text:
# Untitled Document

GEOMETRISATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD AND TOPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM FORMALISM

O.A.OLKHOV

Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
e-mail: olkhov@center.chph.ras.ru

A new concept of geometrization of electromagnetic field is proposed. Instead of the concept of extended field and its point sources, the interacting Maxwellian and Dirac electron–positron fields are considered as a microscopic unified closed connected nonmetrized space–time 4-manifold. Within this approach, the Dirac equation proves to be a group-theoretic relation that accounts for the topological and metric properties of this manifold. The Dirac spinors serve as basis functions of its fundamental group representation, while the tensor components of electromagnetic field prove to be the components of a curvature tensor of the relevant covering space. A basic distinction of the suggested approach from the geometrization of gravitational field in general relativity is that, first, not only the field is geometrized but also are its microscopic sources and, second, the field and its sources are treated not as a metrized Riemannian space–time but as a nonmetrized space– time manifold. A possibility to geometrize weak interaction is also discussed.

Introduction

The possibility of representing physical interaction as a distortion of pseudo-Euclidean space–time metric was first demonstrated in general relativity. However, further attempts at including other interactions and, primarily, electromagnetic interaction into the analogous geometrical approach have failed. It is shown in this work that electromagnetic field and its microscopic sources can be represented as a unified nonmetrized space–time topological manifold. Some of the preliminary results of this work have already been published and delivered at conferences . Let us first use an analogy with the theory of general relativity to outline the main results of this work. It is demonstrated in general relativity that the classical equations of motion in gravitational field can be interpreted as equations for the shortest distances between two points of a curved Riemannian space–time. It is shown in this work that the Maxwell and Dirac equations for the interacting electromagnetic field and its quantum microscopic sources (electron–positron fields) can be interpreted as a group–theoretic relations describing a closed connected nonorientable nonmetrized space–time 4-manifold whose topological invariants are the observable physical characteristics of the system considered. Within above approach the possible equation for neutral Fermi particles interacting via weak field generated by them is discussed. This interaction violates the space and time symmetry. The possibility of interpreting this equation as equation describing, in the classical limit, weak interaction of neutrinos is discussed.

The interpretation of the microscopic field sources as extended geometrical objects forming, together with field, a unified topological 4-manifold requires a new geometrical interpretation of the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics. This new interpretation, above all, should not contradict the traditional interpretation at least in those cases where the latter approach has confirmed its effectiveness experimentally. For this reason, before passing to the main part of this work, it is worthwhile to show that the concept of the quantum object as a special nonmetrized topological manifold is not contradictory to the fundamental positions of the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

1. The de Broglie’s original idea of ”travelling wave,” which is specified for a free particle in the wave–corpuscular duality concept by the function

$$\mathrm{exp}i(\omega t\mathrm{𝐤𝐫})=\mathrm{exp}i\left(\frac{E}{\mathrm{}}t\frac{𝐩}{\mathrm{}}𝐫\right),$$
$`(1)`$
underlies the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, Eq. (1) can be recast in the form that allows a different, not wave, interpretation. Let us write Eq. (1) in the ”relativistically symmetric” form

$$\mathrm{exp}i\left(\frac{x_1}{l_1}\frac{x_2}{l_2}\frac{x_3}{l_3}\frac{x_4}{l_4}\right),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`x_1=ct,x_2=x,x_3=y,x_4=z`$ and $`l_1=2\pi \mathrm{}c/E,l_2=2\pi \mathrm{}/p_x,l_3=2\pi \mathrm{}/p_y,l_4=2\pi \mathrm{}/p_z`$.

In the group theory, function (2) plays the role of a representation of the cyclic Abelian group with four generators $`l_1^1,l_2^1,l_3^1`$ and $`l_4^1`$ . Because of this, the object described by this function can be interpreted not only as possessing wave properties but also as a geometrical object possessing a certain symmetry.

2. The notion of a point particle has no physical meaning in the relativistic quantum mechanics. Since a change in momentum during measurement cannot be as large as one likes because of the limiting speed of light, the uncertainty in measuring coordinates cannot be as small as is wished . This does not contradict the treatment of electromagnetic field and its microscopic sources as an extended space–time manifold.

3. The traditional quantum mechanical formalism is based on the statistical probabilistic description. This does not contradict the description of a quantum object as a nonmetrized topological manifold that is ”chaotic” by its very topological nature.

4. The suggested geometrical interpretation of the quantum formalism does not involve any ”hidden” parameters, whose incorporation in any new possible interpretation of quantum mechanics is forbidden by the relevant theorems .

In closing this section, two fundamental distinctions between the suggested topological approach and the geometrization of gravitational field in general relativity should be emphasized. 1. The field sources (masses) in general relativity are considered as nongeometrized point objects. Only the extended field is the object of geometrization. In this work, the microscopic field sources are treated as extended objects which form, together with field, a single unified geometrical object. 2. The gravitational field in general relativity is put in correspondence with a metrized topological manifold, namely, with a curved Riemannian space that has a certain form in every instant of time. In this work, the field and its sources are put in correspondence with an essentially different geometrical object, namely, with a nonmetrized manifold whose metric is undetermined and, hence, which has no definite form and is characterized only by its topological invariants.

Topological derivation of Dirac equation

It is my purpose to prove that the topological characteristics of a certain closed connected 4-manifold are encoded in a certain way in the equations for a classical field interacting with its microscopic sources (electrons and positrons). These equations (Maxwell and Dirac equations) have the form

$$i\gamma _1\left(\frac{}{x_1}ieA_1\right)\psi \underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{4}{}}i\gamma _\alpha \left(\frac{}{x_\alpha }ieA_\alpha \right)\psi =m\psi ,$$
$`(3)`$
$$F_{kl}=\frac{A_k}{x_l}\frac{A_l}{x_k},$$
$`(4)`$
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{F_{ik}}{x_i}=j_k,j_k=e\psi \gamma _1\gamma _k\psi .$$
$`(5)`$
Here $`\mathrm{}=c=1,x_1=t,x_2=x,x_3=y,x_4=z,F_{kl}`$ is the electromagnetic field tensor, $`A_k`$ is the 4-potential, $`\gamma _k`$ are the well-known Dirac matrices, $`\psi `$ is the Dirac bispinor, and $`m`$ and $`e`$ are electron mass and charge, respectively.

To my knowledge, the topological manifolds are not identified by the differential equations. This, in particular, differentiates the suggested approach from general relativity, for which the mathematical apparatus (e.g., equations for geodesics) had well been elaborated by the time the theory emerged. For this reason, I will first demonstrate, by a simple example, how can the differential equations describe, in principle, the topological characteristics of a manifold.

Let us consider the simplest closed connected nonmetrized manifold, namely, a one-
dimensional $`S^1`$ manifold homeomorphic to (equivalent to) ring. It is equivalent in the sense that it can be represented as any of the objects obtained from ring by its deformation without discontinuities. A fundamental group of different classes of closed paths starting and ending at the same point of the manifold is one of the topological invariants of any connected manifold . Free cyclic group isomorphous with the $`Z`$ group (integer group, a topological invariant of the manifold considered) is the fundamental group of $`S^1`$ . In turn, the Z group is isomorphous with the group of parallel translations along a straight line with one generator (the line is called the covering space of our manifold). Denote the generator length by $`l`$. Note that the operator $`T_{lx}`$

$$T_{lx}=\left(\frac{il}{2\pi }\right)\frac{d}{dx}$$
$`(6)`$
can be regarded as a representation of the above group with a basis defined by the function $`\phi _l(x)`$

$$\phi _l(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\frac{x}{l}\right).$$
$`(7)`$
Indeed,

$$\phi _l^{}=\phi _l(x+l)=T_{lx}\phi _l(x).$$
$`(8)`$
Thus, both the fundamental group (a topological invariant of the manifold considered) and the constraint (metric characteristic of this manifold) on the length of the generator of this group are defined by relationship (8). Consequently, the manifold is fully identified by the differential equation

$$i\frac{d\phi }{dx}=m\phi ,m=\frac{2\pi }{l}.$$
$`(9)`$
which is equivalent to this relationship.

Let us use this approach for the ”topological” decoding of differential equation that are more complex than (9), namely, the equation for free Dirac field

$$i\gamma _1\frac{}{x_1}\psi \underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{4}{}}i\gamma _\alpha \frac{}{x_\alpha }\psi =m\psi ,$$
$`(10)`$
which is obtained from Eq.(3) at $`A_1=A_2=A_3=A_4=0`$.

To this end, let us again consider, for clearness, one of the simplest and well-studied two-dimensional closed connected nonorientable manifolds, namely, the Klein bottle, and encode its topological and metric properties using the differential equations within the framework of the same approach as was demonstrated by the example of a one-dimensional ring. It will be seen below that the solution of this problem and its generalization to the four-dimensional case allow the topological interpretation of the Dirac equation (10). The Klein bottle is obtained by gluing together two Möbius strips along their edges. Euclidean plane is the covering surface for the Klein bottle, and the sliding symmetry group generated by two parallel translations and two reflections in the directions perpendicular to the translations is its fundamental group . Let us assume that two translation generators $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ satisfy the additional constraint

$$\frac{1}{l_1^2}+\frac{1}{l_2^2}=\frac{1}{l_0^2},$$
$`(11)`$
where $`l_0`$ is an additional metric characteristic of the manifold. Let us now express the topological characteristic (fundamental group) of the Klein bottle and the additional metric condition (11) in terms of an equation which plays the same role as does Eq. (9) for the ring. Similar to (7), the function

$$\phi (x,y)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\frac{x}{l_1}2\pi i\frac{y}{l_2}\right).$$
$`(12)`$
is chosen as a basis function for the subgroup of two parallel translations along the $`OX`$ and $`OY`$ axes. A two-component spinor

$$\chi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right).$$
$`(13)`$
is chosen as a basis for the subgroup of reflections perpendicular to the $`OX`$ and $`OY`$ axes. The reason for which the spinor basis is chosen for the reflections is that, as will be seen below, only with such a choice the resulting equation leads to metric condition (11). As above, the operators of type (6) form the representation of a translation group with basis functions (12). As for the reflections about the planes passing through $`OX`$ and $`OY`$, the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$

$$\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right).$$
$`(14)`$
form the representation of these reflections for the spinor basis (13). Thus, the functions

$$\psi (x,y)=\chi \phi (x,y),$$
$`(15)`$
are the basis functions for the fundamental group of Klein bottle (sliding symmetry), while the operators $`P_x`$ and $`P_y`$

$$P_x=\sigma _xT_{l_1x},P_y=\sigma _yT_{l_2y}.$$
$`(16)`$
form the representation of sliding symmetry along the $`OX`$ and $`OY`$ axes. It is now straightforward to carry out direct calculation to check on that the equation expressing, similar to Eq. (9), the topological invariant (fundamental group) of the Klein bottle and satisfying metric constraint (10) on the elements of this group has the form

$$(P_x+P_y)\psi =\frac{1}{l_0}\psi .$$
$`(17)`$
Indeed, one can easily verify that the insertion of Eqs. (12)– (16) into Eq. (17) yields relationship (11). With allowance made for Eq. (16), Eq. (17) can be written in the form of a differential equation

$$i\sigma _x\frac{\psi }{x}+i\sigma _y\frac{\psi }{y}=\mu \psi ,\mu =\frac{1}{l_0}.$$
$`(18)`$
Let us compare this equation with Eq. (10) for a free Dirac field taking into account that the Dirac matrices $`\gamma _i`$ entering Eq. (10) form, in the four-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean space, the representation of reflections about three axes perpendicular to the $`OX`$ axis, provided that the Dirac bispinors form the basis of this representation . This comparison demonstrates that Dirac equation (10) is the generalization of Eq. (18) for two- dimensional Klein bottle to the four-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean Minkowski space. In this case, the role of metric constraint (10) is played by the energy conservation law

$$E^2p_x^2p_y^2p_z^2=m^2,$$
$`(19)`$
which provides, within the topological interpretation of the free Dirac field as a space–time manifold, the metric relationships between the translation subgroup generators,

$$\frac{1}{l_1^2}\frac{1}{l_2^2}\frac{1}{l_3^2}\frac{1}{l_4^2}=\frac{1}{l_0^2},$$
$`(20)`$
where $`l_0^1=m,l_1^1=E,l_2^1=p_x,l_3^1=p_y,l_4^1=p_z.`$

So, Dirac equation (10) can be interpreted as a relation encoding the topological and metric properties of a closed nonorientable space–time manifold, whose analogue in the two- dimensional case is provided by the Klein bottle. In this case, the Dirac spinors function as the basis functions of the fundamental group of a manifold, whose covering space is a pseudo-Euclidean Minkowski space. The energy, momentum, and mass of the Dirac field and the energy conservation law are related to the translation subgroup generators by relationships (20). Evidently, the foregoing consideration can be regarded as a ”purely” topological derivation of the Dirac equation, i.e., as a derivation based on an assumption that the quantum object represents a certain space–time manifold, without invoking the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, or any other mechanical formalism. In closing this section, note that the closeness of a manifold in the pseudo-Euclidean space does not imply any constraints on its extension over the time axis. For example, a circle in the pseudo-Euclidean plane is mapped into an equilateral hyperbola in the usual plane .

Geometrisation of electromagnetic interaction

Let us now turn to the fundamental problem of justifying the interpretation of Eqs. (3)–(5) for the interacting electromagnetic field and its sources as group–theoretic relations that encode the topological characteristics and metric constraints of a certain unified nonmetrized space–time 4- manifold. By now, the topology of 4-manifolds is understood to a much lesser extent than the topology of, e.g., two-dimensional manifolds (see, e.g., ). The latter are classified in detail, and the parameters of their main topological groups are known \[6–9\]. For this reason, I will attempt to invoke a possible analogy with similar problem in the two-dimensional topology (much as the Dirac equation was derived topologically in the preceding section), because the successful use of ”low- dimensional” analogies is one of the merits of the geometrization of physical and mathematical problems.

Specifically, let us find out what will happen if the different topological properties of the orientable and nonorientable manifolds are combined within a single unified two-dimensional closed manifold. Consider, for example, what is a hybrid of torus and Klein bottle like and how can its topological properties be described. According to the topological classification of two- dimensional manifolds, torus is a ”sphere with one arm” (orientable surface of the genus $`p=1`$) and the Klein bottle is a ”sphere with two holes glued up by Möbius strip” (nonorientable surface of the genus $`q=2`$) \[6–9\]. By the hybrid of torus and Klein bottle can be meant a sphere to which one arm and two Möbius strips are glued simultaneously. Such a surface is nonorientable and belongs to the genus $`q^{}=2p+q=2+1=3`$ type \[6–9\]. For $`q>2`$, a hyperbolic plane is a universal covering surface of a manifold and the fundamental group is generated by $`q`$ sliding symmetries . If one assumes that the analogy with the manifold of the above-mentioned type ”operates” in our case, one should expect that Dirac equation (1) can be interpreted as a metric relation for the nonorientable 4-manifold, whose fundamental group is generated by sliding symmetries, while the universal covering space is a four-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean analogue of the hyperbolic plane, namely, a space with semimetric transfer  or conformally pseudo-Euclidean space .

Let us show that the Dirac equation indeed allows the above interpretation and consider for simplicity conformally Euclidean space. Conformally Euclidean space is said to be a Riemannian space that can be conformally mapped into the Euclidean space. By this is meant that every point $`M(x)`$ of the conformally Euclidean space can be assigned a point $`M_E`$ in the Euclidean space so that the corresponding differentials of arc lengths are related to each other at every point by the relationship

$$ds_E^2=f(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)ds^2,$$
$`(21)`$
where $`f(x)`$ is a certain function of coordinates, $`ds^2=g_{ik}dx^idx^k`$ defines the metric of the conformally Euclidean space, and $`ds_E^2=g_{ik}^Edx^idx^k`$ is the squared differential arc length in the Euclidean space (in our case of pseudo-Euclidean space, $`g_{00}^E=1,g_{11}^E=g_{22}^E=g_{33}^E=1`$ and $`g_{ik}^E=0,ik`$).

Let us now turn to the left-hand side of Dirac equation (3). Compared to equation (10) for a free electron–positron field, it includes the expression $`(/x_lieA_l)`$ instead of the usual derivative $`/x_l`$. In electrodynamics, this expression is customarily called ”covariant derivative”, because it formally resembles the covariant derivative $`_l`$ of a covariant vector field $`B_m`$ and is written as

$$_lB_m=\frac{B_m}{x_l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ml}^sB_s,$$
$`(22)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ml}^s`$ is the connectivity. The geometrical meaning of a connectivity is, in particular, that the covariant derivative plays the role of a translation group generator for the usual (not spinor) tensor fields on a manifold . (In the Euclidean space, the connectivity is zero and the ”usual” derivative $`/x_l`$ plays the role of a translation group generator). However, for the spin-tensor fields and, in particular, for the four-component first-rank spin tensor entering the Dirac equation, the connectivity with the above mentioned properties does not exist in an arbitrary Riemannian space. This is caused by the fact that spin tensors are Euclidean rather than affine, and the transformation law for their components is specified by the rotation group representation, which cannot be continued to a group of all linear transformations . In other words, the spin tensors can be connected to each other at different points of a curved space only if the orthonormalized frame remains orthonormalized upon the translation in this space.

However, for a particular case of Riemannian spaces, namely, for the conformally Euclidean spaces, a certain vicinity of an arbitrary point $`M`$ can always be mapped, with retention of metric, into the vicinity of the other arbitrary point $`M^{}`$, and this can be done in such a way that the orthonormalized frame specified at point $`M`$ transforms into an arbitrarily chosen orthonormalized frame at $`M^{}`$ . For this reason, the parallel translation of spinor in such a space is determined by metric from the same formulas as occur for usual tensors, with only the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^p`$-type connectivity components being nonzero. (Weil was, probably, the first to realize it ). Recall that not the physical space of events is assumed to be a conformally Euclidean space in the approach suggested in this work but a universal covering space, which serves only as a mathematical tool for describing the fundamental group of a physical object, namely, of a closed connected 4-manifold of interacting electromagnetic and electron–positron fields.

Let us now assume that the expression $`ieA_l`$ in Eq. (3) can be regarded as a connectivity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^p`$ in the conformally Euclidean space. Then the expression $`(/x_lieA_l)`$ entering in Dirac equation (3) can be interpreted as a translation group generator along the universal covering surface of a certain connected 4-manifold. The translation group generator multiplied by the symmetry operator $`\gamma _l`$ about the hyperplanes passing through the $`OX_l`$ axis can be regarded as a generator of a ”local” sliding symmetry group in the spinor basis. This leads to the main conclusion of this work: Dirac equation (3) can be interpreted as a group-theoretic relation describing the metric and topological properties of a certain 4-manifold, for which a space with semimetric transfer is a universal covering surface, while a group determined by the local sliding symmetry is the fundamental group.

