text:
# The deuteron: a mini-review

## 1 Deuteron wave functions and form factors

Calculations of deuteron form factors and photo and electrodisintegration to the $`NN`$ final state require a deuteron wave function. The best nonrelativistic wave functions are calculated from the Schrödinger equation using a potential adjusted to fit the $`NN`$ scattering data for lab energies from 0 to 350 MeV. The quality of realistic potentials have improved steadily, and now the best potentials give fits to the $`NN`$ database with a $`\chi ^2`$/d.o.f $`1`$. The Paris potential Paris  was among the first potentials to be determined from such realistic fits, and it has since been replaced by the Argonne V18 potential (denoted by AV18) AV18 , the Nijmegen potentials Nijmegen , and most recently by the CD Bonn potentials CDBonn ; CDBonn2000 . The momentum space $`S`$ and $`D`$ state wave functions determined from three of these models and two relativistic models (Model IIB gvoh92  and Model W16, one of a family of models with varying amounts of off-shell sigma coupling introduced in connection with relativistic calculations of the triton binding energy described in Ref. sg97 ) are shown in Fig. 1. The figure shows that the $`S`$ and $`D`$-state components of all of these models are almost identical (i.e.variations of less than 10%) for momenta below about 400 MeV, and vary by less than a factor of 2 as the momenta reaches 1 GeV.

Elastic electron–deuteron scattering is described in the one-photon exchange approximation by three deuteron form factors G65 ; acg80 ; donn86 . In its most general form, the relativistic deuteron current can be written G65 ; HJ62

$`d^{}|J^\mu |d=\left\{G_1(Q^2)[\xi ^{}\xi ]G_3(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{(\xi ^{}q)(\xi q)}{2m_d^2}}\right\}(d^\mu +d^\mu )`$
$`+G_M(Q^2)[\xi ^\mu (\xi ^{}q)\xi ^\mu (\xi q)],`$ (1)
where $`\xi ,d`$ ($`\xi ^{},d^{}`$) are the polarization and momentum vectors of the incoming (outgoing) deuterons, and the form factors $`G_i(Q^2)`$, $`i=13`$, are all functions of $`Q^2=q^2`$, the square of the four-momentum transferred by the electron, with $`q=d^{}d`$. In practice, $`G_1`$ and $`G_3`$ are replaced by a more physical choice of form factors

$`G_C=G_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta G_Q`$
$`G_Q=G_1G_M+(1+\eta )G_3,`$ (2)
with $`\eta =Q^2/4m_d^2`$. At $`Q^2=0`$, the form factors $`G_C`$, $`G_M`$, and $`G_Q`$ give the charge, magnetic and quadrupole moments of the deuteron

$`G_C(0)=`$ $`1`$ $`(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{units}\mathrm{of}e)`$
$`G_Q(0)=`$ $`Q_d`$ $`(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{units}\mathrm{of}e/m_d^2)`$
$`G_M(0)=`$ $`\mu _d`$ $`(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{units}\mathrm{of}e/2m_d).`$ (3)
The structure functions $`A`$ and $`B`$, and the polarization transfer coefficient $`T_{20}`$ depend on the three electromagnetic form factors

$`A(Q^2)=G_C^2(Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\eta ^2G_Q^2(Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta G_M^2(Q^2)`$
$`B(Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\eta (1+\eta )G_M^2(Q^2)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{20}=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{y(2+y)}{1+2y^2}},`$ (4)
where $`y=2\eta G_Q/3G_C`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{20}`$ is $`T_{20}`$ with the magnetic contributions removed.

### 1.1 Comparison of nonrelativistic theory to data

In the nonrelativistic theory, without exchange currents or $`(v/c)^2`$ corrections, the deuteron form factors are

$`G_C`$ $`=`$ $`G_E^sD_C`$
$`G_Q`$ $`=`$ $`G_E^sD_Q`$
$`G_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{2m_p}}\left[G_M^sD_M+G_E^sD_E\right],`$ (5)
where $`G_E^s`$ and $`G_M^s`$ are the nucleon isoscalar form factors, and the $`D`$s are the body form factors. All are functions of $`Q^2`$. Hence the study of deuteron form factors is complicated by the fact that they are a product of the nucleon isoscalar form factors and body form factors. The dependence of the deuteron form factors on older models of the nucleon form factors is well discussed in Ref. GVO01 . A year ago the model of Mergell, Meissner and Drechsel MMD  (referred to as MMD) gave a good fit, and could have been adopted as a standard (the new $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$ data from JLab jones99  may change this view). The high $`Q^2`$ data for $`A`$ provide the most stringent test. In Fig. 2 we compare the data for $`A`$ with nonrelativistic calculations using the five nonrelativistic wave functions shown in Fig. 1. The calculations use Eq. (5) with MMD isoscalar nucleon form factors and nonrelativistic body form factors. In the right panel the data and models have been divided by the “fit” described in Ref. .

It is easy to see that the nonrelativistic models are a factor 4 to 8 smaller than the data for $`Q^2>2`$ GeV2. Furthermore, since the difference between different deuteron models is substantially smaller than this discrepancy, it is unlikely that any realistic nonrelativistic model can be found that will agree with the data. If the nucleon isoscalar charge form factor were larger than the MMD model by a factor of 2 to 3 it might explain the data, but this is also unlikely since the variation between nucleon form factor models is substantially smaller than this. We are forced to conclude that these high $`Q^2`$ measurements cannot be explained by nonrelativistic physics and present very strong evidence for the presence of interaction currents, relativistic effects, or possibly new physics.

### 1.2 Relativistic calculations and new physics

The differences between the data and the nonrelativistic theory can only be explained by a combination of the following effects

* interaction (or meson exchange) currents;
* relativistic effects; or
* new (quark) physics.

The only possibilities excluded from this list are variations in models of the nucleon form factors, or model dependence of the deuteron wave functions. Previously we have argued that neither the current uncertainty in our knowledge of the nucleon form factors, nor the model dependence of the nonrelativistic deuteron wave functions is sufficient to provide an explanation for the discrepancies.

Possible interaction currents that might account for the discrepancy are shown in Fig. 3. Because the deuteron is an isoscalar system, the familiar large $`I=1`$ exchange currents are “filtered” out and only $`I=0`$ exchange currents can contribute to the form factors. The $`I=0`$ currents tend to be smaller and of a more subtle origin. The nucleon $`Z`$-graphs, Fig. 3c, and the recoil corrections, Fig. 3d, are both of relativistic origin. (The recoil graphs will give a large, incorrect answer unless they are renormalized Gr91 ; JL75 ; TH73 .) The two-meson exchange currents should be omitted unless the force also contains TPE forces. The famous $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ exchange current is very sensitive to the choice of $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ form factor, which is hard to estimate and could easily be a placeholder for new physics arising from quark degrees of freedom.

In most calculations based on meson theory, the two pion exchange (TPE) forces and currents are excluded, and, except for the $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ current (which we will regard as new physics), the exchange currents are of relativistic origin. Additional relativistic effects arise from boosts of the wave functions, the currents, and the potentials, which can be calculated in closed form or expanded in powers of $`(v/c)^2`$, depended on the method used. At low $`Q^2`$ calculations may be done using effective field theories in which a small parameter is identified, and the most general (i.e. exact) theory is expanded in a power series in this small parameter. In these calculations, an expansion of relativistic effects in a power series in $`(v/c)^2`$ is automatically included. Hence, with the exception of effective field theories, any improvement on nonrelativistic theory using nucleon degrees of freedom leads us to relativistic theory.

Alternatively, one may seek to explain the discrepancy using quark degrees of freedom (new physics). When two nucleons overlap, their quarks can intermingle, leading to the creation of new $`NN`$ channels with different quantum numbers (states with nucleon isobars, or even, perhaps, so-called “hidden color” states). These models require that assumptions be made about the behavior of QCD in the nonperturbative domain, and are difficult to construct, motivate, and constrain. At very high momentum transfers it may be possible to estimate the interactions using perturbative QCD (pQCD). Very little has been done using other approaches firmly based in QCD, such as lattice gauge theory or Skrymions.

In deciding which relativistic method to use, it is first necessary to decide whether or not to allow antiparticle, or negative energy nucleons to propagate as part of the virtual intermediate state. Since nucleons are heavy and composite, so that their antiparticle states are very far from the region of interest, some physicists believe that intermediate states should be built only from positive energy nucleons, and that all negative energy effects (if any) should be included in the interaction. These methods are referred to collectively as hamiltonian dynamics and are represented by the left hand branch shown in Fig. 4. Unfortunately, it turns out that this choice precludes the possibility of retaining the properties of locality and manifest covariance enjoyed by field theory. Alternatively, in order to keep the locality and manifest covariance of the original field theory, other physicists are willing to allow negative energy states into the propagators. These methods, represented by the right-hand branch of the figure, are referred to collectively as propagator dynamics. However, including negative energy states tends to make calculations technically more difficult and harder to interpret physically, and those who advocate the use of hamiltonian dynamics do not believe the advantages of exact covariance justify the work it requires.

Unfortunately, these two methods are so fundamentally different that many physicists do not realize that the limitations of one may not apply to the other. For example, for some choices of propagator dynamics all 10 of the generators of the Poincaré group will depend only on the kinematics, and the Poincaré transformations of all amplitudes can be done exactly. With hamiltonian dynamics this is not the case; some of the 10 generators must depend on the interaction, and transformation of matrix elements under these “dynamical” transformations must be calculated. Comparison of the two methods is therefore very difficult; the language and issues of each are very different and one can be easily misled by the different appearance of the results.

### 1.3 Comparison of relativistic calculations with data

The high $`Q^2`$ predictions for 7 relativistic models using $`NN`$ degrees of freedom and one quark cluster model are shown in Figs. 56. They include

* two propagator calculations: VGO vdg95  (using the Spectator equation), and PWM PW  (using the modified Mandelzweig-Wallace equation);
* two instant-form calculations: FSR FS01  (without a $`v/c`$ expansion) and ARW ARW00  (using a $`v/c`$ expansion);
* two front-form calculations: CK CK99  (with the light front retained as an unphysical degree of freedom) and LPS LPS00  (using a specially constructed current operator);
* a point-form calcualtion: AKP AKP01 ; and
* a quark model calculation: DB DB88 .

The model dependence of the eight calculations is large. Figure 5 shows the predictions for $`A(Q^2)`$. In these figures we have intentionally left out the model dependent $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ exchange current from all of the calculations. All of the models except the AKP point-form calculation give a reasonable description of $`A`$ out to $`Q^23`$ GeV2, beyond which they begin to depart strongly from each other and the data. Taking into account that the $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ exchange current could be added to any of these models, and that this contribution tends to increase A above $`Q^23`$ GeV2, four models seem to have the right general behavior: the VOG, FSR, ARW and the quark model of DB (but there are no results for this model beyond $`Q^2=4`$ GeV2). None of these models fit the data without a $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ exchange current, and all models would be improved by adding such a current contribution, showing that there is some evidence for new physics at high $`Q^2`$. Ironically, none of the models favored by the high $`Q^2`$ data does as well at low $`Q^2`$ as the three “unfavored” models shown in the right panels (unless the Platchkov plat90  data are systematically too low).

Finally, Fig. 6 shows the predictions for the structure functions $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`T_{20}`$ for the eight models. The LPS calculation shows a large discrepancy with the $`T_{20}`$ data, but the most striking feature of these plots is the large model dependence of the predictions for $`B(Q^2)`$. The magnetic structure function provides the most stringent test of the models, and the predictions are comparatively free of the $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ exchange current (which gives only a small contribution to $`B`$). Examination of the figure shows that the $`B`$ predictions of the PWM, ARW, AKP, CK models fare the worst. In all, taking the predictions for the three structure functions together, the best results are obtained with the FSR, VOG, and DB models.

### 1.4 Conclusions (deuteron form factors)

What have we learned from our measurements of the deuteron form factors? Our comparison of theory and experiment leads to the following conclusions:

* Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (without exchange currents or relativistic effects) is ruled out by the $`A(Q^2)`$ data at high $`Q^2`$. Reasonable variations in nucleon form factors or uncertainties in the nonrelativistic wave functions cannot remove the discrepancies.
* In approaches using $`NN`$ degrees of freedom only, relativistic effects (or $`I=0`$ meson exchange currents) could be large enough to explain the data.
* Some models that include relativistic effects (or meson exchange currents) and use $`NN`$ degrees of freedom with realistic forces are close to the data. None are entirely satisfactory.
* The model dependence of relativistic effects (or meson exchange currents) is larger than the errors in the data, even at low $`Q^2`$, and is not understood.
* There is evidence that new physics (either in the from of the $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ exchange current or something else) is beginning to show up in the $`A`$ structure function above $`Q^2`$ of 2 - 3 GeV2.
* The deuteron form factors provide no evidence for the onset of pQCD, but quark cluster models could explain the data.

Study of the experimental situation leads to the following conclusions:

* The minimum of $`B`$ is very sensitive to details of the models, and improved measurements of $`B`$ for $`Q^2`$ in the region 1.5 - 4 GeV2 are particularly compelling. It is important to accurately map out the zero in the $`B`$ structure function.
* Detailed disagreements between theories and different data sets suggests the need for precision studies at low $`Q^2`$.

## 2 Threshold electrodisintegration

Threshold deuteron electrodisintegration measures the $`d(e,e^{})pn`$ reaction in kinematics in which the proton and neutron, rather than remaining bound, are unbound with a few MeV of relative kinetic energy in their center of mass system. If the final state energy is low enough, the final state will be dominated by transitions to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ final state, and will be a pure $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$, $`M1`$ transition, similar to the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ transition. This transition is a companion to the $`B`$ structure function; both are magnetic transitions and both are filters for exchange currents with only one isospin ($`dd`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ and $`d^1S_0`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$). To see the similarity, compare the top right panel of Fig. 6 with the threshold measurements shown in left panel of Fig. 7. Both have a similar shape, and in both cases the uncertainties in the theoretical predictions are large.

The similarity of these two processes (elastic and threshold inelastic) also holds for the theory. These two processes can be used to separately determine the precise details of the $`I=0`$ and $`I=1`$ exchange currents. Once the exchange currents are fixed, they can be used to predict the results of $`d(e,e^{}p)n`$ over a wide kinematic region. Any theoretical approach that works for the form factors should also work equally well for threshold electrodisintegration, yet very few of the groups who have calculated form factors have also calculated the threshold process. These calculations, when completed, will provide a more definitive test of the various relativistic approaches discussed in the previous sections.

## 3 Deuteron photodisintegration

Since both the recent deuteron form factor measurements and the recent high energy deuteron photodisintegration measurements have been made with 4 GeV electron beams, it is sometimes assumed that the same theory should work for both. This need not be the case, because the kinematics of elastic electron-deuteron scattering and deuteron photodisintegration are very different, and the physics being explored by these two measurements is also very different. The implications of this remarkable feature of electronuclear physics is often not fully appreciated.

The kinematics of elastic scattering and photodisintegration are compared in the right panel of Fig. 7, which shows $`W^2m_d^2`$ as a function of the photon (real or virtual) energy. Here $`x=Q^2/(2m\nu )`$ is the familiar Bjorken scaling variable. The mass of the final excited state increases rapidly as $`x`$ decreases below its maximum allowed value of $`x=m_d/m2`$. For any energy $`\nu `$ or any $`Q^2`$, elastic $`ed`$ scattering leaves the $`pn`$ system bound, with no internal excitation energy added to the two nucleons. As $`x`$ $``$ 0 (the real photon limit) the maximum value of $`W`$ is reached for any given beam energy. The 24 well established nucleon resonances, and the bands of thresholds at which these resonances are excited, are show in Fig. 7. At $`E_\gamma `$ = 4 GeV, the final state mass is approximately 4.5 GeV, and at least 286 thresholds for the production of pairs of baryon resonances have been crossed (and there are probably more from unseen or weakly established resonances). A photon energy of 4 GeV corresponds to $`np`$ scattering with an $`np`$ laboratory kinetic energy of about 8 GeV!

It is clearly very difficult (if not impossible) to construct a theory of high energy photoproduction in which all of these resonances and their corresponding 286 production thresholds are treated microscopically. By contrast, elastic electron deuteron scattering requires a microscopic treatment of only one channel. All of the 286 channels also contribute to elastic scattering, of course, but in this case they are not explicitly excited, and can probably be well described by slowly varying short-range terms included in a meson exchange (or potential) model. In photodisintegration, each of these channels is excited explicitly and an alternate framework that averages over the effects of many hadronic states is needed. The alternatives are to use a Glauber-like approach, or to borrow from our knowledge of DIS and build models that rely on the underlying quark degrees of freedom.

### 3.1 High Energy Photodisintegration

Figure 8 shows the published high energy photodisintegration data, from experiments NE8 napolitano88 ; freedman93  and NE17 belz95  at SLAC, and E89-012 bochna98  and E96-003 schulte01  at CEBAF. These experiments determine cross sections for $`\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}`$ $``$ 36, 52, 69,and 89 at energies from about 0.7 to 5.5 GeV; there are also some backward angle data up to 1.6 GeV from NE8.

The main feature of the data above about 1 GeV is the $`s^{11}`$ ($`s^{10}`$) fall off (where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$ is the square of the cm. energy) of the cross sections $`d\sigma /dt`$ ($`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$) at $`\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}`$ = 90 and 69, in agreement with perturbative QCD expectations. In contrast, the cross sections at the forward angles 36 and 52, fall off more slowly, with $`s^9`$ scaling at lower energies, until the onset of the $`s^{11}`$ behavior at about 4 and 3 GeV beam energy, respectively. At each angle the onset of the $`s^{11}`$ behavior corresponds to a perpendicular momentum, $`p_T`$, of approximately 1 GeV2.

The highest energy polarization measurements are of $`p_y`$ (the induced polarization of the proton), and $`C_x^{}`$ and $`C_z^{}`$ (the transfer of circular polarization from the photon to the proton) from CEBAF E89-019 wije01 . The left panel of Fig. 9 shows the striking feature that the induced polarization $`p_y`$ is consistent with zero (as predicted by pQCD) at energies above about 1 GeV, the same energy at which the $`s^{11}`$ cross section scaling begins. The right panel of the same figure shows that the polarization transfer observables both appear to peak near 1 GeV, and decrease at higher energies.

### 3.2 Conclusions (deuteron photodisintegration)

Review of deuteron photodisintegration suggests the following:

* A microscopic meson-baryon theory of deuteron photodisintegration must describe the $`NN`$ interaction at high energies, including pion production and the contributions of hundreds of $`N^{}`$ channels. It is unlikely that such a theory will be constructed in the foreseeable future.
* For $`p_T^2>1`$ GeV2, cross sections appear to follow the constituent counting rules, but it is expected that an absolute pQCD calculation would greatly underpredict the data. Similar observations may be made for other photoreactions, and it remains to be seen how this behavior arises, and if there is a general explanation for it.
* Some nonperturbative quark models do well describing the data qualitatively. Further theoretical development and experimental tests of these models would be desirable.

## 4 Overall Conclusions

Our overall conclusions from the study of form factors and high energy photodisintegration can be briefly summarized as follows:

* Meson theory works well in cases where all of the active hadronic channels that can contribute to a process are included. This has been done for the deuteron form factors (where only the $`NN`$ channel is active), but is impossible for high energy deuteron photodisintegration where 100’s of $`N^{}N^{}`$ channels are active. At high energy, any successful meson theory must include relativistic effects.
* New approaches, probably using quark degrees of freedom, are needed for high energy deuteron photodisintegration.
* Meson theory behaves as might be expected. It works for the deuteron form factors and does not work for photodisintegration (because of the number of channels).
* Perturbative QCD does not behave as might be expected. Theoretically it should work (or not work) equally well for the deuteron form factors at high $`Q^2`$ as it does for photodisintegration at high $`p_{}^2`$ (both are exclusive processes). However the scaling laws seem to work qualitatively for photodisintegration and to fail badly for elastic scattering.

Please refer to Ref.  for a more complete discussion of all of the points in this talk.

This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy. The Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility under DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER40150.


format: text

text:
# References

A Covariant Feynman Path Amplitude Calculation of Neutrino and Muon Oscillations

J.H.Field

Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève

24, quai Ernest-Ansermet CH-1211Genève 4.

E-mail: john.field@cern.ch

## Abstract

Predictions are presented for the oscillation phase in neutrino oscillations following pion decay at rest and in flight, muon decay and nuclear $`\beta `$decay at rest as well as for muon oscillations following pion decay at rest and in flight. The neutrino oscillation phases found disagree with the conventionally used value: $`\varphi _{12}=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/(2P)`$. The same oscillation phase is found for neutrino and muon oscillations following pion decay at rest. Shortcomings of previous treatments of the quantum mechanics of neutrino oscillations are commented on.

PACS 03.65.Bz, 14.60.Pq, 14.60.Lm, 13.20.Cz
Keywords ; Quantum Mechanics, Neutrino Oscillations.

This letter sketches briefly a derivation of spatially dependent interference effects in the detection probability of neutrinos and muons following the weak decays of unstable ‘source’ particles: pions, muons and $`\beta `$radioactive nuclei. It is based on Feynman’s path amplitude formulation of quantum mechanics  in which the probability of transition from a set of initial states $`I=_li_l`$ to a set of final states $`F=_mf_m`$ is given by the relation:

$$P_{FI}=\underset{m}{}\underset{l}{}\left|\underset{k_1}{}\underset{k_2}{}\mathrm{}\underset{k_n}{}f_m|k_1k_1|k_2\mathrm{}k_n|i_l\right|^2$$
(1)
where $`k_j,j=1,n`$ are (unobserved) intermediate quantum states. Only the essential elements of the calculation and the results are presented here. Full details are given elsewhere .

The application of Eqn(1) to pion decay at rest is illustrated in the ideal experiment shown in Fig.1. A $`\pi ^+`$ comes to rest in a stopping target T at time $`t_0`$ as recorded by the counter CA (Fig.1a)). The pion at rest constitutes the initial state of the path amplitudes. In Fig.1b) and Fig.1c) are shown two alternative histories of the stopped pion. In Fig.1b) the pion decays at time $`t_1`$ into the neutrino mass eigenstate $`|\nu _1>`$, of mass $`m_1`$, and in Fig.1c) into the neutrino mass eigenstate $`|\nu _2>`$, of mass $`m_2`$, at the later time $`t_2`$. If $`m_1>m_2`$, then, for a suitable choice of the times $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, interference between the path amplitudes corresponding to the different physical processes shown in Fig.1b) and Fig.1c) will occur when a neutrino interaction $`\nu _ene^{}p`$ takes place at time $`t_D`$ and distance $`L`$ from the pion decay point(Fig.1d)). The final state of the neutrino interaction event is also that of the path amplitudes. For this experiment, the path amplitudes corresponding to the two alternative histories of the decaying pion are:

$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`<e^{}p|T|n\nu _e><\nu _e|\nu _i>D(x_fx_i,t_Dt_i,m_i)<\nu _i|\nu _\mu >`$ (2)
$`<\nu _\mu \mu ^+|T|\pi ^+>e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }{2}(t_it_0)}D(0,t_it_0,m_\pi )i=1,2`$
Here $`<e^{}p|T|n\nu _e>`$ and $`<\nu _\mu \mu ^+|T|\pi ^+>`$ are the invariant amplitudes of the neutrino interaction and pion decay processes respectively, $`<\nu _e|\nu _i>`$ and $`<\nu _i|\nu _\mu >`$ are amplitudes describing the mixture of the flavour and mass neutrino eigenstates:

$`|\nu _e>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |\nu _1>+\mathrm{sin}\theta |\nu _2>`$ (3)
$`|\nu _\mu >`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta |\nu _1>+\mathrm{cos}\theta |\nu _2>`$ (4)
(only 2-flavour mixing is considered), and $`D`$ is the Lorentz invariant configuration space propagator  of a neutrino or the pion. In the limit of large time-like separations or of on-shell particles, appropriate to the experiment shown in Fig.1, $`D\mathrm{exp}[im\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ]`$ where $`m`$ is the pole mass of the particle and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ the increment of proper time corresponding to the path. In the following the additional functional dependence $`(m/\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ of $`D`$ in the asymptotic region (leading to solid angle correction factors) is neglected. With these approximations:

$`D(\mathrm{\Delta }x,\mathrm{\Delta }t,m)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}[im\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2}]`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[im\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ]`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ]`$
The phase increments, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, corresponding to the paths of the neutrinos and the pion in the amplitudes $`A_i`$ are:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`m_i\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _i={\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{E_i}}\mathrm{\Delta }t_i={\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{P_i}}L`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\pi `$ $`=`$ $`m_\pi (t_it_0)=m_\pi (t_Dt_0){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi L}{v_i}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`m_\pi (t_Dt_0)m_\pi L\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{2P_0^2}}\right\}`$
where $`m_i`$, $`E_i`$, $`P_i`$ and $`v_i`$ are the mass, energy, momentum and velocity of the mass eigenstate $`\nu _i`$ and

$$P_0=\frac{m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2}{2m_\pi }=29.8\mathrm{MeV}$$
(8)
The neutrinos are assumed to follow classical rectilinear trajectories such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_i=L/v_i=E_iL/P_i`$ and the time dilatation formula $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\tau =E\mathrm{\Delta }\tau /m`$ has been used in Eqn(6). In Eqn(7) the neutrino velocityaaaUnits with $`h/2\pi =c=1`$ are used. $`v_i`$ is expressed in terms of the neutrino mass to order $`m_i^2`$. Using Eqns(5-7) the path amplitudes of Eqn(2) may be written as:

$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`<e^{}p|T|n\nu _e><\nu _e|\nu _i><\nu _i|\nu _\mu ><\nu _\mu \mu ^+|T|\pi ^+>`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }{2}}(t_Dt_0t_i^{fl})]\mathrm{exp}i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{P_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi }{2P_0}}1\right)L\right]i=1,2`$
where the neutrino times-of-flight $`t_i^{fl}=t_Dt_i`$ have been introduced and

$$\varphi _0m_\pi (Lt_D+t_0)$$
(10)
Using now Eqn(1) to calculate the transition probability, and integrating over the detection time $`t_D`$ , gives, for the probability to observe the reaction $`\nu _ene^{}p`$ at distance $`L`$ from the decay point:

$$P(e^{}p|L)=C_N(\nu ;\pi )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta (1F^\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{12}^{\nu ,\pi })$$
(11)
where

$$\varphi _{12}^{\nu ,\pi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{P_0}\left(\frac{m_\pi }{2P_0}1\right)L=\frac{2m_\pi m_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L}{(m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2)^2}$$
(12)
$$F^\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi m_\pi }{2m_\mu ^2}\varphi _{12}^{\nu ,\pi }\right)$$
(13)
and Eqns(3) and (4) have been used. Here $`C_N(\nu ;\pi )`$ is an $`L`$ independent normalisation factor and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_1^2m_2^2`$. The first and second terms in the second member of Eqn(12) are the contributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\nu `$ to the interference phase. The latter is a factor of two larger than in the conventional value  $`\varphi _{12}=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/(2P)`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\pi `$ gives a numerically large ($`m_\pi /2P_0=2.34`$) contribution to the oscillation phase.

The above calculation is readily repeated for the case of detection of muon decay $`\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ at distance $`L`$ from the $`\pi ^+`$ decay point. The phase increments analagous to Eqns(6) and (7) are:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2L}{P_0}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2E_0^\mu }{2m_\pi P_0^2}}\right]`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^{\pi (\mu )}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\pi (t_Dt_0){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi L}{v_0^\mu }}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_i^2m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2}{(m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2)^2(m_\pi ^2+m_\mu ^2)}}\right]`$ (15)
where

$$E_0^\mu =\frac{m_\pi ^2+m_\mu ^2}{2m_\pi }\mathrm{and}v_0^\mu =\frac{m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2}{m_\pi ^2+m_\mu ^2}$$

The result found for the time-integrated decay probability is:

$$P(e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu |L)=C_N(\mu ;\pi )(1F^\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi _{12}^{\mu ,\pi })$$
(16)
where

$$\varphi _{12}^{\mu ,\pi }=\frac{m_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2P_0^3}\left(1\frac{E_0^\mu }{m_\pi }\right)L=\frac{2m_\pi m_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L}{(m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2)^2}=\varphi _{12}^{\nu ,\pi }$$
(17)
$$F^\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi m_\pi }{(m_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2)}\varphi _{12}^{\mu ,\pi }\right)$$
(18)
The first and second terms in the second member of Eqn(17) are the contributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^{\pi (\mu )}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\mu `$ to the interference phase. It is interesting to note that neutrino and muon oscillation phases are the same for given values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`L`$. For oscillation phases $`\varphi _{12}^{\nu ,\pi }=\varphi _{12}^{\mu ,\pi }=1`$, the damping factors of the oscillation term, due to the non-vanishing pion lifetime take the values $`F^\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )=11.58\times 10^{16}`$ and $`F^\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )=14.4\times 10^{16}`$. This damping effect is thus completely negligible in typical neutrino oscillation experiments with oscillation phases of order unity.

Formulae like Eqn(11) have been derived in a similar manner  for neutrino oscillations $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ following muon decay at rest, detected via the process $`\overline{\nu }_epe^+n`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations following nuclear $`\beta `$decay, detected via the process $`\overline{\nu }_epe^+n`$. The results found, for the time-integrated decay probabilities, are:

$`P(e^+n,\mu |L)`$ $`=`$ $`C_N(\overline{\nu };\mu )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta \left[1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{P_{\overline{\nu }}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{2P_{\overline{\nu }}}}1\right)L\right]`$ (19)
$`P(e^+n,\beta |L)`$ $`=`$ $`C_N(\overline{\nu };\beta )\left[\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +\mathrm{cos}^4\theta +2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{P_{\overline{\nu }}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_\beta }{2P_{\overline{\nu }}}}1\right)L\right]`$ (20)
In these formulae, $`P_{\overline{\nu }}`$ is the momentum of the detected $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, $`E_\beta `$ is the total energy release in the $`\beta `$decay process, and damping corrections due to the finite lifetimes of the decaying particles are neglected.

Finally, in Ref. , the cases of neutrino and muon oscillations following the decay in flight of ultrarelativistic pions was considered. The oscillation probability formulae are the same as Eqns(11) and (16) respectively, with the phases:

$`\varphi _{12}^{\nu ,\pi }(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{flight})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L}{(m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2)E_\nu \mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu }}`$ (21)
$`\varphi _{12}^{\mu ,\pi }(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{flight})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(m_\mu ^2E_\pi m_\pi ^2E_\mu )L}{(m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2)^2E_\mu ^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu }}`$ (22)
The neutrinos or muons are detected at distance $`L`$ from the decay point, along the direction of flight of the parent pion, with decay angles $`\theta _\nu `$ and $`\theta _\mu `$ respectively.

Because the parent pion and the daughter muon in the decay process $`\pi \mu \nu `$ are unstable particles, their physical masses $`W_\pi `$ and $`W_\mu `$ have distributions depending, through Breit-Wigner amplitudes, on their pole masses $`m_\pi `$ and $`m_\mu `$ and decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$. Energy-momentum conservation in the pion decay process then leads to a distribution of path amplitudes with different neutrino momenta, an effect neglected in the above discussion. In Ref. corrections resulting from the (coherent) momentum smearing due to $`W_\mu `$ and (incoherent) smearing due to $`W_\pi `$ are calculated using a Gaussian approximation for the Breit-Wigner amplitudes. The resulting damping corrections due to $`W_\pi `$ to the interference terms in Eqns(11) and (16) are found to be vanishingly small. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=`$ (1eV)2 and $`L=30`$m (typical of the LNSD  or KARMEN  experiments) the corresponding damping factors are found to be $`11.3\times 10^{29}`$ (for neutrino oscillations) and $`13.9\times 10^{31}`$ (for muon oscillations) . The damping corrections from the variation of $`W_\mu `$ are even smaller.

Corrections to Eqns(11) and (16) due to thermal motion of the decaying pion and finite target and detector sizes have also been evaluated in Ref.. For neutrino oscillations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=`$ (1eV)2 and $`L=30`$m and a room-temperature target, the damping factor of the interference term is found to be $`16.7\times 10^{10}`$ and the shift in the oscillation phase to be $`1.2\times 10^9`$rad. In summary, all known sources of damping of the interference terms in Eqn(10) and (15) are expected to be completely negligible in any forseeable neutrino or muon oscillation experiment.

The first published calculation of the neutrino oscillation phase  gave a result (only the contribution of the neutrino propagators was taken into account) in agreement with Eqn(6) above. A later calculation  assumed instead that the phase of the neutrino propagator evolves as $`Et`$, i.e. according to the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation. The assumption was also made that the different neutrino mass states have equal momenta. This leads to the ‘standard’ formula for the oscillation phase: $`\varphi _{12}=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/(2P)`$  which has subsequently been used for the analysis of all neutrino oscillation experiments. The Lorentz-invariant phase of Eqn(6) $`m^2t/E`$ evidently agrees with the result of Ref. in the non-relativistic limit where $`Em`$, but such a limit is clearly inappropriate to describe experiments with ultra-relativistic neutrinos.

The most important difference in the treatment given in the present paper to previous ones that have appeared in the literature is allowing the possibility for the different neutrino mass eigenstates to be produced at different times. Only in this way can the constraints, of both space-time geometry (the detection event is at a unique space-time point), and exact energy-momentum conservation in the decay process , be satisfied.

The other new feature is the inclusion of the important contribution to the oscillation phase from the propagator of the decaying particle, a necessary consequence of the different production times of the different mass eigenstates.

Many recent treatments of the quantum mechanics of neutrino oscillations have, following the suggestion of Ref., used a ‘wave packet’ description of the spatial distributions of the source and detector particles. This gives, for the transition probability of the complete production-propagation-detection process:

$$P_{fi}=\left|\underset{m}{}\underset{l}{}\underset{k_1}{}\underset{k_2}{}\mathrm{}\underset{k_n}{}\psi _f|f_mf_m|k_1k_1|k_2\mathrm{}k_n|i_li_l|\psi _i\right|^2$$
(23)
Here, $`\psi _i`$ and $`\psi _f`$ are ‘source’ and ‘detector’ wave packets respectively. The use of such an equation leads to the prediction, in conflict with Eqn(1) and the fundamental law of superposition in quantum mechanics, that different initial or final state particles will interfere with each other . As is well known, (for example, in Fermi’s ‘Golden Rules’) different initial and final states must be (incoherently) summed over at the level of the transition probability, not coherently, at amplitude level, as is done in Eqn(23). In a previous covariant analysis of neutrino oscillations , the invariant neutrino oscillation phase, derived from Eqn(6) above, was found to be multiplied by a factor 1/2 on performing a convolution, according to to Eqn(23), with a Gaussian space-time wave packet for the source particle. In this way the standard result of Ref. was recovered.

It may be remarked that the physical interpretation of ‘neutrino oscillations’ provided by the path amplitude description is different from the conventional one in terms of ‘flavour eigenstates’. In the latter the amplitudes of different flavours in the neutrino are supposed to vary harmonically as a function of time. In the amplitudes for the different physical processes in the path amplitude treatment there is, instead, no variation of lepton flavour in the propagating neutrinos. If the mass eigenstates are represented as superpositions of flavour eigenstates using the inverses of Eqns(2) and (3), there is evidently no temporal variation of the lepton flavour composition. Only in the detection process itself are the flavour eigenstates projected out, and the interference effect occurs that is described as ‘neutrino oscillations’. In the case of the observation of the recoil muons no such projection occurs, but exactly similar interference effects are predicted to occur. As previously emphasised , the ‘flavour oscillations’ of neutrinos, neutral kaons and b-mesons are just special examples of the universal phenomenon of quantum mechanical superposition that is the physical basis of Eqn(1).

The most important practical conclusion of the work presented here is that identical information on neutrino masses is give by the observation of either neutrinos or muons from pion decay at rest. In view of the possibility of detecting muons simply and with essentially 100 $`\%`$ efficiency, in contrast to the tiny observable event rates of neutrino interactions, the recent indications for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$(1eV)2 following $`\mu ^+`$ decay at rest  could be easily checked by a search for muon oscillations following $`\pi ^+`$ decay at rest. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$(1eV)2, the first absolute maximum of the interference term in Eqn(16) occurs at $`L8`$m. Note that Eqn(16) is valid for any muon detection process.


text:
# History of mass assembly and star formation in clusters

## 1. Introduction

Clusters of galaxies are continuously growing through the accretion of galaxies and groups from the field. The star formation activity in the accreting galaxies must be quenched during the assimilation of the galaxies into the cluster. This transformation is a key process in creating the environmental dependence of galaxy properties, and may also underpin the observed evolution of galaxy properties in distant clusters \[e.g. 1.2\] However, the physical mechanism which is responsible for these changes has not yet been identified .

The advent of Suprime-Cam, a revolutionary wide-field camera on the Subaru telescope, has opened a new window in this field. Its 27 field of view can trace the variation of galaxy properties from the cluster cores out to the surrounding field in an attempt to identify the environment where the decline in the star formation in accreted galaxies begins.

## 2. Large scale structure

As a first step towards a systematic study of distant clusters with Subaru and Suprime-Cam, we obtained deep ($`M^{}+4`$) $`BVRI`$ imaging of the rich cluster A 851 at z=0.4. We constructed an I-band selected sample which contains 15,055 galaxies brighter than $`I=23.4`$.

In order to assign cluster membership across our large field and to faint magnitudes, we applied photometric redshift technique  to isolate the galaxies in a narrow redshift slice around the cluster redshift. By applying the redshift cut of $`0.32<z_{\mathrm{phot}}<0.48`$, we can reduce the field contamination by factor 10 at $`I=23.4`$, while keeping most of the cluster members (80%, from the estimate using the spectroscopic members ).

After this photometric redshift selection, it is straightforward to map out the distribution of galaxies which are likely to be associated with the cluster. As shown in Fig. 1, several large scale structures are visible around the cluster core, comprising many clumps and filamentary extensions coming out directly from the core. Importantly, most of these extensions from the core are aligned with the surrounding subclumps.

The structures identified in this region are qualitatively similar to those seen in cosmological simulations of the growth of clusters which exhibit the filamentary/clumpy substructures on similar scales \[e.g. 8\] It appears therefore that we are witnessing A 851 as it assembles through the accretion of galaxies and groups along the filaments onto the cluster core from the surrounding field.

### 2.1. Environmental dependence of galaxy properties

By exploiting the striking large scale structure around this cluster, we can investigate the influence of environment on the photometric properties of galaxies. We define the environment for each galaxy using the local surface number density, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, of members, calculated from the 10 nearest neighbors. We statistically subtract residual field contamination using a Subaru blank field data .

We divide the density distribution into three regimes as indicated in Fig. 2a. There is a close correspondence between the local density and structure: the high density region corresponds to the cluster core within $`<1`$ Mpc; the medium density region includes the structures defining the filaments surrounding the cluster; and the low density region comprising the rest of the volume (Fig. 1).

As shown in Fig. 2a, the color distribution in the high density region is strongly peaked at $`(VI)_c2`$, the color of an early-type cluster member. However, as we move to lower densities, the distribution becomes dramatically bluer. Notably, this color transition with local density occurs quite abruptly at $`\mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Sigma }2`$, indicating a threshold effect in transforming galaxy properties. The boundary corresponding to this critical density is highlighted in Fig. 1. Surprisingly, this transition occurs in subclumps well outside the core.

Our ability to pin-point this environment is a fundamental step towards identifying the dominant mechanism behind the environmental dependence of galaxy properties. Since the ram-pressure stripping is largely supressed in groups , the effective mechanism at this hierarchy is either galaxy–galaxy collisions (which cause cold disk gas to be driven to the galaxy center creating a star burst ); and ‘suffocation’ (where warm gas in the galaxy’s halo is shock heated by the intra-cluster medium so that it can no longer cool and replenish the cold gas in the disk ). Our data do not distinguish directly between these possibilities, but they can be distinguished by tracing the variation in the individual components of galaxies, bulges and disks, between the cluster and the field.

It is important to note that the changes in galaxy properties as a function of local density are most prominent in faint galaxies ($`>M_V^{}+1`$). This is mirrored to the dramatic change in the shape of the luminosity function with local galaxy density: where we see a steepening of the faint end slope of the luminosity function with decreasing density (Fig. 2c). Assuming that their star formation effectively ceases, the relative absence of low-luminosity galaxies at projected densities of $`\mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Sigma }>2`$ can be understood as they will fade by $`>1`$ mag as their star formation declines . This will put many of their descendents below our magnitude limit. This is also qualitatively consistent with the presence of large numbers of very low luminosity, $`M_V^{}+3`$, passive dwarf galaxies in local clusters

#### Acknowledgments.

We are grateful to Dr Y. Komiyama for his assistance during our observations. We acknowledge the Suprime-Cam team for allowing us to use the blank field data. We also thank Drs. M. Balogh, N. Arimoto and K. Shimasaku for helpful discussion. TK and FN acknowledge the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for support through its Research Fellowships for Young Scientists. IRS acknowledges support from the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Trust.

## References

 Butcher, H., Oemler, A., 1984, ApJ, 285, 426

 Kodama, T., Bower, R. G., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 18

 Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., Oemler, A., 1996, Nature, 379, 613

 Adabi, M. G., Bower, R. G., Navarro, J. F., 2000, MNRAS, 314, 759

 Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., Morris, S. L., 2000, ApJ, 540, 113

 Kodama, T., Bell, E. F., Bower, R. G., 1999, MNRAS, 302, 152

 Dressler, A., Smail, I., Poggianti, B. M., Butcher, H., Couch, W. J., Ellis, R. S., Oemler, A., 1999, ApJS, 122, 51

 Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 146

 Ouchi, M., et al., 2001, ApJ, 558, L83

 Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., Caldwell, C. N., 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

 Binggeli, B., Sandage, A., Tammann, G. A., 1988, ARA&A, 26, 509


text:
# 1 Physics Motivation

## 1 Physics Motivation

Baryons are the basic building blocks of our world. If we cut any piece of object smaller and smaller, we will finally reach the nucleons, i.e., the lightest baryons, and we cannot cut them smaller any further. So without mention any theory, we know that the study of baryon structure is at the forefront of exploring microscopic structure of matter. From theoretical point of view, since baryons represent the simplest system in which the three colors of QCD neutralize into colorless objects and the essential non-Abelian character of QCD is manifest, understanding the baryon structure is absolutely necessary before we claim that we really understand QCD.

Spectroscopy has long proved to be a powerful tool for exploring internal structures and basic interactions of microscopic world. Ninety years ago detailed studies of atomic spectroscopy resulted in the great discovery of Niels Bohr’s atomic quantum theory. Forty to sixty years later, still detailed studies of nuclear spectroscopy resulted in Nobel Prize winning discoveries of nuclear shell model and collective motion model by Aage Bohr et al. Comparing with the atomic and nuclear spectroscopy at those times, our present baryon spectroscopy is still in its infancy. Many fundamental issues in baryon spectroscopy are still not well understood. The possibility of new, as yet unappreciated, symmetries could be addressed with accumulation of more data. The new symmetries may not have obvious relation with QCD, just like nuclear shell model and collective motion model.

Joining the new effort on studying the excited nucleons, $`N^{}`$ baryons, at new facilities such as CEBAF at JLAB, ELSA at Bonn, GRAAL at Grenoble and SPRING8 at JASRI, we also started a baryon resonance program at BES, at Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPC). The $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ experiments at BES provide an excellent place for studying excited nucleons and hyperons – $`N^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ resonances. The corresponding Feynman graph for the production of these excited nucleons and hyperons is shown in Fig. 1 where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ represents either $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi ^{}`$.

Comparing with other facilities, our baryon program has advantages in at least three obvious aspects:

(1) We have pure isospin 1/2 $`\pi N`$ and $`\pi \pi N`$ systems from $`J/\psi \overline{N}N\pi `$ and $`\overline{N}N\pi \pi `$ processes due to isospin conservation, while $`\pi N`$ and $`\pi \pi N`$ systems from $`\pi N`$ and $`\gamma N`$ experiments are mixture of isospin 1/2 and 3/2, and suffer difficulty on the isospin decomposition;

(2) $`\psi `$ mesons decay to baryon-antibaryon pairs through three or more gluons. It is a favorable place for producing hybrid (qqqg) baryons, and for looking for some“missing” $`N^{}`$ resonances which have weak coupling to both $`\pi N`$ and $`\gamma N`$, but stronger coupling to $`g^3N`$;

(3) Not only $`N^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ baryons, but also $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ baryons with two strange quarks can be studied. Many QCD-inspired models are expected to be more reliable for baryons with two strange quarks due to their heavier quark mass. More than thirty $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ resonances are predicted where only two such states are well established by experiments. The theory is totally not challenged due to lack of data.

## 2 Data Status

The BEijing Spectrometer (BES) is a conventional solenoidal magnet detector that is described in detail in Ref. . A four-layer central drift chamber(CDC) surrounding the beampipe provides trigger information. A forty-layer cylindrical main drift chamber(MDC), located radially outside the CDC, provides trajectory and energy loss ($`dE/dX`$) information for charged tracks over $`85\%`$ of the total solid angle. An array of 48 scintillation counters surrounding the MDC measures the time-of-flight(TOF) of charged tracks. Radially outside of TOF system is a 12 radiation length thick, lead-gas barrel shower counter(BSC) operating in the limited streamer mode. This device covers $`80\%`$ of the total solid angle and measures the energies of electrons and photons.

BES started data-taking in 1989 and was upgraded in 1998. The upgraded BES is named BESII while the previous one is called BESI. BESI collected 7.8 million $`J/\psi `$ events and 3.7 million $`\psi ^{}`$ events. BESII has collected 50 million $`J/\psi `$ events.

Based on 7.8 million $`J/\psi `$ events collected at BESI before 1996, the events for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{p}p\pi ^0`$ and $`\overline{p}p\eta `$ have been selected and reconstructed with $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$ detected in their $`\gamma \gamma `$ decay mode. The corresponding $`p\pi ^0`$ and $`p\eta `$ invariant mass spectra are shown in Fig. 2 with clear peaks around 1500 and 1670 MeV for $`p\pi ^0`$ and clear enhancement around the $`p\eta `$ threshold, peaks at 1540 and 1650 MeV for $`p\eta `$.

With 50 million new $`J/\psi `$ events collected by BESII of improved detecting efficiency, we expect to have one order of magnitude more reconstructed events for each channel. We show in Figs.3 and 4 preliminary results for $`J/\psi p\overline{n}\pi ^{}`$  and $`J/\psi pK^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+h.c.`$  channels, respectively. For $`J/\psi p\overline{n}\pi ^{}`$ channel, proton and $`\pi ^{}`$ are detected. With some cuts of backgrounds, the missing mass spectrum shows a very clean peak for the missing antineutron with negligible backgrounds; The $`N\pi `$ invariant mass spectrum of 28,904 reconstructed events from half BESII data looks similar to the $`p\pi `$ invariant mass spectrum for $`J/\psi p\overline{p}\pi ^0`$ as in Fig. 2, but with much higher statistics. For $`J/\psi pK^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{p}K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels, there are clear $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ peaks at 1.52 GeV, 1.69 GeV and 1.8 GeV in $`pK`$ invariant mass spectrum, and $`N^{}`$ peaks near $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ threshold and 1.9 GeV for $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ invariant mass spectrum.

We are also reconstructing $`J/\psi \overline{p}p\omega `$, $`\overline{p}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and other channels. The $`\overline{p}p\omega `$ channel suffers larger background and the $`\overline{p}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ suffers the complication of $`\pi \pi `$ S-wave interaction.

## 3 Partial wave analyses

In order to get more useful information about properties of the baryon resonances, such as their $`J^{PC}`$ quantum numbers, mass, width, production and decay rates, etc., partial wave analyses (PWA) are necessary.

The basic procedure for our partial wave analyses is the standard maximum likelihood method:

(1) construct amplitudes $`A_i`$ for each i-th possible partial waves;

(2) from linear combination of these partial wave amplitudes, get the total transition probability for each event as $`w=|_ic_iA_i|^2`$ with $`c_i`$ as free parameters to be determined by fitting data;

(3) maximize the following likelihood function $``$ to get $`c_i`$ parameters as well as mass and width parameters for the resonances.

$$=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{w_{data}}{w_{MC}},$$

where $`N`$ is the number of reconstructed data events and $`w_{data}`$, $`w_{MC}`$ are evaluated for data and Monte Carlo events, respectively.

For the construction of partial wave amplitudes, we assume the effective Lagrangian approach with Rarita-Schwinger formalism. In this approach, there are three basic elements for constructing amplitudes: particle spin wave functions, propagators and effective vertex couplings; the amplitude can be written out by Feynman rules for tree diagrams.

For example, for $`J/\psi \overline{N}N^{}(3/2+)\overline{N}(k_1,s_1)N(k_2,s_2)\eta (k_3)`$, the amplitude can be constructed as

$$A_{3/2+}=\overline{u}(k_2,s_2)k_{2\mu }P_{3/2}^{\mu \nu }(c_1g_{\nu \lambda }+c_2k_{1\nu }\gamma _\lambda +c_3k_{1\nu }k_{1\lambda })\gamma _5v(k_1,s_1)\psi ^\lambda $$

where $`u(k_2,s_2)`$ and $`v(k_1,s_1)`$ are 1/2-spinor wave functions for $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$, respectively; $`\psi ^\lambda `$ the spin-1 wave function, i.e., polarization vector, for $`J/\psi `$. The $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ terms correspond to three possible couplings for the $`J/\psi \overline{N}N^{}(3/2+)`$ vertex. The $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ can be taken as constant parameters or with some smooth vertex form factors in them if necessary. The spin $`3/2`$ propagator $`P_{3/2}^{\mu \nu }`$ for $`N^{}(3/2+)`$ is

$$P_{3/2}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\gamma p+M_N}{M_N^2p^2iM_N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}\left[g^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \frac{2p^\mu p^\nu }{3M_N^2}+\frac{p^\mu \gamma ^\nu p^\nu \gamma ^\mu }{3M_N}\right]$$

with $`p=k_2+k_3`$.

Other partial wave amplitudes can be constructed similarly. Programing these amplitudes and maximum likelihood method to fit the data is straightforward, but very tedious. Now we are extending the automatic Feynman Diagram Calculation (FDC) package to work for our partial wave analyses of baryon resonance channels. Using the extended FDC package, we have performed a partial wave analysis of the $`\overline{p}p\eta `$ channel of BESI data and are now working on more channels.

For the $`\overline{p}p\eta `$ channel, there is a definite requirement for a $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ component at $`M=1530\pm 10`$ MeV with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=95\pm 25`$ MeV near the $`\eta N`$ threshold. In addition, there is an obvious resonance around 1650 MeV with $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ preferred, $`M=1647\pm 20`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=145_{45}^{+80}`$ MeV. These two $`N^{}`$ resonances are believed to be the two well established states, $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`S_{11}(1650)`$, respectively. In the higher $`p\eta `$($`\overline{p}\eta `$) mass region, there is a evidence for a structure around 1800 MeV; with BESI statistics we cannot determine its quantum numbers.

For the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ propagator, we tried both constant and energy-dependent width. The Breit-Wigner mass is not sensitive at all to these two choices. The Breit-Wigner width deffers by 10 MeV for these two choices: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=90\pm 20`$ MeV for the case of a constant width and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=100\pm 20`$ MeV for the case of an energy-dependent width assuming $`50\%`$ to $`\eta N`$ and $`50\%`$ to $`\pi N`$. The pole position $`(M,\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)`$ is $`(1530,45)`$ MeV and $`(1512,46)`$ MeV for assuming constant width and the energy-dependent width, respectively.

Preliminary partial wave analysis of BESII data on $`\overline{n}p\pi ^{}`$ channel gives a similar result on $`N^{}(1535)`$ with much smaller error bars. The outstanding narrow peak around 1.5 GeV in the $`\pi N`$ invariant mass spectrum demands $`N^{}(1535)`$ to be narrow (width definitely less than 120 MeV) rather model independently, while PDG gives a width of $`100250`$ MeV.

## 4 Future prospects

BESII just finished data-taking for the 50 million $`J/\psi `$ events in last May. We are now working on partial wave analyses of $`J/\psi p\overline{n}\pi ^{}`$, $`p\overline{p}\omega `$ channels to study $`N^{}`$ resonances, and $`pK^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\overline{p}K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels to study $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ resonances as well as $`N^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$. As next step, we are going to investigate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\pi ^+`$, $`pK^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ channels to study $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ resonances; and $`K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, $`K^+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ channels to study $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ resonances. These channels are relative easy to be reconstructed by BES. For example, for $`K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, we can select events containing $`K^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$, then from missing mass spectrum of $`K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we should be able to identify the very narrow $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ peak. We will investigate more complicated channels when we get more experienced and more manpower. Meanwhile more theoretical efforts are needed for better partial wave analyses and extraction of physics from our experimental results.

A major upgrade of the collider to BEPC2 is planned to be finished in about 4 years. A further two order of magnitude more statistics is expected to be achieved. Such statistics will enable us to perform partial wave analyses of plenty important channels from not only $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ but also $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ decays which will allow us to study heavier baryon resonances, e.g., for mass up to 2.36 GeV for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ resonances. We expect BEPC2 to play a very important unique role in studying excited nucleons and hyperons, i.e., $`N^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ resonances, and make important discoveries for understanding microscopic structure of matter.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Profs. Bill Briscoe and Helmut Haberzettle for their kind invitation and financial support for our participation of this very interesting and successful conference. This work is partly supported by National Science Foundation of China under contract Nos. 19991487 and 19905011.


text:
# Meridional flow and differential rotation by gravity darkening in fast rotating solar-type stars

## 1 Introduction

In a series of papers the internal rotation of outer convection zones of cool stars have been derived using a consistent mixing-length model of Reynolds stress and convective heat transport in a rotating convection zone that takes into account the effect of the Coriolis force on the convective motions (Küker et al. 1993, Kitchatinov & Rüdiger 1995 (KR95), Kitchatinov & Rüdiger 1999 (KR99) ). In the KR95 model, the deviation of the heat flux from spherical symmetry causes a small horizontal temperature gradient, which partly neutralizes the rotational shear as the force that drives the meridional flow. As a result, the model reproduces the original Küker et al. (1993) result with only one free parameter, the mixing-length parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{MLT}}`$.

KR99 found the total shear,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eq}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Pole}},$$
(1)
to be only rather weakly dependent on the rotation period, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Collier Cameron et al. (2001) have combined measurements of differential rotation for the pre-main-sequence stars RX J1508-4423, AB Dor, and PZ Tel with the sample of main-sequence stars from Donahue et al. (1996) and argue that the discrepancies between the KR99 result and the relation between shear and rotation rate derived by Donahue et al. (1996) may be due to the mix of G and K stars in the latter paper. They suggest that $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ may indeed be constant with rotation rate but vary with spectral type and derive values for G and K dwarfs that differ by a factor of three, the K dwarfs rotating more rigidly. His discussion of the sample of photometric data for several classes of stars has led Hall (1991) to the surprisingly flat distribution profile $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.15}`$. Further observations must decide how flat the $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ relation for solar-type stars really is.

In Fig. 1 the equator-pole differences (1) for the known rapid rotators are plotted in comparison to the results of the simulations by KR99. Obviously, the rapid rotators exhibit more differential rotation than the computations predict. One could believe – and we do – that another reason for differential rotation exists, which becomes important only for very rapid rotation.

In the present paper the idea is adopted that for very fast rotation a nonuniform energy flux leaves the stellar radiative core (‘gravity darkening’), thus heating from below the stellar convection zone nonuniformly (Stȩpieǹ et al. 1997). This way, a meridional circulation should arise in the convection zone which even by itself produces a nonuniform surface rotation (Kippenhahn 1963). We shall see that an accelerated equator is the natural consequence with an amplitude explaining indeed the surprisingly steep surface rotation laws which are performed by the fast rotators.

## 2 The Model

In the diffusion approximation the radiative flux in a radiative stellar shell is proportionate to the gradient of the temperature which itself is a function of the total gravitational potential $`\varphi =\psi \underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2s^{}𝑑s^{}`$. Hence

$$F=f(\varphi )\varphi =f(\varphi )g^{\mathrm{eff}}$$
(2)
with the effective gravity acceleration $`g^{\mathrm{eff}}=g\mathrm{\Omega }^2s`$. A convection zone above the radiative core is thus more intensely heated from below at the pole and it is less intensely heated from below at the equator. The intensity of this effect is given by the dimensional parameter

$$ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R}{g}.$$
(3)
Its value for solar-type stars is $`ϵ0.014/(\tau _{\mathrm{rot}}/\mathrm{day})^2`$ with $`\tau _{\mathrm{rot}}`$ as the rotation period. For the very rapid rotation of 0.1 days the $`ϵ`$ is of order unity and the star breaks off. In our computations the rotation parameter $`ϵ`$ is considered as a free parameter, the models concern to a star with a rotation period of 9 h, i.e. $`ϵ0.1`$. The same value would be true for a K giant with 19 days rotation period. The K0 giant KU Peg, however, has only $`ϵ=`$0.04 (see Weber & Strassmeier, 2001, for differential rotation and meridional flow111Equatorial acceleration and poleward flow, quite similar as at the Sun).

### 2.1 The transport equations

We use the mean-field formulation of hydrodynamics, i.e. apply an appropriate averaging procedure to split the velocity field into a mean and a fluctuating part. The mean velocity field, $`\overline{u}`$, is then governed by the Reynolds equation,

$$\rho \left[\frac{\overline{u}}{t}+(\overline{u})\overline{u}\right]=(\rho Q)p+\rho g,$$
(4)
where $`Q_{ij}=u_i^{}u_j^{}`$ is the correlation tensor of the velocity fluctuations, $`u^{}`$.

As the density distribution is spherically symmetric, and the gas motion is dominated by the global rotation, we assume axisymmetry for the mean velocity and temperature. The velocity field can then be described as a superposition of a rotation and a meridional flow, $`\overline{u}=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{\varphi }+\overline{u}^\mathrm{m}`$, where $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is the unit vector in the azimuthal direction. The azimuthal component of the Reynolds equation expresses the conservation of angular momentum:

$$\frac{\left(\rho r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{\Omega }\right)}{t}+t=0,$$
(5)
where $`t=\rho r\mathrm{sin}\theta \left[r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Omega }\overline{u}^\mathrm{m}+u_\varphi ^{}u^{}\right].`$ As the mass density varies with depth but not with time, mass conservation requires $`(\rho \overline{u})=0.`$ The meridional circulation can then be expressed by a stream function $`A`$. The stream function and the vorticity $`\omega `$ are related via the equation

$$DA\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\rho }{r}\frac{A}{r}\frac{1}{\rho r}\frac{\rho }{r}A=\rho \omega ,$$
(6)
where $`D=\mathrm{\Delta }1/(r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).`$

The correlation tensor $`Q`$ consists of a viscous and a non-viscous part. The eddy viscosity tensor,

$$Q_{ij}^\nu =𝒩_{ijkl}\frac{\overline{u}_k}{x_l},$$
(7)
has been calculated by Kitchatinov et al. (1994). It is here simplified to $`𝒩=\nu _\mathrm{T}(\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}+\delta _{il}\delta _{jk})`$ ignoring the effect of the basic rotation to the tensorial structure. For the eddy viscosity $`\nu _\mathrm{T}`$ the mixing-length expression

$$\nu _\mathrm{T}=c_\nu \tau _{\mathrm{corr}}u_\mathrm{T}^2$$
(8)
is used where as usual $`\tau _{\mathrm{corr}}`$ is the convective turnover time and $`u_\mathrm{T}^2`$ the turbulence intensity. The dimensionless parameter $`c_\nu `$ is free but it should not exceed unity. Its standard value is 0.3 but under the influence of rotation also smaller values are possible. The non-viscous $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-effect is the main source of differential rotation. In order to select the influence of the gravity darkening of the equator it is neglected, however, in the following calculations.

The convective heat transport is described by the transport equation

$$\rho T\frac{s}{t}+\rho Tus=(F^{\mathrm{conv}}+F^{\mathrm{rad}})+q,$$
(9)
where $`q`$ is the source function. In case of a perfectly adiabatic stratification the entropy is constant throughout the whole convection zone. Standard mixing-length theory does not include the rotational influence on the turbulent heat transport. Kitchatinov et al. (1994) have applied the same turbulence model as in their calculation of the Reynolds stress and found

$$F=\rho T\chi _\mathrm{T}s,$$
(10)
where

$$\chi _\mathrm{T}=c_\chi \tau _{\mathrm{corr}}u_\mathrm{T}^2$$
(11)
is the mixing-length expression for the heat conductivity coefficient in a slowly rotating convection zone, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}1`$. Again $`c_\chi `$ is a free parameter. More details of the corresponding thermodynamics are given by Küker & Stix (2001).

### 2.2 Model of the convection zone and boundary conditions

KR95 used a simplified model of the convection zone which is derived from the full model by solving the equations

$$\frac{dT}{dr}=\frac{g(r)}{C_p},\frac{dg}{dr}=2\frac{g}{r}+4\pi G\rho ,\rho =\rho _e(\frac{T}{T_e})^{\frac{1}{\gamma 1}}$$

from a starting point $`x_e`$, where the reference values $`g_e`$, $`\rho _e`$ and $`T_e`$ are taken from a standard solar model. Together with the opacity law, $`\kappa =0.34(1+6\times 10^{24}\rho T^{7/2})\text{cgs},`$ this gives a stratification quite close to that of the model the reference values were taken from.

We additionally require that both the upper and lower boundaries are stress-free,

$$Q_{r\varphi }=Q_{r\theta }=0.$$
(12)
As boundary condition for the heat flux we require that the total flux through the outer boundary is equal to the total luminosity

$$F_r^{\mathrm{tot}}(r)=\frac{L}{4\pi r^2}.$$
(13)
At the inner boundary the condition is now

$$F_r^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{L}{4\pi r_i^2}\left(1+\frac{ϵ}{ϵ+3}(3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1)\right).$$
(14)
The parameter $`ϵ`$ here gives the normalized difference between the heat flows at the poles and the equator,

$$ϵ=\frac{F_r^{\mathrm{tot}}(\mathrm{pole})F_r^{\mathrm{tot}}(\mathrm{eq})}{F_r^{\mathrm{tot}}(\mathrm{eq})}.$$
(15)
We have also tried the outer boundary condition of KR95,

$$F_r^{\mathrm{tot}}(r_e)=\frac{L}{4\pi r_e^2}(1+4\frac{T\delta s}{C_pT_{\mathrm{eff}}})$$
(16)
and found only small differences. However, (16) does not ensure that the luminosity is constant with radius and the solutions show a slow drift in the total entropy while with (13) a stationary state is reached after a few diffusion times.

## 3 Results

The results for $`c_\nu =c_\chi =1`$ are given in Fig. 2. We observe a nearly linear relation of the total equator-pole difference of the angular velocity and the amplitudes of the latitudinal drift at the bottom and the top of the convection zone with the darkening parameter $`ϵ`$. We find

$$u_{\mathrm{top}}31ϵ\left[\frac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{s}}\right]$$
(17)
and

$$\delta \mathrm{\Omega }0.058ϵ\left[\mathrm{day}^1\right].$$
(18)
Both effects, of course, are negligible for the present-day Sun ($`ϵ10^5`$) but for rapid rotators with (say) $`ϵ0.5`$ the effects should be observable. With (3) for solar-type stars it is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Omega }=7.910^4\frac{\mathrm{day}}{\tau _{\mathrm{rot}}^2}.$$
(19)
For $`\tau _{\mathrm{rot}}=12`$ h one finds $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }0.003`$ day-1, a value which cannot explain the situation described in Fig. 1. For rotation periods exceeding 0.5 day and for the used turbulence model the gravity darkening effect seems not to play an important role. As we shall see below, remarkably higher values for the equator-pole-difference are possible for modified turbulence parameters but only up to a factor of 6.

Another finding concerns the meridional flow. It has to do with the idea to interpret the solar butterfly diagram as the result of a meridional circulation (equatorwards at the bottom of the convection zone) rather than as an intrinsic property of the $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$-dynamo (Wang et al. 1991, Choudhuri et al. 1995, Dikpati & Charbonneau 1999). To this end the eddy diffusivity in the convection zone must be much smaller than currently believed. A typical value of a suitable magnetic Prandtl number with which meridional flows of amplitude of 10 m/s become magnetohydrodynamically important is about 50 (Küker et al. 2001).

The equatorward bottom drifts for stars with various rotation rates are given in Fig. 3. It varies from 5 m/s for the present-day Sun to 11 m/s for a very young solar-type star. The bottom drift for the gravity darkening effect scales as

$$u_{\mathrm{bot}}5.8ϵ$$
(20)
in m/s. It flows opposite to the meridional flow induced by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-effect, without nonuniform heating from below. As a result of the nonuniform heating the influence of the meridional flow onto the migration of the stellar toroidal field belts is reduced. A new and interesting question is whether the total meridional flow can change its sign by the influence of nonuniform heating. The amplitude (20), however, seems to be too small to overcompensate 10 m/s even for the fastest rotation.

We have thus to vary the free eddy diffusion parameters $`c_\nu `$ and $`c_\chi =c_\nu /\mathrm{Pr}`$. The results for a variety of parameters $`c_\nu `$ and Pr are presented in Table 1. In all cases they are written for $`ϵ=0.1`$, i.e. for a rotation period of about 9 h. There are no strong dependencies of the results on the input parameters $`c_\nu `$ and Pr. We have given in Table 1 also the heat conductivity parameter $`c_\chi =c_\nu /\mathrm{Pr}`$. Indeed, the equator-pole difference of the rotation rate has an inverse trend with $`c_\chi `$. For $`c_\chi =1`$ we find only 50% of $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ resulting for $`c_\chi =0.3`$. For $`c_\chi =0.1`$ the factor of the corresponding $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is 6, very close to the observations.

On the other hand, there is a clear trend of the meridional circulation at the bottom of the convection zone with the turbulent Prandtl number. When the Prandtl number grows by a factor of 10 the bottom drift increases by a factor of 3. One can also find the reduction of the meridional flow for decreasing viscosity first described by Köhler (1969). His models demonstrate a distinct maximum of 10 m/s for an eddy viscosity of about $`510^{13}`$ cm2/s. Density stratification, however, is not included. Models with density stratification require a faster meridional flow (factor 4 for a density contrast of 200) than models without density stratification (Rüdiger 1989, p. 113). For an eddy viscosity of $`510^{12}`$ in a density-stratified convection zone an equatorward circulation of 8 m/s at the surface produces a equator-pole difference of the angular velocity of $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }0.06\mathrm{day}^1`$. The data given in the second column of Table 1 confirm this well-known result (see also Kippenhahn 1963).

In all cases the latitudinal differences of the temperature are unobservably small. The maximal value for $`ϵ=1`$ is only 20 K. This finding is in accordance to the finding that the convection zone is able for an effective screening of all large-scale temperature differences at the bottom of the convection zone (Stix 1981).


text:
# Diquark condensation in dense SU(2) matter

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Numerous model calculations suggest that the ground state of QCD at high baryonic density is characterized by diquark condensation which spontaneously breaks gauge and/or baryon number symmetry (see  for recent reviews). In  we presented evidence that two-color QCD with one flavor of adjoint staggered fermions has interesting QCD-like features, in particular the absence of baryonic Goldstone modes in the spectrum. Here we extend the study of this model to include possible diquark condensates. We refer to  for a detailed description of the model and its properties, while we summarize here only the main features: $`N`$ flavors of staggered fermion, in the adjoint representation of the SU(2) gauge group, have a U(2$`N`$) chiral-flavor symmetry (at zero mass $`m`$ and zero chemical potential $`\mu `$). This is explicitly (spontaneously) broken by the mass (the chiral condensate) to Sp(2$`N`$). SSB gives rise to $`2N^21`$ Goldstone modes, of which $`N(N1)`$ are baryonically charged. When $`N>1`$ and $`\mu >m_\pi /2`$ the vacuum starts rotating from the chiral condensate direction to that of a diquark condensate , which in the case of $`N=2`$ is (modulo a baryonic rotation):

$$qq_3=\frac{i}{2}\left[\chi ^{ptr}(x)\epsilon ^{pq}\chi ^q(x)+\overline{\chi }^p(x)\epsilon ^{pq}\overline{\chi }^{qtr}(x)\right],$$

where $`\epsilon ^{pq},p,q=0,1`$ is the completely anti-symmetric tensor in flavor space. If $`N=1`$ no baryonic Goldstone mode is expected, and no local, gauge invariant, Lorentz scalar diquark condensate is possible. Therefore no early onset ($`\mu m_\pi `$) transition is expected. One interesting possibility is a gauge non singlet — hence color superconducting — diquark condensate:

$$qq_{sc}^i=\frac{1}{2}\left[\chi ^{tr}(x)t^i\chi (x)+\overline{\chi }(x)t^i\overline{\chi }^{tr}(x)\right],$$

where $`t^i,i=1,3`$ are color generators. Note however that the fermionic determinant of the $`N=1`$ model (although real) does not have a definite sign. The indication in  was that the effect of the sign is indeed important. If we ignore the sign, the model is well described by Chiral Perturbation Theory ($`\chi `$PT) , including the presence of baryonic Goldstone modes. The latter are suppressed only by the inclusion of the sign. Here we want to complement the previous analysis with the study of diquark condensation .

## 2 ALGORITHMS

We studied the $`N=1`$ model by means of both HMC  and TSMB  algorithms. Because of lack of ergodicity, with HMC we could explore only the positive determinant phase. TSMB is defined by a set of parameters (degrees of polynomia $`n_i`$, the number of heatbath and overrelaxation iterations for the bosonic fields $`I_h`$ and $`I_o`$, the number of metropolis iterations for the gauge fields $`I_M`$ and the number of noisy corrections $`I_c`$). One has to tune such parameters in order to minimize the autocorrelation. The latter must be expressed in term of matrix multiplications. The number of matrix multiplications per sweep is roughly given by:

$$N_{mult}\frac{7}{2}n_1(I_h+I_o+I_M)+(n_2+n_3)I_c.$$

In general when the chemical potential increases the lowest eigenvalues ($`ϵ`$) approach zero and the simulations become difficult. In Table 1 we show how the condition number ($`\lambda /ϵ`$, $`\lambda `$ being the largest eigenvalue) as well as the plaquette autocorrelation change by increasing $`\mu `$. The autocorrelation of fermionic observables is typically about 10 times shorter. From Table 2 we see that until the point $`\mu =0.38`$ the average sign is still not too small, while points above $`\mu =0.4`$ are already exceedingly difficult.

## 3 DIQUARK CONDENSATES

Our model has very interesting features, which distinguish it from other SU(2) models. It also has a sign problem. It is natural and interesting to study the effect of the inclusion of the sign. We distinguish two models: the one where only positive (determinant) configurations are sampled and the one where both positive and negative configurations are included with their sign. The positive sector turns out to be in very good agreement with $`\chi `$PT predictions; i.e., the positive model behaves effectively like an $`N=2`$ model.

In order to study possible diquark condensations we introduced a source $`j`$ for $`qq_3`$. This is done in a partially quenched way: by introducing the source only in the measurements. $`\chi `$PT predicts also the dependence on $`j`$ of the chiral and the diquark condensate . In particular the sum

$$\overline{\psi }\psi _0^2=\overline{\psi }\psi ^2+qq_3^2$$
(1)
must, to lowest order in $`\chi `$PT, be a constant independent of both on $`\mu `$ and $`j`$ (for NLO see ). In fact, as one can see on fig. 1, this relation is very well satisfied in the positive sector.

The validity of the relation (1) also allows an extrapolation of $`qq_3`$ to zero $`j`$, which would otherwise be quite difficult.

Since the condensate $`qq_{sc}`$ is not gauge invariant we studied its susceptibility $`\chi _{sc}`$

$$\chi _{sc}=\frac{1}{3}\overline{\chi }(x)t^i\overline{\chi }^{tr}(x)\chi ^{tr}(x)t^i\chi (x).$$

This has a finite value even without a source term. In the low density regime $`\chi _{sc}`$ shows little variation with $`\mu `$. Once we reach the $`\chi `$PT transition point, $`\chi _{sc}`$ drops rapidly in the positive sector. We interprete this as an effect of Pauli blocking or phase space suppression: as the ground state is filled up by fermions there is less phase space left to accommodate the fermion loops that contribute to $`\chi _{sc}`$. When the sign is properly taken into account this effect disappears and $`\chi _{sc}`$ remains stable through the transition (fig. 2).

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

The interesting lesson one can learn from this model is that the early onset transition, typical of all other SU(2) models, is indeed delayed as expected from the analysis of possible diquark condensates. Numerically this is obtained by a delicate balance between configurations with positive and negative determinant. This makes simulations prohibitively expensive in the region where one would expect a true onset transition at high density.

This work is supported by the TMR network “Finite temperature phase transitions in particle physics” EU contract ERBFMRX-CT97-0122. Numerical work was performed using a Cray T3E at NIC, Jülich and an SGI Origin2000 in Swansea.