text:
# The Role of Clustering of Sub-Clumps in Bright Elliptical Galaxy Formation from a Low-Spin Seed Galaxy

## 1. Introduction

Observed bright elliptical galaxies (BEGs) have the common interesting properties, which are expected to provide strong constraints on their formation scenario. For example, Davies et al. (1983) found that the ratios of the rotation velocity to the velocity dispersion, $`V/\sigma `$, of BEGs are much smaller than those of faint ellipticals. In photometric properties, the light profile of BEGs is well described by the de Vaucouleurs law, whereas faint ellipticals usually have an exponential light profile (e.g., Caon, Capaccioli, & D’Onofrio 1993).

On the other hand, Kawata (1999) showed that in the CDM universe, i.e., the hierarchical clustering scenario, elliptical galaxies can be formed from a low-spin overdense region, using numerical simulation which includes almost all the important physical processes in galaxy formation self-consistently. He adopted a semi-cosmological model proposed by Katz & Gunn (1991). In this model, the process of galaxy formation is mimicked by a collapse of a top-hat over-dense sphere (a seed galaxy) which initially follows a Hubble flow expansion and has a solid-body rotation as an effect of the external tidal field. The amount of the initial solid body rotation is specified by a dimensionless spin parameter, $`\lambda `$ (Peebles 1971). In addition, small-scale density fluctuations expected in the CDM universe are superposed on this sphere which consists of dark and baryonic matter. Using this model, Katz & Gunn (1991), Katz (1992), and Steinmetz & Müller (1994, 1995) studied only the case of $`\lambda =0.08`$ and seemed to succeed in forming a system which has similar properties to an observed disk galaxy in several respects (see also Koda, Sofue, & Wada 2000a; 2000b, who presented, in the same way, that disk-like systems are formed for a range of $`\lambda =0.100.04`$). However, the spin parameter of the virialized dark matter falls in a range 0.02–0.11 with a median value of 0.05, according to the results of N-body simulations (e.g., Barnes & Efstathiou 1987; Warren et al. 1992) and analytical works (e.g., Steinmetz & Bartelmann 1995; Eisenstein & Loeb 1995), in which $`\lambda =0.08`$ is near a high-end value. Kawata (1999) studied the evolution of a seed galaxy which has a slow rotation corresponding to $`\lambda =0.02`$ and showed that the end-product reproduces the observed properties of elliptical galaxies very well. Cosmologically, a small spin-parameter is preferred in a galactic halo collapsing at a high redshift (Heavens & Peacock 1988). Moreover, elliptical galaxies are considered to be a system whose stellar component is old and rotates slowly. Thus, it is a quite natural consideration that most elliptical galaxies were formed in a halo collapsing at high redshift and rotating slowly.

Kawata’s study was based on the hierarchical clustering scenario, because in his simulation the galaxy forms through mergers of sub-clumps caused by initial small-scale density fluctuations (see Fig. 1 of Kawata 1999). The question we have to ask here is how the clustering of sub-clumps acts on the formation of elliptical galaxies from a low-spin seed galaxy. In order to understand further the role of the clustering, we compare the evolution of a low-spin seed galaxy including small-scale density perturbations with that of a uniform one, as the opposite case. Then, we focus on massive seed galaxies, and examine whether both types of seed galaxy can reproduce the observed properties of BEGs quantitatively, because the properties of BEGs, as mentioned above, are expected to be able to provide constraints on their formation scenario. If the uniform low-spin seed galaxy also succeeds in forming a system similar to BEGs, small-scale density fluctuations superposed on the initial slow-rotating sphere will not be indispensable to the model. The present study will thus clarify the role of the clustering of the sub-clumps induced by small-scale density fluctuations in galaxy formation from a massive low-spin seed galaxy.

The plan for the remainder of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, the numerical method and the model are described. Section 3 presents results of numerical simulations. Conclusion is described in Section 4.

## 2. Methods

### 2.1. The Code

Details of our code are described in Kawata (1999). It is essentially based on the TreeSPH (Hernquist & Katz 1989; Katz, Weinberg, & Hernquist 1996), which combines the tree algorithm (Barnes & Hut 1986) for the computation of the gravitational forces with the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH; Lucy 1977; Gingold & Monaghan 1977) approach to numerical hydrodynamics. The dynamics of the dark matter and stars is calculated by the N-body scheme, and the gas component is modeled using the SPH. It is fully Lagrangian, three-dimensional, and highly adaptive in space and time owing to individual smoothing lengths and individual time steps. Moreover, it self-consistently includes almost all the important physical processes in galaxy formation, such as self-gravity, hydrodynamics, radiative cooling, star formation, supernova feedback, and metal enrichment.

The radiative cooling which depends on the metallicity (Theis, Burkert, & Hensler 1992) is taken into account. The cooling rate of a gas with the solar metallicity is larger than that for a gas of the primordial composition by more than an order of magnitude. Thus, the cooling by metals should not be ignored in numerical simulations of galaxy formation (Käellander & Hultman 1998; Kay et al. 2000).

The star formation occurs where the gas density is greater than a critical density, $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=7\times 10^{26}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and the gas velocity field is convergent. The star formation rate (SFR) is given by

$$\frac{d\rho _{}}{dt}=\frac{d\rho _g}{dt}=\frac{c_{}\rho _g}{t_g},$$
(1)
where $`c_{}=0.5`$ is a dimensionless SFR parameter and $`t_g=\sqrt{3\pi /16G\rho _g}`$ is the dynamical time, which is longer than the cooling time in the region eligible to form stars. This formula corresponds to a Schmidt law in which SFR is proportional to $`\rho _g^{1.5}`$. We apply a Salpeter IMF with the lower mass limit of $`0.1M_{}`$ and the upper mass limit of $`60M_{}`$. After stars have formed, the massive stars ($`>8M_{}`$) die immediately, accompanied by supernova explosions which inject thermal energy and metals to the surrounding gas. We adopt the same stellar nucleosynthesis yields as Kodama & Arimoto (1997). Type Ia supernovae are not taken into account in this paper.

### 2.2. The Model

We use the models which are almost the same as Kawata (1999). We consider an isolated sphere as a seed galaxy and compare the two models whose initial conditions are different. The only one difference between the two models is whether small-scale density fluctuations following a CDM power spectrum are superimposed on the initial isolated sphere (hereafter Model 1) or not (hereafter Model 2). In Model 1 the small-scale CDM density fluctuations are generated by Bertschinger’s software COSMICS (Bertschinger 1995). To incorporate the effects of fluctuations with longer wavelengths, the density of the initial sphere has been enhanced and a rigid rotation corresponding to a spin parameter, $`\lambda `$, has been added. The initial condition is determined by four parameters $`\lambda `$, $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, $`\sigma _{8,\mathrm{in}}`$, and $`z_\mathrm{c}`$: the spin parameter is defined by

$$\lambda \frac{J|E|^{1/2}}{GM_{\mathrm{tot}}^{5/2}},$$
(2)
where $`J`$ is the total angular momentum of the system, $`E`$ is the total energy, and $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total mass of this sphere, which is initially composed of dark matter and gas; $`\sigma _{8,\mathrm{in}}`$ is defined only in Model 1 and specifies an rms mass fluctuation in a sphere of radius $`8h^1`$ Mpc, which normalizes the amplitude of the CDM power spectrum; $`z_c`$ is the expected collapse redshift. If the top-hat density perturbation has an amplitude of $`\delta _i`$ at an initial redshift, $`z_i`$, we obtain $`z_\mathrm{c}=0.36\delta _i(1+z_i)1`$ approximately (e.g., Padmanabhan 1993). Thus, when $`z_\mathrm{c}`$ is given, $`\delta _i`$ at $`z_i`$ is determined. Since we focus on the evolution of a massive low-spin seed galaxy, we set these parameters, $`\lambda =0.02`$, $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}=4\times 10^{12}M_{}`$, and $`z_c=2.07`$, which corresponds to an over-density of $`2.5\sigma `$ for a CDM power spectrum with $`\sigma _8=0.5`$ (White & Frenk 1991). In Model 1 we employ $`\sigma _{8,\mathrm{in}}=0.5`$. In Model 2 the initial sphere does not have any small-scale density fluctuations, i.e., the sphere has a completely uniform density. We assume a flat universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$) with a baryon fraction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.1`$ and a Hubble constant of $`H_0=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

We carry out these two simulations using 9171 particles for gas and dark matter respectively. The masses of individual gas, stellar, and dark matter particles are $`4.36\times 10^7`$, $`4.36\times 10^7`$, and $`3.93\times 10^8M_{}`$ respectively, and softening lengths of gas, stellar, and dark matter particles are $`2.06`$, $`2.06`$, and $`4.28\mathrm{kpc}`$ respectively.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Time Evolution

We simulated the evolution of the two models from $`z_i=40`$ to $`z=0`$. Figs. 1 and 2 show the evolution of the system in Model 1 and Model 2 respectively. These panels show the projection of the particles onto the $`x`$$`z`$ plane, where we take the $`z`$-axis to be the initial rotational axis. The evolution in Model 1 resembles Fig. 1 of Kawata (1999), although he simulated the evolution of a lower mass system ($`M_{\mathrm{tot}}=8\times 10^{11}M_{}`$) than that of this paper. In Fig. 1 the system has already turned around at $`z=3.21`$. We can observe the sub-clumps caused by initial small-scale density fluctuations. At $`z=2.31`$, these clumps merge at the center of the system. The whole system has collapsed and settled into a spherical system at $`z=1.89`$. After that, the system evolves little morphologically. The evolution of Model 2 is quite different (Fig. 2). The gas is accreted to the center very smoothly, which induces star formation. Although the initial angular momentum is very small, a disk-like object is formed by contraction along the initial rotation axis. Model 2 also evolves little morphologically from $`z=1.89`$ to $`z=0`$.

Figs. 2.2 and 3.1 show the time variation of the star formation rate, the angular momentum of the baryon component, and the number of the stellar clumps in Model 1 and Model 2 respectively. Here, a clump means a bound object which is identified by applying to the stellar particles the friend-of-friend (FOF) algorithm with a linking length of 0.2 times the particle separation required to attain the mean density of the universe at each redshift and with a threshold particle number of 10. Since Model 2 initially has no internal small-scale density fluctuation causing formation of sub-clumps and its subsequent structure is also very smooth (Fig. 2), we do not plot the history of the number of the clumps in Fig. 3.1.

In Model 1 star formation begins in the sub-clumps before the whole system collapses. The major star formation occurs due to the collapse of the whole system and continues for about 1 Gyr. The star formation ceases owing to consumption of the gas. When the whole system collapses, the number of the clumps decreases suddenly (see also Fig. 1). This clearly shows that the galaxy is built through the mergers of sub-clumps, i.e., the hierarchical clustering. At the same time, the angular momentum of the gas component decreases well before the gas is transformed into stars. This provides an evidence that the mergers of the sub-clumps lead to the angular momentum transfer from the gas component to the dark matter. We have confirmed that the angular momentum of the dark matter increases, at the expense of the decrease in that of the baryon component, which consists of gas and stars. We can see that the formation of a spherical system supported by random motions in Model 1 is caused by the mergers of the sub-clumps which lead to the angular momentum loss of the baryon component and increase the velocity dispersion.

On the other hand, in Model 2, the angular momentum of the baryon component is almost conserved during the collapse of the system (Fig. 3.1). The star formation begins just when the system has collapsed and hence the gas density has become high enough. For this reason, the star formation has a very high rate and a short period. Model 2 produces a disk-like object, because the baryon component conserves the angular momentum unlike Model 1. Its collapse along the radial direction is halted at the point where the centrifugal force is balanced by the gravitational force, whereas the system is able to collapse along the initial rotation axis without limit.

In the next section we present the properties of the end-products of the above evolution. In addition, we quantitatively examine whether each model can reproduce the observed properties of BEGs.

### 3.2. Photometric and Kinematic Properties at $`z=0`$

Fig. 3 shows final distributions of stellar particles. These panels show a clear difference between the two configurations. The end-product of Model 1 has a nearly spherical shape, whereas that of Model 2 is flat. These stellar particles contain the information about their age and metallicity owing to the self-consistent calculation of the chemical and dynamical evolution. By means of the population synthesis, we can derive the photometric properties of the stellar system from this information. Here, the spectral energy distribution (SED) of each stellar particle is assumed to be that of a single stellar population (SSP) that means a coeval and chemically homogeneous assembly of stars. The SED in a projected region, corresponding to one pixel of CCD, is obtained by the summation of the SEDs of the stellar particles whose projections fall within this region as follows:

$$F_\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_if_\lambda (t_i,Z_i),$$
(3)
where $`m_i`$, $`t_i`$, and $`Z_i`$ are the mass, age, and metallicity of $`i`$-th stellar particle and $`f_\lambda (t,Z)`$ is the SED of SSP of 1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ with the age, $`t`$, and the metallicity, $`Z`$. Here we used the data of SSPs of Kodama & Arimoto (1997). Since the observational data with which our results should be compared provide the luminosity distribution projected to a plane, we first derive the projected distribution of SED from the three dimensional distribution of stellar particles. Fig. 3 shows the $`B`$ band images corresponding to the projected distribution of stellar particles. Here a 501 $`\times `$ 501 pixel mesh is chosen to span the squared region with 50 kpc on a side, and the flux of each stellar particle is smoothed using a gaussian filter with the filter scale, $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}`$, of 1/4 times the softening length of the stellar particle, i.e., $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}=0.25\epsilon _\mathrm{s}`$. We discuss the dependence of the results on $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}`$ later. These images provide quite similar information to the imaging data obtained in actual observations. Thus we can obtain various photometric properties from these images in the same way as in the analysis of observational imaging data.

Fig. 4 shows the azimuthally averaged surface-brightness profiles obtained from the $`x`$-$`y`$ projected $`B`$ band image shown in Fig. 3. In getting these profiles, we set the center to the position of a pixel which has the maximum $`V`$ band luminosity. We set the width of each annulus (bin size) which defines the sampling range to half the softening length. The error bars correspond to the standard deviation within each annulus. Since the error is calculated in the flux, like $`\sigma _{f_B}^2=f_B^2f_B^2`$, the error in the magnitude is defined, using the Taylor expansion, as

$$\sigma _{M_B}=2.5\left(\frac{\sigma _{f_B}}{f_B\mathrm{ln}(10)}\frac{\sigma _{f_B}^2}{2f_B^2\mathrm{ln}(10)}\right).$$
(4)
These surface brightness profiles can well be fitted by the Sersic ($`r^{1/n}`$) law,

$$I(r)=I_e10^{\{b_n[(r/r_\mathrm{e})^{1/n}1]\}},$$
(5)
where we adopt $`b_n=0.868n0.142`$, so that the effective radius, $`r_\mathrm{e}`$, equals the half light radius in the range $`0.5n16.5`$ (Caon et al. 1993) and $`I_e`$ is the surface brightness at $`r_\mathrm{e}`$. This corresponds to the de Vaucouleurs ($`r^{1/4}`$) law when $`n=4`$, whereas the profile with $`n=1`$ corresponds to the exponential law,

$$I(r)=I_0\mathrm{exp}(r/R_\mathrm{D}),$$
(6)
where $`R_\mathrm{D}`$ is the scale length and $`I_0`$ is the surface brightness at the center. The solid lines in Fig. 2 show the best-fits in applying the $`r^{1/n}`$ law. The dotted line in the left (right) panel of Fig. 4 shows the best-fit in applying the de Vaucouleurs (exponential) law, i.e., holding $`n=4`$ ($`n=1`$) in equation (5). In fitting, we use the data with $`\mu _B<25.5\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$. The best-fit parameters are shown in the lower left corner in each panel as well as in Table 1. The best-fit $`n`$ in Model 1 is almost equal to four, and the de Vaucouleurs law also provides a good fit. Therefore, Model 1 succeeds in reproducing the light profile of BEGs, which is well fitted by the de Vaucouleurs law. On the other hand, the best-fit $`n`$ in Model 2 is close to one, i.e., its profile is well described by the exponential law. This profile resembles the luminosity distribution of a disk galaxy rather than that of BEGs. However, the central luminosity is too large for disk galaxies ($`m_{0,B}18.45`$ mag arcsec<sup>-2</sup>).

To see the robustness of these surface-brightness profiles, we examined the effects of $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}`$ and the number of particles on these profiles. Here we focus on Model 2, because Model 2 provides a more compact system and is likely to be affected by the spatial resolution more severely than Model 1 and the robustness of the profiles in Model 1 has already been examined in Kawata (1999). A large $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}`$ is likely to lead to an artificially spread luminosity distribution and a large half-light radius. Fig. 5 shows the $`B`$ band images obtained with $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}=0.125\epsilon _\mathrm{s}`$, i.e, half of $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}`$ in Figs. 3 and 4. The radial surface-brightness profile obtained with a bin size of $`0.25\epsilon _\mathrm{s}`$ are indicated by points. Although the $`B`$ band surface-brightness distribution is not smooth, the best-fitting parameters to the profile agree well with the ones in Fig. 4. This demonstrates clearly that the profile in Fig. 4 is not artificially spread. In addition, we carried out the same simulation as Model 2 using a smaller number of particles, i.e., 5575 particles for gas and dark matter respectively. We call this simulation “Model 2s”. The softening lengths of gas, stellar, and dark matter particles are set to $`1.82`$, $`1.82`$, and $`5.05\mathrm{kpc}`$ respectively. Since Model 2s employs a smaller number of particles and smaller softening lengths for gas and stars, this model has a more favorable condition for the artificial two-body scattering than Model 2. Fig. 6 shows the luminosity distributions in Model 2s. Here we use $`r_{\mathrm{FS}}=0.25\epsilon _\mathrm{s}`$. The artificial two-body scattering is expected to lead to a more extended surface-brightness profile than that of Model 2. However, there is little difference in the images and the profiles between Model 2 and Model 2s. Therefore we conclude that the numerical resolution in Model 2 is sufficiently fine for the discussion of the luminosity distribution to be meaningful.

It is known that a violent relaxation (Lynden-Bell 1967) in sufficiently deep central potentials reproduces the de Vaucouleurs law (Hjorth & Madsen 1991 and references therein). A deep potential causes a strong scattering of tightly bound particles passing near the center, and leads to the outer envelope of the de Vaucouleurs profile. In addition, the clumpiness can strengthen the violent relaxation so that particles are thrown to large radii. van Albada (1982) showed that a cold collapse with the formation and destruction of substructures is preferred in producing a de Vaucouleurs profile in dissipationless collapse. Carlberg, Lake, & Norman (1986) found that dissipation, leading to a deep central potential, could help get a good de Vaucouleurs profile. Katz & Gunn (1991) and Katz (1992) presented that dissipational hierarchical clustering is suitable for bulge formation. Our results also indicate that a collapse accompanied with the dissipation and the mergers of the sub-clumps is quite appropriate for reproducing the de Vaucouleurs profile.

Fig. 7 shows the color and luminosity weighted metallicity gradients of the end-products in both the models. The color gradients are obtained by setting annuli of various radii in the $`B`$ and $`R`$ band images and subtracting the $`R`$ band magnitude from the $`B`$ band magnitude in each annulus. We made the projected images also for the metallicity, and obtained their radial profile. Points indicate the average value in each annulus in the $`x`$-$`y`$ projection. The width of each annulus is set to half the softening length. The error bars show the standard deviation in each annulus. The error in the color is written as $`\sigma _{BR}=\sqrt{\sigma _{M_B}^2+\sigma _{M_R}^2}`$. The profiles of color and metallicity \[defined as $`\mathrm{log}(Z/Z_{})`$\] are fitted by linear regression. In fitting, we excluded the data at radii less than the softening length and greater than the radius at which the $`B`$ band surface brightness is $`\mu _B=24.5\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$ (open symbols in Fig. 7), because the inner region is affected by the smoothing of gravitational forces whereas the number of particles within an annulus is too small in the outer region. The best-fit gradients are shown in the lower left corner of each panel in Fig. 7 and Table 2. The data obtained from the simulation results have large errors leading to large errors in the calculated gradients. However negative gradients are clearly seen in colors and metallicity, i.e., the color (metallicity) at the center is redder (higher) than that in the outer region. From the observational studies, it is known that typical BEGs have $`\mathrm{\Delta }(BR)/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(r)=0.09\pm 0.02`$ (Peletier et al. 1990) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(Z/Z_{})/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(r)=0.30\pm 0.12`$ (Kobayashi & Arimoto 2000 and references therein). In Model 1 the gradients of both the color and the metallicity are in fairly good agreement with the observed gradients of BEGs. On the contrary, these gradients are too steep in Model 2. Model 1 is thus favored over Model 2 in reproducing the color and metallicity gradients as well as the surface-brightness profiles.

Carlberg (1984) showed that the dissipational collapse of a proto-galaxy with a uniform density leads to a steep metallicity gradient of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(Z/Z_{})/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(r)0.5`$, using the numerical simulation. It has already been a serious problem that a metallicity gradient expected in the uniform collapse becomes steeper than the observed one (e.g., Davies, Sadler, & Peletier 1993; Kobayashi & Arimoto 2000). The negative gradients in both the color and the metallicity mean that the star formation persists over longer time in the inner region than in the outer region, due to dissipative infall of gas. Since the residual gas is polluted by the past star formation, metal-rich stars are formed in the central region (Kawata 1999). In Model 1 the star formation which occurs in the sub-clumps before the whole system collapses decreases the amounts of the residual gas infalling dissipatively, leading to an appropriate shallower gradients. In addtion, the stellar mergers are expected to weaken an existing gradient (White 1980). Davies et al. (1993) supposed that BEGs have to experience some stellar merger events. The scattering induced by the clustering of the stellar sub-clumps (Fig. 1) in Model 1 is also likely to play a quite important role of diluting the metallicity gradient which leads to the color gradient. The shallower gradients of Model 1 seem to be caused by the combination of these two effects. The results of our realistic numerical simulations suggest that the formation and clustering of sub-clumps are preferred in producing the observed color and metallicity gradients.

In Fig. 3.2 we compare the sizes and the kinematical properties of the final stellar systems with those of the observed BEGs. The upper and lower panels respectively plot the half-light radii, $`r_{\mathrm{e},B}`$, and the ratios of the rotation velocity to the average velocity dispersion within $`0.5r_{\mathrm{e},B}`$, $`V/\sigma `$, against the $`B`$ band absolute magnitude. The data of elliptical galaxies in the Virgo and Coma clusters are plotted as crosses, where we used the total magnitudes and the half-light radii of Faber et al. (1989), and $`V/\sigma `$ of Davies et al. (1983), assuming distance moduli of 31.0 for the Virgo (Graham et al. 1999) and 34.7 for the Coma (Bower et al. 1992). There is no difference between Model 1 and Model 2 in the total magnitudes of the final objects. However, the half-light radius in Model 1 is much larger than that in Model 2 and is in good agreement with that of the observed elliptical galaxies with the same luminosity. As to the kinematic properties, Model 1 succeeds in reproducing a low $`V/\sigma `$ of BEGs very well. Owing to the loss of the angular momentum (Fig. 2.2), the end-product in Model 1 is a system supported by the random motions and hence rotating slowly. Furthermore, the small-scale initial density fluctuations allow star formation in the sub-clumps before the whole system begins to collapse and the collisionless property of the stellar component prevents the dissipative contraction of the system, leading to an appropriate half-light radius in Model 1. On the other hand, in Model 2 the end-product is a nearly rotation-supported system, owing to the angular momentum conservation (Fig. 3.1). In addition, the initial-small angular momentum requires a large contraction along the radial direction for producing enough centrifugal force, leading to a small half-light radius. These results demonstrate that, while Model 2 is clearly unacceptable, Model 1 is pretty appropriate for producing BEGs.

## 4. Conclusion

We showed that the luminosity profile, color and metallicity gradients, half-light radius, and $`V/\sigma `$ of the end-product formed by clustering of sub-clumps are in very good agreement with those of the observed BEGs quantitatively. Since the CDM cosmology naturally predicts the existence of massive low-spin seed galaxies including small-scale density fluctuations, the CDM scenario is quite suitable for the formation of BEGs from a massive low-spin seed galaxy, in which the clustering of sub-clumps plays an essential role.

On the other hand, in a massive low-spin seed galaxy including no initial small-scale density fluctuation, the small initial spin leads to a compact disk-like object dominated by the rotation owing to the angular momentum conservation. The disk has an exponential light profile, which is obviously inconsistent with the light profiles of the observed BEGs. Furthermore, the central surface brightness is too high to be in agreement with that of disk galaxies. No object like this has been observed in our universe despite its high surface brightness. This result suggest that a massive low-spin seed galaxy is not allowed to have a uniform density.

DK would like to thank Masafumi Noguchi for invaluable discussion and carefully reading the manuscript. DK is grateful to Nobuo Arimoto and Tadayuki Kodama for kindly providing the tables of their SSPs data. DK also acknowledges the Yukawa Institute Computer Facility, the Institute of Space and Astoronautical Science, and the Astronomical Data Analysis Center of the National Astronomical Observatory, Japan where the numerical computations for this paper were performed. This work is supported in part by the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

The rising total cross-section in proton-proton collisions was a very early indication of QCD processes at work, reflecting the fact that the increasing energy allows for deeper and deeper probe of the structure of the colliding particles leading to liberation of more and more constituents, resulting in higher scattering probability. The proton-proton and proton-antiproton cross-sections are now known experimentally to a very good precision. We do not yet fully understand these cross-sections from first principles, but there are various models of hadronic interactions whose parameters can be completely fixed by the data and which then allow for good predictions of the total cross-section in the high energy region, certainly up to LHC energies. Thus, although not everything is calculable from first principles in QCD, there is no problem as far as predicting the total hadronic production at future accelerators is concerned. The situation is substantially different for the photon induced processes. This renders the issue of measurement of the total $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-section at energies in the region 300-500 GeV range very important both from the theoretical point of view, as well as experimental. Indeed,the question of hadron production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions is interesting from a point of view of achieving a good theoretical understanding of the rise of the hadronic cross-sections with energy, in the framework of QCD or otherwise, as well as from a much more pragmatic viewpoint of being able to estimate the hadronic backgrounds at the next linear colliders . There exist two classes of models which have been suggested in the context of rise of the hadronic cross-sections in $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ processes. All of these ‘explain’ the rise for the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ case equally well but differ greatly in their predictions for $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions even at the modest values of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ energies that are currently available. HERA and LEP have opened the way to an entire new field in QCD, the study of the hadronic interactions of the photon in terms of its quark and gluon content . Hadronic collisions show the beginning of the rise to take place at centre of mass energies below 100 GeV but to determine the steepness of the rise one needs points in the 300-500 GeV and even higher. Thus, as in the case of hadron collisions, to gain a good theoretical understanding of the total cross-section for $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes, one needs much higher energies and better statistics than the one currently available from LEP and HERA. At LEP phase space limits the c.m. energy of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ system to about 100 GeV, at HERA $`\sqrt{s}_{\gamma p}`$ is higher, but then the presence of proton partly obscures the issue. Note that, until five years ago, the available data for $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes did not yet show any rise, stopping short of $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV and with very large errors. L3 and OPAL data have drastically changed the situation. Presently, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-section data show a very clear rise, but there are a number of theoretical and experimental issues, which only the Linear Collider(LC) can clarify, by reaching higher energies and statistics. In what follows we shall discuss the theoretical issues which can only be resolved by measurements of total cross-sections at higher and higher energies in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ system. In this note we first discuss predictions  for $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{hadrons})`$, in the Eikonal Minijet Model (EMM), and then make a comparison with other models as well as the presently available experimental data, contrasting the uncertainties in the model predictions with those in the values of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{hadron})`$ extracted from the existing two-photon data .

## 2 QCD and total cross-sections

QCD predicts the rise of total cross-sections through the increasing number of gluon-gluon collisions. For this, one can take the approach of the BFKL equation, which resums all the QCD diagrams, using a frozen value of $`\alpha _s`$ for the final evaluation, the underlying idea being that both the decrease, ”Regge type” behaviour, as well as the rise, i.e. the ”Pomeron” like behaviour are QCD effects. The calculation gives imaginary part of all the summed diagrams and hence the total cross-section. This method does not yet allow for a precision estimate. Hence, while from a theoretical point of view this is fundamentally the correct approach to follow, at present it does not have much predictive power. A different, more pragmatic approach is the one of the EMM, which uses the eikonal approximation to calculate the elastic amplitude and hence the imaginary part, i.e. the total cross-section, and the QCD jet cross-section drives the rise with energy. Notice that the eikonal approximation is indeed just an approximation and hence has its inherent limitations. The neglected terms can, in principle, play a non-negligible role. The interest in using the Mini-jet Model (we will discuss the details of the model later) lies in the fact that the phenomenological triumphs of QCD are based on the possibilty of predicting the jet cross-sections in terms of a set of basic parton processes and parton densities parametrizing the parton distributions in the proton or in the photon. Hence, it is this aspect of QCD which can be put to trial in calculating the rise of total cross-sections using the EMM approach, viz. the validity of our description of the scattering processes through the above two ingredients. Since we are dealing with a total cross-section, it is only the inclusive jet yield given by

$$\sigma ^{\mathrm{jet}}(s,p_{\mathrm{tmin}})=_{p_{\mathrm{tmin}}}d^2\stackrel{}{p}_t\frac{d\sigma _{jet}}{d^2\stackrel{}{p}_t}.$$
(1)
which enters into the calculation. Here $`d\sigma _{jet}/d^2\stackrel{}{p}_t`$, is the differential jet cross-section calculated using QCD. This result depends upon the minimum jet transverse momentum used in the calculation and the choice of parton densities for the hadron. For the case of the photon the available parametrizations in the low-x region differ from each other substantially.

In Fig.1 we show the minijet cross-section defined by eq. 1 for three different types of processes viz., proton-proton, photon-proton and photon-photon interactions. Of course, in order to be able to compare all of them together, we have normalized them, by a multiplication with an appropriate power of $`\alpha `$, the fine structure constant. In this figure we have chosen $`p_{\mathrm{tmin}}=2GeV`$, a rather conservative value, based upon various phenomenological attempts at fitting $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in different cases. In both the cases where photon is one of the colliding particles, two types of processes contribute to the jet cross-sections: the ‘resolved’ processes, in which partons in the photon participate in the hard scattering process producing the jets and the ‘direct’ processes in which a photon participates directly in the ‘hard’ subprocess generating the final state jets. This accounts for part of the difference between the three curves. Another important difference is the markedly harder $`x`$-dependence of the quark densities in the photon reflecting the hard nature of the $`q\overline{q}\gamma `$ vertex, which gives rise to the perturbative part of the photonic quark densities. In the region where the gluon content is expected to dominate, the three curves superimpose as they should. In this figure we have chosen the GRV densities for protons as well as for the photons. However, the general features we mention are insensitive to our choice of the photonic densities. The rise of the (mini)jet cross-sections with $`\sqrt{s}`$ is however too steep for any fixed $`p_{\mathrm{tmin}}`$ value, and these cross-sections need to be incorporated in a theoretical framework which preserves unitarity, to allow for the calculation of a total cross-section. The eikonal formulation provides a framework in which the minijet cross-sections are unitarised via multiple scattering . Let us write down, very briefly, the formulation of the EMM for the $`pp/\overline{p}p`$ case. The starting point is the eikonal formulation for the elastic scattering amplitude.

$$f(\theta )=\frac{ik}{2\pi }d^2\stackrel{}{b}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{b}}[1e^{i\chi (b,s)}]$$
(2)
Along with the optical theorem this leads to the expression for the total cross-sections

$`\sigma _{pp(\overline{p})}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{b}|1e^{i\chi (b,s)}|^2}`$ (3)
$`\sigma _{pp(\overline{p})}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1e^{\chi _I(b,s)}cos(\chi _R)]}`$ (4)
$`\sigma _{pp(\overline{p})}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{tot}}\sigma ^{\mathrm{el}}={\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1e^{2\chi _I(b,s)}]}`$ (5)
The jet cross-section is a priori an inelastic part of the total cross-section, and thus is used as an input to the eikonalized formulation of the inelastic cross-section. The eikonal formulation introduces a new set of uncertainties in this calculation, viz. the impact parameter distribution in the colliding particles, a semi-classical concept, whose range of validity is limited to the large b-collisions. The arbitrariness introduced by this function needs to be evaluated carefully. It plays a role not only in the low energy behaviour, but also, and very much so, in the rise. It is possible to relate this function to QCD processes, and attempts to calculate it have been partially successful. Of course, the rise with energy is only one of the phenomenological aspects of total cross-sections. Hence one should expect the function $`\chi _I(b,s)`$ to have both a soft part which is nonperturbative in origin and cannot be calculated in this context, and a ‘hard’ component which can be. A useful working scheme is one in which one breaks down the eikonal function in a number of building blocks, and then examines their phenomenological implications, varying the input parameters in each one of them. To be concrete, we write

$$2\chi _I(b,s)=n_{\mathrm{soft}}(b,s)+n_{\mathrm{PQCD}}(b,s)$$
(6)
with

$$n_{\mathrm{soft}}(b,s)=A_s(b,s)\sigma ^{\mathrm{soft}}(s)$$
(7)
and

$$n_{\mathrm{PQCD}}(b,s)=A_h(b,s)\sigma ^{\mathrm{jet}}(s,p_{\mathrm{tmin}})$$
(8)
Here $`\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is given by eq. 1. This breakdown uses the assumption of factorization into the transverse and longitudinal degrees of freedom, in other words between the impact parameter distribution and the energy dependence. In this paper we have fitted the data using a further approximation:

$$2\chi _I(b,s)n(b,s)=A(b)[\sigma ^{\mathrm{soft}}(s)+\sigma ^{\mathrm{jet}}(s,p_{\mathrm{tmin}})]$$
(9)
viz. assuming the same impact parameter distribution function for soft and hard processes. In addition we have also assumed independence of the overlap function on $`s`$. This approximation may be too rough, but, lacking a full theoretical description for this function, we prefer to study the energy behaviour only through the hard cross-section, and modify this assumption only later. Note that $`\sigma _{jet}`$ can be calculated completely in perturbative QCD once we have the knowledge of parton densities in the hadrons involved. For the case of photon induced processes, the above formulation needs to be generalised to include the probability that photon behaves like a hadron in the collision. This generalisation has been implemented in the earlier analyses of $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ . We denote this probability by $`P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}`$, which is unity for hadron-hadron (denoted by a,b) processes, but of order $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}`$ or $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2`$ for processes where one or both of the hadrons participating in the collisions are photons. Using Vector Meson Dominance (VMD), and a running $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}`$, this parameter varies from 1/250 at $`\sqrt{s}=5`$ GeV to 1/240 at $`\sqrt{s}=300`$ GeV. The generalisation involves putting the factor $`P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ on the R.H.S. in eqs. 45 and dividing the second term in the square bracket in eq. 9 by the same factor. Of course the $`p`$ in the subscripts will get changed to $`\gamma `$ depending on the number of photons involved in the initial state. The definition of $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{soft}}`$ in eq.9 is such that, even in the photonic case, it is of hadronic size. Hence only the second term in the square bracket of eq. 9 gets the factor of $`P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}`$. A simple way to understand the need for this factor  is to realise that the unitarisation in this formalism is achieved by multiple parton interactions in a given scatter of hadrons and once the photon has ‘hadronised’ itself, one should not be paying the price of $`P_\gamma ^{\mathrm{had}}`$ for further multiparton scatters. The eikonalised cross-sections depend only on a particular combination of the hadronic factor $`P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ and the impact parameter distribution function $`A_{ab}(b)`$. This, together with the simple scaling properties of the eikonal formulation, allows for an interesting graphical description of the b-distribution in the three different cases of proton-proton, $`\gamma `$proton and photon-photon collisions. On dimensional grounds, the function $`A_{ab}(b)`$ in general depends on two scale parameters, describing respectively the matter distribution in the two colliding particles a and b. Denoting such parameters by $`k_a`$ and $`k_b`$, where $`a,b=\gamma `$ or $`proton`$, and assuming that the matter distribution in b-space factorizes into the Fourier transform of the electromagnetic form factor of the colliding particles, we have

$$A_{ab}(b)A(b;k_a,k_b)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2\stackrel{}{q}e^{iqb}_a(q,k_a)_b(q,k_b)$$
(10)
$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2\stackrel{}{q}e^{iqb}_a(q/k_a)_b(q/k_b)$$
(11)
The general expression of the inelastic cross-section now reads

$$\sigma _{ab}^{inel}=P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1e^{n(b,s)}]$$
(12)
To see the effect of $`P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ on the b-distribution, we scale out the factor $`P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}`$, obtaining

$$\sigma _{ab}^{inel}=d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1e^{\overline{A}(b;\stackrel{~}{k}_a,\stackrel{~}{k}_b)[P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}\sigma ^{soft}+\sigma ^{jet}]}]$$
(13)
with $`\overline{A}(b;\stackrel{~}{k}_a,\stackrel{~}{k}_b)=A(b;\stackrel{~}{k}_a,\stackrel{~}{k}_b)/P_{ab}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{k}_{a/b}=k_{a/b}/\sqrt{P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}}`$. With this, all three total/inelastic cross-sections, $`pp/\overline{p}`$, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ can be obtained from the same expression, with different overlap functions.

To see the effects of these differences between photons and protons , we have plotted in Fig.2 the function $`\overline{A}(b;\stackrel{~}{k}_a,\stackrel{~}{k}_b)`$, for the case of $`P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}}=1/240`$, using the usual dipole function for the proton form factor and the pion form factor for the photon. This figure graphically emphasizes the difference in spatial extension between photons and protons.

For calculations, we revert to eq.(12), which, in the above eikonal formulation, very clearly defines the inelastic cross-section. Making the further approximation, well borne by experiment, that the real part of the eikonal $`\chi _R(b,s)`$ is zero, one is in principle ready to fit the data for the total photon-photon cross-sections, using

$$\sigma _{ab}^{tot}=2P_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{had}}d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1e^{n(b,s)/2}]$$
(14)
The strategy adopted in  consisted in determining the various parameters, $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{soft}},P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}},k_{\mathrm{proton}},k_\gamma ,p_{\mathrm{tmin}}`$ and the choice of photon densities, using the process $`\gamma p`$ and then, predict cross-sections for $`\gamma \gamma `$. Next, for those parameters/functions which are non perturbative and need to be modified, we use factorisation; viz. $`P_{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{had}}=[P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}}]^2`$ and the Quark Parton Model, i.e. $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{soft}}=\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{soft}}`$. For the hard part of the eikonal, we keep the same photonic parton densities, $`p_{\mathrm{tmin}}`$, and $`k_\gamma `$ as in the $`\gamma p`$ case. Note that the value of $`k_\gamma `$ used in  corresponds to a different ansatz in the case of photonic partons than the one mentioned in the discussion above. In  we have taken the matter distribution to be the Fourier Transform of the transverse momentum distribution. Technically it only means using the experimentally measured value of $`k_\gamma `$, that is $`0.66\pm 0.22`$ , instead of the value of $`0.735`$ used, for illustration, in Fig. 2. The correlated predictions of the EMM for $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ have been discussed in . The resulting curves for $`\gamma \gamma `$ total cross-section are shown in

Fig.3 for three different sets of parton densities  and compared with data for $`\sqrt{s}=189`$ GeV, from the L3 and OPAL  Collaborations respectively. We have chosen a set of parameters which give compatible fits to both the HERA and the LEP data. It should be noted that all these curves give predictions which lie below the L3 data extracted with Pythia Monte Carlo . The most recent data analysis by the L3 Collaboration, inclusive of $`202`$ GeV data , obtained averaging between Pythia and Phojet, is now in full agreement with the OPAL data. At the same time, recently, new data for the $`\gamma p`$ cross-sections, extracted from Deep Inelastic Scattering have appeared, and new photoproduction data should be available soon. Thus complete reliance on the extrapolation from $`\gamma p`$ is not yet advisable. A 10% change of the parameters of the EMM prediction, for instance, can now give a very good agreement with the present data, as we show in Fig.4, where,

to obtain this figure, we have followed the procedure described above, except that the value for the photon intrinsic transverse momentum $`k_\gamma `$ used is $`0.4`$ GeV which is lower than the $`k_\gamma =0.66`$ GeV, i.e. the central value of $`k_\gamma `$ given by experiment  and which produces good fits of the EMM predictions to the published photoproduction data on $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$. The other relevant parameters are

$$P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}}P_{\mathrm{had}}=\frac{1}{240};\sigma ^{soft}=\sigma _0+\frac{}{s};\sigma _0=20.8mb;=42.1mb\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(15)
All the minijet curves we have shown indicate a rather steep rise of the total cross-section. There exist however other predictions, which one could call “proton-like” predictions, which reflect the validity of factorization for total cross-sections at present energies and in which the predicted rise at high energy is very different from the Eikonalised Minijet Model. This is the case of the Aspen Model, in which both the rise and the shape of the $`b`$distribution are derived from the proton with simple scaling properties. Although at very  high energies this may not be true, at present energies this model satisfies the factorization hypothesis $`\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}=\sigma _{\gamma p}^2/\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$. Another “proton-like” model is the Regge-Pomeron exchange model, in which factorization (at the residues) holds independently for the low (Regge) energy and the high (Pomeron) energy term. Most of the “proton-like” models have the same high energy rise in all the three $`pp`$,$`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross- sections, as typified by the Regge-Pomeron exchange model, where $`\sigma ^{tot}s^ϵ`$, with $`ϵ=0.08`$. There is a priori no justification in these models for a change in curvature from hadrons to photons, although data have recently been parametrized with different values of the Pomeron intercept parameter $`ϵ`$. On the other hand, the different rate at which $`\sigma `$ rises with energy in the other models has, obviously, both theoretical and experimental implications. The latter because, as shown later, the predictions of different models can differ by a factor 2 or 3 at the values of energy of interest to NLC and since these cross-sections enter in the calculations of photon-induced hadronic background, the corresponding error in the prediction is then quite large. But even more important is the issue of arriving at a theoretical understanding of these differences and resolution as to which is theoretically more satisfactory and trustworthy. It is also worthwhile to determine whether the faster rise in minijet models is to be traced to the extrapolated low-x behaviour of the parton densities or is it inherent to the eikonal model. An understanding of how a different curvature can arise, in principle, can be obtained from the EMM model. As shown in Fig.1, at high energy the minijet cross-sections, obtained from gluon-gluon scattering, all rise with the same slope. However, their convolution with different impact parameter distributions changes the pattern. To see this, we

plot in Fig.5 the EMM curve for $`\gamma p`$ and the one for $`\gamma \gamma `$, obtained with the same set of parameters. We have normalized the two curves in the low energy region, where they can be brought to coincide, thus confirming factorization at low energy. As the mini-jet cross-section starts rising, and multiple scattering plays a role, then the differences between the impact parameter distributions, dipole for the proton or monopole for the photon, become important and the two curves do not coincide anymore.

To complete the description of existing models for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections, we would like to address the question of whether data and models are actually looking at the same quantity; viz. the question of Total versus Inelastic Cross-sections in photon induced processes.

For photon induced processes, the issue of total cross-section is ill defined both theoretically and experimentally. In this case, the $`\gamma p`$($`\gamma \gamma `$) cross-sections are extracted from a measurement of the $`ep(e^+e^{})`$ processes. These cross-sections therefore depend on the acceptance corrections that have to be employed. These in turn are strongly influenced by the Monte Carlo models to describe different components of an event. For example, the extraction of $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ needs understanding of three different kinds of events: (i) quasi-elastic process $`\gamma pVp`$, where the proton remains intact and the photon gets transformed into a vector meson, (ii) diffractive where the proton and/or the photon break up but no colour exchange takes place and (iii) the nondiffractive where both the proton and $`\gamma `$ break up and colour is exchanged between the two. In case of $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections, there are three different kinds of contributions; (i) the soft interactions modelled by VDM ideas. These have an exponential $`p_T`$ spectrum (ii) the direct interactions of the photon which can be estimated using the Quark Parton Model (QPM) and (iii) the resolved contributions which rise from the partons in the photon. Let us note that the first contribution is not to be confused with the nonperturbative part of the photon structure function. VDM ideas are sometimes used to estimate this part. These VDM partons also take part in the hard, resolved interactions which are used in calculating $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{jet}}`$/ $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ in the EMM. So again the extraction of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ from the $`e^+e^{}`$ data involves a clear understanding of all these types of events. The soft interactions of type (i) are what can be losely termed as ‘elastic’ cross-section in this case. Thus we see that both theoretically and experimentally the ideas about elastic/total cross-section are ill defined in the case of photon induced processes.

In the earliest applications of the EMM model to the photons , the inelastic formulation was used. This is correct if the hadrons in the final state can be defined as all of inelastic origin, i.e. no vector meson decays, for instance. Then, fixing the parameters for the EMM from a fit of the inelastic $`\gamma p`$ cross-section to the data, one can extrapolate to the $`\gamma \gamma `$ case, and obtain the prediction for the inelastic $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-section. This procedure would produce a curve which rises less steeply than the one shown in Fig.4. On the other hand, as discussed first in  and as has been discussed above, if the data have correctly included all the diffractive ”elastic” processes, then the quantity to be compared with the available data should be the ‘total’ cross-sections of eq. 3 and not the inelastic one. If we use the ‘total’ cross-section formulation using the eqs. 35, use the known inputs for the parton densities from the photon structure function measurements and further fix the unknown ad-hoc parameter $`p_T^{\mathrm{min}}`$ of the EMM using the data from $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$, we then get the predictions given in Fig. 3. If we do the same using the inelastic formulation, then we get a curve which at lower energies is higher, but then rises less fast.

In Fig.6 we have plotted the recent data from LEP and from lower energies with the predictions from “proton-like” models, labelled SaS, Aspen, BSW, as well as from QCD and Regge inspired models, like the curve labelled GLMN and the band labelled BKKS. The band labelled EMM corresponds to the two formulations, inelastic and total. For the EMM, we have used two sets of representative parameters, both of which are obtained from the $`\gamma p`$ cross-section following the procedure outlined in .

## 3 Precision necessary

In this section we show the numerical values corresponding to various predictions for the total $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-section and indicate the precision needed to distinguish among these different models.

In Table 1 we show total $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections for three models of the ‘proton-is-like-the-photon’ type. The last column shows the 1$`\sigma `$ level precision needed to discriminate between Aspen and BSW models. The model labelled DL is obtained from Regge/Pomeron exchange with parameters from ref. and factorization at the residues. The difference between DL and either Aspen or BSW is bigger than between Aspen and BSW at each energy value. A similar table can be drawn for distinguishing between the two minijet formulations of Fig.6 and the BKKS model, for instance.

The last column in Table 2 now gives the percentage difference between the two models which bear closest results, i.e. EMM with GRS densities and inelastic formulation on the one hand and BKKS, as well as EMM with GRV densities and total formulation on the other.

## 4 The hadronic backgrounds at Linear Colliders

Apart from the above mentioned theoretical interest in studying the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections, a very pragmatic reason is the hadronic backgrounds that the beamstrahlung effects might cause at these colliders. One way to estimate that is to look at the quantity $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ defined in eq. 1. While it is true that only part of the rise with $`\sqrt{s}`$ of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{jets})`$ is reflected in the energy dependence of $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{inel}}`$, the quantity is still a good measure of the messiness caused by the hadronic backgrounds at the NLC due to beamstrahlung. Here we give a new parametrisation of the ‘minijet’ cross-sections in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions which can be used in estimating the hadronic backgrounds at the NLC’s by folding it with appropriate beamstrahlung spectra. This supercedes the corresponding parametrisation that was given in .

The ’minijet’ cross-section, for the two parametrisations GRV  and SAS  densities, is given (in nb)

$`\sigma _{minijet}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[222\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{GeV}}{p_{\mathrm{tmin}}}}\right)^2161\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{GeV}}{p_{\mathrm{tmin}}}}\right)+36.6\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{50}}\right)^{1.23}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\left[77.6\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{GeV}}{p_{\mathrm{tmin}}}}\right)^245.9\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{GeV}}{p_{\mathrm{tmin}}}}\right)+9.5\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{50}}\right)^{1.17}`$ (17)
by Eqs. 16 and 17 respectively. Here $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the $`\gamma \gamma `$ c.m. energy in GeV. Since the dependence on $`p_{\mathrm{tmin}}`$ of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{jets})`$ is extremely strong, it is essential to fix that. From our earlier discussions it is clear that this value will be $`1.52`$ GeV.

Some new theoretical issues that will have to be taken in to account in extending these calculations to the higher energy ($`\sqrt{s}35`$ TeV) $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders. At these energies the $`x_\gamma `$ values at which photonic parton densities will be sampled will be small ($`\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^5`$) and hence saturation effects might have to be taken into account. At present, no detailed theoretical discussion of the subject is available. These issues might be of relevance for the high energy Linear Colliders like CLIC that are beginning to be discussed in detail now.

Another aspect of the hadronic backgrounds is also the hadron production due to bremsstrahlung photons. This is calculated by convoluting the $`\gamma \gamma `$ total  cross-section with the spectrum of these photons. This spectrum is given by the Weizsäcker Williams(WW) or effective photon approximation which has been very successful in translating $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross sections into $`e^+e^{}`$ ones. There have been many disucssions of the improvements on the original WW approximation . The discussion has also been extended to include the effects due to a reduction in the parton content of the photon due to virtuality of the photon . The cross-section, including the effects due to (anti)tagging of the electron is given by

$$\sigma _{e^+e^{}}^{\mathrm{had}}=_{zmin}^1𝑑z_1_{zmin/z_1}^1𝑑z_2f_{\gamma /e}(z_1)f_{\gamma /e}(z_2)\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{hadrons}).$$
(18)
Here $`zmin=s_{min}/s`$ where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the c.m. energy of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. The WW spectrum used is given by

$$f_{\gamma /e}(z)=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{2\pi z}\left[(1+(1z)^2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{P_{max}^2}{P_{min}^2}2(1z)\right],$$
(19)
where

$$P_{max}^2=s/2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tag})(1z),P_{min}^2=m_e^2\frac{z^2}{(1z)}.$$

Here, using $`\theta _{tag}`$ the maximal scattering angle for the outgoing electron, we have taken antitagging into account and have accounted for the suppression of the photonic parton densities due to virtuality following ref. .

The antitagging conditions for different beam energies of the $`e^+/e^{}`$ are modelled using those used at TRISTAN/LEP-1/LEP-II as follows:

$`\theta _{\mathrm{tag}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.056,E_{min}^e=0.25E_{\mathrm{beam}}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}50}<\sqrt{s}<90\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$
$`\theta _{\mathrm{tag}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.024,E_{min}^e=0.40E_{\mathrm{beam}}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}90}<\sqrt{s}<200\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$
$`\theta _{\mathrm{tag}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.028,E_{min}^e=0.25E_{\mathrm{beam}}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}200}<\sqrt{s}<400\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$
$`\theta _{\mathrm{tag}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.025,E_{min}^e=0.20E_{\mathrm{beam}}\mathrm{for}\sqrt{s}>400\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}.`$
In Fig. 7, we have shown the cross-section as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ of the $`e^+e^{}`$ machine. The top curve corresponds to the prediction for $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ of the EMM model in the inelastic formulation and the lower curve corresponds to the prediction of the model  for the same. It is to be noted that the difference of about factor 2 (say) at $`\sqrt{s}=700`$ GeV, is reduced to about $`30\%`$ after convolution with the bremsstrahlung spectrum. In this figure we have used $`s_{min}=9GeV^2`$, to be consistent with the $`p_{\mathrm{tmin}}`$= 1.5 GeV used in the EMM prediction. If we naively extrapolate the predictions to $`s=1GeV^2`$ and thus integrate upto $`s_{\mathrm{min}}=1GeV^2`$ the hadron production cross-sections go up by about a factor 2. Note also that the reduction in the photon spectrum due to the anti-tagging condition causes a reduction of about 40% at the highest end.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We have enjoyed discussions with A. Grau and O. Panella and are grateful to M. Kienzle for discussions about the recent data and to A. de Roeck for suggestions concerning the precision issue at Linear Colliders. One of us is indebted to M. Block for discussions on the factorization question for total cross-sections. This work was supported in part through TMR98-0169.