text:
# QCD and Heavy Ions

## 1 WHAT IS QCD?

Strong interaction is, indeed, the strongest force of Nature. It is responsible for over $`80\%`$ of the baryon masses, and thus for most of the mass of everything on Earth and in the Universe. Strong interactions bind nucleons in nuclei, which, being then bound into molecules by much weaker electro-magnetic forces, give rise to the variety of the physical World. Quantum Chromo–Dynamics is the theory of strong interactions, and its practical importance is thus undeniable. But QCD is more than a useful tool – it is a consistent and very rich field theory, which continues to serve as a stimulus for, and testing ground of, many exciting ideas and new methods in theoretical physics.

### 1.1 The structure of QCD

So what is QCD? From the early days of the accelerator experiments it has become clear that the number of hadronic resonances is very large, suggesting that all hadrons may be classified in terms of a smaller number of (more) fundamental constituents. A convenient classification was offered by the quark model, but QCD was not born until the hypothetical existence of quarks was not supplemented by the principle of local gauge invariance, previously established as the basis of electromagnetism. The resulting Lagrangian has the form

$$=\frac{1}{4}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a+\underset{f}{}\overline{q}_f^a(i\gamma _\mu D_\mu m_f)q_f^a;$$
(1)
the sum is over different colors $`a`$ and quark flavors $`f`$; the covariant derivative is $`D_\mu =_\mu igA_\mu ^at^a`$, where $`t^a`$ is the generator of the color group $`SU(3)`$, $`A_\mu ^a`$ is the gauge (gluon) field and $`g`$ is the coupling constant. The gluon field strength tensor is given by

$$G_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,$$
(2)
where $`f^{abc}`$ is the structure constant of $`SU(3)`$: $`[t^a,t^b]=if^{abc}t^c`$.

### 1.2 Asymptotic freedom

Screening and anti–screening of charge. Due to the quantum effects of vacuum polarization, the charge in field theory can vary with the distance. In electrodynamics, summation of the electron–positron loops in the photon propagator leads to the following expression for the effective charge, valid at $`rr_0`$:

$$\alpha _{em}(r)\frac{3\pi }{2\mathrm{ln}(r/r_0)}.$$
(3)
This formula clearly exhibits the “zero charge” problem  of QED: in the local limit $`r_00`$ the effective charge vanishes at any finite distance away from the bare charge due to the screening. Fortunately, because of the smallness of the physical coupling, this apparent inconsistency of the theory manifests itself only at very short distances $`exp\{3\pi /[2\alpha _{em}]\},\alpha _{em}1/137`$. Such short distances are (and probably will always remain) beyond the reach of experiments, and one can safely use QED as a truly effective theory.

As it has been established long time ago , QCD is drastically different from electrodynamics in possessing the remarkable property of “asymptotic freedom” – due to the fact that gluons carry color, the behavior of the effective charge $`\alpha _s=g^2/4\pi `$ changes from the familiar from QED screening to anti–screening:

$$\alpha _s(r)\frac{3\pi }{(11N_c/2N_f)\mathrm{ln}(r_0/r)};$$
(4)
as long as the number of flavors does not exceed $`16`$ ($`N_c=3`$), the anti–screening originating from gluon loops overcomes the screening due to quark–antiquark pairs, and the theory, unlike electrodynamics, is weakly coupled at short distances: $`\alpha _s(r)0`$ when $`r0`$.

Does $`\alpha _s`$ ever get large? Asymptotic freedom ensures the applicability of QCD perturbation theory to the description of processes accompanied by high momentum transfer $`Q`$. However, as $`Q`$ decreases, the strong coupling $`\alpha _s(Q)`$ grows, and the convergence of perturbative series is lost. How large can $`\alpha _s`$ get? The analyzes of many observables suggest that the QCD coupling may be “frozen” in the infrared region at the value $`\alpha _s_{IR}0.5`$ (see  and references therein). Gribov’s program  relates the freezing of the coupling constant to the existence of massless quarks, which leads to the “decay” of the vacuum at large distances similar to the way it happens in QED in the presence of “supercritical” charge $`Z>1/\alpha `$. One may try to infer the information about the behavior of the coupling constant at large distances by performing the matching of the fundamental theory onto the effective chiral Lagrangian . The results of  lead to the coupling constant which freezes at the value

$$\alpha _s_{IR}=\frac{6\sqrt{2}\pi }{11N_c2N_f}\sqrt{\frac{N_f^21}{N_c^21}};$$
(5)
numerically, for QCD with $`N_c=3`$ and $`N_f=2`$ one finds $`\alpha _s_{IR}0.56`$. It remains to be seen if a consistent perturbative scheme can be built on the basis of this approach .

### 1.3 Chiral symmetry

In the limit of massless quarks, QCD Lagrangian (1) possesses an additional symmetry $`U_L(N_f)\times U_R(N_f)`$ with respect to the independent transformation of left– and right–handed quark fields $`q_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)q`$:

$$q_LV_Lq_L;q_RV_Rq_R;V_L,V_RU(N_f);$$
(6)
this means that left– and right–handed quarks are not correlated. Even a brief look into the Particle Data tables, or simply in the mirror, can convince anyone that there is no symmetry between left and right in the physical World. One thus has to assume that the symmetry (6) is spontaneously broken in the vacuum. The flavor composition of the existing eight Goldstone bosons (3 pions, 4 kaons, and the $`\eta `$) suggests that the $`U_A(1)`$ part of $`U_L(3)\times U_R(3)=SU_L(3)\times SU_R(3)\times U_V(1)\times U_A(1)`$ does not exist. This constitutes the famous “$`U_A(1)`$ problem”.

### 1.4 The origin of mass

There is yet another problem with the chiral limit in QCD. Indeed, as the quark masses are put to zero, the Lagrangian (1) does not contain a single dimensionful scale – the only parameters are pure numbers $`N_c`$ and $`N_f`$. The theory is thus apparently invariant with respect to scale transformations, and the corresponding scale current is conserved: $`_\mu s_\mu =0`$. However, the absence of a mass scale would imply that all physical states in the theory should be massless!

### 1.5 Quantum anomalies and classical solutions

Both apparent problems – the missing $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry and the origin of hadron masses – are related to quantum anomalies. Once the coupling to gluons is included, both flavor singlet axial current and the scale current cease to be conserved; their divergences become proportional to the $`\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a`$ and $`\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a`$ gluon operators, correspondingly. This fact by itself would not have dramatic consequences if the gluonic vacuum were “empty”, with $`G_{\mu \nu }^a=0`$. However, it appears that due to non–trivial topology of the $`SU(3)`$ gauge group, QCD equations of motion allow classical solutions even in the absence of external color source, i.e. in the vacuum. The well–known example of a classical solution is the instanton, corresponding to the mapping of a three–dimensional sphere $`S^3`$ into the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`SU(3)`$; its existence was shown to solve the $`U_A(1)`$ problem.

### 1.6 Confinement

The list of the problems facing us in the study of QCD would not be complete without the most important problem of all – why are the colored quarks and gluons excluded from the physical spectrum of the theory? Since confinement does not appear in perturbative treatment of the theory, the solution of this problem, again, must lie in the properties of the QCD vacuum.

### 1.7 Understanding the Vacuum

As was repeatedly stated above, the most important problem facing us in the study of all aspects of QCD is understanding the structure of the vacuum, which, in a manner of saying, does not at all behave as an empty space, but as a physical entity with a complicated structure. As such, the vacuum can be excited, altered and modified in physical processes ; this brings us to the main topic of this talk.

## 2 WHY STUDY QCD WITH HEAVY IONS?

Most of the applications of QCD so far have been limited to the short distance regime of high momentum transfer, where the theory becomes weakly coupled and can be linearized. While this is the only domain where our theoretical tools based on perturbation theory are adequate, this is also the domain in which the beautiful non–linear structure of QCD does not yet reveal itself fully. On the other hand, as soon as we decrease the momentum transfer in a process, the dynamics rapidly becomes non–linear, but our understanding is hindered by the large coupling. Being perplexed by this problem, one is tempted to dream about an environment in which the coupling is weak, allowing a systematic theoretical treatment, but the fields are strong, revealing the full non–linear nature of QCD. I am going to argue now that this environment can be created on Earth with the help of relativistic heavy ion colliders.

Let us consider an external probe $`J`$ interacting with the nuclear target of atomic number $`A`$. At small values of Bjorken $`x`$, by uncertainty principle the interaction develops over large longitudinal distances $`z1/mx`$, where $`m`$ is the nucleon mass. As soon as $`z`$ becomes larger than the nuclear diameter, the probe cannot distinguish between the nucleons located on the front and back edges of the nucleus, and all partons within the transverse area $`1/Q^2`$ determined by the momentum transfer $`Q`$ participate in the interaction coherently. The density of partons in the transverse plane is given by

$$\rho _A\frac{xG_A(x,Q^2)}{\pi R_A^2}A^{1/3},$$
(7)
where we have assumed that the nuclear gluon distribution scales with the number of nucleons $`A`$. The probe interacts with partons with cross section $`\sigma \alpha _s/Q^2`$; therefore, depending on the magnitude of momentum transfer $`Q`$, atomic number $`A`$, and the value of Bjorken $`x`$, one may encounter two regimes:

* $`\sigma \rho _A1`$ – this is a familiar “dilute” regime of incoherent interactions, which is well described by the methods of perturbative QCD;
* $`\sigma \rho _A1`$ – in this regime, we deal with a dense parton system. Not only do the “leading twist” expressions become inadequate, but also the expansion in higher twists, i.e. in multi–parton correlations, breaks down here.

The border between the two regimes can be found from the condition $`\sigma \rho _A1`$; it determines the critical value of the momentum transfer (“saturation scale”) at which the parton system becomes to look dense to the probe111Note that since $`xG_A(x,Q_s^2)A^{1/3}`$, which is the length of the target, this expression in the target rest frame can also be understood as describing a broadening of the transverse momentum resulting from the multiple re-scattering of the probe.:

$$Q_s^2\alpha _s\frac{xG_A(x,Q_s^2)}{\pi R_A^2}.$$
(8)
In this regime, the number of gluons from (8) is given by

$$xG_A(x,Q_s^2)\frac{\pi }{\alpha _s(Q_s^2)}Q_s^2R_A^2,$$
(9)
where $`Q_s^2R_A^2A`$. One can see that the number of gluons is proportional to the inverse of $`\alpha _s(Q_s^2)`$, and becomes large in the weak coupling regime. In this regime, as we shall now discuss, the dynamics is likely to become essentially classical.

