text:
# A New Approach for Analytic Amplitude Calculations

## 1 Introduction

In high energy collisions, generally, multi-particle final states are produced. To calculate a practical physical process with several fermions in the final state, conventionally, is a tedious work to implement, even at the tree level. One needs to square the Feynman amplitude, sum over fermion polarizations, and to take trace for each possible fermion string loops. The non-Abelian nature of the Standard Model makes the number of independent Feynman diagrams grow very rapidly as the external particles increasing. Fortunately, due to the recent development in computer technology, a lot of time consuming and tedious Dirac algebra and symbolic simplification work can be carried out on a ordinary personal computer. Nevertheless, even with the up-to-date algebra manipulating programs for computer, many a multi-particle process tend to be still cumbersome to calculate. On the other hand, another drawback of conventional amplitude squaring technique is that it loses the information on spin correlations, which is more and more attainable in present experimental measurements.

An alternative technique, the so-called helicity method, has been developed pretty applicable in practice in recent years. With this method, the independent fermion strings are contracted and reduced to analytic expressions of four-vector products, such that the matrix-element squaring becomes a trivial work. The development of helicity method has experienced a bit long history. Some early efforts on this can be seen in Refs. . In recent development, a bunch of approaches for calculating the helicity amplitudes are proposed in Refs. \[4-14\], and it should be noted the references given here are far from complete on this subject.

In practice, most of physical processes involve fermion production and decays, which give a number of independent fermion lines within a Feynman amplitude. The generic form of a fermion line involving a pair of fermions can be expressed as

$`\overline{u}(p_1,\lambda _1)\overline{)}G_1\overline{)}G_2\mathrm{}\overline{)}G_nu(p_2,\lambda _2),`$ (1)
where $`(p_1,\lambda _1)`$ and $`(p_2,\lambda _2)`$ stand for the momenta and polarizations of the external fermions; and in between of the two spinors there is a string of Dirac matrices. Since real physical processes are described by the matrix element square, in conventional method of calculating an interaction process, one squares the amplitude, which contains more or less (1)-like fermion lines when there are external fermions involved, and sums over the fermion polarizations to get fermion loop(s). Using the nature of spinor projection operators, one then is confronted with couple of traces. As aforementioned, with the growth of the number of external fermions one need to evaluate a vast number of fermion loop traces. Even with the help of computer algebra manipulation, quite often one finds it is still a cumbersome work to perform the calculation.

Helicity method enables one to evaluate physical amplitude directly, resulting in a limited number of four-vector scalars. In literatures, there are several kinds of approaches in evaluating the fermion strings analytically. One of them is carried out by choosing a specific representation for the Dirac matrices , and then get the explicit forms of all the related matrices. Another kind of popular helicity method  is performed by introducing extra lightlike auxiliary momenta and expressing the massive particle spinors by the corresponding massless ones.

In this work, we use the maximum credits of Refs.  to generalize a straightforward method for the evaluation of fermion strings. We believe this approach, which leads to a covariant form for the helicity amplitude, is a relatively simple and fast way in practical computations.

## 2 Formalism

In the conventional method one computes unpolarized cross sections by squaring the eq. (1)-like amplitude while summing over fermion polarizations, and obtains

$`\mathrm{tr}[(\overline{)}p_1\pm m_1)\overline{)}G_1\overline{)}G_2\mathrm{}\overline{)}G_n(\overline{)}p_2\pm m_2)\overline{)}G_n\mathrm{}\overline{)}G_2\overline{)}G_1],`$ (2)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the masses of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, and the plus and minus signs before them correspond to particle and anti-particle, respectively. Taking the above trace in principle is not a tedious work, especially with the help of computer. However, with the number of external fermions increasing, in conventional amplitude modulus square approach one encounters a prohibitive number of eq.(2)-like traces to evaluate, which makes the physical computations very time consuming, even for the machine.

Noticing that the fermion string (1) can be rewritten as a trace form, like

$`\mathrm{tr}[\overline{)}G_1\overline{)}G_2\mathrm{}\overline{)}G_nu(p_2,\lambda _2)\overline{u}(p_1,\lambda _1)],`$ (3)
therefore, now, the question of how to evaluate the helicity amplitude becomes how to re-express $`u(p_2,\lambda _2)\overline{u}(p_1,\lambda _1)`$ by basic Dirac matrices. In Ref., Vega and Wudka obtained one kind of expression for it by making use of the Bouchiat-Michel identity . While in principle their result is applicable for practical calculation, we still feel it not so convenient for programming, since the main result of (9) in Ref. is not expressed in a convenient and covariant way for different helicities.

The helicity method we will present is a straightforward generalization of the results of Refs.. By choosing two auxiliary four-vectors, $`k_0`$ and $`k_1`$, one can fix up the basic spinors $`u(k_0,\lambda )`$ by the equations:

$`u(k_0,\lambda )\overline{u}(k_0,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda \gamma _5}{2}}\overline{)}k_0`$ (4)
and

$`u(k_0,\lambda )=\lambda \overline{)}k_1u(k_0,\lambda ).`$ (5)
Here,

$`k_0k_0=0,k_1k_1=1,k_0k_1=0.`$ (6)
With the above defined basic spinors, the wavefunction of a massive fermion(particle or anti-particle) can be expressed as

$`u(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p\pm m}{\sqrt{2pk_0}}}u(k_0,\lambda ).`$ (7)
It is easy to check that these spinors, and their conjugations defined by the normal way, satisfy Dirac equations; they are also the eigenstates of $`\gamma _5\overline{)}n`$ with eigenvalues of $`\pm 1`$. Here, n is the fermion polarization vector. Using Eqs.(4), (5), and (7), one can readily get the desired spinor products in (3), like

$`u(p_2,\lambda _2)\overline{u}(p_1,\lambda _1)={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p_2\pm m_2}{\sqrt{2p_2k_0}}}u(k_0,\lambda _2)\overline{u}(k_0,\lambda _1){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p_1\pm m_1}{\sqrt{2p_1k_0}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p_2\pm m_2}{2\sqrt{2p_2k_0}}}\{(1+\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\gamma _5`$
$`+\overline{)}k_1[(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(1\lambda _1\lambda _2)\gamma _5]\}\overline{)}k_0{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p_1\pm m_1}{2\sqrt{2p_1k_0}}}.`$ (8)
In fact (2) was obtained in , but it was not realized that (2) can be directly applied to the calculation of helicity amplitude, rather, there it was used for evaluating the segments of a splitted fermion string. This finding makes the computation of practical processes much simplified from the method of Ref. .

## 3 Applications and Concluding Remarks

In arriving at eq.(2) we have taken no special provisos on the fermion mass, hence, it will remain valid for massless case. From (2) we can easily obtain the known identities of the inner product of two massless spinors , like

$`\overline{u}(p,)u(p^{},+)=[\overline{u}(p^{},+)u(p,)]^{},`$ (9)
$`\overline{u}(p,+)u(p^{},)=\overline{u}(p^{},+)u(p,),`$ (10)
and

$`|\overline{u}(p,+)u(p^{},)|^2=2pp^{}.`$ (11)
When taking a specific choice for auxiliary vector $`k_0`$, that is

$`k_0^0={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{m^2}}(p^0|𝐩|),𝐤_0={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{m^2}}(|𝐩|𝐩^\mathrm{𝟎})\widehat{𝐩},`$ (12)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary parameter and $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ the unit vector of space components of momentum p, the polarization vector now becomes the conventional helicity vector:

$`n=({\displaystyle \frac{𝐩}{m}},{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{m}}\widehat{𝐩}).`$ (13)
Then, from (2) one easily finds that at helicity basis, the spinors $`u(p,\lambda )`$ satisfies the usual projection relation

$`u(p,\lambda )\overline{u}(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda \gamma _5\overline{)}n)}{2}}(\overline{)}p\pm m),`$ (14)
As the last example, we compute the helicity amplitude for fermion line with a single vector current insertion. That is

$`A_\mu (p,\lambda ;p^{},\lambda ^{})=\overline{u}(p,\lambda )\gamma _\mu u(p^{},\lambda ^{}).`$ (15)
This kind of amplitude appears quite often in fermion production and decay processes, e.g., $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$. In the the center-of-mass(CM) system, with choosing

$`p=(p_0,0,0,p_3),p^{}=(p_0,0,0,p_3),k_0=(1,0,0,1),k_1=(0,1,0,0)`$ (16)
and using (2) the helicity amplitude $`A_\mu `$ can be can be evaluated as

$`A_\mu (p,\lambda ;p^{},\lambda ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda \lambda ^{})}{2}}(s\delta _{\mu 0}(s4m^2)\delta _{\mu 3}sk_{0\mu })`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`(\lambda ^{}\lambda )m\sqrt{s4m^2}\delta _{\mu 1}\mathrm{I}(1\lambda \lambda ^{})m\sqrt{s}\delta _{\mu 2}\}.`$
Here, m is the fermion mass, s is the CM energy square. From (17) we have

$`A_\mu (p,\lambda ;p^{},\lambda ^{})=2m\delta _{\mu 3}\mathrm{for}\lambda =\lambda ^{},`$ (18)
$`A_\mu (p,\lambda ;p^{},\lambda ^{})=\lambda \sqrt{s4m^2}\delta _{\mu 1}+\mathrm{I}\sqrt{s}\delta _{\mu 2}\mathrm{for}\lambda =\lambda ^{},`$ (19)
which are exactly the same as given in eq. (23) of Ref.  after taking a specific momentum direction there.

