text:
# Fluctuations in finite critical and turbulent systems

\[

## Abstract

We show that hyperscaling and finite-size scaling imply that the probability distribution of the order parameter in finite size critical systems exhibit data collapse. We consider the examples of equilibrium critical systems, and a statistical model of ecology. We explain recent observations that the probability distribution of turbulent power fluctuations in closed flows is the same as that of the harmonic 2DXY model.

\]

Critical systems with identical symmetries, dimension and exponents are defined to be members of the same universality class; but must they also share the same probability distribution for the fluctuating variables or order parameters? And if two systems do indeed exhibit the same probability distribution, are they necessarily in the same universality class, in the conventional meaning of the term?

Recently, light has been shed on these issues by studies of the probability distribution functions (PDFs) of fluctuating quantities in finite critical systems. Bramwell, Holdsworth and Pinton (BHP)  observed data collapse for the two-dimensional XY model (2DXY) in the spin-wave regime at low temperatures and in statistical models of nonequilibrium dynamics which exhibit self-organized criticality (SOC). Even more remarkably, they found that the power fluctuations in a closed turbulent flow exhibit exactly the same form of data collapse, with a scaling function that is indistinguishable from the aforementioned statistical critical models. Taken at face value, these observations lend support to the notion that finite Reynolds number ($`Re`$) turbulence is indeed a critical state, and that there is a kind of super-universality between systems with different dynamics and even dimensionality.

The purpose of this Letter is to show that finite-size systems that are in the critical regime should be expected to exhibit just this sort of data collapse. The system in question may be either an equilibrium system near its critical point, or a nonequilibrium system that attains a critical state through fine-tuning or other mechanism for achieving scale invariance. However, we are unaware of any reason a priori to expect that the probability distribution should be super-universal, and indeed we exhibit a counter example. Finally, we argue that the apparent agreement between magnetic systems and experiments on closed turbulent flows, while interesting and genuine, is not indicative of the intrinsic behavior of turbulence; we propose an explanation for the observations that appears to explain not only the data collapse but the Reynolds number dependence as well.

Probability Distribution Data Collapse:- Let us now review in more detail the findings of BHP. They examined the 2DXY model in the harmonic approximation for temperatures well below the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition $`T_{KT}`$. Although in an infinite system the magnetization $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ should be identically zero, for a finite system there are large fluctuations, and they measured the probability distribution function (PDF) for a range of system sizes and temperatures.

The scaled PDFs of the magnetization below $`T_{KT}`$ collapse onto each other for different system sizes and temperatures, provided one works in the harmonic approximation and the correlation length, $`\xi `$, is larger than the system size. The scaling necessary to achieve this data collapse is that the independent variable ($`\eta |M|`$) is replaced by $`y\eta \eta /\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is a measure of the width of the PDF, such as the width at half maximum. A similar data collapse was seen in a statistical model of ecology , where the scaled probability distribution of species abundance in a region was found to be independent of its area. Pinton et al.  performed experiments on confined turbulent flows maintained at constant Reynolds number and looked at the PDF of power fluctuations. These too showed data collapse across different Reynolds numbers. Remarkably the PDFs for the turbulence data and the 2DXY model overlap within the precision of the data.

Subsequently a number of SOC systems, such as the Bak-Tang-Weisenfeld sand pile model , the Sneppen depinning model , the auto igniting forest fire model  and a model for granular media , have been studied and they too seem to show data collapse with a PDF very similar to that observed in the turbulence experiment . The same holds true of the 2D Ising and 2D site percolation models as well. This seems to suggest that the scaling form is independent of system attributes such as symmetry (discrete or otherwise), state (equilibrium or otherwise) etc.

A similar phenomena was noted a long time ago by Nicolaides and Bruce , who were interested in the question of whether a universality class is defined by the values of the critical exponents, or whether the probability distributions were common to members of the same universality class. They found that the PDF of the two dimensional Ising, spin $`1`$, and $`\varphi ^4`$ models all had the same form in finite systems.

In fact, the issue of data collapse is linked with the existence of hyperscaling. Let us begin with a discussion of data collapse in equilibrium systems. In finite size magnetic systems, the PDF has a scaling form in the critical region , $`P_L(M)=L^{\beta /\nu }\stackrel{~}{f}(L/\xi ,ML^{\beta /\nu })`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a scaling function, $`\beta `$, $`\nu `$ are the critical exponents for the order parameter $`M`$ and the correlation length $`\xi `$ respectively, and $`L`$ denotes the linear dimension of the system, assumed to be in $`d`$ dimensions.

Near the critical point the correlation length becomes larger than the system size and making the unjustified assumption (a priori) that $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is analytic in the first argument, we obtain $`P_L(M)=L^{\beta /\nu }\stackrel{~}{f}(ML^{\beta /\nu }).`$ The sum rule for the static susceptibility $`\chi _T`$ implies that $`k_BT\chi _TL^\alpha [M^2M^2]`$. Notice that the quantity in the brackets is the variance of the probability distribution of the magnetization. The finite size scaling form for the susceptibility is $`\chi _T=L^{\gamma /\nu }F(L/\xi )`$ In the limit $`\chi /L`$ goes to infinity the scaling function $`F`$ tends towards a constant. Thus the measure of the width of the fluctuations, $`\sigma `$, scales as $`\sigma ^2M^2M^2L^{\gamma /\nu d}`$

BHP found that $`\sigma P(M/\sigma )`$ is a universal function, independent of system size. To test this, compute the function $`\sigma P(M)=L^{\gamma /2\nu d}L^{\beta /\nu }f(ML^{\beta /\nu })`$,

$$\sigma P(M/\sigma )=L^{(\gamma +2\beta d\nu )/2\nu }f(M/\sigma L^{\beta /\nu +\gamma /2\nu d/2})$$
(1)
Combining the hyperscaling relation, $`2\alpha =d\nu `$ and Rushbrooke scaling, $`\alpha +2\beta +\gamma =2`$ gives $`\gamma +2\beta =d\nu `$. Given this identity it follows that all $`L`$ dependence in ($`1`$) disappears and we are left with a statement of data collapse:

$$\sigma P(M/\sigma )=f(M/\sigma )$$
(2)
Thus as long as finite-size scaling holds true near the critical point and hyperscaling is obeyed, the data, for different sizes, fall on top of each other for a given system. To our knowledge, this was first observed empirically by Nicolaides and Bruce .

There are interesting consequences for the moments of the PDF, $`P`$, illustrated here for the first two. The mean of the distribution is

$$M=\frac{MP(M)𝑑M}{P(M)𝑑M}\sigma \frac{zF(z)𝑑z}{F(z)𝑑z}$$
(3)
where $`F`$ is a scaling function

The integral is a pure number, so that the ratio of the mean and the variance is independent of $`L`$ ($`M\sigma `$).

The moment relation is a direct result of hyperscaling, $`ML^{\beta /\nu },\sigma L^{\gamma /2\nu d/2}`$

$$\frac{M}{\sigma }L^{2\beta +\gamma d\nu /2\nu }$$
(4)
Hyperscaling then requires the $`L`$ dependence in the last line above to vanish. This relation between the mean and variance has been explicitly calculated for the $`2`$D XY in the spin wave approximation. The moments of the order parameter satisfy, $`\mu _n=g_n(g_2/2)^{n/2}\sigma ^n`$ and $`\mu _n\mu _1^n\sigma ^n`$ implying

$$\sigma \mu _1M$$
(5)
Probability Distribution Data Collapse in an Ecology Model:- This scaling is fundamental to data collapse and holds even for systems not in thermal equilibrium. In particular it holds for the ecology model mentioned earlier. Harte et al.  proposed a model for the species abundance distribution observed in nature. It has been empirically observed that the number of species $`S`$ in a patch of area $`A`$ obeys a scaling law,$`SA^z`$. Presumably this is an asymptotic in time form of a more general dynamical model, as the time evolution within this model is not specified. Nevertheless one can construct a recursion recursion relation for the PDF, $`P_i(n)`$, the probability for finding a species with $`n`$ individuals in a patch $`i`$. Patches $`i`$ are constructed by successive bifurcation of an initial biome. The key ingredient of the model is the assumption of self similarity, which forces the species-area law, but allows the probability distribution for the number of species resident in a biome to be calculated. If a species is found in area $`A_i`$, then there is a non-zero probability $`a`$, for finding it in one of the two halves (area $`A_{i+1}=A_i/2`$,) which is independent of $`i`$. The independence on scale $`i`$ of the probability $`a`$ gives rise (or more accurately, is equivalent) to the species-area rule, with $`a=2^z`$. The resulting equation turns out to be

$$P_i(n)=xP_{i+1}(n)+(1x)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}P_{i+1}(nk)P_{i+1}(k)$$
(6)
where $`x=2(1a)`$. The variance of this PDF was computed by Banavar et al. :

$$\sigma _i^2=\underset{j=0}{\overset{mi1}{}}(2x)^j(2x)^{mi1}x(1x)$$
(7)
where $`m`$ is defined as the maximum number of times the system can be subdivided before no species exist on the smallest patch ($`P_m(1)=1`$). When the system size is much bigger than the size of this smallest patch, the variance obeys a simple recursion relation, $`\sigma _i/\sigma _{i+1}2x`$. The data collapse observed for this model is the statement $`\sigma _iP_i(n)=\sigma _{i+1}P_{i+1}(n^{})`$ and $`n/\sigma _i=n^{}/\sigma _{i+1}`$. It can be shown that the PDF satisfies a finite-size scaling relation of the form $`P_i(n)=1/nf(n/N_i^\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is a crossover scaling exponent, $`N_i`$ is the number of individuals of all species in biome patch $`i`$, and $`N_{i+1}^\varphi =2^\varphi N_i^\varphi `$; then the data collapse is equivalent to a relation between the exponents.

$$f(\frac{n}{N_i^\varphi })=f(\frac{n}{(2x)N_i^\varphi 2^\varphi })$$
(8)
leading to $`2x=2^\varphi `$ which is equivalent to $`\varphi +z=1`$.

This relation is nothing but the hyperscaling relation observed in the magnetic system. This can be seen by considering the asymptotic forms of the mean and variance of the PDF, $`<n>N^\varphi `$ and $`\sigma (2x)^m2^{m\varphi }N^\varphi `$. This immediately gives us the moment scaling which was crucial to data collapse and hyperscaling, $`\sigma n`$. It is remarkable that the ecology model shows this behaviour for its moments – an unforseen consequence of the assumption of self-similarity.

