text:
# Untitled Document

Nature 410, 169–173 (2001)

A measurement of the cosmological mass density from clustering in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey

John A. Peacock1, Shaun Cole2, Peder Norberg2, Carlton M. Baugh2, Joss Bland-Hawthorn3, Terry Bridges3, Russell D. Cannon3, Matthew Colless4, Chris Collins5, Warrick Couch6, Gavin Dalton7, Kathryn Deeley6, Roberto De Propris6, Simon P. Driver8, George Efstathiou9, Richard S. Ellis9,10, Carlos S. Frenk2, Karl Glazebrook11, Carole Jackson4, Ofer Lahav9, Ian Lewis3, Stuart Lumsden12, Steve Maddox13, Will J. Percival1, Bruce A. Peterson4, Ian Price4, Will Sutherland7,1, Keith Taylor3,10

1Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK 2Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK 3Anglo-Australian Observatory, P.O.Box 296, Epping, NSW 2121, Australia 4Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics, The Australian National University, Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia 5Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Twelve Quays House, Birkenhead, L14 1LD, UK 6Department of Astrophysics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia 7Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Keble Road, Oxford OX3RH, UK 8School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, KY6 9SS, UK 9Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK 10Department of Astronomy, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 11Department of Physics & Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218-2686, USA 12Department of Physics, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK 13School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

The large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies is thought to arise from the gravitational instability of small fluctuations in the initial density field of the universe. A key test of this hypothesis is that superclusters of galaxies in the process of formation should generate systematic infall of other galaxies. This would be evident in the pattern of recessional velocities, causing an anisotropy in the inferred spatial clustering of galaxies. Here we report a precise measurement of this clustering, using the redshifts of more than 141,000 galaxies from the two-degree-field galaxy redshift survey. We determine the parameter $`\beta 𝛀^{\mathbf{0.6}}/𝐛=\mathbf{0.43}\pm \mathbf{0.07}`$, where $`𝛀`$ is the total mass-density parameter and $`𝐛`$ is a measure of the ‘bias’ of the luminous galaxies in the survey. Combined with the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, our results favour a low-density universe with $`𝛀\mathbf{0.3}`$.

Hubble showed in 1934 that the pattern of galaxies on the sky is non-random1, and successive years have seen ever more ambitious attempts to map the distribution of visible matter on cosmological scales. In order to obtain a three-dimensional picture, redshift surveys use Hubble’s law, $`v=H_0r`$, to infer approximate radial distances to a set of galaxies. The first major surveys of this sort took place in the early 1980s2,3,4,5, and were limited to a few thousand redshifts, owing to the limited speed of single-object spectroscopy. In the 1990s, redshift surveys were extended to much larger volumes by a ‘sparse sampling’ strategy6. These studies7,8 established that the universe was close to uniform on scales above about $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ ($`hH_0/100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$), but with a complex nonlinear supercluster network of walls, filaments and voids on smaller scales.

The origin of this large-scale structure is one of the key issues in cosmology. A plausible assumption is that structure grows via gravitational collapse of density fluctuations that are small at early times – but it is vital to test this idea. One important signature of gravitational instability is that collapsing structures should generate ‘peculiar’ velocities, $`\delta 𝐯`$, which distort the uniform Hubble expansion. We measure a redshift, $`z`$, which combines Hubble’s law with the radial component of these peculiar velocities: $`czH_0r+\delta 𝐯\widehat{𝐫}`$. The apparent density field seen in a redshift survey is thus not a true three-dimensional picture, but this can be turned to our advantage. The redshift-space distortions have a characteristic form, whose detection can both verify the general idea that structure forms by gravitational instability, and also measure the density of the universe. The present paper presents measurements of this effect, based on a new large redshift survey.

The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey New-generation large redshift surveys are made feasible by multiplexed fibre-optic spectroscopy, and the most advanced facility of this sort is the 2-degree Field, mounted at the prime focus of the Anglo-Australian Telescope9,10, which allows 400 spectra to be measured simultaneously. The 2dFGRS11,12 was designed to use this instrument to measure the redshifts of 250,000 galaxies, to a blue magnitude limit of $`b_\mathrm{J}=19.45`$ (corrected for extinction by dust in the Milky Way). The galaxies were selected from an updated version of the APM catalogue13, which is based on scans of photographic plates taken with the UK Schmidt Telescope. Survey observations began in 1998, and should finish at the end of 2001. At the time of writing, redshifts have been obtained for 141,402 galaxies. The sky coverage of the 2dFGRS consists of strips in the Northern and Southern Galactic Poles ($`75^{}\times 7.5^{}`$ in the NGP; $`75^{}\times 15^{}`$ in the SGP), plus a number of outlying random fields. Coverage is now sufficiently extensive that near-complete thin slices through the galaxy distribution may be constructed, as shown in Fig. 1. This image illustrates well the median depth of the survey: approximately $`z=0.11`$. Beyond this point, the survey is sensitive only to the more luminous galaxies, and the comoving density falls rapidly. Nevertheless, the survey volume (including other regions not shown) is more than adequate for an accurate determination of the statistical properties of galaxy clustering.

Figure 1 The distribution of galaxies in part of the 2dFGRS, drawn from a total of 141,402 galaxies: the slices are $`4^{}`$ thick, centred at declination $`2.5^{}`$ in the NGP (left) and $`27.5^{}`$ in the SGP (right). Not all 2dF fields within the slice have been observed at this stage, hence there are weak variations of the density of sampling as a function of right ascension. To minimise such features, the slice thickness increases to $`7.5^{}`$ between right ascension $`13.1^h`$ and $`13.4^h`$. This image reveals a wealth of detail, including linear supercluster features, often nearly perpendicular to the line of sight. The interesting question to settle statistically is whether such transverse features have been enhanced by infall velocities.

Figure 2 The redshift-space correlation function for the 2dFGRS, $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$, plotted as a function of transverse ($`\sigma `$) and radial ($`\pi `$) pair separation. The function was estimated by counting pairs in boxes of side $`0.2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (assuming an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ geometry), and then smoothing with a Gaussian of rms width $`0.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. To illustrate deviations from circular symmetry, the data from the first quadrant are repeated with reflection in both axes. This plot clearly displays redshift distortions, with ‘fingers of God’ elongations at small scales and the coherent Kaiser flattening at large radii. The overplotted contours show model predictions with flattening parameter $`\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^{0.6}/b=0.4`$ and a pairwise dispersion of $`\sigma _p=400\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Contours are plotted at $`\xi =10,5,2,1,0.5,0.2,0.1`$. The model predictions assume that the redshift-space power spectrum ($`P_s`$) may be expressed as a product of the linear Kaiser distortion and a radial convolution14: $`P_s(𝐤)=P_r(k)(1+\beta \mu ^2)^2(1+k^2\sigma _p^2\mu ^2/2H_0^2)^1`$, where $`\mu =\widehat{𝐤}\widehat{𝐫}`$, and $`\sigma _p`$ is the rms pairwise dispersion of the random component of the galaxy velocity field. This model gives a very accurate fit to exact nonlinear simulations15. For the real-space power spectrum, $`P_r(k)`$, we take the estimate obtained by deprojecting the angular clustering in the APM survey13,16. This agrees very well with estimates that can be made directly from the 2dFGRS, as will be discussed elsewhere. We use this model only to estimate the scale dependence of the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio (although Fig. 2 shows that it does match the full $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$ data very well).

Galaxy correlations in redshift space The simplest statistical indicator of peculiar velocities in cosmological structure is the two-point correlation function, $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$. This measures the excess probability over random of finding a pair of galaxies with a transverse separation $`\sigma `$ and a line-of-sight separation $`\pi `$. In an isotropic universe, this function should be independent of direction, but this is not true in redshift space. Transverse separations are true measures of distance, but apparent radial separations are distorted by peculiar velocities. This redshift-space anisotropy should cause two characteristic effects, operating respectively on small and large scales. On small scales, random orbital velocities within galaxy groups cause an apparent radial smearing, known as ‘fingers of God’. Of greater interest is the large-scale effect; if cosmological structure forms via gravitational collapse, there should exist coherent infall velocities, and the effect of these is to cause an apparent flattening of structures along the line of sight. The general existence of redshift-space distortions was recognized in the first redshift surveys2,3,4, but the first comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon was performed by Kaiser17, who showed that they could be used to measure the quantity

$$\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^{0.6}/b,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the cosmological mass density parameter and $`b`$ is the bias parameter that relates the relative density fluctuations of the galaxies and of the total mass:

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }|_{\mathrm{galaxies}}=b\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }|_{\mathrm{mass}}.$$

The presence of bias is an inevitable consequence of the nonlinear nature of galaxy formation, and the relation between mass and galaxy tracers is complex18,19,20. However, there are good theoretical reasons to expect that $`b`$ can indeed be treated as a constant on large scales, where the density fluctuations are linear21,22. Redshift-space distortions have thus been seen as an important method for weighing the universe23,24. To date, a number of papers have made significant detections of the Kaiser effect18,25,26, but the 2dFGRS is the first survey that is large enough for the effect to be studied in detail.

