text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For about two decades there has been considerable interest in the possibility that at sufficiently high temperatures or baryon density one or more phase transitions will lead to formation of a quark-gluon plasma characterized by deconfinement, and perhaps chiral symmetry restoration  Very high energy heavy ion collisions was the community consensus as the best hope of forming a quark- gluon plasma QGP and this led to RHIC  with its up to 100 GeV/nucleon Au colliding with 100 GeV/nucleon Au colliding beam accelerator.

RHIC is expected to possibly begin to provide experimental data in 2000. Therefore it is timely to ask the question what could some striking signals possibly be generated and detected which would provide very strong evidence, hopefully convincing, for a QGP.

Of course it may be that QCD is not correct in this new energy domain, or that lattice gauge calculations and phenomenological models used to predict the formation and characteristics of a QGP are not applicable to the real dynamical situation.

## 2 Formation of a Quark Gluon Plasma

The first question one must address is that even if present ideas on the conditions necessary for formation of a QGP are approximately correct, does the actual dynamical situation at RHIC allow them to be achieved and if so how.

We have from the early days of RHIC planning, had serious reservations in regard to this. Although many theoretical calculations assume that central collisions of heavy ions can be described by employing local thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium which adjusts adiabatically as the collision zone develops in space and time, one can have serious reservations as to whether the collision dynamics allow and whether sufficient time exists for reaching such overall thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium.

A second approach has been to recognize that it is unlikely that thermalized, conditions can describe the whole collision dynamics in particular the phase transition itself, and thus if new phenomena (QGP) etc. occur, they form under inherently non equilibrium conditions. This scenario has been suggested and strongly emphasized by Van Hove.

Van Hove’s scenario would lead to local droplets of QGP if QGP is formed. As the droplets expand they could, in some cases separate into smaller droplets. It was expected that these QGP droplets could hadronize by deflagration since this appeared to be the more likely of the two possible explosive phenomena as it was favored by entropy considerations \[6-8\].

It should be noted that these non-equilibrium treatments have assumed that the chemical potential is zero (i.e. baryon no. $`B0`$) and thus are directly applicable to the central region. At RHIC 100 Gev/n Au on 100 Gev/n Au central events are expected to have B close enough to zero for our calculational purposes, especially in the Quark-gluon plasma bubbles. It is expected that the central region at RHIC will have $`B0`$, however Van Hove’s approach may even be qualitatively correct for the behavior of plasma droplets originally formed even in baryon dense regions, since they rely mainly on the existence of a large amount of latent heat and latent entropy in the phase transition, conditions which also apply to baryon dense regions.

If plasma droplets (possibly after breaking up into two or more droplets) hadronize by deflagration, Van Hove’s scenario concluded that the resulting distribution of hadrons should show maxima approximately at the rapidities of the droplets. The expected width of the maxima was estimated to be $`1`$ rapidity unit and have angular distributions characteristic of a deflagration occurring in the plasma droplets. He also expected the generally expected plasma signals such as enhanced strange and multistrange particles, enhanced anti particles, enhanced lepton pair production, etc.

If QGP is formed it may be easier to conceive of Van Hove’s local droplet scenario occurring since the long times required for overall thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium to be attained may not be attainable.

If bubbles in the VAN HOVE sense are not created, the techniques described in this paper will still be applicable if localized in rapidity regions, chunks of QGP are created by any mechanism and the hadronic signals from them are not too degraded by subsequent interactions. Of course if many droplets (or chunks of rapidity localized QGP) are formed over large regions one might approximate this situation by assuming thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium over a large region. It should also be noted, as we will be discussing, that the droplets (or rapidity localized) chunks of QGP will be expected to generate very striking signals which are detectable and could provide convincing evidence for a QGP.

In this regard one should note that a bubble or rapidity localized region in QGP will be surrounded by non-QGP background, and thus allow a comparison of QGP and non-QGP backgrounds in the same event. This is a potent way to possibly establish a QGP. One should also note that these bubble like events only need to happen and their characteristics survive some of the time (even rarely) provided they provide sufficient statistics in order to provide powerful evidence for a QGP.

## 3 Event Generation

One must use an event generator suitable for estimating the non plasma events, and as a second step embed the plasma bubbles formation and deflagration, and compare plasma regions in the event with the non-plasma regions, and then also compare non plasma events with the plasma events to determine the detectability of plasma bubbles, and whether they would be striking enough to at least provide credible evidence for plasma formation, or hopefully even convincing evidence for a QGP.

## 4 RHIC::EVENT - a non plasma generator

The geometry of the A-A collision is taken into account by populating nucleons in the target and the projectile systems according to a Woods-Saxon Distribution. The nucleons have a Gaussian distribution of Fermi momentum with a small $`\sigma `$ of 200 MeV/c. The nucleons are off the mass shell, with an average binding energy of 8 MeV. A collision interaction between a projectile, and target nucleon occurs when the distance of closest approach is less than $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\pi `$ with $`\sigma `$=33 mb. Thus this is 1.025 Fermi-the approximate size of the proton. The center of mass system of the $`NN`$ collision is used.

ISAJET - an event generator for high energy $`NN`$ interactions, has been successful in explaining these interactions, and is therefore used as the basis of building RHIC:: EVENT. A high energy Nucleus+Nucleus (i.e. A+A) collision is represented as resulting from a series of nucleon-nucleon collisions but taking into account that after a nucleon suffers a collision it becomes a forward going diquark.

The MINBIAS routine of ISAJET, is based on inclusive high energy $`NN`$ interactions forming multi-pomeron chains, with each chain fragmenting according to the Field-Feynman algorithm.

MINBIAS is used to compute the energy loss of the colliding nucleons and the produced particles . Unlike earlier event generators based on ISAJET (i.e. HIJET) instead of using the leading baryon for the diquark for the next collision, RHIC::EVENT sums up the momentum of the particles produced by MINBIAS that one wants to associate with the diquark cluster and RHIC::EVENT does not allow the leading diquark to change flavors. It is speculated that the forward going cluster is what the fragmentation region is. The larger the cluster size and momentum the more RHIC::EVENT creates nuclear transparency. This algorithm can generate a very nice flat central region plateau for RHIC energies which is flat over $``$ 5 units of rapidity.

A popular event generator, HIJING, is a Monte Carlo model which combines Fritiof for soft beam jet fragmentation, and Pythias for semi-hard mini jet Physics. Gyulassy shows in his Fig. 1 that HIJING reasonably represents the number of charged particles per unit $`y`$ or $`\eta `$ as a function of $`y`$ or $`\eta `$ for central-i.e. very high multiplicity events. When HIJING is applied to 100 GeV/nucleon Au colliding with 100 GeV/nucleon Au Gyulassy shows that for “central events” at RHIC (his Fig. 1) a flat plateau is formed centered around midrapidity or $`\eta `$ and extends (within $``$20% from the peak value) for a total of approximately four $`y`$ or $`\eta `$ units, and thus is qualitatively in agreement with the results of our RHIC::EVENT generator with leading cluster equal to only the diquark. Gyulassy points out that HIJING results are similar to those obtained with other models\[13-20\].

It should be noted that uncertainty originates from the poorly known early evolution of the mini-jet plasma, and this affects the height of the plateau in the calculations of Gyulassy. Computing the early evolution of the color fields more reliably will allow better estimation of the plateau height.