Power fluctuations in a turbulent flow:- Having established the connection between hyperscaling (moment relationships) and data collapse let us turn our attention to the case of confined turbulent flows. The experiment consists of a closed cylinder in which a turbulent fluid is driven at the top and bottom by counter-rotating plates with vanes, moving at the same mean angular frequency. The PDFs for power fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ were measured  for different Reynolds numbers ($`Re`$) and found to exhibit data collapse. However the ratio of the mean to the variance depended on $`Re`$: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{rms}/\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}Re^\alpha ,\alpha 0.33`$.

This observation shows that the Reynolds number, and hence the extent of the inertial range, is not the parameter that controls the nature of the fluctuations: it is not analogous to the finite size of the system, as has been suggested previously. If this suggestion were correct, hyperscaling would have required that the ratio of mean to variance be independent of Reynolds number.

Our analysis suggests that the relevant parameter, in the case of the confined flows, that controls the nature of the fluctuations is not the Reynolds number but the physical system size itself. In addition to the scaling analysis mentioned above, the reasons for this is two fold. First, the experiments were performed by changing either the fluid (i.e. viscosity) or the angular velocity (see Ref. 3 and 4 for details of the experiment) and not by changing the spatial dimensions of the flow. Second, it was also noted that an open flow did not exhibit any non-Gaussian fluctuations in the total power dissipated. In other words the fluctuations are not governed by the degrees of the turbulent flow (i.e. Reynolds number) but the degrees of freedom of coherent structures that form in these system which in turn depends on the system size, $`L`$.

We hypothesize that the flow is composed of a turbulent region around the top plate with a mean angular momentum, another oppositely directed turbulent region around the bottom plate, and an interfacial region between them – a shear pancake. Experiments were performed in both open and closed geometries, which differ by the absence or presence of a confining cylindrical wall. In the open geometry, the power fluctuations of each plate were non-Gaussian, and negatively skewed, while the total power (sum of the power measured at each plate) fluctuations were Gaussian. In the closed geometry all of these three quantities were non-Gaussian, with a scaled probability distribution apparently indistinguishable from that of the 2D XY model simulations.

In the open geometry, the shear pancake can shift its mean vertical position instantaneously as shear energy is dissipated horizontally, but in the closed geometry, this is not possible because of the walls. In the open geometry, as the shear pancake moves, the net turbulent energy in the upper half of the cell will increase/decrease while that in the lower half of the cell will decrease/increase: hence, we anticipate that the power fluctuations should be anti-correlated, in agreement with observations.

In the closed geometry, we can describe the shear pancake by its height $`h(x,y)`$ above the $`x`$, $`y`$ plane positioned parallel to and equidistant from the rotating plates. The shear pancake experiences random fluctuations from the turbulent flows, which drive it with an effective, Reynolds number dependent temperature $`T(Re)`$ and Boltzmann distribution $`P_h(h)\mathrm{exp}[S(h)/T]`$. The action $`S(h)`$ describes local height fluctuations of the shear pancake, and the power dissipation of the system should be expected to depend in some way on the friction between the two counter-rotating turbulent flows i.e. on the surface area of the shear pancake, and not its absolute mean height. Any local fluctuation increases the total surface area of the shear pancake and hence increases the power dissipation in both flows. Hence, in this case, we anticipate that the power fluctuations would be correlated, in agreement with observations. Thus the action should be of the form

$$S(h)𝑑x𝑑y\sqrt{1+(h)^2}𝑑x𝑑y(h)^2$$
(9)
which is the Hamiltonian of the 2D XY model in the spin wave approximation, making the identification of $`h`$ with the phase $`\theta `$.

In order to complete the dictionary between the PDFs of the 2D XY model magnetization and the turbulent power, we note that the power dissipated is by hypothesis proportional to $`S\{h\}`$ and thus is linearly dependent on $`(h)^2`$. Similarly, the absolute value of the magnetization per spin $`M`$, measured in the 2DXY simulations (for $`N`$ spins $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$) is given by $`M\sqrt{\left(_{i=1}^N\stackrel{}{S}_i\right)\left(_{j=1}^N\stackrel{}{S}_j\right)}/N1\frac{1}{4N}_{ij}(\theta _i\theta _j)^2,`$ showing that the probability distribution of magnetization fluctuations is indeed the counterpart of the power fluctuations in the turbulent flow. It follows from our assumptions above that the probability distributions should be identical. Note that we are definitely predicting that the power probability distribution should be that of the 2DXY model in the harmonic approximation only. Indeed, we have simulated the 2DXY model for temperatures near the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition, and find significant deviations from the probability distribution for the turbulent power and the 2DXY model in the harmonic approximation as shown in figure 1 (and has also been noticed by Palme et al. ).

Now, we discuss the Reynolds number dependence of the ratio $`\mu /\sigma `$. By hypothesis, this should be given by using the temperature dependence of $`\mu /\sigma `$ from the harmonic 2D XY model, but with $`T`$ given by $`T(Re)`$. To see how the effective temperature should scale with $`Re`$, note that the velocity of the flow scales as $`R\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`R`$ is the radius of the plates, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity. The net mass per unit height of the cylinder scales as $`R^2`$. Hence the net kinetic energy scales as $`R^4\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. The $`Re`$ number is proportional to $`R^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so that the energy scales as $`Re^2`$. The number of degrees of freedom giving rise to this turbulent energy is proportional to $`Re^{9/4}`$, so that $`T(Re)Re^{1/4}`$. Using the fact that $`\mu /\sigma T`$  we obtain that $`\mu /\sigma Re^{1/4}`$, which agrees reasonably with the data, although the exponent is not the optimal fit to all the data points, as shown in figure 2.

Finally, we mention that the dynamic universality class of the height fluctuations should be the 2D Edwards-Wilkinson model ; implications of this for the time dependent correlations of the power will be discussed elsewhere.

In conclusion, we have shown how universal scaling phenomena can arise in finite critical systems due to hyperscaling; the observed similarity of the probability distribution scaling function in the harmonic 2DXY and a closed turbulent cell is a special case, and is not generic.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge useful discussions with E. Bodenschatz, J.-F. Pinton and Z. Rácz and other participants of the workshop on Universal Fluctuations in Correlated Systems, held at Lyons, April 2000, where some of this work was reported. This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant NSF-DMR-99-70690.


format: text

text:
# Counting statistics of photons produced by electronic shot noise

## Abstract

A theory is presented for the photodetection statistics of radiation produced by current fluctuations in a phase-coherent conductor. Deviations are found from the Poisson statistics that would result from a classical current. For detection in a narrow frequency interval $`\delta \omega `$, the photocount distribution has the negative-binomial form of black-body radiation if $`e\delta \omega `$ is less than the mean current $`\overline{I}`$ in the conductor. When electronic localization sets in, $`\overline{I}`$ drops below $`e\delta \omega `$ and a different type of super-Poissonian photon statistics results.

PACS numbers: 73.50.Td, 42.50.Ar, 42.50.Lc, 73.23.-b

Some interesting recent developments in mesoscopic physics have arisen from the interplay with quantum optics . To mention two examples, the Hanbury-Brown–Twiss effect for photons is inspiring the search for its electronic counterpart , while single-electron tunneling has been used to create a single-photon turnstile device . An appealing subject of research, in line with these developments, is the study of a mesoscopic conductor through the quantum optical properties of the radiation produced by the current fluctuations. It is a textbook result , due to Glauber , that a classical current produces photons with Poisson statistics. What is the photon statistics for a fully phase-coherent conductor? That is the fundamental question addressed in this paper.

It is a timely question in view of a recent proposal by Aguado and Kouwenhoven  to use photon-assisted tunneling in a device containing two quantum dots in series as a detector for the microwave radiation emitted by a nearby mesoscopic conductor (e.g. a quantum point contact). One such device by itself can only give information on the mean rate of photon production, calculated in Refs. , but a pair of devices could measure the time-dependent correlations and hence could detect deviations from Poisson statistics due to photon bunching .

We will calculate these fluctuations for an idealized model of a photodetector, the same model that leads to the Glauber formula of photodetection theory . In this formula the photocount distribution is expressed as an expectation value of normally ordered photon creation and annihilation operators. (Normal ordering means that all creation operators are brought to the left of the annihilation operators.) We will see that the ordering inherited by the electron current operators involves not only a normal ordering, but in addition an ordering of the incoming current with respect to the outgoing current.

We present a general formula for the variance of the photocount in terms of the transmission and reflection matrices of the conductor. A particularly simple result is obtained in the limit that the frequency interval $`\delta \omega `$ of the detected radiation is small compared to the mean (particle) current $`\overline{I}/e`$ through the conductor: The photocount distribution $`P(n)`$ for a long counting time $`\tau `$ is then proportional to the negative-binomial coefficient $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+\nu 1}{n}\right)`$ (with $`\nu =\tau \delta \omega /2\pi 1`$) . This is the photonic counterpart of the (positive) binomial counting distribution for electrical charge . In the localized regime the condition $`\delta \omega \overline{I}/e`$ breaks down and a different non-Poissonian distribution results.

Starting point of our analysis is an expression for the photocount distribution as a time-ordered expectation value of the electric field operator ,

$`P(n)=𝒯_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}W^n\mathrm{e}^W,`$ (1)
$`W={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \alpha (\omega ){\displaystyle _0^\tau 𝑑t_{}𝑑t_+\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (t_+t_{})}E(t_{})E(t_+)}.`$ (2)
Here $`P(n)`$ is the probability to detect $`n`$ photons in a time interval $`\tau `$ and $`E(t)`$ is the operator of the detected mode of the electric field in the Heisenberg picture. (We assume for simplicity that a single mode is detected.) The detector has sensitivity $`\alpha (\omega )`$ at frequency $`\omega >0`$. The symbol $`𝒯_\pm `$ indicates the Keldysh time-ordering of the time-dependent operators: times $`t_{}`$ to the left of times $`t_+`$, earlier $`t_{}`$ to the left of later $`t_{}`$, earlier $`t_+`$ to the right of later $`t_+`$.

The Glauber formula mentioned in the introduction is obtained from Eq. (1) by substituting the free-field expression

$$E_{\mathrm{free}}(t)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \left(a^{}(\omega )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}+a(\omega )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}\right)$$
(3)
for $`E(t)`$ and by making the rotating-wave approximation \[neglecting $`\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})t}`$, retaining $`\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega \omega ^{})t}`$\]. The time ordering of the electric field then becomes normal ordering of the photon operators $`a^{},a`$. Our goal is instead to go from Eq. (1) to an expression in terms of the electron operators $`c^{},c`$ that constitute the current operator $`I(t)`$.