The fact that $`ieA_l`$ in the above interpretation has a meaning of connectivity on the covering space also allows the geometrical interpretation of the electric and magnetic field components, i.e., of the components of the electric and magnetic fields tensor $`F_{ik}`$. To this end, let us use the fact that the curvature tensor $`R_{lk,i}^q`$ (Riemann–Christoffel tensor defining the deviation from Euclidean geometry in the Riemannian space) is expressed in terms of connectivity as

$$R_{lk,i}^q=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{li}^q}{x_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ki}^q}{x_l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kp}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{li}^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ki}^p\right).$$
$`(23)`$
(As before, the summation over repeating indices goes from $`0`$ to $`3`$). Let us contract the curvature tensor with respect to its upper and lower right indices (the resulting tensor is denoted by $`R_{lk}^0`$),

$$R_{lk}^0=R_{lk,q}^q=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lq}^q}{x_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kq}^q}{x_l}.$$
$`(24)`$
Comparing Eq. (24) with Eq. (4) and using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mq}^q=ieA_m`$, one obtains

$$ieF_{ik}=R_{ik}^0,$$
$`(25)`$
i.e., within the geometrical interpretation, the tensor of electric and magnetic fields coincides, except for the factor $`ie`$, with certain components of the curvature tensor of a universal covering surface. Therefore, Maxwell Eq. (5) relates the above-mentioned components of curvature tensor to the basis functions of the fundamental group, thereby rendering the system of Eqs. (3)–(5) closed. The curvature tensor for a space with constant curvature $`K`$ has the form

$$R_{ij,kl}=K(g_{ik}g_{jl}g_{il}gjk).$$
$`(26)`$
Comparing Eqs. (26) and (25), one arrives at the conclusion that, within the geometrical interpretation, the electric charge $`e`$ is proportional to a constant curvature $`K`$.

Thus, in the geometrical interpretation, the equations of classical relativistic electrodynamics (3)–(5) have the form

$$i\gamma _l(\frac{}{x_l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lp}^p)\psi =m\psi ,$$
$`(27)`$
$$R_{ik}^0=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ip}^p}{x_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kp}^p}{x_i},$$
$`(28)`$
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{R_{ik}^0}{x_i}=ie^2\psi \gamma _1\gamma _k\psi .$$
$`(29)`$
Weak interaction

Let us now show that, in a one-particle approximation adopted in this work (low energies), weak interaction can be represented as a manifestation of the torsion in the covering space of a 4-manifold representing weak field and its sources. In due time, Einstein attempted at including electromagnetic field into a unified geometrical description of physical fields by ”adding” torsion to the Riemannian space–time curvature, which reflects the presence of a gravitational field in general relativity . Since the curvature of covering space corresponds within our approach to the electromagnetic field, I will attempt to include weak interaction into the topological approach by including torsion in this space.

It is known that weak interaction breaks the mirror space-time symmetry. On the other hand above symmetry can be violated in the space with torsion (left screw looks like a right one in the mirror). So it is natural to assume that within our topological approach torsion may be connected with weak interaction. Let us first consider the case where the electromagnetic field is absent, i.e., the curvature of covering space is zero. A space with torsion but without curvature is called the space with absolute parallelism . Thus, the challenge is to determine how does free-particle Eq. (10) change if the interparticle interaction is due only to the torsion, which transforms the pseudo-Euclidean covering space into a space with absolute parallelism.

Let us denote the torsion tensor by $`S_{lm}^k`$; then the problem can be formulated as follows. It is necessary to ”insert” the tensor $`S_{lm}^k`$ or some of its components into Eq. (10) so that the resulting equation remains invariant about the Lorentz transformations and adequately describes the experimental data (e.g., violation of spatial and time symmetry by weak interaction). Among the spaces with torsion, there are so-called spaces with semisymmetric parallel translation . The torsion tensor $`S_{lm}^k`$ for such spaces is defined by the antisymmetric part of connectivity and can be represented in the form

$$S_{lm}^k=S_lA_m^kS_mA_l^k.$$
$`(30)`$
Here, $`S_l`$ is a certain vector and $`A_l^k`$ is the identity tensor. The vector $`S_l`$ has the property that the infinitesimal parallelogram remains closed upon parallel translation in the hyperplanes perpendicular to this vector.

One may thus assume that in the presence of vector $`S_l`$ the spatial isotropy breaks in such a way that the isotropy is retained only in the indicated hyperplanes. Assuming that along $`S_l`$ only the translational symmetry is retained, while the symmetry of Eq. (10) is retained in the hyperplane perpendicular to this vector, one can recast this equation as

$$i\left(\frac{}{X_1}S\right)\phi \underset{k=2}{\overset{4}{}}i\sigma _k\frac{\phi }{X_k}=m\phi .$$
$`(31)`$
Here, the $`X_1`$ axis is aligned with the vector $`S_l`$, $`\phi `$ is a two-component spiner, $`\sigma _k`$ denotes a two-row matrices of rotation group representation in the spinor basis (Pauli matrices) and $`S`$ is some tensor connection in considering space.

The question of how does Eq. (31) account for the other properties of weak interaction and how does it relate to the results of the standard model of electroweak interaction will be considered in detail elsewhere. Notice only that $`U(1)SU(2)`$–gauge transformation looks here as production of the S-vector rotation and rotation within the 3-dimentional hyperplane perpendicular to this vector.

References

1. O.A.Olkhov, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology, Lake Tahoe, California, 10-16 December 1999. Singapure-New Jersey- Hong-Kong, World Scientific, 2000, p.160, quant-ph/0101137; Chem.Phys. 2000. V.19. N 5. p.92.; V.19. N 6. p.13,(in russian); Thesises of the International Seminar on Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions, Klyazma, Moscow region, Russia, 12-16 March 2001, p.28, e-print quant-ph/0103089
2. V.Heine, Group theory in quantum mechanics. Pergamon Press. London- Oxford-N.Y.-Paris, 1960
3. V.B.Berestetzki, E.M.Lifshitz, L.P.Pitaevski, Relyativistskay kvantovaya teoriya, Moscow, Nauka, 1968
4. I.S.Bell, Rev.Mod.Phys. 38(1966)447
5. von J.V.Neumann., Mathematische grundlagen der quantenmechanik, Verlag von Julius
Springer, Berlin, 1932
6. B.A.Dubrovin, S.P.Novikov, A.T.Fomenko, Sovremennay geometriay, V.2, Ch.4, Moscow, Editorial, 2001
7. Yu.G.Borisovitch, N.M.Bliznaykov, Ya.A.Izrailevitch, T.N.Fomenko, Vvedenie v topologiyu, Ch.3, Moscow, Nauka, 1995
8. H.S.M.Coxeter, Introduction to geometry. John Wiley and Sons, N-Y-London, 1961
9. A.T.Fomenko, Naglyadnay geometriay i topologiay, Ch.2, Moscow, Moscow University, 1998
10. E.Cartan, Leçons sur la théorie des spineurs. Paris, 1938
11. P.K.Raschevski, Rimanova geometriay i tensornii analiz, Ch.3, Moscow, Izdatelstvo techniko-teotetitcheskoi literaturi, 1953
12. M.Freedman, J.Diff.Geometry. 17(1982)357
13. A.T.Fomenko, Diferentcialnay geometriay i tipologiay. Dopolnitelnie glavi, Izevsk, Izevskay respublikanskay tipografiay, 1999
14. H.S.M.Coxeter, W.O.Moser, Generators and Relations for discrete groups. New York-London.: John Wiley and Sons, 1980
15. H.Weyl, Gravitation und Electrizität. Berlin, Sitzber.: Preuss. Akad. Wiss, 1918
16. H.Weyl, Z.f.Phys. 56(1929)330
17. A.Einstein, Riemann Geometrie mit Aufrechterhaltung des Fernparallelismus. Sitzungsber: preuss. Akad. Wiss., phys-math. K1., 1928, 217-221
18. J.A.Schouten, Tensor analysis for physicists. Oxford, 1952
19. J.A.Schouten and D.J.Struik, Einführung in die neueren Methoden der Differentialgeometrie, I. Groningen–Batavia.: Noordhoff, 1935


format: text

text:
# Unitarity constraints and role of geometrical effects

## Introduction

In  we have studied limitations off–shell unitarity provides for the $`\gamma ^{}p`$–total cross-sections and geometrical effects in the energy dependence of $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}`$. It was shown that unitarity by itself does not lead to the saturation at $`x0`$, i.e. slow down of the power-like energy dependence of $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}`$ and transition to the energy behavior consistent with the Froissart–Martin bound valid for the on–shell scattering. In particular, the $`Q^2`$–dependence of the constituent quark interaction radius rising with the virtuality $`Q^2`$ leads to an asymptotical result:

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}(W^2)^{\lambda (Q^2)},$$

where $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ will not depend on virtuality at large values of $`Q^2`$.

Here we consider similar problems for the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$–scattering. The process of the virtual two–photon scattering is under active study nowadays since it was expected that the hard interaction QCD dynamics would be tested in the most unambiguous way and unitarity would play a minor role there . On the other side there are model approaches which impose saturation in the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$–interactions, i.e. limitations inherited from a hadron–hadron on–shell scattering are extended to this case (cf.  and references therein). Such approaches also consider the role of unitarity for the wide range values of virtualities. Available high-energy experimental data obtained at LEP are not restrictive since the data are extracted using Monte-Carlo generators .

## 1 Unitarity and total cross–sections of real and virtual $`\gamma \gamma `$–interactions

Extension of the $`U`$–matrix unitarization for the off-shell scattering was considered in . To apply an extended unitarity to DIS at small $`x`$ there was supposed that the virtual photon fluctuates into a quark–antiquark pair $`q\overline{q}`$ and this pair was treated as an effective virtual vector meson state in the processes with small $`x`$. This effective virtual meson interacts then with a hadron. We considered a single effective vector meson field. To treat $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$–scattering we introduce the amplitude $`F_{}^{}(s,t,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ when both initial and final mesons are off mass and $`F_{}^{}(s,t,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ when only initial mesons are off mass shell:

$$V^{}+V^{}V^{}+V^{},\text{and}V^{}+V^{}V+V$$
(1)
The amplitude $`F(s,t)`$ describes the on–shell $`VV`$ scattering.