In order to estimate $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$, we follow standard methods27,28 that compare the observed count of galaxy pairs with the count estimated using a random distribution that obeys the same selection effects in redshift and sky position. These selection effects are well defined, but complex: the survey is tessellated into a pattern of ‘sectors’ defined by the overlap of the $`2^{}`$ diameter survey tiles, whose positions are chosen adaptively with the aim of being able to place a fibre on $`>95`$% of the galaxies in the input catalogue. At the present intermediate stage of the survey, many tiles remain to be observed, and some regions of the survey presently contain redshifts for $`<50`$% of the galaxies. Furthermore, the spectroscopic success rate (redshifts per allocated fibre) is $`>95`$% in good conditions, but can fall to $`80`$% in marginal weather. We have implemented a number of independent algorithms for estimating the resulting survey selection effects, and are confident that we can measure the galaxy correlations robustly out to a separation of $`25h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. For example, the redshift distribution in sectors with low spectroscopic completeness is biased to low redshifts, but it makes no significant difference whether or not we correct for this, or indeed whether the low-completeness regions are simply excised. In addition to allowing for survey completeness, it is necessary to give higher weight to regions with a low sampling density, to achieve the optimum balance between cosmic variance and shot noise6. In practice, we have chosen to truncate the analysis at a maximum redshift of $`z=0.25`$. Within this volume, the exact optimum weight per galaxy varies very nearly as the reciprocal of the number density, so that all volume elements receive approximately equal weight. The redshift-space correlation function for the 2dFGRS computed in this way is shown in Fig. 2. The correlation-function results display very clearly the two signatures of redshift-space distortions discussed above. The ‘fingers of God’ from small-scale random velocities are very clear, as indeed has been the case from the first redshift surveys3. However, this is the first time that the detailed signature of large-scale flattening from coherent infall has been seen with high signal-to-noise.

Quantifying redshift-space distortions The large-scale flattening of the correlation function may be quantified by measuring the quadrupole moment of $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$ as a function of radius. A negative quadrupole moment implies flattening, whereas the finger-of-God distortion tends to yield a positive quadrupole moment. Fig. 3 shows that the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio is positive on small scales, but that it falls with separation, becoming progressively more negative up to the largest separations at which it can be reliably measured. This arises partly because the underlying power spectrum is not a simple power law function of scale, so that the peculiar velocities have a different effect at different radii. By integrating over the correlation function, it is possible to construct quantities in which this effect is eliminated. We shall not do this here, firstly because it seems desirable to keep the initial analysis as direct as possible. More importantly, finger-of-God smearing is a significant correction that will also cause the flattening to depend on radius. We therefore have to fit the data with a two-parameter model, described in the caption to Fig. 2. The parameters are $`\beta `$ and a measure of the size of the random dispersion in the relative velocities of galaxies, $`\sigma _p`$. In practice, $`\sigma _p`$ plays the role of an empirical fitting parameter to describe the scale on which the distortions approach the linear-theory predictions. It therefore also incorporates other possible effects, such as a scale dependence of bias.

Figure 3 The flattening of the redshift-space correlation function is quantified by the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio, $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$. This quantity is positive where fingers-of-God distortion dominates, and is negative where coherent infall dominates. The solid lines show model predictions for $`\beta =0.3`$ 0.4 and 0.5, with a pairwise velocity dispersion of $`\sigma _p=400\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (solid lines), plus $`\beta =0.4`$ with $`\sigma _p=300`$ and $`500\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (dashed lines). The $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ ratio becomes more negative as $`\beta `$ increases and as $`\sigma _p`$ decreases. At large radii, the effects of fingers-of-God become relatively small, and values of $`\beta 0.4`$ are clearly appropriate. The multipole moments of the correlation function are defined as $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}(r)(2\mathrm{}+1)/2_1^1\xi (\sigma =r\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\pi =r\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ In linear theory, the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio is given29 by $`\xi _2/\xi _0=f(n)(4\beta /3+4\beta ^2/7)/(1+2\beta /3+\beta ^2/5).`$ Here $`f(n)=(3+n)/n`$, where $`n`$ is the power-spectrum index of the density fluctuations: $`\xi r^{(3+n)}`$. In practice, nonlinear effects mean that this ratio is a function of scale. We model this by using the real-space correlation function estimated from the APM survey13,16, plus the model for nonlinear finger-of-God smearing given in the caption to Fig. 2.

Figure 4 Likelihood contours for $`\beta `$ and the fingers-of-God smearing parameter $`\sigma _p`$, based on the data in Fig. 3 (considering $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}<r<25h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). These are plotted at the usual positions for one-parameter confidence of 68% (shaded region), and two-parameter confidence of 68%, 95% and 99% (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=1,2.3,6.0,9.2`$). The maximum-likelihood solution is $`\beta =0.43`$ and $`\sigma _p=385\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The value for the large-scale pairwise dispersion is in reasonable agreement with previously suggested values30; however, for the present analysis $`\sigma _p`$ is an uninteresting parameter. If we marginalize over $`\sigma _p`$ (i.e. integrate over $`\sigma _p`$, treating the likelihood as a probability distribution), the final estimate of $`\beta `$ and its rms uncertainty is $`\beta =0.43\pm 0.07`$. We believe that this result is robust, in the sense that systematic errors in the modelling are smaller than the random errors. We have tried assuming that the power spectrum for $`k<0.1h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ has the shape of a $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, rather than the APM measurement; this has a very small effect. A more serious issue is whether the pairwise velocity dispersion of galaxies may depend strongly on separation, as is found for mass particles in numerical simulations31. Assuming that the pairwise velocity dispersion $`\sigma _p`$ rises to twice its large-scale value below $`1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ reduces the best-fit $`\beta `$ by 0.04. This correction is small because our analysis excludes the nonlinear data at $`r<8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$.

The results for the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio are shown in Fig. 3, which shows the average of the estimates for the NGP and SGP slices. The difference between the NGP and SGP allows an estimate of the errors to be made: these slices are independent samples for the present analysis of clustering on relatively small scales. For model fitting, it is necessary to know the correlation between the values at different $`r`$. A simple way of addressing this is to determine the effective number of degrees of freedom from the value of $`\chi ^2`$ for the best-fitting model. A more sophisticated approach is to generate realizations of $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$, and construct the required covariance matrix directly. One way of achieving this is to analyze large numbers of mock surveys drawn from numerical simulations32. A more convenient method is to generate direct realizations of the redshift-space power spectrum, using Gaussian fluctuations on large scales, but allowing for enhanced variance in power on non-linear scales33,34,35. In practice, the likelihood contours resulting from this approach agree well with those from the simple approach, and we are confident that the resulting errors on $`\beta `$ are realistic. These contours are shown in Fig. 4, and show that there is a degree of correlation between the preferred values of $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma _p`$, as expected. For present purposes, $`\sigma _p`$ is an uninteresting parameter, so we marginalize over it to obtain the following estimate of $`\beta `$ and its rms uncertainty:

$$\beta =0.43\pm 0.07.$$

This result is the first precise determination of $`\beta `$ from redshift-space distortions. The best previous studies18,25,26 have achieved no more than a detection of the effect at the $`3\sigma `$ level. Before discussing the implications of our result, we should therefore consider some possible small systematic corrections that have been unimportant in earlier work. First, the Kaiser analysis applies only in the small-angle approximation, and in principle corrections might be needed for wide-angle surveys such as ours36. However, with our weighting scheme, the mean angular separation of pairs with spatial separations $`<30h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is only $`2.5^{}`$, so this is not a concern. There is potentially a significant correction for luminosity effects. The optimal weighting means that our mean luminosity is high: it is approximately $`M_{b_\mathrm{J}}=20.3`$, or 1.9 times the characteristic luminosity, $`L^{}`$, of the overall galaxy population37. A number of studies38 have suggested that the strength of galaxy clustering increases with luminosity, with an effective bias that can be fitted by $`b/b^{}=0.7+0.3(L/L^{})`$. This effect has been controversial39, but the 2dFGRS dataset favours a similar luminosity dependence, as will be described elsewhere. We therefore expect that $`\beta `$ for $`L^{}`$ galaxies will exceed our directly measured figure. Applying a correction using the given formula for $`b(L)`$, we deduce

$$\beta (L=L^{})=0.54\pm 0.09.$$

Finally, the 2dFGRS has a median redshift of 0.11. With weighting, the mean redshift in the present analysis is $`\overline{z}=0.17`$, and our measurement should be interpreted as $`\beta `$ at this epoch. The extrapolation to $`z=0`$ is model-dependent, but probably does not introduce a significant change40.

Figure 5 The dimensionless matter power spectrum at zero redshift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)`$, as predicted from the allowed range of models that fit the microwave-background anisotropy data, plus the assumption that $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1\pm 10`$%. The solid line shows the best-fit model41 (power-spectrum index $`n=1.01`$, and density parameters in baryons, CDM, and vacuum of respectively 0.065, 0.285, 0.760). The effects of nonlinear evolution have been included42. The shaded band shows the $`1\sigma `$ variation around this model allowed by the CMB data. The solid points are the real-space power spectrum measured for APM galaxies. The clear conclusion is that APM galaxies are consistent with being essentially unbiased tracers of the mass on large scales. Since the CMB data also constrain the range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, this allows $`\beta `$ to be predicted.