In summary, we provide a new approach for evaluating Feynman diagrams symbolically, which is a straightforward and efficient promotion of the methods developed in Refs.. We have presented examples in displaying the simpleness of this approach, and the new method is applicable to both massive and massless fermion amplitude calculations. Especially, since there is no restriction on the working frame, or in other words the fermion momentum directions, by this approach, it is quite convenient to encode the helicity amplitudes into a symbolic manipulating program for computer. Another advantage of the method is that the expression (2) is Lorentz index covariant, although one needs to specify the auxiliary vectors in the end for one’s convenience, which makes the intermediate steps of calculation not so tedious. In the end, we would like to mention that most phenomenological applications of massive fermion amplitudes can be improved by also including the decay of the fermions. It is often possible to factorize the problem into production and decay amplitudes, and the new technique could be used for both in principle. However, to do this much care should be paid to the helicity state conventions.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the ICTP for hospitality, while part of this work was carried out.


format: text

text:
# References

Deep inelastic $`J/\psi `$production at HERA
in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach
and its consequences on the nonrelativistic QCD
S. P. Baranov$`^{1,}`$aaa Electronic address: baranov@sci.lebedev.ru, N. P. Zotov$`^{2,}`$bbb Electronic address: zotov@theory.sinp.msu.ru
$`^1`$   P.N. Lebedev Physics Institute, Leninsky prosp. 53, Moscow 119991, Russia   $`^2`$   D.V. Skobeltzyn Institute of Nuclear Pysics,      M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119299, Russia
Short title: Deep inelastic $`J/\psi `$production at HERA
PACS numbers(s): 12.38.Bx, 13.85.Ni, 14.40.Gx
Abstract. In the framework of the $`k_T`$-factorization approach, we analyse the inclusive and inelastic production of $`J/\psi `$particles in deep inelastic $`ep`$ scattering. We take into account both colour-singlet and colour-octet production channels. We inspect the sensitivity of theoretical predictions to the choice of model parameters. Our theoretical results agree reasonably well with recent experimental data collected by the collaboration H1 at HERA.

1 Introduction

Over the last decade, investigation of the $`J/\psi `$production mechanisms in hadron-hadron and lepton-hadron collisions continues to attract significant attention from both theoretical and experimental sides. The puzzling history of $`J/\psi `$traces back to the early 1990s, when the measurements - of the $`J/\psi `$and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$hadroproduction cross sections revealed a more than one order-of-magnitude discrepancy with theoretical expectations -. This fact has induced extensive theoretical activity. In particular, it led to the introduction of a new production mechanism, the so called colour-octet model -. Since then, the colour-octet model has been believed to give the most likely explanation of the quarkonium production phenomena, although there are also some indications that it is not working well . One of the problems is connected with the photoproduction data ,  where the contribution from the colour-octet mechanism is unnecessary or even unwanted - as the experimental results can be described within the colour-singlet model alone (if the next-to-leading-order contributions are taken into account) . Another difficulty refers to the $`J/\psi `$spin alignment. If, as expected, the dominant contribution comes from the gluon fragmentation into an octet $`c\overline{c}`$pair, the mesons must have strong transverse polarization -. This is in disagreement with the data , , ,  which point to unpolarized or even longitudinally polarized mesons.

A different strategy is represented by the $`k_T`$-factorization approach - (see also recent review  and references therein). In this approach, one focuses on the resummation of “small $`x`$” logarithms (i.e., the terms $`[\text{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\alpha _s]^n`$, $`[\text{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\text{ln}(1/x)\alpha _s]^n`$, and $`[\text{ln}(1/x)\alpha _s]^n`$) to all orders in $`n`$ and takes into account the effects of finite transverse momenta of partons. The resummation results in the “unintegrated” parton distributions which generalize the QCD factorization beyond the collinear approximation.

The effects of the initial gluon transverse momentum and gluon off-shellness were shown to have an important impact on the $`J/\psi `$production properties in the photon-gluon fusion colour-singlet model , . Several attempts have been made in the literature to incorporate the colour-octet model within the $`k_T`$-factorization scheme , . An extensive analysis of the production of $`J/\psi `$, $`\chi _c`$, and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at the Fermilab Tevatron has been recently presented in Ref. . Our paper is a logical continuation of this line. Here, we concentrate on the inclusive and inelastic production of $`J/\psi `$particles by virtual photons in deep inelastic $`ep`$ scattering at HERA. The calculations are based on the $`k_T`$-factorization approach and on the nonrelativistic QCD formalism where we take into account both colour-singlet and colour-octet channels.

The outline of the article is as follows. First, in Sec. 2, we briefly recall the basic principles of the colour-singlet and colour-octet models and explain their extension to the $`k_T`$-factorization approach. The necessary technical details are described in Sec. 3. The numerical results followed by a discussion are displayed in Sec. 4. Finally, the concluding remarks are collected in Sec. 5.

2 Theoretical framework

In the framework of the colour-singlet approach -, the production of any heavy meson is described as the perturbative production of a colour-singlet $`Q\overline{Q}`$pair in a state with properly arranged the quantum numbers, according to the quarkonium state under consideration. For the production of $`J/\psi `$particles, the relevant partonic subprocess is

$`\gamma +g`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}[1]+g,`$ (1)
where we follow the standard spectroscopic notations, and the number in the brackets stands for the colour representation of the $`c\overline{c}`$pair. The corresponding Feynman diagrams are depicted in Fig. 1(a) (assuming also five possible permutations of the photon and gluon lines). The formation of a meson from the quark pair is a nonperturbative process. Within the nonrelativistic approximation which we are using, this probability reduces to a single parameter related to the meson wave function at the origin $`|(0)|^2`$, which is known for the $`J/\psi `$and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$families from the measured leptonic decay widths.

In addition to the above, we consider the colour-octet production scheme -, which implies that the heavy $`Q\overline{Q}`$pair is perturbatively created in a hard subprocess as an octet colour state and subsequently evolves into a physical quarkonium state via emitting soft (nonperturbative) gluons, which may be interpreted as a series of “classical” colour-dipole transitions. Although these transition probabilities can, in principle, be expressed in terms of field operators and therefore calculated, no such calculation exists to date. Thus, the transition probabilities remain free parameters, which are assumed to obey a definite hierarchy in powers of $`v`$, the relative velocity of the quarks in the bound system under study. This freedom is commonly used to estimate the colour-octet parameters by adjusting them to experimental data.

In the case when the colour-octet $`Q\overline{Q}`$state is allowed, there appear additional contributions from the diagram of Fig. 1(a) and another set of diagrams shown in Figs. 1(b) and 1(c) (including all possible permutations). The graphs shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) correspond to the following partonic subprocesses

$`\gamma +g`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}[8]+g,`$ (2)
$`\gamma +g`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}[8]+g,`$ (3)
$`\gamma +g`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}[8]+g,`$ (4)
while the ones shown in Fig. 1(c) refer to the subprocesses

$`\gamma +g`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}[8],`$ (5)
$`\gamma +g`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}[8].`$ (6)
(The production of $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}[8]`$ state in a $`21`$ photon-gluon fusion process is forbidden by the colour and charge parity conservation.) Although the $`22`$ subprocesses (2)-(4) are of formally subleading order in $`\alpha _s`$ in comparison with (5)-(6), their role cannot be regarded as small. Since they contribute to very different regions of the phase space, they even can dominate over the $`21`$ subprocesses under the experimental conditions. We will discuss this in more detail in Sec. 4. Note also that the $`22`$ subprocesses are indispensable for the inelastic events (i.e., the events with large final state hadron mass).

The colour-octet matrix elements (usually denoted in the literature as $`0|𝒪_8|0`$) responsible for the nonperturbative transitions in (2)-(6) are related to the fictituous colour-octet wave functions, that are used in calculations in place of the ordinary colour-singlet wave functions:

$$0|𝒪_8|0=\frac{9}{2\pi }|_8(0)|^2=\frac{9}{2\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi |\mathrm{\Psi }_8(0)|^2.$$

This equation applies to all $`S`$-wave colour-octet states, and a similar relation holds for $`_8^{}(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_8^{}(0)`$ if the $`P`$-wave colour-octet states are involved. For the sake of uniformity, we will be consistently using the notation in terms of $`(0)`$ and $`^{}(0)`$ for both colour-singlet and colour-octet contributions.

A generalization of the above formalism to the $`k_T`$-factorization approach implies two important steps. These are the introduction of noncollinear gluon distributions (which we show here) and the modification of the gluon spin density matrix in the parton level matrix elements (which we explain in the next section).

In the numerical analysis, we have tried two different sets of $`k_T`$-dependent gluon densities. In the approach of Ref.  based on a leading-order perturbative solution of the Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL)  equation, the unintegrated gluon density $`_g(x,k_T^2,\mu ^2)`$ is calculated as a convolution of the ordinary (collinear) gluon density $`G(x,\mu ^2)`$ with universal weight factors:

$$_g(x,k_T^2,\mu ^2)=_x^1𝒢(\eta ,k_T^2,\mu ^2)\frac{x}{\eta }G(\frac{x}{\eta },\mu ^2)𝑑\eta ,$$
(7)
$$𝒢(\eta ,k_T^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\eta k_T^2}J_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{ln}(1/\eta )\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/k_T^2)}),k_T^2<\mu ^2,$$
(8)
$$𝒢(\eta ,k_T^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\eta k_T^2}I_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{ln}(1/\eta )\mathrm{ln}(k_T^2/\mu ^2)}),k_T^2>\mu ^2,$$
(9)
where $`\mu `$ is the factorization scale, $`J_0`$ and $`I_0`$ stand for Bessel functions (of real and imaginary arguments, respectively), and $`\overline{\alpha }_s=3\alpha _s/\pi `$. In the leading-order approximation, the parameter $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ is connected to the Pomeron intercept $`\alpha (0)=1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{ln}2`$. We use the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ as it is accepted in many other our papers ( and references therein).

