text:
# Properties of charmed and bottom hadrons in nuclear matter: A plausible study

Alberta Thy 11-02

Changes in properties of heavy hadrons with a charm or a bottom quark are studied in nuclear matter. Effective masses (scalar potentials) for the hadrons are calculated using quark-meson coupling model. Our results also suggest that the heavy baryons containing a charm or a bottom quark will form charmed or bottom hypernuclei, which was first predicted in mid 70’s. In addition a possibility of $`B^{}`$-nuclear bound (atomic) states is briefly discussed.
PACS number(s): 24.85, 14.20.L, 14.20.M, 21.65, 11.30.R
Keywords: Charmed and bottom hadrons in nuclear medium, Charmed and bottom hypernuclei, Quark-meson coupling model

Extensive studies with hypernuclei have been carried out over the last 20 years . These involve embedding a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-particle (hyperon), with one (or two) strange quark (quarks) combined with u and (or) d quarks (quark), in finite nuclei and then studying the single particle states, spin-orbit interaction and finally the overall binding of the particle in nuclei with different A, number of ordinary baryons, nucleons, n and p. Such studies have been hindered since there has been no high intensity source of kaon beams that interact with nuclei to produce $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-particles.

Recently theoretical studies have been extended to take account of the quark structure of the baryons . Agreement with sparse experimental data  is impressive. Lately there have been attempts to look for a bound state of 6-quarks, the so-called H particle predicted by Jaffe , with no success . There has been confirmation of a bound state of two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-particles to a finite nucleus (double hypernucleus) . All these experimental and theoretical studies were directed to learn about the hadrons containing strange quarks in a surroundings of nuclear sea made of mainly valence u and d quarks, although probably there are no quark studies for the double hypernucleus up to now, in spite of its importance and recent experimental achievements.

The approved construction of the Japan Hadron Facility (JHF) will be essentially a kaon factory, thus it is expected to produce large fluxes of hyperons that should allow a detailed study of hypernuclei. However, the facility will be much more than a kaon factory. With a beam energy of 50 GeV, it will produce charmed hadrons profusely and bottom hadrons in lesser numbers but still with an intensity that is comparable to the present hyperon production rates. In mid 70’s, a possible formation of the charmed hypernuclei were predicted theoretically . There was an experimental search of the charmed and bottom hypernuclei at the ARES facility , and it was also investigated at the possible $`c\tau `$-factory . It is clear that situation for the experiments to search for such charmed and bottom hypernuclei is now becoming realistic and would be realized at JHF.

This brings us to initiate a careful study of nuclei with charm or bottom quarks. The production of charmonium ($`\overline{c}c`$), mesons with charm, and baryons with charm quarks will be sufficiently large to make it possible to study charmed hypernuclei. Study of such nuclei would initially involve single particle energies, spin-orbit interaction and overall binding energies. Studies with a charm quark and a bottom quark in a many-body system would provide the first opportunity to learn about the behavior of hadrons containing heavy quarks in a sea of valence u and d quarks. Eventually a study of the decay of such hadrons will be a valuable lesson in finding the effect of many-body systems on the intrinsic properties of charmed and bottom hyperons. The advantage of using hadrons with heavy quarks is that they can convey an information at short distance, i.e., that of the very central region of the nucleus from charmed and bottom hypernuclei. Meson nuclear atomic bound states provide useful information about the surface of the nucleus.

The present investigation is devoted to a study of baryons (and mesons) which contain a charm or a bottom quark (will be denoted by $`C`$) in nuclear matter. Although the baryons with a charm or a bottom quark which we wish to study have a typical mean life of the order $`10^{12}`$ seconds (magnitude is shorter than hyperons), we would like to gain an understanding of the movement of such a hadron in its nucleonic environment. This would lead to an effective mass (scalar potential) for the hadron. The light quark in the hadron (and nucleons) would change its property in nuclear medium in a self-consistent manner, and will thus affect the overall interaction with nucleons. With this understanding we will be in a better position to learn about the hadron properties with the presence of heavy quarks, or baryons with heavy quarks in finite nuclei that will be the real ground for these experimental studies.

At JHF, in addition to charmed and bottom hyperons, mesons with open charm (bottom) like $`D^{}(\overline{c}d)`$ ($`B^{}(\overline{u}b)`$) will be produced. Such mesons like $`K^{}(\overline{u}s)`$ can form mesic atoms around finite nuclei. The atomic orbits will be very small and will thus probe the surface of light nuclei and will be within the charge radii for heavier nuclei. Thus at least for light nuclei they will give a precise information about the charge density.

Furthermore, in considering recent experimental situation on high energy heavy ion collisions, to study general properties of heavy hadrons in nuclear medium is useful, because elementary hadronic reactions occur in high nuclear density zone of the collisions, and many hadrons produced there are under effects of a surrounding nuclear medium. Thus, we need to understand the properties of heavy hadrons in nuclear medium. Some such applications were also made for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ dissociation in nuclear matter, and $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ productions in antiproton-nucleus collisions .

At present we need to resort to a model which can describe the properties of finite nuclei as well as hadron properties in nuclear medium based on the quark degrees of freedom. Although some studies for heavy mesons with charm in nuclear matter were made by QCD sum rule for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$  and $`D(\overline{D})`$  there seems to exist no studies for heavy baryons with a charm or a bottom quark. With its simplicity and applicability, we use quark-meson coupling (QMC) model , which has been extended and successfully applied to many problems in nuclear physics  including a detailed study of the properties of hypernuclei , and harmonic properties in nuclear medium . In particular, recent measurements of polarization transfer performed at MAMI and Jlab  support the medium modification of the proton electromagnetic form factors calculated by the QMC model. The final analysis  seems to become more in favor of QMC, although still error bars may be large to draw a definite conclusion. This gives us confidence that such a quark-meson coupling model will provide us with valuable glimpse into the properties of charmed- and bottom-hypernuclei.

We start to consider static, (approximately) spherically symmetric charmed and bottom hypernuclei (closed shell plus one heavy baryon configuration) ignoring small nonspherical effects due to the embedded heavy baryon. We adopt Hartree, mean-field, approximation. In this approximation, $`\rho NN`$ tensor coupling gives a spin-orbit force for a nucleon bound in a static spherical nucleus, although in Hartree-Fock it can give a central force which contributes to the bulk symmetry energy . Furthermore, it gives no contribution for nuclear matter since the meson fields are independent of position and time. Thus, we ignore the $`\rho NN`$ tensor coupling as usually adopted in the Hartree treatment of quantum hadrodynamics (QHD) .

Using the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, mean-field equations of motion are derived for a charmed (bottom) hypernucleus in which the quasi-particles moving in single-particle orbits are three-quark clusters with the quantum numbers of a charmed (bottom) baryon or a nucleon. Then a relativistic Lagrangian density at the hadronic level  can be constructed, similar to that obtained in QHD , which produces the same equations of motion when expanded to the same order in velocity:

$`_{QMC}^{CHY}`$ $`=`$ $`_{QMC}+_{QMC}^C,`$
$`_{QMC}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_N(\stackrel{}{r})\left[i\gamma M_N^{}(\sigma )(g_\omega \omega (\stackrel{}{r})+g_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\tau _3^N}{2}}b(\stackrel{}{r})+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}(1+\tau _3^N)A(\stackrel{}{r}))\gamma _0\right]\psi _N(\stackrel{}{r})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}))^2+m_\sigma ^2\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\omega (\stackrel{}{r}))^2+m_\omega ^2\omega (\stackrel{}{r})^2]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(b(\stackrel{}{r}))^2+m_\rho ^2b(\stackrel{}{r})^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A(\stackrel{}{r}))^2,`$
$`_{QMC}^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{C=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c,\mathrm{\Sigma }_c,\mathrm{\Xi }_c,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{}}\overline{\psi }_C(\stackrel{}{r})\left[i\gamma M_C^{}(\sigma )(g_\omega ^C\omega (\stackrel{}{r})+g_\rho ^CI_3^Cb(\stackrel{}{r})+eQ_CA(\stackrel{}{r}))\gamma _0\right]\psi _C(\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (1)
where $`\psi _N(\stackrel{}{r})`$ ($`\psi _C(\stackrel{}{r})`$) and $`b(\stackrel{}{r})`$ are respectively the nucleon (charmed and bottom baryon) and the $`\rho `$ meson (the time component in the third direction of isospin) fields, while $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\omega `$ and $`m_\rho `$ are the masses of the $`\sigma `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ meson fields. $`g_\omega `$ and $`g_\rho `$ are the $`\omega `$-$`N`$ and $`\rho `$-$`N`$ coupling constants which are related to the corresponding (u,d)-quark-$`\omega `$, $`g_\omega ^q`$, and (u,d)-quark-$`\rho `$, $`g_\rho ^q`$, coupling constants as $`g_\omega =3g_\omega ^q`$ and $`g_\rho =g_\rho ^q`$ . (See also Eqs.(6) and (9).) Note that in usual QMC (QMC-I) the meson fields appearing in Eq. (1) represent the quantum numbers and Lorentz structure as those used in QHD , corresponding, $`\sigma \varphi _0`$, $`\omega V_0`$ and $`bb_0`$, and they are not directly connected with the physical particles, nor quark model states. Their masses in nuclear medium do not vary in the present treatment. For the other version of QMC (QMC-II), where masses of the meson fields are also subject to the medium modification in a self-consistent manner, see Ref. . However, for a proper parameter set (set B) the typical results obtained in QMC-II are very similar to those of QMC-I. The difference is $`16`$ % for the largest case, but typically $`10`$ % or less. (For the effective masses of the hyperons, it is less than $`8`$ %.)

