text:
# Remarks on the interaction between Born-Infeld solitons

## I Introduction

In recent years it became apparent that when studying low energy effective actions of string theory, the part of the Lagrangian containing the abelian Maxwell field strength tensor and its non-abelian counterpart in Yang-Mills field theories, respectively, must be replaced by a corresponding (resp. abelian and non-abelian) Born-Infeld term. This idea is not new and was first suggested by Born and Infeld in the 1930s  to get rid of singularities associated with point-like charges in electrodynamics. A subtle point in the generalisation to non-abelian Born-Infeld (NBI) theory is how to specify the trace over the gauge group generators. From the viewpoint of string theory the symmetrized trace  seems more favourable than the ordinary trace. In general, the Lagrangian involving a symmetrized trace is only known in a perturbative expansion . Recently, however, an explicit expression of the SU(2) NBI action for static, spherically symmetric, magnetic configurations involving a symmetrized trace was constructed . It was found that the qualitative results are in good agreement with the ones obtained previously  using the ordinary trace.

A number of classical field theory model have been studied with respect to the effects of the Born-Infeld (BI) interaction. It was found that in SU(2) Yang-Mills theory the presence of the Born-Infeld term leads to the existence of particle-like solutions, so called ”glueballs” , which are absent in the standard case (i.e. without BI interaction). The reason for this is that similar to gravity in the Einstein-Yang-Mills model , the Born-Infeld term breaks the scale invariance and thus admits finite energy solutions. For models in which soliton-type solutions already exist in the standard case, it is of interest to study the BI deformation of these configurations. This has been done for a number of models including the Abelian Higgs model  and the SU(2) Georgi-Glashow model .

Both, the Abelian Higgs model  and the Georgi-Glashow model  admit soliton solutions characterized by an integer of topological origin and possess a so-called ”self-dual” (BPS) limit for a specific value of the Higgs self-coupling constant. In this limit, the second order Euler-Lagrange equations can be replaced by a set of first order (”self-dual”) equations and the mass of the $`n`$-soliton solution is given by $`M(n)=nM(n=1)`$ indicating that no interaction between the solitons exists . The repulsion due to the long range gauge field is exactly compensated by the attraction of the Higgs field which, because of its masslessness, is also long range.

A natural question arising in the study of the Born-Infeld interaction is whether it can lead to attraction between vortices and monopoles, respectively. In the case of vortices, it was found that in the self-dual limit the Born-Infeld interaction leads to attraction . For monopoles the question has not be answered yet and one of the aims of this paper is to give an indication of whether the Born-Infeld interaction similar to gravity  can lead to attraction.

Here we present a formula which provides a good approximation for the energy of the BI-deformed solitons using only the data of the standard case. In Section II, we study this approximation for the Abelian Higgs model, in section III for the Georgi-Glashow model. We give our conclusion in section IV.

## II The Abelian Higgs model

The Lagrangian of the Abelian Higgs model reads :

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}\frac{\lambda }{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }v^2)^2$$
(1)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu ieA_\mu `$, $`A_\mu `$ is the U(1) gauge potential with coupling $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a complex Higgs field with vacuum expectation value $`v`$ and self-coupling constant $`\lambda `$.

This model has soliton solutions, namely the Nielsen-Olesen vortices  and $`n`$-soliton solutions can be constructed with an appropriate axially symmetric ansatz :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=vf(\rho )e^{i\phi },A_\mu dx^\mu =\frac{1}{e}(nP(\rho ))d\phi $$
(2)
The self-dual case is given for $`\alpha =\frac{e^2}{\lambda }=2`$. In the Born-Infeld version of this theory , the part of the Lagrangian containing the Maxwell field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is replaced by the corresponding Born-Infeld (BI) expression with BI coupling $`\beta `$ :

$$\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\beta ^2\left(1\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{16\beta ^4}(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })^2}\right)$$
(3)
For $`\beta ^2>>1`$, the square root can be evaluated as follows:

$$\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{16\beta ^4}(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })^2}$$

$$1+\frac{1}{4\beta ^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{32\beta ^4}[(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })^2+(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })^2]\pm O(\beta ^6)$$
(4)
For $`\beta ^2\mathrm{}`$, the standard expression of the U(1) theory on the lhs of (3) is recovered. In the limit of static and purely magnetic solutions, the part containing the dual field strength tensor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ vanishes.

In this paper, we are interested in static, finite energy solutions of the full BI equations with classical mass denoted by $`M_{bi}(\beta ^2)`$. Using (4), we obtain the following approximation for this mass :

$$M_{bi}(\beta ^2)M_0\frac{1}{32\beta ^2}d^3x(F_{(0)jk}F_{(0)}^{jk})^2M_0\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}$$
(5)
Both, the mass of the standard soliton $`M_0`$ and the field strength tensors $`F_{(0)jk}`$ are computed from the standard equations. In other words, we approximate the mass of the BI-soliton by the $`\beta ^2`$\- correction of the BI Lagrangian density using only the solution data of the standard U(1) theory.

For the self-dual case, the first order equations read:

$$f^{^{}}=\frac{Pf}{x},P^{^{}}=x^2(f^21)$$
(6)
In this limit, the mass $`M_0`$ of the Nielsen-Olesen vortex and the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}`$ are given as follows :

$$M_0=𝑑xx[\frac{(P^{})^2}{x^2}+(f^{})^2+\frac{P^2f^2}{x^2}+\frac{1}{4}(1f^2)^2]$$
(7)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑xx[\frac{P^{}}{x}]^4$$
(8)
where $`x`$ is a dimensionless coordinate $`x=ev\rho `$ and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`x`$. With the choice of coordinates, the mass per winding number of the $`n`$-soliton solution in the self-dual case is given by $`\frac{M_0}{n}=1`$ (in units of $`2\pi \frac{v^2}{\alpha }`$).

Evaluating the correction integral numerically, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}(n=1)0.0118`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}(n=2)/n0.02037`$. In the table below, we compare the masses per winding number obtained with this correction and the masses per winding number $`M_{bi}(\beta ^2)(n)/n`$ computed in  with the full equations.

| $`\beta ^2`$ | $`M_{bi}(\beta ^2)(n=1)`$ | $`M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}}{\beta ^2}(n=1)`$ | $`M_{bi}(\beta ^2)(n=2)/2`$ | $`(M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}}{\beta ^2}(n=2))/2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1.0`$ |
| $`100.`$ | $`0.99988`$ | $`0.99988`$ | $`0.99979`$ | $`0.99979`$ |
| $`10.`$ | $`0.99880`$ | $`0.99882`$ | $`0.99790`$ | $`0.99796`$ |
| $`5.`$ | $`0.99760`$ | $`0.99764`$ | $`0.99585`$ | $`0.99592`$ |
| $`1.`$ | $`0.9870`$ | $`0.9882`$ | $`0.97780`$ | $`0.97963`$ |
| $`0.5`$ | $`0.97038`$ | $`0.9764`$ | $`0.94980`$ | $`0.95926`$ |

Clearly, the approximation is very good for large values of $`\beta ^2`$ and as expected gets worse for decreasing $`\beta ^2`$, since the approximation used in (4) is not valid anylonger and higher order terms have to be taken into account.

The quality of this approximation for large $`\beta ^2`$ also provides a good estimation for the difference between the energy per winding number of the $`n=1`$ and the $`n=2`$ vortex :

$$\delta M=(M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}}{\beta ^2}(n=1))(M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}}{\beta ^2}(n=2))/20.00875\frac{1}{\beta ^2}$$
(9)
This clearly confirms the results in , especially that the Born-Infeld interaction stabilizes the axially symmetric 2-vortex solution for $`\alpha =2`$.

## III The Georgi-Glashow model

The Lagrangian of the SU(2) Yang-Mills-Higgs theory with the Higgs field in the adjoint representation (the so-called Georgi-Glashow model) reads:

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{\mu \nu ,a}\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^aD^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a\frac{\lambda }{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^av^2)^2,a=1,2,3$$
(10)
where the field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ and the covariant derivative of the Higgs field $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ are given as follows:

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+e\epsilon _{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a+e\epsilon _{abc}A_\mu ^b\mathrm{\Phi }^c$$
(11)
The soliton solutions of this model are magnetic monopoles .

For a similar approximation as in (5), we expand the ordinary trace version of the non-abelian Born-Infeld (NBI) model. This is a straightfoward generalisation of (4) replacing $`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$ by $`F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }`$. We also give the first term in the approximation of the symmetrized trace version extending the results of .

### A Spherically symmetric monopoles

For the gauge and Higgs fields, we use the purely magnetic hedgehog ansatz ($`a=1,2,3`$)  :

$$A_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=A_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=0,A_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{1K(r)}{e}e_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{a},A_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{1K(r)}{e}\mathrm{sin}\theta e_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a},$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a=vH(r)e_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}.$$
(13)
The spherically symmetric $`n=1`$ Born-Infeld monopoles were constructed in  both by using the ordinary and the symmetrized trace. It was found that for large values of the Born-Infeld coupling $`\beta ^2`$, the profiles of the functions don’t differ significantly from those of the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole. Equally, the mass only depends slightly on $`\beta ^2`$. It was found, however, that the falloff of the Higgs field in the limit of vanishing Higgs coupling now is given by $`c(\beta ^2)/r`$, where $`c`$ is a constant depending on $`\beta ^2`$ with $`c=1`$ in the limit $`\beta ^2\mathrm{}`$. For the ordinary trace model, a critical value of $`\beta ^2`$ was found, $`\beta _{cr}^2`$, such that for $`\beta ^2<\beta _{cr}^2`$ no solutions exist. For vanishing Higgs self-coupling this was determined to be $`\beta _{cr}^2=0.168`$.

