text:
# Moving Quantum Systems: Particles Versus Vacuum

## 1 Introduction

The KMS-condition introduced by Kubo, Martin, and Schwinger in  is a generalization of the Gibbs characterization of thermodynamic equilibrium states which is widely used in physics today. In contrast to the Gibbs condition, the KMS-condition is meaningful also for any infinitely extended system, whose Hamiltonian $`H`$ does, in general, not have the property that $`e^{\beta H}`$ is a trace class operator ($`\beta `$ denotes the inverse temperature).

The relevance of the KMS-condition for the operator algebraic description of thermodynamic equilibrium states was first discussed by Haag, Hugenholtz, and Winnink . A general axiomatic derivation of the KMS-condition111For the sake of brevity, the case that $`H0`$ is occasionally considered as the KMS-condition at zero temperature. from first principles was first proposed by Haag et al. (see  and references given there), who showed that the KMS-condition follows from the dynamical stability of the state against small perturbations of the Hamitonian, together with some clustering properties exhibited by many examples. A bit later, Pusz and Woronowicz proved the equivalence of the KMS-condition at nonnegative temperature on the one hand and a condition called complete passivity on the other , which can be derived from the Zeroth, the First, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics without making any more technical assumptions. A couple of years ago, Bros and Buchholz introduced a relativistic KMS-condition in quantum field theory, which, in contrast to the usual KMS-condition, is not confined to a distinguished frame of reference . Their conjectures and ideas on how to derive this condition from first principles of thermodynamics are partially confirmed by the results to be discussed below, and they have been an important motivation for this research.

The discussion to follow is a summary of Refs.  and . Ref.  also contains a more detailed introduction into the notions, ideas, and further references.

The passivity property of thermodynamic equilibrium states means that no cyclic process, i.e., no temporary perturbation of the Hamiltonian by observables, can perform more work than it requires in order to take place. This can be justified by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the First Law of Thermodynamics can be used to justify the mathematical formulation of the condition. Complete passivity strengthens this condition in a fashion that can be justified by the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.

Already the passivity condition can hold in one frame of reference at most whenever matter is present, as moving matter drives windmills, turbines, etc.. In , the Pusz-Woronowicz result has been generalized by replacing, on the one hand, the condition of complete passivity by the weaker condition of complete semipassivity, and by replacing, on the other hand, the KMS-condition by the requirement that the KMS-condition is fulfilled in some inertial frame. Both conditions can hold in several frames of reference for translation invariant states of matter. This will be discussed in Sect. 2.

Recently it was proved by Guido and Longo in  that the KMS-condition at a finite and nonnegative temperature $`\beta `$ is equivalent to a condition called complete $`\beta `$-boundedness. This condition imposes a bound on the number of degrees of freedom in certain phase space regions and is a weak form of the Buchholz-Wichmann nuclearity condition , very similar to the (weaker) Haag-Swieca compactness criterion . While these criteria have been suggested and investigated in the setting of algebraic quantum field theory, complete $`\beta `$-boundedness characterizes thermodynamic equilibrium states at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ in much more general terms and without referring to any field theoretic structures. The result by Guido and Longo suggests to look for a modification of the $`\beta `$-boundedness condition that can hold, like semipassivity, in several frames of reference, and leads to the same conclusions as obtained for semipassivity. Such a condition is semi-$`\beta `$-boundedness; this result of  will be discussed in Sect. 3.

On the other hand, passivity can hold in several frames of reference in the absence of matter. Taking this as a basic characterization of a vacuum state in quantum field theory, one can prove the spectrum condition and the Unruh effect, i.e., the Bisognano-Wichmann symmetries , for all pure vacuum states of a local quantum field theory. This result of  will be discussed in Sect. 4. Similar results for de Sitter and Anti-de Sitter spacetimes have been obtained in  and , respectively. Recent results concerning the Bisognano-Wichmann symmetries of algebraic quantum field theories in Minkowski space can be found in  and the references given there, and for results concerning the possible role of these symmetries in Robertson-Walker spacetimes, see .

In the Conclusion (Sect. 5), a couple of remarks are made concerning the notion of particle and the Unruh effect.

## 2 Semipassivity and homogeneous states of matter

Our setting is as follows:

* A von Neumann algebra $``$ on a Hilbert space $``$ represents the observable quantities characterizing the system under consideration.
* For $`s1`$, a family of $`1+s`$ commuting self-adjoint operators $`(H,𝐏)=(H,P_1,\mathrm{},P_s)`$ generates a (strongly continuous and unitary) representation $`V`$ of the spacetime translation group $`(𝐑^{1+s},+)`$.
* A $`V`$-invariant state $`\omega `$ of $``$, our object of investigation, is induced by a cyclic vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $``$, and $`H\mathrm{\Omega }=P_1\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{}=P_s\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$.

Define $`S_\beta :=\{z𝐂:\beta <\mathrm{Im}z<0\}`$. $`\omega `$ is called a KMS-state at the inverse temperature $`\beta 0`$ if there exists a continuous function $`F:\overline{S}_\beta 𝐂`$ that is analytic in $`S_\beta `$ and satisfies

$$F(t)=\omega (B_tA)\text{and}F(ti\beta )=\omega (AB_t)\text{for all}t𝐑,A,B.$$
(1)
A KMS-state at $`\beta =0`$ (infinite temperature) is a trace, i.e., $`\omega (AB)=\omega (BA)`$ for all $`A,B`$, and $`\omega `$ may be considered a “KMS-state at zero temperature” if $`H0`$, i.e., if $`\omega `$ is a ground state of $`H`$.

As explained in , a cyclic change of the Hamiltonian is represented by a unitary operator in the unit operator’s norm-connected component $`𝒰_1()`$ of the unitary group $`𝒰()`$ of $``$. If the system is in the above state $`\omega `$ before the cycle $`W𝒰_1()`$ is started, the total amount of work performed on the system during the cycle $`W`$ is $`L_W:=W\mathrm{\Omega },[H,W]\mathrm{\Omega }=W\mathrm{\Omega },HW\mathrm{\Omega }`$.222Note that $`H`$ is an unbounded operator and that $`W\mathrm{\Omega },HW\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not need to be defined for all $`W𝒰_1()`$. The expression $`Hx,Wyx,WHy`$ is defined for all $`x,y`$ in the domain of $`H`$. $`[H,W]`$ means that the sesquilinear form defined this way is bounded and that the associated bounded operator is an element of $``$; commutators involving $`H`$ or $`𝐏`$ are to be read this way.

The state $`\omega `$ is called passive if $`L_W0`$ for all cycles $`W𝒰_1()`$ with $`[H,W]`$. It is completely passive if for each $`N𝐍`$, the state $`\omega ^N`$ of the $`N`$th tensorial $`^{\scriptscriptstyle N}`$ of $``$ defined by

$$^{\scriptscriptstyle N}A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_N\omega (A_1)\omega (A_2)\mathrm{}\omega (A_n)$$

is passive. As shown in , a state is completely passive if and only if it is a KMS-state or a ground state.

Suppose that $`\omega `$ is passive with respect to the Hamiltonian $`H`$. If the system is not at rest, but moves at a velocity $`𝐮`$, then the time evolution is not generated by $`H`$, but by $`H+\mathrm{𝐮𝐏}`$.333In a relativistic theory, this generator must be multiplied by the time dilation factor $`\gamma =(1𝐮^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$; see below. If $`W𝒰_1()`$ satisfies $`[H,W]`$ and $`[𝐏,W]`$, then the work performed by the corresponding cycle is

$`L`$ $`=W\mathrm{\Omega },(H+\mathrm{𝐮𝐏})W\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`W\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{𝐮𝐏}W\mathrm{\Omega },`$
as $`\omega `$ has been assumed to be passive with respect to $`H`$. Defining $`|𝐏|:=\sqrt{P_1^2+\mathrm{}+P_s^2}`$, one finds $`\mathrm{𝐮𝐏}|𝐮||𝐏|`$, so

$$L|𝐮|W\mathrm{\Omega },|𝐏|W\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(2)
Now suppose that $`\omega `$ is not necessarily passive with respect to $`H`$. We call $`\omega `$ semipassive if the work a cycle can perform is bounded as in Ineq. (2), i.e., if there is a constant $`0`$ such that

$$W\mathrm{\Omega },HW\mathrm{\Omega }W\mathrm{\Omega },|𝐏|W\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(3)
for all $`W𝒰_1()`$ with $`[H,W]`$ and $`[𝐏,W]`$. The constant $``$ will be referred to as an efficiency bound of $`\omega `$. Generalizing also the notion of complete passivity, $`\omega `$ will be called a completely semipassive state if all its finite tensorial powers are semipassive with respect to one fixed efficiency bound $``$.

Evidently, a state is completely semipassive in all inertial frames if it is completely passive in some inertial frame. The following theorem (Thm. 3.3 in ) shows that if conversely, a state is completely semipassive in a given inertial frame, then there exists an inertial frame where it is completely passive.

###### Theorem 2.1

The state $`\omega `$ is completely semipassive with efficiency bound $``$ if and only if there exists a $`𝐮𝐑^s`$ with $`|𝐮|`$ such that with respect to $`H+\mathrm{𝐮𝐏}`$, $`\omega `$ is a ground state or a KMS-state at a finite inverse temperature $`\beta 0`$.

In a relativistic theory, the Hamiltonian of the system moving at velocity $`𝐮<c`$ is not $`H+\mathrm{𝐮𝐏}`$, but $`\gamma (H+\mathrm{𝐮𝐏})`$, where $`\gamma =(1|𝐮|^2/c^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1|𝐮|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Theorem 2.1 still holds without any modification, but the inverse temperature of the system is not the parameter $`\beta `$ found there, but $`\beta /\gamma `$.

## 3 Semipassivity and $`\beta `$-boundedness

Thm. 2.1 describes a most generic example of a nonequilibrium state, and the question is whether bounds on the power of a cyclic process could be of interest in less generic situations than that of a translation invariant state. As far as such investigations are concerned, it is an obstacle of the above definition of semipassivity that the invariance of $`\omega `$ is part of the definition and its motivation. While the problem addressed in Thm. 2.1 is nontrivial only if $`\omega `$ is invariant under all spacetime translations, it would be of interest whether the semipassivity condition can be subdivided into this invariance property plus some additional condition that may be meaningful in other situations as well. Such a condition can be obtained by modifying the following notion, which has first been investigated by Guido and Longo:

###### Definition 3.1

The state $`\omega `$ is called $`\beta `$-bounded with bound 1 if the linear space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a subspace of the domain of $`e^{\beta H}`$ and if the set $`e^{\beta H}_1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consists of vectors with lengths $`1`$ where $`_1:=\{A:A1\}`$.

