text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction and Summary

While the precise description of the physics of tachyon condensation and D-brane annihilation may require the complete framework of string field theory, it is of interest to consider simpler models to understand some of the puzzling issues that arise. Indeed, tachyon condensation is simpler in the case of $`p`$-adic open string theory , and in the case when large non-commutativity is introduced on the D-branes .

In a recent paper  a model was developed where, just as in string field theory, we can explore the decay of a soliton as seen by the field theory living on the world-volume of the soliton itself. The model is based on the unstable lump solution of the simple $`\varphi ^3`$ theory, the truncation of open string field theory to the tachyon field only (this lump was first studied numerically in ). Not only is the exact lump profile readily written in terms of hyperbolic functions, but the full spectrum of the field theory on the lump world-volume is readily obtained. This happens because the potential in the relevant Schroedinger type equation is the $`\mathrm{}=3`$ case of the infinite series of exactly solvable reflectionless potentials:222For a pedagogical review on these and other solvable Hamiltonians, with references to the early literature see . Applications of reflectionless systems to fermions can be found in . $`U_{\mathrm{}}(x)=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\text{sech}^2x`$. The potential $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ gives precisely $`\mathrm{}`$ bound states, and a continuum, whose lowest energy state is a bound state at threshold. The potentials $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ were known to be relevant to the sine-Gordon soliton and the $`\varphi ^4`$ kink respectively . In both cases the wavefunction of the lowest energy bound state in the quantum mechanical problem is identified with the derivative of the soliton profile. This procedure does not give a simple result for $`\mathrm{}3`$ . In the model of  it is the middle bound state of the $`U_3`$ potential that is identified with the derivative of the lump profile. The lowest bound state then represents the tachyonic fluctuation around the lump. Motivated by this result, one is led naturally to consider building lumps for $`\mathrm{}>3`$ by using the next to lowest bound state of $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ to define the profile derivative. The scalar field theory potentials giving rise to such unstable lumps were found recently . The remarkably simple field theory potentials $`V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi )`$ (whose lumps are governed by $`U_{\mathrm{}+1}`$) consist of two terms, a $`\varphi ^2`$ term and a $`(\varphi ^2)^{1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}`$ term. For each $`V_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ the lump worldvolume theory will have one tachyon, one massless scalar, $`(\mathrm{}1)`$ massive scalars and a continuum spectrum.

In this paper we study these field theories as models for tachyon condensation on unstable branes. Our focus, however, will be in the model obtained as an $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ limit. As will be explained in the text, by simultaneously letting $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ and rescaling the spacetime coordinates, one obtains the well defined potential

$$V_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )=\frac{1}{4}\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}\varphi ^2.$$
(1.1)
This very unusual potential has an unstable critical point at $`\varphi _0^2=e^1`$, with a tachyon mass squared $`m^2=1`$. Note, in addition, the local minimum at $`\varphi =0`$, where $`V^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{}`$ and the scalar field acquires infinite mass. With a standard kinetic term for $`\varphi `$ we have a simple field theory of a tachyon with the expected property that as the tachyon condenses to the local minimum it disappears from the spectrum by acquiring an infinite mass.

The lump solution in this field theory is a simple gaussian $`\overline{\varphi }(x)=e^{x^2/4}`$ and the Schroedinger potential $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ is that of the one-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator! The spectrum of the lump field theory includes a tachyon, a massless field, and an infinite tower of equally spaced massive scalars. It is noteworthy that the tachyon living on the lump has $`m^2=1`$, just as the mass of the tachyon in the field theory model giving rise to the lump. This is true for string theory D-branes and for $`p`$-adic solitonic $`q`$-branes  but not for the finite $`\mathrm{}`$ models. Perhaps more significant is the fact that the continuum spectrum of the finite $`\mathrm{}`$ models has disappeared. Indeed, in ordinary field theory, the continuous spectrum of the soliton is a reflection of the degrees of freedom that exist on the vacuum defined by the asymptotic field expectation value of the soliton at spatial infinity. For ordinary potentials, the asymptotic field configuration is a vacuum with perturbative particle excitations. For the case of (1.1) the lump is asymptotic to the $`\varphi =0`$ configuration, around which there is no perturbative dynamics.

Tachyon condensation on the lump is easily studied. The above theory has the special feature that the wavefunction representing the tachyon mode on the lump is actually proportional to the lump profile itself. This means that out of the infinite number of fields living on the lump, only the tachyon needs to flow in order to destroy the lump. It can be seen explicitly how this flow makes all fields on the lump flow to infinite mass.

The massless mode on the lump is just a derivative of the lump profile. Hence, if this mode is given a small expectation value, then the lump will have a correspondingly small shift in position. This mode behaves as a marginal operator in string field theory. Just as in the $`\mathrm{}=3`$ model, we confirm that in the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ model the relation between displacement and the marginal parameter is two to one. Both small displacements and large displacements lead to a small marginal parameter, with the parameter taking a finite maximum value in between. In the present model, however, we are able to see explicitly how higher level states help realize large displacements; for a large shift $`x_0`$, the largest contribution to the shift comes from modes with level number $`L`$ satisfying $`Lx_0^2/4`$. These results provide evidence for the missing branch proposal of  which suggests that a different choice of branch for higher level fields describes large marginal deformations in string field theory. The branch point occurs at the maximal value for the string field marginal parameter .

There is another string theory parallel. For the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ model we can find the profiles of all lower codimension lump solutions explicitly. Thought of as branes of various spatial dimensions, we find that the tensions satisfy $`\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{T_p}{T_{p+1}}=\frac{e}{\sqrt{2\pi }}`$($`1.084)`$, for all possible $`p`$. In string theory this ratio is unity. A similar property was found to hold in $`p`$-adic string theory, where the above ratio depends on the prime number used to define the model.

We also extend the models to incorporate a $`U(1)`$ gauge field. The terms we add were suggested by the form of level expanded string theory, but our main constraints come from requiring: (i) solvability of the spectrum, (ii) inheriting an exactly massless gauge field on the worlvolume of the lump and (iii) existance of the model for all finite $`\mathrm{}`$. These conditions can all be satisfied and lead to some special forms for scalar-gauge field interactions. It is possible, in addition, to guarantee that the gauge field components transverse to the brane do not give rise to additional massless states. This is required because the translation mode of the brane arises from the tachyon field. The lagrangians we write should be thought as gauge fixed ones, just as level expanded versions of string theory are generally worked out in the Siegel gauge. We do not know if there is a gauge invariant version of the models.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we introduce the field theory scalar models associated with arbitrary $`\mathrm{}`$ and infinite $`\mathrm{}`$. We also calculate the spectrum of the lump worldvolume field theories in both cases. In section 3 we show explicitly how in the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ model tachyon condensation sends the masses of all fields living on the lump to infinity. In section 4 we discuss large displacements of $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ lumps, and study an effective field theory approximation where we include only the tachyon and the massless field on the lump. In section 5 we study higher codimension lumps, give their exact profiles and calculate their tensions. In section 6 we show how to incorporate gauge fields into the models. Some concluding remarks are offered in section 7.

## 2 Finite $`\mathrm{}`$ models and the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ model

In this section we construct a series of field theory models whose lump profiles are exactly solvable. Moreover, the spectrum of fluctuations about the lumps is also solvable. In the first subsection, we review a construction of Goldstone and Jaffe  for building field theory potentials giving rise to lumps with spectra controlled by the $`U_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ reflectionless potentials. We then construct a new potential by taking $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, and investigate various properties of this potential. In the second subsection, we discuss the spectrum of lump fluctuations.

### 2.1 Introducing the models

As our starting point, let us consider the one dimensional Schroedinger equation for the $`U_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ potential,

$$\frac{d^2\psi (x)}{dx^2}(\mathrm{}+1)(\mathrm{}+2)\mathrm{sech}^2(x)\psi (x)=E\psi (x).$$
(2.1)
If $`\mathrm{}`$ is an integer, then the potential is reflectionless, in other words a wave traveling in from the right will be completely transmitted when crossing over the potential. This Schroedinger equation in (2.1) is completely solvable. The ground state wave function has the solution

$$\psi _0(x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^{\mathrm{}+1}(x)},$$
(2.2)
with energy

$$E_0=(\mathrm{}+1)^2.$$
(2.3)
There are a finite number of bound solutions, whose wavefunctions are the ground state wavefunction in (2.2) multiplied by Hermite polynomials in $`\mathrm{sinh}(x)`$. The energy levels for these bound states are

$$E_n=(\mathrm{}+1n)^2,0n<\mathrm{}+1.$$
(2.4)
Notice that $`n=\mathrm{}+1`$ would give zero energy. Indeed at the bottom of the continuum there is a bound state at threshold. This state will not play an important role in all that follows.

The field theory potential giving rise to a lump solution with fluctuation spectrum governed by the Schroedinger equation (2.1) was found in 333We thank J. Goldstone and R. Jaffe for informing us of this result prior to publication.. It is given by

$$V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4}\varphi ^2(1\varphi ^{2/\mathrm{}}).$$
(2.5)
For $`\mathrm{}>2`$ we define $`\varphi ^{2/\mathrm{}}(\varphi ^2)^{1/\mathrm{}}`$ with the $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ root real and positive.

Let us review the construction of the potential in (2.5). We assume the following Lagrangian for the field theory:

$$_{\mathrm{}+1}=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi ),$$
(2.6)
where $`V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi )`$ is to be determined, and we work with the metric $`(,+\mathrm{}+)`$. A lump solution to the equations of motion satisfies

$$\overline{\varphi }^{\prime \prime }(x)=V_{\mathrm{}+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\overline{\varphi }(x)),$$
(2.7)
which, after integrating is

$$\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\varphi }^{}(x))^2=V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\overline{\varphi }(x)).$$
(2.8)
An integration constant has been absorbed into the definition of $`V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi )`$, making the potential vanish at the asymptotic value taken by the field in the lump solution. Now assume that the derivative of $`\overline{\varphi }(x)`$ is proportional to the first excited state wavefunction of (2.1),

$$\overline{\varphi }^{}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})}{\mathrm{cosh}^{\mathrm{}+1}(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})},$$
(2.9)
where the argument of the cosh and sinh functions has been rescaled for later convenience. The derivative acting on $`\overline{\varphi }`$ generates a translation of the lump, hence the wavefunction in (2.9) is a zero mode of the fluctuation spectrum. The expression in (2.9) is easily integrated, giving

$$\overline{\varphi }(x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^{\mathrm{}}(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})}.$$
(2.10)
We can now use standard identities to express $`(\overline{\varphi }^{}(x))^2`$ in terms of $`\overline{\varphi }`$,

$$(\overline{\varphi }^{})^2=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\overline{\varphi }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(1\overline{\varphi }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/\mathrm{}}).$$
(2.11)
Hence, using (2.8) the potential is given by (2.5).

