text:
# Untitled Document

n January 31, 2000

Evidence for a New State of Matter:
An Assessment of the Results from the CERN Lead Beam Programme

Ulrich Heinz and Maurice Jacob

Theoretical Physics Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

The year 1994 marked the beginning of the CERN lead beam programme. A beam of 33 TeV (or 160 GeV per nucleon) lead ions from the SPS now extends the CERN relativistic heavy ion programme, started in the mid eighties, to the heaviest naturally occurring nuclei. A run with lead beam of 40 GeV per nucleon in fall of 1999 complemented the program towards lower energies. Seven large experiments participate in the lead beam program, measuring many different aspects of lead-lead and lead-gold collision events: NA44, NA45/CERES, NA49, NA50, NA52/NEWMASS, WA97/NA57, and WA98. Some of these experiments use multipurpose detectors to measure simultaneously and correlate several of the more abundant observables. Others are dedicated experiments to detect rare signatures with high statistics. This coordinated effort using several complementing experiments has proven very successful. The present document summarizes the most important results from this program at the dawn of the RHIC era: soon the relativistic heavy ion collider at BNL will allow to study gold-gold collisions at 10 times higher collision energies.

Physicists have long thought that a new state of matter could be reached if the short range repulsive forces between nucleons could be overcome and if squeezed nucleons would merge into one another. Present theoretical ideas provide a more precise picture for this new state of matter: it should be a quark-gluon plasma (QGP), in which quarks and gluons, the fundamental constituents of matter, are no longer confined within the dimensions of the nucleon, but free to move around over a volume in which a high enough temperature and/or density prevails. This plasma also exhibits the so-called “chiral symmetry” which in normal nuclear matter is spontaneously broken, resulting in effective quark masses which are much larger than the actual masses. For the transition temperature to this new state, lattice QCD calculations give values between 140 and 180 MeV, corresponding to an energy density in the neighborhood of 1 GeV/fm3, or seven times that of nuclear matter. Temperatures and energy densities above these values existed in the early universe during the first few microseconds after the Big Bang.

It has been expected that in high energy collisions between heavy nuclei sufficiently high energy densities could be reached such that this new state of matter would be formed. Quarks and gluons would then freely roam within the volume of the fireball created by the collision. The individual quark and gluon energies would be typical of a system at very high temperature (above 200 MeV) even if the system should not have enough time to fully thermalize. Positive identification of the quark-gluon plasma state in relativistic heavy ion collisions is, however, extremely difficult. If created, the QGP state would have only a very transient existence. Due to color confinement, a well-known property of strong interactions at low energies, single quarks and gluons cannot escape from the collision – they must always combine to color-neutral hadrons before being able to travel to the detector. This process is called “hadronization”. Thus, regardless of whether or not QGP is formed in the initial stage, the collision fireball later turns into a system of hadrons. In a head-on lead-lead collision at the SPS about 2500 particles are created (NA49) of which more than 99.9% are hadrons. Evidence for or against formation of an initial state of deconfined quarks and gluons at the SPS thus must be extracted from a careful and quantitative analysis of the observed final state.

A common assessment of the collected data leads us to conclude that we now have compelling evidence that a new state of matter has indeed been created, at energy densities which had never been reached over appreciable volumes in laboratory experiments before and which exceed by more than a factor 20 that of normal nuclear matter. The new state of matter found in heavy ion collisions at the SPS features many of the characteristics of the theoretically predicted quark-gluon plasma.

The evidence for this new state of matter is based on a multitude of different observations. Many hadronic observables show a strong nonlinear dependence on the number of nucleons which participate in the collision. Models based on hadronic interaction mechanisms have consistently failed to simultaneously explain the wealth of accumulated data. On the other hand, the data exhibit many of the predicted signatures for a quark-gluon plasma. Even if a full characterization of the initial collision stage is presently not yet possible, the data provide strong evidence that it consists of deconfined quarks and gluons.

We emphasize that the evidence collected so far is “indirect” since it stems from the measurement of particles which have undergone significant reinteractions between the early collision stages and their final observation. Still, they retain enough memory of the initial quark-gluon state to provide evidence for its formation, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland which remains even after the cat has disappeared. It is expected that the present “proof by circumstantial evidence” for the existence of a quark-gluon plasma in high energy heavy ion collisions will be further substantiated by more direct measurements (e.g. electromagnetic signals which are emitted directly from the quarks in the QGP) which will become possible at the much higher collision energies and fireball temperatures provided by RHIC at Brookhaven and later the LHC at CERN.

In the following the most important experimental findings and their interpretation are described in more detail:

Hadrons are strongly interacting particles. In nuclear collisions, after being first created, they undergo many secondary interactions before escaping from the collision “fireball”. When they are finally set free, the fireball volume has expanded by about a factor 30–50; this information can be extracted from two-particle correlations between identical hadrons by a method called “Bose-Einstein interferometry” (NA44, NA49, WA98). At this point, the relative abundances and momentum distributions of the hadrons still contain important memories of the dense early collision stage which can be extracted by a comprehensive analysis of the hadronic final state. More than 20 different hadron species, including a few small anti-nuclei (anti-deuteron, anti-helium), have been measured by the seven experiments (NA44, NA45, NA49, NA50, NA52, WA97, WA98). A combined analysis of their momentum distributions and two-particle correlations shows that, at the point where they stop interacting and “freeze out”, the fireball is in a state of tremendous explosion, with expansion velocities exceeding half the speed of light, and very close to local thermal equilibrium at a temperature of about 100-120 MeV. This characteristic feature gave rise to the name “Little Bang”. The observed explosion calls for strong pressure in the earlier collision stages. Recently measured anisotropies in the angular distribution of the momenta perpendicular to the beam direction (NA49, NA45, WA98) indicate that the pressure was built up quickly, pointing to intense rescattering in the early collision stages.

An earlier glimpse of the expanding system is provided by a measurement of correlated electron-positron pairs, also called dileptons (NA45). These data show that in sulphur-gold and lead-gold collisions the expected peak from the rho ($`\rho `$) vector meson (a particle which can decay into dileptons even before freeze-out) is completely smeared out. Simultaneously, NA45 finds in lead-gold collisions an excess of dileptons in the mass region between 250 and 700 MeV, by about a factor 3 above expectations from hadron decays scaled from proton-nucleon to lead-gold collisions. Theory explains this by a broadening of the $`\rho `$’s spectral function, resulting from scattering among pions and nucleons in a very dense hadronic fireball, just below the critical energy density for quark-gluon plasma formation. The $`\rho `$ meson mixes with its partner under chiral symmetry transformations, signalling the onset of chiral symmetry restoration as matter becomes denser and denser.

The theoretical analysis of the measured hadron abundances (NA44, NA45, NA49, NA50, NA52, WA97, WA98) shows that they reflect a state of “chemical equilibrium” at a temperature of about 170 MeV. This points to an even earlier stage of the collision. In fact, such temperatures (corresponding to an energy density of about 1 GeV/fm3) are the highest allowed ones before, according to lattice QCD, hadrons should dissolve into quarks and gluons. The observations are explained by assuming that at this temperature the hadrons were formed by a statistical hadronization process from a pre-existing quark-gluon system. Theoretical studies showed that at CERN energies subsequent interactions among the hadrons, while causing pressure and driving the expansion and cooling of the fireball, are very ineffective in changing the abundance ratios. This is why, after accounting for the decay of unstable resonances, the finally measured hadron yields reflects rather accurately the conditions at the quark-hadron transition.

A particularly striking aspect of this apparent “chemical equilibrium” at the quark-hadron transition temperature is the observed enhancement, relative to proton-induced collisions, of hadrons containing strange quarks. Globally, when normalized to the number of participating nucleons, this enhancement corresponds to a factor 2 (NA49), but hadrons containing more than one strange quark are enhanced much more strongly (WA97, NA49, NA50), up to a factor 15 for the Omega ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) hyperon and its antiparticle (WA97)! Lead-lead collisions are thus qualitatively different from a superposition of independent nucleon-nucleon collisions. That the relative enhancement is found to increase with the strange quark content of the produced hadrons contradicts predictions from hadronic rescattering models where secondary production of multi-strange (anti)baryons is hindered by high mass thresholds and low cross sections. Since the hadron abundances appear to be frozen in at the point of hadron formation, this enhancement signals a new and faster strangeness-producing process before or during hadronization, involving intense rescattering among quarks and gluons. This effect was predicted about 20 years ago as a quark-gluon plasma signature, resulting from a combination of large gluon densities and a small strange quark mass in this color deconfined, chirally symmetric state. Experimentally it is found not only in lead-lead collisions, but even in central sulphur-nucleus collisions, with target nuclei ranging from sulphur to lead (NA35, WA85, WA94). This is consistent with estimates of initial energy densities above the critical value of 1 GeV/fm3 even in those collisions.

Evidence for the formation of a transient quark-gluon phase without color confinement is further provided by the observed suppression of the charmonium states $`J/\psi ,\chi _c,`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ (NA50). These particles contain charmed quarks and antiquarks ($`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$) which are so heavy that they can only be produced at the very beginning when the constituents of the colliding nuclei still have their full energy. As one varies the size of the colliding nuclei and the centrality of the collision one finds, after subtracting the expected absorption effects from final state interactions between the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair and the nucleons of the interpenetrating nuclei, a succession of suppression patterns: The most weakly bound state, $`\psi ^{}`$, is suppressed already in sulphur-uranium collisions (NA38), the intermediate $`\chi _c`$ seems to disappear quite suddenly in semicentral lead-lead collisions, and in the most central lead-lead collisions an additional reduction of the $`J/\psi `$ yield indicates that now also the strongly bound $`J/\psi `$ ground state itself is significantly suppressed (NA50). The observation of $`\chi _c`$ suppression is indirect, via its 30-40% contribution to the measured $`J/\psi `$ yield which is expected from scaling proton-proton measurements. Charmonium suppression was predicted 15 years ago as a consequence of color screening in a quark-gluon plasma which should keep the charmed quark-antiquark pairs from binding to each other. According to this prediction, suppressing the $`J/\psi `$ requires temperatures which are about 30% above the color deconfinement temperature, or energy densities of about 3 GeV/fm3. This agrees with estimates of the initial energy densities reached in central lead-lead collisions, based on calorimetry or on a back-extrapolation from the freeze-out stage to the timei before expansion started. It was tried to reproduce the data by assuming that the charmonia are destroyed solely by final state interactions with surrounding hadrons; none of these attempts can account for the shape of the centrality dependence of the observed suppression. On the other hand, the interpretation of this pattern in terms of color screening by deconfined quarks and gluons leads to the prediction of a similar suppression pattern at RHIC in much smaller nuclei; this prediction will soon be tested.