$`\omega `$ is called completely $`\beta `$-bounded if for each $`n𝐍`$, the state $`\omega ^n`$ on the algebra $`\mathrm{}`$ is $`\beta `$-bounded with bound 1.

The following theorem shows that this notion characterizes thermodynamic equilibrium states at a finite and nonnegative inverse temperature $`\beta `$:

###### Theorem 3.2 (Guido, Longo)

$`\omega `$ is completely $`\beta `$-bounded if and only if it is a ground state or a KMS-state at an inverse temperature $`2\beta `$.

Now modify Def. 3.1 as follows:

###### Definition 3.3

The state $`\omega `$ is called semi-$`\beta `$-bounded if there exists a damping factor $`0`$ such that the linear space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a subspace of the domain of $`e^{\beta (H+|𝐏|)}`$ and the set $`e^{\beta (H+|𝐏|)}_1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consists of vectors with length $`1`$.

It is called completely semi-$`\beta `$-bounded if for each $`n𝐍`$, the state $`\omega ^n`$ on the algebra $`\mathrm{}`$ is semi-$`\beta `$-bounded with respect to one fixed damping factor $`0`$.

One then obtains the following modification of Thm. 3.2 (Thm. 6 in ):

###### Theorem 3.4

A stationary and homogeneous state $`\omega `$ is completely semi-$`\beta `$-bounded with respect to a damping factor $`0`$ if and only if there exists a $`𝐮𝐑^s`$ with $`|𝐮|`$ such that $`\omega `$ is a ground state or a KMS-state at an inverse temperature $`2\beta `$ with respect to $`H+\mathrm{𝐮𝐏}`$.

As $`|𝐏|`$ is a positive operator, the operator $`e^{\beta |𝐏|}`$ is bounded and provides an additional damping term, so $`\beta `$-boundedness implies semi-$`\beta `$-boundedness for all $`0`$, i.e., semi-$`\beta `$-boundedness is the weaker assumption.

## 4 Passivity and vacuum states

If $`\omega `$ is a vacuum state, then the considerations of the Introduction suggest that $`\omega `$ is passive with respect to each Hamiltonian of the form $`\gamma (H+\mathrm{𝐯𝐏})`$, where $`|𝐯|<c=1`$ and $`\gamma =(1𝐯^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$.

In what follows, we assume this and, in addition, that $`\omega `$ is a pure state. It has been shown in  that under these assumptions, the joint spectrum of $`H`$ and $`𝐏`$ is contained in the cone

$$V_+:=\{(\eta ,𝐤)𝐑^{1+s}:\eta 0,\eta ^2𝐤^20\},$$

i.e., the spectrum condition holds.

To further proceed now, we need some basic structures of local quantum fields, which associate von Neumann algebras $`(𝒪)`$ of local observables with all bounded open spacetime regions $`𝒪𝐑^{1+s}`$ in such a way that the following conditions are satisfied:

* Isotony. If $`𝒪`$ and $`P`$ are bounded open regions in $`𝐑^{1+s}`$ such that $`𝒪P`$, then $`(𝒪)(P)`$.
* Locality. If $`𝒪`$ and $`P`$ are spacelike separated bounded open regions in $`𝐑^{1+s}`$ and if $`A(𝒪)`$ and $`B(P)`$, then $`AB=BA`$.
* Spacetime Translation Covariance. The representation $`V`$ of
$`(𝐑^{1+s},+)`$ satisfies

$$V(x)(𝒪)V(x)^{}=(𝒪+x)$$

for all bounded open sets $`𝒪𝐑^{1+s}`$ and for all $`x𝐑^{1+s}`$.
* Spectrum Condition. The joint spectrum of the generators of $`V`$ is contained in the closed forward light cone.
* $``$ is assumed to be the smallest von Neumann algebra that contains all local algebras $`(𝒪)`$ associated with bounded open regions.

The trajectory of a (pointlike) observer who is uniformly accelerated in the 1-direction with acceleration $`a`$ can be translated to the curve

$$\tau \frac{c^2}{a}(\mathrm{sinh}\frac{a\tau }{c},\mathrm{cosh}\frac{a\tau }{c},0,\mathrm{},0),$$

where $`\tau 𝐑`$ denotes the accelerated observer’s eigentime. The wedge $`W_1:=\{x𝐑^{1+s}:x_1>|x_0|\}`$, which is referred to as the Rindler wedge, is the region of all spacetime points the accelerated observer can communicate with using causal signals. Therefore, the elements of the algebra $`(W_1)`$ are precisely those observables the uniformly accelerated observer can measure. The images of $`W_1`$ under Poincaré transformations are referred to as wedges.

We assume that some uniformly accelerated observer exists:

* There is a self-adjoint operator $`K_1`$ generating, within $`W_1`$, the free dynamics of the uniformly accelerating observer, i.e.,

$$e^{i\tau K_1}(𝒪)e^{i\tau K_1}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\frac{a}{c}\tau )𝒪)$$

for all $`\tau 𝐑`$ and all bounded open sets $`𝒪W_1`$. $`K_1`$ strongly commutes with $`P_2,\mathrm{},P_s`$, and $`K_1\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$.

Here, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\frac{a}{c}\tau )`$ denotes the Lorentz boost by $`\frac{a}{c}\tau `$ in the 1-direction. $``$ is not yet assumed to be covariant under a full representation of the Poincaré group, although the assumption that $`K_1`$ strongly commutes with $`P_2,\mathrm{},P_s`$ is already a part of this condition. The following result has been proved in .

###### Proposition 4.1

If the pure state $`\omega `$ satisfies the spectrum condition and if $`\omega `$ exhibits passivity with respect to the dynamics generated by $`K_1`$, then $`\omega `$ is a KMS-state of $`(W_1)`$ with respect to $`K_1`$ at the Unruh temperature

$$T_U=\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi ck}.$$

## 5 Conclusion

The above results show that on the one hand, moving states of matter violate passivity, and for moving homogeneous states the extent to which this is the case can be considered as a kind of a “distance” from thermodynamic equilibrium.

On the other hand, vacuum states are characterized by the property that they are passive in the eyes of every observer whose motion does not enforce violation of passivity due to nonstationary inertial forces.

These two observations may help clarifying the notion of a particle, which is particularly fuzzy in quantum field theories on curved spacetimes (already in the Rindler wedge). Particles should generate some kind of “wind” in the eyes of some observer, so this wind should be the appropriate indicator whether or not they are present. With regard to the Unruh effect, this point of view confirms that the vacuum state is, indeed, a state without any particles, even in the accelerated observer’s eyes.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Stichting FOM, and the results reported here have been partly reported and partly obtained during the Conference on Operator Algebras and Mathematical Physics 2001 at Constanta, where I profited from discussions with D. Guido. They have been worked out at the Korteweg-de Vries Institute of Mathematics, Amsterdam. I would like to thank M. Porrmann for carefully reading the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Dileptons and Photons from Coarse-Grained Microscopic Dynamics and Hydrodynamics Compared to Experimental Data

## I Introduction

The primary rationale for colliding large nuclei at high energy is to produce high-density matter in as large a volume as possible for as long as possible. The energy density of atomic nuclei sets the scale at 0.15 GeV/fm3. The energy density in neutron stars may reach two to ten times that number. The energy density for the phase transition or crossover from hadronic to quark and gluon degrees of freedom is about ten times that number. In terms of temperature, the phase transition or crossover should occur between 150 and 200 MeV in net-baryon-free matter. A first principles theoretical description of the space-time evolution of the produced matter is not yet possible. It is very much more complicated than lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations of the thermodynamic properties. There are only a few well-developed dynamical models of high energy nuclear collisions which provide a space-time description of matter. Chief among these are UrQMD (Ultra relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics)  and relativistic, non-viscous, perfect fluid dynamics, simply referred to as hydrodynamics . UrQMD is restricted to hadronic degrees of freedom, while hydrodynamics can, as here, employ an equation of state which includes both quark-gluon and hadronic phases. Both of these models require input that is not obtainable from experimental data on hadron-hadron collisions and is not yet computable from QCD. In the case of UrQMD one must estimate unmeasured or unmeasurable cross sections, usually involving hadron resonances like the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or the $`\rho `$. There are also difficulties in dealing with hadron-hadron collisions at high density, for instance in the treatment of off-mass-shell effects and simultaneous collisions of more than two particles. In the case of hydrodynamics one does not know the initial conditions very well, and there is some difficulty in determining when the transition from local thermal equilibrium to free-streaming particles occurs. Nevertheless, sufficient work has been done on these problems to achieve good, theoretically acceptable descriptions of the abundances of different types of hadrons and their momentum distributions for heavy ion collisions at the CERN SPS using both approaches .

The distribution of observed hadrons does not readily provide information on the state of matter prior to their last scattering. It was suggested long ago that the emission of direct photons (those not arising from the decay products of unstable hadron resonances after freezeout) and dileptons ($`e^+e^{}`$ and/or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$) would provide information on the temperature and baryon density of the evolving matter. The reason is that these electromagnetic probes generally have mean free paths that are much greater than the spatial dimensions of the system. Calculations of the emission rates have become very sophisticated, and there is now essentially a consensus on their magnitudes. For recent reviews see Peitzmann and Thoma  and Rapp and Wambach . However, in order to use these thermal emission rates one must know the local temperature and baryon chemical potential as functions of space and time. This is straightforward to obtain in hydrodynamics. To obtain this information in a microscopic event generator, such as UrQMD, one must accumulate an ensemble of collision events and then determine the local variables via coarse-graining. We have done this and will report the results in this paper. The system we focus on is central Pb-Pb collisions at a laboratory beam energy of 158 A GeV, equivalent to a center-of-mass energy of 17 A GeV. The reason we focus on this system is that there is a relative wealth of data taken at the CERN SPS for hadrons, photons, and dileptons. This is not the case at the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) at Brookhaven National Laboratory where electromagnetic spectra have not yet been measured and only hadron spectra are available.

In Sec. II we compare the space-time evolution of the nuclear collision obtained from hydrodynamics to that obtained from a coarse-graining of UrQMD. In Sec. III we compare the distributions of negatively charged hadrons and net protons from the coarse-grained UrQMD to experimental data, just to be sure that the coarse-graining has not severely distorted the model predictions. In Secs. IV and V we compare the results of these two dynamical models to experimental data on photons and dileptons, respectively. We summarize our results in Sec. VI.