The electron and photon degrees of freedom are coupled in the Hamiltonian via a term $`𝑑𝐫𝐣(𝐫,t)𝐀(𝐫,t)`$, where $`𝐣`$ is the electron current density operator and $`𝐀`$ the electromagnetic vector potential. This bilinear coupling leads to a linear integral relation between $`E`$ and $`I`$,

$$E(t)=E_{\mathrm{free}}(t)+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}g(tt^{})I(t^{}).$$
(4)
The propagator $`g(t)`$ vanishes for $`t<0`$ because of causality. (We are neglecting retardation of the electromagnetic radiation.) We assume that electrons and photons are uncoupled for $`t\mathrm{}`$, the photons starting out in the vacuum state. Substitution of Eq. (4) into Eq. (1) leads to a correlator involving the non-commuting operators $`E_{\mathrm{free}}`$ and $`I`$. Fleischhauer has shown  that the vacuum term $`E_{\mathrm{free}}`$ may be removed from the correlator if the Keldysh time-ordering of $`E`$ is carried over to $`I`$:

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \alpha (\omega ){\displaystyle _0^\tau 𝑑t^{}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (t^{\prime \prime }t^{})}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_{}𝑑t_+}`$ (6)
$`\times g(t^{}t_{})g(t^{\prime \prime }t_+)I(t_{})I(t_+).`$
To leading order in $`g`$ we may neglect the coupling to the photons in the time dependence of $`I(t)`$. For free electrons the time dependence is given by

$`I(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon 𝑑\epsilon ^{}\mathrm{e}^{i(\epsilon \epsilon ^{})t}c^{}(\epsilon )M(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})c(\epsilon ^{})},`$ (7)
$`M(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})=S^{}(\epsilon )DS(\epsilon ^{})D,`$ (8)
$`D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r^{}& t^{}\\ t& r\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
using units such that $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`e=1`$. We have introduced the scattering matrix $`S(\epsilon )`$ (with $`N\times N`$ reflection and transmission submatrices $`r,r^{},t,t^{}`$) of the $`N`$ propagating modes at energy $`\epsilon `$ (relative to the Fermi energy at $`\epsilon =0`$). The scattering geometry is illustrated in Fig. 1. The detection matrix $`D`$ selects the current in one of the two leads, arbitrarily chosen to be the right lead in Eq. (13). The total current $`I=I_{\mathrm{out}}I_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is then the difference of the current $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ coming from the left and the current $`I_{\mathrm{in}}`$ coming from the right. These two currents $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{in}}`$ are defined as in Eq. (7), with the matrix $`M`$ replaced by $`S^{}DS`$ and $`D`$, respectively.

The separation of $`I`$ into outgoing and incoming current operators is convenient because they have simple commutation relations: (i) $`I_{\mathrm{out}}(t)`$ commutes with $`I_{\mathrm{out}}(t^{})`$; (ii) $`I_{\mathrm{in}}(t)`$ commutes with $`I_{\mathrm{in}}(t^{})`$; (iii) $`I_{\mathrm{out}}(t)`$ commutes with $`I_{\mathrm{in}}(t^{})`$ if $`t<t^{}`$. It follows that Keldysh time-ordering of the current operators is the same as an ordering whereby the operators $`I_{\mathrm{in}}(t_{})`$ are moved to the left and $`I_{\mathrm{in}}(t_+)`$ to the right of all other operators — irrespective of the values of the time arguments.

Now that we have liberated ourselves from the time ordering we are free to take Fourier transforms,

$`P(n)=𝒪{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}W^n\mathrm{e}^W,W={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \alpha (\omega )U^{}(\omega )U(\omega ),`$ (14)
$`U(\omega )={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}K(\omega \omega ^{})g(\omega ^{})[I_{\mathrm{out}}(\omega ^{})I_{\mathrm{in}}(\omega ^{})].`$ (15)
The Fourier transforms of $`g,I_{\mathrm{out}},I_{\mathrm{in}}`$ are defined as $`f(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}f(t)`$, and we have abbreviated $`K(\omega )=_0^\tau 𝑑t^{}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t^{}}`$. The symbol $`𝒪`$ indicates ordering of the current operators from left to right in the order $`I_{\mathrm{in}}^{},I_{\mathrm{out}}^{},I_{\mathrm{out}}^{},I_{\mathrm{in}}^{}`$. According to Eq. (7), the current operators are related to the electron creation and annihilation operators by

$`I_{\mathrm{out}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon c^{}(\epsilon )S^{}(\epsilon )DS(\epsilon +\omega )c(\epsilon +\omega )},`$ (17)
$`I_{\mathrm{in}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon c^{}(\epsilon )Dc(\epsilon +\omega )}.`$ (18)
Eqs. (15) and (Counting statistics of photons produced by electronic shot noise) form the required relation between the photocount distribution and the electron creation and annihilation operators.

The mean photocount $`\overline{n}`$ has been studied before, by Lesovik and Loosen  and by Aguado and Kouwenhoven . To make contact with that work we take the experimentally relevant limit of a long detection time $`\tau `$. We may then discretize the frequencies as $`\omega _n=n\times 2\pi /\tau `$. In this discretization the kernel $`K`$ becomes a Kronecker delta, $`K(\omega _n\omega _m)=\tau \delta _{nm}`$, hence $`U(\omega _n)=g(\omega _n)I(\omega _n)`$. The factorial moments

$$n^p_\mathrm{f}\overline{n(n1)(n2)\mathrm{}(np+1)}=𝒪W^p$$
(19)
of the distribution (15) in the long-time limit take the form

$$n^p_\mathrm{f}=𝒪[𝑑\omega \gamma (\omega )I^{}(\omega )I(\omega )]^p,$$
(20)
with $`\gamma (\omega )=\alpha (\omega )|g(\omega )|^2`$. For the first moment the ordering operator $`𝒪`$ can be omitted and we find

$`\overline{n}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \gamma (\omega )I^{}(\omega )I(\omega ),`$ (21)
$`I^{}(\omega )I(\omega )=\tau {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}I(0)I(t),`$ (22)
in agreement with Refs. .

For the double-quantum-dot photodetector of Aguado and Kouwenhoven  the response function $`\gamma (\omega )`$ is sharply peaked at the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the inelastic tunneling transition, with a width $`\delta \omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Its integrated magnitude $`\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })\delta \omega (Z\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Omega })^2`$ depends on the impedance $`Z`$ (in units of $`h/e^2`$) of the inductive coupling and the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the tunnel rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ between the quantum dots. (Typically, $`Z1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, so that $`\gamma \delta \omega 1`$.) In that device the inelastic transition can be either upwards or downwards in energy, corresponding, respectively, to the absorption or emission of a photon. Here we consider only the case of photodetection by absorption, which is the relevant case for the study of shot noise in the conductor .

We now go beyond the first moment to study the entire photocount distribution. We note that $`P(n)`$ in Eq. (15) would be simply a Poisson distribution,

$$P_{\mathrm{Poisson}}(n)=\frac{1}{n!}\overline{n}^n\mathrm{e}^{\overline{n}},$$
(23)
if the current $`I`$ would be a classical quantity instead of a quantum mechanical operator. This is in accordance with Glauber’s finding  that the radiation produced by a classical current is in a coherent state (since a coherent state has Poisson statistics).

To find the deviations from the Poisson distribution due to quantum statistics, let us consider the case of a conductor connecting two electron reservoirs in thermal equilibrium at temperature $`T`$. The system is brought out of equilibrium by application of a voltage difference $`V`$ between the left and right reservoirs. Expectation values are given by the Fermi function $`f(\epsilon )=(e^{\epsilon /T}+1)^1`$,

$$c_i^{}(\epsilon )c_j^{}(\epsilon ^{})=\delta _{ij}\delta (\epsilon \epsilon ^{})f(\epsilon \mu _i),$$
(24)
with higher order expectation values obtained by pairwise averaging. The potential $`\mu _i`$ equals $`V`$ for the left reservoir (mode indices $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) and 0 for the right reservoir ($`i=N+1,N+2,\mathrm{},2N`$).

For simplicity we restrict ourselves to zero temperature, when $`f(\epsilon \mu _i)`$ becomes the step function $`\theta (\mu _i\epsilon )`$ (equal to 1 for $`\epsilon <\mu _i`$ and 0 for $`\epsilon >\mu _i`$). The mean and variance of the photocount are then given by

$`\overline{n}={\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^V}𝑑\omega 𝒩,`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{Var}n=\overline{n}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^V}𝑑\omega 𝒩^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^V𝑑\omega 𝑑\omega ^{}\gamma (\omega )\gamma (\omega ^{})}`$ (26)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^V}𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{Tr}(A_1A_2A_3),`$ (27)
$`𝒩=\gamma (\omega ){\displaystyle _\omega ^V}𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{Tr}\tau _\epsilon \rho _{\epsilon \omega },`$ (28)
$`A_1=\tau _\epsilon (1\tau _{\epsilon \omega }\tau _{\epsilon \omega ^{}})\rho _{\epsilon \omega \omega ^{}}(1\tau _{\epsilon \omega }\tau _{\epsilon \omega ^{}})`$ (29)
$`\times \theta (\epsilon \omega \omega ^{}),`$ (30)
$`A_2=\tau _\epsilon \rho _{\epsilon \omega }\tau _\epsilon \rho _{\epsilon \omega ^{}}\theta (\epsilon \omega )\theta (\epsilon \omega ^{}),`$ (31)
$`A_3=\rho _\epsilon \tau _{\epsilon +\omega }\rho _\epsilon \tau _{\epsilon +\omega ^{}}\theta (V\epsilon \omega )\theta (V\epsilon \omega ^{}).`$ (32)
We have abbreviated $`\tau _\epsilon =t(\epsilon )t^{}(\epsilon )=1\rho _\epsilon `$.

The formula (25) for the mean photocount is known , the result (27) for the variance is new. The first term $`\overline{n}`$ on the right-hand-side corresponds to Poisson statistics. The other terms describe the excess noise, consisting of one term containing a single integral over frequency and three more terms containing double frequency integrals. For narrow-band detection the single frequency integral dominates. More precisely, if $`\gamma (\omega )`$ is non-zero in a narrow frequency range $`\delta \omega V`$, then

$$\mathrm{Var}n=(\tau \delta \omega /2\pi )𝒩(1+𝒩).$$
(33)
The correction terms from the double frequency integrals are smaller by a factor $`\delta \omega /\overline{I}`$, with $`\overline{I}V\mathrm{Tr}tt^{}`$ the mean electrical current flowing between the reservoirs.

