text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For the last two decades, pion-nucleus elastic scattering has been studied by a number of people using a variety of theoretical methods, some of which are given in Refs. \[$`116`$\]. The aim of most theoretical works is to understand the pion-nucleus scattering and thereby the nuclear structure in the framework of the multiple scattering theory by using elementary pion-nucleon scattering amplitudes obtained from the pion-nucleon scattering data. Normally, the Klein-Gordon equation is solved either in coordinate space  or in momentum space  with various forms of elementary t-matrices including nuclear structure effects \[$`112`$\]. There are also works using approaches other than directly solving the Klein-Gordon equation, such as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-isobar model  taking into account production and propagation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-isobar in nuclei. Though numerous works, essentially solving the Klein-Gordon equation in different ways, have revealed much of pion-nucleus dynamics, the understanding of the pion-nucleus scattering is still not quite satisfactory.

On the other hand, when one tries to do a quantitative calculation of cross sections for a reaction involving pions, such as ($`\pi `$,$`\pi ^{}`$) or ($`\pi `$,$`K`$), by using the distorted wave Born approximation (DWBA) or the distorted wave impulse approximation (DWIA), it is essential to have the pion distorted wave functions. Even if the accurate pion distorted wave functions may not be achieved, it would be convenient to have a way of treating the distortion effects in a simple manner. The present study was motivated by such a need of the distorted wave functions that could reproduce the pion scattering data by all means so that the distortion effects could be treated.

The optical potentials normally used in the Klein-Gordon equation for the pion-nucleus scattering are known to be nonlocal, particularly in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance region due to the $`P`$-wave nature of the resonance. However, it would be not only easier to visualize but also interesting if one can localize the nonlocal potential and look at the dynamics of the scattering from a different point of view. Recently, Satchler  showed a method of reducing the Klein-Gordon equation into the form of a Schrödinger equation by redefining some kinematical quantities. He then reproduced not only elastic but also inelastic differential cross sections of the pion near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232)-resonance energy for various target nuclei ranging from 40Ca to 208Pb by using local potentials of the Woods-Saxon form. In Section 2 we follow Satchler, reduce the Klein-Gordon equation to a Schrödinger equation, and search for phenomenological local optical potentials which can reproduce the scattering data.

We choose the system of $`\pi ^{}+^{12}`$C, because for this system many experimental data are available in a wide range of energies, 120 - 766 MeV  and we are interested in examining the energy-dependency of the pion-nucleus local potentials. We employ the Woods-Saxon form of the local potential  and search for the potential parameters to fit the experimental data. The real and imaginary parts of the resulting local potentials are found to be consistent with the dispersion relation. The energy-dependency of the phenomenological local potential shows that the imaginary part of the potential peaks near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy, and it can be explained by the decay of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s in the nuclear medium, which is manifested as absorption of the pion projectile in the scattering.

We then compare in Section 3 our phenomenological local potential with the local potential exactly phase-shift equivalent to the Kisslinger potential obtained by using the Krell-Ericson transformation method , which has been used for instance by Parija  and recently by Johnson and Satchler . Section 4 summarizes the paper.

## 2 Phenomenological Local Potentials

### 2.1 The Model

In most works dealing with solving the Klein-Gordon equation, a so-called truncated Klein-Gordon equation is used, which means terms quadratic in the potentials are neglected compared to the pion energy. Then one gets

$$\left[(\mathrm{}c)^2^2+2\omega (V_N+V_C)\right]\varphi =(\mathrm{}kc)^2\varphi ,$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the distorted wave function for the relative motion between the pion and the target nucleus, $`V_C`$ and $`V_N`$ are the Coulomb and the nuclear potentials, respectively, and $`k`$ is the relativistic center-of-mass momentum of the pion. In regarding Eq. (1) as the equation for the scattering between the pion and the target nucleus, Stricker, McManus and Carr  defined $`\omega `$ by

$$\omega =\frac{M_\pi m_Tc^2}{M_\pi +m_T},$$
(2)
where $`m_T`$ is the target mass given by the target mass number multiplied by the atomic mass unit and $`M_\pi `$ is the total energy of the pion in the pion-nucleus center-of-mass system. Satchler then introduced a reduced mass $`\mu `$ defined by $`\mu =\omega /c^2`$ and put Eq. (1) into the form of a Schrödinger equation

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }^2+V_N+V_C\right]\varphi =E_{c.m.}\varphi $$
(3)
for the scattering of two masses, $`M_\pi `$ and $`m_T`$ with a center-of-mass kinetic energy $`E_{c.m.}=(\mathrm{}k)^2/2\mu `$. (The incident pion bombarding energy was modified so that a standard nonrelativistic optical model computer program could be used .) In what follows, we use this method of solving Eq. (3) with phenomenological Woods-Saxon local potentials.

### 2.2 Results for Phenomenological Local Potentials

The Woods-Saxon form of $`V_N`$ in Eq. (3) can be written as

$$V_N(r)=\frac{V}{1+exp(X_V)}+i\frac{W}{1+exp(X_W)}$$
(4)
with

$`X_i=(rR_i)/a_i,R_i=r_iA^{1/3}(i=V,W),`$

where $`r_i`$ and $`a_i`$ are radius and diffuseness parameters, respectively, and $`A`$ is the target mass number. The Coulomb potential $`V_C`$ is given in a simple form obtained from a uniform charge distribution of radius $`R_C=1.2A^{1/3}`$ fm. There are 6 adjustable parameters in Eq. (4). We fixed them by using a $`\chi ^2`$-fitting method. The $`\chi ^2`$, written explicitly as

$$\chi ^2=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{\sigma _{ex}^i\sigma _{th}^i}{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{ex}^i}\right]^2$$
(5)
is evaluated at each energy, and the potential parameters are adjusted so as to minimize the $`\chi ^2`$. In Eq. (5), $`\sigma _{ex}^i`$’s ($`\sigma _{th}^i`$’s) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{ex}^i`$’s are the experimental (theoretical) cross sections and uncertainties, respectively, and $`N`$ is the number of data used in the fitting. Since experimental total elastic ($`\sigma _E`$), reaction ($`\sigma _R`$) and total ($`\sigma _T`$) cross sections were also available at all energies except for 400 and 500 MeV, we used not only differential cross sections but also $`\sigma _E`$, $`\sigma _R`$ and $`\sigma _T`$ as the data, $`\sigma _{ex}^i`$, to be fitted.

In searching for the parameters we first kept the radius parameters, $`r_i`$, as 0.9 or 1.0 fm and the diffuseness parameters, $`a_i`$, as 0.4 or 0.5 fm. When we could not get good fits to the data with these fixed parameters, we let them vary. We tried to find both repulsive and attractive potentials at all energies. It was possible to find attractive potentials at all energies considered here, but repulsive potentials were obtained only at 230, 260 and 280 MeV, which are just above the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy. Satchler also obtained a repulsive Woods-Saxon potential for $`\pi ^\pm `$ \+ 208Pb at 291 MeV, whereas at other (lower) energies he found attractive potentials . At these 3 energies the cross sections calculated with attractive potentials were indistinguishable from the ones calculated with repulsive potentials. However, one may normally expect a repulsive potential above the resonance. Also, the dispersion relation calculations to be discussed in the next subsection prefer repulsive real potentials just above the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy. Thus, we shall henceforth include in our discussion only repulsive potentials at 230, 260 and 280 MeV. (At energies higher than the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance there exist several $`N^{}`$ resonances, but these resonances are not so pronounced as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and they overlap with each other due to broad widths. Indeed, at other energies we could not find repulsive potentials.)

There is a well-known ambiguity in determining the optical potential parameters . Due to the strong absorption taking place in the nuclear surface region, different potentials can often fit the scattering data equally well as long as they have similar values near the surface region. Actually, we found that when we used only the elastic differential cross sections as the data to be fitted, the extracted potential parameters could not always reproduce the experimental total elastic ($`\sigma _E`$), reaction ($`\sigma _R`$) and total ($`\sigma _T`$) cross sections. However, when we included in the fitting $`\sigma _E`$, $`\sigma _R`$ and $`\sigma _T`$ as the data to be reproduced in addition to the differential cross section, the resulting potential parameters reproduced all the cross sections quite well as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. (In Figs. 1 and 2, the experimental data for the pion kinetic energies, $`E`$ = 120 - 280 MeV and $`E`$ = 486, 584, 663 and 766 MeV are taken from Refs.  and , respectively. Recently, differential elastic cross section data at $`E`$ = 400 and 500 MeV became available from Ref. .) The searched parameters and the $`\chi ^2`$-values for each energy are listed in Table 1. The fits to the experimental cross sections are in general very good. But there is some discrepancy in the differential cross sections at low bombarding energies, particularly at $`E`$ = 150 MeV. At this energy the second minimum of the differential cross section was not reproduced correctly, and the third maximum was underestimated. When we tried to reproduce the data at larger angles by further adjusting the potential parameters, it was possible to fit the larger angle data, but then the first minimum was not reproduced at the right angle. This may be due to that we have used the Woods-Saxon potentials whereas more realistic potentials such as local potentials phase-shift equivalent to Kisslinger potentials  look considerably different from the Woods-Saxon form, particularly inside the nucleus, as will be shown in Section 3. However, we also note that similar discrepancies between the calculated and the experimental cross sections at $`E`$ = 150 MeV can be seen from Refs.  and , in which the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-isobar model and the Kisslinger potential are used, respectively.

