text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Family unification.

It has long been known that theories with extra dimensions afford ways of breaking gauge symmetries unavailable in $`4d`$ theories . Recently, such mechanisms have been applied to the problem of constructing realistic grand unified models . In particular, it has been shown that orbifold compactification of one or two extra dimensions allows symmetries to be broken in such a way as to resolve in an apparently simple fashion two of the thorniest problems of $`4d`$ grand unification, namely the doublet-triplet splitting problem and the problem of dimension-5 proton decay operators. In this letter we show that the same ideas can be applied to a problem almost equally old, that of “family unification” .

The idea of family unification is an extension of the idea of grand unification. Grand unification has two aspects, gauge unification and quark-lepton unification. Gauge unification is the unification of all the Standard Model gauge groups within a simple group, such as $`SU(5)`$, $`SO(10)`$, or $`E_6`$. Quark-lepton unification is the idea that quarks and leptons are put together into irreducible multiplets of that simple group. There is complete quark-lepton unification if all the fermions of one family are contained in a single irreducible representation. This is possible in $`SO(10)`$, $`E_6`$, and larger groups. The idea of family unification has the same two aspects. It involves, first, the existence of a family gauge group that is unified with the Standard Model gauge group into a simple group , and, second, the existence of a single irreducible representation of that group that contains the quarks and leptons of all three known families. For example, if there is a family group $`SU(3)`$, it can be unified with the Standard Model group within $`E_8`$, since $`E_8E_6\times SU(3)SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)\times SU(3)`$. At the same time, in $`E_8`$ all three families can be unified into one irreducible representation, the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$. The groups that have been most studied from the point of view of family unification are $`O(14)`$ , $`SO(16)`$ , $`SO(18)`$ , $`E_7`$ , and $`E_8`$ .

The problem of mirror families.

The central problem of family unification is that the ordinary $`VA`$ families must be accompanied by an equal number of $`V+A`$ or “mirror” families. For example, the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$ of $`E_8`$ decomposes under $`E_6\times SU(3)`$ into

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})+(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}).$$
(1)
Together with three ordinary families, $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$, one finds three mirror families, $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$. Similarly, for the orthogonal groups: a spinor of $`SO(10+2n)`$ decomposes under the $`SO(10)\times SO(2n)`$ subgroup as

$$2^{(4+n)}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},2^{(n1)})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},2^{(n1)}).$$
(2)
(For $`n`$ odd the $`2^{(n1)}`$ and $`2^{(n1)}`$ are conjugate to each other, whereas for n even they are each self-conjugate. For a review of spinor representations of orthogonal groups see .) One sees that for every $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ there is a $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$.

The fact that family unification generally gives equal numbers of families and mirror families presents the problem of explaining why no mirror families have been observed. The obvious solution would be to give large mass in some way to the mirror families. However, this turns out to be not so easy. While mirror families could have large $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$-invariant mass terms that couple them to ordinary families, such terms give mass to equal numbers of families and mirror families and so do not resolve the problem. The only way to give the mirror families large masses without giving large mass to the ordinary families is with $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$-breaking mass terms. Such masses would have to be at or below the weak-interaction scale, meaning that the mirror families should be observable through radiative effects in precision tests of the electroweak theory. Recent analyses  conclude that some additional families or mirror families are allowed, with Ref.  finding a chi–squared minimum for the number of extra families to be somewhere between one and two. Adler argues that even three mirror families may not be completely excluded by present data . However, even if mirror families with masses in the hundred GeV range are consistent with data, explaining in a natural way why their masses are much larger than the observed quarks and leptons will be a theoretical challenge. No simple and plausible mechanism which attempts this is known.

Given that it is quite difficult to hide mirror families at the weak scale the question arises whether in a model with family unification the mirror families might be banished altogether from the low-energy spectrum. One interesting possibility is that the mirror families are confined at a high scale . Suppose, for example, that the family unification group is $`SO(18)`$ and breaks down to $`SO(10)\times SO(8)`$ at a scale $`M_G`$. The quarks and leptons are then in the representations $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟖})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟖}^{})`$. (See Eq. (2).) If at a scale $`M_{fam}M_W`$ the family group $`SO(8)`$ breaks to some confining group $`H`$ under which the $`\mathrm{𝟖}^{}`$ decomposes into only non-singlets, then all of the mirror families are confined. If, on the other hand, $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ contains some singlets in its decomposition under $`H`$, then some ordinary families will be unconfined and appear in the low-energy spectrum. For instance, there is an $`SO(5)`$ subgroup of $`SO(8)`$ under which $`\mathrm{𝟖}^{}\mathrm{𝟒}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}}`$ but $`\mathrm{𝟖}\mathrm{𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$, so that if $`SO(5)`$ confined three families would remain light . Unfortunately, it is doubtful that there exist models of family unification in four-dimensions in which the gauge coupling of $`H`$ is asymptotically free and thus able to confine the mirror families at some dynamically generated high scale. (The beta function for the $`SO(5)`$ gauge coupling in the example given above is $`dg_5/d\mathrm{ln}\mu =+\{(62/3)/(16\pi ^2)\}g_5^3`$ in the non–supersymmetric case, with a larger positive value if there is supersymmetry.)

It would seem, therefore, that in four-dimensional theories mirror families cannot be banished from the low-energy theory. However, it can happen in theories with extra dimensions . For example, as was shown in Ref. , in Calabi-Yau compactification of heterotic string theory, the $`E_8`$ of the observable sector can be broken down to $`E_6`$ below the compactification scale with a chiral low-energy spectrum of quarks and leptons. In Ref.  it was shown that orbifold compactification from ten to four dimensions can leave an $`E_6\times SU(3)`$ subgroup of $`E_8`$ unbroken, with a chiral low energy spectrum which contains some families in multiplets of the $`SU(3)`$. (In the particular example of that paper there were thirty-six families (in $`3\times (\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})+27\times (\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟏})`$) and no mirror families. For early string theory models with three families, see Ref. .) Such string theory models have family unification in the sense that all the families of quarks and leptons originate from one $`E_8`$ multiplet of the ten-dimensional theory.

In this paper we show that family unification can be achieved in simple $`5d`$ and $`6d`$ orbifold models quite similar in spirit to those of . These are “bottom up” models, like those of , and no attempt is made to derive them from superstring theory. In the next section, we present simple illustrative models based on both orthogonal groups and $`E_8`$. Before we turn to higher dimensions, however, it may be helpful to briefly review some facts about the family unification groups that have been studied in the literature.

Family unification groups.

First let us look at the smallest group that has been used for family unification, $`O(14)`$. We see from Eq. (1) that a spinor of $`SO(14)`$ decomposes under $`SO(10)\times SO(4)`$ as $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟐})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟐}^{})`$. The conjugate spinor decomposes as $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟐}^{})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. Thus, a single spinor of $`SO(14)`$ can only accomodate two families and their mirrors. However, if one takes the group to be $`O(14)`$ (that is $`SO(14)`$ together with the parity that transforms the $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}}`$ into each other) then the irreducible spinor is $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$ ($`=\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}}`$), which can accomodate four families. Models of family unification based on $`O(14)`$ have been constructed .

The group $`SO(16)`$ is large enough for family unification, since $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})`$ (and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}^{}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟒})`$). However, its spinors are real, i.e. self-conjugate, so that in the absence of any other symmetry there would be nothing to prevent a mass term of the form $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$, which would naturally make all the quarks and leptons superheavy. (The same objection applies to $`O(14)`$.) For this reason most authors have concentrated on the group $`SO(18)`$ , which is the smallest orthogonal group whose spinors are complex and large enough to contain at least three families. However, it is possible to avoid the self-mass problem in $`SO(16)`$ by assuming that the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$ of quarks and leptons is charged under some other group, say a $`U(1)`$. Interesting $`SO(16)`$ models using this idea have been constructed .

The group $`E_7`$ has an adjoint that under the $`SU(5)\times SU(3)`$ subgroup decomposes as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}(\mathrm{𝟐𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})+(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\mathrm{𝟓},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$. As with the other groups we have discussed, this has an equal number of families and mirror families. But it also has the interesting peculiarity that some of the fermions in a family transform as $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of the $`SU(3)`$ family group, while others transform as $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$. It should be noted also, that the self-mass problem exists for both $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ (as it does for $`O(14)`$ and $`SO(16)`$) since both the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}`$ of $`E_7`$ and the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$ of $`E_8`$ are real representations.

## 2 Family Unification without the Mirror Families

We start with a simple $`SO(16)`$ model of family unification in five dimensions in which the low-energy four-dimensional theory has three light families in a triplet of $`SU(3)`$ and no mirror families.

Following in the footsteps of , we consider a five-dimensional theory with the fifth dimension ($`y`$) compactified on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold. The circumference of $`S^1`$ is $`2\pi R`$. $`Z_2`$ reflects $`yy`$, and $`Z_2^{}`$ reflects $`y^{}y^{}`$, where $`y^{}=y+\pi R/2`$. (See Fig. 1.) The orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ can be taken to be the interval $`\pi R/2y0`$. The point $`y=0`$, which we will call $`O`$, is a fixed point of $`Z_2`$, while the point $`y=\pi R/2`$ (or $`y^{}=0`$), which we will call $`O^{}`$, is a fixed point of $`Z_2^{}`$. There are branes at the points $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$. It is assumed that in the five-dimensional bulk there is an $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theory with gauge group $`SO(16)`$ and fields consisting of a vector multiplet in the adjoint ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}`$) and a hypermultiplet in the spinor ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$).

The $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in five dimensions would give N=2 supersymmetry in four dimensions, but the orbifold compactification will break this down to $`N=1`$. The vector multiplet of the bulk theory splits into a vector multiplet $`V^a`$ and a chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ of the unbroken $`4d`$ $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. Under the $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`V^a`$ is taken to have parity $`+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ to have parity $``$. Similarly, the hypermultiplet splits into two chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ having opposite $`Z_2`$ parity. The $`Z_2^{}`$ parities are assigned in the following way. The $`SO(16)`$ adjoint when decomposed under $`SO(10)\times SO(6)`$ gives $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏𝟓})+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟔})`$. We assign $`Z_2^{}`$ parity $`+`$ to the components of the $`5d`$ vector multiplet in the $`(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏𝟓})`$, and $`Z_2^{}`$ parity $``$ to those in the $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟔})`$. This assignment is consistent with the group algebra of $`SO(16)`$. The spinor of $`SO(16)`$ decomposes as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})`$. Under $`Z_2^{}`$ we take the components of the $`5d`$ hypermuliplet that are in $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})`$ to have parity $`+`$ while those in $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})`$ have parity $``$. The complete $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ assignments are shown in Table I.

|  | $`V_{(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ | $`V_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏𝟓})}`$ | $`V_{(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟔})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏𝟓})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟔})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})}^c`$ | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})}^c`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`Z_2`$ | + | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $``$ |
| $`Z_2^{}`$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $`+`$ |

Table I. ($`Z_2,Z_2^{}`$) parity assignments for the vector and hypermultiplets in $`SO(16)`$.

