text:
# Inhomogeneity in doped Mott insulator

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Understanding of Mott insulators is one of the central problems of condensed matter physics. In addition to electronic Mott insulators recently an interesting Bose Mott insulator has been produced by trapping bosonic neutral atoms in an optical lattice. The recent upsurge in interest in Mott insulators is largely due to their dramatic response to doping. For example by doping the transition metal oxides such as the cuprates and the manganites, one obtains superconductors with the highest known transition temperatures and the world’s most magnetoresistive materials.

Mott states, in addition to being insulating, can be characterized by the presence or absence of a spontaneously broken symmetry (e.g. spin antiferromagnetism), by the nature of the low energy excitation spectrum (e.g. gapped or gapless), and most recently, by the presence or absence of topological order and charge fractionalization. To this list, we add a “type” index that classifies Mott insulators into two types depending on their response to doping.

In a type I Mott insulator an increasing chemical potential induces a first order phase transition from an undoped state to a charge-rich state so that the charge density changes discontinuously. In other words, there is a range of “forbidden charge density,” and two-phase coexistence. In a type II Mott insulator, charges go in continuously above a critical chemical potential. Depending on the ratio between the delocalization energy and the interaction energy these doped charges can form a Wigner crystal or a homogeneous liquid phase. An important implication of this work is the existence of a generic class of Mott insulators which become inhomogeneous upon doping.

For the transition metal oxides discussed above, there exists considerable evidence that light doping induces spatial inhomogeniety. Conversely, for Mott insulator such as $`Sr_{1x}La_xTiO_3`$, conventional Fermi liquid behavior is observed for doping as low as $`x=5\%`$, indicative of homogeneity. Thus, the former are type I, the latter is type II.

Generally speaking, insulating states with charge gap including both band and Mott insulators occur in crystalline systems at isolated rational “occupation numbers,” $`\nu =\nu ^{}`$, where $`\nu `$ is the number of particles per chemical unit cell. By “doping” we mean a process which causes the occupation number to shift away from $`\nu ^{}`$. When lattice translation symmetry is not spontaneously broken, $`\nu ^{}`$ is typically an integer for bosons, and an even integer for fermions with spin. The fermionic state thus may be adiabatically connected to a weakly interacting band-insulator, however a Bose Mott insulator is always a strong correlation effect. Charge gapped insulating states can also occur when $`\nu ^{}`$ is a rational fraction (for fermions this includes odd-integer). Usually when that happens, translational symmetry is spontaneously broken so that the unit cell of the reduced translation group has integral $`\nu `$ for bosons and even integral $`\nu `$ for fermions. For instance, electronic Mott insulators with $`\nu ^{}=1`$ often exhibit antiferromagnetic N‘eel long-range order, which doubles the unit cell leading to an effective $`\nu _{eff}=2`$. Nevertheless there exists model bosonic systems for which the Mott state can be shown to have no broken symmetries for $`\nu ^{}=1/2`$ . (Currently, no laboratory system has been found which unambiguously exhibits this exotic behavior.)

The rest of this paper addresses the response of Mott insulators to light doping (i.e. $`\nu \nu ^{}ϵ`$). Our central observation is that regardless of their classification (i.e. symmetry, gap, topology) Mott insulators can be divided into two groups differentiated by whether they remain homogeneous after doping. Furthermore we shall show that these two types of insulating state is analogous to the two types of superconducting state under magnetic field. In particular if the Mott insulators are two dimensional and the constituent particles are bosons there exists a mathematical mapping, the so-called “duality transformation”, that relates their zero-temperature response to doping to the finite-temperature response of a 3D superconductor to a magnetic field. (The duality transformation has been used to deduce two types of doping behavior by Balents et al in the context of doping a spin liquid called “nodal liquid”)The following table summarize correspondence between the two.

| $`T=0`$ properties of 2D Bose Mott insulators | $`T>0`$ properties of 3D Superconductors |
| --- | --- |
| Doping | Applying magnetic field |
| Chemical potential $`\mu `$ | Applied magnetic field H |
| Induced particle density $`\rho `$ | Magnetic induction $`B`$ |
| World line of doped particles | Flux tubes |
| Quantum delocalization of doped particles | Thermal meandering of flux tubes |
| Type I Mott insulator | Type I superconductor |
| Mott gap | $`H_c`$ |
| Effective attraction between doped particles | Positive N-S interface energy |
| Type II Mott insulator | Type II superconductor |
| Effective repulsion between doped particles | Negative N-S interface energy |
| Mott gap | $`H_{c1}`$ |
| Wigner crystal of doped particles | Abrikosov flux lattice |
| Superfluid state | Entangled vortex fluid |
| Critical $`\mu `$ at which Wigner crystal melts | $`H_{c2}`$ |

## 2 DOPING A TRANSLATIONALLY INVARIANT BOSE MOTT INSULATOR

In order to avoid the issue of spontaneous symmetry breaking in electronic Mott insulators and focus on the absolute essentials, we consider the simplest kind of Mott insulators - the ones formed by spin zero point bosons on a lattice. Due to Ref. this consideration is no longer an academic exercise. Consider the following Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}(a_i^+a_j+h.c.)+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(a_i^+a_i)(a_i^+a_i1)`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}V_{ij}a_i^+a_ia_j^+a_j\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^+a_i,`$
where $`i,j`$ label the lattice sites on a D-dimensional hypercubic lattice, and $`a_i^+`$ creates a boson at site $`i`$. The first term of Eq. (1) describes the quantum mechanical “hopping” of bosons from a site $`i`$ to its nearest neighbors $`j`$, the second and the third terms describe the pair-wise interaction between bosons. The $`U`$ term is a contact interaction and the $`V_{ij}`$ terms describe interaction between bosons separated by $`|𝐫_i𝐫_j|`$.

Let us focus on the limit where $`U/t\mathrm{}`$. In this “hardcore” limit doubly occupied site costs energy $`U`$, hence are excluded. In this case for large positive $`\mu `$ there is an unique ground state

$$|\mathrm{Mott}>=\underset{j}{}a_j^+|0>,$$
(2)
in which each site is occupied by one and only one boson and hence $`\nu =1`$. Since this state is separated from all other states with the same particle number by an energy gap of order $`U`$, clearly we have an insulator.

The behavior of the system upon decreasing $`\mu `$ (i.e. doping) depends on the values of $`V_{ij}`$. For $`V_{ij}=0`$ the doped holes (i.e the empty sites) interact only through the hardcore exclusion. For appropriate $`\mu `$ where the ground state has a small $`1\nu `$, the hopping term is clearly minimized by delocalizing the holes around, since there is plenty of room available for them. In fact it is known that such system is an uniform superfluid with superfluid stiffness proportional to $`t(1\nu )lnln[1/(1\nu )]`$. Conversely, if $`V_{ij}`$ is attractive (negative) with range $`|𝐫_i𝐫_j|R`$ it is clear that the holes will cluster when the strength of this interaction is strong compared with $`t`$ \- the holes will phase separate. Thus depending the value of $`V_{ij}`$ Eq. (1) can describe either a type I or type II Mott insulator when $`\nu =1`$.

Consider, for example, the case in which $`V_{ij}=V`$ for $`(ij)`$ nearest-neighbor sites, and $`V_{ij}=0`$ otherwise. Technically in this limit Eq. (1) is equivalent to the S=1/2 ferromagnetic XXZ model in a z-direction magnetic field

$$H=J_{xy}\underset{<ij>}{}(S_i^xS_j^x+S_i^yS_j^y)J_z\underset{<ij>}{}S_i^zS_j^zh_z\underset{i}{}S_i^z.$$
(3)
The mapping between these two models relates $`J_{xy}`$ to $`t`$, $`J_z`$ to $`V`$, $`h_z`$ to $`\mu +Vc/2`$ ($`c=`$ the coordination number). The $`z`$ component of the magnetization is related to the boson density according to $`M_z=(\nu 1/2)N`$. (Here $`N`$ is the total number of lattice sites.) For $`J_z<J_{xy}`$ (i.e.$`V<t`$), this model has XY order in the absence of $`h_z`$. In this range of parameters varying $`h_z`$ causes the magnetization $`M_z`$ to vary continuously. Thus for each fixed $`M_z`$ the ground state is uniform and ferromagnetic. In terms of bosons this means that the doped system is a uniform superfluid for all $`\nu `$. Conversely, for $`J_z>J_{xy}`$ (i.e. $`V>t`$) the model is effectively an Ising ferromagnet with fully polarized ground state. In this case $`M_z`$ exhibits a discontinuity $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_z=N`$ at $`h_z=0`$. Thus for all $`|M_z|1`$ the ground state exhibits phase separation into two oppositely polarized domains. In terms of the bosons, these two domains are Mott insulating ($`\nu =1`$) and empty ($`\nu =0`$) respectively.

## 3 DUALITY TRANSFORMATION FOR THE BOSE MOTT INSUALTOR IN D=2

While the above discussions applies to arbitrary space dimensions, there is a particularly convenient way of thinking about Bose Mott insulators that is specific to $`D=2`$. It turns out that for the class of model given by Eq. (1), there is a mathematical mapping, the “duality” transformation, that provides us an alternative view of the physics of Eq. (1) in terms of the vortices of the boson field. It is this mapping that enables us to establish a precise connection between the two types of Mott insulators with type I and type II superconductors . In the following we discuss the physical content of the duality transformation without going into its technical details of the tranformation.

A vortex is a topological defect in the Bose field. When a boson is adiabatically transported around a vortex, the boson wavefunction acquires a phase factor - the Aharonov-Bohm phase. In the dual picture, the vortices are viewed as particles (they turn out to have Bose statistics as well), and when they are brought around an original boson they acquire an Aharonov-Bohm phase. The fact that a boson and a vortex acquire a phase when they go around one another implies that bosons and vortices can not Bose condense simultaneously. As is well known, in the Bose superfluid phase the vortex density fluctuation must be absent. Conversely, in the dual phase, where the vortices form a superfluid, the boson density (and hence the dual magnetic flux) must be frozen; the vortex superfluid phase is the Mott insulating phase of the original bosons. It is important to note that the absence of boson density fluctuation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for vortex condensation. For example a static boson density can still frustrate vortex condensation because it acts like a background magnetic field. However when the static boson density corresponds to an integral $`\nu `$, the vortices see a background magnetic flux corresponding to integral number of flux quanta per plaquette. (The vortices live on the dual lattice, i.e., the centers of the square plaquettes.) This type of flux is “invisible” to the vortices because they can be “gauged away”. The $`\nu =1`$ Bose Mott insulator, discussed in the previous section, corresponds to precisely this situation.