### 2.3 Dispersion Relation and Discussion

Because the extracted potentials have an ambiguity as mentioned above, it is worthwhile to check whether they satisfy the dispersion relation, which is known to be satisfied by the real and imaginary parts of the optical potentials . Also, since the relativistic Klein-Gordon equation, normally solved with nonlocal potentials, is reduced to a nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation, it would be interesting to see whether the phenomenological local potentials are consistent with the dispersion relation. The relation is often written in the form of a so-called subtracted dispersion relation as

$$V(E,r)=V(E^{},r)+\frac{EE^{}}{\pi }P_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E^{\prime \prime }\frac{W(E^{\prime \prime },r)}{(E^{\prime \prime }E^{})(E^{\prime \prime }E)},$$
(6)
where $`P`$ stands for the principal value and $`E^{}`$ is the energy where $`V(E=E^{},r)`$ is known . This equation tells us that once the imaginary part of the potential at a certain radius is known as a function of the energy the real part can be calculated from the relation. Thus, we inserted the imaginary potentials extracted from the $`\chi ^2`$-fitting into the $`W(E,r)`$ of Eq.(6), computed the real potential using the relation, and compared the results with the real potentials extracted from the $`\chi ^2`$-fitting. In so doing, since the potential values in the nuclear surface region are most significant in determining the cross section, we first evaluate a strong absorption radius($`R_S`$) defined as the apsidal distance on the Rutherford trajectory corresponding to the angular momentum $`L=L_{1/2}`$, where $`L_{1/2}`$ is the angular momentum for which the $`S`$-matrix element has the magnitude $`|S_L|=\sqrt{1/2}`$. Here, we used non-integer $`L_{1/2}`$ values at which $`|S_L|=\sqrt{1/2}`$, following Ref. . The $`L_{1/2}`$ values thus obtained are listed in Table 1. The strong absorption radius parameter ($`r_S=R_S/A^{1/3}`$) computed from these $`L_{1/2}`$ values are also listed in Table 1 and plotted in Fig. 3(a) as a function of the pion energy. The $`r_S`$ becomes as large as 1.6 fm near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance region and about 1.1 fm at $`E400500`$ MeV. Note that Satchler’s strong absorption radius parameters were also roughly around 1.5 fm near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy . To compare the values of the real and imaginary parts of the potentials at a certain radius, we took $`r=1.5A^{1/3}`$ fm in Eq. (6), which is close to a strong absorption radius near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy.

In Fig. 4 is plotted by the solid circles the extracted real and imaginary parts of the potentials evaluated at $`r=1.5A^{1/3}`$ fm as a function of the energy. We could roughly fit the solid circles in Fig. 4(b) by the sum of a Gaussian function and a constant of the form

$$W(E,r)=W_0exp((\frac{EE_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }E})^2)+W_1,$$
(7)
where $`W_0`$, $`E_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and $`W_1`$ were found to be -13.9, 220, 110, and -3.34 MeV, respectively. The $`W(E,r)`$ in Eq. (7) with these parameters is plotted by the curve in Fig. 4(b). We then inserted Eq. (7) into Eq. (6), chose the value of $`E^{}`$ in Eq. (6) as 500 MeV, carried out the integral over the energy, and obtained the real part, $`V(E,r)`$. The resulting $`V(E,r)`$ is plotted by the curve in Fig. 4(a), which roughly fits the extracted real potentials (the solid circles). As mentioned earlier, at 230, 260 and 280 MeV both attractive and repulsive potentials could fit the cross section data equally well. But the $`V(E,r)`$ calculated from the dispersion relation (the full curve) prefers repulsive potentials at these energies.

The dispersion relation is applied at other radii also from $`1.3A^{1/3}`$ to $`2.0A^{1/3}`$ fm. In this radial region the extracted imaginary potentials can be fitted by Eq. (7) (but with different values of $`W_0,E_0,\mathrm{\Delta }E,`$ and $`W_1`$, of course, for each energy) with $`E_0`$ 205 MeV on the average. The real potentials calculated from the dispersion relation in this radial region reproduce the extracted real potentials just as well as in Fig. 4(a), so the figures are not repeatedly shown here. But outside this radial region, the extracted imaginary potentials are not so well fitted by Eq. (7). Also, the extracted real potentials are somewhat more scattered around the real potential curves calculated from the dispersion relation. Thus, it seems that the extracted phenomenological local potentials are consistent with the dispersion relation in this outer surface region.

Here, we note that although we reproduce the cross sections quite well as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and the extracted local potentials in the outer surface region are reasonably consistent with the dispersion relation, it still does not necessarily mean that the extracted potentials are the unique ones which can describe the data. Particularly the inner part of the potentials can be quite different, as will be seen in Section 3, because this method cannot well determine the potentials inside the nucleus due to the absorption in the nuclear surface region in addition to the fact that we have assumed the Woods-Saxon form of the local potential.

However, an interesting feature obtained from the results is the broad peak in the imaginary potential as seen in Fig. 4(b). For $`1.3A^{1/3}`$ fm $`<r<2.0A^{1/3}`$ fm, the peaks are located at $`E=E_0`$ 205 MeV on the average, which is near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy, and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of the peaks is about 110 MeV. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s produced in nuclei can get absorbed via processes such as quasi-free decay or spreading . Such an absorption is reflected in the flux of the incident pion as the imaginary part of the local potential peaked at about $`E=E_0`$. The region where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decays in nuclei through the quasi-free channel and the spreading was studied . It was shown that the quasi-free decay takes place at $`r1.6A^{1/3}`$ fm and the spreading at $`r0.9A^{1/3}`$ fm. Since the quasi-free decay is the dominant decay process over the spreading by a factor of roughly 2 , the strong absorption radius near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy is mainly determined by the region where the quasi-free decay takes place, which is as large as about $`1.6A^{1/3}`$ fm. Fig. 3(a) and Table 1 show just that the extracted strong absorption radius parameters near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance are about 1.6 fm, consistent with the results of Ref. . Here, we also remark that 1.59 times $`\pi R_S^2`$ roughly reproduces the total cross section as plotted by the crosses in Fig. 3(b), i.e., $`\sigma _T1.59\pi R_S^2`$, where $`R_S=r_SA^{1/3}`$ with $`r_S`$ being the strong absorption radius parameter plotted by the squares in Fig. 3(a).

## 3 Comparison with Local Potentials Equivalent to Kisslinger potential

In this Section we briefly describe the Krell-Ericson transformation method  closely following Johnson and Satchler , where it was extensively applied to both $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ scattered from various target nuclei at pion energies from 20 to 291 MeV. A detailed study of the resulting equivalent local potentials can be found there.

We return to the truncated Klein-Gordon equation in Eq. (1). $`\omega `$ is now taken as the total energy of the pion in the pion-nucleus center-of-mass system. These slightly different definitions of $`\omega `$ do not make any significant difference in the values of $`\omega `$ because the mass of the pion is very small compared to that of target nuclei. For the nuclear potential $`V_N`$ in Eq. (1) the Kisslinger form  of the potential has been frequently used, which can be written as

$$V_N=\frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{2\omega }\left[q(r)+\stackrel{}{}\alpha (r)\stackrel{}{}\right],$$
(8)
where the first term $`q(r)`$ is mainly due to the pion-nucleon $`S`$-wave interaction and the second term comes from the $`P`$-wave part.

By rewriting the pion distorted wave function $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ in Eq. (1) as

$$\varphi (𝐫)=P(r)\psi (𝐫)$$
(9)
with the Perey factor $`P(r)=\left[1\alpha (r)\right]^{1/2}`$, one can get a Schrödinger equation for $`\psi (𝐫)`$,

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }^2+U_L+V_C\right]\psi =E_{c.m.}\psi ,$$
(10)
where $`\mu =\omega /c^2`$ and $`E_{c.m.}=(\mathrm{}k)^2/2\mu `$. Here, $`U_L`$ is a local potential dependent only on $`r`$ as follows:

$$U_L=U_1+U_2+U_3+\mathrm{\Delta }U_C$$
(11)
with

$`U_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{2\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{q(r)}{1\alpha (r)}},`$
$`U_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{2\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\alpha (r)}{1\alpha (r)}},`$
$`U_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{2\omega }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}^2\alpha (r)}{1\alpha (r)}}+\{{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\alpha (r)}{1\alpha (r)}}\}^2\right],`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }U_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (r)V_C}{1\alpha (r)}}.`$
Thus if $`q(r)`$ and $`\alpha (r)`$ are given, the local potential $`U_L`$, exactly phase-shift equivalent to the Kisslinger potential, can be calculated. The expressions and parameters for $`q(r)`$ and $`\alpha (r)`$ for the system of $`\pi ^{}`$ \+ 12C at 7 energies from 120 to 280 MeV are available from the work of Sternheim and Auerbach , where simple forms of $`q(r)`$ and $`\alpha (r)`$ are used: $`q(r)=b_0k^2\rho (r)`$ and $`\alpha (r)=b_1\rho (r)`$ with $`\rho (r)`$ being the target nuclear density. (Note that $`b_1`$ here corresponds to $`c_0`$ in the notation of Johnson and Satchler .) We have used ”Fermi averaged parameters” for $`b_0`$ and ”Fitted parameters” for $`b_1`$ as listed in Table I of Ref. . The same parameter sets were used by Di Marzio and Amos to calculate approximate analytic pion distorted wave functions . We took the 12C density from Ref. , which is consistent with Ref. .

