text:
# The Width Difference of 𝐵_𝑑 Mesons

## 1 Introduction

The two mass eigenstates of the neutral $`B_d`$ system have slightly different lifetimes. Within the standard model (SM), the difference in the decay widths, however, is CKM-suppressed with respect to that in the $`B_s`$ system. A rough estimate leads to $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}\lambda ^20.5\%,`$ where $`\lambda =0.225`$ is the sine of the Cabibbo angle, and we have taken $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s15\%`$  (see also ). Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d(s)}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_H)/2`$ is the average decay width of the light and heavy $`B_{d(s)}`$ mesons ($`B_L`$ and $`B_H`$ respectively). We denote these decay widths by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L,\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ respectively, and define $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d(s)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$.

At the present accuracy of measurements, this lifetime difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ can well be ignored. As a result, the measurement and the phenomenology of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ have been neglected so far, as compared with the lifetime difference in the $`B_s`$ system for example. However, with the possibility of experiments with high time resolution and high statistics, such as at the LHC, this quantity is becoming more and more relevant.

Taking the effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ into account is important in two aspects. There is the interlinked nature of the accurate measurements of $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ through the conventional gold-plated decay. In the future experiments that aim to measure $`\beta `$ to an accuracy of 0.005 or better, the corrections due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ will form an important part of the systematic error. On the other hand, the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ allows for the possibility to detect a clear signal for new physics beyond the SM.

It is known that, if $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21})_s`$ is unaffected by new physics, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ in the $`B_s`$ system is bounded from above by its value as calculated in the SM. In the $`B_d`$ system, this statement does not strictly hold true. However, if $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21})_d`$ is unaffected by new physics and the unitarity of the $`3\times 3`$ CKM matrix holds, an upper bound on the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ may then be found.

With the possibility of experiments with high time resolution and high statistics, it is worthwhile to have a look at this quantity and make a realistic estimate of the possibility of its measurement (see also ).

## 2 Measurability of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$

At LHCb, the proper time resolution is expected to be as good as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0.03`$ ps. This indeed is a very small fraction of the $`B_d`$ lifetime ($`\tau _{B_d}1.5`$ ps ), so the time resolution is not a limiting factor in the accuracy of the measurement, and the statistical error plays the dominant role. Taking into account the estimated number of $`B_d`$ produced — for example the number of reconstructed $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ events at the LHC is expected to be $`5\times 10^5`$ ( table 3) — the measurement of the lifetime difference does not look too hard at first glance. One may infer that if the number of relevant events with the proper time of decay measured with the precision $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ is $`N`$, then the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ is measured with an accuracy of $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. With a sufficiently large number of events $`N`$, it should be possible to reach the accuracy of 0.5% or better.

However, the time measurements of the decay of an untagged $`B_d`$ to a single final state can only be sensitive to quadratic terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. This would imply that, for determining $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ using only one final state, the accuracy of the measurement needs to be $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)^210^5`$. In  we gave an explicit derivation of that general statement, pointing out the exact conditions under which the above statement is valid. Ways of getting around these conditions lead us to the decay modes that can provide measurements sensitive linearly to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. This discussion indicates the necessity of combining measurements from two different final states in order to be sensitive to a quantity that is linear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$.

A viable option, perhaps the most efficient among the ones considered in , is to compare the measurements of the untagged lifetimes of the semileptonic decay mode $`\tau _{SL}`$ and of the CP-specific decay modes $`\tau _{CP_\pm }`$. The ratio between the two lifetimes $`\tau _{CP\pm }`$ and $`\tau _{SL}`$ is

$$\frac{\tau _{SL}}{\tau _{CP\pm }}=1\pm \frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}+𝒪\left[(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)^2\right].$$
(1)
The measurement of these two lifetimes should be able to give us a value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d|`$, since $`|\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )|`$ will already be known to a good accuracy by that time.

Since the CP-specific decay modes of $`B_d`$ (e.g. $`J/\psi K_{S(L)},D^+D^{}`$) have smaller branching ratios than the semileptonic modes, and the semileptonic data sample may be enhanced by including the self-tagging decay modes (e.g. $`D_s^{()+}D^{()}`$) which also have large branching ratios, we expect that the most useful combination will be the measurement of $`\tau _{SL}`$ through all self-tagging decays and that of $`\tau _{CP_+}`$ through the decay $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$. After 5 years of LHC running, we should have about $`5\times 10^5`$ events of $`J/\psi K_S`$, whereas the number of semileptonic decays, at LHCb alone, that will be directly useful in the lifetime measurements is expected to be more than $`10^6`$ per year, even with conservative estimates of efficiencies.

