text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The original AdS/CFT correspondence  relating the supergravity and the strongly coupled superconformal gauge theory has been extended to the systems with less supersymmetry  and the non-conformal systems . If the $`N`$ D3-branes are placed at the apex of a six-dimensional cone whose base is a five-dimensional Einstein manifold $`X_5`$, supersymmetry is partially broken and the type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times X_5`$ is considered to be dual to the low energy limit of the worldvolume theory on the D3-branes at the conifold singularity, which is a $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal gauge theory with $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ gauge group. Breaking conformal invariance can be performed by placing the additional $`M`$ fractional D3-branes at the singularity. The fractional D3-branes are thought of as D5-branes wrapped over collapsed 2-cycles at the singularity and modify gauge group to $`SU(N+M)\times SU(N)`$ . The conformal invariance is broken so that the relative gauge coupling runs logarithmically and the supergravity equations are solved to leading order in $`M/N`$  and to all orders . The solution has a naked singularity at small radius. The appearance of naked singularities in the gravitational duals of the non-conformal gauge theories with reduced supersymmetry is rather common phenomena .

In Ref.  the solution without the conical singularity has been constructed via the deformation of the conifold where the apex is replaced by a $`S^3`$. The decrease of the D3-brane charge is identified with the repeated chain of Seiberg-duality transformations. In this solution there appear no naked singularities in the IR. At the IR end of the duality cascade the theory becomes a $`𝒩=1SU(M)`$ gauge theory which confines with chiral symmetry breaking. Based on this theory the spectrum of glueball masses has been calculated  and the gluino condensation as well as the Wilson loop have been investigated . The alternative approach for removing the naked singularity is to put the system at high temperature, which leads to the restoration of chiral symmetry . On the other hand the conical singularity is removed by the resolution of the conifold where the apex is replaced by a $`S^2`$  or by the generalization of the conifold . In the system of $`N`$ regular D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes on the resolved conifold or the general conifold a naked repulson-type singularity emerges far in the IR and is located behind the radius where the R-R 5-form flux vanishes. For the system of only the $`N`$ regular D3-branes on the resolved conifold or the general conifold, the Wilson loop for a quark anti-quark interaction is studied .

We will further analyze the solution of $`N`$ D3-branes as well as $`M`$ fractional D3-branes on the resolved conifold or the general conifold to extract IR properties for the baryon mass, the tension of domain wall and the tension of fractional D3-brane. The Wilson loop for the dual non-conformal gauge theory will be shown to take the area law behavior which is associated with the existence of the locus in the IR where the R-R 5-form flux vanishes.

## 2 Baryon masses and domain walls

Let us write the metric of the type IIB supergravity solution representing $`N`$ regular D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes on the general resolved conifold

$$ds_{10}^2=h^{1/2}(\rho )dx^\mu dx^\mu +h^{1/2}(\rho )ds_6^2,$$
(1)
where the six-dimensional metric on the general resolved conifold is given by

$$ds_6^2=\kappa ^1(\rho )d\rho ^2+\frac{1}{9}\kappa (\rho )\rho ^2e_\psi ^2+\frac{1}{6}\rho ^2(e_{\theta _1}^2+e_{\varphi _1}^2)+\frac{1}{6}(\rho ^2+6a^2)(e_{\theta _2}^2+e_{\varphi _2}^2)$$
(2)
with the resolution parameter $`a`$ and

$$\kappa (\rho )=\frac{1+\frac{9a^2}{\rho ^2}\frac{b^6}{\rho ^6}}{1+\frac{6a^2}{\rho ^2}},e_\psi =d\psi +\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i,e_{\theta _i}=d\theta _i,e_{\varphi _i}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _id\varphi _i,i=1,2.$$
(3)
The length scale $`b`$ is also introduced as a generalization parameter to smoothen the curvature singularity of the original conifold metric. There appears an asymmetry between the two $`S^2`$ parts of the resolved conifold $`(a0,b=0)`$, while there is no asymmetry for the general conifold $`(a=0,b0)`$. In the resolved conifold near the apex the $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ part of the metric shrinks to zero size and the $`S^2(\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ part remains finite with a radius $`a`$. The $`M`$ D5-branes wrapped over the 2-cycle that are identified with the fractional D3-branes serve as sources of the magnetic R-R 3-form flux to give

$$F_3=Pe_\psi (e_{\theta _2}e_{\varphi _2}e_{\theta _1}e_{\varphi _1})$$
(4)
with $`PM\alpha ^{}`$. The type IIB equations are satisfied by the NS-NS 2-form potential and the R-R 5-form flux

$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`f_1(\rho )e_{\theta _1}e_{\varphi _1}+f_2(\rho )e_{\theta _2}e_{\varphi _2},`$
$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`+,=K(\rho )e_\psi e_{\theta _1}e_{\varphi _1}e_{\theta _2}e_{\varphi _2}`$ (5)
together with the warp function $`h`$ determined from the trace of the Einstein equation as

$$h^{}=\frac{108g_sK}{\rho ^5\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(6)
where $`K=Q+P(f_1f_2),QN\alpha ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\rho ^2+6a^2)/\rho ^2`$. Following Ref.  we can fix the normalization as

$$Q=\frac{1}{4}\pi N\alpha ^2,P=\frac{1}{4}M\alpha ^{}.$$
(7)
For the general conifold the symmetric solution is given by

$$f_1=f_2=\frac{1}{2}g_sP\mathrm{ln}(\overline{\rho }^61)+f_0,K=Q+g_sP^2\mathrm{ln}(\overline{\rho }^61)+2Pf_0$$
(8)
with $`\overline{\rho }=\rho /b1`$. In the following we will devote ourselves to the case that the number of fractional D3-branes is much smaller than that of regular D3-branes such that $`g_sN(g_sM)^2`$ under the large $`g_sN,g_sM`$ supergravity regime. In this case the integration constant $`f_0`$ can be neglected. The warp function $`h`$ obtained by substituting $`K`$ of (8) into (6) and integrating, shows the standard conifold behavior

$$h=h_0+\frac{27}{\rho ^4}\left[g_sQ+6(g_sP)^2(\mathrm{ln}\overline{\rho }+\frac{1}{4})\right]$$
(9)
in the large $`\rho `$ region for the string metric, while it gives the short distance behavior

$$h=h_0\frac{18g_sQ}{b^4}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{\rho }^21)\frac{9(g_sP)^2}{b^4}\mathrm{ln}^2(\overline{\rho }^21).$$
(10)
On the other hand the asymmetric solution for the resolved conifold is expressed as

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_sP\mathrm{ln}(\rho ^2+9a^2)+f_{10},f_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_sP\left({\displaystyle \frac{36a^2}{\rho ^2}}\mathrm{ln}[\rho ^{16}(\rho ^2+9a^2)]\right)+f_{20},`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_sP^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{18a^2}{\rho ^2}}\mathrm{ln}[\rho ^8(\rho ^2+9a^2)^5]\right)+P(f_{10}f_{20}),`$ (11)
where $`f_{10}`$ and $`f_{20}`$ are the constants of integration. Alternatively if we choose the integration constants $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ instead of $`f_{10},f_{20}`$ as the following

$$f_1=\frac{3}{2}g_sP\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^2+9a^2}{\rho _1^2},f_2=\frac{1}{6}g_sP\left(\frac{36a^2}{\rho ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^{16}(\rho ^2+9a^2)}{\rho _2^{18}}\right),$$
(12)
we have

$$K=Q\frac{1}{3}g_sP^2\left(\frac{18a^2}{\rho ^2}\frac{9}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^2+9a^2}{\rho _1^2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^{16}(\rho ^2+9a^2)}{\rho _2^{18}}\right).$$
(13)
The large $`\rho (\rho 3a)`$ behavior of $`h`$ is also the same as the warp function for the standard conifold

$$h=h_0+\frac{27}{\rho ^4}\left[g_sQ+\frac{3}{2}(g_sP)^2(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^2}{\rho _1^2}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^2}{\rho _2^2}+1)\right]$$
(14)
and in the IR region $`(\rho 3a)h`$ shows the power behavior

$$h=h_0+\frac{6g_sQ}{a^2\rho ^2}\frac{18(g_sP)^2}{\rho ^4}.$$
(15)
Hereafter we set $`h_0=0`$ to consider the near-core region. The warp function has a naked singularity at $`\rho =\rho _h,\rho _h^2=3g_sP^2a^2/Q`$ and the R-R 5-form flux vanishes at $`\rho =\rho _K,\rho _K=\sqrt{2}\rho _h`$. The inequality $`\rho _K>\rho _h`$ is also seen in the general conifold where the naked singularity and the zero-charge locus $`(K=0)`$ are located at $`\overline{\rho _h}1+e^{2Q/(g_sP^2)}/2`$ and $`\overline{\rho _K}1+e^{Q/(g_sP^2)}/6`$ respectively.

Now we are ready to consider a regular D3-brane probe in the background of $`N`$ D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes on the general resolved conifold. The relevant D3-brane probe action is given by

$$S=T_{D3}d^4\sigma e^\varphi \sqrt{det(g_{ab}+_{ab})}+\mu _{D3}C_4,$$
(16)
where $`T_{D3}`$ and $`\mu _{D3}`$ are the tension and basic R-R charge of the D3-brane, and $`_{ab}=B_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}`$. Here $`g_{ab}`$ and $`B_{ab}`$ are the pulls-back of the ten-dimensional metric and the NS-NS 2-form potential. Let us assume that the probe D3-brane is parallel to the source of $`N`$ D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes and extends to the $`x^1,x^2,x^3`$ directions with the (infinite) volume $`V_3`$. Taking the Hodge dual of the expression $``$ in (5) we have

$$=\frac{108K}{h^2\rho ^5\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }}d\rho dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3.$$
(17)
In view of $`F_5=dC_4+B_2F_3`$ together with (4), (5) the $`(\rho ,x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)`$ component of $`B_2F_3`$ vanishes so that the expression (17) yields

$$C_4=\frac{1}{g_sh}dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3,$$
(18)
where the Eq. (6) has been used. The substitution of (18) and the background solution into the probe action (16) in the static gauge leads to

$$S=V_3𝑑t\left(\frac{T_{D3}}{h}\frac{\mu _{D3}}{g_sh}\right).$$
(19)
This vanishing implies that the gravitational attractive force between a probe D3-brane and the source expressed as

$$F=T_{D3}V_3\frac{}{\rho }\left(\frac{1}{h}\right)=T_{D3}V_3\frac{108g_sK}{h^2\rho ^5\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(20)
cancels out against the repulsive electric force between the R-R charges with the same sign. The gravitational attractive force (20) vanishes at the zero-charge locus and diverges at the naked singularity and becomes repulsive between the two locations. If we consider an anti-D3-brane probe the cancellation does not happen and the total interaction becomes attractive.

