text:
# Quantum Topological Excitations: from the Sawtooth Lattice to the Heisenberg Chain

## Abstract

The recently elucidated structure of the delafossite YCuO2.5 reveals a Cu-O network with nearly independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chains having different interactions between the $`s=1/2`$ spins. Motivated by this result, we study the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chain for various ratios $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ of the base-base and base-vertex interactions. By exact diagonalization and extrapolation, we show that the elementary excitation spectrum, which (within numerical error) is the same for total spins $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$ and 1, has a gap only in the interval $`0.4874(1)J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}1.53(1)`$. The gap is dispersionless for $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}=1`$, but has increasing $`k`$-dependence as $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ moves away from unity, related to the instability of dimers in the ground state.

There is currently great interest in the topological excitations of quantum antiferromagnetic (AF) spin systems. The isotropic $`s=1/2`$ Heisenberg chain has spinon excitations, while the anisotropic chain in its ordered phase has localized domain walls between opposite AF regions, both widely discussed in the literature. Later on, Shastry and Sutherland  introduced another class of excitations: topological quantum solitons separating different regions of broken translational symmetry. The typical example is the symmetric zigzag spin ladder, first addressed by Majumdar and Ghosh  (MG), in which nearest-neighbor (NN) triangles sharing a base site are also vertex-vertex coupled. Its lowest-energy excitations are so-called kinks (K) and antikinks (AK), both with similar characteristics and giving rise to a finite gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.234J_1`$ when the interaction $`J_2`$ between next-nearest-neighbors (NNN) is half that of NN spins $`J_1`$ .

Then attention turned to the sawtooth or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chain, which consists of coupled $`s=1/2`$ Heisenberg spins forming triangles aligned in a chain with a common base site, like the zigzag ladder but without the vertex-vertex coupling. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chain has unique properties. In fact, numerical  and variational  studies of this lattice, all with bonds having the same interaction, have shown a remarkable feature: the K-AK symmetry of the MG model is broken here, yielding however a similar dispersionless small gap for the low-lying excitation modes. Very recently, in a study of an asymmetric zigzag ladder with NNN alternating interactions, that is, with $`J_2\pm \delta `$, Chen et al.  have discussed the crossover from the MG model ($`J_2=J_1/2`$, $`\delta =0`$) to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chain with equal interactions ($`\delta =J_2=J_1/2`$).

Theoretical interest in the sawtooth lattice itself is now enhanced by new experimental results. In fact, the overdoped $`R`$CuO2+x ($`R=`$ Y, La, etc.) delafossite compounds, first synthesized by Cava et al. , opened up new possibilities for studying hexagonal Cu planes with AF interactions between the Cu2+ ions. Depending on the O-doping, different $`s=1/2`$ effective magnetic lattices are obtained, although with much weaker interactions than high-$`T_c`$ systems, which have comparable bond lengths but $`180^{}`$ Cu-O-Cu angles. Studies  of the diluted kagomé lattices of the $`x=0.66`$ case predicted interesting properties. The detailed structure of YCuO2.5 has just been elucidated  and, as suggested earlier , this compound appears as a physical realization of the sawtooth lattice (Fig. 1). Recent synthesis  has succeeded in obtaining an orthorhombic 2H single phase, in which the additional $`x=0.5`$ oxygen ions are located at the center of alternating sets of triangles, providing super-exchange paths between $`s=1/2`$ spins on nearly independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chains. However, careful consideration of the measured angles and distances indicates different interactions between two spins on the base $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ and between the base-vertex NN spins $`J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ of the triangles, most probably with $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}<J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$, owing to the smaller Cu-O-Cu angle . While the case $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ has been quite extensively studied theoretically , to the best of our knowledge the case $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ has never been considered before.

Therefore, we here analyze the sawtooth lattice for various ratios Jbb/Jbv of these AF couplings. The Hamiltonian is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝐬_{2i1}𝐬_{2i+1}+`$ (2)
$`J_{\mathrm{bv}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(𝐬_{2i1}𝐬_{2i}+𝐬_{2i}𝐬_{2i+1}),`$
where $`N`$ is the number of triangles ($`2N`$ spins) in the chain, and $`𝐬_i`$ is the spin-$`1/2`$ operator at site $`i`$. Note that when $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=0`$ we retrieve the Heisenberg chain with $`2N`$ sites, while when $`J_{\mathrm{bv}}=0`$ we have a Heisenberg chain with $`N`$ sites and $`N`$ disconnected spins. It is therefore interesting to study the evolution of the elementary excitations from the sawtooth lattice with equal interactions $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$, in which K-AK pairs yield a dispersionless small gap  of the same order as that in the symmetric zigzag ladder, to the isotropic Heisenberg chain, in which pairs of spinons exhibit a strongly dispersive spectrum  with excitation energy varying between zero and $`\pi J/2`$ ($`J`$ is the coupling between adjacent spins).

To test our numerical procedure, which includes larger clusters than before (up to 12 triangles), and to make contact with previous theory, we first briefly reconsider, and extend, existing numerical results for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chain with $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}=J`$. In this case, Eq. (2) has two degenerate ground states with $`N`$ dimers . These ground states may be written as states in which each spin on the base of a triangle forms a singlet either with the following vertex spin (right, R-dimer state) or with the previous vertex spin (left, L-dimer state), that is,

$`|\mathrm{GS},\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[2i1,2i],`$ (3)
$`|\mathrm{GS},\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[2i,2i+1],`$ (4)
where $`[i,j](|\alpha _i\beta _j|\beta _i\alpha _j)/\sqrt{2}`$, with $`\alpha _i`$ ($`\beta _i`$) denoting the states with $`s_i^z=1/2`$ ($`1/2`$) at the site $`i`$. These two states are linearly independent and become orthogonal for $`N\mathrm{}`$. The existence of an excitation gap was also rigorously proved . The elementary excitations have been shown  to be well-separated K-AK-type domain walls separating regions of R-dimers and L-dimers. A K has a dimer in its triangle, while an AK does not. Curiously, they have very different characteristics in this system. A K has no excitation energy and is localized, but an AK propagates with kinetic energy within a region bounded by kinks. As a consequence of the former property the low-lying excitation spectrum is dispersionless, and owing to the second one, the gap value is considerably reduced compared to the energy of a trivial triplet state replacing a singlet dimer of the ground state.

We diagonalize the spin Hamiltonian $`H`$ in Eq. (2) by the Lanczos algorithm, using periodic boundary conditions with $`𝐬_{2N+1}`$ identified with $`𝐬_1`$. All sizes from $`N=4`$–12 triangles are calculated. The values of the excitation energies obtained are then extrapolated to the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit by assuming the finite-size error term to be a polynomial in $`1/N`$, whose coefficients are determined by fitting. In Table I we give the gaps found for wavevectors $`k=0`$, $`\pi /2`$, and $`\pi `$ for excitations with total spin $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$, 1, and 2, for the case $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}=J`$. (Note that the wavevector $`k`$ of an eigenstate $`|\psi `$ is here defined such that $`T_n|\psi =e^{ikn}|\psi `$, where $`T_n`$ is the translation operator by $`n`$ triangles or $`2n`$ spins.) The quoted numerical error, which arises entirely from the extrapolation, is defined (here and later) to be twice the change in the result upon discarding the data of the largest system calculated (12 triangles) and repeating the extrapolation. In this case, the leading finite-size effect goes as $`1/N^2`$. Table I confirms the gap to be dispersionless, within numerical error. Our most precise value of the gap, for $`k=0`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$, is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.2155(3)J`$, confirming the estimate 0.215 by Nakamura and Kubo , and a little smaller than the value 0.219 expected from the variational calculation by Sen et al.  for an AK configuration spread over 5 sites. We find that, within numerical error, the $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$ low-lying excitations become degenerate with the $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ gap as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore, the spectrum for $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=2`$ appears also to be dispersionless, but about twice that for $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ or $`0`$, as shown in Table I. This new result is contrary to the speculation in Ref.  that the excitation energies for higher spins might converge to the same limiting value as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the low-lying triplet ($`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$) excitation spectrum for $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}1`$. As $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ decreases, the triplet excitation energy decreases at $`k=0`$ until it vanishes near $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}0.5`$, while for $`k=\pi `$ it goes up. Progressively a stronger $`k`$-dispersion appears, yielding for $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=0`$ the famous lower boundary expression for the continuum of excited triplet states for the isotropic $`s=1/2`$ Heisenberg chain, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_L(k)=(\pi /2)J_{\mathrm{bv}}|\mathrm{sin}k/2|`$  (here rewritten keeping the definition of $`k`$ for our $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chain).

