text:
# QGP fireball explosion

## 1 Why Quark-Gluon Plasma?

### 1.1 Strangeness Enhancement

Considering that strangeness and entropy (hadron multiplicity) excess due to QGP formation accompany each other, the appropriate way to measure the global strangeness enhancement is to study the yield of strangeness produced per participant baryon. This can be done in many different ways, one often invoked is to compare proton induced reactions with nucleus-nucleus reactions .

The enhanced strangeness yield observed at 158–200$`A`$ GeV reactions corresponds according to our study to $`𝒪`$(1) $`s\overline{s}`$-pairs of quarks per participant baryon . This exceptionally high yield is achievable in a short time that the collision is known to last by in-plasma gluon-fusion reactions, $`G+Gs+\overline{s}`$ . Strangeness enhancement alone is a possible QGP signature. However, it is hard to argue that strangeness alone suffices to show formation of QGP phase, as other mechanisms of flavor formation within some other new physics scenarios can be proposed. Quite early on strange antibaryons have been recognized as being more specific of the deconfined phase (see next section) .

However, systematic study of strangeness enhancement offers a relatively simple and powerful tool to find the critical behavior of elementary matter. At low energies the energy threshold behavior of strangeness formation leads to a rapid rise in strangeness yield. As long as onset of deconfinement does not produce excess pions, strangeness per pion yield can appear at lower collision energies to be greater than it is in QGP phase reached at high energies .

A comparison of AGS results with CERN higher energy strangeness per pion yield suggests that the lower collision energy yield is higher , as is in fact consistent with the formation of the QGP phase at higher energies. This production pattern of strangeness allows a simple determination of the transition energy to the high entropy phase, presumably QGP, which is the energy at which the strangeness to pion ratio is diluted by melting of color degrees of freedom – this at first enhances the hadron yield, and only when in-plasma temperature and plasma lifespan at higher collision energy is sufficiently high, the strangeness yield picks up, regaining some lost ground in comparison to the pion yield (see Fig. 1 in ).

### 1.2 Multistrange Antibaryon Enhancement

Even though the strange pattern of strangeness excess as function of energy would clearly indicate formation of a new state of elementary matter, more specific signatures are needed to establish the deconfined nature of the new phase.

Strange antibaryons allow to probe mobility and density of individual strange quarks  at the time these otherwise rarely produced hadrons (low backgrounds) are formed. In QGP plasma the predicted , and observed , enhancement of strange antibaryons occurs with an unusual pattern: enhancement is increasing with strangeness content, consistent with these particles being emitted from a very dense source with (nearly) completely saturated strangeness phase space . Here, enhancement is defined with a base being the expectation derived from scaled p-N reactions. In models employing cascading interactions to create multistrange particles such a pattern is highly unnatural.

A special feature emerges from the study of strange antibaryons at CERN-SPS: they seem to emerge directly, and without reinteraction in any baryon-rich medium, from the strangeness symmetric deconfined phase. This has led to the suggestion of explosive disintegration of the QGP fireball which we now briefly discuss.

## 2 Why Explosion?

### 2.1 Relative Chemical Equilibrium and Absolute Non-Equilibrium

The abundance analysis of relative strange particle abundances shows that they follow a pattern arising when the phase space of strangeness is symmetric between strange and antistrange quarks. This is surprising in a baryon-rich environment. A solution of this mystery calls for both strange and antistrange quarks to be mobile and not bound in hadronic states . Analysis of lower energy 10–14$`A`$ GeV AGS results clearly shows the expected matter-antimatter asymmetry . This ‘relative chemical equilibrium’ study suggests that there is an important difference in the reaction mechanism arising comparing reactions occurring at CERN and AGS energies. The nature of relative chemical equilibrium at CERN energies allows thus to suppose that the source has deconfined strange quarks, and that the observed strange antibaryons did not rescatter after formation, which is confirmed by the properties of their $`m_{}`$-spectra (see below).

Analysis of hadron abundances (absolute chemical equilibrium) shows that hadrons (in particular strange) are described much more precisely when the hadron phase space is evaluated allowing for nonequilibrium quark pair yield . This means that a reaction picture should invoke formation of hadrons on a global time scale which is shorter than chemical equilibration for any type of matter considered.

Further and direct evidence for rapid hadron formation comes from HBT correlations analysis, which shows that pions arise within a period of time compatible with zero, and at most 2fm/c long. Especially for pions one would expect that continuous emission from an evolving source, thus this result is somewhat unexpected and indicative of a violent end of the fireball of dense matter .

It can be imagined that the dense mater fireball formed at CERN breaks up as fast as causality allows: when the sudden hadronization begins, the freeze-out surface propagates at light velocity $`c`$. However, the flow velocity we find is smaller, consistent with velocity of sound of relativistic matter $`(c/\sqrt{3})`$.

### 2.2 $`m_{}`$-spectra

Strange antibaryons, specifically $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$, $`m_{}`$-spectra measured by the experiment WA97 at central rapidity averaged over 30% centrality cannot be distinguished from the corresponding shape of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ spectra. This contradicts the behavior expected should strange antibaryons be evolving when embedded in a baryon rich hadron medium. Furthermore, should the production of strange antibaryons occur in hadron gas medium, there is no reason to expect that these spectra could be equal, as in this scenario fundamentally different processes contribute to the formation of particles and antiparticles .

The $`m_{}`$-spectra of single and double strange baryons and antibaryons are also found to be nearly identical. This effect sets low limits on formation mechanism involving a gradual build-up due to multi-meson reactions, or continuous emission from a source that is evolving, and not decoupled from these particles.

On the other hand, explosive hadronization picture requires that the thermal and chemical freeze-out conditions of all hadrons (nearly) agree, and that the thermal freeze-out conditions of very different particles are also nearly the same. This is an extraordinarily strong requirement. Thus in order to falsify explosive hadronization picture we either:
1) show that, e.g., pion spectra are inconsistent with hyperon spectra in an analysis that applies same methodology including in the thermal freeze-out analysis both temperature and transverse explosion velocity or/and
2) show that $`m_{}`$-spectra cannot be described by statistical parameters obtained from the chemical freeze-out analysis.

Such a evaluation and comparison of freeze-out conditions involving both chemical and thermal properties of hadronic particles has not been previously performed in a fully consistent fashion, and we will present here the very first results. We find a good agreement with sudden hadronization scenario.

## 3 Mechanism of Sudden Hadronization

### 3.1 Chemical Freeze-out

We reported at the last strangeness meeting in Padova that in order to arrive at a statistically significant description of experimental strange hadron abundance results we need to introduce valance quark pair abundance , as expressed by the parameters $`\gamma _q`$ and $`\gamma _q/\gamma _s1`$. Our ongoing study of the Pb–Pb system final state hadron abundances strongly favors $`\gamma _q\mathrm{exp}(m_\pi /2T)>1,\gamma _s\gamma _i`$ , confirming and extending the ideas expressed in Padova.

We have now also understood that chemical non-equilibrium arises naturally in explosive fireball breakup. The microscopic processes governing the fireball breakup determine how the physical and statistical properties of the fireball change at the breakup point. The energy $`E`$ and baryon content $`b`$ of the fireball are conserved. Entropy $`S`$ is conserved when the gluon content of a QGP fireball is transformed into quark pairs in the entropy conserving process $`G+Gq+\overline{q}`$. Similarly, when quarks and antiquarks recombine into hadrons, entropy is conserved in the range of parameters of interest here. Thus also $`E/b`$ and $`S/b`$ is conserved across hadronization condition. The sudden hadronization process also maintains the temperature $`T`$ and baryo-chemical potential $`\mu _b`$ across the phase boundary. What changes are the chemical occupancy parameters. As gluons convert into quark pairs and hadrons $`\gamma _g0`$ but the number occupancy of light valance quark pairs increases $`\gamma _q>\gamma _{q_0}1`$ increases significantly, along with the number occupancy of strange quark pairs $`\gamma _s>\gamma _{s_0}1`$.

### 3.2 Mechanical Instability and Deep Supercooling

We found that sudden breakup (hadronization) into final state particles occurs as the fireball super-cools, and in this state encounters a strong mechanical instability . Deep supercooling requires a first order phase transition, and this in turn implies presence of a latent heat. The total pressure and energy comprise particle (subscript p) and the vacuum properties:

$$P^{(i)}=P_\text{p},\epsilon =\epsilon _\text{p}^{(i)}+.$$
(1)
The upper index $`(i)`$ refers for the intrinsic energy density $`\epsilon `$ and pressure $`P`$ of matter in the frame of reference, locally at rest, i.e., observed by a co-moving observer. We omit the superscript $`(i)`$ in the following.

The surface normal vector of exploding fireball is $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, and the local velocity of matter flow $`\stackrel{}{v}_\text{c}`$. The rate of momentum flow vector $`\stackrel{}{𝒫}`$ at the surface is obtained from the energy-stress tensor $`T_{kl}`$ :

$$\stackrel{}{𝒫}=P\stackrel{}{n}+(P+\epsilon )\frac{\stackrel{}{v}_\text{c}\stackrel{}{v}_\text{c}\stackrel{}{n}}{1\stackrel{}{v}_\text{c}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}.$$
(2)
For the fireball expansion to continue, $`𝒫|\stackrel{}{𝒫}|>0`$ is required. For $`𝒫0`$ at $`v_\text{c}0`$, we have a conflict between the desire of the motion to stop or even reverse, and the continued inertial expansion. Expansion beyond $`𝒫0`$ is in general not possible. A surface region of the fireball that reached it but continues to flow outwards must be torn apart. This is a collective instability and thus the ensuing disintegration of the fireball matter will be very rapid, provided that much of the surface reaches this condition. We adopt the condition $`\stackrel{}{𝒫}=0`$ at any surface region to be the instability condition of an expanding hadron matter fireball.

## 4 QGP fireball

### 4.1 Equations of State

In order to quantitatively evaluate supercooling of a QGP fireball, we need a model of equations of state of the deconfined phase that comprises interactions, and specifically, the freezing of the color degrees of freedom, as temperature decreases. We have developed a model which agrees well with the lattice results and have presented it elsewhere . The key ingredients of our model are:

1. We relate the QCD scale to the temperature $`T=1/\beta `$, we use for the scale the Matsubara frequency  (we are following the notation convention and thus $`\mu `$ without a subscript is not a chemical potential, it is the QCD scale):

$$\mu =2\pi \beta ^1\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\lambda _\mathrm{q}}=2\sqrt{(\pi T)^2+\mu _\mathrm{q}^2}.$$
(3)
This extension to finite chemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$, or equivalently quark fugacity $`\lambda _\mathrm{q}=\mathrm{exp}\mu _\mathrm{q}/T`$, is motivated by the form of plasma frequency entering the computation of the vacuum polarization function .
2. We obtain the interacting strength $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ integrating numerically the renormalization group equations

$$\mu \frac{\alpha _s}{\mu }=b_0\alpha _s^2b_1\alpha _s^3+\mathrm{}\beta _2^{\text{pert}}.$$
(4)
$`\beta _2^{\text{pert}}`$ is the beta-function of the renormalization group in two loop approximation, and

$$b_0=\frac{112n_\mathrm{f}/3}{2\pi },b_1=\frac{5119n_\mathrm{f}/3}{4\pi ^2}.$$

$`\beta _2^{\text{pert}}`$ does not depend on the renormalization scheme, and solutions of Eq. (4) differ from higher order renormalization scheme dependent results by less than the error introduced by the experimental uncertainty in the measured value of $`\alpha _s(\mu =M_Z)=0.118+0.0010.0016`$.
3. We introduce, in the domain of freely mobile quarks and gluons, a finite vacuum energy density:

$$=0.19\frac{\text{GeV}}{\text{fm}^3}.$$

This also implies, by virtue of relativistic invariance, that there must be a (negative) associated pressure acting on the surface of this volume, aiming to reduce the size of the deconfined region. These two properties of the vacuum follow consistently from the vacuum partition function:

$$\mathrm{ln}𝒵_{\text{vac}}V\beta .$$
(5)
4. The partition function of the quark-gluon liquid comprises interacting gluons, $`n_\mathrm{q}`$ flavors of light quarks , and the vacuum $``$-term. We incorporate further the strange quarks by assuming that their mass in effect reduces their effective number $`n_\mathrm{s}<1`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{V}}\mathrm{ln}𝒵_{\mathrm{Q}GP}P_{\mathrm{Q}GP}=+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{45\pi ^2}}c_1(\pi T)^4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_\mathrm{q}}{15\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}c_2(\pi T)^4+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}c_3\left(\mu _\mathrm{q}^2(\pi T)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _\mathrm{q}^4\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_\mathrm{s}}{15\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}c_2(\pi T)^4+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}c_3\left(\mu _\mathrm{s}^2(\pi T)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _\mathrm{s}^4\right)\right],`$ (6)
where:

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{15\alpha _s}{4\pi }}+\mathrm{},`$ (7)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{50\alpha _s}{21\pi }}+\mathrm{},c_3=1{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{\pi }}+\mathrm{}.`$

### 4.2 Properties of QGP

We show properties of the quark-gluon liquid in a wider range of parameters at fixed entropy per baryon $`S/b`$ in the range $`S/b=10`$–60 in step of 5 units. In the top panel in figure 1, we show baryo-chemical potential $`\mu _b`$, in middle panel baryon density $`n/n_0`$, here $`n_0=0.16/\text{fm}^3`$, and bottom left the energy per baryon $`E/b`$. In top and middle panel the low entropy results are top-left in figure, in bottom panel bottom left. The highlighted curve, in figure 1, is for the value $`S/b=42.5`$ . The dotted line, at the minimum of $`E/b|_{S/b}`$, is where the vacuum and quark-gluon gas pressure balance. This is the equilibrium point and indeed the energy per baryon does have a relative minimum there.

Since little entropy is produced during the evolution of the QGP fireball, lines in the lower panel of figure 1 characterize the approximate trajectory in time of the fireball. After initial drop in energy per baryon due to transfer of energy to accelerating expansion of the fireball, during the deep supercooling process the motion is slowed and thus energy per baryon increases. However only at the entropy 10 the two processes balance and the collective motion slows. At higher entropy content the vacuum pressure is not sufficient to stop the explosion of a fireball. The thick line is our expectation for the fireball made in Pb–Pb interactions at the projectile energy 158$`A`$ GeV. The cross shows the result of chemical freeze-out analysis.

We also have compared the chemical freeze-out conditions with the phase transition properties. The thin solid line in the $`T,\mu _\text{b}`$ plane in figure 2 shows where the pressure of the quark-gluon liquid equals the equilibrated hadron gas pressure. The hadron gas behavior is obtained evaluating and summing the contributions of all known hadronic resonances considered to be point particles. When we allow for finite volume of hadrons , we find that the hadron pressure is slightly reduced, leading to some (5 MeV) reduction in the equilibrium transition temperature, as is shown by the dashed line in figure 2 . For vanishing baryo-chemical potential, we note in figure 2 that the equilibrium phase transition temperature is $`T_{\text{pt}}172`$ MeV, and when finite hadron size is allowed, $`T_{\text{fp}}166`$ MeV, The scale in temperature we discuss is result of comparison with lattice gauge results. Within the lattice calculations , it arises from the comparison with the string tension.

The dotted lines, in figure 2, correspond to break up velocity for (from right to left) $`v_\text{c}^2=0,1/10,1/6,1/5,1/4`$ and $`1/3`$. The last dotted line corresponds thus to an expansion flow with the velocity of sound of relativistic noninteracting massless gas. The thick solid line corresponds to an expansion with $`v_\text{c}=0.54`$. The hadron analysis result is also shown . Comparing in figure 2 thin solid/dashed with the thick line, we recognize the deep supercooling as required for the explosive fireball disintegration. The super-cooled zero pressure $`P=0`$ QGP temperature is at $`T_{\text{sc}}=157`$ MeV, (see the intercept of the first dashed line to the right in figure 2) and an expanding fireball can deeply super-cool to $`T_{\text{dsc}}147`$ MeV (see the intercept of thick solid line) before the mechanical instability occurs.

## 5 Thermal freeze-out

As noted earlier on, it is essential for the idea of sudden freeze-out of hadrons that all spectra are well described by the same parameters obtained in chemical analysis of (strange) hadrons produced. Some spectacular results related to this objective are shown in the following. These were obtained taking chemical freeze-out temperature value for the thermal freeze-out temperature: $`T_f=143`$ MeV, with a freeze-out surface velocity $`0.99c`$, as expected for sudden break-up of an unstable fireball.

In figure 3, we show how the data of WA97 experiment for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ (top) and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ are understood. We have included as usual the contributions from the decay $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{}(1530)\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}+\pi `$ and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Given the large statistical errors we did not (yet) include in analysis other resonances. Varying the two parameters normalization and the flow velocity $`v_c`$, we found that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ are best described by $`v_c=0.50\pm 0.03`$, while for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ we found $`v_c=0.49\pm 0.05`$, both values are consistent with the chemical analysis result $`v_c=0.54\pm 0.03`$. The $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}`$ for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ is 0.6 and it is 1.1 for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. These results are remarkably consistent with the results of chemical freeze-out analysis , and are highly statistically significant. We thus can draw the conclusion that the double-strange baryons and antibaryons which comprise practically all newly made quarks, are produced predominantly in a sudden hadronization process.

We now turn to the pion spectra. We study the $`\pi ^0`$ data in a very wide range of $`m_{}`$ in which the yield changes by 6 orders of magnitude. These results were also obtained at central rapidity by the WA98 collaboration . We use the same set of parameters as for cascades, i.e., $`T_f=143`$ MeV, chosen at the chemical freeze-out, and with freeze-out surface velocity $`0.99c`$. We include in the results shown in figure 4 aside of directly produced pions the two body decay of the $`\rho `$. However, noticing the large range of yield here considered, we allow a direct hard parton QCD component contribution , of the form $`Ed^3N/d^3p1/p_{}^\kappa `$ . Thus, we vary four parameters two normalizations, and also $`\kappa =5.6\pm 1.2`$ , $`v_c=0.55\pm 0.02`$. This yields again an extremely good description of the data as seen in figure 4, with $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}<1.4`$. Considering that only statistical error is being considered, and we were not evaluating contributions of 3-body decay resonances, we see this as a highly significant result. We note that the hard scattering contribution is at 1–20% level, and thus one must make a more precise model of this contribution before searching for a precise description.

Our analysis is not contradicting results shown in , for these authors did not consider that the freeze-out surface velocity is different from the flow velocity, and they did not allow for direct parton-parton scattering contributions in their analysis of pion spectra. Moreover, we confirm the finding that the apparent temperature hierarchy for different mass particles is due to a collective expansion of the source .

## 6 Discussion and Conclusion

We recall here the conclusion of Csörgő and Csernai  who required as verification for the presence of a deeply super-cooled state of matter and sudden hadronization: i) short duration and relatively short mean proper-time of particle emission, now seen in particle correlations ; ii) clean strangeness signal of QGP ; iii) universality of produced particle spectra which are the remarkable features of strange particle production ; v) no mass shift of the phi-meson; despite extensive search such a shift has not been found by the NA49 collaboration . All this has been found true, and more.

Is our picture of fireball evolution compelling? We found that particle production occurred at condition of negative pressure expected in a deeply super-cooled state and have shown internal consistency with (strange) hadron production analysis involving chemical non-equilibrium. Moreover, these chemical freeze-out conditions agree with thermal analysis, allowing the conjecture that the explosive quark-gluon fireball breakup forms final state hadrons, which do not undergo further re-equilibration.

Our first glance at the thermal hadron spectra is clearly showing consistency of thermal freeze-out between very different hadrons. Moreover, we find consistency of thermal and chemical freeze-out conditions. Both results are required if hadrons are formed in sudden hadronization of a supercooled quark-gluon plasma.

Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, DE-FG03-95ER40937 . Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Hautes Energies, LPTHE, at University Paris 6 and 7 is supported by CNRS as Unité Mixte de Recherche, UMR7589.

## References


format: text

text:
# The Magnificent Seven: Close-by Cooling Neutron Stars ?

## 1. The Magnificent Seven

Seven soft sources, The Magnificent Seven, have been found in ROSAT fields which are most probably associated with isolated radio-quiet NSs. A summary of their main observational properties is reported in the table (see e.g. Neühauser & Trümper , NT99; Motch ; Treves et al. , T2000, and references therein; see also Burwitz et al. at this conference).

Present X-ray and optical data however do not allow an unambiguous identification of the physical mechanism responsible for their emission. These sources can be powered either by accretion of the interstellar gas onto old ($`10^{10}`$ yr) NSs or by the release of internal energy in relatively young ($`10^6`$ yr) cooling NSs (T2000 for a recent review). The ROSAT candidates, although relatively bright (up to $`1\mathrm{count}\mathrm{s}^1`$), are intrinsically dim and their inferred luminosity ($`L10^{31}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) is near to that expected from either a close-by cooling NS or from an accreting NS among the most luminous. Their X-ray spectrum is soft and thermal, again as predicted for both accretors and coolers (T2000). Up to now only two optical counterparts have been identified: RXJ 1856-37, Walter & Matthews (), for which a distance estimate of $`60`$ pc has been very recently obtained, and RXJ 0720-31, Kulkarni & Van Kerkwick (). In both cases an optical excess over the low-frequency tail of the black body X-ray spectrum has been reported.

A statistical approach, based on the comparison of the predicted and observed source counts may provide useful informations on the nature of these objects. Previous studies derived the $`\mathrm{log}N`$$`\mathrm{log}S`$ distribution of accretors (Treves & Colpi ; Madau & Blaes ; Manning et al. ) assuming a NSs velocity distribution rich in slow stars ($`v<100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). Recent measurements of pulsar velocities (e.g. Lyne & Lorimer ; Hansen & Phinney ) and upper limits on the observed number of accretors in ROSAT surveys (Danner ) point, however, to a larger NS mean velocity (T2000). Neühauser & Trümper (NT99) compared the number count distribution of the ROSAT isolated NS candidates with those of accretors and coolers. Here we address these issues in greater detail, in the light of the latest contributions to the modeling of the evolution of Galactic NSs (Popov et al. , P2000a). A more comprehensive discussion can be found in Popov et al. (, P2000b).

## 2. Accreting isolated neutron stars

An important feature of our approach is the detailed calculation of the magneto-rotational evolution of isolated NSs, calculated as in P2000a (see Lipunov  for the basic concepts), but with slightly revised values for the critical periods governing the Ejector-Propeller and Propeller-Accretor transitions. When the accretor stage is reached, the NS spin period is set equal to the “equilibrium” period (Konenkov & Popov ). The form of the Galactic potential is taken as in Paczynski (; see also P2000a); some parameters were upgraded in order to fit better solar distance from the Galactic center (see Madau and Blaes ). Initially each NS has a circular velocity corresponding to its birthplace, and an additional kick velocity, selected from a Maxwellian distribution, is added. NSs are assumed to be born in the Galactic plane and their birthrate is constant in time and proportional to the the square of the local gas density. The NS magnetic field is taken to follow a log-gaussian distribution. For each evolutionary track we calculate six different magneto-rotational histories, corresponding to different values of the initial magnetic field. Results were then merged and normalized. The total number of NSs in the Galaxy is taken $`N_{tot}=10^9`$.

In order to compare theoretical predictions with observations it is useful to produce the $`\mathrm{log}N`$$`\mathrm{log}S`$ distribution. The brightest accretors in our calculations have luminosities $`L10^{32}`$ erg s-1, but the majority of them cluster around $`L=10^{29}10^{30}`$ erg s-1. To compare our results with observations of ROSAT sources a conversion factor $`0.01\mathrm{count}\mathrm{s}^1=3\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ was used (e.g. NT99). We calculate the $`\mathrm{log}N`$$`\mathrm{log}S`$ distribution for the frequency intergrated flux ($`S_{total}=L_{total}/4\pi D^2`$, here $`D`$ is the source distance, $`L_{total}=\dot{M}GM/R`$) and for the flux in the range 0.5-2 keV. In latter case the spectrum is assumed to be a blackbody and the polar cap radius is calculated with the current values of the magnetic field and accretion rate ($`R_{cap}=R_{NS}\sqrt{R_{NS}/R_A}`$, where $`R_A`$ is the Alfven radius). If absorption is negligible, then one expects about 1 source per square degree in the range 0.5-2 keV for limiting fluxes about $`10^{16}`$$`10^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. This should be compared with a total numer of sources presently detected by Chandra of $`10^3`$$`10^4`$ (see e.g. Giacconi at this conference). Results are presented in the figure.

## 3. Cooling neutron stars

Although in principle the evolution of coolers should be computed exactly in the same way as for accretors, they are much more short-lived and hence less numerous. This poses a severe problem about the reliability of our sample which is based on a limited number of evolutionary tracks. This can be avoided exploiting the fact that coolers are a local population of sources. We assume that NSs are uniformly distributed in the disk with half-thickness of 450 pc. The NSs spatial density is a free parameter and can be varied. We used two values, $`n_{NS}=0.33\times 10^3\mathrm{pc}^3`$ and $`n_{NS}=3.3\times 10^3\mathrm{pc}^3`$. The first value corresponds to the density adopted by NT99, and comes from radiopulsars statistics. The second one corresponds to $`N_{tot}10^9`$ and is suggested by considerations on supernova nucleosynthetic yields (e.g. Arnett et al. ). These two values can be compared, for example, with $`n_{NS}1.4\times 10^3`$pc-3 as derived by Paczynski ().

All NSs are assumed to be “standard candles” with $`L=10^{32}`$ erg s-1 and blackbody spectrum. The duration of the cooling phase was taken to be $`10^6`$ yrs, as suggested by the slow cooling scenario. In the fast cooling model (e.g. Yakovlev et al. ) the number of observable coolers should be much smaller, so, potentially, observations of isolated NSs may help in shedding light on their cooling history. The ISM structure is treated in a very simple way: a spherical local Bubble of radius $`r_l`$ (which can be varied) and density $`n=0.07`$ cm-3 centered at the Sun and a uniform medium with density $`n=1`$ cm-3 in the Galactic disc (with scaleheight 450 pc) at larger distances. After the column density $`N_H`$ is calculated, we compute the source count rate for given luminosity, temperature and column density. Results are shown in the figure.

This simple model reproduces a key feature: the flattening of the $`\mathrm{log}N`$$`\mathrm{log}S`$ distribution outside the Local Bubble, which is important to explain ROSAT data at large fluxes. More sophisticated models with a realistic distribution of both the ISM and the coolers give nearly the same results, and will be presented in a separate paper. In the actual calculation we took $`r_l=140`$ pc (equal to the radius of the Local Bubble in our calculations for accretors, see also Sfeir et al. ). A clear knee appears due to the effect of absorption. Such strong flattening can help to explain the observed data, if one assumes that the the vast majority of bright ($`>0.1`$ count s-1) isolated NSs are already identified. The position of the knee can be adjusted varying $`r_l`$, $`n_{NS}`$ and the ISM density; for smaller values of $`r_l`$ the knee moves to the right, towards higher count rates. By taking a high enough spatial density of NSs these results are able to account for both: i) the number of bright sources, and ii) the flattening of the observed $`\mathrm{log}N`$$`\mathrm{log}S`$ distribution.

## 4. Discussion

The task of explaining the observed properties of the seven ROSAT isolated NS candidates within a single model based on standard assumptions is not easy. The ROSAT sources are in fact: i) relatively bright, $`>0.1`$ count s-1; ii) close, $`N_H10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$; iii) soft, $`T_{eff}50100`$ eV; iv) slowly rotating, for RX J0720, RX J0420 and RBS1223 the periods are about 5–20 s.

The accretion stage can be reached only if NS magnetic field is $`>10^{11}`$$`10^{12}`$ G. For polar cap accretion the X-ray spectrum is then relatively hard with a typical temperature around 300-400 eV. For them interstellar absorption is not very significant, and we predict about 1 source per square degree for fluxes about $`10^{15}`$$`10^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 for energy range 0.5-2 keV. While accretors may indeed represent the bulk of a still undetected low-luminosty population of X-ray sources, it is difficult to reconcile them with the relatively bright ROSAT sources, as shown in the figure. On the contrary, the number distribution of coolers is in agreement with that of the seven isolated NS sources discovered so far, only if the total number of young close-by NSs is a factor $`10`$ larger than what implied by radiopulsar statistics. Taken at face value, this implies that the majority of NSs do not experience an active radiopulsar phase, a major implication which is also supported by other evidences (see e.g. Gotthelf & Vasisht ). The interpretation of the observed periods of some of the Magnificent Seven remains problematic and seems to require special conditions on the evolution of the magnetic field and spin.

Acknowledgements The work of SBP and MEP was supported through the grant RFBR 00-02-17164. Support from the European Commission under contract ERBFMRXCT98-0195 and from MURST under contract COFIN98021541 is acknowledged.


text:
# Comment on ’A new method to calculate the spin-glass order parameter of the two-dimensional ±𝐽 Ising model’

## Abstract

Contrary to the suggestion of Kitatani and Sinada (2000 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33 3545-3553), the scaling analysis of the order parameter distributions suggests the existence of a finite-temperature spin-glass phase transition $`T_c0`$, even if the corrections to scaling are taken into account.

Kitatani and Sinada suggested that , in the $`\pm J`$ Ising model in two dimensions, if one examines the scaling analyses considering the corrections to scaling, every temperature for $`0T0.3J`$ might be able to become the critical temperature. The suggestion is incompatible with the recent results of Shirakura et al., which suggest the critical temperature $`T_c0.23J`$. However, Kitatani and Sinada performed only the scaling analyses of the Binder parameter $`g_L`$ and the spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi _{SG}`$. In this comment, we perform the scaling analysis of the order parameter distribution $`P_L(q)`$, using the recent data of the authors.

We can easily show that the following scaling form with the corrections to scaling

$`P_L(q)={\displaystyle \frac{L^{\eta /2}}{(1+c/L^\omega )^2}}\overline{P}({\displaystyle \frac{qL^{\eta /2}}{1+c/L^\omega }})atT=T_c`$ (1)
leads to the scaling forms of $`g_L`$ and $`\chi _{SG}`$ given by Kitatani and Sinada with $`c=0.3`$ and $`\omega =0.5`$ (see the eqs.(16) and (17) in Ref. ), where $`\overline{P}(x)`$ is some scaling function. There could be different forms which lead to the same scaling forms. For example,

$`P_L(q)=L^{\eta /2}(1+d/L^\omega )\overline{P}(qL^{\eta /2}(1+d/L^\omega )^{1/2})atT=T_c`$ (2)
with $`d=0.6`$, also leads to the same scaling forms within the first order of $`1/L^\omega `$.

Here we examine the possibility of $`T_c=0`$. In figures 1 and 2, we show the scaling plots corresponding to the eqs. (1) and (2), using the data at the lowest temperature $`T=0.1J`$  in Ref. . The difference between these two plots is rather small. Therefore we think that any scaling form of $`P_L(q)`$ which reproduces the eqs.(16) and (17) in Ref.  would not change the quality of the plots. These figures should be compared with the scaling plot in figure 10 in Ref. , where $`T_c=0.23J`$ is assumed. It is evident that the latter is better than the formers.

The above result reveals that, even if one considers the corrections to scaling, the scaling analyses favour the assumption of $`T_c0.23J`$, not $`T_c=0`$ in the two-dimensional $`\pm J`$ Ising model.


text:
# On the fidelity of two pure states

## 1 Introduction

For two pure quantum states $`\pi =|\phi \phi |`$ and $`\tau =|\theta \theta |`$ on the space $``$, which we assume throughout to be of dimension $`d<\mathrm{}`$, the (pure state) fidelity is

$$F(\pi ,\tau )=\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau =|\phi |\theta |^2.$$

Its operational justification is as follows: suppose we test the system for being in state $`\tau `$, described by the projection valued measure (PVM) $`(\tau ,\mathrm{𝟙}\tau )`$, then the probability of an affirmative answer, the actual preparation being $`\pi `$, is $`F(\pi ,\tau )`$. It is one of the features of quantum theory that the same probability arises if the system is prepared in state $`\tau `$, and is tested for $`\pi `$, see the discussion in , chapter 2. This is reflected in the symmetry of $`F`$: $`F(\pi ,\tau )=F(\tau ,\pi )`$.

By restricting attention to a set of orthonormal vectors $`|x`$, $`x𝒳`$, one has

$$F(|xx|,|yy|)=\delta _{xy}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{ if }x=y\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }xy.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, on $`𝒳\times 𝒳`$, $`F`$ represents the test for equality of two given elements from $`𝒳`$. Observe that this characterization is symmetric in the two variables: we can imagine a classical computing machine taking as input $`x`$ and $`y`$ from $`𝒳`$, which outputs $`\delta _{xy}\{0,1\}`$.

## 2 The problem

The question arises whether or not an operational justification for $`F`$ is possible that is symmetrical, too. Note that in the above discussion one of $`\pi ,\tau `$ figures as a state, whereas the other as a projection of a test. Hence, two possibilities seem natural: either both have to be given as quantum states, or both as tests. In either case we want to find a procedure to sample the binary distribution $`(\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau ,1\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau )`$ once, i.e. produce the first outcome with probability $`\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau `$, and the second with probability $`1\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau `$.

### 2.1 Two states

A would–be fidelity estimator for two unknown states is a map

$$F:\pi \tau (\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau )z_1+(1\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau )z_0,$$

where $`z_0,z_1`$ are the (orthogonal) idempotent generators of a two–dimensional commutative algebra.111Note that the restriction to one copy of $`\pi ,\tau `$, each, is crucial: if we were allowed to use the preparation device for $`\pi ,\tau `$ indefinitely often, we can do a tomography  of the states, and actually *compute* $`\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau `$. As is immediate, this is indeed uniquely extendible to a trace preserving linear map on $`𝔏()𝔏()`$. It is even positive — on the separable states! But not on the whole state space: for example consider a pure state vector

$$|\psi =\alpha |e_0f_0+\beta |e_1f_1$$

in $``$, with unit vectors $`e_0e_1`$, $`f_0f_1`$, and (w.l.o.g.) $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$ such that $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^2=1`$. Then

$`|\psi \psi |`$ $`=\alpha ^2|e_0e_0||f_0f_0|+\beta ^2|e_1e_1||f_1f_1|`$
$`+\alpha \beta |e_0e_1||f_0f_1|+\alpha \beta |e_1e_0||f_1f_0|.`$
Note that

$`|e_0|f_0|^2`$ $`=p=|e_1|f_1|^2,`$
$`|e_0|f_1|^2`$ $`=q=1p=|e_1|f_0|^2.`$
Finally, introducing

$$e_0|f_1=e^{i\gamma }\sqrt{q},e_1|f_0=e^{i\delta }\sqrt{q},$$

we can calculate the $`1`$–component of $`F(|\psi \psi |)`$:

$`F(|\psi \psi |)_1`$ $`=\alpha ^2p+\beta ^2p+\alpha \beta e_1|f_0f_1|e_0+\alpha \beta e_0|f_1f_0|e_1`$
$`=p+2q\alpha \beta \mathrm{cos}(\gamma \delta ),`$
which may obviously be negative, e.g. $`F(|\psi \psi |)_1=1`$ for $`p=0`$, $`q=1`$, $`\alpha =\beta =1/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\gamma \delta =\pi `$.

It is interesting to note that we encountered here what is called a *entanglement witness* (as introduced by Terhal ): a linear map positive on products, but negative on certain entangled states which it “certifies”. The operator $`W=F^{}(z_1)`$ (using the dual map $`F^{}`$ of $`F`$ with respect to the Hilbert–Schmidt trace pairing) is the operator version of this entanglement witness: it has the property

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\pi \tau W)=\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau 0,$$

but for some entangled states it has negative expected value. One can write out $`W`$ explicitely:

$$W=\underset{s}{}X_s^{}X_s$$

for any orthonormal basis $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{d^2}`$ of $`𝔏()`$.

### 2.2 Two tests

Suppose we are given the PVM $`M=(\pi ,\mathrm{𝟙}\pi )(\tau ,\mathrm{𝟙}\tau )`$ on $`𝔏()𝔏()`$ as a block box. What we can do is feed it with an arbitrarily prepared state, and combine the outcomes into two groups. Observe that if we allow multiple uses of the black box we can do a tomography of $`M`$  (dual to the tomography of states ). This motivates the restriction to a single application of $`M`$ .

Preparing a state $`\rho `$ on $`𝔏()𝔏()`$ and using it with $`M`$, we are supplied with one of four outcomes ($`11,10,01,00`$), after which we employ a statistical decision rule: if $`ij`$ was measured, we vote for $`1`$ with probability $`p_{ij}[0,1]`$. This is the most general form of the procedure, and we can calculate

$`\mathrm{Pr}\{1\}`$ $`=p_{11}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (\pi \tau ))+p_{10}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (\pi (\mathrm{𝟙}\tau )))`$
$`+p_{01}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ((\mathrm{𝟙}\pi )\tau ))+p_{00}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ((\mathrm{𝟙}\pi )(\mathrm{𝟙}\tau )))`$
$`=(p_{11}p_{10}p_{01}+p_{00})\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (\pi \tau ))`$
$`+(p_{10}p_{00})\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (\pi \mathrm{𝟙}))+(p_{01}p_{00})\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (\mathrm{𝟙}\tau ))+p_{00}\mathrm{Tr}\rho `$
$`=(p_{11}p_{10}p_{01}+p_{00})\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (\pi \tau ))`$
$`+(p_{10}p_{00})\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1\pi )+(p_{01}p_{00})\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2\tau )+p_{00}.`$
This is a polynomial in $`\pi `$ and $`\tau `$ with a bilinear, a linear, and a constant part. Hence, for this to be equal to $`\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau `$, necessarily

$$p_{10}=p_{01}=p_{00}=0,$$

forcing $`p_{11}=1`$ (choose $`\pi =\tau `$). So, we have to look for a state $`\rho `$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau =\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (\pi \tau )).$$

However, by subsection 2.1 there does not even exist a solution $`0\rho \mathrm{𝟙}`$ to this equation.

Our result can be understood as another new feature of quantum information as compared to classical information: whereas there is an identity test for classical data, symmetrical in the two inputs, the corresponding natural quantum version, namely the fidelity, is forbidden by the quantum mechanical laws: not only are we unable to access the precise value of it, we cannot even once sample the corresponding Bernoulli variable.

In fact, the proof of the following section 3 shows that there is *no* operational quantum extension of the classical identity test at all:

###### Theorem 1

There is no test $`T`$ on $``$ (i.e. $`0T\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}`$), such that for all states $`\pi ,\tau `$ on $``$

$`\tau =\pi `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(\pi \tau T)=1,`$
$`\tau \pi `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(\pi \tau T)=0.`$
Thus, we have exhibited a new no–go theorem regarding quantum mechanics, in the line of the no–cloning theorem .

## 3 Universal approximation for two states

After failing to find allowed procedures to sample the fidelity distribution $`F(\pi ,\tau )`$, we resort to approximate this ideal behaviour in an optimal way.

To find the optimal approximation to the fidelity estimator, we have to minimize the expression

$$\delta (A)=\underset{\pi ,\tau }{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{Tr}\left((\pi \tau )A\right)\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau \right|$$

with respect to $`0A\mathrm{𝟙}`$. We may assume that the optimal $`A`$ is invariant under the actions

$$\pi \tau \tau \pi $$

and

$$\pi \tau U\pi U^{}U\tau U^{},U𝒰().$$

The reasoning is the same as for universal cloning  and Bloch vector flipping  machines: because of invariance of the fidelity function and triangle inequality, an optimal solution cannot become worse if we average it over the group action using Haar measure.

Since the squared representation of the unitary group has exactly 2 irreducible components, the *symmetric* and the *antisymmetric* subspace, $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒜`$, respectively, with corresponding projectors $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒜`$, the most general $`A`$ to consider has the form

$$A=\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮+\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_𝒜,0\sigma ,\alpha 1.$$

To evaluate $`\delta (A)`$ choose an orthonormal basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_d`$ of $``$. Then

$$𝒮=\mathrm{span}\{f_i=e_ie_i,f_{ij}=\frac{e_ie_j+e_je_i}{\sqrt{2}}:i<j\},$$

and note that the $`f_i,f_{ij}`$ form an orthonormal basis of $`𝒮`$.

Now by unitary invariance we may assume that

$`\pi `$ $`=|e_1e_1|\text{ and}`$
$`\tau `$ $`=\left(u|e_1+v|e_2\right)\left(ue_1|+ve_2|\right),u,v0,u^2+v^2=1.`$
Hence, noting $`\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau =u^2`$,

$`\delta (A)`$ $`=\underset{u,v}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\sigma \mathrm{Tr}\left((\pi \tau )\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮\right)+\alpha \mathrm{Tr}\left((\pi \tau )\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒜\right)u^2\right|`$
$`=\underset{u,v}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\alpha +(\sigma \alpha )\mathrm{Tr}\left((\pi \tau )\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮\right)u^2\right|,`$
and calculating

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left((\pi \tau )\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮\right)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮|e_1(u|e_1+v|e_2)_2^2`$
$`=\left|\left(e_1|e_1|\right)\left(|e_1(u|e_1+v|e_2)\right)\right|^2`$
$`+\left|\left(e_2|e_2|\right)\left(|e_1(u|e_1+v|e_2)\right)\right|^2`$
$`+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{e_1|e_2|+e_2|e_1|}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|e_1(u|e_1+v|e_2)\right)\right|^2`$
$`=u^2+0+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+u^2}{2}}`$
we end up with

$`\delta (A)`$ $`=\underset{0u^21}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\alpha +(\sigma \alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{1+u^2}{2}}u^2\right|`$
$`=\underset{0x1}{\mathrm{max}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma +\alpha }{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma \alpha }{2}}1\right)x\right|`$
$`=\mathrm{max}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma +\alpha }{2}},1\sigma \}.`$
To minimize this we have to choose $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\sigma =2/3`$. The optimal test is thus

$$A=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮,$$

achieving $`\delta (A)=\delta _{\mathrm{min}}=1/3`$.

The general case of $`n`$ copies of the two states, and $`m`$ samples to be produced, is discussed in the appendix.

Complementing theorem 1 above, note that we *can* obtain *partial* information on the fidelity. For example, the optimal test $`T=2/3\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮`$ has the property that

$`\mathrm{Tr}(\pi \tau T)>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\text{iff }\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau >{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(\pi \tau T)<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\text{iff }\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$
## 4 Summary

We have argued that the fidelity of pure states is the quantum generalization of the classical identity–predicate $`\delta _{xy}`$, and showed that an operational basis for it, similar to the classical way, does not exist. Indeed, there does not exist any quantum operation behaving like $`\delta _{xy}`$ on an orthogonal set of states. Finally, we discussed the univeral optimal approximation to the fidelity function, in the simplest case.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Cameron Wellard and Serge Massar for conversations on the present paper’s subject, during the QCM&C 2000 at Capri.

## Appendix A The general case

In this appendix we demonstrate a possible attack on the general case. Unfortunately we find the final optimization problem so hard to solve that we leave the solution open.

Given $`n`$ copies of each state we want to produce as close an approximation to $`m`$ samples of $`F(\pi ,\tau )=(\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau ,1\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau )`$ as possible, i.e. a POVM $`𝐀`$ indexed by $`\{0,1\}^m`$ which minimizes

$$\delta (𝐀)=\underset{\pi ,\tau }{\mathrm{max}}𝐀\left(\pi ^n\tau ^n\right)F(\pi ,\tau )^m_1,$$

where we write $`𝐀\left(\pi ^n\tau ^n\right)`$ for the distribution on $`\{0,1\}^m`$ induced by measuring $`𝐀`$ on $`\pi ^n\tau ^n`$. Obviously we can assume that $`𝐀`$ is supported on $`_+^n_+^n`$, where $`_+^n`$ is the symmetric subspace in $`^n`$, i.e. the set of all vectors invariant under tensor factor permutation.

By the familiar averaging argument we can assume that all elements of $`𝐀`$ are invariant under the action of the unitary group $`𝒰()`$. This action decomposes $`_+^n_+^n`$ into $`n+1`$ orthogonal subspaces $`𝒮_l`$: the restriction to $`𝒮_l`$ is irreducible with highest weight $`(2nl,l,0,\mathrm{},0)`$, $`l=0,\mathrm{},n`$. In particular, they all have multiplicity one (for these representation theoretical details we refer the reader to ). Denote the subspace projection onto $`𝒮_l`$ by $`S_l`$.

Since $`F(\pi ,\tau )^m`$ has the constant value $`(\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau )^k(1\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau )^{mk}`$ on the sets

$$𝒯_k=\{x^m\{0,1\}^m:x^m\text{ has exactly }k0\text{’s}\},$$

we may assume that an optimal $`𝐀`$ is constant on the $`𝒯_k`$ as well. Introducing the angle $`\gamma `$ between $`|\varphi `$ and $`|\theta `$, so that $`\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau =\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma `$ and $`1\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau =\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma `$, we can define

$`f_k`$ $`=𝐀\left(\pi ^n\tau ^n\right)(𝒯_k),`$
$`p_k`$ $`=F(\pi ,\tau )^m(𝒯_k)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}}\right)(\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma )^k(\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma )^{mk},`$
and thus write

$$𝐀\left(\pi ^n\tau ^n\right)F(\pi ,\tau )^m_1=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}|f_kp_k|.$$

Observe that with

$$F_k=𝐀^{}(1_{𝒯_k})=\underset{x^m𝒯_k}{}A_{x^m}$$

one has $`f_k=\mathrm{Tr}\left((\pi ^n\tau ^n)F_k\right)`$.

By invariance we can write

$$F_k=\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _{kl}S_l,\text{ with }\alpha _{kl}0,\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\alpha _{kl}=1.$$

Now, applying invariance once more, we get

$$f_k=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left(_{𝒰(d)}𝑑U(U^{2n}\pi ^n\tau ^nU^{2n})\right)F_k\right).$$

The integral itself is an invariant state, hence of the form

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\beta _l\frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}S_l}S_l,\text{ with }\beta _l0,\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\beta _l=1,$$

and by invariance – third time pays for all – the $`\beta _l`$ depend solely on $`\mathrm{Tr}\pi \tau `$. In fact, it is easily seen that they all are homogenous polynomials in $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ of total degree $`2n`$.

This makes it seem rather unlikely that we can find

$$\delta (𝐀)=\underset{0\gamma \pi /2}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\left|\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)(\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma )^k(\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma )^{mk}\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _{kl}\beta _l(\mathrm{cos}\gamma ,\mathrm{sin}\gamma )\right|,$$

let alone minimize this over the $`\alpha _{kl}`$.


text:
# The structure of Λ hypernuclei

## 1 Introduction

Since hypernuclei are unique laboratories for investigations of the interaction between hyperons and nucleons and even among hyperons a unified description of baryonic in-medium interactions is an important requirement. Unfortunately the application of Dirac-Brueckner theory to medium and high mass nuclei is technically not feasible. A rather satisfactory approach providing a practicable way to use microscopically deduced meson exchange interactions is the density dependent relativistic hadron (DDRH) field theory . This theory has been successfully applied to isospin nuclei and was thus considered to be an excellent basis for our hypernuclear studies.

## 2 The density dependent relativistic hadron field theory

The DDRH field theory is a relativistic lagrangian field theory of baryons interacting through the exchange of mesons:

$``$ $`=`$ $`_B+_M+_{int}`$
$`_B`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\left[i\gamma _\mu ^\mu \widehat{M}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$
$`_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=\sigma ,\sigma _s}{}}\left(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_im_i^2\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa =\omega ,\varphi ,\rho ,\gamma }{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{(\kappa )^2}m_\kappa ^2A^{(\kappa )^2}\right)`$ (1)
$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\sigma (\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\mathrm{\Psi }_F\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\omega (\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_F\omega ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}_\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_F\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu `$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\sigma _s}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\mathrm{\Psi }_F\sigma _s\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\varphi (\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F,\mathrm{\Psi }_F)\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_F\varphi ^\mu e\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\widehat{Q}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_FA^\mu ,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$ denotes a spinor consisting of the octet baryons. To include the medium effects the coupling constants are treated as functionals depending on lorentz scalar bilinear products of the baryonic field operators, ensuring lorentz invariance and thermodynamical consistency . Different to conventional RMF theory  self-interactions are introduced on the level of baryonic correlations.

### 2.1 Density dependent interactions

To obtain the vertex functionals Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (DBHF) self-energies are calculated in infinite nuclear matter using realistic interactions, in our case the Bonn A NN-potential . These are decomposed in the different meson channels and then mapped onto Hartree-Fock mean field self-energies: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \left(\widehat{\rho }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^{DB}.`$ This enables us to perform a nuclear structure calculation with standard methods but applying a microscopically deduced interaction. A detailed description of the DDRH procedure can be found in .

### 2.2 Medium effects

There are two minor and one major change in the equations of motion of the fields due to the functional structure of the vertices:

* The source terms in the mesonic equations of motion: $`\left(^2+m^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\widehat{\rho }\right)\rho _\varphi `$ acquire an additional medium dependence in the coupling.
* The baryonic self-energies get an additional density dependence (DD), but also get an extra term which does not appear in usual RMF: $`\frac{\delta _{int}}{\delta \overline{\psi }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(0)}\left(\widehat{\rho }\right)\psi +\frac{_{int}}{\widehat{\rho }}\frac{\delta \widehat{\rho }}{\delta \overline{\psi }}.`$ This is the so called rearrangement self-energy and accounts for static polarizations of the nuclear medium .

### 2.3 Extension into the strange sector

The extension to the strange sector would be rather straightforward if there were DBHF calculations for the whole baryonic octett available, but, unfortunately, they are not. However, an analysis of the DB equations reveals that, assuming the exchange of only net flavor neutral mesons as in the nuclear case :

1. The functional shape of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B\alpha }\left(\widehat{\rho }\right)`$ is approximately equal for a given $`\alpha `$ and the relative scaling factor is approximately given by the ratio of the free space couplings:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{B\alpha }\left(\rho \right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B\alpha }\left(\rho \right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{Y\alpha }\left(\rho \right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N\alpha }\left(\rho \right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Y\alpha }\left(\rho \right)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{N\alpha }\left(\rho \right)}}`$ (2)
$`R_{Y\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Y\alpha }\left(\rho \right)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{N\alpha }\left(\rho \right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{Y\alpha }}{g_{N\alpha }}}\left(1+𝒪\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{M_Y}}\right)\right)\text{const.}`$
2. The DD is approximately determined by the respective baryon density.

This enables us to set up a microscopic model for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei.

### 2.4 A model for single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei

In the baryonic sector the model contains neutrons, protons and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, whereas the mesonic sector consists of the $`\sigma `$-, the $`\omega `$\- and the $`\rho `$-meson. The isoscalar mesons are treated in the above described DD fashion. A model for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is especially attractive since it only couples to the isoscalar mesons for which the relative couplings RΛσ and RΛω have to be determined now. A least squares fit of the scaling factors with respect to experimental $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle spectra does not yield an unique choice but only a sharp, deep “valley” of equally well choices, see figure 2 . The quark counting choice of $`\frac{2}{3}`$ for both relative couplings is clearly ruled out. To be as microscopic as possible we chose RΛσ according to a T-matrix calculation by Haidenbauer et al.  and determined RΛω via our $`\chi ^2`$ analysis. Experimantal data for medium to heavy hypernuclei with well resolved spin orbit (s.o.) splitting would be an essential constraint to narrow the correlation range of acceptable {RΛσ,RΛω} pairs

## 3 Results

### 3.1 The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mean field

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ central potential in our model has a depth of roughly -30 MeV what is in good agreement with experimental analyses. The shape is comparable to the neutron potential leading to fairly delocalized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ wave functions (i.e. in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{40}`$Ca the rms radii of the d shell are well above that of the whole nucleus, 3.6 fm compared to 3.3 fm). This leads to a reduction of the s.o. splitting, as discussed in section 3.2.

Due to the DD of the interaction the central potential of the lambdas is modified compared to that of standard RMF moels. The DD couplings yield an effective radial dependence of the coupling strength, i.e. a reduction in the nuclear center with respect to the surface region. A second effect is due to the rearrangement self-energies which add a repulsive part to the central potential. Since the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ density in single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei is fairly low these two effects are not very large. The dominant contribution of the DD description is due to the surrounding nuclear environment which is also described in DDRH. Here the static polarization effects of the nuclear medium play an essential role. The fine structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle spectra is a unique signature of the surrounding nucleonic environment.

### 3.2 Single particle properties

As is shown in figure 2 the description of large to medium heavy hypernuclei is excellent. For the surface dominated light nuclei a slight correction of Rω has to be made to adjust for e.g. the presence of clusters in light nuclei which the model does not contain.

In general the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle spectra resemble in many aspects the neutron spectrum which is shifted in energy and has a squeezed level structure. But in addition to that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ s.o. splitting shows a reduction due to the largely delocalized wave functions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This effect is shown in figure 4. The delocalization of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reduces the overlap of the wave function with the s.o. potential, which is relatively sharply localized on the nuclear surface, and thereby the s.o. energy splitting is reduced stronger than expected from scaling. Another prominent s.o. effect is shown in figure 4. Besides the decrease of the s.o. splitting when going to large mass numbers (since s.o. splitting is a finite size effect) there is also a decrease for nuclei below $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{40}`$Ca. This is due to a squeezing of the single particle energy spectrum for states close to the continuum threshold. Unfortunately, all the high resolution experiments have been made for light mass hypernuclei and thus do not reveal too much native spin orbit information.

## 4 Conclusions and outlook

With upcoming high precision experimental data the microscopic properties of the extended DDRH can be used to extract important information of NN and YN interactions. The model has also been successfully applied to neutron star matter including hyperons .