text:
# The kinematics of lopsided galaxies

## 1 Introduction

It has been known for a long time that many disc galaxies are lopsided. Baldwin, Lynden-Bell & Sancisi  were among the first to note that many galaxies show large-scale asymmetries in the optical images and the gas distributions. Richter & Sancisi  examined a large sample of about 1700 global Hi-profiles, and concluded that at least 50% of all disc galaxies show significant asymmetries. This result has recently been confirmed by Haynes et al. , who studied 104 Hi-profiles of spiral galaxies. Matthews, Van Driel & Gallagher  studied Hi-profiles of 30 extreme late-type spiral galaxies. These authors found that about 75% of the galaxies in their sample have more or less asymmetric profiles, and inferred that lopsidedness is more common among these very late-type spirals.

Swaters  studied a sample of 75 late-type galaxies in Hi and red light, finding a high incidence of lopsidedness in both the distribution of gas and its kinematics. Swaters et al.  presented global profiles, rotation curves and velocity fields for two of these, DDO 9 and NGC 4395 (of type Im and Sm respectively), which are both kinematically lopsided, although neither has nearby companions. In these and other kinematically lopsided galaxies, the rotation curves level off at a constant velocity on one side of the galaxy, while they keep on rising on the other side. The contours of the velocity fields are more strongly curved on the side with the flat rotation curve, and the Hi-profile is asymmetric too.

Many galaxies are also lopsided in their light distribution. Rix & Zaritsky \[1995, hereafter R&Z\] studied K-band images of 18 disc galaxies and found that about one third of them were significantly lopsided. R&Z argue that lopsidedness should be more common in the Hi-distribution than in the stars, because of the longer dynamical timescales in the outer part of the disc. Zaritsky & Rix  followed up with I-band imaging of a larger sample of 60 galaxies, finding $`30\%`$ of them to be lopsided. Rudnick & Rix  explored earlier-type systems of type S0 to Sab, and found roughly 20% of lopsided disks.

The relation between lopsidedness in the distribution of starlight or gas and an asymmetric velocity field is not at all clear. NGC 891 shows a strongly lopsided gas distribution, with gas extending much further from the center on the southern than on the northern side. But up to the radius where the Hi stops on the northern side, the kinematics are almost perfectly symmetric with no obvious deviations from circular motion; beyond that, the rotation curve on the south side remains flat \[1979, 1997, Fig. 2\]. By contrast, both the stellar light and the Hi distribution in DDO 9 and NGC 4395 are fairly symmetric, but the velocity fields are quite lopsided . Kornreich et al.  compare morphological and kinematical lopsidedness in two samples, each of nine spiral galaxies, and find little or no correlation between the different parameters they measured. In the latter paper, they state that ‘normal morphology is not an indicator of normal kinematics and, conversely, that perturbed kinematics do not necessarily manifest as perturbed optical morphology’. Swaters  looked at the Hi-distribution and kinematics of 73 late-type dwarf galaxies, and found 19 galaxies with stronger kinematical than morphological asymmetries, 18 where the lopsidedness is stronger in the density, and 5 with comparable asymmetries in both (Chapter 3, Table A2).

The origin and persistence of lopsidedness in galaxies have not yet been explained in a satisfactory way. In both the radio and near-infrared surveys, the asymmetries affect large parts of the discs; they are not small, localized irregularities. The fact that so many galaxies, including isolated systems, are lopsided argues against transient effects. Lopsidedness may be a general and intrinsic feature of disc galaxies.

Baldwin et al.  suggested a model in which the gas and stars of a lopsided disc move in an axisymmetric potential on a series of initially aligned elliptical orbits. Due to differential precession, this lopsidedness will wind up into a single leading spiral arm and slowly disappear. These authors estimate that the asymmetry in their model can persist for about 5 Gyr, but claim that this lifetime is too short to explain the observed frequency of lopsidedness in nature. Another drawback is that, since the orbiting gas conserves its angular momentum, the inferred rotation curve must be significantly higher on the ‘short’ side of the disk.

The only stellar-dynamical models of disc galaxies that develop strong lopsided asymmetries are models with many counter-rotating particles . However, counter-rotation is only rarely observed in disc galaxies (see e.g. Kuijken, Fisher & Merrifield 1996). Syer & Tremaine  present fluid models for thin, scale-free, lopsided disks; their solutions are gravitationally self-consistent, and the distortion is stationary in inertial space. Galli et al.  show that these configurations are secularly stable. In these disks, a lopsided surface density implies lopsided kinematics. Earn & Lynden-Bell  reach a similar conclusion in their work on self-gravitating lopsided disks: the velocity field of a lopsided disk should itself be asymmetric. Such a model cannot account for the symmetric rotation curves of systems such as NGC 891.

Zaritsky & Rix \[1997, hereafter Z&R\] tried to explain lopsidedness as a result of recent accretion of small satellite galaxies on the parent galaxy. Using results of N-body simulations by Walker, Mihos & Hernquist , Z&R conclude that lopsidedness can be caused by accretion of a satellite within the last 1 Gyr. Using this lifetime and the observed frequency of lopsidedness, they obtain an upper limit on the accretion rate. However, the accretion rate can be much lower if the lopsidedness is more persistent, or if there are other mechanisms responsible for it. In particular, R&Z point out that the winding problem is avoided if the potential of the galaxy is lopsided itself, with the gas and stars just responding; they do not address the question of how to get a lopsided potential in the first place.

Recently, attention has been drawn to models in which the dark halo accounts for an asymmetry in the overall galaxy potential. Weinberg and collaborators  have shown that lopsided modes of oscillation in a spherical system may have very long decay times, so that asymmetries in the galactic halo can persist long after the original disturbance.

Jog  showed that even a small lopsided perturbation of the galaxy halo can cause strong asymmetry in the density of disk gas, in a sense opposing the perturbation in the halo. Investigating the self-consistent response of the disk, Jog  showed that the disk’s gravity indeed opposes the lopsidedness of the halo. As a result, the disk becomes strongly lopsided only in its outer parts, where the halo is dynamically dominant. However, Jog does not show model rotation curves.

Levine & Sparke \[1998, hereafter L&S\] presented a model to explain lopsidedness, with the disc lying off-centre in the dark halo and orbiting around its centre. This model has some aspects in common with that presented by de Vaucouleurs & Freeman  for off-centre bars in galaxies such as the Large Magellanic Cloud. The N-body simulations by L&S showed that when the rotation of the disc is retrograde with respect to its motion around the centre of the halo, the disc can remain off-centre for many rotation periods. The retrograde disc appears to settle into a circular orbit close to the core radius of the halo, inside which the halo density is roughly constant; a prograde disc drifted slowly inward towards the centre of the halo.

This paper will explore particle orbits in the L&S model; we investigate the kinematics of gas moving in such a model galaxy. We explain our model potential in section 2. In section 3, we present surfaces of section, rotation curves, and velocity fields. We show that orbits in this model can account both for disks with a lopsided surface density but symmetric kinematics, and for objects like NGC 4395, in which the velocity field is more distorted than the surface density. We also explore the effects of changing the basic model parameters. In section 4 we present a discussion of our conclusions.

## 2 Kinematics of a lopsided model

L&S presented N-body simulations of a model for lopsided galaxies, consisting of a disc of particles rotating around the centre of a massive dark halo, represented by a fixed spherical potential. Here, we compute stable, closed, non-crossing periodic orbits in an analytical representation of the potential of this model. Assuming that the gas in the disc moves on those orbits, we find the resulting velocity-field and rotation curves. We expect the disc particles to follow paths that oscillate about these stable periodic orbits, and use surfaces of section to explore the regions of trapped orbits. Although L&S found that the retrograde-spinning disc remained off-centre in the halo longer than the prograde disc, we consider both cases.

### 2.1 A model for the gravitational potential

Our model consists of a flat disc and a spherical halo. We confine our attention to orbits in the plane of the disc. The disc is an axisymmetric Kuzmin-Toomre disc of mass $`M_{KT}`$, lying in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. Its potential at distance $`R`$ from the disc centre in that plane is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{KT}(R)=\frac{GM_{KT}}{\sqrt{R^2+R_c^2}},$$
(1)
where G is the gravitational constant, and $`R_c`$ the scale length of the disc. We define our units such that $`G=1`$ and $`R_c=1`$. In the simulations of L&S, the disc was truncated at radius $`R_{tD}=10`$. Its total mass is then given by:

$$M\left(<R_{tD}\right)=M_{KT}\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+R_{tD}^2/R_c^2}}\right).$$
(2)
The halo is spherically symmetric and has a pseudo-isothermal form. The density at distance $`r`$ from its centre is given by

$$\rho _H(r)=\frac{\rho _c}{1+(r/r_c)^2},$$
(3)
where $`\rho _c`$ is the central density and $`r_c`$ the core radius of the halo, the radius where the density falls to half the central value. The velocity $`V_H`$ of a circular orbit at radius $`r`$ in this halo is given by:

$$V_H^2(r)=V_{\mathrm{}}^2\left[1\frac{r_c}{r}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)\right].$$
(4)
The circular velocity rises linearly in the centre, and approaches the asymptotic velocity $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ at large radii:

$$V_{\mathrm{}}^2=4\pi G\rho _cr_c^2.$$
(5)
The halo described by equation 3 has infinite mass, but L&S truncated the halo at $`r_{tH}=20`$. Its total mass is then given by:

$$M\left(<r_{tH}\right)=\frac{V_{\mathrm{}}^2}{G}\left[r_{tH}r_c\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{r_{tH}}{r_c}\right)\right].$$
(6)
We define our unit of mass such that the total mass in the truncated model (disc + halo) is unity. We define $`M_d`$ as the fraction of the total mass that is in the truncated disc ($`0M_d1`$). The mass of the truncated halo is then $`1M_d`$. We also need to know the contribution from the halo to the mass in the inner regions of the disc. We define $`\eta `$ as the fraction of the total mass within a sphere of radius $`r=2`$ from the disc centre that belongs to the halo. While the halo as a whole is much more massive than the disc, the disc dominates within these inner parts.

For $`R_c=2\mathrm{kpc}`$ and a total mass of $`10^{11}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, our time unit corresponds to $`4.22\mathrm{Myr}`$ and our velocity unit to $`464\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

The halo is centered at the origin, while the disc centre is placed at a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ on the positive $`x`$-axis. The combined potential in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane is then given by:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{tot}(x,y)=\mathrm{\Phi }_H(x,y)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{KT}(x\mathrm{\Delta }x,y),$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$ is the halo potential. The halo is much more massive than the disc, so we let the whole system rotate around the origin at an angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ equal to the circular rotation velocity in the halo potential at the radius $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ of the disc centre:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_P^2=\frac{V_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}\left[1\frac{r_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{r_c}\right)\right].$$
(8)
Now, we look for orbits that are closed in the corotating frame. Defining the angular momentum vector $`𝛀=\mathrm{\Omega }_P\widehat{𝐞}_𝐳`$, the equation of motion in this frame is:

$$\ddot{𝐫}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{tot}2(𝛀\times \dot{𝐫})𝛀\times (𝛀\times 𝐫),$$
(9)
where the second and third term on the right side are the Coriolis and centrifugal forces respectively. The effective potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}\mathrm{\Phi }_{tot}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_P^2\left(x^2+y^2\right)`$ is defined as the sum of the gravitational potential and a ‘centrifugal potential’. Orbits in this system admit an isolating integral of motion, the Jacobi integral:

$$E_\mathrm{J}=\frac{1}{2}|\dot{𝐫}|^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}$$
(10)
(see Binney & Tremaine 1987, section 3.3.2).

### 2.2 Finding orbits for gas flow

We assume that gas in our model moves in stable, closed and non-crossing orbits. The flow is then smooth and laminar, without major shock fronts. We used the method of surfaces of section to find closed orbits (see e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987, sections 3.2 to 3.5). For a range of values of $`E_\mathrm{J}`$, we integrated orbits with different initial conditions, such that we probe the entire phase-space. Each time the orbit crosses the $`x`$-axis with $`v_y>0`$, we mark its $`x`$-coordinate and $`x`$-velocity in an $`x\dot{x}`$-diagram. The simple closed orbits that we seek always cross the $`x`$-axis at the same point, with the same velocity; they will appear in the diagram as single points.

We then check if the orbits are stable, using a method first proposed by Hénon . Also, we check that orbits do not cross each other. We can then imagine filling with gas all the stable orbits that do not cross each other, to make a model velocity field or a rotation curve. Gas would not generally be found on unstable orbits or orbits that cross each other, so we ignored those orbits. However, stars could still be trapped around stable crossing orbits.

For the integrations, we used a variable-order, variable-step Adams method, implemented in Fortran77. This method maintains high accuracy during the long integrations needed to make the surfaces of section. We made use of subroutines from the NAG-library, using double precision variables, and a tolerance of $`10^{10}`$; a smaller tolerance slowed down the calculations and did not improve the accuracy of the integrations.

## 3 Model rotation curves and velocity fields

The parameters of our seven models are given in table 1. The disc scale length $`R_c`$ is 1 by definition, and the disc and halo truncation radii $`R_{tD}`$ and $`r_{tH}`$ are 10 and 20 respectively.

For all models, we consider both orbits that circulate the disc centre in a prograde and retrograde sense with respect to the disc’s motion around the halo centre.

### 3.1 The starting model

Model A was inspired by one of the most successful runs in L&S. They found that a retrograde spinning disc sank towards the halo centre until the most tightly-bound particles of the disc orbited at a radius close to the halo core radius. We chose $`M_d=0.092`$, $`r_c=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=2.5`$, so that the disc centre lies just outside the halo core. The halo contributes 19% of the total mass within a distance $`r=2`$ from the disc centre. Fig. 1 shows a contour-plot of the effective potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$ in the co-rotating coordinates.

In the region near $`(2.5,0)`$, the potential is clearly dominated by the disc.

When the Jacobi integral is low, the surfaces of section in Fig. 2 show two simple closed orbits.

One crosses the $`x`$-axis at $`x>2.5`$, and circles the disc centre in a prograde sense with respect to the motion of the disc around the halo centre. The other is a retrograde orbit, and crosses the $`x`$-axis at $`x<2.5`$. Both these orbits are stable and surrounded by a family of non-closed but regular orbits. Those appear as the concentric curves, nested around the closed orbits.

As the Jacobi integral is increased, most of the retrograde orbits remain regular, and regular orbits trapped about the simple closed orbit continue to occupy a large area to the left. There are some ‘islands’ of orbits that close after multiple circuits; see for example in panel b, near $`(1.6,0)`$ and $`(2.1,0)`$, an orbit that closes after two circuits. These do not occupy a large region in phase space. The structure of the prograde orbits becomes quite complicated. We see many small ‘islands’ of multi-periodic orbits and we also find irregular or chaotic orbits; they fill a two-dimensional area in the diagrams and produce ‘fuzzy’ regions such as that to the right of $`x=4`$ in panel d. For $`E_\mathrm{J}=0.045`$, the closed prograde orbit has shifted all the way to the edge of the surface of section; for $`E_\mathrm{J}=0.04`$ and higher, there is no closed, simply-periodic prograde orbit at all.

When $`E_\mathrm{J}0.04`$, the zero velocity curve is not closed, so orbits are no longer bound to the disc and particles could in principle escape from the system. But regular retrograde orbits keep occupying a substantial region of phase space, until the Jacobi integral rises slightly above $`0.02`$, when no regular orbits exist in the disc anymore. This helps to explain why the retrograde-spinning disc could remain stable in an orbit just outside the halo core in the simulations of L&S; even at high values of $`E_\mathrm{J}`$, many regular orbits trapped around the closed periodic orbits were available to the simulation particles. In the prograde disc, although closed orbits persist to larger radii than in the retrograde case (see Fig. 3), even at $`E_\mathrm{J}=0.045`$ (panel c) only a small part of the phase space is occupied by orbits trapped around them. Thus it would be much more difficult to populate the prograde disc self-consistently with simulation particles.

In the top panels in Fig. 3, we show the families of stable simply-closed orbits, both prograde and retrograde, as seen in the frame corotating with the disc, out to the radius where the closed orbits begin to cross each other.

Near the disc centre, where the potential of the system is dominated by the axisymmetric potential of the disc itself, the orbits are nearly circular. At larger radii, the prograde orbits become elongated in the $`x`$-direction. The retrograde orbits remain quite circular, but the geometric centre shifts to larger $`x`$-values, away from the halo centre.

In the middle panels, we plot the rotation curves along the $`x`$-axis, as they would be measured by an inertial observer, relative to the velocity of the centre of the disc. The dashed curves correspond to circular orbits in the disc alone, without the halo present. For the prograde orbits, the rotation curve is fairly symmetric, but it always lies below the one in the isolated disc; if the mass of the galaxy were calculated from this rotation curve, it would be under-estimated. The retrograde curve shows the interesting feature that on the side closer to the halo centre, it rises all the way to the last non-intersecting orbit, while on the other side it becomes flat. The expected shape of the global profiles in Hi will depend on how much gas is present on these orbits. Generically, the peak on the side where the rotation curve is flat will be higher, while the side with the lower peak has a sloping ‘shoulder’ to high velocity.

In the panels at the bottom, we plot the rotation curves along the minor axis of the system, perpendicular to the axis of symmetry. These curves are exactly symmetric. The prograde curve now rises significantly above the one for an isolated disc, while the retrograde curve is almost indistinguishable from it.

In Fig. 4 and 5, we plot contours for the velocity component along four different directions.

These figures would correspond to velocity-maps if the galaxies were observed with the line of sight parallel to these directions. The numbers on the contours are the actual velocities along the orbits; an observer would measure all velocities multiplied by a factor $`\mathrm{sin}i`$, with $`i`$ the inclination angle. The prograde maps (Fig. 4) show clear signs of the elongation of the outer orbits, but the overall asymmetries are mild and affect mainly the outer parts.

The retrograde maps (Fig. 5) however, show strong signs of lopsidedness. Except when the line of sight is parallel to the $`x`$-axis (bottom right), the contours in these maps are quite straight on one side, and strongly curved outwards on the other side. In Fig. 6, we show the velocity-field of the lopsided galaxy NGC 4395, as presented by Swaters et al..

The similarity between this velocity-field and the two upper panels in our Fig. 5 is striking.

From Figures 3 to 5, we conclude that asymmetries in the overall galaxy potential do not necessarily produce strong signals in the rotation curves or velocity fields; depending on the viewing angle, the lopsidedness can be hidden. Conversely, a symmetric rotation curve or velocity-field does not guarantee a near-symmetric potential.

### 3.2 Changing the distance from the disc to the halo centre

In the simulations by L&S, the spinning disc continued to sink towards the halo centre, as long as it was outside the core radius. The prograde disc sank further inwards than the retrograde one. To investigate whether the orbital structure of our model could explain why the disc does not stay far outside the halo core, we changed the separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ between the disc and halo centres, keeping all other parameters the same as in model A.

#### Model B: $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1.5`$

In this model, the disc lies inside the halo core, so the halo now contributes a larger fraction, 25%, of the total mass within $`r=2`$ from the disc centre. In Fig. 7, we show the surfaces of section.

We chose the values for $`E_\mathrm{J}`$ such that the zero velocity curves in each panel have approximately the same size and shape as in the respective panels in Fig. 2. At low values for the Jacobi integral, the surfaces of section show qualitatively the same behavior as in model A; there are two orbit families, one prograde (on the right of the surfaces of section) and one retrograde (on the left), and almost all orbits are regular. As the Jacobi integral is increased, the closed prograde orbit again shifts to the edge of the surface of section, while the closed retrograde orbit remains in the centre of its family. Compared to model A, orbits trapped around the closed prograde orbit continue to occupy more of the phase space on the right side of the figures, almost until the zero-velocity surface becomes open to the right of the figure. There are only very few islands of multi-periodic orbits and even at larger $`E_\mathrm{J}`$, the only irregular orbits are the ones that are not bound to the disc. This probably explains why also the prograde disc in L&S becomes stable within the halo core radius, and does not sink much further into the core. The retrograde side again remains regular up till high values of $`E_\mathrm{J}`$.

In Fig. 8, we show the closed orbits together with the rotation curves along the $`x`$-axis and the contours of $`v_y`$, which show the most pronounced asymmetries.

The prograde orbits are now less elongated than in model A, and their rotation curve lies close to the curve of the isolated disc. Note that in this case, the prograde rotation curve along the $`x`$-axis also becomes flat on the side furthest from the halo centre, and keeps rising on the other side. The model velocity-map of $`v_y`$ is fairly symmetric. The rotation curve along the minor axis (at $`x=1.5`$) rises only slightly above the curve for an isolated disc.

The retrograde orbits are slightly more lopsided than in model A, and the asymmetry in the rotation curve along the $`x`$-axis and in the velocity-map of $`v_y`$, is more distinct.

#### Model C: $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=5`$

In model C we put the disc at $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=5`$, far outside the halo core. This model shows similar behavior to models D and G, and we refer the reader to Fig. 9 for an impression of the surfaces of section. The prograde side shows highly irregular behavior, even well before the zero-velocity curve becomes open. Large areas in the surfaces of section are occupied by multiply-periodic and irregular orbits. The region occupied by regular orbits trapped around the closed retrograde orbit also starts shrinking at relatively low values of $`E_\mathrm{J}`$, when all orbits are still bound to the disc. The irregularity of the surfaces of section probably explains why L&S found that even the retrograde disc is not stable when far out of the halo centre. Too few of their simulation particles could follow orbits trapped around the simple closed orbits.

The rotation curves and velocity-maps are like those of Fig. 10. The prograde closed orbits become highly elongated along the $`x`$-axis at large radii, showing high velocity gradients where the orbits change from circular to elongated. Overall, they are fairly symmetric. The retrograde orbits are only slightly lopsided, and the asymmetries in the rotation curves and velocity-maps are mild.

We conclude that changing the offset of the disc from the halo centre affects the prograde orbits most strongly. As we increase the offset, the outer orbits become highly elongated, and high velocity gradients develop where the orbits change from circular to elongated. The prograde side of the surfaces of section becomes complicated, with few regular orbits trapped around the closed orbits. Hence a prograde disc is unlikely to survive unless it is well within the halo core.

The retrograde orbits and rotation curves are less affected, and become only slightly less asymmetric as we increase the offset. At low separations, the velocity map of $`v_y`$ is highly asymmetric, while increasing the offset makes the asymmetry less pronounced. As the disc is moved away from the halo core, fewer retrograde orbits are trapped around the closed periodic orbit.

### 3.3 Changing the disc mass

Changing the mass of the disc in our models has similar effects on the kinematics as changing the offset of the disc from the halo centre. We expect a model with a heavy disc to produce qualitatively the same behavior as a model with the disc far out from the halo centre. Indeed, the strength of the asymmetries in our model kinematics appears closely related to the relative densities of the disc and the halo, that is, to the parameter $`\eta `$.

#### Model D: $`M_d=0.186`$

In model D, the disc is twice as heavy as in the previous models. The offset between disc and halo centre is the same as in model A: $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=2.5`$. The halo now has a much smaller influence on the inner parts of the disc, with $`\eta =9\%`$. The potential well of the disc is much deeper now, so we need to examine lower values for $`E_\mathrm{J}`$ to see similar orbits.

Again, most retrograde orbits are regular up till high values for $`E_\mathrm{J}`$. The prograde side of the plots becomes distorted, with a large irregular region starting from $`E_\mathrm{J}=0.09`$. For a limited range in $`E_\mathrm{J}`$, there is an additional prograde family of closed orbits, visible in Fig. 9c near $`(3.8,0)`$. Orbits trapped around these closed orbits occupy only a small region in phase space and are not expected to play an important role in any realistic model.

The same reasoning that we used in discussing model C leads us to suspect that a massive prograde disc will not be stable, and that it will sink towards the halo centre rapidly. By contrast, a retrograde disc might be stable when orbiting just outside the halo core.

In Fig. 10, we show the orbits, the rotation curves along the $`x`$-axis and the contours of $`v_y`$ in this model. Non-crossing periodic orbits extend to larger distances from the disc centre than they did in model A. The prograde orbits become highly elongated at larger radii, and their major-axis rotation curve lies far below the curve for an isolated disc. The contours of $`v_y`$ show strong velocity gradients in this region, but are overall quite symmetric. The rotation curve along the minor axis is symmetric, but shows a large, abrupt rise in velocity at the radius where the orbits change from circular to elongated.

The retrograde orbits look similar to the ones in the previous models. The asymmetries in the rotation curve along the $`x`$-axis, and in the velocity-map of $`v_y`$, are less severe than in models A and B.

#### Model E: $`M_d=0.046`$

Model E, with a low-mass disc of $`M_d=0.046`$, shows many similarities with our model B. Its surfaces of section show few irregular orbits, with many orbits trapped around the closed orbits. Because of the regularity of the surfaces of section, we expect that a low-mass disc with either prograde or retrograde spin will be stable near the halo core radius in N-body simulations.

The closed prograde orbits are only slightly elongated; the rotation curve along the $`x`$-axis becomes flat on the side more distant from the halo centre, and keeps rising on the other. The velocity-maps are only mildly asymmetric. The rotation curve along the $`x`$-axis for the retrograde orbits is again clearly lopsided, and the velocity-maps are generally highly asymmetric.

### 3.4 Changing the halo core radius

L&S noted that when the halo core radius was small ($`r_c=0.5`$), both the prograde and retrograde disc sank towards the halo centre rapidly. Decreasing the core radius of the halo has the effect of compressing the material in the halo, and thus of increasing its central density.

#### Model F: $`r_c=1`$

In model F, the halo core radius is $`r_c=1`$, half the size as in model A and equal to the disc scale length. The disc centre lies at $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1.5`$, just outside of the halo core. The halo now contributes 37% of the total mass within $`r=2`$ from the disc centre.

In Fig. 11 we show the surfaces of section.

There are again very few irregular orbits. In panel a, we recognize the two familiar families of prograde and retrograde orbits. In panel b, the original prograde family has shifted to the right, and a large portion of the prograde side, around $`x=1.8`$, is now occupied by a third family of orbits. These orbits have a loop that appears as an additional, narrow island in the far left corner of this panel, near $`(0.5,0)`$. At $`E_\mathrm{J}=0.06`$ (panel c), the original prograde family has disappeared; meanwhile, the third orbit family has lost its loop on the left side of the surface of section, and has now become simple-periodic itself. Because these orbits are simple-periodic only for a limited range in the Jacobi integral, within which they cross each other abundantly, we do not use them to make model rotation curves or velocity-maps. However, the fact that such a big part of phase-space is occupied by this family gives an indication why the prograde disc was not stable in the simulations by L&S. Only at low values for the Jacobi integral can many stars be on orbits trapped around the closed prograde orbit; as the Jacobi integral is increased, stars follow different orbits, resulting in strong mixing in the disc.

The retrograde side of the surfaces of section remains regular up to high values of $`E_\mathrm{J}`$. The range where we see closed retrograde orbits ($`0.1E_\mathrm{J}0.03`$) is about twice as large as the range where the familiar closed prograde orbits exist ($`0.1E_\mathrm{J}0.065`$). This difference is more extreme than in the previous models.

In Fig. 12, we show orbits, rotation curves and velocity-maps in this model.

Neither the prograde or the retrograde closed orbits extend more than one scale length from the disc centre. This would explain why neither the prograde nor the retrograde disc was stable in the simulations of L&S; only particles in a small central part of the disc can be trapped near the simple closed orbits.

Both the prograde and the retrograde rotation curves along the $`x`$-axis have a flat part on one side and a rising part on the other. The appearance is similar to the retrograde orbits in our models B and E, but with more extreme asymmetry. The minor-axis rotation curves deviate only slightly from the curve of an isolated disc. The velocity-maps are very asymmetric, especially the retrograde map.

#### Model G: $`r_c=4`$

Model G, with a large halo ($`r_c=\mathrm{\Delta }x=4`$), shows similar behaviour to our models C and D. The surfaces of section show many irregular orbits on the prograde side, while the retrograde side again stays regular till high values of $`E_\mathrm{J}`$. As in model D, the prograde orbits become highly elongated along the $`x`$-axis; the rotation curves and velocity-maps look like the ones in Fig. 10, with high velocity gradients where the orbits change from circular to elongated. The retrograde orbits are only slightly lopsided, and the rotation curves and velocity-maps are hardly asymmetric.

The analysis of models with different sizes of the halo confirms our conjecture that the shape of the orbits and the velocity contours depends mainly on the relative densities of the disc and the halo, as given by the parameter $`\eta `$. In model F, with a compact halo, the rotation curves and velocity-maps resemble those of models B and E, which both have a relatively high halo density too. The rotation curves along the $`x`$-axis show a flat part on the far side from the halo core, and a rising side on the other side, for both the prograde and retrograde orbits. The retrograde velocity-maps of $`v_y`$ have strongly curved contours on the right side, but almost completely straight contours on the other side.

Model G, with a large, extended halo, shows the same behavior as models C and D, which also have a low halo density. The prograde side of the surfaces of section has large irregular regions, and the closed orbits become highly elongated at large radii, causing strong velocity gradients in the rotation curves and velocity-maps. The retrograde orbits, rotation curves and velocity-maps are only mildly asymmetric.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

We have investigated an analytical model for lopsided galaxies, based on numerical simulations by Levine & Sparke , in which a disc orbits off-centre within a ‘dark matter’ halo. We have constructed orbits, rotation curves and velocity-maps in the resulting gravitational potential; all these show significant asymmetries. The asymmetries show a clear correlation with the relative densities of the halo and the disc; they are stronger in the models where the halo contributes more of the mass in the inner regions of the disc (models B, E and F).

In the retrograde case, the orbits, and hence the expected distribution of stars or gas, are sometimes only slightly lopsided; but the rotation curves and velocity maps can be highly asymmetric. The rotation curves along the $`x`$-axis, the symmetry axis of the lopsided system, keep rising on the side near the halo centre but become flat on the outer side. Correspondingly, velocity contours are straight on the side near the halo centre and curved on the outer side. Generically, the peak of the global Hi-profile on the side where the rotation curve is flat will be higher, while the side with the lower peak has a sloping ‘shoulder’ to high velocity. This characteristic asymmetry is similar to that in the velocity-map of the lopsided Sm galaxy NGC 4395 presented by Swaters et al. . This late-type system is one of the lowest-luminosity galaxies to have a Seyfert nucleus, which in turn is the faintest Seyfert 1 nucleus known , with $`M_B=10.3`$ or $`L=2\times 10^6L_{}`$ . Presumably a central black hole is present in the nucleus.

The kinematics of our models are not unique but a general feature, in the sense that different combinations of parameters can give similar features in the rotation curves or velocity-maps. We can use the strength of the asymmetries to determine the parameter $`\eta `$, the fraction of mass contributed by the halo within 2 scale lengths of the disc centre. For example, the velocity field of the galaxy NGC 4395 looks similar to some of our retrograde models. Comparing our Fig. 6 to the velocity-maps of models A, B, E and F, we estimate that this galaxy has a value for $`\eta `$ between 20 and 30%. The rotation curves of these models lie always close to the curves of the isolated disc (in other words, these models are ‘maximum disc’); we can use the total width of the rotation curve ($`v_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}v_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}`$) as a measure of the disc mass. We infer a total mass for the disc of NGC 4395 of about $`3.510^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ within 8.5 kpc of the centre, taking Swaters’ distance of 3.8 Mpc and inclination $`i=46^{}`$. The blue magnitude of Matthews et al.  implies a mass-to-light ratio $`M/L_B2`$, which is reasonable for the stellar population of a late-type disc.

Although the simulations of L&S showed that prograde-spinning discs sank more rapidly into the halo core than retrograde ones, we may still expect to observe some lopsided prograde discs as a transient phenomenon. In these, the gas distribution has a pronounced egg-shaped appearance; but the rotation curve can be very nearly the same on both sides of the galaxy, as is observed in some real galaxies. In models where the halo density is lower (models C, D and G), these prograde orbits become highly elongated, and strong velocity gradients develop. These orbits are probably not realistic for gas moving in such a galaxy.

It is interesting to compare our velocity fields to the ones found by Schoenmakers \[1999, chapter 6\]. He used epicycle theory to derive velocity fields in a model with an offset between the disc and halo centres. The mass ratio of his model is comparable to our model E ($`M_d0.05`$), but the offset is much smaller ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x0.8R_c`$). His velocity fields are less asymmetric than ours, even though the halo density in the inner parts of his model is higher than in any of our models. This difference is probably caused by the fact that Schoenmakers assumed that the offset between the disc and halo remained static in an inertial frame. Also, because of the small offset, the region where we expect to see a characteristic distortion of the velocity field is very small.

Our models explain the findings of Odewahn  and Matthews et al.  that lopsidedness is more common in discs of extreme late type (Sd and later). Broeils \[1992, Figure 9b of Chapter 10\] shows that the ratio of the dark halo’s core radius to the optical radius $`R_{25}`$ is $`1`$ for all but one of the systems of type Sd or later, while showing a large scatter for earlier types. Since our models show the most pronounced lopsidedness when the halo core is larger then the disk scale length, we expect most late-type disks, but a smaller fraction of the earlier types, to be highly susceptible to lopsidedness. Just as in the models of Jog , we expect long-lived lopsidedness to be more severe, and thus more easily detected, in systems where the dark halo dominates the mass distribution.

We have calculated the closed orbits within the disk only until they begin to cross each other, or are no longer closed. These orbits are usually found only within $`2`$ scale lengths of the disk center. This is roughly the region probed by the optical studies of Zaritsky & Rix  and Rudnick & Rix , but does not extend as far out as some of the Hi studies of giant disk galaxies. Gas and stars may still circle the disc center outside our orbits; we would still expect lopsided kinematics there. Also, the disk would lie off-center with respect to any gas on orbits at larger distances that circle the halo center; but we do not make any detailed predictions for these cases.

We do not know whether an off-center disk can account for all types of lopsidedness. The best test is to examine both the velocity field and the distribution of stars and gas in the same galaxies. Neither Swaters  nor Kornreich et al.  found any appreciable correlation between morphological and kinematical lopsidedness. The models of Syer & Tremaine , Earn & Lynden-Bell  and Jog , in which the centers of the disk and halo remain coincident, predict that photometrically-lopsided disks should also be kinematically lopsided. Our model can produce either photometric or kinematic lopsidedness, with very little of the other.

In all our models, the rotation curves perpendicular to the direction of lopsidedness (the $`x`$-axis) are symmetric, and the velocity-maps of $`v_x`$ are only mildly asymmetric. Thus even a quite lopsided galaxy can look symmetric when seen from an unfavorable direction. In the retrograde models, velocity asymmetries are apparent for a fairly large range in viewing angles; an offset of $`30^{}`$ from the $`x`$-axis is usually enough. Kinematic asymmetries in the prograde discs are only visible for a small range of viewing angles, within $`30^{}`$ of the most favorable direction. Naturally, the asymmetry in the prograde orbits themselves can be seen from any direction. The fact that lopsidedness can be hidden by an unfavorable viewing angle has important implications for the frequency with which it actually occurs in nature. The actual fraction of all galaxies that is lopsided may be higher than the 30–50% inferred from kinematic observations such as those of Richter & Sancisi , Haynes et al.  and Matthews et al. .

The rotation curves for the prograde models often deviate far from the curves for an isolated disc of the same mass, even though they are usually quite symmetric (these models are not maximum disc); For example, in model A, where the prograde orbits are still well-behaved, the actual maximum in the rotation curve differs up to about 15% from that for the isolated disc, depending on the viewing angle. This effect will lead to incorrect estimates for the disc mass, and to scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation between rotation speed and luminosity of disc galaxies.

What might be the origin of lopsidedness? Generically, galaxies are widely believed to form by repeated mergers at early times, while much of the disk material may represent late infall. Walker, Mihos and Hernquist , and Z&R , proposed that merging a small galaxy with a larger disk system should produce a lopsided disk. If the fractions of dark and luminous matter are not the same for all fragments, we may expect the center of the disk to be displaced from that of the dark halo. As an example, if the small system is largely gaseous, and comes in with nonzero angular momentum, then once it has merged with the larger galaxy’s luminous disk, the center of the combined disk will orbit that of the halo.

Although the agreement of our model velocity fields with observations is promising, the stability of our models remains an important issue. For example, we have modelled the halo as a fixed potential, ignoring dynamical friction between the disc and whatever particles make up the unseen halo. However, it is not clear that dynamical friction must cause the lopsidedness to damp rapidly. Weinberg  and Vesperini & Weinberg  found that some spherical galaxy models have long-lived lopsided modes; once excited, these modes take many orbital times to decay. Taga & Iye  have shown that a central massive object can wander away from the centre of an initially spherical stellar system. They found instability only when the central object had no more than 10% of the total mass; but Weinberg’s work implies that somewhat larger masses should suffer only weak damping. These indications are promising, but further calculations will be needed to explore the stability of our models.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to R.A. Swaters for helpful discussions about observations of lopsided galaxies, and to our referee, whose reports helped us to clarify our presentation. E.N. wants to thank the Astronomy Department of UW-Madison for hospitality during the course of this work, and the Kapteyn-fonds and Utrecht University for financial support. We thank the US National Science Foundation for support under grant AST-9803114.


format: text

text:
# Subthreshold ϕ meson production in heavy-ion collisions

## 1 Introduction

Meson production is a sensitive probe of the reaction dynamics of heavy-ion collisions. This is particularly true for the production of heavy mesons in subthreshold reactions. Open strangeness production in the threshold region has been studied extensively both experimentally and theoretically. On the contrary, only a few measurements have been reported on hidden strangeness (i.e. $`\varphi `$ meson) production. Recent preliminary results for the reactions Ni + Ni at 1.93 A$``$GeV and Ru + Ru at 1.69 A$``$GeV by the FOPI collaboration  point to a surprisingly large production cross section. Earlier transport model calculations  underestimate these data substantially. In those calculations $`\varphi `$ mesons are produced in the elementary reactions BB $``$ $`\varphi `$BB, $`\pi `$B $``$ $`\varphi `$B and KK̄ $``$ $`\varphi `$, where B stands for a nucleon or a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryon. The discrepancy of the calculations and the data raises the question of whether further elementary channels might essentially contribute to the $`\varphi `$ meson yield.

The relatively large branching ratio of the $`\varphi \pi \rho `$ decay channel suggests that processes with a $`\varphi \rho \pi `$ vertex and hence the $`\rho `$ meson can play an important role. Therefore in this contribution we consider $`\varphi `$ meson production in elementary processes with a $`\rho `$ meson in the entrance channel, namely $`\rho `$B $``$ $`\varphi `$B and $`\rho \pi `$ $``$ $`\varphi `$. We also test the effect of higher resonances by studying the elementary reaction $`\pi `$N(1520) $``$ N$`\varphi `$ via $`\rho `$ meson exchange. The reason for choosing the N(1520) resonance is its large partial decay width to $`\rho `$N. Diagrams representing these elementary reaction channels are shown in Fig. 1.

## 2 Cross sections of elementary reactions

Since the cross sections of the elementary reactions are not well known experimentally we employ a one-boson exchange model to estimate them. For the BB $``$ BB$`\varphi `$ and the $`\pi `$B $``$ $`\varphi `$B channels we use the same cross sections as in . The calculations of the $`\rho N\varphi N`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi N`$ cross sections (Fig. 1a) are based on the effective interaction Lagrangians

$$_{\pi NN}=\frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_\pi }\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi _\mu \stackrel{}{\pi },_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi }\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{T}\psi ^\mu _\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }+\text{h.c.},$$

$$_{\pi \rho \varphi }=\frac{f_{\pi \rho \varphi }}{m_\varphi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^\mu \varphi ^\nu ^\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }^\beta \stackrel{}{\pi }.$$

Here $`\psi `$ and $`\psi _\mu `$ are the nucleon field and the Rarita-Schwinger field for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, respectively, and $`\pi `$, $`\stackrel{}{\rho _\mu }`$, $`\varphi _\mu `$ stand for the meson fields. We include multipole form factors for off-shell pions and $`\rho `$ mesons. Coupling constants and cutoff parameters are taken from . The resulting isospin averaged cross sections are shown in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the cross section of the $`\rho `$B channels also depends strongly on the actual mass of the incoming $`\rho `$ meson (and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ particle).

To calculate the cross section of the $`\pi `$N(1520) channel (Fig. 1b) we tested several possibilities for the interaction Lagrangian for the $`\rho `$NN(1520) vertex such as

$`_{\rho NN(1520)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{m_\rho }}\overline{\psi }_N\stackrel{}{\tau }\gamma ^\nu \psi _{1520}^\mu (_\nu \stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu _\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }_\nu )+\text{h.c.},`$ (1)
$`_{\rho NN(1520)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{m_\rho ^2}}\overline{\psi }_N\stackrel{}{\tau }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\psi _{1520}^\mu _\alpha _\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }_\beta +\text{h.c.}.`$ (2)
We fitted the coupling constants to the $`\rho `$(two-pion) decay channel of the N(1520) and obtained the values $`f_1=10.5`$ and $`f_2=68`$. We observe that Lagrangian (2) gives a much larger cross section for $`\varphi `$ meson production than Lagrangian (1) (see Fig. 2). However, the value of the coupling $`f_2`$ extracted from the N(1520) decay differs significantly from the value estimated within the quark model. As the relevant energies in the decay and the production process are very different the assumption of a constant coupling might fail. In our BUU calculations reported below we use the cross sections obtained using Lagrangian (1) as standard. We also carried out some calculations using Lagrangian (2) to test the uncertainties of the $`\varphi `$ meson yield from the $`\pi `$N(1520) channel.

## 3 BUU calculations of the $`\varphi `$ meson yield

We used the above elementary cross sections to calculate the $`\varphi `$ meson production within a BUU model. In our model nucleonic and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances are included up to 2.2 GeV. The resonance properties are fitted to one- and two-pion production data in $`\pi `$N scattering while the production cross sections of resonances are derived from meson production data in NN collisions. We employed a soft momentum dependent potential for nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232). The in-medium mass of the $`\varphi `$ meson is treated according to . We included also the absorption of $`\varphi `$ mesons via the $`\varphi `$N$``$K$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$  and the $`\varphi `$N elastic scattering with a cross section of 0.56 mb.

The resulting $`\varphi `$ meson yields are shown in Table 1 together with the data obtained by extrapolating the experimental yields to the entire phase space. The inclusion of the new $`\rho `$ channels results in a substantial increase of the $`\varphi `$ meson yields by a factor of 2.5. The dominant contribution comes from the $`\rho `$B channel. The $`\pi `$N(1520) channel calculated with the Lagrangian (1) does not contribute essentially to the $`\varphi `$ meson yield. However, using the Lagrangian (2) the yields of this channel rise by a factor of about 10 pointing to the importance of this channel for $`\varphi `$ meson production. The experimental yields are still underestimated by our calculations, this statement holds independently of the uncertainties of the $`\pi `$N(1520) channel.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented a calculation of the $`\varphi `$ meson production in heavy-ion collisions including in our BUU model the elementary channels $`\rho `$B$`\varphi `$N, $`\pi `$N(1520)$`\varphi `$N and $`\pi \rho `$ $``$ $`\varphi `$ for the first time. As a result the $`\varphi `$ meson yields are substantially increased but the preliminary experimental data are still underestimated. A dedicated measurement with enlarged statistics would be highly welcome to resolve the $`\varphi `$ puzzle. For a more detailed discussion of our results see .

## Acknowledgments

We thank R. Kotte for continuous information on his analyses of the FOPI data. This work was supported in part by the German BMBF grant 06DR921, the DAAD scientific exchange program with Hungary, and the National Fund for Scientific Research of Hungary, OTKA T30171, T30855 and T32038.

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent developments in the treatment of lattice fermions paved a way to deal with lattice chiral symmetry in a unified manner-. In a recent paper, we pointed out that the otherwise successful lattice chiral symmetry has a certain conflict with the definition of the Majorana fermion in the presence of Yukawa couplings. This issue was discussed in connection with the lattice regularization of the simplest supersymmetric theory- , namely, the Wess-Zumino model and its non-renormalization theorem-. We consider that a consistent formulation of Majorana fermions is a prerequisite for a precise analysis of supersymmetry and its breaking, if one adopts the Ginsparg-Wilson operator as a basic building block.

In this letter, we further clarify this conflict of lattice chiral symmetry and the Majorana condition in the presence of Yukawa couplings. Our basic observation is the transformation of a chiral symmetric lattice theory with Yukawa couplings, which is defined in the manner of Niedermayer, Narayanan and Chandrasekharan, to a theory which is a generalization of the model noted by Lüscher by a singular field re-definition. By this way we can understand the origin of the conflict between the lattice chiral symmetry and the Majorana condition from a different view point. Our analysis indicates that the above conflict is related in an essential and subtle way to the basic issues of lattice chiral symmetry, namely, locality and species doubling.

In our analysis, we use a general class of Ginsparg-Wilson operators and our analysis below is valid for all these operators. The lattice Dirac operator $`D`$ is defined by the algebraic relation

$$\gamma _5(\gamma _5D)+(\gamma _5D)\gamma _5=2a^{2k+1}(\gamma _5D)^{2k+2}$$
(1.1)
where the parameter $`a`$ is the lattice spacing; $`k`$ stands for non-negative integers, and $`k=0`$ corresponds to the conventional Ginsparg-Wilson relation. When one defines a hermitian operator $`H`$ by

$$H=a\gamma _5D=H^{}=aD^{}\gamma _5$$
(1.2)
the above algebraic relation is written as

$$\gamma _5H+H\gamma _5=2H^{2k+2}.$$
(1.3)
We can also show

$$\gamma _5H^2=(\gamma _5H+H\gamma _5)HH(\gamma _5H+H\gamma _5)+H^2\gamma _5=H^2\gamma _5$$
(1.4)
which implies

$$H^2=a^2D^{}D=\gamma _5H^2\gamma _5=a^2DD^{}.$$
(1.5)
When we define

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5H^{2k+1},`$
$`\widehat{\gamma }_5\gamma _52H^{2k+1},`$ (1.6)
the defining algebra (1.1) is written as

$$\gamma _5H+H\widehat{\gamma }_5=0$$
(1.7)
or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5H+H\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=0`$, and $`(\widehat{\gamma }_5)^2=1`$. We can also show the relation

$$\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5+\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2=2(1H^{4k+2})$$
(1.8)
which implies $`H^21`$. We next note

$$D=P_+D\widehat{P}_{}+P_{}D\widehat{P}_+.$$
(1.9)
Here we defined two projection operators

$`P_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \gamma _5),`$
$`\widehat{P}_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \widehat{\gamma }_5)`$ (1.10)
which satisfy the relations

$`P_+\widehat{P}_+=P_+\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,`$
$`P_{}\widehat{P}_{}=P_{}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5.`$ (1.11)
We then define the chiral components

$$\overline{\psi }_{L,R}=\overline{\psi }P_\pm ,\psi _{R,L}=\widehat{P}_\pm \psi $$
(1.12)
and the scalar and pseudscalar densities by

$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R+\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L=\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi ,`$
$`P(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L=\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi .`$ (1.13)
## 2 Yukawa couplings and the Majorana condition

The most natural Lagrangian consistent with lattice chiral symmetry $`\delta \psi =iϵ\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi `$, $`\delta \overline{\psi }=\overline{\psi }iϵ\gamma _5`$ and $`\delta \varphi =2iϵ\varphi `$, which is softly broken by the mass term, is defined by

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }D\psi +m\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi +2g\overline{\psi }(P_+\varphi \widehat{P}_++P_{}\varphi ^{}\widehat{P}_{})\psi `$ (2.1)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_RD\psi _R+\overline{\psi }_LD\psi _L+m[\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L+\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R]`$
$`+2g[\overline{\psi }_L\varphi \psi _R+\overline{\psi }_R\varphi ^{}\psi _L].`$
We fixed the mass term in such a way that it is generated by a shift $`\varphi (x)\varphi (x)+m/(2g)`$ in $`\varphi (x)=(A(x)+iB(x))/\sqrt{2}`$ in the interaction terms; we adopt this procedure in the following. The fermion mass term is then defined by the scalar density formed of a fermion bi-linear (1.13).

It has been shown elsewhere that the above Lagrangian (2.1) has a difficulty in performing the Majorana reduction, and thus the Majorana fermion is not defined in a manner consistent with lattice chiral symmetry: When one defines

$`\psi =(\chi +i\eta )/\sqrt{2},`$
$`\overline{\psi }=(\chi ^TCi\eta ^TC)/\sqrt{2}`$ (2.2)
in $``$ (2.1), one naively expects 111If $`(CO)^T=CO`$ for a general operator $`O`$, the cross term vanishes $`\eta ^TCO\chi \chi ^TCO\eta =0`$ by using the anti-commuting property of $`\chi `$ and $`\eta `$. by noting $`P_+\varphi \widehat{P}_++P_{}\varphi ^{}\widehat{P}_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5+iB\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^TCD\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\chi ^TC\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\chi +g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\chi ^TC(A\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5+iB\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)\chi `$ (2.3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^TCD\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\eta ^TC\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\eta +g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\eta ^TC(A\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5+iB\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)\eta `$
but this actually fails, since $`(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)^TC\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$, where $`C`$ stands for the charge conjugation matrix, and the non-commuting property of the difference operator $`[\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,A(x)]0`$ though $`(C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)^T=C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ or equivalently $`C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5C^1=(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)^T`$ in the Yukawa couplings. To be precise, we need to perform a charge conjugation operation of the gauge field to satisfy $`C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5C^1=(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)^T`$, for example, in the presence of the background gauge field; this extra operation of charge conjugation is implicitly assumed in the following.

We now observe that the field re-definition222A related transformation has been discussed in the past in a different context, namely, to relate the domain-wall fermion to the overlap fermion.

$`\psi ^{}=\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi ,`$
$`\overline{\psi }^{}=\overline{\psi }`$ (2.4)
in the above Lagrangian gives rise to the Lagrangian

$`^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^{}D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}\psi ^{}+m\overline{\psi }^{}\psi ^{}+2g\overline{\psi }^{}(P_+\varphi P_++P_{}\varphi ^{}P_{})\psi ^{}`$ (2.5)
where we used the relations (1.11). This shows that the theory defined by the Lagrangian invariant under the lattice chiral symmetry

$$Z=𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}[d^4x]$$
(2.6)
is related to the theory defined by the transformed Lagrangian as

$$Z=(det\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)Z^{}(det\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)𝒟\psi ^{}𝒟\overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{exp}[^{}d^4x].$$
(2.7)
This new Lagrangian (2.5) corresponds to a generalization of the Lagrangian considered by Lüscher if one eliminates the auxiliary field. To be specific, Lüscher considered the Lagrangian

$`_L`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }D\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\overline{\chi }\chi +2g(\overline{\psi }+\overline{\chi })(P_+\varphi P_++P_{}\varphi ^{}P_{})(\psi +\chi )`$ (2.8)
which is shown to be invariant under a modified chiral transformation, if one assumes that $`D`$ satisfies the Ginsparg-Wilson relation (1.1) with $`k=0`$, namely, the overlap operator. By considering the re-definition of field variables

$`\psi ^{}=(\psi +\chi ),\overline{\psi }^{}=(\overline{\psi }+\overline{\chi }),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }=(\psi \chi ),\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=(\overline{\psi }\overline{\chi })`$ (2.9)
one obtains333This was discussed in a different context in Ref.. after the path integral over $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$

$$𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\chi }𝒟\chi \mathrm{exp}[d^4x_L]=det(1aD)𝒟\overline{\psi }^{}𝒟\psi ^{}\mathrm{exp}[d^4x_L^{}]$$
(2.10)
where

$$_L^{}=\overline{\psi }^{}D\frac{1}{(1aD)}\psi ^{}+2g\overline{\psi }^{}(P_+\varphi P_++P_{}\varphi ^{}P_{})\psi ^{}.$$
(2.11)
This final expression (2.11) corresponds to our Lagrangian (2.5) for $`k=0`$ (i.e., the standard overlap operator for which $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=1aD`$), up to the chiral symmetry breaking mass term.

The above transformation (2.4) is singular if $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=1\gamma _5HH^{2k}=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2=1H^{4k+2}`$, the necessary condition for the appearance of the singularity is $`H^2=1`$. This condition is analyzed in more detail as follows: $`H^2`$ is found from an explicit form of $`H`$, which is local and free of species doubling,

$`H(ap_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^{\frac{k+1}{2k+1}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{H_W^2}}})^{\frac{k+1}{2k+1}}\{(\sqrt{H_W^2}+M_k)^{\frac{k+1}{2k+1}}(\sqrt{H_W^2}M_k)^{\frac{k}{2k+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}s}{a}}\},`$
where $`\overline{)}s=\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{sin}ap_\mu `$ with anti-hermitian $`\gamma ^\mu `$ and

$`M_k(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{a}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(1\mathrm{cos}ap_\mu )\right)^{2k+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{a}}\right)^{2k+1},`$
$`H_W^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2ap_\mu \right)^{2k+1}+\left(M_k(p)\right)^2.`$ (2.12)
We thus obtain

$`H^2(ap)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{H_W^2}}})^{\frac{2k+2}{2k+1}}\{(\sqrt{H_W^2}+M_k)^{\frac{2k+2}{2k+1}}+(\sqrt{H_W^2}M_k)^{\frac{2k}{2k+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{a^2}}\}.`$
Using the relation $`s^2/a^2=(H_W^2M_k^2)^{\frac{1}{2k+1}}`$, we find that $`H^2(ap)=1`$ implies $`\sqrt{H_W^2}=M_k.`$ This last condition is written explicitly as

$`\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2ap_\mu \right)^{2k+1}+\left(M_k(p)\right)^2}=M_k(p).`$ (2.14)
Since $`m_0`$ is constrained by $`0<m_0<2r`$ to avoid the appearance of species doublers, we have $`M_k<0`$ for a physical mode ( $`p_\mu =(0,0,0,0)`$ ) and $`M_k>0`$ for doubler modes ( $`p_\mu =(\pi /a,0,0,0)`$, etc ). Therefore the above equation (2.14) holds only for would-be doubler modes. Just on top of the doubler modes, one can also confirm

$$\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=1\gamma _5HH^{2k}=0.$$
(2.15)
Thus the singularity of the transformation comes from the momentum regions of would-be species doublers. It is interesting to notice that when $`m_0>8r`$ (where all the doubler modes appear as massless modes), the singularity of the above transformation disappears.

The above transformation (2.4) thus induces singularities inside the Brillouin zone and thus spoils the locality of the Dirac operator $`D^{}D/(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$. The ordinary formulation (2.1), which is local, and the model (2.8), which appears to be local but actually non-local, formally give rise to the same path integeral as in (2.7) and (2.10), but this equivalence does not hold in a strict sense since one has to go through the singular Lagrangian such as (2.5) in the intermediate stage.

The interesting property of this field re-definition (2.4) in the context of the present analysis of the Majorana condition is that the transformed singular theory (2.5) is invariant under the naive continuum chiral symmetry and that it allows the Majorana reduction. This fact is understood by noting the relation

$`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\widehat{\gamma }_5=\gamma _5(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5+\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5)\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5=\gamma _5(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$ (2.16)
where we used (1.8). This relation shows that the chiral transformation of $`\psi `$ generated by $`\widehat{\gamma }_5`$ of the regular theory is related to the chiral transformation of $`\psi ^{}`$ generated by the continuum $`\gamma _5`$ as

$`\delta \psi ^{}`$ $``$ $`(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)\delta \psi =\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5iϵ\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi `$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`iϵ\gamma _5(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)\psi =iϵ\gamma _5\psi ^{}`$
and of course $`\delta \overline{\psi }^{}=\delta \overline{\psi }=\overline{\psi }^{}iϵ\gamma _5`$. As for an analysis of the Majorana reduction of this transformed singular Lagrangian, we note that

$`(CD{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}})^T`$ $`=`$ $`(CD{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}C)^T=C^T({\displaystyle \frac{1}{C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}})^T(CD)^T`$ (2.18)
$`=`$ $`C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}CD=C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}D=CD{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}`$
where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix and we used the properties

$`C^T=C,`$
$`(C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)^T=C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5,`$
$`(CD)^T=CD`$ (2.19)
and the relation $`D\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=D(1\gamma _5HH^{2k})=\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5D`$ by noting $`DH^2=H^2D`$ which follows from (1.5). Our operator thus satisfies the condition necessary for the Majorana reduction, if one ignores the singularity in $`CD/(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$.

When one performs the field transformation (2.2) ( with $`\psi `$ replaced by $`\psi ^{}`$) in $`^{}`$ (2.5) by noting $`(C\gamma _5)^T=C\gamma _5`$, one can thus define the Majorana fermion in a formal sense by

$`_{Majorana}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^TCD{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\chi ^TC\chi +g\chi ^TC(P_+\varphi P_++P_{}\varphi ^{}P_{})\chi .`$ (2.20)
This formulation of the Majorana fermion and the resulting Pfaffian, if one does not care about the singularity, gives rise to the same result as in our previous paper which utilized $`\sqrt{Z}`$, on the basis of the relation

$$\sqrt{(det\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)Z^{}}=\sqrt{Z}$$
(2.21)
in a formal perturbation theory, for example444 In the non-perturbative sense, the relation (2.21) stands for something like $`0\times (1/0)=1`$ if one takes possible zero modes in $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ into account..

If one tentatively adopts the singular Lagrangian (2.20), a lattice version of the Wess-Zumino model in our previous paper is re-written as (after a rescaling of the auxiliary field $`F`$)

$`_{WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^TC{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}}\gamma _5D\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\chi ^TC\chi +g\chi ^TC(P_+\varphi P_++P_{}\varphi ^{}P_{})\chi `$ (2.22)
$`\varphi ^{}D^{}D\varphi +F^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2}}F+m[F\varphi +(F\varphi )^{}]+g[F\varphi ^2+(F\varphi ^2)^{}].`$
Note that $`((1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_5)\gamma _5D)^2=D^{}D(1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2)`$, and thus the kinetic (Kähler) terms satisfy a necessary condition for supersymmetry provided that one ignores the $`4\times 4`$ unit matrix in $`D^{}D`$ and $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^2`$ in bosonic terms. The (super-)potential parts of this Lagrangian (2.22) are identical to those of the continuum theory. This representation of the Lagrangian, when treated with due qualifications, is thus useful to understand the symmetry aspects of the model. But the formulation of this Lagrangian is not satisfactory since it does not give a uniform wave function renormalization factor in the one-loop level of perturbation theory, besides the issues related to the Leibniz rule.

Alternatively, one may consider the symmetric definitions of left and right components by $`\psi _{R,L}=(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })\psi /2`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_{R,L}=\overline{\psi }(1\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{1H^{4k+2}}`$ , respectively. In this case, the second expression of (2.1) is written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }D\psi +m\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\psi }[A+(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })A(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })+i(\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma })B+iB(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma })]\psi `$
and the Majorana fermion can be defined. But the modified chiral operators, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, are ill-defined at $`H^2=1`$, namely

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _5(\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{sin}ap_\mu /a)/\sqrt{\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}^2ap_\mu /a^2}$$
(2.24)
for $`H^21`$ by noting (2.14), and Yukawa couplings become singular. Incidentally, an analysis of the Euclidean Majorana condition is related to that of CP symmetry.

We summarize our analysis as follows:
1. The most natural formulation consistent with lattice chiral symmetry (2.1), which is successful in QCD, does not accommodate the Euclidean Majorana fermion.
2. If one allows a non-local singular Lagrangian such as (2.5), (2.11) and (2.23) (or if one allows species doubling by choosing $`m_0>8r`$), one can accommodate the Euclidean Majorana fermion and the resulting Pfaffian. The non-locality is however expected to become serious in the presence of background gauge field.
3. Our analysis is valid for a general class of Ginsparg-Wilson operators (1.1) and thus exhibits generic properties of these lattice Dirac operators.

In conclusion, a deeper understanding of Ginsparg-Wilson operators is required to incorporate Majorana fermions with Yukawa couplings in a manner consistent with lattice chiral symmetry.


text:
# Pseudorapidity distributions of charged particles from Au+Au collisions at the maximum RHIC energy, √𝑠_{𝑁𝑁}=200 GeV

(3 December 2001 )

## Abstract

We present charged-particle multiplicities as a function of pseudorapidity and collision centrality for the 197Au+197Au reaction at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV. For the 5% most central events we obtain $`dN_{ch}/d\eta |_{\eta =0}`$ = 625$`\pm `$55 and $`N_{ch}|_{4.7\eta 4.7}=4630\pm 370`$, i.e. 14% and 21% increases, respectively, relative to $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV collisions. Charged-particle production per pair of participant nucleons is found to increase from peripheral to central collisions around mid-rapidity. These results constrain current models of particle production at the highest RHIC energy.

A central question in the study of collisions between heavy nuclei at the maximum energy of the RHIC facility, $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV, is the role of hard scatterings between partons and the interactions of these partons in a high-density environment. A reduction in the number of hadrons at large transverse momentum has already been observed for $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV collisions that may hint at suppression of hadronic jets at high matter densities Phenix-jets ; Star-jets . More generally, it has been conjectured that new phenomena related to non-perturbative QCD may occur at the highest RHIC energy. For example, a saturation of the number of parton collisions in central nucleus-nucleus collisions could lead to a limit on the production of charged particles partonsat83 ; Eskola00 ; Kharzeev\_and\_Levin .

The present Letter addresses these issues with the first comprehensive investigation of multiplicity distributions of emitted charged particles in relativistic collisions between 197Au nuclei with $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV. In particular, we have measured pseudorapidity distributions of charged particles $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ in the range $`4.7\eta 4.7`$ as a function of collision centrality. The pseudorapidity variable $`\eta `$ is related to the particle emission angle $`\theta `$ with $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)]`$. We find that the production of charged particles at mid-rapidity ($`\eta 0`$) increases by (14$`\pm `$4)% for the most central collisions relative to $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV collisions back00 ; Star-mult130 ; adcox01 ; bearden01a , in agreement with results of the PHOBOS experiment Phobos-mult200-1 . In highly energetic nuclear collisions, charged particles can be produced by hadronic (“soft”) as well as partonic (“hard”) collision processes. By extending the $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ systematics to cover a range of reaction centralities and pseudorapidities, it becomes possible to more fully explore the different reaction mechanisms.

The data were obtained using several subsystems of the BRAHMS experiment at RHIC bearden01b : the Multiplicity Array (MA), the Beam-Beam Counter (BBC) arrays, and the Zero-Degree Calorimeters (ZDCs). An analysis of charged-particle multiplicities for Au+Au reactions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV using a nearly identical procedure to the one presented here is described in ref. bearden01a .

The MA determines $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ around mid-rapidity with a modestly segmented Si-strip-detector array (SiMA) surrounded by an outer plastic-scintillator tile array (TMA) in a double, hexagonal-sided barrel arrangement. Each of the 25 Si detectors (4 cm x 6 cm x 300 $`\mu `$m) is located 5.3 cm from the beam axis and is subdivided along the beam direction into seven active strips. The TMA has 35 plastic-scintillator tiles (12 cm x 12 cm x 0.5 cm) located 13.9 cm from the beam axis. The effective coverage of the MA is $`3.0\eta 3.0`$. The SiMA is used alone for determining $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ values near mid-rapidity because of its higher segmentation. However, both the SiMA and TMA are used for establishing reaction centrality, as discussed below. Particle multiplicities are deduced from the observed energy loss in the SiMA and TMA elements by using GEANT simulations Geant  to relate energy loss to the number of particles hitting a given detector element bearden01a . SiMA and TMA elements are calibrated using low-multiplicity events where well-defined peaks are observed in the individual energy spectra corresponding to single-particle hits bearden01a .

The BBC arrays consist of two sets of Cherenkov UV-transmitting plastic radiators coupled to photomultiplier tubes. The Cherenkov radiators are positioned around the beam pipe with one set on either side of the nominal interaction point at a distance of 2.20 m. The time resolution of the BBC elements permits the determination of the interaction point with an accuracy of $``$ 0.9 cm. Charged-particle multiplicities with $`2.1|\eta |4.7`$ are deduced from the number of particles hitting each detector, as found by dividing the measured detector signal by the average response of the detector to a single particle.

The ZDCs are located $`\pm `$18 m from the nominal interaction point and measure neutrons that are emitted at small angles with respect to the beam direction adler00 . Clean selection of minimum-biased events required a coincidence between the two ZDC detectors and a minimum of 4 “hits” in the TMA. It is estimated that this selection includes 95% of the Au+Au total inelastic cross section.

Reaction centrality is determined by selecting different regions in the total multiplicity distribution of either the MA or BBC arrays. The distributions are adjusted for “missed” events as described in ref. bearden01a . In determining $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$, the centrality dependence of the MA and BBC distributions are based on the total multiplicity measurements of the corresponding array, thus allowing a range of vertex locations to be used in the BBC analysis beyond the acceptance of the MA (see ref. bearden01a ). For 3.0$`|\eta |`$4.2, where it was possible to analyze the BBC data using both centrality selections, the two analyses give results to within 2% of each other. In general, statistical errors on the measurements are less than 1%, with systematic errors of 8% and 10% for the SiMA and BBC arrays, respectively. The systematic errors are dominated by overall scaling uncertainties resulting from the calibration procedures and should primarily lead to a common scale offset for data obtained at the two RHIC energies. However, there may be as much as a 3% relative scale error between the two energies. A point-to-point error is also present, as indicated by the small asymmetry seen in Fig. 1 for the more central collisions.

Figure 1 shows the measured $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ distributions for charged particles for several centrality ranges. The $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ values for these selected centralities at $`\eta `$=0, 3.0, 4.5 are listed in Table 1, together with the average number of participating nucleons $`N_{part}`$ estimated from the HIJING (heavy-ion jet interaction generator) model wang91  using default parameters. For the most central collisions (0-5%), $`dN_{ch}/d\eta |_{\eta =0}=625\pm 1(stat)\pm 55(syst)`$. This gives a scaled multiplicity value of $`(dN_{ch}/d\eta )/N_{part}/2=3.5\pm 0.3`$ charged particles per participating nucleon pair and indicates a $`(13\pm 4)\%`$ increase relative to Au+Au reactions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV bearden01a ; sionly . For the most peripheral collisions analyzed here (40-50%), we find $`dN_{ch}/d\eta |_{\eta =0}=110\pm 10`$, resulting in a scaled value of 3.0$`\pm 0.4`$. By integrating the 0-5% multiplicity distribution we deduce that $`4630\pm 370`$ charged particles are emitted in the considered pseudorapidity range. This value is $`(21\pm 4)\%`$ higher than at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV bearden01a .

While the scaled multiplicities increase with centrality at mid-rapidity, Fig. 2 shows they are independent of both collision centrality and beam energy over a pseudorapidity range from 0.5 to 1.5 units below the beam rapidity. This is found for energies ranging from the CERN-SPS energy ($`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=17 GeV) deines00  to the present RHIC beam energy and is consistent with a limiting-fragmentation picture in which the excitations of the fragment baryons saturate at a moderate collision energy, independent of system size bearden01a . The increased projectile kinetic energy is utilized for particle production below beam rapidity, as evidenced by the observed increase in the scaled multiplicity for central events at mid-rapidity.

Figure 3 presents the $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ distributions obtained by averaging the values for negative and positive pseudorapidities to further decrease the experimental uncertainties. The solid lines are calculations using the model of Kharzeev and Levin Kharzeev\_and\_Levin . This model, which is based on a classical QCD calculation using parameters fixed to the $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV data, is able to reproduce the magnitude and shape of the observed multiplicity distributions quite well. The dashed lines are the results of a multiphase transport model (AMPT) zhang01 ; lin01 . This is a cascade model based on HIJING wang91 , but includes final-state rescattering of produced particles. The AMPT model is also able to account for the general trend of the measured distributions, particularly for the most central collisions. We also plot the similar distributions Alner86  from $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}`$=200 GeV, scaled up by the corresponding number of Au+Au participant pairs, for the 0-5% and 40-50% centralities. For central collisions the Au+Au data show a strong enhancement over the entire pseudorapidity range relative to the $`p\overline{p}`$ results, with an excess of $`(41\pm 9)\%`$ observed at mid-rapidity. This suggests significant influence of the extended, high-density medium in the case of the heavy-ion collision. The observed enhancement decreases to about 10% for 40-50% centrality collisions. We also note that the width in pseudorapidity of the measured distributions increases slightly as the centrality decreases, with $`\sigma _{RMS}=2.33\pm 0.02`$ and $`2.40\pm 0.02`$ for the 0-5% and 40-50% centralities, respectively. This again suggests increased particle production at mid-rapidity for more central collisions. These values can be compared to $`\sigma _{RMS}=2.38\pm 0.05`$ for the $`p\overline{p}`$ data.

The ratios of $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ values measured at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV and $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV for different centralities are shown in Fig. 4. An increase in charged-particle multiplicity as a function of energy for a central-plateau region ($`|\eta |<2.5`$) is observed, with a comparable increase of 10% to 20% observed for all centralities. The upturn in the ratios seen at forward rapidities is due to the widening of the multiplicity distribution at the higher energy, consistent with the increase in beam rapidity ($`\mathrm{\Delta }y=0.43`$). The curves show the corresponding ratios resulting from the two model calculations.

Finally in Fig. 5 we plot $`(dN_{ch}/d\eta )/N_{part}/2`$ as a function of the average number of participants $`N_{part}`$ for three narrow pseudorapidity regions ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta 0.2`$) around $`\eta `$ =0, 3.0 and 4.5. As already suggested, particle production per participant pair is remarkably constant and near unity at the forward rapidities characteristic of the fragmentation region, while showing a significant increase for the more central collisions with $`\eta 0`$. The mid-rapidity behavior has been attributed to the onset of hard-scattering processes which are dependent on the number of binary nucleon collisions $`N_{coll}`$ rather than $`N_{part}`$ adcox01 . Using $`N_{coll}`$ and $`N_{part}`$ values from HIJING wang91  we fit the data with a function of the form $`dN_{ch}/d\eta =\alpha N_{part}+\beta N_{coll}`$. For $`\eta =`$ 0(4.5) we obtain: $`\alpha =1.26\pm 0.09\pm 0.20`$ ($`0.66\pm 0.03\pm 0.10`$) and $`\beta =0.150.040.05`$($`0.060.010.03`$), where the first uncertainty assumes a 3% point-to-point error for the $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ values and the second uncertainty results from the $`N_{coll}`$ and $`N_{part}`$ uncertainties. For comparison we find $`\alpha =1.24\pm 0.08\pm 0.20`$ ($`0.55\pm 0.02\pm 0.09`$) and $`\beta =0.120.040.06`$($`0.090.010.03`$) at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV. For central events at $`\eta 0`$ we find that the hard-scattering component to the charged-particle production remains almost constant, with values of (20$`\pm `$7)% and (25$`\pm `$7)% at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV and 200 GeV, respectively. For this comparison, only the experimental component of the uncertainties are given since the theory uncertainties will be highly correlated at the two energies.

In conclusion, we find that the charged-particle production increases by a constant amount from $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV to $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV in a wide region around mid-rapidity. The data are well reproduced by calculations based on high-density QCD and by the AMPT/HIJING microscopic parton model. A phenomenological analysis in terms of a superposition of soft- and hard-scattering particle production indicates that the hard-scattering component seen at mid-rapidity for central collisions is not significantly enhanced as compared to $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV results. We find good consistency with the gluon saturation model of Kharzeev and Levin, but stress that within errors of models and data alike, the data can be equally well reproduced by other models that do not require parton-collision saturation. This work establishes a baseline for particle production at the maximum energy currently available for nucleus-nucleus collisions.

We thank the RHIC collider team for their efforts. This work was supported by the Division of Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Danish Natural Science Research Council, the Research Council of Norway, the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) and the Romanian Ministry of Research. We are grateful to D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, Zi-wei Lin, and H. Heiselberg for useful discussions and model calculations.