When the boson density is a fraction ($`\nu =p/q`$) it is also possible for the vortices to condense. Such a state is most naturally accompanied by spontaneous translation symmetry breaking, as discussed above, leading to an enlarged unit cell with an effective integer $`\nu `$. However, it is possible to imagine a more exotic Mott state at $`\nu =p/q`$ in which the translation symmetry is unbroken. This could happen if $`q`$ elementary vortices form a bound-state, and these composites then condense. Such a composite condensation is unfrustrated by an unform static boson density $`\nu =p/q`$. Moreover, since the condensate vortex consists of $`q`$ elementary vortices, the charge $`1/q`$ bosonic soliton excitation (viewed by the condensate vortices as a flux quantum) can become a finite energy excitation. Thus there is fractional charge solitons!

In short, a vortex condensate requires the bosons to Mott insulate. Consequently we can view a boson Mott insulator as a vortex superconductor. Doping changes the average background boson density. To the vortices this appears as a change in the background magnetic field. In this way the doping properties of the boson Mott insulator is related to the magnetic properties of the vortex superconductor.

## 4 THE ANALOGY WITH SUPERCONDUCTORS IN A MAGNETIC FIELD

In the above discussion a zero temperature boson Mott insulator is mapped onto a zero-temperature vortex superconductor (with quantum fluctuating two-dimensional electromagnetic fields). The final step is to realize that the quantum partition function of a (particle-hole symmetric) two dimensional superconductor with fluctuating gauge field is equivalent to the classical (i.e. thermal) partition function of a three-dimensional superconductor with thermally fluctuating magnetic field. This final correspondence between the Mott insulator and the classical fluctuating 3D superconductor is summarized in table I.

A lot is known about thermally fluctuating 3D superconductors. Mean-field theory predicted that there are two types. For a type I superconductor the magnetic induction $`B`$ jumps discontinuously from $`B=0`$ to $`B=H`$ at $`H=H_c`$. As the result there is a range of $`B`$ (i.e. $`0<B<H_c`$) in which phase separation occurs. For example one way of enforcing a fixed average magnetic induction is to place a flat slab of type I superconductor under magnetic field $`H<H_c`$. It is known that when that is done “intermediate state” where superconducting region and normal region alternate occurs. It is interesting that among many possible inhomogeneous structures the laminar structure (or stripe) has been observed. Translate this using table I we conclude that a type I Bose Mott insulator undergoes a first order insulator $``$ superfluid transition as a function of chemical potential. The density of doped bosons jumps discontinuously at the transition. When the doping density is fixed at a value smaller than the critical density at the first order transition the system phase separates.

Mean-field theory predicts that in a type II superconductor the magnetic induction $`B`$ increases from zero continuously at the lower critical field $`H_{c1}`$. For $`H>H_{c1}`$ the magnetic induction appear in the form of flux tubes each enclosing a single quantum of magnetic flux. These flux tubes form a regular lattice in the absence of disorder. Unlike the type I superconductors thermal meandering of the flux tubes can affect the physics of type II superconductors dramatically near $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$. For example near $`H_{c1}`$ the distance between neighboring flux tubes is much greater than the range of their interaction (the London penetration depth $`\lambda `$). As the result thermal meandering of the flux tubes can melt the flux lattice into flux liquid. At larger magnetic field the density of flux tube becomes higher so that their interaction can stabilize the flux lattice. This flux lattice persists until $`HH_{c2}`$ where the thermal meandering melt the flux lattice again. Translating the above using table I implies that the extra carriers enter a type II Mott insulator continuously at a critical chemical potential. Once they enter they can either delocalize (hence Bose condense) or form a Wigner crystal depending on the relative importance of the delocalization energy and the interaction energy. At at very low carrier density the delocalization always win and we expect the boson hopping to render the system a superfluid.

What determines a superconductor to be type I or type II is the ratio between the London penetration depth and the core size of the vortices, or more physically in terms of the sign of the interface energy between the normal and superconducting regions. Type I superconductors have a positive interface energy while type II superconductors have a negative one. As the result the flux tubes effectively attract each other in type I superconductors while repel each other in type II superconductors. As we have seen this is exactly how we turn a type I Mott insulator into a type II one in Eq. (1).

## 5 DOPING A BOSE MOTT INSULATOR WITH AN ORDER PARAMETER

As we discussed at the beginning of this paper a Mott insulating state can be accompanied by translation symmetry breaking. For example let us consider Eq. (1) with $`U/t\mathrm{}`$ and $`V_{ij}=+V`$ for nearest neighbor $`<ij>`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. For sufficiently strong $`V`$ and $`\mu =0`$ the ground state breaks translation symmetry and bosons form a checkerboard lattice and Mott insulate. In this two-fold degenerate ground state the unit cell is doubled. Is this Mott insulator type I or type II?

With the above specific choice of $`U`$ and $`V_{ij}`$ Eq. (1) is equivalent to Eq. (3) with $`J_{xy}=t`$, $`J_z=V`$ and $`h=\mu Vc/2`$. For this choice of parameters it is known that as a function of $`h_z`$ Eq. (3) exhibits a “spin flop” transition from the antiferromagnetic Ising ($`S_z`$) ordered phase into the ferromagnetic XY ordered phase. Translate this into the boson language it implies that the boson Mott insulator is type I.

Before closing this section we argue that the existence of an order parameter ($`\psi `$) in the insulating state (for the above example $`\psi `$ is the two-sublattice density wave order parameter) has an effect in determining the type of the Mott insulator. If we assume that doping changes the value of $`\psi `$, then at the interface between doped and undoped region a spatially varying $`\psi `$ is necessary. Through the spatial gradient energy

$$d^dx|\psi |^2$$
(4)
a positive contribution to the surface energy is resulted. Consequently the presence of an order parameter in the insulating state drives the system toward a type I Mott insulator.

## 6 What ROLE DOES INHOMOGENEITY PLAY IN THE CUPRATES; PAIRING IN THE HOLE-RICH ISLANDS IN $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+x}`$

Finally we come to address the question what role does inhomogeneity play in the curpates? One of the most direct evidence of electronic inhomogeneity in the cuprates comes from the STM image of the surface of $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+x}`$, where nanoscale spatial variation of the energy gap in the tunnelling density of states is observed. (Of course we have to assume that the STM results is not a surface artifact.) As emphasized by Lang et al, the characteristics of the tunnelling spectra divide into two distinct types: “$`\alpha `$ region” where sharp coherence peaks exist ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ranges from 25 -50 meV), and “$`\beta `$” region where there is no sharp coherence peak ( $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ranges from 50 to 75 meV). We take these evidences as suggesting that in the $`\alpha `$ region superconducting pairing has clearly won over all other competing orders, while in the $`\beta `$ region it has not. We believe that inhomogeneity allows the superconducting $`\alpha `$ region to exist in the underdoped regime. As the result superconductivity prevails over a wider range of doping concentration. However, we do not think inhomogeneity plays an important role in the pairing of $`\alpha `$ regions. The above line of thinking suggests that in order to understand the pairing mechanism it is best to concentrate on the $`\alpha `$ regions.

Since the superconducting gap can vary over the length scale of a few nanometers, the coherence length must not be significantly longer than that. At such length scale (comparable with the averaged inter-hole distance) the Coulomb interaction is poorly screened. How can pairing tolerate such strong unscreened Coulomb interaction?

In the rest of this section we present an explicit example of a paired state that can survive strong repulsion. The state we shall concentrate on is of the form

$$|\psi (\mathrm{\Delta })>=P(n_i)|\psi _{dBCS}(\mathrm{\Delta })>.$$
(5)
In Eq. (5) $`|\psi _{dBCS}(\mathrm{\Delta })>`$ is a d-wave BCS state characterized by the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The operator $`P`$ is a Jestrow correlator that suppresses configurations with large density fluctuations. A particular form of $`P`$, that is often used in the high $`T_c`$ context, is the Gutzwiller projection operator. In our opinion although we do not know precisely what Hamiltonian gives rise to a ground state like Eq. (5), it is rather safe to assume that the ground state in the $`\alpha `$ region is of that form.

In the following we demonstrate that a state like Eq. (5) has the property that it is more sensitive to magnetic interactions than to charge interactions. To do that we consider the following Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(c_{j\alpha }^{}c_{i\alpha }+h.c.)+J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(𝐒_i𝐒_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_in_j)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`V_c{\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{ij}}}(n_i\overline{n})(n_j\overline{n}).`$
The purpose of the following discussions is not to prove Eq. (5) is the ground state of Eq. (6). Rather we hope to demonstrate one point - the state given in Eq. (5) is more sensitive to the magnetic interaction $`J`$ than to the charge interaction $`V_c`$. The result we shall quote below is obtained by Wang and collaborators in Ref..

By a straightforward Monte-Carlo minimization Wang et al conclude that for doping $`x=0.12`$ it is energetically favorable to develop a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`V_c`$ as big as $`9J`$. To appreciate the effects of the Jestrow correlator $`P`$ (which they take as $`P=_i(1n_in_i`$) in Eq. (5) they compared the results with and without $`P`$. Interestingly without $`P`$ a nearest-neighbor repulsion $`V_{nn}`$ destabilizes pairing when $`V_{nn}`$ is larger than $`0.5J`$! Thus the Jestrow correlator $`P`$ enhances the stability of pairing in Eq. (5) by as much as a factor of 18!

The following is a brief summary of Wang et al’s results. Given Eq. (5) Wang et al minimize $`E(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Psi }|H|\mathrm{\Psi }/\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by varying $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The results presented below are obtained for $`x=0.12`$ in $`10\times 10`$ lattice by variational Monte-Carlo.

In Fig.1(a) $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE(\mathrm{\Delta })E(0)`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is plotted. The wavefunction used is Eq. (5) with $`P`$ being the Gutzwiller projector. The open circles are for the pure t-J model (i.e. without charge-charge interaction), the crosses are for t-J model with a nearest neighbor repulsion $`V_{nn}=3J`$, and the open squares are for t-J + Coulomb model (Eq. (6)) with $`V_c=3J`$. For each of the three cases a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ develops.

In Fig.1(b) $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE(\mathrm{\Delta })E(0)`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is plotted for the repulsive nearest-neighbor ($`V_{nn}`$) model. An important difference is that the Jestrow correlator $`P`$ in Eq. (5) is removed. This time the optimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes for $`V_{nn}0.5J`$.