The unitarity for the amplitudes $`F_{}^{}`$ and $`F_{}^{}`$ in impact parameter representation at high energies relates them in the following way

$$\text{Im}F_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)=|F_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)|^2+\eta _{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2),$$
(2)
where $`\eta _{}^{}(s,b,Q^2)`$ is the contribution to the unitarity of the many–particle intermediate on–shell states. The solution of the off–shell unitarity relations has a simple form in the impact parameter representation :

$`F_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2)+iU_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)F_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$
$`F_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)+iU_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)F(s,b).`$ (3)
The solution of this system has a simple form when the following factorization is imposed

$$[U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)]^2U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)U(s,b)=0.$$
(4)
Similar factorization was implemented in . It should be noted that these factorization formulas have been implied at the level of an input dynamical quantities and they do not lead to the factorization for the corresponding total cross–sections. Breaking of this factorization is one of the consequences of the unitarity.

Eq. (4) implies the following representation for the functions $`U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ and $`U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$:

$`U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)U(s,b)`$
$`U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)U(s,b).`$ (5)
It will be evident in the following that this factorization, in particular, is valid in the off–shell extension of the chiral quark model for the $`U`$–matrix which we will consider further. The amplitudes $`F_{}^{}`$ and $`F_{}^{}`$ then can be written in the form

$`F_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)}{1iU(s,b)}}=\omega (s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{U(s,b)}{1iU(s,b)}}`$ (6)
$`F_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)}{1iU(s,b)}}=\omega ^2(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{U(s,b)}{1iU(s,b)}}`$ (7)
and unitarity does constraint the magnitudes of the above amplitudes by unity.

The off–shell extension of the model for hadron scattering , which uses the notions of chiral quark models was developed in . The further extension for the case when both of the colliding particles (vector mesons) are off mass shell the corresponding $`U`$–matrix, i.e. $`U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ should be represented as the product

$$U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_{V_1}}{}}f_{Q_i^{}}(s,b,Q_1^2)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_{V_2}}{}}f_{Q_j^{}}(s,b,Q_2^2).$$
(8)
Factors $`f_Q^{}(s,b,Q_i^2)`$ correspond to the individual quark scattering amplitudes smeared over the transverse position of the constituent quark inside the virtual vector meson and over the fraction of longitudinal momentum of the initial parent vector meson. Under the virtual constituent quarks $`Q^{}`$ we mean the ones composing the virtual meson.

Further steps are completely similar to the ones described in , where the introduction of the $`Q^2`$ dependence into the interaction radius of constituent quark constituent quark (which in the present approach consists of a current quark and the cloud of quark–antiquark pairs of the different flavors ) is the main issue of the model.

Dependence on virtuality $`Q^2`$ comes through dependence of the intensity of the virtual constituent quark interaction $`g(Q^2)`$ and the constituent quark interaction radius $`r_Q^{}(Q^2)=\xi (Q^2)/m_Q^{}`$ (in the on-shell limit $`g(Q^2)g`$ and $`\xi (Q^2)\xi `$). The explicit functional dpendencies for the generalized reaction matrices $`U_{}^{}`$ and $`U_{}^{}`$ can be written then in the form of (5) with

$$\omega (s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)=\omega (s,b,Q_1^2)\omega (s,b,Q_2^2).$$
(9)
and

$$\omega (s,b,Q^2)=\frac{f_Q^{}(s,b,Q^2)}{f_Q(s,b)},$$
(10)
i. e. in the high–energy limit (for the simplicity we assume here that amplitudes are imaginary and all the constituent quarks have equal masses and parameters $`g`$ and $`\xi `$ as well as $`g(Q^2)`$ and $`\xi (Q^2)`$ do not depend on quark flavor). Then the functions $`U`$, $`U_{}^{}`$ and $`U_{}^{}`$ are the following

$$U(s,b)=ig^N\left(\frac{s}{m_Q^2}\right)^{N/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{m_QNb}{\xi }\right]$$
(11)
$$U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)=\omega (b,Q_1^2)\omega (b,Q_2^2)U(s,b),$$

$$U_{}^{}(s,b,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)=\omega ^2(b,Q_1^2)\omega ^2(b,Q_2^2)U(s,b),$$

where the function $`\omega `$ is an energy-independent one and has the following dependence on $`b`$ and $`Q^2`$

$$\omega (b,Q^2)=\frac{g(Q^2)}{g}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{m_Qb}{\overline{\xi }(Q^2)}\right]$$
(12)
with

$$\overline{\xi }(Q^2)=\frac{\xi \xi (Q^2)}{\xi \xi (Q^2)}.$$
(13)
For the on–shell particles $`\omega 1`$ and we then arrive to the result obtained in  at large $`s`$

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{tot}(s)\frac{\xi ^2}{m_Q^2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{s}{m_Q^2}.$$
(14)
We consider further the off-shell scattering with $`\xi (Q^2)>\xi `$ and at large $`s`$ we have

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}\gamma }^{tot}(s,Q^2)G(Q^2)\left(\frac{s}{m_Q^2}\right)^{\lambda (Q^2)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{W^2}{m_Q^2},$$
(15)
and for the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ total cross–section the following behavior of the total cross–section at large $`s`$ will take place:

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}}^{tot}(s,Q_1^2,Q_2^2)G(Q_1^2)G(Q_2^2)\left(\frac{s}{m_Q^2}\right)^{\lambda (Q_1^2)+\lambda (Q_2^2)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{m_Q^2},$$
(16)
where

$$\lambda (Q^2)=\frac{\xi (Q^2)\xi }{\xi (Q^2)}.$$
(17)
Thus, the steep energy increase of $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ total cross–section $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}}^{tot}s^{2\lambda (Q^2)}`$ has been predicted at $`s\mathrm{}`$. The $`Q^2`$–dependence of the total cross–sections in the model is determined by the function $`G(Q^2)`$ which should be chosen on the experimental basis.

The obtained energy dependencies have an asymptotic nature. Existing experimental data obtained at LEP have a significant error bars and do not show clear tendencies as it was mentioned in the Introduction.

Interactions of real and virtual photons are predicted to have significantly different energy dependencies for the total cross–sections.

It is interesting to perform $`\gamma \gamma `$–studies at higher energies. Tagging two–photon interactions in proton-proton collisions at LHC was considered in  and it seems to be experimentally feasible to study $`\gamma \gamma `$–collisions at high energies.

## Acnowledgement

We are grateful to E. Martynov, V. Petrov and A. Prokudin for the interesting discussions. One of the authors (S. T.) is also grateful to E. De Sanctis and W.-D. Nowak for the support of his participation in European Workshop on the QCD Structure of the Nucleon, Castello Estense, Ferrara, Italy, 3-6 April 2002.


text:
# Pseudorapidity and centrality dependence of the collective flow of charged particles in Au+Au collisions at √𝑠__{𝑁𝑁}= 130 GeV

## Abstract

This paper describes the measurement of collective flow for charged particles in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 130 GeV using the PHOBOS detector at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). An azimuthal anisotropy is observed in the charged particle hit distribution in the PHOBOS multiplicity detector. This anisotropy is presented over a wide range of pseudorapidity ($`\eta `$) for the first time at this energy. The size of the anisotropy (v2) is thought to probe the degree of equilibration achieved in these collisions. The result here, averaged over momenta and particle species, is observed to reach 7% for peripheral collisions at mid-rapidity, falling off with centrality and increasing $`|\eta |`$. Data are presented as a function of centrality for $`|\eta |<1.0`$ and as a function of $`\eta `$, averaged over centrality, in the angular region -5.0$`<\eta <`$5.3. These results call into question the common assumption of longitudinal boost invariance over a large region of rapidity in RHIC collisions.

PACS numbers: 25.75.-q

The study of collective flow in non-central ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions is important because it can provide information on the initial spatial anisotropy of the reaction zone, conditions present in early stages of the collision  and the degree of thermalization attained during the evolution of the collision . In addition, collective flow can affect other measurables of interest, such as two particle correlation functions and the slopes of transverse momentum distributions . Effects of collective flow have been observed in nuclear collisions over a wide range of collision energies and species.

Hydrodynamic models, which assume local thermal equilibrium at all points, are generally thought to predict maximal flow. Such models are fairly successful at reproducing the mid-rapidity flow results at RHIC for the more central events and lower transverse momenta . This implies substantial early equilibration in these collisions. Hydrodynamic models predict roughly constant flow over a broad pseudorapidity region either through a full three-dimensional calculation  or by assuming longitudinal boost invariance. This paper provides an additional constraint on such models.

The analysis presented here is based on data taken between June and September, 2000, during the first RHIC physics run. Results are presented for Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 130 GeV as a function of centrality over a narrow range of pseudorapidity ($`\eta `$), while minimum bias results are shown over a large $`\eta `$ range (-5.0$`<\eta <`$5.3).

The PHOBOS detector employs silicon pad detectors to perform tracking, vertex detection and multiplicity measurements. Details of the setup and the layout of the silicon sensors can be found elsewhere. For this running period, detector components relevant for this analysis included the first six layers of both silicon spectrometer arms (SPECN and SPECP), the silicon vertex detector (VTX), the silicon octagonal multiplicity detector (OCT), three annular silicon ring multiplicity detectors on each side of the collision point (RN, RP), and two sets of scintillating paddle counters (PN, PP).

Collisions with a coincidence of two or more signals in each of the PN and PP counters were selected by the trigger. This sample corresponded to $`86\pm 3`$% of the total inelastic Au+Au cross section. The centrality determination for the triggered events was based on a truncated mean of the deposited energy in the paddle counters. This variable is proportional to the number of particles hitting these counters and is monotonically related to the number of participants, Npart. More details on the event triggering and centrality determination can be found elsewhere. Adjustments in the procedures used previously were made to take into account the fact that data used in this analysis came from an offset fiducial volume and included periods with different magnetic field settings.

Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the detector performance were based on the Hijing event generator  and the GEANT 3.21  simulation package, folding in the signal response for scintillator counters and silicon sensors.

The anisotropy of the azimuthal distribution of charged particles traversing the detector formed the basis for this flow analysis. Uniform and symmetric acceptance was beneficial in terms of sensitivity to the flow signal. This led to the requirement that the primary collision vertex fall within an 8 cm fiducial region centered at -34 cm from the nominal interaction point, in a uniform and symmetric part of the OCT subdetector.

The position of the primary collision vertex was determined on an event-by-event basis by fitting for the optimal intersection point of the straight tracks reconstructed in the first six planes of each of the two spectrometer arms. In addition, the vertex position along the beam, zvtx, was required to be consistent with the vertex position as determined by an independent algorithm to avoid pathological vertex reconstructions and reduce the potential for systematic effects. The second algorithm determined zvtx as the z position of the maximum of the azimuthally averaged hit density in the OCT subdetector. Finally, the reconstructed transverse vertex position was required to be within 2$`\sigma `$ of the average position (beam orbit).

Trigger selection yielded $`1.37\times 10^6`$ events. A total of 13,644 events survived the vertex cuts described above, yielding a global acceptance for events used in the analysis of $``$1%. The number of triggered and accepted events are shown as a function of Npart in Fig. 1. The vertex position resolution for accepted events was estimated from simulated data to be $``$1 mm in x, $``$1 mm in y and $``$3 mm in z.

The raw data for this analysis came in the form of energy depositions in individual detector pads, known as hits. The hit energies were adjusted for variations in silicon thickness and converted to dE/dx using the expected path length, assuming each hit to come from a particle emanating from the reconstructed event vertex. Pads with energy depositions greater than 0.625 of the peak of the minimum ionizing particle distribution (i.e., $`>`$50 keV) were taken to represent points of charged particle transit and were used in the analysis. At the ends of the octagon, where a single particle track often passes through more than one detector pad, the energy signals in adjoining pads consistent with being from a single track were added together. To avoid biases introduced by malfunctioning pads, the signals from such pads were replaced with signals from corresponding mirror image pads in $`\eta `$, making use of the fact that the data were taken during symmetric collisions. This was done for less than 3% of pads in the OCT and less than 1% of the pads in RN and RP. The position of each hit was smeared randomly with a flat distribution within its hardware pad boundaries and mapped into $`\eta \varphi `$ coordinates. The analysis was done on an event-by-event basis in $`\eta \varphi `$ space.

The strength of the flow is given by the nth Fourier coefficient of the particle azimuthal angle distribution,

$$\frac{dN}{d(\varphi \psi _2)}1+\underset{n}{}2\mathrm{v}_ncos[n(\varphi \psi _2)]$$
(1)
where $`\psi _2`$ is the event plane angle, which is the best estimate of the azimuthal reaction plane angle, $`\psi _R`$, defined by the impact parameter and the beam axis. This analysis was confined to n=2, the so-called elliptic flow. It generally followed the scheme proposed by Poskanzer and Voloshin  and was based on the correlation of hits in one part of the detector, known as a subevent, with the event plane angle as determined by hits in a different part of the detector (a different subevent). $`\psi _2`$ in a given subevent, ‘a’, was determined by

$$\psi _2^a=\frac{1}{2}tan^1\left(\frac{_iw_isin(2\varphi _i)}{_iw_icos(2\varphi _i)}\right),$$
(2)
where the weights, $`w_i`$, were selected to maximize reaction plane resolution by adjusting for acceptance and occupancy effects as described below. The sums ran over all hits in subevent a.

The $`\psi _2`$ distribution as a function of azimuthal angle should be flat in the absence of detector effects. Structures in the raw $`\varphi `$ hit and $`\psi _2`$ distributions were understood qualitatively from studies of simulated data as coming from gaps between sensors, channel-to-channel differences in $`\varphi `$ phase space coverage, and the asymmetric production of background particles. These effects were removed (and the $`\psi _2`$ distribution flattened) in each $`\eta `$ annulus through the use of individual hit weights, w$`{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{i}{}^{}`$, which were proportional to the inverse of the average number of hits in each pad. Residual effects due to the variation in the vertex position were absorbed in the systematic error. It should be noted that the final results of the analysis were insensitive to this weighting and that results with no acceptance weighting were consistent with the observations reported here.

The finite pad size in the detector led to an occupancy-dependent hit saturation that reduced sensitivity to flow. This effect was accounted for in the analysis by weighting the hits in a given $`\eta \varphi `$ bin by the average number of tracks per hit pad, or occupancy, calculated individually in different sections of the detector. The occupancy was determined on an event-by-event basis from the number of occupied (Nocc) and unoccupied (Nunocc) pads in each section. The occupancy weight in a given section was determined assuming a Poisson statistical distribution as

$$Occ(\eta ,\varphi )=\frac{\mu }{1e^\mu },$$
(3)
where $`\mu `$=ln(1 + Nocc/Nunocc) is the average number of tracks per pad. This occupancy was used in concert with the acceptance weight to produce the overall weight,

$$\mathrm{w}_i=\mathrm{w}_i^aOcc(\eta _i,\varphi _i),$$
(4)
which was used in the determination of $`\psi _2`$ in equation (2). The event plane resolution, R, was calculated separately for each centrality bin using the subevent technique as

$$R=\sqrt{<cos[2(\psi _2^a\psi _2^b)]>},$$
(5)
where the superscripts denote separate subevents within a given event and the averaging was done over all accepted events in a given centrality bin. In this analysis, equal multiplicity subevents were defined by dividing the event into two separate $`\eta `$ regions, OCT-, which extended from -2.0 to -0.1 in $`\eta `$, and OCT+, which encompassed $`\eta `$ between 0.1 and 2.0. The gap between the two angular ranges in the OCT subdetector was introduced to reduce effects due to short-range non-flow correlations between hits in different subevents. The final v2 determination was found to be robust against the choice of subevent used in the evaluation of the event reaction plane so long as the chosen subevent contained sufficient statistics that the reaction plane resolution could be well determined. In addition, the gap width between subevents was varied from 0.2 to 1.0 in $`\eta `$ and the change in v2 was incorporated in the final systematic error for the analysis. The correlation between the event planes in the OCT- and OCT+ subevents is shown in Fig. 2.

The observed, resolution and occupancy corrected value of v2, v$`{}_{}{}^{obs}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, was calculated in bins of centrality and $`\eta `$ from the $`\eta \varphi `$ hit map using

$$\mathrm{v}_2^{obs}=\frac{<w_icos[2(\varphi \psi _2)]>}{R},$$
(6)
where the averaging in the numerator was done over the hits in one event and the averaging of the fraction was done over all events in the given centrality or $`\eta `$ bin using the appropriate value of R for each event.

In this analysis, v$`{}_{}{}^{obs}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ was calculated in several regions of the detector using the $`\varphi `$ position of the hits in the $`\eta \varphi `$ space. Two regions at high $`\eta `$ corresponded to areas covered by the ring detectors, RN and RP, and encompassed -5.0$`<\eta <`$-3.0 and 3.5$`<\eta <`$5.25, respectively. In the mid-$`\eta `$ range, the regions covered by the OCT subdetector(OCT- and OCT+) were used. For the determination of v2 in the positive (negative) $`\eta `$ region of the detector, OCT- (OCT+) was used as the subevent region to evaluate $`\psi _2`$. Fiducial cuts in $`\eta `$ were used to avoid acceptance edge effects on the flow signal.

Even after resolution correction, Monte Carlo simulations showed a residual suppression of the flow signal from background particles carrying no flow information, the so-called non-flow background. This effect was studied in detail using simulated data with a known amount of flow. By comparing the output resolution corrected flow signal to the input flow signal for many samples of simulated data with different forms and magnitudes of input flow (v2), suppression correction factors, C, were determined for each bin of centrality and $`\eta `$ in the analysis. The suppression factors were found to be independent of the assumed flow magnitude and its form. Furthermore, as a function of $`\eta `$, the correction is a constant 12% in the OCT and ranges from 15-30% in most of the rings, where the backgrounds are higher. As a function of centrality the correction is a flat 12%. The final corrected value of v2 was determined by

$$\mathrm{v}_2(\eta ,centrality)=\frac{\mathrm{v}_2^{obs}(\eta ,centrality)}{C(\eta )}.$$
(7)
This quantity, averaged over the region -1.0$`<\eta <`$1.0, is presented in Fig. 3 as a function of the number of participants, Npart. The $`\eta `$ dependence of v2, event averaged over centrality, is shown in Fig. 4. For the sample of accepted events entering this plot, $`<\mathrm{N}_{part}>`$=191. This is substantially more than the overall $`<\mathrm{N}_{part}>`$=98 for minimum bias events in Hijing, reflecting the trigger inefficiency and the centrality bias in our vertex reconstruction.

Numerous sources of systematic error were investigated, including effects due to the energy cut, hit merging, subevent definition, knowledge of the beam orbit relative to the detector, shape of the dN/d$`\eta `$ distribution, vertexing algorithm, transverse vertex cuts, magnetic field configuration and suppression correction determination. The effect of these sources depended both on $`\eta `$ and centrality. In general, the systematic error arising from each source was determined by conservatively varying that specific aspect of the analysis (or several aspects in concert) and quantifying the change in the final v2 result as a function of $`\eta `$ and centrality. The individual contributions were added in quadrature to derive the 90% confidence level error shown as the gray band in Figs. 3 and 4. In addition to the procedure described above, the systematic error on the lower side of some points in Figs. 3 and 4 was increased to reflect the reduced sensitivity of the analysis to the low level of flow in those bins as determined from Monte Carlo studies.