## II Space-Time Evolution

The initial conditions for the hydrodynamic calculation cannot be framed in terms of two colliding nuclei since the primary particle production is a non-adiabatic process which is not describable by perfect fluid dynamics. Instead the hydrodynamic calculation begins with estimated initial conditions soon after impact which are constrained to reproduce the final observed hadron spectra. The UrQMD does begin with the two nuclei approaching each other; strings are formed and decay, producing particles that subsequently rescatter according to hadron-hadron cross sections determined independently. We do not attempt to coarse-grain the initial stage of the collision when many strings are present. Rather, we begin after most or all of the strings have decayed.

The coarse-graining of 100 UrQMD central Pb-Pb collisions is performed in terms of the following variables: proper time $`\tau =\sqrt{t^2z^2}`$, space-time rapidity $`\eta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[(t+z)/(tz)\right]`$, cylindrical radius $`r`$, and azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. The origin of the time axis is chosen to be the time when the colliding nuclei overlap. A grid of small space-time cells is set up. Using an ensemble of 100 events, the average total momentum, energy, and net baryon number in each cell is easily found. This allows us to determine the velocity of the center-of-momentum, the energy density, and the baryon density for each cell. A table with the equation of state of an ideal hadron gas containing the same hadronic degrees of freedom as UrQMD is then used to determine the equivalent temperature and baryon chemical potential for each cell. This equation of state is very similar to that obtained in UrQMD without strings . (Inclusion of strings violates the principle of detailed balance unless the back reactions, involving the collision of many particles to reform a string, are included and this is not technically possible at present.) This procedure is justified in our case since the coarse-graining is done after most or all strings have already disappeared, as already mentioned. As shown in the next section this procedure does not severely distort the final hadron spectra.

Our hydrodynamical model has been described in detail in Refs. . To keep our dilepton results comparable with the results shown in , we use the same equation of state with a first order phase transition to a quark-gluon plasma at a temperature of $`T_c=200`$ MeV, in net baryon free matter, which is at the high end of the range of expected critical temperatures. The parametrization of the initial state is also the same, namely, IS 1 from Ref. .

The version of hydrodynamics applied here does not assume boost invariance. Therefore a comparison of the space-time evolution with UrQMD has the ambiguity of fixing the zero of time. In the following figures and discussion we have taken $`t=0`$ to be the time at which we initialize hydrodynamics and estimate that this corresponds to 0.5 fm/c after the complete overlap of the two nuclei in UrQMD.

When comparing hydrodynamics to the coarse-grained UrQMD we shall focus for the most part on the central ($`z=0`$) transverse plane. In Fig. 1 we plot the temperature as a function of local time in a small volume centered at the origin. The effect of the phase transition on the equation of state used by hydrodynamics can be seen at a time around 2 fm/c. The equation of state from UrQMD uses hadronic degrees of freedom only; thus high temperature here means a superheated resonance gas. The two curves in Fig. 1 are remarkably similar, although the evolution in UrQMD is somewhat slower in the sense that the matter takes a longer time to cool. Cooling in the transverse plane is displayed as a contour plot in Fig. 2. It shows the contours of constant temperature in a slice of the $`tr`$ plane centered at $`z=0`$. Note that the small wiggles arise from the coarse graining of the UrQMD with a finite number of events. The two models yield curves which are qualitatively similar, but once again it is apparent that the matter described by UrQMD takes longer to cool. The most likely explanation is that the matter evolution described by UrQMD dynamics includes the effects of viscosity and heat conduction which will slow its expansion and cooling.

The baryon chemical potential evolution in a small volume centered at the origin is plotted in Fig. 3. Due to the finite number of events in UrQMD the maximum value of the chemical potential does not occur precisely at the origin. Thus the discrepancy between UrQMD and hydrodynamics in the first few fm/c is more apparent than real. After 5 fm/c the evolution is evidently quite similar in the two models.

Contours of the radial flow velocity in the central plane are displayed in Fig. 4. Apart from fluctuations in the UrQMD results arising from using a finite number of events in the coarse-graining, the contours are almost identical. A more striking difference is seen in the initial***The reader is advised to keep in mind the ambiguity in fixing the $`t`$-axis as explained before. The UrQMD velocity profile is for $`\tau =0.5`$ fm/c, whereas the hydrodynamic profile is for $`\sqrt{(t+0.5)^2z^2}=0.5`$ fm/c, where time $`t`$ is measured from the beginning of the hydrodynamical evolution. velocity distribution along the beam (or $`z`$) axis, displayed in Fig. 5. Whereas in UrQMD this velocity distribution is essentially an outcome of the string dynamics, in hydrodynamics it is an assumed input. The UrQMD velocity profile closely resembles a boost-invariant velocity profile $`v=z/\sqrt{\tau ^2+z^2}`$ with time $`\tau =0.35`$ fm/c except in the region close to the origin, $`|z|<0.4`$ fm, where the flow velocity is less than in the boost invariant case. Conversely the hydrodynamic profile is close to the boost invariant one for $`\tau =1.0`$ fm/c in the region $`|z|<1.0`$ fm, whereas at large $`z`$ the velocity is smaller than that of a boost-invariant profile. Thus the deviations from boost invariant flow are qualitatively different and the differences in velocity profiles cannot be due to the ambiguity in defining the initial time. It should also be remembered that even if the longitudinal velocity profiles in both models resemble boost invariant flow, the matter distributions do not since they peak at $`z=0`$.

We have seen that the two models show a remarkable similarity in the temperature, baryon chemical potential, and transverse flow results near the origin and in the central transverse plane. This is most likely due to the (approximate) boost invariance, an essential feature in high energy collisions. In UrQMD it is a consequence, in some sense, of string dynamics. In hydrodynamics it is a combination of relativity and the assumed initial conditions. The small differences are most likely attributable to the fact that the microscopic model includes in an essential way the physical effects of shear and bulk viscosity and heat conduction. The similarities are not so striking in the longitudinal direction, which is probably a consequence of the way that finite energy effects are actually implemented in the two dynamical models (exact boost invariance occurs only at infinite beam energy). Nevertheless the similarities are great enough that one may conclude that the UrQMD results in something akin to local thermal equilibrium, at least insofar as we have probed it with the coarse-graining procedure. It would be very interesting and worthwhile to carry out fluid dynamic calculations with the initial conditions obtained from UrQMD, both with and without viscosity and heat conduction included. Such studies are the subject of another paper.

## III Hadron Spectra

The initial conditions of hydrodynamics are chosen so that experimental hadronic spectra for Pb-Pb collisions at 158 A GeV are relatively well reproduced . The results of UrQMD also reproduce the experimental hadronic spectra quite well, apart from hyperons containing two or three strange quarks which may signal interesting physics not contained in the model .

To investigate whether the coarse-graining distorts the hadronic spectra we have calculated the hadronic spectra from the coarse-grained UrQMD temperature, chemical potential, and flow velocity fields in the same way as in hydrodynamicsThe hadronic equation of state used in the hydrodynamic calculations is essentially identical to the equation of state obtained from running UrQMD without strings in a large box.. When coarse-graining is done on a microscopic model like UrQMD one faces exactly the same issue as in hydrodynamics: when to stop and compute the hadronic spectra. We have generally taken a range of freeze-out temperatures, namely 140, 120, and 100 MeV, and results will be displayed for these cases. For comparison the default temperature at which the hydrodynamic evolution ceases and free-streaming begins was chosen to be 140 MeV, a value determined in earlier studies .

In Fig. 6 we show the rapidity distribution of negatively charged hadrons compared to data taken by the NA49 collaboration . In this and the subsequent figures the top panel shows the UrQMD results which can be compared with the hydrodynamic result in the bottom panel. A freeze-out temperature between 120 and 100 MeV in UrQMD yields the best comparison to the data. The hydrodynamic description fits the data quite nicely since the initial conditions were tuned to this end. The transverse mass distributions at laboratory rapidities of 3.4, 3.9 and 4.4 are shown in Fig. 7. The UrQMD results are acceptable for essentially any freezeout temperature in the range displayed; the hydrodynamic results in the lower panel also agree with the data.

The net proton (proton minus anti-proton) spectra are displayed in Fig. 8. The sensitivity of the UrQMD results to the freeze-out temperature is greater here than it is for the negative hadron spectra. This is understandable since in chemical equilibrium, with a nonzero baryon chemical potential, the ratio of anti-protons to protons is exponentially sensitive to the temperature, behaving approximately as $`\mathrm{exp}(2\mu _B/T)`$. This, together with the increased transverse flow velocity as the system evolves to lower temperatures, qualitatively explains the results of Fig. 8. Although a freeze-out temperature of around 140 to 120 MeV might seem to be favored, these results cannot be used to pin down the freeze-out conditions. The reason is that the anti-protons are very sensitive to annihilation processes and to non-equilibrium dynamics in the relatively dilute stage at the end of the collision. Still, considering the extreme assumption of local thermal and chemical equilibrium used to obtain these results, the outcome is reasonable. The hydrodynamic results (lower panel) are quite similar to the UrQMD results when the same freeze-out temperature, 140 MeV, is employed.

Overall we may conclude that the coarse-graining has not severely distorted the original UrQMD results which represent the experimental data well.

## IV Photon Spectra

The emission of direct photons from nuclear collisions has long been considered a good probe of the temperatures and energy densities achieved. The reason is that the emission rate for photons of energy $`E`$ is proportional to the Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{exp}(E/T)`$, making photons quite sensitive to the temperature. On the other hand, the absolute number is obtained by integrating over space and time, so large volumes and long lifetimes can compensate for low temperatures. In addition, the rate quoted is in the local rest frame of the hot matter. If this matter is flowing, the photons can be red shifted to lower energy or blue shifted to higher energy. The transverse momentum spectra of photons involves convoluting all of these effects.

To see whether there is a signal of thermal photon emission is very difficult experimentally. Model calculations have shown that thermal emission is expected to be overwhelmed by the decays of hadrons, most notably $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$. A lengthy and careful analysis of Pb-Pb collisions at 158 A GeV by the WA98 collaboration  has produced the photon spectrum shown in Fig. 9. All known hadronic decays into photons have been subtracted. This spectrum is then identified with direct photons only. The curve in the figure is the next-to-leading order pQCD (perturbative QCD) result of photon production from the primary interactions of incoming partons  as shown in . In this calculation an intrinsic parton momentum of $`k_T^2=0.9`$ GeV2 necessary to describe proton-induced reactions at a similar energy is assumedIt is shown in  that if an additional nuclear broadening $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_T^20.5`$ – 1 GeV2 is added by hand, the WA98 photon spectrum can be explained above $`p_t=2.5`$ GeV. However, prompt photons fail to reproduce the data at low $`p_t<2.5`$ GeV regardless of the amount of broadening employed.. Since the photons from primary interactions cannot explain the measured photon yield, the yield must be associated with the secondary interactions of the produced particles. In the following we use the pQCD results shown in Fig. 9. It must be kept in mind that the true pQCD photons could be less than this by a factor of two .