For $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ the ground state is doubly degenerate for all $`N`$. But for $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}<J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ and $`N`$ finite, these states are split into a ground state with spin-parity $`0^+`$ and a first excited singlet state with spin-parity $`0^{}`$. However, we find that the latter approaches the ground state with asymptotic dependence $`1/N`$ as as $`N\mathrm{}`$, restoring the double degeneracy.

An accurate determination of the critical ratio $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}<1`$ required to produce a triplet gap may be made by the method proposed in Ref. . The idea is to map this problem to a continuum field theory and take into account the fact that in a fermion system with a fixed number of particles umklapp scattering is the only interaction that splits the degeneracy of the two lowest excited states. Therefore, the difference of their energies provides a precise measure of the umklapp processes, which vanish at the critical interaction ratio. For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chain, with $`N`$ finite and $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}<J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$, the first two excited states have spin-parity $`0^{}`$ and $`1^+`$ and undergo a level-crossing near $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}0.5`$. As shown in Fig. 3, the value of $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ at the level crossing follows a polynomial in $`1/N^2`$, and its extrapolation to $`N\mathrm{}`$ yields $`(J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}})_{\mathrm{crit}}=0.4874(1)`$.

The ground state when $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ consists of spin singlets between NN spins, the R-dimers or L-dimers of Eqs. (3) and (4). To study the evolution of the ground state $`|0`$ for $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}<J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$, we plot in Fig. 4 the dimerization fraction, defined as $`D_{\mathrm{frac}}=|0|\mathrm{GS},\mathrm{R}|^2+|0|\mathrm{GS},\mathrm{L}|^2`$ . $`D_{\mathrm{frac}}`$ drops from its value of unity at $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ toward zero as $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ decreases, showing that the gap reduction is related to increasing fluctuations of the dimer state. Fig. 4 shows how important the extrapolation to $`N\mathrm{}`$ is in this calculation; we found that an Aitkens extrapolation gave very stable results.

Turning to the case $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}>1`$, we show in Fig. 5 how the $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ gap dispersion curves are modified. The minimum gap is now found for $`k=\pi `$ and decreases with increasing interaction ratio. On the other hand, for large interaction ratios the low-lying states become nearly degenerate. This is easy to understand: we are again approaching the Heisenberg chain, though just for the $`N`$ sites on the bases of the triangles, while the remaining $`N`$ spins on the vertex are only loosely coupled, leading to a complex of $`2^N`$ nearly degenerate states. The evaluation of the critical ratio for the closure of the gap also becomes more complicated (details will be given elsewhere), but an approach related to that used above gives $`(J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}})_{\mathrm{crit}}=1.53(1)`$.

Figure 6 summarizes our main numerical results for the low-lying excitations of the sawtooth lattice. A finite gap is found only for interaction ratios within the interval $`0.4874(1)J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}1.53(1)`$. Thus, the curve is not completely symmetric around $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}=1`$. While our above discussion of the excitation gap has been explicitly just for $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ excitations, we note that we have also been able to calculate many features of the spectra for $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$ with a numerical accuracy of better than a few percent, finding agreement with the $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ values in all cases. Examples: the excitation energy at $`k=\pi `$ for $`0J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}1.5`$ and at $`k=0`$ for $`0.9J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}1.0`$. Also, for $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0`$ gap closure we find $`(J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}})_{\mathrm{crit}}=1.51(3)`$ compared to $`(J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}})_{\mathrm{crit}}=1.53(1)`$ for $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$. Further details will be published elsewhere. This provides strong numerical evidence that the lowest excitation spectra are in fact four-fold degenerate (in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$) for all $`0J_{\mathrm{bb}}/J_{\mathrm{bv}}1.5`$, thus generalizing the known result for the isotropic $`s=1/2`$ Heisenberg chain ($`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=0`$) .

To conclude, we have shown that different interactions along the base and vertex bonds in the sawtooth lattice yield a $`k`$-dependent elementary excitation spectrum, the effective gap being progressively reduced with increasing instability of the dimer ground state. The recent crystallographic study of YCuO2.5 gives values for the three sides of the triangles and for the Cu-O-Cu angles. The consideration of these parameters and of the different coordination of the Cu ions (see Fig. 1 and Ref. ) justifies taking the same base-vertex interaction $`J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$ for both sides of the triangle, but a different $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ along the base, as done here. The effect of a stronger AF interaction in just one of the vertex bonds is quite clear: it will lift the degeneracy of the gapped ground state, stabilizing the dimer singlet ordering corresponding to that direction. Preliminary susceptibility measurements on YCuO2.5 by Garlea and co-workers  yield a low-temperature gap $`17`$ K, which would imply AF interactions of $``$80 K if one assumes $`J_{\mathrm{bb}}=J_{\mathrm{bv}}`$, a very reasonable value for this system. Now that good samples are available, measurements using more appropriate methods are in progress to distinguish the different interactions and to obtain a precise value of the gap, if one exists (depending on the interaction ratio). It will be worthwhile to synthesize single crystals to allow the study of the dispersion of the excitation spectrum.


format: text

text:
# Comment on ‘Relativistic shape invariant potentials ’

## Abstract

In this comment we point out numerous errors in the paper of Alhaidari cited in the title.

PACS numbers : 03.65.Pm 03.65.Ge

e-mail:vaidya@if.ufrj.br

In a recent paper Alhaidari  treats the problem of formulating a relativistic Dirac type equation which can be reduced to solving a Schroedinger equation for shape invariant potentials for the upper component while the lower component can be found once the upper component has been found.The method used is same as one used in his earlier paper .

The proposed Hamiltonian is (we use the notation of Bjorken and Drell )

$$H=𝜶(𝐩i\beta \widehat{𝐫}W(r))+\beta M+V(r)$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{𝐫}=\frac{𝐫}{r}`$.The vector $`(V(r),\widehat{𝐫}W(r))`$ is interpreted as an external electromagnetic field.Due to the matrix $`\beta `$ accompanying $`W`$ in the Hamiltonian, the interpretation of the vector $`(V,\widehat{𝐫}W)`$ as an electromagnetic potential is not necessary and in fact plays no role in his calculations. The resulting radial equation

$$[i\rho _2\frac{d}{dr}+\rho _1(W+\frac{\kappa }{r})E+V+M\rho _3]\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}G_\mathrm{}j(r)\\ F_\mathrm{}j(r)\end{array}\right)`$ corresponds to Alhaidari’s equation (1) where the quantum numbers $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`j`$ are omitted.

