text:
# Anomalous Sliding Friction and Peak Effect near the Flux Lattice Melting Transition

\[

to appear in Phys. Rev. B (2000)

## Abstract

Recent experiments have revealed a giant ”peak effect” in ultrapure high $`T_c`$ superconductors. Moreover, the new data show that the peak effect coincides exactly with the melting transition of the underlying flux lattice. In this work, we show using dynamical scaling arguments that the friction due to the pinning centers acting on the flux lattice develops a singularity near a continuous phase transition and can diverge for many systems. The magnitude of the nonlinear sliding friction of the flux lattice scales with this atomistic friction. Thus, the nonlinear conductance should diverge for a true continuous transition in the flux lattice or peak at a weakly first order transition or for systems of finite size.

\]

One of the central unsolved problems in type-II superconductivity concerns the so-called ”peak effect”. When a current $`I`$ is passed through the superconductor in the mixed phase, the flux line lattice (FLL) moves in response to the Lorentz force, leading to dissipation and an induced voltage $`V`$. Naively, the nonlinear conductance $`C=I/V`$ is expected to decrease monotonically towards the $`H_{c2}`$ phase boundary because of the diminishing order parameter and hence a reduced pinning strength. However, experimentally it was observed a long time ago that instead of a monotonic behavior, the conductance peaks sharply to a large value before dropping at the superconducting-normal transition. It has also been established that this peak effect is not just limited to conventional superconductors, but shows up in a similar fashion in the high $`T_c`$ YBCO superconductors also. To date, however, there has been no satisfactory explanation for this peak effect, although various possible mechanisms have been proposed as the origin of this phenomenon. One popular idea based on the collective pinning theory is that the FLL softens towards the $`H_{c2}`$ boundary, leading to a smaller elastic coherence length (Larkin length) and enhanced stronger pinning by the impurities. It is not clear though how this mechanism can give rise to the sharp peak in the conductance. Moreover, recent data have revealed giant peak effects in ultrapure high $`T_c`$ superconductors with as much as a 35-fold increase in $`C`$ from onset to peak, which is hard to explain with the collective pinning idea. It has also been widely suggested that the peak effect is either caused by or related to an underlying FLL melting transition. Up until very recently, this idea has remained speculative because of the difficulty of a direct experimental observation of the FLL melting transition. Two recent studies have now established conclusively the relation of the peak effect with the underlying phase transition in the FLL. In the study involving ultrapure YBCO, the peak effect is shown to coincide exactly with the point at which there is a small magnetization jump $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ or discontinuity in the slope of the magnetization. This behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is interpreted as the signature of either a continuous or very weak first order transition. In another study of the conventional superconductor Nb, an AC magnetic susceptibility ($`\chi `$) measurement was made in conjunction with a small angle neutron scattering (SANS) study of the structure of the underlying FLL. The peak effect (a dip in the real part of the AC susceptibility $`\chi `$) is observed to occur precisely at the point where the diffraction peak in the SANS pattern of the FLL begins to broaden into ring-like features. In this case, the transition is more strongly first order, with a direct observation of hysteresis involving superheating and supercooling behavior.

We have, in an earlier paper, suggested that the sliding friction for the FLL would be anomalously large near a continuous or very weak first order melting transition due to the enhanced coupling of the pinning centers to the FLL through the critical fluctuations. The central idea is that the mobility of the FLL is not just controlled by the pinning strength of the impurities, which is an equilibrium property. It depends also on the non-adiabatic coupling of the pinning center to the dynamical excitations of the FLL, leading to a frictional damping $`\eta `$ on the FLL. Recent theoretical developments in understanding nonlinear sliding friction of an adsorbed monolayer in the boundary lubrication problem are particularly helpful in elucidating this problem. Aside from inertia mass effects, the behavior of these systems is very similar. In the FLL, the driving force $`F`$ is the Lorentz force proportional to the current passing through the superconductor, and the moving FLL produces a changing flux and an induced voltage that is proportional to the average drift velocity $`v`$ of the FLL. Thus, in the language of the boundary lubrication problem, the static friction of the adlayer corresponds to the critical current $`J_c`$ in the superconductor, and the nonlinear sliding friction $`\overline{\eta }`$ of the adlayer defined as $`\overline{\eta }=F/v`$ is essentially the nonlinear conductance $`C`$ for the superconductor. Note that $`\overline{\eta }`$ is just the inverse of the usual definition of the mobility for the adlayer. In the discussion of the peak effect problem, the nonlinear conductance related to the sliding friction $`\overline{\eta }`$ of the FLL is actually the more relevant quantity. Near the occurrence of the peak effect, the $`IV`$ curve is often of such a nature that there is a continuous rise of the voltage with increasing driving current such that the exact value of threshold critical current $`J_c`$ is ill-defined, and the nonlinear conductance is a better measure of the anomaly for the mechanical response of the FLL. In the AC magnetic susceptibility measurement, what determines the magnitude of the screening current and hence the magnitude of the susceptibility is clearly the nonlinear conductance and not so much a single threshold critical current density $`J_c`$. Results from various numerical studies of the boundary layer problem have shown that both the static friction and the nonlinear sliding friction depend in a complicated manner on the interplay of the strength of the pinning potential, interactions among the particles (vortices for the FLL) and the bare frictional damping $`\eta `$ from the environment. In this paper, we will quantify the concept that for the FLL, it is the variation of the nonadiabatic frictional damping $`\eta `$ and not the adiabatic pinning strength that develops anomalous temperature and magnetic field dependence near the melting transition. This anomalous behavior of the frictional damping then leads to the peak effect for the nonlinear sliding friction $`\overline{\eta }`$ for the FLL and hence the conductance C of the superconductor. We show below through general dynamical scaling arguments the explicit singularity of the friction $`\eta `$ near the transition.

Let us first consider the random force acting on the pinning center at the position $`𝐫`$ by the flux lattice. In the simple pair interaction model, this can be expressed in terms of the linear displacement $`u_{𝐪,\alpha }`$ of each vortex from its equilibrium position as

$$f_\alpha (𝐫)=\underset{𝐪}{}W(𝐫,𝐪)u_{𝐪,\alpha }.$$
(1)
Here, $`𝐪`$ stands for the normal mode index of the FLL, $`\alpha `$ is the Cartesian component label and $`W`$ represents the coupling function. In response to this, there is an equal and opposite reaction force on the FLL by the pinning center. When correlations between the different pinning centers are neglected, the frictional damping (in the Markovian limit) on the FLL is then given by

$$\eta =\underset{𝐪,𝐫}{}W^2(𝐫,𝐪)S(𝐪,\omega =0),$$
(2)
where $`S(𝐪,\omega =0)`$ is the dynamic structure factor defined as $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tu_{𝐪,\alpha }(t)^{}u_{𝐪,\alpha }(0)`$. Correlations between the random forces from pinning centers at different positions would lead to higher order terms in the pinning center concentration $`n_p`$ in Eq.(2), and are negligible in the limit $`n_p0`$. According to general dynamical scaling arguments , $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$ should take the scaling form near $`T_c`$ for a continuous phase transition as

$$N^dS(𝐪,\omega )=\xi ^{z+\gamma /\nu }g_\pm (q\xi ,\omega \xi ^z)\text{ ,}$$
(3)
where $`g_\pm `$ is a scaling function, $`\xi |T/T_c1|^\nu `$ is the divergent correlation length, $`d`$ is the system dimension, $`\gamma `$ the susceptibility exponent and $`z`$ is the dynamical critical exponent. Substitution of Eq. (3) back into Eq. (2) then leads to the conclusion that as one approaches $`T_c`$, the friction $`\eta `$ has a singular part that goes as $`\eta |T/T_c1|^x`$ with $`x=\nu (zd)+\gamma `$. The dimension $`d`$ enters explicitly through the $`q`$ integration in Eq. (2) where we have assumed a typical short ranged coupling potential $`W(q)`$ that is regular at $`q=0`$. Thus the friction $`\eta `$ can either diverge if $`x>0`$ or be finite with a cusp only . Similar anomaly has also been predicted for adatom diffusion near the surface reconstruction transition of the W(100) surface . For this case, the exponent $`x`$ has been explicitly evaluated for a model Hamiltonian and shown to have the value  $`x1.8`$. Thus the diffusion constant of adatoms on this surface is predicted to vanish at the transition.

