text:
# An H𝛼 survey of the rich cluster A 1689

## 1 Introduction

There is an increasing body of observational evidence that star formation in the cores of galaxy clusters is much lower than that in the surrounding field, whatever the redshift (e.g., Balogh et al., 1997, 1998; Poggianti et al., 1999; Martin et al., 2000; Couch et al., 2001, hereafter Paper I). Although there is evidence that higher redshift clusters have a larger population of late-type, current or recently star-forming galaxies than local clusters (e.g., Butcher & Oemler, 1984; Couch et al., 1998; Dressler et al., 1997; Margoniner et al., 2001; Kodama & Bower, 2001), a similar increase in activity is also seen in the field (Lilly et al., 1995; Madau et al., 1996; Cowie et al., 1999). Thus, the increase in cluster activity with redshift could simply reflect this, modulated by the changing rate of infall onto the clusters (Bower, 1991; Ellingson et al., 2001).

However, most of the spectroscopic evidence for current or recent star formation in moderate to high redshift clusters comes from observations of the \[Oii\]$`\lambda `$3727 emission line. Unfortunately, \[Oii\] emission is sensitive to both metallicity effects and dust extinction (Kennicutt, 1998; Jansen et al., 2000), and in both these respects the H$`\alpha `$ emission line provides a superior indicator of star formation. At moderate redshifts, however, H$`\alpha `$ is redshifted into a wavelength regime dominated by bright sky lines, and its observation requires selecting a cluster for which H$`\alpha `$ lies in a window between these lines (Paper I; Balogh & Morris, 2000).

There remains the intriguing possibility that a substantial amount of star formation (in clusters and elsewhere) is obscured by dust, thus rendering even H$`\alpha `$ surveys incomplete (Blain et al., 1999; Smail et al., 1999; Dwarakanath & Owen, 1999; Poggianti & Wu, 2000). Dust heated by star formation activity will radiate at mid-infrared (MIR) wavelengths, and thus such optically-obscured star formation may be recovered in MIR surveys. Evidence suggests that most of the MIR emission in local spiral galaxies is due to star formation (Genzel et al., 1998; Lutz et al., 1998; Fadda et al., 2002; Roussel et al., 2001), but this is still controversial because the spectral shape of any contribution to the MIR from AGN-heated dust is uncertain (Tran et al., 2001). If most of the MIR emission originates from starburst-heated dust, then observations suggest that much of the star formation in the universe is optically obscured by this dust (Rowan-Robinson et al., 1997; Flores et al., 1999; Roche & Eales, 1999; Rigopoulou et al., 2000). Further complicating the issue is that the MIR population evolves strongly with redshift, which could indicate that the relative contributions of AGN- and starburst-heated dust are strongly redshift dependent (Almaini et al., 1999; Fabian & Iwasawa, 1999; Alexander et al., 2001; Wilman et al., 2000). Such complications make the analysis and interpretation of current MIR surveys time-consuming.

Recently, Fadda et al. (2000) presented ISOCAM observations of the $`z=0.18`$ cluster A 1689 at 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ and 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$. At the cluster redshift, the 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ filter covers the tail of stellar emission and aromatic carbon compounds associated with star formation, while the 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ filter is dominated by the hot dust continuum. Fadda et al. (2000) showed that A 1689 contains an excess of 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ sources relative to local clusters, suggesting that the cluster hosts a population of dusty starburst galaxies. We observed A 1689 in April 2001, with the upgraded Low Dispersion Survey Spectrograph (LDSS++, Glazebrook & Bland-Hawthorn, 2001) on the 3.9m Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), as part of a larger program to measure H$`\alpha `$ in a diverse sample of four $`z0.20.3`$ clusters (see Paper I for initial results). Our observational technique allows deep, efficient measurements of H$`\alpha `$ to be made, and moreover gives precise dynamical information and allows us to identify the presence of AGN from the relative strength of the adjacent \[Nii\] line. In this paper we present the results of these observations, comparing the population of emission line galaxies with the surrounding field and also our previously published H$`\alpha `$ survey of the $`z=0.31`$ cluster AC114 (Paper1) . These observations include 29 galaxies which were detected in the MIR by Fadda et al. (2000), which provides the opportunity to compare H$`\alpha `$ and MIR fluxes for a well defined, volume-limited sample.

The paper is organized as follows. Our spectroscopic observations with LDSS++, including the measurement of H$`\alpha `$ and the statistical correction for the sampling strategy, are described in §2.1. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations are described in §2.2, and the data catalogue is presented in §2.3. In §3 we present the H$`\alpha `$ detections and their dependence on cluster radius, galaxy morphology, and MIR luminosity. The implications of the results are discussed in detail in §4, and summarized in the conclusions, §5. Throughout the paper we assume a cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, and parameterise the Hubble parameter as $`H_{}=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1.

## 2 Observations, Reductions and Analysis

### 2.1 LDSS++ Spectroscopy

#### 2.1.1 Mask design and observations

The observations were made on the nights of 2001 April 23-24, using the LDSS$`++`$ on the AAT. We use the nod-and-shuffle technique described in Paper I, which allows for high-precision sky-subtraction in the presence of time-varying night-sky emission, and obviates the need for long slits (in order to get good sampling of the sky adjacent to the object); consequently, it is possible to work with very small apertures (circular micro-slits of 2″ diameter) in the focal plane mask and thus observe many more objects simultaneously. The dispersion is $`2.7`$ Å per pixel, with a spectral resolution $`8`$Å FWHM. As in Couch et al., we use a blocking filter to restrict our spectral coverage to the wavelength window in which the H$`\alpha `$ emission from cluster members would be seen, $`\lambda =7600`$Å–$`8000`$Å. This enables us to overlap microslits in the wavelength direction, and hence to further increase the multiplex gain. The average cluster redshift is $`z=0.183`$, with a velocity dispersion of $`\sigma 1989`$ km s-1 (Struble & Rood, 1999), although this latter value is likely inflated due to the presence of substructure along the line of sight (Girardi et al., 1997; Clowe & Schneider, 2001). The $`3\sigma `$ membership limits are then $`z=0.159`$$`0.206`$. H$`\alpha `$ will fall into our band limiting filter for $`z=0.158`$$`0.224`$; therefore we will detect H$`\alpha `$ in some background galaxies.

A single LDSS++ mask was created, with galaxy targets selected from a deep $`I`$-band image taken with the European Southern Observatory’s New Technology Telescope (NTT) in 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$9 seeing conditions. We first allocated slits to 34 MIR sources (29 of which turned out to be galaxies), the maximum number possible with a single mask, comprising 75% of the sample published by Fadda et al. (2000). The remaining slits were assigned randomly to galaxies brighter than $`I=22.5`$, with higher priority given to brighter galaxies. In total, we allocate 559 microslits over the full $`8.7^{}\times 8.7^{}`$ ($`1.1\times 1.1h^1`$Mpc at $`z=0.18`$) field-of-view of LDSS$`++`$.

The observations were obtained in reasonable weather conditions, with a total exposure time of 19.5 ks, of which half was on the objects and half on sky. To overcome the 50% losses due to having to obtain sky observations through the mask, we also experimented with placing mask holes in the position of the galaxy in the nominal “sky” position (5″ north of the target). However, none of these 76 positions yielded useful additional data, possibly due to guiding problems when off-target, so we have removed them from the present analysis. To ensure that our survey sampled even the most compact cluster members (e.g., Drinkwater et al., 1999), we were deliberately conservative in our star-galaxy separation, and subsequent comparison with HST imaging revealed 37 of our targets to be stars. Thus, our final sample consists of spectra for 522 galaxies.

The data reduction for nod-and-shuffle observations is very simple, requiring only that the spectra obtained from the two nodded positions be subtracted from one another. In Paper I we noted that differences in scattered light across the detector meant the continuum level in the sky-subtracted object was uncertain, and had to be corrected for. For the data in the present paper, we subtracted a surface fit to the background light on the detector, rejecting light from the slits themselves. This removes the scattered light problem, and no further correction was necessary. Wavelength calibration is based on four lines from a CuAr arc lamp.

#### 2.1.2 Flux Calibration

The conversion from detector counts to flux was achieved using the procedure described in Paper I. Nine galaxies with colours typical of early-type cluster members were identified, five of which are confirmed morphologically to be early-types. The galaxies are relatively isolated, and cover the magnitude range $`I=16.4`$$`18.4`$. The $`I`$-band flux within a 2″ diameter aperture, corresponding to our microslit size, is computed from the NTT image, convolved to match the $`2\mathrm{}`$ seeing of the spectroscopic observations. This is converted to flux units at $`\lambda =7700`$Å, assuming a spectral shape $`f_\nu \nu ^{2.2}`$, which is consistent with the observed $`VI1.6`$ colours of these galaxies. This flux is compared with the average counts per Å in the spectrum, over $`\lambda =7700`$Å–$`8000`$Å. The calibration factor is $`(2.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^{19}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 counts-1, where the uncertainty represents the scatter between the nine galaxies. Note that this calibration indicates a factor $`4.3`$ increase in sensitivity relative to our AC114 observations (Paper I), reflecting the superior seeing conditions and transparency during which the A 1689 data were obtained. Measurements are not corrected for aperture effects or dust extinction. We note that there is no apparent correlation of flux calibration with position on the detector, over and above the uncertainties of the calibration itself.

Star formation rates are calculated from H$`\alpha `$ luminosities $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$, using the relation $`\text{SFR}(M_{}\text{yr}^1)=2.0\times 10^{41}L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }(\text{ergs s}^1)`$ including 1 magnitude of dust extinction (Kennicutt, 1998). Note that, throughout this paper, H$`\alpha `$ fluxes are presented as measured, while this average, estimated dust correction is applied to the star formation rates.

#### 2.1.3 H$`\alpha `$ Detection and measurement

As in Paper I, the detection of H$`\alpha `$ emission lines in our spectra was done manually. Each spectrum was examined in its 2-D and optimally extracted 1-D form, while blinking with the corresponding sky spectrum. At the cluster redshift $`z=0.181`$, H$`\alpha `$ lies in the middle of a forest of OH emission lines in the night sky spectrum. However, the nod-and-shuffle technique greatly reduces the number of night sky line residuals that remain over and above expected Poisson noise, after sky subtraction. In addition, the 2-D images are very useful for distinguishing real emission lines from noise fluctuations near bright sky lines, as the flux from real features is spread over more pixels.

Each spectrum was first examined and classified independently by MLB and WJC. The two lists were then compared, and discrepancies were re-examined. The majority of discrepancies were quickly resolved. Case I galaxies are those with a clear H$`\alpha `$ detection, and at least one other emission line to confirm that the identification is correct. Usually these supporting lines were one of the \[Nii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$6548,6583 lines; sometimes the \[Sii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$6717,6731 lines were also visible. Emission lines with no supporting lines, or which could not be confidently distinguished from sky residuals, are defined as Case II, and are less secure detections. Where possible, we compared our detections with the redshifts subsequently published by Duc et al. (2002). This revealed only one H$`\alpha `$ identification (a Case II object) to be incorrect, as it was in fact an \[Oiii\]$`\lambda `$5007 emission line. Our remaining detections are consistent with the Duc et al. (2002) redshifts where available; in cases where the Duc et al.  redshift confirms a Case II detection, we upgrade the quality to Case I.