## 5 RHIC::PLASMA - a spherical plasma bubble(s) <br>generator

Plasma formation and decay is a very uncertain process and our first model of this phenomenon is based on work of L. Van Hove. Van Hove’s model predicted that the deconfinement transition is described in terms of formation of QCD strings in the expanding plasma. These strings in the plasma are stopped from expanding because of string tension and because of string breaking droplets or bubbles are formed. These bubbles hadronize by deflagration at the phase transition through their outer surface by ejection of low pressure hadron gas with velocities associated with the critical temperature. This process creates a rapidity distribution $`dn/dy`$ or a pseudorapidity distribution $`dn/d\eta `$ of hadrons with isolated maxima of width $`\delta y`$ or $`\delta \eta 1`$ or in our case high bumpy regions $`2`$ units of rapidity wide on an event-by-event basis.

The generator RHIC::PLASMA takes the regular RHIC::EVENT generation and Van Hove type spherical plasma bubbles generated by a regional tagging scheme which takes particles from the intial RHIC::EVENT collisions and converts their energy and baryon number to a plasma bubble. The tagging region is defined as a circular cross sectional area located within the center of the overlap region with radius $`R_{tag}`$. Each region is then subdivided in phase space by a longitudinal momentum cuts (three bubbles can be defined in present code). The bubble has an intial energy and baryon number, where its rest frame is given by the total momentum energy four vector of the sum of the tagged particles that make up the bubble. The thermal dynamics of the bubble is generated in accord with the model of Koch, Muller and Rafelski . Initially the tagged volume is used to define the chemical potential and thus the quark and gluon populations for a plasma sitting at its critical temperature. Reference  has worked out these equations up to a temperature of 170 MeV. We expand the volume until we get a self consistent condition that satisfies energy and baryon number between the tagged particles and the plasma bubble. This self consistent condition is equal to the number of quarks, anti-quarks and gluons ($`N_qN_{\overline{q}}N_g`$). $`N_s`$ and $`N_{\overline{s}}`$ are the strange quark and anti-quark numbers where $`N_q`$ and $`N_{\overline{q}}`$ are the light quarks ($`u,d`$). When hadronization takes place gluons fragment into quarks and anti-quarks leading to an effective number given by $`\stackrel{~}{N}_q=N_q+f_qN_g`$; $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}=N_{\overline{q}}+f_qN_g`$; $`\stackrel{~}{N}_s=N_s+f_sN_g`$; $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}=N_{\overline{s}}+f_sN_g`$, where $`f_q=`$ gluon fragmentation function for $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks and $`f_s=`$ gluon fragmentation function for $`s`$ quarks. The average number of particles produced each with a Boltzman distribution corresponding to the critical temperature is: $`N_\pi =\alpha \stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}`$, $`N_K=\alpha \stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}`$, $`N_\varphi =\alpha \stackrel{~}{N}_s\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}`$, $`N_n=\frac{1}{3!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_q`$, $`N_{\overline{n}}=\frac{1}{3!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_s`$, $`N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=\frac{1}{2!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{1}{2!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_s\stackrel{~}{N}_s`$, $`N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}}=\frac{1}{2!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{3!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_s\stackrel{~}{N}_s\stackrel{~}{N}_s`$, $`N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=\frac{1}{3!}\beta \stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}`$.

$`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are given by the equations:

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4Q_1}{\left(3Q_1^2+Q_2^2\right)}};`$ (1)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\left(3Q_1^2+Q_2^2\right)}};`$ (2)
where $`Q_1=\stackrel{~}{N}_q+\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}+\stackrel{~}{N}_s+\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{s}}`$ and $`Q_2=\stackrel{~}{N}_q\stackrel{~}{N}_{\overline{q}}`$. These equations make sure baryon number is conserved and particles are formed randomly out of the particle densities. The above particles then are generated with a Boltzman distribution of a 170 Mev temperature spherically in phase space. The spherical distribution creates a bump in rapidity or pseudorapidity of the type that Van Hove predicted. However, the width of the bumps is about 2 units. The geometry of the expansion of the plasma bubble or fireball is dependent on QCD and the collision dynamics. Other cases will be considered subsequently.

## 6 RHIC::LANDAU

Although we have so far considered spherical bubbles, any reasonable bubble shape can be incorporated in our plasma generator. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the bubble shape assumed and the effect on the rapidity distribution and structure in it caused by the bubble. Given a particular observed rapidity distribution, assumed to be due to plasma bubble(s) formation, we can also deduce general characteristics of the shape of the plasma regions. For example the shapes of three other localized in rapidity QGP regions (or bubble shapes), are treated below.

The decision as to whether to attribute an experimentally observed bubble-like phenomenon to plasma formation will depend on the behavior and the correlation of the various possible plasma signals associated with it (some of which are shown in the figures), other characteristics of the data, all at the time known facts, and very importantly the lack of a viable other conventional physics alternative.

In particle and nuclear physics the fireballs (not in any way shown to contain QGP) that have been observed, have an additional one dimensional or longitudinal expansion left over from their production mechanism (Landau fireball). The program RHIC::LANDAU takes the regular RHIC::PLASMA program and replaces the spherical expansion of a QGP bubble by an expansion that is consistent with thermal fits done on SS collisions at 200 GeV/c per nucleon incident on a target. The width of the rapidity peak distribution changes from a two unit spread to a four unit spread, where 50% of the tagged energy goes into particle production and 50% goes into longitudinal expansion. In the language of Van Hove the string stopping due to breaking is not complete, so that longitudinal expansion is left in the individual strings or bubbles.

## 7 RHIC::SMOKE

The plasma bubbles that we have generated give structure to the rapidity or pseudo-rapidity spectrum of the produced particles. This structure is directly related to the geometry of the expansion. The geometry which has been observed in experiments is the elliptical expansion of the Landau fireball, however, sharp structure in pseudo-rapidity has been observed in cosmic ray experiments. We can make our plasma bubbles produce sharp structures by changing an elliptical or watermelon shape to a flat or pancake shape. We do this only as a phenomenological manipulation of our code. The end process is a ring of particles emitted at a fixed angle to the beam axis much like an expanding smoke ring. Since these particles have nearly a fixed angle they lead to sharp pseudo-rapidity bumps of the intermittent type seen in cosmic ray data.

## 8 RHIC::CHIRAL

Another novel event structure seen in cosmic ray datais the so-called “centauro-like” and “anti-centauro-like” fluctuations of charged and neutral particles. A proposed explanation of these events relies on a chiral phase transition. Rajagopal and Wilczek proposed a “quench” scenario in which the hadronic condensate after a phase transition is initially chirally symmetric, but its evolution is taken to follow classical equations of motion at zero temperature. The non-equilibrium dynamics of the chiral transition (using a linear $`\sigma `$ model to describe the collective chiral behavior) in relativistic heavy ion collisions yields large disoriented chiral condensates. These disoriented chiral condensates lead to the non-Poisson distribution of the “centauro-like” and the “anti-centauro-like” events. The probability distribution of neutral pions $`P(R3)`$, where $`R_3=\frac{N_{\pi ^0}}{(N_{\pi ^+}+N_{\pi ^0}+N\pi ^{})}`$ , is equal to $`P(R_3)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{R_3}}`$. In contrast, typical hadronic collisions produce a binomial distribution of $`R3`$ peaked at the isospin symmetric value of 1/3.

RHIC::CHIRAL generates the above like structures using the RHIC::PLASMA bubble code but making the bubble hadronize into a 70 MeV temperature pion gas with a $`R_3`$ distribution chosen to be that of the disoriented chiral condensate model. In a given Au-Au event each bubble has an independent $`R_3`$.

It is obvious that there is a relationship between structures in the rapidity distribution and the geometry of the plasma bubbles, which cause them. Thus if a certain type of structure is observed in the future experiments, this will infer the geometry characteristics of the bubble region (or whatever) caused it.

## 9 Event Generation and Detection

We believe the STAR Detector, for example, is suitable for investigating our predictions. Any statements about STAR are our own estimates (also based on estimates of others) merely used for comparison to our prediction purposes, and should, therefore, be taken as an approximation.