In spite of its many facets the resulting picture is simple: the two colliding nuclei deposit energy into the reaction zone which materializes in the form of quarks and gluons which strongly interact with each other. This early, very dense state (energy density about 3–4 GeV/fm3, mean particle momenta corresponding to $`T`$$``$ 240 MeV) suppresses the formation of charmonia, enhances strangeness and begins to drive the expansion of the fireball. Subsequently, the “plasma” cools down and becomes more dilute. At an energy density of 1 GeV/fm3 ($`T`$$``$ 170 MeV) the quarks and gluons hadronize and the final hadron abundances are fixed. At an energy density of order 50 MeV/fm3 ($`T`$ = 100–120 MeV) the hadrons stop interacting, and the fireball freezes out. At this point it expands with more than half the light velocity.

This does not happen only in a few “special” collision events, but essentially in every lead-lead collision: characteristic observables, like the average transverse momentum of produced particles or the kaon/pion ratio, show only the statistically expected fluctuations in a thermalized ensemble, around average values which are the same in all collisions (NA49). Since the kaon/pion ratio is essentially fixed at the point of hadronization, this indicates the absence of long-range correlations like those expected in a fully-developed thermodynamic phase transition. A better theoretical understanding of the phase-transition dynamics might emerge from these observations. The short-range character suggests similarities with the transition found in high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity.

“Direct” observation of the quark-gluon plasma may be possible via electromagnetic radiation emitted by the quarks during the hot initial stage. Searches for this radiation were performed at the SPS (WA98, NA45, NA50) but are difficult due to high backgrounds from other sources. For sulphur-gold collisions WA80 and NA45 established that not more than 5% of the observed photons are emitted directly. For lead-lead collisions WA98 have reported indications for a significant direct photon contribution. Preliminary data from NA45 are consistent with this finding, but so far not statistically significant. NA50 has seen an excess by about a factor 2 in the dimuon spectrum in the mass region between the $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ vector mesons. The predicted electromagnetic radiation rates at the above mentioned temperatures are marginal for detection. While under these conditions it is a great experimental achievement to have obtained positive evidence for a signal, its connection with the predicted “thermal plasma radiation” is not yet firmly established.

This is expected to change at the higher collision energies provided by RHIC and LHC. The much higher initial temperatures (up to nearly 1000 MeV for lead-lead collisions at the LHC have been predicted) and longer plasma lifetimes should facilitate the direct observation of the plasma radiation and lead to the production of additional heavy charm quarks by gluon-gluon scattering in the QGP phase. The much higher initial energy densities which can be reached at RHIC and LHC give us more time until the quarks and gluons rehadronize, thus allowing for a quantitative characterization of the quark-gluon plasma and detailed studies of its early tharmalization processes and dynamical evolution. Finally, the higher collision energies allow for the production of jets with large transverse momenta, whose leading quarks can be used as “hard penetrating probes” within the quark-gluon plasma. At RHIC a set of four large detectors, with complementary goals and capabilities, ensures that all experimental aspects of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions are optimally covered. The ability of the collider to simultaneously accelerate and collide nuclei of different sizes and energies promises a complete understanding of systematic trends as one proceeds from proton-proton via proton-nucleus to gold-gold collisions. As in solid state physics, where the knowledge of the basic interaction Lagrangian (QED) does not permit to reliably predict many bulk properties and where the detailed understanding of the latter is usually driven by experiment, we expect that such a systematic experimental study of strongly interacting matter will eventually lead to a quantitative understanding of “bulk QCD”. We are looking forward to these far-reaching opportunities provided by RHIC and LHC.

Key references to the experimental data:

NA44 Collaboration:

H. Beker et al., “$`M_T`$-dependence of boson interferometry in heavy ion collisions at the CERN SPS”, Physical Review Letters 74 (1995) 3340-3343

I.G. Bearden et al., “Collective expansion in high-energy heavy ion collisions”, Physical Review Letters 78 (1997) 2080-2083

I.G. Bearden et al., “Strange meson enhancement in Pb-Pb collisions”, Physics Letters B 471 (1999) 6-12

NA45/CERES Collaboration:

G. Agakichiev et al., “Low-mass $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production in 158 A GeV Pb-Au collisions at the CERN SPS, its dependence on multiplicity and transverse momentum”, Physics Letters B 422 (1998) 405-412

B. Lenkeit et al., “New results on low-mass lepton pair production in Pb-Au collisions at 158 GeV/$`c`$ per nucleon”, Nuclear Physics A 654 (1999) 627c-630c

B. Lenkeit et al., “Recent results from Pb-Au collisions at 158 GeV/$`c`$ per nucleon obtained with the CERES spectrometer”, Nuclear Physics A 661 (1999) 23c-32c

NA49 Collaboration:

T. Alber et al., “Transverse energy production in 208Pb+Pb collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon”, Physical Review Letters 75 (1995) 3814-3817

H. Appelshäuser et al., “Hadronic expansion dynamics in central Pb+Pb collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon”, European Physical Journal C 2 (1998) 661-670

F. Sikler et al., “Hadron production in nuclear collisions from the NA49 experiment at 158 GeV/$`cA`$”, Nuclear Physics A 661 (1999) 45c-54c

NA50 Collaboration:

M.C. Abreu et al., “Anomalous $`J/\psi `$ suppression in Pb-Pb interactions at 158 GeV/$`c`$ per nucleon”, Physics Letters B 410 (1997) 337-343

M.C. Abreu et al., “Observation of a threshold effect in the anomalous $`J/\psi `$ suppression”, Physics Letters B 450 (1999) 456-466

M.C. Abreu et al., “Evidence for deconfinement of quarks and gluons from the $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern measured in Pb-Pb collisions at the CERN-SPS”, CERN-EP-2000-013, submitted to Physics Letters B

NA52/NEWMASS Collaboration:

R. Klingenberg et al., “Strangelet search and antinuclei production studies in Pb+Pb collisions”, Nuclear Physics A 610 (1996) 306c-316c

G. Ambrosini et al., “Baryon and antibaryon production in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 $`A`$ GeV/$`c`$”, Physics Letters B 417 (1998) 202-210

G. Ambrosini et al., “Impact parameter dependence of $`K^\pm ,p,\overline{p},d`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ production in fixed target Pb + Pb collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon”, New Journal of Physics 1 (1999) 22.1-22.23

WA97/NA57 Collaborations:

E. Andersen et al., “Strangeness enhancement at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 A GeV/c”, Physics Letters B 449 (1999) 401-406

F. Antinori et al., “Production of strange and multistrange hadrons in nucleus-nucleus collisions at the SPS”, Nuclear Physics A 661 (1999) 130c-139c

F. Antinori et al., “Transverse mass spectra of strange and multistrange particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 $`A`$ GeV/$`c`$”, CERN-EP-2000-001, submitted to European Physical Journal C

WA98 Collaboration:

R. Albrecht et al., “Limits on the production of direct photons in 200 $`A`$ GeV 32S+Au collisions”, Physical Review Letters 76 (1996) 3506-3509

M.M. Aggarwal et al., “Centrality dependence of neutral pion production in 158 $`A`$ GeV 208Pb+208Pb collisions, Physical Review Letters 81 (1998) 4087-4091; 84 (2000) 578-579(E)

M.M. Aggarwal et al., “Freeze-out parameters in central 158 $`A`$ GeV 208Pb+208Pb collisions”, Physical Review Letters 83 (1999) 926-930


format: text

text:
# Violation of pseudospin symmetry in nucleon-nucleus scattering: exact relations

## I Introduction

The concept of pseudospin was originally introduced  to explain the quasidegeneracy of spherical shell orbitals with nonrelativistic quantum numbers ($`n_r,\mathrm{},j=\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}`$) and ($`n_r1,\mathrm{}+2,j=\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2}`$), where $`n_r`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`j`$ are the single-nucleon radial, orbital angular momentum and total angular momentum quantum numbers. This symmetry holds approximately also for deformed nuclei  and even for the case of triaxiality . Only recently, Ginocchio and coworkers  pointed out that the origin of the approximate pseudospin symmetry is an invariance of the Dirac Hamiltonian with $`V_V=V_S`$ under specific $`SU(2)`$ transformations . Here, $`V_S`$ and $`V_V`$ are the scalar and vector potentials, respectively. In the non-relativistic limit this leads to a Hamiltonian which conserves pseudospin,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐬}=2\frac{𝐬𝐩}{p^2}𝐩𝐬,$$
(1)
where $`𝐬`$ is the spin and $`𝐩`$ is the momentum operator of the nucleon. For realistic mean fields there must be at least a weak pseudospin-symmetry violation because otherwise no bound state exists .

Already in 1988 Bowlin et al.  investigated whether the symmetry associated with $`V_V=V_S`$ manifests itself also in proton-nucleus scattering. They evaluated the analyzing power $`P(\theta )`$ and the spin rotation function $`Q(\theta )`$ under the assumption $`V_V=V_S`$, where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. Since the experimental data deviate significantly from their prediction they concluded that the symmetry is destroyed for low-energy proton scattering; only at high energies some remnants might survive. However, recently, Ginocchio  revisited this question within the scattering formalism in terms of pseudospin. Based on a first-order approximation he extracted from experimental proton-208Pb scattering data at $`E_L=800`$ MeV  the pseudospin-symmetry breaking part of the scattering amplitude. Contrary to  he obtained at all angles a relatively small pseudospin dependent part of the scattering amplitude which confirms the relevance of pseudospin symmetry also for proton-nucleus scattering at least at medium energies.

