text:
# A Survey of Open Clusters in the 𝑢'𝑔'𝑟'𝑖'𝑧' Filter System: I. Results for NGC 2548 (M 48)

## 1 Introduction

One of the most powerful tools available in astrophysics for exploring and testing theories of star formation, stellar and galactic evolution, and the chemical enrichment history of the Galaxy is the study of open star clusters. Because of this, open clusters have been the subject of intense studies for the past several decades (e.g., Anthony-Twarog, Twarog, & McClure 1979; Geisler & Smith 1984; Anthony-Twarog, Twarog, & Sheeran 1994; Bruntt et al. 1999; Mathieu 2000; see also Friel 1995 and references therein).

We have embarked on a survey of (mostly) southern hemisphere star clusters using the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter system. The original motivation of the project was to use these clusters, which span a range of ages and metallicities, to “back calibrate” the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) \[see Gunn et al. (1998) for a description of the SDSS survey camera and York et al. (2000) for a description of the SDSS\]. In addition, these data may now be used to verify the recent age and metallicity models of Girardi et al. (2003) and the prior work of Lenz et al. (1998) and to verify and expand upon the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ to $`UBVRI`$ transformations presented in the standard star paper (Smith et al., 2002).

The initial effort in this survey obtained observations for approximately 105 open clusters and a few ($`<`$10) “low-density” globular clusters. This approach was driven, in part, as a result of the availability of the Curtis-Schmidt telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO). This telescope was available as a result of one of us (JAS) being at the University of Michigan as a research fellow. The need to perform the survey observations was a result of the impending closure of this wonderful survey telescope. The wide field of this instrument allowed us to survey several clusters over the course of four observing runs, from 1997–2000.

In this, the first paper of our series, we present our results for NGC 2548, also known as M 48, which is an intermediate age open cluster. We chose this particular cluster because we had observations of it from three telescopes: the CTIO Curtis-Schmidt, which is the main telescope for our open clusters program; the 0.5 m Photometric Telescope, which is used to calibrate the imaging data from the SDSS 2.5 m telescope; and, most importantly, the US Naval Observatory (USNO) 1.0 m telescope at Flagstaff Station, which was used to establish the original $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ standard star network (Smith et al., 2002). These data, especially from the USNO 1.0 m telescope, have allowed us to tie the CTIO Curtis-Schmidt system more strongly to the basic definition of the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ system. As a result the findings from the remainder of our open clusters program will be placed on a firmer foundation.

Although NGC 2548 is bright enough to have been cataloged by Messier, it was once thought to be non-existent due to a sign error in Messier’s reported coordinates (Wu et al., 2002). While this cluster has been the subject of several proper motion studies (Ebbighausen, 1939; Dias, Lépine, & Alessi, 2001; Wu et al., 2002), chemical composition studies (Wallerstein & Conti, 1964; Claria, 1985; Gilroy, 1989), and dynamical studies (Geyer & Nelles, 1985; Bergond, Leon, & Guibert, 2001), there have been surprisingly few photometric studies (Pesch, 1961; Claria, 1985). The only photometric study of this cluster consisting of more than five stars is the $`UBV`$ photoelectric observations obtained by Pesch (1961), who observed 37 stars and divided them into spectral groups. Further, he estimated the reddening to be $`E(BV)=.04\pm .05`$ and the distance to be 630 pc.

In the following sections we present details of the instrumentation and observations, (§2), data reduction and analysis techniques, (§3), results (§4), and planned future work (§5).

## 2 Instrumentation and Observations

### 2.1 $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ Filter System

The five filters of the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ system have effective wavelengths of 3540Å, 4750Å, 6222Å, 7632Å, and 9049Å, respectively, at 1.2 airmasses.111Note that the $`g^{}`$ filter has been determined to have an effective wavelength 20 Å bluer than that originally quoted by Fukugita et al. (1996). They cover the entire wavelength range of the combined atmosphere+CCD response and their construction is described by Fukugita et al. (1996). The $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filters have sharp cutoffs by design. The passbands were selected to exclude the strongest night-sky lines; for example O I ($`\lambda `$5577) and Hg I ($`\lambda `$5461). The bulk of the $`u^{}`$ band response is blueward of the Balmer discontinuity which, when combined with the $`g^{}`$ filter, yields high sensitivity to the magnitude of the Balmer jump but at a cost of lower throughput for the narrower $`u^{}`$ filter (compared with Johnson $`U`$). We note the red side of the $`z^{}`$ filter is open ended, and therefore subject to potentially large color terms in the transformation equations, dependent upon the choice of detector.

The $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ magnitude system is a broadband $`AB`$ system. In other words, rather than selecting some fiducial spectral type to have null colors (as in the $`UBVR_\mathrm{c}I_\mathrm{c}`$ system), $`AB`$ broadband magnitudes are defined by the following equation:

$$m=2.5\mathrm{log}\frac{d(\mathrm{log}\nu )f_\nu S_\nu }{d(\mathrm{log}\nu )S_\nu }48.60,$$
(1)
where $`f_\nu `$ is the energy flux per unit frequency on the atmosphere and $`S_\nu `$ is the system response. Hence in an $`AB`$ system, an object with a flat spectral energy distribution would have null colors (Oke & Gunn, 1983; Fukugita et al., 1996).

To zeropoint the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ system, Smith et al. (2002) used the synthetic $`AB`$ $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ magnitudes of the F subdwarf BD+17$`\mathrm{°}`$4708 as calculated by Fukugita et al. (1996). Initial estimates indicate that the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ network is offset from a true $`AB`$ broadband system by no more than about 5% in $`u^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ and by no more than about 3% in $`g^{}r^{}i^{}`$ (see § 4 below), due to uncertainties in the absolute calibration of the synthetic $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ magnitudes of BD+17$`\mathrm{°}`$4708.

The $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ standard star network is composed of 158 stars distributed primarily along the celestial equator and the northern celestial hemisphere (Smith et al., 2002). As a cautionary note, the primary goals for the SDSS are large scale structure studies using galaxies and QSOs, so the first version of the standard network is limited, for the most part, to stars bluer than about M0 to avoid the strengthening metal bands and flare stars.

### 2.2  Telescopes and Observations

As noted above, we are using data from three separate telescopes in this study of NGC 2548: the USNO 1.0 m telescope at Flagstaff Station in Arizona, the SDSS 0.5 m Photometric Telescope (PT) at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, and the University of Michigan’s 0.6/0.9 m Curtis-Schmidt telescope at CTIO (CTIO-CS) in Chile. We will describe each instrument in turn. A summary of the system parameters is presented in Table 1. A summary of the observing circumstances for the NGC 2548 field is given in Table 2.

#### 2.2.1 USNO 1.0 m

The USNO 1.0 m telescope is of Ritchey–Chrétien design. The observations for our NGC 2548 program on this telescope were obtained on 2002 November 5 and 6 (UT). All of the observations were direct exposures with a thinned, UV-AR coated, Tektronix TK1024 CCD operating at a gain of 7.43$`\pm `$0.41 electrons per ADU with a readnoise of 6.0 electrons. This CCD is similar to the CCDs used in the main SDSS survey camera and the CCD used by the 0.5-m Photometric Telescope at APO. This is the detector which defines the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ standard star network. The camera scale of 0.68 arcsec/pixel for this $`1024\times 1024`$ detector produces a field of view of 11.54 arcmin.

During a typical night at the telescope, we generally observed four to five standard fields at the start of the night to determine the extinction. Following this, we would usually observe two to three target fields, and then would alternate between two to three standard and target fields through the remainder of the night, finishing with a longer run of standards (usually four-five). In general, two or three standard fields were observed several times each night to monitor extinction manually at the telescope and to look for changes in the photometricity of the sky. These values were compared with the “all–sky” extinction values determined later during the reduction process. Additional fields were observed throughout the night, near the meridian and at high airmass, in order to provide a good color spread to solve for instrumental color terms.

#### 2.2.2 Photometric Telescope

The SDSS 0.5 m PT is a classic Cassegrain with an additional two corrective lenses. The addition of these two corrective lenses increased the field of view to about 43 arcmin and changed the f-ratio from f/8.0 to f/8.8. The CCD is a SITe $`2048\times 2048`$ device with 24 micron (1.15 arcsec) pixels and a UV-AR coating.

The PT observations for our NGC 2548 program were obtained on 2001 December 2 (UT). On this night, observing began by targetting three standard star fields covering a range of airmasses and colors. Similar sequences of observations occurred at roughly 90 minute intervals through the night, which ended with sequence of observations of four standard star fields, providing data approprate for monitoring the stability of the extinction through the night and generating an all-sky photometric solution for the night.

