text:
# Dynamical content of quantum diffeomorphisms in two-dimensional quantum gravity

## 1 Introduction

Our main goal is the construction of a space-time notion just from symmetry principles. Therefore, we consider space-time as a derived, or secondary, object in our theory. Assuming that the nature of the world is a quantum one, we want to start from the very beginning with a quantum theory in which, perhaps, there is not an explicit notion of space-time. We understand by such a quantum theory a unitary and irreducible representation of the algebra of physical operators and the space-time structure itself, in case such an structure makes any sense, should be built out of this quantum theory.

In order to fill the gap between the starting point (quantum theory) and the objective (space-time construction), we present a very simple model that we interpret as a quantum gravity (see ), in fact a two-dimensional one, even though the link with standard two-dimensional quantum gravity is not completely obvious.

The technical tool we are going to use is a Group Approach to Quantization (GAQ) (see  and references therein), which starts from a given group of symmetries and constructs a quantum theory in the sense mentioned above. Among the elements of this approach, one is specially important for this work as it will play the role of physical guide in our search of space-time. This element is group (pseudo-)cohomology, which is a mathematical concept related to central extensions of the considered group. Its importance follows from the fact that it allows the classification of the physical operators in two sets:

* Dynamical operators, which appear in conjugated pairs, and give a central term in their commutators: $`[\text{ . },\text{ . }]1`$.
* Kinematical operators, which, broadly speaking, do not give this central term (the distinction between dynamical and kinematical operators can be rigorously characterised in terms of a pre-symplectic form constructed from the group two-cocycle ). Space-time should appear within this second set which, in the language of GAQ, is called characteristic subalgebra and denoted by $`𝒢_\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

## 2 The mathematical model

The first step in the construction of the model consists in selecting an appropiate starting group. We are choosing the Virasoro group, in abstract terms, for such a group. The reasons for this are, on the one hand, that it is a group simple enough in order to be handled and, at the same time, rich enough for giving non-trivial answers. On the other hand, Polyakov’s action for $`2D`$ gravity  can be derived from it ().

The Virasoro algebra is defined ($`h=\frac{cc^{}}{24}`$) by:

$`[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(cn^3c^{}n)\delta _{n,m}.`$
A formal group law ($`l^{\prime \prime m}=F^m(l^n,l^n)`$) can be derived from this algebra, and from this group law the rest of the elements of GAQ (quantization 1-form, left- and right-invariant infinitesimal generators…) can be computed. As we said before, we are particularly interested in the characteristic subalgebra, the kinematical degrees of freedom. Looking at the commutation relations, we find the two posible cases:

$`\text{i)}{\displaystyle \frac{c^{}}{c}}r^2,rZ,𝒢_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^o}^L`$
$`\text{ii)}{\displaystyle \frac{c^{}}{c}}=r^2,rZ,𝒢_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^r}^L,\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^o}^L,\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^r}^L.`$
Since we are looking for a space-time with one time dimension and at least one spatial dimension, the first case is excluded. Therefore, our first conclusion is that in order to find a space-time, we must fall in the second critical case in which $`𝒢_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ closes an $`sl(2,R)`$ algebra. In fact, unitarity imposes $`r=1`$, so that we have $`c=c^{}`$, which is the only case we consider from now on.

The quantum representation is achieved by taking the set of $`U(1)`$complex functions defined on the group as the Hilbert space, and the group acting on it via the regular representation. The main problem then is that this representation is highly reducible. In principle, this can be solved by taking advantage of the trivial commutation among left- ($`\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^n}^L`$) and right-invariant ($`\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^n}^R`$) vector fields. This allows us to implement the representation with one set of vector fields (for instance, the right-invariant ones: $`L_n=i(\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^n}^R)`$) and to reduce the representation in a consistent way by using the other set, via the introduction of polarization equations: $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{l^{n1}}^L=0`$.

However, in the general case for the Virasoro group, the resulting representation is still reducible. We have two solutions to this problem which prove to be equivalent. The first one benefits from the existence of a vacuum state and consists in taking the orbit of the group through this vacuum. The resulting representation is an irreducible highest-weight representation, characterised by: $`L_n0=0,(n1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=L_{n_j}\mathrm{}L_{n_1}0,(n2)`$. The second solution, which is more natural in the framework of GAQ, consists in imposing further polarizations conditions using higher-order differential operators. This makes pseudo-differential operators come on the scene, something which is a source of technical difficulties, however. For the sake of simplicity we are not going to consider those cases in which higher-order polarizations appear. The equivalence between the two solutions was proved in .

With regards to unitarity, the values of $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ that make unitary the representation are :

* $`c1`$, with $`\frac{cc^{}}{24}0`$.
* $`0<c<1`$ with: $`c=1\frac{6}{m(m+1)}`$ and $`\frac{cc^{}}{24}=\frac{[(m+1)rms]^21}{4m(m+1)}`$, where $`1srm1`$, and $`m,r,s`$ integers with $`m2`$.

But the discrete values of $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ for $`0<c<1`$ are precisely those cases related with higher-order polarizations and are, therefore, disregarded.

Thus, what we have by now, is a representation of the Virasoro algebra in which $`c=c^{}`$ (in order to find a space-time) and $`c>1`$ (to have unitarity). Furthermore, we have classified the operators in two sets: space-time operators ($`L_1,L_0,L_1`$), and dynamical operators ($`L_n,n2`$), which we shall refer to as gravity operators in the sequel. This way, the starting point of the work, the quantum theory, is constructed and now we try to accomplish our main objective by identidying a space-time structure.

Firstly, we consider the reduction of the Virasoro Hilbert space, $`_{(c,c)}`$, under the kinematical $`SL(2,R)`$ subgroup, obtaining:

$`_{(c,c)}={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}(D^{(N)}D^{(N1)})R_S^{(N)}`$
where,

* $`R_S^{(N)}`$ is a maximal-weight irreducible representation of $`SL(2,R)`$ with Casimir $`N(N`$$`1)`$. We denote the states in this representation by $`N,n`$.
* $`D^{(N)}`$ is the dimension of the Virasoro level $`N`$.
* The different representations $`R_S^{(N)}`$ are orthogonal. This will be important in the physical interpretation because it permits a standard quantum mechanical interpretation.

Once the representation has been reduced, we proceed to associate a space-time with each $`SL(2,R)`$ representation in the model; that is, as we have an infinite number of $`SL(2,R)`$ representations, an infinite number of space-times are realised simultaneosly in our model.

In order to make this association more concrete, we take an specific $`SL(2,R)`$ representation and construct a $`C^{}`$-algebra by considering all the products of the wave functions in the representation. At this point, we can apply a theorem by Gelfand and Naimark , which allows the reconstruction of a manifold from the $`C^{}`$-algebra. The problem with this approach is that the mentioned theorem is a rather abstract tool and the identification of the actual manifold under consideration is a difficult task. Fortunately, we can look at the problem in another way. For this, we consider again an isolated $`SL(2,R)`$ representation and notice that we know another system with the same Hilbert space but for which the configuration space is explicitly known. This system is a particle moving on a two-dimensional AdS space-time. Thus, we associate with each $`SL(2,R)`$ representation a one-sheet hyperboloid. In fact, this is what one expects to find from a $`SL(2,R)`$ group, which is isomorphic to AdS group in two dimensions when imposing the Casimir constraint.

Before entering into the physical interpretation, let us make some brief comments on the mathematical model we have just introduced. Firstly, in the framework of GAQ, it is natural to assign dimensions to the vector fields. In our case we fix $`[L_n]=(Length)^1`$. The commutation relations then imply $`[c]=Length`$ and $`[n]=[c^{}]=(Length)^1`$. But this represents a problem when trying to interpret expressions like $`c>1`$, since we need a scale. To solve this problem we introduce a constant $`a`$, such that $`[a]=Length`$, and redefine $`n\frac{n}{a}`$. Thus, the redefined integers are dimensionless.

Another important point is that the Virasoro algebra has a natural notion of classical limit which is obtained by making $`c\mathrm{}`$, or in redefined terms, $`\frac{c}{a}\mathrm{}`$. In this case, the constant $`\frac{a}{c}`$ behaves as a parameter of a perturbative series, playing the role of the Planck constant in our model. This suggests to redefine the Virasoro generators: $`H_n\frac{a}{c}L_n`$.

The previous introduction of a hyperboloid associated with a given representation does not provide a metric structure for space-time. The only natural metric we can find inside the model is the one induced from the Killing metric of $`SL(2,R)`$, thus providing an AdS space-time. In order to fully determine it, we have to introduce a scale: the radius of the hyperboloid. It is defined from the Casimir in terms of the redefined Virasoro generators:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(H_1H_1+H_1H_1)=`$
$`=({\displaystyle \frac{a}{c}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{c^2}}.`$
## 3 Physical interpretation

Now we can provide a physical interpretation. As we have stressed, we associate an AdS2 space-time of radius $`R=\frac{c}{\sqrt{N(N1)}}`$ with each $`SL(2,R)`$ representation.

Given an specific $`SL(2,R)`$ representation, we interpret each vector in it ($`N,n`$) as a state of the corresponding space-time. Since we are dealing with maximal-weight representations, a tower of states of the space-time is found, where the maximal-weight vector plays the role of space-time ground state. $`H_0`$ is interpreted as the energy and $`H_1`$ ($`H_1`$) as raising (lowering) space-time operators. When we consider the dynamical operators, $`H_{n2}`$, we notice that they do not leave invariant the $`SL(2,R)`$ representations and therefore they produce the effect of mixing the different space-times.