In this regime of narrow-band detection one can also calculate easily the higher order moments of the photocount. The factorial cumulants $`n^p_\mathrm{f}`$ are given by

$$n^p_\mathrm{f}=(\tau \delta \omega /2\pi )(p1)!𝒩^p.$$
(34)
The probability distribution $`P(n)`$ can be reconstructed from the factorial cumulants via the generating function $`F(\xi )=_{p=1}^{\mathrm{}}(\xi ^p/p!)n^p_\mathrm{f}`$, by means of the formula

$$P(n)=\frac{1}{n!}\underset{\xi 1}{lim}\frac{d^n}{d\xi ^n}e^{F(\xi )}.$$
(35)
The probability distribution corresponding to Eq. (34) is

$$P(n)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+\nu 1}{n}\right)\frac{𝒩^n}{(1+𝒩)^{n+\nu }},$$
(36)
which is the negative-binomial distribution with $`\nu =\tau \delta \omega /2\pi `$ degrees of freedom. (For non-integer $`\nu `$ the binomial coefficient should be interpreted as a ratio of Gamma functions.) It approaches the Poisson distribution (23) in the limit $`𝒩0`$, $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, at fixed $`\overline{n}=\nu 𝒩`$. The negative-binomial distribution is known in quantum optics as the distribution of black-body radiation . The role of $`𝒩`$ is then played by the Bose function $`(e^{\omega /T}1)^1`$ at the temperature of the black body. In both contexts $`𝒩`$ is a small parameter, and hence the corrections to Poisson statistics are small: for a black body, $`𝒩`$ is small because $`\omega T`$, while for the electrical conductor $`𝒩\gamma \overline{I}1`$.

We have seen that the negative-binomial distribution results if contributions of order $`\delta \omega /\overline{I}`$ can be neglected. If the electrical conductor is metallic, it is sufficient that $`\delta \omega V`$, since the conductance (in units of $`e^2/h`$) is greater than 1 in a metal. In the localized regime, on the contrary, the conductance becomes exponentially small and terms of order $`\delta \omega /\overline{I}`$ start playing a role — even if $`\delta \omega V`$. To illustrate this, let us assume that the transmission through the conductor is so small that only terms linear in $`\tau _\epsilon `$ need to be retained. This leaves only the term $`A_1`$ in Eq. (27), so that

$$\mathrm{Var}n=\overline{n}+\frac{\tau }{2\pi }(\gamma \delta \omega )^2\theta (V2\omega )_{2\omega }^V𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{Tr}\tau _\epsilon .$$
(37)
More generally, the factorial cumulants are given by

$$n^p_\mathrm{f}=\frac{\tau }{2\pi }(\gamma \delta \omega )^p\theta (Vp\omega )_{p\omega }^V𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{Tr}\tau _\epsilon .$$
(38)
The full distribution $`P(n)`$ can be reconstructed by means of the inversion formula (35), but does not have a simple closed-form expression. We note that the deviations from Poisson statistics are again small because $`\gamma \delta \omega 1`$.

Much larger deviations can be obtained if coherent radiation from a reference source at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is superimposed prior to detection. Such homodyne detection not only amplifies the deviations from Poisson statistics, it also provides a way to measure the counting distribution of electrical charge. To see this, we note that homodyning amounts to the replacement of the current operator $`I(\omega )`$ by $`I(\omega )+I_0\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`I_0`$ is some known classical current (a c-number, not an operator). For $`I_0\overline{I}`$ we find from Eq. (20) for the factorial cumulants of the photocount distribution the expression

$$n^p_\mathrm{f}=\delta _{p1}(\tau \gamma I_0^2/2\pi )+(2\gamma I_0)^pQ^p,$$
(39)
where $`Q^p`$ is defined through the generating function

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^p}{p!}}Q^p=\mathrm{ln}e^{I_{\mathrm{in}}^{}\xi /2}e^{I_{\mathrm{out}}^{}\xi /2}e^{I_{\mathrm{out}}^{}\xi /2}e^{I_{\mathrm{in}}^{}\xi /2}.`$

Comparison with Refs.  shows that $`Q^p`$ has the interpretation of the cumulant of the charge $`Q`$ transmitted through the conductor (in units of $`e`$). Levitov and Lesovik  proposed to measure the charge counting distribution from the precession of a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ coupled to the current. The photodetection scheme proposed here provides an alternative, and possibly more practical, way to count the charge without breaking the circuit.

In summary, we have presented a solution to the classic problem of the statistics of radiation produced by a fluctuating current. We go beyond the textbook result by considering a fully phase-coherent conductor, and find small deviations from the Poisson statistics associated with a classical current source. The deviations might be measured using an array of double-quantum-dot photodetectors . The deviations can be amplified by homodyning, in which case they are directly related to the statistics of the electrical charge transmitted through the conductor . We have given specific results for a conductor between normal reservoirs in thermal equilibrium, but our general formulas can be applied to more special current sources as well. The applications to entangled  or superconducting  electrons seem particularly interesting.

We have benefitted from discussions with L. S. Levitov, E. G. Mishchenko, B. A. Muzykantskii, and Yu. V. Nazarov. This work was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM.


text:
# Distinct Hagedorn temperatures from particle spectra: a higher one for mesons, a lower one for baryonsResearch supported in part by the Scientific and Techological Cooperation Joint Project between Poland and Slovenia, financed by the Ministry of Science of Slovenia and the Polish State Commettee for Scientific Research, and by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, project 2 P03B 094 19

## 1 Introduction

The famous Hagedorn hypothesis , dating back to pre-chromodynamic times of the sixties, states that at asymptotically large masses, $`m`$, the density of hadronic resonance states, $`\rho (m)`$, grows exponentially:

$$\rho (m)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m}{T_H}\right)$$
(1)
The Hagedorn temperature, $`T_H`$, is a scale controlling the exponential growth of the spectrum. Although the Hagedorn hypothesis has sound thermodynamical consequences (one cannot heat-up a hadronic system above this temperature), $`T_H`$ should not be immediately associated with thermodynamics. In this talk we are concerned with the spectrum of particles per se, as read off form the Particle Data Tables . In this context the “temperature” $`T_H`$ is just a parameter in Eq. (1).

Ever since hypothesis (1) was posed, it has been believed that there is one universal Hagedorn temperature for all hadrons. Presently available experimental data show that this is not the case, as has been pointed out by W. Florkowski and WB in Refs. .

This talk has two parts: experimental and theoretical. In the experimental part (Sec. 2) we show how well the Hagedorn hypothesis works even for very low masses, and point out the key observation that the mesonic temperature is significantly larger from the baryonic temperature. In the theoretical part (Sec. 3) we argue that the only framework (known to us) which is capable of producing the observed behavior in a natural way are the Dual String Models . In Sec. 4 we discuss other approaches and more speculative ideas.

## 2 Experiment

### 2.1 Experimental spectra of mesons and baryons

In Fig. 1 we compare the cumulants of the spectrum , defined as the number of states with mass lower than $`m`$. The experimental curve is

$$N_{\mathrm{exp}}(m)=\underset{i}{}g_i\mathrm{\Theta }(mm_i),$$
(2)
where $`g_i=(2J_i+1)(2I_i+1)`$ is the spin-isospin degeneracy of the $`i`$th state, and $`m_i`$ is its mass. The theoretical curve corresponds to

$$N_{\mathrm{theor}}(m)=_0^m\rho _{\mathrm{theor}}(m^{})𝑑m^{},$$
(3)
where

$$\rho _{\mathrm{theor}}(m)=f(m)\mathrm{exp}(m/T),$$
(4)
with $`f(m)`$ denoting a slowly-varying function. A typical choice , used in the plot of Fig. 1, is

$$f(m)=A/(m^2+(500\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^2)^{5/4}.$$
(5)
Parameters $`T_H`$ and $`A`$ are obtained with the least-square fit to $`\mathrm{log}N_{\mathrm{theor}}`$, made over the range up to $`m=1.8\mathrm{GeV}`$, and skipping the lightest particle in the set. Other choices of $`f(m)`$ give fits of similar quality (see Fig. 2). A striking feature of Fig. 1 is the linearity of $`\mathrm{log}N`$ starting at very low $`m`$, and extending till $`m1.8\mathrm{GeV}`$. Clearly, this shows that (1) is valid in the range of available data.111Above 1.8GeV the data seems to be sparse and we should wait for this region to be explored by future experiments. However, the slopes in Fig. 1 are different for mesons and baryons. For the assumed $`f(m)`$ of Eq. (5) we get

$$T_{\mathrm{meson}}=195\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},T_{\mathrm{baryon}}=141\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}.$$
(6)
This means that $`T_{\mathrm{meson}}>T_{\mathrm{baryon}}`$, and the inequality is substantial! Although it has been known to researchers in the field of hadron spectroscopy that the baryons multiply more rapidly than mesons , to our knowledge this fact has not been presented as vividly as in Fig. 1. To emphasize the strength of the effect we note that in order to make the meson line parallel to the baryon line, we would have to aggregate $`500`$ additional meson states up to $`m=1.8`$MeV as compared to the present number of $`400`$.

### 2.2 Are we asymptotic?

An important question is whether the presently available range of masses is asymptotic in view of Eq. (1). The answer is no! This is how we can look at this question quantitatively.

Consider the generic form of the spectrum of Eq. (4). We can rewrite it as

$`f(m)e^{m/T}=e^{\mathrm{log}f(m)+m/T}e^{\mathrm{log}[f(\overline{m})+f^{}(\overline{m})\mathrm{\Delta }m]+(\overline{m}+\mathrm{\Delta }m)/T}=`$
$`\mathrm{const}e^{\left(\frac{1}{T}+\frac{f^{}(\overline{m})}{f(\overline{m})}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }m}=\mathrm{const}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}},`$
where $`m=\overline{m}+\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, and in the range of data $`\overline{m}1`$GeV. We have defined $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as the effective Hagedorn temperature in the (non-asymptotic) region around $`\overline{m}`$. The value of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ follows directly from the data. We have, according to Eq. (2.2),

$$\frac{1}{T}=\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{eff}.}}\frac{f^{}(\overline{m})}{f(\overline{m})}.$$
(7)
The following statements are obvious:

* since $`f^{}(\overline{m})<0`$, $`T<T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$,
* only at $`m\mathrm{}`$ we have $`T=T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In the region of data we find significant differences between $`T`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Here is a numerical example. Consider

$$f(m)=\frac{A}{(m^2+m_0^2)^{5/4}},$$
(8)
which leads to

$$\frac{1}{T}=\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{eff}.}}+\frac{5}{2}\frac{\overline{m}}{(\overline{m}^2+m_0^2)}$$
(9)
Now we take $`m_0=0.5`$GeV and $`\overline{m}=1`$GeV and find

* for mesons: $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=311`$MeV, $`T=192`$MeV (exact fit: 195MeV)
* for baryons: $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=186`$MeV, $`T=136`$MeV (exact fit: 141MeV)

We conclude that only in the asymptotic region, $`m>>m_0`$, the choice of $`f(m)`$ is not important. In the region of presently-available data $`f(m)`$ matters very much for the extracted values of the Hagedorn temperature. This simply means that we need a theory in order to make quantitative statements!