As explained in many papers , only those fields that have $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ parity $`(+,+)`$ can have among their Kaluza-Klein modes one that is constant in the fifth dimension, i.e. a zero mode corresponding to a light field in the four-dimensional effective theory. Fields that have $`(+,)`$, $`(,+)`$, or $`(,)`$ parities must vanish at the fixed points $`O`$, $`O^{}`$, or both, and therefore have only higher Kaluza-Klein modes, which are superheavy from the $`4d`$ point of view. In this model the four-dimensional effective theory will have $`N=1`$ supersymmetry, gauge group $`SO(10)\times SO(6)`$, and light fields coming from the bulk matter consisting of vector multiplets in $`(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏𝟓})`$ and a chiral multiplet in $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})`$. This cannot be the complete effective low-energy theory since it has an $`SO(6)^3`$ gauge anomaly. One must take into account also fields that “live” on the branes at $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$.

On the brane at $`O`$ there is the full $`SO(16)`$ gauge symmetry, but on the brane at $`O^{}`$ there is only an $`SO(10)\times SO(6)`$. It is not that $`SO(16)`$ is spontaneously broken on the $`O^{}`$ brane, but rather that there never was any gauge symmetry on $`O^{}`$ except $`SO(10)\times SO(6)`$. (At $`O^{}`$ quantities that are odd under $`Z_2^{}`$ have to vanish, including the gauge parameters $`\xi ^a(x^\mu ,y)`$ for those generators $`\lambda ^a`$ in the coset $`SO(16)/(SO(10)\times SO(6))`$.) Consequently, in the $`4d`$ theory on the brane at $`O^{}`$ only complete multiplets of $`SO(10)\times SO(6)`$ but not $`SO(16)`$ need appear. Let us suppose then that on the $`O^{}`$ brane one has quark and lepton chiral multiplets in $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟏})+2\times (\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}})`$ and Higgs chiral multiplets in $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})`$. (We will denote the Higgs multiplets henceforth with subscript ‘$`H`$’.) The low-energy theory then has altogether the following chiral multiplets: $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟏})+2\times (\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})`$. This set has no gauge anomalies. (The $`SO(6)^3`$ anomaly of a $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ is $`8`$ times that of a $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, so the total $`SO(6)^3`$ anomaly of the above set is $`16(1)+2(8)=0`$.)

We assume that the $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})_H+(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})_H`$ obtain vacuum expectation values at some scale $`M_{family}M_W`$ that breaks $`SO(6)`$ ($`=SU(4)`$) down to $`SU(3)`$. Then a term of the form $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟒})(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})_H`$ on the $`O^{}`$ brane will give mass to the $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ $`V+A`$ family and one of the four $`VA`$ families to leave three light families in a $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ of $`SO(10)\times SU(3)`$. Note that the scale $`M_{family}`$ can be anything from the weak scale up to the compactification scale.

There still remain the questions of how $`SO(10)`$ breaks down to the Standard Model group in a satisfactory way, how the electroweak symmetry is broken, how realistic masses arise for the quarks and leptons, and how the $`SU(3)`$ family symmetry breaks. These breakings can all be accomplished through the ordinary Higgs mechanism by Higgs multiplets living on the $`O^{}`$ brane in suitable representations of $`SO(10)\times SO(6)`$. We know, for example, that breaking of $`SO(10)`$ down to the Standard Model can be achieved in $`4d`$ SUSY GUTs in such a way as to have natural doublet-triplet splitting  and also suppression of dimension-5 proton decay operators (i.e. those coming from colored Higgsino exchange) . It would be interesting to attempt to use orbifold compactification to break $`SO(10)`$ down to the Standard Model as well, as in . However, we do not pursue that more ambitious goal in this paper.

What we have shown in this simple example is that models can be constructed in which the three light families come from a single irreducible representation of a simple group — here a hypermultiplet in the bulk $`SO(16)`$ theory, and in which that simple group comprises both the Standard Model gauge symmetries and a family gauge symmetry that survives in the four-dimensional theory, perhaps even down to low energy. It is clear that one may construct $`SO(18)`$ models in a similar way. However, the analogous orbifold breaking to $`SO(10)\times SO(8)`$ would give eight families coming from the hypermultiplet in the bulk. One would therefore have to introduce five mirror families on the $`O^{}`$ brane, and a correspondingly large number of Higgs on the brane to mate the mirror families with the ordinary ones. It would be interesting to know if a more economical and compelling way to obtain three light families from $`SO(18)`$ using orbifold compactifications could be found.

We see, then, that the orthogonal groups can accomodate three light families, but they do not naturally prefer three light families. If we wish to explain the fact that there are three light families, the group $`E_8`$ seems more promising, given that $`E_6\times SU(3)`$ is a maximal subgroup and that the fundamental representation of $`E_8`$ contains a $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ under that subgroup, as shown in Eq. (1).

It is easy to see that orbifolds with $`Z_2`$ symmetries as we have been considering up to now are not adequate to split the $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ mirror families from the $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ families in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$. For a $`Z_2`$ parity to accomplish this, the $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ would have to have opposite parity. Suppose, then, we imagine the parity of $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ to be $`+`$ and that of $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ to be $``$. This would be inconsistent with the group algebra of $`E_8`$. The 248 generators of $`E_8`$ fall into $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})+(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$. The commutator of two $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ generators gives a $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ generator. Similarly, the commutator of two $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ generators gives a $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ generator. Consequently the gauge fields in $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ must both have $`+`$ parity. That implies that the families and mirror families have the same parity.

In order to eliminate the mirror families from the $`4d`$ theory in $`E_8`$ there must be an orbifold with at least a $`Z_3`$ symmetry. The point is that under a $`Z_3`$ the generators of $`E_8`$ can transform as follows consistently with the group algebra:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _{(78,1)}\hfill & & \lambda _{(78,1)}\hfill \\ & & \\ \lambda _{(1,8)}\hfill & & \lambda _{(1,8)}\hfill \\ & & \\ \lambda _{(27,3)}\hfill & & \omega \lambda _{(27,3)}\hfill \\ & & \\ \lambda _{(\overline{27},\overline{3})}\hfill & & \omega ^2\lambda _{(\overline{27},\overline{3})},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/3}`$. Such a $`Z_3`$ can be used to split the families from the mirror families in a $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$, as will be seen.

Consider a six-dimensional theory in which the extra two dimensions ($`x^5`$ and $`x^6`$) are compactified on an orbifold with a $`Z_3`$ symmetry. The construction of such an orbifold is shown in Fig. 2. One starts with a torus $`T^2`$ defined by identifying the points $`zx^5+ix^6`$ with the points $`z+1`$ and $`z+\omega `$. This torus is shown as the large parallelogram in Fig. 2. Under a rotation by $`2\pi /3`$ (i.e. $`z\omega z`$) one sees that the regions labelled 1 get mapped into other regions labelled 1, and that similarly 2 gets mapped into 2, 3 into 3, and 4 into 4. The $`T^2/Z_3`$ orbifold obtained from $`T^2`$ by identifying $`z`$ with $`\omega z`$ thus has as its fundamental region the smaller parallelogram $`aba^{}c`$. This orbifold has a $`Z_3`$ symmetry, under which $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are inequivalent fixed points. (The point $`a^{}`$ is identified with $`a`$). (The orbifold used in  is the six-dimensional generalization of this simple two-dimensional orbifold and has 27 fixed points.)

Instead of using one discrete symmetry to break supersymmetry down to $`N=1`$ and another discrete symmetry to break the gauge group as before, we will use the same $`Z_3`$ to break both. In the six-dimensional bulk we take the theory to have $`N=1`$ supersymmetry and gauge group $`E_8`$. (One need not worry about cancellation of gauge anomalies since the $`E_8`$ box anomaly in six dimensions vanishes up to “reducible” pieces that can be cancelled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism .) We take the matter in the bulk to consist of a vector multiplet in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$. A $`6d`$ vector multiplet decomposes, under the $`4d`$ $`N=1`$ supersymmetry, into a vector multiplet $`V^a`$ and a chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$. The index $`a`$ labels the 248 generators of $`E_8`$, which may be classified under the $`E_6\times SU(3)`$ subgroup as shown in Eq. (1). The fields in $`V^a`$ are assumed to transform under $`Z_3`$ in the same way as the corresponding generators, which is shown in Eq. (3). The fields in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ transform in the same way except with an additional factor of $`\omega ^2`$. The $`Z_3`$ transformation properties of the fields are given in Table II.

|  | $`V_{(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ | $`V_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})}`$ | $`V_{(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})}`$ | $`V_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑})}}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`Z_3`$ | 1 | $`1`$ | $`\omega `$ | $`\omega ^2`$ | $`\omega ^2`$ | $`\omega ^2`$ | $`1`$ | $`\omega `$ |

Table II. $`Z_3`$ transformation properties of the vector and chiral multiplets in $`E_8`$.

Only those component fields that transform trivially under $`Z_3`$ will have zero modes. Thus, the bulk matter contributes the following fields to the $`4d`$ low energy theory: vector multiplets in $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})`$ containing the gauge fields and gaugino fields of $`E_6`$ and $`SU(3)`$, and a chiral multiplet in $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ containing three families of quarks and leptons. This cannot be the whole story as the $`4d`$ $`SU(3)^3`$ gauge anomaly must be cancelled. This can be done by chiral multiplets living on one or more of the branes at the fixed points $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$. For example, the $`SU(3)^3`$ anomaly would be cancelled by twenty-seven $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ or by a single $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}})`$ of $`E_6\times SU(3)`$ on one of the branes. It should be noted that on the branes there is only an $`E_6\times SU(3)`$ symmetry to start with, so that it is only necessary to have complete multiplets of that group rather than of the bulk gauge group $`E_8`$. Again, as in the previous example, we can introduce various (vectorlike) Higgs representations on the branes to break the symmetry down to that of the Standard Model. Such model-building details are beyond the scope of this paper. But we see no obstacle to constructing a fully realistic model in this way.