The real and imaginary parts of $`U_L`$ calculated with these parameters are plotted by the full curves in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), respectively, for $`E=`$ 120, 150, 230, and 280 MeV only. (For brevity, figures for 180 and 260 MeV are omitted. $`U_L`$ for 200 MeV is shown in Fig. 6.) Both real and imaginary parts of $`U_L`$ display a wiggly behaviour, as already observed in Refs.  and , but the wiggles disappear as the energy increases. The reason for the gradual disappearance of the wiggles at higher energies can be easily seen, when the Kisslinger potential is expressed in a simple form as in Refs.  and . In Fig. 6, each term of $`U_L`$ is plotted for two different pion energies; one below the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance, the other above the resonance. The real and imaginary parts are plotted by the full and broken curves, respectively. It is easily seen that $`U_2`$ and $`U_3`$ are the terms that characterize the shape of the summed local potential $`U_L`$. $`U_2`$ determines the overall shape of $`U_L`$ for both below and above the resonance, and $`U_3`$ brings in more fluctuations, particularly below the resonance. As the energy increases the wiggles in all terms of $`U_L`$ become less prominent. Such gradual disappearance of oscillatory behaviours of the real potential at higher energies was already observed in a model-independent Fourier-Bessel analysis of the pion potential by Friedman , who extracted the real potential by assuming the Woods-Saxon form for the imaginary potential. The same tendency of disappearance of wiggles at higher energies can be also seen from the figures in Refs.  and .

We can also see that the wiggles do not appear in the outer nuclear surface region, where the scattering is most sensitive to the potential. Thus, as the energy increases, the equivalent local potentials at large radii become more or less close to the form of a Woods-Saxon potential. In Fig. 5 we plotted by the broken curves the phenomenological Woods-Saxon potentials extracted in Section 2. At 230, 260 and 280 MeV the phenomenological local potentials are close to the equivalent local potentials $`U_L`$ (the full curves) in the outer surface region. Especially, the imaginary parts at large radii are very close to each other. But at lower energies there are large discrepancies between the phenomenological Woods-Saxon potentials and the equivalent local potentials. Even the signs of the real potentials are opposite except for large radii at 120 MeV. (We may, however, remark that even the equivalent local potentials could have different signs of real potentials at smaller radii depending on the interaction parameters used as shown in Fig. 13 of Ref. , while they produce similar scattering cross sections, because the scattering is most sensitive to the potential at large radii.) As pointed out earlier, we can see from Fig. 4(a) that the real potentials at $`1.3A^{1/3}`$ fm $`<r<2.0A^{1/3}`$ fm are repulsive only at the energies just above the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance. Thus, the dispersion relation calculations seem to require attractive potentials at energies below the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance in the outer surface region.

Also, although the equivalent local potentials are theoretically better founded, the phenomenological Woods-Saxon potentials reproduce the cross sections much better, as shown in Fig. 1. (The equivalent local potentials obtained here result in the same differential cross sections as in Figs. 1 and 2 of Ref. , so they are not repeated here.)

## 4 Summary

We assumed the Woods-Saxon form of phenomenological local potentials in solving a Schrödinger equation reduced from the Klein-Gordon equation and searched for the potential parameters. The calculated cross sections reproduced the experimental cross sections quite well in a wide range of energy. The real and imaginary parts of the phenomenological potentials in the outer nuclear surface region are found to satisfy the dispersion relation. The imaginary part of the phenomenological local potentials as a function of the energy has a peak near the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance energy due to the decay of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s in the nuclear medium, which is reflected in the pion flux as absorption of the incident pion. The strong absorption radius ($`1.6A^{1/3}`$ fm) in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance region is found to be consistent with the previous studies of the region where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decays in the nuclear medium. But we again stress that the phenomenological local potentials obtained here are not necessarily unique. This method of calculating the pion cross sections may rather be taken as a simple way of taking into account the distortion effects in the DWBA or DWIA calculations with a relatively good accuracy as in Ref. . It is well known that for high energy beams the distortion effects can be often treated by an eikonal approximation with so-called a distortion factor or an attenuation factor. Indeed, Table 1 shows that at higher energies the real part of the phenomenological local potential becomes much smaller than the imaginary part.

Very recently this approach to the treatment of the distortion effects has been applied to the 12C($`\pi ^+,K^+`$)$`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C reaction, and the distorted wave functions of $`\pi ^+`$ and $`K^+`$ calculated in this method have been successfully used in reproducing the hypernuclear production cross sections in DWIA . Even if the distorted wave functions calculated in this way may not be accurate especially inside the nucleus, this simple method seems quite useful in dealing with the distortion effects in view of the fact that most of the cross sections are well reproduced.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Professor T. Udagawa for his hospitality at the University of Texas at Austin and for his careful reading the manuscript and helpful discussions. SWH owes thanks to Drs. H. W. Fearing and B. K. Jennings for their hospitality at TRIUMF and discussions and Professor B. C. Clark for sending some of the experimental data in numbers. This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Education of Korea (BSRI 98-2422) and by Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (951-0202-033-2).

| $`E`$ | $`V`$ | $`r_V`$ | $`a_V`$ | $`W`$ | $`r_W`$ | $`a_W`$ | $`\chi ^2`$ | $`L_{1/2}`$ | $`r_S`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (MeV) | (MeV) | (fm) | (fm) | (MeV) | (fm) | (fm) |  | ($`\mathrm{}`$) | (fm) |
| 120 | -31.2 | 1.55 | .257 | -149. | 0.9 | .536 | 1.7 | 3.5 | 1.58 |
| 150 | -54.0 | 1.20 | .574 | -103. | 1.0 | .566 | 8.9 | 4.1 | 1.58 |
| 180 | -86.4 | 0.9 | .553 | -62.0 | 1.30 | .455 | 2.7 | 4.7 | 1.59 |
| 200 | -93.6 | 0.9 | .571 | -66.35 | 1.20 | .4905 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.54 |
| 230 | 137. | 1.0 | .2156 | -58.53 | 1.40 | .3556 | 1.8 | 5.1 | 1.44 |
| 260 | 111. | 1.0 | .3136 | -53.8 | 1.35 | .3694 | 1.2 | 5.3 | 1.37 |
| 280 | 109. | 1.0 | .319 | -46.74 | 1.35 | .381 | 0.63 | 5.5 | 1.34 |
| 400 | -39.4 | 1.12 | .4 | -59.8 | 0.9 | .474 | 1.5 | 5.7 | 1.05 |
| 486 | -22.0 | 1.124 | .4 | -70.3 | 0.9 | .4 | 1.8 | 7.0 | 1.11 |
| 500 | -31.8 | 1.05 | .4 | -53.8 | 0.9 | .540 | 1.7 | 6.7 | 1.05 |
| 584 | -12.4 | 1.20 | .366 | -69.8 | 0.9 | .437 | 1.3 | 8.3 | 1.13 |
| 663 | -4.90 | 1.37 | .300 | -64.0 | 0.965 | .442 | 1.9 | 9.6 | 1.17 |
| 766 | -4.11 | 1.40 | .526 | -60.3 | 1.0 | .462 | 1.8 | 11.6 | 1.25 |


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The large, $`A`$ dependent enhancement of the cross section at low invariant masses of the dipion system found in Refs. , could be a signal of very strong nuclear medium effects on correlated pion pairs in the $`I=J=0`$ (”$`\sigma `$”) channel. This strength accumulation had been predicted in Ref. , and similar results were obtained by Hatsuda et al. , where the enhancement at low invariant masses of the spectral function in the $`\sigma `$ channel appears as a consequence of the partial restoration of chiral symmetry in the nuclear medium.

In the last few years, several non perturbative models have been developed, which describe very successfully the $`\pi \pi `$ interaction in vacuum . When nuclear medium effects were included, some accumulation of strength was found close to the two pion threshold, which could be consistent with the experimental results. However, a full calculation of the $`A(\pi ,2\pi )X`$ process was needed in order to take into account all other nuclear effects and the detailed structure of the scattering amplitude.

A first attempt was presented in ref. . In that work, a very simple model for the elementary $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ amplitude was used, and the most important medium effects were included. The results showed a clear peak on the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$ distribution slightly above threshold, in good agreement with experimental data for medium nuclei. However, the agreement was not as satisfactory for deuterium, where the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$ distribution was overestimated at threshold.

In this paper we will present a new study of the reaction, including a more realistic $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ amplitude, which reproduces very well the cross section on hydrogen and deuterium, and we shall also consider some nuclear effects omitted previously, like the reduction of the incoming pion flux due to absorption and quasielastic scattering, which modifies drastically the effective density at which the reaction occurs.

## 2 $`\pi \pi `$ scattering in the scalar isoscalar channel

The $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude is obtained solving the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation

$$T=𝒱+𝒱𝒢T.$$
(1)
Fully detailed formulas and many technicalities can be found in Refs. . The $`|\pi \pi ,I=0>`$ and $`|K\overline{K},I=0>`$ states are included in the coupled channels calculation. The potential $`𝒱`$ is obtained from the lowest order chiral lagrangians and $`𝒢`$ is the two meson propagator. A cutoff of 1 GeV is used to regularize the momentum integral appearing in the calculation of $`𝒢`$. The method guarantees both unitarity and consistency with chiral perturbation theory at low energies. This theoretical $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude agrees well with experimental phase shifts and inelasticities from threshold up to energies around 1.2 GeV, and therefore provides a good starting point for our analysis.

To account for nuclear effects, the BS equation is modified by the substitution of vacuum meson propagators by the medium ones. Namely,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒢}=i\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2m^2\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}\frac{1}{(Pk)^2m^2\mathrm{\Pi }(Pk)},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ is the meson selfenergy in nuclear matter, which accounts for the particle-hole and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-hole excitations. The resulting $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude shows a strong dependence on the baryon density, as can be appreciated in Fig. 1. Whereas at high energies (around 600 MeV) the imaginary part of $`T_{\pi \pi }`$ is reduced, there is a large enhancement around 300 MeV, where the CHAOS data show a well marked peak.

Similar results have been found using quite different approaches. See for instance Ref.  and Fig. 3 of Ref. .

Finally, let us mention that other isospin channels either have a very small contribution to the $`A(\pi ,\pi \pi )X`$ reaction at low energies, $`(I=1)`$, or show a weak interaction between the pions $`(I=2)`$, thus, for them, we will not consider the interaction between the pions.

## 3 Elementary $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ reaction

In order to be able to compare detailed effects on the differential cross section a high quality description of the elementary cross section is clearly required. Fortunately, such models are readily available in the literature . The model used in this paper follows closely that of ref. , although with some improvements to accommodate it to new resonance data in the PDG book , and to properly include the final state $`\pi \pi `$ interaction in the scalar isoscalar channel. The Lagrangians and coupling constants used can be found in the appendix of ref. .

Although the model is quite complex, and includes many mechanisms, it has no free parameters. Some coupling constants, related to the Roper resonance, have an uncertainty band associated to the uncertainties quoted in the PDG book. In those cases we have always taken the central values.

The results agree well with the experimental data for total and differential cross sections for all isospin channels, including of course the two-pions invariant mass distributions measured by CHAOS.

## 4 $`\pi A\pi \pi X`$ reaction

Many different nuclear effects modify the pion production cross sections. First, the initial and final pions undergo a strong distortion. This is implemented in the calculation following the methods of refs. . The incoming pion flux is reduced by absorption and quasielastic scattering. Both are very large because we are close to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance peak. The pions scattered quasielastically are simply removed because they loose energy, and thus the probability to participate in a pion production process is drastically reduced. Distortion is less important for the final pions because of their lower energy. Only absorption has been considered for them. Second, the incoming pion collides with a nucleon which is moving in a Fermi sea, and the emitted nucleon is Pauli blocked, therefore only momenta above certain value are allowed to contribute, and this is implemented by means of a local density approximation. Third, the intermediate resonances ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s, $`N^{}`$’s) also see their properties modified by the medium. Also, new reaction mechanisms like meson exchange currents, could play some role, although it has been shown in Ref.  that the reaction is essentially quasifree, and these possible mechanisms are not included in our calculation. Finally, the pion-pion final state interaction in the nuclear medium is considered. We select the part of the amplitude in which the two final pions are in the scalar isoscalar channel, and then we modify this part by incorporating the nuclear medium $`\pi \pi `$ interaction .

## 5 Results and discussion

As shown in Fig. 2, we find that our model describes fairly well the $`\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ reaction both in deuterium and in heavier nuclei. Details and comments on normalization can be found in ref. . This gives us much confidence on our treatment of the nuclear medium effects. Note that they are the same for this and the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel except for the the two-pions final state interaction, which is pure isospin 2 in $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$, and mostly isospin 0 in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ case.

However, although the $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ reaction is well reproduced in deuterium, the model fails for this channel in heavier nuclei (see Fig. 3). Furthermore, we find the effect of in-medium final state interaction of the pions to be rather small. Similar results are obtained for heavier nuclei.

The main reason for the small enhancement found is the very small effective density (see Fig. 4) at which the pion production process occurs. As explained before, the initial pion has a large probability of being absorbed or quasielastically scattered. As a consequence, the flux reaching the center of the nucleus is small and the reaction occurs mainly at the surface. An estimation of the average density gives $`\rho _{av}=\rho _0/4`$, considerably lower than those used in Ref. .

Imposing a high fixed average density we get a much larger although yet insufficient enhancement, and that at the price of destroying the nice agreement found for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ case, due to the too large Fermi motion of the nucleons. Better agreement with the nuclear data can be reached by selecting a simplified version of the model used for the elementary $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ reaction, that overestimates the low mass region for the deuteron case.

There are several possibilities which could explain the large discrepancy between data and our model. One could be a much stronger pion-pion interaction in the medium in the scalar isoscalar channels, and some recent works point into that direction. On the other hand, more trivial effects could be playing an important role. Probably, apart from concentrating on the peak appearing in medium and heavy nuclei, one should look more carefully to the very low values at low invariant masses of the cross section in deuteron and hydrogen. According to our model, this is due to destructive interference between large pieces of the amplitude. If some of these pieces are substantially modified in nuclei, the interference could disappear, and the spectral function would have some additional strength close to threshold.

Some of these questions could be answered soon. There are new experimental data being analyzed, which have measured a wider phase space than CHAOS, and also other CHAOS measurements studying the energy dependence (meaning the incoming pion energy) of the peak. In our model, this is important because the interference effects are smaller at lower energies.

Finally, we think that lepton induced reactions, which are free from the initial state interaction and would allow the pion production to happen at higher densities could be a better probe. In particular, $`(\gamma ,\pi \pi )`$ is currently under theoretical investigation.

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by DGYCIT contract no. PB-96-0753.


text:
# Fossils of turbulence and non-turbulence in the primordial universe: the fluid mechanics of dark matter

## 1 Introduction

Was the primordial universe turbulent or non-turbulent soon after the Big Bang? How did the hydrodynamic state of the early universe affect the formation of structure from gravitational forces, and how did the formation of structure by gravity affect the hydrodynamic state of the flow? What can be said about the dark matter that comprises $`99.9\%`$ of the mass of the universe according to most cosmological models? Space telescope measurements show answers to these questions persist literally frozen as fossils of the primordial turbulence and nonturbulence that controlled structure formation, contrary to standard cosmology which relies on the erroneous Jeans 1902 linear-inviscid-acoustic theory and a variety of associated misconceptions (e. g., cold dark matter). When effects of viscosity, turbulence, and diffusion are included, vastly different structure scenarios and a clear explanation for the dark matter emerge . From Gibson’s 1996 theory the baryonic (ordinary) dark matter is comprised of proto-globular-star-cluster (PGC) clumps of hydrogenous planetoids termed “primordial fog particles”(PFPs), observed by Schild 1996 as “rogue planets … likely to be the missing mass” of a quasar lensing galaxy . The weakly collisional non-baryonic dark matter diffuses to form outer halos of galaxies and galaxy clusters .

## 2 Fluid mechanics of structure formation

Before the $`1989`$ Cosmic Microwave Background Experiment (COBE) satellite, it was generally assumed that the fluid universe produced by the hot Big Bang singularity must be enormously turbulent, and that galaxies were nucleated by density perturbations produced by this primordial turbulence. George Gamov $`1954`$ suggested galaxies were a form of “fossil turbulence”, thus coining a very useful terminology for the description of turbulence remnants in the stratified ocean and atmosphere, Gibson $`19801999`$. Other galaxy models based on turbulence were proposed by von Weizsacker $`1951`$, Chandrasekhar $`1952`$, Ozernoi and colleagues in $`19681971`$, Oort $`1970`$, and Silk and Ames $`1972`$. All such theories were rendered moot by COBE measurements showing temperature fluctuation values $`\delta T/T`$ of only $`10^5`$ at $`300,000`$ years compared to at least $`10^2`$ for the plasma if it were turbulent. At this time, the opaque plasma of hydrogen and helium had cooled to $`3,000`$ K and become a transparent neutral gas, revealing a remarkable photograph of the universe as it existed at $`10^{13}`$ s, with spectral redshift z of $`1100`$ due to straining of space at rate $`\gamma 1/t`$.
Why was the primordial plasma before $`300,000`$ years not turbulent? Steady inviscid flows are absolutely unstable. Turbulence always forms in flows with Reynolds number $`Re=\delta vL/\nu `$ exceeding $`Re_{cr}100`$, where $`\nu `$ is the kinematic viscosity of a fluid with velocity differences $`\delta v`$ on scale $`L`$, Landau-Lifshitz 1959. Thus either $`\nu `$ at $`10^{13}`$ s had an unimaginably large value of $`9\times 10^{27}`$ m2 s-1 at horizon scales $`L_H=ct`$ with light speed velocity differences $`c`$, or else gravitational structures formed in the plasma at earlier times and viscosity plus buoyancy forces of the structures prevented strong turbulence.

## 3 Fossils of first structure (proto-supervoids)

The power spectrum of temperature fluctuations $`\delta T`$ measured by COBE peaks at a length $`3\times 10^{20}`$ m which is only $`1/10`$ the horizon scale ct, suggesting the first structure formed earlier at $`10^{12}`$ s ($`30,000`$ years). The photon viscosity of the plasma $`\nu =c/n\sigma _\tau `$ was $`4\times 10^{26}`$ m2 s-1 then, with free electron number density $`n=10^{10}`$ m-3 and $`\sigma _\tau `$ the Thomson cross section for Compton scattering. The baryon density $`\rho `$ was $`3\times 10^{17}`$ kg m-3, which matches the density of present globular-star-clusters as a fossil of the weak turbulence at this time of first structure. The fragmentation mass $`\rho (ct)^3`$ of $`10^{46}`$ kg matches the observed mass of superclusters of galaxies, the largest structures of the universe. Because $`ReRe_{crit}`$, the horizon scale $`ct=3\times 10^{20}`$ m matches the Schwarz viscous scale $`L_{SV}=(\gamma \nu /\rho G)^{1/2}`$ at which viscous forces $`F_V=\rho \gamma L^2`$ equal gravitational forces $`F_G=\rho ^2GL^4`$, and also the Schwarz turbulence scale $`L_{ST}=\epsilon ^{1/2}/(\rho G)^{3/4}`$ at which inertial-vortex forces $`F_I=\rho \epsilon ^{2/3}L^{8/3}`$ equal $`F_G`$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the viscous dissipation rate . Further fragmentation to proto-galaxy scales is predicted in this scenario, with the nonbaryonic dark matter diffusing to fill the voids between constant density proto-supercluster to proto-galaxy structures for scales smaller than the diffusive Schwarz scale $`L_{SD}=(D^2/\rho G)^{1/4}`$, where $`D`$ is the diffusivity of the nonbaryonic dark matter . Fragmentation of the nonbaryonic material to form superhalos implies $`D=10^{28}`$ m2 s-1, from observation of present superhalo sizes $`L_{SD}`$ and densities $`\rho `$ , trillions of times larger than $`D`$ for H-He gas with the same $`\rho `$.

## 4 Fossils of the first condensation (as “fog”)

Photon decoupling dramatically reduced viscosity values to $`\nu =3\times 10^{12}`$ m2 s-1 in the primordial gas of the nonturbulent $`10^{20}`$ m size proto-galaxies, with $`\gamma =10^{13}`$ s-1 and $`\rho =10^{17}`$ kg m-3, giving a PFP fragmentation mass range $`M_{SV}M_{ST}10^{23}10^{25}`$ kg, the mass of a small planet. Pressure decreases in voids during fragmentation as the density decreases, to maintain constant temperature from the perfect gas law $`T=p/\rho R`$, where $`R`$ is the gas constant, for scales smaller than the acoustic scale $`L_J=V_S/(\rho G)^{1/2}`$ of Jeans $`1902`$, where $`V_S`$ is the sound speed. However, the pressure cannot propagate fast enough in voids larger than $`L_J`$ so they cool. Hence radiation from the warmer surroundings can heat such large voids, increasing their pressure and accelerating the void formation, causing a fragmentation within proto-galaxies at the Jeans mass of $`10^{35}`$ kg, the mass of globular-star-clusters. These proto-globular-cluster (PGC) clumps of PFPs provide the materials of construction for everything else to follow, from stars to people. Leftover PGCs and PFPs thus comprise present galactic dark matter inner halos which typically have expanded to about $`10^{21}`$ m (30 kpc) of the core and exceed the luminous (star) mass by factors of $`1030`$.

## 5 Observations

Observations of quasar image twinkling frequencies reveal that the point mass objects which dominate the mass of the lens galaxy are not stars, but “rogue planets… likely to be the missing mass”, Schild $`1996`$, independently confirming this prediction of Gibson $`1996`$. Other evidence of the predicted primordial fog particles (PFPs) is shown in Hubble Space Telescope photographs, such as thousands of $`10^{25}`$ kg “cometary globules” in the halo of the Helix planetary nebula and possibly like numbers in the Eskimo planetary nebula halo. These dying stars are very hot ($`100,000`$ K versus $`6,000`$ K normal) so that many PFPs nearby can be brought out of cold storage by evaporation to produce the $`10^{13}`$ m protective cocoons that make them visible to the HST at $`10^{19}`$ m distances.

## 6 Summary and conclusions

The Figure summarizes the evolution of structure and turbulence in the early universe, as inferred from the present nonlinear fluid mechanical theory. It is very different, very early, and very gentle compared to the standard model, where structure formation in baryonic matter is forbidden in the plasma epoch because $`L_J`$ is larger than $`L_H=ct`$ and galaxies collapse at 140 million years (redshift z=20) producing $`10^{36}`$ kg Population III superstars that explode and re-ionize the universe to explain the missing gas (sequestered in PFPs). No such stars, no galaxy collapse, and no re-ionization occurs in the present theory. To produce the structure observed today, the concept “cold dark matter” (CDM) was invented; that is, a hypothetical non-baryonic fluid of “cold” (low speed) collisionless particles with adjustable $`L_J`$ small enough to produce gravitational potential wells to drive galaxy collapse. Cold dark matter is unnecessary in the present theory. Even if it exists it would not behave as required by the standard model. Its necessarily small collision cross section requires $`L_{SD}L_J`$ so it would diffuse out of its own well, without fragmentation if $`L_{SD}L_H`$. The immediate formation of “primordial fog particles” from all the neutral gas of the universe emerging from the plasma epoch permits their gradual accretion to form the observed small ancient stars in dense globular-star-clusters known to be only slightly younger than the universe. These could never form in the intense turbulence of galaxy collapse in the standard model because $`L_{ST}`$ scales would be too large.


text:
# COLLISIONAL DARK MATTER AND THE STRUCTURE OF DARK HALOS

## 1. Introduction

Cold dark matter scenarios within the standard inflationary universe have proved remarkably successful in fitting a wide range of observations. While structure on large scales is well reproduced by the models, the situation is more controversial in the highly nonlinear regime. Navarro, Frenk & White (1995, 1996, 1997; NFW) claimed that the density profiles of near-equilibrium dark halos can be approximated by a “universal” form with singular behaviour at small radii. Higher resolution studies have confirmed this result, finding even more concentrated dark halos than the original NFW work and showing, in addition, that CDM halos are predicted to have a very rich substructure with of order 10% of their mass contained in a host of small subhalos (Frenk et al 1999, Moore et al 1999a, 1999b, Ghigna et al 1999, Klypin et al 1999, Gottloeber et al 1999, White & Springel 1999). Except for a weak anticorrelation of concentration with mass, small and large mass halos are found to have similar structure. Many of these studies note that the predicted concentrations appear inconsistent with published data on the rotation curves of dwarf galaxies, and that the amount of substructure exceeds that seen in the halo of the Milky Way (see also Moore 1994; Flores and Primack 1994; Kravtsov et al 1998; Navarro 1998).

It is unclear whether these discrepancies reflect a fundamental problem with the Cold Dark Matter picture, or are caused by overly naive interpretation of the observations of the galaxy formation process (see Eke, Navarro & Frenk 1998; Navarro & Steinmetz 1999; van den Bosch 1999). On the assumption that an explanation should be sought in fundamental physics, Spergel & Steinhardt (1999) have argued that a large cross-section for elastic collisions between CDM particles may reconcile data and theory. They suggest a number of modifications of standard particle physics models which could give rise to such self-interacting dark matter, and claim that cross-sections which lead to a transition between collisional and collisionless behaviour at radii of order 10 – 100 kpc in galaxy halos are preferred on astrophysical grounds. Ostriker (1999) argues that the massive black holes observed at the centres of many galactic spheroids may arise from the accretion of such collisional dark matter onto stellar mass seeds. Miralda-Escude (2000) argues that such dark matter will produce galaxy clusters which are rounder than observed and so can be excluded.

At early times the CDM distribution is indeed cold, so the evolution of structure is independent of the collision cross-section of the CDM particles. At late times, however, a large cross-section leads to a small mean free path and so to fluid behaviour in collapsed regions. In this Letter we explore how the structure of nonlinear objects (“dark halos”) is affected by this change. We simulate the formation of a massive halo from CDM initial conditions in two limits: purely collisionless dark matter and “fluid” dark matter. We do not try to simulate the the more complex intermediate case in which the mean free path is large in the outer regions of halos but small in their cores. If this intermediate case (which is the one favoured by Spergel & Steinhardt (1999) and by Ostriker (1999)) produces nonlinear structure intermediate between the two extremes we do treat, then our results show that collisional CDM would give poorer fits to the rotation curves of dwarf galaxies than standard collisionless CDM. Further work is needed to see if this is indeed the case.

## 2. THE N-BODY/SPH SIMULATION

Our simulations use the parallel tree code GADGET developed by Springel (1999, see also Springel, Yoshida & White 2000b). Our chosen halo is the second most massive cluster in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulation of Kauffmann et al (1999). We analyse its structure in the original simulation and in two higher resolution resimulations. In the collisionless case these are the lowest resolution members of a set of four resimulations carried out by Springel et al (2000a) using similar techniques to those of NFW. Details may be found there and in Springel et al(2000b). These collisionless resimulations use GADGET as an N-body solver, whereas our collisional resimulations start from identical initial conditions but use the code’s Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) capability to solve the fluid equations. The SPH method regards each simulation particle as a “cloud” of fluid with a certain kernel shape. These clouds interact with each other over a length scale which is determined by the local density and so varies both in space and time. The basic parameters of our simulations are tabulated in Table 1, where N$`_{\text{tot}}`$ is the total number of particles in the simulation, N$`_{\text{high}}`$ the number of particles in the central high-resolution region, $`m_p`$ is the mass of each high-resolution particle, and $`l_s`$ stands for the gravitational softening length. Our cosmological model is flat with matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and expansion rate $`H_0=70`$km-1Mpc-1. It has a CDM power spectrum normalised so that $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. The virial mass of the final cluster is $`M_{200}=7.4\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$, determined as the mass within the radius $`R_{200}=1.46h^1`$Mpc where the enclosed mean

## 3. RESULTS

On scales larger than the final cluster, the matter distribution in all our simulations looks similar. This is no surprise. The initial conditions in each pair of simulations are identical, so particle motions only begin to differ once pressure forces become important. Furthermore the initial perturbation fields in simulations of differing resolution are identical on all scales resolved in both models, and even S0 resolves structure down to scales well below that of the cluster. As is seen clearly in Figure 1, a major difference between the collisional and collisionless models is that the final cluster is nearly spherical in the former case and quite elongated in the latter. The axial ratios determined from the inertia tensors of the matter at densities exceeding 100 times the critical value are 1.00:0.96:0.84 and 1.00:0.72:0.63 respectively. Again this is no surprise. A slowly rotating fluid body in hydrostatic equilibrium is required to be nearly spherical, but no such constraint applies in the collisionless case (see also Miralda-Escude 2000).

In Figure 2 we show circular velocity profiles for our simulations. These are defined as $`V_c(r)=\sqrt{GM(r)/r}`$, where $`M(r)`$ is the mass within a sphere radius $`r`$; they are plotted at radii between 2$`l_s`$ and $`5R_{200}`$. They agree reasonably well along each sequence of increasing resolution, showing that our results have converged numerically on these scales. Along the fluid sequence the profiles resemble the collisionless case over the bulk of the cluster. In the core, however, there is a substantial and significant difference; the fluid cluster has a substantially steeper central cusp. The difference extends out to radii of about $`0.5R_{200}`$ and has the wrong sign to improve the fit of CDM halos to published rotation curves for dwarf and low surface brightness galaxies.

(Note that in the fluid case we expect small halos to approximate scaled down but slightly more concentrated versions of cluster halos, as in the collisionless case studied by Moore et al (1999a); this scaling will fail for intermediate cross-sections because the ratio of the typical mean free path to the size of the halo will increase with halo mass.)

In Figure 3 we compare the level of substructure within $`R_{200}`$ in our various simulations. Subhalos are identified using the algorithm SUBFIND by Springel (1999) which defines them as maximal, simply connected, gravitationally self-bound sets of particles which are at higher local density than all surrounding cluster material. (Our SPH scheme defines a local density in the neighbourhood of every particle.) Using this procedure we find that 1.0%, 3.4% and 6.7% of the mass within $`R_{200}`$ is included in subhalos in S0, S1 and S2 respectively. Along the fluid sequence the corresponding numbers are 3.0%, 6.4% and 3.1%. The difference in the total amount results primarily from the chance inclusion or exclusion of infalling massive halos near the boundary at $`R_{200}`$. In Figure 3 we show the mass distributions of these subhalos. We plot each simulation to a mass limit of 40 particles, corresponding approximately to the smallest structures we expect to be adequately resolved in our SPH simulations. Along each resolution sequence the agreement is quite good, showing this limit to be conservative. For small subhalo masses there is clearly less substructure in the fluid case, but the difference is more modest than might have been anticipated.

## 4. Summary and Discussion

An interesting question arising from our results is why our fluid clusters have more concentrated cores than their collisionless counterparts. The density profile of an equilibrium gas sphere can be thought of as being determined by its Lagrangian specific entropy profile, i.e. by the function $`m(s)`$ defined to be the mass of gas with specific entropy less than $`s`$. The larger the mass at low specific entropy, the more concentrated the resulting profile. Thus our fluid clusters have more low entropy gas than if their profiles were similar to those of the collisionless clusters. The entropy of the gas is produced by a variety of accretion and merger shocks during the build-up of the cluster, so the strong central concentration reflects a relatively large amount of weakly shocked gas.

We study gas shocking in our models by carrying out one further simulation. We take the initial conditions of S1 and replace each particle by two superposed particles, a collisionless dark matter particle containing 95% of the original mass and a gas particle containing 5%. These two then move together until SPH pressure forces are strong enough to separate them. The situation is similar to the standard 2-component model for galaxy clusters except that our chosen gas fraction is significantly smaller than observed values.

In this mixed simulation the evolution of the collisionless matter (and its final density profile) is almost identical to that in the original S1. This is, of course, a consequence of the small gas fraction we have assumed. In agreement with the simulations in Frenk et al (1999) we find that the gas density profile parallels that of the dark matter over most of the cluster but is significantly shallower in the inner $`200h^1`$kpc. Comparing this new simulation (S1M) with its fluid counterpart (S1F) we find that in both cases the gas which ends up near the cluster centre lay at the centre of the most massive cluster progenitors at $`z=13`$. In addition it is distributed in a similar way among the progenitors in the two cases. In Figure 4 we compare the specific entropy profiles of the cluster gas. These are scaled so that they would be identical if each gas particle had the same shock history in the two simulations. Over most of the cluster there is indeed a close correspondence, but near the centre the gas in the mixed simulation has higher entropy. (This corresponds roughly to $`r<100h^1`$kpc.)

As Figure 4 shows, this is partly a numerical artifact; the two entropies differ only at radii where two-body heating of the gas by the dark matter particles is predicted to be important in the mixed case. (The effect is absent in the pure fluid simulation.) The weaker shocking in the fluid case is evident from the equivalent ”entropy” profile of S1 in Figure 4. This lies between those of the two fluid simulations, and in particular significantly above that of S1F in the central regions.

In conclusion the effective heating of gas by shocks in the fluid case is similar to but slightly weaker than that in the mixed case. This is presumably a reflection of the fact that the detailed morphology of the evolution also corresponds closely. The difference in final density profile is a consequence of three effects. In the mixed case the gas is in equilibrium within the external potential generated by the dark matter, whereas in the pure fluid case it must find a self-consistent equilibrium. In addition the core gas is heated by two-body effects in the mixed case. Finally in the pure fluid case the core gas experiences weaker shocks.

Overall our results show that in the large cross-section limit collisional dark matter is not a promising candidate for improving the agreement between the predicted structure of CDM halos and published data on galaxies and galaxy clusters. The increased concentration at halo centre will worsen the apparent conflict with dwarf galaxy rotation curves. Furthermore, clusters are predicted to be nearly spherical and galaxy halos to have similar mass in substructure to the collisionless case, although with fewer low mass subhalos. Intermediate cross-sections would lead to collisional behaviour in dense regions and collisionless behaviour in low density regions with a consequent breaking of the approximate scaling between high and low mass halos. The resulting structure may not lie between the two extremes we have simulated. Self-interacting dark matter might then help resolve the problems with halo structure in CDM models, if indeed these problems turn out to be real rather than apparent.

SW thanks Jerry Ostriker and Mike Turner for stimulating discussions which started him thinking about this project.


text:
# The exotic Galilei group and the “Peierls substitution”

## 1 Introduction

The rule called “Peierls substitution”  says that a charged particle in the plane subject to a strong magnetic field $`B`$ and to a weak electric potential $`V(x,y)`$ will stay in the lowest Landau level, so that its energy is approximately $`E=eB/(2m)+ϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ is an eigenvalue of the potential $`eV(X,Y)`$ alone. The operators $`X`$ and $`Y`$ satisfy, however, the anomalous commutation relation

$$[X,Y]=\frac{i}{eB}.$$
(1)
Similar ideas emerged, more recently, in the context of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect , where it is argued  that the system condensates into a collective ground state. This “new state of matter” is furthermore represented by the “Laughlin” wave functions (22) below, which all belong to the lowest Landau level .

Dunne, Jackiw, and Trugenberger  justify the Peierls rule by considering the $`m0`$ limit, reducing the classical phase space from four to two dimensions, parametrized by non-commuting coordinates $`X`$ and $`Y`$, whereas the potential $`V(X,Y)`$ becomes an effective Hamiltonian. While this yields the essential features of the Peierls substitution, it has the disadvantage that the divergent ground state energy $`eB/(2m)`$ has to be removed by hand. In this Letter, we derive a similar model from first principles, without resorting to such an unphysical limit.

First we construct, following Souriau , a model for a non-relativistic particle in the plane associated with the two-parameter central extension  of the Galilei group. Our model, parametrized by the mass, $`m`$, and a new invariant, $`\kappa `$, turns out to be the non-relativistic limit of the relativistic anyon model of Jackiw and Nair .

For a free particle the usual equations of motions hold unchanged and $`\kappa `$ only contributes to the conserved quantities, (6). More importantly, it yields non-commuting position coordinates, see below. Minimal coupling to an external gauge field unveils, however, new and interesting phenomena, which seem to have escaped attention so far. The interplay between the internal structure associated with $`\kappa `$ and the external magnetic field $`B`$ yields, in fact, an effective mass $`m^{}`$. For vanishing effective (rather than real) mass, we get some curiously simple motions, which satisfy a kind of generalized Hall law, Eq. (11) below. For a constant electric field the usual cycloidal motions degenerate to a pure drift of their guiding centers alone. Such motions form a two-dimensional submanifold of the four-dimensional space of motions. Reduction to this subspace is the classical manifestation of Laughlin’s condensation into a collective motion. Then the quantization of the reduced model allows us to recover the Laughlin description.

## 2 Exotic particle in the plane

First we construct a classical model of our “exotic” particle in the plane. Let us start with the Faddeev-Jackiw framework . A mechanical system is described by the classical action $`{\displaystyle \theta }`$ defined through the “Lagrange one-form” $`\theta =a_\alpha d\xi ^\alpha Hdt`$, where $`\xi =(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{v})`$ is a point in phase space. The Euler-Lagrange equation is expressed using $`\omega ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _{\alpha \beta }d\xi ^\alpha d\xi ^\beta `$, the $`t=const`$ restriction of the two-form $`d\theta `$, as

$$\omega _{\alpha \beta }\dot{\xi }^\beta =_{\xi ^\alpha }H.$$
(2)
For a system with a first-order Lagrangian $`=(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v},t)`$, for example, one can chose in particular $`\theta =dt`$; when $`\omega `$ is regular, we get Hamilton’s equations. The construction works, however, under more general conditions: on the one hand, not all one-forms $`\theta `$ come from a Lagrangian $``$ which would only depend on position, velocity and time . On the other hand, the two-form $`\omega `$ can suffer singularities, necessitating “Hamiltonian reduction”, which amounts to eliminating some of variables and writing the reduced one-form using intrinsic canonical coordinates on the reduced manifold .

The Faddeev-Jackiw framework is actually equivalent to that of Souriau , who proposed to describe the dynamics by a closed two-form, $`\sigma `$, of constant rank on the “evolution space” $`𝒱`$ of positions $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, velocities $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, and time $`t`$. Then the classical motions are the integral curves of the null space of $`\sigma `$, viz

$$(\dot{\stackrel{}{r}},\dot{\stackrel{}{v}},\dot{t})\mathrm{ker}\sigma .$$
(3)
Writing $`\sigma `$ as $`\omega dHdt`$, the Euler-Lagrange equations (2) are recovered. Being closed, $`\sigma `$ is furthermore locally $`d\theta `$, showing that the two approaches are indeed equivalent.

Working with the two-form $`\sigma `$ is actually more convenient as working with the one-form $`\theta `$. For example, a symmetry is a transformation which leaves $`\sigma `$ invariant, while the Lagrange one-form $`\theta `$ changes by a total derivative.

Souriau  actually goes one step farther, and (as advocated also by Crnkovic and Witten ), argues that the fundamental space to look at is $``$, the space of solutions of the equations of motion. Souriau calls this abstract substitute of the phase space the space of motions. In our case, $``$ is the simply the set of motion curves in the evolution space $`𝒱`$.

Our classical particle model is then constructed as follows. Let us recall that the elementary particles correspond to irreducible, unitary representations of their symmetry groups. According to geometric quantization, though, these representations are associated with some coadjoint orbits of the symmetry group ; the idea of Souriau  was to view these orbits, endowed with their canonical two-forms, as spaces of motions.

Now, as discovered by Lévy-Leblond , the planar Galilei group admits a two-parameter central extension, parametrized by two real constants $`m`$ and $`\kappa `$ (see, e.g., ). The new invariant $`\kappa `$ has the dimension of $`\mathrm{}/c^2`$. The coadjoint orbits of the doubly-extended Galilei group coincide with those of the singly-extended one, but carry a modified symplectic structure. The interesting ones are those associated with the mass $`m>0`$ and $`\kappa 0`$; they are $`=𝐑^4`$ with coordinates $`(v_i)`$ and $`(q^i)`$, endowed with the noncanonical twisted-in-the-wrong-way symplectic two-form

$$\omega =mdv_idq^i+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \epsilon _{ij}dv^idv^j.$$
(4)
Owing to the new term in (4), the Poisson bracket of the configuration coordinates is nonvanishing, $`\{x,y\}=\kappa /m^2`$. For these orbits, the evolution space is $`𝒱=\times 𝐑𝐑^5`$, endowed with the two-form

$$\sigma =mdv_i(dr^iv^idt)+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \epsilon _{ij}dv^idv^j.$$
(5)
This two-forms is exact, namely $`\sigma =d\theta `$ with $`\theta =mv_idr^i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}m|\stackrel{}{v}|^2dt+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa ϵ_{ij}v^idv^j`$. However, because of the “exotic” contribution, it is not of the form $`dt`$ with a first-order Lagrangian $``$ ; thus, this model has no ordinary Lagrangian. Both generalized formalisms work nevertheless perfectly, and we choose to pursue along these lines. (Let us mention that a Lagrangian could be constructed—but it would be acceleration-dependent .)

Most interestingly, the “exotic” term $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \epsilon _{ij}dv^idv^j`$ in (4) has already been used, namely to describe relativistic anyons ; our presymplectic form (5) appears to be the non relativistic limit of that in Ref.  when their spin, $`s`$, is identified with our parameter $`\kappa `$. (We believe in fact that our particles are indeed non-relativistic anyons.) Group contraction of the (trivially) centrally-extended Poincaré group yields furthermore the doubly-extended planar Galilei group .

It is readily seen that the modified two-form (5) yields the usual equations of free motions, despite the presence of the new invariant $`\kappa `$. The two-form (5) on $`𝒱`$ flows down to $``$ as $`\omega `$ in (4) along the projection $`(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{v},t)(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{v})`$, where $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{v}t`$. The space of free motions is hence $``$, endowed with the symplectic form $`\omega `$.

For completeness, let us mention that $`\sigma `$ is invariant with respect to the natural action of the Galilei group on $`𝒱`$ whose “moment map”  consists of the conserved quantities

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ȷ& =m\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{v}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa |\stackrel{}{v}|^2,\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill k_i& =m(r_iv_it)+\kappa \epsilon _{ij}v^j,\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill p_i& =mv_i,\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill h& ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}m|\stackrel{}{v}|^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
These same quantities were found before (see ), using rather different methods. Let us observe that, owing to the exotic structure, the angular momentum $`ȷ`$ and the boosts $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in (6) contain new terms (which are, however, also separately conserved). By construction, they satisfy the commutation relations of the doubly-extended planar Galilei group which only differ from the usual ones in that the boosts no longer commute, $`\{k_i,k_j\}=\kappa \epsilon _{ij}`$, cf. .

Let us now put our charged particle into an external electromagnetic field $`F=(\stackrel{}{E},B)`$. Applying as in  the minimal coupling prescription $`\sigma \sigma +eF`$, the system is now described by the two-form

$$\sigma =(mdv_ieE_idt)(dr^iv^idt)+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \epsilon _{ij}dv^idv^j+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}eB\epsilon _{ij}dr^idr^j$$
(7)
on the evolution space $`𝒱`$. It is interesting to note that our two-form (7)—which is again exact if $`F`$ is exact, but is in no way Lagrangian—is the non-relativistic limit of the relativistic expression in Ref. . A short computation shows that a tangent vector $`(\delta \stackrel{}{r},\delta \stackrel{}{v},\delta t)`$ satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations (3) when

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{\begin{array}{c}m^{}\delta r^i=m\left(v^i\frac{e\kappa }{m^2}\epsilon _j^iE^j\right)\delta t,\hfill \\ \\ m\delta v^i=e\left(E^i\delta t+B\epsilon _j^i\delta r^j\right),\hfill \\ \\ mv_i\delta v^i=eE_i\delta r^i,\hfill \end{array}& \text{where}& m^{}=m\frac{\kappa eB}{m}.\end{array}$$
(8)
If the effective mass $`m^{}`$ is nonzero, the third equation is automatically satisfied; the middle one becomes

$$m^{}\delta v_i=e\left(E^i+B\epsilon _j^iv^j\right)\delta t.$$
(9)
Thus, for $`\kappa 0`$, the velocity $`\delta \stackrel{}{r}/\delta t`$ and the “momentum” $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ are different (not even parallel); it is the latter which satisfies the Lorentz equations of motion (9) with effective mass $`m^{}`$.

If, however, the effective mass $`m^{}`$ vanishes, i.e., when the magnetic field $`B`$ takes the critical (constant) value

$$B=\frac{m^2}{e\kappa },$$
(10)
then $`\sigma `$ suffers singularities. The curious “motions” with instantaneous propagation can be avoided and we can still have consistent equations of motion, provided $`v^i=(e\kappa /m^2)\epsilon _j^iE^j`$. But this latter condition, together with Eq. (10), astonishingly reads

$$v^i=\frac{1}{B}\epsilon _j^iE^j.$$
(11)
This generalized Hall law requires that particles move with “momentum” $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ perpendicular to the electric field and determined by the ratio of the (possibly position and time dependent) electric and the (constant) magnetic fields.

Assume, from now on that, the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{}V`$ be time-independent. On the three-dimensional submanifold $`𝒲`$ of $`𝒱`$ defined by Eq. (11), the two-form (7) induces a well-behaved closed two-form $`\sigma _𝒲`$ of rank $`2`$. Upon defining the new “position” variables

$$Q^i=r^i\frac{mE^i}{eB^2},$$
(12)
one readily finds that

$$\sigma _𝒲={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}eB\epsilon _{ij}dQ^idQ^jdHdt$$
(13)
with the (reduced) Hamiltonian $`H=eV(\stackrel{}{r})+m|\stackrel{}{E}|^2/(2B^2)`$. The second term, here, represents the drift energy. The equations of motion are simply

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{\begin{array}{c}\dot{Q}^i=\frac{1}{B}\epsilon _j^iE^j,\hfill \\ \dot{H}=0,\hfill \end{array}& & \end{array}$$
(14)
confirming that the Hamiltonian descends to the reduced space of motions. The latter is two-dimensional and endowed with a symplectic two-form, we call $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, inherited from $`\sigma _𝒲`$. Easy calculation shows that $`H/Q^i=eE_i`$, hence

$$H=eV(X,Y)$$
(15)
where $`(X,Y)`$ are coordinates on the reduced space of motions, $``$, obtained by integrating the equations of motion (cf. Eq. (17) below). Note that the drift energy has been absorbed into $`H`$ by the redefinition of the position, Eq. (12). At last, one finds that the coordinates $`X`$ and $`Y`$ on $``$ have anomalous Poisson bracket

$$\{X,Y\}=\frac{1}{eB}.$$
(16)
In conclusion, we have established via Eqs (15) and (16) the classical counterpart of the Peierls rule. Let us insist that our construction does not rely on any unphysical limit of the type $`m0`$, rather it uses the new freedom of having a vanishing effective mass.

## 3 Hall motions

Let us assume henceforth that the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is constant. The equations of motion are readily solved. For nonzero effective mass $`m^{}`$, i.e., when the magnetic field does not take the critical value (10), one recovers the usual motion, composed of uniform rotation (but with modified frequency $`eB/m^{}`$) plus the drift of the guiding center.

When the magnetic field takes the critical value (10) and when the constraint (11) is also satisfied, velocity and “momentum” become the same, $`\stackrel{}{v}=\delta \stackrel{}{r}/\delta t`$, so that the constraint (11) requires that all particles move collectively, according to …Hall’s law ! This is understood by noting that for vanishing effective mass $`m^{}=0`$, the circular motion degenerates to a point, and we are left with the uniform drift of the guiding center alone.

The reduced space of motions $``$ (we suggestively called the space of Hall motions) can now be described explicitly. It is parametrized (see Eqs (12) and (14)) by the coordinates $`(X,Y)(R^i)`$ where

$$R^i=Q^i\frac{1}{B}\epsilon _j^iE^jt.$$
(17)
The constraint (11) implies now that $`\delta \stackrel{}{v}=0`$; the induced presymplectic two-form on the three-dimensional submanifold $`𝒲`$ is hence simply $`eF`$. The symplectic structure of the space of Hall motions is therefore

$$\mathrm{\Omega }={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}eB\epsilon _{ij}dR^idR^j=eBdXdY.$$
(18)
The coordinates $`X`$ and $`Y`$ have therefore the Poisson bracket (16).

The symmetries and conserved quantities can now be found. Firstly, the ordinary space translations $`(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{v},t)(\stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{c},\stackrel{}{v},t)`$ are symmetries for the reduced dynamics, since they act on $``$ according to $`\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R}+\stackrel{}{c}`$. The associated conserved quantities identified as the “reduced momenta” are linear in the position and time; they read

$$\begin{array}{cc}P_i=eB\epsilon _{ij}R^j=eB\epsilon _{ij}Q^jeE_it.& \end{array}$$
(19)
(Their conservation can also be checked directly using the Hall law (11)). The reduced momenta do not commute but have rather the Poisson bracket of “magnetic translations”,

$$\{P_X,P_Y\}=eB.$$
(20)
The time translations $`(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{v},t)(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{v},t+\tau )`$ act on $``$ according to $`R^iR^i\epsilon _j^iE^j\tau /B`$, which is a combination of space translations. The reduced Hamiltonian is (see (15))

$$H=e\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{R}=e\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{r}$$
(21)
and is related to the reduced momenta by $`H=\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{P}/B`$. The remaining Galilean generators $`ȷ`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ are plainly broken by the external fields. (The system admits instead “hidden” symmetries that will be discussed elsewhere.)

It is amusing to compare the reduced expressions with the conserved quantities $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`h`$ associated with these same symmetries acting on the original (but “exotic”) evolution space $`𝒱`$ “before” reduction. We find $`\stackrel{}{p}=m\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`h={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}m|\stackrel{}{v}|^2+eV{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}m|\stackrel{}{v}|^2+H`$, where the velocity is of course fixed by the Hall law. Our reduced expressions are hence formally obtained by the “$`m0`$ limit”, as advocated in Ref. .

Our construction here appears as a nice illustration of Hamiltonian reduction . The restriction to the $`t=const`$ phase space of our two-form $`\sigma `$ in (7) is a closed two-form, $`\omega `$. The generic case, $`m^{}0`$, above arises when $`\omega `$ is regular, so that the matrix $`\omega `$ is invertible. On the other hand, vanishing effective mass, $`m^{}=0`$, as in (10), means precisely that $`\omega `$ is singular. In Faddeev-Jackiw language, our reduction amounts to eliminating the velocities by the constraint (11) to yield $`X`$ and $`Y`$ as conjugate canonical variables and $`H`$ as the Hamiltonian, on reduced space. This is seen by writing $`\sigma _𝒲`$, in (13), as $`d\theta _𝒲`$ with Lagrange form $`\theta _𝒲={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}eB\epsilon _{ij}Q^idQ^jH(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{Q})dt`$; note that the $`dv^i`$ are absent and the $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ only appear in the Hamiltonian and are determined by (11).

## 4 Quantization of the Hall motions

The quantization is simplified by observing that the space of Hall motions is actually the same of that of a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator with cyclotron frequency $`eB/m`$. The standard procedures  can therefore be applied.

Let us assume that we work on the entire plane and introduce the complex coordinate $`Z=\sqrt{eB}(X+iY)`$; the symplectic form (18) is then $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\overline{Z}dZ/(2i)`$, hence $`\{\overline{Z},Z\}=2i`$. Now $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is exact, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with the choice $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\overline{Z}dZZd\overline{Z})/(4i)`$ corresponding to the “symmetric gauge”. The prequantum line-bundle is therefore trivial; it carries a connection with covariant derivative $`D=\frac{1}{4}\overline{Z}`$ along $``$. Choosing the antiholomorphic polarization, spanned by $`\overline{}`$, yields the wave “functions” as half-forms $`\psi (Z,\overline{Z})\sqrt{dZ}`$ that are covariantly constant along the polarization, i.e., such that $`\overline{D}\psi =0`$. This yields

$$\psi (Z,\overline{Z})=f(Z)e^{|Z|^2/4}$$
(22)
with $`f(Z)`$ holomorphic, $`\overline{}f=0`$. The the inner product is $`f,g=_{}\overline{f(Z)}g(Z)e^{|Z|^2/2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We recover hence the “Bargmann-Fock”  wave functions proposed by Laughlin , and by Girvin and Jach  to explain the FQHE. These wave functions span a subspace of the Hilbert space of the “unreduced” system and, indeed, represent the ground states in the FQHE . (The details of the projection to the lowest Landau level are not yet completely clear, though .)

The quantum operator associated to the polarization-preserving classical observables are readily found . For example, the quantum operators $`\widehat{Z}`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ are given as $`\widehat{Z}\psi =(2\overline{D}+Z)\psi `$ and $`\widehat{\overline{Z}}\psi =(2D+\overline{Z})\psi `$. Acting on the holomorphic part alone, this yields for the complex momenta $`\widehat{P}=\widehat{Z}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{P}}=\widehat{\overline{Z}}`$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}[\widehat{Z}f](Z)=Zf(Z),\hfill \\ [\widehat{\overline{Z}}f](Z)=2f(Z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
(See also .) Quantization of polarization-preserving observables takes Poisson brackets into commutators; in particular, we have $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}[\widehat{\overline{Z}},\widehat{Z}]=1`$, so that $`\widehat{Z},\widehat{\overline{Z}}`$ and the identity span the Heisenberg algebra, just like their classical counterparts.

Being a combination of translations, the reduced Hamiltonian (21)—different from the usual quadratic oscillator Hamiltonian—becomes $`H=(\overline{}Z+\overline{Z})/(2B)`$, once we have put $`=\sqrt{eB}(E_1+iE_2)`$. Its quantum counterpart is found as $`\widehat{H}=(\overline{}\widehat{Z}+\widehat{\overline{Z}})/(2B)`$ with (23). For an electric field in the $`x`$ direction, for example,

$$[\widehat{H}f](Z)=a(2+Z)f(Z),$$
(24)
where $`a={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}E\sqrt{e/B}`$. (The subtle problem of ordering does not arise here.) The eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{H}`$ in (24) are readily found as $`f(Z)=Ae^{(ZZ_0)^2/4}`$ associated with the (real) eigenvalue $`ϵ=aZ_0`$, cf. .

Thus the Peierls rule is confirmed also at the quantum level, for a linear potential.

## 5 Discussion

In the spirit of Dirac, we believe that “it would be surprising if Nature would not seize the opportunity to use the new invariant $`\kappa `$.” While it plays little rôle as long as the particle is free, this invariant becomes important when the particle is coupled to an external field: albeit the classical motions are similar to those in the case $`\kappa =0`$, it yields effective terms responsible for the reduction we found here. This curious interplay between the “exotic” structure and the external magnetic field is linked to the two-dimensionality of space and to the Galilean invariance of the theory. Mathematically, the second extension parameter arises owing to the commutativity of planar rotations—just like for exotic statistics of anyons . The physical origin of $`\kappa `$ is, perhaps, the band structure. In a solid the effective mass can be as much as 30 times smaller than that of a free electron. Our formula (10) could indeed serve to measure the new invariant $`\kappa `$ using the data in the FQHE.

Had we worked over the two-torus $`𝐓^2`$ rather than over the whole plane, prequantization would require the integrality condition $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }}=2\pi \mathrm{}N`$ for some integer $`N`$ . The actual meaning of this condition is that the “Feynman” factor

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\theta \right)$$
(25)
be well-defined, independently of the choice of the one-form $`\theta `$ .

Representing $`𝐓^2`$ by a rectangle of sides $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ would then imply the well-known magnetic flux quantization condition $`eBL_xL_y=2\pi \mathrm{}N`$, analogous to the Dirac quantization of monopoles. Furthermore, the non-simply-connectedness of the torus implies that the factor (25) can have different inequivalent meanings, labeled by the characters of $`𝐙\times 𝐙`$, the homotopy group of the two-torus .

## 6 Acknowledgement

We are indebted to Prof. R. Jackiw for acquainting us with the Peierls substitution and for advice, and to Profs. J. Balog, P. Forgács and Z. Horváth for discussions. Correspondence with Profs. V. P. Nair and G. Dunne is also acknowledged.