The numerical parameters obtained from various choices of the function $`f(m)`$ are collected in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the fits corresponding to the rows 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Table 1. Note the fits are very close to each other and the theoretical curves are virtually indistinguishable in the region of data. In view of the above discussion it makes little sense to treat the Hagedorn temperature as an absolute parameter and to quote its value without specifying the model that yields the function $`f(m)`$.

### 2.3 Flavor universality

In Fig. 3 we show the cumulants of particle spectra of a given value of strangeness. We can clearly see that the slopes in the figure do not depend on strangeness. The meson plot includes various Hagedorn fits of Fig. 2. The two sets of lines are displaced in the $`m`$ variable by roughly $`150`$MeV, which is the difference of the masses on the strange and non-strange quarks. The conclusion here is that the addition of the strange quark mass has no effect on the rate of growth of the number of states with $`m`$. Certainly, we are rediscovering the $`SU(3)`$ flavor symmetry here!

### 2.4 Plot in the exponential variable

We end the experimental part of this talk by showing the same information as in Fig. 1, but instead of using logarithmic units on the vertical axes, we take exponential units on the horizontal axis. More precisely, we take the fit to the spectrum with of the form with the simple exponent (row 5 in Table 1), which leads to the cumulant $`N(m)=AT(\mathrm{exp}(m/T)1)`$, where the values of $`A`$ and $`T`$ result from the least-square fit. Next, we define the variable $`y=AT(\mathrm{exp}(m/T)1)`$ and plot the cumulants as functions of $`y`$. Note that the $`A`$ and $`T`$ parameters are different for mesons and baryons. Again, the linearity of data in the figure is striking. It starts at basically $`m=0`$, and extends to $`m1.8`$GeV. The advantage of the plot in Fig. 4 to that of Fig. 1 is that now the steps in the experimental cumulant are of a similar size independently of $`m`$.

We conclude this section by stating that the exponential growth of hadronic spectra in the region of $`m`$ up to about 1.8GeV, with $`T_{\mathrm{mes}}>T_{\mathrm{bar}}`$, is an experimental fact.

## 3 Theory

We are faced with two basic theoretical questions:

1. Why is the spectrum of resonances exponential?
2. Why do mesons and baryons behave so differently?

Concerning the first question, let us stress that it is not at all easy to get an exponentially rising spectrum of resonances. Take the simplistic harmonic-oscillator model, whose density of states grows as $`m^{d1}`$, with $`d`$ denoting the number of dimensions. For mesons there is one relative coordinate, hence $`\rho m^2`$, whereas the two relative coordinates in the baryon give $`\rho `$ $`m^5`$. Weaker-growing potentials lead to a faster growth of the number of states, but fall short of the behavior (1). We know of three approaches yielding behavior (1), both involving combinatorics of infinitely-many degrees of freedom. These are the Statistical Bootstrap Model , Bag Models , and Dual String Models . The first two, however, lead to the same rate of growth for the mesons and baryons. Statistical Bootstrap Models are discussed in Sec. 3.1. In Bag Models  the exponential growth of the spectrum is associated with the melting out of the vacuum around the bag when the hadron is being excited. Since the scales in the Bag Model are practically the same for the meson and the baryon (the size scales as the number of constituents to the power $`1/4`$), the Bag Models are not capable of answering question 2. On the other hand, the Dual String Models  is offer a natural explanation of questions 1 and 2. This has already been pointed out in Ref. .

### 3.1 Statistical Bootstrap Models

Statistical bootstrap models  form particles from clusters of particles, and employ the principle of self-similarity. The simplest, “generic”, bootstrap equation has the form

$$\rho (m)=\delta (mm_0)+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m_1\mathrm{}𝑑m_n\times \delta (m\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_i)\rho (m_1)\mathrm{}\rho (m_n),$$
(10)
where $`\rho (m)`$ is the particle spectrum (here, for a moment, mesons and baryons are not distinguished). Equation (10) can be nicely solved with help of Laplace transforms , yielding the asymptotic solution $`\rho (m)\mathrm{exp}(m/T)`$, with $`T=m_0/\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}\frac{4}{e})`$. More complicated bootstrap equations involve integration over momenta, more degrees of freedom, different combinatorial factors , however, irrespectively of these details, they always lead to an exponentially growing spectrum. It can be shown, following e.g. the steps of Ref. , that the model leads to equal Hagedorn temperatures for mesons and for baryons. This is quite obvious. Since baryons are formed by attaching mesons to the “input” baryon, the baryon spectrum grows at exactly the same rate as the meson spectrum. Specific calculations confirm this simple observation. Thus the bootstrap idea is not capable of explaining the different behavior of mesons and baryons in Fig. 1.

### 3.2 Dual String models

The Dual String models  also date back to pre-QCD times. Their greatest success is a natural explanation of the Regge trajectories – a basic experimental fact which remain a serious problem for other approaches. Similarly to the bootstrap models, the Dual String Models lead to exponentially-growing spectra, but they do give the demanded effect of $`T_{\mathrm{meson}}>T_{\mathrm{baryon}}`$, at least at asymptotic masses .

Let us analyze mesons first. The particle spectrum is generated by the harmonic-oscillator operator describing vibrations of the string,

$$N=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{D}{}}ka_{k,\mu }^{}a_{k,\mu },$$
(11)
where $`k`$ labels the modes and $`\mu `$ labels additional degeneracy, related to the number of dimensions . Eigenvalues of $`N`$ are composed in order to get the square of mass of the meson, according to the Regge formula

$$\alpha ^{}m^2\alpha _0=n,$$
(12)
where $`\alpha ^{}1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$ is the Regge slope, and $`\alpha _00`$ is the intercept. Here is an example: take $`n=5`$. The value 5 can be formed by taking the $`k=5`$ eigenvalue of $`N`$ (this is the leading Regge trajectory, with a maximum angular momentum), but we can also obtain the same $`m^2`$ by exciting one $`k=4`$ and one $`k=1`$ mode, alternatively $`k=3`$ and $`k=2`$ modes, and so on. The number of possibilities corresponds to partitioning the number $`5`$ into natural components: 5, 4+1, 3+2, 3+1+1, 2+2+1, 2+1+1+1, 1+1+1+1+1. Here we have 7 possibilities, but the number of partitions grows very fast with $`n`$. Partitions with more than one component describe the sub-leading Regge trajectories. With $`D`$ degrees of freedom each component can come in $`D`$ different species. Let us denote the number of partitions in our problem as $`P_D(n)`$. For large $`n`$ the asymptotic formula for partitio numerorum leads to the exponential spectrum according to the formula .

$$\rho (m)=2\alpha ^{}mP_D(n),P_D(n)\sqrt{\frac{1}{2n}}\left(\frac{D}{24n}\right)^{\frac{D+1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \sqrt{\frac{Dn}{6}}\right),$$
(13)
where $`n=\alpha ^{}m^2`$. We can now read-off the mesonic Hagedorn temperature:

$$T_{\mathrm{meson}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{6}{D\alpha ^{}}}.$$
(14)
Now the baryons: the “Mercedes-Benz” string configuration for the baryon is shown in Fig. 5. The three strings vibrate independently, and the corresponding vibration operators, $`N`$, add up. Consequently, their eigenvalues $`n_1`$, $`n_2`$, and $`n_3`$ add up. Thus we simply have a partition problem with $`3`$ times more degrees of freedom than in the meson. The replacement $`D3D`$ in (13) leads immediately to

$$T_{\mathrm{baryon}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2}{D\alpha ^{}}},$$
(15)
such that

$$T_{\mathrm{meson}}/T_{\mathrm{baryon}}=\sqrt{3}.$$
(16)
We stress that the presented picture is fully consistent with the Regge phenomenology. The leading Regge trajectory for baryons is generated by the excitation of a single string, i.e.  two out of three numbers $`n_i`$ vanish (this is the quark-diquark configuration). The subleading trajectories for baryons come in a much larger degeneracy than for mesons, due to more combinatorial possibilities. The slopes of the meson and baryon trajectories are universal, and given by $`\alpha ^{}`$. We stress that the “number-of-strings” mechanism described above is asymptotic. Thus, there is a problem in applying string models to the experimentally accessible range of $`m`$. This range is not asymptotic enough to use Eq. (13). From the Regge formula (12) we find immediately that for $`m`$ in the range $`12`$GeV the values of $`n`$ lie between $`1`$ and $`4`$, hence $`n`$ is not large enough to justify the form (13).

One can do better by using an improved asymptotic formula, derived in Ref. . The results obtained in the scalar string model  are displayed in Fig. 6. Here the formula for the meson spectrum is

$$\rho _{\mathrm{mes}}(m)=36\times \rho _{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}}(m),\rho _{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}}(m)=\frac{2\alpha ^{}}{(4\pi \alpha ^{}mT_{\mathrm{mes}})^\nu }mI_\nu (\frac{m}{T_{\mathrm{mes}}}),$$
(17)
where $`I_2`$ is a modified Bessel function, $`T_{\mathrm{mes}}`$ is the meson Hagedorn temperature (the only adjustable parameter here), and $`\nu =1+D/2`$, with $`D`$ denoting the number of transverse dimensions. The factor of $`36=6\times 6`$ is just the spin-flavor degeneracy of the $`\overline{q}q`$ configuration . For the baryons we fold the three scalar-string densities, $`\rho _{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}}(m)`$. We use $`56`$ (rather than $`36`$) copies of the string, which is the degeneracy of the baryon multiplet in the ground state. We notice good agreement with data in Fig. 6, for $`D=6`$. Note that both curves are fitted with only one parameter, $`T_{\mathrm{mes}}`$. For lower values of $`D`$ one can fit the mesons equally well, but too many baryon states are predicted.

### 3.3 Exotics as dual strings

During this workshop we have heard many talks on hadron exotics. If an exotic is a multi-string configuration, e.g. as in Fig. 7, then the corresponding spectrum will grow exponentially with the Hagedorn temperature inversely proportional to the square root of the number of strings. For instance, $`T_{q\overline{q}q\overline{q}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}T_{\mathrm{meson}}`$. This is reminiscent of the effect described in Ref. . For the glueballs, described by the closed string in Fig. (7), we get $`T_G=T_{\mathrm{meson}}`$.

Thus, according to the string model, the $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ grow more rapidly than non-exotic mesons and baryons, and glueballs grow at the same rate as mesons.

## 4 Other approaches

In the remaining part of this talk we will, in a sense, work against our results presented in previous sections, where have we argued that the plots of Fig. 1 are linear, and offered an explanation of the difference between the mesonic and baryonic Hagedorn temperatures within the Dual String Models.

