text:
# Triplication of SU(5) monopoles

## Abstract

We investigate all spherically symmetric fundamental monopole solutions with fixed topological charge in the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(5)[\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)\times \stackrel{~}{SU}(2)\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)]/\stackrel{~}{Z}_3\times \stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ symmetry breaking. We find that there is three-fold replication of the monopoles. The three copies correspond to bound states with “monopole clouds” arising from the non-Abelian nature of the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ factor. The triplication of monopoles could help us understand the observed family structure of standard model particles.

Magnetic monopoles are of diverse and fundamental interest since they are predicted by all grand unified theories and embody a rich mathematical structure. They are also central to discussions of non-perturbative field theory and may provide a new perspective on particle physics phenomenology.

The topological properties of any field theory leads to a classification of the topological defect solutions it contains. However, there are interesting and important properties of field theories that are missed by the topological classification. For example, a more detailed study of domain walls in an $`SU(5)\times Z_2`$ model reveals three different domain wall solutions, all having the same topological charge Vac01 ; PogVac01 . Guided by the domain wall example, we turn our attention to magnetic monopole solutions in

$$\stackrel{~}{SU}(5)[\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)\times \stackrel{~}{SU}(2)\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)]/\stackrel{~}{Z}_3\times \stackrel{~}{Z}_2$$
(1)
(The tildes indicate that the groups should not be confused with the symmetry groups of the standard model, which will be written without tildes.) This symmetry breaking is of interest because it is the basis of current grand unification models. More importantly for us is the fact that the topological charges of (non-BPS) magnetic monopole solutions in this model are in one to one correspondence with the electric charges of the standard model leptons and quarks Vac96 . If duality holds, then any structure of the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(5)`$ monopole solutions should be reflected in the standard model particles and vice versa. In particular we ask: can the family structure of standard model particles be present in the monopole solutions? (A different approach to the family structure was taken in LiuStaVac97 .)

Our approach to solving the problem is to construct all spherically symmetric monopole solutions with unit winding and fixed charge orientation in the model. Here we are not interested in continuous degeneracies of the solutions that are given by the zero modes. Instead we are looking for features in the space of solutions, particularly for non-BPS monopoles, that might point to a replication in the quantum theory of monopoles. In our effort to determine all such solutions, we rely on the construction of Wilkinson and Goldhaber (WG) WilGol77 , though with a novel twist that we detail below. We are led to three possible solutions that are then found numerically. Two of these have the strange feature that they are not localized and hence need careful interpretation. Such a situation was analyzed in detail by Weinberg and collaborators Wei82 ; LeeWeiYix96  in the BPS case and, following their discussion, we interpret each of our two non-localized solutions as a “monopole plus cloud”. A further symmetry breaking of the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ group in eq. (1) to $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_1\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)_2`$ would condense the clouds into localized objects. Now the interpretation of the three monopoles as distinct objects is very clear since they all have different masses.

We briefly discuss the WG WilGol77  recipe for constructing spherically symmetric magnetic monopole solutions. (This scheme has earlier been applied to the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(5)`$ case in DokTom80 ; Sco80  but in a different context.) We start by fixing the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(5)`$ adjoint scalar field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, along the $`z`$axis:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z\mathrm{},\widehat{𝐳})\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{\eta }{2\sqrt{15}}\mathrm{diag}(2,2,2,3,3)$$
(2)
where $`\eta `$ is the magnitude of the VEV. We also fix the magnetic charge, $`Q`$, of the magnetic monopole solution:

$$Q=\mathrm{diag}(0,0,\sigma _3,0)/2.$$
(3)
($`\sigma _a`$, $`a=1,2,3`$ denote the Pauli spin matrices.) Then the asymptotic magnetic field along the $`z`$axis is:

$$e𝐁=\frac{Q}{r^2}\widehat{𝐫}.$$

where $`e`$ is the gauge coupling. This monopole corresponds to the left-handed quark doublet in the dual standard model Vac96 .

We would like to find all spherically symmetric solutions corresponding to monopoles with charge $`Q`$ given in eq. (3). The key idea of the WG recipe is to start by working in the singular Abelian gauge - the gauge in which monopoles are point objects. In this gauge $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is fixed, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, and the gauge fields are those of a Dirac monopole. It is relatively straightforward to write down all possible point-monopole solutions given the symmetries of the system. WG then prescribe how to construct a gauge transformation that would transform each of these point-monopoles into spherically symmetric finite-energy monopole solutions.

As described by WG WilGol77 , though changing the sequence of their reasoning, we must find all $`SU(2)`$ generators $`I_a`$ such that

$$[I_a,Q]=0,[I_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_0]=0,a=1,2,3.$$
(4)
The choice of $`I_a`$ fixes the third generator, $`T_3`$, of the $`SU(2)`$ that defines the spherical symmetry of the solution:

$$T_3=I_3Q.$$
(5)
Note that $`[Q,\mathrm{\Phi }_0]=0`$ and therefore $`[T_3,\mathrm{\Phi }_0]=0`$. Once $`T_3`$ is known, we can find the ladder matrices $`T_\pm `$ satisfying:

$$[T_3,T_\pm ]=\pm T_\pm ,$$
(6)
and hence the $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ generators via $`T_1=(T_++T_{})/2`$ and $`T_2=(T_+T_{})/2i`$. Note that if $`T_3`$ has degenerate eigenvalues, there can be several choices for the $`T_\pm `$. The asymptotic scalar fields are written as:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\widehat{𝐫})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{𝐫})\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\widehat{𝐫})$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{𝐫}=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{𝐫})=e^{i\varphi T_3}e^{i\theta T_2}e^{+i\varphi T_3}`$. On the other hand, the asymptotic gauge fields are given by

$$e𝐀=[𝐈(\widehat{𝐫})𝐓]\times \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r}$$
(8)
where $`𝐈(\widehat{𝐫})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{𝐫})\omega ^1(\widehat{𝐫})𝐈\omega (\widehat{𝐫})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\widehat{𝐫})`$ with $`\omega (\widehat{𝐫})=e^{i\varphi I_3}e^{i\theta I_2}e^{+i\varphi I_3}.`$ Note that where $`I_a`$ is written without any argument, it refers to $`I_a(\widehat{𝐳})`$.

Finally, we need to introduce profile functions to get the radial dependence of the fields WilGol77 . This leads to the following ansatz for the scalar field along the $`z`$axis:

$`r\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{11},\mathrm{\Phi }_{22},\mathrm{\Phi }_{33},\mathrm{\Phi }_{44},\mathrm{\Phi }_{55})`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`h_1(r)\lambda _3+h_2(r)\lambda _8+h_3(r)\tau _3+h_4(r)Y,`$
where

$`\lambda _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{diag}(\sigma _3,0,0,0),\lambda _8={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{diag}(1,1,2,0,0),`$
$`\tau _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{diag}(0,0,0,\sigma _3),Y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{15}}}\mathrm{diag}(2,2,2,3,3).`$
The magnetic field is given in terms of complex functions, $`v_{ij}(r)`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},5`$ but only four of them will be non-zero: the function $`v_{lk}`$ is non-trivial only if there is a possible choice of $`T_+`$ such that $`[T_+]_{lk}`$ is non-zero WilGol77 . Next we define

$$[M_1(r)]_{ij}=\frac{v_{ij}+v_{ji}^{}}{2},[M_2(r)]_{ij}=\frac{v_{ij}v_{ji}^{}}{2i}$$
(10)
from which the gauge field is:

$$e𝐀(r)=[𝐌(r)𝐓]\times \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r}.$$
(11)
The energy functional is

$$E=d^3x\left[\mathrm{Tr}𝐁^2+\mathrm{Tr}(𝐃\mathrm{\Phi })^2+V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right]$$
(12)
with

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=m^2\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)+h(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2))^2+\lambda \mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^4)\frac{m^4}{4\lambda ^{}},$$
(13)
where $`\lambda ^{}=h+7\lambda /30`$ and $`\eta =m/\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}`$ (see Eq. (2)).

Different functions $`v_{ij}`$ will be non-trivial, depending on the choice of $`𝐈`$ satisfying eq. (4). The only possibilities for $`I_3`$ are: $`I_3=0`$ or $`I_3=\mathrm{diag}(\pm \sigma _3,0,0,0)/2`$. The former choice gives the conventional monopole DokTom80 ; Sco80 , while it turns out that the latter can lead to new monopoles solutions in addition to the conventional one. With $`𝐈=\mathrm{diag}(+𝝈,0,0,0)/2`$, the four non-trivial gauge profile functions are: $`v_{12}`$, $`v_{14}`$, $`v_{32}`$ and $`v_{34}`$ corresponding to the 4 different non-zero entries in the two possible constructions of $`T_+`$. We will write the equations of motion only for this choice of $`𝐈`$.

Inserting the ansatz for the fields into the energy functional and then extremizing, leads to the equations of motion for all spherically symmetric monopole solutions:

$`r^2v_{12}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`v_{12}(v_{12}^2+v_{14}^2+v_{32}^2+e^2H_{12}^21)v_{14}v_{32}v_{34},`$
$`r^2v_{14}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`v_{14}(v_{14}^2+v_{12}^2+v_{34}^2+e^2H_{14}^21)v_{12}v_{32}v_{34},`$
$`r^2v_{32}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`v_{32}(v_{32}^2+v_{12}^2+v_{34}^2+e^2H_{23}^21)v_{12}v_{14}v_{34},`$
$`r^2v_{34}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`v_{34}(v_{34}^2+v_{14}^2+v_{32}^2+e^2H_{34}^21)v_{12}v_{14}v_{32},`$
$`r^2h_1^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`2H_{12}v_{12}^2+H_{14}v_{14}^2H_{23}v_{32}^2+U_1,`$
$`r^2h_2^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}H_{14}v_{14}^2+\sqrt{3}H_{23}v_{32}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}H_{34}v_{34}^2+U_2,`$
$`r^2h_3^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`H_{14}v_{14}^2H_{34}v_{34}^2+U_3,`$
$`r^2h_4^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{15}}{3}}H_{14}v_{14}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{15}}{3}}H_{34}v_{34}^2+U_4,`$
where primes denote derivatives with respect to $`r`$, $`U_i`$ are derivatives of the potential that we will not explicitly write out, and $`H_{ij}r(\mathrm{\Phi }_{ii}\mathrm{\Phi }_{jj})`$. In the above equations we have already chosen the phases, $`\theta _{ij}`$, of the complex functions $`v_{ij}`$ such that the energy is minimized. These phases are constant in space and satisfy $`\theta _{12}+\theta _{34}\theta _{14}\theta _{32}=\pi `$, resulting in the minus sign in front of the last term in the equations for the $`v_{ij}`$’s.