The high multiplicity expected in STAR central (and some non central) events coupled with the almost complete solid angle coverage over a substantial central rapidity range for 100 GeV per nucleon gold on gold down to p+p collisions opens up the possibility of observing single events well enough to decide whether equilibrium, non-equilibrium or strikingly different events occur individually. This eliminates the possibility of false conclusions being drawn in inclusive studies which may average over events in such a fashion as to eliminate their most striking and important characteristics. This could be a crucial element in establishing that a Quark-Gluon Plasma is produced at RHIC or observing other new phenomena which may even violate QCD.

The availability of as full solid angle particle identification as practical over a substantial particle momentum range will be of considerable aid in this program.

We believe the study of single events on an event by event basis is a most potent approach to search for a quark gluon plasma or whatever else nature reveals at RHIC ie perhaps new physics beyond QCD.

Some results of our calculations for 100 GeV/nucleon AU colliding with 100 GeV/nucleon Au single event central collisions at RHIC:

The STAR detector is the most appropriate for our approach, hence the following calculations were made for it using the geometric acceptance of the central TPC detector, and particle identification, by $`de/dx`$ (ionization loss), and the planned Time-of-Flight (TOF) covering the central TPC. Efficiencies for tracking and particle identification were not included.

Figures 1-4 show the calculated results for a single RHIC::Event. The plasma induced rapidity bumps you see in the Figs.(5-8) are based on choosing $`R_{tag}1.3fm`$ which leads to the very modest assumption that only 4.5% of the available energy in a central collision is converted to QGP (as described in the event generator section RHIC::PLASMA).

Please note that if $`R_{tag}`$ were chosen to be $`2.5fm`$, which would lead to $``$15% of the available energy being converted to QGP, the rapidity bump amplitudes over background would increase by about a factor of three and the statistics (i.e. number of particles in the rapidity bump) would increase by about a factor of three (i.e. the bump height relative to the background and the number of particles in the bump would scale up approximately as the percentage of energy converted to QGP \[that is increase by the factor (% energy of QGP)/4.5%.\] The figures for $`R_{tag}`$ $`2.5fm`$ (figs. 9-13) which converts $``$15% of the available energy to QGP show truly dramatic $`dn/d\eta `$ vs. $`\eta `$ peaks for single “central” events.

## 10 RHIC::PLASMA - spherical bubbles

(a) The Plasma bubble is produced at central rapidity by 100 GeV/n Au colliding with 100 GeV/n Au (results figs. 5-8) in the region with $`R_{tag}1.3fm`$ which contains only approximately 4.5% of the available energy. Even this conservative estimate will as, we can see from (Figs. 5-8), produce striking signals in these single events.

(b) The plasma bubble is produced at central rapidity where the $`R_{tag}2.5fm`$ which contains $``$15% of the available energy. These assumptions lead to truly dramatic signals for single events (see figs. 9-13).

(c) Figures (14-16 show the psuedorapicity distribution of dET/dNch (average energy per charged particles) for the three cases considered. The increase in ET for the plasma bubbles is attributable to the fact that the plasma contains much larger percentages of heavy hadrons such as protons, anti protons, and charged kaons, that the cascade (non-plasma events), and the plasma hadronizes at 170 Mev. These results come right out of the model with no extra assumptions. We can generate an enormous number of detailed plots of desired quantities, but this is obviously not suitable for a publication, so that we must be selective. However when data is obtained with rhic we will generate what is needed and relevant to confront our model, and in fact keep an entirely open mind on the subject, and modify our aproach to the extent necessary to understand the data, and others may well do the same.

No one can predict what RHIC will reveal with any credible assurance. This paper takes a different approach and therefore will be of vlaue whether it fits the data or not.

It should be noted that if multiple bubbles are created in a single event, each will result in rapidity bumps, strangeness, and anti-baryon-baryon enhancements etc. in that rapidity interval, which corresponds to that bubble. Localized QGP bubble formation, probably depends on a first order transition, however it should also be expected that any unusual occurrence in a local rapidity region which survives to the end state will show up approximately in that rapidity region in the final single event. Of course if QGP is made abundantly over large regions of an event our bubble techniques will become insensitive. But it is considered unlikely this will occur in all events, and we can study those events where plasma regions (or bubbles are localized).

Of course, single events using various selection criteria, can be lumped together for statistical and overall view and analysis reasons. However in doing this great care must be taken to avoid introducing unwanted biases in the result.

Finally, these results are to be taken only as an indication of the promise of the possibility of striking signals of a QGP occurring in single events and being detected in STAR. The correlations of the pions, kaons, protons, and anti-protons, and the detailed characteristics of the events will of course be important. Our approach and ideas will of course change as detailed data is obtained and analyzed. We will keep an open mind as the observations come in.

It is important to note that various energies and various beam nuclei from Au+Au down to p+p will be used and these results will impact on any final conclusion. Furthermore it is not necessary to explain every observation. Finding striking and unusual events some of the time could well lead to establishment of a QGP if it naturally explains them, and no viable alternate explanation is found, and there is no contradiction of the QGP evidence by other characteristics of the data.

The event generator VNI will also be used in future work. VNI is Monte-Carlo event-generator for leptons, hadron, and nucleus collisions on each other. It uses the real-time evolution of parton cascades in conjunction with a self-consistent hadronization scheme, as well as the development of hadron cascades after hadronization. The parton cascading in nucleus-nucleus collisions leads to space-time regions of high energy density. These regions can become the source of plasma bubbles like the ones described above. In the future we plan to use VNI for further work on bubbles. We plan to use VNI as a source of bubble production.However we must address the problem of how to determine or estimate the energy transmitted to the bubble by non-perturbative QCD interactions. VNI will place the bubble in a hadronic final state which could give a realistic transport of its emitted hadrons to the final detection of plasma signals.

New unexpected phenomena beyond QCD could be observed if they occur at RHIC, and in that event we plan to use our own and newly developed event generators to investigate them. It is interesting to note that a recently proposed bubble phenomenon as described below can be investigated with our techniques and generators. Any assumptions about STAR performance, such as DE/DX, planned time-of-flight performance, etc. are to be considered only as our personal estimates for the purpose of comparison with our event generator predictions.

## 11 Odd CP Bubbles of Metastable Vacuum

Kharzeev and Pisarski expect that bubbles of metastable vacua with odd CP will induce a net flow of pion charge. This flow can be modeled with a parallel chromo electric and magnetic field. A quark traveling in this field will drift up in a spiral, while an anti-quark will drift down. These added impulses will end up in positive charged pions traveling up and negative charged pions traveling down. Kharzeev has estimated an average impulse of 30 MeV/c for a quark crossing the diameter of the bubble.

If we place the electric $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and the magnetic $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ field along the $`x`$-axis, then we can write down the added impulse for positive pions ($`\pi ^+`$) as vector equations 1:

$$P_{px}^{}=P_{px}+P_E$$

$$P_{py}^{}=P_{py}\frac{P_BP_{pz}}{P_{pTOT}}$$
$`(1)`$
$$P_{pz}^{}=P_{pz}+\frac{P_BP_{py}}{P_{pTOT}},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{P_p^{}}`$ is the charged $`\pi ^+`$ momentum $`\stackrel{}{P_p}`$ is the $`\pi ^+`$ momentum without the added effect and $`P_{pTOT}`$ is the magnitude of the momentum $`\stackrel{}{P_p}`$. $`P_E`$ is the impulse which comes from the electric field acting, while $`P_B`$ comes from the magnetic field. Vector equations 2 for negative pions ($`\pi ^{}`$) is:

$$P_{mx}^{}=P_{mx}P_E$$

$$P_{my}^{}=P_{my}+\frac{P_BP_{mz}}{P_{mTOT}}$$
$`(2)`$
$$P_{mz}^{}=P_{mz}\frac{P_BP_{my}}{P_{mTOT}},$$

where $`p`$ for positive has been replaced by $`m`$ for minus. Also the sign of the impulse has changed.