The friction $`\eta `$ calculated in Eq. (2) corresponds to the bare friction acting on the center of mass (CM) degree of freedom of the FLL. It is analogous to the friction exerted by the substrate on an adsorbed layer in the boundary lubrication problem. Experimentally, the mobility measurements of the FLL have all been performed in the nonlinear regime. In the presence of an external pinning potential, the CM motion of the FLL is coupled to the single vortex motion which depends in turn on the interactions with other vortices. Thus the nonlinear response of the flux lattice under a driving current can only be determined by solving the coupled Langevin equations. In general, the nonlinear sliding friction $`\overline{\eta }`$ of the FLL depends on the details of the vortex interaction, strength of the pinning potentials, and the driving force. However, in various recent studies of the nonlinear sliding friction of an adsorbed overlayer on an substrate, it has been shown that the magnitude of $`\overline{\eta }`$ is determined by the bare friction $`\eta `$ as given in Eq.(2), with $`\overline{\eta }`$ approaching the bare friction $`\eta `$ in the limit of large driving force. Even for a system with a positive exponent $`x`$ leading to a divergent behavior for $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ near the transition, the conductance peak at the transition in practice will be significantly rounded by crossover effects due to the nonzero driving current. It has been argued, in general terms, that the current density $`J`$ sets an additional length scale in resistance measurements $`L_J^{d1}kT/J`$ due to thermal fluctuations. The divergent critical fluctuations at $`T_c`$ will be then be cut off by this length when $`\xi L_J`$, giving rise to a nonlinear resistance behavior $`RI^{x/\nu (d1)}`$. Experimentally , a strong nonlinearity is indeed observed for the conductance maxima which decreases for increasing $`I`$. Thus, we conclude that for a FLL system with a positive exponent $`x`$, its nonlinear sliding friction $`\overline{\eta }`$ has a peak at the melting transition, its origin being the strong critical fluctuation near the melting transition. This then leads to the peak in the conductance C. In the case of a weak first order transition or finite size system, the divergence or the cusp singularity of $`\eta `$ would be rounded off even in the linear regime and thus we expect the peak effect for these systems to be much weaker.

Now we come back to the recent experimental data on peak effect and discuss them in light of the above theoretical considerations. Much of the difficulty associated with understanding the FLL dynamics starts with the fact that we do not even have a very detailed understanding of the ground state. The accepted picture now for the weak pinning limit is that of a Bragg glass with quasi-translational long range order (LRO) and true orientational LRO, due to the presence of random pinning centers. Similarly, we do not have a clear picture of how or whether the FLL melts just before the superconducting-normal transition. The recent data strongly support the existence of a phase transition in the FLL just before the $`H_{c2}`$ phase boundary. For an ultrapure sample of the high $`T_c`$ YBCO superconductor, static magnetization measurements show a very small discontinuity at high magnetic field (5 T) and no discernible jump but only a discontinuity in the slope of the magnetization at lower fields. This is identified as the melting transition, the transition being continuous at low fields and weakly first order at high fields. The ”peak effect”, identified by the dip in the real part of the AC magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ occurs at precisely the same temperature and magnetic field as this ”melting” transition. This peak effect is ”gigantic” involving a 35-fold increase in the nonlinear conductance $`C`$ through a narrow range of change of temperature or the magnetic field. This is much stronger than all the previously observed peak effects which typically show a peak to onset ratio of 3 to 4. According to the present theory, this sharp peak behavior in $`C`$ can be understood as arising from the sharp rise in the friction acting on the FLL due to the coupling of the pinning centers to the strong critical fluctuations near the continuous or weakly first order melting transition. According to our scaling arguments, the existence of a peak effect require that the exponent $`x=\nu (zd)+\gamma `$ be positive. At the moment, there exists no detailed information on any of these exponents for the FLL melting transition in the presence of pinning centers. However, existing calculations of the dynamical exponent $`z`$ for disordered systems  give results which are generally larger than $`z=4`$. Thus, it is entirely plausible that the corresponding exponent $`x`$ for the FLL can be positive. In practice, the divergence of the critical fluctuations will be cut off by the length scale set by the current $`L_J^{d1}kT/J`$ . In addition, imperfections in the crystalline order of the sample also provides a cutoff. This explains then the gigantic peak effect for the ultrapure YBCO as opposed to the much smaller peak effect for the poorer quality samples. Another feature of the data that supports the present theory is the large width of the $`\chi ^{}(T)`$ dip. At $`H=5.0`$ T, the width of the $`\chi ^{}(T)`$ dip is about 1 K while the width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ discontinuity is only about $`0.08`$ K. This can be understood from the fact that $`\chi ^{}(T)`$ measures the critical fluctuations through its dependence on the friction while $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is just an order parameter measurement connected with the density of the vortices. In addition to this study for YBCO, there is also a recent study for the conventional superconductor Nb involving simultaneous small angle neutron scattering (SANS) as well as AC magnetic susceptibility measurements . The melting transition here can be clearly identified as the point where the sharp Bragg-like peak in the ordered FLL phase first begins to broaden into ring-like features. By contrast with the high $`T_c`$ YBCO material, the stronger first order nature of the melting transition in Nb is clearly evidenced by the observation of superheating and supercooling below and above the melting transition . Again, the peak effect as determined from the magnetic susceptibility measurements coincides with the melting transition. However, the peak effect in this case is much weaker, and the conductance $`C`$ only shows a four-fold increase from onset to the peak value. Since the transition here is of first order, the critical fluctuations are much weaker and the correlation length does not diverge at the melting transition point. In fact, the situation here is similar to the poorer quality sample of YBCO where impurities and imperfections cut off the divergent critical fluctuations. As a result, the friction acting on the FLL has only a weak maximum instead of a divergent behavior at the transition point, and the corresponding peak effect is much weaker.

In conclusion, we have presented here a general scaling argument that the frictional damping exerted by the pinning centers on the flux lattice has a singularity (or a cusp) near a continuous melting transition in the lattice. While most previous theoretical considerations of the peak effect focus on the adiabatic pinning strength, the present work identifies the origin of the peak effect through the non-adiabatic coupling of the pinning centers to the strong critical fluctuations near the transition point. This leads to a vanishing linear mobility for the flux lattice at the transition. In the nonlinear regime, the finite driving current provides a cutoff for the divergent critical fluctuations, and this leads to a finite peak in the nonlinear sliding friction for the FLL and hence the conductance for the superconductor, with the strength of the peak dependent on the magnitude of the driving current. The recently observed gigantic peak effect in high $`T_c`$ superconductors and the strong correlation between the peak effect and the observed melting transition provide strong support for the mechanism proposed here.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with X.S. Ling and Martin Grant. This work was supported by in part by a joint NSF-CNPq grant, by FAPESP (grant 99/02532-0) (E.G.), and the Academy of Finland through its Center of Excellence program (T.A-N.).


format: text

text:
# Intersections 2000: What’s New in Hadron Physics Work supported by the Department of Energy under contract number DE–AC03–76SF00515.

## I. The Big Picture

The main portion of this talk deals with the subject of hadron physics: what it is, what some of its challenges are, and why I believe the hadron-physics community needs to identify itself more strongly and precisely in order to define and protect its long range experimental program. But before turning to that, it may be of use to put this subject in the context of the bigger picture of basic particle-physics goals. Another reason is that this conference has not been just about hadron physics. By my count about 60 percent of the parallel sessions dealt with hadron-physics issues, while only 45 percent of the plenary talks were on hadron physics, the remainder dealing with the bigger picture.

For most of the last twenty years, the Big Picture in particle physics has centered around the Big Three issues, namely Higgs, SUSY, and CP. I believe, as does most everyone, that the most important of these is the problem of mass and the nature of the Higgs sector, responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking. While this question seems timeless, having been around in an almost unchanged form for over two decades, our perspective of it has actually shifted somewhat. Thanks to the discovery at Fermilab of a very heavy top quark, and to the many beautiful precision electroweak measurements from CERN, SLAC, and elsewhere, the mass of the Higgs boson cannot be too large. This is encouragement that we will within a decade have a direct experimental handle on the question, from experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron and/or the CERN Large Hadron Collider.

How this turns out experimentally will have a profound influence on the future of the field. I like to contrast the options in terms of two extremes. One is the “desert” scenario, where the theory remains essentially what we now have all the way up to a very high mass scale, for example the Grand Unification scale of $`10^{15}`$ GeV or so. This can only occur if the Higgs boson, the only undiscovered particle that the desert scenario requires, has a mass of 160 $`\pm `$ 20 GeV. Other masses are ruled out by the requirements of vacuum stability and the absence of strong Higgs self-interactions (cf. Fig. 1). The other extreme is that of the supersymmetric extension of the standard model (SUSY, or MSSM), where each known particle has its superpartner, differing in spin by one-half unit, and with the superpartner masses typically less than a TeV. Also, the MSSM Higgs sector is larger, with at least one member expected to have mass less than about 130 GeV.

If the SUSY scenario is correct, there will be full employment for experimentalists. They not only need to discover the superpartners, but also to determine the more than 100 extra fundamental parameters that characterize this extension of the standard model. On the other hand, if only the 160 GeV Higgs boson is seen, and nothing else new is found, this will be rather strong direct evidence for the desert scenario. In that extreme, there would be no reliable, landmark, higher-mass scales for new experimental facilities to aim for. It would become more difficult to justify multi-billion dollar future colliders were one to be unable to certify in advance new discoveries, in the way that has been done for previous facilities ($`W`$ at the SPS, top at the TeVatron, Higgs at the SSC and LHC). For these reasons alone, I see the outcome of the Higgs search as a crucial turning point for the future of the field.