These results represent the first measurement of v2 as a broad function of $`\eta `$ at RHIC and agree with the mid-rapidity measurements of v2 from the STAR  and PHENIX  collaborations. The extended angular coverage portrayed in Fig. 4 clearly shows a systematic drop in the magnitude of v2 with $`|\eta |`$. This drop could be due, in part, to correlations not associated with the reaction plane, a drop in $`p_T`$ due to dynamics or kinematics , substantial directed flow, or a change in the underlying mechanism of particle production as a function of $`\eta `$. Since these data appeared in a preliminary form , theoretical efforts have had only limited success in reproducing the $`\eta `$ dependence . These results call into question the common assumption of longitudinal boost invariance over a large region of rapidity in RHIC collisions. Further work is needed to develop a clear, three-dimensional picture of these collisions.

Acknowledgements: We acknowledge the generous support of the C-A Division and Chemistry Departments at BNL. We thank Fermilab and CERN for help in silicon detector assembly. We thank the MIT School of Science and LNS for financial support. This work was partially supported by US DoE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER40802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-94ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, W-31-109-ENG-38. NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204. The Polish groups were partially supported by KBN grant 2 P03B 04916. The NCU group was partially supported by NSC of Taiwan under contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.


text:
# Dynamical analysis of S&P500 momentum

## 1 Introduction

Forecasting in empirical finance is based on recipes that are often heuristic in nature and specific to the market being considered. Numerous predictive techniques exist, some of which may be theoretically justified to a certain extent, but many others have been proposed in a purely ad hoc manner. Technical analysis and the related “charting” methods are therefore often dismissed by academics. Nevertheless, in keeping with a more general trend, it is of interest to see whether statistical physics can bring some insight into the validity or applicability of these recipes. The ultimate and more general goal of such an analysis is to connect optimal strategies to fundamental questions about chaos and deterministic sequences in natural signals.

The moving average (MA) of a stock price is a common tool in technical analysis, frequently used as an indicator for customers to buy or sell stocks. Often, several MAs are studied and their interrelations used as a trading signal. This method may also be applied to indices, sometimes in order to forecast market activities. A MA, $`y_T(t)`$ at time $`t`$ of a time-dependent quantity $`y(t^{})`$ is defined as:

$$y_T(t)=\frac{1}{T}\underset{i=t}{\overset{t+T1}{}}y(iT)t=T+1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(1)
i.e. the average of $`y`$ over the last $`T`$ data points prior to time $`t`$. Many other forms of MAs exist, such as those involving an exponential smoothing, which tends to dampen out sudden changes. As was shown elsewhere  the density of crossing points ($`\rho `$) between two MAs is a measure of the signal roughness:

$$\rho \frac{1}{T_2}[(\mathrm{\Delta }T)(1\mathrm{\Delta }T)]^{H1},$$
(2)
where $`H`$ is the Hurst exponent and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=(T_2T_1)/T_2`$.

Let us now consider two MAs, $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, calculated over two different intervals, respectively $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$, with $`T_2>T_1`$. In empirical finance the two time intervals often correspond to quite distinct durations, two common choices being a week and a month, and 10 days and 30 days. In those cases it is possible to talk about a long-term and a short-term MA of a given time series. For conciseness we will use the same terminology here (i.e. $`T_2`$ is the long-term MA, $`T_1`$ is the short-term MA), although in the present analysis occasionally the two time-periods may be quite close. Clearly, if the original signal $`y(t)`$ increases for a while before decreasing, then $`y_1`$ will cross $`y_2`$ from above. This event, in which the short-term MA crosses the long-term MA from above, is called a “Death cross” in empirical finance, often interpreted as a “Sell” signal. We will denote it by the symbol $`D`$. In contrast, if the short-term MA, $`y_1`$, crosses the long-term MA, $`y_2`$, from below, the crossing point coincides with an upsurge of the signal $`y(t)`$ and may be taken as a “Buy” signal. This event is called a “Gold cross” and we will denote it by $`G`$. Technical financial analysts usually try to “extrapolate” the evolution of $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, and hence the underlying signal $`y(t)`$, based on their expectations for the occurrence of $`G`$ or $`D`$ crosses. Most computers at brokerages or trading houses are equipped to automatically perform this kind of analysis and trigger the associated activity signals.

As proposed by Vandewalle and Ausloos, one can visualize the change in the trend of a signal over some interval $`T`$ by considering a set of MAs, thus displaying a MA spectrum, taking into account the successive crosses and/or their density. Such a spectrum of MAs is a powerful visualization tool that provides a compact representation of the trends of complex signals.

As noted before, the rate with which MAs vary is of interest to investors who may base their trading strategies on it. It is clear that some uncertainty arises if $`G`$ and $`D`$ crosses are close to each other, or if the angles between crossing MAs are small. Thus, one can argue compellingly that in order to develop a reliable trading strategy, the angle between the MA signals as well as that between the MA signal and the horizontal should also be studied. All of these results will provide information on the slopes of the MA and therefore on the rates of the trend.

The occurrences of $`G`$ and $`D`$ crosses are preceded by turnovers in the trend of the MAs. Thus an investigation of the distribution of time intervals between successive minima and maxima is of interest to provide a quantitative measure of the dynamics of the market. In order to gather more information for building an investment strategy based on such a generalized technical analysis, as well as to gain a better understanding of analysis tools for complex time series, we have also studied the distribution of time intervals between successive \[$`G`$,$`G`$\], \[$`D`$,$`D`$\], \[$`G`$,$`D`$\], and \[$`D`$,$`G`$\]. Finally, we have also analyzed the time interval between successive extrema in the MA as yet another measure of underlying trends.

Our methodology will be generally applicable, but to be specific we will use it here to analyze daily closing prices of the Standard and Poor’s 500 index (S&P500) over a 22-year period. We note that Gopikrishnan et al. have studied a related S&P500 time series from a scaling perspective. However, these authors analyzed the signal over different time intervals and with finer time resolution. In addition, they did not address the MA technique.

## 2 Data and moving average

We consider the S&P500 daily closing price signal from Jan. 01, 1980 to Dec. 31, 2001, as plotted in Fig. 1a, with the associated probability density function (PDF) shown in Fig. 1b. The time series consists of 5556 data points, obtained from Yahoo.. In order to visualize the MAs calculated over different time periods and related crosses between them, Fig. 2 shows two MAs of the S&P500 signal: $`y_{week}`$ for $`T_1=`$1 week and $`y_{month}`$ for $`T_2=`$1 month. As is to be expected, the monthly moving average is much smoother than the weekly one.

Following the methodology of Vandewalle and Ausloos, we analyze the density of crossing points between two MAs of the S&P500 closing price signal. This data is plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=(T_2T_1)/T_2`$, where $`T_1`$ varies between 1 and $`T_2`$ and $`T_2`$ = 120 days. The Hurst exponent estimated from this data, using the relationship given by Eq. (2), is $`H=0.44\pm 0.01`$, in numerical agreement with that obtained by the Detrended Fluctuation Analysis method and clearly distinct from the random walk (RW) value H = 0.50. This confirms prior findings that both methods tend to give the same results for $`H`$ on the order of 0.45.

In order to test the robustness of this result, following the proposal of Viswanathan et al., we shuffled the S&P500 signal in two ways yielding two new (surrogate) time series: one in which the amplitudes were randomly shuffled, the other where the sign of the S&P500 signal was randomly shuffled. As can be seen in Fig. 1b, the PDF of the fluctuations of the S&P500 closing price signal is characterized by fat tails, which is a well-known result. It is generally accepted that the origin of the fat tailed distributions is a key question to understand financial time series. Most authors believe that the fat tails are caused by long-range volatility correlations. By shuffling the order of the fluctuations the correlations between them are destroyed. The Hurst exponent estimated from the scaling properties of the density of crossing points for the shuffled signal is found to be $`H=0.48\pm 0.005`$ quite close to the RW value indicating a near-absence of long tails. In contrast, destroying only sign correlations, by shuffling the order of the signs (but not the absolute values) of the fluctuations, allows the fat tails to persist: the corresponding roughness exponent is $`H=0.47\pm 0.01`$. In both cases the surrogate data lead to densities of crossing points that scale like a Brownian walk signal (see Fig. 3).

## 3 Spectrum of moving averages

To visualize the change in the trend of the signal over some interval $`T`$ we consider a set of MAs, with the long-term period fixed at $`T_2=`$250 days, i.e. one market year. The short-term period $`T_1`$ is varied between 1 and $`T_21`$ and the relative difference $`\delta =(y_1y_2)/y_1`$ between the two moving averages is computed.

Fig. 4a represents the resulting spectrum for the S&P500 closing price signal for the period from Jan. 01, 1990 to Dec. 31, 2000. The darker the grey levels the larger the distance (i.e. the absolute value of the difference) between the two MAs. Note the three light grey regions between 1995 and 2000 corresponding to a close proximity ($`\delta =0.05`$) between the MAs. This triplet pattern is repeated in rescaled form and for larger separation between the MAs (darker grey levels) in 1997/98 within the middle light grey region and on an even smaller scale further repeated during 1999 within the right-hand-side light grey region. These rescaled patterns correspond to larger differences, $`\delta =0.1`$, between the yearly MA and the MAs with $`T_1<50`$ days. In the second half of 1997 one can see the black region corresponding to a large difference, $`\delta =0.15,`$ between MAs for $`T_1<40`$ days and $`T_2=`$250 days indicating the crash of Oct. 1997. Note that from the point of view of the difference between the MAs, what happened during 1999 looks like a rescaled version of what took place in 1997/98.