What if the experimental plots of Fig. 1 are not really linear, and the effect of bending down of the curves at higher masses is physical, rather than due to incomplete experiments? Below we will show alternative descriptions which do not comply to Eq. (1), but nevertheless reproduce the present data at least as good as the Hagedorn-like fits.

### 4.1 Compound hadrons

In the statistical model of nuclear reactions one uses the compound-nucleus model . In this model the density of states grows at large excitation energies, $`E^{}`$, according to the formula

$$\rho (E)(E^{})^{5/4}e^{a\sqrt{E^{}}},$$
(18)
where $`a`$ is a constant. Formula (18) can be derived within the Fermi gas model . More generally, it can be derived in a model where the single-particle orbits are equally spaced. One then considers $`1p1h`$, $`2p2h`$, $`3p3h`$, etc., excitations and counts the number of states at a given excitation energy, $`E^{}`$. Amusingly, this leads  to the partitio numerorum formula (13), but now the number $`n`$ has the interpretation $`n=E^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ denoting the level spacing.

We now use the following Compound-Hadron-Model formula for the mass spectra:

$$\rho (m)=\frac{A\mathrm{\Theta }(mm_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \sqrt{\frac{\left(mm_0\right)}{6\mathrm{\Delta }E}}\right)}{\left(\left(mm_0\right)^2+(0.5\mathrm{GeV})^2\right)^{5/8}},$$
(19)
where $`A`$ is a constant, $`m_0`$ is the ground-state mass, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the average level spacing. The constant $`0.5`$GeV in the denominator has been introduced ad hoc, similarly as in Eq. (5), in order for the formula to make sense at $`mm_0`$. Asymptotically, the power of $`m`$ multiplying the exponent is $`5/4`$, as in Eq. (18).

The underlying physical picture behind compound hadrons is as follows: hadrons are bound objects of constituents (quarks, gluons, pions). The Fock space contains a ground state, and excitations on top of it. In the case of the compound nucleus these elementary excitations are $`1p1h`$, $`2p2h`$, $`3p3h,`$ etc. states. In the case of hadrons they are formed of $`q\overline{q}`$ and gluon excitations, e.g. for mesons we have $`q\overline{q}`$, $`q\overline{q}g`$, $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$, $`q\overline{q}gg`$, etc. We can form the excitation energy (hadron mass) by differently composing elementary excitations. This bring us to the above-described combinatorial problem . It seems reasonable to take zero ground-state energy for mesons, $`m_0^{\mathrm{mes}}=0`$, since they are excitations on top of the vacuum. For baryons we take $`m_0^{\mathrm{bar}}=900`$MeV, which is the mass of the nucleon. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is treated as a model parameter and is fitted to data.

The results of the compound-hadron-model fit, Eq. (19), are shown in Fig. 8. The curves are slightly bent down, compared to the Hagedorn-like fits of Figs. 1,2, which is caused by the square root in the exponent of Eq. (19). But the fits are at least as good, or even better when the fit region is extended to $`m=2`$GeV. Numerically, the least-square fit for $`m`$ up to 1.8GeV gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{\mathrm{mes}}=100`$MeV for mesons, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{\mathrm{bar}}=106`$MeV for baryons. The proximity of these numbers shows that the scales for mesons and baryons are similar, as should be the case.

The obtained values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{\mathrm{mes}}`$ mean that the corresponding $`n`$ at $`m=1.8`$GeV is around $`18`$ for mesons and $`9`$ for baryons. Such values of $`n`$ are sufficiently large to justify the use of the asymptotic formulas.

### 4.2 Combinatorial saturation and the light-flavor-desert hypothesis

There is a possibility of an interesting effect we wish to point out. It is natural to expect that a bound hadronic system has an upper limit for the excitation energy. It is helpful to think here of bags of finite depth. Thus, in constructing the single-particle Fock space for bound objects we should have a limited number of quanta to our disposal. If such a limit is put into the Compound Hadron Model, it will result in a maximum number of states that can possibly be formed out of light quarks . We can call it the “light-flavor-desert hypothesis”: above a certain mass there are no more light-flavor resonances. Certainly, this is tangential to the conventional wisdom that the Regge trajectories should continue indefinitely. Note, however, that infinite Regge trajectories have recently been challenged by Brisudová, Burakovsky and Goldman, who claim that they should stop around $`m2.7`$GeV. Amusingly, this is consistent with the presently-available data. The cumulants if Fig. 1 flatten-out in that region.

### 4.3 Quark models

Many talk in this workshop were devoted to variants of the quark model. Here we present the result of counting of states in the model of Refs. , as made by Freund and Rosner .

When we look at Fig. 9, we again see good agreement in the predicted and experimental number of states. This is not at all surprising, since the quark model is designed to fit the data “state by state” in the low-mass regime. As for other approaches, spectra at higher $`m`$ would be needed to verify the predictions.

## 5 Final remarks

There are many fundamental questions which should be cleared when more experimental data on hadron resonances are available: Is the Hagedorn hypothesis of exponentially-growing spectra indeed correct, or is the growth weaker at higher masses? Do the Regge trajectories continue for ever, or stop? Consequently, is there a light-flavor desert above a certain mass? Are there exotic states, if so, at what rate do they grow?… Certainly, the spectrum above 2GeV may reveal many answers and help us to verify various models and approaches.

However, even the presently-available spectrum allows for interesting speculations. Recall the remarks made here by Leonid Glozman, concerning the parity doublets in the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ spectra above $`2`$GeV . Almost all states in that region can be paired, and such a regularity suggests that the data in that region may be complete! This, in turn, indicates that the bending down of the cumulants in Fig. 1 may be a physical, rather than experimental effect.

Another important aspect, not touched in this talk, are the thermodynamical implications of the presence of two distinct Hagedorn temperatures for the phenomenology of heavy-ion collisions, transition to quark-gluon plasma, etc. This will be discussed in .

The author thanks Keith R. Dienes for many profitable e-mail discussions on the issues of hadron spectra in string models, as well as to Andrzej Białas, Andrzej Horzela, Jan Kwieciński, and Kacper Zalewski for numerous useful comments and encouragement.


text:
# 1 The parameters in 𝜎-𝜔 model.

SAGA-HE-165

The effective $`\omega `$-meson mass with a vector field self-interaction

Katsuaki Sakamoto, Hiroaki Kouno and Akira Hasegawa

Department of Physics, Saga University, Saga 840, Japan

and

Masahiro Nakano

University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu 807, Japan

Abstract

We calculate the effective mass $`m_\omega ^{}`$ of the $`\omega `$-meson in nuclear medium by the $`\sigma `$-$`\omega `$ model with a vector field self-interaction (VFSI). We found that the direct and the indirect effects of the VFSI almost cancel each other and the result is changed only slightly at the normal density. The VFSI makes $`m_\omega ^{}`$ smaller at lower density and makes $`m_\omega ^{}`$ larger at higher density. However, both effects are not large.

The effective meson mass in nuclear medium is one of the most interesting issues in intermediate energy physics. Much attention has been paid to predicting the meson masses in nuclear medium from various approaches such as quantum hadrodynamics (QHD) -, the QCD sum rules  and the quark meson coupling model . It is widely accepted that the effective mass of the vector meson ($`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ ) decreases as density increases. However, quantitatively, the result is considerably variable in each model.

In QHD, there are some versions of the Lagrangian to reproduce the properties of the nuclear matter and finite nuclei. One interesting version of them is the $`\sigma `$-$`\omega `$ model with the vector field self-interaction (VFSI).  From phenomenological analyses, the VFSI is needed for a better fit of equation of state at high density. (See, e.g., reference .)

As usual, this VFSI is regarded as an effective interaction caused by the quantum corrections. This means that the effective potential of the VFSI is added to the effective potential of the total system. On the other hand, the effective meson mass can be defined as a second derivative of the effective potential with respect to the meson-field expectation value. Therefore, the VFSI just shifts the effective $`\omega `$-meson mass. Naively the VFSI is expected to make the effective $`\omega `$-meson mass larger, since the potential of the VFSI has a plus sign. Is it true or not? In this brief report, we study the effective $`\omega `$-meson mass in nuclear medium by the $`\sigma `$-$`\omega `$ model with the VFSI to answer this question.

We start from the Lagrangian of the $`\sigma `$-$`\omega `$ model with the meson self-interaction:

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(i\gamma _\mu ^\mu M+g_\sigma \varphi g_\omega \gamma _\mu V^\mu )\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+U_\omega +\delta L,`$
$`U_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2V_\mu V^\mu \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega ^2}{2}}Y^2V_\mu V^\mu \right),`$ (1)
where $`\psi `$, $`\varphi `$, $`V_\mu `$, $`M`$, $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\omega `$, $`g_\sigma `$ and $`g_\omega `$ are the nucleon field, the $`\sigma `$-meson field, the $`\omega `$-meson field, the nucleon mass, the $`\sigma `$-meson mass, the $`\omega `$-meson mass, the $`\sigma `$-nucleon coupling and the $`\omega `$-nucleon coupling, respectively. The vector field strength is given by $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu V_\nu _\nu V_\mu `$, and the constant parameter $`Y`$ represents the strength of the $`\omega `$-meson self-interaction. The $`\delta L`$ is a counter term adjusted to satisfy renormalization conditions as in the ordinary relativistic Hartree approximation (RHA) . We regard the VFSI as an effective interaction which is originated in the higher-order quantum corrections beyond the 1-loop approximation, namely RHA.

In the RHA, the meson fields are replaced by their ground-state expectation values, $`\varphi \varphi _0`$, $`V_\mu \delta _{\mu 0}V_0`$. The expectation value of the $`\omega `$ field is determined by the baryon density $`\rho `$,

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{1+Y^2W^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{1+\frac{y^2W^2m_\omega ^4}{g_\omega ^4\rho _0^2}}},W=g_\omega V_0,`$ (2)
where $`y=g_\omega ^2\rho _0Y/m_\omega ^2`$ is a dimensionless parameter and $`\rho _0`$ is a saturation baryon density. The expectation value $`\varphi _0`$ is determined by equation of motion of the $`\sigma `$-meson. Namely,

$`g_\sigma \rho _s=m_\sigma \varphi _0,`$ (3)
where $`\rho _s`$ is the scalar density of nucleons. We remark that the vacuum fluctuation effects is already included in $`\rho _s`$ in Eq. (3). The $`\varphi _0`$ shifts the nucleon mass from $`M`$ to the effective mass $`M^{}`$ in nuclear medium as

$`M^{}=Mg_\sigma \varphi _0.`$ (4)
After $`y`$ is given, the parameters $`C_\sigma =g_\sigma M/m_\sigma `$, $`C_\omega =g_\omega M/m_\omega `$ are chosen to reproduce the saturation conditions at the baryon density 0.15 fm<sup>-3</sup> and at the binding energy $``$15.75 MeV. These two parameters, the effective nucleon mass $`M_0^{}`$ at saturation density and the incompressibility $`K`$ are listed in Table 1.