The whole picture provided by the model is as follows: we understand by Universe the entire ensemble of different space-times which are realised at the same time. A state of the Universe is a particular state in the Virasoro representation, that is, an specific linear combination of states in different $`SL(2,R)`$ representations or, in other words, a quantum superposition of different space-times. The coefficients of the linear combination define a weight distribution of space-times. The question about the radius of the Universe makes no real sense, since we have space-times of different radii. The meaningful question is about the probability for the Universe to have a certain radius, and then it is essential the orthogonality of the $`SL(2,R)`$ representations, which allows the definition of orthogonal projectors. Finally, the effect of gravity is that of mixing the different space-times, thus changing the weight distribution of space-times.

As far as the classical limit is concerned, we can consider the limit $`c\mathrm{}`$ and find that for every space-time the energy of the ground state tends to zero ($`Energy(N,0)=\frac{N}{c}0`$), and the radius to infinity ($`R=\frac{c}{\sqrt{N(N1)}}\mathrm{}`$). There is no physical way to distinguish between the different space-times in this limit and it makes sense, accordingly, to identify them. In order to do that, we define the equivalence relation, $`N,n`$ $`N^{},n`$, and take the quotient $`_{(c,c)}/`$. The problem with this quotient is that the dynamical operators are ill-behaved in it; in fact, they are multivalued. To avoid this trouble, we impose to these operators to act trivially on the states (this is only consistent with the commutation relations in the classical limit, as pointed out by S. Carlip after the talk): $`H_{n2}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$.

Hitherto, we have considered the Virasoro group as an abstract one, but at this point we can look at it as a diffeomorphism group, so that the previous constraints are precisely the classical diffeomorphisms constraints. What we find is that diffeomorphism invariance is only recovered in the classical limit, while diffeomorphisms have a dynamical content at the quantum level.

## 4 Conclusions

* We have constructed a space-time notion from a quantum theory but only for the critical value of the Virasoro anomaly ($`c=c^{}`$). Out of this value space-time makes no sense, even though the quantum theory does exist.
* The model presents the Universe as a quantum superposition of different space-times which are mixed by gravity modes.
* We have implemented a model which exhibits a quantum breakdown of diffeomorphism invariance through the appearance of physical (non-gauge) degrees of freedom through an anomaly process. General covariance is recovered only in the classical limit.


format: text

text:
# Pomeron intercepts at colliders

## 1 Forward jet cross-section at HERA

The study of forward jets at colliders is considered as the milestone of QCD studies at high energies, since it provides a direct way of testing the perturbative resummations of soft gluon radiation. More precisely, the study of one forward jet (w.r.t. the proton) in an electron-proton collider  seems to be a good candidate to test the energy dependence of hard QCD cross-sections. It is similar to the previous proposal of studying two jets separated by a large rapidity interval in hadronic colliders , for which only preliminary results are available . This test is also possible in $`\gamma ^{}`$-$`\gamma ^{}`$ scattering  but here the statistics and the energy range are still insufficient to get a reliable determination of the physical parameters for hard QCD cross-sections. Indeed, the proposed (and favored for the moment being) set-up  is to consider jets with transverse momentum $`k_T`$ of the order of the photon virtuality $`Q`$ allowing to damp the QCD evolution as a function of $`k_T`$ (DGLAP evolution ) in favor of the evolution in energy at fixed $`k_T`$ (BFKL evolution ).

In contrast to full Monte-Carlo studies we want to focus on the jet cross section $`d\sigma /dx`$ observable itself, by a consistent treatment of the experimental cuts and minimizing the uncertainties for that particular observable. Let us remark that our approach is not intended to provide a substitution to the other methods, since the Monte-Carlo simulations have the great merit of making a set of predictions for various observables. Hence, our method has to be considered as complementary to the others and dedicated to a better determination of the effective Pomeron intercept using the $`d\sigma /dx`$ data. As we shall see, it will fix more precisely this parameter, but it will leave less constrained other interesting parameters, such as the cross-section normalization.

The cross-section for forward jet production at HERA in the dipole model reads :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{(4)}\sigma }{dxdQ^2dx_Jdk_T^2d\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi N_C\alpha ^2\alpha _S(k_T^2)}{Q^4k_T^2}}f_{eff}(x,\mu _f^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }e_Q^2{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2}+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma }{2i\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{k_T^2}}\right)^\gamma \times `$ (1.1)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{ϵ(\gamma ,0)Y\}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{h_T(\gamma )+h_L(\gamma )}{\gamma }}(1y)+{\displaystyle \frac{h_T(\gamma )}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}\right]`$
where

$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_J}{x}}`$ (1.2)
$`ϵ(\gamma ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\alpha }\left[2\psi (1)\psi (p+1\gamma )\psi (p+\gamma )\right]`$ (1.3)
$`f_{eff}(x,\mu _f^2)`$ $`=`$ $`G(x,\mu _f^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q_f+\overline{Q_f})`$ (1.4)
$`\mu _f^2`$ $``$ $`k_T^2,`$ (1.5)
are, respectively, $`Y`$ the rapidity interval between the photon probe and the jet, $`ϵ(\gamma ,p)`$ the BFKL kernel eigenvalues, $`f_{eff}`$ the effective structure function combination, and $`\mu _f`$ the corresponding factorization scale. The main BFKL parameter is $`\overline{\alpha },`$ which is the (fixed) value of the effective strong coupling constant in LO-BFKL formulae. Note that we gave the BFKL formula not including the azimuthal dependence as we will stick to the azimuth-independent contribution with the dominant $`\mathrm{exp}\{ϵ(\gamma ,0)Y\}`$ factor.

The so-called “impact factors”

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}h_T\\ h_L\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S(k_T^2)}{3\pi \gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\gamma ))^3}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(22\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{2}{3}\gamma }}\left(\begin{array}{c}(1+\gamma )(1\frac{\gamma }{2})\\ \gamma (1\gamma )\end{array}\right),`$ (1.10)
are obtained from the $`k_T`$ factorization properties  of the coupling of the BFKL amplitudes to external hard probes. The same factors can be related to the photon wave functions  within the equivalent context of the QCD dipole model .

Our goal is to compare as directly as possible the theoretical parametrization (1.1) to the data which are collected in experiments . The crucial point is how to take into account the experimentally defined kinematic cuts .

The main problem to solve is to investigate the effect of these cuts on the determination of the integration variables leading to a prediction for $`d\sigma /dx`$ from the given theoretical formula for $`d^{(4)}\sigma `$ as given in formula (1.1). The effect is expected to appear as bin-per-bin correction factors to be multiplied to the theoretical cross-sections for average values of the kinematic variables for a given $`x`$-bin before comparing to data (e.g. fitting the cross-sections) .

The experimental correction factors have been determined using a toy Monte-Carlo designed as follows. We generate flat distributions in the variables $`k_T^2/Q^2`$, $`1/Q^2`$, $`x_J,`$ using reference intervals which include the whole of the experimental phase-space (the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ variable is not used in the generation since all the cross-section measurements are $`\varphi `$ independent). In practice, we get the correction factors by counting the numbers of events which fulfill the experimental cuts given in Table I for each $`x`$-bin. The correction factor is obtained by the ratio to the number of events which pass the experimental cuts and the kinematic constraints, and the number of events which fullfil only the kinematic constraints,i.e. the so-called reference bin. The correction factors are given in reference .

Weperform a fit to the H1 and ZEUS data with only two free parameters. these are the effective strong coupling constant in LO BFKL formulae $`\overline{\alpha }`$ corresponding to the effective Lipatov intercept $`\alpha _P=1+4\mathrm{log}2\overline{\alpha }N_C/\pi `$, and the cross-section normalisation. The obtained values of the parameters and the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit are given in Table III for a fit to the H1 and ZEUS data separately, and then to the H1 + ZEUS data together.

| fit | $`\overline{\alpha }`$ | $`\alpha _P`$ | Norm. | $`\chi ^2(/dof)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| H1 | 0.17 $`\pm `$ 0.02 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 1.44 $`\pm `$ 0.05 $`\pm `$ 0.025 | 29.4 $`\pm `$ 4.8 $`\pm `$ 5.2 | 5.7 (/9) |
| ZEUS | 0.20 $`\pm `$ 0.02 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 1.52 $`\pm `$ 0.05 $`\pm `$ 0.025 | 26.4 $`\pm `$ 3.9 $`\pm `$ 4.7 | 2.0 (/2) |
| H1+ZEUS | 0.16 $`\pm `$ 0.01 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 1.43 $`\pm `$ 0.025 $`\pm `$ 0.025 | 30.7 $`\pm `$ 2.9 $`\pm `$ 3.5 | 12.0 (/13) |
| D0 | 0.24 $`\pm `$ 0.02 $`\pm `$ 0.02 | 1.65 $`\pm `$ 0.05 $`\pm `$ 0.05 |  |  |

Table I- Fit results

The $`\chi ^2`$ of the fits have been calculated using statistical error only and are very satisfactory (about $`0.6perpoint`$ for H1 data, and $`1.perpoint`$ for ZEUS data). We give both statistical and systematic errors for the fit parameters. The values of the Lipatov intercept are close to one another and compatible within errors for the H1 and ZEUS sets of data, and indicate a preferable medium value ($`\alpha _P=1.41.5`$). We also notice that the ZEUS data have the tendency to favour a higher exponent, but the number of data points used in the fit is much smaller than for H1, and the H1 data are also at lower $`x`$. The normalisation is also compatible between ZEUS and H1. The fit results are shown in Figure 1 and compared with the H1 and ZEUS measurements.