In the present work we reexamine the question of speudospin symmetry in nucleon-nucleus scattering and derive an exact relation for the nucleon-nucleus scattering amplitude in terms of scattering observables. The exact relationship for the pseudospin symmetry violating part of the scattering amplitude differs in an essential way from the first-order expression used by Ginocchio . Using the same proton-208Pb scattering data at $`800`$ MeV the exact relationship leads at all measured angles to a significantly increased violation of the pseudospin symmetry as compared to . Nevertheless, the size of the violation remains within the limits which allow one to consider pseudospin symmetry as a relevant symmetry in nucleon-nucleus scattering.

In section II we discuss briefly the basic relations between the scattering observables and the scattering amplitude of nucleon-nucleus scattering within the standard formalism. Introducing the proper transformation to a pseudospin representation we present in section III exact relations for the pseudospin-symmetry violating part of the scattering amplitude. A first application of the exact relations is given in section IV where we consider the example of proton-208Pb scattering data at $`E_L=800`$ MeV. Concluding remarks are given in section V.

## II Spin dependent scattering amplitude

The scattering amplitude, $`f`$, for the elastic scattering of a nucleon with momentum $`k`$ on a spin zero target is given by ,

$$f=A(k,\theta )+B(k,\theta )𝝈\widehat{𝐧}.$$
(2)
Here $`𝝈`$ is the vector formed by the Pauli matrices, $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is the unit vector perpendicular to the scattering plane and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. The complex-valued functions $`A(k,\theta )`$ and $`B(k,\theta )`$ are the spin-independent and the spin-dependent parts of the scattering amplitude. Both are not fully accessible to measurement.

The observables in nucleon-nucleus scattering are related to intensities and can be described in terms of the amplitudes $`A(k,\theta )`$ and $`B(k,\theta )`$. In the case of the scattering of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle by a spinless target the observables are the differential cross section

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(k,\theta )=|A(k,\theta )|^2+|B(k,\theta )|^2,$$
(3)
the polarization

$$P(k,\theta )=\frac{B(k,\theta )A^{}(k,\theta )+B^{}(k,\theta )A(k,\theta )}{|A(k,\theta )|^2+|B(k,\theta )|^2},$$
(4)
and the spin rotation function

$$Q(k,\theta )=\text{i}\frac{B(k,\theta )A^{}(k,\theta )B^{}(k,\theta )A(k,\theta )}{|A(k,\theta )|^2+|B(k,\theta )|^2}.$$
(5)
From Eqs. (4) and (5) follows $`P^2+Q^21`$.

The extraction of the full scattering amplitude (moduli and phases of $`A(k,\theta )`$ and $`B(k,\theta )`$) from measurements is a very challenging question in quantum mechanics and intimately related to the longstanding phase problem in structure physics. Here, only a partial solution of this problem is required because our interest is limited to the ratio $`|R_s(k,\theta )|=|B(k,\theta )|/|A(k,\theta )|`$ which is a measure of the strength of the spin-dependent interaction. Combining Eqs. (4) and (5) provides a phase relation between the amplitudes,

$$\sqrt{\frac{P\text{i}Q}{P+\text{i}Q}}=\mathrm{exp}\text{i}(\varphi _B\varphi _A),$$
(6)
where $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _B`$ are the phases of the amplitudes $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. Using this result either in Eq. (4) or (5) leads to a quadratic equation for the ratio of the moduli,

$$1\frac{2}{\sqrt{P^2+Q^2}}|R_s|+|R_s|^2=0,$$
(7)
which has two solutions. Using the condition that $`P=Q=0`$ implies $`|B|=0`$ one can immediately select the physical solution ($`|A|0`$),

$$|R_s|=\frac{|B|}{|A|}=\frac{1\sqrt{1P^2Q^2}}{\sqrt{P^2+Q^2}}=\frac{\sqrt{P^2+Q^2}}{1+\sqrt{1P^2Q^2}}.$$
(8)
This result together with Eq. (6) yields also the ratio of the amplitudes,

$$R_s=\frac{B}{A}=\frac{P\text{i}Q}{1+\sqrt{1P^2Q^2}}.$$
(9)
These relations are exact at all scattering angles and energies.

For comparison with the recent work of Ginocchio  we evaluate $`|R_s|^2`$ from Eq. (9),

$$|R_s|^2=C_s\left[\left(\frac{P}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{Q}{2}\right)^2\right]$$
(10)
with

$$C_s=\frac{4}{2+2\sqrt{1P^2Q^2}P^2Q^2}1.$$
(11)
The second factor (square brackets) on the right-hand side of Eq. (10) is the first-order expression used in . It is obvious from the correction factor $`C_s`$ that the first-order approximation systematically underestimates the quantity $`|R_s|^2`$.

Eqs. (6) and (9) represent important pieces for the proper determination of the scattering amplitude from nucleon-nucleus scattering observables. In addition one can derive from Eq. (3) with the use of Eq. (9) the relationship,

$$|A|^2=\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(1\frac{P^2+Q^2}{2+2\sqrt{1P^2Q^2}}\right).$$
(12)
Combining Eqs. (6), (9) and (12) one can determine the full scattering amplitude up to an overall phase. Thus we have reduced the determination of the scattering amplitude in a system with spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to a problem similar to that with spin zero.

## III Violation of pseudospin symmetry

The closed-form expression (9) for the spin-dependent term indicates the possibility of deriving an exact expression for the violation of the pseudospin symmetry. For this purpose the concept of pseudospin must be introduced in the formalism of nucleon-nucleus scattering. Specifically, the partial-wave expansion of the scattering amplitude must be performed in terms of the pseudo-orbital angular momentum,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+1,\text{ for }j=\mathrm{}+1/2,`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}1,\text{ for }j=\mathrm{}1/2.`$ (14)
Accordingly, the partial-wave S-matrix elements $`S_{\mathrm{},j}`$ must be defined for pseudo-orbital angular momentum ($`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{},j}`$) as

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},j=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}1/2}=S_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}1,j=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}1/2},\stackrel{~}{S}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},j=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+1/2}=S_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+1,j=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+1/2}.$$
(15)
As shown by Ginocchio  the scattering amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are related to $`A`$ and $`B`$ by a unitary transformation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}\\ \stackrel{~}{B}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )& \text{i}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\\ \text{i}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(\theta )\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}A\\ B\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
Using the transformed amplitudes the scattering observables are then given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=|\stackrel{~}{A}|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2,$$
(17)
$$P=\frac{\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}+\stackrel{~}{B}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}}{|\stackrel{~}{A}|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2},$$
(18)
$$Q=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\left[|\stackrel{~}{A}|^2|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2\right]+\text{i}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\left[\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}\stackrel{~}{B}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}\right]}{|\stackrel{~}{A}|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2}.$$
(19)
In the limit of pseudospin symmetry the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ vanishes and consequently $`P=0`$ and $`Q=\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )`$ . Therefore the ratio $`R_{ps}=\stackrel{~}{B}/\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is a measure of the violation of pseudospin symmetry in nucleon-nucleus scattering.

With the transformation (16) it is straightforward to express $`R_{ps}`$ in terms of $`R_s`$,

$$R_{ps}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{B}}{\stackrel{~}{A}}=\frac{\text{i}\mathrm{tan}(\theta )+R_s}{1+\text{i}\mathrm{tan}(\theta )R_s}$$
(20)
and

$$|R_{ps}|^2=\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta )Q\mathrm{tan}(\theta )+|R_s|^2(1Q\mathrm{tan}(\theta ))}{1+Q\mathrm{tan}(\theta )+|R_s|^2(\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta )+Q\mathrm{tan}(\theta ))}.$$
(21)
Substitution of Eq. (9) in Eq. (20) yields an exact relation for the violation of pseudospin symmetry in terms of scattering observables,

$$R_{ps}=\frac{P+\text{i}\left[\left(1+\sqrt{1P^2Q^2}\right)\mathrm{tan}(\theta )Q\right]}{\left[\left(1+\sqrt{1P^2Q^2}\right)+Q\mathrm{tan}(\theta )\right]+\text{i}P\mathrm{tan}(\theta )}.$$
(22)
For comparison with the recent work of Ginocchio  we evaluate $`|R_{ps}|^2`$ from Eq. (19). By straightforward algebraic manipulations one obtains

$$|R_{ps}|^2=C_{ps}\left[\left(\frac{P}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{Q\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )}{2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )}\right)^2\right]$$
(23)
with

$$C_{ps}=\frac{\left(1+|R_{ps}|^2\right)^2}{1+|R_{ps}|^2\mathrm{tan}^2(2\theta )+\text{i}\left(R_{ps}^{}R_{ps}\right)\mathrm{tan}(2\theta )}.$$
(24)
The factor in square brackets on the right-hand side of Eq. (23) corresponds to the first-order expression used in  while $`C_{ps}`$ is a correction factor. Eqs. (23) and (24) are not the best suited for the evaluation of $`|R_{ps}|^2`$, however, they demonstrate clearly that the actual value of the pseudospin symmetry breaking amplitude may deviate significantly from the first-order approximation.

## IV Example of proton-nucleus scattering

The relations derived in section II and III can be directly used for an analysis of proton-nucleus scattering data, where accurate measurements of the analyzing power $`P(\theta )`$ and the spin rotation function $`Q(\theta )`$ are available. Specifically, we consider analyzing power  and spin rotation function measurements  for proton-208Pb scattering at $`E_L=800`$ MeV and evaluate the ratios $`|R_s|^2`$ and $`|R_{ps}|^2`$.

The violation of pseudospin symmetry can be read off from Fig. 1, where the ratio $`|R_{ps}|^2`$ is displayed as a function of the scattering angle. In Fig. 1 the ratios are shown only at those scattering angles where measured values of the spin rotation function  are available. The corresponding values of the analyzing power have been obtained by linear interpolation of the more complete data set given by . The shown uncertainties result from a linear error propagation of the given experimental uncertainties in $`P(\theta )`$ and $`Q(\theta )`$. For comparison the results of  are also displayed. It is obvious from Fig. 1 that the first-order approximation underestimates the pseudospin symmetry breaking part of the scattering amplitude at all scattering angles, particularly at the highest available ones. Furthermore it is interesting to note that the uncertainties obtained with the use of the exact relations are consistently larger than those obtained in first-order approximation.

In Fig. 2 the corresponding results are shown for the ratio $`|R_s|^2`$ characterizing the spin dependent part of the scattering amplitude. As already seen from the exact formulation (10) the first-order approximation underestimates systematically the spin dependent part. The difference depends only on the absolute size of $`P^2+Q^2`$ and amounts to a factor $`2`$ at $`\theta =15`$ degrees.

The application of Eqs. (6), (9) and (12) to scattering data is straightforward and yields $`|A(k,\theta )|`$, $`|B(k,\theta )|`$ and $`\varphi _B(k,\theta )\varphi _A(k,\theta )`$. Up to a common phase, therefore, the scattering amplitude can be extracted from the scattering observables.

## V Conclusions

We have derived closed-form expressions for the relationship between scattering amplitude and observables in nucleon-nucleus scattering. The scattering amplitudes can be determined, up to a common phase factor, from measured differential cross section, analyzing power and spin rotation data. Hence the problem of extracting the scattering amplitudes from nucleon-nucleus scattering data becomes mathematically similar to that for spinless particles.

Extending these relations we derived a closed-form expression for the ratio of the pseudospin dependent and independent amplitudes. Thus we obtain an exact measure of the violation of pseudospin symmetry. Comparison with the first-order expression of  exhibits significant deviations. Using experimental proton-208Pb data at $`E_L=800`$ MeV of  we find an increased violation of pseudospin symmetry in the whole available angular range as compared to the results of . The increment is up to $`40`$% so that $`|R_{ps}|^2`$ reaches values of about $`0.15`$ at $`\theta =15`$ degrees. Nevertheless it remains within the limits which allow one to consider the pseudospin symmetry to be a relevant concept in nucleon-nucleus scattering at intermediate energies. The ratio of of pseudospin to spin dependence is actually smaller than estimated in , e.g. at $`\theta =15`$ degrees $`|R_{ps}|^2/|R_s|^21/2.4`$ instead of approximately $`1/2`$ in . This difference is a direct consequence of the remarkable spin-dependence of the scattering amplitude which limits the reliability of the estimation of $`|R_s|^2`$ within perturbation theory. At lower energies increased violation of pseudospin symmetry may occur . Whether this is true has to be proved by studying the energy dependence of $`|R_{ps}|^2`$ for several nuclei.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Prof. Dr. G.W. Hoffmann and Prof. Dr. L. Ray for making available the experimental data in tabular form and Prof. Dr. R. Lipperheide for fruitful discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript.

## Figure Captions

Figure 1
The angular dependence of the ratio $`|R_{ps}|^2`$ evaluated from proton-208Pb scattering data at $`E_L=800`$ MeV. The solid error bars are obtained by the exact formulation (21), the dashed error bars are the results of the first-order approximation. The lines connecting the datapoints are drawn as a guidance for the eye.

Figure 2
The angular dependence of the ratio $`|R_s|^2`$ evaluated from proton-208Pb scattering data at $`E_L=800`$ MeV. The solid error bars are obtained by the exact formulation (21), the dashed error bars are the results of the first-order approximation. The lines connecting the datapoints are drawn as a guidance for the eye.

Figure 1

Figure 2


text:
# Negative Pressure of Anisotropic Compressible Hall States : Implication to Metrology

## Abstract

Electric resistances, pressure, and compressibility of anisotropic compressible states at higher Landau levels are analyzed. The Hall conductance varies continuously with filling factor and longitudinal resistances have huge anisotropy. These values agree with the recent experimental observations of anisotropic compressible states at the half-filled higher Landau levels. The compressibility and pressure become negative. These results imply formation of strips of the compressible gas which results in an extraordinary stability of the integer quantum Hall effect, that is, the Hall resistance is quantized exactly even when the longitudinal resistance does not vanish.

Recently highly correlated anisotropic states have been observed around half-filled higher Landau levels of high mobility GaAs/AlGaAs hetero-structures. Longitudinal resistance along one direction tends to vanish at low temperature but that of another direction has a large value of order K$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The Hall resistance is approximately proportional to the filling factor. Since one longitudinal resistance is finite, the state is compressible. It has been noted also that the current-induced breakdown and collapse of the quantum Hall effect (QHE) at $`\nu =4`$ occurs through several steps which implies that compressible gas in quantum Hall system has unusual properties.

Anisotropic stripe states were predicted to be favored in higher Landau levels. Using the von Neumann lattice basis, the present authors found an anisotropic mean field state in the lowest Landau level to have a negative pressure and negative compressibility. Their energies at higher Landau levels were calculated recently by one of the present authors and others in the Hartree-Fock approximation. They have lower energies than symmetric states, but their physical properties have not been studied well so that it is not clear if these states agree with the states found by experiments.

In the present work, we study the physical properties of anisotropic mean field states around $`\nu =n+1/2`$ and $`\nu =n`$, where $`n`$ is an integer. We point out that this mean field state at $`\nu =n+1/2`$ has properties described above and can explain the experimental observations of anisotropic states. These states have a negative pressure and negative compressibility and periodic density modulation in one direction. We show that as a consequence of negative pressure, a compressible gas strip is formed in the bulk around $`\nu =n`$ and a current flows in the strip by a new tunneling mechanism, activation from undercurrent. The current is induced in isolated strip with a temperature dependent magnitude of activation type and it causes a small longitudinal resistance in the system of quantized Hall resistance. This solves a longstanding puzzle of the integer QHE, namely Hall resistance is quantized exactly even if the system has a small finite longitudinal resistance. Collapse phenomena are shown to be understandable also.

The von Neumann lattice basis is one of the bases for degenerate Landau levels of the two-dimensional continuum space where discrete coherent states of guiding center variables $`(X,Y)`$ are used and is quite useful in studying QHE because translational invariance in two dimensions is preserved. Spatial properties of extended states and interaction effects were studied in systematic ways. We are able to express exact relations such as current conservation, equal time commutation relations, and Ward-Takahashi identity  in equivalent manners as those of local field theory and to connect the Hall conductance with momentum space topological invariant. Exact quantization of the Hall conductance in quantum Hall regime (QHR) in the systems of disorders, interactions, and finite injected current has been proved in this basis. We use this formalism in the present paper as well.

Electrons in the Landau levels are expressed with the creation and annihilation operators $`a_l^{}(𝐩)`$ and $`a_l(𝐩)`$ of having Landau level index, $`l=`$0, 1, 2$`\mathrm{}`$, and momentum, $`𝐩`$. The momentum conjugate to von Neumann lattice coordinates is defined in the magnetic Brillouin zone (MBZ), $`|p_i|\pi /a,a=\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}/eB}.`$ The many body Hamiltonian $`H`$ is written in the momentum representation as $`H=H_0+H_1`$, where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{MBZ}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi /a)^2}}E_la_l^{}(𝐩)a_l(𝐩),`$ (1)
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{𝐤0}}𝑑𝐤\rho (𝐤){\displaystyle \frac{V(𝐤)}{2}}\rho (𝐤).`$ (2)
Here $`E_l`$ is the Landau level energy $`(\mathrm{}eB/m)(l+1/2)`$ and $`V(𝐤)=2\pi q^2/k`$ for the Coulomb interaction, and the charge neutrality is assumed. In Eq. (1), $`H_0`$ is diagonal but the charge density $`\rho (𝐤)`$ is non-diagonal with respect to $`l`$. We call this basis the energy basis. A different basis called the current basis in which charge density becomes diagonal will be used later in computing current correlation functions and electric resistances.

It is worthwhile to clarify the peculiar symmetry of the system described by Eq. (1). The Hamiltonian is invariant under translation in momentum space, $`𝐩𝐩+𝐊`$, where $`𝐊`$ is a constant vector, which is called the $`K`$-symmetry. This symmetry emerges because the kinetic energy is quenched due to the magnetic field. A state which has momentum dependent single particle energy violates the $`K`$-symmetry. In the present paper, we study a mean field solution which violates $`K_y`$-symmetry but preserves $`K_x`$-symmetry. The one-particle energy has $`p_y`$ dependence in this state.

The compressible gas state is characterized by the following form of expectation values in the coordinate space,

$$U^{(l)}(𝐗𝐗^{})\delta _{ll^{}}=a_l^{}^{}(𝐗^{})a_l(𝐗),$$
(3)
where the expectation values are calculated self-consistently in the mean field approximation using $`H_1`$ and the mean field $`U^{(l)}`$. In Figs. 1 and 2, the energy per particle, pressure, and compressibility are presented with respect to the filling factor $`\nu =n+\nu ^{}`$. As seen in these figures, they become negative. The density is uniform in y-direction but is periodic in x-direction. The present anisotropic state could be identified with the stripe structure discussed in Refs.  and . We have checked that bubble states discussed in Ref.  also have negative pressure and compressibility. These properties may be common in the compressible states of the quantum Hall system.

The compressible states thus obtained have negative pressure and are different from ordinary gas. Naively it would be expected that these gas states were unstable. However thanks to the background charge of dopants, a stable state with a negative pressure can exist. Since the pressure is negative, charge carriers compress itself while dopants do no move. Then charge neutrality is broken partly and compressible gas states are stabilized by Coulomb energy. Total energy becomes minimum with a suitable shape which depends on the density of compressible gas.

The bulk compressible gas states are realized around $`\nu =n+1/2`$ (called region I), where the Coulomb energy is dominant over negative pressure and a narrow depletion region is formed at the boundary. Its width is determined by the balance between the pressure and the Coulomb force.

The low density compressible gas states are realized around $`\nu =n`$ (called region II). In this case pressure effect is enhanced relatively compared to Coulomb energy and a strip of compressible gas states is formed as shown in Fig. 3 (a). Real system has disorders by which most electronic states are localized. Let us classify three different regions depending on the relative ratio between localization length $`\xi `$ at the Fermi energy and the width at potential probe area $`L_p`$ and the width at Hall probe area $`L_h`$. We assume $`L_p<L_h`$. In the region II-(i), $`\xi <L_p`$ is satisfied and localized states fill whole system. In the region II-(ii), $`L_p<\xi <L_h`$ is satisfied and the Hall probe area is filled with localized states but potential probe area is filled partly with compressible gas strip. Finally in the region II-(iii), $`L_h<\xi `$ is satisfied and whole area are filled partly with compressible gas states. In each case if localization length is longer than the width of the system, then these localized states are regarded as extended states which behave like compressible gas states with a negative pressure. In the regions II-(ii) and II-(iii), the strip contributes to electric conductance if current flows through the strip. However the strip is unconnected with source drain area. How does the current flow through the strip? This problem has not been studied before. In these regions, extended states below Fermi energy carry non-dissipative current, which we call the undercurrent. See Fig. 3 (b). We show later that the undercurrent actually induces the dragged current.

First we calculate the electric conductance of the bulk compressible states in the region I. It is convenient to use current basis for computing current correlation functions. Field operators $`a_l`$ and propagator $`S_{ll^{}}`$ are transformed from the energy basis to the current basis as,

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_l(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}U_{ll^{}}(𝐩)a_l^{}(𝐩),`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ll^{}}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l_1l_2}{}}U_{ll_1}(𝐩)S_{l_1l_2}(p)U_{l_2l^{}}^{}(𝐩),`$ (5)
where $`U(𝐩)=e^{ip_x\xi }e^{ip_y\eta }`$ and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ are relative coordinates defined by $`(xX,yY)`$. In the current basis, the equal time commutation relation between the charge density and the field operators are given by,

$$[\rho (𝐤),\stackrel{~}{a}_l(𝐩)]=\stackrel{~}{a}_l(𝐩)\delta ^{(2)}(𝐩𝐤).$$
(6)
Hence vertex part is given by a derivative of inverse of the propagator, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,p)=_\mu \stackrel{~}{S}^1(p)`$, known as Ward-Takahashi identity. The Hall conductance is the slope of the current-current correlation function at the origin and is given by the topologically invariant expression of the propagator in the current basis as

$$\sigma _{xy}=\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{tr}(\stackrel{~}{S}(p)d\stackrel{~}{S}^1(p))^3.$$
(7)
This shows that $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is quantized exactly in QHR where the Fermi energy is located in the localized state region. Now Fermi energy is in the compressible state band region and $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is not quantized. For the anisotropic states, the inverse propagator is given by $`S^1(p)_{ll^{}}=\{p_0(E_l+ϵ_l(p_y))\}\delta _{ll^{}}`$ where $`ϵ_l(p_y)`$ is the one-particle energy. $`S(p)`$ has no topological singurality and its winding number vanishes. Hence the topological property of the propagator in the current basis, $`\stackrel{~}{S}(p)`$, is determined solely by the unitary operator $`U(𝐩)`$, and the Hall conductance is written as,

$`\sigma _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑pϵ^{ij}\mathrm{tr}\left[S(p)U^{}(𝐩)_iU(𝐩)U^{}(𝐩)_jU(𝐩)\right]}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}(n+\nu ^{}).`$ (9)
To obtain the final result in the above equation, we assumed that the Landau levels are filled completely up to $`n`$ th level and $`(n+1)`$ th level is filled partially with filling factor $`\nu ^{}`$. The Hall conductance is proportional to the total filling factor.

The longitudinal conductance in x-direction, $`\sigma _{xx}`$, vanishes since there is no empty state in this direction. If a momentum is added in x-direction, one particle should be lifted to a higher Landau level. There needs a finite energy and $`\sigma _{xx}`$ vanishes. The longitudinal conductance in y-direction, $`\sigma _{yy}`$, does not vanish. One particle energy has a dependence on only $`p_y`$, and the system is regarded as one dimensional. One dimensional conductance is given by Buttiker-Landauer formula . We have thus,

$$\sigma _{yy}=e^2/h,\sigma _{xx}=0.$$
(10)
The Hall conductance, Eq. (9), and the longitudinal conductances, Eq. (10), agree with the experimental observations of anisotropic states around $`\nu =n+1/2(n1)`$.

Next we study the low density region, region II. In the first region, II-(i), whole area is filled with localized states, hence from the formula Eq. (7), the Hall conductance is quantized exactly. The longitudinal resistances vanish. We have

$$\sigma _{xy}=(e^2/h)n,\sigma _{xx}=\sigma _{yy}=0.$$
(11)
This corresponds to standard QHR.

In the regions II-(ii) and II-(iii), a compressible strip bridges one edge to the other edge. Tunneling combined with an interaction causes the dragged current in the strip. The conductance due to the tunneling mechanism can be calculated by a current-current correlation function shown in Fig. 4. The two-loop diagram is the lowest order contribution. The dragged current flows in the compressible strip at potential probe area in the region II-(ii), and at Hall probe area in the region II-(iii).

In the region II-(ii), the Hall probe area is filled with only localized states. Hence the Hall conductance is quantized exactly. The potential probe area has a finite longitudinal resistance due to an electric current in the strip. The electric current which flows in the strip makes the strip area to have a finite temperature. We have thus the exactly quantized Hall resistance and a small longitudinal resistance in this region as

$$R_{xy}^1=(e^2/h)n,R_{xx}^1=(e^2/h)\epsilon .$$
(12)
The small parameter $`\epsilon `$ is proportional to the activation form $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mathrm{\Delta }+mv^2/2)]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the energy gap between the Fermi energy and the lower Landau level, $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature at strip area, and $`v`$ is the average velocity of the undercurrent states. The additional term $`mv^2/2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ comes from the Galilean boost. This region has not been taken into account in the metrology of QHE.

In the region II-(iii), whole area is filled with compressible states. Hence from Eq. (9), the Hall conductance is given by unquantized value and the longitudinal resistance becomes finite. In this case we have

$$R_{xy}^1=(e^2/h)(n+\epsilon ^{}),R_{xx}^1=(e^2/h)\epsilon .$$
(13)
That is, QHE is collapsed. $`\epsilon ^{}`$ has the same temperature dependence as $`\epsilon `$.

The localization length and mobility edge depend on injected current in the real system. In a small current system, localization lengths are small in a mobility gap and corresponds to QHR (region II-(i)). In an intermediate current system, they become larger and the strip is formed in potential probe area first (region II-(ii)) and in Hall probe area second (region II-(iii)). QHE is collapsed in this region. In a larger current system, localization lengths become even larger, and whole system is filled with extended states. QHE is broken down in this region. This is consistent with Kawaji et al.’s recent experiments and proposal.

In summary, we have shown that the anisotropic mean field states have unquantized Hall conductance, huge anisotropic longitudinal resistance, negative pressure, and negative compressibility. These electric properties are consistent with the recent experiments of the anisotropic compressible Hall state and of collapse phenomena. Negative pressure of these states does not lead to instability but instead leads to a formation of a narrow strip of compressible gas states if its density is low and formation of the bulk compressible gas with the depletion region if its density is around the half-filling. Consequently in the system of low density compressible gas states, the Hall resistance is kept in the exactly quantized value even though the longitudinal resistance is finite. This longstanding puzzle was solved from the unusual property of compressible Hall gas, namely negative pressure. Hence it plays important roles in the metrology of the QHE.

Authors would like to thank Y. Hosotani and T. Ochiai for useful discussions. One of the present authors (K. I.) also thanks S. Kawaji and B. I. Shklovskii for fruitful discussions. This work was partially supported by the special Grant-in-Aid for Promotion of Education and Science in Hokkaido University provided by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority area (Physics of CP violation) (Grant No. 12014201), and the Grant-in-aid for International Science Research (Joint Research 10044043) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The main difficulty facing almost any electroweak baryogenesis scenario is the requirement for a strong electroweak phase transition. This is required in order to prevent wash out of the produced baryons by the subsequent sphaleron transitions, and it is expressed in the (in)famous sphaleron bound. The bound states roughly that the jump in the order parameter (the Higgs expectation value) must be greater then the temperature of the phase transition . This requirement has already killed the Minimal Standard Model (MSM) as a candidate for electroweak baryogenesis. Consequently baryogenesis efforts have been redirected toward the extensions of the Standard Model which provide sufficiently strong first order phase transition, most popular one being the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. Such efforts are very natural, and yet they do not take account of the very basic fact: we do not have any direct observational constraints on the Universe before the nucleosynthesis epoch. In this letter following Ref.  we explore this simple fact and discuss alternative cosmologies that predate the nucleosynthesis epoch.

Let us first however overview some of the basic facts of the electroweak scale baryogenesis. At the electroweak transition in the presence of a chemical potential for baryon number that is biased by some CP-violating source, quite generically one gets for the baryon-to-entropy ratio

$$\frac{n_B}{s}\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{CP}}}{g_{}}\left(\frac{H}{T}\right)_{\mathrm{freeze}},$$
(1)
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{CP}}`$ is the effective CP-violating parameter, and $`g_{}`$ is the number of relativistic degrees od freedom, which in the MSM reads $`g_{}106.75`$. The expansion rate $`H_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ is defined at the temperature $`T_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ at which the sphaleron processes go out of equilibrium (freeze out). For our purposes they can be identified with their values at the electroweak scale, since $`T_{\mathrm{freeze}}T_{\mathrm{ew}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{freeze}}H_{\mathrm{ew}}`$. A derivation of equation (1) in the two Higgs doublet model can be found in the first reference of , Eq. (44). In this case the effective CP-violation parameter $`\delta _{\mathrm{CP}}(Td\chi /dT)_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$, where $`d\chi /dt`$ is the chemical potential for the baryon number in the two Higgs doublet model. We have shown that quite naturally, $`(Td\chi /dT)_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ may be of the order unity, and with some amount of tuning it can be as large as $`10^2`$. Recall that in the standard radiation dominated cosmology the Hubble parameter at the electroweak scale equals

$$\frac{H_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T}1.4\times 10^{16}\left(\frac{g_{}}{107}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{T}{100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right).$$
(2)
This then implies that the observed amount of matter in the Universe, as given by the nucleosynthesis constraint

$$\left(\frac{n_B}{s}\right)_{\mathrm{obs}}410\times 10^{11}$$
(3)
is inconsistent with Eqs. (1) and (2). Because of this simple result attempts to produce baryons at the electroweak transition, when the main source for departure from equilibrium is expansion driven, have faded.