The subsequent application of a unitary transformation and the imposition of the constraint (in our notation)

$$W(r)=\frac{1}{S}V(r)\frac{\kappa }{r}$$
(3)
with both $`V`$ and $`W`$ nonzero and $`S`$ a constant can only be satisfied for a chosen value of $`\kappa `$.Otherwise we will have different functions $`W`$ for different values of $`\kappa `$.This cannot be since the functions $`V(r)`$ and $`W(r)`$ appear in the Hamiltonian. Forgetting this Alhaidari writes results for the Dirac-Rosen-Morse and Dirac-Eckart potentials which cannot be correct since the energy levels obtained would be degenerate in $`l,j,m`$. In the nonrelativistic Schroedinger equation the radial equation does contain the centrifugal barrier contribution for nonzero values of $`\mathrm{}`$.

Even if one interprets the results as corresponding to $`\mathrm{}=0`$ so that $`\kappa =1`$,the unitary transformation is inexplicable since it does not reduce to identity in the nonrelativistic limit.

The subsequent calculations are for the case $`V=0`$ treated by Castan s et al earlier.The results need to be corrected since $`\mathrm{}=0`$ means $`\kappa =1`$ and not $`\kappa =0`$ as stated by Alhaidari.This has the effect of replacing $`W`$ by $`W\frac{1}{r}`$.In fact, in this restricted case one can find suitable values of $`W`$ for the Morse,Rosen-Morse and Eckart problems,without the need of any unitary transformation.

Finally,even if the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ case can be adjusted to give a reasonable nonrelativistic limit, the validity of the proposed Dirac equation remains unproved.


text:
# 1 Number of (ΩΩ)_0⁺ produced per event with the three sets of fugacities and transverse velocities in Eqs. (12)-(14).

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ dibaryon productions in central Au+Au collisions

at RHIC energy $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV

X.-M. Xu

Nuclear Physics Division, Shanghai Institute of Nuclear Research

Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O.Box 800204, Shanghai 201800, China

P. Wang, Y. W. Yu

Institute of High Energy Physics,

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China

## Abstract

Based on the measured transverse mass spectra of $`\pi ^{}`$, $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ at the RHIC energy $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV, di-omega productions from baryon-baryon reactions in hadronic matter are studied. Results about the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ total number per event show that the deeply bound state $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ can be observed at RHIC energies.

PACS codes: 14.20.Pt,25.75.-q,25.75.Dw,

Keywords: dibaryon, hadronic matter

1. Introduction

Data measured at RHIC experiments have revealed intriguing new features in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions . Various theoretical models have undergone challenges from the experimental data and turn out to be adjusted. The unexpected large values of the elliptic flow signal $`v_2`$ can be accounted for by hydrodynamic calculations  indicating perhaps complete early-time thermalization in central Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV per nucleon pair. This stresses the collective flow strongly affects hadrons in the hadronic matter produced at the center-of-mass energy. Therefore, any further predictions relying on the hadronic matter must involve available hydrodynamic behaviors.

One of the interesting topics in hadronic physics is the search for dibaryon bound states. Since dibaryon is a kind of new matter, it can provide a good place to examine the short-range quark-gluon behaviour of QCD theory and also would open a new area for studying many new physical phenomena we have not known before. Even though the $`H`$ dibaryon predicted by Jaffe  has not been confirmed in hadron-hadron collison experiments, recently, the search is extended to Au+Au collisions in the AGS Experiment 896 . Dibaryons involving $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and nucleon were predicted in an adiabatic method . Productions of short-lived dibaryons with strangeness, for instance, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0p`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, have been calculated for Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200`$GeV and may be identified as peaks in the invariant mass spectra of final two baryons yielded from dibaryon decays . Our present work is based on a dynamical investigation on dibaryon structure made in the framework of chiral $`SU(3)`$ model \[7-9\], in which the coupling between chiral fields and quarks is considered to describe the non-perturbative QCD effect, and therefore the huge data of nucleon-nucleon scattering phase shifts and hyperon-nucleon cross sections can be reproduced correctly. This investigation provided the di-omega $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ as the most interesting structure . It is deeply bound with the binding energy about 100MeV and its mean life time is in order of $`10^{10}`$ second because it can only undergo through weak decay. This charged dibaryon could be easily identified in experiments carrying on ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collsions.

In order to find the deeply bound state $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ in RHIC experiments, we calculate its yield per event in central Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV. As we will see in the following, the hydrodynamic equation with transverse flow is used and measured data constitute inputs in all calculations to make results as reliable as possible. Cross sections for $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ yields in baryon-baryon scatterings are taken into account.

2. Hadron distributions

The hadron spectra measured in RHIC experiments allow us to analyse hadron distributions evolving with time via the Cooper-Frye formula , hydrodynamic equation and baryon number conservation. Assume hadron distributions are in the Boltzmann form

$$f(\lambda ,p,T)=g\lambda (\tau ,\eta ,r)e^{pu/T}$$
(1)
where $`g`$, $`\lambda `$, $`p`$ and $`T`$ are the degeneracy factor, fugacity, four-momentum and temperature, respectively. The $`u`$ is the four-velocity of fluid flow given by the cylindrical polar coordinates $`r`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`z`$ . The fugacity $`\lambda `$ depends on the proper time $`\tau `$, space-time rapidity $`\eta `$ and $`r`$. The momentum distribution of particle given by means of the Cooper-Frye formula at freeze-out time $`\tau _{fo}`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N(\tau _{fo})}{m_{}dm_{}dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\tau _{fo}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{R(\tau _{fo})}}𝑑r{\displaystyle _{\eta _{\mathrm{min}}}^{\eta _{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi r\lambda (\tau ,\eta ,r)`$ (2)
$`m_{}\mathrm{cosh}(y\eta )e^{[m_{}\mathrm{cosh}(y\eta )p_{}v_r\mathrm{cos}\varphi ]/T\sqrt{1v_r^2}}`$
where $`N`$, $`y`$, $`p_{}`$, $`m_{}`$ and $`v_r`$ are respectively the number, rapidity, transverse momentum, transverse mass of hadron and transverse velocity of fluid flow. The $`R(\tau _{fo})`$ is the transverse radius of hadronic matter at freeze-out. The space-time rapidity spans from a minimum $`\eta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ to a maximum $`\eta _{\mathrm{max}}`$. Any measured spectra of hadrons allow one to determine fugacities and transverse velocity at freeze-out. To gain the velocity profile at any proper time $`\tau `$, the hydrodynamic equation is used,

$$_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(3)
where the energy-momentum tensor is

$$T^{\mu \nu }=(ϵ+P)u^\mu u^\nu +Pg^{\mu \nu }$$
(4)
The $`ϵ`$ and $`P`$ are energy density and pressure, respectively. Because the dominant ingredient of hadronic matter is assumed to be pions, the equation of state is $`ϵ=3P`$. With the hydrodynamic equation for a boost-invariant longitudinal expansion along the $`z`$ axis and a cylindrically symmetric transverse expansion , the transverse velocity $`v_r(\tau ,r)`$ at any time prior to freeze-out is obtained.

The dependence of hadron fugacity on time is obtained by the number conservation

$$_\mu (nu^\mu )=0$$
(5)
which is followed by

$$_t\lambda +v_r_r\lambda +\frac{\lambda }{\gamma T^3}_t(\gamma T^3)+\frac{\lambda v_r}{\gamma T^3}_r(\gamma T^3)+\lambda _rv_r+\lambda (\frac{v_r}{r}+\frac{1}{t})=0$$
(6)
where $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1v_r^2}`$.

The equation for fugacity has the divergent term $`\lambda v_r/r`$ as $`r0`$, which causes difficulty in solving numerically the equation and leads to nonphysical solutions. There are four cases on curing this divergence:

(1)$`v_rr^\mathrm{n}`$ as $`r0`$ with $`\mathrm{n}1`$;

(2)$`\lambda r^\mathrm{m}`$ as $`r0`$ with $`\mathrm{m}1`$;

(3)$`v_rr^\mathrm{n}`$ and $`\lambda r^\mathrm{m}`$ with $`\mathrm{n}<1`$ and $`\mathrm{m}<1`$ but $`\mathrm{n}+\mathrm{m}<1`$ while $`r0`$;

(4)The term $`\frac{\lambda v_r}{\gamma T^3}_r(\gamma T^3)`$ cancels this term $`\frac{\lambda v_r}{r}`$ as $`r0`$,

$$\frac{\lambda v_r}{\gamma T^3}_r(\gamma T^3)+\frac{\lambda v_r}{r}=0$$
(7)
which has the analytic solution

$$T=(\frac{C_1}{\gamma r})^{\frac{1}{3}}$$
(8)
The constant $`C_1`$ is positive and in general depends on time. This solution becomes unphysical if it is singular as $`r0`$. To avoid this, mandatorily force $`\gamma r=C_2`$ with $`C_2`$ being nonzero and positive. The consequence is

$$v_r=\sqrt{1(\frac{r}{C_2})^2}$$
(9)
Then the condition $`C_2>r`$ is required to give real transverse velocity.

Before doing any calculations, we assume the hadronic matter freezing out at $`\tau _{fo}=10`$fm/c has a transverse radius $`R(\tau _{fo})=10`$fm. The fugacity takes a form independent of $`\eta `$ and has the same dependence on $`r`$ for all sorts of hadrons except for different normalizations to fit rapidity densities. Given some trial functions for fugacities and velocities, the transverse mass spectra of $`\pi ^{}`$, $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ at mid-rapidity in central Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV in Ref.  are reproduced. We find the following parametrizations showing $`r`$-dependences of fugacities and transverse velocity profiles at freeze-out

$$\lambda _{fo}r^4e^{0.7r},v_r=(\frac{9.65+r}{20.3})^3$$
(10)
in the case (2) and

$$\lambda _{fo}\frac{e^{0.2r}}{r^{0.3}},v_r=\sqrt{1(\frac{r}{10.1})^2}$$
(11)
in the case (4). Inserting the fugacities and transverse velocities into Eq. (1), we obtain hadron distributions as $`r0`$: $`f0`$. Evolve the hydrodynamic equation and the fugacity equation (6) back to a previous time from the freeze-out hypersurface, we still have $`f0`$ as $`r0`$ while the transverse velocity is kept as $`r0`$ as nonzero for the case (2) and the analytic function in Eq. (9) remains with a $`\tau `$-dependence of $`C_2`$ for the case (4). Such $`f`$ conflicts with the finite amplitude of a real hadron distribution as $`r0`$. The cases (2) and (4) are therefore given up. Undoubtedly, nonzero hadron distributions beginning with the formation of hadronic matter may be found by seeking for a specific numerical method. But we do not consider here this task since we have no intention of finding all solutions of the hydrodynamic equation and the fugacity equation in coordinate space and all hadron distributions via Eq. (2) on the feeze-out hypersurface. Parametrizations for the fugacity and transverse velocity with the small $`r`$ behavior described in the case (3) are not found.

In the case (1) the fugacity and transverse velocity are not unique. The first set is

$$\lambda _{fo}\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & r<7.5\hfill \\ e^{(r7.5)^2},\hfill & r7.5\hfill \end{array}v_r=\frac{r}{10.4}$$
(12)
The $`v_r`$ depends linearly on $`r`$ like Ref. . The second and third sets of parametrizations are

$$\lambda _{fo}\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & r<\pi \hfill \\ e^{(r\pi )},\hfill & r\pi \hfill \end{array}v_r=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{r}{4.8}$$
(13)
$$\lambda _{fo}\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & r<\frac{\pi }{2}\hfill \\ e^{(2r\pi )},\hfill & r\frac{\pi }{2}\hfill \end{array}v_r=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{r}{2.4}$$
(14)
In fact, the third set is obtained from the second set by making the replacement $`r2r`$. For $`r>R(\tau _{fo})`$ the fugacity in the exponential form gives very small value and has negligible contribution to the integration over $`r`$. Then $`_0^{R(\tau _{fo})}𝑑r=_0^{2R(\tau _{fo})}𝑑r`$ is a very good approximation and the two sets give the same dependence of $`d^2N/m_{}dm_{}dy`$ on the transverse mass upon normalization. Actually, the substitution $`rar`$ with $`a>1`$ leads to a class of fugacities and transverse velocities

$$\lambda _{fo}\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & r<\frac{\pi }{a}\hfill \\ e^{(ar\pi )},\hfill & r\frac{\pi }{a}\hfill \end{array}v_r=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ar}{4.8}$$
(15)
which fits well the measured data of $`d^2N/m_{}dm_{}dy`$ versus $`m_{}`$ for $`\pi ^{}`$, $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$. Since the three curves in Fig. 1 of Ref.  are plotted in arbitrary units, the rapidity density $`\frac{dN}{dy}=_m^{\mathrm{}}m_{}𝑑m_{}\frac{d^2N}{m_{}dm_{}dy}`$ is fitted to that generated in HIJING/B$`\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$  for $`p`$, $`\overline{p}`$, $`n`$ and $`\overline{n}`$, respectively. In this way the magnitude of fugacity is completely fixed and the minimum and maximum of $`\eta `$ are individually equal to -4 and 4 for nucleon, -2.8 and 2.8 for antinucleon. Meanwhile, a common freeze-out temperature $`T=0.1`$GeV is obtained for $`\pi ^{}`$, $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ as extracted in Ref. .

Define an average velocity

$$\overline{v}_r=\frac{_0^{R(\tau _{fo})}𝑑rv_r}{R(\tau _{fo})}$$
(16)
The three sets of transverse velocity profiles in Eqs. (12)-(14) give $`\overline{v}_r0.48c,0.67c,0.83c`$, respectively.

As already mentioned the measured data at RHIC energy might not well be reproduced in some theoretical models. The produced $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ spectra is unknown. Even the knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ spectra measured in CERN-SPS experiments is very limited. To have a good sense on the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ spectra, we utilize the experimental data on the ratio of antiproton yield at RHIC to that at CERN-SPS. Since both the antiproton and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ at mid-rapidity can be created from junction and pomeron , we assume the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ yield at RHIC to that at CERN-SPS is the same as the ratio for antiproton. For rapidity densities of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and antiproton,

$$\frac{dN_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},RHIC}}{dy}/\frac{dN_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},SPS}}{dy}=\frac{dN_{\overline{p},RHIC}}{dy}/\frac{dN_{\overline{p},SPS}}{dy}$$
(17)
It follows that

$$\frac{dN_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},RHIC}}{dy}=C\frac{dN_{\overline{p},RHIC}}{dy}$$
(18)
where

$$C=\frac{dN_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},SPS}}{dy}/\frac{dN_{\overline{p},SPS}}{dy}$$
(19)
is taken as a constant and determined at mid-rapidity by

$$C=_{0.5}^{0.5}𝑑y\frac{dN_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},SPS}}{dy}/_{0.5}^{0.5}𝑑y\frac{dN_{\overline{p},SPS}}{dy}$$
(20)
If the numerator is estimated from the values measured by WA97 Collaboration  and the denominator by NA49 Collaboration , $`C`$ is about equal to 0.01.

3. Number of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$

The chiral $`SU(3)`$ quark model with the scalar nonet fields and pseudoscalar nonet fields has been presented to study $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ productions in baryon-baryon scatterings . To create such a deeply bound state, the electromagnetic process

$$\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\gamma $$
(21)
and the mesonic process

$$\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\eta $$
(22)
are considered first. Since the state $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ is directly produced from two $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ baryons, the two reactions are called direct production processes. In order to understand phyiscs well, the cross sections in Ref.  are replotted as functions of the center-of-mass energy of the two incoming omegas, $`\sqrt{s}`$, in Fig. 1.

The chiral $`SU(3)`$ quark model shows a weakly bound state $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ composed of a nucleon and an omega. The $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ dibaryon with spin 2 and positive parity can be formed through the electromagnetic process

$$\mathrm{\Omega }+N(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}+\gamma $$
(23)
and the mesonic process

$$\mathrm{\Omega }+N(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}+\pi $$
(24)
This $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ state enhances the yield of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ by three-quark exchange processes during its collisions with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ baryons

$$\mathrm{\Omega }+(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+N$$
(25)
Such $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ dibaryon is yielded from the collision of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with nucleon and the accompanying product $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$. The reactions are called indirect production processes. For present calculations it is better to redraw the cross sections in Ref.  as functions of the center-of-mass energy of omega and nucleon in Fig. 2 and of omega and $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ in Fig. 3.

The number of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ contained in hadronic matter at a proper time $`\tau `$ is

$$N_{(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}}=d^4x\frac{d^3p_\mathrm{\Omega }}{(2\pi )^3}f_\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda _\mathrm{\Omega },p_\mathrm{\Omega },T)\frac{d^3p_N}{(2\pi )^3}f_N(\lambda _N,p_N,T)v_{rel}\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Omega }}(\sqrt{s})$$
(26)
which has the volume $`d^4x=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _{\tau _f}^\tau 𝑑\tau \tau _0^{R(\tau )}𝑑rr_{\eta _{\mathrm{min}}}^{\eta _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\eta `$ and where $`v_{rel}`$ is the relative velocity of two scattering particles and $`\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the sum of cross sections for the reactions (23) and (24). The number of dibaryon $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ is calculated for a central Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV. Results are plotted in Fig. 4. We take the hypothesis that $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ thermalizes immediately in hadronic matter once it is created. Then the momentum distribution of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ satisfies the Boltzmann form and the corresponding fugacity is determined by

$`N_{(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\tau }{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{R(\tau )}}𝑑r{\displaystyle _{\eta _{\mathrm{min}}}^{\eta _{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{m}_{N\mathrm{\Omega }}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m_{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yr\lambda _{N\mathrm{\Omega }}(\tau ,\eta ,r)`$ (27)
$`m_{}^2\mathrm{cosh}(y\eta )e^{[m_{}\mathrm{cosh}(y\eta )p_{}v_r\mathrm{cos}\varphi ]/T\sqrt{1v_r^2}}`$
where $`\mathrm{m}_{N\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the dibaryon mass. The dibaryon fugacity $`\lambda _{N\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ takes the same $`r`$-dependence as a baryon except for normalization.

4. Di-omega productions per event

While the momentum distributions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ are known, the di-omega yield per event is calculated via the formula

$$N=d^4x\frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^3}f_1(\lambda _1,p_1,T)\frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^3}f_2(\lambda _2,p_2,T)v_{rel}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }}(\sqrt{s})$$
(28)
where $`d^4x=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _{\tau _f}^{\tau _{fo}}𝑑\tau \tau `$ $`_0^{R(\tau )}𝑑rr_{\eta _{\mathrm{min}}}^{\eta _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\eta `$ with $`\tau _f=1.5`$fm/c corresponding to the temperature $`T0.19`$GeV. At the moment of forming hadronic matter, the interacting glod-gold system has already expanded. Presumably, the $`R(\tau )`$ grows linearly with the proper time from $`R(\tau _f)=7`$fm to $`R(\tau _{fo})=10`$fm. The $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ include cross sections for the reactions (21), (22) and (25).

Given a fugacity and transverse flow velocity, number of dibaryon $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ yielded in a central Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV is listed in Table 1. $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$ and $`N_5`$ are individually the number of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ created through the reactions $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }+(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+N`$. The total number obtained in the work is

$$N_{tot}=N_1+N_2+N_5$$
(29)
where $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$ and $`N_5`$ are calculated with the use of Eq. (28).

5. Discussions and conclusions

We have shown that different hadron distributions at freeze-out lead to different $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ numbers produced in a Au+Au collision and have obtained that $`\pi ^{}`$, $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ freeze out at the same temperature $`T=0.1`$GeV while the radius of transverse extension of cylindrically symmetric hadronic matter is 10fm. If the freeze-out temperature or transverse radius changes, these distributions vary. The fugacities and transverse velocities in Eqs. (14) and (15) result from the replacement $`r2r`$ and $`rar`$ in the parametrization (13). However, the hydrodynamic equation and the fugacity equation (6) are not invariant under the replacement. This is one reason why the number of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ corresponding to the parametrization (13) is different from that to the other parametrization (14). Another reason is that a factor $`a^2`$ accounts for the variation of the integration $`𝑑rr`$ under the replacement $`rar`$.

In the indirect production processes the number of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ depends on the freeze-out temperature, the final transverse radius and the final proper time when the hadronic matter becomes free particles. The yield of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ in the indirect production processes is actually proportional to the square of the distributions of proton and neutron. Fig. 4 exhibits very small number of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$. However, the cross sections for each of indirect production processes, especially the exothermal reaction $`\mathrm{\Omega }+(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+N`$ in Fig. 3, are much larger than the cross sections for the direct production processes. The amount of di-omega gained in the indirect production processes eventually exceeds that in the direct production processes. Nevertheless, this is true only near freeze-out when the $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ number is relatively larger, and false near hadronization when the $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ number is lack.

It is shown by the three curves in Fig. 4 that the $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ dibaryon number increases rapidly during the time interval from $`\tau =1.5`$fm/c to 3fm/c. Almost all of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ are produced in the early time of hadronic matter and sensitive to early-time thermalization. The variation of dibaryon number with time is controlled by high baryon densities in the early time of hadronic matter and later on low baryon densities. We are also interested in calculating the dependence of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ number on the proper time with, for instance, the fugacity and transverse velocity in Eq. (12). Unlike the $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$, we find that the di-omega number changes slowly with time and almost all of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ are produced in the late time of hadronic matter. Even if the $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ number increases rapidly, its density rises up not fast because the matter volume increases. Together with the reducing density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ with time, the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ is produced slowly in hadronic matter.

The reaction $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\eta `$ has the threshold energy 3.776GeV higher than the value 3.344GeV for $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\gamma `$. Peaks of cross sections are shown in Fig. 1 for both reactions. Thereby the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has larger average energy in the $`\eta `$ yield process than in the $`\gamma `$ yield process. This considerably reduces the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ yield from the former reaction compared to the latter by the momentum distribution of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. However, the ratio $`N_2/N_12.5`$ in Table 1 reverse the case. This comes out of the following factors: the reaction for $`\eta `$ production has larger cross section and a wider peak than for $`\gamma `$; higher relative velocity of two $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$s is demanded for $`\eta `$ production; $`d^3p_1d^3p_2`$ in Eq. (28) is greatly enhanced by the larger average momentum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ needed for $`\eta `$ yield. Therefore, more $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ dibaryons are produced in the $`\eta `$ yield process than in the $`\gamma `$ yield process.

We have not estimated di-omega yields in the expansion process from the moment of initial nucleus-nucleus collision to the time $`\tau _f=1.5`$fm/c when hadronic matter appears. During this period the central Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV may lead to deconfined gluons and quarks in nonequilibrium, if we believe at CERN-SPS energy the Pb+Pb collisions are on the boundary of phase transition involving hadronic and partonic degrees of freedom. While the quarks and gluons hadronize at $`\tau _f`$, it is possible for six strange quarks to combine into a dibaryon $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ as well as six light quarks to form $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$. Then the number of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ at $`\tau _f=1.5`$fm/c is not zero and moves upwards these curves in Fig. 4.

It is unavoidable to address in-medium effect on the production of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$. The mass of strange quark is reduced and the quark-quark potential is screened in hadronic matter at finite temperature. Obviously the screening decreases the binding energy of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$. However, the kinetic-energy contribution increases the binding energy by the dropping mass of strange quark. We can still expect an appreciable binding energy for $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ in hadronic matter with reference to the large binding energy of free $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$. In addition, hadronic matter modifies the relative-motion wave function of two omegas inside the dibaryon and the coupling of $`\eta `$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\eta `$ and the coupling of $`\pi `$ to $`N`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }+N(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}+\pi `$. These result in different cross sections for the direct and indirect production processes in comparison to Figs. 1-3 and different $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ number yielded relative to Table 1. Exploring in-medium effect remains in a future work.

In conclusion, we have obtained the number of dibaryon $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}`$ produced in a central Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$GeV is of the order of $`10^910^7`$. Even if the number is very small, enough events will be accumulated to observe the yield in the coming years of running of RHIC machine. Besides, we have shown: the mesonic processes have larger contributions than the electromagnetic processes; at feeze-out the indirect production processes have larger contributions than the direct production processes; di-omegas are mostly produced in late-time hadronic matter.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank X. N. Wang, N. Xu and Z. Y. Zhang for useful helps. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the fund of Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai and the CAS Knowledge Innovation Project No. KJCX2-SW-N02.

References

For reviews see Proceedings of Quark Matter 2001, SUNY, Jan. 15-20.

STAR Collaboration, K. H. Ackermann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(2001)402;

P. F. Kolb, U. Heinz, P. Huovinen, K. J. Eskola, K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys.

A696(2001)197;

D. Teaney, J. Lauret, E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A698(2002)479.

R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38(1977)195.

E896 Collaboration, H. Caines et al., Nucl. Phys. A661(1999)170c.

F. Wang, J. Ping, G. Wu, L. Teng, T. Goldman, Phys. Rev. C51(1995)3411;

T. Goldman, K. Maltman, G. J. Stephenson Jr., J. Ping, F. Wang, Mod. Phys. Lett.

A13(1997)59.

J. Schaffner-Bielich, R. Mattiello, H. Sorge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(2000)4305.

S. D. Paganis, G. W. Hoffmann, R. L. Ray, J.-L. Tang, T. Udagawa, R. S. Longacre,

Phys. Rev. C62(2000)024906.

Z. Y. Zhang, Y. W. Yu, L. R. Dai, High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. 20(1996)363;

Z. Y. Zhang, Y. W. Yu, P. N. Shen, L. R. Dai, A. Faessler and U. Straub, Nucl. Phys.

A625(1997)59.

Y. W. Yu, Z. Y. Zhang, X. Q. Yuan, Commun. Theor. Phys. 31(1999)1;

Z. Y. Zhang, Y. W. Yu, C. R. Ching, T. H. Ho, Z. D. Lu, Phys. Rev. C61(2000)065204.

Q. B. Li, P. N. Shen, Z. Y. Zhang, Y. W. Yu, Nucl. Phys. A683(2001)487.

F. Cooper, G. Frye, Phys. Rev. D10(1974)186.

H. von Gersdorff, L. McLerran, M. Kataja, P. V. Ruuskanen, Phys. Rev. D34(1986)794.

E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C48(1993)2462.

D. K. Srivastava, M. G. Mustafa, B. M$`\ddot{\mathrm{u}}`$ller, Phys. Rev. C56(1997)1064.

N. Xu, M. Kaneta, in Proceedings of Quark Matter 2001, SUNY, Jan. 15-20.

T. S. Bir$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{o}}`$, Phys. Lett. B487(2000)133.

S. E. Vance, M. Gyulassy, X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B443(1998)45;

S. E. Vance, M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83(1999)1735.

D. Kharzeev, Phys. Lett. B378(1996)238.

WA97 Collaboration, E. Andersen et al., Phys. Lett. B449(1999)401;

J. Phys. G25(1999)171.

NA49 Collaboration, F. Sikl$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$r et al., Nucl. Phys. A661(1999)45c.

Y. W. Yu, P. Wang, Z. Y. Zhang, C. R. Ching, T. S. Ho, Commun. Theor. Phys.

35(2001)553.

Y. W. Yu, P. Wang, Z. Y. Zhang, C. R. Ching, T. S. Ho and L. Y. Chu,

High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. (to be published).

Figure captions

Fig. 1. The left and right panels show cross sections for $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+\eta `$, respectively, as functions of the center-of-mass energy of two incident omegas.

Fig. 2. Dotted, dot-dashed and solid lines in the left panel show cross sections for $`\mathrm{\Omega }+p(p\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}+\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }+n(n\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}+\gamma `$ and their sum, respectively. The right panel shows the cross section for $`\mathrm{\Omega }+N(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}+\pi `$ where $`N`$ includes proton and neutron.

Fig. 3. Cross section for $`\mathrm{\Omega }+(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })_{0^+}+N`$ as a function of the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. The $`N`$ includes proton and neutron.

Fig. 4. Solid, dashed and dot-dashed lines are the numbers of $`(N\mathrm{\Omega })_{2^+}`$ produced with the parametrizations for fugacities and transverse velocities in Eqs. (12)-(14), respectively.


text:
# Frictional shear cracks

A few recent experimental observations of Rubio and Galeano , and Baumberger, Caroli, and Ronsin , on the frictional motion of sheared gels sliding along a glass surface indicate the existence of self-healing pulses and inhomogeneous modes of sliding . A regime of periodic stick slip has been observed in a limited range of small shearing rates . It bifurcates towards stationary sliding at some critical driving velocity. The slip pulses traverse the sample with a velocity much larger than the driving velocity but still much smaller than the speed of sound.

Slip pulses in gels seem to be very different from Schallamach waves and “brittle” pulses studied by Gerde and Marder  since no observable interface separation occurs. In this respect, they are more comparable with self-healing cracks suggested by Heaton  in the context of seismic events.

Recent investigations (see, for example,  and references therein) point towards an essential importance of the underlying friction law in the slip state. It has been proved that the simple Coulomb friction leads to the so-called “ill-posedness” of the linear stability problem while discussing small nonhomogeneous perturbations of the stress and strain fields in a sliding mode . Moreover, Caroli  has shown that the existence of slow, periodic slip pulses is incompatible with Coulomb friction law.

In this letter we discuss crack propagation along the interface between two dissimilar materials. The crack edge separates two states of the interface, “stick” and “slip”. We assume that the interface is flat with a strong adhesion contact. In principle, we could allow for small wavelength surface roughness, but in this case we consider length scales larger than the longest wavelength component. In the presence of roughness, the assumption of strong adhesion and full contact at the interface presumably is only reasonable for “soft” materials with relatively small shear modulus. Gels are clearly materials of this sort.

In the slip region we assume a simple linear viscous friction law, namely, the shear stress is proportional to the sliding velocity. This from the theoretical point of view strongly motivated law is usually not discussed in literature since it does not lead to the so-called static friction phenomenon observed experimentally. However, we will see that in our description static friction appears in a natural way as the usual Griffith threshold for crack propagation. The important point is that before the system goes into a sliding mode the slip pulse should traverse the sample. This requires finite shear stress since the stick state of the interface is energetically more favorable.

With the linear viscous friction law we find conditions for crack propagation and calculate the crack velocity as a function of an applied shear stress. We find that the main dissipation comes from the macroscopic region and is due to the friction at the interface. This situation is very different from the usual crack propagation where the main dissipation is localized in the microscopic tip region.

We also shortly discuss frictional shear cracks inside homogeneous materials. The point here is that in mode II (and in mode III) cracks there is no macroscopic opening. If two surfaces remain in contact, the standard boundary conditions, namely the vanishing of normal and shear stresses on the crack surfaces, are not theoretically motivated. The relative sliding velocity of the two surfaces should lead to nonzero shear stresses. Finally we discuss the relevance of our results to the experimental observations .

Consider an elastic solid sliding on a flat rigid substrate. Assume that the elastic solid occupies the space $`H>y>0`$, and let $`(x,y,z)`$ be a coordinate system with the plane $`y=0`$ corresponding to the surface of the solid, see Fig.1. We discuss the plane strain situation with $`u_z=0`$, where $`𝐮`$ is the displacement vector. We assume that the interface can be in two states: ”stick” and ”slip”. The boundary between these two states is described by the crack edge which moves with a velocity $`V_{tip}`$ in the $`x`$ direction. In the stick region the displacements are continuous and since we assume a rigid substrate, the boundary conditions are: $`u_x=u_y=0`$ for $`xV_{tip}t>0`$ and $`y=0`$. In the slip region we assume that the two solids (for all times) are in contact, $`u_y=0`$ for $`xV_{tip}t<0`$ and $`y=0`$, while we allow for a finite relative sliding velocity $`\dot{u}_x`$. This sliding velocity leads to frictional shear stress at the interface where we assume a linear viscous friction law:

$$\sigma _{xy}=\alpha \dot{u}_x,$$
(1)
with $`\alpha `$ being the viscous friction coefficient.

It is reasonable to assume that the interface energy in the stick phase is smaller than the interface energy in the slip phase since the adhesion contact in the stick region is stronger. Let us denote this energy difference by $`\gamma `$. It is clear that without external loading the stick phase is energetically favorable and a finite shear stress is required to get the interface into the slip state. Let us assume that far ahead of the crack tip, the solid is homogeneously strained with $`u_{xy}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and stressed with $`\sigma _{xy}=2\mu u_{xy}^{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`\mu `$ is the shear modulus. The strain energy is $`\mu (u_{xy}^{\mathrm{}})^2H`$. Far behind the crack tip where the stress is relaxed, only the interface energy $`\gamma `$ remains. The slip state will be realized only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu (u_{xy}^{\mathrm{}})^2H/\gamma >1`$. In this case the crack should propagate in the positive $`x`$ direction. Otherwise, the crack would propagate with negative velocity and the stick phase will be restored. Condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ is nothing but the usual Griffith threshold for crack propagation. On the other hand, in the context of the friction problem, this condition may be interpreted as a static friction threshold: a finite shear loading is required to get the system into the sliding mode.

If the whole interface is in the slip state, a steady-state motion of the elastic body is possible with a velocity

$$V=2Su_{xy},$$
(2)
where $`S=\mu /\alpha `$ is the velocity scale given by the friction law. We note that this homogeneous sliding mode is linearly stable for any velocity with respect to small nonhomogeneous perturbations of the stress and strain fields localized in the surface region. In this respect the viscous friction law is very different from Coulomb friction which leads to a linear instability and ill-posedness of the problem as it has been intensively discussed in literature .

On the other hand, the homogeneous sliding mode may be unstable against the resticking pulse (nonlinear “healing instability”) if the corresponding value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. Since in this case, the strain which defines the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is related to the steady-state sliding velocity by Eq.(2), we find that the homogeneous sliding is stable against the healing instability only above the critical sliding velocity

$$V_c=2S(\gamma /\mu H)^{1/2}.$$
(3)
Now let us turn to the calculation of the crack tip velocity $`V_{tip}`$ as a function of the dimensionless driving force $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The strategy is as follows: we solve the elastic problem in the vicinity of the crack tip and then calculate the energy flux into the crack tip and the dissipation due to the friction at the interface. Finally, using the energy balance, we find the crack velocity.

Let us start from some qualitative estimates. Assume that, as in the usual crack problem, the singular behavior of the displacement vector is given by a square-root singularity in the vicinity of the crack tip. Then the dissipation rate at the interface

$$J_d=\alpha (\dot{u}_x)^2𝑑x$$
(4)
diverges logarithmically. This is already quite a remarkable observation. In the usual crack problem the main dissipation comes from the close vicinity of the tip and often requires the introduction of microscopic models. Here we have the chance to avoid such a detailed microscopic description by using some microscopic length scale as a cutoff which enters only the logarithm in the final result. Note that dissipation due to the bulk viscoelasticity effectively only leads to tip dissipation on microscales. Indeed, the viscoelasticity gives corrections to the stress tensor of the form $`\eta \dot{u}_{ik}`$. The dissipation rate due to this effect diverges strongly at small distances (as $`1/r`$) and correspondingly decays at macroscopic distances. Thus, this effect can be incorporated into the tip dissipation.

Now we solve the elastic problem more accurately, while still using a quasistatic approximation for the moment. The generalization to the full elastodynamic description is straightforward and will be given below. In the co-moving frame of reference and in the vicinity of the crack tip, the displacement field for the static elasticity and the boundary conditions formulated above is

$$u_x=ARe\left[yz^{\lambda 1}i\left(34\nu \right)z^\lambda /\lambda \right],$$

$$u_y=ARe\left[iyz^{\lambda 1}\right].$$
(5)
Here $`z`$ is a complex coordinate $`z=x+iy`$, $`\nu `$ is the Poisson ratio, and $`A`$ is a real amplitude. The spectrum of $`\lambda `$ is purely real and given by the following equation:

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi \lambda \right)=\frac{1+i\pi \epsilon /2}{1i\pi \epsilon /2},$$
(6)
with

$$\epsilon =\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{34\nu }{1\nu }\frac{V_{tip}}{S}.$$
(7)
In the limit of small values of $`\left|\epsilon \right|`$ for the leading crack displacement component, we have $`2\lambda 1+\epsilon `$.

Having defined the displacement field we can calculate the energy flux $`J_i=\sigma _{ik}\dot{u}_k`$ and the local energy release into a small semicircular region with some microscopic radius $`a`$ around the crack tip,

$$J_0=2\pi \mu (34\nu )(1\nu )V_{tip}A^2a^\epsilon .$$
(8)
The dissipation rate due to the interface friction with exclusion of the small region of size $`a`$ close to the tip is given by Eq. (4):

$$J_d=\alpha (34\nu )^2A^2V_{tip}^2\epsilon ^1\left(\stackrel{~}{H}^\epsilon a^\epsilon \right)=J_0\left[(\stackrel{~}{H}/a)^\epsilon 1\right].$$
(9)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{H}=f(\nu )H`$, with $`f`$ being an undetermined yet function of the Poisson ratio; $`H`$ is a thickness of the sample. This function can be found by solving the elastic problem for given geometry and all boundary conditions. As we will see the tip velocity does not crucially depends on the actual value of the factor $`f`$, which is of the order of unity.

On the other hand the local energy release into the crack tip $`J_0`$ must compensate the surface energy difference: $`J_0=\gamma V_{tip}`$. Note, that here we have neglected the dissipation at the tip in comparison with the energy release $`\gamma V_{tip}`$, which is reasonable at small tip velocities compared to the velocity of sound. Finally, using the global energy conservation law,

$$J_{\mathrm{}}=J_0+J_d=\mu \left(u_{xy}^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2HV_{tip},$$
(10)
we find

$$\epsilon =\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{H}/a)}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{ln}(H/a)}.$$
(11)
Since $`\epsilon `$ is given by Eq. (7), this result is a compact representation of the crack velocity as a function of the driving force $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu \left(u_{xy}^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2H/\gamma `$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ corresponds to Griffith equilibrium. Eq. (11) is valid for small $`|\epsilon |`$. The explicit expression for the crack velocity reads

$$V_{tip}=2\pi \frac{1\nu }{34\nu }\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{ln}(H/a)}S.$$
(12)
In the case of small $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ we obtain

$$V_{tip}2\pi \frac{1\nu }{34\nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }1}{\mathrm{ln}(H/a)}S.$$
(13)
This result corresponds to a small dissipation rate compared to the total energy flux, $`J_dJ_{\mathrm{}}`$, and can also be obtained using perturbation theory: we solve the elastic problem neglecting friction ($`\sigma _{xy}=0`$ at the interface) and then calculate the dissipation rate (4) using this solution as zero order displacement field.

Up to now we have used the static approximation. The tip velocity should be small compared to the sound velocity. The elastodynamic generalization is straightforward. Using the standard approach to the singular solutions near the crack tip , we find the displacement field $`𝐮`$

$$u_x=ARe\left[\frac{(x+i\alpha _dy)^\lambda }{i\alpha _d}+i\alpha _s(x+i\alpha _sy)^\lambda \right],$$

$$u_y=ARe\left[(x+i\alpha _dy)^\lambda (x+i\alpha _sy)^\lambda \right]$$
(14)
with $`\alpha _d^2=1(V_{tip}/C_d)^2`$ and $`\alpha _s^2=1(V_{tip}/C_s)^2`$, where $`C_d`$ and $`C_s`$ are dilation and shear wave speed. The spectrum of $`\lambda `$ is still given by Eq. (6) but now $`\epsilon `$ reads

$$\epsilon =\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{(1\alpha _d\alpha _s)}{\alpha _d(1\alpha _s^2)}\frac{V_{tip}}{S}.$$
(15)
Thus, elastodynamic effects just lead to a redefinition of $`\epsilon `$ in the main result, Eq. (11), which remains valid. For small velocities, Eqs. (14) and (15) reduce to Eqs.(5) and (7), respectively.

The most serious problem with large velocities arises in connection with a self-consistent description of the dissipation at the tip. This part of kinetics cannot be considered macroscopically for arbitrary tip velocities. One can only treat the case of small velocities, $`V_{tip}C_s`$ in a model independent way, by introducing the tip kinetic coefficient. For higher velocities the so-called velocity dependent fracture energy $`\gamma (V_{tip})`$ is introduced. This function contains information about the usual surface energy $`\gamma `$ and tip dissipation and reduces to the surface energy in the static limit. The main dissipation in our approach arises from the friction between both sides of the crack and can be treated macroscopically. Note that this part of the dissipation can be described by the velocity independent friction coefficient $`\alpha `$ even at large tip velocities in the case of small sliding velocities.

Up to now we have discussed shear cracks along the interface between two dissimilar materials (the case of a rigid substrate). We also present the result for the case of frictional shear cracks inside homogeneous elastic materials. Such cracks can propagate under the shear loading in amorphous materials, or along grain boundaries in crystals (in single crystals the well known dislocation mechanism of plasticity should be favorable). The boundary conditions on the crack surfaces, which remain in contact, are: continuous normal displacement and continuous normal and shear stresses. The shear stress is also given by Eq.(1) with $`\dot{u}_x`$ being the relative sliding velocity of two crack surfaces. We note that these boundary conditions are quite different from the standard boundary conditions of mode II (and III) cracks: zero normal and shear stresses on the crack surfaces . In our case, the frictional shear crack, we find the following expression for $`\epsilon `$ which enters the general result, Eq.(11):

$$\epsilon =\frac{4}{\pi }\frac{\alpha _s(1\alpha _s^2)}{4\alpha _d\alpha _s(1+\alpha _s^2)^2}\frac{V_{tip}}{S}.$$
(16)
Now let us discuss the relation of our results to experimental observations of Baumberger, Caroli and Ronsin . They performed experiments of a gel sliding on a glass plate. The driving velocity was given and the shear force and thus the average shear stress was deduced from the spring elongation. Above some critical driving velocity $`V_c125\mu m/s`$, steady sliding was observed. At velocities smaller than the critical one, periodic stick slip sets up (see figures in ). Upon increasing the driving velocity $`V`$, no hysteresis of the transition was detected. In the stick slip regime they observed the propagation of self-healing pulses with no opening, nucleated periodically at the trailing edge of the sample. The propagation velocity of these cracks was about 60 times larger than the critical sliding velocity, yet still much smaller than the shear wave speed.

The existence of a critical sliding velocity, where stationary sliding is stable against the healing instability, appears naturally in our description and is given by Eq. (3). The characteristic value of the shear strain in the sliding mode near the critical velocity experimentally was about $`u_{xy}=0.04`$. Thus, we can estimate from Eq. (2) the characteristic velocity $`S=1.5mm/s`$ and from Eq.(3) we find that the characteristic difference between the interface energies in the slip and stick states is $`\gamma =0.1J/m^2`$. One would expect that for ordinary elastic materials the velocity $`S`$ should be of the order of the speed of sound. However, for gels the shear modulus $`\mu `$ is much smaller than for ordinary materials. The shear wave speed $`C_s=(\mu /\rho )^{1/2}`$ is only $`2m/s`$. The velocity $`S=\mu /\alpha `$ is linear in $`\mu `$ and should be even smaller. This is a possible explanation for a relatively small value of $`S`$ compared to $`C_s`$.

In the stick-slip regime, which exists below $`V_c`$, the nucleation of a slip pulse takes place at the trailing edge of the sample and requires overshooting above the Griffith threshold according to the experiment. This overshooting is not small and in order to estimate the crack velocity we can use Eq. (12) since the velocity is still much smaller than the speed of sound. Because of the week logarithmic parameter dependence, we conclude that $`V_{tip}`$ is of the order of $`S`$ and essentially independent of the driving velocity in agreement with experimental observations. After the slip pulse traversed the sample the stress drops below the Griffith threshold and resticking takes place via propagation of a healing pulse. Its velocity is still described by Eq. (12) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. This periodic stick slip regime bifurcates towards stationary sliding at $`V=V_c`$ where stresses are always above the Griffith threshold. For driving velocities slightly below $`V_c`$, characteristic values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for resticking are close to $`1`$. Since the velocity of the resticking crack is small and comparable with the driving velocity in this range, a complicated collective behavior of self-healing pulses is observed .

While our results are in a qualitative agreement with experimental observations, we still underestimate the crack velocity which is a few times smaller than in the experiment. The other discrepancy is due to the observed nonlinear behavior of the stress with the velocity in the stationary sliding regime (the so-called shear-thinning rheology). On the other hand, the geometry of the experiment is such that the total macroscopic friction of the sliding sample obviously depends on the processes taking place at the edges of the sample. The stresses here are highly inhomogeneous and the kinetic phenomena should be considered with a great care. We think that these boundary effects may be responsible for the discrepancies mentioned above.

Another subject of future investigations should be the collective behavior of self-healing pulses in the spirit of Ref. . Further theoretical and experimental investigations are needed to shed light on this phenomenon where two intriguing problems, crack propagation and friction, combine together.

Discussions with S.V. Iordanskii, B.N.J. Persson and D.E. Temkin are greatly appreciated. V.M. thanks Forschungszentrum Jülich for its hospitality.