## 3 Estimation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$

In  we estimated $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ including $`1/m_b`$ contributions and part of the next-to-leading order QCD corrections. We find that adding the latter corrections decreases the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ computed at the leading order by a factor of almost $`2`$. The final result is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=(2.6_{1.6}^{+1.2})\times 10^3.$$
(2)
Using another expansion of the partial NLO QCD corrections proposed in , we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=(3.0_{1.4}^{+0.9})\times 10^3,$$
(3)
where we have used the preliminary values for the bag factors from the JLQCD collaboration . In the error estimation, the errors are the uncertainties on the values of the CKM parameters, of the bag parameters, of the mass of the $`b`$ quark, and of the measured value of $`x_d`$. Further sources of error are the assumption of naive factorization made for the $`1/m_b`$ matrix elements, the scale dependence and the missing terms in the NLO contribution. Although the latter error is decreased in the second estimate by smallness of CKM factors, a complete NLO calculation is definitely desirable for the result to be more reliable.

## 4 Interlinked Nature of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$

The time-dependent CP asymmetry measured through the “gold-plated” mode $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ is

$$𝒜_{CP}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B}_d(t)J/\psi K_S]\mathrm{\Gamma }[B_d(t)J/\psi K_S]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B}_d(t)J/\psi K_S]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[B_d(t)J/\psi K_S]}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt)\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ),$$
(4)
which is valid when the lifetime difference, the direct CP violation, and the mixing in the neutral $`K`$ mesons are neglected. As the accuracy of this measurement increases, the corrections due to these factors will have to be taken into account. Keeping only linear terms in small quantities, we obtain

$`𝒜_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\left[1\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_dt}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\right]`$ (7)
$`+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\overline{ϵ})\left[1+\mathrm{sin}^2(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)\right]`$
$`+2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(\overline{ϵ})\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt).`$
The first term in (7) represents the standard approximation used (4) and the correction due to the lifetime difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. The rest of the terms \[(7) and (7)\] are corrections due to the CP violation in $`B`$$`\overline{B}`$ and $`K`$$`\overline{K}`$ mixings. Note that $`\overline{ϵ}`$ is an effective parameter that absorbs several small uncertainties and equals a few $`\times 10^3`$ (see ).

The BaBar collaboration gives the bound on the coefficient of $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)`$ in (7), while neglecting the other correction terms . When the measurements are accurate enough to measure the $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)`$ term, the complete expression for $`𝒜_{CP}`$ above (77) needs to be used. In the future experiments that aim to measure $`\beta `$ to an accuracy of 0.005 . The corrections due to $`\overline{ϵ}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ will form a major part of the systematic error, which can be taken care of by a simultaneous fit to $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ),\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ and $`\overline{ϵ}`$.

## 5 New Physics

The calculations of the lifetime difference in $`B_d`$ and in the $`B_s`$ system (as in ) run along similar lines. However, there are some subtle differences involved, due to the values of the different CKM elements involved, which have significant consequences.

In particular, whereas the upper bound on the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ (including the effects of new physics) is the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(\mathrm{SM})`$ , the upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ involves a multiplicative factor in addition to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(\mathrm{SM})`$: using the definitions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_q\mathrm{Arg}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21})_q,\mathrm{\Phi }_q\mathrm{Arg}(M_{21})_q`$, where $`q\{d,s\}`$, we can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q=2|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}|_q\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }_q\mathrm{\Phi }_q).$$
(8)
Since the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}`$ comes only from tree diagrams, we expect the effect of new physics on this quantity to be very small. We therefore take $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}|_q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_q`$ to be unaffected by new physics. On the other hand, the mixing phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q`$ appears from loop diagrams and can therefore be very sensitive to new physics. Based on these assumptions, one derives an upper bound on new physics within the $`B_s`$ system :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(\mathrm{SM})}{\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma )}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(\mathrm{SM}),$$
(9)
with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma 0.03`$. Thus, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ can only decrease in the presence of new physics.

In the $`B_d`$ system, an upper bound for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$, based on the additional assumption of three-generation unitarity, can be derived:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(\mathrm{SM})}{\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{Arg}(1+\delta f)]}.$$
(10)
We can calculate the bound (10) in terms of the extent of the higher order NLO corrections. In , we got $`|\mathrm{Arg}(1+\delta f)|<0.6`$, so that we have the bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d<1.2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(\mathrm{SM})`$. A complete NLO calculation will be able to give a stronger bound.

We have seen that the ratio of two effective lifetimes can enable us to measure the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{obs(d)}\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. In the presence of new physics, this quantity is in fact (see eq. (8)) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{obs(d)}=2(|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}|_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_d)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }_d\mathrm{\Phi }_d)`$. In SM, we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{obs(d)}(\mathrm{SM})=2(|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}|_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{Arg}(1+\delta f)].$$
(11)
If $`|\delta f|<1.0`$, we have $`\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{Arg}(1+\delta f)]>0`$ (in fact, from the fit in  and our error estimates, we have $`\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{Arg}(1+\delta f)]>0.8`$). Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{obs(d)}(\mathrm{SM})`$ is predicted to be positive. New physics is not expected to affect $`\mathrm{\Theta }_d`$, but it may affect $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d`$ in such a way as to make the combination $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_d)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }_d\mathrm{\Phi }_d)`$ change sign. A negative sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{obs(d)}`$ would therefore be a clear signal of such new physics.