The potential is not bounded from below, thus we expect the fluctuations about the lumps to have tachyonic modes. $`V_2(\varphi )`$ is an inverted quartic potential. $`V_3(\varphi )`$ is the $`\varphi ^3`$ potential that describes the level zero string field theory and the model studied in detail in . For $`\mathrm{}>2`$, the potential $`V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi )`$ is nonpolynomial.

The potential $`V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi )`$ has a maximum at

$$\varphi =\varphi _0=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}+1}\right)^{\mathrm{}/2},$$
(2.12)
and a local minimum at $`\varphi =0`$. At the maximum, the second derivative of the potential is given by

$$V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi _0)=1,$$
(2.13)
while at the minimum, it is

$$V^{\prime \prime }(0)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$
(2.14)
Given the general behavior of these potentials, it is tempting to use one of the higher $`\mathrm{}`$ models as a toy model of open string field theory. The analog of the open string vacuum is the maximum $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$, with an open string tachyon of mass squared $`m^2=1`$. The closed string vacuum analog is the local minimum at $`\varphi =0`$.

At the local minimum, the scalar field has a mass squared $`m^2=\mathrm{}/2`$, hence in the limit $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, the scalar field decouples. However, the tachyon mass at the maximum remains finite. Hence, the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ model captures some of the salient features of open string field theory. In this limit, the potential in (2.5) simplifies to

$$V_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )=\frac{1}{4}\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}\varphi ^2,$$
(2.15)
which has a maximum at $`\varphi _0=e^{1/2}`$. This potential is shown in figure 1. Its higher derivatives are also of interest. In particular, note that

$$V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\varphi ^2\frac{3}{2},$$
(2.16)
which blows up as $`\varphi 0`$. Hence the effective scalar mass blows up as $`\varphi `$ flows to the analog of the closed string vacuum. This is shown in figure 2.

We can easily find the lump solution for the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ case by solving (2.8) by quadratures. This gives

$$x=_{\overline{\varphi }}^1\frac{d\varphi }{\sqrt{2V_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )}}=2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\overline{\varphi }}\overline{\varphi }(x)=\mathrm{exp}(x^2/4),$$
(2.17)
a simple gaussian. This is reminiscent of the lump solutions for the $`p`$-adic string field theory .

### 2.2 Field theory spectrum on the lumps

We now consider the spectrum for the codimension one lumps of these models, both for finite $`\mathrm{}`$ and in the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ limit. If we expand $`\varphi `$ about the lump solution $`\overline{\varphi }`$, then the fluctuation modes satisfy the Schroedinger equation

$$\frac{d^2\psi (x)}{dx^2}+V_{\mathrm{}+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\varphi }(x))\psi (x)=m^2\psi (x).$$
(2.18)
Substituting (2.5) and (2.10) into (2.18), the equation becomes

$$\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}^2(\mathrm{}+1)(\mathrm{}+2)\mathrm{sech}^2(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})\right)\psi (x)=m^2\psi (x).$$
(2.19)
Except for the shift and rescaling of the potential, and the corresponding rescaling of $`x`$, this is the reflectionless potential in (2.1). We can then find the masses by shifting and rescaling (2.4), leaving us with

$`m^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}\left(\mathrm{}^2(\mathrm{}+1n)^2\right),0n<\mathrm{}+1`$ (2.20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(2\mathrm{}n+1)}{2\mathrm{}}}.`$
From (2.20) we see that the lowest mode has negative $`m^2=1\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}`$ and that the next mode is massless. We also see that there are $`\mathrm{}1`$ discrete massive modes and a continuous spectrum starting at $`m^2=\mathrm{}/2`$.

If we take the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ limit, then (2.20) reduces to $`m^2=n1`$ and the continuum is pushed to infinite mass. We can see this explicitly by inserting the potential $`V_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )`$ in (2.15) and the lump solution in (2.17) into (2.18). Then the Schroedinger equation for the fluctuation modes reduces to the harmonic oscillator equation

$$\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\psi (x)+\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{4}x^2\right)\psi (x)=m^2\psi (x).$$
(2.21)
The masses of the modes are well known and satisfy

$$m^2=n1,n0.$$
(2.22)
Hence, unlike the finite $`\mathrm{}`$ models, the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ model shares three important properties with string theory. First, the fluctuations about the lumps have only a discrete spectrum. Second, the mass of the tachyon fluctuation equals the mass of the tachyon in the original field theory. Third, there is equal spacing between levels. Since in string theory we assign level zero to the tachyon we do the same here and define the level $`L(n)`$ to be

$$L(n)=n.$$
(2.23)
The lump solutions have a profile in which the field falls off to the closed string vacuum as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$. Examining (2.18), we see that a necessary condition for a discrete spectrum is that $`V^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}`$ as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$. But this is simply the statement that the scalar mass becomes infinite as the scalar field descends towards the analog of the closed string vacuum. In fact, the discrete spectrum condition should be true for models that include higher modes in the level expansion, and even the complete open string field theory. Hence, the decoupling of the open string tachyon as a propagating mode is consistent with the fact that the open string spectrum of D branes is discrete.

## 3 Tachyon condensation and mass flow at $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$

In this section we explore how the lumps decay through tachyon condensation. In the limit that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, the process is especially simple.

In the previous section, we learned that the finite $`\mathrm{}`$ models have lump profiles of the form $`\overline{\varphi }(x)=\mathrm{sech}^{\mathrm{}}(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})`$. However, the tachyon fluctuation of the lump has a wavefunction $`\psi _0(x)=\mathrm{sech}^{\mathrm{}+1}(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})`$. When the lump decays, the fluctuations become large, such that the lump profile is exactly cancelled by the fluctuations. However, since the profile wavefunction is not quite the same as the tachyon fluctuation, other modes must be turned on in order to annihilate the lump. This was explored in great detail for the $`\mathrm{}=2`$ case in .

However, when $`\mathrm{}`$ approaches infinity, the tachyon wavefunction is the lump profile. We can see this explicitly from the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ Schroedinger equation in (2.21). Since this is the equation for a harmonic oscillator, the ground state wavefunction is the gaussian $`\psi _0(x)=e^{x^2/4}`$, which is the lump profile equation. Hence, when the lump decays, only the tachyon mode condenses.

Let us show more explicitly that the tachyon flow does not induce condensation for the other modes. To this end, write the scalar field $`\varphi `$ as

$$\varphi =(1+T)\overline{\varphi }(x)+\psi (x)=(1+T)e^{x^2/4}+\psi (x),$$
(3.1)
where the first term is an expectation value, and $`\psi (x)`$ denotes fluctuations about it. The lump has decayed when $`T`$ reaches $`T=1`$. If the other fields do not condense under the flow, then their one point functions in the effective Lagrangian must be seen to vanish. Expanding the action corresponding to (2.6) with $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ about the decaying lump described in (3.1) and using the equations of motion, the one point contributions are

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x[(1+T)_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{\varphi }(x)+V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}((1+T)\overline{\varphi }(x))]\psi (x)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x[(1+T)V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\overline{\varphi }(x))+V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}((1+T)\overline{\varphi }(x))]\psi (x)},`$ (3.2)
where $`\psi (x)`$ includes all fluctuation modes. Using the explicit form for $`V_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )`$ in (2.15), we find that the term inside the square brackets is $`\overline{\varphi }(x)\mathrm{ln}(1+T)`$. Since $`\overline{\varphi }(x)`$ is proportional to the ground state wave function and except for its tachyon component $`\psi (x)`$ is orthogonal to the ground state, the integral over $`x`$ is zero. Hence the one point functions of all modes other than the tachyon are zero.

Next, let us examine what happens to the masses as the tachyon condenses. The effective mass for the modes is found by solving the eigenvalue equation

$$\frac{d^2\psi (x)}{dx^2}+V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }((1+T)\overline{\varphi }(x))\psi (x)=m^2\psi (x).$$
(3.3)
Using the relation

$$V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }((1+T)\overline{\varphi }(x))=V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\varphi })\mathrm{ln}(1+T),$$
(3.4)
we see that (3.3) is the same as (2.21) with a finite shift in the mass, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=\mathrm{ln}(1+T)`$. As $`T1`$, this shift blows up and the modes become infinitely massive, effectively decoupling from the spectrum.

## 4 Transporting the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ lumps

Because of translational invariance, the lumps have zero modes. If the zero mode is given an infinitesimal expectation value, the position of the lump changes infinitesimally. Such a zero mode is quite analogous to the modes associated to marginal operators in string theory. The lump zero mode alone, however, cannot implement large translations– this is the statement that large marginal deformations require giving expectation values to other fields. This was explored in some detail for string field theory in  and for the $`\varphi ^3`$ toy model in .

In particular the focus in  and  was on a special phenomenon. In string field theory, the effective potential for the marginal parameter is only defined up to a critical value of this parameter . An explanation for this was proposed in . The idea is that as the displacement of the lump increases from zero to infinity, the marginal parameter first grows, reaches a maximum and then decreases down to zero. Higher level fields take over in displacing the lump as the displacement grows.

Evidence for this proposal was given in the $`\varphi ^3`$ model, but there the role of the higher level fields was taken by the continuum of scalar fields. In the present $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ model there is no continuum, and we can see explicitly how the higher level fields, all corresponding to localized bound states do the job of moving the lump. Thus, the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ model is expected to model more closely the behavior of marginal parameters in string field theory.

We can see this for the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ model by decomposing the shifted lump into the fluctuation modes of the unshifted lump. The shifted lump has a profile

$`\overline{\varphi }(xx_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}((xx_0)^2/4)`$ (4.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_n\psi _n(x),`$
where $`\psi _n(x)`$ are the harmonic oscillator wavefunctions. In this notation the $`A_n`$’s are the fields living on the lump. The wavefunctions, given by

$$\psi _n(x)=\frac{1}{2^{n/2}\sqrt{n!}}H_n\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}\right)e^{x^2/4},$$
(4.2)
are normalized to

$$𝑑x\psi _n(x)\psi _m(x)=\sqrt{2\pi }\delta _{mn}.$$
(4.3)
Since $`\psi _0(x)=\overline{\varphi }(x)`$, the tachyon field $`T`$ representing a fluctuation of the lump is related to $`A_0`$ as $`A_0=1+T`$. The coefficients $`A_n`$ can be found in a standard quantum mechanics text  and are given by

$$A_n(x_0)=\frac{x_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}}{2^n\sqrt{n!}}\mathrm{exp}(x_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/8).$$
(4.4)
Clearly, shifting the lump turns on more than just the massless mode $`A_1`$, it turns on all fields. For small $`x_0`$, we have $`A_1x_0/2`$, but $`A_1`$ takes a maximum value for $`x_0=2`$:

$$A_1^{max}=A_1(x_0=2)=\mathrm{exp}(1/2)0.6065.$$
(4.5)
$`A_1(x_0)`$ decreases for $`x_0>2`$ beyond. A plot showing the behavior of $`A_0,A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ as functions of $`x_0`$ is shown in Fig. 3. For $`x_0=2`$, the lump constructed using the four lowest modes $`(A_0`$ up to $`A_3`$) is centered at about $`x_0=1.9`$. Using only $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ the lump ends up centered at $`x=1`$.

Examining the $`n`$-dependence of the coefficients $`A_n`$ for large $`x_0`$ one can show that they become largest for $`nx_0^2/4`$. Since the level $`L`$ of a field is simply given as $`L(n)=n`$ (see (2.23)), we see that that in displacing the lump a large distance $`x_0`$, fields of level

$$L=\frac{x_0^2}{4},$$
(4.6)
provide the largest contribution.

We have attempted to reproduce the above qualitative behavior by constructing the effective potential of the tachyon and marginal mode only. Let $`\alpha `$ denote the zero mode amplitude and $`T`$ denote the tachyon amplitude. In other words, we set

$$\varphi (x)=(1+T+\alpha x)\mathrm{exp}(x^2/4).$$
(4.7)
Note that $`\alpha =A_1`$ since $`\psi _1(x)=x\mathrm{exp}(x^2/4)`$. The effective potential for these modes is

$`V_{eff}(\alpha ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx\{(1+T)^2{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{8}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}})^2`$ (4.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1+T+\alpha x)^2(\mathrm{ln}(1+T+\alpha x)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^2)\}\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2).`$
For a given $`\alpha `$ we want to find the $`T`$ that minimizes $`V_{eff}`$. In all previous models, one finds that the equation of motion of $`T`$ cannot be satisfied for values of $`\alpha `$ greater than a critical value. Taking the $`T`$ derivative of (4.8) gives

$$\frac{dV_{eff}}{dT}=\frac{1}{2}dx(1+T+\alpha x)\mathrm{ln}(1+T+\alpha x)^2\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2).$$
(4.9)
The expression in (4.9) is clearly zero if $`T=1`$. This corresponds to the expectation value that erases the lump. There can be another zero for a value of $`T[1,0]`$. In fact, for small $`\alpha `$ one can convince oneself that (4.9) has a zero for $`T`$ slightly below zero. In general this second solution exists as long as $`V_{eff}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|_{T=1}<0`$.

Hence, the critical value $`\alpha `$ is defined by the condition that $`V_{eff}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|_{T=1}=0`$. Taking another derivative on (4.9), we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_{eff}}{dT^2}}|_{T=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\alpha x)^2]\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2)`$ (4.10)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\pi }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma +\mathrm{ln}2}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}\alpha \right),`$
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant. Hence, the maximum value for $`\alpha `$ is reached when

$$\alpha =\alpha _{max}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{exp}(1+\gamma /2)0.6943,$$
(4.11)
in decent agreement with (4.5). We note, however, that for $`\alpha _{max}`$ we do not get in this model a reasonable picture of a displaced lump. Indeed, the marginal branch starts at $`T=0`$ for $`\alpha =0`$ and flows to $`T=1`$ at $`\alpha =\alpha _{max}`$. For values of $`\alpha 0.6`$ the resulting field configuration resembles that of a displaced lump, but not at the endpoint of the branch, as can be seen in (4.7). This, we believe is an intrinsic limitation of this two-field model.

There is, in addition, the branch where $`T=1`$, for any $`\alpha `$. It corresponds to fluctuations along the zero mode of the lump around the stable vacuum. The marginal branch merges into this branch for the critical value of $`\alpha `$.

## 5 Higher codimension lumps and descent relations in the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ model

The energy density of the codimension one brane defined by the lump solution (a $`p`$-brane) is given by

$$E=d^p\stackrel{}{y}dx[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\overline{\varphi }}{dx}\right)^2+V(\overline{\varphi })]=(\text{Vol}_y)dx\left(\frac{d\overline{\varphi }}{dx}\right)^2.$$
(5.1)
With the lump profile $`\overline{\varphi }(x)=\mathrm{exp}(x^2/4)`$ one readily finds

$$T_p=\frac{E}{(\text{Vol}_y)}=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{2\pi },$$
(5.2)
for the tension of the $`p`$-brane. Given that the original unstable vacuum $`\varphi _0^2=e^1`$ is supposed to represent the space-filling ($`p+1`$)-brane, we have $`T_{p+1}=V(\varphi _0)=1/(4e)`$. Therefore

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{T_p}{T_{p+1}}=\frac{e}{\sqrt{2\pi }}1.084,$$
(5.3)
a ratio that in string theory takes the value of unity.

We now consider higher codimension lumps and show that (i) their profiles can be found exactly, and (ii) the ratio in (5.3) holds for all values of $`p`$. Let $`c`$ denote the value of the codimension ($`c=1`$ for the one dimensional lump $`\overline{\varphi }(x)=\mathrm{exp}(x^2/4)`$). The differential equation for the profile takes the form

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{d\rho ^2}+\left(\frac{c1}{\rho }\right)\frac{d\varphi }{d\rho }V^{}(\varphi )=0,$$
(5.4)
where $`\rho =(x_1^2+\mathrm{}x_c^2)^{1/2}`$ is the radial coordinate transverse to the brane. The relevant solution of this differential equation is easily found:

$$\overline{\varphi }(\rho )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho ^2}{4}+\frac{1}{2}(c1)\right)$$
(5.5)
Indeed the value $`\overline{\varphi }(0)`$ at the core of the lump increases from one, the value for $`c=1`$, as the codimension is increased. This is in accord with the intuition that the second term in (5.4), in the mechanical analogy of motion in a potential $`V`$, represents a friction term that is overcome by letting the field at the core have a larger expectation value. Higher codimension lumps exist, despite Derrick’s no-go theorem, because the potential $`V`$ is not bounded below.

Having the expression for the lump we can calculate its tension. Letting $`E_c`$ denote the energy of the codimension $`c`$ lump, we have

$$E(c)=(\text{Vol}_y)d^cx[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\overline{\varphi }}{d\rho }\right)^2+V(\overline{\varphi })].$$
(5.6)
This gives, for the tension $`T(c)`$ of the codimension $`c`$ brane

$$T(c)\frac{E(c)}{\text{Vol}_y}=\frac{1}{4}e^{c1}d^cx[\rho ^2(c1)]e^{\rho ^2/2}.$$
(5.7)
Using $`d^cx=\text{Vol}(S_{c1})_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \rho ^{c1}`$, with $`\text{Vol}(S_{c1})=\frac{2\pi ^{c/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c/2)}`$, the integral is readily done and gives:

$$T(c)=\frac{1}{4}e^{c1}(2\pi )^{c/2}.$$
(5.8)
This result, for $`c=0`$ agrees with the value $`T_{p+1}=1/(4e)`$, and for $`c=1`$ agrees with the value of $`T_p`$ in (5.2). Finally, we see that it implies that the ratio in (5.3) is the same for any pair of branes whose codimension differs by one unit. One can show that the spectrum of fields living on the codimension $`c`$ lump is governed by the Schroedinger potential of the $`c`$-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator.

## 6 Adding gauge fields

In this section we consider a possible scenario for gauge fields in our model. For components along the brane, there seems to be a neat generalization of the gauge fixed action  for all values of $`\mathrm{}`$. For components perpendicular to the brane, the generalization does not appear to be as nice, although it improves in the limit $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$.

The gauge fixed string field action is consistent because there is a BRST symmetry. Our philosophy is to include terms in the action that are similar to terms found in gauge fixed string field theory and save questions about BRST invariance for future work. Another possibility would be to try to obtain a gauge invariant formulation of the models. Experience in string field theory, however, suggests that this may require the inclusion of auxiliary fields .

### 6.1 The dynamics of the gauge field on the brane

In string field theory, the gauge-fixed action has the cubic term of the form

$$\varphi A_\mu A^\mu .$$
(6.1)
In level zero string field theory, $`\varphi `$ is proportional to $`V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )V^{\prime \prime }(0)`$, since $`V(\varphi )`$ is cubic. Hence, a possible generalization to the mass term in (6.1) is

$$\beta (V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi _0))A_\mu A^\mu ,$$
(6.2)
where $`\varphi _0`$, representing the open string vacuum, is at the maximum of the potential and $`\beta `$ is a constant. At the very least, the gauge fields should be massless when $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. For the solvable $`\mathrm{}`$ models, we choose $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}+2}`$, in which case the term in (6.2) can be reexpressed as

$$_{\mathrm{}+1}=\frac{1}{2}_\mu A_\nu ^\mu A^\nu \frac{1}{2}\frac{V_{\mathrm{}+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\varphi )}{\varphi }A_\mu A^\mu +\mathrm{},$$
(6.3)
where we have included the gauge fixed kinetic term for the vector field. Note that for the $`\varphi ^3`$ ($`V_3`$) model, the coefficient $`\beta `$ differs from the corresponding coefficient in the string field theory.

Now consider $`A_\mu `$ fluctuations, where $`\mu `$ is an index along the brane. To this end, we write $`A_\mu =𝒜_\mu (y)\eta (x)`$ where $`y`$ refers to coordinates on the brane worldvolume. Given the interaction term in (6.2), the masses of the gauge fluctuations are found by solving the eigenvalue equation

$$\frac{d^2\eta (x)}{dx^2}+\frac{V_{\mathrm{}+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\overline{\varphi }(x))}{\overline{\varphi }(x)}\eta (x)=m^2\eta (x).$$
(6.4)
Using the explicit solutions in (2.10) and (2.5), (6.4) becomes

$$\frac{d^2\eta (x)}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\mathrm{sech}^2(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})]\eta (x)=m^2\eta (x).$$
(6.5)
Hence, just as in the scalar field case, the fluctuations satisfy the Schroedinger equation for a reflectionless potential. However, in the gauge case, this potential is $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ and not $`U_{\mathrm{}+1}`$. Hence, using (2.4) and rescaling, the possible discrete values for the masses are

$`m^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}[\mathrm{}^2(\mathrm{}p)^2]0p<\mathrm{}`$ (6.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(2\mathrm{}n+1)}{2\mathrm{}}}1n<\mathrm{}+1.`$
Thus, except for the absent tachyon, the gauge fields have a spectrum that is the same as the scalar fields. Without the tachyon, the lowest level fluctuation is massless.

In the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ limit, the term in (6.3) reduces to

$$\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathrm{ln}\varphi ^2+1\right)A_\mu A^\mu .$$
(6.7)
The mass squared levels are equally spaced and match up with the scalar field mass levels. Again, the lowest state is massless. Clearly, when $`\varphi `$ rolls to the closed string vacuum, the mass of the gauge field diverges.

### 6.2 Giving a mass to the gauge field transverse to the brane

One of the more mysterious questions in open string field theory is what happens to gauge field components that are polarized transverse to the brane. There cannot be zero modes associated with them, since as we have seen in the previous sections, the zero mode is accounted for by a zero mode in the scalar field.