## 2 The model ..

We will now show how this inconsistency can be avoided by considering the following simple model. Let us assume that the post-inflationary Universe is dominated by a scalar field $`\varphi `$. (This field may or may not be the inflaton.) We assume that $`\varphi `$ decays into particles, which then instantly thermalize. This situation is realized for the following hierarchy of couplings

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi H\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{th}},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is the decay rate of $`\varphi `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{th}}`$ the thermalization rate of the decaying products. We shall assume that $`\varphi `$ obeys the following equation of state

$$p_\varphi =w_\varphi \rho _\varphi ,0w_\varphi 1.$$
(5)
With this, the relevant equations of motion are simply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _\varphi }{dt}}+nH\rho _\varphi +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi (\rho _\varphi \rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{eq}})`$ $`=`$ $`0,n=3(w_\varphi +1)`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _r}{dt}}+4H\rho _r\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi (\rho _\varphi \rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{eq}})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter given by

$$H^2=\frac{\rho _\varphi +\rho _r}{3M_P^3},$$
(8)
$`M_P=(8\pi G)^{1/2}2.4\times 10^{18}`$GeV is the reduced Planck mass, and $`\rho _\varphi `$ and $`\rho _r`$ are the energy densities of the scalar field and radiation fluid, respectively. In writing Eqs. (6) and (7) we used $`\rho _\varphi \rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{eq}}=\rho _r\rho _r^{\mathrm{eq}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \mathrm{rad}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{rad}\varphi }`$ is the sum of the scalar field decay rate and the (inverse) re-population rate. Provided the hierarchy (4) holds, this simple model of inflaton decay is a good description not only when perturbative decays dominate (old reheating theory), but also when the field $`\varphi `$ decays non-perturbatively via parametric resonance (modern reheating theory). This is so because the exponential enhancement in the decay rate characterizing parametric resonance is not operative when thermalization rate of the decaying products is very large. The equilibrium densities are related as $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}\rho _\varphi +\rho _r=\rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{eq}}+\rho _r^{\mathrm{eq}}`$, and $`\rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{eq}}/g_\varphi =\rho _r^{\mathrm{eq}}/g_{}`$, where $`g_\varphi `$ is the number of degrees of freedom in $`\varphi `$. In order to keep Eq. (5) more general, we have left the “damping” coefficient $`n=3(w_\varphi +1)`$ unspecified, so that for example $`n=3`$ $`(n=4)`$ corresponds to a massive (massless) field, and $`n=6`$ corresponds to a scalar field dominated by the kinetic energy (kination). As discussed in Ref.  a simple realization of kination is the following exponential potential

$$V(\varphi )=V_0e^{\lambda \varphi /M_P},V_0=\frac{2}{\lambda ^2}\left(\frac{6}{\lambda ^2}1\right)M_P^4.$$
(9)
For $`\lambda ^2<6`$ there is an attractor solution of the form

$$\varphi (t)=\frac{2M_P}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}M_Pt,at^{2/\lambda ^2},$$
(10)
so that in the limit when $`\lambda \sqrt{6}`$ one obtains kination with

$$\rho _\varphi =\rho _0\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^6,at^{1/3}.$$
(11)
This case corresponds to $`n=6`$ ($`w_\varphi =1`$) in Eq. (6) a behaviour identical to one with a completely flat potential. In the opposite limit, when $`\lambda ^2>6`$, one gets inflation.

## 3 .. its solution ..

Equations (6) and (7) can be easily solved in the limit when only a small fraction of $`\varphi `$ has decayed into radiation, $`\rho _\varphi \rho _r,\rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{eq}}`$. The result is (cf. Ref.  and )

$`\rho _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{eq}}+\rho _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{a}}\right)^ne^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi t}`$ (12)
$`\rho _r`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi \rho _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{a}}\right)^4{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{a}}\right)^{n4}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi t}.`$ (13)
Since we are primarily interested in integrating this equation during the preheating epoch when $`\rho _\varphi \rho _r`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi t1`$, and $`at^{2/n}`$, we obtain

$`\rho _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{8n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }{H_0}}\rho _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{t}}\right)^{\frac{8}{n}}\right)\left(1+o(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi t)\right)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}g_{}T^4,`$
where $`t_0=2/nH_0`$, $`H_0^2=\rho _0/3M_P^2`$. Note that $`\rho _r`$ (and $`T`$) grows rapidly from zero, reaching quickly (at $`t_{\mathrm{max}}t_0(8/n)^{n/(8n)}`$) a maximum value $`\rho _{r\mathrm{max}}\rho _0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi /4H_0)(n/8)^{n/(8n)}`$, after which $`\rho _rt^1`$ ($`Tt^{1/4}a^{n/8}`$). This dependence continues until the reheating temperature $`T_{\mathrm{reh}}`$ is reached, when $`\varphi `$ and radiation begin to equilibrate: $`\rho _\varphi /g_\varphi \rho _r/g_{}`$. Quite generically this occurs when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi t1`$. At that moment the solutions (12) – (14) break down, and the Universe enters radiation era.

## 4 .. and the consequences

### 4.1 On the expansion rate

From Eq. (14) we infer the following expression for the expansion rate

$`H{\displaystyle \frac{2}{nt}}={\displaystyle \frac{8n}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi M_P^2}}T^4,(T_{\mathrm{max}}>T>T_{\mathrm{reh}}).`$ (15)
This dependence of the expansion rate on the temperature is generic in that it does not depend on $`w_\varphi =(n3)/3`$ in the equation of state for $`\varphi `$ (5). This type of behaviour is precisely the desired one since it may result in a large expansion rate at the electroweak scale. Since at the nucleosynthesis epoch the Universe is constrained to be radiation dominated, we must have $`T_{\mathrm{reh}}>T_{\mathrm{ns}}2`$MeV. This means that, in comparison to the standard Hubble parameter at the electroweak scale (2), the Hubble parameter in Eq. (15) is enhanced as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{reh}}}}\right)^2,`$ (16)
so that, when the reheat temperature is tuned to be $`T_{\mathrm{reh}}T_{\mathrm{ns}}`$, the expansion rate at the electroweak scale may be as much as $`(T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{ns}})^210^{10}`$ times larger from the standard one (2). Note that with this much enhancement in the expansion rate the computed baryon number production at the electroweak scale (1) and the observed value (3) are consistent.

In order to check consistency of our model, we need to make sure that the sphaleron rate in the symmetric phase (above the electroweak scale) is still in equilibrium with the enhanced expansion rate (16). The maximum attainable rate at the electroweak scale is about $`H_{\mathrm{ew}\mathrm{max}}/T10^6`$. On the other hand, the rate equation for the baryon number density $`n_B`$ is given by

$$\frac{dn_B}{dt}+3Hn_B+\frac{13N_F}{4}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s}{T^3}n_B=0$$
(17)
where $`N_F=3`$ is the number of fermion families. In the symmetric phase the sphaleron rate reads $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mathrm{s}25\pm 2\alpha _w^5T^4`$ , and $`\alpha _w=g^2/4\pi 1/29`$ is the strength of the weak coupling at the electroweak scale. This then implies that baryons are destroyed at the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sph}}10^5TH_{\mathrm{ew}\mathrm{max}}10^6T`$, which was an underlying assumption  made in estimating the baryon-to-entropy ratio (1). In this case the sphalerons are out of equilibrium above about $`T10^3`$GeV, while other species in the plasma typically fall out of equilibrium when $`T>10^410^5`$GeV. An exception is the right handed electron, whose equilibration rate is of the order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{e_R}10^{12}T`$, and hence may be out of equilibrium at the electroweak scale. This may have interesting consequences worth further investigation.

### 4.2 On the baryon number dilution

We have so far shown that one can produce enough baryons at the electroweak scale, but we have not taken account of the dilution in the baryon-to-entropy rate caused by the entropy released by the decay of $`\varphi `$. This can be estimated as follows. After the sphalerons freeze out, the number of baryons per comoving volume, $`a^3n_B`$, remains constant. On the other hand the entropy per comoving volume scales as $`S_{\mathrm{com}}a^3sa^3T^3T^{3(8n)/n}`$, where we made use of $`at^{2/n}T^{8/n}`$, so that, when the entropy dilution is included, we get the following estimate for the baryon to entropy ratio that survives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{s}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{s}}\right)_{\mathrm{produced}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{reh}}}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}}\right)^{\frac{3(8n)}{n}}`$ (18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{\mathrm{CP}}}{g_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{reh}}}}\right)^{\frac{5n24}{n}}.`$
Note that for $`n>24/5`$ ($`w_\varphi >3/5`$) one obtains a net enhancement in the baryon production in comparison to the estimate (1). In particular, when $`n=6`$ (kination) the enhancement is $`T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}}`$, which can be as large as $`10^5`$, so that, in order to get a baryon production consistent with the observation (3), it is required that the effective CP-violating parameter $`\delta _{\mathrm{CP}}`$ be at least of the order $`10^2`$. This is possible to achieve with a certain amount of tuning, as explained on the example of the two Higgs doublet model in Ref. . The main difference is that in Ref.  we assumed an unconventional reheating as first discussed by Spokoiny in Ref. , while in this letter we have assumed a more standard type of reheating where the inflaton is weakly coupled to matter, so that it decays very slowly either perturbatively or nonperturbatively via narrow parametric resonance. To sum up, we have found that baryon production is quite generically enhanced in models in which inflation is followed by a kinetic mode domination, irrespectively on whether the Universe reheats by the inflaton decay or by a nonstandard Spokoiny reheating mechanism, provided reheating ends around (but not later than) the nucleosynthesis epoch.

The question is of course whether our cosmological model can be made consistent with all observational constraints. A first guess would be yes, simply because we have explicitly constructed such a model in Ref.  with one less free parameter ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$). Let us nevertheless show that this is indeed the case. First we have $`\rho _{\mathrm{reh}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi M_P)^2T_{\mathrm{reh}}^4>T_{\mathrm{ns}}^4(\mathrm{MeV})^4`$, from which we conclude that decay rate is tiny

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi \frac{T_{\mathrm{reh}}^2}{M_P}>\frac{T_{\mathrm{ns}}^2}{M_P}10^{12}\mathrm{eV}.$$
(19)
Further, from

$$\frac{H_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{max}}}{T_{\mathrm{reh}}}\right)^4\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{ns}}}\right)^410^{20},$$
(20)
we obtain the following constraint on the expansion rate of the Universe at the end of inflation

$$H_0\frac{T_{\mathrm{max}}^4}{M_PT_{\mathrm{reh}}^2}>\frac{T_{\mathrm{ew}}^4}{M_PT_{\mathrm{ns}}^2}10^5\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(21)
These two constraints are very mild in regard to constraining inflationary models. It is now easy to check that, even for the minimum decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi 10^{12}`$eV consistent with Eq. (19), the Universe reheats by the inflaton decay, and not by the Spokoiny mechanism. Indeed from

$$T_{\mathrm{max}}^4H_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi M_P^2T_{\mathrm{Hawking}}^4\left(\frac{H_0}{2\pi }\right)^4$$
(22)
we infer

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi \frac{H_0^3}{M_P^2}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{43}\mathrm{eV},$$
(23)
so that the Spokoiny reheating mechanism becomes operational only for the miniscule decay rates for which this bound is violated.

One would think that it is necessary to impose the COBE constraints on the amplitude of cosmological perturbations and their spectral index as well. This is however not the case, since they actually constrain inflationary potentials, and hence should be imposed once a particular realization of inflation is given. Since the considerations in this letter are to a large extent generic, we need not consider the COBE constraints here. Finally we point out that, for most inflationary models considered in literature , the COBE constraints are in concordance with Eqs. (19) and (21).

### 4.3 On the sphaleron bound

We now briefly discuss the relevance of our alternative cosmologies for baryogenesis at a first order electroweak phase transition. In order to avoid the sphaleron erasure the following bound has to be satisfied

$$\frac{v(T_{\mathrm{ew}})}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}>b\mathrm{ln}\frac{H}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}},$$
(24)
where $`v`$ denotes the jump in the order parameter (the Higgs expectation value) at the phase transition, and $`b`$ is a weak function of $`H`$ (or equivalently $`v`$) and the Higgs mass. For a rough estimate we may set it to a constant ($`b0.03`$), such that for the standard expansion rate (2) one obtains $`v\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }1.1T_{\mathrm{ew}}`$. With the expansion rate (15), the bound gets modified as

$$\frac{v(T_{\mathrm{ew}})}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}>b\mathrm{ln}\frac{H_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}2b\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{reh}}}.$$
(25)
Now when $`T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}}10^5`$, for which in the symmetric phase $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sph}}10H_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the sphaleron bound becomes largely relaxed, yielding $`v\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }0.4T_{\mathrm{ew}}`$. Following Refs.  we have performed a more careful computation and obtained an almost identical estimate. The reader should be alert to that these estimates assume validity of the perturbative expression for the sphaleron rate in the region where it is barely trustable ($`\alpha _30.15`$ in figure 3 of Ref. ). To get a more precise estimate of the sphaleron bound in the weak transition regime would require numerical estimation.

To conclude, we have shown that, when $`T_{\mathrm{reh}}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }T_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ the sphalerons freeze out at the transition even when the transition is quite weak ($`v0.5T`$). (They remain frozen after the transition simply because the sphaleron rate drops faster then the expansion rate (15)). This of course implies that, in cosmologies with a kinetic scalar field mode domination, in many cases the sphaleron bound does not affect baryon production at a first order electroweak transition. Needless to say this opens a new window for baryogenesis scenarios operative in models that result in a weakly first order electroweak phase transition. We must not however forget the entropy release from the decay of $`\varphi `$, which we consider next.

Now following the reasoning at the beginning of section 4.2, we infer that the baryon-to-entropy ratio that survives today can be written as (cf. Eq. (18))

$$\left(\frac{n_B}{s}\right)_{\mathrm{today}}\left(\frac{n_B}{s}\right)_{\mathrm{created}}\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{ew}}}{T_{\mathrm{reh}}}\right)^{\frac{3(8n)}{n}}.$$
(26)
Note that the dilution of the produced baryon-to-entropy ratio is large in models with conventional reheating ($`n=3,4`$), while it is relatively small in the case of kination ($`n=6`$). More explicitly, for a massive field $`\varphi `$ ($`n=3`$) the entropy dilution factor is $`(T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}})^5`$, which for $`T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}}10^5`$ can be as large as $`10^{25}`$. This case has been discussed in a recent preprint . For a massless field $`\varphi `$ ($`n=4`$) the situation is a little better: the dilution factor is $`(T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}})^3<10^{15}`$, which may still be very large. For kination however ($`n=6`$), the dilution factor reads $`T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}}<10^5`$, so that the required baryon-to-entropy ratio produced at the electroweak scale is about $`310\times 10^6(T_{\mathrm{ns}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}})`$, which may be produced by many electroweak scale baryogenesis mechanisms.

## 5 Conclusions

In this letter we have considered alternative cosmologies in which, after an inflationary epoch, the Universe enters a scalar field $`\varphi `$ domination epoch with an atypical equation of state, $`p_\varphi =w_\varphi \rho _\varphi `$, $`0w_\varphi 1`$. (This field may or may not be the inflaton.) We have then assumed that $`\varphi `$ decays before the nucleosynthesis epoch, so that the standard nucleosynthesis is unaffected. When the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is chosen such that $`\varphi `$ decays in between the electroweak and nucleosynthesis scales, beneficial consequences for baryogenesis incur, analogous to ones discussed in Ref. . In this letter we have examined baryogenesis at the electroweak scale when the transition proceeds (a) without a phase transition, or (b) via a first order phase transition. We have then shown that the most beneficial results in regard to electroweak baryogenesis are attained when the Universe is dominated by the kinetic mode of the scalar field (kination), for which $`p_\varphi =\rho _\varphi `$.

In Case (a) we have found that the resulting enhancement in the baryon-to-entropy ratio is at most $`T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}}<10^5`$ (cf. Eq. (18)). With some tuning in the CP-violating sector, this then may lead to a baryon number production consistent with the observed value (3).

In Case (b) we have shown that quite generically (independent on the equation of state for $`\varphi `$) the sphaleron bound can be relaxed as indicated in Eq. (25). The price to pay is a suppression of the original baryon-to-entropy ratio produced at the electroweak transition due to the subsequent entropy release. The model leading to a minimum entropy release is again kination ($`p_\varphi =\rho _\varphi `$), when the produced baryon-to-entropy ratio is diluted by $`T_{\mathrm{ew}}/T_{\mathrm{reh}}<10^5`$. With this amount of dilution many conventional baryogenesis mechanisms at the first order electroweak phase transition remain viable.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Massimo Giovannini and Misha Shaposhnikov for useful discussions.


text:
# Adiabatic CDM Models and the Competition

## 1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the success of inflation-inspired models of structure formation. The CMB data are pointing us towards models in which the mean spatial curvature is zero, and in which the “initial” perturbations were adiabatic and nearly scale-invariant. These three properties are all predictions of the simplest models of inflation. We will discuss them below and how they influence the properties of the CMB. Since we are never able to prove a model to be true, just that it is more probable than other models, much of the demonstration of the success of inflation-inspired models is a discussion of what goes wrong with other ones.

We begin with a very quick review of the basics and then move on to a brief description of current data. The subsequent discussion of adiabatic models explains what adiabatic, flat and nearly scale-invariant mean and how these properties influence the CMB power spectrum. With this discussion complete we are then ready to see how isocurvature and defect models differ, and that they do so in ways that conflict with the data. Finally, the strong constraint on the peak location given all data, prompts a discussion about what we can learn from the peak location besides the geometry.

## 2 Preliminaries

At sufficiently early times, a thermal distribution of photons kept all the atoms in the Universe ionized. Because of the strength of the Thomson cross section and the large number density of electrons, the photons were tightly coupled to the electrons (and through them to the nuclei) and therefore these components could be treated as a single fluid called the photon-baryon fluid. As the photon temperature cooled (due to the expansion of the Universe) below one Rydberg (actually well below one Rydberg due to the enormous photon-to-baryon ratio), the electrons combined with the nuclei thereby decoupling the photons from the baryons. The Universe became transparent to the photons that are now the CMB. Thus when we look at the CMB, we are seeing the Universe as it was at the time of decoupling—also referred to as “last-scattering”.

The temperature of the CMB is the same in all directions, to 1 part in 100,000. The most interesting statistical property of these tiny fluctuations is the angular power spectrum, $`C_l`$, which tells us how much fluctuation power there is at different angular scales, or multipole moments $`l`$ (where $`l\pi /\theta `$). Because the departures from isotropy are so small, linear perturbation theory is an excellent approximation and the angular power spectrum can be calculated for a given model with very high precision. Thus the CMB offers a very clean probe of cosmology—one where the basic physics is much better understood than is the case for galaxies or even clusters of galaxies.

Throughout, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is the mean density of component $`i`$, $`\overline{\rho }_i`$, in units of the critical density which divides negatively and positively curved models. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i=1`$ corresponds to the case of zero mean spatial curvature.

## 3 The Data

The last year of the 1000’s was a very exciting one for those interested in measurements of the angular power spectrum. New results came from MSAM, PythonV, CAT, MAT, IAC, Viper, and BOOM/NA, all of which have bearing on the properties of the peak. These data make a convincing case that we have indeed observed a peak—which not only rises towards $`l=200`$ (as we have known for several years) but also falls dramatically towards $`l=400`$. Figure 1 shows the results from 1999 plus, in background shading, a fit of the power in 14 bands of $`l`$ to all the data. Many of the bands are at low enough $`l`$ that they cannot be discerned on a linear x-axis plot. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ model in the figure has a mean density of non-relativistic matter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.31`$, a cosmological constant density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.69`$, a baryon density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.019h^2`$ , a Hubble constant of $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{sec}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$ with $`h=0.65`$, an optical depth to reionization of $`\tau =0.17`$ and a power spectrum power-law index of $`n=1.12`$, where $`n=1`$ is scale invariant.

Knox and Page  have recently characterized the peak with fits of phenomenological models to the data. They find the peak to be localized by TOCO and BOOM/NA at $`175<l_{\mathrm{peak}}<243`$ and $`151<l_{\mathrm{peak}}<259`$ respectively (both ranges 95% confidence). This location is also indicated by combining the PythonV and Viper data, as can be seen in Fig. 1 and a significant bound can also be derived by combining all other data, prior to these four data sets. In sum, a peak near $`l200`$, is robustly detected. Combining all the data, we can also constraint its full-width at half-maximum to be between 180 and 250 at 95% confidence.

## 4 Physical Models

In this section we describe three classes of physical models (adiabatic CDM, topological defects and isocurvature dark matter) and their predictions for the angular power spectrum.

### 4.1 Adiabatic CDM

The simplest models of inflation lead to a post-reheat Universe with critical density (to exponential precision) and adiabatic, nearly scale-invariant fluctuations. Although inflation does not require cold dark matter, the prediction of critical density, combined with upper limits on the mean baryonic density, push one in that direction. Within the last few years, the observations have developed to strongly prefer the gap between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ $`(b\mathrm{baryons})`$ and unity to be filled with not just cold dark matter, but a sizeable helping of dark energy too, e.g., . Let’s examine more precisely each of these three predictions.

#### 4.1.1 Adiabatic

Adiabatic (or, equivalently, isentropic) means that there are no spatial fluctuations in the total entropy per particle of each type. That is, $`\delta (s/n_i)=0`$ for all species $`i`$. From this, we see that $`\delta n_i/n_i=\delta s/s`$ and therefore all species have the same fractional fluctuation in their number densities. For example, where there are more dark matter particles there are more photons, etc. A general perturbation is a linear combination of isocurvature and adiabatic modes. Isocurvature perturbations are arranged so that $`\delta \rho =_i\delta \rho _i=0`$.

The evolution of a single Fourier mode is initially a competition between the pressure of the baryon-photon fluid trying to decrease density contrasts, and gravity trying to enhance them. For adiabatic modes the gravitational term is initially dominant, increasing the amplitude of the mode, until the restorative force of the pressure gradients pushes it back. Despite the initial growth in the density contrast, the potential decays. This is because the photon pressure prevents the growth from happening quickly enough to counteract the effects of the expansion. It is this decay of the potential that leads to excitation of a cosine mode (after the initial transient) for the acoustic oscillation. For isocurvature modes, the potential is initially zero, until there is sufficient time for pressure gradients to evolve into density gradients. The initially growing potential excites a sine mode .

All adiabatic modes of given wavenumber, $`k=\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2+k_z^2}`$, although they have different spatial phases, will all have the same temporal phase, because they all start off with the same relationship between the dark matter and photons. In other words, although spatially incoherent, they are temporally coherent. This coherence is essential to the familiar Doppler peak structure of the CMB power spectrum . Figure 2 illustrates the point by showing the spatial dependence of three different modes with varying wave numbers at five different stages of their evolution.

#### 4.1.2 Flat

Inflation generically produces flat Universes—ones where the mean spatial curvature is exponentially close to zero (e.g., $`e^{100}`$ is a particularly large residual curvature). The CMB is sensitive to curvature because the translation of a linear distance on the last-scattering surface to an angular extent on the sky depends on it. One can see this by noting that in a negatively curved space the surface area of a sphere of radius $`r`$ is larger than $`4\pi r^2`$ and therefore objects at fixed coordinate distance of fixed size appear smaller than they would in the case of zero curvature (the larger-than-$`4\pi r^2`$ sphere must be squeezed into a local $`4\pi `$ steradians). This geometrical effect shifts the CMB power spectrum peak locations by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/2}`$. Other parameters also affect the peak locations by altering the coordinate distance to the last-scattering surface and the size of features there; these are subdominant effects which will be discussed later.

#### 4.1.3 Nearly Scale Invariant

The power spectrum of fluctuations produced by the simplest models of inflation is well-described by a power law, $`P(k)k^n`$, with $`n`$ near unity. The case $`n=1`$ is called scale-invariant because the dimensionless quantity $`k^3P(k)`$ is the same for all modes when the comparison is done at “horizon crossing” (when the mode wavelength becomes smaller than the Hubble radius).

### 4.2 Topological Defects

The usual scenario for topological defects is that a phase transition in an initially homogeneous Universe gives rise to a scalar field with a spatially-varying stress-energy tensor. In most such scenarios, the scalar field configuration evolves into a network of regions which are topologically incapable of relaxing to the true ground state. Causality implies that these models have isocurvature initial conditions.

In defect models, the temporal coherence is lost due to continual sourcing of new perturbations by the non-linearly evolving scalar field. This generically leads to one very broad peak with a maximum near $`l=400500`$. Thus the drop in power from $`l=200`$ to $`l=400`$ is a very challenging feature of the data. One can get lower power at $`l=400`$ than at $`l=200`$ with modifications to the ionization history, but even for these models the drop probably is not fast enough. See A. Albrecht’s contribution to these proceedings.

### 4.3 Isocurvature Dark Matter Models

Note that isocurvature is more general than adiabatic. Given numerous components, there are a number of different ways of maintaining the isocurvature condition, $`_i\delta \rho _i=0`$. In what follows we will assume that the isocurvature condition is maintained by the dark matter compensating everything else.

Isocurvature models have at least two strikes against them. First, scale-invariant models produce far too much fluctuation power on large angular scales, when normalized to galaxy fluctuations at smaller scales as has been known for over a decade . One might hope to save isocurvature models by tilting them far from scale invariant, but this fix cannot simultaneously get galaxy scales, COBE-scales and Doppler peak scales right.

The second strike has to do with the location of the acoustic peaks. As mentioned above, the isocurvature oscillations are 90 degrees out of phase with the adiabatic ones. The peaks get shifted to higher $`l`$ ($`l=350`$ to $`400`$ for the first peak) . Geometrical effects could shift it back, to make it agree with the data, but this would require $`\mathrm{\Omega }>2`$ which is inconsistent with a number of observations.

There are scenarios with initially isocurvature conditions that can produce CMB power spectra that look much like those in the adiabatic case. This can be done by adding to adiabatic fluctuations, another component which maintains the isocurvature condition and then by giving this extra component a non-trivial stress history . These alternatives will be interesting to pursue further if improvements to the data cause troubles for the currently successful adiabatic models. Even these alternatives are flat models that require some mechanism, such as inflation, for creating the super-horizon correlations in their initial conditions.

Turok has shown that even super-horizon correlations are not a necessary condition for CMB power spectra that mimic those of inflation. Although no specific model is constructed, this work demonstrates that causality alone does not preclude one from getting inflation-like power spectra without inflation. For a discussion of the physical plausibility of models that could do this, see .

## 5 Peak Location and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

If we assume flatness, adiabaticity and near scale-invariance we can then determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the location of the first peak . With these assumptions, the peak position just depends on the coordinate distance to the last-scattering surface divided by the sound horizon at last-scattering. How this ratio depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depends on what else we hold fixed. If we have high-precision CMB data over several peaks then $`w_b\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and $`w_c\mathrm{\Omega }_ch^2`$ would be good things to keep fixed, since those are what affect the acoustic peak morphology. However, without such high precision data, $`w_b`$ and $`H_0`$ are good things to fix because we know these fairly well from other measurements. With $`w_b`$ and $`H_0`$ fixed, increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases the sound horizon (because $`w_c`$ must decrease) but increases the coordinate distance to the last-scattering surface by more and the peak moves out to higher $`l`$. With $`w_b`$ and $`w_c`$ fixed, the sound-horizon stays the same but $`H_0`$ increases and the coordinate distance to the last-scattering surface drops: the peak shifts to lower $`l`$.

If we take all the data, the peak location is $`l_{\mathrm{peak}}=229\pm 9`$. Thus, if we assume $`h=0.65`$ then this is evidence for a positive cosmological constant. It is weak evidence because inclusion of possible systematic errors would probably widen the peak bound significantly. However, for a sample-variance dominated measurement of the first peak (specifically, $`C_l`$ from $`l=100`$ to $`l=300`$) derived from observations of 1000 square degrees of sky (comparable to the Antarctic Boomerang coverage) one can determine the peak to be at, e.g., $`l_c=220\pm 5`$. One can see from Fig. 3 that we may soon have a strong determination of non-zero $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ based solely on Hubble constant and CMB measurements. Note that this determination will not suffer from calibration uncertainty.

## 6 Conclusion

The peak has been observed by two different instruments, and can be inferred from an independent compilation of other data sets. The properties of this peak are consistent with those of the first peak in the inflation-inspired adiabatic CDM models, and inconsistent with competing models, with the possible exception of the more complicated isocurvature models mentioned above. It is perhaps instructive that where the confrontation between theory and observation can be done with a minimum of theoretical uncertainty, the adiabatic CDM models have been highly successful.

## Acknowledgments

I thank A. Albrecht, L. Page and J. Ruhl for useful conversations and D. Eisenstein for comments on the manuscript. I used CMBAST and am supported by the DoE, NASA grant NAG5-7986, and NSF grant OPP-8920223.

## References