The boundary conditions on the Higgs field at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ are determined by requiring that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ asymptotically and those on the gauge field by requiring that eq. (11) goes over into eq. (8) at infinity. Then,

$`v_{12}(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`1,v_{14}(\mathrm{})=v_{32}(\mathrm{})=v_{34}(\mathrm{})=0`$
$`h_1(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`0,h_2^{}(\mathrm{})=h_3^{}(\mathrm{})=0,h_4^{}(\mathrm{})=\eta .`$
The boundary conditions on the Higgs field at the origin are determined by requiring non-singular behavior:

$$h_i(0)=0,i=1,2,3,4,$$

and the functions $`v_{ij}`$ at the origin are as yet unspecified. This is where we encounter the freedom that ultimately leads to three different monopole solutions. As this is the crucial new twist in the recipe, we describe it in some detail.

Going back to the WG recipe, notice that if $`I_3`$ is $`\mathrm{diag}(\sigma _3,0,0,0)/2`$ then $`T_3=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,0)/2`$. This leads to two possible choices for $`T_\pm `$. The first is when $`T_+`$ is non-trivial in the 1-2 and 3-4 blocks. The second choice is when $`T_+`$ is non-trivial in the 1-4 and 3-2 blocks. Requiring that the gauge field in eq. (11) be non-singular at the origin fixes the values of functions $`v_{ij}`$ at $`r=0`$. Then, for the case where $`T_+`$ is in the 1-2 and 3-4 blocks we have the boundary conditions:

$$v_{12}(0)=1=v_{34}(0);v_{14}(0)=0=v_{32}(0).$$
(14)
When $`T_+`$ is chosen in the 1-4 and 3-2 blocks:

$$v_{14}(0)=1=v_{32}(0);v_{12}(0)=0=v_{34}(0).$$
(15)
Similarly, we can also choose $`I_3=\mathrm{diag}(\sigma _3,0,0,0)/2`$ and then $`T_3=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,0)/2`$. This leads to $`T_+`$ lying either in the 3-1 and 2-4 blocks, or in the 2-1 and 3-4 blocks. The non-trivial gauge profile functions are now: $`v_{21}`$, $`v_{24}`$, $`v_{31}`$ and $`v_{34}`$ WilGol77 . The second choice for $`T_+`$ can be shown to lead to a solution that has scalar and magnetic fields that are identical to those in the first case (eq. (14)). The boundary conditions on the profile functions for the first choice are determined by requiring that the gauge field remain non-singular at the origin:

$$v_{31}(0)=1=v_{24}(0);v_{21}(0)=0=v_{34}(0).$$
(16)
In addition, the boundary conditions at infinity are $`v_{21}(\mathrm{})=1`$ and $`v_{ij}(\mathrm{})=0`$ for all $`(i,j)(2,1)`$. This is the third possible monopole solution.

Now our system is complete – we have the differential equations and the boundary conditions. We solve the equations numerically with the various boundary conditions. The first case (eq. (14)) leads to the conventional magnetic monopole which is also discussed in Refs. DokTom80 ; Sco80  (The conventional monopole is usually constructed by setting $`I_3=0`$ and repeating the above procedure). The second and third set of boundary conditions give rise to two new solutions. The profile functions for the second case are shown in Fig. 1. The third monopole solution can be obtained from the second by switching the 1 and 2 rows and columns of the fields and simply amounts to re-labeling the profile functions. Note that, while the conventional monopole obtained using the boundary conditions given in eq. (14) is the same as the one obtained by choosing $`I_3=0`$, there will be a difference between the two if one breaks the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ symmetry. This will become relevant later when we consider the case of $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ breaking down to $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_1\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)_2`$. With $`I_3=0`$, the gauge profile functions must obey the boundary conditions $`v_{ij}(\mathrm{})=0`$, $`v_{34}(0)=1`$ with the rest of $`v_{ij}`$ vanishing at $`r=0`$.

The plot in Fig. 1 shows some unusual features. While most of the profile functions show “good” asymptotic behavior, the functions $`v_{12}`$ and $`v_{32}`$ approach their boundary values linearly. This behavior can be confirmed by analytically expanding the equations of motion. It is also physically reasonable since the functions $`H_{12}`$ and $`H_{23}`$ appearing on the right-hand sides of the equations of motion do not acquire a VEV. Therefore the functions $`v_{12}`$ and $`v_{32}`$ correspond to massless gauge degrees of freedom. The energy of the solution approaches the energy of the conventional monopole as the lattice gets bigger.

We now interpret this rather peculiar situation following the discussion of BPS magnetic monopoles in the presence of unbroken non-Abelian symmetries by Weinberg and collaborators Wei82 ; LeeWeiYix96 . The idea is to consider the case of maximal symmetry breaking first and then to decrease the VEVs such that, in the limit of zero VEV, the original non-Abelian symmetry is restored. In our case, we only need to consider the breaking of the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ group further down to $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_1\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)_2`$. In the numerical implementation described above, the symmetry breaking is achieved by giving a VEV to $`h_1`$ and setting $`v_{ij}(\mathrm{})=0`$. Working, for simplicity, in the BPS limit (i.e. $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$), we now let $`h_1=\eta _1r`$ in the asymptotic region. When $`\eta _10`$, the symmetry breaking is:

$$\stackrel{~}{SU}(5)[\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_1\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)_2\times \stackrel{~}{SU}(2)\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)]/\stackrel{~}{Z}_3\times \stackrel{~}{Z}_2$$

As $`\eta _1`$ is tuned to zero, we obtain the symmetry breaking pattern in eq. (1). Now the equations of motion are solved again with the appropriate boundary conditions.

Just as we might expect, with $`\eta _10`$, all the three monopoles are well-localized and have different masses. In the case of the conventional monopole, obtained using $`I_3=0`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_1`$ magnetic charge of the solution is zero and the topological charge of the monopole is

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diag}(0,0,1,1,0).$$

The topological charge for the monopole in the second case (eq. (15)) after the breaking of the $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ symmetry is

$$Q^{}=Q+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0,0,0),$$

where the second term is the charge of the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_1\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)_2`$ monopole which only condenses when $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ is broken. The topological charge of the monopole in the third case is

$$Q^{\prime \prime }=Q+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0,0,0).$$

As $`\eta _1`$ is decreased, the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_1\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)_2`$ monopole will spread, ultimately filling all space and becoming a “cloud”. As in the BPS analysis LeeWeiYix96 , the energy associated with the cloud goes to zero when we extrapolate to an infinite lattice. With $`\eta _1=0`$, we can explicitly check that monopoles 2 and 3 are gauge equivalent. The gauge equivalence of monopoles 1 and 2 (and, 1 and 3) is more delicate since the cloud, which is the cause of gauge inequivalence on a finite lattice, gets pushed to infinity in the infinite lattice limit. The two solutions are equivalent but only under large gauge transformations. As described below, this delicate behavior is not relevant for us since we will be interested in the case when $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ gets broken.

Therefore, we have in hand a total of $`3\times (3\times 2)=18`$ gauge equivalent fundamental monopole solutions in the symmetry breaking in eq. (1). The $`3\times 2`$ factor is due to the 3 permutations of the $`\lambda _8`$ and the 2 permutations of $`\tau _3`$, and the factor of 3 refers to the three solutions described above. Classically there is no distinction between these solutions. However, in a dual quantum theory the $`3\times 2=6`$ solutions are believed to correspond GodNuyOli77  to 3 color ($`SU(3)_c`$) and 2 isospin ($`SU(2)_L`$) degrees of freedom Vac96 . The remaining factor of 3 suggests that there is a 3-fold replication of degrees of freedom in the quantum theory even for fixed color, isospin and hypercharge ($`U(1)_Y`$).

In the context of the dual standard model, the interpretation of the 3 solutions is clear. The reason is that color confinement in the dual standard model is obtained by further breaking $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$. Then the colored monopoles get connected by $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$ strings in color singlet objects. However, the three solutions are manifestly distinct when $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(3)`$ is broken, since then they have different masses. Hence they necessarily represent distinct particles in the dual (electric) theory.

Higher winding monopoles are built by combining fundamental monopoles and so we expect them to be replicated as well. It would be very interesting to see if the entire monopole spectrum is exactly triplicated. If there are indeed three families of monopole solutions, it would complete the tantalizing correspondence between the magnetic charge spectrum of $`\stackrel{~}{SU}(5)`$ monopoles and the electric charge spectrum of observed particles Vac96 .

TV is grateful to Fred Goldhaber and Erick Weinberg for useful discussions. DS is grateful to the Swiss Foundation Ernst et Lucie Schmidheiny for travel support and to Case Western Reserve University for hospitality. This collaboration was in part possible due to support by the ESF COSLAB network. LP was supported by PPARC and TV by DOE.


format: text

text:
# SPIRAL STRUCTURE AND GALAXY ENVIRONMENT

## 1 INTRODUCTION

De Vaucouleurs (1959) described the morphology of spiral arms by dividing them into ring r, intermediate rs and spiral s varieties. Following in de Vaucouleurs’s footsteps Sandage & Tammann (1981) used large-scale plates to assign spiral galaxies in the Shapley-Ames Catalog (Shapley & Ames 1931) to the r, rs, and s varieties. Sandage & Tammann rarely assigned spiral arm varieties to galaxies of type Sd, and never to Sm, E/Sa, and S0/a galaxies. Furthermore it was only possible for Sandage & Tammann to assign about half of the tightly wound spiral structure in Sa and SBa galaxies to the s, rs, and r varieties. In galaxies that were viewed edge-on, or almost edge-on, it was usually not possible to determine the arm varieties.

A book length review on all aspects of galactic rings has been published by Buta & Combes (1996). Furthermore Buta (1995) has given a catalog of 3692 ringed galaxies located south of $`\delta `$ = -17. Finally physical processes that lead to the formation of such rings have been discussed by Buta (1999).

It is the purpose of the present investigation to see if the dichotomy between spiral and ring-shaped arms might correlate with galaxy environment. To check on this point the environmental assignments of Shapley-Ames galaxies north of $`\delta `$ = -27 , that were recently published by van den Bergh (2002), were compared with the spiral arm varieties listed by Sandage & Tammann. Galaxies were assigned to the “field”, to “groups” or to “clusters” on the basis of an inspection of their environments on the prints of the Palomar Sky Survey and/or their group or cluster designations in van den Bergh (1960). A galaxy was regarded as a group member if it appeared to belong to a grouping that had between three and six other (non-dwarf) members. A galaxy had to have at least six (non-dwarf) companions to be assigned to the cluster category. More details on how environmental assignments were made are given in van den Bergh (2002). In that paper it was found that the frequency distribution of Hubble types along the sequence S0-Sa-Sb-Sc-Sm-Im in “field” areas differed from the morphological frequency distribution in “cluster” areas at greater than 99.9% confidence. The observed differences were in the expected sense (Hubble 1936, p.79, Dressler 1980), with early-type galaxies being over abundant in cluster areas and under abundant in the field. This result strengthens confidence in the conclusion that the “field”, “group”, and ”cluster” assignments correspond to significant physical differences in galaxy environment.