The desert scenario is rather unpopular because of the hierarchy problem, namely the problem of why the Higgs mass remains so low when the natural scale for it, via quadratically divergent radiative corrections, appears to be much larger. This has led to the demand that something be invented to cure the problem, the leading candidate being the MSSM. However, the cosmological constant suffers from a very similar situation, one for which a straightforward application of SUSY does not work. So it seems to me that a serious, viable approach to the Higgs hierarchy problem is to ignore it for the present, arguing that a much deeper source of the solution, at the level of what is required for the cosmological constant problem, is required. And once the hierarchy problem is ignored, the “desert” theory is really very consistent, with no trace of the quadratic divergence problem remaining, after renormalization, in the phenomenology.

While the Higgs situation has not changed all that much in the last two decades, this does not mean that the Standard Model has remained unchanged. Thanks to the strong evidence that neutrino oscillations really exist, we now have a New Standard Model to replace the venerable Old Standard Model. Instead of the twenty or so parameters characterizing the Old Standard Model, we now have thirty or so parameters for the New Standard Model, the exact number depending a bit on what one wants to include in the count. For sure there are three neutrino masses and four CKM-like mixing angles to determine. In addition perhaps the masses of the three heavy Majorana particles of the seesaw mechanism should be included as parameters, as well as a couple of phase factors seen at best only in double-beta-decay processes and the like.

There is, in addition to the new parameter count, a definite shift at the GUT level from $`SU(5)`$-like thinking to $`SO(10)`$-like thinking. All this to me represents a significant advance, despite the presence of the extra parameters that require explanation. As evidenced in this meeting, there clearly will be increasing emphasis on the neutrino sector in the future: it carries with it more than 30 percent of the parameters of the New Standard Model, and these parameters will be at least as difficult to determine as accurately as the CKM parameters, at present the focus of the $`B`$-physics program. But twenty years ago, the determination of CKM phases seemed to be a remote experimental possibility. Hopefully future progress on the neutrino front will parallel what is happening now in the realm of $`B`$ physics.

## II. Hadron Physics: What is It?

The main thrust of this talk has to do with hadron physics. I define it as the physics of hadron structure and of (strong-interaction) vacuum structure. This puts it as a subfield of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), just as chemistry, condensed-matter physics, and atomic physics are subfields of quantum electrodynamics (QED).

In their infancy those three subfields were part of elementary particle physics, but now are not. This was also the case for nuclear physics. And I think the same has already happened to hadron physics. Most elementary particle physicists, including those in positions of influence, do not pay much attention to the issues in this field ref1 . And in fact most of the experimental research in this field is done within the nuclear physics community, even though it is a stretch to identify hadron physics with nuclear physics. Because experimental (and of course theoretical) hadron physics research spans all energy scales, this creates social and organizational problems, a subject I will return to later ref2 .

To deal with these social issues I think that it is fundamental and important to define in detail what hadron physics encompasses, what its long range goals are, and what experimental and theoretical programs are necessary to attain those goals. I cannot by myself articulate this here in full. Hadron physics is very a big subject and I am sure to make errors of omission, and to bias the subject matter toward my own particular interests. In fact a better method might be simply to peruse the contents of the proceedings of this conference. In the next section, I will simply catalog some open problems I find interesting, as examples of the huge challenges that are present in this subject, challenges which exist at quite fundamental levels. And because the subject matter of hadron physics rarely allows reliable perturbation-theory calculations, real progress requires a data-driven approach, characterized by close interaction between theory and experiment. In the final section I will return to the social issues confronting hadron physics.

## III. Some Open Problems in Hadron Physics

QCD, the basic theory of the strong interactions, is at short distances a perturbation theory of the pointlike quark and gluon constituents of hadrons. At very large distances QCD is a theory of pions and nucleons (and their strange counterparts), and is characterized by spontaneous symmetry breaking of the approximate chiral symmetry of QCD. At intermediate distance scales, there is the rich arena of e.g. hadron resonances, Regge trajectories, soft diffraction, and hadronization of the partons, just to name a few of many topics.

But the physics at all distance scales is linked, and it is hard to find a situation, even within the relatively clean, perturbative regime, where the nonperturbative effects do not enter. Our first example is chosen to illustrate this phenomenon.

### 1. Perturbing the Chiral Vacuum

A classic way of trying to understand the properties of a macroscopic system is to perturb it with a small, localized impurity and study its response. In the case of the chiral vacuum of long-distance QCD, a nice way of doing this is by putting a small color dipole, such as heavy onium, into the vacuum and examining its response. This implies creation at large distances of a very weak pion cloud around the onium. The importance of this cloud can be assessed by putting in another small dipole, and determining the long range force between them, due to essentially two-pion meson exchange. This has been done elegantly and cleanly by Fujii and Kharzeev ref3 , who find that this force dominates at separations greater than about 0.6 fermi. To be sure the potential energy associated with this effect is quite small, under 1 MeV.

Nevertheless, this effect can be amplified by putting the two dipoles into motion. At the qualitative level, one can see that the original clouds will be compressed into pancakes when the onia become extreme-relativistic. And the original rest energy of a pion cloud, however small, can be turned into an arbitrarily large amount of energy-momentum of a pionic pancake if an arbitrarily large boost is applied. Now boost the two onia in opposite directions and put them into collision, again at a large impact parameter. When the momentum density in each of the pancakes exceeds, say 1 GeV/fermi2 in the overlap region, there will be ample amounts of cms energy available for particle production, and the two onia should act like light hadrons as far as their collision properties are concerned: in the jargon of the trade they will “exchange a soft Pomeron”.

Now the study of onium-onium collisions at extremely high energies is a favorite playground of perturbative-QCD theorists. This is the so called BFKL regime, where much effort has gone into summing up Feynman diagrams to obtain a candidate phenomenology of “hard Pomeron exchange” ref4 . Nevertheless, the above argument implies that, for a fixed size of the dipoles, however small, if one goes to high enough energy the perturbation theory approach is destined to fail, and the soft physics is destined to re-emerge. The smaller the dipoles are, the higher will be the energy scale at which this phenomenon occurs.

The pion-cloud argument is not inconsistent with BFKL ideology, which also anticipates a similar phenomenon occurring, due to “diffusion of gluon ladder transverse momenta into the infrared”. However, I am not sure that the energy scale where the transition occurs is the same in the two approaches. But the bottom line remains the same: no matter how hard one works for cleanliness in short-distance QCD, the soft physics usually finds its way into the picture.

### 2. Foundations of Perturbative QCD

Perturbative QCD (pQCD) is a highly sophisticated and well developed subject. However, at a fundamental level there are, I believe, some real problems. The basic issue is that, despite the fact that it is commonly done, it is not legal in pQCD to put the quarks and gluons on mass shell, i.e. to treat them as asymptotic states that propagate to infinity. They clearly do not—there is no $`S`$-matrix for quarks and gluons. It is rather ironic that in the old days before QCD one had an $`S`$ matrix formalism without a field theory, while now we need a field theory formalism without an $`S`$-matrix.

To see the problem more concretely, it is only necessary to look at the classic process of electron-positron annihilation into hadrons, in lowest order. The associated vacuum polarization amplitude is a quark loop (Fig. 2) which at large spacelike $`Q^2`$ is a safe short-distance calculation. Its absorptive part at timelike $`Q^2`$ is essentially the cross section of interest. It is not completely ultraviolet safe, requiring an energy average to make it safe. But even with that done, our problem emerges when one wants to look at the angular distribution of the quark-antiquark dijets which build the total cross section. To get that differential cross section, one typically calculates the absorptive part as if the quarks could be put on mass shell—which we must admit is illegal.

That this is not academic can be seen by imagining a QCD where only the bottom quark exists. With no light quarks available, the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks will (probably) be connected by an essentially unbreakable QCD string or flux tube. This leads (probably) to the conclusion that the final states will be a dense spectrum of excited onia, with no jets to be seen. The only way jets could occur is through glueball emission, and this appears to be a highly inefficient mechanism.

So the bottom line is that identification of final state jets with on-shell partons is a model assumption, which at present lacks a firm foundation. To be sure, it is an eminently reasonable assumption. But it would be better to have a sounder line of argument.

