text:
# Mean-field Based Approaches to Pairing Correlations in Atomic Nuclei

## Abstract

The evolution of the pairing correlations from closed shell to midshell nuclei is analyzed in the Sn isotopes with the Finite Range Density Dependent Gogny force. As theoretical approaches we use the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov, the Lipkin-Nogami, their particle number projected counterparts and the full variation after particle number projection method. We find that whereas all approaches succeed rather well in the description of the total energy they differ significantly in the pairing correlation content of the wave functions. The description of the evolution from the weak to the strong pairing regime is also approach dependent, specially at shell closure.

, , thanks: Present address: Dipartamento di Fisica, Universita di Lecce, 73100 Lecce, Italy.

Pairing correlations play an important role in the understanding of nuclear phenomena. Observables like moments of inertia, level densities and energies of the lowest-lying excited states, to mention a few, are strongly influenced by these correlations. In spite of their relevance pairing correlations are still not well understood. On the experimental side, because the pairing energy itself is not an observable, it is not easy to extract relevant information from the data (at high angular momentum, for example, we have gapless superconductivity). On the theoretical side, the basic problem is the mean field approximation to the pairing field which is not as effective as it is with the deformation (Hartree-Fock) field.

Recently, new experimental techniques have made possible to access regions far away from the stability line allowing to study, among others, very exotic systems where pairing correlations play a key role to make the nuclei bound . The experimental studies of N=Z nuclei also provide useful information on the proton-neutron pairing, see for example reference . It seems therefore timely to study the pairing correlations with a force able to provide both binding and pairing energies. In the past there have been several theoretical approaches to the nuclear pairing problem most of them using schematic or separable forces with little predictive power. From a more fundamental point of view effective forces should be used in these studies. The most popular of the density dependent forces, the Skyrme forces, in general use a different force for the particle-particle than for the particle-hole channel and so do, in general, the relativistic approaches. The only density dependent force which has a selfcontained pairing force, because of its finite range, is the Gogny force . This property of the Gogny force makes it unique to study different theoretical approaches because the renormalization of the force is, in principle, not needed due to its selfcontainedness. The purpose of this letter is to investigate the pairing correlations in different mean-field based approaches along different pairing regimes using the finite range density dependent Gogny interaction.

The simplest microscopic approach to describe the nuclear many-body system is the Hartree-Fock (HF) theory. The HF wave function is an antisymmetrized product of single particle wave functions determined in a variational way. The particles move independently in the HF orbitals determined selfconsistently excluding thereby any particle-particle correlation besides the ones considered in the common mean-field potential. The basic and oldest approach to include particle-particle correlations, i.e., pairing correlations, is the BCS approach . This is still a mean field approach, where the wave function is a product of quasiparticle operators $`\beta _k`$, i.e., $`|\mathrm{BCS}\beta _k|`$, given by the Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation

$$\beta _k^{}=u_ka_k^{}v_ka_{\overline{k}},\beta _{\overline{k}}^{}=u_ka_{\overline{k}}^{}+v_ka_k$$
(1)
with $`a_k,a_k^{}`$ the annihilation and creator particle operators in the Hartree-Fock basis and $`\overline{k}`$ the time reversal orbital to $`k`$. The coefficients $`u_k,v_k`$ are determined by the Ritz variational principle. Since the Ansatz of Eq. (1) mixes creation and annihilation operators the wave function $`|\mathrm{BCS}`$ is not an eigenstate of the particle number operator. The variational equation is therefore

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda \frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{N}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(2)
with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=|\mathrm{BCS}`$ and $`\lambda `$ the Lagrange multiplier determined under the constraint that the BCS wave function has on the average the particle number N. In spite of its simplicity and success the BCS approach lacks selfconsistency in the sense that the HF and the pairing fields are not treated on the same footing, i.e., first the HF orbitals are calculated and then their occupancies around the Fermi surface determined by the BCS equations. The theory which remedies this drawback is the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) approach. This is again a mean field approach, with wave function $`|\mathrm{HFB}=\alpha _k|`$, and with quasiparticle operators $`\alpha _k`$ determined by the generalized Bogoliubov transformation

$$\alpha _k=U_{lk}^{}c_l+V_{lk}^{}c_l^{}.$$
(3)
where $`c_l,c_l^{}`$ are the annihilation and creator particle operators in a suitable basis. In this case the variational parameters are the matrices $`U,V`$ which are determined by minimization of Eq. (2) but now with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=|\mathrm{HFB}`$. The mean field approaches (HF, BCS, HFB) have been widely used over the years with simple separable forces, effective forces and relativistic ones, to describe many nuclear properties and provide the backbone to theories beyond mean field as the Random-Phase-Approximation (RPA) or the Generator Coordinate Method (GCM).

The success of the mean field approaches is based on their ability to deal with single particle motion as well as with the collective motion associated with symmetries 111 Continuous symmetries, as rotations in any space: coordinate space, gauge space of particle number operator, etc as well as discrete symmetries, e.g. spatial parity.. The collective degrees of freedom are incorporated in the variational Hilbert space by the spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism. The wave functions of this enlarged Hilbert space are not eigenstates of the symmetry operators and are usually constrained to obey the symmetries on the average. For most symmetries the mean field approach is very satisfactory, for instance, for the rotational motion associated to the angular momentum, see Ref.  for a thorough discussion. In the case of pairing correlations, in which we are interested in this letter, the crucial quantities are the number of correlated pairs and the level density around the Fermi surface. If these quantities are small, and in nuclei they usually are, mean field theories are not enough and one should do something better.

The semi-classic recipe of solving the BCS and HFB equations with a constraint on the particle number operator can be derived as the first order result of a full quantum-mechanical expansion (the Kamlah expansion)  of the particle number projected quantities in terms of unprojected ones. The second order in this expansion takes into account the particle number fluctuations and might cure some of the deficiencies of the first order approximation. However, full calculations up to second order are rather cumbersome  and most second order calculations have been done using the Lipkin-Nogami (LN) recipe proposed in Refs. . The original formulation of the LN method was for a simple separable pairing interaction but it has been recently extended to non-separable ones  and density dependent finite range forces . The variational equations of the LN method are given by

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{H}h_2(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2h_1\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{N}=0,$$
(4)
with $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ given by

$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{H}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}h_2(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^3}{(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2}}`$ (5)
$`h_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{H}\widehat{H})(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2\widehat{H}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^3/(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^4(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^3^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2}}.`$ (6)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}=\widehat{N}\widehat{N}`$ and $`\widehat{O}\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{O}|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for any operator $`\widehat{O}`$. In the LN approach the $`h_2`$ parameter is not varied, contrary to what a variational method would require, but only updated in each iteration of the minimization process. In this respect the LN approach is not a fully variational method and its success not quite well understood.

In a mean field based approach, the ideal treatment of pairing correlations in nuclei is particle number projection (PNP) before the variation . This theory is rather complicated and up to now has been mainly applied to separable forces  or in small configuration spaces . Only recently  an exact particle number projection has been performed with finite range forces, the Gogny forces, and large configuration spaces. Let $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a product wave function of the HFB type, i.e. a particle number symmetry violating wave function. We can generate an eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ of the particle number by the projection technique

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_N=\widehat{P}^N|\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi e^{i(\widehat{N}N)\varphi }|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(7)
The particle number projected energy is given by

$`E_{proj}^N={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_N|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Psi }_N}{\mathrm{\Psi }_N|\mathrm{\Psi }_N}}={\displaystyle \frac{_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi e^{i\varphi N}\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{H}e^{i\varphi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }}{_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi e^{i\varphi N}\mathrm{\Phi }|e^{i\varphi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }}}={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi y(\varphi )E(\varphi )`$ (8)
with

$$y(\varphi )=\frac{e^{i\varphi (\widehat{N}N)}}{_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }|e^{i\varphi (\widehat{N}N)}|\mathrm{\Phi }},E(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{H}e^{i\varphi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }|e^{i\varphi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(9)
One should distinguish the projection after variation method (PAV) from the variation after projection method (VAP). In the PAV approach the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is determined by solving Eqs. (2) with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a HFB wave function and with this wave function one can calculate the projected energy with Eq. (8). In the VAP approach the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is determined minimizing the projected energy, Eq. (8). Obviously the VAP method provides a much better approach. In our case all the variational equations are solved by the Conjugate Gradient Method .

As mentioned above we want to investigate the pairing correlations in different mean-field based approaches using the Gogny interaction in the numerical applications. For this purpose we investigate some properties of the Sn isotopes ($`Z=50`$) from the $`N=50`$ shell closure to the $`N=82`$ one. The aim is to study the evolution of the pairing characteristics from the weak pairing regime (around the shell closure) to the strong pairing regime (midshell) to investigate the quality of the different approaches. We have studied the ground state properties of the Tin isotopes in the $`\mathrm{HF}`$, $`\mathrm{HFB}`$, and $`\mathrm{LN}`$ approaches. We have also performed projected calculations of the ‘after variation’ type, the PAV and the PLN (Projected LN). In the PAV (PLN) method the intrinsic wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is determined by the HFB (LN) equations, afterwards a particle number projection on this wave function is performed allowing the calculation of projected expectation values. Furthermore we have performed the VAP calculation. We think that this comparison is important because the studies performed so far were done with separable forces, mostly the monopole pairing. The calculations have been performed with a triaxial code and with N0=11 oscillator shells. Furthermore the D1 parametrization of the Gogny force has been used . To prevent the appearance of divergences associated with the neglection of the exchange terms in the particle number projected calculations , all calculations have been performed including all exchange terms of the forces, and all terms have been calculated without any approximation . In the density dependent term of the Gogny force we have used the projected density prescription, see  for more details.

To investigate the pairing correlations we should look for a quantity which can be defined in all approaches. In BCS theory with monopole pairing usually the gap parameter has been used. This quantity is strongly related with the particle-particle correlation energy used in the HFB approach,

$$E_{pp}=\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa ^{}\right),$$
(10)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl}=\frac{1}{2}_{mn}\overline{v}_{klmn}\kappa _{mn}`$ and $`\kappa _{mn}=\mathrm{\Phi }|c_nc_m|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`v`$, in our case, the Gogny and Coulomb interactions. We would like to remind that the density dependent part of the Gogny force does not contribute to the pairing field. In the LN approach we keep the same definition, that means, the contribution of the $`h_2<(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2>`$ term to $`E_{pp}`$ is not considered, this contribution is added to the HF energy. The equivalent expression in the PNP case is ( cf Eqs.(8-9)) :

$$E_{pp}=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi y(\varphi )E_{pp}(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi y(\varphi )Tr\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{10}(\varphi )\kappa ^{01}(\varphi )\right)$$
(11)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl}^{10}(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}_{mn}\overline{v}_{klmn}\kappa _{mn}^{10}(\varphi )`$, and

$$\kappa _{kl}^{10}(\phi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }|c_lc_ke^{i\phi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }|e^{i\phi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }},\kappa _{kl}^{01}(\phi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }|c_k^{}c_l^{}e^{i\phi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }|e^{i\phi \widehat{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(12)
In the left panel of Fig. 1 we present $`E_{pp}`$ for the Tin isotopes in the five approaches mentioned above, calculated via Eq. (10) for non-projected theories and Eq. (11) for projected theories. Curves on the top (bottom) of the left panel correspond to the neutron (proton ) pairing correlations. The common wisdom about the general behavior of pairing correlations along a shell is that they behave as a semicircle : at shell closure there are not pairing correlations, as we keep adding particles the pairing correlations increase until midshell where they reach the maximum value. From this point on they decrease up to the point where the next shell closure is reached. This wisdom is mainly based on the mean field approach (BCS and HFB). As a matter of fact the neutron pairing energy in the $`\mathrm{HFB}`$ approach resembles very much this pattern. Qualitatively  the behavior of the neutron $`E_{pp}`$ in the five approximations is similar : they increase from both shell closures towards midshell, up to N=58 and N=74 where a kind of plateau develops from A=110 up to 122. Quantitatively, however, we find three distinctive behaviors corresponding to the three different intrinsic wave functions, the HFB and PAV approaches, the LN and PLN and finally the VAP one. Both, HFB and PAV, give no pairing correlations at the shell closures and display a kind of two hump behavior as a function of the mass number. The LN and PLN approaches, on the other hand, provide non-zero correlation energy at the shell closures (the LN overestimate the VAP result) and display a one hump behavior. The VAP approach, finally, provides the largest correlation energies, showing an even more pronounced two hump structure, and giving non-zero correlations at the shell closures.

If we exclude the VAP results we find a clear trend in the other approximations as a function of the mass number : At the shell closures and in their nearest vicinity there are large differences in the results for the different approaches. As we move to the middle of the major shell the four approximations provide results rather close to each other. Finally, around the middle of the major shell the dispersion in the results of the different approaches get larger. This peculiar behavior might be related, as we shall see later, with the number of subshells involved in the pairing mechanism. A remarkable point is the behavior of the LN (and the PLN to a lesser extend) neutron correlation energies at the shell closures. We observe that the value of $`E_{pp}`$ at the shell closures, i.e. N=50 and N=82, is not the extrapolation of the neighboring values, as it is the case for the HFB, PAV and VAP approaches. As we shall see later on this behavior is probably related with a degradation of the LN solution.

The proton correlation energies are depicted in the lower part of the same panel. The HFB and PAV energies, as expected are zero for all N values (we have a major shell closure at Z=50) while the LN, PLN and VAP are not. They are not as large as the neutron ones, but the important point is that they are different from zero, i.e., these theories are able to gather a certain correlation energy from the so-called dynamical pairing. Interestingly the projected versions of the HFB (for neutrons) and LN (for neutrons and protons) approaches provide smaller particle-particle correlations than the unprojected ones. We also find that the reduction produced in the LN case for protons is large (about 30 $`\%`$ ) as compared with the one for neutrons or the HFB case (5 $`\%`$ ). This result seems to indicate that the LN approach in the closed shell regime overestimates the pairing correlations (cf. ).

A quantity that plays an important role in the approximate particle number projection methods is the fluctuation of the particle number operator. This quantity provides a measure on the degree of symmetry breaking in the corresponding wave function. This obviously only applies to symmetry breaking wave functions like BCS or HFB but not to symmetry conserving ones like HF or PNP wave functions. HFB or BCS wave functions with large $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2>`$ are expected to have large pairing (gauge deformation) correlation energies. In the right panel of Fig. 1 the fluctuations of the particle number operator are shown. In the projected approaches the intrinsic wave functions are used in the calculations, consequently only the HFB, LN, and VAP approaches are shown. Symbols and conventions are the same as in the left panel. As expected the overall behavior is similar to the $`E_{pp}`$ in the corresponding approaches. It is interesting that, though the intrinsic wave functions of the VAP and PAV approaches have similar “deformation”, in the gauge space associated to the particle number operator, for many isotopes, the projection is much more effective producing larger $`E_{pp}`$ in the case of the VAP than in the PAV one.

Another way to measure the pairing correlations in a given approach is to look for the energy gain obtained by going from the HF (no pairing correlations allowed) to the respective approach (pairing correlations allowed). In this way we may define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_G=E_{HF}E_{approach}$$
(13)
where $`E_{HF}`$ and $`E_{approach}`$ are the total binding energies in the HF theory and in the corresponding approach. In this case $`approach`$ stands for any of the HFB, PAV, LN, PLN and VAP approaches. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ is a measure of the energy gain when particle-particle correlations are allowed.

In the upper part of Fig. 2 we display $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ for the different approximations. The largest energy gain is provided by the VAP method followed by the PLN one. Interestingly, at variance with the $`E_{pp}`$ case, the PAV approach provides binding energies very similar to the LN one. In particular, it is surprising that, at the shell closures ($`A=100`$ and 132 ), the LN approach provides both, binding energies very close to the HF ones and, at the same time, larger particle-particle correlation energies than the VAP method, see Fig. 1. These results could be interpreted again as a degradation of the LN approach in the very weak pairing regime. The PLN results on the contrary become closer to the VAP ones.

On the base of general arguments one would expect larger similarity between the bulk behavior of $`E_{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ than the one found. A close look at the different solutions reveals that while in all approaches (with the exception of the HF one) all nuclei under study remain spherical, in the HF one some nuclei get deformed due to the absence of pairing correlations. That means in the upper panel of Fig. 2 some deformation effects are present and the comparison of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ with $`E_{pp}`$ is not as obvious as if these effects would not be there. To eliminate deformation effects we have performed spherical HF calculations. The quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ evaluated with the spherical binding energies are displayed in the lower panel of Fig. 2. As expected, since the HF energies are now smaller -we restrict ourselves to spherical shapes- we obtain larger values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$. As before PAV and LN values are close to each other and more interestingly the two hump structure found in Fig. 2 is recovered. We observe that, with the exceptions of the shell closures, the different curves behave more similar one to each other than they do in the particle-particle energy of Fig. 1.

To study the origin of the two hump structure we shall investigate the fractional harmonic oscillator shell occupancy, defined by

$$\nu (n,l,j)=\frac{1}{2j+1}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }|c_{nljm}^{}c_{nljm}|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(14)
In the left part of Fig. 3 we represent the occupancies of the pairing active shells in the HFB approximation (for the other approaches the conclusions do not change). As expected at $`N=50`$ the shells are empty and at $`N=82`$ filled (the small deviations from zero and one are due to the fact that in the spherical HFB the quantum number $`n`$ is not conserved) and in between a smooth filling of the shells takes place. This smooth filling may give rise to divergences in the PNP approaches when the occupancies $`v_k^2`$ take the value 0.5 and the exchange terms have been neglected  in the calculations. The largest pairing correlations are expected from the big shells and at half shell occupancy. Accordingly, we expect a maximum around $`A=108110`$ from the d$`_{\frac{5}{2}}`$ and g$`_{\frac{7}{2}}`$ orbitals and another one around $`A=124126`$ stemming from the h$`_{\frac{11}{2}}`$ orbit. Looking at the right panel of Fig. 3, where we have plotted separately the contribution to the total pairing energy of positive (HFB n+) and negative (HFB n-) parity shells, we find the expected behavior. The deep in the pairing energy around $`A=116`$ is due to the fact that the gain in pairing of the small shells s$`_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and d$`_{\frac{3}{2}}`$, which are being filled around this mass number, does not compensate the loss of pairing due to the higher occupancy of the d$`_{\frac{5}{2}}`$ and g$`_{\frac{7}{2}}`$ shells. A possible explanation of the fact that the HFB, LN, PAV and PLN give values for $`E_{pp}`$ with a larger dispersion around the major midshell than at the beginning or at the end of the shell, might be that in the first case one has to deal with five open subshells while in the second one only with one or two.

Taking into account these results we may understand somewhat better the relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ and $`E_{pp}`$. The total energy in a given approach can be written as $`E_{approach}=E_{HF}(\phi _{approach})+E_{pp}`$, where $`E_{HF}(\phi _{approach})`$ represents the kinetic energy and the contribution of the Hartree-Fock field to the energy 222 In the LN case we have to add the term $`h_2<(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2>`$.calculated with the wave function $`\phi _{approach}`$. This expression is also valid for the projected energy (PLN, PAV and VAP), see Eq. (B-1) of reference . Substitution of $`E_{approach}`$ in Eq. (13) provides $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G=E_{HF}E_{HF}(\phi _{approach})E_{pp}`$. The quantity $`|E_{HF}E_{HF}(\phi _{approach})|`$ represents the loss of energy due to the readjustment of the plain HF occupancies caused by the pairing field. Looking at Fig. 3, we find that near the shell closures the occupancies, independently of the approach, are either zero or one, i.e., the HF occupancies are not very different from the ones of the corresponding approach and we do not expect large differences between $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ and $`E_{pp}`$. As we move from closed shells towards midshell the fractional occupancies increase deviating from the plain HF ones. The largest deviations between $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_G`$ and $`E_{pp}`$ are expected, therefore, in the middle of the shell. A close look at Figs. 1 and 2 confirms these expectations. An interesting point is the inversion of the HFB (LN) and PAV (PLN) curves in Fig. 2 as compared with Fig. 1. The HFB (LN) line is below the PAV (PLN) in Fig. 2 at variance with Fig. 1 because the projected occupancies (PAV or PLN) are closer to the plain HF, i.e., smaller $`|E_{HF}E_{HF}(\phi _{approach})|`$, than the unprojected ones (HFB or LN).

The HFB, PAV, LN and PLN approaches are approximations to the full variation after projection method. It would be interesting to see how much the different approximations deviate from the full VAP method which they try to emulate. In the upper part of Fig. 4 we plot the difference of the binding energies calculated in the different approaches and the VAP one. In the HFB case we find on the average deviations of about 2.6 MeV with the exception of the nuclei in the neighborhood of the shell closures and around $`A=116`$ where we get larger values. These results are in qualitative agreement with the Kamlah expansion, according to which the larger the deformation in the gauge space associated with the symmetry operator the better the expansion will be. In the right panel of Fig. 1 we have represented the fluctuations for the particle number operator, which give a measure of the gauge deformation as a function of the mass number. We find a qualitative correlation between $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2>`$ and the goodness of the HFB approach. We find that for those mass numbers where $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2>`$ has large values the HFB approach gets closer to the VAP method. The PAV results provide, on the average, an additional lowering of about 0.75 MeV. This approximation is rather uniform as a function of the mass number and only the two or three nuclei close to the shell closures deviate more from the average. The LN values are on the average about 1.7 MeV higher than the VAP and as the other approximations they differ at most from the VAP at the shell closures. However, in the LN only the $`N=50`$ and $`N=82`$ isotopes deviate strongly from the VAP values. A quantitative change is provided by the PLN. Its binding energies differ over a wide range by only about 0.75 MeV from the VAP, and even in the worst cases, for $`N=50`$ and $`N=82`$, the deviations is only about 1.25 MeV.

The discussion of the upper part of Fig. 4 does not give us information on the content of the wave functions, it tells us only about the ability of the different approaches to reproduce the binding energy of the VAP method which they try to emulate. Since the total energy is the sum of several terms, there is no guarantee that each term reproduces with the same quality the corresponding term in the VAP approach. To gain more insight into the wave function we have plotted in the lower panel of Fig. 4 the difference between the particle-particle correlation energy of the HFB, PAV, LN and PLN approaches and the VAP method. Let us first concentrate on the neutron parts. The first observation is that these quantities show a stronger dependence on the mass number than the binding energies. The HFB and PAV results are close to each other, though the HFB ones get closer to the VAP than the PAV, contrary to what happened with the total energies. Furthermore they approach the VAP results best around $`A=116`$, also at variance with the binding energy results. The LN and PLN results also behave similar, they approximate best the VAP results in the region around $`A=116`$ and at the shell closures, though the good agreement at the shell closures could be fortuitous as we shall see below. Furthermore, the LN results get closer to the VAP than the PLN. These features of the LN and PLN are also the contrary to what we obtained for the total energies.

In the lower panel of Fig. 4, we see the discontinuities in the LN and PLN approaches at A=102 and A=130, already commented in reference to Fig. 1. This behavior could be associated with a failure of the LN expansion at the phase transitions. As a matter of fact in reference  it has been shown that large changes in the $`h_2`$ parameter are associated with the breakdown of the second order expansion of the projected energy. On the left hand side of Fig. 5 we have plotted the $`h_2`$ parameters as a function of the mass number. As one can see the neutron $`h_2`$ parameter is rather constant and small from A=106 up to A=126, then it rises to the large shell closure value of 0.6. For protons we find large and rather constant $`h_2`$ values (the small dip around A=110 has to do with the small bump at the same place in $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2>`$, see Fig. 1). From this plot we conclude that the origin of the discontinuity is the fast change in $`h_2`$, which itself is caused by the breakdown of the expansion at second order. The overshooting of $`E_{pp}`$ in the LN approach at $`A=100`$ and $`A=132`$ is caused by the term $`h_2(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N})^2`$, in Eq. (4) : The large $`h_2`$ value makes that term very big leading to an exaggerated scattering of neutrons pairs across the Fermi surface. This overshooting is equivalent to the behavior found in the two-level pairing model where the LN energy, in the weak pairing regime, is deeper than the exact one. Concerning the proton particle-particle correlation energies we observe that the LN and PLN, as expected, stay rather constant with the mass number. The overshooting of the LN approach does not appear in this case, probably, because of the Coulomb antipairing effect .

In the calculations we have chosen spherical nuclei in order to separate deformation effects from pairing effects, though in our triaxial codes one may get solutions with very small deformations. Now we would like to furthermore separate proton and neutron pairing effects. The comparison of the HFB and PAV binding energies with the VAP results for the Sn isotopes (proton closed shell) is not very fair because no proton pairing is obtained in the HFB and PAV approximations whereas this is not the case for VAP. The comparison of the LN and PLN approaches is not fair either because, as we have seen, for closed shells the LN expansion is not a good one. That means, the results for the proton channel may overshadow the results of the neutron channel. The comparison will be more equitable for ordinary nuclei (proton and neutron shells open) where the HFB approach will provide pairing in both channels and the LN one will perform better. In order to disentangle the different contributions in the Sn isotopes we have also performed VAP and LN calculations with the additional constraint 333This can easily be done by restricting the proton intrinsic variational wave function to be of the HF (not HFB !) type. that no proton pairing is allowed. In this way the proton channel is treated in the same way in all approximations, i.e., the wave function is always of the HF type. In the right panel of Fig. 5 we display the difference of the binding energy in the HFB, PAV, LN or PLN approach and the VAP one, the LN (PLN) and VAP energies calculated with the mentioned constraint. In the HFB, PAV, LN and PLN approaches, with the exception of the shell closures at N=50 and N=82, we are able to reproduce the VAP results, on the average, within 1, 0.2, $`\pm 0.2`$ and 0.15 MeV, respectively. The projected versions PAV and PLN provide smoother approximations, i.e, less isotope dependence, than the unprojected ones. The LN approach provides in some cases slightly deeper energies than the VAP one. In the shell closures we find deviations of about 2 MeV in the HFB, PAV and LN approaches, only the PLN reproduces the total binding energy within 0.6 MeV. Looking at this figures one would be tempted to say that the weak pairing regime in the ground state444Excited states, specially high-spin ones, are explicitly excluded.  of atomic nuclei only take place for closed shell nuclei. We may now return to the question on the quality of the LN and PLN approaches in the weak pairing regime. Let us compare the LN and PLN results of the right panel of Fig. 5 from $`A=106`$ to $`A=124`$, only strong pairing regime, with the corresponding ones in the upper panel of Fig. 4, weak (strong) pairing regime in the proton (neutron) channel. We find a certain degradation of the LN approach in the weak pairing regime, Fig. 4, since it deviates too much from the VAP as compared with Fig. 4. The PLN approach, on the other hand, provides rather reasonable results in the weak proton pairing regime. Concerning to the neutron pairing energies $`E_{pp}`$ in the VAP approximation, they are almost unchanged by the fact that proton pairing correlations are not allowed. Therefore, the difference in the neutron pairing energies in the HFB (PAV) and the VAP one is still given by the bottom panel of Fig. 4.

In conclusion, we have investigated the behavior of the pairing correlations along a major shell in the variation after projection method plus four approximations to it with the effective Gogny force. If we look at the total binding energies we find that the best approximation to the VAP is provided by the PLN, followed by the LN or PAV and HFB. The PAV results being surprisingly good in midshell. The crucial test of the goodness of the approaches is provided by the shell closures and their nearest neighbors. There, only the PLN provides a reasonable approximation to the VAP method. For the other isotopes, all approaches are rather uniform and the quality of a given approach is almost independent of the mass number. We predict that the best approximations will be obtained for doubly open shell nuclei. We also show that the weak pairing regime in the ground state of atomic nuclei is limited to the nearest neighborhood of closed shells. The isotope dependence of the binding energies is smoother in the PAV and PLN approaches than in the HFB and LN ones, indicating that this behavior is caused by admixture of wrong particle number components in the wave function of the HFB and LN approaches. On the other hand, if we look at the wave function content, on the pairing correlation energies for example, we find that the results are strongly approach dependent and, in general, less uniform than the ones for binding energies. The ability of the different approximations to reproduce the particle-particle correlation energy of the VAP approach is worse than the one to reproduce the total binding energy. The last statement is obvious from the variational point of view. Specifically, we have found that mean field based theories like HFB are able to provide the total binding energies of doubly open shell nuclei up to 2 MeV (1 MeV per channel) of the VAP approach. For the LN, PAV and PLN theories the accuracy is much better (0.2 MeV per channel). However, the predictions for the pairing correlation energy in the HFB or PAV (LN or PLN) approach are about 3 MeV (2 MeV) away from the VAP approach, which corresponds to a 20 per cent (15 per cent) accuracy. Consequently, properties strongly dependent on the pairing correlations, like moments of inertia, level densities or excitation energies of the excited states, among others, may not be well described in non-VAP theories in spite of providing high accuracy in the total binding energy as compared with the VAP prediction.

We would like to remark, lastly, that these conclusions are based on the mean field theories most widely used in nuclear structure calculations. In principle one should compare these approaches, even the VAP one, with theories beyond mean field, which explicitly take into account additional pairing fluctuations.

This work was supported in part by DGI, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain, under Project BFM2001-0184.


format: text

text:
# High-Resolution Measurements Of Intersystem Bands Of Carbon Monoxide Toward X Persei

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Observers of interstellar sight lines are familiar with the strong $`A{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }`$$``$$`X{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ permitted absorption bands of CO below 1545 Å. Less familiar to observers are the intersystem bands of CO, which involve the triplet states $`a^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$, $`d{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i}^{}`$, and $`e{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}`$, whose electric dipole transitions to the ground state $`X{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ are spin-forbidden. These triplet states have potential energy curves that cross the curve of $`A{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }`$—see Figure 1 of Rostas et al. (2000)—and via mutual perturbations acquire a small percentage of $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ character at the expense of the singlet state. The resulting triplet-singlet $`f`$-values are relatively small, thus turning the intersystem bands into very useful astrophysical probes along interstellar (IS) sight lines for which the A$``$X bands are optically thick, see Morton & Noreau (1994, hereafter MN), Federman et al. (1994, hereafter F94). To exploit such probes, accurate $`f`$-values of intersystem transitions are required. Rostas et al. (2000, hereafter Rostas et al.) presented predictions from extended calculations of the triplet-singlet mixing coefficients, partly as an attempt to resolve discrepancies between previous theoretical (MN) and astrophysical $`f`$-values. Rostas et al. also conducted low-resolution laboratory measurements at room temperature to improve upon the experimental results of Eidelsberg et al. (1992). High-resolution laboratory measurements on two intersystem bands were also reported by Stark et al. (2002).

Using the Hubble Space Telescope333Based on observations obtained with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope through the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. ($`HST`$), we obtained a high-resolution echelle spectrum of the O9.5V star X Per (HD 24534) with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS). Permitted A$``$X bands along this line of sight were first modeled by Kaczmarczyk (2000a), who based his analysis of 12CO on archival $`HST`$ Goddard High-Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) observations. For our STIS observations, the weakest permitted band available for analysis is the A$``$X (8$``$0) band, which still has a large optical depth ($`\tau `$) in the cores of the strongest lines, $`\tau `$($`R`$(0)) $``$ 70. Therefore, the column density ($`N`$) of 12CO toward X Per can be measured more reliably from the observed intersystem bands, which have a much smaller $`\tau `$. In this Letter, we determine $`N`$(12CO) through a comparison with our previous observations of intersystem bands toward $`\zeta `$ Oph (F94). Then we derive IS $`f`$-values toward X Per for all seven “old” bands and for five intersystem bands seen in IS spectra for the first time. Finally, we compare our $`f`$-values with the predictions of Rostas et al. Regarding nomenclature, we make use in this paper of the short notation introduced by Rostas et al., where, e.g., $`d`$12 stands for d$``$X (12$``$0).

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND MODELING

STIS spectra of X Per were acquired in 2001 February and March with grating E140H during 10,728 s over five orbits, yielding the data sets o64812010$``$030 and o64813010$``$020. The star was observed through the smallest aperture (0.1″ $`\times `$ 0.03″), which was designed to provide the highest resolving power, $`R`$ = 200,000 (Jenkins & Tripp, 2001). Elaborate reduction procedures had to be employed in order to correct for odd-even sub-pixel effects in the unbinned (2048-pixel) exposures. Normal reduction routines were then followed by processing the spectra in the STSDAS environment of IRAF. The five orbital exposures were co-added into a single spectrum of 42 orders, sporting a signal-to-noise ratio of 70, or 100 for features detected and combined from two adjacent overlapping orders. Since the continuum is modulated by shallow photospheric features from X Per, short spectral segments centered on features (bands) of interest were rectified and normalized before being compared to a fitted synthetic model of the pertinent feature. Flux and wavelength calibrations were performed by the Space Telescope Science Institute pipeline and supplied with the binned, 1024-pixel exposures.

A previous analysis of 12CO by Kaczmarczyk (2000b) inferred that this line of sight involves two unresolved velocity components. However, the significantly higher resolution of our spectrum shows profile asymmetries due to underlying structure, which required four components for a good fit. This is the same number of components found in preliminary fits of high-resolution K I spectra of X Per (D. E. Welty, private communication), although we derived a different set of relative velocities, fractions, and component widths. Some 87% of the total $`N`$(12CO) resides in a main component with a Doppler parameter ($`b`$-value) of 0.39 km s-1. The other three components have between 2% and 9% shares of $`N`$, with $`b`$-values between 0.17 and 2.09 km s-1, as will be fully described in a future paper. The highly saturated A$``$X bands could be fitted only once the total $`N`$ was established via the intersystem bands. Our method of analysis employed a multi-parametric spectrum synthesis code based on Voigt profile line transfer equations given in Black & van Dishoeck (1988). The computed absorption spectrum was convolved with a Gaussian instrumental profile (Jenkins & Tripp 2001) and then matched with the data via rms-minimization down to relative parameter steps of 10-4 or less.

## 3 THE COLUMN DENSITY OF 12CO

In order to determine $`f`$-values for intersystem bands, $`N`$(12CO) toward X Per must be known. For optically thin features, the equivalent width ($`W_\lambda `$) is proportional to $`\tau `$, i.e., $`W_\lambda `$ $``$ $`fN`$. We can, therefore, utilize the published value of $`N`$ toward $`\zeta `$ Oph and the ratio of $`W_\lambda `$s for optically thin bands toward the two stars in the determination of $`N`$ toward X Per. The result should be independent of the intersystem $`f`$-values and of the modeled cloud structure, provided we exclude the $`W_\lambda `$ ratio for the optically thick $`a^{}`$14. Column 4 of Table 1 lists the ratios of band $`W_\lambda `$ toward X Per over band $`W_\lambda `$ toward $`\zeta `$ Oph. Among the optically thin bands, the highest $`W_\lambda `$ ratio belongs to $`e`$4, which was the faintest intersystem band analyzed by F94. In addition, $`e`$4 also sports the largest deviation of derived $`f`$-value in the low-$`\tau `$ sample of F94. It is clear that F94 underestimated the low-resolution $`W_\lambda `$ for $`e`$4 due to placing the continuum too low (see their Figure 1). Dropping the $`e`$4 band, and thus avoiding a 5% increase in the average, we obtain $`W_\lambda `$(X Per)/$`W_\lambda `$($`\zeta `$ Oph) = 5.54 $`\pm `$ 0.87. Under the necessary and fulfilled condition of optical thinness, this is also the ratio of $`N`$(X Per) over $`N`$($`\zeta `$ Oph). Here we shall adopt the Lambert et al. (1994) column density toward $`\zeta `$ Oph, $`N`$(12CO) = (2.54 $`\pm `$ 0.16) $`\times `$ 1015 cm-2, which was also employed by F94. Based on the measured $`N`$ ratio, we infer that $`N`$(12CO) toward X Per is (1.41 $`\pm `$ 0.22) $`\times `$ 1016 cm-2. Kaczmarczyk (2000b) found (1.0 $`\pm `$ 0.2) $`\times `$ 1016 cm-2 from an analysis of permitted A$``$X bands; the agreement between the two determinations is at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level. Recall, however, that Kaczmarczyk’s model has fewer cloud components and larger $`b`$-values, readily accounting for its reduced column density.

## 4 BAND OSCILLATOR STRENGTHS

The crossings of vibrational levels in a triplet state and vibrational levels in the $`A{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ state occur near certain rotational $`J^{}`$ levels. Therefore, mixing coefficients depend on $`J^{}`$ and thus intersystem $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$-values generated by interaction with $`A{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ have a dependence on $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$. Whereas all previous calculations of mixing coefficients focused on the vibrational level of the A state ($`v_A`$) closest to the perturbing triplet level, i.e., a single-$`v_A`$ treatment, Rostas et al. were the first to use multi-$`v_A`$ computations that included all $`A`$ levels with $`v^{}`$ = 0 to 12. They derived $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$-values that for some intersystem bands were in better agreement with their own experimental results ($`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ = 300 K), and/or with the IS results of F94 ($`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ = 4.2 K). Still, the calculated $`f`$-values of Rostas et al. are “a few percent” off, because the changes in $`f_{v^{}v^{}}`$$`_{^{}}`$ of the “parent” A$``$X bands induced by mixing with other triplet levels were ignored. In addition, differences of a few percent are expected due to the adopted sources for A$``$X $`f`$-values: MN and we used values from Chan, Cooper, & Brion (1993), while Rostas et al.’s preference lies with values published by Eidelsberg et al. (1999).

The MN line oscillator strength, $`f_{J^{}J^{}}`$$`_{^{}}`$, which we use as input for the fits, includes $`f_{v^{}v^{}}`$$`_{^{}}`$ for the permitted A$``$X band and the usual H$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$nl-London rotational factor, as well as the single-$`v_A`$ strength of the perturbation. According to Rostas et al., for triplet levels that cross the $`A`$ levels at low values of $`J^{}`$, single-$`v_A`$ and multi-$`v_A`$ calculations should not differ by a large factor since the interaction with the nearest “parent” $`v_A`$ level is predominant. Therefore, using $`f_{J^{}J^{}}`$$`_{^{}}`$-values from MN is a valid approach while searching for relatively small corrections due to multi-$`v_A`$ interactions. This condition is appropriate for all bands studied here, except for $`d`$7, $`d`$10, and to a lesser extent, $`e`$4. On the other hand, intersystem bands that are farther from their nearest parents have “$`J`$-independent” $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$-values due to their high-$`J^{}`$ crossing, especially under IS conditions. Again, using $`f_{J^{}J^{}}`$$`_{^{}}`$-values from MN poses no difficulties for scaling the integrated band $`f`$-values thanks to negligible high-$`J^{}`$ level populations. Indeed, we made no attempt to fit rotational lines independently of each other; our syntheses did not indicate a need to adjust individual $`f_{J^{}J^{}}`$$`_{^{}}`$-values. Rather than varying the $`f`$-values, our variable parameters were $`N`$(12CO), which scales the entire band, and $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$, which determines its shape. Eleven 12CO bands exhibit similar excitation temperatures with averages of $`T_{1,0}`$ = 6.1 $`\pm `$ 1.0 K and $`T_{2,0}`$ = 5.9 $`\pm `$ 0.4 K. Lower $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ were suggested by the fit to $`a^{}`$14, presumably due to effects of higher $`\tau `$. Although $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$ depends on $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$, the difference in $`f`$-values between $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ = 4.2 K and $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ = 6.0 K is $``$ 1%, which we ignore here. One additional variable fitting parameter was the heliocentric radial velocity. For the main component, the average value from nine 12CO intersystem bands is 14.7 $`\pm `$ 1.0 km s-1, where the 1 $`\sigma `$ error is dominated by STIS wavelength calibration uncertainties. This radial velocity is in very good agreement with the K I fits mentioned in § 2.

### 4.1 Bands Previously Seen Toward $`\zeta `$ Oph

Table 1 lists results of synthetic fits for 12 intersystem bands detected in our spectrum of X Per. For the reference $`f`$-values we used the MN $`f_{J^{}J^{}}`$$`_{^{}}`$-values of the $`R`$(0) lines, which agree to $`\pm `$ 1% of $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$-values calculated for $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ = 4.2 K, except for $`a^{}`$14 and $`a^{}`$17, which have low-$`J^{}`$ crossings and for which the $`R`$(0) $`f`$-values are off by $``$ 2%. Each ratio of a fitted $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$-value over the reference MN value was computed from the ratio of each band’s fitted $`N`$(12CO) over the actual $`N`$ determined in § 3. Column 5 lists the resulting band $`f`$-values toward X Per. For comparison, in columns 6$``$8 we list ratios of $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$ from this paper, from F94, and from theoretical predictions in Rostas et al. over the values from MN. The Rostas et al. values are based on multi-$`v_A`$ calculations while the MN values refer to single-$`v_A`$ results. The theoretical ratios in column 8 lack formal error bars, although deviations due to the presence of other triplet levels and to absolute scales should amount to a few percent. The last column directly compares $`f`$-values from X Per to those from Rostas et al.

The first seven bands listed in Table 1 were previously detected toward $`\zeta `$ Oph by F94. As discovered by F94, the measured $`f`$-value of $`d`$7 toward X Per is five times greater than the value listed by MN in their Tables 5 and 14. However, MN list another $`f`$-value for $`d`$7 in their Table 7, based on measurements by Eidelsberg et al. (1992); the latter result is more in line with both IS $`f`$-values and was confirmed in room temperatures experiments by Rostas et al. The more rigorous multi-$`v_A`$ calculation reproduces the astronomical $`f`$-values much better than a single-$`v_A`$ prediction because $`d`$7 is relatively far from its nearest parent, $`A`$2. Our new $`f`$-value is 6% (0.4 $`\sigma `$) lower than the prediction by Rostas et al., while the F94 result differs by 1% only. Consequently, we do not confirm the recent laboratory result by Stark et al. (2002) that $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$($`d`$7) should be reduced by (29 $`\pm `$ 15)% relative to Rostas et al.

Our synthesis of the optically thick $`a^{}`$14 toward X Per returns an $`f`$-value 6% smaller than that listed by MN, $`versus`$ the F94 result of $``$24%. The agreement with the newer predictions is better: the F94 $`f`$-value is lower by 19%, whereas the X Per result is identical to that of Rostas et al. According to them, single-$`v_A`$ and multi-$`v_A`$ $`f`$-values are also identical: 8.3 $`\times `$ 10-4. Thus, ironically, the strong $`a^{}`$14 cannot help to distinguish between the two methods because its (single) interaction with $`A`$4 is extremely predominant. All other five bands, $`a^{}`$11, $`a^{}`$17, $`d`$12, $`e`$4, and $`e`$5, are also found to be in very good agreement with the multi-$`v_A`$ predictions of Rostas et al., i.e., to within 20%. Of these, the F94 $`a^{}`$ bands already showed an excellent agreement with MN ($``$ 6%), and are within 7% of Rostas et al. The last three F94 bands showed large differences (down to $``$49%) from MN predictions. All three show better agreement with Rostas et al.: $`d`$12 now differs by $``$16%, $`e`$5 differs by $``$23%, while $`e`$4 is off by $``$37% (3.1 $`\sigma `$). The F94 $`f`$-value for $`e`$4 remains their most discrepant result (after $`d`$7). This weakest band of F94 was affected by an improper continuum placement, forcing its exclusion from our derivation of $`N`$(12CO) in § 3. Stark et al.’s (2002) result for $`e`$4, that its $`f`$-value is marginally too small by (17 $`\pm `$ 15)% relative to Rostas et al., is very similar to the X Per measurement: ($``$11 $`\pm `$ 15)%. Out of the seven bands under discussion, the largest X Per difference relative to Rostas et al.’s predictions belongs to $`a^{}`$17 (+20% = +1.0 $`\sigma `$), a band for which a few weaker $`J^{}`$ = 2,3 lines are blended with another intersystem band, $`d`$12.

### 4.2 Bands Newly Detected Toward X Per

In our spectrum there are first IS detections of four 12CO intersystem bands: $`d`$8, $`d`$9, $`d`$10, and $`e`$12. Of these, $`f_{\mathrm{band}}`$ was predicted by Rostas et al. for $`d`$8, while single-$`v_A`$ $`f`$-values were listed by MN for $`d`$8 and $`e`$12. We identified $`d`$9 and $`d`$10 as intersystem CO features thanks to their characteristic shapes. Final confirmation was provided by a comparison with laboratory bandhead wavelengths in Table 27 of Tilford & Simmons (1972), or through the use of molecular state constants from Tilford & Simmons to compute reasonably accurate line positions. The newly detected bands are shown in Fig. 1. Our wavelength calculations with the constants for the $`d{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{1}^{}`$ state identify the new d$``$X bands as the $`F_3`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 1) branch of the $`d{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i}^{}`$ state. According to the lists of MN, $`F_2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 2) components are at least ten times weaker.

Whereas $`d`$8 was already mentioned by MN, who adopted Eidelsberg et al.’s (1992) room temperature $`f`$-value, the newer experiments of Rostas et al. led to a refined value. Our determination clearly favors the new value of Rostas et al. calculated for an IS temperature, since the X Per $`f`$-value is $``$24% ($``$1.7 $`\sigma `$) away from their value, but is $``$61% ($``$7.6 $`\sigma `$) away from the value listed by MN. The strongest of the new bands, $`d`$9, has a $`W_\lambda `$ between those of $`d`$7 and $`d`$12. Its strong detection contradicts its non-inclusion in the tables of MN, who imposed a limiting $`f`$-value smaller than inferred here. The third d$``$X band, $`d`$10, has the smallest secure $`f`$-value found in this study, $``$ 6 $`\times `$ 10-6. The $`d`$10 band also lacks a previously published $`f`$-value. Toward X Per, it is blended with the red wing of the much wider Si IV $`\lambda `$1402, which was successfully removed by profile rectification. The new IS detection of $`e`$12 close to $`A`$8 confirms to within 7% the $`f`$-value given by MN, but it was not included in the study of Rostas et al. However, in the last column of Table 1 we compare $`d`$9, $`d`$10, and $`e`$12 $`f`$-values with unpublished multi-$`v_A`$ calculations (M. Eidelsberg, private communication). Two bands agree to $`\pm `$ 12% with these predictions, while the $`f`$-value of our faintest band, $`d`$10, is $``$34% ($``$2.3 $`\sigma `$) away from its predicted value.

The high $`N`$(CO) toward X Per also provides us with a clean detection of a fully resolved intersystem band from the 13CO isotopomer, namely, $`d`$12. This band was suggested to exist by MN in the $`\zeta `$ Oph spectrum of $`A`$6 analyzed by Sheffer et al. (1992). For 13CO, the $`d`$12 band was predicted to have substantial mixing, borrowing 19% of the $`A`$6 $`f`$-value according to MN, versus the mere 1% borrowed by $`d`$12 from $`A`$6 in 12CO. Since the $`A`$8 band of 13CO has $`\tau <`$ 1, we could find $`N`$(13CO) toward X Per directly. Using the four-component model from 12CO, we derived $`N`$(13CO) = (1.94 $`\pm `$ 0.08) $`\times `$ 1014 cm-2, which yields a 12CO/13CO ratio of 73 $`\pm `$ 12 toward X Per. As can be seen in Table 1, the measured $`f`$-value of 13CO $`d`$12 is 13% (2 $`\sigma `$) larger than the single-$`v_A`$ prediction in MN. Unfortunately, multi-$`v_A`$ calculations for 13CO have yet to be performed.

## 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The agreement between the band $`f`$-values determined from our measurements of absorption along the IS line of sight to X Per and the calculations of Rostas et al. is very good. Rostas et al. suggested that multi-$`v_A`$ computations are superior for intersystem $`f`$-values whenever the spin-forbidden band is not fully overlapped by the permitted band. We concur, because the 11-band average of column 9 in Table 1 is 0.95 $`\pm `$ 0.16, i.e., the $``$5% difference can be accounted for by known $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ approximations and A$``$X $`f`$-value uncertainties, the latter estimated to be $``$ 10% by Rostas et al. As a caveat, had we retained the $`e`$4 band in the calculation of $`N`$(12CO) in § 3, the average would have changed to 0.90 $`\pm `$ 0.15 due to a systematic adjustment of all $`f`$-values by $``$5%. Individually, nine intersystem bands show very good agreement with their predictions: $`a^{}`$11, $`a^{}`$14, $`d`$7, and $`d`$12 differ by $`0.4\sigma `$ (7%), while $`a^{}`$17, $`e`$4, $`e`$5, $`d`$9, and $`e`$12 agree to within 1 $`\sigma `$ (20%). Such small differences between empirical and predicted $`f`$-values may be primarily attributed to assigned observational uncertainties ($``$ 17% for the STIS data; 16% for $`N`$ toward X Per) rather than to the possibility that current quantum-mechanical treatments are inadequate. The bands $`d`$9, $`d`$10, and $`e`$12 were not included in Rostas et al., but a comparison with unpublished multi-$`v_A`$ calculations shows that two $`f`$-values agree to within 12%, while $`d`$10, our weakest and deblended band, is $``$34% off. The agreement between empirical results and theoretical predictions assures that accurate column densities can be extracted from IS spectra showing very strong absorption in the permitted bands of 12CO. Finally, there is a need for theoretical multi-$`v_A`$ calculations of triplet-singlet mixing coefficients in 13CO.

We thank Dr. M. Eidelsberg and Dr. D. E. Welty for providing results before publication, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. The research presented here was supported in part by a NASA grant for $`HST`$ program GO-08622 and NASA grant NAG5-11440 to U. Toledo.


text:
# The Fulling-Davies-Unruh Effect is Mandatory: The Proton’s Testimony

## Abstract

We discuss the decay of accelerated protons and illustrate how the Fulling-Davies-Unruh effect is indeed mandatory to maintain the consistency of standard Quantum Field Theory. The confidence level of the Fulling-Davies-Unruh effect must be the same as that of Quantum Field Theory itself.

The vacuum is one of the most exquisite features of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) . Although virtual particles cannot be directly detected, the explanation of a number of effects depend on their “existence”. One of the most outstanding manifestations of the virtual particles can be found in the Casimir effect, which has been tested recently up to a precision of 1% . The Casimir effect is a direct consequence of the fact that the metallic plates disturb the electromagnetic vacuum between them. If metallic plates can disturb the photon vacuum, the curvature of the spacetime should, in general, disturb all vacua, since gravity couples to all the fields. The Hawking effect is probably the most eloquent example of the particularly relevant rôle which is reserved to the concept of quantum vacuum in strong gravitational fields .

In 1976 Unruh  found that the Minkowski vacuum, i.e., the quantum state associated with the nonexistence of particles with respect to inertial observers, corresponds to a thermal bath of particles at temperature $`T_{\mathrm{FDU}}=a/2\pi `$ ($`\mathrm{}=c=k=1`$) to uniformly accelerated observers with proper acceleration $`a=\mathrm{const}`$. This has clarified previous results by Davies , and confirmed Fulling’s conclusion that elementary particles are observer dependent . Roughly speaking, it can be said that uniformly accelerated observers can see as real those particles which inertial observers claim to be virtual. As a result, while inertial observers would be frozen at $`0\mathrm{K}`$ in the Minkowski vacuum, uniformly accelerated observers would be heated (and possibly burnt) at a temperature proportional to their proper acceleration.

In spite of the fact that the Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) effect can be rigorously derived and extended to nonlinear quantum fields  from the general Bisognano and Wichmann’s theorem , the technicalities involved and probably its “paradoxical appearance” has kept part of the community quite skeptical up to now (see, e.g., Ref. ). Many physicists, thus, have decided to “leave the case to the experiments”. Notwithstanding (what would be considered) a direct manifestation of the FDU effect would require huge accelerations since $`T_{\mathrm{FDU}}=[a/(2.5\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}^2)]\mathrm{K}`$. Clearly, macroscopic bodies would not be able to resist such accelerations and, thus, from the very beginning all hopes were placed in elementary particle experiments . Even so, however, paramount technical difficulties have frustrated such endeavors although new and creative proposals have been continuously devised - (see Ref.  for a comprehensive list).

Although the observation of direct manifestations of the FDU effect would be sympathetically received, the acceptance that the FDU effect is mandatory to maintain (the usual) QFT consistent should not depend on it. Inspired by previous works by Unruh and Wald , Higuchi, Sudarsky and one of the authors have used the FDU effect to make sense, in the quantum realm, of the classical result - that uniformly accelerated charges do not radiate with respect to coaccelerated observers. Indeed it was shown that every Minkowski photon emitted by a uniformly accelerated charge (as defined in the inertial frame) corresponds to either the emission to or the absorption from the FDU thermal bath of a zero-energy Rindler photon (as defined in the uniformly accelerated frame) . (Zero-energy particles are not detectable by physical observers, i.e., with finite proper acceleration.) Perhaps because the concept of zero-energy particles might have sounded ethereal to some, the convincing power of the conclusion above did not show itself to be strong enough to reach a consensus in favor of the FDU effect. Here we call attention to the fact that if the FDU effect does not exist, inertial and uniformly accelerated observers would reach incompatible QFT conclusions about the stability of non-inertial protons.

The stability of protons has been used for long time as a test for the standard model of elementary particles. Mounting data fix their lifetime to be much longer than the present age of the universe. This is not so, however, if protons are accelerated rather than freely moving. Recently, the present authors have calculated in the context of standard QFT (in inertial frames) the weak-interaction decay rate for uniformly accelerated protons :

$$p^+n^0+e_M^++\nu _M$$
(1)
and shown that in certain astrophysical situations the proton lifetime may be quite short. The energy necessary to render process (1) possible is supplied by the external accelerating agent. (We emphasize, however, that our final conclusion will not depend on the observation of the proton decay itself.) For sake of simplicity, we write the formula for the proton proper lifetime in 1+1 spacetime dimensions  (rather than in 3+1 ones): This formula was derived, at the tree level, assuming a Fermi-like effective action through which a semi-classical current (describing the barions) is coupled to the fermionic fields (describing the leptons). Eq. (2) is valid under the no-recoil condition: $`am_p`$, used to guaranty that the emitted leptons carry small linear momentum in comparison with $`m_p`$, as measured by an inertial observer instantaneously at rest with the proton.

$$\tau _{\mathrm{In}.\mathrm{Observ}.\mathrm{Calcul}.}^{pn}(a)=\frac{2\pi ^{3/2}e^{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }m/a}}{G_F^2m_e}\left[G_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}3}}^{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}0}}\left(\frac{m_e^2}{a^2}|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ 1/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2+i\mathrm{\Delta }m/a,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2i\mathrm{\Delta }m/a\hfill \end{array}\right)\right]^1,$$
(2)
where $`G_{pq}^{mn}`$ is the Meijer function , $`a`$ is the proton proper acceleration, $`\mathrm{\Delta }mm_nm_p`$ and we have assumed $`m_\nu =0`$. (Here $`m_p`$, $`m_n`$, $`m_e`$ and $`m_\nu `$ are the rest masses of the proton, neutron, electron and neutrino, respectively.) The value of the effective Fermi constant $`G_F=9.9\times 10^{13}`$ is determined from phenomenology. (Because in four dimensions inertial neutrons decay in 887 s, we have chosen this value for the neutron lifetime in two dimensions as well.)

Since a uniformly accelerated proton can be confined in a Rindler wedge which is a globally hyperbolic spacetime possessing a global timelike isometry, the associated uniformly accelerated observers (Rindler observers) must be able to analyze this phenomenon and reobtain the same (scalar) value for the proton lifetime (2) obtained with standard QFT. Notwithstanding, because of energy conservation, Rindler observers would simply claim that protons are precluded from decaying into a neutron through

$$p^+n^0+e_R^++\nu _R.$$
(3)
Hence an extra ingredient must be added, otherwise inertial and Rindler observers would conclude precisely the opposite about the stability of uniformly accelerated protons. This extra ingredient is the FDU thermal bath. According to the Rindler observers, the Minkowski vacuum is “seen” as a thermal bath with which the proton may interact. As a consequence, new channels are opened:

$$p^++e_R^{}n^0+\nu _R$$
(4)
$$p^++\overline{\nu }_Rn^0+e_R^+$$
(5)
$$p^++\overline{\nu }_R+e_R^{}n^0,$$
(6)
i.e., from the point of view of the Rindler observers, the proton should be transformed into a neutron through the absorption of a Rindler electron and/or anti-neutrino from the surrounding thermal bath providing the necessary energy to allow the process to occur. Eventually any energy in excess can be disposed by the emission of a neutrino or a positron (depending on the case). Indeed, by performing an independent QFT calculation in the uniformly accelerated frame, we have obtained the following proper lifetime for the proton, after combining (incoherently) processes (4)-(6) in the presence of the FDU thermal bath:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{Rin}.\mathrm{Observ}.\mathrm{Calcul}.}^{pn}=\frac{\pi ^2ae^{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }m/a}}{G_F^2m_e}\left[_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega _R\frac{K_{i\omega _R/a+1/2}(m_e/a)K_{i\omega _R/a1/2}(m_e/a)}{\mathrm{cosh}[\pi (\omega _R\mathrm{\Delta }m)/a]}\right]^1.$$
(7)
Although Eqs. (2) and (7) appear to be quite different, we have shown numerically that they coincide up to basically the machine-precision limit :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1_\mathrm{\Delta }𝑑x[(\tau _{\mathrm{Rin}.\mathrm{Observ}.\mathrm{Calcul}.}^{pn}\tau _{\mathrm{In}.\mathrm{Observ}.\mathrm{Calcul}.}^{pn})/\tau _{\mathrm{Rin}.\mathrm{Observ}.\mathrm{Calcul}.}^{pn}]^210^{16},$$

where $`xlog_{10}(a/1MeV)`$.

The FDU effect is not only very important for its own right but is also useful as a guide in the investigation of some unresolved questions of the Hawking effect as, e.g., the rôle played by the transplackian frequencies (see Ref.  and references therein). The FDU effect must be seen as being as necessary to QFT as the non-inertial forces (centrifugal and Coriolis ones) are to Mechanics since both are required to maintain successfully tested theories consistent when analyzed in non-inertial frames. The description of the decay of non-inertial protons in the uniformly accelerated frame in the absence of the FDU thermal bath is the challenge which the present Essay poses for those who are still doubtful about this effect.

Acknowledgements

G.M. has long been indebted to A. Higuchi, D. Sudarsky and R. Wald for many enlightening discussions on QFT in curved spacetimes. The authors would like to acknowledge particularly A. Higuchi for discussions in the early stages of this research. We are also thankful to G. Howells for improvements in the manuscript. G.M. and D.V. were partially supported by the following Brazilian agencies: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, respectively. This work was also supported in part by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0071044.


text:
# Problems with Tachyon Inflation

## 1 Introduction

The string theory tachyon , in one form or another, appears in various models of brane inflation. There are two classes of such models. In the first class we will deal with non BPS branes, which ultimately annihilate or decay. In the second class we will deal with unstable configurations of near-BPS branes, which will be dynamically reconfigured into stable states. In the first models of brane inflation the inflaton field was associated with the inter-brane separation . Early models of this type  considered a simple system of colliding and annihilating $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ branes giving rise to hybrid inflation . At the end of hybrid inflation there is a stage of tachyonic instability . In  it was speculated that this stage might be associated with string tachyon condensation. The models of annihilating branes belong to the first class of brane inflation models.

However, dynamical theory of brane-antibrane annihilation and time evolution of tachyon condensate is rather complicated, and the shape of the tachyon potential was based on various conjectures. Significant progress in was achieved in  for the second class of brane inflation models, where instead of brane-antibrane annihilation the authors considered BPS branes either at small angles  or in the presence of small background fields . This made it possible to calculate the full effective potential describing the system both at the stage of inflation and at the subsequent stage of tachyon instability. The effective potential of both of these models, including radiative corrections, coincides with the potential of the $`N=2`$ supersymmetric model of $`P`$-term inflation . Other interesting models of a similar type have been proposed in  -.

One may also study cosmological consequences of tachyon condensation in the context of the theory of a single unstable D-brane . This is another version of the first class of brane inflation. The form of the tachyon potential $`V(T)`$ may depend on the underlying theory (bosonic or supersymmetric). In particular, for bosonic and supersymmetric string field theory studied in  the unstable tachyon mode has a ground state at $`T\mathrm{}`$ . In this respect such models considerably differ from the models of the second class studied in  \- . Recently Sen proposed considering the tachyon rolling towards its minimum at infinity as a dark matter candidate . Several authors have investigated the process of rolling of the tachyon in the cosmological background .

However, in Section 3 of this paper we will point out that if the field $`T`$ rolls down from the maximum of its potential and the universe does not inflate, then the quantum fluctuations produced during spontaneous symmetry breaking and generation of tachyon condensate divide the universe into many small into domains of different types. The resulting structure is incompatible with cosmological observations.

The main goal of our paper is to study the possibility of inflation during tachyon condensation. This would resolve the problem mentioned above. String theory motivated tachyon inflation was discussed in  111In papers  inflation was considered for phenomenological potentials $`V(T)`$ hat have not been derived in the string tachyon theory. Such models are related to phenomenological “k-inflation” . However, these investigations were rather incomplete. In Section 4 we will re-analyse the possibility of inflation during tachyon condensation. We will show, contrary to what was claimed in , that it is very difficult to find realistic inflationary models in this theory: Inflation near the maximum of $`V(T)`$ requires a strong coupling regime $`g_s1`$, which, in its turn, leads to unacceptably large perturbations of the metric.

In addition to these problems, there is another one. A tachyon rolling to its ground state at $`T\mathrm{}`$ almost immediately acquires a matter dominated equation of state (no pressure). Its energy density decreases as $`\epsilon a^3`$, whereas the density of radiation decreases as $`a^4`$. Therefore if the tachyon originally dominated the energy density of the universe (and it is the case if its energy density was responsible for inflation), then it will always dominate the energy density of the universe . In Section 5 we will argue that this fact rules out not only inflationary models of the type of , but also those versions of hybrid inflation where the tachyon potential has a minimum at $`T\mathrm{}`$.

This does not mean that the rolling tachyon cannot play the role of dark matter. This means, however, that in those models where the tachyon may serve as a dark matter candidate at the present time, its energy density after inflation should be fine tuned to be subdominant until the very late stages of the evolution of the universe.

Thus, we will argue that tachyon condensation of the type considered in  does not lead to inflation and is not expected to play an important role in post-inflationary early universe cosmology.

## 2 Effective Field Theory of Tachyon Matter

In this Section we review the field theory of tachyon matter. Consider the 4D effective field theory of the tachyon field $`T`$ coupled to Einstein gravity

$$S=\frac{M_p^2}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}R+S_{B,S}.$$
(1)
The 4D effective field theory action of the tachyon field $`T`$ on a D$`3`$-brane, computed in bosonic theory around the top of the potential, up to higher derivative terms, is given by

$$S_B=\tau _3d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\alpha ^{}e^T_\mu T^\mu T+(1+T)e^T\right).$$
(2)
Similarly, a non-BPS D$`3`$-brane action in supersymmetric (B-SFT) theory

$$S_S=\tau _3d^4x\left(\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}2e^{T^2/4}_\mu T^\mu T+e^{T^2/4}\right).$$
(3)
In this theory the tension of the non-BPS brane is greater than that of $`BPS`$ branes by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ :

$$\tau _3=\frac{M_s^4\sqrt{2}}{(2\pi )^3g_s},$$
(4)
where $`g_s`$ is the string coupling, and $`M_s=l_s^1=1/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ are the fundamental string mass and length scales. The Planck mass in 4D is obtained by dimensional reduction. According to Ref. ,

$$M_p^2=\frac{M_s^2v}{g_s^2},$$
(5)
where $`v=(M_sr)^d/\pi `$, $`r`$ is a radius of the compactification, and $`d`$ is the number of compactified dimensions. Note that the volume of the compactified space is greater than $`(M_sr)^d`$ by a factor of $`(2\pi )^d`$. Usually one assumes that $`rl_s`$, i.e $`v1`$, in order to be able to use the effective 4D field theory .222In Ref.  one power of $`g_s`$ in the expression for $`M_p^2`$ was missing, which affected their estimates of the magnitude of perturbations of metric.

It could be useful to obtain closed form expressions for the action (2), (3) incorporating all higher powers of $`_\mu T`$. There are suggestions to extend actions (2), (3) to include all powers of the derivatives $`_\mu T`$. Effective tachyon field theory in the Born-Infeld-type form  is described by

$$S_{B,S}=d^4x\sqrt{g}V(T)\sqrt{1+\alpha ^{}_\mu T^\mu T}.$$
(6)
In this form the effective tachyon field theory appears in recent papers on tachyon cosmology.

To match (6) with the truncated actions (2), (3), one can redefine the tachyon field $`T`$. For bosonic theory we can make a redefinition $`T\sqrt{8(1+T)}`$ and the potential around the maximum becomes

$$V(T)\frac{e}{8}\tau _3T^2e^{\frac{T^2}{8}}.$$
(7)
This potential has a maximum at $`T=\sqrt{8}`$ and is defined for $`T1`$. For supersymmetric theory $`T\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}2}T`$ and the potential around the maximum is

$$V(T)\tau _3e^{\frac{T^2}{8\mathrm{ln}2}}.$$
(8)
This potential has a maximum at $`T=0`$ and is symmetric, $`V(T)=V(+T)`$.

However, at large $`T`$, according to Sen , the potential should be exponential

$$V(T)e^T.$$
(9)
For definiteness we will assume that the potential $`V(T)`$ in the Born-Infeld type action (6) is a smooth function interpolating between two asymptotic expressions, (7) or (8) at maximum and (9) at infinity.

The main conclusions of our paper will be valid for the theories with the actions (6), (2), (3), as well as with the alternative actions proposed in . However, one should use all of these expressions with some care. Rigorous derivation of the tachyon action have been performed in the approximation truncated up to the second order derivatives of $`_\mu T`$. Since the tachyonic mass squared is $`O(1)`$ in units of $`M_s^2`$, all powers of $`_\mu T`$ are important for its evaluation. Therefore the truncated approximations in general do not reproduce the correct values of the tachyon masses $`m^2=M_s^2`$ and $`m^2=M_s^2/2`$ for bosonic and supersymmetric cases .333We are grateful to David Kutasov for clarification of this point.

## 3 Domains and Defects

It would be natural to start the investigation of the tachyon condensation with tachyon at the top of its potential, i.e. at the moment before the condensation began. Here we would like to make a simple comment concerning this possibility. Consider unstable non-BPS D3 brane with a real tachyon field $`T`$. Suppose for the moment that the spacetime geometry is flat. If initially the tachyon field were absent, $`T=0`$, then spontaneous symmetry breaking (due to quantum fluctuations) and generation of the tachyon condensate would divide the universe into many small domains containing either positive or negative field $`T`$. In the superstring case the potential $`V(T)`$ is symmetric, see Eq. (8), and the universe always remains divided into domains of different types, separated by domain walls. The resulting structure is incompatible with cosmological observations.

There are several ways to resolve this problem. First of all, one may try to find models where the minimum of $`V(T)`$ at $`T>0`$ is deeper than the one at $`T<0`$. Then the domain walls will eventually disappear. It may also happen that initially in our part of the universe the field $`T`$ was displaced from the top and was, say, positive. This would require the existence of a preceding stage of inflation preparing asymmetric but homogeneous initial conditions for the field $`T`$ in our patch of the universe. One could achieve these goals in models based on hybrid inflation, but this is a very non-trivial task, see in this respect  and references therein.

A simpler possibility would be to have inflation near $`T=0`$, just like in the new inflation scenario. This is possible if $`|m^2|H^2`$ near the top of the effective potential. Inflation in such models is eternal because of quantum fluctuations occasionally returning the field to the top of the effective potential , and also because of the eternally inflating topological effects .

Inflation in the context of the theory of tachyon condensation proposed in , is just a realization of this inflationary scenario. Thus, to avoid the domain wall problem in tachyon matter cosmology, we need to introduce inflation in the model. We will examine this possibility in the next section.

Now consider hybrid-type inflation with merging $`D`$$`\overline{D}`$ branes. In this case tachyon field is complex, the potential has a phase symmetry $`V(T)=V(e^{i\alpha }T)`$ . In this model one would expect formation of the cosmic strings after annihilation of branes. However, the situation is more complicated if indeed the ground state of the tachyon lies at $`T\mathrm{}`$. The string formation in this case is a long-lasting process. It continues as the field $`T`$ rolls towards infinity. There will be one-dimensional regions of space (strings) where $`T=0`$ and energy density is $`\tau _3`$. But even outside of these regions the energy density will be large due to gradients of the field $`T`$. If $`\tau _3`$ is large, the distribution of energy density associated with strings of this type leads to very large inhomogeneities, which tends to make the models of such type incompatible with cosmology; see also Section 5 for a discussion of other cosmological problems in the theories with $`V(T)`$ having a minimum at $`|T|\mathrm{}`$.

## 4 Problems with Tachyon Inflation

In this section we will study the possibility to achieve tachyonic inflation. Assuming that inflation occurs near the top of the tachyon potential, we have

$$H^2=\frac{\tau _3}{3M_p^2}=\frac{g_sM_s^2\sqrt{2}}{3(2\pi )^3v}.$$
(10)
Inflation near the top of the tachyon potential is possible if $`H^2|m^2|`$. This leads to the condition

$$g_s\frac{3(2\pi )^3}{\sqrt{2}}v260v.$$
(11)
for the supersymmetric case, with $`|m^2|=M_3^2/2`$. For bosonic theory the r.h.s. value of this inequality is doubled.

If this condition is satisfied, inflation continues even when the field $`T`$ moves rather far from $`T=0`$, so that the exponential factor $`e^{T^2/4}`$ becomes much smaller than 1. However, because of a very strong dependence of this factor on $`T`$, the end of inflation still occurs at $`T=O(1)`$. Keeping this in mind, let us estimate the value of $`H`$ at the end of inflation.

The equation for the time-dependent rolling tachyon in an expanding universe follows from (6). It will be useful to recover the dimensions of the tachyon in units of $`M_s`$

$$\frac{\ddot{T}}{1\alpha ^{}\dot{T}^2}+3H\dot{T}+M_s^2\frac{V^{}}{V}=0.$$
(12)
One of the conditions for inflation is $`|\dot{H}|H^2`$. The meaning of this condition is that the Hubble constant does not decrease much during a typical time $`H^1`$. During inflation

$$H^2=\frac{V(T)}{3M_p^2}=\frac{g_s^2V(T)}{3vM_s^2}.$$
(13)
Thus,

$$\dot{H}=\frac{g_s^2V^{}(T)}{6vM_s^2H}\dot{T}.$$
(14)
For definiteness, here and below we will discuss the supersymmetric theory. The slow-roll equation for the field $`T`$ in the theory with the potential (8) is

$$3H\dot{T}=\frac{V^{}(T)M_s^2}{4V\mathrm{ln}2}.$$
(15)
As a result, the condition $`H^2|\dot{H}|`$ reads

$$H^2\frac{(V^{})^2M_s}{24V^2\mathrm{ln}2}.$$
(16)
For $`T=O(1)`$ and $`m^2=\frac{M_s^2}{8\mathrm{ln}2}`$ this condition takes a very simple form

$$H|m|.$$
(17)
Thus, at the end of inflation one has $`H|m|`$. To derive this result we used a particular form of the potential assuming the Born-Infeld type action for the tachyon field. If we use a different action, some of the numerical factors in our equations will change. However, we expect that the general conclusion that $`H|m|`$ at the end of inflation will remain valid. Indeed, this simple result is valid in most of the versions of inflationary cosmology.

The amplitude of gravitational waves produced during inflation is $`h\frac{H}{M_p}`$. Observational constraints on CMB anisotropy imply that at the end of inflation, when $`H|m|M_s/\sqrt{2}`$, one should have

$$\frac{H}{M_p}3.6\times 10^5.$$
(18)
This implies that

$$\frac{M_s^2}{M_p^2}\frac{g_s^2}{v}2\times 10^9.$$
(19)
Thus, one should have

$$g_s^22\times 10^9v.$$
(20)
One could find a similar result by investigation of density perturbations produced by the tachyon field, but the investigation of gravitational waves is much simpler to perform.

This inequality could be compatible with the inflationary condition (11) only if

$$v10^{13}.$$
(21)
Meanwhile, as we explained, effective 4D theory is applicable only if $`v1`$. This means that even if inflation is possible in the models considered above, it cannot describe the formation of our part of the universe. To avoid huge anisotropy of the CMB, one should have a subsequent long stage of inflation produced by a different mechanism.

This conclusion is not entirely unexpected because in the models we are considering now, unlike in the models considered in  \- , we do not have small parameters that could be responsible for the extremely small anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Understanding of this result requires some familiarity with inflationary cosmology and the theory of gravitational wave production. However, one can look at this situation from a different perspective.

First of all, the inflationary condition $`H|m|M_s`$ implies that the wavelength of inflationary perturbations $`H^1`$ is of the same order or less than $`l_s`$. This is the first warning sign, suggesting that one cannot study tachyonic inflation in the context of an effective 4D theory describing tachyon condensation.

Secondly, let us compare the brane tension $`\tau _3`$ with the Planck density $`M_p^4`$:

$$\frac{\tau _3}{M_p^4}=\frac{g_s^3}{(2\pi )^3v^2},$$
(22)
Comparing it with the inflationary condition $`g_s\frac{3(2\pi )^3}{2}v`$, we find

$$\frac{\tau _3}{M_p^4}=\frac{27(2\pi )^6}{8}v.$$
(23)
Thus $`\tau _3M_p`$ if $`v>1`$, as we assumed. More explicitly, for superstring theory ($`d=6`$) one finds

$$\frac{\tau _3}{M_p^4}=\frac{27}{8\pi }\left(\frac{2\pi r}{l_s}\right)^6.$$
(24)
which means that $`\tau _3M_p^4`$ not only if one assumes that the radius of compactification is greater than the string length, $`rl_s`$, but even if one makes a mild assumption that $`2\pi rl_s`$.

This suggests that 4D gravity is inapplicable for the description of inflation due to tachyon condensation near the top of the effective potential $`V(T)`$. Meanwhile, Eq. (21) shows that even if we forget about it and continue calculations, we will find that the tachyonic inflation would produce metric perturbations of acceptable magnitude only if $`rl_s`$.

However, let us try to take a positive attitude to the situation. The constraints related to gravitational wave production derived in 4D theory are very difficult to overcome. But this just means that tachyonic inflation can not be responsible for the last 60 e-folds of inflation. This last stage of inflation determined the large scale structure of the observable part of the universe. It might be possible, however, that tachyonic inflation is responsible for an earlier stage of inflation. The existence of this stage may be important for the resolution of major cosmological problems such as the homogeneity, flatness and isotropy problems. This could be a ‘bad’ inflation, a very short one, producing large density perturbations. But one can always produce density perturbation at a later stage of inflation driven by some other mechanism. Meanwhile, the best way to resolve the problems mentioned above is to have inflation that could begin directly at the Planck density . In this sense, the Planck density tachyonic inflation could be an interesting possibility. Also, the constraint that follows from investigation of the gravitational wave production may be very different in higher dimensional theories with brane inflation, in particular because the effective 4D Planck mass may depend on the warp geometry. Investigation of this possibility requires a very different approach.

In this respect, depending on one’s attitude, one may consider tachyonic inflation either marginally impossible, or marginally possible. Indeed, if we do not need to achieve 60 e-folds of inflation, we do not need to have $`Hm`$. Similarly, our conclusion that inflation requires super-Planckian density, $`\tau _3M_p^4`$ should be examined more carefully. String theorists use a ‘small’ Planck mass $`M_p2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV, whereas quantum gravity fluctuations become large at $`V(T)>\overline{M}_p^4`$ where $`\overline{M}_p=\sqrt{8\pi }M_p`$. As a result, the ‘gravitational’ Planck density is $`(8\pi )^2600`$ times larger than the ‘stringy’ Planck density considered in our investigation.

Therefore one should not discard the possibility that whereas tachyon condensation probably is not responsible for the last 60 e-folds of inflation, it could be responsible for the first stage of inflation, solving all major cosmological problems. Eq. (24) does not offer much support to this possibility, but one cannot completely rule it out either.

## 5 Problems with Early Matter Domination

We have seen above that it is very unlikely that the last 60 e-folds of inflation appear due to a non-BPS brane tachyon rolling from the top of its potential. In this section we give another, qualitatively different argument, why models with the potentials (7)-(9) cannot describe the last 60 e-folds of inflation responsible for the large-scale structure formation and creation of matter in the universe. This argument is also valid for another situation, when brane hybrid inflation is supported by inter-brane separation (for a $`D`$$`\overline{D}`$ system) and the tachyon rolls to its ground state at $`T\mathrm{}`$ immediately after the brane-antibrane annihilation.

According to the inflationary scenario discussed in the previous section, the energy density of the tachyon field dominated the total energy density of the universe during inflation. After the end of inflation the tachyon field with the potential $`e^T`$ at large $`T`$ almost immediately acquires a matter equation of state $`\epsilon _Ta^3`$. This means that the energy density of all other kinds of matter, including radiation $`\epsilon _ra^4`$, were falling down much faster than the energy density of the tachyon field.

Moreover, after inflation there were no other types of matter. All matter that appears after inflation should be created in the process of (p)reheating. In most versions of the theory of reheating, production of particles occurs only when the inflaton field oscillates near the minimum of its effective potential. However, the effective potential of the rolling tachyon in theories (2), (3) does not have any minimum at finite $`T`$, so this mechanism does not work. There exists a mechanism of reheating due to gravitational particle production. However, this mechanism is extremely inefficient at $`HM_p`$. Even if a small fraction of tachyon energy $`\epsilon _T`$ is released into radiation, it will be rapidly redshifted away. Thus, in this scenario the energy density of the tachyon field always dominates the universe. This is incompatible with the well known fact that at some early stage (in particular, during nucleosynthesis) our universe was radiation dominated. The only way to resolve this problem is to assume that there was a separate stage of inflation at the time when the tachyon field energy was exponentially small. But this would require fine-tuning  and imply that the tachyon played no role in the early universe until the very late stages of its evolution.

## 6 Summary

We conclude that string tachyon condensation might be responsible for a short stage of inflation at a nearly Planckian density, thus solving the major cosmological problems. However, this possibility is at the verge of applicability of the effective 4D theory used to describe tachyon condensation. The main reason is that the inflationary condition $`H|m|`$ is satisfied only for super-Planckian energy densities (D3-brane tension), under the standard condition that the radius of compactification is greater than the string length. Moreover, it is very unlikely that the tachyon condensation studied in  can be responsible for the last 60 e-folds of inflation, because in order to produce perturbations of the metric smaller than $`10^4`$ one needs to have an energy density at least 9 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck density. These conclusions do not depend on a detailed choice between various formulations of string tachyon theory (whether one studies only the theory as it is formulated, say, in  or the Born-Infeld-type form  or in alternative forms ).

One may also consider inflationary models of the hybrid inflation type, where inflation is driven by some other mechanism, but the end of inflation occurs due to tachyon condensation. We have found that if the tachyon potential in these theories has a minimum at $`T\mathrm{}`$, as in , then the universe in such models never becomes radiation dominated, in contradiction with the theory of nucleosynthesis. One could resolve this problem if there was a separate stage of inflation at the time when the tachyon energy was fine-tuned to be exponentially small. But this would imply that the tachyon played no role in the post-inflationary universe until the very late stages of its evolution. Thus it seems that the tachyon condensate can be a dark matter candidate only in the context of rather complicated and fine-tuned cosmological models.

Alternatively, one may consider models of hybrid inflation  where brane cosmology leads to the formation of a tachyon condensate of a different type  \- . This condensate can be represented by a complex field $`\varphi `$. In some of these models the shape of the tachyonic effective potential $`V(\varphi )`$ has been explicitly calculated, see e.g. . To achieve a successful cosmological scenario, this potential, unlike the potentials for the tachyon condensate considered in , should have a minimum not at $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$ but at $`|\varphi |M_p`$  \- .

We are grateful to G. Dvali, R. Kallosh, D. Kutasov and A. Sen for useful comments, and G. Felder for help. The work by L.K. was supported by NSERC and CIAR. The work by A.L. was supported by NSF grant PHY-9870115, and by the Templeton Foundation grant No. 938-COS273. L.K. and A.L. were also supported by NATO Linkage Grant 97538.


text:
# Decay of superfluid turbulence via Kelvin wave radiation and vortex reconnections.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Financial support was provided by the EPSRC.