text:
# Reliable calculations of level densities using statistical spectroscopy.

## I Introduction

Nuclear level densities are important for the theoretical estimates of nuclear reaction rates in nucleosynthesis. The neutron-capture cross sections are approximately proportional to the corresponding level densities around the nuclear resonance region. The competition between neutron-capture and $`\beta `$ decay determines the fate of the s\- and r-processes. The abundance of s-process nuclei with nonmagic neutron number is inversely proportional to the neutron-capture cross section , i.e., proportional to the level density. The waiting points of the r-process are determined by the balance between the rates of neutron-capture and of photoejection of a neutron.

Reliable estimates of nuclear abundances require accurate level densities. Authors like Gilbert and Cameron  gave uncertainties beyond a factor of 10 in their early calculations and uncertainties of about a factor of 8 and 5 are present in calculations of  and , respectively. What is desired is a reliability within a factor of two.

At low excitation energies (up to 5 MeV), level densities are usually extracted experimentally via direct counting from neutron/proton resonance data . For intermediate energies (between 5 and 15 MeV) they are extracted from charged particles spectra  while for still higher energies the level densities are determined using the Ericson fluctuation analysis . Recently, the Oslo group has reported on a new method to extract level density from primary $`\gamma `$-ray spectra without the assumption of any model .

Such experimental measurements are very labor intensive, and reaction network calculations require hundreds or thousands of cross sections, sometimes for unstable nuclides. Therefore one turns to theoretical models for help.

Most conventional calculations of the nuclear level density are based on the Fermi gas model. The most widely used description of the nuclear level density is the Bethe formula, based on a gas of free nucleon . This parameterization works well for the level densities of many nuclides at low energies and in the neutron energy region  especially when one uses the modified “backshifted Bethe formula” . Unfortunately the fitted single-particle level density parameter and the backshift parameter are nucleus-dependent and are not derived theoretically. Rauscher and collaborators presented a global parametrization of nuclear level densities within the back-shifted Fermi-gas formalism . They employed an energy-dependent level density parameter and a backshift parameter to attain an improved fit of level densities at neutron-separation energies. Despite all this, the fact remains that the input parameters are just that: empirically fitted parameters.

Can one look to theory for help? The interacting shell model and other microscopic models accurately describe spectra and transition for a broad range of nuclides. On the other hand, “traditional” shell-model codes diagonalize the Hamiltonian in a large-dimensioned basis of occupation-state wavefunctions but use the Lanczos algorithm to extract only a handful low-lying states. The level density requires all eigenstates and thus complete diagonalization, a computationally forbidding requirement.

An alternative to diagonalization is the Monte Carlo path-integral technique , which is well suited to thermal observables . Nakada and Alhassid  extracted both the single-particle level density parameter and the backshift parameter from the microscopic Monte Carlo densities by fitting them to the backshifted Bethe formula and also found some shell effects in their systematics. Recent developments include the particle number reprojection method , which can calculate level densities of odd-even and odd-odd nuclei despite a sign problem introduced by the projection of an odd number of particles. Path-integral methods are limited, however, to interactions that are free of the ‘sign problem.’ Therefore we consider alternatives.

One possibility is nuclear statistical spectroscopy , which argues that many nuclear properties are controlled by low-lowing moments of the Hamiltonian. Given a set of one- and two-body interaction matrix elements (the same input for a shell-model diagonalization or path-integral calculation) one can readily find in the literature straightforward formulae for first through fourth moments . One early result of statistical spectroscopy was that for a finite model space, the total level density tends to be Gaussian . Of course this means the model ignores intruders at high excitation energy, but it also suggests that the level density even at low energy is governed by the width, or second moment, of the Hamiltonian. Grimes and collaborators included 4th moment  in order to improve the description of the level densities. Recently Zuker suggested a modified approach . He argued that a binomial distribution rather than Gaussian arises most naturally from combinatorial arguments. In the limit of an infinite number of states the binomial becomes a Gaussian; but for a finite model space the differences are nontrivial as we shall discuss.

This paper discusses in detail the implementation of a novel treatment of level density descriptions using statistical models introduced recently by Johnson, Nabi and Ormand . Here we compare these models against a number of nuclei whose level densities can be fully computed by diagonalization of a two-body Hamiltonian in the $`sd`$\- or $`pf`$-shells. We also compare against Monte Carlo path integration calculations for nuclides where direct diagonalization is not possible. We find that in most cases it is the fourth moment which distinguishes among the exact, Gaussian, and binomial level densities, although we find cases in which the 3rd moment is important.

Section 2 presents the formalism of our calculations. Section 3 shows some comparison of the Gaussian and binomial level densities with the microscopic level densities. In section 4 we present a curious finding, that there is a relation between the fourth moment of individual particle configurations and collectivity, which suggests a possible way to use statistical spectroscopy to model the low-lying, non-statistical collective structure of the nuclides. Here we partition the model space into subspaces, use the binomial distribution to construct partial level densities and finally sum them to get the total level density. These improved models depict a more realistic picture of the microscopic level densities. We conclude and summarize in Section 5.

## II Formalism

Nuclear statistical spectroscopy , championed by French and collaborators, is built upon moments of the nuclear Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ in a finite many-body space. The first moment or centroid is

$$\mu _1=\overline{H}\widehat{H};$$
(1)
all other moments are central moments:

$$\mu _n\left(\widehat{H}\overline{H}\right)^n.$$
(2)
As one computes higher and higher moments, one naturally regains more and more information about $`\widehat{H}`$. But higher moments are difficult to calculate. An alternative is to partition the model space into subspaces $`𝒮_\alpha `$, using projection operators $`P_\alpha =_{a\alpha }|aa|`$. We call

$$\mu _n(\alpha )P_\alpha \left(\widehat{H}\overline{H}\right)^n$$
(3)
a configuration moment, and general formulae can be found in the literature for configuration moments up to $`n=4`$ . The total central moments can be easily found by summing over the configuration moments.

The density of states can be formally written as

$$\rho (E)=\mathrm{tr}\delta \left(E\widehat{H}\right).$$
(4)
One can also introduce configuration densities (sometimes called partial densities)

$$\rho _\alpha (E)=\mathrm{tr}P_\alpha \delta \left(E\widehat{H}\right),$$
(5)
to which we will return later. If the many-body matrix elements of $`\widehat{H}`$ are randomly distributed (specifically, if they belong to a Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble) then the density of states of $`\widehat{H}`$ follow a semi-circle distribution. If $`\widehat{H}`$ however is a two-body operator then the many-body matrix elements are correlated and the density of states is Gaussian, or at least nearly so .

The Gaussian and semi-circle distributions differ in their higher moments. Let the scaled moments be defined by

$$m_n\mu _n/(\mu _2)^{n/2},(n>2),$$
(6)
as the width $`\mu _2`$ provides a natural energy scale. The scaled fourth moment $`m_4`$ is 3 for a Gaussian but is 2 for the semi-circle distribution. A Gaussian is reasonable good starting point as it is already close to the actual level density. A common generalization is to expand in a Gram-Charlier series using Hermite polynomials ; this unfortunately can lead to negative level densities. Another generalization is to extend the Gaussian to a function of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha E^2\beta E^3\gamma E^4\mathrm{})`$  but the relation between parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ and the moments is not amenable to a simple analytic formula.

Recently Zuker gave a combinatorial argument that one should use a binomial distribution rather than Gaussian to approximate level densities . We only summarize his approach here. Consider the binomial expansion

$$(1+\lambda )^N=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda ^k.\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{k}\right)$$
(7)
Now interpret this binomial expansion as a distribution of levels, specifically, that $`\lambda ^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{k}\right)`$ is the number of states at excitation energy $`E_x=ϵk`$, $`ϵ`$ being an overall energy scale. Because we can write $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{k}\right)`$ with gamma functions, one can easily generalize to the continuous case,

$$\rho (E_x)=\lambda ^{E_x/ϵ}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_{max}/ϵ+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_x/ϵ+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }((E_{max}E_x)/ϵ+1)}$$
(8)
where $`E_{max}=ϵN`$. Although we began with $`N`$ as an integer, it no longer has to be.

The binomial distribution has several advantages. In the limit $`\lambda =1,N\mathrm{}`$ one regains the Gaussian. For $`\lambda 1`$ the distribution is asymmetric, because of a non-zero third moment; Zuker makes a combinatorial argument that the third moment can be as significant as the second moment. Finally, unlike most generalizations to the Gaussian, such as adding a $`\gamma E^4`$ term to the argument of the exponential, one can easily compute the moments of the binomial. The total number of levels, which is in effect the ‘zeroth’ moment, is

$$d=(1+\lambda )^N,$$
(9)
while the centroid and width are given by

$`\mu _1={\displaystyle \frac{Nϵ\lambda }{1+\lambda }}`$ (10)
$`\mu _2={\displaystyle \frac{Nϵ^2\lambda }{(1+\lambda )^2}}`$ (11)
and the scaled third and fourth moments are

$`m_3={\displaystyle \frac{1\lambda }{\sqrt{N\lambda }}},`$ (12)
$`m_4=3{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda }{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N\lambda }}.`$ (13)
Ref  does not give the fourth central moment. For Gaussians ($`N\mathrm{}`$) $`m_4=3`$. For most binomials and for shell model diagonalization, the scaled fourth moment is less than 3, a typical value being around 2.8. (Note that the above moments are exact for discrete distributions but are only approximate for the continuous distributions, due to errors in integration. For large $`N`$, however, they are very good approximations.)

Using Stirling’s approximation, and a few others, Zuker arrives at

$$\rho (E_x)\sqrt{\frac{8}{N\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left((N1)\left(\frac{E_x}{E_{max}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{E_x}{E_{max}}+\frac{E_{max}E_x}{E_{max}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{E_{max}E_x}{E_{max}}\right)+N\frac{E_x}{E_{max}}\mathrm{ln}\lambda \right).$$
(14)
The key parameters of the binomial are the order $`N`$ and the asymmetry parameter $`\lambda `$. If $`\lambda =1`$ then the binomial is symmetric and has $`m_3=0`$; if $`\lambda 1`$ then the binomial is asymmetric or skewed. The skewness can be positive ($`m_3>0,0<\lambda <1`$), or negative ($`m_3<0,\lambda >1`$). Zuker suggested that the order of the binomial, $`N`$, be fixed by the dimension of the model space. In that case $`N`$ and $`\lambda `$ are fixed by solving eqns. (9) and (12) simultaneously. This we consider to be the ‘standard’ binomial. We note, however, that one could instead fix the order $`N`$ by the fourth moment, and solve (12) and (13) simultaneously instead, afterwards multiplying the entire binomial distribution by a constant so as to get the correct total number of levels. This we refer to as the fourth-moment scaled (FMS) binomial. After $`N`$ and $`\lambda `$ are determined, the centroid and width simply fix the absolute scale of the distribution.

The central question of this paper is which distribution–Gaussian, binomial, FMS binomial, or some (other) improved model–best describes microscopic level densities? We use the low moments, in particular the third and fourth moment, to characterize our results.

## III Comparison of level densities without partitions

To test binomials as candidates for modeling level densities, we compare against exact shell model calculations. (All the densities shown in our figures are in fact state density, which includes $`2J+1`$ degeneracies. Strictly speaking, the level density ignores $`2J+1`$ degeneracies, but the literature is often cavalier with this distinction). In this section we do not partition the model space into configuration subspaces, which will be considered in the next section.

We considered full $`0\mathrm{}\omega `$ $`sd`$\- and $`pf`$-shell calculations, and focused on several nuclides that could be completely diagonalized using the OXBASH shell-model code . In the $`sd`$-shell we used the Wildenthal USD interaction  and performed exact shell model calculations for many nuclides covering the entire range. In the $`pf`$-shell we used the Brown-Richter interaction  and computed 44,45Ti. For still larger dimensions, we turned to Monte Carlo path integration calculations . To avoid the well-known sign problem  we fitted a schematic multipole-multipole interaction to the $`T=1`$ matrix elements of the Brown-Richter interaction . For all of these calculations we computed the exact spectroscopic moments, using the same single-particle energies and two-body interaction matrix elements were used by OXBASH. As far as we know this is the first time the exact formulas of  for third and fourth moments have been computed for a general case .

We ask: Is there a significant difference between exact, Gaussian, and binomial level densities, and is the difference driven by third or fourth moments? First the moments. Table 1 shows the scaled third and fourth moments for the exact distributions (the moments from exact shell model eigenvalues and those calculated using  should and do agree) as well as fourth moment for ‘standard’ binomials for some selected $`sd`$\- and $`pf`$-shell nuclides. (Remember that the third and fourth moments for a Gaussian are 0 and 3, respectively. ) The third moment is generally small, except for the case of 20F, 24Ne, 28Na and 36Ar in the $`sd`$-shell and 54Mn and 54Fe in the $`pf`$-shell; we found a strong correlation between nontrivial $`m_3`$ and $`T_z0`$. Because the standard binomial parameters $`N`$ and $`\lambda `$ are found by solving Eqn. (9) and (12) (that is, constrained by the total number of levels and the third moment ), the fourth moment, $`m_4`$, is not constrained. We see from Table 1 that on the average, the (standard) binomials tend to overestimate the scaled fourth moment, $`m_4`$. We further note that whenever the magnitude of the scaled third moment is $`0.05`$ (which we regard as a significant value), the difference in the exact and binomial scaled fourth moment is considerable, albeit less so for the $`pf`$-shell nuclides.

Fig. 1 shows two sample $`sd`$\- and two $`pf`$-shell nuclides. The histograms are the result of direct diagonalization. The figure shows the exact spectrum, the Gaussian and the two binomials (symmetric and asymmetric). For the symmetric case we forced the asymmetry parameter $`\lambda `$ to be 1 (the fourth moment did not change significantly). Because the symmetric and asymmetric binomial distributions are very similar for all these cases, we conclude that it is the fourth moment rather than the third moment that drives the difference. For 45Ti, in fact the symmetric and asymmetric binomials are indistinguishable. We remind the reader that our goal is a factor of 2 accuracy in modeling the level density.

But what if the scaled third moment is significantly different from zero (i.e. if the absolute value is $`0.05`$)? Intuition dictates that the third moment should play a role for such cases. Figure 2 shows the case for nuclides with large asymmetry. Again we chose two $`sd`$\- and two $`pf`$-shell nuclides. The open circles in Fig. 2 show the Monte Carlo shell model calculations along with the uncertainties. Here there is a clear difference between the symmetric and asymmetric binomials as expected. For these cases there also exist a large discrepancy between the binomial and exact $`m_4`$. We therefore also plot the FMS (fourth-moment-scaled) binomial, which has the correct $`m_4`$. The FMS binomial has clearly a better behavior especially for the $`pf`$-shell nuclides. Unfortunately the scaling also leads to a cut-off (unlike a Gaussian, the binomial has sharp cutoffs and infinite slope at $`E_x=0,E_{max}`$) which is too high for the case of 24Ne.

The preliminary lessons that we learn: binomial distribution do model shell-model level densities better than Gaussians, but in many cases it is the fourth moment rather than the third that leads to a discrepancy. Nuclides with $`T_30`$ have larger asymmetries, however, and must be accounted for. A scaled third moment of about $`\pm 0.05`$ is non-negligible. While an obvious solution is to adjust the binomial to reproduce the exact fourth moment, the binomial’s abrupt cut-off in certain cases, leads us to generalize our approached to a partitioned model space, described in the next section.

## IV Sum of Partitioned Binomial (SUPARB) level densities

To improve our results we partition the model space into configuration subspaces. One expects partitioned models to better approximate the higher moments  (for example, Pluhar and Weidenmüller  had a sum of distorted semi-circles and got much better modeling than a single semi-circle). We also saw in the previous section that the FMS binomial gets the fouth moment correct but stops abruptly. Partitioning of the model space into subspaces solves this problem.

We partitioned the model space by single-particle configurations, such as $`(1s_{1/2})^2(0d_{3/2})^1(0d_{5/2})^3`$, for the very simple reason that analytic formulas exist for the associated configuration moments. Other possibilities would be to partition by $`J,T`$ or by SU(3); unfortunately no analytic formulas exist for these partitions. We did consider $`J,T`$ partitions, computing the moments by hand (the OXBASH shell model code projects the Hamiltonian onto $`J,T`$ partitions) but we did not find significant advantage. SU(3) would be an attractive partitioning , as it would naturally build in quadrupole collectivity, but even by hand this is difficult for a general two-body interaction. Experts should note that protons and neutrons orbits were considered distinct, which would allow us to easily project exact isospin.

To compute the level densities, we take the following steps: (1) We compute the configuration moments up to 4th order. (2) We model the partial density for each configuration as a binomial (either standard or FMS). The binomial parameters $`N_\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _\alpha `$, as well as the overall energy scale and centroid, are fitted to the configuration moments for the $`\alpha ^{th}`$ subspace. The binomial then gives a partial density. (3) The partial densities are summed to yield the total level densities. Because of these ingredients, we will refer to our approach as SUPARB (SUm of PARtitioned Binomials) level densities. If we model the partial densities for the configurations as a FMS binomial, i.e., if we fix the order $`N_\alpha `$ by the fourth moment, and solve (12) and (13) simultaneously for each configuration, we call the resulting sum as SUPARB-FMS.

Fig. 3 models the state densities for four $`sd`$-shell nuclides, 23Ne, 24Mg, 32P, and 32S. Here we plot the SUPARB and SUPARB-FMS state densities against the exact ones. We see that not only the SUPARB-FMS densities model the exact state densities some what better, some structure in the low-lying states is also revealed. Such structure cannot be described by simple models such as either a Gaussian or a binomial. The structure is particularly very profound for the low-lying states of 24Mg and 32S. There were however cases where no appreciable difference between the SUPARB and SUPARB-FMS state densities was found. Fig. 4 shows four such cases: 22Ne, 22,24Na, and 23Mg. We see that the comparison is again very good (within a factor of 2) and that there is no appreciable difference between the SUPARB and SUPARB-FMS state densities.

The computation time of moments, $`\mu _n`$, scales as (number of partitions)(number of j-orbits)2n. That is, calculation of fourth moments requires much more CPU time as compared to the third one. SUPARB-FMS is sometime a clearly superior model but there are also cases where SUPARB alone gives equally good results. Two important questions then arise: (1) Is it possible to determine the cases where SUPARB state densities are sufficient, merely by looking at the configuration third moments in order to save time? and (2) What are the reasons behind when SUPARB-FMS gives better results? When do we see the low-lying structure in SUPARB-FMS?

The answers to these questions do not seem to be simple. There are clues, however, to the choice between the two SUPARB densities. One clues lies in the spread of the scaled third configuration moments. If there is a spread of these moments both above 0.05 and below -0.05, SUPARB-FMS is likely to produce better results. Fig. 5 shows the spreads in the scaled third configuration moments $`m_3(\alpha )`$, where $`\alpha `$ labels the configuration, for some selected nuclides from Figs. 3 and 4. The ordinate is the associated configuration centroid $`h_\alpha `$ which indicates the average excitation energy of states in the subspace $`\alpha `$. (We have neglected a few of the configuration third moments in all the four cases with values much less than -0.05.) The bulk of the $`m_3(\alpha )`$ lie in the range $`0.2m_30.2`$. Any $`m_3(\alpha )`$ which falls outside the rectangle is to be taken as significant. What we see is that for the graphs in the left column there is a spread of $`m_3`$ around the rectangle. For the right column we do not see any $`m_3>`$ 0.05. And we see that for these two cases (22Ne and 24Na), standard SUPARB densities do equally well (see Fig. 3). So for these cases there is no special need for computation of the scaled fourth moments (similar is the case for 23Mg and 22Na).

There can be a problem for high positive values of $`m_3`$, $`\lambda 0`$, and the binomial $`m_3\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}d}}`$. So, for example, if the dimension $`d=500`$, by Equation (12) the maximum $`m_3`$ allowed by the standard binomial is 0.16. For any value of exact $`m_3>0.16`$ the standard binomial fails. Frequently we found large values of $`m_3`$ for configurations even of small dimension. Fortunately, for fourth-moment-scaled (FMS) binomials, this is not as limiting (we fix the order $`N_\alpha `$ by the fourth moment, solve (12) and (13) simultaneously, and afterwards multiply the entire binomial distribution by a constant so as to get the correct total number of levels) and the technique can be applied to all cases.

Regarding the answer to the second question, the reply lies partly in what we already described previously. Empirically we find that a spread of exact $`m_3(\alpha )`$ around $`\pm 0.05`$, is likely to reveal some structure. Again if we look at Fig. 5 we do see that for 23Ne and 32P there is a spread of $`m_3`$ above and below the rectangle; simultaneously, Fig. 4 shows nontrivial structure at very low excitation energy for these nuclides. The same pattern occurs for 24Mg and 32S, suggesting that the two events are correlated.

Yet another clue lies in the $`m_4(\alpha )`$ shown in Fig. 6. We note that for cases where SUPARB-FMS densities reveal some structure, the standard binomials systematically overestimate the configuration scaled fourth moments. One clearly sees that for 24Mg and 32S, the (standard) binomial $`m_4(\alpha )`$ are biased high compared to their exact values. On the other hand, for 22Na and 23Mg, relatively structureless at low excitation energy, the binomial $`m_4(\alpha )`$’s are not biased relative to their exact values but fall both high and low symmetrically.

Let us summarize what we have said so far for these improved statistical models of level densities. SUPARB-FMS density can be a better choice, not only in modeling the secular behavior (within a factor of two) but also reveals some structure in certain cases, specially for the interesting low-lying region. It however, requires a larger CPU time which can be a big problem when modeling thousands of cases. SUPARB density is still better compared to a single binomial density but for large, positive $`m_3`$ (which is very common for partitioned subspaces) they are constrained by the dimension of the configurations.

## V Conclusions

We have outlined a theoretical approach to level densities that is both microscopic in origin and also computationally tractable. We analyzed our results in terms of the third and fourth moments. For small asymmetries, the fourth moment dominates. For cases where the scaled third moment is significantly different from zero (with magnitude greater than 0.05) the binomials are characterized by both the third and fourth central moments. The FMS binomial gives the best description of the exact level densities, specially when the nuclides have a large scaled third moment. There is an improvement over the asymmetric standard binomial by as much as a factor of 2 in the modeling of the low-lying exact level densities. Our study also shows that the Gaussians continue to give a good estimate of the exact spectrum for the level densities (within a factor of 5) and this comes quite handy since they just require the centroid and width of the Hamiltonian as input parameters. They might be used for an initial estimate of level density and then the interesting cases can be followed by still refined models presented here.

Partitioning the space considerably improves the binomial approximation to the level densities. The SUPARB-FMS has some in-built structure and follows the trend of the exact level density specially in the collective regime. The degree of precision of the present approach will give astrophysical nucleosynthesis calculations a much better predictive power. Future application to higher shells will be hampered as much by our ignorance of the effective two-body interaction as anything else. SUPARB can also be easily generalized to the calculation of spin-cutoff factors, and we are planning to make application to nuclear heat capacities and estimate of contamination by spurious center-of-mass motion.

This work was performed under the auspices of the Louisiana Board of Regents, contract number LEQSF(1999-02)-RD-A-06; and under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy through the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.

Table (1): Scaled third and fourth moments. The exact fourth moments are compared with those of standard binomials.
Nuclides $`m_3`$ $`m_4`$ (exact) $`m_4`$ (standard Nuclides $`m_3`$ $`m_4`$ (exact) $`m_4`$ (standard     binomial)    binomial)    20F 0.12 2.60 2.86 32Si 0.024 2.90 2.87  20Ne 0.092 2.71 2.83 30P 0.0053 2.79 2.89  24Ne 0.10 2.80 2.92 32P -0.023 2.78 2.86  22Na 0.036 2.81 2.87 32S -0.037 2.77 2.86  24Na 0.057 2.78 2.90 30Cl 0.054 2.76 2.90  26Na 0.088 2.76 2.92 32Cl -0.021 2.84 2.86  28Na 0.14 2.73 2.94 34Cl -0.073 2.88 2.82  23Mg 0.035 2.80 2.88 36Ar -0.12 2.97 2.74  24Mg 0.036 2.81 2.89 44Ti 0.036 2.82 2.87  24Al 0.058 2.83 2.90 45Ti -0.0026 2.89 2.87  26Al 0.039 2.81 2.90 48Cr -0.071 2.96 2.89  28Al 0.038 2.79 2.90 54Mn -0.11 2.96 2.91  30Al 0.054 2.77 2.90 54Fe -0.11 2.93 2.91


format: text

text:
# Particle Production in High-energy Heavy-ion Collisions

## 1 Introduction

Quark-gluon plasma (QGP) is expected to form in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. Though some proposed signals can provide more direct measurements of the initial parton density, many must reply on information inferred indirectly from the measurement of final hadron spectra. Therefore, both global observables such as the rapidity density of hadron multiplicity and high $`p_T`$ hadron spectra can provide important links of a puzzle that can eventually lead one to a more complete picture of the dynamics of heavy-ion collisions and formation of QGP.

Mini-jet production in a two-component model has long been proposed to explain the energy dependence of total cross section  and particle production  in high-energy hadron collisions. It has also been proposed  and incorporated in the HIJING model  to describe initial parton production in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. In this model, parton production from semi-hard processes becomes quite significant, giving rise to the high initial parton density in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. However, there are still quite large uncertainties due to the lack of knowledge of the initial parton distributions in nuclei and the final state interaction of produced partons. Therefore, the study of energy and centrality dependence of central rapidity density  can provide important constraints on models of initial entropy production and shed lights on the initial parton distributions in nuclei. For example, the available RHIC experimental data  can already rule out the simple two-component model without nuclear modification of the parton distributions in nuclei . However, further studies are needed to constrain the unknown nuclear shadowing of the gluon distribution in nuclei and to further distinguish the conventional parton production mechanism from other novel physics such as parton saturation .

Among the produced particle, a few have very high transverse momentum. They are related to high-energy jet production which is a very useful tool to study the properties of dense matter formed in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. Because large $`p_T`$ partons are produced very early in heavy-ion collisions and their production rates can be calibrated in $`pp`$ and $`pA`$ collisions at the same energy, they are ideal probes of the dense matter that is formed in the same reaction. What probes the dense medium is the scattering induced energy loss suffered by an energetic parton as it propagates through the matter. The parton energy loss is directly related to the parton density of the medium. These are the main topics of this talk.

## 2 Two-component model

In the two-component model, the soft and hard processes are separated by a cut-off scale $`p_0`$. While the cross section of soft interaction $`\sigma _{\mathrm{soft}}`$ is considered nonperturbative and thus noncalculable, the jet production cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is assumed to be given by perturbative QCD (pQCD) for transverse momentum transfer $`p_T>p_0`$. The two parameters, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{soft}}`$ and $`p_0`$, are determined phenomenologically by fitting the experimental data of total $`p+p(\overline{p})`$ cross sections within the two-component model . The cut-off scale $`p_0`$, separating nonperturbative and pQCD components, could in principle depend on both energy and nuclear size. Using the Gluck-Reya-Vogt (GRV) parameterization  of parton distributions and following the same procedure as in the original HIJING , one finds that the cut-off scale must have a weak energy dependence,

$$p_0(\sqrt{s})=3.913.34\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}\sqrt{s})+0.98\mathrm{log}^2(\mathrm{log}\sqrt{s})+0.23\mathrm{log}^3(\mathrm{log}\sqrt{s}),$$

in order to fit the experimental data, because of the rapid increase of gluon distribution at small $`x`$. Shown in Fig. 1 is the calculated central rapidity density,

$$\frac{dN_{\mathrm{ch}}}{d\eta }=n_\mathrm{s}+n_\mathrm{h}\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}(s)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{in}}(s)},$$
(1)
for $`p+p(\overline{p})`$ collisions as a function of energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, where $`n_\mathrm{s}=1.6`$ and $`n_\mathrm{h}=2.2`$ represent particle production from soft interaction and jet hadronization, respectively. The jet cross section is the lowest order pQCD result with a $`K`$-factor of 2 and GRV parton distributions.

To extrapolate the two-component model to nuclear collisions, one assumes that multiple mini-jet production is incoherent and thus is proportional to the number of binary collisions $`N_{\mathrm{binary}}`$. The soft interaction is however coherent and proportional to the number of participant nucleons $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ according to the wounded nucleon model . One important nuclear effect we have to consider in the two-component model is the nuclear shadowing of parton distributions in nuclei at small $`x`$. Such a nuclear shadowing effect in jet production can be taken into account by assuming modified parton distributions in nuclei,

$$f_a^A(x,Q^2)=AR_a^A(x,Q^2)f_a^N(x,Q^2).$$
(2)
Using the experimental data from DIS off nuclear targets and unmodified DGLAP evolution equations, one can parameterize $`R_a^A(x,Q^2)`$ for different partons and nuclei. Recent new data however indicate that the simple parameterization for nuclear shadowing used in HIJING is too strong  for heavy nuclei. Instead one has to use the following new parameterization,

$`R_a^A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1.0+1.19\mathrm{log}^{1/6}A(x^31.2x^2+0.21x)`$ (3)
$``$ $`s_a(A^{1/3}1)^{0.6}(13.5\sqrt{x})\mathrm{exp}(x^2/0.01)`$
with $`s_q=0.1`$ for all quark distributions and $`s_g=0.24`$–0.28 for gluon. Assuming no final state effects on multiplicity from jet hadronization, the rapidity density of hadron multiplicity in heavy-ion collisions as shown in Fig. 1 is,

$$\frac{dN_{ch}}{d\eta }=\frac{1}{2}N_{\mathrm{part}}n_s+n_hN_{\mathrm{binary}}\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}^{AA}(s)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{in}}},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}^{AA}(s)`$ is the averaged inclusive jet cross section per $`NN`$ in $`AA`$ collisions including parton shadowing effect. The average number of participant nucleons and number of binary collisions for given impact-parameters can be estimated using HIJING Monte Carlo simulation. It is clear that one has to consider parton shadowing in jet production in heavy-ion collisions.

## 3 Parton Saturation

Similar results of multiplicity in heavy-ion collisions are also predicted by other models , in particular the initial-state parton saturation model . It is based on the nonlinear Yang-Mills field dynamics  assuming that nonlinear gluon interaction below a saturation scale $`Q_s^2\alpha _sxG_A(x,Q_s^2)/\pi R_A^2`$ leads to a classical behavior of the gluonic field inside a large nucleus, where $`G_A(x,Q_s^2)`$ is the gluon distribution at $`x=2Q_s/\sqrt{s}`$. Assuming particle production in high-energy heavy-ion collisions is dominated by gluon production from the classical gluon field, one has a simple form  for the charged hadron rapidity density at $`\eta =0`$,

$$\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}\frac{dN_{ch}}{d\eta }=c\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\lambda /2}\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q_{0s}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2}\right)+\frac{\lambda }{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)\right],$$
(5)
with $`c0.82`$ . This is shown in Fig. 4 as solid lines as compared to the two-component model (shaded area). Here, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.2`$ GeV, $`\lambda =0.25`$ and the centrality dependence of the saturation scale $`Q_{0s}^2`$ at $`\sqrt{s_0}=130`$ GeV is taken from Ref. . The two-component model has an impact-parameter dependent parton shadowing.

Comparing the two model results in Fig. 2, one notices that the saturation and two-component model agree with each other in most regions of centrality except very peripheral and very central collisions. In central collisions, results of saturation model tend to be flatter than the two-component model. In this region, there are still strong fluctuations in parton production in the two-component model through the fluctuation of $`N_{\mathrm{binary}}`$ while $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ is limited by its maximum value of $`2A`$. That is why $`dN_{ch}/d\eta /N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ continues to increase with $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ in the central region. Such a fluctuation is not currently taken into account in the saturation model calculation. More accurate measurements with small errors (less than 5%) will help to distinguish these two different behaviors. For peripheral collisions, saturation model results fall off more rapidly than the mini-jet results. However, the experimental errors are very big in this region because of large uncertainties related to the determination of the number of participants. Therefore, it will be very useful to have light-ion collisions at the same energy to map out the nuclear dependence of the hadron multiplicity in this region. An alternative is to study the ratios of hadron multiplicity of heavy-ion collisions at two different energies as a function of centrality . In this case, the errors associated with the determination of centrality will mostly cancel.

It is interesting to point out that in the saturation model that assumes a particle production mechanism dominated by coherent mini-jet production below the saturation scale $`Q_s`$, the value of $`Q_s`$ determined in Ref. is much smaller than the cut-off $`p_0`$ in the two-component model constrained by the $`p+p(\overline{p})`$ data. As demonstrated in this paper, the number of mini-jet production below such scale is still very large and should contribute to the final hadron multiplicity.

## 4 Parton energy loss

Among the bulk of produced hadrons in heavy-ion collisions, there are also high $`p_T`$ hadrons produced in events with hard processes. In principle, jet quenching effect could also lead to increased total hadron multiplicity  due to the soft gluons from the bremsstrahlung. However, a recent study  of parton energy loss in a thermal environment found that the effective energy loss is significantly reduced for less energetic partons due to detailed balance by thermal absorption. Thus, only large energy jets lose significant energy via gluon bremsstrahlung. Since the production rates of these large energy jets are very small at the RHIC energy, their contributions to the total hadron multiplicity via jet quenching should also be small. Similarly we also assume that parton thermalization during the early stage contributes little to the final hadron multiplicity.

Theoretical studies of the parton energy loss in hot medium date back to the first attempt by Bjorken  to calculate elastic energy loss of a parton via elastic scattering in the hot medium. A simple estimate can be given by the thermal averaged energy transfer $`\nu _{\mathrm{el}}q_{}^2/2\omega `$ of the jet parton to a thermal parton with energy $`\omega `$, $`q_{}`$ being the transverse momentum transfer of the elastic scattering. The resultant elastic energy loss

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{el}}}{dx}=C_2\frac{3\pi \alpha _\mathrm{s}^2}{2}T^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{3ET}{2\mu ^2}\right)$$
(6)
is sensitive to the temperature of the thermal medium but is in general small compared to radiative energy loss. Here, $`\mu `$ is the Debye screening mass and $`C_2`$ is the Casimir of the propagating parton in its fundamental presentation. The elastic energy loss can also be calculated within finite temperature QCD  with a similar result, but with a more careful and consistent treatment of screening effect.

Though there had been estimates of the radiative parton energy loss using the uncertainty principle , a first theoretical study of QCD radiative parton energy loss incorporating Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal interference effect  is by Gyulassy and myself  where multiple parton scattering is modeled by a screened Coulomb potential model. Baier et al. (BDMPS)  later considered the effect of gluon rescattering which turned out to be very important for gluon radiation induced by multiple scattering in a dense medium. These two studies have ushered in many recent works on the subject, including a path integral approach to the problem  and opacity expansion framework  which is more suitable for multiple parton scattering in a thin plasma. The radiative parton energy loss to the leading order of the opacity $`\overline{n}=L/\lambda `$ in the thin plasma of size $`L`$ is estimated as

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{rad}}}{dx}C_2\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}\mu ^2}{4}\frac{L}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2E}{\mu ^2L}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\lambda `$ is the gluon’s mean-free-path in the medium. The unique $`L`$ dependence of the parton energy loss is a consequence of the non-Abelian LMP interference effect in a QCD medium. It is also shown in a recent study  that thermal absorption and stimulated emission in a thermal environment can be neglected for high energy partons ($`E\mu `$) while they are important for intermediate energy partons.

Using this latest result one can estimate the total energy loss for a parton with initial energy $`E=40`$ GeV to be about $`\mathrm{\Delta }E10`$ GeV after it propagates a distance of $`L=6`$ fm in a medium with $`\mu =0.5`$ GeV and $`\lambda =1`$ fm. For an expanding system, the total energy loss is reduced by a factor of $`2\tau _0/L`$ from the static value . Assuming that most of this energy loss is carried by gluons outside the jet cone , measuring the energy loss would require the experimental resolution $`\delta E`$ to be much smaller than the total energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. With the measured total multiplicity density $`dN/d\eta 900`$  and energy density $`dE_T/d\eta 500`$ GeV  in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV, one can estimate that the average total background energy within the jet cone ($`\delta \eta =1`$ and $`\delta \varphi =1`$) is about $`\mathrm{\Sigma }E_T80`$ GeV with a fluctuation of $`\delta E_T10`$ GeV. It is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the energy of a jet on a event-by-event base . Since high $`p_T`$ hadrons in hadron and nuclear collisions come from fragmentation of high $`E_T`$ jets, energy loss naturally leads to suppression of high $`p_T`$ hadron spectra. Miklos Gyulassy and I then proposed  that one has to reply on measuring the suppression of high $`p_T`$ hadrons to study parton energy loss in heavy-ion collisions. Since inclusive hadron spectra is a convolution of jet production cross section and the jet fragmentation function in pQCD, the suppression of inclusive high $`p_T`$ hadron spectra is a direct consequence of the medium modification of the jet fragmentation function induced by parton energy loss. Assuming that jet fragmentation function is the same for the final leading parton with a reduced energy, the modified fragmentation function can be assumed as

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(z)\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }E/E}D\left(\frac{z}{1\mathrm{\Delta }E/E}\right).$$
(8)
Therefore, in this effective model the measured modification of fragmentation function can be directly related to the parton energy loss.

## 5 Modified fragmentation functions

Since a jet parton is always produced via a hard process involving a large momentum scale, it should also have final state radiation with and without rescattering leading to the DGLAP evolution equation of fragmentation functions. Such final state radiation effectively acts as a self-quenching mechanism softening the leading parton momentum distribution. This process is quite similar to the induced gluon radiation and the two should have strong interference effect . It is therefore natural to study jet quenching and modified fragmentation function in the framework of modified DGLAP evolution equations in a medium .

The simplest case for jet quenching is deeply inelastic scattering of an electron off a nucleus target where the virtual photon knocks one quark out of a nucleon inside a nucleus. The quark then will have to propagate through the rest of the nucleus and possibly scatter again with other nucleons with induced gluon radiation. The induced gluon radiation reduces the quark’s energy before it fragments into hadrons with a modified fragmentation function. One can study the nuclear modification of the fragmentation function by comparing it with the same measurement in DIS with a nucleon target.

In an infinite momentum frame, where the photon carries momentum $`q=[x_Bp^+,q^{},\stackrel{}{0}_{}]`$ and the momentum of the target per nucleon is $`p=[p^+,0,\stackrel{}{0}_{}]`$ with the Bjorken variable defined as $`x_B=Q^2/2q^{}p^+`$, one can calculate the modified fragmentation function. Because of the LPM interference effect, the formation time of the gluon radiation due to the LPM interference requires the radiated gluon to have a minimum transverse momentum $`\mathrm{}_T^2Q^2/MR_AQ^2/A^{1/3}`$. The nuclear corrections to the fragmentation function due to double parton scattering will then be in the order of $`\alpha _sA^{1/3}/\mathrm{}_T^2\alpha _sA^{2/3}/Q^2`$, which depends quadratically on the nuclear size. For large values of $`A`$ and $`Q^2`$, these corrections are leading and yet the requirement $`\mathrm{}_T^2Q^2`$ for the logarithmic approximation in deriving the modified fragmentation function is still valid.

Shown in Fig. 3 are the calculated nuclear modification factor of the fragmentation function for $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{84}Kr`$ targets as compared to the recent HERMES data . The predicted shape of the $`z`$ dependence and the quadratic nuclear size dependence agrees well with the experimental data. The energy dependence of the suppression also has excellent agreement with our prediction. What is amazing is the clear quadratic $`A^{2/3}`$ nuclear size dependence of the suppression which is a true QCD non-Abelian effect. In fitting the data of the overall suppression for $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ target we obtain the only parameter in our calculation, $`\stackrel{~}{C}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2=0.00065`$ GeV2.

One can also calculate theoretically the average energy loss by the quark, which is the energy carried away by the radiated gluons,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\nu \mathrm{\Delta }z_g\stackrel{~}{C}(C_A\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2/N_c)3\mathrm{ln}(1/2x_B).`$ (9)
With the value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2\stackrel{~}{C}`$, one gets the quark energy loss $`dE/dx0.3`$ GeV/fm for the $`Kr`$ target.

## 6 Jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions

In high-energy heavy-ion collisions, the jet production rate is not affected by the formation of dense matter and the final state multiple scattering. One can assume that the high $`p_T`$ hadron spectra can then be given by the convolution of the jet production cross section and the medium modified jet fragmentation function $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{h/c}(z_c,Q^2)`$.

In principle, one should use the modified fragmentation function evaluated according to the pQCD calculation for a dense medium. However, before that can be done in a practical manner, we have used the effective approach in Eq. (8) by rescaling the fractional momentum by $`1\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ to take into account of the parton energy loss. To verify whether such an effective approach is adequate, we compare the two modified fragmentation functions in Fig. 4. We found that the effective model (dashed lines) can reproduce the pQCD result (solid lines) very well, but only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is set to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.6z_g`$. Therefore the actual averaged parton energy loss should be about 1.6 times of that used in the effective modified fragmentation function. This difference is caused by the absorptive processes or unitarity correction effect in the full pQCD calculation.

Unlike in DIS nuclear scattering, the dense medium in high-energy heavy-ion collisions is not static. It has to go through rapid expansion which should also affect the effective total parton energy loss. The total energy loss extracted from experiments should be a quantity that is averaged over the whole evolution history of the expanding system. It is therefore useful to convert the averaged quantity to an energy loss in a static system that has the same parton density as the expanding system at its initial stage. If the averaged total parton energy loss in a longitudinally expanding system with a transverse size $`R`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1\mathrm{d}}`$, one finds  that the corresponding parton energy loss in a static system with the same initial parton density would be $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1\mathrm{d}}(R/2\tau _0)`$. Here $`\tau _0`$ is the initial formation time of the dense medium.

Comparing the recent PHENIX data  with pQCD parton model calculation as shown in Fig. 5, one can extract a value of $`dE/dx`$=0.25 GeV/fm that one needs to use in the effective modified fragmentation function in fitting the data. Taking into account the unitarity correction effect and the expansion, this corresponds to an effective energy loss $`dE/dx=1.6\times 0.25R/2\tau _0`$ in a static system with a density similar to the initial stage of the expanding system at $`\tau _0`$. With $`R6`$ fm and $`\tau _01/p_0=0.2`$ fm, this would give $`dE/dx12`$ GeV/fm, which is about 40 times of that in a cold nuclear matter as extracted from the DIS processes. Since the parton energy loss is directly proportional to gluon density, this implies that the gluon density in the initial stage of $`Au+Au`$ collisions is about 40 times higher than that inside a cold nucleus.

## 7 Conclusions

Recent RHIC data require a strong shadowing of gluon distribution in nuclei within a two-component model of particle production in heavy-ion collisions. Using this strong gluon shadowing with an assumed impact-parameter dependence, the predicted centrality dependence of the hadron multiplicity agrees well with the recent RHIC results. The results are compared with the parton saturation model . In order to differentiate the two models one needs more accurate experimental data in both the most central and peripheral regions of centrality or study the centrality dependence of the ratios at different colliding energies.

It is argued that the jet quenching will not contribute much to the total hadron multiplicity due to detailed balance in a thermal environment, even though they significantly suppress the high $`p_T`$ spectra. The medium modification of the jet fragmentation functions due to gluon radiation induced by the multiple parton scattering can be calculated in pQCD. The predictions of the shape, energy dependence, and the quadratic nuclear size $`A^{2/3}`$ dependence of the modification agree well with the recent HERMES data. The resultant parton energy loss in the cold nuclear medium is estimated to be about 0.3 GeV/fm inside $`Kr`$ nuclei. Comparing to the QCD result of the modification of fragmentation function, the actual averaged energy loss is found to be about 1.6 times that of the effective energy loss used in a earlier effective model for the same modification. Considering the effect of expansion, the recent PHENIX data imply a medium induced energy loss in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions equivalent to 12 GeV/fm in a static medium with the same gluon density as in the initial stage of the collision.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of Nuclear Physics, and by the Office of Basic Energy Science, Division of Nuclear Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by NSFC under project 19928511 and 10075031.


text:
# Observation of Weak-Limit Quasiparticle Scattering via Broadband Microwave Spectroscopy of a 𝑑-Wave Superconductor

Permanent address:\]Dept. of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, V5A 1S6. Permanent address:\]Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 4M1.

## Abstract

There has long been a discrepancy between microwave conductivity measurements in high temperature superconductors and the conductivity spectrum expected in the simplest models for impurity scattering in a d-wave superconductor. Here we present a new type of broadband measurement of microwave surface resistance that finally shows some of the spectral features expected for a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing state. Cusp-shaped conductivity spectra, consistent with weak impurity scattering of nodal quasiparticles, were obtained in the 0.6-21 GHz frequency range in highly ordered crystals of YBa2Cu3O6.50 and YBa2Cu3O6.99.

It is now widely accepted that cuprates exhibiting high temperature superconductivity involve a pairing state with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry Tsuei and Kirtley (2000). However, there is considerable debate over the extent to which conventional Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory can account for the properties of this superconducting state, a debate that is closely related to the difficulty in understanding the peculiar metallic state in these materials. The question is, despite the new physics being encountered in the cuprate phase diagram, is the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconducting state simple? In this letter we present the first low frequency conductivity spectra that answer this in the affirmative, showing an evolution at low temperatures towards the cusp-shaped spectrum expected for weak-limit impurity scattering in a clean $`d`$-wave superconductor. This characteristic spectrum has remained elusive because it only appears at temperatures far below $`T_c`$ in very clean crystals, thus necessitating the development of a sensitive bolometric technique for making broadband microwave measurements.

A simple feature of a clean $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconductor is that the low energy density of states is expected to have the form $`N(\epsilon )\epsilon /\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ where the linear energy dependence comes from the linear dispersion of the superconducting gap near its nodes in momentum-space and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the energy scale of the superconducting gap. At sufficiently low temperatures the microwave conductivity should be governed by the quasiparticle excitations near the nodes. The microscopic details of the scattering mechanism and the framework for calculating the conductivity provide an opening where one might find novel physics entering into the problem. In the low temperature limit, the conventional framework for calculating the conductivity in the superconducting state is a self-consistent $`t`$-matrix approximation (SCTMA) developed to account for impurity pair-breaking effects which modify both $`N(\epsilon )`$ and the electron self-energy Hirschfeld et al. (1993); Rieck et al. (1999). This work showed that the expression for the microwave conductivity for any scattering strength takes a simple energy-averaged Drude form $`\sigma (\omega ,T)=ne^2/m^{}[\text{i}\omega +\tau ^1(\epsilon )]^1_\epsilon `$, where the energy dependence of the scattering rate $`\tau ^1(\epsilon )`$ is determined by the strength of the scattering and $`<\mathrm{}>_\epsilon `$ denotes a thermal average weighted by $`N(\epsilon )`$ Hirschfeld et al. (1993). At low $`T`$, the unitary (strong-scattering) limit result has $`\tau ^1(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }_u/\epsilon `$ while the Born limit has $`\tau ^1(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\epsilon `$ (to within logarithmic corrections), where the scale factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B`$ are determined by the density of impurities. The puzzling failure of this theory has been that neither form resembles the energy-independent $`\tau ^1`$ inferred from the microwave measurements on YBa2Cu3O6.99 by Hosseini et al. Hosseini et al. (1999).

Two major technical steps have now led to the discovery of a low temperature regime where some of the expectations of the simple theory seem to hold. First, the samples used in the experiment reported here are of exceptionally high crystalline perfection. Most cuprate materials retain a substantial level of intrinsic disorder due to cation cross-substitution, but the YBa2Cu3O6+x system has a chemical stability that guarantees an extremely low level of cation disorder ($`<`$10-4). Large improvements in the purity of YBa2Cu3O6+x crystals were brought about by the advent of BaZrO3 crucibles, which do not corrode during crystal growth Erb et al. (1996). With a very high degree of atomic order in the CuO2 planes, the secondary disorder effect of the off-plane oxygen atoms becomes important. Since intercalation of oxygen into the CuO chains in this material (which run along the crystal $`\widehat{b}`$-axis) act as the reservoir for hole doping, probing the phase diagram typically involves nonstoichiometry and off-plane disorder. However, a few highly ordered phases are available in this system. Here we concentrate on fully-doped YBa2Cu3O7, with every CuO chain filled, and ortho-II ordered YBa2Cu3O6.50, with every other CuO chain filled. The perfection of the fully-doped samples is limited by not being able to anneal to completely full chains, O6.99 being our limit. The crystalline perfection of the YBa2Cu3O6.50 crystals comes from the high purity which in turn allows the development of very long correlation lengths of the ortho-II order in the 3 crystallographic directions ($`\xi _a`$=148 Å, $`\xi _b`$=430 Å, and $`\xi _c`$=58 Å) Liang et al. (2000). The measurements shown here were performed on mechanically detwinned single crystals of 99.995% purity with dimensions $`(a\times b\times c)(1\times 1\times 0.010)`$ mm3.

The second key step to the results presented here is a measurement technique based on a bolometric method of detection, which provides a natural way of covering the microwave spectrum in more detail than is possible with a set of fixed-frequency experiments. The technique has recently proven useful for measuring resonant absorption in the cuprates Matsuda et al. (1994). For the present work we have improved the sensitivity of the technique to the pW level necessary for resolving the intrinsic power absorption of a small single crystal, while at the same time employing an in-situ Ag:Au alloy reference sample of known surface resistance that calibrates the absorption absolutely. This is particularly important because it allows compensation for the strong frequency dependence of the microwave field amplitude caused by standing waves in the microwave circuit.

In our system, the microwave surface resistance $`R_s(\omega ,T)`$ is inferred from the synchronous measurement of the sample temperature rise as the amplitude of the microwave magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}_{rf}`$ is modulated at low frequency (1 Hz). The high-$`T_c`$ and reference samples are placed in symmetric positions in a rectangular shaped coaxial transmission line with a broadened center conductor designed to ensure spatial magnetic field homogeneity, as depicted in the inset of Fig. 1. The coaxial line is terminated with a short, providing a region where the samples experience predominantly magnetic fields. Both samples are mounted on thin sapphire plates with a small amount of silicone grease. Chip heaters mounted on the thermal stages allow precise calibration of the thermal sensitivity, while the use of a second Ag:Au sample in place of the high-$`T_c`$ sample confirms the absolute value and frequency independence of the calibration. All measurements use the low demagnetization factor geometry for a thin platelet, with $`\stackrel{}{H}_{rf}\widehat{b}`$. Thus the screening currents run along the crystal’s $`\widehat{a}`$-axis, completing the loop with a short section of $`\widehat{c}`$-axis current which we do not attempt to correct for but know to be a small contribution.

Figure 1 shows the frequency dependence of $`R_s`$ for a-axis currents in a crystal of YBa2Cu3O6.50. The measurements span 0.6-21 GHz, limited at low frequency where the small dissipation of the sample approaches the resolution limit of the experiment. The 1 GHz values for the rms uncertainty in $`R_s`$, $`\delta R_s`$, are about 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 1.3 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ for T = 1.3, 2.7, 4.3, and 6.7 K respectfully. For the worst case of 6.7 K this translates to $`\delta \sigma _1`$/$`\sigma _1`$= 0.14 with uncertainties decreasing correspondingly at higher frequencies and lower temperatures. For clarity, error bars are omitted from the figures. At high frequencies, the apparatus is limited by deviations from the TEM field configuration in the sample region. An overall 5% uncertainty in $`R_s`$ is set mainly by the Ag:Au reference-alloy DC resistivity measurement.

In the limit of local electrodynamics, the relevant limit in our sample geometry Kosztin and Leggett (1997), the surface impedance $`Z_s=R_s+\text{i}X_s`$ is connected to the complex conductivity $`\sigma =\sigma _1\text{i}\sigma _2`$ via $`Z_s=\sqrt{\text{i}\mu _0\omega /\sigma }`$. Measurements of both $`R_s`$ and $`X_s`$ can be used to determine $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$, but broadband measurements of only $`R_s`$ present a problem. A common solution, used in infrared measurements, is to measure a single quantity such as reflectance over a wide enough range that Kramers-Kronig and Fresnel equations can be used to calculate $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$. Another solution is to fit spectra to a model of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ that automatically satisfies the Kramers-Kronig relations. However, low frequency microwave measurements allow another option for extracting $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$ from $`R_s(\omega ,T)`$. Deep in the superconducting state, both $`\sigma _2`$ and $`X_s`$ are largely controlled by the screening associated with the response of the superfluid. In the low frequency limit $`X_s=\mu _0\omega \lambda `$ and $`\sigma _2=(\mu _o\omega \lambda ^2)^1`$ where $`\lambda `$ is the London penetration depth. So, at low temperatures a broadband measurement of $`R_s(\omega ,T)`$ together with a measurement of $`\lambda (T)`$ at a single frequency is sufficient to extract the conductivity spectrum $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$. Using cavity perturbation techniques with a superconducting loop-gap resonator operating at 1.1 GHz Hardy et al. (1993) we measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }X_s(T)=\mu _0\omega \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda (T)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda (T)=\lambda (T)\lambda (T=1.2K)`$ is the temperature dependent increase of the London penetration depth from its low temperature limit. Since these measurements do not determine $`\lambda `$ absolutely we take the $`T0`$ value to be $`\lambda _0=1600`$ Å for overdoped YBa2Cu3O6.99 as measured by infrared reflectance Basov et al. (1995) and $`\lambda _0=2600`$ Å for underdoped YBa2Cu3O6.50, consistent with $`\mu `$SR measurements Miller et al. . A more accurate extraction of $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$ involves a correction for screening by the normal fluid conductivity. To do this we use a self-consistent method that includes contributions to $`\sigma _2(\omega ,T)`$ both from the superfluid and from the screening component due to quasiparticles Hosseini et al. (1999). At the low temperatures of this experiment, where there are few quasiparticles to contribute to the screening, this is a small correction having a maximum effect of 8% on $`\sigma _1`$ for our highest temperatures and frequencies.

Figure 2 depicts the real part of the quasiparticle conductivity extracted from the broadband $`R_s`$ measurements. The strong frequency dependence over intervals as small as 1 GHz (equivalent to a temperature of 0.05 K) shows that the timescale associated with the scattering of low-energy quasiparticles in these extremely clean samples falls within the bandwidth of our measurement. The cusp-like shape of $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$, the approximately $`T`$-independent low frequency limit and a tail that falls more slowly than $`1/\omega ^2`$ are all features expected for Born scattering. The solid curve in Fig. 2 shows a convincing fit to the 6.7 K data using the energy-averaged Drude form with $`\tau ^1(\epsilon )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\epsilon `$, indicating that the overall shape of the spectrum is well-described by the weak scattering calculation with fit parameters $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B=0.032`$ and $`ne^2\mathrm{}/(m^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=5.9\times 10^5\mathrm{\Omega }^1\text{m}^1`$. The other curves in Fig. 2 are the Born-limit predictions for the lower temperatures, using the parameters that fit the 6.7 K data. It is clear that this model progressively underestimates the spectral weight as $`T`$ is reduced, and because of this a global fit for all temperatures produces results that are less satisfactory. The inset of Fig. 2 shows that the $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$ data scale as $`\omega /(T+T_0)`$ with $`T_0`$=2.0 K, rather than scaling as $`\omega /T`$ as expected in the Born limit. Hence, the weak scattering limit captures the frequency dependence of the data, but the requirement of the SCTMA model that the spectral weight vanish as $`T0`$ leads to disagreement.

In order to fit to the spectra, we adopt a phenomenological form for $`\sigma _1(\omega ,T)`$ that captures the Born-lineshape features, namely the cusp-like shape and high frequency tail:

$$\sigma _1(\omega ,T)=\sigma _0/\left[1+(\omega /\mathrm{\Gamma })^y\right].$$
(1)
We fit directly to $`R_s(\omega ,T)`$, thereby automatically accounting for the quasiparticle screening. Fig. 3 shows the fits to individual spectra using this model where the parameters $`\sigma _o`$ and y remain relatively constant, taking average values of $`1.67(\pm 0.05)\times 10^7\mathrm{\Omega }^1m^1`$ and $`1.45(\pm 0.06)`$ respectively. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ varies approximately linearly in $`T`$ with fit values $`12.1`$, $`19.2`$, $`26.3`$, and $`35.0\times 10^9sec^1`$. Although these fits also suggest the unusual frequency–temperature scaling discussed previously, enforcing it in the model reduces the agreement in the spectral weight comparison. The fits can be integrated in order to obtain absolutely the temperature dependent spectral weight associated with the normal fluid. In the inset of Fig. 3 this normal fluid spectral weight is compared to the spectral weight lost from the superfluid as determined independently by the measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda (T)`$. The slopes agree to within 2%, a good indication that the model is capturing the oscillator strength at higher frequencies. It is important to note that at low $`T`$ this comparison is independent of the choice of $`\lambda _0`$ to first order since $`\sigma _12R_s/(\mu _0^2\omega ^2\lambda _0^3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1/\lambda ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /\lambda _0^3`$. The offset apparent in the normal fluid density corresponds to a $`T=0`$ residual normal fluid.

The discovery of a cusp-shaped spectrum for the low temperature conductivity of YBa2Cu3O6.50 seems at odds with the Drude fits ($`y=2`$ in Eq. 1) that were found to reasonably describe the spectra inferred from fixed-frequency microwave measurements on fully-doped YBa2Cu3O6.99 Hosseini et al. (1999). To resolve this conflict, broadband conductivity spectra were obtained for the $`\widehat{a}`$-axis of a crystal of the fully doped material, shown in Fig. 4. At the lowest temperatures there is indeed a cusp-like spectrum, similar to the one seen in the underdoped ortho-II sample. The reason this was not seen in earlier measurements is that the spectrum gives way to a more Lorentzian lineshape above 4 K, as indicated by the progressively better fit to a Drude model with increasing temperature; the 5 spectra do not scale in the manner seen for YBa2Cu3O6.50. Hosseini et al. concluded that the scattering rate was nearly temperature independent below 20 K at a value of $`\tau ^1=5.6(\pm 0.6)\times 10^{10}sec^1`$, and here we find $`\tau ^1=4.4(\pm 0.3)\times 10^{10}sec^1`$ with the decrease likely due to continued improvements in the sample purity. The integration of the Drude model captures the oscillator strength rather well, except at the lowest temperatures where the fits are too poor for us to comment upon an extrapolated residual value. It is not yet clear why the non-Lorentzian lineshapes are restricted to such low temperatures in the fully doped sample.

To conclude, we have provided the first highly detailed measurement of the quasiparticle conductivity spectrum in the disorder-dominated regime of an extremely clean $`d`$-wave superconductor. This regime has been accessed by using well-ordered crystals with very high purity, measured with a broadband microwave technique whose frequency range matches the very small quasiparticle scattering rate in the samples. A number of puzzles remain, particularly the residual normal fluid inferred from extrapolations to $`T=0`$, a phenomenon that is seen to a much greater degree in other cuprates Broun et al. ; Corson et al. (2000). The cause of the evolution from a cusp-like spectrum to a more Lorentzian lineshape in YBa2Cu3O6.99 is also unclear and may require a more sophisticated scattering model that employs intermediate scattering strengths, neither Born nor unitary. Nevertheless, several features of the quasiparticle scattering dynamics are characteristic of Born-limit scattering, namely a cusp-shaped conductivity spectrum seen at low temperatures. Additional physics such as order parameter suppression at impurity sites Hettler and Hirschfeld (2000) might be needed to resolve the remaining puzzles, but the data presented here provide a simple starting point that is quite close to the expectation for nodal quasiparticles scattered weakly by impurities.

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with A.J. Berlinsky, C. Kallin, and P.J. Hirschfeld, as well as financial support from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.


text:
# Light Sheets and the Covariant Entropy Conjecture

## 1 Introduction

Since the original papers of ’t Hooft and Susskind , much work has been done on the notion of holography; see Smolin  and references therein for a review. In particular, Fischler and Susskind  suggested a holography bound in terms of null surfaces in the context of cosmological solutions. Bousso  has since stated and made use of a conjectured holographic entropy bound which generalises the work of Fischler and Susskind by relating the area of a two-surface to the entropy contained on a section of null hypersurface which ends on that two-surface in general space-times. This work also builds on earlier work of Bekenstein  relating the entropy of a region to its surface area under certain constraints.

We briefly recall the Fischler-Susskind-Bousso (FSB) bound.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a spacelike two-surface in a space-time, $``$. We wish to give a bound in terms of $`A`$, the area of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, for the entropy contained within $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. There is an ambiguity here, since many three-surfaces in space-time span the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. One approach to removing this ambiguity is to obtain a natural candidate for the region bounded by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose entropy is to be considered. So consider the four orthogonal null (geodesic) congruences to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; then a light sheet, $`L`$, is given by an orthogonal null congruence which has negative expansion everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, each null geodesic being extended to the first point at which the expansion vanishes (i.e. the first point along the null geodesic which is conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). Bousso’s conjecture is, then, that the entropy contained on $`L`$, denoted by $`S(L)`$, satisfies the inequality

$$S(L)\frac{A}{4}.$$

This inequality is the FSB bound, and the statement that it holds in general space-times is the covariant entropy conjecture. It is supported by various examples in the context of standard cosmological solutions. However, the explicit examples provided have relied heavily on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ having spherical symmetry. It is the aim of this paper to argue that in the more general situation where spherical symmetry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is dropped, the FSB bound is violated, and that in general, the light sheet should only include that portion of the null congruence up to the first conjugate point or point of self-intersection on each null geodesic.

It should be noted that this argument does not attempt to invalidate the programme being carried out by Bousso, only to establish that the inequalities used are too strong, and should be replaced by weaker ones when appropriate.

## 2 Ellipsoidal examples

The motivation for the following section is the observation that in Bousso’s examination of the covariant entropy conjecture, situations were noted where the inequality was saturated, even in the case where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has spherical symmetry. For such surfaces, the light sheet is cut off by conjugate points before any self-intersection occurs. This suggests that it might be possible to find a counter-example by considering a light sheet at least part of which extends far beyond the first self-intersection before the first conjugate point occurs.

To this end, we will consider first the situation for a field of matter on a Minkowskian background, and then extend this to the consideration of full solutions of the Einstein equations.

So we begin by considering the ellipsoid, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, given by

$$\frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{a^2}+\frac{z^2}{b^2}=1$$

in the $`\{t=0\}`$ slice of Minkowski space, with the usual coordinates $`(t,x,y,z)`$. Then take as light sheet, $`L`$, the relevant portion of the future pointing inward directed orthogonal null congruence to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is clear than as $`b`$ approaches 0, the ellipsoid approaches (two copies of) the disk $`x^2+y^2a^2`$, while the associated light sheet approaches two pencils of null geodesics.

By taking $`b`$ sufficiently small, the area, $`A`$, of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ approaches $`2\pi a^2`$ arbitrarily closely, while the extent of $`L`$ increases without bound. It then follows that if Minkowski space is the background on which lies a stationary matter field whose entropy density is constant, then by taking $`b`$ sufficiently small, the entropy passing through $`L`$ may be made unboundedly large, and so for some $`b>0`$, the FSB bound must be violated.

This tells us that the covariant entropy conjecture fails for stationary matter on a flat background (which is a first approximation to the cosmological case), but of course this does not necessarily imply that the conjecture itself must be violated; it merely suggests that concern is justified. We proceed in steps of decreasing idealisation.

To this end, we next consider a FLRW space-time with constant co-moving entropy density, as in Tavakol and Ellis . In this case, we consider an ellipsoid in a surface of constant time. By taking the ellipsoid sufficiently small, we obtain a situation which is well-modelled by flat space-time again. Thus, by taking $`a`$ and $`b`$ sufficiently small, the extent of the light sheet can be made large compared to the area of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and once more we expect that for sufficiently small $`b`$, the entropy contained on the light sheet, $`S(L)`$, will become too great to be bounded by $`A/4`$.

As a next step, we consider a general (no longer assumed to be conformally flat) space-time, in which the entropy is modelled by a density bounded away from zero and non-decreasing along any future directed timelike curve. Once more, by restricting our attention to a sufficiently small region of space-time, we can assume that the deviation from a flat metric is arbitrarily small, and the conclusion will once again follow.

Thus we can conclude that in the case where entropy is modelled as a density on some fixed background geometry, the FSB bound is violated.

Each of these cases is suggestive, but in order to argue that the conjecture itself fails, the situation must be adapted to a full solution of the Einstein equations. To this end, we should note that the above argument takes place in a homogeneous background, as does much of the discussion of Bekenstein, Fischler and Susskind, and Bousso, cited above. However, in a real space-time there are fluctuations and inhomogeneities, whose presence must be acknowledged, and indeed these inhomogeneities are essential to the discussion of entropy.

Note that the effect of such fluctuations provides the basis of the arguments of Tavakol and Ellis  that the light sheet should be truncated at self-intersections. Their argument, though, is based on the observation that truncating only at conjugate points yields a surface of extremely complicated geometry, rendering the light-sheet effectively uncomputable. They suggest truncating earlier as a cure for this problem of operational definability. It is the intent of the current paper to strengthen their arguments by arguing that the covariant entropy conjecture is in fact violated, not just difficult to work with.

Fortunately, the presence of such fluctuations does not destroy the argument presented in the previous section. For if the size of the fluctuations in the energy density of the matter fields is small compared with the energy density, then we expect only a small proportional change in the distance along each null geodesic to the first point where the expansion vanishes. (Even though the locus defined by such points becomes much more complicated.)

We thus expect that just as in the case where entropy is modelled as a density on an averaged background, the amount of entropy on the light sheet will become large compared to the area of our small spacelike ellipsoid, if it is sufficiently oblate. Therefore we expect the covariant entropy conjecture to be false in general for such sufficiently small oblate ellipsoids. We conclude from that above considerations that the light sheet used in the holography bound is too large, and that a weakened form of the covariant entropy conjecture would be more useful.

## 3 Discussion

We should now address the issue of just how this suggests that we weaken the covariant entropy conjecture. A motivation is provided by a standard result from causal theory.

Suppose, then, that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a spacelike two-surface lying in a Cauchy surface, $`𝒮`$, of an open globally hyperbolic space-time $``$ (so that the notion of inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is unambigous), such that the inward directed, orthogonal null congruence $`𝒞`$ composed of null geodesics proceeding to the future has negative expansion everywhere. Let $`L`$ be the light sheet associated with $`𝒞`$, and let $`B`$ denote a spacelike three-surface with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. ($`B`$ is not assumed to lie in the Cauchy surface mentioned above.)

Now, consider a point $`pL`$ which lies to the future of a point of self-intersection, $`s`$, of $`𝒞`$. As Bousso and Tavakol and Ellis observe  this may lead to a multiple counting of some of the entropy passing through $`B`$; thus $`S(L)`$ gives an upper bound for the entropy of any spacelike three-surface spanning $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. But the situation is rather worse than this observation alone indicates.

For $`q`$ is connected to $`s`$ by a future-directed null geodesic segment, $`\gamma _1`$, and $`s`$ is connected to $`p`$ by a future-directed null geodesic segment $`\gamma _2`$, where $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are not segments of a single null geodesic. It follows  that $`qI^{}(p)`$. But since $`I^{}(p)`$ is open, and $`pB`$, it follows that there are points in $`𝒮`$ outside $`B`$ to the chronological past of $`p`$.

This implies that there are points outside $`D(B)`$, the Cauchy development of $`B`$, which lie to the past of $`p`$. As a consequence, entropy from regions which cannot be regarded as inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can contribute to the entropy on the light sheet. Indeed, in the case of the (nearly) flattened ellipsoid described above, most of the entropy on the light sheet comes from a large region outside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus entropy passing through $`L`$ may greatly exceed that contained in any spacelike three-surface spanning $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

This provides a physical interpretation for the violation of the FSB bound, and strongly suggests that we should also stop the light sheet at points of self-intersection, thereby ensuring that inappropriate entropy does not contribute. Denote this truncated light sheet by $`L^{}`$.

In the case where the future horismos of $`B`$, $`E^+(B)`$, is composed of null geodesic segments starting on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and this congruence has negative expansion everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`E^+(B)`$ coincides with $`L^{}`$. We then see that in this case the entropy passing through the light sheet all starts off at some point inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and there is no contribution from regions outside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus in this case, the entropy contained on the (truncated) light sheet, $`S(L^{})`$ satisfies $`S(L)S(L^{})S(B)`$. The first inequality follows from the fact that $`L^{}L`$, and the second from the second law of thermodynamics. Indeed, $`S(L^{})`$ is the least upper bound of $`S(B)`$ where $`B`$ ranges over all three-surfaces spanning $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This seems to be a suitable choice of light sheet, and again allows the recovery of the Bekenstein bound in the relevant situations.

## 4 Conclusion

We have argued that the covariant entropy conjecture is violated for sufficiently oblate small ellipsoidal surfaces, and provided a physical interpretation for the source of the violation. This suggests a particular adaptation of the light sheet in which we do not include points beyond self-intersections of the null congruence. Finally, we note again that this does not attempt to invalidate the holographic entropy programme; it rather argues that some of the inequalities used so far need to be replaced by rather weaker ones.

Acknowledgement It is a pleasure to thank Andrew Chamblin of the Centre for Theoretical Physics, MIT, for introducing me to the covariant entropy conjecture, subsequent interesting discussions, and helpful comments on the manuscript.