## 3 Family Unification as an indicator of Extra Dimensions

As we have seen, family unification involves the idea that all three known families reside within one irreducible representation of some simple group. This group contains not only the Standard Model gauge groups, but generally a family gauge group. In many cases this family gauge group contains an $`SU(3)`$ subgroup (or is an $`SU(3)`$) under which the three families form a triplet. The family gauge group could be broken at very high scales, either by an ordinary $`4d`$ Higgs field or by the orbifold compactification. But it is also quite possible that a local family symmetry, perhaps an entire $`SU(3)`$, survives down to “low scale”, by which we mean here something in the hundred $`TeV`$ range.

If family unification is realized in Nature and the family group survives down to low energy the interesting possibility would exist, at least in principle even if quite difficult in practice, to infer the existence of near-Planckian extra dimensions from experiments done at “low energy”.

Let us call the set of representations of $`G_{SM}=SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ that make up one family of left-handed fermions $`𝐅`$, and suppose for specificity that the low energy family symmetry is $`SU(3)`$ (though most of what we will say applies as well to other groups, such as $`SO(3)`$). Typically, in models with family unification the known quarks and leptons are in $`(𝐅,\mathrm{𝟑})`$ of $`G_{SM}\times SU(3)_{fam}`$. (It is also possible that some of the left-handed fermions of a family are in $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and some in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ of $`SU(3)_{fam}`$, as we saw in the case of family unification in the adjoint of $`E_7`$. What we say below applies to such cases as well.)

If $`SU(3)_{fam}`$ is broken at a scale $`M_{fam}`$ near enough to the weak scale to be accessible to experiment, then one might be able eventually to do two things: first, to find out what representations of the family group the quarks and leptons are in; and, second, to measure the $`SU(3)_{fam}`$ gauge coupling $`g_{fam}`$ and extrapolate it to high energies to see whether it unifies with the Standard Model couplings. Suppose that this is done and it is found that the quarks and leptons of the Standard Model are indeed in $`(𝐅,\mathrm{𝟑})`$, with no light mirror families, and that the four gauge couplings do indeed unify. What would one be able reasonably to infer from this?

First, the evidence for the unification of the four gauge groups (into one simple group or a product of identical simple groups related by a discrete symmetry) would then be compelling. The unification that we now see of the three Standard Model gauge couplings might be an accident, since it really involves only one non-trivial condition being satisfied. However, the accidental unification of four couplings at one point could hardly be dismissed as accidental.

One would therefore conclude that at a high scale some unified group $`G`$ broke down to $`G_{SM}\times SU(3)_{fam}`$, and that some anomaly free set of representations of $`G`$ broke into $`(𝐅,\mathrm{𝟑})`$ plus some additional multiplets that were vectorlike under $`G_{SM}`$. (They would have to be vectorlike under $`G_{SM}`$ in order not to have been seen at the weak scale.) The question that would then confront theorists is whether such a breaking could take place in the context of a theory with only four spacetime dimensions. The answer seems to be no.

We have seen that groups such as $`SO(16)`$, $`SO(18)`$, and $`E_8`$ have representations that contain $`(𝐅,\mathrm{𝟑})`$ of $`G_{SM}\times SU(3)`$, but these are always accompanied by mirror families, and in four dimensions there does not seem to be any way to push these mirror families to very large scales. The unitary groups, in particular $`SU(N)`$ with $`N8`$, also can break down to $`G_{SM}\times SU(3)`$ giving Standard Model multiplets that are in triplets of $`SU(3)`$, but one never gets simply three families plus pieces that are vectorlike under $`G_{SM}`$. For example consider $`SU(8)`$ with quarks and leptons in $`\psi ^{[\alpha \beta \gamma ]}+\psi _{[\alpha \beta ]}+\psi _\alpha `$. Under the $`SU(5)\times SU(3)`$ subgroup these do give $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$, but these come together with $`2(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟓},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, which are chiral under $`G_{SM}`$.

The closest that one seems to be able to come is with the group $`SU(5)\times SU(5)`$, with the two gauge couplings forced to be equal by a discrete symmetry that interchanges the two $`SU(5)`$’s. Consider the following anomaly-free set of fermions: $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})+2(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟏})+2(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}})+7(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+7(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟓})`$. Under the $`SU(5)\times SU(3)`$ subgroup this gives: $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ together with $`2(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟑})+6(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and other pieces that are vectorlike under $`SU(5)\times SU(3)`$. This indeed gives $`(𝐅,\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ plus pieces that are vectorlike under $`G_{SM}`$. However, as one can see, those pieces include six $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟓}`$ of $`SU(5)`$ that cannot get mass above $`M_{fam}`$ because they are chiral under $`SU(3)_{fam}`$. In a supersymmetric theory this would make the couplings blow up below the unification scale.

On the other hand, we have seen that in theories with extra dimensions one can end up with three families in triplets of an $`SU(3)`$ family gauge symmetry whose coupling unifies at high scales with the Standard Model gauge couplings, without there being any light mirror families. Such a situation, if it is found, would be a telltale sign at low energy of a theory with extra dimensions at very high scales not directly accessible to experiment.

Acknowledgments

The work of KSB is supported in part by DOE Grant $`\mathrm{}`$ DE-FG03-98ER-41076, a grant from the Research Corporation and by DOE Grant $`\mathrm{}`$ DE-FG02-01ER-45684. The work of SMB and BK is supported in part by DOE Grant $`\mathrm{}`$ DE-FG02-91ER-40626.


format: text

text:
# Molecular vibration in cold collision theory

## Abstract

Cold collisions of ground state oxygen molecules with Helium have been investigated in a wide range of cold collision energies (from 1 $`\mu `$K up to 10 K) treating the oxygen molecule first as a rigid rotor and then introducing the vibrational degree of freedom. The comparison between the two models shows that at low energies the rigid rotor approximation is very accurate and able to describe all the dynamical features of the system. The comparison between the two models has also been extended to cases where the interaction potential He - O2 is made artificially stronger. In this case vibration can perturb rate constants, but fine-tuning the rigid rotor potential can alleviate the discrepancies between the two models.

A wide variety of techniques is now available for the production of ultracold molecular gases, and collisions often play a crucial role in their success. The challenge for theoreticians is then a detailed understanding of the scattering properties at low temperatures, in order to assess the feasibility of the experiments. In this paper, our aim is to investigate the role of molecular vibration in cold collisions, a topic that has been already object of interest for instance in the case of molecules produced by photoassociation (PA) . This technique exploits one or more PA lasers to catalyze alkali atom pairs into bound molecular states , resulting in molecules with nearly the same translational temperature as the original atomic sample ($``$ 100 nK in the case of extraction from a Bose-Einstein condensate ). Although rotationally cold, these molecules are typically formed in high vibrational states, from which they can relax by collisions with another free atom. The understanding and characterization of this relaxation process is crucial, because a large amount of energy is released in the process, and this quenching can dramatically affect the efficiency of the cooling . A study in this sense has been conducted for the He - O2 system , pointing out the importance of understanding the role of vibration in ultracold molecular collision.

The buffer-gas cooling (BGC) technique , in which molecules are cooled by collisions with a cold buffer gas, also demands a detailed picture of the collisions. The lowest temperature reached so far is 0.3 K in a gas of CaH molecules, a result achieved by Doyle’s group  who used the same technique recently to cool PbO molecules . Appealing candidates for BGC would be O2 molecules, already investigated from the theoretical point of view , and NH, for which in addition magnetic trapping has been proposed recently by the alternative Stark slowing technique .

Lower temperatures can be achieved via evaporative cooling, in which high-energy molecules are selectively removed from the trap. The success of the cooling requires that elastic rethermalizing collisions be much more efficient than the spin-changing process that produces untrapped molecules. Since several of our previous papers have demonstrated that spin orientations can be easily changed in cold molecular collisions, an important question raised in this work is whether the vibrational motion can further encourage spins to flip, even in the ground vibrational state of the colliding molecule.

Following Refs. , we evaluate here the state-to-state rate constants for collisions of molecular oxygen (17O2 isotopomers) with 3He atoms, using a recently published potential energy surface (PES) . We first treat O2 as a rigid rotor, then we introduce the vibrational degree of freedom in order to assess the influence of the vibrational motion. Results can also be compared with a previous calculation on the same system performed by one of the authors on a different PES  using a rigid rotor model. We show how the rigid rotor approximation holds quite well for this system, as expected. This is because the atom-molecule interaction is very weak compared to the O - O interaction, and the O2 molecule is strongly bound and physically very similar to a rigid rotor.

Nevertheless, for stronger three-body interactions or for shallower diatomic potentials, the rigid rotor model could be unrealistic in describing the dynamical features of the system. What might happen in such a case is as well a subject of this paper. To this end, we consider a set of artificial models, by increasing the atom - diatom interaction strength while preserving the natural O $``$ O interaction. Thus at some point the He atom in the artificial model will gain sufficient kinetic energy during the collision to excite vibrations of the O2 molecule. The effect of vibrational degrees of freedom is primarily to provide additional phase shifts, which may be ”mocked up” by suitable adjustment to the short-range potentials. In addition, vibrational resonances are introduced, but these should be small in number as compared to rotational resonances.

Throughout this paper we report energies in units of Kelvin by dividing by the Boltzmann constant $`k_B`$. These units are related to the more familiar wave numbers via 1 K = 0.695 cm-1. Lengths are expressed in units of the bohr radius $`a_0`$.

We will consider molecules consisting of two 17O atoms, whose nuclear spin $`i`$ is equal to $`5/2`$. We assume that total spin I = i1 \+ i2 is conserved in the collision, implying that the even molecular rotational states $`N`$ are separated from the odd ones . Following Refs. , we limit our discussions to the “even-$`N`$” manifold of molecular states. However, we have performed some sample calculation for the “odd-$`N`$” manifold, finding results consistent with the conclusions for the case of even $`N`$.