It is well known, that the $`B_d`$$`\overline{B}_d`$ mixing phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d`$ is efficiently measured through the decay modes $`J/\psi K_s`$ and $`J/\psi K_L`$. If we take the new physics effects into account, the time-dependent asymmetry is $`𝒜_{CP}=\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_dt)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_d)`$; in the SM, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d=2\beta `$. The measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_d)`$ still allows for a discrete ambiguity $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_d`$. It is clear that, if $`\mathrm{\Theta }_d`$ can be determined independently of the mixing in the $`B_d`$ system, then measuring $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{obs(d)}`$, which is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_d)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }_d\mathrm{\Phi }_d)`$, resolves the discrete ambiguity in principle. We note that these features are unique to the $`B_d`$ system.


format: text

text:
# Moments of characteristic polynomials enumerate two-rowed lexicographic arrays

## 1 Introduction

Keating and Snaith  have proposed to model the limiting distribution of the Riemann zeros using the characteristic polynomials of unitary random matrices $`U`$

$$Z(U,\theta )=\text{det}(Ie^{i\theta }U)$$
(1)
In particular they deal with a conjecture for moments of $`|\zeta (1/2+it)|`$ which states that the limit

$$I_m=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^{m^2}}\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}|\zeta (1/2+it)|^{2m}𝑑t$$
(2)
exists and is equal to a product of two factors, $`f(m)`$ and $`a(m)`$, i. e.

$$I_m=a(m)f(m)$$
(3)
The first factor $`a(m)`$ is the zeta-function specific part,

$$a(m)=\underset{p}{}(1\frac{1}{p})^{m^2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+m)}{k!\text{ }\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)}\right)^2p^k$$
(4)
where the product is taken over prime numbers $`p`$. As for the second factor $`f(m)`$, Keating and Snaith  have hypothesized that it is the random matrix (universal) part and may be represented as

$$f(m)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}N^{m^2}\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}$$
(5)
Here the average is over Circular Unitary Ensemble (CUE) of random unitary matrices $`N\times N`$.

In this letter I provide a combinatorial interpretation for the moments of characteristic polynomials, $`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$. I then relate these moments with two-rowed lexicographic arrays which are generalizations of permutations and words in combinatorics (for basic information about permutations, words and lexicographic arrays see, for example, a book by Fulton). The combinatorial interpretation of moments of the characteristic polynomials enables an explicit formula to be obtained for the total number of two-rowed lexicographic arrays constructed from the letters of an alphabet of $`m`$ symbols with the increasing subsequences of the length at most $`N`$.

This combinatorial interpretation is, in fact, a natural consequence of a profound relation between Random Matrix Theory and Robinson-Schensted-Knuth type problems discovered recently by Gessel , Baik, Deift and Johansson  and Rains  (see also Aldous and Diaconis  and the references therein ). In particular, it follows that certain expectation values over CUE appear in the theory of last passage percolation. The moments of characteristic polynomials , $`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$, may also be considered in this context. The reasoning along those lines enables the random matrix part $`f(m)`$ defined by equations (2)-(4) to be related with the weakly-right/weakly-up lattice model of the last passage percolation.

## 2 Increasing subsequences of lexicographic arrays and $`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$

Let us recall a generalization of the Cauchy identity (see Gessel , Baik and Rains , Tracy and Widom  ):

$`{\displaystyle \underset{N\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _m0}{}}s_\lambda (\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _m)s_\lambda (\eta _1,\eta _2,\mathrm{},\eta _m)=`$
$`det\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left(I+\xi _iU\right)\left(I+\eta _jU^{}\right)\right)_{U(N)}`$ (6)
Here $`s_\lambda (\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _m)`$ denotes the Schur polynomial of $`m`$ variables. Take $`\xi _1=\xi _2=\mathrm{}=\xi _m=e^{i\theta }`$ and $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\mathrm{}=\eta _m=e^{i\theta }`$ in equation (2). We will use the formula for the Schur polynomials of identical variables,

$$s_\lambda (x,x,\mathrm{},x)=x^{\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _m}d_\lambda (m)$$
(7)
where the coefficient $`d_\lambda (m)`$ is calculated by the formula

$$d_\lambda (m)=\frac{\underset{1i<jm}{}\left(\lambda _ii\lambda _j+j\right)}{0!\text{ }1!\text{ }2!\mathrm{}(m1)!}$$
(8)
From equations (2)-(8) we conclude that the moments of characteristic polynomials,$`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$, may be represented as sums over partitions. Importantly, these sums should be taken only over partitions of the length less than $`m`$ and with the first row less than $`N`$. An explicit expression for the $`m^{\text{th}}`$ moment of the characteristic polynomial is

$$\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}=\underset{K=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\text{ }\underset{\lambda K,\text{ }\lambda _1N}{}d_\lambda ^2(m)$$
(9)
where $`\lambda K`$ means that the set $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _m)`$ is a partition of $`K`$, i.e. $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _m=K`$. Representation (9) enables a combinatorial interpretation to be provide for $`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$.