Indeed, the condition (8) can be derived in the following, rather general, way. As a first step, let us re-scale the gluon fields in the Lagrangian (1) as follows: $`A_\mu ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a=gA_\mu ^a`$. In terms of new fields, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a=gG_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^a_\nu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a+f^{abc}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^b\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^c`$, and the dependence of the action corresponding to the Lagrangian (1) on the coupling constant is given by

$$S\frac{1}{g^2}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^ad^4x.$$
(10)
Let us now consider a classical configuration of gluon fields; by definition, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a`$ in such a configuration does not depend on the coupling, and the action is large, $`S\mathrm{}`$. The number of quanta in such a configuration is then

$$N_g\frac{S}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _s}\rho _4V_4,$$
(11)
where we re-wrote (10) as a product of four–dimensional action density $`\rho _4`$ and the four–dimensional volume $`V_4`$.

The effects of non–linear interactions among the gluons become important when $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^2`$ (this condition can be made explicitly gauge invariant if we derive it from the expansion of a correlation function of gauge-invariant gluon operators, e.g., $`\stackrel{~}{G}^2`$). In momentum space, this equality corresponds to

$$Q_s^2\stackrel{~}{A}^2(\stackrel{~}{G}^2)^{1/2}=\sqrt{\rho _4};$$
(12)
$`Q_s`$ is the typical value of the gluon momentum below which the interactions become essentially non–linear.

Consider now a nucleus $`A`$ boosted to a high momentum. By uncertainty principle, the gluons with transverse momentum $`Q_s`$ are extended in the longitudinal and proper time directions by $`1/Q_s`$; since the transverse area is $`\pi R_A^2`$, the four–volume is $`V_4\pi R_A^2/Q_s^2`$. The resulting four–density from (11) is then

$$\rho _4\alpha _s\frac{N_g}{V_4}\alpha _s\frac{N_gQ_s^2}{\pi R_A^2}Q_s^4,$$
(13)
where at the last stage we have used the non–linearity condition (12), $`\rho _4Q_s^4`$. It is easy to see that (13) coincides with the saturation condition (8), since the number of gluons in the infinite momentum frame $`N_gxG(x,Q_s^2)`$. This simple derivation illustrates that the physics in the high–density regime can potentially be understood in terms of classical gluon fields. This correspondence allowed to formulate an effective quasi–classical theory , which is a subject of vigorous investigations at present (see, e.g., ).

In nuclear collisions, the saturation scale becomes a function of centrality; a generic feature of the quasi–classical approach – the proportionality of the number of gluons to the inverse of the coupling constant (11) – thus leads to definite predictions  on the centrality dependence of multiplicity, which are so far in accord with the data coming from RHIC . The crucial test of these ideas will come from the data taken at higher energies, where the saturation scale $`Q_s^2`$ should be larger, and according to the logarithmic running of $`\alpha _s`$ (4), the centrality dependence of multiplicity should become more flat.

The possible relevance of classical theory raises an interesting question – Weizsäcker-Williams gluon field of a fast nucleus can be found  from the QCD analog of Maxwell equation

$$_\mu G_{\mu \nu }=J_\nu $$
(14)
with color charges inside the nucleus acting as an external source for gluons. On the other hand, QCD possesses classical (Euclidean) solutions even in empty space. Can new classical solutions to (14) different from Weizsäcker-Williams fields be found? Does topology play a rôle in relativistic heavy ion collisions? Can topological effects induce violations of discrete symmetries manifesting themselves in the multi–meson correlations ? The full answer is lacking despite some recent progress .

What happens when relativistic heavy ions (looking like dense “gluon walls” at sufficiently high energy ) collide? One thing we now know for sure is that collisions at RHIC energies produce on the order of a thousand particles per unit of rapidity . A system with a number of particles that big can be described by statistical methods, and, given the high density of the produced partonic system, an approach to equilibrium is likely , leading to a state of matter known as the quark–gluon plasma. The study of the critical behavior of strongly interacting matter and the dynamics of phase transitions – deconfinement, chiral, $`U_A(1)`$ – is the central goal of the heavy ion program. These topics have been extensively discussed in the literature; recent reviews can be found in . The steady progress has been driven largely by numerical simulations on the lattice; for a comprehensive review, see . The most important problem in the field of heavy ion physics is isolating reliable signatures of collective behavior. Due to the lack of space, I cannot dwell on this issue here, and refer the reader to recent reviews  which discuss observables in heavy ion collisions. Quarkonium suppression  and jet quenching  are among the most promising hard probes of dense partonic matter.

## 3 NEW FRONTIERS OF QCD

What is the place of relativistic heavy ion program in modern physics? Heavy ion research is aimed at understanding QCD, the fundamental particles of which – quarks and gluons – are already well established; QCD has firmly occupied its place as part of the Standard Model. However, understanding the physical World does not mean only establishing its fundamental constituents; it means, mostly, understanding how these constituents interact and bring to the existence the entire variety of physical objects composing the Universe. Think of electrodynamics – the simplest of all gauge theories – which is responsible for an enormous assortment of materials and substances of different structure. Now try to imagine the beauty and complexity of collective phenomena made possible in the theory where “electrons” carry three different “charges”, “photons” carry eight, and they are all bound by the force two orders of magnitude stronger than electro-magnetic forces! Just as the research in condensed matter physics is driven by the ability to perform experiments with different number of atoms, under different conditions of low and high temperature and pressure, further progress in QCD will be largely driven by the studies of hadronic matter under extreme conditions. By increasing the atomic number of the colliding systems and by raising the energy of the collision, we get access to the high parton density, high field strength QCD (see Fig.2).

The heavy ion program thus brings us to the important new frontier of modern physics. I believe we are at the beginning of a long and exciting journey.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has been realized recently that there exist locally supersymmetric theories in five dimensions that include nontrivial physics localized on four dimensional branes . The brane sectors may contain arbitrary four dimensional gauge theories as well as localized interactions between bulk fields. In the bulk one has a gauged 5d supergravity, which can be further coupled to five dimensional gauge sectors. Such five dimensional models with branes are likely to lead to interesting extensions of the Standard Model, pertaining to novel approaches to the hierarchy problem. The class of brane–bulk supergravities that has been studied so far in some detail, , is the one that allows for BPS solutions in five dimensions, thus resulting in a class of four-dimensional supergravities. There exists however a possibility, that Lagrangians that are locally supersymmetric in the whole 5d space, including branes, do not allow for a supersymmetric, BPS, vacuum. Such scenarios, where five-dimensional supersymmetry is broken down to nothing by the vacuum configurations were considered in the local case by Fabinger and Horava, , and their phenomenology at the level of globally (non)supersymmetric models has been studied by Barbieri et. al. and in the subsequent papers  (see also  and  for related discussion). However, eventually warped gravity and moduli fields have to be consistently included into the game. In this note we make some steps in this direction. We study explicitly gauged supergravity coupled supersymmetrically to four-dimensional branes. However, we generalize the construction of  in two ways. Firstly, we extend supersymmetry transformations, and the prepotential, by $`Z_2`$-even terms. These terms introduce supersymmetric detuning between brane tensions and bulk potential energy. Secondly, we allow the $`Z_2`$-projections to be different on different branes. These new ingredients give rise to interesting new families of vacuum solutions, which are in fact examples of non-BPS branes. We give the explicit form of vacuum configurations, and discuss their properties.

The supergravities we consider in this paper form a background for interesting particle physics. After inserting supersymmetric gauge sectors on the branes, supersymmetry breakdown will be transmitted to the chiral models living there, but the supersymmetric pattern of couplings will be preserved. In the case of a charged bulk sector, the mass splits in the multiplets will be caused directly by different boundary conditions for bosons and fermions. The ‘flipped’ models are five–dimensional representatives of $`Dp`$$`D\overline{p}`$ brane–antibrane systems. The work we present here should help understanding the low–energy physics of these interesting theories.

## 2 Supersymmetry Breaking

Let us recall the basic features of pure 5d N=2 gauged supergravity. The gravity multiplet $`(e_\alpha ^m,\psi _\alpha ^A,𝒜_\alpha )`$ consists of the metric (here we use a vielbein), a pair of symplectic Majorana gravitini, and a vector field called the graviphoton. There is a global SU(2) R-symmetry which rotates the two supercharges into each other. Making use of the graviphoton we can gauge a U(1) subgroup of the R-symmetry group. Such gauging can be described by an SU(2) algebra valued matrix $`𝒫=\stackrel{}{P}i\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ (prepotential). We do not give the complete form of the action and supersymmetry transformation laws in gauged supergravity (see  for details), but only the relevant terms. The gravitino transformation law gets the following correction due to gauging (we use the normalization of )

$$\delta \psi _\alpha ^A=i\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\gamma _\alpha g𝒫_B^Aϵ^B$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the U(1) gauge charge. Gauging introduces also the potential term into the action

$$V=\frac{8}{3}g^2Tr(𝒫^2).$$
(2)
Without bulk matter fields the prepotential is just a constant matrix so the potential term corresponds to a (negative) cosmological constant.

The distinguishing feature of the Randall-Sundrum scenario is that the fifth dimension is an orbifold $`S_1/Z_2`$. It is equivalent (and technically easier) to work on a smooth circle $`S_1`$ with the fifth coordinate ranging from $`\pi \rho `$ to $`\pi \rho `$ and impose $`Z_2`$ symmetry on the fields of our Lagrangian. The $`Z_2`$ symmetry acts by $`x^5x^5`$. Under its action the bosonic fields $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`g_{55}`$ and $`𝒜_5`$ are even, while $`g_{\mu 5}`$ and $`𝒜_\mu `$ are odd. The $`Z_2`$ action on the gravitino is defined as follows

$`\psi _\mu ^A(x^5)=\gamma _5𝒬_B^A\psi _\mu ^B(x^5)`$ $`\psi _5^A(x^5)=\gamma _5𝒬_B^A\psi _5^B(x^5)`$ (3)
where $`𝒬=\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Q}^2=1`$. In  it was shown that this is the most general form of the $`Z_2`$ action consistent with the symplectic properties of the gravitino. The $`Z_2`$ action on the supersymmetry generating parameter $`ϵ`$ must be the same as that on the 4d components of the gravitino.

Further we need to define the $`Z_2`$ symmetry under reflection around the second fixed point at $`x^5=\pi \rho `$

$`\psi _\mu ^A(\pi \rho x^5)=\alpha \gamma _5𝒬_B^A\psi _\mu ^B(\pi \rho +x^5)`$ $`\psi _5^A(\pi \rho x^5)=\alpha \gamma _5𝒬_B^A\psi _5^B(\pi \rho +x^5).`$ (4)
Apart from the conventional case $`\alpha =1`$, in this letter we also consider the ‘flipped’ supersymmetry with $`\alpha =1`$. In the latter case supersymmetry is always broken globally, as different spinors survive the orbifold projection on each wall. Note also, that in the flipped case we have $`\psi _\alpha ^A(x^5+2\pi \rho )=\psi _\alpha ^A(x^5)`$.

It is straightforward to check that the 5d ungauged supergravity action is invariant under transformations (3) and (4) but the gauged supergravity action is not invariant if the prepotential $`𝒫`$ is general. In reference  the constraint stating that $`𝒫`$ must either commute or anticommute with $`𝒬`$ was derived. We find that there exists a less restrictive possibility. The action and the supersymmetry transformation laws are still $`Z_2`$ invariant if we choose the prepotential of the form:

$$g𝒫=g_1ϵ(x^5)+g_2𝒮$$
(5)
where $`=\stackrel{}{R}i\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ commutes with $`𝒬`$ and $`𝒮=\stackrel{}{S}i\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ anticommutes with $`𝒬`$. Equivalently, $`=i\sqrt{\stackrel{}{R}^2}𝒬`$ and $`𝒮=(\stackrel{}{Q}\times \stackrel{}{U})i\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ with some arbitrary vector $`\stackrel{}{U}`$. Note that the cosmological constant does not contain the step function and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=\frac{16}{3}(g_1^2\stackrel{}{R}^2+g_2^2\stackrel{}{S}^2).$$
(6)
The supergravity action with prepotential (5) contains both symmetric and antisymmetric (multiplied by $`ϵ(x^5)`$) gravitino masses. The presence of the $`Z_2`$-symmetric piece $`𝒮`$ in the prepotential results in the supersymmetric detuning between the brane tensions and the bulk cosmological term. The part of the gravitino transformation law due to gauging is now:

$$\delta \psi _\alpha ^A=i\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\gamma _\alpha (g_1ϵ(x^5)_B^A+g_2𝒮_B^A)ϵ^B.$$
(7)
The presence of the step function in the above transformation law implies that the 5d action is not supersymmetric. The fifth derivative in the gravitino kinetic term acts on the step function producing an expression multiplied by a delta function. The uncancelled variation is:

$`\delta =2i\sqrt{2}g_1(\delta (x^5)\delta (x^5\pi \rho ))e_4_B^A\overline{\psi _\mu }_A\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5ϵ^B.`$ (8)
Notice that when $`g_1=0`$ the above variation vanishes implying that the Lagrangian is supersymmetric. Using the fact that the matrix $``$ is proportional to $`𝒬`$ we have the following relations:

$`\gamma _5_B^Aϵ^B(0)=i\sqrt{\stackrel{}{R}^2}ϵ^A(0)`$
$`\gamma _5_B^Aϵ^B(\pi \rho )=i\alpha \sqrt{\stackrel{}{R}^2}ϵ^A(\pi \rho ).`$ (9)
Thus:

$`\delta =2\sqrt{2}g_1\sqrt{\stackrel{}{R}^2}e_4\overline{\psi _\mu }_A\gamma ^\mu ϵ^A(\delta (x^5)\alpha \delta (x^5\pi \rho )).`$ (10)
The variation (10) can be cancelled by the variation of the determinant in the brane tension term:

$$_T=4\sqrt{2}g_1\sqrt{\stackrel{}{R}^2}e_4(\delta (x^5)\alpha \delta (x^5\pi \rho )).$$
(11)
Summarizing (and changing the normalization to that used by Randall and Sundrum), we constructed a locally supersymmetric Lagrangian, which has the following bosonic gravity part:

$$M^3S=d^5x\sqrt{g_5}(\frac{1}{2}R+6k^2)6d^5x\sqrt{g_4}kT(\delta (x^5)\alpha \delta (x^5\pi \rho ))$$
(12)
where we have defined

$$k=\sqrt{\frac{8}{9}(g_1^2R^2+g_2^2S^2)}$$
(13)
and

$$T=\frac{g_1\sqrt{\stackrel{}{R}^2}}{\sqrt{(g_1^2R^2+g_2^2S^2)}}.$$
(14)
The BPS relation between the bulk cosmological constant and the brane tensions (‘the Randall-Sundrum fine-tuning’) corresponds to $`T=1`$, which holds only when $`𝒮=0`$. In such case the vacuum solution is $`AdS_5`$ in the bulk with flat Minkowski branes . This vacuum preserves one half of the supercharges corresponding to unbroken N=1 supersymmetry in four dimensions . As soon as we switch on non-zero $`𝒮`$, we get $`T<1`$, the BPS relation is destroyed and the vacuum breaks all supersymmetries. This is not surprising, since only the case $`𝒮=0`$ (with the ‘odd gauge charge’ and the ‘antisymmetric gravitino masses’) corresponds to a thin wall limit of smooth $`1/2`$ BPS supersymmetric domain wall solutions .

The $`N=1`$ supersymmetry is broken when $`\alpha =\pm 1`$ and $`𝒮0`$. If $`\alpha =1`$, then supersymmetry is always broken globally, independently of the expectation value of $`𝒮`$. To see this explicitly, let us take $`𝒮=0`$ and note that the fermions which are allowed to propagate on the left and right branes have to obey the conditions $`W_{0B}^A\psi ^B=0`$ and $`W_{\pi B}^A\psi ^B=0`$ respectively, where $`W_{0,\pi }`$ are given by (4). The projection operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\pm B}^A=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}\delta _B^A\pm \gamma _5𝒬_B^A)`$ split each spinor into two components, one of which is annihilated by $`W_0`$: $`W_0ϵ_+=W_0\mathrm{\Pi }_+ϵ=0`$. The second component, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}ϵ`$, is annihilated by $`W_\pi `$ if $`\alpha =1`$; for $`\alpha =+1`$ $`W_0=W_\pi `$. The BPS conditions imply (we take here $`ds^2=a^2(x^5)dx^2+(dx^5)^2`$)

$$\frac{a^{}}{a}\gamma _5ϵ^A+\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}g_1ϵ(x^5)\sqrt{R^2}𝒬_B^Aϵ^B=0$$
(15)
(this holds for $`AdS_4`$ and Minkowski foliations). When we apply the operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$ to (15), we obtain the conditions $`\frac{a^{}}{a}+\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}g_1ϵ(x^5)\sqrt{R^2}=0`$ or $`ϵ_+0`$. The first possibility leads to discontinuities of the warp factor at the fixed points: $`[\frac{a^{}}{a}]_0=2kT`$, $`[\frac{a^{}}{a}]_{\pi \rho }=+2kT`$. However, the matching conditions in the equations of motion give $`[\frac{a^{}}{a}]_0=2kT`$, $`[\frac{a^{}}{a}]_{\pi \rho }=+2\alpha kT`$, which are in contradiction with the BPS condition for $`\alpha =1`$, unless $`ϵ_+0`$. Applying to (15) the second projector, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$, one finds out immediately that boundary conditions and BPS conditions agree on both branes only for $`ϵ_{}0`$. Thus there exists no globally defined Killing spinor in the setup with flipped $`Z_2`$ acting on fermions (bosons are acted on as in the unflipped case), and all supersymmetries are broken, in particular the 4d effective theory is explicitly nonsupersymmetric.

## 3 Non-BPS Branes

In the remainder of this letter we construct static vacuum solutions in the detuned case ($`T<1`$ and/or $`\alpha =1`$). We start with the case $`\alpha =1`$, i.e. opposite brane tensions. In  a method applicable to branes violating the BPS relation was outlined. The idea was to write the BPS solution in time-boosted coordinates, so that it satisfied the matching conditions for $`T>1`$ . Here, we perform a similar trick which works for $`T<1`$.

We write the bulk solution in the conformal gauge

$$ds^2=a_{BPS}^2(y)(\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2).$$
(16)
In the case at hand

$$a_{BPS}(y)=1/(ky).$$
(17)
Then we apply a rotation to the bulk defining the new coordinates parametrized by the three-vector $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$)

$`\stackrel{~}{x^i}={\displaystyle \frac{x^ih^iy}{\sqrt{1+h^2}}}`$
(18)
$`\stackrel{~}{y}={\displaystyle \frac{y+h^ix^i}{\sqrt{1+h^2}}}`$ (19)
and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_0=x_0`$, with $`h`$ being the norm of $`\stackrel{}{h}`$. Under this change of coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{~}{x})=g_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ so we can rewrite (16) as:

$$ds^2=a_{BPS}^2(\frac{\stackrel{~}{y}h^i\stackrel{~}{x^i}}{\sqrt{1+h^2}})(\eta _{\mu \nu }d\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu d\stackrel{~}{x}^\nu +d\stackrel{~}{y}^2).$$
(20)
This is the same solution as (16) written in another coordinate system so this is also a legitimate solution in the bulk. Let us check that this provides a solution in the bulk which satisfies the marching condition

$$\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{y}}a}{a^2}=kT.$$
(21)
for a scale factor $`a`$. Note that

$$\frac{_{\stackrel{~}{y}}a_{BPS}}{a_{BPS}^2}=k(1+h^2)^{1/2},$$
(22)
hence we find that (20) leads to a solution provided

$$\sqrt{1+h^2}T=1.$$
(23)
Thus, we have to perform a rotation parametrized by a vector $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ whose norm is

$$h=\frac{\sqrt{1T^2}}{T}.$$
(24)
Alternatively, one can view this solution as $`AdS_5`$ bulk with ’tilted’ branes, i.e. the transverse position of the branes depends on $`x^\mu `$ and is given by

$$y_1=h_1^ix_1^i+\sqrt{1+h^2}\pi \rho $$
(25)
for the second brane. To match boundary conditions on the first brane one can imagine playing the same trick, i.e. rotating the brane by a vector $`h_0^i,i=1,2,3`$, independent of $`\stackrel{}{h}_1`$. Again, locally near the brane the bulk solution is $`AdS_5`$ in the conformal frame, and the equation defining the brane is

$$y_0=h_0^ix_0^i.$$
(26)
Since in the bulk the two local $`AdS_5`$ solutions match smoothly onto each other, the branes given by (25) and (26) plus the $`AdS_5`$ metric in the bulk (in conformal coordinates) form a complete solution to the equations of motion.

The breaking of supersymmetry can be analysed along the lines of the previous section where Killing spinors were discussed in the flipped case, using the metric (20). One finds that the tilted configuration breaks supersymmetry completely.

