text:
# Phenomenological Theory for Phase Turbulence in Rayleigh-Bénard Convection

## I Introduction

Rayleigh-Bénard convection (RBC) has long been a paradigm in the study of pattern formation . This system consists of a thin horizontal layer of fluid heated from below. There are three dimensionless parameters to describe the system . The Rayleigh number $`Rg\alpha d^3\mathrm{\Delta }T/\kappa \nu `$ is the control parameter, in which $`g`$ is the gravitational acceleration, $`d`$ the layer thickness, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ the temperature gradient across the layer, $`\alpha `$ the thermal expansion coefficient, $`\kappa `$ the thermal diffusivity and $`\nu `$ the kinematic viscosity. Under the Boussinesq approximation, only the density of the fluid is temperature dependent. Then the Prandtl number $`\sigma \nu /\kappa `$ is all one needs to specify the fluid properties. The third parameter is the aspect ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }L/d`$ where $`L`$ is the horizontal size of the system. When the Rayleigh number $`R`$ surpasses a critical value $`R_c`$, the fluid bifurcates from a static conductive state to a convective state, in which the velocity profile $`\stackrel{}{u}=(\stackrel{}{u}_{},u_z)`$ and the temperature-deviation profile $`\theta `$ form certain self-organized patterns. Those patterns also depend on the boundary conditions (b.c.) at the horizontal surfaces of the container. The two most studied b.c. in the literature are the rigid-rigid b.c., under which the fluid cannot slip, and the free-free b.c., under which the fluid does not experience any stress.

The patterns and the corresponding stability domain in RBC have been studied extensively in the classical work of Busse and his coauthors  in the $`(R,\sigma ,k)`$ space with $`k`$ the wavenumber. For free-free boundaries, Zippelius and Siggia  and Busse and Bolton  found that the parallel roll state is unstable against the skewed-varicose instability immediately above onset if $`\sigma <0.543`$. Busse et al.  further investigated the dynamics involved and conjectured a direct transition from conduction to spatiotemporal chaos (STC). This spatiotemporally chaotic state is called phase turbulence (PT). Recently we reported a large scale ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=60`$) numerical simulation of the three dimensional hydrodynamical equations for $`\sigma =0.5`$ under the free-free b.c. . From that simulation, we confirmed the direct transition to PT above onset and studied various properties of it. The patterns we found have very complicated spatial and temporal dependences.

In this paper we develop a theory for PT based on the generalized Swift-Hohenberg (GSH) model of RBC . This model is derived from the three-dimensional hydrodynamic equations, but is much simpler to study both numerically and analytically and is widely used in theoretical studies. Numerical solutions of this model or its modified versions have not only reproduced most patterns observed in experiments but also resembled experimental results relatively well . But there are some shortcomings in the model : The stability boundary of the model does not coincide with that of hydrodynamics for both rigid-rigid and free-free boundaries; it induces an unphysical, short-ranged cross roll instability. Even so, owing to its simplicity and its qualitative resemblance to real systems, this model is very valuable in studying RBC.

There are two coupled equations in two-dimentional space $`\stackrel{}{r}=(x,y)`$ in the GSH model for two order parameters $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and $`\omega _z(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, which are, respectively, related to the convective current and the vertical vorticity . In this paper we present our analytical calculations of the time-averaged convective current $`J=A^1𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\overline{\psi ^2(\stackrel{}{r},t)}`$ and the time-averaged mean square vorticity $`\mathrm{\Omega }=A^1𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\overline{\omega _z^2(\stackrel{}{r},t)}`$ in PT, where $`\overline{F(t)}`$ represents the time-average of $`F(t)`$ and $`A`$ is the area of the system. We carry out our calculations in Fourier space so the total number of modes $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ considered is infinite. We apply a Hartree-Fock approximation (HFA) to PT in which four-point correlation functions are approximated by products of two-point correlation functions. We also assume the time-averaged two-point correlation function $`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)\overline{\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,t)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_2,t)}`$ obeys a Gaussian distribution, i.e., $`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)=\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2)^2\xi _\psi ^2]`$, where $`\xi _\psi `$ is a length determining the correlation between different modes. This approximation is based on the observation that the patterns in PT are disordered on long length scales and quasi-ordered on short length scales. This suggests that the correlation between different wavevectors $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ is small unless these vectors are close to each other. This approximation seems physically intuitive for PT, in which there is a random superposition of rolls of different orientations. Given the above assumptions, we derive $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in terms of the time-averaged and azimuthally averaged structure factor $`S(k)\overline{\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k},t)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)}/J`$. We further assume that $`S(k)`$ obeys a scaling form $`kS(k)=\xi _2[(kk_{max})\xi _2]`$, in which $`\xi _2`$ is the two-point correlation length, $`(x)`$ is the scaling function and $`k_{max}`$ is the peak position of $`kS(k)`$. Applying this assumption, we obtain explicit formulas for both $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. More precisely, we find that $`J=J_0ϵJ_\xi \xi _2^2`$, which depends on unknown but experimentally measurable parameters, where $`ϵ=(RR_c)/R_c`$ is the reduced control parameter and $`J_0`$ and $`J_\xi `$ are both known. We also find that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega J^2/\xi _2`$ where $`\omega `$ is related to the width of the scaling function $`(x)`$. Furthermore, by assuming power law behaviors such that $`Jϵ^\mu `$, $`\xi _2ϵ^\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ^\lambda `$, we predict from our theory that $`\mu =1`$, $`\nu 1/2`$ and $`\lambda =2\mu +\nu `$ for PT. This prediction and the scaling assumption for $`S(k)`$ have been verified by our numerical solutions.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the GSH model in Fourier space and derive the basic formulas governing the time-averaged convective current $`J`$ and the time-averaged mean square vorticity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for any pattern in RBC. In Sec. III we introduce the HFA of our theory and use it to calculate explicitly $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for PT. The results are expressed in terms of the structure factor $`S(k)`$. Sec. IV includes two parts. We first postulate the scaling form of the structure factor $`S(k)`$ and expand both $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the leading order of $`1/\xi _2`$. We then define power law behaviors for $`J`$, $`\xi _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in PT and compare the results from our theory and our numerical work , which agree very well for both the exponents and the amplitudes. In the last section, we summarize our results and discuss some related issues.

## II Basic formulas

In the GSH model, the order parameter $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ satisfies

$$\tau _0\left[_t\psi +\stackrel{}{U}\stackrel{}{}\psi \right]=\left[ϵ(\xi _0^2/4k_c^2)(\stackrel{}{}^2+k_c^2)^2\right]\psi N[\psi ].$$
(1)
Here $`N[\psi ]`$ is the nonlinear term to be specified soon and $`\stackrel{}{U}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the mean flow velocity given by $`\stackrel{}{U}(\stackrel{}{r})=\stackrel{}{}\zeta (\stackrel{}{r},t)\times \stackrel{}{e}_z`$, in which

$$\left[_t\sigma \stackrel{}{}^2\right]\stackrel{}{}^2\zeta =g_m\stackrel{}{e}_z\left[\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{}^2\psi )\times \stackrel{}{}\psi \right].$$
(2)
In the GSH equations, the reduced Rayleigh number $`ϵ(R/R_c)1`$ is the control parameter, in which $`R`$ and $`R_c`$ are the Rayleigh number and its critical value at onset. The Prandtl number $`\sigma `$ parameterizes the fluid. While $`k_c`$ is the critical wavenumber at onset, other parameters model the properties of the system. More precisely, one takes  $`R_c=27\pi ^4/4`$, $`k_c=\pi /\sqrt{2}`$, $`\tau _0=2(1+\sigma ^1)/3\pi ^2`$, $`\xi _0^2=8/3\pi ^2`$, and $`g_m=6`$.

It is easier to analyze the GSH equations theoretically in Fourier space than in real space. By convention, we define the Fourier transformation and its inverse transformation of an arbitrary function $`F(\stackrel{}{r})`$ as $`\widehat{F}(\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{1}{A}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}F(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`F(\stackrel{}{r})=_\stackrel{}{k}\widehat{F}(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}`$, where $`A`$ is the area of the system. Note that $`\widehat{F}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})=\widehat{F}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ for any real function $`F(\stackrel{}{r})`$. It is easy to check that Eq. (1) can be rewritten in Fourier space as

$$\tau _0_t\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})+\widehat{V}(\stackrel{}{k})=r(ϵ;k)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})\widehat{N}(\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(3)
where $`V(\stackrel{}{r})=\tau _0\stackrel{}{U}\stackrel{}{}\psi `$ and

$$r(ϵ;k)=ϵ\xi _0^2(k^2k_c^2)^2/4k_c^2.$$
(4)
The nonlinear $`\widehat{N}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ term has been evaluated at onset ,

$$\widehat{N}(\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3}{}g(\widehat{k}\widehat{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3),$$
(5)
where the coupling constant $`g(\mathrm{cos}\alpha )`$ is given in Ref.  with $`\alpha `$ the angle between $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$. Rigorously speaking, the exact forms of Eqs. (1), (2) and (5) are derived near onset and deviations from them in real physical systems are possible for large enough $`ϵ`$. But we disregard such complexity and take them as our model for further study.