Another parametrization is based on the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP)  evolution equation. This approach was originally proposed in ,  and is now frequently discussed in the literature , . It recalls the kinematic relation between the virtuality $`q^2`$ and the transverse momentum $`k_T`$ of a parton: $`q^2=k_T^2/(1x)`$. Consequently, the ordinary gluon density $`G(x,q^2)`$ may be considered as giving the $`k_T^2`$ distribution also. In this approach, the unintegrated gluon density is derived from the “collinear” density by simply differentiating it with respect to $`q^2`$:

$$_g(x,k_T^2,\mu ^2=k_T^2)=\frac{d}{dq^2}G(x,q^2)|_{q^2=k_T^2}.$$
(10)
As the BFKL and DGLAP equations are known to collect different logarithms, we find it worth exploring the numerical consequences of this difference. For consistency, the same leading-order (LO) GRV set  was used in both cases as the input collinear density.

3 Matrix elements and differential cross section

At first, we consider the relevant $`22`$ partonic subprocesses as they are given by the photon-gluon fusion mechanism. Let $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$, $`k_3`$, $`p_c`$, and $`p_{\overline{c}}`$ be the momenta of the incoming virtual photon and gluon, the outgoing gluon and the outgoing heavy (charmed) quark and antiquark, respectively; $`ϵ_1`$, $`ϵ_2`$, and $`ϵ_3`$ the photon and gluon polarization vectors; $`m_c`$ the quark mass, $`m_\psi =2m_c`$, $`k=k_2k_3`$, and $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ the eight-fold colour indices of the incoming gluon, the outgoing gluon, and the (coloured) $`c\overline{c}`$state. We also introduce the projection operator $`J(S,L)`$, which guarantees the proper spin and orbital angular momentum of the $`c\overline{c}`$state under consideration. Then, the photon-gluon fusion matrix elements read

$`_a(\gamma g\psi g)=tr\{\mathit{ϵ̸}_1(\mathit{}_c\mathit{}_1+m_c)\mathit{ϵ̸}_2(\mathit{}_{\overline{c}}\mathit{}_3+m_c)\mathit{ϵ̸}_3J(S,L)\}`$
$`\times C_\psi tr\{T^aT^bT^c\}[k_1^22(p_ck_1)]^1[k_3^2+2(p_{\overline{c}}k_3)]^1\text{ + 5 permutations},`$ (11)
$`_b(\gamma g\psi g)=tr\{\mathit{ϵ̸}_1(\mathit{}_c\mathit{}_1+m_c)\gamma _\mu J(S,L)\}iG^{(3)}(k_2,ϵ_2,k_3,ϵ_3,k,\mu )`$
$`\times C_\psi f^{abd}tr\{T^cT^d\}[k_1^22(p_ck_1)]^1[k^2]^1\text{ + 1 permutation}.`$ (12)
In the above expression, $`G^{(3)}`$ is related to the standard QCD three-gluon coupling

$$G^{(3)}(p,\lambda ,q,\mu ,k,\nu )=(qp)^\nu g^{\lambda \mu }+(kq)^\lambda g^{\mu \nu }+(pk)^\mu g^{\nu \lambda }.$$
(13)
The factor represented by the $`SU(3)`$ generator matrix $`T^c`$ has to be replaced by the unity matrix if the outgoing $`c\overline{c}`$state is a colour singlet. The coefficient $`C_\psi `$ stands for the normalization of the $`c\overline{c}`$colour wave function and is equal to $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ and $`1/2`$ for the singlet and octet states, respectively.

The projection operator $`J(S,L)`$ reads for the different spin and orbital angular momentum states -:

$`J(^1S_0)J(S=0,L=0)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5(\mathit{}_c+m_c)/m_\psi ^{1/2},`$ (14)
$`J(^3S_1)J(S=1,L=0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathit{ϵ̸}(S_z)(\mathit{}_c+m_c)/m_\psi ^{1/2},`$ (15)
$`J(^3P_J)J(S=1,L=1)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathit{}_{\overline{c}}m_c)\mathit{ϵ̸}(S_z)(\mathit{}_c+m_c)/m_\psi ^{3/2}.`$ (16)
States with various projections of the spin momentum onto the $`z`$ axis are represented by the polarization vector $`ϵ(S_z)`$.

In the nonrelativistic approximation which we are using, the relative momentum $`q`$ of the quarks in the bound state is treated as a small quantity. So, it is useful to represent the quark momenta as follows:

$$p_c=\frac{1}{2}p_\psi +q,p_{\overline{c}}=\frac{1}{2}p_\psi q,$$
(17)
where $`p_\psi `$ is the momentum of the final state quarkonium. The probability for the two quarks to form a meson depends on the bound state wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q)`$. Therefore, we multiply the matrix elements (11)–(12) by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q)`$ and perform integration with respect to $`q`$. The integration is performed after expanding the integrand around $`q=0`$:

$$(q)=|_{q=0}+q^\alpha (/q^\alpha )|_{q=0}+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
Since the expressions for $`|_{q=0}`$, $`(/q^\alpha )|_{q=0}`$, etc., are no longer dependent on $`q`$, they may be factored outside the integral sign. A term-by-term integration of this series then yields :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}(x=0),`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}q^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }(q)}=iϵ^\alpha (L_z){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}^{}(x=0),`$ (20)
etc., where $`(x)`$ is the spatial component of the wave function in the coordinate representation (the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q)`$). The first term contributes only to $`S`$-waves, but vanishes for $`P`$-waves because $`_P(0)=0`$. On the contrary, the second term contributes only to $`P`$-waves, but vanishes for $`S`$-waves because $`_S^{}(0)=0`$. States with various projections of the orbital angular momentum onto the $`z`$ axis are represented by the polarization vector $`ϵ(L_z)`$.

The polarization vectors $`ϵ(S_z)`$ and $`ϵ(L_z)`$ are defined as explicit four-vectors. In the frame where the $`z`$ axis is oriented along the quarkonium momentum vector, $`p_\psi =(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},|p_\psi |,E_\psi )`$, these polarization vectors read:

$$ϵ(\pm 1)=(1,\pm i,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})/\sqrt{2},ϵ(0)=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},E_\psi ,|p_\psi |)/m_\psi .$$
(21)
States with definite $`S_z`$ and $`L_z`$ can be translated into states with definite total momentum $`J`$ and its projection $`J_z`$ using the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients:

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu }(J,J_z)=\underset{L_z,S_z}{}1,L_z;1,S_z|J,J_zϵ^\mu (L_z)ϵ^\nu (S_z).$$
(22)
As far as the gluon spin density matrix is concerned, one should take into account that gluons generated in the parton evolution cascade do carry non-negligeable transverse momentum and are off mass shell. One can trace a clear analogy between the $`k_T`$-factorization approach and the equivalent photon approximation in QED showing that the polarization properties of the off-shell incoming gluon are similar to those of the incoming virtual photon. The off-shell photon spin density matrix is given by the full lepton tensor

$$\overline{ϵ^\mu ϵ^\nu }L^{\mu \nu }=8p^\mu p^\nu 4(pk)g^{\mu \nu },$$
(23)
where $`p`$ is the momentum of the beam particle, and $`k`$ is the momentum of the emitted photon. A similar anzatz (Eq. (24), see below) is used in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach. Neglecting the second term in the right hand side of (23) in the small $`x`$ limit, $`pk`$, one arrives at the spin structure $`\overline{ϵ^\mu ϵ^\nu }p^\mu p^\nu `$. The latter can be rewritten in the form

$$\overline{ϵ^\mu ϵ^\nu }=k_T^\mu k_T^\nu /|k_T|^2,$$
(24)
where we have represented the 4-momentum $`k`$ as $`k=xp+k_T`$ and applied a gauge shift $`ϵ^\mu ϵ^\mu k^\mu /x`$. This formula converges to the usual $`ϵ^\mu ϵ^\nu =g^{\mu \nu }`$ when $`k_T0`$. In the present calculations, we use Equ. (23) for virtual photons, and Equ. (24) for off-shell gluons. The expressions (23) and (24) merge with each other in the ultrahigh energy limit. The effect of the second term in (23) at HERA energies is found to be about 5 to 10 percent . As we will see in Section 4, the presence of longitudinal components in the off-shell gluon spin density matrix has important impact on the quarkonium polarization. The final state gluon in (11)-(12) is assumed on-shell, $`ϵ_3^\mu ϵ_3^\nu =g^{\mu \nu }`$. The evaluation of the traces in Eqs. (11)-(12) is straightforward and is done using the algebraic manipulation system FORM .

To calculate the cross section of a physical process we have to multiply the matrix elements squared by the gluon distribution functions and perform integration over the final state phase space. The multiparticle phase space $`d^3p_i/(2E_i)\delta ^4(p_{in}p_{out})`$ is parametrized in terms of transverse momenta, rapidities, and azimuthal angles: $`d^3p_i/(2E_i)`$=$`(\pi /2)dp_{iT}^2dy_id\varphi _i/(2\pi )`$. Let $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ be the azimuthal angles of the scattered electron and the initial gluon, and $`y_\psi `$, $`y_3`$, $`\varphi _\psi `$, and $`\varphi _3`$ the rapidities and the azimuthal angles of the $`J/\psi `$particle and the coproduced gluon. Then, the fully differential cross section reads:

$`d\sigma (epe^{}\psi X)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2\alpha ^2e_c^2|(0)|^2}{16\pi x_2s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{spins}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{colours}}{}}|(\gamma g\psi g)|^2`$
$`\times _g(x_2,k_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)dk_{1T}^2dk_{2T}^2dp_{\psi T}^2dy_3dy_\psi {\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _\psi }{2\pi }}.`$ (25)
The phase space physical boundary is determined by the inequality

$$G(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},k_3^2,k_1^2,k_2^2,m_\psi ^2)0,$$
(26)
where $`\widehat{s}=(k_1+k_2)^2`$, $`\widehat{t}=(k_1p_\psi )^2`$, and $`G`$ is the standard kinematic function .

