text:
# Spin structure functions and intrinsic motion of the constituents *footnote **footnote *to be published in Phys. Rev. D

## I Introduction

Measuring of the nucleon spin structure functions represents an important tool not only for better understanding of the nucleon internal structure in the language of the QCD, but also for better understanding of QCD itself. These functions contain an information, which is a crucial complement to the structure functions obtained in the unpolarized deep inelastic scattering (DIS) experiments.

The polarized experiments are more complex and difficult than the unpolarized ones, nevertheless the last decade has brought remarkable results also for the nucleon spin functions from the experiments at CERN (EMC, SMC) and SLAC (E142, E143, E154, E155). And the new experiments are running (HERMES) or are being under preparation (COMPASS). The data on polarized $`pp`$ collisions are expected from the collider RHIC. For the present status of the research in structure functions see e.g. , the overview  and citation therein. The more formal aspects of the polarized DIS are explained in .

Also the interpretation and understanding of polarized structure functions seem be more difficult. For an example, until now it is not well understood, why the integral of the proton spin structure function $`g_1`$ is substantially less, than expected from very natural assumption, that the nucleon spin is generated by the valence quarks. Presently, there is a tendency to explain the missing part of the nucleon spin as a contribution of the gluons. It has been also suggested, that the quark orbital momentum can play some role as well -.

The spin in general is a very delicate quantity, which requires correspondingly precise treatment. It has been argued, that for correct evaluation the quark contribution to the nucleon spin it is necessary to take properly into account the intrinsic quark motion  \- . Necessity of the covariant formulation of the quark - parton model (QPM) for the spin functions has been pointed out in . These requirements are not satisfied in the standard formulation of the QPM, which is currently used for analysis and interpretation of the experimental data.

In this paper we shall attempt to demonstrate the role of the intrinsic motion for the spin structure functions, using very simple model of the system quasifree fermions on mass shell. The basic requirement is consistently covariant formulation of the task for the system of fermions, which are not static, being characterized by some momenta distribution in the frame of their centre of mass. The spin structure functions of such system are obtained in Sec. II and the sum rules following from these functions are shown in Sec. III. In the Sec. IV a comparison with the formulas of the standard QPM is done. The last section is devoted to the short summary.

## II Spin structure functions in covariant approach

Let us imagine a system of three quasifree charged fermions with the spin $`1/2`$ and mass $`m`$, for which the following conditions are satisfied:

1) The distribution of fermion momenta in the frame of their centre of mass is described by some spherically symmetric function $`G,`$

$$G(p_0)d^3p=3;p_0=\sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}.$$
(1)
The free fermion states are described by the spinors

$$\psi _{p,\lambda }(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}u(p,\lambda )\mathrm{exp}(ipx);_\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _{p,\lambda }^{}(x)\psi _{p,\lambda }(x)d^3x=1,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the normalization volume and

$$u(p,\lambda )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _\lambda \\ \frac{𝐩\sigma }{p_0+m}\varphi _\lambda \end{array}\right);N=\frac{2p_0}{p_0+m},\varphi _\lambda ^{}\varphi _\lambda =1.$$
(3)
We assume

$$\frac{1}{2}𝐧\sigma \varphi _\lambda =\lambda \varphi _\lambda ,\lambda =\pm \frac{1}{2},$$
(4)
which means, that the spin projection of the fermion in its rest frame is $`\pm 1/2`$ in the given direction $`𝐧;\left|𝐧\right|=1.`$

2) By $`G_{\pm 1/2}`$we denote function, which measures probability, that fermion is in the state $`\psi _{p,\pm 1/2}`$, so that

$$G(p_0)=G_{+1/2}(p_0)+G_{1/2}(p_0)$$
(5)
and we assume

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G(p_0)d^3p=1;\mathrm{\Delta }G(p_0)G_{+1/2}(p_0)G_{1/2}(p_0).$$
(6)
The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ consists of the corresponding contributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }h_j`$ from the three fermions:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G(p_0)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }h_k(p_0);\mathrm{\Delta }h_k(p_0)h_{k,+1/2}(p_0)h_{k,1/2}(p_0).$$
(7)
Later on, we shall need also the distribution

$$H(p_0)\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_k^2\mathrm{\Delta }h_k(p_0),$$
(8)
where $`e_k`$ are the fermion charges.

What is the resulting spin (total angular momentum) related to the whole system? Let us calculate the integral of the matrix elements

$$\mathrm{𝐧𝐣}=_\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{\lambda }{}G_\lambda (p_0)\left(\psi _{p,\lambda }^{}(x)\mathrm{𝐧𝐣}\psi _{p,\lambda }(x)\right)d^3xd^3p,$$
(9)
where the angular momentum $`𝐣`$ consists of the spin and orbital part

$$j_k=\mathrm{\Sigma }_k+l_k=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _k& 0\\ 0& \sigma _k\end{array}\right)i\epsilon _{klm}p_l\frac{}{p_m}.$$
(10)
Since the total angular momentum $`𝐣`$ is a conserving quantity, which commutes with the term $`𝐩\sigma `$, a simple calculation gives

$$\psi _{p,\lambda }^{}(x)\mathrm{𝐧𝐣}\psi _{p,\lambda }(x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(\lambda +\epsilon _{klm}n_kp_lx_m\right).$$
(11)
So, after inserting to Eq. (9) and using the assumption (6) one gets

$$\mathrm{𝐧𝐣}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\left(G_{+1/2}(p_0)G_{1/2}(p_0)\right)/2+G(p_0)\epsilon _{klm}n_kp_lx_m\right]d^3xd^3p$$
(12)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }G(p_0)d^3p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$

since the term $`\epsilon _{klm}n_kp_lx_m`$, due to spheric symmetry, vanishes. One can check, if $`𝐧^{},𝐧^{\prime \prime }`$ are vectors, which together with $`𝐧`$ generate an orthonormal base in the frame of centre of mass of the three fermions, then a similar calculation gives

$$𝐧^{}𝐣=𝐧^{\prime \prime }𝐣=0.$$
(13)
Obviously, the simplest way is to use the base like:

$$𝐧=(0,0,1),𝐧^{}=(0,1,0),𝐧^{\prime \prime }=(1,0,0).$$
(14)
Since we work with the probabilistic description (in terms of quantum mechanics with the statistical mixture of states) by means of the distributions $`G_\lambda `$, as a result we can obtain only the mean values of the total spin projections $`𝐉=(0,0,1/2)`$. Nevertheless one could consider a more rigorous (but more complicated) approach, in which the three fermion system is not constructed as the statistical mixture of plane waves, but as the composition of the three pure states $`j=1/2,`$ $`j_z=\pm 1/2`$ with the condition, that the whole system represents a pure state $`J=1/2,`$ $`J_z=1/2`$. These states are represented by the relativistic spheric waves (spinors), which imply the corresponding probabilistic distributions $`G,G_\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ and $`H`$ have spheric symmetry. In other words, if in our approach we assume the system in a pure state $`J=1/2`$, then its probabilistic description in terms of the plane waves will be defined by the distributions $`G_\lambda `$, which are spherically symmetric. In fact, that is the reason, why we require spheric symmetry, deformed distributions $`G_\lambda `$ would contradict the eigenstate $`J=1/2`$.

Let us point out, in the relativistic case, having one fermion state with definite projection $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐣}`$ of the total angular momentum, one cannot separate its orbital and spin part (with exception of the special case when $`𝐧\pm 𝐩`$), i.e. account with the fermion orbital momentum is crucial for a consistent calculation of the resulting spin. On the other hand, the similar calculation, in which the orbital part $`𝐥`$ is ignored, gives

$`\psi _{p,\lambda }^{}(x)𝐧𝚺\psi _{p,\lambda }(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }N}}\left(\lambda \varphi _\lambda ^{}\varphi _\lambda +\varphi _\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩\sigma 𝐧\sigma 𝐩\sigma }{2\left(p_0+m\right)^2}}\varphi _\lambda \right)`$

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }N}}\left(\lambda +\varphi _\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩\sigma \left(𝐩\sigma 𝐧\sigma +2\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}\right)}{2\left(p_0+m\right)^2}}\varphi _\lambda \right)`$

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }N}}\left(\lambda \lambda {\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^2}{\left(p_0+m\right)^2}}+\varphi _\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩\sigma \mathrm{𝐩𝐧}}{\left(p_0+m\right)^2}}\varphi _\lambda \right).`$

Since

$$𝐩\sigma \mathrm{𝐩𝐧}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_i^2\sigma _in_i+\underset{ji}{}p_ip_j\sigma _in_j$$
(15)
one can write

$`𝐧𝚺={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{\lambda }{}G_\lambda (p_0)\left(\psi _{p,\lambda }^{}(x)𝐧𝚺\psi _{p,\lambda }(x)\right)d^3xd^3p}`$

$`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}G_\lambda (p_0)\frac{\lambda }{N}\left(1\frac{𝐩^2}{\left(p_0+m\right)^2}+\frac{2𝐩^2}{3\left(p_0+m\right)^2}\right)d^3p},`$

where inserting the formula (15), we take into account, that due to spheric symmetry the terms $`p_ip_j`$ ($`ji`$) vanish and the terms $`p_i^2`$ can be substituted by $`𝐩^2/3`$. The last relation can be further simplified:

$$𝐧𝚺=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }G(p_0)\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2m}{3p_0}\right)d^3p\frac{1}{2}.$$
(16)
One can observe, that the correspondence with Eq. (12) takes place only for the system of static fermions.

For further consideration, it will be useful to substitute the vector $`𝐧`$, representing the direction of the fermion polarization, by the corresponding covariant polarization vector $`w^\sigma (\lambda )`$, which satisfies

$$w^2(\lambda )=1,w(\lambda )p=0$$
(17)
and

$$w(\lambda )=\frac{\lambda }{\left|\lambda \right|}(0,𝐧);\lambda =\pm \frac{1}{2}$$
(18)
in the fermion rest frame. The explicit representation of the vectors $`w(\lambda )`$ will be defined hereinafter.

Now, let us expose this system as a (fixed) target to the beam of polarized electrons (e.g. $`helicity`$ $`=+1/2`$) coming with the momentum

$$k=(k_0,\sqrt{k_0^2m_e^2},0,0)$$
(19)
and let us calculate the form of corresponding differential cross-section. The spin dependent part of the cross-section for interaction with a single fermion in one photon approximation has the form

$$d\sigma L^{\alpha \beta (A)}(q,s)T_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}.$$
(20)
The antisymmetric tensor $`L^{\alpha \beta (A)}`$, (see e.g. ) related to the electron beam reads:

$$L^{\alpha \beta (A)}=m_e\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }s^\lambda q^\sigma ,$$
(21)
where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, $`s`$ denotes its polarization vector

$$s=\frac{1}{m_e}(\sqrt{k_0^2m_e^2},k_0,0,0);s^2=1,ks=0$$
(22)
and $`q=kk^{}`$ is the photon momentum. The antisymmetric tensor $`T^{\alpha \beta (A)}`$ related to the single fermion inside the target has a similar form:

$$T^{\alpha \beta (A)}=m\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }q^\lambda w^\sigma (\lambda ),$$
(23)
where $`m`$ and $`w(\lambda )`$ denote the fermion mass and polarization vector. If one assumes, that the electron scattering can be described as the incoherent sum of the interactions with the single plane waves, then the tensor $`T^{\alpha \beta (A)}`$ reads

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }q^\lambda mH(p_0)w^\sigma \delta ((p+q)^2m^2)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}.$$
(24)
Here the charge factors and the two possible signs of $`w^\sigma `$ are included into the tensor through the distribution (8). By the symbol $`w^\sigma `$ we mean $`w^\sigma (\lambda =+1/2)`$. Let us remark, this form of the antisymmetric part of the hadronic tensor is very similar to that used in . Further, we can modify the $`\delta `$function term:

$$\delta ((p+q)^2m^2)d^3p=\delta (2pq+q^2)d^3p=\frac{1}{2\xi }\delta (\frac{pq}{\xi }+\frac{q^2}{2\xi })d^3p,$$
(25)
where $`\xi `$ is arbitrary constant, which only rescales the integration variable. Now, let us imagine, that our target is a part of the greater system, which is at rest with respect to the given reference frame and has the mass $`M`$, but at the same time the probing electron interact only with the three fermions. If we put

$$\xi =Mq_0=M\nu ,$$
(26)
then in the $`\delta `$function one can identify the terms known from the formalism of deep inelastic scattering:

$$\frac{q^2}{2M\nu }=\frac{Q^2}{2M\nu }=x,$$
(27)
which is the Bjorken scaling variable, its value can be directly determined using only initial and final momenta of the scattered electron. This variable is in the $`\delta `$function compensated by the ratio $`pq/M\nu `$, which after boosting the whole target of mass $`M`$ to the infinite momentum frame approximately represents ratio of dominating momenta components $`p^{}/P^{}`$ of the fermion and the target.

The explicit form of the polarization vector $`w`$ can be found as follows. First, let us transform the vector $`w=(0,𝐧)`$ from the fermion rest frame to the target rest frame. After decomposition of the vector $`𝐧`$ to longitudinal and transversal parts with respect to the momentum fermion $`𝐩`$, the corresponding Lorentz boost gives

$$(0,𝐧)w=(\frac{\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}}{m},𝐧+\frac{\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}}{m(m+p_0)}𝐩).$$
(28)
Secondly, let us make a Lorentz boost of the whole target with mass $`M`$ to some another frame, which is defined by the new components of the target momentum

$$(M,0,0,0)P=(P_0,𝐏);P^2=M^2.$$
(29)
Next, if we define the covariant vector $`S`$ by its components in the target rest frame as

$$S=(0,𝐧),$$
(30)
then the polarization vector $`w`$ can be written in manifestly covariant form

$$w^\sigma =AP^\sigma +BS^\sigma +Cp^\sigma ,$$
(31)
where $`A,B,C`$ are invariant functions (scalars) of the vectors $`P,S,p`$. These three functions are fixed by two the conditions (17) and by the constraint (28) valid in the target rest frame. A simple calculation gives:

$$A=\frac{pS}{pP+mM},B=1,C=\frac{M}{m}A.$$
(32)
So, we have obtained explicit covariant form of the polarization vector $`w`$ entering the tensor (24), which can be now in accordance with the relations (25)-(27) rewritten

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }q^\lambda \frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)w^\sigma \delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0},$$
(33)
where we use the invariant term $`Pq`$ instead of $`M\nu `$ and $`H(pP/M)`$ instead of $`H(p_0)`$.

On the other hand, in accordance with the general rule (see e.g. ), the antisymmetric tensor $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}`$ appearing in the formula for the cross-section (20), has the form

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }q^\lambda \left\{MS^\sigma G_1+[(Pq)S^\sigma (qS)P^\sigma ]\frac{G_2}{M}\right\},$$
(34)
where $`M,P,S`$ represent the target mass, momentum and spin polarization vector, which satisfies

$$S^2=1,PS=0.$$
(35)
The invariants $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are the spin structure functions. In the next we shall identify the parameters $`M,P,S`$ in Eq. (34) with those in the model described above and simultaneously we shall attempt to determine the spin structure functions corresponding to our target. First of all, we modify the Eq. (34) by the substitution

$$G_S=MG_1+\frac{Pq}{M}G_2,G_P=\frac{qS}{M}G_2,$$
(36)
which gives

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }q^\lambda \left\{S^\sigma G_SP^\sigma G_P\right\}.$$
(37)
Comparison with Eq. (33) gives the equation for the structure functions:

$$\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }q^\lambda \left\{S^\sigma G_SP^\sigma G_P\right\}=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }q^\lambda \frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)w^\sigma \delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}.$$
(38)
Because of the antisymmetry of the tensor $`\epsilon `$ and after inserting from the relation (31) it follows that

$$S^\sigma G_SP^\sigma G_P=\frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)\left(AP^\sigma +BS^\sigma +Cp^\sigma \right)\delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}+Dq^\sigma ,$$
(39)
where $`D`$ is some scalar function and the functions $`A,B,C`$ are given by the relations (32). After contracting with $`P_\sigma ,S_\sigma `$ and $`q_\sigma `$ one gets the equations for unknown functions $`G_S,G_P`$ and $`D`$:

$$M^2G_P=\frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)\left(AM^2+CpP\right)\delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}+DPq,$$
(40)
$$G_S=\frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)\left(B+CpS\right)\delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}+DqS,$$
(41)
$$qSG_SPqG_P=\frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)\left(APq+BqS+Cpq\right)$$
(42)
$`\times \delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{pq}{Pq}}x\right){\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{p_0}}+Dq^2`$

and inserting $`G_P,G_S`$ from the first two equations to the last one gives the condition for $`D`$:

$$\frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)\left(Cpu\right)\delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}+Dqu=0,$$
(43)
where we denote

$`uq+\left(qS\right)S{\displaystyle \frac{\left(Pq\right)}{M^2}}P.`$

Finally, inserting $`D`$ from this equation to Eqs. (40), (41) gives with the use of relations (32) the structure functions

$$G_P=\frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)\frac{pS}{pP+mM}\left[1+\frac{1}{mM}\left(pP\frac{pu}{qu}Pq\right)\right]\delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0},$$
(44)
$$G_S=\frac{m}{2Pq}H\left(\frac{pP}{M}\right)\left[1+\frac{pS}{pP+mM}\frac{M}{m}\left(pS\frac{pu}{qu}qS\right)\right]\delta \left(\frac{pq}{Pq}x\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}.$$
(45)
The spin structure functions in the standard notation $`g_1=MPqG_1,`$ $`g_2=\left(Pq\right)^2/MG_2`$ can be now obtained from Eqs. (36):

$$g_1=Pq\left(G_S\frac{Pq}{qS}G_P\right),g_2=\frac{\left(Pq\right)^2}{qS}G_P,g_1+g_2=PqG_S,$$
(46)
where the functions $`G_S,G_P`$ are given by relations (44), (45). Corresponding integrals, as shown in the Appendix, can be simplified to the form (A14), (A15). Let us remark, resulting functions $`g_1,g_2`$, after inserting from the relations (A14), (A15) into Eq. (46) do not depend on the variable $`qS`$ despite the fact, that such terms are present in the starting integrals (44), (45) in a non-trivial way. This is a consequence of spheric symmetry of the distribution $`H`$, which as we have suggested, follows from the requirement $`J=1/2`$.