### 3. Parton Correlations and Multiplicities

How many quarks are there in a proton? “Three”, says the spectroscopist. But the deep-inelastic community will (or should) answer “infinity”. Both answers have their place, but connecting the two is still a problem. For example, there is a substantial sub-community of hadron physicists, in particular the practitioners of “exclusive QCD”, who use a Fock-space description of the partons comprising a light-cone proton, with the “leading Fock-space component” having three and only three quarks in it. Now given that the average number of quarks is infinite (being essentially proportional to the integral over $`\mathrm{}nx`$ of $`F_2(x)`$), this would mean that the multiplicity distribution of partons is quite peculiar, with the “Fock-space” piece of it of finite mean multiplicity (with how much total weight, please?), while the rest is of infinite multiplicity.

I am simply baffled that this inconsistency of approach seems not to be recognized at all as a problem. When I mention it to others, the response seems to be that I am the one with the problem. Maybe this is so. But maybe there is a clue in the example of pion clouds around onium in item 1. A partonic description of the collision process described there (especially if one of the onia is replaced by a spacelike photon, which also makes a splendid small color dipole) leads essentially to a parton distribution as shown in Fig. 3. The region to the right is essentially perturbative and probably amenable to the Fock-space, perturbative methodology. But present in addition are all the nonperturbative partons comprising the pion cloud. For phenomenology which concentrates on the large-$`x`$ valence system, the cloud partons are presumably inconsequential. However, as one goes from the case of small color dipoles to realistic light hadrons, the role of the cloud partons becomes much more important, and in the light-quark limit one must work hard to justify their neglect.

Even leaving this issue aside, the parton multiplicity distribution itself is poorly understood, to say the least. Is it Poissonian, or KNO? How might one distinguish one from the other? And the correlations of the partons in the transverse plane are largely unknown. For example, are most of the infinite sea of wee partons inside the three constituent quarks, are they mostly outside, or are they mostly uncorrelated?

There are good reasons why such simple questions remain unanswered, and most of them have to do with the fact that it is very hard to get at them experimentally. Double parton—or multiple parton—collisions have the potential to provide information on the correlations. While some experimental work has been done already, this subject will become increasingly practical at the LHC ref5 , provided that at least one of the several thousands of experimentalists working there will care enough to make the measurements and to do the analysis. Nevertheless, even in the absence of data, it still might be interesting to have the various theoretical options compete with each other at the Monte-Carlo simulation level, in order to search for sensitive experimental indicators.

### 4. Spectroscopy of Light Quarks

Thus far, our examples have swung from the very large distance regime to the very short distance regime, with minimal emphasis on the intermediate distance scale. That scale is the richest phenomenologically, and is certainly the crux region to understand, in order to obtain a command of what QCD is really about. And at the heart of the subject is the hadron spectrum, in particular the spectrum of hadrons built from light quarks. There is a long and distinguished history of hadron spectroscopy. It deserves at least half, and probably more than half, of the credit for the establishment of the standard-model quark picture of hadron structure. For me, a high point of hadron spectroscopy occurred in the mid 1970s with the very sophisticated measurements and analyses of baryon resonance spectra. An enormous body of work could be summarized by the SU(6) classification “56, $`L`$ even; 70, $`L`$ odd”, very consistent with a quark-diquark picture of baryon structure ref6 . I am not sure how well this picture has survived the subsequent 25 years. But whatever the present situation is for baryons, there has never been such an easy summary of the situation regarding the meson multiplets. For a given choice of $`J^{PC}`$, the lowest lying multiplet may be in good shape. But as soon as one looks at higher excitations, there are missing states and there are extra states, as we heard at this meeting from Jim Napolitano ref7 . Without question, there is a great need—and opportunity—for a new round of experiments, especially utilizing hadron beams.

At present multiparticle spectrometers such as MPS and Omega are being phased out, and the only replacement for the future is a new facility in a photon beam at Jlab. From the technical point of view, it seems to me that it should be possible with state-of-the-art technology (as used by e.g. ATLAS, CMS, CDF, D0, etc.) to create an “electronic bubble chamber” for hadron-induced processes with acceptance, resolution, and particle identification capability at least as good as the old bubble chambers, and with rate capability better by a millionfold. And the analysis power for partial wave analyses or amplitude analyses likewise should exceed what was done then by a millionfold. So a next generation attack across the board would seem to me to be natural and to be potentially extremely productive. It should be the case that a command of hadron resonance spectra up to and beyond a mass scale of 2 GeV should yield a great deal of understanding of the systematics of hadron structure.

### 5. Non-Singlet Regge Trajectories

One of the most profound and fertile topics in pre-QCD strong interactions was that of the Regge theory of complex angular momentum and of Regge poles. It is a subfield with a distinguished heritage, leading, via duality and the Veneziano amplitude, to the creation of string theory and the modern superstring industry.

In the context of hadron physics, Regge theory remains of great significance. Most importantly it works. The experimental evidence for the existence of Regge trajectories is in some cases extremely quantitative, in particular for the trajectories containing vector mesons. This is especially impressive for the very pure power-law energy dependences of $`K`$ regeneration amplitudes, recently reviewed for engineering reasons by the KTeV collaboration ref8 .

Specific properties of the Regge trajectories are strong indicators of the underlying dynamics. In particular linearly rising trajectories suggest strongly a QCD string type of dynamics. This again places emphasis on spectroscopic measurements at high spin and at high mass scales. In any case the Regge picture systematizes in an important way the properties of the resonant states.

I think much more work could be done in this field. As best I can recall, it was only in the mid-seventies when the Regge behavior became well-established experimentally, more or less concurrent with the discovery of the $`\psi `$ and the subsequent change in direction of the field as a whole away from that line of research. So a return visit and systematic study in hadron-hadron collisions, with modern detectors and analysis techniques, might be very productive.

One area of special importance is that of non-singlet Regge behavior in deep-inelastic processes. In some processes there is evidence for the expected Regge behavior in the scaling limit, e.g. the neutron-proton difference, in the $`F_3`$ for neutrino reactions, and in the integrand of the Adler neutrino sum rule. However, for the spin sum rule that bears my name, there seems to be evidence for slow convergence of the sum at small $`x`$, while Regge arguments would suggest that rapid convergence should be the case. Examination of the Regge limit of the GDH sum rule in photoproduction and its extension to low $`Q^2`$ electroproduction could be of considerable use. But aside from details, measurements and analyses at small $`x`$ which incisively test for Regge asymptotics are rare in the contemporary deep inelastic scattering culture. Given the enormous amount of attention paid to deep inelastic scattering in general, I find this situation perplexing.

And just at the theoretical level, does QCD imply that Regge-pole contributions scale, or should they be of higher twist? Can the Regge residues be calculated from pQCD or something close to it? And while there is a great deal of attention (rightfully) paid by theorists to the vacuum Reggeon singularity (Pomeron), the structure of non-singlet Regge-pole trajectories should if anything be an easier problem. I believe they deserve a closer look by theorists.

### 6. Heavy Quark Spectroscopy

With the high statistics and superb quality of recent charm and bottom physics experiments, the opportunities for incisive spectroscopic studies have increased dramatically. Things have gotten to the point that the statistics of decays such as $`DK\pi \pi `$, or even $`D3\pi `$ is so high that examination of the Dalitz plot yields useful information on spectroscopy of ordinary mesons made of light quarks ref9 .

But the heavy quark excitations are themselves very interesting. The onium systems are so clean that pQCD is the most appropriate starting point. And their final states are fertile territory for glueball searches. Especially interesting to me are the $`D`$ and especially $`B`$ mesons, where the machinery of heavy quark effective theory can be applied. What this boils down to is that everything having to do with the heavy quark is relatively trivial, computable within pQCD, leaving the nontrivial system something very close to a single constituent quark. In fact, a viable definition of a constituent quark is the $`B`$ meson “without” the $`b`$ quark. So the excitations of $`B`$’s quite directly probe the properties of the single constituent quark: for example its couplings to pions and photons, its mass, its size, and (if the energy scale of the $`B^{}`$ excitations can be made large enough) any intrinsic excitations of its own.

While the electron-positron $`B`$ factories are ill-suited for this kind of physics, the hadron-hadron colliders are very well-suited. And in addition to the intrinsic hadron-physics interest in the classification and study of $`B^{}`$ and other excitations of bottom hadrons, there is a good engineering reason to do so. $`B^{}`$s can help distinguish a secondary $`B_d`$ from a $`B_{\overline{d}}`$ in CP studies, freeing the experimentalist from having to find a second tagging $`B`$ in the event.

### 7. Confinement, Instantons, and the Vacuum

From the point of view of theory, the belief that QCD is a viable theory at all distance scales, despite the intractability of perturbation theory in the infrared, rests on a hypothesis—that of confinement. There is pretty good evidence for this from lattice calculations, not to mention the experimental facts—which include the fact of our existence. Nevertheless, there is as yet no consensus amongst theorists as to the mechanism that is responsible for confinement. This is probably the leading outstanding problem in all of hadron physics.

