text:
# X-ray sources in globular clusters

## 1. Introduction

In the 1970s the first maps of the X-ray sky showed that the apparently brighter sources are concentrated towards the plane of the galaxy, and in this plane towards the galactic center (Figure 1). This indicates that these sources belong, in majority, to our galaxy, and that they have distances large enough that the galactic structure is evident, i.e. $``$8.5 kpc. Most are binaries in which a neutron star or black hole accretes matter from a companion star. The mass of the donor star is the criterium to discriminate high-mass (donor mass $`\text{ }>10M_{}`$) and low-mass ($`\text{ }<2M_{}`$) X-ray binaries (as reviewed by e.g. Verbunt 1993). The luminosities of the low-mass X-ray binaries ranges up to $`L_x10^{38}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$. Many are bright permanently, but transient sources only during outbursts which last a month, typically, and which repeat on time scales ranging from six months to many decades (e.g. Chen et al. 1997).

Whereas globular clusters contain only of order 0.1% of the stars in our galaxy, the current count is that they harbour 12 of the $`100`$ permanently or transiently bright low-mass X-ray sources. The overabundance of bright X-ray sources in globular clusters is caused by close encounters between neutron stars and main-sequence or (sub)giant stars leading to the formation of low-mass X-ray binaries (reviewed by Hut et al. 1992). A tidal capture occurs when a neutron star passes close enough to another star to raise a tidal bulge on it; the energy of the bulge is taken from the relative orbit of the stars, which as a consequence becomes bound. The efficiency of tidal capture is the subject of debate, as rapid dissipation of the energy in the bulge may destroy the star, leaving the neutron star alone again, or with a disk around it. An exchange encounter is the process in which a neutron star takes the place of one of the two members of a binary, by ejecting it. The efficiency of exchange encounters depends on the number and period distribution of binaries in the cluster cores.

In addition to the bright sources, globular clusters also contain dim sources, with X-ray luminosities $`L_x\text{ }<10^{35}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$, as discovered with the Einstein satellite (Hertz & Grindlay 1983). The nature of these sources is less clear.

In this article I first explain how Jan van Paradijs awoke my observational interest in cluster sources, and then review the new results on the bright sources, mainly due to BeppoSAX; and the ROSAT and first Chandra results on the dim sources.

## 2. Jan van Paradijs gets me involved

In July 1983, as a postdoc in Cambridge (U.K.), I received a letter from Jan van Paradijs in which he points out that the bright X-ray sources in globular clusters do not reach the luminosities of their counterparts near the galactic center (see Figure 2); he asked me whether it could be a consequence of lower mass donors in globular clusters, due to a different formation mechanism in clusters (via close encounters) than in the disk (via binary evolution). While thinking about this, we ran into two puzzling facts (Verbunt et al. 1984).

First, the X-ray sources in globular clusters in M 31 are as bright as the galactic bulge sources. This defeated any explanation we could think of for the low luminosities of the cluster sources in our galaxy, and I have since come to think that these low luminosities are a statistical fluke.

Secondly, the dim sources had been suggested by their discoverers, Hertz & Grindlay, to be cataclysmic variables; however, they are brighter in X-rays than the cataclysmic variables in the galactic disk. Could they be neutron stars accreting at a low rate, i.e. soft X-ray transients in their quiescent state? If so, they should reside near the cores, and so we plotted the X-ray luminosities of the globular cluster sources as a function of distance to the cluster center, to find that the dim sources with $`L_x\text{ }>10^{33}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$ do indeed lie inside two core radii, just as the bright sources (Fig. 2). We thus proposed that the sources with $`L_x\text{ }>10^{33}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$ are transients in quiescence, and those less luminous a mix of transients and cataclysmic variables. (Later it would appear that the Einstein sources outside the core are not related to globular clusters – see Sect. 4.)

At the time of our proposal no transient had ever been detected in X-rays in quiescence. To amend this, we obtained observations with EXOSAT of two transients, Aql X-1 and Cen X-4. We detected Cen X-4, and its luminosity was exactly in the range of brightest of the dim globular cluster sources (Van Paradijs et al. 1987). This convinced us of the correctness of our proposal.

## 3. New results on bright cluster sources

The globular clusters are concentrated towards the galactic center, and the $`40^{}\times 40^{}`$ field of view of the BeppoSAX Wide Field Cameras can observe a large fraction of them simultaneously (Fig. 1), allowing the discovery of rare events.

In a campaign of the galactic center, X-ray bursts – thermonuclear flashes on the surface of a neutron star – have been discovered in the bright sources of NGC 6652 and NGC 6440 (In ’t Zand et al. 1998, 1999). These results bring the total of bright globular cluster sources from which a burst has been detected to 11; leaving the source in Terzan 6 as the only one remaining in which no thermonuclear burst has been unambiguously detected. This means that 11 of the 12 currently known permanent or transient bright sources in globular clusters, and possibly all 12 of them, harbour a neutron star. (It may be remarked that one of the other elusive burst sources, the one in M 15, was caught by Van Paradijs et al. 1990; I thank Phil Charles for reminding me of this.)

A possible explanation for the absence of X-ray binaries with a black hole in globular clusters has been provided by Portegies Zwart & McMillan (2000; see also Kulkarni et al. 1993). Once the more massive stars in a globular cluster have evolved, the black holes – if they have masses similar to the black holes in the galactic disk, i.e. of about 7 $`M_{}`$ (Bailyn et al. 1998) – are the most massive objects in the cluster by a large margin, the next most massive stars being the 1.4$`M_{}`$ neutron stars. As a result the black holes sink to the deepest part of the potential well, where they form binaries by exchanging into primordial binaries. Interactions between binary and single black holes lead to reaction velocities larger than the escape velocity of the cluster, and effectively clear the globular cluster of black holes.

Another result of BeppoSAX was the discovery of faint, short-lived X-ray transients, e.g. in NGC 6440 (in ’t Zand et al. 1999). This raises the question how many of such transients are missed by other satellites, that do not have the spatial resolution to overcome source confusion and discover such outbursts in the vicinity of the galactic center. The outburst in NGC 6440 of 1998 reached a maximum of only $`\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}10}^{36}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$, and had an exponential decay time of about 5 d; very different from the 1972/1973 outburst, which stayed at a luminosity of $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^{37}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$ during more than a month (Markert et al. 1975, Forman et al. 1975). This raises the question whether NGC 6440 harbours more than one transient; or alternatively how one source can show such extremely different outbursts.

Finally, with BeppoSAX eclipses were discovered in the source in Terzan 6, and on the basis of these the orbital period was determined to be 12.36 h (in ’t Zand et al. 2000). Of the five orbital periods now known for globular cluster sources, only one has a period in the range compatible with a main-sequence donor, viz. the source in NGC 6441 with a period of about 5.7 h (Sansom et al. 1993). Two have periods suggesting a subgiant donor, viz. 12.36 and 17.1 h; and two periods suggesting a white-dwarf donor, at 11.4 and 20.6 m (Ilovaisky et al. 1993, Stella et al. 1987, Homer et al. 1996). Van Paradijs & McClintock (1994) found an observational relation between the X-ray luminosity, the orbital period, and the visual brightness of low-mass X-ray binaries. They also provided a heuristic argument to explain it: a large orbital period allows a large disk, which when irradiated by a high X-ray luminosity will be a bright source of optial radiation. Conversely, if the optical counterpart of a bright X-ray source is faint in the optical, the orbital period must be small, and this reasoning is used by Deutsch et al. (2000) and Homer et al. (2001) to argue that the donors of the sources in NGC 1851 and NGC 6652 also are white dwarfs. The prevalence of ultra-short period systems, and thus presumably of white-dwarf donors among the globular cluster X-ray sources underscores the difference in formation mechanism of globular cluster X-ray sources and of low-mass X-ray binaries in the galactic disk. In particular, it indicates the importance in clusters of direct collisions between single neutron stars and sub-giants in the formation of ultra-compact binaries (Verbunt 1987).

## 4. The dim sources: ROSAT

The debate on the nature of the dim sources widened as ROSAT observations of sources in the galactic disk showed that recycled neutron stars and RS CVn binaries may have luminosities comparable to the luminosities of the faintest dim sources. ROSAT observations of cataclysmic variables and soft X-ray transients in quiescence confirmed that only the transients reach the luminosities of the brightest dim sources (Figure 3). ROSAT also showed that soft X-ray transients in quiescence show a soft spectrum ($`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}\text{ }<0.4`$ keV for a black body fit; Verbunt et al. 1994), to which ASCA added a hard power-law tail (Asai et al. 1998). In an important paper, Brown et al. (1998) showed that the quiescent X-ray spectrum of soft X-ray transients is quiescence is dominated by thermal emission from the neutron star, and that fits of neutron-star atmosphere models leads to realistic radii for the neutron stars. The few dim cluster sources for which ROSAT could provide spectral information appear to be equally soft (Verbunt 2001).

It further became clear that the dim sources found with Einstein outside the cluster cores (and shown in Fig. 2) are fore- or background sources (Margon & Bolte 1987, Cool et al. 1995), or nonexistent (Verbunt 2001)! However, ROSAT detected new out-of-the core sources which according to a simple statistical argument in majority are related to the globular clusters (Verbunt 2001); this includes a dwarf nova in the outskirts of NGC 5904 (Hakala et al. 1997).

The ROSAT HRI managed to resolve the dim sources in the cores of 47 Tuc, NGC 6397 and NGC 6752 in 5, 4 or 5, and 4 sources, respectively; in $`\omega `$ Cen three sources were detected in the core (Verbunt & Hasinger 1998, Verbunt & Johnston 2000). Second, the more accurate ROSAT positions spurred HST searches for optical counterparts. Several blue variables – possibly cataclysmic variables – in the core of 47 Tuc were proposed as counterparts to the X-ray sources (Paresce et al. 1992, Paresce & de Marchi 1994, Shara et al. 1996); but chance coincidence could not be excluded (Verbunt & Hasinger 1998). Similarly, the proposed identifications of stars with H $`\alpha `$ emission in NGC 6397 (Grindlay et al. 1995, Edmonds et al. 1999), $`\omega `$ Cen (Carson et al. 2000), and of variables with periods of 5.1 and 3.7 h in NGC 6752 (Bailyn et al. 1996), with dim X-ray sources in these clusters are plausible, but due to the uncertain positions not certain. In my view it has been too easily assumed that these sources are cataclysmic variables: variability and H $`\alpha `$ emission are also properties of X-ray transients in quiescence. In any case, none of the proposed identifications concern the brighter dim sources proposed to be quiescent soft X-ray transients by Verbunt et al. (1984). The one secure identification of a dim core source before Chandra is that based on the periodicity of the recycled pulsar in M 28 (not by Danner et al. 1994, who unwittingly analyzed background photons, but by Saito et al. 1997; see discussion in Verbunt 2001). The luminosity function of the core sources was analyzed by Johnston & Verbunt (1996), who found that the total luminosity of most globular clusters is dominated by a few relatively bright dim sources, rather than large numbers of very dim sources.

Finally, a comparison showed that most globular cluster have a lower X-ray luminosity to mass ratio than the old open cluster M 67 (observed by Belloni et al. 1998), which indicates that sources of the (ill-understood) types responsible for most X-rays in M 67 are not present in globular clusters (Verbunt 2001).

## 5. The first Chandra results on dim sources

The first images of globular clusters obtained with Chandra confirm its superior angular resolution as compared to the already impressive ROSAT HRI. Chandra resolves the central source of NGC 6752 into nine sources (Pooley et al. 2001; see Fig. 4). Five of these sources have X-ray fluxes and colours suggestive of cataclysmic variables. Work on the optical identification is in progress, and has found evidence for H $`\alpha `$ emission for the candidate counterparts of these sources (Homer et al. in preparation). However, the flux distribution of the brightest X-ray source is best fitted with a power law. The two optical variables discovered by Bailyn et al. (see previous section) are both detected as X-ray sources.

The globular cluster $`\omega `$ Cen has a larger core, and Chandra doesn’t add to the three sources already found with ROSAT in this core. However, the Chandra observation does provide spectral information, and this has been used by Rutledge et al. (2001) to show that the brightest source in $`\omega `$ Cen, outside the cluster core but within the half-mass radius, has a spectrum similar to those of soft X-ray transients in the galactic disk. The spectral fit gives a radius of about 10 km at the distance of $`\omega `$ Cen, and confirms the membership of this source to the cluster.

The most spectacular Chandra observation of a globular cluster is that of 47 Tuc, in which a large number of sources is detected (Grindlay et al. 2001). On the basis of their soft X-ray colours, the brightest two sources (X 5 and X 7 from the ROSAT HRI observations; Verbunt & Hasinger 1998) are argued to be soft X-ray transients in quiescence – a nice confirmation of the suggestion discussed in Sect. 2. Thirteen sources are probably cataclysmic variables, on the basis of their hard X-ray colours. Fifteen recycled radio pulsars have been found with the source detection algorithm; the 1<sup>′′</sup> accuracy of the Chandra positions allows the detections of two of them on the basis of three photons and one photon, respectively! Six sources can be optically identified with main-sequence binaries.

In Fig. 4 I plot the positions of the Chandra sources in 47 Tuc on top of the ROSAT HRI image. Comparison of the positions of 8 HRI sources and their Chandra counterparts, shows that the overall shift required to bring the ROSAT positions into agreement with the Chandra positions is $`0.^{\prime \prime }7,0.^{\prime \prime }5`$ in right ascension and declination respectively; after application of this shift, all 8 sources coincide within the errors with the Chandra sources. Thus the positional accuracy claimed by Verbunt & Hasinger is confirmed. In Fig. 5 I plot the cumulative X-ray flux of the Chandra sources, starting with the brightest one. This plot confirms the ROSAT result that the total luminosity of 47 Tuc is dominated by the few brightest sources. For example, the fifteen detected recycled pulsars together emit less than 4% of the flux of the brightest source alone.

The measured period derivatives of the recycled pulsars are dominated by gravitational acceleration in the cluster (Freire et al. 2001). The low X-ray luminosities of these pulsars provide an indirect estimate to their intrinsic period derivatives, and thus to their age, if we use the empirical relation found by Verbunt et al. (1996) that $`L_\mathrm{x}10^3L_{\mathrm{sd}}`$, where $`L_{\mathrm{sd}}=4\pi ^2I\dot{P}/P^3`$ is the spindown luminosity. If we take the average period of the recycled pulsars in 47 Tuc as $``$4 ms, and the average X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^{30}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$, the characteristic age $`\tau _cP/(2\dot{P})`$ is comparable to the age of the cluster. This suggests that most currently detected recycled pulsars were formed soon after the formation of 47 Tuc.

## 6. Conclusions and prospects

The 12 permanently or transient bright X-ray sources in the globular clusters of our galaxy are neutron stars. The dearth of high-luminosity ($`\text{ }>10^{37}\text{ erg\hspace{0.17em}s}\text{-1}`$, say) sources among them appears to be a fluke of small-number statistics.

Among the dim sources, all types proposed as possible dim sources, i.e. soft X-ray transients in quiescence, cataclysmic variables, recycled pulsars, and chromospherically active close binaries are now detected in Chandra observations. For more secure identification of H $`\alpha `$-emission systems with cataclysmic variables, it would be useful if a compilation of H $`\alpha `$ line fluxes of soft X-ray transients in quiescence were available. The total core luminosity of a globular cluster is dominated by a few bright sources, rather than large number of dim sources. Globular cluster cores and a fortiori globular clusters as a whole emit less X-rays per unit mass than the old open cluster M 67.

Chandra has opened a golden age for the study of X-ray sources in globular clusters. Together with HST, this will for the first time provide us with good statistics of the numbers of binaries in the cores of globular clusters, an important ingredient in the study of cluster evolution.

## References

Asai, K., Dotani, T., Hoshi, R., Tanaka, Y., Robinson, C., and Terada, K., 1998, Publ. Astr. Soc. Japan 50, 611

Bailyn, C., Jain, R., Coppi, P., and Orosz, J., 1998, ApJ 499, 367

Bailyn, C., Rubenstein, E., Slavin, S., Cohn, H., Lugger, P., Cool, A. and Grindlay, J., 1996, ApJ (Letters) 473, L31

Belloni, T., Verbunt, F., and Mathieu, R., 1998, A&A 339, 431 (erratum: 351, 398)

Brown, E., Bildsten, L., and Rutledge, R., 1998, ApJ 496, 915

Carson, J., Cool, A., and Grindlay, J., 2000, ApJ 532, 461

Chen, W., Shrader, C., and Livio, M., 1997, ApJ 491, 312

Cool, A., Grindlay, J., Bailyn, C., Callanan, P., and Hertz, P., 1995, ApJ 438, 719

Danner, R., Kulkarni, S., and Thorsett, S., 1994, ApJ 436, L153

Deutsch, E., Margon, B., and Anderson, S., 2000, ApJ 530, L21

Edmonds, P., Grindlay, J., Cool, A., Cohn, H., Lugger, P., and Bailyn, C., 1999, ApJ 516, 250

Forman, W., Jones, C., and Tananbaum, H., 1976, ApJ (Letters) 207, L25

Freire, P., Camilo, F., Lorimer, D., Lyne, A., and Manchester, R., 2001, MNRAS 326, 901

Grindlay, J., Cool, A., Callanan, P., Bailyn, C., Cohn, H., and Lugger, P., 1995, ApJ 455, L47

Grindlay, J., Heinke, C., Edmonds, P., , and Murray, S., 2001, Science 292, 2290

Hakala, P., Charles, P., Johnston, H., and Verbunt, F., 1997, MNRAS 285, 693

Hertz, P. and Grindlay, J., 1983, ApJ 275, 105

Homer, L., Anderson, S., Margon, B., Deutsch, E., and Downes, R., 2001, ApJ 550, L155

Homer, L., Charles, P., Naylor, T., van Paradijs, J., Aurière, M., and Koch-Miramond, L., 1996, MNRAS 282, L37

Hut, P., McMillan, S., Goodman, J., Mateo, M., Phinney, S., Pryor, C., Richer, H., Verbunt, F., and Weinberg, M., 1992, PASP 104, 981

Ilovaisky, S., Aurière, M., Koch-Miramond, L., Chevalier, C., Cordoni, J.-P., and Crowe, R., 1993, A&A 270, 139

in ’t Zand, J., Verbunt, F., Heise, J., Muller, J., Bazzano, A., Cocchi, M., Natalucci, L., and Ubertini, P., 1998, A&A 329, L37

in ’t Zand, J., Verbunt, F., Strohmayer, T., Bazzano, A., Cocchi, M., Heise, J., van Kerkwijk, M., Muller, J., Natalucci, L., Smith, M., and Ubertini, P., 1999, A&A 345, 100

in ’t Zand, J., Bazzano, A., Cocchi, M., Cornelisse, R., Heise, J., Kuiper, L., Kuulkers, E., Markwardt, C., Muller, J., Natalucci, L., Smith, M., Strohmayer, T., Ubertini, P., Verbunt, F., 2000, A&A 355, 145

Johnston, H. and Verbunt, F., 1996, A&A 312, 80

Kulkarni, S., Hut, P., and McMillan, S., 1993, Nat 364, 421

Margon, B. and Bolte, M., 1987, ApJ 321, L61

Markert, T., Backman, D., Canizares, C., Clark, G., and Levine, A., 1975, Nat 257, 32

McHardy, I., Lawrence, A., Pye, J., and Pounds, K., 1981, MNRAS 197, 893

Paresce, F. and de Marchi, G., 1994, ApJ (Letters) 427, L33

Paresce, F., de Marchi, G., and Ferraro, F., 1992, Nat 360, 46

Pooley, D., and Lewin, W., Homer, L., et al., 2001, ApJ submitted

Portegies Zwart, S. and McMillan, S., 2000, ApJ (Letters) 528, 17

Rutledge, R., Bildsten, L., Brown, E., Pavlov, G., and Zavlin, V., 2001, ApJ (Letters) submitted, astro-ph0105405

Saito, Y., Kawai, N., Kamae, T.,Shibata, S., Dotani, T., and Kulkarni, S., 1997, ApJ (Letters) 477, L37

Sansom, A., Dotani, T., Asai, K., and Lehto, H., 1993, MNRAS 262, 429

Shara, M., Bergeron, L., Gilliland, R., Saha, A., and Petro, L., 1996, ApJ 471, 804

Stella, L., Priedhorsky, W., and White, N., 1987, ApJ 312, L17

van Paradijs, J., Dotani, T., Tanaka, Y., and Tsuru, T., 1990, Publ. Astr. Soc. Japan 42, 633

van Paradijs, J. and McClintock, J., 1994, A&A 290, 133

van Paradijs, J., Verbunt, F., Shafer, R., and Arnaud, K., 1987, A&A 182, 47

Verbunt, F., 1987, ApJ 312, L23

Verbunt, F., 1993, ARA&A 31, 93

Verbunt, F., 1996, in H. Zimmermann, J. Trümper, and H. Yorke (eds.), Roentgenstrahlung from the Universe, pp 93–101, MPE Report 263

Verbunt, F., 2001, A&A 368, 137

Verbunt, F. and Hasinger, G., 1998, A&A 336, 895

Verbunt, F. and Johnston, H., 2000, A&A 358, 910

Verbunt, F., Belloni, T., Johnston, H., van der Klis, M., and Lewin, W., 1994, A&A 285, 903

Verbunt, F., Kuiper, L., Belloni, T., Johnston, H., de Bruyn, A., Hermsen, W., and van der Klis, M., 1996, A&A 311, L9

Verbunt, F., van Paradijs, J., and Elson, R., 1984, MNRAS 210, 899


format: text

text:
# Holography and the Large Number Hypothesis

## Abstract

Dirac’s large number hypothesis is motivated by certain scaling transformations that relate the parameters of macro and microphysics. We show that these relations can actually be explained in terms of the holographic $`N`$ bound conjectured by Bousso and a series of purely cosmological observations, namely, that our universe is spatially homogeneous, isotropic, and flat to a high degree of approximation and that the cosmological constant dominates the energy density at present.

Explaining the value of the constants of nature is one of the most exciting challenges of theoretical physics. Some of these constants play a fundamental role in the foundations of the scientific paradigms. This is the case of Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ in quantum mechanics, and of Newton constant $`G`$ and the speed of light $`c`$ in general relativity. These three constants provide a natural system of units for all physical quantities. For instance, the length and mass units are $`l_P=\sqrt{\mathrm{}G/c^3}=1.6\times 10^{35}`$ m and $`m_P=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}=2.2\times 10^8`$ kg. In terms of these Planck units, the other constants of nature become dimensionless numbers.

Already in the 20’s, Eddington tried unsuccessfully to deduce the value of all constants of physics from theoretical considerations Ed . Most importantly, he pointed out the existence of relations between the parameters of fields that at first sight seem unconnected, like nuclear physics and cosmology. Among these, perhaps the most intriguing relation is the apparent coincidence between the present number of baryons in the universe, known as Eddington number, and the squared ratio of the electric to the gravitational force between the proton and the electron. This coincidence between large numbers can also be expressed in the alternative form Weinberg

$$\mathrm{}^2H_0Gcm_N^3.$$
(1)
This approximate identity is sometimes called the Eddington-Weinberg relation. Here, $`m_N`$ is the proton mass and $`H_070`$ km/(sMpc) is the present value of the Hubble constant Hubble .

Actually, the Hubble parameter is not a true constant, but varies as the inverse of the cosmological time in standard Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology Weinberg . This fact led Dirac Dirac  to put forward the hypothesis that Newton constant must depend on time as $`H_0`$, $`Gt^1`$, so that relation (1) is always valid. In spite of its attractive features, Dirac’s large number hypothesis turns out to be incompatible with the experimental bounds that exist on the time variation of $`G`$ sol . Therefore, the explanation of the Eddington-Weinberg relation still remains a mystery.

Recently, the determination of cosmological parameters has experienced a considerable revolution. The observation of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) at high redshift has provided evidence in favor of a positive cosmological constant sne . In addition, accurate measurements of the angular power spectrum of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have shown that the curvature of the universe is close to flat CMB . These CMB and SNe Ia data, together with other cosmological information, have been combined in a consistent (nearly) flat FRW model whose values of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and matter density $`\rho _0`$ are, approximately, $`c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }=16\pi G\rho _0=2H_0^2`$ conc .

This value of the cosmological constant poses two puzzles. On the one hand, one would expect that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ emerged from vacuum fluctuations. In a theory of quantum gravity, these fluctuations would have Planck energy density. The discrepancy from this theoretical expectations is of nearly 120 orders of magnitude, since, in Planck units, $`H_010^{60}`$. This is the so-called cosmological constant problem ccp . The value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, on the other hand, is constant, whereas the density of matter decreases with expansion. As a consequence, the relation $`16\pi G\rho _0c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not valid in most of the history of the universe. Why is it precisely now that the matter content and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ provide similar contributions to the energy? This additional puzzle is known as the cosmic coincidence problem coinc .

A new perspective of the cosmological constant problem, which puts the emphasis on fundamental aspects of gravity rather than in purely quantum field theory (QFT) considerations, has recently emerged with the advent of holography holo . In an over-simplified version, the holographic principle states that the entropy $`S`$ entro  of a physical system subject to gravity is bounded from above by a quarter of its boundary area in Planck units, $`SA/(4l_p^2)`$. From this point of view, the physical degrees of freedom are not proportional to the volume in the presence of the gravitational field, but reside in the bounding surface.

A more rigorous, covariant formulation of the holographic conjecture has been elaborated by Bousso, providing in principle an entropy bound on null hypersurfaces bo ; Bousso . Other less general holographic proposals that find straightforward application to spatial volumes in cosmology have also been suggested FS ; BR ; H . In this respect, an issue of debate has been the largest region of the universe in which an entropy bound may be feasible. Fischler and Susskind FS  originally proposed to consider the particle horizon, at least for adiabatic evolution, but other possibilities that appear more natural were soon suggested. One such possibility is the use of the cosmological apparent horizon, which bounds an anti-trapped region and has an associated notion of gravitational entropy bo ; BR . Another proposal that has found considerable support is the restriction to the Hubble radius $`cH_0^1`$ H , since this supplies the scale of causal connection beyond which gravitational perturbations on a flat background cannot grow with time. It is worth noting, anyway, that for a flat FRW model like the one that possibly describes our universe, the apparent and Hubble horizons do in fact coincide BR .

For any spacetime with a positive cosmological constant, Bousso Nbound  has argued that the holographic principle leads to the prediction that the number of degrees of freedom $`N`$ available in the universe is related to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by

$$N=\frac{3\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }l_P^2\mathrm{ln}2}.$$
(2)
The observable entropy $`S`$ is then bounded by $`N\mathrm{ln}2`$. This conjecture is called the $`N`$ bound. Under quantization, the system would be describable by a Hilbert space of finite dimension (equal to $`2^N`$). Bousso’s conjecture is largely influenced by Banks’ ideas about the cosmological constant Banks . According to Banks, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should not be considered a parameter of the theory; rather, it is determined by the inverse of the number of degrees of freedom. From this viewpoint, the cosmological constant problem disappears, because $`N`$ can be regarded as part of the data that describe the system at a fundamental level. Based also on holography, other possible explanations have been proposed for the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that are closer in spirit to the standard methods of QFT CT .

Since the cosmological constant affects the large scale structure of the universe but should originate from effective local vacuum fluctuations, it may provide a natural connection between macro and microphysics. In addition, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is related to the number of degrees of freedom by the holographic principle. As a consequence, one could expect that holography would play a fundamental role in explaining the coincidence of the large numbers arising in cosmology and particle physics. A first indication that this intuition may work is provided by Zizzi’s work Zizzi , who recovered Eddington number starting with a discrete quantum model for the early universe that saturates the holographic bound. The main aim of the present paper is to prove that the large number hypothesis and the holographic conjecture are in fact not fully independent. To be more precise, we will show that, in a homogeneous, isotropic, and (quasi)flat universe like ours, the relations between large numbers can be explained by the holographic principle assuming that the present energy density is nearly dominated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The scaling relations that lie behind the large number hypothesis can be expressed in the form

$`l_N`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }l_P,`$ (3)
$`m_N`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1m_P,`$ (4)
$`l_UcH_0^1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3l_P,`$ (5)
$`m_U`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3m_P.`$ (6)
The scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has the value $`10^{19}`$$`10^{20}`$. Here, $`m_N`$ and $`l_N`$ are the mass and radius of a nucleon, e.g. the proton. The symbol $`l_U`$ denotes the observable radius of the universe, that we define as the distance that light can travel in a Hubble time $`H_0^1`$. This time is roughly the age of our universe. Finally, the mass of the universe $`m_U`$ is the energy contained in a spatial region of radius $`l_U`$.

In fact, relations (3) and (4) are not independent. For an elementary particle governed by quantum mechanics, the typical effective size should be of the order of its Compton wavelength, $`l_N\mathrm{}/(cm_N)`$. It therefore suffices to explain, for instance, why $`m_Pm_N^1`$ is of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Something similar happens with the scaling laws (5) and (6). Assuming homogeneity and isotropy, $`m_U`$ is defined as $`4\pi l_U^3\rho _0^T/3`$. Here, $`\rho _0^T\rho _0+c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/(8\pi G)`$ is the total energy density. Hence, given the relation between $`l_U`$ and $`l_P`$, formula (6) amounts to the approximate equality $`\rho _0^T\rho _0^C`$, where $`\rho _0^C3H_0^2/(8\pi G)`$ is the critical density of a FRW model at present. In a universe like ours, the scaling equation for $`m_U`$ is thus a consequence of Eq. (5) and spatial flatness.

Examining relations (3)–(6), a length scale $`l_S`$ of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ in Planck units appears to be missing. Roughly, this scale corresponds to the size of stellar gravitational collapse determined by Chandrasekhar limit (or any other similar mass limit) FPL . Actually, for such stellar-mass black holes, the formulas of the Schwarzschild radius and the Chandrasekhar mass Weinberg  lead to

$$l_S\mathrm{\Omega }^2l_P,m_S\mathrm{\Omega }^2m_P.$$
(7)
At this stage of our discussion, the only scaling laws that remain unexplained are relations (4) and (5). In fact, one of these approximate identities can be viewed as the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, e.g. the equation for $`l_U`$. The appearance of large numbers in our relations may then be understood, following Dirac Dirac , as a purely cosmological issue. Since $`H_0^1`$ is essentially the age of the universe, the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ is just a consequence of the universe being so old. In addition, it is easy to check that, given formula (5), the scaling transformation for $`m_N`$ is equivalent to Eq. (1). Therefore, the only coincidence of large numbers that needs explanation is the Eddington-Weinberg relation.

Suppose now that nucleons (or hadronic particles in general) can be described as elementary excitations of typical size $`l_N`$ in an effective quantum theory. The number of physical degrees of freedom in a spatial region of volume $`V`$ will be of the order of $`3V/(4\pi l_N^3)`$. In a cosmological setting, it seems natural to consider the Hubble radius as the largest size of the region in which such an effective quantum description of particles may exist, because it provides the scale of causal connection where the microphysical interactions take place. For a homogeneous and isotropic universe with negligible curvature, like the one we inhabit, the FRW equations imply that $`8\pi G\rho _0+c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }3H_0^2`$ Weinberg . Given the positivity of $`\rho _0`$, guaranteed by the dominant energy condition, the maximum Hubble radius is thus close to $`\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. For an almost flat FRW universe, the volume of the corresponding spatial region is nearly $`4\pi \sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}`$. As a consequence, the maximum number of observable degrees of freedom $`N`$ in this kind of cosmological scenarios should roughly be $`\sqrt{27/(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3l_N^6)}`$. Taking into account the holographic $`N`$ bound (2), we then conclude

$$l_N(l_P^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)^{1/6}.$$
(8)
Using that $`l_Nm_Nl_Pm_P`$, a relation that we have already justified, we immediately obtain

$$m_N^3m_P^3(l_P^2\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/2}.$$
(9)
This approximate identity reproduces Eq. (1) provided that the present Hubble radius $`cH_0^1`$ is close to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$. Therefore, the so-far unexplained Eddington-Weinberg relation can be understood from a holographic perspective, assuming an almost flat FRW cosmology, if and only if the cosmological constant has a nearly dominant contribution to the present energy density. This is ensured, e.g., by cosmic coincidence.

