Charge Determination of High Energy Electrons and Nuclei by Synchrotron Radiation with AMS

We investigate the possibilities to identify the charge of TeV electrons and PeV nuclei using their synchrotron radiation in the earth's magnetic field. Characteristics of synchrotron radiation photons are evaluated and methods of detection are discussed.Comment: 9 pages, 6 figure

Article III, the Bill of Rights, and Administrative Adjudication

Modern reconsideration of legal constraints on the federal administrative state has commonly focused on agency rulemaking but seems increasingly concerned with agency adjudication. In this Essay, we provide an overview of constitutional issues implicated by administrative adjudication. We specifically explain how and why the so-called public-rights doctrine generally allows federal administrative adjudication outside private-rights actions substantially linked to traditional actions in law, equity, or admiralty. We also discuss how constitutional provisions outside Article III—including Bill of Rights protections of individuals as against the federal government—may nonetheless require a role for Article III courts even in so called public rights cases, either as an alternative court of first instance or as an appellate court. This role for Article III courts might become more important with the increased political control of administrative adjudication that an Article II line of the U.S. Supreme Court’s separation-of-powers case law might ultimately demand

Federalism, Private Rights, and Article III Adjudication

This Article sheds new light on the private rights/public rights distinction used by the Supreme Court to assess the extent to which the United States Constitution permits adjudication by a non-Article III federal tribunal. State courts have traditionally been the primary deciders of lawsuits over private rights—historically defined as suits regarding “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined.” If Congress could limitlessly assign adjudication of private rights cases to federal officials lacking the life tenure and salary protections of Article III judges, the political branches of the federal government would enjoy vastly expanded authority to encroach on state courts’ traditional authority to decide common law and equity cases between individuals. We argue that such vast congressional power is inconsistent with the limits on federal authority in a constitutional scheme in which state courts have traditionally dominated the adjudication of ordinary private disputes and in which Congress’s power of direct taxation and ability to create lower federal courts were hard-won concessions when the Constitution was adopted. Article III’s implicit constraints on congressional power to confer private rights cases on non-Article III federal tribunals effectively checks federal power to supplant state court adjudication by requiring that adjudicative power over such cases go substantially to Article III courts, bodies constitutionally insulated from congressional control. The private rights/public rights distinction thus operationalizes a principle of constitutional federalism through the mechanism of federal-level separation of powers. Article III’s federalism underlay explains the Supreme Court’s special concern with non-Article III adjudication of state law claims and of questions of “jurisdictional” fact—two doctrinal positions that have puzzled commentators focused on the threat that proliferation of non-Article III tribunals poses to the power of Article III courts, rather than to the power of state courts and local juries. By showing how federalism is an important part of the non-Article III adjudication puzzle, this Article complements prior accounts that focus solely on concerns with the separation of powers and individual liberty to explain constitutional constraints on congressional power to vest adjudicatory authority in federal officials lacking lifetime tenure and salary protections

Congressional Power, Public Rights, and Non-Article III Adjudication

When can Congress vest in administrative agencies or other non–Article III federal courts the power to adjudicate any of the nine types of “Cases” or “Controversies” listed in Article III of the United States Constitution? The core doctrine holds that Congress may employ non–Article III adjudicators in territorial courts, in military courts, and for decision of matters of public right. Scholars have criticized this so-called “public rights” doctrine as incoherent but have struggled to offer a more cogent answer. This Article provides a new, overarching explanation of when and why Congress may use non–Article III federal officials to adjudicate matters of public right as well as matters in territorial and military courts. We reorganize the traditional categories into three overlapping spheres where such non–Article III adjudication may occur: (1) a case occurs in a physical space beyond the control of the states and therefore does not implicate preexisting state decisional primacy over matters of private right (e.g., territorial courts); (2) a case lies within the national government’s operational space, in which Congress and the executive cooperate to manage the government’s internal affairs (e.g., via courts martial) and to administer statutorily created rights or benefits (e.g., a grant of a land or invention patent); or (3) a case involves a claim against a private party brought by the government or another private party within a properly bounded enforcement space of a federal regulatory scheme (e.g., NLRB adjudication of labor-management disputes). Our account of the public-rights doctrine is functionally grounded but also deeply rooted in history. This account both explains the caselaw and squares the doctrine with the modern ubiquity of non–Article III adjudication

Manifestation of spin-charge separation in the dynamic dielectric response of one--dimensional Sr2CuO3

We have determined the dynamical dielectric response of a one-dimensional, correlated insulator by carrying out electron energy-loss spectroscopy on Sr2CuO3 single crystals. The observed momentum and energy dependence of the low-energy features, which correspond to collective transitions across the gap, are well described by an extended one-band Hubbard model with moderate nearest neighbor Coulomb interaction strength. An exciton-like peak appears with increasing momentum transfer. These observations provide experimental evidence for spin-charge separation in the relevant excitations of this compound, as theoretically expected for the one-dimensional Hubbard model.Comment: RevTex, 4 pages+2 figures, to appear in PRL (July 13

Origin of the peak-dip-hump structure in the photoemission spectra of Bi2212

The famous peak-dip-hump lineshape of the (\pi,0) photoemission spectrum of the bilayer Bi HTSC in the superconducting state is shown to be a superposition of spectral features originating from different electronic states which reside at different binding energies, but are each describable by essentially identical single-particle spectral functions. The 'superconducting' peak is due to the antibonding Cu-O-related band, while the hump is mainly formed by its bonding counterpart, with a c-axis bilayer coupling induced splitting of about 140 meV.Comment: 5 pages: text + 4 figures, revtex (Fig.2 is replaced by more suitable one