text:
# Is there a vortex-glass transition in high-temperature superconductors?

\[

## Abstract

We show that DC voltage versus current measurements of a $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{7\delta }`$ micro-bridge in a magnetic field can be collapsed onto scaling functions proposed by Fisher, Fisher, and Huse, as is widely reported in the literature. We find, however, that good data collapse is achieved for a wide range of critical exponents and temperatures. These results strongly suggest that agreement with scaling alone does not prove the existence of a phase transition. We propose a criterion to determine if the data collapse is valid, and thus if a phase transition occurs. To our knowledge, none of the data reported in the literature meet our criterion.

\]

One of the more remarkable consequences of research on high-temperature superconductors is a new picture of the normal to superconducting transition in a magnetic field. While the mean-field Ginzburg-Landau description had been viewed as adequate for low-temperature superconductors, a consensus has emerged  that a vortex-glass transition occurs in the high-temperature superconductors. The strongest evidence has come from $`voltage`$ vs. $`current`$ ($`IV`$) measurements  where data can be collapsed onto two scaling functions, as proposed by Fisher, Fisher, and Huse (FFH) .

Despite a strong consensus that this data collapse implies the transition, some workers have suggested that the apparent agreement with scaling is misleading . Some simulations of $`IV`$ curves which are based on models without a phase transition have also been shown to collapse onto scaling functions within limited voltage ranges.

It has been countered  that the simulations invoke highly unphysical parameters in order to obtain “scalable” data which resemble actual measurements. Moreover, the critical exponents found from the simulated data  differ drastically from the ones obtained experimentally. Fueling the debate still further have been some recent attempts at measuring $`IV`$ curves over larger voltage ranges, where critical exponents have been found  which approach those resulting from the controversial simulations .

Furthermore, it has recently been proposed  that a true phase transition, such as the vortex-glass transition, does not actually occur. This “window-glass” scenario is more like a conventional glass transition, where the dynamics slow down considerably over a small temperature range, but correlation length scales do not strictly diverge. If a superconductor were to behave in this way, the linear resistance could rapidly decrease upon lowering temperature, but would not become zero. A small but non-vanishing linear resistance has also been predicted by theoretical studies that incorporate screening .

Granting all this, we do not see how this issue can be resolved through the use of simulated $`IV`$ curves as in Refs.  and . Simply showing that simulated data from a model without a transition scales does not demonstrate that the measurements scale for the same reason. The scaling interpretation of measurements may still be valid.

What is needed is an unambiguous signature in the data that can be used to make a valid claim for a transition. The purpose of this letter is to propose such a criterion and to show that it is necessary. We propose that a criterion for determining whether data supports a nonarbitrary choice of the critical parameters is that $`\mathrm{log}(voltage)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{log}(current)`$ isotherms equally distanced (*ie.* with equal $`\left|(TT_g)/T_g\right|`$) from the critical temperature, $`T_g`$, must have opposite concavities at the *same* applied currents. This contrasts with previously published data where opposite concavity is seen, but *not* at the same applied currents.

We begin by showing the difficulties in experimentally demonstrating that a true phase transition exists in a superconductor. We start with a typical scaling analysis of $`IV`$ data taken on a $`2200\mathrm{\AA }`$ thick $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{7\delta }`$ film laser ablated onto an STO substrate. This sort of film has previously been shown to have transport characteristics which agree with a scaling analysis in externally applied magnetic fields of about 4 tesla . The high quality of our film was verified with x-ray diffraction peaks of predominately c-axis orientation, from an AC susceptibility measurement transition width of 0.2K in zero magnetic field, and through zero field R(T) (inset of Fig. 1) which shows a $`T_C91.5K`$ and a transition width of about 0.5K. The film was photo-lithographically patterned into a four terminal bridge $`8\mu m`$ wide by $`40\mu m`$ long and etched using a dilute solution of phosphoric acid with no noticeable degradation of R(T).

Figure 1 shows $`IV`$ measurements taken on our film in a perpendicular magnetic field of 4 tesla. The scaling analysis requires that

$$V\xi ^{2+zD}/I=\chi _\pm (I\xi ^{D1}/T)$$
(1)
where the dimensionality, $`D`$, is 3, $`z`$ is the dynamic critical exponent, $`\xi `$ is the glass correlation length which is expected to behave as $`\left|(TT_g)/T_g\right|^\nu `$, $`\nu `$ is the correlation-length exponent, and $`\chi _\pm `$ are the scaling functions for above and below the glass transition temperature $`T_g`$.

The parameters of Eq. (1) are found from experimental data in the standard way. First, only those $`IV`$ isotherms above $`T_g`$ should show low-current ohmic tails, where ohmic behavior is represented in Fig. 1 by the dashed line on the lower left with a slope of 1. At higher currents the isotherms are non-ohmic, and it is typically presumed that they cross over to power law behavior (*ie.* straight lines on $`loglog`$ plots with slope greater than 1).

The thick solid line at 81K is a power-law fit to the isotherm which separates those with low-current ohmic tails from the ones without. This is conventionally designated as $`T_g`$ and the slope of the fitted line on this plot gives the dynamic exponent of $`z=5.46`$, since $`VI^{(z+1)/2}`$ is expected at $`T_g`$ from Eq. (1). The static exponent can be found from the low-current ohmic tails, $`R_L`$, which are expected to behave as

$$R_L(T/T_g1)^{\nu (z1)}.$$
(2)
Using the $`z`$ and $`T_g`$ found above we plot the $`log_{10}`$ of both sides of Eq. (2) in the inset of Fig. 2(a). Since scaling predicts that this plot should be a straight line, deviations from this at about 87K determine the extent of the critical region, which is $`\pm 5.5\mathrm{K}`$ from $`T_g`$. Only data lying within this temperature window will be used to test Eq. (1), below.

Data at high currents are also excluded because free flux flow occurs which is not described by scaling . A cut off is conventionally set to the voltage where the critical isotherm begins to deviate towards ohmic behavior, which is seen as a slight decrease in slope at about $`10^3V`$ in Fig. 1. Plotting all the data in Fig. 1 below this voltage and within the 11K range about 81K, a conventional data collapse is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 2(a) with the critical exponents in good agreement with those reported elsewhere, $`z=5.46`$ and $`\nu =1.5`$.

There is a serious problem with the analysis outlined above. Following Repaci *et al.* , we demonstrate this by plotting the derivatives of the $`\mathrm{log}(voltage)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{log}(current)`$ isotherms, which are shown in Fig. 3 as small solid dots. The predicted power-law $`IV`$ curve at $`T_g`$ should correspond to a horizontal line in Fig. 3, with a value of $`(z+1)/2`$. The data, however, *peaks* at about $`7\times 10^4\mathrm{A}`$. In fact, all isotherms seem to have a maximum slope at about this current with ohmic tails developing to the left of the peaks. Apparently, the only difference between the isotherms above and below the conventionally determined $`T_g`$ is that the ones at lower temperatures are truncated due to the resolution limit of the experiment before they decrease in slope towards ohmic behavior. This truncation is evident in these derivative plots where the data at lower currents and voltages become noisier.

Since the conventionally chosen critical isotherm does not show any signs of unique power law behavior, we now ask whether it is possible to choose other values for $`T_g`$ which also lead to data collapse. To do this we note that non-ohmic power law-like behavior can be fit to the lower temperature isotherms over at least 4 decades of voltage data. We have demonstrated this in Fig. 1 for the isotherms at 75K and 70K. By repeating the scaling analysis assuming that these two temperatures are the critical isotherms we can again obtain excellent data collapses as is demonstrated in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c).

When we lower the defined $`T_g`$ by 6K in going from Fig. 2(a) to Fig. 2(b) we need only readjust $`z`$ and $`\nu `$ in order to maintain successful data collapse with an even larger critical region (greater than 15K). As shown in Fig. 2(c), $`T_g`$ can even be defined as the lowest temperature of our measurement, where $`\chi _{}`$ is not shown because there is no data below 70K.

Now that we have demonstrated that a data collapse does not uniquely determine the critical parameters, we propose a criterion for uniquely determining $`T_g`$, and thus $`\nu `$ and $`z`$.

Such a signature is suggested by the scaling functions found from the conventional vortex-glass analysis. To see this it is important to note that each isotherm in Fig. 1 collapses onto only small portions of the scaling functions of Fig. 2. We demonstrate this by plotting only the isotherm at 79K as open circles in Fig. 2(a). In the low current direction of the collapses the isotherms are cut off by the voltage sensitivity floor of the experiment.

We can, however, predict how data at lower voltages would behave if a data collapse is assumed to represent a real transition. We do this by using the temperature for the desired isotherm, a current, and the values of the parameters $`\nu `$ and $`T_g`$ used in the collapse. This information determines a position along the horizontal axis of Fig. 2(a). Now, by using the vertical axis value of the scaling function along with the $`z`$ exponent we can solve for the predicted voltage.

The results of the extrapolation are shown in Fig. 4, with the $`IV`$ curves displaying a property not seen in the measured data. For isotherms at equal temperatures away from $`T_g`$ (*ie.* equal $`\left|(TT_g)/T_g\right|`$), opposite concavities are clearly evident *at the same current level*. We demonstrate this in Fig. 4 with vertical lines which represent constant currents drawn between two different pairs of isotherms. Tangent lines to these isotherms at the intersections clearly show that both pairs have opposite concavity at the same applied currents. The reader can verify that this signature would restrict the assignment of $`T_g`$ to within $`\pm 0.5\mathrm{K}`$ of 81K whether the resolution of the experiment would be at $`10^{16}\mathrm{V}`$ or $`10^{10}\mathrm{V}`$  by covering the extrapolated data at low voltages.

We demonstrate the striking contrast between this extrapolated data and the real data by plotting the extrapolated ones as open squares and circles on the derivative plot of Fig. 3. Note that the actual data curves in Fig. 3 are all qualitatively the same. It is only in the extrapolated region that curves with equal $`\left|(TT_g)/T_g\right|`$ show opposite concavity at the same applied currents.

Since opposite concavity could only envelope a single temperature at a specified current, the measurement of this signature would preclude the arbitrary choice in $`T_g`$ that a conventional scaling analysis permits. Thus, to allow for an adequate determination of $`T_g`$, it is necessary to see negative concavity for an isotherm below $`T_g`$, while one above and with equal $`\left|(TT_g)/T_g\right|`$ has a positive concavity . Since the criterion is not satisfied by our data nor the ones we know of in the literature, we argue that true evidence for a vortex-glass phase transition has not yet been demonstrated through $`IV`$ characteristics.