In the case of spherically symmetric solutions in the BPS limit, the first order (self-dual) differential equations read:

$$K^{^{}}=HK,x^2H^{^{}}=(K^21)$$
(14)
In the BPS limit, the non-abelian counterparts to the integrals (7) and (8) read :

$$M_0(n=1)=𝑑xx^2[\frac{(K^{})^2}{x^2}+\frac{(K^21)^2}{2x^4}+\frac{1}{2}(H^{})^2+\frac{K^2H^2}{x^2}]$$
(15)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑xx^2[\frac{(K^{})^2}{x^2}+\frac{(K^21)^2}{2x^4}]^2$$
(16)
for the ordinary trace denoted by $`tr`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑xx^2[\frac{2}{3}(\frac{(K^{})^2}{x^2})^2+(\frac{(K^21)^2}{2x^4})^2+\frac{2}{3}\frac{(K^21)^2}{2x^4}\frac{(K^{})^2}{x^2}]$$
(17)
for the symmetrized trace denoted by $`Str`$. The mass $`M_0`$ is given in unit of $`4\pi \frac{v}{e}`$, $`x=evr`$ and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`x`$. The numerical evaluation of the integrals (16) and (17) for the $`n=1`$-monopole gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}0.00919`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}0.00515`$. Similar as in the case of vortices, this provides a very good approximation of the BI-monopole mass for large $`\beta ^2`$ as the table below demonstrates :

| $`\beta ^2`$ | $`M_{bi}^{tr}(\beta ^2)`$ | $`M_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}/\beta ^2`$ | $`M_{bi}^{Str}(\beta ^2)`$ | $`M_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}/\beta ^2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1.0`$ |
| $`100.`$ | $`0.99991`$ | $`0.99991`$ | $`0.99994`$ | $`0.99994`$ |
| $`10.`$ | $`0.99907`$ | $`0.99908`$ | $`0.99948`$ | $`0.99948`$ |
| $`5.`$ | $`0.99813`$ | $`0.99816`$ | $`0.99895`$ | $`0.99897`$ |
| $`1.`$ | $`0.99012`$ | $`0.99080`$ | $`0.99430`$ | $`0.99485`$ |
| $`0.5`$ | $`0.97829`$ | $`0.98162`$ | $``$ | $``$ |

$`M_{bi}^{tr}(\beta ^2)`$ was computed using the full Born-Infeld equations. The integration of the full equations in the symmetrized trace version becomes very involved and thus the mass $`M_{bi}^{Str}(\beta ^2)`$ denotes the mass of the BI monopole computed from the Lagrangian involving terms up to order $`\beta ^2`$. The reason why we don’t give the numbers for $`\beta ^2=0.5`$ in the symmetrized trace version is that we couldn’t integrate the equations for $`\beta ^2<0.6`$. This leaves us with the assumption that for the equations derived from the symmetrized trace Lagrangian involving terms up to order $`\beta ^2`$ a $`\beta _{cr}^2`$ also exists and that in the case studied here $`\beta _{cr}^20.6`$. However, further investigation of this is out of the aim of this paper.

### B Axially symmetric monopoles

The axially symmetric Ansatz for the gauge fields is given by  :

$`A_\mu dx^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\mu ^a\tau ^adx^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2er}}[\tau _\phi ^n(H_1dr+(1H_2)rd\theta )`$ (18)
$``$ $`n(\tau _r^nH_3+\tau _\theta ^n(1H_4))r\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ],`$ (19)
while for the Higgs field it reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^a\tau ^a=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\tau _r^n+\mathrm{\Phi }_2\tau _\theta ^n\right)$$
(20)
where the matter field functions $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, $`H_3`$, $`H_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ depend only on $`r`$ and $`\theta `$. The symbols $`\tau _r^n`$, $`\tau _\theta ^n`$ and $`\tau _\phi ^n`$ denote the dot products of the cartesian vector of Pauli matrices, $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=(\tau ^1,\tau ^2,\tau ^3)`$, with the spatial unit vectors

$`\stackrel{}{e}_r^n`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}n\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}n\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (21)
$`\stackrel{}{e}_\theta ^n`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}n\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}n\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{}{e}_\phi ^n`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}n\phi ,\mathrm{cos}n\phi ,0),`$ (23)
For $`H_1=H_3=\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0`$, $`H_2=H_4=K(r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=H(r)`$ and $`n=1`$, the Ansatz (12), (13) for the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole  is recovered. The self-dual equations read:

$$F_{ij}^a=\pm \epsilon _{ijk}\sqrt{g}D^{k,a}\mathrm{\Phi }=\pm \epsilon _{ijk}r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta D_k^a\mathrm{\Phi }g^{kk}$$
(24)
It would be interesting to construct the Born-Infeld $`n=2`$-monopole and compare its mass with the one of the $`n=1`$ BI-monopole  as well as with the standard $`n=2`$-monopole . This can be done only by using the full axially symmetric ansatz (19), (20). The occurence of non-polynomial terms in the Born-Infeld action leads to the fact that the corresponding partial differential equations are not manifestly elliptic (-mixed derivatives of the fields are unavoidable-). The numerical integration seems to be very involved and is left for future work. However, encouraged by the results described above, we propose an estimation for the energy of the $`n=2`$-axially symmetric Born-Infeld monopole. For the $`n=2`$ monopole, the relevant integrals in the BPS limit read:

$`M_0(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta dxx^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}((x_x\mathrm{\Phi }_1+H_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2)^2+(x_x\mathrm{\Phi }_2H_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1)^2+(_\theta \mathrm{\Phi }_1H_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2)^2`$ (28)
$`+(_\theta \mathrm{\Phi }_2+H_2\mathrm{\Phi }_1)^2+n^2(H_4\mathrm{\Phi }_1+(H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }_2)^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}\{(x_xH_2+_\theta H_1)^2`$
$`+n^2((x_xH_3H_1H_4)^2+(x_xH_4+H_1(H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta ))^2`$
$`+(_\theta H_31+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_3+H_2H_4)^2+(_\theta H_4+\mathrm{cot}\theta (H_4H_2)H_2H_3)^2)\}]`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta dx{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}\{(x_xH_2+_\theta H_1)^2+n^2[(x_xH_3H_1H_4)^2`$ (31)
$`+\left(x_xH_4+H_1\left(H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta \right)\right)^2+\left(_\theta H_31+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_3+H_2H_4\right)^2`$
$`+(_\theta H_4+\mathrm{cot}\theta (H_4H_2)H_2H_3)^2]\}^2`$
We derive the expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}`$ in the case of axially symmetric monopoles in the Appendix. We obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta dx{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}\{(x_xH_2+_\theta H_1)^4+n^4[(x_xH_3H_1H_4)^2`$ (38)
$`+(_\theta H_31+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_3+H_2H_4)^2]^2+n^4[(x_xH_4H_1H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_1)^2`$
$`+(_\theta H_4H_2H_3\mathrm{cot}\theta (H_2H_4))^2]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4n^4}{3}}[(x_xH_3H_1H_4)(x_xH_4+H_1H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_1)`$
$`+(_\theta H_31+H_2H_4\mathrm{cot}\theta H_3)(_\theta H_4H_2H_3\mathrm{cot}\theta (H_2H_4))]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2n^2}{3}}(_\theta H_1+x_xH_2)^2`$
$`[(x_xH_3H_1H_4)^2+(_\theta H_31+H_4H_4+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_3)^2+(_\theta H_4H_2H_3\mathrm{cot}\theta (H_2H_4))^2`$
$`+(x_xH_4+H_1H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_1)^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{2n^4}{3}}[(x_xH_3H_1H_4)^2+(_\theta H_31+H_2H_4+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_3)^2]`$
$`[(x_xH_4+H_1H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_1)^2+(_\theta H_4H_2H_3\mathrm{cot}\theta (H_2H_4))^2]\}`$
We find $`(1/n)\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}=(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}0.00303`$ and $`(1/n)\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}=(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}0.00187`$. With this approximation, the difference between the mass per winding number of the $`n=1`$ and the $`n=2`$ monopole in the BPS limit is given by :

$$\delta M^{tr}=(M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}}{\beta ^2}(n=1))(M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}}{\beta ^2}(n=2))/20.006\frac{1}{\beta ^2}$$
(39)
and

$$\delta M^{Str}=(M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}}{\beta ^2}(n=1))(M_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}}{\beta ^2}(n=2))/20.003\frac{1}{\beta ^2}$$
(40)
Note that with our choice of coordinates, the mass per winding number of the BPS monopoles is given by $`\frac{M_0}{n}=1`$.

If we rely on the approximation (5) and extend it to the case of multimonopoles, the above result indicates that the Born-Infeld interaction leads to repulsion of like-charged monopoles. To have further indication, we computed the integrals (31) and (38) with the axially symmetric Ansatz  for winding number up to $`n=7`$. The values are given below:

| $`n`$ | $`1`$ | $`2`$ | $`3`$ | $`4`$ | $`5`$ | $`6`$ | $`7`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`10^3\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{tr}/n`$ | $`9.198`$ | $`3.035`$ | $`1.600`$ | $`1.008`$ | $`0.699`$ | $`0.517`$ | $`0.397`$ |
| $`10^3\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}/n`$ | $`5.156`$ | $`1.869`$ | $`1.064`$ | $`0.705`$ | $`0.506`$ | $`0.385`$ | $`0.303`$ |

Clearly, with increasing winding number $`n`$ the strength of repulsion increases. Plotting the above numbers over $`n`$ gives smooth curves. This makes us confident that the results obtained are not numerical errors. Of course, the hypothesis of repelling BI monopoles strongly relies on the agreement found in the Abelian Higgs model and in the Georgi-Glashow model for the $`n=1`$ monopoles. A direct numerical analysis of the equations is definitely called for.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper, we have studied an approximation for the Born-Infeld term both in the abelian as well as in the non-abelian Higgs model. In the abelian Higgs model, we find that inserting the data of the standard (i.e. undeformed) Nielsen-Olesen vortex in the $`\beta ^2`$-correction we obtain a very good approximation for the mass of BI vortices. For the $`n=1`$ monopoles arising in the Georgi-Glashow model this is also true for both the ordinary trace as well as the symmetrized trace version. Using these results, we compute the difference between the mass per winding number of the $`n=1`$ and the $`n=2`$ monopole, respectively. Our results suggest that the Born-Infeld interaction leads to repulsion between like charged monopoles.

## V Appendix

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}`$ for axially symmetric monopoles

We expand the field strength tensor with respect to the Pauli matrices $`\tau _\lambda ^n`$, $`\lambda =x`$, $`\theta `$, $`\phi `$ (see (19)) :

$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(\lambda )}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _\lambda ^n}{2}}`$
The non-vanishing coefficients $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(\lambda )}`$ read  :

$`F_{x\theta }^{(\phi )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left(_\theta H_1+x_xH_2\right),`$ (41)
$`F_{x\phi }^{(x)}`$ $`=`$ $`n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{x}}\left(x_xH_3H_1H_4\right),`$ (42)
$`F_{x\phi }^{(\theta )}`$ $`=`$ $`n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{x}}\left(x_xH_4+H_1H_3+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_1\right),`$ (43)
$`F_{\theta \phi }^{(x)}`$ $`=`$ $`n\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(_\theta H_31+H_2H_4+\mathrm{cot}\theta H_3\right),`$ (44)
$`F_{\theta \phi }^{(\theta )}`$ $`=`$ $`n\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(_\theta H_4H_2H_3\mathrm{cot}\theta \left(H_2H_4\right)\right),`$ (45)
and $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(\lambda )}=F_{\nu \mu }^{(\lambda )}`$. Thus the first correction of the symmetrized trace version of the theory is given by :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{bi}^{Str}=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta dxx^2Int^{Str}$$
(47)
with the integrand $`Int^{Str}`$ :

$$Int^{Str}=\frac{1}{8}Str(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })^2=\frac{1}{2}Str(F_{x\theta }^2g^{xx}g^{\theta \theta }+F_{x\phi }^2g^{xx}g^{\phi \phi }+F_{\theta \phi }^2g^{\theta \theta }g^{\phi \phi })^2$$
(48)
Inserting the expressions for the field strength tensor gives:

$`Int^{Str}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Str[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^2}}(F_{x\theta }^{(\phi )})^2(\tau _\phi ^n)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta x^2}}\{(F_{x\phi }^{(x)})^2(\tau _x^n)^2+(F_{x\phi }^{(\theta )})^2(\tau _\theta ^n)^2`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`F_{x\phi }^{(x)}F_{x\phi }^{(\theta )}(\tau _x^n\tau _\theta ^n+\tau _\theta ^n\tau _x^n)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta x^4}}\{(F_{\theta \phi }^{(x)})^2(\tau _x^n)^2+(F_{\theta \phi }^{(\theta )})^2(\tau _\theta ^n)^2`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`F_{\theta \phi }^{(x)}F_{\theta \phi }^{(\theta )}(\tau _x^n\tau _\theta ^n+\tau _\theta ^n\tau _x^n)\}]^2`$ (51)
Now, we use

$$Str(\tau _{\lambda _1}^n\mathrm{}\tau _{\lambda _p}^n)=\frac{1}{p!}tr(\tau _{\lambda _1}^n\mathrm{}\tau _{\lambda _p}^n+\mathrm{all}\mathrm{permutations})$$
(52)
With this, (51) can be evaluated in a straighforward way by noting that

$$Str\left((\tau _\lambda ^n)^4\right)=2,Str\left((\tau _{\lambda _1}^n)^2(\tau _{\lambda _2}^n)^2\right)=\frac{2}{3},Str\left((\tau _{\lambda _1}^n)^3(\tau _{\lambda _2}^n)\right)=0,Str\left((\tau _{\lambda _1}^n)^2(\tau _{\lambda _2}^n)(\tau _{\lambda _3}^n)\right)=0$$
(53)
where it is understood that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3`$. We obtain:

$`Int^{Str}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16x^4}}[(F_{x\theta }^{(\phi )})^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}((F_{x\phi }^{(x)})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{\theta \phi }^{(x)})^2}{x^2}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}((F_{x\phi }^{(\theta )})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{\theta \phi }^{(\theta )})^2}{x^2}})^2`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}(F_{x\phi }^{(x)}F_{x\phi }^{(\theta )}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\theta \phi }^{(x)}F_{\theta \phi }^{(\theta )}}{x^2}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}(F_{x\theta }^{(\phi )})^2\{(F_{x\phi }^{(x)})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{\theta \phi }^{(x)})^2}{x^2}}+(F_{x\phi }^{(\theta )})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{\theta \phi }^{(\theta )})^2}{x^2}}\}`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}\{(F_{x\phi }^{(x)})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{\theta \phi }^{(x)})^2}{x^2}}\}\{(F_{x\phi }^{(\theta )})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{\theta \phi }^{(\theta )})^2}{x^2}}\}]`$ (56)


format: text

text:
# Quasibound states at thresholds in multichannel impurity scattering

## I introduction

Electronic transport properties in quasi one-dimensional (1D) wires have gained much attention, not only due to scientific interest but also due to practical applications . When an electron is restricted to a wire, confinement subbands are formed due to quantization of the transverse momentum. In clean straight wires without impurities the modes of the subbands decouple, which results in a perfectly quantized conductance. However, the modes (including evanescent ones) mix when impurities are introduced into the wire, and the transport properties show a rich and non-trivial behavior. Detailed aspects of the mixing have been extensively investigated . The impurities put into the wire usually give rise to bound states, which can be separated into two categories: true bound states with real energy and quasibound states with complex energy. The imaginary part determines the decay rate of the quasibound state.

Even in simple 1D scattering problems quasibound states are quite common, for example resonant transmission states through a double barrier  and Ramsauer-like resonances  in potential wells. According to the Breit-Wigner theory , for each quasibound state the transmission amplitude possesses a pole in the complex energy plane. In multichannel scattering problems another kind of quasibound states can appear; the Fano type resonance originally proposed to explain autoionization in atomic physics . When a discrete energy level interferes with a continuum of states, the excitation spectra become asymmetric. Each subband mode in a quasi-1D wire gives rise to a zero-pole pair of transmission in the complex energy plane, where the zero occurs on the real energy axis. As a consequence, there exist transmission zeros, and the zero-pole pairs lead to asymmetric resonance features .

Transport through a time-dependent (mostly periodically oscillating) potential is also a subject of increasing importance, with a growing number of applications . One of the important features here is that an oscillating potential can transfer an incoming electron of energy $`E`$ with finite probability to ‘Floquet’ sidebands at $`E\pm n\mathrm{}\omega `$, where $`n`$ is an integer and $`\omega `$ is the angular frequency of the oscillation. Even though this corresponds to an inelastic scattering, the process is coherent and non-dissipative. Hence, it can still be regarded as a multichannel scattering problem like in the quasi-1D case, with the sidebands being analogous to the subbands. However, from the physical point of view, the Fano type quasibound states of the periodically oscillating impurity are somewhat different from those of quasi-1D system . If a bound state exists due to an attractive static potential added to the oscillating potential, electrons in the incident channel can emit photons and drop to the bound state, and similarly electrons in the bound state can absorb photons and jump to the incident channel. A transmission resonance takes place when the energy difference between the incident channel and the bound state is equal to the energy of one or more photons of the oscillating potential. Even without bound states transmission resonances like these can occur.

The multichannel subbands in the quasi-1D case and the Floquet sidebands in the oscillating potential case divide the complex energy plane into sub-domains with appropriate boundary conditions for the quasibound states. Upon varying an external parameter such as the strength of the impurity potential, the quasibound states change their location in complex energy plane. In the literature  it was claimed for the oscillating impurity that the quasibound state vanishes when the transmission zero collides with the sub-domain boundary and disappears. However, as we will demonstrate, the transmission line shape, the Friedel sum rule, and the delay time show that the quasibound states do not disappear abruptly. This clarifies the relation between threshold behavior of transmission resonances, and quasibound states and their boundary conditions in the general context of multichannel scatterings.

In Sec. II, we briefly summarize our findings about the transmission resonances and quasibound states. In Sec. III, we investigate the characteristics of quasibound states in the scattering problem with a 1D oscillating delta-function impurity, and discuss Friedel sum rule and Wigner delay time. In Sec. IV, we study our second example, the scattering from a static delta-function impurity in a quasi-1D wire. Finally, we conclude our paper in Sec. V.

## II boundary conditions of quasibound states in multichannel scattering

In this section we summarize the main finding of this paper, which will be further illustrated in Sec. III and IV. The transmission coefficient $`t_{mn}(E)`$ relates the incoming wave $`\psi _n^{in}`$ to the scattered wave $`\psi _m^{sc}`$ by

$$\psi _m^{sc}(E)=t_{mn}(E)\psi _n^{in}.$$
(1)
The resonance energies are found by locating the poles of $`t_{mn}(E)`$, namely

$$\frac{1}{t_{mn}(E_RiE_I)}=0.$$
(2)
The poles of $`t_{mn}(E)`$ occur at complex energies $`E=E_RiE_I`$. At these complex energies, a scattered wave can be produced even if no incident wave is present. When we choose the sign convention of time as $`\mathrm{exp}(iEt/\mathrm{})`$, $`E_I`$ must be positive for the system to be stable. In the Breit-Wigner case  the transmission near the quasibound state is given by $`t(E)1/[E(E_RiE_I)]`$, where the pole in complex energy plane completely determines the transmission line shape.

The poles can also be found by solving the wave equation with the appropriate boundary conditions of only outgoing waves. This can be described by the following linear equation

$$M\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{out}^l\\ \psi _{out}^r\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(3)
Here $`M`$ is the matrix of wave-matching conditions, and $`\psi _{out}^l`$ and $`\psi _{out}^r`$ are the left and the right outgoing wave vectors, respectively. The matrix $`M`$ contains the wave number $`k`$ as a function of energy $`E`$. For real $`E`$ the wave number $`k`$ is given by $`k=\sqrt{2\mu E}/\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mu `$ is the mass. For complex energies we have to choose the sign of the square root carefully. Considering the general relation

$$\sqrt{\alpha +i\beta }=\pm \left(\sqrt{\frac{\alpha +\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}{2}}+i\frac{\beta }{|\beta |}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha +\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}{2}}\right)$$
(4)
provided that $`\beta 0`$, we obtain

$$\sqrt{E_RiE_I}=\pm (k_Rik_I),$$
(5)
where by definition $`E_I`$, $`k_R`$ and $`k_I`$ are positive. The real energy $`E_R>0`$ for propagating states, and $`E_R<0`$ for evanescent states. The correct choice of the sign in Eq. (5) depends on the analytical continuation based on the physical constraints on the real energy axis. For $`E_I=0`$ the following relation should be satisfied:

$`\sqrt{E_R}=\{\begin{array}{c}k_R,E_R>0\\ ik_I,E_R<0,\end{array}`$ (8)
where both $`k_R`$ and $`k_I`$ are still positive. The choice of sign for propagating states corresponds to the choice of the negative sign for $`k_I`$ (i.e., the positive sign for $`k_R`$), and follows from the propagating direction of the plane wave far from the scatterer. For evanescent states the positive sign for $`k_I`$ must be chosen in order to avoid divergence of the solution in space.

It is worth noting that the ‘$`+`$’ sign corresponds to the decaying wave $`\mathrm{exp}(ik_Rxk_Ix)\mathrm{exp}(iE_Rt/\mathrm{}E_It/\mathrm{}`$) while the ‘$``$’ sign corresponds to the diverging wave $`\mathrm{exp}(ik_Rx+k_Ix)\mathrm{exp}(iE_Rt/\mathrm{}E_It/\mathrm{}`$), with $`x>0`$. The physical reason of the exponential divergence of the channels with positive real energy is a retardation effect; the wave at $`x1`$ has propagated away from the impurity where it originated at a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }tx/v`$ in the past, where $`v`$ is the velocity of the wave. However, at that earlier time the amplitude of the wave at the impurity was larger by a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(E_I\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{})`$. This corresponds to $`\mathrm{exp}(k_Ix)`$ since $`(E_RiE_I)/\mathrm{}v(k_Rik_I)/2`$ .

For multichannel scattering the wave numbers are given by

$$k_n=\pm \sqrt{E_RE_niE_I},$$
(9)
where $`E_n`$ represents the quantized energy of a transverse mode in the quasi-1D case ($`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) and is equal to $`n\mathrm{}\omega `$ in the 1D oscillating potential case ($`n=\mathrm{},1,0,1,\mathrm{}`$). We order the $`E_n`$’s by magnitude and denote by $`n^{}`$ the special value of $`n`$ which satisfies $`E_n^{}<E_R<E_{n^{}+1}`$.

In order to satisfy the physical conditions for the signs of $`k_n`$’s mentioned above, for $`nn^{}`$ the ‘$``$’ sign should be chosen for Im$`k_n`$, and for $`n>n^{}`$ the ‘$`+`$’ sign, which corresponds to the selection of a certain Riemann sheet for evaluating the complex square root function. This choice of the signs will be called proper Riemann sheet since this set of signs corresponds to the correct analytical continuation from the real energy axis. In order to represent the Riemann sheet through the signs of Im$`k`$ like in our convention, the square root functions should have their branch cuts on the real axis starting from the branch points and extending to the positive infinity. In general the notion Riemann sheet depends on the choice of a branch cut. However, this choice of the branch cut cannot affect physical results, because it is only a way to label the projection of the Riemann sheets onto the complex plane.

We introduce a labeling for the Riemann sheets by the vector of signs of the square root function. In this notation the proper Riemann sheet is represented by ($`\mathrm{},,,,+,+,\mathrm{}`$), which implies ‘$``$’ for Im$`k_{n^{}2}`$, ‘$``$’ for Im$`k_{n^{}1}`$, ‘$``$’ for Im$`k_n^{}`$, ‘$`+`$’ for Im$`k_{n^{}+1}`$, and ‘$`+`$’ for Im$`k_{n^{}+2}`$, and $``$ has been used to indicate the sign of $`n^{}`$. We also call the regions of complex energies separated by the quantized energies $`E_n`$’s “domains”, e.g. $`D_n`$ represents the region with $`E_n<E_R<E_{n+1}`$ as shown in Fig. 1(a).

As a parameter of the scattering potential such as its strength is varied, the locations of the poles change continuously and sometimes can collide with the boundary of the initial domain. We can trace the pole into the neighboring domain through the boundary, for example from $`D_n^{}`$ to $`D_{n^{}1}`$ in Fig. 1(a). In fact the trajectory of the pole across the boundary is continuous and smooth once we use the same Riemann sheet as the used one in $`D_n^{}`$, i.e. ($`\mathrm{},,,,+,+,\mathrm{}`$). However, this does not correspond to the proper Riemann sheet ($`\mathrm{},,,,+,+,\mathrm{}`$) in this new domain $`D_{n^{}1}`$ since the inequality $`E_n^{}<E_R`$ is violated. Thus, the solution obtained in $`D_{n^{}1}`$ using the proper Riemann sheet of $`D_n^{}`$ does not have any physical meaning in the domain $`D_{n^{}1}`$ (more precisely on the real axis of $`D_{n^{}1}`$), but still can influence physics on the real axis of $`D_n^{}`$, especially when the resonance is broad. Let us emphasize that only the branch points, $`E_n`$’s, play an important role in the threshold behavior of transmission resonances, but not the placement of the cuts. Physics is in the choice of signs on the real energy axis, Eq. (5). This situation is summarized schematically in Fig. 1(b), which shows that only small part of the proper Riemann sheet of $`D_n^{}`$, i.e. $`E_n^{}<E_R<E_{n^{}+1}`$, is attached to the real energy axis. Since in either $`D_{n^{}1}`$ or $`D_{n^{}+1}`$ the quasibound state can survive on the proper Riemann sheet of $`D_n^{}`$, it can still affect the physics in the region $`E_n^{}<E_R<E_{n^{}+1}`$, but has no effect on other parts of real axis. In the following sections we discuss two examples.

## III 1D delta-function impurity with time dependence

As the first example we investigate a 1D scattering problem with a delta-function impurity oscillating at frequency $`\omega `$. This problem was studied before by Bagwell and Lake , who calculated electron transmission and discussed transmission resonances. Recently Martinez and Reichl  have investigated this problem and found the existence of nonresonant bands in the transmission amplitude as a function of the strength of the potential and driving frequency. They observed a periodic behavior of the conductance as a function of the scattering strength and of the oscillation frequency of the scatterer.

### A Scattering matrix formulation

The system is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+[V_s+V_d\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)]\delta (x),$$
(10)
where the $`\mu `$ is the mass of an incident particle, and $`V_s`$ and $`V_d`$ represent the strength of the static and the oscillating potential, respectively. Using the Floquet formalism  the solution of this Hamiltonian can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{E_{Fl}}(x,t)=e^{iE_{Fl}t/\mathrm{}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _n(x)e^{in\omega t},$$
(11)
where $`E_{Fl}`$ is the Floquet energy which take continuous values in the interval $`0<E_{Fl}\mathrm{}\omega `$.

Since the potential is zero everywhere except at $`x=0`$, $`\psi _n(x)`$ is given by the following form

$$\psi _n(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}A_ne^{ik_nx}+B_ne^{ik_nx},x<0\\ C_ne^{ik_nx}+D_ne^{ik_nx},x>0,\end{array}$$
(12)
where $`k_n=\sqrt{2\mu (E_{Fl}+n\mathrm{}\omega )}/\mathrm{}`$. The wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{E_{Fl}}(x,t)`$ is continuous at $`x=0`$,

$$A_n+B_n=C_n+D_n,$$
(13)
and the derivative jumps by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }_{E_{Fl}}}{dx}|_{x=0^+}\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }_{E_{Fl}}}{dx}|_{x=0^{}}=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}[V_s+V_d\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)]\mathrm{\Psi }_{E_{Fl}}(0,t).$$
(14)
Using Eq. (11) this leads to the condition

$`ik_n(C_nD_nA_n+B_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _s(A_n+B_n)+\gamma _d(A_{n+1}+A_{n1}+B_{n+1}+B_{n1})`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\gamma _s(C_n+D_n)+\gamma _d(C_{n+1}+C_{n1}+D_{n+1}+D_{n1}),`$ (16)
where $`\gamma _s=2\mu V_s/\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\gamma _d=\mu V_d/\mathrm{}^2`$. After some algebra we have the following equation from Eqs. (13), (15), and (16)

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{B}\\ \stackrel{}{C}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(I+\mathrm{\Gamma })^1\mathrm{\Gamma }& (I+\mathrm{\Gamma })^1\\ (I+\mathrm{\Gamma })^1& (I+\mathrm{\Gamma })^1\mathrm{\Gamma }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{A}\\ \stackrel{}{D}\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ \gamma _d/ik_1& \gamma _s/ik_1& \gamma _d/ik_1& 0& 0\\ 0& \gamma _d/ik_0& \gamma _s/ik_0& \gamma _d/ik_0& 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma _d/ik_1& \gamma _s/ik_1& \gamma _d/ik_1\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
and $`I`$ is an infinite-dimensional square identity matrix. Eq. (17) can also be expressed in the form $`|\mathrm{out}=M|\mathrm{in}`$, where $`M`$ connects the input coefficients to the output coefficients including the associated evanescent Floquet sidebands. In order to construct the scattering matrix we multiply an identity to both sides, $`K^1K|\mathrm{out}=MK^1K|\mathrm{in}`$, where $`K_{nm}=\sqrt{k_n}\delta _{nm}`$. Then we have $`\stackrel{}{J}_{out}=\overline{M}\stackrel{}{J}_{in}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ represents the amplitude of probability flux and $`\overline{M}KMK^1`$. It should be mentioned that $`\overline{M}`$ is not unitary due to the evanescent modes included.

If we keep only the propagating modes, we obtain the unitary scattering matrix $`S`$ , which can be expressed in the following form

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}r_{00}& r_{01}& \mathrm{}& t_{00}^{}& t_{01}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ r_{10}& r_{11}& \mathrm{}& t_{10}^{}& t_{11}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ t_{00}& t_{01}& \mathrm{}& r_{00}^{}& r_{01}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ t_{10}& t_{11}& \mathrm{}& r_{10}^{}& r_{11}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where $`r_{nm}`$ and $`t_{nm}`$ are the reflection and the transmission amplitudes, respectively, for modes incident from the left; $`r_{nm}^{}`$ and $`t_{nm}^{}`$ are similar quantities for modes incident from the right. From $`S`$ we can obtain the total transmission coefficient for the propagating mode entering in the $`m`$th channel

$$T_m(E_{Fl})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|t_{nm}\right|^2.$$
(20)
Figure 2 shows the transmission coefficient $`T`$ as a function of $`\epsilon `$ for various values of a dimensionless potential strength $`a_d`$, where $`\epsilon =E/\mathrm{}\omega `$ ($`E`$ is the kinetic energy of the incident particle) and $`a_d=\mu V_d^2/8\mathrm{}^3\omega `$. We exploit the relation $`T(E)=T_m(E_{Fl})`$ where $`E=E_{Fl}+m\mathrm{}\omega `$. For small $`a_d`$’s the transmission coefficient shows some signatures of Fano type transmission resonance structures \[Fig. 2(a) and (b)\] whereas the resonance structure and transmission zero disappear as we increase $`a_d`$ \[Fig. 2(c)\]. Although there exists no transmission zero in Fig. 2(c), the resonance-like structure (the peak around $`\epsilon =0.8`$) still remains. For much larger $`a_d`$ the transmission zero reappears from $`\epsilon =1`$. Let us note that the transmission coefficient has no symmetry of energy translation by $`m\mathrm{}\omega `$ since in general $`T_m(E_{Fl})T_m^{}(E_{Fl})`$ when $`mm^{}`$.

### B Quasibound states

In order to obtain quasibound states we apply the same procedure used in the previous subsection, but with the different boundary conditions, $`A=0`$ and $`D=0`$. Since $`B_n=C_n`$ because of the reflection symmetry at $`x=0`$, after little algebra we obtain the linear equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ i\sqrt{a_d}& i\sqrt{a_s}+\sqrt{\epsilon 1}& i\sqrt{a_d}& 0& 0\\ 0& i\sqrt{a_d}& i\sqrt{a_s}+\sqrt{\epsilon }& i\sqrt{a_d}& 0\\ 0& 0& i\sqrt{a_d}& i\sqrt{a_s}+\sqrt{\epsilon +1}& i\sqrt{a_d}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{C}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
Here $`a_s=\mu V_s^2/2\mathrm{}^3\omega `$. We solve Eq. (21) for given $`a_s`$ and $`a_d`$ by using singular value decomposition  and find the complex energies of the quasibound states.

Due to the structure of the matrix in Eq. (21), if $`\epsilon ^{}`$ is a solution of Eq. (21), then $`\epsilon ^{}+n`$ is also a solution, where $`n`$ is an integer. We limit ourselves to the energy range of $`0<\epsilon _R1`$, which means the poles are meaningful only in the domain $`D_0`$. This constraint determines the signs of the complex square root functions in the diagonal of the matrix in Eq. (21) as described in Sec. II. Using the same notation as the one used in Sec. II the signs can be expressed by $`(\mathrm{},+,+,,,,\mathrm{})`$.

Figure 3(a) shows a trajectory of the quasibound state as $`a_d`$ is varied with $`a_s=0`$. The quasibound state of the first branch from the top originates from $`(1,0)`$ at $`a_d=0`$, moves towards the domain $`D_1`$, and crosses the domain boundary $`\epsilon _R=0`$ at $`a_d0.935`$. The trajectory of the pole helps to understand the transmission curves in Fig. 2. The resonance structure of the transmission follows the pole, as is shown in Fig. 2 and the inset of Fig. 2(a). Since in the system considered here the transmission zero always takes place on the left of the pole in the real energy direction, it collides with the domain boundary $`\epsilon _R=1`$ prior to the pole and disappears first at $`a_d0.782`$. In Ref. it is concluded that the quasibound state vanishes when the transmission zero disappears. Even after the pole moves out of the domain $`D_0`$, however, it still affects the transmission line shape, as shown in Fig. 2(c). There is no abrupt change of physical quantities, e.g. the transmissions, the Friedel phases, and the Wigner delay time (these two will be shown below). The transmission zero disappears when it collides with the point $`(0,0)`$. We can trace the transmission zero even into the non-physical region $`\epsilon _R<0`$ by calculating $`S`$ matrix on the proper Riemann sheet of $`D_0`$, although the unitarity of the $`S`$ matrix is violated.

A quasibound state of a second branch appears from the real axis at $`a_d1.032`$ and moves to the left. It passes through the domain boundaries $`\epsilon _R=1`$ at $`a_d1.31`$, while the transmission zero appears in advance at $`a_d1.165`$ as shown in Fig. 2(d). The pole finally leaves the domain $`D_0`$ by passing $`\epsilon _R=0`$ at $`a_d1.935`$. The second branch of the pole exactly corresponds to the case of the schematic shown in Fig. 1(b). In fact one can find more branches of quasibound states in a regular fashion . It is noted, however, that the branches qualitatively differ in their solution vectors, i.e., the null space of the matrix of Eq. (21) at the energy of quasibound state as shown in the insets of Fig. 3(a).

Figure 3(b) shows the trajectory of the pole in the case of a delta-function impurity with an attractive static potential added to the oscillating potential. A similar behavior as in Fig. 3(a) is observed. The shifted starting point from $`\epsilon =1`$ at $`a_d=0`$ is ascribed to the existence of the true bound state of an attractive delta function potential with binding energy $`E_B=\mu V_s^2/2\mathrm{}^2`$. The introduction of the static potential makes no effect on the signs of the complex square root functions, i.e., the Riemann sheet, which is clear in Eq. (21).

An interesting difference takes place in the trajectory of the quasibound states in the oscillating delta function impurity when the attractive static potential is present. For small $`a_d`$ the matrix in Eq. (21) can be approximated by a $`3\times 3`$ matrix involving only $`k_1`$, $`k_0`$ and $`k_1`$, which corresponds to single-photon processes (absorption and emission). Using the results of Appendix B of Ref. it can be seen that this $`3\times 3`$ matrix is not enough for the case without a static potential to describe the shift along the real energy axis of the quasibound states as $`a_d`$ is increased. At least a $`5\times 5`$ matrix is needed to include the shift, which implies two-photon process. The mathematical reason is the fact that the slope $`d\epsilon _I/d\epsilon _R|_{a_d=0}=\mathrm{}`$ in Fig. 3(a). On the other hand, in the case with an attractive potential $`3\times 3`$ matrix is enough to obtain a shift of the pole along the real energy axis, as shown in Fig. 3(b) because $`d\epsilon _I/d\epsilon _R|_{a_d=0}`$ has a finite value. With an attractive potential, a bound state already exists, and the oscillating potential leads to an ac-Stark shift  of that energy level. Without a static potential, however, one photon is needed to generate a bound state, and additional photons are needed to produce the ac-Stark-like shift.

### C Friedel sum rule

The number $`N_B`$ of bound states below an energy $`E_f`$ (say, the Fermi energy) is related to the Friedel phase $`\theta _F=\mathrm{ln}Det(S)/2i`$ of the scattering matrix $`S`$ though the Friedel sum rule  (see also )

$$N_B=\frac{1}{\pi }\theta _F(E_f).$$
(22)
This implies that each bound state contributes $`\pi `$ to the Friedel phase. Let us note that the scattering matrix in Eq. (19) is given as a function of a Floquet energy $`\epsilon _{Fl}`$ ($`E_{Fl}/\mathrm{}\omega `$) and the same holds for the Friedel phase, i.e. it is only relevant for $`0\epsilon <1`$. Figures 4(a) and (b) show Friedel phases as a function of $`\epsilon _{Fl}`$ for $`a_d=0.6`$ (the pole is located in $`D_0`$) and $`a_d=1.0`$ (the pole is in $`D_1`$), respectively, with $`a_s=0`$. No abrupt change of the Friedel phase is observed at the threshold $`a_d0.782`$ of the transmission zero or when the pole crosses the domain boundary, $`a_d0.935`$.

It is noted in Fig. 4(a) that the Friedel phase does not exhibit a clear $`\pi `$ shift but looks even similar to Fig. 4(b). We expect the Friedel phase to shift by $`\pi `$ near quasibound states. The absence of a clear $`\pi `$ shift in Fig. 4(a) is mainly ascribed to the large overlap between the resonance and the neighboring domain since the imaginary part of the complex energy of a pole $`\epsilon _I`$ is quite large, and so is the width of the resonance. Even though $`\epsilon _I`$ is quite small for very small $`a_d`$, the overlap is still large enough to violate the $`\pi `$ phase shift by Friedel sum rule as shown in Fig. 4(c). The quasibound state is located quite close to the boundary $`\epsilon _R=1`$ because of $`d\epsilon _I/d\epsilon _R|_{a_d=0}=\mathrm{}`$. If we consider the oscillating potential with an additional attractive static potential, however, for very small $`a_d`$ a gap exists between the bound state and the domain boundary $`\epsilon _R=1`$, which can make the overlap negligibly small, so that the phase shift $`\pi `$ is clearly seen in Fig. 4(d). When the Friedel sum rule is applied to the case of a multichannel scattering problem, the overlap between the resonance and neighboring domains should be carefully considered.

### D Wigner delay time

The time scales associated with the quantum scattering have been a quite controversial issue (see e.g. ) because time is not a Hermitian operator in Hilbert space but a parameter. Nevertheless one can define the global time delay of wave-packets by using a Hermitian time delay operator (see e.g. ). This time delay operator turns out to be related to the so-called Wigner-Smith time delay matrix , whose trace averaged over different channels gives a measure of the time delay of the scattered wave caused by the scattering potential (see also ). The Wigner delay time shows a peak at resonance energies, where the maximal value of the Wigner delay time approximately corresponds to the decay time $`\mathrm{}/\epsilon _I`$. To obtain the Wigner delay time we use the eigenvalues of the scattering matrix $`S`$. Due to the unitarity of $`S`$, all the eigenvalues lie on the unit circle and can be written in the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _\alpha )`$. The Wigner delay time is defined by

$$\tau _W=\mathrm{}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{d\theta _\alpha }{dE}|k_n|\theta _\alpha |^2,$$
(23)
where the eigenstate corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\theta _\alpha `$ and an input propagating state (or channel) with momentum $`k_n`$ are denoted by $`|\theta _\alpha `$ and $`|k_n`$, respectively . It is worth noting that the Wigner delay time is a function of the energy of the incident particle. The insets of Fig 5 shows the Wigner delay time as a function of energy of an incident particle for two $`a_d`$’s with $`a_s=0`$. The peaks of the Wigner delay time are located almost exactly at the real part of the complex energy of the pole in Fig. 5 (We omitted the data close to the domain boundaries where the Wigner delay time diverges), under the condition that the pole is located in $`D_0`$. No abrupt change of the Wigner delay time is again observed at the threshold of the transmission zero ($`a_d=0.782`$). However, the peak disappears close to the domain boundary $`D_1`$ since the pole enters the next domain.

## IV delta-function impurity in quasi-1D wire

As our second illustrative example we study the simple quasi-1D scattering problem with an attractive static delta-function impurity of strength $`|\gamma |`$. In Ref. it was found that dips in the transmission disappear as $`|\gamma |`$ is increased. Let us again discuss the relation to transmission poles.

### A Scattering matrix formulation

The Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2\mu }+\gamma \delta (x)\delta (yy_0)+V_c(y),$$
(24)
where $`\gamma <0`$, and $`V_c`$ represents a confinement potential which restricts the movement of the particle to the range $`0<y<D`$ in transversal direction. Using the complete set of the transversal modes $`\chi (y)=\sqrt{2/D}\mathrm{sin}(n\pi y/D)`$, the solution of this Hamiltonian can be expressed as

$$\psi _E(x,y)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n(x)\chi (y).$$
(25)
Plugging this expansion into the Schrödinger equation and exploiting orthogonality of the transversal modes, we obtain the following equation

$$\frac{d^2c_m(x)}{dx^2}+k_m^2c_m(x)=\underset{n}{}M_{mn}c_n(x)\delta (x),$$
(26)
where $`M_{mn}=(4\mu \gamma /D\mathrm{}^2)\mathrm{sin}(m\pi y_0/D)\mathrm{sin}(n\pi y_0/D)`$ and $`k_n=\sqrt{2\mu E/\mathrm{}^2(n\pi /D)^2}`$. Using both the plane waves of Eq. (12) for $`c_n(x)`$ and the constraints in Eqs. (13) and (14), we obtain the following conditions

$`A_n+B_n=C_n+D_n,`$ (27)
$`ik_n(C_nD_n)ik_n(A_nB_n)={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}M_{nm}(A_m+B_m).`$ (28)
These can be rewritten as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{B}\\ \stackrel{}{C}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(2QM)^1M& 2(2QM)^1Q\\ 2(2QM)^1Q& (2QM)^1M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{A}\\ \stackrel{}{D}\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where $`Q_{mn}=ik_n\delta _{mn}`$. Following the same procedure as that used in Eq. (19) we can obtain the $`S`$-matrix for this problem and the total transmission coefficient

$$T=\underset{mn(\mathrm{prop}.)}{}\left|t_{mn}\right|^2,$$
(30)
where the sum extends over all propagating modes. The resulting transmission coefficients is shown in Fig. 6. We use the parameters $`D=30`$ nm for the width of the wire, the mass $`\mu =0.067m_e`$ as the effective mass of an electron in GaAs, $`y_0=5D/12`$ for the transversal position of the delta-function scatterer, and energy $`E`$ normalized by the $`E_1=6.24`$ meV. The transmission coefficient depends on the number of the propagating channels, which will be discussed in the next subsection.

### B Quasibound states

Quasibound states can be obtained from the following equation, derived from Green’s function approach ,

$$\frac{1}{\gamma }\underset{n}{}\frac{4\mu }{D\mathrm{}^2}\left(\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\pi }{D}y_0\right)^2\frac{1}{2ik_n}=0,$$
(31)
which has to be solved for energy $`E_RiE_I`$ \[entering via Eq. (9)\]. It should be mentioned that the location of the quasibound states and the transmission coefficients strongly depend on the number of modes $`N_{ch}`$ . In fact they do not converge although $`N_{ch}`$ is increased. In order to model a realistic impurity one should take $`N_{ch}`$ large but finite, and fix it for all numerical calculations. $`N_{ch}=100`$ is chosen in this paper.

Figure 7 shows the trajectory of a quasibound state as $`\gamma `$ is varied. The quasibound state crosses the domain boundary $`E_2`$ at $`\gamma 7.11`$ feVcm<sup>2</sup>, and enters the next domain $`D_2`$ (the open circles in Fig. 7) on the proper Riemann sheet of the domain $`D_1`$, $`(,+,+,\mathrm{})`$. The situation is similar to those out of Sec. III except that the quasibound state collides with the real axis at $`\gamma 9.06`$ feVcm<sup>2</sup> and only one branch of quasibound states exists. As $`|\gamma |`$ increases the transmission zero moves far away from the pole, as is shown in the inset of Fig. 7, and finally vanishes when it collides with the other domain boundary $`E_1`$ at $`\gamma =8.83`$ feVcm<sup>2</sup>.