Consider semi-standard Young tableaux constructed from $`K`$ boxes with at most $`m`$ and $`N`$ boxes in first columns and first rows respectively. The total number of pairs of such tableaux is then given by the sum $`\underset{\lambda K,\text{ }\lambda _1N}{}d_\lambda ^2(m)`$. (It is a well-known fact ( see Fulton ) that the coefficient $`d_\lambda (m)`$ defined by equation (8) gives the number of semi-standard Young tableaux of the shape $`\lambda `$ whose entries should be taken from the set $`[1,2,\mathrm{},m]`$). It is this sum which appears in expression (9) for the moments of the characteristic polynomials. In what follows we will apply the Robinson-Schensted-Knuth correspondence (see Fulton ) between two-rowed lexicographic arrays and pairs of semi-standard Young tableaux.

By definition, a two-rowed array of the size $`K`$ is an object of the form

$$\text{A}_{2,K}^m=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u_1& u_2& \mathrm{}& u_K\\ v_1& v_2& \mathrm{}& v_K\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
where the letters $`u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_K`$ and $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_K`$ belong to an alphabet (any ordered set) $`\mathrm{}_m`$ of $`m`$ different letters. The following two conditions ensure that the array $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$ corresponds to a pair of semi-standard Young tableaux (each of $`K`$ boxes with entries taken from $`1,2,\mathrm{},m`$):

$$u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_K$$
(11)
$$v_1v_2\mathrm{}v_K$$
(12)
The arrays $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$ for which conditions (11) and (12) are satisfied are called lexicographic arrays.

Let us define a (weakly) increasing subsequence of the lexicographic array $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$ as follows:

1. The element of the array $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$ with the number $`i_1`$ is less than that with the number $`i_2`$, $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{i_1}}{v_{i_1}}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{i_2}}{v_{i_2}}\right)`$, if $`v_{i_1}v_{i_2}`$ and $`u_{i_1}u_{i_2}`$.
2. A subsequence of $`s`$ elements of the array $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$ such that

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{i_1}}{v_{i_1}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{i_2}}{v_{i_2}}}\right)\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{i_s}}{v_{i_s}}}\right),i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k`$ (13)
will be called a weakly increasing subsequence of the length $`s`$.

Let $`l(\text{A}_{2,K}^m)`$ be the length of the maximal (weakly) increasing subsequence of the two-rowed lexicographic array $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$. Denote by $`\text{R}_{m,N}^K`$ the number of two-rowed lexicographic arrays of the size $`K`$ constructed from the alphabet of $`m`$ letters $`\mathrm{}_m`$ and including weakly increasing subsequences of the length at most $`N`$, i.e.

$$\text{R}_{m,N}^K=\mathrm{}\text{ of }\text{A}_{2,K}^m\text{with}l(\text{A}_{2,K}^m)N$$
(14)
The number $`\text{R}_{m,N}`$ defined by the sum over size $`K`$,

$$\text{R}_{m,N}=\underset{K=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\text{R}_{m,N}^K$$
(15)
gives the number of arrays of an arbitrary size that include weakly increasing subsequences of $`N`$ elements or less. By the Robinson-Schensted-Knuth correspondence, the number of ordered pairs of semi-standard Young tableaux with $`m`$ and $`N`$ boxes in the first column and the first row respectively is equal to the number $`\text{R}_{m,N}`$ of lexicographic arrays.

This observation enables $`\text{R}_{m,N}`$ to be expressed as an average over CUE

$$\text{R}_{m,N}=\underset{K=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\text{ }\underset{\lambda K,\text{ }\lambda _1N}{}d_\lambda ^2(m)=\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}$$
(16)
Here we have used the representation of the moments $`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$ as the sums over partitions, see equation (9). We thus conclude that the moments of characteristic polynomials, $`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$, have a clear combinatorial interpretation. They are equal to the number of two-rowed lexicographic arrays constructed from an alphabet of $`m`$ symbols with the weakly increasing subsequences of the $`N`$ elements at most.

It is now possible to obtain an explicit formula for the number $`\text{R}_{m,N}`$ of lexicographic arrays. Once we apply the result of Keating and Snaith:

$$\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2m)}{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+m)\right]^2}$$
(17)
equality (16) between the number of arrays $`\text{R}_{m,N}`$ and the moments of characteristic polynomials gives

$$\text{R}_{m,N}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2m)}{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+m)\right]^2}$$
(18)
In order to illustrate how formula (18) works consider the following example. Take an alphabet consisting of two letters $`a`$ and $`b`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{}_m=(a,b),m=2`$. It may give rise to both lexicographic and non-lexicographic arrays. A typical lexicographic array compounded from the letters of the alphabet $`(a,b)`$ is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a& a& b& b\\ a& b& b& b\end{array}\right)$$

We observe that conditions (11), (12) are satisfied by this particular array. An example of a two-rowed non-lexicographic array is given below:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a& a& b& b\\ a& b& a& b\end{array}\right)$$

In this array the second letter of the word $`abab`$, $`b`$, is larger than the third letter of this word $`a`$. Thus, condition (12) is not satisfied resulting in a non-lexicographic array.