The second order variation of the Lagrangian (1) around the classical value $`V_0`$ gives the inverse of the $`\omega `$-meson propagator,

$`\left(^\mu ^\rho g^{\mu \rho }_\sigma ^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{^2U_\omega }{V_\mu V_\rho }}|_{\delta _{\mu 0}V_0}\right)D(xy)_{\rho \nu }=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta ^{(4)}(xy).`$ (5)
By taking Fourier transform, we obtain the inverse of the meson propagator in momentum space,

$`\left[D^1(k)\right]_{\mu \nu }=[k^2m_\omega ^2(1+Y^2W^2)+iϵ]g_{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu 2m_\omega ^2Y^2W^2\delta _{\mu 0}\delta _{\nu 0}.`$ (6)
In order to compute the $`\omega `$-meson full propagator in the nuclear medium we solve Dyson’s equation in the random phase approximation (RPA). Dyson’s equation becomes a matrix equation,

$`D_{\mu \nu }^{}=D_{\mu \nu }+D_{\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\rho \sigma }D_{\sigma \nu }^{}.`$ (7)
We have omitted the $`\sigma `$-$`\omega `$ mixing components in Eq. (7), since we are interested only in the meson self-energy with vanishing external spatial momentum as is seen below. In the one-loop level, the RPA self-energy of the $`\omega `$-meson is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`ig_\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma _\mu G(k)\gamma _\nu G(k+q)]},`$ (8)
where the nucleon propagator $`G(k)`$ in nuclear medium is given by

$`G(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma ^\mu k_\mu ^{}+M^{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2M^2+iϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{E^{}(k)}}\delta (k_0^{}E^{}(k))\theta (k_F|𝒌|)\right]`$ (9)
$``$ $`G_F(k)+G_D(k),`$
where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi momentum, $`k^\mu =(k^0g_\omega V^0,𝒌)`$ and $`E^{}(k)=\sqrt{𝒌^2+M^2}`$. We remark that the VFSI does not appear in RPA, since we regard it as an effective interaction induced by the higher-order quantum correction beyond the 1-loop approximation.

The equation (8) is divided into two parts

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{Den}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{Vac}}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{Den}}+\left(g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\nu }{q^2}}\right)\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{Vac}}.`$ (10)
The first term describes particle-hole excitation and the Pauli blocking for $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ excitation below the Fermi surface. The second term describes $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ excitation, this part generally has divergence and we remove the divergence by the renormalization procedure as in . Namely,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{Vac}}|_{q^2=m_\omega ^2,\rho =0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{Vac}}|_{q^2=m_\omega ^2,\rho =0}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (11)
The effective meson mass in the nuclear medium is defined as the pole of the meson propagator Eq. (7), namely, given by the following equation,

$`m_\omega ^2=m_\omega ^2(1+Y^2W^2)+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}(q_0=m_\omega ^{},𝒒=0),`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ is the transverse component of $`\omega `$-meson self-energy. Of course, the term including the parameter $`Y`$ is occurred from the existence of the VFSI.

First, we examine only the direct effect on the effective $`\omega `$ meson by adding the VFSI to the effective potential. We use the effective $`\omega `$ meson mass which is defined by

$`m_\omega ^2=m_\omega ^2(1+Y^2W^2).`$ (13)
In Fig. 1, we show the density dependence of $`m_\omega ^{}`$ with Eq. (13). The bold solid and bold dashed lines correspond to the results with the parameter sets in $`y=`$ 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. The $`m_\omega ^{}`$ increases as $`\rho `$ increases. The effective potential for the VFSI increases $`m_\omega ^{}`$ largely as is expected.

Next, we study the VFSI effect on the effective $`\omega `$-meson mass via the change of $`C_\omega `$ and $`M^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$. In this case, we do not contain the direct effect of the VFSI and the effective $`\omega `$ meson mass is defined by

$`m_\omega ^2=m_\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}(q_0=m_\omega ^{},𝒒=0;C_\omega ,M^{}).`$ (14)
The numerical results of $`m_\omega ^{}`$ are also shown in Fig. 1. The solid, dashed and dotted lines correspond to the results with the parameter sets for RHA, VS1 and VS2 in table 1, respectively. This ”indirect VFSI effect” via the change of $`C_\omega `$ and $`M^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ makes $`m_\omega ^{}`$ smaller, since the VFSI makes $`C_\omega `$ larger and makes $`M_0^{}`$ smaller.

For a complete calculation in RPA with the VFSI we must use the Eq. (12). In Fig. 2, we show the density dependence of $`m_\omega ^{}`$ with the Eq. (12). We see that the direct and the indirect effects of the VFSI almost cancel each other at the normal density. The VFSI makes $`m_\omega ^{}`$ smaller at lower density via the large $`C_\omega `$. The VFSI makes $`m_\omega ^{}`$ larger at higher density due to the direct effect of the VFSI. However, both effects are not large.

In summary, we have studied the effect of the VFSI for the effective $`\omega `$-meson mass in nuclear medium by using the RHA and RPA. In the calculation of the RHA, the VFSI increases $`C_\omega `$ to satisfy the saturation conditions. It also makes the values of $`M_0^{}`$ and the incompressibility $`K`$ decrease. For the effective $`\omega `$-meson mass in RPA, there is a large direct effect by adding the VFSI to the effective potential. However, the direct effect is almost canceled by the indirect effect via the change of $`M_0^{}`$ and $`C_\omega `$ in RPA calculations. As a result, the value of the effective $`\omega `$-meson mass is changed only slightly at the normal density. The VFSI makes $`m_\omega ^{}`$ smaller at lower density and makes $`m_\omega ^{}`$ larger at higher density. However, both effects are not large.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank T. Kohmura and T. Maruyama for useful discussions.


text:
# Enhancement and suppression of spontaneous emission and light scattering by quantum degeneracy

\[

## Abstract

Quantum degeneracy modifies light scattering and spontaneous emission. For fermions, Pauli blocking leads to a suppression of both processes. In contrast, in a weakly interacting Bose-Einstein condensate, we find spontaneous emission to be enhanced, while light scattering is suppressed. This difference is attributed to many-body effects and quantum interference in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

\]

For a long time, spontaneous emission and light scattering were regarded as intrinsic properties of atoms. However, quantum electrodynamics (QED) revealed the connection between these phenomena and the electromagnetic modes of the vacuum. Spontaneous emission and scattering can only take place when a vacuum mode is available to accommodate the emitted or scattered photon. The insight that small cavities can be used to modify the vacuum is exploited in cavity-QED experiments . Recent breakthroughs in the experimental realization of gaseous quantum degenerate systems of bosons  and fermions  have opened the possibility to use quantum degeneracy to modify the emission and scattering behavior of atoms. While a cavity changes the mode structure for the scattered or emitted photon, the presence of a quantum degenerate system modifies the modes for the recoiling atom.

Quantum degeneracy influences spontaneous emission and light scattering via the presence of population in the final quantum states of the process. Generally, transition rates between an initial state with population $`N_1`$ and a final state with population $`N_2`$ are proportional to $`N_1(1+N_2)`$ for bosons and to $`N_1(1N_2)`$ for fermions. This reflects the well-known fact that in a bosonic system the transition into an already occupied state is enhanced by bosonic stimulation, while in fermionic systems, occupation of a state prevents a transition into this state by Pauli blocking.

In this note, we show theoretically that in a weakly interacting Bose-Einstein condensate spontaneous emission is enhanced and calculate the enhancement factor. We compare this result to light scattering in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), which is suppressed as we have shown experimentally and theoretically in previous work . In contrast, in fermionic systems quantum degeneracy leads to a suppression of *both* spontaneous emission and light scattering .

For simplicity we consider a homogeneous system of atoms at zero temperature, which exhibits all the significant features. The system is assumed to consist of $`N`$ atoms with mass $`m`$ at a density $`n`$ in a volume $`V`$, which is sufficiently large such that the summations over quantum states can be approximated by integrals.

A non-interacting BEC at $`T=0`$ can be described by a single-particle ground-state wavefunction with amplitude $`\sqrt{N}`$. Thus, the occupation of quantum states with wavevector $`𝐤`$ is given by $`N(𝐤)=𝐍\delta (𝐤)`$. Since the final states for spontaneous emission and light scattering with a finite momentum transfer $`𝐪`$ are not occupied, both processes occur at the single-atom rate.

This situation changes drastically for an interacting condensate. Here, two atoms in the zero-momentum state are coupled to states with momenta $`+𝐤`$ and $`𝐤`$. This changes the excitation spectrum $`\omega (k)`$ from the free-particle form, $`\mathrm{}\omega (k)=E_r(k)`$, to the spectrum of Bogoliubov quasi–particles, $`\mathrm{}\omega (k)=\sqrt{E_r(k)(E_r(k)+2\mu )}`$. Here, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`E_r(k)=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$ the recoil energy associated with the momentum $`k`$. The chemical potential is a measure for the interatomic interactions and is related to the $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a`$ by $`\mu =4\pi \mathrm{}^2an/m`$.

The atom-atom interaction admixes pair correlations into the ground state wavefunction $`|\text{BEC},N`$ of a BEC with $`N`$ atoms, yielding the structure

$`|\text{BEC},N`$ $`=`$ $`|N,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ (2)
$`\alpha |N2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\alpha ^2|N4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\alpha =11/u_k^2`$. Here $`|N_0,N_k,N_k`$ denotes a state with $`N_0`$ atoms in the zero-momentum state and $`N_{\pm k}`$ atoms in states with momentum $`\pm k`$. In Eq.(2) a summation over all momenta $`𝐤`$ is implicitly assumed. The average population of momentum states is given by $`N(k)=u_k^21=v_k^2`$, where $`u_k=\mathrm{cosh}\varphi _k`$, $`v_k=\mathrm{sinh}\varphi _k`$ and $`\mathrm{tanh}2\varphi _k=\mu /(E_r(k)+\mu )`$.

To study the effect of the presence of a BEC on spontaneous emission, we consider an excited atom at rest added to a BEC of $`N`$ ground-state atoms. This system is described by an initial state $`|i=\widehat{a}_{e,0}^{}|\text{BEC},N`$, where $`\widehat{a}_{e,0}^{}`$ creates an electronically excited atom at rest. We use Fermi’s golden rule to obtain the rate for spontaneous emission. The only difference to the single-atom spontaneous decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ comes from the overlap matrix elements to the final momentum state $`|f`$, $`f|\widehat{a}_{k_L}^{}\widehat{a}_{e,0}|i`$ where $`\widehat{a}_{k_L}^{}`$ is the creation operator for a free ground state atom with momentum $`k_L`$. Summing over all final states one arrives at

$`\gamma _{\text{BEC}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{BEC},N|\widehat{a}_{k_L}\widehat{a}_{k_L}^{}|\text{BEC},N.`$ (3)
Thus, the spontaneous emission rate is proportional to the square of the norm of the state vector $`|e^+=\widehat{a}_{k_L}^{}|\text{BEC},N`$.