## 2 FIELD GALAXIES

Since field galaxies are expected to suffer fewer encounters with neighbors, than do members of groups and clusters, they provide a fiducial against which group and cluster members can be compared. For 172 pure spirals of types Sa-Sc, 69% are of the s variety, 10% are of type rs and 21% are of the r variety. For 61 barred spirals of type SBa-SBc in the present sample 54% are of the s variety, 20% are of type rs and 26% are of the r variety. These numbers suggest that the fraction of all spiral galaxies that are of the s, rs, and r varieties does not differ significantly between normal (S) and barred (SB) field galaxies.

For field spirals of types Sa to Sc the relative frequencies of the s and r varieties does not appear to depend significantly on parent galaxy luminosity. By the same token there is no evidence for a dependence of spiral arm variety on luminosity among barred spirals of types SBa to SBc. However, it is noted in passing that Ma (2002) has found that the pitch angle of spiral arms does depend on parent galaxy mass.

## 3 ARM VARIETIES AND ENVIRONMENT

Table 1 gives a contingency table that shows the frequencies of s (spiral), rs (intermediate) and r (ring) type arms in “field”, “group”, and “cluster” environments for normal spirals of types Sa-Sc. From these data $`\chi ^2`$ = 4.8 for four degrees of freedom, which implies that there is no statistically significant relation between environment and arm variety. Similar information for the barred spirals of types SBa-SBc, that are contained in the northern Shapley-Ames catalog, are given in Table 2. From these data for barred spirals it is found that for $`\chi ^2`$ = 1.9 for four degrees of freedom. In other words there appears to be no significant correlation between spiral arm variety and galaxy environment for either normal or for barred spirals. However, a caveat is that the frequency with which different arm varieties occur might itself be a function of Hubble type. Since the relative frequencies of Hubble types is a function of environment (Hubble 1936, Dressler 1980) it is therefore desirable to reinvestigate the possible dependence of spiral arm variety on environment by only using galaxies of a single Hubble type. For the present data set only Sc galaxies are numerous enough for such a study. Table 3 and Table 4 provide information on the possible dependence of spiral arm variety on environment for Sc and SBc galaxies, respectively. For Table 3 and Table 4 one finds $`\chi ^2`$ values of 2.1 and 2.1 (with four degrees of freedom), respectively. This shows that there are no significant correlations between arm variety and environment for either Sc or for SBc galaxies.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

The main result of the present investigation is that spiral arm variety does not appear to be a function of environment. In other words the internal properties of individual galaxies seem to determine whether they will develop spiral structure of the s, rs or r varieties. This conclusion is in complete agreement with the work of Buta (1999) who finds that “\[M\]ost resonance rings are driven by internal nonaxisymmetric perturbations.” According to Buta & Combes (1996) most of such rings form by gas accumulation in resonances. Among the northern Shapley-Ames galaxies classified by Sandage & Tammann (1981), no correlations were found between galaxy environment and the arm varieties s, rs, and r for (1) all galaxies of types Sa-Sc,(2) all galaxies of types SBa-SBc, (3) galaxies of Hubble type Sc and (4) for galaxies of type SBc.


text:
# Photoemission Line shape Study on La0.7Sr0.3Mn1-δAlδO3 (𝛿 = 0, 0.03, 0.06)

## I Introduction

Photoemission Spectroscopy (PES) has been widely considered as the most powerful tool for probing the electronic structure of the occupied states in condensed matter systems. Conventionally photoemission process is explained by a three-step model which involves (1) the excitation of the photoelectron, (2) its travel to sample surface, and (3) the escape through the surface into the vacuum. This simple model, though it is a purely phenomenological approach and has some short-comings due to its semi-classical nature, has proved to be quite successful in explaining many features in photoemission spectra.

Recently, R. Joynt has suggested that more careful consideration is needed in the third step, where the outgoing electron experiences an attractive interaction due to its image charge in the sample part during its travel from the sample to the analyzer, so can lose its kinetic energy with some probability distribution. Moreover it was argued that this long range interaction effect should appear most drastically when the sample resistivity is rather high (roughly $`\rho _00.1m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$), which is based on his calculation results of energy loss probability distribution and some fitting parameters taken from experiments. The argument of Ref. 2 is so timely that many photoemission spectroscopists pay attention to this assertion because the currently much-studied materials such as high-Tc superconductors and colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) materials show so-called pseudogap features and this theory looks like a master key to interpret these phenomena, especially for the case of CMR manganites.

Though this argument certainly contains some elements that should be considered seriously, there are different opinions and opposing views. D. S. Dessau et al. gave a technical comment that their angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) of single crystalline double layered manganite La1.2Sr1.8Mn2O7 shows the momentum-dependent pseudogap feature, which could not originate from the extrinsic loss in Ref. 2 because the extrinsic loss should not change much with momentum. Recently Y.-D. Chuang et al. gave a new explanation about the pseudogap of this double layered manganite that it originates from a short range charge/orbital density wave enhanced by Fermi surface nesting. D. L. Mills followed up the approach of Ref. 2 with his own calculations to give different results using the sum rule which determines the total amount of energy loss probability, and suggested that the extrinsic loss just shifts the kinetic energy of all photoelectrons downward by roughly the same amount in the usual photoemission experiments. Schulte et al. presented several arguments, both theoretical and experimental, that the zero energy loss probability $`P_0`$ is not so small as was assumed in Ref. 2. They also obtained $`P(\omega )`$ from their electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) spectra of double layered manganite La1.2Sr1.8Mn2O7 to calculate PES spectra and compare them with the photoemission spectra. From these comparisons they asserted this extrinsic effect cannot make pseudogap-like feature in photoemission spectrum as long as $`P_0`$ is different from zero, and in most cases can be either neglected or treated as a weak structureless background. In the recent preprint, R. Haslinger et al. gave quantitative criterion when ohmic losses are important and pointed out the layered manganite La1.2Sr1.8Mn2O7 is not a good candidate for testing the theory of inelastic processes in PES because its resistivity is too high and its crystal structure is not cubic. The present responses to Ref. 2, both theory and experiment, are somewhat critical. However, more experimental results are needed. Since many strongly correlated materials lie close to a metal-insulator phase transition and possess a large resistivity, determining whether the argument of Ref. 2 is correct becomes important. Furthermore, as far as we know, though a few indirect evidences were reported as briefly described above, there are no reports that give the direct experimental comparison and analysis about the relation between the resistivity and line shape of PES. In addition, previously studied system might be inadequate for this test as claimed in Ref. 9. In this paper, we choose the most adequate system and provide such direct experimental evidence in order to test the hypothesis of Ref. 2, which is important for the reliability of the information extracted from PES experiment.

To study more thoroughly how the sample resistivity affects the line shapes of photoemission spectra, we chose cubic perovskite La0.7Sr0.3Mn1-δAlδO3 ($`\delta `$ = 0, 0.03, and 0.06) systems. The transport properties of Al-doped La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 were well studied by Y. Sawaki et al.. According to their reports, when a small amount of aluminum is doped in La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 it substitutes B site (Mn) element without any structural transition. Aluminum ion has the closed-shell configuration with no $`d`$ electrons, so it gives the same valence as the host manganese (+3) and no magnetic moments. Hence aluminum doping induces only two kinds of changes. One is the increase of random electrical potential, and the other is the local cutoff of magnetic interaction between the spins of $`t_{2g}`$ electrons, i.e. it increases magnetic randomness. These changes are enough to cause a resistivity change of two orders of magnitude from $`\delta `$ = 0 to $`\delta `$ = 0.06. The useful property most relevant to our study is the first one. Because the dopant aluminum gives three electrons it does not change the hole concentration of La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 . Thus the increase of resistivity with increasing dopants is solely due to the increase of the carrier scattering rates as a result of the increased randomness in potential. This simplifies the analysis of the data in the model of Ref. 2 dramatically. In most cases, there are too many parameters to consider when a systematic study is undertaken to understand how the sample resistivities affects the line shapes of the photoemission spectra. For example, the temperature dependent resistivity variation can come about not only from the change of the scattering rate but also from the changes of the carrier concentration or the electronic structure originating from phase transition. (Recall in Drude model the DC conductivity is given by $`\sigma _0=ne^2\tau /m^{}`$, where $`n`$ is carrier concentration, and $`\tau `$ relaxation time, m effective mass.) But in our case, all the parameters are fixed except for the scattering rate of carriers (or inversely relaxation time $`\tau `$).

According to the calculations in Ref. 2, photocurrent intensity $`I(\omega ,T)`$ is given by

$`I(\omega ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`P_0(T)N(\omega )f(\omega )`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}P(\omega ^{}\omega ,T)N(\omega ^{})f(\omega ^{})𝑑\omega ^{}`$
, where

$$P(\omega )=\frac{4\pi e^2}{\mathrm{}v\omega ^2}\frac{\mathrm{Re}\{\sigma (\omega )\}}{|1+ϵ(\omega )|^2}$$
(3)
with the normalization condition

$$1=P_0+_0^{\mathrm{}}P(\omega )𝑑\omega .$$
(4)
Here, $`P_0`$ is the zero energy loss probability, $`P(\omega )`$ the probability of losing the kinetic energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, $`N(\omega )`$ the temperature independent density of states(DOS), $`f(\omega )`$ the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, $`\sigma (\omega )`$ the conductivity, $`ϵ(\omega )`$ the dielectric function. To apply these formulae to the manganites, the Drude model was used with additional parameter $`r`$ following the approach of Ref.2 :

$$ϵ(\omega )=\frac{4\pi i}{\omega }\sigma (\omega )=\frac{4\pi i}{\omega }(r+\frac{1}{1i\omega \tau })\sigma _0$$
(5)
for the dielectric function. Here $`r`$ represents the relative strength of the frequency-independent part compared with Drude part in the conductivity. This parameter $`r`$ is somewhat artificial and its physical origin is not yet well understood, but inclusion of this parameter makes a sloping line shape often observed in PES. In this paper we will assume that the above scheme is suitable for describing the line shapes of PES for manganites and test if it describes the experimental line shapes of samples with different resistivities consistently.