In an approximation where the $`\sigma `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ fields couple only to the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, the coupling constants in the charmed (bottom) baryon are obtained as $`g_\omega ^C=(n_q/3)g_\omega `$, and $`g_\rho ^C=g_\rho =g_\rho ^q`$, with $`n_q`$ being the total number of valence $`u`$ and $`d`$ (light) quarks in the baryon $`C`$. $`I_3^C`$ and $`Q_C`$ are the third component of the baryon isospin operator and its electric charge in units of the proton charge, $`e`$, respectively. The field dependent $`\sigma `$-$`N`$ and $`\sigma `$-$`C`$ coupling strengths predicted by the QMC model, $`g_\sigma (\sigma )`$ and $`g_\sigma ^C(\sigma )`$, related to the Lagrangian density, Eq. (1), at the hadronic level are defined by:

$`M_N^{}(\sigma )`$ $``$ $`M_Ng_\sigma (\sigma )\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (2)
$`M_C^{}(\sigma )`$ $``$ $`M_Cg_\sigma ^C(\sigma )\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (3)
where $`M_N`$ ($`M_C`$) is the free nucleon (charmed and bottom baryon) mass (masses). Note that the dependence of these coupling strengths on the applied scalar field must be calculated self-consistently within the quark model . Hence, unlike QHD , even though $`g_\sigma ^C(\sigma )/g_\sigma (\sigma )`$ may be 2/3 or 1/3 depending on the number of light quarks in the baryon in free space ($`\sigma =0`$)111Strictly, this is true only when the bag radii of nucleon and heavy baryon $`C`$ are exactly the same in the present model. See Eq. (12), below., this will not necessarily be the case in nuclear matter.

In the following, we consider the system in the limit of infinitely large, uniform (symmetric) nuclear matter, where all scalar and vector fields become constants. Furthermore, under this limit, we may also treat a hadron $`h`$ embedded in the nuclear matter system, in the same way as that for the charmed (bottom) baryon. (A Lagrangian density for a meson-nuclear system can be also written in a similar way to that of the charmed (bottom) hypernuclei system, if $`_{QMC}^C`$ is replaced by the corresponding meson Lagrangian density in Eq.(1).)

Then, the Dirac equations for the quarks and antiquarks in nuclear matter, in bags of hadrons, $`h`$, ($`q=u`$ or $`d`$, and $`Q=s,c`$ or $`b`$, hereafter) neglecting the Coulomb force in nuclear matter, are given by ($`|𝒙|`$ bag radius) :

$`\left[i\gamma _x(m_qV_\sigma ^q)\gamma ^0\left(V_\omega ^q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_\rho ^q\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _u(x)\\ \psi _{\overline{u}}(x)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
$`\left[i\gamma _x(m_qV_\sigma ^q)\gamma ^0\left(V_\omega ^q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_\rho ^q\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _d(x)\\ \psi _{\overline{d}}(x)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
$`\left[i\gamma _xm_Q\right]\psi _Q(x)(\mathrm{or}\psi _{\overline{Q}}(x))`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (10)
The (constant) mean-field potentials for a bag in nuclear matter are defined by $`V_\sigma ^qg_\sigma ^q\sigma `$, $`V_\omega ^qg_\omega ^q\omega `$ and $`V_\rho ^qg_\rho ^qb`$, with $`g_\sigma ^q`$, $`g_\omega ^q`$ and $`g_\rho ^q`$ the corresponding quark-meson coupling constants.

The normalized, static solution for the ground state quarks or antiquarks with flavor $`f`$ in the hadron, $`h`$, may be written, $`\psi _f(x)=N_fe^{iϵ_ft/R_h^{}}\psi _f(𝒙)`$, where $`N_f`$ and $`\psi _f(𝒙)`$ are the normalization factor and corresponding spin and spatial part of the wave function. The bag radius in medium for a hadron $`h`$, $`R_h^{}`$, will be determined through the stability condition for the mass of the hadron against the variation of the bag radius  (see Eq. (12)).

The eigenenergies in units of $`1/R_h^{}`$ are given by,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ_u\\ ϵ_{\overline{u}}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }_q^{}\pm R_h^{}\left(V_\omega ^q+\frac{1}{2}V_\rho ^q\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ_d\\ ϵ_{\overline{d}}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }_q^{}\pm R_h^{}\left(V_\omega ^q\frac{1}{2}V_\rho ^q\right),ϵ_Q=ϵ_{\overline{Q}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_Q.$$
(11)
The hadron masses in a nuclear medium $`m_h^{}`$ (free mass will be denoted by $`m_h`$), are calculated by

$`m_h^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=q,\overline{q},Q,\overline{Q}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_j\mathrm{\Omega }_j^{}z_h}{R_h^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi R_h^3B,{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^{}}{R_h}}|_{R_h=R_h^{}}=0,`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{q}}^{}=[x_q^2+(R_h^{}m_q^{})^2]^{1/2}(q=u,d)`$, with $`m_q^{}=m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{Q}}^{}=[x_Q^2+(R_h^{}m_Q)^2]^{1/2}(Q=s,c,b)`$, and $`x_{q,Q}`$ being the bag eigenfrequencies. $`B`$ is the bag constant, $`n_q(n_{\overline{q}})`$ and $`n_Q(n_{\overline{Q}})`$ are the lowest mode quark (antiquark) numbers for the quark flavors $`q`$ and $`Q`$ in the hadron $`h`$, respectively, and the $`z_h`$ parametrize the sum of the center-of-mass and gluon fluctuation effects and are assumed to be independent of density. Concerning the sign of $`m_q^{}`$ in nuclear medium, it reflects nothing but the strength of the attractive scalar potential as in Eqs. (6) and (9), and thus naive interpretation of the mass for a (physical) particle, which is positive, should not be applied. The parameters are determined to reproduce the corresponding masses in free space. We chose the values, $`(m_q,m_s,m_c,m_b)=(5,250,1300,4200)`$ MeV for the current quark masses, and $`R_N=0.8`$ fm for the bag radius of the nucleon in free space. The quark-meson coupling constants, $`g_\sigma ^q`$, $`g_\omega ^q`$ and $`g_\rho ^q`$, are adjusted to fit the nuclear saturation energy and density of symmetric nuclear matter, and the bulk symmetry energy . Exactly the same coupling constants, $`g_\sigma ^q`$, $`g_\omega ^q`$ and $`g_\rho ^q`$, are used for the light quarks in the mesons and baryons as in the nucleon.

However, in studies of the kaon system, we found that it was phenomenologically necessary to increase the strength of the vector coupling to the non-strange quarks in the $`K^+`$ (by a factor of $`1.4^2`$, i.e., $`g_{K\omega }^q1.4^2g_\omega ^q`$) in order to reproduce the empirically extracted $`K^+`$-nucleus interaction . This may be related to the fact that kaon is a pseudo-Goldstone boson, where treatment of the Goldstone bosons in a naive quark model is usually unsatisfactory. We assume this, $`g_\omega ^q1.4^2g_\omega ^q`$, also for the $`D`$, $`\overline{D}`$ , $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ mesons to allow an upper limit situation. The scalar ($`V_s^h`$) and vector ($`V_v^h`$) potentials felt by the hadrons $`h`$, in nuclear matter are given by,

$`V_s^h`$ $`=`$ $`m_h^{}m_h,`$ (13)
$`V_v^h`$ $`=`$ $`(n_qn_{\overline{q}})V_\omega ^q+I_3^hV_\rho ^q,(V_\omega ^q1.4^2V_\omega ^q\mathrm{for}K,\overline{K},D,\overline{D},B,\overline{B}),`$ (14)
where $`I_3^h`$ is the third component of isospin projection of the hadron $`h`$. Thus, the vector potential felt by a heavy baryon with a charm or bottom quark, is equal to that of the hyperon with the same light quark configuration in QMC.

In Figs. 1 and 2 we show ratios of effective masses (free masses + scalar potentials) versus those of the free particles, for mesons and baryons, respectively. With increasing density the ratios decrease as usually expected, but decrease in magnitude is from larger to smaller: hadrons with only light quarks, with one strange quark, with one charm quark, and with one bottom quark. This is because their masses in free space are in the order from light to heavy. Thus, the net ratios for the decrease in masses (developing of scalar masses) compared to that of the free masses becomes smaller. This may be regarded as a measure of the role of light quarks in each hadron system in nuclear matter, in a sense that by how much ratio do they lead to a partial restoration of the chiral symmetry in the hadron. In Fig. 1, one can notice somewhat anomalous behavior of the ratio for the kaon ($`K`$). This is related to what we meant by the pseudo-Goldstone boson nature, i.e., its mass in free space is relatively light, $`m_K495`$ MeV, and the ratio for the reduction in mass in nuclear medium is large.

Perhaps it is much more quantitative and direct to compare scalar potentials of each hadron in the nuclear matter. Calculated results are shown in Fig. 3. From the results it is confirmed that the scalar potential felt by the hadron $`h`$, $`V_s^h`$, follows a simple light quark number scaling rule:

$$V_s^h\frac{n_q+n_{\overline{q}}}{3}V_s^N,$$
(15)
where $`n_q`$ ($`n_{\overline{q}}`$) is the number of light quarks (antiquarks) in the hadron $`h`$, and $`V_s^N`$ is the scalar potential felt by the nucleon. (See Eq.(13).) It is interesting to notice that, the baryons with a charm and a bottom quark ($`\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$ is a quark configuration, $`qsc`$), shows very similar features to those of hyperons with one or two strange quarks. Then, we can expect that these heavy baryons with a charm or a bottom quark, will also form charmed (bottom) hypernuclei, as the hyperons with strangeness do. (Recall that the repulsive, vector potentials are the same for the corresponding hyperons with the same light quark configurations.) Thus, an experimental investigation of such hypernuclei would be a fruitful venture at JHF.