For the signals with shuffled order of the fluctuations these characteristic patterns disappeared and are replaced by a rather uniform structure (see Fig. 4b). The apparent streaking in this figure is an artefact due to the cut-off point for the various grey levels, corresponding to $`\delta \pm 0`$, and does not reflect any underlying periodicity. Thus, we can conclude that the structures seen in Fig. 4a are the result of the long tails in the PDF, which are in turn associated with volatility correlations. Clearly, then, the MA spectrum contains a great deal of relevant information about the dynamics of the signal. In the next few sections we will see how further dynamic parameters can be extracted from this MA information.

## 4 Angle distribution at $`Gold`$ and $`Death`$ crosses

In order to estimate the relative position between the two MAs one can measure the angle between them at $`G`$ and $`D`$ crosses. The angle between the short- and long-term MAs is a unique measure of the rate of change in the signal and should therefore be able to serve as a useful quantitative indicator of the system dynamics. The angle between two MAs at a $`G`$ or $`D`$ cross can appear in three different settings depending on the angles between the MAs and the horizontal (i.e. the slope of the MA at the intersection). In Fig. 5a and 5b these three scenarios are schematically drawn when the intersection is a $`G`$, respectively, $`D`$ cross. Note, for example, that at a $`G`$ cross the angle at which the short- or long-term MA intersects the horizontal, $`\alpha `$, respectively, $`\beta `$, can be positive or negative. However, in all cases the long-term MA crosses the short-term one from above. This mutual relationship is expressed in the distribution of the angle $`\gamma `$ between them. Results for the S&P500 closing price signal for the period from Jan. 1, 1980 to Dec. 31, 2001 are shown in Fig. 6(a-f) for $`G`$ and $`D`$ crosses.

The distribution of $`\alpha `$ angles at $`G`$ crosses for the S&P500 closing price signal for the period from Jan. 1, 1980 to Dec. 31, 2001 is plotted in Fig. 6a as a set of histograms with bin-size 3. For brevity, in the following, whenever we refer to an angle we will take this as the center of the corresponding bin. Note that there is only one case of a negative angle, the relation schematically drawn in the left-hand-side inset of Fig. 5a. The most frequently observed angle under which the short-term MA intersects the horizontal is 67. The angles are relatively uniformly distributed between 16 and 85 with additional spikes at 43, 79 and 85.

The distribution of the angle $`\beta `$ under which the long-term MA intersects the horizontal at a $`G`$ cross is rather different from that for the angle $`\alpha `$, as can be seen in Fig. 6b. This histogram is approximately symmetrical with respect to positive and negative values with maxima at -14 and at 7. The distribution of the angle $`\gamma `$ between the two MAs at a $`G`$ cross (see Fig. 6c) is rather uniform in the interval  with a maximum at 26 and a number of low frequency occurrences at 29, 38 and 46.

The distribution of angles under which the two MAs intersect the horizontal and with one another at $`D`$ cross is plotted in Fig. 6(d-f). The angle $`\alpha `$ of the short-term MA is mostly negative with one case of positive 60 which corresponds to the case sketched in the right-hand-side inset of Fig. 5b. At the time of crossings the $`\alpha `$ angles of the short-term MA are paired with $`\beta `$ angles whose distribution is plotted in Fig. 6e. Therefore, the negative $`\alpha `$ angles and positive $`\beta `$ angles correspond to the schematic representation in Fig. 5b, while negative $`\alpha `$ and negative $`\beta `$ values represent the case sketched in the left-hand-side inset in Fig. 5b. The maximum value of the $`\alpha `$ angle is at -82. One is very unlikely to observe an angle of -47 in the data. The maximum $`\beta `$ value is equal to 7, so the long-term MA is most likely to be rather close to the horizontal with a quasi-homogeneous spread over the interval \[-10, 10\]. In comparison the spread of $`\beta `$ values at $`G`$ crosses reported above is a bit wider. The most likely angle $`\gamma `$ between the MAs at $`D`$ cross can have two values 23 and 59 with 33% less chance to have a value of 47.

Clearly, the distribution of the slopes of the MAs at crosses as well as the angles between them is very rich and far from random. It remains to be seen if similar patterns can be detected in other financial time series and if their occurrence can be related to features of the spectrum. However, it seems evident that more sophisticated prediction strategies should take these variables into account.

Next, we have studied the distribution of the time intervals between successive \[$`G`$,$`G`$\], \[$`D`$,$`D`$\], \[$`G`$,$`D`$\], and \[$`D`$,$`G`$\] crosses for the S&P500 closing price signal in two distinct time intervals chosen because they differ strongly in their investment environment. These are the time periods from Jan 1, 1980 to Dec 31, 1990 (see Fig. 7(a-d)) and from Jan 1, 1991 to Dec 31, 2001 (see Fig. 7(e-h)), the former generally characterized by a rather “sluggish” economy, the latter mainly reflecting the “bull market” of the 1990s.

While the shortest interval between successive \[$`G`$,$`G`$\] crosses in the first case appears to be 3 days, during the second period it is twice as long, i.e. 6 days. The maximum of the distribution is observed to occur at 9 and 13 for the first period and at 17 days for the second period, and is thus not drastically different between the two periods. The most probable time interval between successive \[$`D`$,$`D`$\] crosses during the first period is 19 days. Time intervals of similar length: 20-22 days, e.g. approximately one market month, are very unlikely to occur during the second period, whose maxima are at 16 and 28 days. Thus, downturns tended to occur more frequently in the 1980s than in the 1990s. A measure of the time necessary for the market to recover is the interval between \[$`G`$,$`D`$\] crosses. Its maximum is at 4 days during the first period. In sharp contrast, the second period is characterized by a high frequency of occurrence of \[$`G`$,$`D`$\] crosses for time intervals between 2 to 6 days, indicating that the market tended to recover faster during the second observation interval.

The way the market is going down from a $`D`$ to $`G`$ cross is reflected in the distribution of time intervals between consecutive $`D`$ and $`G`$ crosses. During both periods, the most likely interval between successive $`D`$ and $`G`$ crosses is 4 days.

## 5 Minima-Maxima distribution

As can be noticed in Fig. 2, the occurrences of $`G`$ and $`D`$ crosses are preceded by turnovers of the trend of the MAs. Thus the distribution of time intervals between successive minima and maxima can be calculated in order to provide information on the dynamics of the market. To this end for the S&P500 signal studied here the PDFs of the time interval between successive maxima \[$`M_1,M_2`$\], minima \[$`m_1,m_2`$\], maxima-minima \[$`M_1,m_1`$\], and minima-maxima \[$`m_1,M_1`$\], are plotted in Fig. 8(a-h) for the short-term, $`y_{week}`$, and long-term, $`y_{month}`$, MAs. The x-axis of all data in Fig. 7(a-h) is chosen in such a way that the bin of each x-axis is equal to one day. Also the ticks are associated with the middle of the bin, i.e. to 0.5. For the purpose of comparison the insets of Fig. 8(c-h) have their x- and y-axis limits the same as those of Fig. 8(a,b). It is of interest to note that the PDFs of \[$`M_1,M_2`$\] and \[$`m_1,m_2`$\] for the short-term MA, $`y_{week}`$, are very similar, which is not surprising, both with a maximum at 2 days. In contrast, the \[$`m_1,m_2`$\] PDF for the long-term MA, $`y_{month}`$, exhibits a maximum at 2 days and a rather homogeneous distribution for time intervals between 3 and 11 days, while the respective maxima-minima \[$`M_1,m_1`$\] PDF has the appearance of an exponential one, although the scarcity of data does not allow us to make this statement rigorous.

We also checked the frequency of appearance of combinations of positive and negative increments of the MAs. Let a positive increment be marked by 1 and a negative increment be marked by -1. Then we test the frequency of occurrence of time intervals between two consecutive triplets (1 1 -1) and between two consecutive triplets (-1-1 1) for the two MAs of interest. These data are shown in Fig. 9 for the weekly and monthly MA and the entire 22-year period. The increment of the histogram is 1 day. The weekly MA $`y_{week}`$ has a maximum of \[(1 1 -1),(1 1 -1)\] time interval at 9 days. The maximum of the \[(-1-1 1),(-1-1 1)\] interval for $`y_{week}`$ is at 8 days with very low probability of occurrence at 4 days time interval. The maxima for \[(1 1 -1),(1 1 -1)\] is at 5 days and for \[(-1-1 1),(-1-1 1)\] at 3 days for the monthly MA $`y_{month}`$, while it is very unlikely that (1 1 -1) will be followed by (1 1 -1) after 21 days. There are also many time intervals that have zero probability to occur for \[(-1-1 1),(-1-1 1)\]. They are 20, 21, 30, 36, 39, 48, 50, 51, 53, 56, 61 days, to mention some of them.

## 6 Conclusion

We presented a set of quantitative measures of two MAs of the S&P500 daily closing price signal and of their relative position to one another. Since different MAs represent the trend of the signal looked upon from different investment horizons, the measures of their relative geometry provide information on the change of the trend of the signal. The distribution of the time interval between $`DD,GG,DG`$ and $`GD`$ crosses, together with that of the maxima and minima in the MA, and the distribution of the angle between the two MAs at the crosses can serve as ingredients for an investment strategy that enriches the classical technical analysis with parameters of the dynamics of the signal trend, i.e. of the momentum of S&P500 closing price. We emphasize, that these conclusions should not be taken as an endorsement of chartist strategies or technical analysis in general. Whether it is possible to base a successful trading strategy on the rather subtle patterns observed here remains to be seen and has not been addressed in this paper.