In conclusion, we have found that a data collapse is not sufficient evidence for a vortex-glass transition since the critical parameters can be chosen in various combinations, while maintaining agreement with scaling. Furthermore, we have shown that our $`IV`$ data plus those in the literature are not consistent with a true phase transition because the experimentally determined scaling functions predict a signature of the transition never seen, yet which should be experimentally accessible. Measurement of this signature would prevent the arbitrary choice of critical parameters permitted by the conventional analysis. Furthermore, this signature can be used as a criterion to judge future $`IV`$ data in order to help settle the controversy surrounding critical phenomena in the high-temperature superconductors.

The authors would like to thank S. M. Anlage, A. Biswas, Georg Breunig, R. C. Budhani, Zhi-yun Chen, R. L. Greene, P. Minnhagen, R. S. Newrock, A. P. Nielsen, and A. Schwartz for useful discussions on this work. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation through Grant No. DMR-9732800.


format: text

text:
# Radiation from a uniformly accelerated charge in the outskirts of a wormhole throat

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank S. Mohanty, C. Nuñez, S. Perez Bergliaffa, J. Senovilla, and A. Widom for useful discussions/correspondence. Remarks by D. V. Ahluwalia, as well as by two anonymous referees, are also gratefully acknowledged. The research of LAA was supported by CONICET. SC and GL’s research was supported by MURST PRIN 1999. DFT was supported by CONICET as well as by funds granted by Fundación Antorchas.

## Appendix A

The Rindler’s line element is given by,

$$ds^2=g^2Z^2d\tau ^2+dZ^2+dy^2+dx^2.$$
(12)
The main properties of this metric are:

1. The curvature vanishes, showing that it must simply be a portion of Minkowski space-time. Indeed, if $`t,z,y,x`$ denote the usual Minkowski coordinates, then the identification is (for $`z>t`$, region I of Fig. 1):

$$z=Z\mathrm{cosh}(g\tau ),t=Z\mathrm{sinh}(g\tau ).$$
(13)
Similar transformations are valid for the other regions. Note that $`x^2t^2=Z^2`$, and that for fixed $`Z`$, the world line is an hyperbola.
2. If $`Z`$ is a constant, $`Z=Z_0`$, the four velocity in Minkowski space-time is given by (for fixed $`x,y`$)

$$u^\nu =\frac{dx^\nu }{d\lambda }=gZ_0(\mathrm{cosh}(g\tau ),\mathrm{sinh}(g\tau ))\frac{d\tau }{d\lambda },$$
(14)
where $`\lambda `$ is the proper time of the particle. We can immediately see that, because of $`u^2=1`$, $`d\tau /d\lambda =1/gZ_0`$.
3. The four acceleration in Minkowski space-time is

$$a^\nu =\frac{du^\nu }{d\lambda }=\frac{1}{Z}_0(\mathrm{sinh}(g\tau ),\mathrm{cosh}(g\tau )),$$
(15)
and its square is the constant $`1/Z_0^2`$.
4. Temporal translations in Eq. (1) are equivalent to Lorentz boosts in Minkowski space-time. Under $`\tau \tau +\alpha `$, the transformed plane coordinates are, $`z^{}\pm t^{}=(z\pm t)e^{\pm g\alpha }`$, which identifying

$$e^{\pm g\alpha }=\frac{1v}{\sqrt{1v^2}},$$
(16)
result in Lorentz transformations with velocity $`v`$.
5. As seen by the uniformly accelerated observer, a world line crosses the boundaries of region I at $`\tau =\pm \mathrm{}`$. There is a future event horizon at $`Z=0`$.

## Appendix B

Čerenkov radiation occurs when a fast particle moves through a medium at a constant velocity $`v`$, which is greater than the velocity of light in that medium. Because of the superluminal motion of the particle, a shock wave is created and this yields to a loss of energy. The wavefront of the radiation propagates at a fixed angle

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{v_{phase}}{v}=\frac{c/n(\nu )}{v}$$
(17)
where $`\nu `$ is the photon frequency and $`n`$ is the refractive index. Only in this direction do the wavefronts add up coherently. The value $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$ corresponds to the threshold for emission. It is clear that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta <1`$ can not be satisfied (and then will be no radiation) if $`n<1`$ (because $`v`$ always is less than $`c`$). See, for example, Refs. .

It was shown in Ref. , that a static gravitational field (with metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$) has an effective refractive index given by

$$n_\gamma ^2(k_0)=|g^{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}|\left(1\frac{{}_{}{}^{^{(3+1)}}R_{i}^{i}}{|g^{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}|k_0^2}\right).$$
(18)
Here, $`{}_{}{}^{^{(3+1)}}R_{i}^{i}`$ stands for the sum on the spatial indices of the Ricci tensor $`R_\nu ^\mu `$, and $`k_0`$ is the frequency of the emitted photon $`\gamma `$. Recall that hats refer to the orthonormal frame. The crucial point, in order that the Čerenkov radiation be kinematically allowed, is that $`{}_{}{}^{^{(3+1)}}R_{i}^{i}<0`$, so that $`n_\gamma ^2(k_0)>1`$.

The energy radiated by Čerenkov process by a charged particle moving in a background gravitational field is given by (for details, see )

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{Q^2\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{4\pi p_0}_{k_{01}}^{k_{02}}𝑑k_0\left[p_0(p_0k_0)\frac{1}{2}k_0^2\right]k_0\frac{n_\gamma ^21}{n_\gamma ^2},$$
(19)
where $`Q`$ is the charge of the fermion emitting the photon, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}`$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant, $`p_0`$ is the energy of the fermion, and $`k_{01}`$, $`k_{02}`$ are the allowed range of frequencies where radiation can occur.

The interesting result is obtained for $`n_\gamma ^21`$, since the spectrum of energy radiated by a charged particle, Eq. (19), assumes the form

$$\frac{d}{dk_0}\left(\frac{dE}{dt}\right)=\frac{Q^2\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{4\pi }\left[1\frac{k_0}{p_0}\frac{k_0^2}{2p_0^2}\right]k_0,$$
(20)
which differs in a substantial way from the thermal or synchroton emission.


text:
# Deviations from Matthiessen’s Rule for SrRuO₃ and CaRuO₃

## Abstract

We have measured the change in the resistivity of thin films of $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ upon introducing point defects by electron irradiation at low temperatures, and we find significant deviations from Matthiessen’s rule. For a fixed irradiation dose, the induced change in resistivity decreases with increasing temperature. Moreover, for a fixed temperature, the increase in resistivity with irradiation is found to be sublinear. We suggest that the observed behavior is due to the marked anisotropic scattering of the electrons together with their relatively short mean free path (both characteristic of many metallic oxides including cuprates) which amplify effects related to the Pippard ineffectiveness condition.

Deviations from Matthiessen’s rule (DMR) in a metal provide unique microscopic insight into the electron scattering processes. Here, we have used electron irradiation to study the DMR in the ruthenium-based perovskites $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$. These ruthenates have been studied extensively in recent years, with various experimental results indicating that these are strongly correlated systems, similar in many ways to the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Therefore, there is special interest in exploring the DMR in these systems.

Usually, the DMR have been studied by comparing the electrical resistivities of samples containing different concentrations of impurities. However, this method may induce changes in the resistivity that are not related to the concentration of point defects, thus limiting the possibility of a rigorous and sensitive study of the DMR. On the other hand, it has been pointed out  that examining the resistivity change of a sample whose residual resistivity is moderately increased by electron irradiation would allow a detailed study of the DMR which could be compared with theoretical predictions.

$`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ are pseudo-cubic perovskites having similar electronic structure and comparable resistivities. Nevertheless, the slight difference in their lattice parameters leads to important differences in their magnetic behavior. $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ is an itinerant ferromagnet with $`T_c150\mathrm{K}`$ (in films), whereas $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ does not exhibit long-range order down to at least $`1.8\mathrm{K}`$. Since $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ are very similar except for magnetic ordering, studying both systems allows us to determine whether the observed DMR are due to the magnetic contribution.

Our measurements show significant DMR for both $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$. The experimental quantity of interest is the change in resistivity ($`\rho `$) upon electron irradiation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}(D,T)=\rho (D,T)\rho (0,T)`$, where $`D`$ is the irradiation dosage and $`T`$ is the temperature. We measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}(D,T)`$ as a function of $`D`$ for fixed $`T`$ and as a function of $`T`$ for fixed $`D`$. Our principal results are the following: (i) for fixed dosage, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ decreases with increasing temperature (see Fig. 1), and (ii) for fixed temperature, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ increases sublinearly as a function of dosage (see Fig. 2). We explain these results in terms of anisotropic electron scattering (due to the anisotropic Fermi surface) together with the Pippard ”ineffectiveness condition”  for low-$`q`$ scattering due to a short mean free path. Since anisotropic scattering and a short mean free path are also characteristic of other metallic perovskites (including the cuprates), DMR may be expected to occur in these systems as well.

The samples used for electron irradiation were $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ films grown on $`\mathrm{SrTiO}_3`$ and a $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ film grown on $`\mathrm{NdGaO}_3`$ (different substrates where chosen to minimize the lattice mismatch). The samples were irradiated by a beam of 2.5 MeV electrons using the VINKAC set-up at Ecole Polytechnique, composed of a Van de Graff accelerator and an irradiation chamber connected to a closed-cycle hydrogen liquefier. Electrons of such energy are known to create point defects in compounds similar to the perovskites used in our experiment. During irradiation, the samples were immersed in liquid hydrogen ($`20\mathrm{K}`$) to prevent diffusion and clustering of the generated point defects. In the first warm-up, we observe a small decrease in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ which indicates some defect migration when the temperature is increased. By analogy with other electron-irradiated systems (e.g., $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_7`$) whose defects were extensively studied with a tunneling-electron microscope, this decrease is due to partial annealing or the formation of small clusters which are equivalent to point defects. The defects remained stable in subsequent temperature cycles.