The initial gluon momentum fractions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are calculated from the energy-momentum conservation laws in the light cone projections:

$`(k_1+k_2)_{E+p_{||}}=x_1\sqrt{s}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\psi T}\mathrm{exp}(y_\psi )+|k_{3T}|\mathrm{exp}(y_3),`$
$`(k_1+k_2)_{Ep_{||}}=x_2\sqrt{s}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\psi T}\mathrm{exp}(y_\psi )+|k_{3T}|\mathrm{exp}(y_3),`$
$`m_{\psi T}=(m_\psi ^2+|p_{\psi T}|^2)^{1/2}`$. Here, we preserve exact kinematics and do not neglect the “small” light-cone component of the gluon momentum. The multidimensional integration in Eq. (25) has been performed by means of the Monte-Carlo technique, using the routine VEGAS .

4 Numerical results and discussion

We start the discussion by presenting a comparison between our theoretical calculations and experimental data collected by the H1 collaboration at HERA . The collaboration reports on the measurement of a number of differential cross sections: $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\psi }^2`$, $`d\sigma /dp_{T,\psi }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, $`d\sigma /dz`$, $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$, $`d\sigma /dy`$, $`d\sigma /dy^{}`$, and $`d\sigma /dW`$, where $`p_{T,\psi }`$ and $`p_{T,\psi }^{}`$ are the $`J/\psi `$transverse momenta in the laboratory and $`\gamma ^{}p`$ center-of-mass systems, respectively, $`z`$ is the $`J/\psi `$inelasticity variable defined as $`z=(p_\psi p_p)/(k_1p_p)`$, $`Q^2=k_1^2`$ is the photon virtuality, $`y`$ and $`y^{}`$ are the $`J/\psi `$rapidities in the laboratory and $`\gamma ^{}p`$ systems, and $`W`$ is the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ invariant energy. The data collected in the kinematic range 2 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}<Q^2<100`$ GeV2, 50 GeV $`<W<`$ 225 GeV, $`0.3<z<0.9`$, $`p_{T,\psi }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>1`$ GeV2 will be referred to as “sample 1” (see Fig. 2), while the data collected in the kinematic range 12 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}<Q^2<100`$ GeV2, 50 GeV$`<W<`$225 GeV, $`0.3<z<0.9`$, $`p_{T,\psi }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>1`$ GeV2, $`p_{T,\psi }^2>6.4`$ GeV2 will be referred to as “sample 2” (see Fig. 3).

On the theoretical side, we have examined the sensitivity of model predictions to the choice of the gluon distribution functions, the renormalization scale in the strong coupling constant, the value of the quark mass, and the values of the nonperturbative colour-octet matrix elements.

The effect of the different equations (BFKL versus DGLAP) which govern the evolution of gluon densities is found to be as large as a factor of 2 in the production cross section. This is illustrated by a comparison of dash-dotted and dashed histograms in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Note, however, that the parametrizations which we have used here represent two extreme cases, so that most of the other parametrizations available in the literature may be expected to lie in between our curves (see , ).

A similar effect is connected with the renormalization scale $`\mu ^2`$ in the running coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$. The calculations made with $`\mu ^2=k_{2T}^2`$ and $`\mu ^2=m_{\psi T}^2`$ are represented by the dash-dotted and dotted histograms in Figs. 2 and 3. Note that the setting $`\mu ^2=k_{2T}^2`$ is only possible in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach, while it is meaningless in the collinear calculations where the parton transverse momentum is neglected: $`k_{2T}0`$.

The quark mass plays in the calculations two essentially different roles. The “current” mass $`m_c`$ is present in the expressions for the perturbative matrix elements (11)-(12). The “constituent” mass determines the phase space of the reaction via its connection to the physical mass of the final state, $`m_\psi =2m_c`$. However, it is worth pointing out that this connection is not strict. In fact, it may be violated by the effects of binding energy and internal quark motion . The sensitivity of model predictions to the quark mass setting was examined in a toy calculation, where the “current” mass $`m_c`$ and the “constituent” mass $`m_\psi /2`$ were treated as independent parameters. We found that the production cross section is only sensitive to the “constituent” mass but remains rather stable against variations in the “current” mass. In the rest of the paper we will be always using $`m_c=m_\psi /2=1.55`$ GeV.

The contributions from the $`21`$ colour-octet subprocesses are cut away by the experimental restriction $`z<0.9`$. Turning to the $`22`$ colour-octet contributions, one has to take care about the infrared instability of the relevant matrix elements. In a rigorous approach, one has to consider the corresponding $`21`$ subprocesses at next-to-leading order. Then, the interference between the LO and NLO contributions must cancel the divergent parts of the $`22`$ subprocesses. Such calculations have been performed in the collinear factorization in . Since the corresponding results are not yet available in the $`k_T`$-facctorization, we use an approximate phenomenological approach. In order to restrict the $`22`$ subprocesses to the perturbative domain, we introduce the regularization parameter $`q_{\text{reg}}^2`$, so that all propagators are kept away from their poles by a distance not less than $`q_{\text{reg}}^2`$. It may be argued that the nonperturbative parts of the $`22`$ subprocesses can be absorbed into $`21`$ subprocesses; that is, when the emitted gluon is soft, one can consider the final state as represented by a single particle rather than by two. This our suggestion is similar to the one made in papers -,  in the usual factorization scheme. In this approach, the regularization parameter $`q_{\text{reg}}^2`$ in the $`22`$ processes and the nonperturbative colour-octet matrix elements in the $`21`$ processes must be correlated  to avoid double counting between the hard and soft gluons in the final state (and so, to avoid sensitivity of the results to the choice of $`q_{\text{reg}}^2`$). The numerical results shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are obtained with setting $`q_{\text{reg}}^2=1`$ GeV2 (which may be regarded as the lower limit of the perturbative domain).

The results shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are obtained with the nonperturbative colour-octet matrix elements of Ref. . If the values exracted from the recent analysis  were used unstead, the contribution from the colour-octet states would be a factor of 5 lower111The nonperturbative matrix elements given in Ref.  are as follows: $`|_{{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{1}}(0)|^2=8\times 10^1`$ GeV3, $`|_{{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{8}}(0)|^2=8\times 10^3`$ GeV3, $`|_{{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{8}}(0)|^2=8\times 10^3`$ GeV3, $`|_{{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{8}}^{}(0)|^2=7\times 10^3`$ GeV5. According to , the $`^1S_0^8`$ and $`^3P_J^8`$ matrix elements should be reduced by a factor of 5, while the $`^3S_1^8`$ matrix element should be reduced by at least a factor of 50 or enven set to 0. This violates the naive nonrelativistic QCD scaling rules, but is consistent with estimates obtained within the $`k_T`$-factorization approach by other athors , .. Irrespective to the particular choice of the nonperturbative matrix elements, the production of $`J/\psi `$particles at the conditions under study is not dominated by the colour-octet mechanism. This conclusion is also supported by an independent analysis  of recent ZEUS photoproduction data . In general, the data are consistent with the predictions of the colour-singlet model and lie within the theoretical band provided by reasonable variations in model parameters. Although no need is seen in the colour-octet contributions, their presence does not lead to serious discrepancies in the visible kinematic area.

We find it instructive to proceed the discussion by presenting a comparison with another data displayed by the H1 collaboration in their earlier publication . The data collected in the range 2 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}<Q^2<80`$ GeV2, 40 GeV $`<W<`$ 180 GeV, $`z>0.2`$ constitute two correlated samples. In the “inelastic” sample, an additional cut on the final state hadron mass was applied, $`M_X>10`$ GeV, while the sample without any additional cuts is referred to as “inclusive”.

Although these data are, probably, less convincing in statistics, they are more useful and interesting from the theoretical point of view. Firstly, in the inclusive production sample, the high-$`z`$ kinematic range $`z1`$ provides an access to the $`21`$ colour-octet contributions. Secondly, the cut on the final state hadron mass $`M_X`$ in the inelastic sample prevents the $`22`$ colour-octet matrix elements from infrared divergence.

In Fig. 4, we present a comparison between the data and our predictions for the inelastic production. The final state hadron mass $`M_X`$ is calculated as the invariant mass of the proton remnant and the final state gluon produced in the $`22`$ subprocesses (1)-(4). The requirement that the final state mass $`M_X`$ be large means that the final state gluon must be hard. Thus, the theoretical estimates of the colour octet contributions are no longer dependent on the artificial regularization parameter $`q_{\text{reg}}^2`$. One can see that the data are reasonably described within the colour-singlet production mechanism, and the colour-octet contributions are not needed. Moreover, the colour-octet contributions to the high-$`z`$ region look even superfluous. The overall situation seems to favour the low values of the nonperturbative matrix elements proposed in .

In the inclusive production sample (see Fig. 5), a significant deficit is seen in the $`z`$-distribution at $`z1`$, although the intermediate values of $`z`$ are described quite well. In the $`J/\psi `$transverse momentum spectrum, the deficit is only seen at low $`p_{T,\psi }`$, while there is no discrepancy at higher $`p_{T,\psi }`$ values. These properties may be taken as an indication that the inclusive sample contains large contributions from diffractive processes. As a consequence, our calculations underestimate the absolute $`J/\psi `$production rate by a factor of 3.

We conclude the discussion by presenting our results on the $`J/\psi `$spin alignment in Fig. 6. The data are expressed in terms of the leptonic decay angular parameter $`\alpha `$, which characterizes the azimuthal angle distribution measured in the $`J/\psi `$rest frame with respect to a given reference axis: $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ll}1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$. The cases $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\alpha =1`$ correspond to transverse and longitudinal polarizations of the $`J/\psi `$meson, respectively. Our calculations show that the fraction of longitudinally polarized mesons increases with increasing $`Q^2`$, which is a consequence of the enhancement of the longitudinal component in the polarization vector of a virtual photon. Unfortunately, the experimental data are rather indefinitive. In this case, we can derive no conclusions on the agreement or disagreement between the theory and experiment.