In addition, $`B^{}`$ meson will also certainly form meson-nuclear bound states, because $`B^{}`$ meson is $`\overline{u}b`$ and feels a strong attractive vector potential in addition to the attractive Coulomb force. This makes it much easier to be bound in a nucleus compared to the $`D^0`$ , which is $`c\overline{u}`$ and is blind to the Coulomb force. This reminds us of a situation of the kaonic ($`K^{}(\overline{u}s)`$) atom . A study of $`B^{}(\overline{u}b)`$ atoms would be a fruitful experimental program. Such atoms will have the meson much closer to the nucleus and will thus probe even smaller changes in the nuclear density. This will be a complementary information to the $`D^{}(\overline{c}d)`$-nuclear bound states, which would provide us an information on the vector potential in a nucleus .

To summarize, we have studied for the first time the properties of heavy baryons (hadrons) which contain a charm or a bottom quark in nuclear matter. Our results suggest that those heavy baryons will form charmed or bottom hypernuclei as was predicted in mid 70’s. We plan to report results for the charmed and bottom hypernuclei studied quantitatively, by solving a system equations for finite nuclei embedding a baryon with a charm or a bottom quark . In addition we can expect also $`B^{}`$-nuclear bound (atomic) states based on the existing studies for the $`D^0`$ and kaonic atom. Furthermore, formation of $`B^{}`$-atoms would provide precise information on the nuclear density, which would be a complementary to that of the $`D^{}`$-nuclear bound states.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Prof. A.W. Thomas for the hospitality at the CSSM, Adelaide, where this work was initiated. K.T. acknowledges support and warm hospitality at University of Alberta, where this work was completed. K.T. is supported by the Forschungszentrum-Jülich, contract No. 41445282 (COSY-058). The work of F.K. is supported by NSERCC.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we introduce an eikonal Monte Carlo model which simulates hadron-hadron collisions in which a “hard” parton-parton scattering has occurred. In hard events, described by perturbative QCD, the outgoing particles with large transverse momentum form jets. These are clusters of outgoing hadrons produced approximately in the direction of the two outgoing partons of the hard parton-parton scattering. Jet physics plays an essential role as a test of perturbative QCD and in determining the parameters of the Standard Model. It will be important for future detection of new particles and might help shed light on the nature the Pomeron.

If we are to find some new physics at future (or current colliders) or test the known physics (such as perturbative QCD), we will need to give an accurate description of the already known physical process which would then be considered as a background to the new physics.

The underlying event, in hard interactions, is defined to be all the additional interactions that are not part of the hard scattering. Thus the underlying event may contain particles from proton-antiproton, remnant-remnant interactions and hard multiparton interactions, if such interactions do occur.

At present, our understanding of underlying event physics is not sufficient to match the precision of experimental measurements, so to fully exploit current and future data we need to improve that understanding.

To this end the CDF collaboration recently measured the activity of the underlying event in proton-antiproton hard scattering . They found that its activity is considerably larger than in soft collisions and that none of the QCD Monte-Carlo models describe correctly all the properties of the underlying event (however the best results were obtained with Pythia ).

Our goal is to introduce a simple eikonal Monte Carlo model, with a small number of parameters, and compare it to the measured data from the CDF collaboration . In Sec.2 and Sec.3 we present the overall theoretical framework of the model and give a description of the hard part, in Sec.4 we present our assumptions behind the soft subprocess and its implementation within the HERWIG Monte Carlo package and in Sec.5 we compare our theoretical results with those from the CDF experiment  and two other underlying event models, the HERWIG underlying event model  and the Hard Multiparton model .

## 2 Optical theorem and impact parameter representation

In this section we will review some well known expressions for cross sections within the eikonal approximation, which we will use as the basic framework for our model.

For two incoming particles $`A,B`$ and two outgoing particles $`C,D`$ we write their four-momenta as $`p_A,p_B,p_C,p_D`$ and define the invariant Mandelstam variables $`s`$ and $`t`$ as:

$$s=(p_A+p_B)^2,t=(p_Ap_C)^2.$$
(1)
The optical theorem relates the imaginary part of the elastic scattering amplitude $`A(s,t=0)`$ to the total cross section $`\sigma _{tot}`$ through a unitarity relation :

$$\sigma _{tot}=\frac{1}{s}Im(A(s,t=0)).$$
(2)
Neglecting effects that depend on the spin of the scattering particles we can express the scattering amplitude as the Fourier transform of the elastic scattering amplitude in impact parameter $`a(𝐛,s)`$ ($`𝐛`$ being the impact parameter and $`𝐪`$ being the transverse component of momentum transfer in the CMS) as :

$$A(s,t)=4\pi s𝑑b^2a(𝐛,s)e^{i𝐪.𝐛}.$$
(3)
Using the optical theorem (2) we can express the cross sections as:

$$\sigma _{tot}=4\pi 𝑑b^2Im(a(𝐛,s)),$$
(4)
$$\sigma _{ela}=4\pi 𝑑b^2|a(𝐛,s)|^2,$$
(5)
$$\sigma _{inel}=\sigma _{tot}\sigma _{ela}.$$
(6)
We express the elastic amplitude in terms of the eikonal function, $`\chi (b,s)`$, as :

$$a(𝐛,s)=\frac{e^{\chi (𝐛,s)}1}{2i}.$$
(7)
With the eikonal expression (7) we can write the cross sections as :

$$\sigma _{tot}=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑b^2[1e^{\chi (b,s)}],$$
(8)
$$\sigma _{ela}=\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑b^2\left|[1e^{\chi (b,s)}]\right|^2,$$
(9)
$$\sigma _{inel}=\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑b^2[1e^{2\chi (b,s)}].$$
(10)
We choose the total cross section in (8) as the main parameter of our model. In the next section we will specify the expression for $`\chi (b,s)`$.

## 3 Expression for the eikonal

In the following section, we will give an expression for the eikonal $`\chi (b,s)`$ in (8) and provide some justification for its expression.

### 3.1 The hard part of the eikonal

We start by assuming that at high center of mass energy ($`\sqrt{s}`$ $`>`$ 100 GeV), the main hard scattering is accompanied by semihard interactions, which arise as a result of hard multiple parton scattering in which each parton carries a very small fraction of its parent hadron’s momentum. Multiparton interactions lead to the appearance of minijets, i.e. jets with transverse energy much smaller than the total energy ($`\sqrt{s}`$) available in the hadron-hadron collision. Multiparton interactions will then drive the rise of the inclusive jet cross section at high energies depending on the small-$`x`$ behaviour of the parton distribution or, to a good approximation, that of the dominant gluon distribution.

In refs.\[ , , , \] it was shown that the average number of secondary hard scatters in an event can be deduced from the QCD improved parton model. For our hard multiple-interactions we follow the model presented in  where the average number of secondary hard scatters $`n(b,s_{p\overline{p}})`$ is given by :

$$n(b,s_{p\overline{p}})=A(b)\sigma _H^{\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑐}}(s_{p\overline{p}}),$$
(11)
where the profile function $`A(b)`$ specifies the overlap of partons in the two hadrons in impact parameter. It can be written as a convolution of form factor distributions of two incoming hadrons,

$$A(b)=d^2\text{b’}G_p(\text{b’})G_{\overline{p}}(\text{b}\text{b’}),$$
(12)
for which we take

$$G_p(\text{b})=G_{\overline{p}}(\text{b})=\frac{d^2\text{k}}{(2\pi )}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\text{}\text{ b})}{(1+\text{k}^2/\mu ^2)^2},$$
(13)
with $`\mu ^2=0.71`$ GeV2. The integral then yields :

$$A(b)=\frac{\mu ^2}{96\pi }(\mu b)^3K_3(\mu b),$$
(14)
with $`K_i(x)`$ the modified Bessel function. The overlap function $`A(b)`$ satisfies

$$\pi 𝑑b^2A(b)=1.$$
(15)
The cross section appearing in (11), $`\sigma _H^{\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑐}}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$, is the inclusive cross section for $`\overline{p}p`$$``$ jets with $`p_t`$$`>`$$`p_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛}}`$ :

$`\sigma _H^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{p_{tmin}^2}^{s_{p\overline{p}}/4}}𝑑p_t^2{\displaystyle _{4p_t^2/s_{p\overline{p}}}^1}𝑑x_p{\displaystyle _{4p_t^2/x_ps_{p\overline{p}}}^1}𝑑x_{\overline{p}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}f_i(x_p,p_t^2)f_j(x_{\overline{p}},p_t^2)`$ (16)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma _{ij}}(x_px_{\overline{p}}s_{p\overline{p}},p_t)}{dp_t^2}}.`$
It is assumed, (as in ref.\[,\]) that secondary hard scatters are independent of each other so that the probability for the number of hard scatters $`h`$, in a $`p\overline{p}`$ collision at a given value of impact parameter, is given by the Poissonian probability distribution,

$$P_h=\frac{(n(b,s_{p\overline{p}}))^h}{h!}\mathrm{exp}(n(b,s_{p\overline{p}})).$$
(17)
The inelastic hard cross section for $`p\overline{p}`$$``$partons with $`p_t`$$`>`$$`p_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛}}`$ can be written as :

$`\sigma _H(s_{p\overline{p}})`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑b^2\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_h}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑b^2[1\mathrm{exp}(n(b,s_{p\overline{p}}))]}.`$
The hard multiparton part  of the model was already implemented as part of the HERWIG Monte Carlo program . Here we give a brief summary.

Event simulation starts with HERWIG generating a hard subprocess according to the leading order cross section. Both incoming and outgoing partons involved in the hard subprocess (at some hard scale $`Q`$) are evolved (backward for the incoming parton) through a coherent parton shower algorithm until they reach a typical hadronic scale, $`Q_h`$ $``$ 1GeV. The coherent parton shower algorithm  resums to all orders both single logarithmic terms associated with the collinear emission (through implementation of the DGLAP splitting function) and single and double logarithmic terms associated with soft emissions. All the successive partons emitted in the parton shower are colour connected in such a way that partons carrying colour(anticolour) tend to end up close in momentum and real-space to their anticolour(colour) partners. Once the evolved partons have reached a hadronisation scale $`Q_h`$, clusters of partons are formed where each colour connected pair of partons forms a single colourless cluster. Each cluster is then decayed into hadrons according to phase space arguments . Once the main hard subprocess has been simulated, energy-momentum conservation is used to calculate the momentum of the remaining diquark(antidiquark) or proton(antiproton) remnant. Each diquark carries opposite colour to that of the parton involved in the hard subrocess. After the first hard scattering has been completed a number of secondary hard subprocess are simulated where each coloured remnant from the previous interaction is labeled as the new incoming hadron from which the quark valence distribution functions have been removed.

Comparing the eikonal expression in (10) with the cross section in (18), we define the hard part of the eikonal as :

$$\chi _{QCD}(b,s)=\frac{1}{2}n(b,s_{p\overline{p}}).$$
(19)
The QCD perturbative 2-to-2 parton-parton differential cross section diverges as the transverse momentum of the scattering, $`p_t`$, goes to zero. One must then fix a minimum value $`p_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛}}`$ for $`p_t`$ large enough so that the resulting cross section is not larger than the total inelastic non-diffractive cross section and also large enough for perturbative QCD to be reliable. This dependence of the perturbative QCD differential cross section implies that the eikonalised inelastic hard cross section would also depend on the arbitrary value chosen for the minimum $`p_t`$.

### 3.2 The expression for $`\chi _{total}(b,s)`$

Our goal is to formulate a model which will be to a certain degree independent of $`p_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛}}`$ cutoff. To this end, to $`\chi _{QCD}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})`$ which describes hard interactions with $`p_t`$$``$$`p_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛}}`$, we will add $`\chi _{soft}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})`$, which will describe interactions with 0 $``$ $`p_t`$$``$$`p_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛}}`$. The full eikonal can now be expressed as :

$$\chi _{total}(b,s)=\chi _{QCD}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})+\chi _{soft}(b,s_{p\overline{p}}).$$
(20)
To specify $`\chi _{soft}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})`$ we will use a model introduced by Chou and Yang  and Durand and Pi , which postulates that the elastic scattering is the shadow of the absorption resulting from the passage of one hadronic mass distribution through another. The transverse distribution of the matter is assumed then to have the same shape as the charge distribution, as measured by the electromagnetic form factor, so that $`\chi _{soft}(b,s)`$ is of the form:

$$\chi _{soft}=C(s_{p\overline{p}})A(b),$$
(21)
where $`C(s_{p\overline{p}})`$ is a constant to be determined below and $`A(b)`$ is given in (13).

The eikonal now consists of two parts, the hard,

$$\chi _{QCD}=\frac{1}{2}\sigma _H^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})A(b),$$
(22)
and the soft,

$$\chi _{soft}=\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})A(b).$$
(23)
If we now consider the total cross section (8) with $`\chi (b,s)`$=$`\chi _{total}(b,s)`$ and assume $`\chi _{total}(b,s)`$ to be small, we can expand the exponential in (8). Integrating over the impact parameter $`b`$ we get:

$$\sigma _{total}(s_{p\overline{p}})\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})+\sigma _H^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})$$
(24)
Following this approximation we will assume that our $`\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$ is a bare non-perturbative cross section for soft proton-antiproton interaction. Since $`\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$, the bare soft cross section in (23), is not directly calculable in our model, its value can be determined from the experimental data, i.e. by using the total cross section measured by the CDF collaboration .

To give a prediction for future LHC data we will rely on the Donnachie-Landshoff model of the Pomeron  which fits successfully all the experimental data on total cross section for proton-proton scattering,

$$\sigma _{tot}(s_{pp})=\sigma _{tot}(s_0)\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _p(0)1},$$
(25)
where $`\alpha _p(t)=1+ϵ+\alpha _p^{^{}}t`$ with $`ϵ=0.08`$ and $`\alpha _p^{^{}}=0.25`$ GeV-2. Assuming $`\sigma _{tot}(s_{pp})`$ = $`\sigma _{tot}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$ at high energy, the total cross section at the LHC can then be written as

$$\sigma _{tot}(s_{pp})=\sigma _{tot}(s_{CDF})\left(\frac{\sqrt{s_{pp}}}{1800}\right)^{2\times 0.08}.$$
(26)
We consider the value of the total cross section as the only phenomenological input to our model (in addition to those that are already in HERWIG and the multiparton hard model , which we leave at their default values).

In addition the model contains the following assumptions :

$``$ there can be more than one soft interaction in a soft proton-antiproton interaction.

$``$ the probability distribution for having $`m`$ and only $`m`$ soft scatters in a given proton-antiproton interaction $`P_m`$ obeys the Poissonian distribution (i.e. multiple soft scatters are uncorrelated),

$$P_m=\frac{(2\chi _{soft})^m}{m!}\mathrm{exp}(2\chi _{soft}).$$
(27)
$``$ the hard and soft scatters are assumed to be independent i.e the probability distribution for having $`h`$ hard, and $`m`$ soft, scatters is given by $`P_{h,m}`$:

$$P_{h,m}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})=\frac{(2\chi _{QCD})^h}{h!}\frac{(2\chi _{soft})^m}{m!}\mathrm{exp}(2\chi _{total}).$$
(28)
We can now express cross sections as:

$$\sigma _{inel}(s_{p\overline{p}})=\pi 𝑑b^2\underset{h+m1}{}P_{h,m}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})=\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑b^2(1e^{2\chi _{total}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})}),$$
(29)
the inelastic cross section with at least one hard scattering:

$$\sigma _{h,inel}(s_{p\overline{p}})=\pi 𝑑b^2\underset{h1,m0}{}P_{h,m}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})=\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑b^2(1e^{2\chi _{QCD}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})}),$$
(30)
and the total cross section:

$$\sigma _{tot}(s_{p\overline{p}})=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑b^2(1e^{\chi _{total}(b,s_{p\overline{p}})}).$$
(31)
The $`\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$ in (23) is then determined by fixing its value so that the the total cross section (31), at some $`p_{tmin}`$, is equal to the total cross section measured by the CDF collaboration ($`\sigma _{totalCDF}`$ = 81.8$`\pm `$2.3mb) (see Sec.5 for different values of $`\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$ and $`p_{tmin}`$ used).

In order to have a realistic Monte Carlo event generator we have implemented our eikonal model as part of the HERWIG Monte Carlo program  with the full use of its hadronisation model and parton showering properties.

## 4 The Monte Carlo implementation of hard and soft processes

In the following sections we will describe soft processes in detail. The hard processes are as in  (see Sec.3). Before we start with the simulation of an event we need to fix $`\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$, the bare soft cross section (as explained in Sec.3). Then by drawing from the probability distribution (28) we decide the number of soft and hard interactions in a given event. The event simulation can then start with HERWIG generating a hard subprocess followed by multiparton ones (see Sec.3). Once the multiple hard scatters have been exhausted the soft multiple scatters are generated.

### 4.1 Assumptions behind the soft subprocess

At high $`s_{p\overline{p}}`$ (center of mass energy) and low $`Q`$ scale of interaction, i.e low-$`x`$, we might expect a proliferation of soft gluons. In order to simulate each soft subprocess we assume that the bare soft cross section $`\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$, corresponds to a soft interaction between two incoming soft gluons. That is, we model the soft inelastic collision between two remnants as a soft elastic collision between two partons within them (see fig.1).

All soft gluons carry a colour charge and have an effective mass $`m_g`$ (inspired by HERWIG’s model of the hadronisation of the outgoing gluons). The two outgoing effective gluons in fig.1 are on mass shell and colour connected to the remnants and to each other, as shown in fig.1, each gluon colour(anticolour) is connected to its anticolour(colour) partner.

Because we wanted to keep the implementation of our model as simple as possible we have decided to sever the colour connections between the remnants and the outgoing soft gluons (see fig.2, dashed solid lines show severed colour connections). We expect this to be a reasonable approximation since the largest part of the phase space, in the gap between the two remnants, will be filled by final state hadrons produced by the colour field stretched in between the two outgoing soft gluons (note that in both figs 1 and 2, two colour lines stretch across the central region). In the hadronisation phase the two outgoing soft gluons form two clusters ($`q_1\overline{q}_2`$, $`q_2\overline{q}_1`$) (see fig.2) which are decayed into final state hadrons (using HERWIG’s cluster hadronisation model ).

### 4.2 Implementation of the soft process

Following fig.2, for each soft remnant-remnant interaction we generate two soft effective gluons, on mass shell, with previously tuned masses $`m_g`$ = 0.75 GeV used in the HERWIG hadronisation model . For each soft interaction we will go through the following chain of events; first the maximum fractional longitudinal momentum allowed for each soft gluon ($`x_{glumax\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},2}`$) is determined using the light-cone definition of the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ of the two remnants,

$$x_{glumax\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},2}=x_{remn\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},2}=\frac{E_{remn1,2}+P_{z_{remn1,2}}}{E_{p,\overline{p}}+P_{z_{p,\overline{p}}}}.$$
(32)
The longitudinal momentum fractions for each soft gluon is then sampled from an $`f(x)^{seapartons}`$ = $`\frac{1}{x}`$ distribution (which we consider reasonable since we expect the effective gluons to be Regge-like) between some minimum value $`x_{min}`$ (the cutoff) and the maximum value, $`x_{glumax\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},2}`$, allowed by (32). Once their fractional longitudinal momentum has been determined, a transverse momentum for each soft gluon is then sampled from a Gaussian distribution for values of $`p_t`$, 0$``$$`p_t`$$``$$`p_{tmin}`$, according to

$$\frac{dN_{softgluons}}{d^2p_t}=D\mathrm{exp}(\beta p_t^2),0p_tp_{tmin}.$$
(33)
Before sampling the transverse momentum of each soft gluon, we will have to determine the slope $`\beta `$ of the particle $`p_t`$ distribution in the central region and the normalisation constant $`D`$ in (33). We impose then another condition on the $`p_t`$ distribution, namely, that the transverse momentum distribution in $`p_t`$ of soft and hard gluons should be continuous at the $`p_t`$ cutoff (34) (the same procedure was implemented in ),

$$\frac{dN_{softgluons}}{d^2p_t}|_{p_t=p_{tmin}}=\frac{dN_{hardgluons}}{d^2p_t}|_{p_t=p_{tmin}}.$$
(34)
We have then to solve two equations with two unknowns. The first condition is that the number of soft gluons should correspond to the soft cross section $`\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}})`$:

$$_0^{p_{tmin}}d^2p_tD\mathrm{exp}(\beta p_t^2)=\sigma _{SOFT}^{inc}(s_{p\overline{p}}),$$
(35)
the second condition is that of the smooth transition between the soft and hard perturbative gluons’ transverse momentum distributions at the value of $`p_t`$ cutoff (34), re-expressed as:

$$D\mathrm{exp}(\beta p_{tmin}^2)=\frac{d\sigma (s_{p\overline{p}},p_{tmin})}{dp_{tmin}^2},$$
(36)
where $`\frac{d\sigma (s_{p\overline{p}},p_{tmin})}{dp_{tmin}^2}`$ is the full differential parton-parton hard cross section calculated at the value of $`p_t=p_{tmin}`$.

In order to determine the four momentum of each outgoing remnant and each soft gluon, two additional conditions need to be satisfied simultaneously; that of the total energy-momentum conservation between the initial beam-beam remnants (remn1,2) and final (remn1,2 \+ soft gluons) states and that the outgoing soft gluons and remnants are on mass shell, with each remnant having the same mass before and after the soft interaction.

Once all four momenta of the outgoing remnants and soft gluons have been determined a new maximum longitudinal fractional momentum $`x_{glumax\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},2}`$ is calculated, according to (32), for the next pair of soft gluons. The same chain of events, as described above, is then iterated until all soft interactions have been generated. If energy-momentum conservation is violated the scattering is vetoed.

## 5 Comparison between the eikonal model and data from the CDF collaboration

We will compare our model predictions with the experimental data coming from the study of the behaviour of the underlying event in hard scattering proton-antiproton collisions at 1.8 TeV. In ref. the underlying event in hard proton-antiproton collisions is defined as all the ambient interactions surrounding the hard scattered jets. These ambient interactions include beam-beam remnants, initial and final-state radiation and multiple hard interactions, if they do occur. The beam-beam remnants are just what is left over after a parton has been taken out from each of the initial incoming hadrons. The jets in a hard interaction are produced by streams of outgoing hadrons with large transverse momentum, from partons that have undergone a hard two-to-two scattering. In interactions where a hard two-to-two subprocess occurred, jets of hadrons are produced approximately back to back in azimuthal angle. This simple jet structure allows for the study of the particle distribution in azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. There are three regions of study separated in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ from the leading highest $`p_t`$ jet (see fig.3). The “toward” region containing the leading charged particle jets, the “away” region containing particles produced opposite in $`\varphi `$ from the leading jet and the “transverse” region perpendicular to the plane of the hard two-to-two scattering which is the most sensitive region to the underlying event.

The simple jet algorithm used in  builds jets from charged particles with $`p_t`$ $`>`$ 0.5 GeV and $``$$`\eta `$$``$ $`<`$ 1 and is restricted to particle jets with transverse momentum less than 50 GeV. The charged particles form jets of radius $`R`$ = 0.7 in $`\eta `$-$`\varphi `$ space which contain particles from both underlying event and hard scattering. Every charged particle is assigned to a jet with a possibility that some jets might consist of just one charged particle. The transverse momentum of the jet is defined as the scalar $`p_t`$ sum of all particles within the jet. Once all jets have been produced the one with the highest $`p_t`$(jet$`\mathrm{\#}1`$) is defined to be the leading jet. The experimental data are uncorrected and the theoretical simulated data are corrected for the track finding efficiency by removing, on average 8$`\%`$, of the charged particles.

### 5.1 Results

A comparison between simulated (corrected) and experimental data is made and presented in figs 4-7, with $`p_{tmin}`$ = 2.5 GeV. The agreement seen in figs.6 and 7 is particularly important since the transverse region is the most sensitive to the underlying event activity. In figs.8 and 9 we compare our predictions for the transverse region with those of the existing models (without including Pythia), HERWIG + Underlying Event model , HERWIG + Multiparton Hard model . In HERWIG’s default Underlying Event model, the activity is enhanced in the transverse region by adding to its hard part a Minimum Bias Event , based on the parametrisation of the UA5 $`p\overline{p}`$ minimum-bias data. As shown in figs.8 and 9 and in  this model fails to produce enough activity for both the average number of charged particles and the average scalar $`p_t`$ sum and in addition has a wrong (too steep) $`p_t`$ dependence. Overall our eikonal model is in better agreement with the experimental data than either of the two underlying event models. This result is even more significant since we did not fit to the experimental data but rather, make predictions based on the value of the total cross section used as phenomenological input to our model.

### 5.2 The invariance of the model to $`𝐩_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐦𝐢𝐧}}`$

In the multiparton scattering model , the parameter $`p_{tmin}`$ is a cutoff scale and plays a crucial role in determining the prediction of the model. In our eikonal model it is rather a matching scale between the hard and soft parts of the model. If the matching works perfectly, the results should be $`p_{tmin}`$ independent.

To test the invariance of the eikonal model to its $`p_{tmin}`$ parameter we simulate two sets of data, with two different values of $`p_{tmin}`$ = 2 GeV and 3 GeV in addition to the value of 2.5 GeV, which we have already shown. The values of inclusive cross sections with the average number of soft and hard scatters are presented in table.1.

We show the results in fig.10. We see that as expected the results in the multiparton model are strongly $`p_{tmin}`$ dependent, with smaller values of $`p_{tmin}`$ producing more activity. However, even the smallest value of $`p_{tmin}`$ is well below the data and no value of $`p_{tmin}`$ for which the hard part of HERWIG is reliable gives a good description of the data (although it is worth noting that with $`p_{tmin}`$ fixed at 2.5 GeV it is possible to fit the data by increasing the proton radius by a factor of about 1.7 . Since this model does not provide any explanation of how the radius should vary as a function of center-of-mass energy, or for different collision types, we do not consider it to be useful phenomenologically). In contrast, our eikonal model has a smaller $`p_{tmin}`$ dependence, with the additional soft scatters providing extra activity to compensate for that lost from the hard scatters as $`p_{tmin}`$ increases. However, we see that they actually overcompensate, with decreasing $`p_{tmin}`$ leading to decreasing activity. This residual $`p_{tmin}`$ dependence indicates that the matching of the soft and the hard parts of the model is still not perfect and can perhaps be improved with further refinements of the model. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that with such a simple, physically motivated and parameter free model, we have provided a significant improvement to the $`p_{tmin}`$ dependence and the description of data.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper we have proposed a Monte Carlo model, based on a simple eikonal model, for multiparticle production in hard proton-antiproton collisions. The model contains two parts, the hard part, which was already implemented  (running in conjunction with HERWIG), to which we have added a soft part, which uses showering and hadronisation models from HERWIG and allows us to extend our simulations to the non-perturbative soft region (i.e. particles with $`0p_tp_{tmin}`$). One of our goals was to produce a simple model (with a minimum number of parameters) which would be reasonably independent of the value chosen for the $`p_{tmin}`$. Furthermore, the eikonal multiparticle approach to hadron-hardon scattering is particularly interesting since it prevents the calculated cross sections from violating unitarity at high energies. By fixing one parameter in our model, namely the total cross section, we provide a good description of the measured data from  with a reasonably small $`p_{tmin}`$ dependence. We have also shown that our model gives a better prediction than either the HERWIG + Underlying Event  or HERWIG + Hard Multiparton  models.

Our ultimate goal is to determine how much of the underlying event activity in the transverse region is due to the perturbative physics (by including NLO calculations for example) and how much is due to non-perturbative physics, and to make more reliable predictions of the underlying event. We are planning to test the model with the lower energy UA1 collaboration data, HERA data, higher $`p_t`$ CDF data and give a prediction for the underlying event activity at the LHC.

Acknowledgements
I.Borozan would like to express his gratitude to CLRC for funding his studies and to Manchester Theoretical Group for their hospitality. For useful discussions we thank Jon Butterworth and Jeff Forshaw.


text:
# Measurement of the cosmic ray hadron spectrum up to 30 TeV at mountain altitude: the primary proton spectrum.

## 1 Introduction

The spectrum of hadrons detected at different atmospheric altitudes retains significant information about the energy/nucleon spectrum of primary cosmic rays, which is dominated by the lightest component, i.e. the proton one. Its measurement has been carried on in the past, both at sea level  and at mountain altitude , using different experimental techniques, like emulsion chambers, magnetic spectrometers and calorimeters.
The knowledge of the primary proton spectrum is of main relevance for the understanding of the cosmic rays acceleration mechanisms and of the propagation processes in the Galaxy. Moreover, the proton component is mainly responsible for the uncorrelated particle production in the atmosphere: any uncertainties on the proton spectrum reflect in an uncertainty in the calculation of the secondary particle fluxes ($`\pi `$ and $`K`$) and thus, for example, on the knowledge of the atmospheric muon and neutrino fluxes. A precise knowledge of such spectra is of particular importance to interpret the observational data from muon and neutrino detectors deep underground .
The measurement of the primary proton spectrum has been performed by means of satellite and balloon borne experiments  and indirectly derived by using ground based detectors . In the region of tens of TeV, however, direct measurements lack statistics and moreover their energy determinations are not calorimetric and depend on the interaction parameters and their fluctuations. The data inferred from hadron measurements at ground level can therefore provide significant new information.
On the other side, the derivation of the information on the primary cosmic ray spectrum from hadron measurements, as well as the comparison of the results from different experiments, relies on the use of simulation tools describing the interaction and propagation of primary cosmic rays in the atmosphere. The response of such hadron interaction models has therefore to be verified, especially considering that the recorded hadrons are the results of large fluctuations with respect to the average behavior.
The EAS-TOP Extensive Air Shower array was located at Campo Imperatore, 2005 m a.s.l., above the underground Gran Sasso Laboratories, with the aim of studying the cosmic ray spectrum in the energy range $`10^{13}÷10^{16}`$ eV through the detection of the different air shower components.
In this paper, we present and discuss the results obtained in the study of the uncorrelated hadrons by means of the calorimeter of EAS-TOP, namely:
a) the measurement of the hadron flux in the energy range 30 GeV $`÷`$ 30 TeV;
b) the derivation of the primary proton energy spectrum in the range 0.5 $`÷`$ 50 TeV;
c) the check of the propagation and interaction code (CORSIKA/QGSJET) used for the interpretation of the data.

## 2 The detector and the hadron trigger

The Muon and Hadron Detector of EAS-TOP is a 144 m2 calorimeter  made of nine layers, each composed by a 13 cm iron slab absorber (except for the uppermost plane which is unshielded), and three planes of limited streamer tubes, for a total depth of 818.5 g cm-2.
Two of the streamer tube layers (with 100 $`\mu `$m wire diameter at 4650 V voltage) act as tracking devices, and are read by a two-dimensional system based on the anode wires and external orthogonal pick up strips. The third one, which data are used for the present analysis, operates in saturated proportional mode (the wire diameter being 50 $`\mu `$m, and the HV at 2900 V) for hadron calorimetry and EAS core studies. The signal charges are collected by a matrix of 840 (40$`\times `$38) cm2 pads placed above the tubes; the pad signals are transferred to charge integrating ADCs with 15 bit dynamic range. The pad read-out is converted to the equivalent number of vertical particles by means of periodical calibration runs based on single muon triggers (pressure and temperature dependence of the induced charge being corrected for).
Different sets of scintillators are placed in the apparatus for different aims; in particular, of the six ones lodged below the second absorber layer, three are used for hadronic trigger purposes. Each scintillator, of dimensions (80$`\times `$80) cm2, is centered on a pad, viewed by two identical photomultipliers operating in coincidence and discriminated at the level of 30 m.i.p., corresponding to the energy loss of a 30 GeV proton incident on the calorimeter. They provide the “local hadron trigger”, which generates the read-out of the whole detector.
For each scintillator a ”tower” is defined, as the stack of $`3\times 3`$ pads of the 8 internal layers centered on the scintillator itself. The detector and its operation are fully described in ref. ; a scheme of a ”tower” is shown in Fig.1.

## 3 Hadron selection, acceptance and energy calibration

An event, recorded following the “local hadron trigger”, is accepted as a hadron if: a) the cascade crosses at least three consecutive internal layers of the calorimeter, including the one positioned immediately below the triggering scintillator, and b) the maximum energy release is recorded on the central pad of each plane of the corresponding ”tower”. This allows the selection of hadrons with energy above 30 GeV, and the definition of the angular acceptance.
The check of hadron selection, the detection efficiency, effective area, angular acceptance, and energy calibration have been obtained by means of simulations of the detector response based on the GEANT code  (with FLUKA option for hadronic cascades), including the full description of the apparatus. Protons at fixed primary energy and zenith angle have been generated and analyzed with the same procedure as the experimental data.
Particular care has been put in the modelling of the chamber behavior in the saturated proportional mode; the saturation in the collected charge has been studied in detail and included in the simulation, as fully discussed in . The modelling of the chamber response to large particle densities has been checked at the 50 GeV $`e^+`$ beam at CERN-PS, using a detector built by chambers with the same characteristics, read out and filling gas mixture as the ones operating on site, but with length reduced to 3 m. Lead was used as absorber in front of the chambers in order to reach maximum particle density . The chamber response was tested and found to agree with the model inside 2$`\%`$ up to particle densities $`\rho _{ch}`$ 300 particles/cm2, corresponding to a 50 GeV electromagnetic shower after 4 cm of lead absorber. For iron absorber and the calorimeter geometry such particle density corresponds to hadrons with energy $`E_h`$ 650 GeV.
Such response, introduced in the quoted simulation, provides transition curves that can be directly compared with the experimental data. As shown in Fig.2, the difference between the two curves is always less than 10 $`\%`$ even at shower maximum, where the particle density is the highest, thus showing that the chamber behavior and saturation are well described at least up to 5 TeV (i.e. at particles densities at which the chamber response could not be directly tested).

The verification of the hadron selection procedure has been performed by comparing the shapes of the longitudinal developments for individual events with the expectations from the simulated ones (the agreement on the average transition curves having been shown in Fig.2). For layers 1-7 (i.e. the ones shielded by more than two iron slabs, see Fig.1) the experimental and simulated $`N_l/N_{tot}`$ distributions (i.e. the ratio between the equivalent particle number recorded in each layer and the total one in the tower) are in agreement inside the statistical errors ($`10\%`$). For layer 8 (shielded by a single iron slab), the contamination from the accompanying shower adds an excess of 15$`\%`$ of $`N_{tot}`$ in 16$`\%`$ of the events, independent on $`N_{tot}`$. The effect does not alter the hadron selection and the spectrum measurement beyond the systematic effects discussed in the following.
For the described triggering conditions, the effective area $`A_{eff}(E_h,\theta )`$ was determined using the same simulation code and taking into account the inefficiency of the trigger scintillators due to the 30 m.i.p. threshold. Such area includes the detection efficiency, which, concerning energy, rises above 65 $`\%`$ at $`E_h`$ 130 GeV for vertical incidence inside the geometrical area of the central pad. As regards zenith angle, the efficiency at 30 is about 10 $`\%`$ of the vertical one. The selection condition therefore introduces a cut in the angular acceptance such that 90$`\%`$ of the events are found inside 22 from the vertical direction.
The effective area of each “tower” is shown in Fig.3 for 4 different zenith angles.

The hadron energy is inferred from the total charge induced on the 8 shielded layers of the defined ”tower” (more than 95 $`\%`$ of the shower particles at all energies are contained inside a 20 cm radius from the hadron position).
The conversion curve from the total number of particles induced in the ”tower” ($`N_{tot}`$) to the primary hadron energy is shown in Fig.4. The energy resolution is $`\sigma (E_h)/E_h=15\%`$ at 1 TeV, worsening to 25$`\%`$ at 5 TeV due to leakage losses and to 30$`\%`$ at 30 GeV due to sampling losses. The dependence of the total number of particles on the hadron zenith angle is less than 3$`\%`$ up to 30; the difference in the conversion curve between protons and pions impinging on the calorimeter is less than 2$`\%`$.

The possibility that the triggering and selection procedure includes more hadrons has been studied by means of a simulation of cascades in the atmosphere through CORSIKA/QGSJET. It results that such hadron pile-up effect, even at the highest energies ($`E_h>`$3 TeV), does not alter the average energy determination of more than 6$`\%`$. As a test, to evaluate possible contaminations from the accompanying shower particles, the particle-energy conversion curve has also been obtained using the total charge induced on the five innermost planes only. No statistically significant difference was found in the hadron fluxes obtained in the two cases over the considered energy range.

## 4 The hadron flux

About one million triggers were recorded in T=14760 hours of effective live time used in the present analysis; 40832 of them survived the selection criteria and were classified as hadrons.

The measured number of events in each energy bin for the flux $`S(E,\theta )`$ is :

$`n_{ev}^{meas}(E_h÷E_h+\mathrm{\Delta }E_h)={\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _{E_h}^{E_h+\mathrm{\Delta }E_h}}S(E,\theta )TA_{eff}(E,\theta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑E`$ (1)
The hadron flux at zenithal angle $`\theta `$ can be approximated as:

$$S(E,\theta )=S(E)exp\left[\frac{x(\theta )x}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)}\right]$$
(2)
where S(E) is the flux in vertical direction and $`x(\theta )`$ is the atmospheric depth along $`\theta `$. The attenuation length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)`$ has been derived using the CORSIKA  code to simulate the interactions and propagation of primary protons in air. In fact the hadron flux in the atmosphere includes both residual primaries and secondaries; at the EAS-TOP atmospheric depth, their ratio rises from $``$0.7 at 500 GeV to $``$1.4 at 5 TeV. Therefore the obtained values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)`$ represent the full evolution of such mixture: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)`$ 114 g/cm2 for QGSJET , and $``$ 131 g/cm2 for HDPM , for the EAS-TOP altitude and range of zenith angles.
Assuming a power law spectrum ($`\gamma `$ = 2.7) inside each energy bin, the mean value $`\overline{E}_h`$ is obtained, the corresponding flux being $`S(\overline{E}_h)=S(E)(\frac{\overline{E}_h}{E})^\gamma `$ (a change of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma =0.1`$ in the spectral slope does not produce any appreciable difference in the resulting flux).
The vertical flux is thus :

$`S(\overline{E}_h)={\displaystyle \frac{n_{ev}^{meas}(E_h÷E_h+\mathrm{\Delta }E_h)}{2\pi T\overline{E}_h^\gamma E^\gamma exp\left[\frac{x(\theta )x}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)}\right]A_{eff}(E,\theta )sin\theta 𝑑\theta 𝑑E}}`$ (3)
The recorded number of events and the experimental hadron fluxes at the atmospheric depth of 820 g/cm2 are listed in Tab.1 with the corresponding statistical uncertainties.

The following sources of systematic uncertainties have to be considered:

* The uncertainty in the evaluation of the effective area, $`\frac{\delta A_{eff}}{A_{eff}}12\%`$ at all energies.
* The uncertainty in the hadron angular distribution, which reflects in the evaluation of the attenuation length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)`$. A comparison between two different models (QGSJET and HDPM) in the CORSIKA frame shows that the differences in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)`$ reflect in a flux uncertainty $`\frac{\delta S}{S}5\%`$.
* The uncertainty in the energy assignment to each single hadron, for a spectral slope $`\gamma `$ 2.7, results in a flux uncertainty $`\frac{\delta S}{S}7\%`$. This value reaches 10$`\%`$ at the highest energies, as shown by the comparison of the measured and simulated longitudinal shower profiles.
* An uncertainty $`\frac{\delta S}{S}15\%`$ on the flux, due to the different behavior and efficiency of the triggering scintillators and to the different calibrations and stability of the corresponding ”towers”.

A total systematic energy dependent uncertainty $`\frac{\delta S}{S}15\%`$ is obtained from the first 3 items. To this, the $`15\%`$ constant systematic uncertainty due to item 4 has to be added.
The hadron flux is fitted by a power law from 30 GeV up to 30 TeV as

$$S_h(E_h)=(2.25\pm 0.21)\times 10^7(\frac{E_h}{1000})^{(2.79\pm 0.05)}m^2s^1sr^1GeV^1$$
(4)
with $`\chi ^2`$ = 0.91 and is shown in Fig.5.

In the fitting procedure (and in the plot), the energy dependent systematic uncertainties have been included; the $`15\%`$ energy independent systematic effect has to be added.
The hadron flux is compatible, within the errors, with a single power law. This has been tested by performing the same fit in independent narrower energy ranges, the resulting slopes being shown in Fig.6.

## 5 The primary proton spectrum

The primary proton spectrum is derived from the data by:
a) checking the hadron propagation code in the atmosphere;
b) subtracting from the measured hadron spectrum the contribution of heavy primaries;
c) minimizing the difference between the measured and the expected hadron fluxes on the basis of different primary proton spectra.

a) The region of interest coincides with the energy range in which QGSJET (the hadronic interaction model used to describe the cosmic ray interaction and propagation in the atmosphere) has been directly checked against accelerator data , both concerning the leading particle and the secondary production physics. Its reliability to reproduce the present data has been checked by comparing its predictions to the measured ratio of hadron fluxes at sea level (KASCADE , 1030 g/cm2) and mountain altitude (EAS-TOP, 820 g/cm2). Primary protons and helium nuclei were generated in quasi vertical direction $`\theta 5^{}`$, with energy spectra according to JACEE and RUNJOB  and the expected hadron fluxes at each observation level were calculated. As shown in Fig.7, the expected ratio does not depend on the differences between such primary spectra, and it is compatible with the measured one within the statistical uncertainties, the comparison leading to a $`\chi ^2`$=1.2/d.o.f. On average, the model reproduces the experimental ratio at better than 10$`\%`$.
We remind that the general features of the model relevant for the calculation of the hadron flux (and therefore object of the test) are the combination of the total cross section and inelasticity concerning the contribution of the surviving primaries, and the very forward production cross section for the contribution of the secondaries. We therefore conclude that QGSJET, as implemented in CORSIKA, can be reliably applied in the considered energy range in the description of the uncorrelated hadron fluxes at different atmospheric depths and therefore can be applied between the top of the atmosphere and the EAS-TOP observation level, thus allowing to derive the primary nucleon flux from the present measurement.

b) The contribution to the hadron flux from helium primaries has been evaluated using their spectrum as directly measured by the balloon experiments. In order to derive the systematic uncertainties of the procedure, both the RUNJOB ($`\gamma _{He}`$ = 2.80) and JACEE ($`\gamma _{He}`$ = 2.68) data have been used and their contribution subtracted from the experimental hadron flux. At $`E_h`$ 1 TeV, such contribution is $`15\%`$ and $`29\%`$ from RUNJOB and JACEE respectively; the heavier nuclei one is less than 10 $`\%`$.

c)The primary proton spectrum is obtained as the one minimizing the difference between the measured hadron spectrum (after subtraction of the Helium contribution by means of the afore described procedure) and the expected one from simulated proton primaries. Extensive simulations have been carried on, generating primary protons in quasi vertical direction ($`\theta <5^o`$), with energy extracted on power law spectra with slope varying between 2.5 and 3.2. The number of simulated events is such that the number of hadrons in each energy bin be much higher than the experimentally collected one. Most of the contribution to each hadron energy bin comes from different primary energy regions; hadrons of energies in different ranges, e.g. $`E_h`$ = 0.1 $`÷`$ 0.2, 0.2 $`÷`$ 0.5, 0.5 $`÷`$ 1, 1 $`÷`$ 2, 2 $`÷`$ 5, $``$ 5 TeV are produced by primaries with median energy $`E_{MED}`$ 0.5, 2, 4, 10, 20, 55 TeV respectively. The data thus allow to get information on the primary proton spectrum in the range 0.5 $`÷`$ 50 TeV.
Assuming a primary spectrum of the power law form $`S(E_0)=S_0E_0^\gamma `$, the normalization factor $`S_0`$ and the slope $`\gamma `$ have been obtained minimizing the differences between the calculated and the measured number of hadrons in each energy bin. The minimizations have been carried on by taking into account both the statistical and the energy dependent systematic uncertainties in the hadron flux.

The data are well described by power law spectra in the energy range 0.5 $`÷`$ 50 TeV, with best fits, for the case of subtraction of the RUNJOB Helium spectrum:

$`S(E_0)=(1.05\pm 0.16)\times 10^4(\frac{E_0}{1000})^{(2.80\pm 0.05)}`$ m-2 s-1sr-1 GeV-1

and for the case of subtraction of the JACEE Helium spectrum:

$`S(E_0)=(0.91\pm 0.15)\times 10^4(\frac{E_0}{1000})^{(2.80\pm 0.06)}`$ m-2 s-1sr-1 GeV-1

Including the 7$`\%`$ uncertainty in the helium contribution and the 15$`\%`$ constant systematic uncertainty on the measured hadron flux into a global systematic error term, the result can be summarized as follows :

$`S(E_0)=(9.8\pm 1.1\pm 1.6^{sys})\times 10^5(\frac{E_0}{1000})^{(2.80\pm 0.06)}`$ m-2s-1sr-1GeV-1 (5)

The obtained proton spectrum is shown in Figs.8 and 9. The full area and the shaded lines (in the two figures respectively) include the systematic and statistical uncertainties of the measurement.

## 6 Conclusions

The hadron flux has been measured over a wide energy range (30 GeV$`÷`$30 TeV) by means of the EAS-TOP hadron calorimeter at the atmospheric depth of 820 g/cm2. The spectrum is well described by a single power law in the whole range :
$`S(E_h)=(2.25\pm 0.21\pm 0.34^{sys})\times 10^7(\frac{E_h}{1000})^{(2.79\pm 0.05)}`$ m-2 s-1 sr-1 GeV-1.
Taking into account the contamination from heavier nuclei, on the basis of direct measurements, the primary proton spectrum is obtained between 0.5 and 50 TeV and is found to be compatible with a single slope power law:
$`S(E_0)=(9.8\pm 1.1\pm 1.6^{sys})\times 10^5(\frac{E_0}{1000})^{(2.80\pm 0.06)}`$ m-2 s-1 sr-1 GeV-1.
A systematic uncertainty of about 7 $`\%`$ due to the uncertainty in the helium flux is included. The data match very well with the direct measurements over a wide energy range, usually not available to a single experiment, where direct measurements become statistically poor.
The reliability of the CORSIKA/QGSJET interaction and propagation code, which is used to propagate the hadrons in the atmosphere and to compute the heavy nuclei contribution, is directly checked in this energy range by comparison with accelerator data and, concerning the direct application to the present measurement, through its capability to reproduce the ratio of hadron fluxes as measured at two different atmospheric depths by EAS-TOP and KASCADE, at 820 and 1030 g/cm2 respectively.

## 7 Acknowledgements

The cooperation of the Direction and Staff of the Gran Sasso National Laboratories, as well as the technical assistance of C.Barattia, R.Bertoni, G.Giuliani and G.Pirali are gratefully acknowledged.
The comments of an unknown referee have contributed to improve and clarify the text.


text:
# Impact of AGNs on the Surrounding Medium

## 1. Introduction

The impact of radio galaxies on their surroundings is probably far out of proportion to their numbers. Although only a small minority of AGNs seems to produce powerful jets, virtually all of the mechnical energy output is transferred to the ambient medium. Relatively little of this energy can be radiated away (Scheuer 1974), and therefore the majority must go into heat and motion. In contrast, the large, easily detected supplies of radiant energy pouring out of most AGNs probably have little effect on the surroundings. Cool, dense clouds ($`<10^4`$ K) in the interstellar medium of the host galaxy can easily reradiate this energy, while the hotter, diffuse gas responds thermally through the Compton effect, with a low efficiency $`\tau (h\nu /m_ec^2)`$, where $`\tau 1`$ is the electron scattering optical depth. Moreover, with Compton temperatures $`<10^7`$ K for typical AGN spectra, irradiation is more likely to cool the hot phase of the ISM/ICM through the inverse Compton effect, rather than heat it.

Nevertheless, in a time-averaged or ensemble-averaged sense, there seems to be plenty of energy associated with radio jets alone. Peres et al. (1998) compared the radio and X-ray luminosities of 58 clusters in a ROSAT flux-limited survey. The ratio of 1.4 GHz power to bolometric X-ray power from within the “cooling radius” of those sources identified as cooling flows was $`0.008`$, just shy of 1%. Now, the maximum possible synchrotron emissivity of radio lobes in internal pressure equilibrium is typically smaller than a few percent of the kinetic power, assuming equipartition and unit filling factor of relativistic electrons in the lobes. This fraction evolves toward smaller values as the source expands (Begelman 1996, 1999), and is also decreased by any deviation from equipartition. (Note that it can be increased somewhat if the emission comes mainly from small regions at high pressure, e.g., strong shocks within the lobes, but this seems unlikely to produce a large correction.) Thus it is very likely that the ensemble-averaged jet power is at least of the same order as the observed X-ray power, and may be larger. But one must address at least two issues before leaping to the conclusion that energy injection by radio jets offsets X-ray cooling. First, most of the radio flux from the ROSAT sample is contributed by a small number of clusters with very powerful radio sources. Typically, only about 10% of the cooling flow clusters show strong current activity. Second, it is notoriously difficult for simple heating mechanisms to balance X-ray cooling in a stable way. I will attempt to address these issues below.

## 2. Are Radio Galaxies Intermittent?

There are several pieces of circumstantial evidence that point to intermittency in radio galaxies. At a morphological level, low-frequency images such as the 90 cm map of M87 shown by Owen at this meeting (Owen et al. 2000) sometimes show large, diffuse regions of radio emission that appear distinct from (and much older than) the currently active radio lobes. The intermediate scale structures apparent on the M87 image appear consistent with the early rise of buoyant lobes in a “dead” source (Churazov et al. 2000a,b; Reynolds et al. 2000).

That we can see these diffuse relics in M87 and a few other sources may be our good fortune. Simple models for the evolution of radio galaxies once the jets have turned off suggest that they fade very rapidly, due both to adiabatic expansion of the relativistic electrons and to decreasing magnetic field strengths (Reynolds & Begelman 1997). When these faint haloes are detected, it is generally through low-frequency radio observations. They might conceivably be detectable as well in X-rays.

Finally, there may be statistical evidence for intermittency embedded in the number-vs.-size counts of small luminous radio galaxies. The “plateau” in source counts noted by O’Dea & Baum (1997) can be explained if young radio galaxies switch on and off with a duty cycle of $`0.1`$ and a time scale of $`10^510^6`$ yr (Reynolds & Begelman 1997; Fig. 1).

## 3. “Effervescent” Heating of the ICM

It has proven notoriously difficult to find a heating mechanism that can offset X-ray cooling locally, while maintaining the kind of entropy or temperature gradient that appears to be present in X-ray emitting clusters. Thermal conduction using standard formulae either wipes out the gradients altogether or has little effect (Bertschinger & Meiksin 1986); models invoking cosmic-ray diffusion suffer similar problems (Loewenstein et al. 1991). An alternative approach has been to suppose the heating to be impulsive, and the cooling episodic (Binney & Tabor 1995); there is some suggestion of this in our numerical simulations of evolving radio galaxy cocoons, which show a large fraction of the power going into gravitational potential energy of ICM being “lifted” by the buoyant cocoon (Reynolds et al. 2000).

I would like to propose another, more gentle mode of energy transfer, which I call “effervescent” heating. Suppose the radio source deposits some buoyant form of energy — relativistic particles or bouyant gas — which distributes itself relatively evenly among bubbles or filaments but does not mix microscopically with the ICM. These bubbles will then rise through the ICM, like bubbles in a glass of champagne. Because of the non-negligible pressure gradient, the bubbles (or filaments) will expand as they rise, doing $`pdV`$ work on their surroundings. The expansion, of couse, converts internal energy to kinetic form, but it is likely that the resulting disorganized motion of the ICM is quickly converted to heat. In a steady state (and assuming spherical symmetry), the energy flux available for heating is

$$\dot{E}p_b(r)^{(\gamma 1)/\gamma }$$
(1)
where $`p_b(r)`$ is the partial pressure of buoyant fluid inside the bubbles at radius $`r`$ and $`\gamma `$ is the adiabatic index of the buoyant fluid. If we can determine the partial pressure — let’s suppose it scales with the thermal pressure in the ICM, for the sake of argument — then one can derive a volume heating function with some interesting properties:

$$\frac{\dot{E}}{4\pi r^2}\frac{p^\beta }{r^3}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}p}{d\mathrm{ln}r}$$
(2)
where $`\beta =(\gamma 1)/\gamma `$. The parameter $`\beta `$ ranges between 1/4 for an ultrarelativistic fluid and 2/5 for nonrelativistic thermal gas. Unlike heating functions that depend on local microscopic physics, this heating function is nonlocal in the sense that it depends on the pressure gradient, i.e., on the hydrostatic structure of the cluster atmosphere. In this regard, it resembles the kind of heating function one gets from thermal conduction, but here the heating rate depends on the gradient of pressure rather than temperature. This feature yields just the sort of feedback necessary to stabilize X-ray cooling, which has the form $`𝒞=n^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$. Suppose the cluster gas has managed to find a thermal equilibrium between effervescent heating and cooling. If this is perturbed so that cooling is excessive, then the pressure gradient will steepen, increasing the intensity of the heating and bringing the atmosphere back towards equilibrium. In this case, there would be no cooling flow, although there would be copious X-ray cooling.

One can derive a crude global stability criterion under the assumption of a singular isothermal cluster potential and linear perturbations away from an isothermal atmosphere. If we define a “cooling index” $`\alpha d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\mathrm{ln}T`$, we find that X-ray cooling can be stabilized for

$$\alpha <\frac{12\beta }{2\beta },$$
(3)
as illustrated in Fig. 2.

This upper limit varies between 2/7 for relativistic bubbles ($`\beta =1/4`$) and 1/8 for $`\beta =2/5`$, and always lies below the value $`\alpha =1/2`$ associated with pure bremsstrahlung. Thus bremsstrahlung cannot be stabilized by this mechanism. However, in most regions of cluster cooling flows, the temperature lies in a range where atomic cooling dominates over free-free, and $`\alpha `$ is considerably smaller than 1/2 (Sarazin & White 1987; Fig. 3).

Note that the joint conditions of hydrostatic and thermal equilibrium predict that the specific entropy of the ICM should decrease strongly toward the center of the cluster, thus mimicking one of the main features of a cooling flow. This result is insensitive to the value of $`\alpha `$. The density scales with radius as

$$\rho r^{3/(2\beta )},$$
(4)
which is consistent with typical density profiles deduced observationally.

## 4. Conclusions

In a time- and ensemble-averaged sense, it appears that radio galaxies can supply enough energy to offset the observed cooling of intracluster gas. But the relative rarity of active radio sources would require that they be intermittent, and that the heating effects due to mechanical energy injection persist long after the radio lobes have faded. There is good circumstantial evidence that the former is true, but whether the latter occurs is an open question.

I have speculated on a possible mechanism by which mechanical heating can offset cooling in a stable way. In order for effervescent heating to work, the buoyant fluid injected by the radio galaxy would have to spead its energy evenly through the cluster atmosphere, without mixing into the background at a microscopic level. Intracluster “weather” and perhaps a certain amount of thermal conduction could help with this.

### Acknowledgments.

My work on radio galaxies is supported by NSF grants AST-9876887 and AST-9529175. I am grateful to my collaborators Chris Reynolds and Sebastian Heinz for their numerous insights and contributions.

## References

Begelman M. C. 1996, in Cygnus A–Study of a Radio Galaxy, ed. C. Carilli and D. Harris, 209 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

Begelman M. C. 1999, in The Most Distant Radio Galaxies, ed. H. J. A. Röttgering, P. N. Best, and M. D. Lehnert, 173 (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Acad. of Arts and Sciences)

Bertschinger E., Meiksin A. 1986, ApJ, 306, L1

Binney J., Tabor G. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 663

Churazov E., Forman W., Jones C., Böhringer H. 2000a, A&A, 356, 788

Churazov E., Brüggen M., Kaiser C. R., Böhringer H., Forman W. 2000b, astro-ph/0008215

Loewenstein M., Zweibel E. G., Begelman M. C. 1991, ApJ, 377, 392

O’Dea C. P., Baum S. A. 1997, AJ, 113, 148

Owen F. N., Eilek, J. A., Kassim N. E. 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0006150)

Peres C. B., Fabian A. C., Edge A. C., Allen S. W., Johnstone R. M., White D. A. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 416

Reynolds C. R., Begelman M. C. 1997, ApJ, 487, L135

Reynolds C. R., Heinz S., Begelman M. C. 2000, ApJ, submitted

Sarazin C. L., White R. E. 1987, ApJ, 320, 32

Scheuer P. A. G. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 513


text:
# Comment on “Experimental violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems and short timescales”

(Version: July 22, 2002; today=)

## Abstract

The experimental verification of the Fluctuation Theorem by Wang et al. is not a violation but even a confirmation of the second law, resulting from their observations in a proper interpretation.

In a recent paper Wang et al. wang  consider a colloidal system and test the validity of the Fluctuation Theorem

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Pr}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t=A)}{\mathrm{Pr}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t=A)}}=\mathrm{exp}(A),`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is the entropy production of a given trajectory of a colloidal particle, equal to the ratio of the dispersed energy and $`k_BT`$.

This equality is a strong statement about the second law, a field often described by inequalities. It says that the probability for trajectories with positive entropy production is larger than the one with negative production. As such, the theorem and the data of Wang et al show that the average entropy production is positive. Indeed, a small excercise yields from Eq. (1)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dAA\mathrm{Pr}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t=A)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dAA(1e^A)\mathrm{Pr}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t=A)`$
which is obviously positive. The positivity is also clear from the date presented in wang .

The statement made by the second law concerns the average entropy production, because the second law is related to the average heat tranfer between system and bath. Thus, opposite to what the authors claim, their data fully confirm the validity of the second law.

This insight in the meaning of the second law goes back to Maxwell, who invented his so-called Maxwell demon with the motivation to pick a hole in the second law of thermodynamics, or, more precisely, to show that the second law has only a statistical nature klein ; leffrex . The aim of that excercise was of course that by proving the non-existence of the demon, the second law in its statistical nature would be proven.

It remains to stress that none of formulations of the second law known to us ever claimed that unaveraged entropy production or unaveraged work must be positive; see e.g. landau ; balian ; Len ; Pusz ; Boch ; Kur ; AN .

We conclude that the statement “violation of the second law” made by Wang et al is not an adequate term for the observed physics.