text:
# A Lorentz-invariant look at quantum clock synchronization protocols based on distributed entanglement

## Abstract

Recent work has raised the possibility that quantum information theory techniques can be used to synchronize atomic clocks nonlocally. One of the proposed algorithms for quantum clock synchronization (QCS) requires distribution of entangled pure singlets to the synchronizing parties. Such remote entanglement distribution normally creates a relative phase error in the distributed singlet state which then needs to be purified asynchronously. We present a fully relativistic analysis of the QCS protocol which shows that asynchronous entanglement purification is not possible, and, therefore, that the proposed QCS scheme remains incomplete. We discuss possible directions of research in quantum information theory which may lead to a complete, working QCS protocol.

PACS numbers: 03.67.-a, 03.67.Hk, 06.30.Ft, 95.55.Sh

1. Clock synchronization with shared singlets

Suppose a supply of identical but distinguishable two-state systems (e.g. atoms) are available whose between-state transitions can be manipulated (e.g. by laser pulses). Let $`|1`$ and $`|0`$ denote, respectively, the excited and ground states (which span the internal Hilbert space H) of the prototype two-state system, and let the energy difference between the two states be $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (we will use units in which $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ throughout this letter). Without loss of generality, we can assume

$$H_0|0=0,H_0|1=\mathrm{\Omega }|1,$$
(1)
where $`H_0`$ denotes the internal Hamiltonian. Suppose pairs of these two-state systems are distributed to two spatially-separated observers Alice and Bob. The Hilbert space of each pair can be written as $`\text{H}_A\text{H}_B`$, where $``$ denotes tensor product between vector spaces. A (“pure”) singlet is the specific entangled quantum state in this product Hilbert space given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A|1_B|1_A|0_B)$$
(2)
\[in what follows, we will omit tensor-product signs in expressions of the kind Eq. (2) unless required for clarity\]. Two important properties of the singlet state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are: (i) it is a “dark” state (invariant up to a multiplicative phase factor) under the time evolution $`U_t\mathrm{exp}(itH_0)`$, i.e. $`(U_tU_t)\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ where $`e^{i\varphi }`$ is an overall phase, and (ii) it is similarly invariant under all unitary transformations of the form $`UU`$, where $`U`$ is any arbitrary unitary map on H (not necessarily equal to $`U_t`$). Both properties are needed for the Quantum Clock Synchronization (QCS) protocol of Jozsa et. al. , which assumes a supply of such pure singlet states shared as a resource between the synchronizing parties Alice and Bob. Specifically, consider the unitary (Hadamard) transformation ($`\pi /2`$ – pulse followed by the spin operator $`\sigma _z`$) on H given by

$`|0`$ $``$ $`|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0+|1),`$ (3)
$`|1`$ $``$ $`|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0|1).`$ (4)
Unlike the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, which are dark under time evolution (they only pick up an overall phase under $`U_t`$), the states $`|+`$ and $`|`$ are “clock states” (in other words, they accumulate an observable relative phase under $`U_t`$) because of the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as specified in Eq. (1). Such states can be used to “drive” precision clocks in the following way: Start, for example, with an ensemble of atoms in the state $`|+`$ produced by an initial Hadamard pulse at time $`t_0`$, and apply a second Hadamard pulse at a later time $`t_0+T`$. This leads to a final state at $`t_0+T`$ equivalent, up to an overall phase factor, to the state

$$\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}T\right)|0+i\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}T\right)|1.$$
(5)
Measurement of the statistics (relative populations) of ground vs. excited atoms in the state Eq. (4) then yields a precision measurement of the time interval $`T`$; hence clock funcionality for $`|+`$. \[In practice (e.g. in “real-world” atomic clocks), such measurements are used to stabilize the frequency of a relatively noisy local oscillator (typically a maser), whose (stabilized) oscillations then drive the ultimate clock readout.\] Now, the invariance of the pure singlet $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ \[Eq. (2)\] under the Hadamard transformation Eq. (3) can be seen explicitly in the alternative representation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|_A|+_B|+_A|_B),$$
(6)
and here, in Eq. (5), we have the crux of the QCS algorithm of Ref. : The dark, invariant state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ shared between Alice and Bob contains two clock states, one for each observer, entangled in such a way as to freeze their time evolution. As soon as Bob (or Alice) performs a measurement on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the basis $`\{|+,|\}`$, thereby destroying the entanglement, he (or she) starts these two dormant clocks “simultaneously” in both reference frames (classical communications are then necessary to sort out which party has the $`|+`$ clock and which party has $`|`$). When used to stabilize identical quantum clocks at each party’s location, these correlated clock states then provide precise time synchrony between Bob and Alice.

It is important to emphasize that the “energetic” nature of the singlet state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ \[Eq. (2)\] is crucial for the QCS protocol to work. This is in complete contrast with other quantum information-theory protocols (such as teleportation, quantum cryptographic key distribution, and others) all of which will work equally well with degenerate ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) singlets.

2. “Impure” singlets, QCS algorithm, and teleportation

In principle, the QCS protocol as outlined above is rigorously correct and self contained. If our Universe somehow possessed primordial energetic singlet states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (left as “relics” from the Big Bang), the protocol just described would be perfectly sufficient to implement ultra-precise clock synchronization between comoving distant observers. In practice, however, the QCS algorithm can reasonably be viewed as simply reducing the problem of clock synchronization to the problem of distributing pure entanglement to spatially separated regions of spacetime. To see that the latter is a non-trivial problem, consider the simplest way one would attempt to distribute entanglement to remote regions: start with pairs of two-level systems (atoms) in locally-created pure singlet states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the form Eq. (2), and transport the two subsytems separately to the locations of Bob and Alice. The internal Hamiltonians of the two subsystems while in transport can be written in the form

$$H_A=H_0+H_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{ext}},H_B=H_0+H_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(7)
where $`H_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ and $`H_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ denote interaction Hamiltonians arising from the coupling of each subsystem to its environment, and, unless the environment that each subsytem is subject to during transport is precisely controlled, $`H_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{ext}}H_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ in general, leading to a relative phase offset in the final entangled state. Furthermore, unless the worldlines of the transported subsytems are arranged to have precisely the same Lorentz length (proper time), a further contribution to this phase offset would occur due to the proper-time delay between the two worldlines (see the discussion in Sect. 3 below). The end result is an impure singlet state

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A|1_Be^{i\delta }|1_A|0_B),$$
(8)
where $`\delta `$ is a real phase offset which is fixed but entirely unknown. \[In general, coupling to the environment will lead to other errors such as bit flips and decoherence, resulting in a mixed state at the end of the transport process. These kinds of errors, however, are correctable (after restoring energy degeneracy to the qubit basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$ if necessary) by using standard entanglement purification techniques. The phase error in Eq. (7), however, is inextricably mixed with the synchronization offset between Alice and Bob as we will argue below, and it cannot be purified asynchronously.\]

Although $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ is still a dark state under time evolution, it no longer has the key property of invariance under arbitrary unitary transformations $`UU`$. In particular, a “magic” equivalent form like Eq. (5) in terms of entangled clock states is not available for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$. Instead,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{i\delta }}{2\sqrt{2}}}\right)(|_A|+_B|+_A|_B)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{i\delta }}{2\sqrt{2}}}\right)(|+_A|+_B|_A|_B),`$ (10)
and a measurement by Bob or Alice in the $`\{|+,|\}`$ basis will leave the other party’s clock in a superposition of clock states $`|+`$ and $`|`$, which, if Bob and Alice were to follow the above QCS protocol blindly, effectively introduces an (unknown) synchronization offset of $`\delta /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ between them.

This connection between $`\delta `$ and the time synchronization offset is much easier to understand by adopting a different point of view on the QCS protocol: one which is based on teleportation. Accordingly, the essence of the QCS protocol can be viewed as the teleportation of clock states between Bob and Alice using the singlet states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (or, in the present case, the impure singlets $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$). More explicitly, suppose Bob and Alice arrange, through prior classical communications, the teleportation of a known quantum state $`\alpha |0_B^{}+\beta |1_B^{}`$ $`\text{H}_B^{}`$ from Bob to Alice via the singlet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$. Since the teleported state, as well as Bob’s Bell-basis states

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_B|1_B^{}\pm |1_B|0_B^{}),`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_B|0_B^{}\pm |1_B|1_B^{})`$ (12)
are in general time dependent, the standard teleportation protocol needs to be slightly modified in the following way: The parties need to agree on a time, which we may take without loss of generality to be $`t_B=0`$ as measured by Bob’s local clock, at which the following three actions will be performed instantaneously by Bob: (i) prepare an ancillary two-state system $`B^{}`$ in the known quantum state $`\alpha |0_B^{}+\beta |1_B^{}`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are complex numbers previously agreed on by the two parties, (ii) select a specific singlet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ as in Eq. (7), and construct a Bell basis for $`\text{H}_B\text{H}_B^{}`$ that has the form Eq. (9) at $`t_B=0`$, and (iii) perform a measurement in this basis and communicate its outcome to Alice through a classical channel. Upon receipt of this outcome, Alice is then to rotate the (collapsed) quantum state of her half of the singlet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ (now a vector in the Hilbert space $`\text{H}_A`$) by one of the four unitary operators

$`M_{\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm |0_A0|_Ae^{iH_0t_A}|1_A1|_A,`$ (13)
$`M_{\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iH_0t_A}|0_A1|_A\pm |1_A0|_A`$ (14)
depending on whether the transmitted outcome of Bob’s measurement is one of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^+,\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Here $`t_A`$ denotes Alice’s proper time (as measured by her local clock) at the moment she performs her unitary rotation. Now let the (unknown) synchronization offset between Bob and Alice be $`\tau `$, so that $`t_B=t_A+\tau `$. It is easy to show that the state teleported to Alice under this arrangement will have the form

$$\alpha |0_A+e^{i(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau +\delta )}\beta |1_A$$
(15)
as obtained by Alice immediately following her unitary operation on $`\text{H}_A`$.

A number of key results can now be easily read out from Eq. (11): (1) If $`\delta =0`$, i.e. under the same assumption as in the original QCS protocol that the shared singlet states are pure, the time-synchronization offset $`\tau `$ can be immediately determined by Alice (recall that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are known to both parties). Hence, the synchronization result of the QCS protocol can equivalently be achieved through teleportation. (2) Conversely, if $`\tau =0`$, i.e. if Bob and Alice have their clocks synchronized to begin with, or if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, i.e. if the qubits spanning the local Hilbert spaces $`\text{H}_A`$ and $`\text{H}_B`$ are degenerate, then $`\delta `$ can be immediately determined by Alice. Hence, purification of the phase-offset singlet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ is possible under either of these two conditions. (3) If, on the other hand, none of the quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega },\tau `$, and $`\delta `$ vanish, then the two unknowns $`\tau `$ and $`\delta `$ are inextricably mixed in the only phase observable $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau +\delta `$, and asynchronous purification is impossible.

This last conclusion can be greatly clarified and strengthened by a fully Lorentz-invariant formulation of the above teleportation protocol (which, as we just argued, is equivalent to the original QCS), and it is this formulation we will turn to next.

3. Lorentz-invariant analysis of QCS

The key ingredient in any relativistic discussion of quantum information theory is the spacetime dependence of the qubit states. The “true” Hilbert space to which the quantum state of a singlet belongs is, accordingly, $`L^2(\text{}^4)\text{H}_AL^2(\text{}^4)\text{H}_B`$, where each $`L^2(\text{}^4)`$ is supposed to account for the spacetime wave function of each two-state system in the entangled pair. We will assume a flat, Minkowski spacetime background in what follows, and pretend that the spacetime dependence of each system’s wave function can be approximated by that of a plane wave. In a more careful treatment, plane waves should be replaced by localized, normalizable wave packets \[which have the admirable property, unlike plane waves, of being truly in $`L^2(\text{}^4)`$\].

Denote the four velocities of Alice and Bob by $`u_A`$ and $`u_B`$, respectively, so that $`u_Au_A=u_Bu_B=1`$ \[we will adopt the sign convention in which Minkowski metric on $`\text{}^4`$ has the form $`\eta =dtdt+dxdx+dydy+dzdz`$, and use the abbreviation $`ab`$ to denote $`\eta (a,b)`$ for any two four-vectors $`a`$ and $`b`$\]. The wave four-vectors of Alice’s and Bob’s atoms then have the form

$$k_{}^{0}{}_{J}{}^{}=m_0u_J,k_{}^{1}{}_{J}{}^{}=(m_0+\mathrm{\Omega })u_J,$$
(16)
where $`m_0`$ is the ground-state rest mass of each (identical) two-level atom, and $`k_{}^{0}{}_{J}{}^{}`$ and $`k_{}^{1}{}_{J}{}^{}`$ denote the wave vectors corresponding to the ground and excited states of the atoms, respectively, where $`J=A,B`$. The plane-wave spacetime dependence of the wave functions corresponding to the ground and excited states of each of the atoms can then be written in the form

$$|0_Je^{ik_{}^{0}{}_{J}{}^{}x}|0_J,|1_Je^{ik_{}^{1}{}_{J}{}^{}x}|1_J,$$
(17)
where $`J=A,B`$, and $`x`$ denotes an arbitrary point (event) in spacetime (a four-vector). Simple algebra then shows that, up to an overall phase factor which can always be ignored, the wave function corresponding to the singlet state Eq. (7) can be expressed as a two-point spacetime function of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)=|0_A|1_Be^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)}|1_A|0_B,$$
(18)
where $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ denote spacetime points along the worldlines of Alice and Bob, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)`$ is the Lorentz-invariant two-point phase function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)\mathrm{\Omega }(u_Ax_1u_Bx_2)+\delta .$$
(19)
In the important special case where $`u_A=u_B=u`$, i.e. when Alice and Bob are comoving (and it makes sense to synchronize their clocks), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta `$ takes the simpler form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)=\mathrm{\Omega }u(x_1x_2)+\delta .$$
(20)
In the comoving case Eq. (16) (when $`u_A=u_B`$), the singlet wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)`$ is invariant under arbitrary Lorentz transformations including translations. This is in contrast with the general case, where the phase function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)`$ \[Eq. (15)\] does not have translation invariance. This dependence on the choice of origin of coordinates is a manifestation of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ is not a dark state unless $`u_A=u_B`$.

The teleportation protocol of the previous section (which is equivalent to the original QCS protocol of) demonstrates that as long as $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are timelike separated events in spacetime, the relative phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)`$ can be directly observed by Alice and Bob via quantum measurements followed by classical communication of the outcomes. Conversely, since the wave function contains all knowledge that can ever be obtained about a quantum system, the only observable associated with the singlet state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ which contains any information about $`\delta `$ is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)`$. Focusing now on the comoving case $`u_A=u_B`$, this implies that the phase offset $`\delta `$ is not observable in isolation; only the combination two-point function $`\delta +\mathrm{\Omega }u(x_1x_2)`$ \[Eq. (16)\] is accessible to direct measurement. On the other hand, clock synchronization between Bob and Alice is equivalent to identification of pairs of events $`(x_1^{(i)},x_2^{(i)})`$ such that $`u(x_1^{(i)}x_2^{(i)})=0`$. Therefore, by making a sequence of measurements of the relative phase function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta (x_1,x_2)`$, Alice and Bob can use the singlets $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ as a shared quantum information resource to (i) synchronize their clocks if $`\delta =0`$ , and (ii) measure and purify $`\delta `$ if they have synchronized clocks to start with. In the general case of an unknown $`\delta `$ and an unknown time synchronization offset, however, $`\delta `$ by itself is not observable, and, consequently, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ cannot be purified without first establishing time synchrony between the two parties.

4. Some promising directions for future research

By using entangled (energetic) qubits as a resource shared between spatially separated observers, the QCS protocol as reformulated above allows the direct measurement of certain nonlocal, covariant phase functions on spacetime. Moreover, this functionality of the protocol is straightforward to generalize to many-particle entanglement. While these results give first hints of a profound connection between quantum information and spacetime structure, they fall just short of providing a practical clock synchronization algorithm because of the uncontrolled phase offsets \[like $`\delta `$ in Eq. (7)\] that arise inevitably during the distribution of entanglement. Since, as we showed above, these phase “errors” cannot be purified asynchronously after they are already in place, a succesful completion of the (singlet based) QCS algorithm would need some method of entanglement distribution which avoids the accumulation of relative phase offsets. We believe a complete clock synchronization algorithm based on quantum information theory will likely result from one of the following approaches:

“Phase-locked” entanglement distribution: It may be possible to use the singlet states’ inherent non-local (Bell) correlations (which remain untapped in the current QCS protocol) to implement a “quantum feedback loop,” which, during entanglement transport, will help keep the phase offset $`\delta `$ vanishing to within a small tolerance of error. For example, states of the form

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A|1_A^{}|1_B|0_B^{}|1_A|0_A^{}|0_B|1_B^{}),$$
(21)
where two pairs of atoms (the primed and the unprimed pair) are entangled together, are not only dark but also immune to phase offsets during transport of the pairs to Alice and Bob (provided both pairs are transported along a common worldline through the same external environment). Can such “phase-error-free” states be used to control the purity of singlets during transport?

Entanglement distribution without transport: Physically moving each prior-entangled subsystem to its separate spatial location is not the only way to distribute entanglement. An intriguing idea recently discussed by Cabrillo et. al.  proposes preparing two spatially separated atoms in their long-lived excited states $`|1_A|1_B`$. A single-photon detector that cannot even in principle distinguish the direction from which a detected photon arrives is placed half way between the atoms. When one of the atoms makes a transition to its ground state and the detector registers the emitted photon, the result of its measurement is to put the combined two-atom system in the entangled state

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A|1_B+e^{i\varphi }|1_A|0_B),$$
(22)
where $`\varphi `$ is a random phase. Is there a similar procedure (based on quantum measurements rather than physical transport) which creates entanglement with a controlled rather than random phase offset $`\varphi `$?

Avoiding entanglement distribution altogether: Can classical techniques of clock synchronization be improved in accuracy and noise performance by combining them with techniques from quantum information theory which do not necessarily involve (energetic) entanglement distribution? A recent proposal in this direction was made by Chuang in .

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to acknowledge valuable discussions with Daniel Abrams, George Hockney and Colin Williams of the JPL Quantum Computing Technologies group. The research described in this paper was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and was supported by a contract with the Department of Defense.


format: text

text:
# Chemical Evolution of the Stellar and Gaseous Components of Galaxies in Hydrodynamical Cosmological Simulations

## References

Cora et al. 2001, in preparation

Mosconi, M. B., Tissera, P. B., Lambas, D. G., & Cora, S. A. 2000, MNRAS, submitted

Tissera, P. B. 2000, ApJ, 534, 636


text:
# Geometric Phase of Three–level Systems in Interferometry

(November 14, 2000)

## Abstract

We present the first scheme for producing and measuring an Abelian geometric phase shift in a three–level system where states are invariant under a non-Abelian group. In contrast to existing experiments and proposals for experiments, based on U(1)–invariant states, our scheme geodesically evolves U(2)–invariant states in a four–dimensional SU(3)/U(2) space and is physically realized via a three–channel optical interferometer.

Cyclic evolution of a wave function yields the original state plus a phase shift, and this phase shift is a sum of a dynamical phase and a geometric (or topological, or quantal, or Berry) phase shift Ber84 ; Sim83 . The geometric phase shift is important, not just for quantum systems, but also for all of wave physics. Thus far, controlled geometric–phase experiments, both realized and proposed, have been exclusively concerned with the so–called Abelian geometric phase arising in the evolution of U(1)–invariant states, for example, states of the Poincaré sphere (in the case of SU(2) states) Tom86 ; Kwi91 , the Lobachevsky plane Sim93  (in the case of SU(1,1) states) and $`^2`$ (for the Aharonov–Bohm phase) Ber84 . Here we introduce an optical scheme to produce and detect an Abelian geometric phase shift which arises from geodesic transformations of U(2)–invariant states in a four–dimensional SU(3)/U(2) space. This scheme employs a three–channel optical interferometer and four experimentally adjustable parameters to observe the geometric phase in its full generality.

Geometric phases in SU(3) systems have been the subjects of recent mathematical studies Muk93 ; Arv97  and establish the geometric phase shift expected for the cyclic evolution (up to a phase) of a three–level system. We propose to obtain this evolution using an interferometer as a sequence of unitary transformations given by optical elements. An optical SU(3) transformation can be realized by a three–channel optical interferometer Rec94 . The space of output states of the interferometer can be identified with SU(3)/U(2), and will be referred to as the geometric space; this space is a generalization of the Poincaré sphere to a three–level system Arv97 . By adjusting the parameters of the interferometer, the output state can be made to evolve cyclically, up to a phase, through a triangle in the geometric space. The output of the interferometer may be any state along a path in SU(3)/U(2), determined by fixing the four free parameters of the interferometer.

It is important to distinguish the evolution of states in the geometric space SU(3)/U(2) from the transformations of the optical beam as it progresses through the interferometer. It will be shown later how the dynamical phase associated with these optical transformations can be eliminated. The cyclic evolution described in this paper occurs in the geometric space, and the geometric phase of interest is related to this evolution. We provide here the essential elements to obtain this evolution as well as to explain how to design the interferometer.

It is sufficiently general to consider the input state $`\psi ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ of a photon into one of the three input ports and the vacuum state into the other two ports. The parameters of the interferometer can be initially set such that the resultant SU(3) transformation is the identity, and thus the interferometer output state $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ is also one photon at the corresponding output port and the vacuum at the two other ports. These parameters can then be adjusted to evolve the output state along a trajectory in the geometric space; this evolution may involve both a ‘dynamical’ phase shift and a geometric phase shift. Care must be taken when interpreting the adjective ‘dynamical’. The output state does not evolve according to Schrödinger dynamics but instead follows a path in the geometric space parametrized by an evolution parameter $`s`$, which is a function of the adjustable parameters of the interferometer.

The dynamical and geometric phase shift contributions must be separated to obtain the geometric phase. A special role is played by geodesic evolution Chy88 ; by transforming the output state along geodesic paths in the geometric space, the geometric phase shift along each path is zero. Thus, we consider three arbitrary states $`\{\psi ^{(k)};k=1,2,3\}`$ in the geometric space which define a geodesic triangle (i.e., with sides given by the unique geodesics connecting these states). The parameters of the interferometer are adjusted to evolve the output state along this general geodesic triangle $`\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(2)}\psi ^{(3)}\psi ^{(4)}=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(1)}`$, where $`\phi _g`$ is the total geometric phase gained by cyclic evolution and depends on four free parameters of the interferometer. Fig. 1 gives a diagrammatic depiction of this scheme.

The evolution of the state $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ to the state $`\psi ^{(4)}=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(1)}`$ via three geodesic paths in the geometric space can be described by three one–parameter SU(3) group elements $`\{U_k^g(s_k);k=1,2,3\}`$, with $`s_k`$ an evolution parameter. These transformations satisfy the conditions that $`U_k^g(0)`$ is the identity element and

$$U_k^g(s_k^0)\psi ^{(k)}=\psi ^{(k+1)},k=1,2,3,$$
(1)
for some fixed values $`\{s_k^0\}`$. It is always possible to choose unit vectors $`\psi ^{(k)}`$ such that $`\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}`$ is real and positive. We consider evolutions $`U_k^g(s_k)`$ of the form

$$U_k^g(s_k)=V_kR_{s_k}V_k^1,$$
(2)
with $`V_k`$ an element of SU(3) satisfying $`\psi ^{(k)}|U_k^g(s_k)|\psi ^{(k)}`$ real and positive, and

$$R_{s_k}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}s_k& \mathrm{sin}s_k& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}s_k& \mathrm{cos}s_k& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The form of the one–parameter subgroup $`R_{s_k}`$ with real entries was guided by the definition of a geodesic curve between two states $`\psi ^{(k)}`$ and $`\psi ^{(k+1)}`$, which can be written in the form Arv97

$`\psi (s_k)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{(k)}\mathrm{cos}s_k`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\psi ^{(k+1)}\psi ^{(k)}\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}\right)}{\sqrt{1\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}^2}}}\mathrm{sin}s_k`$
with $`0s_ks_k^0=\mathrm{arccos}\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}`$. It is straightforward to show that any $`U_k^g(s_k)`$ of the form given by Eq. (2) satisfying $`\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}`$ real and positive gives evolution along a geodesic curve in SU(3)/U(2).

Consider the three states

$`\psi ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(4)},\psi ^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\\ \mathrm{sin}s_1^0\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (11)
$`\psi ^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}s_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0+e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}s_2^0\end{array}\right),`$ (15)
with $`s_1^0`$, $`s_2^0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ arbitrary. These three states form the vertices of the geodesic triangle in the geometric space. They are sufficiently general to include all types of geodesic triangles Arv97 .

Although the three–channel interferometer can be expressed as an SU(3) transformation (or sequence of SU(3) transformations), the optical elements of the interferometer are composed of beam splitters, mirrors and phase shifters. Provided that losses can be ignored, each of these optical elements can be associated with an SU(2) unitary transformation Yur86 ; Cam89 . It is therefore advantageous to factorize each SU(3) transformation into a product of SU(2)ij subgroup transformations mixing fields $`i`$ and $`j`$: first, an SU(2)23, followed by an SU(2)12 and completed by a final SU(2)23 transformation Row99 . Such a factorization makes the experimental design of the interferometer clear: fields $`2`$ and $`3`$ are mixed followed by a mixing of the output field $`2`$ with the field in channel $`1`$, and, finally, the output field $`2`$ is mixed with field $`3`$.

The SU(2)12 matrix $`R_s`$ in Eq. (3) is a special case of the generalized lossless beam splitter transformation for mixing channels $`1`$ and $`2`$. More generally a beam splitter can be described by a unitary transformation between two channels Cam89 . For example, a general SU(2)23 beam splitter transformation for mixing channels $`2`$ and $`3`$ is of the form

$$R_{23}(\varphi _\mathrm{t},\theta ,\varphi _\mathrm{r})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{r}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{r}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(16)
with $`\varphi _\mathrm{t}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{r}`$ the transmitted and reflected phase–shift parameters, respectively, and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ the beam splitter transmission. A generalized beam splitter can be realized as a combination of phase shifters and 50/50 beam splitters in a Mach–Zehnder interferometer configuration.

It is useful at this point to consider the nature of the geodesic transformations $`U_k^g(s_k)`$ and their realization in terms of optical elements. The interferometer can be adjusted to transform the input state $`\psi ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ to an arbitrary output state $`\psi (s)`$ anywhere along the geodesic triangle. This optical transformation can be related to an SU(3) transformation in the geometric space, which maps $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ to $`\psi (s)`$ along a geodesic path. It is important to distinguish between the optical evolution through the interferometer from $`\psi ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ to $`\psi (s)`$, and the geodesic evolution in the geometric space from $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ to $`\psi (s)`$. The goal of the following is to construct optical transformations in terms of SU(2) elements which realize the geodesic evolution in the geometric space by appropriately adjusting parameters.

It will be convenient to express $`\psi ^{(3)}`$ as $`(e^{i\xi }\mathrm{cos}\eta ,e^{i(\xi +\chi )}\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{cos}\tau ,\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{sin}\tau )^T`$, where $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\tau `$ and $`\chi `$ are functions of $`s_1^0`$, $`s_2^0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, the parameters of $`\psi ^{(3)}`$ in Eq. (11). Following our factorization scheme, the geodesic evolution operators $`U_k^g(s_k)`$, connecting $`\psi ^{(k)}`$ to $`\psi ^{(k+1)}`$, can be expressed as

$`U_1^g(s_1)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{s_1},`$
$`U_2^g(s_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{s_1^0}R_{23}(\alpha ,\beta ,0)R_{s_2}R_{23}^1(\alpha ,\beta ,0)R_{s_1^0},`$
$`U_3^g(s_3)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{23}(\chi ,\tau ,\xi )R_{s_3}R_{23}^1(\chi ,\tau ,\xi ),`$ (17)
with $`R_s`$ given by Eq. (3), the parameters $`s_k`$ ranging from $`0s_ks_k^0`$, and $`s_3^0=\eta `$. Note that $`s_3^0`$ and, in fact, all the parameters of $`U_3^g(s_3)`$ are fixed by the requirement that $`\psi ^{(4)}=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(1)}.`$ Also note that, for each $`k`$, $`U_k^g(0)`$ is the identity in SU(3) and $`U_k^g(s_k^0)\psi ^{(k)}=\psi ^{(k+1)}`$ as required. Once it is observed that $`\psi ^{(k+1)}|\psi ^{(k)}=\mathrm{cos}s_k^0`$, it is trivial to verify that each evolution satisfies Eq. (Geometric Phase of Three–level Systems in Interferometry) and is therefore geodesic.

The geometric phase for the cyclic evolution $`\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(4)}`$ is given explicitly by

$$\phi _g=\xi =\mathrm{arg}(\mathrm{cos}s_1^0\mathrm{cos}s_2^0e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}s_1^0\mathrm{sin}s_2^0\mathrm{cos}\beta ).$$
(18)
This phase depends on four free parameters in the experimental scheme: $`s_1^0`$, $`s_2^0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, which describe a general geodesic triangle in SU(3)/U(2).

The interferometer configuration for realizing the necessary evolution about the geodesic triangle is depicted in Fig. 2.

This configuration consists of a sequence of SU(2)ij transformations, which are physically realized by generalized beam splitters (e.g., Mach–Zehnder interferometers). We use the shorthand notation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i(\alpha _i,\beta _i,\gamma _i)`$ to designate the three parameters associated with a generalized beam splitter. The three–channel interferometer consists of a sequence of nine SU(2)ij transformations. The field enters port $`1_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and the vacuum state enters ports $`2_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`3_{\mathrm{in}}`$. By adjusting the parameters of the interferometer, the output state can be made to evolve along the geodesic triangle $`\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(4)}`$ in the geometric space. We now consider how to measure the geometric phase as a function of the four free parameters $`s_1^0`$, $`s_2^0`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ describing a general geodesic triangle.

One check on the proper functioning of the interferometer is to place photodetectors at the ports $`1_{\mathrm{out}}`$, $`2_{\mathrm{out}}`$, and $`3_{\mathrm{out}}`$. The measured photodistribution for any output state can be compared to the predicted output $`\psi (s)`$ of the interferometer. In particular, for cyclic evolution to the output state $`\psi ^{(4)}`$, there should be no photons exiting ports $`2_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`3_{\mathrm{out}}`$ regardless of the settings of the free parameters.

Consider the cyclic evolution of the output state to the state $`\psi ^{(4)}=e^{i\phi _g}\psi ^{(1)}`$. A key technical challenge is measuring $`\phi _g`$, because one must have a reference state with which to interfere the output state $`\psi ^{(4)}`$. The input state $`\psi ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ is a poor choice, because the relationship between $`\psi ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ involves an optical dynamical phase due to evolution through the interferometer. However, this optical phase can be eliminated through the use of a counter–progagating beam, described below.

A scheme for conducting such an experiment is depicted in Fig. 3.

The source (a laser, for example) produces a polarized, stable, coherent beam of light which is split at a polarization–independent beam splitter. One beam travels to input port $`1_{\mathrm{in}}`$ as shown in Fig. 2 and passes through the interferometer, exiting at output port $`1_{\mathrm{out}}`$. The other beam is first “rotated” to an orthogonal polarization; it then enters port $`1_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and counter–propagates through the interferometer, exiting at port $`1_{\mathrm{in}}`$. The orthogonal polarizations of the two counter–propagating beams ensure that they do not interfere with each other inside the interferometer.

At the ports $`1_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`1_{\mathrm{out}}`$, there are polarizing beam splitters which deflect the outcoming beams but do not affect the propagation of the incoming beams. The output beams are directed to a beam splitter where they are made to interfere. The optical dynamical phase shift accumulated by each of the two counter–propagating beams through the SU(3) interferometer is identical, because of the time–reversal invariance of the Hamiltonian describing the evolution within the interferometer. Thus, the optical phase shifts cancel in the interference. Unitarity of the interferometer transformation guarantees that the geometric phase shift is $`\phi _g`$ for one beam and $`\phi _g`$ for the other beam. Thus, the two beams interfere with relative phase $`2\phi _g`$.

By measuring the geometric phase $`\phi _g`$ for various settings of the free parameters of the interferometer, it is possible to explore the geometric space with the most general geodesic triangles. The observed values can then be compared to the theoretical predictions.

If the source in Fig. 3 is a laser, operation at a low–light level can be undertaken to verify that the geometric phase shift is $`\phi _g`$ even if the probability of more than one photon being present within the system is negligible. Low–light level operation, in the regime where the presence of more than one photon in the entire apparatus at any time is negligible, enables the testing of the geometric phase shift even when the discreteness of the field energy cannot be ignored Har93 .

A variation of the scheme in Fig. 3 can also be considered to verify that the geometric phase occurs for each photon. Kwiat and Chiao Kwi91  conducted a measurement of geometric phase by employing parameteric down conversion (PDC), with a UV–pumped KDP crystal, to produce photon pairs. One photon undergoes a geometric phase shift, and the second photon in the pair is employed as a gate to register the event. By repeating this process for many ‘single’ photons, conditioned on detection of the gate photon, where the photon passes the first beam splitter in Fig. 3 and has an equal probability of propagating or, in an orthogonally polarized state, counter–propagating, through the three-channel interferometer, an interference pattern can be built up one photon at a time to establish that geometric phase is imposed one photon at a time, following Dirac’s dictum that “each photon interferes only with itself” Dir58 .

Although SU(3) interferometry has been considered in detail, the methods employed here can be extended to SU(N), or N–channel, interferometry Rec94 . The schemes discussed above employing such a device would produce and enable observation of the geometric phase shift for geodesic transformations of states invariant under U(N-1) subgroups of SU(N) states in the 2(N-1)–dimensional coset space SU(N)/U(N-1).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by two Macquarie University Research Grants and by an Australian Research Council Large Grant. BCS appreciates valuable discussions with J. M. Dawes and A. Zeilinger, and HdG acknowledges the support of Fonds F.C.A.R. of the Québec Government.


text:
# H I observations of giant low surface brightness galaxies

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 The discovery of giant low surface brightness galaxies

In 1987, Bothun et al. reported the serendipitous discovery of the extraordinarily large low surface brightness (LSB) galaxy now known as Malin-1. In spite of having a projected $`B`$-band central surface brightness of only 26.5 mag arcsec-2, Malin-1 is the largest spiral galaxy known, with a disk scale length of 73 kpc (assuming $`H_0`$=75  km s-1 Mpc-1), and an exceptionally high H i mass ($`10^{11}`$$`M_{}`$) and optical luminosity ($`M_B=`$23.1). Subsequently, through systematic searches of photographic survey plates, other galaxies with similar (albeit slightly less extreme) properties to Malin-1 have been uncovered (Bothun et al. 1990; Sprayberry et al. 1993; Sprayberry et al. 1995b). We hereafter refer to these as “LSB Giants”. A handful of LSB Giants are also found in the UGC (Nilson 1973), NGC (Dreyer 1953), and ESO (Lauberts & Valentijn 1989) catalogues (see Gallagher & Bushouse 1983; Impey & Bothun 1989; Walsh et al. 1997; Pickering et al. 1997; Schombert 1998). Nonetheless, while recent photographic and CCD surveys have uncovered large numbers of new small and medium-sized, moderate-to-low surface brightness spiral galaxies (e.g., Schombert et al. 1992; Impey et al. 1996; O’Neil et al. 1997), LSB Giants have remained relatively rare. Having faint, diffuse disks, but sizes, H i masses, and luminosities at the high end for disk galaxies, the LSB Giants occupy a unique realm of physical parameters space and may share evolutionary histories distinct from other LSB galaxies (e.g., Hoffman et al. 1992).

Since a continuum of values exists for galaxy properties such as surface brightness, luminosity, and scale length, Sprayberry et al. (1995b) proposed to define LSB Giants as those objects meeting a “diffuseness index” criterion: $`\mu _B(0)+5\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}(h_r)>27.6`$111Sprayberry et al. (1995b) formulated their diffuseness index based on a distance scale with $`H_0`$=100  km s-1 Mpc-1. Here we have rewritten the diffuseness criterion for $`H_0`$=75  km s-1 Mpc-1, which is assumed throughout this work., where $`\mu _B(0)`$ is the extrapolated, deprojected $`B`$-band disk central surface brightness in magnitudes arcsec-2, and $`h_r`$ is the disk scale length in kpc. Among seven LSB Giants described by Sprayberry et al. (1995b), mean properties include: $`<BV>=0.73\pm 0.05`$, $`<\mu _B(0)>=23.23\pm 0.19`$ mags arcsec-2, and $`<h_r>=13.0`$ kpc. The colors of these LSB Giants are thus comparable to those of normal spirals (Sprayberry et al. 1995b), but are redder than typical colors of many small and moderate-sized LSB disks (e.g., McGaugh & Bothun 1994; Matthews & Gallagher 1997; de Blok et al. 1996; Beijersbergen et al. 1999). In addition, the LSB Giants are distinct from other more common LSB spirals in that they often have a significant bulge component (e.g., Gallagher & Bushouse 1983; Knezek 1993,1998), and frequently their centers harbor an active nucleus (e.g., Schombert 1998).

The origin and evolutionary histories of LSB Giant galaxies are still enigmatic. Hoffman et al. (1992) have proposed a formation scenario whereby these systems form in very low density regions from rare, 3$`\sigma `$ density fluctuations. They predict these galaxies should exhibit quiescent, unevolved, gas-rich disks, with rotation curves that flatten near $`V_{max}`$300  km s-1. Knezek (1993) has suggested an alternative scenario, based on Kormendy (1989), whereby LSB Giants may have dissipatively formed from massive, metal-poor dark matter halos.

### 1.2 The need for new H I observations

Testing formation and evolution scenarios for LSB Giants requires an accurate knowledge of the neutral gas properties and linewidths of these galaxies. And only by combining such measures with optical data can we begin to build a picture of the star-formation histories of these systems and their relationship to other types of LSB galaxies.

Other motivations also exist for improved H i observations. Hoffman et al. (1992) have argued that for the enormous disks of LSB Giants to remain quiescent over a Hubble time, they must be very isolated. Yet studies hint that LSB Giants are in fact less isolated than other LSB spirals, although redshift surveys in the vicinities of these objects are still incomplete (Sprayberry et al. 1995b). Pointed H i observations in the vicinity of LSB Giants can thus reveal if these galaxies have any yet-undiscovered gas-rich neighbors.

Another important use of H i data is for exploring the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation for giant LSB spirals. Sprayberry et al. (1995a) have shown that at least two of the presently known LSB Giant galaxies are extreme outliers from the TF relation defined by normal galaxies. This is unlike the bulk of moderate-sized, moderate luminosity LSB galaxies, which tend to follow TF (Sprayberry et al. 1995a; Zwaan et al. 1995; Verheijen 1997). It is of considerable interest therefore to assess from a larger sample whether LSB Giants deviate systematically from the TF relation.

While previous H i observations have established that LSB Giants are in general very gas-rich ($`M_{HI}`$$`>10^{10}`$$`M_{}`$; e.g., Sprayberry et al. 1995b; Walsh et al. 1997; Pickering et al. 1997,1999), unfortunately existing H i data for many LSB Giants are of dubious quality (i.e., the galaxy was confused or resolved by the telescope beam, the spectra are of low signal-to-noise, or measurements from different workers are highly discrepant; see also Table 5 and Section 4).

For example, based on Arecibo 21-cm observations of 3 objects, Sprayberry et al. (1995b) suggested that peculiar, asymmetric H i profiles may be commonplace for LSB Giants. However, since the H i extents of these galaxies were expected to be comparable to the size of the telescope beam, it is important to verify that these “peculiar” spectra do not result from some combination of source resolution and telescope mispointing. In addition, independent checks on derived H i parameters are valuable since it is more difficult to accurately measure integrated fluxes and linewidths when the global H i profiles are quite broad compared to the bandwidth used, and when sources are at large recessional velocities ($`V_r>`$ 15 000  km s-1), where flux calibration can become increasingly uncertain. Finally, there are still a handful of known LSB Giants for which no H i data have previously been obtained.

Quality single-dish H i spectra for LSB Giants are also a useful precursor and complement to H i aperture synthesis studies of these galaxies (e.g., Walsh et al. 1997; Pickering et al. 1997,1999). H i mapping is of course a critical part of understanding the dynamics and gas distributions for these galaxies, but since many of the known examples of LSB Giants are rather distant ($`V_r>`$10 000  km s-1) and of relatively modest optical angular size ($`D_{25}<2^{}`$), such observations are challenging and benefit from careful planning based on prior H i measurements. Moreover, because LSB Giants are generally expected to have disks with relatively low H i surface densities (e.g., Pickering et al. 1997), diffuse emission can be missed in aperture synthesis measurements, and total flux and maximum rotational velocity measures from H i pencil beam observations serve as an important check.

Based on the above motivations, we have used the Nançay Radio Telescope to obtain new global observations of a sample of 16 LSB Giant galaxies for which existing global H i measurements were incomplete, required reconfirmation, or were nonexistent. We measure integrated H i line fluxes, linewidths, and recessional velocities, and attempt to clear up conundrums surrounding several of these objects in the literature.

## 2 Sample selection

Our targets for the present program were 16 LSB Giant galaxies meeting the “diffuseness” criterion stated in Section 1. The objects were culled from Knezek (1993), Sprayberry et al. (1995b), and Pickering et al. (1997), and all have available optical surface photometry. Thirteen of our targets have previously been observed in H i by other workers, but the published H i parameters were uncertain or incomplete (see below). For the other 3 galaxies, no H i data were previously available. Some basic parameters for our target galaxies are summarized in Table 1. Coordinates, $`B`$ magnitudes, angular sizes, axial ratios, and radial velocities were culled from the NED database. Position angles and scatter in the published radial velocity values \[$`\sigma (V)`$\] were taken from the LEDA database, and inclinations were obtained from the various references given in Table 6 (discussed below). Inclinations and position angles marked with a colon (:) were estimated by us from inspection of the Digitized Sky Survey.

## 3 Observations

### 3.1 Data acquisition

The Nançay decimentric radio telescope is a meridian transit-type instrument of the Kraus/Ohio State design, consisting of a fixed spherical mirror (300 m long and 35 m high), a tiltable flat mirror (200$`\times `$40 m), and a focal carriage moving along a curved rail track. Due to an ongoing major renovation of the focal system, the length of the focal track was reduced to $``$60 m during the period of our observations, thus allowing tracking of a source on the celestial equator for about 45 minutes. The effective collecting area of the Nançay telescope is roughly 7000 m2 (equivalent to a 94-m diameter parabolic dish). Due to the elongated geometry of the mirrors, at 21-cm wavelength the Nançay telescope has a half-power beam width of $`3^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.6}`$ E-W$`\times `$ 22 N-S for the range of declinations covered in this work (E. Gérard, private comm.; see also Matthews & van Driel 2000). Typical system temperatures were $``$40 K for our project.

The observations at Nançay were made in the period June 1998 - October 1999, using a total of about 300 hours of telescope time. We obtained our observations in total power (position-switching) mode using consecutive pairs of two-minute on- and two-minute off-source integrations. Off-source integrations were taken at approximately 20 E of the target position. The autocorrelator was divided into two pairs of cross-polarized receiver banks, each with 512 channels and a 6.4 MHz bandpass. This yielded a channel spacing of 2.64  km s-1, for an effective velocity resolution of $``$3.3  km s-1 at 21-cm. The center frequencies of the two banks were tuned to the expected redshifted H i frequency of the target based on values from the literature (Table 1). Depending on the signal strength, the spectra were smoothed to a channel separation of $``$7.9 or $``$13.2  km s-1 during the data reduction in order to increase signal-to-noise. Total integration times were up to 12 hours per galaxy, depending on the strength of the source and scheduling constraints.

In all cases, data were initially obtained with the telescope pointed at the published optical center of the galaxy. However, as shown by van der Hulst et al. (1993), the H i disks of large LSB spirals may frequently extend to up to $``$2.5$`\times `$ their optical diameter. We therefore observed several of the targets, including the 8 galaxies with $`D_{25}>`$$`1^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.3}`$ (i.e. one-third the Nançay FWHP E-W beamwidth) at three or more spatial positions: one at the target’s optical center, plus additional pointings offset to the east or west by multiples of one-half beamwidth (see Table 3, discussed below). Because of the large N-S diameter of the Nançay beam ($``$22), these mapping observations were limited to pointings along an E-W line.

### 3.2 Calibration

Flux calibration (i.e.,$`T_{sys}`$-to-mJy conversion) at Nançay is determined via regular measurements of a cold load calibrator and periodic monitoring of strong continuum sources by the Nancay staff. Standard calibration procedures include correction for declination-dependent gain variations of the telescope (e.g., Fouqué et al. 1990). These techniques typically yield an internal calibration accuracy of $``$15% at frequencies near 1420MHz.

In our present program several of our targets have recessional velocities $`V_r`$12 000  km s-1 and hence were observed at frequencies where calibration reliability and consistency at Nançay and other radio telescopes are less well established. To estimate the comparative accuracy of our flux density calibration at these lower frequencies as well as recheck frequency dependent changes in the noise diode temperature, we examined continuum calibration data obtained at 1400, 1425, and 1280 MHz, from several periods over the course of the months during which our spectral line data were acquired (L. Alsac, private comm.; see also Thuan et al. 2000). Over this frequency range we found the noise diode temperature to vary by less than 10%. Our data were corrected for this effect based on a linear correction curve derived from the continuum data. These calibration data also confirm the expected internal calibration accuracy of our data is $`\pm `$15% near 1420-1425MHz, but only $`\pm `$25% near 1280MHz.

An additional step was required for accurate flux calibration of our Nançay data, as it has been found that changes have occurred in the output power of the calibration diode used at Nançay since the early 1990’s (see Figure 4 of Theureau et al. 1998; see also Thuan et al. 2000), resulting in an overall shift of the absolute calibration scale. This makes it necessary to appropriately renormalize the fluxes determined via the standard calibration techniques described above (e.g., Theureau et al. 1998; Matthews et al. 1998; Thuan et al. 2000).

Matthews et al. (1998) showed via a statistical comparison of integrated fluxes measured for $``$30 galaxies at Nançay and elsewhere that applying a scaling factor of 1.26 to the Nançay flux densities very effectively corrects for the above effect, and restores the correct normalization of the Nançay flux scale. Matthews & van Driel (2000) subsequently found that the application of this same factor minimized scatter between fluxes determined for a second sample of galaxies observed at both Nançay and at Arecibo. Theureau et al. (1998 and priv. comm.) also derived similar corrections via independent observations of line calibration sources. As a final calibration step we therefore apply a renormalization factor of 1.26 to all fluxes reported in the present work.

### 3.3 Data reduction

We reduced our H i spectra using the standard DAC and SIR Nançay spectral line reduction packages available at the Nançay site. With this software we subtracted baselines (generally third order polynomials), averaged the two receiver polarizations, and applied a declination-dependent conversion factor to convert from units of $`T_{sys}`$ to flux density in mJy. Because of the broad width of the lines, careful attention was paid to baseline fitting, and scans with extremely curved baselines were discarded. In addition, the reductions were performed independently by two of us to check the consistency of the results.

### 3.4 Measurement of H I parameters from global spectra

Radial velocities, $`V_{HI}`$, peak flux densities, integrated line fluxes, velocity widths at 50% and 20% of peak maximum ($`W_{50}`$ and $`W_{20}`$), and rms noise levels of our program spectra were measured using our own IDL software. Velocity widths were measured interactively, by moving the cursor outward from the profile center. Radial velocities were defined to be the centroid of the two 20% peak maximum points on the profile and are quoted using the optical convention.

### 3.5 Analysis of mapped galaxies

To construct the global H i profiles for each of the mapped galaxies, we employed the procedure of Matthews et al. (1998). A Gaussian model with appropriate sidelobes for the Nançay beam was assumed (see Guibert 1973). We treated the beam as infinite in the N-S direction, thus reducing the analysis to a one-dimensional problem. With our model beam, the model galaxy flux distributions were then iteratively integrated numerically until the best-fit model that reproduced the observed flux distribution in each of the telescope pointings was found.

In all cases an asymmetric Gaussian H i distribution (i.e., a lopsided Gaussian with a different $`\sigma `$ on the E and W sides, but uniform height) was assumed for the H i distribution of the galaxy. Because all of our sample galaxies were only coarsely resolved by the Nançay beam in the E-W direction, use of models for the H i distribution more complex than a Gaussian (e.g., containing central H i depressions, etc.) was not attempted (see also Fouqué 1984). Moreover, we found the simple Gaussian models produced a good match to the data in all but two cases (F568-6 & F533-3; see Sect. 4).

### 3.6 Global H I spectra and measured H I parameters

Our reduced Nançay global H i spectra for all of our target galaxies are shown in Fig. 1. For the mapped galaxies, the spectra at each individual pointing are shown in Fig. 2.

Parameters for the final global spectra for all of our targets, including the mapped galaxies, are given in Table 2. The columns in Table 2 are defined as follows:

(1) Galaxy name.

(2) Spectrum rms, in millijanskys.

(3) Peak flux density of the line profile, in millijanskys.

(4) & (5) Raw, measured full width at 20% and 50% of the maximum profile height, respectively, in  km s-1. No correction has been applied to the raw linewidths for cosmological stretching, instrumental resolution, or for the errors arising from describing equal frequency-width channels by a constant velocity width across the entire bandwidth of the spectrum (but see Table 4). The latter effect is inherent in the Nançay software, but is negligible $`<`$1.5  km s-1) compared with our measurement uncertainties.

(6) Heliocentric radial velocity, in  km s-1, quoted using the optical convention, $`V_{HI}=c(\nu _0\nu )/\nu `$.

(7) Uncertainty in the heliocentric radial velocity, in  km s-1 computed following the prescription of Fouqué et al. (1990). Errors in the measured linewidths may be estimated as $`\sigma (W_{20})3\sigma (V)`$ and $`\sigma (W_{50})2\sigma (V)`$ (Fouqué et al. 1990).

(8) Raw, integrated H i line flux, in Jy$``$km s-1. No corrections have been applied for beam attenuation.

(9) Uncertainty in the integrated line flux, in Jy$``$km s-1, computed following Fouqué et al. (1990).

(10) Signal-to-noise ratio of the detected line, defined as the ratio of the peak flux density to the spectrum rms.

(11) Comments. For more detailed comments on individual spectra, see Section 4.

Table 3 summarizes the raw, integrated line profile fluxes ($`S_{HI}`$) and velocity centroids ($`V_c`$) for each pointing in our mapping observations. In cases where no flux was detected at a particular pointing, an upper limit to the integrated flux was derived by multiplying the rms noise of the spectrum by the linewidth at 50% peak maximum from the previous pointing.

In Table 4 we tabulate several additional parameters for our target galaxies. Columns in Table 4 are as follows:

(1) Galaxy name

(2) & (3) $`W_{20}`$ and $`W_{50}`$ values corrected for cosmological stretching and spectral resolution, using the relation

$$W_{w,cor}=\left[W_{w,raw}+\delta _c\right]/(1+z)$$
(1)
(see Haynes & Giovanelli 1984). Here $`W_{w,raw}`$ is the raw observed linewidth at $`w`$=20% or $`w`$=50% peak maximum, $`z=V_{HI}/c`$, and $`\delta _c`$ is given by

$$\delta _c=(0.014\omega 0.83)\delta _R$$
(2)
where $`\omega `$=20 and $`\omega `$=50 for $`W_{20}`$ and $`W_{50}`$, respectively, and $`\delta _R`$ is the velocity resolution of the measured spectrum (see Bottinelli et al. 1990). No corrections were applied for inclination angle of the source or for turbulent motions.

(4) Radial velocity, in  km s-1, corrected to the Local Standard of Rest, following the prescription of Sandage & Tammann (1981):

$$V_{LSR}=V_{HI}79\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}l\mathrm{cos}b+296\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}l\mathrm{cos}b36\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}b\text{ km\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}.$$
(3)
(5) Galaxy distance in Mpc, computed from $`D=V_{LSR}/H_0`$.

(6) Logarithm of the H i mass in solar units, computed from the integrated line flux $`S_{HI}`$ in column 8 of Table 2 and using the relation $`M_{HI}=2.36\times 10^5D^2S_{HI}`$.

(7) Ratio of the $`M_{HI}`$ mass to the optical $`B`$-band luminosity $`L_B`$, in solar units. $`L_B`$ was derived from the mean of the absolute $`B`$ magnitudes for each galaxy given in Table 6 (discussed below) and assuming a solar absolute magnitude of $`M_{B,}=`$5.48. For NGC 7589 a $`B`$-band magnitude was taken from the NED database.

(8) Rough estimate of the H i diameter of the source in arcminutes. Estimates were made only for mapped galaxies where flux was detected at 2 or more positions (see Table 3). Following Fouqué (1984), we define the H i diameter as the isophote enclosing half of the H i mass in a flat H i disk model, which for a Gaussian H i surface density, is equal to the FWHM of the model (Fouqué 1984). Because of the elongation of the Nançay beam and the fact that our maps were obtained along an E-W axis, a correction to the raw H i diameter for the position angle and inclination of the source was also applied. Hence,

$$D_{HI}=Q^1D_{HI}^{EW}$$
(4)
where:

$$Q^2=\mathrm{sin}^2(PA)+R_H^2\mathrm{cos}^2(PA).$$
(5)
Here, $`R_H`$ is the ratio of the major to the minor axis of the H i distribution and $`PA`$ is the position angle of the major axis. We assume $`R_H`$=$`(a/b)_{optical}`$ and adopt the photometric position angle for $`PA`$ (Fouqué 1984). Typical errors for this method of estimating $`D_{HI}`$ are $`30\pm 30`$% (see Fouqué 1984).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 The H I properties of LSB Giants

Not surprisingly, all of the LSB Giant galaxies observed in the present program are found to be very H i-rich systems, having $`M_{HI}`$ values ranging from $`2.5\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$–7.1$`\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$(Table 4). The bulk of the sample galaxies are not only H i rich in an absolute sense, but are also H i-rich both for their Hubble types and for their optical luminosities—six of the galaxies in the present LSB Giant sample have $`M_{HI}/L_B>`$1 (in solar units; see Table 4). More typical values of $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ for high surface brightness spirals are: $``$0.2 (type Sab-Sb); $``$0.3 (type Sbc-Sc); $``$0.4 (type Scd-Sd) (Roberts & Haynes 1994).

As expected for massive, H i-rich disks, broad H i linewidths are also hallmarks of LSB Giants. Because a number of our program galaxies have rather low inclinations ($`i40^{}`$), it is difficult to estimate the true rotational velocities in some cases, but even many of the uncorrected linewidths tend to be quite broad (e.g., $`W_{20,c}=`$398  km s-1 for UGC 1752, which is seen nearly face-on). Only PGC 71626 seems to have a surprisingly narrow linewidth ($`W_{20,c}`$=115  km s-1) given its inclination ($`i=61^{}`$) and Hubble type (SBb or SBc).

The majority of the LSB Giants in our study exhibit relatively normal, classic, double-horned rotational profiles (Fig. 1). However, we do see a few unusual cases as well; UGC 568 shows a peculiar, strongly asymmetric profile; PGC 45080 and NGC 7589 both have rather squarish global profiles with no clear rotation horns; and finally, F530-1 has a double-horned profile that is strongly “cleft” in the middle. PGC 135754 may also have a similar cleft morphology, but our detection of this source is relatively weak. Among the 11 relatively normal, double-horned profiles, 3 cases show modest asymmetries (UGC 2936, NGC 2770, and F568-6). Thus we find no evidence that strong H i asymmetries are a general feature of LSB Giants. We comment further on our individual spectra below.

### 4.2 Comparison of new H I data with previous measurements and comments on individual objects

In order to compare the H i parameters derived in the present work with past measurements, we have compiled global H i parameters from the literature for the 13 of our sample galaxies which have previously been observed in the 21-cm line. Table 5 summarizes previously measured recessional velocities, linewidths, and integrated line fluxes for each case, and indicates the telescope at which the data were obtained, as well as the reference for the quoted parameters.

An examination of Table 5 shows that for LSB Giants observed by more than one group, significant discrepancies frequently exist between the measured parameters, particularly the global integrated line fluxes. We discuss each of the 16 targets observed in the present work in more detail below, including comments on these discrepancies. As part of our investigation of our LSB Giant targets, we also searched the vicinity of each of the 16 objects (i.e., an area about 1.5 times the Nançay HPBW) for nearby galaxies which could possibly give rise to confusion in our observed H i profiles. For this we employed the NED and LEDA databases, as well as optical images extracted from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). Results of these searches are also described below.

UGC 568: no H i data have been previously published for this object. Our global spectrum appears quite peculiar, having a strong asymmetry, with a broad, single “horn” on the low velocity side of the profile. Published optical redshifts show a discrepancy of over 400  km s-1($`V_{opt}`$=13 600  km s-1, Melnick & Quintana 1981; $`V_{opt}`$=13 198$`\pm `$275  km s-1, Impey et al. 1996). Our new H i velocity corresponds to the mean of the optical redshifts. Several other galaxies were found within our search area, but they do not seem candidates for an H i confusion that could explain our peculiar global H i profile: CGCG 384-029 is a $`B_T`$=15.0 mag Sbc spiral with an optical velocity 886  km s-1 higher than the LSB Giant (Dale et al. 1998; Katgert et al. 1998), while PGC 3280 is an S0 with a recessional velocity 1524  km s-1 lower than the LSB; MCGG +00-03-027 is a 15.5 mag galaxy without known velocity, but it is classified as S0/a (LEDA) or Sa (NED), and is therefore expected to be gas-poor.

UGC 1752: Our new total integrated H i flux ($`S_{HI}=`$5.13 Jy$``$km s-1) is somewhat larger than that measured at Arecibo by Giovanelli & Haynes (1989; $`S_{HI}=3.93`$ Jy$``$km s-1), suggesting this galaxy has extended H i emission.

PGC 135657: no H i data have been previously published for this object. Our H i detection has a recessional velocity 407  km s-1 larger than the optical velocity of $`V_{opt}`$=12 701$`\pm `$275  km s-1 reported for PGC 135657 by Impey et al. (1996). In the present survey we detect additional marginal features at the edges of our bandpass, near $`V_{HI}=`$12 100  km s-1 and $`V_{HI}=`$13 300  km s-1. There are a number of small angular size galaxies in this field, but none appear as obvious candidates for interlopers.

UGC 2936: The Arecibo spectrum of UGC 2936 published by Sprayberry (1995b) is highly asymmetric; however only a modest asymmetry is seen in our new data and in the VLA spectrum of Pickering et al. (1999). Our new integrated line flux of 11.23 Jy$``$km s-1 agrees to within errors with that of Tifft & Cocke (1988) ($``$11.7 Jy$``$km s-1). In comparison, the Arecibo spectra by Hewitt et al. (1983), Haynes & Giovanelli (1984), and Sprayberry et al. (1995b) all yield considerable lower integrated line fluxes ($``$8.4-9.0 Jy$``$km s-1), while our new integrated flux value is somewhat lower than the Arecibo measurement of Haynes et al. (1999 13.29 Jy$``$km s-1) and the VLA measurement of Pickering et al. (1999; 13.6 Jy$``$km s-1).

CO(1-0) and CO(2-1) line emission were detected from UGC 2936 at SEST and IRAM by Chini et al. (1996), making this one of the rare galaxies classified as an LSB Giant that has been detected in CO (see also Knezek 1993,1998). However, Schmelz et al. (1986) failed to detect OH line absorption from the object.

UGC 3140 (= NGC 1642): This galaxy forms a wide pair ($`8^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.3}`$ projected separation; $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{opt}`$=332$`\pm `$85  km s-1) with 15.0 mag Sb spiral UGC 3141. Their E-W separation is $`3^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.3}`$ and our Nançay spectrum does not appear to be confused. Our new linewidth measurements are in good agreement with the Jodrell Bank measurements of Staveley-Smith & Davies (1988) and measurements we performed from new HIPASS data (see Barnes et al., in prep. for a description of HIPASS), but are lower than the values published by Bottinelli et al. (1982). No published H i observations are available for UGC 3141.

NGC 2770: Short Westerbork radio synthesis 21-cm line observations (Rhee & van Albada 1996; Broeils & Rhee 1997) indicate that the H i distribution of NGC 2770 at a surface density level of 1 $`M_{}`$ pc-2 is about 1.7 times as large as the optical ($`D_{25}`$) diameter and that its mean H i surface density averaged over the entire H i disk $`<`$$`\sigma _{HI}`$$`>`$ is 4.5 $`M_{}`$ pc-2, which is higher than typical values for an Sc. Our new spectra show a slightly higher peak flux density on the low-velocity side of the global line profile, hinting at a possible weak asymmetry not seen in the Westerbork observations.

PGC 135754: no H i data have been previously published for this object and it was only weakly detected in the present study. Our new H i velocity is 434  km s-1 higher than the optical value reported by Impey et al. (1996; 21335$`\pm `$275  km s-1).

F568-6 (= Malin-2 = PGC 86622): H i flux appears to have been missed in the Arecibo observations of F568-6 by Schombert et al. (1992). Our new value of $`S_{HI}`$=4.20 Jy$``$km s-1 shows good agreement with the value derived from the VLA observations of Pickering et al. (1997; 4.4 Jy$``$km s-1).

UGC 6614: Our new integrated H i flux of 15.94 Jy$``$km s-1 is significantly larger than previous measurements from Arecibo (Bothun et al. 1985a; Haynes & Giovanelli 1989). However, Pickering et al. (1997) measured $`S_{HI}`$=15.0 Jy$``$km s-1 from VLA data, consistent with our results. Our H i diameter estimate for this object is very poorly constrained, as we find a Gaussian H i model gives a poor fit to the data. This is reaffirmed by the VLA data of Pickering et al. (1997), which show a signficant central depression in the H i distribution of this galaxy.

Malin-1 (= PGC 42102): One published Arecibo observation of Malin-1 (see Table 5) gives an integrated H i line flux (2.5 Jy$``$km s-1; Bothun et al. 1987) comparable to the VLA value derived by Pickering et al. (1997), while a re-reduction of the same Arecibo data yielded $`S_{HI}`$=3.5 Jy  km s-1 (Impey & Bothun 1989); finally Impey & Bothun (1989) measure $`S_{HI}`$=4.6 Jy$``$km s-1 from a Green Bank 43m spectrum. Our new data indicate that the Arecibo and Green Bank fluxes previously reported by Impey & Bothun (1989) are likely to be significantly overestimated. In contrast our new integrated flux (1.80 Jy$``$km s-1) is somewhat lower than the VLA measurement of Pickering et al. (1997), although our values marginally agree to within errors, since at the redshifted frequency of Malin-1 ($``$1312 MHz), our absolute calibration uncertainties are expected to be as high as $`\pm `$25% (see Section 3.2). In terms of spectral morphology, our new global spectrum shows excellent agreement with that derived by Pickering et al.

No CO(1-0) line emission was detected in the central regions of Malin-1 by Radford (1992), with an estimated upper limit of 4.7$`\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$ to the H2 mass, and Braine et al. (2000) recently reported an upper limit of $`M_{H2}/M_{HI}<0.03`$.

PGC 45080: Our new integrated line flux is smaller than the values reported by Sprayberry et al. (1995b), and our new spectrum lacks the distinct rotation horns seen in the Sprayberry et al. data. Given the small optical size of this object ($`D_{25}`$=$`0^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.79}`$) it seems unlikely significant flux extended outside our beam. There are also no obvious interlopers in this field that would have caused confusion in the Sprayberry et al. spectrum, hence the discrepencies in the two spectra are probably due to the lower signal-to-noise of our present data.

UGC 9024: Our new integrated flux value of 11.41 Jy$``$km s-1 is higher than past values measured at Arecibo or with single-pointing Nançay measurements (Bothun et al. 1985; Lewis 1987; Haynes et al. 1997; Theureau et al. 1998), suggesting this galaxy has extended H i emission.

F530-1 (= PGC 87136): We detect only a slightly higher integrated flux (2.07 Jy$``$km s-1) than the Arecibo value of Schombert et al. (1992; 1.7 Jy$``$km s-1). Our spectrum shows an unusual “cleft” morphology, although our signal-to-noise is only modest due to the broad linewidth of this source.

F533-3 (= PGC 68495): No flux is clearly detected at 2E in our mapping observations of this galaxy; this may be due to the broadness and relative weakness of the line profile and/or an H i distribution that is very lopsided relative to the optical center of the galaxy. As a result, our H i diameter estimate for F533-3 very uncertain.

NGC 7589: NGC 7589 was mapped in H i at the VLA by Pickering et al. (1997). Our new H i profile hints at a possible small amount of additional flux on the low-velocity side of the profile compared with the VLA global spectrum; this is probably caused by confusion with F893-29, which was also detected in H i at the VLA. F893-29 is a 17.1 mag Sb? spiral (NED) or dwarf (Pickering et al. 1997), $`3^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.3}`$ SW of the LSB Giant, with a E-W separation of $`2^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.2}`$. F893-29 has a systemic H i velocity of 8768  km s-1 (Pickering et al. 1997), consistent with the velocity of the “extra” flux we observe associated with our global profile of NGC 7589. Our new integrated line flux (2.96 Jy$``$km s-1) agrees well with that reported by Pickering et al (1997; 2.7 Jy$``$km s-1), hence the flux contamination from this second source appears to be minimal. However our line profile widths appear to be overestimated by $``$100  km s-1 due to this second source, hence corrections have been applied to the $`W_{20}`$ and $`W_{50}`$ measurements in Tables 2 & 4.

PGC 71626: PGC 71626 was detected at a recessional velocity consistent with that recently reported by Theureau et al. (1998), but somewhat offset from the published optical velocity of 9520  km s-1 reported by Sprayberry et al. (1995b) and Impey et al. (1996). Our new integrated flux value of 3.94 Jy$``$km s-1 is higher than the value of 2.6 Jy$``$km s-1 reported by Theureau et al. (1998) based on a single-pointing Nançay observation. An additional H i source was detected in our spectrum at $`V_{HI}=9753\pm 4`$  km s-1, with $`W_{20}=73`$  km s-1 and $`S_{HI}=1.52\pm 0.48`$ Jy$``$km s-1. This may be contamination from the S? galaxy MCG -01-59-026 (of unknown redshift), at a projected distance of $`4^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.5}`$ from PGC 71626, or due to an uncatalogued LSB dwarf visible on the DSS.

#### 4.2.1 Optical parameters for the LSB Giants

All of the LSB Giant galaxies observed in the present survey have optical surface photometry available in the literature. To offer a more complete picture of the nature of the objects in our sample, we have compiled a summary of several optical and photometric parameters for each galaxy in Table 6.

Radial velocities quoted in Table 6 are heliocentric values derived from optical measurements. $`B_{tot}`$ values are the total $`B`$-band magnitudes derived from extrapolated exponential disk fits unless otherwise noted. $`\mu (0)`$ is the extrapolated central disk surface brightness in the $`B`$-band (unless otherwise specified) and is uncorrected for inclination and internal extinction. $`h_r`$ is the exponential disk scale length in kpc. $`M`$ is the absolute magnitude ($`B`$-band, unless otherwise noted) derived from the total magnitude in column 3, and assuming $`D=V_{opt}/H_0`$ if no distance was given in the original reference; no internal extinction corrections were applied. Corrections to the values in Table 6 for Galactic extinction, $`k`$-corrections, and cosmological surface brightness dimming were generally applied by the original authors.

The values given in Table 6 show that there is a great deal of scatter in the photometric parameters reported for LSB Giant galaxies. Surface photometry of LSB galaxies is always challenging, but it is further complicated for LSB Giants by the fact that many of these galaxies have significant bulges, leading to ambiguity in the bulge-disk decompositions and hence vastly different derived scale lengths and central surface brightness values from different workers. Offsets between recessional velocities derived via optical and H i observations are also common (cf. Table 5).

We include Table 6 partly as a caution to readers interested in understanding the global properties of Giant LSB galaxies that there still exist large uncertainties in the measured parameters for such objects, and to highlight the need for additional surface photometry (and H i measurements) of such galaxies. Such data will be necessary before we can distinguish whether all LSB Giants such as the ones in the present study form a distinct class of object, as suggested by Hoffman et al. (1992), or whether some or most of these objects may form a natural and continuous extension of other low and moderate surface brightness disk galaxies. Well-established photometric parameters will also be key to placing the LSB Giant galaxies on the Tully-Fisher diagram.

###### Acknowledgements.

LDM acknowledges the financial support of a Jansky Postdoctoral Fellowship from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), which is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. We have made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as well as the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Database (LEDA) supplied by the LEDA team at the CRAL-Observatoire de Lyon (France), and the Digitized Sky Surveys (DSS), which were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The Unité Scientifique Nançay of the Observatoire de Paris is associated as Unité de Service et de Recherche USR No. B704 to the French Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). Nançay also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Région Centre in France.


text:
# Self-Interacting Dark Matter with Flavor Mixing

Also at the \]Institute for Nuclear Fusion, Russian Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow 123182, Russia

## Abstract

The crisis of both cold and collisional dark matter (DM) models is resolved by postulating flavor mixing of DM particles. Flavor-mixed particles segregate in the gravitational field to form dark halos composed of heavy mass eigenstates. Since these particles are mixed in the interaction basis, elastic collisions convert some of heavy eigenstates into light ones which leave the halo. This annihilation-like process will soften dense central cusps of halos. The proposed model accumulates most of the attractive features of self-interacting and annihilating DM models, but does not suffer from their severe drawbacks. This model is natural does not require fine tuning.

Dark matter constitutes most of the mass in the Universe, but its nature and properties remain largely unknown, except, perhaps, it is cold (at the time of decoupling, i.e., massive) and dark (weakly interacting). Recent observations indicate a failure of the conventional cold dark matter (CDM) paradigm on small (galactic) scales. The resolution of the discrepancy between theory and observations calls for new ideas and should allow to further constrain properties and nature of otherwise undetectable dark matter.

A model of structure formation in a universe with CDM is in excellent agreement with observations on large scales ($``$ Mpc) Bahcall+99  which, thus, supports the hypothesis that dark matter particles are heavy ($``$ GeV) and weakly interacting with baryonic matter and photons. Recent observations on galactic and sub-galactic scales appear to be in conflict with the CDM model, which predicts singular ($`\rho 1/r`$ or even steeper) central density cusps Navarro+97 ; Klypin+99 ; Moore+99a  and a large number of low-mass halos Klypin+99 ; Moore+99b . In contrast, observations indicate low-density cores with shallow profiles Moore94 ; DM97 ; DH00  and a smaller number of satellites M98 . Also, some observations seem to indicate the invariance of the core density with respect to the mass of the halo Firmani+00 .

A number of models have recently been proposed in order to explain the discrepancy. Some of them, such as the models of self-interacting, warm, annihilating, and decaying dark matter SS00 ; Hannestad+00 ; Kaplinghat+00 ; Cen00  are just (slight) modifications of the standard CDM paradigm, while others, e.g., the fluid, repulsive, fuzzy, bosonic, mirror, etc. dark matter models Peebles00 ; Goodman00 ; Hu+00 ; RiottoTkachev00 ; MT00  are rather exotic. Nearly all theories may be tuned to solve the problem, they may be motivated from particle physics, and, finally, they cannot be ruled out by present observational data.