In the situation which we consider, the effects of the gluon off-shellness are shadowed by the effects of highly virtual photons and are not clearly visible. At a different situation, when either the initial photons are real or the process is mediated by gluons only, the $`J/\psi `$polarization properties are found to be perfectly compatible with the predictions of the $`k_T`$-factorization approach, as it was demonstrated earlier in Refs. ,  and  devoted to the analysis of $`J/\psi `$photoproduction and hadroproduction data.

5 Conclusion

Here we have addressed the issue of performing a global analysis of quarkonium electroproduction within the $`k_T`$-factorization approach. The state of the art has not yet reached the precise quantitative level. There are uncertainties connected with the choice of unintegrated gluon densities, the renormalization scale in the strong coupling constant, the inclusion of next-to-leading-order subprocesses, and the nonperturbative colour-octet transitions.

At the same time, the $`k_T`$-factorization approach shows a number of important achievements. As a general feature, the model behavior is found to be perfectly compatible with the available data on the production of various quarkonium states at modern colliders. The model succeeds in describing the $`p_T`$-spectra of $`J/\psi `$, $`\chi _c`$, and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons at the Fermilab Tevatron and provides a consistent picture of the production of $`J/\psi `$mesons by real and virtual photons at HERA (as it was demonstrated earlier in Refs. ,  and ). The model even succeeds in describing the polarization phenomena observed in both $`pp`$ and $`ep`$ interactions, thus providing an important insight for solving a long-term puzzle.

As a result of the complex interplay of all theoretical uncertainties, the numerical analysis becomes rather umbiguous. The electroproduction data can be successfully described within the leading-order colour-singlet mechanism alone. No need is seen in the colour-octet contributions. At the same time, there are no serious contradictions with the data if the colour-octet contributions are included. The effects of the different unintegrated gluon distributions can hardly be separated from the effects connected with the running coupling constant.

Acknowledgments

One of us (N.Z.) was supported in part by Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant RFBR 02-02-17513.


text:
# Fitting Dynamical Models to Observations of Globular Clusters

## 1. Introduction

The dynamical modeling of globular clusters has a long and rich history that intersects repeatedly with fundamental developments in modern astrophysics. A flavour of this history has already been given by G. Meylan in his introduction to this volume, and a fuller account may be found in the review of Meylan & Heggie (1997). In this shorter contribution, it is necessary to omit discussion of a wide range of interesting and important topics, many of which are also covered thoroughly by Meylan & Heggie and updated by other articles in the present proceedings. Thus, the following does not consider any details of the approach of a dense stellar system to a relaxed state, nor indeed any aspect of the “microphysics” of dynamical evolution (evaporation, core collapse and oscillations, the approach to energy equipartition, the role of binaries, three-body encounters, and more). Instead, the focus is on the comparison of dynamical models with only the most basic of cluster observables: surface-brightness profiles and internal stellar velocity distributions along the line of sight and in the plane of the sky. The valuable addition of data on present-day stellar mass functions is also left to other discussions. Even in this already limited context, it is necessary to distinguish between at least three classes of model that are in play.

First is the classic approach pioneered by King (1966a) and Gunn & Griffin (1979) (see also Lupton et al. 1987), in which a static cluster is assumed and a parametric form for the stellar phase-space distribution function (DF) specified at the outset. Basic equations of stellar dynamics are then applied to compute self-consistent spatial densities and velocity moments that can be compared (after projection) to data in order to constrain the parameters of the assumed DF. Although this approach can be restrictive in the sense that it forces a functional form on the DF that might not be appropriate in reality, it is conceptually very well defined, computationally accessible on any desktop computer, and impressively successful. It has been applied, at varying levels of complexity, to almost every one of the $``$150 globular clusters in the Milky Way, and to many in other galaxies as well.

Second are non-parametric analyses, which still assume a static equilibrium but begin by constructing smooth and robust functions that describe the observed run of surface brightness and velocity dispersion. Abel-type deprojections are then applied to these to derive the intrinsic density and velocity fields, and an estimate of a phase-space DF whose functional form is dictated more directly by the data (but not completely so, since additional, and restrictive, assumptions—such as velocity isotropy—are always required in the end to extract the DF from deprojected velocities and space densities). These techniques have been applied to only a few individual globulars (e.g., Gebhardt & Fischer 1995; Merritt et al. 1997).

Third, evolutionary models that rely on direct integrations of the Fokker-Planck equation (a second-order approximation to the full, time-dependent statistical mechanical master equation for the stellar DF, which includes the effects of gravitational scattering) can be used to construct a detailed history of a theoretical cluster, and thus a sequence of models vs. time for comparison with observation. This approach is the most physically rich by far of the three, as it allows potentially for the inclusion of much of the detailed microphysics mentioned above. It is computationally intensive, however, and still requires certain assumptions on the underlying stellar dynamics to be made for practical reasons. It has only been applied to a handful of clusters (Drukier et al. 1992; Grabhorn et al. 1992; Drukier 1995; Dull et al. 1997; Giersz & Heggie 2003).

Aside from these established procedures, it should soon be possible to compare still more general and realistic types of models with globular cluster observations; indeed, the amount and variety of surface-brightness, radial-velocity, proper-motion, and mass-function data now becoming available for individual clusters fairly demand it. Adaptations of the orbit-based modeling technique long applied to galaxies (Schwarzschild 1979; Richstone & Tremaine 1984) are promising as a new way to static cluster models that assume nothing a priori about the form of the stellar distribution function or the shape of the stellar velocity ellipsoid (e.g., Gebhardt et al. 2002); and direct $`N`$-body simulations that require only the input of correct initial conditions to produce star-by-star models of clusters are not far off.

The following discussion reviews some aspects of the first class of models based on parametric prescriptions for the stellar distribution function. This might seem almost old-fashioned in the light of “new horizons” in globular cluster astronomy. But insofar as all models should be expected to fail at some point, progress comes as much from a clear view of their limitations as from their successes. It is also worth bearing in mind that, with the HST, the internal structure of globular clusters outside the Milky Way and beyond the Local Group can now be observed. The relative simplicity of the current and foreseeable data on extragalactic clusters makes them similar in many ways to those that were available for Galactic globulars twenty years ago or more, and the simple models which provided so much insight then are no less useful now.

## 2. Single-mass, isotropic, lowered isothermal spheres

All modern parametric models of globular clusters are founded in the statistical theory of stellar dynamics developed in the first half of the twentieth century (see, e.g., Spitzer 1987 for a history). A key concept in this connection is the relaxation time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{relax}}`$—the characteristic timescale on which the velocity of a star in a cluster will change by order of itself as a result of gravitational encounters (Spitzer & Hart 1971). The value of $`\tau _{\mathrm{relax}}`$ is a function of position in a cluster—it scales fundamentally as $`\sigma ^3/\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are the density and rms velocity of the stellar field in the cluster—and is commonly evaluated both in the core and at the radius containing half the total cluster light (or mass) in projection. Figure 1 is a histogram of the core and half-mass relaxation times in Galactic globular clusters, taken from Harris’ (1996) online catalogue of cluster properties (see also Djorgovski 1993). This graphically illustrates the well known fact that the inner regions of globular clusters tend to be dynamically relaxed: $`\tau _{\mathrm{relax}}`$ there is usually shorter than the age of the systems.

It is worth recalling, however, that this is not generally the case in the outer regions of the clusters (von Hörner 1957). If $`R_h`$ is the projected half-mass radius of a cluster, then—anticipating the fact that an average Galactic globular can be described by a King (1966a) model with a concentration parameter $`c1.5`$—half the cluster mass is contained in the shell $`R_h<r<4R_h`$ (still only $`1/3`$ of the way to the tidal radius). The average velocity dispersion of stars in this shell is perhaps 75% that of the inner sphere $`rR_h`$, while the average density of the shell is a factor of 50 lower than that inside $`rR_h`$. The relaxation time in this outer shell is then $`50\times (0.75)^320`$ times longer than that at the half-mass radius; it becomes comparable to or longer than a Hubble time in most cases.

The importance of relaxation is that it drives the stellar velocity distribution towards a Maxwellian form, $`n(v)\mathrm{exp}(v^2/2\sigma ^2)`$, and on the basis of Fig. 1 this fact must be reflected in any phase-space distribution function (DF: $`fd^6N/d^3𝐫d^3𝐯`$) specified as a model for globular clusters. In addition, Jeans (1915) and Lynden-Bell (1962a) showed that the DF of a collisionless and steady-state stellar system (one which is described by the collisionless Boltzmann equation, $`df/dt=0`$) is a function only of its isolating integrals of motion (those quantities that are conserved along a stellar orbit and that work to confine it to a finite volume of phase space). There are at most three isolating integrals for a star moving in three spatial dimensions: its orbital energy $`E`$; one derived from its angular momentum vector $`𝐋`$ (e.g., the magnitude $`L^2`$ in a spherically symmetric self-gravitating system with an anisotropic velocity ellipsoid; but only the component $`L_z`$ in an axisymmetric and rotating configuration); and a third (say, $`I_3`$) which is calculable in closed form for only a handful of simple gravitational potentials (e.g., Lynden-Bell 1962b; Lynden-Bell 2003).

A third important fact is that a globular cluster moving in the potential of the Galaxy is necessarily limited in its spatial extent by tidal forces. This effect is typically included approximately in models by a simple truncation of the specified DF at high stellar energies corresponding to motion at the escape velocity (though see, e.g., Kashlinsky 1988 and Heggie & Ramamani 1995 for alternate approaches).

These points were brought together in different ways for models of globular clusters by many authors, in a flurry of papers in the 1960s (e.g., Oort & van Herk 1959; Woolley & Dickens 1961; Michie 1961, 1963; Michie & Bodenheimer 1963; King 1965, 1966a; see King 1966a for a review to that point). King’s incisive presentation of his particular model in observational terms was a key factor in its dominance throughout the following decades.