Note that the result $`c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }H_0^2`$ can be regarded as a partial solution to the cosmological constant problems (the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and cosmic coincidence) in our (quasi)flat universe if, adopting a different viewpoint, we take for granted Bousso’s proposal and Eq. (1). Alternatively, if we use the Eddington-Weinberg relation and $`c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }H_0^2`$, the arguments given above about the relation between $`N`$ and $`l_N`$ allow us to reach an approximate version of the $`N`$ bound for our spacetime. Thus, we see that in a nearly homogeneous, isotropic and flat universe like ours, the cosmological constant problems, the $`N`$ bound, and the coincidence of large numbers are interrelated.

In our application of the $`N`$ bound, we have argued that the Hubble radius is the largest scale in which microphysics can act. Nonetheless, our conclusions would not have changed if, as proposed in Ref. BR  for cosmic holography, we had employed the cosmological apparent horizon instead of the Hubble radius, because they are approximately equal in quasiflat FRW models. We have also made use of the fact that, for this kind of models, the maximum Hubble radius is nearly $`\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive. This is also the size of the cosmological horizon of the de Sitter space with the same value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In (almost) flat FRW cosmologies with a dominant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term at late times, a situation that apparently applies to our universe, any observer has a future event horizon that tends asymptotically to such a de Sitter horizon. Hence, our results would neither have been altered had we replaced the maximum Hubble radius with the asymptotic event horizon in all our considerations.

The fact that the $`N`$ bound provides an effective length scale for microphysics, given by Eq. (8), has played a central role in our arguments. This fact has allowed us to understand the origin of the Eddington-Weinberg relation. According to the explanation that we have put forward, such a relation does not hold at all times, but only when the cosmological constant dominates the energy density. Although we expect this condition to be satisfied at present and in the future, it excludes the early stages of the evolution of the universe. In our theoretical framework, the constants of nature $`G`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`c`$ do not vary with time, and so we do not recover Dirac’s cosmology Dirac .

In obtaining relation (8), we have actually supposed that the total number of degrees of freedom $`N`$ available in the universe is roughly of the same order as the maximum number of degrees observable in its baryonic content. It should be clear that this assumption does not conflict with the fact that the present energy density is not dominated by baryonic matter. More importantly, since the number of baryonic degrees of freedom cannot exceed $`N`$, the quantity $`(l_P^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)^{1/6}`$ provides, in any case, a lower bound to the typical size of nucleons $`l_N`$. Further discussion of this point will be presented elsewhere.

The length scale (8) has also been deduced by Ng, although replacing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ with the square of the observable radius of the universe Ng . However, he has proposed to interpret $`l_N`$ as the minimum resolution length in the presence of quantum gravitational fluctuations, instead of as the typical size of particles in the effective QFT that describes the baryonic content. From our viewpoint, this scale does not provide a fundamental length limiting the resolution of spacetime measurements, but rather restricts the number of degrees of freedom available in the effective QFT. Concerning the value of $`l_N`$, Ng proposes two ways to deduce it. In one of them, a spatial region is considered as a Salecker-Wigner clock able to discern distances larger than its Schwarzschild radius Ng . The question arises whether this interpretation is applicable to the observable universe, because its Schwarzschild and Hubble radii are of the same order of magnitude. The other line of reasoning employs holographic arguments related to those presented here. Nevertheless, since Ng uses the present size of the universe instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$, it is not clear whether the resolution scale that he obtains must be viewed as time independent.

Let us return to expression (5) for the present Hubble radius, which we have interpreted as the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We have argued that the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ can be regarded as a consequence of the old age of the universe, which is a cosmological problem and not a numerical coincidence between microscopic and macroscopic parameters. Nonetheless, using the $`N`$ bound and the present dominance of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it is actually possible to explain the appearance of the large scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ along very similar lines to those proposed by Banks for the resolution of the cosmological constant problem Banks . As we have seen, when the energy density is nearly dominated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the Hubble radius is close to $`\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. In addition, the $`N`$ bound implies that this latter length is equal to $`l_P\sqrt{N\mathrm{ln}2/\pi }`$. Recalling Eq. (5), we then obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }N^{1/6}.$$
(10)
So, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a large number because our universe contains a huge amount of degrees of freedom. From this perspective, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is fixed by $`N`$, which can be considered an input of the theory that describes our world.

Finally, we want to present some brief comments about the entropy of the universe. If the only entropic contribution were baryonic, we could estimate it as $`S_bn_N`$. Here, we have supposed that each baryon has an associated entropy of order unity, and $`n_N`$ is Eddington number, that can be calculated as the ratio of the baryonic mass of the universe to the typical mass of a nucleon. In a rough approximation (valid for our estimation of orders of magnitude), we can identify the matter and the baryonic energy densities. Taking into account cosmic coincidence, we can then approximate $`n_N`$ by $`m_Um_N^1`$. In this way, we get $`S_bn_N\mathrm{\Omega }^4`$. This is much less than the maximum allowed entropy, which, from relation (10) and the definition of $`N`$, is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^6`$. An intermediate entropic regime would be reached if the matter of the universe collapsed into stellar-mass black holes. As we have commented, this regime corresponds to the length scale $`l_S\mathrm{\Omega }^2l_P`$. One can check that, in this case, the entropy would be $`S_S\mathrm{\Omega }^5`$. It is rather intriguing that $`S_S`$ matches relatively well what seems to be the actual entropy of the universe, $`S_0`$. The main contribution to this entropy comes from super-massive black holes in galactic nuclei. Assuming that a typical galaxy contains $`10^{11}`$$`10^{12}`$ stellar masses $`m_S`$ and that the mass of its central black hole is $`10^6`$$`10^7`$ $`m_S`$, it is straightforward to find that $`S_01`$$`10^3`$ $`S_S`$.

Summarizing, we have proved that, in the light of the holographic principle, the relations between large numbers constructed from microscopic and cosmological parameters are not independent of other fine-tuning and coincidence problems that have a purely cosmological nature. More explicitly, provided that the universe can be approximately described by a spatially homogenous, isotropic, and flat cosmological model and that the main contribution to the present energy density comes from the cosmological constant, it is possible to explain all the scaling relations that motivated Dirac’s large number hypothesis appealing exclusively to basic principles and to the $`N`$ bound conjecture.

G.A.M.M. acknowledges DGESIC for financial support under Research Project No. PB97-1218. S.C. was partially supported by CNPq. The authors want to thank also L.J. Garay and P.F. González-Díaz for helpful comments.


text:
# Time and Cosmic Clock

Reappraisal of the standard models (SM) of fundamental forces (renormalizable gauge theory) and the large scale structure of the universe (i.e. hot big-bang scenario) has been motivated by observations like high precision electro-weak measurements, quark-gluon plasma, neutrino oscillations, supernova Hubble diagrams and fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, as well as hitherto unresolved conceptual problems. A strong belief has emerged that the classical notion of space-time (a la general relativity or GR) at Planck epoch in the early universe breaks down, and that quantum mechanics (QM) may not be valid near black holes. Many speculations have been inspired with the aim of developing a theory of everything. Though reluctantly, anthropic principle has also been invoked. A nice discussion by Dine with emphasis on effective field theories 1 , Hogan’s candid review in the context of the anthropic principle 2 , and first two chapters of 3  on the foundational issues in the unified theories are referred for details. In this essay, I propose to present a radical yet simple approach founded on the space-time interaction hypothesis (STIH) 4 .

There are numerous extrapolations beyond the SM, and it is not clear at present which one is preferred by nature. I have argued that in the progress of science at some stage a simple and pure speculative idea (fundamental postulate or FP) resolves outstanding problems and gives a new direction to the scientific thought 5 . Quantized space-time is one such idea holding hope for ’a new revolution’ 6 , but being based on quantizing the gravity I do not share optimism for its present form. Treating QM and relativity as FPs, ia fresh look on their foundations is suggested. The well known problems extensively discussed in the literature are: physical reality of the wave-function and incompleteness arguments of EPR in QM, the provisional role of the energy-momentum tensor term in the Einstein field equation recognised by Einstein himself 7 , and the role of physical experiences in GR 8 . Instead of them, one single concept that could be the source of many problems is that of time. However, I will not discuss the questions like unambiguous definition of time operator and tunneling time in QM, and the difficulties arising from the difference between the time used in QM and GR; the attention will be focussed on the new concept of time 9 .

Special relativity (SR) is claimed to have discarded Newton’s absolute time. Is it true? We follow Einstein’s own presentations to examine this claim. Motion is a pre-supposed concept, and assuming uniform motion intertial frame (K) is postulated. According to him, if the time of an event is $`K^1`$ is the same as the time in $`K`$ then it is absolute. Instantaneous signals and the clocks unaffected by motion are needed to make this absolute time physical. Since no such signals/clocks exist time is not absolute. Postulating the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum, a scheme to measure time is proposed. In a frame $`K`$, a family of clocks $`\{U_n\}`$ relatively at rest are placed at all points of space. The light signal from one of the clocks $`U_k`$ sent at the instant $`t_k`$ travels in vacuum to $`U_l`$ placed at a distance $`d_{lk}`$ which is now set to indicate the time $`t_l=t_k+dl_k/c`$. The set of inertial frames $`\{K_n\}`$ is regulated in this way. The simultaneity of events is related by clock synchronisations, and the time specification depends on the space of reference. Reading Newton 10  it becomes clear that he is precise in making the difference between absolute and relative for space, time and motion. Einstein’s concern is with the measurement of relative time. What is the meaning of the instant tl recorded by the clock $`U_l`$? Einstein is silent on this, and later expositions/criticisms have not thrown any light on this question 5 ; 9 . Reichenbach tries to define it using a signal which can be marked distinctly; ascertaining the marks a temporal sequence is established. He is unable to propose any physical signal with this property, and memory, logical decision-making and instantaneous response are the attributes assumed for the hypothetical detection device. Bunge identifies ’protophysics’ in SR, and terms Newtonian absolute time as metaphorical but fails to free SR from what he terms misinterpretations. Recalling Cajori’s remark that absolute time is a metaphysical concept for Newton, we conclude that SR does not address the problem of the nature of time.

The problems gets worse in GR; shown in a dramatic way by Godel’s rotating universe. Time-like and null vectors are used to get time directionality, but it is found that no time coordinate exists at each space-time point that increases as one moves in a positive time-like direction. Einstein dismisses Godel universe as unphysical but accepts the difficulty of time ordering in relativity 10 . In cosmology, it is possible to make mathematically precise definition of homogeneity and isotropy using isometry of the metric and congruence of time-like curves 12 , but physically it corresponds to usual world-view of $`3+1`$ dimensions. Assumption of local comoving frames and ideal clocks not only fails at the big-bang singularity and near massive bodies, it is not justified for a theory purporting to be a fundamental theory 9 . Finally I refer to a new paradox pointed out in 1988 9 : The most significant direct evidence for SR comes from the observed enhanced lifetime of a fast moving unstable particle (e.g. muon). Decay is an irreversible process, and relativistic time dilation arises in a time-reversal symmetric kinematics. Equality of unidirectional lapse of time (lifetime) with time dilation leads to a paradoxial situation.

Departing from the contemporary trend accepting relativistic world-view, absolute nature of time is proposed based on STIH stated as: Time is the primeval cause transforming the source (or primordial) space into the physical space $`(SP)`$.

Source space is inert, time ceaselessly transforms this into active or manifest universe i.e. the pre-universe state or beyond it is that called the source space. This transformation represents the flow of time, and all changes in the universe take place with reference to this time, hence it is absolute. Time is unidirectional due to irreversible process $`SP`$. In any physical measurement, the direct observations correspond to the counting of spatial lengths and spatial relations which are related to the physical quantities based on a calibration procedure. Thus irreducible part of any measurement is counting of a unit of length, and for observed three dimentional space a reasonable measure is its volume. A measurable duration of elementary time interval for successive action transforming $`SP`$ can be equivalently used. Let the volume $`V_e`$ is transformed in a duration of time interval $`t`$. Simplest choice is to assume creation of equal volume $`V_e`$ in each time step $`t`$. Noting the importance of the concept of energy, we may endow the source space with fundamental energy, and express $`V_e`$ and $`t`$ in the units of energy. Assuming Planck constant as a unit conversion factor, the energy in volume $`V_e`$ is $`h/t`$, and energy density $`\rho `$

$$\rho V_e=h/\tau $$
(1)
The volume of the universe at time $`T=N\tau `$, (N is an integer) is

$$V(T)=V_eT/\tau $$
(2)
For sufficiently large $`N`$, a continuous variable $`t`$ may be used instead of $`T`$.

To build a simple model, we assume spherical (spatial) universe. Incremental radius $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ from $`(N1)\tau `$ to $`N\tau `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }R=R(N\tau )R[(N1)\tau ]$$
(3)
For large N, following expressions are easily obtained

$$\frac{dR}{dt}=\frac{1}{3}\lambda t^{2/3}$$
(4)
$$\frac{d^2R}{dt^2}=\frac{2}{9}\lambda t^{5/3}$$
(5)
where the constant

$$\lambda =\left(\frac{3V_e}{4\pi \tau }\right)^{1/3}$$
(6)
Interesting physical consequences follow from this model 3  assuming $`t`$ equal to Planck time ($`5.5\times 1044sec`$), and imposing the condition that at any time the maximum velocity is limited by the cosmic expansion rate Eq.(4). Taking input data, age of the universe 13  12.5 billion yrs and velocity of light equal to $`dR/dt`$ at present, the size of the universe in the first instant is calculated to be $`108`$ cm, in contrast to Planck length in big-bang model. Equation (1) gives the value of the energy density, and again treating $`c`$ as a unit conversion factor, we can express it in equivalent mass density ($`5\times 1030gm/cm3`$). Equating the acceleration due to gravity of the total energy of the universe on itself of Newtonian gravition by Eq.(5), the value of gravitational constant $`G`$ can be determined. In this case, both age of the universe and r can be derived assuming the known values of $`G`$ and $`c`$. Evidently, in this model

$$G(t)t^2$$
(7)
$$c(t)=\frac{dR}{dt}t^{2/3}$$
(8)
Time variation of physical constants has been discussed e.g. by Dirac and now in the context of compactification of the extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein/superstrings. As an alternative to inflationary model 14 , time varying light velocity cosmologies have recently been proposed 15 . Unlike them, our approach does not give a fundamental role to the velocity of light. In fact, a cosmic clock gives an absolute measure of time, and cosmic expansion rate regulates the physical processes. Using empirical observations on time variations of $`c`$ and $`G`$, stringent limits on the unknown parameters in our model like $`r`$ and age of the universe can be obtained.

Radial expansion and internal oscillations/rotations constitute basic dynamical processes. Elementary entities are proposed to be the spatio-temporal bounded structures with characteristic sizes $`DR`$ at different epoch create many such species: at 1 sec $`DR1021`$ cm and at 1010 yrs it is $`1033`$ cm. Lumps of aggregates of these elementary species is matter in this scenario. A significant development in STIH is envisaged with the proposition that electronic charge is a manifestation of fractional spin $`e2/c`$ of a 2+1 dimensional model of electron 3 , see also discussion in 16 . In contrast to the question asking how to get 4D from higher dimensions, we find 2D structures in the 3D space. The fractional spin has different values for different $`DR`$ created at different moments during the evolution of the universe, therefore the spatial location of the planet earth and its age determine the values of the coupling constants (like fine structure) and the existence of life here, however species with different coupling constants may have formed varied structures elsewhere (e.g. in the extra-galactic universe).

Incorporating interaction (spin origin) and using statistical mechanics to understand the structure of the universe are the problems deserving attention, though the slow progress in STIH has been mainly due to efforts of the author in isolation. A measure manifold for the cellular structure of space-time in unimodular gravity 17  appears a promising candidate for enunciating an extremum principle.

This work is not funded by any agency. Library facility at Banaras Hindu University is acknowledged.


text:
# Study of gluon fragmentation and colour octet neutralization in DELPHI

## 1 Introduction

The study of the leading hadrons in gluon jets may give interesting insight into the mechanism of colour neutralization. In principle there could exist a direct neutralization of the colour octet field of the fast gluon by the creation of gluon pairs. This mechanism is called ‘colour octet neutralization’ . As a consequence bound states with valence gluons (glueballs and gluonic mesons) might be eventually produced and observed. The existence of gluonic states is predicted by non-perturbative QCD and has been searched for since more than 20 years in different experiments . The very existence of such states, however, is not yet established.

The present study is following a suggestion of Minkowski and Ochs  to search for colour octet neutralization (and for glueballs and gluonic mesons) in gluon jets, produced in 3-jet events in $`e^+e^{}`$ reactions, by defining a leading system followed by a rapidity gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ empty of hadrons. The leading systems of both gluon- and quark-jets are then compared to the predictions of the Monte Carlo model JETSET which is not including the mechanism of octet neutralization. The price to pay for a selection of jets with a rapidity gap is however a strong reduction of the number of events because of the Sudakov form factor . The sum of charges (SQ) in the leading particle system of gluon jets is compared with the resp. Monte Carlo prediction to search for a surplus of events with SQ=0. Furthermore the same investigation for quark jets should not result in a surplus of any charge.

In ref.  it has been observed that there were no significant deviations from Monte Carlo predictions for resonance production - in particular that of the $`\eta `$ in quark- and gluon-jets. Therefore one can expect that octet neutralization is a relatively rare process - if it exists at all.

## 2 Data sample and 3-jet event selection

The data sample used has been taken by the DELPHI experiment at the LEP collider at $`\sqrt{s}=91GeV`$ in the years 1992-1995. About 230000 3-jet-event have been selected, which have been obtained by using the appropriate cuts for track quality and for the hadronic event type  as well as applying a $`k_t`$ cluster algorithm (Durham)  with $`y_{cut}=0.015`$. For the jet determination all topologies have been used with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\mathrm{\Theta }_3=135^o\pm 35^o`$, where the jets had been numbered with respect to the calculated energy i.e. $`E_3E_2E_1`$ and with e.g. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$ being the angle between the first and third jet (so called ”asymmetric events”) . The jet with the highest energy $`E_1`$ (jet-1) is in most cases a quark-jet, that with the smallest energy $`E_3`$ (jet-3) the gluon jet. Monte Carlo simulations show for the above mentioned conditions for jet-1 a quark-jet contribution of $`90`$% and for jet-3 a gluon-jet contribution of about 70%. This is e.g. in agreement with the numbers quoted by L3 with similar jet energies and selections  Heavy quark (b- and c- quarks) events are classified using an impact parameter technique . In the present study events are only accepted if they do not exhibit a b-quark signal. The intention is to compare gluon jets only to ’light-quark’ jets. A corresponding sample of Monte Carlo simulations (JETSET) of about twice the event- statistics has been created for comparisons. All comparisons are done at the detector level.

## 3 Preliminary Results for 3-Jet Events

### 3.1 Sum of Charges in the Leading System with Rapidity Gap

After the selection of 3-jet events and the determination of enriched quark and gluon jet samples the leading hadronic system of the jet is singled out by requiring a rapidity interval ($`\mathrm{\Delta }y2`$) between the particles (charged and neutral) belonging to this system and the rest of hadrons produced in either kind of jet. For the charged particles the momenta are required to be larger than 0.2 GeV, for the neutrals this requirement is 0.5 GeV. The requirement of the rapidity interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }y2`$ below the leading system to be empty of hadrons reduces the number of events to only 3$`\%`$.

The sum of charges of the particles belonging to the leading system defined as above is given in Fig.1 for gluon-jets and in Fig.2 for quark-jets (full circles) and compared to JETSET Monte Carlo simulations (open circles). The numbers P(SQ) in the upper plots are defined as the number of events (or Monte Carlo events) with a certain SQ divided by the total number of selected $`\mathrm{\Delta }y2`$ events - (or the corresponding Monte Carlo events). They are therefore an estimate for the probability of an event to have a certain SQ.

The SQ distributions of the leading system for the gluon-jet (Fig.1) shows, for SQ=0, a striking difference between data and simulation. There is a significant enhancement of the SQ of the data at SQ=0 as expected (see Section 1, ref. ) when the process of colour octet neutralization is present (it is, as mentioned above, absent in the simulation). On the other hand, there is no significant difference of the SQ of the leading system, for SQ=0, between data and JETSET simulation in the case of quark-jets (Fig.2). The lower parts of Figs. 2 and 3 show the difference of the P(SQ) between the data and the JETSET Monte Carlo simulation. This difference amounts, for the gluon-jet (Fig.1) to about $`9\%`$, that is more than 4 standard deviations from zero, for the quark-jet (Fig.2) this difference is compatible with zero !

### 3.2 Mass Spectra

Fig.3 shows, for both the gluon-jet and the quark-jet, the effective mass distribution $`M`$ of the leading system, no neutrals included, with rapidity gap required for the charged particles $`\mathrm{\Delta }y2`$ and the total charge of the system being zero. The number of charged particles in the leading system has to be 2,4,6 etc. Several peaks can be observed for the gluon-jet (Fig.3a). One peak around $`M0.8GeV`$ might be attributed to the $`\rho `$ resonance, another at $`M0.5GeV`$ to a reflection of $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^\mathrm{`}`$ and $`\omega `$. Other peaks ($`M1GeV`$, $`M1.4GeV`$, …) are not understood yet and their statistical significance is weak. The ratio of the $`M`$ distributions of the leading system data/simulation is given in Fig.3b. The $`\rho `$ peak and the enhancement at $`M0.5GeV`$ seem to be understood by the simulation. Besides the region at very low $`M0.3GeV`$, the 2 enhancements in the $`M`$ distributions of the leading system of the gluon-jet at $`M1GeV`$ and $`M1.4GeV`$ are not reproduced by the JETSET Monte Carlo simulation.

Fig.3c shows the corresponding mass distribution of quark-jets and Fig.3d shows the ratio of the $`M`$ distributions of the leading system data/simulation for the quark-jet. Compared to the gluon-jet there is no enhancement at $`M1GeV`$ in Fig.3c and in Fig.3d no excess compared to the simulation at $`M1.4GeV`$.

Since the effect of the neutrals are not well understood yet ($`\gamma `$’s, $`\pi ^0`$’s, and neutral decay modes of $`\eta `$’s, $`\eta ^\mathrm{`}`$’s, $`\omega `$’s etc.) and because of the limited statistics no conclusions can be drawn yet from the mass distributions.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

In the present study first efforts have been undertaken to search for the existence of octet neutralization in the fragmentation of gluon-jets. The full statistics of 1992-1995 at $`\sqrt{s}=91.1GeV`$ obtained by the DELPHI collaboration is used to select 3-jet events and to single out thereof quark-jets (purity $`90\%`$) and gluon-jets (purity $`70\%`$). A leading system of a jet is defined which is separated from the rest of the low energy particles by a rapidity gap of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }y2`$ being empty of hadrons. The sum of charges of this leading system is studied. For the gluon-jets an enhancement of neutral leading systems over the Monte Carlo prediction of about $`9\%`$ is seen (more than 4 standart deviations above zero), on the other hand, no such enhancement is seen in the quark-jet ! An even more significant deviation is revealed (Fig. not shown) for the sum of charges of the 2 fastest tracks without demanding a rapidity cut ($`3.5\%`$ effect but with very high significance).

In order to assess the existence of colour octet neutralization further checks have to be done - determination of the quantum numbers of the leading system, better separation of the gluon-jet, better insight into the role of the neutrals etc. It can, however, be argued that there is an intrinsic shortcoming for the JETSET Monte Carlo simulation describing the sum of charges in the leading system of the gluon-jet !

The effective mass of the leading system with sum of charges SQ = 0 is studied. An enhancement for the gluon-jet at $`M1GeV`$, which is not seen in the simulation nor for the quarkjet and another at $`M1.4GeV`$ is yet of only weak statistical significance.

## Acknowledgements

We thank W.Ochs for encouraging us to start the above study and for discussions in the course of it, O.Klapp for technical support for the jet selection and M.Siebel for valuable comments.


text:
# DESY 01-168 October 2001 Glueball and gluelump spectrum in abelian projected QCD Talk given by V. Bornyakov.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The effective infrared theory obtained after abelian projection must reproduce the low mass hadron spectrum at least in qualitative agreement with the real spectrum. To check this in the maximally abelian (MA) projection  we calculate glueball and gluelump spectrum in the abelian projected (AP) SU(3) theory. We also discuss results for QCD with dynamical fermions. The glueball spectrum in AP $`SU(2)`$ theory has been studied in  and good agreement with the $`SU(2)`$ spectrum has been found. The low hadron masses have been computed in AP $`SU(3)`$ . This study, though being limited in precision, allows to draw conclusion about qualitative agreement with the spectrum of the unprojected theory. There is another motivation of our work. It has been claimed  that since abelian projection breaks $`SU(3)`$ invariance (even global) the ’new hadronic’ states must appear in a theory which are absent in the experimental spectrum. We will suggest a solution of this problem.

## 2 SIMULATION DETAILS

We follow the standard procedure of abelian projection for $`SU(3)`$ in MA gauge . To fix MA gauge a simulated annealing algorithm  has been employed with the aim to reduce effects of Gribov copies. We generated one gauge copy per configuration. Our computations have been done on a $`16^332`$ lattice. In the quenched case we used $`O(400)`$ configurations at $`\beta =6.0`$. For the $`N_f=2`$ full QCD $`O(300)`$ configurations at $`\beta =5.29,\kappa =0.1350`$ generated by QCDSF  have been used. These two sets have roughly equal lattice spacing with $`r_0/a5.3`$.

## 3 GLUEBALLS IN QUENCHED/FULL AP QCD

Let us introduce lattice gauge field $`U_{x,\mu }SU(3)`$ and abelian projected field $`u_{x,\mu }=\text{diag}\{e^{i\theta _{x,\mu }^1},e^{i\theta _{x,\mu }^2},e^{i\theta _{x,\mu }^3}\}U(1)\times U(1)`$. The glueball correlator has a general form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=<\text{Tr}G(0)\text{Tr}G^{}(t)><\text{Tr}G>^2$$
(1)
The zero momentum operator

$$G(t)=\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}G(\stackrel{}{x},t)$$
(2)
$$G(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\underset{C}{}\left(U(C_x)\pm U^{}(C_x)\right),U(C)=\underset{lC}{}U_l$$

belongs to one of the three representations of the cubic group: $`\text{A}^{++},\text{E}^{++},\text{T1}^+`$. In (3) closed paths $`C`$ and sign are chosen properly to get particular representation. To obtain the corresponding projected correlator we make the following substitution in (3): $`U(C)u(C)`$. We use square loops of a size up to $`8\times 8`$ and apply smearing or fuzzing to $`u_{x,i}`$. Finally, the effective mass is extracted as usual:

$$a\text{m}_{\text{eff}}(t)=\text{log}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\right]$$
(3)
In Fig. 1 we present our results for projected $`\text{m}_{\text{eff}}(t)`$ for $`0^{++}`$ glueball. The straight lines show central value and error bars of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball mass obtained at this $`\beta `$ value in  in the unprojected theory.

One can see unusual behaviour of $`\text{m}_{\text{eff}}(t)`$ for smeared/fuzzed operators. This is due to lack of reflection positivity for gauge noninvariant operators used in our computations, as has been discussed in . We found consistency between our results obtained with various operators which assures us that our computation of the glueball masses is meaningful. Good agreement with results of  can be seen from Fig. 1. Similar agreement was found for $`2^{++}`$ and $`1^+`$ glueballs. We repeated our computation on full QCD configurations and obtained results consistent within error bars with results for the quenched case.

## 4 GLUELUMPS IN QUENCHED/FULL AP QCD

The gluelump was introduced in . It is not a physical particle. It can be seen as a glueball with one gluon infinitely massive or as a static adjoint quark with color screened by dynamical gluon field. Its lowest energy determines a scale where adjoint string should break. The gluelump correlator has the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\text{Tr}\left[G(\stackrel{}{x},0)\lambda _a\right]S_{ab}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\text{Tr}\left[G(\stackrel{}{x},t)\lambda _b\right]$$
(4)
$$S(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\underset{\tau =1}{\overset{t}{}}U_{(\stackrel{}{x},\tau ),0}^{adj}$$

The gluelump spectrum has been computed both in $`SU(2)`$  and in $`SU(3)`$ . It is worth noting that $`1^+`$ and $`1^{}`$ gluelump correlators coincide with the gauge invariant correlators of the magnetic and electric fields $`<B_i^a(x)S_{ab}(x,y)B_i^b(y)>`$, $`<E_i^a(x)S_{ab}(x,y)E_i^b(y)>`$ , where $`S_{ab}`$ is a Schwinger line. In the stochastic vacuum model  the field strength correlator has exponential decay and determines the gluon correlation length $`T_g`$ . Within the scope of this model $`T_g`$ is a fundamental parameter. The field strength correlator has been computed on the lattice. The lattice results for $`T_g`$ can be summarized as follows: in $`SU(2)`$ $`T_g=0.15÷0.2`$ fm , in $`SU(3)`$ $`T_g=0.1÷0.2`$ fm . The ground state energy of the gluelump, $`E_g`$, is related to $`T_g`$ :

$$\frac{1}{T_g}=m_g,m_g=E_g\text{divergent selfenergy}$$
(5)
The abelian projected gluelump correlator is:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)=\underset{\alpha =3,8}{}\text{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}(\stackrel{}{x},0)\lambda _\alpha \right)\text{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\lambda _\alpha \right)$$

Note the absence of the Schwinger line in the projected correlator. This implies that the energy computed from this correlator has no divergent part. Recently a connection between the field strength correlator and the dual photon propagator of an effective infrared QCD (dual Abelian Higgs model) has been suggested . If this is true, then the dual photon mass is equal to $`m_g`$ introduced above. In this sense we can say that the dual photon corresponds to the $`1^+`$ gluelump and thus is not observable. We computed correlators $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)`$ for $`1^+,0^{++},2^{++}`$ gluelumps using the same techniques as in the computation of the projected glueball spectrum.

To compare with results of  we need to subtract the divergent part from these results. This we make in the way applied to $`SU(2)`$ gluelumps in : $`m_g=E_g\frac{1}{2}V_0^{adj}`$, where $`V_0^{adj}`$ is a selfenergy of the static adjoint quark-antiquark pair. To estimate $`V_0^{adj}`$ we use the relation $`V_0^{adj}=\frac{9}{4}V_0^{fund}`$, which holds according to results of , and take the value $`V_0^{fund}=0.63(2)`$ from . Our results presented in Fig. 2 show good qualitative agreement with the $`SU(3)`$ spectrum of gluelumps obtained in . Similar to the glueballs case the gluelump spectrum in AP QCD agrees well with results depicted in Fig. 2.
It is easy now to suggest the interpretation of the ’new hadron’ states considered in , namely the states generated by operators $`\overline{\psi }(x)\lambda _{3,8}\psi (x)`$. They are abelian projections of adjoint-mesons  determined by the correlator

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\text{Tr}\left[G_a(\stackrel{}{x},0)\right]S_{ab}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\text{Tr}\left[G_b(\stackrel{}{x},t)\right]$$
(6)
$$G_a(x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\lambda _a\psi (x)$$

After abelian projection the correlator is:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)=\underset{\alpha =3,8}{}\text{Tr}\left[G_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},0)\right]\text{Tr}\left[G_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},t)\right]$$
(7)
The adjoint-baryons and their abelian projection can be constructed analogously. Note that we always use Weyl invariant operators since our gauge fixing does not break Weyl invariance.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

Our results for glueball and gluelump spectra in AP $`SU(3)`$ show good qualitative agreement with corresponding results obtained in $`SU(3)`$. To make conclusion about how good agreement is quantitatively the extrapolation to the continuum limit would be necessary. Similar computations made in AP full QCD at $`m_\pi /m_\rho =0.76`$ have not revealed any essential changes in the spectrum. We proposed solution of the problem of ’new hadrons’, raised in : these states are abelian counterparts of gluelumps (or adjoint mesons/baryons) and thus cannot be detected in experiments.

This work is partially supported by INTAS grant 00-00111.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The important interplay of hard, perturbative QCD (pQCD) and soft, non-perturbative QCD effects has recently been clearly demonstrated in the production of heavy quarkonia in hadron collisions. The Tevatron data  for high-$`p_{}`$ $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi ^{}`$and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$is up to factors of 50 above the pQCD prediction in the Colour Singlet Model (CSM) , where a colour singlet $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is produced at the parton level and gives a charmonium state with the same quantum numbers. This deficit can be explained by letting a fraction of the more abundant $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs in a colour octet state be transformed to a singlet state through some soft, non-perturbative QCD dynamics. Lacking a proper understanding of non-pQCD, this has been described in different models: the Colour Octet Model (COM) , the Colour Evaporation Model (CEM) , the Soft Colour Interaction model (SCI)  and the Generalized Area Law model (GAL) . All these models can be made to fit these Tevatron data.

In this paper we study the extrapolation of these models to the LHC energy and examine the theoretical uncertainty in the charmonium production rate. Future LHC data may then discriminate between the models and provide an improved understanding of the non-pQCD mechanism they involve.

Prompt $`J/\psi `$ production is also of importance as a background to CP-violation studies based on $`B`$ meson decays into $`J/\psi X`$, with $`X`$ being $`K_s^0`$, $`\varphi `$ etc. The $`B`$ production cross section at the LHC is very high in comparison with $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, but its fraction of the total inelastic cross section is small (0.7$`\%`$). The trigger for $`B`$ physics has therefore to be very selective and is typically based on the leptons from a $`J/\psi `$ decay. Studies of such triggers have shown that prompt $`J/\psi `$ is indeed a source of background . The prompt $`J/\psi `$, which emerge from the primary interaction vertex, can to a large extent be distinguished from $`J/\psi `$ from $`B`$ decays, which are produced at a secondary vertex typically located a few hundred micrometers from the primary vertex. There is, however, a remaining prompt charmonium background that affects $`B`$-physics analyses and the associated CP-violation studies, such as measurements of $`sin2\beta `$.

In Section 2 the models and their normalisation to the Tevatron data are discussed. The extrapolation to the LHC energy is made in Section 3, where also the observed differences are analysed and prompt $`J/\psi `$ as a background for CP-violation studies is considered. We end with some conclusions in Section 4.

## 2 Models and tuning to Tevatron data

In the Colour Octet Model the cross section is factorised in a short distance part, where a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is produced in a well defined quantum number state ($`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}`$), and a long distance part, giving the probability that this state will convert non-perturbatively into a charmonium state. These probabilities are given by non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) matrix elements, which are assumed to be universal and in practice are free parameters obtained from fits to experimental data. For high-$`p_{}`$ $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron, the main subprocesses are $`ggJ/\psi g`$ and $`gqJ/\psi q`$, which are next-to-leading order in the hard pQCD $`c\overline{c}`$ production process. The extraction of the NRQCD matrix elements from the Tevatron data has been performed in several steps where perturbative effects and intrinsic transverse momenta have successively been taken better into account explicitly instead of being absorbed into the fitted matrix elements .

The CEM, SCI and GAL models are based on a similar phenomenological approach, where soft colour interactions can change the colour state of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair from an octet to a singlet. They employ the same hard pQCD processes to produce a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair regardless of its spin state. The leading order (LO) processes are $`ggc\overline{c}`$ (Fig. 1a) and $`q\overline{q}c\overline{c}`$. Heavy quark production is, however, known to have large contributions from next-to-leading order (NLO) diagrams . Virtual corrections to the leading order processes together with soft and collinear gluon emissions give an increase of the cross section, which can be approximately described as an overall $`K`$-factor multiplying the leading order cross-section. The LO processes and these NLO processes cannot produce a $`J/\psi `$ at high-$`p_{}`$ since there is nothing to compensate its $`p_{}`$ to give the essentially zero $`p_{}`$ of the initial partons. Of importance for high-$`p_{}`$ $`J/\psi `$ production is instead NLO tree diagrams with a third hard parton that balances the $`p_{}`$ of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair. The most important contribution is given by the diagram in Fig. 1b. Although this is an $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ correction in terms of a gluon splitting $`gc\overline{c}`$ applied to the basic $`22`$ process of $`gggg`$, it is numerically large since $`gggg`$ has a much larger $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ cross section than the LO $`c\overline{c}`$ production processes. Matrix elements with non-zero quark masses are only available up to NLO. Still higher orders can be expected to be important at the Tevatron and LHC. The reason is that at these energies many gluons can be emitted and their virtuality need not be very large in order to allow a split into a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair. The higher order processes can be approximately described by the parton shower approach available in the Pythia  Monte Carlo, where in all basic QCD $`22`$ processes the incoming and outgoing partons may branch as described by the DGLAP equations .

In CEM the exchange of soft gluons is assumed to give a randomisation of the colour state. This implies a probability $`1/9`$ that a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is in a colour singlet state and produces charmonium if its mass is below the threshold for open charm production, $`m_{c\overline{c}}<2m_D`$. The fraction of charmonium giving a $`J/\psi `$ is given by an additional non-perturbative parameter $`\rho _{J/\psi }=0.430.5`$ . This model was recently implemented in Pythia such that higher order pQCD processes could be included in terms of parton showers and events be Monte Carlo simulated. It was found  that this model reproduced quite well $`x_F`$ and $`p_{}`$ distributions, both in shape and normalisation, of $`J/\psi `$ produced in fixed target experiments.

In the Soft Colour Interaction model  it is assumed that colour-anticolour, corresponding to non-perturbative gluons, can be exchanged between partons emerging from a hard scattering and hadron remnants. This can be viewed as the partons interacting softly with the colour medium, or colour background field, of the initial hadron as they propagate through it. This should be a natural part of the process in which ‘bare’ partons are ‘dressed’ into non-perturbative ones and the confining colour flux tube between them is formed. The hard parton level interactions are given by standard perturbative matrix elements and parton showers, which are not altered by softer non-perturbative effects. The unknown probability to exchange a soft gluon between parton pairs is given by a phenomenological parameter $`R`$, which is the only free parameter of the model. These colour exchanges lead to different topologies of the confining colour force fields (strings) and thereby to different hadronic final states after hadronisation. This model gives a novel explanation of rapidity gap events in deep inelastic scattering and in hard $`p\overline{p}`$ processes at the Tevatron , which are well reproduced with $`R=0.5`$. Applying the same Monte Carlo implementation in Pythia (with the same $`R`$-value), it was found that the Tevatron data on high-$`p_{}`$ charmonium and bottomonium are also well reproduced . The increased production rate is here given by the possibility for a perturbatively produced $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair in a colour octet state to be transformed to a singlet state as a result of these soft colour interactions. The mapping of $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs, with mass below the threshold for open charm production, is here made based on spin statistics which avoids introducing further free parameters. This was also found to give a correct description of the different onium states observed at the Tevatron .

An alternative to SCI is the later developed Generalised Area Law model , where modified colour string-field topologies are obtained by interactions between the strings in the event instead of the partons. A generalisation of the area law suppression $`e^{bA}`$, with $`A`$ the area swept out by the string in energy-momentum space, gives a dynamic probability $`R=R_0(1e^{b\mathrm{\Delta }A})`$ for two string pieces to interact depending on the area difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ resulting from the changed string topology. This favours making shorter strings and thereby favours quarkonium production. The parameter $`R_0`$ and some hadronisation model parameters, e.g. $`b`$, are obtained from a fit to data from both deep inelastic scattering and $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation .

The comparison of the CEM, SCI and GAL models with the Tevatron data is shown in Fig. 2. As can be seen, all models give a quite decent description of the data. Although the shape is not perfect in the tail of the distribution, it is quite acceptable given the simplicity of the models. The overall normalisation is correctly given by the models. For the CEM this is obtained by setting $`\rho _{J/\psi }=0.43`$ and the charm quark mass to 1.5 GeV. As parameterisations of the parton density functions we have used CTEQ4L , but we have checked that the result does not change much if we use GRVHO or CTEQ2L (e.g. CTEQ2L reduces the normalisation by a few percent). The SCI and GAL models have not been tuned to these data, but the result is also sensitive to the charm quark mass (taken as default $`m_c=1.35`$ GeV in Pythia 5.7). The parton densities are here kept the same as used in other applications of these models, namely CTEQ3L  for SCI and CTEQ4L  for GAL. The values of the essential parameters $`R`$ and $`R_0`$ in SCI and GAL are, as discussed, given by the rate of rapidity gap events in deep inelastic scattering. The SCI model is, however, quite stable such that $`R`$ can be chosen in the range 0.2–0.5. One should note that an arbitrary $`K`$ factor is not needed in any of the models, since higher order pQCD processes were included through the parton showers.

In view of the Tevatron running with increased luminosity one can expect forthcoming $`J/\psi `$ data extending to higher $`p_{}`$, which would test and constrain the models further. We therefore include in Fig. 2 model predictions for $`p_{}`$ up to 40 GeV, which show that the CEM and SCI models are quite close, whereas the GAL model gives a somewhat higher cross section in the high-$`p_{}`$ tail. New data could help in discriminating or improving the models resulting in reduced uncertainties in the model predictions.

Based on the ability of these models to reproduce, in a reasonable way, the presently available Tevatron data, we now extrapolate them to the LHC energy.

## 3 Extrapolation to the LHC energy

Applying these models also for the larger energy at the LHC, i.e. $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV, should be appropriate since they include a reasonable energy dependence. The production of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is given by hard pQCD processes with a well-defined energy dependence. The soft interactions that change colour octet states to singlet states have no explicit energy dependence, similar to the normal hadronisation process. The SCI and GAL models will, however, have an implicit energy dependence since they act on a parton state or string topology that depend on the collision energy.

Results of the models, keeping all parameters fixed from the comparison with the Tevatron data, are shown Fig. 3. The $`p_{}`$ distribution in Fig. 3a is quite similar for the three models, although they differ somewhat in the high-$`p_{}`$ tail and GAL has a somewhat less steep slope. These predictions should, however, not be taken as very precise in view of the simplicity of these models that attempt to describe unknown non-perturbative QCD phenomena. The overall normalisation, which e.g. is sensitive to the value of the charm quark mass, should not be considered to be better than within about a factor two.

In order to consider what can realistically be measured, we show in Fig. 3b the distribution in pseudorapidity of $`J/\psi `$ and the acceptance regions of the LHC experiments. Requiring the muons from the $`J/\psi `$ decay to be within these regions we obtain the results in Fig. 3cd, which show lower effective cross sections with slightly more separated model curves. Thus, Fig. 3 shows a slightly different behaviour of the models as function of rapidity and transverse momentum, but a more detailed study of this is premature until some data are available to show that the models give a reasonable overall description of $`J/\psi `$ production at the LHC energy. A retuning of the models may then reduce these differences and it is therefore not clear to what extent these model differences can be exploited to discriminate among the models and disentangle details of the charmonium production mechanism. In any case, this would require data of quite high precision.

Here we can make an interesting comparison with a previous calculation of the prompt $`J/\psi `$ production in the COM model . As can be seen in Fig. 3c, the COM result is significantly lower than the other models. The COM result is based on using pQCD matrix elements in NLO. At high $`p_{}`$ the dominant process is, as discussed above, the order $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ process $`ggc\overline{c}g`$ in Fig. 1b. A shift of the momentum distribution of this $`c\overline{c}`$ pair has been made in order to account for the effect of higher order gluon emissions as estimated based on the parton shower. Since $`gc\overline{c}`$ in the parton shower is here not included, the applied higher order correction does not change the normalisation of the $`c\overline{c}`$ cross section, but only the shape of the momentum distribution which becomes somewhat softer due to gluon radiation.

Our calculations with the CEM, SCI and GAL models use leading order matrix elements and include the full parton shower evolution, including $`gc\overline{c}`$ in any branching. This gives an estimate of the $`c\overline{c}`$ production cross section including all higher orders. To find out to what extent this is the reason for the observed difference, we mimic the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ matrix elements by including only those $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs coming from the first branching of the parton shower (cf. Fig. 1b) giving the results shown in Fig. 4. Since we want to explicitly show the effect of omitting higher order $`c\overline{c}`$ production we have here not changed any parameters in the models (which could be done to partly compensate for the loss of higher orders). As compared to the standard result, including $`c\overline{c}`$ from any branching, this ‘first branching’ approximation does indeed give a lower $`J/\psi `$ cross section. At the Tevatron energy the difference is not large and could at least partly be absorbed into a tuning of parameters such as $`m_c`$ and $`\alpha _s`$. Nevertheless, in the region of lower $`p_{}`$ where the data are more precise, some preference for the all order result is indicated. At LHC, where more energy is available to build up a more extended parton shower, the difference is larger and becomes an order of magnitude at high $`p_{}`$. As can be seen in Fig. 4b, this reduction of the $`J/\psi `$ yield in the first branching approximation brings the CEM and SCI models closer to the COM result . This COM result was based on the older parameterisation CTEQ2L of parton densities, but we have checked that this causes a reduction in the overall normalisation which is much smaller than omitting higher order $`gc\overline{c}`$ in the parton shower. Thus, we conclude that $`c\overline{c}`$ production in orders higher than $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ are important at the LHC energy.

As discussed in the Introduction, we also consider the prompt $`J/\psi `$ production as background for CP-violation studies based on $`B`$ meson decays such as $`B_d^0J/\psi K_s^0`$, $`B_s^0J/\psi \varphi `$, etc. A detailed analysis has been made for Atlas , taking into account trigger conditions, acceptance cuts, off-line selection criteria and reconstruction methods. This resulted in the signal-to-background ratio of 4.1 for the case of $`B_s^0J/\psi \varphi `$. The estimated contamination from $`ppJ/\psi X`$ on the level of 3% was here entirely due to prompt $`J/\psi `$ produced by the COM model implemented in the Atlas Monte Carlo package. Although other backgrounds were found to be more important, this signal-to-background ratio may be somewhat too optimistic in view of our finding that COM gives a lower prompt $`J/\psi `$ cross section than the CEM, SCI and GAL models.

At this stage one cannot decide which of these models is most reliable and gives the best prediction for the prompt $`J/\psi `$ production. The variation between them should therefore be taken as an estimate of the theoretical uncertainty. From Fig. 3c we find cross sections that are almost an order of magnitude larger than in COM. The signal-to-background does not, however, decrease by the full amount of this factor since other backgrounds are also present. Nevertheless, this indicates that the prompt $`J/\psi `$ production could be an important background giving a lower signal-to-background ratio than previously estimated. A proper study of this is beyond the scope of this paper, but our results show that the prompt $`J/\psi `$ production is a background for CP-violation studies that should not be neglected.

## 4 Conclusions

Charmonium production provides an interesting testing ground for QCD, including both perturbative and non-perturbative effects. Several models (COM, CEM, SCI, GAL) have been developed to account for the possibility that a perturbatively produced $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in a colour octet state is transformed into a singlet state through soft interactions. This enhances the rate of charmonium production by more than an order of magnitude, as compared to conventional expectations based on the Colour Singlet Model. All these new models can account for the observed rate of high-$`p_{}`$ prompt $`J/\psi `$ at the Tevatron, and are thereby normalised at this energy. Since the models tend to differ more at higher $`p_{}`$, we have extended our model calculations to give predictions for a region of higher $`p_{}`$ which may be reached in the high luminosity runs at the Tevatron. Forthcoming high statistics data may then discriminate among the models or help in reducing the uncertainties in results of the models.

Extrapolating the COM, CEM, SCI and GAL models to the LHC energy, we find significant differences in the predicted prompt $`J/\psi `$ cross sections; up to almost an order of magnitude. In particular, the COM result is lower than the others. Part of this difference is related to the fact that COM is based on NLO matrix elements, whereas the other models include still higher order $`c\overline{c}`$ production through the parton shower approximation in pQCD.

Prompt $`J/\psi `$ is also a background for studies of $`B`$ meson decays into $`J/\psi `$, which are important for studies of CP-violation. An earlier estimate of the signal-to-background ratio based on COM gave the favourable result of 4.1. Using the larger rate of prompt $`J/\psi `$ from the other models, will reduce the signal-to-background ratio. Prompt $`J/\psi `$ production must therefore be better understood in order to control it as a background for CP-violation studies.

Improving our understanding of the mechanism for prompt $`J/\psi `$ production is also important in its own right. It involves an interplay of hard, perturbative and soft, non-perturbative QCD dynamics which is closely connected with the more general problem of understanding QCD.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Tord Ekelöf and Johan Rathsman for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council and the Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil.


text:
# REFERENCES

\[ \] Comment on ”Disorder and Quantum Fluctuations in Superconducting Films in Strong Magnetic Fields” :

In a recent paper, Galitski and Larkin (GaL) have examined a macroscopic superconducting (SC) transition field $`H_c`$ at zero temperature ($`T=0`$) in disordered thin films under magnetic fields perpendicular to the plane. They have argued that $`H_c`$ usually lies above the ordinary mean field $`\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$ at $`T=0`$ and that an upwardly curved nominal $`H_{c2}(T)`$ curve defined from resistivity data can be explained based on this $`T=0`$ result.

Here, based on our recent works, we mainly focus on the situation denoted in Ref.1 as the mesoscopic disorder case and point out that the GaL’s conclusion $`H_c>\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$ contradicts available experimental data suggesting a field-tuned superconductor-insulator transition (FSIT) and that this failure can be ascribed to their neglect of the amplitude-dominated quamtum superconducting (AQSC) fluctuation. When arguing that the transition dominated by the disorder-induced SC islands with local $`H_{c2}`$-values much higher than $`\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$ can occur at $`H_c`$ much above $`\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$, GaL have assumed that the AQSC fluctuation may be important only near $`\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$ so that an SC transition at $`H_c`$ may occur without being disturbed by the AQSC fluctuation. Since the correlator $`C`$ used in Ref.1 in defining $`H_c`$ diverges when the Edward-Anderson order parameter becomes nonvanishing, their $`H_c`$ should be identified with an FSIT field within the model in Ref.1. However, resistance data in 2D SC samples show a negative magnetoresistance in higher fields than an (apparent) FSIT field, and this behavior is not seen  in 2D films nonsuperconducting even in zero field and in 3D SC samples. As pointed out elsewhere, this is best understood as the presence, above the (apparent) FSIT field, of nonvanishing fluctuation conductance terms excluded from the Ginzburg-Landau description. Namely, the FSIT behavior occurs, contrary to the result in Ref.1, within or below the region around $`\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$ in which the AQSC fluctuation is violent.

In our opinion, an AQSC fluctuation peculiar to each of such islands with a higher $`H_{c2}`$-value begins to become important above $`\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$ consistently. A consistent treatment between the AQSC fluctuation and the vortex pinning effect has led to a $`T=0`$ FSIT field lower than $`\overline{H}_{c2}(0)`$ . We also note that, contrary to the data, GaL’s eq.(16) results in an $`H_c`$ increasing with increasing disorder. According to Ref.5, an interplay between a microscopic disorder and an electron-electron repulsion needs to be incorporated to explain the FSIT field decreasing with increasing disorder.

Regarding the resistive $`H_{c2}(T)`$ increasing upwardly upon cooling in 2D like systems, we note that, if the SC fluctuation at measured temperatures is mainly not quantum but thermal in character, such an upward curve will be explained in terms of the SC fluctuation theory by phenomenologically incorporating a pinning strength through a random $`T_c`$. For instance, by defining a resistive $`H_{c2}(T)`$ in the manner $`\rho (H=H_{c2})=0.9\rho _n`$, where $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _n`$ are, respectively, the total and normal resistivities, the resulting resistive $`H_{c2}(T)`$, in contrast to the GaL’s strong disorder case, may lie below $`\overline{H}_{c2}(T)`$ and deviate upwardly at low enough $`T`$ from a nearly linear behavior  as a consequence of a decrease upon cooling of the SC fluctuation strength relative to the pinning strength. Further, if a resistive $`H_{c2}(T)`$ in 3D systems  with strong SC fluctuation is defined as the positions at which the resistance (apparently) vanishes, it should also show an upwardly curved line below $`\overline{H}_{c2}(T)`$ reflecting the 3D vortex glass fluctuation created by the thermal or quantum SC fluctuation. Heat capacity data  and recent resistivity data  for overdoped cuprates strongly suggest $`\overline{H}_{c2}(T)`$ lying far above the upwardly-curved resistive $`H_{c2}(T)`$. Similar remarkable differences between two nominal $`H_{c2}(T)`$ defined, respectively, from resistivity and other quantities are also found in electron-doped  and (hole-)underdoped  cuprates. Through such recent data in SC cuprates, it is believed that an upward resistive $`H_{c2}(T)`$-curve is not a reflection of the GaL’s $`T=0`$ result in their strong disorder case but a direct consequence of SC fluctuation effects at nonzero $`T`$.

Ryusuke Ikeda
Department of Physics,
Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan