text:
# Strong field approximation to the relativistic channeling of electrons in the presence of electromagnetic waves.

## I Introduction

Channeling in crystal lattices occurs when an accelerated charged particle is introduced into a crystalline target at sufficiently large energy. Depending on the crystal orientation, the particle’s trajectory may be aligned with a major crystal direction and the penetration may reach anomalous depths. Although the possibility of this effect was already pointed out very early by Stark , it was demonstrated experimentally 50 years later by Rol et al. , when the result of the ion sputtering was found to depend strongly on the orientation of the target crystal. After the discovery, the theoretical and experimental work increased rapidly and extended to the case of channeling of electrons and positrons .

In this paper we will investigate the excitation dynamics of a planar channeled electron under the influence of an external electromagnetic field. As a main result, we demonstrate that the crystal periodicity introduces a momentum conservation condition which affects the efficiency of the different N-photon channels of excitation, leading to the strong suppression of photon absorption in a broad range of situations. The multiphoton excitation of channeled particles has been already addressed by Avetissian et al.  by assuming an electromagnetic wave copropagating with the electron, and with a frequency resonant to the (Doppler-shifted) lower-energy level transitions. In the present case, however, we are interested in a complementary situation where the channeled electron is excited to a final state lying in the crystal quasi-continuum. Since the transition is produced by the interaction of the electron with an external intense optical field, the strong field approximation (SFA) constitutes a more appropriated procedure in comparison to the discrete level approach in .

SFA theories have been developed in the context of ionization of atoms in strong laser fields. Among them, the so-called Keldish-Faisal-Reiss (KFR) theory  is based on the S-matrix approach, where the final state is approximated by a Volkov state, which describes the evolution of a free electron driven by the electromagnetic wave. SFA theories describe most of the relevant aspects of the atomic ionization, including multiphoton absorption and multiphoton excitation above the ionization threshold (ATI).

Although employed mainly in the atomic and molecular context, S-matrix SFA approaches can be used in any general situation in which the field interaction energy is comparable with the energies of the matter system. In fact, for the higher energy boundstates, the intensity of the field required to promote an electron to the continuum does not have to be very high, and yet SFA can be used. On the other hand, SFA requires the matter potential to be approximately constant over the complete interaction time. In our case it suffices with a moderate intensity field, ($`10^{12}10^{13}W/cm^2`$), while the crystal stability can be ensured by a sufficiently short pulse (about $`100fs`$), which still enclose enough cycles to ensure the adiabatic limit involved in the theoretical approach. It should be mention that, in the case of atom ionization by strong field, the adiabatic assumption is correct even in the case of a few cycles pulse-length, and there is no reason to think that in this channeling case the thing should be different.

## II Geometry of the system and description of the unperturbed channeled electron.

Let us consider the interacting geometry depicted in fig. 1. A relativistic electron, with velocity parallel to the $`xaxis`$, is introduced in a crystal while interacting with a copropagating or a counterpropagating electromagnetic wave. For particular crystal orientations, the electron is confined transversely to trajectories close to the initial injection axis. Our case of planar channeling occurs when the electron is injected parallel to a crystal plane . We will assume an electromagnetic planewave field, which propagates in the same direction of the injected electron, and linearly polarized in the $`yaxis`$, i.e. orthogonal to the crystal plane.

Since the channeled particle is injected with a relativistic velocity, the crystal potential may be well approximated by a spatial average over the crystal plane coordinates, as it is done in the so-called continuum model ,

$$V(y)=\frac{1}{L_xL_z}_{L_x/2}^{L_x/2}_{L_z/2}^{L_z/2}U(x,y,z)𝑑x𝑑z$$
(1)
where $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ are the crystal plane dimensions, and $`U(x,y,z)`$ is the crystal potential. With this effective potential the electron motion in the crystal channel, driven by the external e.m. field, will be confined to the polarization plane $`xy`$.

In the most general case, the quantum description of the electron’s dynamics is described by the Dirac equation

$$\left\{c\alpha \left(\widehat{𝐩}e𝐀/c\right)+\beta mc^2+V(y)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)=E_B\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)$$
(2)
Let us first consider the unperturbed channeling situation, $`𝐀=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Since the averaged potential depends only on the $`y`$ coordinate, a general positive energy solution of the channeled electron can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)=𝑑p_y\sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{E_{p_x,p_y}}}u_{p_x,p_y}^1e^{i(p_xx+p_yy)/\mathrm{}}\xi _{p_y}$$
(3)
Where $`u_{p_x,p_y}^1`$ is the positive energy solution of a free Dirac electron , $`E_{p_x,p_y}=\sqrt{c^2p_x^2+c^2p_y^2+m^2c^4}`$,

$$u_{p_x,p_y}^1=\sqrt{\frac{E_{p_x,p_y}+mc^2}{2mc^2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ \frac{c(p_x+ip_y)}{E_{p_x,p_y}+mc^2}\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
Introducing (3) into (2), with $`𝐀=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, one can obtain the following form for the Dirac equation in momentum space:

$$E_Bu_{p_x,p_y}^1\xi _{p_y}=\{c\alpha _xp_x+c\alpha _yp_y+\beta mc^2\}u_{p_x,p_y}^1\xi _{p_y}+𝑑p_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}\sqrt{\frac{E_{p_x,p_y}}{E_{p_x,p_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}}}}V_{p_yp_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}}u_{p_x,p_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}}\xi _{p_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}}$$
(5)
Being $`V_p`$ the Fourier transform of the interplanar potential at the spatial frequency $`p/\mathrm{}`$. Due to the nature of the averaged potential, the channeling along a crystal plane is only possible if the energy of the electron’s transversal dynamics is moderate, i.e. non relativistic. In this case, it is justified to approximate equation (5) to second order of $`cp_y/E_{p_x}`$.

$$E_{p_x,p_y}=\sqrt{c^2p_x^2+c^2p_y^2+m^2c^4}E_{p_x}\left(1+\frac{c^2p_y^2}{2E_{p_x}^2}\right)$$
(6)
$$\sqrt{\frac{E_{p_x,p_y}+mc^2}{2E_{p_x,p_y}}}\sqrt{\frac{E_{p_x}+mc^2}{2E_{p_x}}}(1\frac{c^2p_y^2}{4E_{p_x}^2}(\frac{mc^2}{E_{p_x}+mc^2}\left)\right)$$
(7)
$$\sqrt{\frac{2E_{p_x,p_y}}{E_{p_x,p_y}+mc^2}}\sqrt{\frac{2E_{p_x}}{E_{p_x}+mc^2}}(1+\frac{c^2p_y^2}{4E_{p_x}^2}(\frac{mc^2}{E_{p_x}+mc^2}\left)\right)$$
(8)
Note that, for the field intensities considered here, this approximation will remain equally valid when considering the interaction with the external electromagnetic wave.

By introducing eq. (6-8) into (5), and since the scalar potential $`V_{p_yp_y}`$ is a first order term in $`cp_y/E_x`$, the Dirac equation is reduced to the same identity for every non-zero component of the spinor $`u_{p_x,p_y}^1`$:

$$E_B\xi _{p_y}=\{\frac{c^2p_y^2}{2E_{p_x}}+E_{p_x}\}\xi _{p_y}+𝑑p_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}V_{p_yp_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}}\xi _{p_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}}$$
(9)
Computing the inverse Fourier transform in the $`y`$ coordinate, we finally end with a Schrödinger-like equation

$$ϵ_B\xi (y)=\{\frac{p_y^2}{2\gamma _xm}+V(y)\}\xi (y)$$
(10)
where $`E_{p_x}=\gamma _xmc^2`$, and $`ϵ_B=E_B\gamma _xmc^2`$ corresponds to the non-relativistic eigenstate energy.

Several explicit forms of the averaged crystal potential may be found in the literature . Among them, those derived from the Thomas-Fermi screened two-body potentials have been widely used , and have been fine adjusted by standard Hartree-Fock many-body calculations . From the theoretical point of view, model potentials are more convenient, since they allow for further analytical work while keeping the essential features of the interaction. For instance, $`V(y)=4V_0y^2/d^2`$ was proposed by Avetissian et al.  in the context of computation of the multiphoton transitions between bound states of the continuum potential, for a positron interacting with a strong electromagnetic wave. The form $`V(y)=V_0\mathrm{cosh}^2(y/b)`$ has also been used to study the possible amplification of x-ray channeling radiation . This later form has a better resemblance with the averaged Thomas-Fermi potentials while still allowing for an analytical diagonalization and, therefore, we shall use this potential for our calculations. The transverse energy spectrum for this case can be cast in the following form :

$$ϵ_{B}^{}{}_{n}{}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2b^2m\gamma _x}(sn)^2$$
(11)
where $`n`$ can be $`0,1,\mathrm{},[s]`$, being $`s=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+\frac{2b^2m\gamma _xV_0}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$. Note that, as a result of the spatial averaging, the scattering with the continuum potential affects only to the transverse dynamics of the channeled particle, while the very large longitudinal momentum remains unaffected.

## III S matrix description of a channeled particle interacting with an electromagnetic wave.

Let us now add the electromagnetic excitation to the problem. As it is well known, eq. (2) does not accept analytical solutions for a space-time dependent vector potential. In such situations, the S-matrix approach offers a standard procedure to find approximated solutions , used specially in quantum field theory  and scattering .