King (1966a) assumed a spherical cluster of identical-mass stars with no net streaming motions, and an isotropic velocity ellipsoid so that the only isolating integral of motion is the orbital energy, $`E`$ \[thus, the DF is $`f=f(E)`$\]. With the further impositions of a near-Maxwellian velocity distribution for tightly bound stars ($`E0`$) and a tidal cut-off represented by a linear dependence $`fE`$ as $`E0`$, his model is defined by $`f(E)\rho _0\left(2\pi \sigma _0^2\right)^{3/2}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(E/\sigma _0^2\right)1\right]`$ for $`E=v^2/2\varphi (r)<0`$ (with $`\varphi =E=0`$ defining the tidal radius), and by $`f(E)0`$ for all $`E0`$. The definition $`\rho _0^{\mathrm{}}4\pi v^2f(E)𝑑v`$ gives $`\rho (\varphi )/\rho _0`$—the stellar space density, normalized by its central value, as a function of the gravitational potential—and integration of Poisson’s equation $`d^2\varphi /dr^2+(2/r)d\varphi /dr=4\pi G\rho (\varphi )`$ gives $`\varphi /\sigma _0^2`$ and then $`\rho /\rho _0`$ as functions of a dimensionless radius $`r/r_0`$. This implicit procedure yields the dimensionless tidal radius, $`r_t/r_0`$, at which $`\rho =\varphi =0`$. It is subject only to the specification of one free boundary condition: the value $`W_0=\varphi (0)/\sigma _0^2`$ of the dimensionless potential at the center of the cluster. Finally, the one-dimensional velocity-dispersion profile, $`\sigma ^2/\sigma _0^2`$, follows from $`d(\rho \sigma ^2)/dr=\rho d\varphi /dr`$.

A single parameter \[$`W_0(0,\mathrm{})`$, or equivalently the concentration parameter $`c\mathrm{log}(r_t/r_0)`$\] thus serves to specify fully the internal structure of a King (1966a) model in dimensionless form. For comparison with a real cluster, density and velocity profiles as functions of physical radius are obtained by specifying the additional factors $`\rho _0`$, $`\sigma _0`$, and $`r_0`$ \[only two of which are independent, since $`r_0^2=9\sigma _0^2/(4\pi G\rho _0)`$ by dimensional analysis of Poisson’s equation\]. Standard projection integrals applied to these functions yield a directly observable line-of-sight velocity-dispersion profile, $`\sigma _z(R)`$ and a surface mass density profile $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)`$ as functions of projected radius $`R`$ in the plane of the sky. Finally, a mass-to-light ratio, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ (spatially constant under the assumption of a single-mass stellar population), is applied to obtain a model for the observable luminosity surface density profile: $`I(R)\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$. Thus, the fitting of a King(1966) model to data ultimately involves four free parameters to be constrained.

Figure 2 shows (following King 1966a) a grid of dimensionless model profiles in projection. Again, although five different parameters ($`c`$, and the four scaling factors) can be counted here, only four are independent given the necessary connection between $`r_0`$, $`\rho _0`$ and $`\sigma _0`$. Evidently, fitting a model intensity profile to an observed one is sufficient to predict the shape of the velocity-dispersion profile, modulo only a normalization linked to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$. Note also that the velocity scale $`\sigma _0`$ is not the same, in general, as the central velocity dispersion, although the two are close in high-concentration (closely isothermal) models.

It is interesting to consider in slightly more detail the form of the high-energy cut-off in the otherwise Maxwellian DF specified by King (1966a):

$$f(E)\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{exp}\left(E/\sigma _0^2\right)1\hfill & ,& E<0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ,& E0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which was also adopted by Michie (1963). There is theoretical justification for this particular cut-off—which leads to $`f(E)E`$ as $`E0`$—in a relaxed and isolated cluster whose sphericity is unperturbed by tidal forces (King 1965; Spitzer & Shapiro 1971). However (as Fig. 2 illustrates), the exclusion of high-velocity stars from the DF affects the spatial structure in the outer halo of a model cluster, a region which in real globulars is neither relaxed nor unperturbed by tides. Other simple truncations of a single-mass and isotropic Maxwellian DF have been considered in the literature, such as (among others) the more sudden one of Woolley & Dickens (1961):

$$f(E)\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{exp}\left(E/\sigma _0^2\right)\hfill & ,& E<0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ,& E0;\hfill \end{array}$$

and the more gradual one of Wilson (1975):

$$f(E)\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{exp}\left(E/\sigma _0^2\right)+E/\sigma _0^21\hfill & ,& E<0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ,& E0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which gives $`f(E)E^2`$ as $`E0`$.

King (1966a) himself considered each of these alternate energy truncations. He compared the self-consistent surface-density profiles they predict with observed star-counts in the halo of M13 and concluded that the data were most consistent with the linear dependence on $`E`$ in the high-energy tail of his DF. Figure 3 illustrates this for a different—and by all appearances thoroughly average—cluster, NGC 362 (data from Fischer et al. 1993). The curves, from top to bottom in the right-hand corner of the graph, correspond to best fits of Wilson’s (1975) DF, King’s (1966a) DF, and Woolley & Dickens’ (1961) DF. The standard model is clearly favored, but the conclusion rests entirely on data from the outermost, least relaxed and least “isolated” parts of the cluster. In cases where a regular King model might not provide a perfect description of a surface-brightness profile (and there are many such cases), it must be remembered that the shape of the model profile depends not only on the explicit assumptions of isotropy and equal-mass stars, but also on the implicit assumptions \[through the linear dependence of $`f(E)`$ near the escape energy\] of relaxation and isolation in the extreme halo.

King and collaborators collected and fit surface-density data, in the form of star counts and integrated surface-brightness measurements, for scores of globular clusters (King 1966b; King et al. 1968). This database was enlarged by other important surveys over the next twenty years (notably, e.g., Illingworth & Illingworth 1976; Kron et al. 1984). All such studies were most recently compiled by Trager et al. (1995), who combined often overlapping data to define a single, calibrated surface-brightness profile and a smooth interpolation curve for each of 125 Galactic globulars. The example of M13 is illustrated in Fig. 4. Star counts by King et al. (1968) in the outer regions of the cluster define the vertical scale of the graph; another set of inner star counts, and two sets of photoelectric surface-photometry measurements, are shown with arbitrary offsets for clarity. To construct a continuous surface-density profile, the inner star counts and photometry are scaled first to agree with each other, and then (as indicated by the errorbars with no symbols) to provide the best match in the (small!) region of overlap with the outer star counts. Shown as a solid line is the model that King (1966a) found as the best fit in the outer parts of M13; the dashed curve is the best fit including the inner data.

Clearly, a King model in this case is not the perfect fit found in NGC 362. The horizontal arrow at the right of the Figure indicates the level of background contamination in the star counts of King et al. (1968), as a reminder that the observational definition of $`I(R)`$ is most prone to error in the outermost regions of the cluster that, as in Fig. 3, are often the most influential in accepting or rejecting an overall class of dynamical model. While this caveat must be borne in mind, a more positive aspect of this plot—which is fairly representative of the profiles collected by Trager et al. (1995)—is the verification that a standard King model is nevertheless an excellent first-order approximation to the spatial structure of an average globular cluster. The difference between the solid and dashed curves can be viewed as an indication of the typical uncertainties in King-model fitting, which are discussed fully by Trager et al. (1995). An up-to-date catalogue of the structural parameters fitting the clusters of Trager et al., and some 20 others, is maintained online by W. E. Harris (Harris 1996).

It took somewhat longer for high-quality radial velocities to become available for comparison with the predicted kinematics of single-mass, isotropic King models (lower panel of Fig. 2). Illingworth (1976) obtained integrated-light spectra of the cores of 10 globulars to estimate their central velocity dispersions and thence (by referring to surface-brightness fits of a King model) mass-to-light ratios. In terms of direct dynamical tests, Da Costa et al. (1977) fit models simultaneously to surface brightness and the velocities of 11 individual giants in NGC 6397, while Gunn & Griffin (1979) used radial velocities of 111 giants together with a surface-brightness profile in M3 to show the need for a multi-mass and anisotropic generalization of the King model. Their paper opened the floodgates for such data and analyses (see Meylan & Heggie 1997 for a complete listing of the subsequent work), and some 15 years later Pryor & Meylan (1993) were able to summarize velocity information on 56 Galactic globulars. This remains the most recent such compilation. The sizes of radial-velocity samples in individual globulars have since grown steadily, reaching now into the thousands for several clusters.

Figure 5 shows spatially smoothed velocity-dispersion profiles of M13 and NGC 362, constructed from the data published in Lupton et al. (1987) and Fischer et al. (1993), by robustly estimating the rms velocity of all stars falling within an annulus of fixed width (indicated by the horizontal errorbars in the Figure) as it is centered on every star in turn. The jagged lines in the panel for M13 indicate 1-$`\sigma `$ uncertainties; those in the NGC 362 panel, 2-$`\sigma `$ uncertainties. The curves are the predicted $`\sigma _z`$ profiles for the King (1966a) models fit to the surface brightnesses in Figs. 3 and 4, with a normalization $`\sigma _0`$ corresponding in each case to a $`V`$-band mass-to-light ratio $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_01.5M_{}L_{}^1`$. The basic, first-order confirmation of the model, in Figs. 3, 4, and 5 combined, is impressive. However, both Lupton et al. (1987) and Gebhardt & Fischer (1995) conclude through more detailed analyses of these data—and studies of similar and better datasets in other clusters also indicate—that non-trivial modifications of King’s single-mass and isotropic assumptions are necessary.

## 3. Structural correlations, the fundamental plane, and extragalactic globulars

Before outlining the necessary modifications to King (1966a), the general success of that theory provides an excellent opportunity to construct a uniform view of the gross structure and internal dynamics of globular clusters. In particular, the multitude of correlations between fitted King-model parameters, and any number of physical quantities derived from them (Djorgovski & Meylan 1994; Djorgovski 1995; Djorgovski, this volume), offer deep insight into questions of cluster formation and evolution.

Figure 6 shows the two strongest correlations known for Galactic globulars with central velocity-dispersion measurements (Djorgovski 1995). The scatter in these correlations is entirely due to measurement errors, and they define a fundamental plane analagous to, but significantly different from, that of elliptical galaxies. The label “plane” in this case is entirely accurate since single-mass, isotropic King models have exactly four free parameters (§2); thus, insofar as real clusters can be considered realizations of these models, they could in principle occupy the whole of a four-dimensional space. The existence of two independent correlations restricting their physical properties instead confines them to a two-dimensional surface inside this larger space. (In Fig. 6, five different structural parameters are indicated, but a theoretical King model can always be used to derive any one of these in terms of the other four.)

Any four quantities can be taken as a physical basis to define the family of King (1966a) models, so long as they are mutually independent; any two such sets of variables can be shown to be equivalent, and the choice of which to work with is an issue only of convenience or preference. McLaughlin (2000a) takes the independent cluster properties to be total luminosity $`L`$, mass-to-light ratio $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$, global binding energy $`E_b`$, and concentration $`c=\mathrm{log}(r_t/r_0)`$. He then shows directly that all non–core-collapsed clusters share a common $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=1.45M_{}L_{}^1`$ in the $`V`$ band, and obey a strict scaling between total binding energy, luminosity, and galactocentric position: $`E_b=7.2\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}(L/L_{})^{2.05}(r_{\mathrm{gc}}/8\mathrm{kpc})^{0.4}`$. McLaughlin further shows how the correlations in Fig. 6—and all others between any other cluster properties—derive directly from these constraints on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ and $`E_b`$ if all clusters are assumed to be accurately described by single-mass, isotropic King models. This is the the physical significance of the fundamental plane.

It is now also possible to fit isotropic King models to extragalactic globular clusters, and those in M31 (Djorgovski et al. 1997; Barmby et al. 2002), NGC 5128 (Harris et al. 2002), and M33 (Larsen et al. 2002) have been found to lie on essentially the same fundamental plane as those in the Milky Way. The apparently typical scaling between global energy and luminosity or mass, $`E_bL^2M^2`$, is nontrivial, and understanding it will be important in developing a comprehensive theory of star and cluster formation (McLaughlin 2000b).

## 4. Multiple stellar masses, velocity anisotropy, and rotation

Despite its substantial successes, the simple model of King (1966a) inevitably showed some cracks when data of very high quality began to accumulate. Figure 7 shows the surface-density profile of M3, as traced by a combination of star counts and appropriately normalized surface photometry. The two solid curves are single-mass, isotropic King models of two different concentrations, which separately describe the inner and outer structure of this cluster. No single such model is capable of reproducing the full density profile (as the dashed curve, of concentration intermediate to the inner and outer fits, suggests).

This point was first made by Da Costa & Freeman (1976), who suggested that the problem could be resolved if stars of different masses (say $`m_i`$ and $`m_j`$) had different velocity dispersions at a given radius, in accordance with energy equipartition ($`m_i\sigma _i^2=m_j\sigma _j^2`$). They continued to assume velocity isotropy, and therefore specified a model distribution function as

$$f(E)=f_i,f_i=C_i[\mathrm{exp}(E/\sigma _{i,0}^2)1](E<0).$$

(Oort & van Herk 1959 also constructed a multimass model for M3, but with a sharp truncation of the DF at high energies as in Woolley & Dickens 1961.) The relative numbers of stars in each of several discrete mass bins—i.e., the values of the coefficients $`C_i`$—were set by extrapolation of the observed stellar luminosity funcation, allowing the construction of a self-consistent model that fit the surface-density profile in Fig. 7 well. The allowance of energy equipartition imparts a larger-than-average velocity dispersion to low-mass stars, thus providing a greater number of stars on high-energy orbits and an excess population (relative to the original King model) of the halo regions of the cluster.

Gunn & Griffin (1979) revisited M3 with radial velocities for 111 cluster members also in hand. They argued for a much different extrapolation of the observed stellar luminosity function and substantially different relative mass-class populations than Da Costa & Freeman specified. In this case, they found it impossible to fit both the surface-brightness profile and the line-of-sight velocity distribution while keeping the assumption of isotropy. They continued to assume spherical symmetry (no net rotation) and defined a “Michie-King” model by a DF depending on two isolating integrals: $`E`$, and the magnitude $`L^2`$ of the specific angular-momentum vector to allow for velocity anisotropy:

$$f(E,L)=f_i,f_i=C_i\mathrm{exp}(L^2/2\sigma _{i,0}^2r_a^2)[\mathrm{exp}(E/\sigma _{i,0}^2)1](E<0).$$

In the limit $`r_a\mathrm{}`$, this DF reduces to that of Da Costa & Freeman; and from that, to the standard King (1966a) form. More generally, the functional dependence on $`L^2`$ in this DF (which was also adopted by Michie 1963 and appears in Eddington’s 1915 distribution function) provides for approximate velocity isotropy inside the sphere $`r<r_a`$ and a radial bias in the velocity ellipsoid that increases toward larger radii. Aside from this, there is no theoretical motivation for the specific term $`\mathrm{e}^{L^2/(2\sigma _{i,0}^2r_a)}`$; it is much more ad hoc than the form of the high-energy truncation.

Gunn & Griffin fit all the available data in M3 by a model with $`r_a`$ comparable to the cluster’s projected half-light radius, consistent with the idea of velocity isotropization by relaxation inside that radius. The prediction of a radial velocity anisotropy in the outer parts of the cluster is untested. Meanwhile, it has become routine to fit surface-brightness and radial-velocity data simultaneously with Michie-King models, owing in part to their early application by Pryor and collaborators (e.g., Pryor et al. 1986) and by Meylan (1987, 1988). Typically, good fits to all available data can be achieved—hardly surprising given the number of variables in the models. In fact, the effects of an increase in the relative population of low-mass stars can mimic those of a more strongly radially biased velocity ellipsoid, such that several physically different models can often fit the same dataset equally well.

It is notable that Michie-King fits tend to be constrained more by features in the surface-brightness profiles (inflection points, or convexity in the outer regions) than by the radial-velocity dispersion profiles (which generally do not stray far from their overall behavior in the isotropic models of Fig. 2). The obvious danger of inferring velocity anisotropy largely from surface photometry (or perhaps the inadequacy of the anisotropy term in the Michie-King distribution function) has been illustrated in $`\omega `$ Centauri. Merritt et al. (1997) analyzed, with non-parametric techniques, the same data that Meylan et al. (1995) used to fit Michie-King models to this cluster. Whereas the Meylan et al. model fits require strong radial anisotropy setting in at just under a half-mass radius, Merritt et al. assumed isotropy throughout the entire cluster and were able to find a self-consistent DF that could account for all structural and kinematic data.

The assumption of strict equipartition of energy in these models may also be questionable, as there are physical scenarios in which multimass populations of stars in a hydrostatic equilibrium configuration can not be in thermal equilibrium (Spitzer 1969; Lightman & Fall 1978; Kondrat’ev & Ozernoy 1982). Michie-King models can provide more acceptable fits than King (1966a) models given a wider range of more detailed data in a globular cluster, but at the cost of introducing more free parameters under more tenuous physical assumptions.

The discovery of significant rotation in some globular clusters (e.g., 47 Tucanae and $`\omega `$ Centauri: Meylan & Mayor 1986; M13: Lupton et al. 1987; and more than 10 others since with $`v_{\mathrm{rot}}/\sigma `$ ranging from $``$0.01 to 0.5) further complicates matters. To take proper account of rotation, axisymmetry is assumed instead of spherical symmetry, and the isolating integrals of motion in the stellar DF are $`E`$ and the component $`L_z`$ of angular momentum along the rotation axis. If arbitrary velocity anisotropy is to be allowed, then the (generally unknown) third integral must also appear explicitly: $`f=f(E,L_z,I_3)`$. And given only radial-velocity data, the inclination of the cluster to the plane of the sky automatically becomes another free parameter. Despite these difficulties, Lupton & Gunn (1987) developed parametric models of multimass, anisotropic, rotating and flattened clusters by first using $`L^2`$ as a (very crude) approximation to $`I_3`$, and then multiplying every component of the Michie-King DF by a term of the (ad hoc) form $`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma L_z}`$. Lupton et al. (1987) were able to fit such models to the surface brightness and radial velocities in M13, given also some internal proper motions and the observed stellar mass function there; but the many enhancements over King’s (1966a) model are again constrained far more strongly by the surface-brightness profile than by any velocity data (recall Fig. 5 above, which shows the $`\sigma _z`$ profile in M13 to be fully consistent with velocity isotropy).

Even with a maximum of approximation and assumption, parametric modeling at this level of detail is almost prohibitively complex, and the rotating model of Lupton & Gunn (1987) has not been applied to any cluster other than M13. But given the wealth of cluster dynamical data available now and coming in the near future (large proper-motion samples; high-quality stellar luminosity functions) it seems inescapable that accurate two- and three-integral, multimass models will need to be developed. It may be possible to develop useful parametric, DF-based models by retaining a reduction to some type of lowered Maxwellian in the appropriate limits but drawing on the vast literature of galaxy models for revised treatments of velocity anisotropy and third integrals. However this might play out, more numerical methods—orbit integrations along the lines of Schwarzschild (1979), anisotropic Fokker-Planck simulations (Takahashi 1997; Drukier et al. 1999; Takahashi & Portegies Zwart 2000), or direct $`N`$-body simulations—will necessarily take on new importance.

## 5. Proper motions

The use of internal proper motions in dynamical models has been understandably more limited than the application of line-of-sight velocities: a linear velocity dispersion of 10 km s<sup>-1</sup> or less in a (crowded) cluster core corresponds, at a heliocentric distance of 8 kpc, to a dispersion of $`<0.25`$ mas yr<sup>-1</sup> in proper motion. Large datasets with time baselines long enough and internal errors small enough to resolve such motion—let alone trace its variation with clustercentric radius—are not easily come by from the ground. Notable efforts by Cudworth and collaborators (e.g., Cudworth 1976a, 1976b, 1979; Peterson & Cudworth 1994) allowed for basic velocity-dispersion estimates and astrometric distance determinations in a handful of clusters. Leonard & Merritt (1989) and Leonard et al. (1992) used limited proper-motion data (comparable to the earliest radial-velocity data) to constrain Jeans-equation mass estimates of M35 and M13, while Lupton et al. (1987) compared their DF-based model of M13 with the sparse proper motions available there.

A substantial breakthrough has come recently, both with the publication of a huge set of ground-based proper motions for nearly 8000 stars in $`\omega `$ Centauri by van Leeuwen et al. (2000), and with the application of new techniques for space-based astrometry with HST to obtain tens of thousands of proper motions in $`\omega `$ Centauri and 47 Tucanae (see King & Anderson 2001, 2002; Anderson, these proceedings; and the poster of McLaughlin et al. in this volume for reports on preliminary results). The potential of these data to constrain any kind of detailed dynamical model is immense, but they have not yet been fully exploited.

Just one taste of the wealth of information contained in proper motions is provided by Fig. 8, using the data of van Leeuwen et al. (2000) for $`\omega `$ Centauri. Plotted there is the ratio of the plane-of-sky velocity dispersion in the direction along the projected radial vector from the center of the cluster ($`\sigma _R`$) to that in the projected azimuthal direction ($`\sigma _\mathrm{\Theta }`$). In a spatial average, and under the assumptions of spherical symmetry and no net rotation (both of which are, strictly, incorrect here), this ratio is related to the ratio of unprojected radial and tangential velocity dispersions, $`\sigma _r/\sigma _\theta `$, by (Leonard & Merritt 1989)

$$2\sigma _r^2/\sigma _\theta ^2=3\sigma _R^2/\sigma _\mathrm{\Theta }^21.$$

While this particular relation is not completely general, it is clear that the usual velocity anisotropy parameter, $`\beta 1\sigma _\theta ^2/\sigma _r^2`$, can be deduced directly from proper-motion dispersions. These data specifically appear to confirm that the strong radial anisotropy inferred to obtain outside a half-light radius in $`\omega `$ Centauri (cf. §4) according to fits of parametric Michie-King models, may be more an artifact of the model construction than a physical effect (see also King & Anderson 2002).

The signature of rotation in proper motions can also be used to estimate directly the inclination of an axisymmetric cluster, and to delineate empirically the form of a (non–solid-body) rotation field (e.g., van Leeuwen et al. 2000). Wybo & Dejonghe (1995, 1996) and Heacox (1997, 1998) give much more detailed theoretical discussions on the extraction of dynamical information from proper-motion datasets. Further development of these and similar tools, both to mesh them with the new, high-quality data and to extend them to apply to general gravitational potentials and arbitrary stellar distribution functions, presents an important challenge.

## References

Barmby, P., Holland, S., & Huchra, J. P. 2002, AJ, 123, 1937

Cudworth, K. M. 1976a, AJ, 81, 519

Cudworth, K. M. 1976b, AJ, 81, 975

Cudworth, K. M. 1979, AJ, 84, 1312

Da Costa, G. S., & Freeman, K. C. 1976, ApJ, 206, 128

Da Costa, G. S., Freeman, K. C., Kalnajs, A. J., Rodgers, A. W., Stapinsky, T. E. 1977, AJ, 82, 810

Djorgovski, S. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, ed. S. G. Djorgovski and G. Meylan (San Francisco: ASP), p. 373

Djorgovski, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, L29

Djorgovski, S., & Meylan, G. 1994, AJ, 108, 1292

Djorgovski, S., Gal, R. R., McCarthy, J. K., et al. 1997, ApJ, 474, L19

Drukier, G. A., Fahlman, G. G., & Richer, H. B. 1992, ApJ, 386, 106

Drukier, G. A. 1995, ApJS, 100, 347

Drukier, G. A., Cohn, H. N., Lugger, P. M., & Yong, H. 1999, ApJ, 518, 233

Dull, J. D., Cohn, H. N., Lugger, P. M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 267

Eddington, A. S. 1915, MNRAS, 75, 366

Fischer, P., Welch, D. L., Mateo, M., & Côté, P. 1993, AJ, 106, 1508

Gebhardt, K., & Fischer, P. 1995, AJ, 109, 209

Gebhardt, K., Rich, R. M., & Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 578, L41

Giersz, M., & Heggie, D. 2003, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0210446)

Grabhorn, R. P., Cohn, H. N., Lugger, P. M., & Murphy, B. W. 1992, ApJ, 392, 86

Gunn, J. E., & Griffin, R. F. 1979, AJ, 84, 752

Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487

Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L. H., Holland, S. T., & McLaughlin, D. E. 2002, AJ, 124, 1435

Heacox, W. D. 1997, ApJ, 490, 263

Heacox, W. D. 1998, ApJS, 114, 121

Heggie, D. C., & Ramamani, N. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 317

Illingworth, G. 1976, ApJ, 204, 73

Illingworth, G., & Illingworth, W. 1976, ApJS, 30, 227

Jeans, J. H. 1915, MNRAS, 76, 71

Kashlinsky, A. 1988, ApJ, 325, 566

King, I. R. 1965, AJ, 70, 376

King, I. R. 1966a, AJ, 71, 64

King, I. R. 1966b, AJ, 71, 276

King, I. R., & Anderson, J. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 228, Dynamics of Star Clusters and the Milky Way, ed. S. Deiters, B. Fuchs, R. Spurzem, A. Just, and R. Wielen (San Francisco: ASP), p. 19

King, I. R., & Anderson, J. 2002, in ASP Conf. Ser. 265, $`\omega `$ Centauri: A Unique Window into Astrophysics, ed. F. van Leeuwen, J. Hughes, and G. Piotto (San Francisco: ASP), p. 21

King, I. R., Hedemann, E., Hodge, S. M., & White, R. E. 1968, AJ, 73, 456

Kondrat’ev, B. P., & Ozernoy, L. M. 1982, Ap&SS, 84, 431

Kron, G. E., Hewitt, A. V., & Wasserman, L. H. 1984, PASP, 96, 198

Larsen, S. S., Brodie, J. P., Sarajedini, A., & Huchra, J. P. 2002, AJ, 124, 2615

Leonard, P. J. T., & Merritt, D. 1989, ApJ, 339, 195

Leonard, P. J. T., Richer, H. B., & Fahlman, G. G. 1992, AJ, 104, 2104

Lightman, A. P., & Fall, S. M. 1978, ApJ, 221, 567

Lupton, R. H., & Gunn, J. E. 1987, AJ, 93, 1106

Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., & Griffin, R. F. 1987, AJ, 93, 1114

Lynden-Bell, D. 1962a, MNRAS, 124, 1

Lynden-Bell, D. 1962b, MNRAS, 124, 95

Lynden-Bell, D. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 208

McLaughlin, D. E. 2000a, ApJ, 539, 618

McLaughlin, D. E. 2000b, in 33rd ESLAB Symposium, Star Formation from the Small to the Large Scale, ed. F. Favata, A. Kaas, and A. Wilson (Noordwijk: ESA), p. 77 (astro-ph/0002087)

Merritt, D., Meylan, G., & Mayor, M. 1997, AJ, 114, 1074

Meylan, G. 1987, A&A, 184, 144

Meylan, G. 1988, A&A, 191, 215

Meylan, G., & Heggie, D. 1997, A&AR, 8, 1

Meylan, G., & Mayor, M. 1986, A&A, 166, 122

Meylan, G., Mayor, M., Duquennoy, A., & Dubath, P. 1995, A&A, 303, 761

Michie, R. W. 1961, ApJ, 133, 781

Michie, R. W. 1963, MNRAS, 125, 127

Michie, R. W., & Bodenheimer, P. H. 1963, MNRAS, 126, 267

Oort, J. H., & van Herk, G. 1959, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 14, 299

Peterson, R. C., & Cudworth, K. M. 1994, ApJ, 420, 612

Pryor, C., & Meylan, G. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, ed. S. G. Djorgovski & G. Meylan (San Francisco: ASP), p. 357

Pryor, C., McClure, R. D., Fletcher, J. M., Hartwick, F. D. A., & Kormendy, J. 1986, AJ, 91, 546

Richstone, D. O., & Tremaine, S. 1984, ApJ, 286, 27

Schwarzschild, M. 1979, ApJ, 232, 236

Spitzer, L. 1969, ApJ, 158, L139

Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Spitzer, L., & Hart, M. H. 1971, ApJ, 164, 399

Spitzer, L., & Shapiro, S. L. 1971, ApJ, 173, 529

Takahashi, K. 1997, PASJ, 49, 547

Takahashi, K., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2000, ApJ, 535, 759

Trager, S. C., King, I. R., & Djorgovski, S. 1995, AJ, 109, 218

van Leeuwen, F., Le Poole, R. S., Reijns, R. A., Freeman, K. C., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, A&A, 360, 472

von Hörner, S. 1957, ApJ, 125, 451

Wilson, C. P. 1975, AJ, 80, 175

Woolley, R., & Dickens, R. J. 1961, Royal Greenwich Obs. Bull. No. 42

Wybo, M., & Dejonghe, H. 1995, A&A, 295, 347

Wybo, M., & Dejonghe, H. 1996, A&A, 312, 649