## 2 Comparison with Tevatron results and prospects for LHC

The final result of our new determination of the effective pomeron intercept is $`\alpha _P=1.43\pm 0.025`$ (stat.) $`\pm 0.025`$ (syst.). Our method allows a direct comparison of the intercept values with those obtained in other experimental processes, i.e. $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ cross-sections at LEP , jet-jet cross-sections at Tevatron at large rapidity intervals , $`F_2`$ and $`F_2^D`$ proton structure function measurements . Let us first consider the known determinations of the effective intercepts in $`F_2`$ and $`F_2^D`$ measurements at HERA . It is known that the effective intercept determined in these measurements is rather low***It is interesting to note that the “hard” Pomeron intercept obtained within the framework of two-Pomeron models fits with our determination. However our parametrization (1.1) corresponds to only one Pomeron.(1.2-1.3). This is the reason why these data can be both described by a DGLAP or a BFKL-LO fit  Note that in the BFKL descriptions of these data , the effective intercept is taken to be constant, while the $`Q^2`$ dependence comes from the BFKL integration (see for instance formula (1.1)).

Now let us consider processes initiated by two hard probes which allow a more direct comparison between experiments and BFKL predictions. These processes suppress DGLAP evolution by selecting events with comparable hard scales for both hard probes. Recent data on $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ cross-section measurements at LEP  lead to a BFKL description with a low effective intercept compatible with the one of $`F_2`$ and $`F_2^D`$ at HERA ($`\alpha _P`$=1.2-1.3 ) The statistics for these data is still very low. L3 and OPAL Collaborations have released the cuts used to enhance BFKL effects to get more statistics . These data can be both described by BFKL and DGLAP evolution equations.. The fact that similar values of the intercepts are found could be interpreted by sizeable higher order corrections to BFKL equation. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that our result based on forward jet measurement at HERA obtained in comparable $`Q^2`$ ($`Q^210`$ GeV2) and rapidity ($`Y`$ 3-4) domains is quite different. The value of the intercept is significantly higher.

Let us compare our results with the effective intercept we obtain from recent preliminary dijet data obtained by the D0 Collaboration at Tevatron . The measurement consists in the ratio $`R=\sigma _{1800}/\sigma _{630}`$ where $`\sigma `$ is the dijet cross-section at large rapidity interval $`Y\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ for two center-of-mass energies (630 and 1800 GeV), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{1800}=4.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{630}=2.4.`$ The experimental measurement is $`R=2.9\pm 0.3`$ (stat.) $`\pm 0.3`$ (syst.). Using the Mueller-Navelet formula , this measurement allows us to get a value of the effective intercept for this process

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{_{\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2}+i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\gamma }{2i\pi \gamma (1\gamma )}e^{ϵ(\gamma ,0)\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{1800}}}{_{\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2}+i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\gamma }{2i\pi \gamma (1\gamma )}e^{ϵ(\gamma ,0)\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{630}}}}.`$ (2.11)
We get $`\alpha _P`$=1.65 $`\pm `$ 0.05 (stat.) $`\pm `$ 0.05 (syst.), in agreement with the value obtained by D0 using a saddle-point approximation  (see Table 1). This intercept is higher than the one obtained in the forward jet study.

Formula (2.11) is obtained after integration over the jet tranverse energies at 630 and 1800 GeV, $`E_{T_1}`$, $`E_{T_2}`$. We note that the non integrated formula

$`R(E_{T_1}/E_{T_2})={\displaystyle \frac{_{\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2}+i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\gamma }{2i\pi }\left(\frac{E_{T_1}}{E_{T_2}}\right)^{2\gamma }e^{ϵ(\gamma ,0)\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{1800}}}{_{\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2}+i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\gamma }{2i\pi }\left(\frac{E_{T_1}}{E_{T_2}}\right)^{2\gamma }e^{ϵ(\gamma ,0)\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{630}}}}`$ (2.12)
shows a sizeable dependence on $`E_{T_1}/E_{T_2}`$, which could be confronted with experiment. Let us show both the integrated and $`E_{T_1}/E_{T_2}`$ dependent cross-sections in Figure 2.

Prospects at LHC are quite appealing for this measurement due to the large rapidity intervals which can be reached. For instance, we estimate that it is possible to reach a rapidity interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{14000}`$ of the order of 10 for a center-of-mass energy of 14 TeV. Taking as a reference value the maximal value at Tevatron ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{2000}5`$), which could be also reached at LHC by reducing the beam energies, we use Formulae (2.11, 2.12) with these values of rapidity ranges to get a prediction on the $`R`$ values (see figure 3). The BFKL prediction gives a high value of $`R`$ ($`R20`$), with a typical dependence on $`E_{T_1}/E_{T_2}`$ quite smaller than at Tevatron, which would be nice to test at LHC. If we consider two more close rapidity intervals (e.g. 10 and 8 corresponding to center-of-mass energies of 14 and 7 TeV), we get similar values of $`R`$ compared to Tevatron ($`R3.2`$). However, the $`E_{T_1}/E_{T_2}`$ dependence is much smaller than in Figure 2 for Tevatron. It favors the BFKL dynamics due to the high rapidity domains involved. It is thus important to perform this measurement and BFKL test at LHC.

The question arises to interpret the different values of the effective intercept for the different experimental processes. It could reasonably come from the differences in higher order QCD corrections for the BFKL kernel and/or in the impact factors depending on the initial probes ($`\gamma ^{}`$ vs. jets). In order to evaluate the approximate size of the higher order BFKL corrections, we will use their description in terms of rapidity veto effects . In formula (1.1), we make the following replacement

$`\mathrm{exp}(ϵ(\gamma ,0)Y)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\theta (Y(n+1)b){\displaystyle \frac{\left[ϵ(\gamma ,0)(Y(n+1)b)\right]^n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}}.`$ (2.13)
The Heaviside function $`\theta `$ ensures that a BFKL ladder of $`n`$ gluons occupies $`(n+1)b`$ rapidity interval where $`b`$ parametrises the strength of NLO BFKL corrections. The value of the leading order intercept is fixed to $`\alpha _p=1.75(\alpha _S(Q^2=10)=0.28)`$, where $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2 is inside the average range of $`Q^2`$ in the forward jet measurement. The fitted value of the $`b`$ parameter obtained using the forward jet data is found to be 1.28 $`\pm `$ 0.08 (stat.) $`\pm `$ 0.02 (syst.). Imposing the same value of $`\alpha _P`$ with Tevatron data gives $`b`$=0.21 $`\pm `$ 0.11 (stat.) $`\pm `$ 0.11 (syst.). Note that the theoretical value of $`b`$ for the NLO BFKL kernel is expected to be of the order 2.4, which is also compatible with the result obtained for the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ cross-section. A contribution from the NLO impact factors is not yet known, and could perhaps explain the different values of $`b`$. The LHC would be also a very interesting testing ground for the study of rapidity veto and higher order BFKL effects.

## 3 Conclusion

To summarize our results, using a new method to disantangle the effects of the kinematic cuts from the genuine dynamical values we find that the effective pomeron intercept of the forward jet cross-sections at HERA is $`\alpha _P=1.43\pm 0.025`$ (stat.) $`\pm 0.025`$ (syst.). It is much higher than the soft pomeron intercept, and, among those determined in hard processes, it is intermediate between $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ interactions at LEP and dijet productions with large rapidity intervals at Tevatron, where we get $`\alpha _P`$=1.65 $`\pm `$ 0.05 (stat.) $`\pm `$ 0.05 (syst.).

Looking for an interpretation of our results in terms of higher order BFKL corrections expressed by rapidity gap vetoes $`b`$ between emitted gluons, we find a value of $`b=`$1.3 at HERA, and 0.21 at Tevatron. The HERA value is sizeable but less than the theoretically predicted  value for the NLO BFKL kernel ($`b=`$2.4). The Tevatron value is compatible with zero. The observed dependence in the process deserves further more precise studies .

The LHC will open new possibilities to test different aspects of BFKL dynamics including higher order effects. Due to the large ranges in rapidity, large ratios of dijet cross-sections can be expected by using two different center-of-mass energies. We suggest to measure the dependence of the dijet cross-sections as a function of the jet transverse energies as a signal for BFKL pomeron at Tevatron run II, and at LHC. The Mueller Navelet jet study would also benefit from a lower energy run at LHC to allow a normalisation independence of the intercept determination and BFKL tests. LHC will thus allow a measurement of the pomeron intercept in a different kinematical domain more suited for BFKL dynamics, and a direct test of higher order effects.


text:
# Convective-Dynamical Instability in Radiation-Supported Accretion Disks

## 1 Introduction

Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) predicted that the inner portions of accretion disks that extend into relativistically-deep gravitational potentials should be radiation pressure-dominated when the accretion rate is greater than a modest fraction of the Eddington rate. In that regime, they found that disks could achieve hydrostatic balance in the vertical direction if the local dissipation rate were proportional to the local mass density. Given that assumption, upward radiation flux could support the disk matter against gravity if the density were essentially constant as a function of height (falling sharply to zero at the top surface) and the radiation pressure fell gradually from the disk midplane to the surface.