The fact that many predictions of the CDM cosmological models are in excellent agreement with a wide variety of observational results, from the microwave background fluctuations to the large-scale structure, suggests that the CDM model is a good first approximation, but it has to be corrected on a small (galactic) scale. Among many possibilities, the simplest one is to assume that weakly interacting CDM particles are, in fact, strongly self-interacting SS00 ; Carlson+94 ; deLaix+95 . Evolution of the structure in the presence of self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) indeed results in a smaller number of satellites and formation of constant density cores within a dynamical time-scale modified by collisions Burkert00 ; Moore+00 ; Yoshida+00 ; KochanekWhite00 ; Dave+00 . On a longer time-scale, however, a SIDM halo is unstable to core collapse, which leads to the formation of a steep $`1/r^2`$ density cusp, making the problem even worse KochanekWhite00  (but see Ref. Dave+00 ). The detection of elongated cores in clusters via lensing observations ME00  is inconsistent with the simple SIDM model. Thus, it seems that such an one-component model is an over-simplification, because, in general, dark matter particles may be flavor mixed, that is their interaction (or flavor) eigenstates are superpositions of mass eigenstates.

In this paper we study the properties of dark matter halos in the model of the SIDM with flavor mixing. We demonstrate that elastic scattering of such dark matter particles results in a conversion of mass eigenstates and calculate the cross-section of this process. The conversion process will lower the density in the core region and prevent the cusp formation. This is somewhat similar to the annihilating dark matter model Kaplinghat+00 , but our model does not suffer from the “annihilation catastrophe” in the early Universe because of the dynamical equilibrium of the opposite conversion processes in a homogeneous medium.

For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that there exist two flavors, the strongly self-interacting, $`|`$, and the non-self-interacting or “sterile”, $`|𝒮`$, ones. These interaction eigenstates are a superposition of two mass eigenstates, the “heavy”, $`|m_h`$, and the “light”, $`|m_l`$, ones. We write

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|m_h}{|m_l}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta & \mathrm{sin}\vartheta \\ \mathrm{sin}\vartheta & \mathrm{cos}\vartheta \end{array}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|}{|𝒮}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\vartheta `$ is the mixing angle. Throughout the paper, we assume for simplicity that $`m_hm_l`$, so that heavy states are non-relativistic and light states are relativistic. Generalizations of the above simplifications are straightforward. We should note that, in general, the treatment of non-relativistic species requires the wave packet approach Dolgov , and not the plane wave one used above. In some instances, this may result in measurable corrections GKL91 ; GKL92 . Here we neglect by these complications and use the standard plane wave approach, keeping in mind that a particle is a localized in space wave packet with the width $`\delta x`$ determined by the production process.

The concept of flavor eigenstates arises when interactions of particles are considered. In the field-free theory the particle fields in the mass basis have a physical meaning instead. In general, such mass eigenstates have different momenta and energies, $`E_{h,l}^2=|𝐩_{h,l}|^2c^2+m_{h,l}^2c^4`$. Between the interactions, the mass eigenstates propagate independently, with different velocities $`𝐯_{h,l}=𝐩_{h,l}c^2/E_{h,l}`$. Thus at times

$$tt_s\delta x/|𝐯_l𝐯_h|\delta x/c$$
(2)
these states are separated from each other and their wave functions no longer overlap. The separation time above is negligibly small compared to a galactic dynamical time scale; thus, this process is essentially instantaneous. In a gravitational field different eigenstates segregate by mass. Non-relativistic $`|m_h`$-states form halos and the large-scale structure, they represent the conventional cold dark matter. Relativistic $`|m_l`$-states correspond to the “hot” dark matter component which cannot form structures. This component has a much smaller total mass, however, (the number density of both mass states are equal by symmetry) and, hence, is dynamically unimportant.

As dark matter halos form, the density in the central parts increases and, at some point, self-interactions of the dark matter particles become important. Let us consider the elementary act of elastic scattering of two particles, i.e., $`|m_h`$ eigenstates. The initial wave function of two interacting particles in the center of mass frame, according to equation (1), is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\left(e^{ikz}\pm e^{ikz}\right)|m_h=e^{\pm ikz}\left(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta |+\mathrm{sin}\vartheta |𝒮\right),$$
(3)
where “$`+`$” corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ symmetric to interchange of particles (integer total spin) and “$``$” – to an antisymmetric $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ (half-integer total spin), the exponents represent two waves, propagating to the right, and to the left, and $`e^{\pm ikz}\left(e^{ikz}\pm e^{ikz}\right)`$ is the short-hand notation. For scattering, the interaction basis is appropriate, rather than the mass basis, hence the expansion above. During the scattering event, only $`|`$-component is changing, since $`|𝒮`$-component does not interact. The wave function at large distances after scattering thus becomes

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ $``$ $`\left(e^{\pm ikz}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pm (\theta )}{r}}e^{ikr}\right)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta |+e^{\pm ikz}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta |𝒮`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\left(e^{\pm ikz}+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta {\displaystyle \frac{f_\pm (\theta )}{r}}e^{ikr}\right)|m_h`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\vartheta {\displaystyle \frac{f_\pm (\theta )}{r}}e^{ikr}|m_l,`$
where the combination $`f_\pm (\theta )=f(\theta )\pm f(\pi \theta )`$ arises because particles are indistinguishable and $`f(\theta )`$ is the amplitude of scattering of flavor states. The radial part of the wave function represents a diverging scattered wave. One can clearly see that an initial heavy eigenstate acquires, upon scattering, a light eigenstate admixture. In other words, a heavy eigenstate may be converted into a light eigenstate. The differential cross-section of the conversion process is the scattering amplitude squared, that is

$$d\sigma _{c,\pm }=\left|\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\vartheta f_\pm (\theta )\right|^2d\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(5a)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta `$ is the solid angle. The cross-section of pure scattering is
$$d\sigma _{s,\pm }=\left|\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta f_\pm (\theta )\right|^2d\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(5b)
Of course, energy and momentum must be conserved in these processes. Introducing the integral cross-section as $`\sigma _\pm =\left|f_\pm (\theta )\right|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we write

$$\sigma _{c,\pm }=\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta \sigma _\pm ,\sigma _{s,\pm }=\mathrm{cos}^4\vartheta \sigma _\pm .$$
(6)
It is assumed here that the interacting particles of spin $`s`$ have a particular value of their total spin. If it is not so, one has to average over all spin states, which yields LL3  for the conversion cross-section:

$$\sigma _c=\frac{s}{2s+1}\sigma _{c,+}+\frac{s+1}{2s+1}\sigma _{c,}$$
(7)
and similarly for the scattering cross-section $`\sigma _s`$. The cross-sections for the light mass eigenstate interactions may be obtained similarly.

Let us now consider a dark matter halo. When dark matter particles (heavy mass eigenstates) interact with each other, they can either scatter with some cross-section $`\sigma _s`$ or be converted into light mass eigenstates with the cross-section

$$\sigma _c=\mathrm{tan}^2\vartheta \sigma _s.$$
(8)
Since these light eigenstates are relativistic, the conversion process is analogous to the annihilation of dark matter particles. Since the emergent light eigenstates are relativistic, they leave the dark halo, thus, decreasing its density and mass. If the mixing angle is not too small, $`\vartheta 1`$, collisional heat transport, which flattens the core region by making it nearly isothermal, and dark matter “annihilation” (conversion) become important at roughly the same density of particles and, hence, operate simultaneously. Hence, on the onset of the core collapse, when the infall velocity is small, there is enough time to annihilate the density enhancement and prevent formation of a central cusp. Only direct particle simulations are capable of determining what the spatial structure of the dark matter halo will be in this regime.

As one can see, most of the assumptions adopted in the beginning are not crucial for our model. The model requires only that the interaction strengths of flavor eigenstates and the masses of mass eigenstates be (significantly) different. No fine tuning is necessary.

A remarkable difference of the eigenstate conversion process from pure annihilation is that particles are not permanently destroyed via conversion. This is a reversible process: $`|m_h`$ eigenstates are “regenerated” in interactions of $`|m_l`$ eigenstates. By symmetry, the conversion cross-sections of regeneration and annihilation are identical. Now consider the early Universe. The density fluctuations in it are negligible. Therefore, both processes occur at the same rate. They balance each other exactly, no matter how large the particle density is. Thus, no excess of particles of one type over particles of another type is produced. In contrast, conventional annihilation is extremely rapid at high densities. The annihilating dark matter model Kaplinghat+00 , thus, suffers from the “annihilation catastrophe”. Namely, dark matter must be destroyed in the early Universe epoch, long before the large scale structure began to form.

We also should note that the conversion and pure annihilation cross-sections have, in general, different dependence on the relative velocity, $`v`$, of interacting particles. In the absence of long-range interactions and in the non-relativistic limit, the annihilation cross-section scales usually as $`\sigma _av^1`$, while $`\sigma _c`$, being proportional to the cross-section of elastic scattering, does not depend on $`v`$, i.e., $`\sigma _cv^0`$. These scalings are typical but not universal, however, and depend on the interaction model at hand Kaplinghat+00 ; Hogan+00 ; Wyithe+00 .

The dynamics of SIDM model with flavor mixing is quite rich. In the limit of no mixing, $`\vartheta =0`$, the model reduces to the standard SIDM model. If the mixing angle is rather small, elastic collisions rapidly establish isothermal equilibrium throughout a dark matter halo. The halo becomes relatively spherical in this case. Moreover, its core will collapse. Particle conversions will be important deep inside the collapsed core where the density is high enough. Finally, if $`\vartheta 1`$, conversions of dark matter particle rapidly lower the halo density. An almost spherical isothermal core never forms. The detection of elongated shapes from lensing observations of clusters ME00  seems to favor the last scenario.

To summarize, we presented a model of self-interacting dark matter with flavor mixing. This model is well motivated from particle physics (e.g., mixing of quarks, neutrinos, etc.) within the standard model, it is robust and does not require fine tuning of any kind. We have demonstrated that dark matter halos are composed of particle mass eigenstates. Being mixed in the interaction basis, some of heavy eigenstates are converted in elastic collisions into light eigenstates and leave the halo, in a striking analogy with halo annihilation. Accumulating many attractive features of SIDM and annihilating dark matter models (e.g., formation of soft cores and a fewer number of sub-halos, while preserving CDM properties on a large scale), our model does not suffer from their caveats, such as the core collapse induced $`r^2`$-cusps and too spherical cores in the SIDM model, and the catastrophically strong annihilation of dark matter in the dense early Universe.

The author is grateful to Jim Peebles for interesting and insightful discussions and his interest in this work and to CITA for the financial support.