Consistency with microwave-background anisotropies Our results are significant in a number of ways. First, we have verified in some detail that the pattern of redshift-space distortions associated with the gravitationally-driven growth of clustering exists as predicted. Although gravitational instability is well established as the standard model for the formation of large-scale structure, it is an important landmark to have verified such a characteristic feature of the theory. Extracting the full cosmological implications of our measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.6}/b`$ requires us to know the bias parameter in order to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For example, our measurement implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.36\pm 0.10`$ if $`L^{}`$ galaxies are unbiased, but it is difficult to justify such an assumption. In principle, the details of the clustering pattern in the nonlinear regime allow the $`\mathrm{\Omega }b`$ degeneracy to be broken, yielding a direct determination of the degree of bias43. We expect to pursue this approach using the 2dFGRS. For the present, however, it is interesting to use an independent approach. Observations of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) can in principle measure almost all the cosmological parameters, and current small-scale anisotropy results are starting to tighten the constraints. In a recent analysis41, best-fitting values for the densities in collisionless matter ($`c`$), baryons ($`b`$), and vacuum ($`v`$) have been obtained: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c+\mathrm{\Omega }_b+\mathrm{\Omega }_v=1.11\pm 0.07`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_ch^2=0.14\pm 0.06`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.032\pm 0.005`$, together with a power-spectrum index $`n=1.01\pm 0.09`$. Our result for $`\beta `$ gives an independent test of this picture, as follows.

The only parameter left undetermined by the CMB data is the Hubble constant, $`h`$. Recent work44,45 indicates that this is now determined to an rms accuracy of 10%, and we adopt a central value of $`h=0.70`$. This completes the cosmological model, requiring a total matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_c+\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.35\pm 0.14`$. It is then possible to use the parameter limits from the CMB to predict a conservative range for the mass power spectrum at $`z=0`$, which is shown in Fig. 5. A remarkable feature of this plot is that the mass power spectrum appears to be in good agreement with the clustering observed in the APM survey. For each model allowed by the CMB, we can predict both $`b`$ (from the ratio of galaxy and mass spectra) and also $`\beta `$ (since a given CMB model specifies $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). In practice, we determine $`b`$ by determining the mean ratio of power spectra over the range $`0.02<k<0.1h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, where the APM measurement is robust and where scale-dependent bias and nonlinearities should be unimportant. Considering the allowed range of models, we then obtain the prediction $`\beta _{\mathrm{CMB}+\mathrm{APM}}=0.57\pm 0.17`$. A flux-limited survey such as the APM will have a mean luminosity close to $`L^{}`$, so the appropriate comparison is with the 2dFGRS corrected figure of $`\beta =0.54\pm 0.09`$ for $`L^{}`$ galaxies. These numbers are in very close agreement.

This analysis of galaxy clustering in the 2dFGRS thus gives strong support to the simplest picture of cosmological structure formation, in which the primary mechanism is gravitational instability in a sea of collisionless dark matter. We have shown that the fluctuations seen in the CMB (which measure structure at a redshift $`z1100`$) can be extrapolated to the present to predict the peculiar velocities that distort redshift-space clustering. The agreement between this extrapolation and direct observations from the 2dFGRS is a remarkable and highly non-trivial test of the basic model. The precision of data in both areas should improve rapidly, and the use of $`\beta `$ as a meeting ground between studies of the CMB and large-scale structure will undoubtedly lead to more demanding tests of the theory in years to come. For the present, we can say that there is complete consistency between clustering in the 2dFGRS and the emerging ‘standard model’ of cosmology: a spatially flat, vacuum-dominated universe with density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.3`$.

1Hubble E.P., The Distribution of Extra-Galactic Nebulae, Astrophys. J., 79, 8–76 (1934)

2Kirshner R.P., Oemler A., Schechter P.L., Shectman S.A., A million cubic megaparsec void in Bootes, Astrophys. J., 248, L57–L60 (1981)

3Davis M., Peebles, P.J.E., A survey of galaxy redshifts. V - The two-point position and velocity correlations, Astrophys. J., 267, 465–482 (1983)

4Bean A.J., Ellis R.S., Shanks T., Efstathiou G., Peterson B.A., A complete galaxy redshift sample. I - The peculiar velocities between galaxy pairs and the mean mass density of the Universe, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 205, 605–624 (1983)

5de Lapparent V. Geller M.J., Huchra J.P., A slice of the universe, Astrophys. J., 302, L1–L5 (1986)

6Kaiser N., A sparse-sampling strategy for the estimation of large-scale clustering from redshift surveys, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 219, 785–790 (1986)

7Saunders W., Frenk C., Rowan-Robinson M., Efstathiou G., Lawrence A., Kaiser N., Ellis R., Crawford J., Xia X.-Y., Parry I., The density field of the local universe, Nature, 349, 32–38 (1991)

8Shectman S.A., Landy S.D., Oemler A., Tucker D.L., Lin H., Kirshner R.P., Schechter P.L., The Las Campanas Redshift Survey, Astrophys. J., 470, 172–188 (1996)

9For details of the 2dF instrument, see http://www.aao.gov.au/2df/

10Taylor K., Cannon R.D., Watson F.G., Anglo-Australian Telescope’s 2dF Facility, Proc. SPIE, 2871, 145–149 (1997)

11Colless M., First results from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 357, 105–116 (1999)

12For details of the current status of the 2dFGRS, see http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/

13Maddox S. Efstathiou G., Sutherland W.J., The APM Galaxy Survey - III. an analysis of systematic errors in the angular correlation function and cosmological implications, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 283, 1227–1263 (1996)

14Ballinger W.E., Peacock J.A., Heavens A.F., Measuring the cosmological constant with redshift surveys, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 282, 877–888 (1996)

15Hatton S., Cole S., Modelling the redshift-space distortion of galaxy clustering, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 296, 10–20 (1998)

16Baugh C.M., Efstathiou G., The three-dimensional power spectrum measured from the APM Galaxy Survey-2. Use of the two-dimensional power spectrum, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 267, 323–332 (1994)

17Kaiser N., Clustering in real space and in redshift space, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 227, 1–21 (1987)

18Hamilton A.J.S., Tegmark M., Padmanabhan N., 2000, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 317, L23–L27

19Pen U.-L., Reconstructing Nonlinear Stochastic Bias from Velocity Space Distortions, Astrophys. J., 504, 601–606, (1998)

20Dekel A., Lahav O., Stochastic Nonlinear Galaxy Biasing, Astrophys. J., 520, 24–34, (1999)

21Benson A.J., Cole S., Frenk C.S., Baugh C.M., Lacey C.G., The nature of galaxy bias and clustering, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 311, 793–808 (2000)

22Kauffmann G., Nusser A., Steinmetz M., Galaxy formation and large-scale bias, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 286, 795–811 (1997)

23Strauss M.A., Willick J.A., The density and peculiar velocity fields of nearby galaxies, Phys. Reports, 261, 271–431 (1995)

24Hamilton A.J.S., Linear Redshift Distortions: a Review, in The Evolving Universe, Kluwer Astrophysics and space science library, 231, 185 (1998) (astro-ph/9708102)

25Taylor A.N., Ballinger W.E., Heavens A.F., Tadros H., Application of Data Compression Methods to the Redshift-space distortions of the PSCz galaxy catalogue, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. in press (2000) (astro-ph/0007048)

26Outram P.J., Hoyle F., Shanks T., The Durham/UKST Galaxy Redshift Survey - VII. Redshift-space distortions in the power spectrum, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. in press (2000) (astro-ph/0009387)

27Hamilton A.J.S., Toward Better Ways to Measure the Galaxy Correlation Function, Astrophys. J., 417, 19–35

28Landy S.D., Szalay A.S., Bias and variance of angular correlation functions, Astrophys. J., 412, 64–71

29Hamilton A.J.S., Measuring Omega and the real correlation function from the redshift correlation function, Astrophys. J., 385, L5–L8 (1992)

30Jing Y.P., Mo H.J., Börner G., Spatial Correlation Function and Pairwise Velocity Dispersion of Galaxies: Cold Dark Matter Models versus the Las Campanas Survey, Astrophys. J., 494, 1–12 (1998)

31Jenkins A.R. et al., Evolution of Structure in Cold Dark Matter Universes, Astrophys. J., 499, 20–40 (1998)

32Cole S., Hatton S., Weinberg D.H., Frenk C.S., Mock 2dF and SDSS galaxy redshift surveys, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 300, 945–966 (1998)

33Feldman H.A., Kaiser N., Peacock J.A., Power-spectrum analysis of three-dimensional redshift surveys, Astrophys. J., 426, 23–37 (1994)

34Meiksin A.A., White M., The growth of correlations in the matter power spectrum, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 308, 1179–1184 (1999)

35Scoccimarro R., Zaldarriaga M., Hui L., Power Spectrum Correlations Induced by Nonlinear Clustering, Astrophys. J., 527, 1–15 (1999)

36Szalay A.S., Matsubara T., Landy S.D., Redshift-Space Distortions of the Correlation Function in Wide-Angle Galaxy Surveys, Astrophys. J., 498, L1–L4 (1998)

37Folkes S.J., et al., The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: spectral types and luminosity functions, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 308, 459–472 (1999)

38Benoist C., Maurogordato S., da Costa L.N., Cappi A., Schaeffer R., Biasing in the Galaxy Distribution, Astrophys. J., 472, 452–459 (1996)

39Loveday J., Maddox S.J., Efstathiou G., Peterson B.A., The Stromlo-APM redshift survey. 2: Variation of galaxy clustering with morphology and luminosity, Astrophys. J., 442, 457–468 (1995)

40Carlberg R.G., Yee H.K.C., Morris S.L., Lin H., Hall P.B., Patton D., Sawicki M., Shepherd C.W., Galaxy Clustering Evolution in the CNOC2 High-Luminosity Sample, Astrophys. J., 542, 57–67 (2000)

41Jaffe A., et al., Cosmology from Maxima-1, Boomerang and COBE/DMR CMB Observations, astro-ph/0007333 (2000)

42Peacock J.A., Dodds S.J., Non-linear evolution of cosmological power spectra, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 280, L19–L26 (1996)

43Verde L., Heavens A.F., Matarrese S., Moscardini L., Large-scale bias in the Universe - II. Redshift-space bispectrum, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 300, 747–756 (1998)

44Mould J.R. et al., The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. XXVIII. Combining the Constraints on the Hubble Constant, Astrophys. J., 529, 786–794 (2000)

45Freedman W.L. et al., Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant, astro-ph/0012376 (2000)

acknowledgements. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey was made possible through the dedicated efforts of the staff of the Anglo-Australian Observatory, both in creating the 2dF instrument and in supporting it on the telescope.


format: text

text:
# An Atom Faucet

## 1 Introduction

Experiments on trapped cold atom clouds require in most cases high particle numbers and long trapping lifetimes. In order to restrict the lifetime limiting collisions with background gas, an ultra-high vacuum (UHV) environment is necessary. In turn, at these pressures a purely background vapour charged magneto-optical trap (VCMOT) is limited to very small atom numbers and long loading times and thus needs to be loaded by an additional jet of cold atoms.

As to the simplest possible cold atom sources, a laser-free velocity filter Ghaffari99  is elegant, but its maximum flux can be greatly improved upon by adding a laser cooling stage.

The Zeeman slower is a widely used technique especially for light and thus thermally non capturable fast species. For heavier elements, one can accumulate atoms into a MOT in a vapour cell, with various strategies for subsequent transfer to a recapture MOT in the UHV cell. These strategies can be categorized into either a pulsed Weyers97 ; Arlt98  or continuous transfer scheme. The latter category involves either a moving molasses Riis00  or a ’leaking MOT’ scheme Lu96 ; Dieckmann98 .

This paper presents the construction and numerical modeling of a cold atom jet whose flux is continuous, adjustable in a given direction, and velocity tunable. The device we present is based on an ordinary VCMOT. It captures and cools atoms from the low velocity part of the room temperature Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution in a high pressure cell of $`P10^8`$ mbar. From the center of this source MOT, an additional pushing beam of $`1`$ mm spot size extracts a continuous jet that is slow enough to be recaptured in a MOT in the UHV region. The jet passes through a tube that maintains the pressure differential between the two cells, and the atom number transfer between the two MOTs is found to be typically $`50\%`$ and as high as $`60\%`$ efficient.

The Atom Faucet is closely related to the LVIS Lu96  and the 2D+MOT Dieckmann98 . The common concept which relates them in the ’leaking MOT’ family is the creation of a thin extraction column in the center of the MOT where the radiation pressure is imbalanced and through which leaks a continuous jet of cold atoms. Operation in a continuous mode maximizes the mean flux up to a value ideally equal to the source trap capture rate. Since a leaking trap operates at a low trap density, once captured, an atom has much higher probability to leave the trap via the jet rather than undergoing a collision that expels it.

The LVIS and 2D+MOT place a mirror inside the vacuum for retroreflection of one of the MOT beams. By piercing a hole in this mirror, one creates a hollow retroreflection beam, and the jet exits through the hole. By contrast, the Atom Faucet requires no optical parts inside the vacuum system. Here, we superimpose an additional collimated ’pushing beam’ that pierces the extraction column through the MOT.

In these complex magneto-optical arrangements the behavior of the system is no longer intuitively obvious. On its way into the jet, a thermal atom undergoes subsequent phases of strong radiation pressure (capture from vapour), overdamped guidance to the magnetic field minimum (MOT molasses) and 1D strong radiation pressure with transverse 2D molasses cooling (extraction process). Theoretical estimates for near-resonant atom traps concentrate either on the capture Lindquist92  or on the cooling Lett89 . We develop a simple and heuristic generalization of the semiclassical radiation pressure expression for the case of multiple saturating laser fields and inhomogeneous magnetic field. The new approach of integrating the atomic trajectory through both capture and cooling mechanisms (neglecting optical pumping and particle interaction) reproduces the parameter dependences of the Atom Faucet. The trajectories indicate the physical mechanisms of the 7-beam-interplay. However, the simplifications made to the Rubidium level scheme lead to an overestimation of the absolute value of the radiation pressure force and hence an overestimate for the capture velocity of the MOT.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we give details on the experimental realization of the Atom Faucet. In section 3 we present the numerical model. Section 4 discusses the parameter dependences of the device in the experiment and in the simulations and finally in section 5 we compare this scheme to other vapour cell cold atom sources.

## 2 Experimental Realisation

The vacuum system consists of two glass cells separated vertically by $`67`$ cm with a MOT aligned at the center of each cell. Using an appropriate pumping scheme and a differential pumping tube of diameter 5 mm and length 15 cm the pressure in the lower recapture cell is less than $`10^{11}`$ mbar while in the source cell it is $`10^8`$ mbar. We deduce the 87Rb pressure in the source cell from the resonant absorption of a multi-passed probe beam. A heated reservoir connected to the upper source cell supplies the Rubidium vapour.

A grating stabilized diode laser locked to the $`|5\mathrm{S}_{1/2},F=2|5\mathrm{P}_{3/2},F=3`$ transition injects into three slave lasers, two for the source MOT and one for the recapture MOT. The Atom Faucet (see fig. 1) is based on a standard MOT configuration: two Anti-Helmholtz-coils maintain a magnetic field gradient of $`15`$ G/cm along their axis, which is horizontal in this setup. A pair of axial beams with positive helicity counterpropagate along the axis of the coils and two mutually orthogonal pairs of radial beams with negative helicity counterpropagate in the symmetry plane of the coils. The radial beams are inclined by $`45^{}`$. The radial trap beams have an $`8`$ mm spot size and the axial beam $`11`$ mm respectively, all clipped to a diameter of $`1`$ inch by our quarterwaveplates. The axial beam carries $`20`$ mW before retroreflection, and the radial beams each have $`5`$ mW each before retroreflection. The repumping light on the $`|5\mathrm{S}_{1/2},F=1|5\mathrm{P}_{3/2},F=2`$ transition from an independent grating stabilized laser is mixed only in the axial beam and has a power of $`5`$ mW.

In addition to these trapping lasers, a permanent pushing beam on the $`|5\mathrm{S}_{1/2},F=2|5\mathrm{P}_{3/2},F=3`$ transition with linear polarization polarization  and optimal power of $`200\mu `$W is aligned vertically onto the trap. It is focused to a waist of $`90\mu `$m $`30`$ cm before entering the source cell such that it diverges to a size of $`1.1`$ mm at the source trap and $`3.3`$ mm at the recapture trap. Its intensity at the center of the source MOT and detuning are comparable to those of the MOT beams and hence its radiation pressure is also comparable with the trapping forces in the MOT. Because of the divergence of the pushing beam, the intensity in the lower MOT is lower by a factor of $`10`$. It decenters the recapture MOT by $`1`$ mm but does not destabilize it. Note that the pushing beam carries no repumping light, so that it acts on the atoms only where it intersects the MOT beams.

By studying the loading characteristics of the recapture MOT, we deduce the main features of the atom jet:

* When the recapture MOT is empty the initial recapture rate gives directly the recaptured flux since the density dependent intrinsic losses in the MOT are not yet important. The absolute number of atoms is determined using an absorption imaging technique.
* The time dependence of the recapture loading rate provides a measurement of the longitudinal velocity distribution of the jet. More precisely, by suddenly disinjecting the source MOT slave lasers and then recording the recapture filling rate via the fluorescence, the characteristics of the tail of the moving extraction column are measured. The jet transfer distance $`D=67`$ cm and the time delay $`T`$ of the filling rate response gives the mean longitudinal velocity $`\overline{v}=D/T`$ in the jet, and the time width $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ of this response gives access to the longitudinal velocity dispersion $`\delta v`$ (see Fig. 2).

For the determination of the transfer efficiency, the loading rate of the source MOT is determined by its fluorescence and compared with the measured recapture flux. The fluorescence measurement is done at resonance and we assume full saturation of the transition under the influence of all six laser beams and thus a photon scattering rate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ photons/atom/second.

We observe a typical transfer efficiency of $`50\%`$ (see below). Since the radius of the recapture MOT beams is $`r=5`$ mm and the transfer distance is $`D=67`$ cm, less than 50 % of the atoms are emitted with a divergence larger than $`r/D10`$mrad.

## 3 Theoretical Description for Numerics

In order to model both the capture of the atoms from the vapor into the source MOT and the subsequent cooling and pushing processes, we have developed a numerical simulation which integrates the equation of motion for atoms chosen with random initial positions and velocities. We describe the atomic motion using classical dynamics. The action of the seven laser beams ($`6`$ MOT beams $`+1`$ pushing beam) on an atom located at $`𝐫`$ with velocity $`𝐯`$ is taken into account through an average radiation force $`𝐅(𝐫,𝐯)`$. We neglect any heating or diffusion caused by spontaneous emission.

The calculation of the semi-classical force acting on an atom in this multiple beam configuration is *a priori* very complex. For simplicity, we model the atomic transition as a $`|g,J_g=0|e,J_e=1`$ transition with frequency $`\mathrm{}\omega _A`$, where $`|g`$ and $`|e`$ stand for the ground and excited state respectively. We denote $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ the lifetime of $`e`$. Consider a single plane-wave beam with wave vector $`𝐤`$, detuning $`\delta =\omega _L\omega _A`$, intensity $`I`$, and polarisation $`\sigma _\pm `$ along the local magnetic field $`𝐁`$ in $`𝐫`$. The radiation pressure force CCT  reads

$$𝐅=\mathrm{}𝐤\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\frac{s(𝐫,𝐯)}{1+s(𝐫,𝐯)}$$
(1)
where the saturation parameter is given by

$$s(𝐫,𝐯)=\frac{I}{I_{\mathrm{sat}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+4(\delta 𝐤𝐯\pm \mu B/\mathrm{})^2}.$$

$`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment associated with level $`|e`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ is the saturation intensity for the transition ($`I_{\mathrm{sat}}=1.62`$mW/cm2 for the $`D_2`$ resonance line in Rb). Still restricting our attention to a single traveling wave, we consider now the case where the light couples $`|g`$ to two or three Zeeman sublevels $`|e_m`$. The calculation is in this case more involved since the solution of the optical Bloch equations requires the study of $`16`$ coupled differential equations. A simple approximation is obtained in the low saturation limit ($`s1`$):

$$𝐅=\mathrm{}𝐤\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\underset{m=1,0,1}{}s_m(𝐫,𝐯)$$
(2)
with

$$s_m=\frac{I_m}{I_{\mathrm{sat}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+4(\delta 𝐤𝐯+m\mu B/\mathrm{})^2}$$

and where $`I_m`$ is the intensity of the laser wave driving the $`|g|e_m`$ transition. We can sum up the three forces associated with the three possible transitions, each calculated with the proper detuning taking into account the Zeeman effect.

Still working in the low intensity limit, we can generalize eq. (2) to the case where $`N`$ laser beams with wave vectors $`𝐤_j`$ and detunings $`\delta _j,(j=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ are present. The force then reads

$$𝐅=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{}𝐤_j\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\underset{m=1,0,1}{}s_{j,m}(𝐫,𝐯)$$
(3)
with

$$s_{j,m}=\frac{I_{j,m}}{I_{\mathrm{sat}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+4(\delta _j𝐤_j𝐯+m\mu B/\mathrm{})^2}$$

Note that in establishing eq. (3) we have taken the spatial average of the radiative force over a cell of size $`\lambda =2\pi /k`$, neglecting thus all interference terms varying as $`i(𝐤_j𝐤_j^{})𝐫`$. We therefore neglect any effect of the dipole force associated with the light intensity gradients on the wavelength scale. This is justified in the case of a leaking MOT since the associated dipole potential wells are much less deep than the expected residual energy of the atoms before extraction.

At the center of the capture MOT, we can no longer neglect inter-beam saturation effects since the saturation parameter for each of the 7 beams is equally $`1/7`$. In principle, accounting for this saturation effect requires a step-by-step numerical integration of the $`16`$ coupled Bloch optical equations (for a $`|g,J_g=0|e,J_e=1`$ transition), as the atom moves in the total electric field resulting from the interference of all the laser beams present in the experiment. Such a calculation is unfortunately much too computationally intensive to lead to interesting predictions for our Atom Faucet in a reasonable time. We therefore decided to turn to a heuristic and approximate expression for the force, demanding:

* In the case of a single traveling wave, $`\sigma _\pm `$ polarized along the magnetic field, we should recover expression (1).
* In the low intensity limit, the force should simplify to expression (3).
* The magnitude of the force should never exceed $`\mathrm{}k\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$, which is the maximal radiation pressure force in a single plane wave.

There are of course an infinite number of expressions which fulfill these three conditions. We have taken the simplest one:

$$𝐅=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{}𝐤_i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\frac{_ms_{i,m}}{1+_{j,m}s_{j,m}}$$
(4)
with partial saturation parameters $`s_{j,m}`$ as defined in eq. (3). This equation is the generalization of the heuristic expression used by Phillips and co-workers Lett89  to account for saturation effects in an optical molasses.

In the simulation, the MOT beams are chosen to have Gaussian profiles truncated to the diameter of the quarterwaveplates. Also they are chosen to be equally strong with a central intensity of $`5I_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ and to have the proper polarizations and directions. The pushing beam’s intensity is of the same order. We assume that because of optical pumping into the lower hyperfine ground state, an atom sees no forces when it is out of the repumper light mixed in the axial beams. Finally, the magnetic quadrupole field is $`𝐁(𝐱)=b^{}(2x,y,z)`$.

In the simulation the initial position of each atom is chosen on one of the cell windows following a uniform spatial distribution. The initial velocity is given by a Maxwell Boltzmann distribution for $`T=300`$ K. The trajectory is then integrated using a Runge-Kutta method. From these trajectories (see fig. 3), one obtains a probability for an atom to be captured and transferred into the jet, as well as the jet’s characteristics: velocity distribution, divergence, and total flux. The absolute flux of the simulated jet is calibrated using the real number of atoms emitted per unit time and per unit surface of the cell at a pressure $`P`$ which is $`P/\sqrt{2\pi mk_\mathrm{B}T}`$ Reif ; truncation .

The simulation neglects interaction effects like collisions and multiple light scattering. The validity of the linear scaling with pressure is limited to the low pressure regime ($`P<10^7`$ mbar) where the characteristic extraction time of $`20`$ ms is shorter than the collision time, which is in turn of the order of the trap lifetime.

## 4 Results

Inspecting qualitatively the trajectories, we find that an atom that enters the beam intersection is first decelerated by radiation pressure on a distance much smaller than the trapping beam radius. It then slowly moves to the center of the trap where it enters the extraction column. The final transverse cooling of the jet takes place during extraction, so that the divergence of the jet grows if the extraction happens too fast. We believe that this is the principal loss mechanism of any leaking MOT system, which have in common an extraction column and a transverse molasses provided by the trapping beams.

### 4.1 Total Flux

For a typical choice of parameters, the simulation finds $`90\%`$ transfer from the source MOT through the differential pumping tube to the recapture MOT. The remaining $`10\%`$ of the atoms leave the source at a divergence too large to be recaptured and are lost. Experimentally, we have achieved a transfer efficiency of at most $`60\pm 10\%`$. This value is most probably limited by the differential pumping tube diameter.

Concerning the total flux, we explored the pressure regime of $`10^9<P<4\times 10^8`$ mbar and found no deviation from a linear dependence (see fig. 4)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{exp}}^{\mathrm{jet}}=1.3\pm 0.4\times 10^8\mathrm{atoms}/\mathrm{s}\times P_{\mathrm{Rb87}}(10^8\mathrm{mbar}).$$

The uncertainty primarily comes from the atom number determination in the recapture MOT by absorption imaging. Deviation from linear scaling with pressure is to be expected when the collision time with background gas becomes of the order of the typical extraction time from the MOT center into the differential pumping tube. This will be the case for $`P_{\mathrm{Rb87}}10^7`$ mbar.

In comparison we found that the simulation overestimates the capture velocity of the MOT, so that we need to calibrate its predictions. Therefore we simulate a pure MOT without pushing beam and compare the predicted capture rate of

$$\tau _{\mathrm{sim}}^{\mathrm{MOT}}=13\times 10^8\mathrm{atoms}/\mathrm{s}\times P_{\mathrm{Rb87}}(10^8\mathrm{mbar})$$

with the value we measured in the initial regime of linear growth of the vapour charged source MOT,

$$\tau _{\mathrm{exp}}^{\mathrm{MOT}}=2.5\pm 0.6\times 10^8\mathrm{atoms}/\mathrm{s}\times P_{\mathrm{Rb87}}(10^8\mathrm{mbar})$$

We believe that the disagreement between these two results corresponds to an overestimation of the source MOT capture velocity $`v_\mathrm{c}`$. Since the number of atoms captured in a VCMOT varies as $`v_\mathrm{c}^4`$, our simple model overestimates $`v_\mathrm{c}`$ by $`(13/2.5)^{1/4}1.5`$. In the graphs 5,6,7, we normalize the absolute value of the flux and concentrate on its variation with system parameters.

#### Simulated VCMOT Optimisation.

Using the simulation of a pure MOT without pushing beam, we can readily find the parameters which optimise the capture rate from the background vapour. The total laser power is taken to be $`20`$mW, equally distributed among three beams which are then retroreflected. We calculate an optimal detuning of $`3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The capture rate is divided by more than $`2`$ when the detuning is beyond $`4.5\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or smaller than $`1.5\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is the typical MOT operation range. The magnetic gradient seems to have little influence as long as it is between $`8`$ and $`20`$G/cm.

It is particularly helpful to calculate the optimal beam waist for a given laser power since in the optical setup this parameter is tiresome to change and demands subsequent trap realignment. In our case, a $`9`$mm spot size gives the best simulated capture rate, with half maximum values at $`4`$mm and $`16`$ mm. For a fixed laser power, having a large intersection volume is preferable to increasing the saturation beyond $`4I_{\mathrm{sat}}`$. The experiment uses an $`8`$mm spot size, and the optimum parameters do not change significantly if the retroreflection loss of $`20\%`$ is included. Finally, the simulation reproduces the smoothly decreasing slope of the capture rate versus the MOT beam power of ref Lindquist92 .

### 4.2 Pushing Beam Parameters

We now add the thin pushing beam to the MOT light field. Doing so does not modify the optimal parameters of the capture MOT, neither in experiment nor in the simulation. Remember that the volume affected by the thin beam is very small compared to the total capture volume of the source MOT. We investigate the influence of pushing beam power, detuning, and size on the atomic jet emerging from the MOT. The following discussion shall directly combine experimental findings and the results from the theoretical model.

#### Power.

For very low pushing beam power the trap is decentered but not yet leaking. At $`P_{\mathrm{push}}=80\mu `$W (corresponding to a pushing beam intensity $`1/4`$ of a MOT beam intensity), the flux increases sharply and then falls off with increasing power (see fig. 5). The simulation predicts exactly the same critical power, without adjustable parameters (see fig. 5). The decrease at higher power can be understood if one examines the simulated divergence of the atomic jet, which grows with increasing pushing beam power. This effect is attributed to an insufficient short transverse cooling time due to the strong acceleration (see discussion below). Experimentally the jet velocity is deduced from measurements like fig. 2. With increasing pushing beam power it grows from $`12`$ to $`15`$ m/s with an average width of $`10`$ m/s. In the simulation, we find a smaller width of $`1`$ m/s. This discrepancy is probably due to the fact that we have completely neglected the heating due to spontaneous emission. The longitudinal velocity width is larger than that of the LVIS or $`2`$D MOT; however, for the purpose of loading a recapture MOT the velocity width does not matter.

#### Detuning.

The complex behaviour of the flux on the pushing beam detuning ($`\delta _{\mathrm{push}}`$) is qualitatively very well reproduced by the simulation (see figs. 6 and 7). If the pushing beam detuning is negative and exceeds the MOT beam detuning $`|\delta _{\mathrm{push}}|>|\delta _{\mathrm{MOT}}|`$, the trap is decentered, but not yet leaking. Remember that the intensity of the pushing beam is about the same as for the MOT beams, so that as the detuning is increased the pushing radiation pressures becomes weaker than the trapping pressure. With zero or small blue detuning, atoms are resonantly accelerated, and their extraction is too fast to allow for efficient transverse cooling. These atoms leave at high divergence and are lost. Generally the simulation finds a $`1:1`$ correlation of extraction time (flight time $`10`$ ms from the center of the trap to the depumping region) with divergence. Clearly, transverse cooling takes a certain time, and if the extraction acceleration is too strong, losses due to a high beam divergence are inevitable.

For a blue detuning of the pushing beam such that $`\delta _{\mathrm{push}}|\delta _{\mathrm{MOT}}|`$, a prominent peak in the flux appears in both the experiment and the simulation. To interpret this result we use the model of a $`|g,J_g=0|e,J_e=1`$ transition in a one dimensional magneto-optical trap (the actual beam inclination and polarisation make the situation a bit more complicated). For an atom traveling downwards in the extraction column, the $`|e,m=1`$ level approaches the MOT beam resonance at negative detuning. At the same time, the $`|e,m=+1`$ level approaches the pushing beam resonance at positive detuning. When $`\delta _{\mathrm{push}}|\delta _{\mathrm{MOT}}|`$, the accelerating pushing beam and the decelerating MOT beams stay equally close to resonance throughout the extraction, and the atoms leave slowly. The extraction time is $`8`$ms and the atoms are cooled transversely leading to a large recapture flux in the lower MOT. Finally if $`\delta _{\mathrm{push}}>|\delta _{\mathrm{MOT}}|`$, the detuning of the $`|e,m=1`$ level from the recentering MOT light is always less than the detuning of the $`|e,m=+1`$ level from the pushing beam light, and so the trap is decentered but not destabilized (analogous to the behaviour at a large red detuning).

#### Complementary Numerical Study: Waist.

With a very small pushing beam size $`<0.4`$ mm atoms drift out of the extraction column and are decelerated. They are recycled forever or leave the trap with high divergence. For a large spot size of $`>1.5`$ mm atoms are not all extracted from the center and so many are not cooled sufficiently transversely. Both cases induce losses.

## 5 Comparison and Conclusion

Certainly, there are other techniques for the directed transfer of cold atoms from a VCMOT into a jet. A moving molasses launch Weyers97  provides a rather cold beam but low flux. A pulsed MOT launched by a resonant beam push is heated in the absence of transverse cooling beams Arlt98 . During the launch $`\sqrt{1000}`$ photons are spontaneously emitted into the transverse plane, while in continuous schemes there is transverse cooling during extraction. As a result there is then no need for magnetic guiding Myatt96 , to achieve an elevated transfer efficiency.

Continuous schemes suffer less from interparticle interactions, since the steady state source cloud stays small. Leaking MOTs therefore accumulate atoms with the initial capture rate of the MOT. The Atom Faucet provides a $`50\%`$ transfer efficiency from first capture, through the differential pumping tube, and to a recapture MOT in an UHV cell. It creates an extraction column that is typical of leaking MOT systems with a flexible design and without optical parts inside the vacuum chamber.

The flux of $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1\times 10^8`$ atoms/s at a background vapour pressure of $`P_{\mathrm{Rb87}}=7.6\times 10^9`$ mbar is equal to that of the low power version of the LVIS in Dieckmann98  and superior to the $`2`$D+ MOT in this pressure region. The later design in turn provides very high flux at high pressure, since it minimizes the source trap density. We did not explore pressures that were incompatible with the UHV requirements in our recapture cell and found no deviation from the linear scaling of the flux with pressure up to pressures of $`4\times 10^8`$ mbar. Essentially, the Atom Faucet transplants to a MOT at $`10^{11}`$ mbar the loading rate of a MOT at few $`10^8`$ mbar.

We have also presented a 3D simulation of the atomic motion in multiple laser fields with an inhomogeneous magnetic field, neglecting interactions and fluctuations. We find that the transverse cooling *inside* the extraction column turns out to be a crucial element for the satisfactory performance of leaking MOT atom sources. Our simulation overestimates the capture rate, but predicts well the measured parameter dependences. Moreover, it is readily adapted to an arbitrary laser and $`B`$-field configuration.

We are indebted to F. Pereira dos Santos for coming up with the child’s name and to the ENS Laser Cooling Group for helpful discussions. This work was partially supported by CNRS, Collège de France, DRET, DRED, and EC (TMR network ERB FMRX-CT96-0002). This material is based upon work supported by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation under an NSF-NATO grant awarded to K.M. in 1999. W.W. gratefully acknowledges support by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes and the DAAD.

Note added: After this work was completed, we became aware that a similar setup has been successfully achieved in Napoli, in the group of Prof. Tino.


text:
# Early afterglows as probes for the reionization epoch

## 1 Introduction

The importance of Gamma–Ray bursts (GRB) for cosmological studies has been realized immediately after the measure of the first high–redshift bursts (GRB971214: Kulkarni et al., 1998 and GRB 000131: Andersen et al., 2000). Their importance for cosmological studies is based on observed properties and on the likely association with very massive stars:

* For a few hours, the early afterglow flux in the NIR, optical and X–ray bands is larger than the flux from any other cosmological object;
* The afterglow brightness depends very weakly on redshift, given its time evolution and spectral properties (Ciardi & Loeb, 2000);
* GRBs are probably connected with the death of massive stars and can hence be used to investigate the star formation rate at very high redshift, (see, e.g., Lamb & Reichart, 2000);
* GRBs are likely linked to the Pop–III objects and hence to the reionization of the universe (see, e.g. Rees 2000);

We here concentrate on the use of GRBs for the measurement of the redshift of the reionization of the intergalactic medium (IGM).

This measurement is made difficult by the fact that the opacity of the IGM is given by (see, e.g., Madau & Rees, 2000):

$$\tau (z)=1.5\times 10^5h^1\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2}{0.019}\right)\left(\frac{1+z}{8}\right)^{3/2}$$
(1)
implying that at high redshift ($`z>2`$), even if only a hydrogen atom over $`10^4`$ is neutral, yet the universe has a huge ($`\tau 10`$) opacity to UV photons.

Since all observed quasars have a strong Lyman–$`\alpha `$ line in emission in their spectra, it has been speculated that the discovery of a quasar without an emission Lyman–$`\alpha `$ line proves its location at a redshift larger than reionization. On the other hand, Madau & Rees (2000) have shown that a quasar is always surrounded by a large HII region. This implies that the Lyman–$`\alpha `$ photons produced by the central source will be redshifted at a lower frequency before reaching the edge of the HII region, and will not be scattered by neutral hydrogen any more. The presence/absence of Lyman–$`\alpha `$ emission line in QSO spectra is then not a probe of the reionization epoch.

We here show a possible solution: a GRB is more luminous than a quasar but, since its duty cycle is much shorter, the total number of ionizing photons is smaller and the size of the HII region smaller.

## 2 Strömgren spheres

An important advantage of GRBs with respect to QSOs for cosmological use is the dimension of the Strömgren sphere surrounding them.

Consider a source which radiates ultraviolet photons. The recombination time of the hydrogen with interstellar medium densities, even at redshift of order 10 and in presence of moderate clumping, is longer than 1 Gy (Madau & Rees, 2000). In these conditions, the radius of the HII region surrounding the photon source is obtained by equating the number of hydrogen atoms within a certain volume with the number of ionizing photons emitted during the life of the source itself. We obtain:

$$R=\left(\frac{3\dot{N}_{\mathrm{ion}}t}{4\pi n_H}\right)^{1/3},$$
(2)
where $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ is the ionizing photon rate, $`t`$ is the lifetime of the photon source and $`n_H`$ the hydrogen number density.

By adopting fiducial values for the luminosity and the duty cycle of a quasar and a GRB, we obtain111Here and in the following we parameterize a quantity $`Q`$ as: $`Q=10^xQ_x`$:

$$R_{\mathrm{QSO}}=1.5\times 10^5L_{46}^{1/3}t_{15}^{1/3}n_H^{1/3}\mathrm{pc};R_{\mathrm{GRB}}=70L_{46}^{1/3}t_{15}^{1/3}n_H^{1/3}\mathrm{pc}$$
(3)
There is then a factor greater than 1000 between the size of the HII region of a GRB, (which remains well within a galaxy), and the size of the HII region of a QSO. In particular, the size of the Strömgren sphere of the quasar is so large that a Lyman–$`\alpha `$ line emitted by the central object can travel through an opaque universe and be observed at infinity. This happens because the line photons would be redshifted outside the Lyman–$`\alpha `$ resonance before reaching the edge of the HII region (Madau & Rees, 2000; Cen & Haiman, 2000).

## 3 Discussion

We have shown that the early afterglows of GRBs are better suited for the study of the properties of the IGM at cosmological distance than any other known class of objects. GRBs, in fact, have at the same time a high luminosity, which makes them easy to detect and to study, and a small number of emitted photons, so that their presence do not influence the properties of the surrounding medium. They are therefore ideal probes, with the smallest possible impact on what we want to measure. Yet, they are very bright. It is fair to say that it is still unknown whether or not GRBs emit Lyman–$`\alpha `$ line radiation. What we have shown here is that, should such a line be observed in a GRB spectrum, this would imply $`z_{\mathrm{GRB}}<z_{\mathrm{Reion}}`$, while this is not true for QSOs.

This set of good properties is possible thanks to the fact that GRBs are transient phenomena. For this reason, we must be able to detect and follow up them in real time in order to fully exploit all the information they carry. In particular, it is important to select the high redshift bursts as soon as possible in order not to waste too much telescope time on nearby objects. This can be done through prompt NIR imaging, by the Lyman drop–out technique. For this reason, robotic IR telescopes are planned to complement the foreseen SWIFT mission (see, in particular, Zerbi et al. 2001).


text:
# On the flavor mixing by a Light-Cone Hamiltonian and the isotopic spin in QCD

## 1 Introduction

In 1932, Heisenberg has postulated isotopic spin as a general symmetry of nature to describe systematically atomic nuclei. Isospin prevails to be important in hadronic physics, both in concept  and experiment . But in the fundamental hadronic theory, in the gauge theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), isospin symmetry is not manifest in any obvious way. The present work is intended to contribute yet an other facet to an old and immanent question , without addressing however to be complete or exclusive.

Nowadays isospin symmetry is believed to be part of the more general chiral symmetry to the extent that the symmetry is thought to be manifest at sufficiently high temperatures and broken after a chiral phase transition in which the quarks acquire mass. These ideas can be modeled by lattice gauge theory (LGT) . But when it comes down to calculate hadrons in their ground state (at absolute zero), LGT has some difficulties to calculate with the same quality of approximations for all the hadrons, because of the enormously different mass scales in the problem. Particularly, it is not easy to extrapolate reliably down to the very light and small mesons like the pions.

Recently, an equally non-perturbative alternative has gradually emerged as reviewed in . The light-cone approach addresses to diagonalize the (light-cone) Hamiltonian, $`H_{LC}|\mathrm{\Psi }=M^2|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and to calculate the spectra and invariant masses (squared) of physical particles. In particular the method addresses to calculate the associated wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n=\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}},\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}g},\mathrm{}`$, which are the Fock-space projections of the hadrons eigenstate. The total wave function for a meson is then $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{meson}=_i(\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}__i,\lambda _i)|q\overline{q}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}g}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}__i,\lambda _i)|q\overline{q}g+\mathrm{})`$, for example.

I present in section 2 some general aspects of the method, based on which I formulate in section 3 a sufficiently simple model. In order to be as concrete and pedagogic as possible, I continue in section 4 with an over-simplified model for 2 and 3 flavors which can be solved in closed form. I generalize in section 5 to five flavors, and compare to experiment. In section 6, I draw the conclusions.

## 2 General considerations

Let me review in short some general aspects of the approach. The full light-cone Hamiltonian for gauge theory with its complicated many-body aspects is reduced in  by the method of iterated resolvents to the effective Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{LC},\mathrm{eff}}=T+U_{\mathrm{OGE}}+U_{\mathrm{TGA}}.$$
(1)
By definition it acts only in the Fock space of a single quark and anti-quark. The kinetic energy $`T`$ be definition is diagonal and is the only part of the effective Hamiltonian surviving in the limit of vanishing coupling constant. Note that it has the dimension of a mass-squared, like the other operators in the (light-cone) Hamiltonian. The interaction (kernel) has three contributions, which are displayed diagrammatically in Fig. 2.

The diagrams in the figure are very compact. They are ‘energy’ but not Feynman-diagrams; all particle lines and all propagators are ‘effective’ but well defined and represent summations over all orders . In diagram $`U_{1,2}`$, the effective gluon is absorbed on the same line and does not change its kinematical state. It therefore generates effective masses (in contrast to the bare Lagrangian ones). A certain part of them can be absorbed in $`T`$. The one-gluon-exchange interaction $`U_{\mathrm{OGE}}`$ is represented by diagram $`U_{1,1}`$. Here, an effective gluon is emitted and absorbed on different lines which causes a genuine interaction by the exchange of momentum. The same holds true for the effective two-gluon annihilation interaction $`U_{\mathrm{TGA}}`$ correspoding to diagram $`U_{1,0}`$: a $`q\overline{q}`$-pair of the same flavor is scattered into an other pair with different momenta. The one-gluon-annihililation interaction is absent in QCD, because a single gluon is colored and cannot couple to the color-neutral sector. One should emphasize that the effective interaction as obtained with the method of iterated resolvents  has no operators which do not belong to one of the three classes of Eq.(1).

The structure of Eq.(1) has drastic consequences whenever one considers a realistic case for more than 1 flavor. – Why is that? Suppose, I was technically able to solve the effective Hamiltonian in Eq.(1) for just 1 flavor as a matrix diagonalization problem, as a warm-up exercise. Suppose, I want to treat next the case for 3 flavors. The matrix dimension increases by a factor $`3\times 310`$, and the numerical effort for diagonalization on a computer increases thus by a factor 1000. For the physical 6 flavors the effort is correspondingly larger.

But the symmetries in the effective Hamiltonian of Eq.(1) are quite helpful, as demonstrated in Fig.2. The matrix shown in this figure visualizes the kernel of the effective Hamiltonian as a matrix of block matrices . Each block matrix represents a contribution from $`H_{\mathrm{LC},\mathrm{eff}}`$. The symbol $`(E_i)`$ stands for contributions from $`T+U_{\mathrm{OGE}}`$. Most of the blocks are zero block-matrices, i.e. all matrix elements inside a block vanish. For example, the block $`u\overline{d}u\overline{s}`$ vanishes because the Hamiltonian in Eq.(1) cannot connect them: The kinetic energy cannot connect them since it is a diagonal operator; the one-gluon-exchange interaction $`U_{\mathrm{OGE}}`$ cannot connect them, since the $`\overline{d}`$ cannot change suddenly into an $`s`$-anti-quark as seen from diagram $`U_{1,1}`$; and, finally, the two-gluon-annihilation cannot connect them since diagram $`U_{1,0}`$ requires the same flavor on the left (and/or on the right). The latter feature lets vanish also blocks like $`u\overline{d}s\overline{s}`$. This demonstrates that most of the Hamiltonian is reducible and that one can diagonalize blockwise. Thus, only block matrix sectors like $`u\overline{u}s\overline{s}`$ are non-zero due to the diagrams $`U_{1,0}`$ and cause a mixing of flavors, as consequence of QCD. They are denoted by $`A_i`$ in the figure.

It is thus reasonable to introduce a one-gluon-exchange Hamiltonian and to diagonalize it on its own merit,

$$H_{\mathrm{OGE}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\overline{f}^{}}=(T+U_{\mathrm{OGE}})|\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\overline{f}^{}}=M_{f\overline{f}^{}}^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\overline{f}^{}},$$
(2)
to obtain flavor masses $`M_{f\overline{f}^{}}`$ and the associated wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\overline{f}^{}}`$.

## 3 Formulation of the model

Diagonalizing $`H_{\mathrm{OGE}}`$ and generating the many eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\overline{f}^{};i}`$ can also be understood as the generation of a unitary transformation to pre-diagonalize the flavor mixing matrix. Although

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\overline{f};i}|U_{\mathrm{TGA}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{f^{}\overline{f}^{};j}=0,\text{for }ij,$$
(3)
would be a false statement, in general, one can expect that the off-diagonal matrix elements ($`ij`$) are (much) smaller than those on the diagonal ($`ii`$). Requiring Eq.(3) to be true, however, makes things all of a sudden very simple: The huge flavor-mixing matrix reduces to a state-by-state diagonalization of a $`n_f`$ by $`n_f`$ flavor-mixing matrix $`H_\mathrm{M}`$, where $`n_f`$ is the number of flavors. Eq.(3) will be refered to as model assumption I.

It is thus reasonable to introduce the ground-state-ground-state correlations

$$a_{ff^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\overline{f}}|U_{\mathrm{TGA}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{f^{}\overline{f}^{}}.$$
(4)
Since $`m_u=m_d`$, one has

$$a_{uu}=a_{dd}=a_{ud}=a_{dd}a,\text{and }M_{d\overline{d}}=M_{u\overline{u}}.$$
(5)
I introduce as model assumption II

$$a_{us}=a_{dc}=a_{ub}=\mathrm{}=a_{bb}a,$$
(6)
just to reduce their number. In principle, the gs-gs correlations could be calculated from the wave functions, but below I will use $`a`$ as an adjustable parameter. It can be different for pseudo-scalar and vector mesons.

Solutions to Eq.(2) are actually available , within the so-called $``$-model. Its results are compiled in Table 2 and compared to the experimental masses in Table 2, taken from the particle data group . These data do not yet include the topped mesons, which is the reason that the top quark is omitted here and below. The parameters of the model are the physical ones, the strong coupling constant $`\alpha `$ and the quark masses $`m_q`$. They are the same as in  and tabulated in Table 4. A similar model had been considered in earlier preliminary work .

For the present purpose, the codes for $``$-model have been run again to get the eigenvalues of Eq.(2) for the flavor diagonal case with no new parameters to adjust. There are given in Tables 6 and 6.

## 4 Flavor SU(2) and SU(3)

Let us restrict first to 2 flavors with equal masses $`m_u=m_d`$. The flavor-mixing matrix reduces to a 2 by 2 matrix, with

$$H_\mathrm{M}=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & u\overline{u}& d\overline{d}& \\ u\overline{u}& (\mathrm{}& a+M_{u\overline{u}}^2& a& )\mathrm{}\\ d\overline{d}& a& a+M_{u\overline{u}}^2\end{array}.$$
(7)
The diagonalization of $`H_\mathrm{M}|\mathrm{\Phi }_i=M_i^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is easy. The two eigenstates,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|u\overline{u}\\ |d\overline{d}\end{array}\right),|\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|u\overline{u}\\ |d\overline{d}\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
are associated with the eigenvalues

$$M_1^2=M_{u\overline{u}}^2,M_2^2=M_{u\overline{u}}^2+2a.$$
(9)
The assumption of equal quark masses leads thus to $`M_{u\overline{d}}=M_{d\overline{u}}=M_1`$. They can be arranged into a mass degenerate triplet of isospin 1, independend of the numerical value of $`a`$.

Next, consider 3 flavors. The flavor mixing matrix for the ground state becomes

$$H_\mathrm{M}=\begin{array}{cccccc}& & u\overline{u}& d\overline{d}& s\overline{s}& \\ u\overline{u}& (\mathrm{}& a+M_{u\overline{u}}^2& a& a_{us}& )\mathrm{}\\ d\overline{d}& a& a+M_{u\overline{u}}^2& a_{ds}\\ s\overline{s}& a_{us}& a_{ds}& a_{ss}+M_{s\overline{s}}^2\end{array}.$$
(10)
The model assumption Eq.(6) changes that into a matrix with elements

$$f|H_\mathrm{M}|f^{}=a+M_{f\overline{f}}^2\delta _{f,f^{}}.$$
(11)
If one assumes $`m_u=m_d=m_c=m`$, thus $`M_{s\overline{s}}=M_{u\overline{u}}^2`$, as above, $`H_\mathrm{M}`$ can be diagonalized againin closed form. The three eigenstates

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|u\overline{u}\\ |d\overline{d}\\ 0|s\overline{s}\end{array}\right),|\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|u\overline{u}\\ |d\overline{d}\\ 2|s\overline{s}\end{array}\right),|\mathrm{\Phi }_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|u\overline{u}\\ |d\overline{d}\\ |s\overline{s}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
are associated with the eigenvalues

$$M_1^2=M_{u\overline{u}}^2,M_2^2=M_{u\overline{u}}^2,M_3^2=M_{u\overline{u}}^2+3a.$$
(13)
The coherent state picks up all the strength, again. The eigenvalues of the remaining two states coincide with the unperturbated ones. State $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ can again be interpreted as the eigenstate for the charge neutral $`\pi ^0`$ and the mass of the coherent state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ could be fitted with the $`\eta ^{}`$. But then state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is degenerate with the $`\pi ^0`$: Instead of a mass triplet one has a mass quadruplet.

Obviously, one cannot abstract from the appreciable mass difference between the up and strange quark. A $`3\times 3`$ matrix like in Eq.(11) can not be diagonalized in a simple way. It was diagonalized analytically but approximately in .

## 5 Flavor SU(5), and its breaking by mass terms

Since one has to do numerical work anyway it is reasonable to proceed immediately to five flavors. The five flavor mixing-matrix $`H_\mathrm{M}`$ is given in Eq.(11), just with $`n_f=5`$. The diagonal elements $`M_{ff^{}}^2`$ are obtained from Table 6. Diagonalizing $`H_\mathrm{M}|\mathrm{\Phi }=M^2|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ numerically, produces the wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Table 4 and the physical masses $`M`$ in Table 6. The parameter $`a`$ is used to reproduce the mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$, as indicated by the star  in the table. The corresponding results for pseudo-vector mesons are found in Table 6.

By adjusting one single parameter, one reproduces three empirical facts: (1) the mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ is (strictly) degenerate with $`\pi ^\pm `$ (isospin); (2) the unperturbed mass of the $`\eta `$ is lifted from the comparably small value of $`140`$ MeV to the comparatively large value of $`485`$ MeV; (3) the unperturbed mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ is lifted by roughly 50% the meet the experimental value.

The wave functions have also remarkable properties, as seen from Table 4. The numerical results in the table remind to the SU(3) pattern in Eq.(12). Particularly the isospin-pattern of the $`\pi ^0`$ and the coherent-state pattern of the $`\eta ^{}`$-wavefunction should emphasized. The heavy quark admixtures are small.

## 6 Conclusion

In the present light-cone approach to gauge theory with an effective interaction isospin is not a dynamic symmetry, but a consequence of equal up and down mass. Flavor-SU(3) is an approximate symmetry. The approach explains even the phenomenological observation that flavor-SU(3) symmetry works better than SU(4) or SU(5); the large mass of the heavy mesons dominates the flavor-mixing matrix so strongly that the symmetry induced by the annihilation interaction is destroyed. The present work contributes to the $`\eta `$-$`\eta ^{}`$ puzzle  and exposes an accuracy comparable to state-of-art lattice gauge calculations . To the best of my knowledge no other model including the phenomenological ones  covers the whole range of flavored hadrons with the same set of parameters.

The present approach is however in conflict with other theoretical constructs. Zero modes are absent since one works with the light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$ . In consequence there are no chiral condensates which seem to be so important otherwise. They are not needed here since the parameter $`a`$ provides the additional mass scale. It will be calculated from the theory in future work, removing then all parameter dependence beyond $`\alpha `$ and $`m`$. At least one knows now that this is worth an effort.