## II Experiment

High quality polycrystalline specimens of La0.7Sr0.3Mn1-δAlδO3 ($`\delta `$ = 0, 0.03, 0.06) were made by the standard solid state reaction method. Stoichiometric amounts of high purity ($``$ 99.99 %) La$`_\text{2}`$O$`_\text{3}`$, SrCO$`_\text{3}`$, Al$`_\text{2}`$O$`_\text{3}`$, and MnO$`_\text{2}`$ powders were weighed and mixed with a pestle and a mortar. After calcining and grinding repeatedly, resulting powders were pressed into a pellet. Three pellets of La0.7Sr0.3Mn1-δAlδO3 ($`\delta `$ = 0, 0.03, 0.06) were prepared together. And, they were finally sintered at 1440C for 24 hrs and slowly cooled in air. We applied the identical synthesis condition for all the samples investigated. We cut each sintered pellet into two pieces, one for transport measurement and the other for photoemission spectroscopy. The resistivities were measured by the conventional four probe method. The photoemission spectra were taken with VG Microtech CLAM-4 multi-channeltron electron energy analyzer with the energy resolution of 40 meV full width at half maximum (FWHM) at Seoul National University under the base pressure of $`1.0\times 10^{10}`$ torr. Photon source was unmonochromatized He I line ($`h\nu `$ = 21.2 eV). The samples were cooled down to 95 K with liquid nitrogen and were fractured in situ to obtain a clean surface at that temperature by means of a top post. We obtained the spectra within one hour after the cleave, and checked the surface contamination by taking the valence band spectra.

## III Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows the angle integrated photoemission spectra up to 9 eV binding energy of La0.7Sr0.3Mn1-δAlδO3 for three doping cases $`\delta `$ = 0, 0.03, 0.06. Several prominent features can be seen in the spectra and are labeled as A, B, C, D, and E as shown in the figure. Two peaks A and B are strongly hybridized Mn $`t_{2g}`$ and $`e_g`$ states with O 2$`p`$ states. Peak C is usually assigned to O $`2p`$ nonbonding states and peak E to Mn $`3d`$\- O 2$`p`$ bonding states. Peak D around 4.5 eV in $`\delta `$=0.03 and 0.06 cases is thought to originate from Al 3$`sp`$ impurities. The overall shapes are very similar to one another and to those of previously published spectra for $`\mathrm{La}_{0.7}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.3}\mathrm{MnO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{La}_{0.67}\mathrm{Ca}_{0.33}\mathrm{MnO}_3`$. But small doping effects are clearly seen in several points. The position of peak E is slightly shifted to higher binding energy side and a small peak D appears around 4.5 eV as Al is doped. The apparent position change of peak E is thought to come from the change of relative concentration of $`\mathrm{Mn}^{3+}`$ and $`\mathrm{Mn}^{4+}`$ ions. Since $`\mathrm{Al}^{3+}`$ ion replaces $`\mathrm{Mn}^{3+}`$ site, the spectral weight due to $`\mathrm{Mn}^{3+}`$ sites will be reduced upon Al doping, which should lie at lower binding energy than $`\mathrm{Mn}^{4+}`$ because of correlation energy. The O $`2p`$ nonbonding states (peak C) show almost no change, as expected. Mn $`t_{2g}`$ (peak B) and $`e_g`$ states (peak A), which are more intimately involved in the transport properties of manganites, are also clearly seen around 2 eV and Fermi level and seem to be identical to undoped case. From these spectra we infer that the overall electronic structures do not change much with doping and consistent with the results of structural and transport study by Y. Sawaki et al.. This is a strong evidence that the increase of resistivity is not due to the change of electronic structure or phase transition, but due to the increase of scattering rates of carriers. We note that for the doped samples, specially $`\delta `$ = 0.06, the resistivity is fairly high (see the inset of Fig 3) and the estimated electron mean free path is comparable to the unit cell spacing. In spite of this fact, resistivity curve and PES data show doped samples are still metallic. This behavior is similar to the cases of A3C60 (A = K, Rb), La1.85Sr0.15CuO4, and Sr2RuO4, where its physical origin is currently under active debate.

To study the relation between the line shape of PES near the Fermi energy ($`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{F}`$) and the sample resistivity, we obtained the photoemission spectra near the Fermi level in detail. These spectra are shown in Fig. 2. Each spectrum is normalized to the height at 0.6 eV below the Fermi level. We can see clearly the slight decrease of the spectral weight of ”Mn $`e_g`$ band” as Al is doped, which is as expected. Because the atomic cross section of O $`2p`$ is about one order of magnitude larger than that of Mn $`3d`$ at $`h\nu `$=21.2 eV, most of the spectral weight change near $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{F}`$ reflects the O 2$`p`$ characters mixed in the Mn $`e_g`$ bands. Even though the sample resistivity changes by about two orders of magnitude, the whole line shapes remain very similar to one another, and only small change of PES spectra is detected. This result seems to be quite different from the expectation of the argument of Ref. 2, as discussed below in more detail.

First of all, we must check whether the resistivity of our samples covers the valid region for the test of this theory. According to a recent report, there are two inequalities that should be satisfied by samples for the extrinsic effect to be important in PES. For our experiments with the values of the analyzer resolution R = 40 meV, band structure width of interest B = 1 eV, carrier concentration $`n=1.5\times 10^{22}cm^3`$ under the assumption that the ratio of effective mass to bare mass of electron is order of 1, resistivity $`\rho `$ must lie in the region from 1 to 100 $`m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ for ”insulator regime” and $`\sigma _0/\tau `$ from $`5\times 10^{26}`$ to $`5\times 10^{29}sec^2`$ for ”metallic regime” to meet this criterion. Clearly, our samples pass through these regions (see table I). So the fact that we observe nearly no change of PES line shape in our spectra is quite surprising if significant extrinsic effect does exist.

To compare the experimental results and the theoretical expectation based on the argument of Ref. 2, we try to fit the spectrum of undoped sample with the theoretical formula (1) by adjusting parameters $`P_0`$ and $`r`$ under the assumption of a constant DOS as in Ref. 2. This comparison is thought to be a good estimation on how reasonable the model calculation is. From this fit, we determine the values of parameter $`P_0`$ and $`r`$ as well as $`\sigma _0/\tau `$. Since $`\sigma _0/\tau =ne^2/m^{}`$ in the Drude model, we expect its value to remain the same for Al-doped samples as well. In addition, there are no physical reasons for $`P_0`$ and $`r`$ values to change significantly with small Al-doping. Hence we calculate the line shape of PES for the other two doped samples using formula (1) with the same values for $`P_0`$, $`r`$ and $`\sigma _0/\tau `$, and compared with the experimental spectra. The results are displayed in Fig. 3 with the label of fitting 1. Here the calculated lines are convoluted with the experimental resolution of 40 meV in FWHM and the height of spectra are adjusted to coincide with the experiment around 0.6 eV below the Fermi level.

For $`\delta `$ = 0 case, we are able to fit the experimental spectrum quite well with the line shape calculated from eq. (1) by proper choice of $`P_0`$ and $`r`$ values. The resulting fitting values are similar to those in Ref. 2 except the zero energy loss probability $`P_0`$. Though $`P_0`$ in our fitting ($`P_0`$ = 0.05) is much larger than that of Ref. 2 ($`P_0`$ 0.0025), it is still too small in comparison with the estimated value from the sum rule derived by D. L. Mills ($`P_0`$ = 0.35) or electron energy loss spectra (EELS) taken by K. Schulte et al. ($`P_0`$ = 0.82). For $`\delta `$ = 0.03 and 0.06 cases, we can see that the photoemission line shapes calculated from eq. (1) with the same parameter values show severe discrepancies from those of experimental spectra. Note the behavior of resistivity dependence of calculated PES line shape. Even the small change of resistivity around 1 $`m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ is expected to make large effect on the line shape. Other parameters give relatively weak dependence. This strong resistivity dependence of PES line shape in eq (1) suggests the possibility that the PES can give severely distorted information about the density of states near Fermi level when the material under investigation is a poor conductor like manganites, if the extrinsic ohmic loss effect is indeed important.

The zero energy loss probability $`P_0`$ is assumed the same for all samples in fitting 1. In fitting 2, $`P_0`$ is also allowed to vary depending on $`\delta `$-value to see if this gives better agreement with experiment, although we do not think $`P_0`$ should be so much dependent on sample resistivity. However, we see that the results of fitting 2 do not give significantly better agreement between theory and experiment than the case of fitting 1 even though we take $`P_0`$ as free parameter for each $`\delta `$. All the parameter values used in the above analyses are tabulated in Table I.

Next, we try to fit our data with the sloping DOS near $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{F}`$. In this fit, we do not use the additional parameter $`r`$ because using both sloping DOS and $`r`$ makes the analysis too arbitrary. Figure 4 shows the results in detail. In this case, we can fit all the experimental spectra quite well, but the obtained parameter values seem to give another question. There is a big difference between the values of $`P_0`$ in doped sample and undoped ones. If we use a small value of $`P_0`$ for undoped sample, the calculated spectrum always shows the step-like feature around 400 meV binding energy. This is the effect of surface plasmon. To remove this step-like feature in the calculated spectrum, $`P_0`$ value must be larger than 0.5 at least as seen in Fig 4. This abrupt change of $`P_0`$ value by more than one order of magnitude with small Al-doping is not expected judging from the EELS study of alloy semiconductor $`\mathrm{Al}_x\mathrm{Ga}_{1x}\mathrm{As}`$, and cannot be explained even if we include the multiple scattering process.

From our experimental results and fittings as stated above, we conclude that the experimental spectra do not show any symptom of significant ohmic loss effect, and the theoretical line shapes cannot reproduce experimental spectra for our series of manganite samples in a reasonable way without much conflict. Hence it seems clear that the long range Coulomb interaction between the outgoing photoelectrons and the sample left behind is not so large as was suggested in Ref. 2. Our fitting results show that the only way to explain the experimental spectra consistently is to increase the $`P_0`$ value rather large, and this means that we can regard the PES spectra near Fermi energy as the replica of the density of states in condensed matter whether its conductivity is good or not.

## IV Conclusion

In summary, we presented an experimental evidence that the theory suggested in Ref. 2 cannot explain consistently the behaviors of photoemission spectra for a series of systems in which resistivities vary systematically. Hence we conclude that the influence of this long range Coulomb interaction is not so large as can distort the photoemission line shape significantly.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation through Center for Strongly Correlated Materials Research (CSCMR) at Seoul National University. KHK was also supported by the BK-21 Project of the Ministry of Education.


text:
# Vanishing magnetic mass in QED3 with a Chern-Simons term

## I Introduction

In an earlier letter van , we had studied the question of the screening mass in the $`2+1`$ dimensional Abelian Higgs model with a Chern-Simons term as well as in QED3 with a Chern-Simons term. We had shown there that, at one loop, the magnetic mass in QED3 vanishes. This is quite surprising considering the fact that the Chern-Simons term has associated with it various magnetic phenomena deser ; dunne  and yet the magnetic mass vanishes. In that letter van , we had formally argued, based on Ward identity as well as the assumption of analyticity of the amplitudes, that this result holds to all orders. However, as is well known, amplitudes cease to be analytic and infrared divergences, in general, become severe at finite temperature das , both of which can invalidate a formal argument. Therefore, in this paper, we study this question systematically in QED3 with a Chern-Simons term at finite temperature and give an alternate proof that the magnetic mass indeed vanishes to all orders. It has already been noted brandt  that, at two loops, the parity violating part of the gauge self-energy (correction to the Chern-Simons term) develops an infrared divergence at finite temperature in the absence of a tree level Chern-Simons term. It is for this reason that we study QED3 with a Chern-Simons term. However, as the one loop result shows van , even with a tree level Chern-Simons term, the photon propagator develops a massless pole and, therefore, the question of infrared divergence has to be analyzed carefully. We note that the vanishing of the magnetic mass at finite temperature has already been studied in QED4 fradkin . However, infrared divergences become more severe as we go to lower dimensions. The two dimensional theory (Schwinger model) is known to be well behaved das1  and, therefore, the $`2+1`$ dimensional theory is the most interesting theory to study from this point of view.

Our results are organized as follows. In section II, we show that, at one loop, the magnetic mass vanishes in QED in any dimension at finite temperature. The additional feature of the $`2+1`$ dimensional theory is that even the zero temperature contribution to the magnetic mass can be regularized to zero. We also explicitly show that, at two loops, QED3 with a Chern-Simons term has vanishing contribution to the magnetic mass and that there is no infrared divergence present in this amplitude at this order even in the absence of a tree level Chern-Simons term. In section III, we prove that the vanishing of the magnetic mass holds to all orders. In section IV, we present a brief summary of our results.

## II Explicit calculations

Let us consider QED3 with a Chern-Simons term described by the Lagrangian density

$$L=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{\kappa }{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +\overline{\psi }(i\overline{)}Dm)\psi $$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is known as the Chern-Simons coefficient and the covariant derivative is defined to be

$$D_\mu \psi =(_\mu ieA_\mu )\psi $$
(2)
In $`2+1`$ dimensions, the Chern-Simons term as well as the mass term for the fermion break discrete symmetries such as parity and time reversal deser ; dunne  and, therefore, are intimately connected. Namely, even if there is no Chern-Simons term present at the tree level, it is generated through radiative corrections in a massive fermion theory redlich . Let us note, however, that both these terms are invariant under charge conjugation under which

$$CA_\mu C^1=A_\mu ,C\psi C^1=\gamma ^2\overline{\psi }^T$$
(3)
As a result, the Lagrangian density in (1) is invariant under charge conjugation and it is the charge conjugation invariance which, for example, makes the amplitudes with an odd number of photons to vanish (Furry’s theorem) in this theory. We would like to study the question of the magnetic mass in this theory at finite temperature.

Throughout this paper, we will use the imaginary time formalism das ; kapusta ; lebellac  to study the finite temperature effects in this theory. Therefore, we will consider the theory in the Euclidean space. In such a theory, the self-energy of the photon is independent of the gauge fixing parameter and, in a covariant gauge, can be parameterized to all orders as van

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=P_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}+Q_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{L}+ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }p_\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{odd}}$$
(4)
where

$$P_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{\mu \nu }\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}_\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2},Q_{\mu \nu }=\frac{p^2}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\overline{u}_\mu \overline{u}_\nu $$
(5)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }u_\mu u_\nu ,\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu =p_\mu (up)u_\mu ,\overline{u}_\mu =u_\mu \frac{up}{p^2}p_\mu $$
(6)
Here $`u_\mu `$ represents the velocity of the heat bath which, in the rest frame, takes the form $`u_\mu =(1,0,0)`$.

There are several things to note here. First, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{L}`$, lead respectively to the transverse and the longitudinal masses for the photon. While the longitudinal mass is responsible for the screening of charges, it is the transverse mass which is related to the magnetic mass of the photon. Second, the presence of the parity odd term, in the self-energy, is a consequence of the fact that parity is violated in this theory. From the form of the tensors in (5), it is easy to see that we can write, in general, the magnetic mass for the photon (which is defined in the static limit) as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}(0)=\frac{1}{D2}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(0)=\frac{1}{D2}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{\mathrm{PC}}(0),D>2$$
(7)
where $`D`$ represents the number of space-time dimensions. Namely, the magnetic mass is determined completely from the parity conserving part of the self-energy and does not depend on the parity violating structure.

We note that in the imaginary time formalism, the tree level fermion propagator has the form

$$S^{(0)}(p)=\frac{1}{\overline{)}p+m}=\frac{\overline{)}p+m}{p^2+m^2}$$
(8)
where, in the Euclidean space, we work with

$$\gamma _0=i\sigma _3,\gamma _1=i\sigma _1,\gamma _2=i\sigma _2$$
(9)
and

$$p_0=(2n+1)\pi T=\frac{(2n+1)\pi }{\beta }$$
(10)
With these, we note that the photon self-energy in QED at one loop, in an arbitrary dimension, takes the form (see fig. 1)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{tr}\gamma _\mu S^{(0)}(k+p)\gamma _\nu S^{(0)}(k)}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\mathrm{tr}\gamma _\mu S^{(0)}(k+p)\gamma _\nu S^{(0)}(k)}`$
In $`D`$-dimensional Euclidean space, the trace over the gamma matrices takes the form

$$\mathrm{tr}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu =2^{[\frac{D}{2}]}\delta _{\mu \nu }=C(D)\delta _{\mu \nu }$$
(12)
where $`[\frac{D}{2}]`$ represents the floor of $`\frac{D}{2}`$. Evaluating the Dirac trace and performing the sum over the discrete frequencies, we obtain, in the static limit

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}^{(1)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(1)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{C(D)e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\left((D1)+\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{\omega _k}\frac{}{\omega _k}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\beta \omega _k}{2})}{\omega _k}\right)}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C(D)e^2}{2^{D1}\pi ^{\frac{D1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D1}{2})}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^{D2}\left((D1)+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\omega _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega _k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\beta \omega _k}{2})}{\omega _k}}\right)`$
where we have defined $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and $`\omega _k=\sqrt{k^2+m^2}`$. We can now identify the temperature dependent part of (13) to be

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}^{(1)(\beta )}(0)=\frac{C(D)e^2}{2^{D2}\pi ^{\frac{D1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D1}{2})}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^{D2}\left((D1)+\frac{k^2}{\omega _k}\frac{}{\omega _k}\right)\left(\frac{n_F(\omega _k)}{\omega _k}\right)$$
(14)
where

$$n_F(\omega _k)=\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega _k}+1}$$
(15)
is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. The expression on the right hand side of (14) is easily seen to vanish, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}^{(1)(\beta )}(0)=\frac{C(D)e^2}{2^{D2}\pi ^{\frac{D1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D1}{2})}_m^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega _k\frac{}{\omega _k}\left((\omega _k^2m^2)^{\frac{D1}{2}}\frac{n_F(\omega _k)}{\omega _k}\right)=0,D2$$
(16)
This shows that, at finite temperature, the one loop correction to the magnetic mass vanishes in any dimension $`D2`$. We note that, at one loop, there is no infrared divergence since we are considering a massive fermion. In general, the zero temperature part in (13) has an ultraviolet divergence. However, in $`2+1`$ dimensions, there is the added interesting feature that the zero temperature part can be regularized to zero within the framework of Pauli-Villars regularization or dimensional regularization or a gauge invariant projection method deser . We also note that the one loop result is completely independent of the presence or absence of a tree level Chern-Simons term in $`2+1`$ dimensions and, therefore, holds even for pure QED3. Furthermore, let us note that while this has been an exact result at one loop, it can also be easily checked within the hard thermal loop approximation pisarski  where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{HTL})}^{(1)(\beta )}(0)C(D)e^2\frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{n_F(\omega _k)}{\omega _k}\left((D3)+\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p})^2}\right)=0$$
(17)
We will show next that the magnetic mass also vanishes at two loops in QED3 with a Chern-Simons term. The two loop photon self-energy diagrams (see fig. 2) can be obtained from the one loop box diagrams by connecting the photon lines in all possible ways. We note that at tree level, the photon propagator, in a covariant gauge, has the form

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(p)=\frac{1}{p^2+\kappa ^2}\left[(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2})\kappa ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }\frac{p_\lambda }{p^2}\right]+\xi \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{(p^2)^2}$$
(18)
where $`\xi `$ is the gauge fixing parameter and $`p_0=2\pi nT=\frac{2\pi n}{\beta }`$. Furthermore, since the four photon amplitude at one loop (sum of the box diagrams) is gauge invariant, it vanishes when it is contracted with the momentum associated with a photon line. Therefore, the only two terms from the photon propagator in (18) that can contribute to the two loop self-energy are the $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ and the $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ terms. With these simplifications in mind, we obtain from the two loop photon self-energy, in the static limit,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}^{(2)}(0)=4e^4\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{q^2+\kappa ^2}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{}{k_i}\left[\frac{k_i}{(k^2+m^2)^2}\frac{k_i(q^2+4m(\kappa m))}{(k^2+m^2)^2((k+q)^2+m^2)}\right]=0$$
(19)
This result holds for both the zero temperature as well as the finite temperature parts and we note that this is true even when $`\kappa =0`$ and, therefore, the vanishing of the magnetic mass, at two loops, holds even for pure QED3. This has to be contrasted with the behavior of the parity violating part of the self-energy which has an infrared divergence when $`\kappa 0`$ brandt . Therefore, we see that unlike the parity violating part of the self-energy, the parity conserving part has a better infrared divergence behavior. It is worth pointing out here that this result can also be obtained in a simple manner using the Ward identities of the theory. Let us also note that the Chern-Simons term does have a nontrivial contribution to the parity conserving part of the self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{\mathrm{PC}}`$ van . However, surprisingly, it does not contribute to the magnetic mass (7).

## III Vanishing of magnetic mass to all orders

Normally, an all orders proof of a result in a gauge theory is simplified enormously through the use of Ward identities. However, at finite temperature, the non-analyticity of the amplitudes at the origin in the energy-momentum space leads to difficulties das ; weldon . For example, let us consider the $`N`$-point photon amplitude which would satisfy a relation of the form

$$p_{\alpha ,\mu _\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_N)=0,\mu _\alpha =0,1,2$$
(20)
In the static limit where all the external energies vanish, on the other hand, we can write the amplitude as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(m,n)}`$ with $`m+n=N`$ where $`m`$ represents the number of time indices while $`n`$ corresponds to the number of space indices. In this case, the Ward identity (20) takes the form

$$p_{\alpha ,i_\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(m,i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)}(\mathrm{},p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)=0,i_\alpha =1,2$$
(21)
and one can formally argue that, for small $`p_{\alpha ,i_\alpha }`$, the amplitude behaves like ward ; coleman

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(m,i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)}(\mathrm{},p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)O(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)$$
(22)
This behavior is, in fact, explicitly seen at one loop in the two point and the four point functions for the photon in the static limit brandt1 . In the long wave length limit where the spatial components of the momenta vanish, on the other hand, we have much more limited information. Furthermore, even if we know the behavior of the amplitudes in the static and the long wave limits independently, this information is not very useful in constructing higher loop amplitudes, where the energy and momenta of the internal photon lines are integrated over all possible values.

Therefore, we pursue the following strategy in proving, to all orders, that the magnetic mass vanishes at finite temperature. First, let us look at the tree level propagator for the fermion in (8) and note that

$$\frac{S^{(0)}(p)}{p_\mu }=S^{(0)}(p)\gamma _\mu S^{(0)}(p)$$
(23)
Namely, we see that, much like at zero temperature ward , at finite temperature, differentiating the tree level fermion propagator is equivalent to introducing a tree level photon vertex with zero energy-momentum (up to the coupling). This can also be rewritten in the more familiar form

$$\frac{(S^{(0)})^1(p)}{p_\mu }=\gamma _\mu $$
(24)
which says that, at the tree level, differentiating the fermion two point function gives rise to a vertex with zero energy and momentum, up to the coupling constant.

Let us next note that we can write the one loop $`N`$-point photon amplitude as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N}(q_1,\mathrm{},q_N)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N}(k;q_1,\mathrm{},q_N)=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{n}{}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N}(k;q_1,\mathrm{},q_N)$$
(25)
where, as mentioned earlier, $`k_0=\frac{(2n+1)\pi }{\beta }`$. Using the relations in (23)-(24), we see that the amplitude with an additional external photon with a space index and carrying zero energy and momentum is obtained to be (see fig. 3)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N}(0,q_1,\mathrm{},q_N)=\frac{e}{\beta }\underset{n}{}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{}{k_i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N}(k;q_1,\mathrm{},q_N)=0,N2$$
(26)
This shows that an $`N+1`$ point amplitude with a photon line carrying a space index and zero energy-momentum vanishes for $`N2`$, independent of the values of the energy and momenta of the other photon lines. The restriction, $`N2`$, comes from the ultraviolet convergence of the integrand and, at one loop, we have no infrared divergence problem since the fermion is massive. We note that the odd point photon amplitudes vanish by charge conjugation invariance (Furry’s theorem) for any value of the external energy and momentum, but this result shows that even point photon amplitudes also vanish when one of the external photon lines has a space index and carries zero energy and momentum. It follows now, from this as well as charge conjugation invariance, that any fermion loop with an external photon carrying a space index and zero energy-momentum gives a vanishing contribution in a complicated diagram such as fig. 4, where the external photon is attached to an internal fermion line that is not a continuation of the external fermion lines.

As a result, using (23)-(24), it can be shown in a straightforward diagrammatic manner that, to all orders, we can write the three point photon-fermion-fermion vertex with the photon carrying a space index and zero energy-momentum as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(p,p,0)=e\frac{S^1(p)}{p_i}$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ and $`S^1(p)`$ represent respectively the vertex and the fermion self-energy to all orders. This is like the zero temperature Ward identity ward , but holds for a space index, which is what we will need for our proof.

With these, let us look at the photon self-energy to all orders given by the Schwinger-Dyson equation, fig. 5, which leads to

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{tr}\gamma _iS(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(k,k,0)S(k)}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{}{k_i}(\mathrm{tr}\gamma _iS(k))}`$
The finite temperature part of this integrand is well behaved and, being a total divergence, vanishes, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}^{(\beta )}(0)=0$$
(29)
to all orders. Since the loop involves massive fermions, there is no problem of infrared divergence in this case. The temperature independent part of this expression has a linear divergence which, as we have mentioned in the last section, can be regularized to zero in $`2+1`$ dimensions. We note here that the vanishing of the finite temperature part to all orders appears naturally, in this description, to hold in any dimension.

## IV Summary

In this paper, we have shown that, at finite temperature, the magnetic mass vanishes at one loop in QED in any dimension. In $`2+1`$ dimensions, in addition, the zero temperature part can be regularized to zero. In $`2+1`$ dimension, this result is independent of the presence of a tree level Chern-Simons term. We have calculated and shown explicitly that this result also holds at two loops. We have given a simple proof to show that the magnetic mass vanishes to all orders at finite temperature in this theory. This result also holds for QED in any dimension.

Acknowledgment:

One of us (AD) would like to thank Profs. J. Frenkel and S. Okubo for many helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by US DOE Grant number DE-FG 02-91ER40685 and by CAPES, Brasil.


text:
# What could be more practical than a good interpretation?

## Abstract

Quantum mechanics is more than the derivation of straightforward theorems about vector spaces, Hilbert spaces and functional analysis. In order to be applicable to experiment and technology, those theorems need interpretation and meaning. Interpretation is to the formalism what a scaffolding in architecture and building construction is to the completed building.

philosophy of quantum mechanics

Not long ago, we were sitting in the university cafeteria with a gifted math student. The student listened to the quantum mechanical problems some condensed matter physicists were working on. After a while he jumped up and shouted, “but this is merely linear vector space theory!” He seemed disappointed. At least from a formal point of view, this exclamation appears not to be totally unreasonable. I often have the chance to observe the astonishment of mathematicians, for instance group theorists, when I watch them browsing through venerable physics journals. They point to numbered equations, lemmas, theorems and conjectures. While shaking their heads disparagingly, they tell me that these results have been known for a long, long time, So, why are mathematicians working in functional analysis not the “better” quantum physicists?

Recently Christopher Fuchs and Asher Peres seem to argue in a related direction, performing a nice exercise in “interpretation-bashing” Fuchs and Peres (2000), as I would call it. If I interpret them correctly, they assure that quantum theory is an operationally testable formalism concerned with predictions and frequency counts which are ultimately based on clicks in detectors, nothing more. Indeed, it is almost tautologic that the only relevant part of an applicable formalism is the formalism itself. (Just as any physical system obviously is a perfect copy of itself.) Any emanation of a physical system can be codified into discrete detectable clicks. The statistical accumulation of such detector clicks serves as an interface to the quantum probabilities which can be computed according to algorithmic (“cookbook-like”) rules, no more but no less. This is ultimate testability, and in terms of predictions, quantum theory has been standing out wonderfully for almost a century now, with not the faintest indication of failure even in the remotest area of phenemenology.

Any variation of this criticism against interpretation could be heard around the world, year round and from many prominent physicists. It has become almost fashionable to discredit interpretation. Already Sommerfeld warned his students not to get into these issues, and, as mentioned by John Clauser Clauser (2000), not long ago scientists working in that field had to be very careful not to become discredited as “quacks.” Richard Feynman (Feynman, 1965, p. 129) once mentioned the “perpetual torment that results from \[\[the question\]\], ‘But how can it be like that?’ which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see \[\[quantum mechanics\]\] in terms of an analogy with something familiar” and advised his audience, “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.” Only recently, some of that thinking and experimenting, as a spin-off, turned into the highly respected and very active research areas of quantum cryptography and computing.

Indeed, almost no research field has been plagued with more fruitless “meta” papers and “voodoo” thoughts than quantum mechanics, many such treatises written by uninformed laymen with merely superficial working practice of quantum mechanics. Surely, when reading these treatises, one is often reminded of the pressing question of scholasticism how many angels fit on the top of a needle. Many of these “explanations” simply misinform the public, thereby discrediting science. Not to mention the more radical “quacks,” who however seem to favor relativity theory over quantum mechanics for their vain attempts to unfold what appears to them the occult mysteries of physics. These people either cannot understand or do not accept the rational scientific practices and mathematics.

Let us get back to interpretation-bashing. Of course, there exists a “quick and dirty” rebuttal to the “No-Interpretation” interpretation of quantum mechanics: that it is also an interpretation, after all! Just as atheism is also a system of belief whose central element is the nonexistence of God. Nevertheless, the matter is too serious to leave it there. Because, if taken earnestly, the suggestion to “not interpret quantum mechanics” could severely hamper research in this field.

Abandoning interpretation issues from quantum physics proper amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water, and to censorship at worst. Why? Because we would be at a loss in extending the present knowledge base of physical theory to new phenomenological domains! Stated pointedly, abandonment of interpretation amounts to imposing restrictions to what is considered “legal” science. Those stop signs for speculative thinking could be detrimental, crippling the mind of the geniuses whose precious weird ideas are the root for scientific revolutions and progress. So often in history the contemporary peers have committed themselves to what appeared to them the consolidated canon of knowledge, and too often such attempts have turned out to be vain at best and scientific impediments at worst. Indeed, I believe that the danger of such impediments by restricting physics proper is higher than the annoyance and distraction caused by useless interpretations.

Interpretation is to the formalism what a scaffolding in architecture and building construction is to the completed building. Very often the scaffolding has to be erected because it is an indispensable part of the building process. Once the completed building is in place, the scaffolding is torn down and the opus stands in its own full glory. No need for auxiliary scaffold any more. But beware of those technicians who claim to be able to erect some of those “international style skyscrapers” without any poles and planks!

I claim that “soft” interpretation issues very often serve as a guideline or intuition, which is absolutely necessary for the quantum mechanical research program. Almost by definition, a “good” interpretation fosters research, while a “bad” one cripples it. Thereby, I would definitely not like to link interpretation to “reality” or “truth,” but would keep a very pragmatic attitude: as long as an interpretation, as weird as it may sound, fosters research, it is a “good” one, otherwise it may just be a waste of time. However, as pointed out by Lakatos Lakatos (1978) so often, the contemporary peers may not be able to acknowledge what sooner or later will become a progressive research program, and one is left with the request for tolerance and an openness for new ideas.

Let me give some examples. Often one hears that many researchers in the quantum computation community profit from the intuition obtained from the Everett interpretation. Other researchers in quantum theory seem to favor the information aspects of the processes involved, in particular the reversibility (one-to-oneness) of the unitary time evolution. By and large, my experience is that there exists as many interpretations of quantum mechanics as there are physicists (the author’s own fancy can be read in Svozil (2002)). Even those claiming to cling to the Copenhagen interpretation have their own very original thoughts about and additions to it (e.g., consider Anton Zeilinger’s foundational principle for quantum mechanics Zeilinger (1999)). Other examples are the pictorial representation of the formalism, such as Feynman diagrams in the theory of quantized fields, or interferometric schemes in quantum optics Greenberger et al. (1993).