One may take an adiabatic approximation $`(_t=0)`$ in Eq. (2) by neglecting the first term on the left-hand side. This term is small in comparison with the other terms, which can be verified by applying the same perturbation as that in phase dynamics . With this approximation, it now is easy to solve Eq. (2) for $`\widehat{\zeta }(\stackrel{}{k})`$, which indicates that the mean-flow field is slaved by the $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ field. We are also interested in the vertical vorticity $`\omega _z(\stackrel{}{r})=\stackrel{}{}^2\zeta (\stackrel{}{r})`$. From Eq. (2), it is straightforward to get that

$$\widehat{\omega }_z(\stackrel{}{k})=k^2\widehat{\zeta }(\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}_2}{}f(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}_2),$$
(6)
where, with an exchange of index $`\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}_2`$,

$$f(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2)=\frac{g_m}{2\sigma k^2}(k^22\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}_2)(\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}_2\times \stackrel{}{k}).$$
(7)
Applying these results, one may easily evaluate the mean-flow contribution to Eq. (3), which is given by

$$\widehat{V}(\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3}{}v(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3),$$
(8)
where

$$v(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)=\frac{g_m\tau _0}{2\sigma }\frac{[\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}\times (\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_2)][\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}_3\times \stackrel{}{k}_2](k_2^2k_3^2)}{|\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_2|^4}.$$
(9)
Notice that the coupling constant $`v(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ is zero under two conditions: (1) If all $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ allowed in $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ point at one single direction, say $`\widehat{k}`$; or, (2) if all $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ lie on one single ring, say $`|\stackrel{}{k}|=k`$. For this reason, ordered states such as parallel rolls, hexagons, concentric rings, etc., do not have significant mean-flow couplings. Furthermore, the coupling constant $`v(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ seems to have a pole at $`\stackrel{}{k}_2=\stackrel{}{k}_3`$. Assume that $`\stackrel{}{k}_3=\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{q}`$ with $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ very small; then $`v(\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{q})(\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}_2\times \stackrel{}{q})(\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{q})/q^4`$. A pole normally exists (since $`v1/q`$) unless $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}`$, or $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}_2`$, or $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}_2`$.

In this paper, we will mainly focus on two global quantities: One is the total convective current defined by

$$J(t)=\frac{1}{A}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\psi ^2(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)\mathrm{with}\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)=\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k},t)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k},t);$$
(10)
the other is the mean square vorticity defined by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\omega _z^2(\stackrel{}{r},t)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4}{}}f(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_2)f(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ (12)
$`\times \widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_4)\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4}.`$
Notice that $`f(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_2)(k_1^2k_2^2)(\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}_2\times \stackrel{}{k}_1)`$. So $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=0`$ if all the wavenumbers allowed in $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ point at one single direction $`\pm \widehat{k}`$ or lie on one single ring $`|\stackrel{}{k}|=k`$. In other words, the vorticity must be generated by couplings between modes of different $`k`$ and $`\widehat{k}`$. From Eq. (3), it is easy to derive that

$`\tau _0_t\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)=`$ $`2r(ϵ;k)\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t){\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3}{}}\left[g(\widehat{k}\widehat{k}_2)+v(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)\right]`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k})\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.\right].`$ (14)
In principle, this is the equation determining the structure of the convective current $`\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ which, however, is beyond our present goal. Now applying the relations $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k})=\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`v(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)=v(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_3;\stackrel{}{k}_2)`$, and, exchanging the summation indices $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}_{2,3}\stackrel{}{k}_{2,3}`$ for the $`g`$ terms and $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3`$ for the $`v`$ terms, one obtains from the above equation and the definition of $`J(t)`$ that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau _0_tJ(t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}r(ϵ;k)\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ (15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3}{}}g(\widehat{k}_1\widehat{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3).`$ (16)
This is the equation determining the total convective current $`J(t)`$. Notice that the $`v`$ terms vanish from this equation, which can also be derived directly from Eq. (1) by converting the corresponding integral in Eq. (10) into a surface term. In general, the $`v`$ couplings affect $`J(t)`$ implicitly by modifying its structure $`\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ unless, of course, $`v0`$.

For stationary states, the convective current and the mean square vorticity are time-independent. This, however, is no long true if the state is spatiotemporal chaotic. For a spatiotemporal chaotic state, these two quantities normally fluctuate in time around some well-defined averaged values: see Refs. . While the fluctuations appear chaotic in time, they are relatively small in comparison with their averaged values. For simplicity, we only consider the two corresponding time-averaged quantities in our theory. We now introduce the time-average operator $`𝒯`$ defined by $`𝒯F(t)\overline{F(t)}=lim_{T+\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{T}_0^T𝑑tF(t)`$. Applying $`𝒯`$ to Eq. (16) yields

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}r(ϵ;k)\overline{\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4}{}}g(\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}_1\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}_2)\overline{\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\widehat{\psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_4)}\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4}=0.`$ (18)
In the next section, we show how, under a certain assumption, to calculate the time-averaged convective current of PT from this equation. The time-averaged mean square vorticity can be obtained with $`𝒯`$ acting on Eq. (12). For simplicity, we denote from now on $`\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k})=\overline{\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k},t)}`$, $`J=\overline{J(t)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }(t)}`$.

Finally we introduce the time-averaged structure factor defined by $`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})=\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k})/J`$ with $`_\stackrel{}{k}\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})=1`$, and the corresponding averages $`\widehat{F}_\stackrel{}{k}=_\stackrel{}{k}\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})\widehat{F}(\stackrel{}{k})`$. With this notation, the first term in Eq. (18) can be rewritten as $`r(ϵ)_\stackrel{}{k}J`$. If the $`k`$-dependence and the angular dependence in $`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ can be separated, then it is more convenient to define $`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})=(2\pi )^2A^1S(k)\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )`$ with $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kkS(k)=1`$ and $`_0^{2\pi }𝑑\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )=1`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and some reference direction. Here the discrete $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ lattice has been converted into a continuous one. So a proper phase factor has been taken into account. Notice also that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi +\alpha )=\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )`$ since $`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})=\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})`$. Now the corresponding averages with respect to $`S(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )`$ are defined as $`F_k=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kkS(k)F(k)`$ and $`F_\alpha =_0^{2\pi }𝑑\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )F(\alpha )`$.

## III Hartree-Fock Approximation for PT

### A Convective Current

In order to calculate the time-averaged convective current and the time-averaged mean square vorticity from Eqs. (18) and (12), it is obvious that more information about the corresponding state is needed. For this purpose, we notice that the instantaneous patterns in PT are irregular and random in space . So, if we write $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)=\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{k},t)e^{i\widehat{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)}`$ with both $`\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ real, the phase $`\widehat{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ seems to have a rather complicated, irregular time-dependence. This suggests that two modes of different $`\stackrel{}{k}`$’s are poorly time-correlated. Because of this, we think it is justified to adapt a Hartree-Fock Approximation (HFA) to PT in which a four-point correlation function is approximated by products of two-point correlation functions, i.e.,

$`\widehat{C}_\psi ^{(4)}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4)\overline{\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,t)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_2,t)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_3,t)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_4,t)}`$ (19)
$`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4)+\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_3)\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_4)+\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_4)\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3),`$ (20)
where we denote

$$\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)\overline{\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_1,t)\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{k}_2,t)}.$$
(21)
Apparently $`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})=\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k})`$.

Now it is essential to know the behavior of $`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)`$ in PT. We notice that the patterns in PT are disordered at large scales but quasi-ordered inside some smaller domains. From these, we speculate that the correlation between two modes of different $`\stackrel{}{k}`$’s are poor if their $`\stackrel{}{k}`$’s are quite different but good if their $`\stackrel{}{k}`$’s are very close to each other. Hence, we postulate a Gaussian form for $`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)`$ in PT, i.e.,

$$\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)=\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2)^2\xi _\psi ^2],$$
(22)
where $`\xi _\psi `$ is a length determining the correlation between different modes. We expect $`\xi _\psi `$ to be large.

We now calculate the convective current $`J`$ from Eqs. (18), (20) and (22). One may rewrite Eq. (18) in a continuous Fourier space as

$`r(ϵ,k)_\stackrel{}{k}J={\displaystyle \frac{A^4}{(2\pi )^8}}`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_2𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_3𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_4\frac{(2\pi )^2}{A}\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_4)g(\widehat{k}_1\widehat{k}_2)}`$ (24)
$`\times \widehat{C}_\psi ^{(4)}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4).`$
Inserting Eqs. (20) and (22) into this equation, one finds after some algebra that

$$J=\frac{4\pi \xi _\psi ^2}{A}\frac{r(ϵ,k)_k}{g_{PT}},$$
(25)
in addition to the conduction solution $`J=0`$. Here $`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is assumed to be azimuthally uniform, and $`g_{PT}`$ is defined as

$$g_{PT}=g(1)+\frac{2}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\alpha g(\mathrm{cos}\alpha ).$$
(26)
Using the explicit formula given in Ref.  for free-free boundaries, one has that

$$g_{PT}=0.855922+0.0458144\sigma ^1+0.0709326\sigma ^2,$$
(27)
where $`\sigma `$ is the Prandtl number.

If one takes the limit $`\xi _\psi +\mathrm{}`$, the two-point correlation function $`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2)`$ in Eq. (22) reduces to $`(A/2\pi \xi _\psi ^2)\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2}`$. This, by applying the inverse Fourier transformation, leads to the translation invariance of the the two-point correlation function $`C(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)\overline{\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_1,t)\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_2,t)}/J`$, i.e., $`C(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)=C(\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2)`$. Under the same limit, one also has $`\xi _\psi =[A/2\pi ]^{1/2}`$ since $`\widehat{C}_\psi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})=\widehat{J}(\stackrel{}{k})`$. In this case, one has

$$J=\frac{2r(ϵ,k)_k}{g_{PT}}.$$
(28)
From now on, we simply choose $`\xi _\psi =[A/2\pi ]^{1/2}`$.

### B Mean Square Vorticity

We now use the HFA to calculate the time-averaged mean square vorticity. From Eq. (12), one finds that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{A^4}{(2\pi )^8}}`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_2𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_3𝑑\stackrel{}{k}_4\frac{(2\pi )^2}{A}\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_4)f(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_2)f(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)}`$ (30)
$`\times \widehat{C}_{\psi ^4}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4),`$
where, from Eq. (7),

$`f(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_2)f(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3)\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_4)`$ (31)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g_m^2}{4\sigma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2k_2^2)(k_3^2k_4^2)(\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}_1\times \stackrel{}{k}_2)(\stackrel{}{e}_z\stackrel{}{k}_3\times \stackrel{}{k}_4)}{|\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2|^2|\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4|^2}}\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_4).`$ (32)
Notice that there is a singular point $`\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2=0`$ in the above expression: its value depends on how the point is approached.

Following the same calculation as for $`J`$ and assuming that $`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is azimuthally uniform, one finds after some algebra that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{g_m^2J^2}{4\sigma ^2}𝑑k_1k_1S(k_1)𝑑k_2k_2S(k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1;k_2),$$
(33)
where we have chosen $`\xi _\psi =[A/2\pi ]^{1/2}`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1;k_2)=\frac{1}{4}|k_1^2k_2^2|[k_1^2+k_2^2|k_1^2k_2^2|],$$
(34)
which has a second-order singularity at $`k_1=k_2`$ and is due to the singularity in Eq. (32).

## IV Scaling Relations in PT

### A General

To evaluate the convective current $`J`$ and the mean square vorticity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, one must know the structure factor $`S(k)`$ which, however, is beyond our present theory. We thus turn to phenomenological arguments. We define a two-point correlation length as

$$\xi _2=\left[k^2_kk_k^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
(35)
Then we assume that the structure factor satisfies the following scaling form

$$kS(k)=\xi _2[(kk_{max})\xi _2],$$
(36)
where $`k_{max}`$ is the peak position of $`kS(k)`$ and $`(x)`$ is the scaling function satisfying $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x(x)=1`$. \[Since $`k0`$ in $`kS(k)`$, the lower limit for $`(x)`$ is $`k_{max}\xi _2`$, which we approximate by $`\mathrm{}`$.\] Inserting $`k=k_{max}+x\xi _2^1`$ and Eq. (36) into Eq. (35), one gets that $`x^2_xx_x^2=1`$, where we have used the notation $`F(x)_x=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x(x)F(x)`$. It is also easy to see that $`k_k=k_{max}+\xi _2^1x_x`$.

For very large $`\xi _2`$, one may take $`k=k_{max}+x\xi _2^1`$ in Eqs. (28) and (33) and expand the results in order of $`1/\xi _2`$. It is easy to find from Eqs. (4) and (28), and from $`k_{max}=k_c+O(ϵ)`$ that

$$J=\frac{2}{g_{PT}}\left[ϵx^2_x\frac{\xi _0^2}{\xi _2^2}\right]+O(1/\xi _2^3,ϵ/\xi _2,ϵ^2),$$
(37)
for small enough $`ϵ`$ and large enough $`\xi _2`$. This expression depends on two unknown but experimentally measurable quantities $`\xi _2`$ and $`x^2_x=1+x_x^2`$. If $`(x)`$ is symmetric, then $`x_x=0`$ and $`x^2_x=1`$. In general, however, one has $`x^2_x1`$. Notice also that although mean-flow couplings are not explicitly present in Eq. (18), they affect the value of the convective current via the structure factor $`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ \[see Eq. (14)\] and the two-point correlation length $`\xi _2`$. For PT, since $`\xi _2\frac{3}{2}\xi _0/ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ , the contribution from $`\xi _2`$ reduces the value of $`J`$ quite significantly. This feature is absent in the simple theory presented earlier .

One may evaluate the mean square vorticity in the same way. From Eqs. (33) and (34), one gets for free-free boundaries that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{g_m^2k_c^3}{4\sigma ^2}|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}\frac{J^2}{\xi _2},$$
(38)
where we have used $`k_{max}k_c`$. The quantity $`|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}`$ is related to the width of the scaling function $`(x)`$ and, since $`|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}\sqrt{(x_1x_2)^2_{x_1,x_2}}=\sqrt{2}`$, we expect $`|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}`$ to be of order of unity. Clearly, by phenomenological arguments, we can express $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in PT in terms of measurable quantities.

### B Power Laws

For PT, we further assume power law behaviors for the two-point correlation length, the convective current and the mean square vorticity such as

$$\xi _2\xi _{2,0}ϵ^\nu ,JJ_0ϵ^\mu \mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_0ϵ^\lambda .$$
(39)
Then, from Eq. (38), we find the following scaling relation

$$\lambda =2\mu +\nu .$$
(40)
Recalling Eq. (37), one obtains that

$$J\frac{2}{g_{PT}}\left[ϵx^2_x\frac{\xi _0^2}{\xi _{2,0}^2}ϵ^{2\nu }\right]J_0ϵ^\mu .$$
(41)
Since $`J`$ is positive by definition, the values of the exponents satisfy

$$\mu =1,\nu 1/2\mathrm{and}\lambda =2+\nu 5/2.$$
(42)
It is very likely that $`\nu =1/2`$, hence, $`\lambda =5/2`$. If so, then one finds from Eqs. (37) and (38) that

$$J_0=\frac{2}{g_{PT}}\left[1x^2_x\frac{\xi _0^2}{\xi _{2,0}^2}\right]\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\frac{g_m^2k_c^3J_0^2}{4\sigma ^2\xi _{2,0}}|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2},$$
(43)
which depend on three phenomenological parameters $`\xi _{2,0}`$, $`x^2_x`$ and $`|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}`$. If $`\nu >1/2`$, then $`J_0=2/g_{PT}`$ since the $`ϵ^{2\nu }`$ term in Eq. (41) contributes only to the leading correction to scaling. It is interesting to notice that the amplitude equations coupled with mean-flow  predicts for free-free boundaries that $`\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ^{5/2}`$ for almost perfect parallel rolls.

We now verify our predictions for the power laws in PT by our numerical solutions. We have carried out large-scale numerical calculations of the three-dimensional Boussinesq equations under free-free boundaries for fluids of $`\sigma =0.5`$ . We have confirmed in Ref.  that the structure factor in PT satisfies the scaling form (36). From Table I, one can see that our theoretical and our numerical results are in very good agreement for the exponents. The scaling relation Eq. (40) is confirmed within our numerical uncertainties. The comparison between the corresponding amplitudes, however, is only moderately successful. Calculations of $`\xi _{2,0}`$, $`x^2_x`$ and $`|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}`$ are obviously beyond the present theory, so we take our numerical result for $`\xi _{2,0}`$. Since our numerical results for $`x^2_x`$ and $`|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}`$ are too sensitive to the large value cutoff to be meaningful, we assume equalities in $`x^2_x=1+x_x^21`$ and $`|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}\sqrt{(x_1x_2)^2_{x_1,x_2}}=\sqrt{2}`$. From Eqs. (43) and (27), one gets $`J_00.972`$, which is about $`20\%`$ larger than the numerical value. A non-zero value of $`x_x`$ will apparently reduce the theoretical value of $`J_0`$ in the right direction. On the other hand, one finds that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0454.7|x_1x_2|_{x_1,x_2}=643.0`$ as an upper bound, which is about ten times larger than our numerical result. Nevertheless, we note that while our theory is based on the two-dimensional GSH equations, our numerical calculations are done for the three-dimensional Boussinesq equations. Although the former is very good in reproducing qualitative features of RBC, it may not be quantitatively accurate in modeling RBC . So one should be cautious in comparing the results from the GSH equations with those from real experiments or those from numerical calculations with hydrodynamical equations.

## V Discussion

Our phenomenological theory for PT in RBC depends on two basic assumptions. In Sec. III, we adapt a Hartree-Fock approximation to PT and postulate a Gaussian form for the time-averaged two-point correlation function. In Sec. IV, we further assume that the structure factor satisfies a scaling form such as $`kS(k)=\xi _2[(kk_{max})\xi _2]`$. In comparison with similar scaling forms in critical phenomena, critical dynamics and phase ordering, we find it necessary to replace $`k`$ with $`kk_{max}`$ in the scaling form. The physical origin of this replacement is due to the fact that patterns in RBC have an intrinsic wavenumber, which is close to $`k_c`$. By the same reason, we find it necessary to seek the scaling form of $`kS(k)`$ instead of $`S(k)`$, where the $`k`$ factor comes from $`d\stackrel{}{k}=kdkd\alpha `$ in two-dimensional $`k`$-space. The physical origin of this scaling invariance in PT is yet unknown. In Sec. IV, we have confirmed the scaling form of $`S(k)`$ within our numerical accuracy. It is not clear currently whether the scaling form breaks down for small or large $`k`$.

In summary, we present a phenomenological theory for PT in RBC. We calculate analytically the time-averaged convective current $`J`$ and the time-averaged mean square vorticity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as functions of $`ϵ`$ and $`\xi _2`$. We believe that our theoretical results will be useful in understanding the complicated behavior of STC in RBC. We also believe that our theory provides a new approach to STC and also raises some interesting questions. For example, how can one calculate the structure factor $`S(k)`$ and the two-point correlation length $`\xi _2`$ analytically? Is it possible that certain global quantities in STC form a complete set in the same way as temperature, pressure and density do for thermodynamic systems? Can we derive some effective variational principle in terms of global quantities? How far can we apply the ideas in critical phenomena to study STC? Since our assumptions are quite general, it will also be interesting to see whether our theory can be generalized to STC in other systems .

Acknowledgment

X.J.L and J.D.G are supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9596202. H.W.X. is supported by Research Corporation under Grant No. CC4250. Numerical work reported here are carried out on the Cray-C90 at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and Cray-YMP8 at the Ohio Supercomputer Center. X.J.L. also acknowledges the support of NSF under Grant No. DMR-9876864 when this paper was revised.


format: text

text:
# References

The Omega central production experiments (WA76, WA91 and WA102) were designed to study exclusive final states formed in the reaction

pp$``$p$`{}_{f}{}^{}X_{}^{0}`$ps,

where the subscripts $`f`$ and $`s`$ refer to the fastest and slowest particles in the laboratory frame respectively and $`X^0`$ represents the central system. Such reactions are expected to be mediated by double exchange processes where both Pomeron and Reggeon exchange can occur. The trigger was designed to enhance double exchange processes with respect to single exchange and elastic processes. Details of the trigger conditions, the data processing and event selection have been given in previous publications .

The experiments have been performed at incident beam momenta of 85, 300 and 450 GeV/c, corresponding to centre-of-mass energies of $`\sqrt{s}=12.7`$, 23.8 and 29 GeV. Theoretical predictions  of the evolution of the different exchange mechanisms with centre of mass energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$, suggest that

$`\sigma `$(RR) $`s^1`$,

$`\sigma `$(R$`IP`$) $`s^{0.5}`$,

$`\sigma `$($`IP`$$`IP`$) $``$ constant,

where RR, R$`IP`$ and $`IP`$$`IP`$ refer to Reggeon-Reggeon, Reggeon-Pomeron and Pomeron-Pomeron exchange respectively. Hence we expect Double Pomeron Exchange (DPE) to be more significant at high energies, whereas the Reggeon-Reggeon and Reggeon-Pomeron mechanisms will be of decreasing importance. The decrease of the non-DPE cross section with energy can be inferred from data taken by the WA76 collaboration using pp interactions at $`\sqrt{s}`$ of 12.7 GeV and 23.8 GeV . The $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass spectra for the two cases show that the signal-to-background ratio for the $`\rho ^0`$(770) is much lower at high energy, and the WA76 collaboration report that the ratio of the $`\rho ^0`$(770) cross sections at 23.8 GeV and 12.7 GeV is 0.44 $`\pm `$ 0.07. Since isospin 1 states such as the $`\rho ^0`$(770) cannot be produced by DPE, the decrease of the $`\rho ^0(770)`$ signal at high $`\sqrt{s}`$ is consistent with DPE becoming relatively more important with increasing energy with respect to other exchange processes.

Due to the fact that there was no electromagnetic calorimeter in the WA76 experiment at $`\sqrt{s}`$ of 12.7 GeV, the $`s`$ dependence of only a small number of states can be determined. The states for which the $`s`$ dependence have been measured and whose compatibility with DPE have been determined are given in table 1. Although there was no calorimeter in the 85 GeV/c run of the WA76 experiment, it was able to reconstruct the $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum using the decay $`\eta `$ $``$ $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}(\pi ^0)_{missing}`$ . In this mass spectrum the $`\eta ^{}`$ and $`f_1(1285)`$ are seen. The cross section of the $`f_1(1285)`$ at 85 GeV/c has been well measured through its all charged particle decay modes and hence can be used to determine the cross section of the $`\eta ^{}`$.

After correcting for geometrical acceptances, detector efficiencies, losses due to selection cuts, and all known decay modes, the cross-sections for the production of all the resonances at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 29.1 GeV observed in the WA102 experiment are shown in table 1. As can be seen, there is evidence that in central $`pp`$ collisions $`s\overline{s}`$ production is much weaker than $`n\overline{n}`$ production. For example, the cross section for the production of the $`f_2(1270)`$, whose production has been found to be consistent with DPE, is more than 40 times greater than the cross section of the $`f_2^{}(1525)`$. Part of this suppression could be due to the fact that there is a kinematic suppression of $`M_{X^0}^2`$ and some could be explained by the fact that the centre of mass energy dependence of the $`f_2(1270)`$ allows for up to a 30 % contribution from non-DPE processes. However, a suppression of $`20`$ still needs to be explained. Hence there could be some strong dependence on the mass of the produced quarks in DPE. A similar effect is observed in electroproduction ($`\gamma `$$`IP`$) where the $`\varphi `$ becomes more suppressed relative to the $`\rho `$ at low Q2 of the photon .

The cross section as a function of mass has not previously been shown for the centrally produced system. This distribution could be determined in two ways. Either by measuring the missing mass from the two outgoing protons or by measuring the effective mass of the decay products of the central system. The latter method has the disadvantage of requiring a separate acceptance correction for each final state. However, due to the measurement errors on the outgoing fast proton, the second method has the overwhelming advantage of having more than an order of magnitude better resolution in the determination of the mass. In order to determine the $`d\sigma /dM_{X_0}`$ differential cross section, starting with the $`\pi \pi `$ final state, the acceptance corrected mass spectra of all the final states observed in the WA102 experiment have been added together and the resulting differential cross section, $`d\sigma /dM_{X_0}`$, is shown in fig. 1a). Prominent features are the $`\eta `$, $`\omega `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, $`f_1(1285)`$, $`f_1(1420)`$ and a broad enhancement around 2 GeV.

In addition to the cross section and $`s`$ dependences, there are a number of different kinematical variables that can be determined for each resonance. The first is the Feynman $`x`$ ($`x_F`$) distribution of the central system. It should be noted that for resonances that decay into all charged particle decay modes the $`x_F`$ distribution measured is symmetric about 0. However, for resonances that decay into final states including $`\gamma `$s, because of the acceptance of the calorimeter, only events with $`x_F`$ $`>`$ 0. are detected. Hence for consistency, only $`x_F`$ $`>`$ 0 will be shown. All the resonances observed tend to fall into two distinct classes: fig. 2a) those that are peaked at $`x_F`$ = 0 and fig. 2b) those that are peaked away from 0. All the resonances that can be produced by DPE (i.e. those with I = 0 and G parity positive) fall into the first class while those with I = 1 and/or G parity negative fall into the second class which may be due to the fact that, in part, they are produced by diffraction from the proton vertex rather than from being due to real central events. Fig. 1b) shows the $`d\sigma /dM_{X_0}`$, distribution for $`|x_F|`$ $`<`$ 0.1. As can be seen the $`\omega `$, which can not be produced by DPE and which has a $`x_F`$ distribution peaked away from zero, is suppressed in the $`|x_F|`$ $`<`$ 0.1 distribution relative to the total sample.

Another variable that can be measured is the four momentum transfer squared ($`|t|`$) at one of the proton vertices. The $`|t|`$ distribution has been measured for all the resonances. All the distributions fall into three distinct classes as summarised in fig. 2c)-e). Fig. 2c) (type I) has the classic shape associated with $`\pi `$ exchange  and has been fitted by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\alpha \mathrm{exp}b_1t+\beta t\mathrm{exp}b_2t$$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are found to be similar in size. Fig. 2d) (type II) is similar to spin flip distributions and can be fitted by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\alpha t\mathrm{exp}b_2t$$

Fig. 2e) (type III) represents non-spin flip distributions and can be fitted by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\alpha \mathrm{exp}b_1t$$

The results of the fit to $`d\sigma /dt`$ and the $`t`$ distributions types for all the resonances observed are given in table 1.

In addition to the kinematical variables discussed above, in central production there are variables that are specific to the central vertex at which the two exchanged particles interact to form the final state $`X^0`$. The WA91 collaboration published a paper  showing that there was a difference in the resonances observed when the angle between the outgoing slow and fast protons was near to 0 degrees compared to when the angle was near to 180 degrees. In order to try to explain this effect in terms of a physical model, Close and Kirk  proposed that the data be analysed in terms of the parameter $`dP_T`$, which is the difference in transverse momentum between the particles exchanged from the fast and slow vertices.

The WA102 collaboration has presented studies of how different resonances are produced as a function of the parameter $`dP_T`$ . The fraction of each resonance has been calculated for $`dP_T`$$``$0.2 GeV, 0.2$``$$`dP_T`$$``$0.5 GeV and $`dP_T`$$``$0.5 GeV. In addition, the ratio of production at small $`dP_T`$ to large $`dP_T`$ has been calculated. The results are presented in table 2 for all the resonances observed in the WA102 experiment. Figure 3 shows the ratio of the number of events for $`dP_T`$ $`<`$ 0.2 GeV to the number of events for $`dP_T`$ $`>`$ 0.5 GeV for each resonance considered. It can be observed that all the undisputed $`q\overline{q}`$ states which can be produced in DPE, namely those with positive G parity and $`I=0`$, have a very small value for this ratio ($`0.1`$). Some of the states with $`I=1`$ or G parity negative, which can not be produced by DPE, have a slightly higher value ($`0.25`$). However, all of these states are suppressed relative to the interesting states, which could have a gluonic component, which have a large value for this ratio. Fig. 1c) shows the $`d\sigma /dM_{X_0}`$ distribution for $`dP_T`$ $`<`$ 0.2 and fig. 1d) the $`d\sigma /dM_{X_0}`$ distribution for $`dP_T`$ $`>`$ 0.5. The dominant feature of the distribution for $`dP_T`$ $`<`$ 0.2 is the low mass peak which comes from the $`\pi \pi `$ system. This $`\pi \pi `$ mass spectrum is dominated by the S-Wave although there is a 10 % D-wave contribution . The S and D-waves both have the same $`dP_T`$ distributions which are similar to those observed for the $`f_0(980)`$.

In addition to the $`dP_T`$ dependencies, an interesting effect has been observed in the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ which is defined as the angle between the $`p_T`$ vectors of the two outgoing protons. Historically it has been assumed that the Pomeron, with “vacuum quantum numbers”, transforms as a scalar and hence that the $`\varphi `$ distribution would be flat for resonances produced by DPE. The $`\varphi `$ dependences observed  are clearly not flat and considerable variation is observed among the resonances produced. The $`\varphi `$ distributions for all the resonances observed in the WA102 experiment are shown in figs. 45. These azimuthal dependences, as a function of $`J^{PC}`$, are very striking. For the mesons that can be produced by DPE the $`\varphi `$ distributions maximise around $`90^o`$ for resonances with $`J^{PC}`$ = $`0^+`$, at $`180^o`$ for those with $`J^{PC}`$ = $`1^{++}`$ and at $`0^o`$ for those with $`J^{PC}`$ = $`2^+`$. As can be seen from fig. 5 the $`\varphi `$ distributions are not simply a J-dependent effect, since $`0^{++}`$ production peaks at $`0^o`$ for some states whereas others are more evenly spread; moreover, $`2^{++}`$ established $`q\overline{q}`$ states peak at $`180^o`$ whereas the $`f_2(1910)`$ and $`f_2(1950)`$ peak at $`0^o`$.