### A The general relativistic case

The relativistic SFA S-matrix theory for the Dirac electron in an atom can be found in . The general expression for the transition amplitude using time-reversed S matrix theory has the following form

$$S_{fi}=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}|\mathrm{\Phi }_i$$
(12)
Although mainly used in the strong field ionization of atoms and molecules, this approach is quite general and can be exported to any other system, provided its eigenstates can be found analytically. To our knowledge, however, this is the first time that it is applied to the relativistic channeled electron in interaction with an electromagnetic wave. In the present case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ corresponds to the unperturbed channeled electron state discussed in sec. II, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ is an arbitrary final state, solution of the complete equation (2). Since this exact solution is not available, the success of the S-matrix approach consist in finding a suitable approximation. In the strong field approximation, the interaction with electromagnetic field is assumed to be the relevant for the final state, therefore $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}`$ is approximated in terms of the Volkov states, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V(𝐱,t)`$ . These wavefunctions are solutions of eq. (2) for $`V(y)=0`$ and $`𝐀(𝐱,t)\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and describe a free electron in the presence of an electromagnetic field. The form of these states for a laser field pulse of arbitrary form is :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_V^{()}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{(2\pi )^3E}}(1+ϵ^r\frac{es\text{/}A\text{/}}{2c(sp)})u^r_𝐩e^{iS}$$
(13)
being $`ϵ^{1,2}=1`$, $`ϵ^{3,4}=1`$, and

$$S=ϵ^r\frac{px}{\mathrm{}}+_{sx}^{\mathrm{}}[\frac{e(pA(\phi ^{}))}{\mathrm{}c(sp)}ϵ^r\frac{e^2A^2(\phi ^{})}{2\mathrm{}c^2(sp)}]d\phi ^{}$$
(14)
The S-matrix approach takes as a starting point the following exact relation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_f(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_V(x)+d^4x^{}G_V(x,x^{})\gamma ^0V(x^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_f(x^{})$$
(15)
where $`G_V(x,x^{})`$ is the Volkov Green’s function , and keeps the lowest order term in powers of $`V(x)`$. The transition amplitude obtained is :

$$(S1)_{fi}^{SFA}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}c}d^4x\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_V^{()}eA_\mu \gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i$$

$$=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}c}\sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{(2\pi )^3E}}d^4xe^{iS}\overline{u}_𝐩^r(eA\text{/}ϵ^r\frac{e^2(AA)s\text{/}}{2c(sp)})\mathrm{\Phi }_i$$
(16)
where we have used (13) and we have assumed the transverse character of the e.m. field, $`sA=𝐬𝐀=0`$. Separating the time and the space integrals in equation (16), the transition amplitude takes the form:

$$(S1)_{fi}^{SFA}=i\sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{(2\pi )^3E}}e\overline{u}_𝐩^r𝑑t\mathrm{}\text{/}_1(t)+i\sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{(2\pi )^3E}}\frac{e^2ϵ^r}{2(sp)}\overline{u}_𝐩^rs\text{/}𝑑t\mathrm{}_2(t)$$
(17)
being $`\mathrm{}\text{/}_1(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2(t)`$:

$`\mathrm{}\text{/}_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_{1,\mu }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱e^{iS}A_\mu e^{i\frac{E_Bt}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{}_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱e^{iS}(AA)e^{i\frac{E_Bt}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱e^{iS}|𝐀|^2e^{i\frac{E_Bt}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i}`$ (19)
Once the transition amplitude $`(S1)_{fi}^{SFA}`$ is known, the total transition rate can be computed as:

$$W=\frac{Vd𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}w$$
(20)
where $`V`$ is the normalization volume and $`w`$ is the transition probability per unit of time, which is defined as

$$w=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}|(S1)_{fi}^{SFA}|^2$$
(21)
Another important magnitude is the transition rate per unit of solid angle, which has the form:

$$\frac{dW}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{V}{(2\pi )^3}wp^2𝑑p$$
(22)
It should be mention that SFA S-matrix theory cannot be considered as a perturbation series in powers of $`V(x)`$ since the initial state $`\varphi _i`$ is an eigenstate of the potential itself including all the properties of the crystal. The presence of this wavefunction produces a new behavior in the scattering section, introducing all the differences with the atom ionization or the simple Compton scattering.

### B Application to the case of a monochromatic and linearly polarized laser field

Lets us focus our attention to the geometry depicted in fig. 1, where the electromagnetic field can be a copropagating or counterpropagating linear polarized planewave of frequency $`\omega `$, $`𝐀(\phi )=A_j(\phi )𝐞_j=A_0\mathrm{cos}(\omega t𝐤𝐱)𝐞_j`$. where $`𝐞_j`$ is the field’s polarization vector.

The phase factor of the Volkov function (14) now reads as

$$S=ϵ^r\left(\frac{p^\mu }{\mathrm{}}+\frac{e^2A_0^2k^\mu }{4\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}\right)x_\mu +\frac{ep_jA_0}{\mathrm{}c(kp)}\mathrm{sin}(kx)ϵ^r\frac{e^2A_0^2}{8\mathrm{}c^2(k\mathrm{}p)}\mathrm{sin}(2(kx))$$
(23)
The resulting exponential factor can be expanded as a series of Bessel functions

$$e^{iS}=e^{iϵ^r\left[\frac{p^\mu }{\mathrm{}}+\frac{e^2A_0^2k^\mu }{4\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}\right]x_\mu }\underset{N,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}J_{N+2n}(\eta )J_n(\xi )e^{iN(kx)}$$
(24)
where $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ are factors which only depend on the momentum of the Volkov function, and the frequency and amplitude of the laser field:

$$\eta =\frac{ep_jA_0}{\mathrm{}c(kp)}\xi =\frac{ϵ^re^2A_0^2}{8\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}$$
(25)
Substituting (24) in eqs. (18) and (19):

$`\mathrm{}\text{/}_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^j\mathrm{}_{1,j}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^j}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱e^{iS}A_j(\phi )\mathrm{\Phi }_i(𝐱)}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^jA_0}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{N,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N+2n}{\eta }}J_{N+2n}(\eta )J_n(\xi )e^{i\frac{(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)t}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$ (27)
and

$`\mathrm{}_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱e^{iS}|𝐀|^2e^{i\frac{E_Bt}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^2}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle \underset{N,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)^2}{\eta ^2}}J_{N+2n}(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}(J_{N+2n+1}(\eta )J_{N+2n1}(\eta ))\right)`$ (30)
$`\times J_n(\xi )e^{i\frac{(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)t}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$
Where $`𝐪_N`$, $`\omega _N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$ are defined as:

$`𝐪_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^r𝐩}{\mathrm{}}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^re^2A_0^2}{4\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}}N\right]𝐤`$ (31)
$`\omega _N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^rE}{\mathrm{}}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^re^2A_0^2}{4\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}}N\right]\omega `$ (32)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{i𝐪_N𝐱}\mathrm{\Phi }_i(𝐱)𝑑𝐱}`$ (33)
The time integrals appearing in (17) can now be calculated as

$`\gamma ^j{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}\mathrm{}_{1,j}(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^jA_0}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{N,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N+2n}{\eta }}J_{N+2n}(\eta )J_n(\xi )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$ (34)
$`\times e^{i(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)(t+t_0)/2\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)T/2\mathrm{}}{(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)/2\mathrm{}}}`$ (35)
and

$`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}\mathrm{}_2(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^2}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle \underset{N,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)^2}{\eta ^2}}J_{N+2n}(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}(J_{N+2n+1}(\eta )J_{N+2n1}(\eta ))\right)`$ (37)
$`\times J_n(\xi )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)e^{i(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)(t+t_0)/2\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)T/2\mathrm{}}{(\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)/2\mathrm{}}}`$
being $`T=tt_0`$

To compute the rate of excitation, we should use this two equations together with eq. (17) to calculate

$$|(S1)_{fi}^{SFA}|^2=T_1+T_2+T_3+T_4$$
(38)
with

$`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{(2\pi )^3E}}e^2\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{}_{1,j}(t)}\right]^+\gamma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0\gamma ^j{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{}_{1,j}(t)}`$ (39)
$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{(2\pi )^3E}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^re^3}{2(kp)}}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{}_{1,j}(t)}\right]^+\gamma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0k\text{/}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{}_2(t)}`$ (40)
$`T_3`$ $`=`$ $`T_2^{}`$ (41)
$`T_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{(2\pi )^3E}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^re^2}{2(kp)}}\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{}_2(t)}\right]^+\gamma _{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{+}k^\mu \gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0k\text{/}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{}_2(t)}`$ (42)
Substituting the time integrals, 35 and 37, in each term, we may calculate the transition probability per unit of time as:

$$w=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}|(S1)_{fi}^{SFA}|^2=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{T_1+T_2+T_3+T_4}{t}=t_1+t_2+t_3+t_4$$
(43)
where

$`t_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{8\pi ^2E}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2A_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{N=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)}{\eta }}J_{N+2n}(\eta )J_n(\xi )\right]^2\delta (\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)`$ (45)
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^+(𝐪_N)\gamma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0\gamma ^j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$
$`t_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{8\pi ^2E}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^re^3A_0^3}{2\mathrm{}^2c(kp)}}{\displaystyle \underset{N=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n^{})^2}{\eta ^2}}J_{N+2n^{}}(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}(J_{N+2n^{}+1}(\eta )J_{N+2n^{}1}(\eta ))\right)J_n^{}(\xi )`$ (47)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)}{\eta }}J_{N+2n}(\eta )J_n(\xi )\delta (\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^+(𝐪_N)\gamma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0k\text{/}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$
$`t_3`$ $`=`$ $`t_2^{}`$ (48)
$`t_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{8\pi ^2E}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^re^2A_0^2}{2\mathrm{}c(kp)}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{N=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)^2}{\eta ^2}}J_{N+2n}(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}(J_{N+2n+1}(\eta )J_{N+2n1}(\eta ))\right)\right]^2`$ (50)
$`\times \delta (\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^+(𝐪_N)k\text{/}^+\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0k\text{/}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$
Finally, the excitation rate is

$$w=\frac{mc^2}{8\pi ^2E}\left(\frac{eA_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\underset{N=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left(S_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\frac{ϵ^reA_0}{c(kp)}S_2Re(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)+\left(\frac{eA_0}{2c(kp)}\right)^2S_4^2\mathrm{\Delta }_4\right)\delta (\mathrm{}\omega _NE_B)$$
(51)
Where we have defined:

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)}{\eta }}J_{N+2n}(\eta )J_n(\xi )`$ (52)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n^{})^2}{\eta ^2}}J_{N+2n^{}}(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}(J_{N+2n^{}+1}(\eta )J_{N+2n^{}1}(\eta ))\right)J_n^{}(\xi )`$ (54)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)}{\eta }}J_{N+2n}(\eta )J_n(\xi )`$
$`S_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(N+2n)^2}{\eta ^2}}J_{N+2n}(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}(J_{N+2n+1}(\eta )J_{N+2n1}(\eta ))\right)J_n(\xi )`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^+(𝐪_N)\gamma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0\gamma ^j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^+(𝐪_N)\gamma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0k\text{/}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^+(𝐪_N)k\text{/}^+\gamma ^0u_𝐩^ru_{𝐩}^{r}{}_{}{}^{+}\gamma ^0k\text{/}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$ (58)
## IV Conservation laws and closing of excitation channels.

As expressed in eq. (51), the transition probability is a function of the initial momentum-space probability amplitude, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(𝐪_N)`$. Let us now assume injected electron of positive energy with a wavefunction of the form (3), therefore $`ϵ^r=+1`$. From the delta function in eq. (51), we obtain the following energy conservation relation:

$$E+\left[\frac{e^2A_0^2}{4\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}N\right]\mathrm{}\omega =E_B$$
(59)
On the other hand, an additional conservation law relates the momentum of the final and initial states, $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩_i`$ respectively, in (31). For a positive energy electron, this reads as

$$𝐩_i=\frac{𝐩}{\mathrm{}}+\left[\frac{e^2A_0^2}{4\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}N\right]𝐤$$
(60)
Since the electromagnetic field propagates along the $`x`$-axis, this condition may be splitted into two parts

$`(p_x)_i`$ $`=`$ $`p_x\pm \left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^2A_0^2}{4\mathrm{}c^2(kp)}}N\right]\mathrm{}k`$ (61)
$`(p_y)_i`$ $`=`$ $`p_y`$ (62)
with $`(kp)=k(\frac{E}{c}p_x)`$, and where $`k=|𝐤|`$, the top sign refers to a field copropagating with the electron, and the bottom to the counterpropagating case. These three equations, (59), (61) and (62), describe the energy and momentum changes due to the stimulated absorption or emission of $`N`$ photons. Combining these with the energy expression for the final state, $`E=\sqrt{c^2p_x^2+c^2p_y^2+m^2c^4}`$, we obtain a closed formula for the energy conservation of the multiphoton process, in terms of the initial momentum and the field parameters

$$N\mathrm{}\omega (1(\beta _x)_i)=\frac{c^2(p_x)_i^2+c^2(p_y)_i^2+m^2c^4E_B^2+\frac{A_0^2e^2}{2}}{2\gamma _Bmc^2}$$
(63)
where we have defined the initial energy of the electron as $`E_B=\gamma _Bmc^2`$, and the initial relativistic velocity factor, $`(\beta _x)_i=(p_x)_i/\gamma _Bmc`$. Since $`E_Bϵ_B+(\gamma _x)_imc^2`$, with $`(\gamma _x)_i=\sqrt{1/(1(\beta _x)_i^2)}`$ we have

$$N\mathrm{}\omega \gamma _B(1(\beta _x)_i)\frac{(p_y)_i^2}{2m}(\gamma _x)_iϵ_B+\frac{A_0^2e^2}{4mc^2}$$
(64)
The interpretation of this energy conservation relation is straight-forward if we take as reference system a frame propagating with the electron, with its initial velocity $`(p_x)_i/(\gamma _x)_im`$. The frequency $`\omega ^{}=\omega \gamma _B\left(1(\beta _x)_i\right)`$ corresponds to the Doppler-shifted electromagnetic wave, and $`(\gamma _x)_iϵ_B`$ is the result of the Lorentz transform of the bound state energy (11) from the laboratory to the moving frame. Equation (64) states the resonance condition for a (Doppler-shifted) $`N`$-photon transition from a bound state to a state lying in the crystal quasi-continuum of momentum given by eqs. (61) and (62). This is, in essence, the crystal equivalent to the ionization of atoms by intense fields. Note, however, that in the atom case a ionization channel for any photon number $`N`$ is always possible, since the initial state is distributed continuously over the momentum space and, therefore, a non-zero transition probability exists for any $`(p_y)_i`$ which fulfills the condition (64). This is not the case for the channeled electron, since the crystal plane periodicity forces a discretization of the electron states in the transverse coordinate of the momentum space $`p_y=\stackrel{~}{n}\frac{2\pi h}{d_p}=\stackrel{~}{n}\mathrm{\Delta }p_y`$, being $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ an integer and $`d_p`$ the interplanar distance. As a consequence, in the general case the $`N`$-photon channel of excitation should be strongly suppressed, except in those particular cases in which

$$N+\frac{(\gamma _x)_iϵ_B}{\mathrm{}\omega ^{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega ^{}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}^2\mathrm{\Delta }p_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m}+\frac{A_0^2e^2}{4mc^2}\right)$$
(65)
holds for $`N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ as integer numbers. As a consequence, this opens the possibility of selective excitation of channeled electrons in terms of their initial velocity, or permits its control through the variation of the electromagnetic field parameters. Figure 2a-d show the possible $`N`$-photon channel excitations as a function of the initial electron’s energy and for the lowest orders of transverse momentum transferred $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$. Each plot shows the result for a different initial channeling bound-state. We assume planar channeling along the $`(110)`$ plane of Si by selecting the potential parameters $`V_0=20.4`$ eV and $`b=0.03`$ nm reproducing , and a counterpropagating TiSa laser of $`3.51\times 10^{12}W/cm^2`$ ($`\lambda 800nm`$). Note that the number of photons $`N`$ should be an integer quantity, therefore the figure shows clearly that, except for very particular choices of the electron’s initial energy, the excitation channels are closed.

The same figure can be done for the case of a copropagating electromagnetic field. Figure 3a-d show again the possible $`N`$-photon channel excitations as a function of the initial electron’s energy, for the lowest orders of transverse momentum transferred assuming the same crystal and laser parameters as in figure 2. An important increase of the number of photons needed to excite the electron, attributable to the Doppler redshift, can be observed. Under this circumstances, even when the energy and momentum constrains are fulfilled, the process may involve a very small transition probability due to the high number of photons needed. To give an idea of the order of this probability one can make use of the asymptotic expansion of the Bessel functions for large orders, $`J_n(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}\left(\frac{n_ex}{2n}\right)^n`$, , being $`n_e=lim_n\mathrm{}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n`$, to calculate a limit of the number of photons above which the transition probability will be negligible. The criterion to be used here will be to consider negligible the Bessel function when $`\frac{n_e|x|}{2n_{Limit}}0.1`$. Applying it to our case one obtain the limit of the number of photons for each transverse momentum transferred as a function of the final energy of the electron:

$$N_{Limit}=\frac{5n_e|e|A_0}{mc\mathrm{}\omega ^{}}\left(|\stackrel{~}{n}|\mathrm{\Delta }p_y+\frac{|e|A_0}{2c}\right)$$
(66)
where $`\omega ^{}=\omega \gamma (1\beta _x)`$. Assuming that the electron finishes in a state of the crystal quasi-continuum and that the energy along the axial direction do not change significantly during the evolution, one can approximate $`\gamma (\gamma _x)_i`$ and $`\beta _x(\beta _x)_i`$. Consequently $`\omega ^{}`$, and therefore $`N_{Limit}`$, can be expressed as a function of the initial electron’s energy. Figure 3a-d show with arrows the point when the number of photons required for the excitation process surpass the $`N_{Limit}`$. For energies above this point, the transition probability reduces drastically and we can consider that no excitation takes place, even though the energy and momentum conservation relations may be fulfilled. It should be pointed out that eq. (66) is only valid for the case of large orders in the Bessel functions. This means that it should be taken qualitatively in all cases in which $`N_{Limit}`$ is a small quantity, as for instance in figure 3a for the case $`\stackrel{~}{n}=0`$. Note also that those cases in which the arrow is not shown correspond to $`N_{Limit}`$ outside the plotting region, i.e. the $`N`$-photon excitation is possible along the complete plotted line.

Finally, let us remark the fact that the photon excitation number is greater than in the counterpropagating case increases the sensitivity of the channel process to the selective excitation in terms of the laser parameters.

## V Conclusions

We have computed the explicit forms of the S-matrix transition probabilities for the N-photon absorption of a relativistic electron channeled along a crystal plane. In contrast to previous works, we consider the interaction with an intense electromagnetic wave, generated externally, which may excite the electron to high-energy states lying in the crystal quasi-continuum. Due to the crystal periodicity, we show that the energy and momentum conservation equations constraint strongly this excitation process, suppressing the multiphoton absorption except for some particular cases. Under these circumstances, the selection of a single multiphoton channel of excitation is feasible by an adequate choice of the external laser parameters, opening a broad range of possibilities for the coherent control of the channel electron’s dynamics. The case of an electromagnetic field copropagating with the injected electron is also studied showing an important increase of the number of photons needed to excite the electron due to the Doppler redshift. For this case, we give an estimation of the maximum photon number for which the excitation process is not negligible. The selective excitation in the copropagating case is found to be more sensitive to the electron’s energy and the transverse momentum transferred in the transition than in the counterpropagating one.

## VI Acknowledgments

We thank enlightening discussions with Professor F.H.M. Faisal. This work has been supported by the Spanish Dirección General de Enseñanza Superior e Investigación Científica (grant PB98-0268), and the Junta de Castilla y León in collaboration with the European Union, F.S.E. (grant SA044/01).


format: text

text:
# The Dynamical Status of the Cluster of Galaxies 1E0657-56Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory (La Silla, Chile), Proposal ID: 64.0-0664

## 1 Introduction

The evolution of clusters of galaxies as seen in numerical simulations is characterized by the asymmetric accretion of mass clumps from surrounding filaments (e.g. Diaferio et al. dia01 (2001)). Nearby clusters are characterized by a variety of morphologies, indicative of different dynamical properties. Distant clusters, at redshifts $`z>0.8`$, are often characterized by an elongated distribution, traced by several, apparently distinct, galaxy clumps. Such is the case of Cl 0023+0423 at $`z=0.84`$ (Lubin et al. lub98 (1998)), RX J1716.6+6708 at $`z=0.81`$ (Gioia et al. gio99 (1999)), MS 1054-03 at $`z=0.84`$ (van Dokkum et al. vdo00 (2000)). Other distant clusters are found to have nearby companions, possibly in a pre-merger phase (Lubin et al. lub00 (2000); Rosati et al. ros99 (1999); Haines et al. hai01 (2001); Pentericci et al. pen00 (2000)). Most of these high-$`z`$ clusters are X-ray selected, and are therefore expected to be very massive.

1E0657-558 is in many respects a low-redshift ($`z=0.296`$) analogue of these high-$`z`$ clusters. It is X-ray selected, it has an elongated morphology, and there is evidence for an additional subclump located to the West with respect to the main cluster region (see Sect. 3.1). Its high X-ray luminosity and temperature (Tucker et al. tuc98 (1998), hereafter T98; Liang et al. 2000a ; Markevitch et al. mark01 (2001), hereafter M01) as well as its high velocity dispersion (T98) strongly suggest it to be a very massive cluster. A detailed dynamical study of 1E0657-558 could therefore help us understand the dynamics of its more distant analogues.

1E0657-558 is also very interesting per se. After detection in X-ray by the Einstein IPC, ROSAT and ASCA observations constrained its X-ray temperature to be $`kT=17.4\pm 2.5`$ keV (T98) or slightly lower – $`kT=14.5_{1.7}^{+2.0}`$ keV, according to Liang et al. (2000a ). 1E0657-56 is thus one of the hottest clusters known. It displays an irregular X-ray morphology, with two major emission peaks, both clearly offset from the main overdensity of projected galaxy counts (see Fig.5 in Liang et al. 2000a  and Fig.11 in this paper). Recently, M01 have reported on Chandra observations of 1E0657-56. They confirm the high temperature of this cluster ($`kT=14.8_{1.2}^{+1.7}`$ keV), and provide evidence for a compact subcluster at lower temperature ($`kT6`$–7 keV). According to M01, this subcluster is seen 0.1–0.2 Gyr after its collision with the main cluster core.

The radio halo of 1E0657-56 was recently detected by Liang et al. (2000a ). The most widely accepted scenario for radio halo production requires the acceleration of thermal electrons to ultra-relativistic energies, and amplification of the intra-cluster magnetic field, by an energetic cluster-cluster collision (e.g. Liang 2000b ). It is important to establish if the radio halo of 1E0657-56 is in any way related to the recent collision with the X-ray subcluster identified by M01.

In the optical, 1E0657-558 was detected by Tucker et al. (tuc95 (1995)), who also revealed a luminous giant gravitational arc, an additional evidence for a strong mass concentration. The arc was confirmed by follow-up observations at the ESO New Technology Telescope (NTT), that also provided a first tentative estimate of the cluster velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _v=1213_{191}^{+352}`$ km s-1 (T98). Follow-up observations with FORS@VLT were obtained at the end of 1998, providing the spectrum and redshift of the giant arc 111See http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1999/phot-16-99.html..

In January 2000 we obtained additional spectra of galaxies in the cluster region, with the purpose of constraining its dynamical status. To this end, in this paper we present an analysis of the phase-space distribution of cluster member galaxies. We also consider the relative frequencies and distributions of galaxies of different morphological and spectral types, which are useful indicators of a cluster’s dynamical status (e.g. Moss & Whittle mos00 (2000)). Along with the additional information from the X-ray and radio observations, our new spectroscopic observations allow us to posit a plausible scenario for the dynamical status of 1E0657-558.

The plan of this paper is the following. In Sect. 2 we describe our new photometric and spectroscopic observations. In Sect. 3 we provide our results: a) we determine the distributions of cluster members in the spatial coordinates and in velocities, and provide evidence for the existence of a subcluster; b) we also determine the masses, luminosities, and mass-to-light ratios of the main cluster and its subcluster, and solve the two-body problem for these systems; c) we then consider the relative frequencies and distributions of cluster members of different morphologies and spectral types. In Sect. 4 we provide our interpretation of these results, also taking into account the results from the X-ray and radio observations. We summarize our results in Sect. 5.

Throughout this paper, we use $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 (e.g. Freedman et al. fre01 (2001); Liu & Graham liu01 (2001)) in a flat cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ (e.g. Bahcall et al. bah99 (1999)). In the adopted cosmology, 1 arcmin corresponds to 0.26 Mpc at the cluster distance.

## 2 Data

We carried out the spectroscopic observations at the ESO NTT in La Silla, during two nights in January 2000. The weather conditions were good, with seeing slightly below $`1^{\prime \prime }`$. We observed with the red-arm of EMMI in Multi-Object Spectroscopy (MOS) mode. EMMI was equipped with a Tektronix TK2048 CCD of $`2048\times 2047`$ 24 $`\mu `$m pixels, allowing for an unvignetted field-of-view of $`5^{}\times 8.6^{}`$. We used grism #2, giving a wavelength coverage from 3850 Å to 9000 Å, and a dispersion of 2.8 Å/pixel.

We took spectra for 129 targets with 5 MOS masks, with exposure times between 2700 and 7200 sec per mask. We reduced the data with standard IRAF222IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by AURA Inc. under contract with NSF. packages. All spectra were also visually examined, to exclude possible misidentification of night-sky lines and residuals from cosmic-ray impacts with real spectral features. The signal-to-noise ratios of our spectra range from 8 to 27, with an average S/N$``$17. We determined redshifts for 104 galaxies, using the IRAF tasks XCSAO and EMSAO. Our redshifts span the range 0.0484–0.4827 with an average error of 0.0003. We also add the redshifts of the 16 galaxies that were observed in December 1993 with the same instrumentation, but a slightly different set-up, resulting in a lower resolution (5.9 Å/pixel). These 16 galaxy redshifts were already used by T98 to compute the velocity dispersion of the cluster.

We also determined the equivalent widths (EW hereafter), or upper limits, of the absorption line H$`\delta `$ and the emission line \[O ii\], in order to classify post-starburst and starburst galaxies (see Sect. 3.5). We estimated the minimum measurable EW of each spectrum as the width of a line spanning 2.8 Å (our dispersion) in wavelength, with an intensity three times the rms noise in the adjacent continuum.

We obtained exposures on a $`6^{}\times 6^{}`$ field centered on $`\alpha `$=06:58:29 and $`\delta =`$55:57:22 (J2000) using FORS1 images through the $`B`$, $`R`$ and $`I`$ Bessel filters, at the ESO VLT in December 1998. The exposure times were 600 sec in each band; the images reach the $`B=24`$, $`R=23.5`$, $`I=21.5`$ completeness magnitudes. We carried out the photometric analysis using the SExtractor package (Bertin & Arnouts ber96 (1996)). We also determined rough morphological types by visual inspection.

Our spectroscopic sample is 65 % (45 %) complete down to $`I=19.0`$ ($`I=20`$), within an elongated region of 20 arcmin2 around the cluster main body.

In Table 1 we list the data for cluster members (membership is defined in Sect. 3.1). In Col. (1) we give an identification number, in Cols. (2) and (3) the right ascension and declination (J2000), in the next three Cols. we give the $`B`$ magnitudes and $`BR`$, $`BI`$ colours. In Cols. (7) and (8) we list heliocentric velocities and their errors, respectively. In Cols. (9) and (10) we list the EWs of H$`\delta `$ and \[O ii\], respectively. Finally, in Col. (11) we provide the galaxy morphologies (’E’ stands for ’early-type’ and ’L’ for ’late-type’). Data for the last 11 galaxies were taken from T98.

## 3 Analysis & Results

### 3.1 Galaxy Distribution and Subclustering

We use the photometric sample to determine the projected spatial distribution of cluster members. To this purpose, we select galaxies in the colour-magnitude (CM) diagram, $`BR`$ vs. $`R`$ (see Fig.1). The CM diagram clearly shows the red sequence of early-type galaxies in the cluster. Taking into account the relative distance modulus, evolutionary- and K-correction, we compare the $`BR`$ vs. $`R`$ CM sequence of 1E0657-56 with that of Coma (Mazure et al. maz88 (1988)). We adopt Poggianti’s (pog97 (1997)) evolutionary- and K-correction for a passively evolving elliptical. We find excellent agreement between the CM sequence of 1E0657-56 and that of Coma.

We analyze the 2-dimensional (2D) projected distribution of (likely) cluster members by considering only those galaxies within $`\pm 0.5`$ mag of the $`BR`$ vs. $`R`$ CM sequence (specifically, those having magnitudes and colours within the CM band defined by $`2.83(BR)+0.045R3.83`$). The 2D galaxy density distribution, computed with the Adaptive Kernel Method (e.g. Pisani pis93 (1993)), is shown in Fig. 2. Two main structures are evident: the elongated main cluster body, and a roughly circular structure, 0.7 Mpc to the west, at the cluster distance. Since this additional structure is populated by galaxies in the CM sequence, it is likely to be a substructure of the cluster rather than a group in the cluster foreground or background. The analysis of the spectroscopic sample confirms that the substructure is roughly at the cluster redshift (see below).

We use the full spectroscopic sample of 120 galaxies to determine the cluster membership. The cluster membership is best determined by the analysis of the caustic diagram in the space of velocities vs. clustercentric distances (see, e.g., Kent & Gunn ken82 (1982)). Since the cluster 1E0657-56 is significantly elongated, we first circularize the coordinates. We fit an ellipticity and an axial ratio to the projected distribution of cluster members shown in Fig. 2 (we select only galaxies within the main cluster body, i.e. excluding the secondary peak to the west). We find an axial ratio of 2, and a position angle of 55. Then we take the density peak in the 2D distribution of member galaxies as the centre of the cluster. The caustic diagram is shown in Fig. 3. From the caustic diagram it is straightforward to choose the range 85000-92500 km s-1 for cluster membership in the velocity space. 78 galaxies of our spectroscopic sample have measured velocities within this range. Data for these 78 cluster members are given in Table 1.

The velocity distribution for the 78 cluster members is not significantly different from a Gaussian (the hypothesis of Gaussianity is rejected with 1% probability, according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, or 11%, according to a $`\chi ^2`$-test). Using the biweight estimator (Beers et al. bee90 (1990)), we compute the cluster mean heliocentric velocity, $`\overline{v}=88777\pm 63`$ km s-1, and its velocity dispersion (in the cluster rest-frame, see Harrison & Noonan har79 (1979)) $`\sigma _v=1201_{92}^{+100}`$ km s-1 (errors are at the 68 % confidence level, i.e. 1 $`\sigma `$ for a normal distribution). The value of the velocity dispersion is in remarkably good agreement with the preliminary estimate of T98 based on 13 galaxies, and it is also consistent (within errors) with the slightly lower estimate by Girardi & Mezzetti (gir01 (2001)).

The gaussianity of the velocity distribution is not sufficient to exclude the presence of subclustering (see, e.g., Girardi & Biviano gb02 (2002)). Detection of substructures is much more efficient when the full available phase-space information is used. To this aim, we apply the KMM algorithm (Ashman et al. ash94 (1994)) to the distribution of cluster members in 3D-space of positions and velocities. We search for the solution that separates the cluster members into two systems. The KMM algorithm makes use of the Maximum-Likelyhood Ratio test to estimate how likely the two-system solution is to be a significant improvement over the single-system solution. In our case, the two-system solution is significantly better than the single-system solution, at the 99.9% confidence level (c.l.). KMM assigns 7 galaxies to the secondary system, each with a $`99.9`$% c.l. From these galaxies, we compute the subcluster mean velocity $`\overline{v}=89479\pm 41`$ km s-1, and its velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _v=212_{52}^{+67}`$ km s-1. The mean velocity and velocity dispersion of the main system are almost unchanged when the 7 galaxies belonging to the subcluster are removed from the sample of cluster members ($`\overline{v}=88681\pm 69`$ km s-1 and $`\sigma _v=1249_{100}^{+109}`$ km s-1). The subcluster is significantly offset in velocity from the main system, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{v}=616\pm 80`$ km s-1, in the cluster rest frame. In Fig. 4 we show the two velocity histograms of the 71 cluster members, and of the 7 subcluster members, as well as the Gaussian distribution that best fits the velocity histogram of cluster members. In Fig. 2 we overplot the galaxies with measured velocities, belonging to the main cluster (crosses) and to the subcluster (squares), onto the 2D map of projected density counts.

### 3.2 Virial mass estimates

From the substructure analysis, we identify 7 galaxies belonging to a system separate from the main cluster. The virial mass of the main cluster computed on the 71 remaining cluster members, is $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}=1.33\times 10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, with a 10 % uncertainty (estimated with the jackknife technique – see, e.g., Beers et al. bee84 (1984)). The virial mass is estimated within an aperture of $`1.5`$ Mpc, which is only $`60`$% of the cluster virial radius computed as $`r_{200}=\sqrt{3}\sigma _v/(10H_\mathrm{z})`$ (Carlberg et al. 1997a ). We therefore need to correct this mass for the surface-pressure term (The & White the86 (1986)). We apply this correction following the procedure of Girardi et al. (gir98 (1998)). The corrected virial mass is $`M_{\mathrm{vir},\mathrm{c}}(<0.6r_{200})=0.82\times 10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{}`$. We extrapolate this mass to $`r_{200}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{vir},\mathrm{c}}(<r_{200})=1.24\times 10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, assuming a NFW (Navarro et al. nav97 (1997)) mass profile with a scale $`0.2r_{200}`$. This value for the cluster mass is in agreement (within errors) with that derived by Girardi & Mezzetti (gir01 (2001)).

Our estimate of the virial mass for the subcluster is $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}=0.13\times 10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, with an uncertainty of 27 %. Applying the surface-term correction, and extrapolating to the subcluster $`r_{200}`$ as we did for the main cluster, leads the virial estimate to $`M_{\mathrm{vir},\mathrm{c}}(<r_{200})=0.12\times 10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

How reliable are these mass determinations? We argue below (see Sect. 4) that we are observing 1E0657-56 soon after the collision with a cluster of intermediate mass (or group). The main cluster dynamics does not seem to have been substantially affected by this collision (see Sect. 4) so that the (corrected and extrapolated) virial mass estimate of the main system is probably reliable. On the other hand, the subcluster is likely to have been partly disrupted by the collision, and it is difficult to estimate its mass based on equilibrium models. In these conditions, neither the application of the virial theorem, nor the surface-pressure term correction and extrapolation to $`r_{200}`$ are warranted. Taking into account these systematic uncertainties, we determine a fiducial mass range for the subcluster of $`0.07`$$`0.34\times 10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

### 3.3 Mass-to-light ratios

To compute the luminosity of the cluster, we consider galaxies within a 5.4 arcmin2 region which excludes the subcluster. We then follow two alternative approaches. In the first approach we consider all galaxies with magnitude $`17R22`$, and subtract the field counts, taken from the literature (Roche et al. roc96 (1996); Shanks et al. sha84 (1984); Weir et al. wei95 (1995)). We choose the magnitude range so as to avoid major background and foreground contamination. In the second approach we consider all galaxies within $`\pm 0.5`$ mag around the cluster CM sequence (see Sect. 3.1), within the same magnitude range as above. In this case, the field contribution is statistically eliminated by the selection of galaxies in the CM diagram. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the two approaches lead to very similar magnitude distributions of (likely) cluster members.

We compute absolute magnitudes using the cluster distance-modulus and the evolutionary- and K-correction in the $`R`$ band for an early-type galaxy at the redshift of 1E0657-56 (Poggianti pog97 (1997)). We then fit a Schechter (sch76 (1976)) function to the absolute magnitude distributions obtained as described in the previous paragraph. The best fit parameters are $`M_\mathrm{R}^{}=23.01\pm 0.13`$, $`\alpha =1.23\pm 0.10`$ for the field-subtracted counts. We obtain the same result, within errors, for the CM band-selected galaxies (see Fig. 6). Integration of the best-fit Schechter luminosity function over the magnitude range $`24R14`$ yields a total luminosity of $`L_\mathrm{R}=1.00\times 10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$, $`\pm 14`$ % depending on the adopted method. The (virial) mass-to-light ratio within the same region is $`M/L_\mathrm{R}=199\pm 29\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{L}_{}`$. The mass-to-light ratio of 1E0657-56 is consistent with the value $`M/L_\mathrm{R}=217\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{L}_{}`$, the mean mass-to-light ratio obtained for CNOC clusters (Carlberg et al. 1997b ), once their luminosities are similarly corrected for passive evolution, and transformed from Gunn $`r`$ to Bessel $`R`$.

We estimate in a similar way the total luminosity of the subcluster. We take the observed galaxy counts in a 1.3 arcmin2 region centered on the subcluster, and subtract the field counts plus the estimated contribution from the cluster at the subcluster distance. The resulting absolute magnitude distribution has a Gaussian-like shape (see Fig. 6) and is markedly different from the magnitude distribution of cluster galaxies. The best-fit Schechter parameters of the subcluster magnitude distribution are rather poorly constrained. However, given the lack of faint galaxies, there is no need for extrapolation of the luminosity function to faint magnitudes. We can therefore estimate the total subcluster luminosity simply from the observed distribution. We thus obtain $`L_\mathrm{R}=0.2\times 10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}`$. The resulting mass-to-light ratio is $`M/L_\mathrm{R}=35`$$`170\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{L}_{}`$ (see Sect. 3.2). The upper limit of the subcluster mass-to-light ratio is consistent with the mass-to-light ratio found for the main cluster. The lower limit is consistent with the first quartile of the distribution of mass-to-light ratios found for loose groups (Ramella et al. ram89 (1989)), after transformation from the blue to the red band. Low mass-to-light ratios are also found at the centre of rich clusters, where luminosity segregation has occurred (see, e.g., Koranyi et al. kor98 (1998)).

### 3.4 Two-body dynamical model

Using the virial masses of the two galaxy systems, their projected distance, and their relative velocity along the line-of-sight (see Sect. 3.1 and 3.2), we carry out the dynamical analysis of the cluster+subcluster system, with the two-body model (Gregory & Thompson gre84 (1984); Beers et al. bee91 (1991)).

In Fig. 7 we show the modeled total mass of the cluster plus subcluster vs. the angle between the plane of the sky and the line connecting the two systems. In the left panel, we show the solution for the case in which the cluster and subcluster are expanding or approaching for the first time. In this case we assume that the two systems were at zero separation 9.4 Gyr ago, which is the age of the Universe at the cluster redshift in our adopted cosmology. From this model, we conclude that the subcluster is bound to the system. The two systems could be currently approaching, or they could still have to reach maximum expansion, depending on the unknown geometry of the collision.

Based on Chandra observations, M01 have recently suggested that a collision between the subcluster and the main cluster has already occurred. From the density jump at the X-ray shock front, M01 estimate that the subcluster is currently moving away from the cluster with a velocity of 3000-4000 km s-1. From the observed line-of-sight component of the relative velocity between the cluster and the subcluster (see Sect. 3.1) we infer a projection angle of 5–15 degrees between the line connecting the two systems and the plane of the sky (i.e. the subcluster is moving nearly in the plane of the sky). M01 reach the same conclusion based on the sharpness of the X-ray brightness edge that they identify as a bow shock.

Assuming that the cluster and the subcluster have already crossed each other, we determine different solutions for the two-body model for different times of the collision event. Only by setting the collision epoch $`0.15`$ Gyr ago, does a solution exist in which the subcluster velocity is as predicted by the X-ray analysis of M01. This solution (shown in Fig. 7, right panel) implies that the subcluster is currently moving away from the main cluster, and it will eventually collide again in the future, after reaching maximum expansion at about twice the current distance from the cluster centre. For collision epochs $`0.1`$ Gyr or $`0.2`$ Gyr, the current subcluster velocity would be significantly larger, or, respectively, smaller, than predicted by the X-ray analysis of M01.

### 3.5 Different cluster populations

It has been suggested that cluster-cluster collisions may trigger star formation in cluster galaxies (Bekki bek99 (1999); Moss & Whittle mos00 (2000); Girardi & Biviano gb02 (2002) and references therein). Caldwell & Rose (cal97 (1997)) noticed that post-starburst galaxies are frequently found in clusters with evidence of past collision events. Bardelli et al. (bar98 (1998)) found that the bluest galaxies in the ABCG 3558/3562 supercluster are located in the region between the two colliding clusters. Here we consider the relative fractions and distributions of galaxies of different colours, spectral and/or morphological types in 1E0657-56.

Since the fraction of blue galaxies in clusters may depend on redshift (the so-called “Butcher-Oemler” effect, Butcher & Oemler but78 (1978), but84 (1984)) it is important to compare the blue galaxy fraction in 1E0657-56 with the mean blue galaxy fraction of other clusters at the same redshift. We estimate the blue galaxy fraction in 1E0657-56 in two ways: (a) using our photometric sample, according to the definition of Margoniner et al. (mar01 (2001), MCGD hereafter), and (b) using our spectroscopic sample, according to the definition of Ellingson et al. (ell01 (2001), ELYC hereafter). In Table 2 we list the resulting blue galaxy fractions in 1E0657-56, and, for comparison, the mean blue galaxy fractions found by MCGD and ELYC for clusters at $`z0.3`$. The 1E0657-56 blue galaxy fraction as derived on the photometric sample is marginally larger than the mean found by MCGD for $`z0.3`$ clusters, but the difference is not significant. From the values listed in Table 2 we conclude that the blue galaxy fraction of 1E0657-56 is consistent with those of $`z0.3`$ clusters.

We then compare the fractions of different spectral-type populations in 1E0657-56 with those determined by ELYC on the CNOC clusters, and by Dressler et al. (dre99 (1999), hereafter D99) on the MORPHS clusters. ELYC consider three spectral-types: elliptical-like spectra, spectra with strong Balmer-absorption, and spectra with emission lines (emission-line galaxies, ELG, hereafter). A finer classification scheme was devised by D99, depending on the EW(H$`\delta `$) and the EW of emission lines. For lack of statistics (we only have spectral types for 67 cluster members in total), we prefer to join together some of their classes. In particular, we combine the $`k+a`$ and $`a+k`$ classes of D99 into a single class, corresponding to ELYC’s class of spectra with strong Balmer absorption. Similarly, we combine D99’s $`e(a)`$, $`e(b)`$, and $`e(c)`$ classes into a single class, which corresponds to ELYC’s class of emission-line galaxies. D99’s $`k`$ class corresponds to ELYC’s elliptical-like spectral class.

In Table 2 we list the fractions of the different spectral-type galaxies in 1E0657-56, and, for comparison, the mean fractions found by ELYC in the CNOC clusters, and by D99 in the MORPHS clusters. The fraction of galaxies with strong or moderate Balmer-absorption in 1E0657-56 is similar to those found by ELYC and D99. On the other hand, in 1E0657-56 there is a lower fraction of galaxies with emission-lines, and a higher fraction of galaxies with elliptical-like spectra, than the average fractions found by ELYC and D99.

We now consider the distributions of the different cluster populations. In Fig. 8 we show the spatial distributions of different populations of cluster members: galaxies classified morphologically as early-type and late-type, galaxies with EW(H$`\delta `$) $`3`$ Å, and galaxies with emission lines. The early-type galaxies seem to be more centrally concentrated than the other galaxy populations. A Rank-Sum test (e.g. Hoel hoe71 (1971)) confirms this visual impression (95% c.l.). The only two emission-line galaxies are located in the cluster outskirts, similarly to what is usually seen in nearby clusters (Biviano et al. biv97 (1997)). We show in Fig. 9 the velocity distributions of the different cluster populations (after getting rid of galaxies in the subcluster), and we list their mean velocities and velocity dispersions in Table 3. The velocity dispersion of the early-type galaxies seems to be lower than that of the late-type galaxies, but the difference is not significant (according to the F-test, see, e.g., Press et al. press (1992)). The only significant difference (at the 95 % c.l. according to a Rank-Sum test) occurs between the mean velocities of the early-type galaxies and of the strong Balmer-absorption galaxies.

Finally, we note that all 7 spectroscopically-confirmed members of the subcluster can be assumed to be evolved ellipticals, or S0–Sa’s, since we classify them morphologically as early-type, and spectroscopically as $`k`$-type.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 A major collision event?

Using our new spectroscopic sample of 1E0657-56 members in a $`1.8`$ Mpc2 region, we detect a subcluster of low velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _v200`$ km s-1, $`600`$ km s-1 and 0.7 Mpc away from the main cluster (see Sect. 3.1). This subcluster was also recently detected in the X-ray by M01 using Chandra. M01 suggest that a bow shock is currently propagating outward from the cluster, nearly at the location of our optically detected subcluster. They determine a shock velocity of 3000-4000 km s-1. Assuming that the subcluster galaxies are also moving away with this velocity, we determine the projection angle of the cluster-subcluster system from the observed line-of-sight velocity of the subcluster relative to the main cluster. We find that the line connecting the two systems lies very close to the plane of the sky. With such an orientation angle, the two-body dynamical model for the cluster and its subcluster has two solutions (see Sect. 3.4). In both solutions, the two systems are gravitationally bound. If we further assume that the subcluster is moving away from the main cluster, we can constrain the epoch of collision to $`0.15\pm 0.05`$ Gyr ago. The subcluster will reach maximum expansion at $`1.2`$ Mpc away from the main cluster, and then recollapse again.

The (virial) mass ratio of the subcluster and the main cluster is very low, ranging from 1:200 to 1:30 (see Sect. 3.2). The allowed range is large because of the very uncertain mass of the subcluster. The low velocity dispersion of the subcluster ($`200`$ km s-1) is typical of loose groups (e.g. Ramella et al. ram89 (1989)), but also of the cores of rich clusters that have developed luminosity segregation (Biviano et al. biv92 (1992)). The nearly Gaussian shape of the subcluster magnitude distribution resembles that of cluster cores, where dynamical friction and merging of bright galaxies, together with tidal disruption of faint galaxies, tend to enrich the bright end of the magnitude distribution at the expense of the faint end. Cluster cores are dominated by early-type galaxies, the same galaxy population which characterizes the subcluster. These considerations suggest that the subcluster could be the remnant core of a moderately massive cluster disrupted by its collision of 1E0657-56. In this case, the pre-merger mass ratio could have been substantially larger.

Further evidence for this scenario is given by the comparison of the optical and X-ray properties of 1E0657-56 and its subcluster. The subcluster X-ray temperature and luminosity are too high for its velocity dispersion, as implied by the empirical relations for galaxy systems of Girardi et al. (gir96 (1996)), and Girardi & Mezzetti (gir01 (2001)) (see Fig.10). What we now identify as the subcluster in the galaxy distribution could be the remnant compact core of a more massive system that has lost most of its galaxies after the collision. Similar characteristics of compactness are also seen in the X-ray emissivity contours, resembling cooling flow regions in cluster cores (M01). The X-ray temperature and luminosity of the subcluster corresponds to a velocity dispersion of $`700`$ km s-1 and a pre-merger subcluster-cluster mass ratio of $``$ 1:6.

A large mass ratio merger is also suggested by the comparison of the X-ray and optical properties of the main cluster. The bulk X-ray emission of 1E0657-56 is offset from the main concentration of cluster galaxies, in the direction of the subcluster. This is clearly seen in the Chandra image reproduced in Fig.1b of M01, as well as in the ROSAT/HRI image333This image is retrieved from the ROSAT public archive at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/rhp\_archive.html. shown in Fig. 11 (right panel), both over-plotted on the $`R`$-band FORS image of the cluster. The X-ray cluster morphology resembles those seen in the numerical simulations of Roettiger et al. (roe93 (1993), roe96 (1996)) soon after the collision has occurred. Remarkably, in these simulations the dark matter distribution of the main cluster is much less affected by the collision than the gas distribution (Roettiger et al. roe93 (1993)). Being a nearly collisionless component, galaxies probably trace a distribution similar to that of the dark matter. The observed offset between the galaxy and gas distributions, is then an expected consequence of a merger, but only for large mass ratios between the merging systems (compare Fig.1c to Fig.2c in Roettiger et al. roe96 (1996), corresponding to the X-ray surface brightness images of a 1:4 and a 1:8 merger, respectively, both 0.5 Gyr after core passage).

According to numerical simulations, cluster-cluster collisions not only affect the X-ray surface brightness distribution, but also increase the X-ray temperature, X-ray luminosity (Ricker & Sarazin ric01 (2001)), and velocity dispersion (Pinkney et al. pin96 (1996)) of the main cluster. However, the increase in the observed velocity dispersion depends on the relative orientation between the line-of-sight and the merger plane. When this is nearly 90 degrees, as in the case of 1E0657-56 (see Sect. 3.4), the increase is only $`20`$% for a 1:3 mass ratio (Pinkney et al. pin96 (1996)). On the other hand, in the same collision, the X-ray luminosity and temperature can be boosted up by factors as high as $`4`$ and $`2`$ (Ricker & Sarazin ric01 (2001)). These theoretical results are consistent with our observations. Both the X-ray temperature and X-ray luminosity of 1E0657-56 appear too high for the cluster velocity dispersion (see Fig.10). On the other hand, the line-of-sight component of the cluster velocity dispersion should not have been affected by the collision, or the cluster mass-to-light ratio we derive could not be so close to the mean value of rich clusters (see Sect. 3.3).

### 4.2 The radio halo

Here we consider the relation of the subcluster collision with the radio halo of 1E0657-56. We show in the left panel of Fig. 11 the 1.3 GHz radio image of the cluster, taken by Liang et al. (2000a ) with ATCA, after subtraction of discrete sources, and smoothing. Radio contours are over-plotted on the $`R`$-band image of the cluster obtained with FORS@VLT. The radio halo seems to be centered onto the main cluster with an extension towards the subcluster.

Cluster radio halos are quite uncommon. They are probably generated by a population of ultra-relativistic electrons that emit synchrotron radiation in the cluster magnetic field. The electrons could be thermal in origin, belonging to the IC plasma, accelerated to high energies by energetic processes such as cluster-cluster mergings. However, the merger event we are witnessing might be too recent to explain the cluster radio halo. In fact, according to the model of Brunetti et al. (bru01 (2001)), it takes $`0.6`$ Gyr after the merger event to create a radio halo. On the other hand, the radio halo of 1E0657-56 could have been powered by other major subcluster collisions. The presence of colliding subclusters in the regions of massive clusters at $`z0.3`$ is often seen in numerical simulations of hierarchical cosmologies (e.g. Tormen tor98 (1998)), and the very elongated structure of 1E0657-56 is certainly suggestive of accretion events along large scale structure filaments. The radio halo of 1E0657-56 does have an extension towards the infalling subcluster, and this feature is probably due to the displacement of the intra-cluster gas by the recent collision event.

### 4.3 The post-starburst population

An additional consequence of a major merger could be the triggering of a starburst activity in cluster galaxies (Bekki bek99 (1999); Moss & Whittle mos00 (2000); Girardi & Biviano gb02 (2002) and references therein), lasting $`0.1`$ Gyr. We find no evidence for a significant fraction of starburst galaxies in 1E0657-56. On the contrary, the cluster ELG fraction is rather low, compared to those of other clusters at similar redshifts (e.g. the CNOC clusters, ELYC, and the MORPHS clusters, D99), and it is similar to that of nearby high-velocity dispersion clusters (see Fig.3 in Biviano et al. biv97 (1997)).

A significant number of cluster galaxies are instead found to be in a post-starburst (PSB) phase, as indicated by their large EW(H$`\delta `$). The fraction of PSB galaxies in 1E0657-56 ($`20`$%) is similar to that of other clusters at the same redshift. The PSB galaxies do not share the same kinematics of the main 1E0657-56 galaxy population (see Sect. 3.5). This is an indication for a recent (on a dynamical timescale) acceleration of these galaxies. It is possible that both their kinematics and spectral properties have been influenced by the subcluster collision, and that we are observing the cluster just after the starburst phase has ceased. On the other hand, the PSB galaxies are not distributed along the direction of the subcluster collision. Moreover, the mean velocity of these galaxies (in the cluster rest frame) is $`1076\pm 235`$ km s-1 lower than the mean velocity of the subcluster. It is then unlikely that this galaxy population is related to the recent collision event in 1E0657-56.

Alternatively, PSB galaxies could have evolved from recently infallen late-type field galaxies. In fact, PSB galaxies share the projected distribution and kinematics of late-type galaxies (see Fig.8 and Table 3), suggestive of an out-of-equilibrium dynamical state. Significant ram-pressure stripping occurs when galaxies cross the cluster core, sometime preceded by an instantaneous burst of star formation (Fujita et al. fuj01 (2001); Vollmer et al. 2001a ). Other episodes of star formation can occur when the stripped galaxies emerging from the core re-accrete part of the stripped gas on their disks (Vollmer et al. vol00 (2000), 2001b ). Should this scenario be correct, the claimed rôle of subcluster collisions in the production of starbursts should be reconsidered. A spectroscopic survey of the outer regions of 1E0657-56 is needed in order to compare the properties of galaxies in the cluster outskirts with those of galaxies in the cluster core.

## 5 Summary

We provide evidence for a recent ($`0.15`$ Gyr) collision between the very massive cluster 1E0657-56 and a low velocity dispersion subcluster. A comparison between optical and X-ray properties of the cluster suggests that a major collision has occurred. The same comparison for the subcluster suggests that it could be the remnant compact core of a moderately massive cluster.

Model timescales for the production of cluster radio halos tend to exclude this collision event as the main responsible for the cluster radio halo. On the other hand, the radio morphology of the cluster has probably been distorted by this recent collision.

1E0657-56 has a low fraction of star forming galaxies, rather unexpected in current scenarios of starburst triggering by cluster-cluster mergers. Furthermore, PSB galaxies are unlikely to be related with the collision event, given their spatial and kinematical distribution. We rather interpret them as field galaxies that have recently fallen into the cluster gravitational potential.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Dr. Haida Liang for kindly providing us with the radio image of the cluster. We acknowledge useful discussions with Marisa Girardi. We thank an anonymous referee for useful comments. This research has made use of data obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.


text:
# Survey of experimental data

## 1 Introduction

Central heavy ion collisions at relativistic incident energies represent an ideal tool to study nuclear matter at high temperatures. Particle production is – at all incident energies – a key quantity to extract information on the properties of nuclear matter under these extreme conditions. Particles carrying strangeness have turned out to be very valuable messengers.

A specific purpose of this paper is the presentation of the evolution of strange particle production over a large range of incident energies. Many results are shown together with a theoretical interpretation. The attempts to describe particle production yields with statistical models \[1-8\] have turned out to be very successful over this large domain of incident energies.

## 2 General Trends

### 2.1 Production of pions and kaons from SIS to RHIC

At incident energies around 1 $`A`$GeV pion and kaon production is very different: Pions can be produced by direct $`NN`$ collisions in contrast to kaons. The threshold for $`K^+`$ production in $`NN`$ collisions is 1.58 GeV and only collective effects can accumulate the energy needed to produce a $`K^+`$ together with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ due to strangeness conservation. The threshold for $`K^{}`$ production is even higher (2.5 GeV) as they are produced as $`K^+`$ $`K^{}`$ pairs. These conditions lead to very different yields for the various mesons as demonstrated in Fig. 1 showing some spectra from central Au+Au collisions at 1.5 $`A`$GeV. The yields of pions are much higher than for kaons; positively and negatively charged pions differ due to the $`N/Z`$ ratio of Au. The yield of $`K^+`$ is by nearly two orders of magnitude higher than the one of $`K^{}`$ due to the different thresholds. At higher incident energies all these differences diminish as will be discussed.

Pion spectra of excellent quality are now available or will appear soon \[9-10\]. Figure 2 shows as an example spectra of positively charged pions as $`d^3\sigma /dp^3`$ (Boltzmann representation) for C+C and Au+Au collisions at different incident energies. The spectra are measured close to mid rapidity.

All spectra exhibitconcave shapes in this representation deviating from a Boltzmann distribution which would be a straight line. Yet, even in a thermal condition one is not expecting a pure Boltzmann distribution as pions originate both from “free” pions and from resonance decay after freeze out. This type of shape is observed up to the highest incident energies and the above interpretation holds qualitatively. For a quantitative description with these two components still some work has to be done.

Spectra of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ from mass-symmetric systems C+C and Au+Au at incident energies from 0.6 to 2.0 $`A`$GeV measured at midrapidity are shown in Fig. 3. They exhibit Boltzmann shapes in all cases . Their inverse slope parameters increase monotoneously with incident energy and the heavier system exhibits harder spectra than the light system at the same incident energy.

The interaction of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ with nuclear matter is very different: Due to their $`\overline{s}`$ content $`K^+`$ cannot be absorbed, while $`K^{}`$ can easily be absorbed on a nucleon converting it into a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This difference makes the $`K^+`$ to be messengers of the early stage of the collision. Therefore $`K^+`$ are ideal probes for this dense stage and allow to extract the stiffness of the nuclear equation of state . The basis of these studies is the ratio of $`K^+`$ measured in Au+Au and in C+C collisions as shown in Fig. 4. This subject is presented in detail in the talk by C. Sturm.

Figure 3 demonstrates that the yield of $`K^+`$ is much higher than the one of $`K^{}`$ as mentioned already. This is caused by the different production thresholds for $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$. At AGS energies the ratio of $`K^+/K^{}`$ has decreased to about 5  and is as low as 1.16 at RHIC . This trend is summarized in Fig. 5. The dashed line represents the results of calculations using a statistical model .

### 2.2 Interpretation within a statistical model

Pions and $`K^+`$ exhibit a further very pronounced contrast: While the pion multiplicity per number of participating nucleons $`A_{part}`$ remains constant with $`A_{part}`$, the $`K^+`$ multiplicity per $`A_{part}`$ rises strongly (Fig. 6). The latter observation seems to be in conflict with a thermal interpretation, which – in a naive view – should give multiplicities per mass number $`A`$ being constant.

Usually, the particle number densities or the multiplicities per $`A_{part}`$, here for pions, are described in a simplified way by a Boltzmann factor

$$\frac{M_\pi }{A_{part}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{<E_\pi >}{T}\right),$$

with the temperature $`T`$ and the total energy $`<E_\pi >`$.

The production of strange particles has to fulfil strangeness conservation. The attempt to describe the measured particle ratios including strange hadrons at AGS and SPS using a strangeness chemical potential $`\mu _S`$ is quite successful . However, this grand-canonical treatement is not sufficient if the number of produced strange particles is small. Then a statistical model has to take care of local strangeness conservation in each reaction as introduced in . This is done by taking into account that e.g. together with each $`K^+`$ a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or another strange particle is produced:

$$\frac{M_{K^+}}{A_{part}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{<E_{K^+}>}{T}\right)\left[g_\mathrm{\Lambda }V\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(E_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _B)}{T}\right)\right],$$

where $`T`$ is the temperature, $`\mu _B`$ the baryo-chemical potential, $`g_i`$ the degeneracy factors, $`V`$ the production volume for making the associate pair (see ) and $`E_i`$ the total energies. We note that this volume is not identical to the volume of the system at freeze out. The volume parameter $`V`$ is taken as $`r_V^3A_{part}`$ with a common $`r_V`$ = 1.07 fm for all systems and all incident energies.

This formula, simplified for demonstration purposes, neglects other combinations leading to the production of $`K^+`$ as well as the use of Bose-Fermi distributions, which are all included in the computation. The corresponding formula for $`K^{}`$ production

$$\frac{M_K^{}}{A_{part}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{<E_K^{}>}{T}\right)\left[g_{K^+}V\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_{K^+}}{T}\right)\right].$$

is similar, but does not depend on $`\mu _B`$. This point will become important later on.

These formulae lead to a reduction of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ yields as compared to the numbers calculated without exact strangeness conservation . Two extreme conditions can be seen from these equations. In the limit of a small number of strange particles the additional term (due to the parameter $`V`$) leads to a linear rise of $`M_{K^+}/A_{part}`$, while $`M_\pi /A_{part}`$ remains constant. This is in very good agreement with the experimental observations shown in Fig. 6. For very high temperatures or very large volumina, the terms in brackets approach unity (see Ref. ) resulting in the grand-canonical formulation. This is much better seen in the exact formulae using modified Bessel functions .

At low incident energies, the particle ratios (except $`\eta /\pi _0`$) are well described using this canonical approach . Surprisingly, even the measured $`K^+/K^{}`$ ratio is described and this ratio does not depend on the choice of the volume term $`V`$. It should be noted that the statistical model uses nominal masses of the particles while some transport calculations  have to reduce the $`K^{}`$ mass (as expected for kaon in the nuclear medium) in order to describe the measured yields.

Before comparing the data with the calculations in detail, a summary of the measurements by the KaoS Collaboration is given. These results have attracted considerable interest as in heavy ion collisions the $`K^{}`$ yield compared to the $`K^+`$ cross section is much higher than expected from $`NN`$ collisions . This is especially evident if the kaon multiplicities are plotted as a function of $`\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_{th}}`$ where $`\sqrt{s_{th}}`$ is the energy needed to produce the respective particle in $`NN`$ collisions taking into account the mass of the associately produced partner. To produce a $`K^+`$ in $`NN`$ collisions $`\sqrt{s_{th}}`$ = 2.548 GeV and a $`K^{}`$ $`\sqrt{s_{th}}`$ = 2.87 GeV. The obvious contrast between $`NN`$ and $`AA`$ collisions, shown in Fig. 7, has lead to the interpretation of the results by in-medium properties which cause e.g. a lower threshold for $`K^{}`$ production when produced in dense matter . The observed difference between $`NN`$ and $`AA`$ collisions alone is not sufficient to conclude on properties of kaons in matter. In heavy ion collisions, kaons can be produced by other channels, e.g. $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}N`$ which are not available in $`NN`$ collisions. Only by using detailed transport-model calculations one might conclude on new properties of kaons in matter .

It is therefore of interest to see how the results of the statistical model appear in a representation where the $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ multiplicities are given as a function of $`\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_{th}}`$. Figure 8 demonstrates that at values of $`\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_{th}}`$ less than zero the excitation functions for $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ cross leading to the observed equality of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ at SIS energies. The yields differ at AGS energies by a factor of five. The difference in the rise of the two excitation functions can be understood by the formulae given above. The one for $`K^+`$ production contains ($`E_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _B`$) while the other has $`E_{K^+}`$ in the exponent of the second term. As these two values are different, the excitation functions, i.e. the variation with $`T`$, exhibit a different rise.

Furthermore, the two formulae predict that the $`K^+/K^{}`$ ratio for a given collision should not vary with centrality as $`V`$ cancels in the ratio. This has indeed been observed in Au+Au/Pb+Pb collisions between 1.5 $`A`$GeV and RHIC energies  as shown in Fig. 9. This independence of centrality is most astonishing as one expects at low incident energies an influence of the different thresholds and the density variation with centrality. For instance at 1.93 $`A`$GeV the $`K^+`$ production is above and the $`K^{}`$ production below their respective $`NN`$ thresholds.

Transport-model calculations show clearly that strangeness equilibration requires a time interval of 40 – 80 fm/$`c`$ . On the other hand statistical models assuming chemical equilibration are quite successful in describing the particle yields including strange particles.

In the case of $`K^+`$ production, no strong absorptive channel seems to be available which could lead to chemical equlibration. For $`K^{}`$ production the situation is quite different. At low incident energies strange quarks are found only in a few hadrons. The $`\overline{s}`$ quark is essentially only in $`K^+`$, while the $`s`$ quark will be shared between $`K^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (or other hyperons). This sharing of the $`s`$ quark might be in chemical equlibrium as the reactions

$$\pi ^0+\mathrm{\Lambda }p+K^{}\mathrm{or}\pi ^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{n}+\mathrm{K}^{}$$

are strong and have only slightly negative Q-values of -176 MeV.

The idea that the $`K^{}`$ yield is dominated by strangeness exchange via the $`\pi ^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channel has been suggested by  and has been demonstrated quantitavely in a recent theoretical study . The direct $`K^+K^{}`$ pair production via baryon-baryon collisions has negligible influence as these $`K^{}`$ are absorbed entirely. In these transport-model calculations the strangeness exchange is approaching equilibrium but does not fully reach it . For details see the talk given by C. Hartnack.

If these reactions are the dominating channels, they might reach chemical equilibration, e.g. the rates for producing $`K^{}`$ and for absorbing $`K^{}`$ are equal. Then the law of mass action can be applied giving for the respective concentrations

$$\frac{[\pi ^{0,}][\mathrm{\Lambda }]}{[K^{}]N}=\kappa .$$

As the number of $`K^{}`$ relative to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is small, $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ can be approximated by $`[K^+]`$ and rewriting gives

$$\frac{[K^{}]}{[K^+]}M(\pi ^0+\pi ^{})/A_{part}.$$

This relation also explains that the measured ratio of $`K^{}/K^+`$ is constant with centrality (Fig. 9) as the pion multiplicity does not vary with centrality.

A detailed study for the low energies has been given in the talk by A. Förster. Figure 10 summarises by demonstrating the constancy of the $`K^{}/K^+`$ ratio and of the pion multiplicity with $`A_{part}`$ for Ni+Ni and Au+Au collisions at 1.5 $`A`$GeV . It turns out that these ratios do not even depend on the choice of the collision system. The right part of this figure exhibits the double ratio $`([K^{}]/[K^+])/([M(\pi ^0+\pi ^{})]/A_{part})`$ which shows only a minor deviation from a horizontal line. This result can be taken as an argument that this specific channel is not far from chemical equilibrium.

Next we test in Fig. 11

the validity of the law of mass action by plotting the $`K^{}/K^+`$ ratio as a function of the pion multiplicity $`M(\pi ^0+\pi ^{})/A_{part}`$ at incident energies from SIS up to RHIC. At SIS and AGS energies the direct relation holds, i.e. the $`K^{}/K^+`$ ratio rises with $`M(\pi ^0+\pi ^{})/A_{part}`$. At SPS and RHIC energies the linear relation is no longer valid; $`K^{}`$ are obviously produced by other channels, i.e. $`K^+K^{}`$ pair production. This change of the dominating channel is well reproduced by the statistical model (dashed line in Fig. 11).

### 2.3 Maximum relative strangeness content in heavy ion collisions around 30 A$``$GeV

The experimental data from heavy ion collisions show that the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio rises from SIS up to AGS but it is larger for AGS than at the highest CERN-SPS energies  and decreases even further at RHIC  as shown in Fig. 12.

This behavior is of particular interest as it could signal the appearance of new dynamics for strangeness production in high energy collisions. It was even conjectured  that this property could indicate an energy threshold for quark-gluon plasma formation in relativistic heavy ion collisions. Some transport models are able to describe the occurrence of this maximum within a continuous evolution of hadron rescattering and string degrees of freedom .

In the following we analyze the energy dependence of strange to non-strange particle ratios in the framework of a hadronic statistical model. In the whole energy range, the hadronic yields observed in heavy ion collisions resemble those of a population in chemical equilibrium along a unified freeze-out curve determined by the condition of fixed energy/particle $``$ 1 GeV  providing a relation between the temperature $`T`$ and the baryon chemical potential $`\mu _B`$. As the beam energy increases $`T`$ rises and $`\mu _B`$ is slightly reduced. Above AGS energies $`T`$ exhibits only a moderate change and converges to its maximal value in the range of 160 to 180 MeV, while $`\mu _B`$ is strongly decreasing.

Instead of studying the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio we use the ratios of strange to non-strange particle multiplicities (Wroblewski factor)  defined as

$$\lambda _s\frac{2<s\overline{s}>}{<u\overline{u}>+<d\overline{d}>}$$

where the quantities in angular brackets refer to the number of newly formed quark-antiquark pairs, i.e. it excludes all quarks that were present in the target and the projectile.

Applying the statistical model to particle production in heavy ion collisions calls for the use of the canonical ensemble to treat the number of strange particles particularly for data in the energy range from SIS up to AGS  as mentioned before. The calculations for Au-Au and Pb-Pb collisions are performed using a canonical correlation volume defined above. The quark content used in the Wroblewski factor is determined at the moment of chemical freeze-out, i.e. from the hadrons and especially, hadronic resonances, before they decay. This ratio is thus not an easily measurable observable unless one can reconstruct all resonances from the final-state particles. The results are shown in Fig. 13 as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$.

The solid line (marked “sum”) in Fig. 13 describes the statistical-model calculations in complete equilibrium along the unified freeze-out curve  and with the energy-dependent parameters $`T`$ and $`\mu _B`$. From Fig. 13 we conclude that around 30 $`A`$GeV laboratory energy the relative strangeness content in heavy ion collisions reaches a clear and well pronounced maximum. The Wroblewski factor decreases towards higher incident energies and reaches a limiting value of about 0.43. For details see Ref. .

The appearance of the maximum can be traced to the specific dependence of $`\mu _B`$ and $`T`$ on the beam energy. Figure 14 shows lines of constant $`\lambda _s`$ in the $`T\mu _B`$ plane. As expected $`\lambda _s`$ rises with increasing $`T`$ for fixed $`\mu _B`$. Following the chemical freeze-out curve, shown as a dashed line in Fig. 14, one can see that $`\lambda _s`$ rises quickly from SIS to AGS energies, then reaches a maximum at $`\mu _B500`$ MeV and $`T130`$ MeV. These freeze-out parameters correspond to 30 $`A`$GeV laboratory energy. At higher incident energies the increase in $`T`$ becomes negligible but $`\mu _B`$ keeps on decreasing and as a consequence $`\lambda _s`$ also decreases.

The importance of finite baryon density on the behavior of $`\lambda _s`$ is demonstrated in Fig. 13 showing separately the contributions to $`s\overline{s}`$ coming from strange baryons, from strange mesons and from hidden strangeness, i.e. from hadrons like $`\varphi `$ and $`\eta `$. As can be seen in Fig. 13, the origin of the maximum in the Wroblewski ratio can be traced to the contribution of strange baryons. This channel dominates at low $`\sqrt{s}`$ and loses importance at high incident energies. Even strange mesons exhibit a broad maximum. This is due to the presence of associated production of e.g. kaons together with hyperons.

The energy dependence of the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio measured at midrapidity is shown in Fig. 12. The model gives an excellent description of the data, showing a broad maximum at the same energy as the one seen in the Wroblewski factor. In general, statistical-model calculations should be compared with 4$`\pi `$-integrated results since strangeness does not have to be conserved in a limited portion of phase space. A drop in this ratio for 4$`\pi `$ yields has been reported from preliminary results of the NA49 collaboration at 158 $`A`$GeV . This decrease is, however, not reproduced by the statistical model without further modifications, e.g. by introducing an additional parameter $`\gamma _s0.7`$ . This point might be clearer when data at other beam energies will become available.

## 3 Summary

Strange particle production in heavy ion collisions over a rather broad range of incident energies can be described by a statistical model. The production of strange particles close to threshold requires a canonical formulation, i.e. local strangeness conservation. This approach is able to explain many features of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ production at SIS energies.

While for $`K^+`$ production it remains open whether and how chemical equlibrium can be reached, the situation is quite different for $`K^{}`$. It is shown that the strangeness exchange process $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }N+K^{}`$ is the dominant channel for $`K^{}`$ production at SIS and likely also at AGS energies. This is demonstrated by applying the corresponding law of mass action. Theoretical studies confirm this interpretation.

Using the energy dependence of the parameters $`T`$ and $`\mu _B`$ we have shown that the statistical-model description of relativistic heavy ion collisions predicts that the yields of strange to non-strange particles reaches a well defined maximum near 30 GeV lab energy. It is demonstrated that this maximum is due to the specific shape of the freeze-out curve in the $`T\mu _B`$ plane. In particular a very steep decrease of the baryon chemical potential with increasing energy causes a corresponding decline of relative strangeness content in systems created in heavy ion collisions above lab energies of 30 GeV. The saturation in $`T`$, necessary for this result, might be connected to the fact that hadronic temperatures cannot exceed the critical temperature $`T_c`$ 170 MeV for the phase transition to the QGP as found in solutions of QCD on the lattice.

In spite of the apparent success of the statistical models it should not appear the impression that these models describe everything. They describe yields, particle ratios. Looking at spectral shapes already the expansion dynamics shows up. The distribution of the particles in space is a very informative quantity as e.g. . The description of this quantity is beyond statistical models.

It is a pleasure for me to thank for the stimulating collaboration with P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Cleymans, K. Redlich, and the whole KaoS Crew (I. Böttcher, A. Förster, E. Grosse, P. Koczoń, B. Kohlmeyer, F. Laue, M. Menzel, L. Naumann, F. Pühlhofer, E. Schwab, P. Senger, Y. Shin, H. Ströbele, F. Uhlig, A. Wagner, W. Waluś).