text:
# Optical dipole traps and atomic waveguides based on Bessel light beams

## I Introduction

The experimental realization of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in dilute alkali vapors  has generated substantial theoretical and experimental research activity . BEC provides an important quantum system where one can observe various phenomena such as superfluidity , vortices , spin domains  or soliton-like behaviour . Central to future advances with these quantum degenerate systems is their manipulation by external potentials. The use of light fields offers an exciting avenue in this respect as optical potentials can be state independent, offer an array of spatial forms and can be rapidly switched. They offer very good prospects for novel dipole traps and matter-wave guides.

Previous work has been reported for optical dipole traps based on standard Gaussian light beams. Free-space propagating light beams such as Laguerre-Gaussian light beams  and Bessel light beams  are excellent candidates for advanced all-optical manipulation of quantum gases. Laguerre-Gaussian light beams offer a dark hollow central region for guiding and focusing atoms. Their annular form can also be used to realise toroidal optical dipole traps for BEC , enabling studies of persistent currents. Bessel light beams are solutions of the scalar Helmholtz equation that are propagation invariant. This immunity to diffraction coupled with the small size of their central region means they offer unique characteristics in the optical domain. In this work we discuss the use of Bessel light beams for trapping and guiding cold atoms at or close to quantum degeneracy. Specifically we study the Bessel light beam optical dipole trap with the aim of generating one-dimensional quantum gases. In particular we look at the possible realisation of a Tonks gas of impenetrable bosons which exhibit fermionic like excitations . Furthermore, we analyse in detail the waveguiding of a matter-wave beam along a higher-order Bessel light beam. This method could provide an important route to realising all-optical atom interferometers and further the loading of magnetic waveguides.

## II Bessel light beams

In this Section we review the basics of the generation of Bessel light beams. Ideal forms of such beams are impossible to realise as they would have infinite extent and carry infinite power . However, finite approximations to these beams can be realised that propagate over extended distances in a diffraction free manner. Holographic methods offer efficient generation of Bessel beams . Another very efficient method to generate an approximation to a Bessel beam is by use of a conically shaped element termed an axicon and it is this form of Bessel beam generation we concentrate upon in this work. This generation method is discussed in detail elsewhere  but we review it here for completeness and clarity in notation. Our main interest is using zeroth-order Bessel beams for optical dipole traps and first-order Bessel beams for atomic waveguiding, and we shall concentrate on these cases.

Bessel beams are solutions of the free-space wave equation which propagate with unchanging beam profile along the propagation axis which we take as $`z`$ in cylindrical coordinates $`(r,\theta ,z)`$. The electric field of a monochromatic, linearly polarized ideal Bessel beam of order $`\mathrm{}`$ and frequency $`\omega _L`$ is

$$𝐄(r,\theta ,z,t)=\frac{𝐱}{2}(E_0J_{\mathrm{}}(k_rr)e^{i(k_zz+\mathrm{}\theta \omega _Lt)}+c.c.),$$
(1)
where $`E_0`$ is a scale electric field value, $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the $`\mathrm{}`$th order Bessel function, $`\mathrm{}>0`$ is the azimuthal mode number which we take as positive for simplicity in notation, and $`k_r`$ and $`k_z`$ are the radial and longitudinal wavevectors such that $`k^2=k_r^2+k_z^2`$ with $`k=\omega _L/c=2\pi /\lambda _L`$. The zeroth-order solution $`J_0`$ has a central maximum surrounded by concentric rings of roughly equal power while the higher-order solutions $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ have zero on-axis intensity also with concentric rings.

The method of generating a Bessel beam by use of an axicon is based on the observation that the Fourier transform of the Bessel beam solution (1) over the transverse plane $`(r,\theta )`$ is an infinitely high ring in the spatial frequency domain peaked at $`K=k_r`$, where the phase varies from zero to $`2\pi \mathrm{}`$ around the peak: the Bessel beams may therefore be viewed as a superposition of plane-waves with transverse wavevectors lying on a ring of magnitude $`k_r`$. A finite realization of such a beam may be produced by passing a Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beam of order $`\mathrm{}`$ through an axicon as illustrated in Fig. 1. The axicon is a conically shaped optical element which imparts a phase shift $`\varphi _{ax}(r,\theta )=k_{ax}r`$ to an incident field where $`k_{ax}=k(n1)\gamma `$, $`n`$ being the refractive index of the axicon material, and $`\gamma `$ the internal angle of the element. By choosing $`k_{ax}=k_r`$ for a specific Bessel beam the axicon imposes the ring of transverse wavevectors characteristic of the Bessel beams on the incident beam, and these plane-waves come together past the axicon to produce a Bessel beam. Single-ringed LG beams (i.e. with radial mode index $`p=0`$), which may be produced using holographic elements, have electric field envelopes (plane-wave factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i(kz\omega _Lt))`$ removed) at focus of the form

$$_{\mathrm{}}(r,\theta ,z=0)=\sqrt{\frac{2P_0}{\pi w_0^2\mathrm{}!}}\left(\frac{2r^2}{w_0^2}\right)^{\mathrm{}/2}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/w_0^2)e^{i\mathrm{}\theta },$$
(2)
where $`P_0`$ is the power at $`z=0`$ incident on the axicon, $`w_0`$ is the Gaussian spot size, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the azimuthal mode number. Then a LG mode of order $`\mathrm{}`$ incident on a axicon with $`k_{ax}=k_r`$ has the appropriate azimuthal phase variation to produce a $`\mathrm{}`$th order Bessel beam past the axicon. In particular, from geometrical considerations and for an LG mode of size $`w_0`$, we expect the ring of plane-waves imposed by the axicon to overlap spatially over a longitudinal range $`z_{\text{max}}\mathrm{sin}(\vartheta )w_0`$, with $`\mathrm{sin}(\vartheta )=k_r/k`$. This gives the estimate

$$z_{\text{max}}=\frac{kw_0}{k_r},$$
(3)
for the range over which the plane-waves overlap and produce a finite realization of the Bessel beam profile $`J_{\mathrm{}}(k_rr)`$ past the axicon: The larger the input spot size $`w_0`$ the larger the center portion of the transverse plane over which the actual field approaches the ideal Bessel beam.

Numerical simulations and accompanying experiments have verified this physical picture for Bessel beam generation using an axicon . The numerical simulations used the Fresnel diffraction integral to propagate the input LG field (eq. (2)) times the phase aberration $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{ax}(r,\theta ))`$ due to the axicon, to distances beyond the axicon. Figure 2 shows a gray-scale plot of the field intensity $`I(x,y=0,z)`$ as an example of this numerical propagation for $`\mathrm{}=1,w_0=0.29`$ mm, $`\lambda _L=780`$ nm, $`n=1.5`$, and $`\gamma =1^{}`$, giving $`k_r=6.8\times 10^4`$ m-1. For this example $`z_{\text{max}}=3.4`$ cm and the simulation shows that this indeed estimates the scale of the Bessel beam propagation. As expected for a $`J_1`$ beam the intensity profile has a dark fringe at the center of width of about $`w_B=1/k_r=14.7\mu \text{m}`$.

The evolution of the field past the axicon may also be approximated using the method of stationary phase applied to the Fresnel integral , which yields the following expression for the field intensity $`I_{\mathrm{}}(r,z)`$ for an $`\mathrm{}`$th order LG input mode

$$I_{\mathrm{}}(r,z)\frac{\pi 2^{\mathrm{}+1}}{\mathrm{}!}(k_rw_0)\left(\frac{P_0}{\pi w_0^2/2}\right)\left(\frac{z}{z_{\text{max}}}\right)^{2\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{exp}(2z^2/z_{\text{max}}^2)J_{\mathrm{}}^2(k_rr),$$
(4)
with $`z_{\text{max}}`$ given by Eq. (3). Figure 3 shows the on-axis intensity $`I(0,z)`$ versus propagation distance $`z`$ past the axicon obtained using both the Fresnel integral approach (solid line) and the approximate solution (4) (dashed line) for the same parameters as Fig. 2 except $`\mathrm{}=0`$, with excellent agreement (for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ the intensity has a peak on-axis). In particular, by differentiating Eq. (4) we find that the peak intensity evaluated over the whole transverse plane occurs at

$$z_{\text{peak}}=\frac{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}+1}}{2}z_{\text{max}},$$
(5)
which gives $`z_{\text{peak}}=1.7`$ cm, in excellent agreement with the results in Fig. 3. The approximate expression (4) is applicable over the center region of the Bessel beam if $`z>k/k_r^2`$ . Using Eq. (3) this condition can be written as $`z>z_{\text{max}}^2/(kw_0^2)`$: Recognizing that $`kw_0^2=2z_R`$ is twice the Rayleigh range $`z_R`$ of the input LG beam , and $`w_B=1/k_r`$ is a measure of the width of the central lobe of the $`J_0`$ Bessel beam or the central dark fringe for a $`J_1`$ beam, we see that if

$$\frac{z_{\text{max}}}{z_R}=\frac{2w_B}{w_0}1,$$
(6)
then Eq. (4) should be valid over most of the propagation range of the Bessel beam around the position of the peak $`z_{\text{peak}}`$. That is, under conditions where the central spot or dark fringe of the Bessel beam is narrow compared to the input LG spot size, which is what we want, the stationary phase approximation should be valid. For the above examples $`w_B/w_0=1/19.7`$, and this is typical of parameters we consider. We shall assume this condition is satisfied hereafter and use the approximate expression (4) in the remainder of this paper.

Finally, we point out one further feature of Bessel beams that highlights their utility, namely, that their radial width $`w_B=1/k_r=1/(k(n1)\gamma )`$ is determined solely by the laser wavelength and the axicon parameters, whereas their longitudinal extent $`z_{\text{max}}=kw_0/k_r=kw_0w_B`$ is also dependent on the incident LG spot size $`w_0`$. This means that the longitudinal extent and radial confinement can be varied independently. This is in contrast to a Gaussian beam of equal spot $`w_0`$ for which the longitudinal extent of the focus is the Rayleigh range $`z_R=kw_0^2/2`$.

## III Bessel optical dipole traps

In this Section we examine the use of zeroth-order or $`J_0`$ Bessel beams for creating elongated optical dipole traps for BECs, and assess their utility for realizing one-dimensional trapped gases and a Tonks gas  of impenetrable bosons . Here we concentrate on the case of bosonic atoms but similar considerations apply to degenerate fermionic atoms  in Bessel beam traps.

### A Gross-Pitaevskii equation

The Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) describing the macroscopic wave function $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$ of an $`N`$-atom BEC in an optical dipole trap can be written as

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}^2\psi +V(r,z)\psi +U_0N|\psi |^2\psi ,$$
(7)
where $`^2=_r^2+^2/z^2`$ is Laplacian which is the sum of the radial and longitudinal Laplacians, $`M`$ is the atomic mass, $`U_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/M`$ is the effective three-dimensional short-range interaction strength, with $`a`$ being the s-wave scattering length. The potential term on the right-hand-side

$$V(r,z)=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{8\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\frac{I(r,z)}{I_{\text{Sat}}}\right)$$
(8)
describes the optical dipole potential with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _L\omega _A`$ the laser detuning from the optical transition frequency $`\omega _A`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the natural linewidth of the optical transition, $`I_{\text{Sat}}`$ is the resonant saturation intensity, and $`I(𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_0c|E(r,z)|^2`$. For a red-detuned laser the potential is negative and the atoms are attracted to the regions of high intensity, whereas for a blue-detuned laser the atoms are repelled into the low field regions.

### B Optical dipole potential

Here we investigate the properties of an optical dipole trap formed using a red-detuned $`J_0`$ beam, so that the atoms are attracted to the intense central maximum of the intensity distribution given by Eq. (4) with $`\mathrm{}=0`$

$$I_0(r,z)2\pi k_rw_0\left(\frac{P_0}{\pi w_0^2/2}\right)\left(\frac{z}{z_{\text{max}}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(2z^2/z_{\text{max}}^2)J_0^2(k_rr).$$
(9)
We are primarily interested in tight bound optical dipole traps so we shall approximate the optical dipole potential (8) using the parabolic approximation to the full intensity $`I_0(r,z)`$ around the intensity maximum at $`(r=0,z=z_{\text{peak}})`$:

$$V(r,z)V(0,z_{\text{peak}})\frac{1}{2}M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}^2\left(r^2+\lambda ^2(zz_{\text{peak}})^2\right),$$
(10)
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}^2=\mathrm{exp}(1/2)\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4|\mathrm{\Delta }|}\frac{P_0}{MI_{\text{Sat}}}\frac{k}{z_{\text{max}}}k_r^2,\lambda =\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{kw_0}=2.83\frac{w_B}{z_{\text{max}}}.$$
(11)
A red-detuned ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$) $`J_0`$ optical dipole potential therefore provides confinement in both the radial and longitudinal directions. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}`$ is the radial oscillation frequency with corresponding ground state oscillator width $`w_{r0}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}}`$, and $`\lambda `$ is the ratio between the longitudinal and radial trap frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z0}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}=\lambda `$ , which also determines the aspect ratio between the radial and longitudinal ground state widths $`w_{r0}/w_{z0}=\sqrt{\lambda }`$ (in the absence of many-body repulsion). We remark that even for tight transverse confinement anharmonic corrections beyond the parabolic approximation for the longitudinal ($`z`$) variation of the optical dipole potential (10) are generally required. This is evident from Fig. 3 where the on-axis intensity variation for the $`J_0`$ Bessel beam is not symmetric around the peak. For this work we shall restrict ourselves to the parabolic approximation. We remark, however, that anharmonic corrections to the parabolic approximation can have pronounced effects on the trap properties such as the condensate fraction and the frequencies of the collective excitations that can be supported by Bessel atomic waveguides, especially for shallow traps .

So far we have ignored the effects of gravity which we assume acts in the radial direction so the longitudinal axis of the trap is horizontal. For tight radial confinement gravity will serve simply to displace the origin of the radial motion, and this applies under conditions such that $`M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}^2w_{r0}^2/2Mgw_{r0}`$ with $`g=9.81`$ ms-1. Using $`w_{r0}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}}`$, this lead to the condition on the confinement of the ground state, $`w_{r0}\sqrt[3]{\mathrm{}^2/(2M^2g)}`$. For example, for 85Rb the radial confinement has to be less than $`0.31\mu \text{m}`$, whereas for 23Na a confinement $`w_{r0}0.74\mu \text{m}`$ would be sufficient. We assume that this condition is satisfied and hereafter neglect the effects of gravity.

### C One-dimensional trapped gases

From Eq. (11) the parameter $`\lambda `$ is seen to determine the anisotropy of the $`J_0`$ optical dipole trap. It is well known that in the limit $`\lambda 1`$ highly asymmetric cigar-shaped traps are formed which are elongated along the longitudinal direction . Bessel beams are exceptional in this regard as they can produce extreme asymmetries. To illustrate this recall that $`w_0`$ is the input LG spot size before the axicon, for example $`w_0=1\text{mm}`$, so that $`\lambda =4.8\times 10^4`$ for a $`\lambda _L=1064\text{nm}`$. We stress that one obtains such large asymmetries using Bessel beams without sacrificing the radial confinement, as the radial ($`w_B=1/k_r`$) and longitudinal ($`z_{\text{max}}`$) extents of the Bessel beam are independently variable. In contrast, for a Gaussian optical dipole trap changing the focused spot size $`w_0`$ also changes the longitudinal extension of the dipole trap set by the Rayleigh range $`z_R=kw_0^2/2`$ .

The limit $`\lambda 1`$ corresponds to the regime of one-dimensional trapped gases  in which the radial variation of the macroscopic wave function is effectively frozen as the normalized ground state mode $`u_g(r)`$ of the radial optical dipole potential

$$E_gu_g=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}_r^2u_g+\frac{1}{2}M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}^2r^2u_g.$$
(12)
Writing the macroscopic wave function in a form reflecting the single-radial mode nature of the solution

$$\psi (r,z,t)=u_g(r)\varphi (z,t)e^{iE_gt/\mathrm{}},$$
(13)
and combining Eqs. (7), (10), (12), and (13) we obtain the one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the reduced system

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\varphi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\frac{^2\varphi }{z^2}+\frac{1}{2}M\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}^2(zz_{\text{peak}})^2\varphi +gN|\varphi |^2\varphi ,$$
(14)
where

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`U_0{\displaystyle 2\pi r𝑑r|u_g(r)|^4}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}^2a}{Mw_{r0}^2}}=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}a,`$ (16)
is the effective one-dimensional short-range interaction strength . In steady-state we set $`\varphi (z,t)=\chi (z)\mathrm{exp}(i\mu t/\mathrm{})`$ in Eq. (14) with $`\mu `$ the chemical potential of the one-dimensional system. Then using the Thomas-Fermi approximation  for high density in which the kinetic energy term is neglected , Eq. (14) yields for the one-dimensional density

$$\rho (z)=|\chi (z)|^2=\frac{\mu }{g}\left(1\frac{(zz_{\text{peak}})^2}{z_m^2}\right),|zz_{\text{peak}}|z_m,$$
(17)
with

$$\mu =\left(\frac{3gN}{4}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}^2\lambda ^2}{2}\right)^{1/3},z_m=\left(\frac{3Nw_{r0}^2a}{\lambda ^2}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(18)
This density solution has a peak one-dimensional density $`\rho _{\text{peak}}=1.5(N/L_z)N^{2/3}`$ with a longitudinal length $`L_z=2z_m`$.

The Gross-Pitaevskii equation (14) has previously been investigated as a model for a one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate in a number of situations, including the ground state  and dynamics  of cigar shaped traps , dark solitons , bright solitons for negative scattering lengths , gap solitons in optical lattices , atom waveguides , and as a model Luttinger liquid . Here our goal is to highlight the utility of $`J_0`$ optical dipole traps for experimental studies of one-dimensional trapped gases. To illustrate the basic scales involved in these elongated traps we consider the case of the $`\lambda _A=780\text{nm}`$ transition of Rb with $`I_{\text{Sat}}=16`$W/m2 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \times 6.1\text{MHz}`$. A far red-detuned laser at a wavelength of $`\lambda _L=1064\text{nm}`$ is used to generate a Bessel beam with a longitudinal extent $`z_{\text{max}}=10\text{cm}`$ and a central spot of full-width radius $`3\mu \text{m}`$ (corresponding to $`w_B=1.25\mu \text{m}`$ and consequently $`w_0=13.6\text{mm}`$). If a laser power of $`P_0=5`$W is used this results in a trap potential of about $`49\mu `$K depth with radial trap frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}=2\pi \times 8.8\text{kHz}`$, radial confinement of $`w_{r0}=82\text{nm}`$, and an aspect ratio of $`\lambda =3.5\times 10^4`$. Then for $`N=10^4`$ atoms and a scattering length $`a=5\text{nm}`$, for example, we find $`L_z=2z_m=1.9\text{mm}`$, and a peak density $`\rho _{\text{peak}}=6.4\times 10^4`$ cm-1. For comparison, a focused Gaussian with the same radial confinement (and trap depth) gives a trap with an aspect ratio of only $`8\times 10^2`$. We remark, however, that the power required to obtain the same radial confinement for the Gaussian beam is much less, typically on the order of milliwatts . This arises because for the Bessel beam the trapped atoms only experience the intensity in the central peak of the beam, and the concentric rings surrounding the peak, though key in realizing the long extent of the Bessel optical dipole trap, do not directly affect the atomic confinement.

Bessel beam traps will suffer from the same loss mechanisms as other shallow far-off resonance dipole traps. Apart from heating due to diffractive collisions with background gas , the trap lifetime will be limited by laser-noise-induced heating . The expected loss rates due to intensity fluctuations and pointing instability of the laser beam for a Bessel beam trap should be comparable to those in Gaussian beam traps with identical radial confinement and trap depth.

Finally, we note that the $`J_0`$ optical dipole trap provides a means to accelerate an atomic trapped one-dimensional gas. Consider a one-dimensional gas in the ground state of the $`J_0`$ trap peaked around $`z=z_{\text{peak}}=kw_0/2k_r`$. If we now start to slowly increase the LG spot size $`w_0(t)`$, then the longitudinal position of the peak density of the trapped gas should vary in time according to $`z_{\text{peak}}(t)=kw_0(t)/2k_r`$. Such a scheme provides a means to impart a longitudinal velocity to an initially stationary trapped gas.

### D Realization of a Tonks gas

In the above discussion we tacitly assumed that the system of cold atoms formed a BEC. However, Petrov et al.  have theoretically studied the diagram of state for a one-dimensional gas of trapped bosons, assuming $`\lambda 1`$, and found that a true BEC, or at least a quasi-condensate, with concomitant macroscopic occupation of a single state, is only attained for high enough particle numbers $`N>N_{}`$ with

$$N_{}=\left(\frac{Mgw_{z0}}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)^2=\left(2\left(\frac{a}{w_{r0}}\right)\left(\frac{w_{z0}}{w_{r0}}\right)\right)^2.$$
(19)
For $`N<N_{}`$ and temperatures $`T<N\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{z0}`$, one obtains a Tonks gas of impenetrable bosons for which hard core repulsion between the bosonic atoms prevents them from penetrating through each other in the one-dimensional system, and the system acquires properties reminiscent of a one-dimensional system of fermionic atoms. This remarkable property of the Tonks gas is related to the breakdown of the spin-statistics theorem in one-dimension, and is reflected in the Fermi-Bose mapping for this system first elucidated by Girardeau , and applied to atomic waveguides by Olshanii . Recent theoretical investigations of Tonks gases have shown that they can support dark soliton structures , and also that their coherence properties are significantly different from the corresponding BEC . Furthermore, recent experimental developments suggest that Tonks gases should be realizable in magnetic atom waveguides , and Bongs et al.  have proposed a hybrid trap composed of optical dipole trap formed with a first-order LG beam combined with magnetic longitudinal trapping. Here we examine the utilty of $`J_0`$ optical dipole traps for realizing a Tonks gas.

The highly elongated Bessel beam discussed in the previous section ($`\lambda _L=1064\text{nm}`$, $`P_0=5`$W, $`z_{\text{max}}=10\text{cm}`$, $`w_B=1.25\mu \text{m}`$) would be an ideal candidate for the experimental realization of a Tonks gas. The low aspect ratio $`\lambda =3.5\times 10^4`$ and tight radial confinement $`w_{r0}=82\text{nm}`$ result in a high upper boundary $`N_{}`$ for the particle number of the Tonks gas. For the commonly used 87Rb isotope with a scattering length $`a=5`$ nm one finds $`N_{}=420`$. Although this is still a fairly low value it should be possible to experimentally realize a small 87Rb Tonks gas. However, more promising would be the use of the 85Rb isotope, where a Feshbach resonance can be used to tune the normally negative scattering length to positive values of several hundred nanometers magnitude . As $`N_{}`$ is proportional to the square of the scattering length even a moderate increase to $`a=50\text{nm}`$ would make it possible to create a larger Tonks gas, with say $`N=2000`$ atoms, which should be easily detectable.

The Bessel beam trap offers some advantages compared to alternative suggested approaches using magnetic waveguides  and a hybrid magnetic-optical trap . Firstly, it involves only a very simple all-optical system for which the aspect ratio of the trap may be controlled simply by varying the Gaussian spot size incident on the axicon. More specifically, being an all-optical, it does not involve material surfaces as in magnetic waveguides, which can cause matter-wave decoherence . Furthermore, it allows for the possibility of trapping multiple magnetic sublevels and the investigation of multi-component Tonks gases, which would not be possible in the hyrbrid magnetic-optical trap of Bongs et al. .

## IV Bessel beam atomic waveguides

The higher-order Bessel beams $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\mathrm{}>0`$ have zero on-axis intensity surrounded by intense concentric rings, and a blue-detuned beam can trap therefore atoms radially in the dark hollow core of the beam. In addition, since the intensity vanishes on-axis the higher-order beams produce negligible longitudinal confinement (see Fig. 2 for the $`J_1`$ Bessel beam) in comparison to the $`J_0`$ Bessel beam. The higher-order Bessel beams therefore present the opportunity to realize atomic waveguides with tight radial confinement over distances comparable with the propagation range $`z_{\text{max}}`$ of the Bessel beams. Furthermore, the $`J_1`$ beam is special in that it provides a parabolic radial trapping potential to lowest order (see below), whereas the higher-order trapping potential vary as $`r^2\mathrm{}`$ near the axis. We shall therefore concentrate on the $`J_1`$ atomic waveguide.

### A Atomic waveguide potential

Here we investigate the properties of an atomic waveguide formed using a blue-detuned ($`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$) $`J_1`$ beam, so that the atoms are repelled into the zero intensity central minimum of the intensity distribution given by Eq. (4) with $`\mathrm{}=1`$

$$I_1(r,z)4\pi k_rw_0\left(\frac{P_0}{\pi w_0^2/2}\right)\left(\frac{z}{z_{\text{max}}}\right)^3e^{2z^2/z_{\text{max}}^2}J_1^2(k_rr).$$
(20)
Substituting this expression in the optical dipole potential (8) we write the atomic waveguiding potential in the form

$$V(r,z)=\frac{1}{2}M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}^2(z)\left(4\frac{J_1^2(k_rr)}{k_r^2}\right)\frac{1}{2}M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}^2(z)r^2,$$
(21)
where in the last form of the potential we used the approximation $`J_1(x)x/2`$ which is applicable for tight radial confinement. Here the $`z`$-dependent radial oscillation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}(z)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}(z_{\text{peak}})\times \left(\frac{z}{z_{\text{peak}}}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(0.75(z^2/z_{\text{peak}}^21)),$$
(22)
with $`z_{\text{peak}}=\sqrt{3}z_{\text{max}}/2`$ the position of the peak intensity for the $`J_1`$ Bessel beam, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}(z_{\text{peak}})`$ is the peak radial oscillation frequency given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}^2(z_{\text{peak}})=\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\right)^3\mathrm{exp}(3/2)\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4|\mathrm{\Delta }|}\frac{P_0}{MI_{\text{Sat}}}\frac{k}{z_{\text{max}}}k_r^2.$$
(23)
In comparison to the radial oscillation frequency of the $`J_0`$ Bessel beam trap we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}(z_{\text{peak}})0.5\mathrm{\Omega }_{r0}`$.

The $`J_1`$ Bessel beam therefore defines an atomic waveguide whose radial confinement peaks at $`z=z_{\text{peak}}`$ and varies with the longitudinal coordinate $`z`$. If we take the effective length $`L`$ of the waveguide to be the full width at half maximum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}(z)`$ versus $`z`$ then by inspection of Eq. (22) we find $`Lz_{\text{max}}`$, as may have been anticipated physically based on the properties of the Bessel beams.

### B Gross-Pitaevskii equation

To examine the properties of a BEC propagating in a $`J_1`$ atom waveguide we shall approximate the waveguide as invariant along the $`z`$-axis over the length $`L=z_{\text{max}}`$ and calculate the ground state radial mode of this system. In general we should solve the propagation problem of the matter wave field through the varying atomic waveguide potential, and how the atoms are funneled into the waveguide, but that shall be the subject of future a paper.

To proceed we consider the GPE (7) for a BEC of momentum $`p_z`$ per atom moving along the $`z`$-axis in a cylindically symmetric $`J_1`$ Bessel atom waveguide which is invariant along the $`z`$ axis. Then writing the macroscopic wave function as

$$\sqrt{N}\psi (r,z,t)=\phi (r)e^{i(p_zz\mu t)/\mathrm{}},$$
(24)
the GPE becomes

$$\left(\mu \frac{p_z^2}{2M}\right)\phi =\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\left(\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)\phi +V_0J_1^2(k_rr)\phi +U_0|\phi |^2\phi ,$$
(25)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and $`V_0=2M\mathrm{\Omega }_{r1}^2(z_{\text{peak}})/k_r^2`$ characterizes the strength of the $`J_1`$ waveguide. The wave function over the atomic waveguide effective length $`L=z_{\text{max}}`$ is normalized to the number of particles

$$z_{\text{max}}_0^{\mathrm{}}2\pi r𝑑r|\phi (r)|^2=N.$$
(26)
To facilitate numerical solution of the GPE we introduce scaled variables as follows

$$\zeta =k_rr,\phi (r)=\sqrt{\frac{E_r}{|U_0|}}\phi (\zeta ),$$
(27)
in terms of which the GPE for $`\phi (\zeta )`$ becomes

$$\alpha \phi =\left(\frac{d^2}{d\zeta ^2}+\frac{1}{\zeta }\frac{d}{d\zeta }\right)\phi +\beta J_1^2(\zeta )\phi +c|\phi |^2\phi .$$
(28)
Here $`E_r=\mathrm{}^2k_r^2/2M`$ sets the energy scale, $`\alpha =(\mu p_z^2/2M)/E_r`$ is the scaled energy eigenvalue, $`\beta =V_0/E_r`$, and $`c=\pm 1`$ sets the sign of the many-body interactions. The wave function $`\phi (\zeta )`$ is now normalized as

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\zeta 𝑑\zeta |\phi (\zeta )|^2=\eta N=n,$$
(29)
where the dimensionless variable $`\eta =(k_r^2|U_0|/L)/(2\pi E_r)=4|a|/L`$.

Strictly speaking the $`J_1`$ atomic waveguide potential in the GPE (28) does not have bound state solutions, since any initial wave function localized in the central minimum of the $`J_1`$ potential will ultimately tunnel out over the finite potential barrier due to the first peak of the Bessel beam. However, for tight confined atoms the tunneling time can be made arbitrarily long, and here we ignore tunneling to lowest order. Figures 4 and 5 show the results of the numerical solution of the GPE (28) for $`\beta =10^3`$ and $`c=1`$, that is repulsive many-body interactions. These numbers would for example describe a guide for rubidium with a radius of $`5\mu \text{m}`$ (corresponding to $`w_B=2.78\mu \text{m}`$) and length $`L=5\text{cm}`$ using $`40\text{mW}`$ of light at $`\lambda _L=1064\text{nm}`$. The numerical method used to solve eq. (28) was the same as in Ref. . Figure 4 shows the variation of the scaled energy eigenvalue $`\alpha `$ versus the scaled number of particles $`n=\eta N`$, and we see that as $`n`$ increases so does the energy due to the repulsive many-body interactions. For $`n0`$ the scaled energy reduces to that of the atomic waveguide potential (see below). Figure 5 shows the scaled wave function $`\phi (\zeta )`$ versus scaled radial coordinate $`\zeta `$ for $`n=0.88`$ $`(\alpha =50)`$ (solid line), $`n=13.4`$ $`(\alpha =150)`$ (dotted line), and $`n=43`$ $`(\alpha =250)`$ (dashed line). Here we see that as the scaled number of atoms increases so does the width of the wave function, as expected physically. Clearly, there is a limit to the allowable width of the wave function, and hence the number of atoms, as the tunneling out of the atomic waveguide alluded to above will become more relevant as the wave function width approaches that of the central minimum of the $`J_1`$ Bessel beam.

### C Thomas-Fermi approximation

In this section we discuss approximate solutions to the GPE (28) to provide a framework for the numerical solutions. First for tight confinement, so that tunneling out of the trap is negligible, we approximate $`J_1(\zeta )\zeta /2`$, giving

$$\alpha \phi \left(\frac{d^2}{d\zeta ^2}+\frac{1}{\zeta }\frac{d}{d\zeta }\right)\phi +\frac{\beta \zeta ^2}{4}\phi +|\phi |^2\phi .$$
(30)
For this to be valid the macroscopic wavefunction should not extend beyond the first peak of the $`J_1`$ Bessel function at $`\zeta _c=1.8`$. Then in the limit of a small number of atoms $`\eta N0`$ the GPE has the Gaussian ground state solution

$$\phi (\zeta )\mathrm{exp}(\zeta ^2/\zeta _0^2),\alpha =\sqrt{\beta },$$
(31)
with $`\zeta _0=2\beta ^{1/4}`$: this is only valid if $`\zeta _0<\zeta _c`$, or $`\beta 1`$. For $`\beta =10^3`$ this gives $`\alpha =31.6`$ in agreement with Fig. 4 as $`\eta N0`$. In the limit of large $`\eta N`$ we can use the Thomas-Fermi solution  in which the kinetic energy term is neglected. This yields the solution

$$|\phi (\zeta )|^2=\sqrt{\eta N\beta }\left(1\zeta ^2/\zeta _m^2\right),\zeta <\zeta _m=2\left(\frac{\eta N}{\beta }\right)^{1/4},$$
(32)
and $`\alpha _{\text{TF}}=\sqrt{\eta N\beta }`$. This solution is only valid if $`\zeta _m<\zeta _c=1.8`$, which for a given value of $`\beta `$ places an upper bound on the scaled number of atoms $`n`$

$$n=\eta N<\beta .$$
(33)
In Figs. 4 and 5 we have restricted $`n<50`$, in accordance with the above upper bound, and the wave functions in Fig. 5 are all vanishingly small in the region $`\zeta >\zeta _c=1.8`$. As an example, for $`n=43,\beta =10^3`$ the Thomas-Fermi solution predicts $`\zeta _m=0.9`$, which is smaller than the spatial extent of the wave function (dashed line) in Fig. 5, and $`\alpha _{\text{TF}}=207`$ in comparison to $`\alpha =250`$ from the exact solution in Fig. 4. This discrepancy between the exact and approximate solutions is not surprising as we used the parabolic approximation to the optical potential in the Thomas-Fermi solution. However, the Thomas-Fermi theory captures the trends of the solution.

## V Summary and conclusions

Bessel light beams have unusual properties in the optical domain. They have an immunity to diffraction over extended distances and offer an elongated and narrow central region. These features give them significant advantages over standard Gaussian light beams for the studies presented in this work. We have shown that zeroth-order Bessel light beams generated by use of an axicon offer an excellent method by which to generate optical dipole traps for one dimensional quantum gases. Typically, the ratio $`\lambda `$ between longitudinal and transversal trap frequencies for such a trap realised with a Bessel beam is nearly two orders of magnitude smaller than that that can be achieved with a Gaussian beam. Furthermore, we have shown that the Bessel beam offers a potential route for an experimental realisation of a Tonks gas of inpenetrable bosons. Additionally we have studied the waveguiding properties of a quantum gas along a $`J_1`$ (hollow) Bessel light beam. The non-diffracting nature and small central minimum size here make it an excellent all-optical waveguide. Such waveguiding could be used to realise velocity filtering of cold atoms, all-optical atom interferometers and also offer a route to load magnetic waveguides with quantum degenerate samples.