#### 2.2.3 CTIO Curtis-Schmidt

The CTIO-CS is a f/3.5 modified Newtonian focus system with a 0.9 m primary mirror and 0.6 m corrector lens. The CTIO-CS observations for our NGC 2548 program were obtained 2000 March 6 (UT). During this observing session, we used the Tek2k#5 (Tektronix TK2048 CCD) detector with the CTIO set of SDSS $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filters. The $`2048\times 2048`$ detector has a scale of 2.3 arcsec/pixel, yielding an effective field of view of 1.3 deg. Readout of the chip was driven by two amplifiers and the CCD system was operated under the Arcon control software (version 3.17) at a gain setting #2. This gain setting yielded effective gain and read noise values as given in Table 1. For the CTIO-CS observations, we followed an observing plan similar to that described for the USNO 1.0 m observations (§2.2.1).

## 3 Data Reduction

We performed reductions using version v8.0 of the SDSS software pipeline mtpipe (see Tucker et al., 2003). This version of mtpipe is being used for the current PT reductions used in calibrating the SDSS imaging data (e.g., Abazajian et al., 2003) and in the CTIO-0.9 m reductions used for establishing a southern $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ standard star network (Smith et al., 2003)222http://home.fnal.gov/$``$dtucker/Southern\_ugriz/index.html. An earlier version of mtpipe (v6.6) was used for processing the data for the setup of the original $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ standard star network (Smith et al., 2002). (The main changes between mtpipe v6.6 and v8.0 lie in the latter version’s increased support for the PT and the CTIO telescopes and its use of an improved set of photometric equations.)

The mtpipe pipeline consists of four main packages:

* preMtFrames, which creates the directory structure for the reduction of a night’s data, including parameter files needed as input for the other three packages, and runs quality-assurance tests on the raw data.
* mtFrames, which processes the images and performs object detection and aperture photometry on target field images. The processing steps include bias (zero) subtraction, flat-field and fringe-frame correction.
* excal, which takes the aperture photometry lists for the standard star target fields (i.e., stars from Smith et al., 2002), identifies the individual standard stars within those fields, and fits the observed raw counts and known $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ magnitudes to a set of photometric equations to obtain extinction and zero point coefficients. The output from this package allows us to monitor the stability of the night. The default analysis block is three hours, but can be changed as required based upon the data present and upon trends in the reductions. Typically, a minimum of ten standard stars are required to obtain a good solution for the night.
* kali, which applies the fitted photometric equations to the aperture photometry lists of program target fields for the appropriate analysis block (e.g., the NGC 2548 field).

The photometric equations employed in excal for the current paper are the following:

$`u_{\mathrm{inst}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`u_\mathrm{o}^{}+a_u+k_uX`$ (2)
$`+b_u[(u^{}g^{})_\mathrm{o}(u^{}g^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}]`$
$`+c_u[(u^{}g^{})_\mathrm{o}(u^{}g^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}][XX_{\mathrm{zp}}],`$
$`g_{\mathrm{inst}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_\mathrm{o}^{}+a_g+k_gX`$ (3)
$`+b_g[(g^{}r^{})_\mathrm{o}(g^{}r^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}]`$
$`+c_g[(g^{}r^{})_\mathrm{o}(g^{}r^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}][XX_{\mathrm{zp}}],`$
$`r_{\mathrm{inst}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`r_\mathrm{o}^{}+a_r+k_rX`$ (4)
$`+b_r[(r^{}i^{})_\mathrm{o}(r^{}i^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}]`$
$`+c_r[(r^{}i^{})_\mathrm{o}(r^{}i^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}][XX_{\mathrm{zp}}],`$
$`i_{\mathrm{inst}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i_\mathrm{o}^{}+a_i+k_iX`$ (5)
$`+b_i[(i^{}z^{})_\mathrm{o}(i^{}z^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}]`$
$`+c_i[(i^{}z^{})_\mathrm{o}(i^{}z^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}][XX_{\mathrm{zp}}],`$
$`z_{\mathrm{inst}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`z_\mathrm{o}^{}+a_z+k_zX`$ (6)
$`+b_z[(i^{}z^{})_\mathrm{o}(i^{}z^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}]`$
$`+c_z[(i^{}z^{})_\mathrm{o}(i^{}z^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}][XX_{\mathrm{zp}}].`$
Taking the $`g^{}`$ equation as an example, we note that $`g_{\mathrm{inst}}^{}`$ is the measured instrumental magnitude, $`g_\mathrm{o}^{}`$ is the extra-atmospheric magnitude, $`(g^{}r^{})_\mathrm{o}`$ is the extra-atmospheric color, $`a_g`$ is the nightly zero point, $`k_g`$ is the first order extinction coefficient, $`b_g`$ is the system transform coefficient, $`c_g`$ is the second order (color) extinction coefficient, and $`X`$ is the airmass of the observation. The zeropoint constants, $`X_{\mathrm{zp}}`$ and $`(g^{}r^{})_{\mathrm{o},\mathrm{zp}}`$ were defined, respectively, to be the average standard star observation airmass $`<X>`$ = 1.3 and the “cosmic color,” as listed in Table 3 of Smith et al. (2002).

In general we follow the reduction procedures outlined in § 3 of Smith et al. (2003), with the following exceptions:

USNO 1.0 m: Since this combination of telescope$`+`$detector$`+`$filters defines the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ photometric system, we do not solve for the coefficient of the the intrumenal color terms (the “b” terms), but set them all identically to zero. Further, due to variations in seeing during the nights we observed NGC 2548 on this telescope, we found that a larger aperture size yielded stabler aperture photometry and improved residuals in the fits to the photometric equations; so, instead of the 14.86 arcsec aperture diameter used in Smith et al. (2003), we used the 24.0 arcsec aperture diameter originally employed in the setup of the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ standard star network (Smith et al., 2002).

Photometric Telescope: The data from the PT for this night was originally reduced as part of the standard SDSS photometric calibration program. Currently, as part of this program, mtFrames performs aperture photometry using two default aperture sizes: a large aperture of 24.0 arcsec and a small aperture of 12.0 arcsec diameter. The large aperture size is used on the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ standard star target fields. The small aperture size is used on the program target fields. A correction to convert the small aperture counts to large aperture counts is calculated for program target fields on an image-by-image basis by measuring the ratio of the fluxes in both apertures for the 12 brightest stars in the image and taking a clipped mean; sanity checks prevent the inclusion of saturated stars, cosmic rays, or close optical doubles in this calculation. The resulting aperture correction is applied to all the stars in the target field.

We took the original mtFrames aperture photometry for this night’s data and re-ran excal and kali on it. We did not solve for the $`b`$ term coefficients but set them to the site-average values for the current PT $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter set (see Table 3 below). Further, rather than solve the photometric equations in 3-hour blocks, we followed the standard SDSS convention used in mtpipe processing and used a full-night block.

Note that, in this paper, we follow a slightly different tack in calibrating the PT data than is done for normal SDSS operations. In particular, in normal SDSS operations, different values are used for the zeropoint colors and in the photometric equations the $`i^{}`$ filter is indexed to $`r^{}i^{}`$, not to $`i^{}z^{}`$ (as in eq.  above). We have compared the results from both PT calibration strategies for this night’s data, and find typical offsets in the calibrated magnitudes for any given star to be $``$ 0.01 mag. (For a detailed description of the PT calibration strategy in normal SDSS operations, see Tucker et al. 2003.)

CTIO Curtis-Schmidt: To tighten the scatter in the residuals, we chose to fit the photometric equations in excal using a single, full-night block instead of multiple 3-hour blocks. Other than that, for this telescope, we follow the data reduction methodology of Smith et al. (2003) very closely.

The night characterization data for each of the photometric nights included in this study of NGC 2548 are given in Table 3. These data include the Modified Julian Date333The Modified Julian Date is defined by the relation MJD$``$JD$``$2,400,000.5, where JD is the Julian Date. of the observation (col. ), filter (col. ), zero points (col. ), system transformation terms (col. ), and first-order extinction terms (col. –). Finally, columns (8) and (9) give the rms errors for, and numbers of, the standard stars observed that night which were used in the photometric solutions. In a footnote, we also list the second-order extinction terms derived in Smith et al. (2002).

Once we had run all the nights containing NGC 2548 data through mtpipe, we had ten lists of calibrated NGC 2548 $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ photometry — one for each targetting of this cluster (see Table 2). In order to compare cross-calibrations, we first combined the contents of these lists by telescope. In other words, we combined the contents of the seven USNO 1.0 m lists together into one large USNO 1.0m list, and we likewise combined the contents of the two CTIO-CS lists into a single large CTIO-CS list.. (Since there was only one PT list to begin with, its contents did not need to be combined.) We did the combining by assigning each star in the combined list the “best” magnitude of its corresponding entries from all $`N`$ lists for that telescope. In this context, “best” refers to the magnitude that has the smallest photon noise. This is done on a filter-by-filter basis, so a star’s best $`u^{}`$ magnitude and best $`r^{}`$ magnitude may come from different lists. (Star entries were matched by position between lists using a $`\pm `$2 arcsec box in RA and DEC.) Magnitude entries which have been flagged by mtFrames as being saturated or which have poorly determined values (magnitudes $`<0`$ or $`>100`$) were excluded from the combine procedure.