We will model the added impulse by assuming that we start with a bubble of radius $`r_0`$ that has quarks uniformly distributed inside the bubble.

The point $`P`$ of the quark inside the bubble is given by equation (3):

$$x_p=r_p\mathrm{sin}\theta _p\mathrm{cos}\varphi _p$$

$$y_p=r_p\mathrm{sin}\theta _p\mathrm{sin}\varphi _p$$
$`(3)`$
$$z_p=r_p\mathrm{cos}\theta _p,$$

where $`x_p`$, $`y_p`$, and $`z_p`$ are the Cartesian coordinates and $`r_p`$, $`\theta _p`$, and $`\varphi _p`$ are the spherical coordinates. From this point $`P`$ the quark travels in a line given by its momentum

$$x=\frac{P_x}{P_z}(zz_p)+x_p$$

$$y=\frac{P_y}{P_z}(zz_p)+y_p,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`P_x`$, $`P_y`$, and $`P_z`$ are the momentum components of the quark. The quark will pass through the surface of the bubble when

$$r_0^2=x^2+y^2+z^2.$$
$`(5)`$
We now substitute 4 into 5, we have

$$r_0^2=(\frac{P_x}{P_z}(zz_p)+x_p)^2+(\frac{P_y}{P_z}(zz_p)+y_p)^2+z^2$$
$`(6)`$
Equation (6) can be rewritten in quadratic form using $`z^{}`$

$$(\frac{P_x^2}{P_z^2}+\frac{P_y^2}{P_z^2}+1)(z^{})^2+2(\frac{P_xx_p}{P_z}+\frac{P_yy_p}{P_z}+z_p)(z^{})+r_p^2r_o^2=0,$$
$`(7)`$
where $`z^{}=zz_p`$.

Using vector notation equation (7) becomes

$$\frac{P_p^2}{P_z^2}(z^{})^2+\frac{2}{P_z}(\stackrel{}{P}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p)(z^{})(r_o^2r_p^2)=0.$$
$`(8)`$
Thus we have two solutions:

$$z^{}=zz_p=\frac{(\stackrel{}{P}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p)\pm \sqrt{(\stackrel{}{P}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p)^2+P_p^2(r_o^2r_p^2)}}{P_p^2},$$
$`(9)`$
because a line strikes a sphere twice when passing through it.

The distance the quark travels is given by

$$dist=\sqrt{(xx_p)^2+(yy_p)^2+(zz_p)^2}.$$
$`(10)`$
Using equation (4), the distance equation (10) becomes:

$$dist=\sqrt{\frac{P_x^2}{P_z^2}+\frac{P_y^2}{P_z^2}+\frac{P_z^2}{P_z^2}}\left|(zz_p)\right|$$
$`(11)`$
or

$$dist=\frac{P_p}{|P_z|}|(zz_p)|$$

Plugging in (9) into (11), we obtain:

$$dist=\left|\frac{(\stackrel{}{P}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p)\pm \sqrt{\stackrel{}{P}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p+P_p^2(r_o^2r_p^2)}}{P_p}\right|$$
$`(12)`$
Spherical coordinate system (3) makes equation (12) look very simple

$$dist=r_p(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _p(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi _p+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi _p)+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _p)$$

$$\pm \sqrt{r_p^2(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _p(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi _p+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi _p)+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _p)^2+r_0^2r_p^2}$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the angles of the momentum vector $`\stackrel{}{P}_p`$, $`\theta _p`$ and $`\varphi _p`$ are the angles of the point $`P`$ with $`r_p`$ being the radius of the point and $`r_0`$ the radius of the bubble.

We now want to obtain the distribution of $`dist`$ taking both solutions for every point $`P`$, when the points are uniformly placed inside the bubble. The easiest way to do this calculation is using Monte Carlo methods. The result of such a numerical method leads to

$$\frac{dN}{d_{dist}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi dist}{4r_o}).$$
$`(14)`$
The impulse that the quark gets is directly proportional to the distance. Since 2 $`r_o`$ is the maximum distance, we can set the maximum impulse $`(\mathrm{\Delta }P_{max})`$ equal to this value and easily write down the impulse distribution.

$$\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{\Delta }P}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }P}{2\mathrm{\Delta }P_{max}}).$$
$`(15)`$
In equations (1) and (2) the value of $`P_E`$ and $`P_B`$ can be chosen by picking a random number $`R`$ between zero and one and calculating

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P=\mathrm{\Delta }P_{max}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }P_{max}}{\pi }\mathrm{cos}^1(R).$$
$`(16)`$
The next aspect in bubble simulation is the kinematics of the pions produced by the bubble. Gyulassy suggested jet fragmentation would show these added impulse to their pions. Studies of changes of jet fragmentation in heavy ion events is already underway. For this simulation we consider bubble kinematics that would arise from a chiral low temperature bubble or a bubble that produced pions which look very much like the regular pions of a heavy ion event. A set of programs using the event generator RHIC::PLASMA is used to simulate bubbles that have imparted impulses given by equation (16).

Chiral bubbles are spherically symmetric distributions of pions having a Boltzman energy spectrum of 70 meV temperature. The chromo $`E`$ and $`B`$ field is randomly assumed in any direction. The E field gives a impulse to $`\pi ^+`$ along its direction, while the $`\pi ^{}`$ impulse is opposite to its direction. The impulse of the B field is at right angles to the direction, where the example of B and E along the X-axis is given by equations (1) and (2).

Besides a low temperature chiral bubble, let us consider a higher temperature bubble which expands in the longitudinal beam direction. The net result leads to a bubble which blends into the regular background of RHIC::EVENT.

The program generates a bubble by a regional tagging scheme which takes particles from the initial RHIC::EVENT collision and converts the energy into a bubble. The tagging region is defined as a circular cross sectional area located within the center of the overlap region with radius $`R_{tag}`$. The bubble has an initial energy, where its rest frame is given by the total momentum energy four vector of the sum of the tagged particles that are used to create the bubble.

## 12 Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed a possible way striking signals for a QGP could be generated at RHIC and detected. We have extended and generalized the original scenario proposed by Van Hove, by developing a detailed model with associated event generators to explore this scenario. Some of the results have been presented here.

If QGP bubbles or localized rapidity regions of QGP are created in some of the RHIC collisions (probably most likely for highest energy Au on Au), and the characteristics of their hadron emissions preserved, at least substantially in part of the events final state, we have shown that reasonable event generators that we developed can provide striking signals in individual events, even under the modest assumption that only 4.5% of the available energy (corresponding to the available energy for plasma formation generated in a central collision contained within a radius of about 1.3 $`fm`$) forms the QGP bubble. If larger amounts of the available energy form a QGP bubble (or a localized rapidity region) the signals will scale with the QGP energy, and could become truly dramatic (see Figs. 9-13).

We considered how the STAR detector, for example, might observe some of these modest 4.5% of the available energy QGP signals (figs. 5-8). If we assume $``$15% of the available energy is converted to plasma, we obtain truly dramatic signals (see figs. 9-13) and indicate how the STAR detector might observe some of these.

No one can predict what RHIC will reveal with any credible assurances. However when data is obtained with RHIC we will generate what is needed and relevant to confront our model, and in fact keep an entirely open mind on the subject, and modify our approach to the extent necessary to understand the data, and others may well do the same.