There is the other configuration that a probe D3-brane wraps the 3-cycle of the general resolved conifold. The wrapped D3-brane is considered to play the role of a baryon vertex . Since the relevant worldvolume action has no contribution from the Wess-Zumino term, the wrapped D3-brane will feel the attractive force only. For the resolved conifold a D3-brane can wrap over two kinds of 3-cycle associated with constant $`(\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ or $`(\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$. For the probe D3-brane wrapped over $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ of the resolved conifold we substitute the classical solution describing a collection of $`N`$ D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes into the probe action in the static gauge to obtain a baryon mass

$$M_B=\frac{8\pi ^2}{9}T_{D3}\sqrt{\kappa _a}\rho [h\rho ^4+(6f_1)^2]^{1/2}$$
(21)
with $`\kappa _a=(\rho ^2+9a^2)/(\rho ^2+6a^2)`$, which includes the nontrivial contribution from the NS-NS $`B_2`$ field. The baryon mass, that is, the total energy of the static wrapped D3-brane is a product of D3-brane tension, area of $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$, the gravitational potential $`\sqrt{g_{00}}`$ and so on. The variable $`\rho `$ represents the position of the wrapped D3-brane, which feels an attractive radial force $`M_B/\rho `$ which corresponds to (20), and the other forces exerted by $`M`$ fundamental strings attatched on itself. In the UV regin $`(\rho \mathrm{})`$ the baryon mass is expressed as

$$M_B=\frac{\rho }{2\pi \alpha ^{}g_s}\left[\frac{1}{3}\pi g_sN_{eff}+(g_sM)^2\mathrm{ln}^2\rho \right]^{1/2}$$
(22)
with the effective D3-brane charge, $`N_{eff}=N+(3/2\pi )g_sM^2\mathrm{ln}\rho `$. This expression may be compared with the baryon mass $`M_B=\rho N/(8\pi \alpha ^{})`$, that is linear in $`N`$, for a D5-brane wrapped over $`S^5`$ in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background . The attractive gravitational force due to the $`N`$ D3-branes is constant for the latter, while that for the former shows a logarithmic increase which is dominantly attributed to the NS-NS $`B_2`$ field. On the other hand in the IR region the baryon mass at the zero-charge locus $`\rho =\rho _K,\rho _K=g_sPa\sqrt{6/g_sQ}`$ is shown to scale as

$$M_BM\frac{\rho _K}{\alpha ^{}}.$$
(23)
Compared to the baryon mass (21) we have the mass of wrapped D3-brane

$$M_{D3}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{9}T_{D3}\sqrt{\kappa _a}(h\rho ^4)^{1/4}[h\rho ^4+(6f_1)^2]^{1/2},$$
(24)
which does not include the gravitational potential $`\sqrt{g_{00}}`$. For the conifold case $`(a=0)`$ with no fractional D3-branes this mass is independent of $`\rho `$ and leads through the normalization (7) to the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3N/4`$ of the corresponding baryonic vertex operator in the dual conformal field theory . From (24) we note that the mass of wrapped D3-brane localized at a constant $`(\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ vanishes at the naked singularity $`\rho =\rho _h`$. Although there is a repulsive component of the radial force $`M_B/\rho `$ in the region $`\rho _h<\rho <\rho _K`$, the $`\rho `$-dependent attractive force prevails over it. The wrapped D3-brane is always pulled toward the apex and then becomes massless at the naked singularity. This behavior is compared with the $`M=0`$ conifold case where the wrapped D3-brane with the constant mass is pulled by a constant attractive force because of the $`\rho `$-independence of $`h\rho ^4`$ in (21). Here we consider the other 3-cycle defined by the subspace at a constant value of $`(\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ in the metric. The D3-brane wraps over $`(\psi ,\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ coordinates to yield a baryon mass

$$M_B=\frac{8\pi ^2}{9}T_{D3}\sqrt{\kappa _a}\rho [h\rho ^4+(6f_2)^2]^{1/2},$$
(25)
whose large $`\rho `$ behavior is the same as (22). At the IR point specified by $`\rho =\rho _K`$ it takes

$$M_B\frac{a}{\sqrt{g_sQ}\alpha ^2}\left(Q^2+\frac{g_s^2P^4}{2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(26)
which scales as

$$M_BM\frac{\sqrt{g_sN}a}{g_sM\alpha ^{}}\left(1+\frac{(g_sM)^4}{32\pi ^2(g_sN)^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(27)
This result shows a factor of $`M`$ times the ’t Hooft scalings $`g_sN`$ and $`g_sM`$. For small number of fractional D3-branes the baryon mass is approximately expressed as

$$M_BM\frac{a^2}{\rho _K\alpha ^{}}$$
(28)
because the NS-NS 2-form potential yields the dominant contribution.

In the general conifold the baryon mass for the D3-brane wrapped over $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ is also estimated as

$$M_B\frac{Qb}{g_sP\alpha ^2}e^{Q/2g_sP^2},$$
(29)
where the exponential damping arises from the factor $`\sqrt{\kappa _b}`$ with $`\kappa _b=(\rho ^6b^6)/\rho ^6`$ and the NS-NS flux contribution, $`(6f_1)^2`$ has the same order as the gravitational contribution through the warp factor, $`h\rho _K^4`$. This expression also shows the expected scaling

$$M_BM\frac{g_sNb}{(g_sM)^2\alpha ^{}}e^{2\pi g_sN/(g_sM)^2},$$
(30)
which has some resemblance to (27) up to the exponential factor.

For comparison let us return to the standard conifold. The warp function is given by (9) with $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho /b)`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho /\rho _0)`$ where $`\rho _0`$ is introduced as a constant of integration. The NS-NS 2-form potential and the charge function $`K(\rho )`$ are provided by (12), (13) with $`a=0`$ and $`\rho _1=\rho _2\rho _0`$. The baryon mass is also evaluated at the zero-charge locus $`\rho _K=e^{Q/6g_sP^2}\rho _0`$ as

$$M_B\frac{\rho _0}{g_sP\alpha ^2}e^{Q/6g_sP^2}\left(Q^2+\frac{g_s^2(3P)^4}{2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(31)
whose leading part scales as

$$M_BM\frac{g_sN\rho _0}{(g_sM)^2\alpha ^{}}e^{2\pi g_sN/3(g_sM)^2}.$$
(32)
Although this expression is similar to (30), the exponential damping factor is here produced by the linear factor $`\rho _K`$ and the NS-NS flux gives the main contribution. The dimensions of baryon masses are specified by the resolution parameter $`a/\alpha ^{}`$ in (23), (27) for the resolved conifold and similarly by the generalization parameter $`b/\alpha ^{}`$ in (30) for the general conifold. They are contrasted to the factor $`\rho _0/\alpha ^{}`$ in (32) for the conifold. The factor $`\rho _0`$ is provided as an integration constant, whereas the emergences of $`a,b`$ in the baryon mass at the IR locus indicate the dimensional transmutation.

In the deformed conifold  the radial parameter $`\tau `$ related with the radial coordinate $`\rho `$ as $`\rho ^3ϵ^2e^\tau `$ can be made zero, where $`\rho `$ approaches to $`ϵ^{2/3}`$ and the $`S^2`$ part of the metric shrinks to zero while the radius of $`S^3`$ part approaches to finite value that is of order $`\sqrt{g_sM}`$. The baryon mass for the D3-brane wrapped over the finite $`S^3`$ part is estimated as $`M_BmM`$ where $`mϵ^{2/3}/\alpha ^{}`$ is a parameter setting the 4-dimensional mass scale. This estimation for the deformed conifold is similar to that for the resolved conifold although there is some difference of situation. The expression (23) is produced for the D3-brane wrapped over the shrinking $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ whereas (28) is for the D3-brane over the $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ whose $`S^2(\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ part has a finite radius near the apex. The parameter $`\rho _K`$ that is proportional to the resolution parameter $`a`$ makes a role of setting the 4-dimensional mass scale, while the extra parameter $`b`$ makes the same role in the general conifold. For the deformed conifold the theory at $`\tau =0`$ provides the $`SU(M)`$ gauge theory with no matter through the chain of Seiberg dualites. Analogously for the general or resolved conifold the far IR locus is so specified by the zero-charge locus that the regular D3-branes disappear and only the $`M`$ fractional D3-branes remain. Hence the supergravity theory at the zero-charge locus for the general or resolved conifold is considered to be dual to the $`SU(M)`$ gauge theory. The obtained baryon masses are shown to be linear in $`M`$ as expected from this view point.

Here we also analyze the domain walls that are regarded as D5-branes wapping the $`S^3`$ and spanning the $`x^0,x^1,x^2`$ directions for the resolved conifold. Far in the IR the effective $`SU(M)`$ gauge theory has the inequivalent vacuum states between which the domain wall interpolates. The tension of a D5-brane wrapped over $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ as well as $`x^0,x^1,x^2`$ coordinates at the IR locus $`\rho =\rho _K`$ is estimated as

$$T_{DW}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{9}T_{D5}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa _a}{h}}\rho _K[h\rho _K^4+(6f_1)^2]^{1/2}\frac{\rho _K^3}{g_s\alpha ^3},$$
(33)
whereas the tension for the wrapping over $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ is mainly given by

$$T_{DW}\frac{\rho _Ka^2}{g_s\alpha ^3}.$$
(34)
The former behavior is compared with $`T_{DW}(ϵ^{2/3}/\alpha ^{})^3/g_s`$ for the deformed conifold . Through the wrappings of a D5-brane and a D3-brane over $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ for the resolved conifold the tension of domain wall and the baryon mass, where the gravitational contribution is the same order as the $`B_2`$ contribution, show the same forms as those for the deformed conifold where the $`B_2`$ contribution is not taken into account. Hence $`\rho _K/\alpha ^{}`$ corresponds to $`mϵ^{2/3}/\alpha ^{}`$. On the other hand in the wrapping over $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ for the resolved conifold the tension of domain wall and the baryon mass where the $`B_2`$ contribution is more dominant than the gravitational one, show the similar forms to those for the deformed conifold, but with some slight difference.

## 3 Tensions of fractional D-branes

We are concerned with the tensions of D5-brane wrapped over $`S^2(\theta _i,\varphi _i),i=1,2.`$ They can be also evaluated and shown not to vanish at the naked singularity. This non-vanishing is due to the nontrivial contribution of NS-NS $`B_2`$ field. The tension of wrapped D5-brane at the zero-charge locus scales as $`T_{FD3}T_{D3}g_sM`$ for a two-sphere $`S^2(\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ inside $`S^3(\psi ,\theta _1,\varphi _1).`$ For $`S^2(\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ it scales as $`T_{FD3}T_{D3}g_sN/g_sM`$ which is represented by $`T_{D3}g_sM(a/\rho _K)^2.`$ Both tensions are independent of the resolution parameter. Since the $`S^2(\theta _1,\varphi _1)`$ shrinks to zero size near the apex, the former is rather considered to be the tension of fractional D3-brane because a fractional D3-brane is regarded as a D5-brane wrapped over a vanishing 2-cycle.

Let us turn to the type II supergravity solution corresponding to $`M`$ wrapped D$`(p+2)`$-branes ( fractional D$`p`$-branes ) and $`N`$ regular D$`p`$-branes on a $`(9p)`$-dimensional conical transverse space whose base is an $`(8p)`$-dimensional Einstein manifold $`X_{8p}`$ . The dilaton, NS-NS 2-form potential and the warp function are expressed by using a radial coordinate $`r`$ here as

$`e^{4\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`h(r)^{3p},B_2=f\omega _2=P{\displaystyle \frac{r^{p3}}{p3}}\omega _2,`$
$`h(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{r}}\right)^{7p}{\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{(3p)(102p)r^{102p}}}`$ (35)
for $`p3,5,`$ where $`Pg_sM\alpha ^{(5p)/2}`$ and $`q^{7p}g_sN\alpha ^{(7p)/2}`$. The $`X_{8p}`$ is assumed to have a 2-cycle associated with a harmonic 2-form $`\omega _2`$ and the fractional Dp-brane is the D(p+2)-brane wrapped over the 2-cycle. The $`\omega _2`$ may be normalized such that $`\omega _2_{8p}\omega _2`$ is the volume form on $`X_{8p}`$. Hereafter we restrict ourselves to $`p<3`$ where the naked singularity appears at $`r=r_h`$ with $`r_h^{3p}=P^2/((3p)(102p)q^{7p})`$. We estimate the IR scale $`r_I`$ here simply from $`h^{}(r)=0`$ as

$$r_I^{3p}=\frac{P^2}{(3p)(7p)q^{7p}}.$$
(36)
From $`r_I^{3p}=((102p)/(7p))r_h^{3p}`$ we note that $`r_I>r_h`$ for $`p<3`$. If we assume that the 2-cycle is a $`S^2`$, then the tension of wrapped D$`(p+2)`$-brane is given by

$$T_{FDp}=4\pi T_{D(p+2)}h^{(p3)/4}(\alpha hr^4+f^2)^{1/2},$$
(37)
where there is the contribution of dilaton and $`\alpha `$ is some constant that depends on $`p`$ through the embedding of the 2-cycle in $`X_{8p}`$. As the tension of fractional D$`p`$-brane in the IR we evaluate (37) at $`r=r_I`$ as

$$T_{FDp}\frac{T_{Dp}}{\alpha ^{}}P^{(p1)/2}r_I^{(p3)^2/2},$$
(38)
where the contribution of NS-NS flux is the same order as the gravitational contribution. Its scaling is expressed as

$$T_{FDp}T_{Dp}(g_sM)^{(p1)/2}\left(\frac{r_I}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\right)^{(p3)^2/2},$$
(39)
which is compared with the tension of fractional D3-brane for the resolved conifold that is linear in $`M`$.

## 4 Area law behaviors of Wilson loops

We investigate the Wilson loop along two space directions in the solution of $`N`$ D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes on the general resolved conifold in the Euclidean metric. Since the string is stretched in the radial direction, the relevant action in the static gauge for the spatial Wilson loop is given by

$$S=TT_F𝑑x\sqrt{h^1+\kappa ^1(_x\rho )^2},$$
(40)
where $`T_F=1/2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ and there is no NS-NS flux contribution for this configuration. From the prescription in Refs. , the energy of the string configuration is given by

$$E=\frac{S}{T}=T_F_{\rho _0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho }{\sqrt{\kappa (1c_0^2h)}},$$
(41)
since the static solution is represented by $`h^1/\sqrt{h^1+\kappa ^1(_x\rho )^2}=c_0`$. Owing to $`c_0^2=1/h(y_0)`$ it is further rewritten by

$$E=\frac{T_Fa}{2}_{y_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{y\kappa }}\frac{\sqrt{h(y_0)}}{\sqrt{h(y_0)h(y)}},$$
(42)
where $`y=\rho ^2/a^2`$ for the resolved conifold. For the general conifold $`y=\rho ^2/b^2`$ and $`a`$ in (42) is replaced by $`b`$. The $`y_0=\rho _0^2/a^2`$ or $`\rho _0^2/b^2`$ is the minimal value of $`y`$. The distance $`l`$ between a quark and an anti-quark is expressed in terms of a parameter $`y_0`$ as

$$\frac{l}{2}=\frac{a}{2}_{y_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{y\kappa }}\frac{h(y)}{\sqrt{h(y_0)h(y)}}.$$
(43)
We focus on the long distance behavior of the potential energy between a quark and an anti-quark. The main contribution to the integral in (43) is provided by the region near $`y=y_0`$. Since the factor $`(h(y_0)h(y))^{1/2}`$ is approximately expanded by $`((yy_0)h^{}(y_0)(yy_0)^2h^{\prime \prime }(y_0)/2\mathrm{})^{1/2}`$ in this region, we take the limit $`y_0y_K=\rho _K^2/a^2`$ or $`\rho _K^2/b^2`$ for the distance $`l`$ that is a function of $`y_0`$. Then we obtain the logarithmic divergence of $`l`$ because $`h^{}(y_K)`$ vanishes. In this limit the main contribution to the integral in (42) also comes from the same region. Combining (43) with (42) we have

$$E=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}\sqrt{h(y_0)}}l+\frac{T_Fa}{2\sqrt{h(y_0)}}_{y_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{y\kappa }}\sqrt{h(y_0)h(y)}.$$
(44)
Hence the first term is leading in the limit $`y_0y_K`$ and gives rise to the area law behavior of the Wilson loop. The tension of the confining string is thus derived as

$$T_{cs}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}\sqrt{h(y_K)}}.$$
(45)
For the resolved conifold the tension is obtained by

$$T_{cs}\frac{1}{g_sM}\frac{(g_sM)^2a^2}{g_sN\alpha ^2},$$
(46)
which is expressed as

$$T_{cs}\frac{1}{g_sM}\left(\frac{\rho _K}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^2.$$
(47)
This result takes the same form as the tension $`(ϵ^{2/3}/\alpha ^{})^2/g_sM`$ for the deformed conifold . We have again observed the correspondence between $`\rho _K/\alpha ^{}`$ and $`m`$. For the general conifold the tension shows the similar behavior

$$T_{cs}\frac{1}{g_sM}\frac{(g_sM)^2b^2}{g_sN\alpha ^2}.$$
(48)
Indeed there is a difference between the warp function in the IR region characterized by the logarithmic function for the general conifold and the warp function showing the power behavior for the resolved conifold, but the resulting tensions of the confining string turn out to be the same form where $`a`$ and $`b`$ give the scales where non-perturbative effects become relevant in the dual gauge theory. In order to extract the large $`l`$ behavior we need to take the limit $`y_0y_K`$ and observe that the vanishing of derivative of the warp function at the zero-charge locus plays an important role to obtain the area law behavior for the Wilson loop.

## 5 Conclusions

Although there appears the naked singularity in the resolved conifold solution or the general conifold solution of $`N`$ D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes, we have demonstrated that the IR solution located at the zero-charge locus of the R-R 5-form field, behind which the naked singularity exists, gives the interesting non-perturbative dynamics of its dual $`SU(M)`$ gauge theory in the confining phase. For the resolved conifold the baryon mass as well as the tension of domain wall at the zero-charge locus are characterized by the resolution parameter through the dimensional transmutation in a similar way that those at the tip $`\tau =0`$ for the deformed conifold are specified by the deformation parameter. We have evaluated them using the resolved conifold metric itself, whereas the rescaled one of the deformed conifold metric has been used where the scaling is performed in the transverse part of the metric so that its effect is reflected to produce the 4-dimensional mass scale $`m`$ in the longitudinal part. We have assumed that the resolved conifold solution should not be able to continue to the region where the D3-brane charge is negative, and focused on the IR behavior at the zero-charge locus. Since the resolved conifold is constructed from the conifold by allowing an asymmetry between the two $`S^2`$ parts in the metric we have seen that there are two types of probe configurations associated with the baryon and the domain wall according to which $`S^2`$ is included into the wrapped $`S^3`$. Specially when the D3-brane or the D5-brane wraps $`S^3`$ including the $`S^2`$ with a finite radius near the apex, the $`B_2`$ contribution to the baryon mass and the tension of domain wall is more dominant than the gravitational one. We have also observed that the $`B_2`$ contribution prevents the tension of fractional D3-brane from vanishing at the naked singularity in the resolved conifold and this tension becomes linear in $`M`$ at the zero-charge locus.

We have shown the area law behavior of the Wilson loop for the $`N`$ D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional D3-branes on the resolved or general conifold, and demonstrated that the tension of the confining string takes the same behavior as that for the deformed conifold. The suitable correspondence between the $`\rho _K/\alpha ^{}`$ for the resolved conifold and the mass scale $`m`$ for the deformed conifold has been presented in the baryon mass and the tensions of the domain wall and the confining string. In Ref.  the behavior of Wilson loop was analyzed for only the $`N`$ regular D3-branes on the resolved or general conifold. Since there is no zero-charge locus, the distance between a quark and an anti-quark does not exhibit the logarithmic increase. The existence of the zero-charge locus owing to the additional $`M`$ fractional D3-branes yields the logarithmic increase of the distance and hence is important for the area law behavior of the Wilson loop. For the other non-conformal supergravity solutions with less supersymmetry, it would be interesting to study the NS-NS two-form contribution to the tensions of various D-branes wrapped over some cycle associated with the NS-NS flux and ask how the non-conformal property provided by the fractional D-branes is connected with the non-perturbative property in the IR.


format: text

text:
# Subaru Spectroscopy of the Gravitational Lens HST 14176+5226: Implications for a Large Cosmological Constant1footnote 11footnote 1 Based on observations made with the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

## 1 Introduction

Recent cosmological observations have increased various lines of evidence that the evolution of the universe may be dominated by a nonvanishing, normalized cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2/3H_0^2`$, where $`H_0`$ is a Hubble constant). These include the distance determination of high-redshift Type Ia supernovae (SNe) (e.g. Perlmutter et al. 1998), number counts of faint galaxies (Fukugita et al. 1990; Yoshii & Peterson 1995), statistics of gravitationally lensed QSOs (Chiba & Yoshii 1999), and age calibration of the Galactic globular clusters (Chaboyer et al. 1998). Also, recent measurements of small-scale anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation suggest the flat geometry of the universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ stands for the matter density), which may be reconciled with most of the inflationary universe scenarios (de Bernardis et al. 2000). If this result is combined with the currently favored value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.20.3`$ (Bahcall et al. 1999), then a large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ranging 0.7 to 0.8 is inferred.

Except for the CMB measurements, all of the astronomical observations to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ suffer from unavoidable ambiguities associated with dust absorption inside and/or outside the observed objects in concern, their evolutionary effects, and selection effects. For instance, the interpretation of the Type Ia SNe results should be modified non-trivially if their luminosities are affected by dust in their host galaxies or intergalactic medium (Aguirre 1999; Totani & Kobayashi 1999) or if their intrinsic properties at high redshift differ from local counterparts (Riess et al. 1999, but see Aldering et al. 2000). Although continuing efforts to minimize these sources of ambiguities have been progressively made, especially by observing higher-redshift SNe (Riess et al. 2001), it may be equally worth pursuing an alternative, independent methodology for the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which exempts from the above ambiguities.

In this regard, gravitational lensing may be the most powerful and accurate probe to measure cosmological parameters, because the physics involved in it is gravity only (e.g. Mellier 1999). Among various proposed methods relied on gravitational lensing, an interesting approach was adopted by Im et al. (1997), using the dependence of strong lenses on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (Paczyński & Gorski 1981; Gott et al. 1989). They investigated the mean splitting of the lensed multiple images of a distant QSO, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, in conjunction with the mass of a foreground lens galaxy as deduced from its line-of-sight velocity dispersion, $`\sigma `$. They deduced $`\sigma `$ from the observed lens magnitude, lens redshift, and the Faber-Jackson relation after correcting for luminosity evolution of a lens. If the mass distribution of a lens is simply represented by a singular isothermal sphere (SIS) as they adopted, we obtain,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =8\pi \left(\frac{\sigma }{c}\right)^2\frac{D_{ls}}{D_s},$$
(1)
where $`D_s`$ and $`D_{ls}`$ denote angular diameter distances to the source and between the lens and source, respectively, both of which depend on lens redshift $`z_L`$, source redshift $`z_S`$, and cosmological parameters $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Applying this method to eight lens systems, Im et al. concluded $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.64_{0.26}^{+0.15}`$ (1 $`\sigma `$) in the flat universe, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ is excluded at the 97 % confidence level.

Im et al.’s procedure is subject to ambiguities in dust absorption (Keeton et al. 1998) and in evolution correction for the lens galaxies. Also, the use of the simple SIS model appears to be too simplified. However, as equation (1) implies, if the information on velocity dispersion of a lens is available from direct spectroscopic observation, then the concerned ambiguities of dust absorption and galaxy evolution can be excluded in the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Furthermore, if a more realistic lens model than SIS is applied and if a desired combination of $`(z_L,z_S)`$ for the lens system is chosen so as to make the distance ratio $`D_{ls}/D_s`$ being sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then we may be able to place a more reliable limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To highlight the latter point, we plot, in Figure 1, the relation between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the predicted $`\sigma `$ from equation (1), for the case of $`z_L=0.81`$, $`z_S=3.40`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta /2=1.\mathrm{}5`$ (solid line) approximately corresponding to the lens system HST 14176$`+`$5226 employed in this paper, and for the case of $`z_L=0.30`$ while other quantities are fixed (dotted line). For each case, the upper and lower lines correspond to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, respectively. This plot clearly demonstrates that the effect of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ can be more easily separated from that of the lens mass and/or uncertainties in the mass distribution, if more remote lenses, say at $`z_L1`$, are utilized in this analysis. A similar method using Einstein ring systems has been proposed by Futamase and Hamana (1999).

Based on the above motivation, we conducted the direct measurement of velocity dispersion for the lens galaxy of the “Einstein Cross” HST 14176$`+`$5226, using the FOCAS (Kashikawa et al. 2000) mounted on the Subaru telescope. This lens system was serendipitously discovered in the WFPC2 images from the HST Medium Deep Survey (Ratnatunga et al. 1995; 1999; Knudson et al. 2001). The lensed source appears to be a QSO at $`z_S=3.4`$ (Crampton et al. 1996; Moustakas & Davis 1998), splitted into four images in a symmetric configuration. The foreground lens galaxy is a red, remote elliptical galaxy at $`z_L=0.81`$, and its bright apparent magnitude (F814W$`=19.8`$, F606W$`=21.7`$) enabled us to obtain adequate spectra of high enough S$`/`$N with the 8.2 m telescope. Thus, combined the observational results with the detailed lens modeling, it may be possible to place a useful limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

This paper is organized as follows. In §2, we present the spectroscopic observations and data reduction. Our technique to calibrate the line-of-sight velocity dispersion from the derived spectrum is described in §3. In §4, we describe the lens modeling and stellar dynamics of the lens galaxy. Model fittings to the lens system and the results for the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are presented. In §5, implications of the results and further prospects of the work are discussed.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

Observations were made with the FOCAS attached on the Subaru 8.2 m telescope on 2001 June 18. The seeing condition was 0″.8-0″.9 during the observation. We used the narrow 0″.4 slit along the major axis of the lens galaxy (PA$`=41.5^{}`$). The narrow slit was selected aiming for higher wavelength resolution for better velocity measurement accuracy. The $`300`$ lines mm-1 grating together with a Y47 order-cut filter allowed us to obtain an optical spectrum between 4700Å and 9000Å with a pixel resolution of 1.39Å. The spatial resolution was 0″.4 per pixel by using 4-pixel on-chip binning. We obtained six 1800 seconds exposures.

After subtracting the bias in a standard manner, flat fielding, the optical distortion corrections, and cosmic ray removal were applied using the dedicated software (Yoshida et al. 2000) for each frame. Wavelength calibration was made based on both the calibration Th-Ar lamp and the telluric OH lines. The accuracy of the wavelength calibration was measured with OH lines to be $`0.12`$Å in RMS over 5500Å – 9000Å. Flux calibration was made with a spectroscopic standard star Wolf 1346 and the atmospheric extinction was corrected by using the standard Mauna-Kea extinction curve with a standard manner using IRAF 222IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.. The lens galaxy spectra were extracted through a 0″.8 aperture around the nucleus (a 2-pixel wide aperture around the brightest column) from each frame to yield six 1-dimensional spectra. This aperture corresponds to $`2\times 0.35R_e`$, where $`R_e(=0.\mathrm{}13\pm 0.\mathrm{}05)`$ denotes an effective radius of a de Vaucouleurs law for the surface brightness profile (Keeton et al. 1998). Finally they were combined with 3-$`\sigma `$ clipping average algorithm to remove the residual cosmic ray features. Following van Dokkum and Franx (1996), the instrumental spectral resolution was measured using several OH lines. For this purpose, the sky spectrum was made following the same procedure as for the galaxy spectrum (i.e., using the same wavelength transformation, the aperture extraction, and the frame combination methods).We selected six narrowest (unblended) OH lines around 7300Å where our target absorption lines of lens galaxy reside and they were fitted simultaneously with multiple Gaussian components whose line widths were assumed to be identical for all lines. We found the instrumental resolution $`5.6\pm 0.3`$Å in full width at half maximum (FWHM).

The spectrum of the lens galaxy of HST 14176$`+`$5226 is shown in Figure 2. It shows deep CaII H and K absorption lines (3970Å and 3932Å detected at 7120Å and 7185Å , respectively) and prominent G band feature (4399Å detected at 7800Å), suggesting that major contribution in the observed flux of this spectral region could be attributed to the late type giant stars (late G giant $``$ early K giant stars).

## 3 Velocity Dispersion Measurement

The Fourier cross-correlation method (Tonry & Davis 1979) was used to measure the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of the lens galaxy with the FXCOR task implemented in IRAF. This method compares the stellar spectrum as a template with the observed galaxy spectrum by means of the cross-correlation technique. Because we cannot analyze the stellar population in detail given the smaller wavelength coverage and the limited quality of the spectrum, we assume that a single representative population of stars can reproduce the galaxy spectrum well. Therefore we selected three late type giant stars \[HD 83805 (G8III), HD 8491 (K0III), and HD 94247 (K3III)\] as spectral templates. All templates were used in the FXCOR task separately to estimate the $`\sigma `$ uncertainties in regard to the uncertainties of types of the template. Detailed properties of the template stars used are given in Table 1. The spectra were taken from the stellar spectra library of the Cóude feed spectral library published in the AAD Volume 7 CD-ROM (Leitherer et al. 1996). They cover 3800-4900Å with a wavelength resolution of 1.8Å (FWHM), and are suitable in our analysis because the resolution is higher than that of the instrumental resolution at the rest-frame of the lens galaxy (3.1Å FWHM) and all the prominent redshifted features detected in the lens galaxy spectrum (such as Ca H+K and G band) are included in the templates.

Since the velocity resolution matching between the galaxy and the template spectra is crucial to obtain proper velocity dispersion (e.g. Falco et al. 1997), convolution with the Gaussian-broadening function was applied to the templates (53 km s-1 resolution at the G band) to make the velocity resolution-matched templates (the rest-frame resolution of the lens galaxy spectrum: $`91\pm 5`$ km s-1). We estimate that the error in the velocity resolution matching would result in the error of the velocity dispersion of 4 km s-1 ($`1\sigma `$): The solution of the velocity dispersion of the lens galaxy ($`\sigma `$) in the Fourier correlation method is related to the instrumental resolution ($`\tau `$) as $`\sigma ^2=\mu ^22\tau ^2`$ where $`\mu `$ is the width of the cross correlation peak (Tonry & Davis 1979), and, hence, $`\delta \sigma 2\tau \delta \tau /\sigma 4`$ km s-1 for $`\sigma =230`$ km s-1 (see below), $`\tau =91`$ km s-1, and $`\delta \tau =5`$ km s-1.

Following Falco et al. (1997), we analyzed the velocity dispersion of the lens galaxy in the following ways. First, the spectra were pre-processed to be used in FXCOR. Spectra around 7050Å- 8200Å for the lens galaxy, or 3900Å - 4500Å for templates, were selected to include interesting absorption features such as Ca H, K and G band. All spectra were normalized by the continuum which was obtained by fitting the spectra with the low-order polynomial function. In this fitting, strong absorption features such as Ca H and K, G band, and atmospheric A band were excluded. Using these spectra, we measured the redshift of the galaxy as $`z=0.811`$ by the FXCOR. Note that the redshift was determined consistently regardless of the stellar templates employed and of the detailed FXCOR parameters due to strong absorption features. Our redshift estimate is almost consistent with Koo et al. (1996, $`z=0.811`$) and Crampton et al. (1996, $`z=0.809`$). Adopting thus derived redshift of the lens galaxy, we produced the rest-frame lens galaxy spectrum (blue-shifted to $`z=0`$) for further line width analysis.

Then we made calibration curves which relate the velocity dispersion ($`\sigma `$) with the FWHM of the cross-correlation function (CCF) peak measured with the FXCOR (see Falco et al. 1997). Resolution-matched templates were convolved with a series of Gaussian-broadening functions in which the velocity dispersion ranges from 45 km s-1 to 270 km s-1. One can obtain the calibration curve by running the FXCOR for various combinations of the resolution-matched templates and the Gaussian-broadened templates. In FXCOR, we used the following parameters to calculate the CCF and to measure the width of its peak. We tried two spectral regions for each template (two out of the following three regions: A: $`42504450`$Å, B: $`42504470`$Å, and C: $`42504500`$Å) in calculating the CCF. The regions were selected to include G band but to exclude the atmospheric A band and Ca H and K lines since the calculation with Ca H and K would give problematic result because of their intrinsically wider line width (Tonry 1998). Apodization of 5% (at each end) was applied on all spectra before the Fourier transformation to minimize the spectral aliasing effects. Lowest wavenumber portion of the Fourier-transformed spectra ($`110`$Å-1) were not used to avoid the effect of the continuum variation remaining even after the continuum normalization procedures. After the cross-correlation, the FWHM of the CCF peak were measured by Gaussian profile fitting over either central 30 or 35 lags ($`\pm 674`$ or $`\pm 786`$ km s-1 from the peak) around the peak. The reason why we used two fitting wavelength regions on spectra and two fitting widths on CCF is to estimate the $`\sigma `$ uncertainties in the FXCOR fitting procedure. In this way, we got 12 calibration curves in total (three templates, two wavelength fitting regions per template, and two lag widths per each combination of the templates and the wavelength fitting region).

Next, we ran the FXCOR twelve times with the rest-frame lens galaxy spectrum and the resolution-matched templates to measure the FWHM of the CCF peak. The same parameters of the FXCOR as in making the calibration curves were used in each run. The peaks of the CCFs could be represented well by a Gaussian function like in making calibration curves, and the fittings were made with a typical error of $`10`$ km s-1 for all cases. In order to check how well the CCF peak fitting could be made and to know how the noise signal of the observed galaxy spectrum could possibly affect the measurement, thirty artificial noise spectra were made with the mknoise task of the artdata package in IRAF, and were added to the observed galaxy spectrum to increase the root-mean-square noise level by $`20`$%. Then, we ran the FXCOR thirty times with the noise-added spectra for one case of the calibration curve, and found that a scatter of the results is $`12`$ km s-1 with the mean value being almost as same as that for the original spectrum within 1 km s-1. Note that, although the scatter is slightly worse than the fitting error for one CCF width measurement with the original spectrum (without artificial noise), the small increase ($`20`$%) is most likely to come from the artificial noise added to the observed spectrum. Considering all these experiments, we adopted a 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainty of 10 km s-1 in the CCF measurement.

The twelve CCF peak width values obtained with original lens galaxy spectrum for various parameters were then converted to velocity dispersion by using the corresponding calibration curves. We obtained $`\sigma =217244`$ km s-1 with moderately good Tonry-Davis $`R`$ values ($`R=1215`$) for all FXCOR runs (Table 2). Here the Tonry-Davis $`R`$ value gives the signal-to-noise ratio of the CCF peak (Tonry and Davis 1979), and is also shown to indicate how well the galaxy and template spectra are correlated with each other. Since $`\sigma `$ obtained for each calibration curve are almost similar, we adopt the $`R`$-weighted mean $`\sigma `$ value of 230 km s-1 as a most likely value, and the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties originating from the choice of different templates, fitting wavelength regions, and CCF fitting widths would be $`8`$ km s-1 based on the scatter of the derived $`\sigma `$ for each FXCOR run. Figure 3 shows the normalized rest-frame lens galaxy spectrum overlaied by the Gaussian-broadened ($`\sigma =230`$ km s-1) template of HD 83805 (the case of the best $`R`$ value) as well as the residual spectrum (galaxy spectrum $``$ Gaussian-broadened template). To show how remaining sky spectrum may possibly affect the fitting, we also show below the sky spectrum which is red-shifted by the same amount as for the lens galaxy spectrum. Wavelength region around Ca H and K are also shown although the region was not used in the FXCOR analyses. One may find that the G band profile of the galaxy can be fitted by the Gaussian-broadened template very well, and Ca H and K lines are also represented by the template relatively well. Although there are some remaining features in the residual spectrum such as absorption features at 4000Å and 4435Å, they are likely to come from the sky subtraction residual. Therefore, we confirmed that the stellar templates used were indeed suitable for representing the lens galaxy spectrum.

Finally we summarize errors associated with all above procedures (Table 3). First, error in the template-galaxy velocity matching is 4 km s-1 ($`1\sigma `$) based on the instrumental resolution uncertainty. The CCF peak width measurement with the velocity-matched spectrum can be made with 10 km s-1 accuracy ($`1\sigma `$) for one FXCOR run for a calibration curve whose parameters are spectrum template, wavelength fitting region, and fitting width of the CCF peak. Then, twelve FXCOR runs for twelve calibration curves, all of which seem equally suitable for the FXCOR parameters, give 8 km s-1 scatter ($`1\sigma `$) of the velocity dispersion. Assuming all these sources of error are independent of each other, the overall $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty of the velocity dispersion is estimated to be $`(4^2+10^2+8^2)^{0.5}14`$ km s-1.

## 4 Lens Modeling

### 4.1 Lens Models

In order to demonstrate what constraints the current velocity measurement of the lens galaxy provides on cosmologies, we investigate lens mass models which reproduce the key observational information on the lens system (image positions) as a function of cosmological parameters. Our lens models are represented by a cored isothermal ellipsoid (CIE) in an external shear field to take advantage of its simplicity and also generality. A similar lens model to ours, a singular isothermal ellipsoid (Kassiola & Kovner 1993; Kormann et al. 1994), has been known to be broadly consistent with observations of various lens systems (e.g. Keeton et al. 1998). An isothermal profile for the total mass distribution of ellipticals is well supported by the detailed dynamical studies of local ellipticals (Rix et al. 1997; Gerhard et al. 2001), individual lens modeling, and statistics (e.g. Maoz & Rix 1993; Kochanek 1995; Grogin & Narayan 1996). The inclusion of an external shear field appears to be necessary both to improve the fits of lens models to the data and to make an axis ratio distribution of individual lenses being consistent with the observed axis ratio distribution of light (Keeton et al. 1997). We allow a finite central core in the lens models, because recent HST photometry for the centers of ellipticals has revealed the presence of a finite core in bright ellipticals (Faber et al. 1997; Ravindranath et al. 2001).

The CIE model is parameterized by an ellipticity of mass distribution $`ϵ`$, where the axis ratio is given by $`\sqrt{(1ϵ)/(1+ϵ)}`$, position angle of its semi-major axis $`\varphi _ϵ`$, core size $`r_c`$, and line-of-sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{tot}`$. Given such a lens, the lens equation relates the position of a source $`(\beta _1,\beta _2)`$ on the source plane to the positions of images $`(\theta _1^i,\theta _2^i)`$ ($`i=1`$ … 4 for the four-image case) on the lens plane (where the positions are relative to the lens center),

$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1\alpha _0{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)\theta _1}{\sqrt{(1ϵ)\theta _1^2+(1+ϵ)\theta _2^2+\theta _c^2}}}\gamma _1\theta _1\gamma _2\theta _2,`$ (2)
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _2\alpha _0{\displaystyle \frac{(1+ϵ)\theta _2}{\sqrt{(1ϵ)\theta _1^2+(1+ϵ)\theta _2^2+\theta _c^2}}}\gamma _2\theta _1+\gamma _1\theta _2,`$ (3)
where $`\theta _c`$ is the angular size of a core ($`=r_c/D_l`$, where $`D_l`$ denotes angular diameter distance to the lens) and $`\alpha _0`$ characterizes the strength of a lens as defined by $`\alpha _04\pi (\sigma _{tot}/c)^2D_{ls}/D_s`$. The effects of the external shear, which is parameterized by the strength $`\gamma =(\gamma _1^2+\gamma _2^2)^{1/2}`$ and orientation $`\mathrm{tan}2\varphi _\gamma =\gamma _2/\gamma _1`$, are also included in the above equations.

We consider three different lens models. The first is the CIE model without the external shear, which is represented by ten parameters: four for source and lens positions, four for lens parameters, and two for cosmological parameters $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The second is the CIE model with the external shear (CIE+ES), which introduces additional two parameters, so that the total number of parameters is twelve. The third is similar to the CIE model but the lens coordinates are treated as free parameters (CIE+LP). This takes into account the possible finite difference between the observed galaxy center and the center of the gravitational potential. In this model, we do not consider the external shear, so that the total number of parameters is twelve.

As a part of observational constraints on the models, we adopt the positions of the four lensed images and the lens galaxy. The flux ratios between the optical images are excluded in the fitting procedure, because these are largely affected by dust extinction, microlensing by stellar masses, or dark matter substructure (e.g. Mao & Schneider 1998; Chiba 2002). We refer to HST data available on the CASTLES Survey’s web site (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/castles/) for the positions and their uncertainties ($`0.\mathrm{}03`$) of the current lens system. For the positional uncertainty of the lens galaxy, we adopt a slightly more conservative value ($`0.\mathrm{}05`$ instead of $`0.\mathrm{}03`$) because of the extended nature of the galaxy image, although this change of the positional uncertainty turns out not to affect the dependence of the image fitting on the model parameters as performed below.

### 4.2 Stellar Dynamics

The velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{tot}`$, as a parameter of the lens model is not a directly observable quantity, while what we have measured as reported in the previous section is the surface-brightness weighted average of the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of a stellar component interior to a projected radius $`R`$, hereafter denoted as $`\sigma _{los}^2(R)^{1/2}`$ (Kochanek 1993). To relate $`\sigma _{los}^2(R)^{1/2}`$ with $`\sigma _{tot}`$, we assume that the total mass density, consisting of a luminous stellar and dark matter component, follows a cored isothermal distribution, to be consistent with our lens model, and that the velocity anisotropy of stars is measured by a parameter $`\beta `$, i.e., $`\sigma _\theta ^2=\sigma _\varphi ^2=(1\beta )\sigma _r^2`$ in a spherical geometry, where $`(\sigma _r,\sigma _\theta ,\sigma _\varphi )`$ are velocity dispersions along the polar coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. Then, for a luminous stellar component having the surface brightness $`I(R)`$ and line-of-sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{los}(R)`$ at a projected radius $`R`$, the Jeans equation yields (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987),

$$I(R)\sigma _{los}^2(R)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\left(1\beta \frac{R^2}{r^2}\right)r^{2\beta }_r^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r^{}\frac{\nu (r^{})GM(r^{})}{r^2}r^{2\beta },$$
(4)
with $`r^2=R^2+z^2`$, where $`\nu (r)`$ is the volume luminosity density and $`M(r)`$ is the total mass inside $`r`$, given as $`M(r)=2\sigma _{tot}^2r/G(1r_c/r\mathrm{arctan}r/r_c)`$ (Krauss & White 1992; Kochanek 1993). After averaging interior to $`R`$, we obtain

$$\sigma _{los}^2(R)=_0^Rd^2R^{}I(R^{})\sigma _{los}^2(R^{})/_0^Rd^2R^{}I(R^{}).$$
(5)
As is evident from equation (4) and (5), $`\sigma _{los}^2(R)`$ depends on two parameters, $`r_c`$ and $`\beta `$, in such a way that $`\sigma _{los}^2(R)`$ at a specific radius $`R`$ increases with increasing $`\beta `$ (as demonstrated in Kochanek 1993) or decreasing $`r_c`$. To incorporate these properties into our likelihood analysis described below, we make a linear regression to the relation between $`\sigma _{tot}^2/\sigma _{los}^2`$ and $`r_c`$ for a given $`R`$ and $`\beta `$,

$$\sigma _{tot}^2=\sigma _{los}^2\left(a\frac{r_c}{R_e}+b\right),$$
(6)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are coefficients and $`R_e`$ stands for an effective radius of a de Vaucouleurs law for $`I(R)`$. We note that the linearity in the relation is an excellent approximation over the observed range of $`r_c`$, i.e., $`0r_c/R_e0.05`$ (Faber et al. 1997; Ravindranath et al. 2001). In accordance with our observations reported in Section 2, we set $`R/Re=0.35`$. For $`\beta `$, we take advantage of the detailed dynamical studies of local elliptical galaxies (Gerhard et al. 2001). Gerhard et al. (2001) showed, based on their sample of 21 early-type galaxies, that an average $`\beta `$ over the range $`0.1R_e`$ to $`1R_e`$ is typically $`0.10.3`$ (see their Figure 5). In what follows, we adopt $`\beta =0.2\pm 0.2`$ as a fiducial value, which gives $`a=8.05\pm 2.40`$ and $`b=1.07\pm 0.06`$. Also, according to the detailed photometric studies of early-type galaxies with HST by Faber et al. (1997) and Ravindranath et al. (2001), there exists a rather tight, linear correlation between the logarithms of a central velocity dispersion and a core size in bright galaxies. Our regression analysis of Faber et al.’s data for cored E/S0 galaxies (excluding NGC 4486B with a double nucleus) yields $`\mathrm{log}r_c(h_{0.8}^1\mathrm{pc})=2.62\mathrm{log}\sigma (\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)4.01`$, where $`h_{0.8}H_0/80`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and a 1 $`\sigma `$ error in the determination of $`\mathrm{log}r_c(\mathrm{pc})`$ from this relation is 0.42. Thus, we obtain $`r_c=120_{74}^{+196}`$ $`h^1`$ pc at the measured velocity dispersion of 230 km s-1, where $`hH_0/100`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. In the likelihood analysis described below, we take into account all of the uncertainties in the above quantities \[$`\beta `$, $`r_c`$, $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`R_e`$ in equation (6)\] in a consistent manner as sources of the uncertainty in the parameter $`\sigma _{tot}`$.

### 4.3 Likelihood analysis

We perform the maximum likelihood analysis to find the best model parameters for the reproduction of the current lens system HST 14174$`+`$5226. On the assumption that the error in $`\sigma \sigma _{los}^2^{1/2}`$ is represented by Gaussian distribution, we calculate the likelihood function,

$$L(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\delta \sigma }𝑑\sigma _v\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\sigma _v\sigma )^2}{2\delta \sigma }\right]L(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\sigma _v),$$
(7)
where

$$L(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\sigma _v)\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(\frac{(\theta _1^{i,model}\theta _1^{i,obs})^2}{2\delta \theta _{1}^{i,obs}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\frac{(\theta _2^{i,model}\theta _2^{i,obs})^2}{2\delta \theta _{2}^{i,obs}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\right].$$
(8)
In the above equations, $`\delta \theta ^{i,obs}`$ ($`i=1`$ … 4) and $`\delta \sigma `$ denote the standard errors in the observed image positions and velocity dispersion, respectively. We then maximize $`L(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to find the best set of cosmological parameters $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. We note that due to the constraint in equation (6) for $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\sigma _{los}^2^{1/2}`$, the number of parameters in the model is 6 for the CIE model and 8 for the CIE+ES and CIE+LP models. Since we shall restrict our analyses to flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$) or open world models ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$), the number of parameters is further reduced to 5 for the CIE model and 7 for the CIE+ES and CIE+LP models.

### 4.4 Results

Figure 4 shows the best-fit image positions (solid circles) and source position (cross), compared with the observed image positions and galaxy position (open circles), where the radii of the open circles correspond to 1 $`\sigma `$ observational uncertainties. Table 4 tabulates the list of the best-fit lens parameters and the corresponding minima of $`\chi ^2`$ divided by the number of degrees of freedom, $`N_{dof}`$. The best-fit CIE model (Figure 4a) to the observed images yields $`\chi _{min}^2/N_{dof}=161/3`$, which is not satisfactory from the statistical point of view. It is worth noting that both the best-fit lens parameters and the value of $`\chi _{min}^2/N_{dof}`$ are similar to those obtained by Keeton et al. (1998) using a singular isothermal ellipsoid or SIS with an external shear. The inclusion of an external shear field (CIE+ES: Figure 4b) does not improve the goodness of the fit significantly: we obtain $`\chi _{min}^2/N_{dof}=121/1`$. In contrast to these two cases, the dramatic improvement of the fit is attained if the galaxy center is a free parameter (CIE+LP: Figure 4c), yielding $`\chi _{min}^2/N_{dof}=13/1`$, although the predicted lens position (plus in panel c) deviates rather largely from the observed position.

Although none of the three different models considered here are statistically acceptable to reproduce the configuration of the current lens system in a precise manner, all models produce a similar mean separation between the four images, which is also similar to the observed image separation; our experiments show that the variation of the mean separation among the models is less than $`0.\mathrm{}1`$ at a fixed set of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. This in turn suggests that the limits on the geometry of the universe, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, are not significantly different in each model. This is more clearly seen in Figure 5, where we plot the likelihood $`L`$ normalized by its maximum value as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. In each model, the lower and upper lines show the flat $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ and open $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0)`$ universes, respectively. As is evident, each model yields a similar $`L`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ relation, showing a large probability at a small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ for the flat universe, whereas for the open universe, the probability stays below that for the flat universe. The largest probability is attained at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0`$ for all three cases. This may imply that the observed image configuration and the velocity dispersion of the lens system HST 14176$`+`$5226 is best reproduced at a large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$: formal 1 $`\sigma `$ lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the flat universe is about 0.9 and 2 $`\sigma `$ lower limit reads 0.26, 0.62, and 0.00 for the CIE, CIE+ES, and CIE+LP models, respectively (Table 4).

We further investigate the possible systematic effects on our lens models by changing the fiducial model parameters $`(\beta ,r_c)`$ and also by accounting for an additional lensing source. First, a $`1\sigma `$ shift of the mean $`\beta `$ while maintaining the error of $`\pm 0.2`$ corresponds to the more extremely anisotropic velocity fields with more tangential ($`\beta =0.0\pm 0.2`$) or radial ($`\beta =0.4\pm 0.2`$) motions of stars in the central region of the lens. We note here that the coefficients $`(a,b)`$ in equation (6) change accordingly, as ($`9.01\pm 2.05,1.14\pm 0.05`$) and ($`6.98\pm 2.82,1.00\pm 0.07`$), respectively. Although such extreme velocity fields are unlikely among local elliptical galaxies (Gerhard et al. 2001), our experiments suggest that the effect on the determination of the cosmological parameters is not so significant: the change in $`1\sigma `$ lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ amounts to only $`+0.10`$ and $`0.04`$ for the CIE model with $`\beta =0.0\pm 0.2`$ and $`\beta =0.4\pm 0.2`$, respectively (Table 4). It is also worth noting that $`2\sigma `$ lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is somewhat sensitive to this systematic effect, yielding no constraint for $`\beta =0.0\pm 0.2`$ and the change of $`0.66`$ for $`\beta =0.4\pm 0.2`$. Second, the decrease of a mean core radius $`r_c`$ by $`1\sigma `$ \[while maintaining the error of $`\pm 0.42`$ in $`\mathrm{log}r_c`$ ($`h^1`$ pc)\] yields the increase of lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by an amount of 0.04 ($`1\sigma `$) and 0.62 ($`2\sigma `$), whereas the $`1\sigma `$ increase of $`r_c`$ yields no allowable $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ lower limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Third, we consider an additional uniform sheet of lensing matter to the CIE model (CIE+SHEET in Table 4). This approximates the effect of a possible intervening matter on the lens system as provided by a foreground cluster or group of galaxies (e.g., Turner, Ostriker, & Gott 1984), although there exists no evidence for a significant enhancement of galaxies in the HST image of HST 14176$`+`$5226 (Ratnatunga et al. 1995; 1999; Knudson et al. 2001). The surface density of the sheet is characterized by a fixed convergence, $`\kappa _s`$, in units of the critical surface density for lensing, so that the total number of model parameters while restricting the universe to be flat is five. Taking into account the fact that the lens appears not to reside in the central part of a cluster of galaxies and that there is no evidence for arc-like features in the field of view, $`\kappa _s`$ is expected to be much below 1. We take 0.1 as a possibly largest limit for $`\kappa _s`$, which approximately corresponds to a central surface density of a rich cluster (Turner, Ostriker, & Gott 1984). It follows that the additional uniform sheet with $`\kappa _s=0.1`$ to the CIE model yields the decrease of lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by an amount of 0.20 ($`1\sigma `$) and no allowable $`2\sigma `$ limit.

Our experiments thus suggest that the systematics in our lens models affect the confidence interval for reproducing the observed image configuration and velocity dispersion of the lens system HST 14176$`+`$5226, whereby 1 $`\sigma `$ lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the flat universe ranges 0.73 to 0.97, whereas 2 $`\sigma `$ lower limit is basically unavailable. Although this is statistically not justified for concluding the presence of a large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it is worth noting that in whatever models considered here, the larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yields the larger likelihood for reproducing the current lens system.

## 5 Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The current methodology for determining cosmological parameters is quite insensitive to both dust absorption and evolutionary correction in a lens system. The ambiguity associated with the effects of dust absorption, if any, in the lens concerns the current method in only an indirect manner, through the calibrations of, e.g., the galaxy center, effective radius, and surface-brightness weighted average of $`\sigma _{los}^2`$, where all of the associated errors are expected to be trivial or well within uncertainties of mass models. Also, since we have not utilized the lens magnitude in deriving the velocity dispersion of the lens, our analysis exempts from the ambiguity associated with the luminosity evolution of the lens galaxy, unlike Im et al. (1997). We suspect that the ambiguity involved in utilizing the photometric data is rather significant due to the following considerations. We adopt the Poggianti (1997) work for k-corrections and her E and E2 models for evolution of ellipticals with a current age of 15 Gyr, where e-folding times for star formation rate are 1 Gyr and 1.4 Gyr, respectively. Then, the available photometric data ($`V=21.74`$: Ratnatunga et al. 1999, $`BV=1.4`$: Crampton et al. 1996) in conjunction with the Faber-Jackson relation between central velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ and absolute $`B`$ magnitude $`M_B`$, $`\sigma =225`$ km s-1 $`\times 10^{0.1(M_B^{}M_B)}`$, where $`M_B^{}=19.9+5\mathrm{log}h`$ (Im et al. 1997), yield $`\sigma `$ of 241 km s-1 (E) and 183 km s-1 (E2) for the cosmological parameters of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },h)=(1,0,0.43)`$ (giving the age of the universe of 15 Gyr). Thus, the velocity dispersion derived in this manner is sensitive to galaxy evolution models and its possible range is well beyond the error of the spectroscopic measurements.

We also note that the critical assumption behind our analysis is that the lens galaxy at $`z_L=0.81`$ is already in dynamical equilibrium. This appears to be well guaranteed, because various lines of observational evidence, including the analyses of the Mg indices vs. $`\sigma `$ relation (Ziegler & Bender 1997; Bernardi et al. 1998) and fundamental plane (van Dokkum et al. 1998) of remote ellipticals, have revealed a much higher redshift for the formation epoch of elliptical galaxies, typically at $`z3`$.

The principal source of ambiguities in the current methodology is the variety of possible mass models which equally fit to a lens system. Although the relative significance of this effect is partially diminished by carefully selecting the preferable combination of $`(z_L,z_S)`$ so as to make the distance ratio $`D_{ls}/D_s`$ being sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (as demonstrated in Figure 1), the large variety in mass models remains unavoidable. Within the range of our mass models, $`1\sigma `$ lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ varies about 0.2 and there exists a much larger variation in $`2\sigma `$ lower limit. Furthermore, we are unable to set a meaningful upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Our mass models for the lens of HST 14176$`+`$5226 have an isothermal density profile ($`\rho r^n`$ with $`n=2`$), which is statistically in good agreement with general properties of field ellipticals (e.g. Rix et al. 1997; Gerhard et al. 2001). Although the deviation from $`n=2`$ appears to be small in most ellipticals (Gerhard et al. 2001), the smaller (larger) exponent than 2 yields larger (smaller) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, because the total mass of the lens interior to the location of the background lensed images decreases (increases). Effects of non-spherical mass density and/or luminosity density in stellar dynamics may be most uncertain to quantify, because these have not been fully studied yet (e.g. Keeton et al. 1997). Although a detailed examination of the issue is well beyond the scope of this work, it will be important to explore more extensive modeling of internal dynamics of elliptical galaxies for the application of lensing studies.

HST 14176$`+`$5226 is one of the ideal sites for applying the current methodology, mainly because of the high redshift of the lens galaxy. In addition to this lens system, in order to minimize the uncertainties associated with the mass models and/or the individual nature of the galaxy, it is important to measure velocity dispersions for more sample lenses at high redshift, thereby placing a tighter and less uncertain constraint on the world model. We note that the use of Einstein ring systems may significantly improve the accuracy of the lens modeling which brings about a much more severe constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this regard, it is worth noting that in the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane, the current method provides a constraint roughly along the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }const.`$ line in the range $`0\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, i.e. crossing the constraints given by Type Ia results ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_m+const.`$) and by CMB results ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_m+const.`$). Thus, along with these other cosmological observations, the current method also provides useful information on the combination of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Also, in addition to the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ itself, further observations of various lens systems can be used to derive a useful constraint on the time variability of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (Futamase & Yoshida 2001; Yamamoto & Futamase 2001) or quintessence (Caldwell et al. 1998), by employing lenses at various redshifts; to reveal time dependence or independence of the cosmological constant or dark energy shall offer a great impact not only on cosmology but also on theoretical physics.

We are grateful to all members of the Subaru Telescope, NAOJ, Japan, for their support of the observations. We are also grateful to many of our colleagues for useful discussion and comments on this work. T.H. thanks G. Börner and M. Bartelmann for the hospitality during his stay at Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik where a part of the present work was performed. He also acknowledges support from Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Numerical computation in the present work was partly carried out at the Yukawa Institute Computer Facility.


text:
# Phase separation and vortex states in binary mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates in the trapping potentials with displaced centers

*

(24 January 2002)

## Abstract

The system of two simultaneously trapped codensates consisting of $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ atoms in two different hyperfine states is investigated theoretically in the case when the minima of the trapping potentials are displaced with respect to each other. It is shown that the small shift of the minima of the trapping potentials leads to the considerable displacement of the centers of mass of the condensates, in agreement with the experiment. It is also shown that the critical angular velocities of the vortex states of the system drastically depend on the shift and the relative number of particles in the condensates, and there is a possibility to exchange the vortex states between condensates by shifting the centers of the trapping potentials.

The experimental realization of Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC) in trapped alkali-atoms gases at ultralow temperatures offers new opportunities for studying quantum degenerate fluids  ;  ;  . The art of manipulating these condensates, which contain thousands of atoms confined to microscale clouds, achieved very high level now. Creation of vortices in one stir2000  and two-component BEC bose\_vor ; wilhol  of $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ atoms is the amazing example of this art.

In this article we focus on the properties of the two-component BEC in the trap in which the trapping potentials for each component are displaced with respect to each other in the vertical direction dhall . The condensate consists of the simultaneously trapped otherwise identical atoms of $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ in two different hyperfine spin states $`|1>`$ and $`|2>`$ ($`|1>`$ and $`|2>`$ denote the $`|F=1,m_f=1>`$ and $`|2,1>`$ spin states of $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ atoms respectively) dhall ; twocom1 ; twocom2 . The scattering lengths of the states $`|1>`$ and $`|2>`$ are known to be in proportion $`a_{11}:a_{12}:a_{22}=1.03:1.0:0.97`$ with the average of the three being $`55(3)\AA `$ dhall ; twocom1 ; twocom2 .

The double condensate system was prepared from the single $`|1>`$ condensate by driving a two-photon transition which transfers any desired fraction of the atoms to the $`|2>`$ state by selecting the length and amplitude of the two-photon pulse twocom1 . The rotating magnetic field of the time-averaged orbiting potential (TOP) trap gave the possibility to displace the minima of the trapping potentials $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ with respect to each other. When the minima of the trapping potentials were not shifted, the $`|1>`$ atoms formed a shell about the $`|2>`$ atoms dhall . This case has been discussed theoretically in crt1 ; crt2 . If the minima of the trapping potentials $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are displaced from each other by a distance which is small compared to the size of the total condensate the resulting separation of the centers of mass of the condensates is much larger dhall . In this paper we provide for an analytical explanation of this result.

In order to explore the boundary between the two condensates, we begin with the analysis of their behaviour in the framework of the Thomas-Fermi Approximation (TFA), which ignores the kinetic energy terms in the Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the condensate wave functions gp . It has been shown that in the case of one component condensates the TFA results agree well with the numerical calculations for large particle numbers, except for a small region near the boundary of the condensate tfa1 ; tfa2 . In fact, even for small numbers of particles TFA still usually gives qualitatively correct results.

In the dimensionless variables, the Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the condensates in the harmonic traps may be written in the form crt1 ; crt2 :

$``$ $`_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\psi _1^{}+(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}+z_0^{})^2)\psi _1^{}`$
$``$ $`\mu _1^{}\psi _1^{}+u_1|\psi _1^{}|^2\psi _1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi a_{12}N_2}{a_{}}}|\psi _2^{}|^2\psi _1^{}=0;`$
$``$ $`\beta ^2_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\psi _2^{}+(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}z_0^{})^2)\psi _2^{}`$
$``$ $`\mu _2^{}\psi _2^{}+u_2\beta ^2|\psi _2^{}|^2\psi _2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi a_{12}N_1}{a_{}}}|\psi _1^{}|^2\psi _2^{}=0;`$ (2)
Here $`\psi _i(𝐫)=\sqrt{N_i/a_{}^3}\psi _i^{}(𝐫^{})`$, $`\psi _i(𝐫)`$ being the wave function of the species $`i`$ of a two-species condensate ($`i=1,2`$). $`\lambda =\omega _z/\omega `$. $`𝐫=a_{}𝐫^{}`$, where $`a_{}=\left(\mathrm{}/m\omega \right)^{1/2}`$. $`\omega `$ is the trapping frequency. $`\mu _i^{}=2\mu _i/\mathrm{}\omega `$, where $`\mu _i`$ is the chemical potential of the species $`i`$. The chemical potentials $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are determined by the relations $`d^3|\psi _i|^2=N_i`$. $`u_i`$ is given by $`u_i=8\pi a_{ii}N_i/a_{}`$. The wave function $`\psi _i^{}(𝐫^{})`$ is normalized to $`1`$. $`z_0^{}`$ denotes the shift of the minimum of the trapping potential in the vertical direction.

Equations (Phase separation and vortex states in binary mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates in the trapping potentials with displaced centers) and (2) were obtained by minimization of the energy functional of the trapped bosons given by:

$`E^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^3r^{}[N_1|^{}\psi _1^{}|^2+N_2\beta ^2|^{}\psi _2^{}|^2+`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`N_1(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}+z_0^{})^2)|\psi _1^{}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_1u_1|\psi _1^{}|^4+`$
$`+`$ $`N_2(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}z_0^{})^2)|\psi _2^{}|^2+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_2u_2\beta ^2|\psi _2^{}|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi a_{12}}{a_{}}}N_1N_2|\psi _1^{}|^2|\psi _2^{}|^2].`$
Here the energy of the system $`E`$ is related to $`E^{}`$ by $`E=\mathrm{}\omega E^{}`$

In the TFA, Eqs. (Phase separation and vortex states in binary mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates in the trapping potentials with displaced centers), (2) and (3) can be further simplified by omitting the kinetic energy terms. In the framework of TFA the phase segregated condensates do not overlap, so we can neglect the last terms in Eqs. (Phase separation and vortex states in binary mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates in the trapping potentials with displaced centers), (2) and (3), obtaining simple algebraic equations:

$`|\psi _1^{}(𝐫^{})|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_1}}(\mu _1^{}(r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}+z_0^{})^2))\times `$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu _1^{}(r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}+z_0^{})^2))\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}z_0^{})^2\mu _2^{}\right);`$
$`|\psi _2^{}(𝐫^{})|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_2}}(\mu _2^{}(r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}z_0^{})^2))\times `$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu _2^{}(r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}z_0^{})^2))\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda ^2(z^{}+z_0^{})^2\mu _1^{}\right).`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the unit step function and $`\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. If $`z_0^{}=0`$, from Eqs. (4) and (5) one can see that the condensate density has the ellipsoidal form. This case has been considered in detail in Refs. crt1 ; crt2 .

In the case of phase separation, the energy of the system can be written in the form crt1 ; crt2  $`E=E_1+E_2`$, where

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega N_1\left[\mu _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1{\displaystyle d^3r^{}|\psi _1^{}|^4}\right],`$ (6)
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega N_2\left[\mu _2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_2{\displaystyle d^3r^{}|\psi _2^{}|^4}\right].`$ (7)
To determine the position of the boundary between the condensates, we use the condition of thermodynamic equilibrium landau : the pressures exerted by both condensates must be equal: $`P_1=P_2.`$ Pressure is given by pitaevskii : $`P_i=G_{ii}|\psi _i|^4/2,`$ where $`G_{ii}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{ii}/m_i.`$ Using these equations one can obtain the equation for the phase boundary:

$$r_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+\left(\lambda z^{\prime \prime }\frac{\alpha (\kappa +1)}{\kappa 1}\right)^2=R^2,$$
(8)
where $`z^{}=\sqrt{\mu _1^{}}z^{\prime \prime },r^{}=\sqrt{\mu _1^{}}r^{\prime \prime },r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},\alpha =\lambda z_0^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\kappa =\sqrt{a_{11}/a_{22}}`$, and

$$R^2=\frac{\mu _1^{}\kappa \mu _2^{}}{\mu _1^{}(1\kappa )}+\frac{4\alpha ^2\kappa }{(\kappa 1)^2}.$$
(9)
From Eqs. (8) and (9) one can easily understand why the small displacement of the centers of the trapping potentials leads to the significant resulting separation of the centers of mass of the condensates dhall . The basic physics of this amplification of the trap center difference comes from the two possible final configurations of the mixture and that the system is $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞}`$ to the “critical point” that separates the two final configurations. The two configurations are the symmetric one where one component is inside and the other component is outside and the asymmetric oneohb98 ; chui99 ; ao98  where the two components are on opposite sides. The former configuration is favored when $`\kappa =\sqrt{a_{11}/a_{22}}`$ is different from one, with the less repulsive component in the middle where the density is higher. The asymetric configuration possess a lower interface energy and is favored when $`\kappa `$ is close to one. We found that in the Thomas-Fermi approximation, when the trapping frequencies for the two components are the same, the amplification factor is proportional to $`1/(\kappa 1)`$.

From Eqs. (8)-(9) the evolution of the system upon increasing $`\alpha `$ may be described as follows: for $`\alpha =0`$ condensate 1 forms the shell about the ellipsoidal condensate 2. The semiaxis of this ellipsoid is given by Eq. (8) for $`\alpha =0`$. Upon increasing $`\alpha `$ the inner ellipsoid moves upwards, while external one moves down. It may be shown that they touch each other for the critical value of $`\alpha `$: $`\alpha _c=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{\mu _2^{}}{\mu _1^{}}}\right)`$. For $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$ phase boundary (8) intersect boundaries of condensates at the points with coordinates:

$`\lambda z_c^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\kappa 1}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa 1)(R^21)}{4\alpha \kappa }},`$ (10)
$`r_{1,2}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{1(\lambda z_c^{\prime \prime }+\alpha )^2},`$ (11)
which can be obtained from Eqs. (4)-(8). Critical value $`\alpha _c`$ is a function of the ratio $`N_2/N_1`$.

Using normalization condition $`|\psi _i^{}(𝐫^{})|^2d^3r^{}=1`$, one can determine the chemical potentials $`\mu _i^{}`$ as functions of $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$, and $`\alpha `$. Analytical expressions for $`\mu _i^{}`$ are different for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ and for $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$. In the former case one has:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu _1^{})^{(5/2)}}{(\mu _1^0)^{(5/2)}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{5}{2}R^3[1\gamma ^2]+\frac{3}{2}R^5}},`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu _1^{})^{(5/2)}}{(\mu _2^0)^{(5/2)}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{R^3}{3}[\frac{\mu _2^{}}{\mu _1^{}}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2]\frac{R^5}{5}}},`$ (13)
where $`\mu _i^0=\left(\frac{15\lambda u_i}{8\pi }\right)^{2/5},\gamma =\frac{2\alpha \kappa }{\kappa 1},\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\gamma /\kappa .`$ In the limit $`\alpha 0`$ one has the results obtained in our previous papers for the non-displaced potential crt1 ; crt2 . In the case $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$ the formulas for $`\mu _1^{}`$ and $`\mu _2^{}`$ obtained after tedious but straightforward calculations are rather cumbersome and will be given elsewhere. In this article we discuss the results of calculations. To be specific, we will use the parameters corresponding to the experiments on $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ atoms $`a_{}=2.4\times 10^4cm`$, $`N=N_1+N_2=0.5\times 10^6`$ atoms, $`\lambda =\sqrt{8}`$.

In Fig.1 we show the density profiles of the condensates (see Eqs. (4) and (5)) as functions of the vertical coordinate $`z`$ for $`r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$ and $`N_1=N_2`$. In this case $`\alpha _c=0.0047`$. Fig.1(a) illustrates the experimental situation dhall : $`\alpha =0.03`$ (approximately 3% of the extent of the density distribution in the vertical direction) is larger than the critical value $`\alpha _c`$, and condensates are completely separated in vertical direction in accordance with the experiment dhall . In the case $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ the condensate $`N_2`$ is inside the condensate $`N_1`$. It should be noted that rather small shifts of the trapping potential centers with respect to each other produce considerable displacements of the condensates. The condensates in Fig.1 does not overlap because, as was mentioned earlier, in the framework of TFA it is impossible to describe the overlapping of the condensates.

Another interesting question is how the vortex states change when the minima of the trapping potentials $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are displaced with respect to each other. In a frame rotating with the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ along the $`z`$-axis the energy functional of the system is:

$`E_{rot}(l_1,l_2)`$ $`=`$ $`E(\psi _{l_1},\psi _{l_2})+`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r(\psi _{l_1}^{}+\psi _{l_2}^{})i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\psi _{l_1}+\psi _{l_2})},`$
where $`\psi _{l_j}(𝐫)=|\psi _{l_j}(𝐫)|e^{il_j\varphi }`$ is the wave function for the vortex excitation with angular momentum $`\mathrm{}l_j`$. In the TFA, the vortex induced change in condensate density is negligible fetter  (hydrodynamic approximation).

In the case of the phase segregated condensate, one finds from Eqs. (14) and (6-7) that the energy change due to presence of the vortices $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_{rot}(l_1,l_2)E_{rot}(0,0)`$ has the form crt1 ; crt2 :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{N_1}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{N_2}=`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega N_1{\displaystyle d^3r^{}\left(\frac{l_1^2}{\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}|\psi _1^{}|^2\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }l_1}{\omega }|\psi _1^{}|^2\right)}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega N_2{\displaystyle d^3r^{}\left(\frac{l_2^2}{\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}|\psi _2^{}|^2\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }l_2}{\omega }|\psi _2^{}|^2\right)}.`$
In the hydrodynamic limit $`\psi _i^{}`$ is given by Eqs. (4) and (5).

In the case $`\alpha =0`$ critical velocities as functions of ratio $`N_2/N_1`$ have been calculated in crt1 . It was shown that for all values of $`N_2/N_1`$, the critical velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_2}`$ of the inner condensate is lower than the critical velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_1}`$ of the outer one. So upon increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a vortex will appear first in the external condensate. However, if for given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one shifts the centers of the trapping potentials with respect to each other in the vertical direction, the inner condensate floats to the surface. In this case one can expect that the critical velocities of the condensates become closer and even can be equal for some values of $`\alpha `$ and $`N_2/N_1`$.

As in the case of the chemical potentials, the expressions for the critical velocities have different analytical forms for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ and for $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$, the latter being rather cambersome. For $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ the critical velocities are given by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_1}}{\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5l_1(\mu _1^{})^{(3/2)}}{2(\mu _1^0)^{(5/2)}}}\{(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _1^{}}{l_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}})`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}R[(1\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{3}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2R\mu _1^{}}{l_1}}`$
$``$ $`(1\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{9}})]\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_2}}{\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15l_2(\mu _1^{})^{(3/2)}R}{4(\mu _2^0)^{(5/2)}}}[({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2^{}}{\mu _1^{}}}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{3}})\times `$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2R\sqrt{\mu _1^{}\mu _2^{}}}{l_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2^{}}{\mu _1^{}}}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{9}})].`$
Again, in the limit $`\alpha 0`$ one has the results obtained in our previous paper for the non-displaced potential crt1 .

Figure 2 shows the behaviour of critical velocities as functions of $`\alpha `$ for different values of $`N_2/N_1`$. Dashed lines correspond to the inner condensate, solid lines - to outer one. From Fig.2(c) one can see that the critical velocities really can intersect. Physically this means that there is a possibility to exchange the vortex states between condensates by shifting the centers of the trapping potentials with respect to each other for fixed angular velocities.

In summary, we investigated the behaviour of simultaneously trapped codensates consisting of $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ atoms in two different hyperfine states. It is shown that the small shift of the minima of the trapping potentials with respect to each other leads to the considerable displacement of the centers of mass of the condensates in agreement with the experiment dhall . It is also shown that the critical angular velocities of the vortex states of the condensates drastically depend on the shift and relative number of particles in the condensates. The predicted exchange of the vortex states between the condensates as a function of the shift remains to be studied experimentally.

This work is supported in part by NATO Grant No. PST.CLG.976038. V.N.R. and E.E.T. are grateful to Bartyol Research Institute of the University of Delaware for hospitality.

Figures captions

Fig.1.Density profiles of the condensates as functions of the vertical coordinate $`z`$ for $`N_1=N_2`$. Figure (a) corresponds to $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$ and figures (b)-(c) – to $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$. Solid lines correspond to the $`|1>`$ atoms and dashed lines - to the $`|2>`$ atoms.

Fig.2. Critical velocities of outer condensate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_1}/\omega `$ and the inner condensate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_2}/\omega `$ as functions of $`\alpha `$ for different values of $`N_2/N_1`$. Dashed lines correspond to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_2}/\omega `$ and solid lines - to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_1}/\omega `$.