## III Sum rules

For next analysis of the obtained structure functions it is convenient to express the integrals (44),(45) in the target rest frame, where $`P=(M,0,0,0)`$ and $`S=(0,𝐧)`$. Detailed calculation is done in the Appendix. Now, let us assume $`Q^24M^2x^2`$, then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐪\right|}{\nu }}=\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}1`$

and using the second relation (46) and Eq. (A7) one gets

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2g_2(x)𝑑x=\pi H(p_0)\left(p_1+\frac{p_1^2p_T^2/2}{p_0+m}\right)\delta \left(\frac{p_0+p_1}{M}x\right)\frac{p_Tdp_1dp_T}{p_0}𝑑x$$
(47)
$`=\pi {\displaystyle H(p_0)\left(p_1+\frac{p_1^2p_T^2/2}{p_0+m}\right)\frac{p_Tdp_1dp_T}{p_0}}.`$

In the last integral, due to spheric symmetry of the distribution $`H`$, the terms proportional to $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^2p_T^2/2`$ vanish, insofar that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0,$$
(48)
which is the known Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule . Similarly the third relation (46) and Eq. (A8) give

$$\left(g_1(x)+g_2(x)\right)𝑑x=\pi H(p_0)\left(m+\frac{p_T^2}{2\left(p_0+m\right)}\right)\frac{p_Tdp_1dp_T}{p_0}.$$
(49)
After the substitution

$$2\pi p_Tdp_1dp_T=d^3p$$
(50)
and using relation (48) one gets

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1g_1(x)𝑑x=\frac{1}{2}H(p_0)\left(m+\frac{𝐩^2}{3\left(p_0+m\right)}\right)\frac{d^3p}{p_0}.$$
(51)
Simple modification then gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\frac{1}{2}H(p_0)\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2m}{3p_0}\right)d^3p.$$
(52)
More detailed analysis of this result will be done in the next section.

The relations (A7) and (A8) can be used also for the calculation of the higher momenta. Generally, if $`F`$ is a function defined as

$`F(x)={\displaystyle K(p)\delta \left(\frac{p_0+p_1}{M}x\right)d^3p},`$

then

$`{\displaystyle x^nF(x)𝑑x}={\displaystyle K(p)x^n\delta \left(\frac{p_0+p_1}{M}x\right)d^3p𝑑x}`$

$`={\displaystyle K(p)\left(\frac{p_0+p_1}{M}\right)^n\delta \left(\frac{p_0+p_1}{M}x\right)d^3p𝑑x}`$

$`={\displaystyle K(p)\left(\frac{p_0+p_1}{M}\right)^nd^3p}.`$

Application of this rule to Eqs. (A7) and (A8) gives after the substitution (50) and with the use of the second and third relation (46):

$$xg_2𝑑x=\frac{1}{6M}H(p_0)\left(p_0\frac{m^2}{p_0}\right)d^3p,$$
(53)
$$x\left(g_1+g_2\right)𝑑x=\frac{1}{6M}H(p_0)\left(p_0+2m\right)d^3p.$$
(54)
These equalities imply relation

$$x\left(g_1+2g_2\right)𝑑x=\frac{1}{6M}H(p_0)\left(2m+\frac{m^2}{p_0}\right)d^3p,$$
(55)
which in the limit of the massless fermions coincides with the Efremov - Leader - Teryaev (ELT) sum rule :

$$x\left(g_1+2g_2\right)𝑑x=0.$$
(56)
## IV Discussion

In the previous sections we have studied the properties of the spin structure functions related to the system of quasifree fermions on mass shell. This system can be compared with the naïve QPM, which is with embedded QCD corrections yet the basic tool for the analysis and interpretation of polarized and unpolarized deep inelastic scattering data. What is the difference between our approach and the naïve QPM, if one speaks about the proton spin structure functions? To simplify this discussion, let us assume:

1) Spin contribution from the sea of quark-antiquark pairs and gluons can be neglected. Then the three fermions in our approach correspond to the three proton valence quarks. So, in this simplified scenario, the proton spin is generated only by the valence quarks.

2) In an accordance with the non-relativistic SU(6) approach the spin contribution of individual valence terms is given as

$$s_u=4/3,s_d=1/3.$$
(57)
Let us point out, in the given context the term valence quarks means nothing else, than the three fermions with defined momenta distribution, charge, mass and polarization.

Then according to the naïve SU(6) version of the QPM we have

$$g_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}e_j^2\mathrm{\Delta }q_j(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^2\frac{2}{3}u_{val}(x)\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)^2\frac{1}{3}d_{val}(x)\right),$$
(58)
corresponding to two the quarks with distribution $`u_{val}(x)`$ and the one with distribution $`d_{val}(x)`$, which are normalized as

$$\frac{1}{2}u_{val}(x)𝑑x=d_{val}(x)𝑑x=1.$$
(59)
It follows, that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=g_1(x)𝑑x=\frac{5}{18}0.28.$$
(60)
This number overestimates more than twice the experimental value. Disagreement is generally interpreted as a contradiction with the assumption, that the proton spin is generated only by spins of the valence quarks.

Now let us calculate the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ in our approach. Let us denote momenta distributions of the valence quarks in the target rest frame by symbols $`h_u`$ and $`h_d`$ with the normalization

$$\frac{1}{2}h_u(p_0)d^3p=h_d(p_0)d^3p=1.$$
(61)
These distributions are connected with the $`u_{val}(x)`$ and $`d_{val}(x)`$ defined above by the relation

$$q_{val}(x)=h_q(p_0)\delta \left(\frac{p_0\nu +p_1\left|𝐪\right|}{M\nu }x\right)d^3p.$$
(62)
The charge weighted distribution (8), in an SU(6) picture, reads

$$H(p_0)=e_j^2\mathrm{\Delta }h_j(p_0)=\left(\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^2\frac{2}{3}h_u(p_0)\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)^2\frac{1}{3}h_d(p_0)\right).$$
(63)
Now, for simplicity let us assume the same shape of the distributions for both the flavours:

$$\frac{1}{2}h_u(p_0)=h_d(p_0)h(p_0).$$
(64)
Then it follows

$$G(p_0)=3h(p_0),\mathrm{\Delta }G(p_0)=h(p_0),H(p_0)=\frac{5}{9}h(p_0)$$
(65)
and the relations (16) and (52) can be rewritten:

$$𝐧𝚺=\frac{1}{2}h(p_0)\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2m}{3p_0}\right)d^3p,$$
(66)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\frac{5}{18}h(p_0)\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2m}{3p_0}\right)d^3p.$$
(67)
These relations imply:

a) Because the distribution $`h`$ has the defined normalization, the corresponding integrals reach their maximum in the limit, when the fermions are static ($`p_0=m`$). On the other hand in the limit of massless fermions ($`mp_0`$) these integrals represent only one third of their maximal value. In particular, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ satisfies:

$$\frac{5}{18}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\frac{5}{54}.$$
(68)
b) Both the integrals are (up to the factor $`5/9`$) equal. It follows, that in the case of non static fermions the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ ”measures” only the contribution from their spins, which is only part of the their angular momenta, see derivation of the relation (16). Fermions with momentum $`𝐩\mathrm{𝟎}`$, which is not parallel to $`\pm 𝐧`$, necessarily contribute to the total angular momentum also by some orbital part.

Further let us notice, if we denote

$$\gamma _{ELT}x\left(g_1+2g_2\right)𝑑x,$$
(69)
then Eq. (55) and the third relation (65) imply

$$\frac{2}{3}m\frac{18}{5}\gamma _{ELT}Mm.$$
(70)
Why these two very simple approaches for description of the target consisting of the three fermions differ so strongly regarding the prediction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$? The reason is following. The standard formulation of the QPM is closely connected with the preferred reference system - infinite momentum frame (IMF). The basic relations between the distribution and structure functions like

$$g_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}e_j^2\mathrm{\Delta }q_j(x),F_2(x)=xe_i^2q_i(x)$$
(71)
are derived with the use of approximation

$$p_\alpha =xP_\alpha ,$$
(72)
which seems to be plausible in the IMF. Nevertheless, in the covariant formulation this relation is equivalent to the assumption, that the quarks are static with respect to the proton, since the velocities $`p_j/p_0`$ and $`P_j/P_0`$ are the same. In the proton rest frame it means $`𝐩=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. That is why both the approaches are equivalent for the static quarks but differ for the quarks, which have some intrinsic motion inside the proton. In our approach we do not use assumption (72) and as a result if $`p_\alpha xP_\alpha `$ we obtain different relations between the distribution and structure functions. In other words, the fact, that the experimental value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is substantially under the value predicted by the naïve QPM in standard formulation, can be in our approach interpreted as a direct consequence of the quark intrinsic motion.