This paper and the event generators we have developed take a different approach, and therefore will be of value whether it can explain characteristics of the data or not.

Finally it should be noted that our RHIC::EVENT and RHIC::PLASMA generators can be used to investigate “odd CP bubbles” and likely can be adapted to many new investigations. We also discussed how the VNI event generator could be applied to QGP formation.

REFERENCES

 Quark Matter Formation and Heavy Ion Collisions: Proc. of the Biefeld Workshop, May 82. See papers by Jacobs and Satz, Baym, Kajantie, McLerran, Gyulassy, Knoll, Kapusta and others.

 Quark Matter conferences 1983, BNL; 1984 Helsinki, 1986 Asilomar, 1987 Nordkirschen, 1988 Lenox; 1990 Menton; 1991 Gatlinburg; 1993 Borlange, 1995 Monterey, 1996 Heidelberg, 1997 Tsukuba, 1998 Torino.

 Samios, N.P., RHIC Conceptual Design Report, (Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL52195, (1989).

 L. Schroeder and S.J. Lindenbaum, Large Magnetic Spectrometers. Part II by S.J. Lindenbaum, RHIC Workshop: Experiments for a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, April 15-19, 1985, P.E. Haustein and C.L. Woody, Editors, pp. 227-252 (Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 1985), BNL51921.

 a) L. Schroeder and S.J. Lindenbaum, Large Magnetic Spectrometer. Lindenbaum, S.J., part II pp. 227-252 RHIC Workshop: Experiments for a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, April 15-19, 1985, P.E. Haustein and C.L. Woody, Editors, pp. 211-252 (Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 1985). (b) Lindenbaum, S.J. An Approximately 4p Tracking Magnetic Spectrometer for RHIC. Proc. of the Second Workshop on Experiments and Detectors for a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California, May 25-29, 1987, Editors, Hans Georg Ritter and Asher Shor, pp. 146-165 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1988). (c) Lindenbaum, S.J. A 4$`\pi `$ Tracking Magnetic Spectrometer for RHIC. Proc. of the Third Workshop on Experiments and Detectors for a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), Brookhaven National Laboratory, July 11-22, 1988, B. Shivakumar and P. Vincent, Editors, pp. 82-96 (Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL 52185). (d) Lindenbaum, S.J. (Experimental Collaboration: G. Danby, S.E. Eiseman, A. Etkin, K.J. Foley, R.W. Hackenburg, R.S. Longacre, W.A. Love, T.W. Morris, E.D. Platner, A.C. Saulys, J.H. Van Dijk, S.J. Lindenbaum, C.S. Chan, M.A. Kramer, K. Zhao, N. Biswas, P. Kenney, J. Piekarz, D.L. Adams, S. Ahmad, B.E. Bonner, J.A.Buchanan, C.N. Chiou, J.M. Clement, M.D. Corcoran, T. Empl, H.E. Miettinen, G.S. Mutchler, J.B. Roberts, J. Skeens) A 4p Tracking TPC Magnetic Spectrometer for RHIC. Proc. of the Fourth Workshop on Experiments and Detectors for a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory, July 2-7, 1990, Editors: M. Fatyga and B. Moskowitz, pp. 169-206 (BNL, 1990).

 L. Van Hove. Z. Phys. C. Particles and Fields 21,93-98 (1983), Hadronization Model Quark-Gluon Plasma in Ultra-Relativistic Collisions CERN-TH 3924 (1984).

 L. Van Hove Nucl. Phys. A46 (1987).

 M. Gyulassy, H. Kajantie, Kurki-Suuno and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. B237 (1984) 477.

 F.E. Paige and S.D. Protopopescu, ”ISAJET” A MONTE CARLO event generator program for pp and p-bar + p interactions; BNL-29777 (1991); BNL-31987, Sept. 1982 and modifications.

 R.D. Field and R.P. Feynman, Nuci. Phys. B136, 1 (1978).

 T. Ludlam, et al., RHIC Workshop I, eds. P. Haustein and C.L. Woody (Brookhaven, April 85).

 X.N. Wang and M. Gyulassy. Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501; Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 844; Comp. Phys. Comm. 83 (1994) 307.

 B. Anderson, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 281, 289 (1987); Comp. Phys. Comm. 43, 387 (1987).

 T. Sjostrand, Comp. Phys. Comm 82, 74 (1994).

 M.Gyulassy, Nuclear Physics A 590 (19995) 431c-446c.

 A. Capella, U. Sukhatme, C. I. Tan and J. Tran Thanh Van, Phys. Rep. 236, 225 (1994).

 K. Werner, Phys. Rev. 282, 87 (1993).

 H. Sorge, H. Stocker, and W. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. A 498, 567c (1989).

 H. Sorge, H. Stocker and W. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. A 566, 663c (1994).

 K. Geiger and B Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B 369, 600 (1992).

 P. Koch, B. Müller and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rep. 142, 167 (1986).

 L. D. Landau, Izu. Akad. Nauk SSSR 17, 51 (1953).

 E. Schnedermann and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2908 (1992).

 JACEE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 2062 (1983).

 C.M.G. Lattes, Y. Fujimoto and S. Hasegawa, Phys. Rep. 65, 151 (1980); L.T. Baradzei et al., Nucl. Phys. B370, 365 (1992).

 K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B379, 395 (1993).

 We have chosen the 3 direction in isospin to be the neutral pions.

 T.J. Hallman, et al. (STAR Collaboration). The Physics and Detectors of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). Proc. XXXIst Rencontres de Moriond, Les Arcs. Savoie, France, March 23-30, 1996. Series: Moriond Particle Physics Meetings, ’96 QCD and High Energy Hadronic Interactions, edited by J. Tran Thanh Van, published by Editions Frontieres, pp. 485-90 (1996).

 Klaus Geiger, Ron Longacre, and Dinesh K. Srivastava, VNI;Simulation of High-Energy Particle Collisions in QCD, BNL-65755 (1998), Klaus Geiger and Ron Longacre Heavy Ion Physics 8, 41(1998).

 D. Kharzeev and R. Pisarski, hep-ph/9906401, January 16, 1999.

 D. Kharzeev, private communication.

 M. Gyulassy, RBRC Memo, 3/11/99.

 R. Longacre, Parton structure through two particle correlations in Au-Au at RHIC. Proc. RHIC Physics and Beyond: Kay Kay Gee Day, October 23, 1998, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY (in press).


format: text

text:
# S-wave 𝜂'-proton FSI; phenomenological analysis of near-threshold production of 𝜋⁰, 𝜂, and 𝜂' mesons in proton-proton collisions.

## Abstract

We describe a novel technique for comparing total cross sections for the reactions $`pppp\pi ^0`$, $`pppp\eta `$, and $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ close to threshold. The initial and final state proton-proton interactions are factored out of the total cross section, and the dependence of this reduced cross section on the volume of phase space is discussed. Different models of the proton-proton interaction are compared. We argue that the scattering length of the S-wave $`\eta ^{}`$-proton interaction is of the order of 0.1 fm.

New results on $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson production in the reaction $`ppppX`$, measured very recently at the COSY-11 facility , together with previous data , determine the energy dependence of the near-threshold total cross section with a precision comparable to the measurements of the reaction $`pppp\pi ^0`$ . These new data encouraged us to perform a phenomenological analysis similar to those of references . Here we concentrate on $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson production, and complete the analysis of these references by taking into account the interaction between the incident protons, and by introducing a new representation of the data. The production rates of $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons will be compared as a function of the available phase space. We will study the phase-space dependence of the quantity $`|M_0|`$ which is derived from the total cross section with the ISI and pp-FSI factored out. Consideration of the dependence of $`|M_0|`$ on phase space allows us to infer the $`\eta `$-proton and $`\eta ^{}`$-proton interactions. To avoid large ambiguities due to differences in pp-FSI models, we normalize the $`|M_0|`$ for $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons to the one for the $`\pi ^0`$ meson and show that the resulting $`\eta ^{}`$-proton interaction is comparable to the $`\pi ^0`$-proton one.

In general, the total cross section is presented as a function of the dimensionless parameter $`\eta _M`$  *** In order to avoid ambiguities with the abbreviation for the eta-meson, we introduce an additional suffix M for this parameter, which usually is called $`\eta `$. , which is defined as the maximum meson momentum in units of meson mass $`(\eta _M={\displaystyle \frac{q_{max}}{M}})`$, or as a function of the center-of-mass excess energy $`Q`$ , where nonrelativistically these variables are related by:

$$\eta _M^2=\frac{4m_p}{2m_pM+M^2}Q,$$
(1)
with $`m_p`$ and M denoting the proton and meson mass, respectively. The above equation shows that the proportionality factor between the variables Q and $`\eta _M^2`$ changes for different mesons, since the masses of the $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ are distinct. Hence, depending which variable is selected, the relation between the cross section values changes for different mesons. For example, as shown in reference  the $`\eta `$ meson production-cross-section exceeds the $`\pi ^0`$ cross section by about a factor of five using $`\eta _M`$, whereas the $`\pi ^0`$ meson cross section is always larger when employing the $`Q`$ scale.

The total cross section for $`ppppX`$ is in general an integral over phase space, weighted by the square of the transition matrix element and normalized to the incoming flux factor F:

$$\sigma _{ppppX}=\frac{1}{F}𝑑V_{ps}|M_{ppppX}|^2,$$
(2)
where X stands for the $`\pi ^0,\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, $`V_{ps}`$ denotes the phase space volume, and F = $`2(2\pi )^5\sqrt{s(s4m_p^2)}`$ , with s being the square of the total energy in the center-of-mass frame. The transition matrix element for the reaction $`ppppX`$, $`M_{ppppX}`$, incorporates the production mechanism and both the initial (ISI) and final (FSI) state interactions. In analogy with the Watson-Migdal approximation  for two body processes, we may assume that the complete transition amplitude for a production process $`M_{ppppX}`$ factorizes approximately as :

$$|M_{ppppX}|^2|M_0|^2|M_{FSI}|^2ISI,$$
(3)
where $`M_0`$ represents the total production amplitude, $`M_{FSI}`$ describes the elastic interaction among particles in the exit channel, and ISI denotes the reduction factor due to the interaction of the colliding protons.

Equation (2) suggests that a natural variable for comparing the total cross sections for different mesons may be the volume of available phase space, In the nonrelativistic approximation, Q $`<<`$ M (which is justified at threshold), $`V_{ps}`$ is proportional to the fourth power of the variable $`\eta _M`$ or the square of the excess energy $`Q`$; $`V_{ps}={\displaystyle 𝑑V_{ps}}=\eta _M^4\sqrt{M+2m_p}m_p^1M^{\frac{5}{2}}\pi ^32^5`$  $`V_{ps}=𝑑V_{ps}`$. Figure 1 shows the yield of $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons in the proton-proton interaction as a function of available phase space volume. The yield is defined as the cross section multiplied by the corresponding flux factor, and divided by the ISI factor. Close to threshold the initial state interaction, which reduces the total cross section, is dominated by proton-proton scattering in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state. As shown by Hanhart and Nakayama , this ISI may be estimated in terms of phase shifts and inelasticities. The ISI factor is close to unity for pion production, and amounts to $``$ 0.2  and $``$ 0.33  respectively for $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons at threshold. As shown in reference  the initial state interaction may be taken into account by multiplying the theoretical cross section by these factors. This justifies our choice of the dimensionless quantity $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma F}{ISI}}`$, which depends only on the primary production amplitude $`M_0`$ and on the final state interaction among the produced particles. Numerically we have confirmed that within the present model the effect of the pp-FSI is approximately independent of the produced meson mass throughout the phase space volume under investigation. In fact, the difference of the effect on the pp-FSI is about 1$`\%`$ for $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ production and it is only about 10$`\%`$ larger than for the case of the $`\pi ^0`$ production. This is in line with the G. Fäldt and C. Wilkin model which predict that the pp-FSI depends on the excess energy only .

Thus, the observed differences in the production yield for the different mesons, as presented in Figure 1, may be attributed directly to the square of the primary production amplitude $`|M_0|^2`$ convoluted with the FSI of the particles in the exit channel. Comparing the cross sections with flux-factor and ISI corrections one can see that over the relevant range of $`V_{ps}`$ the dynamics for $`\eta ^{}`$ meson production is about six times weaker than for the $`\pi ^0`$ meson, which again is a further factor of six weaker than that of the $`\eta `$ meson.

Employing equations (2) and (3) and given the two additional assumptions that in the exit channel only the proton-proton interaction is significant ($`M_{FSI}=M_{pppp}`$), and that the primary production amplitude is constant over the studied range of phase space, it is possible to calculate the quantity $`|M_0|`$. From this point we no longer refer to $`M_0`$ as the primary production amplitude, because the assumption ($`M_{FSI}=M_{pppp}`$) implicitly shifts the proton-meson FSI from $`|M_{FSI}|`$ to $`|M_0|`$.

To evaluate $`|M_0|`$ we considered three possible parametrizations of the pp-FSI enhancement factor $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$, which are presented in Figure 2. The solid line shows the squared proton-proton amplitude :

$$M_{pppp}=\frac{e^{\delta _{pp}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{pp}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})}{Ck},$$
(4)
where $`C^2=\frac{2\pi \eta _c}{e^{2\pi \eta _c}1}`$ is the Coulomb penetration factor , $`\eta _c`$ is the relativistic Coulomb parameter $`\eta _c=\alpha /v`$, with $`\alpha `$ \- the fine structure constant and $`v`$ \- the proton velocity in the rest frame of the other proton. The phase-shifts $`\delta _{pp}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ are calculated according to the modified Cini-Fubini-Stanghellini formula including the Wong-Noyes Coulomb correction ,

$`C^2pctg\delta _{pp}+2p\eta _ch(\eta _c)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{pp}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{pp}p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{pp}p^4}{1+Q_{pp}p^2}},`$ (5)
where $`h(\eta _c)=ln(\eta _c)0.57721+\eta _c^2_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n(n^2+\eta _c^2)}`$ . The phenomenological quantities $`a_{pp}=7.83`$ fm and $`b_{pp}=2.8`$ fm denote the scattering length and effective range , respectively. The parameters $`P_{pp}=0.73`$ fm3 and $`Q_{pp}=3.35`$ fm2 are related to the detailed shape of the nuclear potential and derived from a one-pion-exchange model . These calculations give values which are in a good agreement with the phase shifts of the VPI partial wave analysis , shown as solid circles, and with the phase shifts of the Nijmegen analysis , shown as open squares.

The dashed line presents the enhancement from the proton-proton interaction, $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$, estimated as an inverse of the squared Jost function, with the Coulomb interaction included . In this case $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$ is a dimensionless factor which approaches zero as the relative proton momentum k$``$0, peaks sharply at k $``$ 25 MeV/c, and asymptotically approaches unity for large relative proton-proton momentum. The solid and dashed lines agree quite well for small relative protons momentum.

The dotted line corresponds to the inverse of the squared Jost function, calculated using the formulas of references , also corrected for the Coulomb force. The presented prescriptions evidently differ significantly, especially for k larger than $``$ 50 MeV/c.

The curves in Figure 2 are arbitrarily normalized to the same maximum value as found in reference . Note that the values of $`|M_0|`$ extracted will depend on the absolute values of the enhancement factor $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$, which is not well established. For example, the formula given by Druzhinin et al.  leads to a maximum value of $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$ of about 50, whereas the authors of reference  find a value of about 20. Due to this wide variation, in the following we will discuss only the relative phase space dependence of $`|M_0|`$, rather than the absolute magnitude.

Figure 3 compares values extracted for $`|M_0|`$ near threshold production of $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons, using $`M_{pppp}`$ as shown in Figure 2 by the solid line. $`|M_0|`$ is arbitrarily normalized to unity for large $`V_{ps}`$, separately for each meson. If the assumptions used in the derivation of $`|M_0|`$ were strictly satisfied the values obtained would be equal to one as depicted by the solid line. It can be seen, however, that in the case of the $`\eta `$ meson, $`|M_0|`$ grows with decreasing phase space volume. The observed deviation from unity is too large to be plausibly assigned to a variation in the primary production amplitude; the calculations of Moalem et al.  show that the primary production amplitude should change only by a few per cent in this energy range. Therefore, the observed behaviour of $`|M_0|`$ may be attributed to an attractive $`\eta `$-proton interaction, which was neglected in its derivation. The results for the $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ production, apart from the points closest to threshold Due to the steep decrease of the total cross section near threshold, a small change in the energy (0.2 MeV) lifts the points to significantly higher values. Moreover, at very low energies, nuclear and Coulomb scattering are expected to compete. The limit is at approximately 0.8 MeV proton energy in the rest frame of the other proton, where the Coulomb penetration factor C2 is equal to 0.5 . Thus, careful analysis is required at small excess energies, where the Coulomb interaction dominates. , show that $`|M_0|`$ is indeed effectively constant over the region of the phase space studied, indicating that both the $`\pi ^0`$-proton and $`\eta ^{}`$-proton FSIs are too weak to be observable at current experimental accuracy. In the case of the $`\pi ^0`$ this result was expected, since the S-wave $`\pi `$-proton interaction is much weaker than the $`\eta `$-proton one. The real part of the scattering length, a = 0.13 fm , is about six times smaller than a = 0.75 fm . Regarding the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, there is no experimental evidence for the $`\eta ^{}`$-proton interaction except for a very conservative upper limit on the real value of the $`\eta ^{}`$-proton scattering length $`|Re(a_{\eta ^{}p})|`$ $`<`$ 0.8 fm, as estimated in reference . In deriving this $`\eta ^{}`$-proton estimate the dashed line in Figure 2 was assumed for the proton-proton FSI.

Different prescriptions for the proton-proton enhancement factors will obviously give different results for $`|M_0|`$. Figure 4 for example shows $`|M_0|`$ for the various meson production channels, as extracted when using the distribution of $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$ depicted in Figure 2 as the dotted line. The $`|M_0|`$ behaviour for $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons is now qualitatively different from that shown in Figure 3, and would indicate an unreasonably strong attractive interaction between these mesons and the proton. Results for $`|M_0|`$ obtained with $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$ as described by Druzhinin et al.  (dashed line in Figure 2), which is close to that presented in Figure 3, can be found in .

To minimize ambiguities that result from uncertainties in the proton-proton scattering amplitude, we consider the ratio $`|M_0^{\eta (\eta ^{})}|/|M_0^{\pi ^0}|`$ . At first order the integral of $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$ over phase space is independent of the meson produced. The transition amplitude for $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ production $`|M_0^{\eta (\eta ^{})}|`$ is therefore normalized to the one for the $`\pi ^0`$ production $`|M_0^{\pi ^0}|`$; this should be independent of the model used for the determination of $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$, and will allow an estimate of the relative strength of the $`\pi ^0`$-proton and $`\eta (\eta ^{})`$-proton interactions. Indeed, we found that within errors the ratio $`|M_0^{\eta (\eta ^{})}|/|M_0^{\pi ^0}|`$ does not depend on the model used for $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$. As an example, in Figure 5 we show this ratio as obtained from the amplitude $`|M_{pppp}|^2`$ presented as the dotted line in Figure 2. Figure 5a shows an increasing strength of $`|M_0|`$ for the $`\eta `$ production at low $`V_{ps}`$, indicating a strong $`\eta `$-proton FSI, as was discussed previously for the cross section ratio by Calén et al. . Note also that the ratio for the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is constant over the phase space range considered (Figure 5b). This observation, and the fact that theoretical calculations predict that the primary production amplitude is constant to within a few per cent  independent of the mechanism assumed, allows us to conclude that the $`\eta ^{}`$-proton scattering parameters are comparable to the $`\pi ^0`$-proton ones. The $`\eta ^{}`$-proton scattering length is therefore about 0.1 fm, similar to the $`\pi ^0`$-proton scattering length.

Acknowledgements
One of the authors (P.M.) acknowledges financial support from the Forschungszentrum Jülich and the Foundation for Polish Science. We would like to thank T. Barnes for his careful reading of the manuscript. This research project was supported in part by the BMBF (06MS881I), the Bilateral Cooperation between Germany and Poland represented by the Internationales Büro DLR for the BMBF (PL-N-108-95) and by the Komitet Badań Naukowych KBN, and by FFE grants (41266606 and 41266654) from the Forschungszentrum Jülich.


text:
# 1 Introduction to Cosmic Magnetic Fields

## 1 Introduction to Cosmic Magnetic Fields

Magnetic fields have been observed in a large number of spiral galaxies, including the Milky Way . In almost all cases, the galactic field strengths are measured to be a few times $`10^6`$ G. This particular value has also been found at a redshift of $`z=0.395`$  and between the galaxies in clusters. In spiral galaxies, one discovers that the magnetic field is aligned with the spiral arms and density waves in the disk. A plausible explanation is that it was created by a mean-field dynamo mechanism , in which a much smaller seed field was exponentially amplified by the turbulent motion of ionised gas in conjunction with the differential rotation of the galaxy.

For the dynamo to work, the initial seed field must be correlated on a scale of $`100`$ pc, corresponding to the largest turbulent eddy . The required strength of the seed field is subject to large uncertainties; past authors have quoted $`10^{21\pm 2}`$ G as the lower bound at the time of completed galaxy formation. This would present a problem for most particle-physics and field-theory inspired mechanisms of magnetic field generation. However, in recent work with A.-C. Davis and M.J. Lilley , I have shown that the lower bound on the dynamo seed field can be significantly relaxed if the universe is flat with a cosmological constant, as is suggested by recent supernovae observations . In particular, for the same dynamo parameters that give a lower bound of $`10^{20}`$ G for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we obtain $`10^{30}`$ G for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, implying that particle-physics mechanisms could still be viable. The observation at redshift $`z=0.395`$  can also be accounted for with these parameters, but requires a seed field of at least $`10^{23}`$ G .

The magnetic field is amplified by the dynamo until its energy reaches equipartition with the kinetic energy of the ionised gas, $`B^2/2=\rho v^2/2`$. Thus a final field of $`B_010^6`$ G results for any seed field of sufficient strength.

It is difficult to explain the galactic field strength without a dynamo mechanism. To this end, one would require a strong primordial field of $`10^3(\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2)^{1/3}`$ G at the epoch of radiation decoupling $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, corresponding to a field strength $`10^9(\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2)^{1/3}`$ G on comoving scales of $`1`$ Mpc. Future precision measurements of the CMB will put severe constraints on such a primordial field . Moreover, magnetic fields on Mpc scales have been probed by observations of the Faraday rotation of polarised light from distant luminous sources, which give an upper bound of about $`10^9`$ G . The observation of micro-Gauss fields between galaxies in clusters presents an interesting dilemma. Because such regions are considerably less dense than galaxies, it is doubtful whether a dynamo could have been operative. Thus the intra-cluster magnetic fields, unless somehow ejected from galaxies, have formed directly from a primordial field stronger than $`10^3(\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2)^{1/3}`$ G at $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. Such a field would certainly leave a signature in future CMB data .