Prior to irradiation, the films were patterned to allow resistivity measurements on pairs of neighboring segments. During irradiation, one segment of each pair was covered with lead to protect it from being irradiated. Therefore, we could determine the effect of irradiation by comparing the resistivities of neighboring segments, with the lead-covered segment serving as reference. The fact that the comparison is made between segments that are identical except for the irradiation, and the fact that the resistivity of the two segments was measured simultaneously (thus avoiding errors due to small variations in the sample temperature at the same nominal temperature settings during different measurement runs) are crucial for reliable and sensitive measurements of the small changes in resistivity due to irradiation.

The main results of this paper are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ at a fixed dosage for $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$. At low temperatures, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ $`3\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ for both samples, but as the temperature increases, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ decreases significantly. The similarity in the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ for $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ indicates that the observed DMR is not caused by magnetic ordering. However, the pronounced ”step” in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ near the Curie temperature of $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ suggests that the magnetic ordering does affect $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$.

Figure 2 shows $`\rho `$ as a function of dosage for $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ at $`20\mathrm{K}`$. Whenever the density of the added point defects is proportional to the dosage, one expects a linear increase in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$. However, we find a sublinear dependence; the inset clearly shows a monotonic decrease in $`d\rho /dD`$.

We suggest that the key to understanding these results is twofold: (i) the scattering is very anisotropic for the ruthenates; therefore, even small-angle scattering can produce large changes in the velocity of the electron, and (ii) the anisotropic scattering amplifies the Pippard ”ineffectiveness condition” which states that the low-$`q`$ components of scattering potentials are ineffective in scattering when $`1/q`$ is larger than the electron mean free path.

The physics behind the ineffectiveness condition is straightforward. A finite mean free path $`\lambda `$ implies that the $`k`$-vector of the electron has an uncertainty of magnitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }k1/\lambda `$. Therefore, if the electron $`k`$-vector changes upon scattering by less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$, then the initial and final $`k`$-vectors are the same within their uncertainty. This is equivalent to the electron not having been scattered at all.

The change in the electron $`k`$-vector upon scattering is given by the $`q`$-vector of the scattering potential, $`V_q`$. The ineffectiveness condition implies that the mean free path $`\lambda `$ sets a lower bound $`q_{min}=2\pi /\lambda `$, so that $`V_q`$ with $`q<q_{min}`$ is excluded as a scattering source.

The ineffectiveness condition explains the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}(D,T)`$, both as a function of temperature (Fig. 1) and as a function of irradiation dosage (Fig. 2).

Two different contributions determine the temperature-dependent decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$. First, because $`q_{min}`$ increases as a function of temperature, the resistivity due to the added defects becomes smaller. Second, the irradiation-induced shortening of the mean free path makes more small-$`q`$ phonons and magnons ”ineffective”, thus yielding a negative contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$.

Similarly, the sublinear increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ with dosage is explained by the decrease of the contribution per defect to $`\rho `$ due to the progressive increase in $`q_{min}`$.

Why are similar DMR effects not observed in $`all`$ metals? For metals having a nearly-spherical Fermi surface, the small-$`q`$ components of the scattering potential contribute very little to the resistivity due to the ($`1\mathrm{cos}\theta `$) ”transport factor” ($`\theta `$ is the scattering angle). The approximate expression $`(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )q^2`$ for the transport factor reflects the fact that in simple metals, small scattering angles imply small changes in electron velocity (hence, current). On the other hand, for a material with an anisotropic Fermi surface, even small-angle scattering can lead to a large change in the electron velocity. As a result, the transport factor is of order unity.

The effect of a non-spherical Fermi surface has been calculated, for instance, for aluminium. Using the correct transport factor, which turns out to be of order unity, accounts for the observed low-temperature $`T^3`$ dependence for $`\rho (T)`$, rather than the usual $`T^5`$ dependence.

For the materials studied here, $`d`$-electrons are mainly responsible for the current and the electron scattering is very anisotropic. Therefore, similar to aluminium, the transport factor is expected to be of order unity over much of the non-spherical Fermi surface. Moreover, these materials are characterized by a short mean free path which implies large $`q_{min}`$.

We now consider the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$. The experimental results for $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ are similar, and we shall concentrate on the data for $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3.`$ According to Fig. 1a, as the temperature increases to $`100\mathrm{K}`$, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ decreases from $`3.0\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ (its low-temperature value) to $`1.4\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$. This $`1.6\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ decrease in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ is the number we wish to calculate.

An explicit resistivity calculation requires the scattering matrix elements and the complete phonon and magnon spectrum, and performing integrals over the anisotropic Fermi surface. None of these ingredients are known with sufficient precision. Therefore, we shall adopt the more modest goal of carrying out a simplified resistivity calculation to see whether we obtain reasonable agreement with experiment. To that end, we use the Bloch-Gruneisen approximation for both the electron-phonon and the electron-magnon resistivity. Although such a calculation will not yield quantitatively reliable numbers, we are here looking for a qualitative explanation of the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$, rather than attempting a first-principles calculation.

Following the textbooks, we write the Bloch-Gruneisen resistivity as follows:

$$\rho =C_{q_{min}(D,T)}^Q𝑑qq|V(q)|^2F[\mathrm{}\omega (q)/k_BT]\text{}F(z)=\frac{z^2}{(e^z1)(1e^z)}$$
(1)
where $`q_{min}(D,T)`$ depends on both the dosage $`D`$ and the temperature through its dependence on the resistivity, and the upper limit is the Debye wavenumber $`Q`$. At low $`q`$ (the region of interest here), $`\omega (q)q`$ for phonons, whereas for magnons, $`\omega (q)q^2`$. The Debye temperature and some other parameters are different, of course, for phonons and for magnons. For the form factor $`V(q)`$, which describes the scattering of an electron by a unit cell, we used the $`q`$-dependence which has been calculated for the simple metals. We used the kinetic theory of metals to relate $`\rho `$ to $`\lambda `$ for the calculation of $`q_{min}=2\pi /\lambda `$.

Equation (1) differs from the textbook expression in two respects. First, we have approximated the transport factor by unity. Second, the lower limit on the integral is $`q_{min}(D,T)`$, rather than zero, which takes into account the ineffectiveness condition.

The resistivity of the defects is also given by Eq. (1), if one omits the function $`F(z)`$ and extends the range of integration to twice the Fermi momentum, which can be estimated from the calculated Fermi surface area.

Performing the calculation according to Eq. (1) yields a decrease in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ of $`1.1\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ at $`100\mathrm{K}`$. Half of this value results from the decrease in the resistivity of the added defects from its zero-temperature value, and the other half results from the decrease in the phonon and magnon resistivities due to the irradiation-induced increase of $`q_{min}`$. The calculated value of $`1.1\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ is remarkably close to the experimental value of $`1.6\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$, in view of the crudity of the calculation, and should not be taken seriously as a quantitative result. However, it demonstrates that the ineffectiveness condition does indeed account for the magnitude of the observed decrease in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ with temperature.

At high temperatures our semi-classical treatment of $`\rho _{irr}`$ is not applicable, since there are clear indications for the breakdown of Boltzmann transport theory in this regime. Therefore, a different theoretical approach is required.

A puzzling feature of the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ that still needs to be explained is the sharp ”step” in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ of $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ near $`T_c153\mathrm{K}`$ (see Fig. 1a). While one can attribute a decrease in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ near $`T_c`$ to the rapid increase of the magnetic resistivity, the sharp ”step” is surprising because the magnetization approaches zero gradually, as the temperature approaches $`T_c`$ from below. Furthermore, when comparing the resistivity of the irradiated and unirradiated segments in magnetic field (see Fig. 3), additional unexpected behavior is observed near $`T_c`$. Attributing the ”step” in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ to the decrease in the magnetization, the sharp ”step” should be smeared out by the field. This was indeed observed, as shown in the figure, but we also found the unexpected result that below $`T_c`$, the application of the field $`reduces`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$.

Both anomalies are resolved by assuming that the irradiation slightly decreases $`T_c`$ by about $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c0.4\mathrm{K}`$, which rescales the temperature dependence of the magnetic resistivity. Denoting the magnetic resistivity before and after irradiation by $`\rho _m`$ and $`\rho _m^{}`$, respectively, we have near $`T_c`$ the relation $`\rho _m^{}(T,H)\rho _m(T+\mathrm{\Delta }T_c,H)`$. This change in the magnetic resistivity makes a temperature dependent contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ that can be evaluated by determining $`d\rho _m/dT`$. Subtracting this contribution from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ yields the results shown in the upper inset of Fig. 3. These results indicate that below $`T_c`$, as expected, the field does not reduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$, and that the decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$ below $`T_c`$ is rather smooth.

The assumption that $`T_c`$ decreased by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c0.4\mathrm{K}`$ due to irradiation is supported by the observed relation between $`T_c`$ and the residual resistivity in our unirradiated films. Furthermore, if we measure the magnetoresistance of the irradiated and unirradiated segments as a function of temperature, we see that the two curves coincide almost exactly if we shift one relative to the other by $`0.4\mathrm{K}`$ (see lower inset of Figure 3).

Turning now to Fig. 2, the inset presents the data for $`d\rho /dD`$, which gives a quantitative measure of the sublinearity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$. As the resistivity increases upon irradiation from $`18.4`$ to $`23.1\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$, the value of $`d\rho /dD`$ is seen to decrease by $`15\%`$. This is the number we wish to calculate.

Differentiating the resistivity integral with respect to $`D`$ for each contribution to the resistivity (phonons do not contribute at low temperatures) yields $`3\%`$ for the decrease in $`d\rho /dD`$ upon irradiation. This value is much smaller than the experimental value of $`15\%`$. However, the resistivity integral in (1) assumes isotropic electron scattering. If the marked anisotropy of the scattering over the Fermi surface is approximately taken into account, numerical studies indicate that the calculated value of $`d\rho /dD`$ increases by a factor of $`2`$-$`3`$. (At the higher temperature of $`100\mathrm{K}`$, the effect is only marginal, because larger values of $`q_{min}`$ are involved.) Thus, a more realistic calculation of $`d\rho /dD`$ would yield about half the observed sublinearity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{irr}`$.

In conclusion, we have clearly demonstrated that $`\mathrm{SrRuO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{CaRuO}_3`$ exhibit significant DMR. We suggest that this behavior stems from the Pippard ineffectiveness condition, whose effect on the resistivity of these materials is amplified by their anisotropic scattering and short mean free path. We believe that these results will contribute to a better understanding of the transport properties of the compounds studied, as well as other similar systems.