Apart from the quasibound state, the attractive delta-function impurity also accommodates one true bound state below $`E_1`$. Although the quasibound state vanishes at the threshold value of $`\gamma `$, the true bound state exists regardless of the value of $`\gamma `$, and its energy monotonically decreases as $`|\gamma |`$ increases.

### C Friedel sum rule and Wigner delay time

The Friedel phase of the impurity in the quasi-1D wire is shown in Fig 8. The $`\pi `$ phase shift by quasibound state is clearly observed for very small $`|\gamma |`$, but it is hard to be resolved for larger $`|\gamma |`$ due to the overlap between the resonance and the neighboring domain. Figure 9 shows the peaks of Wigner delay time and the real part of the complex energy of the pole, which coincide very well for $`|\gamma |5.5`$ feVcm<sup>2</sup>. For larger $`|\gamma |`$ it is again difficult to distinguish the peaks of the Wigner delay time from the background which diverges at the domain boundary $`E_2`$ (see Fig. 7). As $`|\gamma |`$ increases the pole first moves away from $`E_2`$, and then moves back toward $`E_2`$. The peak of the Wigner delay time originating from the pole strongly overlaps with the divergent part of the background when it changes the direction. Hence, for large $`|\gamma |`$ the position of the peak no longer coincides with the energy of the pole. Friedel phase and Wigner delay time of the quasi-1D case behave similarly to the case of an oscillating impurity.

## V summary

We have investigated the characteristics of transmission resonances, Friedel phases, and Wigner delay times in multichannel scattering problems focusing on the trajectories of quasibound states in complex energy plane as a scattering strength is changed. Subband thresholds divide the complex energy plane into sub-domains characterized by appropriate boundary conditions for the quasibound states. This set of boundary condition is related to the choice of the signs of the complex wave number $`k_n`$ in each subband. A transmission resonance (or, a transmission zero) can vanish when it collides with the subband boundary, which, however, does not mean that the pole becomes completely irrelevant, as is seen in the transmission line shape, the Friedel phase, and the delay time. Even if a quasibound state enters the neighboring domain, it can still affect physics at the real energies of the domain from which it originated. We illustrate these findings with two simple examples: the scattering problem with the 1D oscillating delta-function impurity and the static delta-function impurity in quasi-1D wire.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ingrid Rotter for a careful reading of our manuscript and helpful comments.


text:
# Improved Measurement of the 𝐶𝑃-violating Asymmetry Amplitude sin{2𝛽} The BABAR Collaboration

## Appendix A Time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`BJ/\psi K^0(K^0K_S^0\pi ^0`$)

The decay $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ is described by three amplitudes. In the transversity basis ref:dunietz ; ref:dighe , the amplitudes $`A_0`$, $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ have $`CP`$ eigenvalues $`+1,+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively. $`A_0`$ corresponds to longitudinal polarization of the vector mesons, and $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ correspond to parallel and perpendicular transverse polarizations, respectively. The relative phase between the parallel (perpendicular) transverse amplitude and the longitudinal amplitude is given by $`\varphi _{}\text{arg}(A_{}/A_0)`$ ($`\varphi _{}\text{arg}(A_{}/A_0)`$). The transversity frame is defined as the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame (see Fig. 4). The $`K^{}`$ direction defines the negative $`x`$ axis. The $`K\pi `$ decay plane defines the $`(x,y)`$ plane, with $`y`$ oriented such that $`p_y(K)>0`$. The $`z`$ axis is the normal to this plane, and the coordinate system is right-handed. The transversity angles $`\theta _{tr}`$ and $`\phi _{tr}`$ are defined as the polar and azimuthal angles of the positive lepton from the $`J/\psi `$ decay; $`\theta _K^{}`$ is the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle defined in the $`K^{}`$ rest frame as the angle between the $`K`$ direction and the direction opposite to the $`J/\psi `$.

The time- and transversity-angle-dependent decay rate distributions $`\mathrm{f}_+(\mathrm{f}_{})`$ when the tagging meson is a $`B^0(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{f}_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t,\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}}[I(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})\{C(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (5)
$`+[S_{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})\mathrm{sin}2\beta +S_{\mathrm{cos}2\beta }(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})\mathrm{cos}2\beta ]\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\}].`$
The coefficients $`I`$, $`C`$, $`S_{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }`$, and $`S_{\mathrm{cos}2\beta }`$, which depend on the transversity angles $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=(\theta _K^{},\theta _{tr},\phi _{tr})`$ and the transversity amplitudes $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}=(A_0,A_{},A_{})`$, are given by

$`I(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})`$ $`=`$ $`f_1(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_0|^2+f_2(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}|^2+f_3(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}|^2+f_5(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}||A_0|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{}\varphi _0)`$
$`C(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})`$ $`=`$ $`f_4(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}||A_{}|\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{}\varphi _{})+f_6(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}||A_0|\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{}\varphi _0)`$
$`S_{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})`$ $`=`$ $`f_1(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_0|^2+f_2(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}|^2f_3(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}|^2+f_5(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}||A_0|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{}\varphi _0)`$
$`S_{\mathrm{cos}2\beta }(\stackrel{}{\omega };\stackrel{}{𝒜})`$ $`=`$ $`f_4(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}||A_{}|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{}\varphi _{})f_6(\stackrel{}{\omega })|A_{}||A_0|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{}\varphi _0)`$ (6)
with

$`f_1(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _K^{})\left[1\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{tr})\mathrm{cos}^2(\phi _{tr})\right]`$
$`f_2(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _K^{})\left[1\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{tr})\mathrm{sin}^2(\phi _{tr})\right]`$
$`f_3(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _K^{})\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{tr})`$
$`f_4(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _K^{})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{tr})\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{tr})`$
$`f_5(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _K^{})\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{tr})\mathrm{sin}(2\phi _{tr})`$
$`f_6(\stackrel{}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _K^{})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{tr})\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{tr}).`$ (7)


text:
# The enrichment history of 𝜔 Centauri: what we can learn from Strömgren photometry

## 1. Introduction

Many medium and high resolution spectroscopy investigations (e.g. Brown & Wallerstein 1993; Norris & Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 2000) have shown that among the stars in $`\omega `$ Cen there exist strong variations of nearly all element abundances investigated so far. This is reflected by the intrinsic broad scatter of the red giant branch that cannot be explained by internal reddening only (e.g. Norris & Bessell 1975). Concerning the iron abundance, several authors have confirmed that there exists a main metal-poor population, with a peak at about \[Fe/H\] $`=1.7\pm 0.1`$ dex, and a broad tail to higher metallicities with a peak at about \[Fe/H\] $`=1.2`$ dex (Norris, Freeman, & Mighell 1996; Suntzeff & Kraft 1996). This high metallicity tail extends to values of \[Fe/H\] $`0.7`$ dex as deduced from the detection of a very red giant branch (RGB) that is well separated from the bulk of the RGB stars (Lee et al. 1999; Pancino et al. 2000).

The abundance variations in $`\omega `$ Cen point to a more complicated star formation history than that for other globular clusters (GCs) which contain a homogeneous stellar population. Whereas the CNO variations might be explained by evolutionary mixing effects in the stellar atmosphere as well as by mixing in the protocloud (e.g. Bessell & Norris 1976), the iron abundance variations need another explanation (e.g. Vanture, Wallerstein, & Brown 1994; Norris & Da Costa 1995). An increasing number of groups working on $`\omega `$ Cen favour an extended period of star formation connected with self-enrichment as the interpretation of their data. Smith et al. (2000, and this volume) studied the abundances of s-process elements in RGB stars with high resolution spectroscopy. A strong increase of \[Ba/Fe\] and \[La/Fe\] for metal-poor stars with \[Fe/H\]$`<1.5`$ dex followed by a flat relation for higher metallicities led the authors conclude that low mass AGB stars have contributed to the enrichment. These stars have an evolutionary time of at least 1 Gyr. Metallicity and age estimates from Strömgren $`vby`$ photometry in the main sequence turn-off region (Hughes & Wallerstein 1999, and this volume) also suggest an age spread of at least 3 Gyr for stars between $`2.0<`$ \[Fe/H\] $`<0.5`$ dex (the metal-richest stars also being the youngest). An age spread also was confirmed in our analysis of Strömgren data (Hilker & Richtler 2000), but will not be the main topic in this contribution. Here, we present the analysis and interpretation of Strömgren metallicities for more than 1500 RGB stars in $`\omega `$ Cen.

## 2. Strömgren photometry in $`\omega `$ Centauri

Strömgren photometry has been proven to be a very useful metallicity indicator for globular cluster giants and subgiants (e.g. Richter, Hilker, & Richtler 1999, Hilker 2000, Grebel & Richtler 1992, Richtler 1989). The location of late type stars in the Strömgren $`(by),m_1`$ diagram is correlated with their metallicities, especially with their iron and CN abundances. Whereas the color $`(by)`$ is not sensitive to metallicity, the Strömgren $`v`$ filter includes several iron absorption lines as well as the CN band at 4215Å, and therefore $`m_1=(vb)(by)`$ is a metallicity sensitive index (e.g. Bell & Gustafsson 1978). Within a certain color range, $`0.5<(by)<1.1`$ mag, the loci of constant iron abundance of giants and supergiants can be approximated by straight lines. This is valid for CN-“normal” ($`=`$ CN-weak) stars. CN-strong stars, due to their higher absorption in the $`v`$ filter, scatter to higher $`m_1`$ values and therefore mimic a higher Strömgren metallicity than their actual iron abundance would correspond to. This can be used to learn more about the CN variations in $`\omega `$ Cen. A recent calibration of the Strömgren metallicity for CN-“normal” stars is presented in Hilker (2000).

The observations of $`\omega `$ Centauri have been performed in two observing runs in 1993 and 1995 with the Danish 1.54m telescope at ESO/La Silla. The details of the observations, data reduction, calibration and photometry are presented in Hilker (2000) and Hilker & Richtler (2000). The positions of all observed fields are illustrated in Fig. 1.

### 2.1. Color magnitude diagram and two-color diagram

In Fig. 2 the color magnitude diagrams (CMD) and two-color diagrams of $`\omega `$ Cen and M55 are plotted. In the CMD of $`\omega `$ Cen, all stars with a photometric error less than 0.05 mag (grey dots) and less than 0.03 mag ($``$ 20620 stars, black dots) in $`y`$ and $`b`$ are shown. The colors in all plots have been corrected for reddening with a value of $`E_{BV}=0.11`$ mag for $`\omega `$ Cen (Zinn 1985; Webbink 1985; Reed, Hesser, & Shawl 1988; Gonzalez & Wallerstein 1994), and $`E_{BV}=0.09`$ mag for M55 (the mean value between Harris 1996 and Richter et al. 1999).

In both diagrams the difference between a single age and metallicity cluster, as M55, and the unusual cluster $`\omega `$ Cen can be seen very nicely. The broad red giant branch of $`\omega `$ Cen cannot be explained by photometric errors or internal reddening. Since the $`(by)`$ color is not affected by CN variations, the spread in the RGB must be due to a spread in the overall metallicity (iron abundance) and/or age.

The $`(by),m_1`$ diagram (Fig. 2, upper right panel) is indicative for the metallicity distribution and CN variations of the red giants in $`\omega `$ Cen. The 1500 red giants that have been selected from the CMD show a large scatter between $`2.0`$ and 1.0 dex in their Strömgren metallicity. The Strömgren metallicity is defined as

$$[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{ph}}=\frac{m_{1,0}1.277(by)_0+0.331}{0.324(by)_00.032}$$
(1)
following the calibration by Hilker (2000). The trend exists that stars on the blue side of the RGB are mostly metal-poor, whereas the stars redwards of the “main” RGB populate the metal-rich regime.

### 2.2. The metallicity distribution

In Fig. 3 the metallicity histogram of RGB stars with an accurate metallicity determination (stars redder than the dotted line in Fig. 2) is presented. \[Fe/H\]ph denotes the Strömgren metallicity. A peak around $`1.7`$ dex with a sharp cutoff towards low metallicities at $`1.9`$ dex represents the blue RGB stars. Also most of the AGB stars bluewards the main RGB belong to this metal-poor population. Stars from the red side of the RGB have metallicities mainly in the range $`1.3`$ to $`0.5`$ dex, with a probable second peak at about $`0.9`$ dex. Our metallicity distribution resembles fairly well the results of Norris et al. (1996). Stars with Strömgren metallicities higher than about $`0.8`$ dex are supposed to be CN-rich stars of one of the two populations, since no stars with an iron abundance higher than that has been found in the cluster. Most of them are redder than the “main” RGB, thus belong to a more metal-rich population. When selecting the RGB stars by a cut in the CMD that corresponds to a cut in their mass function (more ore less a luminosity cut), the proportion of metal-poor to metal-rich stars is about 3:1.

## 3. Strömgren metallicity versus Fe, C and N abundance

The metallicity distribution found in our investigation is qualitatively very similar to that found by Norris et al. (1996) and Suntzeff & Kraft (1996) from their Calcium abundance measurements. In Fig. 4 we show the metallicity distribution of those stars that are in common in Suntzeff & Kraft’s and our samples. Their Calcium abundances have been transformed to iron abundances according to the relation given in their paper.

The behaviour of $`\omega `$ Cen regarding its relation between Fe abundance and Strömgren metallicity is remarkably different from that of other globular clusters (open circles in the lower panel of Fig. 4), including NGC 6334, NGC 3680, NGC 6397, Melotte 66, M22 and M55, taken from Hilker (2000).

The straight relation up to -1 dex (with large scatter towards higher metallicities) is in striking contrast, for example, to the situation in M22 (Richter et al. 1999), where there is a considerable scatter at a fixed iron abundance. This relation already is present among the metal-poor stars (see small plot in the upper left of Fig. 4). No systematic effect that could cause this relation has been determined. It is not dependent on a magnitude, color or error selection. So, what determines the Strömgren colors in $`\omega `$ Cen? An answer may come from a comparison of the available elements abundances for 40 giants from Norris & Da Costa (1995). Fig. 5 shows in four panels (on the left) the Strömgren metallicity vs. \[Fe/H\]sp, \[C/H\], \[N/H\], and \[C+N/H\]. It is apparent that the correlation with \[Fe/H\]sp and \[C/H\] is very poor. It is better for \[N/H\] (note the large error of 0.4 dex given for the N-abundance by Norris & Da Costa (1995)), and best for \[C+N/H\].

On the other hand, there is a close correlation of \[Fe/H\]sp vs. \[C+N/H\] (Fig. 5, right panel) (which, by the way, is suprising, given the above large error of the N abundance). The two most deviating stars are ROA 139 and ROA 144. They have the highest N-abundances in this sample, simultaneously low oxygen abundances and hence are probably strongly affected by mixing effects. If we skip them, a linear regression returns $`0.64\pm 0.07`$ for the slope, indicating that the increase in C+N is faster than in \[Fe/H\].

What can we learn from the C+N variations in $`\omega `$ Cen? Can they be understood as a stellar evolutionary effect?

As Norris & Da Costa point out, C-depletion as a signature of the CNO-cycle is present and one may see the increase in the C-abundance with \[Fe/H\] in their Fig. 8a to have its cause in the decreasing efficiency of the mixing-up of processed material with increasing metallicity (and thus mimicking a C-enhancenment), as it is theoretically expected (e.g. see Kraft 1994). But then, the increase in C+N is not easy to understand, since it is dominated by an increase of N, where we would expect a decrease, and, after all, the sum of C and N should be less sensitive to mixing effects.

So, is this a primordial effect? (We use the term “primordial” for pre-enriched material as the alternative to mixing effects).

A striking fact for this possibility is that we see in Fig. 4 the relation between \[Fe/H\] and Strömgren metallicity already present among the old population, where it is hard to understand that such small differences in \[Fe/H\] would cause a regular pattern in the mixing effects. We thus propose that the gradual enrichment of C+N, indicated by the Strömgren colors, is to a large degree primordial.

The suggestion that a part of the proto-cluster material of $`\omega `$ Cen has undergone considerable C-enrichment has also been made by e.g. Cohen & Bell (1986) and Norris & Da Costa (1995) based on the unique presence of CO-strong stars. However, the \[C/Fe\] abundance in the metal-poor population is about $``$0.7 dex according to Norris & Da Costa, which is close to $``$0.5 dex, theoretically expected from the yield ratios in SNe II (Tsujimoto et al. 1995). Also a mean \[O/C\]-value of approximately $``$1 dex, as one would read off from Norris & Da Costa is close to the expected yield ratios.

If, say, $``$2.2 dex111note that in our paper (Hilker & Richtler 2000) erranously the value $``$0.2 dex was given would be the “starting” value of \[C/H\], one would require a considerable C-contribution from intermediate-age stars, which by itself is not easy to understand for the first stars formed in $`\omega `$ Cen. Therefore, if the increasing \[C+N/Fe\] among the metal-poor old population was, at least to large part, primordial, one is driven to the conclusion that already the star formation process, which formed these stars, did not took place in a single burst within a well-mixed environment, but must have been extended in time, allowing intermediate-age populations to contribute.

We shall attempt to combine these abundance pattern with other properties within a scenario later on.

## 4. Strömgren metallicity versus other properties in $`\omega `$ Centauri

As already mentioned in the introduction the metallicity spread is accompagnied by an age spread. Metallicity determinations and isochrone fitting of stars in the main sequence turn-off region (Hughes & Wallerstein 1999; Hilker & Richtler 2000) revealed that the more metal-rich stars tend to be younger. Whereas all stars of the main RGB with metallicities between $`2.0`$ and $`1.4`$ dex might be compatible with one age, the populations with metallicities around $`1.2`$ and $`0.7`$ dex are at least 2–4 and 3–5 Gyr younger. If the age metallicity relation in $`\omega `$ Cen can be understood as a continuous enrichment process after an initial starburst with \[Fe/H\]$`1.7`$ dex, the age spread of the enrichment lies between 3 and maximally 5 Gyr.

### 4.1. Spatial distribution of sub-populations

To investigate the spatial distribution of sub-populations in $`\omega `$ Cen, the 1500 red giants with metallicity determinations have been divided into four sub-populations according to their age and metallicities: (1) an old metal-poor population from the blue side of the RGB, (2) a more metal-rich, mostly CN-rich, and younger population from the red side of the main RGB, (3) the youngest, very metal- and CN-rich population, and (4) the AGB stars of the old population.

Both, the cumulative radial distributions as well as the angular distributions of the sub-populations have been examined. For the angular distribution, only stars within a radius of $`10^{}`$ from the cluster center have been included. The number counts have been normalised to the total number for each selection. The angle $`\varphi `$ is defined as $`0^{}`$ in East direction, $`+90^{}`$ North, and $`90^{}`$ South.

The population of the selected 83 AGB stars, which is very metal-poor, is distributed as the metal-poor pop (1), as expected. Deviations in the angular distribution are statistically not significant.

When comparing population (1) with population (2) a difference in their radial distributions becomes evident in the sense that the ratio of the metal-rich to metal-poor stars is higher in the cluster center than in its outskirts (see Fig. 6, left panel). This result is statistically significant. A KS test reveals a probablity of less than 0.1% that the cumulative number counts of both populations follow the same radial distribution.

The radial distribution of the stars in pop (3) appears less concentrated than the average cluster population. Some of them might be solar metallicity foreground stars. However, others are confirmed cluster member stars. The angular distribution of pop (3) shows a concentration of stars towards the South and a slight depression in the West and North direction (see Fig. 6, right panel) which can explain the different radial distribution. We note that also Jurcsik (1998) reported on a spatial metallicity asymmetry in $`\omega `$ Cen. She found that the most metal-rich stars with \[Fe/H\]$`>1.25`$ dex are concentrated towards the South, whereas the most metal-poor stars with \[Fe/H\]$`<1.75`$ are more concentrated in the North. As shown in Fig. 6, nearly 30% of our metal-rich sample are located in the Southern angular bin, but an asymmetrical distribution in the North-South direction of the most metal-poor stars cannot be confirmed. The probability that the angular distribution of the metal-poor stars of Jurcsik’s and our sample agree is less than 7% (KS test). Also less than 7% is the probability that metal-rich and metal-poor stars are distributed equally.

### 4.2. Metallicity and kinematics

Along with the abundance variations in $`\omega `$ Cen, different sub-populations show clearly different kinematical behaviour. A dynamical analysis of 400 stars in the Norris et al. (1996) sample of RGB stars with calcium abundance measurements revealed a rotation of the metal poor component, whereas the metal rich one is not rotating (Norris et al. 1997) Recent studies with larger radial velocity samples, as presented in this conference proceedings (Gebhardt et al.; Seitzer et al.; Cannon et al.) confirm this result.

A match of our data set with that of Xie, Pryor & Gebhardt (private communication) shows similar results. Within 3 radius we have more than 1000 RGB stars in common. Their radial velocity dispersion peaks in the center at about 19 km/sec, falling to 16 km/sec at a radius of 2. When dividing the sample in 860 metal-poor (\[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{ph}}{}^{}<0.6`$) and 150 metal-rich stars, one clearly can see differences in their rotation behaviour. Whereas metal-poor stars show a strong sign of rotation around the semi-minor axis of the elliptical shape of $`\omega `$ Cen, no rotation is seen among the most metal-rich stars. At 3 radius from the center the rotation velocity of the metal-poor stars reaches 3.6 km/sec. Further detailed anlysis of both data sets will show what more can be learned about the connection between chemical enrichment and kinematical behaviour.

## 5. A scenario

### 5.1. Problems with self-enrichment within $`\omega `$ Centauri

Can the younger populations in $`\omega `$ Cen be enriched by the older one? In trying to demonstrate the problems with this picture we use oxygen as a tracer for the synthesized material. First we estimate the number of SNe type II having occured in the old population. If we adopt the mass of $`\omega `$ Cen to be $`4\times 10^6`$ solar masses (Pryor & Meylan 1993), the metal-poor population comprises about $`2.8\times 10^6`$ M$`_{}`$. We get 45000 SNe for all stars more massive than 10 M$`_{}`$ when assuming a Salpeter mass function between 0.1 and 100 M$`_{}`$. The total oxygen mass released by these SNe is about 50000 M$`_{}`$ (based on Table 7.2 of Pagel 1997). On the other hand, following Norris & Da Costa (1995), a mean \[O/H\] value for the metal-rich population is $``$0.7 dex (adopting \[O/Fe\] = 0.5 dex and \[Fe/H\] = $``$1.2 dex), so we calculate the actual oxygen mass to be 2300 M$`_{}`$, if the total mass of the young population is $`1.2\times 10^6`$ M$`_{}`$. Since Smith et al. (2000) see no signature of enrichment by SNe Ia up to \[Fe/H\] = $``$0.9 dex, it is reasonable to assume that the oxygen mass, which was present already in the gas before the enrichment, scales with the iron abundance. The ratio is about a factor of 3, so we have 1500 M$`_{}`$ of newly synthesized oxygen in the metal-rich population. This means that only 3% (or less) of the released oxygen has been retained. If we do this exercise with the iron abundance, we have 1000 M$`_{}`$ of iron released (Pagel, p. 158), and we have about 20 M$`_{}`$ of newly synthesised iron present. Of course, the exact numbers are insignificant, but the above consideration suggests that practically all material must have been blown out.

This is also plausible from the energy point of view. We have a release of kinetic energy of about $`5\times 10^{54}`$ erg from the SNe (neglecting previous stellar winds and ionizing radiation), while the binding energy of the “proto-young population” is about $`2\times 10^{52}`$ erg, if for simplicity we imagine that the gas was confined within a half-light radius of 7 pc (Djorgovski 1993).

Similar factors must apply to the overall fraction of retained gas, implying an unreasonably large protocluster mass (neglecting the problem of how a bound system could survive after such strong mass loss), if one wants to keep the hypothesis of a permanently retained large gas fraction within $`\omega `$ Cen.

But we have even more problems. Smith et al. (2000) only detect weak signatures of SNe Ia in the metal-rich population, expressed by the low \[Cu/Fe\] value of $`0.6`$ dex. On the other hand, the age spread, the increase of s-process elements, and the interpretation of the Strömgren results as primordial enrichment of C and N speak for the contribution of an intermediate-age population. Within 2-3 Gyr, at least some Ia events should have ocurred, making the problem with the low iron content even worse, if they would have provided iron to the young population. Why do we not see their debris?

Moreover, it is remarkable that we find the signature of intermediate-age populations already among the old population, indicated by the evidence that the same relation between \[Fe/H\] and Strömgren metallicity (Fig. 4), which connects the oldest and the younger population, appears already to be present at the lowest metallicities. In this respect, the general behaviour of the Strömgren metallicities resembles the well established enrichment of s-process elements relative to iron. How can these stars, in a regular pattern, be self-enriched simultaneously by SNe II and by intermediate-age stars?

It may be that one can construct a scenario in which these oddities can be explained by pure self-enrichment (i.e. Smith et al. 2000). However, we wish to point out an alternative, which seems to offer an easier way towards an understanding of $`\omega `$ Cen.

### 5.2. Just imagine …

$`\omega `$ Cen formed within a formerly much larger entity, outside the Milky Way, and at the central position of its ex-host-object. We (speculatively) assume that this object was a dwarf galaxy with $`\omega `$ Cen as its nucleus. We additionally speculate that its star formation rate was triggered over a very extended period (perhaps more than 5 Gyr) by mass supply from the overall gas reservoir of its host galaxy. This scenario can explain all characteristic properties of $`\omega `$ Cen found so far.

This gas inflow, already enriched in the host galaxy to at least $`0.9`$ dex, could have occured in a non-spherical, clumpy and discontinuous manner, providing angular momentum to the first population in $`\omega `$ Cen and thus giving rise to the flattening of $`\omega `$ Cen. That no significant rotation is seen in the more metal-rich population might be due to the loss and transfer of angular momentum from the newly infalling gas to the very massive rotating dark matter halo of the first population (see ideas by Binney, Gerhard, & Silk 2001). We have no problems with the competition of gas removal and simultaneous enrichment. The intermediate-age population stars in $`\omega `$ Cen released their gas, for instance by planetary nebulae, in a much less violent fashion and the infalling gas mixed with this C and N rich material, which also was rich in s-process elements, giving rise to a new star formation period. The large scatter in the Strömgren metallicities may thus be in part primordial, reflecting the incomplete mixing of the infalling gas with the C-N-rich material. Both SNe II,Ib and Ia would sweep up the gas almost completely, terminating star formation for a short while, until further mass infall becomes possible.

It also seems natural that younger and more metal-rich populations show other kinematic and spatial properties, including asymmetries in their spatial distribution, depending on the details of the infall process. The initially asymmetrical distribution of the most metal-rich population is probably still not relaxed due to the long relaxation time of $`\omega `$ Cen beyond the half-mass radius (Meylan 1987). We would then expect many periods of strong star formation alternating with periods of mass infall. The mass infall would finally cease after the gas content of the host galaxy has become sufficiently low or was perhaps removed by ram pressure stripping in the Galactic halo during its infall in the Milky Way (e.g. Blitz & Robishaw 2000).

The subsequent evolution can be sketched as follows: on its retrograde orbit the dwarf galaxy spiralled towards the Galactic center (Dinescu, Girard, & van Altena 1999). On its way it lost the outermost stellar populations by tidal stripping, including the likely member globular clusters NGC 6779 (Dinescu et al. 1999). Finally, after its stellar population dissolved totally, the nucleus $`\omega `$ Cen remained and appears now as the most massive cluster of our Milky Way.

## 6. Summmary and concluding remarks

For about 1500 red giants in $`\omega `$ Centauri, Strömgren metallicities have been determined. Almost 2/3 of them turn out to be metal-poor, with a peak at \[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{ph}}{}^{}=`$1.7 dex. Beyond this peak, the metallicity distribution shows a sharp cutoff towards lower metallicities, but a broad, long tail towards higher metallicities. Most of these stars are CN-rich and have ages 2-5 Gyr younger than that of the oldest population.

The comparison between \[Fe/H\] abundances derived from high-dispersion spectroscopy of Norris & Da Costa (1995) and Strömgren metallicities shows a behaviour distinctly different from that observed in other globular clusters. There is hardly a correlation with \[Fe/H\], but a close correlation with \[C+N/H\].

However, the comparison of Strömgren metallicities to the larger sample of Suntzeff & Kraft (1996) shows that there is a coupling to the iron abundance indicating that this has a primordial cause. It is already visible among the metal-poor population and we interpret it as another manifestation of the well established increasing contribution of intermediate-age populations with increasing iron abundance.

The comparison of the cumulative radial distribution of the two main populations in $`\omega `$ Cen exhibits a higher concentration of the metal-rich stars. The youngest, most metal-rich population has an asymmetrical distribution around the cluster center with a concentration towards the South.

When combining the kinematics of more than 1000 red giants with our Strömgren metallicities, a significant rotation of the metal-poor population was confirmed, whereas the most metal-rich stars do not rotate.

Our findings are consistent with a scenario in which enrichment of the cluster has taken place over a period of 3–6 Gyr. The conditions for such an enrichment can perhaps be found in nuclei of dwarf galaxies. All characteristic properties of $`\omega `$ Cen (flattening, abundance pattern, age spread, kinematic and spatial differences between metal-poor and metal-rich stars) could be understood in the framework of a scenario, where infall of previously enriched gas occured in $`\omega `$ Cen over a long period of time. Only the enrichment of nitrogen, carbon, and s-process elements took place within $`\omega `$ Cen, where the infalling gas mixed with the expelled matter from AGB stars.

The capture and dissolution of a nucleated dwarf galaxy by our Milky Way and the survival of $`\omega `$ Cen as its nucleus would thus be an attractive explanation for this extraordinary object. Several contributions in this conference proceedings also support this idea and rule out other possibilities like a chemically diverse parent cloud or a merger of two clusters.

#### Acknowledgments.

We thank Bingrong Xie for providing us radial velocities from their Fabry-Perot sample (see also Gebhardt, this volume). This project was partly supported through ‘Proyecto FONDECYT 3980032’.

## References

Bell, R. A., Gustafsson, B. 1978, A&AS, 34, 229

Bessell, M. S., Norris, J. 1976 ApJ, 208, 369

Binney, J., Gerhard, O., Silk, J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 471

Blitz, L., Robishaw, T., 2000 ApJ, 541, 675

Brown, J. A., Wallerstein, G. 1993, AJ, 106, 133

Cohen, J. G., Bell, R. A. 1986 ApJ, 305, 698

Dinescu, D. I., Girard, T. M., van Altena, W. F. 1999, AJ, 117, 1792

Djorgovski, S. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, ed. S. G. Djorgovski & G. Meylan, (San Francisco: ASP), 373

Gonzalez, G., Wallerstein, G. 1994, AJ, 108, 1325

Grebel, E. K., Richtler, T. 1992, A&A, 253, 359

Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487

Hilker, M. 2000, A&A, 355, 994

Hilker, M., Richtler, T. 2000, A&A, 362, 895

Hughes, J. D., Wallerstein, G. 1999, AJ, 119,1225

Jurcsik, J. 1998, ApJ, 506, L113

Kraft, R. P. 1994, PASP, 106, 553

Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J., Rey, S.-C., Lee, H.-C., Walker, A.R. 1999, Nature, 402, 55

Meylan, G. 1987, A&A, 184, 144

Norris, J., Bessell, M. S. 1975, ApJ, 201, L75 (erratum in 210, 618)

Norris, J. E., Da Costa, G. S. 1995, ApJ, 447, 680

Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., Mayor, M., Seitzer, P. 1997, ApJ, 487, L187

Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., Mighell, K. J. 1996, ApJ, 462, 241

Pagel, B. E. J. 1997, in Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies, Cambridge University Press

Pancino, E., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., Piotto, G., Zoccali, M. 2000, ApJ, 534, L83

Pryor, C., Meylan, G. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, ed. S. G. Djorgovski & G. Meylan, (San Francisco: ASP), 357

Reed, B. C., Hesser, J. E., Shawl, S. J. 1988, PASP, 100, 545

Richter, P., Hilker, M., Richtler, T. 1999, A&A, 350, 476

Richtler, T. 1989, A&A, 211, 199

Smith, V. V., Suntzeff, N. B., Cunia, K., Gallino, R., Busso, M., Lambert, D., 2000 AJ, 119, 1239

Suntzeff, N. B., Kraft, R. P. 1996, AJ, 111, 1913

Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y., Hashimoto, M., Yanagida, S., Thielemann, F.-K. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945

Vanture, A. D., Wallerstein, G., Brown, J. A., 1994, PASP 106, 835

Webbink R. F. 1985, in IAU Symp. 113, Dynamics of Star Clusters, ed. J. Goodman & P. Hut, (Dordrecht: Reidel), 541

Zinn, R. 1985, ApJ, 293, 424