In the gauge fixed action there are, in addition to the term discussed in the previous subsection, terms of the form

$$\left(_\mu _\nu \varphi \right)A_\mu A_\nu .$$
(6.8)
In our toy models, we will assume that there is a similar term, except that $`\varphi `$ is replaced with $`\mathrm{ln}\varphi `$. Note for the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ model, $`\mathrm{ln}\varphi `$ is quite natural, since $`V_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\varphi )/\varphi =\mathrm{ln}\varphi 1/2`$. For the finite $`\mathrm{}`$ models, the $`\mathrm{ln}\varphi `$ term seems more ad hoc. Nor can we justify this term by gauge invariance. We simply assume that this belongs to the gauge fixed action.444The string field action has other terms quadratic in the gauge fields, although these extra terms all have $`_\mu A^\mu `$ factors. One can not really get rid of these terms by going to a Lorentz gauge, since in principle this action is already gauge fixed. These extra terms seem to ruin the solvability of the gauge fluctuations. Without any further justification, we do not include these types of terms. Thus, the final Lagrangian quadratic in the gauge fields is

$$_{\mathrm{}+1}=\frac{1}{2}_\mu A_\nu ^\mu A^\nu \frac{1}{2}\frac{V_{\mathrm{}+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\varphi )}{\varphi }A_\mu A^\mu +\left(_\mu _\nu \mathrm{ln}\varphi \right)A^\mu A^\nu .$$
(6.9)
The term in (6.8) does change the mass spectrum for the modes of the transversely polarized gauge field. Using the lump solution (2.10) we find

$$\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\mathrm{ln}\overline{\varphi }(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sech}^2(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}).$$
(6.10)
Hence, on account of (6.9) we find that for the transverse components equation (6.5) is modified to

$$\frac{d^2\eta (x)}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{sech}^2(x/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}})]\eta (x)=m^2\eta (x).$$
(6.11)
So again we find the Schroedinger equation for a reflectionless potential, but now this is the $`U_\mathrm{}1`$ potential. Hence the masses of the bound modes are

$`m^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}[\mathrm{}^2(\mathrm{}1p)^2]0p<\mathrm{}1`$ (6.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(2\mathrm{}n+1)}{2\mathrm{}}}2n<\mathrm{}+1.`$
Hence the mass spectrum is the same as for the scalar fluctuations, except now the tachyon and the massless mode are missing.

In the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ limit, after replacing $`\mathrm{ln}\varphi 1/2`$ by $`V^{}(\varphi )/\varphi `$, we see that the relative coefficient between the last two terms in (6.9) is a factor of two. Examining the gauge-fixed string field action in , one finds the same relative coefficient between the terms.

## 7 Concluding Remarks

In this paper we have considered toy models for open string field theory with actions

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^Dx\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu A_\nu ^\mu A^\nu `$ (7.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{}+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\varphi )}{\varphi }}A_\mu A^\mu +\left(_\mu _\nu \mathrm{ln}\varphi \right)A^\mu A^\nu \},`$
where

$$V_{\mathrm{}+1}(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4}\varphi ^2\left(1\varphi ^{2/\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(7.2)
In the limit that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, the action in (7.1) simplifies to

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^Dx\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu A_\nu ^\mu A^\nu `$ (7.3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{ln}\varphi ^2+1)A_\mu A^\mu +\left(_\mu _\nu \mathrm{ln}\varphi \right)A^\mu A^\nu \}.`$
The $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ model in (7.3) appears to be more stringy than the finite $`\mathrm{}`$ models or the $`\mathrm{}=3`$ model studied in . First, the continuum spectrum is absent. Second, upon tachyon condensation all modes disappear from the spectrum. Third, mass levels are equally spaced and the tachyon on the lump has the same mass as the tachyon in the original field theory model. Fourth, higher codimension lumps satisfy simple descent relations.

On the other hand the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ model also has some features that are less similar to those in open string field theory. In some sense $`\mathrm{}=3`$ matches quite nicely with the cubic nature of open string field theory, and with the level zero tachyon action. In addition, tachyon condensation in $`\mathrm{}=3`$ involves most of the spectrum just as in string field theory, while in $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ only the tachyon mode condenses. Finally, being nonpolynomial, and having a level zero tachyon field, it is not completely obvious how to deal with the level expansion in the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ model. In this respect, the model seems quite similar to closed string field theory . Learning how to do level expansion in the $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ theory may eventually help to understand the still mysterious fate of the closed string tachyon.

Acknowledgments: We thank J. Goldstone and R. L. Jaffe for many conversations and detailed discussions on the subject presented in this paper. The research of J.A.M. is supported in part by NSF grant number PHY-97-22072 and by DOE contract #DE-FC02-94ER40818. The research of B.Z. is supported in part by DOE contract #DE-FC02-94ER40818.


format: text

text:
# Orbital liquid in three dimensional Mott insulator: 𝐿𝑎𝑇𝑖𝑂₃

\[

## Abstract

We present a theory of spin and orbital states in Mott insulator $`LaTiO_3`$. The spin-orbital superexchange interaction between $`d^1(t_{2g})`$ ions in cubic crystal suffers from a pathological degeneracy of orbital states at classical level. Quantum effects remove this degeneracy and result in the formation of the coherent ground state, in which the orbital moment of $`t_{2g}`$ level is fully quenched. We find a finite gap for orbital excitations. Such a disordered state of local degrees of freedom on unfrustrated, simple cubic lattice is highly unusual. Orbital liquid state naturally explains observed anomalies of $`LaTiO_3`$.

\]

Experiments on transition metal oxides continue to challenge the theory - Keimer et al.  have recently reported on dynamical quenching of $`t_{2g}`$ orbital angular moments in Mott insulator $`LaTiO_3`$ which is not associated by any detectable orbital/Jahn-Teller ordering. More specifically, magnon spectra are found to fit a spin one-half, nearly isotropic Heisenberg model on cubic lattice. At the same time, anomalous x-ray scattering study has not revealed any evidence of static orbital order. These observations indicate that $`t_{2g}`$ orbital degrees of freedom of $`Ti^{3+}`$ ions are mysteriously missing in a low energy states of $`LaTiO_3`$. Keimer et al. suggested a picture of strongly fluctuating orbitals to reconcile their results.

Dynamical quenching of local orbital moments in a periodic, simple cubic lattice formed by $`Ti^{3+}`$ ions in $`LaTiO_3`$ is fascinating. This poses a serious problem for the canonical Goodenough-Kanamori picture of successive orbital and magnetic orderings - the guiding idea in the modern theory of orbitally degenerate transition metal oxides (see for review ). Loosely speaking, a lifting of the orbital degeneracy without symmetry breaking is formally similar to the spin moment quenching in periodic Kondo lattices. The novelty of $`LaTiO_3`$ is however that it is an insulator. At the same time, the ideas of quantum disorder due to the weak connectivity or geometrical frustration (like in pyrochlore systems, see  for instance) do not apply here, either.

As discussed below, there are several physical reasons for the orbital disorder in $`LaTiO_3`$, and the key factor is a special symmetry of $`t_{2g}`$ -superexchange interaction on cubic lattice. This results in a quantum resonance between orbital levels, which removes degeneracy present at classical level by the formation of resonating bonds in orbital sector - a realization of Anderson’s resonating valence bonds (RVB) idea  in a three dimensional (3D) insulator with help of orbital degrees of freedom. As for spin moments, they show a long-range order as expected on general grounds. However, a staggered moment is considerably reduced, since short-wavelength magnons are actively involved in the local resonance of exchange bonds - in fact, it is the composite spin-orbital excitation which plays a crucial role in the theory presented.

We begin with discussion of the $`t_{2g}`$ -superexchange interaction. In terms of fermions $`a_{i,\sigma }`$, $`b_{i,\sigma }`$, $`c_{i,\sigma }`$ corresponding to $`t_{2g}`$ levels of $`yz`$, $`zx`$, $`xy`$ symmetry, respectively, the hopping term in the Hubbard model reads as $`t(a_{i,\sigma }^{}a_{j,\sigma }+b_{i,\sigma }^{}b_{j,\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ for the bonds along c-direction in a cubic crystal. Correlation energies in doubly occupied virtual states of $`Ti^{3+}`$ ion are specified as follows: $`U`$ for electrons on the same orbital; $`U^{^{}}+J_H`$, if they occupy different orbitals and form a spin-singlet; and $`U^{^{}}J_H`$ for a spin-triplet charge excitation. The relation $`U^{^{}}=U2J_H`$ holds in the atomic limit. As $`J_H<<U`$ usually, the dominant part of the superexchange interaction in a cubic lattice is:

$$H_{\mathrm{SE}}=\frac{4t^2}{U}+\underset{ij}{}\left(𝐒_i𝐒_j+\frac{1}{4}\right)\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(\gamma )}.$$
(1)
On c-axis bonds the orbital structure of the exchange “constant” is given by (hereafter, the energy scale $`4t^2/U`$ is used):

$$\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(c)}=n_{i,a}n_{j,a}+n_{i,b}n_{j,b}+a_i^{}b_ib_j^{}a_j+b_i^{}a_ia_j^{}b_j.$$
(2)
Similar expressions can be obtained for $`\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(a)}`$ and $`\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(b)}`$ by replacing orbital fermions $`a,b`$ in this equation by $`b,c`$ and $`c,a`$ pairs, respectively. We notice, that in Eq.(2) and below fermions have only orbital quantum number ($`a,b,c`$ orbitons), since a spin component of the original fermions is represented in Eq.(1) by spin one-half operators, as usual. We shall focus now on the Hamiltonian (1), and discuss later the effects of finite Hund coupling corrections (of the order of $`J_H/U`$).

As evident from Eq.(1) (consider $`𝐒_i𝐒_j=1/4`$), the classical Néel state is infinitely degenerate in orbital sector, reflecting that cubic symmetry is respected by the Néel state. This emphasizes a crucial importance of quantum effects, as has been pointed out first in the context of $`e_g`$-systems . The bond directional geometry of $`e_g`$ orbitals offers a solution  in that case: $`e_g`$ orbital frustration is resolved by order from disorder mechanism selecting a particular (directional) orbital configuration, which maximizes the energy gain from quantum spin fluctuations. $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals are however not bond oriented (they are all planar), and not much spin fluctuation energy can be gained by any pattern of static orbital orderings. The solution of the $`t_{2g}`$-problem proposed here is different: that is an idea of $`SU(4)`$ spin-orbital excitations recently discussed in a context of one dimensional models .

Reflecting the geometry of $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals, every bond in Eq.(1) is represented by two equivalent orbitals (such a symmetry is absent for Ising-like $`e_g`$ orbitals). This is also evident from the representation of Eq.(2) in terms of orbital pseudospin $`\tau _{ab}^i`$ and density $`n_{ab}^i=n_{ia}+n_{ib}`$ operators acting on the $`(a,b)`$-doublet subspace: $`\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(c)}=2\left(\tau _{ab}^i\tau _{ab}^j+\frac{1}{4}n_{ab}^in_{ab}^j\right).`$ Suppose that $`n_{ab}^i=1`$; one then clearly observes an orbital $`SU(2)`$ symmetry of exchange “integrals”. As we know from spin $`SU(2)`$$`\times `$orbital $`SU(2)`$ models , the exchange energy is gained in that case due to the resonance between degenerate local configurations (spin-singlet $`\times `$ orbital triplet, and spin-triplet $`\times `$ orbital singlet), and elementary excitations are a mixed spin-orbital $`SU(4)`$ modes. Fig.1(i) illustrates the idea of correlated spin-orbital fluctuation. In the present problem, spins and orbitals are different: spin sector is effectively half-filled ($`n_{i,}+n_{i,}=1`$) and must show a long-range order in 3D; on the other hand, the orbital occupation number $`n_{ab}^i`$ is not conserved but rather fluctuates around the average value 2/3. Because of the presence of third orbital, one has a less severe constraint $`n_{i,a}+n_{i,b}+n_{i,c}=1`$ in orbital sector. Even though a true $`SU(4)`$ excitation cannot develop here because of spin-orbital asymmetry, the analogy with 1D models suggests the way how to optimize the exchange energy: That is by the formation of a virtual $`SU(4)`$ resonance which can be viewed in the present context as a local excitation composed of magnon and orbital fluctuation. This resonance removes the orbital frustration dynamically, and the disordered state of orbitals is precisely what is required to amplify this mechanism in all three directions of cubic lattice.

Technically, the main ingredient of the theory is the three-particle bond variable, $`\widehat{\chi }_\alpha ^{(ij)}=\alpha _i^{}\alpha _j(s_i^{}+s_j).`$ Here, $`\alpha `$ denotes an appropriate fermionic orbiton, say $`a`$ or $`b`$ orbitons for $`c`$ -bond pair $`(\mathrm{𝑖𝑗})`$, while $`s^{}`$ being a magnon excitation about the Néel state. This is an analogy to $`SU(4)`$ flavor bond variable  in a spin ordered state. The bare magnon dispersion is simply given by the Heisenberg interaction with an average exchange constant $`J=\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(\gamma )}`$, which will be calculated below. On the contrary, the orbital dynamics is exclusively due to the three-particle resonance, since spin-only prefactor $`𝐒_i𝐒_j+1/4`$ is almost zero ($`0.05`$) in 3D. We may present Eq.(1) as $`H_{\mathrm{SE}}=H_{\mathrm{sp}}+H_{\mathrm{int}}+\mathrm{const}.,`$ where $`H_{\mathrm{𝑠𝑝}}`$ describes bare magnons, and $`H_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{2}_{ij}_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\chi }_\alpha ^{(ij)}\widehat{\chi }_\beta ^{(ji)}.`$ The strategy is then to decouple $`H_{\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑡}}`$ in terms of bond variables. The solution with uniform bond amplitude $`\chi `$ gives $`H_{\mathrm{int}}H_a+H_b+H_c+\mathrm{const}.`$, where

$$H_a=\chi \underset{ij_{bc}}{}\{a_i^{}a_j(s_i^{}+s_j)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.\}.$$
(3)
Here the summation is restricted to $`(b,c)`$-planes. Similar expressions hold for $`b`$ and $`c`$ orbitons. Since the filling factor is only 1/3 per orbital flavor, the orbital sector is far from nesting conditions, thus a mean-field uniform solution in the spirit of large N -theories  is believed to be a reasonable starting point to describe a disordered state of orbitals. Eq.(3) describes an effective hopping of orbitons accompanied by simultaneous magnon excitations. Thus, we have mapped the superexchange in an undoped system to an effective $`\chi J`$ model, which in a momentum space reads as

$$H_{\chi J}=\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩}}{}\underset{\alpha }{}M_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩}}^{(\alpha )}(\alpha _{𝐤+𝐩}^{}\alpha _𝐤s_𝐩+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+\underset{𝐩}{}\omega _𝐩s_𝐩^{}s_𝐩.$$
(4)
Here $`M_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩}}^\alpha =4\chi (\gamma _{𝐤+𝐩}^{(\alpha )}u_𝐩+\gamma _𝐤^{(\alpha )}v_𝐩)`$, while form-factors are $`\gamma _𝐤^{(a)}=(c_y+c_z)/2`$, $`\gamma _𝐤^{(b)}=(c_z+c_x)/2`$, $`\gamma _𝐤^{(c)}=(c_x+c_y)/2`$, where $`c_\lambda =cosk_\lambda `$. Bare magnon dispersion $`\omega _𝐩=3J(1\gamma _𝐩^2)^{1/2}`$ with $`\gamma _𝐩=(c_x+c_y+c_z)/3`$, and $`u_𝐩,v_𝐩`$ are conventional Bogoliubov transformation coefficients for magnons in the cubic lattice. It is noticed that the coupling constant in Eq.(4) vanishes at $`p=0`$ limit (spin conservation is respected), and it is the short-wavelength magnons which are important. The model is similar to the $`tJ`$ model for the doped Néel state of cuprates (see  for comparison), yet the parameters $`\chi `$ and $`J`$ have to be self-consistently determined. It is noticed, that there are three branches of 2D fermions, and the dimensionality of magnon sector is three in the present case.

We calculate first the fermionic spectrum within a self-consistent Born approximation. Different from holes in the $`tJ`$ model, an orbiton creates a magnon on the site it arrives at, and eliminates a magnon while leaving the site (see Eq.(3)). Therefore orbiton motion contains a coherent component even in the Ising limit for magnons. The latter approximation is used to simplify a momentum integration in the self-energy, Fig.1(ii). One then obtains $`Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega ^{(\alpha )}(𝐤)=f_\omega \kappa _\omega (\gamma _𝐤^{(\alpha )})^2`$. Here $`\kappa _\omega =(4\chi )^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi \rho (\xi )/(\xi +3J\omega )`$, where $`\rho (\xi )=\rho _𝐤(\xi )_𝐤`$ is fermionic density of states (DOS). $`f_\omega `$ has similar structure: $`f_\omega =(4\chi )^2_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑\xi \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\xi )/(\omega +3J\xi )`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\xi )=\rho _𝐤(\xi )(\gamma _𝐤^{(\alpha )})^2_𝐤`$. One observes a two-sublattice structure of the orbiton dispersion (imposed by spin order) as expected from analogy with the $`tJ`$ model . We estimate the fermionic (unrenormalized) mass as $`m1/\kappa _0`$, and density of states as $`\rho (0)1/\pi \kappa _0`$. Each orbiton forms its own 2D fermi-surface (FS). Say, for $`a`$ orbitons the FS consists of two almost circles around $`(0,0)`$ and $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ points in a $`(k_y,k_z)`$ plane. Assuming constant DOS within the interval of width $`W_{orb}=1/\rho (0)`$, we find $`\kappa _04\chi /\sqrt{\pi }`$, and $`W_{orb}4\sqrt{\pi }\chi `$. $`W_{orb}`$ is the energy scale of orbital fluctuations . Further, we estimate the bond amplitude $`\chi =a_i^{}a_j(s_i^{}+s_j)`$. In the Ising limit for intermediate magnons, Fig.1(iii) gives $`\chi (4/3\sqrt{\pi })(\gamma _𝐤^{(a)})^2_{FS}`$. For $`n^{(a)}=1/3`$ we estimate $`(\gamma _𝐤^{(a)})^2_{FS}0.3`$. Spin stiffness in the present model is controlled by $`J`$. The mean-field value 2/9 for $`J`$ follows from Eq.(2).This number is reduced to $`J0.16`$ due to the corrections shown in Fig.2(i). The physics behind this reduction is that $`SU(4)`$ resonance induces some ferromagnetic component in spin interactions.

Thus, we have fixed basic energy scales (in units of $`4t^2/U`$): $`W_{orb}1.6`$ for orbital sector, and $`3J0.48`$ for magnon bandwidth. The spin stiffness is relatively small because Pauli principle is relevant only if electrons occupy the same orbital, and that probability is reduced at large orbital degeneracy. Main energy gain stems from magnon-orbital resonance: $`E_{int}=6\chi ^20.31`$. (Spin-only contribution is negligible: $`E_{SW}0.02`$). This number should be compared with energy gain that one has with statically ordered planar orbitals: $`0.17`$.

We discuss now physical consequences of the theory in context of experimental data on $`LaTiO_3`$ . Observed magnon dispersions of cubic symmetry are very natural in above picture of orbitals fluctuating faster than magnons. The energy scale $`4t^2/U100`$ meV, required to fit $`J_{exp}=15.5\pm 1`$meV, is also reasonable in view of values $`U4`$eV , and $`t0.3`$eV . This scale means that orbital fluctuation energy in $`LaTiO_3`$ is $`W_{orb}160`$meV.

Keimer et al. observed very small anisotropy gap, indicating that effects of conventional relativistic spin-orbit coupling are strongly suppressed. This is in fact an unavoidable consequence of our theory, since the ground state has no orbital degeneracy. We may calculate spectral density of orbital angular momentum fluctuations. It is given by the fermionic orbiton excitations (“orbiton Stoner continuum”). Spectral density of the local susceptibility of angular moments $`l_i^z=i(a^{}bb^{}a)_i`$ vanishes in the static, $`\omega =0`$ limit: $`S(\omega )=2\rho ^2(0)\omega `$. This implies complete quenching of orbital moments at low energies. Making parallel with Jahn-Teller (JT) impurity physics , we may say that “effective Ham reduction factor” , $`\zeta (\overline{\omega })\left\{_0^{\overline{\omega }}S(\omega )𝑑\omega \right\}^{1/2}\overline{\omega }/W_{orb}`$ is frequency dependent, and the angular moments disappear from low-energy physics linearly in energy. Also, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{so}/W_{orb}10^1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{so}20`$ meV) means that relativistic spin-orbit coupling induced corrections are small; we estimate the $`g`$-value shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }g/g0.06`$, consistent with .

Despite three dimensionality of magnon spectra, the staggered moment in $`LaTiO_3`$ is small, i.e. 0.45$`\mu _B`$  \- an obvious problem for a spin-wave picture. The present theory resolves this difficulty: The intensity of spin Bragg peak is partially taken away by a quantum magnon-orbiton resonance and redistributed over finite frequency region. In other words, fluctuating orbitals generate additional quantum spin fluctuations in the ground state. We have calculated a spin moment reduction in a similar way as it was previously done in the $`tJ`$ model . Accounting for lowest order interaction corrections (Fig.2(ii)) to the magnons, one finds:

$`\delta S_{int}^z={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(4\chi )^2`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}{}}n_𝐤(1n_𝐤^{})\{{\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}}{(\omega _𝐩+\xi _𝐤^{}\xi _𝐤)^2}}`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}}{\omega _𝐩(\omega _𝐩+\xi _𝐤^{}\xi _𝐤)}}\},`$
where $`\xi _𝐤`$ is the $`a`$ orbiton dispersion, $`𝐤^{}=𝐤+𝐩`$, $`A_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=\lambda _+^2/(1+\gamma _𝐩)+\lambda _+\lambda _{}/(1\gamma _𝐩^2)^{1/2}`$, $`B_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=\lambda _+^2\gamma _𝐩/(1+\gamma _𝐩)`$, and $`\lambda _\pm =\gamma _𝐤^{(a)}\pm \gamma _𝐤^{}^{(a)}`$. By averaging first the matrix elements $`A,B`$ in Eq.(5) over the Brillouin zone (they are rather regular functions), we evaluate $`\delta S_{int}^z0.15`$. (Another estimation by using the Ising limit for magnons gives 0.13). Adding also a conventional 3D spin-wave correction $`\delta S_{SW}^z0.075`$, one then obtains a staggered moment $`0.55\mu _B`$ in fair agreement with experiment.

The orbital liquid picture offers a simple explanation of puzzling Fano-type phonon anomalies observed by Raman scattering data in insulating titanates (Reedyk et al.). These anomalies are most pronounced in $`LaTiO_3`$ , and we identify their origin as due to the coupling of phonons to orbital excitations, noticing that the phonon position ($``$ 300 cm<sup>-1</sup>) is right in the orbital Stoner continuum.

According to Goodenough-Kanamori rules, a local ferrotype orbital correlations are expected in a spin Néel state. A residual interactions (via magnons) between orbitons do indeed produce a triplet pairing of orbitons within each fermionic branch. Treating the problem on BCS level, we find finite mean-field order parameter $`\alpha _i^{}\alpha _j^{}`$ of p-wave symmetry (specifically, of $`p_x+ip_y`$ -symmetry for $`c`$ orbitons, for instance), which opens an orbital gap. It is difficult to calculate reliably the value of this gap (of the order of a few meV); we predict however that a linear $`\gamma `$ -term in specific heat should be released when a correlation gap in orbital spectrum is thermally washed out. We estimate $`\gamma 40mJ/moleK^2`$. Specific heat measurements in $`LaTiO_3`$ up to $`T100K`$ would be a crucial test for the theory.

From physical point of view, the proximity of $`LaTiO_3`$ to Mott transition (charge gap is only 0.2 eV ) is actually a key factor, which drives this compound to superexchange dominated orbital liquid state. This state is stable, however, only if the effective orbiton bandwidth, $`W_{orb}4t^2/U`$, is large enough to suppress JT order. When one goes to another end compound, $`YTiO_3`$ (charge gap $`1`$eV) the bandwidth narrows , thus reducing superexchange energy scale, and we expect static JT ordering of spatially more localized orbitals once the ratio $`W_{orb}/E_{JT}`$ becomes less than critical. With antiferrotype orbital ordering as observed in $`YTiO_3`$  a classical expectation value of Eq.(2) vanishes, and Hund’s coupling $`J_H`$ term induces a ferromagnetic state. The competition between the frustrated superexchange on one hand, and JT plus Hund’s couplings on the other hand is expected to result in the phase diagram shown in Fig.3.

To conclude, we have argued that due to large degeneracy and special geometry of orbitals $`t_{2g}`$-superexchange system most likely has an orbitally disordered ground state. The observed anomalies of $`LaTiO_3`$ find their natural explanations in a proposed orbital liquid picture. In metallic manganites, $`e_g`$ orbital disorder is enforced by the presence of mobile carriers . Apparently, the case of insulating $`LaTiO_3`$ is a nice example of that a frustrated $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals can do the same job alone, without doping and well before the Mott transition to a metallic state is reached.

We would like to thank B. Keimer for stimulating discussions. Discussions with Y. Tokura, S. Ishihara, P. Prelovšek, and K. Tsutsui are also acknowledged. This work was supported by Priority Areas Grants from the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport of Japan, CREST and NEDO.


text:
# Young massive star clusters in M51

## 1 Introduction

M51 is probably among the most famous galaxies in the sky, instantly recognizable by its nearby companion NGC 5195. Also known as the “Whirlpool Galaxy”, it was one of the first galaxies in which spiral structure was discovered by Lord Rosse, and it provides a spectacular text-book example of a grand-design Sbc type spiral seen nearly face-on. It has a very high optical surface brightness \[Okamura et al. 1976\] and is also a strong emitter of far-infrared radiation, indicating strong star formation activity in the spiral arms \[Smith 1982, Hippelein et al. 1996\]. Deep images reveal faint outlying material embedding both M51 and NGC 5195 \[Burkhead 1978\], providing clear evidence that the two galaxies are physically interacting. These characteristics, along with the relatively small distance ($`8.4\pm 0.6`$ Mpc, Feldmeier et al. 1997) and the location far from the galactic plane ($`b=68^{}`$) make M51 an attractive target for studying its population of Young Massive Star Clusters (YMCs).

YMCs are abundant in interacting and merger galaxies like e.g. the “Antennae” NGC 4038/4039 (a list of galaxies with known YMC populations is given in Larsen (1999b)). However, they are also seen in more normal galaxies like e.g. the LMC \[van den Bergh 1991\] and M33 \[Christian & Schommer 1988\]. In a recent study of 21 nearby, non-interacting spiral galaxies, Larsen & Richtler \[Larsen & Richtler 2000\] (LR2000) found a strong correlation between the specific $`U`$-band luminosity $`T_L(U)`$ of YMCs in a galaxy and the area-normalized star formation rate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$. In this respect, M51 provides a highly interesting intermediate case of a clearly interacting galaxy that has still retained the characteristics of a normal spiral.

This paper reports the results of a study of YMCs in M51. In Sect. 3, YMCs are identified and photometry is obtained from ground-based $`UBV`$ CCD imaging. Archive HST/WFPC2 images are then used to examine a few clusters in detail, including measurements of their sizes (Sect. 4). Next, the specific $`U`$-band luminosity of the M51 cluster system is derived and compared with other galaxies (Sect. 5). In Sect. 6 the YMC population in M51 is compared with young clusters in the Milky Way and the LMC, along with some considerations on formation of YMCs. Finally, conclusions are in Sect. 7.

## 2 Data

### 2.1 Observations and initial reductions

CCD images in the $`UBV`$ passbands were obtained on Mar 13 – 14, 2000 with the prime focus camera (PFCAM) on the Lick 3 meter Shane telescope at Mount Hamilton, California. The total integration times were 3600, 1200 and 900 sec. in $`U`$, $`B`$ and $`V`$, split into 3 individual exposures in each filter. Typical seeing values ranged between 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$0 and 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5, but the image quality was degraded by problems with the alignment of the mirror cell after recent re-aluminization and oscillations due to wind, making stellar images appear somewhat elongated. The image scale was 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$296 /pixel and the total field of view was $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$, sufficient to fully cover both M51 itself and the companion NGC 5195.

To reduce read-out time, the two halves of the CCD were read out in parallel through two amplifiers. During the subsequent reductions, the difference between the bias levels in the two parts of the CCD image was found to change by up to $`40`$ ADU from one exposure to another. The difference was eliminated by adding a constant number to all pixel values in one half of the image. A more serious concern was that the flat-field varied significantly, most likely because of scattered light. Dividing two skyflats in the same filter with each other, the ratio was found to vary by up to $`20\%`$ from the centre to the corner of the chip, with the most severe problems in the southern $`300`$ pixels (about $`1\stackrel{}{.}5`$) of the field. Within the central $`1000\times 1000`$ pixels the variations were less dramatic, but still quite significant at about the 5% level. The effect was clearly visible in the final calibrated images as large-scale gradients in the background. However, the pattern appeared to be more or less the same in all passbands so the flatfielding errors may, to a certain extent, cancel out for colour indices.

### 2.2 Photometric calibration

Standard fields from Landolt \[Landolt 1992\] were observed for photometric calibration. The transformation equations were assumed to be of the form

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`v+c_v\times (bv)+z_v`$
$`BV`$ $`=`$ $`c_{(bv)}\times (bv)+z_{(bv)}`$
$`UB`$ $`=`$ $`c_{(ub)}\times (ub)+z_{(ub)}`$
where capital letters denote standard magnitudes and small letters indicate instrumental magnitudes, corrected for atmospheric extinction. However, because of non-photometric conditions and the flat-field problems it was necessary to correct the zero-points of the $`UBV`$ photometry using HST archive images. $`UBV`$ magnitudes were obtained for sources in the HST images listed in Table 1, following the standard procedure described in Holtzman et al. \[Holtzman et al. 1995\]. Objects bright enough to be used for calibration of the ground-based images were easily measured through the Holtzman et al. reference aperture of $`r=5`$ pixels, avoiding problematic aperture corrections. The zero-points ($`z_v`$, $`z_{(bv)}`$ and $`z_{(ub)})`$ of the ground-based magnitudes were then adjusted to fit the HST system, while the scaling constants ($`c_v`$, $`c_{(bv)}`$ and $`c_{(ub)}`$) derived from the Landolt standard fields were preserved. The overlap between the HST datasets used for the $`BV`$ and $`U`$ calibrations amounted to less than the area of one WF camera chip, making it difficult to find a suitable number of calibration objects. The $`UB`$ calibration is thus somewhat more uncertain than the $`BV`$ and $`V`$-band calibrations and it is estimated that $`z_{(ub)}`$ is good to $`\pm 0.15`$ mag while $`z_{(bv)}`$ is probably accurate to better than $`\pm 0.05`$ mag. Although significantly worse than what could have been obtained under optimal photometric conditions, the calibrations adopted here are nevertheless accurate enough for the conclusions drawn in this paper.

## 3 Selection of cluster candidates

In order to facilitate a comparison with the results of LR2000, the same data reduction and analysis procedures were followed as closely as possible. Objects were detected using the daofind task in daophot \[Stetson 1987\] on background-subtracted $`V`$ and $`B`$ band images and matching the two object lists. Aperture photometry was then carried out as described in Larsen \[Larsen 1999a\], using an aperture radius of $`r=5`$ pixels. Finally, a correction for interstellar absorption of $`A_B=0.150`$ mag was applied \[Schlegel et al. 1998\].

The resulting ($`BV,V`$) colour-magnitude diagram is shown in Fig. 1. An initial list of cluster candidates was then obtained by selecting all objects with

* $`BV<0.45`$
* $`M_V<\{\begin{array}{cc}9.5\hfill & \text{for }UB<0.4\hfill \\ 8.5\hfill & \text{for }UB0.4\hfill \end{array}`$

These criteria ensure minimal contamination from foreground stars, the majority of which will be redder than the $`BV`$ cut, and by individual luminous stars in M51 itself because of the $`M_V`$ limit. However, many of the objects identified in this way were still not likely cluster candidates, but high-surface brightness parts of spiral arms, HII regions or just artefacts found by daofind where no real object existed. A visual inspection of the images, looking for relatively isolated, point-like sources, was found to be the only way to isolate good cluster candidates from the multitude of other objects in the frames.

LR2000 further used $`H\alpha `$ images to reject the youngest objects, still embedded in HII regions and often surrounded by a fuzz of nebular emission and star forming regions, but no $`H\alpha `$ filter was available at PFCAM during this observing run. Instead, such objects were rejected based on their angular sizes. Object sizes were measured using the ishape algorithm \[Larsen 1999a\], convolving the point spread function (PSF) of the $`V`$band image with King profiles to match the observed object profiles. A concentration parameter of 30 was assumed for the King profiles. Fig. 2 shows the intrinsic object sizes derived by ishape as a function of $`UB`$ colour for objects that passed the initial visual inspection. Clearly, most of the more extended sources are found among the bluest objects, while most objects with $`UB0.6`$ have FWHM $`<`$ 2 pixels. Note that the typical seeing in our images corresponds to FWHM $`5`$ pixels. A size cut at FWHM=3 pixels was finally applied to exclude the fuzziest objects, likely to be OB associations or HII regions rather than real star clusters.

Although the cluster colours have been corrected for Galactic foreground extinction, some residual reddening may still be present from M51 itself. The question of the optical thickness of face-on spiral galaxies is still debated, and for any particular object the absorption will obviously depend on the local structure of the surrounding interstellar medium. However, a recent study \[Xilouris et al. 1999\] concluded that face-on spiral galaxies are essentially transparent with an optical depth of less than one in all optical bands. M51 being obviously face-on (inclination angle $`20^{}`$, Tully 1974), interstellar extinction problems are thus expected to be small.

The final list consists of 69 cluster candidates (Table 3). A ($`BV,UB`$) diagram for these is shown in Fig. 3, along with stellar models by Bertelli et al. \[Bertelli et al. 1994\] and the Girardi et al. \[Girardi et al. 1995\] “S”–sequence which marks the average colours of LMC clusters. The arrow indicates the effect of a reddening of 0.3 in $`BV`$, equivalent to 0.93 magnitudes of $`V`$–band absorption for a standard reddening law. The M51 clusters tend to have somewhat bluer $`UB`$ colours than expected from the S-sequence, but a shift of about 0.1 in $`UB`$ would make them match the S-sequence colours nicely. Such a shift would be consistent with the estimated uncertainties. The S-sequence is essentially an age sequence and Girardi et al. \[Girardi et al. 1995\] published a calibration of age as a function of position in the ($`BV,UB`$) diagram. However, because of the uncertainties in the photometric calibration and especially in the $`U`$ band, a detailed discussion of ages for the M51 clusters will not be given in this paper, but note that the clusters do scatter along the S-sequence, indicating a significant age spread. Because of the fading with age, the sample becomes increasingly incomplete for higher ages. The upper age limit, due to the $`BV`$ cut, is about 500 Myr.

Fig. 4 shows a $`V`$-band image with the cluster positions indicated. Most of the cluster candidates are located in or near the spiral arms of M51 itself. This is to a large extent a selection effect, due to the fact that the youngest clusters are more luminous (for any given mass) and therefore easier to detect. However, note that also the companion galaxy contains a couple of massive clusters. The HST F439W + F555W pointing is also shown in Fig. 4.

## 4 HST data

In addition to being useful for calibrating the photometry, the superior angular resolution of the HST data provides a welcome way of examining the structure of the cluster candidates in much greater detail than what is possible from the ground. Fig. 5 shows WFPC/2 close-ups of 10 clusters, marked by asterisks ($``$) in Table 3. The images in Fig. 5 are from two combined F439W exposures, allowing for cosmic ray rejection.

First, the HST images clearly confirm the cluster nature of most of the objects. Exceptions may be objects #627 – a quite faint source located near the nucleus of M51, and #597 and #403 which may consist of two or more closely separated individual stars. The remaining seven objects are far too bright to be individual stars and appear well resolved.

Most of the clusters are evidently not isolated objects, but are surrounded by individual luminous stars and other clusters. This is, however, to be expected because most of these clusters have very blue $`UB`$ colours, indicating low ages. A $`UB`$ colour of $`0.8`$, typical for the clusters in Fig. 5, corresponds to an age of about 12 Myr \[Girardi et al. 1995\], too short for a young star cluster to escape from the environment where it was born. The two reddest clusters (#693 and #912) with $`UB=0.59`$ and $`UB=0.58`$ already appear somewhat more isolated than the other clusters in the Fig. 5, consistent with the higher ages inferred from their $`UB`$ colours ($`30`$ Myr).

### 4.1 HST versus ground-based photometry

Table 2 lists HST-based photometry and sizes (see Sect. 4.2) for the 10 objects in Fig. 5. For comparison, ground-based photometry is also listed. The photometry in Table 2 has not been reddening corrected.

Magnitudes measured on the ground-based images are generally brighter than those based on HST images. This is not surprising, considering that the HST magnitudes were measured through a 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5 aperture which clearly does not include all the light surrounding the clusters that will enter into a ground-based aperture. Generally, the agreement on $`BV`$ colours is better than on $`V`$ magnitudes, confirming that colours can be more accurately measured than individual magnitudes for objects in crowded fields. The difference between ground-based and HST-based $`BV`$ colours clearly increases for the fainter objects, with the largest discrepancy for the likely “non-clusters” (#597 and #627) pointed out above.

It is also worth noting that the HST pointings were centred on the nucleus of M51, providing a “worst-case” comparison between HST and ground-based data. Further out in the disk of M51 the surface brightness drops and the cluster sample becomes less biased towards the brightest (and thus youngest) objects where crowding problems are most significant.

### 4.2 Cluster sizes

Sizes were measured on the WFPC/2 F439W images for the clusters in Fig. 5 with the ishape algorithm \[Larsen 1999a\]. At the distance of M51, one WF pixel corresponds to a linear scale of 4 pc, so measuring cluster sizes of the order of a few pc is not trivial. The input PSF for ishape was generated empirically from point sources in the HST images, using the PSF task in daophot. This was preferred over generating the PSFs with the TinyTim PSF simulater \[Krist & Hook 1997\] which does not include the so-called “diffusion kernel” for subsampled PSFs, and would thus have caused ishape to derive too large cluster sizes.

The clusters were modelled as King profiles with concentration parameter $`c=30`$, resulting in the half-light radii ($`R_\mathrm{e}`$) listed in the last column of Table 2. The cluster sizes measured here are consistent with sizes for YMCs in merger galaxies like the Antennae \[Whitmore et al. 1999\], with $`R_\mathrm{e}23`$ pc and do also match the typical size of globular clusters in the Milky Way and other galaxies quite well \[Harris 1996\]. It has been estimated from simulations that ishape is able to measure sizes down to $`\frac{1}{10}`$ times the size of the PSF when sufficient signal is present \[Larsen 1999a\], corresponding to $`0.5`$ pc in the current case. To illustrate the reliability of the cluster sizes, Fig. 6 shows a histogram of the size distribution for all objects brighter than $`V=22`$ in the WF4 chip. The histogram shows a narrow peak at $`R_\mathrm{e}=0`$, corresponding to unresolved point sources, while objects with sizes characteristic of the YMCs appear well separated from the $`R_\mathrm{e}=0`$ peak. The YMCs are thus well resolved and their sizes are well determined.

## 5 Global properties of the M51 cluster system

### 5.1 Specific luminosity

In studies of old globular cluster systems (GCSs) it has become customary to characterize the richness of a GCS by its specific frequency, originally defined by Harris & van den Bergh \[Harris & van den Bergh 1981\] as the number of globular clusters ($`N_{\text{GC}}`$) per host galaxy luminosity ($`M_V`$): $`S_N=N_{\text{GC}}\times 10^{0.4\times (M_V+15)}`$. However, a potentially better measure is the specific luminosity \[Harris 1991\], which is the ratio of the total luminosity of the cluster system to that of the host galaxy. Specific luminosities are much less sensitive to incompleteness effects at the lower end of the cluster luminosity function because the fainter clusters obviously contribute less by light than they do by number. For YMC systems this advantage becomes even greater than for old GCSs because the faint wing of the cluster luminosity function is usually unknown, so a definition of an equivalent specific frequency for YMCs has to rely on artificial and somewhat arbitrary magnitude limits.

LR2000 defined the specific $`U`$-band luminosity for YMCs as follows:

$$T_L(U)=100\frac{L_{\mathrm{Clusters}}(U)}{L_{\mathrm{Galaxy}}(U)},$$
(1)
where $`L_{\mathrm{Clusters}}(U)`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{Galaxy}}(U)`$ are the total $`U`$-band luminosities of the cluster system and of the host galaxy, respectively. The $`U`$ band was chosen to sample the young cluster and stellar populations in a galaxy as cleanly as possible.

To calculate $`T_L(U)`$ for M51, $`L_{\mathrm{Clusters}}(U)`$ was obtained simply by adding up the $`U`$-band light from all clusters in Table 3. Unfortunately, no integrated $`U`$-band photometry is available for M51 itself so its $`U`$-band magnitude was estimated from the $`BV`$ photometry given in the RC3 catalogue \[de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991\]. Fig. 7 is a plot of reddening-corrected $`(UB)_0`$ vs. $`(BV)_0`$ for all galaxies in RC3 with $`T`$ types between 3 and 5, M51 itself being classified as Sbc ($`T=4`$). The data in Fig. 7 can be fitted by a straight line, yielding

$$(UB)_0=1.01\times (BV)_00.59$$
(2)
with a scatter of $`\sigma (UB)=0.09`$ around the fit. The integrated $`(BV)_0`$ colour for M51 is given as 0.53 in RC3, so from Eq. (2) we get $`(UB)_0=0.05`$. This should be accurate to 0.1 magnitudes, translating into a 10% uncertainty on the derived $`T_L(U)`$ value. These $`(BV)_0`$ and $`(UB)_0`$ colours also compare well with integrated photometry for NGC 5236 (M83), a galaxy which is in many respects quite similar to M51. For NGC 5236, RC3 gives integrated $`(BV)_0`$ and $`(UB)_0`$ colours of 0.61 and $`0.01`$, respectively, i.e. M51 is slightly bluer in both $`BV`$ and $`UB`$.

The specific $`U`$-band luminosity of the M51 YMCs can now be obtained:

$$T_L(U)=1.36\pm 0.28$$
(3)
Similarly, the $`V`$-band specific luminosity is found to be $`T_L(V)=0.41\pm 0.07`$. The errors quoted here are the formal errors due to sample statistics. The real uncertainties are probably higher, but are hard to estimate. For example, lowering the size cut to FWHM=2 pixels instead of 3 pixels would change $`T_L(U)`$ to $`0.95\pm 0.24`$. On the other hand, the M51 photometry does not go quite as deep as most of of the galaxies in the sample of LR2000, – primarily because M51 is further away. Thus $`T_L(U)`$ and $`T_L(V)`$ are probably both somewhat underestimated. $`T_L(V)`$ may be more affected because older, redder clusters carry more weight than for $`T_L(U)`$, while at the same time being fainter and therefore more incomplete.

### 5.2 The $`T_L(U)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ correlation

LR2000 found a very good correlation between $`T_L(U)`$ and the area-normalized star formation rate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ for the 21 galaxies in their sample and an additional 10 galaxies (mostly starbursts and merger galaxies) for which data were collected from the literature. How does M51 fit into this relation?

To derive $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ for M51, we use the relation from LR2000:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}(\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{kpc}^2)=144000\times 10^{0.4m_{\text{FIR}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{log}D_0},$$
(4)
based on the calibration in Buat & Xu \[Buat & Xu 1996\]. $`m_{\text{FIR}}`$ is the RC3 FIR magnitude (based on IRAS $`60\mu `$ and $`100\mu `$ flux densities) and $`\mathrm{log}D_0`$ is the logarithm of the optical galaxy diameter in tenths of arcminutes. Note that both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ and $`T_L(U)`$ are distance independent. In some cases the RC3 “effective aperture” ($`\mathrm{log}A_e`$), containing half the $`B`$-band light, may provide a more reasonable measure of the area to which the SFR should be normalized, but this is not catalogued for all galaxies in RC3 and thus $`\mathrm{log}D_0`$ was chosen for homogeneity.

For M51, $`m_{\text{FIR}}=7.86`$ and $`\mathrm{log}D_0=2.05`$. Inserting these numbers in (4), the star formation rate surface density is then

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}=8.21\times 10^3\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{kpc}^2$$
(5)
This number is roughly a factor of two lower than the value given in Kennicutt \[Kennicutt 1998b\], derived from the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity. Considering the intrinsic uncertainties in both methods, the agreement is quite satisfactory.

The $`T_L(U)`$ – $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ plot in LR2000 can now be updated with one more data point for M51, as shown in Fig. 8. M51 (labelled by its NGC number, 5194) fits quite nicely into the existing relation, with a $`T_L(U)`$ comparable to other high $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ galaxies like NGC 1156 and NGC 1313. It may fall somewhat below the $`T_L(U)`$ value expected for its $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$, but the error bars in the horizontal direction of Fig. 8 are probably substantial, with an uncertainty of at least 50% on the calibration of star formation rate as a function of FIR luminosity alone \[Buat & Xu 1996\].

## 6 Discussion

### 6.1 Comparison of the luminosity functions of YMCs in M51 and open clusters in the Milky Way

M51 contains a large number of very luminous star clusters, including 40 clusters with $`M_V<10`$ and 4 clusters with $`M_V<12`$ (Table 3). As indicated by Table 2, the ground-based $`V`$ magnitudes are systematically brighter than the HST photometry, with an average difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.38`$ for the objects listed in Table 2. Applying a correction of 0.38 mag to all $`V`$ magnitudes, M51 still contains 30 clusters with $`M_V<10`$ and $`3`$ with $`V<12`$. For comparison, the brightest known young clusters in the Milky Way have $`M_V10`$ ($`h`$ and $`\chi `$ Persei, Schmidt-Kaler 1967; NGC 3603, van den Bergh 1978). Although it cannot be excluded, of course, that a few highly luminous clusters might be hiding in remote parts of the Galactic disk, it appears unlikely that the Milky Way contains any significant number of highly luminous clusters similar to those in M51. The brightest clusters in M51 even outshine the R136 cluster at the centre of the 30 Dor region in the LMC which has $`M_V=10.6`$ \[van den Bergh 1978\].

Do YMCs represent a separate class of objects, distinct from low-mass open clusters, or can YMC populations be reconciled with normal populations of low-mass clusters, assuming a standard power-law luminosity function (LF)? Let us compare the YMC population in M51 with the system of open clusters in the Milky Way, for the moment ignoring other differences between the two galaxies. van den Bergh & Lafontaine \[van den Bergh & Lafontaine 1984\] studied the luminosity function of Milky Way open clusters and found it to be well represented by the relation

$$\mathrm{log}\sigma (M_V)=1.55+0.2M_V$$
(6)
for clusters fainter than $`M_V=9`$, where $`\sigma (M_V)`$ is the number of clusters per kpc<sup>2</sup> per magnitude bin. In luminosity units, this becomes

$$n(L)L^\alpha $$
(7)
where $`L`$ is the luminosity, $`n(L)`$ is the number of clusters per luminosity bin and $`\alpha =1.5`$ \[Elmegreen & Efremov1997\]. In the Milky Way, extrapolation of (6) to higher luminosities would yield a total of $`100`$ clusters with $`M_V=11`$, assuming that the Galactic disk has an area of 500 kpc<sup>2</sup>. This is clearly incompatible with what is actually observed and van den Bergh & Lafontaine \[van den Bergh & Lafontaine 1984\] suggested that the luminosity function of open clusters in the Milky Way drops below relation (6) somewhere in the magnitude range $`11<M_V<8`$. In fact, there must be a drop-off in a luminosity function of the form (6) at some magnitude level, as the total luminosity of a cluster system with a power-law LF diverges for $`\alpha >2`$. However, it is less obvious that the drop-off will occur at the same magnitude in all galaxies.

Young LMC clusters seem to follow a similar power-law LF with $`\alpha =1.5\pm 0.2`$, but the LF of young clusters declines more slowly at bright magnitudes than in the Milky Way \[Elson & Fall 1985\] due to the LMC’s population of YMCs. So at least in the LMC, YMCs appear to mark a natural extension of the open cluster population to brighter magnitudes.

M51 contains 23 and 13 clusters in the two magnitude intervals $`11<M_V<10`$ and $`12<M_V<11`$, respectively. If the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.38`$ correction is applied, the numbers are $`20`$ clusters with $`11<M_V<10`$ and $`6`$ clusters with $`12<M_V<11`$. Most of the visible part of the disk of M51 is confined within a diameter of about $`6^{}`$, corresponding to an area of 170 kpc<sup>2</sup>. Applying Eq. (6) to the two magnitude intervals above, 60 and 38 clusters would be expected – three times more than what is actually observed. Of course, the extrapolation of Eq. (6) to such bright magnitudes is very sensitive to the exact value of the exponent $`\alpha `$. Changing $`\alpha `$ to $`2`$ instead of $`1.5`$ and using the Milky Way clusters in the magnitude bin $`5<M_V<8`$ for reference (5.2 clusters kpc<sup>-2</sup>, van den Bergh and Lafontaine 1984), the predicted numbers drop to 6 clusters with $`11<M_V<10`$ and 2 in the interval $`12<M_V<11`$, now several times below the observed numbers.

Although very crude, these calculations show that even though M51 is apparently much richer in luminous clusters than the Milky Way, the number of low-luminosity clusters in the two galaxies could still be quite similar without requiring any particularly peculiar luminosity function. The YMCs in M51 could easily be accomodated by simple extrapolation of a power-law luminosity function with an exponent somewhere between $`1.5`$ and $`2`$, and there is apparently no need to conceive them as a separate class of objects.

### 6.2 Formation of massive clusters

From Fig. 8, M51 is indeed quite rich in YMCs compared to the “average” spiral galaxy. However, other spiral galaxies with similar rich YMC populations are known, and there is no particular evidence that the presence of YMCs in M51 is boosted by the interaction with NGC 5195. If anything, M51 may be slightly cluster-poor for its $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$. None of the other cluster-rich galaxies in the LR2000 sample show obvious signs of interaction, and the differences in their SFRs and $`T_L(U)`$ values may be explained simply by different amounts of gas available for star formation \[Kennicutt 1998a, LR2000\]. M51 itself is also very gas-rich (see e.g. table 1 in Kennicutt 1998b), consistent with its relatively high $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ and $`T_L(U)`$ values.

Even higher levels of star forming activity are seen in merger galaxies like the Antennae \[Whitmore et al. 1999\] and NGC 3256 \[Zepf et al. 1999\], but also in starbursts that are not directly related to merger events like e.g. M82 \[O’Connell et al. 1995\] and NGC 5253 \[Gorjian 1996\]. Such galaxies contain large numbers of highly luminous young clusters, emitting up to 15% of the blue or UV light \[Meurer et al. 1995, Zepf et al. 1999\] and mark an extension of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$$`T_L(U)`$ relation (LR2000). At the other extreme of the relation are galaxies like IC 1613 with exceedingly low (but non-vanishing) star formation rates and very few star clusters at all \[Wyder, Hodge & Cole 2000\].

It thus appears that galaxies form YMCs whenever the SFR is high enough. This may have important implications for the understanding of how massive clusters (aka globular clusters) formed in the early Universe. At earlier epochs, the general level of star formating activity was presumably higher because of the larger amounts of gas available, and globular clusters may have formed quite naturally. The highest levels of star forming activity may have existed at the centres of rich galaxy clusters, giving rise to the rich populations of globular clusters seen around many cD galaxies.

The key to understanding massive cluster formation may lie in the properties of the interstellar medium in their parent galaxies. In the Milky Way, star clusters form in the cores of highly fragmented giant molecular clouds (GMCs) \[Lada et al. 1997\], but at a very low efficiency averaged over the entire GMC. The largest GMCs in the Milky Way have masses of about $`5\times 10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ with a sharp cut-off above this limit \[McKee 1999\]. It is tempting to speculate that this upper cut-off may be related to the upper limit of the open cluster luminosity function discussed in the previous section. If massive clusters form with similar low efficiencies, their parent clouds must be much larger than Milky Way GMCs and it has been suggested that globular clusters formed from supergiant molecular clouds (SGMCs) with masses of $`10^810^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ \[Harris & Pudritz 1994\]. In M51 and NGC 5236, high-resolution CO studies have in fact revealed “Giant Molecular Associations” (GMAs) with masses of $`10^710^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ \[Vogel et al. 1988, Rand & Kulkarni 1990, Rand et al. 1999\], which might be identifiable as the birthsites of YMCs. Recently, Wilson et al. \[Wilson et al. 2000\] reported even more massive GMAs with masses of $`36\times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ in the YMC–rich “Antennae” galaxies. Such GMAs may assemble more easily in galaxies with high gas densities and, consequently, high star formation rates \[Kennicutt 1998a\]. The connection between SFR and YMC richness could then be understood as resulting from an underlying dependence of both on the gas density.

## 7 Conclusions

Young Massive Star Clusters (YMCs) have been identified in the nearby face-on Sbc-type spiral M51. The richness of the YMC population in M51, as measured by the specific $`U`$-band luminosity $`T_L(U)`$ is comparable to other cluster-rich spiral galaxies, compatible with the high star formation rate in M51 and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ – $`T_L(U)`$ relation \[Larsen & Richtler 2000\]. The high level of star formation activity may in this particular case be partly stimulated by interaction with the nearby companion NGC 5195, but interactions do not in general seem to be a necessary requirement for YMC formation.

Within order-of magnitude estimates, the number of YMCs in M51 is compatible with extrapolation of a power-law luminosity function with exponent $`\alpha 2`$ from a population of low-mass open clusters similar to that in the Milky Way. Thus, YMCs may simply represent a continuation of the normal open cluster luminosity function, extending to different upper limits in different galaxies. Therefore YMCs plausibly form in much the same way as lower-mass clusters and it appears likely that these same basic mechanisms also applied to the formation of globular clusters in the early Universe.

## 8 Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant number AST9900732 and Faculty Research funds from the University of California, Santa Cruz.