text:
# Determination of |𝑉_{𝑐𝑏}| using the semileptonic decay (𝐵⁰)̄→𝐷^{∗+}𝑒⁻𝜈̄

## 1 Introduction

Accurate measurements of CKM matrix elements are important to constrain the Standard Model. Knowledge of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ is needed to relate a number of experimentally measured $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ violating observables to the Wolfenstein parameters  through which they are usually illustrated. $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ can be determined by studying exclusive $`\overline{B^0}D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays using Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) , an exact theory in the limit of infinite quark masses. The development of HQET yields an expression for the $`\overline{B^0}D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay rate in terms of a single unknown form factor. The form factor is parameterized in terms of $`\mathrm{y}`$, the inner product of the $`\overline{B^0}`$ and $`D^+`$ four-velocities:

$$\mathrm{y}=v_{\overline{B^0}}v_{D^+}=\frac{M_{\overline{B^0}}^2+M_{D^+}^2q^2}{2M_{\overline{B^0}}M_{D^+}},$$

where $`M_{\overline{B^0}}`$ and $`M_{D^+}`$ are masses of the $`\overline{B^0}`$ and $`D^+`$ meson respectively and $`q^2=(p_{\overline{B^0}}p_{D^+})^2`$. Here, and in what follows, $`p`$ stands for the four-momentum vector of the particle in subscript.

The form factor $`F(\mathrm{y})`$ is expressed as the product of a normalization factor $`F(1)`$ and a shape function which is constrained by a dispersion relation . We extract the product of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ and $`F(1)`$ from extrapolation of the data to the zero-recoil point $`\mathrm{y}=1`$, where the $`D^+`$ is at rest with respect to the $`\overline{B}^0`$.

At this kinematic point, HQET allows us to calculate $`F(1)`$ with small and controllable theoretical errors. There are several corrections to the heavy quark limit $`F(1)=1`$ as follows:

$$F(1)=\eta _{\mathrm{QED}}\eta _A(1+\delta _{1/m^2}+\mathrm{}).$$

QED correction factors up to leading logarithmic order provide $`\eta _{\mathrm{QED}}1.007`$ . $`\eta _A`$ is a short-distance correction arising from the finite QCD renormalization of the flavor-changing axial current at the point of zero recoil. The first order term in the non-perturbative expansion in powers of $`1/m_Q`$ vanishes by virtue of Luke’s theorem , and $`\delta _{1/m^2}`$ represents the second order correction. By contrast, the form factor of $`\overline{B}D\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay is not protectected against $`1/m_Q`$ corrections at zero recoil , hence the comparison of results from $`\overline{B}D^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ with $`\overline{B}D\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ - provides some measure of the size of corrections to HQET. Results for $`\eta _{\mathrm{QED}}`$ and $`\eta _A`$ are combined with their errors added linearly to give $`F(1)=0.913\pm 0.042`$ . This value of $`F(1)`$ is in good agreement with the latest lattice QCD calculation, $`F(1)=0.9130_{0.0348}^{+0.0293}`$ .

This method currently gives the smallest theoretical error in the extraction of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$. Measurements of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ based on the dispersion relation have been published by the OPAL  and DELPHI  collaborations using $`B`$ mesons produced in $`Z^0`$ decays at LEP and reported by the CLEO collaboration  operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ resonance.

In this paper, we present a measurement of the branching fraction of the exclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decay $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$, and a determination of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$. The charge conjugate mode is implicitly included. For this precise measurement we use $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ and not $`\overline{B^0}D^+\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ since the electron identification efficiency plateau has a wider range in both momentum and polar angle than that of muons, leading to a better control of systematic uncertainties.

The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of $`10.2`$ fb-1 accumulated at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ resonance with the Belle detector  at KEKB , an asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring. This corresponds to $`10.8\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ events. An additional sample with an integrated luminosity of $`0.6`$ fb-1 taken at an energy 60 MeV below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance is used as a control sample to check continuum processes. A GEANT  based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is used to study the signal decay mode and also to estimate some backgrounds.

## 2 Belle Detector

Belle is a general-purpose detector which includes a 1.5 T superconducting solenoid magnet. Charged particle tracking is provided by a silicon vertex detector (SVD) and a central drift chamber (CDC) that surround the interaction region. The SVD consists of three layers of double-sided silicon strip detectors; one side of each detector measures the $`z`$ coordinate and the other the $`r\varphi `$ coordinate. The CDC has 50 cylindrical layers of anode wires; the inner three layers have instrumented cathodes for $`z`$ coordinate measurements. The charged particle acceptance covers laboratory polar angles between $`\theta =17^{}`$ and $`150^{}`$ corresponding to about 92% of the full solid angle in the center of mass (CM) frame. The momentum resolution is $`(\sigma _{\left|𝒑_t\right|}/\left|𝒑_t\right|)^2=(0.0019\left|𝒑_t\right|)^2+(0.0030)^2`$, where $`𝒑_t`$ is the transverse momentum in the laboratory frame, in units of $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

Charged hadron identification is provided by $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the CDC, a mosaic of 1188 aerogel Čerenkov counters (ACC), and a barrel-like array of 128 time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF). The $`dE/dx`$ measurements have a resolution for hadron tracks of 6.9% and are useful for $`\pi /K`$ separation for $`\left|𝒑_{\mathrm{lab}}\right|<0.8`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and $`\left|𝒑_{\mathrm{lab}}\right|>2.5`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. Here, and in what follows, $`𝒑_{\mathrm{lab}}`$ is the three-momentum vector in the laboratory frame and $`𝒑`$ denotes the three-momentum vector in the CM frame. The TOF system has a time resolution for hadrons of $`\sigma 100`$ ps and provides $`\pi /K`$ separation for $`\left|𝒑_{\mathrm{lab}}\right|<1.2`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. The ACC covers the range $`1.2\mathrm{GeV}/c<\left|𝒑_{\mathrm{lab}}\right|<3.5\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and the refractive indices of the ACC elements vary with polar angle to match the kinematics of the asymmetric energy environment of Belle. Particle identification probabilities are determined from the combined response of the three systems.

The electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL) consists of an array of 8736 CsI(Tl) crystals located in the magnetic volume covering the same solid angle as the charged particle tracking system. The energy resolution for electromagnetic showers is $`(\sigma _E/E)^2=(0.013)^2+(0.0007/E)^2+(0.008/E^{1/4})^2`$, where $`E`$ is in GeV.

Electron identification is based on a combination of $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the CDC, the response of the ACC, and the position, shape and the ratio of the total cluster energy registered in the ECL and particle momentum. The electron identification efficiency, determined by embedding simulated tracks in multihadron data, is greater than 92% for tracks reconstructed in the CDC with $`\left|𝒑_{\mathrm{lab}}\right|>1.0`$ GeV/$`c`$. The hadron misidentification probability, determined using $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays, is below $`0.3\%`$.

The 1.5 T magnetic field is returned via an iron yoke that is instrumented to detect muons and $`K_L`$ mesons (KLM). The KLM covers polar angles between $`\theta =20^{}`$ and $`155^{}`$ and the overall muon identification efficiency, determined by a track embedding study similar to that used for the electron case, is greater than 87% for tracks reconstructed in the CDC with $`\left|𝒑_{\mathrm{lab}}\right|>1`$ GeV/$`c`$. The corresponding pion misidentification probability determined from $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays is less than 2%.

## 3 Event Reconstruction

We reconstruct $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays using the decay chain $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and requiring the electron to be cleanly identified. In order to suppress the jet-like $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ continuum background, the ratio of the second to zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments  is required to be less than 0.4. This requirement removes 43% of the continuum background whilst it retains 93% of the $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ signal. Each event is required to contain at least one electron candidate with momentum in the CM frame in the range 1.00 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ to 2.45 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

After a $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ combination is selected, a $`D^0`$ decay vertex is reconstructed. $`D^0`$ candidates are required to satisfy track quality cuts based on their impact parameters relative to the $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ vertex: $`\mathrm{\Delta }r<0.2`$ cm and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z<0.5`$ cm. The $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ candidates must have an invariant mass within $`3\sigma `$ of the nominal $`D^0`$ value, where $`\sigma 6\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$.

We combine $`D^0`$ candidates with slow pion candidates ($`\pi _s^+`$) to fully reconstruct $`D^+`$ mesons in the mode $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$. The mass difference ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M=M_{K^{}\pi ^+\pi _s^+}M_{K^{}\pi ^+}`$) is required to lie within 3 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal peak position (Figure 1). Furthermore the momentum of $`D^+`$ candidates must satisfy $`\left|𝒑_{D^+}\right|<0.5\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2M_{D^+}^2}`$ to be consistent with a $`B`$ decay hypothesis, where $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ is the beam energy. This requirement retains nearly 100% of signal events whilst it rejects 34% of the continuum background. A $`D^0e^{}`$ vertex is constructed and the electron momentum vector is recomputed with the vertex constraint.

Since the only missing particle in the $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay is the neutrino, we expect the square of the missing four-momentum to vanish, $`p_{\mathrm{miss}}^2p_{\overline{\nu }}^2=(p_{\overline{B^0}}p_{D^+e^{}})^2=0`$, where $`p_{D^+e^{}}=p_{D^+}+p_e^{}`$. This can be expressed in the CM frame:

$$p_{\mathrm{miss}}^2=M_{\overline{B^0}}^2+M_{D^+e^{}}^22E_{\overline{B^0}}E_{D^+e^{}}+2\left|𝒑_{\overline{B^0}}\right|\left|𝒑_{D^+e^{}}\right|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{B^0},D^+e^{}},$$

where $`E_{\overline{B^0}}`$ is replaced by $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ from which $`\left|𝒑_{\overline{B^0}}\right|`$ is calculated. Neglecting the last term since $`\left|𝒑_{\overline{B^0}}\right|`$ is small in the CM frame ($`340\mathrm{MeV}/c`$), we define the square of missing mass as follows:

$$M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2=M_{\overline{B^0}}^2+M_{D^+e^{}}^22E_{\overline{B^0}}E_{D^+e^{}}.$$

We make the cut $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2<1`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^2/c^4`$ to suppress the background from $`\overline{B^0}D^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }`$, which has an additional pion (by $`D^{}`$, we denote the sum of resonant and non-resonant states). The efficiency of the cut on $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2`$ is about 96% for $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ and 53% for $`\overline{B^0}D^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }`$. Using the condition $`p_{\mathrm{miss}}^2=0`$, we can extract $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{B^0},D^+e^{}}`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{B^0},D^+e^{}}=\frac{2E_{\overline{B^0}}E_{D^+e^{}}M_{\overline{B^0}}^2M_{D^+e^{}}^2}{2\left|𝒑_{\overline{B^0}}\right|\left|𝒑_{D^+e^{}}\right|}.$$

The quantity $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{B^0},D^+e^{}}`$ is highly correlated with the estimated value of $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2`$ but allows us to impose a kinematic consistency condition through the requirement $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{B^0},D^+e^{}}\right|<1`$. This requirement removes 66% of the $`\overline{B^0}D^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ background and 81% of the continuum background whilst keeping 88% of the signal.

The reconstructed $`\overline{B^0}`$ mass $`M_{\overline{B^0}}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is defined as

$$M_{\overline{B^0}}^{\mathrm{rec}}=\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2\left|𝒑_{D^+}+𝒑_e^{}+𝒑_{\overline{\nu }}\right|^2},$$

where the neutrino momentum is calculated using all the reconstructed tracks and clusters in the event: $`𝒑_{\overline{\nu }}=_i𝒑_i`$. In this analysis, we use this information only to make a loose consistency requirement of $`M_{\overline{B^0}}^{\mathrm{rec}}>`$ 5.0 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. This cut value gives 95% efficiency for the signal mode; it removes 18% of continuum background.

Since this analysis is not based on a full reconstruction of the $`\overline{B}^0`$, we do not calculate $`q^2`$ using missing momentum information. Instead, we compute $`\mathrm{y}`$ by taking the average of the values obtained with the two extreme configurations of the $`\overline{B^0}`$ and $`D^+`$ directions consistent with $`𝒑_{D^+},𝒑_e^{}`$ and the value of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{B^0},D^+e^{}}`$ calculated above. We reject the unphysical region in the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{y}}`$, which denotes the measured $`\mathrm{y}`$ value. The resolution of $`\mathrm{y}`$ has been studied using MC, and is found to be accurately modeled by a symmetric Gaussian with $`\sigma 0.04`$.

The overall signal reconstruction efficiency is 6.0% after all event selection criteria.

## 4 Background Subtraction

The background sources fall into five categories: combinatorial, correlated, uncorrelated, fake electron and continuum. The largest source is the combinatorial background in the $`D^+`$ reconstruction. The level of this background is determined from a fit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ distribution, using a phase space shape for the background. The corresponding shape of the background in the variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{y}}`$ is deduced from events in a sideband region, which is defined as 0.155 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<\mathrm{\Delta }M<`$ 0.165 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ as shown in Figure 1.

The contributions from other sources of background are estimated using MC. Correlated background occurs when a $`\overline{B^0}`$ meson decays to a final state containing a $`D^+`$ and an $`e^{}`$ through channels other than $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$. The largest source is due to the process $`\overline{B^0}D^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }`$. From a simulation based on the ISGW2 , and Goity and Roberts models , we find this background accounts for about 9% of the raw yield. Hence this is a large source of background.

In uncorrelated background events, the $`D^{}`$ originates from the decay of the $`\overline{B}`$ and the electron originates from the partner $`B`$. The electrons in this background must come from secondary $`B`$ meson decay products or $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing in order to have the correct charge. It is also possible to have electrons from the decay or misidentification of light hadrons and these are classified as fake electron background. The fake electron background is estimated using MC without primary electrons from $`\overline{B}`$ decays. A very small contribution to the signal yield is found. The size of the continuum background is measured using $`q\overline{q}`$ MC.

In Figure 2, the raw yield and various backgrounds are displayed as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{y}}`$ and electron momentum in the CM frame. Table 1 shows the expected background contributions to the raw yield.

## 5 Form Factor Parameterization

The differential rate for the $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay is given by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{y}}=\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi ^3}M_{D^+}^3(M_{\overline{B^0}}M_{D^+})^2g(\mathrm{y})|V_{cb}|^2F(\mathrm{y})^2,$$

$$g(\mathrm{y})=\sqrt{\mathrm{y}^21}(\mathrm{y}+1)^2\left[1+4\frac{\mathrm{y}}{\mathrm{y}+1}\frac{12\mathrm{y}r+r^2}{(1r)^2}\right],$$

where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant and $`r=M_{D^+}/M_{\overline{B^0}}`$. We approximate $`F(\mathrm{y})`$ with a Taylor series expansion around y = 1:

$$F(\mathrm{y})=F(1)[1\rho _F^2(\mathrm{y}1)+c(\mathrm{y}1)^2+𝒪(\mathrm{y}1)^3].$$

Early $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ measurements - used this expansion neglecting the second order term (this is called the linear form factor parameterization). However, since a determination of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ requires the extrapolation of the differential decay rate to y = 1, constraints on the shape of the form factor are highly desirable to reduce the uncertainties associated with this extrapolation. A suitable framework to derive such constraints on heavy meson form factors has recently been provided by dispersion relations -.

To use the relevant dispersion relation  we relate $`F(\mathrm{y})`$ to the axial vector form factor $`h_{A_1}(\mathrm{y})`$ using

$$\begin{array}{cc}g(\mathrm{y})F(\mathrm{y})^2=\sqrt{\mathrm{y}^21}(\mathrm{y}+1)^2h_{A_1}(\mathrm{y})^2\hfill & \\ \times \left\{2\left[\frac{12\mathrm{y}r+r^2}{(1r)^2}\right](1+R_1(\mathrm{y})^2\frac{\mathrm{y}1}{\mathrm{y}+1})+\left[1+(1R_2(\mathrm{y}))\frac{\mathrm{y}1}{1r}\right]^2\right\}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

$`R_1(\mathrm{y})`$ and $`R_2(\mathrm{y})`$ are given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}R_1(\mathrm{y})R_1(1)0.12(\mathrm{y}1)+0.05(\mathrm{y}1)^2,\hfill & \\ R_2(\mathrm{y})R_2(1)+0.11(\mathrm{y}1)0.06(\mathrm{y}1)^2.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Using the results of the dispersion relation, $`h_{A_1}(\mathrm{y})/h_{A_1}(1)`$ depends only on a single unknown parameter $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$:

$$\frac{h_{A_1}(\mathrm{y})}{h_{A_1}(1)}18\rho _{A_1}^2z+(53\rho _{A_1}^215)z^2(231\rho _{A_1}^291)z^3,$$

where $`z=(\sqrt{\mathrm{y}+1}\sqrt{2})/(\sqrt{\mathrm{y}+1}+\sqrt{2})`$. It can be seen that $`h_{A_1}(\mathrm{y})F(\mathrm{y})`$ in the limit y $``$ 1, hence $`h_{A_1}(1)=F(1)`$. Our main analysis uses this dispersion relation parameterization. The dispersive bound used in this analysis requires that $`0.14<\rho _{A_1}^2<1.54`$ .

## 6 Fit and Results

After subtraction of background, we fit the final yield as a function of y for $`|V_{cb}|F(1)`$ and $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$. We use $`R_1(1)=1.3\pm 0.1`$ and $`R_2(1)=0.8\pm 0.2`$ which are obtained using HQET and QCD sum rules . We minimize the following variable:

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{bin}}=10}{}}\left(\frac{N_i^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j=1}^{N_{\mathrm{bin}}}ϵ_{ij}N_j}{\sigma _{N_i^{\mathrm{obs}}}}\right)^2,$$

where $`N_{\mathrm{bin}}`$ is the number of bins over the range 1.000 $`<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{y}}<`$ 1.504, $`N_i^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the yield in the $`i`$th $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{y}}`$ bin, $`\sigma _{N_i}^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the statistical error of $`N_i^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and $`N_j`$ is the number of decays in the $`j`$th bin, given by

$$N_j=2N_{B\overline{B}}f_{00}\tau _{\overline{B^0}}(D^+D^0\pi ^+)(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)_{\mathrm{y}_j}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{y}}𝑑\mathrm{y},$$

where the integral is over the range of y in the $`j`$th bin, $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ is the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs in the sample and $`f_{00}`$ is the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0\overline{B}^0`$ branching fraction and is taken to be 0.5; $`\tau _{\overline{B^0}}`$ is the $`\overline{B^0}`$ lifetime, $`(D^+D^0\pi ^+)`$ is the $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ branching fraction, $`(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)`$ is the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ branching fraction and these values are taken from . The efficiency matrix element $`ϵ_{ij}`$ gives the probability that events generated in bin $`j`$ in y are reconstructed in bin $`i`$. Typical values of the diagonal elements are in the range 0.023$``$0.033, while the elements for neighboring bins are in the range 0.007$``$0.021. A result of

$$\begin{array}{cc}\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)=(3.54\pm 0.19)\times 10^2,\hfill & \\ \rho _{A_1}^2=1.35\pm 0.17\hfill & \end{array}$$

is obtained, where the errors are statistical only. The correlation coefficient between $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$ and $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$ is 0.91 and the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit is 3.38 for 8 degrees of freedom. The fit results are shown in Figure 3. By summation of the $`N_j`$ obtained above over all bins, the branching fraction of $`(\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu })`$ is determined to be

$$(\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu })=(4.59\pm 0.23)\times 10^2,$$

where again the error is statistical only.

We have studied the impact of precise values of the $`R_1(1)`$ and $`R_2(1)`$ coefficients on the results of our analysis by using the CLEO measurement, $`R_1(1)=1.18\pm 0.32`$ and $`R_2(1)=0.71\pm 0.23`$ . In addition, we have studied the case of the linear form factor defined above. This is a common approximation in the limit of heavy quark symmetry, in which $`R_1(\mathrm{y})=R_2(\mathrm{y})=1`$ . In Table 2 the results of the three different fits are compared.

In order to deal with the smearing effects due to the experimental resolution, an unfolding method is applied . The unfolded data of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(\mathrm{y})`$ as a function of y is shown in Figure 4.

## 7 Systematic Errors

The systematic uncertainties in the result from each possible source are estimated by changing the input values in the $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ fitting procedure. A summary of the contributions to the systematic errors is given in Table 3.

The systematic uncertainty in the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ events is estimated by varying $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ within its measured uncertainty. The various fit inputs, the $`\overline{B^0}`$ lifetime and $`D^+,D^0`$ branching fractions, are varied according to the errors given in . Since the calculation of the branching fraction in  is based on the assumption of equal $`B^+B^{}`$ and $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ production, we do not take into account the uncertainty of $`f_{00}`$.

The uncertainty in the tracking efficiency for high momentum tracks is determined using $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$ decays. By comparing the numbers of reconstructed $`\eta `$’s between data and MC, we obtain an error of 2.5% on $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$.

The efficiency for identifying electrons is evaluated by embedding single simulated electrons into hadronic events as well as $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ events. We find that the uncertainty in the electron identification efficiency leads to a 1.0% systematic error on $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$.

For $`D^0`$ reconstruction, three efficiencies are combined: kaon identification, pion identification and vertexing efficiencies. The particle identification efficiencies are obtained from data using the fact that the slow pion from $`D^+`$ decay allows the decay, $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$, followed by $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, to be reconstructed without relying on particle identification. The systematic error in $`D^0`$ reconstruction is calculated from the measurement error (2.2%) of the efficiency in data. We find a systematic error of 1.4% on $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$.

The slow pion reconstruction is mainly affected by the event environment and by material in the detectors. The former effect is evaluated by the track embedding method. It results in an uncertainty of 3.4%. The latter effect is estimated to be 3.7% by varying the energy loss in the inner detectors in the MC simulation. In total we find an uncertainty of 5.0% in the slow pion efficiency, leading to 2.6% uncertainty in $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$.

The fit of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$ depends on the resolution of y, which is a function of the $`\overline{B^0}`$ and $`D^+`$ four-momentum vectors and of the beam energy. Therefore we change the $`\overline{B^0}`$ mass, $`D^+`$ mass and the beam energy by their uncertainties to estimate the contribution from these sources. We find a 1.1% change in $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$.

We estimate the uncertainty from the combinatorial background subtraction by changing the sideband region and the fitting function, and assign a systematic error of 1.0% on $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$.

By varying the branching fractions of the contributing modes in MC, the systematic error due to correlated background is determined to be 1.4%. We also estimate the size of the $`\overline{B^0}D^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ background from data by fitting the $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2`$ distribution. In this fit, the normalizations of the other background components are fixed and the shapes of the $`D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`D^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events come from MC. Using this method, we find $`72\pm 8`$ background events, which is compatible with the number derived from MC within the systematic error.

The fraction of uncorrelated background in MC is varied by 100%, leading to a systematic error of 0.4% on $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$. The uncertainty due to the fake electron background is estimated by varying the misidentification rate in MC according to the measured electron misidentification rate 0.20$`\pm `$0.02% determined from $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. The continuum background may be miscalculated if the $`q\overline{q}`$ background is inaccurately modeled in MC. The size of the continuum background is varied by 50%, giving 0.5% uncertainty on $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$. We also check this background using the 0.6 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ off-resonance data sample; the result is compatible with the MC estimate.

The uncertainty related to the finite MC statistics used to measure the efficiency matrix is measured by including the errors of the matrix elements in the fit. We denote this effect, 1.7% on $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$, as MC statistics.

The $`R_1(1)`$ and $`R_2(1)`$ are related to the electron momentum distribution. To estimate this effect, we vary $`R_1(1)`$ and $`R_2(1)`$ within the errors given by  and find a resultant 11.8% uncertainty on $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$.

To test the stability of the result, several systematic checks were made. The requirements on the second Fox-Wolfram moment, the $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ invariant mass and the square of the missing mass were individually tightened; in each case no discrepancy was found. The analysis was also performed for a narrower range of electron momentum; again a consistent result was found.

## 8 Conclusion

In conclusion, we have measured the y distribution of $`\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays to obtain $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$ and the slope of the form factor using a dispersion relation. The results are

$$\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)=(3.54\pm 0.19\pm 0.18)\times 10^2,$$

$$\rho _{A_1}^2=1.35\pm 0.17\pm 0.19,$$

with a correlation coefficient between $`\left|V_{cb}\right|F(1)`$ and $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$ of 0.91. From the same fit, we extract the branching fraction

$$(\overline{B^0}D^+e^{}\overline{\nu })=(4.59\pm 0.23\pm 0.40)\times 10^2.$$

These results are consistent with other published measurements from CESR  and LEP .

Using $`F(1)`$ = 0.913$`\pm `$0.042 , the following value of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ is obtained:

$$\left|V_{cb}\right|=(3.88\pm 0.21\pm 0.20\pm 0.19)\times 10^2,$$

where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic and the third is theoretical.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the Center for High Energy Physics sponsored by the KOSEF; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No.2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of Russian Federation; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quasar absorption systems characterized by a large hydrogen column density, $`\mathrm{log}N(HI)`$ 20.2 cm-2 (hereinafter DLAs), are observed at all redshifts up to z $``$ 4.5 (Dessaugues-Zavadsky et al 2001) although there is some evidence for a lack of large HI column density systems for z$``$ 4 (Peroux et al 2001). DLAs are the largest reservoir of neutral hydrogen and there is little doubt that they are the progenitors of the present day galaxies. However, the main galactic population which originates the DLAs has still to be clearly identified. At low redshift deep imaging has revealed a heterogeneous population of dwarfs, low surface brightness, irregulars and also spirals galaxies (Le Brun et al 1997, Rao & Turnshek 2000).

Some sort of chemical information is available for almost half of the $``$ 180 DLAs presently known. Frequently measured ions are SiII, FeII, CrII, ZnII, NiII, AlII, MnII, TiII, while there is relatively less information for elements such as SII, NI ArI, PII, and OI whose useful transitions are mixed and often blended by the intervening Lyman forest. Recently, the D/H ratio has also been successfully measured in a DLA (Levshakov et al 2002). Abundances in the DLAs can be rather accurate with errors of the order of 25% - 10%, or even better in case of optically thin lines and simple velocity structure. There are no other techniques applied to the high redshift universe where chemical abundances can be obtained with comparable precision. However, different elements show different sensitivities to the radiation field, or affinity with dust, which somewhat confuses the nucleosynthetic pattern and complicates the interpretation of the observed abundances.

## 2 Dust, Argon and ionization

The presence of dust in the clouds affects the abundance of those elements which are locked up into dust grains and are therefore depleted from the diffuse phase. Several indications suggest the presence of dust in DLAs. Pettini et al (1997) pointed out that Fe and Cr are generally deficient in comparison to the undepleted Zn, as is found in the dusty Galactic disk and at variance with what is observed in the metal poor stars of the Galactic halo where Zn tracks Fe closely. We note here that in DLAs iron is always found slightly more deficient than Cr, which may indicate the presence of a differential depletion of the two elements as it also found in warm interstellar clouds of our own Galaxy (Savage and Sembach 1996). Hou et al (2001) found that the abundances of refractory elements anti-correlate with the elemental column density, which mimics the well known pattern between these elements and the hydrogen column density observed in the Milky Way. New evidence for the presence of dust is provided by the few systems where molecular hydrogen has been detected. Levshakov et al (2002) found that the fraction of molecular hydrogen increases in the DLAs showing more dust-depletion inferred from the \[Fe/Zn\] ratios, as expected since dust is needed in the process of H2 formation.

The large hydrogen column densities shield efficiently the clouds from the surrounding IGM radiation field (Viegas 1995). Thus, DLAs are essentially HI regions with the lower ionization elements as the dominant state. High ionization species such as CIV and SiIV are often observed but show different velocity structure and originate quite likely in different regions. Recently it has been pointed out that AlIII and AlII have similar profiles suggesting the presence of HII interfaces. However, Vladilo et al (2001) showed that even when such interfaces are accounted for, the corrections remain negligible for all elements with the possible exception of but possibly Al. A radically different model where the DLAs are an ensemble of neutral metal-free gas and ionized gas containing metals has been proposed by Izotov et al (2001). These models foresee significant ionization and can be tested with Argon, which has been recently measured in a couple of DLAs (Molaro et al 2001; Levshakov et al 2002). Argon has a photoionization cross-section which is $``$ 10 times higher than of HI and therefore is very sensitive to ionization effects (Sofia and Jenkins 1998). Space observations showed that in the LISM the (Ar/H) gas-phase is below solar by $``$0.3 to $``$0.6 dex varying with the line of sight. Argon is not expected to be depleted in the interstellar medium and the observed deficiency has been interpreted by Jenkins and Sofia as due to partial ionization by UV stellar radiation. The fact that the Ar abundances in the two DLAs where Ar has been measured are almost in line with the abundances of O, S and Si, requires that ionization effects are relatively unimportant. In fact, by applying the Izotov et al correction to Ar would result in an Ar

Ar overabundances by one dex or more, which is quite unlikely. At the same time these measures imply that in this DLA no intense star formation is taking place along the line of sight. New measures of Ar in other DLAs would be of great importance for probing general ionization effects either due to the intergalactic radiation field or to star forming regions inside the clouds themselves.

## 3 The chemical pattern and the (S/O), (Ar/O) ratios

Once the effects of ionization and dust are considered it is possible to address the isue of the presence of a specific chemical pattern for the DLAs. The ratio between $`\alpha `$ elements and the iron-peak elements, which is related to the relative contribution of Type II and Type I supernovae, is a key piece of information for tracing back the chemical history. The early works focussed on the fact that the \[Si/Fe\] ratio is $``$ 0.4 on average, as is observed in the Galactic halo stars, and this was readily interpreted as the signature of TypeII SN.

However, a similar ratio is observed also in the warm phase gas of the LISM, and the former interpretation is valid only in complete absence of dust, which we regard as unlikely. Fig 1 shows the \[Si/Fe\] versus the \[Fe/Zn\] ratios. The strong correlation between the two quantities is very suggestive of the presence of differential depletion of Fe relatively to both Si and Zn. The intercept for \[Fe/Zn\]=0, gives \[Si/Fe\] $``$ 0.1, providing evidence for only a mild enhancement of the \[Si/Fe\] ratios in the less dusty clouds. It is also rather interesting to note that both the behaviour and the range of the \[Si/Fe\] and \[Fe/Zn\] ratios in the DLAs are similar to those observed in isolated Galactic clouds presented by Lew Hobbs in this conference.

Different approaches have been followed to resolve the degeneracy in the interpretation of the \[Si/Fe\] ratio (Molaro 2002). Some authors have tried to correct for dust (Vladilo 1998), or considered only systems showing little evidence for dust (Pettini et al 1999) or considered only non-refractory elements such as the \[S/Zn\] (Centurion et al 2000). The picture that is emerging favours a variety of chemical patterns with both halo-like and solar chemical patterns present in DLAs. The latter, which are somewhat unexpected on theoretical grounds are in fact those more frequently found. Solar ratio at low metallicity requires that the yields of SNe Ia have already become effective in determining the global metallicity of the system. This can be achieved either with a slow SFR or from a burst of SF followed by a long quiescent period in which SNe Ia evolve (Matteucci et al 1997). If the relatively modest $`\alpha `$ enhancement is due to the action of SNe Ia, there are at least two important implications. The first is that SNe Ia are not suppressed at low metallicity as argued by Nomoto and collaborators. The second is that the epoch of star formation in the systems has to be anticipated to cope at least with SNe Ia lifetimes and subsequent elemental mixing.

Henry and Worthey (1999) pointed out that the observed ratios of (S/O) and of (Ar/O) are found to be independent from metallicity in a large variety of objects including the Milky-Way, HII spirals and Blue Compact Galaxies (BCG). New UVES-VLT observations provided for the first time information for these three elements so that these abundances can be discussed in the same context. The $`\mathrm{log}(S/O)`$ ratios in the DLAs, shown together with those of the BCGs in Fig. 2, taken from Izotov & Thuan (1999) are indistinguishable from the BCGs, and the same occurs for the $`\mathrm{log}(Ar/O)`$. The universal constancy of the $`\mathrm{log}(S/O)`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(Ar/O)`$ ratios found in different galaxies is extented now also to the DLAs, at least in the few cases where such measures have become available, and probed to an even lower value of $`\mathrm{log}(O/H)+12`$. This is particularly significant considering that DLAs and BCGs in the local universe may have formed at totally different epochs. Since the O yields are more sensitive to progenitor mass than S and Ar, the constancy in the ratios between these $`\alpha `$ elements has been interpreted by Henry & Worthey (1999) as evidence for a universal IMF in different galaxies, and this argument can be now developed to include also the DLAs.

## 4 Special elements: Phosphorus & Nitrogen

Phosphorus is a recent entry in the set of elements measured in the DLAs with 3 measures reported in the systems towards QSO 0000$``$2621 (Molaro et al 2001) GB1759+7539 (Outram et al 1999) and QSO 0347$``$3819 (Levshakov et al 2002). Phosphorus cannot be measured in halo stars and DLAs offer a unique site where it can be measured at metallicities significantly lower than solar. The 31P is an odd-element which is likely produced by $`n`$-capture in C and Ne shell burning. In the dust free DLA towards QSO 0000$``$2621 phosphorus is found slightly below iron, $`[P/Fe]=`$0.2, which requires a sort of mildly metallicity dependent yields to arrive at solar values later on. The relative ratios of P with the closeby nuclei S and Si, $`[P/Si,S]=`$0.3, show evidence for a mild odd-even effect, but it is somewhat lower than what is predicted by the theoretical models of Limongi et al (2000). P is not depleted in the LISM and, once the nucleosynthetic properties of this element are better defined with additional observations, it may become a useful proxy for Zn and a potential tracer of the metallicities for very high redshift damped systems where Zn is difficult to detect.

The available Nitrogen measures in the DLAs are shown in Fig. 3 where the $`\mathrm{log}(N/O)`$ versus $`\mathrm{log}O+12`$ are plotted. The N observations are taken from different sources as described in the caption. O is directly measured in only 3 DLAs towards QSO 0000$``$2621, BR J0307$``$4945 and QSO 0347$``$3819. So that for the remaining ones we use S as a proxy for O. Nitrogen has a rather complex nucleosynthesis. Its production occurs mainly in intermediate mass stars with 4$``$8 M, which undergo HB burning and expel large amounts of primary N at low \[Fe/H\] and secondary-tertiary N at higher metallicities. A primary production at low metallicities by massive stars with M$`>`$ 8 M has also been suggested. The theoretical curves corresponding to these different scenarios are shown in the figure, together with the measurements in the Blue Compact Galaxies by Izotov and Thuan (1999). As it is possible to see from the figure the DLAs data points show values close to the theoretical curve for secondary production and other values in correspondence of the theoretical curve for primary behaviour. In particular, in some DLAs $`\mathrm{log}(N/O)`$ is much lower than any other measurement in the BCGs. Izotov et al argued that ionization effects may lower the NI/SII ratios, and therefore the $`N/O`$, if S is taken as a proxy for O. However, the new direct oxygen measurements show that this is not the case since the argument does not apply to OI. The low $`\mathrm{log}(N/O)`$=$``$2.4 in BR J0307$``$4945 obtained from a direct measure of O shows that low values of $`\mathrm{log}(N/O)`$ are real and provides some evidence against the possibility of a primary origin of N in massive stars.

The observed scatter can be interpreted as due to the delayed release of N relatively to O. For instance only 6 Myrs are required for a 25 M star to release O, while N requires longer timescales, i.e. about 250 Myrs for a 4 M star. Within this model the $`\mathrm{log}(N/O)`$ measurements offer the way to constraint the ages of the clouds. The low-$`\mathrm{log}(N/O)`$ cases would correspond to young objects, $``$ 250 Myrs, while high $`N/O`$ to older systems. In support of this interpretation there is also a hint of correlation between the $`\mathrm{log}(N/O)`$ and the $`\alpha `$-element enhancement. DLAs with low $`\alpha `$-enhancement such as QSO 0000$``$2621 or QSO 0930+2858 show a tendency for high $`N/O`$ abundances, while low $`N/O`$ values are observed in $`\alpha `$-element enriched DLAs such as the one towards QSO 0347$``$3819. The former two DLAs are at zabs$``$ 3.4 and require the epoch of star formation at earlier times to produce both considerable amount of N and to make the TypeIa yields effective in reducing the $`\alpha `$ over iron-peak ratios. Assuming an indicative time interval of 500 Myrs the star formation is placed at z $``$ 5, for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$=0.7, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ =0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$=0.05 and H0= 70 km s-1 Mpc-1. Thus it may well be possible that at high redshift some neutral clouds are rather passive systems chemically enriched by an earlier stellar population. This would also explain the normal Ar abundances, the absence of detectable Ly$`\alpha `$ flux and the apparent lack of chemical evolution of DLAs with redshift.

Acknowledgements.  I warmly acknowledge Miriam Centurion, Piercarlo Bonifacio, Sergio Levshakov, Giovanni Vladilo, Sandro D’Odorico and Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky for allowing me to present common work and Sara Ellison for useful comments on an early version of the paper.


text:
# Statistical Fluctuations as Probes of Dense Matter

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Thermal models for the production of final-state hadrons in nuclear collisions have been extremely successful over a wide range of collision energies ranging from the Bevalac/SIS, over the AGS and SPS, to the RHIC . The parametric dependences of the temperature $`T`$ and baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$ on the nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ map out two lines in the phase diagram, which are usually called the chemical and thermal freeze-out lines. The chemical freeze-out line $`(T_{\mathrm{ch}},\mu _{\mathrm{ch}})`$ is deduced from the abundance ratios of different species of hadrons, while the thermal freeze-out line $`(T_{\mathrm{th}},\mu _{\mathrm{th}})`$ is deduced from the slopes of the transverse momentum spectra of the emitted hadrons.

What do these results tell us about QCD except that the hadronic matter at freeze-out is quite well described by a state of thermal and chemical equilibrium? Firstly, rather strong arguments have been presented that the chemical and thermal equilibrium can only be established by some complex “prehadronic” dynamics, which requires the presence of gluons as dynamical degrees of fredom . Secondly, the thermal equilibrium description requires the assumption of a strong transverse collective flow of the matter at freeze-out, which exhibits an increasing degree of azimuthal anisotropy as the CM energy increases. This effect, called elliptic flow , indicates the presence of a strong transverse pressure very soon (1 fm/c) after the begin of the nuclear reaction .

As the chemical freeze-out parameters at SPS and RHIC energies are very close to the expected phase boundary between hadronic matter and the quark-gluon plasma, it is reasonable to conjecture that the produced matter was first thermalized in the deconfined phase and then evolved through the phase boundary into a thermal gas of hadrons. The crucial question is whether any signatures remain in hadronic observables that carry information about this evolution prior to the final freeze-out.

As I will explain, there are reasons to believe that statistical fluctuations  in certain hadronic observables may preserve information about earlier times, even though their averages only tell us about the freeze-out conditions. It is here where the finite volume and the finite life-time of the hadronic fireball produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions turn out to be advantages rather than deficiencies. The relative size of fluctuations in thermodynamic observables, as compared to the average values, decreases inversely with the volume $`V`$ of the system. And if the system would evolve infintely slowly, the fluctuations at freeze-out would only reflect the freeze-out conditions.

The talk is organized as follows: After a brief review of statistical fluctuations in parts of an equilibrated system, I will discuss fluctuations in the momentum spectra of emitted particles, and later fluctuations in particle abundances, or chemical fluctuations, where the main emphasis will be on the fluctuations of conserved quantum numbers. The talk will conclude with some experimentally relevant considerations and an outlook.

## 2 STATISTICAL FLUCTUATIONS IN A SUBVOLUME

Consider small subsystem of a large system in thermodynamic equilibrium at temperature $`T=\beta ^1`$. Let us ask how the average energy $`E_V`$ contained in the subvolume $`V`$ changes as a function of temperature. A straightforward calculation yields:

$$\frac{}{\beta }E_V=\frac{}{\beta }\frac{\mathrm{Tr}_V(He^{\beta H})}{\mathrm{Tr}_V(e^{\beta H})}=E^2_V+E_V^2.$$
(1)
As the right-hand side is just the fluctuation of the energy contained in $`V`$, we have obtained the important result, that the energy fluctuations are determined by the heat capacity of the matter in the subvolume:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E^2_V=T^2\frac{E_V}{T}=T^2C_V$$
(2)
where $`C_V`$ is the heat cpaacity. Fluctuations of other (conserved) quantities $`𝒪`$ can be calculated in a similar way, by considering the variation of the grand canonical average $`𝒪_{V,T}`$ with respect to a change in the chemical potential $`\mu `$ associated with $`𝒪`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪^2_V=T\frac{𝒪_{V,T}}{\mu }T\chi _O.$$
(3)
The expression on the right-hand side, apart from the factor $`T`$, is called the susceptibility $`\chi _𝒪`$, which measures the response of the medium to a change in the chemical potenial. associate with the observable $`𝒪`$. An important example is the magnetic susceptibility $`chi_M`$, where the observable is given by the magnetization $`M`$, and the magnetic field $`H`$ assumes the role of the chemical potential. Examples of interest in the case of hadronic matter are the chiral susceptibility $`\chi _m`$ and the Polyakov loop susceptibility $`\chi _L`$, which measure the response of the medium to a change in the quark mass, and to the addition of a free heavy quark, respectively.

## 3 THERMAL FLUCTUATIONS

As outlined above, fluctuations of the thermal energy in a given subvolume are a measure of the change of the average thermal energy with temperature, i.e. the heat capacity of the matter contained in the subvolume. A similar relation connects the fluctuations of the local temperature to the heat capacity $`C_V`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T^2}{T^2}=\frac{1}{C_V}.$$
(4)
This relation could be used to measure the specific heat of the hadronic matter created in high-energy nuclear collisions . The idea here is to use the slope of the transverse momentum spectrum of emitted particles as a measure of the temperature – assuming that the matter is thermalized – and to look for fluctuations in the event ensemble. Near a critical point, the specific heat diverges, causing the thermal fluctuations to vanish. A pronounced decrease in the observed temperature fluctuations between otherwise identical events would, therefore, indicate an approach to the critical point in the phase diagram.

The simplest way to identify temperature fluctuations is to look for fluctuations in the mean transverse momentum $`p_T`$. Since the increase of $`C_V`$ near $`T_c`$ is caused by the increased fluctuations of the modes associated with the order parameter – in the case of the chiral phase transition, the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$ – it should be possible to enhance the signal by considering event-by-event fluctuations of observables most sensitive to these modes. For hadronic matter, this would be the mean transverse momentum of low-$`p_T`$ pions, which are thought to partially arise from the decay of local excitations of the iso-singlet order parameter, the $`\sigma `$-meson mode.

For practical purposes, two observables have been defined :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_T^2}{N}\right)^{1/2}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }p_T^2}\right)^{1/2}$$
(5)
where $`P_T^2`$ is the total squared transverse momentum of all particles emitted in an event, $`N`$ is the event multiplicity, $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the event average, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }p_T^2}`$ the average for the inclusive single particle distribution; and :

$$F_p=\frac{N\mathrm{\Delta }P_T^2/N}{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }p_T^2}}.$$
(6)
Being a ratio rather than a difference, $`F_p`$ may be less sensitive to collective flow effects than $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$. An estimate for the expected size of $`F`$ due to the fluctuations in the $`\sigma `$-field has can be obtained in the framework of the linear sigma model :

$$F_\sigma 1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.14}\left(\frac{\xi _\sigma }{6\mathrm{fm}}\right)^2,$$
(7)
where $`\xi _\sigma `$ is the correlation length of the fluctuations.

This prediction has to be modified for two reasons. First of all, the hadronic system does not decay into free hadrons right at the critical point, even if it reaches this point during its evolution. Instead of observing the large correlation length predicted to occur at $`(T_c,\mu _c)`$ in equilibrium, one would thus expect to observe the reduced correlation length associated with the freeze-out parameters $`(T_f,\mu _f)`$, see Fig. 1. Furthermore, even under conditions of criticality, the correlation length only diverges if the system has enough time to develop long-range fluctuations of the order parameter. The theory of dynamical critical phenomena yields an equation determining the change in the inverse correlation length $`m(t)=\xi (t)^1`$ as the system evolves :

$$\frac{dm}{dt}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(m(t))\left(m(t)m_{\mathrm{eq}}(t)\right).$$
(8)
Here $`m_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the inverse correlation length in equilibrium – which vanishes at the critical point – and the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)m^z`$ with some positive exponent $`z`$. As critical conditions are approached, the relaxation time diverges exhibiting the well-known effect of critical “slowing down”.

If the critical point is reached in a nuclear collision, the system rapidly expands across it and freezes out soon afterwards. According to (8) the correlation length $`\xi (t)`$ remains smaller than $`\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ as $`T_c`$ is approached from above, but then decreases less rapidly than $`\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$. The prediction is thus that the effective correlation length at the moment of freeze-out is larger than one would expect under equilibrium conditions, reflecting the temporary proximity to the critical point .

Experimental data for $`p_T`$ fluctuations have been obtained by NA49 for Pb+Pb collisions at the CERN-SPS  and recently by STAR for Au+Au collisions at RHIC . While the NA49 data reflect mean $`p_T`$ fluctuations in a forward rapidity region, the STAR data were taken at midrapidity. NA49 reported values of $`F=1.004\pm 0.004`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p=0.6\pm 1`$ MeV after corrections for two-particle (HBT) correlations. The value from STAR is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p35`$ MeV.

## 4 CHEMICAL FLUCTUATIONS

Fluctuations in the chemical composition of the emitted hadron yields can potentially probe the microscopic structure of the emitting matter. An example is the quark number susceptibility

$$\chi _q=T\frac{}{\mu _q}\overline{q}\gamma ^0q,$$
(9)
which measures the response of the net quark density to a change in the quark chemical potenial. A different, but related quantity is the chiral susceptibility $`\chi _m=T\overline{q}q/m`$, which measures the response of the quark condensate to a change in the current quark mass. $`\chi _q`$ has an isoscalar and an isovector component

$`\chi _\mathrm{S}`$ $`=`$ $`T^1[\mathrm{\Delta }(u^{}u)+\mathrm{\Delta }(d^{}d)]^2,`$
$`\chi _{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $`=`$ $`T^1[\mathrm{\Delta }(u^{}u)\mathrm{\Delta }(d^{}d)]^2,`$ (10)
which have both been determined on the lattice . The results show that $`\chi _\mathrm{S}\chi _{\mathrm{NS}}`$, indicating that fluctuations in the u- and d-quark densities are uncorrelated.

As chemical properties are generally carried by particles, chemical fluctuations are determined by fluctuations in the corresponding particle numbers, and their changes are governed by particle transport processes. A weakly coupled hadronic gas (HG) and a perturbative quark-gluon plasma (QGP) differ significantly in this respect, as listed in Table 1.

This implies that measurable differences in the fluctuations associated with charge and baryon number exist between a hadron gas and a quark-gluon plasma.

The second important point is that fluctuations of locally conserved quantities, such as the net electric charge or the net baryon number (or the net strangeness!) cannot be erased by local reactions. They can only be modified due to particle transport over larger distances, i.e. diffusion, and may thus be fixated early, if the evolution of the system is sufficiently rapid . Consider the total net electric charge of all particles emitted within a rapidity window $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ in a high-energy nuclear collision. The fluctuation of this quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2_{\mathrm{\Delta }y}`$ is proportional to the volume associated with emission into this rapidity window, i.e. to $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ itself in a boost invariant scenario. On the other hand, the rate of diffusion of net charge into and out of this volume is independent of the size of the rapidity interval. Therefore, early fluctuations of the net charge contained in a sufficiently large rapidity interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }y\mathrm{\Delta }y_{\mathrm{min}}`$ may survive. The questions are, how large is $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_{\mathrm{min}}`$, and how much do the predictions for a HG and a QGP differ?

We first address the last question. We estimate the fluctuations per unit volume in the two different phases in the weak coupling limit. In the hadron gas we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }B^2_{\mathrm{HG}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_B+N_{\overline{B}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2_{\mathrm{HG}}`$ $``$ $`N_{\pi ^+}+N_\pi ^{}+N_{K^+}+N_K^{}+\mathrm{},`$ (11)
where $`N_i`$ denotes the number of hadrons of species $`i`$ in the subvolume, and $`N_B`$ ($`N_{\overline{B}}`$) counts all (anti-)baryons. In the quark-gluon plasma we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }B^2_{\mathrm{QGP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(N_q+N_{\overline{q}}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2_{\mathrm{QGP}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}(N_u+N_{\overline{u}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(N_d+N_{\overline{d}}+N_s+N_{\overline{s}}),`$ (12)
with the analogous notation of the quark numbers. Neglecting the contribution from strange quarks, the net charge and baryon number fluctuations in the QGP are related as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B^2_{\mathrm{QGP}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2_{\mathrm{QGP}}}=\frac{2}{5}.$$
(13)
Since it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the size of an observed subvolume accurately, it is desirable to normalize the fluctuations to another extensive quantity. One possibility is to choose the total entropy $`S`$, which is closely related to the total number of particles in the subvolume. For the QGP one can derive the analytical relation ($`\mu `$ denotes the baryon chemical potential)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B^2_{\mathrm{QGP}}}{S_{\mathrm{QGP}}}=\frac{5}{37\pi ^2}\left(1+\frac{22}{111}\left(\frac{\mu }{\pi T}\right)^2+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(14)
which also determines the charge fluctuations by virtue of (13). Quantitative estimates for the hadron gas phase are somewhat more complex, requiring corrections for the decay of higher resonances. The resulting estimates for the net charge and baryon number fluctuations, divided by the entropy, are compared in Fig. 2 with the QGP predictions over an energy range spanning from the SPS to the LHC. The HG prediction is always significantly higher, and at RHIC energies and beyond the net charge fluctuations provide for greater discrimination than the baryon fluctuations. However, we will argue shortly that early net baryon number fluctuations have a greater chance of survival in a narrow rapidity interval.

Next we address the question whether the fluctuations generated during a QGP phase can survive the final state expansion in the HG phase. For simplicity, we consider the boost invariant case of a longitudinal expansion introduced by Bjorken, illustrated in Fig. 3. Considering a rapidity interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=1`$, we see that the left and right boundary separate from another with the relative velocity $`\mathrm{\Delta }v0.76c`$. The typical longitudinal velocity component of a baryon in the hadronic phase is

$$\overline{v}_z=(8T/\pi M)^{1/2}0.32c.$$
(15)
implying that most baryons will not be able to move out of the rapidity interval, in which they were contained at the moment of hadronization. Thus, we would expect that the baryon number fluctuations generated in a rapidity interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }y1`$ during the QGP phase will remain frozen during the HG phase. A more detailed analysis of the transport of baryons through the left- and right-hand surfaces of a cylindrical volume shows that baryon number fluctuations from the QGP phase can survive if $`\mathrm{\Delta }y>\overline{v}_z`$ .

The time evolution of fluctuations can also be studied in the framework of transport theory . Consider the distribution of particles in rapidity space as a function of proper time $`\tau `$:

$$n(y,\tau )=n_{\mathrm{eq}}(y)+f(y,\tau ),$$
(16)
where $`f(y,\tau )`$ describes the deviation from equilibrium. The relaxation toward equilibrium is described by the Langevin equation

$$\frac{f}{\tau }=\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}}f+\gamma \frac{^2f}{y^2}+\xi ,$$
(17)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the relaxation time, $`\gamma `$ is the coefficient describing diffusion of particles in rapidity, and$`\xi `$ is the noise term. For a locally conserved particle density, $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}^1=0`$, and the decay of a fluctuation $`f(y)`$ is solely governed by diffusion. Making use of the equivalent Fokker-Planck equation for the Fourier components of the rapidity fluctuations $`f(k,\tau )`$ one can show that the Gaussian width $`\sigma _k(\tau )`$ of the component $`f(k,\tau )`$ satisfies the equation

$$\frac{}{\tau }\sigma _k^2=2\gamma k^2(\sigma _k^2\chi _k)$$
(18)
where $`\chi _k=𝑑\eta e^{ik\eta }f(y+\eta )f(y)`$. There is no relaxation of the fluctuations toward equilibrium for the $`k=0`$ component due to the conservation law; higher Fourier components decay exponentially wih the rate $`2k^2\gamma `$.

The diffusion constant $`\gamma `$ is determined by the rapidity transfer in particle collisions and the average time between collisions: $`\gamma =(\delta y_{\mathrm{coll}})^2/(2\tau _{\mathrm{coll}})`$. With some additional simplifying assumptions one then finds that the mean square fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }N^2`$ in a rapidity interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ decays according to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N^2=\mathrm{\Delta }y\left(\chi _0+(\sigma _0^2\chi _0)G(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{\mathrm{diff}}/\mathrm{\Delta }y)\right),$$
(19)
where $`G(x)`$ is a universal function. For large times, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N^2`$ decays slowly toward its equilibrium value. $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_{\mathrm{diff}}^2=2\gamma (\tau )𝑑\tau `$ describes the minimal rapidity interval for which initial state fluctuations survive. Shuryak and Stephanov obtained the estimates

$$\mathrm{\Delta }y_{\mathrm{diff}}^{(\pi )}2.2,\mathrm{\Delta }y_{\mathrm{diff}}^{(N)}0.9$$
(20)
for the rapidity intervals controlling charge and baryon number fluctuations, respectively. However, these estimates are based on collision rates deduced from a hadronic cascade model (RQMD) that does not include a deconfined phase, thus possibly overestimating the size of the required rapidity windows.

## 5 EXPERIMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RESULTS

For the net charge fluctuations, an elegant way to eliminate the size of the observed volume is to consider the fluctuations in the quantity $`R=N_+/N_{}`$. These can be related to the net charge fluctuations by means of the relation

$$D=N_{\mathrm{ch}}\mathrm{\Delta }R^2=4\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2/N_{\mathrm{ch}}.$$
(21)
It is useful to correct the quantity $`D`$ for two trivial effects by defining a variable $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ as

$$D=C_\mu C_y\stackrel{~}{D},$$
(22)
with $`C_\mu =N_+^2/N_{}^2`$ accounting for the net average charge in the rapidity interval (due to the baryon excess) and $`C_y=1N_{\mathrm{ch}}_{\mathrm{\Delta }y}/N_{\mathrm{ch}}^{(\mathrm{tot})}`$ correcting for the effect of global charge conservation. For an uncorrelated thermal pion gas one expects $`\stackrel{~}{D}=4`$. Decays of higher meson resonances (such as $`\omega ,\rho ,\eta `$) reduce the value of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ by about 30%. For a weakly interacting QGP one anticipates $`\stackrel{~}{D}1`$.

Preliminary results for $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ have been reported by the NA49 collaboration for Pb+Pb collisions at 40, 80, and 158 GeV/u beam energy . A value slightly in excess of $`\stackrel{~}{D}=4`$ was found for all three beam energies and independent of the selected pseudorapidity interval $`0.3<\mathrm{\Delta }\eta <3.5`$. The STAR collaboration has reported first results for net charge fluctuations in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV in the pseudorapidity window $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |<0.7`$. The value obtained by STAR is $`\stackrel{~}{D}3`$, as expected for a nearly baryon-free hadron resonance gas .

## 6 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

Fluctuations are sensitive probes of the microscopic structure of dense matter. Local temperature fluctuations can indicate the presence of a second-order phase transition or critical point, while net charge and baryon number fluctuations provide information about the particle modes that govern the charge and baryon number transport. In all cases, the rapid expansion of the fireball in its last stages is essential for the survival of fluctuations established at early times.

In addition to thermal fluctuations, the fireball may exhibit fluctuations due to the initial state . These could be probed independently in p+p or p+A collisions. For example, such fluctuations may be probes of the quasiclassical coherent glue fields in a fast-moving nucleus . Similarly, large nonstatistical fluctuations, such as disoriented chiral condensates, can signal the presence of unstable collective modes at some time during the course of the heavy ion collision.

Preliminary data from the NA49 and STAR experiments indicate the presence of both, nontrivial $`p_T`$ fluctuations near central rapidity and net charge fluctuations similar to those of a pion or hadron resonance gas. The measurement of net baryon number fluctuations remains a formidable experimental challenge, since they require the detection of neutral as well as charged baryons. However, the case may not be entirely hopeless, as plans by the PHENIX collaboration to measure antineutrons with high efficiency demonstrate .

Fluctuations are a rich topic with many theoretical challenges and opportunities. Lattice gauge theory can make quantitative predictions for fluctuations near thermal equilibrium. The wide array of possible fluctuation observables remains largely unexplored. Microscopic models can simulate final state effects on fluctuations and provide useful guidance about which observables contain valuable information. There is ample room for the exploration of novel analysis strategies, as our picture of the space-time evolution of nuclear collisions at RHIC energy comes into focus. One especially promising class of observables are the balance functions, which can provide a more differential measure of quantum number fluctuations in phase space . The subject also promises a wealth of experimental data, as several RHIC detectors, foremost PHOBOS and STAR, are well equipped to explore event-by-event fluctuations in a wide range of observables.


text:
# Dialogue on Classical and Quantum between mathematician and experimenter

## Abstract

This dialogue took place at Växjö, 19 November 2001. The main aim of our meeting in Växjö was to clarify our viewpoints on foundations of quantum mechanics. The most attractive in our discussion was the extreme difference in our quantum experiences. On one side, pure mathematician (specializing in foundations of probability theory), Andrei Khrennikov; on the other side, pure experimenter (specializing in neutron and electron interferometry), Johann Summhammer. On one hand, an attempt to test mathematical models for larger and larger domains of physical reality. On the other hand, an attempt to create this reality from experimental information - roughly speaking from clicks of detectors.

Andrei: Was the transition from classical to quantum physics a jump-like transition that changed the whole picture of physical reality or just a new application of ”classical” statistical physics?

Johann: It was a crucial change of the whole physical ideology. In any case it was not just a new application of classical statistical physics.

Andrei: What are the main distinguishing features of quantum physics?

Johann: I would like to underline two new fundamental features:

(D) Discreteness of quantum observations and finiteness of information that could be obtained via a concrete measurement. In modern language it would be that in finite time only a finite amount of information can be obtained.

(R) Randomness of results of measurements.

Andrei: In fact, I do not see so large difference from classical statistical mechanics. Well, discreteness is the additional condition. But it is natural from the experimentalist viewpoint: a finite precision of each concrete measurement. This problem was deeply investigated already in 19th century: precision, errors and so on. Regarding to (R): I do not see any difference with ”classical” statistical physics at all. Already in statistical mechanics we calculate probabilities and averages. It looks that quantum mechanics is just a new domain (it might be very special) of applications of ”classical” statistical physics.

Johann: Not at all! First I shall try to explain the role of (D) and then go to (R). Yes, already in 19th century (and even earlier) people paid attention to precision of measurements, errors and so on. However(!), they did not understand the fundamental role of discreteness of information that could be obtained from measurements. Suppose you asked an engineer of 19th century: ”Is it possible to measure the length of this stick with arbitrary precision in finite time?” The answer would be: ”In principle yes. If we use a very good measurement device, we could do this.” So for him the problem was just of a technical matter: we need to improve technology, produce a good device and perform the precise measurement.

Andrei: I am not sure that an engineer of 19th century would behave in such a way. First of all as an engineer he should speak about a measurement with an arbitrary precision, instead of a precise measurement. Moreover, I think that he even would not claim that there exists a kind of ”real” length of a stick. On the other hand, it seems that you are right regarding to mathematicians and physicists. In 19th century they were under great influence of Newtonian model of reality that was based on the use of ”continuous quantities” (represented by real numbers in a mathematical model). So it might be that discreteness was surprising for people working with real model of space-time. From this point of view the (D)-argument is just an argument against the use of the mathematical model of physical reality based on real numbers. However, quantum theory did not proceed in this way: the Newtonian ”continuous” space-time was transferred automatically into quantum formalism. So the (D)-argument was not so intriguing for experimenters and engineers; it was surprising for mathematicians and physicists working in the continuous Newtonian model. However, in the latter case the (D)-argument did not induce a revolution against the use of continuous quantities in physics - real numbers. It just modifies the formalism (by using matrices) to combine discreteness of results of measurements with ”continuous” reality.

Johann: Well, I take this already as an important lesson. Observation gives discrete and finite results, but the reality which we construe from it is left continuous. This is a hint that the reality we can speak about, is the one construed from observations. It is a picture. I think in classical physics we were not forced so rigorously to distinguish between observed data and what we envision from them. Somehow we could think that the data ”are” the world.

Now - randomness. There is a crucial difference between randomness in classical statistical physics and quantum physics. Classical randomness is the result of our non sufficient knowledge of objective properties of physical systems. In classical physics you were permitted to think that each classical particle has a definite position at each instant of time. In principle (at least by improving technology) we could find the precise position of a particle. We could not do this for a quantum particle, without strongly influencing its future behaviour. This implies that, the image of a particle as a small something that moves through space, cannot be upheld.

Andrei: So we could not use the classical probability theory that was used in ”classical” statistical physics? Just to consider a large ensemble of quantum particles, perform statistical measurement of their properties and find corresponding probabilities and averages?

Johann: No, we could not do this! Classical randomness is, in principle, reducible to deterministic objective realistic description. Quantum stochasticity has a fundamental irreducible character.

Andrei: So classical Ensemble Probability could not work for ensembles of quantum systems?

Johann: No it would not. You need to work with the complex probability amplitudes of quantum theory. This has been established in very many experiments. The very working of semiconductor gadgets, to take just one example, is a consequence of electrons following quantum probability rules, not classical rules. \[Or take everyday chemistry, like paints and detergents. If you want to understand why they work as they do, you will not be able to do this with classical probability applied to electrons and ions. This is sometimes overlooked when people introduce hidden variable models.

Andrei: What is the origin of such a difference in random behaviour of classical and quantum particles? Do you think (as many) that there is Something very special in quantum systems that produces special quantum probability?

Johann: Yes, I think so.

Andrei: What is this speciality of quantum particles? It may be their wave features?

Johann: I am hesitant to use pictures like wave or particle. Although I do it all the time in the laboratory and when explaining to students, one must be aware that notions of wave, particle and the like are naive projections of our very muscular human experiences onto the world. Although I have recorded ”waves” in the form of sinusoidal interference patterns and seen ”particles” as flashing spots on a screen, I think it is wrong to attribute ”existence” to waves or particles. Quantum physics forces us to recognize that the world simply does not have a ”mode of being” such and such. The question what something ”really” is, is ill-formulated.

Andrei: I also think that the questions of existence and reality are very important in this discussion. However, I am not sure that these problems are only related to quantum systems. Existence of classical, microscopic, objects is not ABSOLUTE. It seems that the table in this room ”exists” only for a special class of observers (including human beings). These observers ”create” the table by using their special measurement devices. An observer of the size of an electron or the universe would never ”create” such ”an element of reality”, table.

Johann: From a practical point of view you may be right. But I would argue that any observer, equipped with similar reasoning powers as you and I, could find the same invariants and thus the same structure, when given the observational data which you and I have, and from which we conclude that the particular set of invariants is best subsumed under the notion ”massive impenetrable table”. (Incidentally your data and mine are completely different and yet we believe to be talking about the same table.)

Andrei: I think that the crucial role in creation of elements of reality for a special class of observers plays the relative magnitude of perturbations that are produced by measurement devices. I still have the idea that there is not such a large difference between ”classical” statistical physics and quantum physics. These two classes of measurements are characterized by different magnitudes of perturbations produced by measurement devices. ”Quantum” systems are essentially more sensitive to perturbations of our macro-devices than ”classical” systems. Do you agree with such a viewpoint? Negligibly small perturbations - classical physics, relatively large - quantum. It might be that there exist some classes of perturbations that are described neither by quantum nor classical physics.

Johann: No, I cannot follow you here. First, I am uneasy with the term ’perturbation’. It creates the classical image of one object hitting another one, and this is a very muscular view. C.F.von Weizsaecker once said ”Hitting and tossing are not primitive notions of physics.” I agree with him. I would even say that terms like ’scattering’ or ’interaction’ will meet with scrutiny in the future. They are also remnants of classical muscular physical thinking. They guide the psychology, which sets the frame for our thinking, in the wrong direction. Aside from that, I think physics can permit only one fundamental description of phenomena. Today this is quantum theory. At a coarser level you will, of course, recover the laws of classical physics. But this will always be understandable as a washing out of interference effects, for instance, when a detector integrates over several interference fringes because they are so narrow, or as uncontrollable interaction and thus entanglement with the greater environment, so that classical probability rules are sufficient to describe what you observe. For practical purposes it may be justified to distinguish between microworld - macroworld. But one cannot see this as a limited applicability of quantum theory.

Andrei: Well, it seems that you as well as I identified classical physics (Newtonian or Maxwellian) physics and classical randomness (ENSEMBLE randomness). I agree with you that we could not use Newtonian picture of physical reality. I even do not claim that quantum particles are really particles, i.e., objects localized in the Euclidean or Minkowski space. These are some objects, ”somethings”. The only thing that I defend is that there is no statistical difference between measurements over ensembles of ”classical” and ”quantum” somethings. These are collections of somethings that have some internal (well, objective) properties. We perform measurements of these properties. However, our measurements produce perturbations. This is the origin of randomness, both classical and quantum? Of course, quantum and classical measurements are characterized by different magnitudes of perturbations. But it is not a consequence of an exotic quantum features. It is just a question of scaling. An observer who has the size of the universe would produce perturbations of quantum magnitude by performing a measurement over an ensemble of our tables.

Johann: No, the different statistical behavior of ’quantum objects’, if you permit this term, cannot be reproduced by classical behavior, e.g., when a particle is in a superposition of two different energy states, unless you are willing to introduce an exotic entity like Bohm’s quantum potential, which violates special relativity left and right. Moreover, as I just said, I do not like your notion of perturbations. Newtonian physics could not be used in a quantum framework, and notions like forces and perturbations seem to me to be a hindrance. Unless one employs them in the subtle manner as Feynman did: You can think classically, follow each particle through all its conceivable paths, but assign each path a probability AMPLITUDE, not a probability. The immediate question -Why the probability AMPLITUDE? - has no satisfactory explanation until this day, except for symmetry arguments.

Andrei: Are you against my picture of classical+quantum randomness as perturbation-randomness?

Johann: At least your notion of perturbation is not well defined.

Andrei. I agree with you that I have to be more precise with perturbations. I do not consider perturbations as force-like Newtonian perturbations. I am not interested in underlining dynamical model. I speak about Statistical perturbations - perturbations of probability distributions. There are some parameters that determine experimental framework, we can say context (the system of physical conditions). It is natural that by varying these parameters we should change context. Physical systems (if you like somethings) would react in a new way to context corresponding to perturbed parameters. We obtain a perturbation of probability distribution. Such a perturbation could be defined in mathematical terms, see . Suppose that small variations of contex-parameters produce negligible perturbations of probabilistic distributions. We call such experiments - classical. Suppose that small variations of contex-parameters produce non-negligible perturbations of probabilistic distributions. Such a situation we have (in particular, see ) in quantum experiments.

Johann: My first reaction would be ’No’. On second thought it seems to me that you are aiming at a new language of speaking about the quantum mechanical time evolution of a system. Not as a continuous transformation of a distribution of probability amplitudes, but as a transformation of probabilities. Isn’t the Bohmian picture just that? I am doubtful of the advantage of the distinction ’small perturbation = classical probability’ and ’large perturbation = quantum probability’. If you think it through for actual situations, e.g. the double slit experiment with objects of very small and of very large de Broglie wavelength, you may obtain an understanding of what you mean by ’perturbation’. This could be interesting. Although I am sceptical that a deeper explanation of ’why the quantum probability rule?’ can be achieved, I am ready to learn. But how about the superposition of alternatives as in the EPR-experiment or the GHZ-experiment? Would perturbation be scaled by how much random spin flip there is? Then you would have the opposite of what you want: No perturbation = quantum probability, large perturbation = classical probability.

\[Andrei: The EPR experiment (as well as GHZ are, in fact, experiments on combination of statistical data obtained for distinct complexes of physical conditions, contexts. EPR-contexts are determined by different settings of Stern-Gerlach devices. Here variation of context-parameters, namely parameters of Stern-Gerlach devices, produces non-negligible perturbations. In fact, Bell’s inequality is a kind of constraint restricting statistical variations due to variations of context parameters, see \[\].

Johann: OK, I see what you mean. The term ’perturbation’ tends to lead me astray. It conjures up a ’hitting-tossing’ image.

Andrei. Recently I read Einstein’s papers on blackbody radiation and photoelectric effect. First of all I was surprised by clearness of presentation of ideas (especially, compare to Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac). So Einstein derived ”quantum probabilistic distributions” by using methods of classical statistical physics. These were the standard statistical manipulations with ensembles of particles + discreteness. However, the (D)-argument does not look so non classical. OK, discrete values, but ordinary probability?

Johann: In hindsight I would say that Einstein got the right result, because superposition of different number states of the electromagnetic field did not play a role in the problem. If it had, as for instance for a field in a cavity consisting of a superposition of a 4-photon and a 5-photon state and the question is what phase shift will an atom pick up when it passes through, he would probably have insisted that there are either really 4 photons or really 5 photons in the cavity, if I apply the reasoning he used in the EPR-paper. This would have led to the wrong phase shift for the atom.

Andrei: Do you think that Einstein obtained ”quantum probabilistic distributions” just accidentally? Did he miss the superposition features of quantum systems just by accident?

Johann: Yes, it seems so…

Andrei: I think that you would agree that in each particular quantum experiment, as a measurement of some fixed physical observable, we get classical statistical data and we operate with this data in the same way as with the statistical data obtained in classical experiments. It seems that the crucial probabilistic difference between classical and quantum is demonstrated in the interference experiments. Let us consider the two slit experiment. As I understood, we both do not try to reduce the problem to wave description. For you: a particle passes just one slit (when both are open) or in some way both slits?

Johann: First, I agree, that any quantum experiment of fixed conditions gives data which follow a well known classical probability distribution: binomial, multinomial, Poissonian. The problem of understanding arises when you try to make sense of several such experiments in which one or several parameters have been changed, and you attempt a classical visualization of ’what the particle(s) did’. As to the double slit experiment, it is clear that the particle picks up information (=transformation of probability amplitude) along BOTH paths and this determines the probability where it will end up on the screen. But again, I am doubtful of this imagery. Because, any attempt of verifying where the particle went changes the experimental condition to such a degree, that interference vanishes (here you have a case of ’strong perturbation = classical probability’). The information, where the particle went, must be principally nonexistent in the universe, then you get (maximum) interference. Now, if this information is nowhere available, what sense does it make to stubbornly hold on to the picture ’but it must have gone somewhere’? I take this lesson to mean that the old and taken-for-granted view of the everyday world, which we think to be well defined and always there, is wrong and untenable. That, what is there, is of a lot more abstract nature. Personally, I tend towards information as the new key concept. But not information about ’things’. Information about possible values of properties, and sets of properties, which are not there ’by themselves’, but which WE define on the basis of symmetries. Which is almost as good as saying they are there ’by themselves’, because the kind of symmetries we can think of to categorize observations is not our free invention, but is determined by the laws of thought. And these are definitely not our own creation, but are structures which we run up against in our minds.

Andrei: I am not against reality as information reality. We can consider quantum as well as classical objects as just collections of information. There exist objective laws of evolution and interaction of information; in particular, the laws of thought.

Johann: I would not use a mechanical idea like ’information interaction’, otherwise I agree.

Andrei: Well, we turn back to probability. I consider interference (classical as well as quantum) as ”interference” of two contexts or two alternatives. The two slit experiment for one fixed experimental setting, i.e. both slits are open, could not demonstrate special ”quantum features.” Interference fringes by themselves are not exhibitions of special quantum nature. For instance, we can get interference patterns in the following classical variant of the two slit experiment.

Charged macroscopic bodies move through charged screen having two slits. We get a complex interference like distribution of bodies on the registration screen. What is the root of this interference? The special character of interaction between charged bodies and charged surface of the first screen. Of course, in quantum two slit experiment we do not have such internal (Newtonian) description of interaction between a particle and the screen; at least in the conventional quantum formalism. There is no quantum charge… However, we could use, for example, Bohmian mechanics (pilot wave formalism) with its quantum potential or quantum field given by the wave function.

Johann: Yes, you can get such periodic-looking classical particle scattering patterns in certain classical experiments. But this has nothing to do with quantum interference. As to Bohmian mechanics, I view this as a perhaps desparate attempt to save our classical intuitive pictures. What I criticize is that it misses the message of quantum theory, which is similar to the message of special and general relativity theory. Namely that, our classical intuition, in which the world is made up of distinct things, which exercise forces on each other, and all this happens in a well-set three-dimensional expanse, is simply wrong. I read the message nature gives us in these theories as: ”Thou shallst not make an image of mine!”, a warning, which is probably already in the Old Testament. If we teach students the Bohmian mechanics, we may help them in the first few steps into quantum theory, but the damage we do by distracting them from wider schemes of thought is in the long run much greater. Today there exist computer programs which let you view the temporal evolution of the probability density obtained from the Schrödinger equation for one or several particles for many different Hamiltonians. This can help to form a new kind of intuition.

Andrei: In fact, I do not claim the Bohmian mechanics provides the right internal description of quantum phenomena. But at least this is one of possible models.

Johann: Models are certainly needed to do practical research. But I would emphasize seeking in data the symmetries, sets of symmetries, sets of sets of symmetries, and so on.

Andrei: We now turn back to the quantum two slit experiment. So interference by itself is not the crucial exhibition of QUANTUM. Troubles with classical picture, in fact, classical probability, start when we play with a few experimental settings (contexts) in the two slit experiment: $`(C_{12})`$ both slits open; $`(C_1)`$ only the first slit is open; $`(C_2)`$ only the second slit is open. If we add probabilities obtained for contexts $`(C_1)`$ and $`(C_2)`$ we do not get the probability for the context $`(C_{12})`$. Classical rule for the addition of probabilities of two alternatives (first or second slit):

$$P=P_1+P_2.$$
(1)
is violated. In experiments we get so called quantum rule for addition of probabilities:

$$P=P_1+P_2+2\sqrt{P_1P_2}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(2)
Many people consider this fact as the real trouble with classical probability. They start to think that there is something wrong with the image of electron passing through both slits. Moreover, this is the root of the wave approach to quantum mechanics.

However, we will be in trouble only if we forget about perturbation of probabilistic distributions induced by the transition from one context to others. In fact, there are three different contexts that are involved in the consideration: $`(C_{12})`$ and $`(C_1)`$, $`(C_2)`$. ”Quantum systems” are sensitive to variations of context parameters; in our case: opening and closing of slits. For ”quantum systems” the complex of physical conditions $`(C_{12})`$ differs strongly from complexes $`(C_1)`$ and $`(C_2)`$. In fact, (2) is just the transformation that connects probability distributions related to different contexts. The classical rule (1) was derived for the fixed context - in conventional axiomatics of probability theory, Kolmogorov, 1933. Thus if we control context dependence in the right way, then we shall not obtain any contradiction between quantum statistical data and classical Kolmogorov probability theory. The main problem in the right probabilistic understanding of quantum statistical experiments is that people try to apply theory of probability that was developed for one fixed context to statistical data obtain in a few different contexts.

Johann: When you speak of contexts rather than perturbation, I can follow you more easily. Because then you sound like Niels Bohr, who insisted that the whole experimental arrangement determines the probability distribution for the possible outcomes. He is absolutely right, if you consider that the slightest change in the experiment must be entered as a corresponding change in the Hamiltonian which goes into the Schrödinger equation.

As to the Kolmogorovian axioms of probability theory, you seem to imply that quantum theory does not contradict them. I agree with you. The particle was sent onto a diaphragm with two slits and later ended up at some point on the screen. This is only one event, observed under one context, not an event that can have happened under two different contexts. This is not possible. Any given experimental situation is always only one context. Nevertheless, the task remains, how to explain the existence of a lawful relation between the probabilities observed in the three different contexts. (And jokingly one might ask, why should two contexts suffice to tell us something about a third? Perhaps it takes three, to fully predict the outcomes under a fourth? Then we would need a three-slit experiment to capture the whole mystery of quantum physics.)

I have a way of viewing this, which is based on the idea that, more observations shall permit more accurate predictions. This is a natural assumption for an experimenter. But it leads to strong constraints on how the probabilities observed under two different contexts can functionally be related to the probabilities found under a third one. In the two-slit case it means that, if you measure the probabilities for the particle to arrive at a particular spot on the screen in two different contexts, you should be able to predict the probability, or at least a function of it, under the third context ever more accurately, the more trials you have done to measure the first two. If you follow this through, you get a real and a complex way of describing this, and the latter is the quantum theoretical rule. But you do not get the classical rule . For this reason I am interested in questions like ”Which theory permits the most accurate predictions from the information that is factually available now?” as an entry point to understanding quantum theory.

Maybe I can comment a little more on the relation between classical and quantum probabilistic behavior. I think at bottom there is only quantum probability. Classical probabilistic behavior appears because one does not look closely, and so collects ’dirty’ facts, either by not controlling the context sufficiently, so that the observed data are actually collected under many different contexts, or by resolving the measurement results with insufficient fine grading. Let us take the double slit experiment again. If you do this experiment with an ensemble of particles which do not all have the same energy, but a wide spread of energies, the probability distribution on the screen will look very much as if you had used classical particles of the same wide energy distribution. So you have actually averaged over many different contexts, because every specific energy requires a different preparation context. On the other hand, insufficient fine grading of the measurement would mean, that you have interference fringes on the screen, which are narrower than the grains of the emulsion of the photographic plate, or the size of the individual pixels, if you use a modern digital array chip as detection screen. I have no doubt that all phenomena observed in classical probabilistic physics can be traced back to ’sloppy’ context definition and ’sloppy’ data registration, and mostly to a combination of both. And the probability rule $`P_1+P_2=P_{12}`$ works there only, because the sloppiness of experimentation is compensated with a really wrong application of the notion of ’event’, as it appears in Kolmogorov’s third axiom. Of course, in classical physics both mistakes were done unknowingly. I consider it an accident that the classical rule works in the everyday world, rather than a self-evident truth.

Andrei: It seems to me that in fact the discovery of quantum formalism was merely a discovery in probability theory and not really in physics. Quantum formalism, at least Hilbert space calculus, is a new mathematical theory to work with statistical data belonging to a few different contexts. Moreover, it was discovered that nonlinear probabilistic transformation (2) can be represented as a linear transformation (for square roots of probabilities) in a complex Hilbert space. Typically the main attention is paid to this Hilbert space calculus. But I think that the crucial point was the derivation (at the beginning purely experimental) of transformation (2) connecting probabilities with respect to three different contexts. In fact, linear algebra can be easily derived from this transformation. Everybody familiar with the elementary geometry will see that (2) just the well known $`\mathrm{cos}`$-theorem. This is the rule to find the third side in a triangle if we know lengths of two other sides and the angle $`\theta `$ between them:

$$c^2=a^2+b^22ab\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$

or if we want to have ”+” before $`\mathrm{cos}`$ we use so called parallelogram law:

$$c^2=a^2+b^2+2ab\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(3)
Here $`c`$ is the diagonal of the parallelogram with sides $`a`$ and $`b`$ and the angle $`\theta `$ between these sides. Of course, the parallelogram law is just the law of linear (two dimensional Hilbert space) algebra: for finding the length $`c`$ of the sum $`𝐜`$ of vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$ having lengths $`a`$ and $`b`$ and the angle $`\theta `$ between them.

Johann: I would disagree with the statement that the quantum formalism was not a discovery in physics. As I said before, it implied a big change in our approach to understanding the world and we have not yet fully explored all consequences. But I can agree with you on Hilbert space as a new tool for dealing with statistical data.

References.

 A. Khrennikov, Linear representations of probabilistic transformations induced by context transitions. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 34, 1-17 (2001).

 J. Summhammer, Maximum predictive power and the superposition principle. Int. J. Theor.Phys., 33, 171 (1994).