To reduce field star contamination only stars within a cluster radius of 27 arcmin (Lyngå, 1987) were included in the final telescope lists. Where possible, a cluster membership probability based upon Dias, Lépine, & Alessi (2001)’s proper motion study was assigned to each star.

The full data tables for each telescope are available in the electronic edition of this paper. The available data for each of the telescopes include our internal ID number for each star (col. ), the star ID number from Jean-Claude Mermilliod’s webda online open cluster database444http://obswww.unige.ch/webda/webda.html (col. ), RA (col ), DEC (col. ), $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ magnitudes (cols. , , , , & , respectively), $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ magnitude (photon noise) errors (cols. , , , , & , respectively), and $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ saturation flags (cols. , , , , & , respectively). Lastly column (20) gives the stars proper motion membership probability from Dias, Lépine, & Alessi (2001). Tables 4, 5, and 6 show the first 50 entries of the available data for the USNO 1.0 m, PT, and CTIO Curtis-Schmidt telescopes, respectively.

We also created a master list in which the lists from all three telescopes were combined. We base our internal numbering scheme (col.  of Tables 4, 5, and 6) on this final, master list.

## 4 Results

### 4.1  System Verification

The USNO 1.0 m telescope defines the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter system. We verify our ability to apply this system to other telescopes by comparing our observations from those telescopes to those from the USNO 1.0 m telescope. This was done by determining the difference in the magnitude, for each filter, for all stars observed by both telescopes. Figures 1 and 2 show, respectively, the differences in magnitude as a function of magnitude and as a function of color between the USNO 1.0 m telescope and the PT. Likewise, Figures 3 and 4 show, respectively, the differences in magnitude as a function of magnitude and as a function of color between the USNO 1.0 m telescope and the CTIO Curtis-Schmidt telescope. As measured by the median magnitude offsets in each filter, there is a $``$2.2% ($``$0.022 mag) systematic difference between the USNO 1.0 m and the PT magnitudes and — except for the $`z^{}`$ band — a $``$2.4% ($``$0.024 mag) systematic difference between the USNO 1.0 m and the CTIO Curtis-Schmidt magnitudes. Furthermore, Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 indicate that there are no strong overall trends in the systematic differences as a function of magnitude or color for these telescopes. The somewhat larger USNO 1.0 m/CTIO-CS $`z^{}`$ band offset (0.042 mag or about 4.2%) could be ascribed to just random variations in the atmosphere (note the relatively high rms in the fit to the $`z^{}`$ photometric equation for the this night on the CTIO-CS in Table 3). It may also indicate a difficulty in performing $`z^{}`$ band aperture photometry with this instrument. This issue will likely be resolved as we analyze more of the CTIO-CS data in detail.

To further illustrate these results, Figures 5 and 6 show the results for each telescope over-plotted in a color-magnitude diagram (Figure 5) and in a color-color diagram (Figure 6). The data for the CTIO Curtis-Schmidt, the PT and the USNO 1.0 m telescopes are plotted in red, black, and blue, respectively. These figures demonstrate that the stars observed by each of the three telescopes fall in the same locus and follow the same trends in both the color-magnitude and the color-color diagrams.

These results verify that we can tie observations from other telescopes to the USNO 1.0 m $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ system with a high degree of accuracy (typically $`<`$2–3% systematics).

### 4.2 The Photometric Properties of NGC 2548

We compare our observations of NGC 2548 to theoretical SDSS isochrones and metallicity curves from Girardi et al. (2003) (see also Girardi et al. 2000; Girardi 2001; Girardi et al. 2002). The input physics for these models are based upon a magnetic hydrodynamic equation of state at temperatures T$`<10^7`$ and a fully-ionized gas equation of state at higher temperatures; electron screening is incorporated in the reaction rates. The theoretical evolutionary tracks were converted into the SDSS photometric system using the SDSS 2.5 m telescope $`ugriz`$ filter response functions555http://archive.stsci.edu/sdss/documents/response.dat and the no-overshoot ATLAS9 synthetic atmospheres of Castelli, Gratton, & Kurucz (1997). Updated versions of these isochrones for a variety of metallicities are available at: http://pleiadi.pd.astro.it/$``$lgirardi/isoc\_photsys.00/isoc\_sloan/.

Note that the Girardi et al. (2003) SDSS isochrones were created using the SDSS 2.5 m telescope $`ugriz`$ filter system, which differs slightly from the USNO 1.0 m $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter system (see, for example Abazajian et al. 2003); furthermore, Girardi et al. (2003) assume that the SDSS 2.5 m $`ugriz`$ system is a perfect $`AB`$ system. In order to compare the isochrones to our data we first had to adjust the isochones for the known deviation of the SDSS 2.5 m telescope from a true $`AB`$ system. This was done using the following equations (D. Eisenstein, private communication):

$`u(AB,2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`u(2.5m)0.040,`$ (7)
$`g(AB,2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`g(2.5m)0.009,`$ (8)
$`r(AB,2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`r(2.5m),`$ (9)
$`i(AB,2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`i(2.5m)+0.017,`$ (10)
$`z(AB,2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`z(2.5m)+0.035.`$ (11)
(The values of the $`AB`$ offsets in these equations are preliminary and future refinement at the $`\pm `$ 0.01–0.02 mag level are possible.)

Next, the isochrones were converted from the SDSS 2.5 m $`ugriz`$ system into the USNO 1.0 m $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ system by making use of the following relations (Tucker et al., 2003) :

$`u(2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`u^{},`$ (12)
$`g(2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{}+0.060((g^{}r^{})0.53),`$ (13)
$`r(2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`r^{}+0.035((r^{}i)^{}0.21),`$ (14)
$`i(2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`i^{}+0.041((r^{}i^{})0.21),`$ (15)
$`z(2.5m)`$ $`=`$ $`z^{}0.030((i^{}z^{})0.09).`$ (16)
The stars were dereddened using a value of $`E(BV)=0.31`$ from the Dias, et al. (2002) open cluster catalog and the following equations from Stoughton et al. (2002):

$`u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{red}^{}5.155\times E(BV),`$ (17)
$`g^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{red}^{}3.793\times E(BV),`$ (18)
$`i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i_{red}^{}2.086\times E(BV),`$ (19)
$`r^{}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{red}^{}2.751\times E(BV),`$ (20)
$`z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`z_{red}^{}1.479\times E(BV).`$ (21)
The stars were then compared to the results of the Dias, Lépine, & Alessi (2001) proper motion and membership study of this cluster. Stars with membership probabilities greater than 50% were considered to be members; stars with membership probabilities less than 50% were considered non-members. Further, the stars were matched to a list of known red giants and spectroscopic binaries listed in webda. This matchup information helped in fitting the isochrones to the data.

Figures 7(a-f) show the full set of color-magnitude diagrams available in the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter system. The $`g^{}`$ vs. $`g^{}r^{}`$ (Figure 7b) and the $`r^{}`$ vs. $`g^{}r^{}`$ (Figure 7c) color-magnitude diagrams are most similar to the more recognizable $`V`$ vs. $`BV`$ color-magnitude diagrams. (See Table 7 of Smith et al. 2002 for the transformation equations between the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ and the Johnson $`UBVR_\mathrm{c}I_\mathrm{c}`$ photometric systems.) All the color-magnitude diagrams have a well defined main sequence and main sequence turn off.

Figures 8(a-c) show the three color-color diagrams of the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter system. The $`u^{}g^{}`$ vs. $`g^{}r^{}`$ (Figure 8a) color-color diagram is most similar to the more common $`UB`$ vs. $`BV`$ color-color diagram. In the $`u^{}g^{}`$ vs. $`g^{}r^{}`$ color-color diagram the main sequence (top line) and the red giant branch (bottom line) are clearly distinguishable; however, in the $`g^{}r^{}`$ vs. $`r^{}i^{}`$ (Figure 8b) and $`r^{}i^{}`$ vs. $`i^{}z^{}`$ (Figure 8c) color-color diagrams the main sequence and the red giant branch are degenerate.