Soon after this equilibrium was discovered, it was found to suffer from several sorts of instabilities. Lightman & Eardley (1974) pointed out that if the viscous stress is proportional to the total pressure (in this case, dominated by radiation), perturbations with radial wavelengths long compared to the vertical thickness $`h`$, but short compared to a radius $`r`$, grow on the (comparatively long) viscous inflow timescale. Shakura & Sunyaev (1976) then observed that in these conditions perturbations in the same range of wavelengths would also grow on the (shorter) thermal timescale. Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Blinnikov (1977) noticed that if the radiation is locked to the gas even on short lengthscales (i.e., if, for the purpose of dynamics, the optical depth is treated as effectively infinite), such disks should be convectively unstable, for the specific entropy decreases outward; the linear growth rate for convective “bubbles” was worked out by Lominadze & Chagelishvili (1984). More recently, Gammie (1998) has demonstrated that a magnetic field in radiation-supported disks can catalyze a short-wavelength ($`kh1`$) overstable wave mode. In view of these instabilities, it has long been a puzzle just what sort of equilibrium would actually be found in Nature when the accretion rate is high enough that radiation pressure-domination might be expected (see, e.g. Shapiro, Lightman & Eardley 1976; Liang 1977; Coroniti 1981; Svensson & Zdziarski 1994; Szuszkiewicz & Miller 1997; Krolik 1998).

In this paper, we take a closer look at the nature of the short wavelength modes in radiation-supported disks without magnetic fields. Our goal (motivated by a companion work on radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of such disks: Agol & Krolik 2000b) is to examine more closely which modes can be expected to grow most quickly, what happens when finite optical depth permits some photon diffusion, and what role, if any, is played by associated perturbations in the local dissipation rate.

## 2 Problem Definition

We begin by writing down the equations of non-relativistic radiation hydrodynamics so that we may first describe the equilibrium in this language, and then discuss linear perturbations to this equilibrium. Because we are interested in accretion disks, it is convenient to write them in a rotating frame. The first is the usual equation of mass conservation:

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\left(\rho \stackrel{}{v}\right)=0.$$
(1)
Our notation is the usual one, in which $`\rho `$ is the mass density and $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the fluid velocity. Next is the the fluid force equation:

$$\rho \frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{t}+\rho \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v}=p_g+\rho \stackrel{}{g}+(\kappa \rho /c)\stackrel{}{}+2\rho \stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\rho v_r(\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{ln}r)\widehat{\varphi }$$
(2)
where $`p_g`$ is the gas pressure, $`\stackrel{}{g}`$ is the local gravity, $`\kappa `$ is the opacity per unit mass, $`\stackrel{}{}`$ is the radiation flux, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the rotation rate of the fluid. Although all the fluid quantities are defined in the rotating frame, the radiation quantities (e.g., $`\stackrel{}{}`$) are defined in the frame of the local fluid motion, i.e. including any departures from corotation (Mihalas & Mihalas 1984). Note that we have omitted magnetic forces.

For the two equations describing radiation energy density and momentum density, we follow Buchler (1979), but write the Lagrangian time derivatives explicitly, i.e., $`D/Dt=(/t+\stackrel{}{v})`$. The evolution of radiation energy density $`E`$ is described by:

$$\frac{E}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}E+\stackrel{}{}+𝐩_𝐫:\stackrel{}{v}+\frac{E}{c^2}\stackrel{}{v}+\frac{2}{c^2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v}\right)\stackrel{}{}=Q.$$
(3)
Here $`𝐩_𝐫`$ is the radiation pressure tensor and $`Q`$ is the net local emissivity. Finally, there is the equation describing the time-dependence of the radiation momentum density $`(1/c^2)`$:

$$\frac{1}{c}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{t}+\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{c}\stackrel{}{}+c𝐩_𝐫+\frac{1}{c}\left(\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{v}\right)+\frac{1}{c}\left(E𝐈+𝐩_𝐫\right)\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v}\right)=\stackrel{}{q}.$$
(4)
In this equation, $`𝐈`$ is the identity matrix and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the net rate per unit volume at which photon momentum is created by radiation (usually negative in the fluid frame because photon momentum is lost due to opacity, while newly-created photons are usually isotropic in the fluid frame).

In the equilibrium, $`/t=\stackrel{}{v}=0`$. To isolate the effect of radiation support, we also take the extreme limit of $`p_gp_r`$. If we regard the rotation of the disk matter as cancelling the radial component of gravity, the only non-trivial remark to make about the equilibrium is that $`_z=cg/\kappa `$, where $`g=g_z(z,r)`$ is the local vertical component of gravitational acceleration \[in a thin disk, $`g_z(z,r)GMz/r^3`$ for central mass $`M`$\].

Now consider perturbed versions of equations (1) through (4). In order to write these perturbations in Fourier-transform form (i.e., for any quantity $`X`$, the perturbation is $`\delta \stackrel{~}{X}=\delta X\mathrm{exp}\{i(k_rr+k_zz)i\omega t\}`$), we will suppose that the wavevectors obey three conditions: that $`k=(k_z^2+k_r^2)^{1/2}\kappa \rho `$; that $`k_z1/h`$; and that $`k_r1/r`$. The first limit means that the diffusion approximation applies, i.e. $`𝐩_𝐫=p_r𝐈`$, so that $`E=3p_r`$. The second is the WKB approximation, as applied to variations in both the radial and vertical directions. Note that we further restrict our attention to axisymmetric perturbations. The condition $`k_zh1`$ also means that we can ignore any gradients in the gravity or equilibrium radiation flux. In addition, assuming $`k_r1/r`$ allows us to neglect the terms in vector divergences arising from cylindrical geometry. For example, after Fourier-transforming, $`\delta \stackrel{}{v}`$ becomes $`ik_r\delta v_r+\delta v_r/r+ik_z\delta v_zik_r\delta v_r+ik_z\delta v_z`$. We then find:

$`i\omega \delta \rho `$ $`+`$ $`\rho i\stackrel{}{k}\delta \stackrel{}{v}=0`$ (5)
$`i\omega \rho \delta v_r`$ $`=`$ $`(\kappa \rho /c)\delta _r+2\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_\varphi `$ (6)
$`i\omega \rho \delta v_z`$ $`=`$ $`(\kappa \rho /c)\delta _z`$ (7)
$`i\omega \rho \delta v_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(\kappa \rho /c)\delta _\varphi (1/2)\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_r`$ (8)
$`3i\omega \delta p_r3\rho g\delta v_z`$ $`+`$ $`ik_z\delta _z+ik_r\delta _r+4p_r\left(ik_z\delta v_z+ik_r\delta v_r\right)i{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega }{c^2}}\delta v_zF_z=\delta Q`$ (9)
$`i(\omega /c)\delta _r`$ $`+`$ $`ik_rc\delta p_r+ik_z(g/\kappa )\delta v_r4i(\omega /c)p_r\delta v_r=\kappa \rho \delta _r`$ (10)
$`i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{c}}\right)\delta _z+ik_zc\delta p_r`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\kappa }}(2ik_z\delta v_z+ik_r\delta v_r)4i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{c}}p_r\delta v_z=cg\delta \rho \kappa \rho \delta _z`$ (11)
$`i(\omega /c)\delta _\varphi `$ $`+`$ $`i(k_z/c)_z\delta v_\varphi 4i(\omega /c)p_r\delta v_\varphi =\kappa \rho \delta _\varphi `$ (12)
The second and third equations in this set are the two components of the fluid force equation, with the vertical component reduced by the fact that the radiation flux exactly balances gravity in the equilibrium. The last three equations are the three components of the radiation flux equation. These equations may be further simplified by the assumption (verifiable post hoc) that $`\omega \kappa \rho c`$; that is, the wave frequency is very small compared to the mean time between photon scattering events.

With the further approximation that $`p_r\rho c^2`$, equations (5) – (12) may be manipulated to yield a dispersion relation. This relation is most conveniently displayed in terms of dimensionless quantities, so that $`\omega =\omega _{}\sqrt{g/h}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}_{}/h`$. To satisfy the WKB approximation, $`k_z1`$ and $`k_rh/r`$. The dispersion relation is then seen to depend on six dimensionless combinations of parameters:

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_r}{\rho gh}}`$ (13)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{gh}}{c}}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`h\mathrm{\Omega }^2/g`$ (15)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \rho h`$ (16)
$`𝒬_p`$ $`=`$ $`(Q/p_r)(h/g)^{1/2}`$ (17)
$`𝒬_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`(Q/\rho )(hg^3)^{1/2}`$ (18)
Note that here $`g`$ is $`g=g_z(z)`$, the local value of the vertical gravity. In any thin disk, the quantity $`G1`$, for it is of order the free-fall speed from the top of the disk to the midplane in units of $`c`$. The relative importance of rotational effects is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2`$, which is simply $`h/z`$ for Keplerian rotation. The parameter $`P`$ is also a function of height above the midplane. In an optically thick disk, $`P=\frac{1}{2}[1+1/\tau (z/h)^2]/(z/h)`$. Thus, the two parameters $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2`$ could be replaced by the single parameter $`z/h`$. The last two dimensionless parameters describe the sensitivity of the dissipation to the radiation pressure and the density, respectively. If one could extrapolate the “$`\alpha `$” prescription to local fluctuations, one might expect that $`𝒬_p\alpha `$.