The confinement problem is closely linked to the problem of vacuum structure. We have already alluded to the presence of chiral symmetry breaking, leading to a chiral condensate at large distance scales. In addition to that structure, there is the vacuum structure induced by the occurrence of gauge potentials with nontrivial topology, and the existence of instanton-induced transitions between vacua with differing gauge topologies. This creates both good news (existence of mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson) and bad news (the possibility of CP violation in the strong interactions).

When the instantons were first discovered, their effects were in poor theoretical control. But at present the situation seems to be much better. The instanton size distribution seems to be sharply peaked about a value characterized by a momentum scale of 600 MeV. The density (in Euclidean space-time) is relatively low, so that the fraction of spacetime containing instanton fields is only a couple of percent or so. And there is a rather convincing line of argument that this instanton population distorts the Dirac sea of light quarks in just the right way to induce chiral symmetry breaking. It would be nice if the argument were to go further and account for confinement as well, but this seems to be much less likely.

It would also be nice to have a better handle experimentally on instanton-induced effects. Efforts have been made to search for signatures of instanton effects in multiparticle final states in collision processes, although this is very difficult and speculative territory ref10 . I have my own favorite candidate for a “smoking-gun” instanton-induced effect, namely the leading decay modes of the $`0^{}\eta _c`$ charmonium state. They are $`\eta \pi \pi `$, $`\eta ^{}\pi \pi `$, and $`\overline{K}K\pi `$, each with about a 5% branching ratio, and each being a state naturally produced via the ’t Hooft instanton-induced interaction:

$$(\overline{c}c)(\overline{u}u)(\overline{d}d)(\overline{s}s).$$
(1)
I think close theoretical and experimental attention to these modes might well be useful.

### 8. Equations of State and Quark-Gluon Plasma

Macroscopic properties of QCD are described by equations of state, which can be studied as a function of the parameters of the theory, including quark masses, number of colors, and of course temperature and chemical potentials. There is plenty of activity and theoretical progress, as described here by Krishna Rajagopal ref11 . And of course the heavy ion program provides plenty of experimental impetus. The future looks bright indeed.

I believe that the heavy-ion programs, especially from RHIC and the LHC, will have important spinoffs into high energy physics in at least two respects. One is that if the goal of observation of quark-gluon plasma is achieved quantitatively, measurement of the critical temperature should provide a quite good, competitive value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. More generally, the methods by which ion-ion collisions are studied, with the emphasis on space-time evolution and hydrodynamic flow, will be of great use in dealing with generic hadron-hadron collisions at Tevatron and especially LHC energies, where the number of parton-parton interactions per collision rivals the number of nucleon-nucleon interactions per Au-Au collision.

### 9. High Parton Densities at Very High Energies

The energetic proton carries with it a very large number of partons, in particular wee gluons, when it has momentum of a TeV and above. This was anticipated by pQCD theorists, and has been well established by the measurements at HERA. As we mentioned above, this has great implications for central, generic collisions at LHC energies, where the phenomenology of typical collisions is expected to differ sharply from that at low energies, essentially because opaque discs of dense gluons are coming into collision. Even at the partonic level there will be strong absorptive effects, copious minijet production, and possibly collective flow. There deserves to be at the LHC (as well as at the TeVatron) serious attention paid to the commonplace collisions as well as the high priority rare ones ref12a . There is a frontier of new physics to be explored.

I cannot resist mentioning here a vaguely related, speculative application of high gluon-density physics for RHIC. Consider a RHIC Au-Au collision, not in their laboratory, cms frame, but in a frame where one of the Au nuclei is at rest. What that Au nucleus sees is a very energetic ion bearing down on it, carrying momentum of about 20 TeV per nucleon. There clearly is an enormous wee-gluon density that the rest-frame ion sees. With probability unity, each parton in each rest-frame nucleon gets hit by a gluon, and is “Compton-scattered” into a relativistic final state, with large longitudinal laboratory momentum.

What this essentially means is that everything that was in the rest-frame nuclear matter gets swept up by the projectile and carried away with it at the speed of light—the nuclear matter is stuck to the pancake. So in the volume originally occupied by the resting ion there is “nothing” left.

While this “nothing” is probably not vacuum, it cannot be highly excited either, at least that part of the “nothing” which will radiate secondaries more or less isotropically. This follows simply from conservation of $`Ep_z`$. In the initial state the value of $`Ep_z`$ is essentially $`A`$ GeV, and this is spread over a large volume. So the density of $`Ep_z`$ in the final state must be low, no more than 140 MeV/fermi3. This would seem to imply that at most only soft pions can be isotropically emitted from the “nothing”. Perhaps these pions could be coherently emitted, a la Bose condensation or via a disoriented-chiral-condensate (DCC) mechanism. In the RHIC laboratory frame, this would imply a secondary “beam” of these pions emerging in the forward direction, with the same velocity as the incident ion beam. In other words, given 100 GeV/nucleon incident momentum, this cluster of pions would emerge with 14 GeV/pion, and with a transverse-momentum spread perhaps as low as 100 MeV. Such pions would be difficult to detect with the existing detectors, although it is not hard to envisage detectors which could do the job ref13 .

### 10. The Approach to Scaling

A very large amount of activity now exists in electron-nucleon and electron-ion scattering at intermediate energies, especially at Jlab, where a variety of very beautiful measurements are emerging. Here the basic challenge, as I see it, is to map out in detail the transition from manifestly long-distance descriptions (e.g. elastic $`e`$-$`p`$ scattering at relatively small $`Q^2`$) to manifestly short distance descriptions, as used in the scaling region in deep-inelastic scattering. There are a variety of kinematic regions to experimentally explore, the two most important ones being high $`Q^2`$ at small inelasticity (“exclusive QCD”) and low $`Q^2`$ at large inelasticity (“soft Pomeron physics”). Both are merged at moderate values of $`Q^2`$ and inelasticity with the physics of resonances and non-singlet Regge dynamics.

Among the theoretical challenges is the search for the best descriptive tools. Help comes from duality concepts, both of the Bloom-Gilman type as well as the Regge-resonance type, not to mention parton-hadron duality in its more general context. Sum rules are a powerful tool. While much more can be done with such tools, I think the time has come to search further for specific dynamical descriptions good enough to incorporate the sum rules (in particular a fully relativistic description) and other general features. An excellent example of what I have in mind is the chiral quark model of hadrons, as laid out by D. Diakonov, M. Polyakov, and their collaborators ref14 . They start at the fundamental level of short distance QCD, integrate out instanton effects, and find a viable description of hadrons in the chiral sector which still is consistent with relativity and deep inelastic phenomenology. While the assumptions made are perhaps not under complete theoretical control, the credibility level is still very high, and capable in the future of going higher.

### 11. Diffraction

High energy hadrons, as extended objects, are nearly black discs. Their elastic scattering amplitudes provide clear evidence that this is the case. However, the shadows that hadrons cast in their high energy interactions are much more interesting and subtle than the shadow physics of elastic processes. In particular, inelastic diffraction is endemic, not only in hadron-hadron collisions, but also in electron-hadron collisions, where arguably 20 to 30 percent of all deep inelastic collisions lead to a diffractive final state (defined as a large final-state “rapidity gap”, not exponentially suppressed, within which no secondary hadrons are to be found). In addition, diffractive final states are seen in a significant fraction of hard-collision events, namely events containing high-transverse-momentum jets, $`W`$s, $`Z`$s, and/or leptons in the final state.

The favored descriptive tool for diffractive processes is that of the $`t`$-channel exchange of a Reggeon, the so-called Pomeron. Ingelman and Schlein, in a seminal work which created and thus far has defined the field of hard diffraction, suggested that this Pomeron should have a partonic description, like ordinary hadrons ref15 . This concept has greatly helped to drive the field in a very productive manner, especially with regard to creation of a vital and exciting experimental program. Nevertheless, the foundations of the idea are speculative. And the field at present is confused. The data refuse to be easily integrated into the formalism. This was evidenced at this meeting in the excellent talk by Hatakeyama ref16 . I personally think that it is time to retreat from the language of Pomeron structure functions, and to search, at the experimental level, for more general and reliable descriptive tools to organize and systematize the phenomenology.

In particular, it should not be taken as obvious that the $`t`$-channel exchange picture is the most appropriate language. It may be that it is better to emphasize more the $`s`$-channel, shadowy origins of the diffractive phenomena, perhaps in the style of Good and Walker’s original description of diffraction dissociation ref17 , and/or of absorption models. And no matter what, one must acknowledge that the heart of the subject resides, from a diagrammatic point of view, in loop diagrams, not tree diagrams, and that quantum effects, as opposed to quasiclassical partonic visualizations, are essential no matter what descriptive viewpoint is adopted.

My favorite example for appreciating the subtlety of the phenomenon is that of high mass, soft inelastic diffraction. A typical final-state pseudorapidity distribution of secondary particles is illustrated in Fig. 4. First imagine that the reference frame is chosen such that zero rapidity is at position A. Then what one would see at early times is an ordinary multiparticle final state developing, with soft particles being produced at large angles at early times, and more energetic particles being produced at small angles at later times (the “inside-outside” cascade). But at some “macroscopic” late time (proportional to the energy of the fastest right-moving diffractively produced secondary), which can in practice be tens or hundreds of fermis, the leading right-moving emitter suddenly stops emitting: a quantum decision has been made that the right mover (neither a nucleon or “not a nucleon”, but a quantum superposition of each possibility) projects to the right-moving nucleon state.

Now view the same process in a different reference frame, where zero pseudorapidity occurs at location B. In such a frame at early times there is no particle emission, as if the process were at most elastic scattering. But then, again at a “macroscopically” late time (proportional to the energy of the least energetic left-moving diffractive secondary—actually the same particle as before), the left mover (which has to be neither “not a nucleon” nor a nucleon, but a quantum superposition of each possibility) makes a quantum decision not to be the nucleon and to emit particles.

These two viewpoints represent the same physics, and a good picture of diffraction should be able to explain how and why they are the same. I find this a very interesting challenge, one which the present diagrammatic/partonic approach does not begin to touch. To do a really good job on diffractive physics may well be the last great frontier in hadron physics to be solved.

### 12. Hadronization Dynamics

A primary task of the hadron-physics subfield of multiparticle production is to understand and describe the transition from the multipartonic evolution at very short distance scales to the multihadronic final states observed experimentally. The prototypical reaction for doing this is electron-positron annihilation into hadrons. In that case, there is a rather satisfactory level of understanding, thanks both to the intrinsic cleanliness of the basic process, and to the large data set of complete events over a large energy scale.

Even so, it is interesting that two apparently competitive viewpoints, that of the nonperturbative QCD string, a la Lund, and that of the QCD partonic cascade, peacefully coexist. Quite sophisticated phenomena, such as the “string effect” in three-jet final states, can be described in either picture with comparable success. Which is right? Conventional wisdom seems to be that most of the space-time evolution is in fact perturbative, with a rather quick transition to the final configuration of emergent hadrons. (This is basically the “preconfinement” picture). However, were the lightest quarks to have mass of a GeV or so, then QCD strings would not easily break, and the spacetime region of final-state evolution would be enlarged, with an interior boundary between perturbative evolution and stringy evolution (Fig. 5). In the heavy quark limit the future light cone gets filled with string. It might be of interest to study the hadronization phenomenology as function of quark masses in order to sort out perturbative from stringy effects.

Hadronization phenomenology in hadron-hadron collisions is different and more difficult. The whole subject is in a much more primitive state, especially at collider energies. Not only is the theory much harder, but also there is a paucity of data. Much more experimental attention needs to be paid to the generic collision phenomenology. I think it is a necessary condition for significant progress to be made ref18 .

## IV. The Future of Hadron Physics

In the introductory section, we argued that hadron physics has social problems that require it to be better defined and organized than at present. The main reason that drives this notion beyond the merely academic and that requires, in my opinion, some action is that this would facilitate a more rational pattern of funding and support, and that it would facilitate better access to the high-energy physics laboratories, built and managed for purposes other than exploring the details of hadron structure. In the previous cases of chemistry, atomic, and nuclear physics, those who chose to specialize in those fields instead of moving on to the higher energies and shorter distances of particle physics could rather easily do so. Experimental facilities fit, until quite recently, on university campuses. And the funding structures, including peer review systems, adiabatically evolved to adapt to changes of scientific emphases. But hadron physics now presents itself as a crossover field. It is beyond nuclear physics, although heavily populated by nuclear physicists. And much of it is within the energy scale of high energy physics, despite the fact that not many high energy physicists are practitioners.

Because of this, access of experimental hadron physicists to high energy laboratories is made especially difficult. If, in an austere fiscal situation, a hadron physics initiative of the highest quality is put in competition with, say, a quality next-generation neutrino experiment, there will likely be very little support within the high-energy community for the hadron-physics initiative. Indeed, were I myself wearing my high-energy physics hat, I would have a hard time too. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the best way for hadron physics initiatives to be viable at high energy labs is that there be independent funding available, and that there be agreements with the high energy laboratories for a certain amount of access to collision regions, beam lines, luminosity, running time, infrastructure, etc. in return for appropriate contributions to the laboratory budgets. Hadron physics review structures at the program-committee level would be essentially independent of those of particle physics, although at higher policy levels there would necessarily be mixing of the communities.

Examples of this kind of setup exist. At SLAC the NPAS program allowed use of the linac for fixed target experiments at moderate energies of interest to the nuclear community. Despite its modest size, I have been told it was difficult to establish. The best example seems to me to be CERN, which for a long time has had nuclear physics as part of its program, a feature which is now expressed in the heavy ion initiatives at the SPS and at the LHC. The presence of the nuclear physics component at CERN has been important not only in providing a broader scientific base, with all the opportunities for cross-fertilization and diversification that that implies, but has also been useful in broadening its political base.

In the United States, Fermilab is a good example of a high energy laboratory where hadron-physics could be pursued much more aggressively than at present. One of the main-injector beam lines could well support that dream next-generation multiparticle spectrometer for spectroscopy, Regge dynamics, and correlation studies mentioned in item 4 of the previous section. Hyperon physics and charm physics are other possible options. Antiproton sources have been productive venues for charmonium and other studies, both at Fermilab and CERN, and there is more to be done. Indeed a workshop is scheduled for investigating such future options at Fermilab refaa . Finally, the C0 collision region of the TeVatron collider, the presumed home of the future BTeV $`B`$-physics initiative, is also a very attractive venue for studying hadron physics. The topics include charm physics, low $`p_T`$, diffraction, leading particle studies, and the study of collision dynamics, especially were full-acceptance detection of complete events available. And the future facilities under discussion, in particular muon colliders and/or neutrino sources based on muon-collider technology, are rich sources of hadron-physics spinoffs. While other spinoffs, such as $`K`$-decay physics, muon physics and deep inelastic neutrino reactions, have been discussed in this context, very little attention has been paid to the hadron-physics opportunities ref19 .

I think that a necessary condition for the situation to change is that the hadron physics community organizes itself better. It must not only identify itself and exhibit some political strength, but it must also define better what hadron physics comprises, what its fundamental scientific goals are, what the experimental programs are that deserve the greatest attention, and what the basic challenges to theory are. Since organizational changes within funding agencies and advisory structures are likely to be slow, it seems to me that the best opportunity for getting things going might be within the professional societies. In particular there perhaps should be a Division of Hadron Physics within the American Physical Society. It might provide the venue and organizational structures for achieving the above goals, and provide a basis for going further if, as I suspect is the case, it is deemed necessary to do so.

But most fundamental of all is that there exists a vital community of experimental and theoretical physicists just doing hadron physics, no matter what the obstacles. This meeting has been a splendid example that there are at present plenty of people doing just that. We should do everything we can to not only keep this field healthy, but to strengthen it. The scientific challenges will take quite some time to overcome, and in the meantime we must make every effort to acquire the means to overcome them.

## V. Acknowledgments

On behalf of the participants, it is a pleasure to thank the organizers, especially Stanley Kowalski, and Anne MacInnis, for all their hard work in making this such a splendid meeting.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Neutron-capture elements observed in Population II stars are generally interpreted in a framework developed some 20 years ago. Spite & Spite (1978) showed from observations of Ba (a mixture of 80% s- and 20% r-process fractions in the solar system; e.g., Arlandini et al. 1999) and Eu (primarily r-process) that Pop II stars exhibit r-process abundance patterns. Truran (1981) provided a theoretical basis for this result by noting that the s-process needed pre-stellar seed nuclei, whereas an r-process site would produce its own seed nuclei. For this reason, metal-deficient populations would be poor producers of s-process nuclei. It became common to regard neutron-capture elements in Pop II stars as due solely to the r-process. Observational support for this view grew with the work of Gilroy et al. (1988) and McWilliam et al. (1995). The theory is demonstrated numerically in the Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) calculations of Travaglio et al. (1999; see also Busso, Gallino & Wasserburg 1999, Fig. 17) which showed that s-process products do not feature significantly in newly forming stars until \[Fe/H\] $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$ $`1.5`$. (See also Raiteri et al. 1999).

Observations of several metal-poor stars enriched in neutron-capture elements have revealed solar r-process patterns. That is, despite their considerable metal deficiency, these stars seem to have experienced an r-process that barely differs from the sum of processes that enriched the pre-solar nebula. This has led to suggestions that r-process production may be independent of the initial metallicity of the site and, to some degree, universal throughout Galactic history (e.g. Cowan et al. 1995; Sneden et al. 1996). Such a finding, if widely substantiated, would have important implications for identifying the r-process site. Theoretical work in the last decade has focussed on the neutrino-heated bubble located above the surface of a newly-formed neutron star (e.g. Woosley et al. 1994; Takahashi, Witti, & Janka 1994), but other sites such as colliding neutron stars may provide an alternative, at least for the heavier r-process nuclei with atomic mass $`A>130`$ (e.g. Freiburghaus, Rosswog, & Thielemann 1999).