Let us specialize to the case where both vectors point in the $`x_3`$ direction. The branes are rotated with respect to the $`x_3`$–axis by angles given by

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _1=h_1^3,\mathrm{tan}\theta _0=h_0^3.$$
(27)
Since $`h_0^3=\pm h_1^3`$ one obtains $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _k=\pm \frac{\sqrt{1T^2}}{T}`$, $`k=0,1`$. It follows that the rotation angles of the tilted branes are proportional to the supersymmetry breaking expectation value of the $`Z_2`$–even part of the gravitino supersymmetry transformations, $`𝒮`$,

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _k=\pm \frac{g_2\sqrt{S^2}}{g_1\sqrt{R^2}}.$$
(28)
One can formulate this observation in a different way: the rotation of a brane induces $`N=1`$ supersymmetry breakdown whose magnitude is proportional to the rotation angle. The second brane also needs to be rotated to match the boundary conditions properly.

Now we move on to the ‘flipped susy’ case $`\alpha =1`$. A vacuum solution in the warped product form can be found

$$ds^2=a^2(x^5)g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +R_0^2(dx^5)^2,$$
(29)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the $`AdS_4`$ metric with cosmological constant $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$

$$g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_3}(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+dx_3^2$$
(30)
and the third coordinate $`x_3`$ has been singled out. As long as $`T<1`$ the static vacuum solution is $`AdS_5`$ in the bulk and the warp factor can be parametrized as :

$$a(x^5)=\frac{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{k}\mathrm{cosh}(kR_0|x_5|C).$$
(31)
This metric is isometric to the warped metric of $`AdS_5`$:

$$ds^2=e^{2kR_0y}(d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_1^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_2^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_3^2)+R_0^2dy^2,$$
(32)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_3=(\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})^1\text{tanh}(CkR_0x_5)e^{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_3},y=\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\frac{x_3}{kR_0}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{k}\text{cosh}(CkR_0x_5))}{kR_0}$$
(33)
and $`\stackrel{~}{t}=t,\stackrel{~}{x}_1=x_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_2=x_2`$. This coordinate transformation will be useful in the following section where we discuss the existence of a geodesically complete submanifold of $`AdS_5`$ with a horizon where the two branes can be embedded.

The matching conditions for $`AdS_4`$ branes embedded in $`AdS_5`$ read

$`\mathrm{tanh}(C)`$ $`=`$ $`T`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{tanh}(kR_0\pi \rho C)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha T=T.`$ (35)
The first condition sets the integration constant $`C`$ and the second fixes the size of the fifth dimension. The radion is stabilized at the value

$$\pi \rho kR_0=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1+T}{1T}).$$
(36)
Moreover, the magnitude of the brane cosmological constant is fixed by the normalization $`a(0)=1`$. This leads to

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(T^21)k^2<0.$$
(37)
The cosmological constant on the brane depends directly on the scale of supersymmetry breaking on the brane. The same is true for the expectation value of the radion. Notice, that $`R_0`$ can be expressed solely in terms of $`k`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The formula equivalent to (36) in the case $`\alpha =+1`$ gives $`R_0=0`$. To summarize, the nonzero expectation value of $`𝒮`$ gives rise to detuning between brane and bulk tensions and as a consequence to stabilization of the radion. The $`𝒮`$ contributes also to supersymmetry breakdown, but in the case of $`\alpha =1`$ supersymmetry is broken even if $`𝒮=0`$.

One finds that (31) is not a valid solution in the case $`T=1`$. Indeed, this implies that the brane cosmological constant vanishes and the second brane is sent to infinity. In that case we expect a global mismatch due to the boundary condition on one of the branes. This is the subject of the following section.

## 4 Flipped Supersymmetry and Moving Branes

In this section we deal with the flipped case $`\alpha =1`$ corresponding to opposite chiralities of the boundary branes and focus on the case where the brane tensions on both branes are equal. In order to find non-singular solutions to the equations of motion it is sufficient to use locally AdS spaces in the bulk. Consider the following bulk metric with $`l=1/k`$

$$ds^2=(\frac{r^2}{l^2}1)dt^2+\frac{1}{\frac{r^2}{l^2}1}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2$$
(38)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ is the metric on a compact hyperbolic three-space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of constant curvature $`1`$. Such spaces can be obtained by quotienting the usual hyperbolic three-space by a discrete group. The metric is the usual AdS-black hole metric with a hyperbolic horizon where the mass of the black hole has been set to zero. Locally one can define, ,

$$u=\xi \sqrt{1\frac{l^2}{r^2}}e^{t/l},v=\xi \sqrt{1\frac{l^2}{r^2}}e^{t/l}$$
(39)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{r}=l\frac{r}{\xi },$$
(40)
where the metric on the hyperbolic three-space is

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\frac{d\xi ^2+dx_idx^i}{\xi ^2}.$$
(41)
This leads to the $`AdS_5`$ metric in Poincare coordinates

$$ds^2=\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{l^2}(dudv+d\stackrel{~}{x}_id\stackrel{~}{x}^i)+\frac{l^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}d\stackrel{~}{r}^2.$$
(42)
We have used the obvious relation between the light cone coordinates and orthogonal coordinates

$$u=\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{x}_3v=\stackrel{~}{t}+\stackrel{~}{x}_3$$
(43)
and identified $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i=x_i`$. Globally one must restrict the range of $`r`$ to $`rl`$ where the horizon sits at $`r=l`$. The Carter-Penrose diagram can be seen in figure 1 where the maximal analytic extension of the manifold $``$ (defined by (38)–(42)) has been drawn. It consists of two copies of the same $`rl`$ space glued at $`r=l`$ by a wormhole called the Einstein-Rosen bridge whose topology is the one of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Notice that the horizon sits in the middle of the Carter-Penrose diagram of $`AdS_5`$.

Let us come back to the flipped supersymmetric brane model where two branes of the same tension are present. It is relevant to locate the two branes with respect to the horizon. Notice that the parametrization (39) of $``$ implies that $`\stackrel{~}{x}_30`$. However, the two $`AdS_4`$ branes of the previous section are such that $`\text{tanh}(kR_0x_5C)`$ have opposite signs. Given that we are interested in solutions related to the static $`AdS_4`$ solutions, this leads to the assignment of the opposite sign $`\stackrel{~}{x}_3`$ coordinates for the two branes in the figure 1. Indeed, the static branes are located at

$$x_5=0,x_5=\frac{2C}{kR_0}.$$
(44)
The horizon at $`r=l`$ corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{x}_3=0`$ and that through (33) corresponds to $`x_5=\frac{C}{kR_0},`$ the point lying just in the middle between the static branes. We thus find that the two branes are on both sides of the horizon. As $`T1`$ the second brane goes to infinity and the static solution is not valid anymore. We will find that, by embedding the two branes in $``$, this problem can be alleviated.

One can find a solution to this model by embedding each brane in one of the two copies of the local AdS space-time $`rl`$. The two branes are separated by the hyperbolic Einstein-Rosen bridge located at the horizon. In each half space the motion of the branes is determined by the the boundary condition for moving branes

$$(\frac{r^2}{l^2}1+\dot{r}^2)^{1/2}=T\frac{r}{l}$$
(45)
in proper time $`\tau `$ defined by

$$(\frac{r^2}{l^2}1)\dot{t}^2+\frac{1}{\frac{r^2}{l^2}1}\dot{r}^2=1.$$
(46)
The boundary condition is equivalent to the Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\frac{T^21}{l^2}+\frac{1}{r^2}$$
(47)
where $`H=\dot{r}/r`$. Now the induced metric on the brane reads

$$ds_B^2=d\tau ^2+r^2(\tau )d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2.$$
(48)
The solution to Friedmann’s equation is

$$r(\tau )=\pm \frac{l}{\sqrt{1T^2}}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\sqrt{1T^2}}{l}\tau )$$
(49)
leading to the identification of the moving brane with an $`AdS_4`$ brane with cosmological constant $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Notice that $`rl`$ implies that $`\tau `$ does not cover the whole circle. This implies that the moving branes are only a slice of $`AdS_4`$ branes, with an infinite period oscillation in the $`t`$ coordinate. In conclusion the moving brane is nothing but another way of embedding $`AdS_4`$ branes in $`AdS_5`$ which is only locally isometric to the static branes of section 3.

We can now treat the degenerate case $`T=1`$ for which the above brane cosmological constant $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(T^21)`$ vanishes. Now the brane has the topology of an open FRW space-time with curvature $`k=1`$. The motion is given by

$$r(\tau )=\pm \tau +r_0.$$
(50)
We can now deduce the evolution equation

$$\frac{r^2(t)}{l^2}1=e^{\pm 2t/l}.$$
(51)
This implies that the brane either recedes away from the horizon or converges towards the horizon. Moreover it takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon. This is to be contrasted with the finite amount of proper time that it takes to reach the horizon.

It convenient to use tortoise coordinates defined by

$$u=\frac{l}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\frac{r}{l}1}{\frac{r}{l}+1})$$
(52)
leading to

$$ds^2=(\text{cotanh}^2\frac{u}{l}1)(dt^2du^2)+l^2\text{cotanh}^2\frac{u}{l}d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2.$$
(53)
The horizon is now at $`u=\mathrm{}`$ and the spatial infinity at $`u=0`$. In the vicinity of the horizon the metric becomes

$$ds^2=4e^{2u/l}(dt^2+du^2)+l^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2.$$
(54)
Putting $`x=2le^{u/l}`$ we find that the horizon has the structure of a Rindler space times the hyperbolic space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In particular the temperature of the horizon is

$$T_H=\frac{1}{2\pi l}.$$
(55)
It can be interpreted as the emission of gravitons and gravitini coming out through the wormhole. One may wonder how an observer bound to a brane would interpret the supersymmetry breakdown seen on his/her brane, with no classical communication with the second brane from which he/she is separated by the horizon. We note that there is a nonzero temperature of the horizon, of order $`k`$, which is observable, and can be seen locally on a given side of the horizon as the reason for the mass splittings in the bulk multiplets. One could describe this phenomenon as temperature mediated supersymmetry breakdown.

In the system of coordinates that we adopted the light-like geodesics follow

$$u=r_0\pm t$$
(56)
showing that particles take an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon. Notice that the trajectory of the moving brane is given by

$$u(t)=\frac{l}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\frac{r(t)}{l}1}{\frac{r(t)}{l}+1})$$
(57)
corresponding to a speed

$$\dot{u}=\pm \frac{l}{r}.$$
(58)
The brane reaches the speed of light at the horizon.

Let us make a comment on trapping of gravity on the brane. When the brane is far away from the horizon, $`r(t)l`$, the metric (38) takes the form of the $`AdS_5`$ metric in conformal gauge, and the brane is moving very slowly with respect to it. Hence, locally around the brane gravity should be indistinguishable from that around the positive tension Randall–Sundrum brane. However, when the brane comes close to the horizon, the specific shape of the metric near horizon becomes important, and also the Hubble length on the brane, $`d_H=H^1=r(t)`$, becomes comparable to $`l`$, hence gravity on the brane becomes nonstandard.

## 5 Summary

In this paper we have presented generalized supersymmetric brane worlds. We have enhanced supersymmetry transformations by including both $`Z_2`$–odd and $`Z_2`$–even components in the 5d prepotential. Further, we have allowed the $`Z_2`$ symmetry of the Lagrangian to act on fermions locally, differently in the vicinity of each wall (this is the case of flipped boundary conditions for fermionic degrees of freedom). In models with flipped boundary conditions or with nonzero vacuum expectation value for $`Z_2`$–even parts of supersymmetry transformations ($`𝒮`$) the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry is broken down to nothing by vacuum configurations. These configurations, which are non–BPS domain walls in 5d, have the form of rotated branes if $`𝒮0`$, with supersymmetry breakdown proportional to the rotation angle. There are no singularities, but 4d Lorentz invariance is broken in these vacua.

Models with flipped boundary conditions correspond to $`Dp`$$`D\overline{p}`$ brane–antibrane systems in 5d. There supersymmetry is broken, which can be understood as a mismatch between possible Killing spinors in the bulk and boundary conditions on the branes. There exist static $`AdS_4`$ branes with a stabilized radion. Other non–BPS branes that we have found are moving, and in addition there is a horizon (but no essential singularity) separating the branes. One may wonder how an observer bound to a brane would interpret supersymmetry breakdown seen on his brane, without classical communication with the second brane. The relevant observation is that there is a nonzero temperature of the horizon, of the order of $`k`$, which is observable, and can be seen locally on a given side of the horizon as the reason for the mass splittings in the bulk multiplets. One could describe this phenomenon as temperature mediated supersymmetry breakdown. An interesting problem is to add brane matter to the backgrounds we have discussed, and to derive low–energy phenomenology of such models. We leave this issue to a future publication.
The observation that in the flipped case one does not find a background solution in the form of a Minkowski foliation is a hint that the usual stability and cosmological constant problems are likely to appear in locally supersymmetric ‘flipped’ model building.

The work of A.F. and Z.L. has been supported by RTN programs HPRN-CT-2000-00152 (Z.L.) and HPRN-CT-2000-00148 (A.F.), and by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research grant 5 P03B 119 20 (2001-2002).


text:
# The Spectra of Red Quasars

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The rest-frame optical/UV emission of radio quiet QSOs is dominated by strong broad emission lines and by extremely blue continuum emission (the Big Blue Bump, which peaks in the far-UV, eg. Malkan & Sargent 1982). The emission of flat radio spectrum radio-loud quasars is often quite different. It is now well established that many have much redder colours than traditional optically selected QSOs (eg. Rieke, Lebofsky & Wisniewski 1982, Webster et al. 1995). A few also have extremely low equivalent width emission lines, and are known as BL Lac objects.

What is responsible for these differences? In this paper, we address this question, using the spectra of a representative sub-set of flat radio spectrum sources from the Parkes Half-Jansky Flat-Spectrum survey (PHFS). This survey consists of 323 sources with flux densities at 2.7 GHz of greater than 0.5 Jy, and radio spectral indices $`\alpha `$ ($`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) with $`\alpha >0.5`$ as measured between 2.7 and 5.0 GHz (Drinkwater et al. 1997). The PHFS quasars lie at redshift $`0<z<4`$.

Francis, Whiting and Webster (2000, hereafter FWW) obtained quasi-simultaneous optical and near-IR photometry for a random subset of 157 PHFS sources. They showed that the spectral energy distributions of red quasars are diverse. They divided the sources, on the basis of their colours, into three classes.

1. Dusty quasars. About 10% of the sample fall into this category. They have the strongly curved spectral energy distributions expected from dust obscuration, and show reddened line ratios. Their spectra are discussed by FWW.
2. Galaxies. Another 10% of the sources are spatially resolved, and have spectra typical of elliptical galaxies. These sources are discussed by Masci, Webster and Francis (1997).
3. Pseudo power-law sources. About 80% of the sources have approximately power-law spectral energy distributions, extending from the rest-frame UV to the near IR. These power-law continua vary in slope between $`F_\nu \nu ^0`$ and $`F_\nu \nu ^2`$. These are the sources we discuss in this paper.

What are these pseudo power-law sources, and what is responsible for their diversity of continuum slopes? Three models have been proposed. Firstly, red pseudo-power-law sources might have intrinsically weaker Big Blue Bumps (eg. McDowell et al. 1989). Secondly, all quasars might have similar Big Blue Bumps, but in the redder quasars this emission might be partially absorbed by dust (eg. Webster et al. 1995). The dust properties would have to be unusual not to induce curvature in the spectra. Thirdly, all quasars might have similar Big Blue Bumps, but in the redder quasars, this Big Blue Bump emission is swamped by a red synchrotron emission component from the radio jet (eg. Serjeant & Rawlings 1997).

In this paper, we test these models against the spectra of the PHFS pseudo power-law sources. In Section 2 we discuss our spectra of the PHFS quasars, and show that they represent a reasonably representative sub-sample. In Section 3 we describe in detail our measurements of the spectra, and in Section 4 we show the results. The predictions of the three models for the emission-line properties are discussed in Section 5. We show, in Section 6, that the spectra are mostly consistent with the synchrotron model, and derive constraints on this model. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 7.

## 2 The Sample

We obtained spectra for 77 of the PHFS sources with the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) and the Siding Spring 2.3m telescope (Drinkwater et al. 1997). These were combined with 25 unpublished spectra drawn from the AAT archives, and 86 spectra drawn from the compilation of Wilkes et al. (1983). We thus have spectra of 187 of the 323 sources in the PHFS.

In Fig 1, we show the number of PHFS sources for which we have spectra as a function of $`B_J`$ magnitude. Note that the fraction with spectra is reasonably uniform.

The quality and wavelength coverage of the spectra is very diverse. The signal to noise ratio of most quasars was too poor to allow measurements of line widths or profiles. As most are not spectrophotometric, we did not attempt to extract continuum parameters or line ratios from the spectra. The quality and diversity of the spectra can best be appreciated by looking at the sample spectra in Drinkwater et al. (1997).

### 2.1 Sub-samples

Spatially extended sources were excluded from this paper. Images from the UK Schmidt and Palomar sky survey images (IIIa-J) were automatically classified, using the COSMOS and APM scanners. The automated classification was checked against our own deeper imaging. We classified 18 of the PHFS sources with spectra as spatially extended: they are discussed by Masci et al. (1997).

The remaining point-like sources were analysed on the basis of their optical/near-IR colours. The quasi-simultaneous broad-band magnitudes of FWW were used. This excluded half of the quasars with spectra, as no photometry was available for them. Sources with $`BI>2.6`$ were excluded from the analysis. These sources have the convex continuum spectral energy distributions expected from dust absorption, and their spectra were discussed in FWW.

In Fig 2 we show the percentage of these remaining pseudo power-law sources for which we have spectra, as a function of their $`BK_n`$ colour. Note once again that the subsample with spectra is reasonably representative.

We defined two subsamples of these pseudo-power-law sources. They were defined on the basis of their rest-frame colours. We measured these colours from our broad-band photometry, and not from the (non-spectrophotometric) spectra. The flux densities at 340nm and 750nm were calculated by extrapolation between the photometric data points from FWW.

* The Blue Sample. 22 sources with spectra. Flux density ($`F_\lambda `$) at rest-frame 340nm which exceeds that at 750nm by more than 0.45 dex (a factor of 2.8)
* The Red Sample. 20 sources with spectra. Flux density ratio of less than 0.45 dex between these wavelengths.

This dividing line corresponds to a power-law of index $`F_\nu \nu ^{0.7}`$ between these two wavelengths, and was chosen to bisect the sample.

As a control sample, the Large Bright QSO Sample (LBQS) was used (Morris et al. 1991 and refs. therein). This sample of 1053 optically selected QSOs is well matched in both redshift and optical luminosity to the PHFS. Broad absorption line QSOs were excluded from the comparison.

## 3 Analysis

Error arrays were not available for most of the sample spectra. We therefore estimated them as follows. For each pixel, we fit a straight line to the fluxes in the 15 pixels centred on it. The sum of the squares of the residuals from this fit was divided by 13 to estimate the error variance in the pixel. We divided by 13 rather than 15 to allow for the two degrees of freedom in the straight-line fit.

We iteratively fit a 4th order Chebyshev polynomial to the continuum of each quasar. Wavelength regions with strong emission-lines were excluded from the fitting. The fits were iterated three times, with regions more than $`2\sigma `$ above or $`4\sigma `$ below each fit excluded from the next. The results were checked by eye: these fits were subjectively judged to be good for 95% of the quasars. The remaining 5% were fit interactively.

Emission-line equivalent widths were obtained by dividing the flux above these continuum fits by the continuum level, integrated over the wavelength regions in Table 1. Only the strongest emission-lines were measured, as the signal-to-noise ratio was too poor to allow measurement of the weaker lines. Ly$`\alpha `$ was not measured due to the difficulty in defining the continuum under it, and the small number of red quasars at high enough redshift. The \[O III\] equivalent widths are for the stronger component (the 500.7 nm line) only. All the continuum fits and line equivalent widths were checked by eye, and about 10% of the automated measurements were replaced with interactive ones.

Composite quasar spectra were obtained as follows. Each individual spectrum was divided through by the continuum fit and shifted to its rest-frame, using interactively defined redshifts. The spectra were then rebinned and co-added. All spectra were equally weighted in the co-add, regardless of their signal-to-noise ratio. This degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of the final composite spectrum, but ensures that it is not biassed towards the properties of the quasars with better quality spectra. The fluxes at very blue and very red wavelengths were given a low weighting, to reflect their generally poor signal-to-noise ratios. Only wavelength regions to which at least five individual quasars contributed were included in the composite spectra.

### 3.1 Sources without Redshifts

Three sources have no redshift in Drinkwater et al. (PKS 0048$``$097, PKS 0829$`+`$046 and PKS1156$``$094). Falomo (1991) measured a redshift of 0.18 for PKS 0829$`+`$046, which we adopt. Both the other sources have red colours and would lie in the red sample regardless of their redshift.

We estimated upper limits on the emission-line equivalent widths of PKS 0048$``$097 and PKS 1156$``$094 as follows. The biggest wavelength gap between strong emission lines is between Mg II and H$`\beta `$. The ratio of their wavelengths is 1.74. Thus any wavelength range with an end wavelength more than 1.74 times its starting wavelength must contain at least one strong line. In both spectra, the least noisy wavelength range of this width was taken. The $`3\sigma `$ limit for a line of width $`5000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$ was computed as a function of wavelength throughout this region, and the highest value taken as our limit.

We place a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit of 0.17nm for PKS 0048$``$097. The spectrum of PKS 1156$``$094 is poor, and we can only place a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit of 6.6nm on the equivalent width of any emission line.

### 3.2 Luminosities and Rest-frame Colours

Continuum luminosities were calculated at particular rest-frame wavelengths, by linear extrapolation between adjacent redshifted photometric bands from FWW. We assume that $`H_0=70\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{matter}}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ throughout. Radio luminosities were calculated in the same way, using radio flux densities at 1600, 2468, 4800 and 8640 MHz obtained by Webster et al. (in preparation). Emission-line luminosities were calculated by scaling the spectra to match the broad-band photometry of FWW extrapolated to the line wavelength.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Composite Spectra

The composite spectra of blue and red PHFS quasars (excluding the two without measured redshifts), and of the optically selected LBQS QSOs, are shown in Figs 3 and 4. A number of differences can be seen. The red PHFS composite has much weaker Mg II, Balmer and \[O III\] lines than the blue PHFS composite. The C III\] and C IV lines, however, are more similar in strength. The LBQS composite more closely resembles the blue PHFS composite, but its Ly$`\alpha `$, C IV, H$`\beta `$ and \[O III\] lines are weaker. The reality of these differences will be addressed in the next section.

### 4.2 Equivalent Width Measurements

The equivalent width measurements can be found in a machine readable table, included in the electronic edition of this paper. Equivalent widths are plotted against continuum slope in Fig 5. Histograms of equivalent widths for the blue and red sub-samples, and for the LBQS, are shown in Figs 6, 7 and 8. The two PHFS quasars without measured redshifts (both in the red sample) are not included.

Are the differences between the red and blue sub-samples real? The correlation between the equivalent width of H$`\beta `$ and the continuum slope is significant at the 99.2% level, using Spearman’s Rank Correlation test. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirms that the H$`\beta `$ equivalent width distributions of the two sub-samples are different at the 97% confidence level. The C III\] equivalent width distributions are marginally inconsistent (at the 95% level). There are no other differences significant at the 95% confidence level.

The two quasars without measured redshifts were excluded from this analysis. If we assume that they are of low enough redshift that H$`\beta `$ would have been seen, they increase the significance of the difference.

### 4.3 Line Ratios

No correlation was found between line flux ratios and colour. The correlation predicted by a dust model is, however, weak enough to be consistent with the observations. We have wide wavelength coverage, spectrophotometric spectra for three of the reddest pseudo power-law sources, however, from which we can measure Balmer decrements. In all three, the ratio of H$`\alpha `$ to H$`\beta `$ is around 3.5, consistent with no dust reddening.

### 4.4 Correlations with Luminosity

The continuum slope of the PHFS samples correlates with the optical continuum luminosity (Fig 9). Spearman’s Rank Correlation Test shows that this correlation is significant with 99.999% confidence. No significant correlation is seen between continuum slope and radio luminosity.

As the PHFS is a flux limited sample, redshift and luminosity are strongly correlated. Is this really a correlation against luminosity, or could it be a correlation against redshift? To test this, the sample was subdivided into redshift bins. The median luminosity of the sources in each bin was calculated, and subtracted from all the sources in that bin. The resultant differential luminosities still correlated with colour, with 95% confidence. When the process was repeated with luminosity bins, no significant residual correlation was seen. We therefore conclude that the physical correlation is between colour and luminosity.

A stronger correlation is seen between the emission-line luminosity and the continuum slope (Fig 10). The correlation with C III\] luminosity is only significant at the 97% level, but the other correlations shown are significant with 99.99% confidence or better.

## 5 Models

### 5.1 Weak Blue Bump

How should the strength of the Big Blue Bump affect the emission-line properties? The Big Blue Bump is normally ascribed to thermal emission from an accretion disk. The disk could be different in red and blue quasars. Alternatively, the rest-frame UV/optical emission may be entirely synchrotron. Red and blue quasars could have different electron energy spectra in the jet. Either way, the emission-lines of red and blue quasars should be quite different, as the Big Blue Bump emission dominates their photoionisation.

We modelled the effect of varying the Big Blue Bump size on the emission line, using the Cloudy photoionisation code (Ferland 1996). The broad emission-line region was modelled as a single plane-parallel slab of uniform hydrogen number density $`3.1\times 10^{16}\mathrm{m}^3`$, and solar metallicity. The flux incident on the front of the slab at 500nm wavelength was fixed at $`F_\nu =1.0\times 10^9\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ (low ionisation model), $`F_\nu =6.3\times 10^9\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ (medium ionisation model) and $`F_\nu =4.0\times 10^8\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ (high ionisation model). All these parameters are typical of published broad-line region models.

Cloudy’s standard AGN photoionising continuum was used. This is a power-law in the UV and optical, with exponential upper- and lower cut-offs, together with a second power-law in the X-rays:

$$f_\nu =\nu ^{\alpha _{\mathrm{UV}}}e^{\frac{h\nu }{kT_{\mathrm{BB}}}}e^{\frac{kT_{\mathrm{IR}}}{h\nu }}+a\nu ^{\alpha _\mathrm{X}}$$

where $`T_{\mathrm{BB}}=150,000`$K, $`kT_{\mathrm{IR}}=0.01`$ Ryd and $`\alpha _\mathrm{X}=1`$. The constant $`a`$ is set such that the slope of a power-law extrapolated between 2 keV and 250nm rest-frame, $`\alpha _{OX}`$, is $`1.4`$. Thus the hard X-ray fluxes of red and blue quasars are same, as suggested by the ROSAT observations of Siebert et al. (1998).

All that we varied was the strength of the Big Blue Bump, parameterised by $`\alpha _{\mathrm{UV}}`$. The equivalent widths of the strongest emission lines were calculated as a function of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{UV}}`$, for each of the three ionisation models. Results are shown in Fig 11.

A few clear patterns emerge. H$`\beta `$ is weaker in weak bump quasars. This is expected, as it is predominantly photoionised by flux just shortward of the Lyman limit, which is dominated by the Big Blue Bump. C III\] and C IV can be either weaker or stronger in weak bump quasars, depending on the ionisation state of the broad-line region. This too is expected, as the strength of the Big Blue Bump affects the ionisation parameter, and hence the population of the different ionisation states of carbon. Mg II becomes much stronger in weak bump quasars. Mg II is a relatively low ionisation line, and is predominantly excited by X-rays penetrating deep into the emission-line clouds. Thus an ionising continuum weak in UV photons but relatively strong in harder X-rays is ideal for Mg II formation.

A more realistic model would allow for the stratified nature of the emission-line regions. It is also unlikely that the physical properties of the emission line region are uncorrelated with the colour of the continuum emission.

### 5.2 Dust

Normal dust models predict a strongly curved continuum in red quasars, and hence are not consistent with the photometry of the pseudo power-law sources (FWW). If the dust were deficient in small grains, however, the UV absorption would be reduced, and the predicted continuum emission could be brought into agreement with that observed.

Dust should affect the emission-line ratios, but should not affect the emission-line equivalent widths, as it should absorb line and continuum radiation equally. The exception to this would be where the dust is either patchy on scales comparable to the broad-line region, or where it is mixed in with the broad-line region.

### 5.3 Synchrotron Emission

Unified models suggest that we are observing flat radio spectrum quasars from close to the axis of their jets. Any emission from these jets would thus be relativistically boosted. If these jets sometimes emitted a synchrotron component with very red colours in the optical, it could produce the red colours. Whiting, Webster & Francis (2001, hereafter WWF) showed that a model of the continuum emission with two components (a big blue bump and a red synchrotron component) can reproduce the colours of the pseudo power-law sources as measured by FWW, including the small (but significant) deviations from a pure power-law. The model also correctly predicts the polarisation properties of the small fraction of PHFS quasars for which this data is available.

If the synchrotron model is correct, there should be an anti-correlation between the equivalent widths of the emission lines and the redness of the continuum emission. This is because the emission-line flux of a quasar should be proportional to the strength of the Big Blue Bump that photoionises it, and should not be affected by the strength of any red synchrotron emission component. The red component will have too little flux in the UV to ionise emission lines, and it is probably beamed, and hence will only illuminate a small part of the emission-line region. Thus if the observed red continuum emission greatly exceeds the big blue bump, it will also greatly exceed the fluxes of the emission lines, which will hence have very low equivalent widths. The effect should be most marked for longer wavelength lines, as the red synchrotron component will be relatively stronger at longer wavelengths. Line ratios should not correlate with colour.

## 6 Discussion

At short wavelengths, there are no significant differences between the emission-line equivalent widths of the red and blue sub-samples. H$`\beta `$, however, shows a very significant difference, in the sense that most red sources have very weak lines. The data from \[O III\] are also consistent with this (Table 2).

These results are consistent with the red synchrotron component model, if this red component is about ten times stronger than the blue component at $`500`$nm wavelength, but no longer swamps the blue component at 300nm. This implies a spectrum at least as red as a power-law of the form $`F_\nu \nu ^{2.8}`$, which is consistent with the theoretical modelling of WWF.

These results are not consistent with the dust model, which predicts no correlation between equivalent width and colour. Neither are they consistent with the weak Blue Bump model, which predicts that Mg II should be stronger in the red quasars, and that H$`\beta `$ should only be weaker by a factor of $`3`$, not $`10`$.

Let us therefore assume that the weakness of the lines of the red sub-sample is due primarily to dilution by a red synchrotron component. We detect the H$`\beta `$ line at $`3\sigma `$ confidence or better in all but one of the red quasars with decent data. The equivalent widths span roughly two orders of magnitude at rest frame 500nm, with no obvious bimodality. In at most 10% of the red quasars can the red continuum component exceed the blue component by a factor of more than 100, at rest-frame 500nm. This too is consistent with the modelling of WWF.

### 6.1 Red, Strong-Lined Quasars

If the synchrotron model is correct, all red quasars should have low equivalent width emission-lines, and all quasars with very low equivalent widths should be red. The latter is consistent with our data, but as Fig 5 shows, there are a small number of extremely red quasars with high equivalent width Mg II lines. The spectra of the two most extreme red, strong-lined quasars are shown in Fig 12. Indeed, these red quasars have the highest equivalent width Mg II emission-lines in the sample.

These sources clearly do not fit into the simple synchrotron model. Dust could redden the continuum without changing the equivalent widths. The Balmer decrements of these sources are, however, $`3.5`$, which is typical of unreddened AGN.

A weak Big Blue Bump model fits the red colours and high Mg II equivalent widths of these sources well. We therefore hypothesise that these quasars have intrinsically weak Big Blue Bumps. Note, however, that while the equivalent widths of these sources are anomalous, their line luminosities fit on the correlation with continuum slope (Fig 10).

### 6.2 The Correlation between Luminosity and Continuum Slope

The synchrotron model appears to best fit most of the spectra. What then determines the relative strength of the synchrotron and Big Blue Bump components, and hence the quasar colours? The continuum slope measured between 340 and 750nm should be a good measure of the relative strength of the synchrotron and Big Blue Bump components. Emission-line luminosities should correlate strongly with the luminosity of the Big Blue Bump which photoionises them. Thus the correlations shown in both Figs 9 and 10 suggest that the ratio of synchrotron emission to Big Blue Bump flux is relatively high in quasars with low luminosity Big Blue Bumps.

This implies that in quasars with low luminosity Big Blue Bumps, the fraction of the accretion energy going into the jet is relatively high, or that the jet emission extends to shorter wavelengths in these sources. The $`1\sigma `$ scatter in this correlation is 0.4 dex, which is better than the scatter in the Baldwin Effect. This correlation may thus be useful for cosmological distance scale work.

### 6.3 Implications for BL Lac Objects

BL Lac objects are normally defined as having no observed emission lines with rest-frame equivalent widths greater than 0.5nm (eg. Stickel et al. 1991, Rector et al. 2000). In our model, this implies that the red synchrotron emission component exceeds the blue one at the line wavelength by a factor of $`10`$.

We do not see any bimodality in the distribution of equivalent factors, though our sub-sample is small. If confirmed, this would imply that radio selected BL Lac objects are simply the tail of the normal population of flat radio spectrum quasars, and not a different class with intrinsically weaker emission lines.

Our analysis suggests that the synchrotron emission component is very red, and hence that it dilutes long wavelength lines far more effectively than short wavelength lines. This implies that BL Lac samples are biassed against finding high redshift objects.

How significant could this bias be? Consider a model in which the red continuum component has a spectrum of the form $`F_\nu \nu ^{2.8}`$, and the logarithm of the ratio of red to blue components at the wavelength of H$`\beta `$ is uniformly distributed between 0 and 2, as suggested by our observations. The ratio of red to blue components at the wavelength of Mg II will be 3.4 times smaller than at H$`\beta `$, while at C III\] it will be 7.8 times smaller. It is assumed that the ratio of red to blue components does not correlate with redshift or luminosity.

Now consider, for example, a sample of BL Lac objects chosen on the basis of spectra covering 400 — 600nm. At redshift zero, the strongest line in this wavelength range will be H$`\beta `$, which in blue PHFS quasars has a rest-frame equivalent width of $`5`$nm. For this line to have an observed equivalent width of less than 0.5nm, we require that the red component at the wavelength of H$`\beta `$ exceed the blue component by a factor of ten. According to our model, 50% of all red quasars meet this criterion and would hence be classed as BL Lac objects.

At redshift one, however, Mg II will be the strongest line within this observed wavelength region. In blue PHFS quasars, Mg II has a median rest-frame equivalent width of 3nm. For the line to have a rest-frame equivalent width of less than 0.5nm, we require that the red continuum component exceed the blue one by a factor of 6 at the wavelength of Mg II. This implies that the red component must exceed the blue by a factor of $`3.4\times 6=20`$ at the wavelength of H$`\beta `$. According to our model, only 35% of red quasars will meet this criterion. Repeating this calculation at redshift two (where C IV is the strongest line), only 6% of red PHFS quasars would be classed as BL Lac objects.

Thus any sample using spectra at a uniform observed-frame wavelength will miss $`30`$% of the BL Lacs at redshift one, and $`90`$% at redshift two. Our small sub-sample size makes these estimates highly uncertain. Nonetheless, this is probably sufficient to cancel out the negative evolution claimed by some authors (eg. Rector et al. 2000), but not to match the enormous positive evolution seen in other classes of quasar.

### 6.4 Differences between Radio-Loud and Radio-Quiet Quasars

It has long been known that the optical spectra of radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars are remarkably similar, despite the enormous difference in their radio luminosities. A number of small differences in the emission-line properties have been claimed (eg. Boroson & Green 1992, Francis, Hooper & Impey 1993, Corbin & Francis 1994, Corbin 1997), but only on the basis of small, poorly matched and/or incomplete samples. These studies found that C IV, C III\] and \[O III\] had higher equivalent widths in flat radio spectrum quasars than in radio-quiet quasars.

The optical luminosity and redshift distribution of the LBQS are quite similar to those of the PHFS quasars, so any differences between the emission-lines of the two samples must be physical. If we compare the spectra of the LBQS QSOs with the blue PHFS sub-sample, we find that the equivalent width distributions of C IV, H$`\beta `$ and \[O III\] are significantly different, with 95% confidence. C III\] is different with 94.8% confidence. In all cases, the equivalent widths of the blue PHFS quasars are greater than those of the LBQS QSOs. The red PHFS quasars have significantly weaker Mg II and H$`\beta `$ equivalent widths than the LBQS QSOs, presumably due to dilution by the red synchrotron component.

## 7 Conclusions

We conclude that the spectra of the red PHFS quasars are significantly different from those of the blue PHFS quasars. Small number statistics make our conclusions tentative, though they are formally significant. The probable differences are consistent with a model in which the red colours are due to the addition of a featureless red synchrotron continuum component to an otherwise normal blue quasar spectrum, as proposed by WWF. The red component must have a spectrum at least as red as a power-law of the form $`F_\nu \nu ^{2.8}`$. This red component contributes no more than half the continuum flux at rest-frame 300nm, but at rest-frame 500nm it contributes about 90% of the continuum flux of the red quasars. The physics of such a component is discussed by WWF.

The relative strengths of the blue and red components span two orders of magnitude at rest-frame 500nm. The blue component is relatively weaker in low optical luminosity sources.

If this model is correct, then existing BL Lac surveys are biassed against high redshift objects, though this bias is insufficient to bring the evolution of BL Lacs into consistency with the evolution of other quasars.

A few PHFS quasars, however, have both very red colours and very high equivalent width emission-lines. These quasars do not easily fit the synchrotron model, but their properties can be fit by an intrinsically weak Big Blue Bump model. We confirm that the emission-lines of optically selected QSOs have significantly weaker equivalent widths than those of radio-loud, flat radio spectrum quasars with similar optical luminosities.

Digital copies of the composite spectra and of the measured equivalent widths are available from the on-line copy of this paper.

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Belinda Wilkes for making her spectra available to us in digital format, and Chriss Wallwork for doing a literature search for new redshifts.

## References

Boroson, T. & Green, R. 1992, ApJ, 338, 630

Corbin, M.R. 1997, ApJS, 113, 245

Corbin, M.R. & Francis, P.J. 1994, AJ, 108, 2016

Drinkwater, M.J., Webster, R.L., Francis, P.J., Condon, J.J., Ellison, S.L., Jauncey, D.L., Lovell, J., Peterson, B.A., & Savage, A. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 85

Falomo, R. 1991, AJ, 102, 1991

Ferland, G.J. 1996, Hazy, a brief introduction to Cloudy, University of Kentucky Department of Physics and Astronomy internal report.

Francis, P.J., Hooper, E.J. & Impey, C.D. 1993, AJ, 106, 417

Francis, P.J., Whiting, M.T. & Webster, R.L. 2000, PASA 17, 56 (FWW)

Malkan, M.A. & Sargent, W.L.W. 1982, ApJ, 254, 22

Masci, F.J., Webster, R.L. & Francis, P.J. 1998, MNRAS 301, 975

McDowell, J.C., Elvis, M., Wilkes, B.J., Willner, S.P., Oey, M.S., Polomski, E., Bechtold, J. & Green, R.F. 1989, ApJL, 345, L13

Morris S.L., Weymann R.J., Anderson S.F., Hewett P.C., Foltz C.B., Chaffee F.H. & Francis P.J. 1991, AJ, 102, 1627

Rector, J.A., Stocke, J.T., Perlman, E.S., Morris, S.L. & Gioia, I.M. 2000, AJ 120, 1626

Rieke, G.H., Lebofsky, M.J. & Wisniewskiy, W.A. 1982, ApJ, 263, 73

Serjeant, S. & Rawlings, S. 1997, Nature, 379, 304

Siebert, J., Brinkmann, W., Drinkwater, M.J., Yuan, W., Francis, P.J., Peterson, B.A. & Webster, R.L. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 261

Stickel, M., Padovani, P., Urry, C.M., Fried, J.W., Kühr, H. 1991, ApJ, 374, 431

Webster, R.L., Francis, P.J., Peterson, B.A., Drinkwater, M.J., & Masci, F.J. 1995, Nature, 375, 469

Whiting, M.T., Webster, R.L. & Francis, P.J. 2000, MNRAS in press (WWF)

Wilkes, B.J., Wright, A.E., Jauncey, D.L. & Peterson, B.A., 1983, PASA, 5, 2


text:
# Inconsistencies in Models for RHIC and LHC

## 1 Inconsistencies

With the start of the RHIC program to investigate nucleus-nucleus collisions at very high energies, there is an increasing need of computational tools in order to provide a clear interpretation of the data. The situation is not satisfactory in the sense that there exists a nice theory (QCD) but we are not able to treat nuclear collisions strictly within this framework, and on the other hand there are simple models, which can be applied easily but which have no solid theoretical basis. A good compromise is provided by effective theories, which are not derived from first principles, but which are nevertheless self-consistent and calculable. A candidate seems to be the Gribov-Regge approach, and – being formally quite similar – the eikonalized parton model. Here, however, some inconsistencies occur, which we are going to discuss in the following, before we provide a solution to the problem.

Gribov-Regge theory  is by construction a multiple scattering theory. The elementary interactions are realized by complex objects called “Pomerons”, who’s precise nature is not known, and which are therefore simply parameterized, with a couple of parameters to be determined by experiment . Even in hadron-hadron scattering, several of these Pomerons are exchanged in parallel (the cross section for exchanging a given number of Pomerons is called”topological cross section”). Simple formulas can be derived for the (topological) cross sections, expressed in terms of the Pomeron parameters.

In order to calculate exclusive particle production, one needs to know how to share the energy between the individual elementary interactions in case of multiple scattering. We do not want to discuss the different recipes used to do the energy sharing (in particular in Monte Carlo applications). The point is, whatever procedure is used, this is not taken into account in the calculation of cross sections discussed above ,. So, actually, one is using two different models for cross section calculations and for treating particle production. Taking energy conservation into account in exactly the same way will modify the (topological) cross section results considerably.

Another very unpleasant and unsatisfactory feature of most “recipes” for particle production is the fact, that the second Pomeron and the subsequent ones are treated differently than the first one, although in the above-mentioned formula for the cross section all Pomerons are considered to be identical.

Being another popular approach, the parton model  amounts to presenting the partons of projectile and target by momentum distribution functions, $`f_i`$ and $`f_j`$, and calculating inclusive cross sections for the production of parton jets as a convolution of these distribution functions with the elementary parton-parton cross section $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}/dp_{}^2`$, where $`i,j`$ represent parton flavors. This simple factorization formula is the result of cancellations of complicated diagrams and hides therefore the complicated multiple scattering structure of the reaction, which is finally recovered via some unitarization procedure. The latter one makes the approach formally equivalent to the Gribov-Regge one and one therefore encounters the same conceptual problems (see above).

## 2 A New Self-consistent Approach

As a solution of the above-mentioned problems, we present a new approach which we call “Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory”: we have a consistent treatment for calculating (topological) cross sections and particle production considering energy conservation in both cases; in addition, we introduce hard processes in a natural way.

The basic guideline of our approach is theoretical consistency. We cannot derive everything from first principles, but we use rigorously the language of field theory to make sure not to violate basic laws of physics, which is easily done in more phenomenological treatments (see discussion above).

Let us first introduce some conventions. We denote elastic two body scattering amplitudes as $`T_{22}`$ and inelastic amplitudes corresponding to the production of some final state $`X`$ as $`T_{2X}`$ (see fig. 1).

As a direct consequence of unitarity on may write the optical theorem $`2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}T_{22}=_x`$$`(T_{2X})`$$`(T_{2X})^{}`$. The right hand side of this equation may be literally presented as a “cut diagram”, where the diagram on one side of the cut is $`(T_{2X})`$ and on the other side $`(T_{2X})^{}`$, as shown in fig. 2.

So the term “cut diagram” means nothing but the square of an inelastic amplitude, summed over all final states, which is equal to twice the imaginary part of the elastic amplitude.

Before coming to nuclear collisions, we need to discuss somewhat the structure of the nucleon, which may be studied in deep inelastic scattering – so essentially the scattering of a virtual photon off a nucleon, see fig. 3.

Let us assume a high virtuality photon. It is known that this photon couples to a high virtuality quark, which is emitted from a parton with a smaller virtuality, the latter on again being emitted from a parton with lower virtuality, and so on. We have a sequence of partons with lower and lower virtualities, the closer one gets to the proton. At some stage, some “soft scale” scale $`Q_0^2`$ must be reached, beyond which perturbative calculations are no longer valid. So we have some “unknown object” – indicated by “?” in fig. 3 – between the first parton and the nucleon. In order to proceed, one may estimate the squared mass of this “unknown object”, and one obtains doing simple kinematics the value $`Q_0^2/x`$, where $`x`$ is the momentum fraction of the first parton relative to the nucleon. Therefore, sea quarks or gluons, having typically small $`x`$, lead to large mass objects – which we identify with soft Pomerons, whereas valence quarks lead to small mass objects, which we simply ignore. So we have two contributions, as shown in fig. 3: a sea contribution, where the sea quark or gluon is emitted from a soft Pomeron, and a valence contribution, where the valence quark is one of the three quarks of the nucleon. The precise microscopic structure of the soft Pomeron not being known, it is parameterized in the usual way a a Regge pole.

Elementary nucleon-nucleon scattering can now be considered as a straightforward generalization of photon-nucleon scattering: one has a hard parton-parton scattering in the middle, and parton evolutions in both directions towards the nucleons. We have a hard contribution $`T_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ when the the first partons on both sides are valence quarks, a semi-hard contribution $`T_{\mathrm{semi}}`$ when at least on one side there is a sea quark (being emitted from a soft Pomeron), and finally we have a soft contribution, when there is no hard scattering at all (see fig. 4).

We have a smooth transition from soft to hard physics: at low energies the soft contribution dominates, at high energies the hard and semi-hard ones, at intermediate energies (that is where experiments are performed presently) all contributions are important.

Let us consider nucleus-nucleus ($`AB`$) scattering. In the Glauber-Gribov approach , the nucleus-nucleus scattering amplitude is defined by the sum of contributions of diagrams, corresponding to multiple elementary scattering processes between parton constituents of projectile and target nucleons. These elementary scatterings are exactly discussed above, namely the sum of soft, semi-hard, and hard contributions: $`T_{22}=T_{\mathrm{soft}}+T_{\mathrm{semi}}+T_{\mathrm{hard}}`$. A corresponding relation holds for the inelastic amplitude $`T_{2X}`$. We use the above definition of a cut elementary diagram, which is graphically represented by a vertical dashed line, whereas the elastic amplitude is represented by an unbroken line:

$`=T_{22}`$,   $`=_X(T_{2X})`$$`(T_{2X})^{}`$.

This is very handy for treating the nuclear scattering model. We define the model via the elastic scattering amplitude $`T_{ABAB}`$ which is assumed to consist of purely parallel elementary interactions between partonic constituents, as discussed above. The amplitude is therefore a sum of terms as the one shown in fig. 5.

One has to be careful about energy conservation: all the partonic constituents (lines) leaving a nucleon (blob) have to share the momentum of the nucleon. So in the explicit formula one has an integration over momentum fractions of the partons, taking care of momentum conservation. Having defined elastic scattering, inelastic scattering and particle production is practically given, if one employs a quantum mechanically self-consistent picture. Let us now consider inelastic scattering: one has of course the same parallel structure, just some of the elementary interactions may be inelastic, some elastic. The inelastic amplitude being a sum over many terms – $`T_{ABX}=_iT_{ABX}^{(i)}`$ – has to be squared and summed over final states in order to get the inelastic cross section, which provides interference terms $`_X(T_{ABX}^{(i)})(T_{ABX}^{(j)})^{}`$, which can be conveniently expressed in terms of the cut and uncut elementary diagrams, as shown in fig. 6. So we are doing nothing more than following basic rules of quantum mechanics.

Of course a diagram with 3 inelastic elementary interactions does not interfere with the one with 300, because the final states are different. So it makes sense to define classes $`K`$ of interference terms (cut diagrams) contributing to the same final state, as all diagrams with a certain number of inelastic interactions and with fixed momentum fractions of the corresponding partonic constituents. One then sums over all terms within each class $`K`$, and obtains for the inelastic cross section

$$\sigma _{AB}(s)=d^2b\underset{K}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{(s,b)}(K)$$

where we use the symbolic notation $`d^2b=d^2b_0d^{2A}b_A\rho (b_A)d^{2B}b_B\rho (b_B)`$ which means integration over impact parameter $`b_0`$ and in addition averaging over nuclear coordinates for projectile and target. The variable $`K`$ is characterized by $`AB`$ numbers $`m_k`$ representing the number of cut elementary diagrams for each possible pair of nucleons and all the momentum fractions $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$ of all these elementary interactions (so $`K`$ is a partly discrete and partly continuous variable, and $``$ is meant to represent $``$). This is the really new and very important feature of our approach: we keep explicitly the dependence on the longitudinal momenta, assuring energy conservation at any level of our calculation.

The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ actually very difficult and technical, but it can be done and we refer the interested reader to the literature .

The quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(s,b)}(K)`$ can now be interpreted as the probability to produce a configuration $`K`$ at given $`s`$ and $`b`$. So we have a solid basis for applying Monte Carlo techniques: one generates configurations $`K`$ according to the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and one may then calculate mean values of observables by averaging Monte Carlo samples. The problem is that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ represents a very high dimensional probability distribution, and it is not obvious how to deal with it. We decided to develop powerful Markov chain techniques  in order to avoid to introduce additional approximations.

## 3 New Computational Techniques

In order to generate $`K`$ according to the given distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(K\right)`$, defined earlier, we construct a Markov chain

$$K^{\left(0\right)},K^{\left(1\right)},K^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{}K^{\left(t_{\mathrm{max}}\right)}$$
(1)
such that the final configurations $`K^{\left(t_{\mathrm{max}}\right)}`$ are distributed according to the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(K\right)`$, if possible for a $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ not too large! To obtain a new configuration $`K^{(t+1)}=L`$ from a given configuration $`K^{(t)}=K`$. We use Metropolis’ Ansatz for the transition probability $`p(K,L)`$ as a product of a proposition matrix $`w(K,L)`$ and an acceptance matrix $`u(K,L)`$. The detailed balance condition – which assures the convergence of the chain – is automatically fulfilled if $`u(K,L)`$ is defined as

$$u(K,L)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(L)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(K)}\frac{w(L,K)}{w(K,L)},1).$$
(2)
We are free to choose $`w(K,L)`$, but of course, for practical reasons, we want to minimize the autocorrelation time, which requires a careful definition of $`w`$. An efficient procedure requires $`u(K,L)`$ to be not too small (to avoid too many rejections), so an ideal choice would be $`w(K,L)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(L\right)`$. This is of course not possible, but we choose $`w(K,L)`$ to be a “reasonable” approximation to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(L)`$ if $`K`$ and $`L`$ are reasonably close, otherwise $`w`$ should be zero. So we define

$$w(K,L)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)& \mathrm{if}& d(K,L)1\\ 0& \mathrm{otherwise}& \end{array},$$
(3)
where $`d(K,L)`$ is an integer quantity representing a distance between two configurations (the maximum number of elementary interactions being different), and where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ has a simple structure, just being a product of terms $`\rho _0`$ representing one single elementary interaction. So one proposes only new configurations being “close” to the old ones. The above definition of $`w(K,L)`$ may be realized by the following algorithm:

* choose randomly a particular elementary interaction (say the $`\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ interaction of the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ nucleon-nucleon pair)
* propose a new configuration $`L`$, which is obtained from the old one $`K`$ by removing the $`\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ interaction of the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ nucleon-nucleon pair, and replacing this by a new one according to the distribution $`\rho _0`$.

This proposal is the accepted with a probability $`u(K,L)`$. One should note that proposing a configuration according to some “approximation” $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is fully compensated by the acceptance procedure, so it is an exact numerical solution of the problem, whatever be the precise definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

This procedure works extremely well. We performed many test for situations where conventional techniques work as well, and we find excellent agreement by using $`66.7k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ iterations, where $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is an upper limit estimate of the number of nucleon-nucleon interactions. The Markov-chain method is perfect for our purposes, because we have fast convergence due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is not too different from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, on the other hand one cannot use just $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ to obtain an approximate solution, because here we introduce an substantial error, which reaches for example already on the nucleon-nucleon level about 100 %.

## 4 Summary

We provide a new formulation of the multiple scattering mechanism in nucleus-nucleus scattering, where the basic guideline is theoretical consistency. We avoid in this way many of the problems encountered in present day models. We also introduce the necessary numerical techniques to apply the formalism in order to perform practical calculations.

This work has been funded in part by the IN2P3/CNRS (PICS 580) and the Russian Foundation of Basic Researches (RFBR-98-02-22024).