text:
# Measurement of the energy dependence of phase relaxation by single electron tunneling

## 1 Introduction

Relaxation is an essential ingredient for understanding quantum transport phenomena in solid state devices. It can be described as the decay of elementary excitations in the quasi-particle picture of Fermi liquids landau . A typical process is a decay of one quasihole in one quasi-electron and two quasi-holes, sketched in Fig. 1.

The relaxation rate $`\gamma `$ of such elementary excitations in clean degenerate Fermi liquids is given by phase space arguments as $`\gamma ϵ^2`$, with the excitation energy $`ϵ`$ measured relative to the Fermi level. In disordered systems the theory for Fermi liquids predicts a different power law $`\gamma ϵ^{3/2}`$ altshuler ; sivan\_theory . In a previous experiment a small quantum dot was used as a sensitive spectrometer of such relaxatiom processes in a large disordered quantum dot sivan\_exp .

## 2 Experiment

The experiment was performed with a strongly asymmetric double-barrier heterostructure, grown on $`n^+`$-type GaAs. The structure consists of a 10 nm wide undoped GaAs quantum well and two Al0.3Ga0.7As tunneling barriers of 5 nm and 8 nm width. Two 7 nm wide GaAs-spacer layers separate the nominally undoped active region from the 300 nm thick highly doped GaAs contact layers. The charge carrier concentration at the barrier was found to be 3.3$`\times `$1017cm-3. From this heterostructure we fabricated a pillar with 2 $`\mu `$m diameter, which contains some impurities inside the quantum well.

Fig. 2 shows the differential-conductance versus voltage characteristics in the low field regime (at B=0.1 T). One clearly distinguishes three large main peaks of the differential conductance at V=9.8 mV, V=14.6 mV and V=15.6 mV, which can be attributed to single electron tunneling (*SET*) through the lowest impurity states inside the quantum well of the sample.
The electrons tunnel first through the thick tunnel barrier into the energetically lowest discrete states in the quantum well, so the tunneling current is limited by the thick, less transparent tunnel barrier. As the tunneling current itself is proportional to the density of states $`I\nu `$, the current-voltage characteristics displays the energy-dependent local density of states (*LDOS*) of the occupied emitter states with respect to the emitter Fermi Level euro . Therefore the differential conductance $`G=dI/dV`$ images the derivation of the LDOS with respect to energy $`Gd\nu /dE`$.
Between the two first large peaks one clearly resolves an oscillatory fine structure, which is found to be temperature independent. This fine structure displays the mesoscopic fluctuations of the *LDOS*. To perform a statistical analysis, we measured current-voltage characteristics between \[0-15 T\] with a stepwidth of 10 mT.

Fig. 3 shows the voltage and magnetic field dependence of the differential conductance at 20 mK starting from the onset of the current (first large peak in the differential conductance V=9.8 mV at B=0 T). The G-V-curves are all aligned to the first conductance peak, which is set to 0 meV corresponding to the Fermi level.
In the low field regime up to 2.5 T ($`\omega _C\tau <1`$) an irregular pattern is seen. At approximately 2.8 T one observes the formation of stripes high , which become more clearly pronounced at higher B-fields.

## 3 Discussion

As a measurable quantity for the LDOS fluctuations we investigate the variation of the differential conductance var$`{}_{B}{}^{}G`$ = $`<\delta G(B)^2>_B`$, with $`\delta G`$ = $`G(B)`$ \- $`<G>_B`$ in the field range \[0-1 T\], where the Landau quantization can be neglected with respect to disorder, i.e. in the classical limit $`\omega _C\tau `$ $`<`$ 1 with $`\tau `$=0.14 ps. In this limit, the LDOS fluctuations are related to the dephasing rate $`\gamma `$ as falko :

$$\text{var}_BG=G_N^2/(1+\mathrm{}\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma })^{3/2}.$$
(1)
Here, the spectrometer width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given through the width of the main conductance peak at $`V_S`$=9.8 mV as 36 $`\mu `$eV phase . The pre-factor $`G_N`$ could be extracted from the condition, that the quasi-particle relaxation rate $`\gamma `$ (proportional to the phase space volume of the final scattering states) approaches 0, when the excitation energy $`ϵ`$ goes to 0, e.g. $`VV_S`$.

With the help of eq. 1 we extracted the energy dependence of $`\gamma `$, shown in Fig. 4. A two-parameter power law fit of the data yields an exponent of 1.54 in very good agreement with the theory of highly disordered conductors. In such systems like the investigated highly-doped semiconductor, the diffusive motion of electrons favors small momentum transfer, which leads to a quasi-particle relaxation rate $`\gamma ϵ^{3/2}`$ altshuler .
At intermediate magnetic fields the oscillatory pattern in Fig. 3 starts to disappear and long stripes of LDOS resonances evolve. They result from Landau quantization which reduces the lateral quantum diffusion in the highly disordered emitter. The disordered states in the emitter assume now a quasi-onedimensional character, so that a fan-like structure of the LDOS resonances appears. At higher magnetic fields these resonances appear to be more pronounced at small voltages, whereas they seem to wash out at high bias voltages. One determines the slope of the resonances beyond the magnetic quantum limit at B=11.4 T, where only one spin degenerate Landau band is populated, to be $`dV/dB=3.0`$ mV/T, which is roughly consistent with the increase of the cyclotron energy for GaAs (1.73 meV/T) with magnetic fields (after energy conversion with $`\alpha `$=0.5).
The splitting of the main differential conductance peak at 0 meV in Fig. 3 is attributed to the Zeeman splitting of the impurity state deshpande . A linear fit yields an effective $`g`$-factor of the impurity S $`|g_S^{}|=0.14`$ spin .
The main features of the spin-up and spin-down components of the *LDOS* are found to be identical apart from Zeeman splitting high . Such comparisons for fixed energies and varying magnetic fields are possible due to the quasi-one-dimensional nature of the density of states in high magnetic fields and due to the depopulation of the Landau-levels


format: text

text:
# QSO Absorption Lines, Gaseous Infall and Star Formation

## References

Bahcall, J.N., Spitzer, L., 1969, ApJ, 156, L63

Burles, S., Tytler, D., 1998, ApJ, 499, 699

Carr, B. J., 1994, ARA& A, 32, 531

Chen, H.-W., Lanzetta, K. M., Webb, J. K., & Barcons, X. 1998, ApJ, 498, 77

Ćirković, M.M., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Samurović, S. 1999, MNRAS, 306, L15

Fields, B. D., Freese, K., Graff, D. S., 1998, NewA, 3, 347

Jakobsen, P. 1998, A & A, 331, 61

Persic, M., & Salucci, P. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 14p

Rauch, M. 1998, ARAA, 36, 267

Samurović, S. Ćirković, M.M. and Milošević-Zdjelar, V. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 63


text:
# Radicals and Plotkin’s problem concerning geometrically equivalent groups

## Abstract.

If $`G`$ and $`X`$ are groups and $`N`$ is a normal subgroup of $`X`$, then the $`G`$closure of $`N`$ in $`X`$ is the normal subgroup $`\overline{X}^G=\{\mathrm{ker}\phi |\phi :XG,\text{ with }N\mathrm{ker}\phi \}`$ of $`X`$. In particular, $`\overline{1}^G=R_GX`$ is the $`G`$radical of $`X`$. Plotkin  calls two groups $`G`$ and $`H`$ geometrically equivalent, written $`GH`$, if for any free group $`F`$ of finite rank and any normal subgroup $`N`$ of $`F`$ the $`G`$closure and the $`H`$closure of $`N`$ in $`F`$ are the same. Quasiidentities are formulas of the form $`(_{in}w_i=1w=1)`$ for any words $`w,w_i(in)`$ in a free group. Generally geometrically equivalent groups satisfy the same quasiidentiies. Plotkin showed that nilpotent groups $`G`$ and $`H`$ satisfy the same quasiidenties if and only if $`G`$ and $`H`$ are geometrically equivalent. Hence he conjectured that this might hold for any pair of groups; see the Kourovka Notebook . We provide a counterexample.

The authors are supported by the project No. G 0545-173, 06/97 of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research & Development.
GbSh 741 in Shelah’s list of publications.

In a series of paper, B. I. Plotkin and his collaborators  investigated radicals of groups and their relation to quasiidentities. If $`G`$ is a group, then the $`G`$-radical $`R_GX`$ of a group $`X`$ is defined by

$$R_GX=\{\mathrm{ker}\phi ;\phi :XG\text{ any homomorphism }\}.$$

Clearly, $`R_GX`$ is a characteristic, hence a normal subgroup of $`X`$. The radical $`R_G`$ can also be used to define the $`G`$-closure $`\overline{U}^G=\overline{U}`$ of a normal subgroup $`U`$ of $`X`$, by saying that $`\overline{U}/U=R_G(X/U)`$. This immediately leads to Plotkin’s definition of geometrically equivalent groups, see  and \[2, p. 113\].

###### Definition 0.1.

Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be two groups. Then $`G`$ and $`H`$ are geometrically equivalent, written $`GH`$, if for any free group $`F`$ of finite rank and any normal subgroup $`U`$ of $`F`$ the $`G`$\- and $`H`$-closure of $`U`$ in $`F`$ are the same, i.e. for any normal subgroup $`U`$ we have $`\overline{U}^G=\overline{U}^H`$.

It is easy to see that $`GH`$ if and only if $`R_GK=R_HK`$ for all finitely generated groups $`K`$. Plotkin notes that geometrically equivalent groups satisfy the same quasiidentities. The well-known notion of quasiidentities relates to quasivarieties of groups. A quasiidentity  is an expression of the form

$$w_1=1\mathrm{}w_n=1w=1\text{ where }w_i,wF(in)\text{ are words.}$$

Moreover the following was shown in , see \[2, p.113\].

###### Theorem 0.2.

1. If $`GH`$, and $`G`$ is torsion-free, then $`H`$ is torsion-free.
2. If $`G,H`$ are nilpotent, then $`GH`$ if and only if $`G`$ and $`H`$ satisfy the same quasiidentities.

This lead Plotkin to conjecture that two groups might be geometrically equivalent if and only if they satisfy the same quasiidentities, see the Kourovka Notebook \[2, p.113, problem 14.71\]. In this note we refute this conjecture. Clearly there are only countably many finitely presented groups which we enumerate as the set $`𝔎=\{K_n:nw\}`$ and let $`G=\underset{nw}{}K_n`$ be the restricted direct product. Then $`G`$ satisfies only those quasiidentities satisfied by all groups and so if $`H`$ is any group with $`GH`$, $`G`$ satisfies the same quasiidenties as $`H`$.

R. Camm \[1, p. 68, p. 75 Corollary\] proved there are $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$ non-isomorphic, two-generator, simple groups, see also Lyndon, Schupp \[7, p. 188, Theorem 3.2\]. So there exists a 2-generated simple group $`L`$ which cannot be mapped nontrivially into $`G`$. We consider the pair $`G`$, $`H=L\times G`$ and show the following:

###### Theorem 0.3.

If $`G,H`$ and $`L`$ are as above, $`R_GL=L`$ and $`R_HL=1`$. In particular $`G`$ and $`H`$ are not geometrically equivalent. Since $`GH`$ satisfy the same quasiidentities, this is the required counterexample.

###### Proof.

Since $`L`$ is a two-generated simple group, $`L`$ is an epimorphic image of a free group of rank 2. So it is enough to prove that $`R_GL=L`$ and $`R_HL=1`$. The first equality follows since there is no nontrivial homomorphism of $`L`$ into $`G`$. On the other hand, there is a canonical embedding $`LH=L\times G`$, so $`R_HL=1`$. ∎


text:
# The formation of G-band bright points I: Standard LTE modelling

## 1. Spectrum synthesis of G-band bright points

Filtergrams taken in the G-band around 430.5 nm are often used for proxy magnetometry since photospheric bright points associated with magnetic structures show up very well in them (e.g. Berger et al. 1995). We have performed LTE spectrum synthesis of the G band (mostly formed by CH) using the semi-empirical magnetic flux-tube model NCHROM7 of Briand & Solanki (1995) which is a refinement of the models of Bruls & Solanki (1993) and Solanki (1986). It is embedded in a standard model for the quiet photosphere.

Figure 1 shows results. The hot bright walls of the (rotationally symmetric) flux tube create a bright ring seen as a double peak in the radiation temperature. Figure 1 also shows the temperature structure along three lines of sight: through quiet sun, through the tube centre, and through the tube wall where the emergent intensity peaks considerably because it samples the quiet-sun model at larger depth than the quiet-sun line of sight does. The peak contrast with respect to the quiet sun is larger in $`G`$ than in $`C`$ mainly because the photosphere appears darker in the G band.

Detailed inspection of the synthetic spectra shows how most spectral lines weaken in the flux tube. We interpret this as due to the shallower temperature gradient and the lower density inside the flux tube. Molecular lines weaken the most due to the pressure dependence of the molecular association equilibria. This is the reason that bright points should show up particularly well in molecular lines.

## 2. Comparison with observations

The resulting intensity spectra were integrated using the transmission profiles of two filters that have been used at the Swedish Vacuum Solar Telescope (SVST) on La Palma, denoted $`G`$ for the G band and $`C`$ for a nearby continuum band. The results were compared to a pair of $`G`$ and $`C`$ images of a solar active region taken with the SVST by Berger & Löfdahl (private communication) and restored by them using the phase-diversity technique (cf. Löfdahl et al. 1998).

Figure 2 compares the contrast values of the two passbands – i.e. the spectrally integrated intensity ($`G`$ and $`C`$) normalised to the quiet sun intensity ($`G`$ and $`C`$) – with the observations. The points and contours represent the $`G`$ and $`C`$ contrasts measured per pixel in the SVST images. The stars represent peak intensities from the flux tube model after convolution with a range of smearing functions that simulate degradation by atmospheric seeing and by the telescope. The resulting peak contrast is very sensitive to the far wings of the smearing profile – which are very difficult to assess. Nevertheless, the comparison indicates reasonable agreement between the computed peak contrasts and the highest observed contrasts.

## 3. Flux-tube signatures in other spectral bands

Could there be other spectral regions useful for proxy magnetometry or flux-tube diagnostics? We synthesised also a wide range of the solar spectrum with spectral resolution $`R=20000`$. The upper panel of Fig. 3 shows smoothed spectra along the three lines of sight indicated at left in Fig. 1. The lower panel shows the wall/quiet-sun contrast. The Balmer lines stand out because they get stronger due to the high temperature of the flux-tube walls. The Balmer jump does not strengthen, however, so that feature is probably not a good flux-tube diagnostic.

The violet CN band produces large contrast in the lower panel of Fig. 3 and is known to display the photospheric network well (Chapman 1970). Inspection of the computed molecular equilibria shows that CN is depleted to a smaller fraction in the flux tube than CH. Preliminary results from the SVST received during the symposium (Rouppe van der Voort, private communication) confirm indeed that CN bright points look very similar to those seen in the G band.

## 4. Conclusions

The Briand & Solanki model produces bright-point contrasts similar to those observed at the SVST. However, the spectrum synthesis was made assuming LTE and the photospheric part of the flux tube model was primarily constructed from LTE inversions of spectropolarimetric data. Do we believe these LTE assumptions? Not necessarily. A contrasting scenario would be one where UV radiation from the hot walls photodissociates CH in the flux tube and also causes overionisation of metals, thus affecting our G-band synthesis as well as the semi-empirical modelling. If there is any place in the solar photosphere where 3D–NLTE effects are important, it should be in these flux tubes.

### Acknowledgments.

Carine Briand and Sami Solanki very kindly provided their flux-tube models and software to handle them plus instructions. Mats Löfdahl and Tom Berger generously shared their observational data.

## References

Berger, T.E., Schrijver, C.J., Shine, R.A., Tarbell, T.D., Title, A.M., Scharmer, G.B. 1995, ApJ, 454, 531

Chapman, G.A. 1970, Sol. Phys., 13, 78

Briand, C., Solanki, S.K. 1995, A&A, 299, 596

Bruls, J.H.M.J., Solanki, S.K. 1993, A&A, 273, 293

Löfdahl, M.G., Berger, T.E., Shine, R.S., Title, A.M. 1998, ApJ, 495, 965

Rutten, R.J. 1999, ASP Conf. Series 184, 181

Solanki, S.K. 1986, A&A, 168, 311


text:
# Detection of arcs in Saturn’s F ring during the 1995 Sun ring-plane crossing

## 1 Introduction

The Sun’s crossing of Saturn’s ring-plane is a rare opportunity to observe the unlit face of the rings. Results of observations made at the 3.6m CFH Telescope are reported here. Thanks to the use of the UHAO adaptive optics system (Roddier et al. roddier\_2000 (2000)), high resolution ground-based images were obtained ($``$0.15″ in August 1995 and $``$0.25″ in November 1995). The Sun’s crossing lasted from November 17th to 21st 1995. It was accompanied by three Earth ring plane crossings (1995 May 22nd, August 10th, and 1996 February 11th). Several teams observed these events (Nicholson et al. nicholson\_96 (1996), hereafter N96; Bosh & Rivkin bosh (1996); Sicardy et al. sicardy (1996); Roddier et al. 1996a ; Ferrari et al. ferrari (1997)).
The unusual viewing of the rings during these events provides a rare opportunity to detect faint structures such as small satellites, clumps, or arcs, that are usually lost in the glare of the bright main rings. In this paper, we focus our attention on the azimuthal structure of the F ring. Located at the Roche limit of Saturn and bounded by two shepherding satellites Pandora and Prometheus, the F ring is very intriguing. The Voyager images revealed its complex radial and azimuthal structure including multiple strands, clumps and braids. Interactions with Saturn’s satellites might explain some features, but they are not completely understood.
During the 1995 ring crossing observing campaign, the F ring appeared populated with numerous features, either point-like or longitudinally extended. The observation of two point-like objects (S/1995 S1 and S/1995 S3) was reported by Bosh & Rivkin (bosh (1996)) during the May crossing. During the August crossing, our team discovered at least 6 new features with semi-major axes compatible with the F ring (Roddier et al. 1996a ; Ferrari et al. ferrari (1997)). At least one of them was identified as an arc-like object. During the same period three objects (S/1995 S5, S/19995 S6 and S/1995 S7) were detected by N96. Finally, during the November crossing, two wide arcs ($`7\mathrm{°}`$ and 10°-long) were observed by N96. The brightest was also seen by Poulet et al. (poulet (2000), hereafter P2000). The most striking aspect of those discoveries is that no evident correlation can be found between features observed in May, August and November (N96, Bosh & Rivkin 1996, P2000).

In the present paper, we report the detection of 4 arcs in the region of the F ring on November 20th. The same features can be seen in some HST images taken 24 to 36 hours later. These images have been already presented in N96. By combining both sets of data, accurate orbital solutions are derived. The data processing of CFHT and HST images is presented in the first section. Results are presented in the second section and discussed in the final section.

## 2 Description of data set and processing

### 2.1 Description of data

Images were taken at the 3.6m CFH Telescope during four nights from 1995 November 17th to 20th. Three near-infrared filters (J,H and K), which correspond to the absorption bands of methane were used to significantly reduce the strong scattered light of Saturn. A K band image is presented in Fig 1. The best observing conditions were obtained during the last night, the main rings being darkest. During the nights of November 17th,18th19th the stronger brightness of the main rings was not favorable for the detection of dim objects. Consequently only images of November 20th were considered.

At this time the Sun was about 0.01° below the rings, and the Earth was at 2.67° above the ring plane, looking at the unlit face. 160 images of the west ansa were obtained from 5h to 8h45 UT. At this time, there was no satellite on the east ansa bright enough for the adaptive optics tracking system to work properly. In consequence, the CFHT data set contains only images of the west ansa. The resolution has been checked on every image by extracting the point spread function (PSF) of satellites Tethys, Enceladus, Dione and Mimas. The full width at half maximum of the PSF is on average 0.25″ (1670 km at Saturn) on the whole data set, ranging from 0.19″to 0.33″. The size of one pixel in arcsecond is determined by comparing the angular separation of all pair of major satellites (given by the ephemeris) with their separation in pixels as measured on the plates. The result is robust : one pixel subtends 0.035″ ($``$ 233 km at Saturn). The exposure times ranged from 15 s to 30 s.
In order to make a comparative study of two complementary data sets, we have also used the HST images presented in N96, retrieved from the FTP site of the Space Telescope Science Institute. They consist of twenty Planetary Camera images of both ansae (10 images for each ansa), taken with filters centered at 890 nm, between 10h UT and 18h UT on November 21st, at the end of the Sun’s crossing. The resolution is 0.1″ (668 km at Saturn). The scale of the plates is taken from Holtzman et al. (holtzman (1995)): one pixel subtends 0.045″ ($``$304 km at Saturn). Exposure times range from 300s to 500s. As a consequence, satellites appear smeared due to their keplerian motion.

### 2.2 Data processing

Our data processing has been designed for the detection of faint objects in the F ring. As a consequence we have not made a photometric study; indeed many images with different exposure times and different filters are combined indiscriminately. A longitudinal profile of the F ring was built to reveal new objects. To this purpose the following data processing steps were applied to both CFHT and HST images : (i)astrometry, (ii)extraction of the F ring profiles, (iii) subtraction of the F ring background and the correction of geometry and illumination effects.

#### 2.2.1 Astrometry

In CFHT images, the center of Saturn and orientation of the planet’s North pole axis is determined by a least square fit to the positions of satellites Tethys, Enceladus, Mimas and Dione (using the ephemeris of the Bureau Des Longitudes in Paris). However Mimas and Tethys could not be used in one third of images in which they are observed too close to each other, not suitable for an accurate determination of their center. In these images the point of maximum elongation of the Cassini division and of the F ring were used to better constrain the orientation of Saturn’s equatorial axis. The residual on satellites position measurements is 0.09″($``$2.6 pixels or 600 km), and reflects a combination of pointing and ephemeris errors.

In HST images, the astrometry has not been done using satellites because of their elongated appearance. The sharp inner edge of the Cassini Division was used instead as a reference. Located at 117 577 km from the center of Saturn, it is known to be slightly eccentric due to the close 2:1 resonance with Mimas. The resulting radial excursion (2ae) is only 150 km, representing 0.5 pixel, or 0.02 ″(Porco et al. porco (1984)). The center of Saturn as well as the orientation of the axes are determined by fitting an ellipse with twenty points picked by eye on the reference edge. Corrections of the geometrical distortion for WF/PC2 camera (WF/PC2 instrument handbook version 5.0, provided by the STSCI) is included only when new objects are measured, for the need of their orbit determination. The astrometric error is determined from the residuals of the Cassini division fit. It is 0.035″($``$0.8 pixel or 240 km at Saturn). The correction for geometrical distortion is about 1 pixel, representing less than $`0.6\mathrm{°}`$ on the F ring longitudinal profile, not detectable in Fig 2 and Fig 3.

#### 2.2.2 Extraction of the F ring profile

From -55° to +55° around maximum elongation, pixel counts are summed perpendicularly to the equator axis, in a box centered on the F ring (defined as a circle of radius 140 200 km and projected onto the ring plane) with the same width as the PSF. For each image, an intensity profile of the F ring is obtained as a function of longitude, measured from the point of maximum elongation. The extremity of the ansa (within 5 pixels around maximum elongation) is not considered because the scans become parallel to the ring in this region. The scattered light of Saturn is estimated in the neighborhood of the integration box, outside the F ring, and systematically subtracted. Profiles are then corrected for effects of the different filters and for different exposure times: each profile is multiplied by a normalization factor in order to keep at the same median level of brightness a reference zone of the F ring, chosen to be between 0° and 45° before maximum elongation. Because of the low opening angle of the rings system, the reference zone is slightly contaminated by the A ring beyond 25° from maximum elongation. However we have checked that all profiles do not present systematic deviations in the reference zone after this operation.

#### 2.2.3  Subtraction of the F ring background and correction of illumination effects

A synthetic median profile (SMP) of the F ring is built by taking the median value of all profiles at each longitude relative to elongation. The SMP is a template of the F ring. It is subtracted from all profiles in order to reveal local brightness variations.
The apparent brightness of the F ring changes along its path around the ansa due to geometrical effects (the length of a ring segment included in one pixel depends on longitude) and probably to shadowing by the A ring (N96). Indeed the F ring brightness decreases abruptly after maximum elongation on the west ansa, as noticed in N96. To correct for these effects and maintain embedded features at a constant level of brightness, all profiles are divided by the SMP. Taking into account the subtraction of the F ring background, all profiles are processed according to the formula: Final Profile $`=(profileSMP)/SMP`$. Dividing by the SMP increases noise in dim regions. This method preserves the brightness of objects within 20% before and after their passage through the maximum elongation (as observed on arcs B,C and on the 10° arc of N96, see below) and allows tracking of objects.

#### 2.2.4 Construction of the longitudinal F ring profile

Each (final) profile is precessed to the standard epoch of November 21.5 TDT (terrestrial dynamic time) at Saturn, with a mean orbital motion of $`582.05\mathrm{°}`$/day (N96). This allows direct comparison with N96 results. Finally a mean longitudinal profile is computed by averaging all precessed profiles.
The resulting CFHT and HST profiles are presented in Fig. 2. The derived HST full azimuthal profile (see Fig. 2.c) is in close agreement with the one published in N96, in terms of the positions of objects and relative brightnesses, although our profile may appear somewhat noisier than the one published in N96. In this profile, the correction for the distortion of the WF/PC2 camera has not been considered, resulting in an azimuthal error less than $``$0.6°. The vertical axis is scaled such that the maximum intensity of Pandora, as observed in the processed profiles, equals 1.

## 3 Results

In this section the F ring azimuthal profile obtained from CFHT observations is described and compared with the HST profile. Orbital solutions for four detected structures are then calculated.

### 3.1  F ring longitudinal profile and new objects

#### 3.1.1 CFHT images

The complete azimuthal coverage of the data set ranges between 50° to 230°. But the region extending from 50° to 80°has been covered by only a few suitable images ($``$10) and is deeply embedded in the very strong scattered light of Saturn’s globe. Apart from Pandora appearing at 62°, nothing is detected below 80°. Janus contaminates CFHT profiles around 210° longitude. The region of interest then extends between 80° and 200° (Fig 2.a). In this range, the average error bar ($`1\sigma `$) is about 4% of Pandora’s brightness.
Two structures (B and C) are detected with more than $`5\sigma `$ confidence level, with mean central longitudes of 135°and 177°respectively. The B object is the “7° arc” in N96. Their maximum brightness is 30% to 40% of Pandora’s. Compared to the $`3\mathrm{°}`$-azimuthal extension of a point-like source due to the PSF (as observed for Pandora), it is clear that B and C are azimuthally extended objects. The B object has a FWHM of $``$ 7°. It is observed before (from 5h10 to 6h30 UT) and after its passage through maximum elongation (from 7h40 to 8h45 UT). Feature C has a FWHM of 10°. It is detected during 20 minutes before maximum elongation (from 5h10 to 5h30) and during 80 mn after maximum elongation (from 5h50 to 7h10 UT). A few other bumps also seem to appear with lower confidence level ($``$ 2-3$`\sigma `$) below 120° and at 124°, 163°and 190°. Only two of them may be tracked on many images with a keplerian motion. The A object, located at 124°, is nearly marginal here and seems to extend from 117° to 129° and has an intensity about 15% of Pandora’s. It is detected from 5h50 to 6h40 UT ($``$ 30 images). The D object (located at 190°) may be followed from 5h40 to 6h20 UT. Its azimuthal shape is uncertain because of numerous nearby artifacts on the images where it is detected.

#### 3.1.2 Comparison with HST data

Comparison of CFHT and HST profiles indicates that at least structures B and C lasted over a 24 to 36 hours time interval. Indeed both profiles are in good agreement within $`1\sigma `$ (see Fig. 2.a and Fig. 2.b). Because of the small number of images, the noise varies significantly with longitude in the HST profile, depending on the number of images covering each region. It is on average $``$ 6% of Pandora’s brightness. The azimuthal extension of a point-like object is also 3°(measured on Pandora and Prometheus), but here it is mainly due to smearing. Objects B and C are present in both profiles. The shape and position of object B fits particularly well. C appears slightly narrower in the HST profile, but both are compatible within $`1\sigma `$ in intensity. Its FWHM is about 9° in the HST profile.
A better signal to noise ratio is simply obtained by averaging CFHT and HST profiles (see Fig. 3). The new error bar at $`1\sigma `$ is $`3.3\%`$of Pandora’s brightness,which improves by factors 1.2 and 1.8 upon the signal to noise ratio of CFHT and HST profiles respectively. In the averaged profile the confidence level of objects B and C increases to $`9\sigma `$ and $`8\sigma `$ respectively. Objects A and D, that were marginal in the CFHT profile, appear now at $`5.5\sigma `$ and $`5\sigma `$ respectively, showing these are real structures. Whereas the shape of A is in good agreement between CFHT and HST profiles, the shape of D is more peaked in the HST profile, and is centered at 192°. Features below 120°and at 164°are comparable to the error bar in the averaged profile. The simultaneous presence of structures A,B,C,D with same positions and similar shapes in both CFHT and HST data confirms that these are real and extended objects. They are designated as “arcs” hereafter.

### 3.2 Orbital fit

The computation of orbital solutions has been performed using moments J2 to J4 of Saturn’s potential (Campbell & Anderson campbell (1989)). The location of objects A,B,C and D are measured on the profiles where the Saturn’s scattered light and the template of the F ring (the SMP) has been subtracted. The center is determined “by eye” by comparing at least three successive profiles where a given object appears clearly. Positions are then converted into distance from the center of Saturn projected onto the planet’s equatorial axis. For HST data, profiles in which objects are measured are corrected for the distortion of the PC camera. Only the best points were considered with the longest time baseline, as it is the most important factor for an accurate orbit determination. The CFHT data points are presented in Table 1, in which the filter as well as the current longitude of each object are also reported.
Semi-major axis and longitude at epoch are determined by a least square fit of the position of objects projected onto the equatorial axis of Saturn. Error bars are obtained by introducing a random noise in the input positions, with dispersion equals to the spatial uncertainty (0.09″ for CFHT and 0.035″ for HST).
A circular fit was performed first. The results are presented in Table 2. They confirm that arcs A to D are located between Pandora and Prometheus ($`\mathrm{140\hspace{0.17em}050}`$ km). Since such elongated structures are expected to be embedded in the F ring, we also performed a non-circular fit assuming the eccentricity and longitude of pericenter of the F ring, but the residuals did not significantly decrease.
If it is assumed that objects A, B, C, D are embedded in the F ring, an estimate of its semi-major axis in 1995 is calculated by taking the mean semi-major axis. Based on the circular fit we obtain $`<a>`$=140 060 $`\pm `$ 60 km ($``$ n=582.9 $`\pm `$ 0.4 $`\mathrm{°}/day`$), with a physical width of $`\pm `$20 km around the mean, calculated by taking the standard deviation of the four derived semi-major axes. For non-circular fit we obtain $`<a_{ex}>`$= 140 050 $`\pm `$ 60 km ($``$ n=583.0$`\pm `$ 0.4 $`\mathrm{°}/day`$), with a physical width of $`\pm `$ 30 km around the mean. Combining both data set allows to significantly improve the orbital solution of arc B (584$`\pm `$4 $`\mathrm{°}/day`$) as reported in N96. This gives also the first determination of the orbits of A,C and D arcs.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Comparison with August and November 1995 observations

Another 10°-long arc has been seen by N96 (it is designed here as the “E arc”, see Fig. 2.c) on November 21st 1995. Its orbit has been determined by P2000 using November 17th, 18th and 21st HST images. Their value of 140 074 $`\pm `$ 30 km is consistent ($`1\sigma `$) with the A,B,C and D arcs location.
Some other objects discovered in August 1995, during the Earth crossing seemed also to be close to and somewhat below 140 000 km (Roddier et al. 1996a ; N96; Ferrari et. al ferrari (1997); Ppoulet (2000)). However most of them appeared to be point-like, and thus possibly of a different nature than features A to E. Based on N96 orbital solutions, S6 and S7 are located at 139 900 km and 139 100 km (with error bars of 70 km and 260 km respectively). The orbit of S5 is still a matter of debate (P.D. Nicholson, private communication). Its semi-major was initially estimated as 139 860 $`\pm `$ 130 km by N96 and 140 050 $`\pm `$ 100 km by Roddier et al.(1996a ), but two recent studies, combining different data sets, gives uncompatible results : P2000 find 140 208 $`\pm `$ 50 km and McGhee et al. (submitted to Icarus) report a=139690$`\pm `$ 90 km. A few other objects (S11 to S19) where also discovered by Roddier et al.(1996a , 1996b ). Their estimated orbits are not accurate enough to give us more information on the F ring environment (error bars are $`\pm `$1000 km and $`\pm `$2000 km for S8 and S9, and $`\pm `$500 km for objects S11 to S15).

### 4.2 Comparison with 1980-81 Voyager observations

Values of $`<a>`$ and $`<a_{ex}>`$ are however quite far (3 $`\sigma `$) from all estimates of the F ring radius derived from Voyager images, by about -150 km. Indeed Synnott et al. (synnott (1983)) gives a = 140 185 $`\pm `$ 30 km. A recent study of Voyager images (Ferrari et al. ferrari (1997), ferrari\_98 (1998)) reveals that, at the Voyager epoch, some of the brightest structures of the F ring move on different orbits, with a measured dispersion of 95$`\pm `$15 km ($`1\sigma `$). The measured semi-major axis is 140 219 $`\pm `$ 19 km derived from Voyager 1 data and 140 205 $`\pm `$ 10 km derived from Voyager 2 data. All those results are consistent with French and Nicholson who used a different approache based on Voyager and stellar occultation data (unpublished work of French & Nicholson, reported in N96) giving a=140 209 $`\pm `$ 4 km.

### 4.3 F ring radial structure

The width of the F ring in Voyager images is up to 300 km and the ring is formed of four eccentric strands (Murray et al.murray\_97 (1997)), $`F\alpha `$, F$`\beta `$, F$`\gamma `$ and F$`\delta `$, which radial width is 50 km in average and with respective semi-major axes 140 089 km, 140 176 km, 140 219 km and 140 366 km. The F$`\gamma `$ strand is by far the brightest and may be the “core” of the F ring with centimeter-sized bodies (Showalter et al. showalter\_92 (1992); Murray et al. murray\_97 (1997)), in which the brightest features (like clumps or arcs) were detected at the Voyager epoch (Ferrari et al. ferrari (1997); Showalter Showalter\_97 (1997)). The five arcs seen in November 1995 (A,B,C,D and E) seem to be gathered around 140 060 km, close to the the faint $`F\alpha `$ strand. Consequently, if the 1995 November arcs belong to a F ring core, this may imply a radial restructuring or a spreading of the ring in the meantime.

### 4.4 Possible implications

We suggest below, as a direction for future works, that some close encounter with one of the shepherding satellites may have reshaped the F ring in the last twenty years. Such an hypothesis may not be excluded since the dynamical evolution of this ring is still a puzzle for the scientific community. The evolution of the F ring may critically depend on its two shepherding satellites, Pandora and Prometheus (see for example: Dermott dermott (1981); Showalter & Burns showalter\_82 (1982); Lissauer & Peale lissauer (1986)). During the 1995 crossings, Prometheus was lagging its expected position by $``$ 19° (N96). It has been suggested that an encounter of the F ring with Prometheus may have happened in between 1991 and 1994 (Murray & Giuliatti Winter murray\_96 (1996)) due to the precessional variation of the orbits owing to Saturn’s oblateness. The dynamical consequence of this encounter on the structure of the F ring is not currently known. It might result in breaking of the strands and in the creation of structures in the inner regions of the F ring. Indeed a massive body is able to scatter its environment inside three Hill’s radii (Nishida nishida (1983); Ida & Makino ida (1993)) that is about 300 km for Prometheus (assuming a mass ratio of $`10^9`$ between Prometheus and Saturn). Then in case of an instantaneous close approach to the F ring, estimated at $`50`$ km (Murray & Giuliatti Winter murray\_96 (1996)), Prometheus might be able to perturb the ring over a distance of 300 km, i.e. about the full width of the F ring. Such a model has been recently considered (abstract of Showalter et al. Showalter\_99 (1999); P.D. Nicholson, private communicaton), and first results show that Prometheus may perturb a portion of the F ring after each close encounter. However the resulting radial displacement seems to be about 1 kilometer only.
In addition, during the interaction, Prometheus at its apocenter is close to the F ring’s pericenter, yielding strong relative velocities of $``$ 30 m/s. Such high-velocity encounters may result in catastrophic disruption of bodies initially in the F ring. The inner region of the F ring may be consequently populated with fragments especially if a belt of kilometer-sized moonlets exists between Prometheus and Pandora, as originally suggested by Cuzzi & Burns (cuzzi (1988)).

## 5 Conclusion

We have reported observations of the crossing of Saturn’s ring-plane by the Sun, on 1995 November 20th, made with the 3.6m CFH Telescope, using the UHAO adaptive optics system. Four azimuthally extended structures (A,B,C,D) have been detected, with central longitude at epoch of 123°, 136°, 177° and 193° (see Table 2), on 1995 November 21.5 TDT at Saturn. These structures have been also seen one day later in HST images (N96). The combination of both CFHT and HST data sets provides an accurate estimate of their orbit. A circular orbital fit locates them between 140 020 km and 140 080 km, with error bars of 120 km on average. The mean circular orbit is 140 060 $`\pm `$ 60 km, that is consistent with the orbit of another bright arc observed at the same epoch (P2000). However, this represents a significant discrepancy ($`3\sigma `$) with previous estimates of the F ring’s radius derived from Voyager images (located at $`\mathrm{140\hspace{0.17em}200}`$ km on average). If the five arcs observed in November 1995 belong to a F ring core, this would imply a radial restructuring or a spreading of the F ring between 1980 and 1995, whose explanation has still to be found. In order to understand the F ring’s dynamics, better spatial resolution and longer time baselines observations are required. The Cassini encounter in 2004 will probably be a major step in the understanding of the F ring mysteries.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank P.D. Nicholson for his helpful comments, as a referee.


text:
# Effect of inelastic scattering on the average Coulomb-blockade peak height in quantum dots

## Abstract

The average height of the Coulomb-blockade conductance peaks for chaotic elastic scattering is known to increase by a factor of 4/3 upon breaking time-reversal symmetry. We calculate the temperature dependence of this factor in the regime that the inelastic scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is greater than the mean tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$, which itself is less than the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Comparison with recent experimental data by Folk et al. (cond-mat/0008052) demonstrates that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ lies below $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ and hence also below $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, consistent with the low-energy suppression of inelastic electron-electron scattering in quantum dots.

Inelastic electron-electron scattering in a quantum dot broadens the single-particle excitation levels by an amount $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$. This broadening vanishes at low excitation energies $`\epsilon `$ and remains less than the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as long as $`\epsilon `$ is below the Thouless energy. Early Coulomb-blockade experiments by Sivan et al. agreed with this theoretical prediction, but recent experiments by Folk et al. were interpreted as being inconsistent with it.

Inelastic scattering can be detected by the broadening of the single-particle density of states, as was done in Ref. . Ref. , instead, used the temperature dependence of the height of the Coulomb-blockade peaks in the conductance. For fully elastic and chaotic scattering the average height is increased by a temperature-independent factor of 4/3 upon application of a magnetic field. Folk et al. measured a suppression of this enhancement factor when the thermal energy $`kT`$ became larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. They concluded from this strong temperature dependence that the dephasing rate in quantum dots is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ at excitation energies well below the Thouless energy, in apparent contradiction with the theoretical expectation. However, in the absence of a quantitative prediction for the temperature dependence of the Coulomb-blockade peak height, it is difficult to decide whether the observed temperature dependence is actually stronger than expected.

What we will do here is use the semiclassical theory of the Coulomb blockade to obtain the temperature dependence in the regime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ the mean (elastic) tunnel rate into the quantum dot. We call this the regime of strong inelastic scattering, where “strong” means strong enough to thermalize the distribution of the electrons among the levels in the quantum dot. Both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ should be less than $`kT`$, so that we are allowed to use rate equations based on sequential tunneling. The condition for the Coulomb blockade is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ and $`kTe^2/C`$, with $`C`$ the capacitance of the quantum dot. We find that the experimental temperature dependence is actually much weaker than predicted by the theory for strong inelastic scattering. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ and there is no disagreement between the experimental data of Ref.  and the theoretical expectation of a low-energy suppression of inelastic electron-electron scattering in quantum dots.

Starting point of our analysis is a pair of expressions from Ref.  for the $`N`$-th conductance peak in the two cases of purely elastic scattering ($`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$) and strong inelastic scattering ($`G_{\mathrm{in}}`$):

$`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{kT}}P_{\mathrm{eq}}(N){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{r}}}_N,`$ (1)
$`G_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{kT}}P_{\mathrm{eq}}(N){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{l}_N\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{r}_N}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{r}_N}}.`$ (2)
The spectral average of the elastic tunnel rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ into the left or right reservoir is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}_N=\underset{p}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}[1F_{\mathrm{eq}}(E_p|N)]f(E_p\mu ).$$
(3)
The equilibrium distributions $`P_{\mathrm{eq}}(N)`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{eq}}(E_p|N)`$ give, respectively, the a priori probability to find $`N`$ electrons in the quantum dot and the conditional probability to find level $`p`$ occupied by one of the $`N`$ electrons. (These functions are obtained from the Gibbs distribution in the canonical ensemble.) The function $`f(E_p\mu )`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution, with $`\mu `$ an externally tunable parameter that depends linearly on the gate voltage.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ one may neglect inelastic scattering and use Eq. (1), while if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ one should use Eq. (2). The key difference between the two equations is that for $`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ the fraction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^\mathrm{r}/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{r})`$ as a whole is averaged over the spectrum, while for $`G_{\mathrm{in}}`$ the numerator and denominator are averaged separately. Since the spectral average extends over about $`kT/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ levels, the difference between $`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{in}}`$ vanishes if $`kT`$ becomes less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In a chaotic quantum dot, the tunnel rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^\mathrm{r}`$ fluctuate independently according to the Porter-Thomas distribution $`P(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\beta /21}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}})`$. (We assume tunneling through two equivalent single-channel point contacts, with energy-independent mean tunnel rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$.) The index $`\beta =1`$ (2) in the presence (absence) of a time-reversal-symmetry breaking magnetic field. The mean height $`\overline{G_{\mathrm{el}}^{\mathrm{max}}}`$ of the Coulomb-blockade peak for elastic scattering increases upon breaking time-reversal symmetry, by a temperature-independent factor of 4/3. Inelastic scattering introduces a temperature dependence, which we can study using Eq. (2).

Qualitatively, the effect of inelastic scattering on the 4/3-enhancement factor can be understood as follows. The spectral average $`\mathrm{}_N`$, defined precisely in Eq. (3), can be approximated by an average over $`kT/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ levels around the Fermi energy in the quantum dot containing $`N`$ electrons. If $`kT\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the spectral average becomes equivalent to an ensemble average. The ensemble averages of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^\mathrm{r}`$ are both equal to the $`\beta `$-independent value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$, so the peak height (2) for strong inelastic scattering simplifies to $`G_{\mathrm{in}}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}(e^2/kT)P_{\mathrm{eq}}(N)`$ — independent of whether time-reversal symmetry is broken or not. This explains why the enhancement factor drops from 4/3 to 1 as $`kT`$ becomes larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the case of strong inelastic scattering.

For a quantitative comparison, we have plotted in Fig. 1 the temperature dependence of the parameter

$$\alpha =1\overline{G_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{max}}}(\beta =1)/\overline{G_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{max}}}(\beta =2),$$
(4)
which drops from 1/4 to 0 as $`kT`$ becomes larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The solid curve is for equally-spaced spin-degenerate levels ($`E_{2p}=E_{2p1}=p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p1}`$). Because the spin degeneracy might be lifted spontaneously, we also show for comparison the case of equally-spaced non-degenerate levels ($`E_p=p\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$’s independent). In either case $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is defined as the mean level spacing of a single spin degree of freedom. We see that the temperature dependence is stronger for non-degenerate levels. An even stronger temperature dependence (not shown) is found if, instead of equally spaced levels, we would use a Wigner-Dyson distribution. The data points are the experimental results of Folk et al., for GaAs quantum dots of four different areas. The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ used are those given in Ref. , estimated from the area $`A`$ and the two-dimensional density of states ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi \mathrm{}^2/mA`$, with $`m`$ the effective mass of the electrons). There is therefore no adjustable parameter in the comparison between theory and experiment.

It is clear from Fig. 1 that the experimental temperature dependence is much weaker than the theoretical prediction, regardless of whether we include spin degeneracy or not. We have found that the theory would fit the data within the errorbars if we would rescale $`kT/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by a factor of 3 (with spin degeneracy) or a factor of 5 (without spin degeneracy). Such a large factor is beyond the experimental uncertainty in level spacing or temperature. We conclude that the inelastic scattering rate is well below $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ for a range of energies within $`kT`$. One possible explanation of the deviation of our theoretical curves from the experimental data would be that only the high-lying levels have equilibrated, while the low-lying levels have not. Such an explanation would be consistent with the scenario put forward in Ref. , according to which the discreteness of the spectrum prevents the low-lying levels to equilibrate on an arbitrarily long time scale.

We conclude with two suggestions for future research on this topic. From the theoretical side, it would be useful to generalize Ref.  to arbitrary ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ \[going beyond the two limits of large and small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ given in Eqs. (1) and (2)\]. From the experimental side, it would be of interest to compare data for the temperature dependence of $`\alpha `$ for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$, that is to say, for different heights of the tunnel barriers separating the quantum dot from the electron reservoirs. We would expect the data points in Fig. 1 to approach the theoretical curves as the tunnel barriers are made higher and higher, giving more precise information on the rate of inelastic scattering.

This work was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM. We have benefitted from correspondence with P. W. Brouwer and C. M. Marcus.


text:
# Flux tubes, visons, and vortices in spin-charge separated superconductors

While there exist number of compelling reasons to think that electron could be fractionalized in high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors, there is thus far no direct experimental evidence for this effect in dimensions $`D`$ higher than 1. Recently, Senthil and Fisher (SF) proposed an experiment  to directly test for electron fractionalization in $`D=2,3`$ in strongly underdoped cuprate samples with multiply connected geometries. SF framed their proposal in the context of the Z2 gauge theory. The purpose of this note is to point out that SF experiment constitutes a general test for spin-charge separation, and, as long as the charge carrying boson (be it holon or chargon) condenses without pairing, the outcome will be independent of the symmetry of the fictitious gauge field present in the theory. Thus, if the spin-charge separation takes place in cuprates, the outcome of the SF experiment will be the same for U(1) and Z2 theories. As pointed out by Lee and Wen, it will not work in the SU(2) theory. We furthermore point out that SF experiment is closely tied to the ongoing debate on the structure of a magnetic vortex in spin-charge separated superconductors and propose that probing the excitation spectrum in the core of a vortex as a function of doping can shed light on the symmetry of the fictitious gauge field.

The essence of the SF experiment lies in the realization that a singly quantized vortex carrying $`hc/2e`$ magnetic flux is a very peculiar object in the fractionalized superconductor. This is because charge carrying boson of the theory (holon or chargon) is assumed to Bose-condense individually, i.e. without pairing. Such charge-$`e`$ condensate would normally quantize the magnetic flux in multiples of $`hc/e`$. Ordinary superconducting $`hc/2e`$ vortex would cause the condensate wavefunction to acquire a phase $`\pi `$ on encircling the vortex, producing a branch cut. Branch cut in the macroscopic wavefunction would lead to various catastrophic consequences (such as infinite currents) and must be therefore compensated by a feature in the gauge field. In the Z2 theory this is done by binding “vison”, a topological excitation of the Z2 gauge field, to the singly quantized vortex. Vison supplies the missing $`\pi `$ phase to the chargon condensate wavefunction but does not alter the spinon condensate wavefunction because the latter are assumed to condense in singlet pairs and therefore the net phase acquired by paired spinons is $`2\pi `$.

SF envision trapping a singly quantized vortex in the hole fabricated in a strongly underdoped superconductor. Such hole would then necessarily be threaded by a vison. When heated above the superconducting $`T_c`$, the magnetic flux can easily escape from the hole but vison remains trapped because it is a gapped excitation below the pseudogap temperature $`T^{}`$. Although there is no direct way to detect vison, one could deduce its presence by cooling in zero field back to the superconducting state, where the vison will bind the magnetic flux which can be directly measured.

We now argue that the same will happen in the U(1) theory, the main difference being that the vison will be replaced by a flux quantum of the U(1) gauge field. To illustrate our arguments it is easiest to consider the effective Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory for fractionalized superconductor formulated originally by Sachdev  and by Nagaosa and Lee. The corresponding free energy reads

$`f_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ $`=`$ $`|(2i𝐚)\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+r_\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }|^4`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`|(i𝐚ie𝐀)b|^2+r_b|b|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_b|b|^4+v|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2|b|^2`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(\times 𝐀)^2+f_{\mathrm{gauge}}[𝐚],`$ (3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`b`$ are spinon pair and holon condensate fields respectively, minimally coupled to the electromagnetic field $`𝐀`$ and a fictitious U(1) gauge field $`𝐚`$.

$$f_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\frac{\sigma }{2}(\times 𝐚)^2$$
(4)
is the gauge field stiffness term which originates from integrating out the high-energy microscopic degrees of freedom. It has been argued recently that $`\sigma `$ is small or even zero in realistic models of cuprates. This results in the above GL theory being extreme type-I with respect to $`𝐚`$ but extreme type-II with respect to $`𝐀`$. In the absence of field the parameters $`r`$, $`u`$, and $`v`$ can be chosen such that this GL theory reproduces the standard phase diagram of cuprates shown in Figure 1. Also, we note that $`𝐚`$ is by construction a compact lattice gauge field. Maxwell form of Eq. (4) is a simplified continuum representation of the corresponding lattice expression.

We first review what is known about the vortex solutions of Eq. (3) and then we discuss SF experiment in the context of U(1) theory. As shown in Refs. , in the limit of negligible $`\sigma `$ the free energy (3) allows for two types of singly quantized vortices: (i) spinon vortex in the overdoped region and (ii) holon vortex in the underdoped region \[cf. Figure 1\]. In the spinon vortex the gauge field $`𝐚`$ develops a net flux such that $`𝐚e𝐀`$ and the singularity occurs in the spinon field \[first term in Eq. (3)\] with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishing at the vortex center. In the holon vortex $`b`$ vanishes in the core and the gauge flux is contracted into a $`\delta `$-function flux tube at the vortex center. This fictitious flux tube is invisible to the spinon condensate and its main purpose is to heal the branch cut that would otherwise occur in the holon order parameter, just as vison does in the Z2 theory. In this respect the singly quantized holon vortex in the compact U(1) theory is equivalent to the Z2 vortex.

The important point to notice is that both types of singly quantized vortices in the U(1) theory bind a flux $`h/2`$ (in units where magnetic flux quantum is $`hc/2e`$) of the fictitious gauge field $`𝐚`$. Thus, when such vortex is trapped in the hole, as envisioned in SF experiment, that hole will be threaded by a single quantum of the fictitious flux. Now consider removing the external field and heating the sample above $`T_c`$. The magnetic flux will quickly escape but, in the strongly underdoped material, the fictitious flux will remain trapped below $`T^{}`$. To see this, consider that according to the standard U(1) phenomenology the mean field state just above $`T_c`$ in the underdoped region is characterized by $`b=0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|>0`$. The free energy (3) therefore becomes

$`f_{\mathrm{GL}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|(2i𝐚)\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+r_\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }|^4`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(\times 𝐀)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}(\times 𝐚)^2.`$ (6)
This expression is formally equivalent to the GL theory for a superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ minimally coupled to the U(1) gauge field $`𝐚`$. The main point is that below the critical temperature for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is $`T^{}`$ in this model, free energy (6) will exhibit the Meissner effect with respect to $`𝐚`$. On the mean field level the gauge flux threading the hole cannot penetrate into the bulk below $`T^{}`$ and remains trapped there forever. Going beyond the mean-field considerations the fictitious gauge flux can tunnel out of the hole, but sample geometry can be designed in such a way that it remains trapped for sufficiently long times.

The real electromagnetic field $`𝐀`$, on the other hand, is completely decoupled from the matter fields. This reflects the obvious fact that non-superconducting state above $`T_c`$ cannot exhibit the true Meissner effect.

We note that the same argument seemingly could be made for the overdoped region, where above $`T_c`$ the mean field state is characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`|b|>0`$. It would appear that the fictitious flux now remains trapped above $`T_c`$ by virtue of the Meissner effect caused by the holon condensate. However, upon closer examination one finds that this is not the case because singly condensed holons cannot support $`h/2`$ flux quantum in the absence of physical magnetic field. Consequently, in the U(1) theory the SF effect will occur in the underdoped but not in the overdoped region, just as in the Z2 theory.

Having argued that the SF experiment will yield the same outcome irrespective of the symmetry of the gauge field, we now turn to the differences between Z2 and U(1) formulations. A qualitative difference occurs inside the vortex core and can be potentially detected by scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS). We emphasize that here we consider a true vortex with the core situated in the bulk superconductor, as opposed to the flux trapped in the hole. As stated above, the singly quantized Z2 vortex (binding a vison) is essentially identical to the singly quantized holon vortex in the U(1) theory. However, in the U(1) theory there is a transition with increasing doping to the state in which the spinon vortex becomes energetically favorable. Spectroscopically, holon vortex should exhibit a pseudogap-like local density of states (LDOS), of the type currently observed in experiments on Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 . Spinon vortex, on the other hand, should exhibit a more conventional LDOS with large resonance at the Fermi level, as predicted from $`d`$-wave BCS theory. Transition from holon to spinon vortex as a function of doping predicted by U(1) theory should therefore be directly observable by STS. In contrast, as argued below, no such transition occurs within the Z2 theory.

Existence of the spinon vortex in the U(1) theory is predicated upon the fact that the fictitious gauge field $`𝐚`$ has the same symmetry as the electromagnetic field $`𝐀`$. Therefore, if it becomes energetically favorable, $`𝐚`$ can completely screen the applied magnetic field in the holon term of Eq. (3) and shift the singularity to the spinon term. Z2 gauge field, being by definition discrete, cannot do this and there can only be one type of a vortex in the Z2 theory.

In the SU(2) theory the holon condensate kinetic energy has the form

$$|(+i𝐚^{(3)}\widehat{\tau }_3ie𝐀)z|^2,$$
(7)
where $`z=(z_1,z_2)`$ is the SU(2) holon doublet, and $`𝐚^{(3)}`$ is the component of the gauge field associated with the $`\widehat{\tau }_3`$ Pauli matrix. Because of the matrix structure of Eq. (7), gauge field $`𝐚^{(3)}`$ can screen magnetic flux seen by one component of $`z`$, but not both. As discussed by Lee and Wen, this results in $`2\pi `$ phase winding and suppression in the core of one of the components of $`z`$. Accordingly, the vortex core in SU(2) theory will be in a staggered flux phase. In the SU(2) theory the staggered flux phase is a gauge equivalent of the fermion pairing phase but it is easy to see that $`𝐚^{(3)}`$ does not couple to the fermions as a magnetic field. There will therefore be no analog of the spinon Meissner effect with respect to $`𝐚^{(3)}`$ and the gauge flux can escape from the hole when the superconducting order is supressed.

In summary, we argued that in a spin-charge separated superconductor the general outcome of the SF experiment will be the same for U(1) and Z2 theories. This is a direct consequence of the fact that charge carrying bosons are assumed to Bose-condense individually and the singly quantized magnetic vortex must therefore bind additional flux quantum of the fictitious gauge field. When such a vortex is trapped in the hole and then removed by heating above $`T_c`$, the fictitious flux cannot escape below the pseudogap temperature $`T^{}`$ because it continues to experience the Meissner effect caused by the spinon pair condensate. The trapped flux can then be detected by cooling down below $`T_c`$ where it necessarily binds a quantum of physical magnetic field.

In the event of positive outcome of the SF experiment it could make sense to carry out detailed spectroscopic study of the vortex cores in cuprates as a function of doping in order to establish the symmetry of the fictitious gauge field. We argued that Z2 theory can support only one type of a vortex with pseudogap-type spectrum in the core. U(1) theory, on the other hand, predicts a transition from the holon vortex in the underdoped to the spinon vortex in the overdoped region with qualitatively different spectroscopic signatures . In the SU(2) theory of Lee and Wen the SF experiment will not work. Lee and Wen argued for a vortex core in the staggered flux phase, and proposed various probes to detect its signature. Experimentally there exists evidence for one type of a vortex in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 with pseudogap-type spectrum, but detailed studies of strongly underdoped and overdoped regions have not yet been completed.

The authors are grateful to P. A. Lee and T. Senthil for insightful discussions.


text:
# A Theoretical Model for the 𝑀_bh-𝜎 Relation for Supermassive Black Holes in Galaxies

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Two groups have recently reported an observed relationship between a galaxy’s velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ and the mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ of its central (supermassive) black hole. This correlation can be written in the form

$$M_{\mathrm{bh}}=M_0(\sigma /200\text{ km s}^1)^\gamma ,$$
(1)
where the two groups find $`\gamma `$ = 3.75 (Gebhardt et al. 2000) and $`\gamma `$ = 4.7 (Farrarese & Merritt 2000) and where the leading mass coefficient is $`M_01.21.3\times 10^8`$ $`M_{}`$. Both groups report little scatter about the relationship (the scatter in $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ at fixed $`\sigma `$ is bounded by 0.30 dex) and find no evidence for a subsidiary dependence on the Hubble type, profile type, or environment. This relationship supersedes a previous one claimed between the black hole mass and bulge luminosity (Richstone et al. 1998; Magorrian et al. 1998; van der Marel 2000; Kormendy & Richstone 1998). Furthermore, this measured scaling law poses a clear challenge for galaxy formation theories, which must ultimately account for this relationship.

Several theories imply a relationship between the central black hole mass and the galactic velocity dispersion. For example, a semi-analytic model of merger-driven starbursts with black hole accretion (Haehnelt & Kauffman 2000; Kauffman & Haehnelt 2000) provides a correlation of the form . Several models are based on black hole accretion influencing star formation and gas dynamics in the host galaxy; this feedback can occur through ionization, mechanical work, and heating (e.g., Ciotti & Ostriker 1997, 2000; Blandford 1999; Silk & Rees 1998). The model of Blandford (1999) gives $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}<\eta \sigma ^{5/3}`$ whereas Silk & Rees (1998) predict $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}\sigma ^5`$. Finally, the accretion of collisional dark matter indicates the scaling relation $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}\sigma ^{44.5}`$ (Ostriker 2000).

In this letter, we present a new theory of the $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}\sigma `$ relation, based on an idealized model for the collapse of the inner part of protogalaxies. The simplest variant of this theory is described in terms of particle dynamics in §2. The role of gas dynamics is explored in §3. We discuss the implications of this model and identify future issues in §4.

## 2 THE BASIC BALLISTIC MODEL

In this section, we examine the collapse of the inner part of a region that will form the bulge of a galaxy. The calculation starts at the time of maximum expansion for the main body of the bulge. For the sake of definiteness, we assume the following:  The dark matter and baryons are unsegregated.  The mass in this region is distributed like a singular isothermal sphere even though it is not in virial equilibrium. The initial density and mass distributions thus take the form

$$\rho (r)=\frac{a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{2\pi Gr^2}\mathrm{and}M(r)=\frac{2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{G}r.$$
(2)
The transport speed $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ that specifies the initial conditions is related to the isotropic velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ according to $`\sigma =\sqrt{2}a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (see below).  This region is slowly rotating like a solid body (e.g., due to tidal torques) at a well-defined frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Both dark matter particles and parcels of baryons that are initially located at radius $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ thus have initial angular momentum $`j=r_{\mathrm{}}^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle in spherical coordinates.  The center of this region contains a black hole, which may have a tiny mass at the start. This initial “seed” black hole could form by the collapse of the densest (central) part of the perturbation or could be primordial.

Particles in the main body of the initial distribution will fall toward the center. Because the dynamical time scales monotonically increase with radius, infalling shells do not cross. The mass contained inside a given spherical shell, which marks a particle’s location, does not change as the particle falls inward. As a result, orbital energy is conserved and is given (classically) by

$$E=\frac{1}{2}v_r^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{j^2}{r^2}\frac{GM}{r}.$$
(3)
We consider orbits which fall a long way toward the center of the galaxy. Idealizing these trajectories as zero energy orbits permits the use of equation  to determine their pericenters $`p`$. For particles falling within the equatorial plane ($`\theta =\pi /2`$), the pericenter can be written in the form

$$p=\frac{j^2}{2GM}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2GM}=\frac{(GM)^3\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2^5a_{\mathrm{eff}}^8},$$
(4)
where $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the starting radius of an infalling particle and where we have used $`M=M(r)`$ as a label for $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the final equality.

If this pericenter $`p`$ is sufficiently small, ballistic particles will pass inside the horizon of the black hole and be captured. As mass accumulates in the black hole, its horizon scale grows accordingly. The pericenter of particles in ballistic orbits, falling from our assumed mass distribution, increases as $`pr_{\mathrm{}}^3M^3`$. In the earliest stages of the collapse, all of the falling material is thus captured by the black hole. Later, this growth mechanism cuts off sharply when the black hole mass reaches a critical point defined by equating the pericenter $`p`$ (for $`\theta =\pi /2`$ orbits) to the capture radius of the black hole. In Schwarzschild geometry, particles coming in from infinity on zero energy orbits are captured by the black hole if $`p<4R_S`$ (Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973), where $`R_S=2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzschild radius. The condition $`p=4R_S`$ thus defines the critical mass scale $`M_C`$ where direct accretion is compromised, i.e.,

$$M_C\frac{16a_{\mathrm{eff}}^4}{Gc\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{4\sigma ^4}{Gc\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(5)
In this scenario, the critical mass scale $`M_C`$ determines the observed black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ (note that equation  displays the correct scaling with $`\sigma `$). Most of the baryonic material not captured by the black hole during this early collapse phase eventually forms stars in the galactic bulge. Dark matter with low angular momentum is captured into the black hole along with the baryons; dark matter with high angular momentum ($`p>4R_S`$) passes right through the galactic plane and forms an extended structure.

We now use observations to specify the appropriate values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In dissipationless collapse, the scale length of the mass distribution drops by 1/2 from maximum expansion, and the “flat rotation curve conspiracy” suggests that dissipation doesn’t alter $`\sigma `$ further. This argument implies that the observed velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ is related to the initial transport speed $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the protogalactic material through the relation $`\sigma ^2=2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$. To specify $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we use the fundamental plane, which provides a well defined relationship (for normal ellipticals and bulges) between the half-light radii of galactic bulges and the corresponding velocity dispersions (see Binney & Merrifield 1998). For $`\sigma =200\text{ km s}^1`$, the effective radius $`R`$ of a mean surface brightness elliptical on the fundamental plane is about 3.5 kpc. With this scale $`R`$ as the outer boundary of the forming bulge, the angular momentum of a ballistic particle cannot exceed the angular momentum of a circular orbit at this radius, i.e., $`R^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = $`\sigma R`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sigma /R`$. Evaluating this result for $`\sigma =200\text{ km s}^1`$, we obtain a fiducial value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=5.8\times 10^2\text{Myr}^1`$ = $`1.8\times 10^{15}`$ rad s-1. With the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\sigma `$ now specified, we use equation  to find the desired $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}\sigma `$ relation

$$M_{\mathrm{bh}}10^8M_{}(\sigma /200\text{ km s}^1)^4,$$
(6)
where we have written the result in terms of $`\sigma `$ rather than $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This relation is in good agreement with the observed correlations (equation ), as shown in Figure 1.

## 3 GAS DYNAMICS AND OTHER EFFECTS

In this section, we include gas dynamics in our model for black hole formation during the collapse of galactic bulges. Because these structures become gravitationally bound, we expect the proto-bulge to collapse as a whole from an initial state (described here by equation ). To obtain a mathematical description of this collapse, we consider the flow that produces a galactic bulge to be a scaled up version of the collapse flows that have been studied previously for star formation (Shu 1977; Terebey, Shu, & Cassen 1984); this approach should thus capture the basic essence of the collapse problem. The collapse of the initial state (with density distribution ) proceeds from inside-out and the central portion of the flow approaches a ballistic (pressure-free) form: Dark matter always exhibits pressure-free behavior. Even for infalling gas, however, the inner limit of the collapse flow approaches pressure-free conditions. For collapse over sufficiently long time intervals, stars can form as parcels of gas fall inward and the resulting infalling stars are manifestly ballistic. The time scale for individual star formation events is $`\tau _{}10^5`$ years (e.g., Adams & Fatuzzo 1996), whereas the time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{blg}}`$ for the entire bulge structure to form is much longer ($`\tau _{\mathrm{blg}}`$ $``$ 25 – 50 Myr). We thus expect most of the stars to form while the overall collapse of the bulge is still taking place.

For a given gravitational potential, we find the orbital solutions for stars (or gas parcels or dark matter) falling towards the galactic center. In this initial calculation, the inner solution is derived using the gravitational potential of a point source. This form is only used in the innermost regime of the collapse flow where the potential is dominated by the forming black hole. As a result, this orbital solution is valid for the range of length scales $`R_Srr_{\mathrm{}}`$. 111Notice that at late times, long after black hole formation is complete, the potential is no longer close to a point potential and this solution loses its validity; in addition, relativistic corrections become important as $`rR_S`$. Since this potential is spherically symmetric, angular momentum is conserved and the motion is confined to a plane described by the coordinates $`(r,\varphi )`$; the radius $`r`$ is the same in both the plane and the original spherical coordinates. The angular coordinate $`\varphi `$ in the plane is related to the angle in spherical coordinates by the relation $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ = $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ / $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _0`$, where $`\theta _0`$ is the angle of the asymptotically radial streamline (see below). For zero energy orbits, the equations of motion imply a cubic orbit solution,

$$1\frac{\mu }{\mu _0}=(1\mu _0^2)\frac{j_{\mathrm{}}^2}{GMr},$$
(7)
where $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the specific angular momentum of particles currently arriving at the galactic center along the equatorial plane. Here, the trajectory that is currently passing through the position ($`r`$, $`\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta `$) initially made the angle $`\theta _0`$ with respect to the rotation axis (where $`\mu _0`$ = $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _0`$). As in star formation theory, we define the centrifugal radius $`R_C`$ $``$ $`j_{\mathrm{}}^2/GM`$ ($`=2p`$), which represents the radius of a circular orbit with angular momentum $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ (for $`\theta =\pi /2`$). Our assumption of uniform initial rotation at rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that $`j_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Omega }r_{\mathrm{}}^2`$, where $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the starting radius of the material that is arriving at the center at a given time. To evaluate the radii $`R_C`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$, we invert the mass distribution of the initial state (equation ) to find $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$=$`GM/2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ and $`R_C`$ = $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2G^3M^3/16a_{\mathrm{eff}}^8`$.

With an isothermal profile as the initial state, the collapse solution indicates that the flow exhibits a well defined mass infall rate $`\dot{M}`$ = $`m_0a_{\mathrm{eff}}^3/G`$, where $`m_00.975`$ (Shu 1977). This infall rate is constant in time and we can measure the time since the collapse began by the total mass $`M`$ that has fallen to the galactic center. At early times, all of the mass falling to the center is incorporated into the central black hole. At later times, the mass supply is abruptly shut off by conservation of angular momentum. In this setting, the mass infall rate is quite large, $`\dot{M}`$ $``$ 650 $`M_{}`$ yr-1 (for $`\sigma `$ = 200 km s-1and $`\sigma ^2=2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$). The time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{bh}}`$ to form a typical supermassive black hole (with mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}10^8`$ $`M_{}`$) is thus about $`\tau _{\mathrm{bh}}10^5`$ yr, comparable to the time scale $`\tau _{}`$ for individual stars to form. The time scale to form the entire bulge is much longer, about $`\tau _{\mathrm{blg}}2550`$ Myr, comparable to the crossing time $`t_{\mathrm{cross}}`$ = $`R/a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

In this collapse flow, streamlines entering the central region do not cross each other. As long as the (bulge) infall time is longer than the time scale for individual star formation events, the core regions that produce stars will not interact. However, this scenario has an initial transient phase ($`10^5`$ yr) in which the collapse of the bulge structure takes place faster than individual stars form. If stars are already condensing out of the collapse flow during this initial phase, they can interact and merge upon entering the central region. The resulting merger activity can lead to the initial production of the central black hole, which then gains additional mass as the collapse proceeds.

Given the orbital solution (equation ), we can find the velocity fields for the collapse flow. The density distribution $`\rho (r,\theta )`$ of the infalling material can then be obtained by applying conservation of mass along a streamtube (Terebey, Shu, & Cassen 1984) and can be written in the form

$$\rho (r,\theta )=\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi |v_r|r^2}\frac{d\mu _0}{d\mu }.$$
(8)
The properties of the collapsing structure determine the orbit equation , which in turn determines the form of $`d\mu _0/d\mu `$ and the radial velocity $`v_r`$. The density field is thus completely specified (analytically, but implicitly).

This gas dynamical version of the model defines the same critical mass scale for central black holes as the ballistic model presented in §2. In the earliest stages of collapse, incoming material falls to small radii $`rR_S`$, where $`R_S2GM/c^2`$ and $`M`$ is the total mass $`M=\dot{M}t`$ that has fallen thus far. In this early stage, the black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ = $`M`$. As the collapse develops, incoming material originates from ever larger radii and carries a commensurate increase in specific angular momentum. The centrifugal barrier of the collapse flow grows with time. The black hole mass is determined when the centrifugal radius exceeds the capture radius of a black hole in Schwarzschild geometry. This condition takes the form $`R_C>\alpha R_S`$, where $`\alpha =8`$ and is determined by particle orbits in a Schwarzschild metric. This condition, $`R_C>\alpha R_S`$, leads to the same critical mass scale $`M_C`$ defined in equation . Although $`M_C`$ determines the black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$, two additional effects conspire to make the final black hole mass somewhat larger:

 Even after the centrifugal barrier grows larger than the capture radius, the black hole continues to gain mass from infalling streamlines oriented along the rotational poles of the system. The fraction of the infalling material that lands at such small radii is a rapidly decreasing function of time. As a result, this effect makes the black hole mass larger by only a modest factor $`_A`$. The mass infall rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ for material falling directly onto the black hole itself is given by

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{bh}}=_1^1𝑑\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi (\alpha R_S)^2|v_r|\rho (\alpha R_S,\mu ),$$
(9)
where $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Using equation  to specify the density, we evaluate the integral to obtain a differential equation for the time evolution of the black hole mass. Solving the resulting differential equation (Adams et al. 2001), we find that the black hole mass increases by a factor $`_A`$ $``$ 1.35 due to direct infall.

 Gas that falls to the midplane of the system can collect into a disk structure surrounding the nascent black hole. The presence of the disk is consistent with the current theoretical ideas about AGNs and the jets they produce. In order to retain the desired scaling law $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}\sigma ^4`$, however, the total mass added to the black hole through disk accretion must be less than (or comparable to) the original mass scale $`M_C`$. We can estimate the maximum amount of mass that can be added to the black hole through the disk by using the constraint that disk accretion cannot operate faster than the orbit time at the outer disk edge (which is determined by $`R_C`$). For reasonable assumptions, this maximum mass scale in the limit of efficient disk accretion is about 10 $`M_C`$ (Adams et al. 2001).

This model also predicts a mass scale $`M_B`$ for the bulge itself. If the initial protobulge structure is rotating at angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then only material within a length scale $`R=a_{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can collapse to form the bulge. Material at larger radii, $`r>R`$, is already rotationally supported and will not fall inwards. The length scale $`R`$ thus defines an effective outer boundary to the collapsing region that forms the bulge. This boundary $`R`$, in turn, defines a mass scale for the bulge, i.e.,

$$M_B=\frac{2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^3}{G\mathrm{\Omega }}2.4\times 10^{10}M_{}(\sigma /200\text{ km s}^1)^3.$$
(10)
Both the bulge mass $`M_B`$ and the black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}M_C`$ have the same dependence on the rotation rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We can divide out the rotation rate and find a robust estimate for the mass fraction $`\mu _B`$, i.e.,

$$\mu _B\frac{M_{\mathrm{bh}}}{M_B}=\sqrt{32}\frac{\sigma }{c}0.0038(\sigma /200\text{ km s}^1).$$
(11)
This mass fraction $`\mu _B`$ is roughly comparable to the observed ratio of black hole masses to bulge masses in host galaxies (e.g., Richstone et al. 1998; Magorrian et al. 1998), although the data show appreciable scatter (see Figure 2).

## 4 CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have presented a simple model to describe the collapse flow that produces galactic bulges and the supermassive black holes living at their centers. The initial (pre-collapse) state is a slowly rotating isothermal sphere, characterized by an effective sound speed $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and an angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These parameters $`(a_{\mathrm{eff}},\mathrm{\Omega })`$ thus represent the specification of the initial conditions. The velocity dispersion of the final stellar system is comparable to the initial sound speed and we make the identification $`\sigma \sqrt{2}a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In developing this basic picture, we find the following results:

 The black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ is determined by the condition that the centrifugal radius exceeds the capture radius of a Schwarzschild black hole. This requirement leads to the scaling law $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}=M_0(\sigma /200\text{ km s}^1)^4`$, which is consistent with observations both in its dependence on velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ and for the mass scale ($`M_010^8M_{}`$) of the leading coeffecient (see equation  and Figure 1).

 The bulge mass is determined by the outer boundary of the collapsing region – material at initial radii $`r>R`$ is rotationally supported and cannot collapse. This condition leads to the scaling law $`M_B\sigma ^3`$ (equation ) and predicts the ratio $`\mu _B`$ of black hole mass to bulge mass (equation ). This mass fraction scales weakly with velocity dispersion and has a typical value $`\mu _B0.004`$, similar to observed mass ratios (Figure 2).

Elliptical galaxies (and bulges) are described by four parameters: effective radius $`R_e`$, luminosity $`L`$, velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$, and central black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$. For this discussion, we substitute the total mass $`M_B`$ for the luminosity (for a given dark matter fraction, we thus assume that the transformation $`M_BL`$ is determined by known, but perhaps complicated, stellar physics). We need to make the connection between these four basic quantities $`(\sigma ,R_e,M_B,M_{\mathrm{bh}})`$ and our model, which is described by only two variables: the transport speed $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and the rotation rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Our model implies the following transformation between initial conditions and final system properties:  $`\sigma =\sqrt{2}a_{\mathrm{eff}}`$,  $`R_e=a_{\mathrm{eff}}/(2\mathrm{\Omega })`$,  $`M_B=2a_{\mathrm{eff}}^3/(G\mathrm{\Omega })`$,  $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}=16_Aa_{\mathrm{eff}}^4/(cG\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and  $`\mu _B=8_Aa_{\mathrm{eff}}/c`$, where $`_A1.35`$. The fifth relation is not independent, but because the rotation rate cancels out, it represents a robust prediction. The implications of these five scaling laws must be tested further against observations.

In this letter, we have presented a working collapse model for black hole and bulge formation. In future work, a number of issues should be addressed, including relativistic corrections to the infall solutions, additional black hole mass contributions from disk accretion, and feedback from the central black hole on the collapse. In order to successfully reproduce the observed correlations, our model uses initial conditions with a particular profile of specific angular momentum (determined by the initial $`\rho (r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$); we thus need to explore more general initial conditions and make the connection between the required initial conditions and earlier stages of galaxy formation. In addition, galactic bulges are likely to experience merger events (White & Rees 1978) which lead to modest increases in the overall velocity dispersion (White 1979); we must determine how the black holes produced through this model evolve in the context of such galactic mergers. In any case, the properties of these supermassive black holes – and their connection to their host galaxies – will ultimately provide a vital diagnostic for the galaxy formation process.

We would like to thank Gus Evrard, Luis Ho, Greg Laughlin, Manasse Mbonye, and Scott Tremaine for useful discussions. This work was supported by funding from the University of Michigan, bridging support from NASA Grant No. 5-2869, the NASA Long Term Space Astrophysics program, and Space Telescope Science Institute.
FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. The correlation between black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ and velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the host galaxy. The data points (adapted from Gebhardt et al. 2000) represent the observed correlation for ellipticals (circles), S0 galaxies (squares), and spirals (triangles). The solid curve shows the theoretical result of this paper (using equation  and the 35% correction from equation ). The dashed and dotted curves show the observational fits advocated by Gebhardt et al. (2000) and Farrarese & Merritt (2000), respectively.

Figure 2. The ratio $`\mu _B`$ of black hole mass to host mass plotted as a function of the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the host galaxy. The solid curve shows the prediction of this paper. The data points (adapted from Gebhardt et al. 2000) exhibit considerable scatter, but their mean value is in reasonable agreement with theoretical expectations; the various symbols represent ellipticals (circles), S0 galaxies (squares), and spirals (triangles).