Solar r-process abundance ratios of Ba and Eu are seen in many Pop II stars. In a small number of stars including CS 22892-052 (Cowan et al. 1995; Sneden et al. 1996), an even larger range of elements can be measured and likewise conform to that pattern. However, not all neutron-capture elements are present with solar r-process ratios. In particular, Sr exhibits wide variations not shared by Ba (Ryan et al. 1991, 1996), suggesting that Sr at least does not come from a universal process. Even in CS 22892-052, the light neutron-capture elements Sr ($`Z`$=38) to Cd ($`Z`$=48) do not match the solar r-process pattern (Sneden et al. 2000), providing more evidence of different processes affecting light and heavy neutron-capture elements.

Although the material from which Pop II stars form is not expected to contain significant s-process contributions, some stars including some subgiants are greatly enriched in carbon and s-process elements (Norris, Ryan, & Beers 1997a; Hill et al. 2000). These are believed to be binary companions of initially more-massive donor stars which have evolved through the thermally pulsing AGB phase and transferred material enriched in C and s-process elements onto the lower mass, longer lived secondary now observed.

In this report, we present the results of two studies of neutron-capture elements in Pop II stars. The first is for a C-rich, s-process-rich star in which many heavy elements including lead have been measured. The second is a Sr-rich Pop II giant, whose abundance patterns we use to search for the nucleosynthesis process responsible.

## 2 s-process production in Population II stars

Although the s-process contributes little to GCE during the formation of the halo, the measurement of s-process production by metal-deficient objects is important for two reasons. Firstly, s-process yields depend strongly on metallicity (e.g. Busso et al. 1999), so we need to know what this dependence is if we are to compute accurately the onset of s-process contributions to GCE. Secondly, the site of the main s-processing is believed to be thermally pulsing AGB stars. The yields of such stars indicate the conditions in their interiors, providing information on their structure and evolution.

The s-process contribution to the interstellar medium that became locked into newly formed Pop II stars was insignificant, but AGB stars in binaries may transfer material to companions which, if of lower mass and longer lived, may preserve the Pop II s-process products on their enriched surfaces. Two high-proper-motion stars with \[Fe/H\] $``$ $`2.7`$ and huge carbon excesses \[C/Fe\] $``$ 2.0 were investigated by Norris et al. (1997a) — LP 625-44 and LP 706-7. By virtue of their proper motions, we infer that they are subgiants (assuming they are bound to the Galaxy). The spectroscopic analysis also suggests subgiant (rather than giant) evolutionary states. In addition to the large carbon over-abundances, the stars have high s-process abundances, with \[Ba/Fe\] = 2.6 and 2.0 respectively. Norris et al. sought to explain the stars by the mass transfer scenarios described above, but were troubled by the lack of definite radial velocity variations over a time span of several years, which weakened the appeal to a binary mass transfer process as being responsible.

Aoki et al. (2000) have completed a new investigation of LP 625-44 using higher S/N spectra. Definite radial velocity variations have been detected, with a velocity range $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ 10 km s-1 over a period $`T`$ 12 years. This implies a wide orbit separation $`a>`$ 5 AU, consistent with the wide separations found for some CH-subgiants where mass transfer from an AGB donor is believed to occur by wind accretion rather than Roche-lobe overflow (Han et al. 1995). A more detailed element analysis has also become possible, the highlight of which was the detection of lead via the 4057 Å absorption. Comparison of the spectrum of LP 625-44 with that of CS 22957-027, a metal-poor star (\[Fe/H\] = $`3.4`$) having a strong 12C and 13C over-abundances \[C/Fe\] = 2.2 but no enhancement of neutron-capture elements (Norris, Ryan, & Beers 1997b), verifies that the absorption line is not due to an unrecognised 12CH or 13CH line.

The Pb abundance was measurable in this object because of its overall high abundance of s-process elements. However, it was the low value of the \[Pb/Ba\] ratio (\[Pb/Ba\] $``$ 0) that caused initial surprise. It is well established theoretically and observationally that the ratio of heavy s-process elements around Ba, to lighter s-process elements around Sr, \[hs/ls\] (defined by Luck & Bond 1981), depends strongly on metallicity. In general, \[hs/ls\] increases (i.e. Ba becomes over-abundant relative to Sr) as the metallicity is reduced from solar to 1/10 solar, due to the smaller number of seed nuclei for the available neutrons (e.g. Busso et al. 1999, Fig. 16). At still lower metallicities, the models of Busso et al. converge to a \[hs/ls\] value 3 times solar, though at least some stars have higher values (e.g. Norris et al. 1997a, Fig. 8). However, the observed (low) \[Pb/Ba\] ratio in LP 625-44 emphasises that the increase in \[hs/ls\] towards lower metallicities is not necessarily shared by an analogous \[Pb/hs\] ratio.

In contrast to the observation of LP 625-44, the ‘ST’ (standard) models of Busso et al. (1999, Fig. 12) indicate a high value \[Pb/Ba\] $``$ 1.5 at \[Fe/H\] = $`2.7`$. However, the predicted \[Pb/Ba\] ratio is not uniquely determined by the metallicity of the AGB star but also by the profile of the 13C pocket, which may depend on the mass and rotational properties of the star. Moreover, Busso et al. note (their Fig. 16) that a range of 13C-pocket profiles must be adopted in their models to match the range of \[hs/ls\] values observed in higher metallicity stars. Consequently, the ‘ST’ model is only one of several possible solutions. A wider range of models (see Figure 1) show the sensitivity of the elements to the extent of the 13C pocket, and indicate for a 1.5 M star at \[Fe/H\] = $`2.7`$ that while \[Ba/Fe\] may be up to 0.5 dex above the ‘ST’ model prediction, \[Pb/Fe\] can range over $`1.0`$ dex above and below the ‘ST’ value. That is, even though the Ba enhancement can be predicted within a narrow range, the \[Pb/Ba\] ratio depends sensitively on the 13C profile. The low \[Pb/Ba\] abundance measured in LP 625-44, which initially seemed to challenge the published ‘ST’ models, may still be within the range of metal-poor AGB models. According to the models shown in Figure 1, this requires that only a very weak burning of 13C occurred in the intershell zone, with an efficiency lower by a factor of 20 than in the ST case.

The 13C profile is not well constrained, but measurements of many s-process elements in stars like LP 625-44 and LP 706-7, each enriched by a single AGB star, present the opportunity to search amongst the models for the best fit and hence to identify the most likely companion/donor. It is hoped that such studies will advance modelling of AGB stellar structure and nucleosynthesis by providing constraints on actual element yields for AGB stars of low \[Fe/H\].

A separate series of models for neutron-capture nucleosynthesis is the 1–3.5 M metal-poor stars (\[Fe/H\] $`<`$ $`2.5`$) considered by Fujimoto, Ikeda, & Iben (2000; their Case II’). The helium flash in these metal-poor models drives convection that penetrates into the hydrogen-rich envelope and produces C-rich, N-rich material there. These stars later mix C-rich and s-process-rich material to their surfaces. It remains to be seen whether the s-process element abundances that such objects would produce are consistent with those observed, and therefore whether this particular mechanism could have affected LP 625-44’s mass donor.

## 3 Non-universal r-process abundances

Pop II neutron-capture elements are believed to originate in the r-process, except in stars enriched after formation by s-process material as discussed in the previous section.111Note, however, Magain’s (1995) finding of s-process-like isotope ratios in HD 140283. Although Ba and heavier elements seem to consistently fit the solar r-process pattern where such data exist (e.g. Gilroy et al. 1988; McWilliam et al. 1995; Cowan et al. 1995; Sneden et al. 1996), at lower atomic numbers a wide variety of element ratios exists (Ryan et al. 1991, 1996), and even in CS 22892-052 they appear not to match the solar r-process (Sneden et al. 2000). Figure 2 shows that at \[Fe/H\] $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ $`3`$, a large range of \[Sr/Fe\] values exists, spread over 2 dex, whereas \[Ba/Fe\] occupies a much smaller range.

As the lower envelopes to the \[Sr/Fe\] and \[Ba/Fe\] values seem similar, and because of the observational and theoretical arguments that Ba is an r-process product in these stars, it seemed reasonable to regard the lower Sr abundances as also produced by the r-process. We then seek processes that produce an excess of Sr but not Ba in some metal-poor stars, giving rise to the stars with the higher \[Sr/Fe\] values. It also seemed more natural to hypothesise an additional source of Sr rather than a means of destroying Ba. Since the wide ranging \[Sr/Fe\] ratios are seen in both dwarfs and giants, we consider processes in the objects that enriched the material from which these stars formed, rather than self-enrichment or other processes affecting them after their formation.