I would like to suggest a more tolerant attitude towards interpretation also in other areas of physical research, in particular in relativity theory. The ether interpretation, for example, nowadays appears to be highly exotic, although it has been taken quite seriously by scientists such as Paul Dirac Dirac (1951), John Bell Bell (1992) and even Albert Einstein Einstein (1920), to name but a few.

Without interpretation and intuition, the application of the formalism would be restricted to automatic proofing, to an “a thousand monkeys typing-away scenario”. A similar hope was expressed around 1900 by the mathematical formalists, most notably by David Hilbert, who expected to be able to find a final, finite system of axioms from which all true mathematical theorems could be deduced by similar methods as recipes in a cookbook. Today we would call such methods “algorithmic.” It might be a tedious task, but eventually every mathematical theorem would be uncovered automatically; even Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s last theorem, and also the theorems by Gleason, Bell and Kochen & Specker, to name but a few. Eventually, Gödel, Tarski, Turing, Chaitin and others have put an end to the formalist’s hope for an ultimate, all-encompassing theory of everything in mathematics. Their findings have given way to more realistic possibilities of constructive proofing.

Suppose you could program a computer to handle complicated quantum computations by a very general knowledge base of quantum theory. Would you really believe that any such computer would become a good quantum theorist? My suspicion is that this machine would churn out zillions of tautologies and correct but unusable expressions. By the time it would start producing important revelations (if ever), the machine would have developed its intrinsic “meaning” or “understanding,” its “interpretation” of quantum mechanics. This might be considered as a third, independent type of test for intelligence, besides the famous Turing test or Daniel Greenberger’s test of intelligence (Greenberger (2002); in short: disobedience of superrules, just as in the Genesis).

Of course, by mere brute force, eventually, every automatic, algorithmic method would result in all possible theoretical expressions. But then, who could filter out the scarce singular important treasures from the myriads of formulae, the promising technological and experimental applications from the wasteful repetitions of useless by-products? At least until now, the quantum formalism does not contain any such meta-formalisms. Presently, this work is done by humans with intuition and interpretations in their minds. I cannot see any presently existing (meta-)theory or machine which would be capable of taking away that selection challenge and burden from the scientist. There is so much creativity required in applying scientific results into practical use that I have no high hopes for any fast automated solution.

Let me conclude with a partial answer to the question of the title, “What could be more practical than a good interpretation?” I would argue that proposals of a new theory which can be distinguished from quantum mechanics and extends it experimentally would be more exciting than any new interpretation. Likewise, any unexplained phenomenon which gives a hint to think about new directions would be most welcomed. At the moment, I am at a loss of seeing any one of these possibilities (but maybe it is just my ignorance which prevents me from doing this). In the meantime, let us be tolerant to all those weird interpretations of quantum mechanics out there, since they are the guarantee for a vivid and abundant scientific research. In doing this, one should not accept claims of absolute truth of any particular interpretation for two reasons: no interpretation can be distinguished from other interpretations by operationalizable means, and it may be just a scaffolding, after all! I readily acknowledge that any trickery quantum talk may degenerate to fruitless speculations. Yet, in view of the mindboggling Greenberger et al. (1993), incomprehensiveness (Feynman, 1965, p. 129) of quantum mechanics, any outright negation of interpretation may amount to a mistake mentioned already in Democritus of Abdera’s fragments (translated by Cyril Bailey Bailey (1928) cited by Erwin Schrödinger (Schrödinger, 1954, p. 87)), in which the senses, when attacked by reason, say, $`\mathrm{}`$ from us you are taking the evidence by which you would overthrow us? Your victory is your fall.”


text:
# Can we observe the 𝜎 meson in peripheral heavy ion collisions?

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. C. Aguilar, I. Bediaga, C. Dib, M. M. Leite, R. Rosenfeld and A. Zimerman for many valuable discussions. This research was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (AAN), by Fundacão de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (CGR,AAN) and by Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX).


text:
# NON-ABELIAN CONSTRAINTS IN MULTIPARTICLE PRODUCTION Presented at the Cracow Epiphany Conference on Quarks and Gluons in Extreme Conditions, Cracow, Poland, January 3-6, 2002

## 1 Introduction

Let us consider a multiparticle interacting system with the internal symmetry taken into account. The internal symmetry leads to conservation laws which put constraints on the evolution of system. The problem arises if are there only constraints due to the symmetry conservation? In the microscopic formulation with symmetry invariant dynamical equations the answer is given by an analysis of corresponding solutions — assuming that solutions are known.

We are looking here for global conditions to provide consistency with the overall symmetry of the system. These conditions should not depend on the exact analytic form of the solutions. As an example one can take Kepler’s laws in the classical mechanics which are related to the orbital momentum conservation and can be proved without knowledge of the analytic solutions of Newton equations. Another simple example is a case of $`n`$ species of charged particles with individual charges $`q_a,q_b,\mathrm{},q_n.`$ Numbers of particles a given by $`N^{(a)},N^{(b)},\mathrm{},N^{(n)}.`$

Particle numbers are time-dependent but the global charges must be conserved (exact $`U(1)`$ symmetry). So there is a condition

$$q_a\frac{dN^{(a)}}{dt}+q_b\frac{dN^{(b)}}{dt}+\mathrm{}+q_n\frac{dN^{(n)}}{dt}=0,$$
(1.1)
valid for any charge conserving interaction.

Our aim is to find a corresponding condition for non-abelian symmetries. In the non-abelian case there is a subsidiary condition besides conditions of the type Eq. (1.1) due to the charge conservation. This is the demand to preserve the internal symmetry group representations during the evolution of the system.

## 2 Generalized Projection Method

Let us consider a system big enough to use methods of statistical physics. When the system reaches the statistical equilibrium then one can extract contributions from particular irreducible representation of the symmetry group . Group projection techniques allowed for a consistent treatment of equilibrium systems and gave tools to obtain canonical partition functions corresponding to the system transforming under given representation of the symmetry group. This technique can also be used for a more general non-static problem.

Let us consider a system consisting of particles belonging to multiplets $`\alpha _j`$ of the symmetry group. Particles from the given multiplet $`\alpha _j`$ are characterized by quantum numbers $`\nu _j`$ — related to the symmetry group, and quantum numbers $`\zeta _j`$ characterizing different multiplets of the same irreducible representation $`\alpha _j`$.

The number of particles of the specie $`\{\alpha ,\nu _\alpha ;\zeta \}`$ is denoted here by $`N_{\nu _\alpha ;(\zeta )}^{(\alpha )}.`$ These occupation numbers are time dependent until the system reaches the chemical equilibrium. However, the representation of the symmetry group for the system remains constant in the course of a time evolution. A multiplicity $`N^{(\alpha _j)}`$ of the representation $`\alpha _j`$ in this product is equal to a number of particles which transform under this representation

$$N^{(\alpha _j)}=\underset{j}{}\left(\underset{\zeta _j}{}N_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}\right)=\underset{j}{}N_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}.$$
(2.1)
We introduce a state vector $`|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$ in particle number representation. The probability that $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$ particles transforming under the symmetry group representations $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$ combine into a state transforming under representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the symmetry group is given by

$`\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\left|𝒫^\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$ (2.2)
The projection operator $`𝒫^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the form (see e.g. )

$$𝒫^\mathrm{\Lambda }=d(\mathrm{\Lambda })\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)U(g).$$
(2.3)
Here $`\chi ^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ is the character of the representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`d(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the dimension of the representation, $`d\mu (g)`$ is the invariant Haar measure on the group, and $`U(g)`$ is an operator transforming a state under consideration. In particle number representation the operator $`U(g)`$ is defined as

$`U(g)|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\nu _n^{(N_{\nu _n})}}{}}D_{\nu _1^{(1)}\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}\mathrm{}D_{\nu _1^{(N_{\nu _1})}\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}\mathrm{}D_{\nu _n^{(1)}\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}\mathrm{}D_{\nu _n^{(N_{\nu _n})}\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}.`$
$`D_{\nu ,\nu }^{(\alpha _n)}`$ is a matrix elements of the group element $`g`$ corresponding to the representation $`\alpha `$.

One gets finally

$`\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$
$`=𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}d(\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}.`$
$`D_{\nu ,\nu }^{(\alpha _n)}`$ is a matrix elements of the group element $`g`$ corresponding to the representation $`\alpha `$ and $`𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}`$ is an overall permutation normalization factor

$$𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}=\underset{j}{}\underset{\zeta _j}{}𝒜_{(\zeta _j)}^{\alpha _j},$$
(2.6)
where $`𝒜_{(\zeta _j)}^{\alpha _j}`$ are partial factors for particles of the kind $`\{\alpha ,\zeta \}:`$

$`𝒜_{(\zeta )}^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩_{(\zeta )}^{(\alpha )}!}{d(\alpha )^{𝒩_{(\zeta )}^{(\alpha )}}\underset{\nu _\alpha }{}𝒩_{\nu _\alpha ;(\zeta )}^{(\alpha )}!}}.`$ (2.7)
The permutation factor gives a proper normalization of state vectors reflecting indistinguishability of particles

$$N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}|N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}=𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}.$$
(2.8)
Because of the symmetry conservations all weights in Eq. (2) should be constant

$$\frac{d}{dt}\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=0.$$
(2.9)
Introducing here the result of Eq. (2) one obtains

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}}{dt}}{\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}}{\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}\mathrm{log}[D_{\nu _j\nu _j}^{(\alpha _j)}].`$
The integrals which appear in Eq. (2) can be expressed explicitly in an analytic form for any compact symmetry group.

To write an expression for the time derivative of the normalization factor $`𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}`$ we perform analytic continuation from integer to continuous values of variables $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}.`$ All factorials in Eq. (2.6) are replaced by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–function of corresponding arguments. We encounter here also the digamma function $`\psi `$

$$\psi (x)=\frac{d\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)}{dx}.$$
(2.11)
This allows to write

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\mathrm{log}𝒜^{\{𝒩\}}}{dt}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{j}{}\underset{\zeta _j}{}\left[\frac{d𝒩_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}\psi (𝒩_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)\underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}\frac{d𝒩_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}\psi (𝒩_{\nu _\alpha ;(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)\right].\end{array}$$
(2.12)
Eq. (2) can be written in a form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}& \frac{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}\frac{d\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{j}{}\underset{\zeta _j}{}& \left(\frac{dN_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}\psi (N_{(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)+\underset{\nu _{\alpha _j}}{}\frac{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}}{dt}\psi (N_{\nu _{\alpha _j};(\zeta _j)}^{(\alpha _j)}+1)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.13)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}$$
(2.14)
is analytically extended for continuous values of variables $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}.`$ This gives

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{dN_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}\mathrm{log}[D_{\nu _j\nu _j}^{(\alpha _j)}]}{\underset{G}{}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(g)[D_{\nu _1\nu _1}^{(\alpha _1)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{\nu _n\nu _n}^{(\alpha _n)}]^{N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}}}.\end{array}$$
(2.15)
Eq. (2.15) give a set of conditions related to the internal symmetry of a system. They are meaningful only for nonzero values of coefficients (2). It is easy to see that coefficients $`\overline{P_{\{N_{\nu _{\alpha _1}}^{(\alpha _1)},\mathrm{},N_{\nu _{\alpha _n}}^{(\alpha _n)}\}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ are different from zero only if parameters $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are consistent with the conservation of the simultaneously measurable charges related to the symmetry group. A number of such charges is equal to the rank $`k`$ of the symmetry group. For the isospin $`SU(2)`$ group that is the third component of the isospin, for the flavor $`SU(3)`$ that would be the third component of the isospin and the hypercharge. In general case one has $`k`$ linear relations between variables $`N_{\nu _{\alpha _j}}^{(\alpha _j)}`$ what reduces correspondingly the number of independent variables.

## 3 Isotopic Hadronic Gas

Let consider a case of isotopic symmetry in a more detailed way. Diagonal matrix elements for the representation $`(j)`$ in the Euler’s angles representation have the form

$$D_{mm}^{(j)}(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\text{e}^{im(\alpha +\gamma )}d_{mm}^{(j)}(\beta ),$$
(3.1a)
where
$$d_{mm}^{(j)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )=\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\beta }{2}\right)^mP_{jm}^{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta ),$$
(3.1b)
and $`P_{jm}^{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )`$ are Jacobi polynomials

$$P_{jm}^{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m)}(x)=\frac{(1)^{jm}}{2^m(jm)!}(1+x)^{2m}\frac{d^{jm}}{dx^{jm}}\left[(1x)^{jm}(1+m)^{j+m}\right]$$
(3.2)
The measure $`d\mu (g)`$ for the $`SU(2)`$ group in this parametrization has the form

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (g)f[g]}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta f[g(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )].`$ (3.3)
There are only three possible nontrivial hadronic isotopic multiplets. These are spinor $`(\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}})`$, vector $`(\mathrm{𝟏})`$, and $`(\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}})`$ representations. Corresponding $`d`$ functions are

$`d_{\pm 1/2,\pm 1/2}^{(1/2)}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\beta }{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (3.4a)
$`d_{\pm 1,\pm 1}^{(1)}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\beta }{2}},`$ (3.4b)
$`d_{0,0}^{(1)}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\beta ,`$ (3.4c)
$`d_{\pm 3/2,\pm 3/2}^{(3/2)}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\beta }{2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},`$ (3.4d)
$`d_{\pm 1/2,\pm 1/2}^{(3/2)}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\beta }{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+3\mathrm{cos}\beta ).`$ (3.4e)
The group theoretic factor (2.14) has the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(J)}(g)[D_{m_{j_1}m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}]^{N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{m_{j_n}m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}]^{N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}}`$ (3.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta \text{e}^{i(N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}m_{j_1}+\mathrm{}+N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}m_{j_n}M)(\alpha +\gamma )}`$
$`\times d_{MM}^{(J)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )\left[d_{m_{j_1}m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )\right]^{N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}}\mathrm{}\left[d_{m_{j_n}m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )\right]^{N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}},`$
where $`N_{m_j}^{(j)}`$ is a number of particles with the isotopic coordinates $`\{j,m_j\}`$.

The nonzero values are obtained only when the arguments of the exponent in Eq. (3.5) vanish

$$N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}m_{j_1}+\mathrm{}+N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}m_{j_n}M=0$$
(3.6)
For the hadronic system with the given value $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of the third component of the isospin the factor (2.14) is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}𝑑\mu (g)\overline{\chi }^{(J)}(g)[D_{m_{j_1}m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}]^{N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}}\mathrm{}[D_{m_{j_n}m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}]^{N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}}`$ (3.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\delta _{\stackrel{~}{M},N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}m_{j_1}+\mathrm{}+N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}m_{j_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta `$
$`\times d_{\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{M}}^{(J)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )\left[d_{m_{j_1}m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )\right]^{N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}}\mathrm{}\left[d_{m_{j_n}m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}(\mathrm{cos}\beta )\right]^{N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}}.`$
These equations allow to write general forms of the isotopic symmetry factor (2.14) for the hadronic system

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{1/2}^{(1/2)},N_{1/2}^{(1/2)},N_1^{(1)},N_0^{(1)},N_1^{(1)},N_{3/2}^{(3/2)},N_{1/2}^{(3/2)},N_{1/2}^{(3/2)},N_{3/2}^{(3/2)}\}}^{(J,\stackrel{~}{M})}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{2J+1}{2}\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\left(\frac{1+x}{2}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{M}+}\left(\frac{1+3x}{2}\right)^{N_{1/2}^{(3/2)}+N_{1/2}^{(3/2)}}x^{N_0^{(1)}}P_{J\stackrel{~}{M}}^{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{M})}(x),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.8)
where

$$=N_{m_{j_1}}^{(j_1)}|m_{j_1}|+\mathrm{}+N_{m_{j_n}}^{(j_n)}|m_{j_n}|$$
(3.9)
The definition (3.9) and the constraint (3.6) allow to write

$$+\stackrel{~}{M}=2\underset{\{j,|m_j|\}}{}N_{|m_j|}^{(j)}|m_j|$$
(3.10)
This is because

$$\underset{\{j,m_j\}}{}N_{m_j}^{(j)}m_j=\underset{\{j,|m_j|\}}{}N_{|m_j|}^{(j)}|m_j|\underset{\{j,|m_j|\}}{}N_{|m_j|}^{(j)}|m_j|$$
(3.11a)
and
$$\underset{\{j,m_j\}}{}N_{m_j}^{(j)}|m_j|=\underset{\{j,|m_j|\}}{}N_{|m_j|}^{(j)}|m_j|+\underset{\{j,|m_j|\}}{}N_{|m_j|}^{(j)}|m_j|$$
(3.11b)
This allows to write Eq. (3.8) in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{\{N_{1/2}^{(1/2)},N_{1/2}^{(1/2)},N_1^{(1)},N_0^{(1)},N_1^{(1)},N_{3/2}^{(3/2)},N_{1/2}^{(3/2)},N_{1/2}^{(3/2)},N_{3/2}^{(3/2)}\}}^{(J,\stackrel{~}{M})}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{2J+1}{2}\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\left(\frac{1+x}{2}\right)^{(N_{1/2}^{(1/2)}+2N_1^{(1)}+N_{1/2}^{(3/2)}+3N_{3/2}^{(3/2)})}\\ \hfill \times \left(\frac{1+3x}{2}\right)^{N_{1/2}^{(3/2)}+N_{1/2}^{(3/2)}}x^{N_0^{(1)}}P_{J\stackrel{~}{M}}^{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{M})}(x).\end{array}$$
(3.12)
One should notice that this reduction of independent variables is related only to that part of the total weight (2) which comes from the group theory. The condition (2.9) is obtained when the expression (3.12) is multiplied by the combinatoric factor (2.6). Number of independent variables in the combinatoric factor can be reduced only by conservation laws of corresponding charges of the system.

To be more specific let us consider as an example an iso-singlet system consisting only of pions and nucleons . We take as independent variables: $`N`$ \- total number of particles, $`B`$ \- total baryon number, $`Q`$ \- total electric charge, $`n_0`$ \- number of neutral pions, $`n_N`$ \- number of neutrons. Then

number of negative pions: $`n_{}=(Nn_Nn_0Q)/2,`$

number of positive pions: $`n_+=B+n_N+(Nn_Nn_0+Q)/2,`$

number of protons: $`n_P=Bn_N.`$

For iso-singlet state $`B=2Q`$ and

$`n_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(Nn_Nn_0Q)/2,`$ (3.13a)
$`n_+`$ $`=`$ $`2Q+n_N+(Nn_Nn_0+Q)/2,`$ (3.13b)
$`n_P`$ $`=`$ $`2Qn_N.`$ (3.13c)
Let us assume  that this system reaches the chemical equilibrium in the evolution process governed by Vlasov - Boltzman kinetic equations with the interactions restricted to binary collisions. Then the total number of particles remains constant but particles ratios are subjected to constraints (2.9). For the given baryon number $`B`$ and the given total number of particles $`N,`$ condition

$$\overline{P_{\{n_N,n_P,n_{},n_0,n_+\}}^{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})}}=\text{const.}$$
(3.14)
gives evolution lines in the $`n_Nn_0`$ plane. The system evolves along these lines which are here consequences of the isotopic $`SU(2)`$ symmetry and baryon number conservation. The weights (3.14) expressed by means of variables $`B,N,n_N\text{and }n_0`$ and calculated according to Eqs. (2.7) and (3.13) have the form

$`\overline{P_{\{n_N,n_P,n_{},n_0,n_+\}}^{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})}}={\displaystyle \frac{B!}{2^Bn_N!(Bn_N)!}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(NB)!}{3^{(NB)}n_0!(N/2n_N/2n_0/2B/4)!(N/2+n_N/2n_0/23B/4)!}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xx^{n_0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{2}}\right)^{(Nn_0B/2)}`$
The corresponding evolution lines are shown in Fig. 1.

## 4 Conclusions

We have got relations which are necessary global conditions to provide consistency with the overall symmetry of the system. They do not depend on the form of the underlying microscopic interaction. Abelian internal symmetries lead to simple and obvious linear relations as in Eq. (1.1). Non-abelian internal symmetries lead to nonlinear relations as in Eq. (2).

If we knew the solutions of symmetry invariant evolution equations then all those constraints would become identities. In other case they give a subsidiary information about the system and can be used as a consistency check for approximative calculations. A case of generalized Vlasov - Boltzman kinetic equations was considered in .

New constraints lead to decreasing number of available states for the system during its evolution. New correlations appear and the change in the thermodynamical behavior can be expected. This can be observed in hydrodynamical systems formed in high energy heavy ion collisions .

A challenging point is to find structures which would correspond to chemical potentials when system approaches the equilibrium distribution. The equilibrium distribution in the presence of constraints can be constructed by the Lagrange multipliers method. The multipliers related to the “abelian” constraints, such as Eq. (1.1), are well known chemical potentials. Multipliers related to the “non-abelian” constraints (2) are more complicated. Because these constraints are nonlinear ones, corresponding multipliers cannot be treated as standard additive thermodynamical potentials.

## Acknowledgments

Work supported in part by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under contract KBN - 2P03B 030 18