Let us list all possible two-rowed lexicographic arrays from the alphabet $`(a,b)`$ with the weakly increasing subsequences of the length at most $`N=2`$:

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ø}{ø}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{a}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{b}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{a}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ab}{aa}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{aa}{ab}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ab}{ba}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{aa}{bb}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{aa}{aa}}\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{bb}{ab}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{bb}{bb}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ab}{bb}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{bb}{aa}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ab}{ab}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{abb}{bab}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{aab}{bba}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{abb}{baa}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{aab}{aba}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{aabb}{bbaa}}\right)`$
There are 20 arrays with the required properties. It can be easily verified that formula (18) obtained above gives precisely this number, i.e.

$$\text{R}_{m,N}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2m)}{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+m)]^2}=20(m=2,N=2)$$
(19)
## 3 Moments of characteristic polynomials in the last passage percolation theory

Let us now turn to an interesting interpretation of lexicographic arrays in the framework of the last passage percolation theory. (See, for example, Baik  where different last passage percolation models are described and the relations with different expectation values over CUE are explained). It is a consequence of the relation between the moments of characteristic polynomials and lexicographic arrays that $`\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}`$ appear also in the last passage percolation problems.

Consider the lexicographic array $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$ of the form (10) where the letters $`u_i,v_i;i=1,2,\mathrm{},K`$ take values in the set of integers $`\mathrm{}_m=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$. This lexicographic array corresponds to a matrix with non-negative integer entries. The $`(i,j)`$ entry of this matrix is the number of times the vector $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i}{j}\right)`$ occurs in the array $`\text{A}_{2,K}^m`$. For example, the array

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}1& 1& 1& 2& 2& 2& 3& 3& 3& 3\\ 1& 2& 2& 1& 1& 1& 1& 2& 3& 3\end{array}\right)$$

corresponds to the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 2& 0\\ 3& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 2\end{array}\right)$$

Let $`X(i,j)`$, $`i,j[1,2,\mathrm{},m]`$ be a planar array of non-negative integers. Consider weakly-up/weakly-right paths $`\pi ^s`$, $`(i_k,j_k)_{k=1}^l`$, such that $`i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_l`$ and $`j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_l`$ (This model has discussed at length in Baik ). Let $`(1,1)(m,m)`$ denote the set of up/right paths from $`(1,1)`$ to $`(m,m)`$ in the planar array $`X(i,j)`$. The entries of the matrix $`X(i,j)`$, $`x_{ij}`$, may be considered as the passage times at knots $`(i,j)`$. Each planar array of non-negative integers $`X(i,j)`$ can be assigned the last passage percolation time $`T(m,m)`$ for travel from $`(1,1)`$ to $`(m,m)`$. $`T(m,m)`$ is defined explicitly by the following expression:

$$T(m,m)=\underset{\pi (1,1)(m,m)}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{i,j\pi }{}x_{ij}$$
(20)
So far we have used the Robinson-Schensted-Knuth correspondence between pairs of semi-standard Young diagrams and lexicographic arrays. Turning to the last passage percolation problems Robinson-Schensted-Knuth correspondence is a correspondence between planar arrays $`X(i,j)`$ of non-negative integers and pairs of semi-standard Young tableaux. In this case the last passage percolation time $`T(m,m)`$ should be considered instead of the length of the longest increasing subsequence. The number of arrays $`\text{R}_{m,N}`$ defined in the previous section by equations (14) and (15) is replaced by the number of all possible $`X(i,j)`$ of size $`m\times m`$ with the last passage percolation time $`T(m,m)`$ less than $`N`$. Applying the results of the previous section we find that

$$\mathrm{}\text{of}X(i,j)\text{with}T(m,m)N=\left|Z(U,\theta )\right|^{2m}_{U(N)}$$
(21)
With the help of the Keating and Snaith formula (equation (17)) an explicit expression is obtained for the number of planar arrays $`X(i,j)`$ of the size $`m\times m`$ with the last passage percolation time bounded by $`N`$:

$$\mathrm{}\text{of}X(i,j)\text{with}T(m,m)N=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2m)}{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+m)\right]^2}$$
(22)
## 4 Combinatorial consequences of the Keating and Snaith conjecture

The above results lead to an interesting interpretation of the Keating and Snaith conjecture. Once $`m`$ is a non-negative integer, the random matrix (universal) factor $`f(m)`$ relates the moments $`I_m`$ of zeta-function with increasing subsequences. On assumption that the Keating and Snaith conjecture is valid, that is equation (5) holds, it follows from the results of the previous sections that

$$\frac{I_m}{a(m)}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\underset{K=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\text{of}\text{A}_{2,K}^m\text{with}l(A_{2,K}^m)N}{N^{m^2}}$$
(23)
In other words, the ratio $`\frac{I_m}{a(m)}`$ defined by equations (2)-(4) is asymptotically equal to the number of lexicographic arrays constructed from an alphabet of $`m`$ letters with increasing subsequences of at most $`N`$ elements divided by $`N^{m^2}`$.