## 3 The Dispersion Relation

### 3.1 General considerations

In terms of these dimensionless quantities, the dispersion relation is:

$`3\omega _{}^5+\left[ik_{}^2/(G\tau )3k_zG/\tau i𝒬_p\right]\omega _{}^4`$
$``$ $`\left(4k_{}^2P+3\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2+ik_z^3/\tau ^2ik_zG𝒬_p/\tau \right)\omega _{}^3`$
$`+`$ $`\left[4k_z^3PG/\tau ik_{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2/(G\tau )+i𝒬_p(ik_z+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2)ik_{}^2𝒬_\rho \right]\omega _{}^2`$
$`+`$ $`\left[4k_z^2P\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^23k_r^2+k_z^2G(ik_z𝒬_\rho 𝒬_p)/\tau \right]\omega _{}`$
$`+`$ $`k_zk_r^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2/(G\tau )+k_z\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2(ik_z𝒬_\rho 𝒬_p)=0.`$
In the limit of $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ and $`𝒬_p=𝒬_\rho =0`$, this dispersion relation simplifies to

$$\omega _{}^5\left[(4/3)k_{}^2P+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2\right]\omega _{}^3+\left[(4/3)k_z^2P\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2k_r^2\right]\omega _{}=0.$$
(19)
One root is clearly $`\omega _{}=0`$. The other four are given by:

$$\omega _{}^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}(4/3)k_{}^2P\hfill & \\ \left[2k_z^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2(3/2)k_r^2/P\right]/k_{}^2\hfill & \end{array}$$
(20)
The first pair of roots are the familiar radiation-supported sound waves. The second pair describe buoyancy behavior (cf. Balbus 1999). If $`k_z^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2(3/4)k_r^2/P`$, there are two neutrally stable gravity (epicyclic) waves; on the other hand, if $`k_z^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2<(3/4)k_r^2/P`$, one mode is damped, but the other grows exponentially with essentially no oscillation. It is this last mode that corresponds to convection. Although rotation tends to have a stabilizing effect, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}>0`$ one can always find a mode with $`k_r/k_z`$ large enough to satisfy this criterion. As a consequence, when radiation pressure dominates gas pressure in a very optically thick disk, the standard equilibrium is always unstable to convection. However, relatively strong rotational effects (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2P(h/z)^2`$ relatively large, or location near the midplane) do diminish the range of wavevector directions that is unstable.

### 3.2 Dependence on parameters

As already remarked, both $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ are determined by $`z/h`$, and both should be, except very near the midplane, $`1`$. Because the growth rate of the fastest growing mode in the optically thick limit is $`P^{1/2}`$, and $`P`$ decreases upward, convective instability should develop most rapidly near the top of the disk. This expectation is borne out when the full equations are solved: as predicted by equation 20, when $`k_rk_z`$, the growth rate is nearly independent of $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and is $`7\times `$ greater at $`z/h=0.9`$ than at $`z/h=0.1`$.

The optical depth $`\tau `$ in a radiation pressure-dominated Shakura-Sunyaev disk is

$$\tau =\frac{4/3}{\alpha }\dot{m}^1x^{3/2}\left(\frac{\kappa }{\kappa _T}\right)^1\frac{R_zR_T}{R_R^2},$$
(21)
where $`\alpha `$ is the usual dimensionless stress parameter, $`\dot{m}`$ is the accretion rate in Eddington units for unit efficiency, $`x`$ is the radius in units of $`GM/c^2`$, $`\kappa /\kappa _T`$ is the opacity relative to pure Thomson opacity, and $`R_{R,T,z}`$ are the relativistic corrections to the dissipation rate, torque, and vertical gravity (Page & Thorne 1974; Abramowicz, Lanza & Percival 1997; see also Agol & Krolik 2000a). Because we expect $`\alpha ,\dot{m}<1`$, but $`x`$ must be $`>1`$, these disks should be optically thick. However, in the inner part of the disk, $`\tau `$ might be as little as $`10^2`$.

Fig. 1 shows how the growth rate and phase velocity of the unstable convective modes depend on wavenumber and $`k_z/k_r`$ when there is no perturbation to the dissipation rate and the optical depth is very large ($`\tau =10^6`$). To illustrate the dependence on optical depth, the same curves are shown in Fig. 2 for a case with the smallest optical depth one might expect, $`\tau =10^2`$. In both cases, the range of meaningful wavenumbers (and hence the range of wavenumbers displayed in the figures) is limited by two criteria. On the one hand, the WKB approximation demands that $`k_zh1`$; on the other, the diffusion approximation is only consistent with $`kh\tau `$. We present results extending out to $`kh\tau `$; at the highest wavenumbers shown, the diffusion approximation has only marginal validity.

For fixed optical depth, the growth rate depends on $`k_z/k_r`$; when $`k_z/k_r\stackrel{>}{}1.2`$, the unstable convective mode disappears. For smaller $`k_z/k_r`$ ($`<0.1`$), the growth rate is independent of $`k_z/k_r`$. Decreasing the optical depth reduces the extent of the “flat” portion of the growth rate curve for a given $`k_z/k_r`$. However, the largest value of the dimensionless growth rate, $`(\omega _i)_{max}`$, in the wavenumber range of physical interest is almost independent of $`\tau `$ over this range.

Figs. 1 and 2 also show the phase velocity of the unstable convective mode, normalized to the free fall speed in the disk. For large optical depths, the real frequency of convective modes is so close to zero that they can be considered as non-oscillatory; decreasing the optical depth towards the smallest value ($`\tau =10^2`$) expected for radiation pressure dominated disks leads to an increase in the real frequency of the mode, endowing it with a non-negligible phase velocity and, as a consequence, it becomes oscillatory.

In the absence of perturbations to the dissipation rate, finite (although large) optical depth primarily affects the radiation sound waves (cf. Agol & Krolik 1998). Not surprisingly, as the opacity falls, short wavelength sound waves become damped. Less intuitively, convective modes remain unstable even when the diffusion rate ($`k_{}^2c/(h\tau )`$) is larger than the characteristic frequency $`\sqrt{g/h}`$, i.e. when $`k_{}>\sqrt{G\tau }`$. In this regime, epicyclic motions cause convective modes to acquire an oscillatory character. Convection remains unstable even in the face of strong radiative diffusion because the equilibrium gas density is constant. A parcel that begins to fall because its specific entropy is too small is squeezed as it encounters higher pressure. Its radiation pressure rises, but because diffusion is so effective, only up to the ambient level. Meanwhile, however, the increased gas density means that the parcel’s density exceeds that of its neighbors, and it continues to fall.

Such impunity to the effects of radiation diffusion does not persist all the way to zero opacity, however. When $`k_{}>\tau `$, the diffusion approximation is no longer a valid description of radiation transfer. For wavelengths that short (or opacity that small), the radiation streams freely, entirely independent of gas motions. In that limit, if there is nothing to alter the distribution of dissipation, there is no perturbation to the flux as a function of position, and therefore, no perturbation to the force. The result, of course, is that convection disappears.

Again applying the Shakura-Sunyaev disk solution, we expect $`G`$ to be small, for it is given by

$$G=\frac{3}{2}\dot{m}\left(\frac{\kappa }{\kappa _T}\right)\left(\frac{z}{h}\right)^{1/2}x^{3/2}\frac{R_R}{R_z^{1/2}}.$$
(22)
$`G`$ becomes irrelevant over most of the wavenumber interval of interest when $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, as every factor in which it appears in the dispersion relation is divided by $`\tau `$; the value of $`G`$ can still have some influence even at large $`\tau `$ only for very large wavenumbers, $`k_{}\stackrel{>}{}0.01\tau `$, since some of those same terms of the dispersion relation actually are $`k_{}^2/\tau `$ or even $`k_{}^3/\tau `$. However, even when $`\tau `$ is as large as $`10^5`$, some dependence on $`G`$ begins to appear across the range of interesting wavenumbers. When the optical depth is no larger than this, diminishing $`G`$ tends to enhance instability, particularly at short wavelengths. When $`\tau 10^5`$, the growth rate of the very short wavelength convective modes increases by factors of several when $`G`$ falls from $`10^2`$ to $`10^4`$. When $`\tau \stackrel{<}{}10^4`$, and $`G10^4`$, a second mode, in addition to the convective mode, becomes unstable at short wavelengths. This mode is weakly oscillatory, and its very low phase velocity ($`2.5\times 10^2`$$`1.6\times 10^3`$ the free fall velocity) behaves similarly to that of damped radiation sound waves at the same wavelengths. Analysis of the corresponding amplitudes of the various physical quantitities’ perturbations shows that this mode has magnitude and especially phase relationships between perturbations in pressure, density and velocity components that are intermediate between those of convective modes and those characteristic of radiation sound waves.

It is important to note, however, that if the canonical disk solution applies, the product

$$G\tau =2\left(\frac{z}{h}\right)^{1/2}\alpha ^1\frac{R_TR_z^{1/2}}{R_R}.$$
(23)
In other words, the product $`G\tau `$ should be very nearly independent of radius (if $`\alpha `$ is). Even where the relativistic corrections are substantial, $`G\tau `$ hardly changes because $`R_R`$ and $`R_T`$ are very nearly proportional, and $`R_z`$ has a total range of at most a factor of two (Krolik 1999). Thus, the criterion for which scaled wavelengths should be substantially affected by photon diffusion (i.e., $`k_{}>\sqrt{G\tau }`$) is almost independent of radius, but does depend somewhat on $`z/h`$.

Given our estimate of $`G`$ (equation 22), we can also verify our expectation that $`\omega /c\kappa \rho 1`$. Rewritten in terms of our dimensionless parameters, this ratio is $`\omega _{}G/\tau `$. As we have just estimated, $`G1`$ and $`\tau 1`$ in radiation pressure-supported $`\alpha `$-disks. Consequently, unless $`\omega _{}`$ is extremely large, $`\omega /c\kappa \rho 1`$ is a very safe assumption.

As already pointed out, $`𝒬_p`$ is much like a local version of the vertically-averaged quantity $`\alpha `$, the ratio of the $`r`$$`\varphi `$ stress to the total pressure. On this basis we expect $`𝒬_p`$ to be somewhat less than unity. The (dimensional) dissipation perturbation coefficient $`Q_\rho (Q/\rho )`$, on the other hand, is most closely related to the ratio of the flux to the surface density. In a Shakura-Sunyaev disk, this quantity (reduced to a dimensionless number according to equation 18), is

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)\frac{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{1}{(hg^3)^{1/2}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{3/2}\alpha \dot{m}^{3/2}\left(\frac{\kappa }{\kappa _T}\right)^{3/2}x^{3/2}\frac{R_R^{5/2}}{R_z^2R_T}.$$
(24)
Although we don’t know for certain that $`𝒬_\rho \stackrel{~}{F}/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, it is a likely estimator. On this basis, we expect $`𝒬_\rho 1`$, and should be particularly small at larger radius or in disks with relatively low accretion rate.

Like $`\tau `$, varying $`𝒬_p`$ or $`𝒬_\rho `$ affects the radiation sound waves much more than the convective modes. The growth rate of the near-zero real frequency convective mode is almost independent of $`𝒬_p`$ and $`𝒬_\rho `$ over a large range in these parameters, but the longer-wavelength radiation sound waves become unstable when these parameters are positive. For example, when $`z/h=0.5`$, and $`\tau 1`$, the growth rates for positive $`𝒬_p`$ and null $`𝒬_\rho `$ are $`(0.10.16)𝒬_p`$, and, similarly, those for positive $`𝒬_\rho `$ and null $`𝒬_p`$ turn out to be $`(0.10.16)𝒬_\rho `$.

Unlike the convective mode, for radiation sound waves, growth persists to $`k_r/k_z<1`$. Although the maximum growth rate does not depend on the value of this ratio, the range of wavelengths for which growth occurs shrinks and moves towards larger wavelengths as the ratio $`k_r/k_z`$ decreases.

Smaller optical depth can also counteract the instability created by positive $`𝒬_p`$ or $`𝒬_\rho `$ (see also Agol & Krolik 1998 for a discussion of radiation diffusion damping of MHD waves). In the very large $`\tau `$ limit, the maximum growth rate for radiation sound waves is almost independent of the value of the optical depth, but for $`\tau \stackrel{<}{}10^4`$ it decreases with decreasing $`\tau `$. The radiation sound waves are all damped for $`\tau <10^3`$ or so; at larger optical depth, the shorter wavelength modes remain damped (because, of course, diffusion is most effective acting on them), but growth appears for longer wavelengths, with the range of growing wavelengths stretching as $`\tau `$ increases. Fig. 3 shows the behaviour of the imaginary part of the frequency and the normalised phase velocity for radiation sound waves with $`𝒬_p=1`$ and $`𝒬_\rho =0`$ as functions of wavenumber for a variety of optical depths.

Summarizing this discussion, we conclude that there are two sorts of instabilities of importance in radiation pressure-supported disks: convective instabilities, which grow on roughly the dynamical timescale, should be very nearly ubiquitous unless the disk becomes almost optically thin; and radiation sound waves, which can be driven unstable (at a slower rate) if $`𝒬_p`$ or $`𝒬_\rho `$ is positive.

### 3.3 Comparison with the Classical Convection Problem

In standard treatments of convection in rotating fluids (e.g., Chandrasekhar 1961), it is shown that convection begins when the “Rayleigh number”

$$=\frac{g\alpha _V\beta h^4}{\kappa _{th}\nu }$$
(25)
exceeds a critical value (generally $`1`$) which depends on the “Taylor number”

$$𝒯=4\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2h^4}{\nu ^2}.$$
(26)
Writing $`T`$ for the temperature, we define $`\alpha _V|\mathrm{ln}\rho /T|`$, $`\beta |dT/dz|`$, $`\kappa _{th}`$ is the thermal conductivity, and $`\nu `$ is the kinematic viscosity.

This analysis applies partially, but not entirely, to the circumstances of radiation-dominated accretion disks. The fact that, rather than entering the fluid solely at the bottom, heat is actually generated throughout the fluid probably alters the quantitative criteria for convective instability but should not change anything at a qualitative level. On the other hand, certain contrasts are of greater importance.

One that requires mention is that the pressure in these circumstances, unlike in classical fluids, depends only on the radiation, and is therefore independent of density. Consequently, thermal diffusion can alter the pressure with no change in density. In the classical analog, thermal diffusion can quench convective instability by adding heat to falling low-entropy fluid elements, thereby forcing them to expand until their density no longer exceeds the surrounding density. This occurs when $`\kappa _{th}`$ is large enough that $``$ falls below the critical value. By contrast, in the radiation-dominated case, the density remains unchanged in the face of thermal diffusion. This is why convection persists even when $`k_{}>\sqrt{G\tau }`$; i.e., the radiation analog of the Rayleigh number does not accurately predict the effect of thermal diffusion on the instability.

Perhaps the most important contrast with classical fluids is that there is no easy definition of the kinematic viscosity. Bulk orbital shear leads to angular momentum transfer via magnetic forces (Balbus & Hawley 1998); these are, of course, entirely absent in our treatment. However, stresses arising from other shears may be quite different, whether they are caused by magnetic forces or other mechanisms (for example, photon diffusion: Agol & Krolik 1998). For this reason, it is unclear whether the conventional equation of the $`r\varphi `$ shear stress with a nominal viscosity (as in the Shakura-Sunyaev $`\alpha `$ formalism) is appropriate here. In any event, none of these possible viscosity mechanisms is present in our equations; not even radiation viscosity is considered, for no radiation shear stress exists in the pure diffusion approximation. Thus, in a formal sense, neither $``$ nor $`𝒯`$ exists in our treatment of this problem.

Nonetheless, having expressed these caveats, it is still of some interest to estimate what $`𝒯`$ and $``$ may be in radiation-dominated accretion disks in order to make some contact with the classical theory. To do so we make the suspect identification discussed in the preceding paragraph: we suppose that the shear viscosity in all directions is given by the Shakura-Sunayev $`\alpha `$. If so, $`𝒯10\alpha ^2`$, independent of radius (or anything else). Within the radiation-dominated regime, the Rayleigh number is similarly constant: $`O(10)(\kappa /\kappa _T)^2`$. Interestingly, the critical $``$ for $`10<𝒯<10^5`$ is $`10^3`$$`10^4`$ (Chandrasekhar 1961). Thus, if the most appropriate analog to ordinary fluid viscosity is correctly estimated by this means, the strong convective instability we find might be quenched; however, as we have stressed, it is by no means clear that this analogy applies.

## 4 Implications

We have shown that if an accretion disk is placed in the Shakura-Sunyaev radiation-dominated equilibrium, the growth rate of the convective instability is hardly affected by large changes in parameters such as the opacity or the way in which the local dissipation might be perturbed. This behavior is, perhaps, not surprising, when one considers that the convective instability is essentially dynamical, whereas the opacity and dissipation rates pertain to the (rather more slowly accomplished) thermal balance.

Given that the Shakura-Sunyaev equilibrium is unstable to convection for all reasonable parameters, we can hardly expect that it describes the actual state of radiation pressure-dominated disks. One’s first guess might be that what happens instead is that entropy is redistributed so as to make the disks at most marginally unstable to convection (Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Blinnikov 1977). If the entropy distribution is at most weakly unstable to convection, then departures from hydrostatic equilbrium should be small, and the equilibrium could be determined by applying these two conditions (i.e. isentropy and hydrostatic balance). However, marginal stability to convection also suggests that the amount of heat carried by convection is small, so that radiative diffusion dominates energy exchange. Unfortunately, this condition is inconsistent with the first two. Any two of these three conditions suffice to determine the equilibrium; the solution is over-determined if all three are applied. The result must be, then, that in real disks none of them is satisfied exactly, but all three are approximately correct. The quantitative character of this balancing act can be determined only by detailed calculations that carry convection into the nonlinear regime (e.g. Agol & Krolik 2000b).

Deviation from constant specific entropy can certainly be expected near the disk surface. There, radiation diffusion should be able to consistently dominate convection as a heat-loss mechanism because the diffusion time is much shorter than in the body of the disk. Consequently, the specific entropy distribution near the surface must be clearly stable, i.e. rise with increasing altitude.

The sense of heat redistribution by convection is to raise the specific entropy near the top and diminish it below. For the same reason that radiative diffusion must dominate near the top, this redistribution can have the side effect of changing the overall rate at which heat is able to leave the disk. The mean specific entropy in equilibrium is therefore not necessarily the same as the value predicted by the original Shakura-Sunyaev equilibrium.

These remarks do not bear on whether the thermal and viscous instabilities continue to plague radiation-dominated disks. It is possible that convection might be able to remove extra heat generated in the course of the thermal instability, and might consequently be able to quench it. Whether that is so can only be determined by detailed calculation of heat transport by convection in the nonlinear regime (Agol & Krolik 2000b). Whether the viscous instability acts under these conditions depends on the character of dynamical coupling (see, e.g., Agol & Krolik 1998) between the radiation and the MHD turbulence that most likely accounts for angular momentum transport in disks (Balbus & Hawley 1998).

We have also shown that radiation sound waves may be driven unstable if the emission of radiation is proportional to either the gas density or the local radiation pressure (the latter possibility is suggested by a straight-forward extrapolation of the “$`\alpha `$-model). Although phenomenological guesses of this variety are plausible, we do not yet know enough about the physical mechanisms of dissipation in accretion disks to say whether this is what should actually happen. However, if it does occur, growth of radiation sound waves (and, presumably, magnetosonic waves) could provide an additional source of turbulence in disks, supplementing magneto-rotational instability and convection. Indeed, if dissipation leads to renewed stirring, there might be interesting twists to the character of the MHD turbulent cascade.


text:
# Massive star clusters in dwarf starburst galaxies

## 1. Introduction

During the last decade, the study of young massive stellar clusters, sometimes referred to as super star clusters (SSCs) has seen rapid progress. From a few known examples of “blue populous clusters” in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and SSCs in the star forming dwarf galaxies NGC 1705 (Melnick, Moles, & Terlevich 1985) and NGC 1569 (Arp & Sandage 1985), the numbers have grown, largely thanks to HST. SSCs have now been found in a variety of different environments, as have globular clusters (GCs) which are old massive clusters. In this paper I will review the massive cluster content of, in particular, low mass starburst galaxies like blue compact galaxies (BCGs). A review of massive clusters in starbursts naturally becomes biased towards young SSC like objects. However, such galaxies may indeed contain also rich populations of older clusters.

The study of SSCs in starburst galaxies gained momentum with the advent of the HST. Ultraviolet imaging with the aberrated HST/FOC (e.g. Meurer et al. 1995, Conti and Vacca 1994) of starbursts revealed that a significant fraction of the star formation activity took place in SSCs. Meurer et al. (1995) studied nine galaxies, finding SSCs in most of them. Several other starbursts have been imaged with the aberrated HST/FOC (e.g. Conti et al., unpublished) and SSCs are frequently encountered. Optical imaging with the aberrated HST has also discovered SSCs in many low mass starburst galaxies (e.g. Hunter et al. 1994). The greater sensitivity of WFPC2 as compared to FOC has multiplied the number of detected clusters in ESO 338-IG04 (Östlin, Bergvall, & Rönnback 1998) and He 2-10 (Johnson et al. 2000).

In giant galaxies there seems to be several ways to form SSCs/GCs, e.g. mergers (see Miller 2000), and bars (e.g. Kristen et al. 1997) and circum-nuclear rings in spiral galaxies (e.g. Barth et al. 1995). There are even indications of SSC formation in the discs of normal spirals (Larsen & Richtler 1999). In low mass galaxies some of these mechanisms, e.g. formation of SSCs in bar and resonant induced density enhancements, are not available. Mergers are certainly producing SSCs in some low mass galaxies (e.g. ESO 338-IG04, ESO 350-IG38, ESO 185-IG13), but there might be other mechanisms too. The origin of active star formation in galaxies like NGC 1569 and NGC 1705 are not yet well understood. There are also dwarf stabursts which do not contain luminous SSCs (e.g. IC10, see Grebel 2000).

Cluster destruction mechanisms (e.g. due to tidal shocks) are weaker in low mass galaxies giving SSCs a greater chance of survival. In ESO 338-IG04 the dominant GC population is $`3`$ Gyr old, and this population alone is enough to classify the galaxy as GC rich in terms of specific frequency. Low mass galaxies are in general metal-poor (typically \[O/H\]$`1`$, Kunth & Östlin 2000), which make them suitable for comparison with high redshift conditions and early GC formation. Dwarf galaxies have certainly been important ingredients in the hierarchial buildup of massive galaxies. Another virtue is that internal extinction in general is small, which for instance makes age dating more secure.

Thus, dwarf starbursts are good places to investigate the formation and evolution of massive star clusters. Even if one cannot be sure whether a SSC will evolve into a bona fide GC or dissolve, a proto-GC must look very much like a SSC (Kennicutt & Chu 1988) and the collective formation of a few SSCs will, by necessity, be associated with a starburst. Thus populations of GCs and survived SSCs trace former starbursts, and may be used to study the evolution of galaxies. For example, if the excess of faint blue galaxies seen in deep optical counts is due to starbursts originating in merging galaxies at intermediate redshift, one would expect these to form significant numbers of SSCs/GCs which should be visible as intermediate age GC populations in local galaxies.

## 2. SSC richness in galaxies

The richness of GCs in galaxies is often parametrized by the specific frequency, $`S_N`$, which is the number of GCs divided by the host galaxy luminosity (Harris & van den Bergh 1981). If counting only luminous clusters ($`M_V11`$) and relating to $`M_{V,host}`$, the total absolute $`V`$ magnitude of the host galaxy, one may define a specific frequency of luminous SSCs: $`S_{11}=N_{11}\times 10^{0.4(M_{V,host}+15)}`$, where $`N_{11}`$ is the number of clusters with $`M_V11`$. $`S_{11}`$ will be independent of the assumed distance to a galaxy, and will be biased towards young massive clusters. The luminosity limit excludes contamination by supergiant stars and makes it possible to compare galaxies at different distances studied at different depth.

In Table 1, $`S_{11}`$ is given for a selection of galaxies of different types, where $`N_{11}`$ can be obtained with reasonable accuracy (in nearby galaxies like M82 the large angular extent makes it difficult to estimate $`N_{11}`$). The table is by no means complete (see e.g. Miller 2000, for more references). The $`N_{11}`$ values do not take internal extinction in the galaxies into account, but since the same is true for $`M_{V,host}`$, this should be a second order effect. If the luminous SSCs follow a power law luminosity function, $`\varphi (L)L^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =2`$, $`S_{11}`$ will be independent of the internal extinction as long as $`A_V`$ is equal for the SSCs and the integrated galaxy light. This is not allways true since young SSCs may suffer from high local extinction. If $`\alpha <2`$, internal extinction will effectively lower the observed $`S_{11}`$ values. All values in Table 1 assume $`H_0=75`$ km/s/Mpc. The $`M_{V,host}`$ values were assembled from different sources including both accurate CCD photometry and photographic magnitudes. Many apparent total V-magnitudes have been taken, or estimated, from NED. Thus there might be an inhomogeneity on the 0.5 magnitude level (corresponding to 50% uncertainty on $`S_{11}`$), which one should be aware of when comparing galaxies.

Values $`S_{11}0.5`$ are found for giant mergers, while the luminous BCGs discussed below have $`S_{11}0.6`$. There are indications that these galaxies are actually dwarf mergers. The nearby star forming galaxies NGC 1569, NGC 1705 and NGC 1140, have intermediate $`S_{11}`$ values. For LMC, no cluster is bright enough to qualify without correcting for internal extinction. Most nearby dwarf irregular (dI) galaxies with modest star formation do not contain luminous SSCs (see Grebel 2000). In the mergers, the number of luminous SSCs decrease with the estimated age of the merger remnant as was found by Schweizer et al. (1996).

## 3. A few case studies

### 3.1. ESO 338-IG04 (= Tol 1924-416)

Ground based imaging had revealed an overdensity of faint blobs around this well known blue compact galaxy, which was the motivation behind HST/WFPC2 followup observations (Östlin et al. 1998). These observations revealed a starburst region composed of numerous blue star clusters and a swarm of surrounding GCs. In all, the number of star clusters (after correction for contamination by foreground stars, supergiant stars and background galaxies) is above 100 (completeness limit $`M_V9`$ to $`10`$). Spectral synthesis modelling of $`U,B,V,I`$ colors indicated the presence of distinct peaks in the cluster formation history. In addition to the ongoing event there are old ($`10`$ Gyr) GCs, and in particular a very prominent population of intermediate age (2 to 5 Gyr old) GCs. This intermediate age population contains the most massive cluster candidates and among them an object (no. 34 in the outer sample of Östlin et al. 1998) with an estimated mass in excess of $`10^7M_{}`$ (for a variety of different IMFs). ESO 338-IG04 is an intrinsically luminous ($`M_V=19.3`$) metal poor (\[O/H\]$`=1`$) BCG. The dynamics and morphology suggest that the galaxy is the product of a dwarf galaxy merger (Östlin et al. 1999, 2000). The current specific frequency, $`S_N=2`$, is predicted to rise to $`S_N10`$ in one Gyr as the starburst ceases and fades. The most luminous SSCs were found already by Meurer et al. (1995).

### 3.2. He 2-10 (= ESO 495-G21)

HST/FOC observations of He2-10 revealed “knots”, some of which appeared to be resolved with diameters $`<10`$ pc (Conti & Vacca 1994). It was suggested that these might be young GCs, but the use of a single UV passband made it hard to say more (e.g. addressing masses) than that the objects were young. More recent WFPC2 observations (Johnson et al. 2000) confirm the FOC results, and multiply the detected number of clusters by reaching fainter and redder objects. The faint, red objects may be intermediate age GCs or reddened SSCs. The galaxy is one of the most nearby BCGs and a candidate dwarf merger.

### 3.3. Markarian 996

Markarian 996 is a blue compact dwarf ($`M_V=17.2`$) with regular elliptical outer isophotes and intense star formation in a very compact central Hii region (Thuan, Izotov, & Lipovetsky 1996). The central Hii region is bright enough to saturate the WFPC2 images, but it could be a luminous ($`M_V<12`$) young SSC. Intererestingly there are plenty of old GCs, asymetrically distributed around Mrk 996, with a luminosity function similar to that of Galactic GCs. Mrk 996 is, together with ESO 338-IG04, one of the rare known examples of a BCG posessing an old GC population. Mrk 996 has a GC specific frequency $`S_N>5`$, similar to low-luminosity/dwarf ellipticals (Miller et al. 1998).

## 4. The Malkan et al. (1998) snapshot survey of AGN

Malkan, Gorjian, & Tam (1998) conducted an HST/WFPC2 snapshot survey of AGN, but included also a comparison sample consisting of 50 galaxies classified as having Hii-activity. These “Hii” galaxies can be divided in two broad classes: irregular galaxies and spiral galaxies with nuclear star formation.

Of galaxies having irregular or distorted morphology 3/4 appears to contain at least a few SSCs, while only 1/3 of the spirals do. Galaxies classified as irregular here are generally rather luminous and not typical dI galaxies like those in the local group. It is anyway obvious that the irregular galaxies, in view also of a lower average luminosity, appear to be more efficient SSC formers than spirals. Part of this effect could be explained by higher average extinction in spirals than irregulars. The survey used only one pass band (F606W) and rather short exposures which were not cosmic ray split, making it of limited use for quantitative studies. However, luminous SSCs can be easily identified and approximate photometry may be otained from archive images.

The survey includes ESO 185-IG13 and ESO 350-IG38 which have been studied dynamically by Östlin et al. (1999,2000). Both dynamics and morphology give strong support for a merger induced origin of the strong starbursts seen in these galaxies, which have similar properties to ESO 338-IG04. These galaxies are also among the most cluster rich in the whole survey. Extracting photometry for the SSCs in the HST archive images results in $`S_{11}=0.9`$ and $`S_{11}=1.5`$ for ESO 350-IG38 and ESO 185-IG13 respectively, see Table 1. ESO 350-IG38 contains several SSCs with $`M_V15`$.

Another example, perhaps the best one in the whole survey, of a very SSC rich starburst is Mrk 930, for which $`S_{11}=1.9`$, see Table 1. Also Mrk 930 has a very irregular morphology. The Malkan et al. (1998) survey also has a few objects in common with the study of Meurer et al. (1995).

## 5. Conclusions and Perspectives

Among dwarf and low mass galaxies we encounter both galaxies that appear to be very efficient formers of massive clusters, and galaxies that appear totally devoid of such objects.

Some luminous BCGs have specific frequncies of luminous ($`M_V11`$) SSCs $`S_{11}1`$, which is an order of magnitude larger than most of the prototypical SSC factories: the “Antennae”, NGC 7252 and NGC 1275. Thus there is a tendency for $`S_{11}`$ to increase when going to low mass starburst galaxies. A similar trend has been found for the specific frequency of GCs among dwarf ellipticals (Miller et al. 1998). The purpose of comparing $`S_{11}`$ values was to show that low mass, metal-poor, starburst galaxies are excellent hunting grounds for luminous SSCs, and in addition problems with extinction are much smaller than in giant mergers. The BCGs with the highest $`S_{11}`$ are believed to be the product of dwarf galaxy mergers (Östlin et al. 1999, 2000). A possible explanation to the higher $`S_{11}`$ values is that the starburst timescales are shorter in systems with lower mass, whereas in a giant merger one expects a more extended starburst. There are also BCGs and low mass starbursts which do not contain luminous SSCs. Although the expected number of SSCs in galaxies of very low luminosity will always be small and subject to statistical fluctuations, there migh be a connection to the triggering mechanism of the starbursts. Merging dwarfs might be more efficient SSC formers than non-merging ones.

A couple of BCGs (ESO 338-IG04 and Mrk 996) in addition contains rich populations of older GCs. There is no a priori reason to believe that old GC systems are intrinsically rare among BCGs. Rather few BCGs have been studied at sufficient depth and spatial resolution to unveil faint old GCs. The properties of relatively old GCs in BCGs may provide important information about the nature of the host galaxy.

An unbiased survey of star forming dwarf galaxies with HST to characterize the frequency of star clusters, their colors and host galaxy properties, would allow to quantitatively study cluster formation in low mass galaxies. The Malkan et al. (1998) survey do not fullfil these criteria but show that such a program could be very rewarding. A better understanding of the ultimate fate of SSCs is also required. Dynamical mass estimates are still rare and often result in masses of the right order of magnitude but surprisingly low mass to light ratios (see Smith & Gallagher 2000). If this is due to flat or top heavy IMFs it would make it harder for young SSCs to survive and become GCs.

#### Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank Kelsey Johnson and her collaborators for allowing me to discuss their work on He2-10 ahead of publication. I am also grateful to the organizers for arranging such a nice workshop. This work made frequent use of the NASA/IPAC extragalactic database (NED).

## References

Arp, H., & Sandage, A. 1985, ApJ 90, 1163

Barth, A.J., Ho, L.C., Filippenko, A.V., Sargent, W.L. 1995, AJ 110, 1009

Carlson M.N., Holtzman J.A., Watson A.M., et al. 1998, AJ 115, 1778

Conti, P. S., & Vacca, W. D. 1994, ApJ 423, L97

Grebel, E.K. 2000, this volume

Harris, W.E., & van den Bergh, S. 1981, AJ 86, 1627

Hunter, D.A., O’Connell, R.W., & Gallagher, J.S. III 1994, ApJ 108, 84

Johnson, K.E., Vacca, W.D., Leitherer, C., Conti, P.S., & Lipscy, S.J. 1999, ApJ 117, 1708

Johnson, K.E., Leitherer, C., Vacca, W.D., & Conti, P.S. 2000, in prep.

Kristen, H., Jörsäter, S., Lindblad, P.O., & Boksenberg, A. 1997, A&A 328, 483

Kennicutt, R.C., & Chu, Y.-H. 1988, AJ 95, 720

Kunth D., & Östlin, G. 2000, A&AR, in press (astro-ph/9911094)

Larsen, S. S., & Richtler, T. 1999, A&A 345, 59

Malkan M. A., Gorjian, V., & Tam, R. 1998, ApJS 117, 25

Melnick, J., Moles, M., & Terlevich, R. 1985, A&A 149, L24

Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., Kinney, A., Robert, C., & Garnett, D. R. 1995, AJ 110, 2665

Miller, B. W., Lotz, J.M., Ferguson H.C., Stiavelli, M., & Whitmore, B.C. 1998, ApJ 508, L133

Miller, B.W., Whitmore, B.C., Schweizer, F., & Fall, S.M. 1997, AJ 114, 2381

Miller, B.W. 2000, this volume

O’Connell, R.W., Gallagher, J.S. III, & Hunter, D.A. 1994, ApJ 433, 650

Östlin, G., Bergvall, N., & Rönnback, J. 1998, A&A 335, 85

Östlin, G., Amram P., Masegosa J., Bergvall, N., & Boulesteix, J. 1999, A&AS 137, 419

Östlin, G., Amram P., Masegosa J., Bergvall, N., & Boulesteix, J. 2000, in prep.

Schweizer, F., Miller, B.W., Whitmore, B.C., & Fall, S.M. 1996, AJ 112, 1839

Smith, L.J., & Gallagher, J.S. 2000, this volume

Thuan, T. X., Izotov, Y. I., & Lipovetsky V. A. 1996, ApJ 463, 120

Whitmore, B.C., Zhang, Q., Leitherer, C., Fall, S.M., Schweizer, F., & Miller, B.W. 1999, AJ 118, 1551

Zepf, S.E., Ashman, K.M., English, J., Freeman, K.C., & Sharples, R.M. 1999, AJ 118, 752

## Discussion

U. Fritze von Alvensleben: I wonder if the star clusters you see in dwarf galaxies could really be young globular clusters. Burst strengths and star formation efficiencies found for samples of blue compact dwarfs are $`<`$ 1 %, whereas GC formation modelling by Brown et al. (1995, ApJ 440, 666) requires star formation efficiencies of $`10`$%.

G. Östlin: What matters is really the local star formation efficiency (SFE) and not e.g. how large a fraction of the gas is converted into stars on a global scale. Moreover, the SFE limit ($`10`$%) you refer to is the one required for a young GC to survive the Galactic tidal field, however tidal fields are weaker in low mass galaxies. But of course, formation of numerous young globular clusters would require high global SF efficiencies and burst strengths. This is also the case for the examples I am discussing, which all are galaxies with strong starbursts (i.e. the gas depletion timescale, and/or the timescale to build up the observed stellar mass is much shorter than a Hubble time). It is true that many galaxies termed “blue compact” in reality have very modest star formation rates, but it is not in these galaxies we predominantly find young GC candidates.

J. Gallagher: If most dwarfs make SSCs in reasonable numbers, why do we then see so few in WFPC2 images of “normal” dI galaxies? - Isn’t this a problem?

G. Östlin: Normal dIs have mostly “normal” star formation rates with respect to the mass of the galaxy and are not experiencing starbursts (in terms of star formation timescales, see previous comment). Moreover, their luminosities are often so low that we would not expect many SSCs if they had the same specific frequency of SSCs as e.g. ESO338-IG04 or giant mergers. Nevertheless, it may be that formation of bound clusters require special conditions (like high pressure or gas densities) which are not fulfilled in dwarfs except in the case of external triggers, e.g. mergers and strong interactions. The SSC rich dwarfs discussed above have perturbed morphology and signs of mergers and/or interactions.