These results clearly indicate that a strongly correlated paired state such as Eq. (5) can indeed sustain strong repulsion between the electrons. In addition we take this as suggesting a state like Eq. (5) is more sensitive to magnetic interactions than the charge interactions.

In the literature it is often stated that pairing correspond to real space binding of holes. In the presence of strong Coulomb interaction real space bound hole pairs are extremely energetically unfavorable, and indeed in an ansatz such as Eq. (5) no hole binding is present.

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

To summarize, in this paper we introduce the concept that there are two types of Mott insulator in nature. A type I Mott insulator becomes inhomogeneous after doping, while a type II Mott insulator remains homogeneous. We present a specific lattice boson models which Mott insulates without symmetry breaking at $`\nu =1`$ and, depending on the sign of a microscopic interaction, exhibits these two types of ground states after doping. We argue that the presence of a symmetry breaking order parameter in the insulating state has the effect of driving the system toward type I. In addition, we argue that these two types of Mott insulating states are dual to the type I and type II superconducting states. Here we conjecture that the notorious $`x=0.19`$ “quantum critical point” in the cuprates is related to the inhomogeneous to homogeneous transition when the magnetic induction ($`B`$) in a type I superconductor is varied across $`H_c`$.

We also express our opinion on the role played by the inhomogeneity in the cuprates. To reiterate, we do not think inhomogeneity plays a central role in pairing. However it does allow the superconducting region (where pairing dominates over other competing orders) to protrude into the underdoped regime. As the result superconductivity prevails over a wider range of doping concentration. Finally we believe a correlated pairing state given by Eq. (5) can describe the hole-rich superconducting regions (the so-called $`\alpha `$ regions) imaged by the STM. Using the result of Ref. we demonstrate that this state is much more sensitive to spin-spin interaction than charge-charge interaction. This provides an mechanism by which pairing can survive poorly screened Coulomb interaction.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Part of this paper (two types of Mott insulator) is the result of a collaboration with S.A. Kivelson. I thank Seamus Davis and members of his group for valuable discussions. DHL is supported by NSF grant DMR 99-71503.


format: text

text:
# New results for a photon-photon collider

## I Introduction

This document summarizes recent results obtained by the American working group on $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders, and is intended to be a supporting document for discussions at LC2002, to be held on Jeju Island, South Korea.

We have been considering two machine scenarios. In the first, a ‘Higgs-factory’ is based on high energy photon beams optimized for the $`s`$-channel production of a Standard Model-like Higgs boson of mass in the range 100–130 GeV. The properties of this Higgs boson would be explored in a dedicated fashion. Paramount among these is the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }`$, which is sensitive to new charged particles such as the top squark, and also the top Yukawa coupling. Certain rare decays are available due to low backgrounds, such as $`h\gamma \gamma `$, $`h\gamma Z`$, and $`hZZ^{}`$. For an earlier study and description of the machine, see Ref. AsnerCliche . In the second, more conventional scenario, a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider runs in parallel with a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. In this case the study of the heavier neutral Higgs bosons, $`H`$ and $`A`$, can be pursued even in cases in which they are not visible in the companion $`e^+e^{}`$ machine AsnerNLC . Linearly polarized beams provide information about the charge-parity (CP) nature of these particles, so in this and in other senses a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider complements the $`e^+e^{}`$ machine. As discussed in this document, effective cross sections are as large as or larger than the corresponding $`e^+e^{}`$ cross sections. For example, we have studied the copious and clean signal from $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$. Also, it appears that the sensitivity of a high energy $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider to the Higgs self-coupling is about the same as the $`e^+e^{}`$ machine. A similar conclusion is reached for chargino production. While one would not advocate substituting a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider by a $`\gamma \gamma `$ one, it is clear that more will be understood about the Higgs (and other) sector if both machines are in operation.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we describe how the mass of the heavier top squark can be inferred from a measurement of the $`h^0\gamma \gamma `$ coupling in the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), if the lighter top squark mass and mixing angle are known. In Sec. III we examine Higgs boson decay to two photons. In Sec. IV we examine radion production in two-photon collisions in models of warped extra dimensions. In Sec. V we study chargino pair production in two-photon collisions and estimate the event yield. In Sec. VI we study pair production of the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson in two-photon collisions, which is sensitive to the trilinear Higgs boson coupling. In Sec. VII we study signal and background to charged Higgs boson pair production in two-photon collisions, with decays to taus. In Sec. VIII we examine the background at a two-photon collider due to resolved photons. Finally we summarize our results in Sec. IX.

## II Top squark parameters from MSSM Higgs boson production in photon-photon collisions

A two-photon collider optimized to run on a light Higgs boson ($`h^0`$) $`s`$-channel resonance can measure the rate of $`\gamma \gamma h^0b\overline{b}`$ with a precision of about 2% Maydagg ; AsnerCliche ; AsnerNLC ; Soldner . Combining this with the expected model-independent measurement of BR($`h^0b\overline{b}`$) of 2-3% from an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider Battaglia ; eeBRb , one can extract the $`h^0\gamma \gamma `$ coupling with a precision of 2-3%. In the MSSM, such a measurement is sensitive to contributions to the loop-induced $`h^0\gamma \gamma `$ coupling from supersymmetric (SUSY) particles, mainly top squarks and charginos Djouadigg , and to deviations in the couplings of $`h^0`$ to SM particles from their SM values. We show that this measurement of the $`h^0\gamma \gamma `$ coupling can be combined with $`e^+e^{}`$ collider data on the lighter top squark mass and mixing angle to constrain the mass of the heavier top squark to within about $`\pm 20`$ GeV or less, if the lighter top squark is not too heavy.

In the MSSM, there can generally be a large splitting between the masses of the lighter ($`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$) and heavier ($`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$) top squarks, and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ can be quite light. Thus, one can envision a situation in which $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ can be pair-produced at a first-stage (500 GeV) $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, but $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ is kinematically inaccessible. In this case, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ can be measured to high precision. The top squark mixing angle $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ can also be measured at the per cent level because of the dependence of the $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}`$ cross section on this angle.

In such a situation one would like to constrain the mass of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ indirectly. In the decoupling limit of large $`m_A`$, the $`h^0\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{t}_j^{}`$ couplings can be written solely in terms of known SM parameters and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, with a very mild additional dependence on $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$. A measurement of one of these couplings then allows one to extract $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$. The cross sections for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}h^0`$ Belangertth  and $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}Z`$ BelangerttZ  are sensitive to the $`h^0\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}`$ coupling and hence to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$. This method succeeds only if $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ is light enough and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is moderate (i.e., not close to 1 or 0). For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=120`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0.4`$, the sensitivity to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ is about $`\pm 20`$ GeV from $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}h^0`$ Belangertth . This method is no longer effective if the $`h^0\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}`$ coupling is small, since the cross section becomes too small to detect.

Here we study the sensitivity to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ of the $`h^0\gamma \gamma `$ partial width, assuming that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ have been measured in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. This is shown in Fig. 1 for various values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, in the large-$`m_A`$ limit.

Using the knowledge of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ from the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, a 2% measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0\gamma \gamma )`$ allows one to extract $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ with a statistical precision of about $`\pm 10`$ GeV for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=120`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0.4`$. This precision worsens as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ increases or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ varies, because the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0\gamma \gamma )`$ on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ becomes weaker (see Fig. 1). The soft SUSY-breaking mass parameters $`M_{Q_3}`$, $`M_{U_3}`$ and $`X_tA_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta `$ can then be inferred from $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$.

Additional uncertainties arise due to the dependence on $`m_A`$ of the $`h^0\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{t}_j^{}`$ couplings and additional chargino loop contributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0\gamma \gamma )`$. To a lesser extent, the bottom squarks also contribute at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ Djouadisb . In most of the MSSM parameter space, values of $`m_A`$ below about 600 GeV will lead to at least a $`2\sigma `$ deviation in the ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(h^0b\overline{b})/\mathrm{BR}(h^0WW)`$, measurable in either $`e^+e^{}`$ Battaglia ; CHLM  or $`\gamma \gamma `$ Maydagg  collisions. For larger $`m_A`$, the effect on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0\gamma \gamma )`$ is negligible. Values of $`m_A`$ as low as 200 GeV lead to an additional $`\pm 4`$ GeV parametric uncertainty in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ for the parameters considered above.

The uncertainty due to chargino loops can be removed if the parameters of the chargino mass matrix are already known. The measurements are straightforward at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider GudiCharginos . In fact, complete reconstruction of the chargino and neutralino mass matrices is possible even if only $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ are kinematically accessible GudiPartial . If $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ is too heavy to be pair produced in 500 GeV $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, its effect on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0\gamma \gamma )`$ is also diminished due to decoupling. For $`M_2=\mu =250`$ GeV (leading to a $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ mass of 200-214 GeV, depending on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$), the unknown chargino contribution leads to an additional $`\pm 8`$ GeV uncertainty in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ for the parameters considered above, assuming no knowledge of the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. If $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large, the chargino contribution is quite small and leads to far less uncertainty.

Finally, we comment briefly on Higgs boson decays. Decays of $`h^0`$ into $`b\overline{b}`$, $`WW`$, $`ZZ`$, $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`Z\gamma `$ can be measured at a two-photon collider. The theoretical behavior of these decay widths in the MSSM has been analyzed thoroughly CHLM ; Djouadigg ; DjouadiZg . Neglecting contributions of SUSY particles in the loop, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0Z\gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0WW)`$ approaches its SM value very quickly with increasing $`m_A`$; the deviation from the SM prediction is less than 10% for $`m_A>130`$ GeV and less than 2% for $`m_A>150`$ GeV. Thus a measurement of this ratio can be used as a test for light charged non-SM particles in the $`h^0Z\gamma `$ loop. Ref. DjouadiZg  found that top squarks can contribute up to 5% deviations for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}>100`$ GeV and charginos can contribute up to 10% deviations for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}>100`$ GeV.

## III Higgs Boson decay to two photons

The partial width for $`h\gamma \gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }`$, is sensitive to charged non-SM particles. For example, in the MSSM with a light and a heavy stop, the mass of the heavier stop can be inferred from the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }`$ if the mass of the lighter stop and the mixing angle are already known – see Section II. Since the Higgs cross section is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }`$, the rate $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}`$ when combined with a measurement of $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ from an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider leads to a 2–3% measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }`$ AsnerCliche ; Maydagg .

The channel $`h\gamma \gamma `$ is doubly sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }`$. In an $`e^+e^{}`$ experiment, this channel can be difficult to observe due to large backgrounds. But in a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider, the backgrounds are low because continuum scattering $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$ proceeds only through loops. Preliminary studies have shown that a clear signal can be extracted with a very simple analysis, provided the calorimeter performance is good enough. Furthermore, a direct measurement of the Higgs mass is possible from the $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass distribution. We have continued these studies and made them more realistic, as briefly described here; the conclusions remain positive.

This study assumes a Higgs-factory machine, running with the peak of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ energy spectrum at the Higgs mass. For $`m_h=120`$ GeV, this corresponds to 75 GeV electron beams AsnerCliche . The beam parameters for this facility are given in Table 1 and the corresponding luminosity and polarization spectra in Fig. 2. The assumed integrated luminosity is sufficient to produce 11,400 Higgs bosons. The SM branching ratio for $`m_h=120`$ GeV is $`2.1\times 10^3`$.

The first improvement is the introduction of a calorimeter geometry and simulation. An aggressive design has been assumed, with coverage down to $`3^{}`$ and a high degree of granularity. The energy resolution is the same as the CMS design, namely, $`\sigma _E/E=\left((0.015/\sqrt{E})^2+(0.0045)^2\right)^{1/2}`$. A cone algorithm is used to find the high energy photon showers. Threshold and clustering effects have little impact on the mass resolution, but do lead to a shift in the observed mass of 0.25 GeV. The width of the cone, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$, was chosen as small as possible without impacting the signal resolution.

Next we introduced resolved photon backgrounds – see Section VIII for details. Events simulated with Pythia are overlayed with the signal and background events before clustering. Significant ‘extra’ energy occasionally lands within the cluster cone, leading to a reconstructed mass that is higher than the true mass. It also partially compensates for the loss due to threshold and clustering effects. The reconstructed mass distribution has a tail to high values, as shown in Fig. 3.

The parametrization of the $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$ background was handled as before. However, a new background was considered, in which Compton scattering gives an energetic electron and photon in the detector with the electron mis-identified as a photon. This happens if the tracking device or track reconstruction fail, or if the electron radiates most of its energy while passing through the beam pipe or Silicon vertex detector. As a starting point, we took the electron mis-identification to be $`ϵ_{e\gamma }=10^4`$. This gives a background roughly as large as the background from $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$. Such a small value for $`ϵ_{e\gamma }`$ may require a special detector design.

The distribution of reconstructed $`\gamma \gamma `$ mass is shown in Fig 3. Besides the smooth distribution from $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$, which ends at $`M_{\gamma \gamma }=130`$ GeV, the contribution from Compton scattering is shown, extending up to $`M_{\gamma \gamma }=135`$ GeV. The difference in shape can be exploited to discriminate the two contributions. The signal peak is clearly visible, despite the smearing due to the resolved photon background.

## IV The role of photon-photon collisions in exploring the scalar sector of the Randall-Sundrum model.

The scalar sector of the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model comprises the Higgs boson and the radion. In general, the bare radion and bare Higgs boson mix by virtue of a $`\xi RH^{}H`$ mixing contribution to the visible brane Lagrangian. A non-zero value for $`\xi `$ is certainly allowed by all symmetries, and so large values of $`|\xi |`$ are a possibility. The phenomenology of the Higgs boson, $`h`$, and radion, $`\varphi `$, mass eigenstates is strongly dependent upon $`\xi `$. To fully explore and test the scalar sector phenomenology of the $`h`$ and $`\varphi `$ will require a full complement of accelerators. Here, we briefly sketch the crucial role of a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider in verifying the scalar sector structure. This work uses the procedures of Ref. Dominici:2002jv  for analyzing the RS scalar sector.

The basic structure of the scalar sector is fixed by the four parameters, $`m_h`$, $`m_\varphi `$, $`\xi `$ and $`\gamma v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ where $`v=246\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ is the vacuum expectation value of the bare radion field, a new physics scale that should lie roughly in the range $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ to $`20\mathrm{TeV}`$, resulting in a range for $`\gamma `$ from $`0.25`$ down to $`0.01`$ (we will consider values as high as $`0.31`$). A very important constraint on the parameter space is provided by requiring that the kinetic energy terms of the diagonalized Lagrangian not be tachyonic. Algebraically, this reduces to the requirement that $`Z^21+6\xi \gamma ^2(16\xi )>0`$. This constraint implies a maximum value of $`|\xi |`$ of order $`1/\gamma `$. A second crucial constraint on the $`m_h,m_\varphi ,\xi ,\gamma `$ parameter space comes from the requirement that inversion to the bare parameters $`m_{h_0}^2`$ and $`m_{\varphi _0}^2`$ be possible. This requirement implies that the minimum value of $`|m_\varphi m_h|`$ must increase with increasing $`|\xi |`$, with $`m_\varphi =m_h`$ only possible for zero mixing, $`\xi =0`$.

For our discussion, it will be convenient to replace $`m_\varphi `$ by another observable, namely $`g_{ZZh}^2`$ which will be very well determined in $`e^+e^{}Zh`$ production at a future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider (LC), independently of any information regarding the $`\varphi `$. The interesting question is then whether the $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider can play an important role given other possible measurements of $`h`$ and $`\varphi `$ production at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the LC.

Let us write $`h_0=dh+c\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _0=a\varphi +bh`$, where $`a,b,c,d`$ are functions of the four parameters used to specify the scalar sector. All $`f\overline{f}`$ and $`VV`$ ($`V=W,Z`$) couplings of the physical $`h`$ \[$`\varphi `$\] are given by $`g_{fVh}=(d+\gamma b)`$ \[$`g_{fV\varphi }=(c+\gamma a)`$\] times the value for a SM Higgs boson. The sum rule, $`g_{fVh}^2+g_{fV\varphi }^2=R^2`$, where $`R^2=\left[1+\frac{\gamma ^2(16\xi )^2}{Z^2}\right]`$, will play an important role below; $`R^2`$ is clearly $`1`$ (and possibly substantially larger than 1 given that small values of $`Z^2`$ are possible). The $`gg`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings of the $`h`$ and $`\varphi `$ receive anomalous contributions from their $`\varphi _0`$ components proportional to $`\gamma b`$ and $`\gamma a`$ as well as from SM particle loops proportional to $`g_{fVh}`$ and $`g_{fV\varphi }`$, respectively. These anomalous couplings are very crucial to unraveling the RS scalar sector and it is the ability of a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider to probe the anomalous $`\gamma \gamma `$ coupling that would be of particular value.

We illustrate the general strategy by focusing on just one possible case. We imagine that the linear collider (and LHC) find a Higgs boson of mass $`m_h=120\mathrm{GeV}`$ and that the LC determines $`g_{fVh}^2=0.7`$ (from the measurement of $`g_{ZZh}^2`$) with very small error bars ($`<35\%`$ should be achievable, see lcvol2 ). The sum rule noted above implies that $`g_{fV\varphi }^20.3`$ (possibly substantially so) and, therefore, if the $`\varphi `$ is not too heavy, the $`\varphi `$ too will be observable in $`e^+e^{}Z\varphi `$ production at the LC and possibly also observable at the LHC. In such a case, $`m_\varphi `$ and $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ will be well measured. Assuming that the RS scenario is correct and that these measurements both have very high experimental precision, this will be sufficient to determine the location in $`m_h,m_\varphi ,\xi ,\gamma `$ space up to a two-fold ambiguity. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.111For the case being considered it is unlikely that the $`\varphi `$ is too heavy to be observed since a heavy $`\varphi `$ would probably be inconsistent with precision electroweak constraints for $`g_{fV\varphi }^20.3`$. One need only locate the two points (one in the $`\xi <0`$ region and one in the $`\xi >0`$ region) at which the contours for the measured value of $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ crosses those for the measured value of $`m_\varphi `$. Of course, if $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ is measured with less than perfect precision, additional ambiguity in the parameter space location will result. It is also important to note from Fig. 4 that $`m_\varphi >m_h`$ (as is generally the case if $`g_{fVh}^2<1`$) with values of $`m_\varphi `$ close to $`m_h`$ only allowed when $`|\xi \gamma |`$ is relatively small. However, the contours with $`m_\varphi >300\mathrm{GeV}`$ displayed are problematical. Given the associated $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ values, the radion contributions to precision electroweak observables might be in conflict with current constraints.

There is still one further ambiguity. Namely, given just the measurements mentioned so far, it would not be possible to say for certain which of the two particles detected should be identified with the eigenstate $`h`$ most closely connected to the bare Higgs field and which should be identified with the $`\varphi `$ that derives from the radion.

Given the inevitable errors for the $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ and $`g_{fVh}^2`$ measurements,222The masses $`m_h`$ and $`m_\varphi `$ will be extremely well measured and errors in these quantities will not be an issue. the above-mentioned two-fold ambiguity, and the possible misidentification of $`h`$ vs. $`\varphi `$, it will be crucial to have additional measurements to fully determine the parameter space location. In this regard, we must first repeat the important fact that all $`f\overline{f}`$ and $`VV`$ couplings depend only on the combinations $`g_{fVh}`$ and $`g_{fV\varphi }`$. Further, the $`h`$ total width is only mildly sensitive to $`\gamma b`$, with the consequence that its $`f\overline{f}`$ and $`VV`$ branching ratios are only weakly dependent upon $`\gamma b`$. Thus, all rates involving only $`f\overline{f}`$ and/or $`VV`$ initial and final states are almost entirely determined by the value of $`g_{fVh}^2`$, which we have assumed to be well-measured with a value of $`0.7`$. For the case being considered where $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ is possibly as big or bigger than $`g_{fVh}^2`$, similar statements apply to the $`\varphi `$. In particular, once $`m_\varphi >2m_W`$, the $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$ branching ratios of the $`\varphi `$ are substantial and rather insensitive to $`\gamma a`$. (Total widths measured directly or indirectly would also not provide a clear identification of $`\varphi `$ vs. $`h`$ in the case considered.)

To clarify these ambiguities, it will be vital to measure $`h`$ and $`\varphi `$ production/decay channels involving $`gg`$ and/or $`\gamma \gamma `$ that are sensitive to the $`gg`$ and/or $`\gamma \gamma `$ anomalous couplings. There are four very useful possibilities. By performing all four measurements it will also be possible to fully test the structure of the RS theory, including the anomalous $`gg`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings of the $`h`$ and $`\varphi `$. The four process are $`ggh\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma \gamma hb\overline{b}`$, $`gg\varphi X`$ ($`X=\gamma \gamma `$ for $`m_\varphi <150\mathrm{GeV}`$ or $`X=W^+W^{},ZZ`$ for $`m_\varphi >150\mathrm{GeV}`$) and $`\gamma \gamma \varphi X^{}`$ ($`X^{}=b\overline{b}`$ for $`m_\varphi <160\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`X^{}=W^+W^{},ZZ`$ for $`m_\varphi >160\mathrm{GeV}`$.) The ratios of these rates to the corresponding rate for a SM Higgs boson of the same mass are shown in Fig. 5.

In exploring the implications of these plots, one needs to keep in mind that the $`\gamma \gamma \varphi b\overline{b}`$ rates are only substantial for $`m_\varphi <140\mathrm{GeV}`$, where measurements at the $`3\%`$ level are possible in the case of the SM Higgs AsnerNLC . For higher $`m_\varphi `$, the $`\gamma \gamma \varphi W^+W^{},ZZ`$ rates are generally robust but experimental studies of the accuracy with which they can be measured are not available.

We note that there is a certain complementarity between the $`gg\varphi `$ rates and the $`\gamma \gamma \varphi `$ rates. In particular, where the $`gg\varphi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`ZZ`$ rates are too suppressed to be detectable ($`0<\gamma \xi <0.15`$, $`\gamma ÷0.050.1`$), the $`\gamma \gamma \varphi b\overline{b}`$ and $`ZZ`$ rates remain adequate for reasonably precise measurement.

Fig. 5 shows that the $`\gamma \gamma hb\overline{b}`$ rate is only very modestly sensitive to parameter space location, whereas the $`\gamma \gamma \varphi b\overline{b}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma \varphi ZZ`$ rates are very sensitive to the choice of $`(\xi \gamma ,\gamma )`$. The $`h`$ eigenstate would then be identified as that consistent with the predicted rate for one of the two possible choices for parameters consistent with the observed $`m_h,m_\varphi ,g_{fVh}^2,g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ values. The $`ggh\gamma \gamma `$ rate would then provide an extremely good determination of the precise location in $`(\xi \gamma ,\gamma )`$ parameter space (given the roughly ‘orthogonal’ nature of the rate contours as compared to $`m_\varphi `$ and $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ contours). The corresponding $`\varphi `$ rates would also serve this purpose while at the same time verifying the typically much larger anomalous $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`gg`$ couplings of the $`\varphi `$ (determined by $`\gamma a`$ which is much bigger than $`\gamma b`$ over most of parameter space).

Indeed, if we look at the $`\gamma \gamma \varphi b\overline{b}`$ contours at small $`|\xi \gamma |`$ where $`m_\varphi <140\mathrm{GeV}`$ (see Fig. 4), so that $`BR(\varphi b\overline{b})`$ is substantial, we see in Fig. 5 dramatic and for the most part accurately measurable (where the rate is a substantial fraction of the SM rate) variation of the rate as a function of $`\gamma `$, allowing an accurate determination of $`\gamma `$ that can be checked against the determination from $`h`$ measurements. If we look along the $`m_\varphi =300\mathrm{GeV}`$ contours of Fig. 4, $`BR(\varphi ZZ)`$ will be big and Fig. 5 shows strong variation of the $`gg\varphi ZZ`$ and $`\gamma \gamma \varphi ZZ`$ rates, which rates should be accurately measurable where suppression relative to the SM is not large. Note that all these rates are very different for $`\xi \gamma <0`$ as compared to $`\xi \gamma >0`$ and will strongly distinguish between the $`\xi \gamma <0`$ and $`\xi \gamma >0`$ contour crossings in Fig. 4 that give the same $`m_\varphi `$ and $`g_{fV\varphi }^2`$ values.

In fact, by using all these measurements, a model independent determination of the anomalous couplings of the $`h`$ and $`\varphi `$ is possible. We define

$$R_{sgg}\frac{g_{sgg}^2(\text{with anomaly})}{g_{sgg}^2(\text{without anomaly})},\text{and}R_{s\gamma \gamma }\frac{g_{s\gamma \gamma }^2(\text{with anomaly})}{g_{s\gamma \gamma }^2(\text{without anomaly})},$$
(1)
for $`s=h`$ and $`s=\varphi `$. The procedure for determining $`R_{sgg}`$ and $`R_{s\gamma \gamma }`$ in a model-independent manner is the following. (We assume for purposes of illustration that the $`\varphi `$ is light enough that its branching ratio to $`W^+W^{},ZZ`$ final states is small.)

First, obtain $`g_{ZZs}^2`$ (defined relative to the SM prediction at $`m_{h_{SM}}=m_s`$) from $`\sigma (e^+e^{}Zs)`$ (inclusive recoil technique). Next, determine $`BR(sb\overline{b})=\sigma (e^+e^{}ZsZb\overline{b})/\sigma (e^+e^{}Zs)`$. Then, $`g_{s\gamma \gamma }^2(\text{from experiment})=\sigma (\gamma \gamma sb\overline{b})/BR(sb\overline{b})`$ (note the need for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider measurement). One would then compute

$$R_{s\gamma \gamma }\frac{g_{s\gamma \gamma }^2(\text{from experiment})}{g_{h_{SM}\gamma \gamma }^2(\text{as computed for }m_{h_{SM}}=m_s)\times g_{ZZs}^2(\text{from experiment})}$$
(2)
To determine $`g_{sgg}^2`$ experimentally requires one more step. We must compute $`\sigma (ggs\gamma \gamma )/BR(s\gamma \gamma )`$. To obtain $`BR(s\gamma \gamma )`$, we need a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{\mathrm{tot}}`$. Given such a measurement, we then compute

$$BR(s\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\gamma \gamma )(\text{computed from the experimentally determined }g_{s\gamma \gamma }^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{\mathrm{tot}}(\text{from experiment})},$$
(3)
where the above experimental determination of $`g_{s\gamma \gamma }^2`$ is employed and the experimental techniques outlined in lcvol2  are employed for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{\mathrm{tot}}`$. The ratio analogous to Eq. (2) for the $`gg`$ coupling is then

$$R_{sgg}\frac{g_{sgg}^2(\text{from experiment})}{g_{h_{SM}gg}^2(\text{as computed for }m_{h_{SM}}=m_s)\times g_{ZZs}^2(\text{from experiment})}.$$
(4)
For a light SM Higgs boson, the various cross sections and branching ratios needed for the $`s\gamma \gamma `$ coupling can be determined with errors of order a few percent. A careful study is needed to assess the errors in the case of the $`h`$ and $`\varphi `$ of the RS scalar sector.

Finally, it is interesting to see what roles the $`\gamma \gamma h\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma \gamma \varphi \gamma \gamma `$ rate measurements might play. (We see from the previous section that determination of the $`\gamma \gamma h_{SM}\gamma \gamma `$ rate would be possible with $`10\%`$ accuracy after a few years of operation for $`m_{h_{SM}}120\mathrm{GeV}`$.) We plot contours of these rates (relative to the corresponding $`h_{SM}`$ rate) in Fig. 6. As expected, with $`g_{fVh}^2=0.7`$ fixed, the $`\gamma \gamma h\gamma \gamma `$ rate is roughly $`0.7`$ times the SM value, but with up to $`15\%`$ variation in either direction depending upon location in $`(\xi \gamma ,\gamma )`$ parameter space. Thus, measurement of this rate with the expected accuracy would be an interesting check and constraint on the RS model. The $`\gamma \gamma \varphi \gamma \gamma `$ rate shows a lot of variation in the small $`|\xi \gamma |`$ region where $`m_\varphi <140\mathrm{GeV}`$ (see Fig. 4), i.e. for $`m_\varphi `$ such that $`BR(\varphi \gamma \gamma )`$ would be large enough that the rate might be measurable. However, for many such parameter points, the suppression relative to the SM comparison rate is sufficiently substantial that the accuracy of the measurment would be relatively poor. Still, if other aspects of the RS model are verified, this would be a very interesting final check on the model. In particular, the ratio of the $`\gamma \gamma \varphi \gamma \gamma `$ rate relative to the SM comparison differs substantially from the corresponding ratios for $`\gamma \gamma \varphi b\overline{b}`$ and $`ZZ`$ (as plotted in Fig. 5) at any given $`(\xi \gamma ,\gamma )`$ parameter location.

## V Chargino pair production in photon-photon collisions

We study the potential for determining the chargino masses and mixing angles in two-photon collisions at a future linear collider. These parameters determine the fundamental SUSY parameters: $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the CP-violating phase $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$.

At an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, the chargino pair production cross sections are sensitive to the mixing angles via the chargino couplings to the $`Z`$ boson. Thus, by combining mass and cross section measurements from $`e^+e^{}`$, one can extract the fundamental parameters of the chargino sector GudiCharginos . The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that the chargino production cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions receives radiative corrections of up to 10% that depend on additional SUSY parameters eecharginoRCs .

At a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider, unfortunately, there is no sensitivity to the chargino mixing angles in the tree-level production, because the photon-chargino couplings depend only on the electric charge. 333The decay of charginos provides some sensitivity to the mixing angles. However, chargino pair production at a photon collider can still be used to measure the chargino mass. In addition, the parameter independence of the production cross section allows one to study the chargino decay dynamics in a theoretically clean way and offers sensitivity, e.g., to $`M_1`$ and the sneutrino mass through the branching ratio and forward-backward asymmetry in the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^+\nu _e`$ Mayer . Beyond the tree level, radiative corrections due to quark and squark loops can modify the cross section in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions by up to 3% Zhou . Of course, radiative corrections to the chargino masses charginomassRCs  are relevant in either collider environment. Fig. 7 shows the polarized parton-level chargino production cross sections Koike .

Our study incorporates a “Pantaleo” final focus ffs  optimized for $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions ggffs  and realistic two-photon spectra based on the most probable available laser technology laser . We use the laser and electron beam parameters given in Table 1 and the CAIN cainref  Monte Carlo program to obtain the luminosity and polarization spectra plotted in Fig. 8. The CAIN simulation of the interaction between the laser photons and the primary electron beam, and the Compton scattered photons and the spent electron beam, includes the effects due to beamstrahlung, secondary collisions and other non-linear effects. These effects provide large corrections to the naive luminosity distributions first considered in Ref. Ginzburg:1983vm ; Ginzburg:1984yr .

The $`J=0`$ cross section turns on quickly, since it goes like $`\beta `$ at threshold, while the $`J=2`$ cross section goes like $`\beta ^3`$. In $`e^+e^{}`$, the cross section goes like $`\beta `$ at threshold.

The estimated event yield is given in Table 2, assuming a chargino mass of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=150`$ GeV, along with the cross section and luminosity described above.

The chargino yield is a factor of two greater in two-photon collisions than in $`e^+e^{}`$. Because the final state is the same, we expect the signal reconstruction efficiency to be similar to that in $`e^+e^{}`$. Thus, it may possible to determine the chargino masses more precisely in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions. Further study is required since the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity spectrum, shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 8, does not have a sharp end point. Luminosity beyond the naive kinematic limit is due to multiple Compton interactions. A sharper end point can be obtained by reducing the laser power and thus the probability for multiple Compton interactions however the total luminosity is also reduced. The optimal laser power for end point mass measurements has not been determined.

This is a report on a work in progress. Future reports will include full background and detector simulation.

## VI Measuring the trilinear coupling of the Standard Model Higgs boson

We examine the potential for determining the trilinear coupling of the Standard Model Higgs boson in two-photon collisions at a future linear collider. The trilinear Higgs boson coupling can be measured in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions eeHHZ ; Gay . There is also some sensitivity to the trilinear Higgs coupling at the LHC HHLHC . This is a direct test of the shape of the Higgs potential. Accuracies of approximately 20% on the $`e^+e^{}ZHH`$ cross section can be obtained for $`M_H`$ in the range of 120 GeV to 140 GeV with 1000 $`fb^1`$ at $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}=500`$ GeV. A neural network improves the sensitivity to 13% for $`M_H`$=120 GeV. The sensitivity is diluted to 22% by additional amplitudes which are insensitive to the trilinear coupling.

We use the cross sections for SM Higgs boson pair production in polarized two-photon collisions computed in Ref. JikiaHH . The trilinear Higgs boson coupling enters the diagram containing a virtual $`s`$-channel Higgs boson, which contributes only to the $`J=0`$ amplitude. To evaluate the sensitivity of the cross section to the trilinear Higgs coupling, we introduce an anomalous trilinear Higgs coupling in a gauge-invariant way, following Ref. JikiaHH :

$$\delta _{\mathrm{Higgs}}=\frac{\delta \kappa }{2}\frac{m_H^2}{v}\left[H^3+\frac{3}{v}G^+G^{}H^2\right]+\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where $`v=246`$ GeV is the Higgs vacuum expectation value, $`H`$ is the SM Higgs field, $`G^\pm `$ are the charged Goldstone bosons, and $`\delta \kappa `$ is the dimensionless anomalous trilinear Higgs coupling normalized so that for $`\delta \kappa =1`$, the anomalous term will cancel the SM $`H^3`$ coupling. We computed the one-loop integrals with the help of the LoopTools package LoopTools . Fig. 7 shows the parton-level cross sections for $`\gamma \gamma HH`$ for $`J=0`$ and $`J=2`$, for the SM (solid lines) and including an anomalous trilinear coupling (dashed lines).

To estimate the event yields, given in Table 3, in an NLC-like machine, we use the machine assumptions described in Sec. V.

The spin-0 event yield is about 3 times as large at $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=800`$ GeV. since more of the twp-photon luminosity spectrum is above $`HH`$ threshold.

We estimate that production rates for $`e^+e^{}HHZ`$ and $`\gamma \gamma HH`$ at an 800 GeV linear collider are comparable. In $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, the reconstruction efficiency of the $`ZHH`$ final state is 43% Gay . We expect it to be better than this in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, because of the simpler $`HH`$ final state. The dominant background in both analyses is $`e^+e^{}/\gamma \gamma WW`$. We estimate comparable sensitivity to the cross section per running time in $`\gamma \gamma `$ or $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}=800`$ GeV. As in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, the sensitivity to the trilinear coupling my be diluted due to additional amplitudes contributing to $`\gamma \gamma HH`$.

This is a report on a work in progress. Future reports will include full background and detector simulation.

## VII Prospects for observing charged Higgs bosons in gamma-gamma collisions

In the case of the two-doublet MSSM Higgs sector there are five physical Higgs bosons - two CP-even, $`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$ (with $`m_{h^0}`$ $`<`$ $`m_{H^0}`$), one CP-odd, $`A^0`$, and a charged Higgs pair, $`H^\pm `$. The ability to detect $`\gamma \gamma H^0,A^0,H^+H^{}`$ will be of greatest importance if the heavy Higgs bosons cannot be detected either at the LHC or in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at the LC. In fact, there is a significant section of parameter space in the MSSM, often referred to as the LHC ‘wedge’ region, for which this is the case.

We have studied the prospects for $`\gamma \gamma H^0,A^0`$ AsnerNLC  where we conclude that a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider can provide Higgs signals for the $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ over a possibly crucial portion of parameter space in which the LHC and direct $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at a LC will not be able to detect these Higgs bosons or their $`H^\pm `$ partners. This is illustrated in Fig. 9. In this section we discuss the prospects for observing charged Higgs bosons from the interaction $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$. This is a potential discovery mode for $`\gamma \gamma `$ as the $`H^\pm `$ will be undetected at the LHC for $`m_{H^\pm }>125`$ GeV and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

This study assumes a $`e^{}e^{}`$ machine with $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`80\%`$ electron polarization. The CAIN Monte Carlo program cainref  is used to model the luminosity spectra for two configurations of laser polarization, type-I and type-II, described in Section V. The luminosity spectra are shown in Fig. 8. In both of these configurations one Snowmass year of $`10^7`$ sec running would correspond to a total integrated luminosity of $`4\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ or $`400\mathrm{fb}^1`$.

A mass range for $`H^\pm `$ from the lower experimental bound of $`m_{H^\pm }80\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ up to the kinematic limit of $`m_{H^\pm }=200\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ is considered. For $`m_{H^\pm }<m_t`$ the main decay mode is $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ as the decay modes to $`Wh^0`$ and $`t\overline{b}`$ are suppressed.

Fig. 10 shows the MSSM prediction for the branching ratio of $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ as a function of $`m_{H^\pm }`$. The values were obtained by running the HDECAY program HDECAY . A value of $`500\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ was used for the SUSY breaking mass parameters. For most values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the branching ratio is between $`80\%`$ and $`98\%`$ when $`m_{H^\pm }<m_t`$. To allow these results to be interpreted independently of the branching ratio, the number of events over branching ratio squared are presented. Pandora-Pythia pandorapythia  was used to calculate effective cross section for $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$, taking into account the luminosity spectra. The results for the two beam types is shown in Fig. 12.

Backgrounds to the $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$ process come from both $`\tau `$ and $`W`$-pair production. The cross section for $`\gamma \gamma \tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is around $`300\mathrm{pb}`$ and for $`\gamma \gamma W^+W^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is approximately $`220\mathrm{fb}`$ for the type-II beam. For a charged Higgs mass of $`140\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ these backgrounds are factors of approximately 5,000 and 4 times the signal cross section.

Three empirically reconstructable variables were used to study the signal and background processes: the cosine of the angle of the tau-jet in the detector, $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$, the sum of transverse momenta of all the visible particles from the tau decays, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }p_T(\tau )`$, and the acoplanarity of the two tau jets, $`Acop=\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\stackrel{}{p}_{T1}\stackrel{}{p}_{T2}/(p_{T1}p_{T2})\right)`$. We reject background with the requirements that $`|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )|<0.8`$, $`Acop<3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }p_T(\tau )/\mathrm{GeV}c^1>35+25(Acop\frac{\pi }{2})^2`$. Fig. 11 shows these three quantities for the signal and two background processes

These requirements reduce the $`\gamma \gamma \tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ background by a factor of more than $`10^6`$, therefore this background can be ignored. The acceptance of the $`W`$-pair production background is around $`0.5\%`$, while keeping around $`10\%`$ of the signal for $`m_{H^\pm }=140\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$.

Fig. 12 shows the number of events expected per Snowmass year, divided by the $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ branching ratio squared. The dashed horizontal line the plots indicates the the number of $`\gamma \gamma W^+W^{}`$ events.

It can be seen the type-II beam configuration is the best for observing $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$. At a charged Higgs mass of $`140\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$, around 1250 events$`/\mathrm{BR}(H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau )^2`$ would be observed per Snowmass year, to be compared with about 300 $`\gamma \gamma W^+W^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events.

For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}`$ the signal to background ratio is greater than 1 for $`m_{H^\pm }\text{ }<m_t`$. For smaller values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the signal to background is better than 1 up to charged Higgs masses of about $`160\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$. The type-I beam would also be useful for observing $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$ for $`m_{H^\pm }\text{ }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}130}\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$.

It is not possible to reconstruct a mass-type variable for the $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$ events, as there are too many unknown kinematic quantities. Studies using detector simulation are under way to look for observables correlated with $`m_{H^\pm }`$.

In conclusion, for moderate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ it will be possible to observe $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$ events using a $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$ $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider for all masses up to the top quark mass. This will probe some of the MSSM parameter space where the $`H^\pm `$ will be undetected at the LHC ($`m_{H^\pm }>125`$ GeV and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$). The process $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ will probe the remaining region of parameter space in which the $`H^\pm `$ would be undetected at the LHC.

## VIII  Resolved photon backgrounds

The photon is the gauge boson of QED. The photon couples, via virtual charged fermion pairs, into the electroweak and strong interactions. Photon-photon interactions can be classified into three types of processes, illustrated in Fig. 13. Direct interactions involve only electroweak coupling, the once resolved process where one photon probes the parton structure of the other photon, similar to deep inelastic scattering, and the twice resolved process where the partons of each photon interact, similar to a $`\rho \rho `$ collisions.

We use the Pythia pythiajetset  Monte Carlo program to simulate the resolved photon cross sections which are potential backgrounds to all other two-photon physics processes. These backgrounds, usually referred to as $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{hadrons}`$, are also a concern at $`e^+e^{}`$ and have been studied in detail teslagghh . However, at a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider the high energy Compton photons provide an additional and dominant source of $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{hadron}`$ background. Nominally, we use the default settings for Pythia with the exception of the parameters listed in Table 4 butterworth .

We consider the beam parameters for $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}=150`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}=500`$ GeV in Table 1 and use the luminosity distributions shown in Fig. 8. We process the events through the LC Fast MC detector simulation within ROOT Brun:1997pa , which includes calorimeter smearing and detector configuration as described in Section 4.1 of Chapter 15 of Ref. Abe:2001nr . Our preliminary studies find that the two-photon cross section is dominated by the twice resolved process at both 150 GeV and 500 GeV. We find the once resolve event yield to be approximately 400 and 100 times larger than the direct cross section for 150 GeV and 500 GeV, respectively, and we find the twice resolve event yield to be approximately 1500 and 500 times larger than the direct cross section for 150 GeV and 500 GeV, respectively. However, these cross sections have large uncertainties which we discuss below. Most of the products of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons will be produced at small angles relative to the photon beam and will escape down the beam pipe undetected. We are interested in the decay products that enter the detector and we consider only tracks and showers with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.9`$ in the laboratory frame and we require tracks have to have momentum greater than 200 MeV and showers must have energy greater than 100 MeV. The resulting track and shower energy distributions integrated over 20,000 beam crossings for $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}=150`$ GeV and 1,000 beam crossings for $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}=500`$ GeV are shown in Fig. 15. Experimental, theoretical and modeling errors have not yet been evaluated for these distributions.

Future studies of the physics possibilities of a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider should include the impact of resolved photons on the event reconstruction. The appropriate number of beam crossing to integrate over has not been determined. It is generally assumed that the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ detectors will be the same or at least have comparable performance. At $`e^+e^{}`$, the plan is to integrate over 100’s to 1000’s of beam crossings. This depends, of course, on the choice of detector technology as well as the bunch structure of the electron beam. At a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider experiment, the desire to minimize the resolved photon backgrounds may drive the detector design to integrate over as few beam crossings as possible. Thus the assumption that the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ detectors will be based on the same technology or have comparable performance may not be valid. An important distinction between the TESLA and NLC machine designs is the time between bunch crossings, 337 ns and 2.8 ns444The NLC-$`e^+e^{}`$design has 1.4 ns bunch spacing – see the caption of Table 1 for discussion. , respectively. The authors plan to study the (hopefully) incremental difference between the design and performance of a detector for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ interaction regions.

Large uncertainties plague the estimated once and twice resolved photon cross sections. Ref. butterworthpaper  provides an excellent discussion of the theoretical and experimental challenges of determining the photon structure. Most recent experimental data is from HERA hera  and LEP-II lep . Large uncertaintes exist for small $`x_\gamma `$ and significant uncertainties exist for large $`x_\gamma `$. The QCD stucture function is probed by examining high $`E_t`$ jets. Extrapolating to smaller $`E_t`$ introduces additional uncertainty. The situation may be improved by data obtained from a proposed $`\gamma \gamma `$ engineering run at SLC ourproposal .

The impact of resolved photon backgrounds on the physics reach of a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider has yet to be determined. Although unevaluated (and likely large) uncertainties in the expected track and shower momentum/energy distribution and normalization remain, we have incorporated the resolved photon background levels presented here into our analysis of $`\gamma \gamma h\gamma \gamma `$. The preliminary results are promising - see Section III.

## IX Conclusion

Several new results in the physics to be studied with $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders have been briefly described. Most of these come from work in progress, and will be refined and extended over the next several months.

We believe that the next most important step is the study and understanding of resolved photon backgrounds, which appear to be formidable and possibly quite pernicious. They may force the detector design to differ significantly from the one currently under development for the $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. To this end, a proposal to perform a proof-of-principle experiment at SLAC is under way, and a workshop on the subject is planned for November, 2002.

In addition to understanding machine and background issues, it is time to take a closer look at the interplay of results expected from a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider and a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider. Discussions are already planned for LC2002, and should be continued at other workshops over the next year. A goal of such discussion should be a straw proposal for a combined run plan for, a 500 GeV machine with both $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ interaction regions active.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Jon Butterworth, Marcela Carena, Jeff Gronberg, Tony Hill, Steve Mrenna, and Michael Peskin for helpful discussions. Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc. under contract no. DE-AC02-76CH03000 with the U.S. Department of Energy. A portion of this work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No.W-7405-Eng.48. Other portions were supported by the Illinois Consortium for Accelerator Research, agreement number 228-1001. B.G. is supported in part by the State Committee for Scientific Research under grant 5 P03B 121 20 (Poland). J.F.G. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and by the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics.


text:
# Probing Baryons in Galactic Halos and Gas Near Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

Understanding galaxy formation and evolution requires observational information about the hot, highly-ionized gas found in and near galaxies. A complete picture of the relationship between hot gas in galaxies and the intergalactic medium (IGM) does not yet exist because a variety of processes affect the heating and distribution of the interstellar gas in and around galaxies. Galaxy formation, accretion of satellite galaxies, tidal interactions, star-formation, galactic winds, and galaxy-IGM interactions may all contribute to the production of the hot gas observed in the IGM and extended galactic halos.

In this article, we outline a program we have begun with the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) to study the hot gas in the vicinity of the Milky Way. The study is described in detail in a series of three articles devoted to probing the highly ionized oxygen (O VI) absorption along complete paths through the Galactic halo and Local Group. The articles include a catalog of the spectra and basic observational information (Wakker et al. 2002), a study of the hot gas in the Milky Way halo (Savage et al. 2002b), and an investigation of the highly ionized high velocity gas in the vicinity of the Galaxy (Sembach et al. 2002). Here, we summarize the high velocity gas results and comment on their implications for understanding other types of highly ionized gas. This comprehensive study serves as a prime example of what can be learned if serious efforts are made to conduct large spectroscopic observing programs with existing space-based instrumentation. Similar types of studies conducted with future generations of instruments on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and other large space telescopes will enable us to explore the properties of gas in other groups of galaxies in much greater detail than is presently possible.

In Table 1 we list basic information for some of the best ultraviolet (UV) absorption-line diagnostics of hot gas. The table entries include the atom or ion, rest wavelength of the transition, cosmological redshift required to shift the line(s) to an observed wavelength of 1150 Å, the temperature at which the atom or ion peaks in abundance under conditions of collisional ionization equilibrium, the thermal width of the line at that temperature, and a logarithmic relative line strength that depends on the cosmic abundance of the element ($`A`$), the line strength ($`f\lambda `$), and the peak ionization fraction ($`\varphi `$) of the ion in collisionally ionized gas. Larger values of $`Af\lambda \varphi `$ indicate easier detectability.

The O VI $`\lambda \lambda 1031.926,1037.617`$ doublet lines are the best UV resonance lines to use for kinematical investigations of hot ($`T10^510^6`$ K) gas in the low-redshift universe. Oxygen is the most abundant element heavier than helium, and the O VI lines have large oscillator strengths. Lower ionization UV lines observable at high spectral resolution are generally either much weaker than the O VI lines (e.g., N V $`\lambda 1238.821,1242.804`$) or are better tracers of collisionally ionized gas at temperatures $`T<10^5`$ K (e.g., C IV $`\lambda 1548.195,1550.770`$, C III $`\lambda 977.020`$, Si IV $`\lambda 1393.755,1402.770`$, Si III $`\lambda 1206.500`$). This latter set of ions is also considerably more susceptible to photoionization than O VI.

X-ray spectroscopy of the interstellar or intergalactic gas in higher ionization lines (e.g., O VII, O VIII) is possible with XMM-Newton and the Chandra X-ray Observatory for a small number of sight lines toward AGNs and QSOs, but the spectral resolution (R $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda <1000`$) is modest compared to that afforded by FUSE (R $`15,000`$). While the X-ray lines provide extremely useful information about the amount of gas at temperatures greater than $`10^6`$ K, the interpretation of where that gas is located, or how it is related to the $`10^510^6`$ K gas traced by O VI, is hampered at low redshift by the complexity of the hot ISM and IGM along the sight lines observed.

## 2. An Example: The Milky Way and its High Velocity Cloud System

We have conducted a study of the highly ionized high velocity gas in the vicinity of the Milky Way using an extensive set of FUSE data. We summarize the results for the sight lines toward 100 AGNs/QSOs and two distant halo stars in this section (see Sembach et al. 2002; Wakker et al. 2002). For the purposes of this study, gas with $`|v_{LSR}|\stackrel{_>}{_{}}100`$ km s-1 is typically identified as “high velocity”, while lower velocity gas is attributed to the Milky Way disk and halo. A sample spectrum from the survey is shown in Figure 1.

### 2.1. Observational Results

We have identified approximately 85 individual high velocity O VI features along the 102 sight lines in our sample. A critical part of this identification process involved detailed consideration of the absorption produced by O VI and other species (primarily H2) in the thick disk and halo of the Galaxy, as well as the absorption produced by low-redshift intergalactic absorption lines of H I and ionized metal species. We searched for absorption in a velocity range of $`\pm 1200`$ km s-1 centered on the O VI $`\lambda 1031.926`$ line. With few exceptions, the high velocity O VI absorption is confined to $`|v_{LSR}|400`$ km s-1, indicating that the O VI features observed are either associated with the Milky Way or nearby clouds within the Local Group.

The high velocity O VI features have velocity centroids ranging from $`372<v_{LSR}<90`$ km s-1 to $`+93<v_{LSR}<+385`$ km s-1. There are an additional 6 confirmed or very likely ($`>90`$% confidence) detections and 2 tentative detections of O VI between $`v_{LSR}=+500`$ and +1200 km s-1; these very high velocity features probably trace intergalactic gas beyond the Local Group. We plot the sky distribution of the high velocity O VI in Figure 2, where we code the velocities of the features by shading circular regions around the sight lines for which high velocity O VI is detected.

Most of the high velocity O VI features have velocities incompatible with those of Galactic rotation (by definition). The dispersion about the mean of the high velocity O VI centroids decreases when the velocities are converted from the Local Standard of Rest (LSR) into the Galactic Standard of Rest (GSR) and the Local Group Standard of Rest (LGSR) reference frames. While this reduction is expected if the O VI is associated with gas in a highly extended Galactic corona or in the Local Group, it does not provide sufficient proof by itself of an extragalactic location for the high velocity gas. Additional information, such as the gas metallicity or ionization state, is needed to constrain the cloud locations.

The line widths of the high velocity O VI features range from $``$16 km s-1 to $``$81 km s-1, with an average of $`\mathrm{b}=40\pm 14`$ km s-1. The lowest values of b are close to the thermal width of 17.1 km s-1 expected for O VI at $`T=2.8\times 10^5`$ K, while higher values of b require additional non-thermal broadening mechanisms or gas temperatures significantly larger than $`2.8\times 10^5`$ K.

The high velocity O VI features have logarithmic column densities of 13.06 to 14.59, with an average of $`\mathrm{log}N=13.95\pm 0.34`$ and a median of 13.97. We show the distribution of the high velocity O VI column densities on the sky in Figure 3. The average high velocity O VI column density is a factor of 2.7 times lower than the typical low velocity O VI column density found for the same sight lines through the thick disk/halo of the Galaxy (see Savage et al. 2002b).

We detect high velocity O VI $`\lambda 1031.926`$ absorption with total values of $`W_\lambda >30`$ mÅ at $`3\sigma `$ confidence along 59 of the 102 sight lines surveyed. For the highest quality sub-sample of the dataset, the high velocity detection frequency increases to 22 of 26 sight lines. Forty of the 59 sight lines have high velocity O VI $`\lambda 1031.926`$ absorption with $`W_\lambda >100`$ mÅ, and 27 have $`W_\lambda >150`$ mÅ. Converting these O VI equivalent width detection frequencies into estimates of $`N`$(H+) in the hot gas indicates that $`60`$% of the sky (and perhaps as much as $`85`$%) is covered by hot ionized hydrogen at a level of $`N(\mathrm{H}^+)\stackrel{_>}{_{}}8\times 10^{17}`$ cm-2 if the high velocity gas has a metallicity similar to that of the Magellanic Stream ($`Z0.20.3`$). This detection frequency of hot H+ associated with the high velocity O VI appears to be larger than the value of $`37`$% found for high velocity warm gas with $`N(\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I})10^{18}`$ cm-2 traced through 21 cm emission (Lockman et al. 2002).

Some of the high velocity O VI is associated with well-known H I high velocity clouds (HVCs; see Wakker & van Woerden 1997 for a review). These include the Magellanic Stream, possibly Complex A, Complex C, the Outer Arm, and several smaller H I clouds. Some of the high velocity O VI features have no counterpart in H I 21 cm emission. These include discrete high velocity features as well as broad positive-velocity O VI absorption wings that blend with lower velocity O VI absorption in the Galactic thick disk/halo. The discrete features may typify clouds located in the Local Group. The broad, high velocity O VI absorption wings are concentrated mainly in the northern Galactic hemisphere and may trace either tidal debris or thick disk/halo gas that has been accelerated to high velocities by star-formation activity in the Galactic disk.

### 2.2. Interpretation

High velocity O VI is both widespread and common along complete paths through the Galactic halo. The high velocity O VI traces numerous phenomena, including tidal interactions with the Magellanic Clouds (via the Magellanic Stream), accretion of low-metallicity gas (e.g., Complex C), highly ionized clouds (e.g., the Mrk 509 HVCs), and the outflow of hot gas from the Galactic disk (e.g., the broad positive velocity absorption features). Distinguishing between all of the possible phenomena occurring at large distances from the Galactic plane is absolutely essential for understanding the role of HVCs in Galactic evolution.

One possible explanation for some of the high velocity O VI is that transition temperature gas arises at the boundaries between cool/warm clouds of gas and a very hot ($`T>10^6`$ K) Galactic corona or Local Group medium. Sources of the high velocity material might include infalling or tidally disturbed galaxies. Since viscous processes affect the gas but not the stars in interacting systems, tracing the original source of the high velocity gas may prove difficult. A hot, highly extended ($`R>70`$ kpc) corona or Local Group medium might be left over from the formation of the Milky Way or Local Group, or may be the result of continuous accretion of smaller galaxies over time. N-body simulations of the tidal evolution and structure of the Magellanic Stream favor a low-density medium ($`n<10^4`$ cm-2) for imparting weak drag forces to deflect some of the Stream gas and providing a possible explanation for the absence of stars in the Stream (Gardiner 1999). Moore & Davis (1994) also postulated a hot, low-density corona to provide ram pressure stripping of some of the Magellanic Cloud gas. Hydrodynamical simulations of clouds moving through a hot, low-density medium show that weak bow shocks develop on the leading edges of the clouds as the gas is compressed and heated (Quilis & Moore 2001). Even if the clouds are not moving at supersonic speeds relative to the ambient medium, some viscous or turbulent stripping of the cooler gas likely occurs.

An alternative explanation for the O VI observed at high velocities may be that the clouds and any associated H I fragments are simply condensations within large gas structures falling onto the Galaxy. Cosmological structure formation models predict large numbers of cooling fragments embedded in dark matter, and some of these structures should be observable in O VI absorption as the gas pass through the $`T=10^510^6`$ K temperature regime. Estimates of the number density of these structures are consistent with the observed IGM O VI detection rate (Tripp, Savage & Jenkins 2000; Fang & Bryan 2001; Savage et al. 2002a). This situation is in many ways analogous to the coronal model described above because only about 30% of the hot gas is detectable in O VI absorption, while the remaining $`70\%`$ is too hot to observe (Davé et al. 2001).

The tenuous hot Galactic corona or Local Group gas may manifest itself through X-ray absorption-line observations of higher ionization species than O VI. For example, the amount of O VII in the hot gas is given by $`N`$(O VII) = (O/H) $`Z`$ f$`_{OVII}`$ $`nL`$, where $`Z`$ is the metallicity of the gas, f is the ionization fraction, and $`L`$ is the path length. At $`T10^6`$ K, $`f_{OVII}1`$ (Sutherland & Dopita 1993). For $`n=10^4`$ cm-3, $`N`$(O VII) $`2\times 10^{16}Z`$ ($`L/100`$ kpc) (cm-2). Preliminary results (Fang et al. 2002; Nicastro et al. 2002) demonstrate that O VII absorption is detectable near zero velocity at a level consistent with the presence of a large, nearby reservoir of hot gas. A firm association of the X-ray absorption with a hot Galactic corona or Local Group medium will require additional observations since the ionization mechanism and location of the higher ionization gas traced by O VII are still uncertain (see Heckman et al. 2002).

## 3. Looking Forward: The Need for a Large Space Telescope

Studying the basic physical properties of gas in the vicinity of galaxies is essential for understanding how galaxies evolve over time and quantifying the relationship between galaxies, the IGM, and large-scale cosmic structures. Key quantities to be determined include the elemental abundances, ionization state, and physical properties ($`n`$, $`T`$, size) of the gas. We have made a start at examining the properties of gas in the Milky Way and Local Group, but extending these studies to other groups of galaxies is required if we are to incorporate the local results into broader descriptions of galaxy evolution and the formation of the ”cosmic web” of hot gas expected in the local universe. To make accurate assessments of the kinematics and column densities of a wide range of ionization stages requires high spectral resolution (R $`20,00050,000`$), broad UV wavelength coverage (preferably 900–3200 Å so that both zero and low-redshift systems could be observed in C III and O VI), and excellent sensitivity.

Current ultraviolet spectrographs (e.g., FUSE and STIS) are limited to observing QSOs with $`m_B<16`$. At this magnitude, the number of QSOs per square degree is $`1`$, and it is difficult to observe individual stars in galaxies other than the Milky Way and Magellanic Clouds. The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), which is scheduled for installation in HST in 2004, will have about an order of magnitude greater sensitivity than STIS at far-UV wavelengths. QSOs with $`m_B1718`$ should be observable in reasonable integration times. However, even at this greater sensitivity, the number of QSOs per square degree is still limited. A large space telescope with a diameter of 4 meters (or better still, 8 meters) equipped with a high efficiency spectrograph and detector could easily improve upon the COS sensitivity by a factor of 10 or more and dramatically increase the number of background sources available for spectroscopic studies. At $`m_B20`$, the average separation between QSOs is only $`7`$ (see Shull et al. 1999), and there are numerous possibilities for studying multiple sight lines through low-redshift galactic halos, groups, and clusters of galaxies. Furthermore, at these sensitivities lightly reddened B supergiants could be observed out to distances of $`2`$ Mpc, making it possible to study the gaseous content of Local Group galaxies such as M 31 or M 33 in unprecedented detail.

A 4 m to 8 m space telescope optimized for point source spectroscopy would provide an opportunity for an entirely new approach to studying the gaseous halos of galaxies and intragroup gas. Instead of our current methodology of blindly finding low-redshift absorption-line systems spectroscopically and then trying to identify (image) the galaxies responsible for the absorption, one could target specific, well-studied galactic systems for spectroscopic investigations of their gaseous content. A similar pro-active approach may prove fruitful for studying the filamentary structures of the ionized IGM once they are identified through their O VI or X-ray emissions by future observatories such as SPIDR or Constellation-X.
Acknowledgments: We thank Mike Shull and Ed Jenkins for stimulating discussions and comments on the interpretation of the high velocity O VI properties.

## References

Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta., 53, 197

Davé, R., Cen, R., Ostriker, J.P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 473

Fang, T.T., & Bryan, G.L. 2001, ApJ, 561, L31

Fang, T., Sembach, K.R., & Canizares, C.R. 2002, ApJ, in preparation

Gardiner, L.T., 1999, in “The Stromlo Workshop on High Velocity Clouds”, ASP Conf. 166, eds. B.K. Gibson & M.E. Putman, (San Francisco: ASP), 292

Grevesse, N., & Noels, A. 1993, in Origin of the Elements, ed. N. Prantzos, E. Vangioni-Flam, & M. Cassé, (Cambridge: Univ. Press), 15

Heckman, T.M., Norman, C.A., Strickland, D.K., & Sembach, K.R. 2002, ApJ, in press \[astro-ph/0205556\]

Lockman, F.J., Murphy, E.M., Petty-Powell, S., & Urick, V. 2002, ApJS, in press \[astro-ph/0201039\]

Moore, B., & Davis, M. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 209

Morton, D.C. 1991, ApJS, 77, 119

Nicastro, F., Zezas, A., Drake, J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 573, 157

Quilis, V., & Moore, B. 2001, ApJ, 555, L95

Savage, B.D., Sembach, K.R., Tripp, T.M., & Richter, P. 2002a, ApJ 564, 631

Savage, B.D., Sembach, K.R., Wakker, B.P., et al. 2002b, ApJS, submitted \[astro-ph/0208140\]

Sembach, K.R., Wakker, B.P., Savage, B.D., et al. 2002, ApJS, submitted \[astro-ph/0207562\]

Shull, J.M., Savage, B.D., Morse, J.A., et al. 1999, “The Emergence of the Modern Universe”, a white paper of the UV-Optical Working Group

Sutherland, R.S., & Dopita, M.A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253

Tripp, T.M., Savage, B.D., & Jenkins, E.B. 2000, ApJ 534, L1

Verner, D.A., Barthel, P.D., & Tytler, D. 1994, A&AS, 108, 287

Wakker, B.P., Savage, B.D., Sembach, K.R., et al. 2002, ApJS, submitted \[astro-ph/0208009\]

Wakker, B.P., & van Woerden, H. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 217