Including the $`S`$ = 1 electronic spin of O2, at low energies the molecules have total spin J = N \+ S = 1. The Hamiltonian operator $`\widehat{𝐇}_{\mathrm{O}_2}`$ for molecular oxygen is given by

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{\mathrm{O}_2}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _{\mathrm{O}_2}}\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\frac{N(N+1)}{r^2}\right]+V(r)+\widehat{𝐇}_{fs}$$
(1)
where $`\mu _{\mathrm{O}_2}`$ is the O - O reduced mass and $`V`$ is the atom-atom potential depending on the stretching coordinate $`r`$. We have taken the fine-structure Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_{fs}`$ from Ref.  disregarding the molecular hyperfine interaction and using the fine structure parameters determined in  by microwave spectroscopy. We assume these parameters to be the same for the ground and excited vibrational states.

The Hamiltonian in (1) refers to the vibrating diatom model, and obvious simplifications lead it to the appropriate expression for the rigid rotor. We note here that the molecular rotational quantum number $`N`$ is no longer strictly a good quantum number for the molecular states, because different values of $`N`$ are coupled together by the fine-structure Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_{fs}`$ (see eq. (A5) in Ref. ). However, since the fine-structure coupling is small compared to the rotational separation, different $`N`$’s are mixed only weakly, so we will continue to use $`N`$ to label the true channels in what follows.

As in Ref.  we will focus our attention on the weak-field-seeking state $`|NJM_J`$ = $`|\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}1\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ of the molecule. We are concerned both with the elastic collisions that preserve this state, and with ”loss” collisions that yield the untrapped states $`|\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}1\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ and $`|\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}1}1`$. The relevance of these collisions for ultracold molecular studies has already been discussed in .

Ref.  provided the theoretical framework for atom - diatom scattering, along the lines of the model originally due to Arthurs and Dalgarno , and properly modified to incorporate the electronic spin of the oxygen molecule. Here we briefly recall some features needed to understand the present calculation, pointing out the differences between the rigid rotor and the vibrating diatom approaches. We compute rate constants in zero magnetic field, as we are interested primarily in the comparison of the rate constants between the two models. The study of molecular collisions in a magnetic field is however a central topic for trapping purposes, which we have discussed elsewhere .

After multiplying the wave function by $`R`$ in order to remove first derivatives, the full Hamiltonian operator describing the He - O2 collision is given by

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left[\frac{d^2}{dR^2}\frac{\widehat{𝐋}^2}{R^2}\right]+\widehat{𝐇}_{\mathrm{O}_2}+V^{}(R,r,\theta )$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass for the He-O2 system, $`R`$ is the length of the Jacobi vector joining the atom to the molecule center-of-mass, $`\widehat{𝐋}^2`$ is the centrifugal angular momentum operator and $`\widehat{𝐇}_{\mathrm{O}_2}`$ is the molecular oxygen Hamiltonian defined in (1). The potential term $`V^{}`$, depending in general on $`R`$, $`r`$, and the bending angle $`\theta `$ that the molecule’s axis makes with respect to $`𝐑`$, accounts for the He - O2 interaction . The O - O interatomic contribution is already included in the molecular Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_{\mathrm{O}_2}`$. We note here that the PES considered in this work differs from the one by Cybulski et al.  used in a previous calculation by one of the authors . In particular, the potential well for the three-body interaction is found to be about 30% deeper for the new PES with respect to the preceding one (however, the PES  was deepened by 20% in the calculations presented in ). The two potential surfaces provide consistent results: the $`s`$-wave scattering lengths are $``$ $`2.9`$ a.u. and $``$ $`1.5`$ a.u. using the PES  and , respectively.

If the rigid rotor model is adopted, the internuclear distance $`r`$ is frozen to its equilibrium value $`r_0=`$ 2.282 $`a_0`$ and any dependence of the Hamiltonian on this coordinate is neglected. In this case, the theoretical formulation of the problem reduces to the one in , to which we refer for details. For the vibrating diatom, the $`r`$-dependence of the Hamiltonian is taken into account.

The full multichannel calculation requires casting $`V^{}(R,r,\theta )`$ in an appropriate angular momentum basis. Namely, we express the Hamiltonian in a basis of total angular momentum $`𝒥=𝐍+𝐒+𝐋`$, in terms of the molecule’s mechanical rotation ($`𝐍`$), its electronic spin ($`𝐒`$), and the partial wave representing the rotation of the molecule and the He atom about their center of mass ($`𝐋`$). Our basis for close-coupling calculations is then

$$|\mathrm{O}_2(^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{})|\mathrm{He}(^1S)|vN[JL]𝒥$$
(3)
where the electronic spin quantum number $`S`$ is not explicitly indicated being always equal to 1 in the calculation presented here. Vibrational wave functions are computed for a particular value of $`N`$ then transformed to the $`J`$ basis. Evaluation of $`V^{}`$ in the basis (3) has been discussed in Ref. . As for the integration of the matrix elements over the vibrational coordinate $`r`$, we have performed numerical Gaussian quadratures.

Once the Hamiltonian is in place the coupled-channel equations are solved subject to scattering boundary conditions to yield scattering matrices. Since we assume zero magnetic field the total angular momentum $`𝒥`$ is a good quantum number, and moreover the results are independent of the laboratory projection $``$ of total angular momentum. In the context of magnetic trapping, the resulting total-$`𝒥`$ scattering matrices can be conveniently transformed to a basis labeling the magnetic quantum numbers, namely $`vNJM_JLM_L|S|v^{}N^{}J^{}M_J^{}L^{}M_L^{}`$. Note that in general all the quantum numbers $`v`$, $`N`$, $`J`$, $`M_J`$, $`L`$, and $`M_L`$ are subject to change in a collision. However, at the energies we consider, only changes in $`M_J`$ are energetically allowed. Cross sections and state-to-state rate coefficients are then obtained as in .

For 3He - 17O2 collisions, rate constants relative to the entrance channel $`|NJM_J`$ = $`|\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}1\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ for the elastic transition and the inelastic ones (to the states $`|\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}1}1`$ and $`|\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}1\hspace{0.33em}0}`$) have been calculated in a wide range of collision energy, from 1 $`\mu `$K up to 10 K, using both the rigid rotor and the vibrating diatom model. We have found that rotational states up to $`N`$ = 8 and partial waves up to $`L`$ = 8 must be retained in the calculations. Scattering calculations are performed using a log-derivative propagator method  starting from $`R`$ = 4.1 bohr. We separate the propagation into two parts, from $`R`$ = 4.1 to 24.0 bohr, with a step size of 0.01 bohr, and then from $`R`$ = 24.0 until the asymptotic limit of $`R_{max}`$ = 450 bohr adopting a larger step size of 0.1 bohr. These parameters assure rate constants convergent within less than 1%.

We recall the rovibrational structure of the oxygen molecule. The zero-point energy is $``$ 1100 K above the bottom of the potential curve, and the vibrational separation between the ground and the first excited vibrational level is $``$ 2175 K. The rotational constant for the molecule is about 1.95 K. We have verified that the inclusion of the first rotational levels ($`N`$ = 0, 2, 4, 6) of $`v`$ =1 modifies our results only within 0.5%.

Results are shown in Fig. 1 on a bilogarithmic scale. The two compared models provide nearly perfectly consistent results: the curves are virtually indistinguishable, results of the rigid rotor differing by at most 10 % from the complete calculation that allows the O2 molecule to vibrate. We have seen how this small discrepancies can be washed out by adjusting the short range potential of the rigid rotor Hamiltonian. This artificial ”fine-tuning” is already a common practice in cold collision theory, as it enables both an accurate fit to experimental data, and predictive power . Our results suggest that the main influence of vibration might be absorbed into a similar fine-tuning, at least until high-resolution data are available that demand a more accurate model.

An exception occurs near a resonance, where the extreme sensitivity of phase shifts to details of the potential alters the lineshape slightly. However, the overall agreement is quite good and demonstrates the adequacy of the rigid rotor model in this case. The reason for this is obvious: the attractive well depth of the He - O2 interaction is only $``$ 40 K, so that the incident He atom does not have nearly enough energy to excite vibration in the molecule, even as a virtual excitation. We expect this conclusion to hold generally in BGC, owing to the relatively weak interaction of Helium with anything, and also for O2 \- O2 cold collisions  since the intermolecular well depth is only $``$ 200 K. In this case in fact, the atom-atom exchange (which could be affected by vibration) is unlikely to take place, because at low temperatures the two oxygen molecules do not get close enough in the collision process.

For many systems this separation of the energy scales may no longer be the case, and vibrations may play a more important role. To study this influence, the He - O2 interaction potential ($`V^{}`$ in eq. (2)) has been made artificially deeper by multiplying it by an arbitrary factor $`\lambda `$, ranging from 1 to 100. For $`\lambda `$ = 100, the well depth of the three-body potential is approximately twice as large as the lowest vibrational excitation energy of O2. We note here that increasing $`\lambda `$ has two effects: first, it makes vibrational resonances energetically possible, and, second, introduces many more rotational resonances, since rotational energy splitting is much smaller than the vibrational one. This is made intuitively clear in Fig. 2, where a set of adiabatic potential curves for $`𝒥`$ = 1 are displayed for a large value of the factor $`\lambda `$.

We will refer in the following to very low collision energy (1 $`\mu `$K) because this allows us to include only total $`𝒥`$ = 1 in our calculations, thus reducing computational effort . Figure 3 plots, both for rigid rotor and vibrating diatom, the elastic and total inelastic rate constants for the same transitions considered in Fig. 1 as a function of $`\lambda `$. As the potential is made deeper (larger $`\lambda `$), new He - O2 bound states appear, which show up as resonance-like features in the figure. Two different $`\lambda `$ ranges are displayed, corresponding to two different physical situations. In one range ($`\lambda `$ = 23 - 25), vibrationally excited molecular states are not energetically accessible, whereas in the range 90 - 91 vibrational resonances are accessible. In the first case, the resonance pattern appears just a little shifted going from one model to the other, while in the second case, apart from a bigger shift, some different features are present in the rate constant trends.

However, the magnitudes and overall patterns of the rate constants are comparable in the two models. This suggests that, as for the original He - O2 problem ($`\lambda `$ = 1), in modeling cold collisions the rigid rotor Hamiltonian can be adjusted (by varying $`\lambda `$ in this simple case) to nearly reproduce the results of the full vibrating case. We have indeed seen this in the energy dependence of the rate constants for several different $`\lambda `$ values.

In conclusion, we find that the rigid rotor model is very accurate for cold collisions of He with O2. This has been proven for this system, but can be extended as well to stronger interaction potentials, as long as the energetic gain in the three body interaction does not exceed the vibrational excitation energy. Even in this case, the discrepancies can be handled by fine-tuning the interaction, at least until high-resolution data become available.

We notice that this is not true for interactions like A + A2, where A is for example an alkali atom. In such systems, moreover complicated by exchange effects between identical atoms, vibration can not be neglected $`a`$ $`priori`$, not even for collision energies tending to zero.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation and by NIST. A. V. acknowledges financial support from the Università degli Studi di Perugia (Italy).


text:
# Multi-wavelength Study of IRAS 19254-7245 - The Superantennae Based on observations obtained at the ESO telescopes of La Silla

## 1 Introduction

IRAS 19254-7245, with an infrared luminosity $`L_{IR}=\mathrm{1.1\; 10}^{12}L_{}`$ (calculated assuming $`H_0=75Kms^1Mpc^1`$, v=18479 $`Kms^1`$ and using all four IRAS fluxes Melnick & Mirabel 1990), lies amongst the Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs) emitting most of their energy in the far infrared. More than 90% of these objects show evidence for disturbed morphologies and interaction ( e.g. Sanders et al. 1988; Melnick & Mirabel 1990; Murphy et al. 1996; Clements et al. 1996). IRAS 19254-7245 is a particularly spectacular interacting galaxy with tidal tails extending to a distance of about 350 kpc and two bright nuclei 10 kpc apart. Although it is widely accepted that this system results from the collision between two gas-rich spirals, a multiple-merger origin has been recently suggested from high-resolution HST observations showing that a double nucleus may be present in both components of the interaction (Borne et al. 1999).

The southern nucleus prevails in luminosity as the system is observed at longer wavelengths and it is the dominant source in the mid-infrared as shown by the ISOCAM observations of Charmandaris et al. (2002). This nucleus also shows an optical spectrum typical of a Seyfert 2 galaxy (Mirabel et al. 1991). The presence of strong nuclear activity is moreover indicated by the Near-Infrared (NIR) and IRAS 25/60111defined as Log f25/f60 colors, which both suggest the presence of important thermal emission from hot dust ($``$ 300-500 K) most probably heated by the active nucleus.

The system has been studied among others by Mirabel et al. (1991) and Colina et al. (1991). Both groups find broad emission lines in the optical with a complex profile that can be attributed to material falling onto the nucleus or to an outflow. The kinetic energy required to power such a flow may originate from stellar winds and/or supernovae. This strongly supports the picture of merger-driven starburst activity characterized by a high star formation rate ($``$ 150 M yr-1, Colina et al. 1991), taking place in the Seyfert circumnuclear region.

Understanding the true origin of the ultra-luminous phase in infrared galaxies is still an open debate. Recent studies have shown that the merger-stage in interacting systems, traced by the projected separation of the nuclei, correlates with the star-forming efficiency and with the molecular mass detected in each merger (Gao & Solomon 1999; Murphy et al. 2001). However the relative importance between starbursting and AGN activity in luminous galaxies, and ULIRGs in particular, is still an open issue (Sanders & Mirabel 1996, Lutz et al. 1996, Vignati et al. 1999). Harboring both a Seyfert and a starburst components, IRAS 19254-7245 is a very interesting object within this context. The separation between the two nuclei involved in this merger is still large enough to allow a careful analysis and distinguish between the two sources. Our main goal is to study the near infrared (NIR) spectrum of this galaxy, but optical and $`mm`$ data were also obtained.

The present paper is divided in three main sections: Observations, Analysis and Discussion. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 2 we present the data describing how they were obtained and reduced. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3 we present the analysis of the data and how the main physical parameters were derived from the observations. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4 we use these parameters to describe the physical conditions in the galaxy. Finally we summarize our conclusions.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Optical

We obtained low and medium resolution spectra of IRAS 19254-7245 at optical wavelengths. The low resolution spectrum was observed with the Boller & Chivens spectrograph at the ESO 1.52m telescope at La Silla in 1999 May using grating #23 and a 2″ -wide slit to yield a spectral resolution of R=1300 in the range 4400-7400Å. The position angle was –12°, which allows to include both nuclei in the slit. The total integration time was 40 min. The 1D spectrum of the southern component extracted with an aperture of 2.6″ corresponding to 3.1 kpc at a distance of 247 Mpc, is shown in Fig.1. The medium resolution spectrum was acquired with EMMI at the ESO-NTT in 1999 July using the REMD (Red Medium Dispersion) mode and grating $`\mathrm{\#}`$6 which gives a resolution R=5500 in the band 6600-7200Å. Two exposures of 15 and 30 minutes were taken using a 1″ -wide slit. HeAr lamp spectra were taken before and after the exposures for the wavelength calibration and the star EG 274 was observed as spectro-photometric standard. The spectra were reduced following standard procedures. The EMMI instrumental resolution, estimated on sky lines is 36 km s-1. The flux calibration was obtained by comparing the wavelength calibrated spectra of the standard star with the flux table published. From the 2D combined frame we extracted 1D spectra with an aperture of 2.6″. A linear fit on the continuum gives a slight positive slope from $`\mathrm{9.4\; 10}^{17}`$ at 6600Åto $`\mathrm{9.9\; 10}^{17}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$Å-1 at 7200Å. To double check the flux calibration we used a HST archive image taken in the F814W filter centered at 7940Å. For our spectroscopic aperture we obtained a flux of $`\mathrm{1.09\; 10}^{16}\mathrm{ergs}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$Å-1, that agrees with our calibration to better than 5%. The medium resolution spectrum of the southern nucleus subtracted of the continuum is shown in the top panel of Figs.2 and 3.

### 2.2 Near-Infrared

We observed two spectra with the medium resolution grism of SOFI at the ESO-NTT. The spectra are respectively centered on the H and the Ks bands. They were acquired in 1999 May with 40 minutes of integration in H and 66 minutes in Ks. The Ks spectrum was observed again in 1999 September for 30 minutes of integration. We always used a 1″ -wide slit giving a resolution R=900 in H and R=1350 in Ks. A low resolution spectrum (R=600) covering the range from 1.5 to 2.5 $`\mu m`$ has been obtained with SOFI in 2001 June, the total integration time was in this case 40 minutes. The position angle was always –12°. The data reduction followed the standard steps for NIR spectroscopy. 1D spectra were extracted with an aperture of 2.6″ for the southern component. Atmospheric features were corrected by dividing for the spectrum of a reference star. In the observation of 1999 May we used a G1V and a F8V star, then the spectra were multiplied by the solar spectrum to remove the stellar features and reestablish the correct slope of the continuum (Maiolino et al. 1996). In 1999 September we used an O6 star and then multiplied by a blackbody at 40000 K to reestablish the correct slope of the continuum. The Ks spectra observed on the two occasions give a good check on the reliability of this method; they are virtually identical showing no residual features from the reference star and exactly the same slope of the continuum. The Ks spectra have been averaged together giving a final spectrum with 1h36m of integration. To flux calibrate the spectra we obtained two images in the H and Ks band with SOFI in 2001 June; the integration time was 15 minutes in each band. From the images we extracted the photometry on the spectroscopic aperture obtaining fluxes of $`\mathrm{3.16\; 10}^{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{2.80\; 10}^{12}`$erg s-1 cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}\mu `$m-1 in H and Ks respectively. The photometric error was always below 3%. This value does not include the uncertainty on the spectroscopic apertures and on their centering, however we believe that this procedure guarantees a very accurate flux calibration. In the case of the low resolution spectrum the slope of the continuum was readjusted to match the photometric points. In Fig.4 we present the NIR spectra of the southern nucleus. The top curve is the low resolution spectrum calibrated in flux. In the middle the medium resolution spectrum. In the bottom part of the left panel we show a stellar template redshifted to match the galaxy with the indication of the absorption features detectable. In the bottom right panel the K spectrum, with the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$(1-0)S(3) line subtracted, clearly shows the detection of \[SiVI\] (see Section 3.2 for details). Our NIR spectra of the northern nucleus are virtually featureless.

### 2.3 Millimetre

The radio observations were performed with the Swedish ESO-Submillimetre Telescope (SEST) in La Silla during 1999 November. The FWHM beam sizes are 45″ and 23″ at 115GHz and 230GHz respectively, and the main beam efficiencies at these frequencies are 0.70 and 0.50. Intensity calibration is done with the chopper wheel method, so the raw data, in units of T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{A}}`$, are divided by the main beam efficiency to obtain main beam brightness temperatures. The internal consistency of the SEST is accurate to within a few percent.

The backends used were two acousto-optical spectrometers, each with a total bandwidth of 1 GHz. System temperatures ranged between 200K and 350K on the T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{A}}`$ scale. All observations of the CO lines were performed with $`\tau _{225\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}0.4`$. The SEST’s absolute pointing accuracy is 3″ rms in azimuth and elevation, and the pointing model was checked with regular observations of SiO maser sources. Beam switching mode was employed, where the secondary mirror was wobbled with a beam throw of 697″ in azimuth and scans obtained with reference positions on either side were coadded to ensure flat baselines. The data were reduced with the CLASS software of the Grenoble Astrophysical Group (GAG) package. A polynomial baseline of order one, or occasionally three, was removed from each spectrum before averaging. The spectra are shown in Fig. 4.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 The Optical Spectrum

The optical spectrum of the southern nucleus shows broad emission lines even at low resolution. At high resolution it is evident how each emission line contains more than one component. It is not an easy task to describe the lines in terms of simple components, since most of the lines in the observed spectral range observed are blended. After several unsatisfactory attempts with the most common data reduction packages we decided to develop our own code to produce the best fit of the observed spectrum taking into account all known constraints, mainly \[OI\]6363 = 0.33 \[OI\]6300 and \[NII\]6583 = 3 \[NII\] 6584.

We considered three different cases: a 1-component model, a 2-component model and a 3-component model. For the 3-component model we have considered 2 cases, one with free $`\sigma `$ for the lines, the other with fixed $`\sigma `$. The latter gives a more physical result given the type 2 nature of the Seyfet galaxy. We applied the inversion code to both the low resolution and the high resolution spectra. The best-fit parameters are given in Table 1, which is organized as follows. $`F_i`$ denotes the fraction of the flux ascribed to the $`i`$-th component of the line, $`z_i`$ denotes the red-shift, $`\sigma _{H\alpha i}`$ the standard deviation of the Gaussian of the $`i`$-th component and refers to the H$`\alpha `$ line. It should be noted that the contribution due to the instrumental resolution, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{instr}}5`$Å (FWHM), and 1.1Å (FWHM), for the low and the high resolution spectrum, respectively, is negligible compared to the intrinsic width of each component. The remaining rows in the table give the line integrated flux, due to all components of the various emission lines, in units of $`10^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. The residuals of the best fit to the high-resolution spectrum obtained assuming a 3-component model with free and fixed $`\sigma `$ are shown in Figs.2 and 3, along with the components of $`H\alpha `$.

The single component model is clearly insufficient to explain the observations. A much more satisfactory fit was obtained by assuming a 2-component model. The best results were obtained by assuming a 3-component model, and even better results would be expected by adding a fourth component (as done by Colina et al. 1991). However, increasing the number of free parameters leads to multiple solutions with similar values of the minimum $`\chi ^2`$, which makes it virtually impossible to determine the most reliable one. The scattering between the various values obtained from the different models allows us to give the most appropriate estimate of the errors associated with the parameters, i.e., typically 3% for the high resolution spectrum.

### 3.2 The NIR Spectrum

The NIR spectrum has a resolution that is significantly lower than the optical medium resolution spectrum and not enough to discriminate the various velocity components. For this reason it has not been necessary to apply our code to the NIR part of the spectrum and all lines have been fitted with a single gaussian component.

The \[SiVI\] line blended with the line (1-0)S(2) of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ is clearly detected. To make this detection more evident and to measure the flux emitted we have subtracted from the (1-0)S(2) the profile derived from the (1-0)S(1) line. The best subtraction is obtained assuming a line ratio S(2)/S(1)=1.17. The subtracted spectrum is shown in the bottom part of Fig.4; the two faint lines on the left of \[SiVI\] can be identified with the residual of the OH 8-6 P1(4.5) sky line (Rousselot et al. 2000) and with Br$`\delta `$. In Table 2 the lines detected in the NIR spectrum and their fluxes are listed.

### 3.3 CO Spectrum

Fig.5 shows the SEST spectra of the 12CO(1-0) and 12CO(2-1) emission in IRAS 19254-7245. The spectra have somewhat higher signal to noise than the 12CO(1-0) spectrum of Mirabel et al. (1991), as our SEST spectra have rms $`1.0`$ mK when averaged to $`20`$ km s-1 channels. Integrating these spectra we find a total 12CO(1-0) flux of I(CO) = $`2.4\pm 0.1`$ K km s-1 and for 12CO(2-1) I(CO) = $`3.0\pm 0.1`$ K km s-1, where the uncertainties are estimated following Elfhag et al. (1996). At the $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{20}`$ level (width of the line at 20% of its peak value), the line widths are $`670\pm 20`$ km s-1 although there is a suggestion that the 12CO(2-1) spectrum is as wide as the $`800`$ km s-1 claimed by Mirabel et al. (1991). The width at 50% level is $`570kms^1`$. Both lines have a central velocity consistent with the heliocentric radial velocity of $`18500\pm 80`$ km s-1 generally adopted for IRAS 19254-7245. The differing beam sizes make line ratio considerations impractical with the current data.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Extinction

From the ratio of the hydrogen recombination lines it is possible to calculate the extinction of the galaxy. Colina et al. (1991) derive E(B-V)=1.40 from the ratio of $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ that corresponds to $`A_V=4.37`$ assuming the extinction curve of Rieke & Lebofsky (1985). Using 3 components to deconvolve the $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ at high resolution (see right column in Table 3) and the $`\mathrm{H}\beta `$ flux as measured at low resolution we obtain $`A_V=3.15`$. We ascribe the difference with the value of Colina et al. to our better deconvolution of the spectrum. For the theoretical ratio of the two lines we have used the value 2.86 given by Osterbrook (1989) for $`T=10^4K`$ and $`n_e=10^2cm^3`$. An independent measure can be derived from the ratio $`\mathrm{H}\beta /\mathrm{Br}\gamma `$. Using the theoretical ratios 36.9 we obtain $`A_V=3.9\pm 0.2`$. This value, though less affected by the blending of the lines, has a much larger error. We do not use the $`\mathrm{Pa}\alpha `$ line that, though much brighter than $`\mathrm{Br}\gamma `$, lies in a region of poor atmospheric transmission and cannot be considered reliable as evident from the high underlying noise visible in Fig.4.

### 4.2 Continuum

The four photometric points available for our spectroscopic aperture, mainly V, I, H and Ks, give a rising continuum from the optical to the H band that significantly flattens toward the Ks band. We tried to reproduce the global shape of the continuum using a simple model including cold stars, warm dust and a non-thermal continuum. The wide spectral range considered allows to put tight constraints despite the relatively small number of measured points. For our simplified model, each of these components was described by a black body at 3000 K, a black body at 1500 K and a power low with spectral index -0.5. A good fit was obtained with a 56% contribution from cold stars obscured by 4 mag of visual extinction, 28% from dust with 4 mag of extinction and 16% from the power-law. The latter, nonthermal component is required to flatten the NIR part of the spectrum; the same effect can however be obtained using a few hot stars heavily obscured or a cold star component with no extinction.

The NIR continuum of IRAS 19254-7245 appears rich of stellar absorption features most of which are CO bands. We compared our H-band spectrum with the spectrum of a stellar template obtained combining the spectra of late type stars (see Engelbracht et al. 1998), the result is shown in the bottom part of Fig.4. We run a $`\chi ^2`$ test adding to the stellar template an increasing percentage of flat featureless continuum to measure the degree of dilution. We found a minimum for the $`\chi ^2`$ with a dilution by about 30%. Though this estimate is quite uncertain due to the moderate S/N and resolution, it is certainly indicative of the presence of some dilution of the continuum in the H band and it is not too far from the previous estimate. The absorption bands detected in the K band are too shallow to extend this kind of analysis to this band.

The discrepancy in the contribution of the cold star component derived with the two methods can be attributed to our over simplified model of the continuum and to the poor detection of the stellar absorption bands. We conclude that a significant fraction of the continuum originates from a hot dust component, probably close to the sublimation temperature, in the vicinity or within the torus of the AGN. This is consistent with the fact that a high fraction of the bolometric luminosity of the SuperAntennae orginates from the nucleus of the southern galaxy as seen in the Mid-Infrared (Charmandaris et al. 2002).

### 4.3 Line Profiles

As already noted, the optical emission lines show a complex structure that cannot be reproduced by a simple gaussian fit. From the analysis described in the previous section we have been able to obtain a satisfactory fit describing each line as the superposition of two or three components. The observed profiles can be explained by the presence of material that falls on or is ejected from the nucleus, with typical velocities of about 1000 km s-1, as shown by the parameters of the fit shown in Table 1.

On a larger scale, we have measured the rotation curve of the galaxy from the $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ 2D spectrum. The curve is plotted in Fig.6 with the southern nucleus at position 0. In this scale the northern component appears to be located at about 6 arcsec. The positions of both nuclei are marked by arrows. In the same figure we also plot the values of the velocity dispersion ($`\sigma `$) deconvolved for the instrumental profile. The rotation curve is consistent with that measured by Mirabel et al (1991); however our spatial resolution is higher. At position between 8 and 9 arcsec we detect a cloud of gas with a velocity of at least 50 Km/s out of the main stream and a velocity dispersion lower than the average. This finding indicates that a dynamically complex structure is present even at large radial distances. The higher errors in the velocity and the higher values of dispersion around position 0 are mainly due to the complexity of the emission lines in this region. All lines observed in the optical are ”narrow” in agreement with the classification of the south component as type 2.

It is interesting to note that the NIR lines do not show the complex profiles detected in the optical and that they can be well fitted by single gaussians. This is possibly due to the lower resolution and lower S/N in the NIR that do not allow a good detection of the faint components. The velocity dispersion of the NIR lines are comparable to those in the optical indicating that the optical and NIR lines are probably generated in clouds that participate in the same motions. It would be interesting to compare the redshift of the NIR lines with the optical de-blended lines but this would require a spectral resolution and wavelength accuracy higher than we have at the moment.

### 4.4 Coronal Lines

Two high ionization lines are detected in our spectra \[FeVII\]5721 and \[SiVI\]1.962. Both are blended with other lines and a careful de-blending process was used to measure a reliable value of the flux emitted. Marconi et al. (1994) proved that the ratio \[FeVII\]5721/\[SiVI\]1.962 is very close to unity in case of photoionization, independently of the details of the models. Correcting the fluxes measured in these lines for $`A_V=4`$ with the extinction law of Rieke & Lebofsky (1985) we obtain \[SiVI\]/\[FeVII\] = 0.5. This value however is quite uncertain due to the large uncertainty on the flux of the blended \[FeVII\]. In addition the low resolution optical spectrum was observed with a larger slit than the NIR one, 2″ instead of 1″, and the \[FeVII\] could be diluted by the continuum. Althought we have included the \[FeX\] line in our fit of the optical spectrum there is no direct evidence for the detection of this line.

### 4.5 Lines of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ and \[FeII\]

We observe a very good NIR emission line spectrum from molecular hydrogen. In Table 3 we compare the observed ratios with the values predicted by two different models for fluorescent and thermal excitation derived from Engelbracht et al. (1998). From these ratios and from the non-detection of the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ lines in the H spectrum we can assume to have a pure thermally excited spectrum. Two mechanisms can concour: shocks by either supernovae or nuclear jets and X-ray heating. The high ratio (1,0)S(3)/(1,0)S(1) would favor the second possibility at least according to the results from Mouri (1994). The same result would be inferred from the weakness of the (2-1)S(3) line according to Draine & Woods (1990). In Fig.7 we plot the excitation diagram of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ as derived from our observations and built following Lester et al. (1988). From the diagram we can infer an excitation temperature of about 2000 K. The high excitation temperature allows us to exclude thermal excitation in photodissociation regions and favor the thermal process either by SN driven shocks or X-ray heating. The (1,0)S(1)/Br$`\gamma `$ ratio of 5.7 is unusually high even for a Seyfert galaxy (Moorwood & Oliva 1988). This makes IRAS 19254-7245 somehow similar to NGC 6240, however, unlike NGC 6240, the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ emission is concentrated on the nucleus of the southern component and we detect no emission either from the northern nucleus or from the internuclear region. Though we cannot rule out that the interaction generates large shocks at least in the south galaxy, there is no direct evidence that could support the presence of such phenomena. Also the (1,0)S(1) luminosity of about $`\mathrm{1.8\; 10}^7L_{}`$ makes of IRAS 19245-7245 a scaled down version of NGC 6240 ($`10^8L_{}`$).

Very similarly to $`\mathrm{H}_2`$, the ratio \[FeII\]/Br$`\gamma `$ = 5.5 is unusually high and again one of the highest after NGC 6240 in the list of galaxies observed by Moorwood & Oliva (1988); a similarly high ratio is reported by Vanzi et al. (1997) for the Seyfert 2 galaxy Arp 182. Such a high ratio is a clear evidence for AGN in fact values around unit are expected in starbursting and HII galaxies while values above unit are typical of AGNs. We can use the ratio \[OI\]/$`H\alpha `$=0.17 to locate the galaxy in a diagnostic diagram as the one of Alonso-Herrero et al. (1997). In such a plot IRAS 19254-7245 clearly seats in the Seyfert galaxies region. These high ratios are possibly due to the concurrence of excitation mechanisms such as shocks from SNe, AGN driven shocks and X-ray heating.

### 4.6 Molecular hydrogen mass

The conversion of integrated line intensity of CO to surface mass density of molecular hydrogen involves making several assumptions (see Morris & Rickard 1982; Arimoto et al. 1996; Bryant & Scoville 1996; Sakamoto 1996; Verter & Hodge 1995; Hollenbach & Tielens 1997).

The conversion factor is currently the subject of much discussion, so for consistency many authors assume the commonly applied “standard Galactic” value of $`2.3\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)^1`$ (Strong et al. 1988), although this value probably overestimates the true H2 mass in active galaxies. The “standard” value can be compared with independently estimated values from EGRET of $`1.56\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)^1`$ (Hunter et al. 1997). Using our SEST flux with the relation for the conversion of CO line intensity into H2 column density given by Strong et al. (1988), and an adopted distance of 247 Mpc, we calculate an indicative  estimate of the total molecular mass of M$`{}_{\mathrm{H}_2}{}^{}=1.9\times 10^{10}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ that is consistent with a similar analysis presented by Mirabel et al. (1991), but should be regarded as an upper limit. Indeed, this molecular gas mass is about an order of magnitude higher than in typical spiral galaxies (Boselli et al. 1997; Casoli et al. 1998) and is somewhat larger than largest molecular gas mass ( $`1.4\times 10^{10}\mathrm{M}_{}`$) found for a sample of interacting galaxies studied by Horellou & Booth (1997).

## 5 Conclusions

We have observed the Ultra Luminous Infrared Galaxy IRAS 19254-7245, concentrating our investigation on the southern component with observations that range from the optical to the millimetre. The results of our investigation can be briefly summarized as follow:

1. Based on our NIR and optical data we estimate a visual extinction between 3 and 4 mag. The continuum can be well reproduced assuming this value.
2. The optical emission lines have broad and complex profiles indicative of gas clouds rapidly moving around the nucleus. The NIR lines are similarly broad though with a much simpler profile.
3. Coronal lines from \[FeVII\]5721 and \[SiVI\]1.96 are detected. Their ratio is consistent, within the error, with the value expected from photoionization.
4. NIR lines from $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ and \[FeII\] are bright and give unusually high ratios with $`Br\gamma `$ even for the AGN standards. The $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ is thermally excited and has a very high luminosity ($`\mathrm{1.8\; 10}^7L_{}`$).
5. From the CO luminosity we derive a $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ mass of $`\mathrm{1.9\; 10}^{10}M_{}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Pierre-Alain Duc for making his NIR images of IRAS19254-7245 available to us and to Chad Engelbracht for sending to us his stellar template spectra. We also thanks Leonardo Testi for useful discussions and for his careful reading of the first draft of this paper. RM and ELF acknowledge the support of ESO under the visiting scientist and studentship programs respectively. We finally thanks the anonymous referee for very useful comments that improved a lot the present paper.


text:
# References

UTHET-02-0102

dS/CFT Correspondence in Two Dimensions111Research supported in part by the DoE under grant DE-FG05-91ER40627.

Scott Ness222ness@utk.edu and George Siopsis333gsiopsis@utk.edu
Department of Physics and Astronomy,

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

TN 37996 - 1200, USA.

Abstract

We discuss the quantization of a scalar particle moving in two-dimensional de Sitter space. We construct the conformal quantum mechanical model on the asymptotic boundary of de Sitter space in the infinite past. We obtain explicit expressions for the generators of the conformal group and calculate the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. We also show that two-point correlators are in agreement with the Green function one obtains from the wave equation in the bulk de Sitter space.

Even though the AdS/CFT correspondence is by now well-understood , a similar correspondence for a de Sitter space has been quite a puzzle to establish. Such a development is of considerable interest in view of recent astronomical data suggesting that we live in a Universe of positive cosmological constant .

A concrete proposal for a dS/CFT correspondence was recently put forth by Strominger  and attracted much attention . According to this proposal, all observables in the bulk de Sitter space are generated by data specified on its asymptotic boundary which can be selected to be the Euclidean hypersurface $`^{}`$ in the infinite past. The isometries of the de Sitter space are mapped onto generators of the conformal group of the theory defined on the boundary $`^{}`$. This CFT is hard to construct in general, but various features, such as conformal weights and masses, are known. In three-dimensional de Sitter space, the conformal group on the boundary is infinite and the central charge is known . The CFT is a Liouville theory .

Here we discuss the case of two-dimensional de Sitter space. The asymptotic boundary $`^{}`$ is a circle, which upon a Wick rotation turns into time. The theory on the boundary is a conformal quantum mechanical model. We shall explicitly construct this model for the case of a scalar particle, obtain the generators of the conformal group, calculate the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian and the Green functions. Our method of solution is similar to the one discussed by de Alfaro, Fubini and Furlan (DFF) , even though our Hamiltonian differs from theirs.

The two-dimensional de Sitter space (dS2) may be parametrized as

$$\frac{ds^2}{l^2}=d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau d\varphi ^2.$$
(1)
We will explicitly consider the case where $`\varphi `$ spans the real axis (zero temperature limit) and then comment on what changes need to be made to turn $`\varphi `$ periodic (finite temperature).

Consider a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of mass $`m`$. It obeys the wave equation in de Sitter space

$$l^2^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\tau }_\tau \left(\mathrm{cosh}\tau _\tau \mathrm{\Phi }\right)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }_\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Phi }=m^2l^2\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(2)
The operator $`^2`$ is the Casimir operator in the $`SL(2,)`$ algebra generated by

$$L_\pm =e^{\pm i\varphi }(i\mathrm{tanh}\tau \frac{}{\varphi }\pm \frac{}{\tau }),L_3=i\frac{}{\varphi }$$
(3)
Indeed,

$$\mathrm{}^2^2=\frac{1}{2}(L_+L_{}+L_{}L_+)L_3^2$$
(4)
Focusing on the $`^{}`$ boundary reduces the wave equation to

$$\left(_\tau ^2+_\tau +4e^{2\tau }_\varphi ^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=m^2l^2\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(5)
On this spacelike slice we see the third term is negligible and the wave equation becomes independent of $`\varphi `$. The solution to the wave equation (2) behaves asymptotically as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }e^{h_\pm \tau },h_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\pm \nu ,\nu =i\mu ,\mu =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4m^2l^21}.$$
(6)
We will concentrate on the case of imaginary $`\nu `$ ($`\mu `$) in which $`h_{}=h_+^{}`$. Introducing the coordinate $`q=e^\tau `$, we may write (5) as

$$f_k^{\prime \prime }+4k^2f_k=\frac{m^2\mathrm{}^2}{q^2}f_k$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,\varphi )=e^{ik\varphi }f_k(q)`$. The solutions are

$$f_k(q)=\sqrt{2kq}Z_\nu (2kq)$$
(8)
where $`Z_\nu `$ is a Bessel function. They form an orthogonal set under the inner product

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }e^{i(k_1k_2)\varphi }(f_{k_1}^{}(q)f_{k_2}^{}(q)f_{k_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(q)f_{k_2}(q)).$$
(9)
The apparent $`q`$-dependence disappears after we apply the wave equation and the integral over $`\varphi `$ leads to a $`\delta `$-function, as expected. For the Euclidean choice

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k^E=C^Ee^{ik\varphi }\sqrt{2kq}H_\nu ^{(1)}(2kq)$$
(10)
demanding orthonormality, fixes the normalization constant to $`C^E=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}`$ for real $`\nu `$, where we used the Wronskian $`H_\nu ^{(1)}(x)H_{\nu }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)H_{\nu }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)H_\nu ^{(2)}(x)=\frac{4i}{\pi x}`$. Another interesting choice is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+=C^+e^{ik\varphi }\sqrt{2kq}J_\nu (2kq).$$
(11)
For an orthonormal set, we choose

$$C^+=\frac{\sqrt{\nu }}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}$$
(12)
Using the Bessel function identity

$$J_\nu (x)=\frac{1}{2}\left(H_\nu ^{(1)}(x)e^{i\pi \nu }H_\nu ^{(1)}(x)\right)$$
(13)
we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+(q,\varphi )=\sqrt{\frac{\nu }{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_k^E(q,\varphi )+e^{i\pi h_+}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^E(q,\varphi )\right)$$
(14)
which differs from  by a phase. The Green function for the modes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+`$ can be obtained from

$$G^+(q,\varphi ;q^{},\varphi ^{})=\frac{dk}{k}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+(q,\varphi )\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+(q^{},\varphi ^{}).$$
(15)
After some algebra, we arrive at

$$G^+(q,\varphi ;q^{},\varphi ^{})=(C^+)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_++\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}(4P)^{h_+}F(h_+,h_+;2h_+;1/P)$$
(16)
where $`P`$ measures the distance between the two arguments of the Green function in the three-dimensional Minkowski space in which dS2 is embedded,

$$P=\frac{4(qq^{})^2+(\varphi \varphi ^{})^2}{16qq^{}}.$$
(17)
When $`P\mathrm{}`$, the Green function behaves as

$$G^+(q,\varphi ;q^{},\varphi ^{})(C^+)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_++\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}(4P)^{h_+}.$$
(18)
For the Euclidean modes, the Green function can be found in terms of the Green function obtained above using (14. Near the boundary, we deduce the two-point function of the dual conformal theory,

$$𝒪^{}(\varphi )𝒪(\varphi ^{})=2\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}(\varphi \varphi ^{})^{2h_+}$$
(19)
If $`\varphi `$ is a periodic coordinate with period $`2\pi `$, then $`k`$ takes on discrete values and the integral defining the Green function turns into a sum. The form of the two-point function may be deduced from the periodicity condition and the singularity, which uniquely determine it. We obtain

$$𝒪^{}(\varphi )𝒪(\varphi ^{})=2\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}\left(2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi \varphi ^{}}{2}\right)^{2h_+}$$
(20)
The boundary conformal theory can be defined in terms of the coordinates $`q=e^\tau ,\varphi `$ and their conjugate momenta $`p=e^\tau _\tau ,H`$, respectively. Instead of the $`SL(2,)`$ generators (3), it is more convenient to introduce the generators

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\varphi _\varphi +_\tau \right)`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^2_\varphi +2i\varphi _\tau +4e^{2\tau }_\varphi .`$ (21)
in the vicinity of the boundary $`^{}`$. The three operators H,D and K satisfy the $`SL(2,)`$ algebra

$$[H,K]=2iD,[H,D]=iH,[K,D]=iK.$$
(22)
The wave equation is mapped onto the constraint

$$4q^2H^2q^2p^2=g,g=m^2\mathrm{}^2+A$$
(23)
where we have allowed for the possibility of a normal ordering ambiguity by introducing the constant $`A`$. Classically, we can solve the constraint (23) and express the conformal Hamiltonian as

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{p^2+\frac{g}{q^2}}.$$
(24)
The constraint thus reduces the system to a quantum mechanical model with a single degree of freedom $`q`$, with $`\varphi `$ playing the role of imaginary time. Notice that our Hamiltonian differs from the one considered by DFF  (theirs is the square of ours), yet the results are similar.

In order to quantize this system, we promote $`(q,p)`$ to operators $`(Q,P)`$ and impose the standard commutation relation

$$[Q,P]=i$$
(25)
The coordinate $`\varphi `$ is identified with time after a Wick rotation. $`D`$ and $`K`$ (eq. (S0.Ex1)) become the dilation and special conformal operators, respectively, given by

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\varphi H+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(QP+PQ)\right)`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^2H+i\varphi (QP+PQ)+2(Q^2H+HQ^2).`$ (26)
Following the procedure in , it is more convenient to start with the values of the $`SL(2,)`$ generators at $`\varphi =0`$. Let $`Q_0=Q(0)`$ and $`P_0=P(0)`$. The three generators reduce to

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{P_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{Q_0^2}}}`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(Q_0P_0+P_0Q_0)`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`2(Q_0^2H+HQ_0^2).`$ (27)
It can be checked explicitly that they obey the $`SL(2,)`$ algebra

$$[H,K]=2iD,[H,D]=iH,[K,D]=iK.$$
(28)
The Casimir operator of this algebra is given by

$$N=\frac{1}{2}(HK+KH)D^2.$$
(29)
This commutes with all operators and its numerical value should equal $`m^2\mathrm{}^2`$ to match the wave equation. To calculate $`N`$, we first bring it into the form

$$N=[H,[Q_0^2,H]]+g+\frac{3}{4}$$
(30)
after some straightforward operator manipulations. The remaining double commutator is independent of $`g`$ and can therefore be easily calculated by setting $`g=0`$ in $`H`$. It may also be deduced from the corresponding Poisson brackets. The final result is

$$N=g\frac{1}{4}$$
(31)
By comparing with the wave equation (5), we deduce that the normal ordering constant is $`A=1/4`$ (cf. (23)) and

$$g=m^2\mathrm{}^2+\frac{1}{4}$$
(32)
We follow the procedure of  to construct the states in the Hilbert space. Define new operators R, S:

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}K+aH\right),`$
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}KaH\right).`$ (33)
where $`a`$ is a constant with dimension of length. We will let $`a=1`$ for simplicity. $`R`$ plays the role of a Hamiltonian for the quantum mechanical system on $`^{}`$ whose eigenstates span the Hilbert space. By including the dilation operator, $`R,S`$ and $`D`$ form the closed algebra $`O_{2,1}`$,

$$[D,R]=iS[S,R]=iD[S,D]=iR.$$
(34)
Next, we define raising and lowering operators

$$L_\pm =SiD.$$
(35)
These new operators, along with $`R`$ form the closed algebra $`SL(2,)`$,

$$[R,L_\pm ]=\pm L_\pm [L_+,L_{}]=2R.$$
(36)
The Casimir operator for this algebra (29) can be written in terms of $`R,L_+`$ and $`L_{}`$ as

$$N=\frac{1}{2}(HK+KH)D^2=R^2RL_+L_{}$$
(37)
The ground state energy can be found by operating on the ground state of $`R`$,

$$R|0=r_0|0,$$
(38)
$$N|0=r_0(r_01)|0=m^2l^2|0.$$
(39)
Thus, the ground state energy is

$$r_0=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \sqrt{14m^2l^2}).$$
(40)
Therefore, $`r_0=h_\pm `$ (eq. (6)). Without loss of generality, we choose $`r_0=h_+`$. The other choice ($`r_0=h_{}=h_+^{}`$) leads to a dual Hilbert space related to the one we are about to study via complex conjugation. It should be noted that inner products ought to be defined in terms of both Hilbert spaces, leading to normalization conditions such as (44).

By successively acting with the raising operators, we deduce the eigenvalues of $`R`$,

$$R\psi _n(q)=(r_0+n)\psi _n(q)$$
(41)
In the position representation, we obtain the Schrödinger equation

$$\left((1+2q^2)\sqrt{\frac{d^2}{dq^2}+\frac{g}{q^2}}+2\sqrt{\frac{d^2}{dq^2}+\frac{g}{q^2}}q^2\right)\psi _n(q)=\sqrt{2}(r_0+n)\psi _n(q).$$
(42)
To solve the Schrödinger equation, it is convenient to introduce the transition matrix $`𝒯_{nk}`$ between the two bases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+`$ (11) and $`\psi _n`$, at time $`\varphi =0`$,

$$\psi _n(q)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k𝒯_{nk}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+(q),$$
(43)
where we impose orthonormality,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q\psi _n(q)\psi _n^{}(q)=\delta _{nn^{}}.$$
(44)
The action of the three $`SL(2,)`$ generators on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+`$ translates to an action on the matrix elements $`𝒯_{nk}`$,

$$\widehat{H}𝒯_{nk}=k𝒯_{nk},\widehat{D}𝒯_{nk}=i(k\frac{d}{dk}+\frac{1}{2})𝒯_{nk},\widehat{K}𝒯_{nk}=(k\frac{d^2}{dk^2}\frac{d}{dk}+\frac{\nu ^2}{k})𝒯_{nk},$$
(45)
respectively. In this representation, the Schrödinger equation (42) becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{H}+\widehat{K})𝒯_{nk}=(h_++n)𝒯_{nk}$$
(46)
which can be solved. The solution is given in terms of Laguerre polynomials ,

$$𝒯_{nk}=\frac{2^{h_+}}{C^+}\sqrt{\frac{n!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2h_+)}}k^\nu e^kL_n^{2\nu }(2k)$$
(47)
where the normalization has been fixed as in  with the exception of the factor $`C^+`$ which is due to the different normalization condition we imposed on the wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^+`$. It leads to a unit norm for the wavefunction $`\psi _n`$. It is convenient to introduce the Laplace transform of $`𝒯_{nk}`$ with respect to the energy $`k`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n(\varphi )=2^{h_+}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ke^{k\varphi }k^\nu 𝒯_{nk}$$
(48)
given in terms of the conjugate time variable $`\varphi `$. The additional energy factor $`k^\nu `$ ensures that the action of the $`SL(2,)`$ generators is as expected. Explicitly,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n(\varphi )=\frac{()^n}{(C^+)^2}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2h_+)}{n!}}\left(\frac{1\varphi }{1+\varphi }\right)^{n+h_+}(1\varphi ^2)^{h_+}$$
(49)
and the $`SL(2,)`$ generators act as (cf. eq. (45))

$$\widehat{H}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n=\frac{d}{d\varphi }\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n,\widehat{D}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n=i(\varphi \frac{d}{d\varphi }+h_+)\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n,\widehat{K}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n=(\varphi ^2\frac{d}{d\varphi }+2h_+\varphi )\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n.$$
(50)
The two-point function is given by

$$G(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n(\varphi )\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n(\varphi ^{})$$
(51)
Notice that we there is no complex conjugation on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n(\varphi ^{})`$, because it ought to be the complex conjugate of the dual of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n`$ which is itself related to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_n`$ by complex conjugation (cf. also the inner product (44)). A short calculation reveals

$$G(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2h_+)}{2^{2h_+}(C^+)^2}(\varphi \varphi ^{})^{2h_+}=2\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}(\varphi \varphi ^{})^{2h_+}$$
(52)
in agreement with the de Sitter space result (19). Higher-order correlators may also be obtained by using the standard methods developed in .

If we demand periodicity of $`\varphi `$ ($`\varphi \varphi +2\pi `$), the above calculations become cumbersome. The energy $`k`$ takes on discrete values and the differential equations determining the transition matrix $`𝒯_{nk}`$ turn into difference equations. Nevertheless, correlators may be deduced without explicit calculations, because they are uniquely determined by the periodicity requirements and their singularities.

To summarize, we have discussed the conformal quantum mechanical model which resides on the boundary $`^{}`$ of two-dimensional de Sitter space in the infinite past. We calculated the eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian and deduced correlation functions. We showed that the Green functions agree with the propagators one obtains from the de Sitter space wave equation. Most of our results are similar to those of ref. , even though our Hamiltonian is different and the Schrödinger equation (42) cannot be solved explicitly. What saves the day is the $`SL(2,)`$ symmetry which determines much of the structure of the conformal theory as was shown in . It would be interesting to extend our results to de Sitter spaces of dimension higher than two and shed some light on the behavior of the conformal field theories on the boundary.