We thank J. S. Dodge for useful discussions. This research was supported by The Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and by Grant No. 97-00428/1 from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel.


text:
# Comment on “Extraction of work from a single thermal bath in the quantum regime”

Department of Physics, Gakushuin University, Mejiro, Toshima-ku, Tokyo 171, JAPAN

(September 5, 2000)
In a recent Letter  Allahverdyan and Nieuwenhuizen presented a series of calculations on a quantum system coupled to a quantum heat bath, and made a rather sensational conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics may be violated as a “consequence of quantum coherence in the presence of the slightly off-equilibrium nature of the bath.”

However, as we shall explain here, one can use the standard result about relative entropy to prove rigorously that  the second law is never violated (and a perpetual motion of the second kind can never be realized) in quantum systems no matter how strong “quantum coherence” is or no matter how far one goes from equilibrium. The main purpose of the present Comment is not to make detailed objections to , but to remind the readers that (under reasonable definitions which are slightly different from those in ) the second law is never violated.

As in , we consider a quantum system which consists of a subsystem (with Hilbert space $`_\mathrm{s}`$) and a bath (with Hilbert space $`_\mathrm{b}`$). The Hamiltonian of the subsystem $`H_\mathrm{s}(t)`$ depends on time (where the time-dependence models operations by an outside agent), that of the bath $`H_\mathrm{b}`$ is time-independent, and that for interaction $`H_{\mathrm{int}}(t)`$ may be time-dependent. The total Hamiltonian is $`H(t)=H_\mathrm{s}(t)\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}H_\mathrm{b}+H_{\mathrm{int}}(t)`$.

Initially the subsystem is in an arbitrary equilibrium state with density matrix $`\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{init}}`$ (on $`_\mathrm{s}`$), and the bath is in the Gibbs state with inverse temperature $`\beta `$. The density matrix for the whole system is

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{init}}=\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{init}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[\beta H_\mathrm{b}]}{Z(\beta )},$$
(1)
where $`Z(\beta )=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{b}[\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H_\mathrm{b}\}]`$ is the partition function for the bath. ($`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{s}`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{b}`$, and $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ stand for the traces over $`_\mathrm{s}`$, $`_\mathrm{b}`$, and $`_\mathrm{s}_\mathrm{b}`$, respectively.)

Let $`\rho ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ be the density matrix at the final moment obtained from the time evolution according to $`H(t)`$. We make no assumptions about the nature of the time evolution or of the final state $`\rho ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$. From the well-known invariance of the von Neumann entropy and the nonnegativity of relative entropy , we have

$$\mathrm{Tr}[\rho ^{\mathrm{init}}\mathrm{log}\rho ^{\mathrm{init}}]=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho ^{\mathrm{fin}}\mathrm{log}\rho ^{\mathrm{fin}}]\mathrm{Tr}[\rho ^{\mathrm{fin}}\mathrm{log}\rho ^{\mathrm{ref}}],$$
(2)
where $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ref}}`$ is an arbitrary density matrix. From (1) one finds that $`\mathrm{Tr}[\rho ^{\mathrm{init}}\mathrm{log}\rho ^{\mathrm{init}}]=S_{\mathrm{vN}}[\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{init}}]+\beta H_\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{init}}+\mathrm{log}Z(\beta )`$, where $`S_{\mathrm{vN}}[\rho _\mathrm{s}]=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{s}[\rho _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{log}\rho _\mathrm{s}]`$ is the von Neumann entropy of the subsystem. If we choose the reference state as

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{ref}}=\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{fin}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[\beta H_\mathrm{b}]}{Z(\beta )},$$
(3)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{fin}}=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{b}[\rho ^{\mathrm{fin}}]`$, we have $`\mathrm{Tr}[\rho ^{\mathrm{fin}}\mathrm{log}\rho ^{\mathrm{ref}}]=S_{\mathrm{vN}}[\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{fin}}]+\beta H_\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{fin}}+\mathrm{log}Z(\beta )`$. Therefore (2) becomes

$$S_{\mathrm{vN}}[\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{fin}}]S_{\mathrm{vN}}[\rho _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{init}}]\beta \left(H_\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{init}}H_\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{fin}}\right).$$
(4)
Since $`H_\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{init}}H_\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is the energy transferred from the bath to the rest of the system (described by $`H_\mathrm{s}`$ plus $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$), it can be unambiguously interpreted as the heat that flowed out of the bath during the process . We have thus confirmed the validity of the second law (in the form of the Clausius inequality) rigorously . We note in passing that (4) rules out the possibility of any perpetual motion of the second kind, including those operating in nonequilibrium states with strong quantum coherence .

It is a pleasure to thank Elliott Lieb, Keiji Saito, Shin-ichi Sasa, Jakob Ynvgason, and Satoshi Yukawa for valuable discussions. I also thank Armen Allahverdyan and Theo Nieuwenhuizen for useful comments.


text:
# Local equilibrium in heavy-ion collisions. Microscopic analysis of a central cell versus infinite matter.

## I Introduction

The hypothesis that local equilibrium (LE) can occur in the system of two heavy nuclei colliding head on at relativistic energies is one of the most intriguing problems in high-energy physics . In this paper we continue to study the equilibration of hot and dense hadronic matter, produced in the central (with volume $`V=125`$ fm3) cell in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, started in Ref.  (see also Refs. ). The equilibration of infinite nuclear matter has been studied separately in Refs.  and also in Ref. . Here we will compare this idealized scenario to the properties of matter in the central cell of a heavy-ion collision. Both, the dynamics of the nuclear collisions in the energy range from from 10.7 to 160A GeV, as well as the infinite matter are calculated in the framework of the ultrarelativistic quantum molecular dynamics (UrQMD) model . Note that in Ref.  hadron string dynamics (HSD) model  has been used for the infinite nuclear matter calculations.

The concept of local equilibrium assumes that for a given system a state is reached where all deviations of the system characteristics from the equilibrium ones can be treated as small perturbations. For instance, the distribution function of particles in the phase space $`\{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p}\}`$, $`f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p})`$, can be approximated by

$$f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p})=f^{\mathrm{eq}}(p)\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p})\right],$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p})1`$ and $`f^{\mathrm{eq}}(p)`$ is the equilibrium distribution function. But the central cell in a nuclear collision is an open system. Neither the energy density nor the particle composition in the cell is conserved. To decide whether or not the LE is attained in this open system the following procedure has been developed . At the early stage of the collision the conditions of the kinetic equilibrium should be fulfilled. This implies the absence of significant (in the sense of LE definition) collective flow in the cell together with the nearly Maxwellian \[see Eq. (1)\] shape of particle momentum distributions. These conditions should be completed by the requirement of thermal and chemical equilibrium. It means that the particle energy spectra, $`dN/4\pi pEdE`$, and particle abundances should be close to those of equilibrated matter. In Refs.  the statistical model (SM) of an ideal hadron gas  with essentially the same hadron species as in the UrQMD model has been applied to calculate the characteristics of hadron-resonance matter in equilibrium. As an input the SM needs only three parameters, extracted from the microscopic calculations in the cell. Namely, the energy density $`\epsilon `$, the baryon density $`\rho _\mathrm{B}`$, and the strangeness density $`\rho _\mathrm{S}`$, have to be determined. Solving then a system of nonlinear equations  one can reproduce particle yields and energy spectra in the SM via the temperature $`T`$, baryochemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$, and strangeness chemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{S}`$. If the spectra of hadrons in the microscopic cell calculations are close to the spectra predicted by the SM, the LE is assumed to set in in the cell.

The striking result of the investigations made in Ref.  is that the hot (and initially dense) hadron matter in the central cell does not reach the pure equilibrium in the sense of statistical mechanics during the time evolution, i.e., the state of maximum entropy . However, it reaches the stage of kinetic equilibrium at time $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$, almost irrespective of the energy of colliding nuclei. The deviations of the UrQMD results from the SM predictions become significant with rising center-of-mass energy of the system.

To make a final decision about the possibility of local equilibration in a heavy-ion collision, simulated within a microscopic model, the comparison with the equilibrated infinite matter, simulated within the same model, should be performed. This is essentially the subject of the present paper, which is organised as follows. A brief description of the model applied and the results on relaxation of the infinite hadron matter are given in Sec. II. After a certain nonstationary stage, yields and apparent temperatures of hadron species in the box with periodic boundary conditions, which models infinite matter, become time independent. This means that an equilibrium (or rather stationary) state is attained. Section III presents the comparison of the dynamical cell calculations with the stationary phase of infinite hadron matter. It is shown that the spectra in the cell at $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$ agree well with the infinite matter calculations, in contrast to the SM predictions. The discussion of the results obtained is given in Sec. IV. The origin of discrepancies between the UrQMD infinite matter simulations and the SM predictions is traced  to many-body ($`N3`$) decays of resonances and processes of multiparticle production via the excitation and fragmentation of quark-diquark (or quark-antiquark) strings. In the present paper we argue that the absorption of the excess of particle production (mainly pions) by the resonances, which can interact both inelastically and elastically within their lifetimes, is the key process which maintains the total balance of hadrons in the model calculations. The conclusions are drawn in Sec. V.

## II Simulation of infinite hadron matter

### A Initial conditions

To simulate the infinite hadron gas in the UrQMD model a cubic box of a volume $`V=5`$ fm $`\times 5`$ fm $`\times 5`$ fm $`=125`$ fm3 with periodic boundary conditions has been chosen . These conditions ensure that particles always remain in the box. For instance, if one particle crosses the face of the box and leaves it, another particle identical to the first one enters immediately the box from the opposite box face. The box plays a role of a heat bath in which the total energy density is conserved.

To define the initial state the number of particles, their composition and momenta must be specified. It can be a baryon-free gas of mesons, a baryon-antibaryon gas, or a gas of strings and resonances. For infinite nuclear matter with zero net strangeness and nonzero net baryon charge it is convenient to initialise a system consisting of protons and neutrons only . Here the nucleons are uniformly distributed in the box volume. Their momenta are initialized randomly in a Fermi sphere with the subsequent rescaling to provide the required energy density. Further details concerning the simulations of infinite nuclear matter can be found elsewhere .

It is worth noting that such an analysis should not be mixed up with the study of dynamics of equilibration in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. In the latter case two Lorentz-contracted nuclei pass through each other and produce a nearly cylindrically expanding volume of hot and dense quark-hadron matter. The equilibration process in the central cell of such system proceeds faster compared to the box with the same values of energy density, baryon density and strangeness density. The cell is an open system and the most energetic particles leave it freely, causing an effective cooling of the rest of the hadron matter in the cell. Times needed to reach thermal and chemical equilibration in the box (isolated system) are, apparently, much larger because of the permanent production of new particles in very energetic collisions at the nonequilibrium stage.

### B Equilibration in the box

Criteria of equilibrium of hot hadronic matter in the box  are similar to the criteria of equilibrium in the central cell of ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, formulated in Refs. . We recall them briefly. Conditions of kinetic equilibrium imply that (i) the velocity distributions $`f_j(v)`$ of hadron species $`j`$ are isotropic and obey Maxwell distribution

$$f_j(v)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_jv^2}{2T}\right)$$
(2)
with $`T`$ being the temperature of the system. For local equilibrium some deviations \[see Eq. (1)\] from the Maxwellian shape are possible. Therefore, it is convenient (especially for the central cell in heavy-ion collisions) to complete the verification procedure by (ii) the requirement of isotropy in the pressure sector. As a matter of fact, full isotropy of the velocity distributions leads obviously to the isotropy of the diagonal elements of the pressure tensor. Thus, criteria (i) and (ii) are not independent. But, instead of checking isotropy of the velocity distributions of all hadrons and their resonances in the box (or cell), it is more appropriate to confirm this isotropy for very few main hadron species, such as nucleons and pions, and then examine the isotropy of the integral distribution, such as pressure.

Since the number of particles is not a conserved quantity in strong interactions, the equilibrium in the system cannot be reached until abundances of all hadron species become saturated. Also, inelastic collisions affect the thermal distributions of particles. Therefore, criteria (i),(ii) should be completed by the requirement of time independence of (iii) energy distributions of particles (thermal equilibrium) and (iv) their yields (chemical equilibrium). Elastic scattering of particles drives the system to thermal equilibrium, while inelastic reactions push the system towards the stage of chemical equilibrium.

To examine the course of equilibration in the box the system of nucleons has been initialized. The values of the energy density, baryon density and strangeness density in the box are corresponding to those in the central cell with volume $`V=125`$ fm3 in Pb+Pb central collision at SPS ($`E_{\mathrm{lab}}=160`$A GeV) energy at time $`t=10`$ fm/$`c`$ after the beginning of the collision, namely, $`\epsilon =468`$ Gev/fm3, $`\rho _\mathrm{B}=0.09`$ fm-3, and $`\rho _\mathrm{S}=0.01`$ fm-3. At that time the hadronic matter in the cell is already in kinetic equilibrium . As seen in Fig. 1 the second moments

$$\sigma _{x,y,z}^{(2)}=v_{x,y,z}^2v_{x,y,z}^2$$
(3)
of the longitudinal and transverse velocity distributions of six main hadron species become isotropic after 50 fm/$`c`$. However, some of the hadron abundances are not frozen yet. Figure 2 depicts the evolution of the yields of $`\pi `$’s, $`K`$’s, $`\overline{K}`$’s, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma })`$’s, and $`N`$’s with time $`t`$. The saturation of the kaon yields is reached at about 70$``$90 fm/$`c`$ after the beginning of the process, while the yields of other hadrons are saturated at 50$``$60 fm/$`c`$. These saturation times agree with the results of Ref. , where the delay in saturation of the abundances of strange particles has been also observed.

The stationary stage, attained by the hadron matter in the box, is also characterised by a saturation of the number of inelastic and elastic collisions of hadrons and decays of resonances per unit of time. Figure 3 shows that about 45% of all reactions in the system are inelastic collisions. Another 27% of interactions are elastic, and the fraction of decays of resonances is about 28%. Compared with the number of resonance decays it means, particularly, that the rate of collisions is high and, therefore, more than 30% of all resonances suffer elastic or inelastic collisions with other hadrons within their lifetimes. According to Fig. 3 both elastic and inelastic reactions are controlled by meson-baryon (MB) and meson-meson (MM) interactions with small admixture of baryon-baryon (BB) collisions. Among the inelastic collisions the processes going via the formation of resonances (78% of the inelastic cross section) dominate over the reactions with the string formation (22% of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}}`$), as seen in Fig. 3(c).

At the initial nonequilibrium stage the collisions of hadrons are very energetic. Then, due to multiparticle processes, the kinetic energy of primordial nucleons is converted into the mass of newly produced particles, mainly mesons. As a result, the average energies of MM, MB and BB interactions, both elastic and inelastic, rapidly drop. The mean energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$, of elastic and inelastic hadron collisions in the box at $`t100`$ fm/$`c`$ is listed in Table I. The value of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for elastic and inelastic collisions varies from 0.8 GeV for MM interactions up to 2.7 GeV for heavy BB systems. At these energies the contribution of elastic processes to the total cross section of a given reaction is indeed about 40% smaller than the inelastic cross section .

Figure 4 clarifies the kinetics of the equilibration of the pion yields, whose number can only be changed in inelastic reactions. The excess of pions produced in the fragmentation of strings is compensated by the absorption of pions by resonance matter, e.g., in a two-step process such as $`\pi \pi \rho `$ and $`\rho \rho \pi \pi `$. As mentioned before, because of the large particle density and large interaction cross section the resonances can interact immediately after their production without decay but, probably, with the formation of new strings. Thus the symmetry between the gain and loss terms for pions (as well as for other hadrons) is restored. Note, that although the chemical composition of the hadrons is frozen, the inelastic reactions in the system are not completely ceased.

To verify that not only chemical but also thermal equilibrium is attained the energy spectra of hadrons in the box have been studied. If the system is in thermal equilibrium these spectra should be nicely fitted to Gibbs distribution, $`\mathrm{exp}(E_i/T+\mu _i/T)`$. Pion energy spectra, $`dN/4\pi pEdE`$, are shown at different times in Fig. 5(a), and nucleon energy spectra are represented in Fig. 5(b). Both spectra are remarkably close to the equilibrium fit. Nucleon energy spectra are time independent already after $`t=50`$ fm/$`c`$ with the “apparent” temperature $`T_N127`$ MeV, and the pion energy spectra become unchangeable at $`t70`$ fm/$`c`$, with the “apparent” temperature $`T_\pi 106`$ MeV. The difference in $`T_\pi `$ and $`T_N`$ looks not very significant, $`(T_NT_\pi )/T_N0.17`$. The hadronic matter in the box can be considered as a stationary system almost in equilibrium, since the conditions (i)$``$(iv) are satisfied.

## III Comparison between cell and box results

### A  Energy spectra and yields of hadrons

To compare the hadron yields and energy spectra in the central cell of heavy-ion collisions at energies 10.7 and 160A GeV with the hadronic spectra in equilibrium, the values of $`\epsilon `$, $`\rho _\mathrm{B}`$, and $`\rho _\mathrm{S}`$ have been extracted from the cell conditions at each time step. In Ref.  these values are substituted into the system of nonlinear equations of the statistical model to obtain temperature $`T`$, baryon chemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$, and strangeness chemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$. The procedure enables to calculate particle multiplicities and energy spectra in the SM.

In the present analysis the extracted parameters $`\epsilon ,\rho _\mathrm{B},\rho _\mathrm{S}`$ are used to initialize the system of hadrons in the box. The hadrons start to interact, elastically and inelastically, and the process of relaxation to the equilibrium begins. When the fluctuations of hadron yields and their energy spectra from some average values become small, and the average values themselves become time independent, the simulations are stopped. Then, the spectra of hadrons in the cell are compared with those of the infinite hadron matter. Energy spectra of hadron species in the cell at $`t=10`$ fm/$`c`$ are shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) together with the box simulations for both energies. Predictions of the statistical model of an ideal hadron gas  are plotted as well. We see that the agreement between the cell and the box results is very good. It is insensitive to the rise of bombarding energy from AGS to SPS, in contrast to noticeable deviations from the predictions of SM. Values of the inverse slope parameter, extracted from the Boltzmann fit to particle spectra in the cell and in the box, and temperatures, given by the SM calculations, are listed in Table II for the central cell in Pb+Pb collisions at 160A GeV. The thermal characteristics of hadron species in the cell at $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$ are close to those of the infinite nuclear matter, and rather far from the ideal equilibrium characteristics (see also Ref. ).

The abundances of hadrons in the cell for both reactions are presented in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b). The fractions of particles belonging to the final state of the heavy-ion collisions (“frozen” particles) are plotted onto the results also. Again, the yields of hadrons in the cell at $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$ are close to the corresponding yields in the box for all species. Statistical model underestimates the number of pions, especially at high-energy densities, but provides a better agreement for the baryon sector. One can conclude that the hadron matter in the cell reaches at the late stage a quasiequilibrium state, similar to the state of infinite hadron matter simulated within the same microscopic model. This state is dubbed steady state . On the other hand, the steady state does not match to the ideal thermal and chemical equilibrium, i.e., the state of maximum entropy. It means, particularly, that the conditions (i)$``$(iv) formulated in Sec. II are the necessary and sufficient criteria of the stationary (or steady) state only. Fulfilment of these conditions cannot guarantee thermal and chemical equilibration in the system of interacting hadrons from the point of view of equilibrium statistical mechanics.

The controversial point of the discussion is that the entropy of a statistical system should have a pronounced peak corresponding to the equilibrium configuration . The experimentally measured mean multiplicities of secondaries in hadronic and nuclear collisions seem to agree roughly with the estimations of the SM, which links the multiplicity of the produced particles to the entropy of the thermalized system. Thus, the entropy of the steady state cannot be much smaller than the entropy given by the statistical model. To resolve the ambiguity it is important to study how much the entropy density in the cell deviates from the maximum entropy density allowed to the system.

### B Entropy analysis

From here we will use $`s`$ to denote the entropy density. For the statistical system of volume $`V`$ in equilibrium the entropy density $`s=S/V`$ can be determined from the Gibbs thermodynamical identity

$$Ts=\epsilon \mu _\mathrm{B}\rho _\mathrm{B}\mu _\mathrm{S}\rho _\mathrm{S}+P,$$
(4)
where $`P`$ denotes the pressure in the system. The alternative way is to define the entropy density via the particle distribution function $`f(p,m_i)`$:

$$s=\underset{i}{}\frac{g_i}{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}f_i(p,m_i)\left[\mathrm{ln}f_i(p,m_i)1\right]d^3p,$$
(5)
with $`g_i`$ and $`m_i`$ being the degeneracy factor and mass of the hadron species $`i`$, respectively. The last expression permits one to calculate the entropy density by means of the microscopic distribution function

$$f_i^{\mathrm{mic}}(p)=\frac{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}{Vg_i}\frac{dN_i}{d^3p}.$$
(6)
If the hadron cocktail reaches thermal and chemical equilibrium, the distribution functions of hadrons are given simply by Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac distributions. In this case both Eqs. (4) and (5) should provide the same results for $`s`$. But: the hadron matter in the central cell (and in the box) is neither in chemical nor in thermal equilibrium at high energy densities. Therefore, the entropy densities calculated by Eq. (5) should be smaller than those predicted by the statistical model Eq. (4). This difference is clearly seen in Fig. 8, where the entropy densities per baryon, $`S/A`$, in the central cell at the quasiequilibrium stage are compared with the SM calculations. The $`S/A`$ ratio in the cell is nearly constant during the late evolution of the system. Its deviation from the equilibrium value is about 4% at AGS and about 6$``$10% at SPS energy.

Partial entropy densities carried by nucleons and by pions in the central cell are shown in Fig. 9 together with the box and SM calculations. The entropies of hadron species in the cell appear to be very close to the equilibrium values, predicted by the SM, despite the difference in hadron abundances. For instance, although the number of pions in Pb+Pb collisions at SPS energy is twice as large in the cell at $`t=10`$ fm/$`c`$ as in the ideal equilibrium \[see Fig. 7(b)\], the partial entropy densities are nearly the same, $`s_\pi ^{\mathrm{mic}}s_\pi ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. This is due to the fact that the apparent temperature of pions in the cell is much lower than the SM temperature listed in Table II. Therefore, the total entropy of the steady state, attained by the hadron matter in the central cell or by the infinite hadron matter, is close to the maximum entropy, assigned to the system in thermal and chemical equilibrium.

## IV Which equilibrium is true?

In Ref.  it was shown that the hadronic yields and energy spectra in the central cell of relativistic heavy-ion collisions do not coincide with the corresponding spectra, given by the SM, not even at the stage of kinetic equilibrium. Formally this means that thermal and chemical equilibrium in the cell is not reached yet. For instance, times $`t20`$ fm/$`c`$ may be too short compared to the typical equilibration times.

The present study reveals, however, that the hadron distributions in the cell after $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$ agree well with the hadron spectra of infinite hadron matter, simulated within the same microscopic model. At relatively low energy densities the results of the box simulations are close to the predictions of the statistical model. The accord is broken at energy densities higher than 0.5 GeV/fm3. Which equilibrium is true and what is the origin of the disagreement? To answer these questions it is necessary to analyse the temperatures of the hadron species in the box as a function of energy density. Figure 10 presents the UrQMD simulations in the cell and in the box together with the SM estimates for Pb+Pb collisions at 160A GeV. At the high density phase of a heavy-ion collision the cell results exhibit dramatic deviations both from the SM and from the box calculations. After $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$ (cell time only) the difference between the box and the cell data is small. But both microscopic model simulations diverge clearly from the predictions of the statistical model. As was noticed in Ref. , the $`T(\epsilon )`$ dependence in the UrQMD box is the same as in the SM if the multiparticle processes $`2N(N3)`$ and the many-body decays of resonances have ceased in the system. This explains the agreement between the two models at low-energy densities. At high energy densities the microscopic model predicts the appearance of limiting temperatures similar to that of the statistical bootstrap model  for each of the hadron species. These temperatures lie within the range 105 MeV $`T_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ 145 MeV . Slightly higher limiting temperature $`T_{\mathrm{lim}}=150\pm 5`$ MeV has been found in Ref. . The deviations in model calculations can be attributed to a different number of hadron species, which is higher in the UrQMD, and to different threshold of the excitation of strings . Although the temperatures of hadrons are relatively close to each other, the whole system is not characterised by a unique temperature. Therefore, the system is not in the conventional thermal equilibrium.

The chemical composition of the hadron system in the box freezes after a while (see Sec. II). The excess of hadrons, mainly pions, produced in inelastic collisions is absorbed by the resonance matter. For instance, the reaction $`N\pi N\pi \pi `$ may be compensated by a two-step process $`N\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ (this is only a simplified example, the real number of production and absorption channels is $`>100`$). Does it mean that the conditions of equilibrium are fulfilled? The striking answer is no, because the chemical equilibrium assumes unambiguously that the rates of every coupled direct and inverse reaction in equilibrium must be the same . The cyclic process during which the system transforms from the quantum state $``$ to quantum state $`𝒦`$ and then comes back to the initial state $``$ via an intermediate state $``$ violates the necessary conditions of equilibrium . Thus, although the yields of hadrons are time independent, the system is not in chemical equilibrium, as defined by equilibrium statistical mechanics.

It is important to explain the difference between the evolution scenarios predicted by the hydrodynamic and microscopic models for the heavy-ion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies. According to typical hydrodynamic picture , the system of hadrons is produced in chemical and thermal equilibrium shortly after the QGP hadronization. Because of the expansion of the system its temperature, energy density and particle density drop. The mean free path for inelastic collisions grows much faster than that for the elastic ones. For instance, the mean free path for inelastic and elastic $`\pi \pi `$ collisions increases with the power $`T^9`$ and $`T^5`$, respectively . Chemical freeze-out takes place when the mean free path for inelastic collisions becomes comparable with the radius of the fireball, i.e., significantly earlier than the thermal freeze-out. After the (sequential) chemical freeze-out the system quickly gets out of chemical equilibrium, heavy resonances decay and chemical potentials start to develop . The thermal equilibrium is maintained until the thermal freeze-out, when the mean free path of elastic collisions rises above the linear dimensions of the system.

The altered scenario is provided by the microscopic model simulations. Here the system of hadrons in the central cell at $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$ is neither in chemical nor in thermal equilibrium. Despite the fact that hadron abundances are frozen, competing inelastic processes take place still. Also, the temperatures of hadron species are different but quite stable, as shown by the simulations of the infinite nuclear matter.

Although it is still questionable whether or not the microscopic hadron-string models can adequately describe the early stage of ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, these models are really good in description of the late hadronic phase until the freeze-out of particles. It is the late stage of heavy-ion collisions that is studied in the microscopic transport model in the present paper. The rates of elastic and inelastic processes in the box with the values of $`\epsilon ,\rho _\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{S}`$ corresponding to those of the central cell in heavy-ion collisions at AGS and SPS energies at the stage of kinetic equilibrium are listed in Table III. The number of processes going via the string formation is rather small (less than 10%) compared to the number of elastic reactions and to the number of processes with the formation and decay of resonances. It is easy to see that the total balance of particles is fulfilled, i.e., 2.47 (34.35) particles per fm/$`c`$ are produced in the decays of resonances and strings, and essentially the same 2.47 (34.28) particles per fm/$`c`$ are absorbed by resonance matter in the box with AGS (SPS) cell conditions. The mean total energy per hadron, 1.0$`\pm `$0.1 GeV (see Table I), is equal to the value 1 GeV of the mean total energy per hadron at chemical freeze-out, estimated from the statistical model fit to various experimental data from several GeV up to few hundred GeV per nucleon (see, e.g.,  and references herein). But the hadron content and the temperatures are far from those given by the SM. This difference arise because of the lack of inverse reactions, $`N2`$, which are not included in any of the available microscopic models designed for the description of heavy-ion collisions.

## V Conclusions

The results may be summarized as follows. The microscopic transport UrQMD model is employed to study the appearance of local equilibrium in the central cell of heavy-ion collisions at relativistic energies from 10.7 to 160A GeV. The hadron spectra in the cell are compared with the corresponding spectra of the infinite nuclear matter, reproduced in a box with periodic boundary conditions  within the same microscopic model. A comparison with the predictions of the statistical model of an ideal hadron gas has been done in Ref.  in detail.

The yields and energy spectra of hadrons in the cell at $`t10`$ fm/$`c`$ are found to be close to those in the box irrespective of the c.m. energy of colliding nuclei. The late hadron matter in the UrQMD cell, therefore, reaches a quasiequilibrium stage, dubbed steady state . On the other hand, the steady state of hadron matter even at not very high-energy densities differs from the idealised equilibrium state assumed by the SM.

The total entropy density is close to the maximum entropy density given by the SM. At SPS energy, for instance, the difference is not too large, $`(s_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{SM}}s_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{mic}})/s_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{SM}}6`$% only. Moreover, the entropy per baryon in the cell remains constant in the time interval $`10t20`$ fm/$`c`$ for energies varying from 10.7 to 160A GeV. This explains why the rapidity distribution of secondaries in hadronic and nuclear interactions, predicted by hydrodynamic models at those energies, fits well to the experimental data.

However, the hadrons in the UrQMD steady state do not exhibit a universal temperature for all species. The yields of mesons, especially pions, deviate from the calculations with the SM. It has been verified previously  that the assumption of a “partial” thermalization of all hadron species except pions cannot improve the quality of the fit to the SM. Elimination of pions causes the rise of the strangeness chemical potential , but not the decrease of the temperature of baryons.

The origin of the deviations is traced to different rates of direct and inverse reactions for the multiparticle processes and many-body decays of resonances, as well as nonzero lifetimes of the resonances. Absence of the reactions $`N2`$ and $`N1(N3)`$, which is a feature of all microscopic models, leads to appearance of a cyclic process in the microscopic calculations. The cyclic process where, e.g., pions are produced in inelastic collisions and then are absorbed by resonance matter, violates the equivalence of rates of every coupled direct and inverse reaction, which is the basic principle of the equilibrium statistical mechanics.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank L. Csernai, M. Gyulassy, Amand Faessler, and E. Shuryak for the stimulating discussions and valuable comments. This work was supported by the Graduiertenkolleg für Theoretische und Experimentelle Schwerionenphysik, Frankfurt–Giessen, the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Bonn. S.A.B. acknowledges financial support from the U.S. National Science Foundation, Grant No. PHY-9605207.


text:
# REVIEW OF HEAVY-QUARK PRODUCTION AT FIXED-TARGET EXPERIMENTS

## 1 Introduction

Heavy-quark production at fixed-target energies provides information and lessons across a range of physics topics. These topics are not so much related to the nature of heavy quarks as such, but rather to our understanding of basic QCD theory, both perturbative and non-perturbative, and to measurements of the nature of hadrons. The results of fixed-target experiments are also necessary to interpret the results of heavy-ion experiments as they search for evidence of quark-gluon plasma. The measurements made by fixed-target experiments can be listed simply enough:

Cross Sections: Total, and as Functions of Beam Energy and Species,
$`x_F`$, and $`p_t`$
Dependence of Production on Nuclear Target A Value
Final State Ratios, Particle/Antiparticle Ratios
Polarization
Correlations Among Heavy-Quark Particles in the Final State

Each of these measurements relates to one or more of the physics topics. However, the greatest understanding will come from combining multiple measurements, and by ensuring that the parameters used in models are consistent with all the measurements - not just a single measurement at a time. We have not yet really entered the time when this has been done for fixed-target measurements. The closest we come is when perturbative QCD calculations and Monte Carlo simulations with default parameters are compared to data. However, the default parameters have yet to be tuned across the bulk of modern measurements.

## 2 Today’s Relevant Experiments and Results for This Meeting

The most relevant fixed-target experiments for the physics topics of interest are listed in Table 1. These experiments cover a variety of beam particle types at a range of energies, and use a plethora of target materials. Fortunately, many production measurements are little affected by the details of target nucleus, and we have learned how to relate measurements on different nuclear targets, at least for inclusive cross sections. Measurements such as production asymmetries, which are self normalizing, have yet to show target dependences, for example. And, the total charm cross-section measurements on nuclei appear to scale with the number of nucleons in the target nucleus. However, in specific kinematic regions, and for the small fraction of charm production which is “onium,” the A-dependence is more complicated. See the discussion below for this latter effect.

Several measurements are newly available for this conference, and others have only just been published or submitted for publication. These recent and new results are listed by experiment in Table 2. The various results just beginning to appear from FOCUS, SELEX, and NuTev from the the 1996-7 Fermilab fixed-target run bode well for continuing, and even more interesting results in the near future. Nevertheless, it is a good time to review what we have learned so far from the heavy-quark fixed-target experiments of the past.

## 3 Heavy-Quark Production Mechanisms and Measurements

Heavy-quark production is interesting for two reasons. First, the lifetime and uniqueness of the flavor of heavy quarks allows us to follow the progress of a single quark from its production to its emergence as a fully developed hadron observable in the laboratory. Thus, we can probe the time development of hadronic processes involving heavy quarks. Secondly, since the production of heavy quarks by photons and hadrons is so dominated by the gluon content of projectiles (via photon-gluon fusion in photoproduction and gluon-gluon fusion in hadroproduction), the study of heavy-quark production allows the investigation of the gluon content of incident hadrons, both the mesons and baryons in beams and the nucleons in targets. In the case of neutrino interactions, the production of charm is dominated by W-exchange off strange quarks in the nuclear sea. Thus, we can also learn about strange sea quark distributions in nucleons. In addition, charm production in neutrino Deep Inelastic Scattering is an important ingredient in tests of two-scale perturbative QCD, the two scales being the charm mass and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$.

We have implicitly assumed that the production process can be divided into separate considerations of the incident partons, their inelastic interaction producing heavy quarks, and the hadronization process of these quarks. This division is referred to as factorization. In the following discussion, each observation will be relevant to one part of the factorized process.

In heavy quark production at fixed-target energies, a single process tends to dominate. For charm quark production, these processes are neutrino-strange-quark charged current scattering, photon-gluon fusion, and gluon-gluon fusion, respectively for incident neutrinos, photons, and hadrons. In each case, the target parton density plays a direct role, and measurements of each process is sensitive to that parton density. Thus, the strange quark sea distribution can be measured in neutrino charm production, and gluon densities in photo- and hadroproduction of charm.

In neutrino production of charm, E815/NuTev is just now starting to show results on sea-quark distributions. They have found that the strange and non-strange sea quark distributions have a small asymmetry at most, and that the strange sea is about 40% of the non-strange sea. These results are discussed in more detail in the talk of Maxim Goncharov at this Workshop.

From E769, we have rather direct evidence that the gluon densities in mesons are harder (i.e., have higher momentum fractions on average) than those in nucleons. This harder gluon momentum leads to more forward production of D mesons when the incident particle is a meson than when it is a proton, as shown in Fig. 1. Note that the pion and kaon appear to produce the same charm particle $`x_F`$ distribution, implying that the gluons in pions and kaons are the same, i.e., SU(3) symmetric. This is the same sort of kinematic argument which explains why the photoproduced charm particles are even more forward. The photon interacts with its entire momentum, pushing the subprocess center of mass more forward than typical partons in hadrons, where only a fraction of the hadron momentum goes to each parton.

In the intrinsic charm model of Stan Brodsky, Romona Vogt, and collaborators, a virtual charm quark-antiquark pair appears among the sea quarks of a hadron, and is knocked onto the mass shell during an interaction. The diagram for this process is explicitly included in higher order perturbation theory. What is different in this model is that the process is pulled out explicitly for calculation, with the initial charm sea quarks given by a parton distribution function. The intrinsic charm was thought to account for 1 to 2$`\%`$ of the proton, an amount required to explain early CERN Intersecting Storage Ring experiment results. These intrinsic charm pairs tend to be co-moving with the valence quarks of their parents. So, it is easy for such quarks to coalesce with valence quarks. This coalescence causes the same asymmetry as would be expected for any other coalescence process; i.e., it should appear at high $`x_F`$. However, we would also expect it to be limited to low $`p_t`$. The evidence is that production asymmetries are rather flat in $`p_t`$; so no direct evidence for intrinsic charm exists here. In addition, the differential cross section for $`J/\psi `$ production also limits the size of intrinsic charm, to less than 1% of the prediction for their Be target.. An earlier measurement in 800 GeV/$`c`$ proton-Si interactions by E653 were interpreted as giving a $`0.2\%`$ upper limit on the amount of intrinsic charm in the proton.

## 4 Cross Sections

The total charm cross section (typically taken as dominated by the inclusive ground-state meson production cross section) has been measured in photoproduction and hadroproduction over energies from about ten GeV to hundreds of GeV. Cross sections have also been calculated in leading order (LO) and next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbative QCD. The ratio of NLO to LO cross sections is sometimes referred to as the “K-factor.” This factor is significantly greater than one, typically a factor of a few. Nevertheless, it is considered likely that next-to-next-to-leading order terms will not be so important. The NLO differential cross sections, like the total cross sections, appear to be related to the LO calculations by more-or-less a single number, the same K-factor. So, shapes of distributions do not change much, and the absolute values are usually played down compared to relative differential cross sections (shapes).

The range of fixed-target photoproduction results are extended to 40 TeV equivalent photon beam energy by measurements at the HERA collider. Even these highest-energy photoproduction data fit a NLO calculation over the full range quite well. Note, however to watch the inclusion of color-octet effects at low photon energy and the parameters used in the cited calculation. Even so, the theoretical uncertainties in photoproduction are rather smaller than those for hadroproduction, where uncertainties associated with the charm-quark mass and the appropriate scale for the calculations each give uncertainties of nearly an order of magnitude. The pattern of cross-section measurements agree with each other across the full range of experiments and energies quite well.

The total beauty cross section at fixed-target experiments has been measured at various energies for both incident pions and protons. The measurements usually come from incomplete B decay observations; e.g., $`J/\psi `$’s which do not come from the primary interaction, and are presumed to be from $`B`$ decays. The data exists for incident pions and protons, and is quite consistent with the exception of one measurement with incident 800 GeV/$`c`$ protons. Unfortunately, even for the heavy bottom quark, the NLO QCD calculations have an uncertainty of a factor of nearly ten.

It is worth noting explicitly that all the heavy-quark-production calculations use a universal running value of $`\alpha _S`$. Any discrepancy between comparisons of calculations of charm and bottom data could have been evidence for a breakdown of QCD. However, in this context it is worth noting the limits on such non-universality of the strong coupling are strongly limited by measurements from $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions.

Another production topic of interest is the size of diffractive charm production. In the old days, several CERN and Fermilab experiments tried to see charm in diffractive events. It was hoped that this process would be quite large, perhaps 10% of the total charm photoproduction, for example. Now, we have a first measurement of the process, but for incident protons, from E690. The experiment triggers on a fast, forward proton and looks for $`D^{}`$ mesons (See Fig. 2.). Their measurement of the total diffractive $`D^{}`$ production cross section is model dependent, ranging from 0.17 to 0.29 $`m`$b ($`\pm `$ 0.05 $`mb`$ statistical error). The total charm diffraction is, thus, about 0.75 $`mb`$, only about 2 $`\%`$ of the total charm cross section. No wonder the early experiments requiring large diffractive charm production saw so few charm decays.

The charmonium cross sections are a real mystery, both at fixed-target energies and at the Tevatron Collider. There is data on $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi `$’, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, $`\chi _1`$, and $`\chi _2`$. The well-publicized, but unexplained large Collider direct $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi `$’ production (6x and 25x greater than LO calculations, respectively - really large K-factors!) occurs also at fixed-target energies, and is shown from E789 in Fig. 3 where the production is 7x and 25x larger, respectively, than the LO calculations! Can the fixed-target $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ production shed light on this?

There are three production models considered in the literature. Each makes a prediction on the relative $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ production in $`p`$ $`N`$ interactions. The three models, and their predictions are:

Color singlet $``$ $`\chi _15\%`$ of $`\chi _2`$ production.

Color evaporation/color bleaching $``$ $`\chi _1`$:$`\chi _2`$ production 3:5.

Non-Relativistic QCD (color octet plus color singlet) $``$ $`\chi _1`$
up to $`30\%`$ of $`\chi _2`$ production.

The inclusion of color-octet processes seems to explain the observations in hadroproduction. Yet, the color-octet matrix elements from the Tevatron don’t work at HERA. Further complicating the situation is that the expected polarization of color-octet produced charmonium seems not to be present at the Tevatron Collider!

Some of the most beautiful data of recent years comes from the series of experiments in Fermilab’s Meson East beam line. Very high statistics measurements of dimuon production give impressive signals for Drell-Yan pairs and the heavy-quark onia states as well. Among their results is a study of the A-dependence of open charm  (which agrees with the $`A^1`$ results of others) and of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi `$’ (which are of higher detail and precision).

As shown in Fig. 4, the A-dependence for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi `$’ production is not simple, varying by kinematic region, though quite similar for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi `$’. Are the details of the $`x_F`$ and $`p_t`$ dependences evidence for color-octet production? Another feature of these data is the cautionary note sounded against too easy interpretation of $`J/\psi `$ production effects in heavy-ion collisions as evidence for quark-gluon plasma. The data shown in Fig. 4 demonstrate that using a single power $`\alpha `$ in predictions cannot be a complete model. In fact, who is to say that the dense nuclear matter does not mix the kinematic regions we think of from fixed-target measurements. What values of $`\alpha `$ are relevant?

In these discussions of cross sections, we have an example of the need to subject model calculations to the full range of observations before anointing any model. So far, this has only been done piecemeal, and no model seems to explain all the observations.

## 5 Hadronization/Fragmentation

In the factorization scheme, the final stage involves turning the produced heavy quarks into the hadrons seen in the laboratory. This process is usually referred to variously as fragmentation and hadronization. The term fragmentation carries with it an implication of independence of the heavy quark and antiquark in the process, and the use of “fragmentation functions” measured in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. However, the environments of hadronic collisions and of $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions are quite different in terms of the totality of color fields present. We will see that this difference is quite evident, and the term hadronization appropriately conveys a more complex situation.

Longitudinal momentum distributions of heavy-quark particles are usually presented as functions of the scaled variable, Feynman x, $`x_F`$. This scaling is relative to the maximum kinematically allowed value, meaning that the variable runs from $`1.0`$ in the backward direction to $`+1.0`$ in the forward direction. Plotting distributions versus $`x_F`$ makes the distributions measured at various energies look about the same. More interestingly, and as shown in Fig. 5, the observed $`D`$ meson $`x_F`$ distributions look like the QCD predictions for quarks. The $`x_F`$ distribution does not look like the prediction for mesons when fragmentation functions are used to go from quarks to hadrons.

Why should observed hadrons appear to have more momentum than you might expect after fragmentation? There must be some process other than simple fragmentation which contributes forward momentum to balance what would be lost by fragmentation. Such a process has been called “color drag.” It refers to the color string attachment between the produced heavy quarks and the remnant quarks of projectiles. The forward-moving remnants “pull” the heavy quark forward during the hadronization process. As we will see below, production asymmetries lend credence to this idea.

In hadroproduction, the longitudinal distributions of heavy-quark particles and antiparticles may differ even though the leading order QCD process is symmetric in quark and antiquark production. In fact, even including next-to-leading order processes only produces a very small asymmetry in the far forward direction. What is observed in experiments, for example, is large asymmetries when a heavy-quark particle has a valence light-quark in common with the incident hadron and the antiparticle does not. This is known as the “leading particle effect.” Of course, it should also refer to asymmetries in the backward direction when heavy-quark particles have light valence-quarks in common with the target hadrons.

The effect is understood as being due to the coalescence of the heavy quark with a valence quark from projectile (or target) when the heavy quark and light quark are close in phase space. The experimental evidence supports this picture across a wide variety of charm particles and incident beam particle types.

There are also particle/antiparticle asymmetries in photoproduction. In the photon direction, or centrally, the process must have another explanation. There, we may be seeing the effects of associated production (meson with baryon). The energy threshold for such associated production is less than for heavy baryon-antibaryon production. And, we may expect that this associated production effect is also responsible for some of the asymmetry seen in hadroproduction, especially in the central region (near $`x_F`$ of zero).

The coalescence/recombination model seems to provide a framework for understanding particle/antiparticle production asymmetries. Intrinsic charm is not apparently required. Leading-particle effects increase in the forward and backward directions, according to the expectations tied to valence-quark content.

A particularly interesting feature of the asymmetries is that they are more or less flat in $`p_t`$. This feature appears in the PYTHIA/JETSET simulations, but is not expected in the intrinsic quark model as suggested above. It should be noted, however, that the default parameters of current versions of the PYTHIA/JETSET software do not get the details of the $`x_F`$ and $`p_t`$ asymmetry dependences right (see below).

Experimenters typically report particular measurements in their papers, rather than presenting more universal coverage of results, even their own. When making comparisons, they may vary the input parameters of models to find those that provide the best match to the particular measurement being presented. E791, for example, in comparing their $`D^\pm `$ production asymmetry to PYTHIA predictions, show both the default parameter predictions and those with modified parameters. In particular, the charm quark mass and intrinsic $`k_t`$ (see discussion of this parameter below) are changed from 1.35 GeV/$`c^2`$ and 0.44 GeV/$`c`$ to 1.7 GeV/$`c^2`$ and 1.0 GeV/$`c`$. The paper notes that these parameters are not unique in obtaining agreement, and that it is necessary to select a set of parameters which fit this and a range of other measurements to have any confidence in the parameters.

We are just starting to see detailed measurements of the production polarization of heavy-quark particles. Previously, data on the heavy-quark particles which carry spin have not been sufficiently copious to allow such determinations. Now, E791 has measured polarization for the open-charm $`D^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ particles. For the $`D^{}`$, they now have the spin-density matrix elements as functions of $`x_F`$ and $`p_t^2`$ as shown in Fig. 6. For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, the full E791 decay analysis includes the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ polarization as a function of $`p_t`$.

Onium production polarization is also measured, and is useful in determining the extent of color-octet contributions to the production cross section. Models of color-octet production predict large polarization. Yet, E866/NuSea observes little polarization for the onium ground states, and quite large polarizations for the excited onium states.

The simplest models of heavy-quark production predict that the heavy-quark particle and antiparticle will appear back-to-back in the center of mass. This correlation caries over directly to the laboratory angle in the transverse plane between the particle and antiparticle. It is the simplest correlation to measure, requiring less than complete reconstruction of the particle and antiparticle.

The earliest observations of particle/antiparticle correlations were made with the complete reconstruction of one charm particle, and incomplete reconstruction of the mate. Now, E791 and FOCUS have made high statistics measurements with the complete reconstruction of both particles (Fig. 7), reducing the uncertainties associated with acceptance corrections on the second particle. A broad range of correlations has been published by E791.

Given time constraints, I will only discuss one correlation. This one leads to the distribution in the angle between the charm particle and antiparticle in plane transverse to the beam. The E831/FOCUS photoproduction data (like earlier, lower statistics measurements) is much more peaked at 180 degrees (the back-to-back angle) than the E791 hadroproduction data (Fig. 7). Thus, the hadronic environment plays a critical role in smearing the simpler QCD predictions of perturbative calculations and parton-shower simulations.

## 6 Intrinsic $`k_t`$

All the transverse momentum distributions in LO calculations tend to be unphysical delta-functions, like the back-to-back production discussed above. NLO and parton shower models provide smearing due to gluon emission, etc. However, this smearing is not enough to match the measured distributions like those for $`p_t`$ and the transverse angle between the particle and antiparticle. Several simulation packages insert an additional effect, that due to transverse momentum of initial partons in hadrons. This transverse momentum is called “intrinsic $`k_t`$.”

When the model intrinsic $`k_t`$ is varied until the simulation predictions match data, we find that $`k_t`$ in the range of 1 to 3 GeV/$`c`$ is needed. How can the intrinsic $`k_t`$ of partons inside a proton or neutron be typically much more than the nucleon rest mass? Intrinsic $`k_t`$ must be a misnomer for something else. But, what?

## 7 Concluding Remarks

In this review, we have seen a large amount of quality, fixed-target, heavy-quark production data. There is still more to come: from FOCUS, SELEX, and COMPASS. Each of the present experiments is providing a healthy variety of observations.

The major features of our understanding of this heavy-quark production data are (1) factorization of the process, (2) the perturbative-QCD production of the heavy quarks - dominated by gluons in the incident hadrons, and (3) a more-or-less complicated hadronization. The picture works fairly well in describing the data. Nevertheless, there are also, still, several outstanding issues. I would mention particularly:

Understanding the K-factor for charm and beauty production, including
any role of the color-octet process.

Understanding the onium cross sections and the role, if any, of the
color-octet process.

Untangling intrinsic $`k_t`$, and seeing it as shorthand for … what?

Being better able to understand the relation between A-dependence
effects in fixed-target experiments and the quark-gluon
plasma signatures sought in heavy-ion collisions.

We can benefit from detailed, systematic comparisons across the range of observations made, particularly comparing open and hidden heavy flavor mesons, comparing mesons and baryons, and comparing the varied spin states and particle types (i.e., with varied light valence quarks in the final heavy-quark particle). In addition, we must have parameter sets which explain the full range of observations, not just parameters which are tuned measurement-by-measurement.

Achieving a more complete understanding of the production of heavy quarks, even at fixed-target energies, will help us understand QCD itself, as well as help to provide guidance in our studies of the signals and backgrounds for the even heavier objects to come at the highest energies.

## 8 Acknowledgements

I would like to give special thanks to Chuck Brown (NuSea), Dave Christian (E690), Peter Cooper (SELEX), Brad Cox (E771), Erik Gottschalk (E690 and FOCUS), David Langs (E791), Jim Russ (SELEX), and Panagiotis Spentzouris (E815) for help obtaining the latest results. I also want to thank the organizers of the very useful and enjoyable HQ2K meeting.

## 9 Comments and Questions From Attendees

Comment from Brad Cox:
“Let me emphasize one point you made. Those people who are doing heavy ion collisions should take into account the complex A dependences seen in many fixed-target experiments. Only then will the observations that they make be on solid ground.”
Question from Ikaros Bigi:
“You showed very intriguing data from E791 on the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ produced by pions. Can one conjecture then that FOCUS and SELEX will have sizable samples of polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$?
Reply from Appel:
“Yes, I hope that we will see results from such samples. Of course, the polarization may be quite different with incident photon and hyperon beams. That’s part of the interest these results should have.”