We then measure the strength of the H$`\alpha `$ and adjacent \[Nii\] lines by fitting a line to the continuum blueward and redward of the three lines, and summing the flux above the continuum over the relevant line bandpass. Specifically, for H$`\alpha `$, we compare the flux at $`\lambda =6555`$ Å–$`6575`$Å with the fit to the continuum at $`\lambda =6510`$ Å–$`6540`$Å and $`\lambda =6590`$ Å–$`6620`$Å. For \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583, we define the feature at $`\lambda =6577`$ Å–$`6589`$Å, with the same continuum regions as $`H\alpha `$. The error vector is computed from the sky and object spectra, taking into account the gain (0.37 e- per ADU) and read noise (1.8 e- per pixel) of the detector. We use this error vector to calculate accurate uncertainties on the measured line fluxes. No correction is made for stellar absorption. Typically, the contribution from absorption is expected to be $`<5`$ Å (Kennicutt, 1992; Charlot et al., 2002), although the true correction depends on the past star formation history. The H$`\alpha `$ fluxes are only significantly ($`>20`$%) underestimated when the measured equivalent width is comparable to the absorption correction.

The spectra are sky-noise dominated; thus the r.m.s. in a feature-free region of the continuum gives a reasonable estimate of the noise level, independent of galaxy flux. Indeed, we find the r.m.s. of a random sample of galaxies to be approximately constant, at $`40`$ counts per pixel, although there is some dependence on wavelength, due to the presence of bright emission lines in the sky spectrum. A typical H$`\alpha `$ emission line has a FWHM of $`6`$ pixels; a $`3\sigma `$ detection therefore corresponds to $`3\times 40/\sqrt{6}50`$ counts above the continuum. From the flux calibration computed in §2.1.2, our detection limit is thus approximately 1$`\times 10^{17}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2, or 4$`h^2\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1 at $`z=0.18`$. From Kennicutt (1998), including 1 magnitude of extinction, this flux corresponds to a star formation rate of 0.008 $`h^2M_{}`$ yr-1. We therefore expect that H$`\alpha `$ emission from galaxies with star formation rates comparable to that of the Milky Way ($`3M_{}`$ yr-1), will be detected unless they are obscured by more than seven magnitudes of extinction at H$`\alpha `$. This work represents the deepest H$`\alpha `$ observations at $`z0`$ to date; locally the only observations which are comparable in depth are the very recent data on Coma and Abell 1367, by Iglesias-Páramo et al. (2002).

#### 2.1.4 Statistical Weights

To reliably compute global properties of the cluster our galaxy sample needs to be weighted by two factors. The first, which we call the sampling rate, accounts for the fact that only a fraction of the galaxies in the $`I`$selected sample were observed spectroscopically. In addition, some fraction of the galaxies observed, but for which H$`\alpha `$ was not detected, will not be cluster members, but rather belong to the foreground or background field. This “membership” correction is only applicable to galaxies which are not detected in H$`\alpha `$, since their redshifts are unknown. Both of these weights depend on galaxy $`I`$-magnitude and projected radius from the cluster centre.

The sampling rate as a function of $`I`$ magnitude is shown in Figure 1a. All galaxies need to be weighted by the inverse of this fraction, to account for the frequency of such galaxies in a complete, magnitude limited spectroscopic survey. To determine the membership correction, we compare the number counts in our $`I`$-band image with the field number counts of Metcalfe et al. (2001). The expected fraction of cluster members determined in this way is also shown in Figure 1a. Some of that expected fraction are actually detected in H$`\alpha `$; thus, to determine the fraction of H$`\alpha `$-undetected galaxies which are expected to be cluster members we need to subtract the fraction of detected galaxies from the expected fraction of cluster members. We present this in Figure 1b, where the fraction of H$`\alpha `$-detected galaxies is shown as a function of $`I`$-band magnitude. The solid points show the difference between the cluster membership fraction and the detected fraction; this gives the fraction of galaxies undetected in H$`\alpha `$ that are expected to be members.

The combination of these two luminosity-dependent weights (depending on whether or not H$`\alpha `$ is detected) is called $`w_{lum}`$. A similar weight, $`w_{rad}`$, is computed to correct for the variation in sampling and membership with radius, as shown in Figure 1c. We renormalise $`w_{rad}`$ so that the sum of the total galaxy weights, $`w_{lum}\times w_{rad}`$, is equal to the sum of $`w_{lum}`$.

There is potentially another selection bias, as radial annuli are incomplete at radii beyond $`175`$ arcsec, due to the rectangular geometry of the detector. Thus, galaxies at large radii are underrepresented in the photometric catalogue. In the absence of a strong radial gradient, however (see §3.2), this does not have a significant effect on our results.

### 2.2 Hubble Space Telescope Data

The HST WFPC2 imaging of A 1689 was obtained from the ST-ECF archive. These data come from the Cycle 5 programme, GO 5993, and comprise a total of 30 orbits exposure on 15 pointings spread across a $`7.5^{}\times 10.0^{}`$ field centred on the cluster core. Each of the 15 pointings was observed in two exposures totalling 2.3 ks in the F814W ($`I_{814}`$) passband and a further two exposures totalling 1.8 ks through the F606W ($`V_{606}`$) filter. These four exposures were each spatially offset by integer pixel shifts. Unfortunately, with only two exposures in a given passband it is difficult to reliably reject cosmic ray events and hot pixels when processing the images. For this reason we chose the unusual step of combining both passbands into a single composite F606W+F814W image. This combination benefits from the close similarity of galaxies between the two passbands; for galaxies at the redshift of the cluster the range in colours is only $`V_{606}I_{814}=0.7`$–1.1 for SEDs spanning Scd to E/S0. Thus by suitably scaling the two passbands we can combine them to produce cosmetically clean images for the bulk of the galaxies used in our analysis. These data have been previously used in the analysis of ISOCAM sources in the field of A 1689 by Duc et al. (2002).

We subsequently calibrate this image onto the $`I`$-band using our ground-based imaging, which also provides absolute astrometric calibration. The final mosaic covers a field of 69 sq. arcmin with 0.17′′ resolution, a per-pixel exposure time of 4.1 ks and an effective point-source sensitivity limit of $`I26`$.

The morphologies of the brighter galaxies in the HST field ($`I<21`$) have been visually classified by one of us (WJC) onto the revised Hubble scheme used by the MORPHS project (see Smail et al., 1997). The presence of close neighbours, or signs of interactions such as tidal tails, were also noted.

### 2.3 The Catalogue

Our data and derived quantities are available electronically from MNRAS; a sample is shown in Table 1. Galaxies are identified by a unique number (column 1) and their J2000 coordinates (columns 2-3). The identification numbers below 50 correspond to the identification numbers in the MIR catalogue of Fadda et al. (2000). The $`I`$band magnitude is given in column 4 and, where H$`\alpha `$ is detected, we show the quality classification (I or II), redshift and flux in columns 5-7. The corresponding \[Nii\] flux is given in column 8, and derived star formation rates are in column 9. Morphological classifications, based on the HST images, are listed in column 10.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 H$`\alpha `$-Detected Galaxies

H$`\alpha `$ emission was detected in 60 of the 522 galaxies observed. Forty-six of these are Case I detections, 42 of which lie within $`z=0.159`$$`0.206`$ and are therefore associated with the cluster. Correcting for sampling frequency and cluster membership (§2.1.4), the fraction of Case I detections is $`24\pm 4`$%. This is comparable to the high fraction of blue galaxies brighter than $`R=22.7`$ (at least 15%, possibly as high as 25%) found by Duc et al. (2002).

The H$`\alpha `$ luminosity function (H$`\alpha `$LF) is shown in Figure 2, for both Case I and II detections. We impose a magnitude limit of $`I<22.5`$ and adopt a cluster membership criteria of $`z=0.159`$$`0.206`$. Applying the sampling and membership corrections as discussed in §2.1.4, to the 504 galaxies observed with $`I<22.5`$, we expect 328 cluster members in a complete sample to this depth. Considering only the Case I detections, the best fit Schechter (1976) parameters of this distribution are $`\alpha 0.1`$, $`L^{}10^{40.0}`$ ergs s-1, steeper and with a fainter $`L^{}`$ than the recently measured local cluster H$`\alpha `$LF ($`\alpha 0.7`$, $`L^{}10^{40.6}`$ ergs s-1, Iglesias-Páramo et al., 2002).

We now compare the cluster H$`\alpha `$LF with that of the field at $`z0.2`$, from the CFRS (Tresse & Maddox, 1998, hereafter TM98). To compute the normalisation, we first note that the luminosity range covered by the CFRS is similar to ours. The CFRS samples galaxies with $`23.5<M_{B_{AB}}<15.5`$ mag ($`h=1`$); using the typical colour of a Sbc galaxy at $`z=0.2`$ (Fukugita et al., 1995), this corresponds to $`25.6<M_I<17.6`$. The faint end of this limit corresponds to $`I=22.5`$, which is where we limit our sample. Over this luminosity range, TM98 find 110/131=$`84`$% of galaxies have H$`\alpha `$ flux greater than $`3\times 10^{39}h^2`$ ergs s-1. Thus, we normalise the CFRS H$`\alpha `$LF so that 275 galaxies (84% of 328) have luminosities greater than this limit. TM98 correct their observed fluxes for reddening on a galaxy-by-galaxy basis, while we choose to present our data uncorrected for reddening; thus, for comparison we reduce the CFRS H$`\alpha `$ fluxes by a factor of 2.0, corresponding to their average measured H$`\alpha `$ extinction. Finally, TM98 also estimate a correction for flux missed by their 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$75 aperture, which increases their fluxes by a factor which is 1.6 in the mean, but which can be as large as a factor of 4. As we do not correct for aperture effects, we reduce the CFRS H$`\alpha `$ fluxes by a uniform factor of 1.6, to make a more fair comparison with our 2″ apertures. Note that these corrections were not made in Paper I. The normalisation of the cluster H$`\alpha `$LF is low, relative to that of the field, by a factor of $`5`$. Thus the total amount of ongoing star formation in this cluster is much less than in the field, as found in most, if not all, high-density environments (e.g., Balogh et al., 1997; Poggianti et al., 1999; Martin et al., 2000, Paper1).

We also show a direct comparison with our previous work on AC114 (Paper I) in Figure 2. Our AC114 observations are statistically complete (after application of a luminosity-dependent weight to account for membership and selection fractions) to $`I=22.25`$ ($`M_R16.5+5\mathrm{log}h`$). In the cosmology we use, this luminosity limit in A 1689 corresponds to $`I=20.9`$, so the latter samples galaxies 1.6 mag less luminous than AC114. The AC114 H$`\alpha `$LF is normalized to a total of 244 cluster members, the weighted number of members in A 1689 brighter than $`I=20.9`$. Only Case I detections are considered.

The number of galaxies detected in H$`\alpha `$ is about two times larger in A 1689, than in AC114. The reason for this difference is not completely understood; both clusters have a large fraction of blue galaxies (10-20%, Couch & Sharples, 1987; Duc et al., 2002), and any effects of global evolution would lead to more star formation in the higher redshift cluster AC114, contary to what is observed. The most likely reason for the difference is in the dynamical state of the clusters. AC114 is highly elongated across the sky, but appears to be fairly relaxed. On the other hand, although A 1689 has a smooth, spherical X-ray morphology (Durret et al., 1994), there is clear evidence of substructure in the galaxy distribution along the line of sight (Girardi et al., 1997; Duc et al., 2002), and it appears to be a dynamically active (i.e. merging) cluster. We will explore this difference in detail in later work, when we compare the H$`\alpha `$ properties of all four morphologically diverse clusters in our program.

### 3.2 The Galaxy Distribution

The dynamical properties of the H$`\alpha `$ population are shown in Figure 3, where we compare the redshift distribution of the Class I H$`\alpha `$ detections with that of the magnitude limited, $`V`$selected spectroscopic survey of Duc et al. (2002). First, we point out that the velocity distribution of the cluster is highly non-Gaussian, with evidence for substructure in the foreground and background, as previously noted (Girardi et al., 1997). Thus, the virialized cluster is probably less massive than naively expected from the very high velocity dispersion of $`\sigma 1989`$ km s-1 (Struble & Rood, 1999); from weak lensing measurements, Clowe & Schneider (2001) find that the central structure is well fit as an isothermal sphere with $`\sigma =1028`$ km s-1. Most interestingly, the H$`\alpha `$ detections do not show a peak at the mean cluster redshift of $`z=0.183`$, but rather appear to be associated with the substructure at $`1600`$ km s-1 in front of and behind the cluster. They could either be associated with a galaxy population which is infalling at high velocity, or with approximately virialized subgroups $`20`$Mpc in front of and behind the main cluster. Either way, these galaxies are not virialized in the main cluster potential, but are likely to be in the process of being accreted. This provides good support for models in which cluster gradients in star formation activity is related to the infall of galaxies (e.g., Balogh et al., 2000; Ellingson et al., 2001). We also show in Figure 3 the redshift distribution of the galaxies detected in the MIR (Fadda et al., 2000). These galaxies show a similar distribution to the H$`\alpha `$ sample, suggesting that they are tracing the same population.

The spatial distribution of the targetted galaxies brighter than $`I=22.5`$ is shown in Figure 4. The H$`\alpha `$ detections in the low- and high-redshift substructures do not appear to correspond to spatially distinct structures in projected position. If they do correspond to foreground/background structures, then, both of these are spread across our full field of view.

In Figure 5 we show the weighted fraction of Class I H$`\alpha `$ detections as a function of distance from the central galaxy (#20), in Mpc. There is no evidence for a trend in the fraction of H$`\alpha `$ emitters with radius out to $`1`$h-1 Mpc. At all radii the fraction is less than $`50\%`$, well below that of the field at this redshift, $`85`$% (TM98). A 1689 is a very massive cluster, with an estimated virial radius of $`r_v2.8`$ Mpc, based on a velocity dispersion of 1028 km s-1 (Clowe & Schneider, 2001) and the virial $`r_v`$-$`\sigma `$ relation of Girardi et al. (1998). Thus, these observations are only probing the core, within 0.4$`r_v`$, which may explain the lack of a strong gradient in emission line galaxy fraction, relative to other studies (e.g., Balogh et al., 1997). Furthermore, we reiterate that the emission appears to be entirely restricted to the structures in the foreground and background of the main cluster, which serves to dilute any radial gradient present.

### 3.3 Galaxy Morphologies

HST imaging is available for 199 of the galaxies in our survey brighter than $`I=21`$. For purposes of presentation we have divided the galaxies into five classes: Elliptical (E), S0 (including E/S0 and S0/a), Sab (including Sa, Sb, Sab), Scd (including Sc, Sd, Scd and Irr) and Uncertain (usually because the galaxy lies at the edge of the HST field).

To determine the morphological distribution of the cluster population, it is necessary to correct for contamination from the foreground and background field. We will consider two ways of doing this. The first is to use the redshifts obtained by Duc et al. (2002), and to only consider galaxies within the redshift range $`z=0.159`$$`0.206`$. This limits our sample to 60 galaxies. The distribution of morphological types among confirmed cluster members is shown in the top panel of Figure 6a. The cluster is dominated by early-type galaxies; only 20$`\pm 6`$% of galaxies are of Hubble type Sa or later. In the bottom panel we show the fraction of each galaxy type that is detected in H$`\alpha `$. The detections are almost entirely restricted to spiral galaxies; only 3/46 (6.5%) of the early-type galaxies are securely detected in H$`\alpha `$.

Although the detection rate of spiral galaxies appears to be high, the uncertainties are large because of the small number (12) of late type galaxies in the sample. In particular, there are only 2 Scd-type galaxies, so the 100% detection rate is very uncertain. Another approach is to make a statistical correction similar to that used in §2.1.4, assuming a field morphological composition of 15% E, 20% E/S0, 30% Sab and 35% Scd as determined from the Medium Deep Survey morphological classifications to an equivalent magnitude limit to that considered here (Abraham et al., 1996; Glazebrook et al., 1995). We describe this procedure more thoroughly in the Appendix. In Figure 6b we show the analogue of Figure 6a, but now using the larger sample and statistically correcting for the field contribution. The conclusions are similar, and it is encouraging that the fraction of cluster spiral galaxies is 22$`\pm 4`$%, in excellent agreement with the fraction determined from the subsample with redshifts. The detection rate for H$`\alpha `$ emission from Sab and Scd galaxies is very high, greater than $`90`$%. The fraction of early type galaxies securely detected in H$`\alpha `$ remains below 10%. We therefore find no difference between the fraction of late-type cluster galaxies detected in H$`\alpha `$ and the high fractions seen in local field samples (Kennicutt, 1992; Jansen et al., 2000), a result we discuss in more detail in §4.

### 3.4 Mid-Infrared Sources

Of the 522 galaxies targeted, 29 were known MIR sources, from the ISOCAM observations of Fadda et al. (2000). Nineteen of these have measured redshifts $`z=0.158`$$`0.224`$, so any H$`\alpha `$ emission will lie within our observable wavelength range (although we note that galaxies at $`z>0.206`$ are behind the cluster as we have defined it). Another two MIR sources, which did not have known redshifts, were detected in H$`\alpha `$, bringing the total number of MIR sources which lie in the observable redshift range to 21.

MIR fluxes from Fadda et al. (2000) are available at 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ and 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ wavelengths, termed LW2 and LW3. Emission in the redder band comes predominantly from hot dust while the 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ fluxes are dominated by stellar emission and aromatic carbon compounds related to star formation in late-type galaxies. Normal spiral galaxies at $`z0.2`$ are expected to have typical flux ratios of $`L_{15\mu m}/L_{6.7\mu m}<3.2`$, while starburst galaxies should have relatively stronger 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ luminosities (Duc et al., 2002; Laurent et al., 2000). Spectra of dust-enshrouded AGN are also expected to be dominated by a hot dust component, with aromatic carbon bands similar to those seen in Hii regions (Tran et al., 2001). Although the dust temperature and grain size distribution are expected to be different depending on whether the heating mechanism is star formation or an AGN, it is not possible to distinguish the two mechanisms based only on the $`L_{15\mu m}/L_{6.7\mu m}`$ ratio (Laurent et al., 2000).

The MIR properties of the 21 ISO sources observed with LDSS++ are shown in Figure 7. All but two of these sources are detected at 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$, while only eight are detected at 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$. Half of the galaxies detected at 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ are unusually bright at 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$, relative to that expected for normal spiral galaxies. These spectra are likely dominated by a hot dust component, although it is not clear from these data alone whether the dust is heated by star formation or by nuclear activity. In Figure 8 we show the continuum-subtracted LDSS++ spectra of the eight 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ sources, and the 13 remaining galaxies detected only at 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$. Morphological and spectral classifications are labelled next to each spectrum. The spectral classifications are from Duc et al. (2002), while the morphologies are our own classifications.

Of the 13 MIR galaxies which are only detected at 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$, only 5 (38.5%) show H$`\alpha `$ emission. The remainder are early-type galaxies (E or S0), two of which clearly show H$`\alpha `$ in absorption. Thus it seems likely that the 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ light is dominated by stellar emission, and does not directly trace the hot dust component. In stark contrast with this, all eight of the 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$-detected sources are spiral galaxies securely detected in H$`\alpha `$. Thus, our deep H$`\alpha `$ survey recovers all the potentially-detected star forming galaxies found by ISOCAM.

From Figure 8b, it is evident that many of the 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ galaxies have atypical spectra in the region of H$`\alpha `$. ISO#41 has very broad H$`\alpha `$ emission and was previously identified as a Seyfert 1 galaxy (Duc et al., 2002). Object #31 has a particularly unusual H$`\alpha `$ line profile. H$`\alpha `$ emission is detected at 7729Å, corresponding to a redshift $`z=0.1777`$; however, the redshift given by Duc et al. (2002), 0.1757, places H$`\alpha `$ at the absorption trough at 7716Å. Therefore, it appears that the nebular emission is offset from the stellar absorption by $`500`$ km s-1. Three other galaxies, ISO#3, 10 and 37, show unusully strong \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583 emission; in Figure 9 we show the ratio of \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583 to H$`\alpha `$, as a function of H$`\alpha `$ luminosity, for all galaxies with H$`\alpha `$ fluxes above our detection limit. Note that the relative strength of \[Nii\] and H$`\alpha `$ are not accurately measured for the broad-lined Seyfert ISO#41, as our method is appropriate only for narrow lines. Galaxies detected with ISOCAM are shown with error bars. Veilleux & Osterbrock (1987) have shown that galaxies in which \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583/$`H\alpha >0.55`$ are almost always associated with non-thermal emission (i.e., Seyfert, LINERS and narrow line radio galaxies), rather than with Hii regions (see also Kewley et al., 2001). Four of the MIR sources (including the 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ source ISO#12) have ratios greater than this limit, although the $`1\sigma `$ error bars overlap this line. However, the H$`\alpha `$ fluxes are not corrected for stellar absorption, and thus the \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583/H$`\alpha `$ ratio is an overestimate. In particular, the galaxy numbers 31, 37 and 10 are known from their full optical spectra to have strong Balmer absorption lines (Duc et al., 2002). These three galaxies are all consistent with \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583/H$`\alpha <0.55`$ if the absorption correction is at least 3Å, which is not unreasonable. Therefore, the only galaxy for which we have unambiguous evidence for a non-thermal contribution to the H$`\alpha `$ emission is ISO#41, which was previously known to be a Seyfert I galaxy (Duc et al., 2002).

We also show in Figure 9 the H$`\alpha `$-emitting cluster members within the ISOCAM field of view which are undetected in the MIR. All but one of these has $`L_{H\alpha }<10^{40}h^2`$ ergs s-1, below the sensitivity of the ISOCAM survey, 0.15 mJy in the 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ band. Thus, the ISOCAM survey is nearly complete in the detection of galaxies with H$`\alpha `$ emission greater than this luminosity limit, a result we discuss further in §4 (see Figure 11).

### 3.5 Post-starburst Galaxies

We finally consider the H$`\alpha `$ properties of those galaxies identified as k+a by Duc et al. (2002). These are galaxies with little or no \[Oii\] emission, but strong Balmer absorption lines which indicate the presence of young stars. Such spectra have been interpreted as reflecting a post-starburst state (Couch & Sharples, 1987; Poggianti et al., 1999; Balogh et al., 1999), or as dust-obscured starbursts (Poggianti & Wu, 2000; Smail et al., 1999). We observed six galaxies classified in this way, and we show their continuum-subtracted spectra in the region of H$`\alpha `$ in Figure 10. Only one of these galaxies, the 6.7$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ source ISO#12, was securely detected in H$`\alpha `$. The H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of this galaxy is very low, at $`0.3\times 10^{40}h^2`$ ergs s-1, corresponding to a star formation rate less than $`0.1h^2M_{}`$ yr-1. H$`\alpha `$ absorption is evident in all the remaining spectra except # 3828. In comparison, Balogh & Morris (2000) found that at least 2/6 of their k+a galaxies show H$`\alpha `$ emission. However, their definition of a k+a galaxy is stricter than that of Poggianti et al. (1999), which was adopted by Duc et al. (2002); furthermore, only ISO#12 is listed as a “confident” k+a galaxy by Duc et al. (2002), while the remainder are of uncertain classification. Hence, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions; but it is clear that there is little if any ongoing star formation in these galaxies, although they must have had at least some star formation in the recent past to give rise to the strong Balmer absorption.

## 4 Discussion

Figure 2 demonstrates that, as was the case for the $`z=0.31`$ cluster AC114 (Paper I), the number of H$`\alpha `$ emitters in A 1689 is well below that expected from the surrounding field, by about a factor $`5`$. It is interesting to explore whether or not the difference between the cluster H$`\alpha `$LF and that of the CFRS field can be entirely attributed to the difference in morphological composition. If we make the reasonable approximation that star formation is restricted to galaxies of type Sa or later (see §3.3), then we can renormalize the CFRS H$`\alpha `$LF assuming that 65% of field galaxies at $`z0.2`$ are of this type (Abraham et al., 1996; Glazebrook et al., 1995). In §3.3 we determined that $`20`$% of the cluster members in our H$`\alpha `$ survey within the HST fields are of type Sa or later. Since the HST mosaic covers an area comparable to that of the LDSS++ field, we can appropriately renormalize the CFRS H$`\alpha `$LF, as shown as the short-dashed line in Figure 2. This renormalization reduces the discrepancy between the field H$`\alpha `$LF and that of A 1689, but does not remove it; H$`\alpha `$ emitters are still $`>50`$% more abundant in the field. This discrepancy cannot be explained by assuming that star formation, in both the field and cluster, is mostly restricted to galaxies of type Sc or later. If this were the case, the CFRS H$`\alpha `$LF of Figure 2 would be $`50`$% higher than assumed in Figure 2.

Thus, it appears that the lower star formation rate of the cluster galaxies is not due only to the difference in morphological composition, relative to the field. The next step is to look for evidence that H$`\alpha `$ emission in galaxies of a given morphological type is lower in clusters, relative to the field (e.g., Balogh et al., 1998). We will do this by comparing our data with the local field galaxy sample of Jansen et al. (2000). Our sample is 50% complete to $`I=21`$ (see Figure 1a), which corresponds approximately to $`M_B=15.9+5\mathrm{log}h`$, using the colour transformations in Fukugita et al. (1995). There are 173 galaxies in the sample of Jansen et al. (2000) brighter than this limit, and we take this as our comparison sample.

If we adopt the statistical background subtraction method and consider the results of the full sample (Figure 6b), the fraction of late-type galaxies in A 1689 detected in H$`\alpha `$ is $`>90`$% although this fraction is not very well determined, due to the small number of late-type galaxies and the uncertainty of the background correction. In the sample of Jansen et al. (2000), 104 of the 121 galaxies brighter than $`M_B=15.9+5\mathrm{log}h`$ classified as Sa or later show H$`\alpha `$ emission with $`W_{}(H\alpha )>2`$Å. This fraction, 86%, is in excellent agreement with our results for A 1689. Thus, we do not find evidence that the few spiral galaxies in A 1689 are less likely to have H$`\alpha `$ emission, relative to their field counterparts.

Turning our attention to the early-type galaxy population, Jansen et al. find that 5/17 of their ellipticals and 7/25 of their S0 galaxies brighter than $`M_B=15.9+5\mathrm{log}h`$ show $`W_{}(H\alpha )>2`$Å. Thus, 28% of their early-type galaxies show H$`\alpha `$ emission, compared with less than 10% in A 1689 cluster early-types (Figure 6). Even rejecting the three early-type galaxies in Jansen et al.’s sample with Seyfert nuclei, the fraction of early-type galaxies with H$`\alpha `$ emission is still twice as large as the fraction we find in A 1689.

These results suggest that the difference between the A 1689 H$`\alpha `$LF and that of the CFRS, corrected to the same morphological composition, may be due to the fact that cluster E and S0 galaxies exhibit H$`\alpha `$ emission less frequently than their field counterparts. This cannot be tested directly, as we do not have morphological classifications of the CFRS sample, and we depend upon the MDS sample of Abraham et al. (1996) being complete and representative, relative to the CFRS sample of TM98. However, we note that our results are in agreement with independent evidence from absorption line analysis that suggests that field early-type galaxies have younger stellar populations on average than their cluster counterparts (Abraham et al., 1999; Trager et al., 2000; Kuntschner et al., 2002). Our results could also be consistent with those of Balogh et al. (1998), who showed that disk-dominated galaxies in clusters have lower \[Oii\] emission than analogous galaxies in the field, if a substantial number of those disk-dominated galaxies are S0. On the other hand, Poggianti et al. (1999) found that the low star formation rates in clusters at $`z0.4`$ could be attributed to a large population of passive spiral galaxies. Our results do not appear to be consistent with such a population, although this is strongly dependent on the statistical subtraction of the field. Using only the spectroscopic sample of Duc et al. (2002) we find that only 60% of Sab galaxies are detected in H$`\alpha `$; it would be interesting to see if this holds for a larger sample of confirmed members.

We now consider the claims of Fadda et al. (2000) and Duc et al. (2002), that much of the star formation in A 1689 is obscured by dust, and detectable in the MIR. We first reiterate that our observations are very sensitive to low H$`\alpha `$ fluxes, and we would detect a galaxy with a star formation rate greater than $`3M_{}`$ yr-1 unless it was obscured by more than 7 magnitudes of dust. We show the H$`\alpha `$LF of our full sample, restricted to the 3$`\mathrm{}`$ field of the ISOCAM survey of Fadda et al. (2000), in Figure 11. We compare this with the H$`\alpha `$LF of galaxies detected in the MIR, within the same area. This demonstrates that the MIR catalogue is approximately complete to H$`\alpha `$ luminosities $`L_{H\alpha }>10^{40}h^2`$ ergs s-1. However, our H$`\alpha `$ survey is at least four times more sensitive and detects twice as many star forming galaxies in this volume (which contribute an additional $`16`$% to the total amount of star formation).

In Figure 12 we compare star formation rates measured from H$`\alpha `$ with those measured from 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ luminosities, as estimated by Duc et al. (2002). We have increased the published MIR star formation rates by a factor of 1.3 to account for the different cosmologies assumed. For those MIR sources with a flux ratio $`F_{15}/F_K^{}0.2`$ we reduce the MIR-derived star formation rate by a factor of two, to correct for photospheric emission111Duc et al. actually recommend this correction be made for galaxies with $`F_{15}/F_K^{}0.1`$, but the only two other sources affected by our more generous limits are actually upper limits on the flux ratio..

If the dust giving rise to the MIR emission is heated predominantly by star formation, then our direct comparison with the H$`\alpha `$ fluxes supports the conclusions of Duc et al. (2002) and Fadda et al. (2000), that optical line emission underestimates the star formation in 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ sources. Star formation rates estimated from the H$`\alpha `$ line (which include a correction for 1 magnitude of dust extinction) are lower than those derived from the 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ data by a factor of between 2 and 20 for most of the galaxies. If we were to correct the observed H$`\alpha `$ fluxes for an assumed $`5`$Å of stellar absorption, this would reduce the discrepancy to a factor of 1.7–10. The effect is more severe for star formation rates determined from the \[Oii\] emission line, where the underestimate is a factor of 10 to 100 (Duc et al., 2002).

This suggests that some of the MIR-detected galaxies could be obscured by up to 3 magnitudes of extinction at 6563Å. The main remaining difficulty is to understand how much of the MIR emission in the ISOCAM sample arises from non-thermal activity. For galaxies of this luminosity, a 30% contribution to their bolometric infrared luminosity from AGN-heating is not unreasonable (Tran et al., 2001); in this case, the SFR estimated from both the MIR luminosity and the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity are overestimated. However, even if galaxies are bolometrically dominated by star formation, the bulk of their 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ emission could still be coming from an AGN, especially in a MIR-selected sample (but see Spinoglio et al., 1995; Chary & Elbaz, 2001). There are currently no published wide-field, local MIR surveys which can directly address this question, although such studies are underway (e.g., Aussel & Alexander, 2001; La Franca et al., 2002). Preliminary results from the ELAIS survey suggests that only $`30`$% of 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ sources are AGN-dominated, while 45% are starbursts and 15% are absorption line galaxies (La Franca et al., 2002). However, this mix is likely to be strongly redshift-dependent, and the AGN contribution at $`z0.2`$ depends on which of the AGN or starburst population is evolving more strongly with redshift (Roche & Eales, 1999). For at least one of the eight 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$-detected galaxies in our H$`\alpha `$ sample (ISO# 41) there is a clear contribution to the dust heating from an AGN source, and this could hold for up to half of the sample (including ISO# 3,10, 37), depending on the uncertain correction for stellar absorption and the usefulness of the \[Nii\]$`\lambda 6583`$/H$`\alpha `$ ratio as an indicator of non-thermal emission.

## 5 Conclusions

We have obtained LDSS++ spectroscopy for 522 galaxies over a field covering $`1.1\times 1.1h^1`$ Mpc in the z=0.18 cluster A 1689. We find the following results:

* 24$`\pm 4`$% of cluster members more luminous than $`M_R=16.5+5\mathrm{log}h`$, statistically weighted to account for sampling-related selection effects, are confidently detected in H$`\alpha `$ emission above a flux limit of 4$`h^2\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1, corresponding to a limiting star formation rate of 0.008 $`h^2`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1, assuming 1 magnitude of extinction.
* The normalization of the cluster H$`\alpha `$ luminosity function ($`z=0.18`$) is a factor of $`5`$ lower than that of the field at $`z0.2`$, from TM98, and a factor of $`2`$ higher than that in our previous study of AC114 ($`z=0.31`$).
* From the 199 galaxies for which we have HST WFPC2 morphologies, as well as LDSS++ spectroscopy, we determine that $``$20% of the cluster members (regardless of their H$`\alpha `$ properties) are of type Sa or later, much less than the $`65\%`$ expected in a sample of field galaxies. Like their field counterparts, these spiral galaxies have a high incidence of H$`\alpha `$ detection, $`>90`$% . On the other hand, H$`\alpha `$ emission in early-type galaxies (E and S0) is less frequently observed than in similar galaxies in the field, based on the sample of Jansen et al. (2000).
* After renormalizing the CFRS H$`\alpha `$LF (TM98) to account for the difference in morphological composition between the field and cluster samples a $`50`$% deficit of cluster galaxies with H$`\alpha `$ emission remains. Combined with the high incidence of emission in cluster late-type galaxies, this suggests that the star formation rates of early-type cluster galaxies are suppressed, relative to their field counterparts.
* All of the galaxies detected in the 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ mid-infrared band with ISOCAM are detected in H$`\alpha `$. The MIR survey of Fadda et al. (2000) selects an approximately complete sample of H$`\alpha `$-emitting galaxies with $`L_{H\alpha }>10^{40}h^2`$ ergs s-1. Our deep H$`\alpha `$ survey probes $`4`$ times fainter than this, doubling the sample of detected star-forming galaxies and recovering an additional $`16`$% of all H$`\alpha `$ emission in the cluster.
* The population of H$`\alpha `$-emitting galaxies in A 1689 appears to be associated with substructure in the immediate foreground and background of the cluster. The MIR detections trace the dynamics of the H$`\alpha `$ population, suggesting that they are related.
* Star formation rates derived from 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ emission, neglecting a significant non-thermal component, are a factor 2–20 larger than those estimated from H$`\alpha `$, assuming 1 magnitude of extinction. This difference is reduced to a factor $`<10`$ if we account for an assumed 5Å underlying stellar absorption. Both star formation rate estimates may be overestimated if there is a significant contribution to the dust heating from AGN, for which there may be evidence in up to 50% of the eight 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ sources we observe in H$`\alpha `$.

In summary, the star forming galaxies in the core of A 1689 are significantly rarer than in the surrounding field. This may be due primarily to a suppression of star formation in S0 or elliptical galaxies. Our deep H$`\alpha `$ survey finds all 15$`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ MIR sources catalogued in this region, so there is no evidence for any star formation completely hidden at H$`\alpha `$, although the estimated star formation rates from H$`\alpha `$ may be too low by assuming standard extinctions. This depends, however, on the largely unknown contribution of AGN-heated dust to the MIR flux.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P.-A. Duc, D. Fadda and B. Poggianti for providing their data prior to publication, and for making many useful suggestions regarding the comparison with the ISOCAM data. We also thank Jean-Paul Kneib for providing the NTT $`I`$band image from which the sample was selected. Finally, we thank an anonymous referee for helpful criticisms. MLB is supported by a PPARC rolling grant for extragalactic astronomy and cosmology at the University of Durham. WJC acknowledges funding support from the Australian Research Council. IRS acknowledges support from a Royal Society URF and a Phillip Leverhulme Prize Fellowship. Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Institute. STScI is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under the NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

## Appendix A A statistical, morphologically-dependent background correction

The redshifts of most galaxies in our sample which are not detected in H$`\alpha `$ are unknown; therefore a statistical correction needs to be applied to account for the fact that some of these will be field galaxies in the foreground and background of the cluster. In §2.1.4 we computed this correction for the global population by comparing the number counts in our field with those of Metcalfe et al. (1991). However, when we consider galaxies of a fixed morphological type, we need to consider the different morphological composition of the field. We take this from the Medium Deep Survey (MDS, Abraham et al., 1996; Glazebrook et al., 1995). The MDS comprises visual morphological classifications of a magnitude-limited field sample, from a survey of serendipitous WFPC2 fields. These classifications are on the same scheme to that used here, as shown by comparisons in Smail et al. (1997). As in §3.3, we will consider four classes: Elliptical (E), S0 (including E/S0 and S0/a), Sab (including Sa, Sb, Sab) and Scd (including Sc, Sd, Scd and Irr). Over the magnitude range $`I=17`$$`21`$, the field population is composed of 15% E, 20% S0, 30% Sab and 35% Scd, with only a small dependence on limiting magnitude. This is in reasonably good agreement with the distributions for the local field from Whitmore et al. (1993) (18% E, 23% S0 and 59% later types) and Marzke et al. (1994) (10% E, 30% S0, 40% Sab, 20% Scd at M).

Using the total field contamination estimate from Figure 1a, we can then determine the fraction of galaxies of each morphological type which are expected to be cluster members. From this number we subtract the fraction of galaxies of that type which we detect in H$`\alpha `$, yielding the fraction of undetected galaxies of that type which are expected cluster members. We show some sample numbers relevant to this calculation in Table 2. The first three columns show the galaxy type, the number and fraction of that type in the sample (ignoring the Uncertain class), and the number of galaxies detected in H$`\alpha `$. The rest of the calculation is best illustrated by a couple of examples. For this purpose, we will assume the field contributes 40% to the sample, which is the case at $`I19`$ (Figure 1a). Using the population mix presented above, we calculate that 6% of all galaxies in our sample are field ellipticals; this number is shown in column 4. We measure that 27% of our galaxies are ellipticals (column 2); therefore, we expect $`(276)/27=78\%`$ of these to be cluster members, and this number is shown in column 5. Only $`2/54=4`$% of these ellipticals are detected in H$`\alpha `$, so we expect $`784=74`$% of the undetected population to be cluster members. This final number is the one we are most interested in, and it is given in column 6. For the Scd class, this number is much smaller. We compare our measured fraction of 19% with the expected fraction of field Scd galaxies in our sample, 12% at $`I19`$, to determine that only 37% of Scd galaxies are cluster members. Since we detect H$`\alpha `$ in 26% of these galaxies, we conclude that only 11% of the undetected Scd galaxies are cluster members. In practice, these calculations account for the magnitude-dependence of the field contamination, and include the weights for the sampling fraction as a function of luminosity and radius (§2.1.4). Also, in some cases (see the Sab example in Table 2), the expected fraction of undetected cluster members is less than zero, reflecting the uncertainty and variation in the field composition. In this case, we assume that none of the undetected galaxies belong to the cluster.


format: text

text:
# Introduction

### Introduction

A real-time thermal field theory (quantum-field theory at finite temperature and/or density) is formulated by introducing an oriented contour $`C`$ in a complex-time plane , which starts from an initial time $`\tau _0`$ and ends at a final time $`\tau _0i\beta `$. Here $`\beta =1/T`$ and $`\tau _0`$ is an arbitrarily fixed point in the plane. Let $`x^0`$ and $`y^0`$ be any two points on $`C`$. If $`x^0`$ is nearer to $`\tau _0`$ on $`C`$ ($`x^0`$ is said to be “past time” when compared to $`y^0`$), $`Im(x^0y^0)>0`$, $`\theta _c(y^0x^0)=1`$ and $`\theta _c(x^0y^0)=0`$. A convenient contour usually employed in the literature consists of three straight segments: $`C(C_R)=C_1C_2C_3`$ where $`C_1=(\tau _0=\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}i0^+)`$, $`C_2=(+\mathrm{}i0^+\mathrm{}2i0^+)`$, and $`C_3=(\mathrm{}2i0^+\mathrm{}i\beta )`$. Hereafter, we refer this contour to as the real-time contour, since $`C_R`$ contains a real axis.

We deal with a Dirac fermion field. The free Hamiltonian and the fermionic charge read, in respective order,

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x\overline{\psi }(x)\left(i\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{}+m\right)\psi (x)},`$ (1)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x\psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)}.`$ (2)
Here $`x^0C`$ and $`/x^0`$ is the $`x^0`$-derivative along $`C`$. The free propagator is defined as

$`S_c(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`Z^1\text{Tr}\left[T_c\left(\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)\right)e^{\beta (H_0\mu Q)}\right],`$ (3)
$`T_c\left(\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _c(x^0y^0)\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)\theta _c(y^0x^0)\overline{\psi }(y)\psi (x),`$ (4)
where $`Z=\text{Tr}e^{\beta (H_0\mu Q)}`$. After Fourier transformation with respect to the spatial coordinates, we write

$$S_c(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})=\theta (x^0y^0)S_c^>(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})+\theta (y^0x^0)S_c^<(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p}).$$

#### Form 1 (F1) for the fermion propagator :

The form to be given here is a standard one. We attach the superscript “(1)” to the F1 form here. The equation for the propagator reads (cf. Eqs. (1) and (3))

$$\left(i\gamma ^0\frac{}{x^0}\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}m\right)S_c^{(1)}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})=\delta _c(x^0y^0),$$
(5)
where $`\delta _c(x^0y^0)=\theta _c(x^0y^0)/x^0`$. The operator $`e^{\beta \mu Q}`$ in Eq. (3) acts as distorting the boundary condition:

$$S_c^{(1)>}(x^0i\beta y^0,\stackrel{}{p})=e^{\beta \mu }S_c^{(1)<}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(6)
Solving Eq. (5) under the condition (6) yields

$`S_c^{(1)>}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\omega _p}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =\pm }{}}\left(\tau \gamma ^0\omega _p\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}+m\right)[\theta (\tau )n_\tau ]e^{i\tau \omega _p(x^0y^0)},`$
$`S_c^{(1)<}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\omega _p}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =\pm }{}}\left(\tau \gamma ^0\omega _p\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}+m\right)[\theta (\tau )n_\tau ]e^{i\tau \omega _p(x^0y^0)},`$
$`n_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (\omega _p\mu )}+1}},\omega _p=\sqrt{p^2+m^2}.`$ (7)
Specification of so far arbitrary $`C`$ to the real-time contour $`C_R`$ leads to a standard two-component formalism of real-time thermal field theory (RT-TFT) . After Fourier transformation with respect to $`x^0y^0`$, we obtain for the matrix propagator $`S_{ij}^{(1)}`$:

$`S_{ij}^{(1)}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`(P\text{/}+m)\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(1)}(P)(i,j=1,2)c1`$ (8)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{11}^{(1)}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2m^2+i0^+}}+2\pi iN(p^0)\delta (P^2m^2)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{S}_{22}^{(1)}(P)\right]^{},`$ (10)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{12(21)}^{(1)}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\left[\theta (p^0)N(p^0)\right]\delta (P^2m^2),`$ (11)
$`N(p^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (p^0)N_+(p^0)+\theta (p^0)N_{}(p^0),N_\pm (p^0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\pm \beta (p^0\mu )}+1}},`$ (12)
where $`P^\mu =(p^0,𝐩)`$. Here we have followed the so-called $`|p^0|`$-prescription ; $`n_\pm N_\pm (p^0)`$.

#### Form 2 (F2) for the fermion propagator:

Here $`H_0\mu Q`$ is regarded as a free Hamiltonian. In place of Eqs. (5) and (6), we have, in respective order,

$`\left(i\gamma ^0{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^0}}+\gamma ^0\mu \stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{}m\right)S_c^{(2)}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})=\delta _c(x^0y^0),`$ (13)
$`S_c^{(2)>}(x^0i\beta y^0,\stackrel{}{p})=S_c^{(2)<}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (14)
Comparing Eqs. (13) and (14) with Eqs. (5) and (6), we see that

$$S^{(2)}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})=e^{i\mu (x^0y^0)}S^{(1)}(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p}).$$

In , $`S^{(2)}`$ is denoted by $`S^{}`$. The RT-TFT matrix propagator $`S_{ij}^{(2)}`$ reads

$`S_{ij}^{(2)}(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`S_{ij}^{(1)}(p^0+\mu ,p)(i,j=1,2),`$ (15)
where $`S_{ij}^{(1)}`$ is as in Eqs. (8)-(12).

### Standard perturbation theory

As far as standard perturbative calculations in RT-TFT are concerned, uses of the F1 form and of the F2 form yield the same result:

* A fermion loop (with loop momentum $`P^\mu `$): As can be seen from Eq. (15), changing the integration variable $`p^0`$ in the calculation using the C2 form as $`p^0p^0\mu `$, we obtain the corresponding formula with the C1 form.
* An open fermion line with on-shell end points: Let $`P`$ be a momentum entering from the incoming end point into the diagram under consideration and $`Q`$ be a momentum going out from the outgoing end point.

+ Computation with the C1 form: The wave function $`F(\stackrel{}{p})`$ \[$`G(\stackrel{}{p})`$\] is attached to the incoming \[outgoing\] line. $`p^0`$ \[$`q^0`$\] is the on-shell energy: $`|p^0|=\omega _p=\sqrt{p^2+m^2}`$ \[$`|q^0|=\omega _q`$\]. For $`p^0>0`$ ($`p^0<0`$), $`F(\stackrel{}{p})=u(\stackrel{}{p})`$ ($`F(\stackrel{}{p})=v(\stackrel{}{p})`$), while, for $`q^0>0`$ ($`q^0<0`$), $`G(\stackrel{}{q})=\overline{u}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ ($`\overline{v}(\stackrel{}{q})`$).
    + Computation with the C2 form: The wave function $`F(\stackrel{}{p})`$ \[$`G(\stackrel{}{p})`$\] is attached to the incoming \[outgoing\] line. $`p^0+\mu `$ \[$`q^0+\mu `$\] is the on-shell energy: $`|p^0+\mu |=\omega _p`$ \[$`|q^0+\mu |=\omega _q`$\]. For $`p^0+\mu >0`$ ($`p^0+\mu <0`$), $`F(\stackrel{}{p})=u(\stackrel{}{p})`$ ($`F(\stackrel{}{p})=v(\stackrel{}{p})`$), while, for $`q^0+\mu >0`$ ($`q^0+\mu <0`$), $`G(\stackrel{}{q})=\overline{u}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ ($`\overline{v}(\stackrel{}{q})`$).

It can easily be seen that both schemes are equivalent also for an operator-inserted amplitude, as far as the operator consists of equal numbers of $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ and of, if any, other fields.

#### Mass insertion

It is instructive to see a mass-insertion , i.e., a Green function in which inserted the operator $`𝒪_M(z)=\overline{\psi }(z)\psi (z)`$. We delete the superscripts “$`(i)`$” ($`i=1,2`$). The $`𝒪_M`$-inserted Green function of our concern reads

$$_C𝑑z^0d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}z\psi (x)𝒪_M(z)\overline{\psi }(y)=_C𝑑z^0d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}zS_c(xz)S_c(zy).$$

Fourier transforming with respect to spatial coordinates yields

$$_{\tau _0}^{\tau _0i\beta }𝑑z^0S_c(x^0z^0,\stackrel{}{p})S_c(z^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})F_c.$$
(16)
We see from Eqs. (6) and (14) that

$$S_c^<(x^0\tau ^0+i\beta ,\stackrel{}{p})S_c^>(\tau ^0i\beta y^0,\stackrel{}{p})=S_c^>(x^0\tau ^0,\stackrel{}{p})S_c^<(\tau ^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})$$

holds both for the F1 and F2. Then $`F_c`$, Eq. (16) is independent of $`\tau _0`$; $`F_c=F_c(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$. Specifying $`C`$ to the real-time contour $`C_R`$, $`F_c`$ in Eq. (16) turns out to a $`2\times 2`$ matrix quantity, whose Fourier transform (with respect to $`x^0y^0`$) is written as $`F_{ij}(P)`$ $`(i,j=1,2)`$. It is well known, or as can be directly shown using Eqs. (8) - (11) and (15), that, for both C1 and C2, the same $`F_{ij}(P)`$ is also obtained through standard calculation using the RT-TFT Feynman rules:

$$F_{ij}(P)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}()^{k1}S_{ik}(P)S_{kj}(P)(i,j=1,2).$$

From Eq. (15) follows

$$F_{ij}^{(2)}(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})=F_{ij}^{(1)}(p^0+\mu ,\stackrel{}{p}).$$

Incidentally, one can derive the mass-derivative formula, as it should be, for both F1 and F2:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_c(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_c(x^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p}),`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{ij}(P)}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{ij}(P).`$ (18)
In deriving the formula (18), the so-called $`|p^0|`$-prescription  plays a role. Namely, if $`N_\pm (p^0)`$ in Eq. (12), which is in $`S_{ij}(P)`$, were $`n_\pm `$ (Eq. (7)), Eq. (18) would not hold.

### $`\psi \psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }`$ insertions

In recent years, possible diquark condensation in a quark matter has attracted much interest . For dealing with this, “condensate operators” are introduced, such as, e.g.,

$$𝒪_J(z)=J\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}ϵ_{ab3}ϵ_{ij}\psi _i^a(z)\gamma _5C\psi _j^b(z)+\text{c.c.}.$$

Here $`J`$ is a constant source, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the color indices, $`i`$ and $`j`$ are the flavor indices \[$`i=1`$ stands for $`u`$ quark and $`i=2`$ stands for $`d`$ quark\], and $`C`$ here is the charge-conjugation matrix. The $`𝒪_J`$-inserted Green function reads

$$_C𝑑z^0d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}z(\overline{\psi }_i^a(x))_\mu 𝒪_J(z)(\overline{\psi }_j^b(y))_\nu =Jϵ_{ab3}ϵ_{ij}_C𝑑z^0d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}z\left[S_c^T(z,x)\gamma _5CS_c(z,y)\right]_{\mu \nu },$$

where and in the following, summations over the repeated indices are understood. The suffices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ stand for the components of Dirac spinors, and $`S_c^T`$ is the transpose of $`4\times 4`$ matrix function $`S_c`$.

Fourier transformation with respect to the spatial coordinates yields

$$Jϵ_{ab3}ϵ_{ij}_{\tau _0}^{\tau _0i\beta }𝑑z^0\left[S_c(z^0x^0,\stackrel{}{p})\right]_{\rho \mu }\left(\gamma _5C\right)_{\rho \sigma }\left[S_c(z^0y^0,\stackrel{}{p})\right]_{\sigma \nu }.$$
(19)
Now we observe that

* F1 form:

$`S_c^{(1)>}(\tau _0i\beta x^0,\stackrel{}{p})S_c^{(1)>}(\tau _0i\beta y^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$
$`\text{ }=e^{2\beta \mu }S_c^{(1)<}(\tau _0x^0,\stackrel{}{p})S_c^{(1)<}(\tau _0y^0,\stackrel{}{p}).`$
Then, Eq. (19) does depend on $`\tau _0`$.
* F2 form:

$`S_c^{(2)>}(\tau _0i\beta x^0,\stackrel{}{p})S_c^{(2)>}(\tau _0i\beta y^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$
$`\text{ }=S_c^{(2)<}(\tau _0x^0,\stackrel{}{p})S_c^{(2)<}(\tau _0y^0,\stackrel{}{p}).`$
Then, Eq. (19) is independent of $`\tau _0`$.

This statement also applies to $`𝑑z^0d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}z\psi (x)𝒪_J(z)\psi (x)`$. Thus, in calculating the ($`\psi \psi `$)- and ($`\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }`$)-inserted quantities, the F1 form does not work and the F2 form should be employed.

Straightforward computation with the F2 form shows that the following two computations yield the same result:

* First compute Eq. (19) for arbitrarily chosen contour $`C`$. Specify $`C`$ to the real-time contour $`C_R`$. Obtain a $`2\times 2`$ matrix quantity through Fourier transformation with respect to $`x^0y^0`$.
* The corresponding $`2\times 2`$ matrix quantity obtained by using the RT-TFT Feynman rules, the $`(ij)`$ element of which is

$$Jϵ_{ab3}ϵ_{ij}()^{\gamma 1}\left[S_{\gamma \alpha }^{(2)}(P)\right]_{\rho \mu }\left(\gamma _5C\right)_{\rho \sigma }\left[S_{\gamma \beta }^{(2)\sigma \nu }(P)\right]_{\sigma \nu }.$$

In a similar manner, the same statement holds for more general quantities:

$`\overline{\psi }(x){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}z_i𝒪_J(z_i)}\right]\psi (y),`$
$`\overline{\psi }(x){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}z_i𝒪_J(z_i)}\right]\overline{\psi }(y),`$
etc. It should be emphasized that the $`|p^0|`$-prescription plays an essential role here.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aide for Scientific Research ((C)(2) (No. 12640287)) of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan.


text:
# Second central extension in Galilean covariant field theory

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the Galilei group in two spatial dimensions has a two dimensional central extension. Specifically, this means that one can expand the set of seven Galilean operators $`P_i,K_i,H,J,`$ and $`M`$ appropriate to a one dimensional central extension satisfying the structure relations

$$[J,K_j]=iϵ_{ij}K_j,[K_i,H]=0,$$

$$[J,P_i]=iϵ_{ij}P_j,[K_i,K_j]=0$$

$$[J,H]=[J,M]=0,[K_i.P_j]=i\delta _{ij}M$$

$$[P_i,P_j]=[P_i,H]=[H,M]=[K_i,M]=[P_i,M]=0$$

by the inclusion of an operator $`\kappa `$ which appears only in the modified commutator

$$[K_i,K_j]=iϵ_{ij}\kappa $$

and commutes with all other operators of the theory. The operators $`M`$ and $`\kappa `$ thus provide a two dimensional central extension.

While the operator $`M`$ has a well understood role in Galilean invariant theories, the physical origin of $`\kappa `$ is less clear. Duval and Horváthy  have recently considered this issue as have Jackiw and Nair . Although the latter claim to have established its identification with the spin of the relevant particle, there are a number of issues which need to be raised concerning their derivation. In particular their Eq.(5) has the form

$$J_a=ϵ_{abc}x^bp^c+\frac{sc^2p_a}{(p^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$

an equation which implies that the spin has the dimension of $`1/c^2`$ rather than the dimensionless form expected in units in which $`\mathrm{}=1`$. This is also the basis for their claim that in the limit of $`c\mathrm{}`$ the second term on the rhs of the above equation dominates. Physically, this is an odd result since it seems to assert that the spin angular momentum necessarily dominates over orbital angular momentum in the large $`c`$ limit. Both of these issues clearly have their origin in the occurrence of seemingly anomalous factors of $`c`$ in the derivation of .

One of the most forthright approaches to an objective assessment of the validity of the Jackiw-Nair claim is to examine this issue in the context of specific models. To this end one seeks (preferably simple) examples in which the spin degree of freedom does indeed give rise to the second central extension parameter $`\kappa `$. This is certainly feasible within the context of local Galilean covariant field theory describing particles of nonzero spin. Clearly, if one can construct such theories corresponding to a $`\kappa `$ which either vanishes or is unrelated to spin, the question will be unambiguously settled. In the following section the Galilean field theory of a free spin one-half particle is constructed and shown to have a vanishing second central extension coefficient. In 3 this is extended to the case of arbitrary spin, with similar results being obtained.

## 2 Galilean Spin One-Half

The Galilean covariant wave equation for a spin one-half particle was constructed by Lévy-Leblond . His result in three spatial dimensions requires a four-component spinor just as in the case of the corresponding Dirac equation. Another feature which it shares with the Dirac equation is the prediction of $`g=2`$ for the $`g`$-factor. In the case of two spatial dimensions the four-component spinor equation separates into two two-component equations. Denoting the two spin components $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ by the spin parameter $`s`$ with $`s=\pm 1`$ one can write the Lagrangian for a spin one-half particle as

$$=\psi ^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma _3)i\frac{}{t}i\sigma +m(1\sigma _3)\right]\psi $$

where $`\sigma =(\sigma _1,s\sigma _2)`$ and $`\sigma _i,i=1,2,3`$ denote the usual Pauli matrices. Upon making the identification $`\psi _1=\varphi `$, $`\psi _2=\chi `$, one obtains the equation of motion for the independent component $`\varphi `$

$$E\varphi +p_{}\chi =0$$
(1)
with the dependent component $`\chi `$ given by

$$2m\chi +p_\pm \varphi =0$$
(2)
where $`E=i\frac{}{t},p_\pm =i(_1\pm is_2)`$.

The invariance of the Lagrangian under rotations by an angle $`\phi `$ readily follows from the transformation law

$$\psi ^{}(𝐱^{})=\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{s}{2}\sigma _3\phi ]\psi (𝐱)$$
(3)
appropriate to a particle of spin $`s/2`$. The corresponding result for Galilean boosts with boost parameters $`v_i`$ is readily verified using the spinor transformation prescription

$$\psi ^{}(𝐱^{},t^{})=[1\frac{1}{4}(\sigma _1i\sigma _2)v_\pm ]\mathrm{exp}[im𝐯𝐱+(i/2)mv^2t]\psi (𝐱,t).$$
(4)
Corresponding to this statement of Galilean covariance is the existence of the local conservation law

$`_j`$ $`\left[\psi ^{}[mx_i\sigma _jit{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _j_i{\displaystyle \frac{s}{4}}ϵ_{ij}(1+\sigma _3)]\psi +i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\psi ^{}\sigma _j\psi \right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left[\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\sigma _3)(mx_i+it{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i)\psi it{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\sigma _3)\psi \right]=0`$
and the generator of Galilean boosts

$$K_i=mx_id^2x\varphi ^{}\varphi tP_i$$
(5)
where $`P_i`$ is the momentum operator

$$P_i=id^2x\varphi ^{}_i\varphi .$$
(6)
From this explicit form for the Galilean boost operators and the equal time anticommutation relation

$$\{\varphi (𝐱,\varphi ^{}(𝐱^{})\}=\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})$$
(7)
it is readily inferred that $`[K_i,K_j]=0`$. This simple model thus demonstrates that it is indeed possible to construct a nonzero spin field theory which yields a trivial result for the second extension parameter.

## 3 Extension to Arbitrary Spin

There is a standard tool available by which one can extend the results of the preceding section to the case of arbitrary integral or half-integral spin. This is the multispinor approach in which one describes a particle of spin $`Ns/2`$ by means of a totally symmetric multispinor of rank $`N`$. This approach has been successfully implemented  in the calculation of the $`g`$-factor of a Galilean particle in three spatial dimensions, and is applied even more easily to the case at hand. To this end one introduces the multispinor $`\psi _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_N}`$ which transforms according to Eqs.(3) and (4) in each index. Upon noting that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma _3)`$ is invariant under such transformations one infers that the appropriate Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{N}\psi _{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1a_1^{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_{i1}a_{i1}^{}}G_{a_ia_i^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_{i+1}a_{i+1}^{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_Na_N^{}}\psi _{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_N^{}}$$
(8)
where

$$Gi\mathrm{\Gamma }E+\sigma p+m(1\sigma _3).$$

Particularly in the case of two spatial dimensions there is a great deal of redundancy in the equations implied by the Lagrangian (8). Specifically, because of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is only nonvanishing between upper components (i.e., $`a_i=1`$), there are only two distinct equations implied by (8). These equations are easily seen to involve only the components $`\psi _{11\mathrm{}1}`$ and $`\psi _{21\mathrm{}1}`$. By renaming them $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ respectively, one readily obtains Eqs. (1) and (2) as well as the generalization of Eq. (3)

$$\psi ^{^{}}(𝐱^{})=\mathrm{exp}[i(N1+\sigma _3)s/2]\psi (𝐱)$$
(9)
which are thus seen to describe Galilean particles of spin $`Ns/2`$ . It immediately follows from this notational change that the expressions for the Galilean boost operators $`K_i`$ for spin $`Ns/2`$ are identical to those given by Eqs. (5) and (6). This together with the anticommutator (7) suffices to establish that the boost operators commute with each other, thereby demonstrating that only trivial realizations of the second central extension are realized in this model.

While the multispinor approach allows only integral $`N`$ (i.e., integral and half-integral values of the spin), it is not difficult to prescribe an extension of the two component spinor model for spin $`Ns/2`$ to arbitrary spin merely by changing the definition of the angular momentum operator. In particular this can be achieved by the replacement

$$JJ+\lambda M/m$$

where $`\lambda `$ is any real number and $`M`$ is the mass operator

$$M=md^2x\varphi ^{}\varphi .$$

This allows one to assign any value to the spin while leaving intact the structure relations of the Galilei group. The second central extension parameter is again zero for this extended model.

## 4 Conclusion

In this work it has been shown that in a very wide class of arbitrary spin Galilean field theories there is no connection between the spin and the second central extension of the Galilei group. While the extension to arbitrary spin is significant, it is perhaps true that the most relevant result is that for spin one-half. This is because in 2+1 dimensions the Dirac equation goes over unambiguously to the Lévy-Leblond spin one-half equation leaving no possibility for a misidentification of the spin variable as one passes from the special relativistic case to the Galilean relativistic one.

On the other hand the fact that spin does not seem capable of yielding a nonzero $`\kappa `$ certainly does not mean that such theories cannot be constructed. It has in fact been noted  that one can always proceed from a nonzero $`\kappa `$ theory to one with $`\kappa =0`$ merely by defining a new Galilean boost operator $`K_i^{}`$ by the prescription

$$K_i^{}K_i+\frac{1}{2}\kappa M^1ϵ_{ij}P_j.$$
(10)
Such a redefinition takes one to a new set of Galilean operators with a trivial second central extension. Naturally this operation can be carried out in either direction, and one thus easily obtains a $`\kappa 0`$ theory from the class of $`\kappa =0`$ models considered in this work merely by implementing the inverse of Eq. (10). The second central exstension of the two-dimensional Galilei is thus more closely related to the possibility of including translations in the boost operators than it is to the particle spin.

## Acknowledgement

Correspondence on this subject with P. A. Horváthy is gratefully acknowledged. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Grant No.DE-FG02-91ER40685.


text:
# Crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity in a system with doping dependent attraction

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The problem of the crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity with charge carrier density or coupling constant changing has a long history . The interest to this phenomena has arisen again after the discovery of high-temperature superconductors (HTSCs) in 1986 . It was already known upon that time that the superfluidity of composite bosons transforms into the superconductivity of overlapped Cooper pairs with chemical doping in the case of the s-wave pairing. Now, in the s-wave pairing case the problem is quite well explored for the 3D systems  and, particularly for the quasi-2D case . For the 2D case this problem was studied at $`T=0`$ ( when a long-range superconducting is still possible in a 2D system ) for the case of local attraction (see, for example ) and for the phonon-exchange model . Most of these problems are reviewed in .

Due to a layered structure and the anisotropic symmetry of the order parameter in HTSCs, the crossover in the 2D system in the $`d`$-wave pairing channel is of a special interest. However, because if its complexity, this case is not so well understood at present. The d-wave pairing for the case of the extended Hubbard model with the nearest neighbor attraction case was analyzed in . The crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity in the $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave pairing channels for a 2D continuum model was studied in paper , where also thermodynamic properties of the system in the crossover particle density region were considered. The authors proposed an interaction potential, which is attractive at distances between particles shorter of some value $`r_0`$ and longer of $`r_1`$, and repulsive due to electron correlations at short distances, $`r<r_1`$. It was found, in particular, that there exists a minimal value of the attractive coupling constant in the $`d`$-wave pairing channel, which gives the crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity at small carrier densities, i.e. the fermion chemical potential changes its sign and becomes positive with carrier density growth.

The correlation length $`r_0`$ was assumed in  to be a parameter, which does not depend on the carrier density $`n_f`$ per cell. However, concerning HTSCs it would be interesting to consider a more realistic case, when at small carrier densities $`r_01/\sqrt{n_f}`$ and the proportionality coefficient is of order of a lattice constant. Such a dependence was experimentally observed in HTSC cuprates for the length of spin-spin correlations, which are believed to be responsible for the hole attraction in these materials. In particular, it was found for $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$ in underdoped regime, that the magnetic correlation length decreases with carrier density per cell according to the dependence $`3.8`$Å$`/\sqrt{n_f}`$ .

In what follows we analyze the possibility of low carrier density crossover for a model analogous to  with particle repulsion at distances $`r<r_1`$ and attraction at $`r_1<r<r_0`$, where, however,

$$r_0=\frac{a}{\sqrt{n_f}}$$
(1)
($`a`$ is parameter of order of the lattice constant, and its possible value is discussed in the next Section). Obviously, at large carrier densities such that $`r_1>r_0`$ the superconductivity in this system should disappear. However, since we are interested in the small carrier concentrations, it is assumed that this relation does not take place.

As it will be shown below such a dependence of $`r_0`$ leads to a qualitatively different behavior of the system with respect to the case with $`r_0(n_f)=const`$. In particular, there exists a minimal value for the coupling constant when the two-particle bound states exist at low carrier densities in the $`s`$-wave pairing channel. The existence of such a threshold value of the coupling constant is typical for the $`d`$-wave pairing case (see, for example ). Another interesting property is: for any coupling constant in both channels there exists a corresponding carrier density value, below which the system is in the superconducting state.

## 2 THE MODEL AND THE MAIN EQUATIONS

The Hamiltonian of the system which describes the non-retarded fermion interaction can be written in a standard form

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _\sigma ^{}(x)(\frac{^2}{2m}+\mu )\psi _\sigma (x)}+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\stackrel{~}{V}(x_1,x_2)\psi _{}^{}(x_1)\psi _{}^{}(x_2)\psi _{}(x_2)\psi _{}(x_1)},`$ (2)
where $`m`$ is the effective fermion mass, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential; fermi-operators $`\psi _\sigma (x)`$ depend on the space-time coordinate $`x=(𝐱,t)`$. The instantaneous interaction potential is chosen in the next form

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(x_1,x_2)=\delta (t_1t_2)V(r),$$

with

$$V(r)=V_{rep}\theta (r_1r)V_{attr}\theta (rr_1)\theta (r_0r),$$
(3)
which corresponds to potential used in . Here $`r=|𝐱_1𝐱_2|`$ is an inter-particle distance. Positive parameters $`V_{rep}`$ and $`V_{attr}`$ correspond to particle repulsion at $`r<r_1`$ and particle attraction at $`r_1<r<r_0`$. The charge carrier density dependence of the correlation radius $`r_0`$ is given by (1) with the parameter $`a=\sqrt{2/\pi }a_0`$, $`a_0`$ is the square lattice constant. This relation can be easily estimated from the equality $`(\pi /2)r_0^2N_f=a_0^2N_{cell}`$, where on the left side the volume of the 2D system is expressed as a volume (circle of the radius $`r_0`$) occupied by one particle, multiplied by the full number of particles $`N_f`$, $`N^{cell}`$ is an elementary cell number in the system. The free fermion bandwidth $`W`$ is connected with $`a_0`$ as $`W=\pi ^2/(ma_0^2)`$. It should be noted, that the relation (1) at $`a=\sqrt{2/\pi }a_0`$ is in a good agreement with the experimental data for $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$ , where the plane magnetically ordered lattice parameters are equal to $`5.354`$Å and $`5.401`$Å, and the corresponding parameter $`a`$ is $`3.8`$Å.

In order to study the superconducting properties of the model in the channels with different pair angular momentum $`l`$, it is convenient, similarly to , to approximate the Fourier transform of (3) by a separable potential:

$$V_{𝐤_1𝐤_2}^l=\lambda _lw_l(𝐤_1)w_l(𝐤_2),$$
(4)
where $`\lambda _l`$ is an effective coupling constant, and functions

$$w_l(𝐤)=h_l(k)cos(l\phi _𝐤)$$
(5)
with coefficients

$$h_l(k)=\frac{(k/k_1)^l}{(1+k/k_0)^{l+1/2}},$$
(6)
$`k`$ is the momentum modulus $`k=|𝐤|`$, and $`\phi _𝐤`$ is its angle in polar coordinates $`𝐤=(kcos(\phi _𝐤),ksin(\phi _𝐤))`$. Parameters $`k_0`$ and $`k_1`$ put the momentum range in the proper region. They are connected with the potential (3) parameters as $`k_01/r_0`$ and $`k_11/r_1`$. Below we put $`k_0=1/r_0`$ and $`k_1=1/r_1`$. Obviously, the expression (4) is not the exact Fourier transform of (3), but it sets the interaction in right momentum range and has the correct asymptotic behavior at small and large momenta: $`V_{𝐤_1𝐤_2}^lk_1^lk_2^l`$ and $`V_{𝐤_1𝐤_2}^l1/\sqrt{k_1k_2}`$, correspondingly. Since we are mainly interested in the low carrier density region, where the crossover can take place, the correct behavior of the interaction potential at small momenta is the most important. In the case of low carrier concentrations the small momenta give the main contribution in the integral of the gap equation (see Eq. (7) below). We shall study $`s`$\- and $`d`$-wave channels with $`l=0`$ and $`2`$ separately, so we assume that the parameters $`\lambda _l`$ for both channels are independent. It will be assumed also that the pairing takes place at zero pair momentum at $`T=0`$.

The minimization of the ground state energy with respect to the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l(x_1x_2)=V(x_1x_2)<\psi _{}(x_1)\psi _{}(x_2)>`$ and the chemical potential gives in the case of the approximation (4) the standard pair of equation for the crossover problem (see, for example ):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐤)=\lambda _l\frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐩)}{2\sqrt{\epsilon ^2(𝐩)+\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐩)^2}}V_{𝐩,𝐤}^l,$$
(7)
$$\frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^2}(1\frac{\epsilon (𝐩)}{\sqrt{\epsilon ^2(𝐩)+\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐩)^2}})=\frac{n_f}{a_0^2},$$
(8)
where $`\epsilon (𝐩)=𝐩^2/2m\mu `$ is a free particle dispersion law. The form of the equation (7) allows to search the solution for the superconducting order parameter in the next form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{0l}w_l(𝐤),$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0l}`$ does not depend on momentum $`𝐤`$ and $`w_l(𝐤)`$ is defined by (5) and (6). In this case the solution of the system (7),(8) gives the dependence

of the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0l}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0s}`$ for $`l=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}`$ for $`l=2`$) and the corresponding chemical potential $`\mu `$ on the particle density $`n_f`$ and the coupling $`\lambda _l`$.

## 3 CROSSOVER FROM SUPERFLUIDITY TO SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

### 3.1 $`s`$-wave pairing channel

The solution of the system (7),(8) at $`\mu =0`$ gives the crossover line $`\lambda _s(n_f)`$, which separates the parameters regions, where the local ($`\mu <0`$) and Cooper pairing ($`\mu >0`$) take place. Note, that in the $`s`$-wave pairing case the Coulomb repulsion parameter $`k_1`$ does not enter in the equations. The numerical solution for the crossover line for the $`s`$-wave pairing case is presented in Fig.1, where we have put Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$ instead of $`n_f`$, since in the 2D case they are connected by a linear relation $`\epsilon _F=\pi n_f/(ma_0^2)`$, and the dimensionless coupling constant $`g_s=m\lambda _s/(4\pi )`$ is introduced. The solution for the $`r_0(n_f)=const`$ case is also presented. As it follows from the numerical calculations, there exists a minimal value of coupling $`g_s=2.574`$, which corresponds to carrier density $`\epsilon _F6.8\times 10^4W`$ on the crossover line, necessary to generate the crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity with doping, otherwise the Cooper pairing regime takes place at any charge carrier density. In other words, there is a minimal value of coupling constant which leads to the two-particle bound states in the $`s`$-wave pairing channel at small $`\epsilon _F`$. It is important to note, that there is no such a minimal coupling in the $`s`$-wave pairing channel when the correlation length $`r_0(n_f)=const`$ . Moreover, the crossover with charge carrier density increasing in the $`s`$-wave channel takes place for any known doping independent interaction potential .

Another interesting property, which follows from the Fig.1b), is the “inverse” crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity with charge carrier density decreasing at small values of $`\epsilon _F`$ ($`\epsilon _F<6.8\times 10^4W`$). This is a consequence of the competition between two opposite processes which occur with $`ϵ_F`$ decreasing. The lowering of $`\epsilon _F`$ tends the system to become a superfluid, but at the same time it leads to growing of $`r_0`$ and

makes the pair size larger, i.e. the pairs become bounded weaker. On the other hand, the carrier localization on dopants at very small carrier densities also makes a possible density region of superfluidity more narrow . However, the region of extremely small particle densities $`\epsilon _F0`$ is not very interesting from the point of view of the connection with HTSC, since in this region the relation $`r_01/\sqrt{n_f}`$ does not hold, and the model is not correct. As it will be shown in the next Subsection, in the $`d`$-wave case this crossover from from superfluidity to superconductivity with doping decreasing takes place at rather large Fermi energy values.

The doping dependencies of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0s}`$ and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ at different values of the coupling constant $`g_s`$ are presented in Figs. 2, and 3. The gap is increasing with the doping almost linearly, except the region of extremely low concentrations. It is interesting to note, that the chemical potential in the superfluidity region ($`\mu <0`$) has a minimum at a finite value of $`\epsilon _F`$ and it is equal to zero at $`\epsilon _F=0`$, since the effective coupling constant at low doping

$$g_lk_0k_F^{2l}g_l\epsilon _F^{l+1/2}$$
(10)
is zero at $`\epsilon _F=0`$. In other words, the local pairs are the most strongly coupled at some finite carrier density value. This is also a consequence of the competition between the Fermi surface formation and correlation radius decreasing with charge carrier density growth. This situation is qualitatively different from the $`r_0(n_f)=const`$ case, where $`k_0`$ does not depend on particle density and renormalized coupling constant is $`\epsilon _F`$-independent in the $`s`$-channel. In this case $`\mu =E_b/2<0`$ at $`\epsilon _F=0`$, where $`E_b<0`$ is a two-particle bound state energy.

### 3.2 $`d`$-wave pairing channel

In this case the Coulomb repulsion parameter $`k_1`$ is present in the equations (7) and (8). However, the presence of this parameter leads just to renormalization of the dimensionless coupling constant $`g_d=m\lambda _d/(4\pi )`$ and the energy gap parameter: $`g_d^r=g_d/(\epsilon _1/W)^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}^r=\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}/\epsilon _1`$, where $`\epsilon _1=k_1^2/(2m)`$ is characteristic energy of Coulomb repulsion. We shall consider the case, when the Coulomb repulsion is much smaller than $`W`$, i.e. this is the case of a large free-fermion bandwidth. Therefore, the coupling constant is assumed to be large: $`g_d^r10^410^5`$ (see Figs. 4-6). The crossover line $`g_d^r(ϵ_F)`$ for the $`d`$-wave pairing case is presented in Fig.4. Qualitatively, the behavior of the system with doping and coupling changing in the $`d`$-wave pairing channel is similar to the $`s`$-wave case. The important difference is that the low carrier density superconducting state exists at rather high values of $`\epsilon _F`$. Also in this case there is a minimal value of the coupling constant for two-particle bound states $`g_d^r1.7856\times 10^4`$ at $`\epsilon _F0.2731W`$. It should be noted that the existence of the large threshold value for the coupling constant in both channels can be a possible answer on the question why the crossover has been not observed in cuprates.

The charge carrier density dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}^r`$ and $`\mu `$ at different coupling parameters $`g_d^r`$ are presented in Figs.5 and 6. The superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}`$ at low charge carrier densities is much smaller than in the $`s`$-case, due to stronger $`\epsilon _F`$-dependence of effective coupling constant at low carrier densities (10). The magnitude of the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}^r`$ starts to grow almost linearly with $`\epsilon _F`$ increasing when the Fermi energy is larger of some minimal value (Fig.5). This behavior is qualitatively similar to the doping dependence of the gap of cuprates in the underdoped regime. However, because of its simplicity, the model can’t describe the decreasing of the gap with charge carrier density increasing at large values of $`n_f`$ HTSCs. For this other properties of the charge carrier interaction in cuprates have to be taken into account (see the last Section).

The small-$`\epsilon _F`$ superconducting region with $`\mu >0`$ as well as region of superfluidity are rather large in the $`d`$-wave pairing channel. Also in this case the chemical potential is equal to zero at $`\epsilon _F=0`$, i.e. there are no two-particle bound states at very low charge carrier densities. It should be noted that the decreasing of the chemical potential with increasing charge carrier density at small $`\epsilon _F`$ both in $`s`$\- and $`d`$-wave pairing cases indicates a negative electronic compressibility. This can be related to increasing of antiferromagnetic correlations at low carrier densities.

## 4 CONCLUSION

Theoretical description of the behavior of superconductor with carrier density changing is an interesting and important problem, in particular, because of its possible association with HTSCs. The microscopic mechanism of the superconductivity in cuprates is not known so far, and the solution of phenomenological models, which take

into account some of the properties of HTSCs, can help to clarify the nature of their unusual behavior, and maybe even help to understand the microscopic mechanism of the HTSC phenomenon.

In this paper the possibility of the crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity with charge carrier density and coupling constant changing in different pairing channels at $`T=0`$ was studied for a model, which qualitatively takes into account one of the properties of HTSCs, namely, the doping dependence of correlation length $`r_0`$ at low carrier densities. It has been shown, that even this simple model results in interesting and unusual properties, which are rather different from a more standard case with $`r_0(n_f)=const`$. In particular, the two-particle bound states in the $`s`$-channel exist only if the coupling constant is larger of the threshold value, similar to the $`d`$-wave pairing case. At any value of coupling constant larger of the threshold one, the “inverse” crossover from superfluidity to superconductivity takes place with doping decreasing in both $`s`$\- and $`d`$-wave channels. Of course, such a simple model can not pretend to describe doping dependence of the gap and chemical potential of HTSCs. The momentum dependence of the interaction potential has to be taken into account more carefully, especially in the overdoped regime, where $`\epsilon _F`$ is rather large and the separable potential may be not correct. In general, also the effect of the retardation of interaction can not be neglected. These and some other questions are planed to be studied in a future work.

## Acknowledgments

V.T. thanks the CFIF members, especially Prof. P.D. Sacramento and Prof. V.R. Vieira for kind hospitality. V.M.L. is partly supported by SCOPES-project 7UKPJ062150.00/1 of the Swiss National Science Fundation.