Although particle-physics inspired models typically produce weak seed fields, they tend to give precise predictions, unlike many astrophysical mechanisms, where the magnetic field strength is determined by complicated nonlinear dynamics, or solutions of general relativity with a magnetic field , where the field strength must be fixed by observations. With the possible exception of the last-mentioned model, there is no compelling scenario that produces a primordial field strong enough to eliminate the need for a dynamo.

Seed fields for the dynamo can be astrophysical or primordial. In the former category there is the important possibility that a seed field may arise spontaneously due to non-parallel gradients of pressure and charge density during the collapse of a protogalaxy . For the rest of this talk, however, I shall assume that the seed field is primordial.

## 2 Primordial Seed Fields

It is useful to distinguish between primordial seed fields that are produced with correlation length smaller than vs. larger than the horizon size.

Subhorizon-scale seed fields typically arise in first-order phase transitions and from causal processes involving defects. For example, magnetic fields may be created on the surface of bubble walls  due to local charge separation induced by baryon-number gradients. The magnetic fields are then amplified by plasma turbulence near the bubble wall. This possibility has been explored for the QCD  as well as for the electroweak  phase transition.

The production of magnetic fields in collisions of expanding true-vacuum bubbles will be discussed in Sec. 4. Fields can also be generated in the wakes of, or due to the wiggles of, GUT-scale cosmic strings during structure formation, resulting in a large correlation length . Joyce and Shaposhnikov have shown that an asymmetry of right-handed electrons, possibly generated at the GUT scale, would become unstable to the generation of a hypercharge magnetic field shortly before the electroweak phase transition , leading to a correlation length of order $`10^6/T`$.

Horizon-scale seed fields emerge naturally in second-order phase transitions of gauge theories from the failure of covariant derivatives of the Higgs field to correlate on superhorizon scales .

Superhorizon-scale seed fields can arise as a solution of the Einstein equations for axisymmetric universes  and in inflationary or pre-Big Bang (superstring) scenarios. In the latter case, vacuum fluctuations of the field tensor are amplified by the dynamical dilaton field . Inflationary models produce extremely weak magnetic fields unless conformal invariance is explicitly broken , but even then great difficulties remain. An exciting new possibility is that magnetic fields may be produced via parametric resonance with an oscillating field  e.g. during preheating after inflation. Because the inflaton is initially coherent on superhorizon scales, large correlations can arise without violating causality. A similar proposal involves charged scalar particles, minimally coupled to gravity, that are created from the vacuum due to the changing space-time geometry at the end of inflation. The particles give rise to fluctuating electric currents which are claimed to produce superhorizon-scale (indeed, galactic-scale) fields of sufficient strength to satisfy the galactic dynamo bound . This mechanism deserves further investigation.

## 3 The Evolution of Primordial Magnetic Fields

Many particle-physics and field-theory scenarios for producing primordial magnetic fields result in too small a correlation length $`\xi `$, which is a serious problem. If the fields are produced at the QCD phase transition or earlier with sub-horizon correlation length, then the expansion of the universe cannot stretch $`\xi `$ to more than 1 pc today (see Fig. 1). This is far short of the galactic dynamo lower bound of 5-10 kpc (comoving), corresponding to 100 pc in a virialised galaxy .

Nevertheless, it has been argued by many authors  that the correlation length will grow more rapidly due to magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence and inverse cascade, which transfers power from small-scale to large-scale Fourier modes. In Fig. 1, several non-relativistic models for this evolution are analysed. The most conservative estimate is obtained by assuming that the magnetic field strength on the scale of one correlation length at any time equals the volume average of fields that were produced on smaller scales but have since decayed . This leads to a growth $`\xi t^{7/10}`$ (obtained from the Minkowski-space growth $`\xi t^{2/5}`$ via the substitution $`t\tau =t^{1/2}`$ and multiplication by the scale factor). The most optimistic estimate corresponds to the case when the magnetic field has maximal helicity in relation to the energy density . As magnetic helicity is approximately conserved in the high-conductivity early-universe environment, one obtains the growth law $`\xi t^{5/6}`$. Turbulence ends, freezing the growth (in comoving coordinates) when the kinetic Reynolds number drops below unity at the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation or later, depending on the model and the parameters of the initial field.

An intermediate and rather plausible estimate has been given by Dimopoulos and Davis , who use the fact that the magnetic flux enclosed by a (sufficiently large) comoving closed curve is conserved. The correlation length here increases at a rate given by the Alfvén velocity, so that $`\xi t^{3/4}`$.

As Fig. 1 shows, only the most optimistic of these growth laws leads to a correlation length today that satisfies the galactic dynamo bound. This occurs for fields correlated over the horizon scale at the QCD phase transition. Beware, however, that the growth laws were derived using non-relativistic MHD equations assuming that the magnetic field energy density remains in equipartition with the kinetic energy density $`\rho \overline{v}^2/2`$, where $`\overline{v}`$ is the presumed non-relativistic “bulk velocity” of the ultra-relativistic plasma. It seems plausible that a relativistic treatment could alter the predicted evolution dramatically. In this light, I find it too early to reject the idea that also subhorizon fields might evolve into fields sufficiently correlated to seed the galactic dynamo.

At the same time, Fig. 1 demonstrates the intrinsic advantage of superhorizon field generation mechanisms. For these, the principal problem is not the correlation length, but to achieve sufficient strength of the magnetic field.

## 4 Magnetic Fields From Bubble Collisions

A simple solution for the magnetic field generated in a bubble collision was first obtained in a U(1) model by Kibble and Vilenkin \[KV\] . We have recently obtained an improved analytical solution for the field evolution in that model  using an analytical expression for the bubble-wall profile.

Here I shall restrict attention to non-Abelian bubble collisions, taking the minimal Standard Model as an example. The initial Higgs field in the two bubbles can be written

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _0𝒏𝝈)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \rho _1(x)\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _0𝒏𝝈)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \rho _2(x)\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where $`𝒏`$, $`\theta _0`$ are constants. As the bubbles collide, non-Abelian currents $`j_k^A=i[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}T^AD_k\mathrm{\Phi }(D_k\mathrm{\Phi })^{}T^A\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ develop across the surface of their intersection, where $`T^A=(g^{}/2,g\sigma ^a/2)`$, $`D_k=_kiW_k^AT^A`$ and $`W_k^A=(Y_k,W_k^a)`$. This, in turn, leads to a ring-like flux of non-Abelian fields encircling the bubble intersection. The recipe for projecting out the electromagnetic field amongst the non-Abelian fields in an arbitrary gauge has been given elsewhere .

In the special cases $`𝒏=(0,0,\pm 1)`$ and $`𝒏=(n_1,n_2,0)`$ it is known  that the non-Abelian flux consists of pure Z and pure W vector fields, respectively. When $`n_30,\pm 1`$, both $`Z`$ and $`W`$ fields are excited and conspire to generate a non-zero electric current and associated magnetic field. As is expected, the resulting field strength is of the order of $`M_W^2/g`$ with a correlation length $`\xi M_W^1`$. However, when plasma friction and conductivity are taken into account, the magnetic field spreads over the interior of a bubble  leading to an appreciable increase in correlation length.

### Acknowledgments

The author is supported by the European Commission’s TMR programme under Contract No. ERBFMBI-CT97-2697 and by the U.K. PPARC. He is grateful to the Royal Society, inter alii, for travel support.