Acknowledgements We thank Dr. M. Ausloos for critical comments and suggestions on this work.


text:
# Nuclear modification of heavy quark fragmentation function and 𝐽/𝜓 production in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions

## Abstract

In ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, charm quark fragmentation is modified due to the melting of strings inside the high density partonic matter. $`D`$ mesons produced in hadronization can further produce $`J/\psi `$ particles. Using a multiphase transport model, we investigate the effect on the rapidity distribution of the produced $`J/\psi `$ particles with two different charm quark fragmentation functions. It is shown that the $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distribution is sensitive to the nuclear modification of charm quark fragmentation and thus is a good indicator of the onset of string melting and the production of deconfined partonic matter.

One interesting topic in strong interaction physics that has attracted much attention is the study of the phase transition between hot and dense hadronic matter and the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) . The QGP is believed to have existed in the early universe. It may also exist in the cores of neutron stars. Knowledge about the QGP phase transition is critical to the understanding of strong interaction physics and several other processes in cosmology and astrophysics. Several accelerators have been built and many experimental observables have been proposed for the search of the QGP . $`J/\psi `$ production is one of the most promising probes for the formation of the QGP . In this Letter, we demonstrate that due to the melting of strings inside a QGP, the heavy quark fragmentation function is modified. This modification is reflected clearly in the $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distribution. The measurement of the latter thus can be used to study the onset of string melting and the production of the QGP.

In relativistic nuclear collisions, the charm quark distributions can be calculated from perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD). After the parton evolution, these charm quarks are converted into $`D`$ mesons. The $`D`$ meson distributions are determined by the charm quark distributions and the fragmentation function. In hadron induced reactions, charm quark fragmentation can be described by the delta function fragmentation function ,

$$D_c^D(z)=\delta (z1).$$
(1)
Charm quark fragmentation in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation can be well described by the Peterson fragmentation function ,

$$D_c^D(z)=\frac{N}{z(11/zϵ_c/(1z))^2}.$$
(2)
In the above equations, $`z`$ is the fractional momentum of the $`D`$ meson relative to the charm quark. $`N`$ is a normalization factor, and $`ϵ_c(m_q/m_c)^2`$. An explanation of the observed harder $`D`$ meson distribution in hadron induced interactions is provided by the Lund fragmentation model. In the Lund model  based event generator, PYTHIA , the charm quark is always at the end of a string and can be pulled by the faster valence particles to acquire a harder distribution.

In nuclear collisions, two scenarios can happen. In scenario 1, the produced charm ($`c`$) and anticharm ($`\overline{c}`$) quarks are pulled by the strings of the receding nuclei. These strings break up after being stretched. A $`c`$ quark then combines with a light antiquark ($`\overline{q}`$) to form a $`D`$ meson. A similar process happens for the formation of the $`\overline{D}`$ meson (Figure 1). In scenario 2, the $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ quarks are produced together with many gluons ($`g`$). The interactions between the charm quarks and the receding nuclei are screened, and the strings between them melt . At a later time, gluons fragment into quark-antiquark pairs, while other quark-antiquark pairs are also produced by the wounded nucleons. A $`D`$ meson can be formed by the combination of a charm quark and a light antiquark (Figure 2).

These two scenarios can lead to very different rapidity distributions for the produced $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ mesons. In scenario 1, the charm quarks are pulled by the faster receding hadrons. The rapidity distribution will be harder and wider compared with that of scenario 2 in which the strings that pull the charm quarks are absent. In the second scenario, the charm quarks are also slowed down by other quarks, and the rapidity distribution will be softer and narrower. Charm quark fragmentation in scenario 1 can be modeled by the delta function fragmentation while that in scenario 2 can be modeled by the Peterson fragmentation function.

In ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions, the initial stage is dominated by minijet gluons. In particular, for Au+Au collisions at $`200A`$ GeV, the pQCD calculated gluon rapidity density is about $`300`$ at midrapidity . For comparison, the charm and anticharm rapidity density is about $`3`$ . In other words, these charm and anticharm quarks are immersed in a “sea” of hot gluons. Unlike for nuclear collisions at lower energies, or hadron-hadron collisions, the large amount of gluons modify the interactions between the charm quarks and the valence quarks. The strings between them melt when the gluon density is high. Several calculations have demonstrated the possibility of string melting at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) energies . The melting of strings then leads to the absence of the pulling force that is responsible for the harder $`D`$ meson distribution observed in hadron induced reactions. This modification of the fragmentation function of charm quarks therefore reflects the production mechanism of the parton matter in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions.

We propose to use the $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distribution as a measure of this modification. $`J/\psi `$ production is affected by several factors. Due to color screening inside the QGP, $`J/\psi `$ particles are dissociated above a certain temperature. A $`J/\psi `$ can be produced by the collision of a $`c`$ quark and a $`\overline{c}`$ quark when the temperature is below the dissociation temperature. In the parton phase, a $`J/\psi `$ can be destroyed by its collision with a minijet gluon. Similar processes can occur in the hadron phase. A $`J/\psi `$ can be produced by the collision of a $`D`$ meson and a $`\overline{D}`$ meson. It can be dissociated by the collision with a meson that is made of light quarks. The above $`J/\psi `$ production from final state hadronic interactions relates the $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distribution closely to the $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ meson distributions.

The modification of charm quark fragmentation and its reflection in the $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distribution are studied by using a multiphase transport model . This model is a hybrid model that is made up of several Monte Carlo models. The heavy ion jet interaction generator (HIJING)  is used to simulate the passing of two heavy nuclei and the production of the initial parton system. Zhang’s parton cascade (ZPC)  is then used to study the evolution of this parton system. The conversion of the parton matter into hadron matter when no more parton interactions are available is done using the Lund fragmentation  that is part of the PYTHIA/JETSET Monte Carlo package . A relativistic transport (ART)  model will follow the hadron evolution until freeze-out. The multiphase model incorporates the major channels in different stages. It has been used to study particle production at RHIC energies and can successfully describe the global feature of the newly available RHIC data.

For $`J/\psi `$ production, $`c+\overline{c}J/\psi +g`$ is included in the parton stage and $`D+\overline{D}J/\psi +M`$ is included in the hadron stage. Here $`M`$ is a meson that is composed of one light quark ($`q`$) and one light antiquark ($`\overline{q}`$). In relativistic nuclear collisions, charm quarks are rare particles. To effectively simulate the evolution of charm particles and $`J/\psi `$’s, the perturbative method  is used. In this approach, charm quarks from several independent events are allowed to evolve with a common hadron environment. Since charm quarks are rare particles, their effects on the common hadronic environment are neglected.

We will compare the $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distributions in relativistic nuclear collisions for the two fragmentation scenarios. The multiphase transport model is used to simulate central Au+Au collisions at RHIC at a center of mass energy, $`\sqrt{s}=200A`$ GeV. The PYTHIA model is used to generate the initial charm and anticharm quarks. The charm production cross section per nucleon-nucleon collision is chosen to be 350 $`\mu `$b. The mass of the charm quark is chosen to be 1.50 GeV, and the mass of the $`D`$ mesons is set to be 2.01 GeV. A 3 mb cross section is used for the elastic collisions between gluons and charm quarks and for the $`J/\psi `$ dissociation by gluons and light mesons. The cross sections of the inverse processes are calculated by using the detailed balance relation. These cross sections are consistent with previous pQCD and hadron model calculations .

The rapidity distributions of the $`J/\psi `$ particle, together with those for the charm quarks, $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ mesons are calculated. Figure 3 shows the results for the case in which the delta function fragmentation is used to turn the charm quarks into $`D`$ mesons. It is seen that initial charm quark rapidity distribution has a plateau with a value of about 3.6 around $`y=0`$. After the parton evolution, the final charm quark rapidity distribution is almost the same as the initial distribution. This distribution leads to a $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distribution that also has a plateau with a value of about 0.7/300 around $`y=0`$. The rapidity distribution for the $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ mesons produced from hadronization is similar to the charm and anticharm quark distribution. The value around $`y=0`$ is about 4.3 and remains almost unchanged during the hadron evolution. $`J/\psi `$ particles are produced further in the hadron stage and the final rapidity distribution follows that of the $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ mesons. The final value of $`J/\psi `$ particle around $`y=0`$ is about 1.9/300.

The distributions for the Peterson fragmentation case are shown in Figure 4. The initial, final charm quark distributions and the $`J/\psi `$ distribution after the parton stage are the same as those for the previous case since the parton stage has no information about the hadronization. As expected, the $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ rapidity distribution becomes narrower by about 0.6 units of rapidity and has a high peak with a value about 6.4 at $`y=0`$. Notice that the total number of charm quarks does not change during hadronization. Hence, the area under the rapidity distribution of the charm and anticharm quarks equals that of the $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ mesons. However, the production of $`J/\psi `$ particles is now starting from a $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ rapidity distribution that is different from that of the delta function fragmentation case. This leads to a final $`J/\psi `$ distribution that is also narrower and has a peak in the middle with a value of about 5.6/300 around $`y=0`$.

In conclusion, the production of deconfined matter modifies the fragmentation of the charm and anticharm quarks. In nuclear collisions at lower energies, the string dynamics is important, and the charm fragmentation is similar to that in the hadron collisions. In nuclear collisions at ultrarelativistic energies, the minijet dynamics becomes important, and the charm fragmentation is more like the independent fragmentation in electron-positron collisions. This modification leads to a rapidity distribution of $`J/\psi `$ distinctively different from what is normally expected in hadronic reactions. The $`J/\psi `$ rapidity distribution measurement, in conjunction with information about charmed mesons, can offer valuable insight about the melting of strings and the production of the QGP in relativistic nuclear collisions at RHIC.

This work was supported in part by the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority under Grant No. 01-B-20, and by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0088934. We thank Z.W. Lin for helpful discussions. We also thank the Parallel Distributed System Facility at the National Energy Research Scientific Computer Center for providing computer resources. B.A. Li would like to thank S. Das Gupta and C. Gale for their kind hospitality at McGill University where part of this work was done.