As a particular case consider the weakly-up/weakly-right last passage percolation model. Here the ratio $`\frac{I_m}{a(m)}`$ is equal to the whole number of $`m\times m`$ planar arrays $`X(i,j)`$ of non-negative integers with last percolation time at most $`N`$ divided by $`N^{m^2}`$:

$$\frac{I_m}{a(m)}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{}\text{of}X(i,j)\text{with}T(m,m)N}{N^{m^2}}$$
(24)
Apart from the combinatorial interpretation of the Keating and Snaith conjecture, the above considerations raise a question of how the moments of the Riemann zeta function are related to the representation theory of finite groups.

### Acknowledgements.

For valuable comments and discussions that have contributed to this work I am grateful to Yan Fyodorov. This research was supported by EPSRC grant GR/R13838/01 ”Random Matrices close to Unitary or Hermitian.”


text:
# Coherent Interactions in Nucleus- Nucleus Collisions

## 1 Introduction

Ultra-relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions are usually associated with copious particle production and complete disintegration of the projectile and target nucleus. For very high center-of-mass energies, a new class of events can be distinguished, however, in which particles are produced in very peripheral collisions with no or very little disruption of the projectile and target. In these interactions, particles are produced through an interaction of the electromagnetic or nuclear fields of the ions. If the momentum transfers are small enough ($`Q<1/R`$), the fields couple coherently to all nucleons, which has the effect of dramatically increasing the cross sections. The coherence requirement also gives the events a distinct transverse momentum distribution, which can be used to identify the events, as will be discussed below.

Coherent electromagnetic interactions can happen for impact parameters of 10’s or 100’s of fermi because of the long range of the electromagnetic field. The leptodermous nature of ordinary nuclei, together with their finite spatial extent of a few fermi, thus ensures that these interactions can be clearly separated from hadronic interactions in impact parameter space.

The Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory is the first heavy-ion accelerator energetic enough for significant production of hadronic final states in coherent nuclear interactions. The first collisions at RHIC were achieved in the summer last year, and the STAR collaboration has already shown the feasibility of experimentally studying these interactions. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, when it is operated with heavy-ions, will also produce coherent interactions with large cross sections.

In this talk, I will give an overview of two-photon and coherent photonuclear interactions in nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC and the LHC.

## 2 The method of equivalent photons

The Lorentz contracted electromagnetic fields of a relativistic heavy ion can be treated as a stream of equivalent photons. This is the so-called Weizsäcker-Williams method. In the impact parameter representation, the density of photons at a perpendicular distance $`b`$ ($`b>R`$) from the center of the ion is

$$n(\omega ,b)=\frac{dN_\gamma }{d\omega d^2b}=\frac{\alpha Z^2}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\omega b^2}x^2K_1^2(x).$$
(1)
where $`\omega `$ is the photon energy and $`x=b\omega /\gamma `$, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, and $`K_1(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function. Natural units, in which $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, are used. Note that the density of photons is proportional to $`Z^2`$.

The photons from one of the nuclei may interact coherently with the electromagnetic or nuclear field of the other nucleus. In the latter case, the interactions is of the type photon-meson or photon-Pomeron, whereas a purely electromagnetic interaction is referred to as a two-photon interaction, although higher-order processes are also possible.

The total number of equivalent photons of a given energy is obtained by integrating Eq. 1 over all impact parameters with a suitable minimum impact parameter cut-off. For a single nucleus, this cut-off is usually given by the nuclear radius, R. The full photon spectrum in a heavy-ion interaction is not useable, however, since for impact parameters $`b<2R`$ hadronic interactions dominate and it is generally not possible to distinguish electromagnetic interactions. The spectrum for two colliding nuclei can then be calculated from

$$n(\omega )=\frac{dN_\gamma }{d\omega }=_0^{\mathrm{}}2\pi b𝑑b[1P_{Had}(b)]_0^R\frac{rdr}{\pi R^2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi n(\omega ,b+r\mathrm{cos}(\phi ))$$
(2)
Here, $`P_{Had}`$ is the probability of having a hadronic interaction at impact parameter $`b`$. $`P_{Had}`$ is calculated using a Glauber model with the total nucleon-nucleon cross section as input. The integrals over $`R`$ and $`\phi `$ correspond to an averaging of the flux over the transverse surface of the nucleus.

The total production cross section can calculated as the convolution of the photon spectrum with the $`\gamma `$A photonuclear cross section:

$$\sigma (A+AA+A+X)=n(\omega )\sigma _{\gamma A}(\omega )𝑑\omega .$$
(3)
The photonuclear cross section for the photon-Pomeron/meson and two-photon production mechanisms will be discussed in the next two sections.

## 3 Vector meson production

A photon might interact hadronically by fluctuating into a virtual quark anti-quark pair. The $`q\overline{q}`$-pair prefer to act as a vector meson to conserve the spin of the photon. According to the so-called Vector Meson Dominance Model, the scattering amplitude for photon-hadron interactions factorizes into a product of the probability for the fluctuation into the vector meson state and a hadronic cross section:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma A)=\underset{V}{}\frac{4\pi \alpha }{f_V^2}\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(VA),$$
(4)
where $`f_v`$ is the photon vector meson coupling, and $`\sqrt{t}`$ is the momentum transfer from the target nucleus, summed over the vector meson states. Neglecting cross terms (i.e. cases where the photon fluctuates into a state V and then scatters off the target into a state V’), the hadronic part of the interaction can thus be treated as elastic scattering. For elastic scattering, the photonuclear cross section can be written as a product of a constant forward scattering amplitude times an integral over t of the nuclear form factor squared,

$$\sigma _{\gamma A}(\omega )=\frac{d\sigma }{dt}|_{t=0}_{t_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}|F(t)|^2𝑑t,$$
(5)
where $`\sqrt{t_{min}}=(M_V^2/2\omega )`$ is the minimum momentum transfer needed to produce a vector meson with mass $`M_V`$. The forward scattering amplitude is related to the total cross section through the optical theorem

$$\frac{d\sigma (VAVA)}{dt}|_{t=0}=\frac{\sigma _{tot}^2(VA)}{16\pi }$$
(6)
The nuclear forward scattering amplitude can be expressed in terms of the photon-nucleon cross section, $`\sigma (\gamma N)`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma (\gamma AVA)}{dt}|_{t=0}=\left(\frac{\sigma _{tot}(VA)}{\sigma _{tot}(VN)}\right)^2\frac{d\sigma (\gamma NVN)}{dt}|_{t=0}.$$
(7)
Measurements of coherent photonuclear vector meson production can provide information on the total vector meson nucleus cross section, and hence on the mean free path of vector mesons in nuclear matter. In ref. , data on $`\gamma NVN`$ from HERA and fixed target experiments were used as input to determine $`\sigma _{tot}(VN)`$. This was then used to calculate $`\sigma (VA)`$ and $`\sigma (\gamma A)`$ from a Glauber model. The corresponding nucleus-nucleus cross sections were calculated using the photon spectrum of Eq. 2. The cross sections for vector meson production at RHIC and the LHC (Table 2) were found to be very large, roughly 10% of the total inelastic hadronic Au+Au cross section at RHIC, rising to 50% for Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC.

The vector mesons are produced near mid-rapidity. As an example, the rapidity distributions of $`\omega `$-mesons at RHIC and LHC are shown in Fig. 1.

## 4 Two-photon interactions

The cross section for meson production through the two-photon channel in $`\gamma AXA`$ interactions is

$$\sigma _{\gamma A}(\omega )=8\alpha Z^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }}{M_x^3}\left(\frac{\omega }{Q}\right)^4|F(Q^2)|^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`M_x`$ are the two-photon width and mass of the meson, $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle, and $`Q`$ the momentum transfer. With a simplified ansatz for the form factor, $`F(Q^2)=1`$ if $`Q<1/R`$ and 0 otherwise, the cross section becomes

$$\sigma _{\gamma A}(\omega )=16\pi \alpha Z^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }}{M_x^3}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{2\omega }{M_x^2R})$$
(9)
The cross section thus increases logarithmically with the photon energy. Using a more realistic form factor

$$F(Q^2)=\frac{3}{(QR)^3}\left[\mathrm{sin}(QR)QR\mathrm{cos}(QR)\right]\left[\frac{1}{1+a^2Q^2}\right],$$
(10)
where a=0.7 fm reflects the nuclear skin thickness, the cross section for two-photon production of $`\eta `$-mesons is compared with the photonuclear cross section for $`\omega `$-mesons (Eq. 5) in Fig. 2.

The cross section for two-photon production is between one and two orders of magnitude smaller than that for photonuclear production up to photon energies of $`10^4`$ GeV. The energy dependence is very different for the two production mechanisms. The photonuclear cross section is essentially independent of energy above threshold, whereas the two-photon cross section increases logarithmically with $`\omega `$.

In heavy-ion interactions it is necessary to exclude interactions where the nuclei overlap to obtain realistic cross sections for two-photon processes. The differential cross section is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dWdy}=\frac{W}{2}_{b_1>R}_{b_2>R}n(\omega _1,b_1)n(\omega _2,b_2)\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{b}_1\stackrel{}{b}_22R)d^2\stackrel{}{b}_1d^2\stackrel{}{b}_2,$$
(11)
where $`Y`$ and $`W`$ are the rapidity and center of mass energy of produced state. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function removes the contribution from interactions with overlap.

## 5 Interference and transverse momentum

It is generally not possible to tag the outgoing nuclei in a coherent interaction. The coherence requirement limits the transverse momentum transfers to about $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_T<\mathrm{}c/R`$. This means that the angular deflection of the ions will be of the order of

$$\theta \frac{0.175}{\gamma A^{4/3}}$$
(12)
This is a few $`\mu `$rad at RHIC and a few tenths of a $`\mu `$rad at LHC.

Experimental identification of coherent events can instead be achieved through the transverse momentum obtained by reconstructing all particles emitted in the event.

The transverse momentum distribution of virtual photons of energy $`\omega `$ is given by

$$\frac{dN_\gamma }{dk_{}}\frac{|F((\omega /\gamma )^2+k_{}^2)|^2}{((\omega /\gamma )^2+k_{}^2)^2}k_{}^3.$$
(13)
Similarly, the distribution of the nuclear transverse momentum transfer, $`q_{}`$, is given by the form factor

$$\frac{dN_P}{dq_{}}|F(t_{min}+q_{}^2)|^2q_{}.$$
(14)
The transverse momentum distribution of the produced state is given by the convolution of the transverse momentum distributions of the two sources

$$\frac{dn}{dp_T}=f_1(\stackrel{}{p}_T^{})f_2(\stackrel{}{p}_T\stackrel{}{p}_T^{})d^2\stackrel{}{p}_T^{}.$$
(15)
The $`p_T`$ distribution for states produced in two-photon interactions at midrapidity is shown in Fig. 3. The shape of the distribution depends on the mass of the final state. The corresponding distribution for photonuclear production of $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons are shown as the dashed curve in Fig. 4. The photonuclear $`p_T`$ distributions are dominated by the nuclear form factors and are much less sensitive to the mass of the produced state.

The situation for photonuclear production is, however, a little bit more complicated. Consider the differential cross section for the production

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dydp_T}=\omega _1\frac{dN}{d\omega _1d^2b}\sigma (\gamma A_2)f_{1,2}(p_T)+\omega _2\frac{dN}{d\omega _2d^2b}\sigma (\gamma A_1)f_{2,1}(p_T)d^2b,$$
(16)
where the two terms correspond to production off each of the two nuclei.

Adding the cross section is only valid as long as $`p_T<<1/b`$, however, since for smaller transverse momenta, the two sources will be indistinguishable, and one then has to add the amplitudes. At midrapidity, where the contributions from the two sources are of equal magnitude, and if one assumes that the outgoing vector mesons can be treated as plane waves, the integral over b in Eq. 16 becomes

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dydp_T}=\left|A_1+A_2\right|^2d^2\stackrel{}{b}=2\left|A_1\right|^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{p}_T\stackrel{}{b})\right)d^2\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(17)
Here, $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are the amplitudes for production off nucleus 1 and 2, respectively. This has the effect of modifying the transverse momentum spectrum to that shown by the solid curve in Fig. 4. The interference pattern is essentially that of a two-source interferometer.

This interference is of particular interest since the $`c\tau `$ of the vector mesons (except for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$) are generally much shorter than the median impact parameters in the interactions. A vector meson produced at one nucleus will thus have decayed before information of its production have reached the other nucleus. For interference, the decay particles must thus be in an entangled state and retain information about their origin long after the decay occurred.

## 6 Strong fields and multiple excitations

Because of the strong fields associated with ultra-relativistic heavy-ions, the probabilities for several electromagnetic processes are very large at small impact parameters, and calculated, un-unitarized first-order probabilities may even exceed 1 . This is for example the case for two-photon production of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs.

Another process with very high interaction probability is mutual Coulomb dissociation. The dominating process is photonuclear excitation of the target into a Giant Dipole Resonance followed by emission of one or more neutrons. The probability for mutual Coulomb dissociation reaches about 35% in a grazing Au+Au collision at RHIC.

Coherent vector meson production can occur in coincidence with Coulomb excitation of one or both nuclei. If one assumes that the Coulomb excitation and the vector meson production occur independently, the cross section can be calculated from

$$\sigma (A+AA^{}+A^{}+V)=(1P_{Had}(\stackrel{}{b}))P_{Coul}(\stackrel{}{b})P_V(\stackrel{}{b})d^2\stackrel{}{b}$$
(18)
where $`P_{Had}`$, $`P_{Coul}`$, and $`P_V`$ are the hadronic, Coulomb, and vector meson production probabilities, respectively.

Using the same formalism for vector meson production as in  and the Coulomb reaction probabilities calculated in , Eq. 18 gives cross sections of 42 mb for $`\rho ^0`$, 4 mb for $`\omega `$, 3 mb for $`\varphi `$, and 0.29 mb for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in Au+Au interactions at RHIC. The cross sections are reduced by roughly a factor of 10 compared with no breakup.

Requiring production in coincidence with nuclear breakup also reduces the median impact parameters in the interactions by about a factor of 2. This should affect the interference discussed above.

## 7 Conclusions

Electromagnetic interactions will occur with high rates in peripheral nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC and LHC. The two-photon and coherent photonuclear production mechanisms have been discussed and compared. New phenomena, such as multiple excitations in strong fields and interference, not accessible in similar reaction channels in $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`e`$A interactions, can be studied with heavy ions.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Spencer Klein, LBNL, Berkeley, my collaborator in the studies of vector mesons and interference. I would like to thank Tony Baltz and Sebastian White, BNL, Brookhaven, for providing the Coulomb interaction probabilities from their paper and for useful discussion. This project was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR).