text:
# Phase Transitions in Non-extensive Spin Systems

\[

## Abstract

The spherical spin model with infinite-range ferromagnetic interactions is investigated analytically in the framework of non-extensive thermostatics generalizing the Boltzmann-Gibbs statistical mechanics. We show that for repulsive correlations, a new weak-ferromagnetic phase develops. There is a tricritical point separating para, weak-ferro and ferro regimes. The transition from paramagnetic to weak-ferromagnetic phase is an unusual first order phase transition in which a discontinuity of the averaged order parameter appears, even for finite number of spins. This result puts in a new way the question of the stability of critical phenomena with respect to the long-ranged correlations.

\]

Discussion of nonextensivity in thermodynamics go back to 70’s . Recently, non-extensive theories have become extremely important in several areas of Physics . However, there are still very important questions that should be addressed. The influence of the non-extensivity on phase transitions and their trace in finite systems is certainly a field which should be further explored . In the collisions of atomic nuclei or charged atomic clusters, a highly excited non-equilibrium transient system is formed which at a later stage of the reaction approaches an equilibrium and splits into many fragments . Observed signatures of criticality in these processes depend strongly not only on strong repulsive Coulomb interactions but also on on the way the excited transient system is formed in collisions . The fragility of those signatures manifests the inherently non-extensive character of these ’critical phenomena’ . The general problem of the relation between critical behavior in small non-extensive statistical systems and the phase transitions in the thermodynamical limit is investigated here using the Berlin-Kac Model (BKM)  in the framework of the Tsallis generalized statistical mechanics (TGSM) .

The TGSM was inspired by earlier works on non-extensive thermodynamics, going back to the 60’ , it is based on an alternative definition for the equilibrium entropy of a system whose $`i`$th microscopic state has probability $`\widehat{p}_i`$  :

$$S_q=k\frac{1_i\widehat{p}_i^q}{q1},\underset{i}{}\widehat{p}_i=1,k>0$$
(1)
and $`q`$ (entropic index which is determined by the microscopic dynamics) defines a particular statistics. In the limit $`q=1`$, one obtains the usual Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) formulation of the statistical mechanics. The main difference between the BG formulation and the TGSM lies in the nonadditivity of the entropy. For two independent subsystems $`A`$, $`B`$, such that the probability of $`A+B`$ is factorized into : $`p_{A+B}=p_Ap_B`$, the global entropy verifies : $`S_q(A+B)=S_q(A)+S_q(B)+(1q)S_q(A)S_q(B).`$ The entropy $`S_q`$ has definite concavity for all values of $`q`$. In particular, it is always concave for $`q>0`$, and this is the case discussed in the present paper. It has been shown  that the TGSM retains much of the formal structure of the standard theory. Many important properties , such as the Legendre transformation structure of thermodynamics and the H-theorem (macroscopic time irreversibility) have been shown to be $`q`$-invariant. Considering the fact that the essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is concavity (see Ref. ), the mentioned properties of this entropy allow us to say that there are no problems with this law in TGSM.

The TGSM is relevant if the effective microscopic interactions are long-ranged and/or the effective microscopic memory is long-ranged and/or the geometry of the system is fractal . In the superadditive regime ($`1q>0`$), independent subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ will tend to join together increasing in this way the entropy of the whole system. On the contrary, in the subadditive regime ($`1q<0`$), the system increases its entropy by fragmenting into separate subsystems. These ideas are in agreement with the results of Landsberg et al.  The subadditivity of entropy is expected when long-range repulsive interactions and correlations and/or long-range memory effects are present in the system . This is in particular the relevant limit of the fragmentation of electrically charged (off-equilibrium) systems, such as formed in the collisions of atomic nuclei or sodium clusters.

The BKM was introduced as an approximation of Ising model. In the BKM, the individual spins are taken as continuous 3-dimensional variables, but the rigid constraint on each local spin variable $`S_i`$ (where $`S_i=\pm 1/2`$) in Ising model, is relaxed and replaced by an overall spherical constraint :

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{i=N}{}}}S_i^2={\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}`$ (2)
for $`N`$ spins. In the present work, we consider the infinite-range version of the BKM where all pairs of spins interact with the same strength, according to the Hamiltonian :

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{J}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{(i,j)}{}}S_iS_j{\displaystyle \frac{J}{8}}.`$ (3)
The sum in (3) runs over all different pairs of spin indices $`(i,j)`$. The constant term $`J/8`$ is added to fix the origin of the energies at the vanishing total magnetization : $`_iS_i=0`$. The normalization of the ferromagnetic ($`J>0`$) exchange energy as $`J/N`$, ensures finiteness of the energy per spin in an infinite system. The value of this energy should depend on the volume of the system.

One defines the magnetization per site by : $`\eta =N^1_iS_i.`$ Because of the inequality : $`(S_i)^2<NS_i^2`$, the value of $`\eta `$ is contained in between $`1/2`$ and $`+1/2`$. The phase of the system will be characterized by the average value of $`\eta ^2`$ : $`m^2=<\eta ^2>,`$ where the brackets $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denote the ensemble average at a given temperature. The square root of $`m^2`$ plays the role of the order parameter.

The Hamiltonian of BKM can be expressed as a function of $`\eta `$ :

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{JN}{2}}\eta ^2,`$ (4)
and this allows us to obtain the degeneracy factor of the macroscopic states defined by the fixed number of spins $`N`$ and the fixed energy $`E`$. The number of such states in the $`N`$-dimensional spin-space is the volume of the intersection of the hypersphere (2) and of the hyperplane : $`_iS_i=(2NE/J)^{1/2}`$. This intersection is a sphere of radius $`(N/4+2E/J)^{1/2}`$ in the $`(N1)`$ dimensional space and its volume is : $`g_N(E)=a_N(1/4+2E/JN)^{N/21}`$, where $`a_N`$ is a numerical factor which depends only on the number of spins (system mass). Knowledge of this statistical weight, in addition to the energy given by (4) allows us to compute all thermodynamic quantities of the equilibrated system.

In BG statistical mechanics, the partition function is written in terms of the $`\eta `$-distribution as :

$`Z=A_0{\displaystyle _0^{1/2}}\eta \text{exp}(Nf(\eta ))𝑑\eta `$ (5)
The constant $`A_0`$ is : $`2^{5N}JNa_N\text{exp}(\beta J/8)`$ and :

$$f(\eta )=\beta J\eta ^2(12/N)\text{ln}(14\eta ^2)/2$$

is the free energy per spin. In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, this function does not depend on $`N`$ which ensures the existence of the thermodynamic limit. Since this free energy is analytical in the variable $`\eta `$ : $`f(\eta )=[4(12/N)\beta J]\eta ^2/2+8(12/N)\eta ^4+\mathrm{},`$ with a positive $`\eta ^4`$-term and a change in sign of the $`\eta ^2`$-term at the pseudo-critical point $`(\beta J)_{c,N}=4(12/N)`$, the infinite system undergoes a second order phase transition at the critical temperature $`(\beta J)_c=4`$. The critical exponents are given by the regular Landau-Ginzburg mean-field theory for the magnetic systems.

In the TGSM, the equilibrium energy distribution is given by  :

$`p_{N,q}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{(1\beta (1q)E)^{1/(1q)}}{Z_q}},`$ (6)
if $`1\beta (1q)E>0`$, and 0 otherwise. The partition function $`Z_q`$ is defined by the normalization of $`p_{N,q}`$ :

$`{\displaystyle g_N(E)p_{N,q}(E)𝑑E}=1.`$ (7)
All ensemble averages are then defined with respect to the properly normalized probability : $`p_{N,q}^q(E)g_N(E)`$ . For example, the averaged order parameter is given by :

$`m_q^2<\eta ^2>_q={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2(E)p_{N,q}^q(E)g_N(E)𝑑E}{p_{N,q}^q(E)g_N(E)𝑑E}}.`$ (8)
Replacing the integration variable $`E`$ by $`\eta `$, the value of $`m_q`$ is :

$`m_q^2=I_3/I_1,`$ (9)
with the integrals $`I_s`$ defined by :

$`I_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^x}\eta ^s\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta J\kappa }{2}}\eta ^2\right]^{N/\kappa 1}(14\eta ^2)^{N/21}𝑑\eta ,`$ (10)
and $`x\text{min}(1/2,\sqrt{2/\beta J\kappa })`$ because of (6) and $`|\eta |<1/2`$. The fundamental parameter of the non-extensive generalization of the BKM is :

$`\kappa =N(q1)`$ (11)
instead of $`q1`$. This parameter, which will be called hereafter the Out-of-Extensivity (OE) parameter, allows us to define the thermodynamic limit of the system in a natural way. Let us compare systems of different masses $`N`$ such that the OE parameter (11) remains constant. In the relations (9) and (10), one can recognize the equivalent of a free energy per site :

$`f_q(\eta )=\text{ln}(1\beta J\kappa \eta ^2/2)/\kappa \text{ln}(14\eta ^2)/2,`$ (12)
which is independent of $`N`$ when $`\kappa `$ is a constant. Existence of this free energy per spin implies in turn existence of the thermodynamic limit in the system. For a fixed value of the OE parameter, the interesting values of $`q`$ approach 1 as the number of spins increases.

When the number of spins $`N`$ is finite, the integrals $`I_s`$ can be expressed by the hypergeometric functions. At high temperatures : $`\beta J<8/\kappa `$, the upper bound for $`\eta `$ in (10) is $`1/2`$. The integrand in this case is always finite, and $`m_q`$ is a positive decreasing function of the temperature. Moreover, if : $`\kappa >2/(12/N)`$, then for all these temperatures one has : $`\beta J<4(12/N)`$ and $`m_q1/\sqrt{N}`$, similarly to the standard paramagnetic phase. In particular, when $`\beta J8/\kappa `$ by lower values then the limiting value is $`m_q=N^{1/2}[\kappa /(2(\kappa 2))]^{1/2}`$. On the other hand if $`\kappa <2/(12/N)`$, then this $`1/\sqrt{N}`$-behavior of $`m_q`$ holds only when $`\beta J<4(12/N)`$. For higher values of $`\beta J`$, the leading behaviour of the order parameter takes finite values independent of $`N`$, and tends to 1/2 when $`\beta J8/\kappa `$ by the lower values.

At low temperatures : $`\beta J>8/\kappa `$, the quantities $`[1(\beta J\kappa /2)\eta ^2]^{N/\kappa 1}`$ diverge for finite values of $`\eta `$ smaller than $`1/2`$, and the value of $`m_q`$ is dominated by the behavior of the integrand near this divergency. In this case : $`m_q=\sqrt{2/(\beta J\kappa )},`$ since the order-parameter probability distribution collapses into the two Dirac distributions. Moreover, if $`\beta J`$ tends to $`8/\kappa `$ by larger values, the limit of $`m_q`$-values is 1/2. This implies that if $`\kappa >2/(12/N)`$, then the averaged order parameter $`m_q`$ has a discontinuous jump at the critical temperature $`(\beta J)_{c,q}=8/\kappa `$ between the small value of order $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ and 1/2. Otherwise, if $`\kappa <2/(12/N)`$, then $`m_q`$ is continuous but its first temperature derivative becomes discontinuous at this critical temperature $`(\beta J)_{c,q}=8/\kappa `$, leading to the second order critical phenomenon. Both behaviors are exemplified in Fig. 1. The tricritical point ($`(\beta J)_{TC}=4`$, $`\kappa _{TC}=2`$) separates the phase boundary line in transitions of different nature (discontinuous/continuous). One of the continuous phase transitions is the simple continuation of the well known paramagnetic $``$ ferromagnetic transition for the BG statistics, while the other one is a new second order phase transition (ferromagnetic $``$ weak-ferromagnetic) due to the presence of the long-range repulsive correlations/memory effects.

Since the above limiting temperatures and OE parameters do not depend on the mass $`N`$ (the number of spins), the pattern of different behaviors of the order-parameter remains unchanged in the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$) and one may draw the phase diagram $`\beta J\kappa `$ ($`\kappa >0`$) (see Fig. 2). The first order phase transition in the generalized BKM (the bold-face solid line in Fig. 2) remains unaltered in small systems, unlike the case of regular collective critical phenomena. The additional phase appearing on this diagram is due to the long-range non-extensive correlations which tend to disorganize spin coherence. This phase is called the weak-ferromagnetic state, because the order parameter in this state has a positive value, but this value is lowered by the disruptive long-range correlations (see Fig. 1 in the case $`\kappa =\kappa _c/2`$). This is the reason why the magnetization in the weak-ferromagnetic phase decreases when the temperature is lowered.

As we have seen above, the energy at constant volume in the BKM can be written as a function of the squared order parameter. This allows us to write the averaged energy as : $`U_q=JNm_q^2/2.`$ The specific heat at constant mass and constant volume is the derivative of $`U_q`$ with respect to the temperature, keeping the mass $`N`$ and the coupling $`J`$ fixed :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_q}{k_B}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\beta J)^2}{2}}N{\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2}{(\beta J)}}`$ (13)
¿From the above discussion, it is clear that there is a finite discontinuity of the specific heat when $`\kappa <2/(12/N)`$. But, there exists also a true divergence of $`C_q`$ for the temperature $`(\beta J)_{c,q}=8/\kappa `$ when $`\kappa 2/(12/N)`$, even if the system is finite.

There is some evidence  supporting the fact that long-range attractive interactions lead to $`q<1`$. We believe it is very important to stress that long-range repulsive interactions can lead to non-extensivity with $`q>1`$. The fact that the present system undergoes two different second-order phase transitions in the region $`q>1`$ is very remarkable. On the other hand, in this system the fundamental parameter is $`N(q1)`$ instead of $`q`$. This is a new result in non-extensive physics.

In conclusion, we have shown that the spherical spin model with long-range correlations/memory effects simulated in the framework of non-extensive thermostatistics, develops a new weak-ferromagnetic phase in a subadditive entropy regime. An unusual first order phase transition, which exhibits discontinuity of the order parameter even in finite systems, separates this phase from the standard paramagnetic phase. On the phase boundary line in the plane $`\beta J\kappa `$, we have found the tricritical point separating the nature (discontinuous/continuous) of the transition. Above a critical value of the OE-parameter, the spin system freezes into the weakly ordered (weak-ferromagnetic) phase, passing through the phase boundary in the discontinuous transition. For a fixed value of the OE-parameter, the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$, $`q10_+`$) of the spin system differs from its BG limit. The non-extensivity shields the system from the continuous disorder$``$order phase transition and suggests that, in general, the second order critical phenomena may be unstable in the presence of long-range repulsive correlations. This result puts in a different perspective the discussion of a ’critical behavior’ in collisions of atomic nuclei or atomic clusters, showing that the observed signals correspond possibly to a different limiting behavior than previously supposed.

Acknowledgements
We thank K.K. Gudima for stimulating discussions.


format: text

text:
# Quasi-particle Lifetimes in a 𝒅_{𝒙^𝟐-𝒚^𝟐} Superconductor

## Abstract

We consider the lifetime of quasi-particles in a d-wave superconductor due to scattering from antiferromagnetic spin-fluctuations, and explicitly separate the contribution from Umklapp processes which determines the electrical conductivity. Results for the temperature dependence of the total scattering rate and the Umklapp scattering rate are compared with relaxation rates obtained from thermal and microwave conductivity measurements, respectively.

It is now widely accepted that the superconducting state of the high $`T_c`$ cuprates is characterized by a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-order parameter. Furthermore, various transport properties such as NMR relaxation times and the microwave conductivity have been calculated within a quasi-particle BCS-RPA framework which phenomenologically takes into account the interplay of both the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing and the antiferromagnetic spin correlations. In particular, this approach has previously provided reasonable fits of the temperature dependence of the NMR $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ relaxation times in optimally doped YBa2Cu3O7-δ. With recent advances in the preparation of YBCO crystals , microwave measurements  at a variety of higher frequencies, and $`\kappa _{xy}`$ thermal conductivity measurements , one has new information on the quasi-particle lifetime involved in the electrical conductivity and the mean-free path associated with the thermal conductivity. Several puzzles have presented themselves. First, microwave measurements appear to indicate that the relaxation rate, long known to collapse rapidly below the critical temperature, varies as $`T^4`$, or possibly exponentially, at temperatures $`TT_c`$. On the other hand, the theory of the quasi-particle relaxation rate in a $`d`$-wave superconductor due to electron-electron interactions predicts a $`T^3`$ variation above a scale set by impurity scattering. A solution to this discrepancy has recently been suggested by Walker and Smith, who noted that in the absence of disorder, the transport lifetime entering the microwave conductivity arises solely from Umklapp processes, which are always gapped below $`T_c`$ even in a $`d`$-wave superconductor, leading to an exponential decay $`1/\tau _U\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_U/T)`$. Secondly, while early thermal conductivity experiments extracted quasi-particle mean-free paths in apparent agreement with microwave measurements, recent measurements indicate that on cleaner crystals, where the mean-free path due to inelastic scattering can be probed to lower temperatures, the extracted mean-free path is shorter than in the microwave case. Furthermore, the inelastic contribution to the inverse thermal mean free path appears to follow a $`T^3`$ temperature dependence at low temperatures (see below). Motivated by the proposal of Walker and Smith regarding the role of Umklapp processes, we investigate whether the same type of spin-fluctuation interaction used to fit the NMR data can also provide a quantitative fit to the lifetimes extracted from the microwave and thermal conductivities. In particular, we wish to understand if the discrepancies discussed above can be resolved by recognizing that normal electron-electron interactions conserve the total momentum and therefore cannot degrade the electric current, whereas they can degrade the heat current . We therefore calculate, within a BCS model in which the spin-fluctuation interaction is accounted for in the random phase approximation (RPA), the total quasi-particle lifetime and the Umklapp-only quasi-particle lifetime and compare these with the $`\kappa _{xy}`$ thermal conductivity and microwave conductivity measurements, respectively. We find that the inelastic lifetimes extracted from thermal transport and charge transport can be accounted for within a BCS-RPA quasi-particle framework. Furthermore, the parameter values which are required are consistent with what is known about the Fermi surface and spin-fluctuations from other measurements. The analysis is based, however, on the subtraction of a constant relaxation rate from both quantities, an approach which must be justified within microscopic theory; we present a brief discussion of these issues and the light shed by our analysis on the behavior of the low-energy impurity scattering amplitude.

In the following, we will assume that we have BCS quasi-particles with a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ gap

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤(T)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)(\text{cos}k_x\text{cos}k_y)$$
(1)
moving on a 2D square lattice with near- and next-near-neighbor one-electron hopping matrix elements $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$, respectively. The effective electron-electron interaction will be modeled by the spin-fluctuation form

$$\text{Im}V(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{3}{2}\overline{U}^2\frac{\chi _0^{\prime \prime }(𝐪,\omega )}{(1\overline{U}\chi _0^{}(𝐪,\omega ))^2+(\overline{U}\chi _0^{\prime \prime }(𝐪,\omega ))^2}.$$
(2)
Here, $`\overline{U}`$ and the chemical potential, $`\mu `$, which sets the average site occupation, $`n`$, control the strength of the antiferromagnetic spin-fluctuations, and $`\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )`$ is the BCS susceptibility given by

$`\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\text{{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{𝐩+𝐪}ϵ_𝐩+\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐩+𝐪}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩}{E_{𝐩+𝐪}E_𝐩}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{f(E_{𝐩+𝐪})f(E_𝐩)}{\omega (E_{𝐩+𝐪}E_𝐩)+i0^+}}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{𝐩+𝐪}ϵ_𝐩+\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐩+𝐪}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩}{E_{𝐩+𝐪}E_𝐩}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1f(E_{𝐩+𝐪})f(E_𝐩)}{\omega +(E_{𝐩+𝐪}+E_𝐩)+i0^+}}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{𝐩+𝐪}ϵ_𝐩+\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐩+𝐪}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩}{E_{𝐩+𝐪}E_𝐩}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{f(E_{𝐩+𝐪})+f(E_𝐩)1}{\omega (E_{𝐩+𝐪}+E_𝐩)+i0^+}}\text{}},`$ (5)
where $`E_𝐩=\sqrt{ϵ_𝐩^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩^2}`$ and $`ϵ_𝐩=2t(\text{cos}p_x+\text{cos}p_y)4t^{}\text{cos}p_x\text{cos}p_y\mu `$. The band parameters are taken to be $`t^{}/t=0.35`$ with a site filling of $`n_{i,}+n_{i,}=0.85`$, and the temperature dependence of the gap has been parametrized as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2}\text{tanh}(\alpha \sqrt{T_c/T1}).$$
(6)
We have used $`\alpha =3.0`$ to reproduce the rapid onset of the gap below $`T_c`$ which is observed experimentally, and set $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_BT_c=5`$. Throughout this paper, we use $`t=1`$ as our energy scale and take $`\overline{U}/t=2.2`$; this is similar to the $`\overline{U}=2.0`$ used in previous calculations  of the NMR $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ relaxation rates, where an RPA form for $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ similar to Eq. (3) was employed, but a simple ($`t^{}=0`$) tight-binding band assumed.

Using the effective interaction, Eq. (2), the Fermi Golden Rule expression for the quasi-particle lifetime is

$`\tau ^1(𝐩,\omega )=`$ $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\text{Im}V(𝐩𝐩^{},\omega E_𝐩^{})(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩^{}}{\omega E_𝐩^{}}})[n(\omega E_𝐩^{})+1][1f(E_𝐩^{})]`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\text{Im}V(𝐩𝐩^{},\omega +E_𝐩^{})(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩^{}}{\omega E_𝐩^{}}})[n(\omega +E_𝐩^{})+1]f(E_𝐩^{}),`$ (8)
where $`n(\omega )`$ and $`f(\omega )`$ are the usual Bose and Fermi factors. Here the first term arises from quasi-particle scattering resulting from the absorption and emission of a spin-fluctuation. The second term corresponds to a process in which a quasi-particle recombines with another quasi-particle to form a pair and the excess energy is emitted as a spin-fluctuation.

An example of the type of process which this includes is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1(a). Here, a quasi-particle with momentum $`𝐩`$ scatters off of another quasi-particle with momentum $`𝐤`$ leading to an intermediate state containing quasi-particles of momentum $`𝐩^{}`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$. Momentum conservation on the lattice implies that

$$𝐩+𝐤=𝐩^{}+𝐤^{}+𝐆$$
(9)
where $`𝐆`$ is a reciprocal lattice vector and all other momenta are confined to the first Brillouin zone. Since $`E_𝐤^{}=E_{𝐩𝐩^{}+𝐤𝐆}=E_{𝐩𝐩^{}+𝐤}`$, we have the expression for $`\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )`$ given by Eq. (3) with $`𝐪=𝐩𝐩^{}`$ and with the $`𝐤`$ sum extending over the entire first Brillouin zone. If, however, we had not allowed any reciprocal lattice vectors except $`𝐆=(0,0)`$, the $`𝐤`$ sum would, for given values of $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$, extend only over that part of the first Brillouin zone for which $`𝐤^{}=𝐩𝐩^{}+𝐤`$ remains inside the first Brillouin zone. This restriction of $`𝐆=(0,0)`$ eliminates all of the Umklapp scattering processes, allowing only “normal” processes. In this way, one can introduce a “normal” scattering lifetime $`\tau _N^1(𝐩,\omega )`$. This is obtained by using an interaction with the same denominator as in Eq. (2), but with $`\chi _0^{\prime \prime }(𝐪,\omega )`$ in the numerator replaced by the imaginary part of Eq. (3) with $`𝐪=𝐩𝐩^{}`$ for which the sum over $`𝐤`$ is restricted such that $`𝐩𝐩^{}+𝐤`$ remains in the first Brillouin zone. With this restriction, the resulting “normal”, non-Umklapp, part of $`\chi _0^{\prime \prime }(𝐪,\omega )`$ depends separately on $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$ rather than only on the difference of $`𝐩𝐩^{}`$. Having calculated both $`\tau ^1(𝐩,\omega )`$ and $`\tau _N^1(𝐩,\omega )`$, one can obtain a lifetime which contains only the Umklapp processes by subtraction

$$\tau _U^1(𝐩,\omega )=\tau ^1(𝐩,\omega )\tau _N^1(𝐩,\omega ).$$
(10)
At temperatures which are small compared with the maximum gap, the thermally excited quasi-particles occupy states close to the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ gap nodes on the Fermi surface. When two of these thermal quasi-particles scatter, the outgoing states must also occupy states near the nodal region in order to conserve energy. For the Fermi surface shown in Fig. 1(b), these scattering processes must have $`𝐆=(0,0)`$ and only contribute to the “normal” processes. Umklapp scattering processes are also possible, but these processes are exponentially suppressed at low temperatures. Following Walker and Smith, the reason for this is illustrated in Fig. 1(b). Here, we have set the initial quasi-particle momentum $`𝐩`$ to a node and numerically searched for the lowest energy quasi-particle state $`𝐤`$ such that momentum is conserved as in Eq. (9) with the constraint that $`𝐆=(0,0)`$. For $`t^{}/t=0.35`$ and $`n=0.85`$ corresponding to the Fermi surface shown, the momentum $`𝐤`$ is the lowest energy state for which a quasi-particle can have an Umklapp scattering with the nodal quasi-particle $`𝐩`$. Since $`𝐤`$ has moved away from the nodal region, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ is now finite. When $`k_BT`$ is less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$, the probability of finding such a quasi-particle varies as $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤/k_BT}`$ and the Umklapp scattering is suppressed for temperatures below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$. We will call this special value the Umklapp gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_U`$. It depends upon the shape of the Fermi surface which is set by $`t^{}/t`$ and $`n`$. Figure 2 shows the Umklapp gap as a function of the strength of the $`t^{}/t`$ for a fixed filling of $`n=0.85`$. It is easily seen that an Umklapp gap exists even when $`t^{}/t=0`$ and has a magnitude of about 0.07$`t`$ for the band with $`t^{}/t=0.35`$. We note further that this corresponds to a “Dirac cone anisotropy ratio” $`v_F/v_212`$, which is consistent with the value determined by low temperature thermal conductivity measurements .

We now compare the absolute values of the relaxation times in question. In Fig. 3(a), we have plotted $`\mathrm{}/k_BT_c\tau _U`$ and $`\mathrm{}/k_BT_c\tau `$ versus $`T/T_c`$ for the parameters discussed above. In order to compare recent thermal conductivity measurements with the total scattering rate, we need to specify a Fermi velocity. For the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$ dispersion relation one has $`v_F2.16ta`$ and taking $`T_c=0.1t=90K`$, this gives $`v_F10^7`$cm/sec. Zhang et. al.  have used an effective Fermi velocity $`\eta v_f10^7`$ cm/sec with $`\eta =0.6`$ and $`v_F=1.7\times 10^7`$ cm/sec. Alternatively, Chiao et. al.  have suggested that $`v_F=2.5\times 10^7`$ cm/sec. In the fit of $`\mathrm{}/k_BT_c\tau (T)`$ shown as the solid line in Fig. 4(a), we have used $`v_F=3\times 10^7`$ cm/sec to convert the thermal mean-free path data of Ref.  to a quasi-particle relaxation rate shown as the open symbols. Beyond the choice of $`v_F`$, the determination of the quasi-particle lifetime from the thermal conductivity measurements is complicated by the phonon contribution to the heat current, and necessitates certain assumptions regarding the nature of quasi-particle scattering in the vortex state which are still controversial. However, we note that the magnitude of the theoretically determined total scattering rate of $`\mathrm{}/\tau (T_c)3k_BT_c`$ at the node is in rough agreement with that determined by ARPES , while $`\mathrm{}/\tau _U(T_c)k_BT_c`$ is consistent with optical data. In Fig 3(b), we show the low temperature range of the theoretical predictions, along with the Hosseini et. al. $`1/\tau `$ extracted from microwave data using a two-fluid analysis, shown as open diamonds. Here one sees that taking $`\overline{U}/t=2`$ provides a reasonable fit to the magnitude of the low temperature microwave scattering lifetime and the exponential decay of the Umklapp processes also appears to provide a sensible explanation for the observed temperature dependence at low temperatures.

Clearly, there are a number of parameters in this calculation, and the results do vary with their values. Here, we have selected values for $`t^{}/t`$ and the filling $`n`$ to give a Fermi surface which resembles that seen in ARPES data and various band structure calculations  for the $`d_{x^2y^2}p\sigma `$ band of YBCO. Specifically, the Fermi surface, as seen in Fig. 1(b), has a diagonal nodal k-spacing of $`(0.8,0.8)\pi /2a`$, and fixes the size of the Umklapp gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_U`$, which determines how $`\tau _U^1(𝐩,\omega )`$ decreases below the total scattering lifetime. Note that for the Fermi surface pictured in Fig. 1(b), $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_BT_c=5`$ corresponds to a maximum of the gap on the Fermi surface near $`(\pi ,0)`$ of $`\text{max}[2\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐩)/k_BT_c]=4.7`$. The choice of $`\overline{U}/t=2.2`$ was made consistent with Refs.  and because it provided a reasonable fit to the absolute magnitude of the microwave scattering lifetime, as discussed below.

It is important to ask the extent to which the data support the fundamental prediction of this work, that the relaxation rate entering the thermal conductivity data should be the total quasi-particle relaxation rate, which varies as $`(T/T_c)^3`$ due to spin-fluctuation scattering and recombination processes, in contrast to the activated Umklapp scattering rate which should enter the microwave conductivity. Is Fig. 3 sufficient to conclude that these assertions are correct? In order to examine the true low-$`T`$ asymptotic forms, we have displayed in Fig. 4 the same curves and data as in Fig. 3 on a log-log plot. ¿From the insert to the figure, it is clear that the low-$`T`$ behavior of the two experimental relaxation rates is quite different, but although the thermal conductivity data is roughly consistent with the $`T^3`$ result expected from the spin-fluctuation theory, the microwave data appear to lie considerably above the activated prediction at the lowest temperatures, a behavior hidden by the linear plot in Fig. 3. In the main part of the figure, we show the raw experimental data with no constant subtracted, together with the inelastic rates added to a constant $`1/\tau _0`$ determined by the experimental data at low $`T`$.

The most natural interpretation of the residual scattering rates $`1/\tau _0`$ is in terms of disorder. It is striking that the $`1/\tau _0`$ extracted from the thermal conductivity measurement appears to be significantly larger than that extracted from the microwave measurements, since both measurements were performed on nominally equivalent $`BaZrO_3`$ crucible-grown samples. The most popular treatment of disorder in the cuprates is the self-consistent t-matrix approximation (SCTMA) describing strong scattering by in-plane near-unitarity limit defects. This theory predicts a strong energy dependence of the low-temperature elastic scattering rate, however, inconsistent with the roughly constant behavior observed here. This difficulty was remedied to some extent in Ref.  by considering additional scattering from spatial fluctuations of the order parameter. Even in this approach, however, bare scatterers are considered to be isotropic, leading to a vanishing of impurity vertex corrections in local quantities; this implies the same relaxation time for both thermal and microwave conductivities. If the isotropic scattering assumption is relaxed, however, as considered by Durst and Lee, the $`\omega 0`$ microwave conductivity is found to be strongly enhanced relative to the thermal conductivity, which is unrenormalized. This may be interpreted as a reduction of the scattering rate in the microwave case, but a full frequency-dependent calculation and proof that a Lorentzian conductivity obtains in analogy to Ref.  is required before one may conclude that the observed discrepancy is caused by anisotropic impurity scattering.

To summarize, using a d-wave BCS framework, we have taken a simple spin-fluctuation interaction, which has been used to describe the temperature dependence of the NMR $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ spin relaxation times in YBCO below $`T_c`$, and have shown that it can also describe the temperature dependence of both the inelastic charge and heat transport times below $`T_c`$. The contribution to the quasi-particle lifetime of normal spin-fluctuation scattering processes, which can relax heat currents but not charge currents, as well as Umklapp processes, have been calculated separately. The difference in the two contributions was then shown to account for the difference in experimentally extracted lifetimes in recent microwave and heat conductivity measurements on ultraclean samples of YBCO. Both the predicted temperature dependences in a spin-fluctuation mediated interaction model, the Umklapp scattering rates $`1/\tau _U\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Delta }_U/T`$ and the total scattering rate $`1/\tau T^3`$, appear to agree with the data, as do the predicted absolute magnitudes of the two rates. The exponential form of $`1/\tau _U`$ implies a sensitivity to the Fermi surface shape, which is expected to lead to a significant increase in $`1/\tau _U`$ at low temperatures upon underdoping. While our results depend upon the band structure and interaction parameters, we have selected these to be consistent with Fermi surface data and NMR measurements, and conclude that the results for the microwave and thermal conductivity inelastic quasi-particle lifetimes are consistent with an effective electron-electron interaction which is mediated by spin-fluctuations.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank D.A. Bonn, S. Daul, A.C. Durst, P.A. Lee, A. Millis, M. Reizer, and A. Yashenkin for useful discussions, as well as S. Quinlan for the use of his code. DD and DJS acknowledge support under NSF DMR98-17242 and PJH acknowledges support under NSF DMR 99-74396. DJS and PJH are grateful to the Institute for Theoretical Physics for hospitality and support through NSF PHY94-07194 during the completion of the manuscript.


text:
# Electron correlations in a partially filled first excited Landau level

In the absence of another (kinetic) energy scale, correlations in a degenerate Landau level (LL) are completely determined by the form of electron–electron interaction. Depending on the type of these correlations, the series of incompressible ground states (GS’s) may occur at the specific values of the filling factor $`\nu `$, the elementary excitations of these GS’s may have specific (quasiparticle) character and, consequently, the system (two-dimensional electron gas, 2DEG, in a high magnetic field) may exhibit specific optical and transport properties.

For example, it turns out that the short-range character of the Coulomb repulsion in the lowest ($`n=0`$) LL makes the electrons maximally avoid those pair eigenstates with the smallest relative angular momenta $`=1`$, 3, 5, …. This tendency causes incompressibility at the specific values of the filling factor $`\nu `$, as well as the specific properties of the elementary excitations of these incompressible GS’s . The avoidance of pair states with small $``$ can also be mimicked by a composite fermion (CF) transformation in which the “hard core” at $`<2p+1`$ is replaced by an attachment of $`2p`$ vortices or magnetic flux quanta to each electron.

Correlations of this type do not generally occur in the excited LL’s because of different behavior of the electron–electron repulsion. The condition necessary for Laughlin correlations is that the interaction pseudopotential, $`V()`$, is super-harmonic at short range, and the Coulomb pseudopotential in the $`n`$th LL, $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(n)}`$, satisfies this condition only at $`2n+1`$ . Consequently, Laughlin correlations in the $`n`$th LL are not expected at $`\nu >(2n+2)^1`$, and neither will the CF picture be valid at these fillings. Therefore, it is not surprising that the half-filled state in the $`n=1`$ LL ($`\nu =\frac{5}{2}`$) is incompressible, even though for $`n=0`$ all even-denominator fractions are compressible. It is less obvious that the correlations (and thus the reason for incompressibility) at $`\nu =\frac{7}{3}`$ and $`\frac{8}{3}`$ are different from those at $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\frac{2}{3}`$, and that the CF model does not apply in the $`n=1`$ LL.

In this note, correlations in the $`n=1`$ LL are studied numerically. The energy spectra and the coefficients of fractional grandparentage (CFGP), $`𝒢`$, for the lowest energy states are calculated. The pair-correlation functions $`𝒢()`$ for the low-energy states are analyzed. The series of Laughlin-correlated states containing electron pairs is proposed.

In our model, $`N`$ electrons are confined on a Haldane sphere, and the degeneracy of the $`n`$th LL, $`g_n=2l_n+1`$, is controlled by the strength $`2S`$ of the magnetic monopole inside the sphere ($`l_n=S+n`$). The Coulomb matrix elements are calculated assuming zero width of the 2DEG, and the inter-LL scattering is neglected. All lengths and energies are given in the units of $`\lambda `$ (magnetic length) and $`e^2/\lambda `$. The many-body states are labeled by the length ($`L`$) and projection ($`M`$) of total angular momentum.

On a sphere, $`=2lL`$ and the harmonic pseudopotential $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ is linear in $`L(L+1)`$. Only those pseudopotentials $`V`$ that decrease more quickly than $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ with increasing $``$ cause Laughlin correlations . It is clear from Fig. 1(a) that $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(n)}`$, the Coulomb pseudopotential in the $`n`$th LL, is super-harmonic in entire range of $``$ only for $`n=0`$.

To model different behavior of $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(1)}`$ at short range, a model pseudopotential shown in Fig. 1(b) can be used for which $`U_x(1)=1`$, $`U_x(5)=0`$, and $`U_x(3)=xV_\mathrm{H}(3)`$, where $`V_\mathrm{H}(3)`$ is the “harmonic” value such that $`U_1`$ is linear in $`L(L+1)`$ for $``$ between 1 and 5. While $`U_0`$ gives similar many-body energy spectra to $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$, the (approximately) harmonic behavior of $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(1)}`$ at $`5`$ is well reproduced by $`U_1`$.

A few $`n=1`$ Coulomb energy spectra are compared with the spectra of $`U_1`$ in Fig. 2.

The circles mark incompressible GS’s in each frame, identified as the $`\nu =\frac{5}{2}`$ (Moore–Read) and $`\nu =\frac{7}{3}`$ states. The similarity of the corresponding $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(1)}`$ and $`U_1`$ spectra (both very different from the $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ and $`U_0`$ spectra – not shown) confirms the fact that the essential feature of $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(1)}`$ that determines correlations in the $`n=1`$ LL is its harmonic behavior at short range.

Further confirmation of the essential role of this harmonicity comes from the comparison of CFGP profiles (pair-correlation functions) $`𝒢()`$ for the low-energy states, shown in Fig. 3.

As an example, we display data for the lowest-energy $`L=0`$ states from the spectra of Fig. 2 and the (not shown) analogous spectra for $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ and $`U_0`$ (the latter correspond to different numbers of quasiholes, QH, in Jain $`\nu =\frac{2}{5}`$ state). Clearly, the correlations obtained for the Coulomb interaction in the $`n=0`$ and 1 LL’s are very different for both one-half and one-third filling, and they are very well reproduced by the model interactions $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$, respectively. The main common feature of $`𝒢()`$ for $`n=0`$ is a strong minimum at $`=1`$ that can be viewed as a tendency for the electrons to maximally avoid this most strongly repulsive pair state. Because of the sum rules satisfied by CFGP’s: (i) $`_{}𝒢()=1`$ and (ii) $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)_{}L^{}(L^{}+1)𝒢()=L(L+1)+N(N2)l(l+1)`$, where $`L^{}=2l`$ and $`L`$ is the total $`N`$-electron angular momentum, the minimum at $`=1`$ causes maximum at $`=3`$. The harmonicity of $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(1)}`$ at $`15`$ results in a different “prescription” for the CFGP profile that minimizes total interaction energy, $`E=\frac{1}{2}N(N1)_{}V()𝒢()`$, in the $`n=1`$ LL. Namely, the total grandparentage from $`=1`$ and 3 is minimized, yielding a maximum at $`=5`$.

The optimum pseudopotential $`U_x`$ to model Coulomb correlations at $`n=0`$ or 1 can be found from a dependence of the leading CFGP’s on $`x`$, shown in Fig. 4 for the same three many-body eigenstates of Fig. 3.

Clearly, the abrupt reconstruction of Laughlin correlations characteristic of $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ and $`U_0`$ occurs at $`x1`$, and the correlations resulting for $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(1)}`$ are best reproduced by $`U_x`$ with $`x`$ near this transition point. It is noteworthy that $`𝒢(1)𝒢(3)`$ at $`x1`$, and that the total number of $`=1`$ pairs, $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)𝒢(1)`$, is roughly equal to $`\frac{1}{2}N`$. This supports the idea of electron pairing in the $`\nu =\frac{5}{2}`$ state .

To identify the finite-size incompressible states in the $`n=1`$ LL (and to rule out the same character of the $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\frac{7}{3}`$ states that coincidentally occur at the same filling of the $`n=0`$ and 1 LL’s in the thermodynamic limit), in Fig. 5 we show the dependence of the excitation gap from the $`L=0`$ GS, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and of the leading CFGP’s on $`2l`$, calculated for $`N=10`$ and 12.

At $`n=0`$, large gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ occur only at those $`2l`$ corresponding to Laughlin or Jain GS’s at $`\nu =\frac{2}{3}`$, $`\frac{2}{5}`$, $`\frac{1}{3}`$, etc., and coincide with the downward cusps in $`𝒢(1)`$ and upward peaks in $`𝒢(3)`$. At $`n=1`$, the gaps generally occur at different $`2l`$ than at $`n=0`$ and coincide with the maxima of $`𝒢(5)`$. The horizontal lines labeled “5x2” and “6x2” show the values of $`𝒢(1)=(N1)^1`$ corresponding to the formation of $`\frac{1}{2}N=5`$ or 6 pairs with $`=1`$.

The facts that (i) $`𝒢(1)(N1)^1`$ over certain range of $`2l`$ for $`n=1`$ and (ii) Laughlin correlations keeping electrons maximally separated from one another no longer occur, suggest that electrons may indeed form $`=1`$ pairs in the $`n=1`$ LL. Such pairs would then keep far apart from one another due to the super-harmonic behavior of $`V_\mathrm{C}^{(1)}`$ at larger $``$. Laughlin pair–pair correlations can be formally introduced by a composite boson (CB) transformation applied to the (bosonic) pairs. The result is that incompressible Laughlin paired states are expected at the effective pair filling factors $`\nu _2=(2q_2)^1`$ with $`q_2=1`$, 2, 3, 4, …, that translate into the total electron filling factors of $`\nu =2+2/(q_2+2)=\frac{8}{3}`$, $`\frac{5}{2}`$, $`\frac{12}{5}`$, $`\frac{7}{3}`$, …. On Haldane sphere, these GS’s and their particle–hole conjugates are expected at $`2l=\frac{1}{2}N(q_2+2)(q_2+1)`$ and $`2l=\frac{1}{2}N(q_2+2)+1`$, respectively. Remarkably, the latter relation for $`q_2=3`$ is the same as for the Moore–Read (pfaffian) state, which therefore can be interpreted as a Laughlin $`\nu _2=\frac{1}{6}`$ state of $`=1`$ electron pairs.

The incompressible GS’s for other values of $`q_2`$ have not been confirmed numerically. However, an $`L=0`$ GS occurs for any $`N`$ at $`2l=3N7`$ (which gives $`\nu =\frac{7}{3}`$ in the thermodynamic limit, but is different from $`2l=3N3`$ of the Laughlin $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ state). Also, its particle–hole conjugate $`\nu =\frac{8}{3}`$ state occurs in numerical spectra at any (even) $`N`$ and $`2l=\frac{3}{2}N+2`$. Most likely, less than $`\frac{1}{2}N`$ pairs form in these states, and the Laughlin pair–pair and electron–pair correlations occur in such two-component plasma of $`=1`$ pairs and excess unpaired electrons (in analogy to the two-component Laughlin fluid of charged excitons and electrons).

The authors acknowledge partial support of Grant DE-FG02-97ER45657 from Materials Science Program – Basic Energy Sciences of the US Dept. of Energy. AW acknowledges support of Polish KBN Grant 2P03B11118.


text:
# Supersymmetric Chaplygin gas

## 1 Introduction

Recently, the strange properties of an isentropic fluid (called Chaplygin gas) arising from membrane theory have attracted much attention -. This gas is described by the following equations,

$`\begin{array}{c}_tR+\stackrel{}{}(R\stackrel{}{v})=0\hfill \\ \\ _t\stackrel{}{v}+(\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{v}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\stackrel{}{}p\hfill \end{array}`$ (1.4)
where $`R`$ is the density of the fluid, $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the irrotational velocity and $`p`$ represents the pressure. This fluid is characterised by a negative pressure $`2\lambda /R`$ ($`\lambda `$ is a positif constant). The supersymmetric generalization of the planar Chaplygin gas arising from a supermembrane theory in $`(3+1)`$-dimensions was proposed in  and . Jackiw and Polychronakos , in particular introduced anticommuting Grassmann variables in order to get a non-irrotational velocity (the vorticity is indeed generated by the fermion fields). Following the same construction, Bergner and Jackiw  have obtained an integrable supersymmetric fluid model in $`(1+1)`$-dimensions with large symmetries, see Section $`3`$. Similar remarks were obtained by Bazeia in the purely bosonic model . Let us mention that an another interesting gas model, namely the polytropic gas, has been studied by Das and Popowicz . They analyse the differences and the similarities between the supersymmetric polytropic gas and the supersymmetric Chaplygin gas.

In this letter, we propose an original method to construct the conserved (super)charges of the planar supersymmetric and non-relativistic Chaplygin gas . In this letter, we consider a relativistic perfect fluid on an extended space whose projection gives the planar model. In order to include supersymmetry, we generalize the usual approach to relativistic perfect fluids . Indeed, our relativistic fluid is governed by two continuity equations (instead of one, as usual) and by the conservation law of the energy momentum tensor. The second continuity equation is a fermionic equation which is absent when the theory is purely bosonic. We prove a correspondance between this relativistic fluid and the supersymmetric Chaplygin model and we use this correspondance to construct the conserved (super)charges. In the last section, we show similar results in the case of the lineal model.

## 2 The planar Chaplygin gas

The equations of motion of the supersymmetric planar Chaplygin gas are

$`\begin{array}{c}_tR+\stackrel{}{}(R\stackrel{}{v})=0,\hfill \\ \\ _t\psi +\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{}\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{R}}\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{}\psi ,\hfill \\ \\ _t\stackrel{}{v}+(\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{v}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\stackrel{}{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{R}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{R}}\stackrel{}{}\psi \stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{}\psi .\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.10)
The velocity is defined as

$`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi \stackrel{}{}\psi ,`$ (2.11)
which provides a Clebsch formula  for $`\stackrel{}{v}`$. The Grassmann variables $`\psi `$ are Majorana spinors and the matrices $`\alpha ^i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are given in terms of the matrices Pauli by $`\alpha ^1=\sigma ^1`$ and $`\alpha ^2=\sigma ^3`$. The system (2.10) can be derived from the following Lagrangian

$`L=R\left(_t\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _t\psi \right){\displaystyle \frac{R}{2}}\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi \stackrel{}{}\psi \right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}}\psi \stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{}\psi `$ (2.12)
In , Jackiw and Polychronakos showed that this model admits $`4`$ fermionic supercharges given by

$`Q_j={\displaystyle d^2x\left(R\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{jk}\psi _k)+\sqrt{2\lambda }\psi _j\right)}j=1,2,`$ (2.13)
$`\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}\stackrel{~}{Q}_j=d^2xR\psi _j\hfill & & & & & & & & & & & & j=1,2,& & \end{array}`$ (2.15)
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{jk}`$ are the components of the $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ matrices.

We propose now a relativistic fluid model whose projection leads to the previous one. Following , let us consider a Lorentz $`4`$-manifold $`(M,g)`$ which is endowed with a covariantly constant and lightlike vector field, $`\xi `$. The coordinates on $`M`$ are $`(\stackrel{}{x},t,s)`$ where $`s`$ is an additional “vertical” coordinate. The quotient of $`M`$ by the integral curves of $`\xi `$ is a $`(2+1)`$ non-relativistic space-time . In our case, we choose the flat Minkowski metric written in light-cone coordinates as $`d\stackrel{}{x}^2+2dtds`$, and $`\xi ^\mu _\mu =_s`$. In $`M`$, we consider the bosonic fields $`\rho `$ and $`\theta `$ and the fermionic Majorana spinors $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$. In what follows, the Greek letters $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}=\stackrel{}{x},t,s`$ are indices on the extended space and the indices $`j`$ and $`k`$ run over the spatial components.

On the extended space $`M`$, we consider a relativistic Lagrangian which describes the motion of a perfect fluid and whose projection (as we shall see below) leads to the non-relativistic one (2.12). This relativistic Lagrangian is the following,

$`={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2}}v_\mu v^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left[A\gamma ^j_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right],`$ (2.16)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a $`4`$-spinor with components $`(0,0,\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ and where $`\psi _k`$ are Majorana spinors which do not depend on the variable $`s`$. The $`4`$-velocity $`v^\mu `$ is defined as

$$v^\mu =^\mu \theta \frac{1}{2}\psi ^\mu \psi .$$

The Lagrangian (2.16) involves also the $`\gamma `$ matrices whose representation in the light-cone coordinates is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^t=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{2}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}& 0\end{array}\right)& \gamma ^s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{2}\end{array}& 0\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$

and

$$\gamma ^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \alpha _k\\ \alpha _k& 0\end{array}\right)\text{for}k=1,2$$

The $`\gamma `$ matrices satisfy $`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2g^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the flat Minkowski metric $`d\stackrel{}{x}^2+2dtds`$. The $`4\times 4`$ matrix is

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_2\\ I_2& 0\end{array}\right)=A^1.$$

The variation of (2.16) with respect to $`\theta `$ leads to the equation

$`_\mu (\rho v^\mu )=0,`$ (2.17)
called bosonic continuity equation (this equation is indeed present even if the fermionic field is absent). The equations associated to $`\psi `$ read

$`v^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{\rho }}A\gamma ^k_k\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (2.18)
Finally, the variation of (2.16) with respect to $`\rho `$ yields to

$`2\lambda =\rho ^2v^\mu v_\mu .`$ (2.19)
This last equation with (2.18) lead to an Euler-type equation,

$`v^\mu _\mu v_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{\rho }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{\rho }}(_k\mathrm{\Psi })^{}\left[A\gamma ^j_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right].`$ (2.20)
We argue that our system (2.17-2.20) describes a relativistic fluid. Following , a relativistic fluid can be described by a continuity equation, augmented by a conserved energy momentum tensor. In our case, we generalize this construction by considering two continuity equations (rather than one) to include the supersymmetry. Indeed, using the bosonic continuity equation (2.17), the second equation of our relativistic system (2.18) is in fact a continuity equation,

$`_\mu \left(\rho v^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\right)=\sqrt{2\lambda }A\gamma ^k_k\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (2.21)
In fact, the right term is a total spatial divergence and, contrary to (2.17) this equation (called fermionic continuity equation) is meaningless when the theory is purely bosonic. Varying now the relativistic Lagrangian (2.16) with respect to the metric, we obtain a symmetric energy-momentum tensor, namely

$`\vartheta _{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\rho v_\mu v_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{4}}\delta _\mu ^j\delta _\nu ^k\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A\left[\gamma _j_k\mathrm{\Psi }+\gamma _k_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right]\right).`$ (2.22)
This tensor is conserved, $`^\mu \vartheta _{\mu \nu }=0`$, and the spatial component of this relation gives the relativistic Euler equation (2.20). If we introduce the pressure $`p=2\lambda /\rho `$ and the unitary velocity $`u^\mu `$ defined by $`nu^\mu =\rho v^\mu `$ (so that $`n`$ is proportional to the proper particle density ), then the expression (2.22) becomes

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\vartheta _{\mu \nu }=\hfill & \hfill & g_{\mu \nu }p{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{\rho }}u_\mu u_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A\gamma ^j_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\hfill \\ & +\hfill & {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{4}}\delta _\mu ^j\delta _\nu ^k\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A\left[\gamma _j_k\mathrm{\Psi }+\gamma _k_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right]\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.25)
Curiously, this tensor is the sum of two separed conserved tensors,

$`\vartheta _{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }.`$ (2.26)
The first conserved tensor given by

$`T_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }p{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{\rho }}u_\mu u_\nu ,_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (2.27)
describes a perfect fluid  (this tensor is present even in the purely bosonic model). The second tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$ interpreted as an improvement term  and  is zero when the fermionic field is absent.

Now, if the relativistic fields $`\rho `$, $`\theta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ are related to the non-relativistic ones, $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\psi `$ by the equivariance condition and , namely by

$`\rho =R(t,\stackrel{}{x})\text{and}\theta =\mathrm{\Theta }(t,\stackrel{}{x})+s,`$ (2.28)
then the equations (2.17-2.20) project to the non-relativistic ones (2.10). Similarly, the Lagrangian (2.16) becomes exactly (2.12). This correspondance is very useful to obtain the conserved quantities of the non-relativistic model. Indeed, the conserved (super)current will be obtained as the projection of these conservation laws. We distinguish three types of charges :
$``$ The extended Galileo charges: Our relativistic system is described by the Lagrangian (2.16) augmented by the equivariance condition (2.28). The isometries of the metric $`g`$ are symmetries of the Lagrangian (2.16). In fact, under an isometry transformation the velocity $`v^\mu `$ and the fermionic field $`\psi `$ are invariant. However, because of the equivariance condition (2.28), we restrict ourselves to isometries which preserve the vertical vector. These $`\xi `$-preserving isometries are given by

$`X^\mu _\mu =ϵ_t+(\stackrel{}{\gamma }+t\stackrel{}{\beta })\stackrel{}{}+(\eta \beta x)_s`$ (2.29)
where $`ϵ`$, $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ and $`\eta `$ are the infinitesimal parameters associated (respectively) to the time translation, space translation, boost and vertical translation. For any isometry which satisfies (2.29), the $`4`$-vector field $`k^\mu =\vartheta _\nu ^\mu X^\nu `$ is conserved and $`s`$-independent. Consequently, this conserved $`4`$-vector projects under equivariance to a conserved $`3`$-current whose temporal component,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}k^t}={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}g_\mu ^t\left(\sqrt{2\lambda }\rho +\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}A\gamma ^j_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right)X^\mu }\rho v_\mu X^\mu `$ (2.30)
does not depend on time. The quantities obtained with each isometries (2.29) form the extended Galileo group.
$``$ The Poincaré charges: Previously, we have seen that because of the equivariance condition (2.28), we consider only $`\xi `$preserving isometries. Motived by our previouys paper , we can relax this too restrictive condition. Indeed, let us suppose that the fields $`\rho `$ and $`v^\mu `$ depend explicitly on the variable $`s`$ and, they are related to the non-relativistic field $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ by the new condition,

$`\{\begin{array}{c}v^\mu (t,\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Theta }(t,\stackrel{}{x}))=\left[^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }(t,\stackrel{}{x})\frac{1}{2}\psi ^\mu \psi \right]_s\theta |_{(t,\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Theta }(t,\stackrel{}{x}))}\hfill \\ \\ R(t,\stackrel{}{x})=\rho (t,\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Theta }(t,\stackrel{}{x}))_s\theta |_{(t,\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Theta }(t,\stackrel{}{x}))}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.34)
Given any solutions of equations (2.17-2.19), the first relation provides a way to construcut the field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ solution of the non-relativistic equations (2.10). The second relation gives the correspondance between the fields $`\rho `$ and $`R`$. Let us point out that in the case of the classical equivariance (i.e. $`_s\theta =1`$), these relations lead to the classical ones (2.28). Using this new equivariance (2.34), we prove easily that equations (2.17-2.19) project to the non-relativistic equations (2.10). Consequently, the isometries (which not preserve necessarily the vector field $`\xi `$) are symmetries of the system defined by equations (2.17-2.19) augmented by the condition (2.34). The $`\xi `$ non-preserving isometries are

$`X^\mu _\mu =(dt+\stackrel{}{\omega }\stackrel{}{x})_ts\stackrel{}{\omega }\stackrel{}{}ds_s,`$ (2.35)
where $`d`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ are respectively the paramaters associated to the time dilatation and the anti-boosts . We can not project, as previously, the $`4`$ conserved current $`k^\mu `$ because of its explicit dependence on the additional variable $`s`$. However, using the Euler equation (2.20), we show that the vector $`k^\mu `$ taken in the particular point $`(t,\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Theta }(t,\stackrel{}{x}))`$ is always conserved . A similar calculation (2.30) leads to the following conserved quantities ,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}D={\displaystyle \left(tR\mathrm{\Theta }\right)𝑑\stackrel{}{x}}& & \text{time dilatation},\\ & & \\ \stackrel{}{G}={\displaystyle \left(\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{}{𝒫}\right)𝑑\stackrel{}{x}}& & \text{anti-boosts},\end{array}`$ (2.39)
where $``$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝒫}`$ are respectively the energy density and the momentum density. These $`3`$ charges with the extended Galileo ones form the Poincaré group in $`(3+1)`$ dimensions.
$``$ The supercharges: First, the fermionic continuity equation (2.21) gives a conserved supercurrent on $`M`$ wich does not depend on the additional variable $`s`$. Its temporal component yields the conserved quantity (2.13). Moreover, combining the equations (2.17) and (2.20), we have

$$_\mu \left(\rho v^\mu v_k\right)_k(\frac{2\lambda }{\rho })=\sqrt{2\lambda }(_k\mathrm{\Psi })^{}\left(A\gamma ^j_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right).$$

Contracting this expression with $`\gamma ^k\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we obtain (after integration)

$`\begin{array}{ccc}_\mu \left(\rho v^\mu v_k\gamma ^k\mathrm{\Psi }\right)_k({\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{\rho }}\gamma ^k\mathrm{\Psi })\hfill & =\hfill & \sqrt{2\lambda }A\left(v^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }v_k\gamma ^k\gamma ^j_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\hfill \\ & & +\sqrt{2\lambda }(_k\mathrm{\Psi })^{}\left(A\gamma ^j_j\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\gamma ^k\mathrm{\Psi }.\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.42)
Let us remark that only the two first components of this expression are non zero. After a tedious calculation, we prove that the first term on the right is equal to

$$\sqrt{2\lambda }_t\psi _kϵ^{km}\left[ϵ^{ij}_i(v_j\psi _m)\right]+\omega ϵ^{km}\psi _m,$$

where $`\omega `$ is the vorticity, $`\omega =ϵ^{ij}_iv_j=1/2ϵ^{ij}_i\psi _j\psi `$. Finally, using this relation, the term in right in (2.42) becomes

$$\sqrt{2\lambda }_t\psi _kϵ^{km}\left[ϵ^{ij}_i(v_j\psi _m)\right]+ϵ^{ij}_i\left(\psi _2(_j\psi _k)\psi _1\right).$$

Consequently, we have proved that the relation (2.42) is a conservation law whose temporal component projects to the density of the supercharge (2.15).

## 3 The lineal Chaplygin gas

The lineal version of the Chaplygin gas is governed by the following equations

$`\{\begin{array}{c}_tR+_x(Rv)=0\\ _t\psi +\left(v+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{R}}\right)_x\psi =0\\ _tv+v_xv={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{R}}\right).\end{array}`$ (3.46)
This model is more particular than the planar one. Indeed, in , it was shown that this model is completely integrable, and admits an infinite ladder of “bosonic”conserved charges, namely

$`Q_n^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle R\left(v\pm \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{R}\right)^n𝑑x}\text{for}n=0,1\mathrm{}`$ (3.47)
The first three terms of the sequence $`Q_n^+`$ give some of the generators of the extended Galileo group (namely the particle number $`N`$, the momentum $`P`$ and the energy $`H`$). Curiously, the boosts, $`B=tPxR`$ as well as the Poincaré quantitites (2.39) which are also conserved do not appear in the sequence $`Q_n^+`$. The supersymmetric model also admits an infinite ladder of fermionic supercharges  given by

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_n={\displaystyle R\left(v\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{R}\right)^n\psi 𝑑x}\text{for}n=0,1\mathrm{}`$ (3.48)
Similarly, we consider a relativistic fluid in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions whose motion is governed by :
$``$ two continuity equations (one bosonic and the other fermionic)

$`\{\begin{array}{c}_\mu (\rho v^\mu )=0\hfill \\ \\ _\mu \left[\rho (v^\mu V^\mu )\psi \right]=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.52)
Here $`V^\mu `$ is a spacelike vector

$`V^\mu _\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{\rho }}_x.`$ (3.53)
$``$ a conserved energy momentum tensor,

$`\vartheta _{\mu \nu }=\underset{T_{\mu \nu }}{\underset{}{g_{\mu \nu }p{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{\rho }}u_\mu u_\nu }}+\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }}{\underset{}{\sqrt{2\lambda }g_{\mu \nu }v+nu_\mu V_\nu +nu_\nu V_\mu \rho V_\mu V_\nu }}.`$ (3.54)
This tensor is also the sum of two separated conserved tensors, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$. If we suppose now that the fluid is isentropic with a negative pressure, $`p=2\lambda /\rho `$, then the conservation of $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ leads to

$`v^\mu _\mu v_\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}_\sigma \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{\rho }}\right)\text{for}\sigma =x,t,s.`$ (3.55)
As previously, under equivariance condition (2.28), this relativistic fluid (3.52-3.55) projects to the lineal non-relativistic model.

Let us now derive the conservation laws for the lineal model. The isometric charges (Galileo and Poincaré charges) are obtained as in the planar model. The $`3`$-vector field $`k^\mu =\vartheta _\nu ^\mu X^\nu `$ is conserved for all isometries,

$`_\mu k^\mu =\left[g_\nu ^\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{\rho }}+\sqrt{2\lambda }v\right)\rho (v^\mu V^\mu )(v_\nu V_\nu )\right]_\mu X^\nu .`$ (3.56)
This expression vanishes for all Killing vectors because $`_\mu X^\nu `$ is proportional to the Lie derivative of $`X`$.

Moreover, the lineal system admits further conserved quantities which are not associated with Killing vector. Starting from the observation that $`\rho V^\mu =\sqrt{2\lambda }\delta _x^\mu `$, the first equation in (3.52) implies that

$`_\mu \left(\rho (v^\mu V^\mu )\right)=0,`$ (3.57)
Using this relation, the second equation in (3.52) yields to $`(v^\mu V^\mu )_\mu \psi =0`$. Consequently, for each $`p`$ integer we have

$`(v^\mu V^\mu )_\mu \psi ^p=0.`$ (3.58)
Using the same equations, we show first that $`(v^\mu V^\mu )_\mu (v\pm V)=0`$ and

$`(v^\mu V^\mu )_\mu (v\pm V)^p=0.`$ (3.59)
Combining equations (3.58) and (3.59), we have for the upper sign

$`(v^\mu V^\mu )_\mu \left[(v+V)^n\psi ^p\right]=0,`$ (3.60)
where $`n`$ and $`p`$ are integers. We use this last equation to construct non-Killing vectors which satisfy $`_\mu k^\mu =0`$, (3.56). In particular, if we suppose that the vector field $`X^\mu `$ has the particular form, $`X^\mu _\mu =X_s`$ (where $`X`$ is a function which does not depend on the $`s`$ variable), then the divergence of $`k^\mu `$ (3.56) becomes

$$_\mu k^\mu =\rho (v^\mu V^\mu )_\mu X.$$

Solutions of $`_\mu k^\mu =0`$ are given by $`X=(v+V)^n\psi ^p`$, (3.60). The projection of $`k^t`$ gives the conserved quantity,

$`𝒬_n^p={\displaystyle 𝑑xR(v\frac{2\lambda }{R})^n\psi ^p}.`$ (3.61)
If we suppose that the following brackets yield ,

$$\{\psi _a;\psi _b\}=\frac{\delta _{ab}}{R}\delta ,\{v;\psi \}=\frac{_x\psi }{2R}\delta \text{and}\{v;R\}=_x\delta $$

then the quantities $`𝒬_{n,p}`$ span a closed algebra,

$`\{B;𝒬_n^p\}=n𝒬_{n1}^p\{D;𝒬_n^p\}=(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})𝒬_n^p,\{G;𝒬_n^p\}=({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})𝒬_{n1}^p.`$
The lineal system admits other symmetries which are not associated to the vector $`k^\mu `$. Indeed, combining the equations (3.57) and (3.59) for the lower sign, we obtain another conserved vector, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{k}^\mu =\rho (v^\mu +V^\mu )(vV)^n,$$

whose temporal component yields to the conserved quantity,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_n={\displaystyle 𝑑xR(v+\frac{2\lambda }{R})^n}.`$ (3.62)
The algebra verified by (3.62) is also a closed algebra with relations,

$`\{B;\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_n\}=n\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_{n1},\{D;\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_n\}=(n1)\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_n,\{G;\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_n\}=({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}1)\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_{n1}.`$
Acknowledgements : I am indebted to P. Horváthy, J. Hoppe and O. Ley for discussions. It is a pleasure to thank C. Duval, P. Forgács and N. Mohammedi for their fruitful remarks.


text:
# Measurement of the 𝐷_𝑠^± lifetime

## 1 Introduction

Precise measurements of the lifetimes of charm meson weak decays are important for understanding QCD in both perturbative and nonperturbative regimes. For mesons a joint expansion in Heavy Quark Effective Theory and perturbative QCD parameters treated through the third order in the heavy quark mass shows a term including non-spectator W-annihilation as well as Pauli interference. The resulting non-leptonic decay rate differences between W-exchange in $`D^0`$ and W-annihilation in $`D_s^\pm `$ produce lifetime differences of order 10-20 % Frix97 .

The $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime PDG  was dominated by the measurements from E687 Collaboration (0.475 $`\pm `$ 0.020 $`\pm `$ 0.007 ps) E687 . Recently new precision measurements of the $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime have been made by the E791 Collaboration (0.518 $`\pm `$ 0.014 $`\pm `$ 0.007 ps) E791  and the CLEO Collaboration (486.3 $`\pm `$ 15.0 $`{}_{5.1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+4.9}`$ fs) CLEO . Both groups have taken advantage of improved precision in the $`D^0`$ lifetime measurement to report new results for the $`D_s^\pm toD^0`$ lifetime ratio of $`1.254\pm 0.041`$ E791  and $`1.190\pm 0.042`$ CLEO . Their average is 7.4 $`\sigma `$ from unity, emphasizing the large difference in W contributions to $`D_s^\pm `$ and $`D^0`$ decays.

In this letter we report the results of a new measurement of the $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime based on data from the hadroproduction experiment SELEX (E781) at Fermilab. The measurement is based on about 1000 fully reconstructed decays into $`KK\pi `$ from a sample of 15.3 $`\times 10^9`$ hadronic triggers.

The SELEX detector at Fermilab is a 3-stage magnetic spectrometer. The negatively charged 600 GeV/$`c`$ beam contains nearly equal fractions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi `$. The positive beam contains 92% protons. Beam particles are identified by a Transition Radiation detector. The spectrometer was designed to study charm production in the forward hemisphere with good mass and decay vertex resolution for charm momenta in the range 100-500 GeV/$`c`$. Five interaction targets (2 Cu and 3 C) had a total target thickess of 4.2% $`\lambda _{int}`$ for protons. The targets are spaced by 1.5 cm. Downstream of the targets are 20 silicon planes with a strip pitch of 20-25 $`\mu `$m oriented in X, Y, U and V views. The scattered-particle spectrometers have momentum cutoffs of 2.5 GeV/$`c`$ and 15 GeV/$`c`$ respectively. A Ring-Imaging Cerenkov detector (RICH) rich , filled with Neon at room temperature and pressure, provides single track ring radius resolution of 1.4% and 2$`\sigma `$ $`K/\pi `$ separation up to about 165 GeV/$`c`$. A layout of the spectrometer can be found elsewhere spec .

## 2 Data set and charm selection

The charm trigger is very loose. It requires a valid beam track, at least 4 charged secondaries in the forward 150 mrad cone, and two hodoscope hits after the second bending magnet from tracks of charge opposite to that of the beam. We triggered on about 1/3 of all inelastic interactions. A computational filter linked PWC tracks having momenta $`>15`$ GeV/$`c`$ to hits in the vertex silicon and made a full reconstruction of primary and secondary vertices in the event. Events consistent with only a primary vertex are not saved. About 1/8 of all triggers are written to tape, for a final sample of about $`10^9`$ events.

In the full analysis the vertex reconstruction was repeated with tracks of all momenta. Again, only events inconsistent with having a single primary vertex were considered. The RICH detector identified charged tracks above 25 GeV/$`c`$. Results reported here come from a preliminary reconstruction through the data, using a production code optimized for speed, not ultimate efficiency. The simulated reconstruction efficiency of any charmed state is constant at about 40% for $`x_F>0.3`$ where $`>60\%`$ of SELEX events lie.

To separate the signal from the noncharm background we require that: (i) the spatial separation $`L`$ between the reconstructed production and decay vertices exceeds 8 times the combined error $`\sigma _L`$, (ii) each decay track, extrapolated to the primary vertex $`z`$ position, must miss by a transverse distance length $`t`$ 2.5 times its error $`\sigma _t`$, (iii) the secondary vertex must lie outside any target by at least 0.05 cm and (iv) decays must occur within a fiducial region.

There are $`918\pm 53`$ events $`D_s^\pm `$ candidates, each having two RICH-identified kaons and a pion, for which no particle identification is required. We divide them into three decay channels: $`K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$, $`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$ and other KK$`\pi `$. The resonant mass window for the $`K^{}(892)^0`$ ($`\varphi `$) was $`892\pm 70`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ ($`1020\pm 10`$ MeV/$`c^2`$).

$`\pi /K`$ misidentification causes a reflection of $`D^\pm `$ under the $`D_s^\pm `$ peak. We limit the maximum kaon momentum to 160 GeV/$`c`$ to reduce misidentification in the RICH. To evaluate the shape of this background we use the $`D^\pm K^{}\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm `$ sample that passes all the cuts listed above and lies within $`\pm `$ 15 MeV/$`c^2`$ of the $`D^+`$ mass. We formed the invariant mass distribution of these events when one pion is interpreted as a kaon. At most one of the two possible reflections per event falls into the $`D_s^\pm `$ mass window. The reflected mass distribution was fit by a polynomial function rising at 1925 MeV/$`c^2`$ and decreasing to zero at large invariant mass. Dividing this distribution by the number of $`D^\pm `$ events gives us the contribution per mass bin for each misidentified $`D^\pm `$ in the $`D_s^\pm `$ sample. We count the misidentified $`D^\pm `$ in the $`D_s^\pm `$ sample by fitting the $`D_s^\pm `$ mass distribution within $`\pm `$ 20 MeV/$`c^2`$ interval around the $`D_s^\pm `$ mass with the sum of a Gaussian signal, a linear background shape estimated from the sidebands and the $`D^\pm `$ shape with variable normalization. The resultant misidentified $`D^\pm `$ contribution to the $`D_s^\pm `$ mass distribution is shown as the hatched areas in Fig. 1(a), (b). The fit gives $`52\pm 7`$ and $`12\pm 3`$ misidentified $`D^\pm `$ events in the $`K^{}K`$ and $`\varphi \pi `$ decay mode, respectively (the error quoted is statistical only). The RICH kaon identification is a very powerful tool for rejecting $`D^\pm `$ contamination; $`\varphi `$ decay kinematics further reduces particle identification confusion in the $`\varphi \pi `$ channel.

To estimate yields, we subtracted the sideband background and $`D^\pm `$ contamination as evaluated above from the total number of events in the signal region. We find 430 $`\pm `$ 24 $`K^{}K`$ and 330 $`\pm `$ 19 $`\varphi \pi `$ events. A Gaussian fit to the combined data shown in Fig. 1(a), (b) gives a mass of $`1969\pm 9.7`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ and $`\sigma _{D_s^\pm }=8.0`$ MeV$`/c^2`$. Note that these fitted yields are not used as constraints in the lifetime fit, as discussed below.

## 3 Lifetime evaluation using a maximum likelihood fit

The average longitudinal error $`\sigma _z`$ on the primary and secondary vertices is 270 $`\mu `$m and 500 $`\mu `$m, which gives a combined error of 570 $`\mu `$m. In the $`D_s^\pm `$ sample, the average momentum is 215 GeV/$`c`$, corresponding to a time resolution of 18 fs, about $`4\%`$ of $`\tau _{D_s^\pm }`$. Because bin-smearing effects are small, we used a binned maximum likelihood fitting technique to determine the $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime. The fit was applied to a reduced proper time distribution, $`t^{}=M(LL_{min})/pc`$ where M is the known charm mass PDG , $`p`$ the reconstructed momentum, $`L`$ the measured vertex separation and $`L_{min}`$ the minimum $`L`$ for each event to pass all the imposed selection cuts. $`L_{min}`$ is determined event-by-event, along with the acceptance, by the procedure described below. We fitted all events with $`t^{}<1600`$ fs in the mass range $`1.949<M(KK\pi )<1.989`$ GeV$`/c^2`$, $`\pm 2.5\sigma `$ from the $`D_s^\pm `$ central mass value.

To evaluate the mean lifetime we used a maximum likelihood method. The probability density was performed by the function :

$$f(\tau _{D_s},\tau _{Bck},\alpha ,\beta ;t^{})=$$

$$(1\alpha )N_S\frac{e^{t^{}/\tau _{D_s^\pm }}}{ϵ(t^{})\tau _{D_s^\pm }}+\alpha N_SB(t^{})+\frac{N_{D^\pm }}{\tau _{D^\pm }}e^{t^{}/\tau _{D^\pm }}$$
$`(1)`$
where

$$B(t^{})=\frac{\beta e^{t^{}/\tau _{Bck}}}{\tau _{Bck}}+\frac{1\beta }{t_{Max}^{}}$$
$`(2)`$
The function is the sum of a term for the $`D_s^\pm `$ exponential decay corrected by the acceptance function $`ϵ(t^{})`$ plus a background function $`B(t^{})`$ consisting of a single exponential plus a constant to account for a flat background extending to large proper time. Its parameters were determined from the $`t^{}`$ distribution from the $`D_s^\pm `$ sidebands. It also includes a term for the $`D^\pm `$ exponential decay normalized to the number of misidentified events in the signal region. The $`\tau _{D^\pm }`$ lifetime used in the fit is 1051 $`\pm 13`$ fs PDG . The mass range of the sideband background windows, $`1.890<M(KK\pi )<1.930`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ and $`2.040<M(KK\pi )<2.080`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ was twice the signal mass window. We defined asymmetric sidebands to avoid the influence of $`D^\pm K^+K^{}\pi ^\pm `$, and we excluded the $`D^{}(2010)`$ mass region.

The four parameters are: $`\tau _{D_s^\pm }`$ ($`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime), $`\tau _{Bck}`$ (background lifetime), $`\alpha `$ (background fraction in the signal region) and $`\beta `$ (background splitting function). $`N_S`$ is the total number of events in the signal region after $`D^\pm `$ contamination subtraction.

The proper-time-dependent acceptance $`ϵ(t^{})`$ is independent of spectrometer features after the first magnet, e.g., RICH efficiency and tracking efficiency. These efficiencies affect only the overall number of events detected. The proper time distribution of these events depends crucially on vertex reconstruction. To evaluate $`ϵ(t^{})`$ we reanalyze each $`observed`$ $`D_s^\pm `$ event after moving it to a large set of different proper times $`t^{}`$. Only the longitudinal position of the charm decay point and the axial orientation of the 3-body decay vectors are changed sasha . A reanalyzed event is accepted if it passes the same cuts as those applied to the data. The minimum flight path after which an event is accepted defines $`L_{min}`$ for this event. This method is independent of details of the true $`x_F`$ or transverse momentum distributions sasha .

Fig. 2 shows the overall fits to the data distributions as a function of reduced proper time for $`K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$ and $`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$ decay modes. It also shows the acceptance $`ϵ(t^{})`$, which differs significantly from unity only after 4 lifetimes where statistics are limited.

Table 1 summarizes the lifetime results for the two modes analyzed: $`D_s^\pm K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$; and $`D_s^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm `$. The uncertainties are statistical only, evaluated where $`\mathrm{ln}`$ increases by 0.5. Combining these results for the two resonant modes, we measure an average lifetime $`\tau _{D_s^\pm }=472.5\pm 17.2`$ fs.

## 4 Systematic errors

The systematic uncertainties for the $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime analysis are listed in Table 2 and described below. We group them in the following categories:

### 4.1 Primary and secondary vertex reconstruction

Lifetime shifts due to reconstruction errors have been well studied in our $`D^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ work, with an order of magnitude higher statistics sasha ; E781 . Because of the high redundancy and good precision of the silicon vertex detector, vertex mismeasurement effects are small at all momenta. Proper time assignment depends on correct momentum determination. The SELEX momentum error is less than 0.5% in all cases. We assign a maximum systematic error from proper time mismeasurement of 1 fs.

### 4.2 Misidentification

The effect of $`D^\pm `$ contamination under the $`D_s^\pm `$ peak was studied by changing the width of the exclusion window around the nominal $`D^\pm `$ mass for the K/$`\pi `$ interchange discussed above. Effects on the $`\varphi \pi `$ mode are negligible. For the $`K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$ mode this gives a systematic error of 2 fs.

### 4.3 Acceptance function

The technique to determine the acceptance correction dependence on proper time is discussed extensively in Ref. sasha . It has been verified with much larger statistics there. The maximum systematic error here is dominated by the $`K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$ correction, 3 fs. For the $`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$ mode it is less than 2 fs.

### 4.4 Fit procedure

The fit was performed by the maximum likelihood method using a background parametrized by an exponential function plus a constant. We varied the width of the sidebands and the $`t_{Max}^{}`$ independently. The sytematic error due to the fit procedure is 5 fs and less than 0.5 fs for $`K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$ and $`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$ decay modes respectively. That error is mainly dominated by the $`D_s^\pm `$ background parametrization.

Combining in quadrature all the sources of systematic errors listed in Table 2 we obtain a total systematic error of 6.2 fs (2.2 fs) for the $`K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$ ($`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$) mode.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

We have made a new measurement of the $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime in two independent resonant decay channels, $`K^{}(892)^0K^\pm `$ and $`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$ using a maximum likelihood fit. SELEX measures the $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime to be $`472.5\pm 17.2\pm 6.6`$ fs. Using the result reported in the PDG PDG  $`\tau _{D^0}=412.6\pm 2.8`$ fs we evaluate a ratio $`\tau _{D_s^\pm }/\tau _{D^0}=1.145\pm 0.049`$, 3$`\sigma `$ from unity. The $`D_s`$ lifetime reported in this Letter is comparable in precision with previous experiments E791 ; CLEO . Our result, combined with other world data, PDG , lowers the overall $`D_s^\pm `$ lifetime somewhat. Nevertheless, it is clear that the lifetime ratio $`\tau _{D_s^\pm }/\tau _{D^0}`$ is significantly larger than unity for all the precision measurements.

The authors are indebted to the staff of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and for invaluable technical support from the staffs of collaborating institutions. This project was supported in part by Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenchaft, Forschung und Tecnologie, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnólogico, Fondo de Apoyo a la Investigación (UASLP), Fundação de Amparo á Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), the Israel Science Fundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), the International Science Foundation (ISF), the National Science Foundation (Phy 9602178), NATO (grant CR6.941058-1360-94), the Russian Academy of Science, the Russian Ministry of Science and Technological Research board (TÜBITAK),the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40664 and DOE contract number DE-AC02-76CHO3000), and the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF).


text:
# Event-by-event fluctuations in hydrodynamical description of heavy-ion collisionsWork supported in part by FAPESP (contract nos. 2000/04422-7 and 98/00317-2), FAPERJ (contract no.E-26/150.942/99), PRONEX (contract no. 41.96.0886.00) and CNPq-Brasil.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In usual hydrodynamic description of high-energy heavy-ion collisions, one customarily assumes some highly symmetric and smooth initial conditions, which correspond to mean distributions of velocity, temperature, energy density, etc., averaged over several events. However, our systems are not large enough, so large fluctuations are expected. What are the effects of the event-by-event fluctuation of the initial conditions? Are they sizable? Do they depend on the equation of state? Which are the most sensitive variables? These are some questions which arise regarding such an initial-state fluctuation, and we try to shed some light on these matters in the present study.

## 2 METHOD OF STUDY

In order to study the problem stated above, first we generate events by using the NeXus event generator, from which initial conditions are computed at the time $`\tau =1`$fm. Then, the hydrodynamic equations are solved, starting from these initial conditions, assuming some equation of state (EoS). To see the EoS dependence of the effects we are treating, we consider two different EoS’s:

1. Resonance Gas (RG): $`c_s^2=0.2`$;
2. $$\text{QGP+RG:}c_s^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.2,\hfill & \epsilon <0.28\text{GeV/fm}^3,\hfill \\ 0.056/\epsilon ,\hfill & \text{mixed phase},\hfill \\ 1/34B/3\epsilon ,\hfill & \epsilon >1.45\text{GeV/fm}^3.\hfill \end{array}$$

The resolution of the hydrodynamic equations deserves some special care, since our initial conditions do not have any symmetry nor they are smooth. We adopt the so-called smoothed-particle hydrodynamic (SPH) approach, first used in astrophysics and which we have previously adapted for heavy-ion collisions, a method flexible enough, giving a desired precision. The main characteristic of SPH is the parametrization of the flow in terms of discrete Lagrangian coordinates attached to small volumes (called “particles”) with some conserved quantity. In the present work, besides the energy and momentum, we took the entropy as our conserved quantity. Then, its density (in the space-fixed frame) is parametrized as

$$s^{}(𝐱,t)=\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\nu _iW(𝐱𝐱_i(t);h),$$
(1)
where

$$\{\begin{array}{c}W(𝐱𝐱_i(t);h)\text{ is a normalized kernel};\hfill \\ 𝐱_i(t)\text{ is the }i\text{-th particle position, so the velocity is }𝐯_i=d𝐱_i/dt;\hfill \\ h\text{is the smoothing scale parameter;}\hfill \end{array}$$

and we have

$$S=d^3𝐱s^{}(𝐱,t)=\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\nu _i.$$
(2)
The equations of motion are then written as the coupled equations

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\nu _i\frac{P_i+\epsilon _i}{s_i}\gamma _i𝐯_i\right)+\underset{j}{}\nu _j\left[\frac{P_i}{s_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\frac{P_j}{s_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right]_iW(𝐱_i𝐱_j;h)=0.$$
(3)
Following this procedure, we computed some observable quantities, event-by-event, for $`\sqrt{s}=`$130$`A`$GeV $`Au+Au`$ collisions. The results are presented in the next Section.

## 3 RESULTS

### 3.1 Elliptic flow coefficient $`v_2`$

Having solved the coupled equations (3), we have computed the particle spectra at $`T=m_\pi `$ and from which the elliptic flow coefficient $`v_2`$ on an event-by-event basis. In Figure 1, we show its distributions for a fixed impact parameter $`b`$, for the two EoS considered. As expected, $`v_2`$ exhibits a large fluctuation, which depends on the EoS. One should take care in looking at this Figure that our $`b`$ is the true impact parameter (not determined in the way experimentalists do), so for instance in the RG case, there are some events with negative $`v_2`$, which experimentally would not appear. As for the average values $`<v_2>`$, it is almost independent of the EoS. This is shown in Figure 2, where $`<v_2>\pm \delta v_2`$ is plotted as function of the centrality and compared with data. It is seen that $`<v_2>`$ reproduces well the experimental trend, whereas the dispersions $`\delta v_2`$ are much wider than the experimental errors. As for the EoS dependence, $`\delta v_2`$ is smaller when QGP is produced.

### 3.2 $`𝒎_𝑻`$ distributions

In Figure 3, we show the $`m_T`$ distributions for 5 events. As expected, $`m_T`$ distributions are in general steeper when QGP is produced. As for fluctuations, the resultant fluctuation in $`m_T`$ spectrum (or in the slope parameter $`\delta \stackrel{~}{T}`$) is very small.

### 3.3 Multiplicity fluctuation in the mid-rapidity region

Table 1 summarizes the results of our study on multiplicity fluctuation in the mid-rapidity region. It is seen that i) as $`b0`$, $`<n_\pi >`$ becomes much larger with the QGP EoS; ii) $`\delta n_\pi `$ shows the same tendency in this limit; iii) As for the ratio $`\delta n_\pi /<n_\pi >`$, it is not sensitive to the EoS.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

The present study shows that the effects of the event-by-event fluctuation of the initial conditions in hydrodynamics are sizable and should be considered in data analyses. They do depend on the equation of state. Among the quantities examined here, $`\delta v_2`$ is the most sensitive to the equation of state.

In the present work, many important factors have not been considered: baryon-number conservation, strangeness production, resonance decays, continuous emission effects, spectators, etc., which should indeed taken into account in order to get more precise results. Especially, use of the same procedure for the determination of the centrality as used by experimentalists, as in, will make the results more directly comparable with data. In any event, we believe that the effects we studied will be present and will be sizable, even with these improvements.