Of course, the approach discussed above concerns the simplified scenario of the quasifree fermions on mass shell. Naïve QPM represents only a first approximation for a description of real nucleon, but the consistent accounting for the quark intrinsic motion as suggested in our approach can, in some aspects, improve this approximation considerably.

Nevertheless, in the realistic case of partons inside the nucleon the situation is still much more delicate. The interaction among the quarks and gluons is very strong, partons themselves are mostly in some shortly living virtual states, is it possible to speak about their mass at all? Strictly speaking probably not. The mass in the exact sense is well defined only for free particles, whereas the partons are never free. However one can assume the following. The relations obtained in the previous sections can be used as a good approximation even for the interacting quarks, but provided that the term mass of quasifree parton is substituted by the term parton effective mass. By this term we mean the mass, which a free parton would have to have to interact with the probing photon equally as the real, bounded one. Intuitively, this mass should correlate to $`Q^2`$: a lower $`Q^2`$ roughly means, that the photon ”sees” the quark surrounded by some cloud of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs as a one particle - by which this photon is absorbed. And on contrary, the higher $`Q^2`$ should mediate interaction with more ”isolated” quark. Moreover, one should accept that the value of the effective mass can even for a fixed $`Q^2`$ fluctuate. Such phenomenological model was suggested in , but unfortunately calculation was based on the form of quark polarization vector which is not correct. Despite of that, the general considerations in mentioned paper can be sensible. Corresponding numeric recalculation with the correct input obtained in the present study for the invariants $`A,B,C,D`$ \[relations (32),(43)\] should be done in a separate paper.

## V Summary and conclusion

In the present paper we have studied the spin structure functions of the system of quasifree fermions on mass shell and with spherically symmetric distribution of their momenta. The main results can be summarized as follows:

1) Using consistently covariant description of this simple system, we have shown how the structure functions depend on the intrinsic motion of the fermions. In particular, we have suggested, that the momenta $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ corresponding to the two extreme scenarios, of the static (massive) fermions and massless fermions, can differ significantly: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(mp_0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(p_0m)=1/3`$.

2) We have shown, what sum rules follow from the obtained spin structure functions. Further we have shown, how these rules are related to some sum rules well known from the QPM phenomenology.

3) We have done a comparison with the corresponding relations for the structure functions following from the standard formulation of the naïve QPM. Both the approaches are basically equivalent for the static quarks. Differences for quarks with intrinsic motion inside the proton are result of the conflict with the assumption $`p_\alpha =xP_\alpha `$, which is crucial for derivation of the relations between structure and distribution functions in the standard QPM.

4) The difference between the experimental value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ for the proton and the corresponding value expected from the naïve QPM, or at least a part of this difference, can be interpreted as a consequence of the quark motion inside the proton.
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Anatoli Efremov and Oleg Teryaev for many useful discussions and valuable comments.

## A Calculation of the integrals related to $`G_P,G_S`$

Integrals in the relations (44), (45) expressed in the target rest frame read

$$G_P=\frac{m}{2M^2\nu }H(p_0)$$
(A1)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}}{p_0+m}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\left(p_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}\left(\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}\right)\left|𝐪\right|\mathrm{cos}\omega }{𝐪^2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega }}\nu \right)\right]\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{pq}{M\nu }}x\right){\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{p_0}},`$

$$G_S=\frac{m}{2M\nu }H(p_0)$$
(A2)
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}}{p_0+m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\left(\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}\left(\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}\right)\left|𝐪\right|\mathrm{cos}\omega }{𝐪^2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega }}\left|𝐪\right|\mathrm{cos}\omega \right)\right]\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{pq}{M\nu }}x\right){\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{p_0}},`$

where $`\mathrm{cos}\omega \mathrm{𝐪𝐧}/\left|𝐪\right|.`$ For integration we use the orthonormal system in which

$$𝐩=p_1𝐞_1+p_2𝐞_2+p_3𝐞_3,𝐞_1=\frac{𝐪}{\left|𝐪\right|},𝐞_2=\frac{𝐧(\mathrm{𝐧𝐞}_1)𝐞_1}{\sqrt{1(\mathrm{𝐧𝐞}_1)^2}},𝐞_3=𝐞_1\times 𝐞_2,$$
(A3)
so one gets

$$\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}=p_1\left|𝐪\right|,\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}=p_1\mathrm{cos}\omega +p_2\mathrm{sin}\omega ,\mathrm{cos}\omega \frac{\mathrm{𝐪𝐧}}{\left|𝐪\right|}.$$
(A4)
After the substitution $`p_2=p_T\mathrm{cos}\phi ,p_3=p_T\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ and taking into account that the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\phi `$ disappear, the integrals can be rewritten

$$G_P=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\omega }{2M^2\nu }H(p_0)\left(p_1+\frac{\nu }{\left|𝐪\right|}\frac{p_1^2p_T^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi }{p_0+m}\right)$$
(A5)
$`\times \delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{p_0\nu +p_1\left|𝐪\right|}{M\nu }}x\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_Tdp_1dp_Td\phi }{p_0}},`$

$$G_S=\frac{m}{2M\nu }H(p_0)\left(1+\frac{p_T^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi }{m\left(p_0+m\right)}\right)\delta \left(\frac{p_0\nu +p_1\left|𝐪\right|}{M\nu }x\right)\frac{p_Tdp_1dp_Td\phi }{p_0},$$
(A6)
where $`p_0=\sqrt{m^2+p_T^2+p_1^2}`$. Integration over $`\phi `$ gives

$$G_P=\frac{\pi \mathrm{cos}\omega }{M^2\nu }H(p_0)\left(p_1+\frac{\nu }{\left|𝐪\right|}\frac{p_1^2p_T^2/2}{p_0+m}\right)\delta \left(\frac{p_0\nu +p_1\left|𝐪\right|}{M\nu }x\right)\frac{p_Tdp_1dp_T}{p_0},$$
(A7)
$$G_S=\frac{\pi m}{M\nu }H(p_0)\left(1+\frac{p_T^2/2}{m\left(p_0+m\right)}\right)\delta \left(\frac{p_0\nu +p_1\left|𝐪\right|}{M\nu }x\right)\frac{p_Tdp_1dp_T}{p_0}.$$
(A8)
Further, using the relation

$$\frac{\left|𝐪\right|}{\nu }=\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}$$
(A9)
one can check, that the argument of $`\delta `$ function equals zero for

$$p_1=\stackrel{~}{p}_1\frac{Mxm_T^2/Mx}{\sqrt{1+4m_T^2/Q^2}+\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}},m_T^2m^2+p_T^2.$$
(A10)
This is the first root of the corresponding quadratic equation, the second one is excluded, since in the effect of the $`\delta `$ function this root is compatible only with negative energy $`p_0`$. The energy corresponding to the root (A10) is

$$p_0=\stackrel{~}{p}_0Mx\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_1\left|𝐪\right|}{\nu }=Mx\stackrel{~}{p}_1\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}.$$
(A11)
Then in an accordance with the rule

$$\delta (f(x))dx=\underset{j}{}\frac{\delta (xx_j)}{\left|f^{}(x_j)\right|}dx,f(x_j)=0$$
(A12)
the $`\delta `$ function in the integrals can be rewritten

$$\delta \left(\frac{p_0\nu +p_1\left|𝐪\right|}{M\nu }x\right)dp_1=\frac{M\delta (p_1\stackrel{~}{p}_1)dp_1}{\stackrel{~}{p}_1/\stackrel{~}{p}_0+\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}}$$
(A13)
and afterwards the integrals are simplified

$$G_P=\frac{\pi \mathrm{cos}\omega }{M\nu }_0^{p_{T\mathrm{max}}}H(\stackrel{~}{p}_0)\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_1+\frac{\nu }{\left|𝐪\right|}\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_1^2p_T^2/2}{\stackrel{~}{p}_0+m}\right)\frac{p_Tdp_T}{\stackrel{~}{p}_1+\stackrel{~}{p}_0\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}},$$
(A14)
$$G_S=\frac{\pi m}{\nu }_0^{p_{T\mathrm{max}}}H(\stackrel{~}{p}_0)\left(1+\frac{p_T^2/2}{m\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_0+m\right)}\right)\frac{p_Tdp_T}{\stackrel{~}{p}_1+\stackrel{~}{p}_0\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}},$$
(A15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_0`$ depend on $`p_T`$ according to Eqs. (A10) and (A11). For the numeric calculation one should know the upper limit $`p_{T\mathrm{max}}`$ for given $`x,Q^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{0\mathrm{max}}`$. After inserting $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1`$ from Eq. (A10) into Eq. (A11) one gets equation for $`m_T^2`$

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_{0\mathrm{max}}Mx}{\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}}=\frac{Mxm_T^2/Mx}{\sqrt{1+4m_T^2/Q^2}+\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}}.$$
(A16)
Instead of $`m_T^2`$ it is useful to solve this equation first for $`y=\sqrt{1+4m_T^2/Q^2\text{ }}`$ obtaining the two roots

$$y_\pm =\frac{A\pm \sqrt{A^2+4a(\stackrel{~}{p}_{0\mathrm{max}}+a)}}{2a},A\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_{0\mathrm{max}}Mx}{\sqrt{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}},a\frac{Q^2}{4Mx}.$$
(A17)
Since $`y_{}<0,`$ this root is excluded. The second root $`y_{+\text{ }}`$ after some computation implies

$$m_{T\mathrm{max}}^2=Mx(2\stackrel{~}{p}_{0\mathrm{max}}Mx)+\frac{(\stackrel{~}{p}_{0\mathrm{max}}Mx)^2}{1+Q^2/4M^2x^2},p_{T\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{m_{T\mathrm{max}}^2m^2}.$$
(A18)
In this way we have the recipe how to calculate the integrals related to the structure functions $`G_P,G_S`$ corresponding to the distribution $`H(p_0)d^3p`$.


format: text

text:
# Disorder induced cross-over effects at quantum critical points

## Abstract

Critical properties of quantum spin chains with varying degrees of disorder are studied at zero temperature by analytical and extensive density matrix renormalization methods. Generally the phase diagram is found to contain three phases. The weak disorder regime, where the critical behavior is controlled by the fixed points of the pure system and the strong disorder regime, which is attracted by an infinite randomness fixed point, are separated by an intermediate disorder regime, where dynamical scaling is anisotropic and the static and dynamical exponents are disorder dependent.

Quantum phase transitions take place at zero temperature due to quantum fluctuations by varying a quantum control parameter , which could be either the density of impurities (for the metal-insulator transition in three dimensions (3d) or for the superconducting-insulator transition in 2d) or an external thermodynamical parameter such as the strength of the magnetic field in quantum spin glasses or the pressure in $`BaVS_3`$. The effect of quenched, i.e. time-independent disorder at quantum phase transitions is the subject of recent intensive research; we mention, for instance, the recent experimental studies about doping effects in quantum spin chains and ladders and a theoretical explanation about the non-Fermi liquid behavior in U and Ce intermetallics.

From a theoretical point of view several analytical and numerical studies have been performed mainly in low-dimensional systems. In particular in one dimension many, presumably exact, results have been obtained by the application of a strong disorder renormalization group (SDRG) method, originally introduced by Ma, Dasgupta and Hu. For the random transverse-field Ising model Fisher has shown that at the critical point the probability distributions of the couplings and the transverse fields broaden without limits under renormalization, and as a consequence the SDRG becomes asymptotically exact at the so-called infinite randomness fixed point (IRFP).

In the IRFP dynamical scaling is strongly anisotropic, such that the relaxation time, $`t_r`$, and correlation length, $`\xi `$, are related as: $`\mathrm{ln}t_r\sqrt{\xi }`$. Scaling of the static singular quantities can be conveniently described by the magnetization scaling dimensions, $`x`$, (and similarly for surface spins by $`x^s`$) and by the critical exponent of the average correlation length, $`\nu `$, which are given by:

$$x_{\mathrm{IRFP}}=\frac{3\sqrt{5}}{4},x_{\mathrm{IRFP}}^s=\frac{1}{2},\nu _{\mathrm{IRFP}}=2.$$
(1)
The asymptotically exact SDRG analysis of the random transverse-field Ising model has been extended into the off-critical region , i.e. into the Griffiths phase and the dynamical exponent, $`z`$, connecting time- and length-scales as $`t_r\xi ^z`$, has been analytically calculated.

The SDRG method has been applied for a series of random quantum systems at the transition point . Despite the fact, that in the absence of disorder, these systems have different type of (spatial and temporal) correlations, thus they are in different universality classes, the SDRG analysis indicates that if the disorder is strong enough all models are attracted by the IRFP of the random transverse-field Ising model. In that respect quantum fluctuations seem to be irrelevant, so that solely the strong disorder effects dominate the critical behavior.

However the SDRG approach does not provide any information on the behavior of the system at weak disorder. In this limit one generally invokes the Harris criterion  according to which weak disorder is irrelevant if:

$$\nu _0>2/d,$$
(2)
where $`\nu _0`$ is the correlation length critical exponent of the pure system. If $`\nu _0<2/d`$, thus disorder is relevant the IRFP could be strongly attractive as for the random transverse-field Ising model, while if $`\nu _0>2/d`$ only a finite amount of disorder may bring the system to the IRFP.

The aim of this Letter is to investigate in detail the weak to strong disorder crossover behavior at a quantum critical point and to present a possible common scenario. In view of the generality of this phenomenon and its possible relevance in realistic quantum systems it is of importance to perform a detailed study of the singular behavior of random quantum systems in the whole range of strength of disorder.

As a subject of our study we have chosen two one-dimensional quantum models, the $`q`$-state quantum clock model (CM) and the quantum Ashkin-Teller (AT) model. Our selection is motivated by the following facts: i) both models are self-dual, thus the location of the critical point is exactly known. ii) The SDRG analysis can be performed for both models leading to IRFP behavior for strong disorder. iii) Critical properties of the pure models are known in details, in particular one can locate the part of the phase diagram, where the Harris irrelevance criterion is valid in the form of Eq.(2).

We start to introduce the quantum CM, which is defined by the Hamiltonian:

$$H_{CM}=\underset{l}{}\left[J_l\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi (s_ls_{l+1})}{q}+\frac{h_l}{2}\left(𝐌_l^++𝐌_l^{}\right)\right],$$
(3)
in terms of a discrete spin variable, $`s_l=1,2,\mathrm{},q`$, at a lattice site, $`l`$, and $`𝐌_l^\pm |s_l=|s_l\pm 1,\mathrm{mod}q`$ is a spin raising (lowering) operator.

Similarly the quantum AT model is defined by the Hamiltonian:

$`H_{\mathrm{AT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}J_l(\sigma _l^z\sigma _{l+1}^z+\tau _l^z\tau _{l+1}^z){\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}h_l(\sigma _l^x+\tau _l^x)`$ (5)
$`ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(J_l\sigma _l^z\sigma _{l+1}^z\tau _l^z\tau _{l+1}^z+h_l\sigma _l^x\tau _l^x),`$
in terms of two sets of Pauli matrices, $`\sigma _l^{x,z},\tau _l^{x,z}`$. For both models the couplings, $`J_l`$, and the transverse fields, $`h_l`$, are independent random variables, while for the AT model the coupling between the two Ising models, $`ϵ`$, is disorder independent. Both models are self-dual, which amounts to the invariance of the Hamiltonians in Eqs.(3) and (5) under the transformation $`J_lh_l`$.

The pure CM, with $`J_l=J`$ and $`h_l=h`$, for $`q>4`$ has an extended critical phase at both sides of the self-duality point, which is located at $`J=h`$. According to our numerical results, obtained by the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method  the critical exponents of the $`q=5`$ model at the self-duality point are given by:

$$x_{\mathrm{CM}}=0.105(5),x_{\mathrm{CM}}^s=0.23(1).$$
(6)
Since the self-duality point is located in the middle of a critical phase $`\nu _{CM}`$ is formally infinity, thus small disorder is irrelevant, according to Eq.(2).

The pure quantum AT model is critical along the self-duality line for $`1<ϵ1`$ with the critical exponents:

$$x_{\mathrm{AT}}=\frac{1}{8},x_{\mathrm{AT}}^s=\frac{\mathrm{arccos}(ϵ)}{\pi },\nu _{\mathrm{AT}}=\frac{2x_{\mathrm{AT}}^s}{4x_{\mathrm{AT}}^s1}.$$
(7)
which are conjecturedly exact . For $`1/\sqrt{2}<ϵ<1/2`$ the correlation length exponent of the pure model, $`\nu _{\mathrm{AT}}`$, exceeds the value of 2, thus the Harris irrelevance criterion in Eq.(2) sets in. (We note that $`\nu _{\mathrm{AT}}`$ stays formally infinite in the whole region of $`1<ϵ<1/\sqrt{2}`$, which is the central part of the so called critical fan.)

The SDRG transformation can be performed for both models leading to similar decimation rules:

$$\stackrel{~}{h_i}=\frac{h_ih_{i+1}}{J_i\kappa },\stackrel{~}{J_i}=\frac{J_iJ_{i+1}}{h_i\kappa },$$
(8)
where the first (second) equation refers to the elimination of a strong bond (field) of strength, $`J_i`$ ($`h_i`$). For the CM $`\kappa =[1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi /q)]/[1+\delta _{2,q}]`$  and $`q`$ does not renormalize under the transformation. On the other hand for the AT model, where, $`\kappa =1+ϵ`$, the coupling, $`ϵ`$, enters into the renormalization as $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=ϵ^2(1+ϵ)/2`$. The RG equations in Eq.(8) are very similar to that of the random transverse-field Ising chain, which is recovered with $`\kappa =1`$. Both systems will scale to IRFP of that model for strong enough initial disorder and for $`\kappa >0`$. Note, however, that for $`0<\kappa <1`$, i.e. for $`q>4`$ for the CM and $`1<ϵ<0`$ for the AT model, in some cases the generated new couplings/fields could be larger than the decimated ones, therefore the SDRG is not valid for weak disorder.

To see in detail the weak-to-strong disorder cross-over phenomena we perform a parallel numerical study about the critical behavior of the two models with varying degree of disorder. We use the DMRG method and calculate the average magnetization profiles, $`m_l`$, fixing the spins at one boundary, $`s_1=1`$, and $`\sigma _1^z=\tau _1^z=1`$, respectively, whereas the spins at the other end of the chains, at $`l=L`$, are free. In particular we consider the scaling of the magnetization for spins at the bulk, when $`l=L/2`$ and $`m_bm_{L/2}`$, and that at the surface, when $`m_sm_L`$:

$$m_bL^x,m_sL^{x^s},$$
(9)
from which the scaling dimensions, $`x`$ and $`x^s`$ are calculated.

Useful information about the dynamical exponent, $`z`$, can be obtained from the distribution function of the surface magnetization, which has the limiting behavior :

$$P(\mathrm{ln}m_s)m_s^{1/z^{}},m_s0.$$
(10)
The scaling exponent, $`z^{}`$, in Eq.(10) should be compared with that of due to pure quantum fluctuations, $`z_q=1`$, and then $`z=\mathrm{max}(1,z^{})`$.

For both models we perform the calculations at the self-duality point, which corresponds to the critical point of the pure systems, as well as, according to the SDRG analysis, to the fixed-points of the strongly disordered systems. By choosing the same distribution function, $`P(y)\mathrm{d}y`$, of the couplings $`J_l`$ and that of the fields $`h_l`$, we ensure to stay at the self-duality point and use the parametrization:

$$P(y)=\mathrm{\Delta }y^{1+1/\mathrm{\Delta }},0y10<\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
One can see here that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ plays the role of the strength of disorder: the pure system is recovered as $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, whereas as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$ the distribution corresponds to that in the IRFP .

In the actual calculations we used $`q=5`$ for the CM while for the AT model we took $`ϵ=0.75`$. The bulk and surface magnetizations are calculated on relatively large finite systems up to $`L=32`$ and 10000 disorder realizations were used, except for the largest sizes of the AT model, when we have some 1000 samples. For stronger disorder, i.e. for larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the energy gap in a typical sample is decreasing, therefore to maintain sufficient numerical accuracy of the code one needs to keep relatively more states in the DMRG procedure. As a consequence the computational demand of the calculation is strongly increasing with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, therefore we have restricted ourselves to calculate only at few points in the strongly disordered regime. Generically the DMRG algorithm performs rather well for disordered systems, as it is known also from other several examples .

Figure 1 shows the inverse of the disorder induced dynamical exponent, $`1/z^{}`$, as calculated from Eq.(10) for different values of the disorder strength, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In each cases $`1/z^{}`$ is found to be a monotonically decreasing function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, such that $`1/z^{}`$ is lowered below the critical limit of $`1/z^{}=1/z_q=1`$ for a model dependent disorder strength, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Then, by further increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we obtain for the true dynamical exponent of the model, $`z=z^{}`$, to diverge, thus $`1/z=0`$ in the range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{}`$, where the upper disorder limit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is also model dependent.

Next in Fig. 2 the scaling exponents of the average magnetization, $`x`$ and $`x^s`$, as calculated from Eq.(9) are shown for different strengths of disorder. Apparently, for weak enough disorder both the bulk and the surface exponents stay constant keeping the corresponding pure system value, which is in accordance with the Harris irrelevance criterion. Then, by increasing the strength of disorder over a limiting value, which approximately corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, found in Fig.1, the exponents start to increase. This variation is continuing until the exponents reach their IRFP values, as given in Eq.(1), then they stay constant for further increase of the disorder. This second limiting value of the strength of the disorder is approximately consistent with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$, what can be identified in Fig. 1 for the different models. Note, that the average behavior of the systems, as presented in Fig. 2, is dominated by rare realizations, which are samples with $`m_b(m_s)=O(1)`$, but which occurs with a very low probability. Therefore to obtain accurate averages one have to calculate on a large amount of samples, and the accuracy of the calculation turned out to be larger for bulk exponents than that of the surface ones.

From the numerical and the SDRG results obtained for the two models we can extract a common route from the weak to strong disorder crossover, which is expected to be generally valid for a class of random critical quantum systems. This scenario is summarized in a generic RG phase diagram depicted in Fig. 3 in terms of the strengths of disorder, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and a model dependent parameter, say $`\omega `$, which is used to characterize points in a critical line, (c.f. $`\omega =ϵ`$ for the AT model, $`\omega =4q`$ for the CM and $`\omega =q/21`$ for the quantum Potts model). For $`\omega 0`$ the system is in the strong disorder (SD) phase, where the IRFP is strongly attractive. In the other part of the phase diagram, for $`\omega <0`$, there are two more phases: the weak disorder (WD) and the intermediate disorder (ID) regions. Here the SD part of the phase diagram is attracted by the IRFP, while the critical behavior in the WD regime is governed by the fixed points of the pure system, which are located at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. In the ID regime, where there is a competition between quantum fluctuations and disorder effects, dynamical scaling is anisotropic, $`1<z<\mathrm{}`$, and the static and dynamical critical exponents are disorder dependent. At the boundaries of the ID region there are $`1/z=0`$ and $`1/z=1`$, respectively, while at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, i.e. in the pure system limit they are at $`\omega =0`$ and $`\omega =\omega _0`$. In the latter case for the pure model with a parameter $`\omega _0`$ the Harris criterion in Eq.(2) is saturated, i.e. $`\nu _0(\omega _0)=2/d`$.

We believe that the above scenario is relevant for some higher dimensional systems and therefore could have experimental relevance, too. As an example we mention the two dimensional random transverse-field Ising model where by a numerical implementation of the SDRG method an IRFP is found, which is attractive for strong disorder both for spin-glasses (SG-s) and random ferromagnets (FM-s). In numerical studies, however, a finite dynamical exponent, $`z`$, is obtained for the SG model , while for the random FM $`z`$ is divergent at the critical point . A possible explanation of this controversy is that the studied SG is still in the ID region, whereas the random FM is in the SD phase. Further examples could be provided by random antiferromagnetic spin systems: chains, ladders and 2d models, where often conventional fixed-point behavior is obtained .

The authors are grateful to R. Melin, H. Rieger and L. Turban for useful discussions. This work has been supported by a German-Hungarian exchange program (DAAD-MÖB), by the Hungarian National Research Fund under grant No OTKA TO23642, TO25139, TO34183, F26004 and MO28418 and by the Ministry of Education under grant No FKFP 87/2001.


text:
# Microscopic coloured quark-dynamics in the soft non-perturbative regime – Description of hadron formation in relativistic S+Au collisions at CERN

## 1 Introduction

The relativistic heavy ion collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the running Pb+Pb program at the CERN-SPS aim to explore the phase diagram of hot and dense matter near the quark gluon plasma (QGP) phase transition . The QGP is a hypothetical state in which the individual hadrons dissolve into a gas of free (or almost free) quarks and gluons in strongly compressed and heated matter. The energy- and baryon densities achievable in heavy ion collisions sensitively depend on the extend to which the nuclei are stopped during penetration; they also depend on mass number and bombarding energy.

However, a detailed understanding of the quark dynamics and the subsequent parton-hadron phase transition is still missing. First exploratory attempts have been made using hydrodynamical simulations, like one-fluid hydro  and three-fluid hydrodynamics . It has been found that the results of these investigations are strongly influenced by the freeze-out definition and the non-equilibrium features encountered in heavy ion reactions .

Very recently it has been tried to circumvent the freeze-out problem by coupling the hydrodynamical simulation to the semi-hadronic transport model UrQMD . A detailed microscopic simulation of the quark phase and of the hadronization, however, is still missing.

Attempts to simulate the dynamics of the hot and dense region within the VNI model  suffer from the non-perturbative origin of the quark-quark interaction at SPS and RHIC energies – this has already been pointed out by Müller and Harris, who stressed that it is important to realize that the QGP is a strongly interacting gas of quarks and gluons at low momentum transfer $`q^2<q_{\mathrm{CSB}}^2`$ (CSB = Chiral symmetry breaking) . Even at RHIC energies leading order (and next-to leading order) perturbative QCD (pQCD) seems to be inapplicable to understand the heated and compressed system encountered as shown in .

In this paper we present the first microscopic model calculation of the quark dynamics in the non-perturbative regime dubbed the Quark Molecular Dynamics Model (qMD) . The model is applied to the dynamics of the expanding fireball in relativistic S+Au collisions at CERN.

## 2 Discussion of the model

The qMD model  is a semi-classical model which mimics the properties of non-Abelian QCD by the means of a two-body colour potential between quarks and antiquarks. In addition, a dynamical hadronization criterion is defined which allows for the consecutive migration from quark to hadronic degrees of freedom. A very similar model has been used before to study the spontaneous generation of density perturbations in the early universe triggered by the hadronization of the primordial quark–gluon plasma .

The coloured and flavoured quarks (and antiquarks) are treated as classical particles interacting via a Cornell potential with colour matrices . This interaction provides an effective description of the non-perturbative, soft gluonic part of QCD.

The model does not treat the explicit dynamics and fragmentation of hard gluons. In any application of the model the validity of this approximation has to be checked.

Using these assumptions, the model Hamiltonian reads

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{p_i^2+m_i^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j}{}C_{ij}V(\left|𝐫_i𝐫_j\right|)$$

where $`N`$ counts the number of particles in the system. The particles are quarks or antiquarks carrying a fixed colour charge – red, green, blue for quarks, anti-red- anti-green and anti-blue for antiquarks. Four quark flavours ($`u,d,s,c`$) with current masses $`m_u=m_d=10`$ MeV, $`m_s=150`$ MeV and $`m_c=1.5`$ MeV are considered. In order to allow for a later mapping of quark clusters to hadronic states, the particles carry spin and isospin quantum numbers. The confining properties of the potential $`V(r)`$ are ensured by a linear increase at large distances $`r`$. At short distances, the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ becomes small, yielding a Coulomb-type behaviour as in QED. For this colour Coulomb potential plus the confining part we use the well known Cornell-potential

$$V(r)=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\alpha _s}{r}+\kappa r,$$

which has successfully been applied to meson spectroscopy. For infinite quark masses this inter-quark potential has also been found in lattice calculations over a wide range of quark distances . For small quark masses, retardation and chromomagnetic effects should be included. This is neglected in the present work. However, the linear behaviour at large distances seems to be supported by the success of the string model even for zero quark masses .

By fixing the colour of each quark or antiquark, we restrict ourselves to the approximation that there are no interactions changing the colour of quarks. The use of this approximation – which breaks, of course, the full colour gauge symmetry – is motivated by the physical picture behind the maximal Abelian gauge of QCD  which gives, at the same time, a justification for the use of the linearly increasing potential. In this gauge, there remains a residual gauge freedom corresponding to the two diagonal gluons. The non diagonal gluons become massive , contributing only over very short ranges in the order 0.2 – 0.3 fm . Simultaneously, the colour fields of the diagonal gluons are quenched to flux tubes via the dual Meissner effect . This mechanism then yields the linear increase of the colour potential with distance. The remaining colour interaction contains the diagonal gluons which carry no colour and therefore do not change colour.

The colour matrix elements $`C_{ij}`$ regulate the sign and relative strength of the interaction between two quarks/antiquarks, respectively, depending on the colour combination of the pair. The matrix $`C_{ij}`$ in the short range colour interaction potential between quarks, $`V_{\mathrm{colour}}=C_{ij}\frac{3}{4}\frac{\alpha }{r}`$, can be calculated from one-gluon exchange of the quark-gluon interaction of the QCD Lagrangian,

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{g}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\lambda _a\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }G_a^\mu .$$

Using the standard fundamental representation of $`SU(3)_{\mathrm{colour}}`$ for the quarks and the adjoint representation for the gluons,

$$\stackrel{}{q}_R=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{q}_G=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{q}_B=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),$$

$$T^a=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^a,a=1,\mathrm{},8$$

where $`\lambda _a`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices, and separating the quark wave function in the colour and Dirac parts, the interaction amplitude also splits in colour and Dirac parts:

$$_{\alpha \alpha ^{}\beta \beta ^{}}\overline{\psi }_1\gamma _\mu \psi _1D^{\mu \nu }(q)\psi _2\gamma _\nu \psi _2\stackrel{}{q}_\alpha ^{}^{}\lambda ^a\stackrel{}{q}_\alpha \delta _{ab}\stackrel{}{q}_\beta ^{}^{}\lambda ^b\stackrel{}{q}_\beta .$$

Here, $`𝒟_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(q)=D^{\mu \nu }(q)\delta _{ab}`$ is the gluon propagator, and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ represent the colour charges of the incoming quarks, $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ of the outgoing quarks in the one-gluon exchange diagram. Collecting the colour parts in a colour factor

$$C_{\alpha \alpha ^{}\beta \beta ^{}}^\mathrm{c}=\frac{3}{4}\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_\alpha ^{}^{}\lambda ^a\stackrel{}{q}_\alpha \stackrel{}{q}_\beta ^{}^{}\lambda ^a\stackrel{}{q}_\beta =\frac{3}{4}\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}(\lambda ^a)_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\lambda ^a)_{\beta \beta ^{}},$$

one can calculate the net amplitude by summing over all possible combinations of in- and outgoing colours. In the maximally Abelian gauge, only the the diagonal gluons, described by the commutating Gell-Mann matrices $`\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _8`$ from the Cartan subalgebra of $`SU(3)_{\mathrm{colour}}`$, contribute over larger distances. In this approximation the total colour matrix for quark-quark interactions then is given by

$$C_{\alpha \beta }^\mathrm{c}=\frac{3}{4}\underset{a=3,8}{}(\lambda ^a)_{\alpha \alpha }(\lambda ^a)_{\beta \beta }=\stackrel{}{w}_\alpha ^𝖳\stackrel{}{w}_\beta ,$$

where

$$\stackrel{}{w}_\alpha =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ^3)_{\alpha \alpha }\\ (\lambda ^8)_{\alpha \alpha }\end{array}\right),\alpha =1,2,3(R,G,B)$$

are the normalised weight vectors corresponding to the three quark colours in $`(\lambda ^3,\lambda ^8)`$ space. Imposing a factor $`1`$ at each antiquark vertex in colour space yields the colour matrix elements for the different colour combinations as collected in table 1. They can easily be read off as the scalar products of the weight vectors corresponding to the three colours or anticolours, respectively. Positive values indicate attractive, negative repulsive interactions.

The classical time evolution of the (anti)quark system as given by the Hamiltonian yields colourless clusters of (a) three quarks with different colours or (b) a quark and an antiquark with opposite colours. This is a consequence of the interplay between the attractive and repulsive interactions in the system which trigger this segregation. These quark clusters are mapped on hadronic resonance states according to energy-momentum conservation and the known spin and isospin quantum numbers of the quarks in the cluster. In our model, the resonance states do not interact any more with the system (there is no hadronic rescattering) - they just decay into stable hadrons.

It should be noted that the qMD model includes the possible creation of quark-antiquark pairs out of the vacuum. However, this is a process which is rare in systems with no large fluctuations in colour charge. We will come back on this point in our application of the model to heavy ion collisions.

A detailed discussion of the model, including the clustering and hadronization procedure, resulting thermal properties and the Equation of State, and analytic test cases are found in .

There are, of course, several other approaches to the dynamical description of the quark degrees of freedom in a hot and dense quark system. In , a simulation based on the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model has been presented, where quarks are propagated on classical trajectories while their effective masses are calculated self-consistently according to the NJL equations of motion. Hadron production is driven by $`qq`$ and $`qh`$ collisions. Unfortunately, this approach does not provide confinement and therefore is less suited for the investigation of heavy-ion collisions. A fully gauge symmetric treatment of the colour degrees of freedom of the quarks including colour rotations has been presented in . However, in this approach it is difficult to regain colourless hadrons out of the quark system. It is also possible to treat the colour field as a dynamical background field whose source are the quarks . This approach (while also fixing the quark colour) is less idealised than the one presented in this paper, but the numerics is still too time consuming to treat systems of the size of fireballs from heavy ion collisions.

## 3 Application to heavy ion collisions at the SPS

We now apply the qMD model to study the expansion and hadronization of the fireball created in heavy ion collisions between S and Au nuclei at the SPS.

The initial state of the quark dynamics is generated by a transport simulation with hadronic and string degrees of freedom (in this paper the UrQMD model  is used—other models can also be applied). The initial nuclei are propagated within the transport simulation until a critical energy density is reached. In the investigated collisions, we assume the dissolution of the hadronic degrees of freedom at an energy density of 1 GeV/fm<sup>-3</sup> in line with recent lattice calculations . This energy density is reached at full overlap, i. e. 1.5 fm/c after the begin of the interaction. At this time all hadrons (mesons and baryons) are dissolved and all newly produced q$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ pairs from the decaying colour fields are used as input of the quark Molecular Dynamics model.

In the study presented here, it is justified to omit the explicit dynamics and fragmentation of thermal gluons due to their small number. The number $`N`$ of gluons in the interaction region of volume $`V`$ and temperature $`T`$ can be estimated by:

$$N=Vg\frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(|p|/T)1}=V\frac{g}{\pi ^2}\zeta (3)T^3,$$

with the degeneracy $`g=16`$. Assuming Bjorken-like initial expansion and a temperature of $`T=200`$ MeV we expect 88 thermal gluons in our simulation at the moment of full overlap, carrying approximately 10% of the entropy of the system. Due to the cooling of the system at expansion, this provides an estimate for an upper bound on the number of thermal gluons. Thus, the additional fragmentation of these gluons is not expected to change the calculated yields and ratios significantly and has been left out in the present calculations. The contribution of hard gluons is negligible at SPS energies.

The results of the qMD simulation of a S+Au collision are visualised in two MPEG movies. The first movie depicts the time evolution of a collision in the plane of the beam axis (horizontal axis, $`z`$) and the impact parameter axis (vertical axis, $`x`$). The second movie shows the same event, but this time as seen by an observer on the beam axis (the horizontal axis in this movie is the impact parameter axis, $`x`$). The second movie shows nicely the wobbling motion of the quarks and antiquarks (coloured spheres) forming clusters of two or three (carrying colour and anti-colour or three different colours, respectively) which are then considered as hadrons (grey spheres).

Figure 1 also shows the space-time evolution of the quarks and antiquarks (thick, coloured dots) and hadrons (small white dots): The central zone of the collision is filled up with (anti)quarks that re-arrange themselves to colour neutral clusters. These clusters are then decaying into physical hadron states.

Figure 2 depicts the evolution of the rapidity densities of baryons (dotted lines), mesons (dashed lines) and (anti)quarks (full lines). The remnants of the gold nucleus re-hadronize immediately. The quarks at central rapidities start to form mesons. After 20 fm/c the quarks have re-combined to hadrons and the collision ceases.

The time evolution of the particle multiplicities (Figure 3) shows that the production of hadronic clusters starts immediately after the beginning of the collision. The hadron multiplicity rises steeply at $`t=1.5`$ fm/c, while the quark multiplicity goes down. The steep rise in the hadron abundance is due to the rapid expansion of the initial hot and dense system. At later times, the multiplicity curves saturate. There could be two reasons for this flattening: either the back reaction $`hhq\overline{q}`$ becomes important due to the large abundance of pions, or the particle density becomes to low to cause further collision-induced changes of the multiplicities. Since the remaining number of unbound quarks vanishes with the saturation of the hadron multiplicity, we conclude in line with the findings in  that the hadron numbers saturate due to the breakup of the fireball rather than the approach to chemical equilibrium in the $`hhq\overline{q}`$ channel.

Note that the number of final hadrons is larger then the number of 2- and 3-clusters which can be formed out of the quarks and antiquarks in the initial state. This is caused by the decays of the hadronic clusters. As mentioned before, qMD includes the possible dynamical production of q$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ pairs in overcritical colour fields. However, in the present model, hadronization at SPS is basically driven by quark rearrangement: On average, only 0.1 quark-antiquark pairs per event are produced by string breakup in a S+Au collision. The reason is that by dissolving the hadronic content of UrQMD one start with a configuration which is colour neutral on longer scales. Thus, colour fluctuations large enough to yield strong colour fields which will then drag quark-antiquark pairs out of the vacuum are never reached. Moreover, strong fields are dynamically screened by the moving quarks.

Let us now confront the qMD results to experimental data. Figure 4 compares the calculated proton (full line), lambda (dotted line) and $`h^{}`$ rapidity densities to NA35 data (see  and references therein). A surprisingly good description of the measured data (symbols) over all rapidities by the non-equilibrium quark dynamics is found.

Figure 5 explores the the transverse expansion of the hadronizing quark system. The transverse momentum spectrum of negatively charged particles is compared to NA35 data. Overall good agreement is found.

Finally we want to investigate the hadro-chemical evolution and the behaviour of hadron ratios in the qMD model. Figure 6 displays the time development of several hadron ratios in the course of the hadronization (shaded areas denote the measured ratios). The particle ratios stay nearly constant during the parton-hadron conversion. This may explain the success of statistical model analysis . However, baryons seem to be produced in the later stage of the hadronization. The discrepancies between the ratios of $`\mathrm{p}/\pi ^+`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)/\mathrm{p}`$ obtained from our approach and the measured data can be understood from the missing hadronic rescattering in our approach. This can be seen by comparing the measured hadron ratios in figure 7 not only with the qMD calculation (diamonds) but also to ratios obtained with full UrQMD simulations (open circles).

While the proton to antiproton ratio remains unaltered as compared to the UrQMD calculation alone (and nearly one order of magnitude lower than the experimental value), ratios involving protons or antiprotons alone or the net proton number are by factors 2–5 higher in qMD than UrQMD, yielding a better fit to data for the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\pi ^{}`$ ratio, but an increasing overestimation for the $`\mathrm{p}/\pi ^+`$ and the $`(\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{h}^{}`$ ratio. Simultaneously, the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/(\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})`$ drops against the value from UrQMD. Both trends can be understood as consequences of hadronic rescattering in the UrQMD model. Hadronic rescattering lowers the number of antiprotons in the final state, and, by inelastic baryon-baryon and antikaon-baryon collisions, yields a systematic population of hyperons at the expense of protons. These channels are not implemented in the present version of our qMD model. In qMD, delta resonances for example (which are abundant around the first 10 fm/c of the collision) cannot create hyperons and kaons by inelastic collisions, but eventually yield always nucleons and pions. As this simplification of the combined UrQMD+qMD approach with respect to a full UrQMD treatment shifts the calculated ratios away from the known experimental values, this can be seen as a clear sign for the importance of hadronic rescattering.

As the hadron ratios in the combined approach show differences due to missing rescattering and the transverse mass spectra and rapidity distribution of figures 5 and 4 can also be reproduced by the UrQMD model , one may ask to which extent this combination of models may be useful or necessary.

The qMD approach can provide us with detailed information about the dynamics of the quark system and the parton-hadron conversion. Whenever a new hadron is formed, the correlation between the quarks clustering to build this hadron can be studied. The mean value of the path length these quarks have travelled within the quark phase from their points of origin until the clustering point and the distance in space between the origins of the involved quarks can be studied.

Figure 8 shows the combined distribution of the mean path length travelled by the quarks and the original distance between the quarks forming a new hadron in S+Au collisions at SPS energies of $`200\mathrm{GeV}/N`$. Quarks stemming from the same initial hadron correlation, propagating coherently and reclustering again to form the same hadron build up a large background at zero initial distance. The essence of this distribution is contained in figure 9 which shows the number distribution for the mean path travelled by quarks forming a hadron (a) from the same initial hadron (solid line) and (b) from different initial hadrons (dotted line).

One sees that the reclustering in (a) is quite quick: in this case a hadron is decomposed into two or three quarks, these quarks propagate a short distance of about $`2.2\mathrm{fm}`$ (“diffusion length” – marked by the grey box) and rehadronize again. The hadron formation follows an exponential decay of the quark cluster to hadrons with a decay length equal to the diffusion length of $`2.2\mathrm{fm}`$.

On the other hand, the rearrangement of quarks to form new, different hadrons happens on a length scale of about $`3\mathrm{fm}`$. Following this rearrangement, the clusters decay exponentially with a decay length of $`4.8\mathrm{fm}`$.

A measure of the relative mixing within the quark system – and also for thermalization which means homogenisation of the population of phase space and complete loss of correlations – are the relative number of hadrons formed by quarks stemming from the same hadron correlation (rehadronization – these hadrons are dubbed “direct hadrons”) versus hadrons formed by quarks stemming from different hadrons (“mixed hadrons”). The ratio $`r`$ of mixed hadrons to the total number of hadrons formed from the quark system is $`r=0.574\pm 0.008`$ for the S+Au collision at $`200\mathrm{GeV}/N`$. The Error is from statistics. A value of $`r=1`$ would indicate complete rearrangement of quarks and thus complete loss of correlations in the quark system. Considering the presumed transition to the quark-gluon plasma in Pb+Pb collisions at $`160\mathrm{GeV}/N`$, one would expect a much larger value of $`r`$.

We see that while global observables do not show large differences between hadronic calculations from UrQMD alone and our combined description using quark molecular dynamics, the easy rearrangement of quarks does indeed play a role and may hint to state of deconfined matter at the CERN SPS. Note that this rearrangement may be observed with the help of balance functions . Such an analysis would, however, require better statistics.

## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion, we have used the Quark Molecular Dynamics Model (qMD) and investigated the non-equilibrium quark dynamics at SPS energies. The qMD has been coupled to the UrQMD model to generate the initial quark distributions. Good agreement with S+Au data at 200 GeV/$`N`$ is found. This includes rapidity spectra, transverse momentum spectra and hadron ratios of mesons. While the missing rescattering in the qMD distorts the relative numbers of protons and hyperons, the coupled approach allows a detailed look at the dynamics of the quark system and the parton-hadron conversion. Our investigation shows that the parton-hadron phase transition in this model is mainly driven by quark re-arrangement. Quark-antiquark pair production is a rare process which needs strong colour fields which are, however, dynamically screened by the moving quarks.

## Acknowledgements

This work is in part supported by the BMBF, GSI, DFG and Graduiertenkolleg “Theoretische und experimentelle Schwerionenphysik”.

## References