text:
# The effect of magnetic fields on the mass determination of clusters of galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Clusters of galaxies – the most massive bound objects in the universe – are excellent diagnostic tools for cosmological parameters. In particular, measuring the masses of clusters provides a way to determine the amount and the distribution of dark matter and thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. The comparison with the baryonic component yields an estimate for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{baryon}}`$, which is another important cosmological parameter, as current measurements are in contradiction with primordial nucleosynthesis for a $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ universe (White et al. 1993).

Cluster masses can be measured in various ways, via the gravitational lensing effect, via the assumption of virial equilibrium and with X-ray observations using the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium. In some clusters these different methods yield masses which can differ up to a factor of three in the central region of the cluster with the lensing mass being typically larger, e.g. A2218 (Kneib et al. 1995; Squires et al. 1996), MS0440+0204 (Gioia et al. 1998), RXJ1347-1145 (Fischer & Tyson, 1997, Schindler et al. 1997; Sahu et al. 1998), Cl0939+4713 (Seitz et al. 1996; Schindler et al. 1998). Various reasons for these discrepancies have been suggested. The presence of substructure and cluster mergers are obvious ways to explain the differences, but tests with numerical simulations showed that the assumptions of hydrostatic equilibrium and spherical symmetry are well justified in relaxed clusters of galaxies (Evrard et al. 1996; Schindler 1996) and cannot account for the large discrepancies in relaxed clusters. Also the effects of small-scale density variations were found to be much smaller than the observed discrepancies (Mathiesen et al. 1999). As a further possibility for the discrepancies, in particular in the cluster centres, Loeb & Mao (1994) suggested that the intra-cluster gas might not only be supported by thermal pressure, but also by considerable magnetic pressure. As magnetic pressure is not taken into account in the X-ray mass determination method it potentially leads to an underestimation of the mass.

Whereas Loeb & Mao (1994) suggested that strong magnetic fields can be hidden to Faraday rotation measurements if the magnetic fields are tangled, Dolag et al. (1999) found in simulations that even clusters with an overall small magnetic field can be penetrated partially by regions of high magnetic fields. These simulations are based on a consistent model for the cluster magnetic field and therefore lead to realistic magnetic field configurations within the assumed cosmological scenarios. Here the magnetic fields strengths and structure is given by the formation of the cluster in a cosmological environment. Although on average the magnetic pressure in there models is much smaller than the thermal pressure ($`5\%`$ (Dolag et al. 2000b)), the models show some scatter around this mean value. There are domains of high magnetic fields approaching or sometimes even exceeding equipartition with the thermal energy. The simulations predict the number, locations and sizes of these domains depending on the formation history and dynamical state of the cluster, which provides the possibility to test the importance of these domains. So far the influence of these domains on the mass determination is not clear.

In this work we use the models by Dolag et al. (1999) to test the influence of such magnetic fields on the mass determination with the X-ray method. We compare the true cluster mass, which is known exactly for the model clusters, with the mass derived from a simulated X-ray observation of the same model cluster.

After the description of the method in Sect. 2 we present the results in Sect. 3 and the conclusions in Sect. 4.

## 2 Method

We use the cosmological MHD code described in Dolag et al. (1999) to simulate the formation of magnetised galaxy clusters from an initial density perturbation field. The code combines the merely gravitational interaction of a dark-matter component with the hydrodynamics of a gaseous component. The gravitational interaction of the particles is evaluated on GRAPE boards (Sugimoto et al. 1990), while the gas dynamics is computed in the SPH approximation (Lucy 1977, Gingold & Monaghan 1977). It is supplemented with the magneto-hydrodynamic equations to trace the evolution of magnetic fields which are frozen into the motion of the gas due to its assumed ideal electric conductivity. The back-reaction of the magnetic field onto the gas is included. The code assumes the intra-cluster medium to be an ideal gas with adiabatic index of $`\gamma =5/3`$. Radiative cooling is not included. As the surroundings of clusters are important because their tidal fields affect the overall cluster structure and the merging history, the simulation volumes are surrounded by a layer of boundary particles whose purpose it is to represent accurately the tidal fields in the cluster neighbourhood. Extensive tests of the code were performed and described in Dolag et al. (1999). Various test problems could be solved successfully, and $`𝐁`$ is always negligible compared to the magnetic field divided by a typical length scale.

Two different kinds of cosmological models are used, EdS and FlatLow (see Table 1). We set up cosmological initial conditions at redshift $`z=15`$ (for EdS) and $`z=20`$ (for FlatLow) and follow the formation of the clusters including the magnetic field. For each cosmology we calculate ten different realisations which result in clusters of different final masses and different dynamical states at redshift $`z=0`$.

We simulate each of these clusters with different initial magnetic fields, listed in Table 2, yielding a total of 80 cluster models. Since the origin of magnetic fields on cluster scales is unknown, we use either completely homogeneous or chaotic initial magnetic field structures. The evolution of the intracluster fields is then computed during cluster collapse. Previous work showed that (i) the initial field structure is irrelevant because the final field structure is determined by the dynamics of the cluster collapse, and (ii) the initial field strengths of medium B at the starting redshift (see Table 1) are adequate to reproduce the Faraday-rotation statistics by Kim et al. (1991). The simulated and the observed rotation-measure distributions could not be distinguished significantly by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. However, the scatter is large because of the relatively small number of simulated clusters per set (only 10 cluster for each cosmology) and because of selection effects both in the simulations and the observations. We therefore allow for a range of initial magnetic field strengths resulting in a range of synthetic Faraday-rotation distributions which are all well in agreement with the observed data. The steep power spectrum of these magnetic fields suggests that the contribution to the energy density by fields tangled on scales smaller than the resolution of the simulation ($`\stackrel{>}{}`$30kpc) is negligible. A detailed description of these models and a comparison with rotation measures is given in Dolag et al. (1999). With a realistic model for distributing relativistic electrons in the simulated clusters, the simulations are also able to match the properties of observed radio halos very well (see Dolag & Ensslin 2000). As both initial conditions are equivalent for the final clusters we choose the homogeneous initial field set-up, because it is numerically easier to handle.

Due to compression and turbulence in the gas flow, the magnetic field is highest in and near the centres of the simulated clusters. Here the thermal pressure has also the highest values, which leads to almost constant ratio of magnetic to thermal pressure support across a large range of cluster-centric radii, which can amount to $`5\%`$ for EdS cosmologies and slightly lower values in the FlatLow cosmologies (Dolag et al. 2000b). The overall structure of the magnetic field in the outer regions of the clusters differs from that near the cluster centre. Accretion and merger events arrange the magnetic fields in the outer cluster regions in coherent patterns on fairly large scales. Near the cluster centre, the gas flow pattern is almost randomised, and the magnetic field is consequently tangled and bent on fairly small scales ($`70`$kpc). Although the magnetic pressure can be considered isotropic at or near the cluster centre, it may well be anisotropic in the outer parts. Even though the fraction of the magnetic pressure relative to the thermal pressure, averaged over spherical shells, is approximately constant across the cluster, the detailed effects of magnetic pressure on the gas flow depend on the direction of the magnetic field relative to other locally preferred directions, like e.g. the orientation of filaments surrounding a cluster, the local path of matter infall, or the orbit of a merging sub-clump. Therefore, the same overall magnetic pressure can have different effects on the local dynamics of gas flows, depending on whether the magnetic field is ordered on scales comparable to the cluster scale, and on the orientation of the magnetic field. Furthermore in an intra-cluster medium with a small averaged fraction of the magnetic relative to the thermal pressure may be well regions, in which the magnetic field gives much stronger pressure support. Fig. 1 shows the mass fraction inside spherical shells which have more than 5% magnetic pressure support. Note that there is even a small number of regions where the magnetic pressure is twice as high as the thermal pressure.

In this work we concentrate on the effects of the magnetic field on the mass determination via the X-ray method. Effects like deviation from hydrostatic equilibrium due to mergers, possible shortcomings of the $`\beta `$ model and others are not discussed. In order not to mix up the different effects we select for the mass tests only the models not suffering from the above mentioned other effects, i.e. relaxed clusters. Otherwise even the average over many models can be dominated by the strong deviations of a single model. Furthermore, a small magnetic field can slightly alter the dynamical time scale of a simulated cluster. Therefore, when comparing simulated clusters with different magnetic fields at equal redshifts, they can be in slightly different evolutionary stages according to their own time scale. While this effect is irrelevant in relaxed clusters it can change the mass estimate considerably for merging clusters.

To minimize all non-magnetic effects we select 6 out of the FlatLow models and 7 out of the EdS models, which look round and relaxed and are not in the process of merging at the moment of the mass determination ($`z=0`$).

To calculate X-ray masses from these model clusters, we project the model clusters onto X-ray images in three projection directions. We use the ROSAT energy range (0.1-2.4 keV) for these projections, because for typical cluster temperatures the observed countrate in this range is almost independent of the temperature. We calculate maps of projected emission-weighted temperature as well. Both projections are binned to $`200\times 200`$ pixels with a resolution of 20 kpc. The bin size determines the smallest possible radius for our mass analysis. We can measure masses only at radii larger than about 2 pixels, i.e. $``$ 50 kpc. From X-ray and temperature maps we calculate surface brightness and temperature profiles centred on the X-ray centroid. We deproject the surface brightness to three-dimensional densities with the $`\beta `$ model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976). With the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium the integral mass within radius $`r`$ can be determined as

$$M(r)=\frac{kr}{\mu m_pG}T\left(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }{d\mathrm{ln}r}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}T}{d\mathrm{ln}r}\right),$$
$`(1)`$
with $`\rho `$ and $`T`$ being the density and the temperature of the intra-cluster gas, respectively. $`k`$, $`\mu `$, $`m_p`$, and $`G`$ are the Boltzmann constant, the molecular weight, the proton mass, and the gravitational constant.

## 3 Results

For the comparison of the true masses of the models and the masses derived by the X-ray method we calculate the ratio of both and plot this ratio versus radius. Figure 2a and b show the comparison for FlatLow and EdS models, respectively. The ratio profiles are averaged over various models and three projection directions (but not over different initial magnetic fields).

There is an overall underestimation of the mass visible at very large and very small radii, which is not due to the magnetic field, but to limitations of the $`\beta `$ model. As shown in Fig. 3 the $`\beta `$ model cannot fit every part of the profile equally well. Typically, the $`\beta `$ model is less steep than the actual profile in the central region and at large radii. Therefore the density gradients are underestimated there, which leads to an underestimation of the mass in these regions according to Eq. (1). A detailed investigation of different analytic deprojection methods will be published in a forthcoming paper.

As expected the effects of the magnetic field are largest in the central regions because the magnetic field is generally stronger in the cluster centre as seen in simulations (Dolag et. al 1999) as well as in observations (Kim et al. 1990; Clark et al. 1999). Mostly profiles for high magnetic fields are slightly below the profiles for no or low magnetic field. The values of the mass ratios at 50 kpc are listed in Table 3. The difference between the profiles at this radius is only 10-15%. For comparison the standard deviations of the profiles are shown as well. Clearly, the differences between the profiles with different magnetic field are much smaller than the scatter due to other effects like projection effects. Therefore they are certainly not significant. Moreover, the curves are not even exactly ordered according to the magnetic field strength. At radii larger than 200 kpc there is no difference at all between the profiles of models with different magnetic fields. This comparison of the profiles shows that the mass differences for different magnetic fields are negligible at all radii.

One of the merger models, which is not used for the profiles in Fig. 2, shows an interesting effect. The mass ratios are clearly ordered according to the magnetic field (see Fig. 4). As it is a merger of two nearly equal subclusters, the mass estimate is very sensitive on the exact density distribution in the central region and the positions of the shocks and therefore mass over- or underestimations are expected. But if these were the only effects one would not expect the profiles to be ordered according to the magnetic field as seen in Fig. 4. Obviously, the magnetic field can be important in such extreme merger cases. This is plausible because magnetic fields are enhanced during collisions of clusters.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

A magnetic field can affect the mass determination in a cluster of galaxies in principle in two ways, by the isotropic and the anisotropic component of the magnetic pressure. The isotropic component provides an additional non-thermal pressure support, hence tends to lower the temperature in the cores of clusters. Depending on the gas mass fraction, this effect can amount to $`5\%`$ of the central temperatures for EdS cosmologies (Dolag et al. 2000). Consequently, the mass is underestimated by the X-ray method because this additional pressure is not taken into account. The anisotropic component of the magnetic pressure slightly changes the density and temperature distribution in the inner region of the cluster by redirecting gas flows. In this way the gas is prevented from reaching hydrostatic equilibrium. This may also lead to a possible misinterpretation of the X-ray emission when determining the mass.

To test these effects, we performed cosmological MHD simulations of galaxy clusters in different cosmologies, to examine the effect of magnetic fields in galaxy clusters on the mass reconstruction via the X-ray method. The range of initial magnetic field strengths was chosen so as to reproduce the observed Faraday-rotation measurements at the final redshift of $`z=0`$.

We find one extreme merger model, in which the sum of all effects caused by the magnetic field can reduce the reconstructed mass by a factor of 2 in the central region. This model cluster is in the process of merging and has therefore a particularly high magnetic field. As the mass determination for merging clusters canbe unreliable, because they are far from hydrostatic equilibrium, this adds up to already large uncertainties, so that we can just emphasise again, that X-ray mass estimates of merging clusters must be regarded with caution.

In relaxed clusters magnetic fields do not generally lead to any under- or overestimate of masses and they cannot be the dominant reason for the mass discrepancy between X-ray mass and lensing mass found in the central region of some clusters. The maximum difference of averaged mass profiles between models with high magnetic field and no magnetic field is 15%, while observational discrepancies between different methods of a factor of 2-3 are found. It is more likely that projection effects play an important role. As the gravitational lensing effect is sensitive to all the mass along the line-of-sight while the X-ray mass determines only the mass in the potential well, other mass concentrations along the line-of-sight can lead to a higher lensing mass compared to the X-ray mass (as probably seen in Cl0500-24 (Schindler & Wambsganss 1997)). Another effect can be that cooling flows lead to wrong determinations of temperatures when the temperature profile of the cluster is not available (Allen 1998). Also the $`\beta `$ model does not always provide a good fit to the profile at all radii (Bartelmann & Steinmetz 1996). All these effects will be analysed in detail in a forthcoming paper.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Phil James for carefully reading the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Spin-Dependent WIMPs in DAMA?

## I INTRODUCTION

Weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs) have long been sought experimentally as the primary component of the dark halo that enshrouds the Milky Way . Such dark-matter particles could be detected directly via observation of the $`𝒪(10\mathrm{keV})`$ nuclear recoils they would produce in a low-background detector when a dark-matter particle scatters elastically from a nucleus therein . They could also be detected indirectly via observation of the energetic neutrinos produced by annihilation of WIMPs that have accumulated in the Sun and/or Earth .

The WIMP can scatter elastically from a nucleus either via a scalar (spin-independent; SI) interaction, in which case the WIMP-nucleus cross section scales with the mass of the nucleus (see, e.g., Fig. 26 in Ref. ), or via an axial-vector (spin-dependent; SD) interaction, in which case the cross section is nonzero only if the nucleus has a non-vanishing spin. In this latter case, WIMP-nucleus scattering occurs primarily via interaction of the WIMP with the unpaired proton or neutron, and therefore the WIMP-nucleus cross section will mostly depend on the SD WIMP-proton interaction in odd-$`Z`$ nuclei and on the SD WIMP-neutron interaction in odd-$`N`$ nuclei.

The Dama collaboration  has reported an annual modulation in their NaI detector compatible with the summer-winter variation in the flux of WIMPs incident on the detector due to the motion of the Earth through the halo . If interpreted as a WIMP with SI interactions, the effect singles out a region in the plane (WIMP mass, WIMP-nucleon cross section), centered at about (50 GeV, $`7\times 10^6`$ pb), which is largely excluded by the null result reported by the Cdms collaboration using a detector made of natural germanium . Further data from more sensitive detectors will allow a firmer statement on this contradiction.

An alternative explanation is that the WIMP has a dominantly SD coupling with nuclei. In this case, the incompatibility between the Dama and Cdms results disappears as Na and I are unpaired-proton nuclei, while natural germanium contains only $`8\%`$ of the 73Ge isotope which is an unpaired-neutron nucleus. Thus, it is conceivable that a WIMP could undergo a SD interaction in one detector while remaining invisible to the other. Such an explanation has been neglected since the required WIMP SD cross sections exceed those expected in currently favored supersymmetric models. However, given the number of free parameters in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM), not to mention the numerous possible alternatives, a WIMP with a strong SD coupling to nuclei is certainly plausible.

Here we show that this possibility can be rejected experimentally (except for a small unusual corner of parameter space), rather than through theoretical prejudice. WIMPs with SD couplings to protons will be captured in the Sun and annihilate therein producing energetic neutrinos that should be detectable in several existing neutrino telescopes. Following a model-independent approach , we show that current upper limits to the neutrino flux rule out the possibility that the Dama signal is due to a WIMP with SD couplings to protons. We check also that the alternative hypothesis—that the modulation signal is due to SD scattering from neutrons in Na and I—is, excluded for WIMP masses $`M_\chi 20`$ GeV by null searches with odd-neutron targets (the best limit comes from an experiment with enriched liquid Xe performed by the Dama collaboration as well ).

Indirect-detection rates have already been calculated for a variety of supersymmetric models that fit the Dama modulation signal (see Ref.  and references therein). Here, however, we carry out a model-independent analysis that does not rely on any details of the particle-physics model.

In the next Section, we discuss the procedure to derive the region in the plane (WIMP mass, WIMP-nucleon cross section) compatible with the Dama modulation signal both for SI and SD interactions. Section III reviews the model-independent constraints from Ref.  to this parameter space in case of SD interactions with protons. Section IV shows that the null result with Xe strongly constrains the possibility that the Dama modulation could be due to a WIMP SD interactions with neutrons. Section V concludes.

## II ANALYSIS OF THE MODULATION SIGNAL

Dama has analyzed the measured modulation assuming it is due to WIMPs with SI couplings only, publishing the corresponding compatible region of WIMP masses and cross sections. The analysis for WIMPs with SD interactions is completely analogous. We now detail the calculation.

The differential direct-detection rate (per unit detector mass) in a detector made of nucleus $`i`$ is

$$\frac{dR_i}{dQ}=\frac{\rho _\chi }{M_\chi M_i}_{|\stackrel{}{v^{}}|v_{\mathrm{min}}}d^3\stackrel{}{v^{}}f(\stackrel{}{v^{}})|\stackrel{}{v^{}}|\frac{d\sigma _{\chi i}}{dQ},$$
(1)
where $`Q`$ is the energy deposited in the detector, and $`d\sigma _{\chi i}/dQ`$ is the differential cross section for WIMP elastic scattering with the target nucleus. We assume here that WIMPs of mass $`M_\chi `$ account for a local dark-matter density $`\rho _\chi `$ and have a local (i.e., in the rest frame of the detector) distribution in velocity space $`f`$ with normalization $`d^3\stackrel{}{v^{}}f(\stackrel{}{v^{}})=1`$.

The differential cross section is usually re-written as

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\chi i}}{dQ}=\frac{1}{Q_{\mathrm{max}}}\left(\sigma _{\chi i}^{\mathrm{SI}}F_i^2(Q)+\sigma _{\chi i}^{\mathrm{SD}}\frac{S_i(Q,a_p,a_n)}{S_i(0,a_p,a_n)}\right),$$
(2)
where $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}=2m_{\chi i}^2|\stackrel{}{v^{}}|^2/M_i`$, and $`m_{ji}`$ is the reduced mass between particles $`j`$ and $`i`$. The form-factor suppression of the cross section depends on whether the interaction is SI or SD. The SI form factor $`F_i(Q)`$ is relatively simple to calculate; the estimate for the SD form factor $`S_i(Q,a_p,a_n)`$ requires more sophisticated nuclear modeling  and differs in case of SD WIMP-proton and SD WIMP-neutron scattering.

To compare results obtained with detectors of different materials, the cross section for WIMP scattering from nucleus $`i`$ (for SI or SD) is expressed in terms of the WIMP-proton (neutron) cross section scaled to zero momentum transfer, $`\sigma _{\chi i}=(m_{\chi i}^2/m_{\chi p}^2)C_{p(n)}\sigma _{p(n)}`$. For SI scattering, $`C_{p(n)}^{\mathrm{SI}}=[Z_if_p+(A_iZ_i)f_n]^2/f_{p(n)}^2`$, where $`A_i`$ and $`Z_i`$ are the atomic mass number and charge of nucleus $`i`$, and $`f_pf_n`$ are the SI couplings of WIMPs to protons and neutrons, respectively. For SD scattering, $`C_{p(n)}^{SD}=4(\lambda _{p(n)}^i)^2J_i(J_i+1)/3`$, where $`J_i`$ is the total angular momentum of nucleus $`i`$, and $`\lambda _{p(n)}^i=(a_pS_p^i+a_nS_n^i)/(a_{p(n)}J_i)`$. Here, $`a_p`$ and $`a_n`$ are the WIMP SD couplings to protons and neutrons and $`S_p^i`$ and $`S_n^i`$ are the proton and neutron spin expectation values in nucleus $`i`$; they are obtained from nuclear models .

Finally, to get the differential detection rate for NaI one has to take into account the fact that this is not a monatomic material and include quenching factors for both Na and I.

Eq. (1) is time dependent; the dependence is written implicitly in the change of variables between the velocity of the WIMP in the detector rest frame and in the galactic frame. The rotation of the Earth around the Sun gives rise to the well-known annual-modulation effect . To a good approximation, the signal event rate in the $`k`$th energy bin can be parameterized by separating a component averaged during the year from a time-dependent component,

$$𝒮_k=𝒮_{0,k}+𝒮_{m,k}\mathrm{cos}\left[2\pi (tt_0)/T\right],$$
(3)
where the period $`T`$ is 1 year and $`t_0`$ is about June 2. Dama performs a maximum-likelihood analysis and provides values of $`𝒮_{0,k}`$ and $`𝒮_{m,k}`$ corresponding to their favored region in 4 energy bins, with electron equivalent (measured) energies $`Q_{\mathrm{ee}}`$ between 2 and 6 keV .

Since we cannot perform an analysis on the raw data, we consider an approximate method to decide whether a WIMP candidate is compatible with the Dama modulation or not. We follow Ref.  and define the statistical variable,

$$\kappa =\underset{k}{}\left[\frac{\left(𝒮_{0,k}^{\mathrm{th}}𝒮_{0,k}^{\mathrm{exp}}\right)^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{0,k}^{\mathrm{exp}}\right)^2}+\frac{\left(𝒮_{m,k}^{\mathrm{th}}𝒮_{m,k}^{\mathrm{exp}}\right)^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{m,k}^{\mathrm{exp}}\right)^2}\right],$$
(4)
where $`𝒮_{0,k}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is the experimental result and $`𝒮_{0,k}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the theoretical prediction for the WIMP candidate being investigated.

Before considering the SD case of interest to us here, we first carry out our analysis with a SI WIMP-nucleon coupling to test whether our technique reproduces the results of the full Dama analysis that has been published for this case. To do so, we evaluate $`𝒮_{0,k}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ and $`𝒮_{m,k}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ as a function of WIMP mass and $`\sigma _p^{\mathrm{SI}}`$ (we assume, as Dama did, that $`f_p=f_n`$; we take also their choice of form factors and astrophysical parameters). The $`3\sigma `$ region singled out by Dama with their maximum-likelihood method in the ($`M_\chi `$, $`\sigma _p^{\mathrm{SI}}`$) plane is reproduced fairly well if we require that $`\kappa <60`$.

We now turn to our analysis of a WIMP with SD interactions. We take the form factor for SD scattering from Na and I from Ref.  and again assume that the WIMP candidate is compatible with the Dama modulation if $`\kappa <60`$. We consider separately the case of coupling with protons only ($`a_p0`$, $`a_n=0`$) and with neutrons only ($`a_p=0`$, $`a_n0`$); the results are indicated by the shaded regions, respectively, in Fig. 1 and in Fig. 2.

## III A WIMP-PROTON INTERACTION?

We examine first the case of WIMPs with couplings with protons. Such WIMPs scatter efficiently from protons in the Sun, losing enough energy to become gravitationally bound to the Sun. This process creates an enhancement in the density of WIMPs at the center of the Sun. The WIMPs can then annihilate in the Sun, and among the decay products of the annihilation products will be energetic neutrinos (energies of order half the WIMP mass) that can escape the Sun. Such neutrinos can produce upward muons via a charged-current interaction in the material below a neutrino detector, such as that at IMB, Super-Kamiokande, Baksan, MACRO, and/or AMANDA.

The calculation of the flux of such neutrino-induced upward muons from the Sun is straightforward. For the masses we are considering, the flux can be written ***Note in Eq. (9.55) in Ref. , the factor $`\mathrm{tanh}(t_{}/\tau _{})`$ should be squared and there should be a factor of $`\xi (m_\chi )`$ on the right-hand side.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`0.016\mathrm{m}^2\mathrm{yr}^1(M_\chi /\mathrm{GeV})(\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SD}}/10^{40}\mathrm{cm}^2)`$ (6)
$`(\rho _\chi /0.3\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^3)S(m_\chi /m_H)\xi (m_\chi ),`$
Here, $`S(x)`$ is given by Eq. (9.21) in Ref. . The function $`\xi (m_\chi )`$ is given in Fig. 33 in Ref. ; it quantifies the number of neutrino-induced muons expected per annihilation event. This depends in detail on the annihilation products; e.g., $`b\overline{b}`$ or $`c\overline{c}`$ quarks, and/or $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ lepton pairs. Different WIMP candidates in the mass ranges we are considering ($`m_\chi 80`$ GeV) will produce different branching fractions to these annihilation products, and this will result in some allowable range for $`\xi (m_\chi )`$. For the WIMP masses we are considering, $`0.03\xi (m_\chi )0.13`$; we use $`\xi =0.03`$. The bound we compute here could be evaded if the WIMP annihilated to $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$, $`e^+e^{}`$, and/or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pairs but not $`c\overline{c}`$, $`b\overline{b}`$, nor $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ pairs. However, we know of no models in which (nor any reason why) this would occur. Eq. (refeqn:indirectrate) assumes that capture of WIMPs in the Sun from the Galactic halo is in equilibrium with their depletion by annihilation. As argued in Ref. , capture and annihilation will be in equilibrium in just about any model in which the signal is anywhere close to being detectable. Since we are going to place upper limits to a WIMP-proton scattering cross section based on current bounds, we may safely assume capture-annihilation equilibration in our analysis.

The upper limit to the flux of neutrino-induced muons from the Sun (roughly $`10^2\mathrm{m}^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$) from Super-Kamiokande , leads to the upper limit to the cross section for WIMP-proton SD scattering shown in Fig. 1 (limits from Baksan, MACRO and AMANDA lead to very similar results). The discrepancy of a couple of orders of magnitude between the region disallowed by neutrino telescopes and the region implied by Dama is much too large to be explained by the uncertainties and approximations inherent in our analysis, which might conceivably change our Dama parameter space and/or our Super-Kamiokande limit by no more than factors of a few.

## IV A WIMP-NEUTRON INTERACTION?

In the simplest odd-group model of the Na and I nuclei, the spin with which a SD WIMP interacts is carried exclusively by the unpaired proton. In such a model, the WIMP can undergo SD scattering with the nucleus only through the WIMP-proton interaction, and not through any WIMP-neutron interaction. However, in more sophisticated nuclear models, some small fraction of the spin is carried by neutrons as well. It is thus conceivable that the Dama modulation could have been caused by a SD WIMP-neutron interaction. The point of this Section will be to show that this possibility is disfavored by the null results of WIMP searches with odd-neutron targets.

In particular, the best current limit has been obtained from an experiment with enriched liquid Xe (99.5% 129Xe) performed as well by the Dama collaboration (we checked that a weaker limit is given by the Cdms measurement with natural Ge, with only $`8\%`$ of the 73Ge isotope). We plot in Fig. 2 the limit derived in Ref.  using again form factors from Ref. , but assuming $`a_n=0.85a_p`$ rather than $`a_p=0`$, $`a_n0`$. The limit in the latter case should be even slightly lower than the one displayed. The limit from Xe excludes all WIMP masses larger than about 20 GeV, leaving just a tiny corner of the Dama favored region.

## V CONCLUSION

The annual modulation observed in the Dama low-energy bins has been attributed to a WIMP with SI interactions with nuclei, a possibility in contradiction with null searches by Cdms. However, this is a priori not the only interpretation—the modulation could also be due most generally to a WIMP with SD interactions.

We have shown here that the region of parameter space implied by the Dama signal for a WIMP that undergoes SD scattering from protons is excluded in a model-independent way by null searches for a WIMP-induced energetic-neutrino flux from the Sun.

The alternative hypothesis—that the modulation is due to WIMP scattering from neutrons—is excluded for $`M_\chi \text{ }>20`$ GeV by data taken with a Xe detector. Although experimentally viable, the $`M_\chi 20`$ GeV solution requires new physics beyond the minimal supersymmetric standard model . More importantly, it requires that the WIMP-proton and WIMP-neutron interactions differ by more than four orders of magnitude. Such a large difference would be quite unusual.

The SD WIMP parameters compatible with the Dama modulation derived here may be slightly changed by including particle and nuclear uncertainties or uncertainties in the local WIMP velocity distribution , as well as by performing a more accurate analysis on the raw data. However all these effects cannot account for the order-of-magnitude (or more) discrepancies pointed out here.

We thank P. Belli and J. Edsjö for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by NSF AST-0096023, NASA NAG5-8506, and DoE DE-FG03-92-ER40701 and DE-FG03-88-ER40397.


text:
# Dynamical stripe structure in La2-xSrxCuO4 observed by Raman scattering

## Abstract

The dynamical stripe structure relating to the ”1/8 problem” was investigated in La2-xSrxCuO4 utilizing the high frequency response of Raman scattering. The split of the two-magnon peak due to the formation of the stripe structure was observed at whole Sr concentration region from $`x=0.035`$ to 0.25 at low temperatures. Especially clear split was observed at low carrier concentration region $`x=0.0350.06`$ and at $`x1/8`$. The onset temperatures of these stripe structures are as high as $`300350`$ K, which are much higher than the temperatures measured by slow response probes.

preprint: HEP/123-qed

The large exchange interaction energy ($`J`$) in high temperature superconductors contributes to raise the transition temperature ($`T_\mathrm{c}`$). However the large $`J`$ may induce instability for the uniform charge density to separate into spin and charge domains . Tranquada et al.  obtained the experimental evidence from the neutron scattering in La1.48Nd0.4Sr0.12CuO4 (LNSCO) that the antiferromagnetically ordered spin stripes are separated by the periodically spacing charge domain walls. The $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is suppressed in La2-xBaxCuO4 (LBCO) and La2-x-yNdySrxCuO4 (LNSCO) at $`x=1/8`$ . The suppression of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is related to the structural phase transition to the low temperature tetragonal phase (LTT, P42/ncm) below 65 K .

In La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) the decrease of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ at $`x=1/8`$ is only a few degree and the static LTT phase is not observed at least down to 4.2 K, but the local LTT component increases at low temperatures . The magnetic order has been observed below 32 K at $`x=0.115`$ by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) . The onset temperature of the wipeout effects for 63Cu NQR decreases monotonically from 90 K at $`x=0.07`$ to 50 K at $`x=0.115`$ . The spatially modulated dynamical spin correlation has been observed at $`x=0.050.25`$ as incommensurate magnetic peaks by neutron scattering . The direction of the stripe changes from the diagonal direction on the CuO2 lattice in the spin glass composition ($`x=0.020.05`$) to the vertical direction in the superconducting composition ($`x0.055`$). The inter-domain wall distance increases as $`l=a/2x`$ at $`x<\frac{1}{8}`$ and becomes constant above it, where $`a`$ is the Cu-Cu atomic distance. The domain walls are half-occupied by holes at $`x<\frac{1}{8}`$. Above it excess holes enter charge domain walls and/or spin stripes.

The static stripes cause the localization of carriers and suppress the superconductivity, so that the dynamical fluctuation is essential to induce the metallic conductivity and the superconductivity. However, it causes the difficulty for the investigation of stripes, because the fluctuating frequency is too high for many experimental probes. Raman scattering has advantageous for the direct observation of high energy magnetic excitations up to near 1 eV. Till now intensive Raman scattering studies have been reported in LSCO , but the evidence of the stripe structure has not been observed. In the present Raman scattering experiments, the special attention was paid to the sample quality.

The single crystals were synthesized by the TSFZ method utilizing an infrared radiation furnace with four elliptic mirrors (Crystal system, FZ-T-4000). This method does not use a crucible, so that the crystal is free from the contamination. The crystal of $`x=0`$ was annealed in 1 mmHg oxygen gas at 900C for 12 hours. The Néel temperature ($`T_\mathrm{N}`$) measured by SQUID magnetometer is 293 K. The crystals of $`x=0.2`$ and 0.25 were annealed in oxygen gas under ambient pressure at 600C for 7 days. The $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ was determined by the middle point of the transition in the electric resistivity. The narrow temperature widths of the superconducting transition region (2.5 K at $`x=0.115`$ and 1.5 K at $`x=0.15`$) certify the good quality of the crystals. The details will be presented elsewhere .

Raman spectra were measured on fresh cleaved surfaces in a quasi-back scattering configuration utilizing a triple monochromator (JASCO, NR-1810), a liquid nitrogen cooled CCD detector (Princeton, 1100PB), and a 5145 Å Ar-ion laser (Spectra Physics, stabilite 2017). The cleavage was done in air and the sample was set in a cryostat within ten minutes. The cleaved surface presents intrinsic Raman spectra which are different from the surface prepared by polishing or chemical etching . The laser beam of 10 mW was focused on the area of 50 $`\mu `$m$`\times `$500 $`\mu `$m. The increase of temperature by the laser beam irradiation was less than 2 K at 5 K. The same spectra were measured four times to remove the cosmic ray noise by comparing the intensities at each channel. The wide energy spectra covering $`127000`$ cm-1 was obtained by connecting 17 spectra with narrow energy ranges after correcting the spectroscopic efficiency of the optical system. The same spot on the surface was measured during the temperature variation by correcting the sample position which was monitored by a TV camera inside the spectrometer.

The two-magnon scattering is active in the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ symmetry and inactive in $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$, if the simple two-magnon scattering model is applied to the two-dimensional antiferromagnetic (AF) square lattice. The $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectrum is obtained in the $`(xy)`$ polarization configuration in which the incident light polarization is parallel to $`x=[110]`$ and the scattered light polarization is parallel to $`y=[1\text{}0]`$. The $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectrum is obtained in the $`(ab)`$ configuration in which the polarizations are parallel to the Cu-O bonds, $`a=[100]`$ and $`b=[010]`$.

Figure 1 shows the temperature dependence of the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ and $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ Raman spectra. In the undoped AF insulating La2CuO4 (LCO), the sharp peaks below 700 cm-1 are due to one-phonon scattering, the peaks from 850 to 1450 cm-1 the resonant two-phonon scattering, and the peaks from 1700 to 3000 cm-1 the four-phonon scattering. The peak at 3213 cm-1 in the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectrum at 5 K is the two-magnon scattering peak. When carriers are doped, the two-magnon peak changes drastically. At $`x=0.035`$, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.115, the two-magnon peaks split into double peaks at low temperatures. As temperature increases, these split two-magnon peaks decrease in intensity and the typical single two-magnon peaks in the coupled charge-spin state appear. That is, the scattering intensity rises from energy zero to the energy corresponding to the temperature, and then increases gradually to the two-magnon peak energy, and finally decreases toward over 7000 cm-1. These high temperature spectra are similar to the spectra in Bi2Sr2Ca1-xYxCu2O8+δ .

The $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ two-magnon peak is observed at 4128 cm-1 and 300 K in LCO, which is about 4/3 times the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ two-magnon peak energy, 3116 cm-1 at 300 K. It seems that the magnon-magnon interaction does not work in the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ two-magnon scattering. The $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra are different from the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra, when the stripe structure disappears at high temperatures. Both spectra becomes similar at low temperatures at $`x=0.05`$, 0.06, and 0.115. It indicates that the symmetry is relaxed in the stripe structure.

The split two-magnon peaks have fine structure. For example at $`x=0.06`$, the low energy peak is composed of two peaks at 1672 cm-1 and 2000 cm-1 and the high energy peak at 2745 cm-1 and 3125 cm-1. It is supposed that these fine structure is induced by the interactions between magnons at the nearest neighbor magnetic stripes across the charge domain wall, because the spin directions are reversed across the charge wall and both magnetic stripes give the periodic unit. These fine structure will be presented separately. In the following the discussions are limited to the double peak structure. Figure 2 shows the split two-magnon peak energies at 5 K and the single two-magnon peak energies at 300 K as a function of $`x`$. The energies of the clearly split two-magnon peaks at $`x=0.035`$, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.115 are shown by large circles. The intensity of the higher energy peak is much weaker than the lower energy peak at $`x=0.1`$ and $`x0.15`$. The higher energy peak keeps the energy almost constant, $`30503350`$ cm-1, from $`x=0`$ to 0.25, while the lower energy peak decreases in energy above $`x=0.15`$. At $`x=0.25`$ a small peak is observed at 1820 cm-1. At 300 K where the stripe structure almost disappears, the two-magnon peak energy decreases monotonically from $`x=0`$ to 0.25.

The origin of the split two-magnon peaks at about 3050 cm-1 and 1900 cm-1 can be explained as follows. The two-magnon Raman scattering in the $`S=1/2`$ antiferromagnet is caused by the exchange of nearest neighbor spins. Figure 3 shows the case that (a) the spin exchange occurs inside the AF square lattice, (b) near the diagonal charge domain wall, (c) near the horizontal charge domain wall. The case (b) is the same as the two-magnon process in the stripe phase of La2-xSrxNiO4+δ . It is supposed that in the charge domain wall the magnetic moment at the Cu2+ site is zero. For the case (a), six bonds shown by the double lines have increased exchange interaction energy. The total energy increases by about $`3J`$. In the cases (b) and (c) the energy increases at four bonds, and then the total energy increases by $`2J`$. Thus the two-magnon scattering energy near the charge domain wall is 2/3 times smaller than at the inside of the spin stripe. Thus the higher energy peak appears to result from the case (a) and the lower energy peak from the case (b) or (c).

The decrease of the energy of the lower energy peak at $`x0.15`$ suggests that the carriers are included in the spin stripes, although small area of spin stripes has no carrier as known from the existence of the higher energy peak at about 3200 cm-1 which is almost the same as or even higher than the two-magnon peak energy 3213 cm-1 in the undoped AF insulating LCO. It is consistent with the decreasing Cu-Cu interatomic distance in the CuO2 plane, as Sr concentration increases.

The onset temperature of the appearance of the split peaks is obtained from the differential spectra between two temperatures. They are plotted in Fig. 4. Those at $`x=0.2`$ and 0.25 should be distinguished from other high onset temperatures, because the small sign of the higher energy peak is noticeable at 300 K but it does not increase at low temperatures. For neutron scattering only elastic scattering data are plotted. The inelastic incommensurate magnetic peaks have been detected from $`x=0.06`$ to 0.25 at low temperatures, but the temperature dependence has not been reported . The temperatures determined by Raman scattering are much higher than those obtained by other experiments. The onset temperature decreases, as the response of the experimental probe becomes slow. These results indicate that the high frequency fluctuation of stripes starts at much higher temperatures than reported. The frequency of the fluctuation decreases as temperature decreases and the quasi-static component appears at the temperatures reported so far.

In conclusion, the present Raman scattering experiment disclosed the existence of the dynamical stripe structure in whole carrier concentration region from $`x=0.035`$ to 0.25. These onset temperature is about 300 K for $`x=0.035`$, 0.05, 0.06, 350 K for $`x=0.115`$, 100 K for $`x=0.1`$ and 0.15. These onset temperatures are much higher than those obtained from low frequency probes. At $`x=0.1`$ and $`x0.15`$ the carrier density in the large volume looks uniform, however it may be possible that the system is in the isotropic quantum liquid-crystal phase of charge strings . The dynamical fluctuation of stripes is expected to induce the metallic conductivity, but it is a continued problem whether dynamical stripes help the superconductivity or not.

Acknowledgments - The authors would like to thank K. Takenaka for the characterization of single crystals and M. Sato for the measurement of magnetization. This work was supported by CREST of the Japan Science and Technology Corporation.


text:
# Interactions and mergers at higher redshift

## 1. Lessons from the Nearby Universe

Most of our detailed knowledge of the effects interactions have on galaxies comes from studies grounded in the local universe. Well-studied samples of interacting galaxies such as the Toomre (1977) sequence extend only out to $`10,000`$ km/s, and so much spatial information is lost at redshifts greater than a few tenths that we can only rely on statistical studies of interactions at higher redshift. Dynamical models, which have illuminated many of the physical processes involved during galaxy collisions, rely heavily on galaxy models constructed to resemble nearby galaxies in terms of their structural and kinematic properties. Whether such models accurately portray interacting galaxies at high redshift is unclear – structural differences between high and low redshift galaxies may translate to substantial differences in the response to an interaction.

Nonetheless, these dynamical models allow us to view the basic evolution of a merging encounter (Figure 1, from Mihos & Hernquist 1996 \[MH96\]). Shortly after the initial passage, the galaxies become strongly distorted, with disk self-gravity amplifying the perturbation into strong spiral arms or central bars. As the galaxies separate, dynamical friction between the dark halos slows the galaxies on their orbit, causing them to fall back and merge together. The violent relaxation accompanying the merger destroys the disks and results in the creation of an elliptical-like remnant. During the interaction and ensuing merger, a large fraction of the galaxies’ ISM is compressed and driven inwards due largely to gravitational torques during the encounter. This compression and inflow presumably leads to strong starburst and/or AGN activity during the encounter.

The triggering of enhanced star formation by interactions is borne out in the observational record, but the effects, on average, are not extreme. Optically selected samples of interacting galaxies show star formation rates elevated only by factors of a few over normal galaxies, with inferred starburst mass fractions of only a few percent (e.g., Larson & Tinsley 1978; Kennicutt et al. 1987). This enhanced SFR is preferentially found in the nuclear regions of galaxies (Keel et al. 1985; Kennicutt et al. 1987), suggesting that nuclear inflow is the preferred method for triggering starbursts in interacting systems at low redshift. The most extreme examples of merger-induced activity are found in infrared samples; indeed, the most luminous starbursts in the local universe, ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) with luminosities $`>10^{12}`$ L$`_{}`$ all show evidence of being interacting systems in the final throes of merging (Sanders & Mirabel 1996). Yet it is important to realize that not all merging systems are ultraluminous – the link between mergers and luminous activity is not a simple one.

Given the wide range of star-forming properties exhibited by interacting systems, what determines how a galaxy responds to an interaction? Dynamical modeling has shown that stability of the host disk plays an essential role in the degree of star-forming response. Also shown in Figure 1 is the evolution of the gas in the prograde disk during the encounter. Two distinct phases of inflow are seen – one early, and a second late in the encounter when the galaxies ultimately merge. By decomposing the torques which drive this gas inwards, we see that they are largely gravitational in origin, and that the first phase of inflow is driven by gravitational instabilities in the host disk rather than from the passing companion. The rapid inflow shown in Figure 1 is the result of bars and strong spiral features in the host disk; in these features, the gas tends to slightly lead the stellar component (Barnes & Hernquist 1996 \[BH96\]), resulting in a strong gravitational torque which drives the gas inwards. In this model, the first phase of inflow is halted by the presence of a central bulge which stabilizes the inner disk; when the galaxies then ultimately merge this stability is overwhelmed by the merger process and a second phase of inflow commences. In models without a bulge, instabilities are so strong that the gas is driven to the nucleus in a single phase at early times, while the galaxies are still well-separated.

Because nuclear gas inflows are so intimately tied to instabilities in the galactic disk, star formation in interacting galaxies should depend strongly on the stability of disks against strong perturbations. This idea has been demonstrated in a number of theoretical studies. A variety of mechanisms have been shown to suppress instabilities and slow the inflow, including the presence of a dense central bulge (MH96), a lowered disk surface density relative to the dark matter content (Mihos et al. 1997), and retrograde encounter geometries, which reduce the spin-orbit coupling driving the instability (BH96). In these cases, early inflow is suppressed in favor of milder gas compressions (and, presumably, milder star formation enhancement) throughout the disk.

## 2. Going to Higher Redshift

Given that the response of a galaxy to an interaction is such a strong function of its internal structure, the question of how high redshift interactions behave becomes twofold:

* How do the properties of high redshift galaxies compare to those at $`z=0`$?
* How do these differences translate to differences in the collisional response?

If the structural and kinematic properties of high redshift galaxies were known, we could use simple analytic perturbation theory to begin to probe their response to interaction. Disk stability depends on a variety of properties, as illustrated by the Toomre $`Q`$ and $`X_2`$ parameters for local and global (bar) instabilities:

$$Q=\frac{\sigma _r\kappa }{3.36G\mathrm{\Sigma }}X_2=\frac{\kappa ^2R}{4\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$

where $`\sigma _r`$ is the radial velocity dispersion, $`\kappa `$ is the epicyclic frequency, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the disk surface density, and $`R`$ is disk radius. Stability is ensured in both cases if $`Q>1,X_2>1`$111In the case of $`X_2`$, this holds for a linearly rising rotation curve. If the rotation curve is flat, the criteria becomes $`X_2>3`$. (Toomre 1964, 1981). While the linear perturbation theory behind these criteria is surely inadequate to describe the self-gravitating response to a strong encounter, it at least provides a qualitative guide for galaxy behavior: disks with a rapidly rising rotation curve (due to a kinematically hot component such as a bulge) and/or a lower surface density should be preferentially more stable systems.

Unfortunately, the structural and dynamical properties of high redshift galaxies are still poorly constrained. One reasonable presumption is that high redshift galaxies are more gas rich. For example, in an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ cosmology, a spiral galaxy formed at $`z_f=3`$ with an exponentially decaying star formation rate with decay timescale $`\tau =5`$ Gyr has a gas fraction of $`f_g=0.1`$ at $`z=0`$ and $`f_g=0.5`$ at $`z=1`$. This heightened gas fraction may lead to a stronger disk-wide response to an interaction. Semianalytic models (e.g., Kauffmann 1996) have suggested that in addition to being gas rich, high redshift galaxies may lie closer to a threshold density – related to the Toomre $`Q`$ parameter – for triggering star formation (see Quirk 1972; Kennicutt 1989). If high redshift galaxies are gas-rich and prone to local stabilities, interactions may drive disk gas to collapse locally, igniting intense star formation throughout the disk rather than preferentially driving nuclear starbursts.

Indeed, we may be seeing such an effect in the very knotty appearance of high redshift galaxies. The fraction of peculiar and/or interacting system rises significantly at higher redshift (e.g., Glazebrook et al. 1995; Abraham et al. 1996; Ferguson et al. 2000), and these peculiarities are often manifested as multiple high surface brightness knots distributed throughout a common envelope. With large gas mass fractions, high redshift galaxies can respond quite strongly to even relatively mild interactions which, at low redshift, incite a much more subdued response.

What about instability-driven inflows and nuclear starbursts – are high-z disks any more or less stable than low-z disks? Unfortunately, a robust answer to this question requires detailed knowledge of the kinematics and structural properties of high-z disks, information which is not yet available. However, a number of clues hint at answers. First, out to redshifts of $`z1`$ there is evidence for only mild evolution in the structural properties of luminous disk galaxies (Simard et al. 1999; Vogt 2000). At higher redshifts ($`z>1`$), there is some observational evidence for a decrease in the bulge-to-disk ratio of galaxies (see, e.g., the compilation in Marleau & Simard 1998), although these studies have extremely complicated selection effects (Giavalisco et al. 1996). Nonetheless these studies are consistent with theoretical models which suggest that the bulges of luminous spirals are largely in place by a redshift of $`z1`$ (Kauffmann 1996; Baugh et al. 1996). At the highest redshift, little structural information can be gleaned, but evidence does exist that the galaxy populations are more compact than at low redshift (Lowenthal et al. 1997; Giavalisco et al. 1996).

So where does this leave us? Based on these arguments, a cartoon picture of interaction induced star formation might look something like this:

* $`z>12`$: At high redshift, galaxies are likely to be very unstable. Their large gas fractions leave them prone to violent, local instabilities, and if bulges are not yet in place, global instabilities as well. Even mild interactions may drive intense starbursts involving a substantial fraction of the gas content of galaxies, and interactions may be responsible for some of the most luminous SCUBA sources (Blain et al. 1999; Ivison et al. 2000).
* $`0.5<z<1`$: As disks build up their bulges, they begin to stabilize against violent, global instabilities. Yet their heightened gas content leaves them still subject to fairly strong disk starbursts, as evidenced by their knotty appearance. Nonetheless, the absolute star formation rates are not extreme; studies of galaxies at moderate redshifts indicate typical SFR enhancements of a factor of a few (Le Fevre et al. 2000), similar to that observed locally (Kennicutt et al. 1987).
* $`z<0.5`$: At lower redshift, as gas reservoirs are depleted, galaxies evolve toward more quiescent interactions. This is reflected in the modest SFR enhancements of low redshift interactions (Kennicutt et al. 1987), although the ULIRG samples demonstrate that if the encounter leads to a merger, intense starbursts ensue (Sanders & Mirabel 1996).

Having made this cartoon scenario, it is now time to rip it apart – unfortunately, the situation is nowhere near as simple as spelled out above. Stability is not simply a function of bulge-to-disk ratio, but depends rather on the mass distribution and kinematics of galaxies. Compare for example the models of MH96 with those of BH96, both of which used galaxies with B/D=1/3, but with differing bulge densities. In the MH96 models, the inflow response was rather insensitive to orbital geometry, as the presence or absence of a dense bulge dominated the dynamics of the inner few kpc of the galaxies. In contrast, the more diffuse bulges of BH96 provided comparatively less stability, so that the disks were more vulnerable to interaction driven instabilities. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that there is a very large scatter in star forming properties along the Hubble sequence and that star formation appears more closely tied to global gas content than bulge-to-disk ratio (Kennicutt 1998). Indeed the crucial information needed to understand the stability properties of high redshift disks is high quality, spatially resolved kinematic and structural data on galaxies as a function of redshift.

Other questions abound as well. How are bulge and disk formation linked? If bulges form first, and disks grow around them through gas accretion into the potential well, the disks should begin life globally stable, and move towards instability as the disk surface density increases. Also, what role does secular evolution play in the formation of bulges? Models of disk galaxy evolution have suggested that some bulges form as a result of instabilities in the stellar disk (e.g., Pfenniger & Norman 1990; Norman et al. 1996; Corteau et al. 1996). Under these models, disks form first, while bulges build up continuously over cosmic time, so that the disk galaxy population as a whole may gradually become more stable against strong inflow and starbursts. Unfortunately, the stabilizing properties of these “secular” bulges is unclear — growing from material originally in the disk, these bulges may have a faster rotation than true r1/4 bulges (Kormendy 1993) and may not provide strong dynamical stability.

## 3. Cluster Environments

The fact that our knowledge of interactions comes largely from the local universe also means that we are largely observing interactions between field galaxies, or galaxies within evolved clusters. When looking at galaxy clusters at higher redshift, we see clusters which are dynamically young, and galaxies which may be falling into clusters for the first time. A variety of dynamical mechanisms operate on galaxies within clusters: cluster tides act to strip the outer regions of cluster galaxies (e.g., Malamuth & Richstone 1984), and drive instabilities in infalling disks (Byrd & Valtonen 1990); collisions and mergers of galaxies in the high density environment drive evolution in the galaxy populations; high speed encounters between galaxies in clusters impulsively heat galaxies (e.g., Moore et al. 1996); and ram pressure stripping may compress and remove the ISM from infalling disks, first igniting a starburst, then rapidly shutting it down (Gunn & Gott 1972).

Before addressing how cluster interactions evolve in detail, we should ask, given the high velocity dispersions of clusters, so we expect any slow collisions or mergers at all? Certainly an individual galaxy traveling at high speed through the cluster potential will have little chance of a slow interaction with another cluster member. However, clusters grow hierarchically, by accreting small groups of galaxies, and interactions within the infalling groups may occur before the group is disrupted by the tidal field of the cluster. N-body simulations of the formation of rich clusters shows clearly that this process occurs (e.g., Dubinski 1998), and we see evidence for slow interactions in clusters at moderate redshift (Couch et al. 1998; van Dokkum et al. 2000). The rate of accretion onto clusters is a strong function of redshift and cosmology; simulations by Gighna et al. (1998) suggest that mergers within the cluster virial radius are largely shut off at redshifts $`z<0.5`$. Unlike studies of nearby clusters, at higher redshifts slow interactions may play a very important role in the evolution of cluster galaxies.

Interactions and mergers in the cluster environment should differ from field collisions in a number of ways. Of particular interest is the role of the cluster tides and hot ICM on the diffuse tidal material generated during a low speed collision. In the field, the overwhelming majority of the tidally liberated gas and stars in mergers remains bound to the remnant, falling back over several Gyr, and leaving a long-lived record of the interaction on the remnant (Hibbard & Mihos 1995). The continued reaccretion of gas by the remnant may result in the HI disks observed in several nearby field ellipticals, and perhaps may even result in the delayed formation of S0s (e.g., Schweizer 1998). In contrast, the cluster environment will rapidly remove this material from any merger remnant in the cluster, feeding both the hot ICM and the diffuse intracluster starlight (see Figure 2). In contrast to traditional picture of cluster tidal and ram pressure stripping – which affect primarily the outskirts of galaxies – cluster interactions and mergers act to accentuate the process by “dredging up” material from the inner regions of galaxies and moving it to large radius, where the cluster tides and (in the case of tidally liberated HI) hot gas can efficiently strip it. In the context of S0 formation models, delayed formation of S0s through reaccretion of tidal gas seems not to be a viable option in the cluster environment. However, the disk heating associated with galaxy interactions (e.g., Walker et al. 1996) could still lead to the formation of disky S0s in clusters.

Finally, the role of ram pressure stripping (RPS) in driving galaxy evolution remains unclear. Several authors have invoked RPS as a way of truncating star formation and forming E+A and S0 galaxies in clusters. However, RPS affects predominantly the outer HI disks of galaxies, and should leave the inner molecular gas intact. Indeed, recent RPS simulations by Quilis et al. (2000) only succeeded in removing the ISM of cluster galaxies in models where the gas distribution in the disk had a central hole; these authors posit that the central molecular gas would rapidly dissociate due to a triggered starburst, and be swept from the disk over very short timescales ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t10^7`$ years). However, from an observational standpoint, this appears not to be the case. The molecular gas in cluster galaxies seems to survive the cluster environment: Kenney & Young (1989) find that HI deficient Virgo spirals contain significant quantities of molecular gas, while Casoli et al. (1998) find no CO deficiency in cluster spirals. Interestingly, there is evidence that some poststarburst galaxies in clusters may still have appreciable obscured star formation (Smail et al. 1999), arguing that star formation in cluster spirals is extended in duration ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ several $`\times 10^810^9`$ years). Given the fact that cluster interactions and mergers occur, and that cluster galaxies can retain some fraction of their gas for an appreciable time, it seems premature to abandon collisional formation mechanisms for the formation of some cluster E+A and S0 galaxies at higher redshift.

This research is sponsored in part by an NSF Career Fellowship and the San Diego Supercomputing Center.

## References

Abraham, R.G. et al. 1996, MNRAS, 279, L47

Barnes, J.E. & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115 (BH96)

Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., & Frenk, C.S. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1361

Blain, A.W. et al. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 715

Byrd, G. & Valtonen, M. 1990, ApJ, 350, 89

Casoli, F. et al. 1998, A&AS, 331, 451

Corteau, S., de Jong, R.S., & Broeils, A.H. 1996, ApJ, 457, L73

Couch, W.J. et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, 188

Dubinski, J. 1998, ApJ, 502, 141

Ferguson, H.C., Dickison, M., & Williams, R. 2000, astro-ph/0004319

Geller, M.J., Diaferio, A., & Kurtz, M.J. 1999, ApJ, 517, L23

Giavalisco, M. et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 369

Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C.C., & Machetto, F.D. 1996, ApJ, 470, 189

Ghigna, S. et al. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 146

Glazebrook, K., Ellis, R., Santiago, B., & Griffiths, R. 1995, MNRAS, 275, L19

Gunn, J.E., & Gott, J.R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

Hibbard, J.E. & Mihos, J.C. 1995, AJ, 110, 140

Ivison, R.J. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 209

Kauffmann, G. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 487

Keel, W.C., Kennicutt, R.C., Hummel, E., & van der Hulst, J.M. 1985, AJ, 90, 708

Kenney, J.D.P., & Young, J.S. 1989, ApJ, 344, 171

Kennicutt, R.C. 1989, ApJ, 344, 685

Kennicutt, R.C. 1998, ARAA, 36, 189

Kennicutt, R.C. et al. 1987, AJ, 93, 1011

Kormendy, J. 1993, in IAU Symp. 153: Galactic Bulges, eds. H.Dejonghe & H.J. Habing (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 209

Larson, R.B., & Tinsley, B.M. 1978, ApJ, 219, 46

Le Fevre, O. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 565

Malumuth, E M. & Richstone, D.O. 1984, ApJ, 276, 413

Marleau, F.R., & Simard, L. 1998, ApJ, 507, 585

Mihos, J.C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641 (MH96)

Mihos, J.C., McGaugh, S.S., & de Blok, W.J.G. 1997, ApJ, 477, L79

Moore, B. et al. 1996, Nature, 379, 613

Norman, C.A., Sellwood, J.A., & Hasan, H. 1996, ApJ, 462, 114

Pfenniger, D., & Norman, C.A. 1990, ApJ, 363, 391

Quilis, V., Moore, B., & Bower, R. 2000, Science, 288, 1617

Quirk, W.J., 1972, ApJ, 176, L9

Sanders, D.B., & Mirabel, I.F. 1996, ARAA, 34, 749

Schweizer, F. 1998, in Galaxies: Interactions and Induced Star Formation, (Berlin: Springer), 105

Simard, L. et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, 563

Smail, I. et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 609

Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

Toomre, A. 1977, in The Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B. Tinsley & R. Larson (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press), 401

Toomre, A. 1981, in The Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed. S.M. Fall & D. Lynden-Bell (London: Cambridge Univ. Press), 111

van Dokkum, P. et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 95

Vogt, N.P. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. TBD, Gas and Galaxy Evolution, ed. J.E. Hibbard, M.P. Rupen, & J.H. van Gorkom (San Francisco: ASP)

Walker, I.R., Mihos, J.C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 460, 121


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Leptonic anomalous magnetic moments provide precision tests of the Standard Model and stringent constraints on potential “New Physics” effects. In the case of the electron, comparing the extraordinary measurements of $`a_e(g_e2)/2`$ at the University of Washington

$`a_e^{}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{0.001\hspace{0.17em}159\hspace{0.17em}652\hspace{0.17em}188\hspace{0.17em}4}(43),`$
$`a_{e^+}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{0.001\hspace{0.17em}159\hspace{0.17em}652\hspace{0.17em}187\hspace{0.17em}9}(43),`$ (1)
with the prediction

$`a_e^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{0.328\hspace{0.17em}478\hspace{0.17em}444\hspace{0.17em}00}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2+\mathrm{1.181\hspace{0.17em}234\hspace{0.17em}017}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^3`$ (2)
$`1.5098(384)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^4+1.66(3)\times 10^{12}\text{(hadronic \& electroweak loops)}`$
provides the best determination of the fine structure constant ,

$`\alpha ^1(a_e)=\mathrm{137.035\hspace{0.17em}999\hspace{0.17em}58}(52).`$ (3)
To test the Standard Model requires an alternative measurement of $`\alpha `$ with comparable accuracy. Unfortunately, the next best determination of $`\alpha `$, from the quantum Hall effect ,

$`\alpha ^1(qH)=\mathrm{137.036\hspace{0.17em}003\hspace{0.17em}00}(270),`$ (4)
has a much larger error. If one assumes that $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }a_e^{\mathrm{New}\mathrm{Physics}}\right|m_e^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale of “New Physics”, then the agreement between $`\alpha ^1(a_e)`$ and $`\alpha ^1(qH)`$ currently probes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{<}{}𝒪\left(\text{100 GeV}\right)`$. To access the much more interesting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪\left(\text{TeV}\right)`$ region would require an order of magnitude improvement in $`a_e^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ (technically feasible ), an improved calculation of the 4-loop QED contribution to $`a_e^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and a much better independent measurement of $`\alpha ^1`$ by almost two orders of magnitude. The last requirement, although difficult, is perhaps most likely to come  from combining the already precisely measured Rydberg constant with a much better determination of $`m_e`$.

We should note that for “New Physics” effects that are linear in the electron mass, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_e^{\mathrm{NP}}m_e/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, naively, one is currently probing a much more impressive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪\left(10^7\text{ GeV}\right)`$ and the possible advances described above would explore $`𝒪\left(10^9\text{ GeV}\right)`$! However, we subsequently argue that such linear “New Physics” effects are misleading or unlikely.

The measurement of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment has also been impressive. A series of experiments at CERN that ended in 1977 found

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}=\mathrm{116\hspace{0.17em}592\hspace{0.17em}300}(840)\times 10^{11}\text{(CERN 1977)}.`$ (5)
More recently, an ongoing experiment (E821) at Brookhaven National Laboratory has been running with much higher statistics and a very stable, well measured magnetic field in its storage ring. Based on data taken through 1998, combined with the earlier CERN result in (5), it found

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}=\mathrm{116\hspace{0.17em}592\hspace{0.17em}050}(460)\times 10^{11}\text{(CERN’77+BNL’98)}.`$ (6)
Ongoing analysis of E821’s 1999 data is expected to reduce the error in (6) to about $`\pm 140\times 10^{11}`$ before the end of this year (2000). The ultimate goal of the experiment is $`\pm 40\times 10^{11}`$, about a factor of 20 improvement relative to the classic CERN experiments.

Although $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is currently about 1000 times less precise than $`a_e^{\mathrm{exp}}`$, it is much more sensitive to hadronic and electroweak quantum loops as well as “New Physics” effects, since such contributions  are generally proportional to $`m_l^2`$. The $`m_\mu ^2/m_e^2\mathrm{40\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ enhancement more than compensates for the reduced experimental precision and makes $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ a more sensitive probe of short-distance phenomena. Indeed, as we later illustrate, a deviation in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ from the Standard Model prediction, $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, could quite naturally be interpreted as the appearance of “New Physics” such as supersymmetry, an exciting prospect. Of course, before making such an interpretation, one must have a reliable prediction for $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, an issue that we address in the next section.

Before leaving the comparison between $`a_e^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$, we should remark that for cases where “New Physics” contributions to $`a_l`$ scale as $`m_l/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, roughly equal sensitivity in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`10^7\text{ GeV}`$) currently exists for both types of measurements. However, as previously mentioned, such examples are in our view artificial.

## 2 Standard Model Prediction For $`a_\mu `$

### 2.1 QED Contribution

The QED contribution to $`a_\mu `$ has been computed through 5 loops

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{QED}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}+\mathrm{0.765\hspace{0.17em}857\hspace{0.17em}376}(27)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2+\mathrm{24.050\hspace{0.17em}508\hspace{0.17em}98}(44)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^3`$ (7)
$`+126.07(41)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^4+930(170)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^5.`$
Growing coefficients in the $`\alpha /\pi `$ expansion reflect the presence of large $`\mathrm{ln}m_\mu /m_e5.3`$ terms coming from electron loops. Employing the value of $`\alpha `$ from $`a_e`$ in eq. (3) leads to

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{QED}}=\mathrm{116\hspace{0.17em}584\hspace{0.17em}705.7}(2.9)\times 10^{11}.`$ (8)
The current uncertainty is well below the $`\pm 40\times 10^{11}`$ ultimate experimental error anticipated from E821 and should, therefore, play no essential role in the confrontation between theory and experiment.

### 2.2 Hadronic Loop Corrections

Starting at $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^2\right)`$, hadronic loop effects contribute to $`a_\mu `$ via vacuum polarization. A first principles QCD calculation of that effect does not exist. Fortunately, it is possible to evaluate the leading effect via the dispersion integral

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}(\text{vac. pol.})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle _{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}}dsK\left(s\right)\sigma ^0(s)_{e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons}},`$ (9)
where $`\sigma ^0(s)_{e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons}}`$ means QED vacuum polarization and other extraneous radiative corrections have been subtracted from measured cross sections, and

$`K(s)`$ $`=`$ $`x^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}\right)+(1+x)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}(1+x)x+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{1x}}x^2\mathrm{ln}x`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{14m_\mu ^2/s}}{1+\sqrt{14m_\mu ^2/s}}}.`$ (10)
Detailed studies of eq. (9) have been carried out by a number of authors . Here, we employ an analysis due to Davier and Höcker  which finds

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}(\text{vac. pol.})=6924(62)\times 10^{11}.`$ (11)
It used experimental $`e^+e^{}`$ data, hadronic tau decays, perturbative QCD and sum rules to minimize the uncertainty in that result. The contributions coming from various energy regions are illustrated in Table 1.

It is clear from Table 1 that the final result and its uncertainty are dominated by the low energy region. In fact, the $`\rho (770\text{ MeV})`$ resonance provides about 72% of the total hadronic contribution to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}(\text{vac. pol.})`$.

To reduce the uncertainty in the $`\rho `$ resonance region, Davier and Höcker employed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \nu _\tau \pi ^{}\pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_ee^{})`$ data to supplement $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cross-sections. In the $`I=1`$ channel they are related by isospin. Currently, tau decay data is experimentally more precise.

An issue in the use of tau decay data is the magnitude of isospin violating corrections due to QED and the $`m_dm_u`$ mass difference. A short-distance QED correction  of about $`2\%`$ was applied to the hadronic tau decay data and the $`m_{\pi ^\pm }m_{\pi ^0}`$ phase space difference is easy to account for. Other isospin violating differences are estimated to be about $`\pm 0.5\%`$ and included in the hadronic uncertainty.

Although the error assigned to the use of tau decay data appears reasonable, it has been questioned . More recent preliminary $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data from Novosibirsk  seems to suggest a potential 1.5 sigma difference with corrected hadronic tau decays which would seem to further reduce $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}`$. It is not clear whether the difference is due to additional isospin violating corrections to hadronic tau decays or radiative corrections to $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons data which must be accounted for in any precise comparison . If that difference is confirmed by further scrutiny, it could lead to a reduction in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}(\text{vac. pol.})`$. Resolution of this issue is extremely important. However, we note that a reduction in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}`$ would further increase the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ difference given in the abstract which is roughly 1 sigma at present.

Evaluation of the 3-loop hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to $`a_\mu `$ has been updated to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}(\text{vac. pol.})=100(6)\times 10^{11}.`$ (12)
Light-by-light hadronic diagrams have been evaluated using chiral perturbation theory. An average  of two recent studies  gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}(\text{light-by-light})=85(25)\times 10^{11}.`$ (13)
Adding the contributions in Eqs. (11), (12), and (13) leads to the total hadronic contribution

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}=6739(67)\times 10^{11}.`$ (14)
The uncertainty in that result represents the main theoretical error in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. It would be very valuable to supplement the above evaluation of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}`$ with lattice calculations (for the light-by-light contribution) and improved $`e^+e^{}`$ data. A goal of $`\pm 40\times 10^{11}`$ or smaller appears to be within reach and is well matched to the prospectus of experiment E821 at Brookhaven which aims for a similar level of accuracy.

### 2.3 Electroweak corrections

The one-loop electroweak radiative corrections to $`a_\mu `$ are predicted in the Standard Model to be

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{EW}}(1\mathrm{loop})={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{G}_\mu \mathrm{m}_\mu ^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}`$ (15)
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^2+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{M^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`195\times 10^{11}`$
where $`G_\mu =1.16637(1)\times 10^5`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup>, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W1M_W^2/M_Z^20.223`$. and $`M=M_W`$ or $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$. The original goal of E821 at Brookhaven was to measure that predicted effect at about the 5 sigma level (assuming further reduction in the hadronic uncertainty). Subsequently, it was pointed out  that two-loop electroweak contributions are relatively large due to the presence of $`\mathrm{ln}m_Z^2/m_\mu ^213.5`$ terms. A full two-loop calculation , including low-energy hadronic electroweak loops , found for $`m_H150`$ GeV

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{EW}}(\text{2 loop})=43(4)\times 10^{11},`$ (16)
where the quoted error is a conservative estimate of hadronic, Higgs, and higher-order corrections. Combining eqs. (15) and (16) gives the electroweak contribution

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{EW}}=152(4)\times 10^{11}.`$ (17)
Higher-order leading logs of the form $`(\alpha \mathrm{ln}m_Z^2/m_\mu ^2)^n`$, $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$ can be computed via renormalization group techniques . Due to cancellations, they give a relatively small $`+0.5\times 10^{11}`$ contribution to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{EW}}`$. It is safely included in the uncertainty of eq. (17).

### 2.4 Comparison with Experiment

The complete Standard Model prediction for $`a_\mu `$ is

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=a_\mu ^{\mathrm{QED}}+a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}+a_\mu ^{\mathrm{EW}}.`$ (18)
Combining eqs. (8), (14) and (17), one finds

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=\mathrm{116\hspace{0.17em}591\hspace{0.17em}597}(67)\times 10^{11}.`$ (19)
Comparing that prediction with the current experimental value in eq. (6) gives

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=453\pm 465\times 10^{11}.`$ (20)
That still leaves considerable room for contributions from “New Physics” beyond the Standard Model. At (one-sided ) 95% CL, one finds

$`310\times 10^{11}a_\mu (\mathrm{New}\mathrm{Physics})1216\times 10^{11}.`$ (21)
That constraint is already significant for theories which give additional negative contributions to $`a_\mu `$. Soon, its range will be reduced by a factor of 3 when the new E821 result is unveiled. Will a clear signal for “New Physics” emerge? As we show in the next section, realistic examples of “New Physics” could quite easily lead to $`a_\mu (\mathrm{New}\mathrm{Physics})𝒪\left(400500\times 10^{11}\right)`$ which would appear as about a 3 sigma effect in the near term and increase to a 6 or 7 sigma effect as E821 is completed and the hadronic uncertainties in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ are further reduced.

## 3 “New Physics” effects

In general, “New Physics” (i.e. beyond the Standard Model expectations) will contribute to $`a_\mu `$ via quantum loop effects. Indeed, whenever a new model or Standard Model extension is proposed, $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is employed to constrain or rule it out. Future improvements in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ will make such tests even more powerful. Alternatively, they may in fact uncover a significant deviation indicative of “New Physics”.

In this section we describe several generic examples of interesting “New Physics” probed by $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Rather than attempting to be inclusive, we concentrate on two general scenarios: 1) Supersymmetric loop effects which can be substantial and would be heralded as the most likely explanation if a deviation in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is observed and 2) Models of radiative muon mass generation which predict $`a_\mu (\mathrm{New}\mathrm{Physics})m_\mu ^2/M^2`$ where $`M`$ is the scale of “New Physics”. Other examples of potential “New Physics” contributions to $`a_\mu `$ are only briefly mentioned.

### 3.1 Supersymmetry

The supersymmetric contributions to $`a_\mu `$ stem from smuon–neutralino and sneutrino-chargino loops (see Fig. 1). They include 2 chargino and 4 neutralino states and could in principle entail slepton mixing and phases.

Early studies of the supersymmetric contributions $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ were carried out in the context of the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM) , in an $`E_6`$ string-inspired model , and in an extension of the MSSM with an additional singlet . An important observation was made in , namely that some of the contributions are enhanced by the ratio of Higgs’ vacuum expectation values, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which in some models is large (of order $`m_t/m_b40`$). The main contribution is generally due to the chargino-sneutrino diagram (Fig. 1a), which is enhanced by a Yukawa coupling in the muon-sneutrino-Higgsino vertex.

The leading effect is approximately given in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit by

$`\left|a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (M_Z)}{8\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}}\mathrm{tan}\beta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{m_\mu }}\right),`$ (22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ represents a typical SUSY loop mass. (Chargino- and sneutrino-masses are assumed degenerate in that expression .) Also, we have included a 7–8% suppression factor due to 2-loop EW effects . Numerically, one expects

$`\left|a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}\right|140\times 10^{11}\left({\displaystyle \frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{\stackrel{~}{m}}}\right)^2\mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$ (23)
where $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ generally has the same sign as the $`\mu `$-parameter in SUSY models.

Ref.  found that E821 will be a stringent test of a class of supergravity models. In the minimal SU(5) SUGRA model, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is severely constrained by proton decay lifetime and no significant $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is possible. However, extended models, notably SU(5)$`\times `$U(1) escape that bound and can induce large effects.

Supersymmetric effects in $`a_\mu `$ were subsequently computed in a variety of models. Constraints on MSSM were examined in . MSSM with large CP-violating phases was studied in . Ref.  examined models with a superlight gravitino. Detailed studies of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ were carried out in models constrained by various assumptions on the SUSY-breaking mechanism: gauge-mediated , SUGRA , and anomaly-mediated .

If we simply employ for illustration the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ approximate formula in eq. (23) and the current constraint in eq. (20), then we find (for positive sgn$`(\mu )`$)

$`\mathrm{tan}\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{100\text{ GeV}}{\stackrel{~}{m}}}\right)^23.2\pm 3.3.`$ (24)
For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$, the non-trivial bound $`\stackrel{~}{m}215`$ GeV (95% one-sided CL) follows. It is anticipated that the uncertainty in that constraint will soon be reduced to $`\pm 1`$ when the E821 result is announced. One can imagine a variety of outcomes and inferences. If the central value in (24) falls to near zero, then for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}500`$ GeV will result, a significant constraint. (Negative sgn$`\mu `$ models are already tightly constrained.) (Of course, in specific models with non-degenerate gauginos and sleptons, a more detailed study is required, but here we only want to illustrate roughly the scale of supersymmetry probed.) More interesting would be the case where the central value in eq. (24) remains fixed and the error is reduced to $`\pm 1`$, thereby signaling at a 3 sigma level the presence of “New Physics”. A natural SUSY interpretation would be that sgn$`\mu `$ is positive, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large $`𝒪\left(2040\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}250350`$ GeV or that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is moderate $`𝒪\left(510\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}125180`$ GeV. Either represents a very exciting prospect with important implications for collider phenomenology as well as other low energy experiments such as $`bs\gamma `$, $`\mu e\gamma `$ etc. Such scenarios are well within the mainstream of SUSY models. Hence, we anticipate a clear deviation in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ from Standard Model expectations to be heralded as strong evidence for supersymmetry.

### 3.2 Radiative Muon Mass Models

The relatively light masses of the muon and most other known fundametal fermions suggest that they may be radiatively loop induced by “New Physics” beyond the Standard Model. Although no compelling model exists, the concept is very attractive as a natural scenario for explaining the flavor mass hierarchy.

The basic idea is to start off with a naturally zero bare mass due to an underlying chiral symmetry. The symmetry is broken by quantum loop effects. They lead to a finite calculable mass which depends on the mass scales, coupling strengths and dynamics of the underlying symmetry breaking mechanism. One generically expects for the muon

$`m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}M_F,`$ (25)
where $`g`$ is some new interaction coupling strength and $`M_F1001000`$ GeV is a heavy scale associated with chiral symmetry breaking.

Whatever source of chiral symmetry breaking is responsible for generating the muon’s mass will also give rise to non-Standard Model contributions in $`a_\mu `$. Indeed, fermion masses and anomalous magnetic moments are intimately connected chiral symmetry breaking operators. Remarkably, in such radiative scenarios, the additional contribution to $`a_\mu `$ is quite generally given by

$`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})C{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{M^2}},C𝒪\left(1\right),`$ (26)
where $`M`$ is some physical high mass scale associated with the “New Physics” and $`C`$ is a model-dependent number roughly of order 1 (it can be larger). $`M`$ need not be the same scale as $`M_F`$ in eq. (25). In fact, $`M`$ is usually a somewhat larger gauge or scalar boson mass responsible for mediating the chiral symmetry breaking interaction. The result in eq. (26) is remarkably simple in that it is largely independent of coupling strengths, dynamics, etc. Furthermore, rather than exhibiting the usual $`g^2/16\pi ^2`$ loop suppression factor, $`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})`$ is related to $`m_\mu ^2/M^2`$ by a (model dependent) constant, $`C`$, roughly of $`𝒪\left(1\right)`$.

To demonstrate how the relationship in eq. (26) arises, we consider a simple toy model example  for muon mass generation which is graphically depicted in Fig. 2.

If the muon is massless in lowest order (i.e. no bare $`m_\mu ^0`$ is possible due to a symmetry), but couples to a heavy fermion $`F`$ via scalar, $`S`$, and pseudoscalar, $`P`$, bosons with couplings $`g`$ and $`g\gamma _5`$ respectively, then the diagrams give rise to

$`m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}M_F\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_S^2}{m_P^2}}\right).`$ (27)
Note that short-distance ultraviolet divergences have canceled and the induced mass vanishes in the chirally symmetric limit $`m_S=m_P`$.

If we attach a photon to the heavy internal fermion, $`F`$ (assumed to have charge $`1`$), then a new contribution to $`a_\mu `$ is also induced. For $`m_S`$, $`m_PM_F`$, one finds

$`a_\mu (\text{New Physics}){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu M_F}{m_P^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_P^2}{m_S^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S^2}{M_F^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_P^2}{M_F^2}}\right).`$ (28)
It also vanishes in the $`m_S=m_P`$ chiral symmetry limit. Interestingly, $`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})`$ exhibits a linear rather than quadratic dependence on $`m_\mu `$ at this point. Recall, that in section 1 we said that such a feature was misleading or artificial. Our subsequent discussion should clarify that point.

Although eqs. (27) and (28) both depend on unknown parameters such as $`g`$ and $`M_F`$, those quantities largely cancel when we combine both expressions. One finds

$`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})`$ $``$ $`C{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_P^2}},`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_P^2}{m_S^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S^2}{M_F^2}}/\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_S^2}{m_P^2}}\right],`$ (29)
where $`C`$ is very roughly $`𝒪\left(1\right)`$. It can actually span a broad range, depending on the $`m_S/m_P`$ ratio. A loop produced $`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})`$ effect that started out at $`𝒪\left(g^2/16\pi ^2\right)`$ has been promoted to $`𝒪\left(1\right)`$ by absorbing the couplings and $`M_F`$ factor into $`m_\mu `$. Along the way, the linear dependence on $`m_\mu `$ has been replaced by a more natural quadratic dependence.

A similar relationship, $`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})Cm_\mu ^2/M^2`$, has been found in more realistic multi-Higgs models , dynamical symmetry breaking scenarios such as extended technicolor , SUSY with soft masses , etc. It is also a natural expectation in composite models  or some models with large extra dimensions , although studies of such cases have not necessarily made that same connection. Basically, the requirement that $`m_\mu `$ remain relatively small in the presence of new chiral symmetry breaking interactions forces $`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})`$ to effectively exhibit a quadratic $`m_\mu ^2`$ dependence.

For models of the above variety, where $`\left|a_\mu (\text{New Physics})\right|m_\mu ^2/M^2`$, the current constraint in eq. (21) suggests (very roughly)

$`M\stackrel{>}{}𝒪\left(1\text{ TeV}\right),`$ (30)
and that level of sensitivity will expand to about 4 TeV as experiment E821 improves. Of course, a non-null finding of $`a_\mu (\text{New Physics})400\times 10^{11}`$ could be interpreted as pointing to a source of muon mass generation characterized by a mass scale of $`M12`$ TeV. Such a scale of “New Physics” could be quite natural in multi-Higgs models and soft SUSY mass scenarios. It would be somewhat low for dynamical symmetry breaking, compositeness and extra dimension models.

### 3.3 Other “New Physics” Examples

Many other examples of “New Physics” contributions to $`a_\mu `$ have been considered in the literature. General analysis in terms of effective interactions was presented in . Specific examples include effects due to anomalous $`W`$ boson magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole moments , muon compositeness , extra gauge  or Higgs  bosons, leptoquarks , bileptons , 2-loop pseudoscalar effects , compact extra dimensions  etc. If a non-Standard Model effect is uncovered, all will certainly be revisited.

## 4 Outlook

After many years of experimental and theoretical toil, studies of the muon anomalous magnetic moment are entering a new exciting phase. Experiment E821 at Brookhaven will soon confront theory at the $`\pm 155\times 10^{11}`$ level. Such sensitivity could start to unveil “New Physics” at the several sigma level without too much concern about theoretical hadronic uncertainties. Future analysis and runs would then confirm and refine the discovery. Theorists would have a field day. Alternatively, the experiment could confirm Standard Model expectations and tighten the bounds on “New Physics”, a more traditional role for $`a_\mu `$.

Stay tuned, the show is about to begin.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the DOE under grant number DE-AC02-98CH10886.