The comparison between thermal photon emission from hydrodynamic calculations and the WA98 data has been done several times ; for a review see Ref. , for a study of the sensitivity to the initial conditions and the equation of state see Ref. . In our calculations we have applied the rate calculations of Refs.  in the hadronic phase and the recent complete order-$`\alpha _s`$ calculation of Ref.  in the quark-gluon plasma phase. The results from the hydrodynamic calculation are shown in the lower panel of Fig. 10. Here the pQCD result of Fig. 9 is added to the thermal contribution. The agreement can only be described as excellent. Further, the results show almost no dependence on the freeze-out temperature. As shown in Ref.  the reason is that the contribution from the early hot stages of the evolution dominate.

The analogous comparison using the space-time evolution of coarse-grained UrQMD is shown in the upper part of Fig. 10. Again there is hardly any dependence on the freeze-out temperature because the emission from the early hot stage dominates. The photon emission has also been calculated using UrQMD on a microscopic level . A precise comparison with our results cannot be made since the photon production processes are not exactly the same in both cases, nevertheless the yields are quite similar. Even so we caution the reader regarding difficult points in our approach. Firstly, we began the calculation of the thermal photon emission from UrQMD at a proper time of 1 fm/c after complete overlap. There is uncertainty within UrQMD as to how to compute at earlier times when the strings are still fragmenting into hadrons, or viewed differently, how to compute photon emission before the hadrons materialize and are allowed to interact strongly (pre-formation time). This is very subtle, and involves the transition from pQCD reactions to those hadronic interactions included in UrQMD. Secondly, as seen in Fig. 1, the initial temperatures can exceed 200 MeV, but the parametrization of the thermal production rates  we employ were fit only in the range $`100<T<200`$. Finally, the pQCD results employed here may overestimate the direct photons. These remarks serve to emphasize the sensitivity of the photon yield to the early high energy density stages of the collision.

## V Dilepton Spectra

The dilepton spectrum measured in Pb-Au collisions is shown in Fig. 11. Instead of the data shown by the CERES collaboration  we use the preliminary ’95 and ’96 data for the most central collisions from the theses of Voigt  and Lenkeit , respectively. These collisions have the highest energy density which should enhance the interesting physics; this is indeed found to be the case experimentally . It is also necessary to focus on central collisions since our hydrodynamical model assumes cylindrical symmetry and it is tuned to reproduce hadronic data from the most central collisions .

This data has generated much excitement since it displays two very interesting features. The first is qualitative: there is no hint of a peak in the $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mass region. The second is quantitative: there is a large excess of pairs in the mass range $`0.25<M<0.7`$ GeV when compared to expectations based on the decays of hadrons after freezeout, called the “cocktail” or “background” contribution, and represented by the curve in Fig. 11. We use the background estimate from Ref.  in all of our calculations here.

The thermal emission rate of dileptons can be computed using many-body theory and the vector meson dominance model for temperatures where the matter can be described in terms of hadronic degrees of freedom. The most complete calculation using medium-unmodified hadrons was done by Gale and Lichard  and is shown by the solid line in Fig. 12. The two most sophisticated calculations using medium-modified hadrons are shown in the same figure. The calculations performed by Rapp et al.  are based on solving one loop self-energy diagrams self-consistently for the $`\rho `$-$`\pi `$-$`N`$ complex with interactions determined by low energy physics. The calculations by Eletsky et al.  are based on scattering amplitudes for the same complex constructed from experimental data, namely, resonances at low energy and Regge amplitudes at high energy. Although the latter two calculations are technically quite different, they aim at the same physics, and the thermal emission rates indicated by the dashed and dotted curves in Fig. 12 are also very similar. This is reassuring; it is very important to understand these rates quantitatively in order to draw conclusions from experiments performed by the CERES collaboration and other groups. Both of the medium-modified calculations exhibit the behavior indicated by the CERES data: suppression of the $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ peak and enhancement at invariant masses below 650 MeV. The reason is that the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons become greatly broadened at high energy density, with their strength distributed mostly to lower masses. In the following we use the rates from Eletsky et al., although the rates of Rapp et al. would yield essentially the same conclusions.

As with photons, the thermal dilepton radiation from hydrodynamics has been compared to the CERES data several times . Fig. 13 shows our results, which are computed for Pb-Pb collisions with a freeze-out temperature of 140 MeV. Compared to experiment the medium-unmodified thermal rate (dashed curve) predicts somewhat fewer dileptons in the mass range from 0.3–0.6 GeV, as in Ref. . Some improvement is gained by using the medium-modified rate (solid curve).

Using only the medium-modified rate, and lowering the freeze-out temperature to 120 or 100 MeV helps fill in the intermediate mass region a little, but not quite enough, as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 14. Going to a lower freeze-out temperature may seem to be undesirable since it tends to enhance the $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mass region and since it is inconsistent with the value determined from the hadronic spectra. On the other hand, there can still be contributions to dilepton production in the free-streaming hadronic stage. As shown in Ref. , if dileptons from those few collisions in the free-streaming stage are added to those coming from the pre-freeze-out stage, the full result is insensitive to the numerical value of the freeze-out temperature. Since we do not attempt to add the free-streaming contribution here, it is perhaps natural to use a somewhat lower freeze-out temperature for the dileptons than for the hadrons.

The upper panel of Fig. 14 shows the results obtained with the coarse-grained UrQMD. They are almost identical to the hydrodynamical results. The slower cooling exhibited by UrQMD might lead one to expect larger dilepton yield, but the difference in cooling rate is too small for any significant difference to build up. However, this effect can be seen when different freeze-out temperatures are compared. UrQMD cools more slowly, especially during the later stages of evolution, and therefore decreasing the freeze-out temperature increases the lepton yield more in the UrQMD than in the hydrodynamical model. It is also worth noticing that for the momenta discussed here the dilepton yields, unlike the photon yields, are not dominated by the initial hot stage of the evolution. In fact, dilepton emission from the hot $`T>200`$ MeV region is a minor correction  to the emission from cooler regions.

In order to put these results in perspective we have also binned the calculated dilepton yields in the same way as the experimental data. The results are shown in Fig. 15 and compared to just the ’96 data . Both the UrQMD and the hydrodynamic results are within one standard deviation of the data when $`T_f=100`$ MeV. The agreement is only slightly worse when $`T_f=140`$ MeV. From this viewpoint it would seem premature to decide that there is a discrepancy with theory in the 0.3–0.6 GeV mass range until additional data are available.

There are other calculations of thermal dileptons , but, with the exception of Ref. , these calculations were not compared to the most central Au+Pb data. They used data averaged over a larger range of impact parameter, corresponding to $`dN/d\eta =250`$, whereas we compare to data with $`dN/d\eta =350`$. As mentioned before, the many-body effects increase with increasing centrality to a significant degree, particularly in the 0.3–0.6 GeV mass range. Further the results obtained by Rapp et al.  were obtained with a less sophisticated approach than employed here. They used a very simple parametrizations of the space-time evolution of the temperature and flow velocity, essentially spherical fireballs or cylindrical firetubes. They did not compare with the hadronic data, which we view as an important consistency check.

To see if the difference in initial longitudinal velocity profile between UrQMD and hydrodynamics (Fig. 5) leaves any observable signal we calculate the rapidity distributions of dileptons without any acceptance cuts, and display the results in Fig. 16. The difference in evolution leaves hardly any trace. Changing the freeze-out temperature has a larger effect. The small plateau in the distribution from hydrodynamics when $`T_f=140`$ MeV has its origin in the first order phase transition and the mixed phase. However, the subsequent evolution smooths this structure away as can be seen in the distribution with $`T_f=100`$ MeV.

The different times of emission of photons and dileptons are manifested by comparison of the dilepton transverse momentum distribution (Fig. 17) and the photon distribution (Fig. 10). As we have remarked, the photon yields are dominated by the early hot stages of the evolution and show little dependence on freeze-out temperature. On the other hand, the dilepton yields in Fig. 17 clearly increase when the freeze-out temperature is lowered. The increase is more clearly seen in the transverse momentum distribution than in the mass distribution since the background is omitted in this figure.

## VI Conclusion

The expansion of matter described by hydrodynamics is rather similar to the expansion described by (coarse-grained) UrQMD. The transverse flow velocities in the central plane are nearly identical, but the temperature generally falls more slowly in UrQMD than in hydrodynamics. This is probably a consequence of the viscous nature of matter that is not accounted for in perfect fluid dynamics. The biggest difference between the two models occurs for the longitudinal flow velocity; its gradient along the beam axis is larger in UrQMD than in hydrodynamics. Since the initial conditions, so to speak, in UrQMD are a direct consequence of string dynamics there is no freedom to adjust them. It would be very interesting to modify the initial conditions in hydrodynamics to match those of UrQMD. It would also be very interesting to include viscosity and heat conduction in the fluid dynamical calculations to determine exactly how close the coarse-grained UrQMD results are to viscous flow.

Taking the coarse-grained UrQMD flow, temperature, and chemical potential fields as given, we computed the hadronic spectra in exactly the same way as in hydrodynamics. A freeze-out temperature of about 120$`\pm `$10 MeV reproduces the experimental hadronic data of NA49 reasonably well. This should not be considered a substitute for the original hadronic spectra from UrQMD, but only serves to check that the coarse-graining procedure has not severely distorted the results. Both hydrodynamics and UrQMD suggest that the matter created has a local temperature between 120 and 250 MeV for a period of about 15 fm/c with a transverse extent of about 10 fm.

The direct photon spectrum of WA98 is very well reproduced by a combination of perturbative QCD for the first hard scattering plus thermal radiation from either a hydrodynamic or an UrQMD expansion. It must be kept in mind that the pQCD calculation of direct photons is uncertain. In any case the high transverse momentum photons are sensitive to the early high-energy-density stage of the collision.

Both hydrodynamics and coarse-grained UrQMD give very similar numbers of low mass dileptons. The thermal emission rates seem to be rather robust since the different computations by Rapp et al.  and Eletsky et al.  give such similar results, although some uncertainty remains in the background “cocktail” contribution. These calculations tend to fall slightly below the data for the most central collisions in the invariant mass range 0.3–0.6 GeV, but the effect is less evident if the results are binned to conform to the experimental analysis. We suggest that further data are needed in order to decide whether a significant discrepancy with theory exists.

There is no doubt that the direct photon and low mass dilepton measurements require the formation of high density matter. Further data from central collisions at the SPS would be very useful and welcome. We also await the first results from RHIC on electromagnetic probes.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-87ER40328.


text:
# Long Baseline Interferometric Observations of Cepheids.

## 1 Introduction

The class of pulsating stars known as Cepheids is a cornerstone in determining the distances to nearby galaxies. This is because Cepheids exhibit a well-behaved period-luminosity relation which can be locally calibrated (Jacoby et al., 1992). In addition, these stars are massive and thus intrinsically very luminous, making it possible to observe Cepheids located in very distant galaxies (Tanvir, 1999; Feast, 1999). Because of the usefulness and fundamental importance of Cepheids, it is important to calibrate their period-luminosity relation. This has been done using a variety of methods, including parallax (ESA, 1997; Feast & Catchpole, 1997), Baade-Wesselink methods (Wesselink, 1946; Bersier et al., 1997) and surface brightness (Laney & Stobie, 1995; Fouque & Gieren, 1997; Ripepi et al., 1997). The period-luminosity relations used currently have uncertainties on the order of 0.09 mag (Feast, 1999), which in turn make up a significant portion of the systematic uncertainty in estimates to the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Using long-baseline stellar interferometry it is possible to resolve the diameter changes undergone by a nearby Cepheid during a pulsational cycle. When such diameter measurements are combined with radial velocity measurements of the stellar photosphere, it is possible to determine the size of and distance to the Cepheid. Such a direct measurement is independent of photometric observations and their associated uncertainties.

The Palomar Testbed Interferometer (PTI) is located on Palomar Mountain near San Diego, CA (Colavita et al., 1999). It combines starlight from two 40-cm apertures to measure the amplitude (a.k.a. visibility) of the resulting interference fringes. There are two available baselines, one 110-m baseline oriented roughly North-South (hereafter N-S), and one 85-m baseline oriented roughly North-Southwest (called N-W). In a previous paper (Lane et al., 2000) we presented observations using PTI of the Cepheid $`\zeta `$ Gem. Here we report on additional interferometric observations of $`\zeta `$ Gem, as well as a second Galactic Cepheid, $`\eta `$ Aql. These observations allow us to determine the distances to these Cepheids with the aim of reducing the uncertainty in currently used period-luminosity relations for Cepheids.

## 2 Observations

We observed the nearby galactic cepheids $`\eta `$ Aql and $`\zeta `$ Gem on 22 nights between 2001 March 13 and 2001 July 26. The observing procedure followed standard PTI practice (Boden et al., 1998; Colavita et al., 1999). For the observations of $`\eta `$ Aql the N-W baseline was used, while observations of $`\zeta `$ Gem used the N-S baseline. Each nightly observation consisted of approximately ten 130-second integrations during which the fringe visibility was averaged. The measurements were done in the $`1.521.74\mu `$m (effective central wavelength $`1.65\mu `$m) wavelength region, similar to the astronomical $`H`$ band. Observations of calibration sources were rapidly (within less than $`10`$ minutes) interleaved with the Cepheid observations, and after each 130-second integration the apertures were pointed to dark sky and a 30-second measurement of the background light level was made.

The calibrators were selected to be located no more than 16 degrees from the primary target on the sky and to have similar $`H`$-band magnitudes. In choosing calibration sources we avoided known binary or highly variable stars. The calibrators used are listed in Table 2. In this paper we make use of previously published observations of the Cepheid $`\zeta `$ Gem (Lane et al., 2000). However, in order to improve on the previously published results we carried out additional observations of this source on 2001 March 13–15. We also observed additional unresolved calibrators in order to reduce the level of systematic uncertainty. The original data have been jointly re-reduced using the improved calibrator diameters and uncertainties. However, note that the primary calibrator diameter has not changed from the value used in Lane et al. (2000).

## 3 Analysis & Results

### 3.1 Fringe Visibilities & Limb Darkening

PTI uses either a 10 or 20 ms sample rate. Each such sample provides a measure of the instantaneous fringe visibility and phase. While the phase value is converted to distance and fed back to the active delay line to provide active fringe tracking, the measured fringe visibility is averaged over the entire 130-second integration. The statistical uncertainty in each measurement is estimated by breaking the 130 second integration into five equal-time segments and measuring the standard deviation about the mean value.

The theoretical relation between source brightness distribution and fringe visibility is given by the van Cittert-Zernike theorem. For a uniform intensity disk model the normalized fringe visibility (squared) can be related to the apparent angular diameter as

$$V^2=\left(\frac{2J_1(\pi B\theta _{UD}/\lambda _0)}{\pi B\theta _{UD}/\lambda _0}\right)^2$$
(1)
where $`J_1`$ is the first-order Bessel function, $`B`$ is the projected aperture separation, $`\theta _{UD}`$ is the apparent angular diameter of the star in the uniform-disk model, and $`\lambda _0`$ is the center-band wavelength of the observation. It follows that the fringe visibility of a point source measured by an ideal interferometer should be unity. For a more realistic model that includes limb darkening one can derive a conversion factor between a uniform-disk diameter ($`\theta _{UD}`$) and a limb-darkened disk diameter ($`\theta _{LD}`$) given by (Welch, 1994)

$$\theta _{UD}=\theta _{LD}\sqrt{1\frac{A}{3}\frac{B}{6}}$$
(2)
where A and B are quadratic limb darkening coefficients, determined by the spectral type of the source (Claret et al., 1995). The limb darkening correction factors ($`k=\theta _{UD}/\theta _{LD}`$) used for the Cepheids are shown in Table 1 and for the calibrators in Table 2.

### 3.2 Visibility Calibration

The first step in calibrating visibilities measured by PTI is to correct for the effects of detector background and read-noise, the details of which are discussed in Colavita et al. (1999) and Colavita (1999). However, the visibilities thus produced are not yet final: due to a variety of effects, including systematic instrumental effects, intensity mismatches, and atmospheric turbulence, the fringe visibility of a source measured by PTI is lower than that predicted by Eq. 1. In practice the system response function (called the system visibility) is typically $`0.75`$ and furthermore is variable on 30 minute timescales. Hence the visibilities must be calibrated by observing sources of known diameter.

Determining the diameter of the calibration sources was a multi-step process in which we made use of both models and prior observations. For each Cepheid we designated a single, bright K giant as a primary calibrator, which was always observed in close conjunction with the target Cepheid (HD 189695 for $`\eta `$ Aql, and HD 49968 for $`\zeta `$ Gem). We used model diameter estimates for the primary calibrators from previously published results based on spectro-photometry and modeling (Cohen et al., 1999).

In order to verify that the primary calibrators were stable and had angular diameters consistent with the Cohen et al. (1999) results, we observed them together with a number of secondary calibrators. These secondary calibrators were typically less resolved than the primary calibrators and hence less sensitive to uncertainties in their expected angular diameter. However, they were fainter than the primary calibrators, and tended to be located further away on the sky. For the secondary calibrators an apparent diameter was estimated using three methods: (1) we used available archival photometry to fit a black-body model by adjusting the apparent angular diameter, bolometric flux and effective temperature of the star in question so as to fit the photometry. (2) We repeated the above fit while constraining the effective temperature to the value expected based on the published spectral type. (3) We estimated the angular diameter of the star based on expected physical size (derived from spectral type) and distance (determined by Hipparcos). We adopted the weighted (by the uncertainty in each determination) mean of the results from the above methods as the final model diameter for the secondary calibrators, and the uncertainty in the model diameter was taken to be the deviation about the mean.

In addition to the model-based diameter estimates derived above we also used extensive interferometric visibility measurements for the primary and secondary calibrators; given that several of the calibrators were observed within a short enough period of time that the system visibility could be treated as constant, it was possible to find a set of assumed calibrator diameters that are maximally self-consistent, by comparing observed diameter ratios for which the system visibility drops out. To illustrate, let $`\theta _i`$ be an adjustable parameter, representing the diameter of star $`i`$. Let $`\widehat{\theta }_i`$ and $`\sigma _{\widehat{\theta _i}}`$ be the theoretical model diameter and uncertainty for star $`i`$ derived above, and let $`\stackrel{~}{R_{ij}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{R_{ij}}}`$ be the interferometrically observed diameter ratio and uncertainty of stars $`i`$ and $`j`$. For notational simplicity, define $`R_{ij}`$ as the ratio of $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _j`$. Define the quantity

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i}{}\left[\frac{\widehat{\theta }_i\theta _i}{\sigma _{\widehat{\theta _i}}}\right]^2+\underset{i}{}\underset{j<i}{}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{R_{ij}}R_{ij}}{\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{R_{ij}}}}\right]^2$$
(3)
By adjusting the set of $`\theta _i`$ to minimize $`\chi ^2`$ we produce a set of consistent calibrator diameters, taking into account both input model knowledge and observations. The resulting diameter values are listed in Table 2. Uncertainties were estimated using the procedure outlined in Press et al. (1986) assuming normally distributed errors.

We verified that the primary calibrators were stable as follows: using the secondary calibrators to calibrate all observations of the primary calibrators we fit a constant-diameter, single-star, uniform-disk model to the primary calibrators. In all cases the scatter about the single-star model was similar to expected system performance (Boden et al., 1998): for HD 189695, 21 points were fit, the average deviation in $`V^2`$ was 0.035 and the goodness-of-fit parameter of the line fit, $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom ($`\chi _{dof}^2`$, not to be confused with Eq. 3 above), in the line fit was 0.46. For HD 49968, 82 points were fit, the average deviation was 0.038 and $`\chi _{dof}^2`$ = 0.76.

While analyzing the data it was noticed that during observations with the N–W baseline of relatively low declination sources, such as $`\eta `$ Aql and its calibrators, the stability of the interferometer system visibility was strongly dependent on the hour angle of the source: for observations of $`\eta `$ Aql obtained at positive hour angles the scatter in the system visibility increased by a factor of 2–3, while the mean value trended down by 20%/hr. There are two potential explanations for this effect: (1) for these observations the optical delay lines are close to their maximum range, which can exacerbate internal system misalignments and lead to vignetting. (2) When observing low declination sources past transit, the siderostat orientation is such that surface damage near the edge of one of the siderostat mirrors causes vignetting. Thus it was decided to discard observations of $`\eta `$ Aql taken at positive hour angles, corresponding to $`20`$% of the available data. We note that including the data does not significantly change the final results ($`0.3\sigma `$), it merely increases the scatter substantially (for the pulsation fit discussed below the goodness-of-fit parameter $`\chi _{dof}^2`$ increased from 1.06 to 4.5).

### 3.3  Apparent Angular Diameter

Once the measured visibilities were calibrated we used all the available calibrated data from a given night to determine the apparent uniform-disk angular diameter of the target Cepheid on that particular night by fitting to a model given by Eq. 1. Results are given in Tables 3 and 4 and plotted in Fig. 1. Uncertainties were estimated based on the scatter about the best fit. It should be noted that although $`\eta `$ Aql is known to have a companion (Bohm-Vitense & Proffitt, 1985) it is sufficiently faint (average $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H=5.75`$ mag) that it will have a negligible effect ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V^20.005`$) on the fringe visibilities measured in the H band.

It is clear from Fig. 1 that the measured angular diameters are not constant with time. Fitting a constant-diameter model to the data produces a rather poor fit (see Table 5). However, we list the resulting mean angular diameters in order to facilitate comparison with previous interferometric results.

### 3.4 Distances & Radii

Determining the distance and radius of a Cepheid via the Baade-Wesselink method requires comparing the measured changes in angular diameter to the expansion of the Cepheid photosphere measured using radial velocity techniques. In order to determine the expansion of the Cepheid photospheres we fit a fifth-order Fourier series to previously published radial velocities. For $`\eta `$ Aql we used data from Bersier (2002) as well as data published by Jacobsen & Wallerstein (1981, 1987), while for $`\zeta `$ Gem we used data from Bersier et al. (1994). Both sets of data were from measurements made at optical wavelengths. The measured radial velocities were converted to physical expansion rates using a projection factor (p-factor), which depends on the detailed atmospheric structure and limb darkening of the Cepheid as well as on the details of the equipment and software used in the measurement (Hindsley & Bell, 1986; Albrow & Cottrell, 1994). It is important to note that the p-factor is not expected to stay constant during a pulsational cycle. The exact phase dependence of the p-factor is beyond the scope of this paper. However, for $`\eta `$ Aql and $`\zeta `$ Gem, the net effect of a variable p-factor can be approximated by using a 6% larger constant p-factor (Sabbey et al., 1995). Thus for both Cepheids we use an effective p-factor of $`1.43\pm 0.06`$, constant for all pulsational phases.

We convert the radial velocity Fourier series into a physical size change by integrating and multiplying by limb-darkening and p-factors. Although the limb-darkening does vary with changing $`\mathrm{T}_{eff}`$ during a pulsational cycle, the effect is small: for $`\zeta `$ Gem $`k`$ varies from 0.960 to 0.967, i.e. less than the quoted uncertainty. The size change can in turn be converted into an angular size model with three free parameters: the mean physical radius, the distance to the star, and a phase shift. The latter is to account for possible period changes, inaccuracies in period or epoch, or phase lags due to level effects (where the optical and infrared photospheres are at different atmospheric depths; see below). We adjust the model phase, radius and distance to fit the observed angular diameters. Results of the fits for $`\eta `$ Aql and $`\zeta `$ Gem are given in Table 5.

There are several sources of uncertainty in the above fits: in addition to the purely statistical uncertainty there are systematic uncertainties of comparable magnitude. The three primary sources of systematic uncertainty are: uncertainty in the calibrator diameters, uncertainty in the p-factor, and uncertainty in the limb darkening coefficients. The magnitude of each effect was estimated separately by re-fitting the model while varying by $`\pm 1\sigma `$ each relevant parameter separately. The total systematic uncertainty was calculated as

$$\sigma _{sys}^2=\sigma _{cal}^2+\sigma _{pfac}^2+\sigma _{limbdark.}^2$$
(4)
In order to explore the possibility of wavelength-dependent effects on the measured radial velocity, e.g. due to velocity gradients in the Cepheid atmospheres (“level effects”), we re-fit for the radius and distance of $`\eta `$ Aql using a radial velocity curve based on radial velocity data obtained at wavelengths of $`1.1`$ and $`1.6\mu `$m by Sasselov & Lester (1990). Because of the limited number of observations available (e.g only 3 $`H`$-band measurements of $`\eta `$ Aql) we used the shape of the radial velocity curve derived from the fit to the optical data (i.e. by using the same Fourier coefficients); the IR data was only used to determine an overall amplitude of the velocity curve. For the IR points we used an effective p-factor of $`1.41\pm 0.03`$ as recommended by D. Sasselov (private communication) and based on an analysis by Sabbey et al. (1995), taking into account both the use of a constant p-factor and the use of parabolic line fitting. The resulting best-fit parameters are very similar to those based on optical radial velocities (i.e. Table 5): $`\mathrm{D}=333\pm 30`$ pc and $`\mathrm{R}=64.2\pm 6\mathrm{R}_{}`$. A similar fit for $`\zeta `$ Gem gives $`\mathrm{D}=359\pm 37`$ pc and $`\mathrm{R}=62.2\pm 5.7\mathrm{R}_{}`$. Hence we conclude that the effects of wavelength dependence of the radial velocity are at present smaller than other sources of uncertainty.

The derived parameters (mean radius, distance and mean uniform-disk angular diameter) can be compared to previously published values, derived using a range of techniques (see Table 6), including parallax and a variety of surface brightness techniques. There are also several interferometric diameter measurements available in the literature, although to date no other interferometers have directly resolved Cepheid pulsations. Thus, directly measured angular diameters can only be compared in a phase-averaged sense.

### 3.5 Surface Brightness Relations

A wide variety of Cepheid surface brightness relations have been used by various authors (Barnes & Evans, 1976; Laney & Stobie, 1995; Fouque & Gieren, 1997) to derive Cepheid distance scales. We define as surface brightness the quantity

$$F_i=4.22070.1m_i0.5\mathrm{log}(\theta _{LD})$$
(5)
where $`F_i`$ is the surface brightness in magnitudes in passband $`i`$, $`m_i`$ is the apparent magnitude in that band, and $`\theta _{LD}`$ is the apparent angular diameter of the star. With the above relation and a good estimate of $`F_i`$ one can determine the angular diameter based on photometry alone. Conversely, given measured angular diameters and multi-band photometry it is possible to calibrate $`F_i`$ by finding a simple (e.g. linear) relation between $`F_i`$ and a variety of color indices (e.g $`VK`$). We define the following relations

$$F_{V,1}=a+b(VK)$$
(6)
$$F_{V,2}=a+c(VR)$$
(7)
Note that consistency requires a common zero-point (cf. an A0V star where $`(VR)=(VK)=0`$).

We used previously published $`VRK`$ photometry of $`\eta `$ Aql (Barnes et al., 1997) to derive its apparent magnitude in the above bands as a function of phase by fitting a low-order Fourier series to the published photometry, after first correcting for the effects of reddening following the procedure outlined in Evans & Jiang (1993). The individual values of $`E(BV)`$ were taken from Fernie (1990), and the reddening corrections applied are listed in Table 7. For each diameter measurement we then used the Fourier series to derive $`m_V`$ and $`VK`$ at the epoch of observation, and using Eq. 5 we derived the corresponding surface brightness. Results are shown in Figure 2 and listed in Table 8. We also performed this type of fit using $`\zeta `$ Gem data. In this case we used photometry from Wisniewski & Johnson (1968) and Moffett & Barnes (1984).

In Table 8 we compare the derived surface brightness relations to similar relations from work based on non-variable supergiants (Fouque & Gieren, 1997) and other Cepheid observations (Nordgren et al., 2001). The $`F_V`$ vs. $`VR`$ fits can also be compared with the Gieren (1988) result that the slope of the $`VR`$ surface brightness relation (c) is weakly dependent on pulsational period ($`P`$) according to

$$c=0.3590.020\mathrm{log}P$$
(8)
which for $`\eta `$ Aql predicts $`c=0.376`$ and for $`\zeta `$ Gem $`c=0.379`$. These comparisons reveal generally good agreement between the various relations in Table 8.

### 3.6 Period-Radius Relations

The relation between pulsational period and Cepheid radius has received considerable attention in the literature, primarily because early results based on different techniques were discrepant (Fernie, 1984; Moffett & Barnes, 1987). Period-radius relations are also useful in that they can indicate pulsation mode. This is important for calibrating period-luminosity relations since different modes will yield different relations (Feast & Catchpole, 1997; Nordgren et al., 2001).

In Fig. 3 we compare our measured Cepheid diameters to the values predicted from a range of techniques: Bono, Caputo, & Marconi (1998) calculate a period-radius relation from full-amplitude, nonlinear, convective models for a range of metallicities and stellar masses. Gieren, Moffett, & Barnes (1999) use the surface brightness technique based on $`V`$ and $`VR`$ photometry and the Fouque & Gieren (1997) result to derive radii for 116 Cepheids in the Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds. They find an intrinsic width in their relation of $`\pm 0.03`$ in log R. Laney & Stobie (1995) also use the surface brightness technique for estimating Cepheid diameters. However, they find that infrared photometry ($`K,JK`$) is less sensitive to the effects of gravity and microturbulence (and presumably also reddening), and hence yields more accurate results. For shorter periods ($`11.8`$ days) their results indicate smaller diameters as compared to other relations.

Given the limited sample of only two radius measurements we can draw only preliminary conclusions: (1) the general agreement between our observations and the relations is good, and (2) the data seem to prefer a shallower slope than e.g. the Laney & Stobie (1995) relation. This latter observation will have to be confirmed with observations of shorter-period Cepheids.

## 4 Summary

We have measured the changes in angular diameter of two Cepheids, $`\eta `$ Aql and $`\zeta `$ Gem, using PTI. When combined with previously published radial velocity data we can derive the distance and mean diameter to the Cepheids. We find $`\eta `$ Aql to be at a distance of $`320\pm 32`$ pc with a mean radius of $`61.8\pm 7.6R_{}`$. We find $`\zeta `$ Gem to be at a distance of $`362\pm 38`$ pc, with a mean radius of $`66.7\pm 7.2R_{}`$, in good agreement with previous work. The precision achieved is $``$ 10% in the parameters; further improvement is at present limited by our understanding of the details of the Cepheid atmospheres. In particular the details of limb darkening and projection factors need to be understood, with the projection factors being the largest source of systematic uncertainty.

We note that these results do not rely on photometric surface brightness relations, hence results derived here can be used to calibrate such relations. We performed such calibrations and found good agreement with previous results. We also note that at present we have derived distances to only two Cepheids, and although the derived distances are consistent with currently used period-luminosity relations, it will be necessary to observe several more Cepheids with this technique before worthwhile quantitative comparisons can be made.

In the near future long-baseline interferometers will provide a great deal of useful data in this area: in addition to further observations of the brightest galactic Cepheids, the very long baselines currently being commissioned at the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer (Armstrong et al., 2001b) and the Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy array (ten Brummelaar et al., 2001) will allow direct measurements of the limb darkening effects through observations of fringe visibilities past the first visibility null. Given the close relation between limb darkening and projection factors we expect that improvements in understanding one will improve our understanding of the other. It is also clear that additional photometry and radial velocity measurements would be very useful. In particular $`\zeta `$ Gem suffers from a lack of good infrared photometry, while concerns about level effects make infrared radial velocity measurements like those of Sasselov & Lester (1990) very desirable.

We thank D. Sasselov, A. F. Boden, M. M. Colavita, S. R. Kulkarni, and R.R. Thompson for valuable comments. We also wish to thank K. Rykoski for his excellent observational work. Observations with PTI are only made possible through the efforts of the PTI collaboration, for which we are grateful. Funding for the development of PTI was provided by NASA under its TOPS (Toward Other Planetary Systems) and ASEPS (Astronomical Studies of Extrasolar Planetary Systems) programs, and from the JPL Director’s Discretionary Fund. Ongoing funding has been provided by NASA through its Origins Program and from the JPL Directors Research and Development Fund. This work has made use of software produced by the Interferometry Science Center at the California Institute of Technology. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. B.F.L gratefully acknowledges the support of NASA through the Michelson fellowship program.


text:
# Effect of electron–phonon interaction on the shift and attenuation of optical phonons

## Abstract

Using the Boltzmann equation for electrons in metals, we show that the optical phonons soften and have a dispersion due to screening in agreement with the results reported recently \[M. Reizer, Phys. Rev. B 61, 40 (2000)\]. Additional phonon damping and frequency shift arise when the electron–phonon interaction is properly included.

Despite attracting considerable interest for half a century since the pioneering work by Fröhlich, the problem of electron-phonon interaction is still far from being solved. Migdal Mi  developed a consistent many-body approach based on the Fröhlich Hamiltonian for interaction of electrons with acoustic (sound) phonons. As Migdal showed (”the Migdal theorem”), the vertex corrections for acoustic phonons are small by the adiabatic parameter $`\sqrt{m/M}`$, where $`m`$ and $`M`$ are the electron and ion masses, respectively. The theory described correctly the electronic lifetime, renormalization of the Fermi velocity $`v_F`$ and acoustic phonon attenuation but resulted in a strong renormalization of the sound velocity $`\stackrel{~}{s}=s(12\lambda )^{1/2}`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the dimensionless coupling constant. For sufficiently strong electron-phonon coupling $`\lambda 1/2`$, the phonon frequency approached to zero marking an instability point of the system. Instead, one would intuitively expect the phonon renormalization to be weak along with the adiabatic parameter.

This discrepancy was resolved by Brovman and Kagan BK  almost a decade later (see also G ). They demonstrated the shortcomings of the Fröhlich model that gave an anomalously large phonon renormalization. Employing the Born–Oppenheimer (adiabatic) approximation (see, e.g., BHK ), they found that there are two terms in the second order perturbation theory, which compensate each other making a result small by the adiabatic parameter. Namely, when calculating the phonon self-energy function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,k)`$ with help of the diagram technique, one should eliminate an adiabatic contribution of the Fröhlich model by subtracting $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,k)\mathrm{\Pi }(0,k)`$.

The interaction of electrons with optical phonons was first considered by Engelsberg and Schrieffer ES  within Migdal’s many-body approach for dispersionless phonons. They predicted a splitting of the optical phonon at finite wavenumbers $`k`$ into two branches. Ipatova and Subashiev IS  calculated later on the optical phonon attenuation in the collisionless limit and pointed out that the Brovman-Kagan renormalization should be carried out for optical phonons in order to obtain correct phonon renormalization. In the paper AS , Alexandrov and Schrieffer corrected the calculational error of Ref. ES  and argued that no splitting was found in fact. Instead, they predicted an extremely strong dispersion of optical phonons, $`\omega _k=\omega _0+\lambda v_F^2k^2/3\omega _0`$, due to the coupling to electrons. No such a dispersion has ever been observed experimentally. The usual dispersion of optical phonons in metals has the order of the sound velocity. In a recent paper, Reizer R  stressed the importance of screening effects which should be taken into account. The works AS , R  are limited to the case of collisionless both electron and phonon systems. Moreover, only the phonon renormalization was considered with no results available for the attenuation of optical phonons.

A different from many-body technique semiclassical approach based on the Boltzmann equation and the equations of the elasticity theory was developed in the papers by Akhiezer, Silin, Gurevich, Kontorovich, and many others (we refer the reader to the review Kon ). This approach was compared with various experiments, such as attenuation of sound waves, effects of strong magnetic fields, crystal anisotropy, and sample surfaces on the sound attenuation, and so on. It can be applied to the problem of the electron–optical-phonon interaction MF  as well. In the present paper we develop a theory for both the attenuation and frequency shift of optical phonons with account for effects of the Coulomb screening as well as collisions in the electron and phonon systems.

It is instructive to recapitulate the results of the dynamical theory of elasticity for the renormalization of the sound velocity $`\delta s=\stackrel{~}{s}s`$ and acoustic attenuation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in metals. For a phonon with a wavenumber $`k`$ and frequency $`\omega _k=sk`$, they are given by Kon

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta s}{s}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega _k}}=\lambda \{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{v_F^2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi s}{2v_F}}\hfill & \text{ for }kv_F>|\omega _k+i\gamma |,\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _k}{\omega _k+i\gamma }}\hfill & \text{ for }kv_F<|\omega _k+i\gamma |,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
where $`\gamma `$ is the electronic scattering rate, and the dimensionless coupling constant $`\lambda `$ is proportional to the electronic density of states $`\nu _0`$ at the Fermi surface (for the isotropic case $`\nu _0=m^{}p_F/\pi ^2`$, $`m^{}`$ is the effective electron mass) and to the squared deformation potential $`\zeta _{ik}`$. The deformation potential describes the change in the spectrum of electrons subject to lattice deformation $`\epsilon (𝐩,𝐫,t)=\epsilon _0(𝐩)+\zeta _{ik}(𝐩)u_{ik}(𝐫,t)`$, where $`u_{ik}`$ is the strain tensor. Equations (3) give the correct answers in various known regimes: for the sound attenuation in the hydrodynamic limit ($`\omega _k\gamma `$ and $`k0`$), for the zero-sound ($`\omega _k\gamma `$ and $`k0`$), for the Landau damping in the ballistic limit ($`kv_F|\omega _k+i\gamma |`$). In the latter case, both the sound velocity shift and attenuation are small by the adiabatic parameter $`s/v_F`$ contrary to the results of the Fröhlich model. Note also that Eqs. (3) show hardening of the phonon frequency due to the electron–phonon interaction in contradiction with Migdal’s result.

For the case of optical phonons, two known types of the electron–phonon interaction are the deformation potential and the interaction with the electrical polarization induced by optical vibrations. We consider here for simplicity a cubic crystal with two different atoms in a unit cell. Then, there are three optical modes, and the interaction with the induced polarization has the Fröhlich form:

$$\epsilon (𝐩,𝐫,t)=\epsilon _0(𝐩)+\zeta (𝐩)𝐮(𝐫,t)$$
(4)
where the scalar function $`\zeta (𝐩)`$ of the electron momentum is the coupling with the optical displacements $`𝐮`$. In order to compare our results with previous ones, here we consider the interaction in the same form (4) as in Refs. AS , R . One can see that principal characteristic features of the phenomenon are retained for the deformation interaction, $`\delta \epsilon =\zeta _i(𝐩)u_i(𝐫,t)`$, where the coupling is a vector function. The distinction is that only the longitudinal mode interacts with electrons in the case of induced polarization (4), and the interaction approaches zero in the long-wave limit. Therefore, we concentrate on the propagation of the longitudinal mode along the symmetry axis when this mode is not mixed with transverse ones. Note also that the electric field plays an important role especially when the different atoms are in the unit cell so that the dipole moment is excited under the atom vibrations. At last, the optical phonons have always the so-called natural width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}\omega _0\sqrt{m/M}`$. The natural width results from decay processes into two (or more) acoustic or optical phonons, which are possible even at zero temperature.

The main point of the theory is the equation of motion in the long-wave approximation ($`k1/a`$) for the Fourier components of the optical-phonon displacement $`u_j`$:

$`(\omega _k^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}\omega ^2)u_j(𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{Z}{M^{}}}E_j`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ik_j}{M^{}N}}{\displaystyle \frac{2d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\zeta (𝐩)\delta f_p(𝐤,\omega )},`$
where $`E_j`$ is the electric field associated with vibrations, $`N`$ is the number of unit cells in 1 cm3, $`M^{}`$ is the reduced mass of two atoms in the unit cell, and $`Z`$ is the effective ionic charge. The nonperturbed phonon frequency $`\omega _k`$ should be considered in the absence of the electric field and without any nonadiabatic corrections. In the long-wave limit, we can roughly describe it as $`\omega _k^2=\omega _0^2\pm s^2k^2`$ with the magnitude of $`s`$ being of the order of the typical sound velocity in metals. The last term in Eq. (5) presents the driving force from the nonadiabatic electron system due to the deviation $`\delta f_p(𝐫,t)`$ from the local-equilibrium distribution function $`f_0[\epsilon (𝐩,𝐫,t)\mu ]`$.

Then, we have the Boltzmann equation

$`i(\omega 𝐤𝐯)\delta f_p(𝐤,\omega )+\gamma \left[\delta f_p(𝐤,\omega )\delta f_p(𝐤,\omega )\right]`$ (6)
$`=[\omega \zeta (𝐩)𝐤𝐮(𝐤,\omega )+e𝐯𝐄]{\displaystyle \frac{df_0}{d\epsilon }},`$
in the approximation of relaxation rate $`\gamma `$, which holds at low temperatures when the electron–impurity interaction dominates as well as at temperatures higher then the Debye temperature when the phonon–phonon collisions can be considered as elastic. The term in the angle brackets in Eq. (6), which denote the average over the Fermi surface,

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\nu _0}(\mathrm{})\frac{2dS_F}{v(2\pi )^3},$$

arises from the out-term in the collision integral. Notice, that the condition $`\zeta (𝐩)=0`$ should be fulfilled, because the number of electrons in the local-equilibrium state $`f_0[\epsilon (𝐩,𝐫,t)\mu ]`$ is conserved. With the help of the Maxwell equations, the electric field is expressed in the terms of polarization $`𝐏`$ as follows:

$$𝐄=4\pi 𝐤(𝐤𝐏)/k^2,$$
(7)
provided that phonons are excited in the optical region $`k\omega /c`$ where the wavevector is determined by the incident light $`k\omega ^{(i)}/c`$ and the frequency $`\omega `$ is of the order of the optical phonon frequency $`\omega _0`$. It is seen that the electric field is longitudinal and only the longitudinal component of polarization $`P_z`$ ($`𝐤`$ is taken along the $`z`$-axis) plays a role being related to the phonon displacement and the electric field by the equation

$$P_z=NZu_z+\alpha E+\frac{ie}{k}\frac{2d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\delta f_p(𝐤,\omega ),$$
(8)
where the first term is caused by ionic motion, $`\alpha `$ is the polarizability of filled bands, and the last term is the carrier contribution defined by the variation of the electron density, $`\rho ^{(e)}=i𝐤𝐏^{(e)}`$.

Equations (5)–(8) give the complete system of our problem. The Boltzmann equation (6) has the solution in the form

$$\delta f_p(𝐤,\omega )=\chi _p(𝐤,\omega )\frac{df_0}{d\epsilon },$$

where

$`\chi _p(𝐤,\omega )=i[e𝐯𝐄+\omega \zeta (𝐩)𝐤𝐮+\gamma \chi _p(𝐤,\omega )]/\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (9)
$`\chi _p(𝐤,\omega )=i[e𝐯𝐄+\omega \zeta (𝐩)𝐤𝐮]/\mathrm{\Delta }/(1i\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta }),`$
and we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega 𝐤𝐯+i\gamma `$.

Using this solution, we obtain the polarization (8) and rewrite the electric field (7) in terms of the longitudinal displacement $`u_z`$:

$$\epsilon _e(k,\omega )E=4\pi \beta _{fd}u_z,$$
(10)
where we introduce the field–displacement response function

$$\beta _{fd}=NZe\omega \nu _0\frac{\zeta (𝐩)/\mathrm{\Delta }}{1i\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(11)
The electron contribution into the dielectric function has the known form:

$$\epsilon _e(k,\omega )\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{4\pi e^2\nu _0v_z/\mathrm{\Delta }}{k(1i\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta })},$$
(12)
where the high-frequency permittivity $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=1+4\pi \alpha `$.

Now, we consider the equation of motion (5) using the solution of the Boltzmann equation (9). The term proportional to $`u_z`$ of the driving force can be included in the phonon frequency:

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2=\omega _k^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}+\frac{\nu _0\omega k^2}{M^{}N}\left(\frac{\zeta ^2(𝐩)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{i\gamma \zeta (𝐩)/\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{1i\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$
(13)
so that Eq. (5) reads

$$(\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\omega ^2)u_z=\stackrel{~}{Z}E/M^{},$$
(14)
where the renormalized ionic charge

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}=Z\frac{e\nu _0k}{N}\left(\frac{\zeta (𝐩)v_z}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+i\gamma \frac{v_z/\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta (𝐩)/\mathrm{\Delta }}{1i\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta }}\right).$$

Using the condition $`\zeta (𝐩)=0`$ we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=\beta _{fd}/N.`$

Then, we can express the displacement $`u_z`$ from Eq. (14) in terms of $`E`$ and, substituting into Eq. (10), obtain the dielectric function of the electron–ion system:

$$\epsilon (k,\omega )=\epsilon ^{(e)}(k,\omega )+4\pi N\stackrel{~}{Z}^2/M^{}(\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\omega ^2).$$
(15)
The frequency of the longitudinal mode, $`\omega =\omega _{\text{LO}}`$, is defined by the condition $`\epsilon (k,\omega )=0`$, i.e.,

$$\omega ^2=\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2+4\pi N\stackrel{~}{Z}^2/M^{}\epsilon _e(k,\omega ).$$
(16)
In the absence of free electrons, the density of states $`\nu _0=0`$ and Eq. (16) gives for the LO mode $`\omega _{\text{LO}}^2=\omega _k^2+\omega _{pi}^2i\omega _{\text{L0}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$, where $`\omega _{pi}^2=4\pi NZ^2/\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the squared ion-plasma frequency of the order of $`\omega _0^2`$. For the TO mode, when the electric field $`E=0`$, we obtain $`\omega _{\text{TO}}^2=\omega _k^2i\omega _k\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$.

Free electrons in metals make the large contribution into the dielectric function \[see, Eq. (12)\]. Expanding in powers of $`k`$ we have in the zero-order

$$\epsilon ^{(e)}(k,\omega )\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\omega _{pe}^2/\omega (\omega +i\gamma ),$$
(17)
which corresponds simply to the Drude conductivity with the electron-plasma frequency

$$\omega _{pe}^2=\frac{e^2}{3\pi ^2\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}}v𝑑S_F.$$

For large $`kv_F>|\omega +i\gamma |`$, the electron contribution (12) describes the Debye screening:

$$\epsilon ^{(e)}(k,\omega )\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\frac{k_0^2}{k^2}(1+i\pi \omega /2kv_F),$$

where a term of the order of $`\omega /kv`$ is kept and the Debye parameter $`k_0^2=4\pi e^2\nu _0/\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$.

Therefore, we can solve Eq. (16) for $`\omega _{LO}\omega _{pe}`$, using the iteration procedure. To a first approximation, we have

$$\omega ^2=\omega _k^2i\omega _k\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}+\frac{k^2\omega _k\nu _0}{M^{}N}\frac{\zeta ^2(𝐩)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{\omega _{pi}^2\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}}{\epsilon ^{(e)}(k,\omega _k)}.$$
(18)
In the case of small $`kv_F<|\omega _k+i\gamma |`$, expanding in $`k`$-powers, we obtain the solution

$$\omega _{\text{LO}}^2=\omega _k^2i\omega _k\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}\omega _k(\omega _k+i\gamma )\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{\omega _{pe}^2}+\frac{\lambda \omega _ks^2}{\omega _k+i\gamma }k^2,$$
(19)
where the dimensionless coupling constant $`\lambda =\zeta ^2(𝐩)\nu _0/\rho s^2`$ contains the factor $`ap_Fm^{}/m`$ and the metal density $`\rho `$.

In the case of large $`k`$, expanding in $`|\omega _k+i\gamma |/kv_F`$, we obtain

$$\omega _{LO}^2=\omega _k^2i\omega _k\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}i\frac{\pi \omega _ks^2k}{2v_F}\left(\lambda +\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{s^2k_0^2}\right)+\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{k_0^2}k^2,$$
(20)
where the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ is defined, when the asymptotic value of the integral is calculated: $`\nu _0\zeta ^2(𝐩)/\mathrm{\Delta }/M^{}N=i\pi s^2\lambda /2kv_F`$. Note, that the value of $`\lambda `$ vanishes in the isotropic case due to the condition $`\zeta (𝐩)=0`$.

Hence, the squared frequency of the longitudinal optical mode is essentially less (by the factor $`\omega _{pi}^2`$) than for insulators, due to screening of the electric field by free electrons. The additional phonon softening, width, and dispersion in Eq. (19) involve the adiabatic parameter $`(\omega _0/\omega _{pe})^2m/M`$, and they are small compared with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}\omega _0\sqrt{m/M}`$. In the region, where Eq. (20) is valid, we see the additional $`k`$-dependent width (terms in the parentheses), which is comparable with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$. Here, the $`\lambda `$-term conditioned by the electron–phonon interaction is similar to the damping of the acoustic phonons \[see the first formula in Eqs. (3)\]. Now we omit the shift containing the small factor $`(s/v_F)^2`$. The second term in the parentheses as well as the last term in Eq. (20), giving the $`k`$dispersion, are induced by screening and $`\lambda `$independent. Since $`\omega _{pi}^2/k_0^2s^2`$, this dispersion has the typical value for the phonon branches.

Let us rewrite in our notations the respective results of Ref. R , Eqs. (9) and (7), retaining only main terms:

$$\omega _{\text{LO}}^2=\omega _k^2\frac{\omega _{pi}^2(\omega _{pi}^2+\omega _k^2)}{\omega _{pe}^2(12\lambda \mathrm{ln}2)},kv_F<\omega _k,$$
(21)
$$\omega _{\text{LO}}^2=\omega _k^2+\frac{\omega _{pi}^2}{3\omega _{pe}^2}(kv_F)^2,kv_F>\omega _k.$$
(22)
Comparing with Eqs. (19)-(20) we see that the $`k`$-dispersion coincides practically. Next, we agree that the contribution $`\omega _{pi}^2`$ vanishes from the frequency of the LO mode. The softening and damping due to both the electron–phonon scattering ($`\gamma `$) and the phonon decay-processes ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{nat}}`$) were ignored in Ref. R . Concerning the electron–phonon interaction $`\lambda `$, the reason of disagreement was discussed in the beginning of the paper: this is shortcomings of diagram technique based on the Fröhlich model. But the most essential difference is the $`k`$-dependent width in Eq. (20), which is missed in Eq. (22).

In conclusion, let us make several remarks. The case of the large $`k`$-values (20) is most interesting because the electron–phonon and electrodynamic contributions into the phonon width (first and second terms in the parentheses, respectively) can compete. The result depends on the Debye screening and the wavevector $`k`$. In Raman experiments, the parameter $`kv_F/|\omega _0+i\gamma |\omega ^{(i)}v_F/c\omega _00.3`$ if $`\omega ^{(i)}10^4`$K and $`\omega _010^2`$K, and for metals $`v_F10^8`$ cm/s. Therefore, the high incident-light frequency or neutron experiments are desirable. It is more simply to observe the electrodynamic effect in semiconductors, where $`k_0`$ is smaller. We have an example of such experiments in works PKC , where the metal–insulator transition was observed in the GaN crystal under pressure. For the conducting phase, the longitudinal mode softens and obtains the additional damping in comparison with the insulator state. Then, using Eq. (19), we calculate FKC  the collision rate $`\gamma `$ which is consistent with the value obtained from the conductivity.

The author thanks E. G. Mishchenko for fruitful discussions. The work was partially supported by the RFBR (project 01-02-16211).