaps) must be much smaller than the interband splitting $`W`$ of Eq. (4).
* The continuous approximation. The discrete array is replaced by the continuous one. This approximation requires that characteristic wave vectors are much smaller than $`1/a`$ and the energy gaps are much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{}v_c/a`$.
* Absence of dissipation. It is assumed that islands are superconducting and there are no normal resistors in the scheme.
* We assume that all characteristic frequencies are much smaller than the plasma frequency in the islands so that electric charge spreads instantaneously through the entire island.

Let us look closer at the requirement of adiabaticity and validity of the continuous approximation. The spectrum of the sine-Gordon model consists of particle branches with the relativistic dispertion

$$\omega ^2=v_c^2k^2+m_j^2/\mathrm{}^2,$$
(16)
where the spectrum consists of solitons $`s`$ and antisolitons $`\overline{s}`$ with $`m_s=m_{\overline{s}}=M`$ and (at $`\beta ^2<4\pi `$) their bound states (breathers) with spectral gaps

$$m_j=2M\mathrm{sin}(\gamma j/2),j=1,\mathrm{},[\pi /\gamma ],\gamma =\frac{\pi \beta ^2}{8\pi \beta ^2}$$
(17)
The largest spectral gap is of order of $`M`$. The self-consistency of the theory requires that its value must not exceed the cut-off. According to zam , we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma /2)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+\gamma /2)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta ^2/8\pi )}{16\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\beta ^2/8\pi )}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2\beta ^2/4\pi }}`$ (18)
The following inequalities must be fulfilled:

$$M\mathrm{\Lambda }W$$
(19)
Inequality $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is equivalent either to

$$m_0\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda },E_b1/e^2L$$
(20)
at small $`\beta ^2`$ or to

$$m_0\mathrm{\Lambda },E_be^2/C_0$$
(21)
at $`\beta ^28\pi `$. The validity of the continuous approximation requires that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }W`$, that is

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{C_0L}E_jE_c,\text{or}\beta ^2WC_0/4e^2$$
(22)
From the previous inequalities it follows that the only condition on the latter quantity is $`WC_0/e^2\left(\frac{E_j}{E_c}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}[2\sqrt{E_j/E_c}]`$ which still leaves room for $`\beta ^28\pi `$.

## IV Phase Transition

As we have mentioned above, one way to drive the system through the transition is by changing $`\beta ^2`$. In fact, it is also possible to change $`E_b`$ or equivalently $`m_0`$, to go through the transition. This would correspond to the experimental set up CDH , where $`E_j`$ is lowered by applying the external magnetic field to the junctions in the SQUID geometry, leading to the increase of $`E_b`$ and $`m_0`$.

The Renormalization Group (RG) flow diagram of the sine-Gordon equation is shown on Fig. 2. If $`\beta ^2<8\pi `$, the sine-Gordon equation is always in the massive regime. This corresponds to the insulating behavior of the array. However if $`\beta ^2>8\pi `$, two regimes are possible. For sufficiently large $`m_0`$, the behavior is still massive. For $`m_0`$ smaller than a certain critical value $`m_c\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\beta ^28\pi \right)`$, the cosine term in (10) becomes irrelevant and can be neglected. The sine-Gordon equation becomes massless. This corresponds to the part of the diagram whose RG flow lines end on the $`m_0=0`$ axis. In this regime the charge density wave propagates ballistically.

One of the more experimentally relevant predictions of the theory for the ballistic regime follows from neglecting the cosine term in Eq. (10). Then the Josephson junction array can be described by the following very simple Lagrangian

$$=\frac{4\pi ^2}{\beta ^2}\mathrm{}v_c^1𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}\dot{q}^2\frac{1}{2}v_c^2q_x^2\right]$$
(23)
This is none other than the so-called Luttinger liquid with the Luttinger parameter $`g=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }`$. It is well known FK  that its conductance is given by

$$G=\frac{(2e)^2}{h}g=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }\frac{(2e)^2}{h}$$
(24)
As $`\beta `$ is lowered (or $`m_0`$ is increased, according to Fig 2), the conductance is decreased until it reaches its critical value (at $`\beta ^2=8\pi `$),

$$G^{}=2\frac{(2e)^2}{h}=\frac{2}{R_Q}.$$
(25)
If $`\beta `$ is decreased further, the array enters the regime of the Coulomb blockade and becomes an insulator.

## V Random Background Charges

In the presence of random background charges, the charging energy of the superconducting islands Eq. (7) gets modified,

$$E_{\text{Coulomb}}=𝑑xa\frac{(2e)^2}{2C_0}\left(q_xV(x)\right)^2,$$
(26)
where $`V(x)`$ is a time independent random function of the coordinate $`x`$ with short ranged correlations

$$V(x)V(y)=V_0\delta (xx^{}).$$
(27)
It is convenient to shift the variables $`q(x)q(x)+_0^x𝑑yV(y)`$ to find the following Lagrangian for the Josephson junction array,

$$=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{v_c}\dot{Q}^2v_cQ_x^2\frac{2m_0^2}{\beta ^2}\left\{1\mathrm{cos}\left(\beta Q+\chi \right)\right\}\right],$$
(28)
where

$$\chi (x)=2\pi _0^x𝑑yV(y).$$
(29)
It is clear that $`\chi (x)`$ is a Brownian motion; $`\sqrt{\chi ^2(x)}=2\pi \sqrt{xV_0}`$. At distances of the order of $`lV_0^1`$ the phases of the cosine term in Eq. (28) become completely uncorrelated, so at length scale much bigger than that we can consider $`\mathrm{cos}\left\{\chi (x)\right\}`$ to be white noise in space. $`l`$ is the length at which the random background charge accumulates to be of the order of the Cooper pair charge.

Under these conditions, the problem defined in Eq. (28) becomes equivalent to the pinned charge density wave problem studied in a number of publications Larkin . A particularly well understood regime is that of a Coulomb blockade, $`\beta 8\pi `$. There the sine-Gordon Lagrangian Eq. (28) becomes purely classical, corresponding to the sine-Gordon equation

$$v_c^1_t^2Qv_c_x^2Q\frac{m_0^2}{\beta }\mathrm{sin}\left\{Q+\chi \right\}=0.$$
(30)
If $`Q_0(x)`$ is a time independent solution to Eq. (30), then the small oscillations around that solution are described by

$$v_c_x^2\delta Q+m_0^2\mathrm{cos}\left\{Q_0+\chi \right\}\delta Q=v_c^1\omega ^2\delta Q,$$
(31)
where $`\delta Q`$ is the amplitude of the oscillations and $`\omega `$ is their frequency.

It is well known in the literature AR ; Fogler ; GC  that this problem possesses a fundamental frequency called the pinning frequency $`\omega _p`$. At $`\omega \omega _p`$, it is possible to neglect the cosine term in Eq. (31) to find that the oscillations $`\delta Q`$ are the plain waves with the wave vector $`k`$ and with the frequencies $`\omega v_ck`$. At $`\omega \omega _p`$, the oscillations are localized in space, and their spacial extent (localization length) $`l_p`$ is called the Larkin (or pinning) length. The pinning frequency is known to scale with $`m_0`$ as

$$\omega _pm_0^{\frac{4}{3}},$$
(32)
while the Larkin length scales as

$$l_p=\frac{1}{\omega _p}m_0^{\frac{4}{3}}.$$
(33)
On the condition that the Larkin length is much smaller than the total length of the array, the conductivity of the array at a frequency $`\omega `$ much smaller than the pinning frequency is given by

$$\sigma (\omega )\rho (\omega ),\rho (\omega )\omega ^4,\omega \omega _p.$$
(34)
Here $`\rho (\omega )\omega ^4`$ is the probability that there exists a solution to Eq. (31) at a frequency $`\omega `$ (or the density of states of Eq. (31)). The formula Eq. (34) as well as Eq. (32) could be checked experimentally.

Finally, at a special value of $`\beta ^2=4\pi `$, the Eq. (28) can be solved using a completely different technique berezinskii , to lead to the AC conductivity Eq. (2).

At values of $`\beta `$ other than $`\beta ^28\pi `$ or $`\beta ^2=4\pi `$, the problem defined in Eq. (28) remains unsolved.

## VI Acknowledgements

We are grateful to D. Haviland, K. K. Likharev, L. Glazman and F. H. L. Essler for productive discussions. VG acknowledges support from Institute for Strongly Correlated and Complex Systems at BNL and from EPSRC; AMT is supported by US DOE under contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.


text:
# Molecular Gas and the Nuclear Star Cluster in IC342: Sufficient Inflow for Recurring Star Formation Events?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recent observations with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) at both optical and near-infrared wavelengths (e.g. Carollo et al., 1998; Böker et al., 2002) have revealed that the very centers of late-type spiral galaxies are often occupied by a photometrically distinct, luminous, and compact (with a few parsec diameter) stellar cluster. Most of the nuclear star clusters studied in detail appear to have experienced recent star formation. For example, M 33 (Gordon et al., 1999), NGC 4449 (Böker et al., 2001), as well as NGC 247 and NGC 2403 (Davidge & Courteau, 2002) all have nuclear clusters with a spectral energy distribution (SED) that is dominated by a young ($`100\mathrm{Myr}`$) stellar population. Clearly, these galaxies must recently have experienced significant inflow of molecular gas into their central few parsec in order to trigger the formation of these young clusters. There is mounting evidence that large-scale bars can efficiently move large quantities of molecular gas down to the inner kiloparsec (Sakamoto et al., 1999). However, the exact mechanism which can transport gas from a few hundred parsec down to a few parsec is still under debate.

IC 342 is a prime example of a late-type spiral galaxy with a young luminous nuclear cluster which formed in a short-lived burst about $`60\mathrm{Myr}`$ ago (Böker, Förster-Schreiber, & Genzel, 1997, 1999). For this paper, we adopt the distance of $`1.8\mathrm{Mpc}`$ derived by McCall (1989) which makes IC 342 the closest late-type galaxy with strong nuclear star formation111The distance to IC 342 is uncertain, e.g. more recent observations indicate a larger distance of 3.3 Mpc (Saha, Claver, & Hoessel, 2002). This should be kept in mind when discussing distance-dependent quantities.. It thus offers a unique opportunity to study the related gas dynamics on scales of a few parsec ($`1^{\prime \prime }8.7\mathrm{pc}`$). The central region of IC 342 has been mapped in the past in several molecular transitions on scales of a few arcseconds (e.g. Lo et al., 1984; Ishizuki et al., 1990; Turner & Hurt, 1992; Turner et al., 1993; Meier et al., 2000; Meier & Turner, 2001). These maps show that the molecular gas is located in two spiral arms which show strong streaming motions. The spiral arms join to form a ring of about $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ diameter which is the site of massive star formation (Böker et al., 1997). In this Letter, we present a high resolution, high sensitivity $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{CO}(21)`$ map which for the first time resolves the molecular gas kinematics inside the starburst ring.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

The center of IC 342 was observed in the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{CO}(21)`$ line in January 2002 with the six-element Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) millimeter interferometer. Obtained in the L and H configurations with baselines between 15 and $`115\mathrm{m}`$, the data have a spatial resolution of $`1.2^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`10\mathrm{pc}`$) with robust weighting. The noise per $`2.601\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ wide channel is $`40\mathrm{mJy}`$ per beam in the combined data of both tracks. For the intensity map, we used only emission that is $`5\sigma `$ above the noise floor and evident in at least two adjacent channels. Similarly, we used a $`15\sigma `$ blanking for the velocity field to emphasize the small-scale velocity structure. Nevertheless, our data recover most of the CO flux in the region mapped, as the peak integrated intensity of our data convolved to $`14^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution is about 90% of the value of $`\mathrm{I}_{30\mathrm{m}}=324\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ measured with the IRAM 30m single dish telescope (Eckart et al., 1990). The absolute astrometry of the OVRO observations are tied to the VLA quasar reference frame, which are known to $`0.02^{\prime \prime }`$. However, the positional uncertainty in the observations is limited by atmospheric refraction at 230 GHz and is $`<0.1^{\prime \prime }`$.

For comparison to the CO data, we retrieved Hubble Space Telescope V-band (F555W) and $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ (+continuum, F658N) maps from the newly available WFPC2 associations archive. In order to register the HST images and the CO maps, we aligned the eastern CO spiral arm to the prominent dust lane seen in both HST images. Incidentally, this also aligned the central CO peak with the nuclear star cluster. The alignment required a nominal shift of $`1.28^{\prime \prime }`$ to the west and $`0.59^{\prime \prime }`$ to the north222The HST coordinates were measured from the positions of 8 stars in the field of view that are listed in the USNO-A2.0 catalog.. Potential discrepancies of this magnitude between HST and radio coordinate systems are not uncommon (e.g. Whitmore & Zhang, 2002).

## 3 MOLECULAR GAS PROPERTIES

CO Distribution and Geometry: The intensity map in Figure 1 partly resolves the structure of the two well-known molecular spiral arms (e.g. Lo et al., 1984; Turner & Hurt, 1992; Meier et al., 2000; Meier & Turner, 2001). The two arms have quite different morphologies: the eastern arm forms a continuous spiral which is barely resolved with our data. A second, weaker component about $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ east of the main arm is also apparent in the map. The western arm, on the other hand, has two main components: a southern part pointing toward the nucleus, and a northern part (north of $`3^{\prime \prime },0^{\prime \prime }`$) which seems to form another spiral. The western arm is about $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ wide and has a sharp inner edge, but becomes more diffuse toward larger radii. The mean gas density within the spiral arms is $`10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, assuming an intrinsic line ratio of $`I_{21}`$/$`I_{10}`$= 1 and the standard Galactic conversion factor of $`2\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)^1`$ (Strong et al., 1988). These values translate into an average gas surface densities of $`1100\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{pc}^2`$ (including a 36% contribution from He), with peak values about twice as high. The map reveals somewhat weaker emission inside the central trough that has been identified for the first time. Because this emission component has a disk-like morphology and appears centered on the nuclear star cluster (see below), we refer to it as the nuclear disk for the remainder of this paper. The disk has a major axis diameter of $`30\mathrm{pc}`$ and a gas mass of $`1.7\times 10^5\mathrm{M}_{}`$, with a mean gas density about half of that in the spiral arms. The disk appears connected to both spiral arms via two faint CO “bridges” $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ north and south of the nucleus.
CO Kinematics: The overall motion of the molecular gas is from southwest to northeast, in agreement with the position angle of the kinematic major axis of $`37^{}`$ determined from HI data (Crosthwaite et al., 2001). The arms of the gas spiral show strong streaming motions, and are interpreted as gas lanes along the leading side of a weak stellar bar (Turner & Hurt, 1992; Sakamoto et al., 1999). On smaller scales, the CO velocity field within the spiral arms (Fig. 1) does not appear well ordered since the line emission consists of multiple components. The high spatial and spectral resolution of the OVRO data allows us to identify non-circular gas motions close to the center of IC 342. The molecular gas is moving along a position angle of $`10^{}`$ (Figs. 1 and 2) which is offset by $`45^{}`$ from the kinematic major axis of the galaxy disk. This is the first time that non-circular motions within $`10\mathrm{pc}`$ of the nucleus have been detected in IC 342, their nature is discussed further in section 4. Within the spatial resolution of our observations, the central CO peak coincides with the dynamical center as well as the nuclear star cluster, and the systemic velocity we measure is $`v_{\mathrm{LSR}}46.0\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This value is $`7\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ higher than inferred from lower resolution CO(1-0) data ($`39\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ Sakamoto et al., 1999). This discrepancy is likely due to the non-circular nature of the nuclear CO kinematics which only becomes more apparent at high angular resolution.
Comparison to Optical Morphology: The distribution of the molecular gas differs from that of the stellar inventory as demonstrated by the comparison of the HST images to the CO distribution (Fig. 3). The CO spiral arms outline the bright central emission region that is evident in both the H$`\alpha `$ emission and the V-band continuum. Both the line emission and the optical continuum are brighter east of the nucleus where the CO emission is confined to the prominent dust lane. In addition, optical light fills the gap between the two eastern gas lanes. On the other hand, west of the nucleus where the CO spiral is much wider, there is a lack of H$`\alpha `$ emission and optical continuum. This asymmetry in the extinction pattern together with the velocity field suggests that the western side is the near side of IC 342. A prominent H$`\alpha `$ knot lies on the boundary (-$`3^{\prime \prime }`$;-$`1^{\prime \prime }`$) between the two parts of the western gas spiral, it coincides with Region 1 studied by Böker et al. (1997) and is the site of intense star formation. Within the nuclear disk, the peak of the molecular gas (which is close to the dynamical center, see § 3) coincides roughly with the nuclear star cluster. Two other star clusters north and south of the nucleus fall into regions inside the spiral arms which are almost devoid of molecular line emission. The HST V-band image shows two fine dust lanes of $`0.2^{\prime \prime }`$ width about $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ north and south of the nucleus which extend in east-west direction (best seen in Fig. 2). The two CO bridges that connect the nuclear disk to the spiral arms appear to coincide with these dust lanes, although the lower spatial resolution of the CO map makes this identification somewhat tentative.

## 4 DISCUSSION

What Drives the Gas Inflow? The overall shape and kinematics of the CO spiral arms are reminiscent of models for gas flows in a weakly barred potential (e.g. Athanassoula 1992). Although no stellar bar is obvious in the optical data, ellipse fits to deep wide-field CCD images show evidence for a bar with $`600700^{\prime \prime }`$ length and a position angle of $`20^{}`$ (Buta & McCall, 1999). Since the western side is the near side (see § 3), the sense of rotation is counter-clockwise, and therefore the gas spiral arms are on the leading side of this large-scale bar. Crosthwaite et al. (2001) interpret the displacement of the optical and dynamical position angles and the warped outer HI disk as signs of a recent mild interaction. This interaction might have triggered the formation of the oval distortion which in turn might be responsible for the pile-up of molecular gas in the central kiloparsec of IC 342. The molecular gas morphology of IC 342 is quite similar to the one observed in the center of our own Galaxy where a $`14\mathrm{pc}`$ wide molecular disk or torus is surrounded by a molecular ring with a radius of $`180\mathrm{pc}`$ (see review by Morris & Serabyn, 1996). Also, the bar length of $`5.2\mathrm{kpc}`$ in IC 342 is comparable to the $`4.8\mathrm{kpc}`$ observed in our Galaxy. The filamentary structure of the dust/gas lanes and the H$`\alpha `$ emission in IC 342 (similar filaments are also observed in the inner $`500\mathrm{pc}`$ of our Galaxy) might be explained by self-gravitating gas (see Fig. 2 of Wada & Koda, 2001). The coincidence of the CO disk’s central velocity with systemic velocity favors a scenario in which the gas lies within the disk, as opposed to being situated above the plane. The in-plane picture is supported by the good agreement between the gas distribution and the dust morphology.
In the following we will discuss three plausible interpretations of the CO morphology. First, the nuclear CO disk could be tilted relative to the large stellar disk. The axis ratio of the nuclear disk of $`b/a0.5`$ translates into an inclination of $`i60^{}`$ along a position angle of $`15^{}`$. The two CO peaks about $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ north and south of the center are separated in velocity by $`8\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (see Fig. 2). Assuming solid body rotation and that these two peaks fall on the kinematic major axis of the nuclear disk, the resulting dynamical mass is $`M_{\mathrm{dyn}}2\times 10^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The derived mass is significantly smaller than the mass estimated for either the nuclear molecular gas disk or the nuclear stellar cluster ($`6\times 10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$, Böker et al., 1999) making this an unlikely scenario. A second alternative is that the nuclear CO emission originates in a virialized cloud, rather than a rotating disk. For a cloud size of about $`2^{\prime \prime }(17\mathrm{pc})`$ and a CO line width (FWHM) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v8\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, the virialized mass is $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}3\times 10^5\mathrm{M}_{}`$. However, the observed rotation (see Fig. 2) within the nuclear disk argues against a single virialized cloud. In a third scenario, the observed non-circular motion are due to radial motions of material moving toward the center similar to what is observed in the central region of our Galaxy (Morris & Serabyn, 1996). Since the first two scenarios seem unlikely, we conclude that streaming motions are the most plausible explanation for the non-circular motions observed in the CO kinematics. A possible cause for such streaming motion could be the large-scale stellar bar. This scenario should be investigated further by dynamical modeling.
Feeding the nuclear star cluster: The nuclear star cluster in IC 342 has a mass of $`6\times 10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and experienced a major burst of star formation $`60\mathrm{Myr}`$ ago (Böker et al., 1999). The population of stars produced in this event dominates the SED of the cluster, and thus makes it difficult to quantify the contribution from possible older generation(s) of stars. As discussed in Böker et al. (1999), up to 90% of the cluster mass could have been produced in a burst that occurred $`10\mathrm{Gyr}`$ before the most recent one. While this number is definitely an upper limit because the described scenario lies at the extreme end of possible star formation histories, it is reasonable to assume that previous nuclear starburst events have indeed occurred. For the moment, we will assume that the most recent burst produced 30% of the cluster mass, i.e. about $`2\times 10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Assuming a star formation efficiency of 20% (Elmegreen et al., 1999), about $`10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of molecular gas are needed in order to produce such a starburst event. This is 50 times more than the present-day mass of the nuclear CO disk ($`M_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$$`1.7\times 10^5\mathrm{M}_{}`$). In what follows, we use our CO observations to constrain the inflow rate of molecular gas and to estimate how long it might take before another such starburst event can occur.
A lower limit can be calculated by assuming that it took the full $`60\mathrm{Myr}`$ since the last starburst for the nuclear CO disk to form. In this case, the inflow rate is $`0.003\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{yr}`$ or about 3 Gyr are needed before a new starburst event could occur. We derive an upper limit by taking the observed gas surface density of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }500\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{pc}^2`$ together with the width of the two dust lanes seen in the V-band image ($`0.2^{\prime \prime }`$). This yields an estimate of the gas inflow rate onto the nuclear disk of $`2000\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{pc}\times v_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. The inflow velocity of the gas, $`v_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ can be estimated by comparing the observed circular velocity in the nuclear disk ($`v_{\mathrm{obs}}25\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at a radius of $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ or $`4.4\mathrm{pc}`$) to the maximum expected circular velocity around the nuclear star cluster (assuming solid body rotation), $`v_{\mathrm{sb}}75\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This implies that radial motions of up to $`v_{\mathrm{rad}}70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ can be present in the molecular gas next to the nuclear cluster, depending on the exact shape of the gravitational potential. These rough estimates result in an inflow rate of $`0.14\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{yr}`$. Such an inflow rate would accumulate about $`10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of molecular gas in the nucleus within $`70\mathrm{Myr}`$. These two estimates probably bracket the actual inflow rate, but a number of uncertainties remain. For one, the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ mass in the center of IC 342 might be overestimated by a factor of 4-5 due to the use of a Galactic conversion factor, as discussed in Meier & Turner (2001). In addition, the non-circular motions can be overestimated due to the unknown shape of the underlying gravitational potential. Nevertheless, the inflow rates discussed here are not unreasonable to support repetitive nuclear starbursts in IC 342. For example, an accumulation of $`0.01\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{yr}`$ is sufficient to support a starburst duty cycle of about $`1\mathrm{Gyr}`$. The duty cycle might even be shorter if the star formation efficiency is higher than the 20% assumed here. Indeed, efficiencies up to 50% have been inferred for giant molecular clouds in the spiral arms of IC 342 (Meier & Turner, 2001). Moreover, the inflow rate is likely to vary over time with lower inflow rates in the past, and could increase in the future as more mass is accumulated at the center. For example, assuming a constant rate of $`0.003\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{yr}`$ (our lower limit) over a Hubble time ($`10^{10}\mathrm{yr}`$) results in a mass accumulation of $`3\times 10^7M_{}`$ which is larger than the dynamical mass of $`2\times 10^7M_{}`$ derived for the central 120 pc (Turner & Hurt, 1992).
Our analysis of new high-resolution maps of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{CO}(21)`$ emission in the center of IC 342 has revealed the following main results. We detect molecular gas coinciding with the nuclear stellar cluster. This, and the presence of streaming motions close to the nucleus, suggests that gaseous matter is currently accumulating at the nucleus of IC 342. These findings provide support for in-situ formation of nuclear clusters and repetitive nuclear starbursts. Rough estimates of gas inflow rates suggest that massive ($`10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$) nuclear starbursts in IC 342 can be supported with duty cycles between a few hundred Myrs and 1 Gyrs.

We thank J. Turner and W. Maciejewski for helpful comments. DSM acknowledges support from the Laboratory of Astronomical Imaging at the University of Illinois.