Several theoretical papers have been published on these effects . All agree that the exchanged particle must have J $`>`$ 0 and that J = 1 is the simplest explanation for the observed $`\varphi `$ distributions. Close and Schuler  have calculated the $`\varphi `$ dependences for the production of resonances with different $`J^{PC}`$ for the case where the exchanged particle is a Pomeron that transforms like a non-conserved vector current. In fact this is the only model in which detailed calculations are made for resonances with spins other than $`J^{PC}`$ = $`0^+`$. In order to gain insight into the nature of the particles exchanged in central $`pp`$ interactions Close, Kirk and Schuler  have compared the predictions of this model with the data for resonances with different $`J^{PC}`$ observed in the WA102 experiment. They found that for the production of $`J^{PC}`$ = $`0^+`$ mesons they could predict the $`\varphi `$ dependence and the vanishing cross section as $`t0`$ absolutely and fit the $`t`$ slope in terms of one parameter, $`b_T`$. For the $`J^{PC}`$ = $`1^{++}`$ mesons they could predict the general form for the $`\varphi `$ distribution. By fitting the $`t`$ slope they obtained the parameter $`b_L`$; this then gave a parameter free prediction for the variation of the $`\varphi `$ distribution as a function of $`t`$ which agrees with the data. In addition, they obtained absolute predictions for the $`t`$ and $`\varphi `$ dependences of the $`J^{PC}`$ = $`2^+`$ mesons which were again in accord with the data when helicity 1 dominance was imposed. In the $`0^{++}`$ and $`2^{++}`$ sector they were able to fit all the $`\varphi `$ distributions with one parameter ($`\mu ^2`$) and they found that it is primarily the sign of this quantity that drives the $`\varphi `$ dependences. Understanding the dynamical origin of this sign is now a central issue in the quest to distinguish $`q\overline{q}`$ states from glueballs or other exotic states.

In a recent paper by Close and Kirk  studying the mixing of the scalar glueball with the nearby $`q\overline{q}`$ states it was noted that the $`\varphi `$ dependencies of the $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$, and hence the sign of $`(\mu ^2)`$, could be explained if they were due to the relative phase between the $`n\overline{n}`$ and $`gg`$ in their wavefunctions.

One interesting feature is that there is very little evidence for radially excited states in central $`pp`$ collisions. Therefore it is even more striking that there are three tensor states in the region of 2 GeV which is where the tensor glueball is predicted to be by Lattice QCD . Two of these states have similar $`\varphi `$ dependencies and one the opposite. This effect is very similar to what was observed in the scalar sector. It is interesting to speculate whether the $`f_2(1910)`$, $`f_2(1950)`$ and $`f_2(2150)`$ are due to mixing between a tensor glueball and nearby $`q\overline{q}`$ states. This may explain their observation in central production as being through their gluonic component.

In summary, a study of the production of resonances in central $`pp`$ interactions has been presented. Cuts on the $`dP_T`$ variable select out known $`q\overline{q}`$ states from glueball candidates. Why this works is still to be understood. The azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ has given information on the nature of the Pomeron. This information may in turn be used in future to extract information on the gluonic content of the observed mesons. It is interesting to note that although there is strong evidence for all the ground state nonet states (except for those with $`J^{PC}`$ = $`1^+`$) there is little evidence for radially excited nonet members. This may give special significance to the observation of the $`f_2(1910)`$, $`f_2(1950)`$ and $`f_2(2150)`$.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported, in part, by grants from the British Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the British Royal Society. The author wishes to thank the WA76, WA91 and WA102 collaborations for the use of their data.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5


text:
# Relativistic wave functions and energies for nonzero angular momentum states in light-front dynamics

Light-front dynamics (LFD) is a powerful approach to the theory of relativistic composite systems (hadrons in the quark models and relativistic nucleons in nuclei). Its explicitly covariant version  has been recently applied with success  to describe the new CEBAF/TJNAF data on the deuteron electromagnetic form factors. The solutions used in  were however not obtained from solving exactly the LFD equations but by means of a perturbative calculation with respect to the non relativistic wave function. Since, a consequent effort has been made to obtain exact solutions of LFD equations. The first results concerning $`J=0`$ states in a scalar model have been published in . The construction of $`J0`$ states in LFD is complicated by the two following facts. First, the generators of the spatial rotations contain interaction and are thus difficult to handle. Second, one is always forced to work in a truncated Fock space, and consequently, the Poincaré group commutation relations between the generators – ensuring the correct properties of the state vector under rotation – are in practice destroyed. In the standard approach, with the light-front plane defined as $`t+z=0`$, this violation of rotational invariance manifests by the fact that the energy depends on the angular momentum projection on $`z`$-axis .

We present here a method to construct $`J0`$ states in the explicitly covariant formulation of LFD and show how it leads to a restoration of rotational invariance. In this approach  the equation for relativistic two-body bound state wave function $`\psi `$ reads:

$$[4(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2)M^2]\psi (\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{n})=\frac{m^2}{2\pi ^3}\frac{d^3k^{}}{\epsilon _k^{}}V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}},\widehat{n},M^2)\psi (\stackrel{}{k^{}},\widehat{n}),$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the interaction kernel, $`\widehat{n}`$ the three-dimensional unit vector determining the orientation of the light-front plane, $`M`$ the total mass of the system and $`\epsilon _k=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$. In general, the wave function depends both on the relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\widehat{n}`$. In order to solve the problem, we replace the dynamical angular momentum operator by the kinematical one:

$$\stackrel{}{J}=i[\stackrel{}{k}\times /\stackrel{}{k}]i[\widehat{n}\times /\widehat{n}].$$
(2)
The eigenstates of $`\stackrel{}{J}^2`$ are constructed from vectors $`\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{n}`$ – taken on equal ground – by using the standard techniques of angular momentum theory. It turns out that the kernel and $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ commute not only with each other, but also with the operator $`A^2=(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{J})^2`$. Hence, the solutions of (1) are labelled by their mass, angular momentum and projection on $`z`$-axis, but also by the eigenvalues $`a^2=0,1,\mathrm{},J^2`$ of $`A^2`$. In a truncated Fock space, the states with different $`a`$ correspond to different masses $`M_a`$. In the $`J^\pi =1^{}`$ case for instance, the solutions $`\stackrel{}{\psi }_a`$ with $`a=0,1`$ can be written in the form:

$$\stackrel{}{\psi }_a(\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{n})=\chi _a(\widehat{k},\widehat{n})g_a(k,z),$$

where $`\chi _a`$ are the normalized eigenfunctions of the operator $`A^2`$:

$$A^2\chi _a(\widehat{k},\widehat{n})=a^2\chi _a(\widehat{k},\widehat{n}),\chi _0(\widehat{k},\widehat{n})=3z\widehat{n},\chi _1(\widehat{k},\widehat{n})=\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{2}(\widehat{k}z\widehat{n}),$$

$`z=\widehat{k}\widehat{n}`$ and functions $`g_a`$ satisfy the equations

$`[4(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2)M_0^2]zg_0(k,z)={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k^{}}{\epsilon _k^{}}V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{},\widehat{n},M_0^2)z^{}g_0(k^{},z^{})},`$
$`[4(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2)M_1^2](1z^2)g_1(k,z)={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k^{}}{\epsilon _k^{}}V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{},\widehat{n},M_1^2)(\widehat{k}\widehat{k}^{}zz^{})g_1(k^{},z^{})}.`$
obtained by inserting $`\stackrel{}{\psi }_{0,1}`$ into (1). As mentioned above, due to the Fock space truncation, the masses $`M_{0,1}`$ determined in this way differ from each other. The key point of our method is based on the fact that, in order to ensure the equivalence between the dynamical angular momentum operator and the kinematical one (2), the physical state has to satisfy the so called angular condition . This condition imposes the physical wave function to be a superposition of eigenstates of $`A^2`$:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{n})=\underset{a}{}c_a\psi _a(\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{n})=c_0\chi _0(\widehat{k},\widehat{n})g_0(k,z)+c_1\chi _1(\widehat{k},\widehat{n})g_1(k,z)$$
(3)
The unknown coefficients are in principle determined by the angular condition itself but they can be unambiguously fixed by imposing that in the limit $`k0`$, the solution does not depend on $`\widehat{n}`$. The corresponding mass is then given by

$$M^2=\underset{a}{}c_a^2M_a^2.$$
(4)
The validity of this solution has been checked in the Wick-Cutkosky model, i.e. for two scalar particles interacting by a massless scalar exchange. For $`J=1^{}`$ state, the values of $`M_a`$, $`M`$ given by (4) and the mass of the 2s states are shown in Figure (a) as functions of the coupling constant $`\alpha `$. One can see that despite the big split between $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$, $`M`$ for the 1p state is very close to the mass of the 2s one, which in its turn is very close to the results obtained by solving Bethe-Salpeter equation (denoted by dots). The curves for $`M`$ (solid line) and the 2s mass (long-dashed line) are hardly distinguishable. This means that our solution restores quite accurately the 2s-1p degeneracy of the relativistic Coulomb problem which in the Bethe-Salpeter approach is an exact result. The same situation also takes place in Figure (b) for 3s-2p states. It is worth noticing that in the whole range of coupling constants considered – implying large binding energies – the coefficients $`c_{0,1}`$ are very close to $`\sqrt{1/3}`$ and $`\sqrt{2/3}`$. To summarize, we emphasize that the physical state (3) is found as a superposition of non physical solutions $`\psi _a`$. In the exact case, these solutions would be degenerated, but they are split in a truncated Fock space due to the effective violation of rotational invariance. Taking as a solution a superposition satisfying the angular condition – in spite of the mass split, we restore the general properties of the wave function, violated by the truncation of the Fock space. This solution, which fulfills the correct transformation laws under rotation, approaches the exact one. Our method thus provides a high accuracy solution of the relativistic two-body problem.


text:
# Representability for some moduli stacks of framed sheaves

Introduction. Moduli problems for various kinds of framed sheaves have been studied and used in many settings (see, for example, \[Tha94\], \[Bra91\], \[Nak94\]), and there is a good general theory of moduli for semistable framed sheaves, thanks to the work of Huybrechts and Lehn (\[HL95a\], \[HL95b\]). By contrast, there seem to be only a few examples in which the full moduli functor for framed sheaves (without conditions of semistability) is known to be represented by a scheme. In this paper, we prove a representability theorem for the full moduli functors of framed torsion-free sheaves on projective surfaces under certain conditions.

Let $`S`$ denote a smooth, connected complex projective surface, and let $`DS`$ denote a smooth connected complete curve in $`S`$. Fix a vector bundle $`E`$ on $`D`$. An $`E`$-framed torsion-free sheaf on $`S`$ is a pair $`(,\varphi )`$ consisting of a torsion-free sheaf $``$ on $`S`$ and an isomorphism $`\varphi :|_DE`$; the isomorphism $`\varphi `$ is called an $`E`$-framing of $``$. An isomorphism of $`E`$-framed torsion-free sheaves on $`S`$ is an isomorphism of the underlying torsion-free sheaves on $`S`$ that is compatible with the framings. Let $`\mathrm{TF}_S(E)`$ denote the moduli functor for isomorphism classes of $`E`$-framed torsion-free sheaves on $`S`$. The reader should note that in the work of Huybrechts–Lehn the framing $`\varphi `$ need not be an isomorphism; as a consequence of our more restrictive definition, the moduli functors that we study have no hope of being proper.

Suppose the vector bundle $`E`$ satisfies

(1)
$$H^0(D,\mathrm{End}EN_{D/S}^k)=0$$

for all $`k1`$; here $`N_{D/S}`$ is the normal bundle of $`D`$ in $`S`$. If $`DS`$ is an arbitrary curve, there may be very few such bundles. However, if $`D`$ is smooth and has positive self-intersection in $`S`$, then $`N_{D/S}^1`$ is a negative line bundle on $`D`$, and consequently this condition on $`E`$ is an open condition which is satisfied by all semistable vector bundles on $`D`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose that $`S`$ is a smooth, connected complex projective surface and $`DS`$ is a smooth connected complete curve. Suppose, in addition, that $`E`$ is a vector bundle on $`D`$ that satisfies Condition (1) for all $`k1`$. Then the functor $`\mathrm{TF}_S(E)`$ is represented by a scheme.

In the proof of Theorem 1 we work in the slightly more general setting of a family of vector bundles on $`D`$, parametrized by a scheme $`U`$, that satisfies Condition (1) for all $`k1`$ at every point of $`U`$. Note also that the reader who is familiar with the language of stacks may restate Theorem 1 in the following form: over the substack of its target that parametrizes vector bundles on $`D`$ that satisfy Condition (1) for all $`k1`$, the fibers of the restriction morphism from the moduli stack of torsion-free sheaves on $`S`$ that are locally free along $`D`$ to the moduli stack of vector bundles on $`D`$ are schemes.

Functors of the type we study here arose naturally (in some special cases) in the representation-theoretic constructions of Nakajima; Theorem 1 demonstrates that the existence of the fine moduli schemes used by Nakajima is a much more general phenomenon, one which we hope can be exploited more widely in the study of sheaves on noncompact surfaces. The new ingredient in our proof of Theorem 1 is the use of formal geometry along the curve $`D`$; in particular, the techniques used here are completely different from those of \[HL95a\], \[HL95b\], and make no use of geometric invariant theory (GIT). Although Lehn (\[Leh93\]) has, under some conditions on the curve $`D`$ and the bundle $`E`$ along the curve, proven that the full moduli functors for vector bundles on $`S`$ with framing along $`D`$ by $`E`$ are represented by algebraic spaces, from the point of view of the usual GIT techniques it is perhaps surprising that there is a fine moduli scheme (a much stronger fact) for all framed sheaves: indeed, there can be framed sheaves that are not semistable for any polarization.

The author is grateful to K. Corlette for his constant guidance and also for some essential conversations. The author is grateful also to V. Baranovsky, T. Pantev and I. Robertson for valuable discussions related to this work, and to a referee for helpful suggestions (especially for improvements in the proof of Proposition 3). The author’s graduate work at the University of Chicago, of which this paper is a result, was supported in part by an NDSEG fellowship from the Office of Naval Research.

Affine bundles over $`\mathrm{Bun}^{}(D)`$. In this section we construct the fundamental affine bundles $`𝐀_n`$ (for $`n`$ in the range $`1n<\mathrm{}`$) over $`U`$ that we will use to embed the functor $`\mathrm{TF}_S(E)`$ in a scheme. The construction of these bundles and the description of the universal properties they possess must be well known (cf. \[Gri66\], in which the relevant cohomology groups are discussed), but the author does not know a suitable reference.

Fix a surface $`S`$, a curve $`D`$ in $`S`$, a scheme $`U`$, and a vector bundle $`E`$ on $`D\times U`$ as in Theorem 1. Let $`D^{(n)}`$ (that is, $`D`$ with structure sheaf $`𝒪_S/I_D^{n+1}`$, $`0n<\mathrm{}`$) denote the $`n`$th order neighborhood of $`D`$ in $`S`$.

###### Definition 2.

Let $`𝒜_n`$ denote the moduli functor over $`U`$ of isomorphism classes of triples $`(,V\stackrel{𝑓}{}U,\varphi )`$ consisting of

1. a vector bundle $``$ on $`D^{(n)}\times V`$,
2. a morphism $`f:VU`$, and
3. an isomorphism $`\varphi :|_{D\times V}(1_D\times f)^{}E.`$

Suppose that $``$ is a vector bundle over $`D^{(n)}`$; then $``$ has a canonical (decreasing) filtration as an $`𝒪_{D^{(n)}}`$-module with filtered pieces $`F_j=I_D^j`$, where $`I_D`$ is the ideal of $`DD^{(n)}`$. By its construction, this filtration is preserved by any endomorphism of the vector bundle $``$, and moreover $`F_j/F_{j+1}N_{D/S}^j\left(F_0/F_1\right)`$ provided $`0jn`$. Using these facts together with the exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{Hom}(E,EN_{D/S}^n)\mathrm{Hom}(,)\mathrm{Hom}(,|_{D^{(n1)}})0$$

and condition (1), one may prove by induction on $`n`$ that $`\mathrm{End}()\mathrm{End}(|_D)`$ and consequently that $`E`$-framed bundles on $`D^{(n)}`$ are rigid.

Evidently $`𝒜_0U`$; moreover, there are maps $`\pi _{n+1}:𝒜_{n+1}𝒜_n`$ for all $`n0`$.

###### Proposition 3.

Each $`𝒜_n`$ ($`n1`$) is represented by a scheme $`𝐀_n`$ that is an affine bundle over $`𝐀_{n1}`$.

###### Proof.

Working inductively, it will suffice to construct an $`𝐀_{n1}`$-scheme $`𝐀_n`$ that represents $`𝒜_n`$ and is an affine bundle over $`𝐀_{n1}`$. Fix a universal bundle $`E^{(n1)}`$ on $`D^{(n1)}\times 𝐀_{n1}`$. For any scheme $`T`$, an element of $`𝒜_n(T)`$ determines a map $`f:T𝐀_{n1}`$, and, if $`(,\varphi )`$ is the given element of $`𝒜_n(T)`$, there is an isomorphism of $`|_{D^{(n1)}\times T}`$ with $`(1\times f)^{}E^{(n1)}`$ compatibly with the framings by $`E`$. But then, because $`E`$-framed bundles on $`D^{(n1)}`$ are rigid, we find that $`𝒜_n`$ as a functor over $`𝐀_{n1}`$ is isomorphic to the functor taking $`f:T𝐀_{n1}`$ to the set of isomorphism classes of pairs $`(,\varphi )`$ consisting of a bundle $``$ on $`D^{(n)}\times T`$ together with an isomorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`|_{D^{(n1)}\times T}`$ with $`(1\times f)^{}E^{(n1)}`$. We will refer to such a pair as an $`E^{(n1)}`$-framed bundle.

Because the statement of the proposition is local on $`𝐀_{n1}`$, we may assume that $`𝐀_{n1}`$ is an affine scheme that is the spectrum of a local ring $`R`$. For simplicity, write $`𝒪=𝒪_{D^{(n1)}\times 𝐀_{n1}}`$ and $`𝒪^{}=𝒪_{D^{(n)}\times 𝐀_{n1}}`$. The “change of rings” spectral sequence (see Chap. XVI, Section 5 of \[CE56\])

$$E_2^{p,q}=\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^p(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Tor}}_q^𝒪^{}(E^{(n1)},𝒪),E(nD))\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^{}^{p+q}(E^{(n1)},E(nD))$$

yields the exact sequence of terms of low degree

(2)
$$\begin{array}{c}0\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^1(E^{(n1)},E(nD))\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^{}^1(E^{(n1)},E(nD))\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{𝛽}{}\mathrm{Hom}(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Tor}}_1^𝒪^{}(E^{(n1)},𝒪),E(nD))0.\end{array}$$

Note that $`\beta `$ is surjective since the next term in the sequence is $`\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^2(E^{(n1)},E(nD))`$, which vanishes because $`D`$ is one-dimensional. Using $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Tor}}_1^𝒪^{}(E^{(n1)},𝒪)E(nD)`$ one may check that there is a canonical element $`e`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Tor}}_1^𝒪^{}(E^{(n1)},𝒪),E(nD))`$ such that $`\beta ^1(e)`$ is exactly the $`\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^1(E^{(n1)},E(nD))`$-subtorsor of $`\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^{}^1(E^{(n1)},E(nD))`$ that classifies 1-extensions

$$0E(nD)E^{(n1)}0$$

for which $``$ is a locally free $`𝒪^{}`$-module. Now, Condition (1), together with Cohomology and Base Change, implies that the $`R`$-module $`\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^1(E^{(n1)},E(nD))H^1(D\times 𝐀_{n1},\mathrm{End}(E)N_{D/S}^n)`$ is projective, hence free. One can easily construct, moreover, a universal 1-extension over $`D^{(n)}\times 𝐀_{n1}\times \beta ^1(e)`$ (using, for example, an affine subspace of the Čech cocycles that maps isomorphically to $`\beta ^1(e)`$ to furnish gluing data). Because the exact sequence (2) and the element $`e`$ are functorial under pullback along morphisms of affine schemes $`\mathrm{Spec}R^{}\stackrel{𝑓}{}\mathrm{Spec}R=𝐀_{n1}`$, this universal 1-extension induces a functorial bijection between the set $`\beta _R^{}^1(e)`$ (the inverse image of the canonical element under the base-changed map $`\beta `$) and the set of isomorphism classes of pairs $`(,\varphi )`$ consisting of a vector bundle $``$ on $`D^{(n)}\times \mathrm{Spec}R^{}`$ and a framing $`\varphi :|_{D^{(n1)}\times \mathrm{Spec}R^{}}(1\times f)^{}E^{(n1)}`$.

Consequently $`𝒜_n`$ is represented as a functor over $`𝐀_{n1}`$ by the torsor over $`\mathrm{Spec}\mathrm{Sym}^{}\mathrm{Ext}_𝒪^1(E^{(n1)},E(nD))`$ defined by $`\beta ^1(e)`$, proving the proposition. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1. There is a compatible family of morphisms $`F_n:\mathrm{TF}_S(E)𝐀_n`$ given by restriction. Fix a $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐂`$-valued point of $`\mathrm{TF}_S(E)`$, that is, a point $`uU`$ together with an $`E_u`$-framed pair $`(,\varphi )`$ on $`S`$. We will show that there is an open subfunctor $`Z`$ of $`\mathrm{TF}_S(E)`$ that contains $`(,\varphi )`$ and is represented by a scheme.

Fix a polarization $`H`$ of $`S`$, and choose $`m`$ sufficiently large that

1. $`H^m`$ is globally generated and
2. $`H^1(H^m)=H^2(H^m)=0`$.

Further, fix $`n`$ sufficiently large that the restriction map

$$H^0\left(H^m\right)H^0\left(H^m|_{D^{(n)}}\right)$$

is injective; it is possible to choose such an $`n`$ because $``$ is torsion-free. Finally, choose $`m^{}`$ sufficiently large that $`H^1\left(H^{m+m^{}}|_{D^{(n)}}\right)=0`$.

Next, let $`Z\mathrm{TF}_S(E)`$ denote the open subfunctor parametrizing those triples
$`\left(W\stackrel{𝑓}{}U,,\varphi :|_{D\times W}(1\times f)^{}E\right)`$ for which the family $``$ satisfies the following conditions:

1. $`_wH^m`$ is globally generated for all $`wW`$,
2. $`H^1(_wH^m)=H^2(_wH^m)=0`$ for all $`wW`$,
3. the map $`H^0\left(_wH^m\right)H^0\left(_wH^m|_{D^{(n)}}\right)`$ is injective for all $`wW`$, and
4. $`H^1\left(_wH^{m+m^{}}|_{D^{(n)}}\right)=0`$ for all $`wW`$.

In the previous section we showed that there is a universal vector bundle $`E^{(n)}`$ on $`D^{(n)}\times 𝐀_n`$. Fix an element of $`Z(W)`$; then the map $`F_n(W):W𝐀_n`$ yields a vector bundle $`(1\times F_n)^{}E^{(n)}`$ on $`D^{(n)}\times W`$ together with an isomorphism

$$_W|_{D^{(n)}\times W}\stackrel{\varphi _n}{}(1\times F_n)^{}E^{(n)};$$

here $`_W`$ denotes the torsion-free sheaf on $`S\times W`$ determined by the fixed element of $`Z(W)`$. Let $`p_W`$ denote the projection $`S\times WW`$. Then by construction the sheaves $`(p_W)_{}_WH^m`$, $`(p_W)_{}_WH^{m+m^{}}`$, and $`(p_W)_{}\left(_WH^{m+m^{}}|_{D^{(n)}\times W}\right)`$ are vector bundles on $`W`$, and, choosing a section $`s`$ of $`H^m^{}`$ the zero locus of which has transverse intersection with $`D`$, there is a commutative diagram

for which the vertical arrows (given by tensoring with $`s`$) and the top row are injective. Using $`\varphi _n`$, we may replace this diagram canonically with the diagram

Now, by assumption (d) on $`W`$, we have

$$(p_W)_{}\left((1\times F_n)^{}E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}}\right)=F_n^{}\left((p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})\right),$$

where $`p_{𝐀_n}:D^{(n)}\times 𝐀_n𝐀_n`$ is the projection, and so finally we obtain the diagram of vector bundles

on $`W`$, where the diagonal map $`r`$ and the map $`s`$ are injective. By construction, furthermore, the image of the morphism $`r`$ is a vector subbundle of $`F_n^{}\left((p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})\right)`$ and consequently determines a morphism $`W\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$ over $`𝐀_n`$, where $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}\stackrel{𝑞}{}𝐀_n`$ denotes the relative Grassmannian for the vector bundle $`(p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$ on $`𝐀_n`$, the fiber of which over $`a𝐀_n`$ parametrizes vector subspaces of $`H^0(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$ that are of dimension $`h^0(H^m)`$.

We now construct a Quot-scheme over $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$ that we will use to represent $`Z`$. We may pull back $`(p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$ to $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$ to obtain a vector bundle $`q^{}(p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$ on (an open subset of) $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$, with universal subbundle

$$𝒰q^{}(p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})$$

of rank $`h^0(H^m)`$. If $`p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}:S\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$ denotes the projection to $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$, we obtain a bundle $`p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}^{}𝒰p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}^{}q^{}(p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$ on $`S\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$, as well as a quotient

$$p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}^{}q^{}(p_{𝐀_n})_{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})(1\times q)^{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})$$

and subquotient $`(1\times q)^{}(E^{(n)}H^m)(1\times q)^{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$ that are sheaves on $`S\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$ supported on $`D^{(n)}\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$.

Consider the relative Quot-scheme $`q^{}:\mathrm{Quot}_{S\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}/S}(p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}^{}𝒰)\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$ that parametrizes quotient sheaves for the family $`p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}^{}𝒰`$ on $`S\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}/S`$. There is a universal quotient $`(1\times q^{})^{}p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}^{}𝒰𝒬`$ on $`S\times \mathrm{Quot}_{S\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}/S}`$, giving a diagram

(3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$

There is a closed subscheme of $`\mathrm{Quot}_{S\times \mathrm{𝐆𝐫}/S}`$ (see the proof of Theorem 1.6 of \[Ser86\]) that represents the subfunctor of those quotients the kernels of which project to zero in $`(1\times qq^{})^{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$, and a closed subscheme $`𝒞`$ of that closed subscheme that represents the sub-subfunctor that parametrizes those quotients the images of which in $`(1\times qq^{})^{}(E^{(n)}H^{m+m^{}})`$ actually lie in the subsheaf $`(1\times qq^{})^{}(E^{(n)}H^m)`$. $`𝒞`$ then represents the functor of quotients of $`p_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}}^{}𝒰`$ that map to $`(1\times qq^{})^{}(E^{(n)}H^m)`$—that is, it is exactly the closed subscheme over which Diagram (3) extends to

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$

Restricting further to an open subscheme $`𝒞^{}`$ of $`𝒞`$, we may assume that, over $`𝒞^{}`$, the map $`𝒬|_{D^{(n)}\times 𝒞^{}}(1\times qq^{})^{}(E^{(n)}H^m)`$ is an isomorphism, that $`𝒬`$ is a family of torsion-free sheaves on $`S`$, and that conditions (a) through (d) are satisfied.

By construction the morphism $`W\mathrm{𝐆𝐫}`$ lifts to a morphism $`W𝒞^{}`$; this construction thus determines a morphism of functors $`Z𝒞^{}`$. Similarly, there is a forgetful morphism $`𝒞^{}Z`$. Finally, it is clear from the construction that these two morphisms of functors are inverses of each other, as desired. ∎


text:
# New Mechanism for Electronic Energy Relaxation in Nanocrystals

## Abstract

The low-frequency vibrational spectrum of an isolated nanometer-scale solid differs dramatically from that of a bulk crystal, causing the decay of a localized electronic state by phonon emission to be inhibited. We show, however, that an electron can also interact with the rigid translational motion of a nanocrystal. The form of the coupling is dictated by the equivalence principle and is independent of the ordinary electron-phonon interaction. We calculate the rate of nonradiative energy relaxation provided by this mechanism and establish its experimental observability.

PACS: 63.22.+m, 71.55.–i, 78.66.Vs

The dominant mechanism for the low-energy decay of a localized electronic impurity state in a macroscopic semiconductor or insulator is usually phonon emission . In an isolated nanometer-scale crystal, however, the reduced dimensionality causes a suppression of the vibrational density-of-states (DOS) at low energies. In particular, in a spherical nanoparticle of diameter $`d`$ there will be an acoustic phonon energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ of the order of $`2\pi v/d`$, where $`v`$ is a characteristic sound velocity of the bulk crystal. The one-phonon energy relaxation rate of an electron in the excited state of a two-level system with energy spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ therefore vanishes (or is greatly suppressed) when $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ is less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ . Indeed, a dramatic suppression of the phonon-induced exciton dephasing rate  and nonradiative relaxation rate  has been observed in nanocrystalline systems.

Nanoparticles are usually coupled to an environment consisting of other nanoparticles, a glass or polymer support matrix, or a solid substrate, and this mechanical interaction can modify a nanoparticle’s low-frequency vibrational spectrum. Fig. 1 shows a transmission-electron-microscope image of a cluster of 15 nm $`\mathrm{Y}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$ nanoparticles prepared by gas-phase condensation. Although little is known in detail about the effects of environmental interaction on electronic energy relaxation in nanoparticles, it is clear that for the case of a nanoparticle only weakly coupled to other nanoparticles or to a substrate, phonon emission will still be prohibited because the low-frequency modes introduced by interaction with the environment will involve mostly rigid center-of-mass (CM) motion of the nanoparticles, which produces no strain. For example, Fig. 2 shows the collective-mode DOS for a model (illustrated in the inset) of the nanoparticle cluster of Fig. 1. Although the cluster possesses modes at frequencies less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, which is about $`10\mathrm{cm}^1`$ for these nanoparticles, these modes cannot couple to an impurity state through ordinary electron-phonon interaction.

In this paper we propose a new nonradiative relaxation mechanism caused by the inertial coupling of an electron to the nanoparticle’s translational CM motion. This interaction is present because an electron bound to an impurity center in an oscillating nanoparticle is in an accelerating reference frame, and, in accordance with Einstein’s equivalence principle, it feels a fictitious time-dependent force. We shall show below that this relaxation mechanism is operative even at zero temperature, owing to the fact that quantum zero-point motion of the CM is sufficient to produce the fictitious force.

In what follows we shall analyze the simplest nanoparticle model displaying the new effect; more sophisticated models, as well as the influence of inertial coupling on other dynamical processes such as dephasing, are subjects of on-going investigations and will be discussed in future publications. The present model consists of a single nanoparticle of mass $`M`$ connected to a bulk substrate by a few atomic bonds. The effect of the substrate is to subject the nanoparticle to a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator potential $`V=\frac{1}{2}M\mathrm{\Omega }^2X^2`$ with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ the $`X`$ direction being perpendicular to the plane of the substrate. However, because the CM motion is that of a macroscopic harmonic oscillator interacting with many other degrees of freedom, such as the phonons of the bulk substrate, it is necessary on physical grounds to include energy dissipation (friction) of that oscillator. Possible rotational motion of the nanoparticle is not important here and will be ignored .

Denoting the CM of the nanoparticle by $`𝐑`$, a Hamiltonian in the CM frame can be obtained by rewriting the time-dependent Schrödinger equation in terms of new coordinates $`𝐫^{}=𝐫𝐑`$ and $`t^{}=t`$. After a series of gauge transformations we obtain

$$H_{\mathrm{CM}}=\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ_\alpha c_\alpha ^{}c_\alpha +\underset{n}{}\omega _na_n^{}a_n+\mathrm{\Omega }b^{}b+\underset{n\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}g_{n\alpha \alpha ^{}}c_\alpha ^{}c_\alpha ^{}(a_n+a_n^{})g\underset{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}x_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}c_\alpha ^{}c_\alpha ^{}(b+b^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }H.$$
(1)
The first term in Eqn. (1) is the Hamiltonian for a noninteracting two-level system; the other electronic levels can be neglected with no loss of generality. Here $`ϵ_\alpha `$ (with $`\alpha =1,2`$) are the energy levels of the localized impurity state, $`c_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`c_\alpha `$ are electron creation and annihilation operators . The second term in Eqn. (1) describes the nanoparticle’s internal vibrational dynamics. The $`\omega _n`$ are the frequencies of the internal modes, and the $`a_n^{}`$ and $`a_n`$ are the corresponding phonon creation and annihilation operators. For the case of a perfectly spherical nanoparticle the vibrational eigenmodes and eigenvalues can be obtained analytically within continuum elasticity theory; the frequency of the lowest internal mode (a 5-fold degenerate torsional mode) is approximately $`2\pi v_\mathrm{t}/d`$, where $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ is the bulk transverse sound velocity and $`d`$ is the diameter. These internal vibrational modes have been observed by low-frequency Raman scattering  and by femptosecond pump-probe spectroscopy.

The third term in Eqn. (1) describes the harmonic dynamics of the CM. As discussed above, the nanoparticle is assumed to be constrained to move in the $`x`$ direction only. Hence, the CM translational motion is described by a single bosonic degree-of-freedom,

$$b\sqrt{\frac{M\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}\left(X+\frac{i}{M\mathrm{\Omega }}P\right),$$
(2)
where $`X`$ and $`P`$ are the $`x`$-components of the CM position and momentum.

The fourth term in $`H_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ is the ordinary leading-order interaction between the two-level system and the internal vibrational modes. Here $`g_{n\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ is the electron-phonon coupling constant; it depends on the detailed microscopic structure of the nanoparticle, the nature and position of the impurity, and the spatial dependence of the internal vibrational modes. In the regime of interest here, where phonon emission is inhibited, this electron-phonon interaction term can be ignored, and the remaining Hamiltonian is that of a two-level atom in a cavity with a single damped mode .

The fifth term in Eqn. (1), which describes the inertial coupling between the two-level system and the CM motion, is the focus of the present work. Here $`x_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}\varphi _\alpha |x|\varphi _\alpha ^{}`$ are dipole-moment matrix elements, which, of course, depend on the form of the impurity states $`\varphi _\alpha (𝐫)`$, and

$$g\sqrt{\frac{m^2\mathrm{\Omega }^3}{2M}}$$
(3)
is a coupling constant that depends only on the (bare) electron mass $`m`$ and on macroscopic properties of the nanoparticle. The presence of this fifth term can be understood as follows: The Hamiltonian for the noninteracting two-level system, the first term in $`H_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, is written in a coordinate system moving with the oscillating nanoparticle, which is a noninertial reference frame. According to the equivalence principle , the electron therefore sees an additional uniform force

$$𝐅_{\mathrm{eff}}=m\ddot{𝐑},$$
(4)
where, as before, $`𝐑`$ is the nanoparticle CM. For the case of harmonic motion, Eqn. (4) can be written as $`𝐅_{\mathrm{eff}}=m\mathrm{\Omega }^2𝐑`$. Thus, the potential energy of an electron at position $`𝐫`$ in the CM frame is

$$U=m\mathrm{\Omega }^2𝐑𝐫,$$
(5)
which, in one dimension, is equivalent to the fifth term in Eqn. (1). Although spin indices have been suppressed in Eqn. (1), it should be understood that the inertial coupling between the electron and the CM motion conserves spin.

The final term in Eqn. (1), denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, describes an interaction between the nanoparticle’s translational motion and a bath of other harmonic oscillators, such as the phonons of the bulk substrate or the CM degrees-of-freedom of other nanoparticles. The effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ is to dissipate energy from the oscillating nanoparticle. In the absence of this damping, the inertial coupling causes energy to be continuously exchanged between the two-level system and the CM oscillator in a Rabi-like fashion; this interesting dissipation-free limit, although not relevant for the nanoparticle systems considered here, will be discussed in detail elsewhere.

To study the effect of the fifth term in Eqn. (1) on the electronic energy relaxation rate we calculate the electron self-energy perturbatively. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ is sufficiently smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ so that ordinary phonon emission is prohibited; this allows us to set $`g_{n\alpha \alpha ^{}}=0`$. The leading-order self-energy is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\alpha ,i\omega )=\frac{g^2}{\beta }\underset{\omega _\mathrm{B}}{}\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}|x_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}|^2G_0(\alpha ^{},i\omega i\omega _\mathrm{B})D(i\omega _\mathrm{B}),$$
(6)
where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature, $`\omega _\mathrm{B}`$ is a bosonic Matsubara frequency, $`G_0(\alpha ,i\omega )=(i\omega ϵ_\alpha )^1`$ is the noninteracting electron Green’s function, and $`D(i\omega _\mathrm{B})`$ is the Fourier transform of a phonon propagator

$$D(\tau )T[b(\tau )+\overline{b}(\tau )][b(0)+\overline{b}(0)]$$
(7)
that has been renormalized to include the effects of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$. The precise form of $`D(i\omega _\mathrm{B})`$ depends, of course, on $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, and in the absence of a reliable microscopic model for $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ we shall use a (retarded) propagator of the form

$$D^R(\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }+i\gamma }\frac{1}{\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+i\gamma },$$
(8)
which has a Lorentzian spectral function of width $`\gamma `$.

The relaxation rate $`\tau ^12\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(\alpha ,ϵ_\alpha )|_{\alpha =2}`$ of the excited state at zero temperature is found to be

$$\tau ^1=2\pi g^2|x_{12}|^2f\left(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }\right),$$
(9)
where $`f(\omega )\gamma /\pi (\omega ^2+\gamma ^2)`$ is a Lorentzian function of width $`\gamma `$. The fact that relaxation occurs even at zero temperature, when the nanoparticle CM is in its ground state, shows that zero-point CM motion is sufficient to produce a fictitious force.

When the energy separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ between the two levels is resonant with the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the translational mode, the electronic relaxation rate becomes

$$\tau _{\mathrm{res}}^1=4g^2|x_{12}|^2\tau _{\mathrm{cm}},$$
(10)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{cm}}1/2\gamma `$ is the lifetime of the translational mode. This can be written (reinstating factors of $`\mathrm{}`$) as

$$\tau _{\mathrm{res}}^1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.6}\times 10^{21}\frac{Q\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2X^2}{M}s^1,$$
(11)
where $`Q\tau _{\mathrm{cm}}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the quality factor of the CM oscillator, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the CM oscillation frequency in measured in wavenumbers, $`X`$ is the dipole moment measured in Bohr radii, and $`M`$ is the nanoparticle mass measured in grams.

We believe that it should be possible to observe this novel relaxation mechanism by means of an infrared quantum counter experiment in LaF3:Ho3+ nanoparticles. The Ho3+ 5I8(II) level is 4.5 cm-1 above the ground state and can be excited using a pulsed far infrared source. The population of the 5I8(II) state can be probed by a pulsed visible laser tuned to the 5I8(II) $``$ 5S2(I) transition; a measurement of the intensity of the 5S2(I) emission as a function of the delay between the far infrared and optical pulses would enable the relaxation of the 5I8(II) to be observed. The resonant relaxation rate for a LaF3 nanoparticle with 10nm diameter is approximately

$$\tau _{\mathrm{res}}^11.0\times 10^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{for}Q=10^2$$
(12)
and

$$\tau _{\mathrm{res}}^11.0\times 10^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{for}Q=10^6.$$
(13)
The second estimate applies to a very weakly damped nanoparticle. It is simple to show that, for this nanoparticle, the maximum $`Q`$ factor allowed by the perturbative analysis leading to Eqn. (9) is about $`10^8`$ (see footnote ). Although small, these rates are still much larger than the radiative rate between these closely spaced levels.

In conclusion, our analysis shows that fictitious forces produce a coupling between an impurity state in a doped nanoparticle and the rigid-body CM motion. If the CM oscillation frequency is near (on the scale of $`\gamma `$) to the level separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$, this effect provides a mechanism for energy relaxation even when conventional phonon emission is prohibited. We find that on resonance the relaxation rate is proportional to the translational mode lifetime $`\tau _{\mathrm{cm}}`$: This means that relaxation is faster when the translational mode is weakly coupled to its environment, whereas coupling to an appreciably damped CM mode is less effective. Although we do not believe that the mechanism proposed here is responsible for the energy relaxation observed in Refs.  and , our estimates clearly show that this somewhat exotic phenomena is experimentally accessible.

This work was supported by a Research Innovation Award from the Research Corporation and by National Science Foundation Grant No. DMR-9871864. It is a pleasure to thank Uwe Happek, David Huber, Coates Johnson, Vadim Markel, Richard Meltzer, and William Yen for useful discussions.