We sought high S/N, high resolving power spectra, to verify previous abundance estimates and to seek additional elements, in particular Zn ($`Z`$=30) which lies just above the Fe-peak and can be produced along with Sr. Means of Zn production include (e.g. Woosley & Weaver 1995, §4.7): (1) the $`\alpha `$-rich freeze-out from explosive Si-burning, where the density is low enough to avoid complete nuclear statistical equilibrium \[NSE\] with the result that excess $`\alpha `$-particles combine with iron-peak nuclei to extend the distribution up to Zn, also producing much Ni (Sneden & Crocker 1988; Arnett 1995); and (2) the weak s-process in core-He-burning stars which also produces Sr, Y, and Zr but not heavier species (Prantzos, Hashimoto, & Nomoto 1990). However, quantitative models of GCE do not currently reproduce zinc observations well, and we cannot be certain that we understand its production. For example, Nomoto et al’s (1997) SN II calculations averaged over the IMF for 10–50 M stars (their Fig. 8) underproduces the solar Zn abundance by $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$ 1 dex, as foreshadowed by their earlier comments (Thielemann, Nomoto, & Hashimoto 1996) that additional Zn is produced in the s-process and possibly in SN Ia. The GCE calculations of Timmes, Woosley & Weaver (1995, Fig. 35) similarly fail to match the observations, though Woosley & Weaver (1995, §4.7) specifically note that they regard the probable source of the dominant solar isotope, 64Zn, to be an extreme $`\alpha `$-rich freeze-out which was not included in their study.

Blake et al. (2000a,b) report results for CS 22897-008, a giant selected for its high \[Sr/Fe\] and low \[Ba/Fe\] values.222It has only a moderate carbon abundance (\[C/Fe\] = 0.34; McWilliam et al. 1995) so is unlikely to be related to the C-rich, s-process-rich stars investigated by Norris et al. (1997a) or to the r-process-rich object CS 22892-052 (Sneden et al. 1995). Through échelle spectra with S/N = 47–129, and $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = 50000, earlier Sr, Y, Zr, and Ba measurements have been improved, and the first detection of Zn in this object was obtained. Abundances, calculated using WIDTH6 (Kurucz & Furenlid 1979) and a Bell et al. (1976) model for parameters $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$/log $`g`$/\[Fe/H\]/$`\xi `$ = 4850/1.8/$`3`$/1.9, are shown in Figure 3. They confirm that Sr, Y, Zr, and also Zn (\[Zn/Fe\] = +0.7) are more abundant in this star than most others of the same \[Fe/H\].

There is an additional caveat for Zn in addition to the usual uncertainties in the atmospheric parameters and models. The ‘normal’ value of \[Zn/Fe\] in stars at \[Fe/H\] = $`3.3`$ is not well known, due to the paucity of measurements in such metal-poor objects. Primas et al. (2000) show only one object with \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ $`3.0`$, for which they give preliminary values \[Fe/H\] = $`3.5`$, \[Zn/Fe\] = 0.45. It will be interesting to see whether their final sample reveals an increasing overabundance of \[Zn/Fe\] in more-metal-poor stars, as their preliminary sample suggests and as Johnson (2000) also identifies.

Several nucleosynthetic sites that may produce the overabundances shown in Figure 3 will be discussed below, with quantitative calculations presented elsewhere (Blake et al. 2000b). Whatever produces Zn, Sr, Y, and Zr abundantly in CS 22897-008 and other stars must avoid producing much Ba. If this is a neutron capture process, then a small exposure, or a small number of neutrons per seed, is required.

### 3.1 The weak s-process

The weak s-process occurs during He- and C-burning in massive stars ($`M`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$ 10 M), producing only the first s-process peak, the $`N`$ = 50 closed shell at Sr-Y-Zr, but not the $`N`$ = 82 peak at Ba-La (e.g. Prantzos et al. 1990). It differs in both site and yield from the main s-process associated with thermally-pulsing AGB stars (e.g. Busso et al. 1999). Prantzos et al. show (their Fig. 7) that sufficiently massive stars will produce a strong overabundance of elements from Zn to Zr, as would be needed to explain the elements enhanced in CS 22897-008 (Figure 3). Furthermore, this nucleosynthetic component would be more obvious in the ejecta of massive stars, the mass range appropriate to the enrichment of the most metal-poor stars. However, it depends strongly on metallicity, and is not expected to be significant in metal-poor objects with \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ $`3`$, due to the greater relative importance of primary neutron poisons like 12C, 16O, and 20Ne (Prantzos et al. 1990; Raiteri et al. 1991a,b, 1992; Travaglio et al. 1996).

### 3.2 A weak r-processes

In view of the difficulties faced by the weak-s-process, it is natural to hypothesise an analogous weak-r-process (e.g. Ishimaru & Wanajo 2000) that produces only the lighter neutron-capture species abundantly, but at the high neutron densities associated with a primary r-process. Wasserburg, Busso & Gallino (1996) were prompted by the 129I/127I and 182Hf/180Hf ratios in the early solar system to hypothesise two distinct r-process sites to explain light ($`A`$ $``$ 130) and heavy ($`A`$ $`>`$ 130) nuclei. Qian, Vogel & Wasserburg (1998) and Wasserburg & Qian (2000) developed the idea further, and associated light r-element production with lower frequency, higher yield events above a new neutron-star remnant, while heavy r-element production occurred in higher frequency but lower yield events associated with the formation of black hole remnants.

### 3.3 The $`\alpha `$-process

The $`\alpha `$-process — an $`\alpha `$-rich freeze-out (e.g. Woosley, Arnett, & Clayton 1973) from explosive Si-burning which avoids complete nuclear statistical equilibrium in the low density, high temperature neutrino bubble above a 1–10-second-old neutron star — is capable of producing not only excess Zn but also Sr-Y-Zr (Woosley & Hoffman 1992; Witti, Janka & Takahashi 1994; Woosley et al. 1994). One of the challenges of explaining the excess Sr in the stars at \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ $`3`$ is that it appears in some but not others, and with varying magnitude. That is, the data exhibit a large spread in \[Sr/Fe\], not simply a bimodal distribution.333The bimodality in the \[Ba/Fe\] distribution discussed by Ryan et al. (1996) was eliminated (see Figure 3) by McWilliam’s (1998) revision of the Ba abundances for his sample. The existence of a wide spread, covering $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$ 2 dex, suggests that the efficacy of whatever mechanism is responsible is strongly dependent upon some key factor(s). Takahashi et al. (1994) show that a reduction in the density of the neutrino bubble by a factor of 5 would allow the normal r-process to proceed rather than the $`\alpha `$-process. With such a small variation in density required to toggle between the Sr-Y-Zr-producing $`\alpha `$-process and the r-process, it may be possible to switch between normal and excessive production of these species with just the natural variation in density. This is an attractive feature of the $`\alpha `$-process possibility.

### 3.4 Neutron-star mergers

Freiburghaus et al. (1999) have shown that neutron-star mergers could be an important site for the production of r-process elements with $`A`$ $`>`$ 130 in the Galaxy. The $`Y_\mathrm{e}`$ range explored in their work finds underproduction of $`A`$ $`<`$ 130 species, which fits qualitatively the data of Sneden et al. (2000) for CS 22892-052. However, this result is in the opposite sense to that found for the stars we are investigating, which in contrast have high Sr and low Ba abundances. That is, while neutron-star mergers may prove responsible for much of the r-processing in the Galaxy, they do not, by current calculations, describe the nucleosynthesis that has produced high Sr abundances in the most metal-poor stars.

## 4 Concluding remarks

These stars emphasise that element analyses of neutron-capture elements in very metal-poor stars can constrain the nucleosynthesis processes and sites that have operated in the Galaxy. This will provide a greater degree of realism in the models and hence to our computations of the chemical evolution of the Galaxy. In the case of very metal-poor stars, we hope to constrain models of sites that may no longer be observed directly.

Caution is also needed to avoid overinterpreting the observations. In many discussions of heavy-element production, the element abundances in CS 22892-052 are cited as if they were a definitive record of early Galactic nucleosynthesis. While these data are exquisite, and many of the recent advances in our understanding of neutron-capture elements have been based on this star’s composition, people should bear in mind that this is a very atypical star. It has a carbon overabundance of a factor of ten, and is one of few metal-poor stars showing strong r-process overabundances, again by a factor of $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$ 10 (depending on exactly which element is measured). It is precisely because it is such an unusual star that it has been able to be studied in such detail. We must be cautious that we do not infer that the typical products of nucleosynthesis in the early epoch of Galaxy are those seen in such an unusual and atypical single object.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to acknowledge many valuable discussions with Drs Y. Ishimaru, C. Travaglio, and S. Wanajo.