To calculate the norm of $`|e^+`$ explicitly, we transform to Bogoliubov operators by substituting $`\widehat{a}_k=u_k\widehat{b}_kv_k\widehat{b}_k^{}`$. The operators $`\widehat{b}_k^{}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_k`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for the microscopic quasi-particle excitations of a weakly interacting condensate. Hence, the many-body ground-state wavefunction of the condensate $`|\text{BEC},N`$ corresponds to the quasi-particle vacuum defined by the relation $`\widehat{b}_k|\text{BEC},N0,k`$. Thus, we obtain

$`F_{\text{Bose}}^{\text{spont}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^+|e^+=u_{k_L}^2=1+N(k_L)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_s^2}{k_L^2/2+k_s^2}}\right)\right)\right)^2,`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{}k_s=mc`$ is the momentum of an atom moving at the speed of sound, which is related to the chemical potential by $`\mu =mc^2`$. Enhancement of spontaneous emission in a BEC is significant if $`k_s`$ becomes comparable to the wavevector $`k_L`$ of the emitted photon since for small momentum transfer $`u_{k_L}^2=k_s^2/k_L^2`$. Eq.(4) and its interpretation are the major results of this paper. It should be noted, that this enhancement of spontaneous emission in a BEC is distinctly different from the phenomenon of superradiance as discussed by Dicke . Supperadiance occurs due to the collective emission of radiation in a sample of atoms prepared in the excited state. In contrast, the enhancement discussed here affects a single electronically excited atom due to macroscopic occupation in the final state of the recoiling atom.

The result of Eq.(4) that spontaneous emission in a weakly interacting BEC is enhanced, is striking in view of our earlier finding  that light scattering in a BEC is suppressed. The operator describing a light scattering event with momentum transfer $`𝐪`$ is the Fourier transform of the atomic density operator $`\widehat{\rho }(𝐪)`$$`=_m\widehat{a}_{m+q}^{}\widehat{a}_m`$. If $`\widehat{\rho }(𝐪)`$ acts on $`|\text{BEC},N`$, only terms involving the zero-momentum state $`m=0`$ yield significant contributions. By applying Fermi’s golden rule we found that the scattering rate is proportional to the norm of the state vector

$`|e`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{a}_q^{}\widehat{a}_0+\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_q)|\text{BEC},N}{\sqrt{N}}}`$ (6)
$``$ $`(\widehat{a}_q^{}+\widehat{a}_q)|\text{BEC},N`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`|e^++|e^{},`$ (8)
where we have replaced $`\widehat{a}_0^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_0`$ by $`\sqrt{N}`$ following the usual Bogoliubov formalism . After transforming to Bogoliubov operators we obtain a suppression factor of

$$S_{\mathrm{Bose}}(q)=e|e=(u_qv_q)^2,$$
(9)
which is the static structure factor for a BEC. Generally, the static structure factor is the normalized response of a system to a perturbation with wavevector $`𝐪`$. For small $`𝐪`$, corresponding to phonon-like quasi-particle excitations, $`S_{\mathrm{Bose}}(q)=\mathrm{}q/2mc`$ approaches zero. Light with wavevector $`k_L`$ scattered at an angle $`\theta `$ imparts a momentum $`\mathrm{}q=2\mathrm{}k_L\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$ to the atomic system. By integrating Eq.(9) over all possible scattering angles $`\theta `$ and accounting for the dipolar emission pattern, we find that Rayleigh scattering from a BEC is suppressed by a factor

$`F_{\text{Bose}}^{\text{scatt}}={\displaystyle \frac{k_s}{\sqrt{k_s^2+k_L^2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_s^5}{k_L^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_s^3}{k_L^3}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{k_s}{k_L}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_L}{k_s}}\right)`$ (10)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_s^6}{k_L^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_s^4}{k_L^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_s^2}{k_L^2}}\right)\mathrm{tanh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_L}{\sqrt{k_s^2+k_L^2}}}\right).`$ (11)
For comparison, we briefly summarize the suppression of spontaneous emission and light scattering for a fermionic system. A Fermi gas at $`T=0`$ with Fermi momentum $`\mathrm{}k_F`$ is characterized by $`N(𝐤)=\theta (k_Fk)`$, i.e. all momentum states with $`k<k_F=(6\pi n)^{1/3}`$ are occupied. If we add an electronically excited atom at rest to the Fermi sea, its spontaneous decay rate is suppressed by a factor

$$F_{\text{Fermi}}^{\text{spont}}=1N(k_L)=\theta (k_Lk_F).$$
(13)
When off-resonant light with initial wavevector $`𝐤_𝐋`$ is scattered from a filled Fermi sphere into an outgoing wave with final wavevector $`𝐤_𝐋+𝐪`$, the scattering rate is suppressed by

$`S_{\text{fermi}}(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝐤N(𝐤)(1N(𝐤+𝐪))}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{3q}{4k_F}\frac{q^3}{16k_F}\hfill & \text{if }0<q<2k_F\text{,}\hfill \\ & \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }q>2k_F\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (15)
Eq.(14) is the static structure factor for a Fermi gas at zero temperature. Integrating over all possible scattering angles $`\theta `$ and accounting for the dipolar emission pattern, we find that the total suppression factor for Rayleigh scattering from a Fermi sea is given by

$$F_{\text{Fermi}}^{\text{scatt}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{69}{70}\frac{k_L}{k_F}\frac{43}{210}\frac{k_L^3}{k_F^3}\hfill & \text{if }k_L<k_F\hfill \\ & \\ 1\frac{3}{10}\frac{k_F^2}{k_L^2}+\frac{9}{70}\frac{k_F^4}{k_L^4}\frac{1}{21}\frac{k_F^6}{k_L^6}\hfill & \text{if }k_L>k_F\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Fig. 1 shows the influence of quantum degeneracy on the atom-light interaction. Using Eqs.(4),(10),(13), and (16) we have plotted the rates for spontaneous emission (solid lines) and light scattering (dashed lines), normalized by the single-atom rates, for a weakly interacting BEC (Fig. 1a) and a degenerate Fermi gas (Fig. 1b). A significant deviation from the free-particle rate is clearly observable if the photon-momentum is comparable to $`k_s`$ for bosons and $`k_F`$ for fermions.

Let us now discuss the intrinsic difference between atom-light interaction in a BEC and in a degenerate Fermi gas. In a Fermi sea, the suppression of both light scattering and spontaneous emission is a *single-particle* effect caused by the non-availability of final states due to the Pauli exclusion principle. Indeed, one would obtain the same result for spontaneous emission as for light scattering (Eq.(16)) if the initial momentum of the excited atom were randomly distributed over the Fermi sphere.

In an interacting BEC the situation is significantly different because pair correlations in the ground state, i.e. *many-body* effects, are responsible for both the enhancement of spontaneous emission and suppression of light scattering. The finite population in states with $`k0`$ due to quantum depletion lends a very intuitive explanation for the enhancement of spontaneous emission. If the interactions in the condensate are sufficiently strong such that momentum states with $`k=k_L`$ have non-negligible occupation, spontaneous emission of an atom at rest is enhanced by bosonic stimulation. This intuitive argument is correct, but it would incorrectly predict that light scattering is also enhanced.

The suppression of light scattering occurs due to the correlation between the admixtures of states with momentum $`k`$ and $`k`$. This leads to a destructive quantum interference between the two processes $`|N,0,0+\mathrm{}q|N,1,0`$ and $`|N2,1,1+\mathrm{}q|N,1,0`$, in which either an excitation with momentum $`𝐪`$ is annihilated or an excitation with momentum $`𝐪`$ is created. Both processes transfer momentum $`𝐪`$ to the condensate and are individually enhanced by bosonic stimulation. Therefore, a simple rate equation model would predict enhanced light scattering. However, since the initial states are correlated the two processes leading to the same final state interfere destructively for a BEC with repulsive interactions and light scattering is suppressed.

The results presented above for suppressed light scattering in both bosonic and fermionic systems also apply to the scattering of massive impurities. This has been studied theoretically for degenerate Bose  and Fermi  gases, and was experimentally observed in a BEC .

How strong would the enhancement of spontaneous emission in currently realized Bose-Einstein condensates be? Condensates of $`{}_{}{}^{23}\text{Na}`$ atoms confined in an optical trap have reached a density of $`3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ . For this density the speed of sound $`\mathrm{}k_s/m=2.8\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$ and the recoil velocity $`\mathrm{}k_L/m=2.9\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$ are approximately equal and we find $`N(k_L)0.15`$. Thus, the observation of enhanced spontaneous emission in a BEC is within experimental reach. Excited atoms at rest could be produced by Doppler free two-photon excitation, a scheme already used to probe condensates of atomic hydrogen using the $`1s2s`$ transition . Another possibility is to inject ground-state atoms with momentum $`\mathrm{}k_L`$ into a condensate and use a counter-propagating laser beam to excite them and bring them to rest. The enhancement of spontaneous emission could then be observed as frequency broadening of the absorption line.

The fact that light scattering is suppressed, but spontaneous emission is enhanced, could be exploited for studies of decoherence in a BEC. When a photon is absorbed by a BEC (the first step of light scattering), it creates a (virtual) excited state that has an external wavefunction which includes pair correlations. Any decoherence of this coherent superposition state, for example by interaction with the thermal cloud, could destroy the interference effect discussed above and turn the suppression of light scattering into an enhancement.

In conclusion, we have discussed suppression and enhancement of light scattering and spontaneous emission in quantum degenerate systems, and shown that in a weakly interacting BEC, the quantum depletion can enhance spontaneous emission by bosonic stimulation. This contrasts earlier results on suppressed light scattering in a BEC. As we have shown, both the reduced light scattering and the enhanced spontaneous emission in a BEC are related to quantum depletion of the condensate. However, the enhanced spontaneous emission appears to be physics beyond the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, while the static structure factor S(q) and the reduced light scattering can be obtained from the Gross-Pitaevskii equation .

During preparation of this manuscript we found a theoretical paper  which predicts an enhancement of light scattering in a weakly interacting Bose-Einstein condensate contrary to our findings.

The authors acknowledge valuable discussions with B. E. Stoicheff and D. M. Stamper-Kurn and critical reading of the manuscript by S. Inouye. This work was supported by NSF, ONR, ARO, NASA, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. A.P.C. would like to acknowledge additional support from the NSF.