We initially adopted the Dias, et al. (2002) values for distance, age, and metallicity of NGC 2548 (769 pc, 0.36 Gyr, +0.08, respectively) as the starting point for fitting the theoretical models. We then adjusted these values to find the best fit by eye. This was done by first adjusting the distance to fit the main sequence, and then adjusting the age and metallicity to best fit the main sequence turn off and the red giant branch. Based upon the Girardi et al. (2003) isochones we find that the cluster data are consistent with a distance in the range of 575 pc to 625 pc, an age in the range of 0.37 Gyr to 0.42 Gyr, and a metallicity in the range of $`[Z/Z_{}]=0.1`$ to +0.1; however, we find that a distance of 700 pc, an age of 0.40 Gyr and a metallicity of $`[Z/Z_{}]=0.0`$ best fit our data. We do note that while some of the diagrams indicates a slightly older age (mainly the $`u^{}g^{}`$ vs. $`g^{}r^{}`$ color-color diagram), the majority of the diagrams are best fit by the 0.40 Gyr isochrone. The slight discrepancies in the best-fit parameters among these diagrams are within the uncertainties of the isochrones and the $`AB`$ offsets. Our finding for the metallicity, age, and distance for NGC 2548 are consistent with the Dias, et al. (2002) values. We find an age that is 0.04 Gyr (10%) older and a distance that is 70 pc (10%) closer than the values listed in Dias, et al. (2002). Each of the color-magnitude diagrams and the color-color diagram (Figures 7 and 8) have an over-plotted isochrone with these best fit values. The bold portion of the isochrone represent the region in which the $`ugriz`$ to $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ transformations are best characterized. Overall, we find the Girardi et al. (2003) isochrones fit our data in a consistent manner and can be used to extract meaningful cluster information (e.g., age and distance). This holds true even bluewards of region where the $`ugriz`$ to $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ transformations are best characterized.

## 5  Summary and Future Work

In this first paper of our series, we show that we can effectively tie $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ observations from other telescopes to those by the USNO 1.0 m telescope and CCD detector — the configuration which defined $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ photometric system — with a high degree of accuracy (typically $`<`$2–3% systematics). This lays a firm foundation for the rest of our open cluster project, which derives data primarily from the CTIO Curtis-Schmidt telescope. Also, we have shown that we can effectively fit isochrones and extract useful cluster information using the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter system. We used these isochrones to determine the age, distance, and metallicity for NGC 2548. Our metallicity value ($`[Z/Z_{}]=0.0`$) is consistent with the currently accepted value listed in the webda online database and in the (Dias, et al., 2002) open cluster catalog, as are our age and and distance values. We find a distance of 700 pc (10% closer than the value reported in Dias, et al. 2002) and an age of 0.40 Gyr (10% older than the Dias, et al. 2002 value.)

Our entire sample of observations consists of more than 100 open clusters. Our immediate goal is to publish a sample of open clusters covering a range of ages and metallicities to help better determine the characteristics of the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ filter system. To date, we have built and tested the cluster data matching scripts and adjusted isochrone fits. We will pursue the reduction and analyses of the remaining clusters for which we have data. As the SDSS 2.5 m telescope sweeps across open clusters, we’ll incorporate those observations into our survey. Further, as time and conditions permit, the SDSS PT may be used for a survey of northern clusters in much the same way the CTIO Schmidt telescope was used in this current effort. It is relatively small (0.5 m) but has a large field of view, making it an ideal instrument for the initial observations of the larger and brighter clusters. Follow-up work for fainter clusters and cluster members will be pursued at available observatories as time permits.

Repeat observations for some of the clusters will be pursued to expand the investigations to find and analyze variable stars (especially RR-Lyr type stars to improve distance estimates). Deeper exposures for some clusters will be obtained to improve the model fits to the lower main sequence and reduce the scatter that is present in our reconnaissance images.

The authors would like to thank the tremendous support given by the mountain staff at CTIO, especially by Edgardo Cosgrove and Arturo Gomez. We would also like to thank Jeff Pier and Jeff Munn for providing access and support for our observations with the US Naval Observatory 1 m telescope at Flagstaff Station, Arizona, and Alan Uomoto of Johns Hopkins University for providing a working monitor telescope (in the form of the PT) at Apache Point Observatory. We all gratefully acknowledge the support of Leo Girardi for his models and suggestions to improve the fits to the data. We also extend thanks to Daniel Eisenstein, Eva Grebel, Christy Tremonti, and the other members of the SDSS Stars and Calibration Working Groups for suggestions regarding the correct values of the $`AB`$ offsets to use in our isochrone fits. We further acknowledge the webda open cluster data compilation which made accessing all available data for this clusters an easy task. CJR acknowledges support from the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Internship for Undergraduate Physics Majors program during the summer of 2002. JAS acknowledges support from an American Astronomical Society Small Research Grant and the National Science Foundation through grant AST-0097356, which allowed the observations to be obtained. JAS also acknowledges the University of Michigan, Department of Astronomy for access to the Curtis-Schmidt telescope while a research fellow at the University. JAS also acknowledges the proof reading support and English skills of Jeanne Odermann, whose efforts substantially improved the readability of the text. This research has made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System and of the Guide Star Catalog 2.2. The Guide Star Catalog was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant. Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating 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/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Protein misfolding and polypeptide aggregation are in the focus of interdisciplinary statistical physics because of their relevance to amyloid diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease. Even though polypeptides related to these diseases share no sequence or secondary structure similarity, they can aggregate into insoluble fibrils which share some structural features. These fibrils are typically $`100\text{Å}`$ in diameter, and several thousand Angstroms in length Sipe00\_JSB . X-ray diffraction studies Eanes68\_JHC ; Sunde97\_JMB  reveal the common structural features for these amyloid fibrils: the presence of a 4.7–4.8 Å inter-strand spacing along the fibril axis and a 9–10 Å inter-sheet spacing perpendicular to the fibril axis Bonar69\_PSEBM ; Kirschner86\_PNAS . Although advances have been made toward understanding the structural characteristics of the fibrils and the mechanism of fibril formation, our knowledge of the detailed fibrillar structure and mechanisms of amyloid assembly is limited.

Molecular dynamics provides a way to study the aggregation mechanism at the molecular level. However, continuous all-atom molecular dynamics simulations with realistic force fields in a physiological solution are not fast enough to monitor a complete aggregation process from monomers to fully-formed fibrils. Recently, a discrete molecular dynamics (DMD) algorithm Zhou97\_PNAS ; Dokholyan98\_FD  using a coarse-grained peptide model has been successfully implemented to study protein folding thermodynamics and protein folding kinetics Borreguero02\_JMB . This computationally fast and dynamically realistic simulation technique has also been applied to study the aggregation of a small number of Src SH3 domain proteins Ding02\_JMB  and the competition of refolding and aggregation of four-helix bundles Smith01\_JMB .

Here we study the aggregation of a large number of peptides. We choose 40-amino acid amyloid $`\beta `$ peptide ($`A\beta _{140}`$ Coles98\_Biochem , protein data bank (PDB) PDB  access code 1BA4), which is associated with Alzheimer’s disease, to construct model peptides. Our results show that model peptides can aggregate into multi-layer $`\beta `$-sheet structures with free edges Richardson02\_PNAS  which may enable further fibrillar elongation. The computed diffraction pattern of our simulated multi-layer $`\beta `$-sheet is consistent with experimental observations Malinchik98\_BJ ; Serpell00\_BBA .

## II Methods

### II.1 Two-bead model

#### II.1.1 Geometry of model peptide: beads and permanent bonds

We model each amino acid in the $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide by two beads – $`C_\alpha `$ bead representing backbone atoms and $`C_\beta `$ bead representing side chain atoms (for glycine, $`C_\beta `$ is absent). Each bead has an index $`i`$ indicating the position of amino acid in the sequence starting from the N-terminus. The geometry of the peptide is modeled by applying permanent bonds among these beads Ding02\_BJ . These bonds include covalent bonds between $`C_{\alpha i}`$ and $`C_{\beta i}`$, peptide bonds between $`C_{\alpha i}`$ and $`C_{\alpha (i\pm 1)}`$, additional constraints between $`C_{\beta i}`$ and $`C_{\alpha (i\pm 1)}`$, and also between $`C_{\alpha i}`$ and $`C_{\alpha (i\pm 2)}`$ (Fig. 1). These additional constraints are introduced to model angular constraints between side chains and the backbone.

All permanent bonds are realized by infinitely high potential well interactions between the related beads Dokholyan98\_FD .

$`V_{ij}^{bond}\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & D_{ij}(1\sigma _{ij})<|r_ir_j|<D_{ij}(1+\sigma _{ij})\text{ };\hfill \\ +\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
Here $`D_{ij}`$ is the bond length between beads $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the relative deviation of this bond length. The average lengths for these bonds can be obtained from statistical analysis of distances within the $`A\beta _{140}`$ NMR structures Coles98\_Biochem . Table 1 presents the average lengths and their relative deviations Deviation  used in our model.

#### II.1.2 Interactions between $`C_\beta `$ beads: G$`\overline{o}`$ model

Typically the G$`\overline{o}`$ potentials Zhou97\_PNAS ; Taketomi75\_IJPPR  are used to model proteins with well-defined globular native states. Side chains which form contacts in the native state (native contacts) experience attractive G$`\overline{o}`$ potential. However, $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide is “natively unfolded”. NMR studies suggest that in hydrophobic environments the $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide assumes mostly $`\alpha `$-helical conformation Coles98\_Biochem . Fig. 3 (a) shows one of these NMR structures. Therefore, we apply G$`\overline{o}`$ potentials to preserve this well-defined, mostly $`\alpha `$-helical structure of the $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide. In our two-bead model a native contact is defined when two $`C_\beta `$ beads are closer than $`D^{G\overline{o}}=7.5\text{Å}`$ within the NMR structure of the $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide. All the $`C_\beta `$ beads can not be closer than the hard-core distance $`D_{HC}^{G\overline{o}}=4.5\text{Å}`$. In particular, the structure-specific G$`\overline{o}`$ potentials make the side chains indexed by $`i`$ within the $`\alpha `$-helix region of $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide attract side chains $`i\pm 2,i\pm 3`$ and $`i\pm 4`$. Fig. 3 (b) shows the native contact map for the NMR structure of $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide shown in Fig. 3 (a).

To study the aggregation we need to simulate also the interactions between different peptides. We apply G$`\overline{o}`$ potentials for $`C_\beta `$ beads in different peptides by an assumption that two amino acids which interact with each other in a single peptide will interact in the same way in different peptides. For example, amino acids 16 and 19 form a native contact in the NMR structure. Thus, amino acids at 16 and 19 of peptide 1 will experience attractive G$`\overline{o}`$-type interaction with amino acids 19 and 16 of the peptide 2, respectively. The strength of G$`\overline{o}`$ interactions is set to unity $`ϵ^{G\overline{o}}=1`$.

#### II.1.3 Interactions between $`C_\alpha `$ beads: hydrogen bond

For many globular proteins it has been observed that the number of backbone hydrogen bonds for each amino acid does not exceed two HydrogenBond . Also, whenever two hydrogen bonds are formed in a particular peptide block they are approximately parallel to each other. In order to incorporate these two facts in our model we introduce two criteria for hydrogen bond formation: (i) that each $`C_\alpha `$ bead can form up to two effective hydrogen bonds, and (ii) that the two hydrogen bonds formed by the same C$`\alpha `$ bead must be approximately parallel.

We set the hydrogen bond interaction range between two $`C_\alpha `$ beads to $`D^{HB}=5.0`$Å, and their hard-core distance to $`D_{HC}^{HB}=4.0`$Å. We use the following procedure in order to satisfy the criteria for the hydrogen bond formation: when two $`C_\alpha `$ beads, $`A`$ and $`B`$, come to a distance $`D^{HB}`$, we check for any existing hydrogen-bond partners of $`A`$ and $`B`$. If both beads $`A`$ and $`B`$ have no existing hydrogen partners they can form a hydrogen bond automatically. If one of the beads, for example $`A`$, already has one partner, $`A_1`$, and the distance between the bead $`A_1`$ and the bead $`B`$ is within the range of 8.7-10Å (i.e. the angle between vectors $`\stackrel{}{AA_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{AB}`$ is within the range of $`120^o`$-$`180^o`$), the bead $`A`$ can form another hydrogen bond with bead $`B`$ provided that either the bead $`B`$ has no existing hydrogen bonds or its single hydrogen bond partner, $`B_1`$, has a distance with bead $`A`$ in the range of 8.7-10Å (see Fig. 2). If one of beads $`A`$ and $`B`$ or both already have two hydrogen bond partners, the pair will proceed with a hard-core collision without forming a new hydrogen bond. When a new hydrogen bond is formed between beads $`A`$ and $`B`$, new hydrogen bond partners are recorded for these two beads, and whenever a bead gets two hydrogen bond partners an auxiliary bond is formed between these two partners. Every auxillary bond can fluctuate within the range of 8.7-10Å to keep two hydrogen bonds within the angle $`120^o`$-$`180^o`$ and it cannot be broken unless one of the two hydrogen bonds is broken. A hydrogen bond between beads $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be broken when these two beads move away from each other to a distance of $`D^{HB}`$ and their kinetic energies are higher than $`ϵ^{HB}`$. When a hydrogen bond is formed or broken, the velocities of the beads $`A`$ and $`B`$ change in order to conserve energy and momentum, such that their kinetic energy increases or decreases by the value $`ϵ^{HB}`$. We set $`ϵ^{HB}=3`$ as it was chosen in Ref Ding02\_JMB  for Src SH3 domain.

### II.2 Computed diffraction

For the typical conformation of $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide aggregation structure, we calculate the intensity of diffraction pattern using the elastic diffraction formula Ding02\_JMB  in order to compare with experimental results Malinchik98\_BJ ; Serpell00\_BBA .

$`I(\stackrel{}{k}_f)=|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}exp(i(\stackrel{}{k}_f\stackrel{}{k}_i)\stackrel{}{r}_j)|^2,`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ is the wave vector of the incidental X-ray, $`\stackrel{}{k}_f`$ is the wave vector of the outgoing X-ray, $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$ is the position vector of $`j`$th bead, and the summation is taken over all the $`C_\alpha `$ and $`C_\beta `$ beads in the structure.

We chose $`x`$ axis perpendicular to the $`\beta `$-sheets, and $`y`$ axis along the fibrillar axis which is perpendicular to the $`\beta `$-strands in the $`\beta `$-sheets(Fig. 7 (a)). The incoming X-ray with 1Å wavelength goes along $`z`$ axis and the diffraction pattern is collected on a $`xy`$ plane behind the aggregate sample. The deflecting angle, $`\theta =cos^1(\stackrel{}{k}_f\stackrel{}{k}_i/k^2)`$, ranges from 0.05 to 0.25 in radians in order to detect the periodicity of 4Å to 20Å in the aggregate structure. Since amyloid fibrils consist of bundles of $`\beta `$-sheet chains which are twisted along the y-axis, there is no preferred orientation in the $`xz`$ plane in the X-ray diffraction experiments. We rotate the structure candidate around the $`y`$ (fibrillar) axis $`n`$ times by angle $`2\pi /n`$ and add all the diffraction intensities to obtain a final pattern. We take $`n=20`$ in the present study.

## III Results for a single peptide

As an initial test of our model peptide, we perform DMD simulations of a single peptide to test whether a peptide with random coil conformation recovers the observed NMR structure. The model peptide is slowly cooled from $`T_i`$=$`1.00`$, which is high enough to render the peptide as a random coil, to different target temperatures $`T_t`$=0.60, 0.55, …, 0.25. For each target temperature we make 10 trials starting with different initial conformations. When $`T_t`$$``$0.40, the segment Q15-V36 adopts an $`\alpha `$-helix or two pieces of left-handed and right-handed $`\alpha `$-helices. This artifact is observed because our simplified two-bead model does not distinguish between different handedness. At $`T_t`$=0.40, the N terminus adopts mostly a random coil conformation. As $`T_t`$$`<`$0.35, the model peptide starts to approach to its ground state which is an $`\alpha `$-helix with a single handedness along the entire peptide chain. Therefore, as expected within a certain temperature range around $`T`$=0.40 during the cooling process the model peptide adopts partial $`\alpha `$-helical conformation similar to the observed one in NMR experiments.

We also study the equilibrium behavior of a single model peptide at different temperatures by measuring the specific heat as a function of temperature. At each sampled temperature we start with a ground state conformation and perform DMD for $`10^6`$ simulation time steps to equilibrate the system, followed by additional $`10^7`$ time steps for the calculations. Figs. 4 (a) and (b) show the potential energy and specific heat as a function of temperature for a single model peptide, respectively. The melting of $`\alpha `$-helix is non-cooperative which can be concluded from the broad peak between $`T_N`$$``$0.35 and $`T_m`$$``$0.55 in the specific heat curve (Fig. 4 (b)). $`T_N`$ corresponds to the structural transition from an $`\alpha `$-helix to a random coil for the first 14 amino acids starting from the N-terminus, while $`T_m`$ corresponds to the melting of the $`\alpha `$-helix in the segment Q15-V36. $`T_m`$ is higher than $`T_N`$ because there are more attractions among the side chains in the segment Q15-V36.

## IV Results for multiple peptides

In the study of aggregation of many identical peptides, we perform simulations of 28 peptides in a cubic box with the edge of $`200\text{Å}`$ and periodic boundary conditions. Initially, all the peptides are placed on a grid and randomly oriented (see Fig. 5 (a)). Then we equilibrate the system at various temperatures: $`T_f`$=0.4, 0.5, …, 1.20.

At temperatures lower than the melting temperature $`T_m`$ of a single peptide, peptides in our model aggregate into amorphous structures where individual peptides preserve most of their $`\alpha `$-helical segments as in Fig. 5 (b). When the temperature is higher than $`T_m`$, peptides start to aggregate into more ordered structures. When the temperature is higher than 1.10, there is no stable aggregate (this threshold temperature depends on the peptide concentration). At a temperature range between 0.55 and 1.10, the model peptides can aggregate into multi-layer $`\beta `$-sheet structures. Figs. 6 (a) and (b) show the time evolution of the conformation obtained from DMD simulation at temperature 0.90. In Fig. 7 (a) we illustrate the setup of diffraction computation and in Fig. 7 (b) we present the calculated diffraction pattern. The relative sharp and intense 4.8 Å meridional reflection corresponds to the periodic packing of $`\beta `$-strands along the fibril axis, and the weaker 10Å equatorial reflection corresponds to the distance between $`\beta `$-sheets. In Fig. 7 (c) we show the calculated pair correlation function for the same $`\beta `$-sheet structure. The peaks around $`4.8\text{Å}`$ and 10Å correspond to the average inter-strand and inter-sheet spacings, respectively.

In order to study the thermostability of this 3-layer $`\beta `$-sheet structure, we slowly increase the temperature to $`T`$=2.0 which is higher enough to melt the aggregate. Figs. 8 (a) and (b) show the time evolution of temperature and the temperature dependence of potential energy of the system during melting and dissociation of the $`\beta `$-sheet structure, respectively. As temperature increases from 0.90, the aggregate becomes less stable. At temperature around $`T`$=$`1.15\pm 0.05`$, aggregate starts to dissociate. At temperatures higher than $`T_d`$=$`1.20\pm 0.05`$ the dissociation completes.

If we assume that the temperature 0.9 at which the aggregation of $`\beta `$-sheet is observed corresponds to physiological temperature, 310 K. At this temperature our single model peptide exists in a random coil conformation, which corresponds to experimental observations Gursky99\_BBA ; Soto95\_JBC  that in aqueous solution at physiological temperatures $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptides adopt mostly $`\beta `$-sheet and coil conformations. The temperature of the $`\beta `$-sheet dissociation, 1.2, corresponds to 413 K. Temperature $`T`$=0.40 at which our model peptide acquires $`\alpha `$-helical conformation corresponds to very low physical temperatures which can not be observed experimentally.

## V Discussion and Conclusion

In the test of our coarse-grained model of $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide, we find that the model peptide most resembles the NMR structure of $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptide around $`T`$=0.40. The existence of an optimal temperature range for protein refolding is also observed in experiments Jeanick97\_APC  and other coarse-grained models Smith01\_PSFG . Below $`T`$=0.40 the N-terminal region of our model peptide mostly adopts an $`\alpha `$-helical conformation. However, in the present study of aggregation we are focused on temperatures above 0.40 as the peptides are generally partially or completely unfolded to initiate the aggregation process Chiti03\_Nature .

In studies of multiple peptides, we demonstrate that peptides aggregate into amorphous structures (Fig. 5 (b)) around $`T`$=0.50 or multiple-layer $`\beta `$-sheet structures (Fig. 6 (b)) around $`T`$=0.90. In the amorphous structures, individual peptides tend to preserve most of the $`\alpha `$-helical structure, while in the $`\beta `$-sheet structures the $`\beta `$-strands tend to be parallel. Since the G$`\overline{o}`$ interaction for an $`\alpha `$-helix favors the formation of contacts between amino acids $`i`$ and $`i\pm 3`$, the aggregates with a parallel alignment have lower potential energies.

There are caveats due to the simplicity of the two-bead model used in our study. Each amino acid is represented by only two beads, which do not allow for an accurate description of the backbone. The backbone in this model is too flexible, which introduces some artifacts into conformations of aggregates composed of small number of peptides at low temperatures, such as dimers, trimers and tetramers.

An additional problem is that the chiral symmetry of each amino acid is not considered in this model. As a result, we observe two $`\alpha `$-helices with opposite handedness. As the $`A\beta _{140}`$ NMR structure consists of two $`\alpha `$-helices and a hinge in between, there are four low energy states with combinations of different handedness within the region of $`\alpha `$-helices at $`T`$=0.40. The conformations with mixed handedness appear with lower probabilities since they have higher potential energies due to the loss of native contacts and hydrogen bonds in between the two $`\alpha `$-helices of different handedness.

Also, due to the simplicity of the two-bead model, we do not account for specific structural features of $`A\beta _{140}`$ peptides, such as the salt bridge between D23 and K28 Petkova02\_PNAS . For the same reason, we can not expect to explain the differences in aggregation pathways between $`A\beta _{140}`$ and $`A\beta _{142}`$ alloforms Bitan03\_PNAS , nor study subtle aggregation differences due to amino acid substitutions Bitan03\_JBC . We show that the DMD algorithm using a simplified peptide model can reproduce the formation of $`\beta `$-sheet structures of 28 peptides with free edges for further fibrillization. Our study shows that it is possible to investigate in detail the aggregation of several dozens of peptides using DMD simulations and the coarse-grained model for peptide structure. Both the number of peptides and the complexity of the model Ding03\_PSFG  can be significantly increased within realistic computational constraints. Thus we regard this study as a first step toward developing a realistic model of $`A\beta `$ peptide aggregation.

## VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dr. C.K. Hall, S. Yun, J.M. Borreguero and A. Lam for discussions, and the Memory Ride Foundation for support. N.V.D. acknowledges the support of the UNC-CH Research Council Grant.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the main motivations for the construction of a linear collider like TESLA, with centre of mass (CM) energies of $`500`$ GeV and above, is the precise determination of the parameters of supersymmetry (SUSY), if this theory is realised in nature . The analysis of the selectron properties (and in general the properties of all the sleptons) at a linear collider is of special interest, since these particles are among the lightest ones in many SUSY scenarios. Selectron pairs can be copiously produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`e^{}e^{}`$ scattering, being their leading decay mode $`\stackrel{~}{e}e\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. In this note we discuss the determination of the selectron properties in $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production, with one of the selectrons decaying to $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and the other decaying via $`\stackrel{~}{e}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0f\overline{f}`$. This decay mode has generally a smaller cross section than the $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ channel, but has the advantage that all the final state momenta can be determined without taking the selectron masses as input . In our analysis we concentrate on $`e^{}e^{}`$ scattering at 500 GeV, but the discussion can be straightforwardly applied to $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, other CM energies and smuon pair production. This note is organised as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the production and subsequent decay of selectrons in $`e^{}e^{}`$ scattering, and briefly explain how these processes are generated. In Section 3 we analyse various mass, angular and energy distributions for the final state $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f}`$. Our conclusions are presented in Section 4.

## 2 Generation of the signals

Selectron pairs are produced in $`e^{}e^{}`$ collisions through the diagrams depicted in Fig. 1, with the four neutralinos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ exchanged in the $`t`$ channel. The Majorana nature of the neutralinos is essential for the nonvanishing of the transition amplitudes, as can be clearly seen in this figure. The decay of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ takes place through the 8 diagrams in Fig. 2. In total, there are 64 diagrams mediating each of the processes

$`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_Le^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f},`$
$`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_Re^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f},`$
$`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_Le^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f}.`$ (1)
The production of mixed $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ pairs must be taken into account as well, since it constitutes the main background to $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production in which we are interested. We only consider final states with $`f\overline{f}=\mu ^+\mu ^{},q\overline{q}`$, and in the case of $`q\overline{q}`$ we sum $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$, $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ production, without flavour tagging. In the channel $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^+e^{}`$, the multiplicity of electrons in the final state makes it difficult to identify the electron resulting from the decay of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. In $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ the presence of four undetected particles in the final state yields too many unmeasured momenta for their kinematical determination, and the same happens in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, because each of the $`\tau `$ leptons decays producing one or two neutrinos that escape detection.

For the generation of the signals we calculate the full matrix elements for the $`26`$ resonant processes in Eqs. (1), at a CM energy of 500 GeV and with an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1. In the calculation we include the effects of initial state radiation (ISR) and beamstrahlung. We perform a simple simulation of the detector effects with a Gaussian smearing of the energies, applying also phase space cuts on transverse momenta $`p_T10`$ GeV, pseudorapidities $`|\eta |2.5`$ and “lego-plot” separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }R0.4`$. All the details concerning the generation of the signals can be found in Ref. .

For our discussion we restrict ourselves to mSUGRA scenarios, requiring them to be in agreement with present experimental data. We set $`m_{1/2}=220`$ GeV (in order to have a light spectrum so that these processes are observable with a CM energy of 500 GeV at TESLA), $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\mu >0`$ and for simplicity we choose $`A_0=0`$ (a more extensive discussion is presented in Ref. ). The dependence of the studied signals on the remaining parameter $`m_0`$ is shown in Fig. 3.

The shaded area on the left of this plot corresponds to values of $`m_0`$ excluded by the current experimental bounds on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$. In this figure we identify two regions of interest for these signals:

1. For $`m_0120`$ GeV the second neutralino decays predominantly to charged leptons, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0l^+l^{}`$. The decay amplitudes are dominated by the exchange of on-shell right-handed sleptons (diagrams (c) and (d) in Fig. 2). The contribution of diagram (a) with an on-shell $`Z`$ boson is less important, due to the smallness of the $`Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ coupling. In this region of the parameter space, the decays to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q\overline{q}`$ are very suppressed, not only because of the small coupling of the $`Z`$ boson to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, but also due to the heavy squark masses, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}400`$ GeV.
2. For $`m_0140`$ GeV, the right-handed sleptons (including $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$) are heavier than $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, and the $`Z`$-exchange diagram in Fig. 2 dominates, yielding a large branching ratio for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q\overline{q}`$.

Between both regions there is a narrow window $`m_0130`$ GeV where the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ completely dominates, because the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ are heavier than the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ but the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ is lighter. For $`m_0200`$ GeV, the production of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ is not possible with a CM energy of 500 GeV, and only $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ pairs are produced. From inspection of Fig. 3 we select two values $`m_0=80`$ GeV and $`m_0=160`$ GeV to illustrate the reconstruction of the selectron masses for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ final states. The sets of parameters for these two mSUGRA scenarios are summarised in Table 1. The resulting selectron and neutralino masses and widths, as well as the relevant branching ratios, are collected in Table 2 for each of these scenarios.

It is worth comparing between the $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ decay mode studied here and the leading channel $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ production, in scenario 1 the total branching ratio (including the decay of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$) of the $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ signal is 0.88%, while for the leading channel it is 17.4%. On the other hand, in scenario 2 the total branching ratio of the $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q\overline{q}`$ signal is 3.9%, slightly larger than for the $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ channel. For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production, in scenario 1 the decay $`\stackrel{~}{e}_Re^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ is not possible because the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ is lighter than the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. In scenario 2, $`\mathrm{Br}(\stackrel{~}{e}_Re^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)0.3`$% because the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ only couples to the small bino component of the second neutralino. The total branching ratios in each case are collected in Table 3.

## 3 Reconstruction of the final state and kinematical distributions

To reconstruct the final state momenta we use as input the 4-momenta of the detected particles (the two electrons and the $`f\overline{f}`$ pair), the CM energy and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ masses, which we assume known from other experiments . In general, it is necessary to have as many kinematical relations as unknown variables in order to determine the momenta of the undetected particles. In our case, there are 8 unknowns (the 4 components of the two $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ momenta) and 8 constraints. These are derived from energy and momentum conservation (4 constraints), from the fact that the two $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ are on shell (two constraints), from the decay of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ (one constraint) and from the additional hypothesis that in $`e^{}e^{}`$ scattering two particles of equal mass are produced (one constraint) 111This applies for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production, but not for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$, in which case the selectron masses cannot be reconstructed.. These 8 equations determine the 4-momenta of the two $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ up to a 4-fold ambiguity, which is partially reduced requiring that the solutions have positive $`p_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2`$ and that the “reconstructed” $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is similar to the real value 222Although $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ is used as an input for the reconstruction, the resulting $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ may be slightly different from this value, see the paragraph below.. If none of the four solutions passes these conditions the event is discarded, otherwise from the remaining solutions we select the one giving the smallest $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$. For $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states this is the best choice: for the events where the two selectrons are nearly on-shell (these events give the main contribution to the cross section) the solution with smallest $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ is the “correct” one 65% of the time, and provides a very good reconstruction of the selectron and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ rest frames. The (discarded) solution with largest $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ gives a bad $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ 4-momentum, and leads to large distortions for the angular distributions in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ rest frame. For $`q\overline{q}`$ final states the solution with smallest $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ gives the best reconstruction as well, but the difference with the other solution is not so important.

It is worthwhile remarking here that ISR, beamstrahlung, particle width effects and detector resolution degrade the determination of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ momenta. However, the reconstruction is successfully achieved in most cases. The reconstruction procedure determines the momenta of the two unobserved $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, identifying which selectron has decayed to $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and which to $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, and also distinguishes between the electrons resulting from each of these decays. The knowledge of all the final state momenta, as well as the identification of the particles resulting from each decay, allows to construct various mass, angular and energy distributions. These are discussed in turn.

### 3.1 Mass distributions

Let us call “$`e_1^{}`$” and “$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,1}^0`$” the particles resulting from $`\stackrel{~}{e}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, with “$`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$” the corresponding selectron, and analogously “$`e_2^{}`$”, “$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^0`$” and “$`\stackrel{~}{e}_2`$” the particles involved in $`\stackrel{~}{e}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. The reconstructed mass of the selectrons is simply

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}\sqrt{p_{\stackrel{~}{e}_1}^2}=\sqrt{p_{\stackrel{~}{e}_2}^2},$$
(2)
with

$`p_{\stackrel{~}{e}_1}`$ $``$ $`p_{e_1^{}}+p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,1}^0},`$
$`p_{\stackrel{~}{e}_2}`$ $``$ $`p_{e_2^{}}+p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^0}+p_f+p_{\overline{f}}`$ (3)
in obvious notation. All these momenta are taken in the laboratory frame. The distribution of this variable for the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ signals and the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ background is shown in Fig. 4. In these and the rest of plots we represent cross sections; the number of observed events depends on the luminosity and is subject to statistical fluctuations. For the generation of the distributions we have taken sufficiently high statistics so as to have a small Monte Carlo uncertainty.

As seen from Fig. 4, the reconstruction of the masses is quite effective. For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ production, a peak around the true $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ mass ($`m_{e_L}=181`$ GeV in scenario 1, $`m_{e_L}=227`$ GeV in scenario 2) is observed in each scenario. (The peak is sharper in scenario 1 due to the better energy resolution for muons than for jets and the smaller $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ width.) For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production in scenario 2, a tiny peak is observed around the true $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ mass $`m_{e_R}=185`$ GeV. The $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ background is suppressed by the reconstruction procedure in both scenarios. In scenario 1, its distribution is approximately flat, but in scenario 2 it noticeably concentrates around $`215`$ GeV. This behaviour is a result of the smaller ratio $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R})/(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R})`$: in scenario 2, the hypothesis of two particles produced with equal mass, used for the reconstruction, becomes more accurate. The cross sections of the three processes, before and after the reconstruction, are collected in Table 4. We also include the cross sections for polarised beams, in order to show how the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ signals can be enhanced with negative and positive beam polarisation, respectively, while the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ background is reduced in both cases.

The experimental measurement of the selectron masses from these distributions is less precise than from threshold scans . These mass distributions are however useful in order to identify $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production, and may be used to separate them from the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ background. We also note that in the $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ channel, even without a complete determination of the final state momenta the minimum kinematically allowed selectron mass can be obtained . The kinematical distribution of this quantity also peaks at the true selectron masses.

### 3.2 Production angle

The determination of the selectron momenta allows the study of the dependence of the cross section on the production angle $`\theta `$. In $`e^+e^{}`$ scattering, this analysis can be used to determine that the selectrons are spinless particles  333In the $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ channel, to determine the final state momenta the conditions $`p_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2`$ are required from the beginning.. In our case, it does not provide information about the selectron spins. This distribution, shown in Fig. 5 for both scenarios, is symmetric with respect to the value $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$, as must be for a process with a symmetric initial state $`e^{}e^{}`$, and follows the expected shape.

### 3.3 Electron angular distributions in selectron rest frames

The selectron spins can be effectively analised through the angular distributions of the electrons in the selectron rest frames. Since the selectrons are spinless particles, their decay is isotropic. Therefore in each selectron rest frame the angular distribution of the produced electron (and neutralino) with respect to any fixed direction must be flat. In Fig. 6 we show the dependence of the cross section on the angle $`\theta _1`$ between the momentum of $`e_1^{}`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ rest frame and the positive $`y`$ axis (remember that $`e_1^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ correspond to the decay $`\stackrel{~}{e}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, and are identified in the reconstruction process). The analogous is shown for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{e}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ in Fig. 7, with $`\theta _2`$ the angle between the momentum of $`e_2^{}`$ and the positive $`y`$ axis. Similar distributions can be obtained for the $`x`$ and $`z`$ axes, proving that the decay of both selectrons is isotropic.

### 3.4 Electron energy distributions in laboratory frame

The masses and spins of the selectrons can be further investigated via the electron energy distributions. In the selectron rest frame, the electron energy is fixed by the kinematics of the 2-body decay, and furthermore their decay is isotropic. Then, for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production the electron energy distributions are flat, with end points at

$`E_i^{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{4}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2}}\right)(1+\beta ),`$
$`E_i^{\mathrm{min}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{4}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2}}\right)(1\beta ),`$ (4)
where $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2/s}`$. For mixed selectron production the electron energy spectra are flat as well, but the expressions of the end points are more involved. In contrast with the decay mode $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, in the channel $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ there are two different distributions for the energies $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ of the electrons $`e_1^{}`$ and $`e_2^{}`$, respectively. The distribution of $`E_1`$ in both scenarios is shown in Fig. 8. From Eqs. 4, in scenario 1 the expected end points are $`E_1^{\mathrm{min}}=30`$ GeV, $`E_1^{\mathrm{max}}=166`$ GeV. In scenario 2, for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ decays the expected limits of the distributions are $`E_1^{\mathrm{min}}=63`$ GeV, $`E_1^{\mathrm{max}}=153`$ GeV, and for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decays they are $`E_1^{\mathrm{min}}=32`$ GeV, $`E_1^{\mathrm{max}}=166`$ GeV. Although the distributions are smeared by ISR, beamstrahlung and detector effects, all these end points can be clearly observed in the plots. However, in the real experiment the different contributions will be summed, and except in some cases where the end points coincide, in general beam polarisation will be essential in order to enhance one of the signals and reduce the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ background. The polarisation also improves the statistics and thus the acuracy of the end point determination. The measurement of these quantities gives further evidence that the selectrons are spinless particles and provides independent determinations of their masses.

For the decays $`\stackrel{~}{e}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, the corresponding electron energy distribution is shown in Fig. 9. In scenario 1, the expected limits are $`E_2^{\mathrm{min}}=10`$ GeV, $`E_2^{\mathrm{max}}=55`$ GeV. In scenario 2, for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ decays the expected end points are $`E_2^{\mathrm{min}}=38`$ GeV, $`E_2^{\mathrm{max}}=93`$ GeV and for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decays they are $`E_2^{\mathrm{min}}=12`$ GeV, $`E_2^{\mathrm{max}}=60`$ GeV. All these end points can be observed in Fig. 9.

### 3.5 Distributions in $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝌}_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ rest frame

The neutralinos resulting from selectron decay are 100% polarised in the direction of their momentum if selectron mixing is neglected. This fact can be explained as follows. The term of the Lagrangian describing $`e\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ interactions is, neglecting selectron mixing,

$$_{e\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}=a_L^i\stackrel{~}{e}_L^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_i^0P_Le+a_L^i\stackrel{~}{e}_L\overline{e}P_R\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0+a_R^i\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_j^0P_Re+a_R^i\stackrel{~}{e}_R\overline{e}P_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0,$$
(5)
with $`a_L^i`$ and $`a_R^i`$ constants. For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_Le^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$, the produced electron has chirality $`1`$, and the neutralino has chirality $`+1`$. For a massive particle, the helicity eigenstates do not coincide in general with the chirality eigenstates. However, since in this case the helicity of the electron is $`1`$ and the selectron is spinless, angular momentum conservation implies that the neutralino must have negative helicity, as shown schematically in Fig. 10a. For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decays, the same argument shows that the produced neutralinos have positive helicity (Fig. 10b)

The expressions of the polarised differential decay widths of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f}`$ are rather involved . However, the angular distribution of a single decay product in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ rest frame can be cast in a very compact form. Let us define $`\psi _+`$, $`\psi _{}`$ and $`\psi _0`$ as the polar angles between the 3-momenta in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ rest frame of $`\overline{f}=\mu ^+,\overline{q}`$, $`f=\mu ^{},q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, respectively, and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ spin $`\stackrel{}{s}`$. These angles are represented in Fig. 11.

Integrating all the variables except $`\psi _+`$, $`\psi _{}`$ or $`\psi _0`$, the angular decay distributions can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\psi _+}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+h_+^f\mathrm{cos}\psi _+}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\psi _{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+h_{}^f\mathrm{cos}\psi _{}}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\psi _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+h_0^f\mathrm{cos}\psi _0}{2}}.`$ (6)
The constants $`h_i^f`$ depend on the type of fermion $`f=\mu ,u,d,s,c,b`$ considered (and of course on the SUSY scenario), and measure the degree of correlation between the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ spin and the direction in which the fermion $`f`$ is emitted. If CP is conserved in this decay, the Majorana nature of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ implies that $`h_+^f=h_{}^f`$ and $`h_0^f=0`$. In scenario 1, $`h_+^\mu =h_{}^\mu =0.57`$, and in scenario 2 we find $`h_+^b=h_{}^b=0.75`$.

The fact that the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ produced in $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ decays are polarised allows the study of angular distributions in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ rest frame. In analogy with Fig. 11, we define the polar angles $`\phi _+`$, $`\phi _{}`$ and $`\phi _0`$ between the 3-momenta in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ rest frame of $`\overline{f}`$, $`f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, respectively, and the 3-momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_2`$ rest frame. (In $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decays, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ gives the direction of the spin $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$, and in $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ decays the opposite direction.) With these definitions, we build the spin asymmetries

$$A_i\frac{N(\mathrm{cos}\phi _i>0)N(\mathrm{cos}\phi _i<0)}{N(\mathrm{cos}\phi _i>0)+N(\mathrm{cos}\phi _i<0)},$$
(7)
where $`N`$ stands for the number of events. The theoretical prediction for these asymmetries is $`A_i=\lambda h_i^f/2`$, with $`\lambda `$ the helicity of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$.

The angular distributions of $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ in scenario 1 are presented in Fig. 13, for the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ signal and the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ background. In both cases we observe a suppression at $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _\pm =1`$, due to the detector cuts. For $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _\pm =1`$, the $`\mu ^\pm `$ is emitted in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, which is the direction of the $`e_2^{}`$, thus these two particles are not isolated and the event is rejected by the requirement on “lego-plot” separation.

The slopes of these distributions clearly show that the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ has helicity $`1`$ ($`h_+^\mu =0.57`$ in this scenario) and hence that the decaying selectron is a $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$. This information can be of course obtained from other sources, for instance with the comparison of production cross sections with and without polarisation. Additionally, these plots demonstrate that the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ has nonzero spin (compare with $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ decays in Figs. 6 and 7). For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ production only 444The experimentally measured asymmetries would also include the contribution from $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ production, which might be reduced using beam polarisation. For simplicity we quote the results for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ exclusively., the asymmetries are $`A_+=0.39`$, $`A_{}=0.12`$, while the theoretical expectations are $`A_\pm =\pm 0.29`$.

In scenario 2, the experimental measurement of these asymmetries requires to distinguish $`q`$ from $`\overline{q}`$. This is very difficult to do in general, so we restrict ourselves to $`q=b`$ where this is possible although with a limited efficiency. The angular distributions of the $`\overline{b}`$ ($`\phi _+`$) and $`b`$ ($`\phi _{}`$) are shown in Fig. 14. In these plots we have not taken into account neither efficiencies nor mistagging rates for the $`b,\overline{b}`$ identification.

The slope of the angular distribution for the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ signal again shows that the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ has negative helicity ($`h_+^b=0.75`$ in this scenario), and thus indicates that the decaying selectron is a $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$. The asymmetries for this process alone are $`A_+=0.15`$, $`A_{}=0.41`$, and the theoretical predictions $`A_\pm =0.37`$. For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, the positive slope indicates a decay from a $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, and the asymmetries in this case are $`A_+=0.39`$, $`A_{}=0.21`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ signal could in principle be observable with positive beam polarisation, which increases its cross section by a factor of 3.24 and reduces $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ by factors of 0.04 and 0.36, respectively (see Table 4). In addition, kinematical cuts on reconstructed masses could be applied to enhance $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ (see Fig. 4).

## 4 Conclusions

In this note we have analysed $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production in $`e^{}e^{}`$ collisions, with subsequent decay $`\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{e}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f}`$. For $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production, this is a rare channel, with a cross section much smaller than the leading mode $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, but for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ it may have a comparable or even larger cross section. We have shown some of the benefits that the reconstruction of all the final state momenta offers, allowing the study of mass, angular and energy distributions.

We have demonstrated that in this decay mode it is possible to gather information on the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ spin, what is not possible in $`e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decays. This is of special interest since in selectron decays the neutralinos are 100% polarised, having negative helicity (in the selectron rest frame) in $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ decays and positive helicity in $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decays. Indeed, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ decays are a source of 100% polarised $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ with a cross section comparable or even larger than direct production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. In this work we have used the distribution of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ decay products only to distinguish $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, but $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ decays also offer a good place to investigate CP violation in the neutralino sector  through the analysis of CP-violating asymmetries . This study will be presented elsewhere .

Acknowledgements

I thank A. M. Teixeira for previous collaboration. This work has been supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HTRN–CT–2000–00149 Physics at Colliders and by FCT through project CFIF–Plurianual (2/91) and grant SFRH/BPD/12603/2003.


text:
# Acknowledgments

## Acknowledgments

I am particularly grateful to Miao Li for his valuable discussions and suggestions. I also thank Qing-Guo Huang and Peng Zhang for their discussions.


text:
# Quantum Mechanics of Neutrino Detectors Determine Coherence and Phases in Oscillation Experiments

## I acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Boris Kayser, Lev Okun, Leo Stodolsky and Lincoln Wolfenstein for helpful discussions and comments.