EMW was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research Contract No. N00014-99-1-0806, and the Department of Army Grant No. DAAD 19-00-1-0169. JS acknowledges support from an NSF graduate student grant. KD acknowledges the support of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Leverhulme Trust.


format: text

text:
# Flavour symmetry breaking, baryons magnetic moments, and low energy phenomenology of hadrons

## I Introduction

Because parity and strong flavors (strangeness, charm, etc.) symmetries are violated in nature, the physical (mass eigenstates) hadrons cannot be either parity or flavor eigenstates, i.e., the former must be admixtures of the latter. It is generally believed that the breaking of flavor global groups is caused by the mass differences of hadrons, but in such a way that parity and all flavors are conserved, i.e., the mass operator of hadrons giving rise to such breakings does not contain a piece that violates parity and flavor. The flavor and parity mixings in physical hadrons are attributed to the perturbative intervention of $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ and $`Z_\mu ^0`$ (parity mixing only). Precisely because such intervention is perturbative, such mixings can appear only in higher orders of perturbation theory; thus, such mixings appear, so to speak, a posteriori.

However, the possibility that the mass operator of hadrons does contain a (necessarily) very small piece that is flavor and parity violating is not excluded by any fundamental principle. If such a piece does exist, then, the parity and flavor admixtures in hadrons must come a priori, in a non-perturbative way. It is not idle to emphasize that such a piece could not be attributed to the $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ and $`Z_\mu ^0`$.

Our purpose in this work is to apply the a priori mixings scheme to non-leptonic and weak radiative decays of hyperons.

## II A priori mixed hadrons

The implementation of a priori mixings for practical applications cannot, as of today, be achieved from first principles, i.e., by starting from a model at the quark level and then performing the QCD calculations to obtain the physical hadrons and their couplings. In order to proceed we must elaborate an ansatz. We refer the reader to Ref.  for a complete and detailed description of this ansatz. Here, we only reproduce the expressions for the a priori mixed hadrons obtained with this ansatz (we shall restrict what follows to spin-1/2 baryons and spin-0 mesons):

$`p_{ph}=p_s\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_s^+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_p^++\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}^+=\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^++\sigma p_s\delta ^{}p_p+\mathrm{}`$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^{}+\sigma \mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}+\delta \mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}+\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^{}=\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_s^{}+\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^{}+\mathrm{}`$

$`n_{ph}=n_s+\sigma ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s)+\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p)+\mathrm{}`$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ph}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_s+\sigma \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}(\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0n_s)+\delta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^0+\delta ^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}n_p+\mathrm{}`$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}^0=\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^0+\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0n_s)+\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^0+\delta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}n_p+\mathrm{}`$

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^0=\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0\sigma ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s)+\delta ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p)+\mathrm{}`$

$`K_{ph}^+=K_p^+\sigma \pi _p^+\delta ^{}\pi _s^++\mathrm{},K_{ph}^0=K_p^0+\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\pi _p^0+\delta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\pi _s^0+\mathrm{}`$

$`\pi _{ph}^+=\pi _p^++\sigma K_p^+\delta K_s^++\mathrm{}`$

$`\pi _{ph}^0=\pi _p^0\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(K_p^0+\overline{K}_p^0)+\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(K_s^0\overline{K}_s^0)+\mathrm{}`$

$`\pi _{ph}^{}=\pi _p^{}+\sigma K_p^{}+\delta K_s^{}+\mathrm{}`$

$$\overline{K}_{ph}^0=\overline{K}_p^0+\sigma \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi _p^0\delta ^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi _s^0+\mathrm{},K_{ph}^{}=K_p^{}\sigma \pi _p^{}+\delta ^{}\pi _s^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
In these expressions the subindices $`s`$, and $`p`$ indicate positive, and negative parity eigenstates and each physical hadron is the mass eigenstate already observed. We must point out that the previous mixings have a parallelism at the quark level so that they should be necessary to develop a formulation at that level. This particular matter will not be tried here .

## III Application to Non-Leptonic Decays

If strong-flavor and parity violating pieces in the mass operator of hadrons exist they would lead to non-perturbative a priori mixings of flavor and parity eigenstates in physical (mass eigenstates) hadrons. Then, two paths for weak decays of hadrons to occur would be open: the ordinary one mediated by $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ ($`Z_\mu `$) and a new one via the strong-flavor and parity conserving interaction hamiltonians. The enhancement phenomenon observed in non-leptonic decays of hyperons (NLDH) could then be attributed to this new mechanism. However, for this to be the case it will be necessary that a priori mixings produce the well established predictions of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule .

The a priori mixed hadrons will lead to NLDH via the parity and flavor conserving strong interaction (Yukawa) hamiltonian $`H_Y`$. The transition amplitudes will be given by the matrix elements $`B_{ph}M_{ph}|H_Y|A_{ph}`$, where $`A_{ph}`$ and $`B_{ph}`$ are the initial and final hyperons and $`M_{ph}`$ is the emitted meson. Using the above mixings, Eqs. (1), these amplitudes will have the form $`\overline{u}_B(AB\gamma _5)u_A`$, where $`u_A`$ and $`u_B`$ are four-component Dirac spinors and the amplitudes $`A`$ and $`B`$ correspond to the parity violating and the parity conserving amplitudes of the $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ mediated NLDH, although with a priori mixings these amplitudes are both actually parity and flavor conserving. As a first approximation we shall neglect isospin violations, i.e., we shall assume that $`H_Y`$ is an $`SU_2`$ scalar. However, we shall not neglect $`SU_3`$ breaking. One obtains for $`A`$ and $`B`$ the results:

$`A_1=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}^{^{p,sp}}+\delta (g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },pK^{}}}^{^{s,ss}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^{}}}^{^{s,pp}}),A_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}^{^{p,sp}}+\delta (g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },pK^{}}}^{^{s,ss}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^{}}}^{^{s,pp}})],`$

$`A_3=\delta (\sqrt{2}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,pK^{}}}^{^{s,ss}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}^{^{s,pp}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^0}}^{^{s,pp}}),`$

$`A_4=\delta ^{}\sqrt{2}g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}^{^{p,sp}}+\delta (\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}^{^{s,pp}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^0}}^{^{s,pp}}),`$

$`A_5=\delta ^{}g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}^{^{p,sp}}\delta (g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,pK^{}}}^{^{s,ss}}+g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^0}}^{^{s,pp}}),A_6=\delta ^{}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}^{^{p,sp}}+\delta (g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}}^{^{s,ss}}+\sqrt{3}g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^0}}^{^{s,pp}}),`$

$$A_7=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\delta ^{}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}^{^{p,sp}}+\delta (g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}}^{^{s,ss}}+\sqrt{3}g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^0}}^{^{s,pp}})],$$
(2)
and

$`B_1=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}+g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },pK^{}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^{}}}),B_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}+g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },pK^{}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^{}}}),`$

$`B_3=\sigma (\sqrt{2}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,pK^{}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^0}}),`$

$`B_4=\sigma (\sqrt{2}g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^0}}),`$

$`B_5=\sigma (g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,pK^{}}}g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^0}}),B_6=\sigma (g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}+g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}}+\sqrt{3}g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^0}}),`$

$$B_7=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sigma (g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}+g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}}+\sqrt{3}g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^0}}).$$
(3)
The subindices $`1,\mathrm{},7`$ correspond to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n\pi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+n\pi ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\pi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0`$, respectively. The $`g`$-constants in these equations are Yukawa coupling constants (YCC) defined by the matrix elements of $`H_Y`$ between flavor and parity eigenstates, for example, by $`B_{0s}M_{0p}|H_Y|A_{0p}=g_{_{A,BM}}^{^{p,sp}}`$. We have omitted the upper indeces in the $`g`$’s of the $`B`$ amplitudes because the states involved carry the normal intrinsic parities of hadrons. In Eqs. (3) we have used the $`SU_2`$ relations $`g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}=g_{_{n,n\pi ^0}}=g_{_{p,n\pi ^+}}/\sqrt{2}=g_{_{n,p\pi ^{}}}/\sqrt{2}`$, $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^+}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}}}`$, $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^{}}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^0}}`$, $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^0}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^+}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^{}}}`$, $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,pK^{}}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},nK^{}}}/\sqrt{2}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,p\overline{K}^0}}/\sqrt{2}`$, $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },pK^{}}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },n\overline{K}^0}}`$, $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^0}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{}}}/\sqrt{2}`$, $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}}=g_{_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{K}^0}}`$, and $`g_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0}}=0`$. Similar relations are valid within each set of upper indeces, e.g., $`g_{_{p,p\pi ^0}}^{^{p,sp}}=g_{_{n,n\pi ^0}}^{^{p,sp}}`$, etc.; the reason for this is that mirror hadrons may be expected to have the same strong-flavor assignments as ordinary hadrons. Thus, for example, $`\pi _s^+`$, $`\pi _s^0`$, and $`\pi _s^{}`$ form an isospin triplet, although a different one from the ordinary $`\pi _p^+`$, $`\pi _p^0`$, and $`\pi _p^{}`$ isospin triplet. These latter relations have been used in Eqs. (2).

From the above results one readily obtains the equalities:

$$A_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A_1,A_5=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A_4A_3),A_7=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A_6,$$
(4)
$$B_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}B_1,B_5=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(B_4B_3),B_7=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}B_6.$$
(5)
These are the predictions of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule. That is, a priori mixings in hadrons as introduced above lead to the predictions of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule, but notice that they do not lead to the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule itself. This rule originally refers to the isospin covariance properties of the effective non-leptonic interaction hamiltonian to be sandwiched between strong-flavor and parity eigenstates. The $`I=1/2`$ part of this hamiltonian is enhanced over the $`I=3/2`$ part. In contrast, in the case of a priori mixings $`H_Y`$ has been assumed to be isospin invariant, i.e., in this case the rule should be called a $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ rule.

It must be stressed that the results (4) and (5) are very general: (i) the predictions of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule are obtained simultaneously for the $`A`$ and $`B`$ amplitudes, (ii) they are independent of the mixing angles $`\sigma `$, $`\delta `$, and $`\delta ^{}`$, and (iii) they are also independent of particular values of the YCC. They will be violated by isospin breaking corrections. So, they should be quite accurate, as is experimentally the case.

A detailed comparison with all the experimental data available in these decays requires more space and is presented separately. Nevertheless, we shall briefly mention a few very important results.

First, the experimental $`B`$ amplitudes (displayed in Table I) are reproduced within a few percent by accepting that the YCC are given by the ones observed in strong interactions, an assumption which cannot be avoided in this approach. The best predictions for these amplitudes are $`B_1=22.11\times 10^7`$, $`B_2=15.63\times 10^7`$, $`B_3=1.39\times 10^7`$, $`B_4=42.03\times 10^7`$, $`B_5=30.67\times 10^7`$, $`B_6=17.45\times 10^7`$, and $`B_7=12.34\times 10^7`$. The only unknown parameter $`\sigma `$ is determined at $`(3.9\pm 1.3)\times 10^6`$. We quote the experimental values of the $`B`$ amplitudes in the natural scale of $`10^7`$, see Ref. . Their signs are free to choose; actually, the comparison with theoretical predictions is only meaningful for their magnitudes. The signs we display are for convenience only. This is not the case for the signs in the $`A`$ amplitudes.

Second, although the $`A`$ amplitudes involve new YCC, an important prediction is already made in Eqs. (2). Once the signs of the $`B`$ amplitudes are fixed, one is free to fix the signs of four $`A`$ amplitudes — say, $`A_1>0`$, $`A_3<0`$, $`A_4<0`$, $`A_6<0`$ — to match the signs of the corresponding experimental $`\alpha `$ asymmetries, namely, $`\alpha _1>0`$, $`\alpha _3<0`$, $`\alpha _4>0`$, $`\alpha _6<0`$. Then the signs of $`A_2<0`$, $`A_5>0`$, and $`A_7<0`$ are fixed by Eqs. (2) and the fact that $`|A_4||A_3|`$. In turn the signs of the corresponding $`\alpha `$’s are fixed. These three signs agree with the experimentally observed ones, namely, $`\alpha _2>0`$, $`\alpha _5<0`$, $`\alpha _7<0`$.

A detailed comparison of the $`A`$ amplitudes with experiment is limited by our current inability to compute well with QCD. However, one may try simple and argumentable new assumptions to make predictions for such amplitudes. Since QCD has been assumed to be common to both ordinary and mirror quarks, it is not unreasonable to expect that the magnitudes of the YCC in the $`A`$ amplitudes have the same magnitudes as their corresponding counterparts in the ordinary YCC of the $`B`$ amplitudes. The relative signs may differ, however. Introducing this assumption we obtain the predictions for the $`A`$ amplitudes displayed in Table I. The predictions for the $`B`$ amplitudes must also be redone, because determining the $`A`$ amplitudes alone may introduce small variations in the YCC that affect importantly the $`B`$ amplitudes, i.e., both the $`A`$ and $`B`$ amplitudes must be simultaneously determined, the $`B`$’s act then as extra constraints on the determination of the $`A`$’s. The new predictions for the $`B`$’s are also displayed in Table I. In obtaining Table I we have actually used the experimental decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ asymmetries, but we only display the experimental and theoretical amplitudes.

The predictions for the $`A`$’s agree very well with experiment to within a few percent, while the predictions for the $`B`$’s remain as before. The a priori mixing angles are determined to be $`|\delta |=(0.23\pm 0.07)\times 10^6`$, $`|\delta ^{}|=(0.26\pm 0.07)\times 10^6`$, and $`\sigma =(4.9\pm 1.5)\times 10^6`$. This last value of $`\sigma `$ is consistent with the previous one. The overall sign of the new YCC can be reversed and the new overall sign can be absorbed into $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$. This can be done partially in the group of such constants that accompanies $`\delta `$ or in the group that accompanies $`\delta ^{}`$ or in both. Because of this, we have determined only the absolute values of $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$. In order to emphasize this fact we have inserted absolute value bars on $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$. The more detailed analysis of the comparison of the $`A`$’s and $`B`$’s with experiment is presented in Ref.  and it indicates that violations of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule affect the values of the a priori mixing angles and one should take more conservative ones as their estimates in NLDH, namely, $`\sigma =(4.9\pm 2.0)\times 10^6`$, $`|\delta |=(0.22\pm 0.09)\times 10^6`$, and $`|\delta ^{}|=(0.26\pm 0.09)\times 10^6`$.

The above results, especially those of Eqs. (4) and (5) and the determination of the amplitudes, satisfy some of the most important requirements that a priori mixings must meet in order to be taken seriously as an alternative to describe the enhancement phenomenon observed in non-leptonic decays of hadrons.

## IV Application to Weak Radiative Decays

In contrast to $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ mediated weak radiative decays, a priori mixed baryons can produce weak radiative decays via the ordinary electromagnetic interaction hamiltonian $`H_{int}^{em}=eJ_\mu ^{em}A^\mu `$, where $`J_\mu ^{em}`$ is the familiar e.m. current operator which is a flavor conserving Lorentz proper four-vector. That is, a priori mixings in baryons lead to weak radiative decays that in reality are ordinary parity and flavor conserving radiative decays, whose transition amplitudes are non-zero only because physical baryons are not flavor and parity eigenstates.

The radiative decay amplitudes we want are given by the usual matrix elements $`\gamma ,B_{ph}|H_{int}^{em}|A_{ph}`$, where $`A_{ph}`$ and $`B_{ph}`$ stand for hyperons. A very simple calculation leads to the following hadronic matrix elements

$`p_{ph}|J_{em}^\mu |\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}^+=\overline{u}_p[\sigma (f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}f_2^p)+(\delta ^{}f_2^p\delta f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+})\gamma ^5]i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu u_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}^{}|J_{em}^\mu |\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^{}=\overline{u}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}[\sigma (f_2^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}f_2^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})+(\delta ^{}f_2^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\delta f_2^\mathrm{\Xi }^{})\gamma ^5]i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu u_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$

$`n_{ph}|J_{em}^\mu |\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ph}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_n\{\sigma [\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}(f_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }f_2^n)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]`$ (7)
$`+[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}(\delta ^{}f_2^n\delta f_2^\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]\gamma ^5\}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu u_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ph}|J_{em}^\mu |\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\{\sigma [\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}(f_2^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}f_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]`$ (9)
$`+[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}(\delta ^{}f_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta f_2^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0})+\delta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]\gamma ^5\}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu u_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}^0|J_{em}^\mu |\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}\{\sigma [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(f_2^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0})\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]`$ (11)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\delta ^{}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}\delta f_2^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0})+\delta ^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]\gamma ^5\}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu u_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}`$
In these amplitudes only contributions to first order in $`\sigma `$, $`\delta `$, and $`\delta ^{}`$ need be kept. Each matrix element is flavor and parity conserving and can be expanded in terms of charge $`f_1(0)`$ form factors and anomalous magnetic $`f_2(0)`$ form factors. Because the charges of the positive- and negative-parity parts of the same physical wave function are equal and such charges are controlled by the generator property of $`J_\mu `$ all the $`f_1`$’s cancel away and only the $`f_2`$ contribute. The $`f_2`$ between $`s`$ and $`p`$ parts and between $`p`$ and $`s`$ parts can be identified with the $`f_2`$ between $`s`$ and $`s`$ parts, provided that a relative minus sign be present between the former two in order to respect hermicity. Notice that the amplitudes (11) are all of the form $`\overline{u}_B(C+D\gamma _5)i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu u_A`$, where $`C`$ is the so-called parity conserving amplitude and $`D`$ is the so-called parity violating one. We stress, however, that in this model both $`C`$ and $`D`$ are parity and flavor conserving.

We shall compare Eqs. (11) with experiment, ignoring the contributions of $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ amplitudes. We shall do this in order to be able to appreciate to what extent a priori mixings provide on their own right a framework to describe weak radiative decays.

In principle, we have information about all the quantities that appear in these amplitudes for WRDH. The a priori angles are known from NLDH and the $`f_2`$ can be related to the measured total magnetic moments of spin 1/2 baryons. The latter values are displayed in the second column of Table II . However, it is important that the mixing angles be determined independently in WRDH and, accordingly, we shall use them as free parameters in the remaining of this paper. How the $`f_2`$’s are related to the observed total magnetic moments is a question we shall deal with in steps. As a first approximation we shall assume that the $`f_2`$’s are related to the $`\mu `$’s of Table II by the formula $`\mu _A^{exp}=e_A+f_2^A`$ where $`A`$ is a baryon and $`e_A`$ its charge. Thus, for example, $`f_2^p`$ obeys the relationship $`\mu _p^{exp}=1+f_2^p`$ (in nuclear magnetons), etc. Using this assumption we may compare with the experimental data of WRDH. The predictions obtained are displayed in the columns I of Table II.

These first results are not quite good yet but they have a qualitative value. The main point is that the a priori mixing angles come out with the same order of magnitude observed in NLDH, which is very encouraging. The predictions for the observables are some very good, some good, but some show important deviations. The latter still have qualitative value, but should be improved. The values of the $`\mu `$’s agree fairly well with their experimental counterparts.

As an intermediate step in this analysis it turns out to be very helpful to see what are the values of the total magnetic moments required to reproduce well the experimental observables of WRDH. This is achieved by relaxing the error bars of the measured $`\mu `$’s up to 10% of the corresponding central values and, then, repeating the previous step. The results are displayed in the columns II of Table II. The experimental data are very well reproduced now, but at the expense of sizable (several percent) changes in the $`\mu `$’s and new values for the mixing angles.

This second step clearly shows that we must accept that our first approximation —that of identifying the experimentally measured $`\mu `$’s with the ones that are actually related to the $`f_2`$’s in this approach to WRDH— must be improved. The $`\mu `$’s to be used for determining the $`f_2`$’s in the WRDH amplitudes are really transition magnetic moments. For example, the measured value of $`\mu _p`$ corresponds to the matrix element $`p_{ph}|J_{em}^\mu |p_{hp}p_{os}|J_{em}^\mu |p_{os}`$, where both physical wave functions carry the mass $`m_p`$. In contrast, the $`\mu _p`$ the appears in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\gamma `$ corresponds to a matrix element whose bra carries the mass $`m_p`$ and whose ket carries the mass $`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$. So, the normalization of $`\mu _p`$ originating in the matrix element $`p_{ph}|J_\mu |\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}^+`$ should be related to both masses, $`m_p`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$. It is in this sense that the magnetic moments that we must use are transition magnetic moments.

The natural normalization of magnetic moments is determined by the Gordon decomposition. Using this expansion for guidance, then, for example, $`\mu _p`$ should be normalized to $`m_p+m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$ and not to $`2m_p`$, etc. One can see already a qualitative indication of this happening in the first column II in Table II, the changes in the $`\mu `$’s are systematically in this direction. $`\mu _p`$, $`\mu _n`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}`$, and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}`$ appear to become smaller or larger according to such changes in normalization. $`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are mixed cases because they appear in two or three decays and will be required to be reduced or to be increased in going from one case to another and, therefore, Table II cannot provide a clear cut tendency.

Our third step is to improve our approximation following the above discussion. One must change the normalization of the total magnetic moments either by applying, for example, the factor $`(m_p+m_p)/(m_p+m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+})`$ to the experimental $`\mu _p`$ or the inverse factor to the theoretical $`\mu _p`$ related to $`f_2^p`$. Numerically, either way leads to the same result. For definiteness, we choose the former. The corrected experimental values are displayed in column five of Table II. Then, recalculating everything lead to the predictions of columns labeled III of Table II. The values of the mixing angles appear in the bottom of the last column of this table.

The overall agreement is greatly improved, the experimental data are well produced while keeping the magnetic moments in very good agreement with their experimental counterparts. The only deviations that merit further discussion appear in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and in $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ which are intimately related. These deviations are probably due to another one of our approximations: ignoring the contributions of $`W_\mu `$ . The agreement already obtained is probably the best one can hope for if one stays short of actually incorporating the contributions of $`W_\mu `$, as we have.

## V Conclusions

If a priori mixings are present, then weak decays may go via the flavor and parity conserving hamiltonians of strong and electromagnetic interactions. That is, with these mixings there would exist another mechanism to produce weak radiative, non-leptonic, and rare mode decays of hadrons, in addition to the already existing mechanisms provided by the $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ and $`Z_\mu ^0`$ bosons.

We are now in a position to conclude our present analysis. To extend the credibility of the a priori mixing scheme it was very important to be able to describe WRDH. As we have shown above this is achieved. However, the most important and stringent test is that the mixing angles share a universality-like property. The values for them obtained independently in WRDH are in very good agreement with the absolute values obtained for them in NLDH. It is the passing this universality-like test that lends the strongest support to the possibility that the above scheme may serve a framework for the systematic description of the enhancement phenomenon in weak decays of hadrons. Also, the contributions of $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ should be included at some point at a, for consistency, small level, say, by assuming that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ amplitudes are of the same order of magnitude as the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=3/2`$ amplitudes.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by CONACYT (México).


text:
# Starbursts In Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies - Fueling And Properties

## 1 Introduction

Are ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIGs) powered by intense bursts of star formation or is an additional source of energy, such as an active galactic nucleus (AGN) required? In order to address this question, it is instructive to compare the near-infrared spectra of ULIGs and lower luminosity starburst galaxies. In starburst galaxies of low or moderate luminosity, the dominant emission line is the $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ line, underlining the importance of massive young stars in the energetics of these objects. The brightest $`\text{H}_2`$ rovibrational line, the $`\text{H}_2`$ $`v=10`$ S(1) line, is typically fainter MoorwoodOliva88 ; MoorwoodOliva90 ; Puxleyetal88 ; Puxleyetal90 ; Vanzietal96 ; VanziRieke97 . In contrast, in ULIGs the $`\text{H}_2`$ $`v=10`$ S(1) line is significantly brighter than the $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ line, which is often not even detected Goldaderetal95 ; Murphyetal01 . This behaviour shows that ULIGs are not just scaled-up starburst galaxies. An extreme case of is presented by $`\mathrm{NGC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6240}`$ (Fig. 1), where the $`\text{H}_2`$ $`v=10`$ S(1) line is 40 times brighter than $`\text{Br}\gamma `$. The low ratio of $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ luminosity to FIR luminosity in ULIGs has been used to argue against star formation as the power source of ULIGs, for instance in the nearby ULIG $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$, where a starburst with the low $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ luminosity observed can account for at most 10% of the bolometric luminosity of the galaxy Armusetal95 ; Scovilleetal97 . However, spectroscopy of ULIGs at longer wavelengths with the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) revealed bright emission lines from powerful starbursts, which are the dominant power source in most of the objects studied, but are obscured at shorter wavelengths Genzeletal98 . Motivated by these results, in this paper the physical processes revealed by the $`K`$-band spectra of ULIGs are reexamined in the context of the starburst scenario. In Sect. 2 the origin of the $`\text{H}_2`$ line emission is discussed, while Sect. 3 addresses the faintness of $`\text{Br}\gamma `$.

## 2 Origin of the H2 emission in ULIGs

The most extreme vibrational $`\text{H}_2`$ emission is found in the nearby luminous merger $`\mathrm{NGC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6240}`$: $`710^7\text{L}_{}`$ is emitted in the $`\text{H}_2`$ $`v=10`$ S(1) line alone (for $`H_0=75\text{km}\text{s}^1\text{Mpc}^1`$ and with no correction for extinction). This line contains 0.012% of the bolometric luminosity of $`\mathrm{NGC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6240}`$, which is considerably higher than any other galaxy VanDerWerfetal93 . Together the vibrational lines may account for 0.1% of the total bolometric luminosity.

Imaging of the $`\text{H}_2`$ $`v=10`$ S(1) emission from $`\mathrm{NGC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6240}`$ has shown that the $`\text{H}_2`$ emission peaks *between* the two remnant nuclei of the merging system VanDerWerfetal93 . This morphology provides a unique constraint on the excititation mechanism, since it argues against any scenario where the excitation is dominated by the stellar component (e.g., UV-pumping, excitation by shocks or X-rays from supernova remnants). Instead, the favoured excitation mechanism is slow shocks in the nuclear gas component, which, as shown by high resolution interferometry in the CO $`J=21`$ line Tacconietal99 , also peaks between the nuclei of $`\mathrm{NGC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6240}`$.

What is the role of these shocks? In the shocks mechanical energy is dissipated and radiated away, mostly in spectral lines (principally $`\text{H}_2`$, CO, $`\text{H}_2\text{O}`$ and \[Oi\] lines). This energy is radiated away at the expense of the orbital energy of the molecular clouds in the central potential well. Consequently, the dissipation of mechanical energy by the shocks will give rise to an infall of molecular gas to the centre of the potential well. Therefore, *the $`\text{H}_2`$ vibrational lines measure the rate of infall of molecular gas* into the central potential well. This conclusion can be quantified by writing

$$L_{\mathrm{rad}}=L_{\mathrm{dis}},$$
(1)
where $`L_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the total luminosity radiated by the shocks and $`L_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ the dissipation rate of mechanical energy, giving rise to a molecular gas infall rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ given by

$$L_{\mathrm{dis}}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{H}_2}v^2,$$
(2)
where $`v`$ is the circular orbital velocity at the position where the shock occurs.

Using a $`K`$-band extinction of $`0^\mathrm{m}.15`$ VanDerWerfetal93 , the total luminosity of $`\text{H}_2`$ vibrational lines from $`\mathrm{NGC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6240}`$ becomes $`7.210^8\text{L}_{}`$; inclusion of the purely rotational lines observed with ISO approximately doubles this number, so that $`L_{\mathrm{rad}}=1.510^9\text{L}_{}`$.

In order to use this number to estimate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$, it is necessary to establish more accurately the fraction of the $`\text{H}_2`$ emission that is due to infalling gas. Observations with NICMOS on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) provide the required information (Fig. 2VanDerWerfetal01 . The NICMOS image shows that the emission consists of a number of tails (presumably related to the superwind also observed in $`\text{H}\alpha `$ emission), and concentrations assocated with the two nuclei, and a further concentration approximately (but not precisely) between the two nuclei. The relative brightness of the $`\text{H}_2`$ emission from the southern nucleus is deceptive, since this nucleus is much better centred in the filter that was used for these observations than the other emission components, in particular the northern nucleus. Taking this effect into account, it is found that 32% of the total $`\text{H}_2`$ flux is associated with the southern nucleus, 16% is associated with the northern nucleus, and 12% with the component between the two nuclei, the remaining 40% being associated with extended emission. Using inclination-corrected circular velocities of $`270`$ and $`360\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ for the southern and northern nucleus respectively Teczaetal00 , and of $`280\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ for the central component Tacconietal99 , the mass infall rates derived using $`\left(\text{1}\right)`$$`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ are $`80\text{M}_{}\text{yr}^1`$ for the southern nucleus, $`22\text{M}_{}\text{yr}^1`$ for the northern nucleus and $`28\text{M}_{}\text{yr}^1`$ for the central component.

The derived molecular gas inflow rate to the two nuclei is remarkably close to the mass consumption rate by star formation of approximately $`60\text{M}_{}\text{yr}^1`$, indicating that the $`\text{H}_2`$ emission from the nuclei directly measures the fueling of the starbursts in these regions. This analysis shows that the central regions of $`\mathrm{NGC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6240}`$ are being fueled at a rate sufficient to maintain starburst activity at the level required to account for the FIR luminosity.

## 3 Dusty, compact starbursts in ULIGs

Accepting the starburst model, the faintness of $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ and other recombination lines remains to be addressed. As pointed out in Sect. 1, it is evident that selective extinction towards the regions of most recent massive star formation plays a significant role in suppressing the $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ emission. Can this effect be quantified?

The nearby ULIG $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ has been studied in detail with the ISO satelite. Based on an upper limit on the ratio of the \[Siii\] 18 and $`33\mathrm{\mu }\text{m}`$ lines, and a high $`\text{Br}\alpha `$ over $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ flux ratio, an extinction $`A_V=50\pm 10^\mathrm{m}`$, located purely in an absorbing foreground screen was proposed Sturmetal96 . However, the supporting arguments have now weakened significantly. In the first place, a better understanding of the calibration of the \[Siii\] $`33\mathrm{\mu }\text{m}`$ spectrum has made the upper limit on the \[Siii\] 18 to $`33\mathrm{\mu }\text{m}`$ flux ratio less strict by approximately a factor of two Genzeletal98 . Secondly, the $`\text{Br}\alpha `$ flux from ISO Sturmetal96  is almost certainly an overestimate: the $`\text{Br}\alpha `$ line displays, on top of a higly structured baseline, a double-peaked structure, which is absent in any other line (including long-wavelength lines such as the well-detected \[Siii\] $`33\mathrm{\mu }\text{m}`$ line). The velocity difference between the two peaks in $`\text{Br}\alpha `$ is approximately $`600\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ and therefore cannot be attributed to motion of the two nuclei of $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$, which have a radial velocity difference of approximately $`200\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ Scovilleetal97 . The same velocity difference of $`200\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ is found in long-slit $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ spectra of the $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ nuclei Larkinetal95 . An integrated high-resolution $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ spectrum (Fig. 3) shows no trace of a double-peaked structure, indicating that the high $`\text{Br}\alpha `$ flux found with ISO is most likely dominated by structure in the spectral baseline. The extinction derived from the $`\text{Br}\alpha `$/$`\text{Br}\gamma `$ ratio should thus be used as an upper limit. A further argument against an obscuring foreground screen with $`A_V50^\mathrm{m}`$ is furnished by the derived Lyman continuum fluxes, which increase as as shorter wavelength tracers are used Genzeletal98 , a behaviour suggesting that the extinction has been overestimated. Finally, a strong limit on the presence of an intense, highly obscured, but otherwise normal starburst follows from the upper limit to the free-free emission at millimetre wavelengths Scovilleetal97 . These results indicate that either a foreground screen with a lower visual extinction, or a model with mixed emission and absorption needs to be adopted.

This result does however *not* imply the presence of a strongly aged starburst, or an additional source of power in $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$, since the preceding analysis ignored the role of Lyman continuum absorption by dust within the ionized regions. If most of the ionizing radiation is absorbed by dust grains rather than hydrogen atoms, a dust-bounded (rather than hydrogen-bounded) nebula results, and all tracers of ionized gas (recombination lines, fine-structure lines, free-free emission) will be suppressed. If the Hii regions in $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ are principally dust-bounded, the observational properties of $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ can be accounted for, even with only moderate extinction. Since the dust would also absorb far-ultraviolet radiation longwards of the Lyman limit, the formation of photon-dominated regions would also be suppressed, and the thus the same mechanism can account for the faintness of the $`158\mathrm{\mu }\text{m}`$ \[Cii\] line in $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ and other ULIGs Fischeretal99 .

Is the $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ starburst dominated by dust-bounded Hii regions? The *average* molecular gas density in the $`10^{10}\text{M}_{}`$ nuclear molecular complex in $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ is $`n_{\text{H}_2}210^4\text{cm}^3`$ Scovilleetal97 . The strong emission from high dipole moment molecules such as CS, HCO+ and HCN argues for even higher densities: $`10^{10}\text{M}_{}`$ of molecular gas (i.e., *all* of the gas in the nuclear complex) has a density $`n_{\text{H}_2}10^5\text{cm}^3`$ Solomonetal90 . At such densities the ionized nebulae created by hot stars are *compact* or *ultracompact* Hii regions, where 50 to 99% of the Lyman continuum is absorbed by dust WoodChurchwell89 . Observationally, hydrogen-bounded and dust-bounded Hii regions can be distinguished by the quantity $`R=L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$/$`L_{\mathrm{Br}\gamma }`$: for a wide range of parameters, $`R<3570`$ implies that the nebula is hydrogen-bounded, while $`R>35700`$ implies that the nebula is dust-bounded Bottorffetal98 . For $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$, the $`\text{Br}\gamma `$ luminosity of $`1.310^6\text{L}_{}`$ (from the spectrum in Fig. 3, with a distance of $`77\text{Mpc}`$) implies $`R=1.610^5`$ assuming an obscuring foreground screen with $`A_V=20^\mathrm{m}`$ (a model consistent with the results discussed above). Even with a foreground extinction of $`A_V=50^\mathrm{m}`$ (which is most likely an overestimate, as discussed above), a ratio $`R=110^4`$ would result, so that even in that case the absorption of Lyman continuum radiation by dust would play a significant role. The star formation takes place in (ultra)compact Hii regions, where all of the usual tracers of ionized gas (recombination lines, fine-structure lines, free-free emission) are *quenched*, not extincted. While this result significantly complicates the interpretation of diagnostics of massive star formation in ULIGs, it is save to conclude that the properties of $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$ can be accounted for by an intense, and significantly (but not extremely) obscured starburst. There is no reason to invoke the presence of extreme extinction, a strongly aged starburst, or an additional power source in $`\mathrm{Arp}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$.